10.1108mrr 08 2012 0183

Management Research Review
Corporate governance and brand performance

Luu Trong Tuan
Article information:
To cite this document:
Luu Trong Tuan , (2014),"Corporate governance and brand performance", Management Research Review,
Vol. 37 Iss 1 pp. 45 - 68
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MRR-08-2012-0183
Downloaded on: 26 April 2015, At: 09:42 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 136 other documents.
Downloaded by University of Michigan At 09:42 26 April 2015 (PT)
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1027 times since 2014*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
M. Alix Valenti, Rebecca Luce, Clifton Mayfield, (2011),"The effects of firm performance on
corporate governance", Management Research Review, Vol. 34 Iss 3 pp. 266-283 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/01409171111116295
Steen Thomsen, (2004),"Corporate values and corporate governance", Corporate
Governance: The international journal of business in society, Vol. 4 Iss 4 pp. 29-46 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/14720700410558862
Todd Shank, Ronald Paul Hill, John Stang, (2013),"Do investors benefit from good corporate governance?",
Corporate Governance: The international journal of business in society, Vol. 13 Iss 4 pp. 384-396 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/CG-03-2010-0027
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 194045 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/2040-8269.htm
Corporate
Corporate governance and governance
brand performance
Luu Trong Tuan
School of Business, International University-Vietnam National University, 45
Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
Abstract
Purpose This investigation into listed companies at the Ho Chi Minh City Stock Exchange (HOSE)
in Vietnam aims to discern whether such constructs as trust and ethics act as precursors for brand
performance with the mediating role of corporate governance.
Design/methodology/approach Three hundred and twelve responses returned from
self-administered structured questionnaires relayed to 1,163 middle-level managers were dissected via
ANOVAs and structural equation modelling.
Findings From the findings emerged the interconnections between ethics of justice and
calculation-based trust. Ethics of care, on the other hand, tends to cultivate knowledge-based trust and
identification-based trust, which in turn positively impact corporate governance. The findings also
paved the path from strong corporate governance to high brand performance.
Originality/value From the findings of the study, the insight into the interconnection pattern of
brand performance and its antecedents highlights the magnitude of ethics training program as well as
the construction of knowledge-based trust, identification-based trust as well as strong corporate
governance in optimizing brand performance in listed companies in Vietnam market.
Keywords Corporate governance, Brand performance
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Corporate governance has become a theme of active academic discussion the world
over (Mayer, 1997). From Monks and Minows (2004, p. 1) stance, due to corporate
frauds and meltdowns, corporate governance is surfacing as a more and more critical
domain of modern management.
Mayers (1997) research examines the interconnection between corporate governance
and trust. Trust is identified by Wang and Chen (2004) as one of the four corporate
governance pillars. Building a climate of trust is essential for effective corporate
governance (Ghillyer, 2008, p. 85). Child and Rodriguess (2004) study reveals that
policies, which may help mend employee trust, reinforce corporate governance.
An organizations distinctive trust systems and its competence to replicate and exploit
trusting relationships are accountable for enhancement of its governance policies and
overall competitive edge (Rodgers, 2009). Skinner and Spira (2003) portray the intricacy
of the linkage between trust and control in the context of corporate governance by
studying the internal audit technique of control self-assessment. McCarthy and Puffer
(2002) also found that in the context of corporate governance, trust in the system and
trust among its stakeholders are crucial underpinnings for transparency and disclosure
of corporate and shareholder information. Management Research Review
Vol. 37 No. 1, 2014
Furthermore, in Nwabueze and Mileskis (2008) view, the ground rules of any pp. 45-68
corporate governance structure should reflect such societal norms as trust and ethics. q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
2040-8269
The concept of corporate governance, by and large, is contained in the ethics of care, DOI 10.1108/MRR-08-2012-0183
MRR justice, rights and utility (Nwabueze and Mileski, 2008). Hooghiemstra and van Manens
37,1 (2002) investigation into 2,500 of the largest companies in The Netherlands also divulges
the growing magnitude of social and ethical issues in the corporate governance
discussion.
Besides the relationships corporate governance has with trust and ethics, studies have
highlighted the impact of corporate governance on firm performance. Companies with
46 good corporate governance structure have higher performance, higher valuation and
lower bankruptcy risk (Ehikioya, 2009). Brown and Caylor (2004) encountered a robust
link between corporate governance and performance, valuation and dividend payout for
a large sample of US companies. Bauer et al. (2008) found that well-governed companies
significantly outperform poorly governed companies by up to 15 percent annually.
Nonetheless, there remains an avenue for studying if corporate governance impacts
brand performance. This research aims to bridge this gap through developing a
research framework that examines the linkages between corporate governance and
brand performance as well as between corporate governance and its such precursors as
trust and ethics.
This prelude of the paper is followed by the review of the perspectives and studies
on the variables of the current research. This literature review serves as the foundation
for building the conceptual framework for which the data is then analyzed. The paper
concludes with some practical implications and potential research avenues related to
the concept brand performance and its independent variables.
2. Literature review
2.1 Corporate governance
Most of the early definitions on corporate governance discern corporate governance as a
system utilized to shield investors interests. Shleifer and Vishny (1997) define corporate
governance as the ways in which suppliers of finance to companies assure themselves
of getting a return on their investment. In a similar vein, La Porta et al. (2000) refer to
corporate governance as a set of mechanisms through which outside investors protect
themselves against expropriation by [managers and controlling shareholders]. These
definitions reflect the narrow perspective of corporate governance based on shareholder
or stockholder orientation, which is the premise for agency theory model of corporate
governance, in which shareholders as principals delegate role to managers as agents,
where there is risk sharing between the entities and latent conflict of interest
(Eisenhardt, 1989). Agency theory, nonetheless, is insufficient in expounding how
managers must address non-direct shareholder interests such as political pressures and
societal expectations from companies (Nwabueze and Mileski, 2008). With its focus on
regulation, control tools and professional codes, agency approach has left a gap in
bridging governance and organizational value via stakeholder engagement (Young and
Thyil, 2009). Agency theory perspective underscores a control approach to corporate
governance as Gillan and Starkss (1998) view of corporate governance as the system of
laws, rules, and factors that control operations in a company, whereas the stakeholder
theory perspective advocates a collaborative approach. As such, stewardship theory
has been developed as an alternative perspective to agency theory, and received
stronger support (Tian and Lau, 2001), since stewardship theory is asymptotic to
stakeholder-oriented model while agency theory revolves around shareholder value
maximization. In stewardship theory, as trustworthy stewards of the company,
managers cooperate with the principal to attain high corporate profit and shareholders Corporate
returns (Donaldson and Davis, 1994), and goal alignment (Davis et al., 1997). governance
Through its definition of corporate governance as a set of relationships between a
companys management, its board, its shareholders and other stakeholders, the OECD
(2004) looks beyond the relationship between shareholder and director into a wider
network of relationships including other stakeholders, building stakeholder model of
corporate governance. The OECD definition is also harmonious with the current trend 47
that the discourse of corporate social responsibility (CSR) has been employed to shift the
locus of corporate governance toward civil society stakeholders (Murphy and Bendell,
1997; Young and Thyil, 2009). Defining corporate governance as the exercise of power
over and responsibility for corporate entities, Mallin (2002) places responsibility beside
mechanism of control through laws and rules. In Cadbury Reports (1992) definition of
corporate governance as the system by which companies are directed and controlled,
leadership, which is reflected in the term directed, is required beside the control
mechanism. One of the reforms in corporate governance is the scorecard on corporate

governance (Cheung and Jang, 2008) as an endeavour to integrate social responsibility
and ethical leadership into corporate governance framework, and comprehensively
manage and measure the performance of all stakeholders.
Stakeholder orientation in corporate governance framework can also be further
elucidated through diverse stakeholder theories comprising: ontological stakeholder
theory, explanatory stakeholder theory, and deontic stakeholder theory. Ontological
stakeholder theory views a company as an organizational entity through which many
different individuals and groups attempt to achieve their ends (Boatright, 2003, p. 391)
and whose very purpose [. . .] is to serve as a vehicle for coordinating stakeholder
interests (Evan and Freeman, 1988). Going beyond managing inputs and outputs
reflected in ontological stakeholder theory, explanatory stakeholder theory entails
managing stakeholder relations which may provide a more adequate model for
understanding what people in corporations actually do (Boatright, 2003, p. 391).
Nonetheless, the best form of stakeholder theory functioning as the premise for
corporate governance framework is deontic stakeholder theory which looks at the
companys ethical duty to stakeholders beyond what is demanded by law, or extensive
extra-legal, profit-diminishing obligations to some of its stakeholder groups (Heath and
Norman, 2004), promoting components of corporate governance such as minimized
conflicts of interests and transparency and disclosure.
2.2 Brand performance

