Description
when aggregated,
the brand citizenship behavior of firms positively affects their corporate brand equity. In addition, brand
citizenship behavior mediates the relationship between corporate branding and brand equity. Brand
managers should consider adopting corporate branding practices to encourage employees to engage in
brand citizenship behavior, which contributes to brand equity.
Original article
Investigating the dual-route effects of corporate branding on brand equity
Aihwa Chang
a
, Hsu-Hsin Chiang
b, *
, Tzu-Shian Han
a
a
Department of Business Administration, National Chengchi University, Taipei City, Taiwan, R.O.C
b
Graduate Institute of Human Resource and e-Learning Technology, National Hsinchu University of Education, Hsinchu City, Taiwan, R.O.C
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 21 October 2013
Accepted 13 October 2014
Available online 16 April 2015
Keywords:
Brand citizenship behavior
Brand equity
Corporate branding
a b s t r a c t
This research investigated the multilevel relationships among corporate branding, brand citizenship
behavior, and brand equity using a hierarchical linear modeling method. The corporate branding
construct represents practices that could improve the brand cognition and brand attitude of multiple
stakeholders. Brand citizenship behavior indicates that employees are altruistic toward and identify
themselves with brands. Brand equity was assessed using customer data to measure their awareness,
association, quality perception, attitude, and loyalty toward a corporate brand. This study obtained data
from 283 employees, 250 supervisors, and 577 customers of 31 franchise organizations to demonstrate
the results at different levels. The results of our analysis indicate that corporate branding exerts a positive
effect on brand citizenship behavior and customer-based brand equity. Furthermore, when aggregated,
the brand citizenship behavior of ?rms positively affects their corporate brand equity. In addition, brand
citizenship behavior mediates the relationship between corporate branding and brand equity. Brand
managers should consider adopting corporate branding practices to encourage employees to engage in
brand citizenship behavior, which contributes to brand equity.
© 2015, College of Management, National Cheng Kung University. Production and hosting by Elsevier
Taiwan LLC. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Over the past two decades, corporate branding has been advo-
cated by scholars as an effective approach for companies to build
competitive advantage (Balmer, 2012; Melewar, Gotsi, &
Andriopoulos, 2012). Originating from product branding, which
involves creating market preferences and differentiation, corporate
branding seeks to build a favorable image for all stakeholders (Ind,
1997). Over time, products and services typically become more
similar because competitors can imitate new products quickly,
making it dif?cult for consumers to differentiate between the of-
ferings of ?rms. Consequently, promoting entire companies as
brands has become an ef?cient approach for creating differentia-
tion. Moreover, for companies with multiple product lines, corpo-
rate branding reduces communication costs and creates synergies
among brands under a corporate brand umbrella (Harris & de
Chernatony, 2001; Hulberg, 2006).
Corporate branding differs from product branding, which relies
more on the efforts of marketing and advertising personnel.
Corporate branding draws its value from an entire organization,
including its funders, owners, managers, and personnel (Balmer &
Gray, 2003). Although brand images may represent what external
constituents think about a corporation, corporate branding involves
managing the consistency between what stakeholders actually
think about an organization and what the organization believes
(wants) them to think (Dacin & Brown, 2006). An emerging
consensus exists among scholars that corporate brands should be
closelyalignedwithcorporate identity (Balmer, 1995, 2012; Harris &
de Chernatony, 2001; Hulberg, 2006). Thus, an identity-based
perspective could provide a valid paradigm for investigating
corporate branding practices. In a literature review, Hulberg (2006)
contended that two types of corporate identity exist; one based on
marketing theory, and the other based on organizational theory.
Although the marketing-based perspective of corporate identity
emphasizes the role of external stakeholders, the organizational-
identity-based perspective focuses more on the importance of in-
ternal stakeholders. Van Rekom (2002) de?ned organizational
identity as the sum of employees' perceptions of an organization's
* Corresponding author. Graduate Institute of Human Resource and e-Learning
Technology, National Hsinchu University of Education, 521, Nanda Rd., Hsinchu City,
Taiwan 30014, R.O.C.
E-mail address: [email protected] (H.-H. Chiang).
Peer review under responsibility of College of Management, National Cheng
Kung University.
HOSTED BY
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Asia Paci?c Management Review
j ournal homepage: www. el sevi er. com/ l ocat e/ apmrv
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apmrv.2014.10.001
1029-3132/© 2015, College of Management, National Cheng Kung University. Production and hosting by Elsevier Taiwan LLC. All rights reserved.
Asia Paci?c Management Review 20 (2015) 120e129
identity. Hatch and Schultz (1997) contended that organizational
identity is communicated (intentionally or unintentionally) to
external environments through employees. Therefore, both mar-
keting- and organizational identity-based perspectives of corporate
brand identity are highly related, and the effectiveness of corporate
branding should be measured by assessing both perspectives
(Burmann, Zeplin, & Reily, 2009). Furthermore, the effect of
corporate branding on external brand identity can be engendered
through two routes: directly from corporate branding to external
stakeholder, and through the mediation of internal stakeholders.
However, few studies have investigated these two routes of corpo-
rate branding effects simultaneously; rather, most of them have
applied only one route. For example, the direct effect route of
corporate branding can be manifested on fostering customer
corporate brand association, which has been shown to in?uence
consumer product evaluations (Brown & Dacin, 1997; Goldberg &
Hartwick, 1990), purchase intentions (Fomburn, 1996; Goldsmith,
Lafferty, & Newell, 2000), loyalty (Andreassen & Lindestad, 1998),
as well as how consumers evaluate brand extensions (Keller &
Aaker, 1998). Regarding the other route of corporate branding ef-
fect, most studies have focused on internal branding. Burmann and
Zeplin (2005) measured internal brand strength using two inter-
related constructs, namely, brand commitment (attitude aspects)
and brand citizenship behavior. Several subsequent studies
(Burmann et al., 2009; Nyadzayo, Matanda, & Ewing, 2011; Xie,
Peng, & Huan, 2014) have adopted these two constructs to investi-
gate the determinants of internal branding. Ingeneral, this streamof
research indicates that internal brand identity can lead to external
brand equity, such as customer satisfaction (Chang, Chiang, & Han,
2012) or brandecustomer relationship quality (Burmann et al.,
2009). Although Chiang, Chang, Han, and McConville (2013)
showed that internal branding can enhance various types of
external corporate equity, they did not investigate the dual effects.
In summary, extant research on corporate branding has not
adequately addressed the entire spectrum of effects and in?uence
routes associated with corporate branding. Therefore, the ?rst
objective of this study is to ?ll this knowledge gap.
Thereasons whyonlyafewstudies haveinvestigatedbothroutes of
corporate branding effects can be explained byexamining the concept
of corporate branding. Corporate branding has been investigated from
various perspectives, including corporate communications, corporate
reputation, corporate characteristics, corporate identity, and strategic
management (Fetscherin & Usunier, 2012). Researchers from
numerous disciplines have proposed various drivers of corporate
brand equity, such as managing organizational culture (Harris & de
Chernatony, 2001), creating highly motivated employees who incor-
porate brand messages into their lifestyle (Mitchell, 2002), applying
brand-centered human resource management (HRM) practices
(Changet al., 2012), communicating brandvalues, as well as managing
brand image and reputation (Dowling, 2001). However, few studies
have adopted a comprehensive perspective of corporate branding to
investigate the drivers of corporate brand identity. Consequently, in-
vestigations on the performance of corporate branding could be
limited by omitting critical aspects of corporate branding endeavors.
Hence, the second objective of this research is to investigate the con-
stituents of corporate branding, which encompasses a comprehensive
set of brand equity drivers. The results could contribute to managerial
practices by establishing causal links of corporate branding.
Melewar et al. (2012) recommended that future studies on
corporate branding should address three central tensions, one of
which is related to measuring corporate branding through multi-
level analysis. In other words, appropriate analysis methodologies
should be applied to elucidate how organizational practices in?u-
ence individual employees (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). Research
on the cross-level effects of corporate branding is scant; therefore,
this study addresses this issue by adopting a multilevel analysis
approach.
2. Literature review and hypothesis development
2.1. Dual-effect routes of corporate branding
Corporate branding is de?ned as a systematical process imple-
mented by an organization to create favorable brand image and
maintain brand reputation through interaction with internal and
external stakeholders (Einwiller &Will, 2002; Muzellec &Lambkin,
2006). Compared with product branding, which is typically
handled by marketing personnel (Melewar et al., 2012), corporate
branding practices involve organization-wide practices that
contribute to corporate identity (Melewar & Karaosmanoglu,
2006), visual identity (Van den Bosch, Elving, & de Jong, 2006),
and corporate personality (Abratt & Mofokeng, 2001), all of which
can encourage multiple stakeholders to identify themselves with
the corporate brand, thereby enhancing brand equity.
Two types of corporate identity, which are related to internal
and external stakeholders, contribute to the effect of corporate
branding (Hulberg, 2006). Organizational theory perspectives on
corporate branding include concepts such as vision, culture, and
image alignment (Harris & de Chernatony, 2001), brand leadership
(Vallaster & de Chernatony, 2006), interaction with multiple
stakeholders (Leitch & Richardson, 2003), interdepartmental co-
ordination (de Chernatony, 1999), brand-centered HRM practices
(Burmann & Zeplin, 2005; Martin, Beaumont, Doig, & Pate, 2005),
training (Roper & Davies, 2010), internal branding (Punjaisri &
Wilson, 2011), and brand communication (Balmer, 2001). Market-
ing theory perspectives on corporate branding include concepts
such as consumer evaluations (Brown & Dacin, 1997), consumer
intentions (Goldsmith et al., 2000), and brand extensions (Keller &
Aaker, 1998).
Thus, corporate branding is characterized by a highly strategic
focus (oriented toward both internal and external targets), as well
as by the alignment of internal and external marketing efforts.
Building on Fetscherin and Usunier (2012), this study focuses on
creating positive associations with corporate brands and identi-
fying corporate branding practices that motivate employees to live
the brand (Melewar et al., 2012).
2.2. Social identity theory, social exchange theory, and corporate
branding
Hogg and Terry (2000) considered social identity theory as “a
platform which can be used to describe in detail how social cate-
gorization and prototype-based depersonalization actually produce
social identity phenomena.” Ashforth and Mael (1989) argued that
social identity provides people with a sense of belonging to a social
group. The concepts underlying social identity theory, which are
based on the works of numerous scholars (Hirst, Van Dick, & Van
Knippenberg, 2009; Meyer, Becker, & Van Dick, 2006), highlight
the role of collective identity, which affects the cognitive awareness
of a person's organizational membership, such as employee
commitment and organizational goals. Van Knippenberg and Hogg
(2003) argued that collective attributes of an organization and
employees' interpersonal relationships delineate collective self and
employees' social identity. Organizational members with high so-
cial identity may exhibit positive cognitions (e.g., commitment)
toward activities that are congruent with their identity (Ashforth &
Mael, 1989), which contributes to the success of organizational
activities.
Masterson and Stamper (2003) argued that corporate branding
processes can induce a sense of belonging in employees, through
A. Chang et al. / Asia Paci?c Management Review 20 (2015) 120e129 121
which they develop a strong social identity toward corporate
brands. Corporate branding involves a systematic process of
creating and maintaining a favorable brand image, identi?cation,
and reputation through communicating with stakeholders, as well
as by managing organizational behavior, communications, and use
of symbolism (Einwiller & Will, 2002; Muzellec & Lambkin, 2006),
thereby transforming the external stakeholder perceptions and
internal stakeholder behaviors (Vallaser and de Chernatony, 2006).
Blau (1964) and Homans (1961) argued that social exchange
theory highlights the importance of the relationship between an
organization and organizational members (Eisenberger,
Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986), such as the relationship
between organizational goals and employee motivation (Aseleage
& Eisenberger, 2003). High-quality social exchanges are produced
when high levels of mutual trust, respect, and loyalty exist between
an organization and its employees (Chen & Klimoski, 2003). Molm
and Cook (1995) reported that employees who believe that a
reciprocal exchange of valued bene?ts is possible may learn howto
establish exchange relations with work colleagues and the orga-
nization. Under such circumstances, an organization and its em-
ployees can establish positive, long-term, and interactive mutual
relationships that facilitate organizational performance.
Scholars on corporate branding have recommended strength-
ening corporate brands through brand promises, corporate repu-
tation, and brand identity (Abratt & Kleyn, 2012; Balmer &
Thompson, 2009). Employees who act as an interface between in-
ternal and external stakeholders can enhance corporate reputation
by communicating brand values to multiple stakeholders. Suc-
cessful corporate branding practices may foster a relationship of
mutual trust between an organization and its employees by
implementing effective brand-centered HRM practices, such as
leadership, training, rewards, communication, interactive process,
and interdepartmental coordination (Burmann & Zeplin, 2005;
Hatch & Schultz, 2003; Kay, 2006; Leitch & Richardson, 2003). In
other words, when an exchange relationship satis?es an em-
ployee's needs, he or she may reciprocate the organization by
adopting “probrand” attitudes and behaviors.
2.3. Corporate branding and brand citizenship behavior
Brand values can be enhanced through brand citizenship
behavior, which is a consequence of brand-related altruistic spirit.
Moreover, brand building involves developing emotional compo-
nents (e.g., brand commitment and brand psychological ownership)
that make employees more aware of brand identity (Burmann &
Zeplin, 2005), which can be expressed through organizational
communication. Employees who have a relatively stronger sense of
organizational identity typically exhibit a more supportive attitude
toward organizational goals (Smidts, Pruyn, & Van Riel, 2001). Pre-
vious studies have shown that communication is positively associ-
ated with organizational identi?cation (Bartels, Ad Pruyn, & Inge,
2007), and that emotional appeals contributing to brand identity
canbe fosteredthrougheffectivebrandcommunication(Burmann&
Zeplin, 2005). Based on this perspective, this study argues that or-
ganizations may use brand communication strategies to implement
effective corporate branding practices that engender brand identi-
?cation. In other words, an organization could communicate brand-
related vision, beliefs, values, and norms to employees by incorpo-
rating such messages into corporate branding processes (Hatch &
Schultz, 2003). Employees who internalize a brand's cultural
values as personal values typically identify themselves with the
brand, and they engage in brand citizenship behavior.
Brand leadership is a critical component of corporate branding.
Through intellectual stimulation, leaders can foster follower
perception of variety and autonomy (e.g., seeking newperspectives
and developing novel ways to frame new organizational tasks),
indicating that effective leadership contributes to positive
employee behavior (Piccolo & Coiquitt, 2006). Previous research
showed that transformational leadership is positively associated
with organizational citizenship behavior (Podsakoff, MacKenzie,
Moorman, & Fetter, 1990). Both transformational and brand-
oriented leadership are considered to be effective leadership
styles (Burmann &Zeplin, 2005); in other words, leaders who apply
a brand-oriented style might express a brand-centered vision that
in?uences the personal values of employees, thereby inspiring a
sense of altruism that encourages them to engage in brand citi-
zenship behavior (Burmann & Zeplin, 2005).
