Understanding motivations to subscribe to online streaming services like Netflix, AmazonPrime, HBO, Disney+ or Hulu

This is an excerpt from one of my latest contributions (that is forthcoming).

This contribution explored the individuals’ motivations to use streaming technologies to watch live broadcast programs and/or recorded content. It differentiated itself from other research, as it integrated valid measures that were drawn from the technology acceptance model (TAM )(Nagy, 2018; Munoz-Leiva et al., 2017; Niehaves and Plattfaut, 2014; Cha, 2013; Davis, 1989) and from the Uses and Gratifications Theory (UGT) (Steiner and Xu, 2018; Riddle et al., 2018; Joo and Sang, 2013; Bondad-Brown et al., 2012; Katz et al., 1973).

The critical review of the relevant literature reported that both theories were widely used (and cited) in academia to investigate the individuals’ behavioral intentions to adopt new technologies, in different contexts (Manis and Choi, 2019, Liu et al., 2010, Benbasat and Barki, 2007). In essence, TAM suggests that the individuals’ perceptions about the ease of use and the usefulness of certain technologies would predict their intentions to use themagain in the future (Sch,  et al., 2019; Munoz-Leiva et al., 2017; Rauniar et al., 2014; Wallace and Sheetz, 2014; Davis et al., 1989; Davis, 1989). Moreover, UGT assumes that individuals seek to gratify their intrinsic and extrinsic needs through habitual consumptions of media technologies (Kaur et al., 2020; Perks and Turner, 2019; Ray et al., 2019; Li et al., 2017; Joo and Sang, 2013; Bartsch, 2012; Chen, 2011; Smock et al., 2011; Stafford et al., 2004; Katz et al., 1973). Figure 1 (from the Analysis section) sheds light on the explanatory power of this research model. It illustrates the total effects, outer loadings and the coefficient of determination (R squared) values of the constructs. The students’ indicated that they were committed to continue using the online streaming technologies (R2=0.517) as they perceived its usefulness (R2=0.179).

Figure 1. A graphical illustration of the results

The findings from this research indicated that the research participants perceived the ease of use as well as the usefulness of the streaming technologies. The results confirmed that they found it easy and straightforward to use their smart TVs, smart phones or tablets to access online streaming services. The respondents believed that the streaming technologies allowed them to view TV programs and/or recorded videos in a faster way than traditional TV subscriber services or satellite TV. They perceived the usefulness of online TV and/or video streaming services, as they enhanced their experience of watching informative and/or entertainment programs, particularly when they used their mobile devices (Nikou and Economides, 2017; Balakrishnan and Raj, 2012; Lee et al., 2020). Hence, the research participants were committed to continue using their smart devices to access their favorite online programs through streaming technologies. The regression analysis revealed that there were highly significant correlations between TAM’s core constructs including the perceived ease of use and the perceived usefulness of online streaming services. Both of these constructs were also significant antecedents of the individuals’ intentions to continue using the mentioned technologies. 

The individuals’ ritualized motivations to use the streaming technologies was found to have a very significant effect on their intention to use them. The respondents were using online streaming technologies on a habitual basis, to break the routine. These findings are consistent with the relevant literature concerning UGT, where the researchers concluded that, many often, individuals consider the media technologies as a form of entertainment (Dhir et al., 2017b, 2017c; Li, 2017; Bartsch, 2012; Smock et al., 2011) as individuals . In this case, the research participants sought emotional gratifications from the streaming technologies. Probably, they allowed them to relax in their free time. Other theoretical underpinnings reported that individuals use certain technologies to distract themselves into a better mood (Lonsdale and North; 2011; Park et al., 2009; Knobloch, 2003; Zillmann, 2000). Most of the respondents indicated that they were using these technologies to satisfy their needs for information and entertainment. These findings are consistent with previous studies (Lee et al., 2010; Quan-Haase and Young, 2010; Bumgarner, 2007).

The survey respondents revealed that they used online streaming technologies for instrumental purposes to watch informative programs, including news and talk shows as well as entertainment programs, including movies and series through online streaming services. Other researchers also reported that there were many instances where individuals benefited of their smart phones and tablets’ instrumentality and mobility, as they enabled them to access online content, including recorded videos, live streams and/or intermittent marketing content, when they were out and about.

The participants indicated their agreement with the survey item about the advertising options of online streaming services. This research suggests that they were aware that subscribed users of online streaming technologies can limit or block intrusive and/or repetitive advertisements they receive whilst using online streaming technologies (Belanche et al., 2019). Previous studies also reported that online users were increasingly applying ad blockers (Redondo and Aznar, 2018; Lim et al., 2015). The practitioners who are using digital marketing platforms, including online streaming websites to promote their products and/or services, ought to refine the quality and content of their customer centric marketing. Their underlying objective is to engage their audiences with relevant, helpful information that complements, rather than detracts from their overall online experience.

Practical implications

This research postulates that the respondents are consuming free-tier and/or paid streaming services through different digital media including mobile devices like smart phones and tablets. It confirmed that online streaming technologies can improve the consumers’ experiences of watching live broadcasts and/or recorded programs. The research participants perceived their ease of use and their usefulness as they can be accessed in any place, at any time, through decent Wi-Fi and/or network connections. The findings are consistent with the U&G theory as the participants indicated that the media technologies were entertaining. Hence, they were committed to continue using them. They indicated that they would continue using them in the foreseeable future. On the other hand, this study revealed that the respondents’ instrumental motivations to use online streaming services did not predict their intentions to use them (even though these technologies allowed their subscribers to limit or block online advertisements).

Most probably, the respondents were accessing on-demand streaming services in the comfort of their home, rather than from mobile technologies, when they were out and about. The reason for this behavior could be that they prefer watching online programs through big screens as opposed to watching them through their mobile devices’ smaller screens.  The latest TVs may offer quality, high resolution images and better sound than smart phones and tablets. Thus, smart TVs (that are using Apple and/or Android systems, among others) may be considered more appropriate to watch recorded movies and/or TV series. It is very likely that the participants would also perceive the ease of use and the usefulness of these technologies for other purposes, including digital gaming, video conferencing, et cetera.

Recently, the unprecedented outbreak of the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and its preventative social distancing measures has led to a considerable increase in the use of digital media (Camilleri, 2020). There was also a surge in the subscriptions to paid streaming services (Marketwatch, 2020). As a result, more digital advertisements (ads) were featured in online streaming services. They are usually presented to free tier consumers as skippable or non-skippable streaming or static ads that appear before, during or after they access online broadcasts and/or recorded programs. Alternatively, online users may decide to subscribe to the streaming services, if they want to block the marketing messages they receive (Tefertiller, 2020; Kim, Nam and Ryu, 2017). This way, they could have more control over their online experience.

There are several media companies in the market, that are offering competitive streaming packages. Very often, they are producing new programs, including movies, series, et cetera. Consumers may be intrigued to upgrade their services to benefit of secure, reliable, low latency streaming infrastructures, and to gain access to more exclusive content in an ad-free, interactive environment. They may also appreciate if the service providers would increase their engagement with them by using customer-centric recommender systems. Consumers may be informed about their favorite programs through regular notifications to their mobile apps (if they subscribe to them). These alerts ought to be related to their personal preferences. As a result, the consumers would continue entertaining themselves with online streaming technologies as they perceive their instrumentality, ease of use and the usefulness of their services.

Suggested Citation: Camilleri, M.A. & Falzon, L. (2020). Understanding motivations to use online streaming services: Integrating the technology acceptance model (TAM) and the uses and gratifications theory (UGT), Spanish Journal of Marketing – ESIC., DOI: 10.1108/SJME-04-2020-0074

Leave a comment

Filed under Marketing

The Organizations’ Strategic Management Processes

Featuring an excerpt from one of my latest contributions that will be published in my latest edited textbook, “Strategic Corporate Communication in the Digital Age”

The Strategic Management Processes

Strategic Planning Stage  TargetsNarrativeKey questions
1.
Mission, vision and values  
Identify the main purpose and goals of the organization.    The goals are overarching principles which guide marketers in their decision making.

Businesses can plan ahead for their future (if they generate goals).
Why does the organization exist?  

What are its overall goals and objectives?  

What kind of product or service does it provide?  

Who are its primary customers and market?  

Where is the geographical region of operation?  
2.
Strategic objectives
 
Define the organization’s financial and non-financial objectives (including its strategic targets).  

Establish the economic model that will be used throughout the strategic management process.  
Objectives are the specific steps which are required to achieve goals.

The objectives ought to be specific, measurable, attainable, realistic and may have an associated timeline.  

Objectives can be motivating to both management and employees (when they meet their employers’ objectives).
Where is the organization going?  

How can the organization’s strategies contribute toward achieving its goals?  

What are the organization’s short-term, medium-term and long-term objectives?
3.
Strategic analysis  
Identify the organization’s internal strengths and external opportunities that can create long term value.  

Identify the competences, resources and capabilities that can impact and modify organizational strategies.  
Once an organization has decided ‘where it wants to be’, the next step is to identify the possible courses of action or strategies that might enable the organisation to get there.  

The organisation must carry out an information gathering exercise to ensure that it has a full understanding of where it is now.

This strategic analysis involves looking inwards and outwards.  
What are the strengths and weaknesses within the organization?  

What are the opportunities and threats from the external environment?  

How are the political, economic, social, technological, ethical and legal issues affecting the organization?  
4.
Strategy formulation
Evaluate strategies.  

Choose alternative courses of action.

Implement the long-term plan.  
Having carried out a strategic analysis, alternative strategies can be identified.

The strategies must then be evaluated in terms of suitability, feasibility and acceptability.  
Which strategies have the greatest potential to achieve the organization’s objectives?

Should the organization pursue cost leadership / differentiation leadership / cost focus / differentiation focus strategies?
5.
Measuring the effectiveness of the strategic plan
Measure actual results and compare with the plan  Actual results are recorded and analyzed.

The information about actual and planned results is fed back to the management and is often in the form of reports.
How can the organization respond to the divergences from the plan?  
What has gone well?

What has gone wrong?  

What corrective action should be taken?
(Oliveira, Martins, Camilleri & Jayantilal, 2021, adapted from Camilleri, 2018)

References

Camilleri, M.A. (2018). Travel Marketing, Tourism Economics and the Airline Product: An Introduction to Theory and Practice. Springer, Cham, Switzerland. ISBN 978-3-319-49849 2 http://www.springer.com/us/book/9783319498485

Oliveira, C., Martins, A., Camilleri, M.A. & Jayantilal, S. (2021). Using the Balanced Scorecard for strategic communication and performance management. In Camilleri, M.A. (Ed.) Strategic Corporate Communication in the Digital Age, Emerald, Bingley, UK. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344883011_Using_the_Balanced_Scorecard_for_strategic_communication_and_performance_management (Free downloadable pre-publication version)

Leave a comment

Filed under Marketing, Strategic Management, Strategy

The businesses’ interactive engagement through digital media

This is an excerpt from one of my latest contributions on corporate communication.

How to Cite: Camilleri, M.A. & Isaias, P. (2020). The corporate communications executives’ interactive engagement through digital media. In Camilleri, M.A. (Ed.) Strategic Corporate Communication in the Digital Age, Emerald, Bingley, UK .