The concept brand is viewed to have a semantic continuum, at one end of which,
brand embraces a name, a trademark, a symbol, a logo, or an identity, and at the other
end of which, brand contains all tangible and intangible attributes of an organization
(Prasad and Dev, 2000). Franzen and Bouwman (2001) allege that, via brands, their
functional and sentimental values are effectively encoded in customers perceptions.
Brand performance denotes a brands strength in the market (OCass and Ngo,
2007b), and is defined as the relative measurement of the brands success in the
marketplace (OCass and Weerawardena, 2010). Brand performance is reflected in its
attainment of organisational strategy and goals. It can be measured through its sales
growth, profitability, and market share. It also has been operationalized utilizing
stock market returns (Simon and Sullivan, 1993). Ambler (1995) looks upon a brand
MRR as a nexus of functional, psychological and economic benefits for customers, so
37,1 economic metrics alone appear inadequate for the construct brand performance. As a
stance the author of the current study expresses, brand performance denotes how a
brand financially and nonfinancially succeeds in the market competition. A number of
researchers such as Reid (2002), Chaudhuri (2002), and Wong and Merrilees (2007) view
brand reputation, awareness, and loyalty as a brands crucial performance. As Doyle
48 (1990) contends, overwhelmed with myriads of choices to make daily, customers tend
to turn to brands that have formerly given them the satisfaction.
From Srinivasans (1979) standpoint, a customers attitude can be valued as the sum
value of a brands attributes; however, the author of the present study suggests replacing
the term the sum value by the synergy value. By discerning how attributes relate to
the performance of the brand, they can be classified into product-related attributes
and non-product-related attributes (Keller, 1993). The formation of ingredients key to the
performance of the brand and the physical composition of the brand are some instances
of product-related attributes; and product appearance, price of the product, user and
usage imagery are some instances of non-product-related attributes.
In Rajagopals (2008) view, numerous companies engage in a variety of integrated
marketing activities to monitor brand performance indicators by 5As expounded as
brand awareness, acquaintance, association, allegiance and appraisal spread over
perceptional, performance and financial factors. Brand acquaintance refers to customers
familiarity with the brands of a company and brand association refers to customers
buying behavior towards the acquainted brands. Allegiance and appraisal are,
respectively, synonymous with loyalty and performance of brand against investments
made by the company.
OCass and Ngo (2007a) developed and tested an integrated model of two components,
external adaptation (EA) and internal effectiveness (IE), to reveal that competitive
intensity influences a companys strategic type and characteristics that drive superior
brand performance. Rajagopal (2008), furthermore, discussed the crucial components of
a brand metrics strategy and application of brand scorecard as an integrated approach
to measure the overall performance of brands.
2.3 Trust
From van den Akker et al.s (2009) standpoint, trust is:
[. . .] a psychological state comprising the positive expectation that another party will perform
particular actions that are important to oneself, coupled with a willingness to accept
vulnerability which may arise from the actions of that other party.
Trust dimensions tend to be discerned based on the sources of trust from the trustors
side.
Calculation-based trust. As depicted by Rousseau et al. (1998, p. 399),
calculation-based trust is based on rational choice characteristic of interactions
based upon economic exchange. It is a trust based on deterrence or the balance of
consequences perceived by the trustor and trustee. Behavior control and manipulation
of the other are its hallmarks.
Knowledge-based trust. Exercise of control catalyzes calculation-based trust while
exchange of information characterizes knowledge-based trust. Whereas calculation-based
trust is contingent on deterrence, knowledge-based trust is conditioned upon how
profoundly the trustor can understand and predict the trustees deeds as contended by Corporate
Lewicki and Bunker (1995, p. 149): The better I know the other, the better I can trust what governance
the other will do because I can accurately predict how they will respond in most
situations. With accessible information, this form of trust also detects untrustworthiness
and the limits of trust.
Identification-based trust. Identification-based trust is deemed to be a product of
reciprocal understanding: 49
At this [. . .] level of trust, trust exists because the parties effectively understand, agree with
and endorse each others wants; this mutual understanding is developed to the point that each
can effectively act for the other (Lewicki and Bunker, 1995, p. 151).
Each party understands the others and understands what is required to sustain the
trusting relationship.
Sundaramurthy (2008) displays a model of sustaining trust, whose fundamental
premise is that trust is dynamic and multiple dimensions of trust need to be developed
through structures and processes. A trust evaluation model for determining trust
between coworkers developed by Chen and Chen (2009) was based on direct, indirect
and negative trust factors and on consideration of worker history of resource use
(Chen et al., 2008).
2.4 Ethics of justice versus ethics of care

From Potocan and Mulejs (2009) stance, ethics is an integral sentimental part of
human characteristics and the subjective portion of the starting point of any human
behavior process encompassing business.
Business ethics deals with the linkage between business goals and approaches to
specifically human ends (Tran, 2008). It denotes the special responsibilities which a
person and a citizen consents to when he becomes a part of the business world. Business
ethics is portrayed by Preuss (2008) as part of a veritable explosion of concepts that aim
to explain what the proper role of business in society should be, encompassing such
terms as corporate citizenship, CSR, triple bottom line, and sustainability.
This paper looks at two types of ethics, ethics of care and ethics of justice, which
tend to contrast each other (Plot, 2009). Whereas Strike (2003) discerns in ethics of
justice the dualistic tension between benefit maximization and esteem for individual
rights, Begley (2006) views ethics of justice as a foundation for deciding on the actual
deeds that will augment benefits for all while respecting individual rights. Ethics of
justice revolves round such notions as rationality, rights, and justice, while ethics of
care is concerned with consideration, sentiments, and responsibility (Plot, 2009). Ethics
of care tilted the focus on ethics from individual rights to relational prerequisites
(French and Weis, 2000). That the identity of the self who one is is predicated on
the caring relationships the self has with others, serves as the underpinning for ethics
of care (Lantos, 2002). Ethics of care is a way to sustain the focus of the process on
people rather than on policies (Begley, 2006).
Three crucial attributes differentiating ethics of care from ethics of justice, as
Tronto (1993, p. 79) observe, encompass: first, ethics of care focuses on responsibility
and relationships rather than rights and rules; second, it is embeded in specific
circumstances rather than being abstract, formal, and universal; and third, it is best
expressed not as a set of principles but as an activity, the activity of care.
MRR Whereas ethics of justice is embedded in fairness the equitable allocation of
37,1 resources and implementation of rules, ethics of care looks toward the dignity and
intrinsic value of each person, and desires to see that persons enjoy a fully human life
(Starratt, 2003, p. 145) as well as focuses on the demands of relationships, not from a
contractual or legalistic standpoint, but from a standpoint of absolute regard and
love (Starratt, 2003, p. 145).
50
2.5 Hypotheses development
Ethics of care shifted the focus on ethics from individual rights to relational
prerequisites (French and Weis, 2000) or the caring relationships the self has with
others (Lantos, 2002). Ethics of care, therefore, facilitates the flow of knowledge and
information among organizational members, which builds knowledge-based trust.
When caring relationships toward stakeholders develop, knowledge of values, vision,
and strategies tend to be shared or identification-based trust thrives as Luu (2012c)
highlights that identification-based trust takes shape as a result of the fact that
members look in the same direction into high quality of life for stakeholders. In other
words, ethics of care catalyzes the growth of knowledge-based trust and
identification-based trust in the organization, as posited in the following hypotheses:
H1a. A greater degree of identification-based trust corresponds to a greater level of
ethics of care.
H1b. A greater degree of knowledge-based trust corresponds to a greater level of
ethics of care.
Behavior control is pivotal to the relationship of calculation-based trust: I trust you
because I can control what I want you to do and eliminate the risk of your unpredictability
(Lewicki and Bunker, 1995, p. 153). Behavior control as the hallmark of calculation-based
trust entails organisational structural attributes, rules and policies that denote mounting
(or diminishing) predictability of actions (Herting, 2002; Luu, 2011). Meanwhile, ethics of
justice is best expressed as a set of principles (Tronto, 1993, p. 79), and revolves around the
demands of relationships, from a contractual or legalistic stance, rather than from a stance
of absolute regard and love (Starratt, 2003, p. 145). Furthermore, ethics of justice is
characterized by the predominance of individual rights and self-interest in pursuing
individual goals (Katims, 1995; Luu, 2012b). Ethics of justice is thus consistent with
calculation-based trust which is built on economic exchange (Lewicki and Wiethoff, 2000),
rather than sharing of and contributing to organisational vision and strategy, so tends to
yield economic exchange for short-term self-interests rather than looking farther at
long-term sustainability for the organisation (Nooteboom and Six, 2003; Bryer, 2009; Luu,
2011). This stream of discussion paves the path for the subsequent hypothesis:
H1c. A greater degree of calculation-based trust corresponds to a greater level of
ethics of justice.
The more knowledge-based trust and identification-based trust thrive among
members, the higher level the inter-member interactions reach. These types of trust
therefore augment the effectiveness of corporate governance which is ultimately the
outcome of interactions among multiple stakeholders (Aguilera and Jackson, 2003).
Besides such an indirect link, trust also relates to corporate governance through the
concept embeddedness which underscores noneconomic social ties (Streeck, 2002).
Knowledge-based trust and identification-based trust tightens noneconomic social ties Corporate
among stakeholders, yielding corporate governance effectiveness. governance
The superseding goal of corporate governance is the defense of outsider
stakeholders interests (Pergola and Joseph, 2011). This goal can be attained through
the communication of information as well as long-term values and strategies, which is
central to knowledge-based trust and identification-based trust. Moreover, a common
factor in all four pillars of corporate governance is information exchange (Wang and 51
Chen, 2004). The positive interplay between corporate governance and knowledge-based
trust/identification-based trust is thus anticipated to emerge:
H2a. A greater degree of identification-based trust corresponds to stronger
corporate governance.
H2b. A greater degree of knowledge-based trust corresponds to stronger corporate
governance.
Calculation-based trust, as depicted by Lewicki and Bunker (1995), is a trust built on

