Are they willing to work for you? An employee-centric view to employer brand attractiveness

Abstract

Purpose
The present study aims to propose a novel employee-centric framework for the study of employer brand attractiveness. This framework disentangles the role of employer attributes, employee benefits and employee perceived value in the study of employer brands to better develop policies for talent attraction. Additionally, this study formulates a research agenda to help advance an employee-centric view of the employer’s brand management by following the tradition of customer-centric research and identifying benefits and forms of value that are yet unexplored.

Design/methodology/approach
This paper performs a systematic and critical review of the literature on employer brand attraction from the lens of means-end chains to examine how the notions of “employer attributes”, “employee benefits” and “perceived value” have been addressed in past studies and what relations have been established among these three concepts.

Findings
The results unveil the existing conflation among attributes, benefits and value in the conceptualization of employer brand attractiveness. By proposing an employee-centric framework following the tenets of current consumer-centric paradigms, this paper disentangles the notions of attributes, benefits and value in the creation of attractive employer brands; establishes a hierarchical relationship among them; and suggests studying the multiple paths of relationships between attributes and benefits. These conditions should help organizations understand how to create successful strategies to ultimately ensure that they are selected as employers of choice.

Research limitations/implications
Further research is needed to clarify the domains in which the already studied empirical relations hold. This could be achieved by conducting a laddering process based on a means–end chain approach. Additionally, the impact of this framework on the construction of effective value propositions and employee market segmentation should be further explored.

Originality/value
This paper has revisited the construct of employer brand from a means–ends approach to propose an employee-centric view guiding employer brand strategies. As competition for the best employees sharpens, understanding how employer brand traits are valued in the eyes of different segments of employees and applicants may help organizations to develop more effective strategies to attract the best talent.

Full text

Are they willing to work for you? An
employee-centric view to employer
brand attractiveness
Lorena Ronda and Carmen Valor
Marketing, Universidad Pontificia Comillas, Madrid, Spain, and
Carmen Abril
Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Pozuelo de Alarcon, Spain
Abstract
Purpose –The present study aims to propose a novel employee-centric framework for the study of employer brand attractiveness. This
framework disentangles the role of employer attributes, employee benefits and employee perceived value in the study of employer brands to
better develop policies for talent attraction. Additionally, this study formulates a research agenda to help advance an employee-centric view of
the employer’s brand management by following the tradition of customer-centric research and identifying benefits and forms of value that are yet
unexplored.
Design/methodology/approach –This paper performs a systematic and critical review of the literature on employer brand attraction from the lens
of means-end chains to examine how the notions of “employer attributes”,“employee benefits”and “perceived value”have been addressed in
past studies and what relations have been established among these three concepts.
Findings –The results unveil the existing conflation among attributes, benefits and value in the conceptualization of employer brand attractiveness.
By proposing an employee-centric framework following the tenets of current consumer-centric paradigms, this paper disentangles the notions of
attributes, benefits and value in the creation of attractive employer brands; establishes a hierarchical relationship among them; and suggests
studying the multiple paths of relationships between attributes and benefits. These conditions should help organizations understand how to create
successful strategies to ultimately ensure that they are selected as employers of choice.
Research limitations/implications –Further research is needed to clarify the domains in which the already studied empirical relations hold. This
could be achieved by conducting a laddering process based on a means–end chain approach. Additionally, the impact of this framework on the
construction of effective value propositions and employee market segmentation should be further explored.
Originality/value –This paper has revisited the construct of employer brand from a means–ends approach to propose an employee-centric
view guiding employer brand strategies. As competition for the best employees sharpens, understanding how employer brand traits are valued
in the eyes of different segments of employees and applicants may help organizations to develop more effective strategies to attract the best
talent.
Keywords Literature review, Employer brand, Employee benefits, Employee attraction, Employer of choice, Means-end chain
Paper type Literature review
Introduction
The concept of employer attractiveness has grown in
importance in an economy where organizations compete to
attract the best employees (Ewing et al.,2002). Building a
strong employer brand generates favourable attitudes in
potential employees (Berthon et al.,2005), which in turn allows
companies to achieve a sustainable competitive advantage in
the labour market as they differentiate themselves from
competitors. Previous studies have evidenced that companies
with stronger employer brands than their competitors can
potentially improve firm performance (Kashive and Khanna,
2017), reduce the cost of employee acquisition, improve
employee relations, increase employee retention, offer lower
salaries to comparable staff in firms with weaker employer
brands (Ritson, 2002) and even reduce employees’turnover
intentions (Alniacik et al., 2011), thereby increasing
their willingness to stay within the firm (Ambler and Barrow,
1996;Tanwar and Prasad, 2017).
Academic interest in employer brands has mirrored
corporate interest. Whilst authors have used several terms to
address the concept –i.e. “employer attractiveness”(Berthon
et al.,2005), “recruitment image”(Gatewood et al.,1993)or
“employer brand image”(Rampl and Kenning, 2014)–this
study uses the term “employer brand”,defined as “the package
of functional, economic and psychological benefits provided by
employment, and identified with the employing company”
(Ambler and Barrow, 1996, p. 187, emphasis added).
Although the employer brand is defined as a constellation of
benefits, it has been traditionally studied as a network of job and/
or organization attributes (Chapman et al.,2005). However,
benefits and attributes are two distinct concepts. Attributes
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on
Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/1061-0421.htm
Journal of Product & Brand Management
27/5 (2018) 573–596
© Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421]
[DOI 10.1108/JPBM-07-2017-1522]
573

reside in the product, while benefits reside in the customer
(Zeithaml, 1988). As a first level, employer attributes are
employer-extrinsic traits set by companies that constitute an
organization’s offering to employees. A few examples of
employer attributes include salary, working hours, promotion
opportunities and available training. Research has shown that a
stronger predictor of job pursuit is not attributes themselves but
employees’interpretation of how these attributes can satisfy
their own goals (Chapman et al.,2005). These interpretations
that result from employer attributes are the employee benefits
(Zeithaml, 1988;Vriens and Hofstede, 2000). In other words,
although job and/or organizational attributes are an important
element of the employer brand offering, the benefits that
employees obtain from these attributes are more important in
predicting actual employer choice. Finally, the bundle of
employee benefits that would allow employees to achieve their
higher needs, desires or goals (Gutman, 1982) represents the
third level, the employee perceived value.
The distinction of these three levels suggests that it is
important to better understand employer brand attractiveness,
as it is necessary to acknowledge not only which employer
brand attributes are relevant but also the employee benefits and
perceived value derived from them. Employer attributes should
be chosen based on the benefits sought by employees rather
than vice versa. Therefore, this paper proposes a novel
employee-centric framework by shifting the perspective from
employer attributes to employee benefits and perceived value;
this shift is similar to that observed in consumer marketing,
where a product-centric view evolved to become a customer-
centric one (Zeithaml, 1988;Vargo and Lusch, 2004;Chen
et al.,2017). Only by studying the benefits sought by employees
and their perceived value can companies understand the goals
underlying employees’demands for certain employer attributes
and thus develop brand value propositions to satisfy employees’
needs.
The triad of attributes, benefits and perceived value, as well
as the exploration of the relationships between these three
notions, is a useful analytical tool in this endeavour. The
present study first revisits the literature on employer brand
attraction to critically examine how these three notions
(employer attributes, employee benefits and perceived value)
have been studied in the literature, including the relationship
among them. As a result of the critical comparison between the
tenets of means–ends analysis and past studies, a set of
propositions is articulated to study employer brands with an
employee-centric view.
The present study aims to answer the following research
questions:
RQ1. Which employer attributes, employee benefits and
employee perceived value have been addressed in the
study of employer brand attractiveness?
RQ2. What relationship has the literature established among
these sets of variables?
This paper contributes to the literature in two ways. First, it
proposes a novel employee-centric framework for the study of
employer brands that disentangles the notions of attributes,
benefits and value in the creation of attractive employer
brands and establishes a hierarchical relationship among
them as a necessary condition for organizations to ultimately
be selected as employers of choice. Additionally, in contrast
to the assumption found in past research, this study shows
that there are multiple path relationships between attributes
and benefits: a single employer attribute can generate many
different employee benefits and perceived value for each
individual depending on his or her personal goals; conversely,
asinglebenefit or perceived value form can arise not only
from one but from many employer attributes for each
employee depending on preferences and personal
characteristics. Second, this paper formulates a research
agenda to help advance an employee-centric view of brand
management for employers by following the tradition of
customer-centric research, identifying benefits and forms of
value that are yet unexplored and examining the
compensatory strategies used by future employees.
Furthermore, the proposed employee-centric lens responds
to calls for frameworks (Moroko and Uncles, 2009;Alniacik
and Alniacik, 2012;King et al.,2017) to manage the
employee market segmentation problem by developing new
employee segmentation models; in particular, we propose the
use of benefits and value as a basis for segmentation.
Method
To answer the research questions, the employer attributes,
employee benefits and employee perceived value that have been
studied and measured in the literature will be critically analysed
in order to describe how these three concepts have been
addressed in existing research and the relationships that have
been established among them. Following the procedure of
Saleem and Iglesias (2016),a literature search was conducted
with 14 employer branding-related keywords used in a recent
literature review by Theurer et al. (2016) (i.e. EITHER: “brand
equity”,“recruit* equity”,“employ* brand*”,“employ*
image”,“employ* reputation”,“employ* identity”,“employ*
advertising”,“employ* value proposition”,“work* brand*”,
“work* image”,“work* reputation”,“work* identity”,“work*
advertising”,“work* value proposition”). The keyword
“employ* attractiveness”was also included in the search due to
its wide use in the literature as a synonym for “employer brand
attractiveness”(Backhaus and Tikoo, 2004;Berthon et al.,
2005;Tuzuner and Yuksel, 2009). The keywords were always
searched in combination with one or more of the four HRM-
related terms (i.e. AND: “human resource*”,“HRM”,
“recruit*”,“retention”)in the Google Scholar database
(Theurer et al.,2016), and a confirmatory search was
performed using the same keywords in the Web of Science
database. These terms were chosen to capture the entire
spectrum of the literature covering any dimension of the
“employer brand”and the literature covering “employer
branding”strategies. A total of 249 papers published in English
in double-blind peer-reviewed academic journals (Podsakoff
et al.,2005) between 1993 and 2016 were obtained.
The 249 papers were initially screened and selected based on
the relevance of their contribution to the measurement of
employee perceived value or employee attraction to employer
brands. Therefore, articles analysing employer brand
performance/outcomes were disregarded for the purposes of
this study. Following the procedure of Podsakoff et al. (2005)
Lorena Ronda, Carmen Valor and Carmen Abril
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 27 · Number 5 · 2018 · 573–596
574

