1. Introduction
Taiwan’s footwear industry emerged in the 1960s and grew significantly throughout the 1970s and 1980s. Taiwan’s footwear manufacturers have offices and plants worldwide. Hence, Taiwan gained the reputation of the “Kingdom of Footwear” in the 1980s. The competitiveness of Taiwan’s original equipment manufacturer (OEM) shoe factories was unique worldwide. In 1988, there were 1245 footwear export manufacturers in Taiwan, with an output of 8.43 billion pairs of shoes, and USD 3.69 billion in export production value. After a flourishing period 30 years, Taiwan’s major footwear industry began to relocate to other areas with lower labor and land costs due to the increased land prices, commodity prices, exchange rates, and wages. In the early days, most of the footwear manufacturers moved to mainland China, considering the similar cultural and language factors. After 1990, Indonesia, Vietnam, and Thailand were the priority choices for relocation. Due to the migration of industries, the output value of the footwear industry in Taiwan declined significantly, with only NT$3.7 billion in 2013. By 2015, there were only 472 footwear manufacturers remaining in Taiwan, which was less than 30% of the heyday [1].
Since waste from the footwear industry takes many years to decompose, many shoe brands are looking for ways to reduce environmental damages by employing recycling waste and biological materials that could decompose faster [2]. Increasing footwear consumption makes it necessary to include environmental damages in the assessment. One sneaker can take up to 40 years to decompose in a landfill [3]. Occupational health and safety should be the most important part of the well-being of workers in any industry, but about 78% of the workforce is unfamiliar with it [4]. In response to industrial changes and the global environment, social, and governance (ESG) wave, the issue of sustainability has become a challenge for company development. In recent years, companies have been moving towards automation, technology refinement, product functions, and quality improvement to make their products more cost-effective. At the same time, in order to maintain a competitive advantage in the industry, companies are using lightweight and degradable materials to prevent environmental hazards and fulfill their social responsibility. Shoe design has gradually evolved from general wearing to a focus on other functions and environmental sustainability. For example, sports shoes designed for specific sports types, hiking and walking shoes developed for leisure wear, and safety shoes designed mainly for work. Safety shoes protect the feet or legs from predictable injuries when worn in different work environments. In general, safety shoes refer to footwear with a toe piece in the front portion of a shoe, where the toe piece is divided into two types, namely steel and plastic heads. The overall function of safety shoes is to prevent possible injury to workers in the event of industrial accidents [5]. Many national and regional health and safety regulations also require workers in hazardous working environments to wear safety shoes, such as in factories [6]. Traditional safety shoes are worn by workers in many industrial sectors and in different operating environments. In 2019, the safety shoe market was valued at over USD 9 billion, with a compound annual growth rate of 7.5% [7]. Although the safety shoes market continues to expand, there are many issues in the development of this market, such as limited comfort and style, as restricted by technology, environmental impact, as well as gender bias [8].
Toe cap of safety shoes are effective in reducing injuries caused by falling objects [9]. However, 600 million toe caps are discarded every year, causing severe harm to the environment. According to [10], product design must consider the product’s life cycle and its impact on the environment, while the eco-design of footwear can combine sustainability assessment methods, ecological footprint, and environmental risk assessment. Traditional safety shoe styles are bulky and tend to have repetitive designs, and the non-degradable toe cap of safety shoes is harmful to the environment. On the other hand, sustainable fashion is an emerging concept that aims to address fast fashion production issues and conflicts with consumers [11]. Therefore, companies are actively developing new safety shoe styles and materials to reduce environmental harm while attracting consumers’ purchase intentions. There are currently three common ways to improve safety shoes. The first is to reduce rubber and replace it with PU materials for the sole, making safety shoes lighter and more environmentally friendly. The second way is to adopt sneaker-style safety shoes. While traditional safety shoes are mainly made of leather, sneaker-style safety shoes have been developed recently, with a lighter weight and the appearance of streetwear shoes. The third change is the material of the toe piece from steel to plastic steel, which is significantly lighter than that without losing the protective effect and conforms to the CNS 20345 Personal Protective Equipment—Safety shoe standard. The factors that cause occupational accidents include human factors and environmental factors, and 80–85% of the accidents are caused by dangerous behaviors [12]. Therefore, providing workers with adequate wear protection can effectively prevent them from work-related accidents. According to the regulations for the inspection of personal protective equipment, construction workers must wear safety shoes on site to protect their toes to according to their work needs and to avoid being crushed by complex objects or pierced by metal objects. According to the Labor Statistics Query Network, there were 16,651 industry-wide occupational accidents in 2020. The top three injured body parts were fingers (15.22%), feet (15.21%), and palms (15.21%). Other injured body parts included clavicle (0.62%), upper arm (0.92%), front arm (1.52%), ribs (1.52%), groin (0.09%), femur (0.83%), internal organs (0.26%), whole body (0.29%), and others (5.03%) [13]. Companies should avoid workplace accidents, maintain workers’ safety, and prevent workers from incurring accidental injuries at work, which cause burdens to their families and society. At the same time, companies should fulfill their social responsibility by providing safety shoes for workers in hazardous workplaces to protect their feet from injuries. Promoting and educating workers to wear safety shoes can effectively protect their feet from workplace accidents and, thus, reduce the incurred social costs, which is the motivation of this study.
Most footwear studies are sports-related, such as [14,15], while fewer studies consider the influence on consumers’ purchase intentions of safety shoes. Therefore, this study surveyed consumers who have purchased shoes from safety shoe stores to explore whether their expected perceived value and price sensitivity influence their word-of-mouth and consumer satisfaction, hence repurchase intentions. This study also intended to propose managerial implications for developing and improving corresponding marketing strategies. The research questions of this study are as follows:
Whether consumers’ perceived value and price sensitivity affect their repurchase intentions?
Whether consumers’ perceived value and price sensitivity impact repurchase intentions due to the word-of-mouth mediating effect on consumers?
Do consumers’ perceived value and price sensitivity affect their customer satisfaction, which in turn affects their word-of-mouth and repurchase intentions?
2. Literature Review and Hypotheses Development
2.1. Perceived Value
Many different views have been proposed by scholars regarding the definition of perceived value. The diversity of value can be defined according to the four dimensions of consumer response [16]: the perceived value is a low price; the value of the product is what I want, and the product is the most crucial component of the value; the value is the quality obtained for the price paid, and the value is the difference between what I pay and what I get. Therefore, perceived value is the consumer’s overall evaluation of a product’s utility [16], which is consistent with the conceptualization of value as an assessment of weighted attributes divided by consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value [17]. Good perceived value is the basis for motivating consumers to make additional purchases [18]. Perceived value can also be constructed as a subdivision of the quality level, emotional level, price level, and social level [19].
Unlike previous scholars who defined perceived value from a societal perspective, scholars have gradually turned to the consumer perspective and proposed different definitions of perceived value in recent years. For example, perceived value is considered as a mental evaluation, and the value originates from the selected product or service and the customers’ attributes [20]. Perceived value varies from person to person and from situation to situation, and that different human perception of a product results in different values, depending on the consumer’s perception of the product or service exposure [21]. Consumers’ definition of perceived value varies over time and should be judged by the utility derived from reliability and the superiority of the service [22].
There is a direct correlation between perceived value (social/hedonic/utilitarian value), customer experience, and word-of-mouth [23]. Perceived value influences consumers’ brand loyalty and positive word-of-mouth [24]. Based on the above, this study argued that when consumers have positive perceived values (i.e., quality, emotion, price, and social level) of a product, they would subjectively increase their perception of the company and form good word-of-mouth among their friends and family. Therefore, this proposes the following hypothesis:
Perceived value has a positive effect on word-of-mouth.
The lack of a satisfaction measurement that takes into account consumers’ perceived value and the lack of an assessment regarding consumer orientation will make the product or service deviate from consumers’ needs [25]. Core service quality and perceived value are important factors affecting customer satisfaction [26]. On study on the influence of customer perceived value on customer satisfaction in Nigerian hotels found that customers’ perceived value has a significant impact on customer satisfaction [27]. Customers’ perceived value directly influences customer satisfaction and behavioral intentions [28]. Thus, customer satisfaction is a prerequisite for behavioral intentions. As safety shoe stores are mostly community-based, they have a precise understanding of local consumers’ needs and habits. The use of brand reliability, word-of-mouth communication, attentive explanations at the time of purchase, after-sales service, and quality assurance are expected to enhance consumers’ perceived value, which in turn, increases their satisfaction. Therefore, this proposes the following hypothesis:
Perceived value has a positive effect on customer satisfaction.
