Journal of Business Strategies (2022) 39:1-32 https://doi.org/10.54155/jbs.39.1.1-32 Received: November 2021 / Revision received: February 2022 / Accepted: February 2022 Should Corporations Care about Negative Brand Publicity? Understanding the Impact of Negative Brand Publicity on Employees’ Corporate Brand Pride Fabian Abeda, Marion Büttgenb a Corresponding author. Department for Corporate Management, University of Hohenheim, Schloss Osthof/Ost, 70593 Stuttgart, Germany. F Abed@uni-hohenheim.de b Department for Corporate Management, University of Hohenheim, Schloss Osthof/Ost, 70593 Stuttgart, Germany. m.buettgen@uni-hohenheim.de Keywords Abstract Negative brand publicity; corporate brand pride; Affective-Events- Theory; internal branding; brand experience; brand supporting behavior This article examines the effects of perceived negative brand publicity on employee emotions, attitudes and brand supporting behaviors. Drawing on Affective- Events-Theory (AET) it attempts to identify under- lying affective and cognitive processes leading to be- havioral change. Using data gathered from a large- scale survey of employees in Germany, our results show that perceived negative brand publicity affects emotional and attitudinal corporate brand pride of employees. In addition, higher levels of perceived negative brand publicity were negatively associated with brand-supporting behavior, such as employee referrals and word-of-mouth (WOM). We show that corporate brand experience through internal commu- nications can be an effective tool in mitigating harm- ful effects of perceived negative brand publicity. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. Copyright (c) 2022 Fabian Abed, Marion Büttgen. https://doi.org/10.54155/jbs.39.1.1-32 F_Abed@uni-hohenheim.de m.buettgen@uni-hohenheim.de 2 Abed and Büttgen / Journal of Business Strategies (2022) 39:1-32 1. Introduction Publicity relating to corporate (brand) behavior is on the rise in recent years (Hock & Raithel, 2019). Corporate brand publicity can be defined as any information about a corporate brand, its products, services or behavior “communicated through editorial media that is not paid for” by the corpo- ration (Collins & Stevens, 2002, p.1123). It typically involves non-personal mass communication such as TV news items, radio broadcasts or newspaper articles (Lee et al., 2013; Van Hoye & Lievens, 2005). Corporate brands that have recently been the subject of negative brand publicity in Germany include, for example, Deutsche Bank and Volkswagen. The latter is receiving bad press around the world due to its manipulation of emissions. Deutsche Bank is in the media as a result of planning mass lay-offs and because of continuous misbehavior. In general, poor work conditions, poor management decision making, or quality issues are often matters of media coverage (Monga & John, 2008; Woo et al., 2020). Negative (brand) publicity can have detrimental effects on multiple corporate or brand aspects. The literature provides evidence that sales (e.g. Berger et al., 2010), image (e.g. Zhu & Chang, 2013), consumer purchase intention (e.g. Osei-Frimpong et al., 2019), consumer trust and consumer affective identification (e.g. Lin et al., 2011), brand equity (e.g. Woo et al., 2020), share price as well as firm net value (e.g. Hock & Raithel, 2019) can be adversely affected. Moreover, negative press can lead to a lower perceived organizational attractiveness and reduced job pursuit intentions of job ap- plicants (Jaidi et al., 2011). Previous research on (brand) publicity focused mainly on attitudes and be- haviors of consumers and job applicants. To the best of our knowledge, no research has focused on how publicity regarding corporate brands affects employees. More precisely, a deeper understanding of how corporate brand publicity might influence work-related attitudes and behavior of employees is missing from the literature. This is surprising as employees represent a crucial part of brands’ success and competitive advantage (e.g. Boukis et al., 2014; Löhndorf & Diamantopoulos, 2014). This paper answers the following research questions. First, does negative corporate brand publicity affect employees’ corporate brand pride and sub- sequent brand supporting behavior? Second, can corporations mitigate the potentially devastating effect of perceived negative corporate brand publicity Abed and Büttgen / Journal of Business Strategies (2022) 39:1-32 3 on employees through corporate brand experience, i.e. internal or external communications? 2. Theoretical Background Affective-Events-Theory (AET) described by Weiss and Cropanzano (1996) provides us with a macrostructure to understand how brand publicity af- fects emotional corporate brand pride (emotion), attitudinal corporate brand pride (attitude), and brand supporting behavior such as word-of-mouth (WOM) and employee referrals (judgement-driven behavior). Corporate brand pride has been chosen because research shows that pride affects em- ployee behavior (e.g. turnover intention) much stronger than other work- related attitudes (e.g. commitment), making it necessary to further investi- gate this construct in a brand-employee context (Gouthier & Rhein, 2011). Moreover, several brands already include (brand) pride as central drivers for success, for example “I’m proud to be Ritz-Carlton” (Appleberg, 2005, p.3). In general, AET helps to explain the interplay of work events, work environ- ment features, emotions, attitudes and behaviors. Specifically, the theory “explains the structure, causes, and consequences of employees’ affective ex- periences at work” (Matta et al., 2014, p.922). According to AET, certain work-events (e. g. negative corporate brand publicity) are proximal causes of employees’ emotional reactions (e.g. emotional corporate brand pride) which in turn influence work-related attitudes (e.g. attitudinal corporate brand pride) and behavior (e.g. brand supporting behavior) (Herrbach et al., 2004; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). Following Weiss and Cropanzano (1996) we define a work-event as something that occurs in a work-related setting during a particular period, like corporate brand publicity. Linking perceived negative corporate brand publicity and emotional cor- porate brand pride Following AET, we propose that perceived negative corporate brand pub- licity is linked to a number of actual and perceived events that cause in- tense emotional responses (Rosen et al., 2009). Negative brand publicity is likely to evoke affective responses regarding employees due to various reasons. First, negative corporate brand publicity has usually a surprising character (Cleeren et al., 2013). Brands have, in contrast to other forms of communica- tion, no direct control over publicity (Collins & Stevens, 2002). So, publicity exhibits a sort of an unexpected event with regard to the corporate brand 4 Abed and Büttgen / Journal of Business Strategies (2022) 39:1-32 and its members. For example, employees working for Volkswagen have been shocked when they read the embarrassing headlines about the emission scandal without any advance warning. In line with findings of Weiss and Cropanzano (1996), who state that work- events are sudden changes in circumstances eliciting emotions, we argue that the surprising occurrence of negative brand publicity should influence em- ployees’ affective reactions (e.g. emotional corporate brand pride). Second, negative publicity adversely affects the status of a corporate brand, high- lighting for instance quality issues or misbehavior. Previous research showed that feelings of pride are directly linked to the organization’s reflected glory or achievements (Salerno et al., 2015). Boons et al. (2015) stated that me- dia, communicating organization level status information elicit feelings of pride. Similarly, Appleberg (2005) concluded that various aspects of orga- nizational image can instill pride. Hence, we argue that employees working for a corporate brand with a poor reputation (reflected in negative stories in the media) should exhibit diminished feelings of emotional corporate brand pride (Helm, 2013). These reflections result in the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 1. Perceived negative corporate brand publicity is nega- tively associated with emotional corporate brand pride experienced by employees. Linking perceived negative corporate brand publicity, WOM and em- ployee referrals Previous research on negative (brand) publicity revealed detrimental effects on various attitudes (e.g. Braxton et al., 2019; Zhou & Whitla, 2013), be- havioral intentions (e.g. Müller & Gaus, 2015; Osei-Frimpong et al., 2019) and actual behavior (Jaidi et al., 2011, e.g.). Specifically, perceived negative publicity adversely affects consumer trust and affective identification (Lin et al., 2011; Müller & Gaus, 2015). As trust and identification are antecedents of WOM and (employee) referrals, we suppose that negative corporate brand