Influence of perceived legitimacy and perceived value of professional association members on attitudinal loyalty

Sánchez del Río-Vázquez, Maria-Elena; Rodríguez-Rad, Carlos; Orta-Pérez, Manuel; Revilla Camacho, Maria Angeles; Revilla Camacho, Maria Angeles Article Influence of perceived legitimacy and perceived value of professional association members on attitudinal loyalty Administrative Sciences Provided in Cooperation with: MDPI – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Basel Suggested Citation: Sánchez del Río-Vázquez, Maria-Elena; Rodríguez-Rad, Carlos; Orta-Pérez, Manuel; Revilla Camacho, Maria Angeles; Revilla Camacho, Maria Angeles (2025) : Influence of perceived legitimacy and perceived value of professional association members on attitudinal loyalty, Administrative Sciences, ISSN 2076-3387, MDPI, Basel, Vol. 15, Iss. 1, pp. 1-23, https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15010004 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/321151 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/ Received: 7 November 2024 Revised: 19 December 2024 Accepted: 21 December 2024 Published: 25 December 2024 Citation: Sánchez-del-Río-Vázquez, M.-E., Rodríguez-Rad, C., Orta-Pérez, M., & Revilla-Camacho, M.-Á. (2025). Influence of Perceived Legitimacy and Perceived Value of Professional Association Members on Attitudinal Loyalty. Administrative Sciences,15(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.3390/ admsci15010004 Copyright: © 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/). administrative sciences Article Influence of Perceived Legitimacy and Perceived Value of Professional Association Members on Attitudinal Loyalty María-Elena Sánchez-del-Río-Vázquez * , Carlos Rodríguez-Rad , Manuel Orta-Pérez and Maria-Ángeles Revilla-Camacho Department of Business Administration and Marketing, University of Seville, 41018 Sevilla, Spain; [email protected] (C.R.-R.); [email protected] (M.O.-P.); [email protected] (M.-Á.R.-C.) *Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: This article explores the discoveries related to organizational legitimacy, focusing on its three key types: pragmatic, moral, and cognitive. It examines how perceived value plays a crucial role in the generation of legitimacy and its direct impact on attitudinal loyalty. The study, based on a survey of 156 members of the Professional Association of Economists of Seville, demonstrates the significant influence of perceived value and legitimacy on the three dimensions of organizational legitimacy and attitudinal loyalty. Based on the findings, the paper recommends a management approach that emphasizes perceived value to reinforce legitimacy, which in turn strengthens loyalty. Another important contribution of our work is that it fills a gap in the literature related to professional association membership loyalty and its antecedents. Further research is suggested to investigate the causes and effects of legitimacy in different organizational contexts. Keywords: professional associations; organizational legitimacy; perceived value; attitudinal loyalty; PLS-SEM 1. Introduction Professional associations are an engine of the professions, as they foster the professional development of their members through the benefits and services they offer (Hammond & Moore,2018;Fernandez & Castellanos,2024;Potnis et al.,2024). In addition, member-focused professional association initiatives can enable members to access professional networks, resources, tools, or opportunities, and they can facilitate the inclusion of ideas and diversity among members and professional contacts and provide emotional support or loyalty in ways that benefit both the members and the professional association itself (Clouse et al.,2023;Gáll,2024;Potnis et al.,2024). But the impact of these associations on the future of the sectors is more important than the individual benefits of the members, hence the struggle not only to recruit members but also to build member loyalty (Holt et al., 2023). On the other hand, given that attitudinal loyalty is an indicator of ”true loyalty”, which refers not only to continued membership but also to recommendations to others, it is key to the greater use of the professional association’s services (Rodríguez-Rad & Sánchez-del-Río-Vázquez,2023). Guiding the management of professional associations towards this attitudinal loyalty of members is therefore fundamental for their success. Consequently, a need to delve into the background of the attitudinal loyalty of members of a professional association prompted this work. This paper is based on two lines of research that have attracted a great deal of attention in recent years. The first deals with organizational legitimacy, while the second refers Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 4 https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15010004 Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 4 2 of 23 to the concept of customer value. Legitimacy and value creation are the two key terms of this work; both concepts are approached from the perspective of the customer, the main recipient of the value generated and the primary source for judging and conferring legitimacy to organizations (Randrianasolo & Arnold,2020). Organizational legitimacy refers to the degree to which an organization is perceived to comply with social rules, values, norms, and definitions (Suchman,1995). Institutional theory researchers support the idea that legitimacy is considered a fundamental intangible asset for stakeholder management (Amani,2024;Blanco-González et al.,2021,2023a;Payne et al.,2021), as it is achieved through the acceptance and desirability of the activities by these groups and facilitates their access to the necessary resources (Del-Castillo-Feito et al., 2022;Díez-Martín et al.,2022;Miotto et al.,2020). Hence, legitimacy is of a perceptual nature and is socially constructed (Haack et al.,2021;Hadani,2024;Zhang et al.,2024) as it depends on the stakeholders’ judgment criteria (Díez-Martín et al.,2022;Etter et al.,2018). It is particularly concerned with the relationships that the organization establishes; hence, it contributes to the understanding of the growth and survival of organizations (BlancoGonzález et al.,2023b;Díez-Martín et al.,2022) and becomes a goal. Several studies have shown the direct relationship between legitimacy achievement strategies and organizational success (Tornikoski & Newbert,2007), and it has even been found that the lack or erosion of legitimacy leads to organizational failure (Chen et al.,2006). In this sense, from a theoretical point of view, some researchers defend the relationship between legitimacy and loyalty; however, there is not enough research to prove this relationship (Del-Castillo-Feito et al., 2022). On the other hand, this theory has mainly been used in the framework of non-profit organizations, since for this type of organization achieving legitimacy is fundamental to its ability to achieve its objectives; therefore, it is a priority to seek legitimacy rather than efficiency (Morales et al.,2005). Moreover, legitimacy becomes especially important when it is not easy to measure the technical effectiveness of organizations (Wells,2001). The service-dominant logic paradigm, on the other hand, states that “value is created through the actions of multiple actors, often without evidence of their interrelationship, who contribute to each other’s well-being” (Lusch & Vargo,2014, p. 13). Therefore, value is always co-created (Vargo & Lusch,2004). This co-creation of value is a clear sign of the importance of the (active) role of the customer, as it precisely reflects the proactive participation of the customer in the creation of value in collaboration with the company (Blasco-Arcas et al.,2016;Azzari et al.,2024). Although research on value cocreation has increased in recent decades, the concepts still have to be consolidated (Azzari et al.,2024;Mujahid et al.,2023). In addition, the value perceived by the customer is considered a key factor in making purchasing decisions and forming value judgments about organizations (Gallarza et al.,2011;García-Salirrosas et al.,2024;Leroi-Werelds,2019); so, the creation of value for the customer should be the reason for the firm’s existence and a key factor for success (Islam et al.,2024). This approach is in line with the postulates of institutional theory, for which one of the keys to survival is to ensure that organizations are infused with value. If this happens, the organization will gain legitimacy. Value, therefore, can confer legitimacy. As discussed above, managerial action generates legitimacy through stakeholder management; hence, legitimacy is related to organizational value creation processes (Haase,2020). However, business research has “largely overlooked the importance of the legitimacy-based institutional environment for the implementation of customer orientation strategy” (Luo et al.,2008, p. 203), and no marketing research has been found that incorporates legitimacy as one of the consequences of organizational value. Furthermore, the existing literature shows value as a predictor of loyalty; however, this relationship may be complex. Hence, we follow the suggestion of Zauner et al. (2015) and also analyze the link between perceived value (PV) and loyalty. Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 4 3 of 23 With this paper, we strive to provide guidelines for the practice of professional association management to increase members’ attitudinal loyalty. Consequently, this study seeks to answer the following research questions (RQs): RQ1: How does perceived value impact the attitudinal loyalty of members of a professional association? RQ2: How does legitimacy impact the attitudinal loyalty of members of a professional association? RQ3: How does perceived value impact the legitimacy of members of a professional association? To answer these questions, this research conducted an online survey that was responded to by members of the Professional Association of Economists of Seville (PAES). The method of partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) was applied to examine how perceived value shapes the legitimacy of the PAES and its direct impact on the attitudinal loyalty of its members. To this end, the research also explored the findings related to organizational legitimacy, focusing on its three key types: pragmatic, moral, and cognitive. Furthermore, it postulates that the legitimacy of a specific professional association (i.e., the PAES) will be conditioned by the legitimacy accorded to professional associations in general. Therefore, a negative perception of the legitimacy of professional associations may infect the perception of a specific professional association and negatively affect the attitudinal loyalty of its members. Accordingly, our research strove to meet these specific objectives: • To analyze the effect of the perceived value by the members on the legitimacy granted to a specific professional association (i.e., the PAES), in its cognitive, pragmatic, and moral dimensions; so far, this is an issue that has not been addressed in the framework of professional associations. (1) To assess the impact that the legitimacy of professional associations has on the pragmatic, moral, and cognitive legitimacy of the PAES. (2) To determine the effects that the different dimensions of the legitimacy of the PAES have on the attitudinal loyalty of members towards the PAES. This question will make it possible to focus efforts aimed at the legitimation of organizations, correcting problems related to the benefits perceived by the client, the moral correctness of actions or, in more serious cases, the organization’s very right to exist. (3) To analyze the influence of perceived value on member attitudinal loyalty, both directly and indirectly through the three types of member legitimacy. Weighing the relationships will allow us to identify which constructs are most relevant to the achievement of attitudinal loyalty, helping to allocate resources more efficiently. To date, the literature has mainly focused on analyzing how members’ motivations and benefits encourage them to join and engage with professional associations (Potnis et al.,2024). Very few studies attempt to validate what concrete measures professional associations can develop to achieve such engagement (e.g., Potnis et al.,2024) or some of the antecedents of commitment (e.g., Clouse et al.,2023). With the exception of our research, Rodríguez-Rad and Sánchez-del-Río-Vázquez (2023), which analyzes attitudinal loyalty as an influencer of members’ use intentions regarding professional association services and benefits, we have not found a further study on this topic of attitudinal loyalty in this field. Therefore, we believe that this new paper is an important contribution that fills a gap in the literature related to professional association membership loyalty and its antecedents. In addition, the literature has paid little attention to clients’ perceptions of the legitimacy of the organizations with which they interact; this is still an under-researched area of professional membership; therefore, our study also aims to fill this gap. Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 4 4 of 23 2. Theoretical Background 2.1. The Concept of Perceived Value Value creation is the core of marketing, the concept on which the discipline has been developed since its origins (Gallarza et al.,2020). Both academia and business have shown great interest in this topic (Correa et al.,2021;Tran & Vu,2021), as it is considered a strategic imperative to create and maintain a competitive advantage (Cankül et al.,2024;Chen & Chen,2010;Islam et al.,2024;Sweeney & Soutar,2001;Ullah,2021). Therefore, value creation becomes a sine qua non condition for organizations in the 21st century (Zauner et al.,2015). On the other hand, in marketing it is natural to focus on the customers’ perspective, even more so when it is the customers who evaluate what they receive from the organizations they interact with for their purchase decisions and the formation of value judgments about the organizations (Gallarza et al.,2011;Leroi-Werelds,2019). Perceived value is the subjective and global evaluation of the benefits received in relation to the sacrifices made for a product or service (Almeida et al.,2022;Cankül et al.,2024;Baidoun & Salem, 2024;Femina & Santhi,2024). What the consumer offers is not only about monetary sacrifice, but also about the time and effort spent in buying and using products and services, i.e., opportunity costs (Baidoun & Salem,2024). Given that consumers make their own assessment based on personal characteristics and the specific purchase experience (Morris, 1999), value is subjective and is not determined by the organization (Leroi-Werelds,2019). It can be understood as a trade-off between what one ‘gives’ and ‘gets’ in the customer’s eyes (Almeida et al.,2022). This evaluation arises from the interaction between the consumer and an object, either a product, a service, or a company (Leroi-Werelds,2019), and is experiential, i.e., it is conditioned by the specific situation the consumer is dealing with (Grönroos & Ravald, 2011). The experience encompasses the moments prior to the use of the product or service, including search, purchase, and delivery; therefore, it is not only assessable by actual buyers, but also by those who have searched for information about the product or have contacted or received any communication from the company (Cronin et al.,2000). In other words, perceived value can occur both throughout the purchase process and in the pre-purchase phase (Baidoun & Salem,2024). It is clear, therefore, that value is judged by the consumer, is subjective in nature, and is not determined by the organization (García-Salirrosas et al.,2024;Leroi-Werelds,2019). Each consumer will make his or her own assessment of value, depending on his or her personal characteristics and the specific purchase experience (Morris,1999). The context in which such a situation occurs, whether related to location, timing, or temporal interaction, has a significant impact on this value assessment (Grönroos & Voima,2013). Perceived value is a core differentiator (García-Salirrosas et al.,2024), which becomes pivotal to customer decision making and, in turn, to company performance (Islam et al., 2024). Hence, the study of its consequences can be considered a critical aspect of customer value theory as a prerequisite for achieving sustainable competitive advantage, although it has not yet been fully developed (Zauner et al.,2015). Given its relationship to purchase intention, it can be considered as a reliable measure of purchase or behavioral intentions (Baidoun & Salem,2024;Ragab et al.,2024). Its influence on satisfaction, purchase, or behavioral intentions has been extensively proven (Cankül et al.,2024;Baidoun & Salem, 2024), but many other factors that could be a consequence of customer perceived value remain to be explored. Furthermore, its significant influence on loyalty substantially explains its impact on business success (Chan & Raharja,2024). Accordingly, the existing literature shows value as a predictor of loyalty; however, this relationship may be complex, Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 4 5 of 23 suggesting that future research should focus on the link between perceived value and loyalty (Zauner et al.,2015). 2.2. Organizational Legitimacy Organizational legitimacy has come to be recognized as the dominant approach to understanding organizations (Greenwood et al.,2017). On the other hand, we can say that the survival of a firm depends on its legitimacy (Chaney et al.,2015;Blanco-González et al.,2023b;Díez-Martín et al.,2022;Del-Castillo-Feito et al.,2022;Miotto et al.,2020; Pascual-Nebreda et al.,2022;Odou et al.,2023), and this has become one of the leading topics for the field of business management. Sociological and business research has amply shown the key role of legitimacy in determining the survival and growth of organizations (Blanco-González et al.,2023b;Díez-Martín et al.,2022;Zhang & Borden,2024). More legitimized organizations gain better access to resources (Del-Castillo-Feito et al.,2022; Díez-Martín et al.,2022;Miotto et al.,2020;Payne et al.,2021;Pollack et al.,2012) and a higher probability of survival (Díez-Martín et al.,2022;Campbell et al.,2012), due to their ability to influence stakeholder behavior (Amani,2024;Blanco-González et al.,2021,2023b; Payne et al.,2021). The most generalized definition of legitimacy was formulated by Suchman (1995), who defined it as “a generalized perception or assumption that the actions of an entity in society are desirable, proper, or appropiate within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs and definitions” (p. 574). In 2017, he reformulated this definition by stating that “organizational legitimacy is the perceived appropriateness of the organization to a social system in terms of rules, values, norms and definitions”, eliminating desirability because of its possible confusion with the reputation (Deephouse et al.,2017, p. 9). Different disciplines have tried to conceptualize and measure