Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Courtesy or integrity: what constitutes a stakeholder-caring image?

  • Published:
Asian Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

It is not uncommon for business institutions to position themselves as stakeholder-caring companies or organizations. However, there is little research on conceptualizing stakeholder-caring as a component of brand image. Through a theoretical lens of brand-consumer interactions, this paper introduces a new construct—stakeholder-caring image—and proposes a model that examines stakeholder-caring’s antecedents (integrity and courtesy) and its consequence (customer satisfaction). The two antecedents—integrity and courtesy—capture intrinsic and extrinsic aspects of brand-consumer interaction practice, respectively, while the consequence (customer satisfaction) is one important behavioral outcome in marketing. The proposed model was tested with Hong Kong customers (n = 296) via a systematic survey. The data were analyzed using LISREL. Several measurement and structural models were constructed to test the proposed hypotheses. The findings reveal that the effect of integrity on customer satisfaction is mediated by a stakeholder-caring image. However, contrary to the conventional wisdom, we surprisingly find that courtesy is not effective to build a stakeholder-caring image. Managerially, this research offers guidance on how to develop stakeholder-caring image and subsequently increase customer satisfaction. In addition, we discuss the nuanced distinction between a stakeholder-caring image and related brand constructs, such as “sincerity” in Aaker’s (1997) brand personality framework.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For more details on the core value of this company, please refer to https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/about/purpose-and-values.html.

  2. For more details on the core value of this company, please refer to https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-insights/life-purpose/caring.

  3. For the core value statement of Virgin, please refer to http://smallbizgrowth.net/25-core-value-statements-from-the-top-organizations-of-2018/.

  4. Notes to Reviewers: The research and findings were reported in a booklet format to the press and media, but the exact items have never published anywhere.

  5. In the survey, the term “stakeholders” is defined as “groups and persons who can affect or be affected by activities of the company, including customers, employees, suppliers, governments, community, trade associations, and labor unions.

References

  • Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34, 347–356.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aggarwal, P. (2004). The effects of brand relationship norms on consumer attitudes and behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 87–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahn, J., & Shiwen, L. (2022). The impact of corporate social responsibility on behavioral intention: customers’ responses to two types of fit. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration, 23(4), 813–833.

    Google Scholar 

  • Almubarak, A. F., Pervan, S. J., & Johnson, L. W. (2018). A conceptual analysis of brand intimacy on social media platforms. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 26(6), 463–478.

    Google Scholar 

  • Badrinarayanan, V., Suh, T., & Kim, K. M. (2016). Brand resonance in franchising relationships: A franchisee-based perspective. Journal of Business Research, 69(10), 3943–3950.

    Google Scholar 

  • Batra, R. (2019). Creating brand meaning: A review and research agenda. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 29(3), 535–546.

    Google Scholar 

  • Batra, R., Ahuvia, A., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2012). Brand love. Journal of Marketing, 76(2), 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauman, D. C. (2013). Leadership and the three faces of integrity. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(3), 414–426.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bian, X., & Moutinho, L. (2011). The role of brand image, product involvement, and knowledge in explaining consumer purchase behaviour of counterfeits: Direct and indirect effects. European Journal of Marketing, 45(1/2), 191–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bitner, M. J. (1990). Evaluating service encounters: the effects of physical surroundings and employee responses. Journal of Marketing, 54(2), 69–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloch, P. H. (1986). The product enthusiast: Implications for marketing strategy. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 3, 51–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolton, L. E., Keh, H. T., & Alba, J. W. (2010). How do price fairness perceptions differ macros culture? Journal of Marketing Research, 47(3), 564–576.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolton, R., & Saxena-Iyer, S. (2009). Interactive services: a framework, synthesis and research directions. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23(1), 91–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. In H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of Cross-cultural Psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 389–444). Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruhn, M., Schoenmüller, V., Schäfer, D., & Heinrich, D. (2012). Brand authenticity: Towards a deeper understanding of its conceptualization and measurement. Advances in Consumer Research, 40, 567–576.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burton, B. K., & Dunn, C. P. (1996). Feminist ethics as moral grounding for stakeholder theory. Business Ethics Quarterly, 133–147.

