B2B brand equity: investigating the effects of

human capital and relational trust

Galina Biedenbach and Peter Hultén
Umeå School of Business, Economics and Statistics, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden, and
Veronika Tarnovskaya
Lund School of Economics and Management, Lund University, Lund, Sweden

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of human capital and relational trust on business-to-business (B2B) brand
equity.
Design/methodology/approach – Data collection was conducted among the clients of one of the Big Four auditing firms in Sweden. Structural
equation modeling was used to test the hypothesized effects.
Findings – The results demonstrate positive effects of human capital and relational trust on the core dimensions of brand equity. In the context of
the professional services, human capital was found to have a stronger direct impact than relational trust on brand associations, perceived quality
and brand loyalty.
Practical implications – The study provides practical recommendations for marketing managers on how to consider the nature of B2B brand equity
and its determinants in developing successful branding strategies. The findings indicate that although relational trust has a positive impact on brand
equity, it draws on the clients’ positive perceptions of the service providers’ human capital. Thus, investments that generate positive perceptions of a
service provider’s human capital will strengthen its competitive position. Leading to the creation of relational trust and having a strong impact on
the dimensions of brand equity, human capital is a strategic asset that needs careful management.
Originality/value – The study advances extant knowledge on B2B brand equity by examining contextual conditions and factors that are critical for
building strong brands in industrial markets. The study demonstrates that clients’ perceptions about the knowledge, skills and abilities of service
providers are more important than relational trust for enhancing B2B brand equity.
Keywords Human capital, Brand equity, Relational trust, B2B, Professional services
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction et al., 2008; Baumgarth and Binckebanck, 2011; Biedenbach

Learning about factors affecting brands and outcomes of
branding strategies in a business-to-business (B2B) setting has
become imperative as industrial markets are becoming
increasingly commoditized (Beverland et al., 2007; Li, 2011;
Marquardt, 2013). The problem of commoditization is also
challenging for companies offering services to clients in B2B
markets (Turner, 2009; Ross, 2016). Despite the fact that this
problem has been known to providers of B2B services since the
1980s (Knechel, 2007), it has not been until the past two
decades that researchers have started to examine the specific
challenges associated with building strong service brands and
enhancing their brand equity (Biedenbach et al., 2011;
Marquardt, 2013; Kumar et al., 2015; Nyadzayo et al., 2016).
Previous studies on branding in industrial markets also point to
the need to investigate further how the service providers’
attitudes and behaviors influence B2B brand equity (Davis
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on
Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/0885-8624.htm
et al., 2011).
The conceptualization of brand equity used in this research
draws upon the theoretical propositions by Keller (1993), who
defines brand equity as “the differential effect of brand
knowledge on consumer response to the marketing of the
brand” (Keller, 1993, p. 8). The classical model of brand
equity developed by Aaker (1996) specifies four dimensions of
brand equity, including brand awareness, brand associations,
perceived quality and brand loyalty. Although these dimensions
have been commonly applied in previous research when
assessing brand equity in consumer markets, their relevance for
B2B brands has been subject to debate (Biedenbach, 2012). In
fact, from the outset and because of the relatively small number
of individual buyers and the assumed rationality of decision-
makers, the role of brand equity was initially downplayed in
industrial markets (Kim and Hyun, 2011). The main argument
was that there was simply no need to invest in activities to create
brand awareness and brand loyalty among buyers in a B2B
setting (Saunders and Watt, 1979; Sinclair and Seward, 1988).
However, the view on the brand equity of B2B brands has
shifted, with extensive research into the importance that strong

Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing

Received 2 January 2018
34/1 (2019) 1–11 Revised 29 March 2018
© Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 0885-8624] 16 May 2018
[DOI 10.1108/JBIM-01-2018-0003] Accepted 21 May 2018