organizational legitimacy under a scientific framework. Therefore, researchers have developed typologies for its measurement and analysis, which have coincided in many aspects, but have differed in others. Among the reasons for these different typologies, we find both the scientific theories, within the framework of which the researchers who create them operate, and the purpose and methodology of the studies. It is not surprising, therefore, that different terms have arisen for measuring organizational legitimacy, which makes the researchers’ work difficult, especially when conducting empirical research. In this project, we adopt the widely accepted taxonomy proposed by Suchman (1995), which refers to the identification of three dimensions for legitimacy (Figure 1): • Pragmatic (useful): Pragmatic legitimacy, also called exchange legitimacy, is based on the practical benefits that the organization offers to its public. For Bitektine (2011), it is the overall value that the organization generates for the customer and is based on the evaluator’s self-interest. It is shaped by three aspects: (a) direct benefits on the individual, social, and global welfare of the consumer; (b) long-term or indirect benefits on the individual, social, and global welfare of the consumer; and (c) the consumer’s belief that the company puts the focus on the consumer’s own self-interest. In other words, if the needs of consumers are satisfied by the products and services offered by the organization, the pragmatic legitimacy is achieved by the organization (Ani´c et al.,2024). Hence, when an organization acts in accordance with stakeholder interests, they grant it pragmatic legitimacy (Zhang & Borden,2024). • Moral (just): the organization does “the right thing” and promotes social welfare. There is moral legitimacy if the organization and its activities have been normatively and positively evaluated. Under current societal values and appropriate norms, stakeholders evaluate organizational behaviors by assessing whether they are “the right thing to do” or promote the welfare of society (Zhang & Borden,2024). It has Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 4 6 of 23 four aspects to consider: (a) organizational outputs and products; (b) techniques and processes; (c) organizational structures; and (d) leaders’ charisma and fit with moral values. Actions in accordance with an altruistic motivation that seek to improve social welfare trigger moral legitimacy (Handelman & Arnold,1999). • Cognitive (appropriate): the organization is inevitably part of the environment. Cognitive legitimacy is gained when, on the basis of a shared understanding of society or its historical background, the organization’s behaviors are seen as inevitable or necessary (Zhang & Borden,2024). The organization’s right to exist is not questioned and is taken for granted. Therefore, the history and prevalence of the organization are the antecedents of cognitive legitimacy (Bitektine,2011), as it is the stakeholder’s knowledge about the organization that generates cognitive legitimacy, regardless of whether that knowledge is negative, positive, or neutral (Shepherd & Zacharakis, 2003). It is a more subtle and lasting legitimacy than the previous ones (Suchman, 1995), as it is not based on an active evaluation by stakeholders (Pollack et al.,2012). It is based on cognition rather than on interest or evaluation. Cognitive legitimacy relates to the definition and meaning of organizational activities (Bridwell-Mitchell & Mezias,2012) and to how they help solve problems. If they are commonly accepted and considered useful by their environment, providing a framework for daily routines, the organization is accepted (Scott,2008). When organizations are understandable, they gain cognitive legitimacy (Shepherd & Zacharakis,2003). When organizations are generally accepted as appropriate, they gain cognitive legitimacy (Khaire,2010). Adm. Sci. 2025, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 24 stakeholders evaluate organizational behaviors by assessing whether they are “the right thing to do” or promote the welfare of society (Zhang & Borden, 2024). It has four aspects to consider: (a) organizational outputs and products; (b) techniques and processes; (c) organizational structures; and (d) leaders’ charisma and fit with moral values. Actions in accordance with an altruistic motivation that seek to improve social welfare trigger moral legitimacy (Handelman & Arnold, 1999). • Cognitive (appropriate): the organization is inevitably part of the environment. Cognitive legitimacy is gained when, on the basis of a shared understanding of society or its historical background, the organization’s behaviors are seen as inevitable or necessary (Zhang & Borden, 2024). The organization’s right to exist is not questioned and is taken for granted. Therefore, the history and prevalence of the organization are the antecedents of cognitive legitimacy (Bitektine, 2011), as it is the stakeholder’s knowledge about the organization that generates cognitive legitimacy, regardless of whether that knowledge is negative, positive, or neutral (Shepherd & Zacharakis, 2003). It is a more subtle and lasting legitimacy than the previous ones (Suchman, 1995), as it is not based on an active evaluation by stakeholders (Pollack et al., 2012). It is based on cognition rather than on interest or evaluation. Cognitive legitimacy relates to the definition and meaning of organizational activities (Bridwell-Mitchell & Mezias, 2012) and to how they help solve problems. If they are commonly accepted and considered useful by their environment, providing a framework for daily routines, the organization is accepted (Scott, 2008). When organizations are understandable, they gain cognitive legitimacy (Shepherd & Zacharakis, 2003). When organizations are generally accepted as appropriate, they gain cognitive legitimacy (Khaire, 2010). Figure 1. Fundamentals and dimensions of organizational legitimacy. It is important to highlight that legitimacy arises from generalized perception. By reflecting the degree of collective approval of an organization, it can be considered an intangible resource of the organization (Amani, 2024; Payne et al., 2021; Zimmerman & Zeitz, 2002). Organizations do not operate in a vacuum and need the continuous approval and support of key stakeholders in the surrounding social system (Zhang & Borden, 2024). Individual subjective perceptions must therefore be aggregated and objectified. In light of the above, it should be noted that managers need to understand that the profile of their customers influences how they will assess the legitimacy of the organization they manage. This assessment is essential for organizations, because legitimacy is a resource that increases the likelihood of survival (e.g., it favors product acquisition, access to finance, and Figure 1. Fundamentals and dimensions of organizational legitimacy. It is important to highlight that legitimacy arises from generalized perception. By reflecting the degree of collective approval of an organization, it can be considered an intangible resource of the organization (Amani,2024;Payne et al.,2021;Zimmerman & Zeitz,2002). Organizations do not operate in a vacuum and need the continuous approval and support of key stakeholders in the surrounding social system (Zhang & Borden,2024). Individual subjective perceptions must therefore be aggregated and objectified. In light of the above, it should be noted that managers need to understand that the profile of their customers influences how they will assess the legitimacy of the organization they manage. This assessment is essential for organizations, because legitimacy is a resource that increases the likelihood of survival (e.g., it favors product acquisition, access to finance, and access to customers). Knowing the profile associated with each type of legitimacy assessment will make it easier for strategic efforts, which are decided by management and aimed at achieving the type of legitimacy, to be in line with the profile of the customers. Legitimacy was originally considered to be a dichotomous concept, where the alternatives for organizations were to be legitimized or to not be legitimized (Scott,2008), without Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 4 7 of 23 the possibility of an intermediate state. Other studies argue that legitimacy can be considered a continuous variable, whereby higher or lower levels of legitimacy can be achieved (Deeds et al.,1997). In our research, we follow this second line of thought. It should be noted that the literature offers different ways of measuring each dimension of legitimacy. Starting from the three dimensions proposed by Suchman (1995), i.e., pragmatic, moral, and cognitive, it is worth highlighting the contribution of Cruz and Isabel (2012) for the study of the legitimacy of the European Higher Education Area in the Community of Madrid (Spain) and that of Randrianasolo and Arnold (2020), who developed a questionnaire to measure legitimacy from the consumer’s perspective. The process by which people form their judgments to evaluate the legitimacy of organizations may vary according to each person and the social context in which they live (Suchman,1995). Thus, understanding the characteristics of individuals that influence their evaluation of an organization’s legitimacy becomes a guide for organizational decision making in line with the cognitive needs of its evaluators, which consequently enhances the effectiveness and efficiency of its managers. 