Several businesses are increasingly promoting their products and services through different channels. Their marketing managers and executives are utilizing different digital media (including social networks, blogs, wikis, electronic fora, webinars, podcasts, videos, et cetera) to reach wider audiences (Camilleri, 2019a). Very often, they are publishing relevant, high quality content online, at the right place and at the right times. Such content may be targeted at particular segments, niches or individual prospects.  At times, they are also benefiting of digital content that is co-created by other online users (Harrigan & Miles, 2014), as the Internet’s lack of gatekeeping has led to an increased engagement from many users (Camilleri, 2018a). The interactive media have enabled the emergence of a new participatory public sphere where everybody can dialogically interact and collaborate in the co-creation of content (Lamberton & Stephen, 2016; Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010).

The communications through digital media can be dynamic and in real time. Therefore, online users can increase direct interactions with organizations and other audiences (Camilleri, 2018b; Schultz, Utz & Göritz, 2011). Such interactive communications are often referred to as “viral” because ideas and opinions can spread through the web via word‐of‐mouth (Hajarian, Camilleri, Diaz & Aedo, 2020). There are several online channels that incorporate highly scalable, product recommender systems that feature independent reviews and rankings. These channels are often perceived as highly trustworthy sources by prospective customers (Filieri, 2016). The emergence of user-generated content in newsgroups, social media and crowdsourcing have led to positive or negative word of mouth publicity on brands, products and services (Rios Marques, Casais & Camilleri, 2020).

Such communicative features have become widely pervasive online (Tiago & Veríssimo 2014; Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). For this reason, businesses need to acquaint themselves with the use of digital media in order to increase the impact of their communications. There is an opportunity for them to use interactive technologies to increase the frequency and reach of their messages (Camilleri, 2019a; Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). Hence, their marketing executives ought to embrace the digital media to amplify the impact of their message. However, they need to create the right message to reach out to their chosen prospects. Notwithstanding, the businesses’ online engagement is neither automatic nor easy (Tiago & Veríssimo, 2014; Besiou, Hunter & Van Wassenhove, 2013). The dialogic features that are enabled by web pages, blogs, and other social media may prove difficult to apply (Camilleri, 2020a; Capriotti, Zeler & Camilleri, 2020).

To date, little empirical research has measured the corporate communications executives’ acceptance to use the digital media to promote products and/or to engage with online users. Previous studies reported that there are still many businesses that are not benefiting enough of social media, as they did not untap its full potential (Taiminen & Karjaluoto, 2015). Perhaps, they did not consider them as effective communications channels to promote products and services (Rather & Camilleri, 2019; Sin Tan, Choy Chong, Lin & Uchenna, 2010), or they depended on traditional advertising and promotions. Alternatively, businesses may lack the digital competences and skills to engage with online prospects; or may not possess sufficient resources to engage with them through the digital media (Camilleri, 2019b; Brouthers, Nakos & Dimitratos, 2015).

This contribution addresses a knowledge gap in academic literature as it examines the corporate communications executives’ technology acceptance and their behavioral intentions to engage in interactive technologies. It adapted valid and reliable measures that explored the respondents’ pace of technological innovation, social influences, as well as their perceptions on the usefulness and the ease of use of digital media. Moreover, this study examined the participants’ intentions to engage with interactive technologies. It investigated whether the chosen constructs of our research model, were affected by the demographic variables, including age, gender and experiences. It shed light on the causal path that explains the rationale behind the utilization of digital media for interactive engagement with online users.

_________________________

The study adapted the constructs from the technology acceptance model and from the theory of planned behavior. In sum, it hypothesizes that the individuals’ pace of technological innovation, perceived usefulness, ease of use and social influences are the antecedents of their behavioral intention to use the digital media for interactive engagement with online users. Moreover, it presumes that the demographic variables, including age, gender and experience mediate these relationships, as illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1. A research model on the users’ interactive engagement with digital media

References

Brouthers, K. D., Nakos, G. & Dimitratos, P. (2015). SME entrepreneurial orientation, international performance, and the moderating role of strategic alliances. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice39(5), 1161-1187.

Camilleri, M. A. (2018a). The SMEs’ technology acceptance of digital media for stakeholder engagement. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 26(4), 504-521.

Camilleri, M. A. (2018b). The promotion of responsible tourism management through digital media. Tourism Planning & Development15(6), 653-671.

Camilleri, M. A. (2019a). Measuring the hoteliers’ interactive engagement through social media. In 14th European Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship (ECIE2019), University of Peloponnese, Kalamata, Greece.

Camilleri, M. A. (2019b). The online users’ perceptions toward electronic government services. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 18(2), 221-235.

Camilleri, M.A. (2020a). Strategic dialogic communication through digital media during COVID-19. In Camilleri, M.A. (Ed.), Strategic Corporate Communication in the Digital Age, Emerald, UK.

Capriotti, P., Zeler, I. & Camilleri, M.A. (2020). Corporate communication through social networks: The identification of key dimensions for dialogic communication. In Camilleri, M.A. (Ed.), Strategic Corporate Communication in the Digital Age, Emerald, UK.

Filieri, R. (2016). What makes an online consumer review trustworthy?. Annals of Tourism Research58, 46-64.

Hajarian, M., Camilleri, M.A.. Diaz, P & Aedo, I. (2020). A taxonomy of online marketing methods for corporate communication. In Camilleri, M.A. (Ed.), Strategic Corporate Communication in the Digital Age, Emerald, UK.

Harrigan, P. & Miles, M. (2014). From e-CRM to s-CRM. Critical factors underpinning the social CRM activities of SMEs. Small Enterprise Research21(1), 99-116.

Kaplan, A. M. & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media. Business Horizons53(1), 59-68.

Lamberton, C. & Stephen, A. T. (2016). A thematic exploration of digital, social media, and mobile marketing: Research evolution from 2000 to 2015 and an agenda for future inquiry. Journal of Marketing80(6), 146-172.

Rather, R. A., & Camilleri, M. A. (2019). The effects of service quality and consumer-brand value congruity on hospitality brand loyalty. Anatolia30(4), 547-559.

Rios Marques, I., Casais, B. & Camilleri, M.A. (2020). The effect of macro celebrity and micro influencer endorsements on consumer-brand engagement on Instagram. In Camilleri, M.A. (Ed.), Strategic Corporate Communication in the Digital Age, Emerald, UK.

Schultz, F., Utz, S. & Göritz, A. (2011). Is the medium the message? Perceptions of and reactions to crisis communication via twitter, blogs and traditional media. Public Relations Review37(1), 20-27

Sin Tan, K., Choy Chong, S., Lin, B. & Cyril Eze, U. (2010). Internet-based ICT adoption among SMEs: Demographic versus benefits, barriers, and adoption intention. Journal of Enterprise Information Management23(1), 27-55.

Taiminen, H. M. & Karjaluoto, H. (2015). The usage of digital marketing channels in SMEs. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development22(4), 633-651.

Leave a comment

Filed under corporate communication, digital media, internet technologies, internet technologies and society, Marketing, online, social media, Stakeholder Engagement

A useful book on corporate communications through digital media

This authoritative book features a broad spectrum of theoretical and empirical contributions on topics relating to corporate communications in the digital age. It is a premier reference source and a valuable teaching resource for course instructors of advanced, undergraduate and post graduate courses in marketing and communications. It comprises fourteen engaging and timely chapters that appeal to today’s academic researchers including doctoral candidates, postdoctoral researchers, early career academics, as well as seasoned researchers. All chapters include an abstract, an introduction, the main body with headings and subheadings, conclusions and research implications. They were written in a critical and discursive manner to entice the curiosity of their readers.

Photo by Headway on Unsplash

Chapter 1 provides a descriptive overview of different online technologies and presents the findings from a systematic review on corporate communication and digital media. Camilleri (2020) implies that institutions and organizations ought to be credible and trustworthy in their interactive, dialogic communications during day-to-day operations as well as in crisis situations, if they want to reinforce their legitimacy in society. Chapter 2 clarifies the importance of trust and belonging in individual and organizational relationships. Allen, Sven, Marwan and Arslan (2020) suggest that trust nurtures social interactions that can ultimately lead to significant improvements in corporate communication and other benefits for organizations. Chapter 3 identifies key dimensions for dialogic communication through social media. Capriotti, Zeler and Camilleri (2020) put forward a conceptual framework that clarifies how organizations can enhance their dialogic communications through interactive technologies. Chapter 4 explores the marketing communications managers’ interactive engagement with the digital media. Camilleri and Isaias (2020) suggest that the pace of technological innovation, perceived usefulness, ease of use of online technologies as well as social influences are significant antecedents for the businesses’ engagement with the digital media. Chapter 5 explains that the Balanced Scorecard’s (BSC) performance management tools can be used to support corporate communications practitioners in their stakeholder engagement. Oliveira, Martins, Camilleri and Jayantilal (2020) imply that practitioners can use BSC’s metrics to align their communication technologies, including big data analytics, with organizational strategy and performance management, in the digital era. Chapter 6 focuses on UK universities’ corporate communications through Twitter. Mogaji, Watat, Olaleye and Ukpabi (2020) find that British universities are increasingly using this medium to attract new students, to retain academic employees and to promote their activities and events. Chapter 7 investigates the use of mobile learning (m-learning) technologies for corporate training. Butler, Camilleri, Creed and Zutshi (2020) shed light on key contextual factors that can have an effect on the successful delivery of continuous professional development of employees through mobile technologies.

Chapter 8 evaluates the effects of influencer marketing on consumer-brand engagement on Instagram. Rios Marques, Casais and Camilleri (2020) identify two types of social media influencers. Chapter 9 explores in-store communications of large-scale retailers. Riboldazzi and Capriello (2020) use an omni-channel approach as they integrate traditional and digital media in their theoretical model for informative, in-store communications. Chapter 10 indicates that various corporations are utilizing different social media channels for different purposes. Troise and Camilleri (2020) contend that they are using them to promote their products or services and/or to convey commercial information to their stakeholders. Chapter 11 appraises the materiality of the corporations’ integrated disclosures of financial and non-financial performance. Rodríguez-Gutiérrez (2020) identifies the key determinants for the materiality of integrated reports.Chapter 12 describes various electronic marketing (emarketing) practices of micro, small and medium sized enterprises in India. Singh, Kumar and Kalia (2020) conclude that Indian owner-managers are not always engaging with their social media followers in a professional manner. Chapter 13 suggests that there is scope for small enterprises to use Web 2.0 technologies and associated social media applications for branding, advertising and corporate communication. Oni (2020) maintains that social media may be used as a marketing communications tool to attract customers and for internal communications with employees. Chapter 14 shed light on the online marketing tactics that are being used for corporate communication purposes. Hajarian, Camilleri, Diaz and Aedo (2020) outline different online channels including one-way and two-way communication technologies.

Endorsements

“Digital communications are increasingly central to the process of building trust, reputation and support.  It’s as true for companies selling products as it is for politicians canvasing for votes.  This book provides a framework for understanding and using online media and will be required reading for serious students of communication”.

Dr. Charles J. Fombrun, Former Professor at New York University, NYU-Stern School, Founder & Chairman Emeritus, Reputation Institute/The RepTrak Company.

“This book has addressed a current and relevant topic relating to an important aspect of digital transformation. Various chapters of this book provide valuable insights about a variety of issues relating to “Strategic Corporate Communication in the Digital Age”. The book will be a useful resource for both academics and practitioners engaged in marketing- and communications-related activities. I am delighted to endorse this valuable resource”.

Dr. Yogesh K. Dwivedi, Professor at the School of Management at Swansea University, UK and Editor-in-Chief of the International Journal of Information Management.

