Original Article

What do best employer surveys

reveal about employer branding
and intention to apply?
Received (in revised form): 11th July 2013

Gordhan K. Saini
is an Assistant Professor at the School of Management & Labour Studies at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai. His
research interests include employer branding, social marketing and consumer behaviour. He has published in journals such as
International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, Journal of Asia Business Studies, Journal of South Asian Development
and Economic and Political Weekly.

Purvi Rai
has completed her Masters in Human Resource Management and Labour Relations from Tata Institute of Social Sciences,
Mumbai. She completed her B Tech in Information Technology from Jaypee Institute of Information Technology, Noida, and
later she worked with Accenture Services Pvt. Ltd. for 11 months in SAP capability.

Manoj K. Chaudhary
is currently working as Management Associate with Edelweiss Financial Services Ltd. He completed his Masters in Human
Resource Management and Labour Relations from Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai. He has done his Bachelors in
Hospitality Management from West Bengal University. He has worked with Oberoi Group of Hotels and interned at SAP Labs,
Johnson and Johnson.

ABSTRACT Employer branding is an effective marketing tool that helps organisations in

projecting their distinct image in the minds of potential applicants and positioning
them as an employer of choice. Recently, organisations are increasingly participating in
various best employer surveys (BES) to project themselves as great places of employ-
ment and subsequently attracting larger and better talent from the labour market. The
literature confirms a positive relationship between employer attractiveness (or other
similar measures) and prospective employees’ intentions to apply to that organisation.
In this article, we examine this relationship through the lens of BES in the Indian con-
text. We measure the prospective applicant’s intention to apply in a sample of 12 firms
that appeared either consistently or once in BES during 2007–2011. Findings suggest
that firms with a consistent or recent listing in BES receive a significantly higher
intention to apply than firms present only in one or an older BES. Furthermore, orga-
nisation familiarity is one of the major predictors of intention to apply. We suggest
consistent efforts in building and sustaining employer brand by combining the efforts of
marketing and HR managers in the design and execution of relevant activities and their
communication to the target audience in emerging economies.
Correspondence
Gordhan K. Saini Journal of Brand Management (2014) 21, 95–111. doi:10.1057/bm.2013.10;
School of Management and
Labour Studies, Tata Institute of published online 16 August 2013
Social Sciences, V.N. Purav Marg,
Deonar, Mumbai, 400088,
Maharashtra, India. Keywords: employer survey; employer branding; employer attractiveness; brand
E-mails: [email protected];
[email protected] management; emerging economies

© 2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-231X Journal of Brand Management Vol. 21, 2, 95–111

www.palgrave-journals.com/bm/
 Saini et al

INTRODUCTION projecting a distinct image of an orga-

Recently, employer branding has been nisation in the minds of the potential
considered as a strategic lever (Moroko and labour market and positioning it as an
Uncles, 2008) and desirable (Barrow and employer of choice or a great place to
Mosley, 2005; Wilcock, 2005). The term work (Branham, 2001; Ewing et al, 2002;
employer branding suggests the differen- Sullivan, 2004; Love and Singh, 2011). This
tiation of a firm’s characteristics as an explains the increasing participation of firms
employer from those of its competitors in best employer surveys (BES) to project
(Backhaus and Tikoo, 2004). Ambler and themselves as great places of employment.
Barrow (1996) define employer branding in More and more firms are striving to achieve
terms of benefits, calling it ‘the package of ‘Best Employer’ status to draw the attention
functional, economic and psychological of the contemporary electronic and print
benefits provided by employment, and media (for example, The Economist, 2003)
identified with the employing company’. A that subsequently positively contributes to
concept that has emerged within employer the firms’ efforts to attract scarce, talented
branding is ‘employer attractiveness’ (EA) human resources (Branham, 2001; Con-
(Ambler and Barrow, 1996; Gilly and ference Board, 2001; Sartain and
Wolfinbarger, 1998; Ambler, 2000; Ewing Schumann, 2006). These BES, implicitly or
et al, 2002). Berthon et al (2005, p. 156) explicitly, consider the major indicators of
define EA as the ‘envisioned benefits that a successful employer branding (see Moroko
potential employee sees in working for a spe- and Uncles, 2008), and therefore these
cific organisation’ and argues that the ‘more surveys may be regarded as one of the good
attractive an employer is perceived to be by indicators to gauge the success or failure of a
potential employees, the stronger that parti- firm’s employer branding efforts. Moreover,
cular organisation’s employer brand equity’. stakeholders such as prospective employees
The creation of a successful employer and industry have started placing huge
brand is expected to bring several benefits importance on these surveys ( Joo and
such as reduced employee turnover, McLean, 2006; Love and Singh, 2011).
enhanced employee satisfaction, customer Thus, recently firms have become more
retention (Miles and Mangold, 2004) and the serious in their efforts to participate in these
ability to sustain lower wages rates than the BES, get listed in the same and obtain ranks
industry average (Ritson, 2002). However, better than their competitors.
the literature suggests that because of the In the last decade, several BES have
growing and diverse aspirations of the new emerged like the Great Place to Work
generation, long-term sustenance rather than Survey that evaluates firms using several EA
creation of an employer brand may be a chal- parameters and ranks them in the list of great
lenging task for practicing managers (Moroko place to work or best place to work (Love
and Uncles, 2008; Love and Singh, 2011) in and Singh, 2011). Most research, till date, has
increasingly competitive employment markets focused on the impact of EA attributes or
(Economic Intelligence Unit, 2008; Wilden other similar measures on the prospective
et al, 2010, p. 56).Towards this end, human employee’s intention to apply to that firm;
resource managers have put on a marketing and have shown a positive and significant
cap to create and sustain an employer brand relationship between the two (for example,
for attracting, retaining and motivating Collins and Han, 2004; Collins, 2007; Roy,
talented employees for their organisations. 2008; Gomes and Neves, 2011; Wilden et al,
Lately, employer branding has proved to 2010). However, an equally important
be an effective marketing tool that helps in issue that has been raised (for example,

96 © 2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-231X Journal of Brand Management Vol. 21, 2, 95–111
 Employer branding in an emerging economy

