The consumers perceptions of employer and service brand equity's: The exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis

Ščiukauskė, Indrė; Romeika, Giedrius; Šarkiūnaitė, Ingrida Article The consumers perceptions of employer and service brand equity's: The exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis Journal of Business Economics and Management (JBEM) Provided in Cooperation with: Vilnius Gediminas Technical University (VILNIUS TECH) Suggested Citation: Ščiukauskė, Indrė; Romeika, Giedrius; Šarkiūnaitė, Ingrida (2024) : The consumers perceptions of employer and service brand equity's: The exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, Journal of Business Economics and Management (JBEM), ISSN 2029-4433, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Vilnius, Vol. 25, Iss. 1, pp. 85-103, https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2024.20716 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/317670 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Vilnius Gediminas Technical University ISSN 1611-1699 / eISSN 2029-4433 2024 Volume 25 Issue 1 Pages 85–103 https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2024.20716 THE CONSUMERS PERCEPTIONS OF EMPLOYER AND SERVICE BRAND EQUITY’S: THE EXPLORATORY AND CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS Indrė ŠČIUKAUSKĖ , Giedrius ROMEIKA , Ingrida ŠARKIŪNAITĖ Kaunas Faculty, Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania Article History: Abstract. While the traditional components of employer brand equity are applied in the context of an organization’s employees, this study sought to assess a hitherto unexplored context – the extent to which employer brand equity impacts on consumers of an organization’s service brand rather than the target audience. The two research objectives were: 1) to identify the specific dimensions of both employer and perceived service brand equities 2) to assess the relationship between them and consumer behavioral intentions. The study was based on quantitative data of 526 respondents, using both Exploratory (EFA), Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and structural equation modelling (SEM). The findings confirmed the 3 (employer brand image, reputation, and awareness) and 4 (service brand image, perceived quality, service brand awareness, brand loyalty) factors of employer and service brand equities respectively. The study revealed the employer brand equity significant relationship with service brand equity, but the lack of direct effect on consumers’ behavioral intentions. The research is novel as it assesses the employer brand equity’s impact not only on the service brand’s overall perceived equity, but also on consumers’ behavioral intentions, by examining the impact on two different groups (existing and potential service brand consumers). ■ received 30 November 2023 ■ accepted 11 December 2023 Keywords: service brand equity, employer brand equity, consumer perspective, impact, telecommunications, perception, purchase intention, repurchase intention. JEL Classification: M12, M31, L96, O15. Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected] JOURNAL of BUSINESS ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT 1. Introduction Customer decisions when choosing services depends on the equity created by the service brand itself (its strength), but the concept of the brand equity is more often investigated in product categories, and services use elements of the product brand equity, which shows the relevance of the analysis of the service brand equity. A strong brand is regarded as an important component in a service provider’s effort to differentiate itself from competitors. (Krystallis & Chrysochou, 2014). Service business aims at building loyalty, trust, a positive image, and experience; however, the question arises as to whether the consumer’s opinion about the service brand will be affected by the positive or negative associations of the employer brand of that service company and other components of the employer brand equity? From what elements these equity’s perception consists of? The employer brand equity has been examined in the following aspects: the bond between values and organizational attractiveness (Jiang & Iles, 2011); the recruitment brand equity and its impact on job pursuit intentions (Collins & Martinez-Moreno, 2022); the employer brand awareness, image and reputation in the recruitment process and its relationship with competitive advantage (Yu & Cabel, 2012); impact of the elements of the employer 86 I. Ščiukauskė et al. The consumers perceptions of employer and service brand equity’s: the exploratory and... brand equity on attracting prospective employees (Collins & Kanar, 2013); the measurement of employer branding (Shrivastava & Shukla, 2023); the employer branding value chain where is stressed not only two target employer branding groups (existing and potential employees) but also the company and the consumers of its brands that may be affected (Theurer et al., 2018). It can be stated that the employer brand equity is usually examined from the standpoint of employees in terms of their attraction and retention; however, there is a lack of insights into how it interacts with the service brand equity, what impact it has not only on employees but also on the consumer perceived service brand equity, consumers’ purchase and repurchase intentions, and their willingness to pay more. Thus, this research contributes to