DOCTORAL (Ph.D.

) DISSERTATION

SANDRA SCHNEIDER

KAPOSVÁR

2022
MATE - Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences
Doctoral School in Management and Organizational Sciences

Head of Doctoral School

PROF. DR. IMRE FERTŐ
Doctor of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences

Supervisor:
DR. ORSOLYA SZIGETI
Associate professor

Co-supervisor:
DR. KATALIN SZENDRŐ
Associate professor

ACCEPTANCE FACTORS OF FRUGAL INNOVATIONS IN

GERMANY - INFLUENCING FACTORS ON USER'S
PURCHASE BEHAVIOR INTENTION FOR FRUGAL
ELECTRONIC HOUSEHOLD APPLIANCES

Created
SANDRA SCHNEIDER

VANUE OF THE SUBMISSION

2022

1
TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................... 4

LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................... 5

LIST OF ABBREVIATION ......................................................................... 6

1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 8

2. LITERATURE OVERVIEW .............................................................. 12

2.1. FRUGAL INNOVATION .................................................................... 13

2.2. DIFFERENTIATION FROM OTHER INNOVATION TERMS ........ 18

2.3. PHASES OF FRUGALITY .................................................................. 19

2.4. SITUATION IN DEVELOPED COUNTRIES .................................... 22

2.5. HOUSEHOLD APPLIANCES IN GERMANY .................................. 27

2.6. CONCEPTUALIZATION OF ACCEPTANCE .................................. 28

3. OBJECTIVES OF THE DISSERTATION ....................................... 33

4. MATERIAL AND METHODS ........................................................... 34

4.1. THEORY-BASED MODEL DEVELOPMENT .................................. 34

4.2. QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH - PARTIAL LEAST SQUARES (PLS-

SEM) ........................................................................................ 43

4.2.1. Research design ............................................................................... 43

4.2.1.1. Preliminary studies .......................................................................... 44

4.2.1.2. Main study ....................................................................................... 48

4.2.2. Methodology ................................................................................... 49

4.2.2.1. Evaluation measurement model ...................................................... 51

2
4.2.2.2. Evaluation reflective constructs ...................................................... 52

4.2.2.3. Evaluation formative construct ....................................................... 54

4.2.2.4. Evaluation structural model............................................................. 54

4.2.3. Operationalization of the model variables....................................... 56

4.3. DATA COLLECTION AND SAMPLE DESCRIPTION .................... 61

5. RESULTS AND EVALUATION ........................................................ 65

5.1. DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSES ............................................................... 65

5.2. EVALUATION OF THE MEASUREMENT MODEL ....................... 67

5.2.1. Quality assessment of reflective operationalized constructs ........... 68

5.2.2. Quality assessment of formative operationalized construct ............ 74

5.3. EVALUATION OF THE STRUCTURE MODEL .............................. 76

6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................. 87

7. NEW SCIENTIFIC RESULTS ........................................................... 92

8. SUMMARY ........................................................................................... 93

9. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................. 95

10. REFERENCES ..................................................................................... 96

11. LIST OF AUTHORS’ PUBLICATIONS IN THE FIELD OF THE

DISSERTATION.................................................................. 124

12. LIST OF AUTHORS’ PUBLICATIONS OUT OF THE FIELD OF

THE DISSERTATION ........................................................ 126

13. CURRICULUM VITAE .................................................................... 128

3
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Results from the focus group interviews and allocation to variables
....................................................................................................................... 45
Table 2 Decisions after evaluation of the first data collection...................... 48
Table 3 Operationalization of the constructs ................................................ 57
Table 4 Sample description........................................................................... 63
Table 5 Descriptive analysis ......................................................................... 65
Table 6 Outer loadings and significances ..................................................... 69
Table 7 Internal consistency reliability and convergent validity .................. 71
Table 8 Cross loadings .................................................................................. 72
Table 9 Fornell-Larcker Criterion................................................................. 73
Table 10 Heterotrait-monotrait ratio (HTMT) .............................................. 74
Table 11 Outer weights and significances .................................................... 75
Table 12 Inner variance inflation factor (VIF) ............................................. 76
Table 13 Path coefficients and significances ................................................ 77
Table 14 Specific indirect effects ................................................................. 78
Table 15 Total effects ................................................................................... 80
Table 16 Coefficient of determination (R²) .................................................. 81
Table 17 Effect size (f²) ................................................................................ 82
Table 18 Prediction relevance (Q²) ............................................................... 82
Table 19 Out-of-sample predictive power .................................................... 83

4
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Overlap between frugal innovation, washing machines and

sustainable development goals ...................................................................... 10
Figure 2 Classification SMART attributes ................................................... 16
Figure 3 Demand drivers frugal innovations in Germany ............................ 25
Figure 4 Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) ......................................... 30
Figure 5 United Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) . 31
Figure 6 Mix-methods research process ....................................................... 43
Figure 7 Research model pre-study .............................................................. 47
Figure 8 Developed research model ............................................................. 60
Figure 9 Items Performance Expectation ..................................................... 67
Figure 10 Research model with path coefficients, significance and R²........ 84

5
1. LIST OF ABBREVIATION

adj .......................................................................................................... adjusted

AT ..................................................................................... attitude toward using
AVE ......................................................................... average variance extracted
B2B ....................................................................................business-to-business
B2C .................................................................................. business-to-customer
BC ............................................................................perceived behavior control
BCa .................................................................... bias-corrected and accelerated
BOP ...............................................................................bottom-of-the-pyramid
CB-SEM .................................. covariance-based structural equation modeling
CR ....................................................................................... convergent validity
DEG ........................................................................................ degradation time
EA .............................................................................. environmental awareness
FA ....................................................................................... financial advantage
H ...................................................................................................... hypotheses
HTMT ............................................................................... heterotrait-monotrait
LM ................................................................................................. linear model
MV ................................................................................................... mean value
OLS..................................................................................ordinary least squares
PB .......................................................................... purchase behavior intention
PE .................................................................................... perceived ease of use
PLS ..................................................................................... partial least squares
PLS-SEM .................................... variance-based structural equation modeling
PU ..................................................................................... perceived usefulness
PX ............................................................................... performance expectation
Q² .................................................................................. Stone-Geisser criterion
RMSE .......................................................................... root mean squared error
RSI ..................................................................................... relative speed index

6
SCS .......................................................................... Status Consumption Scale
SEM ......................................................................... structural equation models
SI ............................................................................. sustainable innovativeness
SLR ........................................................................ systematic literature review
SMART .............................. Sustaibale, Modest, Affordable, Robust, Targeted
SN ............................................................................................. subjective norm
TAM ................................................................ Technology Acceptance Model
TAM-2 .......................................................... Technology Acceptance Model 2
TAM-3 .......................................................... Technology Acceptance Model 3
TOP...................................................................................... top-of-the-pyramid
TPB ....................................................................... Theory of Planned Bahavior
TRA ....................................................................... Theory of Reasoned Action
UTAUT .........................United Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology
UTAUT2....................United Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology 2
VIF ............................................................................... variance inflation factor

7
1. INTRODUCTION

For several years, the topic of "frugal innovation" has been gaining prominence
in the scientific and social (non-scientific) literature (Bound & Thornton, 2012;
Radjou & Prabhu, 2015; Tiwari et al., 2014). Initially and for the majority,
frugal innovation is associated with applications in bottom-of-the-pyramid
(BOP) or emerging markets. These markets are characterized by large numbers
of consumers, unmet needs, and limited resources (cf. Brem & Wolfram, 2014;
Brueckner et al., 2010; Kuo & Ng, 2016; Schleinkofer et al., 2019; Tiwari et
al., 2014; Tiwari & Herstatt, 2015; Tiwari & Prabhu, 2018; Zeschky et al.,
2011). However, various research papers also show an increasing relevance of
frugal innovation in developed and mature TOP (top-of-the-pyramid)
countries. For companies based there, in addition to the sales potential in the
growing markets of emerging countries, there is also a need in the markets of
the developed countries themselves (Bhatti & Ventresca, 2013; Costa et al.,
2021; Kroll et al., 2016; Tiwari & Kalogerakis, 2019; Winkler et al., 2020;
Wohlfart et al., 2021). The European Commission also perceived the presumed
relevance for Europe and had various studies carried out as a result. These
studies elaborate the importance of frugal innovations for companies based in
Europe and point out the future significance of these innovations (Kroll et al.,
2016, 2017).
In the concept of frugal innovation, resource scarcity is seen as an opportunity
for demand-driven product development. Throughout the life cycle of a
product (from production to use to disposal), as few resources as possible are
used. Due to the relevance of the use of limited resources, the concept of frugal
innovations is increasingly observed by scientists, political decision makers
and European companies. The development of frugal innovations can be found
in all sizes and types of companies. These include multinational corporations,
social enterprises, start-ups, and individuals from both developed and

8
developing countries (Radjou et al., 2012; Rao, 2013; Zeschky et al., 2011).
On the consumer side in the TOP countries and industrialized nations, various
developments in recent years mean that a potential demand for frugal
innovations could increase in the future. These include the financial and
economic crisis, recession, stagnating income, rising inflation, conflicts
between countries and high unemployment (European Commission, 2021;
Eurostat, 2021, 2022a, 2022b; Rao, 2018; RBSC, 2015). Brueckner et al.
(2010) dealt with the people living at the lower end of the income scale in the
TOP countries. They refer to this group as "the bottom at the top of pyramid".
This group is also large, but the income level is significantly higher than in the
group of people in the BOP countries (Angot & Plé, 2015; Brueckner et al.,
2010). Therefore, frugal innovation is expected to be different in TOP
countries than in BOP countries. They are expected to include more digital
technologies and high-tech elements. It is also likely that considerations of the
circular economy and sustainability will play a greater role in TOP countries
(Gabriel et al., 2016).
In Germany, complementary changes in value perceptions, income trends,
more sustainable or price-sensitive thinking, and demand for complexity-
reduced products are driving the trend toward frugal innovation (Cappelli et
al., 2010; Gassmann & Winterhalter, 2014; Kalogerakis et al., 2017a; Kroll et
al., 2016; Sharma & Iyer, 2012). A student survey by Tiwari (2017) revealed
a reduced need for status symbols and an increasing importance of social and
environmental motives. Factors and individually perceived benefits are
thought to vary by social context (Tiwari, 2017).
In order to explore the future relevance of frugal innovations in Germany on
the consumer side, products of daily life with a large number of potential
consumers are obvious candidates. Large household appliances such as
washing machines and refrigerators can be found in very many households in
Germany (Statista, 2021). Among other things, they are characterized by a high

9
purchase price, a long-life cycle, and resource consumption for production and
use (Bressanelli et al., 2017). In a previous work of the author, the
characteristics of frugal innovations, washing machines and the sustainable
development goals were compared (Schneider, 2020). This showed that there
is significant overlap between the three areas (see Figure 1) and thus a washing
machine would be a suitable product for a frugal innovation in the TOP
countries. A washing machine would cover the three areas of environmental,
social and economic sustainability and appeal to a large potential consumer
group. On this basis, the washing machine is also used for this work with
reference to Germany.

Figure 1 Overlap between frugal innovation, washing machines and

sustainable development goals

Source: Schneider, 2020

Due to the different characteristics of the potential consumer groups in the

BOP and TOP countries, the question arises as to which factors influence
consumers' purchase behavior intentions for frugal electronic household
appliances such as a washing machine in an industrialized environment such
as Germany? Based on the results (relevant influencing factors), target group-

10
oriented product development and communication with potential consumers is
then possible in practice.

11
2. LITERATURE OVERVIEW

A systematic literature review (SLR) approach was used to prepare the study
and develop the research model.
The process of SLR approach includes the following steps: (1) defining the
research question, (2) drafting the plan, (3) searching the literature, (4)
applying the exclusion and inclusion criteria, (5) quality assessment, and (6)
summarizing the literature (Hossain, 2018; Tranfield et al., 2003). Since the
goal of this thesis is not a formulated SLR but a quantitative research, steps
five and six were not explicitly identified anything, but the literature
determined to be appropriate and relevant was used for the literature chapter
of this thesis. First, the research question was defined (1) (see chapter 3). The
draft plan (2) defined three core areas for the literature search: 1. frugal
innovation; 2. acceptance/purchase intention; 3. household appliances in
developed countries. For the literature search (3), EBSCO and GoogleSchoolar
databases were used. For the third core area, the Statista database was
consulted. The search terms chosen were "frugal innovation",
"acceptance"&"purchase intention" and "household appliances" (for Statista
"household appliances").
In the EBSCO database the following criteria (4) were chosen, "fulltext",
language "english" or "german" and the search terms should appear in title or
abstract. When searching via GoogleScholar, the search terms "in the title of
the article" were chosen. When searching via Statista, no restrictions had to be
considered. The literature recorded as relevant to this work according to the
quality assessment (5) is presented in chapters 2, 2.6 and 4.1 and summarized
(6).

12
2.1. Frugal innovation

The term "frugal innovation" is a rather new term in the scientific literature. Its
origin is not clearly known. The concept is coined from the 2006 "frugal
engineering" concept by Carlos Ghosn, who was the chairman and CEO of the
Renault-Nissan Alliance (Hossain, 2018). The first scientific papers were
published in 2011 (e.g. Zeschky et al., 2011). Since then, the number of
scientific publications on this topic has been increasing. In the general press,
the concept was introduced in 2010 in "The Economist" (The Economist,
2010). So far, there is no clear and unified definition (Tiwari et al., 2017a).
However, some definitions can be found repeatedly in the literature, and these
will be presented below. Bhatti (2012) describes frugal innovation as "It is not
simply about reducing costs, but can also involve increasing the affordability
power of the buyer through income generation, saving, or alternative payment
schemes. Frugal innovation may also mean that the outcome involves building
local entrepreneurship, capacity building and self-reliance or sustainability."
Zeschky et al. (2014) wrote that "frugal innovations are not re-engineered
solutions but products or services developed for very specific applications in
resource constrained environments". Tiwari & Herstatt (2014) define frugal
innovations as "new or significantly improved products (both goods and
services), processes, or marketing and organizational methods that seek to
minimize the use of material and financial resources in the complete value
chain (development, manufacturing, distribution, consumption, and disposal)
with the objective of significantly reducing the total cost of ownership and/or
usage while fulfilling or even exceeding certain pre-defined criteria of
acceptable quality standards". Agarwal et al. (2017) see frugal innovation as
an affordable quality product that is "good enough" for resource-limited users.
Zeschky et al. (2014) on the other hand, consider it more than "good enough"
because the products contain a technical novelty and a market novelty.
According to Radjou & Prabhu (2015) a frugal innovation is "the ability to 'do
13
more with less' -that is, to create significantly more business and social value
while minimizing the use of diminishing resources such as energy, capital and
time". Their definition has also been popularized by "doing better with less"
(Radjou & Prabhu, 2015). Hossain et al. (2016) see frugal innovations "as a
resource scarce solution (i.e., product, service, process, or business model) that
is designed and implemented despite financial, technological, material or other
resource constraints, whereby the final outcome is significantly cheaper than
competitive offerings (if available and is good enough to meet the basic needs
of customers who would otherwise remain un(der)served". Pisoni et al. (2018)
noted that definitions have changed over time. In 2012-2013, they were mainly
product-oriented definitions; in 2014-2015, market-oriented definitions; and in
2016-2017, criterion-oriented definitions followed.
Frugal innovations focus on the required service offerings for a specific target
group. In doing so, they focus on the core functions of a service or product and
a simultaneous reduction of material and financial resources along the entire
value chain, such as energy consumption, maintenance time, ancillary costs,
recycled raw materials (Niroumand et al., 2020; Tiwari et al., 2017a). Both
sustainable and social aspects are taken into account in the development
process (Bhatti, 2012; Bound & Thornton, 2012). The products are shown to
be very robust and easy to use (Hossain, 2020). This is necessary because in
emerging countries they often have to work under the most difficult conditions
and end products must be able to be used by customers with a low level of
education (Angot & Plé, 2015). Thus, frugal innovations follow the approach
of the "triple bottom line", where economic, environmental, and social benefits
are aimed for (Pansera, 2018).
The use of frugal innovations leads to a reduction in the cost of acquisition and
use or ownership and often exceeds the quality standard of existing products
(Singh et al., 2012; Tiwari et al., 2017a). The core functions of frugal
innovations can be summarized as follows (Agarwal et al., 2017; Angot & Plé,

14
2015; Basu et al., 2013; Knorringa et al., 2016; Tiwari et al., 2017a; Weyrauch
& Herstatt, 2016):
- focus on core functions & preservation of customer benefits
- reduction of environmental resources used (high priority given to
sustainability)
- reduction of the required financial resources (from the purchase over
the entire useful life)
- creation for a specific consumer group
- robustness
- human centric design: easy-to-use, intuitive use (no/few prior
knowledge required)

For simplification, the SMART-attributes for the classification were developed

by Fraunhofer IAO (2021) and Wohlfahrt et al. (2021) published (Figure 2):

15
 S: Social and ecological friendliness as well as
economic profitability
M: Reduction of functions and performance to core
requirements of the target group
A: Price that fits the budget of the target group
R: High appeal for target group due to reliable
quality and simple use
T: Focus on a clearly defined target group

Figure 2 Classification SMART attributes

Source: Fraunhofer IAO, 2021

For the diffusion of innovations on the market, Rogers' diffusion theory is often
used (Rogers, 1995). Frugal innovations differ from conventional innovations
at this point. Hossain (2020) has picked up on this and shows in his work that
frugal innovations flow from a low-income market (in terms of customers and
countries) to a high-income one. This is contrary to Roger's theory. George et
al. (2012) saw this development and defined frugal innovations already in 2012
as "innovative, low-cost and high-quality products and business models

16
originating in developing countries and exportable to other developing
countries or even the developed world."

Frugal innovations can create greater social and business value than traditional
innovations (Singh et al., 2012). The social value lies in the improvement of
the quality of life and human well-being through the frugal products for the
target group (Khan, 2016). The business value is in giving a broad group of
consumers access to segments from which they were previously excluded by
their poverty and limited resources. In these previously untapped markets,
competition is also often lower (Angot & Plé, 2015). For example, Nokia
developed a simple and robust cell phone. Here, the social value was enhanced
by enabling communication, extended battery life, and an integrated flashlight.
The phone sold for as little as $15. The profit margins per product were low,
but this was offset by high sales volumes due to the large target group, which
created business value (Angot & Plé, 2015).

Bound & Thornton (2012) predict an increasing importance of frugal

innovations worldwide. Various challenges of the world can be positively
influenced by frugal innovations. These include (Barclay, 2014; Bound &
Thornton, 2012):
- environmental constraints (e.g. climate, energy, water)
- weak growth and slow deleveraging in some developed countries
- aging population
- very rapidly growing population in emerging markets
- new technology platforms to reduce costs (especially in the service
sector)

17
2.2. Differentiation from other innovation terms

Albert (2016) analyzed the scientific literature for innovation concepts for and
from emerging markets. He found that the term "frugal innovation" is often
used synonymously with other terms such as jugaad innovation, value
innovation, reverse innovation and low-cost innovation.

In order to have clarity about terminology in this work, brief explanations and
distinctions from other commonly used terms follow.

Jugaad innovations also focus on resource reduction, but it is not scalable and
sustainable compared to frugal innovations. "Jugaad" is a Hindi word (country
language of India). The literal sense would be used in English as "do it
yourself" (Agnihotri, 2015). Jugaad innovations are about improvised
solutions that can be implemented quickly (Radjou et al., 2012). Like using a
coke bottle as a water storage tank. These are not commercially and sustainably
viable (Agnihotri, 2015). Jugaad is rather a survival strategy for people with
strong reduced resources mainly from emerging countries (Khan, 2016).

Value innovation, focus on lower costs and differentiation from the

competition to achieve customer value over them (Kim & Mauborgne, 2005).
In this context, innovations tend to focus on non-consumers. For example, at
the beginning, IKEA offered furniture with classic design and high quality to
a broad consumer group. Such furniture had previously only been available in
niche markets. Customers found the perceived value and quality of the
furniture to be higher than local furniture manufacturers but lower than high-
end furniture designers. The price was also lower than high-end furniture
designers but higher than local furniture manufacturers. The value innovation
thus placed itself between the "low cost" and "differentiation" strategies
(Agnihotri, 2015).
18
Reserve innovation describes the flow of development of products and services
from developing markets to developed markets (Agarwal & Brem, 2012;
Agnihotri, 2015; Bergmann & Tiwari, 2016). Here, innovations developed for
developing markets / low cost countries are also purchased and used by
developed markets / countries. These low-cost products and services are
considered "good enough" by developed countries and are purchased as a
result. For example, medical devices developed by General Electric for
emerging markets are also found in developed countries such as the U.S..
Sustainability is not a driver here (Agnihotri, 2015; Immelt et al., 2009).

Low-cost innovation represents an innovative use of an existing technology

(Agnihotri, 2015). The goal is to use the existing technology to develop an
affordable product for a broad group of consumers. Examples include low-cost
products such as the Nano-car and the Lulaby baby warmer (Agnihotri, 2015).
Here, too, the sustainability aspect is not taken into account.

2.3. Phases of frugality

Frugal innovations are still a rather young topic in the scientific literature.
However, "frugality" can be found in different periods of history. Tiwari and
Herstatt (2019) described the changes over time as waves called "frugality 1.0
- 4.0".

The first wave of "frugality 1.0

The approach of frugality already existed in antiquity, where moderation,

modesty, and self-restraint were propagated by philosophers and theologians
(Tiwari, Fischer, & Kalogerakis, 2017a).