2.3. Attitudinal Loyalty Oliver (1999) defined loyalty as “a deeply held commitment to re-buy or re-patronize a preferred product or service consistently in the future” (p. 34). This definition suggests two categories of loyalty: attitudinal loyalty and behavioral loyalty. Behavioral loyalty is constructed from observable indicators (e.g., purchase proportion, purchase frequency, repeat purchase behavior, purchase sequence, etc.), while attitudinal loyalty is considered as a behavioral intention (e.g., intention to repeat, recommend, increase business with the company, or customer price tolerance) (Cachero-Martínez & Vázquez-Casielles,2021; Femina & Santhi,2024;Matsuoka,2022). The psychological attachment and attitudinal advocacy that customers have towards a brand would be attitudinal loyalty (Femina & Santhi,2024;Hollingshead et al.,2023;Ragab et al.,2024). Attitudinal loyalty refers to a certain desire to continue with the relationship, while behavioral loyalty refers to the concept of repeated patronage (Zhao et al.,2010). Consequently, in this research, attitudinal loyalty is operationalized as intention of returning or continuance and referring. Customer loyalty is vital for organizations (Femina & Santhi,2024). Without consumer loyalty even the best-designed business models will soon crumble (Perera et al.,2019). Early marketing research focused exclusively on behavioral loyalty, but soon changed course, as such loyalty may be motivated by situational demands rather than by a positive attitude toward the brand, which could lead to “false loyalty”. It is possible that repeat purchases are due to convenience or monetary incentives; thus, the study of attitudinal loyalty is required to capture the reasons behind the purchases (Chen & Chen,2010). Therefore, behavioral loyalty alone seems insufficient to capture what is referred to as “true” loyalty (Kumar & Shah,2004;Watson et al.,2015), and it is necessary to consider attitudinal loyalty to speak of “true” loyalty (Dandis & Al Haj Eid,2022;Kumar & Shah, 2004;Watson et al.,2015;Royo-Vela & Sánchez,2022). Moreover, Kursunluoglu (2011) states that even customers who do not buy the brand again may recommend it based on their attitudinal loyalty. Attitudinal loyalty entails affective and cognitive aspects of loyalty (Härtel & Russell-Bennett,2010;Srivastava & Kaul,2016) and is based on the emotions that the brand evokes (Revilla-Camacho et al.,2017). 3. Conceptual Framework and Hypothesis Formulation 3.1. Perceived Value and Organizational Legitimacy As we have already mentioned, the customers are the evaluators of what they receive from the organizations with which they interact, so that the value perceived by the customer becomes a key factor in making purchasing decisions and in forming value judgments about Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 4 8 of 23 organizations (Gallarza et al.,2011;Islam et al.,2024;Leroi-Werelds,2019). Consequently, the creation of value for the customer should be the firm’s reason for existence and a key factor for success (Islam et al.,2024). This approach is in line with the postulates of institutional legitimacy, for which one of the keys to survival is to get organizations to provide value. If this occurs, the organization will gain legitimacy. Value, therefore, can confer legitimacy. In turn, the literature also shows the multidimensional nature of value (Gallarza et al.,2017), and although there is no consensus on the exact components of the construct, one of the most widely accepted typologies is the four-dimensional view of customer perceived value (PERVAL) offered by Sweeney and Soutar (2001), which is applicable to various categories and stages of experience. Hence, customers can extract value from the organization in relation to emotional value, where utility is derived from feelings toward the brand. Social value relates to value extracted from the social credibility of the brand, while financial value and quality value are more functional and relate to value for money and perceptions of brand excellence, respectively (Sweeney & Soutar,2001). Based on institutional theory, legitimacy is conceived as a sustained competitive advantage, as it generates a feeling of security and trust among individuals that increases their willingness to accept the actions and decisions of more legitimate organizations (Amani,2024;Díez-Martín et al.,2021). But, to increase legitimacy, their actions must be individually and socially beneficial (Handelman & Arnold,1999). Consumers, following Sweeney and Soutar (2001), will perceive the financial and quality value brought by the company. This value is related to the direct benefits they expect the brand to bring them, which allows them to infer that it is related to the perceived pragmatic legitimacy of the organization. If the firm creates financial and quality value (Sweeney & Soutar,2001), it will be useful to the customer, which will result in greater pragmatic legitimacy. On the other hand, customers will also perceive the social value (Sweeney & Soutar,2001) generated by the organization, which will probably lead to a greater perception of moral legitimacy. Finally, an emotional value will be established (Sweeney & Soutar,2001), which will allow them to establish stable ties with the organization, generating a favorable perception of the organization’s right to exist and permanence, a quality that defines cognitive legitimacy. In other words, the performance of activities must enrich and create value for consumers if they are to positively affect the legitimacy of the firm (Cronin et al.,2000). An activity that does not create value will be perceived as useless and therefore will not generate consumer support (Handelman & Arnold,1999). Research asserts that if the firm cares about consumers’ interests it will gain greater pragmatic, moral, and cognitive legitimacy (Randrianasolo & Arnold,2020). Along these lines, Amani (2024) shows, for example, how the green perceived value of packaging reflects customers’ feelings that the packaging is socially acceptable and responsible, consequently influencing brand legitimacy, as brands that are understood to be legitimate adhere to regulatory, normative institutions and socially constructive systems of values. Therefore, we propose the following hypotheses in order to assess the influence of each of the dimensions of legitimacy: H1. Perceived value positively impacts the pragmatic legitimacy of the PAES. H2. Perceived value positively impacts the cognitive legitimacy of the PAES. H3. Perceived value positively impacts the moral legitimacy of the PAES. Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 4 15 of 23 Table 4. Results of the structural model. Path Statistics t pValue Supported H1: PV -> PLPAES 0.539 7.074 0.000 YES H2: PV -> CLPAES 0.182 2.125 0.034 YES H3: PV -> MLPAES 0.476 4.876 0.000 YES H4: LPA -> PLPAES 0.349 4.387 0.000 YES H5: LPA -> CLPAES 0.631 9.110 0.000 YES H6: LPA -> MLPAES 0.309 3.144 0.002 YES H7: PLPAES -> AL 0.275 2.556 0.011 YES H8: CLPAES -> AL 0.024 0.302 0.763 NO H9: MLPAES -> AL 0.279 2.964 0.003 YES H10: PV -> AL 0.275 3.063 0.002 YES Note: AL = attitudinal loyalty; CLPAES = cognitive legitimacy of PAES; LPA = legitimacy of professional associations; MLPAES = moral legitimacy of PAES; PLPAES = pragmatic legitimacy of PAES; VP = perceived value. Source: the authors. Table 5. Effects on endogenous variables. R2Q2Direct Effect Correlations Explained Variance PLPAES 0.694 0.680 H1: PV 0.539 0.800 43.12% H4: LAP 0.349 0.752 26.24% CLPAES 0.603 0.588 H2: PV 0.182 0.654 11.90% H5: LAP 0.631 0.767 48.40% MLPAES 0.541 0.521 H3: PV 0.476 0.706 33.61% H6: LPA 0.309 0.664 20.52% AL 0.605 0.515 H7: PLPAES 0.275 0.730 20.08% H9: MLPAES 0.279 0.705 19.67% H10: PV 0.275 0.706 19.42% Note: AL = attitudinal loyalty; CLPAES = cognitive legitimacy of PAES; LPA = legitimacy of professional associations; MLPAES = moral legitimacy of PAES; PLPAES = pragmatic legitimacy of PAES; VP = perceived value. Source: the authors. 6. Discussion The results obtained in this study confirm the effect that perceived value has on organizational legitimacy (hypotheses H1, H2, and H3). Specifically, this research shows the direct and significant relationship for all the dimensions of legitimacy (pragmatic, moral, and cognitive). As expected, the explanatory capacity is greater in the case of pragmatic legitimacy (43.12% of the variance explained), since it is precisely this dimension of legitimacy that is based on the perceived usefulness of the organization for the individual who values it. Therefore, if the member perceives that the professional association provides a high added value, he or she will legitimize it from a pragmatic point of view (it is useful). With respect to moral legitimacy, perceived value explains 33.61% of its variance, indicating that the individual not only considers the usefulness of the organization for his Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 4 16 of 23 own individual interests, but also considers its contribution to the welfare of society in general and the moral correctness of its actions and decisions. Finally, it should be noted that perceived value explains 11.9% of cognitive legitimacy, i.e., that which allows us to affirm that the professional association is already part of the social and cultural system in which it is inserted and that, therefore, it has earned the right to exist. It seems imperative, therefore, to focus on the creation of value as a fundamental element in obtaining the legitimacy of the PAES. On the other hand, we can affirm the existence of a direct and significant relationship between the legitimacy of professional