The Value of Corporate Values:
The Effect of Corporate Value Communication on Stakeholders’ Organizational Confidence
Nadine Niessen 10061681 Master Thesis
Graduate School of Communication Corporate Communication
Supervisor Piet Verhoeven 2 February 2017
Abstract
Organizational values contribute to organizational cultures and form an essential part of every organization’s identity. However, most research to date has focused mainly on value
communication from an organization towards their employees. In this study, the effect of communicating corporate values on stakeholders’ organizational confidence was tested. Additionally, the influence of stakeholders’ personal values on the relationship between communicating corporate values and stakeholders’ organizational confidence were examined. A 1 by 2 experimental design was used to investigate whether the presence or absence of value communication on the webpage of two fictitious organizations influenced the
stakeholders’ organizational confidence and whether this confidence was influenced by the personal values skepticism, life satisfaction and institutional confidence. The study showed that there is no relationship between communicating corporate values and stakeholder’s organizational confidence. Also, life satisfaction and institutional confidence had no influence on the relationship between communicating corporate values and stakeholders’ organizational confidence. Skepticism only had a small positive effect on organizational confidence, which indicates that less skeptic stakeholders have more confidence in the organization.
Unexpectedly, additional analyses showed that value communication had a minor positive effect on both the evaluation of the organization and the reputation rating of the organization. Confidence in organizations compared to evaluations and perceived reputation of the
organization are different concepts that need more extensive research. This research
contributes to existing literature by showing that communicating corporate values do have an effect on the evaluations and perceived reputation of the organization, but most importantly does not have an effect on stakeholders’ confidence in the organization.
The Value of Corporate Values:
The Effect of Corporate Value Communication on Stakeholders’ Organizational Confidence
“It’s a complicated and noisy world, and we’re not going to get a chance to get people to remember much about us. No company is. So we have to be really clear about what we want them to know about us”.
These words were used by Steve Jobs in his motivational speech at the launch of his Apple marketing campaign “Think Different” in 1997. This speech and the communicated core values had an emotional appeal to Apple’s stakeholders and the campaign became a huge success internally and externally. Although Apple’s core values are now different than in 1997, this motivational speech and core value statement are seen as an example for many organizations worldwide (Think Marketing, 2016).
Today, almost every organization has corporate core values, a mission statement and a vision statement. These values, principles and goals define the standards that guide the
external adaptation and internal integration of organizations (Schein, 1990). Most values included in the corporate values statements refer to ethical behavior, integrity, and
commitment to customers as well as commitment to employees (Van Lee, Fabish & McGaw, 2005). But in this fast moving corporate and consumer world, organizations these days are far more obligated to take a stand in more than just values for ethical behavior and integrity. Organizations are expected to be socially responsible, take care of the environment and form a strong opinion about social problems such as human rights. And not only the stakeholders expect more than just the usual business from organizations, the organizations themselves pay greater attention to norms, values and principles (Waddock, Bodwell & Graves, 2002). This is a positive development since values could also cause cynicism when they are made up just to make the organization look good (Lencioni, 2002).
mainly aimed at internal communication to employees (Bourne & Jenkins, 2013). This is of great importance for organizations, because employees should believe and embody the values of the organization and thereby the organizational culture (Schein, 1990). Another
considerable amount of research on values and organizations is aimed at corporate brand values (De Chernatony, Cottam & Segal-Horn, 2006) and how to incorporate the values of the organization with the values of the brand. A gap in the literature remains on the subject of corporate values, and the effect of those values on the stakeholder’s confidence. Stakeholders these days also expect their personal values to fit with the values of an organization (Van Lee et al., 2005). Still, little is known about the relationships between corporate values and personal values in general.
The question therefore is whether there is a relationship between communicating corporate values and stakeholder’s organizational confidence. Organizations often use their corporate webpage to communicate these corporate values externally. However, limited research is done to investigate how external stakeholders’ confidence in an organization could be affected by the communicated corporate values on corporate webpages. The same applies for organizational values in relation to personal values. While organizations try hard to make sure that all employees understand their organizational values and they do not conflict with the personal values of the employees (Bourne & Jenkins, 2013), knowledge about the external perceptions of the organization’s values is scarce. In order to have confident stakeholders that see the corporate values and the organization itself as credible, more research into the relation between communicating those values and the organizational confidence is therefore needed. This leads to the following principal research question and sub-question:
What is the effect of communicating corporate values on stakeholders’ organizational confidence?
How is the relationship between communicating corporate values and stakeholders’ organizational confidence influenced by the stakeholders’ personal values?
The personal values used in this research are life satisfaction, skepticism and confidence in institutions. Life satisfaction depends on a number of factors (Helliwell & Wang, 2010; Duffy, 2004) and could be related to an individuals’ confidence. The level of an individuals’ skepticism towards an organization depends on the credibility, sincerity and motives (Kim, 2014) of an organization and could therefore affect the stakeholders’ confidence. Finally, confidence in institutions could play a role in determining the confidence in an organization since the level of trustworthiness in organizations is relation-specific (Pirson & Malhotra, 2011).
To gain confidence as an organization it is important to have ongoing relationships with your stakeholders (Harris & Wicks, 2010). Therefore, this study could contribute to the further knowledge about the effect of corporate values on external stakeholders and their confidence. It is also meaningful for organizations and their managers to know how
stakeholders evaluate their organization, rate their reputation and how they can assess their confidence in the organization. Since stakeholders have become more critical and cynical about the sincerity of organizations (Van Lee et al., 2005), knowledge about their evaluations can be a powerful asset.
Theoretical Background Corporate values
Corporate values are one of the main dimensions of the corporate culture and have a major influence on corporate brand building processes (Schein, 1990; Urde, 2003). Corporate values play a major role in guiding the relations with external and internal stakeholders of organizations. Core values can influence the product or service of the organization, and the relationship with employees, customers, shareholders and other stakeholders (Schein, 1990).
Corporate values often exist of multiple terms such as integrity and transparency (Lencioni, 2002) that sum up the values of the organization as a brand and the organizational culture (Schein, 1990; Urde, 2003), and are often communicated to external stakeholders in annual reports and on corporate webpages. All organizations should aim at having true values and prevent hollow values (Urde, 2009). Hollow values lack foundation and sincerity from the organization and lack credibility from the stakeholders. These values could instead of creating confidence and trust, create skeptic employees, confuse customers and undermine the
credibility of managers and the organization as a whole (Lencioni, 2002). It is therefore important to build and maintain relationships with stakeholders and prevent hollow values (Lencioni, 2002).
Values as part of organizational culture
Rokeach (1973) and Schwartz (1992, 2012) conducted extensive research into the nature of values, human values and how they differ between different cultures. In his value theory he proposed ten motivational value types that are likely to be recognized within and across different cultures; self-direction, stimulation, hedonism, achievement, power, security, conformity, tradition, benevolence and universalism (Schwartz, 1992). The basis for all values, according to Schwartz (1992, p.4) are “three universal human requirements: the need for biological survival, the demand for social interaction and the social and institutional demands for group welfare”.
