Article

Exploring the Service Quality Asia-Pacific Journal of Management

Research and Innovation

determinants of Solar
15(1–2) 27–38, 2019
© 2019 Asia-Pacific
Institute of Management
Product Dealers Reprints and permissions:
in.sagepub.com/journals-permissions-india
DOI: 10.1177/2319510X19829339
journals.sagepub.com/home/abr

Vikas Kumar1
Bikramjit Singh Hundal1
Komalpreet Kaur1

Abstract
The present study explored the determinants affecting service quality of solar product dealers. The study is based on primary data,
collected from a total of 345 solar pump users from different villages and rural areas of Punjab. Exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory
factor analysis, and paired sample t-test have been used to examine the data. Furthermore, the SERVQUAL scale has been used to
measure the service quality of solar product dealers. Paired sample t-test was used to measure the users’ expectation and perception
gap between service quality dimensions. The results validated that five factors namely reliability, responsiveness, assurance, empathy, and
tangibility influence service quality of solar product dealers and there is no significant difference between perceptions and expectations
of solar product users except for the responsiveness dimension. As far as gap analysis is concerned, the dimension ‘responsiveness’ was
responsible for the highest gap score. So, perceptions of solar product users are not fully being met with their expectations.

Keywords
After-sales service quality, confirmatory factor analysis, exploratory factor analysis, paired sample t-test, responsiveness,
SERVQUAL scale

Introduction that of environment degradation because of in-effective

As per the World Energy Council (2013), there exists a
population of around 1.2 billion which is having access to
electricity. It is estimated that the world energy demand will
rise to 44 per cent between 2005 and 2030 (Machado,
Alexandra, & Fortunato, 2018; Siddik & Kabiraj, 2018;
Silva et al., 2018). Coal, petroleum and oil form the largest
part of fulfilling the global energy demand but as these
sources are limited, these will extinguish in the near future
(Chen, 2001; Cosimo, 2018; Kim & Choi, 2005). With the
setting up of more power plants for generating energy to
cope up with the demand, there is a resultant increase in the
emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs) including carbon
dioxide (CO2) and fly ash which is responsible for a number
of health issues with people these days (Jiangwei, 2018; Kim
& Choi, 2005; Uberoi, 2007). According to Birol (2007),
there exists a twin energy-related problem around the globe;
consumption of energy and insufficient supply of energy
respective to the demand. The different energy generating
technologies include hydro plants creating problems of
displacement of people from the area and disturbing the
ecosystem (Chen, 2001; Siddik & Kabiraj, 2018; Uberoi,
2007). Nuclear energy have major waste disposable and
decomposition issues. However, solar energy witnesses to be
the best alternative being clean and abundantly available
(Jiangwei, 2018; Lai & Cheng, 2016). The primary factors to
be considered for installation of solar products include the
initial cost and the maintenance cost of solar energy products
(Chen, 2001; Cosimo, 2018; Mostafa, 2007).
In a developing country like India, there are 86,000
villages which are using kerosene for lighting purposes
(Adelekan, 2012; Lai & Cheng, 2016; Tove, 2017). They
spend US$ 8 per month on this while a 70-watt solar can
produce the electricity in monthly instalment of US$ 5