19
"The heart is great which shows moderation in the midst of prosperity."
(Lucius Annaeus Seneca, c. 4 BC - AD 65)
Besides the Western philosophers such as Cicero, Seneca, and Aristotle who
talked about moderation and frugality, this was also addressed in Eastern
philosophy and here especially in Buddhism and Neo-Confucianism. Here,
frugality and material simplicity were considered a valued virtue (Schumacher,
1966; Tiwari, Fischer, & Kalogerakis, 2017a).
Over the centuries, various figures, such as Immanuel Kant (Munzel, 2012),
Adam Smith (Smith, 1776) and Max Weber (Weber, 1904), repeatedly referred
to frugality and its positive effects (Tiwari et al., 2017a).
However, after World War I and with the onset of the consumer society, the
virtue of frugality disappeared (Tiwari et al., 2017a). In the economic crisis of
the 1930s, the term "planned obsolescence" was formed (Tiwari & Herstatt,
2019). This means that products are deliberately made cheaper, so that the
useful life is shortened and the customers have to buy the product again and
again (Bulow, 1986). The policy of the growth centers of the post-war period
led to a strong consumerism and the passing of frugality. The prosperity in the
Western world consolidated this attitude. The markets were saturated and
people feared that with frugality there would be a threat to prosperity and
growth (Tiwari & Herstatt, 2019).

The second wave "frugality 2.0

In the 1970s, frugality became more significant again. Schumacher (1973)

called for more efficient and wise use of global resources. The development of
"appropriate solutions" for developing countries began. However, this failed
to take root for two reasons. First, there was little awareness at the time of the
negative effects of very heavy consumerism on the environment. Secondly, the

20
products did not meet the demands of the target customers in the developing
countries (Tiwari & Herstatt, 2019).

The third wave "frugality 3.0

The third wave came with the beginning of the 2000s. The globalization of the
world and a growing middle class began to demand products and services that
were previously unavailable or of substandard quality. The first companies in
countries like China and India took notice of this and developed cost-effective
solutions that reached a level of quality that became known as "good enough"
(Prahalad & Mashelkar, 2010; Tiwari & Herstatt, 2019). Consumers demanded
products and services that were adapted to local requirements, function-
oriented and affordable. These products and services were intended to replace
the inferior local solutions on the one hand and the partially outdated and
expensive solutions of global companies on the other. Thus, frugal innovation
brought a higher standard of living and solutions that meet the needs of
consumers (Tiwari & Herstatt, 2019). These solutions were also called
"affordable excellence" (Haudeville & Wolff, 2016). In the third wave,
monetary affordability and the "good enough" quality were the focus of
development. An idea of environmental sustainability was not a main driver at
this time, but a rather common accompanying byproduct due to resource
efficiency (Weyrauch & Herstatt, 2016).

The fourth wave "frugality 4.0

We are currently in the fourth wave. In this wave, in addition to the consumer
group that demands affordable and good quality products, a demand group has
emerged that is also looking for more ecologically sustainable products.

21
Alongside this, in this wave, the importance of frugality re-entered the more
affluent parts of the world, and here in particular the industrialized nations
(Chancellor & Lyubomirsky, 2011; Hanna, 2012). In these, some consumers
changed their lifestyle to a more moderate way, where the complexity and
excessive functions of products are reduced. A rethinking of the growth-centric
approach is taking place (Hanna, 2012). Influenced by the development of a
circular economy, greater resource efficiency and the desire for a smaller
environmental footprint, consumers and companies in the B2B and B2C
sectors are looking for new opportunities. Compared to the previous waves, in
the fourth wave "frugality" can be achieved in more diverse ways. In addition
to complexity reduction, robustness, and resource reduction for the entire life
cycle, improving the efficiency of the innovation process (e.g., through
crowdsourcing), the production process, the supply chain, and more efficient
resource use (e.g., by incorporating the circular economy and rethinking the
frequency of resource use) can lead to frugality (Nesta & Fraunhofer ISI, 2020;
Niroumand et al., 2020). Building on the affordable excellence of frugality 3.0,
affordable green excellence could be the goal of frugality 4.0 (Tiwari &
Herstatt, 2019). This combination could make frugality 4.0 a global megatrend
(Herstatt & Tiwari, 2020a).

2.4. Situation in developed countries

The first frugal innovations were developed for emerging markets and their
specific needs (Tiwari & Prabhu, 2018). However, the recent past (for
example, due to the financial and economic crisis, the corona pandemic, the
recession, or high unemployment) shows that potential target groups for frugal
products and services can also be found in developed and TOP countries
(Herstatt & Tiwari, 2020; Rao, 2018; RBSC, 2015). In addition, many studies
suggested that frugal innovations have relevance for long-term business

22
success in the economy (Brem et al., 2020; Kalogerakis et al., 2017a; Kroll et
al., 2016; Tiwari et al., 2016). Compared to emerging countries, developed and
TOP countries have their own BOP population, where the level is higher than
in typical BOP / emerging countries (Angot & Plé, 2015).

Economic growth at the expense of the environment is often no longer desired

by businesses or consumers (Kuo & Ng, 2016). The growing scarcity of
resources is thus leading to an increasing demand in developed countries for
end products that take this into account. In addition to economical and
ecologically sound products and services, ethically sound solutions are also
relevant here (Kalogerakis et al., 2017; Knorringa et al., 2016b; Kroll et al.,
2016; Nesta, 2020).

In developed countries is a trend toward greater interest in frugality and

innovations following the frugal approach. At the country level, this is driven
by, among other things, income trends in society and national and international
environmental regulations. At the individual level, there is a changing
understanding of values in terms of greater environmental awareness and a
conscious choice of a frugal and more moderate lifestyle (Kalogerakis et al.,
2017a; Khan, 2016; Kroll et al., 2016; Kuo & Ng, 2016; Prabhu, 2017). In
Germany and Australia, among other countries, the latter is particularly evident
among young people (Kalogerakis et al., 2017a; McCrindle, 2014). This
difference does not exist in all developed countries. For example, Kolnhofer-
Derecskei et al. (2017) could not find any generational differences in Hungary
with respect to environmental protection. The sample showed a general
positive attitude towards environmental protection. A student survey by Tiwari
et al. in Germany showed a reduced need for status symbols and an increasing
importance of social motives such as environmental awareness. Factors and

23
individually perceived benefits are thought to vary by social context (Tiwari,
Fischer, Kalogerakis, et al., 2017).
A large percentage of people have become more and more accustomed to
getting by on a smaller budget. At the same time, however, many people have
become more demanding when it comes to the type of company they buy
products from or work at (Prabhu, 2017).
Demand for non-high-tech products is also increasing. This is associated with
a kind of "feature fatigue" (Thompson et al., 2005) among consumers and the
desire to reduce "needless complexity layered on to technology-based-
products" (Hanna, 2012) justified. However, compared to emerging market
frugal products for developed countries are expected to include more high-tech
elements and digital technologies (Gabriel et al., 2016).
A particularly high increase in demand for simplified products can be seen
specifically in the "silver market" sector (Tiwari & Kalogerakis, 2019). This
market refers to people who are 50 years old and older (Kohlbacher et al.,
2011). They are looking more often for "easy-to-use" products and services in
order to avoid being overwhelmed by too much complexity and unneeded
functions (Bergmann & Tiwari, 2016; Kohlbacher & Hang, 2010).
At the corporate level, this means that, in addition to taking into account
environmental and sustainable aspects, pure technology leadership may no
longer be sufficient in the future (Kalogerakis et al., 2017a). Brem et al. (2020)
therefore recommend companies to integrate the demand perspective in their
product development strategies. In order to be able to map the perspective,
consumers could be brought from a purely passive consumer status into an
active position during targeted product development (Prabhu, 2017).

These factors mean that frugal products and services in industrialized nations
are not only targeted at a consumer group with limited resources, but that a
broad consumer group is addressed (Kroll et al., 2016; Winkler et al., 2020).

24
The aforementioned reasons differ from the typical target group of frugal
innovations in emerging markets. In terms of content, these tend to focus on
the "frugality 3.0" phase and a consumer target group that is denied access to
a product due to limited resources. In the industrialized nations, the idea of
sustainability and voluntary frugality are very important. The industrialized
nations thus fall into the "frugality 4.0" phase.

The Figure 3 summarizes the future drivers of demand for frugal innovations
in Germany.

Figure 3 Demand drivers frugal innovations in Germany

Source: Kalogerakis et al., 2017a; Kohlbacher et al., 2011; Tiwari & Kalogerakis, 2019

In addition to product requirements, other aspects regarding frugal products

and services can be noted in industrialized nations. For example, a high degree
of price elasticity can be assumed in these countries. This means that when
prices are lowered in conjunction with core functions, a sharp increase in
demand occurs above a threshold (Nesta & Fraunhofer ISI, 2020). Empirical
evidence remains open in the literature to date. In the United States, studies
have already shown that there is a growing willingness to buy lower-priced
private labels and thus price takes precedence over brand (Kroll et al., 2016).
25
This change in preferences is also evident in supermarkets such as Aldi and
Lidl in the European Union. With an intelligent marketing strategy they could
achieve a growing market share in the food sector. (Kroll et al., 2016). In
addition, a survey showed that many consumers would not change their
behavior even if their income increased and would continue to shop there (The
Economist, 2014). In addition to these examples from the retail sector, there
are other frugal solutions in Germany and Europe. The low-priced Renault-
Dacia Logan has been on sale in Europe since 2004. It has a special relationship
between spaciousness, concentration on the essential equipment and a low
price (Renault Dacia, 2021). IKEA can also be counted among them with its
range of furniture and furnishings. Overall, however, the development of frugal
innovations for industrialized nations is still very limited (Wohlfart et al.,
2021).

At the outset, frugal innovations aimed to deliver economic and social value to
BOP consumers. The transferability of frugal innovations from emerging
markets to developed nations, can be demonstrated by the following example.
GE Healthcare has developed a frugal portable electrocardiogram (ECG,
name: MAC 400) for emerging markets (Kroll et al., 2016). This enables
doctors to help many poor people, even outside the cities. This allows GE to
make profits and people can be helped locally. If this product is transferred to
the industrialized nations, individual doctors could be equipped with the low-
cost MAC 400. This would reduce the volume of patients in hospitals, provide
rapid outpatient care, and relieve the financial burden on health insurers (Nesta
& Fraunhofer ISI, 2020).

Kalogerakis et al. (2017) conducted interviews with several experts. The

majority of these saw frugal innovations as a significant trend in Germany
within the next 5 to 10 years. During development, suppliers of previously

26
high-priced products must expect a cannibalization effect from frugal products.
To secure business success in the long term, the development of proprietary
frugal solutions should begin in good time, otherwise there could be a danger
from competition (Kalogerakis et al., 2017a). So far, however, Germany has
tended to adopt a technology-driven approach to innovation (Kalogerakis et
al., 2017a; Krohn et al., 2020).

2.5. Household Appliances in Germany

In industrialized countries, major household appliances (e.g. washing machine,

refrigerator, dishwasher) are an important part of daily life. 96% of households
in Germany own a washing machine, 99.9% own a refrigerator, and 73% own
a dishwasher (Statista, 2021). The turnover of large household appliances in
Germany in 2020 was 9.96 billion euros. Around 2.55 million ovens/electric
stoves, 3.65 million refrigerators and 3.3 million washing machines were sold
(Statista, 2021). Compared to 2014, this is 21.4% more ovens, 12.3% more
refrigerators and 10% more washing machines (Statista, 2021). Thus, large
household appliances belong to a large and important industry of consumer
goods (Codini et al., 2012). Large household appliances represent a long-term
and relatively costly investment for households. They require occasional
maintenance and / or repair, are technologically advanced and generally have
a long-life cycle for the household. The latter is one of the most significant
factors in the purchase of the major household appliance (Bressanelli et al.,
2017).
In addition, a good price/performance ratio (price, features, quality) is an
important factor in the purchase decision in Germany. Consumers also
consider the energy efficiency or sustainability of the appliances when making
their purchase decision. They should consume little energy in operation and be

27
produced in a way that conserves resources. Consumers also want appliances
that are user-friendly to operate (Codini et al., 2012; Statista, 2016).
In recent years, there has been growing attention to sustainable consumer
goods in general, but also sustainable home appliances and home technology.
A more pronounced understanding of acceptance factors in this field is
therefore of interest to appliance manufacturers, researchers, and policy
makers. To this end, several areas of sustainable behavior in households have
already been studied (Ahn et al., 2016; Hustvedt et al., 2013; Vermeir &
Verbeke, 2006). However, there is a paucity of work that provides empirical
results on what consumers expect of sustainable household appliances. Similar
is the case for the findings on what induces consumers to adopt a sustainable
household appliance.

2.6. Conceptualization of acceptance

The literature contains differing definitions of the term "acceptance" and how
to measure it, depending on the research direction (Davis, 1989; Mokhtar,
2006; Schrader, 2001; Wiedmann & Frenzel, 2004). For the field of new
technologies, Kollmann (1998) cited acceptance as a key handle for measuring
and predicting the success of technological innovations. The introduction of
new technologies is not necessarily accompanied by acceptance by people. Not
everything that is technically possible is also successful in terms of sales
(Kollmann, 1998). Furthermore, he sees acceptance closely linked to the
attitude construct and as a dynamic approach that takes place at several points
in time. He distinguishes between the attitude phase (before the purchase), the
action phase (during the purchase) and the use phase (after the purchase)
(Kollmann, 1998). According to other authors, acceptance includes attitudinal
acceptance (acceptance system in a cognitive way) and behavioral acceptance
(actual behavior) (Ajzen, 1991; Ajzen & Fishbein, 2000; Müller-Böling &

28
Müller, 1986). Despite no uniform definition of the content meanings, some
commonalities can be found. These are, the statement of the subjective attitude
to a product or a fact, a general readiness for acceptance, a decision character
and a positive attitude regarding the fact to be evaluated. In the scientific
research in the last decades different models and theory for the explanation of
the acceptance were developed. One of the first known models was the
“Theory of Reasoned Action” (TRA). This was published in 1975 by Fishbein
& Ajzen (1975) published. In the model, behavioral intention was influenced
by social norm and attitude towards the behavior. In 1985, Ajzen (1985)
published an extension, the “Theory of Planned Behavior” (TPB). In this
model, in addition to the social norm and attitude toward the intention,
perceived behavioral control was considered to influence intention. Intention
ultimately leads to a particular behavior. In addition, perceived behavioral
control has a possible direct influence on behavior. In the scientific literature,
there are a large number of works that have used the TRA and the TPB to
explain human behavior. According to both models, attitude toward a behavior
does not directly affect the actual behavior but indirectly through behavioral
intention. On this basis, it can be assumed that, only if there is acceptance at
the attitude level, there will also be acceptance at the action and use level
(Baker et al., 2007; Barbera & Ajzen, 2020; Chen & Hung, 2016; Cheng et al.,
2006; Hukkelberg et al., 2014; Yang et al., 2017).
A further development of the TRA and the TPB is the “Technology
Acceptance Model” (TAM) developed in 1985 by Davis (see Figure 4). It was
developed to determine the factors of technology acceptance formation. The
model was initially applied to new technologies in the workplace.
The model shows that perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use of a
technology influence attitude and behavioral intent to use (Davis, 1985; Davis
et al., 1989). The construct perceived usefulness represents the expected
benefit of a technology for a person. The perceived ease of use represents the

29
effort a person puts into using the technology. The behavioral intention to use
aims at the perception of the actual use and thus the acceptance (Venkatesh &
Davis, 2000).

Figure 4
Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)

Source: Davis, 1985

The TAM has been able to explain a substantial amount of the variance
(typically about 40%) in usage attitudes and intentions in a variety of empirical
studies (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000). Societal factors (such as subjective norm)
influencing behavioral intention to use were not considered in the TAM. This
addition was followed in 2000 when Venkatesh & Davis (2000) published the
further developed TAM-2. This included further theoretical constructs like
social influence processes (subjective norm, voluntariness, image) and
cognitive instrumental processes (job relevance, output quality, experience,
results demonstrability) as influencing factors (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000).
Later, a further modification of the TAM-2 followed. The TAM-3, which takes
into account further upstream technological factors influencing the perceived

30
ease of use, was published in 2008 by Venkatesh & Bala (2008). With very
high similarity, the “United Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology”
(UTAUT) was developed alongside the TAM (see Figure 5). In this model
suggested (Venkatesh et al., 2003) three factors that act on behavioral intention
to use. The perceived usefulness from the TAM is represented as performance
expectancy, the perceived ease of use as effort expectancy, and the subjective
norm as social influence. A fourth factor is the facilitating conditions. These
have a direct effect on actual use.

Figure 5
United Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT)

Source: Venkatesh et al., 2003

The UTAUT has been shown to be a promising model in several studies,

explaining as much as 70% of the variance in behavioral intention to use and
50% of actual us (Holden & Karsh, 2010). Later the UTAUT2 was extended
by 3 additional factors (Hedonic Motivation, Price Value, Habit) (Venkatesh

31
et al., 2012). With each further development, both the TAM and the UTAUT
became more complex.

32
3. OBJECTIVES OF THE DISSERTATION

The aim of this dissertation is to gain knowledge about the acceptance-forming

factors of frugal major household appliances in Germany, which can be used
for the future development of these products and their marketing.

For this purpose, the following central research question is formulated:

Which factors have an influence on consumer acceptance in Germany in the

case of frugal innovations of major electrical household appliances such as a
washing machine?

In answering this question, social, economic, and environmental factors that

might influence consumer choice should be considered.

33
4. MATERIAL AND METHODS

In order to answer the research question, this chapter develops an empirical

research model. This contains the hypotheses to be tested with the possible
factors influencing the acceptance of major household appliances. This is
followed by a description of the research design with the preliminary studies
and the main study as well as the methodology of variance-based structural
equation models. In order to make the latent variables measurable, the
operationalization of the variables is presented in the following subchapter.
Finally, the data collection and the sample are described.

4.1. Theory-based model development

The sparing use of resources is a core element of frugal products and thus
relevant in the product development process of companies (see e.g. Agarwal et
al., 2017; Angot & Plé, 2015; Weyrauch & Herstatt, 2016). In order to assess
whether the relevance is also given to the consumer, environmental awareness
is included in the model. Environmental awareness in this context means the
knowledge and concern about the impact of human activities on the climate
and the environment (Schuitema et al., 2013). In this context, it is a
comprehensive concept that can be broken down into (Hopwood et al., 2005)
cognitions, concerns, perceptions, and feelings about environmental problems.
In addition, it also considers thoughts and attitudes about problem solving and
the ongoing relationship and its improvement between people and the
environment. Individual-level environmental awareness is the general
understanding and awareness of environmental problems. It is an important
factor that can change an individual's current behavior to one that is more
environmentally friendly (Schuitema et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2020). Some
studies show that consumers who have a higher awareness of the environment
are more likely to choose more environmentally friendly actions (Anjam et al.,
34
2020; Butler & Francis, 1997; Chen & Hung, 2016; Kahn, 2007; Roberts,
1996; Vermeir & Verbeke, 2006), but not all (Hustvedt et al., 2013). For these
reasons, it is reasonable to hypothesize that higher levels of environmental
awareness predict higher adoption of frugal household appliances, but the
relationship may not be as clear-cut. To evaluate the influences of
environmental awareness in relation to frugal household appliances, the
influences on perceived usefulness and attitude toward using are tested and
hypotheses H1 and H2 formulated for this purpose.

H1: The greater the environmental awareness, the greater the perceived
usefulness of frugal household appliances.
H2: The greater the environmental awareness, the more positive the attitude
toward using frugal household appliances.

Goldsmith & Newell (1997) describe price sensitivity as the feeling of a

consumer to pay a certain price for a product. In addition, it includes the
willingness to buy a product and a measure of satisfaction. Price sensitivity is
closely related to perceived value. This describes the exchange between the
purchase of a product or service and the associated sacrifice (Sweeney &
Soutar, 2001). In order to keep this sacrifice as low as possible, a "low-cost"
phenomenon has been observed for several years, among other things.
Companies focus on reducing costs along the entire value chain during product
development in order to be able to offer the lowest possible price to consumers
(Valls et al., 2012). This change is also reflected among consumers in a change
in the ratio of the widely used Status Consumption Scale (SCS). The origin of
the SCS showed that consumers tried to improve their social standing by
consuming conspicuous goods. With consumers demanding lower prices, the
SCS factors are altered to achieve a certain value proposition (cf. Valls et al.,
2012). For frugal innovations, the significantly lower price compared to

35
conventional innovations is a relevant feature (Hossain et al., 2016; Tiwari et
al., 2017b; Winkler et al., 2020). It is not uncommon for the price reductions
to reach percentage values of 30 to over 80 (Rao, 2013; Weyrauch & Herstatt,
2017). In order to test this influence on the perceived usefulness and the
purchase behavior intention of frugal household appliances, the hypotheses H3
and H4 are formulated.

H3: The greater the financial advantage, the greater the purchase behavior
intention of frugal household appliances.
H4: The greater the financial advantage, the greater the perceived usefulness of
frugal household appliances.