perceived outcomes and benefits, balanced by the costs of sustaining the relationship.
In other words, calculation-based trust is the relationship through economic
contracting. Meanwhile, conflicts of interest corporate governance refers to between
insiders and outsiders over the value creation by a company cannot be resolved
effectively by contracting (Pergola and Joseph, 2011). Furthermore, calculation-based
trust is characterized by short-term expectations and circumstantial contingencies
(Herting, 2002; Luu, 2012i) whereas corporate governance looks at sustainable interests
of stakeholders. Calculation-based trust, therefore, is assumed not to contribute to the
strong corporate governance in the organization:
H2c. A greater degree of calculation-based trust corresponds to weaker corporate
governance.
Good corporate governance revolves around the principles of accountability,
transparency, fairness and responsibility in the management of the organization
(Ehikioya, 2009). Nonetheless, these principles focus on the demands of relationships of
all stakeholders from a standpoint of absolute regard of ethics of care (Starratt, 2003,
p. 145). The principle of fairness in corporate governance is not the form of fairness
which ethics of justice is embedded in, namely the equitable allocation of resources and
implementation of rules, but the equitable care distributed towards all stakeholders.
Moreover, ethics of care focuses on responsibility and relationships rather than rights
and rules (Tronto, 1993, p. 79), so is consonant with the principles of good corporate
governance. The following hypotheses were hence formulated:
H3a. A greater level of ethics of care corresponds to stronger corporate governance.
H3b. A greater level of ethics of justice corresponds to weaker corporate governance.
Companies with good corporate governance demonstrate a strong propensity for
market orientation (Ho et al., 2010; Luu, 2012f). Matsuno et al. (2002) found a positive
link between market orientation and brand performance at macro level, and market
orientation was also found to relate to superior customer value creation and brand
performance (Homburg et al., 2002); corporate governance therefore can be presumed to
augment brand performance.
MRR According to OCass and Ngo (2007b), the success of a brand is contingent on the
37,1 organizational competence to innovatively build unique ways of delivering superior
value to customers; therefore, corporate governance, which is the structure that is
intended to make sure [. . .] that checks and balances are in place to make sure that the
answers reflect what is best for the creation of long-term, sustainable value (Monks
and Minow, 2004), will lead the brand to success.
52 Additionally, the linkage between corporate governance and brand performance
can also be discerned through corporate transparency since corporate governance may
influence corporate transparency and as a result lead to better market performance
(Loh, 2002). Furthermore, reputation, one of four corporate governance pillars (Wang
and Chen, 2004), can build strong brand association in consumer mindsets as a
foundation for high brand performance since positive relationship occurs between
corporate reputation and brand performance (Lai et al., 2010). Moreover, from the
perspective of stakeholder theory, corporate governance entails the commitment to pay
extraordinary attention to the interests of particular stakeholder groups (especially

customers and/or employees, but also in some cases to communities concerned with
the environment or with human rights), so can be a basic facet of a companys
branding (Heath and Norman, 2004). The positive association between corporate
governance and the companys market value was also encountered in Beltrattis (2005)
research. The subsequent hypothesis consequently surfaced:
H4. Brand performance is positively associated with corporate governance.
Figure 1 shows arrows between brand performance and its such precursors as
corporate governance, trust, and ethics.
3. Methodology
3.1 Sample
A population of 2,372 listed companies at the Ho Chi Minh City Stock Exchange
(HOSE) in Vietnam serves as a base to derive the sample of 1,163 listed companies
Organizational trust
H1a Identification-based trust

H2a
Knowledge-based trust H4 Brand

H1b H2b Corporate governance performance
H1c Calculation-based trust
H2c
Stronger corporate
governance
H3a Weaker corporate

governance
Ethics
Ethics of care H3b
Figure 1.
Conceptual model Ethics of justice
for this research. As organizations should be sufficiently large to ensure that Corporate
organizational and strategy variables apply (Miller, 1987), only these 1,163 organizations governance
reached the two criteria:
(1) turnovers are at least Vietnam Dong25 billion yearly (equivalent to
US$1,202,000); and
(2) at least 50 employees are employed.
53
Through self-administered structured questionnaire despatched to a middle level
manager such as operations director or manager in each of these 1,163 listed companies,
data on such constructs as corporate governance, brand performance, trust, and ethics
were collated. Middle management members were relied on as the respondents since
they would have more opportunities to observe high as well as low layers of
organizational behavior than would lower level members. Data collection was conducted
between July 2011 and March 2012 with two reminders for non-responding managers in
the hope to increase the response rate from inherently busy respondents. As Table I
Private 100 percent

State-owned domestic foreign-invested Joint-venture
companies companies companies companies
Characteristics Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD F-test Sig.
Company size
(number of
employees) 431.5 578.2 132.5 321.2 238.4 169.2 207.2 201.5 32.17 0.01
Company age
(years) 26.9 16.8 15.2 14.4 11.7 16.7 14.2 12.8 11.56 0.00
Respondent
average age
(years) 36.8 5.2 30.6 3.8 27.1 3.4 34.9 3.6 1.05 0.11
Respondent
average tenure
(years) 14.2 5.6 7.4 4.1 5.9 4.2 7.8 2.7 24.67 0.00
Respondent
education (years
after high
school) 5.8 3.4 4.2 1.8 6.3 2.5 5.2 2.9 1.09 0.07
Number % Number % Number % Number % x2 Sig.
Respondent
position 124 102 47 39
Chief
accountant 12 9.68 14 13.73 4 8.51 5 12.82
HR manager 27 21.77 22 21.57 10 21.28 7 17.95
Operations
manager 25 20.16 22 21.57 13 27.66 10 25.64 14.22 0.00
Marketing
manager 31 25.00 19 18.63 11 23.40 8 20.51
Sales manager 24 19.35 21 20.59 8 17.02 9 23.08
Others 5 4.03 4 3.92 1 2.13 0 0.00
Respondent gender Table I.
Male 68 54.84 54 52.94 22 46.81 27 69.23 1.49 0.02 The demographic profile
Female 56 45.16 48 47.06 25 53.19 12 30.77 of the sample
MRR displays, the demographic profile of the sample represented a comparatively wide range
37,1 of company ownership types.
Of 1,163 questionnaires sent to middle level managers, 312 were returned in
completed form for a response rate of 26.83 percent, which is virtually consistent with
the 15-25 percent response rate range encountered in numerous studies (Baines and
Langfield-Smith, 2003; Lee et al., 2001; Spanos and Lioukas, 2001) where middle and
54 top managers with hectic working schedules acted as informants.
3.2 Quantitative measures