Moroko and Uncles, 2008, p. 173; Love and It may be noted that the specific image that
Singh, 2011, p. 180), but hitherto organisations aim to project to its current and
unexplored, is – what happens to this potential employees and other relevant
relationship over time when firms disappear stakeholders is the central component of
from the list of BES like the Great Place to employer branding (Branham, 2001).
Work? In other words, how sustainable is the Studying the concept of creation and
advantage achieved through the BES sustenance of an employer brand in an
rankings? How long does it last? Does it die emerging market like India is also pertinent
after some time? In this article, we attempt to because the strategies that work well in the
answer some of these questions mainly by developed world often fail in the context of
comparing 12 firms (divided in three emerging markets such as India, China and
categories) with different employer branding Brazil which are driven by different cultural,
efforts in an emerging economy – India. social and technological drivers (Hoskisson
This study is unique and thus expected to et al, 2000). Emerging economies have
contribute to the literature because, to the unique labour market patterns with glaring
best of our knowledge, this is the first regional and national differences (Economic
attempt to explore the relationship Intelligence Unit, 2008). To cope with these
between EA and intention to apply using challenges, HR managers have been devising
existing BES. Moreover, we examine this strategies to attract and retain talent by
issue in the context of an emerging market making and keeping compelling promises
(that is, India) where bridging the talent gap (Douglas et al, 2008), and it is anticipated that
is going to get tougher (Economic a strong employer brand will be a powerful
Intelligence Unit, 2008), which makes this magnet for potential employees (Economic
study more pertinent. Intelligence Unit, 2008).
In addition, the concept of EA has several
other practical implications. For example,
different organisations have diverse EA THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND
attributes that they project as their employee HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT
value proposition – (EVP) (EVP is used to There are various factors that may influence
denote a set of associations and offerings a prospective employee’s decision to apply
provided by an organisation in return for to a firm. An applicant will be more likely
the skills, capabilities and experiences an to apply if the envisioned benefits that she
employee brings to the organisation sees in working for a particular firm match
(Minchington, 2010)). These attributes signi- with the set of factors that are of importance
ficantly contribute to an applicant’s intention to her. The personal determinants may
to apply to a firm. Therefore, it is important influence her perception about a particular
to understand the specific role of various EA firm and lead to higher or lower intention to
attributes and their contribution in building a apply to that firm. If an applicant sees a
positive image about the prospective particular firm offering these benefits, her
employer. It also has practical implications perception about the firm may change,
for the firms participating in BES as they thereby influencing her intention to apply to
would like to maximise the returns from that firm. This is why employers attempt to
investments made in employer branding clearly communicate their distinct employer
initiatives. Perhaps, this is more critical for brand message to their prospective employees.
the firms that want to sustain their EA and Several scholars (for example, Balmer and
meet the fluctuating expectations and Greyser, 2002) have cogently argued that
preferences of the dynamic target audience. incongruence between the different identities

© 2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-231X Journal of Brand Management Vol. 21, 2, 95–111 97
 Saini et al

and images of an organisation can cause employee as other organisations. For

problems for a firm with its relevant example, companies listed on Fortune’s ‘100
stakeholders. Thus, it may be important for Best Companies to Work For’ consistently
organisations to create and communicate a outperformed the S&P 500 companies and
common framework to accurately depict received two times the number of job
the various company identities and images applications (Reed and Clark, 2004). Several
(Lievens et al, 2007). The ability to use a firms participate in BES every year and
brand to convey symbolic benefits to compete to procure a better position or
prospective employees makes employer maintain their positions. The firms
branding useful (Backhaus and Tikoo, appearing in the BES rankings are perceived
2004). When the messages are consistent as the best places of employment. The
and credible, the internalisation process presence or absence of firms on these
enables employees to better fulfil the surveys’ lists may influence an applicant’s
explicit and implicit promises inherent in intention to apply to them. This leads us to
the brand name and organisational image our first two hypotheses where we attempt
(Greene et al, 1994). to explain the relationship between an
Firms make conscious efforts to build applicant’s intention to apply as a function
themselves an attractive employer brand of EAs and the consequence of the presence
and communicate (for instance, through of a firm in BES.
BES) their employer branding efforts and
Hypothesis 1: Employer attractiveness attri-
the outcome of such efforts to their relevant
butes significantly influence the appli-
target audience. Several studies (for
cant’s intention to apply to a firm.
example, Employer Brand Institute, 2009;
Wilden et al, 2010) have shown that firms Hypothesis 2: A firm’s listing in BES signi-
invest in EA activities to build a stronger ficantly influences the prospective appli-
employer brand and one of the major cant’s intention to apply to that firm.
reasons behind such efforts is to attract
larger and better talent. Earlier research shows that employer
Several researchers have found a familiarity affects a prospective employee’s
significant relationship between organi- application behaviour (that is, intention to
sational image and early recruitment apply), and job seekers prefer familiar
outcomes like intentions to apply to the employers to unfamiliar employers because
organisation. Gatewood et al (1993) found a of the perceived legitimacy of the signals sent
significant positive correlation between the by the former (Gatewood et al, 1993).
image of an organisation and job seekers’ Organisational familiarity is the job seekers’
likelihood of applying to that organisation. awareness of or ability to identify a company
The literature (Collins and Stevens, 2002; as a potential employer (Cable and Turban,
Slaughter et al, 2004; Agrawal and Swaroop, 2001). It is established in the recruitment
2009; Gomes and Neves, 2011) also con- literature that an organisation’s overall famil-
firms a positive relationship between the EA iarity is related to applicants’ perceptions of a
and a prospective applicant’s intention to company’s attractiveness as an employer, with
apply. more familiar organisations being perceived
There is evidence that an attractive as more attractive (Turban and Greening,
employment brand increases the number of 1997; Cable and Graham, 2000; Cable and
applicants too (Douglas, 2007). According Turban, 2001). Previous research also reveals
to Hewitt (2009), the best employers get that there is a link between job seekers’
nearly twice as many applications per organisational familiarity and their liking for

98 © 2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-231X Journal of Brand Management Vol. 21, 2, 95–111
 Employer branding in an emerging economy

the hiring companies (Gatewood et al, 1993; labour market. However, the fluctuations in
Lemmink et al, 2003; Thompson et al, 2004). the ranking of an organisation might have
Therefore, we argue that the applicant’s an effect on the applicant’s intention to
familiarity with an organisation may also apply. This leads us to an unexplored area
influence their intention to apply to that of study that tries to analyse the rela-
organisation. It should be noted that recent tionship between the presence or absence
researchers (for example, Gomes and Neves, of firms in BES and the applicant’s inten-
2011) advocate investigating the role of tion to apply. In this context, recently
organisational familiarity in an applicant’s increasing importance is given by practi-
intention to apply to a job vacancy. tioners to the sustenance of these rankings
by the firms; for example, articles like
Hypothesis 3: A prospective applicant’s
‘You can’t be a seasonal best employer’
familiarity with an organisation may
(Business Today, 2011) and ‘Being a great
positively influence the applicant’s
workplace is not a onetime affair’ (Borate
intention to apply to that firm.
and Banerji, 2011). It is believed that
The literature reveals that one of the employer branding cannot be just the
variables to measure the success of employer flavour of one season and the truly great
branding is the number of applicants com- workplaces need to consistently outper-
pared with the industry average (Douglas, form their peers. It is assumed that if a
2007; Moroko and Uncles, 2008). As stated firm has been consistently appearing on
earlier, the best employers get a higher these surveys, then it will be always (till it
number of applications per vacancy than is present in BES) perceived as the best
other organisations (Hewitt, 2009; Reed employer of choice by prospective
and Clark, 2004). In addition, Google employees leading to higher intention to
topped Forbes magazine’s ‘100 Best Com- apply. This phenomenon can be described
panies to Work For’ for the year 2013, and as ‘sustenance of employer attractiveness’.
received 58 times more applications than the However, great human resource practices
positions it had in Australia (The Sydney are inadequate unless they meet employees’
Morning Herald, 2013). In other words, regular expectations and needs; and even the
prospective applicants are more attracted best employers need to revisit their plans and
towards the companies appearing in BES constantly seek employee feedback to be
than to others, which are absent in BES. aligned to employee expectations. One of
Therefore, though major research is missing, the reflections of this fact is that only five
it can be argued that the firms appearing organisations (that is, Classic Stripes, NTPC,
higher in the BES rankings are perceived as Godrej Consumer Products, Intel and
better places of employment than firms that FedEx) could make it to the coveted list of
are lower or absent in the rankings. ‘India’s Best Companies to Work For’
One of the primary goals of the firms that continuously for the last six studies carried
participate and secure ranks in BES is to out by the Great Place to Work Institute
signal to the target audience about the India (Borate and Banerji, 2011). It should be
strong commitment of the firm towards noted that ‘Great Place to Work Study 2011’
providing the best place to work. Firms states that 14 out of the top 50 have made it
attempt to send a message that they respect to this elite list of best workplaces for the
and consistently meet the expectations of first time, which shows that established
their current workforce, and are able to best employers are continuously challenged
provide the attributes most valued and by other organisations in order to gain
desired by the prospective employees in the competitive advantage.