1
 B2B brand equity
Galina Biedenbach, Peter Hultén and Veronika Tarnovskaya
corporate brands and successful branding strategies have in
industrial markets being undertaken (Webster and Keller,
2004; Glynn et al., 2007; Kotler and Pfoertsch, 2007; Roberts
and Merrilees, 2007; Homburg et al., 2010). Therefore, extant
research into industrial branding highlights the need to explore
the contextual factors and the specific conditions that are
critical for enhancing brand equity in the B2B context (Leek
and Christodoulides, 2011; Seyedghorban et al., 2016).
The purpose of this study is to examine the effects of
human capital and relational trust on B2B brand equity.
Following previous research (Keller, 1993, 2003), we focus
on the customer-based brand equity that is formed through
the continuous development of associative memory
networks. These associations are based on what the clients
have learned, seen, heard and felt about the organizational
brand and the people representing it. Advancing previous
findings, which indicate that the quality of buyer–seller
relationship affects brand equity in industrial markets
(Marquardt, 2013), we investigate the core factors
underlying clients’ perceptions of their service providers.
Specifically, we assess which of two factors, namely, human
capital or relational trust, has the strongest impact on the
development of B2B brand equity.
We have selected professional services as a research context,
because of the numerous scandals, which attracted a lot of
attention to this industry during recent years. Nearly on a
monthly basis, the largest media outlets have reported cases
involving not only incidents related to unethical behaviors but
also court verdicts convicting employees of leading auditing
firms of being guilty of causing large financial losses to their
clients. As a result, many firms in this industry face reputational
crises based on negative perceptions toward their
organizational brands and a loss of trust among their current
and potential clients. Thus, for companies providing auditing
and other associated professional services, it is of utmost
importance to learn how to manage their human capital and
brand equity to keep their market positions, acquire new clients
and stay profitable. Our study contributes to the extant
literature on branding in industrial markets by examining how
human capital and relational trust may enhance the brand
equity of B2B firms. We contend that, from a practical
viewpoint, the consideration of human capital and relational
trust in developing branding strategies is critical, as the clients’
trust in the brand may be affected by negative media reports,
while their perceptions of the service provider’s human capital
can make clients stay loyal. Our study, therefore, addresses
issues of interest for branding researchers and practitioners in
the professional services industry.
2. Theoretical framework
2.1 B2B brand equity
The concept of brand equity was developed to denote the
added value that a brand gives to a product (Farquhar, 1989).
Drawing upon the seminal works by Aaker (1991, 1996) and
Keller (1993, 2003), researchers have examined the various
dimensions and configurations of brand equity in different
contexts – predominantly in consumer markets. The theoretical
models developed for analyses of consumer brands have then
been adopted in industrial markets, where the interest toward
2
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 34 · Number 1 · 2019 · 1–11
investigating brand equity has been continuously increasing
over the past decade (Seyedghorban et al., 2016). However,
despite important insights having been reported, brand equity
still represents a phenomenon that needs to be explored further
considering its dynamic nature (Veloutsou and Guzmán,
2017), and the contextual conditions of particular markets
(Leek and Christodoulides, 2011).
In general, previous studies conducted in industrial markets
confirm the impact of B2B brand equity on buyers’ willingness
to pay a price premium for a favorite brand, to recommend a
preferred brand and to consider possible brand extensions
(Hutton, 1997; Bendixen et al., 2004). According to the results
of a study conducted in the precision bearings sector, there are
clusters of buyers that are highly receptive to branding
(Mudambi, 2002). Building on empirical evidence, branding
research has over the years changed the focus from testing the
relevance of strong industrial brands to exploring the nature of
B2B brand equity. Although the debate about specific
dimensions of B2B brand equity is still ongoing, the literature
on industrial branding supports theoretical propositions about
the multidimensionality of this concept. One of the first studies
using the multidimensional model by Aaker (1991) in the B2B
context demonstrates how the brand equity of electrical
products and components emerges from brand awareness and
associations to perceived quality and brand loyalty (Gordon
et al., 1993). Another study that examined the dimensions of
B2B brand equity in the logistics industry shows that brand
awareness and brand image contribute to overall brand equity
(Davis et al., 2008). There have also been studies that have
tested the assumptions of the seminal model by Aaker (1991)
by merging the dimensions of brand awareness and brand
associations (Kim and Hyun, 2011), as well as by
demonstrating that brand awareness might be less significant in
mature industrial markets (Biedenbach and Marell, 2010). In
their study on buyers of electronic tracking devices, Kuhn et al.
(2008) propose a modified version of the model by Keller
(2003) to capture the complexity of enhancing brand equity in
a B2B setting. More recent works have broadened the foci of
research on B2B brand equity by, for example, integrating a
strategic perspective of firm capabilities (Zhang et al., 2015)
and applying a stakeholder perspective to assess the
development of brand equity across different stakeholder
groups (Kumar et al., 2015).
Despite providing fundamental insights, the literature on
B2B brand equity is relatively scattered across a wide variety
of topics, with some relevant areas still being under-
researched. For example, despite the seminal work by Berry
(2000) on service brand equity demonstrating the need to
consider people involved in the provision of services, the
current literature on B2B brand equity includes only a few
works that explicitly address how the attitudes and behaviors
of service providers impact the buyers’ perceptions (van
Riel et al., 2005; Baumgarth and Binckebanck, 2011;