publicity influences employee WOM and referrals, too (Bloemer, 2010; De Matos & Rossi, 2008). Hence, we propose: Hypothesis 2a. Perceived negative corporate brand publicity has a neg- ative influence on employee WOM. Hypothesis 2b. Perceived negative corporate brand publicity has a neg- ative influence on employee referrals. Abed and Büttgen / Journal of Business Strategies (2022) 39:1-32 5 Even though the proposed direct effects are not explicitly specified in Weiss and Cropanzano (1996), we found support for this approach. Zhao et al. (2007) showed, drawing on AET, that work events can have a direct impact on employee behavior. Similarly, Müller and Gaus (2015) revealed that neg- ative media information directly affected behavioral intentions of consumers. Linking emotional corporate brand pride and attitudinal corporate brand pride Corporate brand pride emotions are, as all emotions, short-lived mental experiences (Fisher & Ashkanasy, 2000). Therefore, pride emotions have downstream consequences with regard to attitudes and behaviors (Elfenbein, 2007). This assumption is in line with AET’s suggestion of causality between emotions and work-related attitudes. Moreover, we argue that employees who remain in the same corporation for a certain period can experience corporate brand pride emotions repeatedly, which should lead to a more durable state, namely attitudinal corporate brand pride (Gouthier & Rhein, 2011). Therefore, we hypothesize the following: Hypothesis 3. Corporate brand pride emotions have a positive influ- ence on attitudinal corporate brand pride Linking attitudinal corporate brand pride and WOM/Employee referrals Previous research on brand supporting behavior such as WOM and (em- ployee) referrals identified multiple antecedents, such as brand passion (Al- bert et al., 2013), positive emotions (Lovett et al., 2013), satisfaction (Hagen- buch et al., 2008; Wangenheim & Baón, 2007), brand commitment (Albert et al., 2013), product (Wangenheim & Baón, 2007; Wolny & Mueller, 2013) or brand involvement (Wolny & Mueller, 2013). WOM can be defined as “infor- mal, person-to-person communication between a perceived non-commercial communicator and a receiver regarding a brand, a product, an organiza- tion, or a service” (Harrison, 2001, p.63). In contrast to these more general forms, employee referrals represent an internal recruitment method whereby an actual employee of the corporate brand proactively identifies and provides specific information about vacancies to persons he or she knows (Breaugh & Starke, 2000). Based on earlier findings of Kraemer et al. (2020) and Lythreatis et al. (2019), we assume that corporate brand pride is a strong intrinsic motiva- tor leading to WOM and employee referrals due to various reasons. First, 6 Abed and Büttgen / Journal of Business Strategies (2022) 39:1-32 proud employees have a strong bond with the corporate brand leading to extraordinary intrinsic motivation (Kraemer et al., 2020; Lythreatis et al., 2019). This is in line with findings of Verbeke et al. (2004) who stated that pride (emotion) leads to greater effort of salespeople. Similarly, Baer et al. (2015) revealed that high levels of pride are positively related to reputation maintenance concerns of employees (e.g. WOM). Second, (organizational) pride is found to be negatively related to turnover intention of employees (Kraemer & Gouthier, 2014). As turnover intention is in general known as a form of loyalty, similar to WOM and employee referrals, we expect em- ployees with higher levels of corporate brand pride to show stronger brand supporting behavior: Hypothesis 4a. Attitudinal corporate brand pride has a positive influ- ence on WOM Hypothesis 4b. Attitudinal corporate brand pride has a positive influ- ence on employee referrals. Linking corporate brand experience through internal/external commu- nications and perceived negative corporate brand publicity Marketing literature often emphasize synergy effects of advertising and pub- licity, although both aspects need to exhibit the same valence (e. g. Stam- merjohan et al., 2005; Wang, 2006). Research analyzing a situation where the two sources of information differ in their valence is scarce, especially with regard to an employee context. To date only few studies show how negative publicity can be mitigated. For example, Van Hoye and Lievens (2005) showed that performance-based negative publicity can be compen- sated through recruitment advertising, and Stammerjohan et al. (2005) found that effects of negative news stories can be mitigated through radio and print advertising in a consumer context. As nowadays many corporate brands extensively use new technologies in order to create an appealing internet and intranet appearance, we assume that employees’ corporate brand experience through internal and external communications can reduce perceptions of negative brand publicity. An in- depth analysis of the existing literature provide support for this assumption. First, communication of brand values guides employee behavior (Harris & De Chernatony, 2001). This, in turn, may lead to reduced misbehavior of employees, which is one potential cause of negative brand publicity. Second, Abed and Büttgen / Journal of Business Strategies (2022) 39:1-32 7 drawing on findings of Eisingerich et al. (2011) we state that the extent to which employees experience the corporate brand through internal and exter- nal communications as a great place to work (e.g. corporate brand values) can induce resistance to negative information. This case relates to the good- will of employees. Thereby, individuals are less likely to blame the corporate brand for misbehavior, wrongdoings or product failures, because the corpo- rate brand signals its good intentions through both communication channels, which in turn helps the brand to insulate itself from scrutiny when negative publicity occurs (Peloza, 2006; Yoon et al., 2006). Theoretical support for this assumption provides the information integration theory, which states that inconsistent information will receive a decreased weight compared to consistent information. These reflections result in the following hypotheses: Hypothesis 5a. Corporate brand experience through external commu- nications has a negative influence on perceived negative corporate brand publicity Hypothesis 5b. Corporate brand experience through internal commu- nications has a negative influence on perceived negative corporate brand publicity Linking corporate brand experience through internal/external commu- nications and emotional corporate brand pride Employees can experience corporate brand in various ways. Obviously, in their daily work environment dealing with colleagues or management (Morhart et al., 2009). It is also possible to experience the corporate brand through internal and external communications (Aurand et al., 2005; Bur- mann et al., 2009; Harris & De Chernatony, 2001; King & Grace, 2010). As (emotional) corporate brand pride refers to a positive evaluation of status, reputation, or achievements of the corporate brand, we suggest that a cor- porations who make stories about the corporate brand accessible to their employees (e.g. testimonials, brand values, etc.) instill corporate brand pride in their workforce. This assumption is in line with AET, which posits that work environment features (e.g. internal communication) can directly affect employee emotions (e.g. corporate brand pride). Research from Boons et al. (2015) supports this assumption, stating that the communication of status-related information positively affects pride in a consumer context. Therefore, we propose: 8 Abed and Büttgen / Journal of Business Strategies (2022) 39:1-32 Hypothesis 6a. Corporate brand experience through external commu- nications has a positive influence on emotional corporate brand pride Hypothesis 6b. Corporate brand experience through internal commu- nications has a positive influence on emotional corporate brand pride The theoretical framework and associated hypotheses developed in this sec- tion are depicted in Figure 1. 