Consumers’ evaluation of products is related to perceived value, their repurchase intention is influenced by consumers’ perceived value of products, and increasing consumers’ perceived value of a product or service can help to increase the repurchase intention [29]. Perceived quality and value can be used to measure purchase intention and customers’ purchase intention depends on perceived quality and value [16]. Hence, the higher the perceived quality and value of the product, the higher the purchase intention. Consumers’ perceived value when shopping includes more benefits and fewer sacrifices, such as time savings. Consumers tend to revisit the same store when their perceived value is high, which affects their repurchase intention. The perceived value and reputation have mediating effects on perceived quality and purchase intention. Perceived value has a crucial influence on the customers’ psychological state when they choose a product or service [30]. As consumers become more environmentally conscious, environmentally friendly products could increase their perceived value, thereby affecting their purchase intention [31]. Perceived green value is defined as the overall evaluation of products by consumers on their perceived environment and sustainable advantages. The rise of the fast fashion industry has caused substantial environmental pollution. By purchasing sustainable sports products made of recycled materials, consumers can achieve a strong desire for sustainable development and environmental protection [32]. When consumers wear safety shoes, they could feel good about the product and recognize the importance that companies place on environmental sustainability, thereby strengthening their perceived value and repurchase intention. Therefore, this paper proposes the following hypothesis.
Perceived value has a positive effect on repurchase intention.
2.2. Price Sensitivity
As consumers place great importance on product quality, they become more sensitive to any quality uncertainty, which may lead to lower price sensitivity [33]. An experiment of simulated shopping found that when uncertainty about product quality increases, consumers tend to underestimate or overestimate prices, representing an increase in price sensitivity [34]. In addition, the reliability of product information affects consumers’ price sensitivity.
Price sensitivity decreases when consumers expect to have high perceived value or seek higher quality products. Although specific consumer factors affect the price, leading to an increase or decrease in price sensitivity, the final consumption behavior depends on how they process information and their familiarity with market prices [35]. A study on the level of customer perception and price sensitivity found that there are significant differences in the impacts on consumption [36]. Differences in price sensitivity are also present in products or services across all stores and chains. Price sensitivity is the weight or influence of price in consumers’ evaluation of a service or product [37]. For favorite and dependable products, customers are usually more tolerant of price fluctuations [38]. In other words, they have lower sensitivity, whereas, for non-preferred and less dependable products, customers are less receptive to price fluctuations; in other words, they have higher sensitivity. Consumers with high price sensitivity show less demand as prices increase, while consumers with low price sensitivity do not respond as strongly to price changes [39]. A further explanation is that each consumer has a specific range of price acceptability. Managers must understand the factors that affect consumers’ price sensitivity to increase product appeal without lowering prices. Price sensitivity negatively affects the relationship between environmental concerns and green consumption willingness [40]. As environmental concerns increase, people with low price sensitivity are more likely to buy green products.
An empirical study on a sample of 10 services and product brands found that brand identification, satisfaction, and price significantly affect customer loyalty and word-of-mouth [41]. Price sensitivity does not reduce consumers’ perceived risk, but can increase their perceived value, which in turn enhances word-of-mouth to increase repurchase intentions [42]. Word-of-mouth is influential in disseminating information to the uninformed and influencing their purchase intentions; hence, for lower prices, the price sensitivity of demand is lower, and vice versa [43]. Since the average price of safety shoes is higher than regular shoes, the price sensitivity of consumers is higher, and consumers expect to obtain higher quality products and services at the same price. The advantage of brick-and-mortar stores over online stores is that the former are better able to directly understand consumers’ needs and provide more appropriate services, thereby gaining a good reputation. Therefore, this paper proposes the following hypothesis.
Price sensitivity has a positive effect on word-of-mouth.
When consumers have more difficulty assessing quality when buying a product, reliance on extrinsic factors may take precedence over intrinsic factors [16]. Extrinsic factors refer to brand and price, which must be considered when purchasing a product. Price is an essential factor that affects customer satisfaction [44]. Pricing directly affects customer perceptions of the value and availability of the transaction delivery, which affects customer satisfaction [45]. In addition, as most customers focus on price when assessing the value of products and services, they perceive the price as an essential factor influencing satisfaction. For those that are not familiar with safety shoes, they could not assess the quality of safety shoes, hence, they use price as a measurement factor. When consumers are sensitive to the price of the goods, they care more about the price of the shoes. When the product’s quality performance is good, it is expected to have a higher price, and customer satisfaction will also be higher. Therefore, this study proposes the following hypothesis.
Price sensitivity has a positive effect on customer satisfaction.
Price is an essential factor influencing consumer behavior and offering a service or product at a reasonable price helps to increase repurchase intention [46]. When consumers do not perceive the value according to the price, it will affect their repurchase intention. At the same time, price sensitivity affects repurchase intention through customer satisfaction. Consumers’ product approval significantly reduces the price sensitivity for green products [47], i.e., consumers do not mind the price and are willing to purchase again. While consumers with higher price sensitivity care about the price of the product, they are willing to repurchase if they believe that the product quality and price are reasonable, and higher prices indicate better performance. Therefore, this paper proposes the following hypothesis.
Price sensitivity has a positive effect on repurchase intention.
2.3. Customer Satisfaction
Customer satisfaction is the level of satisfaction perceived at the end of a purchase or service. It is often one of the most common indicators used by companies to analyze their customers. Customer satisfaction stems from assessing expected performance versus actual perceived performance and the price paid [48].
Customer satisfaction is defined as a holistic assessment of experience with a product or service [49]. Customer satisfaction is an evaluative judgment after choosing a particular transaction [50]. In the past, customer satisfaction was defined mainly by customers’ perceptions, but later, it was more often described as an identified indicator of improvement and benefits obtained by the company. Customer satisfaction is an emotional or cognitive response related to specific expectations, products, and consumer experiences, and occurs at specific times [51], such as after consumption or after a selection is made, and is based on cumulative experience. Having satisfied customers brings long-term benefits, such as positive word-of-mouth, customer loyalty, and continued profitability. Satisfying customers is one of the ultimate goals that service organizations pursue [22]. Customer satisfaction could bring a significant positive reputation [24,52].
Customer satisfaction results from comparing expectations and experiences, and the customers are satisfied when delivery meets or exceeds their expectations [51]. Customer satisfaction can take into account the expectations that customers have towards the service and the extent to which the service meets those expectations [53]. Improving customer satisfaction can increase positive word-of-mouth for the service organization, enhancing customer loyalty, improving the organization’s reputation, and generating more significant revenue [54].
Human factors and emotions strongly predict customer satisfaction and word-of-mouth [55]. Positive word-of-mouth occurs when consumers’ expectations are exceeded [56]. Customers’ repurchase intentions and word-of-mouth increase as a company’s relationship with its customers strengthens [49,57]. Trust is considered the most crucial customer satisfaction driver, followed by performance expectations and perceived value [58]. In addition, affective commitment and satisfaction were found to be the strongest predictors of word-of-mouth.
There is a positive relationship between satisfaction and repurchase intentions, and customer satisfaction is positively correlated with customer loyalty and customer identification [59]. Moreover, high customer satisfaction leads to positive customer word-of-mouth. When safety shoe stores provide professional advice to assist consumers in choosing the most appropriate safety shoes according to their needs, customers are more likely to feel satisfied and thus generate good word-of-mouth. Therefore, this paper proposes the following hypothesis.
Customer satisfaction has a positive effect on word-of-mouth.
Customer satisfaction is essential to customer loyalty. The higher the customer satisfaction, the higher the customer loyalty to the product or service [59]. Sustainability measures in hotels reduce consumers’ perceived comfort and interfere with maximizing personal utility, thereby affecting the guests’ satisfaction [60]. However, the hedonic nature of the hotel environment plays a vital role in the impact of sustainability measures on customer satisfaction. Building high-quality products and increasing customer service can increase customer satisfaction and repurchase intention [61]. For customers to be willing to repurchase, they need to gain trust and satisfaction based on their previous purchase experience [62]. Trust is essential for companies developing new products or finding the right market for their products and services. When consumers are satisfied with the purchase of safety shoes, their loyalty and user stickiness can be enhanced, thus creating a brand effect. When customers plan to make new purchases, they tend to visit a familiar store that they are satisfied with. Therefore, this paper proposes the following hypothesis.
