Search results

As commercial cooking is known as a source that generates great concentrations of particulate matter (PM) emissions first accumulating in kitchens before spreading to dining areas, this study aims to explore how to improve restaurants’ efforts to reduce PM emissions by the application of attribution theory.

Data were obtained from restaurant managers operating their business in South Korea, considered to be qualified to provide accurate information regarding the survey questions. A scenario-based experimental approach was used to test the hypothesized relationships. Cognitive and emotional risk judgements were assessed for its potential interaction effects on the relationships between restaurant perceptions of PM source attributions, preventions attitudes and mitigation behavioral intentions.

Results revealed that perceptions of PM main sources were attributed to internal rather than external factors, which improved mitigation behavioral intentions. Such an effect was partially mediated through PM pollution prevention attitudes. Additionally, when applying external source attributions, PM mitigation behavioral intentions were improved by cognitive risk judgements, and PM prevention attitudes were enhanced by affective risk judgements.

Results assist restaurants to better understand their operations that may be emitting significant levels of PM, thereby encouraging them to set more ambitious and effective PM mitigation operational guidelines for their employees and diners.

This study provides a fundamental baseline of management perceptions regarding PM emissions related to restaurant mitigation behavioral intentions. Results are useful in designing appropriate communication strategies addressing restaurant PM pollution issues to improve internal restaurant practices regarding clean air quality.

This study provides real-world evidence for the relationship between strategic communication from a global/multinational perspective and the effectiveness of corporate message strategies in the context of environment risk communication. Among sustainability issues, particulate matter (PM) air pollution has threatened the health and social wellbeing of citizens in many countries. The purpose of this paper is to apply the message framing and attribution theories in the context of sustainability communication to determine the effects of risk message characteristics on publics’ risk responses.

Using a 2 (message frame: gain vs loss) × 2 (attribution type: internal vs external) × 2 (country: China vs South Korea) between-subjects experimental design, the study examines the message framing strategies' on publics' risk responses (i.e. risk perception, risk responsibility attribution held toward another country and sustainable behavioral intention for risk prevention).

Findings include (1) main effects of message characteristics on participants’ risk responses; (2) the impact of country difference on participants’ differential risk responses and (3) three-way interactions on how risk message framing, risk threats type and country difference jointly affect not only participants’ risk perception and risk responsibility attribution but also their sustainable behavioral intention to prevent PM.

Although this study used young–adult samples in China and South Korea, the study advances the theory building in strategic environmental risk communication by emphasizing a global/multinational perspective in investigating differences among at-risk publics threatened by large-scale environmental risks.

The study's findings provide evidence-based implications such as how government agencies can enhance the environmental risk message strategy so that it induces more desired risk communication outcomes among at-risk publics. Insights from our study offer practical recommendations on which message feature is relatively more impactful in increasing intention for prosocial behavioral changes.

This study on all measured risk responses reveals important differences between at-risk young publics in China and South Korea and how they respond differently to a shared environmental risk such as PM. The study's findings provide new evidence that media coverage of global environmental issues needs to be studied at the national level, and cross-cultural comparisons are imperative to understand publics’ responses to different news strategies. Thus, this study offers implications for practitioners to understand and apply appropriate strategies to publics in a social way across different countries so as to tailor risk communication messaging.

This study offers new insights to help connect message framing effects with communication management practice at the multi-national level, providing recommendations for government communication practitioners regarding which PM message features are more likely to be effective in forming proper risk perception and motivate sustainable actions among at-risk publics in different countries.

When apologizing for a brand crisis, self-attribution by a business inevitably affects consumer attitude and behavior. The purpose of this study is to draw from the dissonance-attribution model and investigate the effect of self-attribution in apologies on consumers’ brand attitude.

This study includes two scenario-based experiments of 2 × 2 design.

In the first experiment on product failure, the results show that internal attribution generates significant change in brand attitude in a positive direction, while external attribution leads to negative change in brand attitude. Dispositional attribution leads to significantly more positive brand attitude than situational attribution. Internal/dispositional attribution produces significantly more positive effect on consumer attitude than the other three types of attribution. Moreover, perceived risk is found to mediate the relationship between attributions and brand attitude, and such mediating effect is moderated by consumers’ corporate associations. However, in the second experiment on moral crisis, the mediating and moderating effects are not significant.

Clearly, how a company apologizes for a product crisis makes a big difference in the effectiveness of recovery strategies to restore consumer confidence. Sincere apologies based on internal/dispositional attribution are more effective to re-gain the respect of consumers and win them back.

This study is the first to examine consumer reactions to self-attributions by marketers apologizing for a brand crisis and the combined effect of self-attributions along the horizontal dimension (internal versus external attribution) and the vertical dimension (dispositional versus situational attribution).

The purpose of this article is to assess managers' evaluation of risk associated with applicable uncontrollable forces when developing pricing strategies.

The present study is based on attribution theory. An experiment using more than 100 business managers was conducted to assess the perceived risk of uncontrollable environmental factors.

