Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by VGTU Press This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons. org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. *Corresponding author. E-mail: za.nejjari@gmail.com THE ROLE OF ETHICS, TRUST, AND SHARED VALUES IN THE CREATION OF LOYALTY: EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE FROM THE MOROCCAN UNIVERSITY™ Zakaria NEJJARI *, Hanane AAMOUM National School of Commerce and Management, Hassan 2 University, Casablanca, Morocco Received 07 March 2020; accepted 26 March 2020 Abstract. Purpose  – This research discussed ethics, shared values, university image, and trust as factors of student loyalty. This investigation is performed to discover aspects that influence loyalty. Student loyalty factors were previously researched, but the bulk of the research covered only major loyalty factors such as shared values, trust and university image, but overlooked university ethics as a student loyalty determinant. Research methodology – This study is fundamentally a quantitative study using the methodology of survey research. The information is evaluated using AMOS by means of exploratory factor analysis and structural equation modelling (SEM). Findings – The results show how the image of the university, the ethics and the shared values of the graduates positively influence the trust, which affects loyalty. Research limitations – Regarding the limitations of the study which also reconfigure lines of future research, it is important to note, in the first place, the geographical restriction of the population under study to three Moroccan universities. Practical implications – Educational providers can use the findings to know what increase the loyalty and allocate resources to improve the determinants that affect the trust of the students, thus increas- ing the allegiance of the learners. Originality/Value – This research provides innovative knowledge regarding the maintenance of the university’s relations with its graduates. Keywords: student loyalty, ethics, trust, and shared values, Moroccan University. JEL Classification: I23, I29, M10, M30. Business, Management and Education ISSN 2029-7491 / eISSN 2029-6169 2020 Volume 18 Issue 1: 106–126 https://doi.org/10.3846/bme.2020.12237 Introduction Higher education is vital to a country’s growth (Annamdevula & Bellamkonda, 2016). Of- fering high-quality schooling to students is desirable. Higher education establishments are fronting severe struggle in the present situation to fascinate and maintain fresh students. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6075-0140 http://0000-0003-3330-0264 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/JELJOUR_Results.cfm?code=M10 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/JELJOUR_Results.cfm?code=M30 https://doi.org/10.3846/bme.2020.12237 Business, Management and Education, 2020, 18(1): 106–126 107 It is crucial for policymakers to devise methods to boost loyalty to students (Austin & Pervaiz, 2017). Loyalty is not limited to students staying at university but remains after graduation (Ribes-Giner & Rillo, 2016). Education is based on individuals. Students are clients of educational organizations (T. Finney & Z. Finney, 2010). In order to improve loyalty, it is essential to build relationships with students. The employment of marketing ideas in an educational environment is relatively small, and there is a minimal study in an educational framework from the relationship view (Henning-Thurau et al., 2001). Consequently, there is a necessity for studies in the context of education from the view of relationships. This research aims at filling gaps in understanding and suggest a detailed model that depicts significant loyalty factors and their elaborate attachments. The purpose of this research is to propose university leadership measures to improve student loyalty. Also, the study tries to assess the applicability within the education sector of marketing concepts. Researchers have offered relatively limited formal investigation on the operators of loy- alty in universities and higher education institutions (Brown & Mazzarol, 2009). The study conducted by Yavas and Shemwell (1996), Henning-Thurau et  al. (2001), Rojas-Méndez, Vásquez, and Kara (2009) used trust as a Loyalty antecedent. S. Wong and K. Wong (2011) and Martensen et  al. (1999) adopted shared value and trust as loyalty antecedents. The re- search performed by Haynes (1998); Coplan (2001) showed variable ethics as a Loyalty an- tecedent. Our design seeks to clarify the essential antecedents of loyalty that capture a set of variables that have never been combined in the preceding analysis. These variables are ethics, shared values, university image and trust. Our specific research objectives are as follows: First, this research looks at the direct impact on student loyalty of ethics, shared values, image and trust. Second, the elements that affect loyalty in the context of education are examined. Knowing what variables lead to student loyalty is essential to university leadership. The loy- alty backgrounds will lead university management to develop strategies aimed at student holding trust (Douglas et  al., 2006), institution image (Nguyen & Leblanc, 2001), shared values and ethics are the primary determinants of student loyalty. This empirical research is carried out in Morocco within the framework of height education. In this context, a model of ethics-image-trust-loyalty is analyzed, which includes key variables such as antecedents: ethics, image, shared values and trust . The proposed model provides variables little studied in the education field and aims to examine the role of ethics, shared values, university image, trust and loyalty in the graduate-university relationship, its possible antecedents, and its consequences. We consider it essential for the management of universities to answer the following questions: does loyalty in the institution continue to exist once the students graduate from it? Would it be important and beneficial for the university to maintain it? What variables affect it and what consequences can it bring? Besides the explanation presented above for this study, a few peculiarities of Moroccan education have been established. The headship of Moroccan universities barely maintains a formal connection with their students, unlike Western countries. In distinction, students in the U.S. automatically become members of the university (Hoffmann & Müller, 2008), whereas graduate students are given membership in Germany and Russia (Iskhakova et al., 2016). Given the minimal tendency of Moroccan universities to retain a long-lasting connec- tion with their students, it is necessary to figure out the amount of loyalty that the graduate 108 Z. Nejjari, H. Aamoum. The role of ethics, trust, and shared values in the creation of loyalty... feels for their universities so that university leadership can review the orthodox form of terminating their connection with students as quickly as they graduate. Subsequently, the research methodology and the hypothesis test based on an empirical study of a quantitative nature are presented, with a random sample of 383 graduates from 3 Moroccan public uni- versities, using the structural equations modelling as a method of analysis. Finally, results, conclusions and future lines of research are presented. 1. Conceptual framework and hypothesis formulation The main benefits of building strong relationships and collaboration between organizations and their stakeholders are the basis of relationship marketing. The commitment theory of the relational marketing approach (Morgan & Hunt, 1994) propose trust as an essential element in the context of services, given the characteristics of their intangibility and heterogeneity (Philbin, 2008). It also raises the fact that through trust, lasting relationships are achieved, which results in long-term commitment and loyalty. This theory states that, when both par- ties have confidence and are engaged in a relationship, it is worthwhile to make the necessary efforts so that it lasts over time, obtaining more excellent value for all parties. 1.1. The role of trust in the context of higher education Trust is an issue that has been arousing great interest in the academic community in different fields such as psychology, sociology, economics, administration and marketing (Delgado & Munuera, 2005) also in traditional banking (Skvarciany & Jurevičienė, 2017), trust in human- AI interactions (Ferrario et al., 2019) as well as risk-taking in the banking industry (Kanaga- retnam et  al., 2019). Falahat et  al. (2019) confirmed that one of the major concerns for the successful proliferation of e-commerce is the issue of consumers’ trust in Internet vendors. Trust is considered a strategic action in the field of marketing and an essential ingredient in the success of relationships. In this sense, trust is recognized as a determining factor in the success of long-term relationships and is considered as a key mediator of exchanges (Morgan & Hunt, 1994; Delgado & Munuera, 2005). The study of trust in the field of services has had a long history. There is a considerable number of research around this concept that proposes this variable as a key element for maintaining relationships over time (Parasuraman et al.1985; Morgan & Hunt, 1994; Sheth & Parvatiyar, 1995). The majority of the studies have focused on lucrative contexts, especially in specific areas such as financial (Flavian et  al. 2005; Pizzutti & von der Heyde, 2008; Aminet  al., 2013); online environments (Mukherjee & Nath, 2007; Aldás-Manzano et al., 2009); agri- food sector (Delgado & Munuera, 2005; Espejel et  al., 2011) and tourism (Suárez et  al., 2007; Lin & Lu, 2010). There are few investigations that have approached the study of trust in the nonprofit field (Warkentin et  al., 2002). Specifically, in higher education (Dalati & Alchach, 2018), the studies by Ghosh, Whipple, and Bryan (2001), Henning-Thurau et al. (2001), Adidam, Bingi and Sindhav (2004), Carvalho and Mota (2010), S. Wong and K. Wong (2011), Fra- squet et al. (2012) and Hoffmann, Gattermann, Simões and Kleinowski (2012), who have https://www.cambridge.org/core/search?filters%5BauthorTerms%5D=Kiridaran%20Kanagaretnam&eventCode=SE-AU https://www.cambridge.org/core/search?filters%5BauthorTerms%5D=Kiridaran%20Kanagaretnam&eventCode=SE-AU Business, Management and Education, 2020, 18(1): 106–126 109 adapted Morgan-Hunt’s trust-commitment latency (1994) to the educational context to analyze student-university and university-business interaction. Despite its importance, and graduates being a key stakeholder for educational institutions, no studies have been found that support the role of trust in the relationship between the employees and their institu- tion (T. Finney & Z. Finney, 2010; Chen et al. 2016). In the educational context, and following the definition of Morgan and Hunt (1994), students can rely on the honesty and benevolence of institutions of higher education. This trust will be based on their personal experiences (service meeting) with the members of the university community (Henning-Thurau et  al., 2001; S.  