The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0957-4093.htm

A hybrid e-logistics service quality Hybrid

e-logistics
approach: modeling the evolution service quality
approach
of B2C e-commerce
Hasan Uvet
Department of Economics, Marketing, and Supply Chain Management,
School of Business, Georgia Gwinnett College, Lawrenceville, Georgia, USA Received 12 June 2023
Revised 2 September 2023
John Dickens, Jason Anderson and Aaron Glassburner Accepted 10 October 2023

Department of Operational Sciences,

Graduate School of Engineering and Management, Air Force Institute of Technology,
Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, USA, and
Christopher A. Boone
Department of Marketing Quantitative Analysis and Business Law,
College of Business, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, Mississippi, USA

Abstract
Purpose – This research paper aims to examine two hybrid models of logistics service quality (LSQ) and its
influence on satisfaction, loyalty and future purchase intention in a business-to-consumer (B2C) e-commerce
context. This study extends the literature for LSQ by incorporating the second-order assurance quality
construct, which comprises personnel contact quality, order discrepancy handling and order returns, into one
of the hybrid models.
Design/methodology/approach – A survey-based approach is used to collect data. Participant responses to
questions concerning multiple LSQ dimensions and behavioral perceptions from their most recent online
shopping experience are measured using structural equation modeling.
Findings – Findings highlight the importance of including a second-order construct assurance quality as a
more explanatory model. Results illustrate that online ordering procedures and assurance quality impact
customer satisfaction more than other prominent LSQ dimensions. Furthermore, the findings revealed a
customer loyalty is a partial mediator between customer satisfaction and future purchase intention. This
underscores the significance of improved logistics services as a competitive edge for e-commerce retailers.
Research limitations/implications – Implications are limited to the e-commerce B2C domain.
Practical implications – The findings of this study underscore critical LSQ dimensions that garner greater
satisfaction and retention in the online shopping experience. The results indicate that the effective and efficient
handling of the initial order and any order problem significantly influences customer satisfaction and reaps the
long-term benefits of customer retention.
Originality/value – The authors present and empirically test a hybrid model of LSQ in a B2C e-commerce
domain that captures many of the important elements of the customer experience as espoused in the literature.
Keywords Logistics service quality, Customer satisfaction, Loyalty, Future purchase intention, Online retail,
E-commerce
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Retail shopping is in the midst of a generational transformation as e-commerce continues to
revolutionize how customers shop and reshape their expectations of retailers (Saghiri et al.,
2018; Daugherty et al., 2019). Accelerated by the ubiquity of mobile devices and the recent
COVID-19 pandemic, US e-commerce sales grew from approximately 3.5% of total retail sales
The International Journal of
Logistics Management
Since acceptance of this article, the following author have updated their affiliations: John Dickens is at © Emerald Publishing Limited
0957-4093
the Tommy and Victoria Baker School of Business, The Citadel, Charleston, SC, USA. DOI 10.1108/IJLM-06-2023-0238
IJLM in 2007 (Tokar et al., 2020) to more than 13% and over $870.8 billion in 2021 (U.S. Census
Bureau, 2022) while global e-commerce sales grew 16.8% to more than $4.921 trillion in 2021
(Abrams, 2021). As e-commerce sales increase, so do customer expectations of higher levels of
service (Esper et al., 2020; Li and Ku, 2018) and the pressure on retailers to provide convenient,
flexible product delivery (Lim et al., 2018; Amorim and Dehoratius, 2021) and easy returns
(Wang et al., 2017; Daugherty et al., 2019).
The spatial separation between e-commerce customers and products at the time of
purchase (Lewis et al., 2006; Tokar et al., 2020) begets an increased reliance on logistics
activities and the importance of logistics service quality (LSQ) for retailers (Marchet et al.,
2018; Saghiri et al., 2018; Daugherty et al., 2019; Mangiaracina et al., 2019). Research indicates
that the quality of logistics services directly impacts the customer experience and firm
performance (Leuschner et al., 2013; Vakulenko et al., 2019, 2022). Firms unable to efficiently
meet e-commerce customer expectations and deliver a positive customer experience are filing
for bankruptcy or closing (Lim and Winkenbach, 2019), while firms able to adapt to the
changing retail trends and meet customer expectations through quality logistics services are
gaining a competitive advantage (Collins et al., 2001; Tzavlopoulos et al., 2019).
Despite the growth in e-commerce, research devoted to LSQ in a business-to-consumer
(B2C) context remains in its early stages (Saghiri et al., 2017) with a relatively limited number
of studies when compared to those investigating LSQ in a business-to-business (B2B) context
(Kilibarda et al., 2020; Jain et al., 2021; Sorkun, 2019; Sorkun et al., 2020). This is somewhat
expected considering LSQ was originally conceived within a B2B context (Mentzer et al.,
1999). However, the continued growth of B2C e-commerce is driving businesses to develop
strategies to meet rising customer expectations (Mentzer et al., 1999, 2001; Ishfaq et al., 2016;
Jindal et al., 2021). Quality logistics are at the core and are intrinsically linked to the consumer
experience and customer satisfaction (Bhattacharjya et al., 2016; Murfield et al., 2017).
LSQ is also not a static concept (Leuschner et al., 2013). As retail and distribution models
evolve (Murfield et al., 2017), scholars must continuously consider the importance of LSQ and
its influence on customer experience and firm performance over time (Leuschner et al., 2013).
In the process, scholars must seek to improve and refine the measurement of LSQ. In their
recent review of LSQ research, Kilibarda et al. (2020) found a variety of dimensions being used
to measure LSQ and suggested the development and use of hybrid models is needed to
overcome the imprecision in LSQ measurement. For example, the Council of Supply Chain
Management Professionals (CSCMP) defines logistics management to include the flow of
goods, services and information. However, except for a few studies (Bienstock et al., 2008;
Ding et al., 2014; Uvet, 2020; Zhilin et al., 2004), the LSQ literature has largely ignored a hybrid
modeling approach that incorporates information quality, order availability and returns
within B2C transactions (Kilibarda et al., 2020).
In gestalt, the transactional context should drive the modeling. In response to the
limitations of Physical Distribution Service Quality (PDSQ), Mentzer et al. (1999) developed
LSQ. PDSQ primarily focused on order accuracy, order condition and timeliness, which fails
to capture the entire service experience. LSQ subsumed and built upon the key aspects of
PDSQ by incorporating other critical service dimensions such as ordering procedures, order
release quantities, order quality, information quality, order discrepancy handling and
personnel contact quality. Initially, both PDSQ and LSQ were developed within the B2B and
traditional industry buyer and seller (TIBS, i.e. brick and mortar) context. However, the
consumer experience has evolved further into an e-commerce environment, which leaves both
PDSQ and LSQ traditional modeling approaches insufficient. To address these literature
deficiencies, this study seeks to extend the work of Mentzer et al. (1999) on LSQ dimensions to
a B2C e-commerce domain. In particular, we seek to answer the following research questions:
RQ1) What is the effect of our hybrid LSQ dimensions (see Figure 1 for traditional LSQ
measures in addition to order availability and assurance quality, which also captures order
 Hybrid
e-logistics
service quality
approach

Figure 1.
Research model

returns) on customer satisfaction in B2C e-commerce? RQ2) How important is assurance

quality (personnel contact quality, order discrepancy handling and order returns) towards
achieving customer satisfaction in an e-commerce B2C market? RQ3) In the greater context of
LSQ in e-commerce B2C, does customer loyalty mediate the relationship between satisfaction
and future purchase intention?
To appropriately address these research questions, our modeling approach removed the
order release quantities and order quality dimensions (designed for B2B transactions) and
replaced them with order availability (Bienstock et al., 2008) and order returns (Xing and
Grant, 2006; Xing et al., 2010), which are more appropriate for a B2C e-commerce transaction
(Jain et al., 2021). This approach provides a more holistic framework inclusive of the
dimensions most critical to the e-commerce channel experience and its necessary logistics
service levels. The addition of the assurance quality construct to a model of LSQ attempts to
capture the restitution process unique to the customer experience in an e-commerce
transaction. To do so, we couple order returns with personnel contact quality and order
discrepancy handling within the grander umbrella of assurance quality from the service
quality literature (Parasuraman et al., 1985, 1988).
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. First, we examine the literature on
LSQ to build the critical dimensions of logistics services for our research model. After
providing the theoretical background of this study, we present a testable theoretical
framework and methodology. Next, we present the results. Finally, we discuss the conclusion,
limitations and future research possibilities.
IJLM 2. Literature review
LSQ bears its roots from two specific but interrelated streams of literature. The first is service
quality (SERVQUAL), with initial studies emerging in the 1980s when it was linked to overall
customer satisfaction (Juran and Gyrna, 1980; Parasuraman et al., 1985; Lehtinen and Lehtinen,
1991). At its core, SERVQUAL espouses five critical service components – tangibles,
responsiveness, empathy, reliability and assurance (Parasuraman et al., 1985). The impetus for
its creation was to capture face-to-face service interactions and provide a set of criteria from
which these interactions could be effectively measured (Parasuraman et al., 1985). Next is
physical distribution service quality (PDSQ), which was borne to help measure geographically
separated service transactions where people are replaced with things (Bienstock et al., 1997).
Early studies articulated several key dimensions of physical distribution service quality
(PDSQ), such as timeliness, condition and availability (Mentzer et al., 1989, 1997). LSQ
subsumed these key PDSQ dimensions but also incorporated other facets of logistics services,
including order discrepancy handling, order quality, order accuracy, ordering procedures,
information quality, order release quantities and personnel contact quality (Mentzer et al., 2001).
The LSQ concept was qualitatively generated in a B2B context, with many follow-on studies
empirically validating its efficacy (Mentzer et al., 1999; Mentzer et al., 2001; Richey et al., 2007;
Bientsock et al., 2008; Politis et al., 2014; Soh et al., 2015). However, as the context of logistics
services has and will continue to evolve from brick and mortar to e-commerce and beyond, so
too must logistics service modeling change to accurately capture the customer experience.
While LSQ and PDSQ coexisted, the academic community simultaneously conducted
streams of research to determine the more powerful paradigm. To appropriately instantiate
the leading paradigms, it would be worthy for each framework to be measured and judged in
similar contexts to uncover the more explanatory paradigm (Kuhn, 1977). However, in
hindsight, it is clear that PDSQ studies gained the most popularity for employment in an
e-commerce context (Collier and Bienstock, 2006; Xing and Grant, 2006; Xing et al., 2010; Jain
et al., 2021), whereas the LSQ literature stream primarily focused on articulating its
framework in a B2B traditional buyer-seller (i.e. brick and mortar) arrangement (see Table 1).
These divergent outcomes are most likely due to the simplicity of PDSQ and its ease of
application (with only three dimensions) in an e-commerce context and the B2B nature of the
traditional LSQ design, where it incorporates nine constructs with several that are purely
relevant to the B2B domain such as order quality and order release quantities. However,
further misunderstandings between the two frameworks have emerged.
There exists confusion in academia between the LSQ and PDSQ paradigms. Some
logistics studies labeled as LSQ limit the inquiry purely to constructs familiar to the PDSQ
domain (Jain et al.., 2021; Cotarelo et al., 2021; Murfield et al., 2017) or create new domains that
utilize aspects of both (Rao et al., 2011; Koufteros et al., 2014). This results in a community
chasing truth and assigning culpability to similar logistics service dimensions but utilizing
the paradigms not initially intended by the founders of PDSQ and LSQ. This is likely due to
the nature of LSQ, where it subsumed the three core tenants of PDSQ (order condition,
timeliness and availability). Thus, a scholar could logically mislabel PDSQ as LSQ, given its
interchangeability between the two frameworks. This unintentional complexity drives
further confusion and distracts from the goal of a scientific community to find a dominant
paradigm and further articulate its utility. This complexity is further heightened when the
context of the study changes from B2B or B2C and TIBs or e-commerce. Ultimately, if the goal
is to utilize both LSQ and PDSQ frameworks for specific contexts, the logistics community
needs to establish a clear demarcation between the two and evolve each to meet the needs and
demands of the given context through which logistics services are rendered.
Regardless of the employed paradigm, the context (B2B or B2C and associated context of
brick and mortar or e-commerce) should inform the modeling approach and the dimensions
incorporated to appropriately measure the transactional experience. E-commerce starkly
 LSQ (Mentzer et al., 1999)
Hybrid
Source
PDSQ (Bienstock et al., 1997)
Order Order
Order
Information Order Order Order
Order Personnel
Other
Independent
Dependent
Variables
e-logistics
Availability Condition
Timeliness Release
Quantity
Business-to-Business (B2B)/Traditional Industry Buyers and Sellers (TIBS)
Quality Procedures Accuracy Quality
Discrepancy
Handling
Contact
Quality
Variables
service quality
Mentzer et al.
(1989)
x
x
quality*
x
*Condition
referred as quality.
approach
Bienstock et al.
x x x
(1997)
Mentzer et al.
x x x
(1997)
*Order release Satisfaction
Mentzer et al. quantities referred
x x x* x x x x x x
(2001) as product
availability.
Technological Market
Richey et al. Readiness, Performance,
x x x x x x x x Technological Financial
(2007)1
Complementarity Performance

