IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aes/amfeco/v20y2018i49p684.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consumer eWOM Communication: The Missing Link between Relational Capital and Sustainable Bioeconomy Ii Health Care Services

Author

Listed:
  • Iuliana Raluca Gheorghe

    (“Carol Davila” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania)

  • Victor Lorin Purcarea

    (“Carol Davila” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania)

  • Consuela Madalina Gheorghe

    (“Carol Davila” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania)

Abstract

Today’s world faces many challenges that may be solved by using the principles of bioeconomy. Bioeconomy has had a multi-disciplinary approach with the objective of an integrated scope, namely, to achieve sustainable development. In a knowledge-based economy, the link between sustainable bioeconomy and organizations is achieved by Intellectual Capital. The intangible assets of Intellectual Capital coming from the external environment of an organization in the shape of Relational Capital have great value, as they can offer competitive advantages. Consequently, along with the progress of technology and especially the online opinion platforms and Social Media, consumers have begun to share their experiences with other consumers in a new form of communication called electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM). In the health care field, this type of communication triggered a shift in the consumer behavior, leading to their knowledge empowerment about physicians, symptoms and even health care organizations. This study extends the existing literature on health care and Relational Capital by examining the consumers’ motives to post eWOM messages in a Romanian Social Media support group, which concentrates on In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) procedures. We identified a number of key motives (reputation, reciprocity, sense of belonging to a community, enjoyment of helping other individuals, moral obligation of helping other individuals with knowledge contribution and knowledge self-efficacy), which may explain the consumers’ intentions to post eWOM messages, as integrated in an empirical model. Using the PLS technique, we tested the model on a sample of 121 women, members of the Social Media support group. The findings revealed that 39% of the variance of the intention to post eWOM messages, was explained by reciprocity. The outcomes of this study provide important implications for both research and practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Iuliana Raluca Gheorghe & Victor Lorin Purcarea & Consuela Madalina Gheorghe, 2018. "Consumer eWOM Communication: The Missing Link between Relational Capital and Sustainable Bioeconomy Ii Health Care Services," The AMFITEATRU ECONOMIC journal, Academy of Economic Studies - Bucharest, Romania, vol. 20(49), pages 684-684, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:aes:amfeco:v:20:y:2018:i:49:p:684
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.amfiteatrueconomic.ro/temp/Article_2749.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Atreyi Kankanhalli & Bernard C.Y. Tan & Kwok‐Kee Wei, 2005. "Understanding seeking from electronic knowledge repositories: An empirical study," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 56(11), pages 1156-1166, September.
    2. Krystin Zigan & Fraser Macfarlane & Terry Desombre, 2008. "Intangible resources as performance drivers in European hospitals," International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 57(1), pages 57-71, January.
    3. Amanda Ball & Jan Bebbington, 2008. "Editorial: Accounting and Reporting for Sustainable Development in Public Service Organizations," Public Money & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(6), pages 323-326, December.
    4. Haimes, Erica, 2013. "Juggling on a rollercoaster? Gains, loss and uncertainties in IVF patients' accounts of volunteering for a U.K. ‘egg sharing for research’ scheme," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 45-51.
    5. Sungchul Choi & Alex Ng, 2011. "Environmental and Economic Dimensions of Sustainability and Price Effects on Consumer Responses," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 104(2), pages 269-282, December.
    6. Constantin BRATIANU & Ivona ORZEA, 2014. "Emotional Knowledge: the Hidden Part of the Knowledge Iceberg," Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy, College of Management, National University of Political Studies and Public Administration, vol. 2(4), pages 41-56, April.
    7. Coenen , Lars & Hansen , Teis & Rekers , Josephine V., 2015. "Innovation Policy for Grand Challenges. An Economic Geography Perspective," Papers in Innovation Studies 2015/13, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    8. Schmid, Otto & Padel, Susanne & Levidow, Les, 2012. "The Bio-Economy Concept and Knowledge Base in a Public Goods and Farmer Perspective," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 1(1), pages 1-18, April.
    9. Berry, Leonard L., 2009. "Competing with quality service in good times and bad," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 52(4), pages 309-317, July.
    10. Anthony Wall, 2005. "The measurement and management of intellectual capital in the public sector," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(2), pages 289-303, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. repec:aud:audfin:v:20:y:2018:i:49:p:684 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Davide Giacomini & Laura Rocca & Cristian Carini & Mario Mazzoleni, 2018. "Overcoming the Barriers to the Diffusion of Sustainability Reporting in Italian LGOs: Better Stick or Carrot?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-14, January.