The findings suggest that when uncontrollable environmental factors dominate pricing managers tend to select pricing strategies with external orientations to deflect risk away from themselves personally.

This research is limited to pricing strategies and not a broader selection of marketing strategies. The present research provides greater insight as to why managers make certain strategic pricing decisions.

This paper suggests management should frame decision‐making contexts so that minimizing personal exposure is consistent with corporate goals and objectives.

This paper is an extension of previous research examining the managers' perception of risk. In particular, this paper focuses on how managers examine/evaluate risk and how that impacts their decision‐making process when selecting pricing strategies.

Using a portfolio comprising liquid global stocks and bonds, this study aims to limit absolute risk to that of a standardised benchmark and determine whether this has a significant impact on expected return in both high volatility period (HV) and low volatility period (LV).

Using a traditional benchmark comprising 40% equity and 60% bonds, a constant tracking error (TE) frontier was constructed and implemented. Portfolio performance for different TE constraints and different economic periods (expansion and contraction) was explored.

Results indicate that during HV, replicating benchmark portfolio risk produces portfolios that outperform both the maximum return (MR) portfolio and the benchmark. MR portfolios outperform those with the same risk as that of the benchmark in LV. The MR portfolio weights assets to obtain the highest return on the TE frontier. During HV, the benchmark replicated risk portfolio obtained a higher absolute risk value than that of the MR portfolio because of an inefficient benchmark. In HV, the benchmark replicated risk portfolio favoured intermediate maturity treasury bills.

There is a dearth of literature exploring the performance of active portfolios subject to TE constraints. This work addresses this gap and demonstrates, for the first time, the relative portfolio performance of several standard portfolio choices on the frontier.

This study aims to propose the Shapley value that originates from the game theory to quantify the relative risk of a security in an optimal portfolio.

Systematic risk as expressed by the relative covariance of stock returns to market returns is an essential measure in pricing risky securities. Although very much in use, the concept has become marginalized in recent years because of the difficulties that arise estimating beta. The idea is that portfolios can be viewed as cooperative games played by assets aiming at minimizing risk. With the Shapley value, investors can calculate the exact contribution of each risky asset to the joint payoff. For a portfolio of three stocks, this study exemplifies the Shapley value when risk is minimized regardless of portfolio return.

This study computes the Shapley value of stocks and indices for optimal mean-variance portfolios by using daily returns for the years 2016–2019. This results in the risk attributes allocated to securities in optimal portfolios. The Shapley values are analyzed and compared to the standard beta estimates to determine the ranking of assets with respect to pertinent risk and return.

An alternative approach to value risk and return in optimal portfolios is presented in this study. The logic and the mechanics of Shapley value theory in portfolio analysis have been explained, and its advantages relative to standard beta analysis are presented. Hence, financial analysts when adding or removing specific assets from present positions will have the true and exact impact of their actions by using the Shapley value instead of the beta.

When computing the Shapley value, portfolio risk is decomposed exactly among its assets because it considers all possible coalitions of portfolios. In that sense, financial analysts when adding or removing specific securities from present holdings will be able to predict the true and exact impact of their transactions by using the Shapley value instead of the beta. The main implication for investors is that risk is ultimately priced relative to their holdings. This prevents the subjective mispricing of securities, as standard beta is not used and might allow investors to gain from arbitrage conditions.

The logic and the methodology of Shapley value theory in portfolio analysis have been explained as an alternative to value risk and return in optimal portfolios by presenting its advantages relative to standard beta analysis. The conclusion is that the Shapley value theory contributes much more financial optimization than to standard systematic risk analysis because it enables looking at the contribution of each security to all possible coalitions of portfolios.

The aim of this paper is to understand the antecedents and effects of performance attribution challenges arising in the provision of business-to-business (B2B) services in supply chains.

The study draws on three in-depth case studies of logistics service providers (LSPs) offering supply chain solutions to their clients in Sweden. The analysis of performance attribution challenges and their antecedents and effects is based on 38 semi-structured interviews and review of 43 documents, including contracts and performance monitoring records.

Three key antecedents of performance attribution challenges are stressed. Two of these, the inseparability and contestability of service inputs, are closely related to the notion of service co-production. The third antecedent is the limited provider capability in performance data collection and analysis. Performance attribution challenges may result in provider aversion to performance-related risk and have a harmful effect on client relationships, for example, in terms of provider perceptions of opportunism and unfair allocation of gains. These effects can be mitigated through contracting, interventions in performance measurement system design and deployment of relational mechanisms.

The paper extends the service management literature that emphasises on service co-production by suggesting that inputs of the client firm and its supply chain partners may not only vary in quality but also can be inseparable from provider inputs and highly contestable. It also empirically demonstrates how performance attribution challenges and their antecedents and effects manifest themselves in B2B service provision, as opposed to supply chain settings where the main user of logistics services is the consumer.

LSP managers should contract for performance based on high-quality and incontestable external inputs they rely upon. Contractual specifications (performance indicators and related incentives) should explicate and consider the inputs required by clients and their supply chain partners to minimise their contestability.