© 2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-231X Journal of Brand Management Vol. 21, 2, 95–111 99
 Saini et al

At the same time, prospective employees greater confidence that the external audience
will be able to recall the firms that have places in a brand compared with its com-
appeared in recent BES quickly (as they are petitors (Lassar et al, 1995). Several factors,
recent in their memory), leading to higher including changing market forces, will
intention to apply to such firms than to the influence the perception of a candidate
firms that have appeared in old BES. about the available prospective employers
On the basis of the above discussion, we and the relative importance she places on
frame the following hypotheses. various EA attributes for each prospective
employer. This change in the desirable
Hypothesis 4a: Firms which list consis-
attributes will significantly affect the
tently in consecutive BES will show a
applicant’s intention to apply to a particular
higher intention to apply than firms
firm. In addition, a prospective candidate’s
which list in BES only once.
expectations on various EAs may vary with
Hypothesis 4b: Firms which list in recent time and from one firm to another. Hence,
BES will show a higher intention to the effect of time on the intention to apply
apply than firms which list in old BES. with respect to EA attributes will also be
different. It may be noted that now there
It has been observed that the attributes are online tools available that give a choice
that are important to the labour market to applicants to select employers based on
change with new developments, oppor- their preferences. For example, a tool
tunities and trends. For instance, India’s ‘BEST EmployersTM’ certified by the CRF
labour market will be in a vigorous shake Institute, headquartered at the Netherlands,
up over the next few years (Kohli, 2010) offers independent HR assessment and
and the inexorable march of market forces, acknowledgement services and gives an
and their interplay with the structural and option to find those best employers that
political dynamics of the country, could end meet the criteria (for example, monetary
up drawing many unemployed persons into benefits, working conditions, career devel-
the job market. This pool of nascent talent opment and so on) that are most important
places different importance to various to an applicant in her career at a particular
factors while seeking employment. We stage. Such developments reflect the fact
argue that for an applicant, the significance that the preferences of applicants, external as
of one EA attribute or a combination of EA well as internal, may change over time and
attributes may change over time. This organisations which do not adapt to such
change occurs because of the change in the changing preferences may lose their best
preferences of the applicants as well as the employer tag, resulting in a low intention
change in the perception of the firm vis-a-vis to apply. However, firms that are serious
its competitors. A well-managed brand can about the BES ranking would try to gauge
be powerful enough to overcome almost (for example, internally through employee
any competitive advantage of its com- satisfaction surveys, exit interviews; and
petitors. Today’s global competition forces externally through market expectation
firms, irrespective of their sizes, to look for studies) this changing pattern and attempt
new sources of sustainable competitive to align their HR strategy to the market
advantage that are unique over time requirements. There is anecdotal evidence
(Arnold, 2000), intangible in nature and that employer branding is considered as an
protective (Delgado-Ballester and Munuera- example of a progressive HR practice and it
Aleman, 2005). From the marketing is an important differentiator in emerging
perspective, brand equity stems from the economies like India for talent management

100 © 2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-231X Journal of Brand Management Vol. 21, 2, 95–111
 Employer branding in an emerging economy

(SHRM Research, 2010). Recent trends For’, Business Today’s study of ‘Best
reveal the importance of having an Companies to Work For’ and The Aon
effective employer brand to recruit and Hewitt’s ‘Best Employers Survey in India’.
retain the right kind of talent needed by The former two are carried out annually,
the firms to establish and retain its whereas the last one is conducted
competitive advantage in the marketplace bi-annually. We selected the firms that were
(SHRM Research, 2010). This signifies the present in either one or all of these three
importance of sustaining a firm’s employer surveys. These surveys provide the list of
brand with time and considering the firms that have been considered either great
evolving EA attributes that contribute to or the best place to work or good on
the applicant’s intention to apply. The EA indicators. Using these surveys, three
above discussion leads to the following sampling frames were generated: first, the
hypotheses: firms that mainly appeared in relatively old
(that is, Year 2007) surveys (total 22 firms);
Hypothesis 5: Employer attractiveness
second, the firms that appeared mainly in
attributes may have a different impact
recent (that is, Year 2011) surveys (total 30
on the candidate’s intention to apply
firms); and third, the firms that were largely
in different time periods.
consistent from 2007 to 2011 in any of the
Hypothesis 6: Employer attractiveness three surveys (total 12 firms). To avoid
attributes may have a different impact overlap, a firm is counted only once
on the candidate’s intention to apply although it may have appeared in more than
for different firms. one survey. Finally, four firms from each list
Researchers (Cable and Judge, 1996; were selected randomly (Table 1) and each
Powell and Goulet, 1996; Highhouse et al, set of firms is called a sample set.
1999; Cable and Turban, 2001; Wilden et al,
2010) suggest that the importance of EA
attributes and its influence on the candidate’s Scale selection
intention to apply may fluctuate according to Berthon et al (2005) provide a compre-
various characteristics of the labour market hensive 25-item scale to measure EA that
such as age, gender, location, education, has been tested for its reliability and validity.
current salary, work experience and Two more items have been added by Roy
individual or group preferences. Therefore, (2008) in the Indian context. Thus, we use a
we include these variables as control variables 27-items scale that considers much wider
in order to capture the true effect of EA range of attributes than organisational
attributes on the applicant’s intention to attributes (for example, Roberson et al,
apply. 2005) to measure EA (Table 2). A three-
item scale and a two-item scale, drawn from
the literature, have been used to measure
intention to apply (Taylor and Bergmann,
APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY 1987; Roberson et al, 2005; Gomes and
Neves, 2011) and organisation familiarity
Firm selection (Lievens et al, 2005; Collins, 2007),
To select firms for this study, we consider respectively. Respondents were asked to
three major BES that are comprehensive and provide their response on a 7-point scale
regularly conducted in India. These surveys from 1 (that is, strongly disagree) to 7 (that is,
are the Great Place to Work Institute’s strongly agree) for each firm in a sample set.
Survey of ‘India’s Best Companies to Work Each respondent replied to only one sample

© 2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-231X Journal of Brand Management Vol. 21, 2, 95–111 101
 Saini et al

Table 1: Selected firms

Sample Set 1 (firms in 2007 BES) Sample Set 2 (firms in 2011 BES) Sample Set 3 (firms consistent from 2007 to 2011 BES)

Agilent Technologies Fabindia Overseas Pvt. Ltd American Express India Pvt. Ltd.
Birla Sun Life Insurance Comp. Ltd The Oberoi Hotels & Resorts Google
Gap International Tata Power Qualcomm
Sapient Whirlpool India Ltd. Marriott International Inc.

