scieee Science in your language
[en] (orig)

Do Certifications Matter? The Impact of the Great Place to Work Certified Label on Consumers´ Product Perceptions

Abstract

Companies are increasingly understanding the positive impacts in the consumer’s mindsets related to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) initiatives, actions that can be correlated to more ethical and sustainable ways to conduct business. Some practical benefits of these disciplines are on the enhancement of employer branding perceptions, turning it into a relevant and strategical business component that is requiring more attention for this context in the last years. The expected results want to provide more insights able to show how a high level of employee engagement and advertising these related recognitions are perceived or not by the consumers, and if they can directly associate with a better quality of products. Every year, over six thousand companies in sixty countries, representing more than ten million employees, invest time and resources to use methodologies like as provided by Great Place to Work®, to identify their employee experience and improve the key drivers of engagement. Based on this context this paper seeks to investigate if there are any positive impacts of being certified as a great workplace on a brand’s reputation, by identifying consumers’ preferences and purchasing intentions in an experimental test comparing different product packages. The study used an experimental design with two conditions: a product’s package with versus without the Great Place to Work® label. We formulated questions that measured on a scale from 1 to 9, the degree of importance or agreement given to the proposed questions or statements. We recruited 240 people living in the United States of America. 135 were male (56,25%) and 105 female (43,75%), 14 of these individuals had 18 – 24 years (5,83%), 103 individuals 25 – 34 years (42,92%), 74 individuals 35 – 44 years (30,83%), 26 individuals 45 – 54 years (10,83%), and 23 individuals had 55 – 75 years (9,58%). As a result, the exploratory analysis underscores a significant correlation between the overall perception of the product and the quality of a specific group. Despite that, we found no statistically significant correlation between the presence of a Great Place to Work® certified company label on the chocolate package and the overall value of the product. The presence of this specific label also was not statistically associated with the price people were willing to pay or the possible taste of the chocolate. In conclusion, our study shows that the perception of quality only impacted individuals above 35 years old who ate chocolate often. Indeed, the use of credible labels allows firms to signal quality, and in so doing to create the potential for a premium positioning based on this signal.

Read accessible full text

Do Certifications Matter? The Impact of the Great Place to Work Certified Label on Consumers´ Product Perceptions

Author: Castro, Cleber Tadeu Mariano de
Year: 2022
Source: https://run.unl.pt/bitstream/10362/135685/1/TGI0574.pdf
i
Do Ce i ica ions Ma e ? The Impac o
he G ea Place o Wo k Ce i ied Label on
Consume s' P oduc Pe cep ions
Clebe Tadeu Ma iano de Cas o – M20190117
Disse a ion p esen ed as pa ial equi emen o ob aining
he
Mas e ’s deg ee in S a is ics and In o ma ion
Managemen
ii
NOVA In o ma ion Managemen School
Ins i u o Supe io de Es a ís ica e Ges ão de In o mação
Uni e sidade No a de Lisboa
DO CERTIFICATIONS MATTER? THE IMPACT OF THE GREAT PLACE TO
WORK CERTIFIED LABEL ON CONSUMERS' PRODUCT PERCEPTIONS
by
Clébe Tadeu Ma iano de Cas o
Disse a ion p esen ed as pa ial equi emen o ob aining he Mas e ’s deg ee in In o ma ion
Managemen , wi h a specializa ion in Ma ke ing In elligence
Ad iso : P o esso a Dou o a Teodó a Szabó-Doua
Co-Ad iso : P o esso Dou o Diego Cos a Pin o
No embe 2021
iii
DEDICATION
Fi s o all, I hank my dea wi e Ca la Cos a, who has been wi h me since he beginning o his g ea
jou ney. I also hank my amily, who didn’ le me gi e up on my d eam. P o esso s Diego Cos a Pin o
and Teodo a Szabó-Doua , hank you o all you guidance and suppo . Fo my iends Ped o and
B uno, o hei encou agemen and men o ing in his p ocess. G ea Place o Wo k® o allowing he
use o he b and. Finally, I hank e e yone who wi nessed he challenges and ook pa in his
jou ney so ha I could ge o his momen !
