sustainability

Article
The Effect of the Relationship Characteristics and
Social Capital of the Sharing Economy Business on
the Social Network, Relationship Competitive
Advantage, and Continuance Commitment
Sungmin Kang 1 ID
and Youn Kue Na 2, *
1 College of Business and Economics, Chung-Ang University, 84 Heukseok-ro, Dongjak-gu,
Seoul 156-756, Korea; smkang@[Link]
2 Department of Art & Culture Research Institute, Chung-Ang University, 84 Heukseok-ro, Dongjak-gu,
Seoul 156-756, Korea
* Correspondence: nyk901@[Link]; Tel.: +82-10-6281-4742




Received: 19 May 2018; Accepted: 27 June 2018; Published: 27 June 2018


Abstract: This study assessed relationship characteristics and social capital from the perspective of
interdependent linkage between sharing economy businesses and consumers, which can create the
social network and relationship competitive advantage. It verified the importance of the creative
production process of the value network of sharing economy businesses. For this purpose, the statistical
techniques were used to perform frequency, reliability/validity, suitability, and path analyses on
522 subjects active in sharing economy service communities. A structural model was thus proposed.
The results of the study are as follows. First, the results of the path analysis between the relationship
characteristics and social network (social relationships, social commitment) of sharing economy
businesses showed that mutual influence and emotional connection had a significant effect on
social relationships, and mutual influence, sense of belonging, and emotional connection had a
significant effect on social commitment. Second, the results of the path analysis between social
capital and social network (social relationships, social commitment) of sharing economy businesses
showed that pursuit for self-fulfillment, social participation, and pleasure had a significant effect
on social commitment. Third, the results of the path analysis between the social relationships,
social commitment, relationship competitive advantage, and continuance commitment of sharing
economy businesses showed that social relationships and social commitment had a significant effect
on relationship competitive advantage, while relationship competitive advantage had a significant
effect on continuance commitment.

Keywords: sharing economy business; relationship characteristics; social capital; social network;
relationship competitive advantage; continuance commitment

1. Introduction
The sharing economy is an emerging economic phenomenon, driven by the development of
ICT, social trade and sharing, consumer awareness, and the increasing number of collaborative web
communities. For consumers, it has created a lot of relationships and social networks that change
the viewpoint of ownership and use, along with saving the cost of ownership. The sharing economy
business type is centered on social benefits and utility value of resources through cooperation between
individuals. It changes the perspective of consumption from ownership to utilization, and creates
relationships and social networks [1]. In this context, Riflin [2] stated that the sharing economy is more
dependent on social capital, such as social trust, than invisible market forces. It is a type of “network

Sustainability 2018, 10, 2203; doi:10.3390/su10072203 [Link]/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2018, 10, 2203 2 of 22

commons” rather than a market. In addition, with the increase in consumer size participating in these
collaborative spending, shared companies are creating new business models and challenging existing
ones competitively [3]. Hence, the sharing economy is configured through the social economy, which is
an economic concept that prioritizes the implementation of social values; collaborative consumption,
which focuses on social values; collective intellect, for which the internet, voluntary participation,
and sharing of knowledge are core; digital community, where the activities of digital communities
occur in a digital space; and social capital, which is a social force that solves community issues through
trust and cooperation [2–4]. It spreads coexistence in the digital economy paradigm, which begins
with the consumer.
Above all, sharing economy businesses are under the premise that companies and consumers
collaborate by sharing their value relationships and work together to solve problems using continuous
business methods in order to create positive social change. From the “diffusion of economic
relationships-network economy” perspective, an individual group can overcome the uncertainty
of values by creating new economic relationships, and core values can provide a basis for creating
mental commonalities through strengthening the network between members [5]. Social capital
can be understood under the content and structure of social relationships between transactors.
The quality of the relationship in terms of mutual interaction between members in a group is promoted
by social capital from the relationship perspective, while actions that create mutual benefits are
induced by sharing group values, standards, beliefs, and attitudes from a cognitive perspective [6].
When similarities of each group member are shared in the sub-network, the closeness of their
relationship becomes strengthened [7]. Networks with higher trust than other types of networks
tend to share and exchange more rich and sensitive information through solidarity [8].
Hence, the content produced through the distribution process is reinterpreted through the
consumer’s perspective for the value chain. Moreover, the process of reproducing new and creative
products with higher added value is evaluated as important in the value chain [9]. From the
relational view, particularly, the strategic combination of knowledge and information sharing and
complementary resources enables a group to gain a competitive advantage [10]. When relation-specific
assets accumulate—such as increases in the duration of a relationship or trade between organizations—the
competitive advantage between organizations increases [11]. As such, when assessing a company’s
continuous competitive advantage from a relationship view, it is believed to be a useful approach that
can reflect the role of social capital, which emphasizes the value network perspective.
This study will assess the relationship characteristics and social capital from the perspective
of interdependent linkage between sharing economy businesses and consumers that can create the
relationship competitive advantage and achievement (continuance commitment). We also verify the
importance of the creative production process of the value network of sharing economy businesses.
These results will help understand the importance of achievements (continuance commitment) in
sharing economy businesses, both academically and practically, for core value sharing activities that
occur through social networks and relationship competitive advantage. They can be utilized as
theoretical data that configure their core values as relationship and social sharing activities.

2. Theoretical Background

2.1. Sharing Economy Business and Collaborative Consumption

The core of the sharing economy is a consumption culture that goes beyond personal ownership.
It pursues and produces community values that people can share. Recent developments in ICT
(information and communication technologies), the perception of collaborative consumption, and social
sharing and trading facilitate consumers in the community’s production and continuity. This enables
the sharing economy model to develop further [4]. Above all, these technical developments and
changes in perception caused a paradigm shift from “linear economy”, which centers around a
physical market where the goal of consumers is ownership, into “network economy”, which centers
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2203 3 of 22

around a social network based on transactions or sharing activities between consumers [12]. Lorna [12]
also stated that “economy” in the sharing economy refers to the social space itself, and it has an
instrumental value when contributing to the development of the larger social community.
In this context, the sharing economy is defined through the concept of collaborative consumption
or a community economy [13]. Since the movements toward collaborative consumption are a type of
alternative consumption unlike ownership, it is motivated through increasing the value of utilization.
Hence, sharing economy businesses utilize social marketing based on collaborative consumption
in order to resolve social issues, such as economic growth strategies, redistribution strategies,
large-scale foreign aid, and population control, among others. Rather than seeking profit, they can act
with the aim of changing behaviors [14,15]. They can serve as a “intermediary”, who creates a global
network that distributes necessary resources by connecting consumers with resources, which are not
used by these companies, with people who are willing to pay to use those resources [16]. Furthermore,
collaborative consumption in a sharing economy can also reduce the cost of new product development
and raw materials by using unused resources more efficiently. This may be regarded as an indication
of sustainable behavior to consumers [4].

2.2. Relationship Characteristics

How an individual is connected to someone shows mutual influence in the general function
of their social relationship [17]. Brief and Weiss [18] stated that organization members’ emotional
and psychological factors will influence their attitude and behaviors. They determine the members’
achievements. They argued that relationship characteristics are important influential variables of
sharing. Above all, these relationship qualities are strategic resources [19]; they are intangible assets
that help one gain competitive advantages and trigger positive behaviors. In this way, Brazeltion and
Gorry [20] proposed a diverse knowledge community of the knowledge management system as an
important strategy to induce the active social participation of organization members. Wenger et al. [21]
also proposed a working community as a conscious personnel network for knowledge creation
activities and the effective knowledge and information sharing within an organization.
If we look at these relationship characteristics with a respect of sharing economy business,
Wittel [22] argued that things that were shared in society before the digital era were led by strengthened
social interactions based on the principles of mutual, social, and generalized reciprocity. Although the
digitalization of sharing has brought about new functions in sharing, these new forms themselves have
not strengthened all social interactions. However, an individual’s social relationships with others has a
central value in the sharing economy; there is a constitutive relationship with other people. Therefore,
the individual is not an isolated subject, but a subject-in-relation with other people, leading to mutual
influence in a relationship [23].
Moreover, the sharing economy has us-rationality characteristics. These characteristics are
manifested from the spirituality of unity or a sense of belonging toward the network of relationships.
Intrinsic idea motivation (motivation to actively express one’s ideas) plays an important role in
the sharing economy. Purchasing an ethical product is not an optimization of an individual’s
method-objective relationship, but rather an effort to achieve an individual’s fulfillment of needs.
This can be seen as a form of striving toward sharing economy businesses or a social economy that
offers part of its profits for shared ownership in order to express one’s belief toward the economy or life.
Furthermore, the important characteristic of the rationality of communion is unconditional reciprocity;
this reciprocity is ex-post conditional rationale rather than ex-ante conditional rationale. Thus,
it significantly affects the creation of mutual connection in terms of user’s feeling of importance for
sharing relationship, forming close relationship, and fellowship in the sharing economy services [24].
As mentioned above, mutual influence, sense of belonging, fulfillment of needs and emotional
connection will be important relationship characteristics as a practical sense to maintain and develop
relationship with consumers in sharing economy business.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2203 4 of 22

2.3. Social Capital

Social capital is an assembly of actual or potential resources related to the continuous network
ownership level. It is regarded as a “collective asset” that increases the efficiency of the general society
in the exchange of resources that occur in it [25]. It increases economic and affective efficiency by
enabling adjustment and cooperation for the mutual benefit of members in society relevant to the
characteristics of a social organization, such as trust, standards, and the network [26]. Furthermore,
from an individual’s perspective, it is perceived as a resource that is obtained through the network
and social relationship with the outside, and the acquired social capital is then used as a resource that
can provide pleasure in terms of personal benefits [27]. From this perspective, considering the positive
social values of social capital, social capital can expand the sharing economy in society. The stable
settlement of the sharing economy can accumulate collaborative consumer experience to form a
structure of a virtuous cycle where social capital is accumulated once more. Considering the positive
social values of social capital, it can be regarded as a necessary or sufficient condition for systematically
settling and spreading the sharing economy [28].
Social capital also configures a series of aspects in the social structure. It promotes certain
behaviors in transactors in the structure. The root of such behaviors is the social structure within a
rational behavior paradigm [29,30]. Social capital is also regarded as a factor that promotes adjustments
and cooperation for the mutual benefit of the members of society as a collective resource for overcoming
the “collection action dilemma” [26,28,31].
Above all, from the perspective that social capital expands social trust and values in the
community or on an even wider scale, it is a theoretical resource of the sharing economy that involves
an orientation toward a common goal. Members with social trust utilize knowledge in a way that is
helpful to one another. The exchanging of knowledge and information sharing are perceived to be
an act of achieving the company’s common goals [32]. By maintaining a sustainable relationship and
network through individuals or an organization, social capital is assessed as one of the most important
origins for building an information collection and knowledge base [33].
Further, there is an active understanding and sharing of information and knowledge that are
obtained from the outside through various communication networks. This enables the goals and
directions of organizational learning to be shared in order to create new values and ultimately
vitalize organizational learning for pursuing self-fulfillment [34]. In addition, as the components
of social capital, Chung et al. [35] suggested the characteristics of social participation in terms
of social exchange, rewards, cooperation, competition, and conflict, while Park [36] proposed
standards, trust, cooperation within a group, information sharing, political participation, horizontal
organizations, vertical organizations, and participation in volunteer work, among others. Putnam [26]
categorized social capital into reciprocity, intensity of involvement, social participation, community
and volunteer work, and unofficial association, among others, while Ellison et al. [37] proposed trust,
self-fulfillment based on reciprocity, social norms, network, and social structure as the components
of social capital based on the structure of social capital. Therefore, social capital is assessed under an
individual’s perception about self-fulfillment regarding the social relationship between developmental
members [38]. A structural dimension refers to the type of social structure that is formed between
members, and it exhibits various factors according to the type of network connection, participation,
category, and structure.
Further, these characteristics can be explained to those individuals who are unfamiliar with
common goals, matters of interest, and visions as the mutual intimacy among the social participants
and pleasure seeking behaviors involving fun and benefits for knowledge and information sharing [39],
and they can be defined through the quality and quantity of relationships on a social scale. As they can
be regarded as individual or social assets, they provide advantages to the individual or organization.
As mentioned above, information sharing, self-fulfillment, social participation and pleasure for
mutual benefit among actors in the network will be important factors as social capital of sharing
economy business.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2203 5 of 22