The integrated efforts of HRM, communications, and marketing
departments facilitate successful corporate branding, indicating
that interdepartmental coordination plays a crucial role in corpo-
rate branding practices (Hatch & Schultz, 2003). Furthermore, an
organization can use brand-centered HRM strategy to facilitate the
internalization of brand identity (Aurand, Gorchels, &Bishop, 2005;
Burmann & Zeplin, 2005). Brand-centered HRM, which includes
training, selection, reward, development, and corporate brand
evaluation, could assist in developing employees who are effective
brand representatives (Leana &Van Buren, 1999; Sun, Aryee, &Law,
2007). Previous studies have found that high-performance brand-
centered HRM strategies involving supportive practices can trans-
form employee perceptions and behaviors into positive brand be-
haviors (Bettencourt, Gwinner, & Meuter, 2001; Sun et al., 2007).
Thus, implementing an effective corporate branding strategy
through high-performance brand-centered HRM may engender
brand citizenship behavior. According to social exchange theory,
high-quality social exchange relationships are produced when high
levels of mutual trust, respect, and loyalty exist between an orga-
nization and its employees (Chen & Klimoski, 2003). Eisenberger
et al. (1986) argued that employees receiving adequate organiza-
tional support may engage in altruistic behaviors, such as organi-
zational citizenship behavior (Chi & Han, 2008; Podsakoff,
MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000). Based on the concept of
reciprocal relationships (Flynn, 2005), employees disregard their
gains when exerting efforts to a brand, and they subsequently
reciprocate through brand citizenship behavior (Burmann et al.,
2009). Davies and Chun (2012) empirically proved that the role of
employees as brand symbols is critical in enhancing the value of a
corporate brand (Davies & Chun, 2012). Extending the aforemen-
tioned arguments, corporate branding can be considered as an
aggregated construct comprising effective brand communication,
brand leadership, brand-centered HRM, interdepartmental coor-
dination, as well as the strategic alignment of external and internal
orientation; accordingly, Hypothesis 1 is proposed as follows.
Hypothesis 1. Corporate branding positively affects brand citizen-
ship behavior
2.4. Corporate branding and brand equity
Corporate branding is related to interactions with multiple
stakeholders (Abratt & Kleyn, 2012; Melewar et al., 2012) who can
contribute to brand equity. Balmer (2001) asserted that strategic
branding can be communicated externally and internally, thereby
providing a valuable source of brand equity. Leitch and Richardson
(2003) argued that organizations can improve their corporate
brand image and reputation by adopting corporate branding
practices that involve interacting with customers, thereby fostering
brand equity. A favorable corporate brand image and reputation can
be created and maintained through effective branding practices,
such as customer signaling, effective communication, and
A. Chang et al. / Asia Paci?c Management Review 20 (2015) 120e129 122
appropriate use of symbolism (Einwiller & Will, 2002; Muzellec &
Lambkin, 2006). Successfully implementing an effective corporate
branding strategy may transmit an image that the corporate is
trustworthy, competent, ethical, and socially responsible (Sen &
Bhattacharya, 2001), therefore facilitating a desired corporate
identity (Abratt, 1989), reputation (Harris & de Chernatony, 2001;
Van Riel & Balmer, 1997), and image (Hatch & Schultz, 2003).
Furthermore, through interactive processes, organizations can ac-
quire ideas, knowledge, and insights of corporate brands from
external stakeholders (e.g., customers and trade) and employees
(Leitch & Richardson, 2003), as well as customer engagement and
commitment from brand communities (McAlexander, Scheuten, &
Koenig, 2002). Formulating an effective corporate branding strat-
egy that ful?lls the needs of stakeholders can improve customer
brand evaluations and brand resonance (Keller, 1993). Customers
who consider a corporate brand has desirable characteristics may
develop a sense of oneness with the organization and develop
customerecompany identi?cation (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003).
Based on this discussion, we argue that an organization that suc-
cessfully implements an effective corporate branding strategy can
enhance its customer-based brand equity. Accordingly, we propose
the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2. Corporate branding positively affects brand equity
2.5. Brand citizenship behavior and brand equity
Brand citizenship behavior refers to the brand-related voluntary
behaviors of employees that strengthen the brand (Burmann &
Zeplin, 2005). This study argues that employees who engage in
brand citizenship behavior might also engage in brand-centered
extra-role behaviors that could enhance brand equity. In other
words, they might engage in behaviors that go beyond any formal
requirements, which could enhance customer perceptions toward
the image of a brand (Sun et al., 2007). Previous studies have
indicated that brand citizenship behavior can enhance customer
satisfaction (Chang et al., 2012) and brandecustomer relationship
quality (Burmann et al., 2009).
Numerous scholars have argued that customer-based responses,
including customer attachment, association, awareness, attitude,
and loyalty, can be used to measure brand equity (Ailawadi,
Lehmann, & Neslin, 2003; Keller & Lehmann, 2001). Yoo and
Donthu (2001) stated that brand equity is measured in terms of
customer awareness, association, quality perception, and loyalty
toward a brand; therefore, the effects of corporate branding man-
ifest in customer-based brand equity. Based on social exchange
theory, employees who receive appropriate organizational support
(i.e., corporate branding) typically reciprocate by engaging in brand
citizenship behavior, which enhances brand equity. We therefore
propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3. Organization-level brand citizenship behavior posi-
tively affects brand equity
2.6. Mediating role of brand citizenship behavior
Hypotheses 1e3 indicate that the relationships among corpo-
rate branding, brand citizenship behavior, and brand equity may be
correlated. Three aspects of corporate branding (i.e., brand leader-
ship, brand-centered HRM, and brand communication) elicit posi-
tive brand cognitions in employees, thereby leading to brand
citizenship behavior (Burmann & Zeplin, 2005). Burmann and
Zeplin (2005) and Piccolo and Coiquitt (2006) have shown that
brand leaders typically frame new brand tasks and construct a
brand-centered vision that induces positive brand cognitions and
encourages brand citizenship behavior. Employees who identify
themselves with a brand are more likely to incorporate the brand
into their lives and enthusiastically deliver the brand's values to
customers, thereby increasing brand equity. Brand-centered HRM
practices assist in cultivating employees who are effective brand
representatives (Leana & Van Buren, 1999; Sun et al., 2007).
Burmann et al. (2009) proposed a holistic model to explain how
branding practices (e.g., brand-centered HRM) lead to brand
commitment and brand citizenship behavior, thereby enhancing
the quality of brandeconsumer relationships.
Through brand communication, employees identify themselves
with a corporate brand, and subsequently engage in brand citi-
zenship behavior (Burmann & Zeplin, 2005). Moreover, Davies and
Chun (2012) argued that employees, as an element of a corporate
brand symbol, can affect customer perceptions of that brand.
Furthermore, the ages of the employees may in?uence the symbolic
meaning of the corporate brand, which can be crucial in generating
customer associations with the corporate brand. Therefore, orga-
nizations can enhance their brand equity through effective
communication through the symbolism, attitude, and behavior of
employees who interact with customers.
Based on the aforementioned discussion, corporate branding
contributes to employees' probrand attitude and brand citizenship
behavior, which enhance brandecustomer relationship and brand
equity. Accordingly, Hypothesis 4 is proposed as follows:
Hypothesis 4. Brand citizenship behavior mediates the relationship
between corporate branding and brand equity
Based on Hypotheses 1e4, Fig. 1 presents the proposed research
framework.
3. Analysis method
Raudenbush and Bryk (2002) argued that hierarchical linear
modeling (HLM) can be used to measure the effects and explained
variance that exist in multilevel relationships. Thus, HLM can be
used to solve bias resulting from disaggregation and aggregation
(Kidwell, Mossholder, & Bennett, 1997). Because the constructs
proposed by this research exist at multiple levels, we applied HLM
to examine the multilevel relationships among corporate branding,
brand citizenship behavior, and customer-based brand equity.
3.1. Item development
Comprehensive concepts of corporate branding have been
formulated based on various theoretical perspectives (Balmer,
2001, 2008; Balmer & Gray, 2003; de Chernatony, 1999; Harris &
de Chernatony, 2001; Hatch & Schultz, 2003; Knox & Bickerton,
2003; Leitch & Richardson, 2003; Vallaster & de Chernatony,
2006; Uggla, 2006; Urde, 2001). This study developed a corporate
branding scale by adopting the guidelines proposed by Hinkin
(1998). The dimensions of corporate branding were identi?ed af-
ter interviewing 10 managers from various franchise organizations
in Taiwan. Subsequently, we surveyed 283 managers from the
franchise organizations in Taiwan. After performing exploratory
factor analysis (EFA) and con?rmatory factor analysis (CFA), the
following ?ve factors of corporate branding were identi?ed: (1)
communication and evaluation; (2) interdepartmental coordina-
tion; (3) leadership and interaction with stakeholders; (4) training
and selection; and (5) vision and culture. The ?tness indices of
secondary CFA of corporate branding [c
2
/df ¼ 1.90, goodness-of-?t
index (GFI) ¼ 0.81, root-mean-square residual (RMSR) ¼ 0.053,
A. Chang et al. / Asia Paci?c Management Review 20 (2015) 120e129 123
comparative ?t index (CFI) ¼ 0.98, normal ?t index (NFI) ¼ 0.96,
root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) ¼ 0.082] show
that the model ?t is satisfactory. Discriminant and convergent
validity were assessed in accordance with J€ oreskog and S€ orbom
(1981). Two dimensions of corporate branding were considered
distinct if PHI ± 1.96 Â standardized error excludes 1. The results
indicate discriminant validity among the dimensions of corporate
branding. Furthermore, the standardized l of each indicator is
>0.73, and the T value of each indicator achieved statistical signif-
icance (p < 0.01), indicating convergent validity for each construct.
For the individual-level analysis, the concepts of brand citizen-
ship behavior were adopted from previous studies (Burmann &
Zeplin, 2005; Organ, 1988; Podsakoff et al., 2000). The di-
mensions of brand citizenship behavior were developed after
interviewing 10 employees from franchise organizations in Taiwan.
Subsequently, we surveyed 361 customer-facing employees from
the franchise organizations. After performing EFA and CFA, we
identi?ed the following three factors of brand citizenship behavior:
(1) sportsmanship and endorsement; (2) helping behavior; and (3)
consideration and enhancement. The ?tness indices of secondary
CFA of brand citizenship behavior (c
2
/df ¼ 1.45, GFI ¼ 0.93,
RMSR ¼ 0.035, CFI ¼ 0.99, NFI ¼ 0.98, RMSEA ¼ 0.052) show that
the results are satisfactory. The discriminant and convergent val-
idity test results show that any two dimensions of PHI ± 1.96 Â
standardized error exclude 1, indicating discriminant validity
among the dimensions of brand citizenship behavior. Furthermore,
the standardized l of each indicator is >0.7, and the T value of each
indicator achieved statistical signi?cance (p < .01), indicating
convergent validity for each construct.
3.2. Research sample and procedure
The data used in this study were collected using questionnaires
that were distributed to store managers and customer-facing em-
ployees of franchise organizations in Taiwan. The questionnaire for
supervisors was designed to measure corporate branding based on
the perceptions of store managers, whereas the questionnaire for
employees was designed to measure the cognitions and brand
citizenship behavior of customer-facing employees. The re-
spondents who participated in this research were supervisors,
employees, and customers of 31 franchise organizations listed in
the Taiwan Franchise Association. Two types of franchise organi-
zation were surveyed; retail stores and food and beverage organi-
zations. All of the questionnaire items were measured using a 5-
point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (extremely disagree) to 5
(extremely agree). Among the 330 (420) questionnaires distributed
to the supervisors (employees), 275 (283) of them were returned,
yielding a response rate of 83% (67%). Customers were invited by
research assistants to complete the questionnaires. Among the
1300 questionnaires distributed to customers, 577 of them were
returned, yielding a response rate of 44.39%.
3.3. Measurements
3.3.1. Corporate branding
The 20-item corporate branding scale used in this study was
adopted froma corporate branding scale developed by Chiang et al.
(2013). Appendix 1 lists the corporate branding measurement
items (Cronbach a ¼ 0.95).
3.3.2. Brand citizenship behavior
The 12-item brand citizenship behavior scale used in this study
was adopted from a brand citizenship behavior scale developed by
Chiang et al. (2013). Appendix 2 lists the brand citizenship mea-
surement items (Cronbach a ¼ 0.93).
3.3.3. Brand equity
This study adopted a nine-item brand equity scale proposed by
Yoo and Donthu (2001) for two reasons. First, the scale was
developed based on the conceptualization of brand equity
espoused by seminal works (Aaker, 1991; Keller, 1993), indicating
that the content validity of the scale is high. Second, this scale was
tested in a study involving 1530 participants from various coun-
tries; speci?cally, the scale was used to evaluate the brand equity of
12 brands, reporting adequacy of the questionnaire items, and thus,
indicating that the scale has satisfactory generalizability. Examples
of the scale items include “I consider myself to be loyal to the store
brand,” “The store brand would be my ?rst choice,” and “I will not
buy other brands if the store brand is available.” Appendix 3 lists
the brand equity measurement items used in this study (Cronbach
a ¼ 0.9).
Corporate branding
Brand citizenship behavior
Customer outcomes
Organizational level
Aggregation
Brand equity
Individual level
H1
H2
H3
H4
Aggregated brand
citizenship behavior
Fig. 1. Research framework.
A. Chang et al. / Asia Paci?c Management Review 20 (2015) 120e129 124
3.3.4. Control variables
Several variables that may in?uence the dependent variables
were controlled. At the individual (organizational) level, the control
variables were sex, age, and education (franchise type).
4. Results
4.1. Sample characteristics
Thirty-one franchise organizations participated in this research.
All of the selected organizations were appropriate for HLM ana-
lyses. From these 31 organizations, 250 supervisors and 283
customer-contacting employees participated in our survey. Among
the supervisors, 108 were men (43.2%) and 142 were women
(56.8%). Most of them (53.6%) were aged between 26 years and 35
years. Furthermore, 165 of them (66%) had a college degree.
After completing the survey, 283 completed individual-level
questionnaires were analyzed. Among the employees who partic-
ipated in this research, 115 were men (40.5%) and 168 were women
(59.5%). Most respondents (61.7%) were younger than 25 years.
Senior-high-school graduates accounted for 31.7% of the sample,
and college graduates accounted for 61.7%. Regarding the cus-
tomers, this study collected questionnaire data from customers 1
month after surveying the supervisors and employees. The
customer sample comprised 577 valid responses.
4.2. Null model analysis
This research employed null models to prove two phenomena.
First, employee cognition and behavior varied among the franchise
organizations. Second, employee behavior may be affected by
contextual variables (i.e., corporate branding). Initially, this study
evaluated null models that do not incorporate a predictor at either
the individual or organizational level. Investigating multilevel re-
lationships is more appropriate when the residual variance of the
intercepts (t00) associated with the null models is statistically
signi?cant (Hofmann, 1997). For brand citizenship behavior, the
null model analysis results show that the residual variance of the
intercepts is signi?cant (t00 ¼ 0.124, p < 0.001). In other words, in
the proposed model, heterogeneous relationships exist among the
various organizations; thus, multilevel analyses is appropriate for
investigating the relationships between corporate branding and
brand citizenship behavior.
4.3. Aggregation of constructs
To conduct a cross-level analysis, this study examined the val-
idity of the organization-level variables (corporate branding and
aggregated brand citizenship behavior). Interrater agreement was
assessed by r
wg
(James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1993). The median r
wg
of
corporate branding (brand citizenship behavior) is 0.974 (0.990). All
of the r
wg
values are above the acceptable level of 0.6 (James, 1982).