My since e “Thank you” o e e yone.
i
ABSTRACT
Companies a e inc easingly unde s anding he posi i e impac s in he consume ’s mindse s ela ed
o Co po a e Social Responsibili y (CSR) and En i onmen al, Social, and Go e nance (ESG)
ini ia i es, ac ions ha can be co ela ed o mo e e hical and sus ainable ways o conduc
business. Some p ac ical bene i s o hese disciplines a e on he enhancemen o employe
b anding pe cep ions, u ning i in o a ele an and s a egical business componen ha is equi ing
mo e a en ion o his con ex in he las yea s. The expec ed esul s wan o p o ide mo e
insigh s able o show how a high le el o employee engagemen and ad e ising hese ela ed
ecogni ions a e pe cei ed o no by he consume s, and i hey can di ec ly associa e wi h a
be e quali y o p oduc s. E e y yea , o e six housand companies in six y coun ies,
ep esen ing mo e han en million employees, in es ime and esou ces o use me hodologies like
as p o ided by G ea Place o Wo k®, o iden i y hei employee expe ience and imp o e he key
d i e s o engagemen . Based on his con ex his pape seeks o in es iga e i he e a e any
posi i e impac s o being ce i ied as a g ea wo kplace on a b and’s epu a ion, by iden i ying
consume s’ p e e ences and pu chasing in en ions in an expe imen al es compa ing di e en
p oduc packages.
The s udy used an expe imen al design wi h wo condi ions: a p oduc ’s package wi h e sus wi hou
he G ea Place o Wo k® label. We o mula ed ques ions ha measu ed on a scale om 1 o
9, he deg ee o impo ance o ag eemen gi en o he p oposed ques ions o s a emen s. We
ec ui ed 240 people li ing in he Uni ed S a es o Ame ica. 135 we e male (56,25%) and 105
emale (43,75%), 14 o hese indi iduals had 18 – 24 yea s (5,83%), 103 indi iduals 25 – 34 yea s
(42,92%), 74 indi iduals 35 – 44 yea s (30,83%), 26 indi iduals 45 – 54 yea s (10,83%), and 23
indi iduals had 55 – 75 yea s (9,58%).
As a esul , he explo a o y analysis unde sco es a signi ican co ela ion be ween he o e all
pe cep ion o he p oduc and he quali y o a speci ic g oup. Despi e ha , we ound no s a is ically
signi ican co ela ion be ween he p esence o a G ea Place o Wo k® ce i ied company label
on he chocola e package and he o e all alue o he p oduc . The p esence o his speci ic
label also was no s a is ically associa ed wi h he p ice people we e willing o pay o he
possible as e o he chocola e.
In conclusion, ou s udy shows ha he pe cep ion o quali y only impac ed indi iduals abo e 35
yea s old who a e chocola e o en. Indeed, he use o c edible labels allows i ms o signal
quali y, and in so doing o c ea e he po en ial o a p emium posi ioning based on his signal.
KEYWORDS
Consume s P e e ence; Pu chasing In en ions; ESG; Bes Wo kplaces; Employee Expe ience; G ea
Place o Wo k; Ce i ied Label; CSR Ini ia i es.