consumer perceptions and brand equity theory in the following ways: conceptual refinement of components of the employer brand equity, their empirical substantiation (as equity dimensions); identification of the relations between the employer brand equity and consumer perceived service brand equity; the assessment whether any and what relationship exists between the employer brand equity and constructs that reflect consumer behaviour (brand attitude, purchase intention, repurchase intention, and willingness to pay more); the assessment of the consumer experience with the service brand as a moderator between the employer brand equity and the consumer perceived service brand equity. The aim of the paper is to investigate the influence of the employer brand equity on the consumer perceived service brand equity and behavioral intentions. The object – the influence of the employer brand equity on the consumer perceived service brand equity and behavioral intentions. Research objectives are 1) to identify the specific dimensions of both employer and perceived service brand equities 2) to assess the relationship between them and consumer behavioral intentions. The structure of the paper. The Literature Review section aims to reveal the theoretical and empirical characteristics of employer and service brand equity, also identifies the contributions and limitations of the previous studies. The Research Methodology section describes research design, data collection and analysis (both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)). The section Results introduces the study findings and analyzes them in relation to the current literature. 2. Literature review 2.1. Employer and service brand equities The concept of employer brand equity is derived from the concept of brand equity, only in this case, it is existing and potential employees that are identified as the customers of this brand, therefore target groups, the creation process of equity and tools differ. It is critical to differentiate the employer brand and the employer branding process (Theurer et al., 2018). The employer brand is understood as the employer value proposition, and the employer branding process is aimed at creating an identifiable and unique identity of the employer (Edwards, 2010). The employer brand also extends branding theory and research by attempting to communicate information about the firm as a desirable workplace to new and existing employees through the creation of persuasive and remarkable employee value propositions (Jiang & Iles, 2011). Joglekar and Tan (2022) defined it as employer brand perceptions. Backhaus and Tikoo (2004, p. 504) defined the employer brand equity as “the effect of brand knowledge on potential and existing employees of the firm..., the desired outcome of employ- Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2024, 25(1), 85–103 87 er branding activities”. Collins and Kanar (2013, p. 288) described the employer brand equity as “the impact of a current or potential future employee’s employer brand perception on his or her behaviors, emotions, and associations related to employment decisions at a particular organization”. All employer brand data is summarized under the construct of employer brand knowledge, which consists of the employer familiarity, image, and reputation, and “the added value of favorable employee response to employer knowledge is generally expressed as ‘employer brand equity” (Theurer et al., 2018). Thus, employer brand equity can be understood as all knowledge and perceptions about the employer that create in the minds of potential and existing employees a convincing and exceptional value of working in that organization. It connects to the consumer perception part of the idea of brand equity in relation to choice-making, except the understanding is tied to the employer rather than the product or service. The service brand differs from the consumer product brand (Chang & Ma, 2015), and features of the service management theory, such as intangibility, heterogeneity and other features of services, complicate service branding compared to product branding, which results in the belief that consumer evaluation of service brands may differ from physical product brands in both kind and degree (Krystallis & Chrysochou, 2014). Issues related to service brands are different from issues concerning product brands as they involve longer-term, complex interactions in which many people participate, and therefore, service brands are about people (Rosethorn, 2016); the examined models of the service brand equity highlight the importance of the human component in the creation of the service brand equity, and models of the creation of the service brand equity highlight the number of different elements of this equity creation. The predominant constructs are largely based on Aaker’s (1991) and Keller’s (1993) insights into brand equity from the consumer perspective. Brand loyalty, brand awareness, perceived quality and brand image are important and the most common elements of service brand equity in service sector research e.g., banking (Pinar et al., 2016), telecommunications (Chang & Liu, 2009), hotel services (Liu et al., 2017). 