3. Method Sample and Procedure Data reported in this article were drawn from a large-scale online survey distributed in the largest business network of Germany (XING). The survey investigated employees’ responses to various brand and human resources practices in Germany. Participants were informed about the purpose of the study and its confidentiality, and were encouraged to participate in the survey. In total, 2,870 employees opened the link and 763 completed the online survey (response rate = 26.59%). Deletion of missing values and careless responses (i.e. eliminating cases with a response time less than twenty-five percent of the average response time) resulted in a usable sample of 608 employees. Fifty-one percent of the respondents were female (n = 310) and forty-nine percent were male (n = 298). The majority of the participants hold a uni- versity degree (n = 472, 77.6%) and worked in a company with more than five-hundred employees (n = 375, 61.7%), without managerial responsibility (n = 435, 71.55%). They were employed in a variety of occupational fields, including: human resources (n = 97, 16.0%), sales (n = 82, 13.5%), mar- keting (n = 66, 10.9%), consulting (n = 64, 10.5%), other (n = 58, 9.5%), research and development (n = 49, 8.1%), information technology (n = 40, 6.6%), finance and accounting (n = 36, 5.9%), manufacturing (n = 23, 3.8%), services (n = 20, 3.3%), administration (n = 20, 3.3%), purchasing (n = 17, 2.8%), management (n = 12, 2.0%), logistics (n = 10, 1.6%), legal (n = 10, 1.6%) and design (n = 4, 0.7%). In terms of corporate tenure, 12.5 percent of employees (n = 76) joined the corporate brand less than a year ago, 21.7 percent of employees (n = 132) joined the brand one to two years ago, 31.9 percent of employees (n = 194) joined the corporate brand three to five years ago, 17.9 percent of employees (n = 109) belonged to the corporate brand between six and ten years, and Abed and Büttgen / Journal of Business Strategies (2022) 39:1-32 9 F ig u re 1 : T h eo re ti ca l F ra m ew o rk 10 Abed and Büttgen / Journal of Business Strategies (2022) 39:1-32 16.0 percent of employees (n = 97) joined the corporate brand more than ten years ago. Measures The response scale for each survey item ranged from 1 (‘strongly disagree’) to 5 (‘strongly agree’), unless otherwise noted. Because the study was con- ducted in a German-speaking environment, all measures previously devel- oped in English have been translated into German, using the commonly translation-back translation procedure (Brislin, 1980). Moreover, we inten- sively pre-tested all used measures regarding reliability, validity and mutual understanding. We measured perceived negative brand publicity with three items on a bipo- lar response scale ranging from 1 (very negative) to 5 (very positive). The item development was inspired by Jaidi et al. (2011) as well as (Collins & Stevens, 2002). Items are: ‘News coverage in the media regarding [corporate brand name] is mostly. . . ’, ‘When [corporate brand name] is mentioned in press, it is mostly. . . ’ and ‘The presentation of [corporate brand name] in television, radio, print- or online media is. . . ’. Cronbach’s alpha for this scale is 0.93. To assess the level of emotional corporate brand pride, the four-item scale by Gouthier and Rhein (2011) was used. A sample item is: ‘In these moments I am proud of what the [corporate brand name] has achieved’. Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was 0.93. We measured attitudinal corporate brand pride using Gouthier and Rhein (2011)’s three-item measure. A sample item is: ‘I feel proud to work for my [corporate brand name]. Due to its central role in our theoretical framework, we added one item to the existing scale to ensure reliability (‘I’m proud to be part of [corporate brand name]’). The reliability of this scale was 0.94. To measure word-of-mouth, the three-item scale by Morhart et al. (2009) was used. A sample item is: ‘I talk up [corporate brand name] to people I know’. Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was 0.93. We measured employee referrals with five items. We used two already vali- dated and reliable items developed by Bloemer (2010) and inspired by Zei- thaml et al. (1996). In addition, three items were included to ensure the specific nature of referrals and to distinguish this measure from related con- structs such as word-of-mouth. The added items are: ‘I approach friends, when I have the feeling that my employer offers an interesting job, which Abed and Büttgen / Journal of Business Strategies (2022) 39:1-32 11 suits them.’, ‘I forward job postings to friends, which seek employment.’ and ‘I approach friends, when I have the feeling that my employer offers an in- teresting job in a similar domain, in which they are currently working.’ The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was 0.94. To assess the level of employees’ brand experience through internal com- munications, we used a three-item scale developed by Egeler et al. (2022) and inspired by Aurand et al. (2005). Items are: ‘Through information in our internal communications, I experience what our corporate brand stands for.’, ‘I experience the corporate brand through editorial content in our inter- nal communications.’, ‘I come in contact with the corporate brand through available media in our internal communications.’ The reliability of this scale was 0.94. Brand experience through external communications. To assess the level of employees’ brand experience through external communications we used a three-item scale developed by Egeler et al. (2022) and also inspired by Au- rand et al. (2005). Items are: ‘I experience the corporate brand through ed- itorial content in external communications (e. g. television, radio, etc.),’ ‘I experience our corporate brand in a private setting through external commu- nication activities,’ ‘I come in contact with the corporate brand in a private context, through actions of the external communication.’ The Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was 0.93. Consistent with past research, we controlled for several socio-demographic variables, including gender (1 = female 2 = male), corporate tenure (0-1 years, 1-2 years, 3-5 years, 6-10 years and more than 10 years), corpo- rate size (0-19 employees, 20-99 employees, 100-499 employees and more than 500 employees), employee status (1 = management board 2 = execu- tive employee 3 = employee 4 = freelancer 5 = trainee 6 = intern/working student/temporary staff), functional area (1 = consulting 2 = design 3 = purchasing 4 = finance and accounting 5 = research and development 6 = IT 7= Services 8 = logistics 9 = marketing 10 = administration 11 = HR 12 = manufacturing 13 = legal 14 = management 15 = sales 16 = other) and education (1 = doctoral and postdoctoral 2 = academic studies 3 = foreman/technician 4 = apprenticeship 5 = university-entrance diploma 6 = general certificate of secondary education 7 = certificate of secondary education 8 = none). 12 Abed and Büttgen / Journal of Business Strategies (2022) 39:1-32 4. Analysis We analysed data following Anderson and Gerbing (1991) two step approach. In a first step we evaluate the psychometric properties of the scales. More- over, we test for common method bias using established statistical tech- niques. In a second step, we test the hypothesized relationships using AMOS 25 (Arbuckle, 2003). To assess the quality of the measurement model, we ran a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). We followed common recommendations from Gracia et al. (2013) and Stumpp et al. (2009) and used the following fit indices: goodness of fit index (GFI), adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI), comparative fit index (CFI), normed fit index (NFI), tucker lewis index (TLI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and standardized root mean square error of approximation (SRMR). For GFI, AGFI, CFI, NFI and TLI values higher than .90 indicate good fit (Arbuckle, 2003; Bryne, 2001; B. Hair et al., 2006; Homburg & Giering, 1996; Hu & Bentler, 1998). SRMR values lower than .05 indicate good fit respectively (J. Hair et al., 1998; Hu & Bentler, 1998). CFA showed a good model fit: CMIN/DF = 1.753, SRMR = .02, RMSEA = .035, GFI = .94, AGFI = .92, NFI = .97, TLI = .98, CFI = .98. In addition, we compared the hypothesized model with three nested models (Table 1). The original model shows a significant better fit than the alter- native nested models, providing support for the distinctiveness of the con- structs. Besides a satisfactory model fit, scales included in this study should exhibit convergent validity, reliability, and discriminant validity (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988; Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Since the lowest factor loading in our model was 0.75, there is support for convergent validity. For the reliabili- ties, see Table 2. Composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE) were calculated based on the procedure of Fornell and Larcker (1981). CR and AVE for all constructs were above 0.92 and 0.72 respectively. These values fulfill the recommended cut-off values of CR > 0.70 and AV E > 0.50 (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988; Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Similarly, all AVE values are greater than the squared correlation between that factor and another factor, suggesting discriminant validity is given. Data were collected at a single point of time from a single source, which can represent a potential risk regarding to the problem of common method variance (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). To minimize this bias, we referred to survey design guidelines proposed by Podsakoff et al. (2003) guaranteeing Abed and Büttgen / Journal of Business Strategies (2022) 39:1-32 13 T a b le 1 : R es u lt s o f th e C o n fi