Wong & K.  Wong, 2011; Hartono et al., 2019) and with their perception of it. Ghosh et al. (2001) define trust as the degree in which students feel safe and have faith that the educational institution seeks their benefit and will help them achieve their learning and career goals. Justified the relevance of the confidence in this scene-river, in order to generate a first conceptual framework, a model of relations between some of the most significant variables that influence as antecedents or consequences of the graduate’s confidence towards its institu- tion is proposed (Figure 1). 1.2. The role of ethics policy and shared values in the perceived image of the university Ethics has become a notably argued subject. Therefore, ethics in university constitutes a crucial feature of education nowadays during which students should be acquainted. This should even be reconciled with the growing attention on business social responsibility equally within the personal and public sector. Ethics may be outlined as “inquiry into the character and grounds of ethicality wherever the term morality is taken to mean moral judgments, standards and rules of conduct” (Hunt & Vitell, 1986). A university is one organization among many that impact students’ lives. It offers expertise late in youth once thoughts, mor- als and values area unit a lot of advanced and students less receptive adult instruction and approval than in earlier years. It competes with television, motion pictures, and the tumult of the external world replete with disgraces and lurid disclosures. With its commitment to intellectual freedom and selection, a university even lacks the management to bring a reli- able, synchronized influence up-to-date on those that live and work at intervals its walls. For varied students, its toil to speak on ethical interrogations lost amid the interruptions of the supplementary activities that seal the everyday field. Universities play a significant role in Figure 1. Proposed cenceptual model 110 Z. Nejjari, H. Aamoum. The role of ethics, trust, and shared values in the creation of loyalty... effecting amendment in civilization. Ethical, ethical and skilled values of honesty and social responsibility can’t be separated from the context during which they’re exercised. Conse- quently, students, as forthcoming professionals, will afford to neglect their civic, moral and social responsibilities that area unit basic to their roles as representatives of the social amend- ment. This can’t be all over-stressed within the context of minor developing nations wherever resources area unit rare relative to more prominent industrialized countries. Students’ data at this era of their lives ought to impact on their actual manner within the world of labour. As student’s pursuit to specific their moral responsibilities, the university will play a vital role. Its helpfulness comes partially from the capability to impart superior respect for facts and more substantial capacity to reason with wisdom regarding difficult issues. Similarly, valuable is its diverse community occupied by students and school with several modified backgrounds and opinions. Such clarifies tolerance, respect for different values, an acknowl- edgement of the social difficulties. In so doing, it makes students well for the physical world. It aids a perceptive individual to get an ethical understanding way comfy and a lot of deci- sively fastened within the intricacies of up to date life than humbler dogmas cultivated in additional substantial, a lot of judiciously controlled environments. Universities should be the last establishments to discourage a belief within the price of rational argument. Values are crucial to establishing organizational culture (Enz, 1988; Weiner, 1988). Several authors have indicated the influence of shared values on some elements of user brand perception (Eisingerich & Rubera, 2010; Sichtmann & Diamantopoulos, 2013; Bre- cic et  al., 2013). Frankel, Schechtman, and Koenigs (2006) operated a regulated set of values to compare images of optimal leadership between two divisions of the education industry: independent elementary schools and colleges/research universities in the USA and Canada. They discovered that the ideal higher education institution higher education ideal contained more influential aspects of collaborative work and shared decision-making by faculty. Diverse investigators have noticed that students who shared objectives, models, codes of conduct, learning approaches, and assessments with their educational institution were more expected to engage to a relationship with this institution (Holdford & White, 1997; Adidam et al., 2004). However, the University aims to supply the utmost quality study. At the guts of this can be the most principle that rules all analysis involving human members, personal knowledge and personal matter: respect for the contributors’ welfare and rights. Naturally, students do re- search or courses with ethics element, ought to act ethically. However, analysis of the impact of educational majors on students’ moral intentions has been indecisive. Giving to Beltramini et al. (1984), the tutorial majors of scholars meaningfully affected on their moral conclusions and indirectly impact their deciding. Just as each person has values, organizations meet criteria with which they will project how to work and identify with their environment. It also makes them universal for being transmitted to all who integrate and relate to it. The importance of the values is that they become a motivating element, define the fundamental and definitive nature of the organiza- tion and create a sense of identity of the staff with the organization (Blanchard & O’Connor, 1997). Business, Management and Education, 2020, 18(1): 106–126 111 Several authors have pointed out the importance of the shared values of employees in as- pects of consumer behaviour (Maxham & Netemeyer, 2003) and, in particular, that of shared values of the consumer and various elements of brand perception (Eisingerich & Rubera, 2010; Sichtmann & Diamantopoulos, 2013; Brecic et al., 2013). In this sense, and given the emptiness of studies in the field of higher education and explicitly concerning graduates with the university, the following hypothesis is proposed: H1. The shared values of graduates with the university positively influence the perceived image. H2. Ethics of the university positively influence the perceived image. 1.3. The image of the university, ethics, and shared values as a background of trust The image of an organization plays a vital role in contexts in which it is difficult to differen- tiate products or services based on tangible quality characteristics (Mudambi et al., 1997). An image is a set of adjectives notes spontaneously associated with a given stimulus, which has previously triggered in individuals a series of associations that form a set of knowl- edge called beliefs or stereotypes. It is the sum of beliefs, ideas and impressions that a person has about an object (Kotler & Fox, 1995). The perceived image of higher education institutions has a critical role in the attitudes of the public of that institution towards it (Landrum et  al., 1998) as well as in the conse- quences that derive from this perception (Cervera et al., 2012). Institutions need to maintain or develop a distinctive image in order to create a competitive advantage in an increasingly globalized market (Paramewaran & Glowacka, 1995). The different publics of the universities draw conclusions about the overall image of an institution from the impressions they have of their strengths and weaknesses, derived from their experiences (Ivy, 2001). The image, therefore, is an idea, concept or attitude that is formed because of the interpretation of all the information that comes to the individual about something or someone. Although at first it was believed that the image was a “product” of the organization, which had to be transmitted to the public, research in the field of perception and communication led to the modification of this conception. Audiences are not passive subjects, but “creative subjects”; the image of the institution is generated in public, it is the result of the interpretation that they make of the information or disinformation about the organization (Kazoleas et al., 2001). Smeltzer (1997) states that trust in a relationship could be influenced by the perceived image of the organization among its stakeholders. Singh and Sirdeshmukh (2000) consider that trust is generated after the interactions that interest groups have with the organization. According to identity theory, an image can translate into trust through the self-checking mechanism (Burke & Stets, 1999). Trust is formed based on the judgment of what the orga- nization communicates and does. Selnes (1998) points out that trust is strengthened when a buyer perceives the positive qualities of the organization. In fact, the notoriety of the name of the organization can positively influence trust, since it contributes to strengthening its image and creating security in the mind of the consumer (Sánchez et al., 1999). Authors in the context of service companies have confirmed looking the image as one of the variables that most influences trust (Ball et  al., 2004; Flavian et  al., 2006; Mukherjee & Nath, 2007; Lin & Lu, 2010; Amin et al., 2013; Upamannyu et al., 2015). 