Rafiq and Jaafar

x x x x x x x x x
(2007)

Satisfaction,
Saura et al. Loyalty
x x x x
(2008)2

Perceived Ease of Satisfaction,

Use, Perceived Intention to use
Bienstock et al.
x x x x x x x x Usefulness Logistics Services,
(2008)3
Intention to use IT
Tools
Customer Focus
Quality, Order
Thai (2013)4 x x
Fulfilment Quality,
Corporate Image
Global Satisfaction
Politis et al.
x x x x x x x x
(2014)

Procedural Customer
Soh et al. (2015)5 x x x x x x x x x Switching Costs Satisfaction,
Customer Loyalty
Volume Satisfaction
Zailani et al. Flexibility, Service
x x x
(2018) Diversity, Service
Ordering
Procedure, Halal
Assurance, Order
Receipt Quality,
Corrective Actions
Operational Customer
Quality, Resource Satisfaction,
Gupta et al.
x x Quality, Customer Loyalty
(2022)
Customization,
and Innovation
Note(s):
1. LSQ construct modeled as a mediator in one model and as the dependent variable in a second model.
2. Placed information quality and order quality into a single construct with the dimension of personnel quality. Timeliness was modeled as its own construct.
3. Split LSQ into two constructs: logistics process quality (order procedures, personnel contact quality, information quality, order discrepancy handling) and logistics outcome quality (order
availability, order accuracy, timeliness, order condition).
4. Included dimensions of order accuracy, order condition, order discrepancy handling in the order fulfillment quality factor.
5. Split LSQ into two constructs: logistics service technical quality (order release quantity, order accuracy, order condition, order quality, timeliness) and logistics service functional quality
(personnel contact quality, order procedure, order discrepancy handling, information quality). Table 1.
Use of PDSQ and LSQ
(continued ) dimensions
IJLM Source
PDSQ (Bienstock et al., 1997)
Order
LSQ (Mentzer et al., 1999)

Order Personnel
Other
Independent
Dependent
Order Order Information Order Order Order Variables
Availability Condition
Timeliness Release
Quality Procedures Accuracy Quality
Discrepancy Contact Variables
Quantity Handling Quality
Business-to-Consumer (B2C)/e-Commerce

Rabinovich and
x x Reliability
Bailey (2004)
Functionality,
Information
Accuracy, Design,
Privacy, Ease of Satisfaction,
Collier and
x x x Use, Interactive Behavioral
Bienstock (2006)
fairness, Intentions
Procedural
fairness, Outcome
fairness
Xing and Grant
x x x Order Return
(2006)

Huang et al. Satisfaction,

x x x x x
(2009) Loyalty

Xing et al. (2010) x x x Order Return

Customer Purchase
PDS Quality
Rao et al. (2011)1 Satisfaction,
PDS Price
Retention
Bouzaabia et al. Operational LSQ, Satisfaction,
(2013) Relational LSQ Loyalty
Encounter
Transaction
Satisfaction,
Recency, Vendor
Historical
Koufteros et al., Familiarity,
x x x Satisfaction,
20142 Competitive
Repurchase
Pricing, Billing
Intentions, Word-
Accuracy
of-Mouth
Order Delivery Product Return
Rao et al. (2014) x x
Reliability Likelihood

Consumer
Murfield et al.
x x x Channel Type Satisfaction,
(2017)
Consumer Loyalty
Sorkun (2019)3 Product variety LSQ
Omni-channel
Sorkun et al. Consumer
capability,
(2020)4 Satisfaction
Flexibility
Online Shopping
Gender, Payment
Satisfaction,
Jain et al. (2021) x x x Options, Return
Online Repurchase
Experience
Intention
Consumer
Cotarelo et al.
x x x LSQ Return Satisfaction,
(2021)5
Consumer Loyalty
Note(s):
1. PDS quality was measured as an aggregate measure with 4 scale items.
2. Define order fulfillment service quality based on the dimensions of order timeliness, order availability, order condition, and billing accuracy
3. LSQ construct was measured as an aggregate measure with 5 scale items.
4. Operational LSQ construct was measured as an aggregate measure with 9 scale items.
5. Proposed model tested across ‘buy-online-ship-direct’, ‘buy-online-pickup-in-store’, and ‘buy-in-store-ship-direct’ scenarios.

Table 1. Source(s): Authors own creation

differs from brick-and-mortar channels in several ways. First, deficiencies in logistics

