The quest into the existence of Dutch celebrity organizations and the role of their innovation strategies in achieving celebrity status

(1)

1

The quest into the existence of Dutch celebrity

organizations and the role of their innovation strategies in

achieving celebrity status

Abstract

The objective of this study was to examine the existence of Dutch celebrity organizations and the role their innovation strategies played in achieving the celebrity status. A content analysis about Elsevier Weekblad is used to determine the existence of Dutch celebrity organizations. Thereafter, their innovation strategies are described according to their Annual reports. In addition, the articles that are used to analyze the existence of Dutch celebrity organizations were checked if innovations played a role in their media coverage. The results indicated that Philips is a celebrity organization in 2014 and 2016 and Unilever in 2015. However, the innovations that are mentioned in Elsevier Weekblad indicated that only Philips innovation strategies in 2014 contributed to the achievement of the celebrity status. The outcomes of this study are in line with earlier research about celebrity organizations.

Nils Castelein 10796533

26-06-2018 2017/2018

Supervisor: H. Fasaei Dutch celebrity organizations and their innovation strategies

(2)

2

Statement of Originality

This document is written by Student Nils Castelein who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.

I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it. The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.

(3)

3 Contents 1 Introduction………. 4 2 Theoretical framework……… 6 2.1 Organizational reputation……….. 6 2.2 Celebrity organizations……….. 7 2.3 Innovation strategies……….. 8

2.4 Celebrity organizations linked to innovation strategies………. 9

3 Methodology……… 10

4 Results……….. 12

(4)

4

1 Introduction

When winning for the consecutive 11th_{time in a row the prestigious reputation award of the} annual RepTrak ranking from the Reputation Institute Benelux, Hans de Jong president Philips Netherlands said the following: “It is very special to see that the general public appreciate us because of our very clear strategic choice to focus ourselves completely on health technology”. RepTrak also mentioned the leadership of CEO Frans van Houten, who plays a leading role in the industry in achieving a circular economy and the very clear strategy that is completely in line with the mission of Philips to improve quality of life through

innovative technology (Philips, 2018).

Philips is one of the oldest and most well-known Dutch companies in the Netherlands and might be considered as a possible celebrity organization. In this research I want to investigate if Dutch celebrity organizations exist, and if yes, the importance of their innovation strategies in achieving this celebrity status. In general, the concept of celebrity refers to an individual; as of late it is also used to describe the certain type of organization. Celebrity that refers to an person can be explained as:” whose name has attention-getting, interest-riveting and profit-generating value” (Rein, Kottler, & Stoller, 1987, p.15).

According to Rindova, Pollock & Hayward (2006, p.51) the concept of celebrity for a firm means that the specific organization with the status of a celebrity firm attracts both “high levels of public attention” and receives “positive emotional responses” from their

stakeholders. These are the two characteristics necessary to achieve the celebrity status for organizations. It is relevant to make a distinction between organizations with a high reputation and celebrity organizations. The three dimensions of organizational reputation are the

following: 1)The visibility of the organization (being known by relevant stakeholders among which the general public), 2) “The predictability of organizational outcomes and behavior relevant to specific audience interests” (being known for something), 3) “perceptions or judgements of the overall organization as good, attractive, and appropriate“ (generalized favorability) (Lange, Lee & Dai, 2011, p.155). The difference between an organization with a high reputation and organizations with the celebrity status is that the concept of high

reputation organization refers to a high level of public recognition of the organization's capabilities and offerings while celebrity organization refers to high levels of public attention in combination with positive emotional responses from their stakeholders (Pfarrer et al., 2010). Media play an important role in creating a celebrity status through the creation of an exaggerated reality in reporting news about the organizations’ activities and the industry in

(5)

5 which the organization operates (Pfarrer, Pollock, & Rindova, 2010). This process can also be empowered through the actions of the organizations themselves, by the means of

“nonconforming actions” and by actively seeking to influence impressions about the organization. The media strengthen these actions with information about the organization's culture, leaders, and identities to create a positive message about the organization. This will lend itself for “gossip, fantasy, identification, status, affiliation, and attachment” (Rindova et al., 2006, p.51). The media intensifies the process of becoming a celebrity organization through the attribution of positive and powerful messages about organizations and their actions (Rindova et al., 2006).

One of the strategies to maximize the visibility of positive and powerful messages can be the development and successful implementation of an effective innovation strategy.

Therefore, it is important to define what a successful innovation strategy looks like. There is not a single uniform accepted definition of innovation, innovation is “notoriously ambiguous and lacks either a single definition or measure” (Adams et al., 2006, p.22). An innovation strategy can relate to the what and the how in an organization, like the products, services, operations, processes, and people, but can also be acquired versus developed in-house (Cassiman & Veugelers, 2006).

To investigate whether there exist Dutch celebrity organizations and if yes, the role of

their innovation strategies in achieving celebrity status, I first need to identify where to find potential Dutch celebrity organizations. For this purpose, an analysis of the most important corporate reputation surveys of Dutch companies in the Netherlands will be made, followed by a content analysis to evaluate the level of public attention and the positive emotional responses. I will analyze this for the years 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017. If the outcome of these findings indicate that there might be Dutch celebrity organizations, the research will continue to evaluate whether innovation strategies have helped these Dutch celebrity organizations to achieve their celebrity status. Finally, I will conclude this research by evaluating if the media coverage and emotional response was linked to these innovation achievements, so if and how the innovation strategy of the company contributed to their celebrity status.

The findings of this study will contribute to a better understanding of the concept of a celebrity organization. This study will evaluate if Dutch top 10 ranked high-reputation

organizations qualify as a celebrity organization. The reason why I will analyze the Dutch top 10 highest ranked reputation organizations for this, is that both high-reputation and celebrity organizations share one component: the public attention element. So this study will evaluate if

(6)

6 Dutch reputation organizations may also qualify as a celebrity organization. If a high-reputation organization captures not only the public attention component of a celebrity organization, but also captures the positive affective component then it will be labelled as a celebrity organization. The second part of this study will evaluate if innovation strategies are a source of the media coverage of these organizations. If this is the case, company leaders might want to use their successful innovation strategies to achieve the positive media coverage and high levels of public attention associated with a celebrity organization.

To conclude: in this research paper I will review the literature of the theoretical framework of organizational reputation, the concept of celebrity organizations, which innovation strategies companies can use and if their innovations strategies where a driver in becoming a Dutch celebrity organization. How the data collection and analyzation of the data will take placed, will be explained in the methodology section, followed by a discussion of the findings.

2 Theoretical Framework

2.1 Organizational reputation

As stated earlier, organizational reputation can be divided in three conceptualizations: “being known, being known for something, and generalized favorability” (Lange, Lee, & Dai, 2011, p.155). Organizations with a high reputation are organizations that generate high levels of public recognition (Pfarrer et al., 2010). However, the increased visibility itself of high reputation organizations is not enough to define this term. Reputation is derived from social approval from the collective recognition of the ability of the organization to create economic value (Pfarrer et al., 2010). It is important to sustain reputation, because organizations with high corporate reputation are more stable and can defend themselves better to competitive pressures. Organizations with a high corporate reputation have a better chance to create a competitive advantage, than organizations without a good corporate reputation (Pérez, 2015). According to Melo and Garrido (2012) an organization’s reputation can create benefits that provide a sustainable competitive advantage (p.15), because it is an intangible asset that is difficult to imitate or duplicate by competitors (Surroca et al., 2010).

