WILL YOU STILL LOVE ME REGARDLESS OF MY REPUTATION? A STUDY ON THE INFLUENCE OF CORPORATE REPUTATION ON CUSTOMER BRAND PERCEPTION AND PURCHASE DECISION

Caroline Tan 글로벌지식마케팅경영학회 2015 Global Fashion Management Conference Vol.2015 No.06

This research was conducted in order to examine the influence of corporate reputation in terms of as an employer towards both brand reputation and customer purchase decisions represented by brand perception, purchase frequency and category of items purchased. In this study, customers’ perception of the brand was also explored to identify the core blocks that form customers’ perception of the brand. The results indicate that corporate reputation did not have a strong influence on brand reputation, as customers viewed them as separate entities. Customers tended to form their brand perception based on the product features as opposed to the corporate reputation. In terms of purchase decision, the results showed that they were made and driven based on the customers’ brand perception with category of items purchased reflecting aspects of the brand perception. The study demonstrates that customers’ awareness of the corporate reputation does not affect purchase behavior, while brand perception is hardly impacted by the awareness of corporate reputation based on a survey focusing on a renowned domestic fashion-clothing retailer conducted among Japanese shoppers. Reputation is formed from a synthesis of the perception, opinions and attitudes of an organization’s stakeholders including employees, customers and community (Post and Griffin, 1997). It basically is a perceptual representation of a company’s past actions and future prospects that describe the firm’s appeal to all of its key constituents (Fombrun, 1966). Corporate reputations and brands are important assets in enabling organizations to exploit opportunities and mitigate threats (Argenti and Druckenmiller, 2004). A favourable reputation correlates with superior overall returns (Robert and Dowling, 1997; Vergin and Qoronfleh, 1998) as it encourages investments from shareholders, attracts good staff and retains customers (Markham, 1972). While corporate reputation is a stakeholder’s perception and evaluation of the organization over an extended period of time, corporate brands involve the organization’s efforts and initiatives in the form of corporate expression. Literature states that corporate brand comprises of two aspects: first corporate expression, which covers all mechanisms employed by the organization to express its identity and second, stakeholder images that are formed from interaction and experience with the brand (Abratt and Kleyn, 2011). Consumers judge brands based on trust that is developed from the way consumers view brand reputation, brand competence and brand constituent (Lau and Lee, 1999). The intricate relationship between reputation and brands leads to the heart of the study whether both are positively correlated, where the more positive the reputation, the stronger the brand is. In the fashion industry, labels play an important role hence among other aspects this study covers an interesting point where it looks at a fashion brand that has a fairly bad reputation and examines the extent of which the reputation is able to influence the brand perception as well as the customers’ purchase decisions.

WHATIF THE FACE OF THE FIRM IS A NARCISSIST CEO? CORPORATE REPUTATION AND FIRM PERFORMANCE

Adıgüzel, Feray,Turner Karynne,Sithu, Jatinder 글로벌지식마케팅경영학회 2018 Global Marketing Conference Vol.2018 No.07

