Category Archives: Marketing

February 6, 2017 · 6:59 pm

Call for Chapters on Tourism Marketing

This book will be published by Routledge

(subject to the publisher’s peer review)

Abstract Submission Deadline: April 30, 2017

Full Chapters Due: October 31, 2017

Submit your Chapter here.

tIntroduction

This academic book will be presenting a critical analysis of the key theoretical underpinnings in the tourism literature. The contributors are expected to engage in conceptual discussions that cover the operational and strategic perspectives of the travel, tourism, hospitality and leisure industries. The rationale behind this student-centered textbook is to instill a strong pedagogical application of the socio-economic, environmental and technological impacts of tourism and its related sectors. This textbook’s content is intended to prepare undergraduate students and aspiring managers with a thorough exposure on the latest industry practices and research developments. It will allow both prospective as well as experienced tourism practitioners to make appropriate decisions in their workplace environments.

It is envisaged that the themes of this textbook could be covered in a university semester. At the start of each chapter, the readers will be presented with relevant learning outcomes that will help them focus and organize their thoughts. The important terms should be defined and clearly explained. This will provide the readers with a convenient source for learning and reviewing the tourism and hospitality vocabulary. Experiential exercises and descriptive case studies shall be illustrating real situations that are meant to help aspiring managers in their future employment prospects. All chapters should contain a succinct summary at the end. This way the readers could review and retain vital information. Finally, all chapters ought to provide relevant suggestions for further insights by featuring web resources that are rich in information.

This comprehensive book will allow its readers to acquire relevant knowledge and skills in tourism management topics, including; Airline Management; Airline Marketing; Destination Marketing; Eco-Tourism; eTourism / Digital Tourism; Events Management; Hospitality; Hospitality Management; Hospitality Marketing; Hospitality Operations; Meetings, Incentives, Conferences and Events; Responsible / Sustainable Tourism; Revenue Management; Sharing Economy; Sports Tourism; Tourism; Tourism Administration; Tourism Economics; Tourism Education; Tourism Geographies; Tourism Management; Tourism Marketing; Tourism Operations; Tourism Planning; Tourism Policy; Tourism Product; Tourism Strategy; Travel; Travel Management; Travel Marketing; among others.

Objective

This book shall be a generic, authoritative guide on the business of tourism. The underlying objective of this book is to explain, in plain words; the tourism processes, strategies and tactics within the travel, leisure and hospitality industries. This publication will highlight some of the opportunities and challenges facing the tourism industry, including; eTourism and digital media, the sharing economy, destination marketing, and tourism planning for the future. It is hoped that the style of this book and its extensive use of case studies, illustrations and links will maintain the reader’s interest through visual aids to learning.

This publication ought to be written in an engaging style that entices the curiosity of prospective readers. It will be clarifying the main concepts in a simple and straightforward manner. Descriptive cases should set the theory in context as they will be chosen to represent the diversity of the industry; the cases may range from small travel agents to large legacy airlines or from multi-national hotel chains to accommodation establishments – that are increasingly advertising on websites like Airbnb. This book shall possibly report on the global tourism marketing environments that are increasingly affected by economic, socio-cultural, political and environmental issues. It could explain how technological advances have brought significant changes in the tourism industry sectors and its marketing mix. Moreover, it is advisable that the authors feature interesting illustrations, including diagrams and color images. Notwithstanding, the contributors are encouraged to provide direct links to further readings on the web to aid both teaching and learning.

Target Audience

This book introduces the students and aspiring practitioners to the subject of tourism studies in a structured manner. It is primarily intended to undergraduate and / or post-graduate students in tourism (including tourism management, hospitality management, airline management and travel agency operations). It is also relevant to airline employees, hoteliers, inbound / outbound tour operators, travel agents and all those individuals who are willing to work within the tourism industry.

Academics in higher education institutions including universities and vocational colleges, small tourism business owners, tourism and hospitality consultants, non-profit tourism organizations, policy makers and legislators.

Submission Procedure

Researchers and practitioners are invited to submit a 300-word abstract on or before the 30th April, 2017. The authors will be notified by the 31st May, 2017 about the status of their abstract. Their full (8,000 word) chapters could be submitted by the 31st October, 2017. All submitted chapters will be reviewed on a double-blind peer-review editorial process. Contributors may also be requested to serve as reviewers of other chapters.

Note: There are no submission or acceptance fees to submit manuscripts for this book.

Publisher

Taylor & Francis Group (an Informa Business) publishes Social Science and Humanities books under the Routledge, Psychology Press and Focal Press imprints.

Important Dates

April 30, 2017: Proposals Submission Deadline

May 31, 2017: Notification of Acceptance

October 31, 2017: Full Chapter Submission

December 31, 2017: Review Results Returned

January 31, 2018: Final Acceptance Notification

February 28, 2018: Final Chapter Submission

For Further Inquiries

Mark Anthony Camilleri, M.B.A., Ph.D. (Edinburgh), I.A.T.A.

