E-commerce assurance models and trustworthiness issues: an empirical study

Abstract

Purpose – The internet provides a mechanism by which buyers and sellers meet in order to exchange goods and services online with the utmost convenience. However, there are many risks associated with the internet which, if left unattended, could continue deterring the adoption of e-commerce. These risks ultimately diminish online consumer trust in e-commerce. Web assurance models have been designed in an attempt to encourage online consumer trust through assurance. Unfortunately, many of these models have been inadequate in certain areas and this research aims to improve on them. Design/methodology/approach – It presents a comprehensive empirical survey on trustworthiness issues and e-commerce assurance models and proposes a new compliance-based e-commerce assurance model that integrates adaptive legislation, adaptive e-commerce-related standards and cooperative rating. The intelligent cooperative rating is based on the analytic hierarchy process and page-ranking techniques. Findings – Some findings of this research study influence the thinking that some of the untrustworthy sites are posing as trustworthy sites because they display web seals. The findings can be used as a reference guide to understand e-commerce assurance models, as well as the effectiveness of ensuring the trustworthiness of these models. Practical implications – The research presents deployment analysis on the use of the proposed compliance model through real life scenarios categorized as trustworthy and untrustworthy e-commerce web sites. Originality/value – This research is relevant to information management and computer security in e-commerce as a development of a newly proposed e-commerce assurance model for trustworthiness safety inspections and knowledge generation as a reference guide to understand e-commerce trustworthiness in general and e-commerce assurance models in particular detail.

Converting hotels website visitors into buyers

“…The rapid diffusion of the internet since the 1990s, followed by the growth of e-commerce, has produced a radical change in the ways in which firms do business (Roca et al, 2009;Mayayise and Osunmakinde, 2014;Tran et al, 2017;Hlee et al, 2017). The rapid development of e-commerce transactions is, however, challenged by consumers' concerns regarding the safety, privacy, security and legitimacy of transactions performed online (Utz et al, 2012;Kim et al, 2016;Fortes and Rita, 2016;Beck et al, 2017;Oliveira et al, 2017;Turban et al, 2018).…”

The methodology of digital shadow economy estimation

“…), frequency of payments in cryptocurrencies, and monetary value of the parcels for which no custom duties are paid. With reference to non-offi cial statistics (LITAWeb, 2013) (Statista Database, 2016). In Lithuania, payments in Bitcoins are also getting increasingly popular.…”

“…Yet the methodologies that would allow to consider the indicators of digital shadow economy have not been developed. Hence, the real size of digital shadow economy remains unestimated, and the perception of how the problems of digital shadow economy can be dealt with remains relatively vague (Holt et al, 2010;Mayayise & Olusegun Osunmakinde, 2014). For the reasons explicated above, the development of the methodology that would incorporate the indicators of digital shadow economy could enable to estimate more accurate scopes of the overall shadow economy, and could supplement currently available methodologies of traditional shadow economy estimation.…”

Concept, Motives and Channels of Digital Shadow Economy: Consumers’ Attitude

“…Poor measures of illegality discouragement, i.e. low probability of detection of a fact of a purchase obtained from an unregistered juridical or unofficially performing physical entity (Waterman et al 2007;Ho, Weinberg 2011), lack of regulations on cybercrime prevention (Levin et al 2007), insufficiency of the professionals (officials) with cybercrime detection abilities (Waterman et al 2007;Ho, Weinberg 2011;Bossler, Holt 2012) and poor regulation of IT sector (Bossler, Holt 2012;Mayayise, Osunmakinde 2014), also provide a favourable environment for illegal digital trade. Although some recent studies on explanation of shadow economy Williams, Vorley 2014;Williams, Horodnic 2015) suggest that direct controls are not, as earlier expected, the most important tools of shadow economy combating and prevention (i.e.…”