2.2. Overview of the studies and hypotheses The analysis of scientific sources shows that research on the employer brand equity is dominated by studies of individual elements in questions relating to aspects of the corporate brand: corporate identification and brand citizenship behavior (Hoppe, 2018), evaluation of corporate reputation combining consumer and job seeker identities (Puncheva-Michelotti et al., 2018), and relationships between the corporate brand and the employer brand (Banerjee et al., 2020). It should be noted that there are limited amount of studies examining what elements constitute the employer brand equity. Most studies to date have focused on the role of the employer brand in employee attraction (Bareket-Bojmel & Shuv-Ami, 2019), and the focus has mostly been on only one (mostly attractiveness) or several (image and reputation) elements of the employer brand equity. Grigore et al. (2023) modified employer attractiveness scale and found that it predicts positive work outcomes (job satisfaction, intent to apply). However, employer brand equity is built by combining these elements – image, reputation, awareness, attractiveness, and associations – and such a wider diversification makes it possible to get to know which elements are more important and should be most emphasized when creating the employer brand equity externally. Because this idea of employer brand equity is founded on consumer brand equity models from the consumer perspective and equity is defined as the totality of consumer perceptions, the employer brand equity consists not of one, but of several constructs. The only study that examined the organizational brand equity 88 I. Ščiukauskė et al. The consumers perceptions of employer and service brand equity’s: the exploratory and... perceived by the existing employees as the sum of individual elements was carried out by Bareket-Bojmel and Shuv-Ami (2019), but in the view of the authors of this research, many questions on the used scale are related to the overall evaluation of the organization and the evaluation of the internal audience (existing employees), so it is therefore not appropriate to be used to evaluate the employer brand equity perceived by external audiences. In the absence of research examining the effect of employer brand equity on consumer behavioral intentions, the principle of the concept of brand equity from the consumer perspective which states that the perceived brand equity determines the consumer decisions in relation to the brand, can also be applied when discussing such impact of the employer brand equity on the perceived service brand equity. Continuous purchase intention and price premium are examples of consumer behavioral consequences (Saffer et al., 2023). Oliveira et al. (2023) identified a holistic approach to assess brand equity and proposed it to be further explored in future research. From a holistic point of view, all three brands, divided into product, employer, and corporate levels, may influence the job seeker’s perception of a potential employer (Gupta & Saini, 2020); thus, by analogy, the employer brand equity can affect the perception of an existing and potential consumer of the service brand, his/her purchase/repurchase intention, and his/her willingness to pay, just as the brand equity itself affects a potential employee intention to apply or, in terms of product brands, a consumer purchase/repurchase intention and willingness to pay. Also, based on the theories of information integration and signaling, the brand attitude may change depending on the previous assessment of the brand, new information, and therefore it is assumed that the evaluation of the relationship between the brands (related to one organization – employer brand and service brand), the perception of their equity will also have a spillover effect and impact on the perceived service brand equity. Based on the studies analyzed, which suggest that brand equity is important for predicting consumer behavioral intentions (purchase/repurchase intentions and willingness to pay), a parallel assumption is made that, through a spillover effect on the perceived service brand equity, the employer brand equity will also have the relationship with the constructs of the behavioral intentions of its consumers (potential and existing). Thus, the following hypotheses were formulated on the basis of research results analogous to and close to the problem area: H1: The employer brand equity has a statistically significant positive relationship with the perceived service brand equity. H2: The employer brand equity has a statistically significant positive relationship with the willingness of consumers (existing and potential) to pay for a service brand. H3: The employer brand equity has a statistically significant positive relationship with service brand attitude. H4: The consumer service brand experience moderates the relationship between the employer brand equity and the perceived service brand equity. H5: The consumer service brand experience moderates the relationship between the employer brand equity and the service brand attitude. H6: The employer brand equity has a statistically significant positive relationship with the willingness of an existing consumer to pay for the service brand. H7: The employer brand equity has a statistically significant positive relationship with the intention of an existing consumer to repurchase the service brand. H8: The employer brand equity has a statistically significant positive relationship with the willingness of a potential consumer to pay for a service brand. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2024, 25(1), 85–103 89 H9: The employer brand equity has a statistically significant positive relationship with the intention of a potential consumer to purchase the service brand. H10: The perceived service brand equity has a statistically significant positive relationship with the willingness of consumers (existing (a) and potential (b) to pay for a service brand. H11: The perceived service brand equity has a statistically significant positive relationship with the intention of consumers (existing (a) and potential (b) to purchase (repurchase) the service brand. H12: The service brand attitude has a statistically significant positive relationship with the perceived service brand equity. H13: The service brand attitude has a statistically significant positive relationship with the willingness of consumers (existing (a) and potential (b) to pay for a service brand. H14: The service brand attitude has a statistically significant positive relationship with the intention of (existing (a) and potential (b) to purchase (repurchase) the service brand. In summary, there is a lack of research that would show what reflects the external value of the employer brand, what elements create it, so this study will allow to evaluate elements that reflect employer brand equity and its impact for service brand equity and behavioral consumer intentions. The dimensions are viewed as reflective, since brand equities are evaluated analogously from the dimensions of the consumer perspective, which reflect that value to the consumer (Pappu et al., 2007; Spry et al., 2011). 3. Research methodology 3.1. Data collection and scale development In 2020, the investigation was carried out by interviewing both prospective and current consumers of the chosen service brands in Lithuania (rewarded as “Top Employer 2018” and “Most Desirable Employer 2018”), utilizing the market research firm’s internet-based consumer panel regarding the data would be representative and reflecting the population of Lithuania (using quotas). The responses of 526 respondents remained suitable for analysis. The resulting data was processed by IBM SPSS23 and IBM SPSS AMOS23. Data collection and research variables (scales). A standardized survey prepared on the basis of scales approved by researchers was used. It was adapted on the basis of construct scales of the employer and product/service brand equities, consumer behavioral intentions used in the analyzed studies (Table 1). Table 1. Items adapted for the proposed model (source: compiled by authors, 2023) Construct References 1. Employer brand image (EBI) Collins (2007) Banerjee et al. (2020) Gupta and Saini (2020) Kashive and Khana (2017) 2. Employer attractiveness (EA) Highhouse et al. (2003) Banerjee et al. (2020) Gupta and Saini (2020) 3. Employer brand associations (EBA) Alshathry (2015) 90 I. Ščiukauskė et al. The consumers perceptions of employer and service brand equity’s: the exploratory and... Construct References 4. Employer brand awareness (EBAw) Collins (2007) Banerjee et al. (2020) Gupta and Saini (2020) Kashive and Khana (2017) 5. Employer reputation (ER) Collins (2007) 6. Perceived quality (PQ) Chang and Liu (2009) Pinar et al. (2016) 7. Service brand image (SBI) Pinar et al. (2016) 8. Brand loyalty (BL) Chang and Liu (2009) Pinar et al. (2016) 9. Service Brand awareness (SBAw) Liu et al. (2017) Yoo et al. (2000) 10. Repurchase intention (RI) Chai et al. (2015) 11. Purchase intention (PI) Yoo and Donthu (2001) 12. Willingness to pay (WP) Park and Kim (2014) Torres and Augusto (2019) 13. Brand attitude (BA) Chang and Liu (2009) 3.2. Data analysis 3.2.1. Exploratory factor analysis The data were appropriate for this factor evaluation since the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) threshold was 0.964 and 0.958, respectively (more than 0.9, indicating that the data are perfect for factor analysis (Čekanavičius & Murauskas, 2002), and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was statistically significant (p = .000, p < .05). In EFA, the method of principal axis factoring was chosen as one of the most used methods (De Winter & Dodou, 2012), as well as the aim was to have it reflect latent factors. An obtained preliminary results of the EFA of the Employer Brand Equity (EBE) variables indicated 5 constructs explaining 70.64% of the dispersion of data, but after estimating the values of the communalities of the variables, it was found that the variable Ebat2 = .248 did not exceed the 0.4 threshold (Costello & Osborne, 2005; Gaskin, 2014); also, in the matrix of inverted factor weights, it was observed that the variable EBat1 was assigned to several factors (.414 and .335) and the difference between the weights was less than 0.2 (Gaskin, 2014). Also, other variables Ebat3 and Ebat4 were lower than 0.4 threshold (Reio & Shuck, 2015) as well as the variables EBas1 = –0.361, Ebas2 = .325 and –.379 and Ebas3 = .312 and –.461, and the latter variables were also assigned to several factors. All this indicated potential problems in further CFA and possible elimination of these variables. The assumption was confirmed by CFA when the evaluation of 5 constructs showed that not all them met the conditions of discriminant validity; therefore, variables that were allocated to multiple constructs or had a value less than 0.4 were excluded from the repeated factor analysis. As a result, factors relating to employer attractiveness and associations were omitted while just three constructs of employer brand End of Table 1 Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2024, 25(1), 85–103 91 equity (image, awareness, and