“This title covers a range of relevant issues and trends related to strategic corporate communication in an increasingly digital era. For example, not only does it address communication from a social media, balanced scorecard, and stakeholder engagement perspective, but it also integrates relevant contemporary insights related to SMEs and COVID-19. This is a must-read for any corporate communications professional or researcher”.

Dr. Linda Hollebeek, Associate Professor at Montpellier Business School, France and Tallinn University of Technology, Estonia.

“Corporate communication is changing rapidly, and digital media represent a tremendous opportunity for companies of all sizes to better achieve their communication goals. This book provides important insights into relevant trends and charts critical ways in which digital media can be used to their full potential” 

Dr. Ulrike Gretzel, Director of Research at Netnografica and Senior Fellow at the Center for Public Relations, University of Southern California, USA.

“This new book by Professor Mark Camilleri promises again valuable insights in corporate communication in the digital era with a special focus on Corporate Social Responsibility. The book sets a new standard in our thinking of responsibilities in our digital connected world”. 

Dr. Wim Elving, Professor at Hanze University of Applied Sciences, Groningen, The Netherlands. 

References

Allen, K.A. Sven, G.T., Marwan, S. & Arslan, G. (2020). Trust and belonging in individual and organizational relationships. In Camilleri, M.A. (Ed.), Strategic Corporate Communication in the Digital Age, Emerald, UK.

Butler, A. Camilleri, M.A., Creed, A. & Zutshi, A. (2020). The use of mobile learning technologies for corporate training and development: A contextual framework. In Camilleri, M.A. (Ed.), Strategic Corporate Communication in the Digital Age, Emerald, UK.

Camilleri, M.A. (2020). Strategic dialogic communication through digital media during COVID-19. In Camilleri, M.A. (Ed.), Strategic Corporate Communication in the Digital Age, Emerald, UK.

Camilleri, M.A. & Isaias, P. (2020). The businesses’ interactive engagement through digital media. In Camilleri, M.A. (Ed.), Strategic Corporate Communication in the Digital Age, Emerald, UK.

Capriotti, P., Zeler, I. & Camilleri, M.A. (2020). Corporate communication through social networks: The identification of key dimensions for dialogic communication. In Camilleri, M.A. (Ed.), Strategic Corporate Communication in the Digital Age, Emerald, UK.

Hajarian, M., Camilleri, M.A.. Diaz, P & Aedo, I. (2020). A taxonomy of online marketing methods for corporate communication. In Camilleri, M.A. (Ed.), Strategic Corporate Communication in the Digital Age, Emerald, UK.

Mogaji, E., Watat, J.K., Olaleye, S.A. & Ukpabi, D. (2020). Recruit, retain and report: UK universities’ strategic communication with stakeholders on Twitter. In Camilleri, M.A. (Ed.), Strategic Corporate Communication in the Digital Age, Emerald, UK.

Oliveira, C., Martins, A., Camilleri, M.A. & Jayantilal, S. (2020). Using the balanced scorecard for strategic communication and performance management. In Camilleri, M.A. (Ed.), Strategic Corporate Communication in the Digital Age, Emerald, UK.

Oni, O. (2020). Small and medium sized enterprises’ engagement with social media for corporate communication. In Camilleri, M.A. (Ed.), Strategic Corporate Communication in the Digital Age, Emerald, UK.

Riboldazzi, S. & Capriello, A. (2020). Large-scale retailers, digital media and in-store communications. In Camilleri, M.A. (Ed.), Strategic Corporate Communication in the Digital Age, Emerald, UK.

Rios Marques, I., Casais, B. & Camilleri, M.A. (2020). The effect of macro celebrity and micro influencer endorsements on consumer-brand engagement on Instagram. In Camilleri, M.A. (Ed.), Strategic Corporate Communication in the Digital Age, Emerald, UK.

Rodríguez-Gutiérrez, P. (2020). Corporate communication and integrated reporting: the materiality determination process and stakeholder engagement in Spain. In Camilleri, M.A. (Ed.), Strategic Corporate Communication in the Digital Age, Emerald, UK.

Singh, T., Kumar, R. & Kalia, P. (2020). E-marketing practices of micro, small and medium sized enterprises. Evidence from India. In Camilleri, M.A. (Ed.), Strategic Corporate Communication in the Digital Age, Emerald, UK.

Troise, C. & Camilleri, M.A. (2020). The use of the digital media for marketing, CSR communication and stakeholder engagement. In Camilleri, M.A. (Ed.), Strategic Corporate Communication in the Digital Age, Emerald, UK.

Leave a comment

Filed under Analytics, Big Data, Business, corporate communication, Corporate Social Responsibility, COVID19, CSR, digital media, Integrated Reporting, internet technologies, internet technologies and society, Marketing, Mobile, mobile learning, online, performance management, Small Business, SMEs, social media, Stakeholder Engagement, Sustainability, Web

The European Union’s circular economy plan for cleaner production and sustainable consumption of resources

This is an excerpt from my latest paper that was accepted for publication in Wiley’s Sustainable Development (impact factor: 4.082).

The circular economy strategy (EU, 2014)

This is an excerpt from my latest paper that was accepted for publication in Wiley’s Sustainable Development (impact factor: 4.082).

The EU’s (2020) plan is encouraging businesses as well as their consumers to engage in the circular economy’s sustainable production and consumption behaviors, and to use and reuse products, materials and resources. It is urging them to minimize their impact on the natural environment by reducing their waste and emissions.

The transition towards the circular economy can be facilitated if the EU national governments would create a favorable climate for stakeholder engagement. They can provide technical assistance, mobilize financial resources and facilitate positive impact investing in circular economy systems.

For instance, the European Green Deal Investment Plan (EIP) is currently supporting industry sectors relating to the provision of sustainable energy, energy efficiency, sustainable cities and sustainable agricultural practices, among other areas.

Various academic articles confirmed that practitioners will only be intrigued to engage in the circular economy if it adds value to them, in terms of the economic return on investment, process improvements and product benefits. The business case will motivate practitioners, creditors and investors to shift from unsustainable and irresponsible practices to the circular economy’s sustainable production and consumption behaviors.

Business and industry practitioners are perceiving that there are economic and environmental benefits if they adopt cleaner production systems and sustainable supply chains. Notwithstanding, there are various organizations, including non-profit organizations that are actively engaged in repairing, refurbishing, restoring and/or recycling materials.

On the other hand, this paper identified some of the possible challenges that could have an effect on the businesses’ engagement in the circular economy. The advancement toward the circular economic practices may still prove to be difficult and challenging for some industries.

For the time being, there are many practitioners that are opting to remain in their status quo as they still rely on linear economy models. In pragmatic terms, it may not be feasible for businesses in the mining and extraction industries and/or for those that manufacture products and components for textiles, plastics, electrical and electronic items, among others, to avoid using hazardous substances (as there are no sustainable options for them) or to reduce their externalities, including emissions and waste.

These industry sectors are still finding it hard to reuse and recycle materials or to dispose of their waste in a sustainable manner. For example, the construction and demolition industry will incur significant costs to sort, clean, repair and reutilize materials like scrapped steel, metals, tiles, cement, glass, et cetera.

The smaller business enterprises may not have access to adequate and sufficient financial resources to make green investments. They may not perceive the business case for the long term, sustainable investment, or they may not be interested in new technologies that will require them to implement certain behavioral changes.

There may be other challenges that could slow down or prevent the industry practitioners’ engagement in the circular economy strategies. The governments may not introduce hard legislation to trigger the corporations’ sustainable production and consumption behaviors as this could impact on the businesses’ prospects.

For these reasons, businesses may not mitigate their externalities, including their emissions or unwanted waste, as these responsible actions would require changing or upgrading the extant technologies or practices. Alternatively, they may face other contingent issues like weak economic incentives; access to finance; shortage of green technologies; and a lack of appropriate performance standards in their workplace environments, among other issues.

The EU needs to overcome these barriers. To do so, it requires the cooperation of all stakeholders including policy makers (of different member states), industry practitioners, consumers and non-government organizations, among others, to translate its policies into concrete action.

Conclusions and Recommendations

This review indicated that, in many cases, the European policies and strategies have led to a significant reduction in waste and externalities in different EU contexts. However, the Commission ought to accelerate the shift toward the circular economy ~ in the light of the significant changes in our natural environment and biospheres.

Relevant academic research reported that policy makers can possibly provide the right infrastructures, resources and capabilities in terms of logistics, supply, distribution, training, et cetera, to different businesses and industry practitioners. For instance, they can create clusters that would facilitate the circular economy’s closed loop systems. The development of clusters may result in less dispersed value chains, economies of scales and scope, as well as improved operational efficiencies in manufacturing and logistics.

How to Cite: Camilleri, M.A. (2021). European environment policy for the circular economy: Implications for business and industry stakeholders. Sustainable Development, https://doi.org/10.1002/SD.2113

Related papers:

Camilleri, M. A. (2019). The circular economy’s closed loop and product service systems for sustainable development: A review and appraisal. Sustainable Development27(3), 530-536. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/sd.1909

Camilleri, M. A. (2018). Closing the loop for resource efficiency, sustainable consumption and production: a critical review of the circular economy. International Journal of Sustainable Development21(1-4), 1-17. https://www.inderscienceonline.com/doi/abs/10.1504/IJSD.2018.100802

Leave a comment

Filed under Circular Economy, Sustainability, sustainable development

Top social media platforms

Image by Sara Kurfeß

Many online users have subscribed to different social media, including Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, Twitter and LinkedIn, among others for different reasons. Individuals and groups use them to publish their ideas in writing, images or videos. They also enable them to share hyperlinks to articles, pictures and videos. There are social media users who like to follow the updates of their friends, colleagues, acquaintances or individuals who share their interests. Very often, the news is broadcast through social networks and is disseminated in a viral manner through the social media users’ likes or shares before it is covered by the traditional media like television and newspapers. Online users may be intrigued to use the social media create their social network, or to join virtual communities. They may do so to connect with other individuals who shared their interests and values. Many online users have subscribed to different social media, including Facebook, Youtube, Instagram, Twitter and Linkedin, among others for different reasons.

Currently, Facebook has 2.45 billion users. Other popular social media networks include Instagram (1 billion users), Reddit (430 million users), Snapchat (360 million users), Twitter (330 million users), Pinterest (322 million users) and Linkedin (310 million users).

Individuals and groups use these social media to publish their ideas in writing, images or videos. They also enable them to share hyperlinks to articles, pictures and videos. There are social media users who like to follow the updates of their friends, colleagues, acquaintances or individuals who share their interests. Very often, the news is broadcast through social networks and is disseminated in a viral manner through the social media users’ likes or shares before it is covered by the traditional media like television and newspapers. Online users may be intrigued to use the social media create their social network, or to join virtual communities. They may do so to connect with other individuals who shared their interests or values.

Facebook is used by various organisations, including businesses to engage with its users. For example, different businesses are creating interactive pages and groups to disseminate information about their products and services. They utilise Facebook Messenger, or live videos to enhance their communications. Facebook is also used by academics to enhance the visibility of their publications and to raise awareness about the findings from their research. However, individuals use this medium to keep in touch with friends, colleagues, classmates, former classmates, former co-workers, and with other individuals who may share similar interests.