Email: Mark.A.Camilleri@um.edu.mt

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Business, Hospitality, Marketing, tourism, Travel

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

January 26, 2017 · 6:58 pm

A step-by-step guide for the development of constructs and marketing scales

scales-development-procedure(adapted from:Diamantopoulos & Winklhofer, 2001; Clark & Watson, 1995; Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994; Gerbing & Anderson, 1988)

Leave a comment

Filed under Marketing

Tagged as , , , , , ,

December 12, 2016 · 7:27 pm

Responsible Investing: Making a Positive Impact

flower

Impact investing is one of the fastest growing and promising areas of innovative development finance (Thornley, Wood, Grace & Sullivant, 2011; Freireich & Fulton, 2009). This form of socially-responsible investment (SRI) also has its roots in the venture capital community where investors unlock a substantial volume of private and public capital into companies, organisations and funds – with the intention to generate social and environmental impact alongside a financial return.

The stakeholders or actors in the impact investing industry can be divided into four broad categories: asset owners who actually own capital; asset managers who deploy capital; demand-side actors who receive and utilise the capital; and service providers who help make this market work.

Impact investments can be made in both emerging and developed markets, and target a range of returns from below market to market rate; depending on the investors’ strategic goals. Bugg-Levine and Emerson (2011) argued that impact investing aligns the businesses’ investments and purchase decisions with their values. Defining exactly what is (and what is not) an impact investment has become increasingly important as it appears that the term has taken off among academia and practitioners.

The impact investments are usually characterised by market organisations that are driven by a core group of proponents including foundations, high-net worth individuals, family offices, investment banks and development finance institutions. Responsible entities are mobilising capital for ‘investments that are intended to create social impact beyond financial returns’ (Jackson, 2013; Freireich & Fulton 2009). Specific examples of impact investments may include; micro-finance, community development finance, sustainable agriculture, renewable energy, conservation, micro-finance and affordable and accessible basic services, including; housing, healthcare, education and clean technology among others.

Micro-finance institutions in developing countries and affordable housing schemes in developed countries have been the favorite vehicles for these responsible investments, though impact investors are also beginning to diversify across a wider range of sectors (see Saltuk, Bouri, & Leung 2011; Harji & Jackson 2012). Nevertheless, micro-finance has represented an estimated 50% of European impact investing assets (EUROSIF, 2014). This form of investing has grown to an estimated €20 billion market in Europe alone (EUROSIF, 2014). The Netherlands and Switzerland were key markets for this investment strategy, as they represented an estimated two thirds of these assets. These markets were followed by Italy, the United Kingdom and Germany.

Generally, the investors’ intent is to ensure that they achieve positive impacts in society. Therefore, they would in turn expect tangible evidence of positive outcomes (and impacts) of their capital. Arguably, the evaluation capacity of impact investing could increase opportunities for dialogue and exchange. Therefore, practitioners are encouraged to collaborate, exchange perspectives and tools to strengthen their practices in ways that could advance impact investing. The process behind on-going encounters and growing partnerships could surely be facilitated through conferences, workshops, online communities and pilot projects. Moreover, audit and assurance ought to be continuously improved as institutions and investors need to be equipped with the best knowledge about evaluation methods. Hence, it is imperative that University and college courses are designed, tested and refined to improve the quality of education as well as  professional training and development in evaluating responsible investments.

For evaluation to be conducted with ever more precision and utility, it must be informed by mobilising research and analytics. Some impact investing funds and intermediaries are already using detailed research and analysis on investment portfolios and target sectors. At the industry-wide level, the work of the Global Impact Investing Network (GIIN) and IRIS (a catalogue of generally accepted Environmental, Social and Governance – ESG performance metrics) is generating large datasets as well as a series of case studies on collaborative impact investments. Similarly, the Global Impact Investing Rating System (GIIRS) also issues quarterly analytics reports on companies and their respective funds in industry metrics (Camilleri, 2015).

For the most part, those responsible businesses often convert positive impact-investment outcomes into tangible benefits for the poor and the marginalised people (Garriga & Melé, 2004). Such outcomes may include increased greater food security, improved housing, higher incomes, better access to affordable services (e.g. water, energy, health, education, finance), environmental protection, and the like (Jackson, 2013).

Interestingly, high sustainability companies significantly outperform their counterparts over the long-term, both in terms of stock market and accounting performance (Eccles, Ioannou & Serafeim, 2012). This out-performance is stronger in sectors where the customers are individual consumers, rather than companies (Eccles et al., 2012).

It may be complicated and time-consuming to quantify how enterprises create various forms of humanitarian and environmental value, yet some approaches and analytical tools can help to address today’s societal challenges, including the return on impact investments in social and sustainability projects.

References

Bugg-Levine, A., & Emerson, J. (2011). Impact investing: Transforming how we make money while making a difference. innovations, 6(3), 9-18.
Camilleri, M. A. (2015). Environmental, social and governance disclosures in Europe. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 6(2), 224-242.

Eccles, R. G., Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2012). The impact of a corporate culture of sustainability on corporate behavior and performance (No. W17950). National Bureau of Economic Research.

EUROSIF (2014). Press Release: 6th Sustainable and Responsible Investment Study 2014. Europe-based national Sustainable Investment Forums. http://www.eurosif.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Press-Release-European-SRI-Study-2014-English-version.pdf (Accessed 14 May 2016).

Freireich, J., & Fulton, K. (2009). Investing for social and environmental impact: A design for catalyzing an emerging industry. Monitor Institute, January.