and Theurer et al. (2016), conference papers were not included
in the study. Additionally, papers studying employee retention
and internal marketing were disregarded because the scope of
this study is limited to employee attraction and prospective
employees’perceived value of employer brands. A total of 85
articles studying the different employee-based sources of value
(attributes, benefits and value) that create a strong employer
brand were selected for in-depth review.
Although researchers have addressed the sources of
employee attraction in recent decades, the first article featuring
the term “employer brand”was published in 1996 by Ambler
and Barrow, and since then, interest in the area has
progressively grown, with 2011-2016 being the period during
which the greatest number of employer brand papers were
published (52 per cent of published articles) (see Table I for a
description of sampled papers). This result shows the
increasing academic activity around this topic, probably
reflecting practitioners’concern about the blurring of the
margins between the internal and external environments of
organizations (Balmer and Gray, 2003). Additionally, only 4
per cent of the articles (3) analysed are literature reviews, which
explains the lack of studies that offer a holistic view of how to
measure employer brand attractiveness and that provide an
integrated framework to do so.
The 85 selected papers were read in their entirety to classify
each of the employer attributes and employee benefits that each
paper analyses. Therefore, the employer brand variables used
in each of the 85 selected papers to measure employer
attractiveness were subsequently classified into attributes and
benefits. Variables measuring objective traits and job
characteristics that companies have control over were classified
as attributes, whilst variables measuring the consequences of
these traits for employees were considered benefits. Similar
attributes and similar benefits were grouped into a total of 18
groups of attributes (Appendix 1) and 10 groups of benefits
(Appendix 2). Additionally, the six existing articles that group
attributes and benefits into value dimensions were also
analysed, and ten value dimensions were identified in them
(Appendix 3).
Results
As shown in Table II, the conducted literature review reveals
that the study of attributes has captured most of the attention of
researchers when analysing the strength of employer brands. Of
the analysed papers, 99 per cent consider at least one attribute
as a variable for explaining employee attraction, whilst 65 per
cent of papers consider at least one employee benefit.
As Table II also shows, the majority of studies (62 per cent)
mix both attributes and benefits, treating them as variables
belonging to the same set rather than as distinct concepts.
Moreover, 36 per cent of articles study attributes as the only
direct source of employee attraction, whilst only 1 paper
(Shankar and Bhatnagar, 2010) considers only benefit variables
when measuring employee attraction (in this case, it measures
the impact of only a single benefit, work–family balance).
Thus, the literature has privileged the study of employer
attributes to the detriment of studying the benefits. The same
can be said regarding perceived value: only 7 per cent of
analysed papers address this concept. In what follows, past
studies will be critically reviewed from the lens of means–end
chain theory to assess the extent to which an employee-centric
perspective is used in the study of employer brands. Before
analysis of the literature, a succinct explanation of the means–
ends chain approach will be provided.
Means–end chain approach applied to employer brands
In the consumer literature, brand knowledge structures are
organized into means-end chains containing associations or
connections between product attributes, benefits, and personal
goals or values (Gutman, 1982;Bagozzi and Dabholkar, 1994;
Graeff, 1997). Products that provide self-relevant benefits for
those who use them have stronger effects on creating brand
attitudes than other products do (MacInnis and Jaworski,
1989).
Zeithaml’s (1988) mean–ends chain approach has been
applied in consumer research to disentangle attributes from
benefits and value and to understand the hierarchical
relationship among these three notions. Zeithaml (1988,p.3)
explained how consumers organize product information at
Table I Literature review: descriptive statistics (n= 85)
Year 1996 1997-2000 2001-2005 2006-2010 2011-2016
Number of papers 4 5
(%) 4 6
Discipline HR Management
Number of papers 27 27
(%) 32
Region North America
44
52
Education
1
1
Not region focused
Number of papers 14
(%) 16
Industry sector
19
22
Psychology
13
15
East Asia, Australia
and Africa
4
5
Other Not sector focused
Number of papers 7 60
(%) 8 71
Method Conceptual Literature review
Number of papers 5 3
(%)
32
Europe
29
34
Public, care and military
11
13
Quantitative
67
79
19
22
Professional services
and banks
4
5
Mixed methods
7
8
14
16
Marketing
17
20
Middle East and South
Asia
19
22
Industrial and chemical
3
4
Qualitative
3
46 4
Lorena Ronda, Carmen Valor and Carmen Abril
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 27 · Number 5 · 2018 · 573–596
575

various levels of abstraction. These levels range from product
attributes (objective traits offered by a firm) to consumer
benefits (benefits that consumers obtain from the attributes)
and finally to perceived value (individual payoff of the product
to the consumer). Zeithaml (1988, p. 14) defined “value”as
“the consumer’s overall assessment of the utility of a product
based on perceptions of what is received and what is given,”
which means that the product offering the highest perceived
value is the one chosen by the consumer. This view posits
“perceived value”as a construct that can be measured by
asking respondents to rate the value obtained when making
their purchases (Sánchez-Fernández and Iniesta-Bonillo,
2007). Subsequent research (Holbrook, 1994;Woodruff,
1997)defined perceived value as a relativistic preference
experience; value arises from consumers’evaluation of product
attributes as adequate means to achieve relevant goals.
Woodruff’s (1997) value hierarchy model, which also
recognizes attributes, consequences (benefits), goals and value,
incorporates the idea of consumer value changing over time
due to variations in consumers’perceptions, preferences and
evaluations throughout their life stages.
The means–end chain model helps identify existing links
between employer brand attributes, employee benefits and
employee value, thus explaining how consumers are more
persuaded by what they think the brands can do for them –
benefits –than by the characteristics of the brand –attributes
(Vriens and Hofstede, 2000).
As we demonstrate in the next section, past literature has
extensively studied employer brand attributes rather than
employee benefits and perceived value. Employer brand
attributes are those objective traits of the job or organizational
characteristics that companies offer, whilst employee benefits
are the consequences of those attributes that satisfy specific
employee goals, representing a higher level in the value
hierarchy. This focus on attributes may represent a potential
limitation since different forms of perceived value may arise
from the same set of attributes given that benefits and value are
ideographically appraised by recipients (Holbrook, 1999).
Thus, employer brand attributes and employee benefits cannot
be regarded as the same factor when studying their impact on
employee attraction. Therefore, adopting a means-end chain
approach in employer brand research should aid in
understanding the hierarchical relationship among attributes,
benefits and perceived value:
P1.Employers should adopt an employee-centric view
distinguishing employer brand attributes and employee
benefits when measuring employer brand attractiveness
since attributes and benefits belong to different levels of
abstraction in the value hierarchy model.
Employer brand attributes
Consumer scholarship has defined attributes as directly
observable characteristics of a product or service (Zeithaml,
1988;Vriens and Hofstede, 2000) that can be objectively
measured and controlled by organizations (Lefkoff-Hagius and
Mason, 2016). Together, these attributes compose the final
offering the company launches to the market. In employer
brands, attributes refer to concrete offerings from employers to
employees, such as salary, healthcare provision, working hours,
training or frequent travel. As reflected in Appendix 1, the
employer brand attributes considered when analysing
employee attraction can be classified into 18 groups and
grouped into 4 categories: organizational attributes, job
attributes, workplace attributes and corporate social
responsibility (CSR) attributes (Table II).
Table II Number and percentage of papers analysing attributes and
benefits
Attributes and benefits analysed in literature No. (%)
Analysing at least one attribute 84 99
Analysing at least one benefit54 64
Analysing at least one perceived value form 67
Analysing attributes only 31 62
Analysing benefits only 11
Analysing both attributes and benefits 53 62
Employer attributes
Organizational attributes
Organizational characteristics 43 51
Organizational traits and personality 37 44
Type of employee-employer relationships 22 26
Organizational culture and values 10 12
Job attributes
Base salary and total compensation 57 67
Career characteristics 32 38
Security of the contract 21 25
Work variety 16 19
Task demands 16 19
Employee education and training offering 14 16
Flexibility and working hours 12 14
Travel and international exposure 10 12
Teamwork activities 78
Workplace attributes
Work environment 20 24
Workplace location 12 14
CSR attributes
Social responsibility and ethical practices 27 32
Quality of products and services 13 15
Diversity 89
Employee benefits
Functional benefits
Self-growth 18 21
Convenience 14 16
Experiential benefits
Challenges and creativity enhancement 19 22
Agreeable, fun or exciting work 18 21
Social relationships 18 21
Feelings of appreciation and support 17 20
Fit with the organizational identity 911
Symbolic and psychological benefits
Pride from membership 20 24
Self-esteem enhancement 15 18
Belonging, direction and purpose 78
Lorena Ronda, Carmen Valor and Carmen Abril
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 27 · Number 5 · 2018 · 573–596
576

1Organizational attributes: General corporate image and
traits, including variables related to organizational
characteristics, organizational traits and personality, type
of employee–employer relationships and organizational
culture and values.
2Job attributes: Traits that relate to a specific job offering
and that would be experienced only by employees in that
position (variables related to base salary and total
compensation, career characteristics, security of the
contract, work variety, flexibility and working hours,
travel and international exposure, task demands,
teamwork activities and employee education and training
offering).
3Workplace attributes: Traits related to the infrastructure,
sensorial and aesthetics of the work location, including
both workplace location and work environment
characteristics.
4CSR attributes: Traits that reflect the involvement of the
company in environmental, social and community issues
(variables related to social responsibility and ethical
practices, quality of products and services and diversity).
As shown in Table II,base salary and total compensation is the
most studied attribute in the literature, followed by
organizational characteristics and organizational traits and
personality. The study of attributes has not been holistic and
homogeneous across papers. Most articles (20 per cent)
examined the impact of a single employer attribute on employer
brand attractiveness, followed by 16 per cent of papers that
focused on two attributes. Only 5 per cent of papers analysed
10 attribute groups or more, with 14 being the maximum
number of groups of attributes studied in one paper
(Demagalhaes et al., 2011). In sum, past research has focused
extensively on the first element of the triad, building extensive
knowledge of the repertoire of attributes that companies can
use to create their offering.
Economic theory suggests that consumers select products for
the utility or benefit provided rather than for their observable
physical characteristics (Ratchford, 1975;Lefkoff-Hagius and
Mason, 2016). This assumption could also be applied to the
labour market. Employees do not value employer attributes for
themselves but for the benefits they will obtain from receiving
them. Therefore, to create a stronger employment offering,
organizations must understand and measure prospective
employees’appraisals of employer attributes.
P2.Employees select their employer brand of choice for the
utility or benefit received from employer attributes rather
than for the employer attributes themselves.
Employee benefits
Benefits are the result or consequence of a consumer
interacting with a product’s attributes (Zeithaml, 1988;Vriens
and Hofstede, 2000), and they represent a means for employees
to obtain certain benefits that satisfy their goals (Spreng et al.,
1996;Vriens and Hofstede, 2000).
As reflected in Appendix 2, the employee benefits considered
when analysing employer attractiveness can be classified into
ten categories, grouped into three types: functional benefits,
experiential benefits and symbolic or psychological benefits
(see Table II and Appendix 2 for a more detailed analysis).
1Functional benefits: Items obtained from attributes
providing convenience, such as salary, geographical
proximity to the employer and a flexible schedule, as well
as self-growth benefits, such as gaining professional skills.
2Experiential benefits: Benefits related to having an agreeable,
fun and exciting work environment, having challenging and
creative tasks, holding good social relationships with
colleagues and supervisors, having a good fit with the
organizational identity (feeling emotionally connected and
represented by the brand) and perceiving that the
organization appreciates and supports its employees.
3Symbolic or psychological benefits: Benefits related to the
pride from membership in the organization, self-esteem
enhancement and feelings of belonging, direction and purpose.
As Table II shows, pride from membership is the most studied
benefit in the literature, followed by challenges and creativity
enhancement and agreeable, fun or exciting work environment.
Two main problems arise when measuring employee
benefits. First, although benefits under Ambler and Barrow’s
(1996) definition are regarded as central to a captivating
employer brand, past research has mixed both benefits and
attributes by addressing them as part of an encompassing
category of traits. For example, the employee value proposition
proposed by a number of authors includes attributes such as
salary, flexibility or training labelled “employee benefits”
(Turban et al., 1993;Lievens, 2007;Baum and Kabst, 2012).
However, following the distinction established by Zeithaml
(1988), salary, flexibility or training represent descriptive
employer attributes. A construct such as “employee
development”has been measured through a number of
variables comprising objective employer attributes, such as
training opportunities and implementing innovative practices,
but also subjective employee benefits, such as feeling more self-
confident or gaining certain abilities that employees can take
elsewhere (Berthon et al., 2005;Roy, 2008;Pingle and Sharma,
2013). These “mixed”approaches prevent an adequate
understanding of employee choices.
Second, these “mixed”approaches have led to the
measurement of certain dimensions of the employer brand
through attributes instead of focusing on the benefits that
consumers obtain from these attributes. Specifically, 36 per
cent of papers did not consider any benefit when measuring
employer brands; one-fourth focused on the impact of a single
benefit on employee attraction, followed by 13 per cent of
papers that analysed the impact of two benefits. Only 4 per cent
of papers examined 8 groups of benefits, with 8 being the
maximum groups of benefits studied at the same time
(Demagalhaes et al.,2011). Therefore, employee benefit
dimensions are underexplored compared to employer brand
attributes, which are unexplored. Examples of understudied
benefits include those arising from organizational attributes,
such as having above-average pay (e.g. the ability to afford
better vacations, pay for children’s studies or buy luxury goods
that provide a higher status), or those arising from CSR
attributes (e.g. feeling good about contributing to a
humanitarian cause or wanting to take care of the community).
These benefits have not yet been addressed when measuring
Lorena Ronda, Carmen Valor and Carmen Abril
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 27 · Number 5 · 2018 · 573–596
577