Value systems can be defined as integrated structures of motivational value types that place some values higher in importance than others (Schwartz, 1992). Individuals as well as groups develop value systems. Also, a distinction can be made between personal values and organizational values. Personal values are individual value systems that each person
possesses, and group or organizational values are value systems that are commonly held and shared by a group of people (Bourne & Jenkins, 2013).
Schein (1990) translates the value systems for groups to the culture of an organization. According to Schein (1990) organizational values are manifested in the culture of an
organization, together with observable artifacts and basic underlying assumptions. Values are the indications of the underlying assumptions and can be observable in organizational artifacts (Schein, 1990). Adding to Schein’s model of organizational culture, Hatch (1993) developed “The cultural dynamics model” (p.660). Instead of values being static and definite, Hatch (1993) linked organizational values, assumptions, artifacts and symbols together in a dynamic model with processes such as manifestation, realization, interpretation and symbolization. All of these processes occur in a continuous production and reproduction of culture within an organization in both its stable and changing forms and conditions (Hatch, 1993).
Bourne & Jenkins (2013) contribute to the theory of Hatch (1993) in stating that organizational values have four different forms that provide a basis for a more dynamic and broader concept of organizational values. Since organizations often experience periods of stability followed by periods of instability, it is useful to provide multiple forms of
organizational values that differ in level and orientation (Bourne & Jenkins, 2013). According to Bourne and Jenkins (2013), values guide all internal members of the organization in
conducting and evaluating their behavior. The forms of organizational values are espoused, attributed, shared and aspirational.
The espoused form of values are values that have a lot of meaning within the organization and are often communicated by top managers through verbal or written statements and annual reports. Yet, members of the organization and their external
stakeholders can perceive these values as hollow as they often lack content and credibility. The attributed values form however, are values that members of the organizational see as an representation of the organization. These values could represent the history of the
Jenkins, 2013). Value systems that are commonly shared and valued by the organizational members are the shared values form. Within this form the power relations between different departments of the organization are not taken into account. Finally, the aspirational values form are the values that the organizational members believe ought to be the values of the organization. These values represent ideas of what the organizational values should be in the future and could predict a break from former patterns. These values may also emerge from anywhere in the organization (Bourne & Jenkins, 2013).
Communicating corporate values
According to Urde (2003), organizational values should be resembled in the organization’s product or service and expressed in the behavior of the organization. The communication of the organizational values internally and externally is therefore of great importance. De Chernatony et al. (2006) make a distinction between communicating corporate brand values internally and externally. The internal communication of a brand’s values could happen through recruitment advertisements and interactions between employees. Brand values can be communicated externally to consumers through both marketing and organizational communication (De Chernatony et al., 2006). Marketing communication of service brand values includes advertising, direct marketing, personal selling and contact with employees of the organization. For product brand value communication the main channel is often advertising. They found that confusion amongst consumers regarding what the
organization stands for is highly undesirable. Also, the consistency in communicating the brand values was crucial, regardless in which way or through what channel the values were communicated.
Communicating clear and credible values has several positive consequences for organizations. In their study to values and financial performance of Fortune 100 companies, Jonsen, Galunic, Weeks and Braga (2015) found that the number of values a firm
communicates had a positive influence on its profitability. The results also proved that firms, who communicated more personal values that differed from other companies in their industry and from Fortune 100 patterns of values, had a positive influence on the firm’s profitability. Furthermore, companies that change their values over time perform better compared to companies that keep their values stable over a longer period of time (Jonsen et al., 2015). Consequently, corporate values influence strategic areas of the organization. Lee et al. (2005) found that most companies believe that corporate values influence the relationships with stakeholders and reputation. For example, commitment to customers could be enhanced by the principles of the organization. These findings suggest that the values could also influence the stakeholders’ confidence in the organization. When values regarding ethical behavior, integrity and commitment to customers are perceived as reliable and sincere, it would seem that stakeholders perceive the organization as more trustworthy (Mayer, Davis & Schoorman, 2005).
It may be clear that corporate values are fundamental to build and maintain a strong organizational culture, communicating the values to all stakeholders and be true to their statements is of great importance for the stakeholders’ organizational confidence. This leads to the following hypothesis:
H1: Communicating corporate values will have a higher positive effect on stakeholders’ organizational confidence than when not communicating corporate values.
Life satisfaction
Life satisfaction is defined as the general evaluation of a person’s quality of life according to his or her chosen criteria (Diener, Emmons, Larsen & Griffin, 1985). The evaluations of satisfaction depend on the comparison of one individuals’ circumstances and what is thought to be an appropriate standard. There is no literature found regarding the relationship between life satisfaction and corporate values, nevertheless some literature about
the relationship between life satisfaction or well-being and confidence.
Helliwell and Wang (2010) found that trust and well-being are closely linked, and that people who feel that they live in a trustworthy environment have higher levels of subjective well-being. Similarly, Hudson (2006) found that trust in institutions has a positive impact on people’s well-being across Europe, but that demographical factors as education and income also affect this positive impact. In the United Kingdom, life satisfaction depends on multiple factors such as income, age and health (Duffy, 2004). Trust in other people therefore, depends on drivers such as education levels, income and age (Duffy, 2004). Consequently, Frey and Stutzer (2004) found that unemployed respondents in their study were less happy than employed people and that income level increases the level of happiness. In the Netherlands, according to the World Value Survey (2012), people rate their overall life satisfaction with a 7,5 on a scale from one to ten, independent from factors such as education and income.
Unfortunately, the drivers for the life satisfaction in the Netherlands remain unknown as well as the effect of life satisfaction on confidence in organizations. The question that arises is; will life satisfaction as a personal value moderate the relationship between
communicating corporate values and stakeholders’ confidence in organizations? This leads to the following sub-question:
SQ1: Will life satisfaction moderate the relationship between communicating corporate values and stakeholders’ organizational confidence?
Skepticism
Skepticism in general can be defined as the tendency towards disbelief (Obermiller & Spangenberg, 1998). Most literature related to skepticism, organizations and stakeholders refers to corporate social responsibility (Kim, 2014; Peloza & Shang, 2011; Skarmeas & Leonidou, 2103). Corporate responsibility aimed at its effects on stakeholder perceptions can be defined as “An organization’s configuration of principles of social responsibility, processes
of social responsiveness, and policies, programs, and observable outcomes as they relate to the firm’s societal relationships” (Wood, 1991, p. 693).