services cannot be masked by local inventory. In more traditional transactions, local
inventory can overcome deficits in LSQ dimensions such as timeliness, order condition and
order accuracy. Secondly, order returns in e-commerce require additional coordination
between the customer, retailer and shipper. To compensate for these differences, our study is
unique in that we provide a comprehensive approach to LSQ by employing many of the
Mentzer et al. (1999) dimensions (see Figure 1) in a B2C e-commerce context with the inclusion
of our novel assurance quality construct. To do so, we appropriately removed several
constructs from the Mentzer et al. (1999) LSQ model, such as order release quantities and
order quality. These two constructs and associated scale items do not translate to B2C
e-commerce as customers expect to receive exactly what they ordered. For instance, the order
release quantities scale items from Mentzer et al. (2001) (which measure B2B product
availability) focus on optimizing production and transportation capacity from the
supplier/manufacturer perspective, thus, are inappropriate in a B2C e-commerce context.
Similarly, the order quality dimension from Mentzer et al. (2001) scale items focused on
receiving substitutes and meeting technical specifications, which is also an inappropriate
scale for our study. However, Bienstock et al. (2008, p. 211) also saw this context mismatch
with Mentzer et al. (2001) and introduced order availability. The authors defined availability Hybrid
as “whether or not products are available in suppliers’ inventories so that orders can be e-logistics
fulfilled,” which is more appropriate for a B2C context. We also included order availability in
our LSQ model to compensate for this deficiency.
service quality
Unlike Mentzer et al. (1999)’s model, a recent study by Junior et al. (2020) investigated e-LSQ approach
based on Parasuraman et al. (1988) five service quality dimensions – tangibles, responsiveness,
empathy, reliability and assurance. They found that both reliability and assurance quality were
significant predictors of perceived quality. As one of the five service quality components,
assurance (Parasuraman et al., 1988) emerged as a critical feature of e-logistics services (Liu and
Arnett, 2000; Zeithaml et al., 2002; Gligor, 2015) and was reported as a significant indicator of
perceived quality in e-logistics services (Junior et al., 2020; Zhuo et al., 2013). We observed these
scale items for assurance within the Mentzer et al. (2001) model within the construct of personnel
contact quality and order discrepancy handling. Further, collecting and replacing unsatisfied
orders or refunds for customers is another key aspect of ensuring customer assurance (Novack
et al., 1994; Xing and Grant, 2006; Xing et al., 2010; Gligor, 2015). To do so, we introduce
assurance quality to the LSQ literature as a multi-dimensional construct composed of personnel
contact quality, order discrepancy handling and order returns to appropriately reflect the total
customer assurance quality experience when problems with B2C e-commerce orders emerge.
By holistically measuring logistics activities, the assurance quality construct represents a
significant and needed enhancement of existing LSQ models. To help justify its presence as a
second-order construct, we calculated the value of the target (T) coefficient in the analysis
section (Cao and Zhang, 2011; Doll et al., 1995).
To appropriately capture the PDSQ and LSQ streams of literature in a cognitively digestible
manner, we developed Table 1. Table 1 highlights both PDSQ and LSQ literature works through
several specific contexts, i.e. B2B TIBS and B2C e-commerce to highlight the visual gaps for
future inquiry. As seen in Table 1, the PDSQ and LSQ are further broken down into independent
variables based on the seminal papers that introduced PDSQ (Bienstock et al., 1997) and LSQ
(Mentzer et al., 1999). In addition to the main independent variables, a list of additional variables
can be seen for each research effort. Upon further inspection of Table 1, several areas become
apparent. First, LSQ is primarily limited to B2B TIBS contexts. Next, PDSQ is predominantly
employed in B2C e-commerce. Additionally, several studies that espouse to be LSQ, are limited to
dimensions found in PDSQ. Although several studies extended the impact of PDSQ dimensions
to beyond customer satisfaction to customer behavioral intentions and customer loyalty (Davis
and Mentzer, 2006; Huang et al., 2009; Saura et al., 2008; Stank et al., 2003) we see that no study has
empirically studied the mediating relationship between customer satisfaction, loyalty and
repurchase intention, as shown in the last column. Given the importance of behavioral aspects for
practitioners, we integrated loyalty and future purchase intention in our research model.
Collectively, we attempt to bridge many of these gaps with our study but clearly Table 1
illustrates other gaps of inquiry that will drive future research opportunities.
Many hybrid models of LSQ have been operationalized, but none are fully holistic to the
consumer experience in e-commerce (see Table 1). Our review of the literature reveals that the
majority of LSQ scholarly research was conducted in a B2B context via a traditional
industrial buyer and seller channel. Additionally, we did not find a study that has employed
and collectively tested satisfaction, loyalty and future purchase intention. The literature lacks
rigorous inquiry into the potential extensions of the Mentzer et al. (1999) framework
specifically toward the B2C e-commerce context. We seek to fill these gaps in the literature by
developing a holistic model of LSQ with the inclusion of assurance quality as a
multi-dimensional construct that consists of personnel contact quality, order discrepancy
handling and order returns. We then test our model interrelationships with the dependent
variables, which measures customer behavioral aspects such as satisfaction, loyalty and
future purchase intention.
IJLM 3. Hypothesis development
Due to our holistic approach to LSQ and customer satisfaction, we view this literature
investigation as an impactful opportunity to examine LSQ and its impact on loyalty and
future purchase intention. Customer satisfaction is linked to the dynamism associated with
the perception of service delivery and prior expectations (Jiang and Klein, 2009). Thus,
consumers derive expectations of a particular service or product before purchasing (Tsiotsou
and Wirtz, 2015). Customers assess the overall value after product/service purchase. This
assessment is compared to their expectations and is where customers subsequently judge the
overall value of the product/service experience (Tsiotsou and Wirtz, 2015). This judgment
influences overall satisfaction and future purchase intention (Parasuraman et al., 1985;
Bhattacherjee, 2001). To appropriately conduct this research, we consider the dimensions of
LSQ to be the following: timeliness, order condition, order accuracy, order availability,
information quality, ordering procedures and assurance quality. We justify and introduce the
assurance quality construct (order returns, personnel contact quality and order discrepancy
handling) that is often actualized during the customer return process (Parasuraman et al.,
1988). We assert that each construct fully represents and captures the most critical
components of LSQ in the B2C e-commerce transaction.
Timeliness refers to the time that elapses between requisition and order fulfillment and
that the order arrives when promised (Mentzer et al., 2001). Further, timeliness also captures
the consistency and reliability of the service provider across a range of service encounters.
For instance, customers expect a service provider and service integrator (linking provider to
customer) like Amazon to deliver products consistently from order to order across a spectrum
of service episodes. Indeed, several processes within and across the supply chain can
influence timeliness, such as transportation, inventory, production responsiveness, demand
forecasting, etc. While timeliness is an essential dimension in LSQ, it is also a well-studied
construct with measured impacts on customer satisfaction and loyalty (Mentzer et al., 2001;
Murfield et al., 2017; Parasuraman et al., 2005). Therefore, we posit:
H1. Timeliness is positively associated with customer satisfaction.
Order condition reflects the condition and serviceability of the order when it arrives. If orders
are damaged, customers cannot use the product, appropriately reap the service benefits and
must engage the provider for a remedy (Mentzer et al., 2001). Indeed, the condition of the order
is one component of the total value proposition that weighs into the customer assessment.
Collier and Bienstock (2006) found order condition as a dimension of outcome quality that
strongly influenced satisfaction in e-commerce. Forbes et al. (2005) reported that broken or
damaged shipments ranked the third highest of seven performance measures for customers
in e-commerce, signifying the relative severity of the infraction. Scholars have recently
reinforced the relationship between order conditions and customer satisfaction (Feng et al.,
2007). Therefore, we posit:
H2. Order condition is positively associated with customer satisfaction.
Order accuracy captures the degree of closeness of the order being filled to the customer’s
intent (Mentzer et al., 2001). Considered a cornerstone of repeat business (Tarn et al., 2003),
customers desire to receive the correct order quantity and type (no substitute or wrong item).
Scholars have found meaningful relationships between order accuracy and customer
satisfaction, repurchase intent, loyalty and perceived value (Parasuraman et al., 2005; Rafiq
and Jaafar, 2007). Therefore, we posit:
H3. Order accuracy is positively associated with customer satisfaction.
Order availability encompasses critical aspects regarding the desired product. For instance,
an indicator of availability emerges when an item of interest is in stock and ready for
shipment when ordered. In addition, order availability is the culmination of demand Hybrid
management practices to ensure a product is readily accessible. Finally, it also represents e-logistics
multiple instances of availability through time and reflects a consistent fulfillment pattern by
the supplier (Bienstock et al., 1997). Rao et al. (2011) reported a relationship between
service quality
availability and perceived value and satisfaction. Xing et al. (2010) found availability ranked approach
third highest in the importance of 15 variables in e-commerce. Therefore, we posit:
H4. Order availability is positively associated with customer satisfaction.
Information quality represents the customers’ perception of the fidelity of information
concerning the product ordered from the supplier (Mentzer et al., 2001). More clearly, it captures
the information timeliness, accuracy, completeness and credibility communicated by the service
provider. This includes information about shipment status, product availability, transportation,
delays, pricing, discounts, returns procedures, customer service information, etc. Bienstock et al.
(2008) found information quality positively associated with the quality of logistics outcomes
signifying its importance towards product availability, accuracy, timeliness and condition.
Saura et al. (2008) reported that information quality was positively associated with customer
satisfaction, further supported by the recent findings from Uvet (2020). Therefore, we posit:
H5. Information quality is positively associated with customer satisfaction.
Ordering procedures capture the supplier’s process’s overall performance to fulfill the
requisition (Mentzer et al., 2001). It represents the ease of use, overall effort, time and cognitive
input required for a customer to requisition a product online. Rafiq and Jaafar (2007), Richey
et al. (2007) and Saura et al. (2008) found a positive association between ordering procedures
and customer satisfaction. If customers cannot easily navigate the e-commerce service
provider’s website, they are inclined to find another provider. Therefore, we posit:
H6. Ordering procedures are positively associated with customer satisfaction.
Assurance quality represents several concepts that Mentzer et al. (2001) introduced by order
discrepancy handling and personnel contact quality. Similarly, Zhuo et al. (2013) defined
assurance with scale items related to customer service expertise and knowledge for solving
discrepancies, disposition of resources towards the fulfillment of services and overall process
efficiency when solving customer problems. Therefore, aspects of customer service such as
personnel experience, knowledge and efforts to solve problems are critical to regain and
assure service quality (Mentzer et al., 2001; Parasuraman et al., 1985). On the other hand,
collecting and replacing unsatisfied orders (Xing et al., 2010) and refunds for customers (He
et al., 2020) are another key aspect of ensuring customer assurance (Novack et al., 1994; Gligor,
2015). Given these dimensions’ association with assurance, we sought to appropriately couple
these concepts of personnel contact quality and order discrepancy handling from Mentzer
et al. (1999) with order returns (Xing et al., 2010; He et al., 2020) into a single multi-dimensional
construct to represent a more holistic perspective of the customer experience. Thus, we define
order assurance quality as the ability of online retailers to build confidence and trust in their
logistics services. It incorporates aspects of order returns such as refunds, replacement
products and timeliness. Further, it captures the customer input required to report a
discrepancy and the associate response of the customer service, such as willingness,
understanding, competence and effort to resolve problems. While these dimensions of
assurance quality are distinct, they collectively represent those aspects of what it means to
inspire customer trust. Research also increasingly suggests the importance of assurance of
services as determinants of customer satisfaction (Park et al., 2015; Cao et al., 2018). Industry
examples like Amazon’s recent partnership with Kohl’s to efficiently process unpackaged
customer returns, further supports the importance of the order assurance quality construct to
the measurement of LSQ. Therefore, we posit:
IJLM H7. Assurance quality is positively associated with customer satisfaction.
When leveraged appropriately, the supply chain is a strategic function that can help create a
competitive advantage for firms (Sorkun, 2019). To do so, LSQ can serve as the benchmark for
how well the supply chain is performing to meet rising customer expectations, which we
measure through customer satisfaction, loyalty and future purchase intention. Several
dimensions are condensed into the overarching concept of LSQ, which significantly
contributes to customer satisfaction. The firm’s goal generally is multi-objective and often
moves beyond the simplified perspective of profit maximization but rather to also provides a
continuous stream of services designed to enhance customer satisfaction, loyalty and future
purchase intention (Huma et al., 2019). The literature is replete with scholarly research that
empirically ties customer satisfaction, loyalty and repurchase intentions (Bouzaabia et al.,
2013; Collier and Bienstock, 2006; Jayawardhena, 2010; Lee and Lin, 2005; Rao et al., 2011;
Russo et al., 2015; Saura et al., 2008; Stank et al., 2003). Therefore, we posit:
H8. Customer satisfaction is positively associated with loyalty.
H9. Customer satisfaction is positively associated with future purchase intention.
H10. Loyalty is positively associated with future purchase intention.
The antecedents to and relationships between customer satisfaction, loyalty and future
purchase intention are well studied within the marketing literature (Wu et al., 2008; Souiden
and Pons, 2009; Chi et al., 2009; Hsu et al., 2012; Laksamana, 2018; Bianchi et al., 2019; Dash
et al., 2021). However, within the LSQ domain, these construct interrelationships have not
been holistically modeled and tested (see Table 1). Given the unique nature of e-commerce
LSQ (i.e. absence of face-to-face interaction, the ease with which customers can bounce
between service providers based on non-LSQ aspects such as environmental practices,
pricing strategies, unique product offerings, etc.), we anticipate loyalty to partially mediate
the relationship between satisfaction and future purchase intent. While online providers such
as Amazon generally offer high levels of LSQ (e.g. expedited delivery, ordering procedures,
returns, etc.), we anticipate other factors to diminish a fully mediated loyalty effect between
satisfaction and future purchase intention. Therefore, we posit:
H11. Loyalty partially mediates the relationship between satisfaction and future
purchase intention.

4. Research methodology and data analysis

4.1 Survey design
The survey consisted of two parts. First, we collected background and demographic information
(i.e. participants’ age, gender, education and number of online transactions). Screening questions
were used to limit participation to only those who made an online purchase in the last three
months; thus, the survey was not directed towards a single e-commerce provider. In the second
part, we collected data for the constructs. Then, to increase the reliability of the responses, we
used attention check questions throughout the survey to detect whether respondents were
answering without reading the questions. Next, after providing a brief definition of each
construct, respondents answered questions about the logistics service performance.
The survey items used in this study originated from past studies within the LSQ literature
(Bienstock et al., 1997; Jain et al., 2021; Mentzer et al., 2001; Rafiq and Jaafar, 2007; Rao et al.,
2011; Richey et al., 2007; Xing and Grant, 2006; Xing et al., 2010; Uvet, 2020). The scale items
for measuring the constructs of timeliness, order condition, order accuracy, order availability,
order discrepancy handling and personnel contact quality were adopted from the existing
literature of Bienstock et al. (1997, 2008) and Mentzer et al. (2001). For information quality and Hybrid
ordering procedures, scales were employed from the study of Rafiq and Jaafar (2007). e-logistics
The order return items (OR1– collection of unsatisfied orders is prompt and OR2 –
replacement of shipping product is prompt) were taken from the study of Xing et al.
service quality
(2010), and the last item (OR3 – refund of unsatisfied orders is available after return) is written approach
by authors based on the study of He et al. (2020). Finally, the survey items for future purchase
intentions were mined from the study of Jain et al. (2021), while the loyalty items were taken
from Huang et al. (2009). Four pilot studies were conducted to pre-assess the validity and
reliability of the items. Based on the principal component analysis results with varimax
rotation in the exploratory factor analysis (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988), 16 scale items with
low factor loadings and high cross-loadings were eliminated, and 47 of 63 scale items were
retained in this study (see Table 2). Except for the construct of ‘loyalty,’ all variable scales
were measured using a five-point Likert-type response anchored by “1 – Strongly Disagree”
and “5 – Strongly Agree”. The construct of ‘loyalty’ was measured with a five-point Likert-
type scale anchored by “1 – Much Lower” and “5 – Much Higher”. Table 2 summarizes the
scale item source and retention for this study.