Table 2: EA attributes and their distribution across various EA dimensions

Category EA attribute

Development value Recognition/appreciation from management

A great start for future employment
Feeling good about yourself as a result of working for a particular organisation
Feeling more self-confident as a result of working for a particular organisation
Gaining career-enhancing experience
Social value A fun working environment
Having a good relationship with your superiors
Having a good relationship with your colleagues
Supportive and encouraging colleagues
Happy work environment
Interest value Working in an exciting environment
Innovative employer – novel work practices/forward-thinking
The organisation both values and makes use of your creativity
The organisation produces high-quality products and services
The organisation produces innovative products and services
Application value Humanitarian organisation – gives back to society
Opportunity to apply what was learned at a tertiary institution
Opportunity to teach others what you have learned
Acceptance and belonging
The organisation is customer-orientated
Economic value Good promotion opportunities within the organisation
Job security within the organisation
Hands-on inter-departmental experience
An above average basic salary
An attractive overall compensation package
Company culture Strong and clear company culture
Ethical organisation An ethical organisation

Source: Compiled from Berthon et al (2005) and Roy (2008).

set (that is, four firms) and they, on average, Berthon et al (2005) classifies 25 EA
took about 15 min to complete the question- attributes into five categories, that is,
naire. The questionnaire was executed using development value, social value, interest
the Web services of surveymonkey.com. value, application value and economic value.
Reliability statistics (Cronbach’s α) for the These five categories are the refined and
EA scale was 0.972. In order to avoid any extended version of the three dimensions
possible bias, particularly to the response on (that is, functional, psychological and eco-
the dependent variable, respondents were not nomic) proposed by Ambler and Barrow
provided any information about the results (1996). According to Berthon et al (2005),
of BES. interest and social value capture the

102 © 2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-231X Journal of Brand Management Vol. 21, 2, 95–111
 Employer branding in an emerging economy

‘psychological benefits’; development and final year of their studies and had either started
application value comprise the ‘functional searching or were planning to search for a job.
benefits’; and both operationalisations have Thus, the profile of selected respondents
an economic dimension. Thus, we follow made them appropriate prospective employ-
the same classification to group the 25 EA ees for the external job market.
items into five dimensions while the
remaining two items are kept separately
(Table 2). This resulted in a total of seven DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
dimensions representing 27 EA attributes. Descriptive statistics, correlation, analysis of
In the analysis, the value of every EA variance (ANOVA) and ordinary least
dimension is the mean score of various square regression analysis techniques were
items covered by that particular dimension. used to analyse the data and test the
hypotheses. Table 3 shows the descriptive
statistics and between variable correlation. It
Respondent can be observed that intention to apply
A total of 191 students (131 male and 60 shows significant correlation with four EA
female) from various B-Schools responded dimensions (that is, development value,
to the standard questionnaire. The students social value, interest value and application
were pursuing professional degrees (MBA, value), while organisational familiarity has
PGDBM, B-Tech and so on); and 64 statistically significant correlation with
respondents were studying at the under- development value and social value.
graduate level and 98 at the postgraduate ANOVA was performed to examine the
level while the remaining 29 respondents difference in mean scores of applicant’s inten-
were already employed (but looking for a tion to apply in three sample sets. ANOVA
job change) with work experience of 1 year results (Table 4) showed statistically significant
or more. The student respondents were in the differences (P-value 0.001 and F-value 7.12)

Table 3: Descriptive statistics and correlation matrix

Variable Mean Standard Age Experience Group Individual Salary Intention to Organisational
deviation preference preference apply familiarity

Age 23.72 3.44 — — — — — — —

Experience 1.37 2.80 0.811** — — — — — —
Group preference 3.07 1.49 −0.051 −0.061 — — — — —
Individual 3.85 1.64 −0.073 −0.130 −0.108 — — —
preference
Salary 3.26 2.40 −0.189** −0.247** 0.065 0.065 — — —
Intention to apply 4.14 0.85 0.066 −0.009 0.007 −0.043 −0.031 — —
Organisation 4.08 1.11 −0.015 −0.041 −0.015 −0.045 −0.067 0.505** —
familiarity
Development 3.62 0.91 0.051 0.060 −0.097 −0.017 −0.120 0.512** 0.435**
value
Social value 3.49 0.89 0.083 0.128 −0.041 −0.151* −0.093 0.333** 0.228**
Interest value 3.26 1.13 0.078 0.167* −0.074 −0.082 −0.105 0.190** 0.107
Application value 3.26 1.03 0.081 0.184* −0.008 −0.129 −0.064 0.158* 0.131
Economic value 3.36 1.00 0.055 0.147* −0.007 −0.059 −0.081 0.139 0.115
Company culture 3.23 1.21 0.054 0.163* −0.045 −0.076 −0.116 0.113 0.058
Ethical 3.31 1.30 0.031 0.119 −0.032 −0.032 −0.069 0.108 0.040
organisation

Note: * and ** correlations are significant at the 0.05 and 0.01 levels, respectively.

© 2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-231X Journal of Brand Management Vol. 21, 2, 95–111 103
 Saini et al

Table 4: ANOVA and t-test results (variable: intention to apply)

Descriptive statistics One-way ANOVA T-Test Results

Sample N Mean Standard Standard Source of Sum of df Mean F P-value Sample Mean
set deviation error variance squares square set

1 49 3.76 1.016 0.145 Between 9.67 2 4.84 7.12 0.001 1 3.76

groups
2 102 4.30 0.738 0.073 Within 127.64 188 0.68 — — 2 4.30
groups
3 40 4.19 0.768 0.122 Total 137.31 190 — — — t-value: P-value:
3.69 0.000