employer brand attractiveness; only the attributes “does the
company offer CSR practices”and “does the company offer an
above-average salary”have been studied. Not addressing
employees’motivation behind their demands for these
attributes means that it is not possible to identify the personal
benefits employees aim to obtain from them.
The relationship between attributes and benefits becomes
complex when studied from the lens of the means–end chain: a
single employer attribute may provide different benefits
depending on its relationship with the employee’s goals;
likewise, a single benefit may be obtained through the offering
of different employer attributes. For example, the employer
attribute of “pay”can provide the benefit of stability to
employees, which creates functional value for them, but the
benefit of stability can also be achieved by other attributes, such
as a long-term contract. Similarly, “salary”can provide
different employee benefits, such as prestige or a more positive
self-image, thereby contributing to self-concept value (Sirgy,
1982). The more tightly a brand is linked to various elements of
employees’means–end structures and the more personal
relevance it has, the more likely the brand is to be preferred and
chosen (Vriens and Hofstede, 2000).
The current literature on employer brand attractiveness does
not follow this tenet, as it has been assumed that there are
unique, reciprocal relationships between attributes and benefits
such that an attribute provides only one type of benefit. Again,
the attribute “pay”is always classified as a source of functional
benefits related to purchase power (Highhouse et al.,1999;
Backhaus and Tikoo, 2004;Agrawal and Swaroop, 2009;
Alniacik and Alniacik, 2012;Arachchige and Robertson, 2013;
Jain and Bhatt, 2015) even though it could also represent a
source of feelings of prestige, appreciation or self-worth:
P3.A single employer brand attribute may contribute to
different types of employer brand benefits.
P4. A single employer brand benefit may be obtained from
the implementation of different employer brand
attributes.
Employee perceived value
Only six papers have studied the notion of employee perceived
value (Appendix 3). Berthon et al. (2005) was the first to study
this dimension, proposing the employer attractiveness
(EmpAt) scale, which differentiates five types of employee
value arising from employer brands:
1Social value: This refers to whether the employee perceives
that the employer provides a working environment with
fun, happy and good collegial relationships and an
agreeable team atmosphere.
2Development value: This refers to whether the employee
perceives that the employer provides recognition, self-
worth and confidence, a career-enhancing experience and
a springboard to future employment.
3Application value: This refers to whether the employee
perceives that the employer provides an opportunity for
the employee to apply what he or she has learned and to
teach others in an environment that is both customer
oriented and humanitarian.
4Interest value: This refers to whether the employee
perceives that the employer provides an exciting work
environment and novel work practices and that makes use
of employees’creativity to produce high-quality,
innovative products and services.
5Economic value: This refers to whether the employee
perceives that the employer provides above-average salary,
compensation packages, job security and promotion
opportunities.
Subsequent research (Jiang and Iles, 2011;Biswas and Suar,
2013;Pingle and Sharma, 2013) enriched the EmpAt model
with five additional value dimensions:
6Market value (Alniacik and Alniacik, 2012): This refers to
whether the employee perceives that the employer
produces innovative and high-quality products and
services, whether it is customer-oriented and whether it
offers the opportunity to apply what was learned at a
tertiary institution.
7Cooperation value (Alniacik and Alniacik, 2012): This
refers to whether the employee perceives that the
employer offers hands-on inter-departmental experience
and has supportive and encouraging colleagues.
8Psychological value (Roy, 2008;Sivertzen et al., 2013):
This refers to whether the employee perceives that the
employer will make them feel good, appreciated and
recognized and will enhance their self-esteem.
9Ethical value (Roy, 2008): This refers to whether the
employee perceives that the employer is an ethical
organization.
10 Innovation value (Sivertzen et al., 2013): This refers to
whether the employee perceives that the employer
produces innovative and high-quality products and
services, implements novel practices and is forward
thinking.
Two main problems arise when measuring each of the
perceived value dimensions. First, some authors (Berthon et al.,
2005;Roy, 2008;Alniacik and Alniacik, 2012;Tanwar and
Prasad, 2016) have successfully proposed models that combine
different sets of employer traits into separate employee
perceived value dimensions, such as economic value, social
value or interest value. However, in these cases, the confusion
between attributes and benefits is still present, as both
employer attributes and employee benefits are analysed
simultaneously when they should be studied separately to
properly understand their effects on employee choice. For
example, the broadly used EmpAt scale (Berthon et al., 2005;
Arachchige and Robertson, 2011;Arachchige and Robertson,
2013;Sivertzen et al.,2013) simultaneously measures employer
attributes (salary, promotion, job security) and employee
benefits (having fun at work, feeling more self-confident,
feeling accepted). A clear example of this is the dimension of
development value, which arises from key employee benefits
(career-enhancing experience, feeling good about oneself,
feeling more self-confident, feeling accepted, achieving
recognition, having good self-worth and confidence), as well as
from key employer attributes (hands-on inter-departmental
experience, novel work practices, job security or the production
of innovative products and services).
Lorena Ronda, Carmen Valor and Carmen Abril
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 27 · Number 5 · 2018 · 573–596
578

Second, there is no consensus about which benefits
contribute to each form of value. For example, the benefitof
the “feeling of recognition and appreciation”has been classified
into the value dimensions of development value by Berthon
et al. (2005), social value by Alniacik and Alniacik (2012) and
psychological value by Roy (2008). Moreover, some attributes,
such as “offering high-quality products”, have been classified
into different value dimensions by different authors: interest
value by Berthon et al. (2005), market value by Alniacik and
Alniacik (2012), and application value by Pingle and Sharma
(2013). Therefore, there is currently no accurate, agreed-upon
taxonomy of perceived value forms in the field of employer
brands.
Scholars have often experienced difficulties in
conceptualizing value because it is an abstract concept with
different meanings (Zeithaml, 1988;Rao and Monroe, 1989;
Dodds et al., 1991;Lai, 1995;Woodruff, 1997). The approach
followed in this study corresponds to what is understood as
“perceived value”or “consumer value”, as it refers to the
possession and consumption of products and services. The
definition proposed by Zeithaml (1988, p.14) has stood out as
one of the most universally accepted definitions of perceived
value: “perceived value is the consumer’s overall assessment of
the utility of a product based on the perceptions of what is
received and what is given”. This conceptualization has
influenced a stream of literature based on the “get-versus-give”
trade-off; the brand offering the highest perceived value is the
one chosen by the consumer.
Individuals desire goods because they represent a means to
obtain services or states such as happiness, security or
accomplishment (Gutman, 1982); therefore, what employees
look for in the attributes of an employment offering are also the
benefits that these attributes can render for them and that meet
their needs, desires and goals. We can therefore define
employee perceived value as the bundle of employee benefits
that allows employees to achieve a higher need, desire or goal.
Owning, showing or experiencing employer attributes can
provide satisfaction beyond that associated with the basic
employment offering; thus, employers ought to adapt
employment attributes to their unique needs, situation and
behaviours in the same manner that consumers do when using
products (Oliver et al., 1997;Vargo and Lusch, 2004).
Therefore, the notion of “job offering”is considered wider than
that of salary and employment benefits and includes “ideas,
events, or any other entities that can be acquired, used, or
disposed in ways that potentially provide value”(Holbrook,
1987, p. 128).
Perceived value in employer brands can be characterized by
being a personal and relativistic preference experience
(Zeithaml, 1988;Holbrook, 1994;Woodruff, 1997), whereby
employees evaluate attributes and consequences as a means to
achieve their own goals; (ii) involving a comparison among
different offerings (Holbrook, 1999), meaning that employees’
perception of value differs according to the employment
offering being considered; and (iii) being situational in nature
(Zeithaml, 1988;Holbrook, 1994;Woodruff, 1997) such that
perceived value changes over time due to variations in
employees’perceptions, preferences and evaluations in
different stages of their employment journey.
From the lens of a means–end chain, although past research
has identified key value dimensions, consumer research studies
on value have unveiled other forms of value that could apply to
the employer brand domain but have not yet been explored to
date. For instance, forms of value such as ethics and spirituality
(Holbrook, 1999), linking value (Cova, 1997) or self-concept
value (Sirgy, 1982;Belk, 1988) have gone unmentioned in the
employer brand literature.
There is an opportunity to rethink the employer brand model
from the perspective of a consumer means–ends chain by
relying on employee benefits as the most important set of
variables to create employee perceived value as well as to
identify a broader spectrum of value forms:
P5. The perceived value of an employer brand is personal,
relativistic, comparative and situational, as it results from
an assessment of benefits (not attributes) and costs.
Discussion, limitations and avenues for future
research
This study uses the distinction between the notions of
attributes, benefits and perceived value as established in
consumer-centric means–end chain models (Zeithaml, 1988)
as a method to revisit and classify the existing literature on
employer brand attractiveness (see Figure 1). This paper
contributes to the literature in two ways, opening new research
avenues for future studies to address.
First, this paper proposes a novel employee-centric
framework for the study of employer brands that privileges
employee benefits as a direct source of perceived value. The
previous literature has conflated employer attributes, employee
benefits and perceived value in the study of employer brand
attractiveness, obscuring the understanding of what makes a
company an employer of choice. This paper foregrounds the
need to disentangle the role of attributes and benefits, revealing
that attributes may contribute to different benefits and may in
turn provide different forms of value depending on the
individual’s goals and characteristics. Employees may
positively assess many positive organizational attributes;
however, unless these attributes allow them to meet their goals,
value will not be created and the company will not eventually be
chosen. When benefits are conflated with attributes, our
understanding of how an employer brand becomes the
employer of choice is muddled; the chosen employer is the one
providing the benefits sought by prospective employees, which
Figure 1 Means–end chain model adapted to employer brand choice
Lorena Ronda, Carmen Valor and Carmen Abril
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 27 · Number 5 · 2018 · 573–596
579

