7/31/2019 1-s2.0-S0019850108000291-main

1/11

Corporate reputation and customer behavioral intentions: The roles of trust,

identification and commitment

Hean Tat Keh , Yi Xie 1

Department of Marketing, Guanghua School of Management, Peking University, Beijing 100871, PR China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history:

Received 28 March 2007

Received in revised form 12 December 2007

Accepted 12 February 2008

Available online 8 April 2008

How does corporate reputation influence customer behavioral intentions? This article proposes a model with

customer trust, customer identifi

cation and customer commitment as the key intervening factors betweencorporate reputation and customer purchase intention and willingness to pay a price premium. We test

the model by using data from 351 customers of three Chinese B2B service firms. Results indicate that

corporate reputation has positive influence on both customer trust and customer identification. Customer

commitment mediates the relationships between the two relational constructs (customer trust and customer

identification) and behavioral intentions. Customer identification and customer commitment relate closely,

but they are distinct constructs in the B2B setting.

2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords:

Corporate reputation

Customer trust

Customer identification

Customer commitment

Behavioral intentions

It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it.

If you think about that, you'll do things differently. Warren Buffett

1. Introduction

The issue of corporate reputation grabs headlines. For example,

Fortune magazine conducts an annual ranking of the most admired

companies. A survey conducted by PRWeek Magazine reveals that

almost 75% of the CEOs interviewed expressed concern about threats

to their organizations' corporate reputation (Capozzi, 2005). While

good corporate reputation takes a long time to build, it is easily

dismantled. The rise and fall of Enron is a prominent example of the

creation, use of and destruction of a corporate reputation.

According to the resource-based view of the firm, corporate re-

putation can be considered to be a valuable strategic resource that

contributes to a firm's sustainable competitive advantage (Dierickx

& Cool, 1989; Capozzi, 2005). The formation of a good reputation is along-term process inside an organization, thus it is an intangible

asset that is difficult for competitors to imitate. While some studies

document a positive relationship between corporate reputation and

financial performance (e.g., Podolny, 1993; Fombrun, 1996; Roberts

& Dowling, 1997, 2002) and try to explain the underlying mecha-

nisms and consequences of corporate reputation (e.g., Cretu & Brodie,

2007; Dowling, 2006), existing research in the marketing litera-ture says little about whether corporate reputation can contribute to

interorganizational relationship marketing, which we address in this

study. Specifically, we postulate that three important relational

factorscustomer trust, customer identification and customer com-

mitmentare the bridges between corporate reputation and custo-

mer behavioral intentions.

The present research proposes a model that adds to the literature

in three ways. First, the model explores the underlying mechanism by

which corporate reputation influences customer behavioral inten-

tions. This increases our understanding of how corporate reputation

contributes to competitive advantage by building relational benefits.

Second, the model incorporates customer identification into the B2B

context and examines corporate reputation and customer trust as

antecedents of customer identification. Third, the constructs of iden-

tification and commitment have traditionally been confused in terms

of conceptualization and measurement, giving rise to concerns re-

garding the discriminant validity between them (Edwards, 2005). This

study distinguishes identification from commitment both concep-

tually and operationally, thus providing a solution to the debate on

construct redundancy.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 reviews the

literature to understand the main constructs. Section 3 presents a

research framework and testable hypotheses, followed by a descrip-

tion of the data, data analysis, and discussion of our findings. Finally,

Section 4 summarizes the contributions and concludes with the

limitations of this study and suggestions for future research.

Industrial Marketing Management 38 (2009) 732742

The authors arelisted in alphabetical order.We are gratefulto Helen Lin, Jimmy Xue

and Jill Zhang for their research assistance during the data collection for this study. We

also thank the editor and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful feedback and

encouragement.

Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 10 6275 6281; fax: +86 10 6275 1470.

E-mail addresses: htkeh@gsm.pku.edu.cn(H.T. Keh),xieyi1@gsm.pku.edu.cn(Y.Xie).1 Tel.: +86 10 5276 7726.

0019-8501/$ see front matter 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2008.02.005

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Industrial Marketing Management

mailto:htkeh@gsm.pku.edu.cnmailto:xieyi1@gsm.pku.edu.cnhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2008.02.005http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00198501http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00198501http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2008.02.005mailto:xieyi1@gsm.pku.edu.cnmailto:htkeh@gsm.pku.edu.cn

7/31/2019 1-s2.0-S0019850108000291-main

2/11

2. Theoretical background

2.1. Corporate reputation

The concept of corporate reputation draws academic attention

from the management, economics, sociology, and marketing areas

(Brown, Dacin, Pratt, & Whetten, 2006). In general, researchers con-

ceptualize corporate reputation from either an economics perspec-

tive that regards corporate reputation as insiders' or/and outsiders'expectations and estimations of specific organizational attributes (e.g.,

Weigelt & Camerer, 1988), or builds from institutional theory that

characterizes it as a global impression reflecting the perception of a

collective stakeholder groupfor example, customers, employees, and

investors (Deephouse, 2000; Fombrun & Shanley, 1990; Olins, 1990).

Consistent with the institutional view, we define corporate reputation

as an overall evaluation of the extent to which a firm is substantial-

ly good or bad (Weiss, Anderson, & MacInnis, 1999; Roberts &

Dowling, 2002).

In order to have a well-rounded understanding of reputation, we

need to examine both its antecedents and consequences. In the

context of MBA education, Rindova, Williamson, Petkova, and Sever

(2005) find resource signals (quality of inputs and quality of pro-

ductive assets), certifications from institutional intermediaries (media

rankings and certifications of achievement) and affiliation with high-

status institutions to be key antecedents of organizational reputation.

However, the narrow research context limits the generalizability of

their model. In another study, Carmeli and Tishler (2005) investigate

the roles of product quality and customer satisfaction in predicting

reputation.

Past research indicates that corporate reputation has a positive

effect on financial performance (e.g., Podolny, 1993; Fombrun, 1996;

Roberts & Dowling,1997). In addition, a favorable corporate reputation

can greatly benefit firms in other ways, including (1) delaying rival

mobility in the industry, (2) charging price premium on customers, at

least in highly uncertain markets, (3) attracting higher-quality and

larger amounts of investments from the stock market, (4) maintaining

a high spirit among employees, (5) enjoying a cost advantage due

to less contracting and monitoring costs with suppliers and lowerremuneration rate among employees, and (6) supporting and en-

hancing new product introduction and recovery strategies in the

event of a crisis (Benjamin & Podolny, 1999; Carmeli & Tishler, 2005;

Fombrun & Shanley, 1990; Fombrun, 1996; Rindova et al., 2005;

Roberts & Dowling, 2002).

Yet, a good reputation is not a cure-all. In a recent study, Page and

Fearn (2005) suggest that while a bad reputation makes building

brand equity difficult, a good reputation does not guarantee strong

brands. Having strong corporate reputation has a downside, par-

ticularly when firms get into trouble. Rhee and Haunschild (2006)

illustrate the liability of good reputation through a study of product

recalls in the U.S. automobile industry. Specifically, their findings

reveal that firms with good reputation suffer more than those with

poor reputation when they make mistakes, which may be due to thecontrast effect from disconfirmation of high expectation (Herr, 1989).

2.2. Customer commitment and trust

Commitment and trust are central factors that contribute to suc-

cessful relationship marketingbecauseof theirabilityto leadindirectly

to cooperative behavior and produce outcomes that promote effi-

ciency, productivity and effectiveness (Morgan & Hunt, 1994).

From its root in social exchange theory (Cook & Emerson, 1978),

commitment is one of the key concepts in relationship marketing

research (Dwyer, Schurr, & Oh, 1987; Hennig-Thurau, Gwinner, &

Gremler, 2002). Commitment is an exchange party's long-term

desire to maintain a valuable ongoing relationship with another

(Moorman, Zaltman, & Deshpande, 1992; Morgan & Hunt, 1994).

Berry and Parasuraman (1991) suggest that, in the services marketing

area, relationships are built on the basis of mutual commitment.