Like Facebook, other social media, including Twitter can be used to target large audiences and communities. Twitter is a platform that is based on topical content. Generally, its users are encouraged to use keywords and hashtags on particular topics, in particular locations. Twitter is restricted with a 280-character limit. Therefore, its subscribers have to post short, focused messages with relevant content that appeals to their followers. Moreover, they are expected to dedicate time to look after their account as they need to respond to their followers to avoid negative criticism. However, it allows direct, two-way communications among subscribers. Hence, it can be used to engage in interactive conversations with other users. Other digital networks include Instagram, Snapchat and Pinterest.  Instagram and Pinterest are focused on the dissemination of images and visual content. Like Instagram, Snapchat also features videos and user-generated content and may include influencer marketing material. On the other hand, Reddit appeals to more than 150,000 communities and niches, who share similar interests on various topics.

The usage of social media has radically influenced the style of communication and the dissemination of knowledge and information. Platforms can be personalised, self-managed and interconnected as they can blend written content with images, videos and hyperlinks. This disruptive innovation has led individuals from different demographic segments in society, to refine their digital and communication skills. It is obvious that social media has impacted our way of thinking, talking and even our social lives.

This is an excerpt from one of my latest working papers entitled; “The impact of social media and fake news on socio-political contexts”.

Leave a comment

Filed under digital media, internet technologies, internet technologies and society, Marketing, online, social media, Web

Call for Chapters: Consumer Engagement in Tourism and Hospitality (pre, during and post covid-19)

This academic book will be published by Goodfellow Publishers (Oxford, UK)

consumer interactive engagement in tourism and hospitality

Editors
Prof. Dr. Mark Anthony Camilleri
University of Malta, Malta.
Email: mark.a.camilleri@um.edu.mt

Dr. Rather Raouf
University of Jammu, India.

Prof. Dr. Dimitrios Buhalis
Bournemouth University, UK.

Important Dates
Abstract submission: 31st July 2020
Full chapters due: 31st January 2021
Final submission date: 15th March 2021

Introduction
The customer engagement concept has received lots of attention in different academic disciplines including: organisational behaviour (and employee engagement), psychology (and task engagement), sociology (and civic engagement) as well as in marketing (and branding) (Brodie, Hollebeek, Jurić, & Ilić, 2011; Chu & Kim, 2011; Taheri, Jafari, & O’Gorman, 2014; Buhalis & Foerste, 2015). In a similar vein, the tourism industry practitioners are also recognising the importance of customer engagement as they are increasingly delivering enjoyable, transformative activities that improve the customers’ experiences (Walls, Okumus, Wang, & Kwun, 2011; So, King & Sparks, 2014; Ali, Ryu & Hussain, 2016; Harrigan, Evers, Miles & Daly, 2017; Camilleri, 2019a, 2019b). The latest trends comprise the adaptation of new technologies, interactive service delivery and offerings, and service personalisation (e.g. Hollebeek, Shrivastava, & Chen, 2019; Rather & Camilleri, 2019; Rather, Hollebeek, Islam, 2019; Hollebeek & Rather, 2019).

In tourism research, there are different drivers, antecedents, and/or determinants of customer engagement (So et al., 2014). These may comprise: the customers’ perceptions of authenticity, prior knowledge, mood regulation, brand sincerity, cultural capital, perceived intimacy, and desire for social interaction, among others (Taheri et al., 2014; Ram, Björk & Weidenfeld, 2016; Camilleri, 2018; Liang, Choi & Joppe, 2018; Rather et al., 2019; Fan, Buhalis & Lin, 2019). Existing research has also indicated that there are positive consequences if tourism service providers or destination management organisations engage with their customers, including; loyalty, satisfaction, self-brand connection, co-creation, commitment, positive word-of-mouth and online reviews, as well as purchase intentions (Litvin, Goldsmith & Pan, 2008; Bilgihan, Okumus & Cobanoglu, 2013; Harrigan et al., 2017; Rasoolimanesh, Noor, Schuberth & Jaafar, 2019; Buhalis & Sinarta, 2019; Buhalis, Andreu & Gnoth, 2020). In recent years, there has been a growing focus on the topics of customer engagement and customer experience, as academics started to investigate how customer interact with the businesses through different marketing channels and touch-points (Walls et al., 2011; Lemon & Verhoef, 2016). These stimuli can have an effect on the customers’ purchase decision (Fang, Ye, Kucukusta & Law, 2016). Similarly, the tourism practitioners are using the digital media and mobile technologies to engage with customers to improve their experience (Sigala, Christou & Gretzel, 2012; Camilleri, 2018; Buhalis, 2020). For example, tourism service providers are increasingly using high-fidelity, interactive channels (e.g. virtual reality, social media, online and mobile booking systems) in an attempt to enhance their customers’ experience (Sigala et al., 2012).

However, despite the concepts of customer engagement and customer experience have received significant attention from the industry practitioners, there are gaps in academic knowledge, as there are still limited theoretical and empirical studies that have explored these topics in the tourism context, including; tourist destinations, airlines, cruises, tour operators, travel agencies, accommodation service providers, like hotels, Airbnb operators, timeshare, etc. Moreover, there are even fewer contributions that have explored the effect of the 2019-2020 corona virus pandemic (COVID19) on these sectors. The closure of the international borders as well as the latest travel ban and lock down conditions have inevitably led to grounded air planes, docked cruise ships, idle tour buses, shuttered tourism businesses and tourist attractions. This dramatic situation has resulted in a sudden downward spiral in international tourism arrivals and receipts. In this light, this timely publication will feature high impact research on consumer engagement within the tourism and hospitality: pre, during and post COVID-19.

Detailed Synopsis
This prospective title shall offer a thorough understanding about why there is scope for the tourism service providers and destination management organisations to successfully create, manage, and market tourism experiences. It will also provide theoretical and practical evidence of how, where and when they can seize the opportunities and address the challenges for effective consumer engagement in the tourism arena. Therefore, this book will include conceptual and empirical chapters covering the themes of Tourism Customer Engagement: Dimensions, Theories, and Frameworks; Tourism Customer Engagement: Key Antecedents and Consequences; Tourism Customer Experience: Theories, Structure and Frameworks; Customer Engagement in Evolving Technological Environments; Open innovation Technologies, Co-creation Experiences and Customer Engagement Approaches; and Emerging Issues. It is very likely that the tourism and hospitality businesses will be operating in the context of a “new normal” in a post COVID19 era. The editors are committed to enrich the existing body of academic literature on “Customer
Engagement and Experience in Tourism: pre, during and post COVID-19” by consolidating the marketing topics in the form of a comprehensive volume. Hence, this book will be accepting contributions that are related to the following themes:

• Customer Engagement in Tourism: Dimensionality, Theories and Frameworks
• Tourism engagement conceptualisations
• Dynamic framework of consumer engagement
• Dimensionality (cognitive, emotional, behavioural, and social dimensions) of consumer engagement)
• Typology of consumer engagement
• Employee engagement (emotional, cognitive and behavioural)
• Customer Engagement: Key Antecedents and Consequence
• Key antecedents and/or drivers of consumer engagement
• Customer engagement behaviours in tourism, travel and hospitality
• Key consequences of consumer engagement in tourism
• Tourist engagement and its impact on their satisfaction and behaviours
• Tourism Customer Experience: Theories and Conceptual Frameworks
• Conceptualisations of tourism experience
• Evolution of tourism experience research
• Dynamic framework of the tourist experience
• Key drivers of tourism experience
• Key consequences of tourism experience
• Cognitive, emotional, sensory, social and spiritual dimensions of customer experiences
• Role and measurement of emotions in tourism experiences
• Typology of tourism experience
• The essence of memorable experience
• Service employees and customer experience
• Tourism experiences in the light of global trends
• Issues and opportunities in customer journey mapping in tourism & hospitality experiences
• Open Innovation Technologies, Co-creation Experiences and Customer Engagement
• The role of technology in engagement and service experience
• Virtual reality, augmented reality in tourism engagement and experience
• Games and gamification in tourism, travel and hospitality
• Social media, online brand communities, and mobile applications in tourism engagement and experience
• Co-construction of the tourist engagement and experience in social networking sites
• Role of themes and stories about tourist engagement and experiences
• Role of customer touch points in smart tourism destinations and experiences.
• Open innovation and co-creation approaches
• Co-creation of tourism experience
• Key drivers of co-creation
• Key consequences of co-creation
• Co-creation through service dominant logic (SDL)
• Role of tourists and visitors in service experience for innovation
• Service innovation and value co-creation processes
Emerging Issues
• The socio-economic effects of COVID-19 on tourism and/or hospitality services
• Diversification of tourism and/or hospitality services during/after COVID-19
• The use of digital media during/after COVID-19
• The consumer engagement in a post COVID-19 era

Aims and Objectives
This academic book differentiates itself as it covers consumer engagement and experience in the realms of tourism, Moreover, it will include both theory and practical cases from around the globe.
• This academic book aims to explore and critically investigate the current debates, questions and controversies in the rapidly growing disciplines of Consumer Engagement and Experience in Tourism.
• It brings together leading specialists, including experienced academic researchers from various disciplinary backgrounds and geographical regions, to offer state-of-the-art theoretical reflection and empirical research on contemporary issues and debates in these timely topics.
• It also encourages constructive dialogue among academia across marketing-related fields of study.
• It will be international in its focus, as it transcends national boundaries.

Target Audience
• The book shall be a comprehensive reference point and source for academics who are interested on contemporary concepts, ideas and debates relating to consumer engagement and experience in tourism.
• The target audience of the book will be composed of experienced academic researchers, Ph.D. candidates, post-graduate researchers and advanced under-graduates in the field of consumer engagement, consumer experience and relationship marketing in various disciplines including tourism, hospitality, leisure, festivals and events.
• Furthermore, the book will offer good insights to prospective tourism industry practitioners including managers, executives and other employees who are willing to broaden their knowledge to better engage with consumers.

Submission Details
Academics and researchers are invited to submit a 300-word abstract before the 31st July 2020. Submissions should be sent to Mark.A.Camilleri@um.edu.mt. Authors will be notified about the editorial decision in August 2020. The accepted chapters should be submitted before the 31st January 2021. Their length should be around 7,000 words (excluding references, figures and tables). The manuscripts have to be typed double spaced in Times New Roman, font size 12, in an A4 paper. The contributions should feature the text, in the following sequence: title, abstract, keywords, introduction, literature review, methods, data analysis or interpretation of the findings, conclusions and implications, recommendations for future research, acknowledgements, references and a figure/table captions list in the same Word document. The references should be presented in APA style (Version 6). All submitted chapters will be
critically reviewed on a double-blind review basis. All authors will be requested to serve as reviewers for this book. They will receive a notification of acceptance, rejection or suggested modifications –before the 15th March 2021.

References
Ali, F., Ryu, K., & Hussain, K. (2016). Influence of experiences on memories, satisfaction and behavioral intentions: A study of creative tourism. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 33(1), 85-100.

Bilgihan, A., Okumus, F., & Cobanoglu, C. (2013). Generation Y travelers’ commitment to online social network websites. Tourism Management, 35, 13-22.

Brodie, R. J., Hollebeek, L. D., Jurić, B., & Ilić, A. (2011). Customer engagement: Conceptual domain, fundamental propositions, and implications for research. Journal of Service Research, 14(3), 252-271.

Buhalis, D. & Foerste, M. (2015). SoCoMo marketing for travel and tourism: Empowering co-creation of value. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 4(3), 151-161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2015.04.001

Buhalis, D. & Sinarta, Y. (2019). Real-time co-creation and nowness service: lessons from tourism and hospitality. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 36(5), 563-582. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2019.1592059

Fan, D., Buhalis, D. & Lin, B. (2019). A tourist typology of online and face-to-face social contact: Destination immersion and tourism encapsulation/decapsulation, Annals of Tourism Research, 78, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2019.102757

Buhalis, D. (2020), Technology in tourism-from information communication technologies to eTourism and smart tourism towards ambient intelligence tourism: a perspective article, Tourism Review 75(1), 267-272.