To complement the view that high-reputation is a valuable intangible asset for an organization, Roberts & Dowling (2002) stated that reputation has a positive relationship with the financial performance of an organization. To sustain a good reputation, organizations have

(7)

7 to be consistent in delivering quality products or services for a long period of time. A good reputation can have many advantages, for example customers that may pay premium prices pure for the name of the organization or attract easier employees who are willing to work harder. High-reputation organizations also create less contractual hazards for suppliers, and may also lead to lower monitoring and contracting costs (Roberts & Dowling, 2002; Lai, Chiu, Yang, & Pai, 2010).

The most important conformity between an high-reputation organization and a celebrity organization is that they both possess high levels of public attention/recognition. Another similarity between these two types of organizations is that good reputation and celebrity status are both intangible assets, if managed well (Pfarrer et al., 2010; Rindova et al., 2006) .

2.2 Celebrity organizations

This paper focuses in particular on whether Dutch celebrity organizations exist, and if yes the role their innovation strategies have played in achieving this celebrity status. As described earlier a celebrity organization can be defined as an organization that attracts a high level of publicity and receives positive emotional responses of their stakeholders (Rindova et al., 2006). Celebrity organizations is a relatively new term, previous research focused on celebrity on an individual level (Wade et al., 2006; Hayward et al., 2004; Sinha, Inkson, & Barker, 2012). The literature that is available of celebrity on a firm-level bases is limited (Pfarrer et al., 2010; Rindova et al., 2006). As stated before, the visibility itself of reputation

organizations is not enough to define this term, the same applies to celebrity organizations. Celebrity arises from emotional resonance with an organization. The combination of visibility and emotional resonance strengthen the status of a celebrity organization, emotional

resonance being the excitement and engagement that organizations evoke by stakeholder audience (Pfarrer, et al., 2010). The celebrity status on a firm-level bases is not an indication of long-term success of an organization, but with achieving the celebrity status an

organization can easier develop possible economic opportunities in the future. Therefore, being a celebrity organization can be recognized as a potential intangible asset of an organization because it provides better access to a wide variety of markets and resources. Although, to create a real competitive advantage, these resources have to be valuable, rare, difficult to imitate, and non-substitutable (Rindova & Fombrun, 1991; Barney, 1991; Rindova et al., 2006). However, celebrity organizations have to cope with pressures to maintain their

(8)

8 celebrity status and therefore take sometimes too much risk with more extreme

“nonconforming actions” (Pfarrer et al., 2010, p.1134).

Rindova and colleagues (2006) noted that organizations that achieve celebrity through overconforming actions instead of underconforming actions are more likely to sustain that celebrity status. Underconforming means that actions are conformed to a lesser extent than is necessary. Whereas, overconforming means that actions are conformed to a greater extent than is necessary (WordSence, 2018). Journalists will strengthen overconforming actions with the use of “dramatic narratives” to exaggerate the reality. These exaggerations of reality will probably affect stakeholders’ interpretation of the organizations actions or events.

In this paper I will investigate if there are Dutch celebrity organizations and the role of their innovation strategies in achieving their celebrity status.

2.3 Innovation strategies

According to the business dictionary (2018) an innovation is described as: “the process of translating an idea or invention in a good or service that creates value for customers”. However, according to Wikipedia (2018) innovation is defined as: “new idea, device or method”. An useful segmentation model is made by Baregheh, Rowley, & Sambrook (2009) who identify four types of innovation namely: product, service, process, and technical

innovation. With the implementation of a specific type of innovation strategy an organization can differ themselves from its competitors. Additionally, Bessant & Tidd (2007) describe four other dimensions where innovation can capture value. First, they mentioned that innovation can be created through four different themes. The innovation process starts with recognizing the opportunity, that means that organizations are looking for innovative ideas through inspiration, listening to user needs, or combining existing resources and capabilities into something new. This process is followed by finding the right resources to make the innovation possible. So this process requires time, money and the right knowledge. After this process, the organization has to develop its innovative product, service, or process into something that people want to use. And the last step in the process of innovation is the creation of value. Organizations have to exploit something new in ways that it can create value for stakeholders. Second, Bessant & Tidd (2007) describe four similar dimensions to the segmentation model of Baregheh, Rowley, & Sambrook (2009) where this innovation process can capture value. They mentioned: product innovation (changes in products or services), process innovation (changes the process in which these products or services are created and delivered), position

(9)

9 innovation (changes the context in how these products or services are introduced), and

paradigm innovation (changes the underlying mental models, which describes the way an organization operates).

Another dimension about innovations is that it can be either incremental or disruptive. According to Christensen, Raynor, & McDonald (2015) disruption means: “the process whereby a smaller company with fewer resources is able to successfully challenge established incumbent businesses” (p.4). Incremental innovation can be described as innovation with a “low degree of new knowledge”, and the character of disruptive innovation are innovations with a “high degree of new knowledge” (Dewar & Dutton, 1986, p. 1422). However, Bessant & Tidd (2007) stated that incremental innovation can be described as: “small improvements to existing products, services, or processes” (p.14). Assink (2006) describes disruptive (radical) innovation as: innovations that provides significant improvements to the performance or cost of a product, service, or process in existing markets.

Enkel, Gassman, & Chesbrough (2009) noted that there are innovation advantages in collaborating with organizations and people outside the organization. This process of open innovation can also gain competitive advantages by attracting knowledge about specific technologies and processes outside of the organization. When an industry take note of an innovation network, it is of great importance for organizations to participate in such an innovation network. Otherwise, it can risk the possibility of competitive disadvantages (Enkel, Gassman, & Chesbrough, 2009). Nowadays the need to innovate is larger than ever, because of the complex economic markets and rapid changing environment. Organizations can distinguish themselves from their rivals through the development and implementation of disruptive innovation. Some authors believe that without the implementation of a disruptive innovation capability, decline is unavoidable (Assink, 2006).

2.4 Celebrity organizations linked to innovation strategies

As stated earlier, celebrity organizations have two specific characteristics: high levels of public attention and positive emotional responses of their stakeholders (Rindova et al., 2006; Pfarrer et al., 2010). The process of building celebrity is influenced by the media because they create a dramatic reality where they overattribute organization’s capabilities and offerings. According to Rindova and colleagues (2006) the media plays an important role in

exaggerating the reality about organizations. The journalists make stories about specific organizations often more dramatic in ways that it influences stakeholder’s audiences. But how

(10)

10 will innovation strategies relate to the achievement of high levels of public attention and the creation of positive emotional responses by their stakeholders. This type of relation is never researched before, so there is not much academic research available about this specific relation. This study tries to expand the knowledge available about the role that innovation strategies played in achieving the celebrity status.