INDEX
1. In oduc ion .................................................................................................................. 1
1.1. Backg ound ............................................................................................................ 1
1.2. P oblem Jus i ica ion ............................................................................................. 1
1.3. Objec i es, Resea ch Ques ions and Rele ance .................................................... 2
1.4. S udy S uc u e ...................................................................................................... 2
2. Li e a u e e iew .......................................................................................................... 4
2.1. B anding and P oduc s Di e en ia ion ................................................................. 4
2.2. CSR Ini ia i es, ESG and Employe B anding ......................................................... 5
2.3. Concep ual Model ................................................................................................. 7
3. Me hodology ................................................................................................................ 8
4. Resul s and discussion ................................................................................................ 11
4.1. Main Ou come ..................................................................................................... 11
4.2. Explo a o y Analysis ............................................................................................ 12
4.3. Discussion ............................................................................................................ 14
5. Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 15
5.1. Main Conclusions and Resea ch Con ibu ions ................................................... 15
5.2. Manage ial Implica ions ...................................................................................... 15
6. Limi a ions and ecommenda ions o u u e wo ks ................................................. 17
7. Bibliog aphy ................................................................................................................ 18
8. Appendix ..................................................................................................................... 20
8.1. Appendix 01: Raw Da a Su ey. .......................................................................... 20
8.2. Appendix 02: Raw Da a Su ey. .......................................................................... 21
8.3. Appendix 03: Plo s ............................................................................................... 22
8.4. Appendix 04: Plo s. .............................................................................................. 23
8.5. Appendix 05: Plo s. .............................................................................................. 24
8.6. Appendix 06: Plo s. .............................................................................................. 25
8.7. Appendix 07: Plo s. .............................................................................................. 26
8.8. Appendix 08: Plo s. .............................................................................................. 27

i
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Su ey scales Fon : Au o ........................................................................................... 10
Table 2. Assessing he in luence o he es ed label on he o e all pe cep ion o he p oduc .
Fon : Au o ....................................................................................................................... 11
Table 3. Explo a o y analysis ega ding socio-demog aphic a iables and he o e all
pe cep ion o he chocola e. Fon : Au o ........................................................................ 12
Table 4. Explo a o y analysis ega ding socio-demog aphic a iables and he p ice olun ee s
we e willing o pay o he chocola e. Fon : Au o .......................................................... 13
ii
LIST OF FIGURES
Fig. 1. Concep ual Model. Fon : Au o ..................................................................................... 7
Fig. 2. S imuli wi hou GPTW label. Fon : Au o ....................................................................... 9
Fig. 3. S imuli wi h GPTW label. Fon : Au o ............................................................................ 9
Fig. 4. Cha Age: 18-34 yea s. Fon : Au o ............................................................................. 11
Fig. 5. Cha Age: 35+ yea s. Fon : Au o ................................................................................ 12
Fig. 6. Q-Q Plo s on possible ela ions be ween a iables o in e es . ................................... 13
iii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AMA – The Ame ican Ma ke ing Associa ion
B2B – Business o Business
B2C – Business o Consume
CSR – Co po a e Social Responsibili y
EB – Employe B anding
ESG – En i onmen al, Social, and Go e nance
EX – Employee Expe ience
EVP – Employee Value P oposi ion
GPTW – G ea Place o Wo k®
HC – Human Capi al
UN – The Uni ed Na ions
1
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Backg ound
O ganiza ions pu suing pe o mance and compe i i e ad an age, ha e used some key componen s
such as co po a e social esponsibili y (CSR) and en i onmen al, social, and go e nance (ESG)
ini ia i es as p omo ed by UN Sus ainable De elopmen Goals, as a aluable app oach o encou age
hei business uni s o imp o e hei social, economic, and en i onmen al con ex (G een and Peloza,
2011), os e ing companies o c ea e a heal hy and engaged employee en i onmen , wi h a cul u e
o enable he de elopmen o he people’s ull po en ial. A s ong ESG p oposi ion also links o alue
c ea ion in i e essen ial ways: op-line g ow h, cos educ ions, egula o y and legal in e en ions,
p oduc i i y upli , and in es men and asse op imiza ion. Looking speci ically o a p oduc i i y
upli iew, a s ong ESG p oposi ion can boos employee mo i a ion and a ac alen h ough
g ea e social c edibili y (Henisz, Kolle , & Nu all, 2020).