2.4. Social Network

The social network is a social system that exchanges resources. Here, interactions occur between
individuals or organizations to achieve a common goal. The type of exchange that occurs includes
infinite and continuous transactions within the context of general interaction. The network is configured
as an effective alternative that improves competition compared to other strategies when a company
corresponds to the environment from the perspective of competitive superiority [40]. The core concept
of this network is a comprehensive concept that includes the exchanging and sharing of various
resources, such as technology, information, production, capital, products, and services, among others,
through voluntary cooperation for the purpose securing a competitive advantage. In addition, social
capital arises from the formation of networks, and interactions cause people to form networks, maintain
communities, and build social structures [41].
Above all, a social network is a set of social relationships that maintain social identity and
receive emotional support, material assistance, services, information, and new contact opportunities.
The connection between interconnected systems and members is regarded as a relationship system that
influences their actions [42]. Furthermore, the instrumental value of the social network may change
according to the type of information that the individual requires and how that information will be
used [43]. The sharing of resource, information, and knowledge in social network creates a social
relationship that has an important influence on achievements [44].
Furthermore, opportunities for creating shared values occur, since social issues can give rise to
economic costs within a company’s value network [45]. The social network and cooperation promote
collaborative consumption; interaction between users and sharing of personal experiences permit
the creation of social relationships and maintenance of social commitment with others [1]. From
the perspective of the similarity-attraction theory, when a transactor perceives that the values of
another transactor are consistent with their own, they will be happier with the other party, trust them,
and attempt to maintain their social commitment [46,47]. In other words, shared values between
transactors decreases cognitive dissonance, increases predictability regarding the other party’s actions,
forms a better social relationship between transactors, and helps maintain that relationship.
Moreover, a productive network reduces conflicts, costs, and time and maintains the social
commitment in the community. It serves as a social relationship that advances the social structure as a
factor that can verify the practical effects of social capital. It reinforces social trust and shares reciprocal
standards to form a virtuous cycle structure that expands the range of the productive network [48].
As mentioned above, the social network in the sharing economy business is an aggregate linked
by various social relationships and social commitments based on the relational concept, which needs
to be examined in terms of the connection with social capital.

2.5. Relationship Competitive Advantage

A continuous relationship competitive advantage is achieved through resources and learning
effects that are valuable, rare, incomplete for replication, and irreplaceable within a company [49],
and can be secured when a company executes a customer value strategy that the competitor does not.
In other words, when a company designs a new method with respect to value chain activities and offers
values to the customer that are superior to that of competitors, they are able to create a competitive
advantage [50]. The ownership of intangible resources, such as customer capital, and the effective
distribution of these resources become accumulated as a unique strength of the organization. They are
reported to be an extremely necessary approach for achieving continuous relationship competitive
advantage [51–53]. Since effective governance between organizations enables cooperation for value
creation to occur more freely, relationship specific assets, information sharing, or supplementary
resources can be strategically combined for an organization to gain a competitive advantage [10].
According to Dyer and Singh [10], who established a basis for the relational view regarding
an organization’s competitive advantage, the relationship assets that can acquire a competitive
advantage through cooperation in and between organizations can be classified through relationship
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2203 6 of 22

specific assets, information sharing practices, supplementary resources, competence, or effective

governance. Of these, relationship specific assets are an extension of the perspective that they
become equivalent to productivity in the value chain when each company is willing to invest in
relationships or transaction-specific investments [11]. In other words, this perspective claims that
when relationship specific assets accumulate—such as a longer relationship between organizations or
increased transactions between organizations—the relationship competitive advantage between the
organizations also increases.
In this way, upon examining a company’s sustainable competitive advantage, it can be seen
as a useful perspective that can reflect the role of the value network in which the relational view is
emphasized. More than anything, if a cooperative value chain stage can be built in the relationship
with sharing economy businesses that share a vision of coexistence and strengthened competitiveness,
it will greatly help the company gain a continuous relationship competitive advantage.
As we have seen above, the relationship competitive advantage in the sharing economy business
will be an important factor for firms in continuously achieving the relationship-based performance
better than the competitors.

2.6. Continuance Commitment

Continuance commitment in relationship is important because the key standard of making
decisions regarding the future achievements of relationships will bring about future values or benefits
to partners [54]. This is because transacting parties in an exchanging relationship exchange common
items and observe key variables in order to achieve certain results with mutual values between
partners [55]. From the company’s perspective, they must perceive customers as partners who can
continuously maintain and develop this exchange relationship, understand customers, and establish
strategies that strengthen long-term ties. However, this is not limited to efforts simply from the
business aspect [56].
This type of continuance commitment is also defined in various ways in relationship marketing
based on mutual exchange relationships [57]. Emotional commitment derives particularly from strong
emotional loyalty or a sense of belonging; it is based on social and emotional tendencies [58]. In order
to maintain and develop such exchange relationships in terms of the intent to maintain relationships,
the company must perceive consumers as partners, understand customers, and develop strategies that
can strengthen long-term ties [56]. Behavioral intention was reported to have a more direct appearance
than continuance commitment under the concept that long-term relationship orientation includes
relationship continuity and interdependence [59,60]. Furthermore, under the concept that long-term
orientation also includes the desire and expectation to continue a long-term relationship with the other
party, Shin and Leem [61] and Yi and Ji [62] assessed that long-term orientation does not refer to the
intent to continue transactions regarding all general suppliers or retail companies, but refers to the
intent to continue transactions with a certain few transacting parties.
Furthermore, Park and Lee [63] and Lee [64] stated that a long-term cooperative relationship
increases when continuance commitment is highly perceived, while Ra and Woo [65] found that
satisfaction toward long-term orientation increases as perception toward relationship strength increases.
Kim and Park [66] stated that a customer will be unable to switch to another company if the benefits of
the relationship that they have been experiencing with a certain company are high, and will form a
continuous relationship with the company. As a result, a strengthened relationship in continuance
commitment will not be influenced by alternative attractions or changes in surrounding circumstances,
and it can continuously bring a certain level of profit to the company [65]. Furthermore, Dibb and
Meadows [67] claimed that providing more valuable services to customers will serve as a core factor
that gives rise to a superior competitive advantage compared to other competitors.
As we have seen above, it is essential to achieve a performance through continuous improvement
of consumer social relationship and social commitment in a sharing economy business.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2203 7 of 22

3. Research Methods

3.1. Research Model and Hypotheses

Sharing the vision of strengthened competition and coexistence with consumers and pursuing
a more collaborative value chain stage will significantly help sharing economy businesses gain a
continuous relationship competitive advantage. This viewpoint too can be supported through the
relational view. In this way, it can be seen as a useful aspect to reflect the role of social capital,
which emphasizes the aspect of value network, when we grasp the continuance commitment through
the continuous relationship competitive advantage of the sharing economy business.
In the regard for relationship characteristics, Moody and White [68] categorized the types of
relationships that can exist in a group based on “fulfillment of needs” based on individual’ experience,
issues related to group immersion, “continuance commitment”, and group cohesion. They claimed
that this network structure has an influence on “emotional connection” which is known as emotional
attachment regarding relationships. Ok and Han [69] found that the sub-network structure is a group
within a network based on the relationship characteristics of commonalities, consciousness of kind,
similarity, etc. and it shows the “mutual influence” of members in a group. They reported that, if
certain information is exposed within a node of the sub-network, then that information may quickly
spread through neighbors that are closely related to that node through the “sense of belonging”. Dyer
and Singh [10] found that relationship assets that can help gain a competitive advantage through
cooperation between members can be formed through knowledge sharing practices, relationship
specific assets, supplementary competence or resources, and effective governance. Above all, these
relational dimensions lead to behaviors that bring benefits to one another by sharing norms, values,
attitudes, and beliefs of the group [6]. In this process, the meaning of the group becomes important to
the members, and they can form the social network by identifying the value of themselves along with
the value of the group [70].
Moreover, the core of social capital is referred as a “collective asset” that enhances the efficiency
of society as a whole in the social network, and network members are encouraged to take part in
certain social behaviors and pursue “social participation” through the social structure formed in this
fashion [29]. When relationship embeddedness is formed, and this relationship benefit is positively
assessed, it is highly likely to lead to the company’s approval [71]. From this perspective, the formation
of mutual reciprocity and accessibility will serve to maintain the connection between the consumer and
service provider through the enhancement of “self-fulfillment” by consumer. The formation of a sense
of belonging will provide members with emotional safety, become the basis for enabling members
to express their emotions and desires, and form a sense of mutual closeness and “pleasure” [72].
Hence, a successful sharing economy business must be able to share a set of values and facilitate
“information sharing” that are enabled through common goals and activities. First of all, the nature
of the connected network of social capital provides the advantages of sharing new information and
knowledge, expanding the opportunity of acquiring resources [73], and increasing the communication
about the products and service based on the relational network [74].
Furthermore, the core concept of a network is a voluntary cooperation to secure a strategic
advantage, and it can be seen as a comprehensive concept including exchange and sharing of
various resources such as technology, information, production, capital, products and services. In
the social network perspective, consumers actively express their preferences and consumers with
similar preferences tend to form a group in a way of “social commitment” [75]. Under the context
of a sharing economy business that regards social values with higher importance, consistency in
social values is expected to have a stronger effect on the attitude of consumers on sharing economy
businesses and relevant behavioral intentions. These factors are among the achievement variables of
sharing economy businesses. They may be regarded as the ability of “social relationship” to acquire the
resources required to maintain the current industry, and guarantee the continuity and sustainability
of programs and services [76]. In addition, it can achieve organizational competitive advantage
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2203 8 of 22

by strategically combining relationship-specific assets, knowledge sharing, and complementary

resources formed by social relations and social cohesion [10]. In particular, if the unique assets of
the relational
Sustainabilitynetwork, such
2018, 10, x FOR PEERasREVIEW
the longer duration of the inter-organizational relationship 8 ofand
22 the

increased inter-organizational transaction volume, accumulate, the competitive advantage between

relational network, such as the longer duration of the inter-organizational relationship and the
the organizations increases [77].
increased inter-organizational transaction volume, accumulate, the competitive advantage between
Moreover, social commitment is seen as a key variable for achieving any mutually valuable
the organizations increases [77].
outcome Moreover,
between partners in an exchange
social commitment is seen social relationship,
as a key variable forand the continuous
achieving any mutuallymaintenance
valuable of
relationships, such aspartners
outcome between long-termin anorientation, wasrelationship,
exchange social found to be achieved
and through
the continuous the provision
maintenance of of
greater relationship
relationships, suchbenefits. As theorientation,
as long-term strength of thefound
was relationship increases,
to be achieved consumers
through will beofmore
the provision
likelygreater
to seekrelationship benefits. As the
greater “relationship strength ofadvantage”
competitive the relationship
[78].increases, consumers
This implies that thewill be more
social network
likely to seek greater “relationship competitive advantage” [78]. This implies
and relationship competitive advantage not only serve to maintain social relationship, but can also that the social network
and relationship
strengthen “continuance competitive advantage
commitment” in not only serve simultaneously.
relationships to maintain social relationship, but can also
strengthen “continuance commitment” in relationships simultaneously.
In this way, it is important to identify the relationship characteristics and social capital roles
In this way, it is important to identify the relationship characteristics and social capital roles
emphasized in terms of social network formation when we examine the continuance commitment
emphasized in terms of social network formation when we examine the continuance commitment
through the sustainable
through the sustainablerelationship competitive
relationship advantage
competitive of companies.
advantage of [Link], the following
Thus, research
the following
model and hypotheses
research model and were configured
hypotheses as seen inasFigure
were configured seen in1 Figure
and below.
1 and below.