  • Carroll, B. A., & Ahuvia, A. C. (2006). Some antecedents and outcomes of brand love. Marketing Letters, 17(2), 79–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., & Guido, G. (2001). Brand personality: How to make the metaphor fit? Journal of Economic Psychology, 22(3), 377–395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Census and Statistics Department. (2021). Retrieved March 1, 2022, from https://www.censtatd.gov.hk/en/data/stat_report/product/B1120106/att/B11201062021XXXXB01.pdf.

  • Challagalla, G., Venkatesh, R., & Kohli, A. K. (2009). Proactive postsales service: When and why does it pay off? Journal of Marketing, 73(2), 70–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan, F. Y., Chan, H. F., & Tang, F. (2017). The effect of perceived advertising effort on brand perception: implication for retailers in Hong Kong. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 27(1), 78–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, J., & Schwarz, N. (2010). Use does not wear ragged the fabric of friendship: Thinking of objects as alive makes people less willing to replace them. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(2), 138–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, H. C. (1997). Language and words: Communication and the Analects of Confucius. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 16, 107–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Churchill, G. A., Jr. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of marketing research, 16(1), 64–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cignacco, B. R. (2019). The Art of Compassionate Business: Main Principles for the Human-oriented Enterprise. CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole, D. A., Ciesla, J. A., & Steiger, J. H. (2007). The insidious effects of failing to include design-driven correlated residuals in latent-variable covariance structure analysis. Psychological Methods, 12, 381–398.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cretu, A. E., & Brodie, R. J. (2007). The influence of brand image and company reputation where manufacturers market to small firms: A customer value perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 36(2), 230–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuddy, A. J., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2008). Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social perception: The stereotype content model and the BIAS map. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 61–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • DePaulo, B. M. (1992). Nonverbal behavior and self-presentation. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 203–243.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeVellis, R. F. (2016). Scale Development: Theory and Applications. Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of management Review, 20(1), 65–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duman, T., Ozbal, O., & Duerod, M. (2018). The role of affective factors on brand resonance: Measuring customer-based brand equity for the Sarajevo brand. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 8, 359–372.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dzyabura, D., & Peres, R. (2021). Visual elicitation of brand perception. Journal of Marketing, 85(4), 44–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engster, D. (2011). Care ethics and stakeholder theory. In Applying care ethics to business (pp. 93–110). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farooq, O., Payaud, M., Merunka, D., & Valette-Florence, P. (2014). The impact of corporate social responsibility on organizational commitment: exploring multiple mediation mechanisms. Journal of Business Ethics, 125(4), 563–580.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forgas, J. P., & George, J. M. (2001). Affective influences on judgments and behavior in organizations: An information processing perspective. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 3–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., Johnson, M. D., Anderson, E. W., Cha, J., & Bryant, B. E. (1996). The American customer satisfaction index: nature, purpose, and findings. Journal of marketing, 60(4), 7–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., Morgeson, F. V., III, & Hult, G. T. M. (2016). Stock returns on customer satisfaction do beat the market: Gauging the effect of a marketing intangible. Journal of Marketing, 80(5), 92–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 343–373.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Pitman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (1994). The politics of stakeholder theory: Some future directions. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(4), 409–421.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E., & Gllbert, D. R., Jr. (1992). Business, ethics and society: A critical agenda. Business & Society, 31(1), 9–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E., & Liedtka, J. (1991). Corporate social responsibility: A critical approach. Business Horizons, 34(4), 92–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fritz, K., Schoenmueller, V., & Bruhn, M. (2017). Authenticity in branding–exploring antecedents and consequences of brand authenticity. European Journal of Marketing, 51(2), 324–348.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gershon, R., & Cryder, C. (2018). Goods donations increase charitable credit for low-warmth donors. Journal of Consumer Research, 45(2), 451–469.