1 University Business School, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, Punjab, India.

Corresponding author:
Vikas Kumar, University Business School, Guru Nanak Dev University, Grand Trunk Road, Off NH 1, Amritsar 143005, Punjab, India.
E-mail: vikaskumarpu@gmail.com
28 Asia-Pacific Journal of Management Research and Innovation 15(1–2)
(Jiangwei, 2018; Lai & Cheng, 2016; Pavel & Rajagopal,
2017). For the awareness and growth of solar energy
systems, it is important to reduce the cost technologically in
order to make it feasible for purchase (Siddik & Kabiraj,
2018; Uberoi, 2007). The three parameters for understanding
the relevance of these products include scalability, influence
on environment and the price factor (Cosimo, 2018). It can
be stated here that solar energy is so significant that the
daylight received in an hour from sun is more than the
energy required by every individual in one year (Adelekan,
2012; Chen, 2001; Pavel & Rajagopal, 2017). Moreover,
earth receives around 178,000 terawatts (TW) of energy
from sun in a year (Jain & Kaur, 2006; Wei, Chiang, Kou, &
Lee, 2017). International Energy Agency (2010) stated
that securing the environment with effective use of energy
keeping cost under control are the key objectives of the
nations around the world. It requires the contribution
of stakeholders worldwide in order to put efforts towards
energy implication and development (Cosimo, 2018;
Mostafa, 2007; Pandey, 2007; Wei et al., 2017).
Different Types of Services
Provided by Solar Energy Product
Dealers
Pre-Sales Services
Pre-sales services assure customers to receive complete
information about solar products and other information
related to operating principles, operation requirements,
benefits and drawbacks, usage limitations, the efficiency of
appliances and quality principles (Gallagher, Mitchke, &
Rogers, 2005; Molenaar, Huijben, Bouwhuis, & Brombache,
2002; Saccani, Songini, & Gaiardelli, 2006). As a result,
customers can make decisions about the purchase of the
solar systems (Levitt, 1983; Shields & Young, 1991).
Nowadays, most of the companies are shifting from being
product centric to knowledge and information centric
and this has become success factor for the companies
(Iansiti & Mac, 1997; Owlia & Aspinwall, 1996). Solar
product dealers guide customers through the selection of
solar system that best suits the customer’s current and
future energy requirement (Drucker, 1993; Nonaka, 1991;
Saccani et al., 2006; Waeyenbergh & Pintelon, 2002). Solar
product suppliers only conclude final sale of system after
following conditions are met:
1. When consumer is fully aware of the product
specifications and product energy generation
potential
2. All required components of solar system are
available in the stock
3. A solar system warranty contract with terms and
conditions
4. Planned dates for precautionary maintenance (Levitt,
1983; Owlia & Aspinwall, 1996).
Solar products go through an acceptance process of
the customer prior to operation to evaluate that includes
customer receiving operation and installation instructions
(Abdullah, 2006; Saccani et al., 2006). Installations of solar
system are only performed by qualified technicians within
10 days from its purchase date to ensure proper installation
and working of these systems (Iansiti & Mac, 1997).
Suppliers perform the commissioning process of solar
system at the end of installation that includes: measurement
of solar panel voltage, solar system’s circuit current and
maximum power under direct solar radiation where
photovoltaic (PV) panel is installed; verification of all
connections of solar system; testing of power loads for
proper operation; and testing of electrical protection (Crosby,
1984; Ellram, 1995; Iansiti & Mac, 1997; Juran, 1988;
Magretta, 1998; Saccani et al., 2006; Thoben, Jagdev, &
Eschenbacher, 2001).
After-Sales Services
After solar system installation and commissioning,
suppliers continue to assist customer during regular main-
tenance scheduled activities as well as during solar system
troubleshooting requests occur at no additional charge
during the warranty period of the solar system (Iansiti &
Mac, 1997; Levitt, 1983; Wise & Baumgartner, 1999).
After-sales services are the potential source of competi-
tive advantage (Ellram, 1995; Kaplan & Norton, 1992).
Therefore, most of the manufacturing companies provide
after sales services (Frambach, Wels-Lips, & Gundlach,
1997; Keegan, Eiler, & Jones, 1989). It includes warranty
terms and conditions, on-going support to customers, and
maintenance and service of solar systems (Kaplan &
Norton, 2004; Neely, Adams, & Kennerley, 2002; Olve,
Roy, & Wetter, 1997).
Service quality: Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (1991)
defined service quality as ‘it reflects at each service
encounter, customers form service expectations from past
experiences, word of mouth and marketing communi-
cations’. The service quality of organisation is challenging
to measure as there exists a variation in service providers
and customers, same customer could act in a different
way with the same service provider (Beamish & Ashford,
2007; Cronin & Taylor, 1992; Crosby, 1984). The three
main components of service are: the procedural quality
of service, the functional quality of the service, and the
image quality of any product and service (Johns, 1999;
Juran, 1988; Saccani et al., 2006).
Customer satisfaction: The service quality and perceived
value influence satisfaction and choice of customer
(Abdullah, 2006). Customer satisfaction measurements
help to support an increased focus on customer outcomes
and stimulate improvements in the work practices and
processes used within the company (Johns, 1999; Owlia &
Aspinwall, 1996). According to Oliver (1980), ‘satisfaction
is an evaluation that is formed by the customer by
Kumar et al.
comparing the pre-purchase expectations of the product
with its post purchase performance’. Hoffman and John
(1997) confirmed that services with high quality will
definitely improve customer satisfaction, profitability and
market share of service company.
Organisation of the study: The various sections of the
article have been organised as: The initial part explaining
the introduction, sales services determinants, customer
satisfaction, service quality, theoretical background and
hypothesis, research gap and objectives of the study. The
methodology section describes the research design
including data collection, demographic profile and data
analysis. Lastly, the results have been discussed followed
by discussions, implications, recommendations and limita-
tions of the research.
Objectives of the Study
1. To explore the service quality determinants of solar
product dealers.
2. To analyse the service quality gap between expec-
tations and perceptions of solar product users with
respect to the solar product dealers in Punjab.
Theoretical Background and
Hypotheses Formulation
Until now, various studies have used SERVQUAL scale for
examining the service quality of different service sectors and
organisations. To find out the service quality gap between
expectations and perceptions of solar product users for solar
product dealers, hypotheses were formulated. SERVQUAL
scale consists of five dimensions which are as follows:
Reliability: Reliability refers to ability to perform the
promised service accurately and efficiently by the service
provider (Parasuraman, 2002; Zeithaml, Parasuraman,
& Berry, 1990). According to Parasuraman, Zeithaml,
and Berry (1988), ‘reliability refers to the consistency
of performance and dependability on companies’. It is
also one of the significant dimensions of service quality
(Abdullah, 2006; Beamish & Ashford, 2007; Parasuraman,
2002). Reliability refers to a precise and dependable means
to fulfil the services being promised to be provided to the
customers (Abdullah, 2006; Beamish & Ashford, 2007;
Ladhari, 2009). The companies endeavour to provide the
service efficiently in the first instance only, the accounting
records are required to be prepared correctly; records are to
be maintained and schedules are retained (Abdullah, 2006;
Parasuraman, 2002). Satisfaction of the solar product users
is significant to the dealers and this can be achieved through
reliability (Kaynama & Black, 2000; Loiacono, Watson, &
Goodhue, 2002; Zeithaml & Bitner, 1996). Thus, the
hypothesis can be formulated as follows:
29
H1: There is no significant gap between expectations
and perceptions of solar product users for dimension
‘reliability’.
Responsiveness: Responsiveness relates to willingness to
help the customers and offer prompt services. According to
Parasuraman (2002), ‘responsiveness can be measured by
the promptness of service provider which responds to the
customers’. Responsiveness describes how the organisation
responds to its customers in service environment (Kaynama
& Black, 2000; Magi & Julander, 1996; Owlia & Aspinwall,
1996). Responsiveness is the ability and commitment of
the organisational staff to provide real time efficient
services to the customers (Gronroos, 2001; Kaynama &
Black, 2000; Loiacono et al., 2002). Responsiveness can
be measured in terms of the readiness of the employees of
any organisation to guide the customers and make prompt
services available to them (Cronin & Taylor, 1992;
Hoffman & Johns, 1997; Johns, 1999). Therefore, the
hypothesis can be formulated as follows:
H2: There is no significant gap between expectations
and perceptions of solar product users for dimension
‘responsiveness’.
Assurance: Assurance is related with employees’
knowledge, courtesy, skills and their ability to inspire trust
and confidence in customers (Ladhari, 2009; Loiacono
et al., 2002). This also refers to competence of the service
providers and indicates their ability to generate trust and
faith in the service (Cronin & Taylor, 1992; Gronroos,
2001; Kaynama & Black, 2000; Parasuraman et al., 1988).
Assurance ensures that the employees are competent and
knowledgeable to provide service and handle the queries
with courtesy which will help in building trust and
confidence in customers towards the service (Cronin &
Taylor, 1992; Crosby, 1984; Juran, 1988; Kaynama &
Black, 2000). As a result, the hypothesis can be formulated
as follows:
H3: There is no significant gap between expectations
and perceptions of solar product users for dimension
‘assurance’.
Empathy: Empathy refers to caring and individualised
attention given to the customers (Beamish & Ashford,
2007; Ladhari, 2009). According to Parasuraman et al.
(1988), empathy refers to company’s individual attention
and caring that they provide to its customers. Trust and
confidence increase customer’s loyalty towards company’s
services and products (Oliver, 1980; Zeithaml, 1981).
Empathy refers to the prioritised attention given to the
customers in order to understand their needs and queries
and willingness to resolve at earliest (Beamish & Ashford,
2007; Parasuraman, 2002; Zeithaml, 1981). This dimension
ensures approachability and ease of contact to the customers
30 Asia-Pacific Journal of Management Research and Innovation 15(1–2)