An individual's innovativeness is a measure used to assess when an individual

adopts an innovation relative to other members (Ahn et al., 2016). Existing
personal innovativeness is an important characteristic for the adoption of
innovations (Rogers, 1995). The higher the measure of personal
innovativeness, the better the person is able to cope with the uncertainties of
an innovation when it is adopted (Rogers, 1995). Agarwal & Prasad (1998)
considered personal innovativeness in their model of technology adoption
from the world-wide web. Personal innovativeness was described as a personal
willingness to take risks compared to other people.
The sustainability aspect is gaining importance in the development of new
products (Jabbour et al., 2019; Seles et al., 2019). In this context, it includes
social, economic, and environmental impacting areas (Hossain, 2020).
Therefore, the literature suggests that there is an individual combination of
sustainability aspirations and personal innovativeness for a consumer. Personal
sustainable innovativeness is thus the intention to purchase sustainable new
technologies (Ahn et al., 2016; Anjam et al., 2020). To test this, considered
Ahn et al. (2016) sustainable innovativeness in their model and found a

36
significant influence on the intention to adopt sustainable household
technology. Since sustainable is part of the foundation of frugal innovation,
this paper will test the influence of sustainable innovativeness on purchase
behavior intention and perceived usefulness of frugal household appliances.
For this purpose, the following two hypotheses are formulated.

H5: The greater the sustainable innovativeness, the greater the purchase
behavior intention of frugal household appliances.
H6: The greater the sustainable innovativeness, the greater the perceived
usefulness of frugal household appliances.

In this study, social factors are added to the technological, environmental, and
economic views. These are shown to be a significant dimension in product
development (Jabbour et al., 2019). This is to provide the most complete
picture of the purchase behavior intention of the frugal household appliances.
The social factors will be based on the TAM-2 (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000), the
TPB (Ajzen, 1985) and the UTAUT (Venkatesh et al., 2003) are included in
the model. They describe the personal and mostly subconscious aspects for the
acceptance of a technology. Consumers want to align their actions to meet the
expectations of, and be approved by, those around them (Eneizan et al., 2019;
Pousttchi & Goeke, 2011; Yuen et al., 2020). Ajzen (1985, 1991) maps this
with the construct subjective norm. This assumes that the expectations of third
parties from the consumer's environment have an influence on the consumer's
perception of usefulness and behavior. In this study, the subjective norm will
be used to map how the consumer's environment feels about frugal household
appliances. Furthermore, the influence of the subjective norm on the perceived
usefulness and the purchase behavior intention will be tested. The hypotheses
H7 and H8 are formulated for this purpose.

37
H7: The greater the subjective norm related to frugal household appliances, the
greater the purchase behavior intention of frugal household appliances.
H8: The greater the subjective norm related to frugal household appliances, the
greater the perceived usefulness of frugal household appliances.

Physical products are selected for, among other things, their functional and/or
symbolic performance (Donoghue et al., 2008; Hawkins et al., 2007).
Functional performance refers to the ability of the product to fulfill its useful,
functional, or physical purposes. These can vary depending on the product. In
the area of major household appliances, durability, ease of use, ease of care,
and physical performance (does what it is supposed to do) are often used
(Donoghue et al., 2008).
Symbolic performance, on the other hand, refers to the psychological level of
performance. What does the product symbolize to the consumer himself and
what does it convey to third parties (Erasmus et al., 2005; Hawkins et al.,
2007).
Expectation of the functional and symbolic performance of the purchased
product can vary among consumers from low to very high (Hawkins et al.,
2007). Personal expectancy is therefore defined as a belief or prediction about
the purchased product (Donoghue et al., 2008). Expectations are based on
previous experiences with similar products, positive or negative
recommendations, and the marketing efforts of companies (Laufer, 2002;
Woodruff et al., 1983).
For major household appliances, perceived product quality (functional
performance) emerges as an important determinant of acceptance
(Rakhmawati et al., 2020). Various studies have shown that product quality
influences acceptance in the form of willingness to purchase and willingness
to use (Walsh et al., 2012; Wang, 2015; Yan et al., 2019). Other studies show
perceived quality to be a multidimensional concept, although these differ

38
between studies (Alonso et al., 2002; Kenyon & Sen, 2012). Quality is
manifested in eight different dimensions (Garvin, 1987). These are
performance, feature, conformance, reliability, durability, usability, aesthetics,
and perceived quality. In the wake of the increasing relevance of sustainability
in product development, suggest Hazen et al. (2017) for remanufactured
products the dimensions of durability, features, performance and fitness for
use.
To test the relevance of performance expectation for perceived usefulness and
perceived ease of use of frugal household appliances, hypotheses H9 and H10
are formulated.

H9: The greater the performance expectation of the frugal household appliance,
the greater the perceived usefulness of a frugal household appliance.
H10: The greater the performance expectation of the frugal household
appliance, the greater the perceived ease of use of a frugal household
appliance.

As another determinant of behavioral intention, Ajzen introduced (1991)

perceived behavioral control into the TPB. This is intended to reflect a person's
perceived control over the performance of a behavior, or more specifically, to
assess an individual's perception of his or her own control of factors that enable
or constrain the accomplishment of specific actions (Verma & Chandra, 2018).
Ajzen defined it as "the perceived ease or difficulty of performing the
behavior" (Ajzen, 1991). Subsequent studies show that perceived behavioral
control has a direct significant positive impact on an individual's behavioral
intention (Baker et al., 2007; Cheng et al., 2006). This was complemented by
studies (Barbera & Ajzen, 2020; Hukkelberg et al., 2014; Kothe & Mullan,
2015) that found a significant positive relationship between perceived
behavioral control and attitude in predicting intentions. It was found that the

39
higher the perceived behavioral control over an individual's behavior, the
stronger the influence of attitude on intention. In this context, perceived
behavioral control is also referred to as a non-volitional factor (Verma &
Chandra, 2018). Influencing factors of perceived behavioral control can be
internal or external to the person. Internal factors are e.g. self-confidence,
willpower and the ability to perform a behavior (Kidwell & Jewell, 2003;
Sparks et al., 1997). External factors are e.g. time, opportunity and facilitating
conditions (Bagozzi & Kimmel, 1995; Sparks et al., 1997). Facilitating
conditions represent all environmental conditions and conditions affecting the
individual that make an action easy or difficult. Studies show that an individual
is more likely to perform a behavior when it is easy than when it is difficult for
the individual to perform it (Triandis, 1977). One's assessment of control,
however, can also be distorted due to faulty and irrational premises that arise
from self-serving motives, fear, or other emotions (Geraerts et al., 2008).
Venkatesh and Davis established experimental evidence for a causal
relationship between computer self-efficacy to system-specific perceived ease
of use (Venkatesh & Davis, 1996). This was attributed to a lack of system
experience and thus a lack in confidence in one's ability and knowledge of how
easy or difficult a new system will be to use. In a later study, Venkatesh
additionally found that, among other factors, control serves as anchor for
perceived ease of use of a new system (Venkatesh, 2000).
To test the influence of perceived behavioral control on attitude and perceived
ease of use, the following hypotheses H11 and H12 are formulated.

H11: The greater the perceived behavioral control regarding the purchase of a
frugal household appliance, the more positive the attitude toward using frugal
household appliances.

40
H12: The greater the perceived behavioral control regarding the purchase of a
frugal household appliance, the greater the perceived ease of use of a frugal
household appliance.

The hypotheses H1-H12 formulated in the previous paragraphs were formulated

based on various research studies. The following hypotheses H13-H17 derived
from the TAM model (Davis, 1989). In this, perceived usefulness, perceived
ease of use, and attitude toward using are considered to influence intention to
use. The latter has been shown in various studies to be a good predictor of
actual use (Kim, 2012; Park et al., 2018; Schneider, 2021b; Venkatesh &
Davis, 2000; Wang et al., 2006). In this study, intention to use is presented as
purchase behavior intention.
Previous studies have shown that when a consumer perceives a technology as
useful, this can trigger motivation to actually use and purchase it. (Arnold &
Klee, 2016; Hubert et al., 2019; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000). In TAM, this is
represented as perceived usefulness. It represents the subjective likelihood of
an increase in usefulness from using a technology (Davis, 1989).
Following the TAM, the model of this study also tests the influence of
perceived usefulness on attitude toward using and intention to use in the form
of purchase behavior intention of frugal household appliances. For this
purpose, the hypotheses H13 and H14 are formulated.

H13: The greater the perceived usefulness of a frugal household appliance, the
more positive the attitude toward using frugal household appliances.
H14: The greater the perceived usefulness of a frugal household appliance, the
greater the purchase behavior intention of frugal household appliances.

Past studies use the construct of perceived ease of use during use to represent
ease in using a technology (Lu et al., 2019; Venkatesh et al., 2003). A

41
technology that wants to be user-friendly must be effortless, clear, simple, and
understandable to use (Holden & Karsh, 2010). In the TAM, direct influences
of perceived ease of use on perceived usefulness and attitude toward using as
well as an indirect influence via perceived usefulness on attitude toward using
are tested (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000). Based on this, the hypotheses H15 and
H16 are formulated.

H15: The greater the perceived ease of use of frugal household appliances, the
greater the perceived usefulness of frugal household appliances.
H16: The greater the perceived ease of use of frugal household appliances, the
more positive the attitude toward using frugal household appliances.

To represent the general attitude toward trading, the construct attitude toward
using is used (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977). This construct reflects attitude
acceptance. Once consumers engage in an acceptance decision for or against
an object, a comparison between attitude toward the new object and attitude
toward using related, familiar, or superior objects usually begins (Mann and
Prein, 2008). To implement the actual purchase, the consumer must have a
positive use attitude toward frugal household appliances. This is reflected in
the construct of purchase behavior intention. To test this, hypothesis H17 is
formulated.

H17: The more positive the attitude toward using frugal household appliances,
the greater the purchase behavior intention of frugal household appliances.

42
4.2. Quantitative research - partial least squares (PLS-SEM)

4.2.1. Research design

The research area around frugal innovations is a rather young and only less
researched area in science. Therefore, the author has structured her research as
a mix-method research process (see Figure 6). This offers the possibility to
combine an inductive approach for a new research area with a deductive
approach for the final hypothesis evaluation.

Step 1 Systematic literature review

Preliminary study
Step 2
(focus group interviews)

Preliminary study
Step 3
(quantitative survey)

Main study
Step 4
(quantitative survey)

Figure 6
Mix-methods research process

In the chapter 4.2.1.1 an excerpt of the preliminary studies conducted is shown

for the overall understanding of the research process. This is only intended to
provide an insight and understanding of the research that preceded the main
studies. Due to the scope of this thesis, the preliminary studies are neither fully
transcribed nor analyzed and evaluated in detail at this point.

43
4.2.1.1. Preliminary studies

At the beginning of the author's research, there was little evidence in the
literature and no empirically supported results on possible acceptance-forming
factors of frugal innovations in developed countries (see Chapter 2, Step 1).
This was due to the novelty of the research area. Due to this, an inductive
approach was chosen in the second research step, aiming at the development
of hypotheses and concepts (Basch, 1987). The focus group interview was
selected as a qualitative data collection instrument. In this moderated discourse
method, a small group is stimulated to discuss a specific topic by an
information input (Schulz, 2012). The group dynamic is a special feature here.
Through this, a large amount of data is obtained in a short time, which is often
more profound and richer than in individual interviews (Krueger & Casey,
2014; Rabiee, 2004). The data obtained is often used as a preliminary study to
a quantitative procedure (Rabiee, 2004). This was also the goal in this research
process. Exploratory information should be collected as a basis, which can be
tested later in the research process with the help of quantitative research.
In this research, two independent focus group interviews were conducted on
the acceptance-forming factors of frugal innovations in developed countries.
Both groups were master students of a degree program in economics. The
interviews took place on September 16, 2020 in Essen and on September 24,
2020 in Hamburg. The moderation of the focus group interviews was
supported in each case by an external moderator in the form of a professor from
ifes (Institute for Empirics & Statistics) from Essen and Hamburg.
The evaluations resulted in the Table 1 (first and second columns) acceptance
factors or moderators on the acceptance-forming factors.
From the results of the focus group interviews (Step 2) and the literature review
(Step 1), variables (see right column Table 1) were developed and
operationalized.

44
Table 1
Results from the focus group interviews and allocation to variables

Results focus group interviews Allocation to variables

Factor Subpoint Variable
Sustainability Conserving Resources Environmental Awareness
Conscious Consumption Environmental Awareness
Locality -
Culture -
Price- Price Financial Advantage
performance Margin -
ratio Performance Performance Expectation & Quality
Factors
Durability Performance Expectation & Quality
Factors
Quality Functionality Quality Factors
Standards Quality Factors
Risk avoidance Quality Factors
Trust Initial Trust
Functionality / Frequency of use -
Usability Use behavior Perceived Usefulness & Attitude
Toward Using
Comfort Attitude Towards Using
Minimalis Awareness Perceived Consumer Effectiveness
Lifestyle / Trend Personal Innovativeness
Simplification / Overview / Stress Perceived Ease of Use
reduction
Status / Image Design / Optic Status / Image
Brand (known brand, core of Initial Trust
brand, specific communication)
Opinion of others (Family / Status / Image & Subjective Norm
Friends / Society)

45
 Results focus group interviews Allocation to variables
Factor Subpoint Variable
Target Groups Mid-30to Demographic data (age)
Students -
Price-linked-Persons Financial Advantages
Available Income Demographic data (income)
Problems Awareness of Frugal Innovation Initial Trust
Mistrust Initial Trust
Communication problem -
Secondary / Intermediate Solution -
Availability Search Costs -
Time -
Availability at Point of Sale -
Marketing Information -
Specific Communication -

Based on the TAM (see Figure 4; Davis, 1985) the variables were transformed
into a first research model (Figure 7) to be evaluated in the next research step
(Step 3) with the deductive approach of a quantitative survey.

46
Figure 7
Research model pre-study

Data collection was conducted online from December 11, 2020 to January 13,
2021. There was a total of 824 returns. However, of these, data sets had to be
excluded due to more than 20% missing values (Weiber & Mühlhaus, 2014).
Furthermore, those cases were eliminated that showed a too fast response
behavior (Leiner, 2019). The sample thus comprised 608 data records. The
evaluation showed that the TAM was suitable for this object of investigation.
The main variables were significant with high path coefficient. In addition,
subjective norm, performance expectation, and environmental awareness were
found to be influential factors. A low influence (due to low path coefficient)
was determined for personal innovativeness, perceived consumer
effectiveness, quality factors, initial trust, financial advantage and
status/image.

47
Based on the focus group interviews and the results of the survey (Step 3), a
decision was made on the use of each variable (see Table 2) in the final
research model (Step 4).

Table 2
Decisions after evaluation of the first data collection

Variable Result Decision

Quality Factors Remove
Perceived Consumer Remove
Low
Effectiveness
significant
Status / Image Remove
path-
Initial Trust Remove
coefficient
Change and query "Sustainable
Personal Innovativeness
Innovativeness”
Financial Advantage Leave unchanged in model, check again
Environmental Awareness One item supplemented by another source
Perceived Usefulness Change items, other source
Performance Expectation Leave unchanged in model, check again
Leave unchanged in model, check again
Subjective Norm relevant
(formative items)
Perceived Ease of Use Leave unchanged in model, check again
Attitute Toward Using Leave unchanged in model, check again
Purchase Behavior Intention Leave unchanged in model, check again

4.2.1.2. Main study

To generate a data set as a basis for testing the research model, a primary data
collection was conducted by means of an online survey as a quantitatively
oriented method. The platform soscisurvey.de was used. Reasons for the online
survey were in particular the larger range, the lower effort compared to a
personal or telephone survey of several hundred participants, exclusion of a

48
possible influence of the participant by the interviewer as well as the time and
location-independent participation possibility (Wright, 2005). In addition, the
anonymity of the survey can be credibly guaranteed (Meffert et al., 2019). The
knowledge goal of the present research can be classified as explorative-
explanative. Explorative because the research area is very little studied and the
results for frugal innovations can be classified as basic research. Explanative
because a theory was applied and extended to the present research context. The
derived hypotheses are to be tested accordingly.

4.2.2. Methodology

Structural equation models (SEM) are often used for explanatory and
predictive purposes in social science. In these models, two different methods
exist. One is variance-based structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) and the
other is covariance-based structural equation modeling (CB-SEM or COV-
SEM) (Hair et al., 2017). CB-SEM is particularly useful for testing (rejecting
or confirming) theory. It determines how well a model can estimate the
covariance matrix for a data set. PLS-SEM is mainly used in exploratory
research applications and theory development. It enables investigations of
dependencies between manifest and latent constructs (Boßow-Thies & Panten,
2009). Two models are considered. First, the measurement model for
evaluating the manifest indicators to capture the endogenous and exogenous
latent constructs. As well as the structural model for evaluation between the
constructs (Hair et al., 2017). Thus, the focus of the model is on explaining the
variance of the dependent variables (Schneider, 2021a). The PLS-SEM should
be used when (Hair et al., 2017; Huber et al., 2011):
- target constructs to be predicted in the model,
- formatively measured constructs are present in the model,
- the model has a complex structure,

49
 - many constructs are present in the model,
- the sample is not normally distributed or is small.

This work is exploratory and predictive in nature (Boßow-Thies & Panten,

2009; Chin, 1995; Fornell & Bookstein, 1982; Weiber & Mühlhaus, 2014).
The established research model is used to predict the target construct purchase
behavior intention. It contains many (10) latent constructs and 17 relationships
between the constructs were formulated. Thus, the model can be described as
complex. The in the course following Table 3 shows a formatively measured
construct and nine reflectively measured constructs. Also in the later course
(chapter 5.1) it becomes apparent that not all data are normally distributed.
Thus, it conforms to the recommendations of Hair et al. (2017) and Huber et
al. (2011) for the use of a variance-based structural equation modeling (PLS-
SEM). The analysis in this paper is performed using SmartPLS version 3.3.3
software (Sarstedt et al., 2021).

The PLS Model is determined by two systems of equations. The structural

model (inner model) reflects the relationships between the constructs, while
the measurement models (outer model) show the relationship between the
observable manifest variables (synonymous: indicators, items) and the
unobservable constructs (latent variables), whereby an indicator is always
assigned to exactly one construct (Schneider & Boßow-Thies, 2022).
For the structural model applies:
𝜂 = ∑ 𝛽 𝜂 + 𝜁 for all j = 1, ..., J.

with the path coefficients 𝛽 of the structural model, where the index i runs
over all the construct 𝜂 determining the construct. 𝜁 stands for the residual
variable (Schneider & Boßow-Thies, 2022).

50
Thus, the constructs are understood as linear functions of their predictor
variables (Chin, 1998).

4.2.2.1. Evaluation measurement model

The measurement model distinguishes between reflective and formative

indicators. The direction of effect in reflective measurement (Mode A) runs
from the constructs to the indicators. A correlation of the indicators is to be
expected. If a construct changes, there is a change in all the indicators assigned
to it (Huber et al., 2011). In formative measurements (Mode B), on the other
hand, the indicators cause the construct. Thus a change of the indicators causes
a change of the construct (MacCallum & Browne, 1993). In the case of
formative indicators, there should be no correlation between the indicators, so
that if one indicator changes, the expressions of the other indicators remain
unchanged (Huber et al., 2011).
Thus, for the measurement models, the following continues to apply
(Schneider & Boßow-Thies, 2022):
𝑥 = 𝜛 𝜂 + 𝜀 , for h=1, ... H. Mode A

𝜂 =∑ 𝜋 , Mode B

While 𝜛 are to be interpreted as charges, the 𝜋 represent weights. 𝜀

denotes the residual variables of the outer model in reflective constructs
(Schneider & Boßow-Thies, 2022).
The PLS algorithm is basically divided into 2 two steps: In the first step, the
construct scores are estimated iteratively. Then, in the second step, the path
coefficients of the structural model and the weights and loadings of the
measurement models are determined using least squares estimation (Boßow-
Thies & Panten, 2009; Hair et al., 2021).

51
The subsequent quality assessment of the PLS model can also be divided into
two steps. Thus, the first step is to assess whether the measurement models are
considered unidimensional, reliable, and valid. For reflective and formative
constructs in the measurement model this assessment is done separately. The
reflective constructs are evaluated by means of internal consistency reliability,
convergence validity, and discriminant validity. The formative constructs, on
the other hand, are evaluated by means of content validity and collinearity
testing (Hair et al., 2017). Subsequently, the evaluation of the structural model
can be started (Boßow-Thies & Panten, 2009).

4.2.2.2. Evaluation reflective constructs

Cronbach's alpha, composite reliability, also called factor reliability, and rhoA
are used to test internal consistency reliability. Cronbach's alpha reflects the
proportion of the total variance of a scale that is attributable to the common
construct. Cronbach's alpha assumes that the indicators have the same
loadings, whereas the composite reliability assumes individual loadings and
thus arrives at a more precise result (Cronbach, 1951; Jöreskog, 1971). Both
measures of quality have similar thresholds. However, Cronbach's alpha is
considered to be the more conservative measure. For both measures, the values
should exceed 0.7 (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). If the measures have values
greater than 0.9 (especially 0.95), this indicates redundant indicators (Hair et
al., 2019). In addition, the rhoA is suggested as an exact reliability coefficient.
It usually lies between Cronbach's alpha and the composite reliability. It is thus
considered an acceptable compromise between the two measures (Dijkstra &
Henseler, 2015; Hair et al., 2021)
Convergence validity is used to test the extent to which a measurement is
positively correlated with an alternative measurement of the same construct.
For this purpose, the amount of loading and the “average variance extracted”

52
(AVE) are used. At least 50% of the variance of an indicator should be
explained by the underlying factor, which corresponds to a factor loading of at
least 0.707 (Hulland, 1999). In exceptional cases and if the other quality
criteria are met, loadings of 0.4 or more can be considered acceptable.
Supplementary, the p-values of the indicators are assessed from a bootstrap
(Hair et al., 2017). Subsequently, the AVE is examined at the construct level.
This value is calculated on the mean of the squared loadings of all indicators
assigned to the construct. A value of 0.5 indicated that, on average, half of the
variance of the indicators can be explained by the construct (Chin, 1998;
Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Discriminant validity is then tested. It gives an
indication of the extent to which a construct differs from the others in the
model. The cross-loadings of the indicators, the Fornell-Lacker criterion and
the heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) correlation ratio are used to determine this.
The cross-charges can be used to check whether the indicator charge on the
assigned construct is higher than on the other constructs in the model. In
addition, the assigned indicator loadings should be higher on the construct than
the other indicators in the model that are assigned to other constructs
(Birkinshaw et al., 1995; Chin, 1998). The Fornell-Larcker criterion compares
the square root of the AVE with the correlation of the constructs. A construct
should share more variance with its associated indicators than with other
constructs in the model (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). HTMT Correlation Ratio
can be used as another criterion (Henseler et al., 2015). This is defined as the
mean value of the indicator correlations of different constructs in relation to
the (geometric) mean value of the average correlations of the indicators of a
construct. If the HTMT value is close to 1, this may indicate a lack of
discriminant validity. Depending on the context, thresholds of 0.9 or 0.85 can
be used for conceptually similar or dissimilar constructs. An additional test can
be performed using the bootstrap. This shows whether the HTMT values are
significantly different from 1 or a lower threshold value (Hair et al., 2021).