Customer satisfaction has a positive effect on repurchase intention.
2.4. Word-of-Mouth
Word-of-mouth is defined as an informal but significant degree of positive publicity. It is an informal way for consumers to communicate their opinions about a particular product or service to other potential customers after using it [63]. Word-of-mouth communication is an effective marketing method for companies to promote or market their products, while its authenticity is seldom doubted [64]. In other words, it is generally more subjective and closer to consumers’ most realistic responses. In practice, recipients and senders communicate directly through a brief verbal exchange of information or by talking about it [65].
Improving service quality and increasing customer satisfaction can positively increase the effectiveness of word-of-mouth marketing [66]. Environmental corporate social responsibility (CSR) plays a crucial role in attracting word-of-mouth of airline passengers, and price perception moderates the relationship between environmental CSR and strength of word-of-mouth [67]. Due to technological advancements, internet word-of-mouth is also a vital contemporary expression. Social and word-of-mouth interactions between people are essential when consumers decide to purchase a product or service [68]. Positive word-of-mouth occurs when consumers are satisfied with their past consumption or product experience, which leads to positive evaluations, sharing, and recommendations regarding their experience to others, friends, and family [69].
Social media can amplify consumer opinion, influencing consumer attitudes and even impacting the choice on a product or service. The impact of word-of-mouth in social networks may be affected by the location from which word-of-mouth is generated, including word-of-mouth from people with more significant social influence [70]. Negative word-of-mouth reduces consumers’ purchase intention, while purchase intention is higher when product sustainability claims are consistent [71]. The impact of negative word of mouth on purchase intention can be mitigated through product sustainability claims. Good word-of-mouth on safety shoe stores is vital because the locations where safety shoes are purchased are relatively sparse compared to general footwear. Therefore, most consumers refer to the opinions and referrals of their friends of family to purchase safety shoes.
Using a positive reputation in social media affects consumers’ attitudes toward the brand and shapes their purchase intention [72]. Social media platforms can facilitate consumers to share and receive information about a product or service from their friends, family, or other customers and that this information significantly impacts consumers’ purchase decisions, as well as trust [73]. Enhancing influencing factors, such as social media marketing and word-of-mouth, can increase corporate brand awareness and consumers’ repurchase intention [74]. Repurchase willingness and word-of-mouth are positively influenced by trust and satisfaction, while trust and satisfaction are positively influenced by corporate reputation and image [75]. As safety shoes are rather a specialty type of footwear, stores hire experts to give a recommendation to customers on the selection of shoes and provide appropriate after-sales services. Hence, the store can create a good reputation and lead to the repurchase intention of the consumers. Therefore, this paper proposes the following hypothesis.
Word-of-mouth has a positive effect on repurchase intention.
2.5. Repurchase Intention
Repurchase intention is the likelihood that a consumer will choose to repurchase a product [76]. Repurchase intention is defined as the consumers’ intention to buy again from the same company offering the product or service [77]. It is also the buyers’ likelihood of choosing the same seller again to buy their products [78]. Green purchase intention refers to the likelihood that consumers will buy a specific product out of environmental concerns [79], meaning the extent to which consumers are willing to buy products and services from companies they perceive to be environmentally friendly. When companies are not transparent about environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) disclosures, the consumers’ perceived value tends to decline, thereby affecting the willingness to buy. The earlier definition often considered repurchase intentions as the intentions and likelihood to return without specifying the reason. Prior purchase experience and familiarity with the buying environment or product will increase repurchase intention [80]. The attributes of a particular product directly influence repurchase intention [81]. Repurchase intentions are also an essential concern for firms, especially in their efforts to increase sales of products and services [82]. Repurchase intentions may be more the tendency to repurchase a product, but also intentions to recommend the products or services to friends and relatives. Repurchase intentions can be defined as consumers’ overall evaluation of a product and intense reactions to the future, while the process of taking care of old customers is more manageable than acquiring new customers [83]. Therefore, firms are interested in maintaining good relationships with their regular customers and want to increase their repurchase intentions.
Consumer repurchase intentions depend on the value obtained from their previous transactions, such as performance in compliance with standards, competition, cost considerations, and the relationship with customer satisfaction [84]. The repurchase intention itself is based on consumers’ positive response to the store’s goods and services [85]. In addition to understanding whether customers are willing to repurchase safety shoes when they need them, safety shoe stores should further explore the consumer experience they provide to customers.
3. Research Method
3.1. Questionnaire Design
Based on the research purposes and literature review, this study developed the research structure (as shown in Figure 1). A paper-based questionnaire was used to survey consumers with previous purchase experience in safety shoe stores. The questionnaire items were modified from previous scales, the perceived value scale was modified from [19], the price sensitivity scale was modified from [42], while the word-of-mouth, customer satisfaction, and repurchase intention scales were modified from [86]. The measurements were based on a seven-point Likert scale.
This study included five variables, namely perceived value, price sensitivity, word-of-mouth, customer satisfaction, and repurchase intention. The variable and the measurement scale are shown in Table 1.
3.2. Sampling Procedure
This study developed the research structure and questionnaire based on the research purposes and motivation. It also examined the internal consistency, isomorphism, and variability of the items based on the pre-test questionnaire. The variability and correlation tests were conducted on the collected samples. As suggested by a previous study, the number of pre-test samples should be between 25 and 75 [87]. This study collected 51 valid samples and conducted pre-test analyses, and Cronbach’s alpha for each dimension was above 0.7 [88], indicating that the scale’s internal consistency and reliability were good. Item analysis was conducted on the pre-test items to determine the variability and isomorphism among the scale items. The critical ratio (CR) of each dimensional item was greater than 1.96, and the corrected item to total correlation was greater than 0.5, indicating that the scale had specific discriminative power and correlation. Therefore, the official questionnaire was administered from 15 December 2021 to 15 February 2022. A total of 650 questionnaires were distributed, after eliminating 29 invalid samples, there were 621 valid questionnaires.
As shown in Table 2, the analysis of the sample structure revealed that the majority of respondents were engaged in the occupations of building, construction, investment and development, cement, air conditioning, water and electricity, and electrical machinery (16.4%), followed by petrochemicals, pharmaceuticals, and petroleum (15.3%). Due to the occupational attributes, most of those engaged in these industries are males, and males made most safety shoe purchases. Thus, the sample structure is 483 males and 138 females. The age of the respondents was in the range of 31–60 years old (73.3%). Middle-aged people are more likely to be engaged in occupations that require safety shoes, such as building, which is more arduous and prone to injuries. In contrast, young people are less likely to engage in these occupations. Most of the respondents had a college/university education (48.5%), followed by vocational and high school education (41.4%). The most common monthly income of the respondents was NT$20,001–40,000 (41.9%), followed by NT$40,001–60,000 (40.3%). As seen, consumers of safety shoes are mostly engaged in labor jobs and are the main source of income for their families, and their monthly income is generally concentrated in the range of NT$20,001–60,000.
3.3. Reliability and Validity Analysis
This study measured the internal consistency and reliability of the scale based on Cronbach’s alpha, which suggests that Cronbach’s alpha values should be 0.7 or higher [88]. The Cronbach’s alpha values for the dimensions of perceived value, price sensitivity, word-of-mouth, customer satisfaction, and repurchase intentions in this study are 0.968, 0.824, 0.898, 0.951, and 0.932, respectively, which are all greater than 0.7. This indicates the internal consistency and reliability of this scale. The composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE) should be used to measure convergent validity [89]. Compositional reliability refers to the reliability of the potential variables and shows the internal consistency of the dimensions, which is recommended to be greater than 0.7. The average variance extracted is the measure of variance in the potential variables, which explains the extent of the potential variables and should be greater than 0.5. The composite reliability of each dimension in this study is 0.985, 0.831, 0.904, 0.954, and 0.934, respectively, all higher than 0.7. The average variances extracted of each dimension are 0.788, 0.623, 0.76, 0.807, and 0.824, respectively, all higher than 0.5, indicating that the dimensions in this study have convergent validity. The analysis of each dimension is shown in Table 3.