Caroll (1991) introduced four kinds of social responsibilities that embody CSR: economic, legal, ethical and philanthropic. The ethical responsibilities are the standards, norms or expectations that reflect an organization for what stakeholders and the community regard as fair and with respect to the protection of the stakeholders’ moral rights (Carroll, 1991). Since many corporate value statements include values regarding respect towards all stakeholders and strong disapproving of discrimination and intimidation towards employees (Kaptein, 2004), the ethical responsibilities are the best fit with the corporate values that organizations communicate.
To prevent skepticism by stakeholders when communicating corporate social responsibility, it is important to acknowledge your motives as organization (Kim, 2014). Kim (2014) found that acknowledging a self-serving motive along with a society-serving motive reduces stakeholder skepticism toward CSR programs. This research also contributed to the knowledge that openness about the motives of the strategic communication affects the
behavioral intentions in stakeholders (Kim, 2014). Moreover, Skarmeas and Leonidou (2013) found that egoistic- and stakeholder-driven motives contribute to the development of
consumer skepticism toward CSR, while true value-driven motives decrease the consumer skepticism. They conclude that organizations should pay extensive attention to formulating and communicating CSR programs that revolve around value-driven motivations and prevent egoistic or stakeholder related motivations to avoid stakeholder skepticism (Skarmeas & Leonidou, 2013). To conclude, when stakeholders believe that the motives and communicated values from the organization are value-driven and sincere, in CSR communication as well as in value communication, they ought to be less skeptic. This leads to the following hypothesis: H2: Skepticism moderates the relationship between communicating corporate values and
stakeholders’ organizational confidence. Communicating corporate values will have a higher positive effect on stakeholders’ organizational confidence when the stakeholder is less
skeptic.
Confidence and trust
Before addressing the concepts of institutional confidence and organizational confidence, the relationship between confidence and trust should be examined. In most literature regarding stakeholders and organizations, stakeholder trust is generally defined as the perception of confidence in the other’s reliability and integrity (Morgan & Hunt, 1994). The exact difference between the two terms is somewhat vague. Luhmann (2000) argues that confidence differs from trust because trust requires a previous engagement with an
organization or institution and the acceptation of the risk of being disappointed. People are confident that they will not be disappointed because they did not have a previous engagement and are lacking knowledge about the possible risk of being disappointed (Luhmann, 2000). Confidence in institutions and organizations therefore requires confident stakeholders to earn their trust. Trust and confidence could also be seen as two separate levels; to trust an
organization, stakeholders first need to be confident. When stakeholders did not have an earlier encounter or experience with an organization, they could not yet be disappointed, and their opinion and trust is formed after the first encounter. Confidence therefore precedes trust and is a more general concept divided in institutional confidence and organizational
confidence.
Institutional confidence
As confidence from stakeholders in organizations is a competitive advantage for organizations (Barney & Hansen, 1994) and as it can strengthen relationships between
stakeholders and organizations (Pirson & Malhotra, 2011), it is important for organizations to define where stakeholders base their confidence on. Harris and Wicks (2010) make a
distinction between institutional trust, the trust individuals have in business in general, and organizational trust, the trust individuals have in a particular business. Harris and Wicks (2010) propose that stakeholder trust in particular businesses will be higher than trust in the institution of business. An organization that has an ongoing relationship with a stakeholder is likely to be more trusted by a stakeholder than ‘business’ in general. Furthermore, the
experiences that an individual has with a particular organization will all be added up and one’s collection of trust in individual businesses aggregates into the overall trust in business as institutions (Harris & Wicks, 2010).
Pirson and Malhotra (2011) also found that trustworthiness is relation-specific. Stakeholders who had shallow relationships with an organization based their trust in the organization primarily on perceptions of integrity, while trust among deep stakeholders was based on perceptions of goodwill. Similarly, they found that trust among internal stakeholders depended more on perceptions of managerial competence, whereas trust among external stakeholders was based more on perceptions of technical competence. Perceptions of ability and transparency therefore play a big role in determining the level of trust among internal stakeholders. This finding contributes to the research of Mayer et al.(1995) who determined that ability, benevolence and integrity constitute the three primary dimensions of
trustworthiness.
As the literature proposes that confidence in a particular organization appeared to be higher than confidence in organizations in general, the question that arises is; will institutional confidence as a personal value moderate the relationship between communicating corporate values and stakeholders’ organizational confidence? This leads to the following sub-question: RQ2: Will institutional confidence moderate the relationship between communicating
Evaluations, reputation and confidence
Confidence in organizations is a construct that demands more extensive justification. Not only is it closely linked to the construct of trust (Mayer et al., 1995; Luhmann, 2000), it is a deeper lying concept that lies underneath other constructs. How stakeholders evaluate an organization depends on different factors. Evaluation can be defined as the making of a judgment about the value of an organization (Sen & Bhattarcharya, 2001). Brown and Dacin (1997) found that the corporate ability of producing a product, the corporate social
responsibility and the former knowledge of a company influences the attitudes, beliefs and evaluations of consumers. Likewise, Sen and Bhattarcharya (2001) found that corporate social responsibility activities of an organization determine the evaluations of consumers. When the activities are related to the company’s existing products, consumers evaluated the company as more favorable. Multiple evaluations of an organization could lead to a deeper understanding and assessment of the organization’s reputation.
Although the definitions of corporate reputation differ widely and numerous research is aimed at defining this subject, it may be clear that the organization’s reputation consists of more than just the evaluation of a product or the corporate social responsibility activities of an organization. Corporate reputation seems to comprise of closely linked and essential aspects of the organization such as corporate identity, corporate image, corporate associations and corporate communications. Gotsi and Wilson (2001, p. 29) defined the corporate reputation as: “A stakeholders’ overall evaluation of a company over time”. This implies that reputation is a deeper lying construct following multiple evaluations. According to Barnett, Jermier and Lafferty (2006) reputation can be seen as an assessment of the status of a firm, that means not just the evaluation of a single product or service but also the evaluation of the organization as a whole. Also Lange, Lee and Dai (2011) explain that organizational reputation can be
just to look at the evaluations of the organization in relation to communicating corporate values, but also the perceived reputation of the organization.
Reputation is consequently closely linked to organizational confidence or trust. As seen earlier, Morgan and Hunt (1994, p.23) stated: “Stakeholder trust can generally be defined as the perception of confidence in the exchange partner’s reliability and integrity”. This implies that confidence should follow after positive evaluations and perceptions of the organization. High reputation therefore can enhance stakeholders’ confidence and reduce uncertainty when they evaluate an organization and make judgments on organizational performance and quality of products or services. (Morgan & Hunt, 1994; Rindova,
Williamson, Petkova & Sever, 2005). Subsequently, Keh and Xie (2009) found that customers are more likely to perceive companies with highly favorable reputations as trustworthy. As stated above, earlier research recognizes the interrelatedness between evaluations, reputation and confidence and proves that they all contribute the stakeholder’s perceptions of
organizations. Related to organizations, it is suggested that evaluations, reputation and confidence can be seen as different levels. Stakeholders form their opinion on the basis of multiple evaluations. Consequently, these multiple evaluations form the visions on the reputation of the organization. The stakeholders’ confidence in the organization underlies the perceived reputation. It is important not to overlook the concepts evaluation and reputation with regard to confidence.