Following the literature, we define customer commitment as an

exchange partner's willingness to maintain an important enduring

relationship (Garbarino & Johnson,1999;Hennig-Thurau et al.,2002).

The literature recognizes trust as a prerequisite to building cus-

tomer relationships and as a preceding state for the development of

commitment (Garbarino & Johnson, 1999; Morgan & Hunt, 1994).

Morgan andHunt (1994) note that trust will occur when one party hasconfidence in an exchange partner's reliability and integrity. Because

of its salience in the context of uncertainty, trust plays a critical

role for service providers and B2B marketers (Hennig-Thurau et al.,

2002; Moorman et al., 1992). In particular, Berry and Parasuraman

(1991, p. 144) note that effective services marketing depends on the

management of trust because the customer typically must buy a

service before experiencing it. In this study, we define customer trust

as the customer's overall perception towards the ability (i.e., skills and

competencies of the trustee), benevolence (i.e., the extent to which a

trustee is perceived as being willing to take the other party's interests

into account when making decision), and integrity (i.e., the truster's

belief that the trustee is honest and fulfills its promises) of the pro-

vider (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995).

2.3. Customer identification

Customer identification is an important but underutilized con-

struct (Bhattacharya, Rao, & Glynn, 1995; Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003).

Customer identification helps explain the relationship between em-

ployees and their organization (Berger, Cunningham, & Drumwright,

2006; Kramer, 1999), as well as the relationship between customers

and their consumed brands (Underwood, Bond, & Baer, 2001). In

particular, brand researchers suggest that customer identification

with a brand community (i.e., specialized, non-geographically bound

community, based on a structured set of social relations among

admirers of a brand) will exert influence on brand-related purchase

behaviors and community duration (Algesheimer, Dholakia, &

Herrmann, 2005).

Based on social identity theory and organizational identifica-tion theory, Bhattacharya and Sen (2003) suggest that some of the

strongest customercompany relationships occur when customers

identify with the companies that satisfy one or more of their key self-

definitional needs (e.g., self-continuity, self-distinctiveness and self-

enhancement). The underlying premise is that people typically go

beyond their personal identity to develop a social identity with the

hope of articulating their sense of self (Brewer, 1991) and that people

may also identify with organizations even when they are not formal

members of those organizations (Pratt, 1998; Scott & Lane, 2000).

Organizations are entities with their own image, personality and

identity (Melewar & Karaosmanoglu, 2006; Mokhiber & Weissman,

2003; Simoes, Dibb, & Fisk, 2005). Therefore, organizational custo-

mers also have the need for self-definition and may express them-

selves through developing social identifying relationships. Products,services, brands, and companies are key components of an individual's

social identity, and constitute valid targets for identification among

relevant customers because of their roles in self-referral and self-

definition (Kleine, Klein, & Keman, 1993; Underwood et al., 2001).

Analogously, in the B2B market environment, transaction partners

comprise a significant part of organizational customers' social identity

and form suitable identification targets.

Customercompany identification is a distinct concept from

customers' identification with a company's brand, its target markets

and its prototypical consumer. To illustrate, when companies imple-

ment a multi-brand strategy for all products or services (e.g., P&G) or

operate in a wide range of business areas (e.g., GE), customers' iden-

tification towards a company will differ greatly from their identifi-

cation towards its specific brand. A company with high customer

733H.T. Keh, Y. Xie / Industrial Marketing Management 38 (2009) 732742

7/31/2019 1-s2.0-S0019850108000291-main

3/11

identification can benefit through customers' loyalty to existing prod-

ucts, willingness to try new products, spreading positive word-of-

mouth, and resilience to negative information associated with the

company (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003).

In spite of the desirable benefits of customer identification and

its critical role in building and maintaining deep, committed, and

meaningful relationships (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003, p. 76), empirical

research is scarce on the existence, nature, antecedents and con-

sequences of customer identifi

cation towards companies (Cardador &Pratt, 2006; Einwiller, Fedorikhin, Johnson, & Kamins, 2006). One

exception is Ahearne, Bhattacharya, and Gruen's (2005) study, in

which they identify both antecedents (i.e., construed external image

of the company, perceived salesperson characteristics and perceived

company characteristics) and consequences (i.e., customer extra-role

behaviors and customer product utilization) of customercompany

identification. In particular, addressing customer identification in the

B2B context is meaningful.

2.4. Behavioral intentions

Customer behavioral intentions are signals of actual purchasing

choice, and thus are desirable to monitor (Zeithaml, Berry, & Parasura-

man, 1996). There are different ways of operationalizing behavioral

intentions in the literature. For example, Bansal, Irving, and Taylor

(2004) investigate the role of consumer commitment on switching

intentions. Mittal, Kumar, and Tsiros (1999) measure customers'

intention to recommend, and find an asymmetric as well as dynamic

crossover effect of product and service satisfaction in determining

customer intentions towards product manufacturers and service

providers. Zeithaml et al. (1996) suggest a multidimensional behavioral

intention structure based on the Servqual scale. Each method has its

own advantages and weaknesses, the choice among which may well

depend on specific research purposes.

This study focuses on two specific behavioral intentionspurchase

intention and willingness to pay a price premium of existing custom-

ers, which have direct and critical influences on brand and organiza-

tional performance (Ailawadi, Neslin, & Lehmann, 2003; Zeithaml

et al., 1996). Thebehavioral intentions of existingcustomers in theB2Bmarket are particularly salient as it is more difficult to attract new

customers due to the higher risk and complexity of organizational

buying decisions (Katrichis, 1998). A customer exhibiting higher

purchase intentions and willingness to pay a price premium is more

likely to stay longer with the supplier firm and have lower sensitivity

to price changes. In particular, researchers are recognizing the cri-

tical role of price premium as a favorable characteristic of customer

commitment as well as an important contributor to firm revenue

(e.g., Bendixen, Bukasa, & Abratt, 2004; Kumar, Bohling, & Ladda,

2003).

3. Research framework and hypotheses

Building on the preceding literature review, the following model

links a firm's corporate reputation, through three relational constructs

(customer trust, customer identification and customer commitment),

to customer purchase intention and willingness to pay a price pre-

mium (see Fig. 1).

3.1. Corporate reputation and customer trust

Highlyreputablecompanies arelikely to gain customer trust in three

ways. First, both economic and institutional perspectives of reputa-

tion recognize its valuable role in reducing the uncertainty stakehold-

ers encounter when they evaluate firms (Benjamin & Podolny, 1999;

Rindova et al., 2005), because positive corporate reputation is based on

superior performance over a certain period of time. As confidence is an

important factor in the creation of relational trust (Morgan & Hunt,

1994), highreputationcan strengthencustomers' confidenceand reduce

risk perceptions when they make judgment on organizational per-

formance and quality of products or services. Thus customers are

more likely to perceive companies with highly favorable reputations as

trustworthy. Second, customers are more likely to perceive companies

with good reputations by several interrelated featurescredibility,

reliability, responsibility, and trustworthiness (Fombrun, 1996), as well

as perceived quality and prominence (Rindova et al., 2005), which can

enhance customers' expectation of corporate capability in providing

excellent products or services, and integrity in fulfilling formal contracts

or announced promise. In particular, during the initial stages of the

relationship when there has been no previous transaction betweenboth parties, a good reputation signals the seller's competence and/or

goodwill (Campbell,1999).As a result,buyers may basetheir trust onthe

Fig. 1. Conceptual model and results (Model 1).

734 H.T. Keh, Y. Xie / Industrial Marketing Management 38 (2009) 732742

7/31/2019 1-s2.0-S0019850108000291-main

4/11

seller's reputation to evaluate the cost and benefit of transacting with

this seller (Barone, Manning, & Miniard, 2004).

Finally, corporate reputation is often viewed as a fragile resource,

which requires considerable time and investment to develop but is

easily destroyed (Hall, 1993). Thus, reputable companies are expected

to behave well and are less likely to engage in negative behaviors,

which strengthen customers' confidence in their integrity and re-

liability. For example, Doney and Cannon (1997) find that confidence

in the supplier's reputation is one of the important cognitive process-es through which industrial buyers develop trust in a supplier firm.

