If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. AbstractPurpose -The purpose of this study is to explore the factors leading to the consumer's propensity to abandon the shopping cart at the transaction completion stage. Design/methodology/approach -Data were collected using a self-administered survey distributed through the internet. The sample consisted of consumers who shopped online at least once during the preceding one-year period. Findings -The results indicate that perceived transaction inconvenience is the major predictor of shopping cart abandonment. The other predictors are perceived risk and perceived waiting time. Positive relationship was found between perceived transaction inconvenience, perceived risk and propensity to abandon the shopping cart. It was also found that propensity to abandon the shopping cart is negatively associated with the perception of waiting time. Practical implications -The paper provides transaction completion stage specific guidance to the managers operating in an online environment to prevent shopping cart abandonment at the transaction completion stage. Specifically, the findings suggest that marketers must pay attention to the perception of risk and transaction inconvenience; otherwise they risk losing consumers during the final stage of transaction. Originality/value -The paper examines the unexplored area of consumer behavior at the final stages of transaction culmination and, hence, is an initial step toward filling that gap.

PurposeThis study seeks to explore the idea that consumers select a particular shopping mode – i.e. bricks and mortar versus online outlet – based on their perceptions about whether a product or service is best bought from one or the other. It aims to posit that this perception is associated with the importance allocated to various shopping motivation dimensions.Design/methodology/approachData for this study were collected using a self‐administered mail survey from 689 internet‐enabled US households. They represent a 28 percent response from 2,500 households that received the survey. Extensive non‐response analysis ruled out serious bias in the data.FindingsThe results from this empirical study suggest that different shopping motivations indeed influence perceptions of service type and shopping mode congruence differently. In addition, the results also suggest that services are more likely to be associated with the online shopping mode, whereas more tangible products are likely to be associated with bricks and mortar stores.Originality/valueThe findings have significant implications for services retail managers of both bricks and mortar and online service outlets in the areas of segmentations, targeting, and retail mix strategies. Apparently, consumers also tend to group related services or products into homogeneous shopping baskets based on their perception of congruence between the product or service and the shopping mode – online versus bricks and mortar store. These findings should help a manager plan for retailing mix strategies, catering to various shopping motivation dimensions, thus enhancing consumer satisfaction. In addition, the results hold important implications in the areas of segmentation and targeting decisions.

Purpose – This paper proposes a knowledge-exchange framework for value co-creation in franchise network. Design/methodology/approach – This conceptual study integrates literature on franchising, knowledge based view of the firm, absorptive capacity, and service dominant logic to propose a theoretical framework for value co-creation in franchising using knowledge as an operant resource. Findings – The proposed framework suggests that in a franchise network value is co-created by three key actors – franchisor, franchisees, and the customers; the operant resource these key actors bring to the value creation process is knowledge; and the absorptive capacity of principal actors and the appropriation hazard affect the flow and sharing of knowledge. Research limitations/implications – The authors hope that the proposed knowledge exchange framework for value co-creation in franchise networks provides an impetus for future research in this critical aspect of franchising – i.e. viewing knowledge as an operant resource and viewing the three actors as resource integrators and co-creators of value. Practical implications – The proposed framework suggests that managers in franchise industry should stop looking at consumers and franchisees as passive operand resources, but look at them as operant resource. They should also alter their perspective about the source of competitive advantage, with the focus shifting to knowledge as the operant resource. Originality/value – The study takes a new approach to value creation in a franchising network by introducing the concept of knowledge as an operant source.

PurposeThe primary purpose of the present paper is to critically evaluate the extant literature on relational exchange, a fundamental driver of buyer‐seller relationship management in the twenty‐first century. Toward that goal, a meta‐analytic approach is employed to determine specific conditions under which relational exchange may have a greater or lesser impact on B2B relationship outcomes.Design/methodology/approachThe data were extracted from a multitude of effects in the large body of empirical research investigating relational exchange within the business and allied social sciences research. Then, a meta‐analytic methodology using multiple regression was used to assess the in/congruity across relational exchange effects.FindingsThe findings indicate that the association between relational exchange and outcome variables is highly dependent on three factors: how relational exchange is operationally defined, who evaluates the relationship (upstream firm versus downstream firm and high‐status employee versus low‐status employee within the organizational hierarchy), and the data source (from a single industry or from multiple industries).Research limitations/implicationsDespite the extensive attention afforded to relational exchange, an overarching limitation is the paucity of empirical attention as evidenced by the diminutive effects tested in the meta‐analysis. The meta‐analysis is also limited by the selective set of predictor variables that may account for variance in the effect size. Additional effects are needed to assess the conspicuous absence of potentially significant factors underlying B2B relationships (i.e. organization size and relational monitoring by the upstream firm).Practical implicationsThe findings offer insights for researchers and practitioners who deal with dyadic relationships in B2B exchanges. One of the most important implications of this meta‐analysis is the need to clarify the operational definition of relational exchange. The disparity across measures and measurements of relational exchange highlights the need for greater clarity in defining the seminal factors that underlie this important managerial direction.Originality/valueThe findings of this study point to the inconsistencies that exist in the current literature with regard to the operational definition of relational exchange, as well as the study designs employed by different researchers. These inconsistencies have led to inconclusive results across effects. This research challenges B2B researchers and practitioners alike to reconsider the presumed benefits of relational exchange in inter‐organizational relationship management.

No abstract