Garriga, E., & Melé, D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory. Journal of business ethics, 53(1-2), 51-71.

Harji, K., & Jackson, E. T. (2012). Accelerating impact: Achievements, challenges and what’s next in building the impact investing industry. New York, NY: The Rockefeller Foundation.

Jackson, E. T. (2013). Interrogating the theory of change: evaluating impact investing where it matters most. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 3(2), 95-110.

Saltuk, Y., Bouri, A., & Leung, G. (2011). Insight into the impact investment market: An in-depth analysis of investor perspectives and over 2,200 transactions. New York, NY: J.P. Morgan.

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

Leave a comment

Filed under Analytics, Big Data, Corporate Governance, Corporate Social Responsibility, Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility, Impact Investing, Marketing, Socially Responsible Investment

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , ,

August 21, 2016 · 9:32 pm

Creating Shared Value through Strategic CSR in Tourism:

Literature review about corporate social responsibility (CSR) suggests that there are organisational benefits to be gained from unintentional discretionary expenditure in laudable behaviour. With this in mind, the methodology integrates insights from the ‘stakeholder theory’and the ‘resource-based view theory of the firm’to sharpen the strategic base for CSR investment. Quantitative and qualitative research techniques have been used to discover how business organisations are creating shared value for themselves and for …

#GoogleScholar #SharedValue #CSR Strategy #Business #CSV via Google Scholar Citations

https://scholar.google.com.au/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=A5ihE60AAAAJ&citation_for_view=A5ihE60AAAAJ:g_UdREhPGEoC

Leave a comment

Filed under Marketing

June 9, 2016 · 5:59 pm

Corporate Communication, Stakeholder Engagement and Corporate Social Responsibility

comm

Companies are increasingly dedicating their time and resources to promote their public relations initiatives. Corporate Communication Managers and executives have a wide array of media channels at their disposal. These may  be used to communicate their corporate social responsibility CSR credentials. As a matter of fact, businesses are continuously being scrutinised by media, customers, monitoring groups, consumer forums and blogs (Du et al., 2010).

Very often, businesses disclose their CSR activities through official documents, such as annual corporate responsibility or sustainability reports, media releases, dedicated sections of their corporate websites; as well as in social media pages or groups. CSR communication is produced, translated, and integrated according to the companies’ contexts and their specific reality constructions (Schultz and Wehmeier, 2010).

Companies could use broadcast advertising, including TV and radio commercials. Businesses could also utilise print media (e.g. newspapers, magazines) to disseminate their message to their target audience. Newspaper articles reflect corporate ideas of social responsibilities and assumptions about public expectations, and react herewith to what they perceive as the public’s expectations (Schultz and Wehmeier, 2010). Alternatively, they may use outdoor advertisements such as billboards and signage on brick-and-mortar premises. These traditional media are based on a hierarchical one‐to‐many communication; with a clear distinction between producer and consumer of information. Notwithstanding, there are other communication channels that are not entirely controlled by the company. For this reason, businesses are encouraged to become more proficient in the use of digital media in addition to traditional media to increase their impact of their corporate communication.

Evidently, the internet has reshaped communication at different levels. It has enabled the emergence of a new participatory public sphere that is based on a many‐to‐many communication where everybody can dialogically and publicly interact and collaborate in the creation of content and the definition of the agenda (Colleoni, 2013; Jenkins, 2006). In a relatively short period of time, the internet has become an essential tool for organisational communication (Capriotti & Moreno, 2007a; Stuart & Jones, 2004).

Moreover, in today’s digital era, the engagement between the public and the organisation is one of the main characteristics of the internet (Colleoni, 2013). Many corporate websites already possess a high degree of interactivity; including their ability to disseminate information and to generate relationships between the different publics and the organisation (Capriotti & Moreno, 2007). In the first approach, the level of interactivity is low, and the use of the Internet is unidirectional; as its essential objective is to diffuse information and to try to improve the corporate image of the business. However, in the second approach, the degree of interactivity is high, and the Internet is used to facilitate bidirectional communication and to nurture relationships by allowing dialogue and interaction between the organisation and its stakeholders.

Interactive communication is becoming one of the most important information channels for corporations as it is changing social dynamics (Fieseler & Fleck, 2013; O`Reilly, 2005; 2006). Web-based co‐operation and data exchanges have empowered the communication between businesses and their stakeholders (Buhalis & Law, 2008; O´Riley, 2006, Fieseler et al., 2010). It enables them to engage with online users and to take advantage of positive publicity arising from word-of-mouth marketing and digital platforms. Corporations can maintain legitimacy better as they engage with stakeholders via social media; and take on the gate keeping function of traditional media (Fieseler et al. 2010). At the same time, there are protest actors; who have become more powerful online as they disrupt the corporations’ legitimacy by using social media (Castelló, Morsing & Schultz, 2013; Bennett 2003).