Buhalis D, Andreu L. & Gnoth J. (2020). The dark side of the sharing economy: Balancing value co‐creation and value co‐destruction. Psychology and Marketing. Vol. 37(5), pp.689–704..https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21344 or https://www.academia.edu/42133651

Camilleri, M.A. (2018). Travel marketing, tourism economics and the airline product. Cham: Springer.

Camilleri, M.A. (Ed.) (2019a). Tourism planning and destination marketing. Bingley: Emerald Publishing.

Camilleri, M. A. (Ed.). (2019b). The Branding of Tourist Destinations: Theoretical and Empirical Insights. Bingley: Emerald Publishing.

Chu, S. C., & Kim, Y. (2011). Determinants of consumer engagement in electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) in social networking sites. International journal of Advertising, 30(1), 47-75.

Fang, B., Ye, Q., Kucukusta, D., & Law, R. (2016). Analysis of the perceived value of online tourism reviews: Influence of readability and reviewer characteristics. Tourism Management, 52, 498-506.

Harrigan, P., Evers, U., Miles, M., & Daly, T. (2017). Customer engagement with tourism social media brands. Tourism Management, 59, 597-609.

Hollebeek, L. D., Srivastava, R. K., & Chen, T. (2019). SD logic–informed customer engagement: integrative framework, revised fundamental propositions, and application to CRM. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 47(1), 161-185.

Lemon, K. N., & Verhoef, P. C. (2016). Understanding customer experience throughout the customer journey. Journal of Marketing, 80(6), 69-96.

Litvin, S. W., Goldsmith, R. E., & Pan, B. (2008). Electronic word-of-mouth in hospitality and tourism management. Tourism Management, 29(3), 458-468.

Rasoolimanesh, S. M., Md Noor, S., Schuberth, F., & Jaafar, M. (2019). Investigating the effects of tourist engagement on satisfaction and loyalty. The Service Industries Journal, 39(7-8), 559- 574.

Ram, Y., Björk, P., & Weidenfeld, A. (2016). Authenticity and place attachment of major visitor attractions. Tourism Management, 52, 110-122.

Rather, R. A., & Camilleri, M. A. (2019a). The effects of service quality and consumer-brand value congruity on hospitality brand loyalty. Anatolia, 30(4), 547-559.

Rather, R. A., & Hollebeek, L. D. (2019). Exploring and validating social identification and social exchange-based drivers of hospitality customer loyalty. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management. 31(3), 1432-1451.

Rather, R. A., Hollebeek, L. D., & Islam, J. U. (2019). Tourism-based customer engagement: the construct, antecedents, and consequences. The Service Industries Journal, 39(7-8), 519-540.

Sigala, M., Christou, E., & Gretzel, U. (Eds.). (2012). Social media in travel, tourism and hospitality: Theory, practice and cases. Farnham, UK: Ashgate Publishing.

So, K. K. F., King, C., & Sparks, B. (2014). Customer engagement with tourism brands: Scale development and validation. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 38(3), 304-329.

Taheri, B., Jafari, A., & O’Gorman, K. (2014). Keeping your audience: Presenting a visitor engagement scale. Tourism Management, 42, 321-329.

Walls, A. R., Okumus, F., Wang, Y. R., & Kwun, D. J. W. (2011). An epistemological view of consumer experiences. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(1), 10-21.

Leave a comment

Filed under consumer brand identification, destination marketing, Hospitality, Marketing

Post-COVID19: The hoteliers’ shifts in beliefs, behaviours and their outlook for the future

The 2019-2020 coronavirus pandemic (COVID19) is currently having a devastating effect on the global economy at large. At the time, its impact is even more conspicuous in certain service industries including the travel and tourism sectors.

The closure of the international borders as well as the latest travel ban and lock down conditions have inevitably led to grounded air planes, docked cruise ships, idle tour buses, shuttered tourism businesses and tourist attractions. This dramatic situation has resulted in a sudden downward spiral in international arrivals and receipts in many tourist destinations.

The hospitality enterprises including hotels, bed and breakfasts, pubs, cafes, restaurants and the like, that are usually run by family businesses, are experiencing an unprecedented crisis unlike other entities in the private sector.

Currently, there is no demand for their services. COVID19 has changed some of the practitioners’ attitudes, policies and behaviours as they have adapted themselves to: enhance digital collaborations; engage with remote working technologies;  increase their workplace hygiene; and to find alternative sources of income by diversifying their services, among other issues. Hopefully, there will be better prospects for them when the current crisis ends. It is very likely that they will be operating in the context of a “new normal” in a post COVID19 era.

(This is an excerpt from my latest research project)

Leave a comment

Filed under Coronavirus, COVID19, Hospitality, Human Resources, human resources management, Market Research, Marketing

The Performance Management in Higher Education

This is an excerpt from my latest academic article, entitled; “Using the balanced scorecard as a performance management tool in higher education” that will be published in Sage’s “Management in Education” (Journal).


The higher education institutions (HEIs) are competing in a global marketplace, particularly those which are operating in the contexts of neoliberal policymaking (Fadeeva and Mochizuki, 2010; Deem et al., 2008; Olssen and Peters, 2005; Bleiklie, 2001). Several universities are characterized by their de-centralized leadership as they operate with budget constraints (Smeenk, Teelken, Eisinga and Doorewaard, 2008; Bleiklie, 2001). Notwithstanding, their stakeholders expect their increased accountability and quality assurance, in terms of their efficiency, economy and effectiveness (Witte and López-Torres, 2017; Smeek et al., 2008). Hence, HEIs set norms, standards, benchmarks, and quality controls to measure their performance; as they are increasingly market-led and customer-driven (Jauhiainen, Jauhiainen, Laiho and Lehto, 2015; Billing, 2004; Etzkowitz, et al., 2000). Specifically, the universities’ performance is having a positive effect on the economic development of societies; through the provision of inclusive, democratized access to quality education and high impact research (Arnesen & Lundahl, 2006). Moreover, the educational institutions are also expected to forge strong relationships with marketplace stakeholders, including business and industry (Waring, 2013).

As a result, many universities have adapted, or are trying to adapt to the changing environment as they re-structure their organization and put more emphasis on improving their organizational performance. These developments have inevitably led to the emergence of bureaucratic procedures and processes (Jauhiainen et al., 2015).  HEIs have even started using the corporate language as they formulate plans, set objectives, and use performance management criteria to control their resources (Smeenk et al., 2008; Ball, 2003). For instance, the Finnish universities have introduced new steering mechanisms, including the performance systems in budgeting, organizational reforms, management methods and salary systems (Camilleri, 2018; Jauhiainen et al., 2015). Previously, Welch (2007) noted that HEIs were adopting new modes of governance, organizational forms, management styles, and values that were prevalent in the private business sector. The logic behind these new managerial reforms was to improve the HEIs’ value for money principles (Waring, 2013; Deem, 1998). Therefore, the financing of HEIs is a crucial element in an imperfectly competitive, quasi-market model (Marginson, 2013; Olssen and Peters, 2005; Enders, 2004; Dill, 1997).

Academic commentators frequently suggest that the managerial strategies, structures, and values that belong to the ‘private sector’ are leading to significant improvements in the HEIs’ performance (Waring, 2013; Teelken, 2012; Deem and Brehony, 2005; Deem, 1998). On the other hand, critics argue that the ‘managerial’ universities are focusing on human resource management (HRM) practices that affect the quality of their employees’ job performance (Smeenk et al., 2008). Very often, HEIs are employing bureaucratic procedures involving time-consuming activities that could otherwise have been invested in research activities and / or to enhance teaching programs. The HEIs’ management agenda is actually imposed on the academics’ norms of conduct and on their professional behaviors. Therefore, the universities’ leadership can affect the employees’ autonomies as they are expected to comply with their employers’ requirements (Deem and Brehony, 2005). Smeenk et al. (2008) posited that this contentious issue may lead to perennial conflicts between the employees’ values and their university leaders’ managerial values; resulting in lower organizational commitment and reduced productivities.

The HEIs’ managerial model has led to a shift in the balance of power from the academics to their leaders as the universities have developed quality assurance systems to monitor and control their academic employees’ performance (Camilleri, 2018; Cardoso, Tavares and Sin, 2015). This trend towards managerialism can be perceived as a lack of trust in the academic community. However, the rationale behind managerialism is to foster a performative culture among members of staff, as universities need to respond to increased competitive pressures for resources, competences and capabilities (Decramer et al., 2013; Marginson, 2006; 2001; Enders, 2004). These issues have changed the HEIs’ academic cultures and norms in an unprecedented way (Chou and Chan, 2016; Marginson, 2013).

HEIs have resorted to the utilization of measures and key performance indicators to improve their global visibility. Their intention is to raise their institutions’ profile by using metrics that measure productivity. Many universities have developed their own performance measures or followed frameworks that monitor the productivity of academic members of staff (Taylor and Baines, 2012). Very often, their objective is to audit their academic employees’ work. However, their work cannot always be quantified and measured in objective performance evaluations. For instance, Waring (2013) argued that academic employees are expected to comply with their employers’ performance appraisals (PAs) and their form-filling exercises. The rationale behind the use of PAs is to measure the employees’ productivity in the form of quantifiable performance criteria. Hence, the PA is deemed as a vital element for the evaluation of the employees’ performance (Kivistö et al., 2017; Dilts et al., 1994). The PA can be used as part of a holistic performance management approach that measures the academics’ teaching, research and outreach. This performance management tool can possibly determine the employees’ retention, promotion, tenure as well as salary increments (Subbaye, 2018; Ramsden, 1991).

Therefore, PAs ought to be clear and fair. Their administration should involve consistent, rational procedures that make use of appropriate standards. The management’s evaluation of the employees’ performance should be based on tangible evidence. In a similar vein, the employees need to be informed of what is expected from them (Dilts et al., 1994). They should also be knowledgeable about due processes for appeal arising from adverse evaluations, as well as on grievance procedures, if any (Author, 2018). In recent years; the value of the annual performance appraisals (PAs) has increasingly been challenged in favor of more regular ‘performance conversations’ (Aguinis, 2013; Herdlein, Kukemelk and Türk, 2008). Therefore, regular performance feedback or the frequent appraisal of employees still remain a crucial aspect of the performance management cycle. Pace (2015) reported that the PA was used to develop the employees’ skills, rather than for administrative decisions. In a similar vein, the University of Texas (2019) HR page suggests that the appraisers’ role is “to set expectations, gather data, and provide ongoing feedback to employees, to assist them in utilizing their skills, expertise and ideas in a way that produces results”. However, a thorough literature review suggests that there are diverging views among academia and practitioners on the role of the annual PA, the form it should take, and on its effectiveness in the realms of higher education (Herdlein et al., 2008; DeNisi and Pritchard, 2006).