Accordingly, we propose that:

H1. Corporate reputation relates positively to customer trust.

3.2. Corporate reputation and customer identification

Customers identify withan organization based on theirperceptions

ofitsdefining characteristic or perceived identity (Dutton, Dukerich, &

Harquail, 1994). Corporate reputation is such a key characteristic. A

critical antecedent of customer identification is the attractiveness of

the corporate identity, which in turn depends on identity similarity,

identity distinctiveness and identity prestige (Bhattacharya & Sen,

2003). Corporate reputation has a positive influence on the develop-

ment of customer identification because of its ability to underscore

identity attractiveness of the focal company.

Several explanations may account for the perception of highly re-

putable companies as being attractive. First, companies with high repu-

tation tend to have superior financial profitability, products or services,

and frequent media coverage, which subsequently enhance their rela-

tive advantage and distinctive identity in the marketplace, which in turn

contribute to their identityattractiveness. Second,as favorable reputation

directly denotes high prestige, corporate reputation is directly related to

identity attractiveness of the company (Bergami & Bagozzi, 2000).

According to social identity theory, buyers are willing to identify or build

connection with highly-regarded sellers, just as individual customers are

willing to identify with reputable companies, which can facilitate their

self-definition process and satisfy the need for self-distinctiveness and

self-enhancement (Pratt, 1998; Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003). In a recentstudy, Ahearne et al. (2005) find that the external image of a company,

which is similar andcloselyrelated to reputation, plays an important role

in leading to customercompany identification. Accordingly:

H2. Corporate reputation relates positively to customer identification.

3.3. Customer trust, customer commitment and behavioral intentions

Morgan and Hunt (1994) suggest that commitment involves vul-

nerability, thus parties are motivated to seek trustworthy partners.

The findings by Moorman et al. (1992) indicate that trust in their

service providers significantly influences customer commitment to

the relationship. Achrol (1991) also claims that trust is among the

major determinants of relationship commitment. The positive rela-tionships between relational constructs (i.e., trust and commitment)

and favorable behaviors are well-documented in the marketing litera-

ture (e.g., Morgan & Hunt, 1994; Hennig-Thurau et al., 2002). In par-

ticular, Doney and Cannon (1997) indicate that the buying firm's

trust in a supplier firm is positively related to the buying firm's an-

ticipation of future interaction with the supplier. Commitment has

been shown to be positively related to favorable intentions such as

repeat purchases, making recommendations, acts of price insensitivity

and cross-buying (Musa, Pallister, & Robson, 2005). In addition, there

is also evidence indicating that the linkage between trust and

behavioral intentions is often fully or partially mediated by commit-

ment (e.g., Morgan & Hunt, 1994; Garbarino & Johnson, 1999; Hennig-

Thurau et al., 2002; Bansal et al., 2004). This leads to the following

hypotheses:

H3. Customer trust relates positively to (a) purchase intention and (b)

willingness to pay a price premium.

H4. Customer commitment mediates the relationship between

customer trust and (a) purchase intention and (b) willingness to pay

a price premium.

3.4. Customer trust, customer identification and customer commitment

Mutual trust is a key characteristic of successful social exchanges,

both between persons and between organizations. Thus, companies

consider building a trustworthy identity among the various stake-

holderscustomers, investors and other bodiesas a crucial task. To

communicate their self-definition and enhance their self-esteem,

customers are likely to identify with trustworthy organizations. In

identifying with the trusted party characterized as being competent,

benevolent and honest, customers tend to portray a similar profile to

them. That a buyer will perceive a linkage between its self-identity and

its seller when the buyer distrusts the seller is difficult to imagine.

Bhattacharya and Sen (2003) propose that the extent to which con-

sumers perceive the company identity as trustworthy will determine

their response to it. Further, as a key factor in building long-term and

close relationships (i.e., committed relationships), trust should also be

an antecedent of identified relationships. Thus, we propose that:

H5. Customer trust relates positively to customer identification.

Favorable consequences of customer identification include custo-

mers being more loyal, more likely to try new products or services,

spread positive word-of-mouth about the company and being resilient

to negative information associated with it (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003;

Einwiller et al., 2006). Ahearne et al. (2005) find that identification

impacts both in-role behavior (i.e., product utilization) as well as extra-

role behavior (i.e., citizenship) even when the effectof brand perception

is controlled. Besides purchase intention, we explore the effect of

customer identification on willingness to pay a price premium. The

reasoningis thatcustomers whoidentifywitha company aremorelikely

to be proud of theassociation, andthey make extraeffort to advocatethecompany (i.e., citizenship) as well as being less sensitive to higher prices

for the products or services of their identified company.

H6. Customer identification relates positively to (a) purchase inten-

tion and (b) willingness to pay a price premium.

Organizational identification and commitment are closely relat-

ed and easily confused constructs, as they both describe the strong

linkage between the individual and the organization. Cheney and

Tompkins (1987) differentiate these two concepts by noting that

identification is the appropriation of identity and commitment is the

binding to action (p. 8) and they explicitly suggest commitment as an

outcome of an individual's identificationwith a collective over time. In

a similar vein, Edwards (2005) argues that identification is limited to a

specific subjective state of theindividual, while commitment is a moreinclusive construct, encompassing certain psychological states that

would occur subsequently if a person identifies with an organization.

Studies on the interaction between employees and their organiza-

tions provide evidence for the role of organizational identification as a

determinant of employee commitment (Wiener, 1982; Pratt, 1998).

The marketing literature also indicates that identification is a key

factor for building customer commitment (Fullerton, 2005). For

example, in the context of channel management, Morgan and Hunt

(1994) indicate that higher shared values between retailers and their

suppliers increase retailers' commitment toward the ongoing rela-

tionship. As a result, we expect that customer identification can en-

hance customer commitment. Furthermore, while both commitment

and identification can affect behavioral intentions, as commitment

is a more immediate antecedent to action, we posit that customer

735H.T. Keh, Y. Xie / Industrial Marketing Management 38 (2009) 732742

7/31/2019 1-s2.0-S0019850108000291-main

5/11

commitment plays a mediating role between customer identification

and behavioral intentions.

H7. Customer commitment mediates the relationship between

customer identification and behavioral intentions.

4. Methods

4.1. Sample and data collection

An empirical study examines the model in the B2B context as

previous research indicates that firms tend to build customer rela-

tionships at an organizational level. A focal firm's organizational

customers are more likely to depend on the name of the firm than on

a specific brand name in making purchase decisions (Rao, Agarwal, &

Dahlhoff, 2004). Data were collected in the following manner. First,

the study obtained support and assistance from three Chinese com-

panies in different B2B service industries. The first company (Firm A)

is a well-known, publicly-listed, computer network firm. The second

company (Firm B) is a state-owned firm providing professional

translation services. The third company (Firm C) is a medium-sized

Sino-foreign joint venture whose trading businesses are located in

Shenzhen and Hong Kong. The distinct backgrounds of the three focal

companies provide adequate variation in the measurement of

corporate reputation.

The three focal firms then provided their customer lists as well as

telephone numbers of key contact persons in customer organizations

who played critical roles in determining the ongoing relationships

between the service providers and their customers. Three trained

research assistants telephoned the key informant of each customer

company to explain the purpose of this research and elicit their coop-

eration. Respondents were assured that their identities would remain

anonymous and that only aggregated results would be reported. The

expected incentive for participation in this survey was that the find-

ings would help advance managerial knowledge related to corporate

reputation and customer relationships. Out of a total of 996 contacts,

353 customer companies agreed to participate in this study. The

questionnaires weresent to thesecooperative informants by mail or e-mail. After a week, a total of 208 responses were received, and with

follow-up calls the remaining 145 responses were received. However,

two of them were unusable due to missing data. The final sample for

analysis consisted of 351 observations (203 organizational customers

of Firm A, 68 of Firm B and 80 of Firm C). The overall response rate is

35.2% (Firm A 40.4%, Firm B 29.1%, and Firm C 30.7%).