Conceptual model
There is hypothesized that communicating corporate values will have a higher positive effect on stakeholders’ organizational confidence than when not communicating corporate values. The three personal values life satisfaction, skepticism and institutional confidence are moderating the relationship between communicating corporate values and stakeholders’ organizational confidence.
An overview of all hypotheses and research questions can be found in the conceptual model in figure 1.
Figure 1. Conceptual model.
Method
To answer the research questions and to test the hypotheses, an 1 x 2 between subjects online experiment was conducted.
Manipulations
Two fictitious organizations were made up to manipulate the independent variable Value communication. Because confidence in organization requires that there is no previous engagement with the risk of being disappointed (Luhmann, 2000), it was important that the respondents did not have any previous experience with the organization and could not have formed opinions about the organizations. Therefore fictitious organizations were chosen instead of existing organizations. Both organizations were providers of mobile services, telecommunication and Internet. One organization’s webpage specifically communicated the corporate values and one organization’s webpage specifically left out the corporate values.
The first organization is called TelXNederland. The webpage of TelXNederland showed the values, goals and principles of the organization. The value communication on this page was manipulated by words and sentences that described what the organization stood for,
what they thought was important and how they contributed to society like: “Working with integrity” and “Our main objective is: to remain one of the leading providers in mobile telecommunication, we keep high behavioral standards in relation to everyone we work with, society and the environment”. Based on Kaptein (2004), commonly used words in business codes and core values like “transparency”, “dialogue”, “teamwork” and “honesty” were added to the value text on the webpage to emphasize the value communication. The webpage of organization TelXNederland can be found in Appendix A.
The second organization was called Acticom. The webpage of Acticom showed information about the products that the organization offers, like services at home, mobile services, business market, corporate market and CoNet, the network department of the organization. The missing value communication on this page was manipulated by sentences and words like “See below for all our products” and “CoNet is the heart of our infrastructure and IT. This division is responsible for the fixed and mobile network.”. The webpage
specifically did not mention any values, goals or principles. The webpage of organization Acticom can be found in Appendix A.
Pre-test
Before the questionnaire was published online, a pre-test was done. The main purpose of the pre-test was to check whether the survey questions were clear and unambiguous. A total of ten respondents filled in the pretest. To check whether the respondents have read the text on the webpage and understood what the webpage is about, two control questions were asked at the end of the survey. The first control question was “Which product or service is this organization offering?”, where respondents could answer with either ‘Computers’ or
‘Telecommunication’. The second control question was “What is communicated on the webpage of this organization?”, and respondents could answer by either choosing
organization’ or ‘Information about the company’s history’. All ten respondents who
participated in the pre-test answered the control questions right. After conducting the pre-test, one question about the organization’s visible values was changed.
Also, the pre-test was conducted to check whether the manipulation of the presence and absence of the value communication was successful. At the beginning of the survey, two manipulation questions were asked. The first manipulation question was “From which organization is this webpage?” with the options ‘TelXNederland’ or ‘Acticom’ followed by the statement “I have seen the organizations’ values, goals and principles and it is clear to me where the organization stands for” with the answer options ‘Yes’ or ‘No’. All ten respondents who participated in the pre-test answered the manipulation check questions right, therefore there could be assumed that the manipulation was successful.
Research Design
A 1 x 2 between subjects online experiment was conducted to measure the effect of communicating corporate values on stakeholders’ organizational confidence. Furthermore, the influence of moderating variables life satisfaction, skepticism, and institutional confidence on the relationship between value communication and stakeholders’ organizational confidence was measured. The experiment was set up in Qualtrics, an online survey tool. Respondents were randomly assigned to one of the two conditions, either the webpage of TelXNederland or the webpage of Acticom. A convenience sample of respondents with the age of 18 or older were asked to take part in the online experiment and were reached through the social media Facebook and LinkedIn, e-mail and face-to-face contact. To reach more respondents, the snowball sampling method was also used. Respondents were asked to share the link to the online experiment with their friends, colleagues and family on social media and through e-mail. Following the ASCoR guidelines for ethical research, participation in this research was
voluntarily and anonymous. Respondents did not receive any compensation for their participation.
Procedure
The survey was published online for a period of 15 days. All respondents were asked to participate in an online experiment and to carefully read the introduction and the
instructions. After this the respondents were exposed to one of the two conditions. After the manipulation check questions about which organization they observed on the webpage and whether they had seen the corporate values, goals and principles of the organization, they were asked about their evaluation of the company, their reputation assessment, their
confidence in the company, their skepticism towards the organization, their life satisfaction and their confidence in different institutions. The questionnaire ended with demographical questions regarding their gender, age, level of education and two control questions about the product or service from the organization and what was communicated on the webpage of the organization.
Measurements
The questionnaire consisted of thirteen questions, including the manipulation check questions and the control questions. Here, the independent, dependent and moderating variables will be explained. The full questionnaire can be found in Appendix B.
Independent variable
Value communication. The variable value communication consisted of the two condition variables condition 1 (webpage of TelXNederland) and condition 2 (webpage of Acticom). These variables, condition 1 (TelXNederland) and condition 2 (Acticom), were computed and recoded into one dichotomous condition variable value communication.
Dependent variable
measured with four items on a five-point Likert scale (from totally disagree to totally agree) based on Bae & Cameron (2006). Examples of included items were “I think this organization is sincere” and “I think this trustworthy”. An exploratory factor analysis indicated that the scale was uni-dimensional: only one component had an eigenvalue above 1 (EV = 2.48), explaining 62,03% of the variance. The 4-item scale proved reliable as indicated by a Cronbach’s alpha of .79.
Moderators
Life satisfaction. The first moderator was life satisfaction. Life satisfaction was measured with five items on a five-point Likert scale (from totally disagree to totally agree) based on Diener et al. (1985). Examples of included items were “In most ways my life is close to ideal” and “I am satisfied with my life”. An exploratory factor analysis indicated that the scale was uni-dimensional: only one component has an eigenvalue above 1 (EV = 3.20), explaining 63,94% of the variance. The 5-item scale also proved reliable as indicated by a Cronbach’s alpha of .85.
Skepticism. The second moderator was skepticism. Skepticism was measured with four items on a five-point Likert scale (from totally disagree to totally agree) based on value-driven motives of the organization (Skarmeas & Leonidou, 2013). Examples of included items were “this organization has a long-term interest in the society” and “this organization feels morally obligated to help society”. An exploratory factor analysis indicated that the scale was uni-dimensional: only one component has an eigenvalue above 1 (EV = 3.04), explaining 75,97% of the variance. The 4-item scale also proved reliable as indicated by a Cronbach’s alpha of .89.