Corporate governance. To measure the strength of the governance mechanisms for a
company, an index of composite governance mechanisms developed by Institutional
Shareholder Services (ISS) was resorted to. The ISS index consists of 61 separate
variables covering the eight corporate governance categories. This categorization
evaluates the strengths, deficiencies and overall quality of a companys corporate

governance practices and board of directors and is designed on the premise that good
corporate governance ultimately results in increased shareholder value (ISS, 2003).
Each variable is equally weighted by 1. This governance index composite score
was identified as GI. A higher index score implied stronger governance effectiveness.
The ISS index was used in some empirical studies such as Brown and Caylors (2004,
2006) and Aggarwal and Williamsons (2006). The eight corporate governance categories
encompass audit issues, board structure and composition, charter and bylaw provisions,
director education, executive and director compensation, director and officer ownership,
progressive practices, and the state of incorporation related to takeover defenses. Sample
items from each category, respectively, include Audit committee consists solely of
independent outside directors, Managers respond to shareholder proposals within
12 months of shareholder meeting, A simple majority vote is required to approve a
merger (not a supermajority), No interlocks exist among directors on the compensation
committee, All directors with more than one year of service own stock, At least one
member of the board has participated in an ISS-accredited director education program,
Mandatory retirement age for directors exists, and Incorporation in a state without
any anti-takeover provisions.
Brand performance. Brand market share and brand sales levels were utilized as
metrics of market performance of a brand (Baldauf et al., 2003). Measuring of brand
performance through market share can provide sensible reflection of a brand and its
customers (Aaker, 1996). Keller and Lehmanns (2003) Brand Value Chain model also
underscored the interconnection between the customer mindset and brand market
share. Brand market share and brand sales volume indicate the relative market share
and sales volume of a brand compared to other brands. In this research, respondents
were invited to rate the market share, sales volume, and overall brand performance of
their brand on a seven-point Likert scale (1 very poor, 7 very good). In Lee et al.s
(2008) study, the companys brand performance was also investigated through the
questionnaire survey that measured the perceived financial performance related to
consuming brand products and services.
Organisational trust. The construct of organizational trust comprises three types
and 16 individual scale items which were adapted from Nguyens (2005) measurement
predicated on studies by Nyhan and Marlowe (1997), Nooteboom et al. (1997), and
Cummings and Bromiley (1996). The three types were: calculation-based trust which
consists of five items, knowledge-based trust seven items, and identification-based Corporate
trust four items. The 16 statements of organizational trust construct were gauged governance
with a five-point Likert-type scoring system applied to a scale anchored by strongly
disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). Principal components analysis to assess the
underlying relationship of each dimension within organizational trust is shown in
Table II. The reliability of the scales was confirmed since all scales exceeded the
recommended cut-off point of 0.70 (Nunnally, 1967). 55
Factor Item to total Cronbachs

S.No. Scale items organizational trust loading correlation a
A Calculation-based trust 0.8912

1 If employees do not fulfill the contract with 0.902 0.7639
the employer, they could seriously damage
their reputation in the market

2 Employees are dependent on the employer in 0.907 0.7746
developing their career
3 If employees break their contract with the 0.939 0.8164
employer, they will have to pay a significant
legal fine
4 In general, employees benefit from working 0.940 0.8180
with the employer
5 The employer would feel a sense of betrayal if 0.894 0.8506
employees leave the employer only for
economic reasons
B Knowledge-based trust 0.8379
6 Employees generally tell the truth in 0.903 0.8274
discussions
7 Employees generally meet their discussed 0.817 0.7739
obligations
8 In the emloyers opinion, employees are 0.839 0.7738
reliable
9 In general employees do not try to mislead the 0.842 0.8184
employer
10 Employees keep the employers best interests 0.833 0.7612
in mind
11 The employer cares about employees 0.827 0.8028
problems, feelings, and concerns
12 In the emloyers opinion, employees 0.838 0.7448
capabilities are good enough to fulfill the
contracts with the employer
C Identification-based trust 0.8306
13 The top manager has shared values/beliefs 0.901 0.8026
with employees
14 Employees and the top manager share 0.907 0.8614
business related information with one another
15 Employees and the top manager feel free to 0.825 0.8472
share their ideas, feelings, hopes, or problems
that may not directly relate to business Table II.
16 Employees and the top manager share some 0.801 0.7681 Principal component
of their own personal information analysis of
(e.g. background, personal life, etc.) organizational trust
MRR Ethics of justice and care. Nine moral dilemmas containing the first component of the
37,1 measure of moral orientation (MMO) (Liddell et al., 1992; Liddell and Davis, 1996)
were employed to measure leader inclinations to ethics of justice and care. Each of the
nine dilemmas was followed by six to nine potential responses, half of which referred to
the justice dimension and half of which referred to the care dimension. Respondents were
asked to study each dilemma and indicate on a four-point Likert scale (1 strongly
56 agree, 4 strongly disagree) how they consented to each of the potential responses.
Leaders were supposed to possess a propensity to justice when the mean score across
all dilemmas on responses reflected a justice orientation and possess a propensity to
care when the mean score across all dilemmas on responses reflected a care orientation.
Adequate internal consistencies, 0.73 and 0.84 for the justice and care scales,
respectively, were found in Liddell et al.s (1992) study.
Descriptive statistics of the constructs are exhibited in Table III. Data collated from
the questionnaire survey was dissected through LISREL 8.52. Skewness and kurtosis,
which indicate the extent to which a variable deviates from normal distribution, serve
as underpinnings for multiple regression analysis in the structural equation model
(SEM). The degree of symmetry in a probability frequency distribution is gauged by
skewness, and the degree of steepness in a frequency distribution which demonstrates
whether there are too many or too few data lying close to the mean is measured through
kurtosis (Leech et al., 2008). According to Hair et al. (1998), significant departure from
normal distribution occurs when skewness and kurtosis values fall outside the range of
21 to 1. As all skewness and kurtosis values of seven interval variables in the study
(skewness values between 20.632 and 0.082; kurtosis values between 20.308 and 0.426
as in Table III) were found not to surpass the acceptable range of skewness and kurtosis
indices; the data set was deemed to have moderately normal distribution and the
maximum likelihood estimation was resorted to Hair et al. (2006).
Through the adoption of multiple-item measures, the measures reliability was
potentially enhanced (Neuman, 2000). The reliability of each construct and its specific
dimensions was appraised through Cronbachs a coefficients. The composite reliability
Average
Constructs/ No. of Cronbachs First-order variance
a
dimensions items Mean SD Skewness Kurtosis a loadings range extracted
Ethics of care 9 2.67 0.51 2 0.086 0.426 0.82 (0.79-0.84) 0.589

Ethics of
justice 9 2.14 0.38 2 0.547 0.401 0.71 (0.68-0.72) 0.591
Identification-
based trust 4 3.42 0.53 2 0.244 20.308 0.83 (0.80-0.90) 0.664
Knowledge-
based trust 7 3.58 0.57 2 0.632 0.415 0.84 (0.82-0.90) 0.635
Calculation-
based trust 5 3.67 0.49 0.082 0.324 0.89 (0.89-0.94) 0.657
Corporate
governance 61 5.46 0.37 2 0.578 20.004 0.78 (0.74-0.82) 0.652
Brand
Table III. performance 3 5.14 0.24 2 0.407 20.001 0.85 (0.82-0.88) 0.709
Descriptive statistics
a
of the constructs Note: All factor loadings are statistically significant ( p , 0.05)
of each research variable ranges from 0.71 to 0.89 (Table III), above 0.6 recommended Corporate
by Bagozzi and Yi (1988). Convergent validity was also attained since the resulting governance
average variance extracted for each measure ranges from 0.589 to 0.709 (Table III),
above 0.50 from Fornell and Larckers (1981) standpoint.
Via the use of validated scales in the existing literature, content validity was
grounded. Besides, the questionnaire underwent three-phase pretest. The questionnaire
was first examined and edited by several academics. Ten top managers in a CEO 57
training class were then invited to complete the questionnaire and to share comments on
its form and content. In the last phase of the pretest, 24 students in an MBA class were
involved in the completion of this questionnaire. Minor adjustments on wording and
presentation were eventually carried out.
4. Findings and discussion

4.1 Findings from ANOVAs
As the findings from ANOVAs (Table IV) display, since the mean score of
identification-based trust in the firms with ethics of care (5.69) surpasses the mean score
of identification-based trust in the firms with ethics of justice (5.17), ethics of care is more
associated with identification-based trust ( p , 0.01) than ethics of justice. Likewise,
since the mean score of knowledge-based trust in the firms with ethics of care (5.01)
exceeds the mean score of knowledge-based trust in the firms with ethics of justice (4.79),
ethics of care is more associated with knowledge-based trust ( p , 0.05) than ethics of
justice. On the contrary, since the mean score of calculation-based trust in the firms with
ethics of justice (4.65) is greater than the mean score of calculation-based trust in the
firms with ethics of care (4.47), ethics of justice is more associated with calculation-based
trust ( p , 0.05) than ethics of care. The data, furthermore, indicates stronger corporate
governance for ethics of care than for ethics of justice ( p , 0.01) as the mean score of
corporate governance in the firms with ethics of care (4.72) surpasses the mean score of
corporate governance in the firms with ethics of justice (4.48).
4.2 Findings from the SEM

The structural models fit statistics prove rational: model fit: x 2 469.2, df 317;
incremental fit index (IFI) 0.91; Tucker-Lewis coefficient (TLI) 0.91; comparative
fit index (CFI) 0.91; root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) 0.03,
which are consistent with the criteria of goodness-of-fit indices suggested by Kline
Trust types/corporate governance Ethics of care Ethics of justice F Significance
Identification-based trust 5.69 5.17 5.66 0.00