reputation) were considered. Also as most commonly used in scientific research, they were also used in further analysis (Collins, 2007; Banerjee et al., 2020; Kashive & Khana, 2017). After the above corrections 3 constructs were identified, which explain 70.99% of the dispersion and the variables obtained in the matrix of the model already belong to only one construct (Table 2). Also, the Cronbach’s alpha for each construct exceeded 0.7, which indicates useful internal consistency (Aiken, 2002, as cited in Pakalniškienė, 2012). Table 2. Matrix of the model of the constructs of the EBE (source: compiled by authors, 2023) Cronbach’s alpha Constructs of the EBE: Image Awareness Reputation .945 .836 .936 ER1 –.678 ER2 –.971 ER3 –.885 ER4 –.731 EBAw1 .654 EBAw2 .675 EBAw3 .835 EBI1 .707 EBI2 .793 EBI3 .766 EBI4 .928 EBI5 .802 EBI6 .817 EBI7 .840 EBI8 .774 Note: Extraction method: Principal axis factoring. Rotation method: Direct oblimin. The EFA of the constructs of the perceived Service Brand Equity (SBE) and related constructs such as willingness to pay and service brand attitude – revealed that the 6 identified factors explained 69.28% of the dispersion of data (Table 3). However, the communality of the variable SBAw2 was .246 < 0.4 and the exclusion of this variable from the factor weight matrix left other variables that did not exceed this limit of 0.4 (SBA3 = .339) and can be considered insignificant or were assigned to several constructs (SBI5 = .420 and 0.329, SBL3 = .303 and .328) and were therefore omitted from the model. Following the removal of the required variables, the dispersion of data increased to 72.4%. The resulting matrix of the model (Table 3) shows the variables of all the identified constructs already belong to only one construct. All the weights of these variables exceed 0.4, also Cronbach’s alpha is higher than 0.7 except for the service brand awareness (Cronbach’s α = .681), but it is also suitable because it exceeds 0.6 (Pakalniškienė, 2012); therefore, it can be concluded that the 4 constructs that reflect the service brand equity are related to the variables that describe them. 92 I. Ščiukauskė et al. The consumers perceptions of employer and service brand equity’s: the exploratory and... 3.2.2. Confirmatory factor analysis After the EFA, the CFA was carried out with the identified constructs that were obtained (Figure 1). The general CFA of the model (Figure 1) shows the strongest correlation is between the employer brand equity (EBE) r = 0.77, and the weakest correlation is between EBE and SBA – r = 0.42. It can also be seen that the perceived service brand equity (SBE) has a stronger relationship with the willingness to pay (WP) (r = 0.66) than with the service brand attitude (SBA) (r = 0.62). All relationships of this overall confirmatory factor model are statistically significant, and the main model fit indices and the validity and reliability of the constructs are shown in Table 4. The Average Variance Extracted (AVE) of the construct of the employer brand equity is more than 0.5, and the Composite Reliability (CR) is more than 0.7. The construct of the Table 3. Matrix of the model of the constructs of the perceived SBE (source: compiled by authors, 2023) Cronbach’s alpha Perceived SBE elements and related constructs: Percei-ved quality (PQ) Service brand loyalty (BL) Service brand attitude (SBA) Service brand image (SBI) Willingness to pay (WP) Service brand awareness (SBAw) .955 .759 .809 .948 .897 .681 SBA2 .634 SBA4 .780 SBA5 .720 SBI1 –.722 SBI2 –.911 SBI3 –.914 SBI4 –.897 SBI5 –.726 BL1 .604 BL2 .502 BL4 .656 PQ1 .739 PQ2 .831 PQ3 .809 PQ4 .863 PQ5 .845 PQ6 .911 SBAw1 .551 SBAw3 .733 WP1 –.894 WP2 –.915 Note: Extraction method: Principal axis factoring. Rotation method: Direct oblimin. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2024, 25(1), 85–103 99 The assessment of possible differences between the equity of a service brand to existing and potential consumers found that this effect is statistically significantly different between groups, suggesting that experience moderates the strength of the relationship: employer brand equity has a stronger positive effect in the potential consumer group, while perceived service brand equity has a stronger effect on willingness to pay more for a service brand in the existing consumer group than in the potential consumer group, and attitudes towards the service brand have a stronger effect on consumers’ perceptions of the equity of a service brand. The influence of employer brand equity on consumer behavioral intentions generated different outcomes. This equity does not have a direct effect on the willingness to pay, either in the pooled or in the individual models, unlike in the study by Anselmsson et al. (2016), which found that HRM image has a positive effect on the willingness to pay more. There is only a direct negative effect on the intention to repurchase the service brand in the group of existing consumers. This is an unexpected result, implying that an increase in the equity of the employer brand decreases the consumer’s intention to repurchase the service brand. This may be the case when it isn’t stressed that this equity also contributes to the equity of the service brand itself. Thus, consumers repurchase intentions decrease as less attention is perceived to be paid to improving the service brand equity, and there is a risk that the consumer feels forgotten, the focus is no longer on them. The results are also in