Furthermore, this study measured the intraclass correlation (ICC1)
and reliability of group means (ICC2) of brand citizenship behavior
(Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002), which were 0.228 and 0.912, respec-
tively. Based on Yoo and Donthu (2001), brand equity was measured
based on customer perceptions. Therefore, the customer data had to
be nested with a corporate brand. To provide the evidence that a
multilevel relationship exists between corporate branding and
brand equity, this research measured the ICC1 and ICC2 of brand
equity, which were 0.189 and 0.891, respectively. All of the ICC1
values were higher than the acceptable level of 0.12 (James, 1982),
and the ICC2 values were also above the acceptable level of 0.6
(Glick, 1985). Therefore, forming aggregated level constructs is
suitable.
4.4. Correlations
As reported in Table 1, the correlation results show that corpo-
rate branding is signi?cantly related to brand citizenship behavior
(r ¼ 0.361, p < 0.05) and brand equity (r ¼ 0.287, p < 0.1).
Organization-level brand citizenship behavior is signi?cantly
related to brand equity (r ¼ 0.419, p < 0.05). These results support
the proposed hypotheses.
4.5. Hypothesis examination
Table 2 shows the HLM analysis results. This study used a cross-
level analysis to test Hypothesis 1, which was proposed to inves-
tigate the relationship between corporate branding (organizational
data) and brand citizenship behavior (individual-level data). As
shown in Table 2 (Model 1), corporate branding positively affected
brand citizenship behavior (b ¼0.317, p < 0.01); thus, Hypotheses 1
is supported. For the organization-level analysis, Hypothesis 2 was
proposed to investigate the relationship between corporate
branding and customer-based brand equity (Model 2). Table 2
shows that corporate branding positively affected brand equity
(b ¼0.257, p < 0.01), thereby supporting Hypothesis 2. Hypothesis 3
was proposed to investigate the relationship between
organization-level brand citizenship behavior and brand equity.
The results of the Model 3 analysis indicate that organization-level
brand citizenship behavior positively affected brand equity
(b ¼ 0.268, p < 0.01); thus, Hypothesis 3 is supported.
All of the models achieved statistical signi?cance, with Model 2
yielding the highest explanatory power (R
2
¼ 0.58), followed by
Model 1 (R
2
¼ 0.37), and Model 3 (R
2
¼ 0.37). These results indicate
that the in?uence of corporate branding yields a more accurate
prediction of brand equity. Furthermore, the support of Hypothesis
2 demonstrates that corporate branding has a direct effect on brand
equity. To explore the dual-effect routes of corporate branding on
brand equity, we investigated the indirect route by testing Hy-
pothesis 4.
Table 1
Mean, standard deviation, and correlations of research constructs.
Variables Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
(1) Corporate branding 3.993 0.5441 1
(2) Brand citizenship behavior 4.035 0.4309 0.361* 1
(3) Brand equity 3.795 0.3309 0.287** 0.419* 1
(4) Sex 1.59 0.2078 0.265** 0.007 0.063 1
(5) Age 1.523 0.4376 0.128 0.128 e0.167 0.027 1
(6) Education 2.583 0.4263 e0.192 e0.192 0.002 0.201 e0.51*** 1
(7) Type 0.8667 0.3458 0.208 0.208 e0.043 0.12 0.263** 0.05 1
* p < 0.05.
** p < 0.1.
*** p < 0.01.
SD ¼ standard deviation.
A. Chang et al. / Asia Paci?c Management Review 20 (2015) 120e129 125
4.6. Mediating effect of brand citizenship behavior
To explore the mediation role of brand citizenship behavior on
the relationship between corporate branding and brand equity, this
study followed the four analytical steps proposed by Baron and
Kenny (1986). The ?rst step is to con?rm the effect of brand citi-
zenship behavior on brand equity. The second step is to con?rmthe
effect of corporate branding on brand citizenship behavior. The
third step is to examine the effect of corporate branding on brand
equity. The fourth step is to examine whether the effect of corpo-
rate branding on brand equity became nonsigni?cant (or reduced)
when corporate branding and brand citizenship behavior were
used in combination to predict brand equity. If these effects were
observed, the mediating effect of brand citizenship behavior would
be con?rmed. This research performed regression analyses to
investigate the mediating role of brand citizenship behavior.
Accordingly, the individual-level (i.e., brand citizenship behavior)
and customer-level variable (i.e., brand equity) were ?rst aggre-
gated to form organizational variables. Subsequently, we investi-
gated the relationships among corporate branding, brand
citizenship behavior, and brand equity.
Table 3 shows the model results. First, the Model 1 results
indicate that corporate branding signi?cantly affects brand
citizenship behavior (b ¼ 0.295, p < 0.05). Second, the Model 2
results show that corporate branding affects brand equity with
marginal signi?cance (b ¼ 0.18, p < 0.1). Third, the Model 3 results
show that brand citizenship behavior signi?cantly affects brand
equity (b ¼ 0.336, p < 0.01). Finally, the Model 4 results show that
brand citizenship behavior signi?cantly affects brand equity
(b ¼ 0.322, p < 0.05), although the effect of corporate branding on
brand equity was only marginally signi?cant (b ¼ 0.124, p < 0.1).
Following a comparison of these models, we observed that the
effect of corporate branding on brand equity was reduced when
both corporate branding and brand citizenship behavior were
combined to predict brand equity. Based on these results, we
conclude that brand citizenship behavior (partially) mediates the
relationship between corporate branding and brand equity; thus,
Hypothesis 4 is supported.
5. Discussions
5.1. Conclusions
Previous studies on the enhancement of corporate brand equity
have typically focused on one type of effect route, taking either a
marketing perspective focused on external stakeholder or an
organizational-identity perspective focused on internal branding
(Burmann et al., 2009; Xie et al., 2014). However, this study adhered
to the viewpoints of Leitch and Richardson (2003), contending that
corporate branding involves interactive processes with multiple
stakeholders and is characterized by multiple dimensions,
including strategic alignment, brand leadership, brand-centered
HRM, and brand communication, and it therefore concerns both
internal and external brand identity. Furthermore, this study
observed the dual-route effects of corporate branding strategy on
brand equity. First, successfully implementing corporate branding
contributes to building a coherent brand image and reputation, as
well as a brand identity that is perceived favorably by customers.
Moreover, these results are in agreement with the ?ndings of
previous studies (Harris & de Chernatony, 2001; Leitch &
Richardson, 2003). Second, the multilevel analysis results indicate
that implementing effective corporate branding practices can
encourage employees to identify themselves with a corporate
brand and foster a sense of altruism toward the brand, which can
facilitate extra-role brand behavior. This result is in agreement with
the assertions of Burmann and Zeplin (2005), who argued that
supportive practices can encourage employees to engage in brand
citizenship behavior. Third, the ?ndings of this study show that
employee brand citizenship behavior contributes to brand equity,
which is a critical metric for measuring the market performance of
a brand. This ?nding is consistent with the assertions of Sun et al.
(2007), who argued that employees who engage in service-
oriented organizational citizenship behavior might serve cus-
tomers beyond their formal role requirements. Furthermore, the
mediation analysis results show that corporate branding affects
branding equity directly as well as indirectly through brand citi-
zenship behavior, that is, the effects of corporate branding on
customer-based brand equity function through both external and
internal interactions. The results indicate that corporate branding
construct can be investigated in relation to marketing or organi-
zational theory perspectives of corporate identity, which is
consistent with the ?ndings reported by Hulberg (2006).
5.2. Practical implications
The results of this study indicate that interactive corporate
branding practices positively affect brand equity and brand citi-
zenship behavior. The ?ndings have implications for managers
Table 2
Hierarchical linear modeling results of the proposed model.
Models Model-1 Model-2 Model-3
Independent variable Dependent variable
Brand citizenship
behavior
Brand
equity
Brand
equity
Individual level
Intercept 4.01*** 3.77*** 2.71***
Gender 0.037
Age 0.026
Education À0.193
Organizational level
Corporate branding 0.317*** 0.257***
Brand citizenship behavior 0.268***
Industry Type 0.11 À0.143 À0.143
R
2
0.37 0.58 0.37
Deviance
a
558.29 797.97 799.18
Organizations, n ¼ 30; supervisors, n ¼ 250; employees, n ¼ 283; customers,
n ¼ 577.
*p < 0.01.
**p < 0.05.
***p < 0.1.
a
Deviance is a measure of model ?t. Deviance ¼ À2* log-likelihood of the full
maximum-likelihood estimate.
Table 3
Regression analyses of the proposed model.
Models Model-1 Model-2 Model-3 Model-4
Independent variable Dependent variable
Brand citizenship
behavior
Brand
equity
Brand
equity
Brand
equity
Intercept 3.336*** 3.137*** 2.66*** 2.733***
Corporate branding 0.295** 0.18* 0.124*
Brand citizenship behavior 0.336*** 0.322**
Gender 0.037 0.125 0.116
Age À0.157 À0.195 À0.291**
Education À0.201 À0.048 À0.102
Industry Type 0.245 À0.07 À0.149
R
2
0.22 0.09 0.23 0.32
* p < 0.01.
** p < 0.05.
*** p < 0.1.
A. Chang et al. / Asia Paci?c Management Review 20 (2015) 120e129 126
intending to build competitive advantages through corporate
branding. Managers can enhance corporate brand equity by deliv-
ering value offerings and adopting effective communication chan-
nels to convey a positive brand image (e.g., competence and socially
responsibility) to external stakeholders. In addition, corporate
managers should systematically monitor whether internal stake-
holders are committed to brand value creation practices, such as
strategic alignment, effective interdepartmental coordination, and
high-performance HRM practices. Employees are regarded as a
symbol of a corporate brand, implying that internal branding is
critical. Brand managers can assist employees by adopting brand-
centered HRM to develop their sense of brand identi?cation,
which subsequently encourages them to engage in altruistic brand
citizenship behavior. Managers should consider rewarding em-
ployees (e.g., promotion, ?exible work hours) when they exhibit
brand citizenship behavior. Brand citizenship behavior positively
affects brand equity, indicating that brand managers can encourage
employees to exhibit altruistic brand behavior. Therefore, brand
managers can communicate consistent messages of brand citizen-
ship behavior to employees through informal interactions, formal
meetings, or emails. In the examined multilevel relationships,
brand citizenship behavior acted as a mediator in the corporate
branding process. In other words, brand managers can foster brand
equity by strengthening the link between corporate branding and
brand citizenship behavior. For example, a hotel recognizes em-
ployees who engage in brand citizenship behavior (e.g., voluntarily
extending service time to aid customers), thereby fostering brand
equity. Managers can periodically assess the performance of
corporate branding strategies using the corporate branding and
brand citizenship behavior measurements employed in this study.
6. Contributions, limitations, and future research
6.1. Contributions
Several important contributions from this study can be noted.
The relationship between corporate branding and brand equity was
empirically con?rmed, which represented that corporate branding
encourages employees to ful?ll long-term brand promises (Balmer,
2012), thereby contributing to customer-based brand equity. As for
the effect of corporate branding on employees' brand behavior, this
study investigated the multilevel relationship between corporate
branding and brand citizenship behavior to demonstrate that
corporate branding can encourage employees to engage in extra-
role brand behavior, thereby improving customer perceptions to-
ward a corporate brand. This ?nding is consistent with the ?ndings
of Whitener (2001) and Allen, Shore, & Griffeth (2003), who have
argued that supportive practices can encourage employees to
engage in both altruistic and extrarole brand behavior. Corporate
branding, which is a type of interactive branding management, can
raise employees' awareness of brand-related support mechanisms
and encourage them to engage in brand citizenship behavior
(Burmann & Zeplin, 2005). Furthermore, the effect of organization-
level brand citizenship behavior on brand equity was tested to
prove that employee brand citizenship behavior can improve
customer perceptions and enhance brand equity. The results are in
agreement with previous studies (Hirst et al., 2009; Meyer et al.,
2006; Pierce, Kostova, & Dirks, 2001) that have argued that em-
ployees who identify themselves with a corporate brand typically
engage in brand citizenship behavior, thereby contributing to brand
equity. As for the multilevel mediating effect, brand citizenship
behavior mediates the relationship between corporate branding
and brand equity, indicating that brand citizenship behavior plays a
critical role in corporate branding processes. In other words, em-
ployees who are considered as brand symbols (Davies & Chun,
2012) play a critical role in enhancing the value of a corporate
brand. To mitigate the common method variance (CMV) bias, three
data sources (supervisors, employees, and customers) were used in
this study, and multilevel approaches adopted by this study
allowed to examine the effects of organization-level variables on
individual-level variables while retaining the organization-level
variables as predictors; consequently, the estimates obtained in
this study are biased less than those used in single-level analysis
methods (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). In conclusion, the results of
this study prove that both effect routes are relevant to corporate
branding, which contribute to marketing-based theory, social
identity theory, and social exchange theory, thereby broadening
their applicability.
6.2. Limitations and future research
This section discusses the limitations encountered while con-
ducting this study and provides recommendations for future
studies. This research data were obtained from 31 franchise orga-
nizations, indicating that the data were not randomly selected from
Taiwanese markets. Consequently, the generalizability of the re-
sults may be limited. Future studies should consider collecting data
using a random sampling method and/or obtaining data fromother
industries to analyze the differences. Schwab (2005) asserted that
researchers should use longitudinal data to examine causal re-
lationships to reduce the CMV bias; however, this study analyzed
cross-sectional data. Therefore, future studies should consider us-
ing longitudinal data. Furthermore, the analyses performed in this
study involved using only two levels of HLM. Future research
should consider using a three-level model to comprehensively
investigate the relationships among brand-oriented strategy,
corporate branding, brand psychological ownership, and brand
citizenship behavior. Regarding the application of multilevel anal-
ysis methods, this study investigated only the relationship between
corporate branding and brand citizenship behavior. Therefore, we
recommend that future studies employ additional individual-level
constructs, such as personebrand ?t and brand commitment, to
further clarify the concept of employee brand cognition. Because
corporate branding involves multiple stakeholders, researchers
should consider investigating how hotels interact with multiple
stakeholders.
Con?icts of interest
All contributing authors declare no con?icts of interest.
Appendix 1. Organizational-level questionnaires.
Organization level Items
Corporate branding
(supervisors)
V1: Our company makes employees compare their
behaviors with a brand-related standard via self-
evaluation or colleague evaluation.
V2: Our company regularly assesses employees'
contribution toward the brand value.
V3: Our company often transmits values of the brand
toward organizational members through various kinds
of informal channels, such as interactions between
colleagues.
V4: Our company often transmits values of the brand
toward organizational members through various kinds
of formal channels, such as regular meetings.
V5: Our company often transmits values of the brand
toward stakeholders through interactions between
organizational members and stakeholders (e.g.,
customers, suppliers, and the government).
(continued on next page)
A. Chang et al. / Asia Paci?c Management Review 20 (2015) 120e129 127
Appendix 2. Individual-level questionnaires.
Appendix 3. Customer-based brand equity.
References
Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing brand equity. New York: The Free Press.
Abratt, R. (1989). A new approach to the corporate image management process.
Journal of Marketing Management, 5(1), 63e76.
Abratt, R., & Kleyn, N. (2012). Corporate identity, corporate branding and corporate
reputations: reconciliation and Integration. European Journal of Marketing, 46(7/
8), 1048e1063.
Abratt, R., & Mofokeng, T. N. (2001). Development and management of corporate
image in South Africa. European Journal of Marketing, 35(3/4), 368e386.
Ailawadi, K. L., Lehmann, D. R., & Neslin, S. A. (2003). Revenue premium as an
outcome measure of brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 67(4), 1e17.