4.2 Sampling
Empirical data for testing relationships within the research model was collected in 2019
through an online survey distributed through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk) Website.
MTurk is a human intelligence marketplace where, for a nominal fee, individuals can
voluntarily elect to complete pre-defined tasks. MTurk has been deemed suitable for
collecting appropriate data for testing relationships between endogenous and exogenous
variables (Adana et al., 2023; Cevikparmak et al., 2022; Chernev and Blair, 2015; Daly and
Nataraajan, 2015; Dickens et al., 2023; Kelley et al., 2003; Lambrecht and Tucker, 2013;
Peinkofer et al., 2022; Sussman and Olivola, 2011; Uvet et al., 2021, 2023). MTurk offers an
opportunity for behavioral studies in the logistics and supply chain domains to improve
sample size and collect survey responses on well-defined criteria (Knemeyer and Naylor,
2011). The use of MTurk in gathering answers to questions regarding LSQ factor’s
relationships with customer satisfaction, loyalty and future purchase intention are valid in
this research as it allowed the study to reach a broad base of respondents with online
shopping experience. Moreover, this crowdsourcing platform possesses more advantages
than any potential bias (Aguinis et al., 2021; Huff and Tingley, 2015; Hunt and Scheetz, 2019;
Uvet et al., 2022). However, usage of the web-surveys cause a coverage error that occurs when
some participants have no chance of being chosen for the study (De Leeuw et al., 2012).
Survey strategies recommended by Schoenherr et al. (2015) were employed to increase the
validity and quality of recorded survey responses. The survey in MTurk was limited to
individuals who confirmed their experience in online shopping. “Attention filters” were used
throughout the survey to gauge the attentiveness of respondents (Schoenherr et al., 2015) and
increase the reliability of responses. The online survey for participants who either responded
as having no experience with online shopping or failed attention checks was terminated.
Finally, singular Internet Protocol addresses limited repeat submissions. Respondents who
completed the entire survey received monetary compensation for their responses.
Of the 585 survey attempts, 508 complete survey responses were received from MTurk
participants. During the data collection process, elementary questions were used to test
whether participants were reading the instructions. We only accepted participants who
demonstrated that they had read and understood the survey. Sixty-six participants were
removed due to failing attention checks. An additional 15 responses were removed during
survey analysis because of straight-line responses or disengaged participation as determined
by excessive completion time. After screening, 427 responses were retained as the final
IJLM Standard Standard
Construct estimate t-value error

Customer satisfaction (SAT) (η1) (Murfield et al., 2017)

SAT 1 – Overall, I am very satisfied with this online retailer’s 0.790 20.274 0.042
service
SAT 2 – My online retailer gives good service 0.825 21.851 0.040
SAT 3 – I am happy with my online retailer 0.870 (set to 1.0)
Loyalty (LYL) (η2) (Huang et al., 2009)
LYL1 – I will say good things about this online retailer 0.862 20.243 0.055
LYL2 – I would recommend this online retailer 0.900 21.374 0.050
LYL3 – I would classify myself as a loyal customer of this 0.796 (set to 1.0)
online retailer
Future purchase intention (FPI) (η3) (Jain et al., 2021)
FPI1 – I am planning to use again in near future 0.842 22.375 0.043
FPI2 – I am planning to use again in the mid-term 0.862 23.310 0.040
FPI3 – I am planning to use again in the long term 0.873 (set to 1.0)
Timeliness (TI) (ξ1) (Bienstock et al., 1997; Mentzer et al., 2001)
TI1 – Orders arrive on the date promised 0.804 19.495 0.049
TI2 – Arriving time of order is consistent with the date 0.833 20.635 0.050
promised
TI3 – Delivery time of orders is consistent 0.798 18.059 0.059
TI4 – Delivery time of orders is reliable 0.832 20.853 0.051
TI5 – Time between placing and receiving order is reliable 0.861 (set to 1.0)
Order condition (OC) (ξ2) (Bienstock et al., 1997; Mentzer et al., 2001)
OC1 – Orders arrive undamaged 0.712 14.053 0.060
OC2 – Order damage rarely occurs as a result of the transport 0.666 13.115 0.072
mode
OC3 – Packaging of order is sturdy 0.748 14.751 0.056
OC4 – Packaging of order is undamaged 0.772 (set to 1.0)
Order accuracy (OAC) (ξ3) (Mentzer et al., 2001)
OAC1 – Shipments rarely contain the wrong items 0.837 14.845 0.067
OAC2 – Shipments rarely contain incorrect number of 0.888 15.703 0.067
quantities
OAC3 – Shipments rarely contain substituted items 0.791 25.219 0.037
OAC4 – Shipments rarely contain erroneous items 0.842 (set to 1.0)
Information quality (IQ) (ξ4) (Rafiq and Jaafar, 2007)
IQ1 – The information communicated by online retailer is 0.722 16.257 0.052
timely
IQ2 – The information communicated by online seller is 0.780 17.993 0.051
accurate
IQ3 – The information communicated by online seller is 0.814 19.068 0.056
complete
IQ4 – The information communicated by online seller is 0.763 17.461 0.050
adequate
IQ5 – The information communicated by online seller is 0.825 (set to 1.0)
credible
Order availability (OAV) (ξ5) (Bienstock et al., 2008)
OAV1 – Products are available in inventory when ordered 0.781 17.102 0.053
Table 2. OAV2 – Products consistently be available in inventory 0.781 17.097 0.055
The estimates of OAV3 – Products seen as available in inventory is reliable 0.833 (set to 1.0)
confirmatory factor
analysis (continued )
 Standard Standard
Hybrid
Construct estimate t-value error e-logistics
service quality
Ordering procedures (OP) (ξ6) (Rafiq and Jaafar, 2007)
OP1 – Online requisitioning procedures are easy to use 0.873 15.095 0.059 approach
OP2 – Online requisitioning procedures do not take much 0.754 24.276 0.043
effort
OP3 – Online requisitioning procedures do not take much time 0.763 14.039 0.065
OP4 – Online requisitioning procedures are understandable 0.825 (set to 1.0)
Order assurance quality (ξ6) (second-order construct)
Order discrepancy handling (ODH) (Mentzer et al., 2001) 0.758 (set to 1.0)
ODH1 – Correction of order discrepancies is satisfactory 0.841 25.109 0.035
ODH2 – Response to order discrepancies is satisfactory 0.920 30.386 0.034
ODH3 – The process of reporting of order discrepancies is 0.924 (set to 1.0)
adequate
Personal contact quality (PCQ) (Bienstock et al., 2008; 0.804 12.902
Mentzer et al., 2001)
PCQ1 – Customer services have sufficient knowledge to 0.857 25.537 0.039
resolve problems
PCQ2 – Customer service has sufficient experience to resolve 0.828 22.298 0.041
problems
PCQ3 – Customer services makes an effort to understand my 0.870 24.061 0.040
situation
PCQ4 – Customer service is willing to understand my 0.886 24.937 0.040
problems
PCQ5 – Customer service is willing to find a solution to any 0.854 23.477 0.043
problem
PCQ6 – Customer services provides great effort to understand 0.871 31.035 0.033
my problems
PCQ7 – Customer services provides great effort to find a 0.865 (set to 1.0)
solution to any problem
Order return (OR) (Xing and Grant, 2006; Xing et al., 2010; 0.771 12.322
He et al., 2020)
OR1 – Collection of unsatisfied orders is prompt 0.860 (set to 1.0)
OR2 – Replacement of shipping product is prompt 0.896 22.441 0.044
OR3 – Refund of unsatisfied orders is available after 0.771 18.577 0.044
return (Authors based on the He et al., 2020)
Source(s): Authors’ own creation Table 2.

sample for statistical analysis. Demographics of the sample used for statistical analysis and
hypothesis testing are presented in Table 3. Based on the diverse demographics in Table 3,
we posit that the diversity of respondents leads to generalizable results for LSQ in online
shopping.

4.3 Measurement assessment (validity and reliability)

To reduce common method bias (CMB) within the survey design, we switched up response
formats for Likert-type scales. Also, to eliminate ambiguity in scale items, we briefly defined
each construct within the survey (Podsakoff et al., 2012). As a post-hoc test, Harman’s single-
factor test (Podsakoff et al., 2003) and a common latent factor (CLF) test (Eichhorn, 2014) were
used for examining CMB. Harman’s single-factor test indicated that less than half of the total
variance is explained by one factor, confirming no significant CMB within the dataset. To
IJLM (n 5 427) %

Gender
Male 175 41
Female 252 59
Age
18–25 50 11.7
26–32 109 25.5
33–40 101 23.7
41–47 55 12.9
48þ 112 26.2
Education
Some high school, no diploma 5 1.2
High school graduate, diploma or the equivalent 44 10.3
Some college credit, no degree 115 26.9
Bachelor’s degree 199 46.6
Master’s degree 59 13.8
Doctorate degree 5 1.2
Employment
Full-time work 269 63
Part-time work 76 17.8
Unemployed 82 19.2
Purchase frequency from online stores (per year)
1–5 26 6.1
6–10 54 12.6
11–15 72 16.9
16–20 72 16.9
21–25 43 10.1
Table 3. 25þ 160 37.5
Sample demographics Source(s): Authors’ own creation

illustrate rigor, we also used CLF to test CMB. The calculated common method variance was
21%, below the threshold of 50% (Eichhorn, 2014).
Reliability was confirmed using construct reliability (CR) via confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA) and Cronbach’s α (Fornell and Larcker, 1981; O’Leary-Kelly and Flores, 2002). The CR
results ranged from 0.816 to 0.974, exceeding the 0.70 thresholds suggested by Hair et al.
(2010). To verify CR, Cronbach’s alpha was computed for each construct. All values for
Cronbach’s alpha were calculated above the suggested threshold of 0.70, indicating ample
reliability (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Congeneric reliability (Cho, 2016) for the reliability of
our second-order assurance quality construct was calculated using RelCalc; a calculator that
computes reliability coefficients. Congeneric reliabilities of the first and second-order factors
of assurance quality were above 0.90 (Cho, 2016). Results of congeneric reliability calculations
can be found in Table 4.
Measurement factor loadings were all deemed significant, with t-values for all factors in
the range of 12.322–31.035. Convergent validity of each construct was determined acceptable
based on standardized factor loadings ranging from 0.712 to 0.924 (Hair et al., 2010) and
average variance extracted for each factor being in the range of 0.526–0.738, exceeding the
0.50 recommended threshold (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).
 α CR AVE LYL TI OC OA OP IQL OAS OAV SAT FPI