(0.73) (0.92)
Knowledge-based trust 5.01 4.79 5.04 0.01
(0.92) (1.01)
Calculation-based trust 4.47 4.65 4.02 0.04
(0.73) (0.96)
Corporate governance 4.72 4.48 8.54 0.00
(0.58) (0.81)
Notes: The mean scores are shown for trust types and corporate governance; standard deviations are Table IV.
exhibited in brackets Findings from ANOVAs
MRR (1998) that x2/df ratio is under 3; the values of IFI, TLI, and CFI are above 0.90; and
37,1 RMSEA is up to 0.05. The findings from Table V display positive and significant path
coefficients between:
.
ethics of care and identification-based trust ( p , 0.01)/knowledge-based trust
( p , 0.05);
. ethics of justice and calculation-based trust ( p , 0.05);
58 .
identification-based trust/knowledge-based trust and corporate governance
( p , 0.05);
.
ethics of care and corporate governance ( p , 0.01); and
.
corporate governance and brand performance ( p , 0.01).
4.3 Discussion
The positive and significant relationship between identification-based trust and

corporate governance (0.171; p , 0.05) and that between knowledge-based trust and
corporate governance (0.148; p , 0.05) corroborate hypotheses H2a and H2b. Significant
relationships encountered in Table V between ethics of care and identification-based
trust (0.159; p , 0.01) or knowledge-based trust (0.142; p , 0.05) verify hypotheses H1a
and H1b. Ethics of care is a way to sustain the focus of the process on people rather
than on policies (Begley, 2006) and desires to see that persons enjoy a fully human life
(Starratt, 2003, p. 145). Ethics of care, thus, encourages organizational members to seek to
understand others for mutual trust and collaboration. Through sharing of information
as well as sharing of values, vision, and strategies, knowledge-based trust and
identification-based trust grow and spread through all levels of the organization.
Besides the bridge of knowledge-based trust/identification-based trust through
which ethics of care is correlated with stronger corporate governance, ethics of care
was found to directly and significantly go hand in hand with stronger corporate
governance from the findings of the SEM (0.159; p , 0.01).
Path
Hypothesis Description of path coefficient Z-statistics Conclusion
H1a Ethics of care ! identification-based trust 0.159 3.25 * * Supported

H1b Ethics of care ! knowledge-based trust 0.142 2.31 * Supported
H1c Ethics of justice ! calculation-based trust 0.117 2.18 * Supported
H2a Identification-based trust ! corporate 0.171 2.14 * Supported
governance
H2b Knowledge-based trust ! corporate 0.148 2.08 * Supported
governance
H2c Calculation-based trust ! corporate 0.143 1.25 Not
governance supported
H3a Ethics of care ! corporate governance 0.159 3.34 * * Supported
H3b Ethics of justice ! corporate governance 0.171 1.48 Not
supported
H4 Corporate governance ! brand performance 0.146 3.22 * * Supported
Table V. Notes: Significant at: *p , 0.05 and * *p , 0.01; model fit: x2 469.2, df 317; IFI 0.91;
Findings from the SEM TLI 0.91; CFI 0.91; RMSEA 0.03; tests of hypotheses are one-tail tests
H2c was confirmed due to no lucid link found between calculation-based trust and Corporate
corporate governance. Behavior control as the hallmark of calculation-based trust governance
involves organisational structural attributes, rules, and policies that indicate mouting
(or diminishing) predictability of actions. However, compliance with laws, regulations,
and technical standards is only one way to protect outsider stakeholder interests in
corporate governance mechanisms, so calculation-based trust appears not robust
enough to increase corporate governance strength. 59
The data from the ANOVA and the SEM demonstrate that ethics of justice is more
correlated with calculation-based trust than ethics of care, which substantiates H1c.
Ethics of justice refers to fairness in a calculative manner, implying the fair exchange
between economic commitment and individual interests, so the dissemination of ethics
of justice is prone to cultivate calculation-based trust among organizational members.
H4 which posits the correspondence between corporate governance and brand
performance is supported by the finding (0.146; p , 0.01). Such principles of good
corporate governance as accountability, transparency, fairness and responsibility in

the management of the company (Ehikioya, 2009) address the interests of all
stakeholders in general and customers in particular. Sustainable corporate governance
denotes assuming responsibility: for customers, shareholders, employees, suppliers,
and community. Corporate governance, thus, enhances brand impression in customers
schemata, which leads to high brand performance.
Like other emerging markets, Vietnam market is imperfect and incomplete (Allen,
2005), such as without corporate governance code although Vietnam is a rapidly rising
power (Vierra and Vierra, 2010). Nonetheless, due to organizational value decreases,
bankruptcies and frauds, corporate governance has earned incremental magnitude
(Young and Thyil, 2009), especially in Vietnam business landscape in the last few
years with over 17,000 cases of bankruptcy in 2012 (Do Thien, 2012). With the support
of International Finance Corporation (2011) a member of the World Bank Group, the
State Securities Commission of Vietnam has engaged numerous large listed companies
in voluntary implementation of corporate governance scorecard. Since corporate
governance matters more in countries with weaker investor protection, voluntary
corporate mechanisms such as corporate governance can in part offset ineffective laws
and enforcement (Klapper and Love, 2001; Durnev and Kim, 2002). This voluntary
adoption tends to spread through listed companies in Vietnam (International Finance
Corporation, 2011) since corporate governance, which pursue the interests of all
stakeholders, may help evade market failures (Allen, 2005).
As the research findings demonstrate, the stronger corporate governance, the
higher brand performance an organization reaches. Consistent with Aokis (2000, p. 11)
standpoint that corporate governance concerns the structure of rights and
responsibilities among the parties with a stake in the firm, strong corporate
governance, which underscores and enhances not merely rights and responsibilities of
shareholders but roles of other stakeholders as well, harmonizes interests among
stakeholders, thereby further inspiring their contributions to the value chain of the
organization, especially its brand performance. According to Young and Thyil (2009),
effective governance reflects the organizations awareness of the impact of
stakeholders on organizational success, especially the crucial role of employees,
who are key to sustainable operations, since they are a principal stakeholder and
essential contributors to profitability (Young and Thyil, 2009). Corporate governance,
MRR thus, is concerned with the market, not merely in a narrow sense through its focus on
37,1 customers, but also in a broad sense through its focus on all internal and external
stakeholders (Young and Thyil, 2009) who contribute to high brand performance
( Jones, 2005; Luu, 2012f). Black (2001) also found the corresponding change between
corporate governance scores and corporate market value. In other words, strong
corporate governance engenders value-creating relationships with all stakeholders
60 (Welford, 2007), leading to high brand performance. Brand is not a static entity, but a
dynamic entity (Luu, 2012a; Villagra and Lopez, 2013), and it is stakeholders
sustainable contributions that augment its dynamism.
In Vietnam business landscape, companies tend to improve their brand performance
through quality and price policies; however, some companies build their brand
through exploitation of competitors weaknesses or defamation of competitors to taper
competitors market share, rather than creating the brand sheen from corporate governance
strength. For instance, TH True Milk brand advertizes its launch of clean milk
with indirect hint of uncleanness in the milk of other milk brands (Giao Duc Vietnam, 2011).
The company does not base on corporate governance values to produce novel values to
customers on a new plane of the market, but merely endeavoring to kick out competitors
on the traditional plane of the market.
With anchor on roles of stakeholders including customers and competitors as
co-players in the marketplace, corporate governance will enhance financial and
non-financial performance of a brand through the organizations ethical or socially
responsible treatment of stakeholders as divulged in Luus (2012e) and Luus (2012d)
studies. Corporate governance is a framework for sustainable growth of an organization
(Kyereboah-Coleman and Amidu, 2008; Luu, 2012d) as well as its brand, and obliterates
such unethical reactive behaviors of the organization.
Ethics of care and trust are precursors to corporate governance as the findings
reveal; nonetheless, Vietnam culture concerns care relationships among people, so
managers in Vietnamese companies can elevate this ethics of care by activating this
value inside in each organizational member among all other values of an dynamic
organizational culture (Hofstede, 1980; Luu, 2010).
However, central planning norms still linger in Vietnamese peoples mindsets,
which is prone to promote calculation-based trust and have the negative impact on
corporate governance effectiveness. Therefore, knowledge-based trust and
identification-based trust need to be cultivated through leaders communication and
rolemodelling of mission and values among members. Communication also increases
understanding of interests of both internal and external stakeholders, leading to
knowledge-based trust or identification-based (Lewicki and Wiethoff, 2000; Luu,
2012g). Sharing and celebrating ethical values is also an effective way to build high
level of trust, leading to effective adoption of corporate governance in the organization.
5. Conclusion
The research findings add to the growing body of literature on the role of trust and
ethics in building corporate governance effectiveness which can contribute to brand
performance. Calculation-based trust, within expectation, were correlated with ethics
of justice. On the other hand, ethics of care tended to nourish knowledge-based trust
and identification-based trust, which in turn positively impacted corporate governance.
A direct bridge between ethics of care and corporate governance came into sight as Corporate
well. Corporate governance was also found to impact brand performance. governance
As these findings suggest, to optimize brand performance, corporate governance,
which is about seeing that business is run properly (Tricker, 1984), should be initiated,
activated, or reinforced in the business, for instance in the form of corporate governance
scorecard (Saldana, 2000), in addition to performance management system. The
implementation of corporate governance can be further facilitated if it is germinated in the 61
settings of such values as caring relationships and knowledge-based trust or
identification-based trust. Such values may take time to grow, but are not hard to grow,
as, though partly unconscious and historically based, values can be learned (Williams,
1995, cited in Holbeche, 2006, p. 175). Furthermore, merely through planning of ethics can
organizational ethical behaviour be attained. For effective adoption of the plan of ethics of
care, the plan should be internalized by all organizational stakeholders (Belak et al., 2010).
Pillars of corporate governance framework cannot be strong enough to contribute to
the corporate brand unless they are built on the platform of trust and ethics. It is trust
and ethics of care that converge interests of all organizational members into interests
of stakeholders and the sustainable growth of the organization (Kyereboah-Coleman
and Amidu, 2008) thereby building their insight into corporate governance as a value
driver (Stiglbauer and Velte, 2012), rather than a set of rigid rules and policies. Corporate
governance framework thus should incorporate building blocks trust and ethics as
Nwabueze and Mileski (2008) highlight that the ground rules of any corporate
governance structure should reflect such societal norms as trust and ethics. For instance,
under director education category of corporate governance framework of ISS (2003),
board members need to participate not merely in an ISS-accredited director education
program but code of ethics building program as well. Progressive practices category
should review also non-financial performance of the board such as knowledge sharing,
and executive and director compensation category should include compensation for
such a performance. As such, as a value enhancing mechanism (Nestor, 2001), corporate
governance goes beyond building ethical deeds in the workplace towards infusing
ethical values into organizational members daily life, contributing to the sustainability
of caring relationships and collectivism in Vietnam culture (Hofstede, 1980).
This empirical study has left some limitations. Its cross-sectional nature and its
reliance on self-report data render the findings vulnerable to common method bias.
Longitudinal data through the use of multiple methods are required to gauge the
long-term benefits of corporate governance. Studies of changing performance over time
will be most valuable in spotting factors that lead to improvement (Luu, 2012h).
Moreover, the direction of the relationship of trust and corporate governance may work
in the reverse. The phenomenon of reverse causality in cross-sectional data is a crucial
limitation that further research should attend to Babones (2009) and Luu (2013).
Another limitation is the use of perceptual measures of brand performance. There may
subsist a cognitive bias in which respondents may overstate the performance of their
corporate brand (Noble et al., 2002).
Due to its robust link with numerous organisational outcomes, such as stable,
long-term growth, enhanced customer satisfaction, a competitive advantage, and a strong
marketing orientation (Norburn et al., 1990), marketing effectiveness can act as a
precursor to brand performance, which may appeal to researchers in the future.
Besides the impact of corporate governance on brand performance, the impact of other
MRR precursors such as organizational innovation and learning on brand performance
37,1 can be another research path. Furthermore, since corporate governance systems and
organizational learning are interdependent (Zahra and Filatotchev, 2004), learning can
play a mediating role in the relationship between corporate governance and brand
performance.
62
References
Aaker, D.A. (1996), Measuring brand equity across products and markets, California
Management Review, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 102-120.
Aggarwal, R. and Williamson, R. (2006), Did new regulations target the relevant corporate
attributes?, working paper, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, February 12.
Aguilera, R.V. and Jackson, G. (2003), The cross-national diversity of corporate governance:
dimensions and determinants, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 447-465.
Allen, F. (2005), Corporate governance in emerging economies, Oxford Review of Economic