Introduction The attributes of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) have a significant influence on the actions of the organization and, ultimately, firm performance (Chatterjee & Hambrick, 2007; Kashmiri, Nicol, & Arora, 2017). Recently, there has been growing interest in one particular CEO attribute, i.e., narcissism and how this individual characteristic affects actions taken by the firm and the outcomes achieved. Narcissistic CEOs have been described as “having an inflated self-concept that is enacted through a desire for recognition and a high degree of self-reference when interacting with others (Resick, Whitman, Weingarden, & Hiller, 2009: pg. 1367).” Prior research has found that CEOs with a more narcissistic personality make riskier decisions by changing the company’s strategy more often (Chatterjee & Hambrick, 2007), making acquisitions more frequently and of larger targets (Chatterjee & Hambrick, 2007), adopting discontinuous technologies (Gerstner, König, Enders, & Hambrick, 2013), and expanding international business activities (Oesterle, Elosge, & Elosge, 2016). The results of previous studies show that by pursuing decisions with greater risk and involving the firm in wide-ranging efforts, the actions of narcissistic CEOs lead to fluctuating firm performance (Chatterjee & Hambrick, 2007) and diminishes the positive effect of various firm activities. While these prior studies have provided valuable insight, the strong emphasis on the organizational actions taken as a consequence of the narcissistic CEO has not added to our understanding of the relationship between CEOs who seek personal affirmation, admiration, and attention and important intervening variables for firm performance such as corporate brand reputation. Corporate brand reputation signals the status of an organization and influences the actions of capital markets, investors, consumers, and applicants in the job market (Fombrun & Shanley, 1990). Managers actively work to construct favourable corporate brand reputations through the actions the firm takes and the information selectively released to the media and public. Yet, the literature suggests that narcissistic CEOs spend time focusing on how to enhance their own image rather than on achieving organizational goals (Resick et al., 2009). In this regard, the attention-seeking CEO likely becomes a focal point for the corporate brand. However, no research to date has examined the relationship between the narcissistic CEO’s personality and the effects of corporate brand reputation. This study fills the gap in the literature by investigating how CEO narcissism influences the effectiveness of corporate brand reputation on firm performance. Theoretical development The literature on corporate brands noted that corporate brand reputation is a critical intangible asset that affects firm performance (Roberts & Dowling, 2002). Stakeholders use corporate brand reputation as a means to compare and contrast competitors Researchers have noted various advantages for highly reputable firms: customers are willing to pay more for offerings (Roberts & Dowling, 2002) and accept new product innovations (Dowling, 2002); managers accept lower remuneration (Tavassoli, Sorescu, & Chandy, 2014) and receive higher payoff for investments (Benjamin & Podolny, 1999). These types of advantages allow for greater performance. Thus, consistent with prior literature, we argue the following: Hypothesis 1: Corporate brand reputation has a positive effect on future firm performance. Research has shown that CEO narcissism diminishes the effect of the firm’s positive actions. Petrenko, Aime, Ridge, and Hill (2016) argue that narcissistic CEOs pursue Corporate Social Responsibility efforts (CSR) as a means to enhance their own image. Yet, the authors found that the narcissistic CEOs actually reduce the positive affect of CSR initiatives. Likewise, Engelen, Neumann, and Schmidt (2016) examined the effect CEO narcissism had on the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and performance finding that CEO narcissism lessens the positive effect of entrepreneurial orientation. These results are due to the narcissistic CEOs perpetual need for attention and self-affirmation which leads to unconcentrated work initiatives and a lack of attention to the needs of employees. When subordinates’ needs are ignored they develop a sense of powerlessness, incompetence and a lack of desire to present their own ideas. This environment diminishes entrepreneurial engagement (Engelen et al., 2016; Wales, Patel, & Lumpkin, 2013). In line with this view, we believe the attention-seeking narcissistic CEO competes with the development of the corporate brand and will dampen the positive effect of highly reputable brands on firm performance. Thus, we argue the following: Hypothesis 2: CEO narcissism diminishes the positive effect of corporate brand reputation on firm performance. Method We compiled a unique unbalanced panel composed of data from COMPUSTAT, ExecuComp, and Fortune Most Admired Companies listing. Our sample includes 993 firm-year observations consists of 237 CEOs from 144 U.S companies on eight-year period, 2009-2016. Data on CEOs were collected from the ExecuComp databases. Financial performance data were from COMPUSTAT. Firm reputation was obtained from firm’s published score in the Fortune “Most Admired Companies” survey in a given year. The fortune rating is obtained through surveys from executives and directors, and has been widely used in previous research (Love, Lim, & Bednar 2017). Our independent and control variables are measured in the year prior to the one in which the survey ratings are published. CEO narcissism is invariant meaning narcissism is a relatively stable disposition similar to Chatterjee and Hambrick’s (2011) and obtained by averaging data from the second and third years of each CEO’s tenure (t + 1 and t + 2). First year of the CEO’s tenure was not considered because of frequently mentioned anomalies reported at first year. CEO narcissism was measured with the same way as Chatterjee and Hambrick’s (2011). Thus, it combines indicators for (1) the prominence of the CEO’s photograph in the company’s annual report; (2) the CEO’s prominence in the company’s press releases; (3) the CEO’s use of first-person singular pronouns in interviews; (4) the CEO’s cash relative pay where cash compensation divided by that of the second-highest paid executive in the firm; and (5) the CEO’s non-cash relative pay where non-cash compensation divided by that of the second-highest-paid executive in the firm. Dependent variables were measures annually and consider available data after the second-year tenure of CEO (n > 2), yielding a 380 firm-years, 61 CEOs for testing our hypothesis. Firm performance was measured with Tobin’s Q (TQ), calculated by dividing the firm’s market value by firm’s asset replacement costs. We have the CEO, the firm, and the industry level control variables. CEO level control variables are CEO age, CEO tenure, CEO gender, CEO stock ownership as the percentage of company stock owned by the CEO, whether the CEO was also board chairman (duality). Firm-level control variables are firm’s the prior year performance, firm size (natural logarithm of revenues t+n–1), firm age, for each dependent variable, to consider strategy or performance tendencies, we included performance value for the firm in the year prior to the start of the CEO’s tenure (t – 1). Industry control variables are dummies for the industry sector (manufacturing, regulated and services industries), the industry average (for all firms in the sample, always excluding the focal firm) in each year (t + n), for each dependent variable to be able to control for industry tendencies. To control for endogeneity i.e. narcissistic CEOs are drawn to certain situations and/or that some conditions, we followed exactly the same procedure of Chatterjee and Hambrick’s (2011). Thus, we regressed CEO narcissism on firm revenues, age, ROA, and calendar year for the year prior to the CEO’s start, ROA change between first and second years of CEO tenure, measures in t+1, namely power (CEO/chair duality and CEO ownership), CEO age, industry dummies. Using the regression coefficients of the significant variables, we calculated each CEO’s predicted narcissism score and included that value as an endogeneity control in our analyses. We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) (Liang & Zeger, 1986), which derive maximum likelihood estimates and accommodate non-independent observations. Due to multiple observations for almost all firms, there is non-independency in our model. We specified a Gaussian (normal) distribution with an identity link function. The covariance structure of the repeated measurement was autoregressive of order one (AR(1)). We used robust variance estimators in our estimations. We used the xtgee routine in Stata 14.2. Results and conclusions The results provide considerable support for hypotheses 1 and 2. Hypothesis 1 predicted that corporate reputation has a positive effect on firm performance (b = .02, p < .01). CEO narcissism is a moderating effect between corporate brand reputation and firm performance. Specifically, CEO narcissism diminishes the positive effect of corporate reputation on firm performance (b = -.04, p < .05). Besides, CEO narcissism have a negative main effect on firm performance (b = -.14, p < .05). Corporate reputation is an intangible asset for firms and positively associated with firm performance according to our results. Little is known so far about the CEO and corporate brand relationship and the role of CEO brands in creating value for the company (Bendisch, Larsen, & Trueman, 2013). We investigated how CEO narcissism influence the relationship between firm’s reputations and firm performance which have not been investigated so far. Since CEOs are the face of the company and it contributes to corporate brand value, narcissistic CEOs might diminish the effect of corporate brand reputation on firm performance with their actions and messages. We find support for our ideas. As a future research, we suggest investigating this issue for different industry sectors and different firm performance measures. Besides, the process of what type of actions of CEOs might diminish brand value should be investigated further. When narcissistic CEOs reduce corporate brand reputation, another potential topic worth to investigate further.