Discriminate validity is used to verify whether the degree of correlation between two dimensions is significantly different. According to [89], the correlation coefficient between two different dimensions should be less than the square root of the average variance extracted for the corresponding dimension. In other words, the value of the AVE root between dimensions must be greater than the Pearson correlation coefficient of the corresponding dimension, which indicates discriminate validity between the dimensions of the measured variables. The root values of average variances extracted for each dimension in this study are 0.888, 0.789, 0.872, 0.898, and 0.908, respectively. They are greater than the Pearson correlation coefficients of the corresponding dimensions, indicating that the scales have some discriminate validity (as shown in Table 4).
3.4. Overall Structural Equation Modeling
This study conducted a structural model analysis using AMOS software to measure the fitness of the hypothetical model to the actual data with the goodness of fit indices of the overall model. The connotation of each indicator and the degree of fitness between the overall model and the observed data were measured based on the studies of [90,91,92]. According to [93,94], the goodness of fit index (GFI) and the adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI) being above 0.8 and the average approximate root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) between 0.05 and 0.08 indicate a good fit, and within 5 is acceptable [95]. The absolute fits measured in this study are , , , GFI = 0.827, AGFI = 0.797, SRMR = 0.0754, and RMSEA = 0.074. The incremental fit measures include the normed fit index (NFI), incremental fit index (IFI), non-normed fit index (NNFI), and comparative fit index (CFI). In this study, NFI = 0.919, IFI = 0.936, NNFI = 0.929, and CFI = 0.936. As all these values are close to the suggested values, indicating that the model of this study had good fitness.
4. Empirical Analysis Results
This study used perceived value and price sensitivity as independent variables, word-of-mouth and customer satisfaction as mediating variables, and repurchase intention as the dependent variable. It investigated whether consumers’ perceived value and price sensitivity affect their repurchase intention through word-of-mouth and customer satisfaction. The empirical results show that perceived value significantly positively affected customer satisfaction, word-of-mouth, and repurchase intention. Meanwhile, price sensitivity and word-of-mouth significantly positively affected repurchase intention. Customer satisfaction had a significant positive effect on word-of-mouth and repurchase intention. These findings supported the seven hypotheses of H1, H2, H3, H6, H7, H8, and H9. The results showed a direct correlation between perceived value and word-of-mouth. The higher the perceived value and customer satisfaction of safety shoes, the more the consumers were willing to share their consumption experience with friends and family or on social media, thus generating good word-of-mouth. These results are consistent with previous studies [23,58].
Moreover, consumers’ perceived value of the various dimensions of safety shoes affects their satisfaction level, affecting their repurchase intention. This result is in line with [26,75] and consistent with [32], which suggested that three emotional value subthemes, including environmental awareness, environmental product awareness, and consumer purchasing decisions, significantly influence U.S. millennials’ preference for recycled casual clothing. This study found no significant effect of price sensitivity on word-of-mouth or customer satisfaction. Hence, H4 and H5 were not supported.
By examining the degree of influence of each variable, this study found that the standardized factor loading of perceived value on customer satisfaction is 0.816; the standardized factor loading of perceived value on word-of-mouth is 0.645. Moreover, the perceived value is an essential factor influencing word-of-mouth and customer satisfaction. The standardized factor loading of customer satisfaction on repurchase intention is 0.555, which is an important variable affecting repurchase intention. The word-of-mouth dimension R2 is 0.712, the customer satisfaction dimension R2 is 0.647, and the repurchase intention R2 is 0.808, which indicates that this model has good explanatory power. The SEM model and the analysis of each item are shown in Figure 2 and Table 5.
This study conducted 5000 bootstrapping tests using SPSS with the plug-in program PROCESS [96] to examine the mediating effect with the bias-corrected 95% confidence intervals. Table 6 shows that the total effect and indirect effect of word-of-mouth and customer satisfaction are significant between perceived value and repurchase intention. The bias-corrected 95% confidence interval on perceived value and repurchase intention is between 0.086 and 0.245 without containing zero, suggesting that the perceived value directly affects consumers’ repurchase intention. Path 1 shows the bias-corrected 95% confidence interval for perceived value affects repurchase intention through customer satisfaction is 0.396 to 0.575. Path 2 shows that the bias-corrected 95% confidence interval for perceived value affects repurchase intention through customer satisfaction and word-of-mouth, ranging from 0.028 to 0.092. Path 3 shows that the bias-corrected 95% confidence interval for perceived value affects repurchase intention through word-of-mouth is 0.043 to 0.145. None of the intervals of the three paths contained zero, indicating that perceived value affected consumer repurchase intention through customer satisfaction and word-of-mouth; customer satisfaction and word-of-mouth partially mediate perceived value and repurchase intention. The direct effect of price sensitivity on repurchase intention is significant, and the bias-corrected 95% confidence interval is 0.006 to 0.070 without containing zero. The indirect effect of the bias-corrected 95% confidence intervals of Paths 4, 5, and 6 contained zero, showing that customer satisfaction and word-of-mouth have no mediating effect between price sensitivity and repurchase intention, and that price sensitivity directly affects consumers’ repurchase intention.
5. Discussion and Conclusions
5.1. Discussion
This study suggests that companies should examine current consumers’ needs and listen to feedbacks when developing safety shoes. Considering global trends in sustainability and continuing to innovate in response to consumer needs could help to improve consumers’ perceived values and satisfaction in terms of quality, emotion, price, and social aspects. At the same time, consumers would be willing to share relevant information with their friends and family through word-of-mouth, which will enhance the competitiveness of the company.
5.1.1. Academic Implications
According to the empirical results, the perceived value has a significant positive effect on word-of-mouth, customer satisfaction, and repurchase intention. Perceived value refers to the subjective feeling of consumers when shopping, and customer satisfaction is derived from the consumers’ purchase experience. Companies recommend suitable products for consumers’ individual needs, and through professional explanations, they select suitable safety shoes for customers, so as to increase their safety at work and prevent occupational injuries. At the same time, the expert advice provided by the companies could help consumers understand the correct way to maintain safety shoes and provide related after-sales services. Such measures will result in higher perceived value for consumers, help improve customer satisfaction, and induce consumers to share their consumption experience, thus generating good word-of-mouth and increasing repurchase intention. The results of this study are consistent with previous studies [1,23,28,29,30,54].
According to the sample data, most respondents were between 31–60 years old, indicating that consumers of safety shoes are mainly middle-aged. Consumers in this age group are the primary financial source in the household. Hence, price factors are more influential than word-of-mouth and customer satisfaction in their purchase decisions. Moreover, according to the empirical results, customer satisfaction and word-of-mouth are not influenced by price sensitivity, which differs from [42,45]. Customer satisfaction stems from the purchase experience and depends on the company’s professionalism. In addition to a good service attitude, consumers value whether the company can provide expert advice to help them understand the critical points of purchasing safety shoes and proper maintenance knowledge and whether they provide related after-sales service. Only in this way can customer satisfaction be improved and a good reputation formed.
5.1.2. Practical Implications
For consumers who are buying safety shoes for the first time or who are unfamiliar with specialty shoes, the companies can take the initiative to introduce the functions and materials of various types of safety shoes. The salesperson can guide consumers to choose the right type of shoes for themselves and based on their occupational characteristics. By doing so, the companies could improve the consumers’ perceived value, and increase customer satisfaction.
Safety shoe stores are a special branch of specialty footwear. The majority of their customers visit the stores to purchase safety shoes for work or as required by public safety regulations. The purchases are usually subsidized by the companies that they work for. For consumers who are the breadwinners of their families, price is an essential factor in their purchase decisions. When safety shoe stores offer reasonably priced and suitable footwear with professional advice, consumers would be willing to buy shoes that are more suitable for them at a price higher than the amount of the company’s subsidy.
5.2. Conclusions
In recent years, ESG has become the focus of the global initiative, and some companies even created the position of Sustainable Chief Executive Officer in their organizational structures. The issue of sustainability has attracted wide attention. Companies attach importance to their social responsibility and safeguard the rights and interests of stakeholders. Workforce is a part of the stakeholders of companies. Hence, companies should pay attention to maintaining labor safety. For dangerous work environments, companies should provide sufficient safety protective equipment to the workers. Safety shoes used to protect workers’ feet are the basic protective equipment to ensure labor safety. Manufacturers should consider avoiding environmental damages caused by discarded shoe tips, develop and produce lightweight materials that are easy to decompose, so as to improve the perceived value of consumers, promote customer satisfaction and generate a good reputation, and enhance their repurchase intention. According to the research, although price sensitivity has no significant effect on reputation and customer satisfaction, it has a significant effect on repurchase intention. Although workers understand the importance of safety shoes, their repurchase intention is still affected by the price. Therefore, manufacturers should consider providing workers with affordable safety shoes. In consideration of employees’ work safety, companies should provide a sufficient budget to purchase the protective equipment needed by the workers to reduce their economic burden.