rm a to ry F a ct o r A n a ly si s M o d el χ 2 d f C F I N F I R M S E A G F I S ev en -f a ct o r M o d el 4 3 6 .4 5 5 2 4 9 0 .9 8 9 0 .9 7 4 0 .0 3 5 0 .9 4 6 S ix -f a ct o r m o d el 1 : 9 3 9 .8 3 0 2 5 5 0 .9 5 8 0 .9 4 3 0 .0 6 7 0 .8 9 8 W O M a n d em p lo y ee re fe rr a ls co m b in ed S ix -f a ct o r m o d el 2 : 1 0 6 7 .4 2 3 2 5 5 0 .9 5 0 0 .9 3 0 0 .0 7 2 0 .8 6 3 E m o ti o n a l co rp o ra te b ra n d p ri d e a n d a tt it u d in a l co rp o ra te b ra n d p ri d e co m b in ed O n e- fa ct o r m o d el 6 9 3 3 .1 5 9 2 7 0 0 .5 9 1 0 .5 8 3 0 .2 0 2 0 .5 2 7 N o te : C F I - co m p a ra ti v e fi t in d ex ; N F I - n o rm ed fi t in d ex ; R M S E A - ro o t m ea n sq u a re ro o t er ro r o f a p p ro x im a ti o n ; G F I - g o o d n es s o f fi t in d ex 14 Abed and Büttgen / Journal of Business Strategies (2022) 39:1-32 confidentiality, using clear response guidelines, designing focused and specific items, and using different scale endpoints at one of the variables. Moreover, we counterbalanced the question order to disrupt the logical flow. To test statistically for potential common method bias, we conducted a Harman one- factor test (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). Results suggested the presence of 5 factors, indicating that common method effects are no serious problem in the data. In addition, we controlled for common method variance using a marker variable test (Lindell & Whitney, 2001). We selected Felfe’s ‘transactional leadership’ as a marker variable, as it was theoretically uncorrelated to most of the constructs. Analysis showed that none of the significant correlations of the model became nonsignificant or changed their sign. Thus, we assume that CMV is not likely to affect the validity of this study (Doty & Glick, 1998). 5. Results Means, standard deviations, correlations and reliabilities are shown in Table 2. The results are illustrated in Figure 2 and reveal that only one out of ten hypotheses need to be rejected. Perceived negative corporate brand publicity adversely affect emotional corporate brand pride, supporting H1 (β = .19, p < .001). Similarly, perceived negative brand publicity directly affect brand supporting behavior of employees, namely WOM (H2a, β = −.15, p < .001) and employee referrals (H2b, β = −.08, p < .002). Moreover, we can confirm H3 stating that emotional corporate brand pride leads to attitudinal corporate brand pride (β = .79, p < .001). In accordance with H4a and H4b, we show that attitudinal corporate brand pride significantly influences WOM (H4a, β = .74, p < .001) and employee referrals (H4b, β = .67, p < .001). In contrast to our expectations corporate brand experience through internal communications and corporate brand experience through external commu- nications did not act in the same way in compensating perceived negative corporate brand publicity. Corporate brand experience through internal communications mitigates the perception of negative brand publicity (H5b, β = -.22, p < .001), supporting H5b. However, the path between corporate brand experience through external communications and perceived negative brand publicity wasn’t significant, leading to a rejection of H5a (β = −.03, n.s.). To test whether emotional corporate brand pride can be triggered by the corporation through specific corporate brand experience, we test H6a Abed and Büttgen / Journal of Business Strategies (2022) 39:1-32 15 T a b le 2 : D es cr ip ti v e S ta ti st ic s a n d C o rr el a ti o n s V a ri a b le M ea n S D 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 . P er ce iv ed n eg a ti v e b ra n d p u b li ci ty 2 .3 1 0 .8 8 (0 .9 3 ) 2 . E m o ti o n a l co rp o ra te b ra n d p ri d e 3 .8 6 1 .0 1 -0 .2 7 (0 .9 3 ) 3 . A tt it u d in a l co rp o ra te b ra n d p ri d e 3 .7 4 1 .1 1 -0 .2 9 0 .8 4 (0 .9 4 ) 4 . W O M 3 .6 2 1 .1 2 -0 .3 6 0 .6 8 0 .7 8 (0 .9 3 ) 5 . E m p lo y ee R ef er ra ls 3 .3 7 1 .2 3 -0 .2 6 0 .5 8 0 .6 8 0 .6 8 (0 .9 4 ) 6 . B ra n d ex p er ie n ce th ro u g h in te rn a l co m m u n ic a ti o n s 3 .4 4 1 .1 5 -0 .2 4 0 .4 1 0 .4 4 0 .3 9 0 .4 2 (0 .9 4 ) 7 . B ra n d ex p er ie n ce th ro u g h ex te rn a l co m m u n ic a ti o n s 2 .5 7 1 .3 0 -0 .1 3 0 .3 0 0 .3 5 0 .3 4 0 .3 4 0 .4 5 (0 .9 3 ) N o te : A ll c o rr e la ti o n s a re si g n ifi c a n t a t p < .0 1 . C o e ffi c ie n t a lp h a s a p p e a r o n d ia g o n a l 16 Abed and Büttgen / Journal of Business Strategies (2022) 39:1-32 F ig u re 2 : S tru ctu ra l M o d el Abed and Büttgen / Journal of Business Strategies (2022) 39:1-32 17 and H6b. In line with expectations corporate brand experience through external communications positively affect emotional corporate brand pride (H6a, β = .14, p < .002). Similarly, corporate brand experience through internal communications influences emotional corporate brand pride (H6b, β = .31, p < .001). In addition, we tested for moderators that were not hypothesized. We con- ducted multi-group analysis as our possible moderators are discrete variables (Eberl, 2010). We applied the procedure that Bryne (2010) proposes to test the difference in our groups. Since Gouthier and Rhein (2011) suggest that women show more (organizational) pride than men, we tested for gender effects. We also tested whether tenure influence the proposed paths as Helm (2013) state that employees with a longer tenure might show higher levels of pride. Analysis showed that, in terms of the relationship between per- ceived negative corporate brand publicity and employee referrals, gender has a significant effect. Results suggest that men are less likely to recommend job offers. Furthermore, the relationship between corporate brand experi- ence through external communications and emotional corporate brand pride, gender has a significant effect. However, group difference is marginal. Re- garding tenure analysis showed that almost all paths did not differ, except for the relationship attitudinal corporate brand pride and employee referrals. Here, employees with a short tenure tend to show higher employee referrals behavior. Finally, multi-group analysis revealed that management and non- management employees slightly differ in referral behavior (β = .04, p < .04). Results of the multi-group analysis are presented in Tables 3-5. 6. Discussion Although there are several studies providing empirical evidence that neg- ative (brand) publicity has adverse effects on a number of consumer and applicant attitudes and behavioral intentions, it is unclear to what extent perceived negative corporate brand publicity affects employees. The present study reveals that perceived negative corporate brand publicity directly af- fects employee emotion, namely emotional corporate brand pride. Moreover, perceived negative corporate brand publicity has a direct effect on employ- ees’ brand supporting behavior like WOM and employee referrals. As the latter finding is in contrast to prior studies Müller and Gaus (e.g. 2015) who did not find significant effects of negative media on actual consumer behav- ior, we argue that a person’s employer (i.e. brand) represent an important 18 Abed and Büttgen / Journal of Business Strategies (2022) 39:1-32 T a b le 3 : M u lti-G ro u p A n a ly sis, b y G en d er S ta n d a rd co effi cen t G ro u p P a th M a le F em a le D iff eren ce B E in tern a l co m m u n ica tio n → P erceiv ed n eg a tiv e b ra n d p u b licity − 0 .2 3 − 0 .2 2 0 .0 1 B E ex tern a l co m m u n ica tio n → P erceiv ed n eg a tiv e b ra n d p u b licity − 0 .0 2 − 0 .0 2 0 .0 0 P erceiv ed n eg a tiv e b ra n d p u b licity → E m o tio n a l co rp o ra te b ra n d p rid e − 0 .1 8 − 0 .1 9 0 .0 2 E m o tio n a l co rp o ra te b ra n d p rid e → A ttitu d in a l co rp o ra te b ra n d p rid e 0 .8 1 0 .7 7 0 .0 4 A ttitu d in a l co rp o ra te b ra n d p rid e → E m p lo y ee referra ls 0 .6 7 0 .6 7 0 .0 0 A ttitu d in a l co rp o ra te b ra n d p irid e → W O M 0 .7 6 0 .7 2 0 .0 4 P erceiv ed n eg a tiv e b ra n d p u b licity → E m p lo y ee referra ls − 0 .0 9 − 0 .0 7 0 .0 2 ∗ P erceiv ed n eg a tiv e b ra n d p u b licity → W O M − 0 .1 7 − 0 .1 5 0 .0 2 B E in tern a l co m m u n ica tio n → E m o tio n a l co rp o ra te b ra n d p rid e 0 .2 8 0 .3 0 0 .0 2 B E ex tern a l co m m u n ica tio n → E m o tio n a l co rp o ra te b ra n d p rid e 0 .1 3 0 .1 4 0 .0 1 ∗∗∗ N o te : S ig n ifi c a n t a t * * * p < .0 1 ; * * p < 0 .5 ; * p < .1 0 Abed and Büttgen / Journal of Business Strategies (2022) 39:1-32 19 T a b le 4 : M u lt i- G ro u p A n a ly si s, b y T en u re S ta n d a rd co effi ce n t L o n g S h o rt G ro u p P a th T en u re T en u re D iff er en ce B E in te rn a l co m m u n ic a ti o n → P er ce iv ed n eg a ti v e b ra n d p u b li ci ty − 0 .2 4 − 0 .2 7 0 .0 3 B E ex te rn a l co m m u n ic a ti o n → P er ce iv ed n eg a ti v e b ra n d p u b li ci ty − 0 .0 4 − 0 .0 4 0 .0 0 P er ce iv ed n eg a ti v e b ra n d p u b li ci ty → E m o ti o n a l co rp o ra te b ra n d p