in turn relies on a phenomenological assessment of
organizational and job traits (Chapman et al.,2005).
Previous literature has implicitly assumed that there are
unique, reciprocal relationships between attributes and benefits
such that an attribute provides only one type of benefitand,
conversely, that a benefit is obtained from a single attribute. We
propose that the understanding of the hierarchical relationships
among attributes, benefits, and value can be significantly
improved through means–end models insofar as they accept
that the same employer brand attribute may provide different
benefits for employees with different goals, therefore revealing
the existence of multiple paths of relationship or chains
between attributes and benefits. Identifying the forms of value
that arise from each employer brand attribute will provide
employers with more flexibility by allowing them to find value-
creating alternatives when they are unable to provide the
specific attribute demanded by employees (i.e. when the
employer is unable to provide frequent travel to candidates
looking for experiential value, the employer can offer an
alternative that creates the same type of experiential value).
The study of employer brand attributes–employee benefits
chains may aid in understanding the compensatory strategies
that potential employees use to make employment-related
decisions and the existing trade-offs among different value
forms. This issue is important and unaddressed in the current
literature. For instance, a potential employee may be willing to
work for a highly ethical organization even if that involves
earning a lower salary, whilst a different individual may be eager
to work at a firm that has an excellent reputation in the market
but that is very demanding in terms of working hours.
Second, this study formulates a research agenda to help
advance an employee-centric view of employer brand
management by following the tradition of customer-centric
research and identifying benefits and forms of value that are yet
unexplored. This paper shows that attributes have been studied
in greater detail than benefits or perceived value; a
comprehensive list of benefits and forms of perceived value in
employer brands is still missing. In particular, an accurate
taxonomy needs to be developed in the field, as the value
dimensions that have been identified are not only incomplete
but also overlapping. Drawing from means-end chain theory,
the employee perceived value that arises from employer brands
could be unveiled following a laddering process. This laddering
process (Zeithaml, 1988;Vriens and Hofstede, 2000) involves
a sequence of in-depth inquiries that force respondents to reach
upward in the ladder of abstraction. Analysing employee
interviews with the laddering method can reveal psychological
benefits that do not arise in interviews or in surveys.
Managerial implications
In the recent 17th Annual Global CEO Survey (PwC, 2013),
93 per cent of the CEOs surveyed said that they recognize the
need to make a change, or that they are already changing, their
employer brand strategies.
The proposed employee-centric view of employer brand
attractiveness contributes to this task with three main
managerial implications for organizations. First, this framework
allows companies to develop an effective employee value
proposition on the basis of the benefits sought and the
perceived value, thus providing a better strategy to attract the
best talent than current strategies that focus on communicating
employer attributes.
Second, this work responds to calls for frameworks that
could help manage the employee market segmentation problem
by accommodating employer brands to different employee
segments (Moroko and Uncles, 2009;Alniacik and Alniacik,
2012) and generational cohorts (King et al.,2017). For
example, benefit types may be the basis for segmenting
applicants so that firms can devise branding strategies targeting
them. These forms of benefits may correlate with other socio-
demographic data, such as age, life cycle and gender, thus
having important managerial implications for the formulation
and implementation of the employee value proposition. For
instance, pay has a different perceived value for employees
seeking their first salary than for those who are at a later stage in
their employment journey. This employee-centric model may
also be useful to acknowledge the different segments and
employee needs among industries. For example, employees in
the design industry may seek more experientially related
benefits than do employees in the oil and gas industry; likewise,
nurses may seek greater forms of spiritual value than financiers.
Third, contexts are relevant, and the benefits sought may
vary depending on the economic, social and cultural
characteristics of the setting. For example, in cultures where
entry-level employees still live with their parents and therefore
have their economic needs provided for, applicants may seek
forms of value other than those sought in countries where
entry-level job seekers must support themselves. Additionally,
the structural conditions of the labour market may condition
the types of benefits sought: in times of labour uncertainty,
employees may value employability and training over security.
Conversely, studies conducted in contexts with limited
unemployment, high demand for skilled work, and greater
employee power to choose cannot be replicated in contexts
with scarce employment opportunities.
In conclusion, this paper has revisited the employer brand
construct from a means–end chain perspective to propose an
employee-centric view guiding employer brand strategies. As
competition for the best employees intensifies, understanding
how employer brand attributes are valued in the eyes of
different segments of employees and applicants may help
organizations to develop more effective strategies to become
employers of choice.
References
Aggerholm, H.K., Andersen, S.E. and Thomsen, C. (2011),
“Conceptualising employer branding in sustainable
organisations”,Corporate Communications: An International
Journal, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 105-123.
Agrawal, R.K. and Swaroop, P. (2009), “Effect of employer
Brand image on application intentions of business school
undergraduates”,Vision: The Journal of Business Perspective,
Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 41-49.
Aiman-Smith, L., Bauer, T.N. and Cable, D.M. (2001), “Are
you attracted? Do you intend to pursue? A recruiting policy-
capturing study”,Journal of Business and Psychology, Bingley,
Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 219-237.
Lorena Ronda, Carmen Valor and Carmen Abril
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 27 · Number 5 · 2018 · 573–596
580

Alniacik, E., Alniacik, U. and Erdogmus, N. (2012), “How do
the dimensions of corporate reputation affect employment
intentions?”Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 15 No. 1,
pp. 3-19.
Alniacik, U., Cigerim, E., Akcin, K. and Bayram, O. (2011),
“Independent and joint effects of perceived corporate
reputation, affective commitment and job satisfaction on
turnover intentions”,Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences, Vol. 24, pp. 1177-1189.
Alniacik, E. and Alniacik, U. (2012), “Identifying dimensions
of attractiveness in employer branding: effects of age, gender,
and current employment status”,Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 58, pp. 1336-1343.
Ambler, T. and Barrow, S. (1996), “The employer Brand”,
Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 185-206.
Arachchige, B.J.H. and Robertson, A. (2011), “Business
student perceptions of a preferred employer: a study
identifying determinants of employer branding”,IUP Journal
of Brand Management, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 25-46.
Arachchige, B.J.H. and Robertson, A. (2013), “Employer
attractiveness: comparative perceptions of undergraduate
and postgraduate students”,Sri Lankan Journal of Human
Resource Management, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 33-48.
Backhaus, K.B., Stone, B.A. and Heiner, K. (2002),
“Exploring the relationship between corporate social
performance and employer attractiveness”,Business &
Society, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 292-318.
Backhaus, K.B. and Tikoo, S. (2004), “Conceptualizing and
researching employer branding”,Career Development
International, Vol. 9 No. 5, pp. 501-517.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Dabholkar, P.A. (1994), “Consumer
recycling goals and their effect on decisions to recycle: a
means-end chain analysis”,Psychology and Marketing,
Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 313-340.
Bakanauskien_
e, I., Bendaravicˇien_
e, R., Krikštolaitis, R. and
Lydeka, Z. (2011), “Discovering an employer branding:
identifying dimensions of employer’s attractiveness in
university”,Management of Organizations: Systematic
Research, Vol. 77 No. 1, pp. 7-23.
Balmer, J.M.T. and Gray, E.R. (2003), “Corporate brand:
what are they? What of them?”,European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 37 Nos 7/8, pp. 972-997.
Baum, M. and Kabst, R. (2012), “How to attract applicants in
the Atlantic vs. the Asia-Pacific region? A cross-national
analysis on China, India, Germany, and Hungary”,Journal of
World Business, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 175-185.
Baum, M. and Kabst, R. (2013), “Conjoint implications on job
preferences: the moderating role of involvement”,The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 24
No. 7, pp. 1393-1417.
Belk, R.W. (1988), “Possessions and the extended self”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 139-169.
Bellou, V., Chaniotakis, I., Kehagias, I. and Rigopoulou, I.
(2015), “Employer brand of choice: an employee
perspective”,Journal of Business Economics and Management,
Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 1201-1215.
Berthon, P., Ewing, M. and Hah, L.L. (2005), “Captivating
company: dimensions of attractiveness in employer
branding”,International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 24 No. 2,
pp. 151-172.
Biswas, M.K. and Suar, D. (2016), “Antecedents and
consequences of employer branding”,Journal of Business
Ethics, Vol. 136 No. 1, pp. 57-72.
Biswas, M.K. and Suar, D. (2013), “Which employees’values
matter most in the creation of employer branding?”Journal of
Marketing Development & Competitiveness, Vol. 7 No. 1,
pp. 93-102.
Bonaiuto, M., De Dominicis, S., Illia, L., Canovas, B.R. and
Lizzani, G. (2013), “Managing employer brand attributes to
attract potential future leaders”,Journal of Brand
Management, Vol. 20 No. 9,pp. 779-792.
Cable, D.M. and Turban, D.B. (2001), “Establishing the
dimensions, sources and value of job seekers’employer
knowledge during recruitment”,Research in Personnel and
Human Resources Management, Vol. 20, Emerald Group
Publishing, Bingley, pp. 115-163.
Cable, D.M. and Turban, D.B. (2003), “The value of
organizational reputation in the recruitment context: a
Brand-equity perspective”,Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, Vol. 33No. 11, pp. 2244-2266.
Chapman, D.S., Uggerslev, K.L., Carroll, S.A., Piasentin, K.
A. and Jones, D.A. (2005), “Applicant attraction to
organizations and job choice: a meta-analytic review of the
correlates of recruiting outcomes”,Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 90No. 5, pp. 928-944. Vol
Chen, Y.M., Liu, H.H. and Chiu, Y.C. (2017), “Customer
benefits and value creation in streaming services marketing: a
managerial cognitive capability approach”,Psychology &
Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 12, pp. 1101-1108.
Chhabra, N.L. and Sharma, S. (2014), “Employer branding:
strategy for improving employer attractiveness”,International
Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 48-60.
Cova, B. (1997), “Community and consumption: towards a
definition of the ‘linking value’of product or services”,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31 Nos 3/4, pp. 297-316.
Davies, G. (2008), “Employer branding and its influence on
managers”,European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 42 Nos 5/6,
pp. 667-681.
Demagalhaes, R., Wilde, H. and Fitzgerald, L.R. (2011),
“Factors affecting accounting students’employment
choices: a comparison of students’and practitioners’views”,
Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice,Vol.11
No. 2, pp. 32-40.
Dodds, W.B., Monroe, K.B. and Grewal, D. (1991), “Effect of
price, Brand and store information on buyers’product
evaluations”,Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 28 No. 3,
pp. 307-319.
Dögl,C.andHoltbrügge,D.(2014),“Corporate environmental
responsibility, employer reputation and employee
commitment: an empirical study in developed and emerging
economies”,The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 25 No. 12, pp. 1739-1762.
Edwards, M.R. (2010), “An integrative review of employer
branding and OB theory”,Personnel Review, Vol. 39 No. 1,
pp. 5-23.
Edwards, M.R. and Edwards, T. (2013), “Employee responses
to changing aspects of the employer Brand following a
multinational acquisition: a longitudinal study”,Human
Resource Management, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 27-54.
Lorena Ronda, Carmen Valor and Carmen Abril
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 27 · Number 5 · 2018 · 573–596
581