associations in general and the legitimacy of a specific organization, as postulated in hypotheses H4, H5, and H6. The perceived legitimacy of professional associations, therefore, significantly affects the legitimacy of the PAES, pragmatically (explained variance of 26.24%), morally (explained variance of 20.52%), and cognitively (explained variance of 48.4%). These results highlight the interdependence between the professional associations themselves, in such a way that a low legitimacy of professional associations in general, motivated by a generic problem or by issues totally unrelated to a specific association, can erode the individual association. This is especially relevant with regard to the cognitive legitimacy of the PAES, which is explained by almost 50% for collective legitimacy and only 12% for perceived value. Hence, if the legitimacy of professional associations were to be questioned, this could affect the very right to exist of a particular association. This leads us to think that professional associations should work in a coordinated and cooperative manner to guarantee their legitimacy and survival in the long term, avoiding confrontations and disputes which, when they become public opinion, have the capacity to erode the legitimacy of each and every professional association, and not only that of the one causing the legitimacy problem. Finally, as postulated by hypotheses H7, H9, and H10, perceived value and pragmatic and moral legitimacy directly and significantly affect attitudinal loyalty to the organization, explaining altogether more than 59% of the variance. The relationship between perceived value and loyalty is not new in the marketing discipline, which advocates the creation and delivery of value as a key element in creating loyalty and establishing long-term relationships. What we can consider novel is the effect that pragmatic legitimacy (20.08% of variance explained) and moral legitimacy (19.67%) have on attitudinal loyalty, both effects being greater than that of perceived value (19.42% of variance explained). Therefore, increasing the perception of usefulness for the member (pragmatic legitimacy) and improving the perception of correctness and morality in the management of professional associations (moral legitimacy) will contribute to an increase in attitudinal loyalty, which in marketing is considered “true loyalty”. 7. Conclusions Little attention has been paid in the literature to clients’ perceptions of the legitimacy of the organizations with which they interact, and our study fills this gap; moreover, it considers the under-researched area of professional membership. From the detailed analysis of the results, interesting conclusions can be drawn to help improve the management of professional associations in general and of economists’ associations in particular. Important practical conclusions can be drawn from the results of our study. First, the results indicate that perceived value plays a crucial role in generating legitimacy. Therefore, economists’ associations should focus their management on improving the perceived value of their members, since improving the perceived value contributes to the reinforcement of the three dimensions of legitimacy, and these dimensions greatly affect loyalty. Value creation will help to gain pragmatic legitimacy, i.e., it will increase the perceived usefulness of the association for the interests of its members. This value creation must begin with a Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 4 17 of 23 thorough understanding of the needs of its members, in order to create the most appropriate value propositions to meet their expectations. Transparency must be promoted by making the association’s performance visible, demonstrating that the best strategies and procedures are chosen, and showing the results obtained and the benefits for the members. In this way, the association will be perceived as doing things well; that is to say, it will gain moral legitimacy. It is also essential to create value for society by contributing to the improvement of social welfare and carrying out honest and responsible management that enhances the profession and builds a relationship of trust between those in charge and the members themselves. The perceived value will contribute to the gaining of cognitive legitimacy, which may be the guarantee of the future viability of professional associations, especially those whose membership is not mandatory for practicing the profession. Second, since the perceived legitimacy of professional associations has a strong influence on all three dimensions of the legitimacy of economists’ associations, it would be desirable for the various professional associations to work together in a coordinated manner to increase the legitimacy of professional associations, which could lead to both an increase in the number of members and their participation in the activities they propose. The raison d’être of professional associations is to serve the interests of their members and society; so, it is essential to make clear the benefits they bring. Professional associations have an important role to play in assisting their members in their professional practice. However, the above considerations imply a major change in the way these organizations compete. They will have to attract and retain professionals on the basis of the value generated for their members, who will be free to decide on their membership. In this new competitive framework, survival will depend on the legitimacy that professionals confer on them, based on the usefulness of their members and the correctness of their actions and, therefore, on their own right to continue operating in the market. This question of legitimacy concerns not only the number of members, but also their participation in the activities organized by the professional associations, from elections to training courses. Third, as we have seen, cognitive legitimacy does not lead directly to greater attitudinal loyalty. This fact is particularly significant and should be an important wake-up call for professional associations. When the cognitive legitimacy of professional associations is questioned, the very right of an association to exist may be affected. Therefore, members perceive that the mere existence of the professional association does not promote attitudinal loyalty. When the cognitive legitimacy of professional associations is questioned, a given association’s right to exist may be affected. Since members perceive that the mere existence of the professional association does not promote attitudinal loyalty, cognitive legitimacy thus becomes a necessary condition for a professional association, but to promote the attitudinal loyalty of its members, it should preferably focus its efforts on enhancing moral legitimacy and pragmatic legitimacy, because it has been shown that there is a positive effect of pragmatic legitimacy and moral legitimacy on attitudinal loyalty. Hence, managers should be aware of the importance of developing pragmatic legitimacy. To do this, it is necessary to generate a superior value proposition in line with members’ needs and expectations, to know exactly what they expect from the professional association and to try to achieve, as far as possible, an adequate response and, if possible, one that is above expectations. Steps must also be taken to improve moral legitimacy, which means ensuring that the professional association is perceived by its members as doing things right. This will lead to greater attitudinal loyalty, with numerous benefits for associations. On the one hand, members will stay longer in the association and generate more revenue for the association, which translates into higher member equity value. On the other hand, they would recommend the PAES to potential members, encouraging them to consider joining and to become active members of the association. Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 4 18 of 23 Finally, it is suggested that the PAES managers need to develop strategies that favor modern management tools aimed at enhancing the moral, pragmatic, and cognitive legitimacy of the professional association. Fluid communication that ensures that members are actively listened to will undoubtedly benefit pragmatic legitimacy, as they will perceive more clearly that the actions of the PAES benefit them. Transparency should also be promoted by making the actions of the PAES visible, demonstrating that the best strategies and procedures are chosen and showing the results obtained and the benefits for the members. This management philosophy will have a positive effect on members’ attitudinal loyalty. Increased attitudinal loyalty will lead, on the one hand, to the intention to use the services that the organization offers to its members and, on the other hand, will facilitate the attraction of new potential members to the organization. Professional associations of economists have historically had a predominantly male composition compared to the female presence. However, this structure is evolving, with a significant increase in the number of women joining as members. The growing participation of women in the workforce is driving changes in organizational structures, promoting gender equality (Díez-Martín et al.,2022). Education has played a crucial role in this transformation (Blanco-González et al.,2021;Cruz-Suárez et al.,2020;Castro,2020), providing women with the skills and opportunities to enter fields previously dominated by men (Castaño et al.,2022;Pizarro & Arman,2021). Legitimacy studies are offering evidence on the impact of gender on legitimacy evaluations (Blanco-González et al.,2023b). In this context, future research could explore the effect of gender on the legitimacy of professional associations, examining how these dynamics influence the perception and acceptance of such organizations. Future research could benefit from the incorporation of moderating variables into the model, such as trustworthiness or reputation (Hadani,2024;Mariconda et al.,2024). Adding such variables could provide deeper insights into the relationships between key constructs and enhance the understanding of their effects within the context of the study. Future studies could explore the mechanisms for achieving legitimacy (Fisher et al., 2017), as well as the impact of legitimacy judgments based on validity and consensus on the loyalty toward these organizations (Haack et al.,2021). Such research could provide valuable insights into how organizations can strengthen their legitimacy and foster stronger member commitment. Author Contributions: Conceptualization, C.R.