ri d e − 0 .1 5 − 0 .1 5 0 .0 0 E m o ti o n a l co rp o ra te b ra n d p ri d e → A tt it u d in a l co rp o ra te b ra n d p ri d e 0 .8 1 0 .8 0 0 .0 1 A tt it u d in a l co rp o ra te b ra n d p ri d e → E m p lo y ee re fe rr a ls 0 .6 3 0 .6 7 0 .0 4 ∗ A tt it u d in a l co rp o ra te b ra n d p ir id e → W O M 0 .7 2 0 .7 1 0 .0 1 P er ce iv ed n eg a ti v e b ra n d p u b li ci ty → E m p lo y ee re fe rr a ls − 0 .1 1 − 0 .0 9 0 .0 2 P er ce iv ed n eg a ti v e b ra n d p u b li ci ty → W O M − 0 .1 6 − 0 .1 4 0 .0 2 B E in te rn a l co m m u n ic a ti o n → E m o ti o n a l co rp o ra te b ra n d p ri d e 0 .3 1 0 .3 1 0 .0 1 B E ex te rn a l co m m u n ic a ti o n → E m o ti o n a l co rp o ra te b ra n d p ri d e 0 .1 2 0 .1 3 0 .0 1 ∗∗ ∗ N o te : S ig n ifi c a n t a t * * * p < .0 1 ; * * p < 0 .5 ; * p < .1 0 20 Abed and Büttgen / Journal of Business Strategies (2022) 39:1-32 T a b le 5 : M u lti-G ro u p A n a ly sis, b y M a n a g em en t R o le S ta n d a rd co effi cen t N o n - G ro u p P a th M a n a g em en t M a n a g em en t D iff eren ce B E in tern a l co m m u n ica tio n → P erceiv ed n eg a tiv e b ra n d p u b licity − 0 .2 3 − 0 .2 3 0 .0 0 B E ex tern a l co m m u n ica tio n → P erceiv ed n eg a tiv e b ra n d p u b licity − 0 .0 3 − 0 .0 3 0 .0 0 P erceiv ed n eg a tiv e b ra n d p u b licity → E m o tio n a l co rp o ra te b ra n d p rid e − 0 .2 0 − 0 .1 8 0 .0 2 E m o tio n a l co rp o ra te b ra n d p rid e → A ttitu d in a l co rp o ra te b ra n d p rid e 0 .7 7 0 .7 9 0 .0 2 A ttitu d in a l co rp o ra te b ra n d p rid e → E m p lo y ee referra ls 0 .6 5 0 .6 9 0 .0 4 ∗∗ A ttitu d in a l co rp o ra te b ra n d p irid e → W O M 0 .7 4 0 .7 4 0 .0 0 P erceiv ed n eg a tiv e b ra n d p u b licity → E m p lo y ee referra ls − 0 .0 9 − 0 .0 7 0 .0 2 P erceiv ed n eg a tiv e b ra n d p u b licity → W O M − 0 .1 5 − 0 .1 5 0 .0 0 B E in tern a l co m m u n ica tio n → E m o tio n a l co rp o ra te b ra n d p rid e 0 .2 9 0 .3 0 0 .0 2 ∗ B E ex tern a l co m m u n ica tio n → E m o tio n a l co rp o ra te b ra n d p rid e 0 .1 7 0 .1 5 0 .0 2 N o te : S ig n ifi c a n t a t * * * p < .0 1 ; * * p < 0 .5 ; * p < .1 0 Abed and Büttgen / Journal of Business Strategies (2022) 39:1-32 21 part of the individual’s self-concept leading to a change in employee behavior (Cable & Turban, 2003). In line with AET Weiss and Cropanzano (1996) and earlier findings of Gouthier and Rhein (2011), our results reveal that emotional corporate brand pride has downstream consequences regarding attitudinal corporate brand pride. Similarly, the results demonstrate that attitudinal corporate brand pride strongly influences WOM and employee referrals (brand sup- porting behavior). Here, the study helps to broaden the current view on internal branding, which mainly focuses on brand commitment as a central construct, highlighting the importance of (attitudinal) corporate brand pride in an (internal) branding context. Contrary to what we expected, corporate brand experience through external communications did not mitigate the perception of negative brand public- ity in the same way brand experience through internal communication does. This finding is noteworthy, because it illustrates that employees of a cor- porate brand seem to be more prone to brand experience through internal communications. In doing so, the results establish an understanding that in an employee context both communication channels are not equally effec- tive in compensating negative corporate brand publicity. From a theoretical point of view, this circumstance might relate to the accessibility of infor- mation amongst others, suggesting that the likelihood that information is used as the basis of an evaluation is determined by the accessibility of that information (Feldman & Lynch, 1988; Herr et al., 1991). In the context of our study, employees might use the internal communications more often as accessibility via the intranet is easier and often more detailed compared to external communications. Hence, the information is more present and therefore more effective. In addition, De Roeck et al. (2014) and Gond et al. (2010) showed that employees exhibited stronger feelings from internal CSR actions than from CSR actions towards other stakeholders, which could sup- port our assumption that employees are more amenable to internal forms of communications. Finally, this paper adds value to the existing research by showing how (emo- tional) corporate brand pride can be stimulated, responding to calls for fur- ther research (Kraemer et al., 2020). Likewise, corporate brand experience through internal communications trigger (emotional) corporate brand pride more strongly. 22 Abed and Büttgen / Journal of Business Strategies (2022) 39:1-32 The analysis of control variables (multi-group analysis) revealed only minor differences regarding gender, tenure and employee status. Here, we did not find strong gender effects. In contrast to expectations employees with a short tenure are more likely to recommend specific jobs of the corporation. It is also interesting that non-management employees are more likely to refer specific jobs to persons he or she knows. As management employees usually have a broad social capital and are usually well informed about vacancies, this result is surprising. Limitations and implications for further research Despite the new findings noted here, several limitations should be addressed. First, the sample comprise of German employees, implying that the results cannot be generalized. Second, this research used a cross-sectional design. However, it may be interesting how the influence of perceived brand public- ity varies over time, calling for further research using a longitudinal design. In addition, further studies might use semi-structured interviews to gain in- sights answering the question what employees of a corporate brand expect in a situation of negative publicity from top management, their supervi- sors or in general regarding the brand they work for. Third, to provide a holistic view on effects of brand publicity the study used a more general measure, capturing various forms of negative brand publicity. In doing so, we disregard previous research showing that various forms of publicity ex- ist, for example performance-related (Lee et al., 2013; Lin et al., 2011) and value-related publicity (Kanar et al., 2010; Thwaites et al., 2012). To pro- vide further insights, future studies should include differentiated measures to capture specific forms of (brand) publicity. Fourth, this research neglected effects of dispositions. Affective-Events-Theory postulates the importance of dispositions on the relationship of work-events and emotions. For these reasons, future research should include dispositions. Fifth, nowadays various communication channels exist (e.g. social media) and future studies should try to answer the question if negative brand publicity is similarly harmful in all channels. 7. Practical Implications The findings of this research have several implications for management and marketing practitioners. As employees represent a crucial part of brands’ success and competitive advantage, it is important to understand how the Abed and Büttgen / Journal of Business Strategies (2022) 39:1-32 23 detrimental effects of perceived negative brand publicity on employees’ cor- porate brand pride and brand supporting behavior can be mitigated. The results show that corporation can effectively mitigate effects of perceived negative corporate brand publicity by creating a corporate brand experi- ence. Here, marketing managers may be well advised to highlight corporate brand values through internal communications, which in turn negatively af- fect the employees’ perception of negative brand publicity. Moreover, this study indicates the importance of corporate brand pride as a central driver of brand supporting behavior, namely employee referrals and employee WOM. As many branding initiatives base upon brand commitment, practitioners might think of including brand pride in their marketing concepts. This re- search shows how corporate brand pride can be fostered through specific marketing or branding activities, for example highlighting corporate brand values via internal communications. At the same time, we show that employees with a long tenure are less likely to recommend jobs to friends, compared to employees with a short tenure. As referrals are nowadays an important recruiting source (e.g. Pieper, 2015; Van Hoye, 2013), management and HR practitioners might stimulate em- ployee referrals through incentives targeted at this particular group (e.g. differentiated referral bonuses). Similarly, managers are less likely to recom- mend jobs of their corporate brand to friends, compared to non-management employees. So, managers who usually have a large (business) network and know about various job opportunities within the corporation need to be encouraged to act as facilitators. References Albert, N., Merunka, D., & Valette-Florence, P. (2013). Brand passion: An- tecedents and consequences. Journal of Business Research, 66(7), 904–909. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.12.009 Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1991). Predicting the performance of measures in a confirmatory factor analysis with a pretest assessment of their substantive validities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(5), 732–740. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.76.5.732 Appleberg, K. A. (2005). The construction of a nomological network for organizational pride. Benedictine University. Arbuckle, J. (2003). Amos 5.0 update to the amos user’s guide. Marketing Department, SPSS Incorporated. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.12.009 https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.76.5.732 24 Abed and Büttgen / Journal of Business Strategies (2022) 39:1-32 Aurand, T. W., Gorchels, L., & Bishop, T. R. (2005). Human resource management’s role in internal branding: An opportunity for cross- functional brand message synergy. Journal of Product & Brand Man- agement. https://doi.org/10.1108/10610420510601030 Baer, M. D., Dhensa-Kahlon, R. K., Colquitt, J. A., Rodell, J. B., Outlaw, R., & Long, D. M. (2015). Uneasy lies the head that bears the trust: The effects of feeling trusted on emotional exhaustion. Academy of Management Journal, 58(6), 1637–1657. https://doi.org/10.5465 /amj.2014.0246 Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94. Berger, J., Sorensen, A. T., & Rasmussen, S. J. (2010). Positive effects of negative publicity: When negative reviews increase sales. Marketing Science, 29(5). https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1090.0557 Bloemer, J. (2010). The psychological antecedents of employee referrals. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21(10), 1769–1791. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2010.500494 Boons, M., Stam, D., & Barkema, H. G. (2015). Feelings of pride and respect as drivers of ongoing member activity on crowdsourcing platforms. Journal of Management Studies, 52(6), 717–741. https://doi.org/10 .1111/joms.12140 Boukis, A., Kostopoulos, G., & Katsaridou, I. (2014). IMO and different fit types as key enablers of employee brand-supporting behaviour. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 22(2), 117–134. https://doi.org/10 .1080/0965254X.2013.876066 Braxton, D. F., Muehling, D. D., & Joireman, J. (2019). The effects of pro- cessing mode and brand scandals on copycat product evaluations. Journal of Marketing Communications, 25(3), 247–267. https://doi. org/10.1080/13527266.2016.1236284 Breaugh, J. A., & Starke, M. (2000). Research on employee recruitment: So many studies, so many remaining questions. Journal of Management, 26(3), 405–434. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600303 Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. Methodology, 389–444. Bryne, B. (2001). Structural equation modeling with amos: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (1st ed.) Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.1108/10610420510601030 https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0246 https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0246 https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1090.0557 https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2010.500494 https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12140 https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12140 https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2013.876066 https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2013.876066 https://doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2016.1236284 https://doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2016.1236284 https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600303 Abed and Büttgen / Journal of Business Strategies (2022) 39:1-32 25 Bryne, B. (2010). Structural equation modeling with amos: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.) Routledge. Burmann, C., Zeplin, S., & Riley, N. (2009). Key determinants of internal brand management success: An exploratory empirical analysis. Jour- nal of Brand Management, 16(4), 264–284. https://doi.org/10.1057 /bm.2008.6 Cable, D. M., & Turban, D. B. (2003). The value of organizational reputation in the recruitment context: A brand-equity perspective. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33(11), 2244–2266. https://doi.org/10.1 111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb01883.x Cleeren, K., Van Heerde, H. J., & Dekimpe, M. G. (2013). Rising from the ashes: How brands and categories can overcome product-harm crises. Journal of Marketing, 77(2), 58–77. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.10 .0414 Collins, C. J., & Stevens, C. K. (2002). The relationship between early recruitment-related activities and the application decisions of new labor-market entrants: A brand equity approach to recruitment. Jour- nal of Applied Psychology, 87(6), 1121–1133. https://doi.org/10.103 7/0021-9010.87.6.1121 De Matos, C. A., & Rossi, C. A. V. (2008). Word-of-mouth communications in marketing: A meta-analytic review of the antecedents and moder- ators. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(4), 578–596. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-008-0121-1 De Roeck, K., Marique, G., Stinglhamber, F., & Swaen, V. (2014). Un- derstanding employees’ responses to corporate social responsibility: Mediating roles of overall justice and organisational identification. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(1), 91–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2013.781528 Doty, D. H., & Glick, W. H. (1998). Common methods bias: Does com- mon methods variance really bias results? Organizational Research Method, 1(4), 374–406. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442819814002 Eberl, M. (2010). An application of PLS in multi-group analysis: The need for differentiated corporate-level marketing in the mobile communi- cations industry. In Handbook of partial least squares (pp. 487–514). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-32827-8 22 https://doi.org/10.1057/bm.2008.6 https://doi.org/10.1057/bm.2008.6 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb01883.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb01883.x https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.10.0414 https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.10.0414 https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.6.1121 https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.6.1121 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-008-0121-1 https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2013.781528 https://doi.org/10.1177/109442819814002 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-32827-8_22 26 Abed and Büttgen / Journal of Business Strategies (2022) 39:1-32 Egeler, P., Abed, F., & Büttgen, M. (2022). Corporate brand experience as a new construct and its effects on employees’ corporate brand pride and brand-supporting behaviours. International Journal of Business and Management, 17(3). https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v17n3p39 Eisingerich, A. B., Rubera, G., Seifert, M., & Bhardwaj, G. (2011). Doing good and doing better despite negative information?: The role of cor- porate social responsibility in consumer resistance to negative infor- mation. Journal of Service Research, 14(1), 60–75. https://doi.org/1 0.1177/1094670510389164 Elfenbein, H. A. (2007). 7 emotion in organizations: A review and theoretical integration. Academy of Management Annals, 1(1), 315–386. https: //doi.org/10.1080/078559812 Feldman, J. M., & Lynch, J. G. (1988). Self-generated validity and other effects of measurement on belief, attitude, intention, and behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(3), 421. https://doi.org/10.1037 /0021-9010.73.3.421 Fisher, C. D., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2000). The emerging role of emotions in work life: An introduction. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-137 9(200003)21:2⟨3C123::AID-JOB33⟩3E3.0.CO;2-8 Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation mod- els with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022243 78101800104 Gond, J.-P., El-Akremi, A., Igalens, J., & Swaen, V. (2010). Corporate so- cial responsibility influence on employees. International Center for Corporate Social Responsibility, 54. Gouthier, M. H., & Rhein, M. (2011). Organizational pride and its positive effects on employee behavior. Journal of Service Management. https: //doi.org/10.1108/09564231111174988 Gracia, E., Salanova, M., Grau, R., & Cifre, E. (2013). How to enhance ser- vice quality through organizational facilitators, collective work en- gagement, and relational service competence. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 22(1), 42–55. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/1359432X.2011.628793 Hagenbuch, D. J., Wiese, M. D., Dose, J. J., & Bruce, M. L. (2008). Under- standing satisfied and affectively committed clients’ lack of referral https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v17n3p39 https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670510389164 https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670510389164 https://doi.org/10.1080/078559812 https://doi.org/10.1080/078559812 https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.73.3.421 https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.73.3.421 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(200003)21:2<3C123::AID-JOB33>3E3.0.CO;2-8 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(200003)21:2<3C123::AID-JOB33>3E3.0.CO;2-8 https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104 https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104 https://doi.org/10.1108/09564231111174988 https://doi.org/10.1108/09564231111174988 https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2011.628793 https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2011.628793 Abed and Büttgen / Journal of Business Strategies (2022) 39:1-32 27 intent. Services Marketing Quarterly, 29(3), 24–74. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/15332960802125932 Hair, B., J.F.and Babin, Black, W., Anderson, R., & Tatham, R. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th edition). Pearson. Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., & Black, W. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th edition). Pearson. Harris, F., & De Chernatony, L. (2001). Corporate branding and corporate brand performance. European Journal of marketing. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/03090560110382101 Harrison, W. L. (2001). The measurement of word-of-mouth communication and an investigation of service quality and customer commitment as potential antecedents. Journal of Service Research, 4(1), 60–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/109467050141006 Helm, S. (2013). A matter of reputation and pride: Associations between perceived external reputation, pride in membership, job satisfaction and turnover intentions. British Journal of Management, 24(4), 542– 556. https://doi.org/10..1111/j.1467-8551.2012.00827.x Herr, P. M., Kardes, F. R., & Kim, J. (1991). Effects of word-of-mouth and product-attribute information on persuasion: An accessibility- diagnosticity perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(4), 454– 462. https://doi.org/10.1086/208570 Herrbach, O., Mignonac, K., & Gatignon, A.-L. (2004). Exploring the role of perceived external prestige in managers’ turnover intentions. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 15(8), 1390– 1407. https://doi.org/10.1080/0958519042000257995 Hock, S. J., & Raithel, S. (2019). Managing negative celebrity endorser pub- licity: How announcements of firm (non) responses affect stock re- turns. Management Science, 66(3), 1473–1495. https://doi.org/10.1 287/mnsc.2018.3243 Homburg, C., & Giering, A. (1996). Konzeptualisierung und Operational- isierung komplexer Konstrukte: Ein Leitfaden für die Marketing- forschung. Marketing: Zeitschrift für Forschung und Praxis, 18(1), 5–24. https://doi.org/10.15358/3044-1369-1996-1-5 Hu, L.-t., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure model- ing: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psy- https://doi.org/10.1080/15332960802125932 https://doi.org/10.1080/15332960802125932 https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560110382101 https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560110382101 https://doi.org/10.1177/109467050141006 https://doi.org/10..1111/j.1467-8551.2012.00827.x https://doi.org/10.1086/208570 https://doi.org/10.1080/0958519042000257995 https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2018.3243 https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2018.3243 https://doi.org/10.15358/3044-1369-1996-1-5 28 Abed and Büttgen / Journal of Business Strategies (2022) 39:1-32 chological Methods, 3(4), 424–453. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-98 9X.3.4.424 Jaidi, Y., Van Hooft, E. A., & Arends, L. R. (2011). Recruiting highly ed- ucated graduates: A study on the relationship between recruitment information sources, the theory of planned behavior, and actual job pursuit. Human Performance, 24(2), 135–157. https://doi.org/10.1 080/08959285.2011.554468 Kanar, A. M., Collins, C. J., & Bell, B. S. (2010). A comparison of the effects of positive and negative information on job seekers’ organizational attraction and attribute recall. Human Performance, 23(3), 193–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2010.487842 King, C., & Grace, D. (2010). Building and measuring employee-based brand equity. European Journal of marketing. https://doi.org/10.1108/03 090561011047472 Kraemer, T., & Gouthier, M. H. (2014). How organizational pride and emo- tional exhaustion explain turnover intentions in call centers: A multi- group analysis with gender and organizational tenure. Journal of Service Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-07-2013-0173 Kraemer, T., Weiger, W. H., Gouthier, M. H., & Hammerschmidt, M. (2020). Toward a theory of spirals: The dynamic relationship between or- ganizational pride and customer-oriented behavior. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 48(6), 1095–1115. https://doi.org/1 0.1007/s11747-019-00715-0 Lee, C.-H., Hwang, F.-M., & Yeh, Y.-C. (2013). The impact of publicity and subsequent intervention in recruitment advertising on job searching freshmen’s attraction to an organization and job pursuit intention. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/1 0.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00975.x Lin, C.-P., Chen, S.-C., Chiu, C.-K., & Lee, W.-Y. (2011). Understanding purchase intention during product-harm crises: Moderating effects of perceived corporate ability and corporate social responsibility. Jour- nal of Business Ethics, 102(3), 455–471. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1 0551-011-0824-y Lindell, M., & Whitney, D. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-selectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 114–121. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.114 https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.424 https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.424 https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2011.554468 https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2011.554468 https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2010.487842 https://doi.org/10.1108/03090561011047472 https://doi.org/10.1108/03090561011047472 https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-07-2013-0173 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-019-00715-0 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-019-00715-0 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00975.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00975.x https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0824-y https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0824-y https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.114 Abed and Büttgen / Journal of Business Strategies (2022) 39:1-32 29 Löhndorf, B., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2014). Internal branding: Social iden- tity and social exchange perspectives on turning employees into brand champions. Journal of Service Research, 17(3), 310–325. https://doi. org/10.1177/1094670514522098 Lovett, M. J., Peres, R., & Shachar, R. (2013). On brands and word of mouth. Journal of Marketing Research, 50(4), 427–444. https://doi.org/10 .1509/jmr.11.0458 Lythreatis, S., Mostafa, A. M. S., & Wang, X. (2019). Participative lead- ership and organizational identification in smes in the mena region: Testing the roles of csr perceptions and pride in membership. Journal of Business Ethics, 156(3), 635–650. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1055 1-017-3557-8 Matta, F. K., Erol-Korkmaz, H. T., Johnson, R. E., & Biçaksiz, P. (2014). Significant work events and counterproductive work behavior: The role of fairness, emotions, and emotion regulation. Journal of Orga- nizational Behavior, 35(7), 920–944. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.19 34 Monga, A. B., & John, D. R. (2008). When does negative brand publicity hurt? the moderating influence of analytic versus holistic thinking. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 18(4), 320–332. https://doi.org/1 0.1016/j.jcps.2008.09.009 Morhart, F. M., Herzog, W., & Tomczak, T. (2009). Brand-specific leader- ship: Turning employees into brand champions. Journal of Marketing, 73(5), 122–142. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.73.5.112 Müller, C. E., & Gaus, H. (2015). Consumer response to negative media information about certified organic food products. Journal of Con- sumer Policy, 38(4), 387–409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-015- 9299-z Osei-Frimpong, K., Donkor, G., & Owusu-Frimpong, N. (2019). The impact of celebrity endorsement on consumer purchase intention: An emerg- ing market perspective. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 27(1), 103–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/10696679.2018.1534070 Peloza, J. (2006). Using corporate social responsibility as insurance for fi- nancial performance. California Management Review, 48(2), 52–72. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166338 https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670514522098 https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670514522098 https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.11.0458 https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.11.0458 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3557-8 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3557-8 https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1934 https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1934 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2008.09.009 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2008.09.009 https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.73.5.112 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-015-9299-z https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-015-9299-z https://doi.org/10.1080/10696679.2018.1534070 https://doi.org/10.2307/41166338 30 Abed and Büttgen / Journal of Business Strategies (2022) 39:1-32 Pieper, J. R. (2015). Uncovering the nuances of referral hiring: How refer- rer characteristics affect referral hires’ performance and likelihood of voluntary turnover. Personnel Psychology, 68(4), 811–858. https: //doi.org/10.1111/peps.12097 Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psy- chology, 88(5), 879. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531–544. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920638601200408 Rosen, C. C., Harris, K. J., & Kacmar, K. M. (2009). The emotional implica- tions of organizational politics: A process model. Human Relations, 62(1), 27–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726708099836 Salerno, A., Laran, J., & Janiszewski, C. (2015). Pride and regulatory behav- ior: The influence of appraisal information and self-regulatory goals. Journal of Consumer Research, 42(3), 499–514. https://doi.org/10 .1093/jcr/ucv037 Stammerjohan, C., Wood, C. M., Chang, Y., & Thorson, E. (2005). An em- pirical investigation of the interaction between publicity, advertising, and previous brand attitudes and knowledge. Journal of Advertising, 34(4), 55–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2005.10639209 Stumpp, T., Hülsheger, U. R., Muck, P. M., & Maier, G. W. (2009). Expand- ing the link between core self-evaluations and affective job attitudes. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 18(2), 148–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320802281110 Thwaites, D., Lowe, B., Monkhouse, L. L., & Barnes, B. R. (2012). The im- pact of negative publicity on celebrity ad endorsements. Psychology & Marketing, 29(9), 663–673. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20552 Van Hoye, G., & Lievens, F. (2005). Recruitment-related information sources and organizational attractiveness: Can something be done about neg- ative publicity? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 13(3), 179–187. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2005.00313.x Van Hoye, G. (2013). Recruiting through employee referrals: An examination of employees’ motives. Human performance, 26(5), 451–464. https: //doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2013.836199 https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12097 https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12097 https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 https://doi.org/10.1177/014920638601200408 https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726708099836 https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucv037 https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucv037 https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2005.10639209 https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320802281110 https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20552 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2005.00313.x https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2013.836199 https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2013.836199 Abed and Büttgen / Journal of Business Strategies (2022) 39:1-32 31 Verbeke, W., Belschak, F., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2004). The adaptive conse- quences of pride in personal selling. Journal of the Academy of Mar- keting Science, 32(4), 386–402. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092010304 267105 Wang, A. (2006). When synergy in marketing communication online en- hances audience response: The effects of varying advertising and product publicity messages. Journal of Advertising Research, 46(2), 160–170. https://doi.org/10.2501/S0021849906060181 Wangenheim, F. v., & Baón, T. (2007). The chain from customer satisfaction via word-of-mouth referrals to new customer acquisition. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35(2), 233–249. https://doi.org/1 0.1007/s11747-007-0037-1 Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory. Research in Organizational Behavior, 18(1), 1–74. Wolny, J., & Mueller, C. (2013). Analysis of fashion consumers’ motives to engage in electronic word-of-mouth communication through social media platforms. Journal of Marketing Management, 29(5-6), 562– 583. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2013.778324 Woo, H., Jung, S., & Jin, B. E. (2020). How far can brands go to defend themselves? the extent of negative publicity impact on proactive con- sumer behaviors and brand equity. Business Ethics: A European Re- view, 29(1), 193–211. https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12246 Yoon, Y., Gürhan-Canli, Z., & Schwarz, N. (2006). The effect of corporate so- cial responsibility (csr) activities on companies with bad reputations. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(4), 377–390. https://doi.org/1 0.1207/s15327663jcp1604 9 Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral consequences of service quality. Journal of marketing, 60(2), 31–46. https://doi.org/1251929 Zhao, H., Wayne, S., Glibkowski, B., & Bravo, J. (2007). The impact of psychological contract breach on work-related outcomes: A meta- analysis. Personnel Psychology, 60(3), 647–680. https://doi.org/10 .1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00087.x Zhou, L., & Whitla, P. (2013). How negative celebrity publicity influences consumer attitudes: The mediating role of moral reputation. Journal https://doi.org/10.1177/0092010304267105 https://doi.org/10.1177/0092010304267105 https://doi.org/10.2501/S0021849906060181 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-007-0037-1 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-007-0037-1 https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2013.778324 https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12246 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp1604_9 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp1604_9 https://doi.org/1251929 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00087.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00087.x 32 Abed and Büttgen / Journal of Business Strategies (2022) 39:1-32 of Business Research, 66(8), 1013–1020. https://doi.org/10.10146 /j.jbusres.2011.12.025 Zhu, D.-H., & Chang, Y.-P. (2013). Negative publicity effect of the busi- ness founder’s unethical behavior on corporate image: Evidence from China. Journal of Business Ethics, 117(1), 111–121. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10551-012-1512-2 https://doi.org/10.10146/j.jbusres.2011.12.025 https://doi.org/10.10146/j.jbusres.2011.12.025 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1512-2 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1512-2 Introduction Theoretical Background Linking perceived negative corporate brand publicity and emotional corporate brand pride Linking perceived negative corporate brand publicity, WOM and employee referrals Linking emotional corporate brand pride and attitudinal corporate brand pride Linking attitudinal corporate brand pride and WOM/Employee referrals Linking corporate brand experience through internal/external communications and perceived negative corporate brand publicity Linking corporate brand experience through internal/external communications and emotional corporate brand pride Method Sample and Procedure Measures Analysis Results Discussion Limitations and implications for further research Practical Implications