Mid Sweden University

Despite a growing body of literature about firm CSR commitment, no empirical study has yet focused on the issue. Therefore, the aim of this study is to empirically examine how customers’ experiences and attitudes affect firms’ attitudinal and behavioral CSR commitment. The OLS regression model was applied to analyze a sample of 414 companies operating in 49 countries. The results demonstrate a negative relationship between attitudinal CSR commitment and behavioral CSR commitment implying that that sampled firms do not do what they claim to do. The findings also indicate that firms with less satisfied customers show higher attitudinal CSR commitment  than those firms that have more satisfied customers. The findings of this study can be used for designing policies of efficient implications of CSR. 

Purpose: The sponsorship industry has evolved considerably in recent years due to the strategic business opportunities that it provides. Despite increased interest in sponsorship, analysis of the relationship between relationship commitment and value creation and of relationship commitment as comprising multiple types or components in the context of sponsorship relationships is lacking. To address these gaps, this paper analyzes relationship commitment (in terms of affective commitment and value-based commitment) as a significant mediating variable, and value creation in the context of sponsorship relationships.

Methodology/approach: A questionnaire was sent to Swedish Hockey League sponsors to collect data and to verify the study’s conceptual model and relationships. The response rate for the survey was 19.8%, that is, 122 completed questionnaires out of 616 sent. The respondents represented the most common industries in Sweden, but most of them belonged to the construction, repair, and electronics industries (18.0%), manufacturing and production industry (13.1%), and commerce industry (11.5%). Most sponsoring companies (30.3%) were categorized as medium-sized (50–249 employees). Most respondents (38.5%) had invested EUR 4300–15,000, whereas 11.5% had invested less than EUR 4300. Moreover, we found that most sponsors had been in their sponsorship relationships for more than 10 years (32.8%). Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used for the data analysis.

Findings: This study demonstrates that relationship commitment is an important driver of value creation in sponsorship relationships. Furthermore, the various forms of affective commitment and value-based commitment should not be considered merely components or forms but distinct types. Certainly, there is interaction between the two types, but sequentially in such a way that affective commitment is a prerequisite for value-based commitment. This means that a sponsor must have an emotional relationship with the sponsee in order to understand, perceive, and calculate the sponsorship relationship’s future business value in terms of profits and other benefits. This study also finds that value-based commitment is the most significant type of commitment in sponsorship relationships.

Research implications: The study demonstrates that shared values, trust, and affective commitment are fundamental conditions for value-based commitment. If the parties agree on how they should behave in the relationship, the rules and objectives that apply lead to the emergence of mutual trust, which in turn makes the parties want to continue the relationship for emotional reasons. But this is not enough for value creation; they must also see that there are future business benefits from the relationship. Therefore, the parties more or less explicitly make calculations. If the calculations indicate that the long-term benefits of the relationship outweigh the short-term sacrifices, they are prepared to invest in the relationship, and this may lead to value creation. In other words, there is both interplay and tension between shared values, trust, and affective commitment, on one hand, and value-based commitment, on the other. Another theoretical contribution is that previous research has considered the links between relationship commitment and value but has ignored the different types of commitment that play key roles in the value-creation process; this study has addressed that oversight. The study demonstrates that affective commitment and value-based commitment have different roles and meanings. Affective commitment indirectly affects value creation, while value-based commitment directly affects value creation. Affective commitment has the role of partial mediator, while value-based commitment has the role of full mediator. Furthermore, they differ in their basic characteristics: affective commitment is an emotional aspect, while value-based commitment is a calculative aspect.

Originality/value/contribution: Previous studies have not analyzed the relationship between relationship commitment and value creation. However, this study demonstrates that relationship commitment is an important driver of value creation in sponsorship relationships. Furthermore, most previous research argues that relationship commitment consists of various components or forms that interact in parallel with each other. However, this study demonstrates that the various forms of affective commitment and value-based commitment should not be considered merely components or forms but distinct types. Certainly, there is interaction between the two types, but sequentially in such a way that affective commitment is a prerequisite for value-based commitment. Furthermore, previous studies have consistently noted that affective commitment is the most important component, form, or type of relationship commitment. However, this study finds that value-based commitment is the most significant type of commitment in sponsorship relationships.

Purpose - This paper aims to analyze how a real estate business model innovation developed in a real estate network, with a special focus on the relationship between ego network structure and the innovative development of the business model. Design/methodology/approach - The paper is a single case study of a Swedish real estate network of 38 actors. The data were collected at the individual actor level using multiple sources: 12 semi-structured indepth interviews, 94 min of meetings and 28 written contracts. The empirical findings resulted in four propositions. Findings - This study demonstrates that it was primarily the building user who was behind the innovative development of the real estate business model innovation, whereas the real estate company acted as a network hub and network resource coordinator. The ego network structures significantly affected the outcome. Practical implications - Real estate companies should act as hubs, coordinating all the network actor resources the building user needs in the value-creation process. To be effective hubs, the representatives of real estate companies must create extensive personal and open ego networks to acquire central network positions. Originality/value - Few studies examine business model innovation, particularly in the real estate context. Though large real estate businesses usually operate in the networks of various actors, analyses based on the network perspective are also lacking. This case study builds a valuable understanding of how network processes in real estate networks can be used as tools to foster real estate business model innovation, which in turn can lead to more competitive real estate companies and building users.

Strategic innovation networks, formed to stimulate innovation performance and eco- nomic growth for members and regions via collaborative activities, have recently be- come increasingly common. Numerous researchers have noted the effect of network structure on innovation performance and also discussed the mediating role of commit- ment. Many studies suggest that commitment strongly mediates firm and network out- come and performance. Studies of organisational behaviour, relationship marketing, and human resources demonstrate that commitment leads to better firm performance, inter- firm cooperation, network performance, market knowledge transfer, knowledge sharing, future intentions, retention, and enforcement mechanisms. Strangely, studies of the re- lationship between commitment and innovation from a network perspective are lacking. This study investigates the relationships between commitment, its antecedents, and in- novation performance in strategic innovation networks. The antecedents examined are expectation gap, shared values, ego network density, and ego network size. A ques- tionnaire was emailed to all members of three Swedish strategic innovation networks in different industries and regions to collect data; 150 completed questionnaires were re- ceived for a 27% response rate. Multiple regression, path, and mediation analyses demonstrate that commitment is an important mediating variable when firms in strategic networks jointly develop innovations. Expectation gap and shared values are strongly related to commitment, but ego network density and ego network size are not; however, the last two variables directly affect innovation. This means that relational influence is more important for commitment than the structural effects, while structural effects are more significant for innovation. 

Within the traditional real estate business today there’s a growing trend focusing on increased customer value at office workplaces. Facilitating innovation requires transfer of different kinds of knowledge, which means that the knowledge-bearing actors must meet and interact. The customer is therefore no longer passive but deemed as an important active actor in the development of new and changed business models. In a case study, this paper seeks to improve our understanding of how network structure affects innovation outcomes in real estate innovation networks by analyzing network structure in terms of network size, density and in terms of actor centrality or position. This study shows that it was primarily the customer who was behind the innovative development of the workplace while the real estate company had a more network coordinating role.