Institutional confidence. The third moderator was institutional confidence.
Institutional confidence was measured with eighteen items on a five-point Likert scale (from no confidence at all to a lot of confidence) based on The World Value Survey (2012).
Examples of included items were “how much confidence do you have in major companies” and “how much confidence do you have in environmental organizations”. A Principal components analysis with varimax rotation shows that six items have an eigenvalue above 1 and these items explain 70.24% of the total variance. After removing the item “The army” which had a low factor loading (>.50) on all the six components, the total variance explained was 71.75%.
The first component consisted of the six items “The courts”, “The government”, “Political parties”, “The European Union”, “The United Nations” and “The Parliament” and has an eigenvalue of 5.21. All items correlate positively with the first component, the variable “The parliament” has the strongest association (factor loading is .85). This 6-item scale proved to be reliable as indicated by a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.88.
The second component consisted of the three items “Environmental organizations”, “Women’s organizations” and “Charitable or humanitarian organizations” and has an eigenvalue of 1.86. All items correlate positively with the second component, the variable “Women’s organizations” has the strongest association (factor loading is .83). This 3-item scale proved to be reliable as indicated by a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.75.
The third component consisted of the two items “Major companies” and “Banks and has an eigenvalue of 1.72. All items correlate positively with the third component, the variable “Banks” has the strongest association (factor loading is .84). This 2-item scale proved to be reliable as indicated by a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.77.
The fourth component consisted of the two items “The press” and “Television” and has an eigenvalue of 1.25. All items correlate positively with the fourth component, the variable “Television” has the strongest association (factor loading is .88). This 2-item scale proved to be reliable as indicated by a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.80.
“Universities”. This 2-item scale proved to be unreliable as indicated by a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.55. This scale was therefore excluded from further analysis.
The sixth component consisted of the two items “The churches” and “Labor unions”. This 2-item scale proved to be unreliable as indicated by a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.43. This scale was therefore excluded from further analysis.
Four out of the six components had a high Cronbach’s alpha and proved to be reliable, therefore these new scales were used to measure the institutional confidence. Institutional confidence now consisted of four variables; confidence in governmental institutions, confidence in social institutions, confidence in media institutions, confidence in corporate institutions and confidence in media institutions.
Other questions
Evaluations. The respondents’ evaluation of the organization was measured with four items on a seven-point Likert scale (extremely negative to extremely positive) based on Yoon, Gurhan-Canli & Schwarz (2006). Examples of included items were “My evaluation of this organization is extremely unfavorable – extremely favorable” and “My evaluation of this organization is extremely bad – extremely good”. An exploratory factor analysis indicated that the scale was uni-dimensional: only one component had an eigenvalue above 1 (EV = 2.99), explaining 74,83% of the variance. The 4-item scale also proved reliable as indicated by a Cronbach’s Alpha of .88.
Reputation rating. To measure the reputation of the organization according to the respondents, respondents were asked to assess the organization on reputation with a 1 – 10 mark.
Manipulation check and control questions. Two manipulation check questions were included at the beginning of the questionnaire and two control questions were included at the end of the questionnaire.
Demographic questions. Respondents were asked to respond to three demographical questions; their gender, age and highest level of education.
Randomization
To determine whether the demographical variables age, level of education and gender are equally distributed between the two conditions, two independent samples t-tests and one chi-square test were conducted.
Age. According to Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances, the variances in the TelXNederland and Acticom condition are not equally distributed. The independent samples t-test for equal variances not assumed indicated that the difference in mean age in the Acticom condition (M = 29.44, SD = 8.85) was not significantly different from participants who were exposed to the TelXNederland condition (M = 31.67, SD = 13.52), t(125.26) = -1.15, p = .255, CI [-6.08, 1.62].
Level of education. According to Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances, the variances in the two conditions are equally distributed. An independent samples t-test for equal variances assumed indicated that the difference in mean level of education in the Acticom condition (M = 6.61, SD = .59) was not significantly different from participants who were exposed to the TelXNederland condition (M = 6.49, SD = 0.93), t(132) = .83, p = .411, CI [-.16, .39].
Gender. Out of the 61 participants in the Acticom condition, 27 (44.3%) were male and 34 (55.7%) were female. This percentage is not significantly different from the 73 participants in the TelXNederland condition of whom 22 (30.1%) was male and 51 (69.9%) was female, χ² (1) = 2.86, p = .091. The variances in the two conditions are equally
Analysis
To test the hypotheses and answer the research questions, several statistical analyses were conducted. First, a bivariate Pearson Correlation analysis was conducted to check whether the demographical variables were related to the dependent variable organizational confidence. The effect of value communication on organizational confidence was tested with a regression analysis. To test whether the moderating variables life satisfaction, skepticism, confidence in governmental institutions, confidence in social institutions, confidence in corporate institutions and confidence in media institutions had influence on the relationship between the independent variable value communication and the dependent variable
organizational confidence, several moderation analyses with PROCESS Macro model 1 (Hayes, 2013) were conducted. Finally, the effects of value communication on evaluation of the organization and reputation rating of the organization were tested with two additional separate regression analyses.
Results Participants
A total of 228 respondents were recruited for the experiment. 165 respondents completed the experiment. To check whether the respondents understood the webpage and read the message carefully, all respondents were asked to answer the manipulation questions. A total of 30 respondents answered one of the manipulation questions the wrong way and 1 respondent filled in an unclear age. These respondents were removed from the data, which resulted in a total of 134 respondents. 49 (36.6%) of the respondents were men, 85 (63.4%) of the respondents were women. Age (M = 30.66, SD = 11.65) varied from 19 to 64 years old. Education varied from HAVO to WO. The majority of the respondents were higher educated (65.7%). 73 (54.5%) respondents saw the webpage of TelXNederland and 61 (45.5%) respondents saw the webpage of Acticom.
Control variables
Before testing the hypotheses and research questions, a bivariate Pearson Correlation analysis was conducted to see whether the demographic variables were related to the
dependent variable organizational confidence. The three demographic variables age, gender and level of education showed no correlation to outcome measures as seen in Table 1. The variables were not considered for further analysis.
Although there was no significant correlation between value communication and organizational confidence, Table 1 shows that there was a significant correlation between value communication and evaluation of the organization and that there was a significant correlation between value communication and reputation rating. These outcomes will be further analyzed after the hypothesis and research questions testing.
Table 1
Correlation Matrix
Measures Gender Age
Level of education Value communication Organizational confidence Evaluation organization Reputation rating Gender Age -.350** Level of education .151 -.143 Value communication .146 .096 -.072 Organizational confidence .080 .001 .042 .138 Evaluation organization .116 -.046 -.053 .394** .505** Reputation rating .107 -.018 .003 .329** .522** .708** Note. ** = p < .01
Hypotheses and research questions testing
Hypothesis 1 expected that communicating corporate values would have a higher positive effect on stakeholders’ organizational confidence than not communicating corporate values.