Policy, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 164-177.
Ambler, T. (1995), Building brand relationships, Financial Times Mastering Management
Series, No. 6, pp. 8-11.
Aoki, M. (2000), Information, Corporate Governance, and Institutional Diversity: Competitiveness
in Japan, the USA, and the Transnational Economies, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Babones, S.J. (2009), Modeling error in quantitative macro-comparative research, American
Sociological Association, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 86-114.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988), On the evaluation for structural equation models, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 74-94.
Baines, A. and Langfield-Smith, K. (2003), Antecedents to management accounting change:
a structural equation approach, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 28 Nos 7/8,
pp. 675-698.
Baldauf, A., Cravens, K.S.M. and Binder, G. (2003), Performance consequences of brand equity
management: evidence from organizations in the value chain, Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 220-236.
Bauer, R., Frijns, B., Otten, R. and Tourani-Rad, A. (2008), The impact of corporate governance
on corporate performance: evidence from Japan, Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Vol. 16,
pp. 236-251.
Begley, P.T. (2006), Self-knowledge, capacity and sensitivity: prerequisites to authentic
leadership by school principals, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 44 No. 6,
pp. 570-589.
Belak, J., Duh, M., Mulej, M. and Strukelj, T. (2010), Requisitely holistic ethics planning as
pre-condition for enterprise ethical behaviour, Kybernetes, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 19-36.
Beltratti, A. (2005), The complementarity between corporate governance and corporate social
responsibility, The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance-Issues and Practice, Vol. 30,
pp. 373-386.
Black, B. (2001), The corporate governance behavior and market value of Russian firms,
Emerging Markets Review, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 89-108.
Boatright, J.R. (2003), Ethics and the Conduct of Business, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Brown, L.D. and Caylor, M.L. (2004), Corporate governance and firm performance, working
paper, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA.
Brown, L.D. and Caylor, M.L. (2006), Corporate governance and firm valuation, Journal of Corporate
Accounting and Public Policy, Vol. 25, pp. 409-434.
governance
Bryer, T.A. (2009), Explaining responsiveness in collaboration: administrator and citizen role
perceptions, Public Administration Review, Vol. 69 No. 2, pp. 271-283.
Cadbury Report (1992), Report of the Committee on Financial Aspects of Corporate Governance,
Gee, London.
Chaudhuri, A. (2002), How brand reputation affects the advertising-brand equity link, Journal 63
of Advertising Research, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 33-43.
Chen, T.-Y. and Chen, Y.-M. (2009), Advanced multi-phase trust evaluation model for
collaboration between coworkers in dynamic virtual project teams, Expert Systems with
Applications, Vol. 36 No. 8, pp. 11172-11185.
Chen, T.-Y., Chen, Y.-M. and Chu, H.-C. (2008), Developing a trust evaluation method between
coworkers in virtual project team for enabling resource sharing and collaboration,
Computers in Industry, Vol. 59 No. 6, pp. 565-579.

Cheung, Y.L. and Jang, H. (2008), Scorecard on corporate governance in East Asia: a comparative
study, in Jay Choi, J. and Dow, S. (Eds), Institutional Approach to Global Corporate
Governance: Business Systems and Beyond (International Finance Review, Volume 9),
Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bradford, pp. 415-458.
Child, J. and Rodrigues, S.B. (2004), Repairing the breach of trust in corporate governance,
Corporate Governance: An International Review, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 143-152.
Cummings, L.L. and Bromiley, P. (1996), The organisation trust inventory (OTI): development
and validation, in Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T.R. (Eds), Trust in Organisations: Frontier of
Theory and Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 302-330.
Davis, J.H., Schoorman, F.D. and Donaldson, L. (1997), Toward a stewardship theory of
management, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 20-47.
Donaldson, L. and Davis, J.H. (1994), Boards and company performance: research challenges the
conventional wisdom, Corporate Governance, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 151-160.
Do Thien (2012), Nua cuoi 2012: Doanh nghie p se, tuyen bo pha san nhie`u hon?