LYL 0.887 0.889 0.729 0.854

TI 0.920 0.915 0.682 0.614 0.826
OC 0.812 0.816 0.526 0.590 0.585 0.726
OA 0.914 0.906 0.706 0.417 0.404 0.505 0.840
OP 0.887 0.872 0.630 0.680 0.600 0.625 0.513 0.794
IQ 0.886 0.887 0.611 0.566 0.546 0.511 0.391 0.620 0.782
OAS 0.974* 0.821 0.605 0.690 0.574 0.599 0.359 0.610 0.551 0.778
OAV 0.841 0.841 0.639 0.575 0.613 0.566 0.452 0.603 0.605 0.587 0.799
SAT 0.867 0.868 0.688 0.869 0.667 0.689 0.522 0.758 0.687 0.691 0.726 0.829
FPI 0.894 0.894 0.738 0.839 0.557 0.597 0.495 0.667 0.578 0.534 0.569 0.847 0.859
Note(s): CFA global fit indices: chi-square 5 1994.552; df 5 974; cmin/df 5 2.048 GFI 5 0.836; AGFI 5 0.810; NFI 5 0.887; NNFI 5 0.954, IFI 5 0.939, CFI 5 0.938;
RMSEA 5 0.050. The diagonal elements are √AVE and the off-diagonal elements are f estimates
* Congeneric reliability (Cho, 2016). Congeneric reliabilities of first factors of ODH (0.938), PCQ (0.968), OR (0.913)
LYL (loyalty), TI (timeliness), OC (order condition), OA (order accuracy), OP (ordering procedures), IQ (information quality), OAS (order assurance), OAV (order
availability), SAT (satisfaction), FPI (future purchase intention), ODH (order discrepancy handling), PCQ (personal contact quality), OR (order return)
Source(s): Authors’ own creation
approach
service quality
e-logistics
Hybrid

construct validity and

discriminant validity
Table 4.
Evidence of reliability,
IJLM CFA was conducted using IBM SPSS AMOS 28. Values between 0.80 and 0.89 show an
adequate fit (Hong et al., 2005; Segars and Grover, 1993), and values equal to or higher than
0.90 represent evidence of a good fit for GFI, AGFI, CFI and NFI (Bentler and Bonett, 1980;
Bentler, 1990; Hooper et al., 2008). For RMSEA, values less than 0.08 show a good fit (Hair
et al., 2010). Normed chi-square (χ 2) values smaller than 2.0 prove a good fit and values lower
than 3.0 indicate a reasonable fit (Hair et al., 2010). The following indicators for the
measurement model (CFI: 0.938, GFI: 0.836, AGFI: 0.810, RMSEA: 0.050, IFI: 0.939, NNFI:
0.932, normed chi-square: 2.048) demonstrate a satisfactory model fit (Anderson and Gerbing,
1988; Bagozzi and Yi, 1988). Table 4 provides details of construct measurement, reliability
and validity.
Discriminant validity was checked using the procedure of Fornell and Larcker (1981) and
the Heterotrait–Monotrait ratio (HTMT) (Henseler et al., 2015). As seen in Table 4, the square
root of each average variance extracted (AVE) (in diagonal) is greater than the correlation
coefficients for each construct, implying adequate levels of discriminant validity (Hair et al.,
2010). In addition to the Fornell and Larcker procedure, we conducted the HTMT of
correlations test. When HTMT values are greater than 0.90 (Henseler et al., 2015),
discriminant validity problems are present. Our results indicate that the values of all the
constructs were well below 0.90, satisfying the lowest HTMT criterion (Henseler et al., 2015).
These results illustrate acceptable levels of internal consistency, convergent, discriminant
and construct validity (Hair et al., 2010).
For the validation of our second-order construct, the target (T) coefficient value was
calculated as the ratio of the first-order model’s chi-square to the second-order model’s chi-
square (Doll et al., 1995). The values for T coefficient above 0.8 indicate the existence of a
second-order construct (Marsh and Hocevar, 1985). Since the T coefficients for the second-
order construct of assurance quality benefits are above 0.8, the second-order model is deemed
acceptable.

5. Results of hypothesis tests and discussion

This study used covariance-based structural equation modeling (CB-SEM) for inferential
analysis. The bootstrap technique was also applied to measure the statistical significance of
the indirect (mediation) relationships between customer satisfaction, loyalty and future
purchase intention. The global fit indices of the model (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988; Bagozzi
and Yi, 1988; Bentler, 1990) are within acceptable limits for the model (Chi-square 5 2035.701,
df 5 988, CMIN/DF 5 2.060; GFI 5 0.833, AGFI 5 0.809, NFI 5 0.885, CFI 5 0.937,
RMSEA 5 0.050). We also conducted a Bollen-Stine bootstrap to test model fit. The model is
rejected if the Bollen-Stine bootstrap results in a p < 0.05 (Bollen and Stine, 1992). The Bollen-
Stine bootstrap analysis provided a p-value of 0.12, which indicates the model fits the data
well. In the SEM model, we controlled the age and education level of the participants. As
evident in Figure 2, all hypotheses were statistically confirmed, with associated values shown
in Table 5 under Model 2. The CB-SEM revealed an R-square of 0.775 for customer
satisfaction, 0.762 for loyalty, and 0.756 for future purchase intention. The results indicate
several important findings.
The results of our model support our first hypothesis that the construct of timeliness
(β 5 0.101; t 5 2.125; p < 0.05) positively influences customer satisfaction. This finding is
suggestive that reliability in getting the orders on the promised date is one of the critical items
for customer satisfaction in online shopping. This is consistent with previous research on
B2B (Mentzer et al., 2001; Tian et al., 2010), omnichannel (Murfield et al., 2017) and B2C (Xing
et al., 2010; Feng et al., 2007) transactions. However, while the previous studies highlighted its
significance and impact within PDSQ, this study revealed its impact within a more robust and
comprehensive model.
 Hybrid
e-logistics
service quality
approach

Figure 2.
Results of SEM
analysis (IBM
AMOS 28)

The significant positive influence of order condition (β 5 0.145; t 5 2.784; p < 0.05) on
customer satisfaction has a slightly greater impact than the timeliness construct, supporting
our second hypothesis. This indicates that getting the order without damage from
transportation or packaging is critical for customer satisfaction. Therefore, preparing the
orders for delivery using the right packages and supplies (e.g. bubble wrap, polyfoam, kraft
paper, etc.) to eliminate any damage during transportation should be considered carefully to
enhance customer satisfaction.
The results of our model are also supportive of the third hypothesis in that order
accuracy (β 5 0.071; t 5 1.745; p < 0.10) has a significant positive influence on customer
satisfaction. This finding indicates that getting the correct order with the proper quantity is
one of the significant dimensions that lead to customer satisfaction. As we can expect, this
finding is consistent with the studies for LSQ in 3PL services within a B2B context (Mentzer
et al., 2001; Rafiq and Jaafar, 2007). Today, with the surge in e-commerce during the COVID-
19 pandemic, the probability of sending wrong items or incorrect quantities has naturally
increased. This result solidifies order accuracy’s importance within LSQ B2C e-commerce
and justifies enhanced quality control and preventative actions to minimize errors during
the preparation of orders.
In regards to the association between order availability and customer satisfaction, we find
evidence of a significant positive impact (β 5 0.144; t 5 2.706; p < 0.05). This finding supports
our fourth hypothesis in that customer satisfaction with online purchasing platforms
increases with enhanced visibility on retailer inventory levels. Because of recent supply chain
IJLM Model 1 (without second- Model 2 (with second-
order construct and order order construct of
return) assurance quality)
Construct Standard Standard
Hypothesized relationship estimate t-value estimate t-value

Timeliness → customer satisfaction γ1 0.112 2.394 0.101 2.125

Order condition → customer satisfaction γ2 0.152 2.717 0.145 2.784
Order accuracy → customer satisfaction γ3 0.074 1.795 0.071 1.745
Order availability → customer satisfaction γ4 0.155 2.948 0.144 2.706
Information quality → customer satisfaction γ5 0.151 3.231 0.140 2.969
Ordering procedures→ customer γ6 0.266 4.722 0.254 4.495
satisfaction
Order assurance quality → customer γ7 – – 0.239 4.335
satisfaction
Personal contact quality→ customer γ8 0.101 2.121 – –
satisfaction
Order discrepancy handling → Customer γ9 0.117 2.242 – –
satisfaction
Customer satisfaction → loyalty γ10 0.874 18.958 0.873 18.942
Customer satisfaction → future purchase γ11 0.476 5.432 0.476 5.448
intention
Loyalty → future purchase intention γ12 0.422 4.829 0.423 4.860

Fit indices Model 1 Model 2

Ch.Sq. 1774.934 2004.840

Df 810 944
CMIN/df 2.191 2.124
RMSEA 0.053 0.051
GFI 0.839 0.831
AGFI 0.812 0.806
NFI 0.887 0.881
NNFI 0.935 0.933
CFI 0.935 0.937
Table 5. AIC 2046.934 2278.840
The results of the SEM BIC 2078.264 2312.819
analysis Source(s): Authors’ own creation