3 Methodology

In this paper the focus will be on the discovery of Dutch celebrity organizations and the role of their innovation strategies to achieve this celebrity status. First, secondary data of corporate reputation surveys of Dutch companies in the Netherlands will be collected, such as RepTrak of the Reputation Institute. These will be analyzed for 2015, 2016 and 2017 and the top 10 organizations with the highest reputation will be analyzed further to discover if these

organizations are potential celebrity organizations. The average of the years 2015, 2016 and 2017 will be used to determine which 10 organizations have the highest reputation in the Netherlands. The average of these three years is taken, because it gives a recent picture of the Dutch high-reputation organizations and clarifies possible recent changes in reputations.

Second, media outlet Elsevier Weekblad, a Dutch weekly news magazine that has a circulation of over 86,000 copies in 2015, will be analyzed from the years 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 to measure the coverage of the top 10 ranked organization’s as an indication of media visibility. This organization’s media visibility will be operationalized as the total amount of articles published about the organization each year in Elsevier Weekblad. This measure will indicate the public attention component of a celebrity organization (Pfarrer et al., 2010). This content analysis will show the visibility of these Dutch top 10 ranked reputation organizations and evaluate the public attention component that is needed to be a celebrity organization. I have chosen Elsevier Weekblad, because I consider this magazine as the most similar Dutch magazine to the BusinessWeek magazine that was chosen by Pfarrer and colleagues (2010). The choice for Elsevier Weekblad may be debatable, but there was no other Dutch weekly magazine comparable with BusinessWeek. However, Elsevier Weekblad may presumably feature articles, similar that those of BusinessWeek, that contain “dramatic narratives” that are related to the construct of a celebrity organization (Pfarrer et al., 2010, p. 1139; Wikipedia, 2018).

The articles that will be used to identify the public attention component of the specific organizations are retrieved from LexisNexis® Academic. This a newspaper bank that provide

(11)

11 access to the database of national newspapers and magazines from the Netherlands over the past 35 years. This database is available at over 1,800 libraries and is serving more than 9 million students. To ensure relevance, articles that just mentioned the specific organization’s name as an example were eliminated from the analysis. The generated articles in the

LexisNexis search will be divided in quartiles. This approach is used, because it is similar to Pfarrer and colleagues (2010) measurement approach. First, an organization that is mentioned in the relevant articles on average at least five times, will be categorized as a top-quartile organization. Second, an organization that is mentioned on average two times is classified as a median organization and the bottom third of organizations in the visibility analysis had zero media coverage (Pfarrer et al., 2010). I will use this approach in analyzing the public attention component of possible Dutch celebrity organizations. If the outcomes of this analysis indicate that there are top-quartile Dutch high-reputation organizations that are mentioned at least five times, the existence of possible positive and negative affective responses will be measured with a software program named: Linguistic Inquiry Word Count (LIWC). This program will be used to identify the second component of a celebrity organization, the affective emotional responses from each article (Pennebaker, Booth, Boyd, & Francis, 2015). Positive affective responses are labelled “positive” when at least 60 percent of the total affective responses are positive, and labelled “negative” when 60 percent or more of the total affective responses are negative (Pew Research Center, 2008; Tetlock, Saar-Tsechansky, & Macskassy, 2008; Pfarrer et al., 2010). Information about the positive and negative output variables in LIWC can be found in the psychometric properties manual (Pennebaker, Boyd, Jordan, & Blackburn, 2015).

In this research I will use the Janis-Fadner (JF) coefficient of imbalance to determine the overall affective resonance of a celebrity organization. This JF coefficient captures both components of a celebrity organization; public attention and positive/negative affective responses. Furthermore, this JF coefficient is used before in earlier research, to determine the tone of media coverage (Deephouse, 2000; Pollock & Rindova, 2003; Pfarrer et al., 2010). The JF coefficient equals:

(P

² ˗

PN) / V

²

if P > N; 0 if P = N and (PN ˗ N

²

) / V

²

if N > P,

Where P represents the number of positive written articles about an organization, N the number of negative articles, and V the total annual article count. The outcomes of these JF coefficients are normally measured from the values -1 to 1, with -1 equal to all the negative

(12)

12 media coverage and 1 equal to all the positive media coverage. In this study, the JF

coefficients are converted to values from -100 to 100, with 0 representing neutral media coverage. As with the outcomes of the public attention measure, the outcomes of the positive affective measure is also classified by quartiles: top-quartile organizations, median

organizations, and bottom quartile organizations. Top-quartile organizations had JF

coefficients of at least 50,00 on average, whereas median organizations had JF coefficient of 36,70 and the bottom quartile organizations had JF coefficients of 25,00 to 0 (neutral). If an organization appeared both in the top-quartile of the public attention and positive affective measure, the organization can be labelled as a celebrity organization (Pfarrer et al., 2010). If the outcome of my findings present that there are indeed Dutch celebrity organizations, then I will analyze if their innovation strategies played a role in achieving such a celebrity status. If the outcome of the analysis show that the Dutch top 10 highest ranked reputation

organizations don’t possess celebrity, then the focus of this research will shift to analyze if the innovation strategies, of these top 10 ranked organizations, contributed to high levels of public attention and media coverage.

The innovation model that is described by Bessant & Tidd (2007) will be used to measure the innovation strategies of the specific organizations. This model describes how specific organizations can focus on different innovation strategies. The innovation strategies followed by a company depends on the type of organization (Whitley, 2000). The innovation strategies will be measured according to the following four dimensions: product innovation, process innovation, position innovation, and paradigm innovation (Bessant & Tidd, 2007; Cassiman & Veugelers, 2006). I will also evaluate if the four different dimensions can be classified as incremental innovation or disruptive (radical) innovation (Dewar & Dutton, 1986; Bessant & Tidd, 2007). The last element which will be analyzed is whether

organizations have collaborated with other people and organizations through open or closed innovation networks (Enkel, Gassmann, & Chesbrough, 2009). To investigate the nature of the innovation strategies of possible Dutch celebrity organizations I will analyze their Annual Reports. These annual reports of organizations will be analyzed, because they give a clear description of the innovations in a given year. The Elsevier Weekblad articles will be analyzed to discover if the innovations played a part in becoming a celebrity organization.

(13)

13 This research started with the identification of the top 10 Dutch organizations with the highest reputation of the years 2015, 2016 and 2017. Table 1 below presents the top 10 highest

reputation organizations for the years 2015, 2016 and 2017 (Reputation Institute, 2018).

Table 1 – average of Dutch RepTrak rankings, 2015-2017

2015 2016 2017 Average

1. Philips 1. Philips 1. Philips 1. Philips

2. Air France-KLM 2. ASML 2. Heineken 2. ASML

3. FrieslandCampina 3. FrieslandCampina 3. ASML 3. FrieslandCampina

4. ASML 4. Heineken 4. FrieslandCampina 4. Heineken

5. Heineken 5. Air France-KLM 5. Jumbo Group 5. Air France-KLM 6. Wolters Kluwer 6. Wolters Kluwer 6. Ahold 6. Jumbo Group 7. Jumbo Group 7. Jumbo Group 7. Air France-KLM 7. Wolters Kluwers

8. Ahold 8. Ahold 8. Wolter Kluwers 8. Ahold

9. Centraal Ziekenfonds (CZ) 9. Post NL 9. Centraal Ziekenfonds (CZ) 9. Centraal Ziekenfonds (CZ) 10. Unilever 10. Centraal Ziekenfonds (CZ) 10. Unilever 10. Unilever Source: http://reputationinstitute.com

The average score in the table above has been calculated from the ranking of these three years. The average of the Dutch highest reputation organizations over the years 2015-2017 is taken. Over the years 2015-2017 the top 3 Dutch companies with the highest reputation have been Philips, ASML, and FrieslandCampina.