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gotlieb, J., Levy, M., Grewal, D., & Lindsey-Mullikin, J. (2004). An Examination of Moderators of the Effects of Customers' Evaluation of Employee Courtesy on Attitude Toward the Service Firm. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(4), 825–847.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grohmann, B. (2009). Gender dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(1), 105–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gruca, T. S., & Rego, L. L. (2005). Customer satisfaction, cash flow, and shareholder value. Journal of marketing, 69(3), 115–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R., & Tatham, R. (2006). Multivariate Data Analysis. Pearson Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ham, S., & Lee, S. (2011). US restaurant companies' green marketing via company websites: impact on financial performance. Tourism Economics, 17(5), 1055–1069.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamington, M., & Sander-Staudt, M. (2011). Applying Care Ethics to Business. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendry, J. (2001). Economic contracts versus social relationships as a foundation for normative stakeholder theory. Business Ethics: A European Review, 10(3), 223–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennig-Thurau, T., Groth, M., Paul, M., & Gremler, D. (2006). Are All Smiles Created Equal? How Emotional Contagion and Emotional Labor Affect Service Relationships. Journal of Marketing, 70(3), 58–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herzog, H. (1963). Behavioral science concepts for analyzing the consumer. Marketing and the Behavioral Sciences, 3(1), 76–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoeffler, S., & Keller, K. L. (2002). Building brand equity through corporate societal marketing. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 21(1), 78–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iacobucci, D. (2009). Everything you always wanted to know about SEM (structural equations modeling) but were afraid to ask. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19(4), 673–680.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iacobucci, D. (2010). Structural equations modeling: Fit indices, sample size, and advanced topics. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(1), 90–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacoby, J., Olson, J. C., & Haddock, R. A. (1971). Price, brand name, and product composition characteristics as determinants of perceived quality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55(6), 570–579.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeon, H., & Choi, B. (2012). The relationship between employee satisfaction and customer satisfaction. Journal of Services Marketing, 26(5), 332–341.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joshi, R., & Garg, P. (2021). Role of brand experience in shaping brand love. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 45(2), 259–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kervyn, N., Fiske, S. T., & Malone, C. (2012). Brands as intentional agents framework: How perceived intentions and ability can map brand perception. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(2), 166–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koermer, C. D. (2005). Service provider type as a predictor of the relationship between sociality and customer satisfaction. The Journal of Business Communication, 42(3), 247–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotler, P., Armstrong, G., Ang, S. H., Leong, S. M., Tan, C. T., & Yau, O. H. M. (2011). Principles of Marketing – An Asian Perspective. Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, V., Aksoy, L., Donkers, B., Venkatesan, R., Wiesel, T., & Tillmanns, S. (2010). Undervalued or overvalued customers: capturing total customer engagement value. Journal of Service Research, 13(3), 297–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kwong, K. K., Tang, F., Tian, V. I., & Fung, A. L. (2015). Can customer loyalty be explained by virtue ethics? The Chinese way. Asian Journal of Business Ethics, 4(1), 101–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laczniak, G. R., & Murphy, P. E. (2012). Stakeholder theory and marketing: Moving from a firm-centric to a societal perspective. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 31(2), 284–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lam, K., & Shi, G. (2007). Factors affecting ethical attitudes in mainland China and Hong Kong. Journal of Business Ethics, 77, 463–479.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landwehr, J. R., McGill, A. L., & Herrmann, A. (2011). It's got the look: The effect of friendly and aggressive “facial” expressions on product liking and sales. Journal of Marketing, 75(3), 132–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laplume, A. O., Sonpar, K., & Litz, R. A. (2008). Stakeholder theory: Reviewing a theory that moves us. Journal of Management, 34(6), 1152–1189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lechner, A. T., & Paul, M. (2019). Is this smile for real? The role of affect and thinking style in customer perceptions of frontline employee emotion authenticity. Journal of Business Research, 94, 195–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leckie, C., Nyadzayo, M. W., & Johnson, L. W. (2016). Antecedents of consumer brand engagement and brand loyalty. Journal of Marketing Management, 32(5-6), 558–578.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liedtka, J. M. (1996). Feminist morality and competitive reality: A role for an ethic of care? Business Ethics Quarterly, 179–200.