Ewing, M.T., Pitt, L.F., De Bussy, N.M. and Berthon, P.
(2002), “Employment branding in the knowledge
economy”,International Journal of Advertising,Vol.21No.1,
pp. 3-22.
Fréchette, J., Bourhis, A. and Stachura, M. (2013), “The
organizational attraction of nursing graduates: using research
to guide employer branding”,The Health Care Manager,
Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 303-313.
Gatewood, R.D., Gowan, M.A. and Lautenschlager, G.J.
(1993), “Corporate image, recruitment image and initial job
choice decisions”,Academy of Management Journal,Vol.36
No. 2, pp. 414-427.
Graeff, C.L. (1997), “Evolution of situational leadership
theory: a critical review”,Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 8 No. 2,
pp. 153-170.
Greening, D. and Turban, D. (2000), “Corporate social
performance as a competitive advantage in attracting a quality
workforce reproduced with permission of the copyright
owner, further reproduction prohibited without permission”,
Business and Society, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 254-280.
Gutman, J. (1982), “A means-end chain model based on
consumer categorisation processes”,Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 60-73.
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, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 542-556.
Highhouse, S., Thornbury, E.E. and Little, I.S. (2007),
“Social-identity functions of attraction to organizations”
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
Vol. 103 No. 1, pp. 134-146.
Highhouse, S., Zickar, M.J., Thorsteinson, T.J., Stierwalt, S.L.
and Slaughter, J.E. (1999), “Assessing company
employment image: an example in the fast food industry”,
Personnel Psychology, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 151-172.
Holbrook, M.B. (1987), “What is consumer research?”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 128-132.
Holbrook, M.B. (1994), “The nature of customer value: an
axiology of services in the consumption context”, in Rust, R.
and Oliver, R.L. (Eds), Service Quality: New Directions in
Theory and Practice, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA,
pp. 21-71.
Holbrook, M.B. (1999), Consumer Value. A Framework for
Analysis and Research,Routledge, London.
Holtbrügge, D., Friedman, C.B. and Puck, J.F. (2010),
“Recruitment and retention in foreign firms in India: a
resource-based view”,Human Resource Management, Vol. 49
No. 3, pp. 439-455.
Ito, J.K., Brotheridge, C.M. and McFarland, K. (2013),
“Examining how preferences for employer branding
attributes differ from entry to exit and how they relate to
commitment, satisfaction, and retention”,Career
Development International, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 732-752.
Jain, N. and Bhatt, P. (2015), “Employment preferences of job
applicants: unfolding employer branding determinants”,Journal
of Management Development, Vol. 34 No. 6, pp. 634-652.
Jiang, T. and Iles, P. (2011), “Employer-brand equity,
organizational attractiveness and talent management in the
Zhejiang private sector, China”,Journal of Technology
Management in China, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 97-110.
Kapoor, V. (2010), “Employer branding: a study of its
relevance in India”,IUP Journal Of Brand Management,
Vol. 7 Nos 1/2, pp. 51-75.
Kashive, N. and Khanna, V.T. (2017), “Study of early
recruitment activities and employer Brand knowledge and its
effect on organization attractiveness and firm performance”,
Global Business Review, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 172-190.
Keeling, K.A., McGoldrick, P.J. and Sadhu, H. (2013), “Staff
word-of-mouth (SWOM) and retail employee recruitment”,
Journal of Retailing, Vol. 89 No. 1, pp. 88-104.
Khan, M.K. and Naseem, I. (2015), “Investigating the power
of employer branding attributes”,American Journal of
Business and Management, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp.49-60.
King, C., Murillo, E. and Lee, H. (2017), “The effects of
generational work values on employee Brand attitude and
behavior: a multi-group analysis”,International Journal of
Hospitality Management, Vol. 66, pp. 92-105.
Knox, S. and Freeman, C. (2006), “Measuring and managing
employer Brand image in the service industry”,Journal of
Marketing Management, Vol. 22 Nos 7/8, pp. 695-716.
Lai, A.W. (1995), “Consumer values, product benefits and
customer value: a consumption behavior approach”,in
Frank, R.K. and Mita, S. (Eds), NA - Advances in Consumer
Research, Vol. 22, Association for Consumer Research,
Provo, UT, pp. 381-388.
Lefkoff-Hagius, R. and Mason, C.H. (2016), “Characteristic,
beneficial, and image attributes in consumer judgments of
similarity and preference”,Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 100-110.
Lemmink, J., Schuijf, A. and Streukens, S. (2003), “The role of
corporate image and company employment image in
explaining application intentions”,Journal of Economic
Psychology, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 1-15.
Lievens, F. (2007), “Employer branding in the Belgian army:
the importance of instrumental and symbolic beliefs for
potential applicants, actual applicants, and military
employees”,Human Resource Management, Vol. 46 No. 1,
pp. 51-69.
Lievens, F., Decaesteker, C., Coetsier, P. and Geirnaert, J.
(2001), “Organizational attractiveness for prospective
applicants: a person organisation fit perspective”,Applied
Psychology, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 30-51.
Lievens, F. and Highhouse, S. (2003), “The relation of
instrumental and symbolic attributes to a company’s
attractiveness as an employer”,Personnel Psychology, Vol. 56
No. 1, pp. 75-102.
Lievens, F., Van Hoye, G. and Anseel, F. (2007),
“Organizational identity and employer image: towards a
unifying framework”,British Journal of Management, Vol. 18
No. 1, pp. 45-59.
Lievens, F., Van Hoye, G. and Schreurs, B. (2005),
“Examining the relationship between employer knowledge
dimensions and organizational attractiveness: an application
in a military context”,Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 78 No. 4, pp. 553-572.
MacInnis, D.J. and Jaworski, B.J. (1989), “Information
processing from advertisements: towards an integrative
framework”,Journal of Marketing, Vol. 53 No. 4, pp. 1-23.
Maxwell, R. and Knox, S. (2009), “Motivating employees to
‘live the Brand’: a comparative case study of employer Brand
Lorena Ronda, Carmen Valor and Carmen Abril
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 27 · Number 5 · 2018 · 573–596
582

attractiveness within the firm”,Journal of Marketing
Management, Vol. 25 Nos 9/10, pp. 893-907.
Moroko, L. and Uncles, M.D. (2009), “Employer branding
and market segmentation”,Journal of Brand Management,
Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 181-196.
Myrden, S.E. and Kelloway, K. (2015), “Young workers’
perception of Brand image: main and moderating effects”,
Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance,
Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 267-281.
Oliver, R., Rust, R. and Varki, S. (1997), “Customer delight:
foundations, findings and managerial insight”,Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 73 No. 3, pp. 311-336.
Pingle, S.S. and Sharma, A. (2013), “External employer
attractiveness: a study of management students in India”,Journal
of Contemporary Management Research, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 78-95.
Pingle, S.S. and Sodhi, H.K. (2016), “What makes an
attractive employer: significant factors from employee
perspective?”,Anvesha, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 18-25.
Podsakoff, P.M., Mackenzie, S.B., Bachrach, D.G. and
Podsakoff, N.P. (2005), “The influence of management
journals in the 1980s and 1990s”,Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 473-488.
Priyadarshi, P. (2011), “Employer Brand image as predictor
of employee satisfaction, affective commitment &
turnover”,Indian Journal of Industrial Relations,Vol.46
No. 3, pp. 510-522.
PwC (2013), The Talent Challenge: Adapting to Growth (17th
Annual Global CEO Survey), PwC, available at: www.pwc.
com/gx/en/hr-management-services/publications/assets/
ceosurvey-talent-challenge.pdf (accessed 19 September
2017).
Rampl, L.V. (2014), “How to become an employer of choice:
transforming employer brand associations into employer
first-choice brands”,Journal of Marketing Management,
Vol. 30 Nos 13/14, pp. pp. 1486-1504.
Rampl, L.V. and Kenning, P. (2014), “Employer brand trust
and affect: linking brand personality to employer brand
attractiveness”,European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 48
Nos 1/2, pp. 218-236.
Rao, A.R. and Monroe, K.B. (1989), “The effect of price,
Brand name, and store name on buyers’perceptions of
product quality: an integrative review”,Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 351-357.
Ratchford, B.T. (1975), “The economic theory of consumer
behavior: an interpretative essay”,Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 65-75.
Ritson, M. (2002), “Marketing and HR collaborate to harness
employer Brand power”,Campaign, 24 October 2002,
available at: www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/opinion-
marketing-hr-collaborate-harness-employer-brand-power/16
2068?src_site=marketingmagazine (accessed 19 September
2017).
Ritz, A. and Waldner, C. (2011), “Competing for future
leaders: a study of attractiveness of public sector
organizations to potential job applicants”,Review of Public
Personnel Administration, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 291-316.
Roy, S.K. (2008), “Identifying the dimensions of attractiveness
of an employer Brand in the Indian context”,South Asian
Journal of Management, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 110-129.
Russell, J. and Havel, S. (2010), “Candidate marketing takes
the guessing game out of choosing employers”,Nursing
Economics, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 195-198.
Saini, G.K., Rai, P. and Chaudhary, M.K. (2014), “What do
best employer surveys reveal about employer branding and
intention to apply?”Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 21
No. 2, pp. 95-111.
Saleem, F.Z. and Iglesias, O. (2016), “Mapping the domain of
the fragmented field of internal branding”,Journal of Product
& Brand Management, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 43-57.
Sánchez-Fernández, R. and Iniesta-Bonillo, M.A. (2007),
“The concept of perceived value: a systematic review of the
research”,Marketing Theory, Vol. 7 No. 4,pp. 427-451.
Schreurs, B., Druart, C., Proost, K. and De Witte, K. (2009),
“Symbolic attributes and organizational attractiveness: the
moderating effects of applicant personality”,International
Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 35-46.
Sirgy, J. (1982), “Self-concept in consumer behavior: a
critical review”,Journal of Consumer Research,Vol.9No.3,
pp. 287-300.
Sengupta, A., Bamel, U. and Singh, P. (2015), “Value
proposition framework: implications for employer
branding”,Decision, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 307-323.
Shankar, T. and Bhatnagar, J. (2010), “Work life balance,
employee engagement, emotional consonance/dissonance &
turnover intention”,The Indian Journal of Industrial Relations,
Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 74-85.
Sivertzen, A.M., Nilsen, E.R. and Olafsen, A.H. (2013),
“Employer branding: employer attractiveness and the use of
social media”,Journal of Product & Brand Management,
Vol. 22 No. 7, pp. 473-483.
Slaughter, J.E. and Greguras, G.J. (2009), “Initial attraction to
organizations: the influence of trait inferences”,International
Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 1-18.
Spreng, R.A., MacKenzie, S.B. and Olshavsky, R.W. (1996),
“A reexamination of the determinants of consumer
satisfaction”,Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60 No. 3, pp. 15-33.
Strobel, M., Tumasjan, A. and Welpe, I. (2010), “Do business
ethics pay off? The influence of ethical leadership on
organizational attractiveness”,Journal of Psychology, Vol. 218
No. 4, pp. 213-224.
Sutherland, M.M., Torricelli, D.G. and Karg, R.F. (2002),
“Employer-of-choice branding for knowledge workers”,
South African Journal of Business Management, Vol. 46 No. 4,
pp. 13-20.
Tanwar,K.andPrasad,A.(2016),“The effect of employer
Brand dimensions on job satisfaction: gender as a moderator”,
Management Decision, Vol. 54 No. 4, pp. 854-886.
Tanwar, K. and Prasad, A. (2017), “Employer brand scale
development and validation: a second-order factor
approach”,Personnel Review, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 389-409.
Theurer, C.P., Tumasjan, A., Welpe, I.M. and Lievens, F.
(2016), “Employer branding: a brand equity-based literature
review and research agenda”,International Journal of
Management Reviews,Vol.18.
Tsai, W.C. and Yang, I.W.F. (2010), “Does image matter to
different job applicants? The influences of corporate image
and applicant individual differences on organizational
attractiveness”,International Journal of Selection and
Assessment, Vol. 18 No. 1,pp. 48-63.
Lorena Ronda, Carmen Valor and Carmen Abril
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 27 · Number 5 · 2018 · 573–596
583