(Ladhari, 2009; Oliver, 1980). Hence, the hypothesis can
be formulated as follows:
H4: There is no significant gap between expectations
and perceptions of solar product users for dimension
‘empathy’.
Tangibility: Tangibility refers to appearance of physical
facility, personnel, equipment and written materials of the
company and service provider (Beamish & Ashford, 2007;
Ladhari, 2009; Parasuraman et al., 1988). Tangibility is
experiencing the material and functional facilities, expe-
rienced and trained manpower, and communication tools
for promoting and making efficient and effective services
available to the customers (Cronin & Taylor, 1992; Crosby,
1984; Juran, 1988; Magi & Julander, 1996; Parasuraman,
2002). As discovered by most of the studies, reliability and
responsiveness are considered to be more valuable dimen-
sions while other dimensions such as tangibility, empathy
and assurance were yet preferred by other respondents. So,
the hypothesis can be formulated as follows:
H5: There is no significant gap between expectations
and perceptions of solar product users for dimension
‘tangibility’.
Research Gap
India is a developing country and there exists a great scope
for the new technologies that can be adopted by the compa-
nies and the residents to make way for a growing and sus-
tainable country (Jain & Kaur, 2006; Kim & Choi, 2005;
Machado et al., 2018; Siddik & Kabiraj, 2018). This has led
to the introduction of solar off-grid having a high opportu-
nity of application especially in rural/remote areas (Chen,
2001; Jiangwei, 2018; Kim & Choi, 2005). Since there are
approximately around 400 million people in India having no
access to electricity, solar energy has high potential as an
alternative to precious fossil fuels resources (International
Energy Agency [IEA], 2010). The use of solar energy prod-
ucts holds even more significance with the rising level of
depletion of fossil fuels on one hand and on the other hand,
realising the awful impact of using the fossil fuels, especially
depletion of ozone layer, increasing cost, global warming
and environment degradation (Cosimo, 2018; Pandey, 2007;
Siddik & Kabiraj, 2018; Silva et al., 2018; Tove, 2017;
Uberoi, 2007). According to the International Research
Institute for Climate and Society (2017), year 2016 was
recorded as the warmest year since nineteenth century.
Hence, this has created an alarming situation for a shift towards
eco-friendly and renewable energy resources. Although
various studies have been conducted on solar products
around the world, very few studies have been conducted
on service quality of solar product dealers in India. Amongst
the few studies such as Ladhari (2009); Beamish and Ashford
(2007); Abdullah (2006); Parasuraman (2002); Loiacono
et al. (2002); Kaynama and Black (2000); Gronroos (2001);
Hoffman and Johns (1997); Johns (1999); Owlia and
Aspinwall (1996); Magi and Julander (1996); Cronin and
Taylor (1992); Juran (1988); Crosby (1984); Zeithaml
(1981); Oliver (1980) examined the service quality in four
different service sectors. However, neither of them have
considered the various services quality determinants of solar
product dealers. Furthermore, this research is a comprehen-
sive study, since very less work has been done on service
quality of solar product dealers. Hence, this research will
give significant data on determinants of service quality of
solar product dealers.
Database and Research
Methodology
The study is designed using primary data collected from
345 solar pump users in the rural areas and villages of
Punjab. A well-structured, pretest research schedule was
used for interviewing the respondents in the three main
regions of Punjab, namely, Malwa, Majha and Doaba that
were selected for data collection. The respondents were
approached through convenience as well as judgmental
sampling. A total of 345 solar submersible pump users
belonging to different age groups, gender, education quali-
fication and income level were contacted for data collec-
tion. The data from respondents was collected during the
period of May 2015–May 2017. The responses were collec-
ted using a seven point Likert scale from strongly agree to
strongly disagree (Likert, 1932).
Construction of the Research Schedule
In item generation step, study identified the distinct items
that are to be used to measure each dimension of service
quality of solar product dealers. An extensive literature
survey of earlier studies related to the service quality was
carried out for the generation of items. After reviewing the
previous literature, modified SERVQUAL scale developed
by Parasuraman et al. (1988) was used. Exploratory factor
analysis (EFA) has been used to refine the modified scale
and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) has been used to
examine the strength of the developed scale (Hair, Black,
Babin, & Anderson, 2015). Prior to the item generation
with the help review of the literature, meeting with the
experts and users were also consulted for making construct
more effective. Apart from it, a pilot survey of 120 respon-
dents was conducted. In the following section, the items
included in scale have been discussed. SERVQUAL scale
was developed by Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry in
1985, and later in 1988, the authors modified scale to five
dimensions with only 22 final items.
Conceptual Model for Measuring
Service Quality
The SERVQUAL scale is a tool used for measuring the
quality of service of any organisation (Parasuraman et al.,
Kumar et al.
1985). SERVQUAL scale is implied to estimate the expec-
tations of the customers towards a service quality and
customers’ perception for the service of the organisation
(Abdullah, 2006; Magi & Julander, 1996). The scale is
formed using five dimensions of service quality, that is,
assurance, reliability, empathy, responsiveness and tangibi-
lity (Abdullah, 2006; Ladhari, 2009; Owlia & Aspinwall,
1996). Parasuraman et al. (1985) developed the SERVQUAL
scale of service quality for the first time for a study on four
service sectors including credit card services, telephone
services, retail banking and maintenance of electrical
appliances. The scale identifies five gaps in service, that is,
the gap between customers’ expectations and management
perceptions; the gap between management perceptions and
service specifications; the gap between service quality speci-
fications and service delivery; the gap between service
delivery and external communication; and the gap between
customer expectations and management perceptions which
make the quality of service unsuccessful (Abdullah, 2006;
Cronin & Taylor, 1992; Gronroos, 2001; Juran, 1988;
Parasuraman et al., 1988; Zeithaml, 1981).
Demographic Profile of the Respondents
As far as the educational qualification is concerned, 42.03
per cent respondents belong to higher secondary; 28.11 per
cent to matriculation; 22.61 per cent to graduation and 7.25
per cent to post-graduation. As per income, 55.65 per cent
belong to income category of `600,001–800,000 followed
by 35.36 per cent to income segment of `400,001–600,000.
Only 3.77 per cent belong to income less than `400,000
and 5.22 per cent lie in income category of above `800,001.
As per region, 113 (32.8%) respondents are from Doaba,
followed by 107 (31%) respondents from Majha and 125
(36.2%) from Malwa region of Punjab. As per profession,
all the respondents are involved in the agriculture sector
and using solar submersible pumps for irrigation purposes.
Data Analysis and Discussion
Principal component method of factor analysis technique has
been applied to identify the factors that affect service quality
Table 1. KMO and Bartlett’s Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of
Sampling Adequacy (KMO) 0.842
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity; Approx. 9,706.490
Chi-Square (|2)
df 231
Sig. (value) 0.000
Reliability Statistics 0.827
(Cronbach’s alpha)
Source: Compiled from SPSS output.
31
of solar product. After applying EFA, a total of 22 items were
reduced to five factors. The value of Cronbach’s alpha came
out to be 0.827, which is meeting the qualifying cut off
criteria of 0.6, stating that data is suitable for further analysis
(Hair et al., 2015; Rovai, Bakar, & Ponton, 2013; Schuessler,
1971). The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure is 0.842
which describes that the sampling is satisfactory and
appropriate for factor analysis (Bollen, 1989; Byrne, 1998;
Kaiser, 1974; Schuessler, 1971; Suhr, 2006).
In the present study, total variance explained is 82.745
per cent and the study lost only 17.255 per cent of the
information contained in data (Achen, 1982; Fazlina, Jusoh,
& Wan, 2010; George & Mallery, 2003; Hair et al., 2015;
Rovai et al., 2013). Table 2 describes that there are only five
factors that have eigenvalues more than one. Table 1
described that all the 22 items are grouped into five factors
and achieved recommended loading of more than 0.6
representing highest factor loading (Achen, 1982; Babyak
& Green, 2010; Costello & Osborne, 2005; Fazlina et al.,
2010; Gatignon, 2010; George & Mallery, 2003).
The summarised results of factor analysis have been
shown in Table 2 depicting that the first dimension, ‘reliabil-
ity’ comprises of five items relating to service quality of
solar product dealers and explains that there is 21.736
per cent of variation of the data, with an eigenvalue of
5.625. Second factor highlights the need of ‘responsive-
ness’ in service delivery. It explained 20.096 per cent
variation in the data, having an eigenvalue of 4.910. The
third dimension, ‘assurance’ was responsible for 17.192
per cent of variation, having an eigenvalue of 3.627. Fourth
dimension, ‘empathy’ explained 11.883 per cent varia-
tion in data with an eigenvalue of 2.561. The fifth factor
‘tangibility’ consists of four items with 11.837 of total vari-
ance and 1.482 eigenvalue. So overall, it may be concluded
from the factor analysis results that all dimensions such as
reliability, responsiveness, assurance, empathy and tangibi-
lity denote significant influence on service quality of solar
product dealers. First three factors explain 59.025 per cent
of total variance. Fourth factor explains 11.883 per cent vari-
ance and all factors together explain 82.745 per cent of variance.
Confirmatory factor analysis: It determines whether a
hypothesised factor structure supports and fits the data
(Byrne, 1998; Chen, Honda, & Maria, 2013; Hair et al.,
2015; Kline, 2011; Suhr, 2006;). CFA has been applied to
confirm and verify the factor structure and their loadings
(Babyak & Green, 2010; Gatignon, 2010; Henseler, 2012;
Voorhees, Brady, Calantone, & Ramirez, 2015). From the
Figure 1, it can be described that five factors such as
reliability, responsiveness, empathy, tangibility and assu-
rance have significant impact on the service quality of solar
product dealers.
Fitness of the measurement models: In CFA, several
statistical tests are used to examine that how well the model
32 Asia-Pacific Journal of Management Research and Innovation 15(1–2)