The use o suppo sys ems and consis en me hodologies o guide a cul u e ha alues employees
and leade ship engaged o he o ganiza ion’s goals enables people o excel in hei jobs (Lowe,
2010). Ma ke ing manage s a e also conce ned abou he epu a ion, which is a c i ical aspec no
only o b anding s a egies and consume s loyal y bu also o a ac ing and e aining hei alen ed
employees. This is called employe b anding, a e m i s coined by Simon Ba ow and Tim Amble
(1996). The success o companies inc easingly depends on he epu a ion ha he b and has in he
ma ke , and he ac ha i can posi i ely impac he a ac ion and e aining skilled employees is
i al o companies ha a e ying o be an employe o choice o he employees (Su he land,
To icelli, & Ka g, 2002), and his concep o ‘employe o choice’ is no hing bu he idea o employe
b anding (Tüzüne & Yüksel, 2009). The concep o employe b anding has been de i ed om
ma ke ing and o ganiza ions ha ha e used b anding as a s a egic ool, applying he concep o
b anding in se e al o he se ings in which he ole o b anding is p ominen (Sok o, 2012). Employe
b anding is an e ec i e s a egy aimed a gaining an ad an age in inc easingly compe i i e job
ma ke s. I assumes ha Human Capi al (HC) b ings alue o he company and ha i s skill ul
managemen can lead o a sus ained compe i i e ad an age. A sa is ied employee will be mo i a ed
o p o ide a quali y se ice o hei cus ome s (Dabi ian, Pie e and Kie zmann, 2019). Based on his
p emise, o ganiza ions cons an ly looking o e ec i e s a egies o a ac new alen s o e ain hei
cu en employees, pa ially h ough a well- planned and consis en employe b and.
Se e al s udies al eady p o ed he posi i e co ela ion be ween employee expe ience and cus ome
expe ience, and he impac s ha he bes people managemen p ac ices ha e on employee
mo i a ion. As a esul , o ganiza ions became conce ned wi h adop ing ini ia i es in people
managemen o ob ain g ea e employee engagemen , mo e inno a ion, g ea e cus ome
sa is ac ion and g ea e , and g ea e inancial pe o mance (Edmans, 2012).
1.2. P oblem Jus i ica ion
E e y yea , many s udies ha e o e ed consis en benchma ks o he posi i e impac s on business
pe o mance and managemen di ec ly associa ed wi h a be e employees’ expe ience (Mayle ,
W ide & Pa e son, 2017). Companies can use his in o ma ion o inc ease hei b and epu a ion by
8
3. METHODOLOGY
The main objec i e o his s udy was o e i y whe he he p esence o GPTW label on packages can
be associa ed wi h expec ed changes in pe cep ion o he p oduc ’s as e o quali y. Seconda y goals
we e based on o he possible socio-demog aphical ac o s associa ed o he pe cep ion o quali y by
he olun ee s ollowing explo a o y analysis. The s udy used an expe imen al design wi h wo
condi ions: a p oduc ’s package wi h e sus wi hou he GPTW label. We o mula ed ques ions ha
measu ed on a scale om 1 o 9, he deg ee o impo ance o ag eemen gi en o he p oposed
ques ions o s a emen s. In his way, he objec i e was o ex ac he opinion o he esponden s, in
o de o unde s and he main pe cep ions ega ding possible buying in en ion, quali y, and as e o a
p oduc wi h he G ea Place o Wo k Ce i ied Label company (s imuli). Finally, he expe imen was
sen , and da a we e collec ed online andomly in wo g oups, nomina ed as wi hou s imuli and wi h
s imuli (wi hou a label and wi h a label).
Ini ially, excel was used in o de o o ganize and s anda dize he in o ma ion collec ed. Then, he
da a was explo ed h ough S a a 12 SE so wa e and Jamo i S a is ics so wa e. A his s age, we
sough o analyze he ela ionship be ween he Independen and Dependen a iables in bo h g oups
o compa e hei esul s.
We ec ui ed 240 people li ing in he Uni ed S a es o Ame ica. 135 we e male (56,25%) and 105
emale (43,75%), 14 o hese indi iduals had 18 – 24 yea s (5,83%), 103 indi iduals 25 – 34 yea s
(42,92%), 74 indi iduals 35 – 44 yea s (30,83%), 26 indi iduals 45 – 54 yea s (10,83%), and 23
indi iduals had 55 – 75 yea s (9,58%). Finally, 7 esponses had o be emo ed om he analysis due
o incomple e answe s.
The in oduc o y ex exposed he hypo he ical si ua ion, abou a global company ha is planning o
launch a new line o snacks (Chocola e Ba s) and is in i ing a ge consume s a ound he wo ld o
o e eedback abou hese new packages design.