53
4.2.2.3. Evaluation formative construct

Collinearity and content validity are used to evaluate formative indicators.

Collinearity occurs when multiple indicators in a formative measurement
model are highly correlated. Excessive correlation can increase standard errors
of indicator weights, which leads to false negative results (type II errors). If the
collinearity is very pronounced, this can lead to a change in the sign of the
indicator weights and thus to interpretation distortions (Hair et al., 2021).
The variance inflation factor (VIF) is used as an assessment criterion for this
purpose. The VIF value represents the reciprocal of the tolerance, which is the
proportion of variance of an indicator that is not explained by the other
indicators of the same construct. The threshold value for this is 5, ideally the
values should be smaller than 3 for the VIF value (Diamantopoulos &
Winklhofer, 2001; Hair et al., 2019). Content validity is used to assess whether
the indicators sufficiently cover the content of the construct to which they are
assigned. The signs and magnitudes of the respective weights as well as their
significances (from the separate bootstrap) are used for the assessment (Bollen
& Lennox, 1991). The indicator weights are derived from the regression of
each formatively measured construct on its associated indicators. The
significances are determined using the bootstrapping procedure (Hair et al.,
2021)
If the quality criteria of the reflective and formative constructs in the
measurement model are considered to be met, the next step is to begin testing
the structural model.

4.2.2.4. Evaluation structural model

Here, possible collinearities are first assessed. This is done because the later
estimation of path coefficients on regressions of the ordinary least squares
(OLS) of each endogenous construct is based on their predictive power. If there

54
is a high degree of collinearity between the predictor constructs, the path
coefficients may be biased (Hair et al., 2021). If these can be ruled out, the
heights and significances of the path coefficients are tested. Furthermore, the
explained variances of the endogenous constructs as well as the effect sizes
and predictive relevance are evaluated (among other Boßow-Thies & Panten,
2009; Hair et al., 2019). For collinearity testing, the VIF is used as before for
the formative constructs. The same thresholds apply as for the formative
constructs (Hair et al., 2019). Subsequently, the path coefficients of the model
are evaluated and the previously theoretically derived hypotheses are tested.
These are to be interpreted as standardized regression coefficients. Evaluated
the direction, significance, and strength of influence of the coefficients in the
model. Significance is calculated using a nonparametric bootstrap procedure.
Complementary assessment of mediation effects can be done by calculating
the indirect and total effects of the exogenous on the endogenous constructs
(Matthews et al., 2018). The R² of the endogenous constructs is a main criterion
in the evaluation of the structural model. It indicates the proportion of the
variance of the endogenous constructs that can be explained by all the
exogenous constructs associated with it and is thus a measure of the
explanatory power of the model. According to Chin, values of 0.67 are
considered substantial, 0.33 moderate, and 0.19 weak (Chin, 1998). However,
the R² values should always be assessed in context, for example, in comparison
to other studies on the present study context. Since the R² is influenced by the
number of exogenous constructs, the corrected coefficient of determination
R²adj should also be examined. This should be used in particular for the
comparison of models (Hair et al., 2017). In addition, the effect sizes f² of the
exogenous constructs are calculated. The f² value assesses the change in the R²
value of the endogenous construct when individual constructs acting on it are
taken into account and excluded. The values can be divided into different
ranges (value above 0.02: small influence; above 0.15: medium influence;

55
above 0.35: large influence; Chin, 1998). For the endogenous reflective
constructs, the predictive relevance can additionally be calculated. For this
purpose, the Stone-Geisser criterion (Q²) is used (Geisser, 1974; Stone, 1974).
Based on the blind folding technique, it gives an indication of how well the
endogenous constructs can be predicted by the exogenous constructs. Values
greater than 0, 0.25, 0.5 indicate small, medium and high predictive relevance,
respectively.
Complementarily, the PLSpredic is increasingly used as an additional method
for out-of-sample prediction in the context of PLS analyses (Shmueli et al.,
2016). Here, k-fold cross-validation is performed (k = number of subgroups)
to assess the predictive quality of PLS pathway models (Hair et al., 2021).
Values of Q²predict > 0 indicate that the present model predicts better values
than a naive benchmark (mean of indicators). In addition, the RMSE (root
mean squared error) values from PLS should also be compared to a benchmark.
Here, linear regressions (LM for linear model) of all items on one item each of
the final endogenous construct can be used (Danks & Ray, 2018). The
prediction errors from PLS should be as small as possible compared to the
analysis with LM per item (Hair et al., 2021).

4.2.3. Operationalization of the model variables

The explanatory model developed for the acceptance of frugal innovations in

household appliances is based on relationships between the constructs. In order
to be able to evaluate these, the operationalization of the constructs was based
on previously conducted literature analysis. A prerequisite for the acceptance
of an operationalization was a high goodness (Cronbach's α >0.7). The
operationalizations were adapted to the present context and translated into
German for the questionnaire. A seven-point Likert scale, from "1 = strongly
disagree" to "7= strongly agree", was used throughout to measure the items.

56
The only exception is the construct attitude toward using. For this, a seven-
point bipolar scale was chosen (see Table 3). Except for subjective norm, all
constructs were operationalized reflectively. Subjective norm was
operationalized formatively. The following Table 3 shows the
operationalization of the 10 constructs of the model.

Table 3
Operationalization of the constructs

Construct (source)
Item
Financial Advantage (FA) (Valls et al., 2012)
FA01_01 I am willing to buy a cheaper household appliance instead of the one I want
to buy.
FA01_02 Every time I buy household appliance, I compare prices until I find the
lowest one.
FA01_03 I always seek discounts or special offers.
Performance Expectation (PX) (Dodds et al., 1991; Sweeney et al., 1999).
PX01_01 Frugal household appliances should be reliable.
PX01_02 Frugal household appliances should be dependable.
PX01_03 Frugal household appliances should be durable.
PX01_04 The workmanship of frugal household appliances should be good.
PX01_05 Frugal household appliances should be of good quality.
Environmental Awareness (EA) (Ahn et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2020).
EA01_01 I consider the potential environmental impact of my actions when making
many of my decisions.
EA01_02 I am concerned about wasting the resources of our planet.
EA01_03 I would like to describe myself as environmentally responsible.
EA01_04 I am willing to be inconvenienced in order to take actions that are more
environmentally friendly.
EA01_05 It is important to me that the products I use do not harm the environment.
EA01_06 My purchase habits are affected by my concern for our environment.

57
Construct (source)
Item
Sustainable Innovativeness (SI) (Ahn et al., 2016)
SI01_01 In general, I am among the first in my circle of friends to buy new sustainable
products when it appears.
SI01_02 If I heard that a new sustainable product was available in the store, I would
be interested enough to buy it.
SI01_03 Compared with my friends I own a lot of sustainable products.
SI01_04 In general, I am among the first in my circle of friends to know the
titles/brands of the latest sustainable products.
SI01_05 I will buy a new sustainable product even if I haven't tried it yet.
SI01_06 I like to buy sustainable products before other people do.
Subjective Norm (SN) (Pousttchi & Goeke, 2011)
SN02_01 Friends would recommend the use of frugal household appliances.
SN02_02 Experts would recommend the use of frugal household appliances.
SN02_03 Media would recommend the use of frugal household appliances.
SN02_04 I think other people would use frugal household appliances.
SN02_05 Friends and colleagues would use frugal household appliances.
Perceived Behavior Control (BC) (Verma & Chandra, 2018; Yadav & Pathak, 2017)
BC01_01 Whether or not I buy a frugal household appliance at place of a conventional
household appliance is completely up to me.
BC01_02 I have the resources to buy a frugal household appliance.
BC01_03 I am confident that if I want to, I can buy frugal household appliance at place
of conventional household appliance.
Perceived Ease of Use (PE) (Davis, 1989; Lu et al., 2019; Venkatesh & Davis, 2000)
I think that a frugal household appliance is...
PE01_01 … easy to use.
PE01_02 … clear and understandable in operation.
PE01_03 … easy to learn how to use.
PE01_04 … easy to get to do what I want.

58
Construct (source)
Item
Perceived Usefulness (PU) (Davis, 1989)
PU02_01 Using a frugal household appliance enhances my effectiveness because
fewer resources are needed to achieve the same result.
PU02_02 Using a frugal household appliance would make the activities easier to do.
PU02_03 Overall, I find that frugal household appliances are useful.
Attitude Toward Using (AT) (Ajzen, 1991; Liang et al., 2013).
The use of a frugal household appliance, I find ...
AT02_01 negative ... positive.
AT02_02 worthless ... valuable.
AT02_03 not desirable ... desirable.
AT02_04 useless ... useful.
AT02_05 disadvantageous ... advantageous.
Purchase Behavior Intention (PB) (Ajzen, 1991; Liang et al., 2013; Moon & Kim, 2001;
Venkatesh et al., 2003)
Assuming frugal household appliances were readily available on the German
market, how likely is it that you would buy a frugal household appliance?
PB01_01 I intend to buy a frugal household appliance.
PB01_02 I plan to buy a frugal household appliance.
PB01_03 I can imagine buying a frugal household appliance.
PB01_04 I will recommend others to buy a frugal household appliance.

59
The Figure 8 shows the model to be tested with the constructs and items.

Figure 8 Developed research model

60
4.3. Data collection and sample description

The data collection was planned as a cross-sectional study and carried out
online using the survey platform soscisurvey.de from March 19 to May 13,
2021. The questionnaire included 56 questions that took about ten minutes to
answer (see appendix).

Before the main investigation could be carried out, the questionnaire was
subjected to a pretest. The focus here was on the applicability, completeness,
comprehensibility and duration of answering all questions. The modification
comments were incorporated into the questionnaire.

The questionnaire was opened with an introductory text on the purpose of the
survey and a note on the anonymity of the data collection. Furthermore, a short
description of frugal innovations was given on the 2nd page.

The first question of the questionnaire was intended to determine whether the
participants had already heard of frugal innovations. If this was answered in
the affirmative, the second question asked for known examples. In the
subsequent main section, the 44 questions / items of the operationalized
constructs were asked. The questionnaire concludes with information on the
socio-demographics of the participants such as gender, year of birth, school-
leaving qualification, household type & household size in persons and
household income.

The link to participate was sent electronically via WhatsApp and by email in
the university and private and professional environments. Participants were
asked to forward the link as well. Thus, the actual number of link recipients is
unknown. In total, there were 1259 returns. Of these, all with more than 20%
missing values were excluded (Weiber & Mühlhaus, 2014). Furthermore, those
cases were eliminated that showed a too fast response behavior. Here, all with
a relative speed index (RSI) > 2 or an RSI ≥ 1.75 with concurrent degradation

61
time (DEG) ≥ 100 were removed (Leiner, 2019). Thus, the remaining sample
includes 950 records with only 0.84% missing values. The missing values are
replaced by SmartPLS with mean values in order to calculate with a complete
dataset (Hair et al., 2017).
When asked about gender in the sample, 510 (53.68%) respondents indicated
female, 420 (44.21%) respondents indicated male, 10 indicated diverse
(1.05%), and 10 (1.05%) did not answer the question. According to the Federal
Statistical Office, the proportion of women in Germany in 2021 is 50.72% and
the proportion of men is 49.40% (Federal Statistical Office, 2022). The gender
diverse was not reported by the Federal Statistical Office. Thus, there is a slight
underweighting of men in the sample. The sample contains participants
between the birth years 1937 and 2003. The mean age is 37 years and the
median is 31 years. Household size shows a mean (MV) of 2.27 and a median
of 2. The average household size in Germany in 2019 was 1.99 (Federal
Statistical Office, 2020). For the multi-person households in the studies, the
mean value of the number of children is 0.51 and the median is 0. Besides that,
the percentage of single households is 22.11%. According to the Federal
Statistical Office, the proportion of single households in Germany is 20% and
multi-person households 80% (Federal Statistical Office, 2021). The
aforementioned characteristics are thus similar to the population in Germany
and the data set is suitable for the objectives of this research work. The
following Table 4 shows further figures for the sample description.

62
Table 4
Sample description

Missing Standard Camber/

Characteristic MV Median Number
values deviation Skew
-1.352/
Gender 10 1.468 1 0.520
0.355
1 = female 510
2 = male 420
3 = diverse 10
-0.142/
Age (year of birth) 14 1984 1990 12.818
-0.946
-0.310/
Household type 19 3.168 3 1.514
0.226
1 = Single household 210
2 = Single parent 17
3 = Couple without child(ren) 351
4 = Couple with child(ren) 213
5 = Generation household 55
6 = Shared apartment 70
7 = Other household 15
0.246 10.632/
Lives with parents 20 1.935 2
-3.551
1 = yes 60
2 = no 870
37.311/
Household members 27 2.269 2 1.370
4.042
779.623/
thereof children 38 0.511 0 3.083
26.931
-0.464/
2.768
Household income 18 3.276 4 -0.941

1 = less than 1,300 € 28

2 = 1,300 € to less than 1,700 € 46
3 = 1,700 € to less than 2,600 € 125
4 = 2,600 € to under 3,600 € 134
5 = 3,600 € to under 5,000 € 211
6 = 5,000 € to under 18,000 € 209
7 = 18,000 € and more 5
8 = I have no income of my own. 0
9 = I do not want to answer this question. 166

63
 Missing Standard Camber/
Characteristic MV Median Number
values deviation Skew
School-leaving 1.935/
9 5.543 6 0.854
qualification -1.459
1= No school-leaving qualification 1
2 = Still in school 2
3 = Secondary school (german: Hauptschule) 22
4 = Secondary school (german: Realschule) 114
5 = Advanced technical college entrance qualification 147
6 = High school diploma 631
7 = Other qualification 24
-0.676/
Academic degree 12 1.893 2 0.867
0.551
1 = No academic degree / still in academic training 373
2 = Bachelor - or equivalent 327
3 = Master - or equivalent 203
4 = Doctor / Professor 35
-0.680/
Professional qualification 109 1.881 2 0.653
0.125
1 = No completed vocational training / still in
235
vocational training
2 = Completed vocational training / journeyman's
471
examination or similar
3 = Master craftsman / Fachwirt or similar 135

The characteristics of Podsakoff et al. (2003) and (MacKenzie & Podsakoff,

2012) were considered to obtain the lowest possible common method bias.
Participants were assured anonymity of responses and were told that there were
no wrong and right answers. In addition, the measurement indicators were
adapted to the study.

64
5. RESULTS AND EVALUATION

5.1. Descriptive Analyses

The first analysis is done on item level. The descriptive data are searched for
abnormalities. The expressions of the items cover (except for the items
PX01_02, PX01_03, PX01_05) the complete scale range of 1-7. The items
PX01_02, PX01_03 and PX01_05 cover the scale width of 2-7. The standard
deviations and mean widths did not show any particular abnormalities (except
for the items PX), due to the standard deviations up to 1.78, a wider dispersion
in the data can be assumed (see
Table 5).

Table 5
Descriptive analysis

Mean Standard
Item value Median Min Max deviation Camber Skew
BC01_01 5.565 6 1 7 1.432 0.181 -0.877
BC01_02 5.440 6 1 7 1.384 0.232 -0.764
BC01_03 5.355 5 1 7 1.373 0.071 -0.674
EA01_01 4.521 5 1 7 1.338 -0.361 -0.193
EA01_02 5.727 6 1 7 1.288 0.678 -0.992
EA01_03 4.571 5 1 7 1.254 -0.197 -0.187
EA01_04 4.773 5 1 7 1.294 -0.255 -0.334
EA01_05 4.981 5 1 7 1.277 -0.253 -0.344
EA01_06 4.605 5 1 7 1.491 -0.522 -0.323
PU02_01 5.286 6 1 7 1.507 0.115 -0.784
PU02_02 4.248 4 1 7 1.606 -0.443 -0.158
PU02_03 5.187 5 1 7 1.321 -0.117 -0.402
FA01_01 4.411 5 1 7 1.667 -0.800 -0.256
FA01_02 4.279 4 1 7 1.735 -0.935 -0.151
FA01_03 4.459 5 1 7 1.780 -0.921 -0.246

65
 Mean Standard
Item value Median Min Max deviation Camber Skew
AT02_01 5.791 6 1 7 1.127 0.244 -0.796
AT02_02 5.542 6 1 7 1.351 0.974 -1.004
AT02_03 5.506 6 1 7 1.357 0.824 -0.957
AT02_04 5.421 6 1 7 1.378 0.776 -0.922
AT02_05 5.302 5 1 7 1.388 0.359 -0.736
SI01_01 3.404 3 1 7 1.552 -0.657 0.223
SI01_02 4.276 4 1 7 1.573 -0.591 -0.240
SI01_03 3.767 4 1 7 1.441 -0.415 0.019
SI01_04 3.197 3 1 7 1.502 -0.518 0.368
SI01_05 3.957 4 1 7 1.571 -0.734 -0.058
SI01_06 3.296 3 1 7 1.546 -0.739 0.206
PE01_01 5.347 5 1 7 1.282 -0.167 -0.493
PE01_02 5.535 6 1 7 1.309 0.618 -0.877
PE01_03 5.620 6 1 7 1.195 0.341 -0.727
PE01_04 5.335 5 1 7 1.278 0.042 -0.571
PX01_01 6.419 7 1 7 0.931 4.734 -2.013
PX01_02 6.310 7 2 7 0.973 2.825 -1.621
PX01_03 6.408 7 2 7 0.942 3.934 -1.908
PX01_04 6.331 7 1 7 0.970 3.689 -1.737
PX01_05 6.374 7 2 7 0.926 3.262 -1.732
SN02_01 3.964 4 1 7 1.428 -0.291 -0.090
SN02_02 4.552 5 1 7 1.387 -0.129 -0.352
SN02_03 3.944 4 1 7 1.447 -0.488 -0.064
SN02_04 4.702 5 1 7 1.233 0.176 -0.405
SN02_05 4.461 5 1 7 1.251 0.086 -0.314
PB01_01 4.759 5 1 7 1.412 0.147 -0.528
PB01_02 3.672 4 1 7 1.713 -0.796 0.074
PB01_03 5.255 5 1 7 1.402 0.362 -0.738
PB01_04 4.355 4 1 7 1.575 -0.436 -0.254

The means and medians of the items PX01_01 to PX01_05 show values >6.0,
a low deviation (<1). This is shown graphically with a left skewed distribution

66
(see Figure 9). Since PLS-SEM does not require normally distributed data,
these can be left in the data set.

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

PX01_01 PX01_02 PX01_03 PX01_04 PX01_05

Figure 9 Items Performance Expectation

After the evaluation of the descriptive data, the data evaluation with PLS can
be started. As described in the chapter 4.2.2 the measurement model is
analyzed in the first section and the structural model in the second section.

5.2. Evaluation of the measurement model

The measurement model tests how well the items reflect the hypothetically
definite construct. The reflective and formative constructs are analyzed
separately. The model contains nine reflective operationalized constructs and
one formative operationalized construct. As described in the chapter 4.2.2.2
the evaluation of the reflective constructs is based on internal consistency
reliability, convergence validity, and discriminant validity. The formative
construct is evaluated as described in the chapter 4.2.2.3 the multicollinearity
and content validity.

67
To account for static significances, bootstrapping is applied as a non-
parametric procedure in SmartPLS. Random subsamples are drawn from the
dataset to ensure stability of the results. 5000 subsamples are chosen for the
analysis. The bias-corrected and accelerated (BCa) bootstrap is chosen. This
corrects for bias and skewness in the bootstrap distribution and results in
narrow intervals (Efron, 1987). A two-sided significance test with a
significance level of 0.1 is chosen.

5.2.1. Quality assessment of reflective operationalized constructs

In general, the first step in assessing the quality of reflective constructs is to

examine content validity. This ensures that the items capture the meaning of
the construct. Since the operationalization of the constructs of this thesis was
based on already validated items, a sufficient content validity can be granted
and we can directly proceed to the indicator reliability. This is based, among
other things, on the level of the loadings of the individual items and their
significances. The loading should be greater than 0.7 and smaller than 0.95.
The Table 6 shows that (except for item BC01_01 and FA01_03) all factor
loadings in the original sample are between 0.746 and 0.926 and all p-values
are ≤0.001 and thus highly significant. Item BC01_01 shows a loading of 0.699
and is thus only minimally below the value of 0.7. Item FA01_03 shows a
loading of 0.668. Both show high significance. For both items, it is tested
individually whether the deletion leads to an increase in the reliability of the
internal consistency and the convergent validity (Hair et al., 2021). Since this
is not the case for either of them, they are left in the model.