  • Luo, X., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2006). Corporate social responsibility, customer satisfaction, and market value. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Machold, S., Ahmed, P. K., & Farquhar, S. S. (2008). Corporate governance and ethics: A feminist perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 81(3), 665–678.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacInnis, D. J., & Folkes, V. S. (2017). Humanizing brands: When brands seem to be like me, part of me, and in a relationship with me. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 27(3), 355–374.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mittal, V., & Kamakura, W. (2001). Satisfaction, Repurchase Intent, and Repurchase Behavior: Investigating the Moderating Effect of Customer Characteristics. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(1), 131–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morhart, F., Malär, L., Guèvremont, A., Girardin, F., & Grohmann, B. (2015). Brand authenticity: An integrative framework and measurement scale. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25(2), 200–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moulard, J. G., Raggio, R. D., & Folse, J. A. G. (2016). Brand authenticity: Testing the antecedents and outcomes of brand management's passion for its products. Psychology & Marketing, 33(6), 421–436.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ndubisi, N. O., & Nataraajan, R. (2018). Customer satisfaction, Confucian dynamism, and long-term oriented marketing relationship: A threefold empirical analysis. Psychology & Marketing, 35(6), 477–487.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neff, J. (2007). OMD proves the power of engagement. Advertising Age, 78(27), 3–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ni, N., Qian, C., & Crilly, D. (2014). The stakeholder enterprise: Caring for the community by attending to employees. Strategic Organization, 12(1), 38–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, J. C. (1972). Cue utilization in the quality perception process: A cognitive model and an empirical test [Doctoral dissertation, Purdue University].

  • Olson, J. C., & Jacoby, J. (1972). In M. Venkatesan (Ed.), Cue Utilization in the Quality Perception Process. Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research (pp. 167–179). Association for Consumer Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palanski, M. E., & Yammarino, F. J. (2007). Integrity and Leadership: Clearing the Conceptual Confusion. European Management Journal, 25(3), 171–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pappu, R., & Quester, P. G. (2008). Does brand equity vary between department stores and clothing stores? Results of an empirical investigation. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 17(7), 425–435.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phau, I., & Lau, K. C. (2000). Conceptualising brand personality: a review and research propositions. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 9(1), 52–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 885(879), 10–1037.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pugh, S. D. (2001). Service with a smile: Emotional contagion in the service encounter. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 1018–1027.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramasamy, B., Yeung, M. C. H., & Au, A. K. M. (2010). Consumer support for corporate social responsibility (CSR): The role of religion and values. Journal of Business Ethics, 91(1), 61–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Román, S., & Ruiz, S. (2005). Relationship outcomes of perceived ethical sales behavior: the customer's perspective. Journal of Business Research, 58(4), 439–445.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rynes, S., Gerhart, B., & Parks, L. (2005). Personnel psychology: Performance evaluation and pay for performance. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 571–600.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarkar, A., Ponnam, A., & Murthy, B. K. (2012). Understanding and measuring romantic brand love. Journal of Customer Behaviour, 11(4), 324–347.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simonson, I. (1989). Choice based on reasons: The case of attraction and compromise effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(2), 158–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sin, L. Y., Tse, A. C., & Yim, F. H. (2005). CRM: conceptualization and scale development. European Journal of Marketing, 39(11-12), 1264–1290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinthupundaja, J., Chiadamrong, N., & Kohda, Y. (2019). Internal capabilities, external cooperation and proactive CSR on financial performance. The Service Industries Journal, 39(15-16), 1099–1122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snell, R. S., Wu, C. X., & Lei, H. W. (2022). Junzi virtues: a Confucian foundation for harmony within organizations. Asian Journal of Business Ethics, 11(1), 183–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, M. R., Marshall, G. W., Stuart, E. W., Barnes, B. R., Mitchell, V. W., & Tabrizi, W. (2019). Marketing: Real people, real decisions. Pearson UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szybillo, G. J., & Jacoby, J. (1974). Intrinsic versus extrinsic cues as determinants of perceived product quality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(1), 74–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomson, M., MacInnis, D. J., & Whan Park, C. (2005). The ties that bind: Measuring the strength of consumers’ emotional attachments to brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(1), 77–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thorbjørnsen, H., Supphellen, M., Nysveen, H., & Egil, P. (2002). Building brand relationships online: A comparison of two interactive applications. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 16(3), 17–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tian, V. I., Tang, F., & Tse, A. C. B. (2021). Understanding corporate culture and business performance from a Confucian perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 34(4), 759–777.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tullberg, J. (2012). Integrity—Clarifying and upgrading an important concept for business ethics. Business and Society Review, 117(1), 89–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Prooijen, J. & van der Kloot, W. (2001). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61, 777-792.