Turban, D.B. (2001), “Organizational attractiveness as an
employer on college campuses: an examination of the
applicant population”,Journal of Vocational Behavior,Vol.58
No. 2, pp. 293-312.
Turban, D.B. and Cable, D.M. (2003), “Firm reputation and
applicant pool characteristics”,Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 733-751.
Turban, D.B., Eyring, A.R. and Campion, J.E. (1993), “Job
attributes: preferences compared with reasons given for
accepting and rejecting job offers”,Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 71-81.
Turban, D.B., Forret, M.L. and Hendrickson, C.L. (1998),
“Applicant attraction to firms: influences of organization
reputation, job and organizational attributes, and recruiter
behaviors”,Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 52 No. 1,
pp. 24-44.
Turban, D.B. and Greening, D.W. (1997), “Corporate social
performance and organizational attractiveness to prospective
employees”,Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 40 No. 3,
pp. 658-672.
Turban, D.B. and Keon, T.L. (1993), “Organizational
attractiveness: an interactionist perspective”,Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 78 No. 2, pp. 184-193.
Tuzuner, V. and Yuksel, C. (2009), “Segmenting potential
employees according to firm’s employer attractiveness
dimensions in the employer branding concept”,Journal of
Academic Research in Economics, Vol. 1, pp. 46-61.
Uen, J.F., Peng, S.P., Chen, S.Y. and Chien, S.H. (2011), “The
impact of word of mouth on organizational attractiveness”,
Asia Pacific Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 239-253.
Van Hoye, G. (2012), “Recruitment sources and
organizational attraction: a field study of belgian nurses”,
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,
Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 376-391.
Van Hoye, G., Bas, T., Cromheecke, S. and Lievens, F.
(2013), “The instrumental and symbolic dimensions of
organisations’image as an employer: a large-scale field study
on employer branding in Turkey”,Applied Psychology,
Vol. 62 No. 4, pp. 543-557.
Van Hoye, G. and Lievens, F. (2009), “Tapping the
grapevine: a closer look at word-of-mouth as a recruitment
source”,The Journal of Applied Psychology,Vol.94No.2,
pp. 341-352.
Van Hoye, G. and Saks, A.M. (2011), “The instrumental-
symbolic framework: organisational image and attractiveness
of potential applicants and their companions at a job fair”,
Applied Psychology, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 311-335.
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2004), “Evolving to a new
dominant logic for marketing”,Journal of Marketing,Vol.68
No. 1, pp. 1-17.
Verma, D. and Verma, C. (2015), “A study on attractiveness
dimensions of employer branding in technical educational
institutions”,International Journal of Marketing and Human
Resource Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 36-43.
Vriens, M. and Hofstede, F.T. (2000), “Linking attributes,
benefits, and consumer values”,Marketing Research, Vol. 12,
pp. 4-10.
Wayne, J.H. and Casper, W.J. (2012), “Why does firm
reputation in human resource policies influence college
students? The mechanisms underlying job pursuit
intentions”Human Resource Management, Vol. 51 No. 1,
pp. 121-142.
Woodruff, R.B. (1997), “Customer value: the next source for
competitive advantage”,Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 139-154.
Xie, C., Bagozzi, R.P. and Meland, K.V. (2015), “The impact
of reputation and identity congruence on employer brand
attractiveness”,Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 33
No. 2, pp. 124-146.
Zeithaml, V.A. (1988), “Consumer perceptions of price,
quality and value: a means-end model and synthesis
of evidence”,Journal of Marketing,Vol.52No.3,
pp. 2-22.
Zhu, F., Wang, Z., Yu, Q., Hu, T., Wen, Y. and Liu, Y.
(2014), “Reconsidering the dimensionality and
measurement of employer brand in the Chinese context”,
Social Behavior and Personality: an International Journal,
Vol. 42 No. 6, pp. 933-948.
Lorena Ronda, Carmen Valor and Carmen Abril
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 27 · Number 5 · 2018 · 573–596
584

Appendix 1
Table AI Employer attribute groups analysed in literature
Attribute group Attributes Articles where studied
1. Base salary and total compensation Available funds and resources
Compensation
Compensation package
Economic attributes
Economic benefits
Financial incentives
Fixed/variable salary
Fringe benefits
Health provision
High wage
Income
Leave allowances
Negotiable secondary pay benefits
Pay
Pay level
Pay mix
Payment attractiveness
Profit sharing
Remuneration
Retribution
Reward structure
Rewards
Salary
Agrawal and Swaroop (2009)
Aiman-Smith et al. (2001)
Alniacik and Alniacik (2012)
Ambler and Barrow (1996)
Arachchige and Robertson (2011)
Arachchige and Robertson (2013)
Backhaus and Tikoo (2004)
Baum and Kabst (2012)
Baum and Kabst (2013)
Bellou et al. (2015)
Berthon et al. (2005)
Biswas and Suar (2013)
Bonaiuto et al. (2013)
Cable and Turban (2003)
Chapman et al. (2005)
Chhabra and Sharma (2014)
Demagalhaes et al., 2011)
Fréchette et al. (2013)
Greening and Turban (2000)
Highhouse et al. (1999)
Highhouse et al. (2007)
Holtbrügge et al. (2010)
Ito et al. (2013)
Jain and Bhatt (2015)
Jiang and Iles (2011)
Kapoor (2010)
Knox and Freeman (2006)
Lemmink et al. (2003)
Lievens (2007)
Lievens and Highhouse (2003)
Lievens et al. (2001)
Lievens et al. (2005)
Lievens et al. (2007)
Maxwell and Knox (2009)
Myrden and Kelloway (2015)
Pingle and Sharma (2013)
Pingle and Sodhi (2016)
Priyadarshi (2011)
Rampl (2014)
Roy (2008)
Russell and Havel (2010)
Sengupta et al. (2015)
Sivertzen et al. (2013)
Slaughter and Greguras (2009)
Sutherland et al. (2002)
Theurer et al. (2016)
Turban (2001)
Turban and Keon (1993)
Turban et al. (1993)
Turban et al. (1998)
Van Hoye and Saks (2011)
Van Hoye et al. (2013)
(continued)
Lorena Ronda, Carmen Valor and Carmen Abril
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 27 · Number 5 · 2018 · 573–596
585

Table AI
Attribute group Attributes Articles where studied
Verma and Verma (2015)
Wayne and Casper (2012)
Xie et al. (2015)
Zhu et al. (2014)
2. Career characteristics Advancement
Attention for guiding careers of employees
Career advancement
Career development
Career management
Career options
Career progression
Career potential
Culture of career growth
Future opportunities
Long term career progression
Promotion
Promotion opportunities
Quick career
Agrawal and Swaroop (2009)
Aiman-Smith et al. (2001)
Arachchige and Robertson (2011)
Arachchige and Robertson (2013)
Baum and Kabst (2012)
Baum and Kabst (2013)
Berthon et al. (2005)
Chapman et al. (2005)
Demagalhaes et al. (2011)
Greening and Turban (2000)
Highhouse et al. (1999)
Holtbrügge et al. (2010)
Ito et al. (2013)
Knox and Freeman (2006)
Lemmink et al. (2003)
Lievens (2007)
Lievens and Highhouse (2003)
Lievens et al. (2005)
Lievens et al. (2007)
Pingle and Sharma (2013)
Pingle and Sodhi (2016)
Priyadarshi (2011)
Rampl (2014)
Roy (2008)
Sengupta et al. (2015)
Slaughter and Greguras (2009)
Sutherland et al. (2002)
Turban et al. (1993)
Tuzuner and Yuksel (2009)
Van Hoye and Saks (2011)
Van Hoye et al. (2013)
Verma and Verma (2015)
3. Security of the contract Job security
Permanent contract
Permanent or temporary contract
Safe employment
Stability and security
Temporary contract
Alniacik and Alniacik (2012)
Arachchige and Robertson (2011)
Arachchige and Robertson (2013)
Baum and Kabst (2012)
Berthon et al. (2005)
Demagalhaes et al. (2011)
Ito et al. (2013)
Jain and Bhatt (2015)
Lievens (2007)
Lievens and Highhouse (2003)
Lievens et al. (2007)
Lievens et al (2005)
Pingle and Sharma (2013)
Pingle and Sodhi (2016)
Roy (2008)
Sengupta et al. (2015)
Turban (2001)
Turban et al. (1993)
Tuzuner and Yuksel (2009)
(continued)
Lorena Ronda, Carmen Valor and Carmen Abril
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 27 · Number 5 · 2018 · 573–596
586

Table AI
Attribute group Attributes Articles where studied
Van Hoye and Saks (2011)
Van Hoye et al. (2013)
4. Workplace location Commuting
Deployment
Good geographical situation
Proximity to family
Presence in different cities
Workplace location
Agrawal and Swaroop (2009)
Baum and Kabst (2012)
Chapman et al. (2005)
Demagalhaes et al. (2011)
Jain and Bhatt (2015)
Lievens and Highhouse (2003)
Pingle and Sodhi (2016)
Rampl (2014)
Slaughter and Greguras (2009)
Turban and Keon (1993)
Turban et al. (1993)
Tuzuner and Yuksel (2009)
5. Flexibility and working hours Duty hours
Few hours of overtime
Flexibility
Flexible hours
Hours
Leave facility
Possibilities to work from home
Standard working hours
Working hours
Working schedule
Baum and Kabst (2012)
Chapman et al. (2005)
Highhouse et al. (1999)
Ito et al. (2013)
Jain and Bhatt (2015)
Knox and Freeman (2006)
Priyadarshi (2011)
Sengupta et al. (2015)
Slaughter and Greguras (2009)
Theurer et al. (2016)
Turban et al. (1993)
Tuzuner and Yuksel (2009)
Verma and Verma (2015)
6. Organizational characteristics Advertising
Brand familiarity
Brand knowledge
Brand mark
Brand name
Brand prestige in the community
Brand trust
Corporate external reputation
Corporate image
Employer knowledge
External reputation
Familiarity
Fortune ranking
Market success
Organizational image
Organizational mark
Product image
Successful and strong products
Successful company
Trustworthiness
Type and size of clients
Word-of-mouth endorsement
Alniacik et al. (2011)
Alniacik et al. (2012)
Arachchige and Robertson (2011)
Arachchige and Robertson (2013)
Backhaus and Tikoo (2004)
Biswas and Suar (2013)
Cable and Turban (2001)
Cable and Turban (2003)
Chapman et al. (2005)
Chhabra and Sharma (2014)
Demagalhaes et al. (2011)
Edwards (2010)
Gatewood et al. (1993)
Helm (2013)
Highhouse et al. (1999)
Highhouse et al. (2007)
Kapoor (2010)
Keeling et al. (2013)
Khan and Naseem (2015)
Lemmink et al. (2003)
Lievens and Highhouse (2003)
Lievens et al. (2005)
Maxwell and Knox (2009)
Myrden and Kelloway (2015)
Rampl (2014)
Rampl and Kenning (2014)
Saini et al. (2014)
Sengupta et al. (2015)
Sutherland et al. (2002)
(continued)
Lorena Ronda, Carmen Valor and Carmen Abril
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 27 · Number 5 · 2018 · 573–596
587