disruptions and the growing demand of customers during the COVID-19 pandemic, products
often become unavailable both in physical stores and online retailers. Although the product is
often seen as available during the ordering process, it is delayed due to information distortion,
which drives customer backorders. Consequently, this significant result highlights the
importance of order availability within the broader scope of LSQ and its contribution to
capturing customer satisfaction and future behavioral intentions.
Support was given to our fifth hypothesis as information quality was found to be a
significant, positive influence on customer satisfaction as well (β 5 0.140; t 5 2.969; p < 0.05).
Information provided by online retailers to the customer should be timely, adequate and
accurate. Considering the communication gap identified by Parasuraman et al. (1985) in the
service quality framework for customer satisfaction, closing this gap for better logistics
services is crucial in B2C e-commerce. Any information for traceability of orders from start to
finish should be shared with the customer. This result is consistent with Closs and Savitskie
(2003) findings in which the authors highlighted the necessity of logistics information
integration with customers for better customer service performance. Therefore, visibility of
business processes and how sellers share information accurately and timely is critical to Hybrid
increasing customer satisfaction. e-logistics
We find support for our sixth hypothesis that order procedures would have a positive
impact on customer satisfaction. More compelling, our research finds the significant positive
service quality
impact of ordering procedures (β 5 0.254; t 5 4.495; p < 0.001) contributes the greatest impact approach
on customer satisfaction. This reveals the importance of online retailers employing efficient
and effective ordering procedures. Commensurate with other studies, ordering procedures
were found to be significant within the B2B context for 3PL services (Mentzer et al., 2001;
Rafiq and Jaafar, 2007). Although the importance of ordering procedures was known, this
finding shows how critical it is among other LSQ dimensions for B2C e-commerce. Thus,
online retailers should continuously seek to improve their ordering procedures with the goal
of lowering customer cognition, time, energy and effort.
The second greatest influence among LSQ dimensions on customer satisfaction was
associated with assurance quality. Our model results demonstrated a significant positive
impact of assurance quality (β 5 0.239; t 5 4.335; p < 0.001) on customer satisfaction,
supporting our seventh hypothesis. Although these concepts were independently
investigated in previous studies (Feng et al., 2007; Xing and Grant, 2006; Xing et al., 2010;
Uvet, 2020), we consolidated these dimensions within the second-order construct of assurance
quality to illustrate its importance towards easing customer problems. Given the unique
nature of e-commerce (i.e. lack of face-to-face interaction, no physical storefront, etc.)
compared to more traditional brick-and-mortar B2C transactions, we see that assurance
quality is the second most critical component within LSQ towards enhancing customer
satisfaction. This finding is consistent with the service quality literature in which assurance
is seen as one of the five foundational service quality dimensions (Parasuraman et al., 1985).
While order returns are common in e-commerce, it is interesting to note that few studies (Xing
and Grant, 2006; Xing et al., 2010) considered modeling and testing returns management as a
critical component of LSQ. We believe our study will serve as a benchmark for future studies
to replicate its effect in other hybrid models of LSQ in varying contexts.
Customer satisfaction (β 5 0.873; t 5 18.942; p < 0.001) was found to have significant
positive impact on loyalty supporting our eighth hypothesis. This discovery is consistent with
the findings of Murfield et al. (2017) within omnichannel retailing. However, a comparison of our
findings with Murfield et al. (2017) shows that the impact of satisfaction on loyalty in online
transactions yields a greater impact than omnichannel retailing. Given the importance of the
retention of customers in e-commerce, online retailers should emphasize and advertise the
logistics services provided to enhance customer satisfaction. The impact of customer
satisfaction (β 5 0.476; t 5 5.448; p < 0.001) and the impact of loyalty (β 5 0.423; t 5 4.860;
p < 0.001) on future purchase intention were both found positive and significant, therefore
supporting our ninth and tenth hypotheses. The mediated effect of loyalty between customer
satisfaction and future purchase intention was verified using a bootstrapping test (Preacher
and Hayes, 2008). The mediation effect was tested using 1,000 bias-corrected bootstrapping
resamples in IBM SPSS AMOS 28. The direct effect of satisfaction on future purchase intention
without mediation was found significant (β 5 0.848; p < 0.001). Based on the results of
bootstrapping, both the direct (β 5 0.479; p < 0.05) and indirect effect (β 5 0.369; p < 0.05) of
satisfaction on future purchase intention with mediation were found significant. Therefore,
loyalty partially mediates the impact of customer satisfaction on future purchase intention.
These results indicate that for customer retention, online retailers should strongly consider
building long-term relationships by gaining customer trust through better logistics services.
We evaluated both the original model and the hybrid model (See Table 5). Here, we
conducted a new analysis for model comparison by excluding the assurance quality second-
order construct and omitting order returns from the original model. The results of this
analysis are provided in Table 5, Model 1. Here, the direct impact of personnel contact quality
IJLM (β 5 0.101; t 5 2.121; p < 0.05) and order discrepancy handling (β 5 0.117; t 5 2.242; p < 0.05)
on customer satisfaction were found significant. While both models have similar fit indices
results, when considering the higher predictive capability of model 2 and the significance of
assurance quality at a 99.9% confidence level (β 5 0.239; t 5 4.335; p < 0.001), our model
provides greater LSQ insights from a more simplified and holistic approach (Pellathy et al.,
2019). Also, our results indicate that assurance quality has the second highest impact
(β 5 0.239) after order procedures (β 5 0.254), which is critical for e-commerce practitioners.

6. Conclusions and future research

This research builds upon and extends prior PDSQ and LSQ research by exploring the effects
of LSQ factors on B2C e-commerce customer satisfaction, loyalty and future purchase
intentions and found statistical significance for all hypothesized relationships. In doing so,
this research makes several significant contributions to the logistics and supply chain
literature. First, our study reviews prominent logistics service quality related literature;
revealing the surprising lack of consistency and consensus regarding the dimensions used to
measure LSQ. Next, this research addresses calls for hybrid LSQ models (Kilibarda et al.,
2020) and for the continued adaptation of LSQ to changing environments (Leuschner et al.,
2013). Third, our research also extends existing LSQ models by identifying the significant
relationship between assurance quality (personal contact quality, order discrepancy handling
and order returns) on customer satisfaction in a B2C e-commerce environment. Additionally,
out of the seven factors modeled, we find ordering procedures to significantly influence
customers’ evaluation of service with their online orders. To gain a competitive advantage,
practitioners must work to minimize the customer’s time, energy and cognition (user-friendly
website to requisition a product) required to complete an order. For example, e-commerce
companies that require customers to create an account are not considering this fact and will
most likely lose non-loyal e-commerce customers in the B2C market. Conversely, companies
that enable account creation from existing mainstream service providers, such as Amazon
Pay or PayPal, will expedite ordering procedures and gain a competitive advantage even if
there is a relatively small fee. The spirit of this thought also extends to any unnecessary
additional barrier between click and pay. If service providers want further information from
the customer or seek to provide other services, these requests should be sought outside the
consumer click-and-pay experience (e.g. a personalized e-mail). Fourth, our findings suggest
common LSQ dimensions (i.e. timeliness, order accuracy) may vary in significance across
different business environments (i.e. B2B vs B2C). Finally, we find that customer loyalty
partially mediates the relationship between satisfaction and future purchase intention,
revealing the importance of businesses competing on logistics services.

6.1 Theoretical implications

By investigating LSQ in different contexts (i.e. B2C vs B2B) this research makes an important
theoretical contribution. According to Bienstock et al. (1997), conducting service quality
research in different contexts “facilitates the discovery of any limitations and fosters legitimate
extensions of the theoretical development of service quality (pg. 40).” For example, order
accuracy was important in the B2C e-commerce research of Collier and Bienstock (2006) while
our research found order accuracy (see Figure 2) to be significant but not relatively crucial in the
presence of all variables—indicating that the accuracy of the e-commerce B2C order has mainly
been addressed. Next, our research found the dimension of timeliness (within a similar context
of B2C e-commerce LSQ) not to match the practical importance of Collier and Bienstock (2006),
Huang et al. (2009) and Murfield et al. (2017). We recommend that future research replicate our
results to ensure practitioners know where to invest in logistics services.
Within academia, this research contributes to logistics services literature by extending the Hybrid
LSQ model with a conceptualized second-order factor of assurance quality (personnel contact e-logistics
quality, order discrepancy handling and order returns). This proposed multi-dimensional
construct attempts to help explain customer satisfaction with the handling, customer service
service quality
and return procedures on discrepancies in e-commerce orders. The results of the collected approach
sample and its significant and second most impactful relationship with customer satisfaction
support its further inclusion in studying LSQ in e-commerce markets.
Additionally, this research offers a unique clarity to the demarcation and overlap between
LSQ and PDSQ research frameworks. The relevant works audited in Table 1 highlight the
different operationalizations of LSQ and PDSQ constructs that have been studied since their
original development. The classification of research efforts based upon the context (B2C/B2B
and TIBS/E-Commerce) illustrates areas in which LSQ and PDSQ constructs have been
adopted and studied. As clear paths of research are paramount to the growing body of
knowledge, this research makes the theoretical contribution of providing a clearer framework
and evolution of both the PDSQ and LSQ models. We believe this contribution will aid and
motivate future researchers with the appropriate and correct usage of PDSQ and LSQ models
in different contexts.

6.2 Managerial implications

For practitioners, our study suggests that in the unfortunate event of logistics service
failures, customers also expect an avenue of recourse to satisfy concerns. This is consistent
with the service failure and recovery literature (McCollough et al., 2000; Hess et al., 2003) and
with other LSQ studies presented in Table 1 that employed either or both personnel contact
quality and order discrepancy handling, as these scholars’ results showed each as significant
and highly impactful (Richey et al., 2007; Saura et al., 2008; Huang et al., 2009). As such,
e-commerce retailers need to focus on enhancing order procedures and efficiently and
effectively satisfying customer concerns. Amazon’s recent partnership with Kohl’s to handle
returns signifies this effort. Here, customers can contact Amazon customer service to initiate
a return and, if necessary, bring products to a local Kohl’s store for packaging and shipping to
minimize transaction costs. Conversely, Kohl’s attracts potential customers. Consequently,
this strategic relationship creates a “win” for all players involved in the return and enhances
customer satisfaction.
For e-commerce B2C businesses, our results indicate that the positive effect of customer
loyalty on future purchase intentions may be waning as customer shopping behaviors shift
towards online transactions. The absence of full mediation by the customer loyalty construct
motivates this conclusion and is an area for future research (Hayes, 2018). Our study suggests
this is likely due to e-retailers now competing on logistics services. As such, our results should
provide practitioners with a roadmap of where to invest scarce resources towards achieving
higher levels of customer satisfaction. Future research should identify moderators, such as
subscription plans, that could enhance loyalty’s impact on future purchase intention.
Furthermore, future research should investigate the hierarchy of customer value (Mentzer
et al., 1997) with our LSQ framework in the B2C e-commerce context.
Businesses that want to create competitive advantages in their respective e-commerce
markets should pay particular attention to the quality of logistics surrounding online
ordering. Managers should consider how various aspects of LSQ lend themselves to
satisfying and retaining customers. Our results indicate that the effective and efficient
handling of the initial order and any order problem significantly influences customer
satisfaction. Businesses that dedicate resources to creating value and ensuring quality
throughout a transaction could reap the long-term benefits of customer retention and brand
recognition. As such, we believe businesses should seek to gain a competitive advantage by
strengthening deficiencies in logistics services and advertising them to customers.
IJLM Lastly, considering the given sample size of 427 respondents, future researchers can
replicate this study by increasing the number of respondents. This approach will enhance the
reliability and validity of the results. Furthermore, due to the potential coverage errors
associated with web-based surveys, future research studies can validate the findings of this
study using traditional survey methods.