Allen, D. G., Shore, L. M., & Griffeth, R. W. (2003). The role of perceived organiza-
tional support and supportive human resource practices in the turnover pro-
cess. Journal of Management, 29(1), 99e118.
Andreassen, T., & Lindestad, B. (1998). The effect of corporate image in the forma-
tion of customer loyalty. Journal of Service Research, 1(1), 82e92.
Aseleage, J., & Eisenberger, R. (2003). Perceived organizational support and psy-
chological contracts: a theoretical integration. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 24(5), 491e509.
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization.
Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20e39.
Aurand, T. W., Gorchels, L., & Bishop, T. R. (2005). Human resource management's
role in internal branding: an opportunity for cross-functional brand message
synergy. The Journal of Product and Brand Management, 14(2/3), 163e169.
Balmer, J. M. T. (1995). Corporate branding and connoisseurship. Journal of General
Management, 21(1), 24e46.
Balmer, J. M. T. (2001). Corporate identity, corporate branding, and corporate mar-
keting: seeing through the fog. European Journal of Marketing, 35(3/4), 248e291.
Balmer, J. M. T. (2008). Identity based views of the corporation: insights from
corporate identity, organizational identity, social identity, visual identity and
corporate image. European Journal of Marketing, 42(9e10), 879e906.
Balmer, J. M. T. (2012). Strategic corporate brand alignment: perspectives from
identity based views of corporate brands. European Journal of Marketing, 46(7/
8), 1064e1092.
Balmer, J. M. T., & Gray, E. R. (2003). Corporate brands: what are they? What of
them? European Journal of Marketing, 37(7/8), 972e997.
Balmer, J. M. T., & Thompson, I. (2009). The shared management and ownership of
corporate brands: the case of Hilton. Journal of General Management, 34(4), 15e37.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in
social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical consider-
ations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173e1182.
Bartels, J. A., Ad Pruyn, M., & Inge, J. (2007). Multiple organizational identi?cation
levels and the impact of external prestige and communication climate. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 28(2), 173e190.
Bettencourt, L. A., Gwinner, K. P., & Meuter, M. L. (2001). A comparison of attitude,
personality, and knowledge predictors of service-oriented organizational citi-
zenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 29e41.
Bhattacharya, C., & Sen, S. (2003). Consumer-company identi?cation: a framework
for understanding consumers' relationships with companies. Journal of Mar-
keting, 67(2), 76e88.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
Brown, T. J., & Dacin, P. A. (1997). The company and the product: corporate asso-
ciations and consumer product responses. Journal of Marketing, 61(1), 68e84.
Burmann, C., & Zeplin, S. (2005). Building brand commitment: a behavioral
approach to internal brand management. The Journal of Brand Management,
12(4), 279e300.
Burmann, C., Zeplin, S., & Reily, N. (2009). Key determinants of internal brand
management success: an exploratory empirical analysis. Journal of Brand
Management, 16(4), 264e284.
(continued)
Organization level Items
V6: Our company often transmits values of the brand
toward stakeholders through various kinds of
communicative channels, such as advertisements,
meetings, public relations, and networks.
V7: Different departments of our company work
together for designing activities to improve brand
image.
V8: Different departments of our company often discuss
how to make employees express brand behaviors.
V9: Different departments of our company often
exchange information in order to make each
department more understand customers' perception of
the corporate brand.
V10: Our company would accept the suggestion
provided by other stakeholders (e.g., supplier and
government) in order to enhance service quality and
brand image.
V11: Our company would provide good product and
service quality in order to realize brand commitment.
V12: Our senior managers make brand strategies, which
are based on values of the corporate brand proposed by
our company.
V13: Our senior managers make clear brand goals,
which employees follow.
V14: In order to enhance brand value, our senior
managers adjust contents of product and service
according to the responses of customers.
V15: When the market share of the brand enhances, our
company rewards employees who participate in brand-
related activities.
V16: Our company makes newcomers understand
brand-related value and spirit through training.
V17: Our company makes employees' personal value
and behaviors consistent with brand value through
training courses.
V18: Our company considers personal value of
applicants to recruit employees with person-brand ?t.
V19: Our company transmits the vision of the corporate
brand toward organizational members through various
kinds of channels.
V20: Our company transmits belief, value, and norm of
the corporate brand toward organizational members
through various kinds of channels.
Individual level Items
Brand citizenship
behaviors (employees)
V1: I voluntarily participate in brand-related
activities.
V2: I seldomcomplain about inconveniences caused
by brand-related activities.
V3: I tolerate inconveniencies caused by brand-
related activities to satisfy customers and enhance
brand value.
V4: I am willing to endorse the brand and
voluntarily transmit brand value to newcomers or
friends.
V5: I amwilling to endorse the brand and have trust
and loyalty toward the brand.
V6: I voluntarily provide new information and ideas
for the brand to enhance brand value.
V7: I regard customers as my family and solve their
problems as I do mine.
V8: I voluntarily solve problems of customers to
foster brand value.
V9: I voluntarily help newcomers to foster service
quality and brand value.
V10: I voluntarily follow brand standard processes
without organizational monitoring.
V11: I am willing to endlessly enhance brand-
related skills.
V12: Whatever the information is, I voluntarily
respond to customers' thoughts on my company.
Customer outcomes Items
Customer-based
brand equity
V1: I consider myself to be loyal to the store brand.
V2: The store brand would be my ?rst choice.
V3: I will not buy other brands if the store brand is
available.
V4: The likely quality of the store brand is extremely
high.
V5: The likelihood that the store brand would be
functional is very high.
V6: I can recognize the store brand among other
competing brands.
V7: I am aware of the store brand.
V8: Some characteristics of the store brand come to my
mind quickly.
V9: I can quickly recall the symbol or logo of the store
brand.
A. Chang et al. / Asia Paci?c Management Review 20 (2015) 120e129 128
Chang, A., Chiang, H. H., & Han, T. S. (2012). A multilevel investigation of relation-
ships among rand-centered HRM, brand psychological ownership, brand citi-
zenship behaviors, and customer satisfaction. European Journal of Marketing,
46(5), 626e662.
Chen, G., & Klimoski, R. J. (2003). The impact of expectations on newcomer per-
formance in teams as mediated by work characteristics, social exchange, and
empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 46(5), 591e607.
de Chernatony, L. (1999). Brand management through narrowing the gap between
brand identity and brand reputation. Journal of Marketing Management, 15(1e3),
157e179.
Chiang, H. H., Chang, A., Han, T. S., &McConville, D. (2013). Corporate branding, brand
psychological ownershipand brand citizenship behavior: multilevel analysis and
managerial implications. Journal of General Management, 39(1), 55e80.
Chi, N. W., & Han, T. S. (2008). Exploring the linkages between formal ownership and
psychological ownership for the organization: the mediating role of organiza-
tional justice. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81, 691e711.
Dacin, P., & Brown, T. (2006). Corporate branding, identity, and customer response.
Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 95e98.
Davies, G., & Chun, R. (2012). Employee as symbol: stereotypical age effects on
corporate brand associations. European Journal of Marketing, 46(5), 663e683.
Dowling, G. (2001). Creating corporate reputations: Identity, image and performance.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Einwiller, S., & Will, M. (2002). Towards an integrated approach to corporate
brandingdAn empirical study. Corporate Communications, 7(2), 100e109.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived orga-
nizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 500e507.
Fetscherin, M., & Usunier, J.-C. (2012). Corporate branding: an interdisciplinary
literature review. European Journal of Marketing, 46(5), 733e753.
Flynn, F. J. (2005). Identity organizations and forms of social exchange in organi-
zation. Academy of Management Review, 30(4), 737e750.
Fomburn, C. J. (1996). Reputation: Realizing value from the corporate image. Boston,
MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Glick, W. H. (1985). Conceptualizing and measuring organizational and psycho-
logical climate: pitfalls in multilevel research. Academy of Management Review,
10(3), 601e616.
Goldberg, M. E., & Hartwick, J. (1990). The effects of advertiser reputation and ex-
tremity of advertising claim on advertising effectiveness. Journal of Consumer
Research, 17(2), 172e179.
Goldsmith, R. E., Lafferty, B. A., & Newell, S. J. (2000). The in?uence of corporate
credibility on consumer attitudes and purchase intent. Corporate Reputation
Review, 3(4), 304e318.
Harris, F., & de Chernatony, L. (2001). Corporate branding and corporate brand
performance. European Journal of Marketing, 35(3/4), 441e456.
Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. (1997). Relations between organizational culture, identity
and image. European Journal of Marketing, 31(5), 356e365.
Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. (2003). Bring the corporation into corporate branding.
European Journal of Marketing, 37(7/8), 1041e1064.
Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in
survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 104e121.
Hirst, G., Van Dick, R., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2009). A social identity perspective
on leadership and employee creativity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(7),
963e982.
Hofmann, D. A. (1997). An overview of the logic and rationale of hierarchical linear
models. Journal of Management, 23(6), 723e744.
Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in
organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 121e140.
Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behavior. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World.
Hulberg, J. (2006). Integrating corporate branding and sociological paradigms: a
literature study. Journal of Brand Management, 14(1/2), 60e73.
Ind, N. (1997). The corporate brand. London, UK: Macmillan.
James, L. R. (1982). Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 67(2), 219e229.
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1993). r
wg
: an assessment of within-group
interrater agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(2), 306e309.
J€ oreskog, K. G., & S€ orbom, D. (1981). LISREL V: Analysis of linear structure relationship
by the method of maximum likelihood. Chicago, IL: National Educational
Resources.
Kay, M. J. (2006). Strong brands and corporate brands. European Journal of Mar-
keting, 40(7/8), 742e760.
Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based
brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1e22.
Keller, K. L., & Aaker, D. A. (1998). The impact of corporate marketing on a com-
pany's brand extensions. Corporate Reputation Review, 1(4), 356e378.
Keller, K. L., & Lehmann, D. R. (2001). The brand value chain: Linking strategic and
?nancial performance (Working paper). Hanover, NH: Tuck School of Business,
Dartmouth College.
Kidwell, R. E., Mossholder, K. W., & Bennett, N. (1997). Cohesiveness and organi-
zational citizenship behavior: a multilevel analysis using work groups and in-
dividuals. Journal of Management, 23(6), 775e793.
Knox, S., & Bickerton, D. (2003). The six conventions of corporate branding. Euro-
pean Journal of Marketing, 37(7/8), 998e1016.
Leana, C. R., & Van Buren, H. J. (1999). Organizational social capital and employment
practices. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 538e555.
Leitch, S., & Richardson, N. (2003). Corporate branding in the new economy. Eu-
ropean Journal of Marketing, 37(7/8), 1065e1079.
Martin, G., Beaumont, P., Doig, R., & Pate, J. (2005). Branding: a new performance
discourse for HR? European Management Journal, 23(1), 76e88.
Masterson, S. S., & Stamper, C. L. (2003). Perceived organizational membership: an
aggregate framework representing the employee-organization relationship.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(5), 473e490.
McAlexander, J. H., Scheuten, J. W., & Koenig, H. F. (2002). Building brand com-
munity. Journal of Marketing, 66(1), 38e54.
Melewar, T. C., & Karaosmanoglu, E. (2006). Seven dimensions of corporate identity:
a categorisation from the practitioners perspectives. European Journal of Mar-
keting, 40(7/8), 846e868.
Melewar, T. C., Gotsi, M., & Andriopoulos, C. (2012). Shaping the research agenda for
corporate branding: avenues for future research. European Journal of Marketing,
46(5), 600e608.
Meyer, J. P., Becker, T. E., & Van Dick, R. (2006). Social identities and commitment at
work: toward an integrative model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(5),
665e683.
Mitchell, C. (2002). Selling the brand inside. Harvard Business Review, 80(1), 99e105.
Molm, L., & Cook, K. (1995). Social exchange and exchange networks. In K. Cook,
G. Fine, & J. House (Eds.), Sociological perspectives on social psychology (pp.
209e235). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Muzellec, L., & Lambkin, M. (2006). Corporate rebranding: destroying, transferring
or creating brand equity? European Journal of Marketing, 40(7/8), 803e824.
Nyadzayo, M. W., Matanda, M. J., & Ewing, M. T. (2011). Brand relationships and
brand equity in franchising. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(7), 1103e1115.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome.
Lexington, MA: Lexington, Books.
Piccolo, F., & Coiquitt, A. (2006). Transformational leadership and job behavior: the
mediating role of core job characteristics. Academy of Management Journal,
49(2), 327e340.
Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. T. (2001). Toward a theory of psychological
ownership in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 298e310.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., &Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational
leader behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, and
organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107e142.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., &Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational
citizenship behaviors: a critical reviewof the theoretical and empirical literature
and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26(3), 513e563.
Punjaisri, K., & Wilson, A. (2011). Internal branding process: key mechanisms,
outcomes and moderating factors. European Journal of Marketing, 45(9/10),
1521e1537.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models (2nd ed.). New-
bury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Roper, S., & Davies, G. (2010). Business to business branding: external and internal
satis?ers and the role of training quality. European Journal of Marketing, 44(5),
567e590.
Schwab, D. P. (2005). Research methods for organizational studies. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Does doing good always lead to doing better?
Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing
Research, 38(2), 225e243.
Smidts, A., Pruyn, H., & Van Riel, B. M. (2001). The impact of employee communi-
cation and perceived external prestige on organizational identi?cation. Acad-
emy of Management Journal, 49(5), 1051e1062.
Sun, L. Y., Aryee, S., & Law, K. S. (2007). High-performance human resource prac-
tices, citizenship behavior, and organizational performance: a relational
perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 50(3), 558e577.
Uggla, H. (2006). The corporate brand association base: a conceptual model for the
creation of inclusive brand architecture. European Journal of Marketing, 40(7/8),
785e802.
Urde, M. (2001). Core value-based corporate branding building. European Journal of
Marketing, 37(7/8), 1017e1040.
Vallaster, C., & de Chernatony, L. (2006). Internal brand building and structuration:
the role of leadership. European Journal of Marketing, 40(7/8), 761e784.
Van Knippenberg, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2003). A social identity model of leadership
effectiveness in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25, 243e295.
Van Rekom, J. (2002). Manifestations in behavior versus perceptions of identity:
convergence or not? In B. Moingeon, & G. Soenen (Eds.), Corporate and orga-
nizational identities (pp. 99e114). London, UK: Routledge.
Van Riel, C. B. M., & Balmer, J. M. T. (1997). Corporate identity: the concept, its mea-
surement and management. European Journal of Marketing, 31(5/6), 340e355.
Van den Bosch, A. L. M., Elving, W. J. L., & de Jong, M. D. T. (2006). The impact of
organizational characteristics on corporate visual identity. European Journal of
Marketing, 40(7/8), 870e885.
Xie, L. S., Peng, J. M., & Huan, T. C. (2014). Crafting and testing a central precept in
service-dominant logic: hotel employees' brand-citizenship behavior and cus-
tomers' brand trust. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 42(9), 1e8.
Whitener, E. M. (2001). Do ‘high commitment’ human resource practices affect
employee commitment? A cross-level analysis using hierarchical linear
modeling. Journal of Management, 27, 515e535.
Yoo, B., & Donthu, N. (2001). Developing and validating a multidimensional
consumer-based brand equity scale. Journal of Business Research, 52(1), 1e14.