기업문화의 유형이 기업명성에 미치는 영향

강태희(Taehee Kang),차희원(Heewon Cha) 한국언론학회 2010 한국언론학보 Vol.54 No.1

The purpose of this study was to find the link between corporate culture and reputation and verify the mediation effect of Corporate Social Responsibility(CSR) and organizational identification. Organizational scholars emphasize that corporate culture is an important element which has influence on corporate reputation based on the identity theory, although there are various perspectives on corporate reputation. Accepting the organizational perspective, this study established two research agendas that looked into the relationship between corporate culture and reputation and the mediation effect of the CSR and members’ identification. Then, 11 companies of the higher or lower reputation were selected, and 334 surveys were conducted and analyzed from these companies. The consensus and results in accordance to this study is as follows. First, the typology of corporate culture affected the corporate reputation. Especially, management culture had a very significant effect on the reputation. Secondly, the mediation effect of CSR between corporate culture and reputation was verified. Then, it was confirmed that management culture increased the members’ recognition of CSR and made the higher reputation. Third, organizational identification did not mediate the relationship between corporate culture and reputation. However, CSR had a significant effect on identification. Also, organizational identification affected the corporate reputation. Consequently, this study showed that management culture affected the members’ recognition of CSR, and the companies whose members share ethical values and behaviors are able to expect the higher reputation.