Table 2. Rotated Component Matrix

Variance
Dimensions Items Loadings Eigen values Explained
Reliability Solar product dealers are trustworthy. 0.985 5.62 21.73
Solar product dealers show sincere interest in solving customers’ 0.980
problems.
Solar product dealers maintain error-free records. 0.962
Solar product dealers provide services at promised time. 0.970
Solar product dealers perform the service at right time. 0.974
Responsiveness Solar product dealers inform customers when the services 0.953 4.91 20.09
will be performed.
Solar product dealers offer prompt services to customers. 0.925
Solar product dealers are always willing to help customers. 0.915
Solar product dealers are always available to respond to 0.905
customers’ requests.
The behaviour of solar product dealers is excellent. 0.809
Assurance After the sales, services of solar product dealers are good. 0.976 3.62 17.91
Customers feel safe in their transactions with the solar product dealers. 0.972
Solar product dealers are polite to the customers. 0.964
Solar product dealers have the knowledge to answer customers’ inquiries. 0.958
Empathy Have convenient operating hours for all. 0.867 2.56 11.88
Solar product dealers give attention to the individual customer. 0.866
Solar product dealers have their customers’ interest at heart. 0.759
Solar product dealers understand the specific needs of their customers. 0.721
Tangibility Solar product dealers have up to date equipment. 0.805 1.48 11.83
Solar product dealers appear well dressed and neat. 0.801
Solar product dealer’s physical facilities are visually appealing. 0.676
Pamphlets and other material associated with solar product dealer’s 0.764
services are visually appealing.
Source: Compiled from SPSS output.