Societies are currently undergoing a fundamental transformation toward globally networked societies (Castelló, Morsing, & Schultz, 2013). Unsurprisingly, the public relations and corporate communications of business have benefited of social networking software (Etter, Morsing, and Castello, 2011; Pressley (2006). Of course, these technological advances also have consequences for CSR communication; as companies can reach out to stakeholders in a more interactive way. In a similar vein, the use of social networks have offered the businesses new forms of interactivity and enable them to address the CSR information toward a variety of stakeholders (Isenmann, 2006). A powerful stakeholder group, the consumers serve as an informal yet highly credible CSR communication channel. In particular, the power of consumer word-of-mouth has been greatly magnified given the popularity and vast reach of interactive communication.

Companies such as Stonyfield Farm and Ben & Jerry’s have been benefiting from consumer ambassadors who raved, in the virtual world, about their social responsibility endeavours. For example, one consumer wrote enthusiastically about Ben & Jerry’s butter pecan ice cream and its support for an educational foundation, ‘besides the great flavour that the Ben & Jerry’s Butter Pecan Ice Cream offers you, a portion of the proceeds go to the Tom Joyner Foundation . . . [that] provides financial support to students attending historically black colleges and universities’ (Associated Content 2008). Companies can be proactive in using social media to engage consumers to be their CSR advocates.

Timberland, a company that is known for its environmental stewardship, launched the Earthkeeper campaign in 2008 to recruit one million people to become part of an online network designed to inspire real environmental behaviour change. As part of the Earthkeeper programme, Timberland launched an innovative global network of online social networking tools, including a strong Facebook presence, a YouTube Earthkeeper Brand Channel and a richly populated Earthkeeper blog, as well as an Earthkeeper product collection which serves as the pinnacle expression of the company’s environmental commitment (CSRWire 2008). Through this campaign, Timberland not only effectively communicating its sustainability initiative, but also engaging consumers to spread the word about this initiative and, importantly, the company’s involvement in this initiative.

Fieseler et al. (2010) suggested that communication through social media is dynamic in relation to traditional media. The global diffusion of social software like blogs, RSS feed, wikis, electronic forum, social networks have facilitated companies to attract prospects and consumer groups. Social media have the technological potential to speed up communication processes (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010) and to increase direct interaction, dialogue and participation across organisations and various audiences (Colleoni 2013; Schultz et al. 2011). Such interactive communications are referred to as “viral” because ideas and opinions spread like epidemic diseases through the network via word‐of‐mouth and are perceived as highly trustworthy sources (Colleoni et al., 2011; Schultz and Wehmeier, 2010).

Accordingly, social media has transformed the communicative dynamics within and between corporations and their environment.  Social media networks are effective monitoring tools as they could feature early warning signals of trending topics. These networks may help business communicators and marketers identify and follow the latest sustainability issues. Notwithstanding, CSR influencers are easily identified on particular subject matters or expertise. For example, businesses and customers alike have learned how to use the hashtag (#) to enhance the visibility of their shareable content16 (Some of the most popular hashtags comprise: #CSR #StrategicCSR, #sustainability, #susty, #CSRTalk, #Davos2016, #KyotoProtocol, #SharedValue et cetera). Hashtags could be used to raise awareness on charities, philanthropic institutions and green non-governmental organisations. They may also help during fund raising events. Hence, there are numerous opportunities for businesses to leverage themselves through social networks as they engage with influencers and media.

The ubiquity of Facebook and Google Plus over the past years has made them familiar channels for many individuals around the globe. These networks have become very popular communication outlets for brands, companies and activists alike. These social media empower their users to engage with business on a myriad of issues. They also enable individual professionals or groups to promote themselves and their CSR credentials in different markets and segments.

Moreover, LinkedIn is yet another effective tool, particularly for personal branding. However, this social network helps users identify and engage with influencers. Companies can use this site to create or join their favourite groups on LinkedIn (e.g. GRI, FSG, Shared Value Initiative among others). They may also use this channel for CSR communication as they promote key initiatives and share sustainability ideas. Therefore, LinkedIn connects individuals and groups as they engage in conversations with both academia and CSR practitioners.

In addition, Pinterest and Instagram enable their users to share images, ideas with their networks. These social media could also be relevant in the context of the sustainability agenda. Businesses could illustrate their CSR communication to stakeholders through visual and graphic content. Evidently, these innovative avenues provide sharable imagery, infographics or videos to groups who may be passionate on certain issues, including CSR.

Moreover, digital marketers are increasingly uploading short, fun videos which often turn viral on internet. YouTube, Vimeo and Vine seem to have positioned themselves as important social media channels for many consumers, particularly among millennials. These sites offer an excellent way to humanise or animate CSR communication through video content. These digital media also allow their users to share their video content across multiple networks. For instance, videos featuring university resources may comprise lectures, documentaries, case studies and the like.

This contribution suggests that corporate communications managers and executives are in a position to amplify the effectiveness of their company’s CSR communication efforts. They are expected to create relevant content and to engage with stakeholders through different marketing communications channels.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Business, Corporate Social Responsibility, Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility, CSR, digital media, Marketing, Stakeholder Engagement

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

May 9, 2016 · 6:25 pm

Measuring the Academic Impact of Higher Education Institutions and Research Centres

uni

Although research impact metrics can be used to evaluate individual academics, there are other measures that could be used to rank and compare academic institutions. Several international ranking schemes for universities use citations to estimate the institutions’ impact. Nevertheless, there have been ongoing debates about whether bibliometric methods should be used for the ranking of academic institutions.