PR과 기업 명성의 관련성에 대한 연구: PR의 개념, 기능 및 PR팀 역할을 중심으로

차희원 ( Hee Won Cha ),양정은 ( Jung Eun Yang ) 한국PR학회 2004 PR연구 Vol.8 No.1

The purpose of this study is to explore the relationship between PR and corporate reputation, based on the in-depth interviews taken. The relationship between corporate reputation and PR, shown as the result of in-depth interviews, was considered as follows. First, respondents think there is high correlation between corporate reputation and the concept/essence of PR. Especially the core of PR philosophy, which is about maintaining and increasing positive relationship with its key publics, is closely related to positive corporate reputation. Second, among the various area of PR, four functions are thought to be related with corporate reputation. The four functions are: Corporate image PR, which focuses on the excellence of a company, the company`s activities with community, and the company`s own ethics. Next function is Issues Management PR, which is about raising social interest on a certain problem or issue by letting the company pre-occupy the issue and actively manage the issue. Third function is Relationship Management PR, which is about securing key public`s trust towards an organization by managing ongoing relationship with its key publics. The last function is Crisis management, which is about effectively dealing with difficult situation when a crisis occurs. Third, because corporate PR team is responsible for overall communication activities of a company, it was thought as playing a key role in managing corporate reputation. Also, it is thought that allocating more budget and human resources can actually bring positive effect to overall corporate reputation. In conclusion, although PR is very much related to corporate reputation in terms of PR`s concept, function and the role of corporate PR team, current PR activities are practiced in the area of narrow definition of PR, mainly media relations. Although respondents agree on the importance of media`s role in managing corporate reputation, more fundamental understanding on PR and its philosophy is need to be shared. Managing corporate communication with key publics who have much influence on positive corporate reputation is more crucial and corporate reputation management has to be approached in a more integrated and strategic way in this sense. Corporate reputation management is needed to be initiated and managed by corporate PR team, since corporate PR team is eventually in charge of the communication activities of a company.

A mediating role of social capital between corporate social responsibility and corporate reputation: Perception of local university on CSR of KHNP

Jae-Hun JOO 한국유통과학회 2020 The Journal of Industrial Distribution & Business( Vol.11 No.3

Purpose: Most of all studies regarding corporate social responsibility have been dealing with its direct performance. Many previous studies provided the evidence that corporate social responsibility activities directly affect firms‘ competitiveness or corporate reputation. However, there are no studies regarding the role of social capital between corporate social responsibility and firms‘ competitiveness. The present study aims to examine a mediating role of social capital between corporate social responsibility and corporate reputation. Research design, data and methodology: The structural equation model integrating corporate social responsibility, social capital, and corporate reputation was proposed with three hypotheses. Questionnaire including 15 question items for three concepts was designed. Data for testing hypotheses were collected from students and staff who had experienced the social responsibility activities of Korea Hydro & Nuclear Co. Ltd. SPSS and SmartPLS were used to analyze data. Results: All three hypotheses were supported at the significance level of 0.01. Corporate social responsibility have a significant influence on social capital as well as corporate reputation. Social capital plays a mediating role in the relationship between corporate social responsibility and corporate reputation. Conclusions: The present paper identified a missing link between corporate social responsibility and corporate reputation by validating an indirect effect of corporate social responsibility on corporate reputation through social capital. The present study contributes to finding the indirect link between corporate social responsibility and corporate reputation. Implications for academics and practitioners. The research model can be extended to analyze the relationship between corporate social responsibility and its performance. The present study sheds light on identification of a new role of social capital. Managers of firms have the opportunity to recognize the fact that investment recovery of corporate social responsibility results from social capital and corporate reputation in long-term rather than short-term. The results of this study offers an insight that managers can enhance customer loyalty. The process linking corporate social responsibility to corporate reputation through social capital implies that firms can realize spiritual marketing delivering authentic storytelling through corporate social responsibility. The present study has a limitation for generalizing of research results because the sampling came from a case of firm.