fits. It is a technique used to analyse the goodness of fit of
the model, which represents whether data is fit to apply
CFA (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1996). Amos output describes
that the measurement model was estimated using 22 items
(Brown & Molla, 2005; Kline, 2011). The results indicated
that p-value = 0.000; comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.990;
CMIN/df = 1.503, which is less than 5 and within the
recommended range and indicates good fit of model.
Goodness of fit index (GFI) = 0.931, adjusted goodness
of fit index (AGFI) = 0.910; Tucker-Lewis index (TLI)
= 0.988; normal fit index (NFI) = 0.971; root mean square
error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.038; and p-close
value = 0.988, confirming that all modification indices are
significant and meeting their respective cut-off criteria (Hu
& Bentler, 1999; Joreskog & Sorbom, 1996). The values
for fit indices have been shown in Table 3; they either
exceed the recommended level of 0.90 or acceptable value
of greater than 0.80, showing fitness of model (Brown
& Molla, 2005; Hair et al., 2015; Kline, 2011; Suhr, 2006).
Discriminant validity: According to Fornell and Larcker
(1981), composite reliability is used to check the internal
consistency, which should be greater than 0.7 (Hair et al.,
2015; Henseler, 2012). Table 4 has shown the compo-
site reliability of various constructs (0.816, 0.988, 0.960,
0.975 and 0.832) that are greater than the recommended
value. Hence, convergent validity of all the constructs has
been proved (John & Martinez, 2000; Rovai et al., 2013;
Voorhees et al., 2015). Results described that the value of
average variance extracted (AVE) for all constructs, that is,
reliability, responsiveness, assurance, empathy and tangi-
bility is 0.545, 0.942, 0.831, 0.907 and 0.556 which is higher
than recommended value of 0.5 and reveals adequate
convergent validity (Bollen, 1989; Fornell & Larcker, 1981;
Hair et al., 2015; Joreskog & Sorbom, 1996). The dis-
criminant validity was determined by using statistical
package developed by Professor Gakingston (Cooper &
Schindler, 2008; Creswell, 1994; Henseler, 2012; Kline,
2011; Voorhees et al., 2015).
Kumar et al. 33

Figure 1. Measurement Model

Source: Amos output.
Disclaimer: This image is for representational purposes only. It may not appear well in print.

Table 3. Measurement Model of Goodness-of-fit Statistics

Indices Ideal Value Recommended by Model Fit Indices

p-value $ 0.05 Kline (2011) 0.000
CFI $ 0.90 Carmines et al. (1981) 0.990
CMIN/df <5 Tabachnick and Fidell 1.503
(2007)
GFI > 0.80 Hair et al. (2015) 0.931
AGFI $ 0.80 Hair et al. (2015) 0.910
TLI > 0.90 Hu and Bentler (1999) 0.988
NFI > 0.90 Hu and Bentler (1999) 0.971
RMSEA # 0.05 Byrne (1998) 0.038
p-close # 0.05 Brown and Molla (2005) 0.988
Source: Compiled from Amos output.
34 Asia-Pacific Journal of Management Research and Innovation 15(1–2)

Table 4. Discriminant Validity

CR AVE
Empathy 0.738 0.816 0.545
Reliability 0.087 0.970 0.988 0.942
Responsiveness 0.025 –0.061 0.911 0.960 0.831
Assurance 0.058 0.102 0.009 0.952 0.975 0.907
Tangibility 0.104 –0.067 0.580 0.093 0.746 0.832 0.556
Source: Compiled from Amos output.

Table 5. Results of Paired Sample T-test

Paired Differences
95% Confidence Interval
Std. Error of the Difference Sig.
Dimensions Mean Std. Deviation Mean Lower Upper T-Value df (2-tailed)
Reliability EXP1–PER1 0.00882 0.01216 0.00544 –0.00628 0.02392 1.621 4 0.180
Responsiveness EXP2–PER2 0.35478 0.23340 0.10438 0.06497 0.64459 3.399 4 0.027*
Assurance EXP3–PER3 0.01377 0.01428 0.00714 –0.00895 0.03650 1.929 3 0.149
Empathy EXP4–PER4 0.00942 0.00685 0.00343 –0.00148 0.02033 2.751 3 0.071
Tangibility EXP5–PER5 0.01812 0.01809 0.00905 –0.01066 0.04691 2.004 3 0.139
Source: Compiled from SPSS output.
Note: * Significant at p < 0.05.