-R., M.-E.S.-d.-R.-V. and M.-Á.R.-C.; methodology, C.R.-R. and M.-Á.R.-C.; software, M.-Á.R.-C. and M.O.-P.; validation, C.R.-R. and M.O.-P.; formal analysis, M.-E.S.-d.-R.-V.; investigation, C.R.-R. and M.-E.S.-d.-R.-V.; resources, M.O.-P.; data curation, C.R.-R., M.-E.S.-d.-R.-V. and M.-Á.R.-C.; writing—original draft preparation, C.R.-R., M.-E.S.-d.-R.-V. and M.-Á.R.-C.; writing—review and editing, C.R.-R., M.-E.S.-d.-R.-V., M.O.-P. and M.-Á.R.-C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research received no external funding. Institutional Review Board Statement: Ethical review and approval were waived for this study due to the local/national legislation stating ethic approval is not needed for this type of study. Specifically, this research refrained from any invasive procedures and the collection of sensitive information as stated in The Gen-eral Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016, and the Organic Law 3/2018 of 5 December on the Protection of Personal Data and Guarantee of Digital Rights. Consequently, this research lies beyond the purview of inter-vention by the research committee at the University of Sevilla. Informed Consent Statement: The questionnaire was sent to the members of the association by the president of the association. At no time did the researchers have access to personal data nor were Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 4 19 of 23 they requested for the study. Membership of the association is voluntary, as was participation in the study, so that those members who did not wish to participate did not do so. Data Availability Statement: The availability of these data is subject to restrictions. The data are the property of the Seville Association of Economists and are only available to members of the Association of Economists and are therefore not available to the public. The data used for this study were obtained under licence. However, data may be obtained from the authors upon reasonable request and with the permission of the Seville Association of Economists. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. References Almeida, N., Trindade, M., Komljenovic, D., & Finger, M. (2022). A conceptual construct on value for infrastructure asset management. Utilities Policy,75, 101354. [CrossRef] Alrwashdeh, M., Jahmani, A., Ibrahim, B., & Aljuhmani, H. Y. (2020). Data to model the effects of perceived telecommunication service quality and value on the degree of user satisfaction and e-wom among telecommunications users in north cyprus. Data in Brief, 28, 104981. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Amani, D. (2024). Is ethical packaging the right way to go? The impact of green packaging on consumer legitimacy in cosmetics industry. Cogent Social Sciences,10(1), 2319375. [CrossRef] Ani´c, I. -D., Milakovi´c, I. K., & Hirogaki, M. (2024). The impact of legitimacy types on customer loyalty and the moderating role of the perceived covid-19 threat: Cross-country comparison between japan and croatia. Journal of Marketing Management,140, 772–794. [CrossRef] Azzari, V., Mainardes, E. W., Cristo-Andrade, S., de Araujo Durans, A., Vale, C. D., & Macedo, C. J. T. (2024). Co-Creation of value and social marketing: Systematic literature review and future research agenda. Journal of Creating Value,10, 23949643231220748. [CrossRef] Baidoun, S. D., & Salem, M. Z. (2024). The moderating role of perceived trust and perceived value on online shopping behavioral intention of palestinian millennials during COVID-19. Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal,34(1), 125–143. [CrossRef] Bitektine, A. (2011). Toward a theory of social judgments of organizations: The case of legitimacy, reputation, and status. Academy of Management Review,36(1), 151–179. [CrossRef] Blanco-González, A., Del-Castillo-Feito, C., & Miotto, G. (2021). The influence of business ethics and community outreach on faculty engagement: The mediating effect of legitimacy in higher education. European Journal of Management and Business Economics,30(3), 281–298. [CrossRef] Blanco-González, A., Cachón-Rodríguez, G., Hernández-Perlines, F., & Prado-Román, C. (2023a). Effects of social responsibility on legitimacy and revisit intention: The moderating role of anxiety. Journal of Business Research,157, 113583. [CrossRef] Blanco-González, A., Díez-Martín, F., & Miotto, G. (2023b). Achieving legitimacy through gender equality policies. SAGE Open,13(2), 21582440231172950. [CrossRef] Blasco-Arcas, L., Hernandez-Ortega, B. I., & Jimenez-Martinez, J. (2016). Engagement platforms: The role of emotions in fostering customer engagement and brand image in interactive media. Journal of Service Theory and Practice,26(5), 559–589. [CrossRef] Bridwell-Mitchell, E. N., & Mezias, S. J. (2012). The quest for cognitive legitimacy: Organizational identity crafting and internal stakeholder support. Journal of Change Management,12(2), 189–207. [CrossRef] Brochado, A., Verissimo, J. M. C., & de Oliveira, J. C. L. (2022). Memorable tourism experiences, perceived value dimensions and behavioral intentions: A demographic segmentation approach. Tourism Review,77(6), 1472–1486. [CrossRef] Cachero-Martínez, S., & Vázquez-Casielles, R. (2021). Building consumer loyalty through e-shopping experiences: The mediating role of emotions. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,60, 102481. [CrossRef] Campbell, J. T., Eden, L., & Miller, S. R. (2012). Multinationals and corporate social responsibility in host countries: Does distance matter? Journal of International Business Studies,43, 84–106. [CrossRef] Cankül, D., Kaya, S., & Kızılta¸s, M. Ç. (2024). The effect of gastronomic experience on restaurant image, customer perceived value, customer satisfaction and customer loyalty. International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science,36, 100908. [CrossRef] Castaño, L., Viñas, J. E. F., & Escribano, A. M. I. (2022). Sequelae of the covid-19 pandemic in the performance of undergraduate students from a gender perspective. Journal of Management and Business Education,5(4), 377–391. [CrossRef] Castro, E. D. d. (2020). Higher education in management and its legitimacy. Journal of Management and Business Education,3(3), 181–192. [CrossRef] Chan, A., & Raharja, S. J. (2024). Impact of cooperative perceived value on customer satisfaction and loyalty. Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research,13(1), 158–172. Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 4 20 of 23 Chaney, D., Lunardo, R., & Saintives, C. (2015). In-store quality (in) congruency as a driver of perceived legitimacy and shopping behavior. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,24, 51–59. [CrossRef] Chen, C. -F., & Chen, F. -S. (2010). Experience quality, perceived value, satisfaction and behavioral intentions for heritage tourists. Tourism Management,31(1), 29–35. [CrossRef] Chen, H., Griffith, D. A., & Hu, M. Y. (2006). The influence of liability of foreignness on market entry strategies: An illustration of market entry in china. International Marketing Review,23(6), 636–649. [CrossRef] Christodoulides, G., & De Chernatony, L. (2010). Consumer-based brand equity conceptualisation and measurement: A literature review. International Journal of Market Research,52(1), 43–66. [CrossRef] Chung, J. Y., Berger, B. K., & DeCoster, J. (2016). Developing measurement scales of organizational and issue legitimacy: A case of direct-to-consumer advertising in the pharmaceutical industry. Journal of Business Ethics,137, 405–413. [CrossRef] Clouse, S. F., Stan, S., & Shooshtari, N. H. (2023). Chamber of commerce membership: An explanatory model of member organizations’ normative, continuance and affective commitments. Journal of Applied Marketing Theory,10(1), 7. [CrossRef] Correa, C., Alarcón, D., & Cepeda, I. (2021). ‘I am delighted!’: The effect of perceived customer value on repurchase and advocacy intention in b2b express delivery services. Sustainability,13(11), 6013. [CrossRef] Cronin, J. J., Jr., Brady, M. K., & Hult, G. T. M. (2000). Assessing the effects of quality, value, and customer satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service environments. Journal of Retailing,76(2), 193–218. [CrossRef] Cruz, S., & Isabel, A. (2012). La legitimidad de las universidades en el espacio europeo de educación superior. El Caso de Las Universidades Públicas de La Comunidad de Madrid. Cruz-Suárez, A., Marino, D., & Prado-Roman, C. (2020). Origin and evolution of the legitimacy management in higher education. Journal of Management and Business Education,3(2), 