The most productive universities are increasingly enclosing the link to their papers online. Yet, many commentators argue that hyperlinks could be unreliable indicators of journal impact (Kenekayoro, Buckley & Thelwall, 2014; Vaughan & Hysen, 2002). Notwithstanding, the web helps to promote research funding initiatives and to advertise academic related jobs. The webometrics could also monitor the extent of mutual awareness in particular research areas (Thelwall, Klitkou, Verbeek, Stuart & Vincent, 2010).

Moreover, there are other uses of webometric indicators in policy-relevant contexts within the European Union (Thelwall et al., 2010; Hoekman, Frenken & Tijssen, 2010). The webometrics refer to the quantitative analysis of web activity, including profile views and downloads (Davidson, Newton, Ferguson, Daly, Elliott, Homer, Duffield & Jackson, 2014). Therefore, webometric ranking involves the measurement of volume, visibility and impact of web pages. These metrics seem to emphasise on scientific output including peer-reviewed papers, conference presentations, preprints, monographs, theses and reports. They also analyse other academic material including courseware, seminar documentation, digital libraries, databases, multimedia, personal pages and blogs among others (Thelwall, 2009; Kousha & Thelwall, 2015; Mas-Bleda, Thelwall, Kousha & Aguillo, 2014a; Mas-Bleda, Thelwall, Kousha & Aguillo, 2014b; Orduna-Malea & Ontalba-Ruipérez, 2013). Thelwall and Kousha (2013) have identified and explained the methodology of five well-known institutional ranking schemes:

  • “QS World University Rankings aims to rank universities based upon academic reputation (40%, from a global survey), employer reputation (10%, from a global survey), faculty-student ratio (20%), citations per faculty (20%, from Scopus), the proportion of international students (5%), and the proportion of international faculty (5%).
  • The World University Rankings: aims to judge world class universities across all of their core missions – teaching, research, knowledge transfer and international outlook by using the Web of Science, an international survey of senior academics and self-reported data. The results are based on field-normalised citations for five years of publications (30%), research reputation from a survey (18%), teaching reputation (15%), various indicators of the quality of the learning environment (15%), field-normalised publications per faculty (8%), field-normalised income per faculty (8%), income from industry per faculty (2.5%); and indicators for the proportion of international staff (2.5%), students (2.5%), and internationally co-authored publications (2.5%, field-normalised).
  • The Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) aims to rank the “world top 500 universities” based upon the number of alumni and staff winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals, number of highly cited researchers selected by Thomson Scientific, number of articles published in journals of Nature and Science, number of articles indexed in Science Citation Index – Expanded and Social Sciences Citation Index, and per capita performance with respect to the size of an institution.
  • The CWTS Leiden Ranking aims to measure “the scientific performance” of universities using bibliometric indicators based upon Web of Science data through a series of separate size- and field-normalised indicators for different aspects of performance rather than a combined overall ranking. For example, one is “the proportion of the publications of a university that, compared with other publications in the same field and in the same year, belong to the top 10% most frequently cited” and another is “the average number of citations of the publications of a university, normalised for field differences and publication year.”
  • The Webometrics Ranking of World Universities Webometrics Ranking aims to show “the commitment of the institutions to [open access publishing] through carefully selected web indicators”: hyperlinks from the rest of the web (1/2), web site size according to Google (1/6), and the number of files in the website in “rich file formats” according to Google Scholar (1/6), but also the field-normalised number of articles in the most highly cited 10% of Scopus publications (1/6)” (Thelwall & Kousha, 2013).

Evidently, the university ranking systems use a variety of factors in their calculations, including their web presence, the number of publications, the citations to publications and peer judgements (Thelwall and Kousha, 2013; Aguillo, Bar-Ilan, Levene, & Ortega, 2010). These metrics typically reflect a combination of different factors, as shown above. Although they may have different objectives, they tend to give similar rankings. It may appear that the universities that produce good research also tend to have an extensive web presence, perform well on teaching-related indicators, and attract many citations (Matson et al., 2003).

On the other hand, the webometrics may not necessarily provide robust indicators of knowledge flows or research impact. In contrast to citation analysis, the quality of webometric indicators is not high unless irrelevant content is filtered out, manually. Moreover, it may prove hard to interpret certain webometric indicators as they could reflect a range of phenomena ranging from spam to post publication material. Webometric analyses can support science policy decisions on individual fields. However, for the time being, it is difficult to tackle the issue of web heterogeneity in lower field levels (Thelwall & Harries, 2004; Wilkinson, Harries, Thelwall & Price, 2003). Moreover, Thelwall et al., (2010) held that webometrics would not have the same relevance for every field of study. It is very likely that fast moving or new research fields could not be adequately covered by webometric indicators due to publication time lags. Thelwall et al. (2010) argued that it could take up to two years to start a research and to have it published. This would therefore increase the relative value of webometrics as research groups can publish general information online about their research.

This is an excerpt from: Camilleri, M.A. (2016) Utilising Content Marketing and Social Networks for Academic Visibility. In Cabrera, M. & Lloret, N. Digital Tools for Academic Branding and Self-Promotion. IGI Global (Forthcoming).