112 Z. Nejjari, H. Aamoum. The role of ethics, trust, and shared values in the creation of loyalty... From these findings, and given the little empirical evidence that exists between image and trust in the field of graduate-university relationship, the first hypothesis is formulated: H3. The image of the university perceived by the graduates positively influences their trust towards the institution. If we chief in ways that trust and ethics are dependable, we satisfy a significant part of our obligation as ethical managers and leaders. When it derives to leading ethically, trust is not a nice-to-have; it is a “must-have”.  If we lead ethically, that lets individuals recognize they can count on us, and being able to count on us builds trust with entities and within the group (Fisher Thornton, 2014). Ethics and trust act in a cycle. Like the respiratory system and the heart of the institu- tion. If one bomb, the other follows. Keeping them in decent form  needs continuous care and regular exercise. Shared values, on the other hand, is another variable that is also proposed as a back- ground of trust and is defined by Morgan and Hunt (1994) as the degree in which two parts of a relationship have common beliefs about what behaviours, goals and Policies are neces- sary, appropriate and correct, and which are not. Kashyap and Sivadas (2012) and S. Wong and K. Wong (2011) confirm the internal nature of this variable, which is part of the behav- iour of individuals. Applied to the university context, graduates share values with the educational institu- tion when they perceive that the university where they studied has values similar to theirs. Holdford and White (1997) and Adidam et al. (2004) found that students who shared goals, ideals and codes of ethics with their institution were more likely to have a more intense relationship with it. Due to the lack of previous research in this regard in the university context, it is consid- ered of great interest to deepen this line. Several studies have allowed us to affirm that the way in which one’s own organizational identity is perceived (the evaluation made of it, its image and, more transparently, the values, beliefs and character of an organization) will influ- ence the levels of trust towards the organization (Morgan & Hunt, 1994; Holdford & White, 1997; Adidam et al., 2004; S. Wong & K. Wong, 2011; Hartono et al., 2019). Sharing values facilitates the achievement of common objectives, reduces interpersonal barriers and, consequently, generates greater confidence (Doney & Cannon, 1997; K. S. Coul- ter & R. A. Coulter, 2002; Alosaimi, 2016). This leads to the third hypothesis: H4. The shared values of graduates with the university positively influence the levels of trust towards the institution. H5. The ethics of the university positively influence the levels of trust towards the institu- tion. 1.4. Loyalty as consequences of trust, ethics, and shared value in the graduate- university relationship Over the past few decades, a reasonable number of companies have realized that profits were based on something that went far beyond selling products or services; it was necessary to invest in building brands and, consequently, in a deeper relationship with their audience, based on solid values such as ethics. Business, Management and Education, 2020, 18(1): 106–126 113 For Strieder (2000), ethics contemplate social responsibility; Therefore, it is essential for organizations to reflect on how their actions can positively or negatively influence society and the environment, especially as consumers today seek to buy from companies that are socially engaged. Ethics arise when a man begins to live in society. Thus, it is essential in ethical reflection that companies think about how their actions can contribute to the well- being of society. According to Tonti-Filippini (2012), ethics refers to man’s way of being or his character. Ethics is directly linked to philosophy, as it aims to reflect on human existence and defines a parameter of man’s ideal behaviour in society. The author also states that reflecting on ethics leads the individual to want to do good and respect others, exercising patience and tolerance in the face of others’ weaknesses. Unlike morals, ethics is unchanging and is the determination of what is good, right and just. Morality, on the other hand, changes over time and adapts to the culture of a particular group, which may be a religious, political, tribe and other. The moral customs established by one of these groups are not universal, as only their members follow them. According to Pinheiro de Lima, Gouvea da Costa, and Faria (2010), we deal daily with values that money cannot buy: ethical and moral values. Thus, ethics is present at all times in our lives, and living in society is a challenge. The author states that ethics can be trans- mitted, influenced and constructed through family teachings, at school or with friends. The ethical formation can also come through time, experience, living with different people and other knowledge, and it is possible to look at the world with other eyes. We investigate another antecedent of loyalty: shared values. This variable has long been viewed as a vital component in strengthening buyer-seller relationships (Wilson, 1995; MacMillan et al., 2005; Heffernan et al., 2008). The shared values concept can be described as “the extent to which partners have beliefs in common to what behaviours, goals, and policies are important or unimportant, appropriate or inappropriate, and right or wrong” (Morgan & Hunt 1994, p. 25). Taleghani, Gilaninia, and Mousavian (2011) proved that shared values could be considered an antecedent of loyalty. In short, we consider it of interest to determine the explanatory power of the ethics and the shared value of university in the context of higher education through the follow- ing hypothesis: H6. The shared value of graduates with the university positively influences loyalty to- wards it. H7. The ethics of the university positively influences loyalty towards it. The different conceptualizations about consumer loyalty have something in common: they refer to the consumer’s relationship with a specific object over time, be it the seller, brand, retailer or service provider (Söderlund, 2006). In this sense, loyalty implies a cer- tain level of continuity in the consumer’s relationship with that object and in the way that relationship occurs. The most widespread extension of this concept  – beyond the mere repetition of purchase  – is that which defends the intentional and deterministic nature of loyalty and conceives it as a psychological or emotional link of the consumer towards a product, service, brand or organization, therefore representing the explicit or implicit promise to continue with the choice of said object (Delgado, 2004). 114 Z. Nejjari, H. Aamoum. The role of ethics, trust, and shared values in the creation of loyalty... The current characteristics of universities, the increasing competition, their interna- tionalization, the increase in the drop-out rate of the studies and the Bologna Declaration (1999) among other factors, justify the importance of analyzing loyalty in this context (Henning-Thurau et al., 2001; Alves & Raposo, 2007; Helgesen & Nesset, 2007), necessary for the survival of university teaching institutions. After graduating, a student loyal to the institution can attract new students through a word-of-mouth communication (Helgesen & Nesset, 2007), improve the image and reputation of the university in its environment (Martensen et al., 1999; Nguyen & Leblanc, 2001) or attract entities or organizations that make donations or finance research projects (Mael & Ashforth, 1992). In this way, you can see how the consequences of this loyalty are not limited to the time the student remains in the institution but continues throughout his life. The high levels of trust towards the organization translate into behaviours of loyalty towards it in the field of services, as con- firmed by various studies (Zeithaml et  al., 1996; Pizzutti & von derHeyde, 2008; Nguyen et al., 2013; Amin et al., 2013). On the other hand, Ball et al. (2004) and Nguyen, Leclerc and Leblanc (2013) reveal that the image has an indirect impact on loyalty through trust. The relationship between these two variables has been confirmed in lucrative and service fields, however, in the educational context, few findings deepen and confirm this relation- ship (Gattermann et al. 2012; Carvalho & Mota, 2010; Henning-Thurau et al., 2001). Also, studies such as Geyskens, Steenkamp and Kumar (1999) and Rojas-Méndez et  al. (2009) raise the importance of how the inclusion of variables such as satisfaction and trust help explain and develop loyalty, which leads to the following hypothesis: H8. The trust of graduates in the university positively influences loyalty towards it. 2. Methodology and data analysis This investigation is fundamentally a quantitative investigation using the methodology of survey research. This study includes five variables, three independent variables (Ethics, Shared Values and University Image), one dependent variable (Loyalty) and a mediator vari- able (Trust). The questionnaire has been used to gather information. Ethics, Shared Values, University Image, Trust and Loyalty items have been assessed on a 5-point scale from “Very Satisfied” to “Very Dissatisfied” choices. To carry out the hypothesis contrast and meet the objectives of this study, the target pop- ulation was formed by individuals graduated from the first and second cycle degrees, from 3 Moroccan public universities (the University of Ibn Zohr, the University of Hassan 2 and the University of Cadi Ayyad) that had finished their university studies 3 and 2 years before the completion of the fieldwork. 