The first part of the questionnaire describes the objectives of

our study and instructed respondents on how to answer the ques-

tions. To reduce potential common method bias, this research assures

respondents that their answers as well as the names of the involved

companies will be used anonymously and for academic purposes only,

and requests that respondents answer the questions as accurately

as possible (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). The

next section consists of items relating to the main constructs of this

research, such as the corporate reputation of the focal company, and

the respondent company's identification towards the focal company,

whose order is counter-balanced in the questionnaire. Finally, the

respondents indicate the background profiles of their companies. The

customer companies in the sample cover a wide range of industries,which avoids industry bias. Industries represented included both

manufacturing (e.g., automobile parts, garment, pharmaceutical,

electronic equipment, toys and heavy machinery) and non-manufac-

turing (e.g., telecommunications, banking and insurance, logistics,

advertising, supermarket retailing, hotel, real estate development,

restaurant, tourism, IT and education) sectors. The respondents were

mainly males (58%), and over half of them were middle-level man-

agers or above in their companies (52%). A multi-ttest on responses of

the key constructs between managers and non-manager respondents

indicates that none of the key constructs was significantly different

between the two groups. In addition, the respondents have been

with their companies for more than 5 years, on average. Thus, the

respondents were able to give authoritative comments on issues of

interest.

4.2. Measures

All measures were adopted or adapted from previous research.

To ensure conceptual equivalence and word-clarity, we conducted

translation and back-translation. The translated questionnaire was

evaluated by two bilingual faculty members to examine its face and

content validities. Before the main study, 26 MBA students having

similar backgrounds with people in the sample were recruited to

pretest the questionnaire in order to avoid vague concepts and keep

the questions as simple, specific, and concise as possible (Podsakoff

et al., 2003). Feedback from this process was used to improve the

measuring instrument. All the items were measured using a seven-

point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree).

Corporate reputation was measured using the scale adopted fromWeiss et al. (1999). For the variable of customer identification, we

adapted the well-established measurement of organizational identi-

fication (Mael & Ashforth, 1992) and selected the relevant items to

measure organizational customer identification towards the focal

company.

In the literature, researchers have used both the unidimension-

al (e.g., Garbarino & Johnson, 1999; Hennig-Thurau et al., 2002) and

multidimensional views of commitment (e.g., Gundlach, Achrol, &

Mentzer, 1995; Bansal et al., 2004), as well as the unidimensional

(e.g., Mayer et al., 1995; Selnes & Sallis, 2003) and multidimensional

Table 1

Measurement items for trust and commitment in this study.

Variables Items Source

Customer trust 1 We trust that the focal company is competent at what they are doing. Selnes and Sallis (2003)

2 My company feels generally that the focal company is trustworthy. Selnes and Sallis (2003)

3 My company feels generally that the focal company is of very high integrity. Sirdeshmukh, Singh, and Sabol (2002)

4 My company feels generally that the focal company is very responsive to customers. Sirdeshmukh, Singh, and Sabol (2002)

5 My company feels generally that the focal company will respond with understanding in the event of problems. Selnes and Sallis (2003)

Customer commitment 1 My company does not feel a strong sense ofbelonging to the focal company.a Bansal et al. (2004)

2 It would be very hard for my company to leave the focal company right now, even if we wanted to. Bansal et al. (2004)

3 The company deserves my company's loyalty. Bansal et al. (2004)

4 It would not be too costly for my company to leave the focal company in the near future. a

5 My company would not leave the focal company right now because we have a sense of obligation to them. Bansal et al. (2004)

6 My company have too few options to consider leaving the focal company. Bansal et al. (2004)

7 My company does not feel like part of the family with the company.a Bansal et al. (2004)

Italicized items are deleted in the final analysis due to low factor loadings.a

Reverse coded item.

736 H.T. Keh, Y. Xie / Industrial Marketing Management 38 (2009) 732742

7/31/2019 1-s2.0-S0019850108000291-main

6/11

views of trust (e.g., Kingshott, 2006). Multidimensional operationali-

zations can reflect different sources of the construct, while unidimen-

sional operationalizationsregard the constructas an overall judgment.

In this research, we took an overall perspective and operationalized

customer trust and customer commitment unidimensionally. Four

items adapted from Sirdeshmukh, Singh, and Sabol (2002) and Selnes

and Sallis (2003)were usedto measurecustomer trust, which captured

the three components of ability, benevolence, and integrity. Commit-

ment was measured using five items from Bansal et al. (2004) and

Allen and Meyer (1990), which included affective, continuance and

normative components (see Table 1 for detailed measurement items

for trust and commitment).

Finally, purchase intention was measured using items from Zeithamlet al. (1996) and Doney and Cannon (1997), and willingness to pay a

price premium was measured using items from Zeithaml et al. (1996).

After deletion of items that have low item-to-total loadings or high-

cross loadings in the confirmatory factory analysis, all remaining mea-

ures had Cronbach alphas greater than the cut-off point of .7 suggested

by Nunnally (1978) (see Table 2), indicating that the measures for the

main constructs exhibited good internal consistency.

5. Analysis and results

5.1. Model estimation

Before testing the hypotheses, the study examined a correlation

matrix of the composite scales for the key constructs, as shown inTable 3. The signs of the bivariate correlations indicated patterns

consistent with the expected relationships. To test the hypotheses, the

analysis employs structural equation modeling with the maximum

likelihood estimation method, using the framework Fig. 1 shows as

the base model (model 1). To explore the mediating role of customer

commitment between the two relational constructs and behavioral

intentions, the analysis follows Baron and Kenny's (1986) procedures

andcompares model 1 (with customer commitment as theintermediate

variable)against model2 (without the linkages between customer trust/

identification and customer commitment). Specifically, model 1

suggests that customer trust and customer identification can influence

behavioral intentions indirectly through customer commitment, which

is indicated by the linkages between customer trust/customer identi-

fication and customer commitment; while model 2 suggests that

customer trust and customer identification have only direct effects on

behavioral intentions, as indicated by the lack of connections between

customer trust/customer identification and customer commitment. If

the comparison results suggest that relationships between the two

relational constructs and behavioralintentionsare more significant and/

or stronger in model 2 than in model 1, then the mediating role of

commitment is supported (Baron & Kenny, 1986).

5.2. Construct validity

The analysis follows Anderson and Gerbing's (1988) two-step

approach for structure equation modeling, whereby the estimation

of a confirmatory measurement model precedes the simultaneousestimation of the measurement and structural models. Therefore, the

analysis evaluated the convergent and discriminant validities of the

focal constructs by estimating a six-factor confirmatory measurement

model, in which all the six constructs were latent variables and each

item loaded only onto its latent construct. The latent constructs are

allowed to correlate with each other, and the measurement items and

their error items are allowed to be uncorrelated. The model indicates

an acceptable fit of the data (2=551.75, df= 174, pb .001; CFI=.99;

TLI=.98; IFI= .99; NFI= .98; and RMSEA= .08), confirming the uni-

dimensionality of the measures (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). In

addition, all indicators loaded significantly onto the respective latent

constructs (pb .001) with the values varying from .64 to .95, and the

average variance extracted (AVE) indices all exceeded the recom-

mended standard of .5 (see Table 2), thus confirming good convergentvalidity (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988).

Table 3

Correlations and descriptive statistics of key constructs.

1 2 3 4 5 6 Mean (S.D.)

1. Corporate reputation 1 5.30 (1.07)

2. Customer commitment .45() 1 4.63 (1.24)

3. Customer identification .42() .73() 1 4.48 (1.35)

4. Customer tr ust .61() .55() .45() 1 5.44 (1.07)

5. Purchase intention .56() .79() .68() .65() 1 4.93 (1.19)

6. Price premium . 41() .74() .67() .47() .76() 1 4.55 (1.44)

Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).

Table 2

Final measurement items.