Leave a comment

Filed under Higher Education, Marketing, University Ranking, webometrics

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

April 27, 2016 · 9:48 am

Corporate Social Responsibility Communications through Digital Media

 reporting

Companies are increasingly focusing their attention on integrated marketing approaches toward different stakeholders24. Many of them are becoming knowledgeable in using social media channels to protect their reputation from bad publicity and misinformation. Their content strategists and inbound marketers who care about customers are realising that they have to continuously come up with fresh, engaging content with a growing number of quality links.

Businesses need to make sure that their corporate websites offer relevant content for different search engines. Consistent high quality content ought to be meaningful and purposeful for target audiences25. Consumers and other stakeholders expect informative yet interesting content through digital channels, including blogs, podcasts, social media networking and e-newsletters. Such content marketing approaches bring customer loyalty26, particularly if the businesses deliver ongoing value propositions to promising prospects on their website27. Very often, they offer insightful stories to customers28 or inspire them with sustainable ideas and innovations29. Corporate web sites could even contain the latest news, elements of the marketing-mix endeavours as well as digital marketing fads.

Social media networks are effective monitoring tools as they could feature early warning signals of trending topics30. These networks may help business communicators and marketers identify and follow the latest sustainability issues. Notwithstanding, CSR influencers are easily identified on particular subject matters or expertise. For example, businesses and customers alike have also learned how to use the hashtag (#) to enhance the visibility of their shareable content  (Some of the most popular hashtags on the subject, comprise: #CSR #StrategicCSR, #sustainability, #susty, #CSRTalk, #Davos2016, #KyotoProtocol, #SharedValue et cetera). Hashtags could be used to raise awareness on charities, philanthropic institutions and green non-governmental organisations. They may also help during fund raising events. Hence, there are numerous opportunities for businesses to leverage themselves through social networks as they engage with influencers and media.

The ubiquity of Facebook and Google Plus over the past years has made them familiar channels for many individuals around the globe. These networks have become very popular communication outlets for brands, companies and activists alike. These social media channels empower their users to engage with business on a myriad of issues. They also enable individual professionals or groups to promote themselves and their CSR credentials in different markets and segments.

Moreover, LinkedIn is yet another effective tool, particularly for personal branding. However, this social network helps users identify and engage with influencers. Companies can use this site to create or join their favourite groups on LinkedIn (e.g. GRI, FSG, Shared Value Initiative among others). They may also use this channel for CSR communication as they promote key initiatives and share sustainability ideas. Therefore, LinkedIn connects individuals and groups as they engage in conversations with both academia and CSR practitioners.

In addition, Pinterest and Instagram enable their users to share images, ideas with their networks. These social media could also be relevant in the context of the sustainability agenda. Businesses could illustrate their CSR communication to stakeholders through visual and graphic content. Evidently, these innovative avenues provide sharable imagery, infographics or videos to groups who may be passionate on certain issues, including CSR.

Moreover, digital marketers are increasingly uploading short, fun videos which often turn viral on internet31. YouTube, Vimeo and Vine seem to have positioned themselves as important social media channels for many consumers, particularly among millennials. These sites offer an excellent way to humanise or animate CSR communication through video content. These digital media also allow their users to share their video content across multiple networks. For instance, videos featuring university resources may comprise lectures, documentaries, case studies and the like.

This is an excerpt from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299349607_Unlocking_Corporate_Social_Responsibility_Communication_through_Digital_Media

References

24. Camilleri, M.A. “Unleashing Shared Value Through Content Marketing.” Triple Pundit, 10th February 2014. http://www.triplepundit.com/2014/02/unleashing-shared-value-content-marketing/
25. Camilleri, M.A. “A Search Engine Optimization Strategy for Content Marketing Success.” Social Media Today 28th May, 2014. http://www.socialmediatoday.com/content/search-engine-optimization-strategy-content-marketing-success
26. Lindgreen, Adam. “The design, implementation and monitoring of a CRM programme: a case study.” Marketing Intelligence & Planning 22, no. 2 (2004): 160-186.
27. Andersen, Poul Houman. “Relationship marketing and brand involvement of professionals through web-enhanced brand communities: The case of Coloplast.” Industrial marketing management 34, no. 1 (2005): 39-51.
28. Pulizzi, Joe. “The rise of storytelling as the new marketing.” Publishing research quarterly 28, no. 2 (2012): 116-123.
29. Lozano, Rodrigo, Francisco J. Lozano, Karel Mulder, Donald Huisingh, and Tom Waas. “Advancing higher education for sustainable development: international insights and critical reflections.” Journal of Cleaner Production 48 (2013): 3-9.
30. Small, Tamara A. “What the hashtag? A content analysis of Canadian politics on Twitter.” Information, Communication & Society 14, no. 6 (2011): 872-895.