The Performance Management Frameworks

The HEIs’ evaluative systems may include an analysis of the respective universities’ stated intentions, peer opinions, government norms and comparisons, primary procedures from ‘self-evaluation’ through external peer review. These metrics can be drawn from published indicators and ratings, among other frameworks (Billing, 2004).  Their performance evaluations can be either internally or externally driven (Cappiello and Pedrini, 2017). The internally driven appraisal systems put more emphasis on self-evaluation and self-regulatory activities (Baxter, 2017; Bednall, Sanders and Runhaar, 2014; Dilts et al., 1994). Alternatively, the externally driven evaluative frameworks may involve appraisal interviews that assess the quality of the employees’ performance in relation to pre-established criteria (DeNisi and Pritchard, 2006; Cederblom, 1982).

Many countries, including the European Union (EU) states have passed relevant legislation, regulatory standards and guidelines for the HEIs’ quality assurance (Baxter, 2017), and for the performance evaluations of their members of staff (Kohoutek et al., 2018; Cardoso et al., 2015; Bleiklie, 2001). Of course, the academic employees’ performance is usually evaluated against their employers’ priorities, commitments, and aims; by using relevant international benchmarks and targets (Lo, 2009). The academics are usually appraised on their research impact, teaching activities and outreach (QS Ranking, 2019; THE, 2019). Their academic services, including their teaching resources, administrative support, and research output all serve as performance indicators that can contribute to the reputation and standing of the HEI that employs them (Geuna and Martin, 2003).

Notwithstanding, several universities have restructured their faculties and departments to enhance their research capabilities. Their intention is to improve their institutional performance in global rankings (Lo, 2014). Therefore, HEIs recruit academics who are prolific authors that publish high-impact research with numerous citations in peer reviewed journals (Wood and Salt, 2018; Author, 2018). They may prefer researchers with scientific or quantitative backgrounds, regardless of their teaching experience (Chou and Chan, 2016). These universities are prioritizing research and promoting their academics’ publications to the detriment of university teaching. Thus, the academics’ contributions in key international journals is the predominant criterion that is used to judge the quality of academia (Billing, 2004). For this reason, the vast majority of scholars are using the English language as a vehicle to publish their research in reputable, high impact journals (Chou and Chan, 2016). Hence, the quantity and quality of their research ought to be evaluated through a number of criteria (Lo, 2014; 2011; Dill and Soo, 2005).

University ranking sites, including (THE) and the QS Rankings, among others, use performance indicators to classify and measure the quality and status of HEIs. This would involve the gathering and analysis of survey data from academic stakeholders. THE and QS, among others clearly define the measures, their relative weight, and the processes by which the quantitative data is collected (Dill and Soo, 2005). The Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) relies on publication-focused indicators as 60 percent of its weighting is assigned to the respective university’s research output. Therefore, these university ranking exercises are surely affecting the policies, cultures and behaviors of HEIs and of their academics (Wood and Salt, 2018; De Cramer et al., 2013; Lo, 2013).  For instance, the performance indicators directly encourage the recruitment of international faculty and students. Other examples of quantitative metrics include the students’ enrolment ratios, graduate rates, student drop-out rates, the students’ continuation of studies at the next academic level, and the employability index of graduates, among others. Moreover, qualitative indicators can also provide insightful data on the students’ opinions and perceptions about their learning environment. The HEIs could evaluate the students’ satisfaction with teaching; satisfaction with research opportunities and training; perceptions of international and public engagement opportunities; ease of taking courses across boundaries, and may also determine whether there are administrative / bureaucratic barriers for them (Kivistö et al., 2017; Jauhiainen et al., 2015; Ramsden, 1991). Hence, HEIs ought to continuously re-examine their strategic priorities and initiatives. It is in their interest to regularly analyze their performance management frameworks through financial and non-financial indicators, in order to assess the productivity of their human resources. Therefore, they should regularly review educational programs and course curricula (Kohoutek et al., 2018; Brewer and Brewer, 2010). On a faculty level, the university leaders ought to keep a track record of changes in the size of departments; age and distribution of academic employees; diversity of students and staff, in terms of gender, race and ethnicity, et cetera. In addition, faculties could examine discipline-specific rankings; and determine the expenditures per academic member of staff, among other options (Author, 2018).

The balanced scorecard

The balanced scorecard (BSC) was first introduced by Kaplan and Norton (1992) in their highly cited article, entitled “The Balanced Scorecard: Measures that Drive Performance”. BSC is an integrated results-oriented, performance management tool, consisting of financial and non-financial measures that link the organizations’ mission, core values, and vision for the future with strategies, targets, and initiatives that are designed to bring continuous improvements (Taylor and Baines, 2012; Wu, Lin and Chang, 2011; Beard, 2009; Umashankar and Dutta, 2007; Cullen, Joyce, Hassall and Broadbent, 2003; Kaplan and Norton, 1992). Its four performance indicators play an important role in translating strategy into action; and can be utilized to evaluate the performance of HEIs. BSC provides a balanced performance management system as it comprises a set of performance indices that can assess different organizational perspectives (Taylor and Baines, 2012). For BSC, the financial perspective is a core performance measure. However, the other three perspectives namely: customer (or stakeholder), organizational capacity and internal process ought to be considered in the performance evaluations of HEIs, as reported in the following table:

BSC Higher Education

The balanced scorecard approach in higher education

Cullen et al. (2003) suggested that the UK’s Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), the Scottish Funding Council (SHEFC), the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales (HEFCW), as well as the Department for Employment and Learning (DELNI) have incorporated the BSC’s targets in their Research Excellence Framework. Furthermore, other HEI targets, including: the students’ completion rates, the research impact of universities, collaborative partnerships with business and industry, among others, are key metrics that are increasingly being used in international benchmarking exercises, like the European Quality Improvement System (EQUIS), among others. Moreover, BSC can be used to measure the academic employees’ commitment towards their employer (Umashankar and Dutta, 2007; McKenzie, and Schweitzer, 2001). Notwithstanding, Wu, Lin and Chang (2011) contended that the BSC’s ‘‘organizational capacity’’ is related to the employee development, innovation and learning. Hence the measurement of the HEIs’ intangible assets, including their intellectual capital is affected by other perspectives, including the financial one (Taylor and Baines, 2012). This table summarizes some of the strengths and weaknesses of the balanced scorecard.

BSC

BSC is widely used to appraise the financial and non-financial performance of businesses and public service organizations including HEIs. Many HEI leaders are increasingly following business-like approaches as they are expected to operate in a quasi-market environment (Marginson, 2013). They need to scan their macro environment to be knowledgeable about the opportunities and threats from the political, economic, social and technological factors. Moreover, they have to regularly analyze their microenvironment by evaluating their strengths and weaknesses.  Hence, several HEIs are increasingly appraising their employees as they assess their performance on a regular basis. They may even decide to take remedial actions when necessary.  Therefore, BSC can also be employed by HEIs to improve their academic employees’ productivity levels (Marginson, 2013; 2000).


A pre-publication version of the full article is available through ResearchGate and Academia.edu.

Leave a comment

Filed under academia, Balanced Scorecard, Education, Education Leadership, Higher Education, Human Resources, human resources management, performance appraisals, performance management, University Ranking, webometrics

The market for socially responsible investing

This is an excerpt from my latest paper, entitled: “The market for socially responsible investing: A review of the developments”. 

How to Cite: Camilleri, M.A. (2020). The market for socially responsible investing: A review of the developments. Social Responsibility Journal. DOI. 10.1108/SRJ-06-2019-0194.


There are various ratings and reference indices that are utilized by investors to evaluate financial and SRI portfolios (Scalet and Kelly, 2010). Typically, the SRI indices constitute a relevant proxy as they evaluate the ESG performance of listed businesses (Joliet and Titova, 2018; Le Sourd, 2011). A large number of SR contractors, analysts and research firms are increasingly specializing in the collection of ESG information as they perform ongoing analyses of corporate behaviors (Dumas and Louche, 2016). Many of them maintain a database and use it to provide their clients with a thorough ESG analysis (including proxy advice), benchmarks and engagement strategies of corporations. They publish directories of ethical and SRI funds, as they outline their investment strategies, screening criteria, and voting policies (Leite and Cortez, 2014). In a sense, these data providers support the responsible investors in their selection of funds.

 

SRI Indices, Ratings and Information Providers

KLD / Jantzi Global Environmental Index, Jantzi Research, Ethical Investment Research Service (Vigeo EIRIS) and Innovest (among others) analyze the corporations’ socially responsible and environmentally-sound behaviors as reported in Table 1. Some of their indices (to name a few) shed light about the impact of products (e.g. resource use, waste), the production processes (e.g. logging, pesticides), or proactive corporate activities (e.g. clean energy, recycling). Similarly, social issues are also a common category for these contractors. In the main, the SRI indices benchmark different types of firms hailing from diverse industries and sectors. They adjust their weighting for specific screening criteria as they choose which firms to include (or exclude) from their indices (Leite and Cortez, 2014; Scalet and Kelly, 2010). One of the oldest SRI indices for CSR and Sustainability ratings is the Dow Jones Sustainability Index. The companies that are featured in the Dow Jones Indices are analyzed by the Sustainable Asset Management (SAM) Group (i.e. a Swiss asset management company). Another popular SRI index is FTSE Russell’s KLD’s Domini 400 Social Index (also known as the KLD400) which partners with the Financial Times on a range of issues. Similarly, the Financial Times partners with an ESG research firm (i.e. EIRES) to construct its FTSE4 Good Index series. Smaller FTSE Responsible Investment Indices include the Catholic Values Index, the Calvert Social Index, the FTSE4Good indices, and the Dow Jones family of SRI Indices, among others. The KLD400 index screens the companies’ performance on a set of ESG criteria. It eliminates those companies that are involved in non-eligible industries. Impax, a specialist finance house (that focuses on the markets for cleaner or more efficient delivery of basic services of energy, water and waste) also maintain a group of FTSE Indices that are related to environmental technologies and business activities (FTSE Environment Technology and Environmental Opportunities). The Catholic Values Index uses the US Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Socially Responsible Investment Guidelines (i.e. positive screening approach) to scrutinize eligible companies (e.g., corporations with generous wage and benefit policies, or those who create environmentally beneficial technologies). This index could also exclude certain businesses trading in “irresponsible” activities. listed businesses according to their social audit of four criteria: the company’s products, their impact on the environment, labor relations, and community relations. The latter “community relations” variable includes issues such as the treatment of indigenous people, provision of local credit, operations of overseas subsidiaries, and the like. The responsible companies are then featured in the Index when and if they meet Calvert’s criteria. This index also maintains a target economic sector weighting scheme. Other smaller indices include; Ethibel Sustainability Index for Belgian (and other European) companies and OMX GES Ethical Index for Scandinavian companies, among others.

 

Table 1. Screenings of Responsible Investments

Positive Screens Negative Screens
Community Investment Alcohol
Employment / Equality Animal Testing
Environment Defence / Weapons
Human Rights Gambling
Labour Relations Tobacco
Proxy Voting

 

Generally, these SRI indices are considered as investment benchmarks. In a nutshell, SRI Indices have spawned a range of products, including index mutual funds, ETFs, and structured products (Riedl and Smeets, 2017). A wide array of SRI mutual funds regularly evaluate target companies and manage their investment portfolios. Therefore, they are expected to consider other important criteria such as risk and return targets (Trinks et al., 2018; Leite and Cortez, 2015; Humphrey and Lee, 2011). For instance, iShares lists two ETFs based on the KLD Index funds, and the Domini itself offers a number of actively managed mutual funds based on both ESG and community development issues (such as impact investments). In addition, there are research and ratings vendors who also manage a series of mutual funds, including Calvert and Domini (Scalet and Kelly, 2010).