5.3. Limitations and Future Research Suggestions
Due to certain factors, such as labor and time, the scope of this study is limited to the cities and counties where the safety shoe stores are located. It is suggested that subsequent researchers expand the scope of the study population or add companies that coordinate procurement as research subjects to make the relevant research results more complete. As for the significant impact on the environment caused by the waste generated by the safety shoe tips every year, this study did not include the variable of sustainability based on the time and cost factors. Under the global ESG wave, it is suggested that future researchers explore the dimension related to sustainability.
Conceptualization, T.T.L., Y.-Q.Y. and S.-Y.H.; methodology, T.T.L., Y.-Q.Y. and S.-Y.H.; software, T.T.L. and S.-Y.H.; validation, T.T.L., Y.-Q.Y. and S.-Y.H.; formal analysis, T.T.L. and S.-Y.H.; resources, Y.-Q.Y.; data curation, Y.-Q.Y. and S.-Y.H.; writing—original draft, Y.-Q.Y. and S.-Y.H.; writing—review & editing, T.T.L., Y.-Q.Y. and S.-Y.H.; visualization, Y.-Q.Y. and S.-Y.H.; supervision, T.T.L. and S.-Y.H.; project administration, T.T.L.; funding acquisition, T.T.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments, which have helped improve the presentation of this article.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
The variable and measurement scale.
| Variable | Measurement Scale | |
|---|---|---|
| Perceived value | Quality level | PVQ1. The quality of the safety shoes in this store is consistent. |
| Emotional level | PVE1. The safety shoes in this store are ones that I would enjoy. |
|
| Price level | PVP1. The safety shoes in this store are reasonably priced. |
|
| Social level | PVS1. Wearing safety shoes would help me to feel acceptable. |
|
| Price sensitivity | PS1. I am less willing to purchase safety shoes if I think they will be expensive. |
|
| Word-of-mouth | WOM1. A shopping situation in the safety shoe store would encourage me to recommend that they buy that product to others. |
|
| Customer satisfaction | SA1. Imagining myself in the safety shoe store, I would be quite pleased with that shopping experience. |
|
| Repurchase intention | RP1. After the shoe shopping experience in this store, I will definitely choose this store again when I need another shoe. |
|
Sample Structure.
| Item | Times | Percentage | Cumulative Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | |||
| Male | 483 | 77.8 | 77.8 |
| Female | 138 | 22.2 | 100.0 |
| Occupations | |||
| Steel, heavy, stainless steel, and sandblasting industry | 43 | 6.9 | 6.9 |
| Precision casting, aluminum, and galvanized industry | 19 | 3.1 | 10.0 |
| Gears, machinery, screws, ejaculation machines, mold industry | 32 | 5.2 | 15.1 |
| Auto repair, aviation, maritime, transportation, warehousing, maritime warehousing, transportation, and mechatronics engineering industry | 69 | 11.1 | 26.2 |
| Building, construction, investment and development, cement, air conditioning, water and electricity, and electrical machinery industry | 102 | 16.4 | 42.7 |
| Chemicals, paints, resins, rubber, coatings, refractories industry | 47 | 7.6 | 50.2 |
| Petrochemicals, pharmaceuticals, and petroleum industry | 95 | 15.3 | 65.5 |
| Electronics, circuit boards, and computer materials industry | 34 | 5.5 | 71.0 |
| Public Utilities | 5 | 0.8 | 71.8 |
| Cleaning team, fire brigade, and environmental protection industry | 37 | 6.0 | 77.8 |
| Catering, hotel, and tourism industry | 44 | 7.1 | 84.9 |
| Others | 94 | 15.1 | 100.0 |
| Age | |||
| Under 20 | 11 | 1.8 | 1.8 |
| 21–30 | 111 | 17.9 | 19.6 |
| 31–40 | 147 | 23.7 | 43.3 |
| 41–50 | 149 | 24.0 | 67.3 |
| 51–60 | 159 | 25.6 | 92.9 |
| 60+ | 44 | 7.1 | 100.0 |
| Education | |||
| Middle school or below | 21 | 3.4 | 3.4 |
| High school | 257 | 41.4 | 44.8 |
| College | 301 | 48.5 | 93.2 |
| Graduate school+ | 42 | 6.8 | 100.0 |
| Monthly Income (NT$) | |||
| Under 20,000 | 22 | 3.5 | 3.5 |
| 20,001–40,000 | 260 | 41.9 | 45.4 |
| 40,001–60,000 | 250 | 40.3 | 85.7 |
| 60,001–80,000 | 66 | 10.6 | 96.3 |
| 80,001–100,000 | 16 | 2.6 | 98.9 |
| 100,001+ | 7 | 1.1 | 100.0 |
| Total samples | 621 | ||
Analysis of confirmatory factors.
| Variable | Measurement Scale 2 | Std. | Item |
Cronbach’s Alpha | Convergent |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SMC | CR | AVE | ||||
| PV 1 | PVQ1 | 0.915 | 0.837 | 0.968 | 0.985 | 0.788 |
| PVQ2 | 0.941 | 0.885 | ||||
| PVQ3 | 0.888 | 0.789 | ||||
| PVQ4 | 0.603 | 0.364 | ||||
| PVQ5 | 0.611 | 0.373 | ||||
| PVE1 | 0.914 | 0.835 | ||||
| PVE2 | 0.919 | 0.845 | ||||
| PVE3 | 0.948 | 0.899 | ||||
| PVE4 | 0.94 | 0.884 | ||||
| PVE5 | 0.909 | 0.826 | ||||
| PVP1 | 0.92 | 0.846 | ||||
| PVP2 | 0.943 | 0.889 | ||||
| PVP3 | 0.939 | 0.882 | ||||
| PVP4 | 0.935 | 0.874 | ||||
| PVS1 | 0.753 | 0.567 | ||||
| PVS2 | 0.931 | 0.867 | ||||
| PVS3 | 0.94 | 0.884 | ||||
| PVS4 | 0.92 | 0.846 | ||||
| PS 1 | PS1 | 0.828 | 0.686 | 0.824 | 0.831 | 0.623 |
| PS2 | 0.849 | 0.721 | ||||
| PS3 | 0.679 | 0.461 | ||||
| WOM 1 | WOM1 | 0.917 | 0.841 | 0.898 | 0.904 | 0.76 |
| WOM2 | 0.925 | 0.856 | ||||
| WOM3 | 0.764 | 0.584 | ||||
| SA 1 | SA1 | 0.756 | 0.572 | 0.951 | 0.954 | 0.807 |
| SA2 | 0.933 | 0.87 | ||||
| SA3 | 0.958 | 0.918 | ||||
| SA4 | 0.938 | 0.88 | ||||
| SA5 | 0.891 | 0.794 | ||||
| RP 1 | RP1 | 0.898 | 0.806 | 0.932 | 0.934 | 0.824 |
| RP2 | 0.896 | 0.803 | ||||
| RP3 | 0.929 | 0.863 | ||||
Remark: 1. PV is perceived value; PS is price sensitivity; WOM is word-of-mouth; SA is customer satisfaction; RP is repurchase intention; 2. The measurement scale description is shown in
Discriminate validity.
| PV | PS | WOM | SA | RP | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PV | 0.888 | ||||
| PS | 0.331 | 0.789 | |||
| WOM | 0.833 | 0.277 | 0.872 | ||
| SA | 0.803 | 0.231 | 0.750 | 0.898 | |
| RP | 0.812 | 0.297 | 0.794 | 0.866 | 0.908 |
Remarks: 1. Square Root of AVE in the board on diagonals. 2. Off diagonals are Pearson correlation of constructs; 3. Perceived value is perceived value; PS is price sensitivity; WOM is word-of-mouth; SA is customer satisfaction; RP is repurchase intention.