323 questionnaires analyzed (graduate students (Bachelors and a Master’s degree)), 168 of them have followed their training at the regional centre of teaching professions). There were 383 students in the complete sample size. The questionnaire was distributed on behalf of these three universities. Of the 383 questionnaires distributed, 323 were complet- ed, representing a rate of 84.33%. There were very few instances with missing values. If such instances are shallow to have any significant effect on the outcome, they could be removed, giving to Hair et al. (2010). Thus, the questionnaires filled with any missing values have been Business, Management and Education, 2020, 18(1): 106–126 115 removed. Meanwhile, some items were contextualized and a few new items designed, it was necessary to perform exploratory factor analysis. Convergent and discriminating validity guaranteed the validity of the instrument. All constructs were based on existing approved scales. To measure the construct trust, the same type of  scales and attributes applied in the investigation conducted by Morgan and Hunt (1994). To measure the effects of shared value, the items adopted by Morgan and Hunt (1994) were followed. In the measurement of the  ethics construct scales previously investigated by several scientists were utilized (Haynes, 1998; Coplan, 2001). Besides, to measure university image, Nguyen and Leblanc (2001) work is used. Finally, we adopted Henning-Thurau, Langer, and Hansen (2001) research that used 4 items to measure loyalty. As Hausknecht (1990) show, investigators have little demand to produce newer scales given those existing have already confirmed their benefit. 3. Analysis, results and discussion EFA’s primary aim is to define the magnitude of connection of observed variables with their highlighted determinants (Bryman & Cramer, 2009). Kaiser-Meyer-Olken (KMO) was run to verify the tolerability of the sample size to run EFA. KMO value is regarded as necessary to exceed 0.6 (Pallant, 2010). Cronbach’s alpha of the variables, calculated based on the statements, is very accept- able according to the criteria of Nunnally and Brenstien (1994) and Evrard et  al. (2003). The MSA test and the Bartlett sphericity test were applied, with a KMO index greater than 0.5. Bartlett’s significance test equals 0.000 for all variables, meaning the factor solution is fully possible. A one-dimensional structure appears in which all the items of all the variables are appropriately positioned to account for at least 79.941% of the total variance (see Table 1). All the other indices (by explained variance and commonalities) are higher than the thresholds fixed within the framework of this analysis, which leads to validate the factorial structure. Table 1. A synthetic vision of the exploratory phase Variables Number of items before KMO Bartlett % of the variance Cronbach Alpha Number of items After loyalty 4 .847 .000 90.362 .926 4 Trust 3 .907 .000 82.727 . 986 3 University Image 3 .807 .000 93.146 .956 3 Shared values 3 .717 .000 79.941 .906 3 Ethics 3 .883 .000 89.986 .946 3 3.1. Confirmatory analysis and hypothesis testing Overall, the model was a good fit. The value of GFI is 0.921 (>0.90) and AGFI = 0.823 (>0.80) and RMSEA = 0.039 (<0.05). Other incremental fit and Parsimony fit measures are also more than or close to standards set by Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson (2010). 116 Z. Nejjari, H. Aamoum. The role of ethics, trust, and shared values in the creation of loyalty... Table 2. Convergent validity of latent variables Shared _values Ethics University_Image Trust Loyalty AVE > .5 0.771 0.908 0.855 0.770 0.714 CR > .7 0.909 0.952 0.922 0.910 0.832 Convergent validity established established established established established The above Table  2 and the calculation 〖AVE〗 (AVERAGE VARIANCE EXTRACTED) and 〖CR〗 (COMPOSITE RELIABILITY) show that convergent validity is maintained for all variables (Hair et al. 1998, p. 612). Table 3. Discriminant validity of constructed variables Correlation factor Correlation squares AVE AVE1 (AVE >r²) Discriminant validity Ethics <--> University_Image .239 0.057 0.908 0.855 VALIDATE Shared _values <--> University_Image .524 0.275 0.771 0.855 VALIDATE University_Image <--> Trust .197 0.039 0.855 0.770 VALIDATE Shared _values <--> Trust .437 0.191 0.771 0.770 VALIDATE Ethics <--> Trust .416 0.173 0.908 0.770 VALIDATE Shared _values <--> Loyalty .276 0.076 0.771 0.714 VALIDATE Trust <--> Loyalty .246 0.061 0.770 0.714 VALIDATE Ethics <--> Loyalty .734 0.539 0.908 0.714 VALIDATE The two-test setup, convergent validity test and discriminant validity (Table  3)ensure that the instrument measures the constructs it was designed to measure, and it provides an adequate measure of the conceptual model on which it is based. Indeed, our model aims to measure the students’ loyalty based on four factors. As a result, the definition of the measured constructs and the items of which they will be composed will differ, and yet it turns out that the loyalty has a good construct validity, since they adequately measure the conceptual model of the students’ loyalty and the associated constructs. Business, Management and Education, 2020, 18(1): 106–126 117 The hypothesis H2, H3 and H4 are accepted (Table 4), the statistical results indicate a positive (estimate values .772 and .668) mediation of the image of the university in the rela- tions Shared _values -> Trust and Ethics -> Trust (p-values .000). This proves us that the ethics of the speakers and staff of universities, having a better perception on the image of the university later on the students’ trust, which influences the loyalty towards their uni- versities of origin. Hypothesis H7 and H8 are accepted, p-values (.000) and (.000) illustrate that the ethics impact positively (.668) the trust who influence the loyalty significantly. The values do not show a direct effect, which was not expected. Hypothesis H1 and H6 are rejected (Table  4), p-values (.634) and (.087) show that the relations between Shared values and University Image of one side and Shared values and Loyalty of another side are not significant. The values do not show a direct effect, which was not expected. 3.2. Discussion The results obtained provide evidence that confirms previous studies in contexts other than that of higher education and highlights the role that variables of relational character play in the perceptions and behaviours of the graduate towards the university. The 8 hypotheses contrasted in the proposed model prove the relevance and significance of these relationships in the non-profit field of higher education so that the contributions of this study allow to deepen the knowledge about the perceptions of a stakeholder as important as graduates. The literature review has shown that the adequate provision of services in institutions of higher education stands as a key instrument, both for the institutional strengthening of universities and their consequent improvement in the quality of education, as well as for the internationalization of its activities. It is also a key element for cultural and social develop- ment. Through the approach of a model of relationships in the educational context, some key variables have been analyzed (image of the perceived university, ethics and shared values) that influence trust generators between the graduate and his university, as well as possible consequences of it: loyalty. Trust in an institution such as the university allows approaching stakeholders and favour exchanges for mutual benefit. The results have confirmed the influ- ence of the perceived image on the trust and loyalty of the graduate, acting the image as a Table 4. Result of the analysis using the method of the structural equation Estimate S.E. C.R. P Shared _values <--- University_Image –.308 .180 –1.710 .087 Ethics <--- University_Image .772 .143 1.902 *** Shared _values <--- Trust .604 .129 3.144 *** University_Image <--- Trust .971 .142 6.859 *** Ethics <--- Trust .917 .154 5.940 *** Shared _values <--- Loyalty .068 .143 .476 .634 Trust <--- Loyalty . 