Figure 1. Research model.

Figure 1. Research model.
Hypothesis 1 (H1). As the relationship characteristics of sharing economy businesses and consumers increase,
the social network will increase.
Hypothesis 1 (H1). As the relationship characteristics of sharing economy businesses and consumers increase,
Hypothesis
the social network2will
(H2). As the social capital of sharing economy businesses and consumers increases, the social
increase.
network will increase.
Hypothesis 2 (H2). As the social capital of sharing economy businesses and consumers increases, the social
Hypothesis 3 (H3). As the social network of sharing economy businesses and consumers increases,
network will increase.
relationship competitive advantage will increase.

Hypothesis 3 (H3).
Hypothesis As the
4 (H4). social
As the network competitive
relationship of sharing economy
advantagebusinesses and consumers
of sharing economy increases,
businesses relationship
and consumers
competitive advantage will increase.
increases, continuance commitment will increase.

Hypothesis 4 (H4). As
3.2. Measurement the relationship competitive advantage of sharing economy businesses and consumers
Tools
increases, continuance commitment
We use the respective will increase.
variables in the research model because the examination of the prior
research on sharing economy businesses as discussed in Section 2 of the paper showed that they could
be considered as relevant variables affecting the key features and dynamics of the sharing economy
3.2. Measurement Tools
businesses. Further, based on the rationale provided by the results of the prior research, we measure
the variables
We with the questions
use the respective variablesitems suggested
in the researchsince
modelthey are indicated
because as the appropriate
the examination and valid
of the prior research
measures to examine the effects of relevant independent variables on the dependent
on sharing economy businesses as discussed in Section 2 of the paper showed that they could variables in the be
causal relationships (see Table A1 in Appendix A).
considered as relevant variables affecting the key features and dynamics of the sharing economy
The measurement tool for conducting this study involved questions related to relationship
businesses. Further, based on the rationale provided by the results of the prior research, we measure
characteristics of sharing economy businesses, social capital, social network characteristics,
the variables with the questions items suggested since they are indicated as the appropriate and valid
relationship competitive advantage, continuance commitment, and demographic characteristics as
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2203 9 of 22

measures to examine the effects of relevant independent variables on the dependent variables in the
causal relationships (see Table A1 in Appendix A).
The measurement tool for conducting this study involved questions related to relationship
characteristics of sharing economy businesses, social capital, social network characteristics, relationship
competitive advantage, continuance commitment, and demographic characteristics as shown in the
Appendix A (see Tables A1–A5). The 5-point Likert scale was used as the measurement method.
Relationship characteristics were measured using 12 items involving mutual influence, sense of
belonging, fulfillment of needs, and emotional connection as the practical awareness of trying
to maintain and develop the relationships between sharing economy businesses and consumers.
These were based on the studies conducted by Adler and Kwon [8], Botsman and Rogers [1], Brazelton
and Gorry [20], Brief and Weiss [18], Reich et al. [79], Lee [23], Moody and White [68], Uphoff and
Wijayaratna [6], and Wittel [22]. Social capital was measured using 12 items involving information
sharing, self-fulfillment, social participation, and pleasure as the total level of actual resources that
appear in the overlapping relationships of systematic networks for mutual benefit between transactors
in the network of sharing economy businesses. This was done so based on the studies conducted
by Chiu et al. [39], De Carolis and Saparito [27], DeClercq et al. [34], Ellison et al. [37], Field [30],
Ju [28], Kankanhalli et al. [38], Rifkin [2], Tussyadiah [4], Walljasper [15], and Yim et al. [71]. Social
network was measured using six items involving social relationships and social commitment as an
assembly that is connected through various social relationships based on the studies conducted by
Aron et al. [46], Abreu et al. [5], Adler and Kwon [8], Arthur et al. [47], Botsman and Rogers [1], Boyd
and Ellison [42], Morrison [43], Moshe and Lemer [76], Ok and Han [69], Park [16], Jun et al. [80], Porter
and Kramer [45], Schindler and Bickar [81], and Zarrella and Zarrella [75]. Competitive advantage
(relationship competitive advantage) was measured by three items involving the degree of superiority,
wherein the competitive advantage factors of a sharing economy business can continuously create
more relationship-based achievements than competitors. This was based on the studies conducted by
Carter et al. [52], Hennig-Thurau et al. [78], Jaakkola et al. [49], and Palmatier et al. [77]. Achievements
(continuance commitment) was measured by three items involving achievements regarding a sharing
economy business formation of continuous consumer relationships based on the studies conducted by
Bendapudi and Leone [82], Dibb and Meadows [67], Gilliand and Bello [58], Hennig-Thurau et al. [78],
Shin and Leem [61], and Yi and Ji [62].

3.3. Data Collection and Analysis

Data was collected in this study using the questionnaire method. The following methods were
used to verify the suitability of the measurement tool.
First, the social network and relationship competitive advantage of a sharing economy business
were diagnosed. A sustainable competitive advantage framework was built for sharing economy
businesses based on the literature study and interview results for assessing relationship characteristics
and social capital from this perspective. The framework was applied to the sharing economy business
cases centered on the evaluated research variables in order to give shape to research variables. A scale
regarding the sustainable competitive advantage of sharing economy businesses was materialized
using the delphi technique (a structured communication technique or method; also known as a
systematic, interactive forecasting method which relies on a panel of experts for their ‘self-estimation’
and ‘keen insight’) for professionals within domestic sharing economy businesses regarding preceding
investigation results. An additional critical analysis technique (CIT) analysis was conducted through
open-ended questions regarding the relationship characteristics that were experienced by consumers
in sharing economy business categories. This was done using individuals with social value activity
experience in sharing economy businesses as the analysis unit. The details regarding research variables
were extracted accordingly.
Furthermore, an accurate evaluation was performed on the measurement tool in this study,
and preliminary and main surveys were conducted for each study using individuals with experience
 Sustainability 2018, 10, 2203 10 of 22

in purchasing shared products from sharing economy business as the subjects in order to collect
reliable and valid data. After selecting suitable items through a repetitive evaluation and discussion
on graduate students majoring in business administration for one month in March 2017, a preliminary
survey was conducted on 100 subjects with experience in sharing economy businesses during
1–10 April 2017. Questionnaire items were revised and supplemented by reflecting the results of
the preliminary survey, and the measurement tool was completed accordingly. The main survey
involved an accurate evaluation of the measurement tool regarding sharing economy businesses as
perceived by consumers. The convenience sampling method was used on consumers with experience
in using services from a sharing economy business at least one time from 1–30 May 2017 in order to
collect reliable and valid data. Data collection occurred through a specialized online survey agency
focusing on university students and working individuals. Questionnaires were conducted through
online and mobile sharing economy community forums and also distributed via e-mail after receiving
prior consent; they received as an e-mail reply. Of all 540 responses that were obtained, responses from
522 subjects without missing values were used in the data analysis. The SPSS 20.0 and AMOS 20.0
statistical packages were used as the data analysis method to conduct reliability, validity, suitability,
and path analyses.

4. Results

4.1. Demographic Characteristics of Research Subjects

Based on the demographic characteristics USV Symbol of the Macro(s)
survey subjects, the gender distribution was Description
USV balanced
relatively Symbol with Macro(s)
56.3% (294 subjects)
2097 women
ₗ and 43.7% (228 subjects)
\textsubscript{l} Description USV [Link] In terms Macro(s)
of age, LATIN SUBSCRIPT SMALL LE
42.1% 2097(220 subjects)ₗ were
\textsubscript{l} USV(191
in their 20s, 36.6% Symbol
subjects) Macro(s)
were in theirLATIN
\textlinferior 30s, 15.7%
2097
SUBSCRIPT
(82 subjects)
SMALL LETTERₗ L were Description
\textsubscript{l}
USV inSymbol
their 40s,Macro(s)
and 5.6% \textlinferior
(29 subjects) were 2098in theirₘ 50s. \textsubscript{m}
In Description
termsUSV of Symbol
education Macro(s)
level, individuals who LATIN SUBSCRIPT SMALL LE
\textlinferior
2097 ₗ \textsubscript{l}
\textminferior LATIN SUBSCRIPT SMAL
2098 ₘor were\textsubscript{m} 2098 ₘ M subjects),
\textsubscript{m}
2097 had graduated enrolled in university had the highest proportion at 81.6% (426
\textlinferior LATIN SUBSCRIPT SMALL LETTER
ₗ \textsubscript{l}
\textminferior 2099 ₙ 2097
\textsubscript{n}
LATIN SUBSCRIPT ₗ
SMALL LETTER \textsubscript{l}
L LATIN SUBSCRIPT SMALL LE
\textminferior
8.0% had 2099
graduated
ₙ or
\textlinferior were enrolled in 2098
\textsubscript{n}
graduateₘschool \textsubscript{m}
or higher (42
\textninferior
LATIN
subjects), 5.2%
\textlinferior
2099
SUBSCRIPT SMALL ₙ
LETTER
(27
N
subjects) LATIN SUBSCRIPT SMAL
\textsubscript{n}
\textminferior
2098 wereₘindividuals \textsubscript{m}
had graduated209A
who\textninferior were ₚenrolled
or2099 a2098
\textsubscript{p}
inLATIN junior ₘ LETTER\textsubscript{m}
college,
SUBSCRIPT SMALL
and
M
4.6% (24 subjects) LATIN SUBSCRIPT SMALL LE
\textninferior
\textminferior ₙ \textpinferior
\textsubscript{n} \textminferior LATIN SUBSCRIPT SMAL
were 209A
high school ₚ \textsubscript{p}
graduates or lower. In terms of occupation, 32.2%
\textninferior (168
LATIN 209A
subjects)
SUBSCRIPT SMALL wereₚ
LETTER P in \textsubscript{p}
general
2099 ₙ \textsubscript{n}
\textpinferior 209B ₛ 2099
\textsubscript{s}
LATIN ₙ LETTER\textsubscript{n}
SUBSCRIPT SMALL N LATIN SUBSCRIPT SMALL LE
\textpinferior
office jobs, \textninferior
15.3% (80 subjects) were students, 209A ₚ \textsinferior
12.8% \textsubscript{p}
(67 subjects) were \textninferior in professional fields, LATIN SUBSCRIPT SMAL
209B ₛ \textsubscript{s} \textpinferior LATIN 209B
SUBSCRIPT SMALL ₛ
LETTER S \textsubscript{s}
209A 11.5%ₚ (60 subjects)
\textsubscript{p}
were\textsinferior
homemakers, 7.9% ₜ
209C (41 subjects) in209A
\textsubscript{t}
wereLATIN business ₚ administration/management
SUBSCRIPT SMALL LETTER\textsubscript{p}
P
\textsinferiorSUBSCRIPT SMALL LE
LATIN
\textpinferior 209B ₛ \texttinferior
\textsubscript{s} \textpinferior LATIN SUBSCRIPT SMAL
positions,209C 5.4% ₜ(28 subjects)
\textsubscript{t}
had other occupations, 5.0% (26 subjects)
\textsinferior LATINwere 209C
government
SUBSCRIPT SMALL LETTERₜ T workers,
\textsubscript{t}
209B ₛ \textsubscript{s}
\texttinferior 20A1 ₡ 209B
\textcolonmonetary
LATIN ₛ
SUBSCRIPT SMALL LETTER\textsubscript{s}
S
\texttinferiorSIGN
COLON
4.8% (25 subjects) were technical workers,
\textsinferior 209C2.9% (15 ₜ subjects)
\textsubscript{t}
were in sales \textsinferior
service jobs, and 2.3% LIRALATIN SUBSCRIPT SMAL
20A1 ₡ \textcolonmonetary 20A4 ₤ \textlira
\texttinferiorCOLON SIGN 20A1 ₡ \textcolonmonetary
SIGN
ₜ
209C (12 subjects) \textsubscript{t}
were 209C ₜ \textsubscript{t}
₤ unemployed. In terms of marital status, 51.7% LIRA (270 subjects) were married,
LATIN SUBSCRIPT SMALL LETTER T
20A4 \texttinferior \textlira 20A6
20A1 ₦ ₡ \textnaira\textcolonmonetary SIGN 20A4 ₤ \textlira NAIRA SIGN
COLON SIGN
\texttinferior
48.3% (252 subjects)
₦ were single. For monthly
20A7 average
₧ ₤ household
\textpeseta income in Korean won [in
₦ U.S. dollar],
20A1 ₡ 20A6 \textcolonmonetary\textnaira 20A4 \textlira
20A1
COLON SIGN
NAIRA SIGN 20A6
₡ \textcolonmonetary \textnaira LIRASIGN
PESETA
SIGN