평판위험 측정과 관리방안에 대한 연구

이현복 한국무역경영학회 2021 한국무역경영연구 Vol.- No.22

The purpose of this study is to develop a measurement method for reputation risk and to examine the effect of reputation risk on corporate value. Therefore, this study defines reputation risk as 6 factors, namely, ① products and services, ② financial performance, ③ vision and leadership, ④ social responsibility, ⑤ consumer protection, and ⑥ negative press reports on corporate reputation. and Event Study was conducted to examine the effects of them on corporate value. As a result of the study, it was found that the report of reputation risk in media had a negative effect on corporate value. Reputation risk as of the date of the incident lowered the enterprise value by -5.21%, and showed a cumulative excess return of -9.36% during the incident period (0~+5). In addition, negative articles on 6 factor were all found to have a negative impact on corporate value. In particular, financial performance and products and services had a significant negative impact on corporate value. The results of this study show that the reputation risk is about 10% of the corporate value, and that the size may vary depending on the factors of reputation risk. In particular, it shows that the management of the company's products and services as well as the management of the company's financial status as the most important part in managing reputation risk.

기업-CEO평판 격차가 개인의 구매의사, 성장 및 투자 전망, 기업선호에 미치는 영향

김대영,변상호 한국벤처창업학회 2016 벤처창업연구 Vol.11 No.3

This study investigated how corporation-CEO reputation gap, corporation-related knowledge, CEO-related knowledge, and corporate involvement influence respectively individuals’ purchase intention, growth prospect, investment attraction, and corporate preference. Corporation-CEO reputation gap was divided into two groups, CEO reputation risk vs. CEO reputation premium. The survey(N = 451) with a nationwide stratified sampling found the following. First, corporate involvement and corporation-related knowledge have a positive(+) effect on purchase intention, growth prospect, investment attraction, and corporate preference. But CEO-related knowledge and corporation-CEO reputation gap have a negative(-) effect on them. Second, in CEO reputation risk group, CEO-related knowledge has a negative(-) effect on them. 본 연구는 최고경영자(CEO)가 기업의 경영활동에 부정적 영향을 미치는 CEO평판 리스크 또는 CEO평판 리스크 위기 현상을 탐구하였다. 이를 위해 기업-CEO평판 격차를 비롯해 기업지식, CEO지식, 기업관여도 등의 변인이 구매의사, 성장전망과 투자전망, 기업선호에 미치는 영향을 각각 살펴보았다. 아울러 CEO평판이 기업평판 보다 낮은 경우를 ‘CEO평판 리스크 집단’, CEO평판이 기업평판 보다 높은 경우를 ‘CEO평판 프리미엄 집단’으로 구분하여 각각의 집단에서 차이를 분석하였다. 전국단위 성별, 연령별, 지역별 무작위 비례할당방식에 근거해 추출한 표본(N = 451)에 대한 분석을 통해 다음과 같은 연구결과를 얻었다. 첫째, CEO지식과 기업-CEO 평판 격차는 구매의사, 성장과 투자전망, 기업선호에 부(-)적 영향을 주는 것으로 나타났다. 반면 기업관여도와 기업지식은 구매의사, 성장과 투자전망, 기업선호에 정(+)적 영향을 미쳤다. 둘째, 기업관여도는 CEO평판 리스크 집단과 CEO평판 프리미엄 집단에서 모두 구매의사, 성장과 투자전망, 기업선호에 정(+)적 영향을 미쳤다. 기업지식은 CEO평판 리스크 집단에서 구매의사, 성장과 투자전망, 기업선호에 정(+)적 영향을 끼쳤다. CEO지식은 CEO평판 리스크 집단에서 구매의사, 성장과 투자전망, 기업선호에 부(-)적 영향을 미쳤다. 본 연구는 CEO평판이 해당기업의 회사평판 수준에 미달하는 경우에는 CEO가 해당기업에 대한 소비자의 구매의사, 성장전망, 투자전망, 기업선호에 부정적인 영향을 미칠 수 있음을 시사한다.