Now as a second step the media coverage of these Dutch top 10 highest-reputation ranked organizations in Elsevier Weekblad are analyzed. As described earlier in the

Methodology section of this paper, V stands for the total annual articles count, P represents the number of positive articles and N the number of negative articles, with the JF coefficient representing the total affective resonance of the media coverage. The results indicated that Jumbo Group, Wolters Kluwers, and Centraal Ziekenfonds (CZ) had no media coverage. These organizations have no descriptive tables. As mentioned already in the Methodology section, there are three classes of the public attention component: Top quartile organizations were mentioned, on average, at least five times per year, median organization only two times,

(14)

14 and the bottom third of the sample were mentioned one time or less. As for the JF coefficient, top-quartile organizations had average scores of 50,00 or higher, whereas the median

organizations scored 36,70 and the bottom quartile had scores of 25,00 or lower. If an organization qualifies for both measurements as a top-quartile organization, they can be labelled a celebrity organization. The findings are presented in the tables 2 to 8 below.

Table 2 – Philips media coverage, 2014-2017

2014 2015 2016 2017

Note: V = total annual article count, P = positive articles, N = negative articles, JF = Janis-Fadner coefficient

Source: http://academic.lexisnexis.nl and LIWC software program The calculations of table 2 are described below:

JF = (P

² ˗

PN) / V

²

(times 100) if P > N; 0 if P = N and (PN ˗ N

²

) / V

²

if N > P, 2014: JF = (9

²-

9*0) / 11

²

(times 100) if P > N gives: 66,94 2015: JF = (2

² -

2*0) / 5

²

(times 100) if P >N gives: 16,00 2016: JF = (4

² -

4*0) / 5

²

(times 100) if P>N gives: 64,00 2017: JF = 0, because P=N

Table 2 presents descriptive statistics of the organization Philips. In 2014, Philips scored higher than average on the public attention component. They scored 11 annual article counts, which is higher than the five times on average. This measure will classify Philips as a top-quartile organization. The overall affective resonance (JF) of Philips is 66,94 in 2014. This means that Philips scores as a top-quartile organization on both measurements, what qualifies Philips as a celebrity organization. In 2015, Philips had a top-quartile score of 5 annual articles, what qualifies as a top-quartile organization on the public attention component.

V: 11 V: 5 V: 5 V: 1

P: 9 P: 2 P: 4 P: 0

N: 0 N: 0 N: 0 N: 0

(15)

15 However, Philips scored only 16,00 (JF) on the overall affectivity resonance of the media coverage. This means that Philips scored as a the bottom quartile organization. In 2016, Philips scored as a top-quartile organization on the public attention component. As for the overall affective resonance (JF) Philips scored 64,00 what qualifies as a top-quartile

organization and thereby as a celebrity organization. In 2017, Philips just scored one annual article count what means that Philips’ score in the bottom quartile of the organizations. As for the overall affective resonance, Philips scored 0 (neutral) coverage. To conclude: Philips scored in 2014 and 2016 for both measurements as a top-quartile organization, which qualify Philips as a celebrity organization (Pfarrer et al., 2010).

Table 3 – ASML media coverage, 2014-2017

2014 2015 2016 2017

V: 2 V: 1 - -

P: 2 P: 1 - -

N: 0 N: 0 - -

JF= 100,00 JF= 100,00 - -

Source: http://academic.lexisnexis.nl and LIWC software program The calculations of table 3 are presented below:

JF = (P

² ˗

PN) / V

²

) / V

²

if N > P, 2014: JF = (2

²

-2*0) / 2

²

(times 100) if P>N gives: 100,00

2015: JF = (1

²

- 1*0) / 1

²

(times 100) if P>N gives: 100,00 2016 & 2017: no data

Table 3 presents the content analysis of ASML. In 2014, ASML scored as a median organization, because they scored two annual article count. They scored as a top-quartile organization on the affective component (JF) 100,00. In 2015, ASML scored one on the annual article count what means that ASML have almost no media coverage. In contrast, ASML scored a perfect score of 100,00 (JF) on the overall affective resonance of a celebrity organization. This means that it will qualify as a top-quartile organization. There was no data

(16)

16 available for the years 2016 and 2017. To conclude: ASML will not qualify as a celebrity organization, because ASML scored too low on the public attention component and did not qualify for both measurements as a top-quartile organization (Pfarrer et al., 2010).

Table 4 – FrieslandCampina media coverage, 2014-2017

2014 2015 2016 2017

- V: 1 V: 2 -

- P: 1 P: 0 -

- N: 0 N: 0 -

- JF= 100,00 JF= 0 -

JF = (P

² ˗

PN) / V

²

) / V

²

if N > P, 2014: no data

2015: JF= (1

²

- 1*0) / 1

²

(times 100) if P>N gives 100,00 2016: JF=0, because P=N

2017: no data

Table 4 presents FrieslandCampina in the content analysis. In 2014, FrieslandCampina had no media coverage. In 2015, they had only one article count. As for the overall affective

resonance (JF) , they scored 100,00. In 2016, they scored two annual articles count, what qualifies as a median organization. They scored on the overall affective resonance 0, because P=N. In 2017, there was no data available. To conclude: FrieslandCampina will not qualify as a celebrity organization (Pfarrer et al., 2010).

(17)

17 Table 5 – Heineken media coverage, 2014-2017

2014 2015 2016 2017

V: 8 V: 4 V: 1 V: 4

P: 5 P: 3 P: 1 P: 4

N: 1 N: 0 N: 0 N:0

JF: 31,25 JF: 56,25 JF: 100,00 JF: 100,00

JF = (P

² ˗

PN) / V

²

) / V

²

if N > P, 2014: JF= (5

²

- 5*1) / 8

²

2015: JF= (3

²

- 3*0) / 4

²

(times 100) if P>N gives: 56,25 2016: JF= (1

²

- 1*0) / 1

²

- 4*0) / 4

²

(times 100) if P>N gives 100,00

Table 5 presents Heineken in the content analysis. In 2014, Heineken qualifies as a

top-quartile organization, because they scored eight annual article count. As for the JF coefficient, they scored 31,25. This is just below the median. In 2015, Heineken had four annual article count, what qualified, almost as a top-quartile organization on the public attention component. As with the JF coefficient, they scored 56,25, what qualified as a top-quartile organization. So Heineken did almost qualified as a celebrity organization. In 2016, Heineken scored very low on the public attention component. As for the overall affective resonance (JF) they scored 100,00. This means that Heineken qualifies on the overall affective resonance as an top-quartile organization. In 2017, Heineken scored the same article count as in 2015. They almost classified as a top-quartile organization on the public attention component, but qualified as a top-quartile organization on the total affective resonance (JF). To conclude: Heineken will not qualify as a celebrity organization, they almost met the requirements but it was not enough to classify as a celebrity organization (Pfarrer et al., 2010).