668 .201 1.834 *** Ethics <--- Trust .917 .154 5.940 *** 118 Z. Nejjari, H. Aamoum. The role of ethics, trust, and shared values in the creation of loyalty... filter of trust, results that come to support other findings (Folkes, 1988; Bloemer & de Ruyter, 1998) and that contribute to the study of the behaviour of these variables. On the other hand, the data obtained also demonstrate that the graduate’s trust towards the university institu- tion can contribute to the formation of their loyalty, an aspect that had been demonstrated in other study contexts (Sirdeshmukh et al., 2002; Nijssen et al., 2003; Lentz et al., 2004). The positive contribution of the ethics perceived by the graduate to the formation of his loyalty towards the university institution is also derived from the analysis of the results obtained. This result comes to subtract controversy from the triangle of relationships eth- ics, shared value and loyalty (Andreassen & Lindestad, 1998; Petrick et  al., 2001; Martín et  al., 2004), and to confirm this approach in the university environment. The first and sixth hypothesis is about the effect of shared values on student university image and loyalty. Shared value (p > .05) has no significant impact on student image of university and loyalty. Since these factors as antecedents of student loyalty have been ignored, there are hardly any studies to compare it with. The effect of university image on student loyalty was observed by Helgesen and Nesset (2007), Brown and Mazzarol (2009) and Alves and Raposo (2007) same finding confirmed by the study showing that university image impact positively the student loyalty. These results contradict the findings of Nguyen & Leblanc (2001) and Tan et al. (2013). Relationship trust and university image are found to be positively associated with loyalty in the business environment in previous studies, such as Cáceres and Papa- roidamis (2007), Amine (1999), and Morgan and Hunt (1994). In the limited previous research in an education environment, relationship trust and university image are found to be a key factor affecting students’ cooperation and propensity to leave (Adidam et al., 2004; Holdford & White, 1997). The results show the low intensity of the relationship between shared value-university image and loyalty. Despite the fact that several studies carried out in other contexts have supported this relationship (for example, Yang & Peterson, 2004; Karwowska, 2019), the results obtained at the university level indicate that the highest or worst the shared value it is not one of the elements that most condition students loyalty to a certain university and it’s not a viral factor that can create a good image for university, unlike what happens, for example, with ethics or, to a lesser extent, with trust (Sánchez et al., 1999). The first and sixth hypothesis rightly questions the argument that what is right for university is necessarily suitable for students and what is useful for students can also be good for the university and their image after. In this context, the results show that it is not necessarily true. Given the disparity of results obtained in the different studies (such as Karwowska, 2019), the work has sought to clarify these relationships as much as possible, considering this context. Before this study, education scholars had studied the concept of shared values because of its influence on relationship commitment (S. Wong & K. Wong, 2011). However, shared values had never been tested as a direct antecedent of graduate loyalty. Our results show that having shared values promoted by a university does not enhance student loyalty toward the university. This can be explained by the fact that the students don’t know the social purpose of university because what is suitable for the university is not necessarily useful for students. The results show that there is no effect of shared values on the university. Seemingly, the graduates do not share values and ideals with their universities. Openness and transparency Business, Management and Education, 2020, 18(1): 106–126 119 can be critical elements in stakeholder communication policies regarding common values that can contribute to enhancing university image and that it is not the case in the Moroccan universities context (Basfao, 2005; Chiheb, 2014). Also, this result can be related to the lower integration of students in their universities (Chiheb, 2014). Conclusions The proposed relationship model and the measuring instruments associated with it can be applied reliably and validly to the context of higher education institutions, providing useful information for decision-making in university management. The communication policy of the institution is vital in the formation of the perceived image, trust and loyalty considering that these institutions play a crucial role that entails the identification of their students, their orientation, the coordination of educational activities and the achievement of organizational excellence objectives. This research showed the significance of student trust in enhancing the university’s image that affects their loyalty. Besides acting on increasing teaching quality, growing administrative assistance and enhancing the standard of physical equipment, there is a severe need to set up a subdivision of Public Relations to spread positive and minimize neg- atives in order to handle the university’s government image. The institution may hold meet- ings and sessions, hold intra-university contests, conference, and send students to abroad exchange programs to boost the picture of the university. To make them feel devoted to the institution, the University may issue loyalty cards to students. Discounts for decision-making training and skill development plans may be available to students. It is suggested that, with these proposals, scholars be involved in the procedure of admission and program creation. The real challenge of the university with its graduates to generate sufficient spaces in which joint actions are developed that allow it to know the real impact of its actions in so- ciety, as well as the adjustments that must be made to adapt its actions to the social needs that are They observe today. In this sense, social networks can act as vehicles for continuous communication and dialogue with graduates and strengthen the link. The results of this study add valuable organizational insights into the educational sector. This research demonstrates that ethics, trust and university image have a significant and posi- tive impact on student loyalty. This research proved the impact of ethics and shared values on the university image. The officials involved should invest in enhancing the university’s image by growing the role of morals and common integrities in the educational process that will leave an effect on the perception of the student. University administration is often con- sidered less significance. This research reflected the students amazingly elevated implication. It demonstrates that in resolving their queries in time, students are very vulnerable. They want to care and respect to be handled. Implications for high education institutions To boost student loyalty, educational providers must concentrate on improving those vari- ables. Educational providers can use the findings to know what increase the loyalty and allocate resources to improve the determinants that affect the trust of the students, thus https://www.powerthesaurus.org/considered https://www.powerthesaurus.org/considered 120 Z. Nejjari, H. Aamoum. The role of ethics, trust, and shared values in the creation of loyalty... increasing the allegiance of the learners. This will also guarantee the implication of former students on their universities and expand the educational organizations. This investigation suggested that office employees be qualified to act correctly and fix their issues with schol- ars. In this logic, the understanding and evaluation of the variables that create loyalty and trust in the students and graduates, as well as the aspects that contribute to their perceived image, ethics and shared values, are highly relevant elements that must be reflected in the strategic plans and designs. Curricular programs, providing quality services that enable the student to graduate with the vital skills to practice professional gentleness effectively and to continue to learn unceasingly during his lifetime. Finally, educational providers can achieve a better knowledge of loyalty-influencing factors and can, therefore, plan to cultivate them accordingly. Limitations and future of the research With regard to the limitations of the study which also reconfigure lines of future research, it is important to note, in the first place, the geographical restriction of the population un- der study to 3 Moroccan universities, which must be overcome in future research, to grant greater validity to the conclusions obtained through relationship analysis in a higher number of universities. In line with the above, it would also be convenient, for the sake of greater validity, to develop a study with different samples and educational levels, it would even be interesting to be able to compare this model in private universities, to know if the fact that it is a public educational institution or private generates differences in the levels of trust, image or loyalty. Given the dynamic nature of trust and loyalty, a lengthy study would carry new data, which would allow the comparison of trust, loyalty or image that changes over time for the citizens, despite not being in contact with the institution. Also, future research can consider conducting a longitudinal study to trace the changing preferences, trust, loyalty, or behav- iours of students. The use of multiple time frames allows researchers to track the behavioral intentions of students over time. References Aldás-Manzano, J., Lassala-Navarré, C., Ruiz, C., & Blas, S. (2009). The role of consumer innovativeness and perceived risk in online banking usage. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 27, 53–75. https://doi.org/10.1108/02652320910928245 Adidam, P., Bingi, R., & Sindhav, B. (2004). Building relationships between business schools and stu- dents: An empirical investigation into student retention. Journal of College Teaching and Learning, 1(11), 37–48. https://doi.org/10.19030/tlc.v1i11.2006 Alosaimi, M. (2016). The role of knowledge management approaches for enhancing and supporting education. (Publication No. NNT:2016PA01E064). Business administration, Université Panthéon- Sorbonne, Paris I. Alves, H., & Raposo, M. (2007). Conceptual model of student satisfaction in higher education. Total, Quality Management, 18, 571–588. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783360601074315 https://doi.org/10.1108/02652320910928245 https://doi.org/10.19030/tlc.v1i11.2006 https://doi.org/10.1080/14783360601074315 Business, Management and Education, 2020, 18(1): 106–126 121 Amin, M., Isa, Z., & Fontaine, R. (2013). Islamic Banks: Contrasting the drivers of customer satisfaction on image, trust, and loyalty of muslim and non-muslim customers in Malasia. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 31, 79–97. https://doi.org/10.1108/02652321311298627 Amine, A. (1999). Consumers’ true brand loyalty: The central role of commitment. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 6, 305–319. https://doi.org/10.1080/096525498346577 Andreassen, T., & Lindestad, B. (1998). Customer loyalty and complex services. The impact of corporate image on quality, customer satisfaction and loyalty for customers with varying degrees of service expertise. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 9, 7–23. https://doi.org/10.1108/09564239810199923 Annamdevula, S., & Bellamkonda,  R.  S. (2016). The effects of service quality on student loyalty: the mediating role of student satisfaction. Journal of Modelling in Management, 11, 446–462. https://doi.org/10.1108/JM2-04-2014-0031 Austin,  A.  J., & Pervaiz, S. (2017). The relation between ‘student loyalty’ and ‘student satisfaction’ (a case of college/intermediate students at Forman Christian College). European Scientific Journal (ESJ), special edition. Ball, D., Coelho, P., & Machas, A. (2004). The role of communication and trust in explaining customer loyalty: An extension to the ECSI model. European Journal of Marketing, 38, 1272–1293. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560410548979 Basfao, K. (2005, May 25–26). La réforme des études supérieures au Maroc: état des lieux, historique, mise en place et premier bilan. Communication au colloque international de l’UFC, Les universités maghrébines face au défi de la mondialisation. Alger. Beltramini, R., Peterson, R., & Kozmetsky, G. (1984). Concerns of college students regarding business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 3, 195–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00382919 Blanchard, K. H., & O’Connor, M. J. (1997). Managing by values. Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Bloemer, J., & De Ruyter, K. (1998). On the relationship between store image, store satisfaction and store loyalty. European Journal of Marketing, 32, 499–513. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090569810216118 Brecic, R., Filipovic, J., Gorton, M., Ognjanov, G., Stojanovic, Z., & White, J. (2013). A qualitative ap- proach to understanding brand image in an international context. International Marketing Review, 30(4), 275–296. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-02-2012-0024 Brown, R. M., & Mazzarol, T. (2009). The importance of institutional image to student satisfaction and loyalty within higher education. Higher Education, 58, 81–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-008-9183-8 Bryman, A., & Cramer, D. (2009). Quantitative data analysis with SPSS 14, 15 & 16: A guide for social scientists. Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. Burke, P., & Stets, J. (1999). Trust and commitment through self-verification. Social Psychology Quar- terly, 62, 347–366. https://doi.org/10.2307/2695833 Cáceres, R., & Paparoidamis, N. (2007). Service quality, relationship satisfaction, trust, commitment and business-to-business loyalty. European Journal of Marketing, 41, 836–867. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560710752429 Carvalho, S., & Mota, M. (2010). The role of trust in creating value and student loyalty in relational exchanges between higher education institutions and their students. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 20, 145–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241003788201 Cervera, A., Schlesinger, W., Mesta, M., & Fernández, R. (2012). Medición de la imagen de la universi- dad y sus efectos sobre la identificación y lealtad del egresado: una aproximación desde el modelo de Beerli y Díaz (2003). Revista Española de Investigación en Marketing ESIC, 16(2), 7–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1138-1442(14)60012-7 https://doi.org/10.1108/02652321311298627 https://doi.org/10.1080/096525498346577 https://doi.org/10.1108/09564239810199923 https://doi.org/10.1108/JM2-04-2014-0031 https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560410548979 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00382919 https://doi.org/10.1108/03090569810216118 https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-02-2012-0024 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-008-9183-8 https://doi.org/10.2307/2695833 https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560710752429 https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241003788201 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1138-1442(14)60012-7 122 Z. Nejjari, H. Aamoum. The role of ethics, trust, and shared values in the creation of loyalty... Chen, X., Huang, Q., & Davison, R. M. (2016). The role of website quality and social capital in building buyers’ loyalty. International Journal of Information Management, 37(1), 1563–1574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2016.07.005 Chiheb, Y. (2014). La réforme de l’enseignement supérieur au Maroc: un chantier inachevé. https://www.ccme.org.ma/fr/opinions/36394 Coplan, M. (2001). The myth of the superprincipal. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(7), 582–533. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170108200710 Coulter, K. S., & Coulter, R. A. (2002). Determinants of trust in a service provider: The moderating role of length of relationship. Journal of Services Marketing, 16(1), 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1108/08876040210419406 Dalati, S., & Alchach, H. (2018). The effect of leader trust and knowledge sharing on staff satisfaction at work: investigation of universities in Syria. Business, Management and Education, 16, 190–205. https://doi.org/10.3846/bme.2018.2852 Delgado, B. E. (2004). Estado actual de la investigación sobre la lealtad a la marca: Una revisión teórica. Dirección y organización: Revista de dirección, organización y administración de empresas, (30), 16–24. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Estado-actual-de-la-investigaci%C3%B3n-sobre-la- lealtad-Ballester/5a3ec3e00f6cf7953c0a8ad3fe4b32797d60a30b Delgado, E. B., & Munuera, J.-L. (2005). Does brand trust matter to brand equity?. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 14, 187–196. https://doi.org/10.1108/10610420510601058 Doney,  P.  M., & Cannon,  J.  P. (1997). An examination of the nature of trust in buyer–seller relation- ships. Journal of Marketing, 61(2), 35–51. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251829 Douglas, J., Douglas, A., & Barnes, B. (2006). Measuring student satisfaction at a UK University. Quality Assurance in Education, 14, 251–267. https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880610678568 Eisingerich, A., & Rubera, G. (2010). Drivers of brand commitment: A cross-national investigation. Journal of International Marketing, 18(2), 64–79. https://doi.org/10.1509/jimk.18.2.64 Enz, C. (1988). The role of value congruity in intraorganizational power. Administrative Science Quar- terly, 33(2), 284–304. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393060 Espejel, J., Fandos Herrera, C., & Flavian, C. (2011). Antecedents of consumer commitment to a PDO wine: An empirical analysis of Spanish consumers. Journal of Wine Research, 22, 205–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571264.2011.622516 Evrard, Y., Pras, B., & Roux, E. (2003). Market, études et recherches en marketing, fondements, méthodes (3 éd.). Nathan. Falahat, M., Lee, Y.-Y., Foo, Y.-C., & Chia, C.-E. (2019). A model for consumer trust in e-commerce. Asian Academy of Management Journal, 24 (Supp. 2), 93–109. https://doi.org/10.21315/aamj2019.24.s2.7 Ferrario, A., Loi, M., & Viganò, E. (2019). In AI we trust incrementally: a multi-layer model of trust to analyze human-artificial intelligence interactions. Philosophy & Technology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-019-00378-3 Finney, T., & Finney, Z. (2010). Are students their universities’ customers? An exploratory study. Educa- tion + Training, 52, 276–291. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400911011050954 Fisher Thorthon, L. (2014, March 24). What is Ethics?. In 3rd Annual Commonwealth of Virginia CSA Conference. Practical Application: Applying the Highest Ethics in Our Agencies. Flavian, C., Guinalíu, M., & Gurrea, R. (2006). The role played by perceived usability, satisfaction, and consumer trust on website loyalty. Information & Management, 43, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2005.01.002 Flavian, C., Guinalíu, M., & Torres, E. (2005). The influence of corporate image on consumer trust: A comparative analysis in traditional versus internet banking. Internet Research, 15, 447–470. https://doi.org/10.1108/10662240510615191 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2016.07.005 https://www.ccme.org.ma/fr/opinions/36394 https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170108200710 https://doi.org/10.1108/08876040210419406 https://doi.org/10.3846/bme.2018.2852 https://doi.org/10.1108/10610420510601058 https://doi.org/10.2307/1251829 https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880610678568 https://doi.org/10.1509/jimk.18.2.64 https://doi.org/10.2307/2393060 https://doi.org/10.1080/09571264.2011.622516 https://doi.org/10.21315/aamj2019.24.s2.7 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-019-00378-3 https://doi.org/10.1108/00400911011050954 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2005.01.002 https://doi.org/10.1108/10662240510615191 Business, Management and Education, 2020, 18(1): 106–126 123 Folkes, V. S. (1988). The availability heuristic and perceived risk. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(1), 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1086/209141 Frasquet, M., García, H., & Cervera, A. (2012). University-industry collaboration from a relationship marketing perspective: An empirical analysis in a Spanish University. Higher Education, 64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-011-9482-3 Frankel, M. T., Schechtman, J. L., &Koenigs, R. J. (2006). Too much of a good thing? Values in leader- ship for educational organizations. International Journal of Educational Management, 20(7), 520– 528. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513540610704627 Gattermann, P. M, Sampaio, C., Simões, C., & Pólvora, R. (2012). Modeling antecedents of student loyalty in higher education. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 22, 101–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2012.705797 Geyskens, I., Steenkamp, J.-B., & Kumar, N. (1999). A meta-analysis of satisfaction in marketing chan- nel relationships. Journal of Econometrics, 36, 223–238. https://doi.org/10.2307/3152095 Ghosh, A., Whipple, T., & Bryan, G. (2001). Student trust and its antecedents in higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 72, 322. https://doi.org/10.2307/2649334 Hair Jr., J. F., Anderson, R. E, Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. (1998). Multivariate data analysis with read- ings (5th ed.). Prentice-Hall. Hair,  J.  F., Black,  W.  C., Babin,  B.  J. & Anderson,  R.  E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Pearson. Hartono, N., Laurence, & Tjahjadhi, B. (2019). Measurement of student satisfaction and loyalty using service quality model for higher education (HedQual) at industrial engineering department Uni- versity of Pelita Harapan. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 703, 012027. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/703/1/012027 Hausknecht, D. (1990). Measurement scales in consumer satisfaction/dissatisfaction, Journal of Con- sumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 3, 1–11. Haynes, F. (1998). The ethical school. Routledge. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?- hl=en&publication_year=1998&author=F.+Haynes&title=The+ethical+school. Helgesen, U., & Nesset, E. (2007). Images, satisfaction and antecedents: Drivers of student loyalty? A case study of a Norwegian University College. Corporate Reputation Review, 10, 38–59. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.crr.1550037 Heffernan, T., O’Neill, G., Travaglione, T., & Droulers, M. (2008). Relationship marketing: The impact of emotional intelligence and trust on bank performance. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 26(3), 183–199. https://doi.org/10.1108/02652320810864652 Henning-Thurau, T., Langer, M., & Hansen, U. (2001). Modelling and managing student loyalty: An approach based on the concept of relationship quality. Journal of Service Research, 3(4), 331– 344. https://doi.org/10.1177/109467050134006 Hoffmann,  C.  S., Gattermann,  M.  P., Simões, C., & Kleinowski, H. (2012). Students’ trust, value and loyalty: evidence from higher education in Brazil. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 22(1), 83–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2012.705796 Hoffmann, S., & Müller, S. (2008). Intention postgradualer Bindung: Warum Studenten der Wirtschafts- wissenschaften nach dem Examen dem Alumniverein beitreten wollen. Schmalenbachs Zeitschrift Für Betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung, 60(6), 570–600. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03372806 Holdford, D., & White, S. (1997). Testing commitment-trust theory in relationships between pharmacy schools and students. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 61(3), 249–256. Hunt, S. D., & Vitell, S. J. (1986). A general theory of marketing ethics. Journal of Macromarketing, 6, 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/027614678600600103 https://doi.org/10.1086/209141 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-011-9482-3 https://doi.org/10.1108/09513540610704627 https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2012.705797 https://doi.org/10.2307/3152095 https://doi.org/10.2307/2649334 https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/703/1/012027 https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.crr.1550037 https://doi.org/10.1108/02652320810864652 https://doi.org/10.1177/109467050134006 https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jmkthe/v22y2012i1p83-100.html https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jmkthe/v22y2012i1p83-100.html https://ideas.repec.org/s/taf/jmkthe.html https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2012.705796 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03372806 https://doi.org/10.1177/027614678600600103 124 Z. Nejjari, H. Aamoum. The role of ethics, trust, and shared values in the creation of loyalty... Iskhakova, L., Hilbert, A., & Hoffmann, S. (2016). An integrative model of alumni loyalty – an empirical validation among graduates from German and Russian Universities. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing. https://doi.org/10.1080/10495142.2015.1006490 Ivy, J. (2001). Higher education institution image: A correspondence analysis approach. International Journal of Educational Management, 15(6/7), 276–282. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513540110401484 Kanagaretnam, K., Lobo,  G.  J., Wang, C., & Whalen,  D.  J. (2019). Cross-country evidence on the re- lationship between societal trust and risk-taking by banks. Journal of Financial & Quantitative Analysis, 54(1), 275–301. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022109018000455 Karwowska, E. (2019). Creating shared value by the university. Social Responsibility Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-05-2019-0172 Kashyap, V., & Sivadas, E. (2012). An exploratory examination of shared values in channel relationships. Journal of Business Research, 65, 586–593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.02.008 Kazoleas, D., Kim, Y., & Moffitt, M. (2001). Institutional image: A case study. Corporate Communica- tions: An International Journal, 6(4), 205–216. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000006148 Kotler, P., & Fox, K. (1995). Strategic marketing for educational institutions. (2nd ed.). Prentice-Hall. Landrum, R., Turrisi, R., & Harless, C. (1998). University image: The benefits of assessment and model- ling. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 9(1), 53–68. https://doi.org/10.1300/J050v09n01_05 Lentz, P., Teusner, S., & Holzmueller, H. H. (2004, May 18–20). Customer satisfaction, trust, value, and loyalty in relational B2B exchanges. In EMAC Conference. Lin, K.-Y., & Lu, H.-P. (2010). Why people use social networking sites: An empirical study integrating network externalities and motivation theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 1152–1161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.12.009 MacMillan, K., Money, K., Money, A., & Downing, S. (2005). Relationship marketing in the not for profit sector: An extension and application of the commitment-trust theory. Journal of Business Research, 58(6), 806–818. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203936023.ch2 Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 103–123. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030130202 Martensen, A., Gronholdt, L., Eskildsen, J., & Kristensen, K. (1999). Measuring student-oriented quality in higher education: Application of the ECSI methodology. In Conference Proceedings from TQM for Higher Education Institutions. Higher Education Institutions and the issue of Total Quality Verona (pp. 30–31). Martín, D., Barroso, C., & Martín, E. (2004). El valor percibido de un servicio. Revista Española de Investigación de Marketing ESIC, 8(1), 47–73. https://hdl.handle.net/11441/78231 Maxham, J., & Netemeyer, R. (2003). Firms reap what they show: The effects of shared values and perceived organizational jus-tice on customers’ evaluations of complaint handling. Journal of Mar- keting, 67, 46–62. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.67.1.46.18591 Morgan, R., & Hunt, S. (1994). The commitment trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20–38. https://doi.org/10.2307/1252308 Mudambi, S., Doyle, P., & Wong, V. (1997). Exploration of branding in industrial markets. Industrial Marketing Management, 26, 433–446. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-8501(96)00151-4 Mukherjee, A., & Nath, P. (2007). Role of electronic trust in online retailing: A re-examination of the commitment-trust theory. European Journal of Marketing, 41, 1173–1202. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560710773390 Nguyen, N., & Leblanc, G. (2001). Corporate image and corporate reputation in customers retention decisions in services. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 8(4), 227–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0969-6989(00)00029-1 https://doi.org/10.1080/10495142.2015.1006490 https://doi.org/10.1108/09513540110401484 https://www.cambridge.org/core/search?filters%5BauthorTerms%5D=Kiridaran%20Kanagaretnam&eventCode=SE-AU https://www.cambridge.org/core/search?filters%5BauthorTerms%5D=Gerald%20J.%20Lobo&eventCode=SE-AU https://www.cambridge.org/core/search?filters%5BauthorTerms%5D=Chong%20Wang&eventCode=SE-AU https://www.cambridge.org/core/search?filters%5BauthorTerms%5D=Dennis%20J.