The regression model with organizational confidence (M = 3.23, SD = .68) as dependent variable and value communication as independent variable was not significant, F (1,133) = 2.58, p = .111. The regression model could therefore not be used to predict the organizational confidence. Hypothesis 1 is rejected.
Hypothesis 2 expected that skepticism moderated the relationship between communicating corporate values and stakeholders’ organizational confidence and that communicating corporate values would have a higher positive effect on stakeholders’ organizational confidence when the stakeholder is less skeptic. This hypothesis was tested with PROCESS Model 1 (Hayes, 2013). The overall model with value communication as independent variable, organizational confidence as dependent variable and skepticism (M = 3.03, SD = .91) as moderator was significant, F (3,130) = 11.34, p < .001, R² = .21. 21% of the variance in organizational confidence is explained by value communication and
skepticism. There was no significant direct effect between value communication and
organizational confidence, b* = -.31 , t = -1.55, p = .123, 95% CI [-.71, .08]. The moderator skepticism had a significant b* = .32, t = 2.11, p = .037, 95% CI [.02, .62] positive influence on the dependent variable organizational confidence, this means that when a stakeholder is less skeptic about the organization the stakeholder has a higher organizational confidence. An interaction effect did not occur b* = .35, t = 1.76, p = .081, 95% CI [-.04, 0.75]. Hypothesis 2 is rejected.
Research question 1 asked whether life satisfaction (M = 3.81, SD = .69) would influence the relationship between communicating corporate values and stakeholders’
organizational confidence. This research question was answered with PROCESS Model 1 (Hayes, 2013). The overall model with value communication as independent variable, organizational confidence as dependent variable and life satisfaction as moderator was not significant, F (3,130) = 1.24, p = .297, R² = .03. Life satisfaction does not influence the relationship between communicating corporate values and stakeholders’ organizational confidence.
Research question 2 asked whether institutional confidence would influence the relationship between communicating corporate values and stakeholders’ organizational confidence. Institutional confidence consisted of four institutional variables that were tested separately with PROCESS Model 1 (Hayes, 2013).
Confidence in governmental institutions. The overall model with value
communication as independent variable, organizational confidence as dependent variable and confidence in governmental institutions as moderator was not significant, F (3,130) = 2.22, p = .09, R² = .05. Confidence in governmental institutions (M = 3.34, SD = .88) does not influence the relationship between communicating corporate values and stakeholders’ organizational confidence.
Confidence in social institutions. The overall model with value communication as independent variable, organizational confidence as dependent variable and confidence in social institutions as moderator was not significant, F (3,130) = .90, p = .445, R² = .02. Confidence in social institutions (M = 3.30, SD = .77) does not influence the relationship between communicating corporate values and stakeholders’ organizational confidence.
Confidence in corporate institutions. The overall model with value communication as independent variable, organizational confidence as dependent variable and confidence in corporate institutions as moderator was not significant, F (3,130) = 1.37, p = .256, R² = .03. Confidence in corporate institutions (M = 3.01, SD = .88) does not influence the relationship
between communicating corporate values and stakeholders’ organizational confidence. Confidence in media institutions. The overall model with value communication as independent variable, organizational confidence as dependent variable and confidence in media institutions as moderator was not significant, F (3,130) = 1.32, p = .27, R² = .03. Confidence in media institutions (M = 2.82, SD = .79) does not influence the relationship between communicating corporate values and stakeholders’ organizational confidence.
Additional results
Evaluation organization. The regression model with evaluation of the organization (M = 4.53, SD = .86) as dependent variable and value communication as independent variable was significant, F (1,33) = 24.27, p < .001. The regression model could therefore be used to predict the evaluation of the organization but the strength of the prediction was weak: 16 percent of the variation in evaluation of the organization could be predicted on the basis of value communication (R² = .16). Value communication, b* = .39, t = 4.93, p < .001, 95% CI [.40, .95] had a significant but weak positive effect on evaluation organization. This means that respondents in the value communication condition evaluate the organization higher (M = 4.84, SD = .75) than the respondents in the no value communication condition (M = 4.16, SD = .84). After testing the influence of moderating variables skepticism, life satisfaction and institutional confidence on the relationship between value communication and evaluation organization, no significant results were found. The moderators do not influence the relationship between value communication and evaluation of the organization.
Reputation rating. The regression model with reputation rating (M = 6.60, SD = 1.34) as dependent variable and value communication as the independent variable was significant, F (1,133) = 16.05, p < .001. The regression model could therefore be used to predict the reputation rating of the organization but the strength of the prediction was weak: 11 percent of the variation in reputation rating could be predicted on the basis of value
communication (R² = .11). Value communication b* = .33, t = 4.01, p < .001, 95% CI [.45, 1.32] had a significant but weak positive effect on reputation rating. This means that
respondents in the value communication condition rated the organization higher on reputation (M = 7.00, SD = 1.30) than the respondents in the no value communication condition (M = 6.11, SD = 1.24). After testing the influence of moderating variables skepticism, life
satisfaction and institutional confidence on the relationship between value communication and reputation rating, no significant results were found. The moderators do not influence the relationship between value communication and reputation rating.
Conclusion & discussion
The aim of this research was to examine the effect of communicating corporate values on stakeholders’ organizational confidence. The research question of this study was: what is the effect of communicating corporate values on stakeholders’ organizational confidence? Additionally, this study was aimed at answering the question whether the relationship between communicating corporate values and stakeholders’ organizational confidence was influenced by the stakeholders’ personal values such as life satisfaction, skepticism and institutional confidence. It was assumed that communicating corporate values would have an effect on stakeholders’ confidence and that this effect would be positive. Communicating corporate values would have a higher positive effect on stakeholders’ organizational confidence than not communicating corporate values. Contrary to the expectation, no relationship between communicating corporate values and stakeholders’ organizational confidence was found. Although earlier theories state that corporate values influence the profitability of the organization (Jonsen et al., 2015), the organizational culture and
relationships with stakeholders (Schein, 1990), this study proved that communicating those values does not improve or worsen the confidence stakeholders have in the organization.
stakeholders’ organizational confidence, the personal values life satisfaction and institutional confidence did not influence the relationship between communicating corporate values and the stakeholders’ confidence either. Nevertheless, skepticism as personal value had a small positive influence on stakeholders’ organizational confidence. This means that when stakeholders are less skeptic, they have more confidence in the organization. This finding, although not contributing to the hypothesis, is in line with the research of Skarmeas and Leonidou (2013) and Morgan and Hunt (1994). They stated that stakeholders tend to be less skeptic when the organizations’ motivations are sincere (Skarmeas & Leonidou, 2013), and that confidence in the organization is based on reliability and integrity (Morgan & Hunt, 1994).