(18)

18 Table 6 – AirFrance-KLM media coverage, 2014-2017

2014 2015 2016 2017

V: 7 V: 8 - V: 3

P: 3 P: 2 - P: 2

N: 0 N: 1 - N: 0

JF: 18,37 JF: 3,13 - JF: 44,44

JF = (P

² ˗

PN) / V

²

) / V

²

if N > P, 2014: JF= (3

²

- 3*0) / 7

²

2015: JF= (2

²

- 2*1) / 8

²

(times 100) if P>N gives: 3,125 2016: no data

2017: JF= (2

²

- 2*0) / 3

²

Table 6 presents AirFrance-KLM in the content analysis. In 2014, AirFrance-KLM scored as a top-quartile organization with a seven annual article count. On the overall affective

resonance of a celebrity organization, the JF coefficient, AirFrance-KLM scored 18,37. This means that they scored in the bottom third of the organizations. In 2015, they scored eight on the public attention component. This means that they qualify as a top-quartile organization on this specific component. As for the overall affective resonance, they score in the bottom third of the organizations. To continue, the year 2016 captured no data. In 2017, AirFrance-KLM scored three on the annual article count. What means that their score, on the public attention component, lies between a median organization and the top-quartile of the organizations. As for the JF coefficient, they scored 44,44 on the overall affective resonance measure. This score is just below the requirements of the top-quartile organizations. To conclude: AirFrance, scored high, on average, on the public attention component, but relatively low on the overall affective resonance (Pfarrer et al., 2010).

(19)

19 Table 7 – Ahold media coverage, 2014-2017

2014 2015 2016 2017

V: 1 V: 3 - V: 2

P: 1 P: 1 - P: 1

N: 0 N: 0 - N: 0

JF: 100,00 JF: 11,11 - JF: 25,00

JF = (P

² ˗

PN) / V

²

) / V

²

if N > P, 2014: JF= (1

²

- 1*0) / 1

²

2015: JF= (1

²

- 1*0) / 3

²

(times 100) if P>N gives: 11,11 2016: no data

2017: JF= (1

²

- 1*0) / 2

²

Table 7 presents the content analysis of the organization Ahold. In 2014, they were mentioned one time in the relevant articles. This will classify Ahold at the bottom third of the visibility analysis. However, they scored the perfect score for the JF coefficient (100). This will classify Ahold in the top-quartile organizations of the overall affective resonance (JF). In 2015, Ahold had a score of three on the annual article count. This score lies just above the median

organization. However, Ahold scored 100,00 (JF) on the overall affective resonance. In 2016, there was no data available in the content analysis about De Elsevier. In 2017, they scored a similar score as in the previous years 2014 and 2015. There were two articles about the organization. This will qualify Ahold as a median organization. As for the JF coefficient they scored 25,00. To conclude: the public attention component of Ahold was classified, on

average, as a median organization. Furthermore, Ahold did not qualify for both measurements as a top-quartile organization, so Ahold cannot be qualified as a celebrity organization.

(20)

20 Table 8 – Unilever media coverage, 2014-2017

2014 2015 2016 2017

V: 3 V: 5 V: 2 V: 10

P: 2 P: 4 P: 1 P: 5

N: 0 N: 0 N: 0 N: 0

JF= 44,44 JF= 64,00 JF= 25,00 JF: 25,00

JF = (P

² ˗

PN) / V

²

) / V

²

if N > P, 2014: JF= (2

²

- 2*0) / 3

²

2015: JF= (4

²

- 4*0) / 5

²

- 1*0) / 2

²

- 5*0) / 10

²

Table 8 presents Unilever in the content analysis. In 2014, they scored three on the annual article count. With two positive articles of the total three articles, they scored a JF coefficient of 44,00. Both results almost classified Unilever as a top-quartile organizations in both measurements. In 2015, five articles about the organization were mentioned. Of these five articles, four of them were coded as positive. This will lead to a JF coefficient of 64,00. This qualifies Unilever on both measurements as a top-quartile organization. This means that Unilever will classify as a celebrity organization. In 2016, they scored two on the annual article count, what classified as a median organization. Unilever scored 25,00 on the JF coefficient, what classified in the bottom third of the sample. In 2017, Unilever scored 10 on the annual article count. This will classify Unilever as a top-quartile organization on the public attention component. Of these 10 articles, five were classified as positive, what brings us to the score of 25,00 on the JF coefficient. To conclude: Unilever scored high, on average, on the public attention component and also high, on average, on the overall affective

(21)

21 resonance (JF). In 2015, Unilever scored both as a top-quartile organization on both the public attention component and the overall affective resonance (JF). This means that Unilever

qualifies as a celebrity organization in 2015, because both scores were classified as a top-quartile organization (Pfarrer et al., 2010).

The results of this content analysis presents that Philips and Unilever are celebrity organizations. The years that applied to Dutch the celebrity organizations are presented in table 9 below:

Table 9 – Dutch celebrity organizations

2014 2015 2016

Philips X X

Unilever X

Source: table 2 and table 8

The calculations based on the analysis made through LexisNexis® Academic and the LIWC software program indicate that in the period 2014-2017 Unilever and Philips are the two organizations from the top 10 ranked high-reputation organizations that qualified as celebrity organizations. Now that I have identified Philips and Unilever as Dutch celebrity

organizations, I will evaluate whether their innovation strategies played a role in achieving this. Firstly I will describe and explain the innovation strategies of Philips, followed by those of Unilever.

The role that Philips played in their innovation strategies to achieve celebrity will be explained. In 2014, Philips scored the best of the sample on the public attention component with a count of eleven articles. The most important characteristic of high-reputation

organizations are high levels of public recognition. This corresponds to the fact that Philips has won the reputation award of RepTrak in 2018 for the 11th_{time in a row (Reputation} Institute, 2018). In addition to the fact that Philips have the highest reputation of the Benelux, they also classified, in 2014, as a celebrity organization with positive emotional responses of their stakeholders’ audience. In 2015, Philips did classify as a top-quartile organization on the public attention component, but did not scored high enough on the JF coefficient. In 2016, however, they qualified again as a celebrity organization. First, a brief overview about Philips is given. Thereafter, the role of Philips’ innovation strategies to achieve the celebrity status

(22)

22 will be explained and described.

Philips mission directly depicts the importance of innovations in their business model: “improving people’s lives through meaningful innovation”. Anno 2018, Philips is a focused leader in health technology. Philips strives to improve 3 billion people’s lives a year by 2025. They aim to support people their whole lifetime and improve the quality of people’s life by breakthrough innovations (Philips, 2018). Furthermore, Philips implemented their own Sourcing program for innovation and collaborative entrepreneurship (SPICE). People and organizations can submit ideas through this program. Therefore, Philips tries to bring knowledge and people together so that they can collectively create superior value for their consumers and shareholders (Philips, 2018).