 

Discussion

The SRI indices serve as a ‘seal of approval’ function for the responsible businesses that want to prove their positive impact investment credentials to their stakeholders. Currently, there are many factors that may be contributing for the growth of SRI:

 

Firstly, one of the most important factors for the proliferation of SRI is the access to information. Today’s investors are increasingly using technologies, including mobile devices and their related applications to keep them up to date on the most recent developments in business and society. Certain apps inform investors on the latest movements in the financial markets, in real-time. Notwithstanding, the SRI contractors are providing much higher quality data than ever before. As a result, all investors are in a position to take informed decisions that are based on evidence and research. Investors and analysts use “extra-financial information” to help them analyze investment decisions (GRI, 2019; Diouf and Boiral, 2017). This “extra-financial information” includes ESG disclosures on non-financial issues (Brooks and Oikonomou, 2018). These sources of information will encourage many businesses and enterprises to report on their responsible and sustainable practices (Diouf and Boiral, 2017). The companies’ integrated thinking could be a precursor for their integrated reporting (Camilleri, 2018; 2017b; GRI, 2019). Business can use integrated disclosures, where they provide details on their financial as well as on their non-financial information for the benefit of prospective investors and analysts, among other stakeholders.

 

Secondly, the gender equality issue has inevitably led to some of the most significant developments in the financial services industry. Nowadays, there are more emancipated women who are in employment, who are gainfully occupied as they are actively contributing in the labor market. Many women are completing higher educational programs and attaining relevant qualifications including MBA programs. Very often, these women move their way up the career ladder with large organizations. They may even become members on boards of directors and assume fiduciary duties and responsibilities. Other women are becoming entrepreneurs as they start their own business. During the last decades, an increased equality in the developed economies has led to SRI’s prolific growth. As a result, women are no longer the only the beneficiaries of social finance, as they are building a complete ecosystem of social investing (Maretick, 2015). “By 2020 women are expected to hold $72trn, 32% of the total. Most of the private wealth that changes hands in the coming decades is likely to go to women (The Economist, 2018). This wave of wealth is set to land in the laps of female investors who have shown positive attitudes toward social investing, when compared to their male counterparts. Maretick (2015) reported that half of the wealthiest women expressed an interest in social and environmental investing when compared to one-third of the wealthy men.

 

Thirdly, today’s investors are increasingly diversifying their portfolio of financial products. The default investment is the market portfolio, which is a value-weighted portfolio of all investable securities (Trinks and Scholtens, 2017). A growing body of evidence suggests that many investors do not necessarily have to sacrifice performance when they invest in socially responsible or environmentally sustainable assets. A relevant literature review denied the contention that social screening could result in corporate underperformance (Trinks and Scholtens, 2017; Lobe and Walkshäusl, 2011; Salaber 2013). Investors have realized that strategic corporate responsibility is congruent with prosperity (Porter and Kramer, 2011; Schueth, 2003). In fact, today’s major asset classes including global, international, domestic equity, balanced and fixed-income categories also comprise top-performing socially responsible mutual funds (Riedl and Smeets, 2017). Therefore, various financial products are reflecting the investors’ values and beliefs (Fritz and von Schnurbein, 2019). Consequentially, the broad range of competitive socially responsible investment options have resulted in diverse, well-balanced portfolios. In the U.S. and in other western economies, top-performing SRI funds can be found in all major asset classes. More and more investors are realizing that they can add value to their portfolios whilst supporting socially and environmental causes.

 

Fourthly, there are economic justifications for the existence of mutual funds in diversified portfolios. Although SRI funds are rated well above average performers no matter which ranking process one prefers to use (Scalet and Kelly, 2010; Schueth, 2003), other literature suggests that there are situations where the positive or negative screens did not add nor destroy the financial products’ portfolio value (Auer, 2016; Trinks and Scholtens, 2017; Hofmann et al., 2009). This matter can result in having mixed investments where there are SRI products that are marketed with other financial portfolios.

Currently, the financial industry is witnessing a consumer-driven phenomenon as there is a surge in demand for social investments. This paper mentioned a number of organizations that have developed indices to measure the organizational behaviors and their laudable practices. Very often, their metrics rely on positive or negative screens that are used to define socially responsible and sustainable investments (Leite and Cortez, 2014; Hofmann et al., 2009). However, despite these developments, the balanced investors are still investing their portfolio in different industries. As a result, they may be putting their money to support controversial businesses. Perhaps, in the future there could be alternative screening methods in addition to the extant inclusionary and exclusionary approaches. Several corporations are willingly disclosing their integrated reporting of financial and non-financial performance; as stakeholders including investors, demand a higher degree of accountability and transparency from them (Diouf and Boiral, 2017). As a result, a growing number of firms, are recognizing the business case for integrated thinking that incorporates financial and strategic corporate responsible behaviors. They can support the community through positive impact investments by allocating funds to reduce their externalities in society. Alternatively, they may facilitate shareholder activism and advocacy, among other actions (Viviers and Eccles, 2012). In sum, the responsible businesses’ stakeholder engagement as well as their sustainable investments can help them improve their bottom lines, whilst addressing their societal and community deficits.

 

References (This is a list of all the references that appeared in the full paper)

Aras, G. and Crowther, D. (2007), “What level of trust is needed for sustainability?”, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 60-68.

Aras, G. and Crowther, D. (2009), “Corporate sustainability reporting: a study in disingenuity?”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 87, No. 1, pp. 279-288.

Auer, B.R., (2016). “Do Socially Responsible Investment Policies Add or Destroy European Stock Portfolio Value?”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 135, No. 2, pp. 381-397.

Barber, R. (1982), “Pension Funds in the United States Issues of Investment and Control”, Economic and Industrial Democracy, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 31-73.

Becchetti, L., Ciciretti, R., Dalò, A. and Herzel, S. (2015), “Socially responsible and conventional investment funds: performance comparison and the global financial crisis”, Applied Economics, Vol. 47 No. 25, pp. 2541-2562.

Bengtsson, E. (2008a), “Socially responsible investing in Scandinavia–a comparative analysis”, Sustainable Development, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 155-168.

Bengtsson, E. (2008b), “A history of Scandinavian socially responsible investing”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 82, No. 4, pp. 969-983.

Benijts, T. (2010), “A framework for comparing socially responsible investment markets: an analysis of the Dutch and Belgian retail markets”, Business Ethics: A European Review, Vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 50-63.

Berger, A. N., Demsetz, R. S. and Strahan, P. E. (1999), “The consolidation of the financial services industry: Causes, consequences, and implications for the future”, Journal of Banking & Finance, Vol. 23, Nos. (2-4), pp. 135-194.

Berry, T. C. and Junkus, J. C. (2013), “Socially responsible investing: An investor perspective”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 112, No. 4, pp. 707-720.

Bilbao-Terol, A., Arenas-Parra, M., Cañal-Fernández, V. and Bilbao-Terol, C. (2013), “Selection of socially responsible portfolios using hedonic prices”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 115, No. 3, pp. 515-529.

Brooks, C. and Oikonomou, I. (2018), “The effects of environmental, social and governance disclosures and performance on firm value: A review of the literature in accounting and finance”, The British Accounting Review, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 1-15.

Brundtland, G. H. (1989), “Global change and our common future”, Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, Vol. 31, No. 5, pp. 16-43.

Bugg-Levine, A. and Emerson, J. (2011), “Impact investing: Transforming how we make money while making a difference”, Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 9-18.

Busch, T., Bauer, R. and Orlitzky, M. (2016), “Sustainable development and financial markets: Old paths and new avenues”, Business and Society, Vol. 55, No. 3, pp. 303-329.

Camilleri, M. A. (2015a), “Valuing stakeholder engagement and sustainability reporting”, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 210-222.

Camilleri, M. A. (2015b), “Environmental, social and governance disclosures in Europe”, Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 224-242.

Camilleri, M. A. (2017a), “Measuring the corporate managers’ attitudes towards ISO’s social responsibility standard”, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, pp. 1-13 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14783363.2017.1413344 (Accessed 14 August 2019).

Camilleri, M.A. (2017b), “The integrated reporting of financial, social and sustainability capitals: a critical review and appraisal”,  International Journal of Sustainable Society, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 311 – 326

Camilleri, M. A. (2018), “Theoretical insights on integrated reporting: The inclusion of non-financial capitals in corporate disclosures”, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 567-581.

Camilleri, M. A. (2019), “The circular economy’s closed loop and product service systems for sustainable development: A review and appraisal”, Sustainable Development, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 530-536.

Capelle‐Blancard, G. and Monjon, S. (2012), “Trends in the literature on socially responsible investment: looking for the keys under the lamppost”, Business Ethics: A European Review, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 239-250.

Carroll, A. B. (1999), “Corporate social responsibility evolution of a definitional construct”, Business and Society, Vol. 38, No. 3, pp. 268-295.

CDFA (2005), “Inside Out: The State of Community Development Finance”, CDFA, London, UK.

Charmaz, K. and Belgrave, L. L. (2007), “Grounded theory”. The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology. Wiley, Hoboken, New Jersey, USA.

Colgate, M. and Lang, B. (2001), “Switching barriers in consumer markets: an investigation of the financial services industry”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 332-347.

Crifo, P. and Mottis, N. (2016), “Socially responsible investment in France”, Business and Society, Vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 576-593.

Diouf, D. and Boiral, O. (2017), “The quality of sustainability reports and impression management: A stakeholder perspective”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 643-667.

Dumas, C. and Louche, C. (2016), “Collective beliefs on responsible investment”, Business and Society, Vol. 55, No. 3, pp. 427-457.

Durand, R. B., Koh, S. and Limkriangkrai, M. (2013a), “Saints versus Sinners. Does morality matter? Journal of International Financial Markets”, Institutions and Money, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 166–183

Eichholtz, P., Kok N. and Quigley, J. M. (2010), “Doing well by doing good? Green office buildings”, American Economic Review, Vol. 100, No. 5, pp. 2492-2509.

Emmelhainz, M. A. and Adams, R. J. (1999), “The apparel industry response to “sweatshop” concerns: A review and analysis of codes of conduct”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 51-57.

Entine, J. (2003), “The myth of social investing: A critique of its practice and consequences for corporate social performance research”, Organization and Environment, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 352-368.

Epstein, M. J. (2018), “Making sustainability work: Best practices in managing and measuring corporate social, environmental and economic impacts”, Routledge, Oxford, UK.

EUROSIF (2019), “SDGs for SRI Investors”, http://www.eurosif.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Eurosif-SDGs-brochure.pdf (Accessed 14 August 2019).

Fabozzi, F. J., Ma, K. C. and Oliphant, B. J. (2008), “Sin stock returns”, The Journal of Portfolio Management, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 82–94.

Freireich, J. and Fulton, K. (2009), “Investing for social and environmental impact: A design for catalyzing an emerging industry”, Monitor Institute, pp. 1-86.

Friedman, A. L. and Miles, S. (2001), “Socially responsible investment and corporate social and environmental reporting in the UK: An exploratory study”, The British Accounting Review, Vol. 33, No. 4, pp. 523-548.

Friedman, M. (2007), “The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits”, In Corporate ethics and corporate governance, (pp. 173-178), Springer, Berlin, Germany.

Fritz, T. M. and von Schnurbein, G. (2019), “Beyond Socially Responsible Investing: Effects of Mission-Driven Portfolio Selection”, Sustainability, Vol. 11, No. 23, pp. 6812-6827.

Garriga, E. and Melé, D. (2004), “Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 53, Nos. 1-2, pp. 51-71.