References
Abrams, V.K. (2021), “Global ecommerce forecast 2021”, available at: https://www.emarketer.com/
content/global-ecommerce-forecast-2021 (accessed 20 July 2020).
Adana, S., Manuj, I., Herburger, M., Cevikparmak, S., Celik, H. and Uvet, H. (2023), “Linking
decentralization in decision-making to resilience outcomes: a supply chain orientation
perspective”, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. ahead-of-print No.
ahead-of-print, doi: 10.1108/IJLM-07-2022-0308.
Aguinis, H., Villamor, I. and Ramani, R.S. (2021), “MTurk research: review and recommendations”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 823-837.
Amorim, P. and Dehoratius, N. (2021), “Online shoppers don’t always care about faster delivery”, MIT
Sloan Management Review, Vol. 63 No. 1, pp. 12-14.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-423.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988), “On the evaluation of structural equation models”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 74-94.
Bentler, P.M. (1990), “Comparative fit indexes in structural models”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 107
No. 2, pp. 238-246.
Bentler, P.M. and Bonett, D.G. (1980), “Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of
covariance structures”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 88 No. 3, p. 588.
Bhattacharjya, J., Ellison, A. and Tripathi, S. (2016), “An exploration of logistics related customer
service provision on Twitter: the case of e-retailers”, International Journal of Physical
Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 46 Nos 6/7, pp. 659-680.
Bhattacherjee, A. (2001), “Understanding information systems continuance: an expectation-
confirmation model”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 351-370.
Bianchi, E., Bruno, J.M. and Sarabia-Sanchez, F.J. (2019), “The impact of perceived CSR on corporate
reputation and purchase intention”, European Journal of Management and Business Economics,
Vol. 28, pp. 206-221.
Bienstock, C.C., Mentzer, J.T. and Bird, M.M. (1997), “Measuring physical distribution service quality”,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 31-44.
Bienstock, C.C., Royne, M.B., Sherrell, D. and Stafford, T.F. (2008), “An expanded model of logistics
service quality: incorporating logistics information technology”, International Journal of
Production Economics, Vol. 113 No. 1, pp. 205-222.
Bollen, K.A. and Stine, R.A. (1992), “Bootstrapping goodness-of-fit measures in structural equation
models”, Sociological Methods and Research, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 205-229.
Bouzaabia, R., Bouzaabia, O. and Capatina, A. (2013), “Retail logistics service quality: a cross-cultural
survey on customer perceptions”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management,
Vol. 41 No. 8, pp. 627-647.
Cao, M. and Zhang, Q. (2011), “Supply chain collaboration: impact on collaborative advantage and
firm performance”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 163-180.
Cao, Y., Ajjan, H. and Hong, P. (2018), “Post-purchase shipping and customer service experiences in
online shopping and their impact on customer satisfaction: an empirical study with
comparison”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 400-416.
Cevikparmak, S., Celik, H., Adana, S., Uvet, H., Sauser, B. and Nowicki, D. (2022), “Scale development Hybrid
and validation of Transaction Cost Economics typology for contracts: a systems thinking
approach”, Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, Vol. 28 No. 3, 100769. e-logistics
Chernev, A. and Blair, S. (2015), “Doing well by doing good: the benevolent halo of corporate social
service quality
responsibility”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 41 No. 6, pp. 1412-1425. approach
Chi, H.K., Yeh, H.R. and Shih, C. (2009), “The impact of brand awareness on consumer purchase
intention: the mediating effect of perceived quality and brand loyalty”, Journal of International
Management Studies, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 135-144.
Cho, E. (2016), “Making reliability reliable: a systematic approach to reliability coefficients”,
Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 651-682.
Closs, D.J. and Savitskie, K. (2003), “Internal and external logistics information technology
integration”, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 63-76.
Collier, J.E. and Bienstock, C.C. (2006), “Measuring service quality in e-retailing”, Journal of Service
Research, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 260-275.
Collins, A., Henchion, M. and O’Reilly, P. (2001), “Logistics customer service: performance of Irish
food exporters”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 29
No. 1, pp. 6-15.
Cotarelo, M., Calder
on, H. and Fayos, T. (2021), “A further approach in omnichannel LSQ, satisfaction
and customer loyalty”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 49
No. 8, pp. 1133-1153.
Daly, T.M. and Nataraajan, R. (2015), “Swapping bricks for clicks: crowdsourcing longitudinal data on
Amazon Turk”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 68 No. 12, pp. 2603-2609.
Dash, G., Kiefer, K. and Paul, J. (2021), “Marketing-to-Millennials: marketing 4.0, customer satisfaction
and purchase intention”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 122, pp. 608-620.
Daugherty, P.J., Bolumole, Y. and Grawe, S.J. (2019), “The new age of customer impatience: an agenda
for reawakening logistics customer service research”, International Journal of Physical
Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 4-32.
Davis, B.R. and Mentzer, J.T. (2006), “Logistics service driven loyalty: an exploratory study”, Journal
of Business Logistics, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 53-73.
De Leeuw, E.D., Hox, J. and Dillman, D. (2012), International Handbook of Survey Methodology,
Routledge, New York.
Dickens, J.M., Anderson, J.R., Reiman, A., Uvet, H. and Nowicki, D.R. (2023), “Supply chain resilience:
an empirical examination of the bouncing back or forward phenomenon”, International Journal
of Logistics Research and Applications, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 190-210.
Ding, M.J., Jie, F., Parton, K.A. and Matanda, M.J. (2014), “Relationships between quality of information
sharing and supply chain food quality in the Australian beef processing industry”, The
International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 85-108.
Doll, W.J., Raghunathan, T.S., Jeen-Su, L. and Yash, P.G. (1995), “A confirmatory factor analysis of the
user information satisfaction instrument”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 177-188.
Eichhorn, B.R. (2014), “Common method variance techniques”, Cleveland State University,
Department of Operations and Supply Chain Management, pp. 1-11.
Esper, T.L., Castillo, V.E., Ren, K., Sodero, A., Wan, X., Croxton, K.L., Knemeyer, A.M., DeNunzio, S.,
Zinn, W. and Goldsby, T.J. (2020), “Everything old is new again: the age of consumer-centric
supply chain management”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 286-293.
Feng, Y.X., Zheng, B. and Tan, J.R. (2007), “Exploratory study of logistics service quality scale based
on online shopping malls”, Journal of Zhejiang University-Science A, Vol. 8 No. 6, pp. 926-931.
Forbes, L.P., Kelley, S.W. and Hoffman, K.D. (2005), “Typologies of e-commerce retail failures and
recovery strategies”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 280-292.
IJLM Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Structural equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error: algebra and statistics”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1,
pp. 382-388.
Gligor, D.M. (2015), “Identifying the dimensions of logistics service quality in an online B2C context”,
Journal of Transportation Management, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 61-76.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed.,
Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hayes, A.F. (2018), “Partial, conditional, and moderated moderated mediation: quantification,
inference, and interpretation”, Communication Monographs, Vol. 85 No. 1, pp. 4-40.
He, Y., Xu, Q. and Wu, P. (2020), “Omnichannel retail operations with refurbished consumer returns”,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 271-290.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2015), “A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity
in variance-based structural equation modeling”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 115-135.
Hess, R.L. Jr, Ganesan, S. and Klein, N.M. (2003), “Service failure and recovery: the impact of
relationship factors on customer satisfaction”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 127-145.
Hong, P., Vonderembse, M.A., Doll, W.J. and Nahm, A.Y. (2005), “Role change of design engineers in
product development”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 63-79.
Hooper, D., Joseph, C. and Michael, M. (2008), “Structural equation modelling: guidelines for
determining model fit”, Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 53-60.
Hsu, C.L., Chang, K.C. and Chen, M.C. (2012), “The impact of website quality on customer satisfaction
and purchase intention: perceived playfulness and perceived flow as mediators”, Information
Systems and E-Business Management, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 549-570.
Huang, Y.K., Kuo, Y.W. and Xu, S.W. (2009), “Applying importance-performance analysis to evaluate
logistics service quality for online shopping among retailing delivery”, International Journal of
Electronic Business Management, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 128-136.
Huff, C. and Tingley, D. (2015), “‘Who are these people?’ Evaluating the demographic characteristics
and political preferences of MTurk survey respondents”, Research and Politics, Vol. 2
No. 3, pp. 1-12.
Huma, S., Ahmed, W., Ikram, M. and Khawaja, M.I. (2019), “The effect of logistics service quality on
customer loyalty: case of logistics service industry”, South Asian Journal of Business Studies,
Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 43-61.
Hunt, N.C. and Scheetz, A.M. (2019), “Using MTurk to distribute a survey or experiment:
methodological considerations”, Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 43-65.
Ishfaq, R., Defee, C., Gibson, B.J. and Raja, U. (2016), “Realignment of the physical distribution process
in omni-channel fulfillment”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics
Management, Vol. 46 Nos 6/7, pp. 543-561.
Jain, N.K., Gajjar, H. and Shah, B.J. (2021), “Electronic logistics service quality and repurchase
intention in e-tailing: catalytic role of shopping satisfaction, payment options, gender and
returning experience”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 59, pp. 1-11.
Jayawardhena, C. (2010), “The impact of service encounter quality in service evaluation: evidence from
a business-to-business context”, Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 5,
pp. 338-348.
Jiang, J.J. and Klein, G. (2009), “Expectation-confirmation theory: capitalizing on descriptive power”,
Handbook of Research on Contemporary Theoretical Models in Information Systems, IGI Global,
pp. 384-401.
Jindal, R.P., Gauri, D.K., Li, W. and Ma, Y. (2021), “Omnichannel battle between Amazon and Walmart:
is the focus on delivery the best strategy?”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 122, pp. 270-280.
Junior, D.S.G., Sant’anna, C.H.M.D., Soares, E.J.O., Melo, F.J.C.D. and Medeiros, D.D.D. (2020), Hybrid
“Measurement of logistics service quality of e-commerce”, International Journal of Logistics
Systems and Management, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 1-17. e-logistics
Juran, J.M. and Gyrna, F.M. (1980), Quality Planning and Analysis, McGraw-Hill Publishing, New York.
service quality
Kelley, K., Clark, B., Brown, V. and Sitzia, J. (2003), “Good practice in the conduct and reporting of
approach
survey research”, International Journal for Quality in Healthcare, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 261-266.
Kilibarda, M., Andreji
c, M. and Popovi
c, V. (2020), “Research in logistics service quality: a systematic
literature review”, Transport, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 224-235.
Knemeyer, A.M. and Naylor, R.W. (2011), “Using behavioral experiments to expand our horizons and
deepen our understanding of logistics and supply chain decision making”, Journal of Business
Logistics, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 296-302.
Koufteros, X., Droge, C., Heim, G., Massad, N. and Vickery, S.K. (2014), “Encounter satisfaction in
e-tailing: are the relationships of order fulfillment service quality with its antecedents and
consequences moderated by historical satisfaction?”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 45
No. 1, pp. 5-48.
Kuhn, T.S. (1977), Objectivity, Value Judgment, and Theory Choice, Arguing about Science, Abingdon,
pp. 74-86.
Laksamana, P. (2018), “Impact of social media marketing on purchase intention and brand loyalty:
evidence from Indonesia’s banking industry”, International Review of Management and
Marketing, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 13-18.
Lambrecht, A. and Tucker, C. (2013), “When does retargeting work? Information specificity in online
advertising”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 50 No. 5, pp. 561-576.
Lee, G.G. and Lin, H.F. (2005), “Customer perceptions of e-service quality in online shopping”,
International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 161-176.
Lehtinen, U. and Lehtinen, J.R. (1991), “Two approaches to service quality dimensions”, Service
Industries Journal, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 287-303.
Leuschner, R., Charvet, F. and Rogers, D.S. (2013), “A meta-analysis of logistics customer service”,
Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 47-63.
Lewis, M., Singh, V. and Fay, S. (2006), “An empirical study of the impact of nonlinear shipping and
handling fees on purchase incidence and expenditure decisions”, Marketing Science, Vol. 25
No. 1, pp. 51-64.
Li, C.Y. and Ku, Y.C. (2018), “The power of a thumbs-up: will e-commerce switch to social commerce?”,
Information and Management, Vol. 55 No. 3, pp. 340-357.