Now I will describe Philips innovation strategies in 2014 and check if they played a role in achieving the celebrity status in 2014. According to Philips’ annual report, they developed technology that was used to transport care from the hospital to your home:

telehealth innovations provide remote care that reduces costs and improves patience outcomes and satisfactions (2014). This telehealth program also improved the accessibility to

healthcare. These coordinated telehealth solutions help patients, especially whom are

chronically ill, with quick updates about their diseases. This telehealth innovation is a form of process innovation (Philips, 2014, p.45).

According to the innovation model of Bessant & Tidd (2007), process innovation is described as: “innovations that change the process in which products or services are created and delivered” (p.13). This process change of Philips to deliver care from the hospital to your home, created benefits for government agencies. They were the early adopters of telehealth, because of the efficient communication of disease responses (Philips, 2014). This process innovation can be classified as disruptive, because telehealth provides significant

improvements to the performance of care and the costs of care (Assink, 2006).

According to Elsevier Weekblad, a part of Philips innovations are manufactured in India. Many of Philip’s inventions were developed in Bangalore, where Philips has a research campus with approximately two thousand employees. This article stated that Philips invented a small mobile device that works in combination with a tablet as a professional ultrasound device for ultrasound scans for pregnant women. Philips also demonstrated a heart monitor with the size of a smartphone, that can be operated with an application (app). Additionally, they developed wearables, such as a wristband that can measure vital functions. The data of these wearables can be read remotely (van Noort, 2014a). These disruptive product

(23)

23 positive article is obtained from Elsevier Weekblad in 2014.

Another article of Elsevier Weekblad described an innovation that indicated that it contributed to the celebrity status of Philips in 2014. Philips invented a smart toothbrush that collects detailed data about brushing behavior that can be used for insights into how people can brush their teeth more efficiently. Philips also hinted earlier that year that it can

implement all kinds of other sensors in toothbrushes (van Noort, 2014b). These two positive articles of Elsevier Weekblad indicated that these product innovations in 2014 influenced the achievement of the celebrity status in 2014.

Furthermore, Philips innovation strategies are all about improving people’s life with easier processes and new products and services. To help Philips’ innovation strategies to become more focused and effective, they implemented a sustainability program named: “Healthy people, sustainable planet” (Philips, 2016, p.24). This program contains both an environmental and a social dimension. Both dimensions are focusing on making the world a more sustainable place (Philips, 2016). Furthermore, Philips strengthen their innovation possibilities by improving long-term strategic partnerships with their suppliers. Because of these partnerships, Philips can get innovations faster into the markets and stay ahead of their competitors. These sustainable partnerships create value for their stakeholders through the use of clear standards and transparency (Philips, 2014, p.12).

In 2015 Philips did not qualify as a celebrity organization. Philips did classify as a top-quartile organization on the public attention component, but their media coverage was not positive enough to qualify as a celebrity organization (table 2). A possible explanation could be the move away of their Lighting business. Philips decided to step away of their diversified holding structure, to create two stand-alone organizations. They created two separate

businesses: the health technology business and the lighting business. But the two businesses kept operating under the Philips brand. This transition period may be the explanation for not achieving the celebrity status in 2015 (Philips, 2014, p2).

The results in tables 2 and 9 show that Philips also reached the celebrity status in 2016. According to their 2015 annual report Philips benefited of their transition into two stand-alone organizations. The innovation strategies that played a role in achieving the celebrity status in 2016 were in line with the earlier descriptions of innovation strategies of Philips in 2014. However, the transition in 2015 benefitted the Lighting business of Philips with shifts to new LED technology based light systems. They built the largest connected instalment base (Philips Lightning, 2016, p.9) Philips applied their innovation and expertise to connect light sources through points of data with other devices. These smart connected lights

(24)

24 create more ease for the users of specific devices. Philips is expecting that connected lighting will increase in importance. These product innovations will make homes and professional segments more connected and efficient (Philips Lighting, 2016, p.10). The innovations that possibly helped Philips achieving the celebrity status in 2016 were: the Dubai Lamp, Philips SceneSwitch, and Philips CorePro LED PLC. These three product innovations are all new LED lamps that saves a lot more energy and is more efficient to use for consumers (Philips lightning, 2016, p.19). Thereby is Philips the leading organization in the transition from conventional lighting to LED lighting. However, these product innovations were not

mentioned in Elsevier Weekblad in 2016. So this study cannot significantly state that in 2016 the innovation strategies of Philips played a role in achieving the celebrity status. To continue, they also invest heavily in their green R&D laboratories to keep continuously be innovative and thus creating more value for their customers. In 2016, they invested approximately €387 million in Green innovation (Philips, 2016, p.25). In the next paragraphs, Unilever’s

innovation strategies will be explained.

Unilever is a global business company that provide households worldwide with more than 400 products in the following four categories: personal care, foods, home care, and refreshment. Examples of well-known brands that Unilever delivers globally are: Dove, Lipton, Knorr, Omo, Axe, and Hellmann’s. Unilever also produces products in regional markets that are specially designed for specific consumer needs, for example Suave and Pureit (Unilever 2018; Panmore Institute, 2017).

Unilever is a leading global consumer goods organization that is focusing on delivering products in global and diversified markets. They have a clear purpose: “to make sustainable living commonplace. We believe this is the best long-term way for our business to grow” (Unilever, 2018). Their main focus of their business is on sustainability; to reduce their environmental footprint and attract positive social responses on their offerings. Attracting positive social responses on their offerings is also a criteria to achieve the celebrity status. In combination with high levels of public attention an organization can achieve the celebrity status (Rindova et al., 2006; Pfarrer et al., 2010).

I have evaluated Unilever’s innovation strategies using the innovation model of Bessant & Tidd (2007), see also the methodology section. I have analyzed the Strategic Annual Report of Unilever (2014) to see which innovations Unilever emphasized. The Reports and Accounts of Unilever in 2014 are divided in two different reports: Strategic Report and the Governance and Financial Report. According to the Strategic Report of Unilever (2014) their main focus is developing and creating sustainable products that

(25)

25 generates positive social impacts and environmental benefits. The following innovations were described in the 2014 strategic report: the research & development (R&D) department

developed a new packaging innovation for Dove Body Wash bottles that contains 15% less plastic. This was the result of a new technology developed in partnership with ALPLA and MuCell Extrusion, named: MuCell® Technology: this technology uses gas-injections to reduce the density of the bottle and thereby the total plastic required. Additionally, this product innovation projected a cost saving of €50 million driven by the savings of approximately 180 tonnes of plastic on a yearly basis. If Unilever applies this product

innovation to every Unilever plastic packaging, it could save approximately 27,000 tonnes of plastic on year basis (Unilever, 2014, p.3). It is not so easy to clarify if this packaging

innovation is incremental or disruptive. On one hand, this innovation can be classified as incremental, because it is a relatively small improvement to an existing product (Bessant & Tidd, 2007). But on the other hand this product innovation can be classified as disruptive innovation, because it provides significant improvements to costs in existing markets (Assink, 2006). Besides this product innovation, Unilever invented a whole new product named: Regenerate. This is a breakthrough dental care product that regenerate early damage of eroded enamel. They patented the technology used to develop this product. Furthermore, experts spent almost ten years to develop this NR-5™ technology. This product innovation is disruptive, because it shows significant improvements to the performance compared to other dental care products (Unilever, 2014, p.10). More important, these product innovations improves the environmental footprint of Unilever. Being a sustainable company is very important to Unilever; in 2010 Unilever introduced their Unilever Sustainable Living Plan (USLP). This plan contains three big goals, two goals have to be met by 2020 and one goal by 2030. This plan will be reviewed every year (Unilever, 2018).