Nex , pa icipan s we e andomly assigned o obse e he package o ei he he G ea Place o
Wo k® Ce i ied Company labeled o he non-labeled e sion o a new global chocola e b and (Fig. 2
–Fig. 3). We hen collec ed he indi iduals’ pe cep ion o he quali y, as e, in en ion o buy based
on he p e iously ecei ed package, using 9-poin Like scales (see Table 1). To a oid he dange o
he G ea Place o Wo k® Ce i ied Company label being un eliable and inconsis en wi h he p oduc
ca ego y, his speci ic ca ego y o p oduc s was chosen conside ing he la ge op ions o unknown
b ands o e ed as “whi e label” in e aile s.
In o de o achie e he s udy objec i es, a su ey was designed o ou expe imen al esea ch,
e e encing as men ioned by (Ca pen e e al. 1994), we a e going o conside as ou “meaningless”
di e en ia ion adding he G ea Place o Wo k® Ce i ied company label in packages, an a ibu e
ha canno be di ec ly co ela ed o a “be e as e” o “Be e Quali y” in a chocola e ba (Figu e.
2). E en knowing ha he e is an inc easing alo iza ion and pe cei ed posi i e impac s on
consume ’s p e e ences ega ding CSR and ESG ini ia i es (Lee & Shin, 2009), un il now, he e’s no
speci ic la ge-scale s udy has iden i ied a posi i e co ela ion o a p oduc ’s e alua ion.

9
Fig. 2. S imuli wi hou GPTW label. Fon : Au o
Fig. 3. S imuli wi h GPTW label. Fon : Au o
The i ems in he ques ionnai e we e i s w i en in English, ansla ed in o Po uguese, and hen
back- ansla ed in o English. Back ansla ion was used o ensu e ha he i ems in Po uguese
communica ed simila in o ma ion o hose in English, meaning ha concep ual equi alence was
assu ed. (Fo es & Ri a, 2014)
Fo he su ey’s alida ion, we sha ed a p e ious e sion o ge some eedback abou he
in oduc ion con en , luency o he s a emen s, consis ency abou he eali y, and design aspec s o
he packages. The p e- es su ey was sha ed wi h cus ome s om di e en coun ies like he USA,
B azil, Po ugal in an English e sion. The public was chosen by con enience, ying o ge mo e
a iabili y ega ding he esponden s’ p o iles.
10
In his hypo he ical si ua ion, he pu pose o his esea ch p ojec was o s udy he impac s o
di e en models o labeling p oduc s packages.
Table 1. Su ey scales Fon : Au o
11
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1. Main Ou come
Conside ing ou main hypo hesis, o e i y whe he he p esence o GPTW ce i ied company label in
packages can be associa ed wi h expec ed changes in pe cep ion o he p oduc ’s as e o quali y, we
ound no e ec o he p esence o he es ed label on he o e all pe cep ion (p=0.491) no wi h he
in luence o as e (p=0.331) o he p oduc as p esen ed in able 02.
Table 2. Assessing he in luence o he es ed label on he o e all pe cep ion o he p oduc . Fon : Au o
Howe e , he mode a ion analysis using SPSS PROCESS Mac o (Model 2) showed a signi ican
in e ac ion wi h combined quali y assessmen s (pe cei ed quali y, package design and p emium
package e alua ions;
α
= .844) as he dependen a iable, and age (di ided in o wo g oups: 18-34
(47.6%) and 35+ (52.4%)) and he equency o ea ing chocola es as pa allel mode a o s (F(2, 227) =
3.56, p = .03).
Speci ically, we ound ha younge people who don’ ea o en chocola e a ed he p oduc wi h he
GPTW label signi ican ly lowe han he p oduc wi h no label (MGPTW label = 6.05 s. MNo label = 6.80, SE
= .32, = -2.32, p = .021). On he o he hand, olde people who ea chocola e o en did a e he
p oduc wi h he GPTW label on a highe label (MGPTW label = 7.97 s. MNo label = 7.35, SE = .31, = 2.00, p
= .046). The label did no make any di e ence o younge people who ea chocola e o en (p > .70)
o o olde people who don’ ea chocola e o en (p > .90).
