Search results

This study aims to examine the role of experiential familiarity in determining the competitiveness of hotel chains. It does so by comparing the attribute-performance perceptions of guests who had and had not previously stayed at a property belonging to a specific hotel chain. It also examines how far such perceptions shape word-of-mouth and future purchase intentions.

Data were collected from 1,016 Finnish leisure tourists in 2021 using an online questionnaire, providing a representative sample of Finnish domestic leisure tourists.

The results indicate that the competitiveness of different hotel chains depends on a small number of key attributes. Differentiation between hotel chains can be seen from the results. Previous guests rate hotel chain attributes more highly than non-previous guests. Behavioral intentions do not differ between previous and non-previous guests, but how many times a person has stayed in the hotel chain significantly influences behavioral intentions. The results provide strategic levers that hotel chains can use to enhance their competitiveness.

Hotels should invest in attributes that have the biggest positive impact on customer behavior. These will be different for different hotel chains. By understanding these differences, it is possible to communicate relevant attributes to customers through marketing and develop hotel features that will drive revisit intention and word-of-mouth marketing.

This study found that while certain hotel attributes had a significant shaping effect on guests’ performance ratings, there were no decisive differences between those with or without experiential familiarity with the hotel chain.

Albeit gradual and uneven, the emergence of social and environmental reporting by publicly held corporations has been a major development in the last few decades. This paper aims to explore patterns of the emergence of these disclosures. Using an institutional theory lens, this paper considers mimetic, normative and coercive possibilities.

US publicly traded company data from 2013 to 2019 is used to test the hypotheses. Mimetic forces are proxied with corporate board interlock frequency. Normative ones use the extent of gender diversity on corporate boards. Measures of business climate and industry regulatory sensitivity proxy coercive potentiality.

Studied in isolation, each of the three forces through which organizations pursue the heightened legitimacy of enhanced environmental and social disclosures has credibility. The strongest support exists for mimetic and normative mechanisms, perhaps because the US government has been reluctant to make these expanded disclosures mandatory.

In the world of voluntary action, more attention to diffusion is needed. For these purposes, better proxies will be needed to study change. Social and environmental information should be separated for individual analysis.

At least in the USA, companies are attentive to what other companies are doing. There is something to be said for the ethical dimension of corporate transparency.

Governmental action in this area has not been effective, at current levels. Corporate leadership is essential. Critical information is shared about disclosure by board members.

Although institutional theory makes several appearances in this area, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, the current study is the first empirical archival study to examine the three forces simultaneously, providing evidence as to the relative magnitude of each institutional force on environmental and social disclosures. Should these disclosures not be mandated by government, this study shows pathways for enhanced disclosures to continue to spread.