Table AI
Attribute group Attributes Articles where studied
Theurer et al. (2016)
Tsai and Yang (2010)
Turban (2001)
Turban and Cable (2003)
Turban et al. (1998)
Tuzuner and Yuksel (2009)
Uen et al. (2011)
Van Hoye (2012)
Van Hoye et al. (2013)
Van Hoye and Saks (2011)
Wayne and Casper (2012)
Xie et al. (2015)
Zhu et al. (2014)
7. Organizational traits and personality Adventurous
Availability of resources
Boldness
Centralization
Company size
Competence
Dominance
Dynamism
Fairness
Forward-looking approach
Global/wide presence
Hierarchy
Identifiable character
Identity strength
Innovative products
Innovation
Internationalization
Leadership
Meritocracy
Modern
Profitability
Progressive technology
Quality management
Organizational procedures
Robustness
Ruggedness
Size and type of clients
Sincerity
Structure
Trustworthiness and honesty
Use of social media
Working with customers
Alniacik et al. (2012)
Arachchige and Robertson (2011)
Arachchige and Robertson, (2013)
Backhaus and Tikoo (2004)
Bakanauskien_
eet al. (2011)
Biswas and Suar (2016)
Chapman et al. (2005)
Davies (2008)
Demagalhaes et al. (2011)
Edwards and Edwards (2013)
Edwards (2010)
Highhouse et al. (1999)
Highhouse et al. (2007)
Kapoor (2010)
Knox and Freeman (2006)
Lemmink et al. (2003)
Lievens (2007)
Lievens and Highhouse (2003)
Lievens et al. (2001)
Lievens et al. (2005)
Lievens et al. (2007)
Maxwell and Knox (2009)
Myrden and Kelloway (2015)
Pingle and Sharma (2013)
Pingle and Sodhi (2016)
Priyadarshi (2011)
Rampl and Kenning (2014)
Schreurs et al. (2009)
Sivertzen et al. (2013)
Slaughter and Greguras (2009)
Sutherland et al. (2002)
Theurer et al. (2016)
Turban and Keon (1993)
Turban et al. (1993)
Tuzuner and Yuksel (2009)
Van Hoye and Saks (2011)
Van Hoye et al. (2013)
8. Employee education and training offering Conferences organizing
CPA exam preparation assistance
Creating pedagogy skills
Educational opportunities
Employer-supported opportunity for graduate study
Funds for memberships
Agrawal and Swaroop (2009)
Baum and Kabst (2012)
Demagalhaes et al. (2011)
Knox and Freeman (2006)
Lemmink et al. (2003)
Lievens (2007)
(continued)
Lorena Ronda, Carmen Valor and Carmen Abril
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 27 · Number 5 · 2018 · 573–596
588

Table AI
Attribute group Attributes Articles where studied
In-house training
Interaction with industry
Interesting trainings
Internal further education
Investment in employee development
Learning offering
Permission for further study
Seminars and workshops
Staff development programme,
Tie-up with leading institutes
Lievens et al. (2005)
Ritz and Waldner (2011)
Sengupta et al. (2015)
Sutherland et al. (2002)
Tanwar and Prasad (2016)
Tuzuner and Yuksel (2009)
Van Hoye and Saks (2011)
Verma and Verma (2015)
9. Type of employee–employer relationships Approachable
Availability of information
Campus activity
Communications system
Concern for employees
Employee relations
Employee research
Employee wellbeing
Equity in reward
Fairness
Feedback system enquiry
Frequency of seeing a representative in college
Human resource management practices
Informativeness
Internal recruitment
Interview structure
Lay-off policies
Open communications
Performance management
Provides access to resources
Quality of care
Really cares about their employees as individuals
Recruitment and induction processes
Recruitment events
Recruitment materials
Recruitment process
Recruitment website
Sympathetic
Transparency
Transparent company policies
Treat employees with respect
Aggerholm et al. (2011)
Aiman-Smith et al. (2001)
Backhaus et al. (2002)
Biswas and Suar (2016)
Bonaiuto et al. (2013)
Chapman et al. (2005)
Demagalhaes et al. (2011)
Fréchette et al. (2013)
Greening and Turban (2000)
Highhouse et al. (2007)
Holtbrügge et al. (2010)
Kapoor (2010)
Knox and Freeman (2006)
Maxwell and Knox (2009)
Priyadarshi (2011)
Russell and Havel (2010)
Sengupta et al. (2015)
Sutherland et al. (2002)
Turban (2001)
Turban et al. (1998)
Tuzuner and Yuksel (2009)
Van Hoye and Lievens (2009)
Verma and Verma (2015)
Rampl and Kenning (2014)
Schreurs et al. (2009)
Sivertzen et al. (2013)
Slaughter and Greguras (2009)
Sutherland et al. (2002)
Theurer et al. (2016)
Turban and Keon (1993)
Turban et al. (1993)
Tuzuner and Yuksel (2009)
Van Hoye and Saks (2011)
Van Hoye et al. (2013)
10. Teamwork activities Group cooperation
Social/team activities
Team atmosphere
Team sports
Teamwork activities
Alniacik and Alniacik (2012)
Berthon et al. (2005)
Bonaiuto et al. (2013)
Lievens (2007)
Lievens et al. (2005)
Lievens et al. (2007)
Roy (2008)
11. Work environment Annoying clients
Atmosphere
Autonomy
Backhaus et al. (2002)
Baum and Kabst (2012)
Baum and Kabst (2013)
(continued)
Lorena Ronda, Carmen Valor and Carmen Abril
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 27 · Number 5 · 2018 · 573–596
589

Table AI
Attribute group Attributes Articles where studied
Casual dress
Chic environment
Clean area
Comfortable working environment
Competitive environment
Dress code
Friendly informal culture Informal
Office infrastructure
Peaceful
Sophistication
The people met during the recruitment process
Work atmosphere
Work climate
Work environment
Working conditions
Chapman et al. (2005)
Davies (2008)
Demagalhaes et al. (2011)
Highhouse et al. (1999)
Kapoor (2010)
Knox and Freeman (2006)
Maxwell and Knox (2009)
Priyadarshi (2011)
Rampl and Kenning (2014)
Sengupta et al. (2015)
Slaughter and Greguras (2009)
Sutherland et al. (2002)
Theurer et al. (2016)
Turban et al. (1998)
Tuzuner and Yuksel (2009)
Van Hoye et al. (2013)
Verma and Verma (2015)
Turban et al. (1993)
12. Travel and international exposure Global assignment opportunities
Opportunity for international travel
Opportunities for international work experience
Opportunity to get global exposure
Opportunities to live and work abroad
Opportunity to work across geographies
Travel
Working on foreign assignments
Demagalhaes et al. (2011)
Jain and Bhatt (2015)
Knox and Freeman (2006)
Lievens (2007)
Lievens et al. (2005)
Lievens et al. (2007)
Pingle and Sharma (2013)
Pingle and Sodhi (2016)
Priyadarshi (2011)
Van Hoye and Saks (2011)
13. Task demands Clerical work involved
Customer oriented
Demanding
Job design
Optimum workload
Physical activities involved
Project based work
Pushing
Relaxed
Staff shortage
Stress-free environment
Task demands
Type of work
Usually busy
Work content
Work pressure
Arachchige and Robertson (2011)
Arachchige and Robertson, (2013)
Bakanauskien_
eet al. (2011)
Fréchette et al. (2013)
Highhouse et al. (1999)
Knox and Freeman (2006)
Lievens (2007)
Lievens and Highhouse (2003)
Lievens et al. (2005)
Maxwell and Knox (2009)
Rampl (2014)
Theurer et al. (2016)
Tuzuner and Yuksel (2009)
Van Hoye et al. (2013)
Verma and Verma (2015)
14. Work variety Areas are diverse
Hands-on inter-departmental experience
Idiosyncratic job creation
Job rotation
Novel work practices
Offers a range of experience
Offers variety in your daily work
Opportunity to move around the
Organisation and work in different roles
Rotation of job and role
Arachchige and Robertson (2011),
Bonaiuto et al. (2013)
Highhouse et al. (1999)
Holtbrügge et al. (2010)
Knox and Freeman (2006
Lemmink et al. (2003
Lievens (2007
Lievens et al. (2005
Maxwell and Knox (2009)
Pingle and Sharma (2013)
(continued)
Lorena Ronda, Carmen Valor and Carmen Abril
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 27 · Number 5 · 2018 · 573–596
590

Table AI
Attribute group Attributes Articles where studied
Stimulation by employer to fulfil different positions
Stretched assignment
Use of different skills
Variety in daily work
Variety of tasks/task diversity
Pingle and Sodhi (2016)
Priyadarshi (2011
Roy (2008)
Sengupta et al. (2015)
Sutherland et al. (2002)
Tuzuner and Yuksel (2009)
15. Organizational culture and values Goals
Missions
Organisational culture
Values
Work culture
Chhabra and Sharma (2014)
Demagalhaes et al. (2011)
Ito et al. (2013)
Kapoor (2010)
Myrden and Kelloway (2015)
Priyadarshi (2011)
Rampl (2014)
Russell and Havel (2010)
Tanwar and Prasad (2016)
Tuzuner and Yuksel (2009)
16. Social responsibility and ethical practices Community relations
Corporate social image
Corporate social responsibility
CSR identity
Ecological rating
Environment friendly
Ethical leaders
Gives back to society
Green strategy and culture
Humanitarian organization
Moral practices of managers
Opportunity to participate in employer-sponsored community
programs
Perceptions of the company as a good citizen in its dealings with
communities’employees and the environment
Public service orientation
Quality CSR initiatives
Social activities
Socially responsible, honest and fair
Stakeholder focused
Aggerholm et al. (2011)
Aiman-Smith et al. (2001)
Alniacik and Alniacik (2012)
Alniacik et al. (2012)
Arachchige and Robertson (2011)
Arachchige and Robertson (2013)
Backhaus et al. (2002)
Bellou et al. (2015)
Biswas and Suar (2016)
Demagalhaes et al. (2011)
Dögl and Holtbrügge (2014)
Edwards and Edwards (2013)
Greening and Turban (2000)
Highhouse et al. (2007)
Kapoor (2010)
Pingle and Sharma (2013)
Pingle and Sodhi (2016)
Ritz and Waldner (2011)
Roy (2008)
Sengupta et al. (2015)
Strobel et al. (2010)
Sutherland et al. (2002)
Tanwar and Prasad (2016)
Tsai and Yang (2010)
Turban and Greening (1997)
Tuzuner and Yuksel (2009)
Van Hoye and Saks (2011)
17. Quality of products and services Controversial industries (tobacco, gambling, alcohol, nuclear power,
military)
Good and strong products
Good product image
High quality products
Perceptions of the quality, innovation, value and reliability of its
products and services
Product issues
Product quality and innovativeness
Quality of services
Alniacik and Alniacik (2012)
Alniacik et al. (2012)
Arachchige and Robertson (2013)
Backhaus et al. (2002)
Berthon et al. (2005)
Bonaiuto et al. (2013)
Greening and Turban (2000)
Highhouse et al. (1999)
Maxwell and Knox (2009)
Pingle and Sodhi (2016)
Roy (2008)
(continued)
Lorena Ronda, Carmen Valor and Carmen Abril
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 27 · Number 5 · 2018 · 573–596
591