Fig. 4. Cha Age: 18-34 yea s. Fon : Au o
12
Fig. 5. Cha Age: 35+ yea s. Fon : Au o
4.2. Explo a o y Analysis
Fu he in es iga ion highligh ed hose olun ee s indeed unde sco e he p esence o he GPTW
ce i ied company label as an unusual ea u e ela ed o he chocola e package, bu hey a e no
necessa ily conside ed as ele an o impac hei pe cep ions ega ding he p oduc . Fu he mo e,
no o he signi ican associa ion was ound ega ding he p esence o he label. In ac , he p ice he
olun ee s we e willing o pay (p=0.509), he disposal o paying mo e o labeled chocola e han a
egula one (p=0.802), he alua ion o he chocola e as a p emium p oduc (p=0.443), he ex en o
which hey we e awa e o GPTW wo k (p=0.940), he ele ance owa ds GPTW ac i i ies (p=0.985),
he awa eness owa ds ESG ini ia i es (p=0.954) and he ele ance ega ding ESG (p]0.936), none o
hese a iables seemed o be in luenced by he p esence o he es ed label, as p esen ed in able 03
and Figu e 04.
Table 3. Explo a o y analysis ega ding socio-demog aphic a iables and he o e all pe cep ion o he chocola e. Fon :
Au o
13
Fig. 6. Q-Q Plo s on possible ela ions be ween a iables o in e es .
Q-Q pło on (A) he co ela ion be ween o e all imp ession o he chocola e and how people imagine
he as e would be like, (B) he co ela ion be ween o e all pe cep ion o he chocola e and how
much would someone pay o he i em.
In e es ingly, o e i y which a iables could be ela ed o he o e all quali y and as e pe cep ion o
he chocola e, complimen a y analysis whe e un. We ound ha a highe gene al pe cep ion o he
p oduc was p esumably in luenced by he an icipa ion o a be e as e (p<0.001), he pe cep ion o
he package design as pleasan (p<0.001, independen ly o he p esence o GPTW label). The
ele ance people gi e o bo h GPTW (p=0.045) and ESG (p=.979) ini ia i es did no impac o e all
quali y pe cep ion.
Mo eo e , we ound ha conside ing he p oduc o be p emium (p=0.001), ha ing acknowledged
GPTW wo k (p=0.006), o ESG ini ia i es (p<0.001) we e ac o s associa ed wi h he alue people
we e willing o pay o he chocola e, independen ly o he package hey ecei ed as p esen ed in
able 04.
Table 4. Explo a o y analysis ega ding socio-demog aphic a iables and he p ice olun ee s we e willing o pay o he
chocola e. Fon : Au o

14
4.3. Discussion
In a gene al analysis, we ound no s a is ically signi ican co ela ion be ween he p esence o a
GPTW ce i ied company label on he chocola e package and he o e all alue o he p oduc . The
p esence o his speci ic label also was no s a is ically associa ed wi h he p ice people we e willing
o pay, o he possible as e o he chocola e. The explo a o y analysis unde sco es a signi ican
co ela ion be ween he o e all pe cep ion o he p oduc and he p ice people would pay as well as
wi h he assump ion o he p oduc as being a p emium one. In he p esen s udy, we ound ha he
pe cep ion o alue ela ed o he es p oduc was p e e ably due o mo e ob ious aspec s such as
he as e o he expe ience o he p oduc as being p emium a he han ela ed o he p esence o a
pa icula label i sel .
In e es ingly, e en among pa icipan s which conside ed ele an he ac i i ies o GPTW, he
p esence o he GPTW ce i ied company label was no ela ed o inc eased alue pe cep ion. This
ele an obse a ion possibly unde sco es he adi ional GPTW business- o-business app oach
a he han a cus ome -di ec ed appeal o business- o-consume model.
F om he esul s o his s udy by clus e ing, we can conclude ha b ands can ha e a posi i e e ec
om he G ea Place o Wo k label whose a ge is olde , chocola e-consuming people. Fo example,
mo e expensi e, p emium b ands could bene i om a label such as he GPTW ce i ied label.