Unilever reports in their Strategic Report (2014) primarily on product innovations in their Research & Development (R&D) laboratories that contributed to their sustainable and social goals. First, they gather insights on innovation through the use of social media, focus groups, and quantitative data to understand customer needs in the long term. Second, they use this data to gather information about their consumers and their daily lives. Third, this data helps Unilever with their technology in the R&D laboratories to innovate continuously. Unilever spends around €1 billion on R&D on a yearly basis. Professionals that work in these R&D laboratories are unlocking product innovations by the use of science and technology (Unilever, 2014, p.8). To strengthen the possibilities to innovate, Unilever is using an open innovation network to gain more understanding of the consumer needs. They invite different

(26)

26 people and/or organizations to partner up with Unilever, so that they can help Unilever with practical innovations. In this way Unilever can build valuable partnerships through open innovation (Unilever, 2014, p.8). One of the key success factors for innovation is engaged talent. Because of the growing importance of sustainability, employees engagement scores remained very high (Unilever, 2014, p.5). Furthermore, investing in people is benefiting Unilever in ways that it can deliver high-quality innovations.

Nowadays, people and organizations are concerned with social justice and

environmental footprints (Costa & Menichini, 2013). So it is of great importance that the products that Unilever delivers are sustainable and will not negatively impact the

environment. Unilever’s Sustainable Living Plan (USLP) will contribute to the positive emotional responses on their offerings. With this plan, Unilever shows their concerns about the climate, and offer solutions and goals to prevent further climate destruction. The Strategic Report of Unilever (2014) stated that they invest a lot of money in people and R&D to expand their knowledge on innovative ideas. This will possibly contribute to higher levels of public attention and positive emotional responses on their offerings, because people, suppliers, and organizations will benefit from these investments. The strategic report of 2014 is analyzed because the innovations that were mentioned are forerunners to the innovations of 2015 and possibly contributed to the celebrity status of Unilever in 2015.

Furthermore, Unilever invented a major product innovation in 2015, that was launched across three different deodorants: Dove, Rexona, and Axe. They reinvented the spray format in a way that consumers can use the deodorant more cleaner and drier. This product

innovation is an incremental innovation, because of the small improvements to an existing product (Unilever, 2015, p.20). Another product innovation of Unilever was the 100% natural Mealmakers of Knorr, this product innovation was a response to the changing needs of

consumers to eat more fresh and natural (Unilever, 2015, p.21). This product innovation also qualified as an incremental innovation.

Media outlet, Elsevier Weekblad, wrote in 2015 positive articles about Unilever, that’s why it was classified as a celebrity organization in 2015. However, subjects about innovations were not discussed in the analyzed articles. So it cannot be proved that Unilever’s innovation strategies significantly contributed to the celebrity status. Nonetheless, the role of Unilever’s innovation strategies, did probably lead to positive articles written in Elsevier Weekblad.

To conclude: this research has identified that two of the top 10 Dutch high-reputation organizations also qualified as celebrity organizations, Philips and Unilever. The results indicated that Philips met both requirements of qualifying as a celebrity organization in 2014

(27)

27 and 2016 and Unilever in 2015. The two requirements to be a celebrity organization were: high levels of public attention, measured by the total annual article count and the total affective resonance, measured by the JF coefficient. If both values indicated that an

organization was classified as a top-quartile organization, then the organization was labelled a celebrity. The next step was to evaluate if the innovation strategies of both Philips and

Unilever were driving the exposure and affection needed to become a celebrity organization. The innovation strategies of Philips and Unilever were researched and described. Both organizations implemented diverse forms of innovation. They especially focused on product innovations. Both organizations also established ambitious sustainability programs, “healthy people, sustainable living” and USLP, which are important in driving innovations who benefit the society. However, only the product innovations that were described in Elsevier Weekblad about Philips in 2014, indicated that the innovations of Philips in 2014 contributed to the celebrity status of Philips in 2014.

5 Discussion

The objective of this research was to investigate the existence of possible Dutch celebrity organizations and the role of their innovation strategies in achieving their celebrity status. As a first step, the average of the Dutch top 10 ranked high-reputation organizations of the years 2015, 2016, and 2017 were used as a starting point to analyze the existence of Dutch celebrity organizations. This sample was used because both reputation and celebrity organizations contains high levels of media visibility (Pfarrer et al., 2010). To qualify as a celebrity

organization, an organization has to attract high levels of public attention and attract positive emotional responses from their stakeholders’ audience. These two components together capture the overall affectivity resonance of a celebrity organization (Rindova et al., 2006; Pfarrer et al., 2010). A content analysis using media outlet Elsevier Weekblad was carried out to analyze the existence of possible Dutch celebrity organizations. Organizations that

appeared both in the top-quartiles of both the public attention component (V; total annual article count) and the JF coefficient (overall affective resonance) were labelled as a celebrity organization (Pfarrer et al., 2010). The outcome of this content analysis revealed that Unilever and Philips were the only two Dutch celebrity organizations. Philips qualified on both

measurements as a top-quartile organization in 2014 and 2016 and Unilever in 2015.

The innovation strategies of Unilever in 2014 and 2015 did not significantly played a role in achieving the celebrity status in 2015. The innovation strategies were not mentioned in

(28)

28 the analyzed Elsevier Weekblad magazine in 2015. However, Unilever’s objective to provide sustainable products to their customers has possibly helped them with attracting high levels of public attention and gaining positive social responses on their offerings. Unilever and

strategic partners developed a new technology: MuCell® Technology. This product innovation has the potential to save, if applied to all Unilever’s products, approximately 27,000 tonnes of plastic a year, contributing to a significant packaging costs savings through this breakthrough technology (Unilever, 2014). The following year 2015, Unilever reinvented the spray format of deodorants in order to fulfil customer needs (Unilever, 2015). However, these product innovations were not mentioned in the articles of Elsevier Weekblad in 2015. So the innovation strategies of Unilever in 2014 and 2015 did not contributed to the celebrity status of Unilever in 2015.

Philips is generally known as an innovative organization. This was one of the drivers in becoming in 2018 for the 11th_{consecutive time the Dutch highest ranked reputation}

organization (Reputation Institute, 2018). Philips qualified as a celebrity organization in 2014 and 2016. Their product innovations described in two articles in Elsevier Weekblad in 2014, indicated that their innovations played a role in attracting positive media coverage (van Noort, 2014a, 2014b). However, according to Elsevier Weekblad, Philips innovations in 2016 and Unilever’s in 2015 did not indicated that their innovation strategies played a role in achieving the celebrity status.