The study proposes an empirically based framework of the antecedents and effects of performance attribution challenges, an issue that has received scant attention in logistics outsourcing research and the business services literature more broadly.

Since the mid‐1990s, in a generally strongly performing property market, there has been huge growth in the aggregate size and number of global property funds in both listed and unlisted formats. Managers have been able to raise significant capital, which potentially rewards them with performance fees without necessarily being able to provide clear evidence of out‐performance against defined market benchmarks or performance targets. In a more challenging, mature and increasingly transparent market this is unlikely to continue to be the case as it will be increasingly possible to assemble performance records. The purpose of this paper is to describe the sources of risk and return within property funds and set out a more holistic performance attribution framework encompassing the concepts of alpha (out‐performance) and beta (risk), which traditional attribution frameworks in property fund management do not.

A four component risk and return attribution framework is put forward. The first two components are portfolio structure which measures the impact of allocations to more or less risky markets, and stock selection which considers more or less risky assets. Fund structure, measures the impact of financial leverage and fees and finally the return impact of timing is attributed to the movement of capital into and out of the fund.

A case study of a single unlisted fund has been used to compare traditional attribution results with an examination of alpha and beta return attribution. In this instance fund structure, which is largely the financial leverage impact, is found to be significant. This simply reflects extra risk taking and there is no clear evidence of manager out‐performance, yet significant performance fees are paid to the manager.

The paper provides a complete framework for the performance measurement and attribution of property funds, which enables investors to gain a fuller understanding of these increasingly used investment conduits.

This paper aims to investigate a condition under which identity salience effects are weakened. By examining how identity salience influences individuals’ product judgment in a domain of trade-offs, the current research demonstrates that the utilitarian value of a product is an important determinant of the effectiveness of identity salience on product judgment.

This research consists of two experiments. In Experiment 1, the authors examined whether identity salience effects were mitigated when the level of the perceived utilitarian value of an identity-incongruent product was greater than that of an identity-congruent product. In Experiment 2, the authors examined the effectiveness of internal attribution as a moderator that strengthens identity salience effects when the perceived utilitarian value of an identity-incongruent (vs. identity-congruent) product is higher.

In Experiment 1, the authors show that when the utilitarian value of a product with an attribute congruent (vs. incongruent) with one’s salient identity is lower, individuals do not show a greater preference for the identity-congruent (vs. identity-incongruent) product, mitigating the identity salience effects. Experiment 2 demonstrates that when individuals with a salient identity attribute a decision outcome to the self, they display a greater preference for the identity-congruent product even when its utilitarian value is lower compared to that of the identity-incongruent product.

The research contributes to previous research examining conditions under which identity salience effects are weakened [e.g. social influence by others (Bolton and Reed, 2004); self-affirmation (Cohen et al., 2007)] by exploring the role of the utilitarian value of a product, which has not been examined yet in prior research. Also, by doing so, the current research adds to the literature on identity salience in a domain of trade-offs (Benjamin et al., 2010; Shaddy et al., 2020, 2021). Finally, this research reveals that when a decision outcome is attributed to the self, identity salience effects become greater. By finding a novel determinant of identity salience effects (i.e. internal attribution), the present research contributes to the literature that has examined factors that amplify identity salience effects [e.g. cultural relevance (Chattaraman et al., 2009); social distinctiveness (Forehand et al., 2002); different types of groups (White and Dahl, 2007)].

The findings provide managerial insights on identity-based marketing by showing a condition under which identity-based marketing does not work [i.e. when the utilitarian value of an identity-congruent (vs. identity-incongruent) product is lower] and how to enhance the effectiveness of identity-based marketing by using internal attribution.

By exploring the role of utilitarian value, not yet examined in prior research, the present research adds to the knowledge of the conditions under which identity salience effects are weakened. Furthermore, by finding a novel determinant of identity salience effects (i.e. internal attribution), the research contributes to the literature on factors that amplify identity salience effects.

Sensemaking models generally lack an objective determinant to distinguish between CEO fault and changes in systematic risk caused by exogenous negative shocks like a banking crisis. The interdisciplinary approach of this paper combines attribution theory with econometric time series analyses to provide an objective measure of exogeneity and persistence of a negative shock to an organization. The purpose of this paper is to address the exploratory research question, of how scapegoating by managers can be avoided by the use of an objective and empirical measurement and if the recent financial crisis can be seen as an exogenous shock to manufacturing firms.

By testing for stationarity with a structural break with an econometric time series analysis, the model helps to reduce agency costs during organizational crisis by effectively determining crisis causation and avoid scapegoating by managers.

By combining the sensemaking models of Haleblian and Rajagopalan (2006), Staw (1980), and Weick (1988), an integrated model of sensemaking in performance crises under the specific context of simultaneously occurring external crises is provided. By applying the authors approach the results suggest that the financial crisis of 2008/2009 has true exogenous adverse effects on US manufacturing firms.

The interdisciplinary approach encourages the integration of econometric time series analysis as an objective determinant in sense making models.