The measurement model was found to be valid in terms
of discriminant validity. Results shown in Table 4 conclude
that there is no validity concern (Cooper & Schindler,
2008; Creswell, 1994; Hair et al., 2015; Hu & Bentler,
1999; Kline, 2011; Rovai et al., 2013). So, the findings of
the analysis provide proof that all the five dimensions have
influence on the service quality of solar product dealers.
The Service Quality Gap between
Expectations and Perceptions
Firstly, mean scores for expectations and perceptions were
calculated and their difference was taken as gap. According
to Parasuraman et al. (1988), it is, however, common that
a negative gap score is created when the consumers’
expectations exceed actual service perceived (perception–
expectation). The result of perception and expectation gap
for before- and after-sales service quality of solar product
dealers have been shown in the Table 5.
Hypotheses Testing
H1: There is no significant gap between expectations
and perceptions of solar product users for dimension
‘reliability’.
H2: There is no significant gap between expectations
and perceptions of solar product users for dimension
‘responsiveness’.
H3: There is no significant gap between expectations
and perceptions of solar product users for dimension
‘assurance’.
H4: There is no significant gap between expectations
and perceptions of solar product users for dimension
‘empathy’.
H5: There is no significant gap between expectations
and perceptions of solar product users for dimension
‘tangibility’.
Discussion of Outcomes
The p-value (0.180) > 0.05 and tTab(2.776) > tCal(1.621) for
df = 4. Thus, the tabulated t-value and p-value is greater
than calculated value and 0.05 concluding that there no
significant gap lies between expectations and perceptions
for reliability dimension. In case of second dimension,
‘responsiveness’ p-value (0.027) < 0.05 and tTab(2.776)
< tCal(3.399) for df = 4, hence, calculated t-value is greater
than tabulated t-value and significance value is less than
0.05. Therefore, results conclude that a statistically signi-
ficant difference lies between the means of expectations
and perceptions for responsiveness dimension for the
service quality of solar product dealers. Moreover, the
p-value (0.149) > 0.05 and tTab(3.182) > tCal(1.929) for df =
3, due to the means of expectations and perceptions and the
directions of t-value research conclude that no statistically
Kumar et al.
significant gap lies between expectations and perceptions
for assurance dimension. Similarly, in the case of empathy
dimension, p-value (0.071) > 0.05 and tTab(3.182)
> tCal(2.751), df = 3 and for tangibility, the p-value (0.139)
> 0.05, tTab(3.182) > tCal(2.004) for df = 3. For both
aforementioned dimensions, the calculated t-value is less
than tabulated t-value and p-values are greater than 0.05.
As a result, present research concludes that that there is no
statistical gap between expectations and perceptions for
empathy and tangibility dimensions for service quality of
solar product dealers.
The results in Table 5 showed that there is no significant
difference between perception and expectation of solar
product users except for the dimension ‘responsiveness’.
As far as gap analysis is concerned, the dimension
‘responsiveness’ was responsible for the highest gap score.
So, perceptions of solar product users are not fully being
met with their expectations (the gaps indicate that the
perceptions are lower than their expectations). In order to
fill this gap, solar product dealers must offer mistake free
services to make customers feel more comfortable.
Limitations of the Study
Since the study is restricted to Punjab state only, conclusions
cannot be generalised. Data is collected using convenience
and judgmental sampling from rural areas of Punjab.
Hence, results of the research are not representing the
overall population. People in other areas of India may have
varying perceptions. Although efforts have been made for
considering all aspects of the study, some dimensions may
have been skipped. The responses given by respondents
may suffer from personal biases because the respondents
might have not intentionally provided their correct
responses. So, it could affect the results of the study.
Directions for the Future Research
A similar study in the Indian context with a larger sample
size enabling better generalisation of results can be taken.
Studies may also be incorporated regarding customers’
willingness to pay extra for solar energy products. There is
further scope for similar studies on solar technologies
concerning the rooftop photovoltaic and solar thermal
system, etc. This study has been conducted by taking only
rural population. Further studies can also be conducted in
the urban area. The sample of the research can be extended
to other states of India, so as to check the sociocultural
effect on the adoption of solar energy products.
Conclusion and Recommendations
The present study determines the service quality deter-
minants of solar product dealers. On the basis of an earlier
study, it has been observed that good service quality
35
enhances the level of satisfaction among the customers as it
impacts the behavioural intentions of the customers
supporting the relationship marketing paradigm ultimately
leading to formation of quality relationship between service
provider and renderer (Beamish & Ashford, 2007; Cronin &
Taylor, 1992; Olve, Roy, & Wetter, 1997). Putting forward
the same perspective, it is significant to acknowledge and
understand the nature and the role of after-sales services.
Rather, the present research intended to focus on exploring
the factors which influence before- and after-sales service
quality of solar product dealers, specifically through
efficient after-sales services. Moreover, the research not
only considers the service quality determinant rather
embodies other aspects of adding value through product
differentiation. The study thrived to understand the specific
factors contributing to customer satisfaction as researches
have been only partially successful in highlighting them.
However, as depicted by the earlier studies, installation
and delivery are highly interposing elements to customer
satisfaction (Gallagher et al., 2005; Levitt, 1983; Molenaar
et al., 2002; Saccani et al., 2006). And indeed, fostering of
the delivery of service quality and building a favourable
relation with the customers will eventually help in retaining
the customers (Drucker, 1993; Shields & Young, 1991;
Waeyenbergh & Pintelon, 2002). For any business to survive
and progress, customer satisfaction is the foremost objec-
tive as it is always profitable to retain the existing ones
through quality service and satisfaction than acquiring
new customers (Abdullah, 2006; Iansiti & Mac, 1997;
Levitt, 1983). Providing quality service to the customers is
not anymore considered to be an extra effort by the
companies rather it has become a basic and necessary
business strategy to provide high quality services for being
profitable in the business (Crosby, 1984; Ellram, 1995;
Juran, 1988; Magretta, 1998; Thoben et al., 2001). Solar
energy industry having an edge over other industry energy
resources is becoming the most favourable and progressive
industry (Nonaka, 1991; Owlia & Aspinwall, 1996; Saccani
et al., 2006).
The present article is an attempt to measure the level
of satisfaction for the various services among the solar
product dealers in the state of Punjab. For an empirical
study, a refined SERVQUAL model is formed with five
dimensions of tangibility, reliability, responsiveness, empa-
thy and assurance. It has been observed from the extracted
results that the service quality by the solar product dealers
in the town is highly satisfactory by the customers. Moreover,
the customers had a delightful experience regarding some
of the attributes including environment protection, efficient
and timely services initiatives. However, responsiveness of
the dealers towards the complaints, queries, security and
correct transactions, and prompt response and willingness
of staff towards complaint handling have been dissatis-