line with research on the direct effect of views towards a service brand on the equity of that brand (Ansary & Hashim, 2018; Kim et al., 2012), as a significant direct effect is also obtained. The fact that the effect is stronger in the consumer group may be attributed to their existing experience with service brand use. Although previous studies have identified attitudes toward the service brand as a factor directly affecting consumers’ purchase intentions (Liu et al., 2017; Spears & Singh, 2004; Torres & Augusto, 2019), repeat purchases, and willingness to pay more (Augusto & Torres, 2018), the results of this study differ. It shows that, without differentiating respondents according to their experience with the service brand, attitudes toward the service brand don’t have a direct effect on consumers’ behavioral intentions. When looking at the effects across groups, it ss found that attitudes towards the service brand only have a direct effect on the purchase intentions of potential consumers, while there is no such effect for existing service brand consumers. Hence, in order to influence the intentions of potential consumers, communication can go in several directions, both in terms of creating positive attitudes towards the service brand and in terms of reinforcing their perceived equity through brand image, perceived quality, and other dimensions of service brand equity. 6. Conclusions This study reveals that employee-oriented organizational activities and equity creation can strengthen or weaken an organization’s service brand. Consumers value not only the basic service brand elements, but behavioral intentions are also influenced by employer brand equity; thus, coordinated management of employer and service brand equity can increase competitive advantage. Managers should consider not only image but reputation and knowledge when planning campaigns. Evaluating employer brand equity in three components (image, awareness, and reputation) and service brand equity in four components (brand image, perceived quality, brand loyalty, and awareness) can help create effective external marketing by forming expectations for potential employees and consumers. 100 I. Ščiukauskė et al. The consumers perceptions of employer and service brand equity’s: the exploratory and... Limitations and future research. The study also has certain drawbacks that might be covered by future research. First, the study was only conducted in Lithuania, it’s impossible to determine impact of cultural variations. Another drawback is that only brands in the business sector, notably those in the telecommunications industry, were examined; given the nature of these services, customers perceive them to be less risky. Future studies could examine the effects on the public sector and the effects of additional factors affecting consumer behavior: how employer brand equity affects perceived brand equity in different ways across the marketing mix, incorporating sociocultural, situational elements that have been studied in studies of consumer behavior. A third limitation concerns the study sample. The impact of employer brand equity is only evaluated from an external perspective, analyzing the relationship with customers who do not work for the organization in question and whose closest relatives have not worked for the companies in question. As a result, the study is unable to evaluate the impact on customers who were or had been associated with the service providers’ employers. Also, quota sampling was used in the sampling procedure for Lithuania population, thus future research could use probability sampling method. Author contributions All authors have participated in the concept and design, analysis and interpretation of data, drafting or revising of the manuscript. Disclosure statement Authors do not have any competing financial, professional, or personal conflict of interests from other parties. References Aaker, D. (1991). Managing brand equity: Capitalizing on the value of a brand name. The Free Press. Alshathry, S. (2015). Exploring the role of employer brand equity in the labour market: Differences between existing employee and job seeker perceptions [Doctoral dissertation]. The University of Adelaide. Ansary, A., & Hashim, N. M. H. N. (2018). Brand image and equity: The mediating role of brand equity drivers and moderating effects of product type and word of mouth. Review of Managerial Science, 12(4), 969–1002. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-017-0235-2 Anselmsson, J., Bondesson, N., & Melin, F. (2016). Customer-based brand equity and human resource management image: Do retail customers really care about HRM and the employer brand? European Journal of Marketing, 50(7–8), 1185–1208. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-02-2015-0094 Augusto, M., & Torres, P. (2018). Effects of brand attitude and eWOM on consumers’ willingness to pay in the banking industry: Mediating role of consumer-brand identification and brand equity. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 42, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.01.005 Backhaus, K., & Tikoo, S. (2004). Conceptualizing and researching employer branding. Career Development International, 9(5), 501–517. https://doi.org/10.1108/13620430410550754 Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., & Phillips, L. W. (1991). Assessing construct validity in organizational research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(3), 421–458. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393203 Banerjee, P., Saini, G. K., & Kalyanaram, G. (2020). The role of brands in recruitment: Mediating role of employer brand equity. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 58(2), 173–196. https://doi.org/10.1111/1744-7941.12209 Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2024, 25(1), 85–103 101 Bareket-Bojmel, L., & Shuv-Ami, A. (2019). The brand is my workplace. International Journal of Manpower, 40(5), 818–833. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-07-2017-0176 Baum, M., & Kabst, R. (2014). The effectiveness of recruitment advertisements and recruitment websites: Indirect and interactive effects on applicant attraction. Human Resource Management, 53(3), 353–378. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21571 Čekanavičius, V., & Murauskas, G. (2002). Statistika ir jos taikymai. TEV. Chai, J. C. Y., Malhotra, N. K., & Alpert, F. (2015). A two-dimensional model of trust–value–loyalty in service relationships. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 26, 23–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2015.05.005 Chang, H. H., & Liu, Y. M. (2009). The impact of brand equity on brand preference and purchase intentions in the service industries. The Service Industries Journal, 29(12), 1687–1706. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642060902793557 Chang, H. P., & Ma, C. C. (2015). Managing the service brand value of the hotel industry in an emerging market. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 47, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.02.005 Collins, C. J. (2007). The interactive effects of recruitment practices and product awareness on job seekers’ employer knowledge and application behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 180–190. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.180 Collins, C. J., & Kanar, A. M. (2013). Employer brand equity and recruitment research. In D. M. Cable, & K. Y. Trevor Yu (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of recruitment (pp. 284–297). Oxford Academic. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199756094.013.0016 Collins, C. J., & Martinez-Moreno, J. E. (2022). Recruitment brand equity for unknown employers: Examining the effects of recruitment message claim verifiability and credibility on job pursuit intentions. Human Resource Management, 61(5), 585–597. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.22089 Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 10(1), 1–9. Davies, G., Mete, M., & Whelan, S. (2018). When employer brand image aids employee satisfaction and engagement. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 5(1), 64–80. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOEPP-03-2017-0028 De Stobbeleir, K. E., De Clippeleer, I., Caniëls, M. C., Goedertier, F., Deprez, J., De Vos, A., & Buyens, D. (2018). The inside effects of a strong external employer brand: How external perceptions can influence organizational absenteeism rates. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 29(13), 2106–2136. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2016.1239120 De Winter, J. C., & Dodou, D. (2012). Factor recovery by principal axis factoring and maximum likelihood factor analysis as a function of factor pattern and sample size. Journal of Applied Statistics, 39(4), 695–710. https://doi.org/10.1080/02664763.2011.610445 Edwards, M. R. (2010). An integrative review of employer branding and OB theory. Personnel Review, 39(1), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1108/00483481011012809 Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104 Gaskin, J. (2014). Confirmatory factor analysis. Retrieved January 13, 2021, from http://statwiki.gaskination. com/index.php?title=CFA/ Grigore, G., Chapleo, C., Homberg, F., Alniacik, U., & Stancu, A. (2023). Employer branding dimensions: An adapted scale for Eastern Europe. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2023.2241460 Gupta, S., & Saini, G. K. (2020). Information source credibility and job seekers’ intention to apply: The mediating role of brands. Global Business Review, 21(3), 743–762. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972150918778910 Highhouse, S., Lievens, F., & Sinar, E. F. (2003). Measuring attraction to organizations. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63(6), 986–1001. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164403258403 102 I. Ščiukauskė et al. The consumers perceptions of employer and service brand equity’s: the exploratory and... Hoppe, D. (2018). Linking employer branding and internal branding: Establishing perceived employer brand image as an antecedent of favourable employee brand attitudes and behaviours. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 27(4), 452–467. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-12-2016-1374 Jiang, T., & Iles, P. (2011). Employer-brand equity, organizational attractiveness and talent management in the Zhejiang private sector, China. Journal of Technology Management in China, 6(1), 97–110. https://doi.org/10.1108/17468771111105686 Joglekar, J., & Tan, C. S. (2022). The impact of LinkedIn posts on employer brand perception and the mediating effects of employer attractiveness and corporate reputation. Journal of Advances in Management Research, 19(4), 624–650. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAMR-10-2021-0343 Kashive, N., & Khanna, V. T. (2017). Study of early recruitment activities and employer brand knowledge and its effect on organization attractiveness and firm performance. Global Business Review, 18(S3), S172–S190. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972150917693334 Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299305700101 Kim, K. H., Ko, E., Xu, B., & Han, Y. (2012). Increasing customer equity of luxury fashion brands through nurturing consumer attitude. Journal of Business Research, 65(10), 1495–1499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.10.016 Krystallis, A., & Chrysochou, P. (2014). The effects of service brand dimensions on brand loyalty. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 21(2), 139–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2013.07.009 Liu, M. T., Wong, I. A., Tseng, T. H., Chang, A. W. Y., & Phau, I. (2017). Applying consumer-based brand equity in luxury hotel branding. Journal of Business Research, 81, 192–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.06.014 Oliveira, M. O. R. de, Heldt, R., Silveira, C. S., & Luce, F. B. (2023). Brand equity chain and brand equity measurement approaches. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 41(4), 442–456. https://doi.org/10.1108/MIP-06-2022-0222 Pakalniškienė, V. (2012). Tyrimo ir įvertinimo priemonių patikimumo ir validumo nustatymas (Metodinė priemonė). Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. Pappu, R., Quester, P. G., & Cooksey, R. W. (2007). Country image and consumer-based brand equity: Relationships and implications for international marketing. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(5), 726–745. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400293 Park, H., & Kim, Y.-K. (2014). The role of social network websites in the consumer–brand relationship. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 21(4), 460–467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2014.03.011 Pinar, M., Girard, T., Trapp, P., & Eser, Z. (2016). Services branding triangle: Examining the triadic service brand promises for creating a strong brand in banking industry. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 34(4), 529–549. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBM-04-2015-0043 Puncheva-Michelotti, P., Vocino, A., Michelotti, M., & Gahan, P. (2018). Employees or consumers? The role of competing identities in individuals’ evaluations of corporate reputation. Personnel Review, 47(6), 1261–1284. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-04-2017-0116 Reio Jr, T. G., & Shuck, B. (2015). Exploratory factor analysis: Implications for theory, research, and practice. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 17(1), 12–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422314559804 Rosethorn, H. (2016). The employer brand: Keeping faith with the deal (2nd ed.). Routlege. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315616032 Rybaczewska, M. (2017). Employer image of the company from the perspective of its customers. International Journal of Contemporary Management, 16(1), 61–81. Safeer, A. A., He, Y., Lin, Y., Abrar, M., & Nawaz, Z. (2023). Impact of perceived brand authenticity on consumer behavior: En evidence from generation Y in Asian perspective. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 18(3), 685–704. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOEM-09-2020-1128 Shrivastava, N. K., & Shukla, A. V. (2023). Measuring an employer brand: A study towards valid scale development (as a second-order factor of a structural model). International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 31(2), 550–568. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-02-2021-2615 Journal of Business Economics and Management, 2024, 25(1), 85–103 103 Spears, N., & Singh, S. N. (2004). Measuring attitude toward the brand and purchase intentions. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 26(2), 53–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/10641734.2004.10505164 Spry, A., Pappu, R., & Cornwell, T. B. (2011). Celebrity endorsement, brand credibility and brand equity. European Journal of Marketing, 45(6), 882–909. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090561111119958 Theurer, C. P., Tumasjan, A., Welpe, I. M., & Lievens, F. (2018). Employer branding: A brand equity-based literature review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20(1), 155–179. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12121 Torres, P., & Augusto, M. (2019). Building resilience to negative information and increasing purchase intentions in a digital environment. Journal of Business Research, 101, 528–535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.11.045 Yoo, B., & Donthu, N. (2001). Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer-based brand equity scale. Journal of Business Research, 52(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(99)00098-3 Yoo, B., Donthu, N., & Lee, S. (2000). An examination of selected marketing mix elements and brand equity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(2), 195–211. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070300282002 Yu, K. Y. T., & Cable, D. M. (2012). Recruitment and competitive advantage: A brand equity perspective. In S. W. J. Kozlowski (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of organizational psychology, (vol. 1, pp. 197–220). Oxford Academic. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199928309.013.0007