(More businesses declare bankruptcy in the second half of 2012?), available at: http://
vietnamnet.vn/vn/kinh-te/vef/80986/nua-cuoi-2012dn-se-tuyen-bo-pha-san-nhieu-hon-.
html (accessed 23 July 2012).
Doyle, P. (1990), Building successful brands: the strategic options, The Journal of Consumer
Marketing, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 5-20.
Durnev, A. and Kim, E.H. (2002), To steal or not to steal: firm attributes, legal environment and
valuation, working paper, University of Michigan Business School, Ann Arbor, MI.
Ehikioya, B.I. (2009), Corporate governance structure and firm performance in developing
economies: evidence from Nigeria, Corporate Governance, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 231-243.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), Agency theory: an assessment and review, The Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 57-74.
Evan, W.M. and Freeman, E.R. (1988), A stakeholder theory of the modern corporation: Kantian
capitalism, in Beauchamp, T. and Bowie, N. (Eds), Ethical Theory and Business,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 97-106.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
and measurement errors, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Franzen, G. and Bouwman, M. (2001), The Mental World of Brands, World Advertising Research
Centre, Henley on Thames.
MRR French, W. and Weis, A. (2000), An ethics of care or an ethics of justice?, Journal of Business
Ethics, Vol. 27 Nos 1/2, pp. 125-136.
37,1
Ghillyer, A. (2008), Business Ethics: A Real World Approach, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Giao Duc Vietnam (2011), TH True Milk: Sua sach hay chi la slogan quang cao? (TH True
Milk: clean milk or a slogan?), available at: http://giaoduc.net.vn/NTD-thong-thai/TH-
True-Milk-Sua-sach-hay-chi-la-slogan-quang-cao/44585.gd (accessed 18 December 2012).
64 Gillan, S.L. and Starks, L.T. (1998), A survey of shareholder activism: motivation and empirical
evidence, Contemporary Finance Digest, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 10-34.
Hair, J.F., Andersen, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis,
5th ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (2006), Multivariate Data Analysis,
6th ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Heath, J. and Norman, W. (2004), Stakeholder theory, corporate governance and public
management: what can the history of state-run enterprises teach us in the post-Enron
era?, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 247-265.
Herting, S. (2002), Trust correlated with innovation adoption in hospital organizations, paper
presented at American Society of Public Administrations 63rd National Conference,
Phoenix, Arizona, March 8.
Ho, S.-H., Wu, J.-J. and Chen, Y. (2010), Influence of corporate governance and market orientation
on new product preannouncement: evidence from Taiwans electronics industry,
Asia Pacific Management Review, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Hofstede, G. (1980), Cultures Consequences, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
Holbeche, L. (Ed.) (2006), Understanding Change: Theory, Implementation and Success, Elsevier,
Amsterdam, pp. 175-203.
Homburg, C., Hoyer, W.D. and Fassnacht, M. (2002), Service orientation of a retailers business
strategy: dimensions, antecedents, and performance outcomes, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 66 No. 4, pp. 86-101.
Hooghiemstra, R. and van Manen, J. (2002), Supervisory directors and ethical dilemmas: exit or
voice?, European Management Journal, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 1-9.
International Finance Corporation (2011), Corporate Governance Scorecard Report, International
Finance Corporation Ho Chi Minh City Office, Ho Chi Minh City.
ISS (2003), ISS Corporate Governance: Best Practices User Guide and Glossary, Institutional
Shareholder Services, Rockville, MD.
Jones, R. (2005), Finding sources of brand value: developing a stakeholder model of brand
equity, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 10-32.
Katims, I. (1995), The contrary ideals of individualism and nursing value of care, Research and
Theory for Nursing Practice, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 231-240.
Keller, K.L. (1993), Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, January, pp. 1-22.
Keller, K.L. and Lehmann, D.R. (2003), How do brands create value?, Marketing Management,
Vol. 12 No. 3, p. 26.
Klapper, L. and Love, I. (2001), Corporate governance, investor protection and performance in
emerging markets, working paper, World Bank, Washington, DC.
Kline, R.B. (1998), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, Guilford Press,
New York, NY.
Kyereboah-Coleman, A. and Amidu, M. (2008), The link between small business governance Corporate
and performance: the case of the Ghanaian SME sector, Journal of African Business, Vol. 9
No. 1, pp. 121-143. governance
Lai, C.S., Chiu, C.J., Yang, C.F. and Pai, D.C. (2010), The effects of corporate social responsibility
on brand performance: the mediating effect of industrial brand equity and corporate
reputation, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 95 No. 3, pp. 457-469.
Lantos, G.P. (2002), The ethicality of altruistic corporate social responsibility, Journal of 65
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 205-232.
La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A. and Vishny, R. (2000), Investor protection and
corporate governance, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 58, pp. 3-27.
Lee, C., Lee, K. and Pennings, J.M. (2001), Internal capabilities, external networks, and
performance: a study on technology-based ventures, Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 22, pp. 615-640.
Lee, J., Park, S.Y., Baek, I. and Lee, C.S. (2008), The impact of the brand management system on
brand performance in B-B and B-C environments, Industrial Marketing Management,
Vol. 37 No. 7, pp. 848-855.
Leech, N., Barrett, K. and Morgan, G. (2008), SPSS for Intermediate Statistics: Use and
Interpretation, Lawrence Erlbaum, New York, NY.
Lewicki, R.J. and Bunker, B.B. (1995), Trust in relationships: a model of development and
decline, in Bunker, B.B., Rubin, J.Z. and Associates (Eds), Conflict, Cooperation and
Justice: Essays Inspired by the Work of Morton Deutch, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Lewicki, R.J. and Wiethoff, C. (2000), Trust, trust development, and trust repair, in Deutsch, M.
and Coleman, P.T. (Eds), The Handbook of Conflict Resolution, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco,
CA, pp. 86-107.
Liddell, D.L. and Davis, T.L. (1996), The measure of moral orientation: reliability and validity
evidence, Journal of College Student Development, Vol. 37 No. 5, pp. 485-493.
Liddell, D.L., Halpin, G. and Halpin, W.G. (1992), The measure of moral orientation: measuring
the ethics of care and justice, Journal of College Student Development, Vol. 33, pp. 325-330.
Loh, L.C. (2002), Gains from increased voluntary disclosure in corporate reporting, The Star Biz
Weekly, Vol. 3.
Luu, T.T. (2010), Organisational culture, leadership and performance measurement
integratedness, Int. J. Management and Enterprise Development, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 251-275.
Luu, T.T. (2011), Organisational culture and trust as organisational factors for corporate
governance, Int. J. Management and Enterprise Development, Vol. 11 Nos 2-4, pp. 142-162.
Luu, T.T. (2012a), Behind brand performance, Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration,
Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 42-57.
Luu, T.T. (2012b), Behind knowledge transfer, Management Decision, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 459-478.
Luu, T.T. (2012c), Clinical governance: a lever for change in Nhan Dan Gia Dinh Hospital in
Vietnam, Clinical Governance: An International Journal, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 223-247.
Luu, T.T. (2012d), Corporate social responsibility, ethics, and corporate governance,
Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 547-560.
Luu, T.T. (2012e), Corporate social responsibility, leadership, and brand equity in healthcare
service, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 347-362.
Luu, T.T. (2012f), From corporate governance to balanced performance measurement,
Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 29 October.
MRR Luu, T.T. (2012g), Marketing effectiveness and its precursors, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing
and Logistics, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 125-152.
37,1
Luu, T.T. (2012h), Saigon eye hospital: an innovative business model in healthcare, Leadership
in Health Services, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 123-138.
Luu, T.T. (2012i), The linkages among leadership, trust, and business ethics, Social
Responsibility Journal, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 133-148.
66 Luu, T.T. (2013), Underneath organizational health and knowledge sharing, Journal of
Organizational Change Management, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 139-168.
McCarthy, D. and Puffer, S. (2002), Corporate governance in Russia: towards a European, US, or
Russian model?, European Management Journal, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 630-640.
Mallin, C. (2002), Editorial mission statement, Corporate Governance: An International Review,
Vol. 10 No. 1.
Matsuno, K., Mentzer, J.T. and Ozsomer, A. (2002), The effects of entrepreneurial proclivity and
market orientation on business performance, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 66, pp. 18-32.
Mayer, C. (1997), Corporate governance, competition, and performance, Journal of Law and
Society, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 152-176.
Miller, D. (1987), The structural environmental correlates of business strategy, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 55-76.
Monks, R. and Minow, N. (2004), Corporate Governance, 3rd ed., Blackwell Publishing, Boston, MA.
Murphy, D.F. and Bendell, J. (1997), In the Company of Partners: Business, Environmental
Groups and Sustainable Development, The Policy Press, Bristol.
Nestor, S. (2001), International Efforts to Improve Corporate Governance: Why and How,
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Paris.
Neuman, W.L. (2000), Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, 4th ed.,
Allyn & Bacon, Boston, MA.
Nguyen, T.V. (2005), Learning to trust: a study of interfirm trust dynamics in Vietnam, Journal
of World Business, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 203-221.
Noble, C.H., Sinha, R.K. and Kumar, A. (2002), Market orientation and alternative strategic
orientations: a longitudinal assessment of performance implications, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 6, October, pp. 25-39.
Nooteboom, B. and Six, F. (Eds) (2003), The Trust Process in Organizations, Edward Elgar,
Cheltenham.
Nooteboom, B., Berger, H. and Noorderhaven, N.G. (1997), Effects of trust and governance on
relational risk, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 40/2, pp. 308-338.
Norburn, D., Birley, S., Dunn, M. and Payne, A. (1990), A four nation study of the relationship
between marketing effectiveness, corporate culture, corporate values, and market
orientation, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 21, Third quarter, pp. 451-468.
Nunnally, J.C. (1967), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Nwabueze, U. and Mileski, J. (2008), The challenge of effective governance: the case of Swiss
air, Corporate Governance, Vol. 8 No. 5, pp. 583-594.
Nyhan, R.C. and Marlowe, H.A. (1997), Development and psychometric properties of the
organizational trust inventory, Evaluation Review, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 614-635.
OCass, A. and Ngo, L.V. (2007a), Balancing external adaptation and internal effectiveness:
achieving better brand performance, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 60 No. 1, pp. 11-20.
OCass, A. and Ngo, L.V. (2007b), Market orientation versus innovative culture: two routes Corporate
to superior brand performance, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 41 Nos 7/8, pp. 868-887.
governance
OCass, A. and Weerawardena, J. (2010), The effect of perceived industry competitive intensity
and marketing-related capabilities: drivers of superior brand performance, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 571-581.
OECD (2004), Principles of Corporate Governance, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development, Paris, available at: www.oecd.org/dataoecd/32/18/31557724.pdf (accessed 12 67
April 2011).
Pergola, T.M. and Joseph, G.W. (2011), Corporate governance and board equity ownership,
Corporate Governance, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 200-213.
Plot, F.A. (2009), Paying attention to attention: care and humanism, Society and Business
Review, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 37-44.
Potocan, V. and Mulej, M. (2009), Toward a holistical perception of the content of business
ethics, Kybernetes, Vol. 38 Nos 3/4, pp. 581-595.