Despite of the results that are contrary to the expectations, two additional results were found regarding the evaluation and reputation of the organization. A relationship was found between communicating corporate values and the stakeholders’ evaluation of the organization and the stakeholder’s reputation rating of the organization. Respondents evaluated the
organization with corporate value communication higher and also rated the organization with the corporate value communication higher on reputation.
In the theoretical section was suggested that evaluation of the organization, reputation of the organization and organizational confidence were interrelated and that evaluation and reputation were subordinate to the concept of confidence. Evaluations of an organization were defined as the making of a judgment about the value of an organization (Sen & Bhattarcharya, 2001) and reputation of the organization was defined as a stakeholders overall evaluation of a company over time (Gotsi & Wilson, 2001). The earlier suggestions implied that confidence is a different concept and in addition the results proved that there is no relationship between communicating corporate values and confidence while there is a relationship between communicating corporate values and evaluation of the organization and reputation of the
organization. Therefore there could be suggested that evaluation and reputation of the organization are indeed subordinate to confidence and that the three outcome variables are somehow related, but differently influenced by value communication. Connecting this finding to organizations, confidence appears to be a deeper lying concept than evaluations and
reputation with regards to value communication. Stakeholders could have good evaluations and a high perceived reputation of the organization while no conclusions can be drawn about confidence and communicating values. More extensive research is needed to investigate the relationship between corporate values, evaluations and reputation. Also, more research is needed to investigate what other effects corporate values could have on stakeholders’ perceptions and behavior.
Methodological limitations could explain the results of this study. Although there was limited previous research about the relationships between communicating corporate values, stakeholder confidence and the additional influence of moderating variables like skepticism or life satisfaction, other explanations for the results could be present. The low sample and the number of deleted responses could have affected the results. For example, after deleting the respondents that did not answer the manipulation check right, there were more respondents in the TelXNederland condition than in the Acticom condition. Furthermore, value
communication appeared to be difficult to manipulate and could have been interpreted
differently by the respondents. Several respondents in the TelXNederland condition indicated that they did not see any organizational values or principles, which could mean that they interpreted the webpage differently and this could have affected their responses.
Because of the fictitious organizations used in the experimental setting, respondents could have found it difficult to indicate their confidence in the organizations. The lack of
background information available and any other knowledge about the organization, could explain the absent relationship between communicating corporate values and organizational
confidence.
Despite the limitations and the absence of significant results, this research contributes to further knowledge about corporate values. Future research should investigate the
relationship between communicating corporate values, stakeholder evaluations and perceived reputations more closely. Previous research on corporate values mainly emphasizes the importance and influence of corporate values on organizational culture (Schein, 1990), managerial activities (Jaakson, 2010) and profitability (Jonsen et al., 2015) of the organization.
It is recommended to go more in depth to corporate values from the external
stakeholder view and how the corporate values are perceived by the stakeholders instead of only looking at the corporate values from within the organization. This research has proven that the corporate values do not have an influence on the confidence of the stakeholders. A closer look into the relationship between the three concepts evaluations, reputation and confidence is necessary.
To conclude and to answer the principal research question and the sub question: this research could not prove that there is an effect of communicating corporate values on stakeholders’ organizational confidence. Therefore the stakeholders’ personal values life satisfaction and institutional confidence did not have an influence on the absent relationship between communicating corporate values and stakeholders’ organizational confidence. Nevertheless, a relationship between skepticism and stakeholders’ organizational confidence was found, less skeptic stakeholders have more confidence in the organization. Organizations and managers should take into account that although organizational values come from within, the way these values are communicated towards external stakeholders could eventually affect the evaluations and reputation of the organization. But most importantly, they should take into account that short-term value communications have no effect on the stakeholders’ confidence.
References
Barnett, M. L., Jermier, J. M., & Lafferty, B. A. (2006). Corporate reputation: The definitional landscape. Corporate reputation review, 9, 26-38.
doi:10.1057/palgrave.ccr.1550012
Barney, J. B., & Hansen, M. H. (1994). Trustworthiness as a source of competitive
advantage. Strategic management journal, 15, 175-190. doi:10.1002/smj.4250150912 Bourne, H., & Jenkins, M. (2013). Organizational values: a dynamic
perspective. Organization Studies, 34, 495-514. doi:10.1177/0170840612467155 Brown, T. J., & Dacin, P. A. (1997). The company and the product: Corporate associations
and consumer product responses. The Journal of Marketing, 68-84. doi:10.2307/1252190
Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business horizons, 34, 39-48. doi:10.1016/0007-6813(91)90005-G
De Chernatony, L., Cottam, S., & Segal-Horn, S. (2006). Communicating services brands' values internally and externally. The Service Industries Journal, 26, 819-836. doi:10.1080/02642060601011616
Diener, E. D., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of personality assessment, 49, 71-75.doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4901 _13
Duffy, B. (2004). Life satisfaction and trust in other people. Retrieved from MORI Social Research Institute website: https://www.ipsos-mori.com/DownloadPublication/ 1226_sri_life_satisfaction_and_trust_in_other_people_122004.pdf
Frey, B. S., & Stutzer, A. (2000). Happiness, economy and institutions. The Economic Journal, 110, 918-938. doi:10.1111/1468-0297.00570
Gotsi, M., & Wilson, A. M. (2001). Corporate reputation: seeking a definition. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 6, 24-30. doi:10.1108/
13563280110381189
Harris, J. D., & Wicks, A. C. (2010). ‘Public Trust’ and trust in particular firm–stakeholder interactions. Corporate Reputation Review, 13, 142-154. doi:10.1057-crr.2010.13 Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process
Analysis. Retrieved from http://www.personal.psu.edu/jxb14/M554 /specreg/templates.pdf
Hatch, M. J. (1993). The dynamics of organizational culture. Academy of management review, 18(4), 657-693.
Helliwell, J. F., & Wang, S. (2010). Trust and well-being (Report No. w15911). Retrieved from National Bureau of Economic Research website: http://www.nber.org/ papers/w15911
Hudson, J. (2006). Institutional trust and subjective well‐being across the EU. Kyklos, 59(1), 43-62. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6435.2006.00319.x
Jaakson, K. (2010). Management by values: are some values better than others?. Journal of management Development, 29, 795-806. doi:10.1108/02621711011072504
Jonsen, K., Galunic, C., Weeks, J., & Braga, T. (2015). Evaluating espoused values: does articulating values pay off?. European Management Journal, 33, 332-340.
doi:10.1016/j.emj.2015.03.005
Kaptein, M. (2004). Business codes of multinational firms: What do they say?. Journal of Business Ethics, 50, 13-31. doi:10.1023/B:BUSI.0000021051.53460.da
Keh, H. T., & Xie, Y. (2009). Corporate reputation and customer behavioral intentions: The roles of trust, identification and commitment. Industrial Marketing Management, 38, 732-742. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2008.02.005
Kim, Y. (2014). Strategic communication of corporate social responsibility (CSR): Effects of stated motives and corporate reputation on stakeholder responses. Public Relations Review, 40, 838-840. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.07.005
Lange, D., Lee, P. M., & Dai, Y. (2011). Organizational reputation: A review. Journal of Management, 37, 153-184. doi:10.1177/0149206310390963
Lencioni, P. M. (2002). Make your values mean something. Harvard business review, 80(7), 113-117.