%20Whalen&eventCode=SE-AU https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022109018000455 https://www.emerald.com/insight/search?q=Elżbieta%20Karwowska https://www.emerald.com/insight/publication/issn/1747-1117 https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-05-2019-0172 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.02.008 https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000006148 https://doi.org/10.1300/J050v09n01_05 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.12.009 https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203936023.ch2 https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030130202 https://hdl.handle.net/11441/78231 https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.67.1.46.18591 https://doi.org/10.2307/1252308 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-8501(96)00151-4 https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560710773390 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0969-6989(00)00029-1 Business, Management and Education, 2020, 18(1): 106–126 125 Nguyen, N., Leclerc, A., & LeBlanc, G. (2013). The mediating role of customer trust on customer loyalty. Journal of Service Science and Management, 6(1), 96–109. https://doi.org/10.4236/jssm.2013.61010 Nijssen, E., Singh, J., Sirdeshmukh, D., & Holzmüeller, H. (2003). Investigating industry context effects in consumer-firm relationships: Preliminary results from a dispositional approach. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(1), 46–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070302238604 Nunnally, J. C. & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). The assessment of reliability. Psychometric Theory, 3, 248–292. Pallant, J. (2010). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using the SPSS program (4th ed.). McGraw Hill. Paramewaran, R., & Glowacka, A. (1995). University image: An information processing perspective. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 6(2), 41–56. https://doi.org/10.1300/J050v06n02_04 Parasuraman, A., Zeithalm, V., & Berry, L. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality and its impli- cations for future research. Journal of Marketing, 49, 41–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251430 Petrick, J., Morais, D., & Norman, W. (2001). An examination of the determinants of entertainment vacationers’ intentions to revisit. Journal of Travel Research, 40(1), 41–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/004728750104000106 Philbin, S. (2008). Process model for university – industry research collaboration. European Journal of Innovation Management, 11(4), 488–521. https://doi.org/10.1108/14601060810911138 Pinheiro de Lima, E., Gouvea da Costa, S., & Faria, A. (2010). Taking operations strategy into practice: Developing a process for defining priorities and performance measures. International Journal of Production Economics, 122, 403–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2009.06.022 Pizzutti, C. & von der Heyde, D. (2008). Antecedents and consequences of consumer trust in the con- text of service recovery. Brazilian Administration Review, 5(3), 225–244. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1807-76922008000300005 Ribes-Giner, G., & Rillo,  A.  P. (2016). Structural equation modeling of co-creation and its influence on the student’s satisfaction and loyalty towards university. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 291, 257–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cam.2015.02.044 Sánchez, M., Iniesta, M., & Sáez, E. (1999). La confianza del consumidor en el minorista: desarrollo y contraste de un modelo conceptual. Revista Española de Investigación de Marketing ESIC, 3(1), 161–182. Selnes, F. (1998). Antecedents and consequences of trust and satisfaction in buyer‐seller relationships. European Journal of Marketing, 32(3/4), 305–322. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090569810204580 Sheth, J., & Parvatiyar, A. (1995). The evolution of relationship marketing. International Business Re- view, 4, 397–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/0969-5931(95)00018-6 Sichtmann, C., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2013). The impact of perceived brand globalness, brand origin image, and brand origin-extension fit on brand extension success. Journal of the Academy of Mar- keting Science, 41(5), 567–585. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-013-0328-7 Singh, J., & Sirdeshmukh, D. (2000). Agency and trust mechanismsin consumer satisfaction and loyalty judgments. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 28(1), 150–167. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070300281014 Sirdeshmukh, D., Singh, J., & Sabol, B. (2002). Consumer trust, value, and loyalty in relational ex- changes. The Journal of Marketing, 66, 15–37. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.66.1.15.18449 Skvarciany, V., & Jurevičienė, D. (2017). Factors affecting personal customers’ trust in traditional bank- ing: case of the Baltics. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 18(4), 636–649. https://doi.org/10.3846/16111699.2017.1345784 Smeltzer, L. (1997). The meaning and origin of trust in buyer-supplier relationships. International Jour- nal of Purchasing and Materials Management, 33(1), 40–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-493X.1997.tb00024.x https://doi.org/10.4236/jssm.2013.61010 https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070302238604 https://doi.org/10.1300/J050v06n02_04 https://doi.org/10.2307/1251430 https://doi.org/10.1177/004728750104000106 https://doi.org/10.1108/14601060810911138 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2009.06.022 https://doi.org/10.1590/S1807-76922008000300005 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cam.2015.02.044 https://doi.org/10.1108/03090569810204580 https://doi.org/10.1016/0969-5931(95)00018-6 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-013-0328-7 https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070300281014 https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.66.1.15.18449 https://doi.org/10.3846/16111699.2017.1345784 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-493X.1997.tb00024.x 126 Z. Nejjari, H. Aamoum. The role of ethics, trust, and shared values in the creation of loyalty... Söderlund, M. (2006). Measuring customer loyalty with multi-item scales: A case for caution. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 17(1), 76–98. https://doi.org/10.1108/09564230610651598 Strieder, D. (2000). Ethics, science, and teacher education: The school in contemporary society. Ensaio Pesquisa em Educação em Ciências (Belo Horizonte), 13(3), 51–66. Suárez, L., Vázquez, R., & Díaz, A. (2007). La confianza y la satisfacción del cliente: variables clave en el sector turístico. Revista Europea de Dirección y Economía de la Empresa, 16(3), 115–132. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/dca3/604da7e5a14513ad6436167c8b4f5800edce.pdf Taleghani, M., Gilaninia, S., & Mousavian, S. J. (2011). The role of relationship marketing in customer orientation process in the banking industry with focus on loyalty (case study: banking industry of Iran). International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(19), 155–166. https://www.semantic- scholar.org/paper/The-Role-of-Relationship-Marketing-in-Customer-in-TaleghaniGilaninia/9b481 79c75e1189347448368fa29b04759756227 Tan, W., Carlson, D. F., Lancto, C. A., Garbe, J. R., Webster, D. A., Hackett, P. B., & Fahrenkrug, S. C. (2013). Efficient nonmeiotic allele introgression in livestock using custom endonucleases. Proceed- ings of the National Academy of Sciences Oct 2013, 110(41), 16526–16531. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1310478110 The Bologna Declaration of 19 June 1999 – Joint declaration of the European Ministers of Education (not published in the Official Journal). Modernizing PHE within diversified HE. Tonti-Filippini, N. (2012). Bioethics, culture and collaboration. Solidarity: The Journal of Catholic Social Thought and Secular Ethics, 2(1). Upamannyu, N., Gulati, C., & Mathur, G. (2015). Effect of brand trust, brand image on customer brand loyalty in fmcg sector at gwalior region. Scholars World-IRMJCR, 2(2), 83–93. Warkentin, M., Gefen, D., Pavolu, P., &Rose, G. (2002). Encouraging citizen adoption of e-government by building trust. Electronic Markets, 12(3), 157–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/101967802320245929 Weiner, Y. (1988). Forms of value systems: A focus on organizational effectiveness and cultural change and maintenance. Academy of Management Review, 13(4), 534–545. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1988.4307410 Wilson,  D.  T. (1995). An integrated model of buyer-seller relationships. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23(4), 335–345. https://doi.org/10.1177/009207039502300414 Wong, S., & Wong, K. (2011). Building relationship between education institutions and students: Stu- dent loyalty in self-financed tertiary education. IBIMA Business Review, 22, 1–31. https://doi.org/10.5171/2011.913652 Yang, Z., & Peterson, R. (2004). Customer perceived value, satisfaction, and loyalty: The role of switch- ing costs. Psychology & Marketing, 21(10), 799–822. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20030 Yavas, U., & Shemwell,  D.  J. (1996). Graphical representation of university image: a correspondence analysis, Journal for Marketing for Higher Education, 7(2), 75–84. https://doi.org/10.1300/J050v07n02_06 Zeithaml, V., Berry, L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral consequences of service quality. Journal of Marketing, 60(2), 31–46. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251929 https://doi.org/10.1108/09564230610651598 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1310478110 http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/documents/MDC/BOLOGNA_DECLARATION1.pdf https://doi.org/10.1080/101967802320245929 https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1988.4307410 https://doi.org/10.1177/009207039502300414 https://doi.org/10.5171/2011.913652 https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20030 https://doi.org/10.1300/J050v07n02_06 https://doi.org/10.2307/1251929