CORPORATE REPUTATION AND THE COST OF EQUITY CAPITAL - AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF GERMAN DAX30 COMPANIES

Benjamin Pfister 글로벌지식마케팅경영학회 2014 Global Marketing Conference Vol.2014 No.7

In recent years, the exploration of the quantifiable effects of market-based intangible assets on firm performance has become increasingly important in marketing and management literature. Corporate reputation, considered as a one of the key marketing metrics for maintaining and enhancing companies’ competitiveness in the globalized economy, plays an essential part in this context. Numerous studies show the impact of reputation on measures of financial performance, justifying companies’ endeavors to install and dedicate effort towards systematic reputation management and tracking. A possible consequence of a good reputation that has so far been neglected in academic research is a decrease in a company’s cost of equity capital, a measure that constitutes an important basis for the decision to invest in future projects, thus playing a vital part in the creation and preservation of strategic competitive advantages. A firm’s cost of equity is defined as the required rate of return, given the market’s perception of the firm’s riskiness. It is based on investors’ expectations about future returns and estimated by means of residual income models with varying assumptions and restrictions (in this study: Claus and Thomas 200, Gebhardt et al. 2001, Ohlson and Juettner-Nauroth 2005, and Easton 2004), equating the current stock price to future cash flows that are discounted with the firm’s implied cost of equity. To account for industry-specific idiosyncrasies, each firm’s cost of equity is adjusted by the monthly industry median. Corporate reputation is defined as an attitudinal mindset towards a company. Following the model of Schwaiger (2004), it is conceptualized as a two-dimensional construct comprising a cognitive (competence) and an affective (likeability) component; reputation is the linear combination of these two dimensions. Corporate reputation data was collected in 13 semi-annual waves from large-scale samples representing the general public in Germany. By applying panel data analysis on a set of the 30 largest publicly listed German companies during a seven-year time-span (2005-2011) and controlling for commonly known factors, I show that corporate reputation significantly reduces a firm’s cost of equity. This relationship holds when reputation is corrected for prior financial performance and industry affiliation. My results should help managers to further strengthen their argument that reputation management is value-relevant. This study should be seen as a starting point for further research to gain a deeper understanding of the reputation-cost of capital-interface.

MANAGING CORPORATE REPUTATION: MEDIA COVERAGE ABOUT SIX DIFFERENT CSR FACETS AS A KEY FACTOR IN THE FORMATION OF REPUTATION PERCEPTIONS

Tobias Morath,Manfred Schwaiger 글로벌지식마케팅경영학회 2018 Global Marketing Conference Vol.2018 No.07

Corporate reputation – the central antecedent of trust – bears the potential to create sustainable competitive advantage. However, far too many examples of companies’ socially irresponsible behavior over the past years led to a severe crisis of confidence. Disgraced companies suffer from the adverse effects of their misbehaviors at all levels. As a consequence, one of the top priorities for both practitioners and business scholars is the identification of opportunities to (re)build corporate reputation. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), a key driver of reputation perceptions, is a very promising one. However, as CSR is a multidimensional construct that comprises a wide range of activities, the selection of the “right” ones deems a major challenge. Based on a literature review, we advocate that news media data should be utilized to analyze which CSR dimensions are particularly likely to affect reputation perceptions. As journalists rely on companies’ press releases as a starting point for their business articles, companies need to carefully evaluate which CSR dimensions they emphasize in their communication strategy. Based on superior measures of reputation and CSR, this study utilizes reputation and news media coverage data on companies listed in the German DAX30 between 2005 and 2011. The panel data regression encompasses the multidimensional concept of CSR, presenting a six-dimensional CSR construct including environment, employee relations, community, product issues, corporate culture and corporate governance. Relevant moderating variables, namely firm and stakeholder characteristics, are investigated. In this context, the results show that the relevance of each of those six distinct dimensions differs for the formation of reputation judgements and varies across investigated stakeholder and company types: across all model specifications, negative media coverage addressing employee relations and community affects reputation perceptions. The general public primarily perceives negative news coverage as relevant for their reputation judgements. Opinion leaders seem to be less dependent on the media to learn about CSR dimensions, as only four out of twelve independent variables exert a significant impact on their reputation judgments. News coverage about product issues only constitutes a key role in the formation of reputation judgements of firms that are predominantly known from direct experiences. A particularly large amount of variation can be explained for reputation ratings of these companies as well as for reputation perceptions of opinion leaders.