Variables Items AVE Factor loadings

in CFA

Alpha

Corporate reputation 1 The focal company is a highly-regarded company. .76 .86 .91

2 The focal company is a successful company. .86

3 The focal company is a well-established company. .90

Customercommitment 1 My company does not feel a strong sense ofbelonging to the focal company.a .65 .77 .90

2 I t would be ver y hard f or my company to leave t he f ocal co mpany right now, even if we wante d t o. .76

3 The company deserves my company's loyalty. .884 It would not be too costly for my company to leave the focal company in the near future. a .77

5 My company would not leave the focal company right now because we have a sense of obligation to them. .83

Customer

identification

1 This organization's successes are my company's successes. .71 .64 .90

2 My company is very interested in what others think about the focal company. .89

3 If a story in the media criticized this organization, my company would feel embarrassed. .92

4 When someone praises the focal company it feels like a compliment of my company. .88

Customer trust 1 We trust that the focal company is competent at what they are doing. .81 .83 .94

2 My company feels generally that the focal company is trustworthy. .93

3 My company feels generally that the focal company is of very high integrity. .95

4 My company feels generally that the focal company is very responsive to customers. .87

Pur chase int ent ion 1 My company will buy most of r elevant product s/services fr om the f ocal co mpany in t he futur e. .74 .85 .89

2 My company will consider the focal company the first choice from which to buy products/services. .88

3 My company will do more business with the focal company in the next few years. .84

Price premium 1 My company will cont inue to do business with t he focal company e ven if its prices incr ease somewhat. .83 .89 .90

2 My company will pay a higher price than competitors charge for the benefits currently received from the focal company. .93

a Reverse coded item.

737H.T. Keh, Y. Xie / Industrial Marketing Management 38 (2009) 732742

7/31/2019 1-s2.0-S0019850108000291-main

7/11

To assess the discriminant validity of the measures, chi-square

tests for all the constructs in pairs (15 tests) are conducted to de-

termine whether the restricted model (correlation fixed as 1) was

significantly worse than the unrestricted model (correlation esti-

mated freely). All chi-square differences, except that between

customer identification and purchase intention which was marginally

significant (p =.065), were significant (pb .05), providing acceptable

evidence of discriminant validity for the measures (Anderson &

Gerbing,1988). We areinterested in thediscriminant validity betweencustomer identification and customer commitment. Results of the

specific chi-square difference test for customer identification and

customer commitment (2 [1] = 11.8, pb .001) indicated that these

two closely-related constructs differed significantly. In addition, the

AVE is greater than the squared correlation of any pair of two

constructs, further supporting the discriminant validity of the

constructs (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). For example, the squared

correlation between customer identification and purchase intention

(.46) is less than the AVE of customer identification (.71) and the AVE

of behavioral intention (.74), which provides some evidence for

discriminant validity between these two constructs.

In testing for theexistence of commonmethod bias, Harman's one-

factor method was used. An exploratory analysis of the data indicated

the absence of a single factor accounting for the majority of variance

among the measures, thus common method bias was not a problem in

this study (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). In summary, all measures have

good construct validities and desirable psychometric properties.

5.3. Hypotheses testing

Before pooling the data, the analysesincluded MANOVAs on all the

measures and there were significant differences in some measure-

ment items among the three focal companies. Therefore, two dummy

firm variables were used to represent the origin of the respondents

and the three focal companies were coded as firm A (1,0), firm B (0,0)

and firm C (0,1). Compared with firm B, firm A has higher score on

corporate reputation (r=.189, pb .001) and customer identification

(r=.334, pb .001), and lower score on customer trust (r= .212,

pb .001) and purchase intention (r= .081, pb .01), while firm C hashigher score on customer identification (r=.260, pb .001) and lower

score on purchase intention (r= .068, pb .05).

The method includes regressing the dummy variables, along with

key antecedents indicated in the conceptual framework, onto all

constructs when estimating the structural model (Atuahene-Gima &

Murray, 2004). Through this procedure, the origin of the respon-

dents was controlled for, which enabled us to pool the data collected

from customers of the three focal companies together. The analysis

proceeds to examine the overall model fit. While the chi-square

statistic (2=863.19, df=209, pb .001) is significant, all the baseline

comparison indices (CFI=.98, NFI=.97, IFI=.98, RFI=.96, TLI=.97, andRMSEA=.10) indicate an acceptable fit of the data, as shown in Fig. 1.

The results show that corporate reputation has positive direct

effects on both customer trust (r=.68, pb .001) and customer iden-

tification (r=.16, pb .01), in support of H1 and H2. Comparing the

values of the two coefficients, it appears that corporate reputation has

greater influence on customers' perception of corporate trustworthi-

ness than on customers' judgment about whether to identify with a

company. In addition, corporate trust is positively related to customer

identification (r=.36, pb .001), which supports H5.

H3 and H6 examine the impact of customer trust and customer

identification on the two behavioral intentions. The estimation re-

sults of model 2 (see Fig. 2) reveal that corporate trust has positive

effect on purchase intention (r=.37, pb .001) and moderate effect on

price premium (r=.09, pb .05), whereas customer identification has

significant effect on purchase intention (r=.31, pb .001) and price

premium (r=.38, pb .001), respectively. Thus, both H3 and H6 are

supported.

To test H4 and H7, that is, the mediating role of commitment in the

linkages between customer trust and behavioral intentions, as well as

between customer identification and behavioral intentions, we

compare the standardized path coefficients of the two models with

and without the mediating relationships. According to Baron and

Kenny(1986), withthe addition of a mediator(customer commitment)

into the model, the contribution of a previously significant indepen-

dent variable (in model 2) should drop significantly (in model 1)

for partial mediation and become insignificant for full mediation.

Therefore, we compare the results in Figs. 1 and 2 to assess H4 and H7.

First, Fig. 2 shows that the overall model fit of model 2 (2=1165.75,

df=211; CFI=.96, NFI=.96, IFI= .96, RFI= .94, TLI =.95 andRMSEA= .11) isdissatisfactory and worse than that of model 1 ( 2 [2] =302.56,

pb .001), which suggests that the mediating role of customer

Fig. 2. Results of Model 2 (without the linkages between trust/identification and commitment).

738 H.T. Keh, Y. Xie / Industrial Marketing Management 38 (2009) 732742

7/31/2019 1-s2.0-S0019850108000291-main

8/11

commitment cannot be neglected. In addition, the results of model 2

indicate that customer trust, customer identification and customer

commitment all have significant positive impact on both purchase

intention and price premium, respectively (all p'sb .05). When cus-

tomer trust and customer identification are linked to customer com-

mitment (as in model 1), the standardized path coefficients between

trust/identification and behavioral intentions are all affectedto varying

extents. Specifically, the positive effect of customer trust on purchase

intention remains signifi

cant, but the strength decreases from .37 to.25, whereas the positive effect of customer trust on price premium is

fully mediated by customer commitment and becomes insignificant in

model 1. The linkages between customer identification and behavioral

intentions become insignificant and drop to nearly zero.

Sobel tests are conducted to further support the mediating role of

customer commitment in the linkages between customer trust/

customer identification and the two behavioral intentions (Baron &

Kenny, 1986). Results show that the mediating effect of customer

commitment on the relationship between customer trust and price

premium and relationships between customer identification and the

two behavioral intentions are significant (Z's equal to 8.07, 7.70, and

6.73 respectively, pb .05), while the mediating effect of customer

commitment on the connection between customer trust and purchase

intention is marginally significant (Z equals to 1.89, p =.06). This

implies that customer commitment (1) fully mediates the relationship

between customer identification and both behavioral intentions, and

(2) fully mediates the relationship between customer trust and price

premium, and partially mediates the relationship between customer

trust and purchase intention. Therefore, H4 receives partial support

and H7 receives full support.

In addition, customer commitment relates positively to corporate

trust (r=.24, pb .001) and customer identification (r=.75, pb .001).

Although previous research indicates that trust is a key antecedent of

commitment, our results reveal that customer identification has

relatively stronger influence on customer commitment, which further

confirms the notion that identification and commitment are closely-

related constructs.

To assess whether corporate reputation influences the two

behavioral intentions through the paths of customer trust, customeridentification and customercommitment,we compare the direct effect

of corporate reputation on purchase intention and price premium

when the three relational constructs are included and when they are

not. The results indicate that the incorporation of the three relation-

al constructs reduces the direct effect of corporate reputation on

purchase intention from .67 (pb .001) to .24 (pb .001) and the direct

effect of corporate reputation on price premium from .50 (pb .001) to

insignificance (r=.06, pN .1).