5 analysis while the applicant’s intention to

4.5
apply was considered the dependent variable.
In addition, organisation familiarity was
4 treated as an independent variable while the
rest (that is, age, gender, experience,
3.5
Mean intention to apply
income, location and so on) were treated as
3 control variables. Three dummy variables
old recent consistent were generated for three sample sets, and
BES BES BES
Sample Set 3 (firms consistently appeared in
Figure 1: Mean intention to apply. 2007–2011 BES rankings) was taken as a
reference category.
The regression results (Table 5) reveal
in the prospective applicant’s intention to that the firm’s listing in BES (P-value < 0.01
apply across three set of firms (Figure 1). for Firm Dummies 1 and 2), development
Firms consistently listed in BES recorded a value and social value significantly con-
significantly higher intention to apply (mean tributed to the applicant’s intention to
score 4.2) than the firms that appeared in old apply (P-value < 0.01 for all three variables)
BES (mean score 3.7), thereby supporting supporting Hypothesis 2 fully and Hypo-
Hypothesis 4a. However, surprisingly, the thesis 1 partially, respectively. Results imply
former recorded marginally lower intention that the applicant’s intention to apply was
to apply than the firms listed only in recent 0.574 point less in the firms that appeared in
BES (mean score 4.3), but the differences old (that is, 2007) BES compared with the
were not statistically significant (t statistic firms which were, by and large, consistently
0.818 and P-value 0.415). Such a situation in BES from 2007 to 2011. It was 0.303 point
may arise because of higher organisational less for firms in recent (that is, 2011) BES
familiarity (mean score 4.3) with the firms in compared with firms that were consistently in
recent BES than to the firms in consistent BES. Furthermore, development value had
BES (mean score 3.6). Moreover, the mean the largest impact (coefficient 0.468) on the
score of intention to apply for the firms that candidate’s application intention followed by
appeared in recent BES was 4.3, significantly social value (coefficient 0.384). We did not
(P-value 0.000) higher than the firms that find any support for other EA dimensions
appeared in old BES, thus supporting such as interest value, application value and
Hypothesis 4b (see Table 4 t-test results). economic value. The organisation familiarity
The seven EA dimensions were used as was also significant (P-value 0.000; coefficient
independent variables in the regression 0.219) which supports Hypothesis 3. This

104 © 2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-231X Journal of Brand Management Vol. 21, 2, 95–111
 Employer branding in an emerging economy

Table 5: Regression results: dependent variable – intention to apply

Independent variable Unstandardised coefficient Standard error Standardised coefficients

Constant 1.403** 0.628 —

Segment −0.008 0.060 −0.010
Gender −0.072 0.104 −0.040
Age 0.036 0.024 0.146
Location −0.064 0.056 −0.065
Experience −0.019 0.031 −0.063
Group preference 0.034 0.032 0.059
Individual preference −0.006 0.030 −0.012
Salary 0.012 0.022 0.034
Organisation familiarity 0.219*** 0.050 0.287
Development value 0.468*** 0.088 0.502
Social value 0.384*** 0.123 0.405
Interest value −0.072 0.119 −0.096
Application value −0.226 0.131 −0.276
Economic value −0.172 0.118 −0.204
Company culture −0.020 0.082 −0.028
Ethical organisation 0.012 0.060 0.018
Firm 2007 (Dummy 1) −0.574*** 0.139 −0.296
Firm 2011 (Dummy 2) −0.303*** 0.147 −0.179

Note: R2 0.508; adjusted R2 0.456.

** and *** coefficients significant at the 0.05 and 0.01 levels, respectively.

entails that one unit change in organisational pattern emerged. For example, for American
familiarity increases application possibility by Express social value and for Qualcomm
0.219 points. No control variable was economic value played an important role in
statistically significant. determining intention to apply, while for
Three separate firm-specific regressions Google and Marriott Hotels both deve-
were carried out to examine the influence lopment value and ethical organisation sig-
of each EA dimension on applicant’s intention nificantly influenced the intention to apply.
to apply for each firm in a given sample set. Such a diverse pattern of significant or
Firm-specific regression analysis (Table 6) insignificant coefficients supports Hypothesis
provides mixed results about EA dimensions. 6. Interestingly, organisational familiarity was
Development value, social value and com- one of the most important statistically signi-
pany culture were statistically significant for ficant variables across all three sample sets,
any two of the firms in the Sample Set 1 suggesting its major and positive contri-
(old BES), whereas the development value bution to the intention to apply.
was the major EA dimension for the three It should be noted that the significance of
firms in the Sample Set 2 (recent BES). Int- various EA dimensions varies for the firms in
erestingly, for Gap International and Tata a sample set. For example, for Gap Inter-
Power four dimensions, including deve- national (in old BES) four EA dimensions
lopment value, social value and company were significant, whereas for Oberoi
culture, significantly influenced the Group (in recent BES) no EA dimension
intention to apply. For the firms in Sample was significant. Furthermore, in the Sample
Set 3 (firms consistently appeared in BES), Set 2 (recent BES) the development
the intention to apply was determined by value was significant for three firms. Such
the different EA dimensions and no unique a varying importance of EA dimensions

© 2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-231X Journal of Brand Management Vol. 21, 2, 95–111 105
106

Saini et al
Table 6: Regression coefficient (unstandardised): dependent variable – intention to apply
© 2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-231X Journal of Brand Management Vol. 21, 2, 95–111

Independent variable Sample Set 1 Sample Set 2 Sample Set 3

Agilient Birla Sun Life Gap International Sapient FAB India Oberoi Hotels Tata Power Whirlpool American Express Google Qualcomm Marriott Hotels