Howe e , i could ha e a nega i e e ec on younge consume s, especially i hey don’ consume
chocola e o en. These indings sugges ha esea che s and ma ke e s o e hical p oduc s should
conside he age and equency o consump ion when assessing consume s’ o he good and i s
a ibu es.
15
5. CONCLUSIONS
5.1. Main Conclusions and Resea ch Con ibu ions
The s udy aims o unde s and he ele ance o including a GPTW ce i ied company label on
chocola e packaging and whe he consume s can conside his inse ion as ele an o in luence hei
pe cep ion o quali y, in en ion o buy, as e, and willingness o pay. The s udy s ill o e s a p oposed
model and a pa h o u u e esea che s, pe mi ing he expansion o he knowledge ega ding he
uses o Employe B anding communica ion ools as di e en ial on b ands’ pe cep ion.
Examples o e hically labeled p oduc s ha conside en i onmen al and human wel a e issues a e
becoming inc easingly p e alen and he li e a u e shows ha human esou ces bes p ac ices a e
c ucial o achie ing ope a ional e ec i eness. Suppo ing o ganiza ional policies can imp o e
epu a ion as s a egic ac o s o le e age i s ma ke posi ion, capable o boos CSR ini ia i es,
impac ing he company mo ale and p oduc i i y, c ea ing a wo kplace ha is conduci e o quali y.
Add o his en i onmen an inspi ing business mission o company image ha appeals o cus ome s,
and you’ll ha e a company well-posi ioned o sus ained g ow h.
A p ope ESG p og am help o ensu e ha in e nal p ocesses a e socially and en i onmen ally
sus ainable and can lead o cos sa ings, educing was e, and op imizing esou ces. ESG p og ams
can also help o a ac and e ain he bes alen s, educing cos s ela ed o high u no e a es.
These quali a i e and quan i a i e bene i s illus a e he impo ance o social conside a ions o e e y
aspec o ou business, ein o cing how s a egic is o be socially esponsible.
The posi i e co ela ion be ween employee expe ience and cus ome expe ience, and he impac
ha he o ganiza ional clima e has on employee mo i a ion, is al eady p o ided by se e al s udies. A
s ong ESG p oposi ion can boos employee mo i a ion and a ac alen h ough g ea e social
c edibili y, ini ia i es as pa o an en i onmen al, social, and go e nance (ESG) p oposi ion also links
o alue c ea ion in i e essen ial ways, op-line g ow h, cos educ ions, egula o y and legal
in e en ions, p oduc i i y upli , and In es men and asse op imiza ion, looking speci ically o in a
p oduc i i y upli iew. E en inc easingly alue e hical aspec s in a b and, consume s in end o buy
p oduc s om “good” companies wi h “good” CSR consume s ini ia i es, bu i seems o us ha no
o e e y ype o p oduc o scena io, hese aspec s ha e a di ec impac as decision-making, i ’s
necessa y o e alua e he equency o consump ion and age g oup.
B oadly speaking, e en wi h all he signals poin ing o a posi i e impac and all possible bene i s
ega ding using a GPTW ce i ied company label on he p oduc ’s packaging, ou indings only
con i m he accep ance o a posi i e impac ega ding he quali y whose a ge is olde people who
ea chocola e o en (H2).
5.2. Manage ial Implica ions
As o he implica ions o he managemen , ou indings yield p ac ical implica ions o co po a e
manage s and con ibu e o he g owing body o knowledge o Employe B anding, CSR, and ESG
ini ia i es as pa o hei co po a e s a egy and b and managemen .