68
Table 6
Outer loadings and significances

Construct Original Sample Standard

T-Statistic P-value
Item sample mean value deviation
Perceived Behavioral Control (BC, reflective)
BC01_01 0.699 0.697 0.033 21.099 <0.001
BC01_02 0.846 0.846 0.018 45.917 <0.001
BC01_03 0.869 0.869 0.013 68.000 <0.001
Environmental Awareness (EA, reflective)
EA01_01 0.837 0.836 0.012 70.302 <0.001
EA01_02 0.769 0.769 0.017 46.055 <0.001
EA01_03 0.821 0.820 0.015 55.857 <0.001
EA01_04 0.806 0.806 0.014 56.357 <0.001
EA01_05 0.856 0.856 0.010 83.678 <0.001
EA01_06 0.872 0.872 0.008 111.674 <0.001
Perceived Usefulness (PU, reflective)
PU02_01 0.782 0.781 0.021 37.877 <0.001
PU02_02 0.746 0.745 0.024 30.665 <0.001
PU02_03 0.879 0.879 0.008 114.891 <0.001
Financial Advantage (FA, reflective)
FA01_01 0.861 0.861 0.064 13.437 <0.001
FA01_02 0.787 0.765 0.098 7.995 <0.001
FA01_03 0.668 0.641 0.125 5.358 <0.001
Attitude Toward Using (AT, reflective)
AT02_01 0.807 0.807 0.017 47.208 <0.001
AT02_02 0.864 0.863 0.013 66.915 <0.001
AT02_03 0.885 0.885 0.009 99.198 <0.001
AT02_04 0.860 0.860 0.011 75.199 <0.001
AT02_05 0.861 0.861 0.011 81.065 <0.001

69
 Original Sample Standard
Construct T-Statistic P-value
sample mean value deviation
Sustainable Innovativeness (SI, reflective)
SI01_01 0.843 0.843 0.013 67.381 <0.001
SI01_02 0.828 0.828 0.012 70.343 <0.001
SI01_03 0.856 0.856 0.011 80.579 <0.001
SI01_04 0.832 0.832 0.013 65.316 <0.001
SI01_05 0.790 0.790 0.015 52.149 <0.001
SI01_06 0.804 0.804 0.016 49.386 <0.001
Perceived Ease Of Use (PE, reflective)
PE01_01 0.875 0.875 0.012 74.415 <0.001
PE01_02 0.864 0.865 0.017 50.975 <0.001
PE01_03 0.920 0.920 0.008 108.545 <0.001
PE01_04 0.890 0.889 0.010 87.225 <0.001
Performance Expectation (PX, reflective)
PX01_01 0.904 0.904 0.017 54.448 <0.001
PX01_02 0.889 0.888 0.014 62.793 <0.001
PX01_03 0.919 0.919 0.010 90.449 <0.001
PX01_04 0.926 0.926 0.008 118.593 <0.001
PX01_05 0.916 0.916 0.010 93.496 <0.001
Subjective Norm (SN, formative)
SN02_01 0.822 0.817 0.034 24.335 <0.001
SN02_02 0.578 0.575 0.053 10.951 <0.001
SN02_03 0.360 0.357 0.060 5.994 <0.001
SN02_04 0.750 0.745 0.039 19.479 <0.001
SN02_05 0.920 0.915 0.024 37.566 <0.001
Purchase Behavior Intention (PB, reflective)
PB01_01 0.857 0.857 0.012 73.913 <0.001
PB01_02 0.766 0.766 0.017 43.828 <0.001
PB01_03 0.851 0.851 0.012 73.489 <0.001
PB01_04 0.884 0.884 0.009 95.397 <0.001

The

70
Table 7 shows the internal consistency reliability which, as described in
chapter 4.2.2.2 is evaluated by Cronbach's α (>0.7), the CR value (>0.6) and
rhoA (Hair et al., 2021). All values are above the minimum values. The internal
consistency of the constructs is fulfilled via sufficient values of Cronbach's α
(between 0.715 and 0.949), the composite reliability (between 0.818 to 0.961)
and the reliability coefficient rhoA, which is in the range of 0.759 to 0.950.
The convergent validity, as described in chapter 4.2.2.2 is tested by the
AVE (>0.5) (Hair et al., 2021). The AVE, as shown in the
Table 7 is also fulfilled with values from 0.830 to 0.602.

Table 7
Internal consistency reliability and convergent validity

Construct Cronbach's α CR rhoA AVE

Attitude Toward Using (AT) 0.909 0.932 0.913 0.733

Environmental Awareness (EA) 0.908 0.929 0.910 0.685
Financial Advantage (FA) 0.715 0.818 0.847 0.602
Perceived Behavioral Control (BC) 0.732 0.849 0.759 0.653
Perceived Ease Of Use (PE) 0.910 0.937 0.913 0.787
Perceived Usefulness (PU) 0.738 0.845 0.817 0.646
Performance Expectation (PX) 0.949 0.961 0.950 0.830
Purchase Behavior Intention (PB) 0.861 0.906 0.872 0.706
Sustainable Innovativeness (SI) 0.907 0.928 0.909 0.682

Discriminant validity is then tested using the cross loadings, the Fornell-Lacker
criterion, and the HTMT correlation ratio. The cross loadings show (see
Table 8) that the correlation of the items with the assigned constructs is higher
than with the remaining latent constructs.

71
Table 8
Cross loadings

Construct
Item AT EA FA BC PE PU PX PB SI
BC01_01 0.157 0.158 0.111 0.699 0.235 0.201 0.28 0.183 0.093
BC01_02 0.227 0.238 0.054 0.846 0.346 0.194 0.316 0.293 0.161
BC01_03 0.276 0.216 0.119 0.869 0.331 0.280 0.329 0.346 0.222
EC01_01 0.329 0.837 -0.037 0.182 0.184 0.297 0.144 0.368 0.591
EA01_01 0.361 0.769 0.012 0.218 0.213 0.316 0.243 0.369 0.477
EA01_02 0.303 0.821 -0.016 0.176 0.160 0.305 0.180 0.327 0.555
EA01_03 0.347 0.806 -0.001 0.229 0.180 0.345 0.185 0.404 0.544
EA01_04 0.383 0.856 -0.019 0.228 0.217 0.353 0.247 0.406 0.572
EA01_05 0.364 0.872 -0.007 0.227 0.171 0.349 0.181 0.418 0.675
PU02_01 0.370 0.241 0.103 0.233 0.200 0.782 0.288 0.370 0.190
PU02_02 0.268 0.253 0.147 0.103 0.192 0.746 0.111 0.307 0.273
PU02_03 0.544 0.418 0.104 0.294 0.340 0.879 0.307 0.591 0.339
FA01_01 0.123 0.029 0.861 0.127 0.140 0.139 0.077 0.146 0.043
FA01_02 -0.003 -0.051 0.787 0.061 0.074 0.099 0.047 0.052 -0.043
FA01_03 -0.030 -0.060 0.668 0.049 0.043 0.061 0.040 0.050 -0.022
AT02_01 0.807 0.412 0.066 0.270 0.290 0.527 0.266 0.596 0.329
AT02_02 0.864 0.388 0.046 0.241 0.226 0.420 0.248 0.500 0.320
AT02_03 0.885 0.351 0.043 0.242 0.222 0.392 0.236 0.497 0.300
AT02_04 0.860 0.292 0.074 0.198 0.210 0.410 0.197 0.461 0.271
AT02_05 0.861 0.343 0.072 0.226 0.216 0.448 0.224 0.485 0.306
SI01_01 0.248 0.626 -0.044 0.134 0.139 0.282 0.086 0.343 0.843
SI01_02 0.371 0.617 0.021 0.213 0.182 0.302 0.126 0.442 0.828
SI01_03 0.287 0.657 0.007 0.184 0.158 0.285 0.095 0.382 0.856
SI01_04 0.268 0.529 -0.019 0.131 0.104 0.248 0.026 0.338 0.832
SI01_05 0.322 0.495 0.045 0.196 0.144 0.273 0.101 0.386 0.790
SI01_06 0.268 0.484 0.017 0.137 0.107 0.290 0.058 0.381 0.804
PE01_01 0.228 0.237 0.108 0.297 0.875 0.294 0.293 0.322 0.182
PE01_02 0.235 0.168 0.113 0.369 0.864 0.250 0.306 0.330 0.129
PE01_03 0.250 0.211 0.115 0.332 0.920 0.259 0.337 0.323 0.128
PE01_04 0.264 0.192 0.116 0.350 0.890 0.331 0.353 0.376 0.166

72
 Construct
Item AT EA FA BC PE PU PX PB SI
PX01_01 0.248 0.199 0.098 0.392 0.355 0.264 0.904 0.231 0.087
PX01_02 0.236 0.205 0.063 0.371 0.316 0.259 0.889 0.233 0.099
PX01_03 0.257 0.203 0.060 0.332 0.328 0.287 0.919 0.210 0.064
PX01_04 0.270 0.222 0.068 0.331 0.342 0.301 0.926 0.229 0.102
PX01_05 0.248 0.257 0.058 0.315 0.318 0.303 0.916 0.210 0.112
PB01_01 0.537 0.408 0.090 0.316 0.320 0.486 0.216 0.857 0.377
PB01_02 0.370 0.303 0.087 0.165 0.184 0.418 0.065 0.766 0.350
PB01_03 0.550 0.389 0.160 0.375 0.419 0.455 0.317 0.851 0.379
PB01_04 0.538 0.445 0.080 0.290 0.335 0.512 0.196 0.884 0.442

The Table 9 shows that the correlations between the latent variables are
smaller than the root of the AVE.

Table 9
Fornell-Larcker Criterion

Construct
Construct AT EA FA BC PE PU PX PB SI
AT 0.856
EA 0.422 0.828
FA 0.071 -0.014 0.776
BC 0.278 0.255 0.116 0.808
PE 0.276 0.227 0.128 0.381 0.887
PU 0.520 0.397 0.139 0.281 0.321 0.804
PX 0.277 0.238 0.076 0.381 0.365 0.311 0.911
PB 0.600 0.464 0.125 0.348 0.382 0.558 0.244 0.840
SI 0.359 0.690 0.007 0.204 0.170 0.341 0.102 0.462 0.826

Table 10 shows that the HTMT thresholds do not exceed 0.85 due to the
conceptually different constructs. Thus, all constructs meet the requirements
of discriminant validity (Hair et al., 2021).

73
Table 10
Heterotrait-monotrait ratio (HTMT)

Construct
Construct AT EA FA BC PE PU PX PB
EA 0.458
FA 0.085 0.076
BC 0.330 0.309 0.144
PE 0.298 0.250 0.133 0.461
PU 0.586 0.457 0.184 0.351 0.366
PX 0.294 0.256 0.083 0.459 0.391 0.347
PB 0.663 0.518 0.132 0.420 0.422 0.654 0.262
SI 0.389 0.757 0.060 0.238 0.185 0.402 0.107 0.517

Thus, all reflective constructs meet the quality criteria and are sufficiently valid
and reliable.

5.2.2. Quality assessment of formative operationalized construct

In order to assess the formative construct subjective norm, we start by

examining the extent of the linear dependencies of the items, as these can lead
to biased significance estimates. The VIF is used as an assessment criterion for
this purpose. The Table 11 shows that all VIF values are below 3 and thus do
not indicate collinearity problems.

74
Table 11
Outer weights and significances

Construct Weight Weight

Standard
(original (sample T-Statistic P-value VIF
deviation
Item sample) mean value)
Subjective Norm (SN, formative)
SN02_01 0.399 0.399 0.070 5.743 0.000 1.620
SN02_02 0.162 0.161 0.066 2.458 0.014 1.576
SN02_03 -0.074 -0.073 0.062 1.196 0.232 1.377
SN02_04 0.093 0.092 0.083 1.115 0.265 2.232
SN02_05 0.581 0.576 0.089 6.498 0.000 2.524

To assess content validity, we first examine the item weights. In the Table 11
it can be seen that the weights of the formative construct, except for item
SN02_03, have the hypothesized signs. The items SN02_01, SN02_02 and
SN02_05 show appropriate weights. These range from 0.162 to 0.581 and are
significant (p≤0.1). For the items SN02_03 and SN02_04 of the construct
subjective norm, non-significant weights (0.232 and 0.265) result.
According to Hair et al. (2021) an additional inspection of the loadings and the
significance of the corresponding items is therefore performed. First, it is
determined for both items that the weights show non-significant p-values.
Subsequently, the loadings are inspected (cf. Table 6). The loading of the item
SN02_04 shows a value of >0.5, so the item remains in the model. The loading
of the item SN02_03 is <0.5 and therefore the significance of the loading is
tested in a next step. The p-value is significant (p≤0.001). Thus, the item also
remains in the model.
Finally, the measurement model fulfills all quality criteria. In the next step, the
structural model can be analyzed on this basis.

75
5.3. Evaluation of the structure model

For quality assessment, the structural model is first examined for possible
collinearity problems. For this purpose, the inner VIF are calculated (see Table
12). No VIF value exceeds the cutoff value of 5 nor the narrower value of 3
(Hair et al., 2019). The highest value in the model is 2.114.

Table 12
Inner variance inflation factor (VIF)

Construct
Construct AT PE PU PB
AT 1.586
EA 1.226 2.087 2.114
FA 1.073 1.075
BC 1.232 1.170
PE 1.249 1.254
PU 1.292 1.510
PX 1.170 1.203
SN 1.377 1.475
SI 1.991 1.283

Subsequently, the height of the path coefficients and the significance of the
path coefficients are evaluated (see Table 13). These are determined using the
bootstrapping procedure. A two-sided significance test with a significance
level of 10% is performed. It is shown that the path coefficient from FA to PB
(H3) is the only one that is not significant. The path coefficients of FA on PU
(H4), SI on PU (H6), BC on AT (H11) and PE on AT (H16) are significant,
but their influence is very small (<0.1) (Sellin & Keeves, 1994).

76
Table 13
Path coefficients and significances

Path
Path
coefficient
coefficient Standard T- P-
Construct Hypothesis sample
original deviation statistic values
mean
sample
value
Perceived Usefulness (PU)
EA H1 0.178 0.178 0.041 4.390 ≤0.001
FA H4 0.065 0.066 0.030 2.154 0.031
SI H6 0.092 0.091 0.041 2.254 0.024
SN H8 0.216 0.221 0.037 5.814 ≤0.001
PX H9 0.171 0.171 0.028 6.210 ≤0.001
PE H15 0.127 0.126 0.033 3.797 ≤0.001
Perceived Ease Of Use (PE)
PX H10 0.256 0.256 0.033 7.829 ≤0.001
BC H12 0.284 0.286 0.034 8.356 ≤0.001
Attitude Toward Using (AT)
EA H2 0.234 0.234 0.033 7.111 ≤0.001
BC H11 0.087 0.087 0.032 2.688 0.007
PU H13 0.381 0.381 0.035 10.987 ≤0.001
PE H16 0.068 0.067 0.036 1.860 0.063
Purchase Behavior Intention (PB)
FA H3 0.010 0.011 0.025 0.421 0.674
SI H5 0.168 0.169 0.028 6.044 ≤0.001
SN H7 0.271 0.271 0.033 8.157 ≤0.001
PU H14 0.237 0.236 0.030 7.875 ≤0.001
AT H17 0.293 0.293 0.031 9.522 ≤0.001

In addition, a multiple mediation analysis of the structural model is performed

because often exogenous constructs influence endogenous constructs through
more than one mediator variable (Hair et al., 2017). For this purpose, the
indirect and total effects of the exogenous constructs on the endogenous
constructs are evaluated. The Table 14 shows that the path BC->PE->AT->PB
is not significant and thus not a mediator in the relationship. The others show
significant path coefficients with a small influence, only the path coefficient of

77
PU->AT->PB is above 0.1. Thus, these stand as mediators in the respective
relationships.

The Table 13 shows that the path coefficient of hypothesis H3 of FA->PB is

not significant. The indirect effects via PU and PU->AT show significant path
coefficients with small influences. Thus, there is a purely indirect mediation
(Matthews et al., 2018).

All other hypothesized direct relationships show significant path coefficients

(see Table 13) and significant path coefficients of the indirect relationships
(see Table 14). Thus, for all of them a partial mediation by the indirect
relations is present, which, however, due to the path coefficients <0.1 (with the
exception of PU->AT->PB=0.112), can be considered as low.

Table 14
Specific indirect effects

Sample
Original Standard T-
Path mean P-values
sample deviation statistic
value
EA -> AT -> PB 0.068 0.068 0.011 6.341 ≤0.001
EA -> PU -> AT 0.068 0.068 0.016 4.317 ≤0.001
EA -> PU -> AT -> PB 0.020 0.020 0.005 3.763 ≤0.001
EA -> PU -> PB 0.042 0.042 0.011 3.901 ≤0.001
FA -> PU -> AT 0.025 0.025 0.011 2.149 0.032
FA -> PU -> AT -> PB 0.007 0.007 0.003 2.063 0.039
FA -> PU -> PB 0.015 0.015 0.007 2.061 0.039
BC -> AT -> PB 0.025 0.026 0.010 2.533 0.011
BC -> PE -> AT 0.019 0.019 0.011 1.771 0.077
BC -> PE -> AT -> PB 0.006 0.006 0.003 1.645 0.100
BC -> PE -> PU 0.036 0.036 0.011 3.287 ≤0.001
BC -> PE -> PU -> AT 0.014 0.014 0.004 3.321 ≤0.001
BC -> PE -> PU -> AT
0.004 0.004 0.001 3.144 0.002
-> PB
BC -> PE -> PU -> PB 0.009 0.009 0.003 2.912 0.004
PE -> AT -> PB 0.020 0.020 0.011 1.722 0.085
PE -> PU -> AT 0.048 0.048 0.013 3.818 ≤0.001

78
 Sample
Original Standard T-
Path mean P-values
sample deviation statistic
value
PE -> PU -> AT -> PB 0.014 0.014 0.004 3.563 ≤0.001
PE -> PU -> PB 0.030 0.030 0.009 3.283 ≤0.001
PU -> AT -> PB 0.112 0.112 0.017 6.692 ≤0.001
PX -> PE -> AT 0.017 0.017 0.010 1.803 0.072
PX -> PE -> AT -> PB 0.005 0.005 0.003 1.675 0.094
PX -> PE -> PU 0.033 0.032 0.009 3.544 ≤0.001
PX -> PE -> PU -> AT 0.012 0.012 0.004 3.525 ≤0.001
PX -> PE -> PU -> AT ≤0.001
0.004 0.004 0.001 3.310
-> PB
PX -> PE -> PU -> PB 0.008 0.008 0.002 3.122 0.002
PX -> PU -> AT 0.065 0.065 0.013 5.205 ≤0.001
PX -> PU -> AT -> PB 0.019 0.019 0.004 4.490 ≤0.001
PX -> PU -> PB 0.041 0.040 0.009 4.735 ≤0.001
SN -> PU -> AT 0.082 0.085 0.018 4.490 ≤0.001
SN -> PU -> AT -> PB 0.024 0.025 0.006 3.910 ≤0.001
SN -> PU -> PB 0.051 0.052 0.011 4.585 ≤0.001
SI -> PU -> AT 0.035 0.035 0.016 2.141 0.032
SI -> PU -> AT -> PB 0.010 0.010 0.005 2.044 0.041
SI -> PU -> PB 0.022 0.021 0.010 2.188 0.029

To determine whether a path coefficient is meaningful, the total effects (sum

of the direct effect and all indirect effects) are also interpreted in the next step.
This can provide a more comprehensive picture of the relationships in the
structural model.

The total effects (see Table 15) are all significant, except for FA->PB (H3).
However, also here many values are below 0.1 and therefore negligible. The
total effect of EA->PB shows a significant influence and consists only of
indirect effects (no direct influence was formulated). For the hypotheses H2,
H5, H7, H9, H11, H14 and H16 the total effects show higher values than the
path coefficients (see Table 13). For these, there is a direct and indirect effect,
which is complementary. The values of the path coefficients and total effects
differ by 0.033-0.075. For the hypotheses H11 and H16 the limit value of 0.1

79
is exceeded. The largest indirect effect also affects hypothesis H14. For this
one, the difference amounts to 0.111 This is due to the previously established
indirect influence PU->AT->PB.

There are no relevant indirect influences for hypotheses H1, H4, H6, H8, H10,
H12, H13, H15, and H17.

Table 15
Total effects

Sample
Original Standard T-
Path Hypothesis mean P-values
sample deviation statistic
value
AT -> PB H17 0.293 0.293 0.031 9.522 ≤0.001
EA -> AT H2 0.302 0.302 0.035 8.610 ≤0.001
EA -> PU H1 0.178 0.178 0.041 4.139 ≤0.001
EA -> PB - 0.131 0.130 0.018 7.115 ≤0.001
FA -> AT - 0.025 0.025 0.011 2.149 0.032
FA -> PU H4 0.065 0.066 0.030 2.154 0.031
FA -> PB H3 0.033 0.034 0.026 1.286 0.198
BC -> AT H11 0.120 0.120 0.032 3.783 ≤0.001
BC -> PE H12 0.284 0.286 0.034 8.356 ≤0.001
BC -> PU - 0.036 0.036 0.011 3.287 ≤0.001
BC -> PB - 0.044 0.044 0.011 3.944 ≤0.001
PE -> AT H16 0.116 0.115 0.037 3.098 0.002
PE -> PU H15 0.127 0.126 0.033 3.797 ≤0.001
PE -> PB - 0.064 0.064 0.016 3.974 ≤0.001
PU -> AT H13 0.381 0.381 0.035 10.987 ≤0.001
PU -> PB H14 0.348 0.347 0.027 12.673 ≤0.001
PX -> AT - 0.095 0.095 0.016 6.049 ≤0.001
PX -> PE H10 0.256 0.256 0.033 7.829 ≤0.001
PX -> PU H9 0.204 0.203 0.028 7.311 ≤0.001
PX -> PB - 0.076 0.076 0.012 6.426 ≤0.001
SN -> AT - 0.082 0.085 0.018 4.490 ≤0.001
SN -> PU H8 0.216 0.221 0.037 5.814 ≤0.001
SN -> PB H7 0.346 0.348 0.032 10.885 ≤0.001
SI -> AT - 0.035 0.035 0.016 2.141 0.032
SI -> PU H6 0.092 0.091 0.041 2.254 0.024
SI -> PB H5 0.201 0.201 0.031 6.520 ≤0.001

80
After evaluating the relevance and significance of the structural model
relationships, the explanatory power of the model is then examined. For this
purpose, the coefficient of determination R² of the endogenous constructs is
assessed (Table 16). The values of PE (0.202) and PU (0.293) are found to be
weak. AT (0.339) and PB (0.541) show moderate R² values. The R²adj support
this.