Constant −1.827 5.466* 0.570 1.438 −0.010 1.953 −0.368 2.158* −1.271 −7.077 3.601 −8.479
(3.410) (2.977) (2.215) (3.937) (1.267) (1.215) (1.327) (1.127) (5.643) (5.399) (4.851) (7.269)
Gender −0.159 −0.540* 0.055 0.284 −0.143 0.161 −0.299 −0.181 0.496 0.225 −0.559 0.483
(0.342) (0.305) (0.228) (0.369) (0.268) (0.259) (0.289) (0.237) (0.542) (0.510) (0.454) (0.688)
Age 0.092 −0.144 0.039 0.010 0.072 0.050 0.024 0.035 0.175 0.257 0.077 0.322
(0.121) (0.107) (0.080) (0.138) (0.047) (0.045) (0.051) (0.042) (0.193) (0.180) (0.163) (0.251)
Location −0.210 0.093 −0.174 −0.449 0.004 −0.016 −0.090 −0.251*** −0.207 0.957** 0.616* 0.216
(0.306) (0.289) (0.204) (0.353) (0.107) (0.103) (0.115) (0.094) (0.419) (0.406) (0.348) (0.501)
Experience 0.168 0.104 −0.135 −0.005 −0.129** −0.134** 0.100* 0.068* −0.232 −0.013 −0.376** 0.152
(0.204) (0.178) (0.134) (0.219) (0.057) (0.054) (0.061) (0.050) (0.214) (0.197) (0.178) (0.258)
Group preference −0.165 0.078 0.123 0.072 0.035 −0.053 0.028 0.065 0.009 0.013 −0.246* 0.231
(0.135) (0.119) (0.089) (0.146) (0.075) (0.071) (0.080) (0.065) (0.149) (0.140) (0.123) (0.183)
Individual preference 0.101 −0.010 −0.006 −0.065 0.022 −0.037 0.117 0.060 −0.105 −0.098 −0.322*** −0.031
(0.121) (0.107) (0.080) (0.130) (0.068) (0.065) (0.073) (0.060) (0.133) (0.125) (0.112) (0.169)
Salary 0.201* −0.002 −0.097 −0.049 0.034 −0.036 0.059 0.025 0.041 0.070 −0.211** 0.159
(0.123) (0.100) (0.077) (0.122) (0.051) (0.049) (0.055) (0.045) (0.122) (0.111) (0.102) (0.148)
Organisation familiarity 0.373** 0.426*** 0.301*** 0.296* 0.294*** 0.122* 0.396*** 0.159** 0.359** 0.125 0.281** 0.300**
(0.203) (0.126) (0.097) (0.152) (0.092) (0.093) (0.098) (0.089) (0.130) (0.111) (0.117) (0.146)
Development value 0.221 0.127 0.554*** 0.829** 0.261* 0.189 0.539** 0.390** 0.404 1.179** −0.193 0.549*
(0.349) (0.269) (0.198) (0.310) (0.182) (0.177) (0.216) (0.171) (0.457) (0.443) (0.377) (0.562)
Social value 1.262** 0.406 0.639* 0.210 0.260 0.236 0.756** 0.164 0.604* −0.152 0.026 0.314
(0.582) (0.536) (0.407) (0.648) (0.273) (0.262) (0.294) (0.239) (0.449) (0.404) (0.373) (0.543)
Interest value 0.218 0.655* 0.117 0.610 0.001 0.169 0.568* −0.339 −0.139 −0.631 0.196 −0.330
(0.520) (0.432) (0.322) (0.500) (0.297) (0.278) (0.310) (0.253) (0.472) (0.436) (0.391) (0.574)
Application value −1.042 −0.075 1.166** −0.748 0.006 −0.350 −0.209 −0.209 −0.399 0.081 0.299* −0.422
(0.699) (0.582) (0.441) (0.703) (0.329) (0.317) (0.353) (0.288) (0.387) (0.348) (0.327) (0.469)
Economic value −0.198 −0.654 −0.011 0.525 −0.171 −0.142 −0.216 −0.115 −0.505 0.132 0.265 0.018
(0.635) (0.541) (0.405) (0.655) (0.305) (0.282) (0.314) (0.257) (0.388) (0.345) (0.329) (0.466)
Company culture −0.379 −0.106 0.377* 0.714* 0.084 0.022 0.368* 0.132 −0.077 −0.117 −0.412 0.002
(0.373) (0.335) (0.266) (0.415) (0.180) (0.174) (0.195) (0.158) (0.344) (0.300) (0.284) (0.407)
Ethical organisation 0.371* −0.208 −0.159 −0.203 −0.132 0.149 −0.060 0.122 0.118 0.416** −0.054 0.352*
(0.234) (0.206) (0.157) (0.245) (0.141) (0.134) (0.149) (0.123) (0.235) (0.202) (0.190) (0.274)
R2 0.497 0.575 0.667 0.599 0.287 0.245 0.512 0.307 0.567 0.672 0.649 0.574
Adjusted R2 0.268 0.381 0.516 0.416 0.163 0.114 0.427 0.187 0.297 0.467 0.430 0.308

*, ** and *** coefficients significant at the 0.1, 0.05 and 0.01 levels, respectively.
Note: Figure in parenthesis represents standard error.
 Employer branding in an emerging economy

Table 7: Summary of hypothesis testing other than employer branding activities

may also be important. Some of these
Hypothesis Support/not supported Level of significance
could be products and services produced/
Hypothesis 1 Partially supported — offered by the company, company repu-
Hypothesis 2 Supported 0.01
tation, firm size and geographical spread as
Hypothesis 3 Supported 0.01
Hypothesis 4a Supported 0.01 suggested by Franca and Pahor (2012).
Hypothesis 4b Supported 0.05 The results confirm that the candidate is
Hypothesis 5 Supported — more likely to apply to a firm present in
Hypothesis 6 Supported —
BES (conducted recently or consistently in
recent past) than to a firm not appearing in
BES (or appearing in old BES). Thus, it may
make sense to invest in employer branding
in the intention to apply in the three dif- activities and communicate the same
ferent sample sets supports Hypothesis 5. through popular media such as BES. By
See Table 7 for summary of hypothesis doing this, companies will be able to attract
testing. a larger talent pool leading to better can-
didate selection, and subsequently higher
engagement, higher employee productivity
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS and low turnover (Douglas, 2007; Hewitt,
In this article, we show, taking firms from 2009). Consider for instance that because of
BES, that EA attributes significantly the economic recession, more than 3
influence the applicant’s intention to apply million Americans lost their jobs in 2008,
which confirms the earlier findings (that is, and yet 81 per cent of the top 100
Collins and Stevens, 2002; Agrawal and companies in Fortune’s 2009 list of ‘Best
Swaroop, 2009; Gomes and Neves, 2011). Employers to Work For’ had no layoffs in
However, all EA attributes are not equally 2008 (Cascio, 2010). Furthermore, com-
important for the prospective employee panies listed in Fortune’s ‘100 Best Com-
while searching for a job. Development panies to Work For’ consistently did better
value and social value were two of the than the S&P 500, as they received two
important EA dimensions that contributed times the number of job applications and
the most to the intention to apply. These had half the turnover rate of their
two dimensions cover various elements competitors. And ‘The 100 Best’ com-
of ‘functions benefits’ and ‘psychological panies have had a 10.6 per cent annual
benefits’, respectively, and were originally return since 1998 compared with the 5.7
proposed by Ambler and Barrow (1996) and per cent return for the S&P 500 over the
later revised by Berthon et al (2005). same period (Watson, 2002; Reed and
Therefore, firms that aspire to attract a Clark, 2004).
larger number of applicants may prefer to In the firm-wise regression analysis, we
focus on the development value and social find that the development value is
value aspects of EA dimensions. Con- significant for seven firms out of a total of
sistent with previous research (Turban and 12 firms, making it a major contributor to
Greening, 1997; Gatewood et al, 1993; the intention to apply. Except development
Lemmink et al, 2003), organisational famil- value, we do not observe a common pattern
iarity has emerged as a major determinant of in the influence of other EA dimensions
the intention to apply to the prospective across the firms of three sample sets and the
employer. This indicates that factors, which results are mixed. For example, for firms
may increase an organisation’s visibility, like Gap International and Tata Power four

© 2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-231X Journal of Brand Management Vol. 21, 2, 95–111 107
 Saini et al