A. Chang et al. / Asia Paci?c Management Review 20 (2015) 120e129 129
doc_755190692.pdf
when aggregated,
the brand citizenship behavior of firms positively affects their corporate brand equity. In addition, brand
citizenship behavior mediates the relationship between corporate branding and brand equity. Brand
managers should consider adopting corporate branding practices to encourage employees to engage in
brand citizenship behavior, which contributes to brand equity.
Original article
Investigating the dual-route effects of corporate branding on brand equity
Aihwa Chang
a
, Hsu-Hsin Chiang
b, *
, Tzu-Shian Han
a
a
Department of Business Administration, National Chengchi University, Taipei City, Taiwan, R.O.C
b
Graduate Institute of Human Resource and e-Learning Technology, National Hsinchu University of Education, Hsinchu City, Taiwan, R.O.C
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 21 October 2013
Accepted 13 October 2014
Available online 16 April 2015
Keywords:
Brand citizenship behavior
Brand equity
Corporate branding
a b s t r a c t
This research investigated the multilevel relationships among corporate branding, brand citizenship
behavior, and brand equity using a hierarchical linear modeling method. The corporate branding
construct represents practices that could improve the brand cognition and brand attitude of multiple
stakeholders. Brand citizenship behavior indicates that employees are altruistic toward and identify
themselves with brands. Brand equity was assessed using customer data to measure their awareness,
association, quality perception, attitude, and loyalty toward a corporate brand. This study obtained data
from 283 employees, 250 supervisors, and 577 customers of 31 franchise organizations to demonstrate
the results at different levels. The results of our analysis indicate that corporate branding exerts a positive
effect on brand citizenship behavior and customer-based brand equity. Furthermore, when aggregated,
the brand citizenship behavior of ?rms positively affects their corporate brand equity. In addition, brand
citizenship behavior mediates the relationship between corporate branding and brand equity. Brand
managers should consider adopting corporate branding practices to encourage employees to engage in
brand citizenship behavior, which contributes to brand equity.
© 2015, College of Management, National Cheng Kung University. Production and hosting by Elsevier
Taiwan LLC. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Over the past two decades, corporate branding has been advo-
cated by scholars as an effective approach for companies to build
competitive advantage (Balmer, 2012; Melewar, Gotsi, &
Andriopoulos, 2012). Originating from product branding, which
involves creating market preferences and differentiation, corporate
branding seeks to build a favorable image for all stakeholders (Ind,
1997). Over time, products and services typically become more
similar because competitors can imitate new products quickly,
making it dif?cult for consumers to differentiate between the of-
ferings of ?rms. Consequently, promoting entire companies as
brands has become an ef?cient approach for creating differentia-
tion. Moreover, for companies with multiple product lines, corpo-
rate branding reduces communication costs and creates synergies
among brands under a corporate brand umbrella (Harris & de
Chernatony, 2001; Hulberg, 2006).
Corporate branding differs from product branding, which relies
more on the efforts of marketing and advertising personnel.
Corporate branding draws its value from an entire organization,
including its funders, owners, managers, and personnel (Balmer &
Gray, 2003). Although brand images may represent what external
constituents think about a corporation, corporate branding involves
managing the consistency between what stakeholders actually
think about an organization and what the organization believes
(wants) them to think (Dacin & Brown, 2006). An emerging
consensus exists among scholars that corporate brands should be
closelyalignedwithcorporate identity (Balmer, 1995, 2012; Harris &
de Chernatony, 2001; Hulberg, 2006). Thus, an identity-based
perspective could provide a valid paradigm for investigating
corporate branding practices. In a literature review, Hulberg (2006)
contended that two types of corporate identity exist; one based on
marketing theory, and the other based on organizational theory.
Although the marketing-based perspective of corporate identity
emphasizes the role of external stakeholders, the organizational-
identity-based perspective focuses more on the importance of in-
ternal stakeholders. Van Rekom (2002) de?ned organizational
identity as the sum of employees' perceptions of an organization's
* Corresponding author. Graduate Institute of Human Resource and e-Learning
Technology, National Hsinchu University of Education, 521, Nanda Rd., Hsinchu City,
Taiwan 30014, R.O.C.
E-mail address: [email protected] (H.-H. Chiang).
Peer review under responsibility of College of Management, National Cheng
Kung University.
HOSTED BY
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Asia Paci?c Management Review
j ournal homepage: www. el sevi er. com/ l ocat e/ apmrv
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apmrv.2014.10.001
1029-3132/© 2015, College of Management, National Cheng Kung University. Production and hosting by Elsevier Taiwan LLC. All rights reserved.
Asia Paci?c Management Review 20 (2015) 120e129
identity. Hatch and Schultz (1997) contended that organizational
identity is communicated (intentionally or unintentionally) to
external environments through employees. Therefore, both mar-
keting- and organizational identity-based perspectives of corporate
brand identity are highly related, and the effectiveness of corporate
branding should be measured by assessing both perspectives
(Burmann, Zeplin, & Reily, 2009). Furthermore, the effect of
corporate branding on external brand identity can be engendered
through two routes: directly from corporate branding to external
stakeholder, and through the mediation of internal stakeholders.
However, few studies have investigated these two routes of corpo-
rate branding effects simultaneously; rather, most of them have
applied only one route. For example, the direct effect route of
corporate branding can be manifested on fostering customer
corporate brand association, which has been shown to in?uence
consumer product evaluations (Brown & Dacin, 1997; Goldberg &
Hartwick, 1990), purchase intentions (Fomburn, 1996; Goldsmith,
Lafferty, & Newell, 2000), loyalty (Andreassen & Lindestad, 1998),
as well as how consumers evaluate brand extensions (Keller &
Aaker, 1998). Regarding the other route of corporate branding ef-
fect, most studies have focused on internal branding. Burmann and
Zeplin (2005) measured internal brand strength using two inter-
related constructs, namely, brand commitment (attitude aspects)
and brand citizenship behavior. Several subsequent studies
(Burmann et al., 2009; Nyadzayo, Matanda, & Ewing, 2011; Xie,
Peng, & Huan, 2014) have adopted these two constructs to investi-
gate the determinants of internal branding. Ingeneral, this streamof
research indicates that internal brand identity can lead to external
brand equity, such as customer satisfaction (Chang, Chiang, & Han,
2012) or brandecustomer relationship quality (Burmann et al.,
2009). Although Chiang, Chang, Han, and McConville (2013)
showed that internal branding can enhance various types of
external corporate equity, they did not investigate the dual effects.
In summary, extant research on corporate branding has not
adequately addressed the entire spectrum of effects and in?uence
routes associated with corporate branding. Therefore, the ?rst
objective of this study is to ?ll this knowledge gap.
Thereasons whyonlyafewstudies haveinvestigatedbothroutes of
corporate branding effects can be explained byexamining the concept
of corporate branding. Corporate branding has been investigated from
various perspectives, including corporate communications, corporate
reputation, corporate characteristics, corporate identity, and strategic
management (Fetscherin & Usunier, 2012). Researchers from
numerous disciplines have proposed various drivers of corporate
brand equity, such as managing organizational culture (Harris & de
Chernatony, 2001), creating highly motivated employees who incor-
porate brand messages into their lifestyle (Mitchell, 2002), applying
brand-centered human resource management (HRM) practices
(Changet al., 2012), communicating brandvalues, as well as managing
brand image and reputation (Dowling, 2001). However, few studies
have adopted a comprehensive perspective of corporate branding to
investigate the drivers of corporate brand identity. Consequently, in-
vestigations on the performance of corporate branding could be
limited by omitting critical aspects of corporate branding endeavors.
Hence, the second objective of this research is to investigate the con-
stituents of corporate branding, which encompasses a comprehensive
set of brand equity drivers. The results could contribute to managerial
practices by establishing causal links of corporate branding.
Melewar et al. (2012) recommended that future studies on
corporate branding should address three central tensions, one of
which is related to measuring corporate branding through multi-
level analysis. In other words, appropriate analysis methodologies
should be applied to elucidate how organizational practices in?u-
ence individual employees (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). Research
on the cross-level effects of corporate branding is scant; therefore,
this study addresses this issue by adopting a multilevel analysis
approach.
2. Literature review and hypothesis development
2.1. Dual-effect routes of corporate branding
Corporate branding is de?ned as a systematical process imple-
mented by an organization to create favorable brand image and
maintain brand reputation through interaction with internal and
external stakeholders (Einwiller &Will, 2002; Muzellec &Lambkin,
2006). Compared with product branding, which is typically
handled by marketing personnel (Melewar et al., 2012), corporate
branding practices involve organization-wide practices that
contribute to corporate identity (Melewar & Karaosmanoglu,
2006), visual identity (Van den Bosch, Elving, & de Jong, 2006),
and corporate personality (Abratt & Mofokeng, 2001), all of which
can encourage multiple stakeholders to identify themselves with
the corporate brand, thereby enhancing brand equity.
Two types of corporate identity, which are related to internal
and external stakeholders, contribute to the effect of corporate
branding (Hulberg, 2006). Organizational theory perspectives on
corporate branding include concepts such as vision, culture, and
image alignment (Harris & de Chernatony, 2001), brand leadership
(Vallaster & de Chernatony, 2006), interaction with multiple
stakeholders (Leitch & Richardson, 2003), interdepartmental co-
ordination (de Chernatony, 1999), brand-centered HRM practices
(Burmann & Zeplin, 2005; Martin, Beaumont, Doig, & Pate, 2005),
training (Roper & Davies, 2010), internal branding (Punjaisri &
Wilson, 2011), and brand communication (Balmer, 2001). Market-
ing theory perspectives on corporate branding include concepts
such as consumer evaluations (Brown & Dacin, 1997), consumer
intentions (Goldsmith et al., 2000), and brand extensions (Keller &
Aaker, 1998).
Thus, corporate branding is characterized by a highly strategic
focus (oriented toward both internal and external targets), as well
as by the alignment of internal and external marketing efforts.
Building on Fetscherin and Usunier (2012), this study focuses on
creating positive associations with corporate brands and identi-
fying corporate branding practices that motivate employees to live
the brand (Melewar et al., 2012).
2.2. Social identity theory, social exchange theory, and corporate
branding
Hogg and Terry (2000) considered social identity theory as “a
platform which can be used to describe in detail how social cate-
gorization and prototype-based depersonalization actually produce
social identity phenomena.” Ashforth and Mael (1989) argued that
social identity provides people with a sense of belonging to a social
group. The concepts underlying social identity theory, which are
based on the works of numerous scholars (Hirst, Van Dick, & Van
Knippenberg, 2009; Meyer, Becker, & Van Dick, 2006), highlight
the role of collective identity, which affects the cognitive awareness
of a person's organizational membership, such as employee
commitment and organizational goals. Van Knippenberg and Hogg
(2003) argued that collective attributes of an organization and
employees' interpersonal relationships delineate collective self and
employees' social identity. Organizational members with high so-
cial identity may exhibit positive cognitions (e.g., commitment)
toward activities that are congruent with their identity (Ashforth &
Mael, 1989), which contributes to the success of organizational
activities.
Masterson and Stamper (2003) argued that corporate branding
processes can induce a sense of belonging in employees, through
A. Chang et al. / Asia Paci?c Management Review 20 (2015) 120e129 121
which they develop a strong social identity toward corporate
brands. Corporate branding involves a systematic process of
creating and maintaining a favorable brand image, identi?cation,
and reputation through communicating with stakeholders, as well
as by managing organizational behavior, communications, and use
of symbolism (Einwiller & Will, 2002; Muzellec & Lambkin, 2006),
thereby transforming the external stakeholder perceptions and
internal stakeholder behaviors (Vallaser and de Chernatony, 2006).
Blau (1964) and Homans (1961) argued that social exchange
theory highlights the importance of the relationship between an
organization and organizational members (Eisenberger,
Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986), such as the relationship
between organizational goals and employee motivation (Aseleage
& Eisenberger, 2003). High-quality social exchanges are produced
when high levels of mutual trust, respect, and loyalty exist between
an organization and its employees (Chen & Klimoski, 2003). Molm
and Cook (1995) reported that employees who believe that a
reciprocal exchange of valued bene?ts is possible may learn howto
establish exchange relations with work colleagues and the orga-
nization. Under such circumstances, an organization and its em-
ployees can establish positive, long-term, and interactive mutual
relationships that facilitate organizational performance.
Scholars on corporate branding have recommended strength-
ening corporate brands through brand promises, corporate repu-
tation, and brand identity (Abratt & Kleyn, 2012; Balmer &
Thompson, 2009). Employees who act as an interface between in-
ternal and external stakeholders can enhance corporate reputation
by communicating brand values to multiple stakeholders. Suc-
cessful corporate branding practices may foster a relationship of
mutual trust between an organization and its employees by
implementing effective brand-centered HRM practices, such as
leadership, training, rewards, communication, interactive process,
and interdepartmental coordination (Burmann & Zeplin, 2005;
Hatch & Schultz, 2003; Kay, 2006; Leitch & Richardson, 2003). In
other words, when an exchange relationship satis?es an em-
ployee's needs, he or she may reciprocate the organization by
adopting “probrand” attitudes and behaviors.
2.3. Corporate branding and brand citizenship behavior
Brand values can be enhanced through brand citizenship
behavior, which is a consequence of brand-related altruistic spirit.
Moreover, brand building involves developing emotional compo-
nents (e.g., brand commitment and brand psychological ownership)
that make employees more aware of brand identity (Burmann &
Zeplin, 2005), which can be expressed through organizational
communication. Employees who have a relatively stronger sense of
organizational identity typically exhibit a more supportive attitude
toward organizational goals (Smidts, Pruyn, & Van Riel, 2001). Pre-
vious studies have shown that communication is positively associ-
ated with organizational identi?cation (Bartels, Ad Pruyn, & Inge,
2007), and that emotional appeals contributing to brand identity
canbe fosteredthrougheffectivebrandcommunication(Burmann&
Zeplin, 2005). Based on this perspective, this study argues that or-
ganizations may use brand communication strategies to implement
effective corporate branding practices that engender brand identi-
?cation. In other words, an organization could communicate brand-
related vision, beliefs, values, and norms to employees by incorpo-
rating such messages into corporate branding processes (Hatch &
Schultz, 2003). Employees who internalize a brand's cultural
values as personal values typically identify themselves with the
brand, and they engage in brand citizenship behavior.
Brand leadership is a critical component of corporate branding.
Through intellectual stimulation, leaders can foster follower
perception of variety and autonomy (e.g., seeking newperspectives
and developing novel ways to frame new organizational tasks),
indicating that effective leadership contributes to positive
employee behavior (Piccolo & Coiquitt, 2006). Previous research
showed that transformational leadership is positively associated
with organizational citizenship behavior (Podsakoff, MacKenzie,
Moorman, & Fetter, 1990). Both transformational and brand-
oriented leadership are considered to be effective leadership
styles (Burmann &Zeplin, 2005); in other words, leaders who apply
a brand-oriented style might express a brand-centered vision that
in?uences the personal values of employees, thereby inspiring a
sense of altruism that encourages them to engage in brand citi-
zenship behavior (Burmann & Zeplin, 2005).