Giamporcaro, S. and Gond, J. P. (2016). “Calculability as politics in the construction of markets: The case of socially responsible investment in France”, Organization Studies, Vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 465-495.

Global Footprint Network (2019), “Do we fit on the planet?”, (http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/world_footprint/ (Accessed 10 August 2019).

GRI (2019), “Linking GRI standards and the EU directive on non-financial and diversity disclosure”, https://www.globalreporting.org/standards/resource-download-center/linking-gri-standards-and-european-directive-on-non-financial-and-diversity-disclosure/ (Accessed 16 August 2019)

Ghoul, W. and Karam, P. (2007), “MRI and SRI mutual funds: A comparison of Christian, Islamic (morally responsible investing), and socially responsible investing (SRI) mutual funds”, Journal of Investing, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 96-102.

Gillan, S. L. and Starks, L. T. (2000), “Corporate governance proposals and shareholder activism: The role of institutional investors”, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 57, No. 2, pp. 275-305.

Glaser, B. and Strauss, A. (1967). “Grounded theory: The discovery of grounded theory”, Sociology: The Journal of the British Sociological Association, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 27-49.

Guay, T., Doh, J.P. and Sinclair, G. (2004), “Non-governmental organizations, shareholder activism, and socially responsible investments: Ethical, strategic, and governance implications”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 52, No. 1, pp. 125-139.

Hellsten, S. and Mallin, C. (2006), “Are ‘ethical’or ‘socially responsible’investments socially responsible?”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 66, No. 4, pp. 393-406.

Hofmann, E., Penz, E. and Kirchler, E. (2009), “The ‘Whys’ and ‘Hows’ of ethical investment: Understanding an early-stage market through an explorative approach”, Journal of Financial Services Marketing, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 102-117.

Hong, H. and Kacperczyk, M. (2009), “The price of sin: The effects of social norms on markets”, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 93, No. 1, pp. 15-36.

Hsieh, H.F. and Shannon, S.E. (2005), “Three approaches to qualitative content analysis”, Qualitative Health Research, Vol. 15, No. 9, pp. 1277-1288.

Humphrey, J.E. and Lee, D.D. (2011), “Australian socially responsible funds: Performance, risk and screening intensity”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 102, No. 4, pp. 519-535.

Humphrey, J. E. and Tan, D. T. (2014), “Does it really hurt to be responsible?”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 122, No. 3, pp. 375–386.

Humphrey, J. E., Warren, G. J. and Boon, J. (2016), “What is different about socially responsible funds? A holdings-based analysis”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 138, No. 2, pp. 263-277.

Jackson, J. (2009), “How risky are sustainable real estate projects? An evaluation of LEED and ENERGY STAR development options”, Journal of Sustainable Real Estate, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 91-106.

Jackson, E. T. (2013), “Interrogating the theory of change: evaluating impact investing where it matters most”, Journal of Sustainable Finance and Investment, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 95-110.

Joliet, R. and Titova, Y. (2018), “Equity SRI funds vacillate between ethics and money: An analysis of the funds’ stock holding decisions”, Journal of Banking & Finance, Vol. 97, pp. 70-86.

Kempf, A. and Osthoff, P. (2007), “The effect of socially responsible investing on portfolio performance”, European Financial Management, Vol. 13, No 5, pp. 908-922.

Krumsiek, B. J. (1997), “The emergence of a new era in mutual fund investing: Socially responsible investing comes of age”, The Journal of Investing, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 25-30.

Lane, M.J. (2015), “The Mission-Driven Venture: Business Solutions to the World’s Most Vexing Social Problems”, Wiley, Hoboken New Jersey, USA.

Leite, P. and Cortez, M.C. (2014), “Style and performance of international socially responsible funds in Europe”, Research in International Business and Finance, Vol. 30, pp. 248-267.

Leite, P. and Cortez, M.C. (2015), “Performance of European socially responsible funds during market crises: Evidence from France”, International Review of Financial Analysis, Vol. 40, pp. 132-141

Le Sourd, V. (2011), “Performance of socially responsible investment funds against an efficient SRI index: The impact of benchmark choice when evaluating active managers”, EDHEC-Risk and Asset Management Research Centre, Nice, France.

Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E.A. (1985), “Naturalistic Inquiry”, Sage,  Beverly Hills, CA, USA.

Logue, A.C. (2009), “Socially Responsible Investing for Dummies”, John Wiley and Sons, Indianapolis, IN, USA.

Lydenberg, S. D. (2002), “Envisioning socially responsible investing”, Journal of Corporate Citizenship, Vol. 7, pp. 57-77.

Majoch, A. A., Hoepner, A. G., and Hebb, T. (2017), “Sources of stakeholder salience in the responsible investment movement: why do investors sign the principles for responsible investment?”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 140, No. 4, pp. 723-741.

Mair J. and Milligan K. (2012), “Q and A roundtable on impact investing”, Stanford Social Innovation Review, http://ssir.org/articles/entry/qa_roundtable_on_impact_investing (Accessed 20 August, 2019).

Maretick, M. (2015), “Women Rule: Why the Future of Social, Sustainable and Impact Investing is in Female Hands”, TriplePundit. http://www.triplepundit.com/2015/04/womenrule-future-social-sustainable-impact-investing-female-hands/# (Accessed 02 September 2019)

Martí-Ballester, C. P. (2015), “Investor reactions to socially responsible investment”, Management Decision, Vol. 53, No. 3, pp. 571-604.

Matten, D. and Moon, J. (2008). “Implicit and explicit CSR: a conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 404-424.

McCann, L., Solomon, A. and Solomon, J. (2003), “Explaining the growth in UK socially responsible investment”, Journal of General Management, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp. 15-36.

McLaren, D. (2004), “Global stakeholders: Corporate accountability and investor engagement”, Corporate Governance: An International Review, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 191-201.

Miller, A. (1992), “Green Investment”, In Owen, D. (ed.), Green Reporting: Accountancy and the Challenge of the Nineties. Chapman and Hall, London, UK, pp. 242–255.

Nilsson, J. (2009), “Segmenting socially responsible mutual fund investors: The influence of financial return and social responsibility”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 5-31.

Ogrizek, M. (2002), “The effect of corporate social responsibility on the branding of financial services”, Journal of Financial Services Marketing, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 215-228.

Oikonomou, I., Platanakis, E. and Sutcliffe, C. (2018), “Socially responsible investment portfolios: does the optimization process matter?”, The British Accounting Review, Vol. 50, No. 4, pp. 379-401.

Ooi, E. and Lajbcygier, P. (2013), “Virtue remains after removing sin: Finding skill amongst socially responsible investment managers”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 113, No. 2, pp. 199-224.

Paul, K. (2017), “The effect of business cycle, market return and momentum on financial performance of socially responsible investing mutual funds”, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 513-528.

Pienitz, R. and Vincent, W. F. (2000), “Effect of climate change relative to ozone depletion on UV exposure in subarctic lakes”, Nature, Vol. 404, No. 6777, pp. 484-487.

Porter, M. E. and Kramer, M. R. (2011), “The big idea: Creating shared value”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 89, No. 1, pp. 1-12.

Rendtorff, J.D. (2009), “Responsibility, Ethics and Legitimacy of Corporations”, Society and Business Review, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 266-268.

Renneboog, L., Ter Horst, J. and Zhang, C. (2008), “Socially responsible investments: Institutional aspects, performance, and investor behaviour”, Journal of Banking and Finance, Vol. 32, No. 9, pp. 1723-1742.

Rhodes, M. J. (2010), “Information asymmetry and socially responsible investment”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 95, No. 1, pp. 145-150.

Richardson, B.J. (2008), “Socially Responsible Investment Law: Regulating the Unseen Polluters”, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

Richardson, B. J. (2009), “Keeping ethical investment ethical: Regulatory issues for investing for sustainability”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 87, No. 4, pp. 555-572.

Riedl, A. and Smeets, P. (2017), “Why do investors hold socially responsible mutual funds?”, The Journal of Finance, Vol. 72, No. 6, pp. 2505-2550.

Rojas, M., M’zali, B., Turcotte, M. and Merrigan, P. (2009), “Bringing about changes to corporate social policy through shareholder activism: Filers, issues, targets, and success”, Business and Society Review, Vol. 114, No. 2, pp. 217-252.

Salaber, J. (2013), “Religion and returns in Europe”, European Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 149–160.

Sandberg, J. (2011), “Socially responsible investment and fiduciary duty: Putting the freshfields report into perspective”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 101, No. 1, pp. 143-162.

Sandberg, J. (2013), “(Re‐) interpreting fiduciary duty to justify socially responsible investment for pension funds?”, Corporate Governance: An International Review, Vol. 21, No. 5, pp. 436-446.

Scalet, S. and Kelly, T.F. (2010), “CSR rating agencies: what is their global impact?”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 94, No. 1, pp. 69-88.

Schepers, D. H. and Prakash Sethi, S. (2003), “Bridging the Gap Between the Promise and Performance of Socially Responsible Funds”, Business and Society Review, Vol. 108, No. 1, pp. 11-32.

Scholtens, B. and Sievänen, R. (2013), “Drivers of socially responsible investing: A case study of four Nordic countries”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 115, No. 3, pp. 605-616.

Schueth, S. (2003), “Socially responsible investing in the United States”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol.  43, No. 3, pp. 189-194.

Silva, F. and Cortez, M.C. (2016), “The performance of US and European green funds in different market conditions”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 135, pp. 558-566.

Smith, M. P. (1996), “Shareholder activism by institutional investors: Evidence from CalPERS”. The Journal of Finance, Vol. 51, No. 1, pp. 227-252.

Sparkes, R. (2001), “Ethical investment: whose ethics, which investment?”, Business Ethics: A European Review, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 194-205.

Sparkes, R. and Cowton, C. J. (2004), “The maturing of socially responsible investment: A review of the developing link with corporate social responsibility”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 52, No. 1, pp. 45-57.

Sparkes, R. (2017), “A historical perspective on the growth of socially responsible investment”, In Responsible investment  Routledge, Oxford, UK, (pp. 39-54).

Starr, M.A. (2008), “Socially responsible investment and pro-social change”, Journal of Economic Issues, Vol. 42, No. 1, pp. 51-73.

The Economist (2018), “Women’s wealth is rising”, https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/03/08/womens-wealth-is-rising (Accessed 7 August 2019).

Thornley, B., Wood, D., Grace, K. and Sullivant, S. (2011), “Impact Investing a Framework for Policy Design and Analysis”, InSight at Pacific Community Ventures and The Initiative for Responsible Investment at Harvard University, Cambridge (MA), USA.

Trinks, P. J. and Scholtens, B. (2017), “The opportunity cost of negative screening in socially responsible investing”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 140, No. 2, pp. 193-208.

Trinks, A., Scholtens, B., Mulder, M. and Dam, L. (2018), “Fossil fuel divestment and portfolio performance”, Ecological economics, 146, pp. 740-748.

Viviers, S. and Eccles, N.S. (2012), “35 years of socially responsible investing (SRI) research-general trends over time”, South African Journal of Business Management, Vol. 43, No. 4, pp. 1-16.

Willis, A. (2003), “The role of the global reporting initiative’s sustainability reporting guidelines in the social screening of investments”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 43, No. 3, pp. 233-237.

Walker, H. and Brammer, S. (2009), “Sustainable procurement in the United Kingdom public sector”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 128-137.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Corporate Social Responsibility, Impact Investing, Marketing, Socially Responsible Investment, SRI