    3. Hassink, Robert & Gong, Huiwen, 2017. "Sketching the Contours of an Integrative Paradigm of Economic Geography," Papers in Innovation Studies 2017/12, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    4. Daniela Pasnicu & Mihaela Ghenta & Aniela Matei, 2019. "Transition to Bioeconomy: Perceptions and Behaviors in Central and Eastern Europe," The AMFITEATRU ECONOMIC journal, Academy of Economic Studies - Bucharest, Romania, vol. 21(50), pages 1-9, February.
    5. Tatiana Danescu & Sorinel Capusneanu & Dan Ioan Topor & Andreea Marin-Pantelescu & Loredana Ciurlau, 2019. "Comparative Analysis of Master Programs in Bioeconomy and Their Development Perspectives in the Universities of Romania," Academic Journal of Economic Studies, Faculty of Finance, Banking and Accountancy Bucharest,"Dimitrie Cantemir" Christian University Bucharest, vol. 5(1), pages 106-113, March.
    6. Veldhuizen, Caroline, 2021. "Conceptualising the foundations of sustainability focused innovation policy: From constructivism to holism," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    7. David Talbot & Olivier Boiral, 2021. "Public organizations and biodiversity disclosure: Saving face to meet a legal obligation?," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(5), pages 2571-2586, July.
    8. Davis-Sramek, Beth & Robinson, Jessica L. & Darby, Jessica L. & Thomas, Rodney W., 2020. "Exploring the differential roles of environmental and social sustainability in carrier selection decisions," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 227(C).
    9. Davide Giacomini & Paola Zola & Diego Paredi & Mario Mazzoleni, 2020. "Environmental disclosure and stakeholder engagement via social media: State of the art and potential in public utilities," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(4), pages 1552-1564, July.
    10. Shima Mirzaei & Sajjad Shokouhyar, 2023. "Applying a thematic analysis in identifying the role of circular economy in sustainable supply chain practices," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(5), pages 4691-4722, May.
    11. Mădălina Dumitru & Justyna Dyduch & Raluca-Gina Gușe & Joanna Krasodomska, 2017. "Corporate Reporting Practices in Poland and Romania – An Ex-ante Study to the New Non-financial Reporting European Directive," Accounting in Europe, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(3), pages 279-304, September.
    12. Janssen, Matthijs J. & Abbasiharofteh, Milad, 2022. "Boundary spanning R&D collaboration: Key enabling technologies and missions as alleviators of proximity effects?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    13. Li, Tao & Chen, Yun, 2017. "The destructive power of money and vanity in deviant tourist behavior," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 152-160.
    14. Zvirgzdiņš Jānis & Plotka Kaspars & Geipele Sanda, 2018. "Eco-Economics in Cities and Rural Areas," Baltic Journal of Real Estate Economics and Construction Management, Sciendo, vol. 6(1), pages 88-99, July.
    15. Daniela Firoiu & George H. Ionescu & Teodor Marian Cojocaru & Mariana Niculescu & Maria Nache Cimpoeru & Oana Alexandra Călin, 2023. "Progress of EU Member States Regarding the Bioeconomy and Biomass Producing and Converting Sectors," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-22, September.
    16. Maria Rabadjieva & Judith Terstriep, 2020. "Ambition Meets Reality: Mission-Oriented Innovation Policy as a Driver for Participative Governance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-23, December.
    17. Wiśniewska, Agnieszka & Liczmańska-Kopcewicz, Katarzyna & Pypłacz, Paula, 2022. "Antecedents of young adults’ willingness to support brands investing in renewable energy sources," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 190(C), pages 177-187.
    18. Alejandro Alvarado-Herrera & Enrique Bigne & Joaquín Aldas-Manzano & Rafael Curras-Perez, 2017. "A Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Corporate Social Responsibility Following the Sustainable Development Paradigm," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 140(2), pages 243-262, January.
    19. Leonardi, Emanuele, 2013. "Green Economy and Bio-based Economics: Assessment and Critique of Their Philosophical Assumptions," 2013 Second Congress, June 6-7, 2013, Parma, Italy 149908, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA).
    20. Jan Fagerberg, 2021. "Mobilizing innovation for the global green shift: The case for demand-oriented innovation policy," Working Papers on Innovation Studies 20210422, Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture, University of Oslo.
    21. F.C. Stam, 2018. "Enabling Creative Destruction: An Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Approach to Industrial Policy," Working Papers 18-05, Utrecht School of Economics.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    bioeconomy; sustainability; health care services; relational capital; eWOM;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I12 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Health Behavior
    • M39 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Marketing and Advertising - - - Other
    • D64 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Altruism; Philanthropy; Intergenerational Transfers
    • D71 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Social Choice; Clubs; Committees; Associations
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness
    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making
    • O34 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital
    • Q01 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - General - - - Sustainable Development

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aes:amfeco:v:20:y:2018:i:49:p:684. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Valentin Dumitru (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aseeero.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.