Results of the final model.
| Std. | S.E. | C.R. | p | Hypotheses | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SA | ← | PV | 0.816 | 0.042 | 17.628 | *** | H1 |
| WOM | ← | PV | 0.645 | 0.062 | 11.563 | *** | H2 |
| RP | ← | PV | 0.148 | 0.057 | 2.661 | 0.008 ** | H3 |
| SA | ← | PS | −0.039 | 0.019 | −1.246 | 0.213 | H4 |
| WOM | ← | PS | 0.011 | 0.023 | 0.357 | 0.721 | H5 |
| RP | ← | PS | 0.053 | 0.017 | 2.113 | 0.035 * | H6 |
| WOM | ← | SA | 0.229 | 0.062 | 4.57 | *** | H7 |
| RP | ← | SA | 0.555 | 0.052 | 12.027 | *** | H8 |
| RP | ← | WOM | 0.240 | 0.043 | 5.072 | *** | H9 |
| R2 (WOM) = 0.712, R2 (SA) = 0.647, R2 (RP) = 0.808 | |||||||
| Goodness of fit statistic | |||||||
| χ2 (Chi-square) = 1964.69, χ2/df = 4.366, GFI = 0.827, AGFI = 0.797, RMSEA = 0.074, CFI = 0.936 | |||||||
*** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05; PV is perceived value; PS is price sensitivity; WOM is word-of-mouth; SA is customer satisfaction; RP is repurchase intention repurchase intention.
Mediation effect.
| Total Effect of IV on DV | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IV | MV | Effect | SE | t | p | LLCI | ULCI | |
| PV | SA, WOM | 0.800 | 0.030 | 26.514 | 0.000 | 0.740 | 0.859 | |
| PS | SA, WOM | 0.034 | 0.021 | 1.630 | 0.104 | −0.007 | 0.075 | |
| Direct effect of IV on DV | ||||||||
| DV | Effect | SE | t | p | LLCI | ULCI | ||
| PV | RP | 0.166 | 0.041 | 4.072 | 0.000 | 0.086 | 0.245 | |
| PS | RP | 0.038 | 0.016 | 2.344 | 0.019 | 0.006 | 0.070 | |
| Indirect effect(s) of IV on DV | ||||||||
| Effect | Boot SE | Boot LLCI | Boot ULCI | |||||
| Ind1: | 0.487 | 0.045 | 0.396 | 0.575 | ||||
| Ind2: | 0.058 | 0.016 | 0.028 | 0.092 | ||||
| Ind3: | 0.089 | 0.026 | 0.043 | 0.145 | ||||
| Ind4: | −0.006 | 0.011 | −0.026 | 0.017 | ||||
| Ind5: | −0.001 | 0.001 | −0.004 | 0.002 | ||||
| Ind6: | 0.002 | 0.003 | −0.004 | 0.009 | ||||
Remark 1: Ind1: PV→SA→RP; Ind2: PV→SA→WOM→RP; Ind3: PV→WOM→RP; Ind4: PS→SA →RP; Ind5: PS→SA→WOM→RP; Ind6: PS→WOM→RP. Remark 2: PV is perceived value; PS is price sensitivity; WOM is word-of-mouth; SA is customer satisfaction; RP is repurchase intention.
References
1. Chen, C.A. The Challenges of Taiwan Footwear Industries. Mental Industries Research & Development Centre. 2015; Available online: https://www.mirdc.org.tw/FileDownLoad/IndustryNews/201765143812902.pdf (accessed on 5 October 2022).
2. Perez, N.Y.H. Evaluation of Sustainability & Materials among Major Footwear Brands. 2022; Available online: https://scholarworks.calstate.edu/downloads/9z9035249 (accessed on 13 November 2022).
3. Ismael, A. One sneaker takes up to 40 years to decompose in a landfill. Insider; 2021; Available online: https://www.insider.com/guides/style/sustainable-sneaker-brands (accessed on 13 November 2022).
4. Khajuria, J.; Singh, L.P.; Singh, S.; Singh, A. Qualitative investigation of occupational health and safety practices in sports industries. Ergonomics for Improved Productivity; Springer: Singapore, 2022; pp. 357-362.
5. Ochsmann, E.; Noll, U.; Ellegast, R.; Hermanns, I.; Kraus, T. Influence of different safety shoes on gait and plantar pressure: A standardized examination of workers in the automotive industry. J. Occup. Health; 2016; 58, pp. 404-412. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1539/joh.15-0193-OA] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27488038]
6. Caravaggi, P.; Giangrande, A.; Lullini, G.; Padula, G.; Berti, L.; Leardini, A. In shoe pressure measurements during different motor tasks while wearing safety shoes: The effect of custom made insoles vs. prefabricated and off-the-shelf. Gait Posture; 2016; 50, pp. 232-238. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2016.09.013] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27662483]
7. Janson, D.J.; Newman, S.T.; Dhokia, V.A. Product-service system for safety footwear. Proc. Des. Soc.; 2022; 2, pp. 1031-1040. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/pds.2022.105]
8. Janson, D.; Newman, S.T.; Dhokia, V. Safety footwear: A survey of end-users. Appl. Ergon.; 2021; 92, 103333. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2020.103333]
9. Bianchi, I.; Forcellese, A.; Simoncini, M.; Vita, A.; Castorani, V.; Arganese, M.; De Luca, C. Life cycle impact assessment of safety shoes toe caps realized with reclaimed composite materials. J. Clean Prod.; 2022; 347, 131321. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131321]
10. Herva, M.; Álvarez, A.; Roca, E. Sustainable and safe design of footwear integrating ecological footprint and risk criteria. J. Hazard. Mater.; 2011; 192, pp. 1876-1881. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2011.07.028]
11. Jeong, D.; Ko, E. The influence of consumers’ self-concept and perceived value on sustainable fashion. J. Glob. Sch. Mark. Sci.; 2021; 31, pp. 511-525. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21639159.2021.1885303]
12. Prastawa, H.; Mahachandra, M.; Rizkiana, D. Assessment of laboratory occupational safety and health at engineering faculty of diponegoro university. Proceedings of the Second Asia Pacific International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management; Surakarta, Indonesia, 14–16 September 2021.
13. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Ministry of Labor. Annual Report of Labor Inspection Statistics in 2019. Available online: https://www.osha.gov.tw/media/7188732/109%E5%8B%9E%E5%8B%95%E6%AA%A2%E6%9F%A5%E7%B5%B1%E8%A8%88%E5%B9%B4%E5%A0%B1-%E5%85%A8%E4%B8%80%E5%86%8A.pdf (accessed on 20 April 2022).
14. Spurrier, S.; Grant, R.; Allen, T. Characterising The Foot Pads of Climbing Mammals to Inspire New Climbing Shoe Designs. Proceedings of the ISEA 2022—The Engineering of Sport 14, Purdue University; West Lafayette, IN, USA, 6–10 June 2022.
15. Lam, W.K.; Kan, W.H.; Chia, J.S.; Kong, P.W. Effect of shoe modifications on biomechanical changes in basketball: A systematic review. Sport. Biomech.; 2022; 21, pp. 577-603. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14763141.2019.1656770]
16. Zeithaml, V.A. Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence. J. Mark.; 1988; 52, pp. 2-22. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002224298805200302]
17. Sawyer, A.G.; Dickson, P.R. Psychological perspectives on consumer response to sales promotions. Research on Sales Promotion: Collected Papers; Marketing Science Institute: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1984.
18. Schifman, R.B.; Howanitz, P.J.; Zarbo, R.J. Q-Probes: A College of American Pathologists benchmarking program for quality management in pathology and laboratory medicine. Adv. Pathol. Lab. Medic.; 1997; 9, pp. 83-120.