The integrated efforts of HRM, communications, and marketing
departments facilitate successful corporate branding, indicating
that interdepartmental coordination plays a crucial role in corpo-
rate branding practices (Hatch & Schultz, 2003). Furthermore, an
organization can use brand-centered HRM strategy to facilitate the
internalization of brand identity (Aurand, Gorchels, &Bishop, 2005;
Burmann & Zeplin, 2005). Brand-centered HRM, which includes
training, selection, reward, development, and corporate brand
evaluation, could assist in developing employees who are effective
brand representatives (Leana &Van Buren, 1999; Sun, Aryee, &Law,
2007). Previous studies have found that high-performance brand-
centered HRM strategies involving supportive practices can trans-
form employee perceptions and behaviors into positive brand be-
haviors (Bettencourt, Gwinner, & Meuter, 2001; Sun et al., 2007).
Thus, implementing an effective corporate branding strategy
through high-performance brand-centered HRM may engender
brand citizenship behavior. According to social exchange theory,
high-quality social exchange relationships are produced when high
levels of mutual trust, respect, and loyalty exist between an orga-
nization and its employees (Chen & Klimoski, 2003). Eisenberger
et al. (1986) argued that employees receiving adequate organiza-
tional support may engage in altruistic behaviors, such as organi-
zational citizenship behavior (Chi & Han, 2008; Podsakoff,
MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000). Based on the concept of
reciprocal relationships (Flynn, 2005), employees disregard their
gains when exerting efforts to a brand, and they subsequently
reciprocate through brand citizenship behavior (Burmann et al.,
2009). Davies and Chun (2012) empirically proved that the role of
employees as brand symbols is critical in enhancing the value of a
corporate brand (Davies & Chun, 2012). Extending the aforemen-
tioned arguments, corporate branding can be considered as an
aggregated construct comprising effective brand communication,
brand leadership, brand-centered HRM, interdepartmental coor-
dination, as well as the strategic alignment of external and internal
orientation; accordingly, Hypothesis 1 is proposed as follows.
Hypothesis 1. Corporate branding positively affects brand citizen-
ship behavior
2.4. Corporate branding and brand equity
Corporate branding is related to interactions with multiple
stakeholders (Abratt & Kleyn, 2012; Melewar et al., 2012) who can
contribute to brand equity. Balmer (2001) asserted that strategic
branding can be communicated externally and internally, thereby
providing a valuable source of brand equity. Leitch and Richardson
(2003) argued that organizations can improve their corporate
brand image and reputation by adopting corporate branding
practices that involve interacting with customers, thereby fostering
brand equity. A favorable corporate brand image and reputation can
be created and maintained through effective branding practices,
such as customer signaling, effective communication, and
A. Chang et al. / Asia Paci?c Management Review 20 (2015) 120e129 122
appropriate use of symbolism (Einwiller & Will, 2002; Muzellec &
Lambkin, 2006). Successfully implementing an effective corporate
branding strategy may transmit an image that the corporate is
trustworthy, competent, ethical, and socially responsible (Sen &
Bhattacharya, 2001), therefore facilitating a desired corporate
identity (Abratt, 1989), reputation (Harris & de Chernatony, 2001;
Van Riel & Balmer, 1997), and image (Hatch & Schultz, 2003).
Furthermore, through interactive processes, organizations can ac-
quire ideas, knowledge, and insights of corporate brands from
external stakeholders (e.g., customers and trade) and employees
(Leitch & Richardson, 2003), as well as customer engagement and
commitment from brand communities (McAlexander, Scheuten, &
Koenig, 2002). Formulating an effective corporate branding strat-
egy that ful?lls the needs of stakeholders can improve customer
brand evaluations and brand resonance (Keller, 1993). Customers
who consider a corporate brand has desirable characteristics may
develop a sense of oneness with the organization and develop
customerecompany identi?cation (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003).
Based on this discussion, we argue that an organization that suc-
cessfully implements an effective corporate branding strategy can
enhance its customer-based brand equity. Accordingly, we propose
the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2. Corporate branding positively affects brand equity
2.5. Brand citizenship behavior and brand equity
Brand citizenship behavior refers to the brand-related voluntary
behaviors of employees that strengthen the brand (Burmann &
Zeplin, 2005). This study argues that employees who engage in
brand citizenship behavior might also engage in brand-centered
extra-role behaviors that could enhance brand equity. In other
words, they might engage in behaviors that go beyond any formal
requirements, which could enhance customer perceptions toward
the image of a brand (Sun et al., 2007). Previous studies have
indicated that brand citizenship behavior can enhance customer
satisfaction (Chang et al., 2012) and brandecustomer relationship
quality (Burmann et al., 2009).
Numerous scholars have argued that customer-based responses,
including customer attachment, association, awareness, attitude,
and loyalty, can be used to measure brand equity (Ailawadi,
Lehmann, & Neslin, 2003; Keller & Lehmann, 2001). Yoo and
Donthu (2001) stated that brand equity is measured in terms of
customer awareness, association, quality perception, and loyalty
toward a brand; therefore, the effects of corporate branding man-
ifest in customer-based brand equity. Based on social exchange
theory, employees who receive appropriate organizational support
(i.e., corporate branding) typically reciprocate by engaging in brand
citizenship behavior, which enhances brand equity. We therefore
propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3. Organization-level brand citizenship behavior posi-
tively affects brand equity
2.6. Mediating role of brand citizenship behavior
Hypotheses 1e3 indicate that the relationships among corpo-
rate branding, brand citizenship behavior, and brand equity may be
correlated. Three aspects of corporate branding (i.e., brand leader-
ship, brand-centered HRM, and brand communication) elicit posi-
tive brand cognitions in employees, thereby leading to brand
citizenship behavior (Burmann & Zeplin, 2005). Burmann and
Zeplin (2005) and Piccolo and Coiquitt (2006) have shown that
brand leaders typically frame new brand tasks and construct a
brand-centered vision that induces positive brand cognitions and
encourages brand citizenship behavior. Employees who identify
themselves with a brand are more likely to incorporate the brand
into their lives and enthusiastically deliver the brand's values to
customers, thereby increasing brand equity. Brand-centered HRM
practices assist in cultivating employees who are effective brand
representatives (Leana & Van Buren, 1999; Sun et al., 2007).
Burmann et al. (2009) proposed a holistic model to explain how
branding practices (e.g., brand-centered HRM) lead to brand
commitment and brand citizenship behavior, thereby enhancing
the quality of brandeconsumer relationships.
Through brand communication, employees identify themselves
with a corporate brand, and subsequently engage in brand citi-
zenship behavior (Burmann & Zeplin, 2005). Moreover, Davies and
Chun (2012) argued that employees, as an element of a corporate
brand symbol, can affect customer perceptions of that brand.
Furthermore, the ages of the employees may in?uence the symbolic
meaning of the corporate brand, which can be crucial in generating
customer associations with the corporate brand. Therefore, orga-
nizations can enhance their brand equity through effective
communication through the symbolism, attitude, and behavior of
employees who interact with customers.
Based on the aforementioned discussion, corporate branding
contributes to employees' probrand attitude and brand citizenship
behavior, which enhance brandecustomer relationship and brand
equity. Accordingly, Hypothesis 4 is proposed as follows:
Hypothesis 4. Brand citizenship behavior mediates the relationship
between corporate branding and brand equity
Based on Hypotheses 1e4, Fig. 1 presents the proposed research
framework.
3. Analysis method
Raudenbush and Bryk (2002) argued that hierarchical linear
modeling (HLM) can be used to measure the effects and explained
variance that exist in multilevel relationships. Thus, HLM can be
used to solve bias resulting from disaggregation and aggregation
(Kidwell, Mossholder, & Bennett, 1997). Because the constructs
proposed by this research exist at multiple levels, we applied HLM
to examine the multilevel relationships among corporate branding,
brand citizenship behavior, and customer-based brand equity.
3.1. Item development
Comprehensive concepts of corporate branding have been
formulated based on various theoretical perspectives (Balmer,
2001, 2008; Balmer & Gray, 2003; de Chernatony, 1999; Harris &
de Chernatony, 2001; Hatch & Schultz, 2003; Knox & Bickerton,
2003; Leitch & Richardson, 2003; Vallaster & de Chernatony,
2006; Uggla, 2006; Urde, 2001). This study developed a corporate
branding scale by adopting the guidelines proposed by Hinkin
(1998). The dimensions of corporate branding were identi?ed af-
ter interviewing 10 managers from various franchise organizations
in Taiwan. Subsequently, we surveyed 283 managers from the
franchise organizations in Taiwan. After performing exploratory
factor analysis (EFA) and con?rmatory factor analysis (CFA), the
following ?ve factors of corporate branding were identi?ed: (1)
communication and evaluation; (2) interdepartmental coordina-
tion; (3) leadership and interaction with stakeholders; (4) training
and selection; and (5) vision and culture. The ?tness indices of
secondary CFA of corporate branding [c
2
/df ¼ 1.90, goodness-of-?t
index (GFI) ¼ 0.81, root-mean-square residual (RMSR) ¼ 0.053,
A. Chang et al. / Asia Paci?c Management Review 20 (2015) 120e129 123
comparative ?t index (CFI) ¼ 0.98, normal ?t index (NFI) ¼ 0.96,
root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) ¼ 0.082] show
that the model ?t is satisfactory. Discriminant and convergent
validity were assessed in accordance with J€ oreskog and S€ orbom
(1981). Two dimensions of corporate branding were considered
distinct if PHI ± 1.96 Â standardized error excludes 1. The results
indicate discriminant validity among the dimensions of corporate
branding. Furthermore, the standardized l of each indicator is
>0.73, and the T value of each indicator achieved statistical signif-
icance (p < 0.01), indicating convergent validity for each construct.
For the individual-level analysis, the concepts of brand citizen-
ship behavior were adopted from previous studies (Burmann &
Zeplin, 2005; Organ, 1988; Podsakoff et al., 2000). The di-
mensions of brand citizenship behavior were developed after
interviewing 10 employees from franchise organizations in Taiwan.
Subsequently, we surveyed 361 customer-facing employees from
the franchise organizations. After performing EFA and CFA, we
identi?ed the following three factors of brand citizenship behavior:
(1) sportsmanship and endorsement; (2) helping behavior; and (3)
consideration and enhancement. The ?tness indices of secondary
CFA of brand citizenship behavior (c
2
/df ¼ 1.45, GFI ¼ 0.93,
RMSR ¼ 0.035, CFI ¼ 0.99, NFI ¼ 0.98, RMSEA ¼ 0.052) show that
the results are satisfactory. The discriminant and convergent val-
idity test results show that any two dimensions of PHI ± 1.96 Â
standardized error exclude 1, indicating discriminant validity
among the dimensions of brand citizenship behavior. Furthermore,
the standardized l of each indicator is >0.7, and the T value of each
indicator achieved statistical signi?cance (p < .01), indicating
convergent validity for each construct.
3.2. Research sample and procedure
The data used in this study were collected using questionnaires
that were distributed to store managers and customer-facing em-
ployees of franchise organizations in Taiwan. The questionnaire for
supervisors was designed to measure corporate branding based on
the perceptions of store managers, whereas the questionnaire for
employees was designed to measure the cognitions and brand
citizenship behavior of customer-facing employees. The re-
spondents who participated in this research were supervisors,
employees, and customers of 31 franchise organizations listed in
the Taiwan Franchise Association. Two types of franchise organi-
zation were surveyed; retail stores and food and beverage organi-
zations. All of the questionnaire items were measured using a 5-
point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (extremely disagree) to 5
(extremely agree). Among the 330 (420) questionnaires distributed
to the supervisors (employees), 275 (283) of them were returned,
yielding a response rate of 83% (67%). Customers were invited by
research assistants to complete the questionnaires. Among the
1300 questionnaires distributed to customers, 577 of them were
returned, yielding a response rate of 44.39%.
3.3. Measurements
3.3.1. Corporate branding
The 20-item corporate branding scale used in this study was
adopted froma corporate branding scale developed by Chiang et al.
(2013). Appendix 1 lists the corporate branding measurement
items (Cronbach a ¼ 0.95).
3.3.2. Brand citizenship behavior
The 12-item brand citizenship behavior scale used in this study
was adopted from a brand citizenship behavior scale developed by
Chiang et al. (2013). Appendix 2 lists the brand citizenship mea-
surement items (Cronbach a ¼ 0.93).
3.3.3. Brand equity
This study adopted a nine-item brand equity scale proposed by
Yoo and Donthu (2001) for two reasons. First, the scale was
developed based on the conceptualization of brand equity
espoused by seminal works (Aaker, 1991; Keller, 1993), indicating
that the content validity of the scale is high. Second, this scale was
tested in a study involving 1530 participants from various coun-
tries; speci?cally, the scale was used to evaluate the brand equity of
12 brands, reporting adequacy of the questionnaire items, and thus,
indicating that the scale has satisfactory generalizability. Examples
of the scale items include “I consider myself to be loyal to the store
brand,” “The store brand would be my ?rst choice,” and “I will not
buy other brands if the store brand is available.” Appendix 3 lists
the brand equity measurement items used in this study (Cronbach
a ¼ 0.9).
Corporate branding
Brand citizenship behavior
Customer outcomes
Organizational level
Aggregation
Brand equity
Individual level
H1
H2
H3
H4
Aggregated brand
citizenship behavior
Fig. 1. Research framework.
A. Chang et al. / Asia Paci?c Management Review 20 (2015) 120e129 124
3.3.4. Control variables
Several variables that may in?uence the dependent variables
were controlled. At the individual (organizational) level, the control
variables were sex, age, and education (franchise type).
4. Results
4.1. Sample characteristics
Thirty-one franchise organizations participated in this research.
All of the selected organizations were appropriate for HLM ana-
lyses. From these 31 organizations, 250 supervisors and 283
customer-contacting employees participated in our survey. Among
the supervisors, 108 were men (43.2%) and 142 were women
(56.8%). Most of them (53.6%) were aged between 26 years and 35
years. Furthermore, 165 of them (66%) had a college degree.
After completing the survey, 283 completed individual-level
questionnaires were analyzed. Among the employees who partic-
ipated in this research, 115 were men (40.5%) and 168 were women
(59.5%). Most respondents (61.7%) were younger than 25 years.
Senior-high-school graduates accounted for 31.7% of the sample,
and college graduates accounted for 61.7%. Regarding the cus-
tomers, this study collected questionnaire data from customers 1
month after surveying the supervisors and employees. The
customer sample comprised 577 valid responses.
4.2. Null model analysis
This research employed null models to prove two phenomena.
First, employee cognition and behavior varied among the franchise
organizations. Second, employee behavior may be affected by
contextual variables (i.e., corporate branding). Initially, this study
evaluated null models that do not incorporate a predictor at either
the individual or organizational level. Investigating multilevel re-
lationships is more appropriate when the residual variance of the
intercepts (t00) associated with the null models is statistically
signi?cant (Hofmann, 1997). For brand citizenship behavior, the
null model analysis results show that the residual variance of the
intercepts is signi?cant (t00 ¼ 0.124, p < 0.001). In other words, in
the proposed model, heterogeneous relationships exist among the
various organizations; thus, multilevel analyses is appropriate for
investigating the relationships between corporate branding and
brand citizenship behavior.
4.3. Aggregation of constructs
To conduct a cross-level analysis, this study examined the val-
idity of the organization-level variables (corporate branding and
aggregated brand citizenship behavior). Interrater agreement was
assessed by r
wg
(James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1993). The median r
wg
of
corporate branding (brand citizenship behavior) is 0.974 (0.990). All
of the r
wg
values are above the acceptable level of 0.6 (James, 1982).