Appendix 2
Table AI
Attribute group Attributes Articles where studied
Sutherland et al. (2002)
Turban and Greening (1997)
18. Diversity Diversity of colleagues
Gives value to diversity
Initiatives/programs for women and/or minorities
Internationally diverse mix of colleagues
Treatment of women and minorities
Bonaiuto et al. (2013)
Demagalhaes et al. (2011)
Greening and Turban (2000)
Knox and Freeman (2006)
Priyadarshi (2011)
Sutherland et al. (2002)
Tanwar and Prasad (2016)
Turban and Greening (1997)
Table AII Employee benefit groups analysed in literature
Benefit group Benefits Articles where studied
1. Pride from membership Embarrassment if working there
Fulfils social approval and personal expression needs
Gives personal respect
High status
Highly regarded as an employer
Perceived prestige and judgement
Perceptions about the prestige of the firm
Prestigious employer
Pride from membership
Pride from hierarchical position
Recruits the best
Respectability
Social approval received by working for the employer
Status
Arachchige and Robertson (2011)
Arachchige and Robertson (2013)
Backhaus and Tikoo (2004)
Bonaiuto et al. (2013)
Cable and Turban (2003)
Edwards and Edwards (2013)
Helm (2013)
Highhouse et al. (1999)
Knox and Freeman (2006)
Lievens (2007)
Lievens et al. (2007)
Myrden and Kelloway (2015)
Priyadarshi (2011)
Schreurs et al. (2009)
Sengupta et al. (2015)
Slaughter and Greguras (2009)
Sutherland et al. (2002)
Tanwar and Prasad (2016)
Tuzuner and Yuksel (2009)
Verma and Verma (2015)
2. Fit with the organizational identity Colleagues are similar to me
Employs people whom you feel you have things in common
Feel emotionally connected with the organization and job
Feel represented by the brand
Identification with personality characteristics
Identity congruence
Perceived fit with organization and recruiter
Person–organization fit
Backhaus and Tikoo (2004)
Baum and Kabst (2012)
Chapman et al. (2005)
Edwards (2010)
Highhouse et al. (1999)
Knox and Freeman (2006)
Sengupta et al. (2015)
Xie et al. (2015)
4. Self-growth Enhancing experience
Gaining career-enhancing experience
Gaining experience, the job applicant can take elsewhere
Good reference for future career
Professional development
Quality of employee
Safe future career
Scope of diversified learning
Self-development
Springboard for future employment
Alniacik and Alniacik (2012)
Alniacik et al. (2012)
Ambler and Barrow (1996)
Arachchige and Robertson (2011)
Arachchige and Robertson (2013)
Bellou et al. (2015)
Biswas and Suar (2013)
Demagalhaes et al. (2011)
Ito et al. (2013)
Jiang and Iles (2011)
(continued)
Lorena Ronda, Carmen Valor and Carmen Abril
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 27 · Number 5 · 2018 · 573–596
592

Table AII
Benefit group Benefits Articles where studied
Transferability of the job
Useful activities
Work experience
Pingle and Sharma (2013)
Pingle and Sodhi (2016)
Ritz and Waldner (2011)
Roy (2008)
Sengupta et al. (2015)
Sutherland et al. (2002)
Tuzuner and Yuksel (2009)
Zhu et al. (2014)
4. Feelings of appreciation and support Appreciation from management
Employer supports employees
Feelings of appreciation and recognition
Follow-up
Justice perceptions in the recruitment process
Organizational support
Perceived organizational support
Recognition from management
Recognition of potential
Recognition on reward policy
Supportive and encouraging colleagues
Supportive colleagues
Alniacik and Alniacik (2012)
Arachchige and Robertson (2011)
Arachchige and Robertson (2013)
Bellou et al. (2015)
Berthon et al. (2005)
Biswas and Suar (2016)
Bonaiuto et al. (2013)
Chapman et al. (2005)
Kapoor (2010)
Pingle and Sharma (2013)
Pingle and Sodhi (2016)
Roy (2008)
Sengupta et al. (2015)
Tuzuner and Yuksel (2009)
Verma and Verma (2015)
Wayne and Casper (2012)
Zhu et al. (2014)
5. Self-esteem enhancement Can teach others university knowledge Develops confidence
Can use university knowledge
Empowerment
Feeling good about yourself as a result of working for a particular
organization
Feeling more self-confident
Feelings of self-worth
Responsibility
Promotes self-esteem
Scope of contributing to organisational objectives
Self-realization
Opportunity to apply what was learnt
Opportunity to teach others what you have learned
Participation in decision making
Rewarding
Uses degree skills
Agrawal and Swaroop (2009)
and Robertson (2011)
Arachchige and Robertson (2013)
Berthon et al. (2005)
Biswas and Suar (2013)
Jiang and Iles (2011)
Knox and Freeman (2006)
Maxwell and Knox (2009)
Pingle and Sharma (2013)
Pingle and Sodhi (2016)
Priyadarshi (2011)
Roy (2008)
Sengupta et al. (2015)
Sivertzen et al. (2013)
Verma and Verma (2015)
6. Challenges and creativity enhancement Ability to innovate
Allows a lot of freedom to work on your own initiative
Challenges
Challenging and interesting work
Creativity enhancement
Dynamic and challenging work environment
From the beginning many responsibilities are granted
Inspiring colleagues
Offers a lot of scope for creativity in your work
Tasks mean bigger challenges
The organization both values and makes use of your creativity
Values creativity
Alniacik and Alniacik (2012)
Arachchige and Robertson (2011)
Arachchige and Robertson (2013)
Berthon et al. (2005)
Bonaiuto et al. (2013)
Demagalhaes et al. (2011)
Jiang and Iles (2011)
Knox and Freeman (2006)
Lemmink et al. (2003)
Maxwell and Knox (2009)
Pingle and Sharma (2013)
Pingle and Sodhi (2016)
Priyadarshi (2011)
Roy (2008)
Sengupta et al. (2015)
(continued)
Lorena Ronda, Carmen Valor and Carmen Abril
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 27 · Number 5 · 2018 · 573–596
593

Table AII
Benefit group Benefits Articles where studied
Slaughter and Greguras (2009)
Sutherland et al. (2002)
Turban (2001)
Tuzuner and Yuksel (2009))
7. Convenience Commuting time
Proximity of employer
Scheduling needs
Suitable working hours
Suitability of the employer as a place to work
Work–life balance
Work–life comfort
Work–life effectiveness
Alniacik et al. (2012)
Baum and Kabst (2013)
Demagalhaes et al. (2011)
Highhouse et al. (1999)
Ritz and Waldner (2011)
Russell and Havel (2010)
Sengupta et al. (2015)
Shankar and Bhatnagar (2010)
Slaughter and Greguras (2009)
Tanwar and Prasad (2016)
Tuzuner and Yuksel (2009)
Verma and Verma (2015)
Wayne and Casper (2012)
Zhu et al. (2014)
8. Social relationships Colleagues care about each other
Colleagues have things in common
Comfort in knowing existing staff
Friendly colleagues
Passionate colleagues
Relationships with colleagues
Relationship with supervisors
Social factors
Agrawal and Swaroop (2009)
Alniacik and Alniacik (2012)
Arachchige and Robertson (2011)
Arachchige and Robertson (2013)
Bellou et al. (2015)
Berthon et al. (2005)
Biswas and Suar (2013)
Jiang and Iles (2011)
Maxwell and Knox (2009)
Pingle and Sharma (2013)
Pingle and Sodhi (2016)
Priyadarshi (2011)
Roy (2008)
Sengupta et al. (2015)
Sivertzen et al. (2013)
Slaughter and Greguras (2009)
Sutherland et al. (2002)
Turban et al. (1993)
9. Agreeable, fun or exciting work
environment
Adventure
Agreeable environment
Excitement
Exciting products and services
Exciting workplace environment
Feel good
Fun workplace environment
Happy environment
Interesting work
Positive
Alniacik and Alniacik (2012)
Arachchige and Robertson (2011)
Arachchige and Robertson (2013)
Berthon et al. (2005)
Biswas and Suar (2013)
Davies (2008)
Lievens (2007)
Lievens et al. (2005)
Lievens et al. (2007)
Maxwell and Knox (2009)
Pingle and Sharma (2013)
Pingle and Sodhi (2016)
Rampl and Kenning (2014)
Roy (2008)
Schreurs et al. (2009)
Slaughter and Greguras (2009)
Tuzuner and Yuksel (2009)
Van Hoye and Saks (2011)
10. Feelings of belonging, direction and
purpose
Feelings of acceptance
Feelings of belonging
Aggerholm et al. (2011)
Alniacik and Alniacik (2012)
(continued)
Lorena Ronda, Carmen Valor and Carmen Abril
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 27 · Number 5 · 2018 · 573–596
594

Appendix 3
Table AII
Benefit group Benefits Articles where studied
Direction and purpose
Humanitarian environment
Meaningful duties and responsibilities
Ambler and Barrow (1996)
Arachchige and Robertson (2011)
Arachchige and Robertson (2013)
Berthon et al. (2005)
Demagalhaes et al. (2011)
Pingle and Sodhi (2016)
Table AIII Employee perceived value forms analysed in literature
Value group Attributes and benefits Articles where studied
1. Social value Acceptance and belonging
Creativity
Development
Promotion
Provides good and supportive relationships
Recognition and appreciation from management
Relationships
Team atmosphere
Alniacik and Alniacik (2012)
Berthon et al. (2005)
Biswas and Suar (2013)
Jiang and Iles (2011)
Roy (2008)
Sivertzen et al. (2013)
2. Development value Career-enhancing experience
Feeling good about yourself
Feeling more self-confident
Feelings of acceptance
Hands-on inter-departmental experience
Innovative employer –novel work practices/forward-thinking
Job security
Recognition
Self-worth and confidence
Spring- board to future employment
The organization produces innovative products and services
Berthon et al. (2005)
Biswas and Suar (2013)
Jiang and Iles (2011)
Pingle and Sharma (2013)
Roy (2008)
Sivertzen et al. (2013)
3. Application value Customer orientated
Gives back to society
High-quality products and services
Humanitarian environment Opportunity to apply
what they have learned
Opportunity to teach others
Alniacik and Alniacik (2012)
Berthon et al. (2005)
Biswas and Suar (2013)
Pingle and Sharma (2013)
Roy (2008)
Sivertzen et al. (2013)
4. Interest value Afun working environment
Challenges
Exciting work environment
Happy work environment
Makes use of its employee’s creativity
Novel work practices
Produces high-quality, innovative products and services
Self-realization
Berthon et al. (2005)
Biswas and Suar (2013)
Jiang and Iles (2011)
Pingle and Sharma (2013)
Roy (2008)
5. Economic value Compensation package
Job security
Promotional opportunities
Salary
Alniacik and Alniacik (2012)
Berthon et al. (2005)
Biswas and Suar (2013)
Jiang and Iles (2011)
Pingle and Sharma (2013)
Roy (2008)
Sivertzen et al. (2013)
(continued)
Lorena Ronda, Carmen Valor and Carmen Abril
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 27 · Number 5 · 2018 · 573–596
595

About the authors
Lorena Ronda is a Doctoral Candidate and Marketing
Lecturer at the School of Business and Economics,
Universidad Pontificia Comillas (Spain). Her research
interests primarily focus on brand value and consumer
behaviour. Lorena Ronda is the corresponding author and can
be contacted at: lronda@comillas.edu
Carmen Valor is an Associate Professor of Marketing at
the School of Business and Economics, Universidad
Pontificia Comillas. Her research interests primarily focus
on consumer value. Her work has been published, amongst
others, in European Journal of Marketing,Management
Decision,Psychology and Marketing,Journal of Marketing
Management,Journal of Macromarketing and Journal of
Business Ethics.
Carmen Abril is an Associate Professor of Marketing at the
School of Business and Economics, Complutense University
Madrid, and Visiting Professor at WU (Viena) and IE
Business School, Madrid. Her research interests primarily
focus on understanding new ways of building brands, product
innovation and e-word of mouth communication. She has
published amongst others in the Journal of Advertising
Research,International Journal of Information Management,
Innovation Management Policy and Practice and Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services. Prior to join academy, she was
Vice President Marketing Pepsico and awarded “Marketer of
the year”by Advertising Age.
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Table AIII
Value group Attributes and benefits Articles where studied
6. Market value Customer-oriented
High-quality products and services
Innovative products and services
Opportunity to apply existing knowledge
Alniacik and Alniacik (2012)
7. Cooperation value Hands-on interdepartmental experience
Supportive and encouraging colleagues
Alniacik and Alniacik (2012)
8. Psychological value Feeling good
Feeling of appreciation and recognition
Self-confidence
Roy (2008)
9. Ethical value Ethical organization Roy (2008)
10. Innovation value High quality products and services
Innovative products and services
Novel work practices and forward-thinking
Sivertzen et al. (2013)
Lorena Ronda, Carmen Valor and Carmen Abril
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 27 · Number 5 · 2018 · 573–596
596