The analyses include estimating a competing model by adding a

linkage between corporate reputation and customer commitment in

model 1. The results do not show improvement in the model fit

(2= 861.05, df=208, pb .001; CFI= .98, NFI= .97, IFI= .98, RFI= .96,

TLI= .97, and RMSEA= .10) compared to our original model (2 [1] =

2.14, pN .05), and the relationship between corporate reputation andcustomer commitment is small and insignificant (r=.08, pN .05).

Therefore, the additional linkage is unwarranted and the analysis

validates the parsimonious model.

6. Discussion and implications

The study investigates the underlying mechanism through which

corporate reputationinfluences customer behavioral intentions. Much

of previous research on corporate reputation emphasizes the direct

effects of corporate reputation on behavioral intentions or on cor-

porate financial performance, and our study provides an explanation

for the process. The results indicate that companies with favorable

reputations benefit from building trust and identification among

customers, which, in turn, positively influence customer commitment.

Moreover, customer commitment plays a mediating role between the

other two relational constructs and behavioral intentions.

A reputable corporate name conveys various signals to the market

(Fombrun & Shanley, 1990). Customers are more likely to believe that

highly-regarded companies are competent, act honestly in their daily

operations, and consider interests of both parties in the relationship

when making decisions, which contribute to the trustworthiness of

these firms. Customers are also more willing to associate themselves

with companies of high repute, as part of self-articulation and self-enhancement. As such, the development of a favorable corporate

reputation is important for relationship-oriented firms. Due to the

significance of relationship marketing in industrial firms, internal-to-

the-relationship reputation is especially critical for them. It would be

myopic for industrial firms to gain favorable reputation from only

investors and the general public but neglect theirperceived reputation

among customers. This implies that highly-regarded companies can

benefit from their reputable names, and should carefully manage

important relational resources resulting from having a good

reputation.

By conducting surveys, managers can know if corporate reputation

leads to attitudinal and psychological influences on their customers,

and regular measurements of customer commitment can reveal the

effectiveness of corporate reputation on attracting favorable beha-

viors. These processes are more complex for industrial firms, because

the purchase decisions of customersare usually determined by groups

of individuals in buying centers rather than by a single person.

Members in thebuying center may hold various perceptions towards a

focal supplier and emphasize different criteria in making evaluation

and selection. Therefore, it is important to know whether corporate

reputation is important for all buying center members or for whom it

is important, the gate keeper or the final decision-maker.

As for the effects of the three relational constructs on behavioral

intentions, we find that the two behavioral intentions have varying

sensitivities to relational strength, and willingness to pay a price

premium is founded on closer customercompany relationships. Spe-

cifically, the results in Fig. 2 (model 2 without linkages between trust/

identification and commitment) imply that customer trust has much

stronger effect on purchase intention than on price premium, whilecustomer identification, which represents a close bonding between

customers and companies, has larger influence than customer trust

on price premium. In addition, the results in Fig. 1 (model 1 with

commitment as a mediator) reveal that trust still has significant in-

fluence on purchase intention even after controlling for the effect of

commitment, while customer commitment is the only significant

influence on price premium. Customers who have deep trust in their

providerstend to continue the relationship, while onlycustomers who

are strongly committed towards their suppliers are willing to pay

higher prices.

This finding is consistent with the notion that there are differ-

ent stages in a relationship, from strangers to acquaintances to

friends to partners (Johnson & Selnes, 2004). When the relation-

ship between the customer and the supplier evolves from strangers topartners, customers may experience reputation-based certainty, then

trust-based repurchase intention, and finally identification/commit-

ment-based willingness to pay price premium. Therefore, the ability

to attract price premium from customers can be regarded as an in-

dicator of an industrial firm's relationship quality with its customers

in general. A buying firm's inclination to continue its present re-

lationship with a supplier does not necessarily mean that it is also

willing to pay higher prices for the supplier's offerings. Managers

of reputable companies should have a good understanding of their

companies' relationships with key customers. In managing rela-

tionships, it is worthwhile for firms to cultivate trust, identification

and commitment gradually among their customers, and subsequent-

ly maintain high-quality relationships. In addition, there are also

different levels of favorable relationships. For example, customers

739H.T. Keh, Y. Xie / Industrial Marketing Management 38 (2009) 732742

7/31/2019 1-s2.0-S0019850108000291-main

9/11

regarding the supplier as a preferred vendor tend to have higher

expectations and demands in terms of inputs and outputs from

each side during successful transactions, compared with those re-

garding the supplier merely as an authorized vendor. Although it is

generally difficult for firms to charge a higher price, especially when

faced with rigorous competition, preferred vendors are more likely

to succeed in asking for higher prices from their customers than

authorized vendors, and also less likely to suffer from negative per-

ceptions. This may be attributed to the different norms underlying thekey relational constructs in the relationships.

This study also contributes to the organizational identification liter-

ature by empirically showing that the identified psychological state

toward suppliersis closely related to, but distinctfrom,commitment (see

also Brown,Barry, Dacin,& Gunst,2005). In order to successfully manage

organizational identification, Cardador and Pratt (2006) suggest three

basic mechanisms: relational, behavioral and symbolic. The present

research, in the context of industrial business market, empirically

confirms the relational mechanism by linking customercompany

identification with two relational factors (i.e., trust and commitment),

as well as the behavioral mechanism by identifying its direct effect (in

model 2) and indirect effect (in model 1) on customer behavioral

intentions. The results show that corporate reputation and trust are

critical antecedents of customer identification toward companies.

Much of previous research on relationship marketing in the

industrial context highlights the role of trust in building customer

commitment and inducing favorable behaviors (e.g., Morgan & Hunt,

1994; Kumar et al., 2003). However, this study indicates that the

relationship between identification and commitment is stronger than

the relationship between trust and commitment, which implies that

identification is a more immediate antecedent of commitment. In

other words, customers identifying with the supplier are more likely

to be committed to it and maintain the relationship than customers

who simply trust it, due to the shared identity and similar value

system. Therefore, managers should realize that trust is fundamental

to buyingselling relationships, while identification is more effective

to retaining customers. Actions that facilitate identification building

among customers deserve special attention and efforts. For example,

when suppliers design marketing programs aimed at reinforcingcustomer loyalty, besides offering additional benefits and showing

trustworthiness, it is also meaningful to communicate organizational

identity and create the notion of identification among customers.

As perceived prestige, similarity and uniqueness of organizational

image all contribute to the development of customer identification,

suppliers should monitor their internal-to-the-relationship reputa-

tion, which is probably more important than the market's perception.

In addition, a thorough understanding of the nature of customers'

identity building will enable suppliers to position themselves stra-

tegically. For example, comparable operational procedures may en-

hance customer belief that the supplier has functional identity similar

to themselves, while compatible organizational cultures would faci-

litate smoother communication and intimate relationships between

the buyer and the seller.The Chinese context of this study also provides other interesting

implications. As China transitions into a more international market,

native and western management philosophies coexist, interplay and

jointly guide market behaviors. The Chinese business thinking is

significantly influenced by two kinds of indigenous cultural forces,

namely the Chinese stratagems and Confucianism (Fang, 1999). As an

old Chinese sayingthe marketplace is just like the battlefield

indicates, the Chinese stratagems are often applied in solving a variety

of business issues, and help Chinese entrepreneurs to obtain material

and psychological advantages over their opponents. It will be more

difficult for organizations that regard Chinese stratagems as the

dominant principle in treating business partners and implementing

market activities to form identified relationships with their partners.

It is possible that the higher reputation its partner has, the more

threats the company will perceive, which may partially account for

the variance in customer identification towards similarly reputable

companies.