Furthermore, this study measured the intraclass correlation (ICC1)
and reliability of group means (ICC2) of brand citizenship behavior
(Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002), which were 0.228 and 0.912, respec-
tively. Based on Yoo and Donthu (2001), brand equity was measured
based on customer perceptions. Therefore, the customer data had to
be nested with a corporate brand. To provide the evidence that a
multilevel relationship exists between corporate branding and
brand equity, this research measured the ICC1 and ICC2 of brand
equity, which were 0.189 and 0.891, respectively. All of the ICC1
values were higher than the acceptable level of 0.12 (James, 1982),
and the ICC2 values were also above the acceptable level of 0.6
(Glick, 1985). Therefore, forming aggregated level constructs is
suitable.
4.4. Correlations
As reported in Table 1, the correlation results show that corpo-
rate branding is signi?cantly related to brand citizenship behavior
(r ¼ 0.361, p < 0.05) and brand equity (r ¼ 0.287, p < 0.1).
Organization-level brand citizenship behavior is signi?cantly
related to brand equity (r ¼ 0.419, p < 0.05). These results support
the proposed hypotheses.
4.5. Hypothesis examination
Table 2 shows the HLM analysis results. This study used a cross-
level analysis to test Hypothesis 1, which was proposed to inves-
tigate the relationship between corporate branding (organizational
data) and brand citizenship behavior (individual-level data). As
shown in Table 2 (Model 1), corporate branding positively affected
brand citizenship behavior (b ¼0.317, p < 0.01); thus, Hypotheses 1
is supported. For the organization-level analysis, Hypothesis 2 was
proposed to investigate the relationship between corporate
branding and customer-based brand equity (Model 2). Table 2
shows that corporate branding positively affected brand equity
(b ¼0.257, p < 0.01), thereby supporting Hypothesis 2. Hypothesis 3
was proposed to investigate the relationship between
organization-level brand citizenship behavior and brand equity.
The results of the Model 3 analysis indicate that organization-level
brand citizenship behavior positively affected brand equity
(b ¼ 0.268, p < 0.01); thus, Hypothesis 3 is supported.
All of the models achieved statistical signi?cance, with Model 2
yielding the highest explanatory power (R
2
¼ 0.58), followed by
Model 1 (R
2
¼ 0.37), and Model 3 (R
2
¼ 0.37). These results indicate
that the in?uence of corporate branding yields a more accurate
prediction of brand equity. Furthermore, the support of Hypothesis
2 demonstrates that corporate branding has a direct effect on brand
equity. To explore the dual-effect routes of corporate branding on
brand equity, we investigated the indirect route by testing Hy-
pothesis 4.
Table 1
Mean, standard deviation, and correlations of research constructs.
Variables Mean SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
(1) Corporate branding 3.993 0.5441 1
(2) Brand citizenship behavior 4.035 0.4309 0.361* 1
(3) Brand equity 3.795 0.3309 0.287** 0.419* 1
(4) Sex 1.59 0.2078 0.265** 0.007 0.063 1
(5) Age 1.523 0.4376 0.128 0.128 e0.167 0.027 1
(6) Education 2.583 0.4263 e0.192 e0.192 0.002 0.201 e0.51*** 1
(7) Type 0.8667 0.3458 0.208 0.208 e0.043 0.12 0.263** 0.05 1
* p < 0.05.
** p < 0.1.
*** p < 0.01.
SD ¼ standard deviation.
A. Chang et al. / Asia Paci?c Management Review 20 (2015) 120e129 125
4.6. Mediating effect of brand citizenship behavior
To explore the mediation role of brand citizenship behavior on
the relationship between corporate branding and brand equity, this
study followed the four analytical steps proposed by Baron and
Kenny (1986). The ?rst step is to con?rm the effect of brand citi-
zenship behavior on brand equity. The second step is to con?rmthe
effect of corporate branding on brand citizenship behavior. The
third step is to examine the effect of corporate branding on brand
equity. The fourth step is to examine whether the effect of corpo-
rate branding on brand equity became nonsigni?cant (or reduced)
when corporate branding and brand citizenship behavior were
used in combination to predict brand equity. If these effects were
observed, the mediating effect of brand citizenship behavior would
be con?rmed. This research performed regression analyses to
investigate the mediating role of brand citizenship behavior.
Accordingly, the individual-level (i.e., brand citizenship behavior)
and customer-level variable (i.e., brand equity) were ?rst aggre-
gated to form organizational variables. Subsequently, we investi-
gated the relationships among corporate branding, brand
citizenship behavior, and brand equity.
Table 3 shows the model results. First, the Model 1 results
indicate that corporate branding signi?cantly affects brand
citizenship behavior (b ¼ 0.295, p < 0.05). Second, the Model 2
results show that corporate branding affects brand equity with
marginal signi?cance (b ¼ 0.18, p < 0.1). Third, the Model 3 results
show that brand citizenship behavior signi?cantly affects brand
equity (b ¼ 0.336, p < 0.01). Finally, the Model 4 results show that
brand citizenship behavior signi?cantly affects brand equity
(b ¼ 0.322, p < 0.05), although the effect of corporate branding on
brand equity was only marginally signi?cant (b ¼ 0.124, p < 0.1).
Following a comparison of these models, we observed that the
effect of corporate branding on brand equity was reduced when
both corporate branding and brand citizenship behavior were
combined to predict brand equity. Based on these results, we
conclude that brand citizenship behavior (partially) mediates the
relationship between corporate branding and brand equity; thus,
Hypothesis 4 is supported.
5. Discussions
5.1. Conclusions
Previous studies on the enhancement of corporate brand equity
have typically focused on one type of effect route, taking either a
marketing perspective focused on external stakeholder or an
organizational-identity perspective focused on internal branding
(Burmann et al., 2009; Xie et al., 2014). However, this study adhered
to the viewpoints of Leitch and Richardson (2003), contending that
corporate branding involves interactive processes with multiple
stakeholders and is characterized by multiple dimensions,
including strategic alignment, brand leadership, brand-centered
HRM, and brand communication, and it therefore concerns both
internal and external brand identity. Furthermore, this study
observed the dual-route effects of corporate branding strategy on
brand equity. First, successfully implementing corporate branding
contributes to building a coherent brand image and reputation, as
well as a brand identity that is perceived favorably by customers.
Moreover, these results are in agreement with the ?ndings of
previous studies (Harris & de Chernatony, 2001; Leitch &
Richardson, 2003). Second, the multilevel analysis results indicate
that implementing effective corporate branding practices can
encourage employees to identify themselves with a corporate
brand and foster a sense of altruism toward the brand, which can
facilitate extra-role brand behavior. This result is in agreement with
the assertions of Burmann and Zeplin (2005), who argued that
supportive practices can encourage employees to engage in brand
citizenship behavior. Third, the ?ndings of this study show that
employee brand citizenship behavior contributes to brand equity,
which is a critical metric for measuring the market performance of
a brand. This ?nding is consistent with the assertions of Sun et al.
(2007), who argued that employees who engage in service-
oriented organizational citizenship behavior might serve cus-
tomers beyond their formal role requirements. Furthermore, the
mediation analysis results show that corporate branding affects
branding equity directly as well as indirectly through brand citi-
zenship behavior, that is, the effects of corporate branding on
customer-based brand equity function through both external and
internal interactions. The results indicate that corporate branding
construct can be investigated in relation to marketing or organi-
zational theory perspectives of corporate identity, which is
consistent with the ?ndings reported by Hulberg (2006).
5.2. Practical implications
The results of this study indicate that interactive corporate
branding practices positively affect brand equity and brand citi-
zenship behavior. The ?ndings have implications for managers
Table 2
Hierarchical linear modeling results of the proposed model.
Models Model-1 Model-2 Model-3
Independent variable Dependent variable
Brand citizenship
behavior
Brand
equity
Brand
equity
Individual level
Intercept 4.01*** 3.77*** 2.71***
Gender 0.037
Age 0.026
Education À0.193
Organizational level
Corporate branding 0.317*** 0.257***
Brand citizenship behavior 0.268***
Industry Type 0.11 À0.143 À0.143
R
2
0.37 0.58 0.37
Deviance
a
558.29 797.97 799.18
Organizations, n ¼ 30; supervisors, n ¼ 250; employees, n ¼ 283; customers,
n ¼ 577.
*p < 0.01.
**p < 0.05.
***p < 0.1.
a
Deviance is a measure of model ?t. Deviance ¼ À2* log-likelihood of the full
maximum-likelihood estimate.
Table 3
Regression analyses of the proposed model.
Models Model-1 Model-2 Model-3 Model-4
Independent variable Dependent variable
Brand citizenship
behavior
Brand
equity
Brand
equity
Brand
equity
Intercept 3.336*** 3.137*** 2.66*** 2.733***
Corporate branding 0.295** 0.18* 0.124*
Brand citizenship behavior 0.336*** 0.322**
Gender 0.037 0.125 0.116
Age À0.157 À0.195 À0.291**
Education À0.201 À0.048 À0.102
Industry Type 0.245 À0.07 À0.149
R
2
0.22 0.09 0.23 0.32
* p < 0.01.
** p < 0.05.
*** p < 0.1.
A. Chang et al. / Asia Paci?c Management Review 20 (2015) 120e129 126
intending to build competitive advantages through corporate
branding. Managers can enhance corporate brand equity by deliv-
ering value offerings and adopting effective communication chan-
nels to convey a positive brand image (e.g., competence and socially
responsibility) to external stakeholders. In addition, corporate
managers should systematically monitor whether internal stake-
holders are committed to brand value creation practices, such as
strategic alignment, effective interdepartmental coordination, and
high-performance HRM practices. Employees are regarded as a
symbol of a corporate brand, implying that internal branding is
critical. Brand managers can assist employees by adopting brand-
centered HRM to develop their sense of brand identi?cation,
which subsequently encourages them to engage in altruistic brand
citizenship behavior. Managers should consider rewarding em-
ployees (e.g., promotion, ?exible work hours) when they exhibit
brand citizenship behavior. Brand citizenship behavior positively
affects brand equity, indicating that brand managers can encourage
employees to exhibit altruistic brand behavior. Therefore, brand
managers can communicate consistent messages of brand citizen-
ship behavior to employees through informal interactions, formal
meetings, or emails. In the examined multilevel relationships,
brand citizenship behavior acted as a mediator in the corporate
branding process. In other words, brand managers can foster brand
equity by strengthening the link between corporate branding and
brand citizenship behavior. For example, a hotel recognizes em-
ployees who engage in brand citizenship behavior (e.g., voluntarily
extending service time to aid customers), thereby fostering brand
equity. Managers can periodically assess the performance of
corporate branding strategies using the corporate branding and
brand citizenship behavior measurements employed in this study.
6. Contributions, limitations, and future research
6.1. Contributions
Several important contributions from this study can be noted.
The relationship between corporate branding and brand equity was
empirically con?rmed, which represented that corporate branding
encourages employees to ful?ll long-term brand promises (Balmer,
2012), thereby contributing to customer-based brand equity. As for
the effect of corporate branding on employees' brand behavior, this
study investigated the multilevel relationship between corporate
branding and brand citizenship behavior to demonstrate that
corporate branding can encourage employees to engage in extra-
role brand behavior, thereby improving customer perceptions to-
ward a corporate brand. This ?nding is consistent with the ?ndings
of Whitener (2001) and Allen, Shore, & Griffeth (2003), who have
argued that supportive practices can encourage employees to
engage in both altruistic and extrarole brand behavior. Corporate
branding, which is a type of interactive branding management, can
raise employees' awareness of brand-related support mechanisms
and encourage them to engage in brand citizenship behavior
(Burmann & Zeplin, 2005). Furthermore, the effect of organization-
level brand citizenship behavior on brand equity was tested to
prove that employee brand citizenship behavior can improve
customer perceptions and enhance brand equity. The results are in
agreement with previous studies (Hirst et al., 2009; Meyer et al.,
2006; Pierce, Kostova, & Dirks, 2001) that have argued that em-
ployees who identify themselves with a corporate brand typically
engage in brand citizenship behavior, thereby contributing to brand
equity. As for the multilevel mediating effect, brand citizenship
behavior mediates the relationship between corporate branding
and brand equity, indicating that brand citizenship behavior plays a
critical role in corporate branding processes. In other words, em-
ployees who are considered as brand symbols (Davies & Chun,
2012) play a critical role in enhancing the value of a corporate
brand. To mitigate the common method variance (CMV) bias, three
data sources (supervisors, employees, and customers) were used in
this study, and multilevel approaches adopted by this study
allowed to examine the effects of organization-level variables on
individual-level variables while retaining the organization-level
variables as predictors; consequently, the estimates obtained in
this study are biased less than those used in single-level analysis
methods (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). In conclusion, the results of
this study prove that both effect routes are relevant to corporate
branding, which contribute to marketing-based theory, social
identity theory, and social exchange theory, thereby broadening
their applicability.
6.2. Limitations and future research
This section discusses the limitations encountered while con-
ducting this study and provides recommendations for future
studies. This research data were obtained from 31 franchise orga-
nizations, indicating that the data were not randomly selected from
Taiwanese markets. Consequently, the generalizability of the re-
sults may be limited. Future studies should consider collecting data
using a random sampling method and/or obtaining data fromother
industries to analyze the differences. Schwab (2005) asserted that
researchers should use longitudinal data to examine causal re-
lationships to reduce the CMV bias; however, this study analyzed
cross-sectional data. Therefore, future studies should consider us-
ing longitudinal data. Furthermore, the analyses performed in this
study involved using only two levels of HLM. Future research
should consider using a three-level model to comprehensively
investigate the relationships among brand-oriented strategy,
corporate branding, brand psychological ownership, and brand
citizenship behavior. Regarding the application of multilevel anal-
ysis methods, this study investigated only the relationship between
corporate branding and brand citizenship behavior. Therefore, we
recommend that future studies employ additional individual-level
constructs, such as personebrand ?t and brand commitment, to
further clarify the concept of employee brand cognition. Because
corporate branding involves multiple stakeholders, researchers
should consider investigating how hotels interact with multiple
stakeholders.
Con?icts of interest
All contributing authors declare no con?icts of interest.
Appendix 1. Organizational-level questionnaires.
Organization level Items
Corporate branding
(supervisors)
V1: Our company makes employees compare their
behaviors with a brand-related standard via self-
evaluation or colleague evaluation.
V2: Our company regularly assesses employees'
contribution toward the brand value.
V3: Our company often transmits values of the brand
toward organizational members through various kinds
of informal channels, such as interactions between
colleagues.
V4: Our company often transmits values of the brand
toward organizational members through various kinds
of formal channels, such as regular meetings.
V5: Our company often transmits values of the brand
toward stakeholders through interactions between
organizational members and stakeholders (e.g.,
customers, suppliers, and the government).
(continued on next page)
A. Chang et al. / Asia Paci?c Management Review 20 (2015) 120e129 127
Appendix 2. Individual-level questionnaires.
Appendix 3. Customer-based brand equity.
References
Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing brand equity. New York: The Free Press.
Abratt, R. (1989). A new approach to the corporate image management process.
Journal of Marketing Management, 5(1), 63e76.
Abratt, R., & Kleyn, N. (2012). Corporate identity, corporate branding and corporate
reputations: reconciliation and Integration. European Journal of Marketing, 46(7/
8), 1048e1063.
Abratt, R., & Mofokeng, T. N. (2001). Development and management of corporate
image in South Africa. European Journal of Marketing, 35(3/4), 368e386.
Ailawadi, K. L., Lehmann, D. R., & Neslin, S. A. (2003). Revenue premium as an
outcome measure of brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 67(4), 1e17.