20A4
37.3% (197 subjects)
₤ 20A7 \textlira₧ had an income
\textpeseta of less
20A9 than
20A6 ₩ 3–5
₦ million
\textwon [$2688.17–4480.29],
\textnaira
LIRA20A4
SIGN ₤ 26.2%
\textlira ₧
PESETA SIGN 20A7 (137 subjects)
\textpeseta
WON SIGN
NAIRA SIGN

20A6 had ₦ less20A9than ₩5–7 million

\textnaira
20AB
\textwon[$4480.29–6272.40],
20A7 ₫₧ 13.0%\textdong
(68NAIRA
subjects)
\textpeseta
20A6SIGN ₦had
WON 20A9than ₩1–3 million
SIGN less
\textnaira \textwon DONGPESETA
SIGN
SIGN

₧20AB \textpeseta
20A7 [$896.06–2688.17], ₫ 11.3% \textdong 20AC
(59 subjects) had 20A9 € \texteuro
less than ₩7–9 million \textwon
20A7
PESETA [$6272.40–8064.52],
SIGN ₧ \textpeseta₫ (54 subjects)
DONG SIGN 20AB 10.3% \textdong EURO SIGN
WON SIGN

20A9 had ₩20AC 9 million €

[$8064.52]
\textwon or more, and20B0
\texteuro 1.3% ₰ ₫ \textDeleatur
20AB (7 subjects) \textdong
had WONless
20A9 EURO SIGN 20AC
SIGN than ₩ 1 million \textwon €
[$896.06]. \texteuro GERMAN PENNY SIGN
DONG SIGN

20AB ₫ 20B0 \textdong ₰ \textDeleatur 20B1

20AC ₱ € \textpeso
\texteuro
DONG20AB
SIGN ₫
GERMAN PENNY 20B0 SIGN
\textdong ₰ \textDeleatur
PESO SIGN
EURO SIGN

€ 20B1 \texteuro
20AC 4.2. Reliability ₱ Validity
and \textpeso
Test 20B2
20B0 ₲ ₰ \textguarani
\textDeleatur
EURO20AC
SIGN € \texteuro ₱
PESO SIGN 20B1 \textpeso GUARANI SIGN
GERMAN PENNY SIGN

20B0 ₲
₰ 20B2 \textDeleatur \textguarani 2103
20B1 ℃ ₱ \textcelsius
\textpeso
20B0PENNY SIGN
GERMAN ₰
GUARANI SIGN 20B2
\textDeleatur ₲ \textguaraniPESO SIGN
DEGREE CELSIUS

20B1
Before
₱ evaluating
℃
2103 \textpeso the measurement210F
\textcelsius model,
20B2 the ℏ ₲Cronbach’s
\hbar αSIGNcoefficient,
\textguarani
PESO20B1 DEGREE which
₱ 2103 verifies
CELSIUS
\textpeso ℃ the internal
\textcelsius
PLANCK CONSTANT OVER TW
GUARANI SIGN
\texthslash
20B2 consistency ℏ
regarding
₲ 210F \textguarani each
\hbarstudy concept, 2103 was calculated
℃ to\textcelsius
verify
20B2reliability.
GUARANI SIGN
PLANCK First,
₲ 210F
CONSTANT the TWOℏ
OVERvarimax
\textguarani PI rotation
\hbar DEGREE CELSIUS
\texthslash 2111 ℑ \textIm BLACK-LETTER CAPITAL I
\texthslash
2103 was ℃ used on\textcelsius
the 12 items that explain factors210Frelatedℏ to relationship
\hbar characteristics
2103CELSIUS
DEGREE ℃ for a factor analysis.
\textcelsius PLANCK CONSTANT OV
2111 ℑ \textIm 2113 ℓ \textell
\texthslash BLACK-LETTER 2111
CAPITAL I ℑ \textIm SCRIPT SMALL L
210F In theℏ results, four factors of “mutual influence
\hbar (three questions)”, 210F
PLANCK “sense ℏ
CONSTANT of
OVERbelonging
TWO PI\hbar (three questions)”,
ℓ
2113 \texthslash \textell 2111 № ℑ
2116 \textnumero
\textIm SCRIPT SMALL 2113
L
\texthslash ℓ \textell NUMERO SIGN
BLACK-LETTER CAPITA
“fulfillment of needs
№ (three questions)”, and “emotional
℗ connection (three questions)”, with an eigenvalue
\textIm №
2117 ℓ \textcircledP
2111 ℑ 2116 \textIm \textnumero 2113 \textell
2111
BLACK-LETTER
NUMERO SIGN2116
ℑ I
CAPITAL
\textnumero SCRIPT SMALL LCOPYRI
SOUND RECORDING

of 1.0 or higher, were

℗ extracted, as shown in
2118 the Appendix
℘ № A
\textwp (see Table A2). The total variant
℗ that was SCRIPT
2113 ℓ 2117 \textell \textcircledP 2116 \textnumero
2113
SCRIPT SMALL L ℓ 2117COPYRIGHT
SOUND RECORDING
\textell \textcircledP CAPITAL P
NUMERO SIGN

2116
explained by these
№2118 \textnumero ℘ four factors
\textwp was 72.348%,
211C
2117 and ℜ the
℗ Cronbach’s
\textRe
\textcircledP α
2116SIGN
NUMERO
was № 0.721 or
SCRIPT CAPITAL2118P higher
\textnumero
for
℘ all factors,
\textwp BLACK-LETTER CAPITAL R
SOUND RECORDING COP

2117 demonstrating ℜ the \textRe

that
℗211C \textcircledP 211E
questions had high2118 ℞
reliability.℘ \textrecipe
\textwp2117
SOUND RECORDING ℗
BLACK-LETTER 211C
CAPITAL R
COPYRIGHT \textcircledP
ℜ \textRe PRESCRIPTION TAKE
SCRIPT CAPITAL P

2118 The
℘ 211Evarimax ℞ rotation
\textwp was used on2120
\textrecipe the
211C ℠ ℜ that
12 items \textservicemark
explain
\textRe2118
SCRIPT factors
CAPITAL P ℘ related
PRESCRIPTION 211E to social℞ capital
TAKE
\textwp \textrecipe
for a SERVICE MARK
BLACK-LETTER CAPITA

ℜ 2120 ℠ \textservicemark 2122 ™ ℞ \texttrademark

ℜquestions)”, 2120 ℠ \textservicemark
TRADE MARK SIGN
211C factor analysis. In the results,
\textRe four factors211E
of “information \textrecipe
sharing
211C (three
BLACK-LETTER
SERVICE MARK
CAPITAL R \textRe “self-fulfillment PRESCRIPTION TAKE

211E ™
℞ 2122 \textrecipe \texttrademark 2126
2120 Ω ℠ \textohm
\textservicemark
211E TAKETRADE
PRESCRIPTION
2122
℞ MARK\textrecipe
SIGN ™ \texttrademark
OHM SIGN
SERVICE MARK

2120 Ω
℠2126 \textservicemark \textohm 2127
2122 ℧ ™ \textmho 2120MARK ℠
\texttrademark
SERVICE
OHM SIGN 2126
\textservicemark Ω \textohm INVERTED OHM SIGN
TRADE MARK SIGN

2122 ℧
™2127 \texttrademark \textmho 2129
2126 ℩ Ω \textriota
\textohm
2122
TRADE MARK SIGN ™
INVERTED OHM 2127
SIGN
\texttrademark ℧ \textmho TURNED GREEK
OHM SIGN
SMALL LETT

2126 Ω 2129 \textohm ℩ \textriota 212B

2127 Å ℧ \textangstrom
\textmho
OHM 2126
SIGN Ω
TURNED GREEK 2129SMALL LETTER℩IOTA
\textohm \textriota INVERTED OHM SIGN
ANGSTROM SIGN

2127 ℧ 212B \textmho Å \textangstrom 212E

2129 ℮ ℩ \textestimated 2127 OHM SIGN℧
\textriota
INVERTED
ANGSTROM SIGN 212B
\textmho Å \textangstrom
ESTIMATED SYMBOL
TURNED GREEK SMALL

2129 ℮
℩ 212E \textriota \textestimated 2132
212B Ⅎ Å \textFinv
\textangstrom
2129GREEK SMALL
TURNED ℩ LETTER IOTA212E
ESTIMATED SYMBOL
\textriota ℮ \textestimated
TURNED CAPITAL F
ANGSTROM SIGN

2132 Ⅎ \textFinv 2135 ℵ \textaleph TURNED CAPITAL2132 F Ⅎ \textFinv ALEF SYMBOL

Sustainability 2018, 10, 2203 11 of 22

(three questions)”, “social participation (three questions)”, and “pleasure (three questions)”, with an
eigenvalue of 1.0 or higher, were extracted as shown in the Appendix A (see Table A3). The total
variant that was explained by these four factors was 71.035%, and the Cronbach’s α was 0.715 or higher
for all factors, demonstrating that the questions had high reliability.
The varimax rotation was used on the six items that explain factors related to social network
for a factor analysis. In the results, two factors of “social relationship (three questions)”, and “social
commitment (three
Sustainability 2018, questions)”,
10, x FOR with an eigenvalue of 1.0 or higher, were extracted, as shown
PEER REVIEW 11 ofin
22
the Appendix A (see Table A4). The total variant that was explained by these two factors was
and the Cronbach’s
74.919%, α was 0.777
and the Cronbach’s or higher
α was forhigher
0.777 or all factors,
for alldemonstrating that the questions
factors, demonstrating had high
that the questions
reliability.
had high reliability.
The Appendix
The Appendix A A (see
(see Table
Table A5)
A5) shows
shows the
the results
results of
of verifying
verifying the
the single
single dimensionality
dimensionality of of each
each
researchvariable
research variableofofsharing
sharingeconomy
economy business
business achievements.
achievements. TheThe factor
factor loadload of each
of each single
single factorfactor
was
was 0.814
0.814 or higher.
or higher. The reliability
The reliability of each
of each single
single factor
factor waswas
alsoalso found
found tohigh
to be be high with
with 0.783
0.783 or higher.
or higher.

4.3. Confirmatory
4.3. Confirmatory Factor
Factor Analysis
Analysis
The results of
The of the
theconfirmatory
confirmatoryfactor
factoranalysis areare
analysis shown
shown in the Appendix
in the Appendix A (see Table
A (see A6). A6).
Table The
results
The of measuring
results of measuring thethe
non-standardized
non-standardized coefficient, standardized
coefficient, standardizedcoefficient,
coefficient,S.E.,
S.E.,error
error variance,
variance,
C.R., construct
C.R., construct reliability,
reliability,andand average
average variance
variance extraction
extraction value
value (AVE)
(AVE) showed
showed that
that the
the standardized
standardized
coefficientwas
coefficient was0.60.6ororhigher,
higher, thus
thus securing
securing construct
construct validity.
validity. TheThe average
average variance
variance extraction
extraction valuevalue
was
wasor0.5
0.5 or higher
higher for allfor all results,
results, thus securing
thus securing convergent
convergent validity.
validity. Construct
Construct reliability
reliability was 0.7was 0.7 or
or higher
higher
for for all thus
all results, results, thus securing
securing internal consistency
internal consistency and convergent
and convergent validity.
validity. In In this
this study, study, the
the suitability
suitability
and and of
parameter parameter
the path of the path
analysis wereanalysis
measuredwere measured
through through maximum-likelihood
maximum-likelihood classification.
classification.
The goodness The of fitgoodness
index ofofthefit path
indexanalysis
of the path analysisthe
regarding regarding the continuance
continuance commitment commitment
of sharing
of sharingbusinesses
economy was X2 = 355.93(df
economy businesses was X² = 355.93(df = 5, p =GFI
= 5, p = 0.000), 0.000), GFI =AGFI
= 0.934, 0.934,=AGFI
0.927,= 0.927,
RMR =RMR =
0.004,
0.004, NFI = 0.934, CFI = 0.923, RMSEA
NFI = 0.934, CFI = 0.923, RMSEA = 0.042. = 0.042.

4.4.
4.4. Research
Research Hypothesis
Hypothesis Testing
Testing
Figure
Figure 22 and
and Table
Table 11 show
show the
the results
results of
of verifying
verifying the
the structural
structural model
model research
research hypotheses
hypotheses
regarding
regarding the
the relationship
relationship characteristics
characteristics of
of sharing
sharing economy
economy businesses
businesses and
and the
the relationship
relationship of
of
continuance
continuance commitment
commitment with social
social capital. The verification results of each research hypothesis
hypothesis are
are
as
as follows.
follows.

Figure 2. Study results model. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Figure 2. Study results model. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.

The results of the study are as follows (see Table 1). First, the results of the path analysis between
the social network (social relationship, social commitment) and relationship characteristics of sharing
economy businesses showed that mutual influence had a significant effect on both social relationship
(β = 0.251, CR = 5.796, p = 0.000) and social commitment (β = 0.131, CR = 3.450, p = 0.001). Sense of
belonging had a significant effect on social commitment (β = 0.224, CR = 5.882, p = 0.000), but did not
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2203 12 of 22

The results of the study are as follows (see Table 1). First, the results of the path analysis between
the social network (social relationship, social commitment) and relationship characteristics of sharing
economy businesses showed that mutual influence had a significant effect on both social relationship
(β = 0.251, CR = 5.796, p = 0.000) and social commitment (β = 0.131, CR = 3.450, p = 0.001). Sense of
belonging had a significant effect on social commitment (β = 0.224, CR = 5.882, p = 0.000), but did not
have a significant effect on social relationship (β = 0.062, CR = 1.437, p = 0.151). Fulfillment of needs
did not have a significant effect on social relationship (β = 0.011, CR = 0.247, p = 0.805) and social
commitment (β = 0.039, CR = 0.999, p = 0.318), and emotional connection had a significant effect on
social relationship (β = 0.139, CR = 2.760, p = 0.006) and social commitment (β = 0.359, CR = 8.128,
p = 0.000). Second, the results of the path analysis between the social network (social relationship,
social commitment) and social capital of sharing economy businesses showed that information sharing
had a significant effect on social commitment (β = 0.090, CR = 2.498, p = 0.013), but did not have
a significant effect on social relationship (β = 0.059, CR = 1.433, p = 0.153). Self-fulfillment had a
significant effect on both social relationship (β = 0.182, CR = 3.924, p = 0.000) and social commitment
(β = 0.163, CR = 3.982, p = 0.000), and social participation also had a significant effect on both social
relationship (β = 0.151, CR = 3.866, p = 0.000) and social commitment (β = 0.132, CR = 3.851, p = 0.000).
Pleasure also had a significant effect on social relationship (β = 0.174, CR = 4.123, p = 0.000) and
social commitment (β = 0.079, CR = 2.133, p = 0.033). Third, the results of the path analysis between
the social relationship, social commitment, relationship competitive advantage, and continuance
commitment of sharing economy businesses showed that social relationship had a significant effect
on relationship competitive advantage (β = 0.205, CR = 0.15.239, p = 0.000), social commitment on
relationship competitive advantage (β = 0.507, CR = 23.678, p = 0.000), and relationship competitive
advantage on continuance commitment (β = 0.665, CR = 19.758, p = 0.000).

Table 1. Results of verifying research hypotheses.

Type Pathway Estimate S.E. C.R. p-Value Result

H1-1-1 Mutual Influence → Social Relationships 0.251 0.043 5.796 0.000 Accept
H1-1-2 Sense of Belonging → Social Relationships 0.062 0.043 1.437 0.151 Reject
H1-1-3 Fulfillment of Needs → Social Relationships 0.011 0.045 0.247 0.805 Reject
H1-1-4 Emotional Connection → Social Relationships 0.139 0.050 2.760 0.006 Accept
H1-2-1 Mutual Influence → Social Commitment 0.131 0.038 3.450 0.001 Accept
H1-2-2 Sense of Belonging → Social Commitment 0.224 0.038 5.882 0.000 Accept
H1-2-3 Fulfillment of Needs → Social Commitment 0.039 0.039 0.999 0.318 Reject
H1-2-4 Emotional Connection → Social Commitment 0.359 0.044 8.128 0.000 Accept
H2-1-1 Information Sharing → Social Relationships 0.059 0.041 1.433 0.153 Reject
H2-1-2 Self-fulfillment → Social Relationships 0.182 0.046 3.924 0.000 Accept
H2-1-3 Social Participation → Social Relationships 0.151 0.039 3.866 0.000 Accept
H2-1-4 Pleasure → Social Relationships 0.174 0.042 4.123 0.000 Accept
H2-2-1 Information Sharing → Social Commitment 0.090 0.036 2.498 0.013 Accept
H2-2-2 Self-fulfillment → Social Commitment 0.163 0.041 3.982 0.000 Accept
H2-2-3 Social Participation → Social Commitment 0.132 0.034 3.851 0.000 Accept
H2-2-4 Pleasure → Social Commitment 0.079 0.037 2.133 0.033 Accept
H3-1 Social Relationships → Relationship Competitive Advantage 0.205 0.033 15.239 0.000 Accept
H3-2 Social Commitment → Relationship Competitive Advantage 0.507 0.047 23.678 0.000 Accept
H4 Relationship Competitive Advantage → Continuance Commitment 0.665 0.033 19.758 0.000 Accept
S.E. = Standard Error; C.R. = Critical Ratio.

Based on the study results between these research variables, first, the significant results between
the mutual influence & emotional connection of relationship characteristics and social relationship
can be regarded as similar to the perspective that the relationship dimension promotes interaction,
which shows the quality of the social relationships between transactors in a group. The cognitive
dimension leads to actions that bring about mutual influence by sharing the standards, values, attitudes,
and beliefs of a group in social relationship [H1-1-1] [6], in addition to the results of a study that found
that a community generally shares a common purpose, understanding, interdependence between
social members, communication, and sense of emotional connection as core factors [H1-1-4] [79].
Regarding significant results between mutual influence, sense of belonging, emotional connection,
and social commitment, these results can be viewed under the same context of (1) the study reporting
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2203 13 of 22

that a successful community will share a common purpose, activity, oral traditions that are passed
down, and a set of values, and members will regard the meaning of the group with importance
and attempt to align their values with the group’s values [H1-2-1] [70]; (2) a study claiming that a
sense of belonging as in membership provides members with emotional safety and becomes a basis
for expressing one’s desires and emotions and forming a social commitment in a sense of closeness
with one another [H1-2-2] [83]; and (3) a study reporting that members want to develop important
resources and a sense of belonging through the community and share their emotional connection and
awareness [H1-2-4] [84].
Second, the significant results between self-fulfillment, social participation, pleasure, and social
relationship of social capital may be regarded as the same results that were derived in (1) the study
that states how people invest in the social network and come to form expectations regarding trust,
standards for reciprocity, and self-fulfillment, and this is required in order to successfully take
part in group activities in social relationships [H2-1-2] [26]; (2) the study reporting that increased
communication & social participation and formation of new social relationships may occur through
a connection with bonding social capital [H2-1-3] [37]; and (3) the study claiming that sense of
connectedness, responsibility, closeness, pleasure, sustainability, and commitment, which are properties
of the social capital network, can be conceptualized as important factors of reciprocity in social
relationship [H2-1-4] [85].
The significant results between information sharing, self-fulfillment, social participation, pleasure,
and social commitment are similar to the results of (1) the study reporting that the characteristics of a
connected network of social capital have the advantage of sharing new information and knowledge,
and expanding opportunities to acquire resources in social commitment [H2-2-1] [73]; (2) the study
claiming that consumers feel a sense of self-definition or self-fulfillment when they consume a product
or service, thus increasing communication and social commitment regarding a product of service that
reflects this effectively [H2-2-2] [74]; (3) the study on how the motivation of self-fulfillment using social
media ultimately serves as a means for social interaction, leading to enhanced social commitment
[H2-2-2] [86]; (4) the study that found that self-fulfillment through social participation offers the
power to strengthen social commitment between people who share similar thoughts [H2-2-2] [87];
(5) the study regarding how people express themselves in social participation and build their identity
and sense of self through revealing information to actively promote and maintain relationships with
others in terms of social commitment [H2-2-3] [88]; and (6) the study claiming that sharing and
communicating matters of interest by forming a network can also be used for simple entertainment
purposes, and information which provides much pleasure increases social commitment and serves as
an influential factor regarding social presence and relational embeddedness [H2-2-4] [81].
Third, the significant results between social relationship, social commitment, and relationship
competitive advantage support (1) the study reporting that, because effective governance between
organizations enables cooperation in social relationship to occur more freely for value creation,
relationship specific assets, knowledge sharing, or supplementary resources can be strategically
combined, so that an organization achieves a relationship competitive advantage [H3-1] [10]; and (2) the
perspective that when relationship specific assets accumulate—such as a longer relationship between
organizations or increased transactions between organizations based on social commitment—the
relationship competitive advantage between the organizations will also increase [H3-2] [77].
Fourth, the significant results between relationship competitive advantage and continuance
commitment support the perspective that if a consumer is committed into the relationship, and has
positive views on the benefits of the relationship, referring to relationship competitive advantage,
the relationship with the company will likely become long-term, referring to continuance commitment
[H4] [82]. Furthermore, as the strength of the relationship increases, the customer will be more likely to
seek greater benefits from the relationship [78]. We also find that the important point in a transaction
relationship refers to creating a long-term relationship with customers and continuously maintaining
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2203 14 of 22

and developing this type of exchange relationship [89]. Thus, [H4] was supported that relationship
competitive advantage is significantly associated with continuance commitment.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

Upon examining the continuous competitive advantage of sharing economy businesses through
relationship-based perspectives in this study, the role of social capital that emphasizes the value
network perspective can be easily reflected. The structure features of sharing economy businesses
can promote actions that pursue group benefits by creating standards or rules in the group. From the
relationship perspective, the quality of the relationship (interaction) between transactors in a group
is promoted, while the group’s standards, values, beliefs, and attitudes are shared from a cognitive
perspective that can lead to actions that bring about mutual benefits. Furthermore, as noted in the
interview with a sharing economy experts or professionals for developing measurement tools in this
study, if the vision of strengthened competitiveness and coexistence of sharing economy businesses
is shared and a more collaborative supply network stage is pursued through this, it could assist a
company in a gaining sustainable relationship competitive advantage. Moreover, social capital, social
commitment, and core value-sharing activities can help understand the importance of achievements
in sharing economy businesses in academic and practical terms. They can be used as theoretical
data for composing core values as sharing activities. This research is a departure from the earlier
research that referred only to the value and potential of a sharing economy business. This research
helps to integrate the elements of sharing economy business and shared value services and to create
better social values for consumers. Furthermore, it will be able to establish theoretical conditions
for maximizing competitiveness and sustainable relationship competitive advantage model and to
maximize academic achievement.
The marketing implications of this study are as follows. First, in order to increase interest in
information on sharing economy service users, the value of individual activity, and social relationships
related to the reality of shared information, from the perspective of relationship characteristics, there
must be more active sharing of information between sharing economy service users. Furthermore,
there must be active responses to the demands of users and mutual influence, which must regard
user’s social relationship with great importance. The social relationship of users of sharing economy
services must be regarded with importance, a close relationship must be formed through comments on
user information, and emotional connection that can create a sense of belonging with users must be
increased. From the perspective of social capital, actions related to sharing economy services must
match the interests of users. Moreover, users must increasingly express their opinions about certain
matters, there must be self-fulfillment where an individual’s interests can be presented first in the
service, the issues presented in the sharing economy business must be considered and discussed with
neighbors, stress must be relived through social participation and experience sharing economy services
through opportunities that can deeply examine the information provided on other people, it must be
entertaining and beneficial, and increase pleasure, which can give users a sense of satisfaction.
Second, in order to increase social commitment—wherein sense of fellowship, sense of belonging,
and social relationship of sharing economy users are regarded as important—there must be increased
active information sharing between sharing economy service users, mutual influence regarding the
importance of social relationship and actively responding to demands, sense of belonging that forms
a sense of safety and social participation as a part of sharing economy activities by using sharing
economy services, importance of sharing relationships between users, formation of close relationships,
and emotional connection that can create a sense of fellowship. From the perspective of social capital,
there must be increased sharing of professional knowledge related to sharing economy services; sharing
of recent trends; sharing of information on individual usage activities; alignment of interests; expression
of opinions regarding particular matters; self-fulfillment, such as proposing one’s interest; considering
and discussing provided issues; social participation, such as taking an interest in information on
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2203 15 of 22

other people; and pleasure, such as entertainment, benefits, decreased stress, and satisfaction from
experiencing sharing economy services.
Third, in order to achieve deeper relationships regarding the sharing economy through
information activities from sharing economy service users, increase the expectation of continuous
relationships and sharing economy services, and increase relationship competitive advantage related
to active activities as a member compared to similar services, there must be increased interest in
information on sharing economy service users, values regarding user activities, social relationship
that increases the reality of shared information, sense of fellowship with sharing economy service
users, sense of belonging as a member, and social commitment that regards user social relationship
with importance.
Fourth, in order to increase the importance of maintaining continuous relationships with sharing
economy services, expectation of long-term relationships, and continuance commitment related to
benefits from being part of this long-term relationship, there must be a deeper relationship regarding
the sharing economy through information sharing with sharing economy service users compared
to other similar services, an increased desire to have a continuous relationship with the service,
and increase the relationship competitive advantage so that users can actively take part as a member.
Based on the above, an important part of the strategic utilization aspect of a sharing economy
is focused on communication for social relationship and social commitment. To do this, firms must
expand services through various partnerships, unusual events, specific local promotions, and short-term
pop-up shops. Further, firms must secure the social connections through the strategies of various
partnerships, unusual events, specific local promotions, and short-term pop-up shops. In addition,
firms are also encouraged to secure the social connections through the strategies of aggressive customer
support hotlines, media exposure of member activities, sharing economy of joint purchasing methods,
communityization beyond transaction sites, redeployment of shared products, division of use time of
shared services, etc.
In sum, the findings of our research provide the business implications for the firms that
appropriate business strategies should be developed to gain relationship competitive advantage
in the sharing economy businesses by considering the relationship characteristics and social capital
issues along with other relevant factors. The core benefit of our study from sustainability perspective
is that firms can develop the core strategies for efficiently pursuing sharing economy businesses by
considering the critical factors discussed in our paper. Thus, the business strategy development effort
can help firms maintain their relationship competitive advantage in the sharing economy business and
enhance their business performance in the competitive market with sustainable development.
Hence, the results of this study will not only enable a social relationship between members in
a sharing economy business, but can be applied as a phenomenon that can effectively explain the
continuous maintenance, strengthening, and expansion of this relationship for theoretical expansion
and evaluation. From the perspective of shared values and information sharing in this study,
the variables that are applied in sharing economy businesses were categorized, a criterion was
developed on variables based on individuals with community activities related to sharing economy
services and investigated accordingly, and the study’s suitability and validity was hence increased.
However, there is still a need to gradually and systematically examine the measurement factors and
relationships that were not considered in this study. Further studies must reveal the many variables
that serve as preceding and mediating factors—such as the user’s psychological characteristics—from
the perspective of social relationships between the sharing economy service and the user. Furthermore,
new comparison studies must consider the types of shared services and characteristics of shared
products to further verify the distinction of the influence of more valid sharing economy businesses in
the research results.

Author Contributions: S.K. and Y.K.N. wrote the paper and designed the survey. S.K. suggested research ideas
and contributed to the majority of writing and revision of the paper. Y.K.N. contributed to the writing of the paper
and conducted the survey and data analysis.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2203 16 of 22

Acknowledgments: This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the
National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2016S1A5A2A03926167).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A. Results of the Key Statistical Analyses

Table A1. Operational definitions of measurement tools.

Variables Definition Sub-Variables Sub-Variables Definition References

Degree of user information exchange activity,
Mutual active response to the demands of user,
[8,20,24]
Influence and importance of relationship in sharing
economy services.
Practical awareness of trying
Degree of user participation, user’s feeling of
to maintain and develop the Sense of
Relationship relational comfort in service use, and sense of [1,79]
relationships between Belonging
Characteristics belonging in sharing economy services.
sharing economy businesses
and consumers. Degree of user satisfaction value, use of value
Fulfillment of
information acquired, personal use of contents [1,18,22]
Needs
in sharing economy services.
Degree of user’s feeling of importance for
Emotional
sharing relationship, forming close relationship, [6,24,68]
Connection
and fellowship in sharing economy services.
Degree of sharing professional knowledge,
Information
activities and tendencies, and personal photos [2,34,38]
Sharing
related to sharing economy services.
Degree of consistency between the matters of
The total level of actual interest and activities, expressing opinions
resources that appear in the Self-fulfillment [27,30,39]
regarding features, and proactively proposing
overlapping relationships of personal interests in sharing economy services.
Social Capital systematic networks for
mutual benefit between Degree of concerns regarding issues, debating
transactors in the network of Social with neighbors regarding issues, and interest
[4,37,70]
sharing economy businesses. Participation regarding information on others presented by
sharing economy services.
Degree of stress relief, entertainment and
Pleasure benefits, and satisfaction through experiencing [15,28,30]
sharing economy services.
Degree of interest in information, value of one’s
Social
activities, and reality of information that are [1,5,16,45,47]
An assembly that is Relationships
shared by the sharing economy service users.
Social Network connected through various
relationships. Degree of fellowship, formation of a sense of
Social
belonging, and importance on the relationship [42,46,47,75,81]
Commitment
among sharing economy service users.
Degree of relationship depth
through the information
Relationship activities of users, intent to
Competitive maintain a continuous [49,52,77,78]
Advantage relationship, and activity as
a member in the sharing
economy services.
Degree of importance on
maintaining a continuous
relationship, expectation
Continuance toward a long-term
[58,61,67,78,82]
Commitment relationship, and profits
from a long-term
relationships with sharing
economy services.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2203 17 of 22

Table A2. Reliability and validity analysis of relationship characteristics factors.

Variables Items Component Eigenvalues Variance Cronbach’s α

Degree of information exchange activity
0.810
between sharing economy service users
Mutual Degree of active responses to the
Influence demands of sharing economy service 0.783 2.561 22.342 0.799
users
Degree of importance on the relationship
0.777
with sharing economy service users
Degree of participation as a member of
0.867
sharing economy activities
Sense of Degree of safety when using sharing
Belonging 0.827 2.090 18.414 0.817
economy services
Degree of sense of belonging regarding
0.793
sharing economy services
Relationship
Characteristics Degree of satisfying values through
0.823
sharing economy services
Fulfillment Degree of use of value information
0.791 1.914 16.946 0.721
of Needs acquired from sharing economy services
Degree of personal use (SNS exposure)
0.773
of sharing economy service content
Degree of importance of the sharing
relationship between sharing economy 0.857
service users
Emotional Degree of forming close relationship
Connection such as informative comments from 0.837 1.637 14.646 0.860
sharing economy service users
Degree of fellowship among sharing
0.775
economy service users

Table A3. Reliability and validity analysis of social capital factors.

Variables Items Component Eigenvalues Variance Cronbach’s α

Degree of sharing professional knowledge
0.812
related to sharing economy services
Information Degree of sharing activities and tendencies
Sharing 0.735 2.406 21.053 0.715
related to sharing economy services
Degree of sharing personal activity photos
0.720
related to sharing economy services
Degree of consistency between matters of
interest and activities related to sharing 0.840
economy services
Self-fulfillment Degree of expressing opinions regarding
0.772 2.248 19.735 0.806
features of sharing economy services
Degree of proactively proposing personal
0.770
Social interests in sharing economy services
Capital Degree of concerns regarding issues presented
0.820
by sharing economy services
Social Degree of debating with neighbors regarding
Participation 0.818 1.750 16.580 0.777
issues presented by sharing economy services
Degree of interest regarding information on
0.798
others presented by sharing economy services
Degree of stress relief through experiencing
0.856
sharing economy services
Degree of entertainment and benefits through
Pleasure 0.839 1.280 13.667 0.827
experiencing sharing economy services
Degree of satisfaction through experiencing
0.744
sharing economy services
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2203 18 of 22

Table A4. Reliability and validity analysis of social network factors.

Variables Items Component Eigenvalues Variance Cronbach’s α

Degree of interest in information on sharing
0.825
economy service users
Social Degree of the value of one’s activities as a
Relationships 0.822 2.311 39.519 0.777
sharing economy service user
Degree of reality of information that is shared
Social 0.792
on sharing economy service users
Network
Degree of fellowship among sharing economy
0.918
service users
Social Degree of formation of a sense of belonging
0.901 1.824 35.400 0.843
Commitment with sharing economy service users
Degree of importance on the relationship with
0.794
sharing economy service users

Table A5. Reliability and validity analysis of single factors.

Variables Items Component Eigenvalues Variance Cronbach’s α

Degree of relationship depth regarding the
sharing economy through the information 0.848
Relationship activities of sharing economy service users
Competitive Degree of intent to maintain a continuous
Advantage 0.817 2.217 36.954 0.745
relationship with sharing economy services
Degree of activity as a member of sharing
0.780
economy services
Degree of importance on maintain a
continuous relationship with sharing 0.896
economy services
Continuance
Degree of expectation toward a long-term
Commitment 0.861 2.131 35.518 0.840
relationship with sharing economy services
Degree of benefits from a long-term
0.854
relationship with sharing economy services

Table A6. Confirmatory factory analysis results.

Measured Item Non-standardized Coefficient Standardized Coefficient S.E. C.R. Construct Reliability AVE
Relationship Characteristics
Mutual Influence
1 1.000 0.760 - -
2 0.995 0.798 0.037 20.508 0.801 0.670
3 0.986 0.794 0.031 17.070
Sense of Belonging
1 1.000 0.740 - -
2 0.961 0.867 0.041 20.082 0.849 0.622
3 0.682 0.881 0.028 13.815
Fulfillment of Needs
1 1.000 0.695 - -
2 0.770 0.706 0.049 26.313 0.749 0.622
3 0.672 0.945 0.025 13.695
Emotional Connection
1 1.000 0.764 - -
2 0.966 0.893 0.038 16.628 0.915 0.678
3 0.782 0.976 0.032 13.797
Social Capital
Information Sharing
1 1.000 0.805 - -
2 0.947 0.712 0.054 27.231 0.732 0.625
3 0.915 0.883 0.031 15.700
Self-fulfillment
1 1.000 0.807 - -
2 0.966 0.823 0.446 21.408 0.805 0.657
3 0.894 0.868 0.321 15.409
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2203 19 of 22

Table A6. Cont.

Measured Item Non-standardized Coefficient Standardized Coefficient S.E. C.R. Construct Reliability AVE
Social Participation
1 1.000 0.886 - -
2 0.938 0.968 0.059 23.151 0.779 0.637
3 0.811 0.917 0.040 15.645
Pleasure
1 1.000 0.944 - -
2 0.886 0.735 0.045 23.124 0.839 0.660
3 0.863 0.720 0.021 10.573
Social Network
Social Relationships
1 1.000 0.859 - -
2 0.861 0.696 0.036 21.186 0.763 0.634
3 0.673 0.688 0.026 15.365
Social Commitment
1 1.000 0.937 - -
2 0.981 0.906 0.038 15.447 0.873 0.674
3 0.813 0.847 0.018 7.221
Relationship Competitive Advantage
1 1.000 0.882 - -
2 0.954 0.801 0.044 19.646 0.769 0.678
3 0.910 0.908 0.031 13.746
Continuance Commitment
1 1.000 0.808 - -
2 0.950 0.856 0.028 13.635 0.871 0.716
3 0.934 0.824 0.021 10.421

References
1. Botsman, R.; Rogers, R. What’s Mine Is Yours: The Rise of Collaborative Consumption; Harper Business Press:
New York, NY, USA, 2011.
2. Rifkin, J. The Zero Marginal Cost Society; Palgrave, MacMillan: New York, NY, USA, 2014.
3. Möhlmann, M. Collaborative Consumption: Determinants of Satisfaction and the Likelihood of Using
a Sharing Economy Option Again. J. Consum. Behav. 2015, 14, 193–207. [CrossRef]
4. Tussyadiah, I. An Exploratory Study on Drivers and Deterrents of Collaborative Consumption in Travel.
In Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2015; Tussyadiah, I., Inversini, A., Eds.; Springer:
Basel, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 817–830.
5. Abreu, A.; Macedo, P.; Camarinha-Matos, L.M. Elements of a Methodology to Assess the Alignment of
Core-Values in Collaborative Networks. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2009, 47, 4907–4934. [CrossRef]
6. Uphoff, N.; Wijayaratna, C.M. Demonstrated Benefits from Social Capital: The Productivity of Farmer
Organizations in Gal Oya, Sri Lanka. World Dev. 2000, 28, 1875–1890. [CrossRef]
7. Kim, Y.H. Social Structure and Action in Social Theory; Nanam: Seoul, Korea, 2003.
8. Adler, P.S.; Kwon, S.W. Social Capital: Prospects for a New Concept. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2002, 27, 17–40.
[CrossRef]
9. Hartley, J. Case Study Research. In Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research; Cassell, C.,
Symon, G., Eds.; Sage: London, England, 2004; pp. 323–333.
10. Dyer, J.H.; Singh, H. The Relational View: Cooperative Strategy and Sources of Interorganizational
Competitive Advantage. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1998, 23, 660–679. [CrossRef]
11. Perry, M.K. Vertical Integration: Determinants and Effects. In Handbook of Industrial Organization; Schmalensee, R.,
Willing, R., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1989; Volume 1, pp. 183–255.
12. Lorna, G. New Financial Horizons: The Emergence of an Economy of Communication; New City Press: New York, NY,
USA, 2010.
13. Kim, K.Y.; Kim, H.K. A Study on Consumer Preference Typologing Towing Sharing Economy Service Models
Based on Collaborative Consumption: A Strategic Approach to Marketing Communications. J. Korean Soc.
Sci. Stud. Subj. 2013, 27, 23–40.
14. Kotler, P.R. Up and Out Poverty: The Social Marketing Solution; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2009.
15. Walljasper, J. All That We Share: A Field Guide to the Commons; The New Press: New York, NY, USA, 2010.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2203 20 of 22

16. Park, M.H. Consumers’ Experiences of Collaborative Consumption Based on Sharing Economy Service.
J. Consum. Stud. 2016, 27, 175–205.
17. Lesser, E.L. Knowledge and Social Capital: Foundation and Applications; Butterworth Heinemann: Boston, MA,
USA, 2000.
18. Brief, A.P.; Weiss, H.M. Organizational Behavior: Affect in the Workplace. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2002, 53,
279–307. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
19. Peng, M.W.; Luo, Y. Managerial Ties and Firm Performance in a Transition Economy: The Nature of a
Micro-Macro Link. Acad. Manag. J. 2000, 43, 486–501.
20. Brazelton, J.; Gorry, G.A. Creating a Knowledge-Sharing Community: If You Build It, Will They Come?
Commun. ACM 2003, 46, 23–25. [CrossRef]
21. Wenger, E.; McDermott, R.; Snyder, W.M. Cultivating Communities of Practice; Harvard Business School Press:
Boston, MA, USA, 2002.
22. Wittel, A. Qualities of Sharing and Their Transformation in the Digital Age. Int. Rev. Inf. Ethics 2011, 15, 3–8.
23. Bruni, L. Toward an Economic Rationality “Capable of Communication”. In Toward a Multi-Dimensional
Economic Culture: The Economy of Communication; Bruni, L., Ed.; New City Press: New York, NY, USA, 2002;
pp. 41–67.
24. Lee, Y.H. The Intrinsic Ethics of the Economy of Communion. J. Korea Acad. Ind. Coop. Soc. 2008, 19, 121–136.
25. Bourdieu, P. The Forms of Capital. In Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education;
Richardson, J.G., Ed.; Greenwood Press: New York, NY, USA, 1986.
26. Putnam, R.D. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community; Simon & Schuster: New York,
NY, USA; London, UK, 2000.
27. De Carolis, D.; Saparito, P. Social Capital, Cognition, and Entrepreneurial Opportunities: A Theoretical
Framework. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2006, 40, 41–56. [CrossRef]
28. Ju, D. Understanding About the Relationship between Sharing Economy and Social Capital: Focusing on the
Consumption Intentions of the Sharing Accommodation. Int. J. Tour. Man. Sci. 2016, 31, 23–40.
29. Coleman, J. Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. Am. J. Sociol. 1988, 94, 95–120. [CrossRef]
30. Field, J. Civic Engagement and Lifelong Learning: Survey Findings on Social Capital and Attitudes towards
Learning. Stud. Educ. Adult. 2003, 35, 142–156. [CrossRef]
31. Kim, S.J. A Critique of Bourdieu’s, Coleman’s, and Putnam’s Concept of Social Capital. Korean J. Sociol. 2004,
38, 63–95.
32. Levin, D.Z.; Cross, R. The Strength of Weak Ties You Can Trust: The Mediating Role of Trust in Effective
Knowledge Transfer. Manag. Sci. 2004, 50, 1477–1490. [CrossRef]
33. Yli-Renko, H.; Autio, E.; Tontti, V. Social Capital, Knowledge, and the International Growth of
Technology-based New Firms. Int. Bus. Rev. 2002, 11, 279–304. [CrossRef]
34. DeClercq, D.; Sapienza, H.J.; Yavuz, I.R.; Zhou, L. Learning and Knowledge in Early Internationalization
Research: Past Accomplishments and Future Directions. J. Bus. Ventur. 2012, 27, 143–165. [CrossRef]
35. Chung, G.W.; Shim, J.M.; Choi, K.E. Social Capital of the Rural Area and Development of Local Society; Research
Report R527; Korea Rural Economic Institute: Seoul, Korea, 2006.
36. Park, H.B. Issues and Research Trends of Social Capital Theory. J. Gov. Stud. 2002, 8, 5–40.
37. Ellison, N.; Steinfield, C.; Lampe, C. The Benefits of Facebook “Friends”: Social Capital and College Students’
Use of Online Social Network Sites. J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. 2007, 12, 1143–1168. [CrossRef]
38. Kankanhalli, A.; Tan, B.C.Y.; Wei, K.K. Contributing Knowledge to Electronic Knowledge Repositories:
An Empirical Investigation. MIS Q. 2005, 29, 113–143. [CrossRef]
39. Chiu, C.M.; Hsu, M.H.; Wang, E.T.G. Understanding Knowledge Sharing in Virtual Communities:
An Integration of Social Capital and Social Cognitive Theories. Decis. Support Syst. 2006, 42, 1872–1888.
[CrossRef]
40. Porter, M.E. Competitive Advantage of Nations; Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1990.
41. Kim, D.S.; Chung, C.K. Exploratory Study of Causal Relationship between Social Capital and Performance
on Strategic Networks: Systems Thinking Analysis. Korean Syst. Dyn. Rev. 2016, 17, 41–64.
42. Boyd, D.; Ellison, N.B. Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. J. Comput. Mediat. Commun.
2007, 13, 210–230. [CrossRef]
43. Morrison, E.W. Newcomers’ Relationships: The Role of Social Network Ties during Socialization.
Acad. Manag. J. 2002, 45, 1149–1160.
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2203 21 of 22

44. Rickne, A. Networking and Firm Performance; Frontiers for Entrepreneurship Research; Babson College:
Boston, MA, USA, 2001; pp. 315–343.
45. Porter, M.E.; Kramer, M.R. Creating Shared Value. Harvard Bus. Rev. 2011, 89, 2–17.
46. Aron, A.; Fisher, H.E.; Strong, G. Romantic Love. In The Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships;
Perlman, D., Vangelisti, A., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2006.
47. Arthur, L.; Marland, H.; Pill, A.; Rea, T. Postgraduate Professional Development for Teachers: Motivational
and Inhibiting Factors Affecting the Completion of Awards. J. Serv. Educ. 2006, 32, 201–219. [CrossRef]
48. Lin, N. Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure and Action; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2001.
49. Jaakkola, M.; Moller, K.; Parvinen, P.; Evanshitzky, H.; Muhlbacher, H. Strategic Marketing and Business
Performance: A Study in Three European Engineering Countries. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2010, 39, 1300–1310.
[CrossRef]
50. Porter, M.E. Competitive Strategy; Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1980.
51. Carmeli, A. High- and Low-Performance Firms: Do They Have Different Profiles of Perceived Core Intangible
Resources and Business Environment? Technovation 2001, 21, 661–671. [CrossRef]
52. Carter, C.; Messenger, D.M.; Allan, S.; Mendes, K.; Milani, R.; Wass, L. What Do Children Want from the BBC?
Children’s Content and Participatory Environments in the Age of Citizen Media; AHRC/BBC, Cardiff University:
Cardiff, Wales, 2009.
53. Fahy, J. The Resource-based View of the Firm: Some Stumbling-blocks on the Road to Understanding
Sustainable Competitive Advantage. Eur. J. Train. Dev. 2000, 24, 94–104. [CrossRef]
54. Hardwick, B.; Ford, D. Industrial Buyer Resources and Responsibilities and the Buyer-Seller Relationships.
Ind. Mark. Purch. 1986, 1, 3–25.
55. Cho, M.Y.; Shin, H.W.; Kim, S.K. The Influence of Transactional Characteristics and Relational Commitment
on the Choice of Freight Forwarder’s Negotiation Strategy. Korea Ind. Econ. Assoc. 2001, 14, 315–335.
56. Ko, E.K.; Lee, S.J. The Effect of Relationship Commitment on the Customer’s Future Behavioral Intention
Related to the Criteria of Evaluating Cyber Stores in Internet Shopping Malls. J. Korean Home Econ. Assoc.
2005, 43, 153–164.
57. Lee, J.H.; Choi, B.H. The Effects of Trust and Relationship Solidarity of Food Service Franchise on the
Re-contract Intention. J. Hosp. Tour. Stud. 2016, 18, 287–307.
58. Gilliland, D.I.; Bello, D.C. Two Sides to Attitudinal Commitment: The Effect of Calculative and Loyalty
Commitment on Enforcement Mechanism in Distribution Channels. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2002, 30, 24–43.
[CrossRef]
59. Kim, J.Y.; Rhee, E.Y. The Influence of Relationship Benefit Perception and Consumer Satisfaction for Fashion
Products. J. Korean Home Econ. Assoc. 2005, 43, 83–98.
60. Lee, N.Y.; Park, J.E. The Study on the Effect of Relational Benefits on Satisfaction, Trust and Intention to Use
in Mobile Commerce: Focusing on the Moderating Effect of Mobile Transaction Proficiency. J. Channel Retail.
2018, 23, 81–104. [CrossRef]
61. Shin, G.C.; Leem, J.U. Determinants of Long-Term Orientation between Suppliers and Retailers. Korean Manag. Rev.
2002, 31, 1069–1088.
62. Yi, H.Y.; Ji, S.G. Determinants of Strategic Joint Action between Manufacturer and Retailer: The Role of
Mutual Specific Investment. J. Channel Retail. 2016, 21, 81–101.
63. Park, Y.M.; Lee, T.H. Study of the Effect of Relational Embeddedness by the Airline Encounter Service Based
on the ECR for Customer-Company Identification and Long-Term Orientation. J. Hosp. Tour. Stud. 2016, 18,
322–344.
64. Lee, M.J. The Influence of Corporate Social Responsibility on Customer-Company Identification and
Customer Loyalty in the Airline Industry. Int. J. Tour. Hosp. Res. 2017, 31, 123–136. [CrossRef]
65. Ra, C.I.; Woo, C.B. The Effect of Relational Benefit on Relational Commitment and Long-Term Relationship
Orientation among Hotel Customers. Tour. Res. 2015, 40, 169–190.
66. Kim, K.J.; Park, K.Y. Disconfirmation of Expectations and Satisfaction with a Restaurant: Focused on the
Moderation Role of the Amount of Information About Food Offer. J. Tour. Sci. 2012, 36, 149–170.
67. Dibb, S.; Meadows, M. The Application of a Relationship Marketing Perspective in Retail Banking. Serv. Ind. J.
2001, 21, 169–194. [CrossRef]
68. Moody, J.; White, D.R. Structural Cohesion and Embeddedness: A Hierarchical Concept of Social Groups.
Am. Sociol. Rev. 2003, 68, 103–127. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2018, 10, 2203 22 of 22

69. Ok, K.Y.; Han, S.M. The Property of Sub-network in Earlier Stage of Information Diffusion. J. Consum. Stud.
2009, 20, 37–64.
70. Spear, F.S. Inverted Metamorphism, P–T Paths and Cooling History of West-Central New Hampshire:
Implications for the Tectonic Evolution of Central New England. In Guidebook for Field Trips in the Connecticut
Valley Region of Massachusetts and Adjacent States; Robinson, P., Brady, J.B., Eds.; Department of Geology and
Geophysics, University of Massachusetts: Amherst, MA, USA, 1992; Volume 2, pp. 446–466.
71. Yim, C.K.; TSE, D.K.; Chan, K.W. Strengthening Customer Loyalty through Intimacy and Passion: Roles
of Customer-Firm Affection and Customer-Staff Relationships in Services. J. Mark. Res. 2008, 45, 741–756.
[CrossRef]
72. Park, H.J.; Kim, J.O.; Son, Y.H. The Analysis of the Longitudinal Trend of the Sense of Community on
Adolescence and Its Predictors. Asian J. Educ. 2015, 16, 105–127. [CrossRef]
73. Choi, Y.T.; Kim, S.H. A Study on Corporate Public Relations Activities Utilizing Social Networking Service
(SNS) in Korea. J. Public Relat. Res. 2013, 17, 37–76.
74. Yi, Y.J.; La, S.A. The Relationship of Customer Satisfaction, Adjusted Expectation and Repurchase Intention:
The Moderating Role of Customer Loyalty. J. Consum. Stud. 2002, 13, 51–78.
75. Zarrella, D.; Zarrella, A. The Facebook Marketing Book; O’Reilly Media: Sebastopol, CA, USA, 2011.
76. Moshe, S.; Lemer, M. Gauging the Success of Social Ventures Initiated by Individual Social Entrepreneurs.
J. World Bus. 2006, 41, 6–20.
77. Palmatier, R.W.; Jarvis, C.B.; Bechkoff, J.R.; Kardes, F.R. The Role of Customer Gratitude in Relationship
Marketing. J. Mark. 2009, 73, 1–18. [CrossRef]
78. Hennig-Thurau, T.; Gwinner, K.P.; Gremler, D.D. Understanding Relationship Marketing Outcomes:
An Integration of Relational Benefits and Relationship Quality. J. Serv. Res. 2002, 4, 230–247. [CrossRef]
79. Reich, S.; Subrahmanyam, K.; Espinoza, G. Adolescents’ Use of Online Social Networking Sites—Should We Be
Concerned; Society for Research in Child Development: Denver, CO, USA, 2009.
80. Jun, J.K.; Lee, T.M.; Jeong, S.Y. A Study on Determinants of Intention to Use Car Sharing: Moderating Effect
of Consumer Innovativeness. J. Mark. Manag. Res. 2017, 22, 49–66.
81. Schindler, R.M.; Bickart, B. Published Word of Mouth: Referable, Consumer-generated Information on
the Internet. In Online Consumer Psychology: Understanding and Influencing Behavior in the Virtual World;
Hauvgedt, C., Machleit, K., Yalch, R., Eds.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 2005; pp. 35–61.
82. Bendapudi, N.; Leone, R.P. Managing Business to Business Customer Relationships Following Key Contact
Employee Turnover in a Vendor Firm. J. Mark. 2002, 66, 83–101. [CrossRef]
83. Park, J.S. The Effects of the Political Conversation and Mass-Media about the 19th General Election on the
Political Attitudes of Youth. Theor. Res. Citiz. Educ. 2012, 44, 1–28.
84. Preece, J.; Maloney-Krichmar, D.; Abras, C. History of Online Communities. In Encyclopedia of Community: From
Village to Virtual World; Christensen, K., Levinson, D., Eds.; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2003;
pp. 1023–1027.
85. Jang, Y.H.; Kim, Y.J. A Study on the Characteristics of Social Capital in Cyber Community-Focusing on the
Conceptual Inquiry of Social Capital. J. Media Econ. Cult. 2004, 2, 55–96.
86. Trammell, K.D. Blog Offensive: An Exploratory Analysis of Attacks Published on Campaign Blog Posts from
a Political Public Relations Perspective. Public Relat. Rev. 2004, 32, 402–406. [CrossRef]
87. Na, E.K. Democracy-based on Difference: Multi-faceted Relationship between Diversity and Civic Attitudes,
Depending on the Different Level of Perceived Online Social Network Heterogeneity. Korean J. Commun. Stud.
2007, 51, 163–190.
88. Papacharissi, Z. The Virtual Sphere: The Internet as a Public Sphere. New Media Soc. 2002, 4, 9–27. [CrossRef]
89. Kim, D.S.; Son, B.M. The Causal Relationship between Perceived Service Recovery Justice, and Relationship
Benefit, Relationship Satisfaction and Long-Term Relationship Orientation. Culin. Sci. Hos. Res. 2011, 17,
168–181.

© 2018 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 ([Link]