The results of this study are in line with earlier research by Rindova et al. (2006). They stated that celebrity organizations contained high levels of public attention and had positive emotional responses from their stakeholders. Besides this, they stated that the media exaggerated the reality of organizations events and actions. This “dramatic narratives” of media outlets would contribute to the achievement of a celebrity organization (Rindova et al., 2006; Pfarrer at al., 2010). This study did not provide evidence for media exaggeration of organization’s actions and events that contributed to the achievement of a celebrity status. An explanation for this could be that this study analyzed Elsevier Weekblad, which may provide less dramatic narratives than Businessweek, chosen by Pfarrer et al. (2010).

The second objective of this study was to identify if innovation strategies played a role in achieving this celebrity status. Some of the innovation types described by Bessant & Tidd (2007) were in line with the innovation strategies used by Unilever and Philips. This research showed the existence of both incremental and disruptive innovation (Bessant & Tidd; 2007; Assink, 2006). This research also showed the importance of open innovation, both Philips and

(29)

29 Unilever use a number of open collaboration networks that attract innovative ideas and

knowledge from outside the organization (Enkel, Gassman & Chesbrough, 2009).

It is important to understand the limitations of this research: the first challenge was the scarce availability of Dutch business magazines that were comparable to the Businessweek magazine used as media outlet by Pfarrer and colleagues (2010).

The second challenge was the limited availability of innovation articles in Elsevier Weekblad. An possible explanation could be that Elsevier Weekblad is not a specialized business

magazine such as Businessweek. So this could determine the limited availability of innovation articles. Thereby, the analysis of the Annual reports had too big standards to measure

innovation. The innovation strategies described in these annual reports were too varied, so it was difficult to measure specifically their innovation strategies.

The third challenge is the limited sample size, only 10 Dutch highest reputation organizations were researched. Future research should evaluate which criteria can be used outside RepTrak in order to extent the sample size to research the existence of Dutch celebrity organizations. A fourth challenge is the limited measurement method of celebrity

organizations by Pfarrer and colleagues (2010), this should be extended to other media platforms. Future research can focus on the development of a measurement model that can measure organization’s social media activity related to the achievement of a celebrity status. This will contribute to the measurement of the total media coverage of celebrity

organizations.

This research can be applied as a “quick scan” to find possible Dutch celebrity

organizations. However, the innovations described in Elsevier Weekblad are very limited. So future research should contain sources that better describe possible media outlets that evaluate the innovation strategies of specific organizations.

(30)

30

References

Adams, R., Bessant, J. and Phelps, R. (2006), “Innovation management measurement: a review”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 21-47

Assink, M. (2006). Inhibitors of disruptive innovation capability: a conceptual model.

European Journal of Innovation Management, 9(2), 215-233.

Baregheh, A., Rowley, J., & Sambrook, S. (2009). Towards a multidisciplinary definition of innovation. Management decision, 47(8), 1323-1339.

Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of

management, 17(1), 99-120.

Bessant, J., & Tidd, J. (2007). Innovation and entrepreneurship. John Wiley & Sons.

Business Dictionary (2018). Retrieved from:

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/innovation.html

Cassiman, B., & Veugelers, R. (2006). In search of complementarity in innovation strategy: Internal R&D and external knowledge acquisition. Management science, 52(1), 68-82.

Christensen, C. M., Raynor, M. E., & McDonald, R. (2015). What is disruptive innovation. Harvard Business Review, 93(12), 44-53.

Costa, R., & Menichini, T. (2013). A multidimensional approach for CSR assessment: The importance of the stakeholder perception. Expert Systems with Applications, 40(1), 150-161.

Deephouse, D. L. 2000. Media reputation as a strategic resource: An integration of mass communication and resource-based theories. Journal of Management, 26: 1091–1112.

(31)

31 Dewar, R. D., & Dutton, J. E. (1986). The adoption of radical and incremental innovations: An empirical analysis. Management science, 32(11), 1422-1433.

Enkel, E., Gassmann, O., & Chesbrough, H. (2009). Open R&D and open innovation: exploring the phenomenon. R&d Management, 39(4), 311-316.

Hayward, M. L., Rindova, V. P., & Pollock, T. G. (2004). Believing one's own press: The causes and consequences of CEO celebrity. Strategic Management Journal, 25(7), 637-653.

Lai, C. S., Chiu, C. J., Yang, C. F., & Pai, D. C. (2010). The effects of corporate social responsibility on brand performance: The mediating effect of industrial brand equity and corporate reputation. Journal of business ethics, 95(3), 457-469.

Lange, D., Lee, P. M., & Dai, Y. (2011). Organizational reputation: A review. Journal of Management, 37(1), 153-184

Melo, T. and Garrido, A. (2012), “Corporate reputation: a combination of social responsibility and industry”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 19 (1), 11-31.

Miller, D., & Friesen, P. H. (1982). Innovation in conservative and entrepreneurial firms: Two models of strategic momentum. Strategic management journal, 3(1), 1-25.

Pennebaker, J. W., Booth, R. J., Boyd, R. L., & Francis, M. E. (2015). Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count: LIWC2015. Austin, TX: Pennebaker Conglomerates (www.LIWC.net).

Pennebaker, J. W., Boyd, R. L., Jordan, K., & Blackburn, K. (2015). The Development and

Psychometric Properties of LIWC2015. Retrieved from:

https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/handle/2152/31333/LIWC2015_LanguageManual .pdf

Pérez, A. (2015). Corporate reputation and CSR reporting to stakeholders: Gaps in the literature and future lines of research. Corporate Communications: An International

(32)

32 Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism. 2008. Winning the media

campaign. http:// www.journalism.org. October 22.

Pfarrer, M. D., Pollock, T. G., & Rindova, V. P. (2010). A tale of two assets: The effects of firm reputation and celebrity on earnings surprises and investors' reactions. Academy of Management Journal, 53(5), 1131-1152.

Philips (2014). Annual report. Retrieved from:

file:///C:/Users/nelis/Downloads/PhilipsFullAnnualReport2014_English.pdf

Philips (2015). Annual report. Retrieved from:

file:///C:/Users/nelis/Downloads/PhilipsFullAnnualReport2015_English.pdf

Philips Lightning (2016). Annual report. Retrieved from:

https://www.signify.com/static/2016/philips-lighting-annual-report-2016.pdf

Philips (2018). Retrieved from: https://www.philips.nl

Pollock, T. G., & Rindova, V. P. 2003. Media legitimation effects in the market for initial public offerings. Academy of Management Journal, 46: 631– 642.

Rein, I., Kottler, P., & Stoller, M. 1987. High visibility. New York: Dodd, Mead & Company.

Reputation Institute (2018). Retrieved from: https://reputationinstitute.com

Rindova, V. P., & Fombrun, C. J. 1999. Constructing competitive advantage: The role of firm-constituent interactions. Strategic Management Journal, 20: 691-710.

Rindova, V. P., Pollock, T. G., & Hayward, M. L. (2006). Celebrity firms: The social construction of market popularity. Academy of management review, 31(1), 50-71.