Allen, D. G., Shore, L. M., & Griffeth, R. W. (2003). The role of perceived organiza-
tional support and supportive human resource practices in the turnover pro-
cess. Journal of Management, 29(1), 99e118.
Andreassen, T., & Lindestad, B. (1998). The effect of corporate image in the forma-
tion of customer loyalty. Journal of Service Research, 1(1), 82e92.
Aseleage, J., & Eisenberger, R. (2003). Perceived organizational support and psy-
chological contracts: a theoretical integration. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 24(5), 491e509.
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization.
Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20e39.
Aurand, T. W., Gorchels, L., & Bishop, T. R. (2005). Human resource management's
role in internal branding: an opportunity for cross-functional brand message
synergy. The Journal of Product and Brand Management, 14(2/3), 163e169.
Balmer, J. M. T. (1995). Corporate branding and connoisseurship. Journal of General
Management, 21(1), 24e46.
Balmer, J. M. T. (2001). Corporate identity, corporate branding, and corporate mar-
keting: seeing through the fog. European Journal of Marketing, 35(3/4), 248e291.
Balmer, J. M. T. (2008). Identity based views of the corporation: insights from
corporate identity, organizational identity, social identity, visual identity and
corporate image. European Journal of Marketing, 42(9e10), 879e906.
Balmer, J. M. T. (2012). Strategic corporate brand alignment: perspectives from
identity based views of corporate brands. European Journal of Marketing, 46(7/
8), 1064e1092.
Balmer, J. M. T., & Gray, E. R. (2003). Corporate brands: what are they? What of
them? European Journal of Marketing, 37(7/8), 972e997.
Balmer, J. M. T., & Thompson, I. (2009). The shared management and ownership of
corporate brands: the case of Hilton. Journal of General Management, 34(4), 15e37.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in
social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical consider-
ations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173e1182.
Bartels, J. A., Ad Pruyn, M., & Inge, J. (2007). Multiple organizational identi?cation
levels and the impact of external prestige and communication climate. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 28(2), 173e190.
Bettencourt, L. A., Gwinner, K. P., & Meuter, M. L. (2001). A comparison of attitude,
personality, and knowledge predictors of service-oriented organizational citi-
zenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 29e41.
Bhattacharya, C., & Sen, S. (2003). Consumer-company identi?cation: a framework
for understanding consumers' relationships with companies. Journal of Mar-
keting, 67(2), 76e88.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
Brown, T. J., & Dacin, P. A. (1997). The company and the product: corporate asso-
ciations and consumer product responses. Journal of Marketing, 61(1), 68e84.
Burmann, C., & Zeplin, S. (2005). Building brand commitment: a behavioral
approach to internal brand management. The Journal of Brand Management,
12(4), 279e300.
Burmann, C., Zeplin, S., & Reily, N. (2009). Key determinants of internal brand
management success: an exploratory empirical analysis. Journal of Brand
Management, 16(4), 264e284.
(continued)
Organization level Items
V6: Our company often transmits values of the brand
toward stakeholders through various kinds of
communicative channels, such as advertisements,
meetings, public relations, and networks.
V7: Different departments of our company work
together for designing activities to improve brand
image.
V8: Different departments of our company often discuss
how to make employees express brand behaviors.
V9: Different departments of our company often
exchange information in order to make each
department more understand customers' perception of
the corporate brand.
V10: Our company would accept the suggestion
provided by other stakeholders (e.g., supplier and
government) in order to enhance service quality and
brand image.
V11: Our company would provide good product and
service quality in order to realize brand commitment.
V12: Our senior managers make brand strategies, which
are based on values of the corporate brand proposed by
our company.
V13: Our senior managers make clear brand goals,
which employees follow.
V14: In order to enhance brand value, our senior
managers adjust contents of product and service
according to the responses of customers.
V15: When the market share of the brand enhances, our
company rewards employees who participate in brand-
related activities.
V16: Our company makes newcomers understand
brand-related value and spirit through training.
V17: Our company makes employees' personal value
and behaviors consistent with brand value through
training courses.
V18: Our company considers personal value of
applicants to recruit employees with person-brand ?t.
V19: Our company transmits the vision of the corporate
brand toward organizational members through various
kinds of channels.
V20: Our company transmits belief, value, and norm of
the corporate brand toward organizational members
through various kinds of channels.
Individual level Items
Brand citizenship
behaviors (employees)
V1: I voluntarily participate in brand-related
activities.
V2: I seldomcomplain about inconveniences caused
by brand-related activities.
V3: I tolerate inconveniencies caused by brand-
related activities to satisfy customers and enhance
brand value.
V4: I am willing to endorse the brand and
voluntarily transmit brand value to newcomers or
friends.
V5: I amwilling to endorse the brand and have trust
and loyalty toward the brand.
V6: I voluntarily provide new information and ideas
for the brand to enhance brand value.
V7: I regard customers as my family and solve their
problems as I do mine.
V8: I voluntarily solve problems of customers to
foster brand value.
V9: I voluntarily help newcomers to foster service
quality and brand value.
V10: I voluntarily follow brand standard processes
without organizational monitoring.
V11: I am willing to endlessly enhance brand-
related skills.
V12: Whatever the information is, I voluntarily
respond to customers' thoughts on my company.
Customer outcomes Items
Customer-based
brand equity
V1: I consider myself to be loyal to the store brand.
V2: The store brand would be my ?rst choice.
V3: I will not buy other brands if the store brand is
available.
V4: The likely quality of the store brand is extremely
high.
V5: The likelihood that the store brand would be
functional is very high.
V6: I can recognize the store brand among other
competing brands.
V7: I am aware of the store brand.
V8: Some characteristics of the store brand come to my
mind quickly.
V9: I can quickly recall the symbol or logo of the store
brand.
A. Chang et al. / Asia Paci?c Management Review 20 (2015) 120e129 128
Chang, A., Chiang, H. H., & Han, T. S. (2012). A multilevel investigation of relation-
ships among rand-centered HRM, brand psychological ownership, brand citi-
zenship behaviors, and customer satisfaction. European Journal of Marketing,
46(5), 626e662.
Chen, G., & Klimoski, R. J. (2003). The impact of expectations on newcomer per-
formance in teams as mediated by work characteristics, social exchange, and
empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 46(5), 591e607.
de Chernatony, L. (1999). Brand management through narrowing the gap between
brand identity and brand reputation. Journal of Marketing Management, 15(1e3),
157e179.
Chiang, H. H., Chang, A., Han, T. S., &McConville, D. (2013). Corporate branding, brand
psychological ownershipand brand citizenship behavior: multilevel analysis and
managerial implications. Journal of General Management, 39(1), 55e80.
Chi, N. W., & Han, T. S. (2008). Exploring the linkages between formal ownership and
psychological ownership for the organization: the mediating role of organiza-
tional justice. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81, 691e711.
Dacin, P., & Brown, T. (2006). Corporate branding, identity, and customer response.
Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 95e98.
Davies, G., & Chun, R. (2012). Employee as symbol: stereotypical age effects on
corporate brand associations. European Journal of Marketing, 46(5), 663e683.
Dowling, G. (2001). Creating corporate reputations: Identity, image and performance.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Einwiller, S., & Will, M. (2002). Towards an integrated approach to corporate
brandingdAn empirical study. Corporate Communications, 7(2), 100e109.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived orga-
nizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 500e507.
Fetscherin, M., & Usunier, J.-C. (2012). Corporate branding: an interdisciplinary
literature review. European Journal of Marketing, 46(5), 733e753.
Flynn, F. J. (2005). Identity organizations and forms of social exchange in organi-
zation. Academy of Management Review, 30(4), 737e750.
Fomburn, C. J. (1996). Reputation: Realizing value from the corporate image. Boston,
MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Glick, W. H. (1985). Conceptualizing and measuring organizational and psycho-
logical climate: pitfalls in multilevel research. Academy of Management Review,
10(3), 601e616.
Goldberg, M. E., & Hartwick, J. (1990). The effects of advertiser reputation and ex-
tremity of advertising claim on advertising effectiveness. Journal of Consumer
Research, 17(2), 172e179.
Goldsmith, R. E., Lafferty, B. A., & Newell, S. J. (2000). The in?uence of corporate
credibility on consumer attitudes and purchase intent. Corporate Reputation
Review, 3(4), 304e318.
Harris, F., & de Chernatony, L. (2001). Corporate branding and corporate brand
performance. European Journal of Marketing, 35(3/4), 441e456.
Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. (1997). Relations between organizational culture, identity
and image. European Journal of Marketing, 31(5), 356e365.
Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. (2003). Bring the corporation into corporate branding.
European Journal of Marketing, 37(7/8), 1041e1064.
Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in
survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 104e121.
Hirst, G., Van Dick, R., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2009). A social identity perspective
on leadership and employee creativity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(7),
963e982.
Hofmann, D. A. (1997). An overview of the logic and rationale of hierarchical linear
models. Journal of Management, 23(6), 723e744.
Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in
organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 121e140.
Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behavior. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World.
Hulberg, J. (2006). Integrating corporate branding and sociological paradigms: a
literature study. Journal of Brand Management, 14(1/2), 60e73.
Ind, N. (1997). The corporate brand. London, UK: Macmillan.
James, L. R. (1982). Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 67(2), 219e229.
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1993). r
wg
: an assessment of within-group
interrater agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(2), 306e309.
J€ oreskog, K. G., & S€ orbom, D. (1981). LISREL V: Analysis of linear structure relationship
by the method of maximum likelihood. Chicago, IL: National Educational
Resources.
Kay, M. J. (2006). Strong brands and corporate brands. European Journal of Mar-
keting, 40(7/8), 742e760.
Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based
brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1e22.
Keller, K. L., & Aaker, D. A. (1998). The impact of corporate marketing on a com-
pany's brand extensions. Corporate Reputation Review, 1(4), 356e378.
Keller, K. L., & Lehmann, D. R. (2001). The brand value chain: Linking strategic and
?nancial performance (Working paper). Hanover, NH: Tuck School of Business,
Dartmouth College.
Kidwell, R. E., Mossholder, K. W., & Bennett, N. (1997). Cohesiveness and organi-
zational citizenship behavior: a multilevel analysis using work groups and in-
dividuals. Journal of Management, 23(6), 775e793.
Knox, S., & Bickerton, D. (2003). The six conventions of corporate branding. Euro-
pean Journal of Marketing, 37(7/8), 998e1016.
Leana, C. R., & Van Buren, H. J. (1999). Organizational social capital and employment
practices. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 538e555.
Leitch, S., & Richardson, N. (2003). Corporate branding in the new economy. Eu-
ropean Journal of Marketing, 37(7/8), 1065e1079.
Martin, G., Beaumont, P., Doig, R., & Pate, J. (2005). Branding: a new performance
discourse for HR? European Management Journal, 23(1), 76e88.
Masterson, S. S., & Stamper, C. L. (2003). Perceived organizational membership: an
aggregate framework representing the employee-organization relationship.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(5), 473e490.
McAlexander, J. H., Scheuten, J. W., & Koenig, H. F. (2002). Building brand com-
munity. Journal of Marketing, 66(1), 38e54.
Melewar, T. C., & Karaosmanoglu, E. (2006). Seven dimensions of corporate identity:
a categorisation from the practitioners perspectives. European Journal of Mar-
keting, 40(7/8), 846e868.
Melewar, T. C., Gotsi, M., & Andriopoulos, C. (2012). Shaping the research agenda for
corporate branding: avenues for future research. European Journal of Marketing,
46(5), 600e608.
Meyer, J. P., Becker, T. E., & Van Dick, R. (2006). Social identities and commitment at
work: toward an integrative model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(5),
665e683.
Mitchell, C. (2002). Selling the brand inside. Harvard Business Review, 80(1), 99e105.
Molm, L., & Cook, K. (1995). Social exchange and exchange networks. In K. Cook,
G. Fine, & J. House (Eds.), Sociological perspectives on social psychology (pp.
209e235). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Muzellec, L., & Lambkin, M. (2006). Corporate rebranding: destroying, transferring
or creating brand equity? European Journal of Marketing, 40(7/8), 803e824.
Nyadzayo, M. W., Matanda, M. J., & Ewing, M. T. (2011). Brand relationships and
brand equity in franchising. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(7), 1103e1115.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome.
Lexington, MA: Lexington, Books.
Piccolo, F., & Coiquitt, A. (2006). Transformational leadership and job behavior: the
mediating role of core job characteristics. Academy of Management Journal,
49(2), 327e340.
Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. T. (2001). Toward a theory of psychological
ownership in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 298e310.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., &Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational
leader behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, and
organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107e142.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., &Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational
citizenship behaviors: a critical reviewof the theoretical and empirical literature
and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26(3), 513e563.
Punjaisri, K., & Wilson, A. (2011). Internal branding process: key mechanisms,
outcomes and moderating factors. European Journal of Marketing, 45(9/10),
1521e1537.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models (2nd ed.). New-
bury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Roper, S., & Davies, G. (2010). Business to business branding: external and internal
satis?ers and the role of training quality. European Journal of Marketing, 44(5),
567e590.
Schwab, D. P. (2005). Research methods for organizational studies. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Does doing good always lead to doing better?
Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing
Research, 38(2), 225e243.
Smidts, A., Pruyn, H., & Van Riel, B. M. (2001). The impact of employee communi-
cation and perceived external prestige on organizational identi?cation. Acad-
emy of Management Journal, 49(5), 1051e1062.
Sun, L. Y., Aryee, S., & Law, K. S. (2007). High-performance human resource prac-
tices, citizenship behavior, and organizational performance: a relational
perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 50(3), 558e577.
Uggla, H. (2006). The corporate brand association base: a conceptual model for the
creation of inclusive brand architecture. European Journal of Marketing, 40(7/8),
785e802.
Urde, M. (2001). Core value-based corporate branding building. European Journal of
Marketing, 37(7/8), 1017e1040.
Vallaster, C., & de Chernatony, L. (2006). Internal brand building and structuration:
the role of leadership. European Journal of Marketing, 40(7/8), 761e784.
Van Knippenberg, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2003). A social identity model of leadership
effectiveness in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 25, 243e295.
Van Rekom, J. (2002). Manifestations in behavior versus perceptions of identity:
convergence or not? In B. Moingeon, & G. Soenen (Eds.), Corporate and orga-
nizational identities (pp. 99e114). London, UK: Routledge.
Van Riel, C. B. M., & Balmer, J. M. T. (1997). Corporate identity: the concept, its mea-
surement and management. European Journal of Marketing, 31(5/6), 340e355.
Van den Bosch, A. L. M., Elving, W. J. L., & de Jong, M. D. T. (2006). The impact of
organizational characteristics on corporate visual identity. European Journal of
Marketing, 40(7/8), 870e885.
Xie, L. S., Peng, J. M., & Huan, T. C. (2014). Crafting and testing a central precept in
service-dominant logic: hotel employees' brand-citizenship behavior and cus-
tomers' brand trust. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 42(9), 1e8.
Whitener, E. M. (2001). Do ‘high commitment’ human resource practices affect
employee commitment? A cross-level analysis using hierarchical linear
modeling. Journal of Management, 27, 515e535.
Yoo, B., & Donthu, N. (2001). Developing and validating a multidimensional
consumer-based brand equity scale. Journal of Business Research, 52(1), 1e14.
A. Chang et al. / Asia Paci?c Management Review 20 (2015) 120e129 129
doc_755190692.pdf