  • Venable, B. T., Rose, G. M., Bush, V. D., & Gilbert, F. W. (2005). The role of brand personality in charitable giving: An assessment and validation. Journal of The Academy of Marketing Science, 33(3), 295–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voyles, B. (2007), “Beyond loyalty: meeting the challenge of customer engagement”, Economist Intelligence Unit, adobe.com/engagement/pdfs/partI.pdf (accessed 3 May 2015).

  • Westbrook, R. A., & Oliver, R. L. (1991). The dimensionality of consumption emotion patterns and consumer satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Research, 18(1), 84–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, T. I. (1992). Business, Ethics, and Carol Gilligan's" Two Voices". Business Ethics Quarterly, 51–61.

  • Wicks, A. C., Gilbert, D. R., Jr., & Freeman, R. E. (1994). A feminist reinterpretation of the stakeholder concept. Business Ethics Quarterly, 475–497.

  • Xie, C., He, Z., & Lin, D. (2005). Politeness: Myth and truth. Studies in Language, 29(2), 431–461.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yan, M. R., Hsieh, S., & Ricacho, N. (2022). Innovative food packaging, food quality and safety, and consumer perspectives. Processes, 10(4), 747. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr10040747

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yim, C. K., Tse, D. K., & Chan, K. W. (2008). Strengthening customer loyalty through intimacy and passion: Roles of customer–firm affection and customer–staff relationships in services. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(6), 741–756.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoon, B., & Chung, Y. (2018). The effects of corporate social responsibility on firm performance: A stakeholder approach. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 37, 89–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yuen, S., Cheng, E., Or, N., Grépin, K., Fu, K., Yung, K., & Yue, R. (2021). A tale of two city-states: A comparison of the state-led vs civil society-led responses to COVID-19 in Singapore and Hong Kong. Global Public Health, 16(8-9), 1–1303.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zand, D. E. (1972). Trust and managerial problem solving. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12(2), 229–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, M., DePaulo, B. M., & Rosenthal, R. (1981). Verbal and nonverbal communication of deception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (pp. 1–59). Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. All authors contributed equally to this article. Authorship is merely based on alphabetical order of author name.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Marketing, Hang Seng University of Hong Kong, Hang Shin Link, Siu Lek Yuen, Hong Kong

    Hung Fai Sunny Chan, Felix Tang & Kwan Yu Karen Yeung

Authors
  1. Hung Fai Sunny Chan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Felix Tang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kwan Yu Karen Yeung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hung Fai Sunny Chan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix 1