스포츠를 통한 기업의 사회적 책임활동과 기업 및 소비자요인의 관계분석

김민철 ( Min Cheol Kim ) 한국스포츠정책과학원(구 한국스포츠개발원) 2012 체육과학연구 Vol.23 No.1

이 연구는 스포츠를 통한 기업의 사회적 책임활동이 기업능력, 기업신뢰, 기업평판의 기업요인을 거쳐 고객 만족 및 구매의도의 소비자요인에 어떠한 영향을 미치고 있는가를 분석하는데 연구의 목적이 있다. 이 연구의 조사대상은 G광역시와 J도의 Y시, S시에 거주하고 있는 20세 이상의 생활체육교실에 참가하고 있는 일반시민을 대상으로 하였으며, 연구결과의 도출을 위한 통계처리방법으로는 AMOS 5.0을 활용한 구조방정식 모형 분석 (structural equation model)이 사용되었다. 이에 최종적으로는 276부의 설문지가 분석에 활용되었으며, 다음과 같은 연구결과가 도출되었다. 스포츠를 통한 사회적 책임활동은 기업능력, 기업평판, 기업신뢰에 정(+)의 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났으며, 기업능력은 기업평판에 정(+)의 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 또한 기업능력과 기업신뢰는 기업평판에 정(+)의 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났고, 기업평판은 고객만족과 구매의도에 그리고 고객만족은 구매의도에 정(+)의 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 마지막으로 사회적 책임활동과 기업평판의 관계에서 기업능력과 기업신뢰의 매개효과가 나타났고, 기업능력과 기업평판의 관계에서 기업신뢰의 매개효과가 나타났다. 또한 기업평판과 구매의도의 관계에서 고객만족은 매개효과가 나타났다. 결론적으로 스포츠를 통한 사회적 책임활동은 기업요인을 거쳐 고객만족 및 구매의도의 소비자요인에 영향을 미치는 것으로 확인되었다. 이는 기업의 스포츠분야에 대한 사회적 책임활동이 소비자에게는 매우 효과적인 마케팅 수단으로 작용하고 있음을 증명하는 결과이며, 기업능력, 기업신뢰, 기업평판의 기업요소에도 직접적인 영향을 미치는 주요 활동임을 나타내고 있다. The purpose of this study is to analyze the effects of corporate social responsibility through sport on customer factors (customer satisfaction and purchase intent) via corporate factors (corporate trust, corporate capability, and corporate reputation). The subjects of this study were general citizens of 20 and over who resided in G Metropolitan City arid Y City arid S City in J Province and participated in sport for all class. The structural equation model using AMOS 5.0 was applied to statistics processing to derive study results. 276 questionnaires were used for the final analysis. Finally, the following results were drawn. Corporate social responsibility through sport was found to have a positive effect on corporate ability, corporate reputation, corporate trust and corporate ability had a positive effect on corporate reputation. And corporate ability and corporate trust had a positive effect on corporate reputation and corporate reputation had a positive effect on customer satisfaction arid purchase intention and customer satisfaction had a positive effect on purchase intention. Lastly, in the relationship between corporate social responsibility and corporate reputation mediated effect of corporate ability and corporate trust took effect and in the relationship between corporate ability and corporate reputation mediated effect of corporate trust worked. In conclusion, it was confirmed that corporate social responsibility through sport influenced customer factors (customer satisfaction and purchase intent) via corporate factors. It demonstrated that corporate social responsibility in the sport field acted as very effective marketing means to customers and chiefly influenced directly and indirectly corporate evaluation elements of corporate capability, corporate trust, and corporate reputation. Accordingly, corporations will be required to promote and improve a corporate image through developing and applying a variety of social responsibility such as education, culture, support, and community contribution grafted into sport. Moreover, it is necessary to extend the range of social responsibility which is limited to pro sport or popular items arid to actively explore supports for young athletes through raising sport funds.