The Confucian tradition in Chinese culture, which emphasizes the

importance of interpersonal relationships (i.e., Guanxi), avoidance of

conflict and the concept of face (i.e., Mianzi), highlights the key roles

of individual and social trustworthiness in the Chinese B2B context

(Fang, 1999). Different from relationship marketing characterized by

impersonal and universalistic relationships, Guanxi involves personaland particularistic relationships and serves as a major determinant of

success in the Chinese B2B market (Wang, 2007). This implies that a

firm's identity in a Chinese business network is largely based on the

business' social network, while a firm's identity in a western business

network is mainly dependent on its own operations. Therefore, social

identities of the top management and other key personnel are critical

to their corporate identity in the Chinese market and should be

carefully managed. Our findings indicate a strong relationship be-

tween organizational reputation and customer trust, which may be

attributable to: (1) respondents are inclined to give a more favorable

evaluation of partner firms' reputation due to the notion of Mianzi,

and (2) companies are more likely to have a superior perception of the

extent to which thepartner is generally good or bad because of the

harmonious cooperative atmosphere formed through interpersonal

efforts. Therefore, adding constructs reflecting connections and trust

at the individual level may strengthen the explanatory power of the

proposed price-premium model in the Chinese B2B market.

When interpreting the findings of this research, we also need to

take the cross-cultural variance into account. National culture can

impact the linkage between relationship strength and behavioral

intentions in the B2B settings. For example, comparing responsesfrom

firms in the United States and Latin America, Hewett, Money, and

Sharma (2006) find that the uncertainty avoidance dimension of

national culture moderates the effect of relationship strength on

repurchase intention. Similarly, the high level of uncertainty avoid-

ance in Chinese culture may strengthen the relationships between

customer commitment and purchase intention and price premium in

our study.

7. Limitations and future research

Although most of our hypotheses are supported, this study has a

few limitations that present opportunities for further research. First,

the survey research may lead to self-generated validity, which refers

to the effect of the questionnaire structure on indicated correlations

among constructs due to respondents' observation of relationships

among measures (Feldman & Lynch, 1988). Second, the study assesses

responses of customer companies towards only three focal companies

in B2B service industries. Although the three focal companies as

well as their customers have different profiles in terms offirm size,

business type and reputation, the external validity of these findings

requires additional studies involving other industries and countries

for further substantiation. Third, other antecedents and consequencesof corporate reputation (e.g., perceived product/service quality, and

customer satisfaction) can be included in future studies to form a

more comprehensive framework, and provide additional insights into

the development, management and benefits of corporate reputation.

Fourth, the survey method employed in this study is unable to elicit

respondents' thoughts in situations with suppliers holding different

levels of reputation and trustworthiness. Therefore, further research

can use qualitative approaches such as focus group, which can pro-

vide complementary findings to the results of this study. Fifth, as

respondents in this study are merely required to indicate the extent

to which they are likely to pay a price premium for their sup-

pliers, conjoint experiments or choice experiments would be useful in

examining variations in price preference among highly, medium and

lowly reputable suppliers. Sixth, the effect of respondent companies'

740 H.T. Keh, Y. Xie / Industrial Marketing Management 38 (2009) 732742

7/31/2019 1-s2.0-S0019850108000291-main

10/11

management style (native style, western style or mixture of the two)

is not taken into account in our analysis, which may make a difference

in the results and should be investigated in future studies. Finally, the

lack of multidimensional items for measuring commitment and trust,

which constrains our operationalizations, is also a limitation of this

study.

Other interesting directions for future research relate to customer

identification. Beyond corporate reputation and trust, future research

can incorporate other antecedents or factors infl

uencing the attrac-tiveness of corporate identity (e.g., identity similarity and corporate

innovativeness). Since the study is among the initial ones in exam-

ining organizational identification in the marketing literature, further

testing in other contexts should enable us to validate and refine the

customer identification measure.

References

Achrol, R. S. (1991). Evolution of the marketing organization: new forms for turbulentenvironments. Journal of Marketing, 55(4), 7793.

Ahearne, M., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Gruen, T. (2005). Antecedents and consequences ofcustomercompany identification: expanding the role of relationship marketing.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(3), 574585.Ailawadi, K. L., Neslin, S. A., & Lehmann, D. R. (2003). Revenue premium as an outcome

measure of brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 67(4), 117.Algesheimer, R., Dholakia, U. M., & Herrmann, A. (2005). The social in fluence of brand

community: evidence from European car clubs. Journal of Marketing, 69(3), 1934.Allen, N., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continu-

ance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of OccupationalPsychology, 63(1), 118.

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice:a review of recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3),411423.

Atuahene-Gima, K., & Murray, J. Y. (2004). Antecedents and outcomes of marketingstrategy comprehensiveness. Journal of Marketing, 68(4), 3346.

Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal ofthe Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 7494.

Bansal, H. S., Irving, G. P., & Taylor, S. F. (2004). A three-component model of customercommitment to service providers. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,32(3), 234250.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderatormediator variable distinction insocial psychological research: conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 11731182.Barone, M. J., Manning, K. C., & Miniard, P. W. (2004). Consumer response to retailers'

use of partially comparative pricing. Journal of Marketing, 68(3), 3747.Bendixen, M., Bukasa, K. A., & Abratt, R. (2004). Brand equityin thebusiness-to-business

market. Industrial Marketing Management, 33(5), 371380.Benjamin, B. A., & Podolny, J. M. (1999). Status, quality, and social order in the California

wine industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(3), 563589.Bergami, M., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2000). Self-categorization, affective commitment and

group self-esteem as distinct aspects of social identity in the organization. BritishJournal of Social Psychology, 39(4), 555577.

Berger, I. E., Cunningham, P. H., & Drumwright, M. E. (2006). Identity, identification, andrelationship through social alliance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,34(2), 128137.

Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1991). Marketing services. New York: Free Press.Bhattacharya,C. B.,Rao,H., & Glynn,M. A.(1995).Understanding thebondofidentification:

an investigation of its correlates among art museum members. Journal of Marketing,59(4), 4657.

Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2003). Consumercompany identification: a frameworkfor understanding consumers' relationships with companies. Journal of Marketing,67(2), 7688.

Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: on being the same and different at the same time.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(5), 475482.Brown,T. J.,Barry, T.E., Dacin,P. A., & Gunst,R. F.(2005). Spreadingthe word: investigatingantecedents of consumers' positive word-of-mouth intentions and behaviors in aretailing context. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33(2), 123138.

Brown, T. J., Dacin, P. A., Pratt, M. G., & Whetten, D. A. (2006). Identity, intended image,construed image, and reputation: an interdisciplinary framework and suggestedterminology. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 99106.

Campbell, M. C. (1999). Perceptions of price unfairness: antecedents and consequences.Journal of Marketing Research, 36(2), 187199.

Capozzi, L. (2005). Corporate reputation: our role in sustaining and building a valuableasset. Journal of Advertising Research, 45(3), 290293.

Cardador, M. T., & Pratt,M. G. (2006). Identification management and its bases: bridgingmanagementand marketingperspectives througha focus on affiliation dimensions.

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 174184.Carmeli, A., & Tishler, A. (2005). Perceived organizational reputation and organizational

performance: an empirical investigation of industrial enterprises. CorporateReputation Review, 8(1), 1330.

Cheney, G., & Tompkins, P. K. (1987). Coming to terms with organizationalidentificationand commitment. Central States Speech Journal, 38, 115.

Cook, K. S., & Emerson, R. M. (1978). Power, equity and commitment in exchangenetworks. American Sociological Review, 43(5), 721739.

Cretu,A. E., & Brodie, R. J. (2007). Theinfluence of brand image and companyreputationwhere manufacturers market to small firms: a customer value perspective. Indus-trial Marketing Management, 36(2), 230240.

Deephouse, D. L. (2000). Media reputation as a strategic resource: an integration of masscommunication and resource-based theories.Journal of Management,26(6), 10911112.

Dierickx,I., & Cool, K. (1989). Assetstock accumulation and sustainabilityof competitiveadvantage. Management Science, 35, 15041511.

Doney, P. M.,& Cannon, J. P. (1997). Anexamination of the natureof trust in buyersellerrelationships. Journal of Marketing, 61(2), 3551.