EA dimensions are significant, whereas for understand these preferences and appreciate
the remaining firms (expect Birla Sun Life, these differences by providing work spaces
where no EA dimension is significant) that cater to their expectations. Through
either one or two dimensions contribute to employer branding efforts, firm may con-
the intention to apply. Such findings suggest template these differences and design an
that all employer branding activities may appropriate employee value proposition in
not result in higher intention to apply and order to develop an employer brand that
some of the EA dimensions are discounted resonates with these diverse set of
by the candidates while applying for a expectations. This may help in attracting
job. Attracting more candidates for a job and retaining the best talent belonging to a
advertisement may become more difficult varied range of educational backgrounds
because of such varying importance given to and generations.
EA dimensions by the candidate. Hence,
the firms should do a careful analysis to
identify factors, whether related to employer
branding or not, affecting the applicant’s CONCLUSION, LIMITATIONS AND
intention to apply. The organisational famil- FUTURE RESEARCH
iarity variable is statistically significant for all In this study, we examine the relationship
firms except two, supporting our common between EA attributes and intention to
regression results and earlier research. This apply taking firms from BES. We conclude
suggests that the candidate’s familiarity and with the following major observations
awareness about a firm has significant influ- from our study. First, human resource
ence on their intention to apply. This is in professionals should recognise that in the
line with signalling theory that suggests that short term employer branding definitely
any information that a job seeker views will provides a competitive advantage in the
influence their opinion about the prospective labour market, but that may not be forever,
company. Although this information may and is expected to decline in the medium to
not have a direct link with a job or an long term. Therefore, continuous efforts on
organisation, it can signal what it would be EA attributes may be needed in order to
like to work for that organisation, including sustain the competitive advantage of
individuals’ attraction to the organisation employer branding. Second, the develop-
(Rynes et al, 1991; Turban, 2001). ment and social value are the strongest
In the light of this study, employers need predictors of intention to apply and therefore
to realise the increasing importance of firms would like to focus more on these two
building and communicating the employer EA dimensions to attract a larger talent pool.
brand in order to attract, recruit and retain In addition, firms should make concerted
talent. Given the paucity of talent, com- efforts to improve their exposure to pros-
panies should be more receptive to the shift pective candidates and thereby increase
in the labour market – that is, the bargaining organisational familiarity of the candidates
power is moving from the employers to the that contributes to the intention to apply.
employees. Moreover, work force com- Third, the changing influence of EA
position is undergoing a significant change attributes on applicants’ intention to apply
with a mix of generations coexisting and suggests that all EA attributes are not given
working together in the same settings. Each equal weight by the prospective employees
set of employees comes with a unique set of and a few of them may be discounted
preferences and expectations from their while applying for a vacancy. In such cases,
employers. It is imperative for employers to employer branding efforts may need to be

108 © 2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-231X Journal of Brand Management Vol. 21, 2, 95–111
 Employer branding in an emerging economy

more focused if they are mainly targeted at in employer branding. International Journal of
Advertising 24(2): 151–172.
attracting a large pool of applicants. Fourth, Borate, A. and Banerji, J. (2011) Building a great place to
there exist possibilities of creating synergies by work. Great place to Work Institute India, http://
combining efforts of marketing and HR www.greatplacetowork.in/storage/documents/
Publications_Documents/building_a_great_place_
managers in the design and execution of EA to_work_-_learning_from_indias_best_companies_
activities and their communication to the to_work_for_in_2011.pdf, accessed 1 April 2013.
target audience (that is, potential employees) Branham, L. (2001) Keeping the People Who Keep
in emerging economies. You in Business: 24 Ways to Hang on to Your Most
Valuable Talent. New York: American Management
However, the generalisability of the Association.
findings may be questioned because of two Business Today (2011) Top of the list in ‘best companies
of its major limitations. First, the study did to work for’ survey, 6 February, http://
businesstoday.intoday.in/story/toppers-in-the-best-
not cover firms not participating in BES; companies-to-work-for-survey/1/12568.html,
and second, small sample sizes for the accessed 31 March 2013.
Sample Sets 1 and 3. The former limitation Cable, D.M. and Graham, M.E. (2000) The
determinants of job seekers’ reputation perceptions.
is partially tackled by considering three Journal of Organisational Behaviour 21(8): 929–947.
BESs rather than merely relying on one Cable, D.M. and Judge, T.A. (1996) Person-organi-
BES. Future studies with wider firm zation fit, job choice decisions and organizational
coverage and larger sample size may be entry. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes 67(3): 294–311.
suggested. Furthermore, specific studies Cable, D. and Turban, D.B. (2001) Establishing the
examining the role of applicant charac- dimensions, sources and value of job seekers
teristics such as segments (for example, employer knowledge during recruitment. In: G.R.
Ferris (eds.) Research in Personnel and Human
fresh graduates and experienced), the effect Resources Management. New York: Elsevier Science,
of firm characteristics such as firm size, pp. 115–163.
product/services offered, firm reputation, Cascio, W.F. (2010) If you must downsize, do it right.
The Business School, University of Colorado
and industry sector (for example, manu- Denver, http://www.employmentpolicy.org/topic/
facturing and services) on the intention to 21/research/if-you-must-downsize-do-it-right#,
apply may be recommended. accessed 22 March 2013.
Collins, C.J. (2007) The interactive effects of recruitment
practices and product awareness on job seekers’
employer knowledge and application behaviors.
Journal of Applied Psychology 92(1): 180–190.
Collins, C.J. and Han, J. (2004) Exploring applicant
REFERENCES pool quantity and quality: The effects of early
Agrawal, R.K. and Swaroop, P. (2009) Effect of recruitment practice strategies, corporate advertising,
employer brand image on application intentions and firm reputation. Personnel Psychology 57(3):
of B-School undergraduates. Vision-The Journal of 685–717.
Business Perspective 13(3): 41–49. Collins, C.J. and Stevens, C.K. (2002) The relationship
Ambler, T. (2000) Marketing and the Bottom Line. between early recruitment-related activities and the
London, UK: Financial Times/Prentice Hall. application decisions of new labor-market entrants:
Ambler, T. and Barrow, S. (1996) The employer brand. A brand-equity approach to recruitment. Journal of
Journal of Brand Management 4(3): 185–206. Applied Psychology 87(6): 1121–1133.
Arnold, D. (2000) Seven rules of international Delgado-Ballester, E. and Munuera-Aleman, J.L.
distribution. Harvard Business Review 78(6): 131–137. (2005) Does brand trust matter to brand equity?
Backhaus, K. and Tikoo, S. (2004) Conceptualizing and Journal of Product and Brand Management 14(3):
researching employer branding. Career Development 187–196.
International 9(5): 501–517. Douglas, M.J. (2007) 50 best employers in Canada 2007:
Balmer, J.M.T. and Greyser, S.A. (2002) Managing the In Love, L. (online) Employer branding for
multiple identities of the corporation. California tomorrow’s Workplace, 11 June 2009, http://
Management Review 44(3): 72–86. www.cch.ca/public/Branding-QA.pdf, accessed 20
Barrow, S. and Mosley, R. (2005) The Employer Brand. March 2013.
London: Wiley & Sons. Douglas, A.R., Hill, L.A. and Conger, J.A. (2008)
Berthon, P., Ewing, M. and Hah, L.L. (2005) Winning the race for talent in emerging markets.
Captivating company: Dimensions of attractiveness Harvard Business Review 86(11): 62–70.