Leave a comment

Filed under Business, Corporate Social Responsibility, digital media, Marketing

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

December 10, 2015 · 11:18 am

Measuring Corporate Citizenship

corpcitizenship

Several empirical studies have explored the respondents’ attitudes and perceptions on corporate social responsibilities. Very often, the measurement of corporate citizenship could have involved quantitative analyses on organisational commitment toward responsible organisational behaviours (Maignan, Ferrell and Hult, 1999; Aupperle, Carroll and Hatfield, 1985). Therefore, their survey responses could not have revealed and explained actual corporate citizenship practices. Other research could have focused on investigations of managerial perceptions of corporate citizenship rather than focusing on corporate behaviours (e.g., Basu and Palazzo, 2008; Singhapakdi, Kraft, Vitell and Rallapalli, 1995). A number of similar studies have gauged corporate citizenship by adopting Fortune’s reputation index (Fryxell and Wang, 1994; Griffin and Mahon, 1997; Stanwick and Stanwick, 1998), the KLD index (Fombrun, 1998; Griffin and Mahon, 1997) or Van Riel and Fombrun’s (2007) Reptrak. Such measures require executives to assess the extent to which their company behaves responsibly toward the environment and the community (Fryxell and Wang, 1994). Despite their wide usage in past research, the appropriateness of these indices remains doubtful. For instance, Fortune’s reputation index failed to account for the multi-dimensionality of the corporate citizenship construct and is suspected to be more significant of management quality than of corporate citizenship (Waddock and Graves, 1997). Fortune’s past index suffered from the fact that its items were not based on theoretical arguments as they did not appropriately represent the economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary dimensions of the corporate citizenship construct. Hunt, Wood and Chonko’s (1989) investigated broad based perceptions on (a) the extent to which employees perceive that managers are acting ethically in their organisations (b) the extent to which employees perceive that their managers are concerned about the issues of ethics in their organisations and (c) the extent to which employees perceive that ethical (or unethical) behaviour is rewarded (or punished) in their organisation. Other authors, including Webb, Mohr and Harris (2008) also explored the philanthropic values that were related socially responsible consumption.

Pinkston and Carroll (1994) identified four dimensions of corporate citizenship, including; orientations, stakeholders, issues, and decision-making autonomy. They argued that by observing orientations, one may better understand the inclinations or posturing behaviours of organisations with respect to corporate citizenship. The stakeholder dimension should better define to whom the organisation feels responsible as it could identify where the corporate citizenship issues or social concerns are originating. The aspect of decision-making autonomy was believed to illuminate the perceived importance of corporate citizenship as one that determines at what organisational level corporate citizenship decisions are actually made. In a similar vein, Griffin and Mahon (1997) combined four estimates of corporate citizenship: the Fortune reputation index, the KLD index, the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI), and the rankings provided in the Directory of Corporate Philanthropy. They admitted that their four measures do not necessarily track one another. Such findings suggest that these indicators may not be representative of the same underlying construct and their items may not be sufficient to provide an overall understanding of corporate citizenship.

Singh, De los Salmones Sanchez and Rodriguez del Bosque (2007) adopted a multi- dimensional perspective on three domains, including; commercial responsibility, ethical responsibility and social responsibility. Firstly, they proposed that commercial responsibility of businesses relates to their continuous development of high quality products and truthful marketing communications of their products’ attributes and features among customers. Secondly, they maintained that ethical responsibility is concerned with businesses fulfilling their obligations toward their shareholders, suppliers, distributors and other agents with whom they make their dealings. Singh et al. (2007) argued that ethical responsibility involves the respect for the human rights and norms that are defined in the law when carrying out business activities. They hinted that respecting ethical principles in business relationships has more priority over achieving superior economic performance. Their other domain, the social responsibility is concerned about laudable behaviours. The authors suggest that businesses could allocate part of their budget to the natural environment, philanthropy, or toward social works that favoured the most vulnerable in society. This perspective supports the development of financing social and/or cultural activities and is also concerned with improving societal well-being.

 

References

Aupperle, K. E., Carroll, A. B., & Hatfield, J. D. (1985). An empirical examination of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 28(2), 446-463.

Basu, K., & Palazzo, G. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: A process model of sensemaking. Academy of Management Review, 33(1), 122-136.

Fombrun, C. J. (1998). Indices of corporate reputation: An analysis of media rankings and social monitors’ ratings. Corporate reputation review, 1(4), 327-340.

Fryxell, G. E., & Wang, J. (1994). The fortune corporate ‘reputation’ index: Reputation for what?. Journal of management, 20(1), 1-14.

Griffin, J. J., & Mahon, J. F. (1997). The corporate social performance and corporate financial performance debate twenty-five years of incomparable research. Business & Society, 36(1), 5-31.

Hunt, S. D., Wood, V. R., & Chonko, L. B. (1989). Corporate ethical values and organizational commitment in marketing. The Journal of Marketing, 79-90.

Maignan, I., Ferrell, O. C., & Hult, G. T. M. (1999). Corporate citizenship: cultural antecedents and business benefits. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(4), 455-469.

Pinkston, T. S., & Carroll, A. B. (1994). Corporate citizenship perspectives and foreign direct investment in the US. Journal of Business Ethics, 13(3), 157-169.

Singh, J., & Del Bosque, I. R. (2008). Understanding corporate social responsibility and product perceptions in consumer markets: A cross-cultural evaluation. Journal of Business Ethics, 80(3), 597-611.

Singhapakdi, A., Kraft, K. L., Vitell, S. J., & Rallapalli, K. C. (1995). The perceived importance of ethics and social responsibility on organizational effectiveness: A survey of marketers. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23(1), 49-56.