93–108. [CrossRef] Dandis, A., & Al Haj Eid, M. B. (2022). Customer lifetime value: Investigating the factors affecting attitudinal and behavioural brand loyalty. The TQM Journal,34(3), 476–493. [CrossRef] Deeds, D., Mang, P., & Frandsen, M. (1997). The quest for legitimacy: A study of biotechnology IPO’s. In Entrepreneurship research conference. Frontiers of entrepreneurship research. Babson College, Arthur M. Blank Center for Entrepreneurship. Deephouse, D. L., Bundy, J., Tost, L. P., & Suchman, M. C. (2017). Organizational legitimacy: Six key questions. In The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism (Vol. 4, pp. 27–54). Sage Publications. Del-Castillo-Feito, C., Blanco-González, A., Díez-Martín, F., & Cachón-Rodríguez, G. (2022). Social capital and organizational legitimacy as competitive advantages in the information and communications technology sector. The Journal of High Technology Management Research,33(2), 100441. [CrossRef] Díez-Martín, F., Blanco-González, A., & Diez-de-Castro, E. (2021). Measuring a scientifically multifaceted concept. The jungle of organizational legitimacy. European Research on Management and Business Economics,27(1), 100131. [CrossRef] Díez-Martín, F., Miotto, G., & Cachón-Rodríguez, G. (2022). Organizational legitimacy perception: Gender and uncertainty as bias for evaluation criteria. Journal of Business Research,139, 426–436. [CrossRef] Etter, M., Colleoni, E., Illia, L., Meggiorin, K., & D’Eugenio, A. (2018). Measuring organizational legitimacy in social media: Assessing citizens’ judgments with sentiment analysis. Business & Society,57(1), 60–97. Femina, E. P., & Santhi, P. (2024). Effects of perceived value dimensions on customer brand loyalty towards luxury cars. Rajagiri Management Journal,18, 274–286. [CrossRef] Fernandez, K., & Castellanos, T. (2024). Member-serving associations: The co-creation of professionalism and expertise within a field. Voluntary Sector Review,15(2), 298–316. [CrossRef] Fisher, G., Kuratko, D. F., Bloodgood, J. M., & Hornsby, J. S. (2017). Legitimate to whom? The challenge of audience diversity and new venture legitimacy. Journal of Business Venturing,32(1), 52–71. [CrossRef] Fiuza, T. F., Zucco, F. D., & da Silva Añaña, E. (2024). The roots of legitimacy in ethnic-cultural festivals and their influence on residents’ loyalty: An analysis of two brazilian oktoberfests. International Journal of Event and Festival Management,15, 358–376. [CrossRef] Gáll, J. (2024). Innovative synergy: Successful cooperation of enterprises in the hotel industry. Acta Academica Karviniensia,24(1), 18–28. [CrossRef] Gallarza, M. G., Arteaga, F., Del Chiappa, G., Gil-Saura, I., & Holbrook, M. B. (2017). A multidimensional service-value scale based on holbrook’s typology of customer value: Bridging the gap between the concept and its measurement. Journal of Service Management, 28(4), 724–762. [CrossRef] Gallarza, M. G., Gil-Saura, I., & Holbrook, M. B. (2011). The value of value: Further excursions on the meaning and role of customer value. Journal of Consumer Behaviour,10(4), 179–191. [CrossRef] Gallarza, M. G., & Saura, I. G. (2006). Value dimensions, perceived value, satisfaction and loyalty: An investigation of university students’ travel behaviour. Tourism Management,27(3), 437–452. [CrossRef] Gallarza, M. G., Saura, I. G., & Moreno, F. A. (2020). Conceptualización y medición del valor percibido: Consensos y controversias. Cuadernos de Gestión,20(1), 65–88. [CrossRef] Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 4 21 of 23 García-Salirrosas, E. E., Escobar-Farfán, M., Esponda-Perez, J. A., Millones-Liza, D. Y., Villar-Guevara, M., Haro-Zea, K. L., & GallardoCanales, R. (2024). The impact of perceived value on brand image and loyalty: A study of healthy food brands in emerging markets. Frontiers in Nutrition,11, 1482009. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Greenwood, R., Meyer, R. E., Lawrence, T. B., & Oliver, C. (2017). The sage handbook of organizational institutionalism. Sage. Grönroos, C., & Ravald, A. (2011). Service as business logic: Implications for value creation and marketing. Journal of Service Management, 22(1), 5–22. [CrossRef] Grönroos, C., & Voima, P. (2013). Critical service logic: Making sense of value creation and co-creation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,41, 133–150. [CrossRef] Haack, P., Schilke, O., & Zucker, L. (2021). Legitimacy revisited: Disentangling propriety, validity, and consensus. Journal of Management Studies,58(3), 749–781. [CrossRef] Haase, M. (2020). Legitimacy-related research in organization studies, stakeholder theory, and marketing studies. In Handbook of business legitimacy: Responsibility, ethics and society (pp. 571–604). Springer. Hadani, M. (2024). The impact of trustworthiness on the association of corporate social responsibility and irresponsibility on legitimacy. Journal of Management Studies,61(4), 1266–1294. [CrossRef] Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., Castz, J., Carrión, G. C., & Roldán, J. L. (2019). Manual de partial least squares structural equation modeling (pls-sem). Omnia Science. Hammond, L., & Moore, W. M. (2018). Teachers Taking up Explicit Instruction: The Impact of a Professional Development and Directive Instructional Coaching Model. Australian Journal of Teacher Education (Online),43(7), 110–133. [CrossRef] Handelman, J. M., & Arnold, S. J. (1999). The role of marketing actions with a social dimension: Appeals to the institutional environment. Journal of Marketing,63(3), 33–48. [CrossRef] Härtel, C. E. J., & Russell-Bennett, R. (2010). Heart versus mind: The functions of emotional and cognitive loyalty. Australasian Marketing Journal,18(1), 1–7. [CrossRef] Hollingshead, S. J., Davis, C. G., & Wohl, M. J. A. (2023). the customer-brand relationship in the gambling industry: Positive play predicts attitudinal and behavioral loyalty. International Gambling Studies,23(1), 118–138. [CrossRef] Holt, E. A., Perrenoud, A., Perkins, E., & Bigelow, B. F. (2023). Recommendations for recruiting and developing early career membership in construction associations. International Journal of Construction Education and Research,19(3), 242–258. [CrossRef] Hong, I. B., & Cho, H. (2011). The impact of consumer trust on attitudinal loyalty and purchase intentions in b2c e-marketplaces: Intermediary trust vs. seller trust. International Journal of Information Management,31(5), 469–479. [CrossRef] Islam, S., Zahin, M., & Rahim, S. B. (2024). Investigating how consumer-perceived value and store image influence brand loyalty in emerging markets. South Asian Journal of Business Studies,13(4), 505–526. [CrossRef] Jasinenko, A., Brieger, S. A., & Haack, P. (2024). Mirror versus substitute: How institutional context affects individual motivation for corporate social responsibility. Journal of Management, 01492063241299403. [CrossRef] Jin, N., Line, N. D., & Goh, B. (2013). Experiential value, relationship quality, and customer loyalty in full-service restaurants: The moderating role of gender. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management,22(7), 679–700. Kaewkhav, K., Rammas, C., & Khanngoen, C. (2023). The role of customer perceived value and product quality in building brand loyalty in the sports drink industry: Evidence from thailand. Service, Leisure, Sport, Tourism & Education,1(1), 1–17. Kandampully, J., Zhang, T. C., & Bilgihan, A. (2015). Customer loyalty: A review and future directions with a special focus on the hospitality industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,27(3), 379–414. [CrossRef] Keiningham, T. L., Rust, R. T., Lariviere, B., Aksoy, L., & Williams, L. (2018). A roadmap for driving customer word-of-mouth. Journal of Service Management,29(1), 2–38. [CrossRef] Khaire, M. (2010). Young and no money? Never mind: The material impact of social resources on new venture growth. Organization Science,21(1), 168–185. [CrossRef] Kim, J., & Higgins, K. (2013). Effect of perceived fit and attribution of csr programs on brands’ moral legitimacy, customer satisfaction and brand loyalty. In International textile and apparel association annual conference proceedings (Vol. 70). Iowa State University Digital Press. Kotler, P., Kartajaya, H., & Setiawan, I. (2019). Marketing 4.0 (versión México): Transforma Tu estrategia para atraer Al consumidor digital. Lid editorial Mexicana sa de CV. Available online: https://books.google.es/books (accessed on 9 October 2024). Kumar, V., & Shah, D. (2004). Building and sustaining profitable customer loyalty for the 21st Century. Journal of Retailing,80(4), 317–329. [CrossRef] Kursunluoglu, E. (2011). Customer service effects on customer satisfaction and customer loyalty: A field research in shopping centers in izmir city-turkey. International Journal of Business and Social Science,2(17), 52–59. Lassar, W., Mittal, B., & Sharma, A. (1995). Measuring customer-based brand equity. Journal of Consumer Marketing,12(4), 11–19. [CrossRef] Lee, K. -H., & Shin, D. (2010). Consumers’ responses to csr activities: The linkage between increased awareness and purchase intention. Public Relations Review,36(2), 193–195. [CrossRef] Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 4 22 of 23 Leroi-Werelds, S. (2019). An update on customer value: State of the art, revised typology, and research agenda. Journal of Service Management,30(5), 650–680. [CrossRef] Luo, X., Hsu, M. K., & Liu, S. S. (2008). The moderating role of institutional networking in the customer orientation–trust/commitment– performance causal chain in china. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,36, 202–214. [CrossRef] Lusch, R. F., & Vargo, S. L. (2014). An introduction to service-dominant logic. Cambridge University Press. Mariconda, S., Pizzetti, M., Etter, M., & Haack, P. (2024). Fooling them, not me? how fake news affects evaluators’ reputation judgments and behavioral intentions. Business & Society, 00076503241271255. [CrossRef] Martin, G. S., & Brown, T. J. (1990). In search of brand equity: The conceptualization and measurement of the brand impression construct. Marketing Theory and Applications,2(1), 431–438. Matos, C. A. D., & Rossi, C. A. V. (2008). Word-of-mouth communications in marketing: A meta-analytic review of the antecedents and moderators. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,36, 578–596. [CrossRef] Matsuoka, K. (2022). Effects of revenue management on perceived value, customer satisfaction, and customer loyalty. Journal of Business Research,148, 131–148. [CrossRef] Miotto, G., Del-Castillo-Feito, C., & Blanco-González, A. (2020). Reputation and legitimacy: Key factors for higher education institutions’ sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Business Research,112, 342–353. [CrossRef] Mohammed, A., & Al-Swidi, A. (2019). The influence of csr on perceived value, social media and loyalty in the hotel industry. Spanish Journal of Marketing-ESIC,23(3), 373–396. [CrossRef] Morales, V. J. G., Martín, F. J. L., & Sánchez, R. L. (2005). Un análisis institucional de la implantación de la agenda local 21 por los ayuntamientos españoles. Revista Europea de Dirección y Economía de La Empresa,14(3), 9–40. Morris, B. (1999). Consumer value: A framework for analysis and research. Routledge. Mujahid, S., Khandai, S., & Venkatesh, U. (2023). A bibliometric analysis of brand value co-creation and consumer engagement. Journal of Creating Value,9(2), 275–290. [CrossRef] Odou, P., Schill, M., Chaney, D., & Roznowicz, C. (2023). Store support for local producers as a driver of legitimacy and purchase intentions: A moderated mediation model. Journal of Cleaner Production,394, 136361. [CrossRef] Oliver, R. L. (1999). Whence consumer loyalty? Journal of Marketing,63, 33–44. [CrossRef] Pascual-Nebreda, L., Cabanelas-Lorenzo, P., & Blanco-González, A. (2022). Understanding dissatisfaction through evaluation theory. Managerial and Decision Economics,43(7), 3116–3129. [CrossRef] Paulose, D., & Shakeel, A. (2022). Perceived experience, perceived value and customer satisfaction as antecedents to loyalty among hotel guests. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism,23(2), 447–481. Payne, G., Blanco-González, A., Miotto, G., & del-Castillo, C. (2021). Consumer ethicality perception and legitimacy: Competitive advantages in covid-19 crisis. American Behavioral Scientist, 00027642211016515. [CrossRef] Perera, C. H., Nayak, R., & Van Thang Long, N. (2019). The impact of electronic-word-of mouth on e-loyalty and consumers’e-purchase decision making process: A social media perspective. International Journal of Trade, Economics and Finance,10(4), 85–91. [CrossRef] Pizarro, I. V., & Arman, G. (2021). The impact of collectivism orientation and gender identity on work-life balance and life satisfaction relationship: A uk–spain comparison. Journal of Management and Business Education,4(1), 48–61. Pollack, J. M., Rutherford, M. W., & Nagy, B. G. (2012). Preparedness and cognitive legitimacy as antecedents of new venture funding in televised business pitches. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,36(5), 915–939. [CrossRef] Potnis, D., Gala, B., Seifi, L., Warraich, N., Lamba, M., & Reyes, V. (2024). Factors influencing professional associations’ member engagement online: An ‘information practices’ approach. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology,61(1), 314–325. [CrossRef] Ragab, H., Polo-Peña, A. I., & Mahrous, A. A. (2024). The effect of airline service quality, perceived value, emotional attachment, and brand loyalty on passengers’ willingness to pay: The moderating role of airline origin. Case Studies on Transport Policy,18, 101313. [CrossRef] Randrianasolo, A. A., & Arnold, M. J. (2020). Consumer legitimacy: Conceptualization and measurement scales. Journal of Consumer Marketing,37(4), 385–397. [CrossRef] Revilla-Camacho, M. -Á., Vega-Vázquez, M., & Cossío-Silva, F. -J. (2017). Exploring the customer’s intention to switch firms: The role of customer-related antecedents. Psychology & Marketing,34(11), 1039–1049. Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J. M. (2022). SmartPLS4. SmartPLS GmbH. Rodríguez-Rad, C., & Sánchez-del-Río-Vázquez, M. -E. (2023). The relevance of participation behavior, organizational commitment, and attitudinal loyalty to the management of professional associations. Journal of Business Research,154, 113324. [CrossRef] Royo-Vela, M., & Sánchez, M. P. (2022). Downward price-based luxury brand line extension: Effects on premium luxury buyer’s perception and consequences on buying intention and brand loyalty. European Research on Management and Business Economics, 28(3), 100198. [CrossRef] Scott, W. R. (2008). Institutions and organizations: Ideas and interests. Sage. Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 4 23 of 23 Shepherd, D. A., & Zacharakis, A. (2003). A new venture’s cognitive legitimacy: An assessment by customers. Journal of Small Business Management,41(2), 148–167. [CrossRef] Smith, N. A., Martinez, L. R., Xu, S., Mattila, A., & Gao, L. Y. (2023). Employing the houseless as corporate social responsibility. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,35(8), 3029–3050. [CrossRef] Snip, D. (2022). Embrace website’s warmth and sociability: A mixed methods research investigating the influence of social cues on a charity website on users’ perceived website socialness, experience of hospitality, perceived trustworthiness and attitudinal loyalty. University of Twente. Solakis, K., Pena-Vinces, J., & Lopez-Bonilla, J. M. (2022). Value co-creation and perceived value: A customer perspective in the hospitality context. European Research on Management and Business Economics,28(1), 100175. [CrossRef] Srivastava, M., & Kaul, D. (2016). Exploring the link between customer experience–loyalty–consumer spend. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,31, 277–286. [CrossRef] Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review,20(3), 571–610. [CrossRef] Sweeney, J. C., & Soutar, G. N. (2001). Consumer perceived value: The development of a multiple item scale. Journal of Retailing,77(2), 203–220. [CrossRef] Tonder, E. V., Petzer, D. J., Van Vuuren, N., & De Beer, L. T. (2018). Perceived value, relationship quality and positive wom intention in banking. International Journal of Bank Marketing,36(7), 1347–1366. [CrossRef] Tornikoski, E. T., & Newbert, S. L. (2007). Exploring the determinants of organizational emergence: A legitimacy perspective. Journal of Business Venturing,22(2), 311–335. [CrossRef] Tran, T. B. H., & Vu, A. D. (2021). From customer value co-creation behaviour to customer perceived value. Journal of Marketing Management,37(9–10), 993–1026. [CrossRef] Ullah, N. (2021). Customer percseived value in The banking sectors—An application of holbrook model. MPRA. Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing,68(1), 1–17. [CrossRef] Watson, G. F., Beck, J. T., Henderson, C. M., & Palmatier, R. W. (2015). Building, measuring, and profiting from customer loyalty. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,43, 790–825. [CrossRef] Wells, R. (2001). How institutional theory speaks to changes in organizational populations. Health Care Management Review,26(2), 80–84. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Yang, H., Yu, J., Zo, H., & Choi, M. (2016). User acceptance of wearable devices: An extended perspective of perceived value. Telematics and Informatics,33(2), 256–269. [CrossRef] Yang, K., Kim, J., Min, J., & Hernandez-Calderon, A. (2021). Effects of retailers’ service quality and legitimacy on behavioral intention: The role of emotions during COVID-19. The Service Industries Journal,41(1–2), 84–106. [CrossRef] 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, 195–211. [CrossRef] Zauner, A., Koller, M., & Hatak, I. (2015). Customer perceived value—Conceptualization and avenues for future research. Cogent Psychology,2(1), 1061782. [CrossRef] Zhang, J., Xu, D., & Chen, L. (2024). Enhancing supportive intention through perceived legitimacy: Social media influencer leadership and charismatic legitimization in csr communication. Public Relations Review,50(5), 102511. [CrossRef] Zhang, X. A., & Borden, J. (2024). How legitimate are corporate social advocacy campaigns? An examination of the role of legitimacy in stakeholder perceptions of CSA. Journal of Marketing Communications,30(1), 123–147. [CrossRef] Zhang, Y., Xu, X. -H., Lee, T. J., & Li, Z. -X. (2022). Assessing the impact of perceptions of hygiene on tourists’ attitudinal loyalty to ethnic food. British Food Journal,124(12), 4847–4867. [CrossRef] Zhao, W., & Zheng, X. (2023). Place open-up co-creation strategy, brand trust and host country consumer acceptance: Practical legitimacy perspective. Highlights in Business, Economics and Management,3, 150–156. [CrossRef] Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., Jr., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering baron and kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research,37(2), 197–206. [CrossRef] Zimmerman, M. A., & Zeitz, G. J. (2002). Beyond survival: Achieving new venture growth by building legitimacy. Academy of Management Review,27(3), 414–431. [CrossRef] Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.