16
Be o e using elemen s known o be e ec i e o Employe B anding ac ions in packaging as e hical
signs, wi h he in en ion o impac posi i ely he pe cep ions o quali y o as e, i is necessa y o
ealize i you a ge audience ecognizes he awa ds o ce i ica ions associa ed wi h you company
and mapping he en i e decision p ocess. Ou s udy shows ha he pe cep ion o quali y only
impac ed indi iduals abo e 35 yea s old who a e chocola e o en. Indeed, he use o c edible labels
allows i ms o signal quali y, and in so doing, o c ea e he po en ial o a p emium posi ioning
based on his signal. Fo example, in a low in ol emen p oduc ca ego y, he chances o skipping
in o ma ion and e alua ion a e mo e han compa ed o he high in ol emen p oduc s, u ning hese
labels o elemen s less able o posi i ely impac consume s’ pe cep ions as demons a ed in he
s udy esul s, being su passed o elemen s ha a e usually conside ed in o he consume decision-
making p ocess (Ko le , 1991). The consume decision-making p ocess has also p o en o be a use ul
ool o guide ma ke ing manage s, allowing segmen a ion and posi ioning o consume s (Zhou e al.,
2010), wi h a consis en s a egy combining labels and co ela ed signs o an e hical d i e o socially
and en i onmen ally sus ainable, can be possible o imp o e a p emium posi ioning inside a speci ic
ca ego y.
Fo he G ea Place o Wo k® co po a e ma ke ing and b ands managemen , i ’s an oppo uni y o
e alua e how o imp o e you B2C communica ions and posi ioning including in low in ol emen
p oduc s ca ego ies, he e is a b oad window o oppo uni y o expand hei b and’s alue o hei
ecogni ions and ce i ica ions besides B2B po olio, expanding hei ele ance and ela ionship
abo e he Human Resou ces ocused ools. Mo eo e , he oppo uni y o ein o ce o hei clien s
he use o GPTW label in p oduc s wi h a a ge abo e 35 yea s old, as a ele an s a egy o imp o e
p oduc di e en ia ion and achie e a p emium posi ioning.
17
6. LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE WORKS
The esea ch con ains se e al limi a ions. The e a e some limi a ions in his esea ch ha could no
be o e come due o ime and limi ed esou ces. The me hod applied in he su ey (expe imen ) has
limi a ions, one limi a ion lies in he ac ha he quali y and quan i y o in o ma ion ob ained
signi ican ly depend on he esponden s’ abili y and willingness o coope a e, wi h he possibili y o
p esen ing biased esponses, as hey will know he pu pose o he s udy, he esponden s hey can
gi e answe s hey conside “co ec ”. Second, we did no include ce ain s udies because o he
una ailabili y o hei quan i a i e da a o because hey we e quali a i e. I was also no possible o
ind o he highly ela ed s udies based on su eys o ha e a baseline o compa ison. Thi d, he
in iabili y o collec ing a la ge numbe o esponses samples om di e en loca ions, such as
Eu ope and Sou h Ame ican, ma ke s ha ha e a mo e ele an p esence om he G ea Place o
Wo k b and.
One ac o no add essed in his s udy is he use o o he segmen s and ca ego ies wi h low and high
in ol emen , o e alua e i he GPTW ce i ied company label could impac consume s in di e en
ways, once depending on he ca ego y analyzed, he decision p ocess and e alua ion op ions a e
mo e complexes, leading o conside mo e elemen s du ing he pu chase and decision p ocess.
Decision making o high in ol emen pu chases is a complex p oblem-sol ing exe cise and he e o e
in ol es a sequen ial p ocess: p oblem ecogni ion, in o ma ion sea ch, b and e alua ion and
selec ion, pu chase, and pos -pu chase (Ques e e al., 2007; Nayeem, & Casidy, 2013).
The limi a ions o he s udy can amoun o oppo uni ies o u u e esea ch, aising an in e es ing
end o be explo ed, by segmen ing p oduc s ca ego ies such as low and high in ol emen , o
unde s and he e ec s o using adi ional Employe B anding communica ions and ce i ica ions as
b anding di e en ia ion.
24
8.5. Appendix 05: Plo s.
Appendix 05: Plo s. Fon : Au o

25
8.6. Appendix 06: Plo s.
Appendix 06: Plo s. Fon : Au o
26
8.7. Appendix 07: Plo s.
Appendix 07: Plo s. Fon : Au o
27
8.8. Appendix 08: Plo s.
Appendix 08: Plo s. Fon : Au o
Page | i