© 2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-231X Journal of Brand Management Vol. 21, 2, 95–111 109
 Saini et al

Economic Intelligence Unit (2008) People for growth: dimensions and organizational attractiveness: An
The talent challenge in emerging markets, May, application in a military context. Journal of Occupational
http://www.eiu.com/site_info.asp?info_name= and Organizational Psychology 78(4): 53–572.
SAP_talent_wars&page=noads, accessed 10 May Love, L.F. and Singh, P. (2011) Workplace branding:
2013. Leveraging human resources management practices for
Employer Brand Institute (2009) Employer branding global competitive advantage through ‘best employer suveys’.
research study. March, http://www.collectivelearning Journal of Business and Psychology 26(2): 175–181.
australia.com, accessed 12 September 2012. Miles, S.J. and Mangold, G. (2004) A conceptualization
Ewing, M.T., Pitt, L.F., de Bussy, N.M. and Berthon, P. of the employee branding process. Journal of
(2002) Employment branding in the knowledge Relationship Marketing 3(2/3): 65–87.
economy. International Journal of Advertising 21(1): Minchington, B. (2010) Employer Brand Leadership: A
3–22. Global Perspective. Australia: Collective Learning.
Franca, V. and Pahor, M. (2012) The strength of the Moroko, L. and Uncles, M.D. (2008) Characteristics of
employer brand: Influences and implications for successful employer brands. Journal of Brand
recruiting. Journal of Marketing & Management 3(1): Management 16(3): 160–175.
78–122. Powell, G.N. and Goulet, L.R. (1996) Recruiters’ and
Gatewood, R.D., Gowan, M.A. and Lautenschlager, G.J. applicants’ reactions to campus interviews and
(1993) Corporate image, recruitment image, and initial employment decisions. Academy of Management
job choice decisions. Academy of Management Journal 36 Review 39(6): 1619–1640.
(2): 414–427. Reed, P.S. and Clark, S.M. (2004) Win-win workplace
Gilly, M.C. and Wolfinbarger, M. (1998) Advertising’s practices: Improved organizational results and
internal audience. Journal of Marketing 62(1): 69–88. improved quality of life. Report to US Department
Gomes, D. and Neves, J. (2011) Organizational of Labor Women’s Bureau, September 2004,
attractiveness and prospective applicants’ intentions www.choose2lead.org/Publications/Study%20
to apply. Personnel Review 40(6): 684–699. on%20Win-Win%20Workplace%20Practices.pdf,
Greene, W., Walls, G.D. and Schrest, L.J. (1994) Internal accessed 25 March 2013.
marketing: The key to external marketing success. Ritson, M. (2002) Marketing and HR collaborate to
Journal of Service Marketing 8(4): 5–13. harness employer brand power. Marketing 24
Hewitt (2009) Point of view, what makes a company a (October): p. 24.
best employer? http://www.aon.com/attachments/ Roberson, Q.M., Collins, C.J. and Oreg, S. (2005) The
thought-leadership/pov_Best_Employer_Position_ effects of recruitment message specificity on
Paper.pdf, accessed 25 March 2013. applicant attraction to organizations Journal of
Highhouse, S., Stierwalt, S.L., Bachiochi, P., Elder, A.E. Business and Psychology 19(3): 319–339.
and Fisher, G. (1999) Effects of advertised human Roy, S.K. (2008) Identifying the dimensions of attrac-
resource management practices on attraction of tiveness of an employer brand in the Indian context.
African American applicants. Personnel Psychology South Asian Journal of Management 15(4): 110–130.
52(2): 425–442. Rynes, S.L., Bretz, R.D.J. and Gerhart, B. (1991) The
Hoskisson, R.E., Eden, L., Lau, C.M. and Wright, M. importance of recruitment in job choice: A different
(2000) Strategy in emerging economies. Academy of way of looking. Personnel Psychology 44(3): 487–521.
Management Journal 43(3): 249–267. Sartain, L. and Schumann, M. (2006) Brand from the
Joo, B.K. and McLean, G.N. (2006) Best employer Inside. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.
studies: A conceptual model from a literature review Slaughter, J.E., Zickar, M.J., Highhouse, S. and
and a case study. Human Resources Development Review Mohr, D.C. (2004) Personality trait inferences about
5(2): 228–257. organizations: Development of a measure and
Kohli, R. (2010) India: Labour market’s changing times. assessment of construct validity. Journal of Applied
East Asia Forum, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/tag/ Psychology 89(1): 85–103.
structural-unemployment/, accessed 12 September SHRM Research (2010) Employer brand in India:
2012. A strategic HR tool, society for human resource
Lassar, W., Mittal, B. and Sharma, A. (1995) Measuring management, http://www.shrm.org/research/future
customer based brand equity. Journal of Consumer workplacetrends/documents/10-0028%20india_article_
Marketing 12(4): 11–19. employer_brand_v5.pdf, accessed 10 September 2012.
Lemmink, J., Schuijf, A. and Streukens, S. (2003) The Sullivan, J. (2004) Eight elements of a successful
role of corporate image and company employment employment brand, http://www.ere.net/2004/02/
image in explaining application intentions. Journal of 23/the-8-elements-of-a-successful-employment-
Economic Psychology 24(1): 1–15. brand/, accessed 10 August 2012.
Lievens, F., Hoye, G.V. and Anseel, F. (2007) Organi- Taylor, M.S. and Bergmann, T.J. (1987) Organizational
zational identity and employer image: Towards a recruitment activities and applicants’ reactions at
unifying framework. British Journal of Management different stages of the recruitment process. Personnel
18(S1): S45–S59. Psychology 40(2): 261–285.
Lievens, F., Hoye, G.V. and Schreurs, B. (2005) Exam- The Economist (2003) Economic and financial indicators.
ining the relationship between employer knowledge 17 May, pp. 112.

110 © 2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-231X Journal of Brand Management Vol. 21, 2, 95–111
 Employer branding in an emerging economy

The Sydney Morning Herald (2013) ABC tops most attrac- Turban, D.B. and Greening, D. (1997) Corporate social
tive employer list. 27 March, http://www.smh.com performance and organizational attractiveness to
.au/business/abc-tops-most-attractive-employer-list- prospective employees. Academy of Management
20130327-2gtp2.html#ixzz2OsFLWXiD, accessed Journal 40(3): 658–672.
30 March 2013. Watson, N. (2002) Happy companies make happy
(The) Conference Board (2001) Engaging employees investments stocks from our best companies to work
through your brand, New York, http://www for list trounced the S&P 500. 27 May, http://
.conference-board.org/publications/publicationdetail money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/
.cfm?publicationid=461, accessed 12 August 2012. 2002/05/27/323684/index.htm, accessed 31 March
Thompson, L.F., Braddy, P.W. and Wuensch, K.L. 2013.
(2004) E-recruitment and the benefits of Wilcock, R. (2005) Employer branding is key in fight for
organizational web appeal. Paper presented at the talent. Personnel Today 17(May): 4. Publication
19th annual meeting of the Society for Industrial/ online 17 May 2005, http://www.personneltoday
Organizational Psychology, Chicago, IL. .com/articles/17/05/2005/29929/employer-branding-
Turban, D.B. (2001) Organizational attractiveness as an is-key-in-fight-for-talent.htm4.
employer on college campuses: an examination of Wilden, R., Gudergan, S. and Lings, I. (2010) Employer
the applicant population. Journal of Vocational Behavior branding: Strategic implications for staff recruitment.
58(2): 293–312. Journal of Marketing Management 26(1–2): 56–73.

© 2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1350-231X Journal of Brand Management Vol. 21, 2, 95–111 111