Table 16
Coefficient of determination (R²)

Construct R² R²adj
Attitude Toward Using (AT) 0.339 0.337
Perceived Ease Of Use (PE) 0.202 0.200
Perceived Usefulness (PU) 0.293 0.289
Purchase Behavior Intention (PB) 0.541 0.538

In addition, the effect sizes (f²) of the exogenous constructs are assessed (see
Table 17). FA->PE, FA->PB, BC->AT, PE->AT, PE->PU and SI->PU show
no relevant effect. The others show a small effect and PE->AT a moderate
effect.

81
Table 17
Effect size (f²)

Exogenous construct
Construct AT PE PU PB
AT 0.120
EA 0.067 0.022
FA 0.005 0.000
BC 0.009 0.087
PE 0.006 0.018
PU 0.170 0.082
PX 0.070 0.034
SN 0.048 0.108
SI 0.006 0.048

Subsequently, the predictive relevance Q² is calculated for the endogenous

constructs (Table 18). The values show that all endogenous constructs have a
predicted relevance. These are to be evaluated as small and medium predict
relevancies.

Table 18
Prediction relevance (Q²)

Construct SSO SSE Q² (= 1-SSE/SSO)

Attitude Toward Using (AT) 4750 3610.872 0.240
Perceived Ease Of Use (PE) 3800 3206.968 0.156
Perceived Usefulness (PU) 2850 2358.480 0.172
Purchase Behavior Intention (PB) 3800 2372.107 0.376

In the next step, the PLSpredict procedure is applied for out-of-sample

prediction. For k-fold cross-validation, 3 subgroups (k) and 10 repeats are
applied. All Q2predict values are > 0, indicating better predictive performance

82
than a naive benchmark (Table 19). The majority of the RMSE values from
the PLS-SEM show lower values than the RMSE values from the LM. This
indicates an intermediate predictive power of the model (Hair et al., 2021).

Table 19
Out-of-sample predictive power

Construct PLS-SEM LM
Item Q²predict RMSE RMSE
Attitude Toward Using (AT) 0.257
AT02_01 0.988 0.988 0.964
AT02_02 1.208 1.208 1.207
AT02_03 1.226 1.226 1.227
AT02_04 1.284 1.284 1.288
AT02_05 1.264 1.264 1.274
Perceived Ease Of Use (PE) 0.197
PE01_01 1.200 1.200 1.198
PE01_02 1.197 1.197 1.210
PE01_03 1.094 1.094 1.090
PE01_04 1.159 1.159 1.157
Perceived Usefulness (PU) 0.270
PU02_01 1.402 1.402 1.431
PU02_02 1.539 1.539 1.532
PU02_03 1.123 1.123 1.132
Purchase Behavior Intention (PB) 0.410
PB01_01 1.205 1.205 1.231
PB01_02 1.545 1.545 1.568
PB01_03 1.144 1.144 1.137
PB01_04 1.259 1.259 1.279

The Figure 10 shows the results of the structural model and refers to the R²,
path coefficients and significances of the model. Sixteen of the seventeen
hypotheses were confirmed.

83
Figure 10 Research model with path coefficients, significance and R²

84
It can be seen that environmental awareness has an effect on both perceived
usefulness (β=0.178, p≤0.001, f²=0.022) and attitude toward using (β=0.234,
p≤0.001, f²=0.067). Due to the indirect effect of environmental awareness via
perceived usefulness on attitude toward using, the total effect is even higher
with β=0.302 and p≤0.001. Besides, the total effect shows a non-hypothesized
influence of environmental awareness on purchase behavior intention
(β=0.131, p≤0.001).

Financial advantage showed a small direct effect on perceived usefulness

(β=0.065, p≤0.1, f²=0.005) and no effect on purchase behavior intention
(β=0.01, p=0.674). The indirect and total effects show no influences on the
coefficients and significances to be considered. Sustainable innovativeness
shows an influence on purchase behavior intention (β=0.168, p≤0.001,
f²=0.048), which is further strengthened by the indirect effects in the total
effects (β=0.201, p≤0.001). The effect on perceived usefulness shows a small
influence (β=0.092, p≤0.1, f²=0.006). The subjective norm is a construct with
larger influences on perceived usefulness (β=0.216, p≤0.001, f²=0.048) and
purchase behavior intention (β=0.271, p≤0.001, f²=0.108). Due to the indirect
effects, the total effect on purchase behavior intention is more pronounced
(β=0.346, p≤0.001). The performance expectation shows an influence on the
perceived ease of use (β=0.256, p≤0.001, f²=0.070) as well as on the perceived
usefulness (β=0.171, p≤0.001, f²=0.034). In the latter case, the total effect is
amplified by the indirect effects (β=0.204, p≤0.001). Besides, the total effects
on attitude toward using (β=0.095, p≤0.001) and purchase behavior intention
(β=0.076, p≤0.001) show a small, significant, and not hypothesized influence.
A small direct influence can be seen in perceived behavioral control on attitude
toward using (β=0.087, p≤0.01, f²=0.009). This is raised by the indirect effect
to a total effect of β=0.12 (p≤0.001). A stronger effect is shown directly on
perceived ease of use (β=0.284, p≤0.001, f²=0.087). The main constructs of the
TAM show increased higher path coefficients with a very high significance.
85
Perceived usefulness has a direct effect on purchase behavior intention
(β=0.237, p≤0.001, f²=0.082) and attitude toward using (β=0.381, p≤0.001,
f²=0.170). The latter shows the highest effect size (f²) in the model. Through
the indirect effect of perceived usefulness via attitude toward using on
purchase behavior intention, a total effect of β=0.384 (p≤0.001) is achieved.
Perceived ease of use shows a small effect on attitude toward using (β=0.068,
p≤0.1, f²=0.006). Indirect effect via perceived usefulness shows a higher total
effect (β=0.116, p≤0.01). The direct effect on perceived usefulness is larger
(β=0.127, p≤0.001, f²=0.018). The influence of attitude toward using on
purchase behavior intention shows one of the highest influences in the model
(β=0.293, p≤0.001, f²=0.120).

In addition, all endogenous constructs show Q² values greater than zero and
indicate a small or medium predictive relevance with values of 0.172, 0.156,
0.24 and 0.376 for the constructs perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use,
attitude toward using, and purchase behavior intention, respectively.

After evaluating the criteria for assessing the structural model, this can be rated
as acceptable in terms of multicollinearity, explained variances, and the height
and significance of the path coefficients and predicted relevance. Overall, this
indicates a reliable estimation of the structural model. In the following, the
results are interpreted.

86
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The chosen survey form of an online questionnaire proved to be suitable for

answering the research question. The data set shows many parallels to the basic
population (the population living in Germany) and based on this, can provide
findings that are highly likely to be representative. The research model set up
has proven to be solid.
As already suspected in the literature (Kroll et al., 2016; Tiwari & Kalogerakis,
2019), environmental awareness emerges as a relevant factor among
respondents. Environmental awareness influences perceived usefulness,
attitude toward using, and purchase behavior intention. This also corresponds
to the characteristics of "frugality 4.0," in which more ecologically sustainable
products are developed (see chapter 2.3) (Herstatt & Tiwari, 2020a). The direct
influence of environmental awareness on purchase behavior intention should
be emphasized. Thus, it does not act as a moderator variable, as in other studies
(Ashiq et al., 2019) or only indirectly via the attitude toward using (Yadav &
Pathak, 2017) on the purchase behavior intention, but directly as in the case of
Anjam et al. (2020) and Chen & Hung, (2016).

Financial advantage shows a small influence on perceived usefulness and none

on purchase behavior intention. This could be due to different reasons. Since
frugal innovations are by definition less expensive than ordinary products, this
factor could be taken as given (Hossain et al., 2016; Tiwari et al., 2017b;
Winkler et al., 2020) and therefore prices are compared less or no attention is
paid to special offers. A large part of the respondents (44.21%) has a monthly
household income of 3,600-18,000€ (see chapter 4.3). For a more detailed
evaluation of the financial advantage, this figure should be put in relation to
the household members. Since the financial advantage could have a different

87
impact on households with a low per capita income than on households with a
higher per capita income.
Sustainable innovativeness has a highly significant influence on purchase
behavior intention. This shows that there is a combination of sustainable
innovativeness and personal innovativeness for consumers in Germany.
Personal sustainable innovativeness thus influences intention to purchase
frugal innovations. In contrast to the studies by Ahn et al. (2016) and Anjam
et al. (2020) the influence on perceived usefulness was also determined. This
is small, but increases the total effect on the purchase behavior intention of
frugal household appliances.
The influence by subjective norm on purchase behavior intention has one of
the highest path coefficients in the model. Thus, for frugal household
appliances, it is shown that the influence of third parties on the consumer's
decision is given and it takes a significant dimension (Jabbour et al., 2019).
The influence should be taken into account by manufacturers, as it can have a
positive or negative impact on the consumer's actual behavior. In many studies
only the direct influence of the subjective norm on the behavioral intention is
examined (Ahn et al., 2016; Chen & Hung, 2016; Eneizan et al., 2019; Yadav
& Pathak, 2017). According to TAM-2, however, there is also an influence of
the subjective norm on perceived usefulness (Venkatesh & Davis, 2000). In
this study, this influence is shown with a highly significant path coefficient.
Thus, upstream of the influence on purchase behavioral intention, the influence
on the individual perceived usefulness of frugal household appliances is
determined to be relevant.
The results suggest that performance expectation in the form of product
quality, durability, and reliability of frugal household appliances has an impact
on consumers' perceived usefulness. This demonstrates that feature reduction
should not be at the expense of product quality. This is a relevant factor for
consumers (cf. Figure 9). In addition to perceived usefulness, the model shows

88
an influence on perceived ease of use. This is more pronounced, confirming
the desire for frugal household appliances to be easy to use (Bergmann &
Tiwari, 2016; Hanna, 2012; Kohlbacher & Hang, 2010; Tiwari & Kalogerakis,
2019).
Contrary to many studies and the theory of planned behavior, only a small
influence of perceived behavioral control on attitude toward using and final on
purchase behavior intention could be confirmed in this model (Ajzen, 1985;
Baker et al., 2007; Cheng et al., 2006). In the data set there are participants
(about 20%) who have little to no control over the execution in the purchase of
a frugal household appliance (response items BC01_01, BC01_02, BC01_03).
This group should be analyzed further, e.g. are there correlations with
household type? Another clear influence can be seen on the perceived ease of
use. This correlation has not been studied frequently before, even in other
research areas. In this work it is proven that the confidence in one's own control
and own abilities is the basis for the estimation whether a system will be easy
or difficult to use (Venkatesh, 2000).
As in the original TAM, perceived usefulness takes an influential position
(Davis, 1989). With the highest path coefficient in the entire model, it affects
attitude toward using. This proves that participants perceive frugal household
appliances as useful and that this in turn positively influences their attitude
toward using. In addition, purchase behavior intention is also influenced by
perceived usefulness. The perceived usefulness is a relevant factor for the
actual purchase of frugal household appliances. However, the R²-value of
perceived usefulness indicates only a weak value of 0.293 (Chin, 1998). This
means that only a small proportion of the variance is explained by the
constructs associated with the construct. Future studies should identify further
factors influencing perceived usefulness, for example, the construct perceived
consumer effectiveness from the preliminary study could be evaluated again.

89
A higher proportion of explained variance will have an impact as far as the
actual purchase decision of a frugal household appliance.
Perceived ease of use, which is also a component of the original TAM, shows
little influence on perceived usefulness and attitude toward using in this model.
This could be due to several reasons. On the one hand, similar to the perceived
usefulness, only a weak R² value (0.202) was determined. Thus, for this
construct, too, research should be conducted to find further influencing factors
to increase the explained variance. Another explanation could be the
characteristic of a frugal household appliance itself. In the model, the construct
perceived ease of use stands for an effortless, clear, simple and understandable
ease of use (Holden & Karsh, 2010; Venkatesh et al., 2003). Frugal innovations
are, by definition, solutions that are intended to be easy to use (Angot & Plé,
2015; Hossain, 2020; Tiwari et al., 2017a). Thus, this property could be taken
as given and thus not influential in the model. This requires further research.
In the model, attitude toward using is shown to be a relevant factor influencing
purchase behavior intention. This means that attitude acceptance towards
frugal household appliances is a significant factor for the actual purchase. The
R² (0.339) shows a moderate value. This means that other factors also have an
influence on this construct and further research should start here. In this
context, the constructs initial trust and status / image from the preliminary
study could be included again. The final value of purchase behavior intention
can also be explained by the model with a moderate R² value (0.541).

In the preceding paragraphs, some starting points for future research and for
increasing the explained variance of the target construct were mentioned. In
addition, other influencing factors could be operationalized from the focus
group interviews. As an example, these include locality of manufacture,
frequency of use, and availability.

90
In addition to the other factors influencing acceptance, research should also be
conducted into differences in the population. Frugal innovations are developed
in emerging markets for a more definite target group (Fraunhofer IAO, 2021).
In the evaluation of this work, no individual groups have been evaluated and
compared so far. For example, the data set includes many respondents with
higher household incomes. Frugal innovations are, by principle, aimed at
groups of people with a low income (bottom-of-the-pyramid). It can be
assumed that the influencing factors used in the model have different effects
among different groups of people. Accordingly, further investigation of groups
with different per capita household incomes may be useful. Further group
differences could be found in the different generations. An analysis of a partial
data set from the preliminary study found moderate R² values for Generation
Y (Schneider, 2021b), but individuals in the other generations might present
different results.

91
7. NEW SCIENTIFIC RESULTS

The new scientific results of the dissertation are summarized in this chapter.

1. The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), which was originally created

for research on the acceptance factors of new technologies in the
workplace, was also found to be suitable for identifying acceptance factors
of frugal and more broadly sustainable products.
2. The results prove that frugal innovations are not only of interest and
benefit to people from emerging markets. There is a relevance and
acceptance of frugal household appliances in an industrialized country like
Germany.
3. The model demonstrates that the financial advantage of frugal household
appliances has no particular effect on consumer acceptance in Germany.
4. Environmental awareness, sustainable innovativeness and product
performance of frugal household appliances can be highlighted as
particularly relevant.
5. Perceived control over one's actions and confidence in one's abilities form
part of the basis for judging whether a frugal household appliance will be
easy or difficult to use.
6. The perceived usefulness, attitude toward using and the purchase decision
are significantly co-determined by the consumer`s environment (through
the subjective norm and the pre-study status/image).

92
8. SUMMARY

The aim of the dissertation is to answer the central research question "Which
factors have an impact on the consumer acceptance regarding frugal
innovations of major electrical household appliances in Germany?". The
research field of frugal innovations in developed countries is still young.
Therefore, in order to answer the research question, the author first started with
a literature review and then with two focus group interviews. After the first
possible influencing factors were identified, they were transferred into a
research model based on the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and
evaluated by a quantitative preliminary study in the form of an online survey.
The results were used to create a final research model. The data was also
collected using the quantitative method of an online survey. Variance-based
structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) was used for the evaluation.
The assessment showed that the TAM represents a suitable basis for the
research subject. The included constructs perceived usefulness, perceived ease
of use and attitude toward using are relevant influencing factors on the
acceptance of frugal household appliances in the form of purchase behavior
intention. Beyond the constructs of the TAM, product performance with
product quality and perceived behavioral control of frugal major household
appliances were shown to be influential factors.
Environmental awareness and attitudes toward sustainable innovation were
confirmed as relevant ecological influencing factors.
On the social level, there is an influence from the subjective norm and, in
addition, from the status/image in the preliminary study.
The economic influence, represented by the financial advantage, could not be
confirmed as a relevant influencing factor.
The R² values of the endogenous variables suggest that there are other factors
influencing the acceptance of frugal major household appliances in developed

93
countries. For this young research area, this model can be considered a solid
starting point and can be used for further research.

94
9. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank everyone who supported me during my doctoral studies

and dissertation. My special thanks go to my supervisors Dr. Orsolya Szigeti
and Dr. Katalin Szendrő who accompanied and supported me on my way to
this dissertation. I would also like to thank Prof. Dr. Silvia Boßow-Thies and
Prof. Dr. Bianca Krol, who supported me during the data collection and the
preliminary studies. I also owe the methodological knowledge to Prof. Dr.
Silvia Boßow-Thies, who inspired me already in my master studies.

In addition to all the scientific support, I would especially like to thank my

husband. Without his encouragement, I would not have started on my path in
economics. Finally, I am very grateful for the support and relief from my
parents.

95
10. REFERENCES

Agarwal, N., & Brem, A. (2012). Frugal and reverse innovation -

Literature overview and case study insights from a German MNC in
India and China. 2012 18th International Conference on
Engineering, Technology and Innovation, ICE 2012 - Conference
Proceedings, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICE.2012.6297683
Agarwal, N., Grottke, M., Mishra, S., & Brem, A. (2017). A systematic
literature review of constraint-based innovations: State of the art and
future perspectives. IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management, 64(1), 3–15.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2016.2620562
Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1998). A Conceptual and Operational
Definition of Personal Innovativeness in the Domain of Information
Technology. Information Systems Research, 9(2), 204–215.
https://doi.org/10.1287/ISRE.9.2.204
Agnihotri, A. (2015). Low-cost innovation in emerging markets. Journal
of Strategic Marketing, 23(5), 399–411.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2014.970215
Ahn, M., Kang, J., & Hustvedt, G. (2016). A model of sustainable
household technology acceptance. International Journal of
Consumer Studies, 40(1), 83–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12217
Ajzen, I. (1985). From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned
Behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Action Control (pp. 11–
39). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-
69746-3_2
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

96
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-Behavior Relations: A
Theoretical Analysis and Review of Empirical Research.
Psychological Bulletin, 84(5), 888–918.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.84.5.888
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (2000). Attitudes and the Attitude-Behavior
Relation: Reasoned and Automatic Processes. European Review of
Social Psychology, 11(1), 1–33.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779943000116
Albert, M. (2016). Concepts of innovation for and from emerging markets
(No. 9; Working Papers of the Chair for Innovation Research and
Technology Management, TU Chemnitz).
Alonso, M. A. S., Paquin, J. P., & Mangin, J. P. L. (2002). Modelling
Perceived Quality in Fruit Products: Their Extrinsic and Intrinsic
Attributes. Journal of Food Products Marketing, 8(1), 29–48.
https://doi.org/10.1300/J038V08N01_03
Angot, J., & Plé, L. (2015). Serving poor people in rich countries: the
bottom-of-the-pyramid business model solution. Journal of Business
Strategy, 36(2), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBS-11-2013-0111
Anjam, M., Khan, H., Ahmed, S., & Thalassinos, E. I. (2020). The
Antecedents of Consumer Eco-Friendly Vehicles Purchase Behavior
in United Arab Emirates: The Roles of Perception, Personality
Innovativeness and Sustainability. International Journal of
Economics and Management, 14(3), 343–363.
Arnold, C., & Klee, C. (2016). Akzeptanz von Produktinnovationen - Eine
Einführung. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-11537-1
Ashiq, S., Chrysoulas, C., & Banissi, E. (2019). Conceptualising Green
Awareness as Moderator in Technology Acceptance Model for

97
 Green IS/IT. 3rd International Conference on Innovative Computing
(ICIC). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIC48496.2019.8966710
Bagozzi, R. P., & Kimmel, S. K. (1995). A comparison of leading theories
for the prediction of goal‐directed behaviours. British Journal of
Social Psychology, 34(4), 437–461. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.2044-
8309.1995.TB01076.X
Baker, E. W., Al-Gahtani, S. S., & Hubona, G. S. (2007). The effects of
gender and age on new technology implementation in a developing
country: Testing the theory of planned behavior (TPB). Information
Technology and People, 20(4), 352–375.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09593840710839798/FULL/HTML
Barbera, F. L., & Ajzen, I. (2020). Control Interactions in the Theory of
Planned Behavior: Rethinking the Role of Subjective Norm.
Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 16(3), 401–417.
https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v16i3.2056
Barclay, C. (2014). Using Frugal Innovations to Support Cybercrime
Legislations in Small Developing States: Introducing the Cyber-
Legislation Development and Implementation Process Model
(CyberLeg-DPM). Information Technology for Development, 20(2),
165–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2013.841630
Basch, C. E. (1987). Focus Group Interview: An Underutilized Research
Technique for Improving Theory and Practice in Health Education.
Health Education & Behavior, 14(4), 411–448.
https://doi.org/10.1177/109019818701400404
Basu, R., Banerjee, P., & Sweeny, E. (2013). Frugal Innovation: Core
Competencies to Address Global Sustainability. Journal of
Management for Global Sustainability, 1(2), 63–82.
https://doi.org/10.13185/jm2013.01204