19. Sweeney, J.C.; Soutar, G.N. Consumer perceived value: The development of a multiple item scale. J. Retail.; 2001; 77, pp. 203-220. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4359(01)00041-0]
20. Tynan, C.; McKechnie, S.; Chhuon, C. Co-creating value for luxury brands. J. Bus. Res.; 2010; 63, pp. 1156-1163. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.10.012]
21. Sánchez-Fernández, R.; Iniesta-Bonillo, M.Á. The concept of perceived value: A systematic review of the research. Mark. Theor.; 2007; 7, pp. 427-451. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1470593107083165]
22. El-Adly, M.I. Modelling the relationship between hotel perceived value, customer satisfaction, and customer loyalty. J. Retail. Consum. Serv.; 2019; 50, pp. 322-332. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.07.007]
23. Kuppelwieser, V.G.; Klaus, P.; Manthiou, A.; Hollebeek, L.D. The role of customer experience in the perceived value–word-of-mouth relationship. J. Serv. Mark.; 2021; 36, pp. 364-378. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JSM-11-2020-0447]
24. Torres, P.; Augusto, M.; Neves, C. Value dimensions of gamification and their influence on brand loyalty and word-of-mouth: Relationships and combinations with satisfaction and brand love. Psychol. Mark.; 2022; 39, pp. 59-75. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mar.21573]
25. Shaw, G.Y.; Szewczyk, M.A.; Searle, J.; Woodroof, J. Autologous fat injection into the vocal folds: Technical considerations and long-term follow-up. Laryngoscope; 1997; 107, pp. 177-186. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00005537-199702000-00008]
26. Levesque, T.; McDougall, G.H. Determinants of customer satisfaction in retail banking. Int. J. Bank Mark.; 1996; 14, pp. 12-20. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02652329610151340]
27. Hamilton-Ibama, E.O.; Ogonu, C.G. Customer perceived value and customer satisfaction of hotels in Port Harcourt, Nigeria. SAJMMR; 2022; 12, pp. 75-93.
28. Tran, V.D.; Le, N.M.T. Impact of service quality and perceived value on customer satisfaction and behavioral intentions: Evidence from convenience stores in Vietnam. J. Asian Financ. Econ. Bus.; 2020; 7, pp. 517-526. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no9.517]
29. Mittal, V.; Ross, W.T., Jr.; Baldasare, P.M. The asymmetric impact of negative and positive attribute-level performance on overall satisfaction and repurchase intentions. J. Mark.; 1998; 62, pp. 33-47. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002224299806200104]
30. Wu, L.Y.; Chen, K.Y.; Chen, P.Y.; Cheng, S.L. Perceived value, transaction cost, and repurchase-intention in online shopping: A relational exchange perspective. J. Bus. Res.; 2014; 67, pp. 2768-2776. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.09.007]
31. Teng, Y.M.; Wu, K.S. Sustainability development in hospitality: The effect of perceived value on customers’ green restaurant behavioral intention. Sustainability; 2019; 11, 1987. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su11071987]
32. Chi, T.; Ganak, J.; Summers, L.; Adesanya, O.; McCoy, L.; Liu, H.; Tai, Y. Understanding perceived value and purchase intention toward eco-friendly athleisure apparel: Insights from US millennials. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 7946. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13147946]
33. Tellis, G.J.; Wernerfelt, B. Competitive price and quality under asymmetric information. Mark. Sci.; 1987; 6, pp. 240-253. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mksc.6.3.240]
34. Tellis, G.J.; Gaeth, G.J. Best value, price-seeking, and price aversion: The impact of information and learning on consumer choices. J. Mark.; 1990; 54, pp. 34-45. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002224299005400203]
35. Chernev, A.; Hamilton, R. Price image in retail management. Handbook of Research on Retailing; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2018; pp. 132-152.
36. Chandel, S.S.; Shrivastva, R.; Sharma, V.; Ramasamy, P. Overview of the initiatives in the renewable energy sector under the national action plan on climate change in India. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.; 2016; 54, pp. 866-873. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.057]
37. Graciola, A.P.; De Toni, D.; de Lima, V.Z.; Milan, G.S. Does price sensitivity and price level influence store price image and repurchase intention in retail markets?. J. Retail. Consum. Serv.; 2018; 44, pp. 201-213. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.06.014]
38. Wang, S.S.; Van Der Lans, R. Modeling gift choice: The effect of uncertainty on price sensitivity. J. Mark. Res.; 2018; 55, pp. 524-540. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmr.16.0453]
39. Ferreira, S.D.; Antunes, C. Estimating the price range and the effect of price bundling strategies: An application to the hotel sector. Eur. Res. Manag. Bus. Econ.; 2020; 29, pp. 166-181.
40. Yue, B.; Sheng, G.; She, S.; Xu, J. Impact of consumer environmental responsibility on green consumption behavior in China: The role of environmental concern and price sensitivity. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 2074. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12052074]
41. Popp, B.; Woratschek, H. Consumer–brand identification revisited: An integrative framework of brand identification, customer satisfaction, and price image and their role for brand loyalty and word-of-mouth. J. Brand. Manag.; 2017; 24, pp. 250-270. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1057/s41262-017-0033-9]
42. Liang, L.J.; Choi, H.C.; Joppe, M. Understanding repurchase intention of Airbnb consumers: Perceived authenticity, electronic word-of-mouth, and price sensitivity. J. Travel Tour. Mark.; 2018; 35, pp. 73-89. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2016.1224750]
43. Pazoki, M.; Samarghandi, H. Word-of-mouth and estimating demand based on network structure and epidemic models. Eur. J. Oper. Res.; 2021; 291, pp. 323-334. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2020.09.004]
44. Anderson, J.R.; Lebiere, C.J. The Atomic Components of Thought; Psychology Press: New York, NY, USA, 2014.
45. Vasić, N.; Kilibarda, M.; Kaurin, T. The influence of online shopping determinants on customer satisfaction in the Serbian market. J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res.; 2019; 14, pp. 70-89. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-18762019000200107]
46. Bei, L.T.; Chiao, Y.C. An integrated model for the effects of perceived product, perceived service quality, and perceived price fairness on consumer satisfaction and loyalty. J. Consum. Satisf. Dissatisfaction Complain. Behav.; 2001; 14, pp. 125-140.
47. Gao, J.; Wang, J.; Bailey, A. How does public recognition affect price sensitivity to green products? The role of self-construal and temporal distance. Psychol. Mark.; 2021; 38, pp. 1262-1279. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mar.21500]
48. Abedi, E.; Jahed, A. Investigating the effect of customer experience affinity and brand on brand equity with the mediating role of customer satisfaction in Iran Insurance company (case study: Tehran province branches customers). Int. J. Inf. Manag. Bus. Manag.; 2020; 12, pp. 165-176.
49. Lin, H.F. Knowledge sharing and firm innovation capability: An empirical study. Int. J. Manpow.; 2007; 28, pp. 315-332. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437720710755272]
50. Widodo, T.; Maylina, N.L.P.K. The mediating role of perceived value and social media word-of-mouth in the relationship between perceived quality and purchase intention. J. Manaj. Dan Pemasar. Jasa; 2022; 15, pp. 49-68. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.25105/jmpj.v15i1.9468]
51. Bastos, J.A.R.; Gallego, P.D.M. Pharmacies customer satisfaction and loyalty–a framework analysis. Doc. De Trab.; 2008; 1, 8.