Prasad, K. and Dev, C.S. (2000), Managing hotel brand equity: a customer-centric framework for
assessing performance, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 41
No. 3, pp. 22-31.
Preuss, L. (2008), Are we talking about the same thing? Comparing business ethics, corporate
citizenship, corporate social responsibility and sustainability, paper presented at Seabus
Network Conference, Berlin, 19-22 June.
Rajagopal (2008), Measuring brand performance through metrics application, Measuring
Business Excellence, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 29-38.
Reid, M. (2002), Building strong brands through the management of integrated marketing
communications, International Journal of Wine Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 37-52.
Rodgers, W. (2009), Three primary trust pathways underlying ethical considerations, Journal
of Business Ethics, Vol. 91, pp. 83-93.
Rousseau, M.T., Stikin, S.B., Burt, S.B. and Carmerer, C. (1998), Not so different after all:
across-discipline view of trust, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 393-404.
Saldana, C.G. (2000), A scorecard for tracking market-preferred corporate governance reforms in
East Asian corporate sectors, working paper, The Institute of Corporate Directors, Manila.
Shleifer, A. and Vishny, R. (1997), A survey of corporate governance, Journal of Finance,
Vol. 52, pp. 737-783.
Simon, C.J. and Sullivan, M.W. (1993), The measurement and determinants of brand equity:
a financial approach, Marketing Science, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 28-52.
Skinner, D. and Spira, L.F. (2003), Trust and control a symbiotic relationship?, Corporate
Governance, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 28-35.
Spanos, Y.E. and Lioukas, S. (2001), An examination into the causal logic of rent generation:
contrasting Porters competitive strategy framework and the resource-based perspective,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 22, pp. 907-934.
Srinivasan, V. (1979), Network models for estimating brand-specific effects in multi-attribute
marketing models, Management Science, Vol. 25, January, pp. 11-21.
Starratt, R.J. (2003), Centering Educational Administration: Cultivating Meaning, Community,
Responsibility, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Stiglbauer, M. and Velte, P. (2012), Compliance with the German corporate governance code and
firm performance: a ten-year experience, International Journal of Behavioural Accounting
and Finance, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 5-23.
MRR Streeck, W. (2002), Introduction: explorations into the origins of nonliberal capitalisms in Germany
and Japan, in Streeck, W. and Yamamura, K. (Eds), The Origins of Nonliberal Capitalism:
37,1 Germany and Japan Compared, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, pp. 1-38.
Strike, K.A. (2003), Community, coherence, and inclusiveness, in Begley, P.T. and Johansson, O.
(Eds), The Ethical Dimensions of School Leadership, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 69-87.
Sundaramurthy, C. (2008), Sustaining trust within family businesses, Family Business Review,
68 Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 89-102.
Tian, J.J. and Lau, C.-M. (2001), Board composition, leadership structure and performance
in Chinese shareholding companies, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Vol. 18 No. 2,
pp. 245-263.
Tran, B. (2008), Paradigms in corporate ethics: the legality and values of corporate ethics,
Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 4 Nos 1/2, pp. 158-171.
Tricker, R.I. (1984), Corporate Governance, Gower Publishing Company, Aldershot.
Tronto, J.C. (1993), Moral Boundaries, Routledge, New York, NY.

van den Akker, L., Heres, L., Lasthuizen, K. and Six, F. (2009), Ethical leadership and trust: its all about
meeting expectations, International Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 102-122.
Vierra, K. and Vierra, B. (2010), Vietnam Business Guide: Getting Started in Tomorrows Market
Today, Wiley, Singapore.
Villagra, N. and Lopez, B. (2013), Analysis of values and communication of the responsible
brands. Corporate brand strategies for sustainability, Comunicacion y Sociedad
(Communication & Society), Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 196-221.
Wang, E. and Chen, J. (2004), The influence of governance equilibrium on ERP project success,
Decision Support Systems, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 708-727.
Welford, R. (2007), Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility: issues for Asia,
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 42-51.
Wong, H. and Merrilees, B. (2007), Closing the marketing strategy to performance gap:
the role of brand orientation, Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 387-402.
Young, S. and Thyil, V. (2009), Governance, employees and CSR: integration is the key to
unlocking value, Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 167-185.
Zahra, S.A. and Filatotchev, I. (2004), Governance of the entrepreneurial threshold firm: a
knowledge-based perspective, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 41 No. 5, pp. 885-897.
Further reading
Debeljak, J. and Krkac, K. (2008), Me, myself & I: practical egoism, selfishness, self-interest
and business ethics, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 4 Nos 1/2, pp. 217-227.
Lacetera, N. (2001), Corporate governance and the governance of innovation: the case of
pharmaceutical industry, Journal of Management and Governance, Vol. 5, pp. 29-59.
About the author

Luu Trong Tuan is currently a Business Administration (BA) Teacher at the University of
Ballarat, Australia and Open University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. He received his Master
degree from Victoria University, Australia in 2004 and PhD degree from Asian Institute of
Technology (AIT), Thailand. His research interest includes organisational behaviour,
performance management, and business ethics.
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
This article has been cited by:
1. Kijpokin KasemsapThe Role of Brand Management in Emerging Markets 167-184. [CrossRef]

2. Kijpokin KasemsapThe Role of Brand Management in Emerging Markets 2006-2023. [CrossRef]

10.1108mrr 08 2012 0183

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

10.1108mrr 08 2012 0183

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Management Research Review

Corporate governance and brand performance

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

mechanism. One of the reforms in corporate governance is the scorecard on corporate

2.2 Brand performance

2.4 Ethics of justice versus ethics of care

Calculation-based trust, as depicted by Lewicki and Bunker (1995), is a trust built on

extraordinary attention to the interests of particular stakeholder groups (especially

H1a Identification-based trust

Knowledge-based trust H4 Brand

H3a Weaker corporate

Ethics of care H3b

Private 100 percent

3.2 Quantitative measures

evaluates the strengths, deficiencies and overall quality of a companys corporate

Factor Item to total Cronbachs

A Calculation-based trust 0.8912

their reputation in the market

Ethics of care 9 2.67 0.51 2 0.086 0.426 0.82 (0.79-0.84) 0.589

4. Findings and discussion

4.2 Findings from the SEM

Trust types/corporate governance Ethics of care Ethics of justice F Significance

Identification-based trust 5.69 5.17 5.66 0.00

The positive and significant relationship between identification-based trust and

H1a Ethics of care ! identification-based trust 0.159 3.25 * * Supported

corporate governance as accountability, transparency, fairness and responsibility in

Allen, F. (2005), Corporate governance in emerging economies, Oxford Review of Economic

Computers in Industry, Vol. 59 No. 6, pp. 565-579.

ethics, Kybernetes, Vol. 38 Nos 3/4, pp. 581-595.

Tronto, J.C. (1993), Moral Boundaries, Routledge, New York, NY.

About the author

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

1. Kijpokin KasemsapThe Role of Brand Management in Emerging Markets 167-184. [CrossRef]

Potrebbero piacerti anche