Stanwick, P. A., & Stanwick, S. D. (1998). The relationship between corporate social performance, and organizational size, financial performance, and environmental performance: An empirical examination. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(2), 195-204.

Van Riel, C. B., & Fombrun, C. J. (2007). Essentials of corporate communication: Implementing practices for effective reputation management. Routledge.

Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1997). The corporate social performance-financial performance link. Strategic management journal, 18(4), 303-319.

Webb, D. J., Mohr, L. A., & Harris, K. E. (2008). A re-examination of socially responsible consumption and its measurement. Journal of Business Research, 61(2), 91-98.

Leave a comment

Filed under Circular Economy, Corporate Social Responsibility, Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility, CSR, Marketing

Tagged as , , , , , ,

September 4, 2015 · 7:55 pm

Google Scholar Citations of Mark Camilleri – University of Malta

@MarkCamilleri @Google #Scholar #Citations on #CSR #csrpolicy #esg #sharedvalue #stakeholderengagement #strategiccsr
https://scholar.google.com.au/citations?user=A5ihE60AAAAJ&hl=en

 

Selected References:

Camilleri, M.A. (2015) “The Business Case for Corporate Social Responsibility”, empirical paper was accepted by the American Marketing Association in collaboration with the University of Wyoming, Oklahoma State University and Villanova University during the Marketing & Public Policy as a Force for Social Change Conference which was held in Washington D.C., USA (5th June 2014). pp8-14, https://www.ama.org/events-training/Conferences/Documents/2015-AMA-Marketing-Public-Policy-Proceedings.pdf

Camilleri, M.A. (2015) “Content Marketing Metrics for Academic Impact”. In “Digital Tools for Academic Branding and Self-Promotion”. IGI Global (Forthcoming).

Camilleri M.A. (2015) “Responsible tourism that creates shared value among stakeholders”. Tourism Planning and Development. Taylor and Francis. DOI: 10.1080/21568316.2015.1074100 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21568316.2015.1074100

Camilleri, M.A. (2015) “Using Big Data for Customer-Centric Marketing”. In Handbook of Research on Open Data Innovations in Business and Government, IGI Global (Forthcoming).

Camilleri, M.A. (2015) “Nurturing Tourism Enterprises for Economic Growth and Competitiveness”. In Entrepreneurship in Hospitality and Tourism, Goodfellow Publishers (in Press) .

Camilleri, M.A (2015) “Environmental, Social and Governance Disclosures in Europe”. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal 6 (2) pp.224 – 242 http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/SAMPJ-10-2014-0065.

Camilleri, M.A. & Camilleri A. (2015) “Education and Social Cohesion for Economic Growth” International Journal of Leadership in Education pp1-15 (Forthcoming) DOI. 10.1080/13603124.2014.995721 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13603124.2014.995721?journalCode=tedl20#.VecYOH15p-U

Camilleri, M.A. (2015) “Valuing Stakeholder Engagement and Sustainability Reporting”. Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 18 (3) pp210-222. DOI:10.1057/crr.2015.9 http://www.palgrave-journals.com/crr/journal/v18/n3/full/crr20159a.html

Camilleri, M.A. (2015) “A Review of Theoretical Underpinnings on the CSR Agenda“. In Stages of Corporate Social Responsibility: From Ideas to Impacts, Springer (Forthcoming).

Camilleri, M.A. (2015) “Re-conceiving CSR Programmes for Education”. In Corporate Social Responsibility: Academic Insights and Impacts, Springer (Forthcoming).

Camilleri, M.A. (2015) “CSR Reporting in Europe”. In Idowu, S. O. (Ed.) “Key CSR Initiatives from Around the World”, Springer: http://www.springer.com/us/book/9783319216409 DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-21641-6.

Camilleri, M.A. (2015) “The Synergistic Value Notion” in Idowu, S.O.; Capaldi, N.; Fifka, M.; Zu, L.; Schmidpeter, R. (Eds). Dictionary of Corporate Social Responsibility. Springer http://www.springer.com/new+%26+forthcoming+titles+%28default%29/book/978-3-319-10535-2

Camilleri M.A. (2014) “Unlocking shared value through strategic social marketing” empirical paper was accepted by the American Marketing Association and the University of Massachusetts Amherst . It took part in a competitive paper session during the Marketing & Public Policy Conference which was held in Boston, USA (5-7th June 2014) https://www.ama.org/events-training/Conferences/Documents/MPP14BO_Proceedings.pdf

Camilleri M.A. & Camilleri, A. (2014) Digital Learning Resources for European Schools, ResearchGate; https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268153218_Digital_Learning_Resources_for_European_Schools

Camilleri M.A. (2013)  “Creating Shared Value through Strategic CSR in Tourism”, Lambert Academic Publishing, Saarbrucken – Germany  ISBN 978-3-659-43106-7.

Camilleri M.A. (2013) “Advancing the Sustainable Tourism Agenda through Strategic CSR perspectives”. Tourism Planning and Development. 11 (1) pp42-56 Taylor and Francis  http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/21568316.2013.839470?journalCode=rthp21#.UnO5_lOzKwe

Leave a comment

Filed under Marketing