Search results

In business and management, cross-national and cross-cultural comparisons between countries have been a topic of interest for many decades. Not only do firms engage in business in different countries around the world but also within countries. The population has become more diversified over time, making cross-cultural comparisons within country boundaries increasingly relevant. In comparisons across cultural groups, measurement invariance (MI) is a prerequisite; however, in practice, MI is not always attained or even tested. Our study consists of three parts. First, we provide a bibliometric analysis of articles on cross-cultural and cross-national topics in marketing to provide insight into the connections between the articles and the main themes. Second, we code articles to assess whether researchers follow the recommended steps as outlined in the multigroup confirmatory factor analysis (MGCFA) approach. The results indicate that MI testing is incorporated in the toolbox of many empirical researchers in marketing and that articles often report the level of invariance. Yet, most studies find partial invariance, meaning that some items are not comparable across the cultural groups studied. Researchers understand that MI is required, but they often ignore noninvariant items, which may decrease the validity of cross-cultural comparisons made. Third, we analyze the dissemination of MI in the broader literature based on co-citations with Steenkamp and Baumgartner (1998), a widely cited article on MI in the field of marketing. We conclude by noting methodological developments in cross-cultural research to enable addressing noninvariance and providing suggestions to further advance our insight into cross-cultural differences and similarities.

Economic globalization is leading large companies to focus on international strategic management. Nowadays, the assets referred to as “corporate intangibles,” such as corporate reputation, are becoming increasingly important because they are considered a key factor for the viability of an organization, and companies therefore need to incorporate them into their scorecards for management. The problem is that their measurement is subjective and latent. These two characteristics impede direct international comparison and require demonstrating the accuracy of comparison via a minimum of two tests – construct equivalence and metric equivalence. As regards corporate reputation, construct equivalence was verified by Naomi Gardberg (2006). However, the subsequent studies did not address metric equivalence. Based on the results of a survey provided by the Reputation Institute (n = 5,950, 50 firms evaluated in 17 countries in the Americas, Europe, Asia and Australia), the degree of RepTrak metric equivalence has been tested, using two different methodologies, multigroup analysis (structural equation model), and a new technique from 2016, the Measurement Invariance of Composite Model procedure from the Partial Least Square Path Modeling family. As one would expect from other cross-cultural studies, reputation metrics do not meet the full metric equivalence, which is why they require standardization processes to ensure international comparability. Both methodologies have identified the same correction parameters, which have allowed validation of the mean and variance of response style by country.

This chapter adopts the midrange theories schema to expand Pels and Sheth (2017) matrix on business models to serve the low-income consumers (LIC): market adaptation, mission focus, radical innovation, and inclusive ecosystems. To this end, it identifies the underlying general business theories (systems theory and neo-classical economics) and ontological theories (positivism and interpretivist) nested in each of the matrix’s four cells.

Understanding the general theories from which concepts and guidelines are drawn allows a two-way contribution. On one hand, it comprehends which other concepts can be integrated into the LIC literature. Alternatively, it highlights what insights generated from the study of the LIC markets bring to these theories.

The purpose of this study is to explore how the value of being global brands is experienced differently based upon foreign versus domestic origin of a brand. The conceptual framework is tested on samples from three countries – United States, India, and China. The data are analyzed using partial least squares structural equation modeling. The belief that global brands are of higher quality, more socially responsible, and deliver a sense of belongingness to a global community led to an orientation toward globally available consumption alternatives, or global consumption orientation (GCO). High GCO has been associated with preferences for global brands; however, we find that while this preference indeed extends to global brands based in foreign countries, it does not extend to global brands based in the home country. The study of global brands seldom distinguishes among types of global brands. This research examines global brands based on their foreign versus domestic origin; thus it offers a more nuanced understanding of the boundaries for the value of global brands.

The purpose of this paper is to shed light on the interplay between selected consumer behavior constructs and their individual and joint influences on purchase intentions of global, local, and hybrid brands. This is a topic that is becoming increasingly important as the world moves toward global economic interdependence and increasingly more firms expand abroad.

As the paper is in its conceptual/modeling phase, its research design is not yet complete, nor does it offer any findings. Resting our work on attitude and identity theories, we derive hypotheses about the potential influence of consumer behavior constructs, that is, the levels of the consumer’s global consumption orientation, globalization attitude, consumer ethnocentrism, and consumer cosmopolitanism on global brand attitude and its influence on willingness to purchase global versus nonglobal brands. We also derive hypotheses about influences that might moderate this relationship; specifically the consumer’s affinity with the home country of the particular brand, and the perceived value embedded in the brand.

Our work will contribute to the expanding literature on global consumer culture and consumption patterns and will thus provide valuable insights for international marketing managers and for social policy.

Our work will examine the joint influences of several consumer behavior constructs on brand purchase behavior, in addition to the independent influences of these constructs. It will also explore the possible mediating influence of global brand attitude on purchase intentions and moderating effects, if any, of perceived value and consumer affinity on consumers’ choices of global over local and hybrid brands.

This study examines the empirical relationship between four broad antecedents of brand equity (branding strategy, brand structure, brand positioning and target market) and two separate dimensions of revenue premium: price premium and volume premium. Our modeling framework aims to explain how different antecedents of brand equity influence the realized velocity and margin of branded product sales, key drivers of operating cash flow. Our generalizable empirical analyses are based on a representative dataset of over 6,500 brands, across 200 consumer-packaged goods categories, spanning three years. We find that only 20% of brands command revenue premiums, for which volume premiums are the critical determinant. Branding strategies and brand structure primarily impact volume premium. In contrast, brand positioning has little effect. Target market substantially affects both premiums. Overall, these four elements account for 73% and 69% of the explained variations in price and volume premiums, respectively. This study provides generalizable, important, and novel insights for the theory and practice of brand management regarding price positioning and extending brands into new categories.

Many consumer-focused corporate social responsibility (CSR) studies suggest a positive link between the responsibility demonstrated by a company and consumers’ intention to favor the company in their purchases. Yet an analogous causal effect between corporate social and financial performances is not evident. This chapter conceptualizes how social desirability and cynicism contribute to the discrepancy between consumers’ attitudes and their actual purchase behavior, and analyzes why consumer choices indicated in surveys do not consistently convert into actions.

We develop a conceptual framework based on hybrid choice modeling to estimate the impact of two new variables, Corporate Social Desirability and Corporate Social Cynicism, on CSR research. The model presented synthesizes research findings from the fields of CSR and psychology with a discrete choice methodology that allows inclusion of psychological aspects as latent variables.

The goal of the framework is to bridge the gap between choices stated by consumers in CSR surveys and their actual choices by quantifying and extracting the effects of biases that otherwise threaten the validity of such survey results. As the next step, the practical value of the model must be evaluated through empirical research combining a CSR choice study with social desirability and cynicism measurement.

The framework proposes a novel way of controlling CSR surveys for potential biases created by social desirability and cynicism and enables quantification of this impact, with potential application to other fields where psychological aspects may distort research results. Future empirical evidence based on the framework may also offer new insights into the mechanisms by which the two biases distort findings.