52. Pang, H. Identifying associations between mobile social media users’ perceived values, attitude, satisfaction, and eWOM engagement: The moderating role of affective factors. Telemat. Inform.; 2021; 59, 101561. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2020.101561]
53. Hoe, L.C.; Mansori, S. The effects of product quality on customer satisfaction and loyalty: Evidence from Malaysian engineering industry. Int. J. Ind. Mark.; 2018; 3, pp. 20-35. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5296/ijim.v3i1.13959]
54. Chen, S.C.; Lin, C.P. Understanding the effect of social media marketing activities: The mediation of social identification, perceived value, and satisfaction. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang.; 2019; 140, pp. 22-32. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.11.025]
55. Kim, W.G.; Ng, C.Y.N.; Kim, Y.S. Influence of institutional DINESERV on customer satisfaction, return intention, and word-of-mouth. Int. J. Hosp. Manag.; 2009; 28, pp. 10-17. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2008.03.005]
56. Abubakar, B.; Mavondo, F. Tourism destinations: Antecedents to customer satisfaction and positive word-of-mouth. J. Hosp. Mark. Manag.; 2014; 23, pp. 833-864. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2013.796865]
57. Saragih, R.; Liu, R.; Putri, C.A.; Fakhri, M.; Pradana, M. The role of loyalty and satisfaction in forming word-of-mouth influence in a B2B environment: Evidence from the knitting industry of Indonesia. J. East. Eur. Cent. Asian Res.; 2022; 9, pp. 543-553. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.15549/jeecar.v9i3.889]
58. Shin, Y.; Van Thai, V.; Grewal, D.; Kim, Y. Do corporate sustainable management activities improve customer satisfaction, word-of-mouth intention and repurchase intention? Empirical evidence from the shipping industry. Int. J. Logist. Manag.; 2017; 28, pp. 555-570. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-11-2015-0220]
59. Kalinić, Z.; Marinković, V.; Djordjevic, A.; Liebana-Cabanillas, F. What drives customer satisfaction and word-of-mouth in mobile commerce services? A UTAUT2-based analytical approach. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag.; 2019; 33, pp. 71-94. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-05-2019-0136]
60. Lovelock, C.H.; Yip, G.S. Developing global strategies for service businesses. Calif. Manag. Rev.; 1996; 38, pp. 64-86. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/41165833]
61. Gerdt, S.O.; Wagner, E.; Schewe, G. The relationship between sustainability and customer satisfaction in hospitality: An explorative investigation using eWOM as a data source. Tour. Manag.; 2019; 74, pp. 155-172. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2019.02.010]
62. Jones, T.O.; Sasser, W.E. Why satisfied customers defect. Harv. Bus. Rev.; 1995; 73, pp. 88-99. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(1996)12:6(11.2)]
63. Miao, M.; Jalees, T.; Zaman, S.I.; Khan, S.; Javed, M.K. The influence of e-customer satisfaction, e-trust and perceived value on consumer’s repurchase intention in B2C e-commerce segment. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist.; 2021; 1, pp. 1-14. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/APJML-03-2021-0221]
64. Westbrook, R.A. Product/consumption-based affective responses and postpurchase processes. J. Mark. Res.; 1987; 24, pp. 258-270. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002224378702400302]
65. Herr, P.M.; Kardes, F.R.; Kim, J. Effects of word-of-mouth and product-attribute information on persuasion: An accessibility-diagnosticity perspective. J. Consum. Res.; 1991; 17, pp. 454-462. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1086/208570]
66. Stern, P.C.; Dietz, T. The value basis of environmental concern. J. Soc. Issues; 1994; 50, pp. 65-84. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1994.tb02420.x]
67. Athanassopoulos, A.; Gounaris, S.; Stathakopoulos, V. Behavioural responses to customer satisfaction: An empirical study. Eur. J. Mark.; 2001; 35, pp. 687-707. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090560110388169]
68. Han, H.; Al-Ansi, A.; Chi, X.; Baek, H.; Lee, K.S. Impact of environmental CSR, service quality, emotional attachment, and price perception on word-of-mouth for full-service airlines. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 3974. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12103974]
69. Kaijasilta, N. The Conceptualization of Electronic Word-Of-Mouth (Ewom) and Company Practices to Monitor, Encourage, and Commit to Ewom-A Service Industry Perspective. Master’s Thesis; Aalto University: Otaniemi, Espoo, Finland, 31 August 2013.
70. Folkes, V.S.; Patrick, V.M. The positivity effect in perceptions of services: Seen one, seen them all?. J. Consum. Res.; 2003; 30, pp. 125-137. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1086/374693]
71. Donthu, N.; Kumar, S.; Pandey, N.; Pandey, N.; Mishra, A. Mapping the electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) research: A systematic review and bibliometric analysis. J. Bus. Res.; 2021; 135, pp. 758-773. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.07.015]
72. Halim, R.E.; Rahmani, S.; Gayatri, G.; Furinto, A.; Sutarso, Y. The Effectiveness of Product Sustainability Claims to Mitigate Negative Electronic Word of Mouth (N-eWOM). Sustainability; 2022; 14, 2554. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su14052554]
73. Liang, T.P.; Turban, E. Introduction to the special issue social commerce: A research framework for social commerce. Int. J. Electron. Commer.; 2011; 16, pp. 5-14. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2753/JEC1086-4415160201]
74. Wijayaa, O.; Sulistiyanib, S.; Pudjowatic, J.; Kurniasih, N.; Purwanto, A. The role of social media marketing, entertainment, customization, trendiness, interaction and word-of-mouth on purchase intention: An empirical study from Indonesian smartphone consumers. Int. J. Data Netw. Sci.; 2021; 5, pp. 231-238. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5267/j.ijdns.2021.6.011]
75. Meilatinova, N. Social commerce: Factors affecting customer repurchase and word-of-mouth intentions. Int. J. Inf. Manag.; 2021; 57, 102300. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102300]
76. Dodds, W.B.; Monroe, K.B. The effect of brand and price information on subjective product evaluations. Adv. Consum. Res.; 1985; 12, pp. 85-90.
77. Selnes, F. An examination of the effect of product performance on brand reputation, satisfaction and loyalty. Eur. J. Mark.; 1993; 27, pp. 19-35. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090569310043179]
78. Tsiros, M.; Mittal, V. Regret: A model of its antecedents and consequences in consumer decision making. J. Consum. Res.; 2000; 26, pp. 401-417. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1086/209571]
79. Guerreiro, J.; Pacheco, M. How green trust, consumer brand engagement and green word-of-mouth mediate purchasing intentions. Sustainability; 2021; 13, 7877. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13147877]
80. Park, J.; Stoel, L. Effect of brand familiarity, experience and information on online apparel purchase. Int. J. Retail. Distrib. Manag.; 2005; 33, pp. 148-160. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09590550510581476]
81. Wang, C.L.; Li, D.; Barnes, B.R.; Ahn, J. Country image, product image and consumer purchase intention: Evidence from an emerging economy. Int. Bus. Rev.; 2012; 21, pp. 1041-1051. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2011.11.010]
82. Fang, Y.; Qureshi, I.; Sun, H.; McCole, P.; Ramsey, E.; Lim, K.H. Trust, satisfaction, and online repurchase intention: The moderating role of perceived effectiveness of e-commerce institutional mechanisms. MIS Q.; 2014; 38, pp. 407–428, A1–A9. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2014/38.2.04]
83. Ali, H. Purchase decision and repurchase models: Product quality and process analysis (case study of house ownership credit financing in Permata Sharia bank Jakarta). Sch. Bull.; 2019; 5, pp. 526-535. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.36348/sb.2019.v05i09.006]
84. Hsu, M.H.; Chang, C.M.; Chu, K.K.; Lee, Y.J. Determinants of repurchase intention in online group-buying: The perspectives of DeLone and McLean IS success model and trust. Comput. Hum. Behav.; 2014; 36, pp. 234-245. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.065]
85. Pandiangan, S.M.T.; Resmawa, I.; Simanjuntak, O.D.P.; Sitompul, P.N.; Jefri, R. Effect of e-satisfaction on repurchase intention in Shopee user students. BIRCI-J.; 2021; 4, pp. 7785-7791.
86. Hunt, K.A.; Keaveney, S.M.; Lee, M. Involvement, attributions, and consumer responses to rebates. J. Bus. Psychol.; 1995; 9, pp. 273-297. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02230970]
87. Oksenberg, L.; Cannel, C.; Kalton, G. New strategies for pretesting survey questions. J. Off. Stat.; 1991; 7, pp. 349-365.
88. Cronbach, L.J. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika; 1951; 16, pp. 297-334. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555]
89. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. J. Mark. Res.; 1981; 18, pp. 382-388. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800313]
90. Schreiber, J.B. Core reporting practices in structural equation modeling. Res. Soc. Adm. Pharm.; 2008; 4, pp. 83-97. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2007.04.003]
91. McDonald, R.P.; Ho, M.H.R. Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychol. Methods; 2002; 7, pp. 64-82. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.64]
92. Jackson, D.L.; Gillaspy, J.A., Jr.; Purc-Stephenson, R. Reporting practices in confirmatory factor analysis: An overview and some recommendations. Psychol. Methods; 2009; 14, pp. 6-23. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0014694] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19271845]
93. Doll, W.J.; Xia, W.; Torkzadeh, G. A Confirmatory factor analysis of the end-user computing satisfaction instrument. MIS Q.; 1994; 18, pp. 453-461. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/249524]
94. MacCallum, R.C.; Hong, S. Power analysis in covariance structure modeling using GFI and AGFI. Multivar. Behav. Res.; 1997; 32, pp. 193-210. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3202_5] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26788758]
95. Schumacker, R.E.; Lomax, R.G. A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling; 2nd ed. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 2004.
96. Hayes, A.F.; Scharkow, M. The relative trustworthiness of inferential tests of the indirect effect in statistical mediation analysis: Does method really matter?. Psychol. Sci.; 2013; 24, pp. 1918-1927. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797613480187]
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Yu-Qi, Yeh; Shu-Yen Hsu