Luhmann, N. (2000). Familiarity, confidence, trust: Problems and alternatives. In Gambetta, D. (Ed.), Trust: Making and breaking cooperative relations, (pp. 94-107). Retrieved from http://onemvweb.com/sources/sources/familiarity_confidence_trust.pdf
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of management review, 20, 709-734. doi:10.5465/AMR.1995.9508080335
Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. The journal of marketing, 20-38. doi:10.2307/1252308
Obermiller, C., & Spangenberg, E. R. (1998). Development of a scale to measure consumer skepticism toward advertising. Journal of consumer psychology, 7, 159-186.
doi:10.1207/s15327663jcp0702_03
Peloza, J., & Shang, J. (2011). How can corporate social responsibility activities create value for stakeholders? A systematic review. Journal of the academy of Marketing
Science, 39, 117-135. doi:10.1007/s11747-010-0213-6
Pirson, M., & Malhotra, D. (2011). Foundations of organizational trust: what matters to different stakeholders?. Organization Science, 22, 1087-1104.
Rindova, V. P., Williamson, I. O., Petkova, A. P., & Sever, J. M. (2005). Being good or being known: An empirical examination of the dimensions, antecedents, and consequences of organizational reputation. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 1033-1049. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2005.19573108
Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York, NY: Free Press. Schein, E. H. (1990). Organizational culture. American Psychologist, 49, 109–119. Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Does doing good always lead to doing better?
Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal of marketing Research, 38, 225-243. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.38.2.225.18838 Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical
advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in experimental social psychology, 25, 1-65. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60281-6
Schwartz, S. H. (2012). An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online readings in Psychology and Culture, 2, 11. doi:10.9707/2307-0919.1116
Skarmeas, D., & Leonidou, C. N. (2013). When consumers doubt, watch out! The role of CSR skepticism. Journal of Business Research, 66, 1831-1838.
doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.02.004
Think Marketing. (2016). Have you ever read about Apple’s core values?. Retrieved from https://thinkmarketingmagazine.com/apple-core-values/
Urde, M. (2003). Core value-based corporate brand building. European Journal of marketing, 37, 1017-1040. doi:10.1108/03090560310477645
Urde, M. (2009). Uncovering the corporate brand's core values. Management decision, 47, 616-638. doi: 10.1108/00251740910959459
Van Lee, R., Fabish, L., McGaw, N. (2005). The value of Corporate Values. Retrieved from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=956170
Waddock, S. A., Bodwell, C., & Graves, S. B. (2002). Responsibility: The new business imperative. The Academy of Management Executive, 16, 132-148.
doi:10.5465/AME.2002.7173581
Wood, D. J. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of management review, 16, 691-718. doi:10.5465/AMR.1991.4279616
Yoon, Y., Gürhan-Canli, Z., & Schwarz, N. (2006). The effect of corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities on companies with bad reputations. Journal of consumer psychology, 16, 377-390. doi: 10.1207/s15327663jcp1604_9
World Value Survey. (2012). World Values Survey Wave 6: 2010-2014. Retrieved from http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSOnline.jsp
Appendix A – Manipulation designs Condition 1: Acticom – no value communication
Appendix B – Questionnaire 1. Van welke organisatie is het bericht afkomstig?
TelX Acticom
2. Ik heb de bedrijfswaarden van deze organisatie terug gezien op de webpagina. Ja
Nee
3. Reputation
Welk cijfer geeft u deze organisatie wat betreft reputatie? Tienpunt Likert schaal, 1 = heel slecht - 10 = heel goed
4. Evalutation (Yoon, Gurhan-Canli & Schwarz (2006). 4 items op een zevenpunt Likert schaal.
Hoe denkt u zelf over deze organisatie? Mijn evaluatie van deze organisatie is: Extreem ongunstig – Extreem gunstig
Extreem negatief – Extreem positief Extreem slecht – Extreem goed
Extreem onsympathiek – Extreem sympathiek
5. Skepticism (Skarmeas & Leonidou, 2013)
4 items op een vijfpunt Likert schaal helemaal mee eens/helemaal mee oneens. Ik denk dat deze organisatie:
Belang heeft in de maatschappij op lange termijn Probeert om iets terug te geven aan de maatschappij
Een ethische verantwoordelijkheid heeft om de maatschappij te helpen Zich moreel verplicht voelt om de maatschappij te helpen
6. Organizational confidence (Bae & Cameron, 2006)
4 items op een vijfpunt Likert schaal helemaal mee eens/helemaal mee oneens. Ik denk dat deze organisatie oprecht is
Ik denk dat deze organisatie een expert is Ik denk dat deze organisatie ervaren is
7. Life satisfaction (Diener et al., 1985).
5 items op een vijfpunt Likert schaal helemaal mee eens/helemaal mee oneens. Hoe tevreden bent u over het algemeen met uw leven?
Over het algemeen is mijn leven zo goed als ideaal.
Op dit moment zijn mijn levensomstandigheden uitstekend. Ik ben tevreden met mijn leven.
Tot nu toe heb ik de belangrijkste dingen in mijn leven die ik in mijn leven zou willen hebben.
Als ik mijn leven opnieuw zou mogen doen, zou ik weinig tot niks veranderen.
8. Institutional confidence (World Value Survey, 2012)
18 items op een vijfpunt Likert schaal heel veel vertrouwen/helemaal geen vertrouwen.
Hoeveel vertrouwen heeft u, over het algemeen, in de volgende instellingen? De kerk
Het leger
De media (kranten, tijdschriften etc.) Televisie Vakbonden De rechtspraak De regering Politieke partijen Het parlement Ambtenaren Universiteiten Grote bedrijven Banken Milieuorganisaties Vrouwengroepen
De Europese Unie De Verenigde Naties 9. Wat is uw geslacht? Man Vrouw 10. Wat is uw leeftijd?
11. Wat is uw hoogst genoten opleiding? Basisschool VMBO HAVO VWO MBO HBO WO
12. Welk product of welke dienst biedt de organisatie aan? Computers
Telecommunicatie
13. Wat wordt er gecommuniceerd op de webpagina van deze organisatie? Informatie over een product/dienst van de organisatie
Bedrijfswaarden van de organisatie