factory. Although, customers have shown a positive
response towards yet other constructs as prompt services,
to be stated specifically.
36 Asia-Pacific Journal of Management Research and Innovation 15(1–2)
Managerial Implication
The results of the research are reliable and valid because data
has been collected from primary sources. Further, it is an
empirical study which is best suited accordingly to the stated
objectives of the research. This research is expected to be
useful to the solar manufacturers, regulators, customers,
product and service providers, and for other environmental
institutions. The present study has also analysed the con-
sumer perception and expectation regarding service quality
of solar product dealer. These findings may be useful to
the solar product companies to improve their offered
services. This research may be useful to the regulators to
frame guidelines and policies while introducing new solar
technology in the industry which is best suited to the
customers.
Nowadays, customer satisfaction is most important and it
authenticates and validates the firm’s success. The solar
manufacturer should maintain customer relations as the
lifespan of the solar energy products is up to 25–30 years.
The manufacturers should regularly call up the customers
and should take the feedback regarding the functioning of
the solar energy product. Manufacturers should provide
better after-sales services which include panel installation,
repairs and maintenance for five-year warranty period of the
solar energy product. The solar manufacturers must provide
proper information and attention to solve the customer
queries and must provide the toll-free number to the
customers for solving their problems. The manufacturer
should provide immediate service in the case of any lapse in
the functioning of solar energy product. The solar companies
should provide training to the dealer, installers, and all sales
executives. This will facilitate them to demonstrate the
benefits of solar energy products to the consumers.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research,
authorship and/or publication of this article.
References
Abdullah, F. (2006). Measuring service quality in higher
education: Three instruments compared. International Journal
of Research Method in Education, 29(1), 71–89.
Achen, C. (1982). Interpreting and using regression. Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Adelekan, B. A. (2012). Recent advances in renewable energy:
Research, applications, and policy initiatives. Physical Review
and Research International, 2(1), 1–2.
Babyak, M. A., & Green, S. B. (2010). Confirmatory factor
analysis: An introduction for psychosomatic medicine
researchers. Psychosomatic Medicine, 72(6), 587–597. doi:
10.1097/PSY.0b013e3181de3f8a.
Beamish, K., & Ashford, R. (2007). Marketing planning (1st ed.).
Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Birol, F. (2007). Energy security investment or insecurity report,
International Peace Institute. Retrieved from http://www.
jstor.org/stable/resrep09548
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables.
New York, NY: John Wiley.
Brown, I., & Molla, A. (2005). Determinants of internet and cell
phone banking adoption in South Africa. Journal of Internet
Banking and Commerce, 9(1), 1–9.
Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL,
PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications,
and programming. New Jersey, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Carmines, E. G., McIver, J., Bohrnstedt, G. W., & Borgatta,
E. F. (1981). Social measurement: Current issues. Analyzing
models with unobserved variables: Analysis of covariance
structures, 80, 65–115.
Chen, C. (2001). Design for the Environment: A Quality-Based
Model for Green Product Development. Management Science,
47(2), 250–264.
Chen, Q., Honda. T., & Maria, C. Y. (2013). Approaches for
identifying consumer preferences for the design of technology
products: A case study of residential solar panels. Journal of
Mechanical Design, 135(6), 1–12.
Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2008). Business research
methods (10th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Cosimo, M. (2018). GDP, energy consumption and financial
development in Italy. International Journal of Energy Sector
Management, 12(1), 28–43. Retrieved from https://doi.
org/10.1108/IJESM-01-2017-0004.
Costello, A., & Osborne, J. (2005). Best practices in exploratory
factor analysis: Four Recommendations for Getting the Most
from Your Analysis. Practical Assessment Research &
Evaluation, 10(7), 1–7.
Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and
quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.
Cronin, J. J., & Taylor, S. A. (1992). Measuring service quality:
A reexamination and extension. Journal of Marketing, 56(3),
193–218.
Crosby, L. B. (1984). The just-in-time manufacturing process:
Control of quality and quantity. Production and Inventory
Management, 25(4), 21–33.
Drucker, P. (1993). The post-capitalist society. New York, NY:
Harper Business Press.
Ellram, L. M. (1995). Total cost of ownership. An analysis
approach for purchasing. International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management, 25(8), 4–23.
Fazlina, W., Jusoh, Y., & Wan, Z. (2010). Customers’ perception
towards electric commuter train services: Application of
logistic regression analysis. Proceedings of the Regional
Conference on Statistical Sciences, 1, 274–282.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation
models with unobservable variables and measurement error.
Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
Frambach, R. T., Wels-Lips, I., & Gundlach, A. (1997). Proactive
product service strategy. Industrial Marketing Management,
26(4), 341–352.
Kumar et al.
Gallagher, T., Mitchke, M. D., & Rogers, M. C. (2005). Profiting
from spare parts. The McKinsey Quarterly, 2, 1–4
Gatignon, H. (2010). Statistical analysis of management data.
New York, NY: Springer.
George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for windows step by step:
A simple guide and reference (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn
& Bacon.
Gronroos, C. (2001). Service management and marketing: A
customer relationship marketing approach (2nd ed.). New
York, NY: Wiley.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2015).
Multivariate data analysis. Noida: Pearson India.
Henseler, J. (2012). Why generalized structured component
analysis is not universally preferable to structural equation
modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
40(3), 402–413.
Hoffman, K. D., & John E. G. B. (1997). Essentials of services
marketing. Oak Brooks, IL: Dryden Press.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cut-off criteria for fit indexes
in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria
versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.
Iansiti, M., & Mac, A. (1997). Developing products on internet
time. Harvard Business Review, 75(5), 108––117.
International Energy Agency (IEA). (2010). World energy
outlook. Paris: OECD.
International Research Institute for Climate and Society. (2017).
El Nino phenomenon report: The Earth Institute. Columbia:
Columbia University.
Jain, S. K., & Kaur, G. (2006). Role of socio-demographics
in segmenting and profiling green consumers: An exploratory
study of consumers in India. Journal of International
Consumer Marketing, 8(3), 107–146.
Jiangwei, L. (2018). Calculation and analysis of energy
consumption of Chinese national rail transport. International
Journal of Energy Sector Management, 12(1), 189–200.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJESM-05-2016-0006.
John, O. P., & Martínez, B. V. (2000). Measurement: Reliability,
constructs validation, and scale construction. In H. T. Reis &
C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social
and personality psychology (pp. 339–369). New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Johns, N. (1999). What is this thing called service? European
Journal of Marketing, 33(9), 958–973.
Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: User’s reference
guide. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.
Juran, J. M. (1988). Juran on planning for quality. New York,
NY: Free Press.
Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity.
Psychometrika, 39(1), 31–36.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1992). The balanced scorecard,
measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review,
70(1), 71–79.
———. (2004). Strategy maps. Boston, MA: Harvard Business
School Press.
Kaynama, S. A., & Black, C. I. (2000). A proposal to assess the
service quality of online travel agencies: An exploratory
study. Journal of Professional Services Marketing, 21(1),
63–89.
37
Keegan, D. P., Eiler, R.G., & Jones, C. R. (1989). Are your
performance measures obsolete? Management Accounting,
70(12), 45–50.
Kim, Y., & Choi, S. M. (2005). Antecedents of green purchase
behavior: An examination of collectivism, environmental
concern. Advances in Consumer Research, 32(1), 592–599.
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation
modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Ladhari, R. (2009). A review of twenty years of SERVQUAL
research. International Journal of Quality and Service
Sciences, 1(2), 172–198.
Lai, C. K., & Cheng, E. W. (2016). Green purchase behavior of
undergraduate students in Hong Kong. The Social Science
Journal, 53(1), 67–76.
Levitt, T. (1983). After the sale is over…’. Harvard Business
Review, 61(5), 87–93.
Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes.
Archives of Psychology, 22(140), 55.
Loiacono, E. T., Watson, R. T., & Goodhue, D. L. (2002).
WebQual: A measure of web site quality. Proceedings of
the AMA Winter Educators’ Conference, Chicago, 432–438.
Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association.
Machado, M., Alexandra, J., & Fortunato, G. (2018). Sustain-
able management methods: Performance assessment in large
companies. International Journal of Business Innovation and
Research, 16(4), 471–485. doi: 10.1504/IJBIR.2018.10014450.
Magi, A., & Julander, C. R. (1996). Perceived service quality and
customer satisfaction in a store performance framework—
An empirical study of Swedish grocery retailers. Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, 3(1), 33–41.
Magretta, J. (1998). The power of virtual integration: an interview
with Dell Computer’s Michael Dell. Harvard Business
Review, 76(2), 73–84.
Molenaar, P. A., Huijben, A. J. M., Bouwhuis, D., & Brombache,
A. C. (2002). Why do quality and reliability feedback
loops not always work in practice: A case study. Reliability
Engineering and System Safety, 75(3), 295–302.
Mostafa, M. M. (2007). Gender differences in Egyptian consumers’
green purchase behavior: The effects of environmental
knowledge, concern, and attitude. International Journal of
Consumer Studies, 31(3), 220–229.
Neely, A. D., Adams, C., & Kennerley, M. (2002). The
performance prism: The scorecard for measuring and
managing business success. London: FT Prentice Hall.
Nonaka, I. (1991). The knowledge creating company. Harvard
Business Review, 79(1), 96–104.
Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and
consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing,
17(4), 460–469.
Olve, N. G., Roy, J., & Wetter, M. (1997). Performance drivers:
A practical guide to using the balanced scorecard. Chichester:
John Wiley & Sons.
Owlia, M. S., & Aspinwall, E. M. (1996). Quality in higher
education—A survey. Total Quality Management, 7(2),
161–172.
Pandey, N. G. (2007). Environmental management. New Delhi:
Vikas Publishing.
Parasuraman, A. (2002). Service quality and productivity:
A synergistic perspective. Managing Service Quality, 12(1),
6–9.
38 Asia-Pacific Journal of Management Research and Innovation 15(1–2)
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985).
A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for
future research. Journal of Marketing, 49(4), 41–50.
———. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for mea-
suring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of
Retailing, 64(1), 12–40.
———. (1991). Refinement and reassessment of the SERVQUAL
scale. Journal of Retailing, 67(4), 420–440.
Pavel, R-M., & Rajagopal. (2017). Adoption of renewable energy
technologies in Mexico: The role of cognitive factors and
innovation attributes. International Journal of Energy Sector
Management, 11(4), 626–649. Retrieved from https://doi.
org/10.1108/IJESM-02-2017-0001.
Rovai, A. P., Bakar, J. D., & Ponton, M. K. (2013). Social science
research design and statistics: A practitioner’s guide to
research methods and IBM SPSS analysis (2nd ed.). Virginia
Beach, VA: Watertree Press.
Saccani, L. N., Songini, L., & Gaiardelli, P. (2006). The role
and performance measurement of after-sales in the durable
consumer goods industries: An empirical study. International
Journal of Productivity and Performance Management,
55(3/4), 259–283.
Schuessler, K. F. (1971). Analysing social data: A statistical
orientation. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Shields, M. D., & Young, S. M. (1991). Managing product
life cycle costs: An organizational model. Journal of Cost
Management, 5(1), 39–52.
Siddik, A., & Kabiraj, S. (2018). Factors influencing consumer’s
decision making towards selecting credit cards: An exploratory
study. International Journal of Business Innovation and
Research, 16(3), 372–387. doi: 10.1504/IJBIR.2018.092622.
Silva, M. C., Anholon, R., Rampasso, I. S., Quelhas, O. L.,
Walter, L. F., & Silva, D. (2018). Analysis of the Brazilian
entrepreneurial ecosystem in the perception of business
incubator professionals. International Journal of Business
Innovation and Research, 16(4), 507–530. doi: 10.1504/
IJBIR.2018.10014452.
Suhr, D. (2006). Exploratory or confirmatory factor analysis.
Proceedings of the 31st Annual SAS Users Group International
Conference (pp. 1–17). Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.
Retrieved from https://www.scirp.org/(S(i43dyn45teexjx455
qlt3d2q))/reference/ReferencesPapers.aspx?ReferenceID=
1328769
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate
statistics. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Thoben, K. D., Jagdev, H., & Eschenbacher, J. (2001). Extended
products: Evolving traditional product concepts. Proceedings
of the 7th International Conference on Concurrent Enter-
prising: Engineering the Knowledge Economy through Co-
operation (pp. 429–439). Bremen.
Tove, B. (2017). Innovation collaboration in the renewable
offshore wind energy sector. International Journal of Energy
Sector Management, 11(4), 664–680. Retrieved from https://
doi.org/10.1108/IJESM-04-2016-0005.
Uberoi, N. K. (2007). Environmental Management (Rev. ed.).
New Delhi: Excel Books.
Voorhees, C. M., Brady, M. K., Calantone, R., & Ramirez,
E. (2015). Discriminant validity testing in marketing: an
analysis, causes for concern, and proposed remedies. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(1), 119–134.
doi:10.1007/s11747-015-0455-4.
Waeyenbergh, G., & Pintelon, L. (2002). A framework of
maintenance concept development. International Journal of
Production Economics, 77(3), 299–313.
Wei, C. F., Chiang, C. T., Kou, T. C., & Lee, B. C. (2017).
Toward sustainable livelihoods: Investigating the drivers of
purchase behavior for green products. Business Strategy and
the Environment, 26(5), 626–639.
Wise, R., & Baumgartner, P. (1999). Go downstream: The
new profit imperative in manufacturing. Harvard Business
Review, 77(5), 133–141.
World Energy Council. (2013). World energy resources survey.
Retrieved from https://www.worldenergy.org/publications/
2013/world-energy-resources-2013-survey
Zeithaml, V. A. (1981). How consumer evaluation processes differ
between goods and services. Marketing of Services, 9(1), 25–32.
Zeithaml, V. A., & Bitner, M. J. (1996). Services marketing
(1st ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Zeithaml, V. A., Parasuraman, A., & Berry, L. L. (1990).
Delivering quality service: Balancing customer perceptions
and expectations. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.