Dowling, G. (2006). How good corporate reputations create corporate value. CorporateReputation Review, 9(2), 134143.Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. (1994). Organizational image and member

identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(34), 239263.Dwyer, F. R., Schurr, P. H., & Oh, S. (1987). Developing buyerseller relationships. Journal

of Marketing, 51(2), 1127.Edwards, M. R. (2005). Organizational identification: a conceptual and operational

review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 7(4), 207230.Einwiller, S. A., Fedorikhin, A., Johnson, A. R., &Kamins, M. A. (2006). Enough is enough!

When identification no longer prevents negative corporate associations. Journal ofthe Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 185194.

Fang, T. (1999). Chinese business negotiating style. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Feldman, J. M., & Lynch, J. G., Jr. (1988). Self-generated validity and other effects of

measurement on belief, attitude, intention,and behavior.Journalof AppliedPsychology,73(3), 421435.

Fombrun, C. J. (1996). Reputation: realizing value from the corporate image. Boston:Harvard Business School Press.

Fombrun, C., & Shanley, M. (1990). What's in a name? Reputation building and cor-porate strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 33(2), 233258.

Fornell, C., & Larcker,D. F.(1981).Evaluating structuralequationmodels withunobservablevariables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 3950.

Fullerton, G. (2005). How commitment both enables and undermines marketingrelationships. European Journal of Marketing, 39(11/12), 13721388.

Garbarino, E., & Johnson, M. S. (1999). The different roles of satisfaction, trust, andcommitment in customer relationships. Journal of Marketing, 63(2), 7087.

Gundlach, G. T., Achrol, R. S., & Mentzer, J. T. (1995). The structure of commitment inexchange. Journal of Marketing, 59(1), 7892.

Hall, R. (1993). A framework linking intangible resources and capabilities to sustainablecompetitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 14(8), 607618.

Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K. P., & Gremler, D. D. (2002). Understanding relationshipmarketing outcomes: an integration of relational benefits and relationship quality.

Journal of Service Research, 4(3), 230247.Herr, P. M. (1989). Priming price: prior knowledge and context effects. Journal of

Consumer Research, 16(1), 6775.Hewett, K., Money, R. B., & Sharma, S. (2006). National culture and industrial buyer

seller relationships in theUnited States and LatinAmerica.Journal of the Academy ofMarketing Science, 34(3), 386402.

Johnson, M. D., & Selnes, F. (2004). Customer portfolio management: toward a dynamictheory of exchange relationships. Journal of Marketing, 68(2), 117.

Katrichis, J. M. (1998). Exploring departmental level interaction patterns in organiza-tional purchasing decisions. Industrial Marketing Management, 27(2), 135146.

Kingshott, R. P. J. (2006). The impact of psychological contracts upon trust andcommitment within supplierbuyer relationships: a social exchange view. Indus-trial Marketing Management, 35(6), 724739.

Kleine, R. E., Klein, S. S., & Keman, J. B. (1993). Mundane consumption and the self: asocial identification perspective. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2(3), 209235.

Kramer, R. M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: emerging perspective,enduring questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 569598.

Kumar, V., Bohling, T. R., & Ladda, R. N. (2003). Antecedents and consequences ofrelationship intention: implications for transaction and relationship marketing.Industrial Marketing Management, 32(8), 667676.

Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: a partial test of thereformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of OrganizationalBehavior, 13(2), 103123.

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, D. F. (1995). An integrative model oforganizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(30), 709734.

Melewar, T. C., & Karaosmanoglu, E. (2006). Seven dimensions of corporate identity: acategorization from the practitioners' perspectives. European Journal of Marketing,40(7/8), 846862.

Mittal, V., Kumar, P., & Tsiros, M. (1999). Attribute-level performance, satisfaction, andbehavioral intentions over time. Journal of Marketing, 63(2), 88101.

Mokhiber, R., & Weissman, R. (2003). Multiple corporate personality disorder: the 10worst corporations of 2003. Multinational Monitor, 24(12), 921.

Moorman, C., Zaltman, G., & Deshpande, R. (1992).Relationships betweenproviders andusers of market research: the dynamics of trust within and between organizations.

Journal of Marketing Research, 29(3), 314328.Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994, July). The commitmenttrust theory of relationship

marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58, 2038.Musa, R., Pallister, J., & Robson, M. (2005). The role of perceived value, perceived equity

and relational commitment in a disconfirmation paradigm framework: an initialassessment in a relationship-rich consumption environment. Advances inConsumer Research, 32(1), 349357.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.Olins, W. (1990). Corporate identity: making business strategy visible through design.

Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

741H.T. Keh, Y. Xie / Industrial Marketing Management 38 (2009) 732742

7/31/2019 1-s2.0-S0019850108000291-main

11/11

Page, G., & Fearn, H. (2005). Corporate reputation: what do consumers really careabout? Journal of Advertising Research, 45(3), 305313.

Podolny, J. M. (1993). A status-based model of market competition. American Journal ofSociology, 98(4), 829871.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common methodbiases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommendedremedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879903.

Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self report in organizational research: problemsand prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531544.

Pratt, M. G. (1998). To be or not to be: central questions in organizational identification.In David A. Whetten, & Paul C. Godfrey (Eds.), Identity in organizations: building

theory through conversations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Rao, V. R., Agarwal, M. K., & Dahlhoff, D. (2004). How is manifest branding strategyrelated to the intangible value of a corporation? Journal of Marketing, 68(4),126141.

Rhee, M., & Haunschild, P. (2006). The liability of good reputation: a study of productrecalls in the U. S. automobile industry. Organization Science, 17(1), 101117.

Rindova, V. P., Williamson, I. O., Petkova, A. P., & Sever, J. M. (2005). Being good or beingknown: an empirical examination of the dimensions, antecedents, and conse-quences of organizational reputation. Academy of Management Journal, 48(6),10331049.

Roberts, P. W., & Dowling, G. R. (1997). The value of a firm's corporate reputation: howreputation helps attain and sustain superior profitability. Corporate ReputationReview, 1(1), 7276.

Roberts, P. W., & Dowling, G. R. (2002). Corporate reputation and sustained superiorfinancial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 23(12), 10771093.

Scott, S. G., & Lane, V. R. (2000). A stakeholder approach to organizational identity.Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 4362.

Selnes, F.,& Sallis, J. (2003). Promoting relationshiplearning. Journal of Marketing, 67(3),8095.

Simoes, C., Dibb, S., & Fisk, R. P. (2005). Managing corporate identity: an internalperspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33(2), 153168.

Sirdeshmukh, D., Singh, J., & Sabol, B. (2002). Consumer trust, value, and loyalty inrelational exchanges. Journal of Marketing, 66(1), 1537.

Underwood, R., Bond, E., & Baer, R. (2001). Building service brands via social identity:lessons from the sports marketplace. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 9(1),112.

Wang, C. L. (2007). Guanxi vs. relationshipmarketing: exploring underlying differences.Industrial Marketing Management, 36(1), 8186.

Weigelt, K., & Camerer, C. (1988). Reputation and corporate strategy: a review of recenttheory and applications. Strategic Management Journal, 9(5), 443454.

Weiss, A. M., Anderson, E., & MacInnis, D. J. (1999). Reputation management as amotivation for sales structure decisions. Journal of Marketing, 63(4), 7489.Wiener, Y. (1982). Commitment in organizations: a normative view. Academy of

Management Review, 7(3), 418428.Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral consequences of

service quality. Journal of Marketing, 60(2), 3146.

Hean Tat Keh (PhD, University of Washington) is an Associate Professor of Marketing

at the Guanghua School of Management, Peking University. His research on services

marketing, brand management, strategic marketing, and cross-cultural studies has

been published in J. of Retailing, Marketing Letters, J. of Advertising, J. of International

Marketing, J. of Business Venturing, etc.

Yi Xie is a PhD candidate in the Department of Marketing, Guanghua School of

Management, Peking University. Her current research interests include corporate

associations, customer-brand relationship management, customer trust repair and

cross-cultural consumer psychology and behavior.

742 H.T. Keh, Y. Xie / Industrial Marketing Management 38 (2009) 732742