98
Bergmann, S., & Tiwari, R. (2016). Visibility and Acceptance of Frugal
Innovation in German-speaking Countries: Results of a Trend &
Scenario Analysis. Scientific Symposium on Potentials of Frugal
Innovation in Industrial Countries.
Bhatti, Y. A. (2012). What is frugal, what is innovation? Towards a
theory of frugal innovation (Workingpaper Said Business School
and Green Templeton College). http://ssrn.com/abstract=20059101
Bhatti, Y. A., & Ventresca, M. (2013). How Can ‘Frugal Innovation’’ Be
Conceptualized?’ In SSRN Electronic Journal. Elsevier BV.
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2203552
Birkinshaw, J., Morrison, A., & Hulland, J. (1995). Structural and
competitive determinants of a global integration strategy. Strategic
Management Journal, 16(8), 637–655.
https://doi.org/10.1002/SMJ.4250160805
Bollen, K., & Lennox, R. (1991). Conventional wisdom on measurement:
A structural equation perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 110(2),
305–314. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.110.2.305
Boßow-Thies, S., & Panten, G. (2009). Analyse kausaler
Wirkungszusammenhänge mit Hilfe von Partial Least Squares
(PLS). In Methodik der empirischen Forschung (pp. 365–380).
Gabler Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-96406-9_24
Bound, K., & Thornton, I. (2012). Our Frugal Future: Lessons From
India`s Innovation System. Nesta, July, 1–94.
https://www.nesta.org.uk/report/our-frugal-future-lessons-from-
indias-innovation-system/
Brem, A., Wimschneider, C., de Aguiar Dutra, A. R., Vieira Cubas, A.
L., & Ribeiro, R. D. (2020). How to design and construct an
innovative frugal product? An empirical examination of a frugal new

99
 product development process. Journal of Cleaner Production, 275,
122232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122232
Brem, A., & Wolfram, P. (2014). Research and development from the
bottom up - introduction of terminologies for new product
development in emerging markets. Journal of Innovation and
Entrepreneurship, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/2192-5372-3-9
Bressanelli, G., Perona, M., & Saccani, N. (2017). Reshaping the
Washing Machine Industry through Circular Economy and Product-
Service System Business Models. Procedia CIRP, 64, 43–48.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PROCIR.2017.03.065
Brueckner, M., Paulin, S., Davis, J., & Chatterjee, S. (2010). A case for
social enterprise: at the bottom of the top of the pyramid. The
International Journal of Environmental, Culture, Economic and
Social Sustainability, 6(2), 149–166.
Bulow, J. (1986). An Economic Theory of Planned Obsolescence. The
Quarterly Journal of Economics, 101(4), 729–749.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1884176
Butler, S. M., & Francis, S. (1997). The effects of environmental attitudes
on apparel purchasing behavior. Clothing and Textiles Research
Journal, 15(2), 76–85.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0887302X9701500202
Cappelli, P., Singh, H., Singh, J., & Useem, M. (2010). The India Way:
Lessons for the U.S. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(2),
6–24. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.24.2.6
Chancellor, J., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2011). Happiness and thrift: When
(spending) less is (hedonically) more. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 21(2), 131–138.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCPS.2011.02.004

100
Chen, S.-C., & Hung, C.-W. (2016). Elucidating the factors influencing
the acceptance of green products: An extension of theory of planned
behavior. Technol. Forecasting & Social Change, 112, 155–163.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.08.022
Cheng, S., Lam, T., & Hsu, C. H. C. (2006). Negative word-of-mouth
communication intention: An application of the theory of planned
behavior. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 30(1), 95–
116. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348005284269
Chin, W. W. (1995). Partial least squares is to LISREL as principal
components analysis is to common factor analysis. Technology
Studies, 2(2), 315–319.
Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural
equation modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for
business research (pp. 295–336). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Publishers.
Codini, A., Saccani, N., & Sicco, A. (2012). The relationship between
customer value and pricing strategies: an empirical test. Journal of
Product & Brand Management, 21(7), 538–546.
https://doi.org/10.1108/10610421211276321
Costa, L., Teixeira, A., & Brochado, A. (2021). Determinants of
consumers’ frugal innovation acceptance in a developed country.
Young Consumers, 22(2), 185–201. https://doi.org/10.1108/YC-10-
2020-1223
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of
tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555
Danks, N. P., & Ray, S. (2018). Predictions from partial least squares
models. In F. Ali, S. M. Rasoolimanesh, & C. Cobanoglu (Eds.),
Applying Partial Least Squares in Tourism and Hospitality Research

101
 (pp. 35–52). Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.
https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-78756-699-620181003/FULL/HTML
Davis, F. D. (1985). A technology acceptance model for empirically
testing new end-user information systems : theory and results [Ph.D.
Thesis]. Wayne State University.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user
acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly: Management
Information Systems, 13(3), 319–339.
https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User Acceptance
of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical
Models User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison
of Two Theoretical Models. Source: Management Science, 35(8),
982–1003. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982
Diamantopoulos, A., & Winklhofer, H. M. (2001). Index construction
with formative indicators: An alternative to scale development.
Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 269–277.
https://doi.org/10.1509/JMKR.38.2.269.18845
Dijkstra, T., & Henseler, J. (2015). Consistent partial least squares path
modeling. MIS Quarterly, 39(2), 297–316.
https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2015/39.2.02
Dodds, W. B., Monroe, K. B., & Grewal, D. (1991). Effects of price,
brand, and store information on buyers’ product evaluations. Journal
of Marketing Research, 28(3), 307–319.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/00222437910280030
5
Donoghue, S., Klerk, H. de, & Ehlers, L. (2008). Consumers’ perception
of the functional and symbolic performance failure of major
electrical household appliances. Journal of Family Ecology and

102
 Consumer Sciences, 36, 40–48.
https://doi.org/10.4314/jfecs.v36i1.47115
Efron, B. (1987). Better Bootstrap Confidence Intervals. Journal of the
American Statistical Association, 82(397), 171–185.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2289144
Eneizan, B., Ghabash Mohammed, A., Alnoor, A., Salman Alabboodi, A.,
& Enaizan, O. (2019). Customer acceptance of mobile marketing in
Jordan: An extended UTAUT2 model with trust and risk factors.
International Journal of Engineering Business Management, 11, 1–
10. https://doi.org/10.1177/1847979019889484
Erasmus, A., Makgopa, M., & Kachale, M. (2005). The paradox of
progress: inexperienced consumers’ choice of major household
appliances. Journal of Family Ecology and Consumer Sciences, 33,
89–101. https://doi.org/10.4314/jfecs.v33i1.52865
European Commission. (2021). EU - Entwicklung der Reallöhne in den
Mitgliedstaaten 2020.
https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/36952/umfrage/entwick
lung-der-realloehne-in-europa/
Eurostat. (2021). Europäische Union - Anteil der von Armut oder sozialer
Ausgrenzung bedrohten Personen bis 2020.
https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/763116/umfrage/anteil-
von-armut-oder-sozialer-ausgrenzung-bedrohter-in-der-eu/
Eurostat. (2022a). Arbeitsmarkt in EU und Euro-Zone.
https://de.statista.com/statistik/studie/id/24526/dokument/arbeitsma
rkt-in-eu-und-euro-zone-statista-dossier/
Eurostat. (2022b). EU - Inflationsraten in den EU-Ländern im Dezember
2021.
https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/217052/umfrage/inflati
onsraten-in-den-laendern-der-eu-monatswerte/

103
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior:
An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading MA: Addison-
Wesley Publishing Co.
Fornell, C., & Bookstein, F. L. (1982). Two Structural Equation Models:
LISREL and PLS Applied to Consumer Exit-Voice Theory. Journal
of Marketing Research, 19(4), 440. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151718
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural Equation Models with
Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error: Algebra and
Statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3150980
Fraunhofer IAO. (2021). Frugal Innovation. https://www.engineering-
produktion.iao.fraunhofer.de/de/produkte-und-
loesungen/produktentwicklung/frugal-innovation.html
Gabriel, M., Saunders, T., Engasser, F., & Nowlan, O. (2016). Better for
less: Does Europe need frugal innovation? Nesta.
https://www.nesta.org.uk/blog/better-for-less-does-europe-need-
frugal-innovation/
Garvin, D. A. (1987). Competing on the Eight Dimensions of Quality.
Harvard Business Review, 65, 101–109.
Gassmann, O., & Winterhalter, S. (2014). Frugal Innovation-die
aufstrebende Mittelklasse gewinnen. HSG Focus, 2(2), 16–18.
Geisser, S. (1974). A predictive approach to the random effect model.
Biometrika, 61(1), 101–107. https://doi.org/10.2307/2334290
George, G., & McGahan, A. (2012). Innovation for inclusive growth:
Towards a theoretical framework and a research agenda. Journal of
Management Studies, 49(4), 661–683.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01048.x
Geraerts, E., Bernstein, D. M., Merckelbach, H., Linders, C.,
Raymaekers, L., & Loftus, E. F. (2008). Lasting false beliefs and

104
 their behavioral consequences. Psychological Science, 19(8), 749–
753. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1467-9280.2008.02151.X
Goldsmith, R. E., & Newell, S. J. (1997). Innovativeness and price
sensitivity: managerial, theoretical and methodological issues.
Journal of Product & Brand Management, 6(3), 163–174.
https://doi.org/10.1108/10610429710175682
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., Danks, N. P., &
Ray, S. (2021). Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling
(PLS-SEM) Using R. Springer International Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80519-7
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, Christian. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017).
A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling
(PLS-SEM) (2nd ed.). SAGE PublicationsSage.
Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to
use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business
Review, 31(1), 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-
0203/FULL/HTML
Hanna, P. (2012). The evolution of simplicity and meaning. Journal of
Product Innovation Management, 29(3), 352–354.
https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1540-5885.2012.00906.X
Haudeville, B., & Wolff, D. (2016). How could standardization support
the production and diffusion of frugal innovations? Journal of
Innovation Economics, 21(3), 27.
https://doi.org/10.3917/JIE.021.0027
Hawkins, D. I., Mothersbaugh, D. L., & Best, R. J. (2007). Consumer
Behavior : Building Marketing Strategy. McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Hazen, B. T., Boone, C. A., Wang, Y., & Khor, K. S. (2017). Perceived
quality of remanufactured products: construct and measure

105
 development. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142(6), 716–726.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2016.05.099
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for
assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation
modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–
135. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11747-014-0403-8
Herstatt, C., & Tiwari, R. (2020a). Opportunities of Frugality in the Post-
Corona Era (No. 110; Workingpaper).
www.tuhh.de/timwww.tuhh.de/tim%7Cwww.frugal-innovation.net
Herstatt, C., & Tiwari, R. (2020b). Opportunities of Frugality in the Post-
Corona Era (No. 110; Workingpaper).
Holden, R. J., & Karsh, B. T. (2010). The Technology Acceptance Model:
Its past and its future in health care. Journal of Biomedical
Informatics, 43(1), 159–172.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JBI.2009.07.002
Hopwood, B., Mellor, M., & O’Brien, G. (2005). Sustainable
development: mapping different approaches. Sustainable
Development, 13(1), 38–52. https://doi.org/10.1002/SD.244
Hossain, M. (2018). Frugal innovation: A review and research agenda.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 182, 926–936.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.091
Hossain, M. (2020). Frugal innovation: Conception, development,
diffusion, and outcome. Journal of Cleaner Production, 262,
121456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121456
Hossain, M., Simula, H., Society, M. H.-T. in, & 2016, U. (2016). Can
frugal go global? Diffusion patterns of frugal innovations. Elsevier.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2016.04.005
Huber, F., Krönung, S., Meyer, F., & Vollmann, S. (2011). Akzeptanz von
Bewertungsportalen als Basis von Electronic Word-of-Mouth: eine

106
 empirische Studie zur interpersonellen Kommunikation im Web 2.0.
Josef Eul Verlag.
Hubert, M., Blut, M., Brock, C., Zhang, R. W., Koch, V., & Riedl, R.
(2019). The influence of acceptance and adoption drivers on smart
home usage. European Journal of Marketing, 53(6), 1073–1098.
https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-12-2016-0794
Hukkelberg, S. S., Hagtvet, K. A., & Kovac, V. B. (2014). Latent
interaction effects in the theory of planned behaviour applied to
quitting smoking. British Journal of Health Psychology, 19(1), 83–
100. https://doi.org/10.1111/BJHP.12034
Hulland, J. (1999). Use of Partial Least Squares (PLS) in Strategic
Management Research – A Review of four Recent Studies. Strategic
Management Journal, 20(2), 195–204.
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199902)20:2
Hustvedt, G., Ahn, M., & Emmel, J. (2013). The adoption of sustainable
laundry technologies by US consumers. International Journal of
Consumer Studies, 37(3), 291–298.
https://doi.org/10.1111/IJCS.12007
Immelt, J. R., Govindarajan, V., & Trimble, C. (2009). How GE is
disrupting itself. Harvard Business Review, 87, 56–65.
Jabbour, C. J. C., Jabbour, A. B. L. de S., Sarkis, J., & Filho, M. G. (2019).
Unlocking the circular economy through new business models based
on large-scale data: An integrative framework and research agenda.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 144, 546–552.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TECHFORE.2017.09.010
Jöreskog, K. G. (1971). Simultaneous factor analysis in several
populations. Psychometrika, 36(4), 409–426.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291366

107
Kahn, M. E. (2007). Do greens drive Hummers or hybrids?
Environmental ideology as a determinant of consumer choice.
Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 54(2), 129–
145. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JEEM.2007.05.001
Kalogerakis, K., Tiwari, R., & Fischer, L. (2017a). Potenziale frugaler
Innovationen : Handlungsimplikationen fu r das deutsche
Forschungs - und Innovationssystem. In Working Paper TUHH
(Issue 99).
Kalogerakis, K., Tiwari, R., & Fischer, L. (2017b). Potenziale frugaler
Innovationen : Handlungsimplikationen für das deutsche
Forschungs - und Innovationssystem. In Working Paper TUHH
(Issue 99).
Kenyon, G., & Sen, K. (2012). A model for assessing consumer
perceptions of quality. International Journal of Quality and Service
Sciences, 4(2), 175–188.
https://doi.org/10.1108/17566691211232909/FULL/PDF
Khan, R. (2016). How frugal innovation promotes social sustainability.
Sustainability (Switzerland), 8(10).
https://doi.org/10.3390/su8101034
Kidwell, B., & Jewell, R. D. (2003). An examination of perceived
behavioral control: Internal and external influences on intention.
Psychology & Marketing, 20(7), 625–642.
https://doi.org/10.1002/MAR.10089
Kim, J. B. (2012). An empirical study on consumer first purchase
intention in online shopping: Integrating initial trust and TAM.
Electronic Commerce Research, 12(2), 125–150.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-012-9089-5

108
Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. (2005). Value innovation: A leap into the
blue ocean. Journal of Business Strategy, 26(4), 22–28.
https://doi.org/10.1108/02756660510608521
Knorringa, P., Peša, I., Leliveld, A., & van Beers, C. (2016). Frugal
Innovation and Development: Aides or Adversaries? In European
Journal of Development Research.
https://doi.org/10.1057/ejdr.2016.3
Kohlbacher, F., & Hang, C. C. (2010). Applying the Disruptive
Innovation Framework to the Silver Market. Ageing International
2010 36:1, 36(1), 82–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/S12126-010-
9076-X
Kohlbacher, F., Herstatt, C., & Schweisfurth, T. (2011). Product
Development for the Silver Market. In F. Kohlbacher & C. Herstatt
(Eds.), The silver market phenomenon - Marketing and Innovation
in the Aging Society (2., pp. 3–13). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14338-0_1
Kollmann, T. (1998). Akzeptanz innovativer Nutzungsgüter und -
systeme. In Akzeptanz innovativer Nutzungsgüter und -systeme.
Gabler Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-663-09235-3
Kolnhofer-Derecskei, A., Reicher, R. Z., & Szeghegyi, A. (2017). The X
and Y Generations’ Characteristics Comparison. Acta Polytechnica
Hungarica, 14(8), 107–125.
https://doi.org/10.12700/APH.14.8.2017.8.6
Kothe, E. J., & Mullan, B. A. (2015). Interaction effects in the theory of
planned behaviour: Predicting fruit and vegetable consumption in
three prospective cohorts. British Journal of Health Psychology,
20(3), 549–562. https://doi.org/10.1111/BJHP.12115
Krohn, M., Petersen, F., Hochmuth, D., & Herstatt, C. (2020). The
Deliberative Frugal Mindset - A Model of Managerial Opportunity

109
 Recognition for Frugal Innovation (No. 109; Issue January).
https://doi.org/10.15480/882.2601
Kroll, H., Gabriel, M., Braun, A., Florence, E., Meister, M., Muller, E.,
Nowlan, O., Neuhäusler, P., Saunders, T., Schnabl, E., & Andrea,
Zenker. (2017). Study on frugal innovation and reengineering of
traditional techniques - Key findings from the final report SHORT
VERSION. In Publications Office of the European Union.
https://op.europa.eu/de/publication-detail/-/publication/87a24755-
259a-11e7-ab65-01aa75ed71a1
Kroll, H., Gabriel, M., Braun, A., Muller, E., Neuhäusler, P., Schnabl, E.,
& Andrea, Zenker. (2016). A Conceptual Analysis of Foundations,
Trends and Relevant Potentials on the Field of Frugal Innovation (for
Europe). In European Commission - Publications Office.
https://doi.org/10.2777/12143
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2014). Focus Groups: A Practical Guide
for Applied Research (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Kuo, A., & Ng, S. (2016). Frugal Innovation: A Strategy for Emerging
Market Penetration and Beyond. International Journal of
Accounting & Business Management, 4(2), 43–52.
https://doi.org/10.24924/ijabm/2016.11/v4.iss2/43.52
Laufer, D. (2002). Are Antecedents of Consumer Dissatisfaction and
Consumer Attributions For Product Failures Universal? NA -
Advances in Consumer Research, 29(1), 312–317.
Leiner, D. J. (2019). Too fast, too straight, too weird: Non-reactive
indicators for meaningless data in internet surveys. Survey Research
Methods, 13(3), 229–248.
https://doi.org/10.18148/srm/2019.v13i3.7403
Liang, S. W.-J. J., Ekinci, Y., Occhiocupo, N., & Whyatt, G. (2013).
Antecedents of travellers’ electronic word-of-mouth

110
 communication. Journal of Marketing Management, 29(5–6), 584–
606. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2013.771204
Lu, D., Lai, I., & Liu, Y. (2019). The Consumer Acceptance of Smart
Product-Service Systems in Sharing Economy: The Effects of
Perceived Interactivity and Particularity. Sustainability, 11(3), 928–
950. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030928
MacCallum, R., & Browne, M. (1993). The use of causal indicators in
covariance structure models: some practical issues. Psychological
Bulletin, 114(3), 533–541.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.114.3.533
MacKenzie, S., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2012). Common method bias in
marketing: Causes, mechanisms, and procedural remedies. Journal
of Retailing, 88(4), 542–555.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2012.08.001
Matthews, L., Hair, J., & Matthews, R. (2018). PLS-SEM: The Holy Grail
for Advanced Analysis. The Marketing Management Journal, 28(1),
1–13.
McCrindle, M. (2014). The ABC of XYZ : understanding the global
generations. McCrindle Research.
Meffert, H., Burmann, C., Kirchgeorg, M., & Eisenbeiß, M. (2019).
Marketing. In Marketing. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
658-21196-7
Mokhtar, Z. (2006). Akzeptanz von technologischen Innovationen aus
wirtschaftssoziologischer Sicht : Ansätze zu einer Nutzertypologie
des Internetbanking. Hampp.
Moon, J., & Kim, Y. (2001). Extending the TAM for a World-Wide Web
context. Information & Management, 38(4), 217–230.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7206(00)00061-6

111
Müller-Böling, D., & Müller, M. (1986). Akzeptanzfaktoren der
Bürokommunikation. Oldenbourg.
Munzel, G. F. (2012). Relative goodness and ambivalence of human
traits. In S. Meld Shell & R. Velkley (Eds.), Kant’s Observations
and Remarks: A Critical Guide (pp. 165–184). Cambridge
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139028608.012
Nagaoka, S. (2003). Salt tolerance-related protein STO binds to a Myb
transcription factor homologue and confers salt tolerance in
Arabidopsis. Journal of Experimental Botany, 54(391), 2231–2237.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erg241
Nesta, & Fraunhofer ISI. (2020). Cheaper, better, more relevant: is frugal
innovation an opportunity for Europe?
https://www.isi.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/isi/dokumente/ccp/2016
/FrugalInnovationSummary_ISI_Nesta_mit-ISI.pdf
Niroumand, M., Shahin, A., Naghsh, A., & Peikari, H. R. (2020). Frugal
innovation enablers: a comprehensive framework. International
Journal of Innovation Science, 12(1), 1–20.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJIS-10-2019-0099
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric Theory (3rd ed.).
McGraw-Hill Education.
Pansera, M. (2018). Frugal or Fair? The Unfulfilled Promises of Frugal
Innovation. Technology Innovation Management Review, 8(4), 6–
13. https://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1148
Park, E., Kim, S., Kim, Y., & Kwon, S. J. (2018). Smart home services as
the next mainstream of the ICT industry: determinants of the
adoption of smart home services. Universal Access in the
Information Society, 17(1), 175–190.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-017-0533-0

112
Pisoni, A., Michelini, L., & Martignoni, G. (2018). Frugal approach to
innovation: State of the art and future perspectives. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 171, 107–126.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.248
Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003).
Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of
the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88, 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-
9010.88.5.879
Pousttchi, K., & Goeke, L. (2011). Determinants of customer acceptance
for mobile data services: an empirical analysis with formative
constructs. International Journal of Electronic Business, 9(1/2), 26.
https://doi.org/10.1504/ijeb.2011.040354
Prabhu, J. (2017). Frugal innovation: doing more with less for more.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical,
Physical and Engineering Sciences, 375(2016.0372).
https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2016.0372
Prahalad, C. K., & Mashelkar, R. A. (2010). Innovation’s holy grail.
Harvard Business Review, 88(7–8), 132–141.
Rabiee, F. (2004). Focus-group interview and data analysis. Proceedings
of the Nutrition Society, 63(4), 655–660.
https://doi.org/10.1079/PNS2004399
Radjou, N., & Prabhu, J. (2015). Frugal Innovation: How to do better
with less. The Economist.
Radjou, N., Prabhu, J. C., & Ahuja, S. (2012). Jugaad innovation : Think
frugal, be flexible, generate breakthrough growth. Jossey-Bass.
Rakhmawati, T., Sumaedi, S., Astrini, N. J., Bakti, Y., Yarmen, M., &
Damayanti, S. (2020). The important level of washing machine
quality dimensions in 4.0 industrial era based on the perception of a

113
 laundry business: A preliminary investigation. IOP Conf. Series:
Materials Science and Engineering, 722(1).
https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/722/1/012048
Rao, B. (2018). Science Is Indispensable to Frugal Innovations.
Technology Innovation Management Review, 8(4), 49–56.
https://doi.org/http://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/1152
Rao, B. C. (2013). How disruptive is frugal? Technology in Society, 35(1),
65–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TECHSOC.2013.03.003
RBSC. (2015). Simply the Best - Frugal products are not just for emerging
markets: How to profit from servicing new customer needs. In Think
Act Beyond Mainstream. Roland Berger Strategy Consultants.
Renault Dacia. (2021). Dacia, 15 Jahre Erfolgsgeschichte in Europa.
https://media.renault.ch/de/10246/article/21229
Roberts, J. A. (1996). Green consumers in the 1990s: Profile and
implications for advertising. Journal of Business Research, 36(3),
217–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-2963(95)00150-6
Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). The Free Press.
Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Hair, J. F. (2021). Partial Least Squares
Structural Equation Modeling. In Handbook of Market Research (pp.
1–47). Springer International Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05542-8_15-2
Schleinkofer, U., Herrmann, T., Maier, I., Bauernhansl, T., Roth, D., &
Spath, D. (2019). Development and evaluation of a design thinking
process adapted to frugal production systems for emerging markets.
Procedia Manufacturing, 39, 609–617.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2020.01.429
Schmacher, E. F. (1973). Small is beautiful - a study of economics as if
people mattered. Blond&Briggs.

114
Schneider, S. (2020). Combining the characteristics of sustainability,
frugal innovations and washing machines in the industrial nations –
A literature-based analysis of the common features for future
sustainable developments. Journal of Economic Development,
Environment and People, 9(2), 50–59.
https://doi.org/10.26458/jedep.v9i2.659
Schneider, S. (2021a). Acceptance of mobile loyalty cards in the German
B2C consumer goods market. International Journal of Management
and Economics, 57(1), 85–102. https://doi.org/10.2478/ijme-2021-
0004
Schneider, S. (2021b). Purchase intention of frugal household appliances
among generation y in Germany – modified tam approach.
Marketing and Management of Innovations, 5(2), 303–313.
https://doi.org/10.21272/mmi.2021.2-25
Schneider, S., & Boßow-Thies, S. (2022). Partial Least Squares (PLS-
SEM): Analyse der Einflussfaktoren auf die Akzeptanz mobiler
Kundenkarten in der Generation der Digital Natives. 419–457.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-35831-0_14
Schrader, U. (2001). Konsumentenakzeptanz eigentumsersetzender
Dienstleistungen : Konzeption und empirische Analyse. Lang.
Schuitema, G., Anable, J., Skippon, S., & Kinnear, N. (2013). The Role
of Instrumental, Hedonic and Symbolic Attributes in the Intention to
Adopt Electric Vehicles. Transportation Research Part A: Policy
and Practice, 48, 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2012.10.004
Schulz, M. (2012). Quick and easy!? Fokusgruppen in der angewandten
Sozialwissenschaft. Fokusgruppen in Der Empirischen
Sozialwissenschaft, 9–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-19397-
7_1

115
Schumacher, E. F. (1966). Buddhist Economics. In G. Wint (Ed.), Asia:
A Handbook (pp. 695–701). Anthony Blond.
Seles, B. M. R. P., Lopes de Sousa Jabbour, A. B., Jabbour, C. J. C.,
Latan, H., & Roubaud, D. (2019). Do Environmental Practices
Improve Business Performance Even in an Economic Crisis?
Extending the Win-Win Perspective. Ecological Economics, 163,
189–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECOLECON.2019.04.013
Sellin, N., & Keeves, J. P. (1994). Path Analysis with Latent Variables.
In T. Husen & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), The International
Encyclopedia of Education (pp. 4352–4359). Pergamon Press.
Sharma, A., & Iyer, G. R. (2012). Resource-constrained product
development: Implications for green marketing and green supply
chains. Industrial Marketing Management, 41(4), 599–608.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.INDMARMAN.2012.04.007
Shmueli, G., Ray, S., Velasquez Estrada, J. M., & Chatla, S. B. (2016).
The elephant in the room: Predictive performance of PLS models.
Journal of Business Research, 69(10), 4552–4564.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JBUSRES.2016.03.049
Singh, S. K., Gambhir, A., Sotiropoulos, A., & Duckworth, S. (2012).
Frugal Innovation Learning from Social Entrepreneurs in India The
Institute Serco. https://www.sercoinstitute.com/media/11/serco-
frugalinnovation.pdf?1542969834
Smith, A. (1776). An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of
Nations (Reprint 19). Random House.
Sparks, P., Guthrie, C. A., & Shepherd, R. (1997). The Dimensional
Structure of the Perceived Behavioral Control Construct. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 27(5), 418–438.
https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1559-1816.1997.TB00639.X

116
Statista. (2016). Haushaltsgeräte - Kriterien beim Kauf von
Waschmaschinen in Deutschland 2016.
https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/662590/umfrage/umfra
ge-zu-kriterien-beim-kauf-von-waschmaschinen-in-deutschland/
Statista. (2021). Haushaltsgroßgeräte.
https://de.statista.com/statistik/studie/id/7683/dokument/haushaltsg
rossgeraete-statista-dossier/
Statistisches Bundesamt. (2020). Mikrozensus 2019, Entwicklung der
Privathaushalte bis 2040. https://www.bpb.de/kurz-knapp/zahlen-
und-fakten/soziale-situation-in-deutschland/61584/bevoelkerung-
und-haushalte/
Statistisches Bundesamt. (2021). Hauptwohnsitzhaushalte und
Haushaltsmitglieder.
https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Gesellschaft-
Umwelt/Bevoelkerung/Haushalte-Familien/Tabellen/1-1-
privathaushalte-haushaltsmitglieder.html
Statistisches Bundesamt. (2022). Bevölkerungsstand: Amtliche
Einwohnerzahl Deutschlands 2021.
https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Gesellschaft-
Umwelt/Bevoelkerung/Bevoelkerungsstand/_inhalt.html
Stone, M. (1974). Cross-Validatory Choice and Assessment of Statistical
Predictions. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B
(Methodological), 36(2), 111–133. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.2517-
6161.1974.TB00994.X
Sweeney, J. C., & Soutar, G. N. . (2001). Consumer perceived value: The
development of a multiple item scale. Journal of Retailing, 77(2),
203–220. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-
4359(01)00041-0

117
Sweeney, J. C., Soutar, G. N., & Johnson, L. W. (1999). The role of
perceived risk in the quality-value relationship: A study in a retail
environment. Journal of Retailing, 75(1), 77–105.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4359(99)80005-0
The Economist. (2010). First break all the rules - The charms of frugal
innovation. https://www.economist.com/node/%2015879359
The Economist. (2014). Going native -Ireland’s grocery market shows
Lidl and Aldi still have far to grow across Europe.
https://www.economist.com/news/2014/11/25/going-native
Thompson, D. V., Hamilton, R. W., & Rust, R. T. (2005). Feature
Fatigue: When Product Capabilities Become Too Much of a Good
Thing. Journal of Marketing Research, 42(4), 431–442.
https://doi.org/10.1509/JMKR.2005.42.4.431
Tiwari, R. (2017). Frugality in Indian Context: What Makes India a Lead
Market for Affordable Excellence? In C. Herstatt & R. Tiwari (Eds.),
Lead Market India (Issue November 2017, pp. 37–61).
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46392-6_3
Tiwari, R., Fischer, L., & Kalogerakis, K. (2017a). Frugal Innovation: An
Assessment of Scholarly Discourse, Trends and Potential Societal
Implications. 2014(March), 13–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
319-46392-6_2
Tiwari, R., Fischer, L., & Kalogerakis, K. (2017b). Frugal innovation in
Germany: A qualitative analysis of potential socio-economic
impacts (No. 96; Workingpaper). https://doi.org/10.15480/882.1369
Tiwari, R., & Herstatt, C. (2014). Aiming Big with Small Cars:
Emergence of a Lead Market in India. Springer International
Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02066-2

118
Tiwari, R., & Herstatt, C. (2015). Innovieren für preisbewusste Kunden:
Analogieeinsatz als Erfolgsfaktor in Schwellenländern. In Working
Paper TUHH (Issue 75).
Tiwari, R., & Herstatt, C. (2019). The Frugality 4.0 paradigm - Why
frugal innovations are transcending beyond emerging economies. In
A. J. McMurraym & G. A. de Waal (Eds.), Frugal Innovation: A
Global Research Companion (pp. 40–53). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429025679-2
Tiwari, R., & Kalogerakis, K. (2019). What drives frugal innovation in an
economically developed economy? In A. J. McMurray & G. de Waal
(Eds.), Frugal Innovation (pp. 108–120). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429025679-6
Tiwari, R., Kalogerakis, K., & Herstatt, C. (2014). Frugal Innovation and
Analogies: Some Propositions for Product Development in
Emerging Economies. In Technology and Innovation Management
(Vol. 84, Issue 0). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.06.002
Tiwari, R., Kalogerakis, K., & Herstatt, C. (2016). Frugal Innovations in
the mirror of scholarly discourse: Tracing theoretical basis and
antecedents. R&D Management Conference “From Science to
Society: Innovation and Value Creation,” July, 1–15.
Tiwari, R., & Prabhu, J. (2018). Soft Power of Frugal Innovation and its
Potential Role in India ’ s Emergence as a Global Lead Market for
Affordable Excellence Soft Power of Frugal Innovation and its
Potential Role in India ’ s Emergence as a Global Lead Market for
Affordable Excellence. In Working Paper TUHH (Vol. 49, Issue
104).
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a Methodology
for Developing Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by

119
 Means of Systematic Review. British Journal of Management,
14(3), 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375
Triandis, H. C. (1977). Interpersonal behavior. Brooks/Cole Pub. Co.
Valls, J.-F., Sureda, J., & Andrade, M. J. (2012). Consumers and
increasing price sensibility. Innovative Marketing, 8(1), 52–63.
Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating
control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology
acceptance model. Information Systems Research, 11(4), 342–365.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.11.4.342.11872
Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology Acceptance Model 3 and
a Research Agenda on Interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273–
315. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (1996). A model of the antecedents of
perceived ease of use: Development and test. Decision Sciences,
27(3), 451–481. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1540-
5915.1996.TB00860.X
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A Theoretical Extension of the
Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies.
Management Science, 46(2), 186–204.
https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User
Acceptance Of Information Technology: Toward A Unified View.
Management Information Systems Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y. L., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer Acceptance
and Use of Information Technology: Extending the Unified Theory
of Acceptance and Use of Technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157–
178. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2307/41410412

120
Verma, V., & Chandra, B. (2018). An Application of Theory of Planned
Behavior to Predict Young Indian Consumers’ Green Hotel Visit
Intention. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, 1152–1162.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.047
Vermeir, I., & Verbeke, W. (2006). Sustainable Food Consumption:
Exploring the Consumer “Attitude – Behavioral Intention” Gap.
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 2006 19:2, 19(2),
169–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10806-005-5485-3
Walsh, G., Shiu, E., & Hassan, L. M. (2012). Investigating the drivers of
consumer intention to buy manufacturer brands. Journal of
Product Brand Management, 21(5), 328–340.
https://doi.org/10.1108/10610421211253623
Wang, E. S. T. (2015). Different Effects of Utilitarian and Hedonic
Benefits of Retail Food Packaging on Perceived Product Quality and
Purchase Intention. Journal of Food Products Marketing, 23(3),
239–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/10454446.2014.885867
Wang, Y. S., Lin, H. H., & Luarn, P. (2006). Predicting consumer
intention to use mobile service. Information Systems Journal, 16(2),
157–179. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2575.2006.00213.x
Wang, Y., Wang, S., Wang, J., Wei, J., & Wang, C. (2020). An empirical
study of consumers’ intention to use ride-sharing services: using an
extended technology acceptance model. Transportation, 47(1), 397–
415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-018-9893-4
Weber, M. (1904). Die protestantische Ethik und der Geist des
Kapitalismus. Mohr.
Weiber, R., & Mühlhaus, D. (2014). Strukturgleichungsmodellierung:
Eine anwendungsorientierte Einführung in die Kausalanalyse mit
Hilfe von AMOS, SmartPLS und SPSS. Springer Verlag.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35012-2

121
Weyrauch, T., & Herstatt, C. (2016). What is frugal innovation? Three
defining criteria. Journal of Frugal Innovation, 2(1), 1–17.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40669-016-0005-y
Wiedmann, K.-P., & Frenzel, T. (2004). Akzeptanz im E-Commerce —
Begriff, Modell, Implikationen. In K.-P. Wiedmann, H. Buxel, T.
Frenzel, & G. Walsh (Eds.), Konsumentenverhalten im Internet (pp.
99–117). Gabler Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-90689-
2_4
Winkler, T., Ulz, A., Knöbl, W., & Lercher, H. (2020). Frugal innovation
in developed markets – Adaption of a criteria-based evaluation
model. Journal of Innovation and Knowledge, 5(4), 251–259.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2019.11.004
Wohlfart, L., Groganz, J., Manefeld, S., & Fröhlich, F. (2021). Frugal
Innovation for Developed Markets: Target Customers,
Characteristics, Success Factors. In Contributions to Management
Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67119-8_7
Woodruff, R. B., Cadotte, E. R., & Jenkins, R. L. (1983). Modeling
Consumer Satisfaction Processes Using Experience-Based Norms.
Journal of Marketing Research, 20(3), 296–304.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3151833
Wright, K. B. (2005). Researching internet-based populations:
Advantages and disadvantages of online survey research, online
questionnaire authoring software packages, and web survey services.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(3).
https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1083-6101.2005.TB00259.X/4614509
Yadav, R., & Pathak, G. S. (2017). Determinants of Consumers’ Green
Purchase Behavior in a Developing Nation: Applying and Extending
the Theory of Planned Behavior.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.12.019

122
Yan, L., Xiaojun, F., Li, J., & Dong, X. (2019). Extrinsic cues, perceived
quality, and purchase intention for private labels: Evidence from the
Chinese market. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics,
31(3), 714–727. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJML-08-2017-0176
Yang, H., Lee, H., & Zo, H. (2017). User acceptance of smart home
services: an extension of the theory of planned behavior. Industrial
Management & Data Systems, 117(1), 68–89.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-01-2016-0017
Yuen, K. F., Cai, L., Qi, G., & Wang, X. (2020). Factors influencing
autonomous vehicle adoption: an application of the technology
acceptance model and innovation diffusion theory. Technology
Analysis and Strategic Management, 33(5), 505–519.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2020.1826423
Zeschky, M. B., Winterhalter, S., & Gassmann, O. (2014). From Cost to
Frugal And Reverse Innovation: Mapping the Field and Implications
for Global Competitiveness. Research-Technology Management
(RTM), 57(4). https://doi.org/10.5437/08956308X5704235
Zeschky, M., Widenmayer, B., & Gassman, O. (2014). Organising for
reverse innovation in Western MNCs: the role of frugal product
innovation capabilities. Int. J. Technology Management, 64(4), 255–
275. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2014.059948
Zeschky, M., Widenmayer, B., & Gassmann, O. (2011). Frugal
Innovation in Emerging Markets. Research-Technology
Management, 54(4), 38–45.
https://doi.org/10.5437/08956308X5404007

123
11. LIST OF AUTHORS’ PUBLICATIONS IN THE FIELD
OF THE DISSERTATION

Scientific papers
Brückel, S., & Schneider, S. (2019). Factors Influencing Consumer Behavior
to Purchase Sustainable Cosmetic Products in a German Context. Regional and
Business Studies, 11(2), 13-24, https://doi.org/10.33568/rbs.2405.

Schneider, S. (2020). Combining the characteristics of sustainability, frugal

innovations and washing machines in the industrial nations – A literature-
based analysis of the common features for future sustainable developments.
Journal of Economic Development, Environment and People, 9(2), 50–59.
https://doi.org/10.26458/jedep.v9i2.659.

Schneider, S. (2021). Purchase intention of frugal household appliances among

generation y in Germany – modified tam approach. Marketing and
Management of Innovations, 5(2), 303–313.
https://doi.org/10.21272/mmi.2021.2-25.

Presentation
Brückel, S., & Schneider, S. (2019). Factors Influencing Consumer Behavior
to Purchase Sustainable Cosmetic Products in a German Context, International
Conference on Sustainable Economy and Agriculture, November, 19.

Schneider, S. (2021). Analysis of factors influencing the purchase intention of

frugal innovations in Generation Y using the example of household appliances,
15th Annual International Conference on Economics and Business, March, 4.

124
Abstract in proceedings
Brückel, S., & Schneider, S. (2019). Factors Influencing Consumer Behavior
to Purchase Sustainable Cosmetic Products in a German Context, Diána,
Koponicsné Györke; Róbert, Barna (eds.) Abstracts of the International
Conference on Sustainable Economy and Agriculture, p. 114.

Krol, B., Schneider, S., & Boßow-Thies, S. (2020). Acceptance of Voice

Assistants to control Smart Home Services – Digital Natives vs. Digital
Immigrants, Proceedings of the 49th Annual Conference of the European
Marketing Academy, A2020-63383, 11 p.

125
12. LIST OF AUTHORS’ PUBLICATIONS OUT OF THE
FIELD OF THE DISSERTATION

Scientific papers
Giebe, C., Löffler, L., & Schneider, S. (2020). “Take a Knee” Protests in
Professional Sports: An Empirical Study about the Influence on Customer
Loyalty to Nike in Germany. Business Ethics and Leadership, 4(1), 92–105.
https://doi.org/10.21272/BEL.4(1).92-105.2020.

Schneider, S. (2021). Acceptance of mobile loyalty cards in the German B2C

consumer goods market. International Journal of Management and Economics,
57(1), 85-102. https://doi.org/10.2478/ijme-2021-0004.

Book section
Giebe, C., Schneider, S., Boßow-Thies, S., Krol, B., & Gansser, O. (2022).
Einflussfaktoren auf das Vertrauen in Sales Persons im B2B-
Dienstleistungsbereich und deren Wirkung für das Sales Enablement, in
Westphal, J., Görne, J., & Schmitz, C. (Eds.). Sales Enablement als Fundament
des Vertriebserfolgs: Innovative Ansätze aus Theorie und Praxis zur
Gestaltung erfolgreicher Kundenbeziehungen. Springer Gabler.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-37614-7_7

Schneider, S., & Boßow-Thies, S. (2022). Partial Least Squares (PLS-SEM):

Analyse der Einflussfaktoren auf die Akzeptanz mobiler Kundenkarten in der
Generation der Digital Natives. 419–457. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-
35831-0_14.

126
Presentation
Giebe, C., Schneider, S., Boßow-Thies, S., Krol, B., & Gansser, O. (2021).
Einflussfaktoren auf das Vertrauen in Sales Persons im B2B-
Dienstleistungsbereich und deren Wirkung für das Sales Enablement, virtuell
FOM Sales Conference 2021, February, 25.

127
13. CURRICULUM VITAE

Sandra Schneider was born on 19 January 1988 in Pinneberg, Germany. In

2004, she finished her secondary school and began vocational training as an
industrial clerk. After this, she decided to take part-time further education to
become a Bachelor Professional of Management for Industry (CCI) (completed
in 2009) and then a Master Professional of Business Management (CCI)
(completed in 2011). At that time, she worked as a sales assistant in a company
in the chemical industry. After a short break from further education, she first
completed a part-time Bachelor of Arts - Economics and Management
(completed in 2015) and then a Master of Science - Sales Management
(completed in 2017). In 2017, she began teaching part-time as a lecturer at
various universities in the subjects of scientific work and marketing at the
bachelor's and master's level. In parallel, since 2018, she has been pursuing
Ph.D. studies at Kaposvár University now MATE - Hungarian University of
Agriculture and Life Sciences.
During the whole time she also changed in her family and in her profession.
Today she is married and has two children. Professionally, she changed to the
field of thermoplastics in 2012. There she started as a salesperson and then
developed further in different companies. Since 2020, she has been working as
a Technical Sales Manager.

128
Appendix
The translation of the original German questionnaire.

129
130
131