Search results

Employees often expect an emphasis on financial aspects to be predominant when their employers choose a fund management company for the investment of employees’ pension fund deposits. By contrast, in an attempt to appear as socially responsible company managers may emphasize social responsibility (SR) in pension fund choices. The purpose of this paper is to examine to what extent managers for small- and medium-sized companies emphasize SR vs expected returns when choosing investment managers for their employees’ pension funds.

A conjoint experiment among 276 Norwegian SMEs’ decision makers examines their trade-offs between social and financial goals in their choice of employees’ pension management. Furthermore, the study examines how the companies’ decision makers’ characteristics influence their pension fund management choices.

The findings show that the employers placed the greatest weight to suppliers providing funds adhering to socially responsible investment (SRI) practices, followed by the suppliers’ corporate brand credibility, the funds’ expected return, and the suppliers’ management fees. Second, employers with investment expertise emphasized expected returns and downplayed SR in their choice, whereas employers with stated CSR-strategies downplayed expected return and emphasized SR.

Choice of supplier to manage employees’ pension funds relates to a general discussion on whether companies should do well – maximizing value, or do good, – maximizing corporate SR. In this study, doing well means maximizing expected returns and minimizing costs of the pension investments, whereas doing good means emphasizing SRI in this choice. Unfortunately, the employees might pay a price for their companies’ ethicality as moral considerations may conflict with maximizing the employees’ pension fund value.

This study aims to demonstrate that the investments in social capital do not always pay off. Although an important function of social capital is its potential for influencing co‐located companies' opportunistic behavior, social capital also has a negative side. This study seeks to examine the negative and positive effects of the social capital dimensions on a company's profitability and on the perception that co‐located firms free ride and shirk.

By including data from 224 firms in 112 true‐paired dyadic relationships, this study provides a unique and valid basis for empirical study within SEM analysis. The ability to link different information sources in the analysis creates a unique data set that controls for the confounding effects of common method biases in the analysis.

Markets with a low degree of collective activity gain less advantage from cognitive social capital, because its primary effect lies in its transparency and ability to detect opportunistic behavior. The effect of relational social capital is more stable because of the positive direct effect on profitability. Structural social capital indicates markets that would benefit from creating private incentives with the intention to transfer collective activities into private payoffs. This reduces the need to follow up the co‐localized businesses.

This study shows that the dimensions of social capital vary regarding whether they reduce or facilitate the perceived withholding efforts by co‐located firms.

Buyers assessing bids from suppliers of experience services face both an adverse selection and a potential moral hazard problem. The purpose of this study is to examine the relative importance of various signals of supplier reputation conveying information about unobserved supplier quality, which is important for identifying the best tender; and whether price is contingent on supplier reputation and on buyer's quality sensitiveness in a competitive bidding situation.

This study builds on a conjoint experiment where 19 contractors consider alternative scenarios representing tenders from subcontractors of plumbing services. In the scenarios the subcontractors differ on their reputation and price variables, while the contractors differ in their quality sensitiveness. Multiple regressions analyzes the contingent price effects.

Although low price is generally important for subcontractor selection, quality-sensitive buyers are willing to pay subcontractors a price premium to prevent quality debasement. On the other hand, despite the combined significance of supplier reputation on choice, buyers are not willing to pay price premiums to suppliers with a quality reputation.

Conjoint studies produce multiple cases but the underlying sample is limited. Therefore, this study should be regarded as preliminary and a basis for further validation on larger samples.

In competitive bidding situations, suppliers with strong quality reputations may benefit most by low price offers. Thus, suppliers with a strong reputation should achieve profitability through a volume premium rather than a price premium effect. Suppliers opting for price premiums should target the quality sensitive segment of the market.

In contrast to previous findings in B2B brand equity studies, but in line with findings in information economics, this study suggests that suppliers with a reputation for quality will not receive price premiums. The results indicate that in bidding contexts in B2B markets, the reputation variables may enhance rather than reduce buyers' price sensitivity, because supplier reputation increases low price credibility.