Lim, S.F.W. and Winkenbach, M. (2019), “Configuring the last-mile in business-to-consumer
e-retailing”, California Management Review, Vol. 61 No. 2, pp. 132-154.
Lim, S.F.W., Jin, X. and Srai, J.S. (2018), “Consumer-driven e-commerce: a literature review, design
framework, and research agenda on last-mile logistics models”, International Journal of Physical
Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 308-332.
Liu, C. and Arnett, K.P. (2000), “Exploring the factors associated with web site success in the context
of electronic commerce”, Information and Management, Vol. 38, pp. 23-33.
Mangiaracina, R., Perego, A., Seghezzi, A. and Tumino, A. (2019), “Innovative solutions to increase
last-mile delivery efficiency in B2C e-commerce: a literature review”, International Journal of
Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 49 No. 9, pp. 901-920.
Marchet, G., Melacini, M., Perotti, S., Rasini, M. and Tappia, E. (2018), “Business logistics models in
omni-channel: a classification framework and empirical analysis”, International Journal of
Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 439-464.
Marsh, H.W. and Hocevar, D. (1985), “Application of confirmatory factor analysis to the study of self-
concept: first-and higher order factor models and their invariance across groups”, Psychological
Bulletin, Vol. 97 No. 3, pp. 562-582.
IJLM McCollough, M.A., Berry, L.L. and Yadav, M.S. (2000), “An empirical investigation of customer
satisfaction after service failure and recovery”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 121-137.
Mentzer, J.T., Gomes, R. and Krapfel, R.E. (1989), “Physical distribution service: a fundamental
marketing concept?”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 53-62.
Mentzer, J.T., Rutner, S.M. and Matsuno, K. (1997), “Application of the means-end value hierarchy
model to understanding logistics service value”, International Journal of Physical Distribution
and Logistics Management, Vol. 27 Nos 9/10, pp. 630-643.
Mentzer, J.T., Flint, D.J. and Kent, J.L. (1999), “Developing a logistics service quality scale”, Journal of
Business Logistics, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 9-32.
Mentzer, J.T., Flint, D.J. and Hult, G.T.M. (2001), “Logistics service quality as a segment-customized
process”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 65 No. 4, pp. 82-104.
Murfield, M., Boone, C.A., Rutner, P. and Thomas, R. (2017), “Investigating logistics service quality in
omni-channel retailing”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics
Management, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 263-296.
Novack, R.A., Rinehart, L.M. and Langley, C.J. Jr (1994), “An internal assessment of logistics value”,
Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 113-152.
O’Leary-Kelly, S.W. and Flores, B.E. (2002), “The integration of manufacturing and marketing/sales
decisions: impact on organizational performance”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 20
No. 3, pp. 221-240.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1985), “A conceptual model of service quality and its
implications for future research”, The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 41-50.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L. (1988), “SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale for measuring
consumer perceptions of service quality”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 12-40.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Malhotra, A. (2005), “ES-QUAL: a multiple-item scale for
assessing electronic service quality”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 213-233.
Park, I., Cho, J. and Rao, H.R. (2015), “The dynamics of pre-and post-purchase service and consumer
evaluation of online retailers: a comparative analysis of dissonance and disconfirmation
models”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 46 No. 6, pp. 1109-1140.
Peinkofer, S.T., Esper, T.L., Smith, R.J. and Williams, B.D. (2022), “Retail "Save the Sale" tactics:
consumer perceptions of in-store logistics service recovery”, Journal of Business Logistics,
Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 238-264.
Pellathy, D.A., Diane, A., Mollenkopf, T.P.S. and Autry, C.W. (2019), “Cross-functional integration:
concept clarification and scale development”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 40 No. 2,
pp. 81-104.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2012), “Sources of method bias in social science
research and recommendations on how to control it”, Annual Review Psychology, Vol. 63 No. 1,
pp. 539-569.
Politis, Y., Giovanis, A. and Binioris, S. (2014), “Logistics service quality and its effects on customer
satisfaction in the manufacturing companies’ supply chains: empirical evidence from Greece”,
Journal of Modelling in Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 215-237.
Preacher, K.J. and Hayes, A.F. (2008), “Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and
comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models”, Behavior Research Methods, Vol. 40
No. 3, pp. 879-891.
Rafiq, M. and Jaafar, H.S. (2007), “Measuring customers’ perceptions of logistics service quality of 3PL
service providers”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 159-175.
Rao, S., Goldsby, T.J., Griffis, S.E. and Iyengar, D. (2011), “Electronic logistics service quality (e-LSQ): Hybrid
its impact on the customer’s purchase satisfaction and retention”, Journal of Business Logistics,
Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 167-179. e-logistics
Richey, R.G., Daugherty, P.J. and Roath, A.S. (2007), “Firm technological readiness and
service quality
complementarity: capabilities impacting logistics service competency and performance”, approach
Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 195-228.
Russo, I., Gaudenzi, B. and Borghesi, A. (2015), “E-Logistics service quality: searching for new drivers
of 3PL customers’ satisfaction”, LISS 2014, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 383-387.
Saghiri, S., Wilding, R., Mena, C. and Bourlakis, M. (2017), “Toward a three-dimensional framework for
omni-channel”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 77, pp. 53-67.
Saghiri, S.S., Bernon, M., Bourlakis, M. and Wilding, R. (2018), “Omni-channel logistics special issue”,
International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 48 No. 4,
pp. 362-364.
Saura, I.G., Franc
es, D.S., Contr
ı, G.B. and Blasco, M.F. (2008), “Logistics service quality: a new way to
loyalty”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 108 No. 5, pp. 650-668.
Schoenherr, T., Ellram, L.M. and Tate, W.L. (2015), “A note on the use of survey research firms to
enable empirical data collection”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 288-300.
Segars, A.H. and Grover, V. (1993), “Re-examining perceived ease of use and usefulness:
a confirmatory factor analysis”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 517-525.
Soh, K.L., Chin, S.H. and Wong, W.P. (2015), “A theoretical model to investigate customer loyalty on
logistics service providers for sustainable business performance”, International Journal of
Business Performance and Supply Chain Modelling, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 212-232.
Sorkun, M.F. (2019), “The impact of product variety on LSQ in e-marketplaces”, International Journal
of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 49 No. 7, pp. 749-776.
Sorkun, M.F., H€useyino €
glu, I.O.Y. uhan, G. (2020), “Omni-channel capability and customer
and B€or€
satisfaction: mediating roles of flexibility and operational logistics service quality”,
International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 48 No. 6, pp. 629-648.
Souiden, N. and Pons, F. (2009), “Product recall crisis management: the impact on manufacturer’s
image, consumer loyalty and purchase intention”, Journal of Product and Brand Management,
Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 106-114.
Stank, T.P., Goldsby, T.J., Vickery, S.K. and Savitskie, K. (2003), “Logistics service performance:
estimating its influence on market share”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 24 No. 1, p. 27-55.
Sussman, A.B. and Olivola, C.Y. (2011), “Axe the tax: taxes are disliked more than equivalent costs”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 48 SPL, pp. 91-101.
Tarn, J.M., Razi, M.A., Wen, H.J. and Perez, A.A. (2003), “E-fulfillment: the strategy and operational
requirements”, Logistics Information Management, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 350-362.
Tian, Y., Ellinger, A.E. and Chen, H. (2010), “Third-party logistics provider customer orientation and
customer firm logistics improvement in China”, International Journal of Physical Distribution
and Logistics Management, Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 356-376.
Tokar, T., Williams, B.D. and Fugate, B.S. (2020), “I heart logistics—just don’t ask me to pay for it:
online shopper behavior in response to a delivery carrier upgrade and subsequent shipping
charge increase”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 182-205.
Tsiotsou, R.H. and Wirtz, J. (2015), “The three-stage model of service consumption”, in Handbook of
Service Business: Management, Marketing, Innovation and Internationalisation, pp. 105-128.
Tzavlopoulos, I., Gotzamani, K., Andronikidis, A. and Vassiliadis, C. (2019), “Determining the impact of e-
commerce quality on customers’ perceived risk, satisfaction, value and loyalty”, International
Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 576-587.
U.S. Census Bureau (2022), “The 4th quarter 2021 retail E-commerce sales report”, available at: https://
www.census.gov/retail/mrts/www/data/pdf/ec_current.pdf (accessed 4 March 2022).
IJLM Uvet, H. (2020), “Importance of logistics service quality in customer satisfaction: an empirical study”,
Operations and Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 1-10.
Uvet, H., Celik, H., Cevikparmak, S. and Adana, S. (2021), “Supply chain collaboration in performance-
based contracting: an empirical study”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, Vol. 70 No. 4, pp. 769-788.
Uvet, H., Celik, H., Cevikparmak, S., Adana, S. and Idug, Y. (2022), “Decreasing e-waste through
reliability enhancement encouraged by performance-based contracting”, International Journal
of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 39 No. 7, pp. 1766-1786.
Uvet, H., Adana, S., Celik, H., Cevikparmak, S. and Idug, Y. (2023), “Quality investment as a catalyst
for successful performance-based contracts: a relational view perspective”, Journal of Business
and Industrial Marketing, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print, doi: 10.1108/JBIM-02-
2022-0076.
Vakulenko, Y., Arsenovic, J., Hellstr€om, D. and Shams, P. (2022), “Does delivery service differentiation
matter? Comparing rural to urban e-consumer satisfaction and retention”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 142, pp. 476-484.
Vakulenko, Y., Shams, P., Hellstr€om, D. and Hjort, K. (2019), “Online retail experience and customer
satisfaction: the mediating role of last mile delivery”, The International Review of Retail,
Distribution and Consumer Research, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 306-320.
Wang, J.J., Chen, H., Rogers, D.S., Ellram, L.M. and Grawe, S.J. (2017), “A bibliometric analysis of
reverse logistics research (1992–2015) and opportunities for future research”, International
Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 47 No. 8, pp. 666-687.
Wu, W.P., Chan, T.S. and Lau, H.H. (2008), “Does consumers’ personal reciprocity affect future
purchase intentions?”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 24 Nos 3-4, pp. 345-360.
Xing, Y. and Grant, D.B. (2006), “Developing a framework for measuring physical distribution service
quality of multi-channel and pure player internet retailers”, International Journal of Retail and
Distribution Management, Vol. 34 Nos 4/5, pp. 278-289.
Xing, Y., Grant, D.B., McKinnon, A.C. and Fernie, J. (2010), “Physical distribution service quality in
online retailing”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management,
Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 415-432.
Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A. and Malhotra, A. (2002), “Service quality delivery through web sites:
a critical review of extant knowledge”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 30
No. 4, pp. 362-375.
Zhilin, Y., Minjoon, J. and Robin, T.P. (2004), “Measuring customer perceived online service quality.
Scale development and managerial implications”, International Journal of Operations and
Production Management, Vol. 24 No. 11, pp. 1149-1174.
Zhuo, J., Wei, J., Liu, L.C., Koong, K.S. and Miao, S. (2013), “An examination of the determinants of
service quality in the Chinese express industry”, Electronic Markets, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 163-172.

Further reading
Gupta, A., Singh, R.K., Mathiyazhagan, K., Suri, P.K. and Dwivedi, Y.K. (2022), “Exploring
relationships between service quality dimensions and customers satisfaction: empirical study in
context to Indian logistics service providers”, The International Journal of Logistics
Management, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print, doi: 10.1108/IJLM-02-2022-0084.
Rabinovich, E. and Bailey, J.P. (2004), “Physical distribution service quality in Internet retailing:
service pricing, transaction attributes, and firm attributes”, Journal of Operations Management,
Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 651-672.
Rao, S., Rabinovich, E. and Raju, D. (2014), “The role of physical distribution services as determinants
of product returns in Internet retailing”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 32 No. 6,
pp. 295-312.
Thai, V.V. (2013), “Logistics service quality: conceptual model and empirical evidence”, International Hybrid
Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 114-131.
e-logistics
Zailani, S., Jafarzadeh, S., Iranmanesh, M., Nikbin, D. and Selim, N.I.I. (2018), “Halal logistics service
quality: conceptual model and empirical evidence”, British Food Journal, Vol. 120 No. 11,
service quality
pp. 2599-2614. approach

Corresponding author
Hasan Uvet can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]