Sustainable consumption behaviours in P2P accommodation platforms: an exploratory study

  • Eduard Gabriel CeptureanuEmail author
  • Sebastian Ion Ceptureanu
  • Claudiu Herteliu
  • Roy Cerqueti


This paper examines how sustainable consumption behaviours are assembled in peer-to-peer (P2P) platforms, based on four factors—services portfolio complexity, network membership, reputation and innovative practices—and its impact on P2P platform performance. Using data from one P2P accommodation platform in Romania and based on 2556 observations, we tested the research hypothesis using ordinary least squares regression. Specifically, services portfolio complexity positively influences sustainable consumption behaviours, while network membership has a negative influence. Services portfolio complexity has a positive influence on sustainable consumption behaviours when innovative practices are high. Finally, sustainable consumption behaviours positively influence P2P platform performance.


Customer sustainable behaviours P2P platform Services portfolio complexity Network membership Reputation Innovative practices 



This work is supported by a grant of the Romanian National Authority for Scientific Research and Innovation, CNDS-UEFISCDI, project number PN-III-P4-ID-PCCF-2016-0084.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.


  1. Amit R, Zott C (2001) Value creation in E-business. Strateg Manag J 22:493–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Antonetti P, Maklan S (2014) Feelings that make a difference: how guilt and pride convince consumers of the effectiveness of sustainable consumption choices. J Bus Ethics 124:117–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ba S, Pavlou PA (2002) Evidence of the effect of trust building technology in electronic markets: value premiums and buyer behavior. MIS Q 26:243–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bauwens M, Kostakis V (2017) Peer-to-peer: a manifesto for commons transition. Westminster University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Ceptureanu EG, Ceptureanu SI (2019) The impact of adoptive management innovations on medium-sized enterprises from a dynamic capability perspective. Technol Anal Strateg Manag. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cheema A (2008) Surcharges and seller reputation. J Consum Res 35:167–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cohen B, Munoz P (2016) Sharing cities and sustainable consumption and production: towards an integrated framework. J Clean Prod 134:87–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Doney PM, Cannon JP (1997) An examination of the nature of trust in buyer-seller relationships. J Mark 61:35–51Google Scholar
  9. Duysters G, Lokshin B (2011) Determinants of alliance portfolio complexity and its effect on innovative performance of companies. J Prod Innov Manag 28(4):570–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Emekter R, Tu Y, Jirasakuldech B, Lu M (2015) Evaluating credit risk and loan performance in online peer-to-peer (P2P) lending. Appl Econ 47(1):54–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fernhaber SA, Patel PC (2012) How do young firms manage product portfolio complexity? The role of absorptive capacity and ambidexterity. Strateg Manag J 33(13):1516–1539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fremstad A (2018) Is there a future for sharing? A comparison of traditional and new institutions. J Inst Econ 14:595–616Google Scholar
  13. Heinrichs H (2013) Sharing economy: a potential new pathway to sustainability. GAIA 22:228–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Joo S, Lee H, Suh E, Suh K (2017) Shared experience in pretrip and experience sharing in posttrip: a survey of Airbnb users. Inf Manag 54:714–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kozlenkova IV, Palmatier RW, Fang EE, Xiao B, Minxue H (2017) Online relationship formation. J Mark 81:21–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kuhn KM, Galloway TL (2015) With a little help from my competitors: peer networking among artisan entrepreneurs. Entrep: Theory Pract 39:571–600Google Scholar
  17. Leary RB, Mittelstaedt J, Murphy PE (2014) Changing the marketplace one behavior at a time: perceived marketplace influence and sustainable consumption. J Bus Res 67:1953–1958CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Martin CJ (2016) The sharing economy: a pathway to sustainability or a nightmarish form of neoliberal capitalism? Ecol Econ 121:149–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mccollough J (2010) Consumer discount rates and the decision to repair or replace a durable Product: a sustainable consumption issue. J Econ Issues 44:183–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McKelvie A, Wiklund J (2010) Advancing firm growth research: a focus on growth mode instead of growth rate. Entrep Theory Pract 34:261–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pera R, Viglia G, Furlan R (2016) Who am I? How compelling self-storytelling builds digital personal reputation. J Interact Mark 35:44–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Popescu DI, Alexandru A, Ceptureanu SI, Ceptureanu EG (2018) Analysis of MSEs in ICT domain from Bucharest-Ilfov County by using Nonaka-Takeuchi model. Stud Inform Control 27(1):107–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Popescu DI, Ceptureanu SI, Alexandru A, Ceptureanu EG (2019) Relationship between knowledge absorptive capacity, innovation performance and information technology. Case study: the Romanian Creative Industries SMEs. Stud Inform Control 28(4):463–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Powell WW, Koput KW, Smith-Doerr L, Owen-Smith J (1999) Network position and firm performance: organizational returns to collaboration in the biotechnology industry. Res Sociol Organ 16:129–159Google Scholar
  25. Prothero A, Dobscha S, Freund J, Kilbourne WE, Michael G, Ozanne LK, Thøgersen J (2011) Sustainable consumption: opportunities for consumer research and public policy. J Public Policy Mark 30:31–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Raju S, Chandrasekaran M (2019) Performance analysis of efficient data distribution in P2P environment using hybrid clustering techniques. Soft Comput. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sahakian M, Wilhite H (2014) Making practice theory practicable: towards more sustainable forms of consumption. J Consum Cult 14:25–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sigala M (2014) Client involvement in sustainable supply chain management: a research framework and implications in tourism. Cornell Hosp Q 55:76–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Spaho E, Sakamoto S, Barolli L, Xhafa F, Ikeda M (2014) Trustworthiness in P2P: performance behaviour of two fuzzy-based systems for JXTA-overlay platform. Soft Comput 18(9):1783–1793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sun J (2014) How risky are services? An empirical investigation on the antecedents and consequences of perceived risk for hotel service. Int J Hosp Manag 37:171–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tallman S, Jenkins M, Henry N, Steven P (2004) Knowledge clusters and competitive advantage. Acad Manag Rev 29:258–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Trudel R, Arg JJ, Meng MD (2016) The recycled self: consumers’ disposal decisions of identity-linked products. J Consum Res 43:246–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tussyadiah IP, Zach F (2017) Identifying salient attributes of peer-to-peer accommodation experience. J Travel Tour Mark 34:636–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Valdés L, Montesinos S, Ariza A, Allende SM, Joya G (2015) Peer selection in P2P wireless mesh networks: comparison of different strategies. Soft Comput 19(9):2447–2455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wiles A, Crawford A (2017) Network hospitality in the share economy/understanding guest experiences and the impact of sharing on lodging. Int J Contemp Hosp Manag 29:2444–2463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Yates L (2018) Sharing, households and sustainable consumption. J Consum Cult 18:433–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ye W, Cho K (2017) P2P and P2P botnet traffic classification in two stages. Soft Comput 21(5):1315–1326CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Bucharest University of Economic StudiesBucharestRomania
  2. 2.University of MacerataMacerataItaly

Personalised recommendations