Measurement equations

$${\displaystyle \begin{array}{cc}\textrm{SAT}1={0.91}^{\ast}\textrm{Satisfaction},\textrm{Errorvar}.=0.75,& \textrm{R}?=0.58\\ {}(0.073)& (0.080)\\ {}12.46& 9.48\end{array}}$$
$$\begin{array}{cc}\text{SAT}2={0.94}^\ast\;\text{Satisfaction},\text{Errorvar}.=0.68,&\text{R}?=0.62\\(0.073)&(0.075)\\12.86&9.00\end{array}$$
$${\displaystyle \begin{array}{cc}\textrm{SAT}3={1.10}^{\ast }\ \textrm{Satisfaction},\textrm{Errorvar}.=1.00,& \textrm{R}?=0.60\\ {}(0.086)& (0.11)\\ {}12.69& 9.23\end{array}}$$
$$\begin{array}{cc}\text{SAT}4={1.00}^\ast\;\text{Satisfaction},\text{Errorvar}.=0.95,&\text{R}?=0.57\\(0.099)&\\9.58&\end{array}$$
$$\begin{array}{cc}\text{CARE}1={0.92}^\ast\text{Stakeholder}-\text{caring},\text{Errorvar}.=1.51,&\text{R}?=0.63\\(0.034)&(0.14)\\27.07&10.49\end{array}$$
$$\begin{array}{cc}\text{CARE}2={1.00}^\ast\text{Stakeholder}-\text{caring},\text{Errorvar}.=1.22,&\text{R}?=0.72\\(0.12)&\\9.73&\end{array}$$
$$\begin{array}{cc}\text{CARE}3={1.08}^\ast\text{Stakeholder}-\text{caring},\text{Errorvar}.=0.37,&\text{R}?=0.91\\(0.050)&(0.086)\\21.74&4.25\end{array}$$
$$\begin{array}{cc}\text{CARE}4={0.92}^\ast\text{Stakeholder}-\text{caring},\text{Errorvar}.=0.90,&\text{R}?=0.74\\(0.048)&(0.097)\\19.08&9.32\end{array}$$
$$\begin{array}{cc}\text{INTE}1={1.00}^\ast\text{Integrit},\text{Errorvar}.=1.58,&\text{R}?=0.60\\(0.15)&\\10.33&\end{array}$$
$$\begin{array}{cc}\text{INTE}2={0.91}^\ast\text{Integrit},\text{Errorvar}.=1.38,&\text{R}?=0.59\\(0.066)&(0.13)\\13.89&10.42\end{array}$$
$$\begin{array}{cc}\text{INTE}3={0.87}^\ast\text{Integrit},\text{Errorvar}.=0.62,&\text{R}?=0.74\\(0.055)&(0.072)\\15.93&8.64\end{array}$$
$$\begin{array}{cc}\text{INTE}4={0.91}^\ast\text{Integrit},\text{Errorvar}.=0.84,&\text{R}?=0.70\\(0.059)&(0.090)\\15.40&9.30\end{array}$$
$$\begin{array}{cc}\text{INTE}5={1.00}^\ast\text{Integrit},\text{Errorvar}.=2.10,&\text{R}?=0.53\\(0.077)&(0.19)\\13.05&10.79\end{array}$$
$$\begin{array}{cc}\text{COUR}1={1.00}^\ast\text{Courtesy},\text{Errorvar}.=0.41,&\text{R}?=0.73\\(0.052)&\\7.73&\end{array}$$
$$\begin{array}{cc}\text{COUR}2={0.98}^\ast\text{Courtesy},\text{Errorvar}.=0.30,&\text{R}?=0.78\\(0.055)&(0.046)\\17.82&6.66\end{array}$$
$$\begin{array}{cc}\text{COUR}3={0.96}^\ast\text{Courtesy},\text{Errorvar}.=0.57,&\text{R}?=0.64\\(0.060)&0.061\\16.07&9.38\end{array}$$
$$\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{c}\text{Error}\;\text{Covariance}\;\text{for}\;\text{CARE}1\;\text{and}\;\text{CARE}2=0.85\\(0.12)\\7.37\end{array}\end{array}$$

Appendix 2

Table 3 Measurement scale for the post hoc study
Full size table

Appendix 3

Table 4 Measurement scale for the post-hoc study
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chan, H.F.S., Tang, F. & Yeung, K.Y.K. Courtesy or integrity: what constitutes a stakeholder-caring image?. Asian J Bus Ethics 12, 257–284 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13520-023-00173-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13520-023-00173-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation