Risk and perceived value: antecedents of customer satisfaction and loyalty in a sustainable business model

Figures & data

Table 1. Sample structure taking into account the S.M.E.s’ dimension and the main domain of activity.

	Dimension
Activity domain	Micro enterprises	Small enterprises	Middle enterprises	Total
Industry	4.36%	6.55%	2.19%	13.10%
Constructions	5.24%	1.74%	1.31%	8.29%
Commerce	25.37%	6.55%	1.74%	33.62%
Transport	2.18%	1.31%	0.87%	4.36%
Services	23.14%	4.36%	1.31%	28.82%
Other domains	7.42%	3.05%	1.32%	11.79%
Total	67.69%	23.58%	8.73%	100.00%

Source: Authors’ calculations.

Table 2. Differences between the sample structure and the structure of the population.

	Dimension
Activity domain	Micro enterprises	Small enterprises	Middle enterprises	Total
Industry	(3.28%)	4.53%	1.59%	2.84%
Constructions	(4.45%)	0.50%	1.08%	(2.88%)
Commerce	(8.56%)	4.03%	1.45%	(3.13%)
Transport	(3.79%)	0.85%	0.79%	(2.15%)
Services	(5.92%)	2.55%	1.01%	(2.36%)
Other domains	3.69%	2.70%	1.25%	7.65%
Total	(22.33%)	15.18%	7.16%	–

Source: Authors’ calculations.

Table 3. Goodness of fit indicators for the final measurement model.

Category	Name	Recorded value
Absolute goodness of fit indicators	GFI	0.900
	RMSEA	0.049
Incremental goodness of fit indicators	AGFI	0.858
	IFI	0.975
	TLI	0.967
	CFI	0.974
Parsimony goodness of fit indicators	χ^2/df	1.549

Source: Authors’ calculations.

Table 4. Level of confidence and convergent validity.

	Composite reliability	Average variance extracted
Financial risk (FNR)	0.861	0.674
Functional benefits (FB)	0.892	0.675
Functional sacrifices (FS)	0.901	0.753
Social benefits (SB)	0.924	0.858
Social sacrifices (SS)	0.862	0.757
Emotional benefits (EB)	0.974	0.950
Emotional sacrifices (ES)	0.872	0.695
Satisfaction (SAT)	0.880	0.787
Loyalty (LOY)	0.883	0.792

Source: Authors’ calculations.

Table 5. Discriminant validity.

	MSV	ASV	FNR	FB	FS	SB	SS	EB	ES	SAT	LOY
FNR	0.343	0.203	0.821
FB	0.534	0.274	–0.427	0.822
FS	0.537	0.097	0.286	0.199	0.868
SB	0.534	0.246	–0.352	0.731	0.126	0.927
SS	0.537	0.100	0.332	0.060	0.733	0.055	0.870
EB	0.671	0.284	–0.394	0.722	0.101	0.700	0.088	0.975
ES	0.343	0.194	0.586	–0.432	0.297	–0.354	0.367	–0.427	0.834
SAT	0.671	0.332	–0.562	0.710	–0.010	0.725	–0.030	0.819	–0.542	0.887
LOY	0.341	0.181	0.558	–0.467	–0.044	–0.383	0.023	–0.483	0.441	–0.584	0.890

Notes: MSV: mean shared variance; ASV: average shared variance.

Source: Authors’ calculations.

Figure 1. Proposed Structural Model.

Source: Author’s configuration

Table 6. Standardised regression coefficients.

Exogenous variables	Endogenous variables	Coefficient	p
Financial risk	Functional benefits	–0.470	***
	Functional sacrifices	0.313	***
	Social benefits	–0.389	***
	Social sacrifices	0.371	***
	Emotional benefits	–0.425	***
	Emotional sacrifices	0.649	***
Functional benefits	Satisfaction	0.128	***
Functional sacrifices		–0.115	***
Social benefits		0.292	***
Social Ssacrifices		0.065	0.056 ^n.s.
Emotional benefits		0.586	***
Emotional sacrifices		–0.235	***
Functional benefits	Loyalty	–0.110	0.056 ^n.s.
Functional sacrifices		–0.168	0.002
Social benefits		0.231	***
Social sacrifices		0.038	0.483 ^n.s.
Emotional benefits		0.103	0.215 ^n.s.
Emotional sacrifices		0.200	0.002
Satisfaction	Loyalty	–0.607	***

Notes: n.s.: not significant; ***p < 0.001.

Source: Authors’ calculations.

Table 7. Satisfaction as mediator of the value-loyalty relation.

Hypothesis	Direct effect	Indirect effect	Results
H4a	–0.110 n.s.	–0.078 **	Full mediation
H4b	–0.168 n.s.	0.070 **	Full mediation
H5a	0.231 **	–0.178 ***	Partial mediation
H5b	0.038 n.s.	–0.039 n.s.	Hypothesis not supported
H6a	0.103 n.s.	–0.356 ***	Full mediation
H6b	0.200 **	0.142 ***	Partial mediation

Notes: n.s.: not significant; ***p < 0.001; **p < 0.05.

Source: Authors’ calculations.