Biedenbach et al., 2011; Marquardt, 2013). Before
developing our hypotheses on the factors that affect the
clients’ perceptions of their service provider, we define
the underlying dimensions of B2B brand equity that
we examine in our study.
 B2B brand equity
Galina Biedenbach, Peter Hultén and Veronika Tarnovskaya
2.2 Dimensions of B2B brand equity
Drawing upon the classical model of brand equity by Aaker
(1996), this study focuses on the following three dimensions:
brand associations, perceived quality and brand loyalty. Brand
awareness is not included in the study because we target the
perceptions of current clients of one of the Big Four auditing
firms. Also, due to their market leading position, being one of
the Big Four auditing firms, each firm has a high degree of
recognition and recall among their current and prospective
clients. Furthermore, considering the findings of previous
research, which indicate the insignificant effects of brand
awareness on other dimensions of B2B brand equity
(Biedenbach and Marell, 2010; Kim and Hyun, 2011), we
chose to exclude brand awareness from our model. The
proposed conceptual model, thus, illustrates the hypothesized
effects between the three dimensions of brand equity, human
capital and relational trust, all of which are based on the clients’
perceptions of their provider of auditing services (Figure 1).
Based on the cognitive approach, the dimension of brand
associations captures the clients’ familiarity with the brand,
which is characterized by favorable, strong and unique
brand associations in their memories (Keller, 1993). Brand
associations, therefore, serve as a basis for differentiation from
competitors and as an important determinant in the clients’
decision-making process (Aaker, 1996). In industrial markets,
brand associations determine not only buyers’ willingness to
buy a brand but also to pay more for a brand with a favorable
image (Blombäck and Axelsson, 2007; Persson, 2010).
Previous studies on B2B brand equity confirm that brand
associations are central to brand equity irrespective of whether
a company sells industrial goods (Gordon et al., 1993) or
provides services (Davis et al., 2008). Hence, it is critical to
learn about the extent to which clients associate the service
provider with showing empathy and being flexible, reliable and
pragmatic (Biedenbach and Marell, 2010). Important insights
can be gained because the clients’ brand associations are
shaped by their experiences from earlier interactions with their
service provider. Accordingly, brand associations can be
expected to affect clients’ expectations about service quality,
which represents another core dimension of B2B brand equity.
The dimension of perceived quality denotes buyers’
perceptions about the overall quality of a product or service,
which is made with reference to its intended purpose and
available alternatives (Aaker, 1996). In the B2B context,
expectations about perceived quality are often used by buyers
as a basis for the assessment of the value of market offerings
Figure 1 Conceptual model
Brand
Associations
Human
Capital
Perceived
Quality
Relational
Trust
Brand
Loyalty
3
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 34 · Number 1 · 2019 · 1–11
(Gordon et al., 1993; Jalkala and Keränen, 2014). Previous
research also demonstrates that buyers’ judgments about
perceived quality represent the most relevant element of a
strong brand in industrial markets (Michell et al., 2001).
Furthermore, earlier studies indicate that clients tend to be
reluctant to switch to another service provider if the current
quality level is perceived as adequate (Sharp, 1996). High
switching costs and beliefs that competing service providers
might exaggerate claims about the quality of their services are
among the main reasons that explain these views (Sharp,
1996).
In industrial markets, positive quality perceptions are shown
to shape buyers’ evaluations of brand value, which to a large
extent determine their loyalty intentions (Michell et al., 2001;
Taylor et al., 2007). The perceived quality can be assumed to
impact brand loyalty, which is a critical dimension of B2B
brand equity. Brand loyalty is, thus, the dimension of brand
equity, which is closely linked to future market share and profits
(Aaker, 1991). In the context of B2B services, brand loyalty
reflects how likely a buyer will stay with a service provider or
switch to a competitor (Rauyruen et al., 2009). As brand loyalty
increases, the risk of buyers choosing competitive offers is
reduced, and consequently, brand loyalty translates into future
sales (Rauyruen et al., 2009). Therefore, high levels of brand
loyalty are the suppliers’ primary objective in their relationships
with buyers in industrial markets (Pedeliento et al., 2016).
Previous research also demonstrates that brand loyalty is the
result of psychological processes and behavioral manifestations
(Dick and Basu, 1994; Morgan et al., 2007; Russell-Bennett
et al., 2007; Cassia et al., 2017). Thus, brand associations and
perceived quality affect the clients’ loyalty intentions.
Considering the evolving nature of B2B brand equity (Gordon
et al., 1993), and the presence of hierarchical effects between
the core dimensions (Biedenbach, 2012), we test the following
hypotheses:
H1. Brand associations have a positive effect on perceived
quality.
H2. Perceived quality has a positive effect on brand loyalty.
2.3 Human capital
The value of brands as well as the skills and knowledge of
employees are frequently acknowledged in mission statements
and annual reports (Vomberg et al., 2015). The management
literature highlights that knowledge and brain power supersede
physical assets as the principal sources of competitive
advantage (Quinn et al., 1996; Youndt et al., 2004).
The strategic resource of human capital, therefore, plays a key
role in the delivery of professional services, such as those
performed by auditing firms (Hitt et al., 2001; Bröcheler et al.,
2004). Human capital is defined as “the individual employee’s
knowledge, skills, and abilities” (Youndt et al., 2004, p. 338).
Firms that use strategic human capital, such as those in the
auditing industry, face a challenge, as it is the individual and
not the firm that owns the knowledge (Widener, 2004). The
lack of ownership means that companies have to rely on teams
and networks along with other forms of knowledge-sharing
mechanisms to extract the tacit knowledge dimensions
embedded in individual employees (Quinn et al., 1996;
 B2B brand equity
Galina Biedenbach, Peter Hultén and Veronika Tarnovskaya
Widener, 2004). Hence, because knowledge resource resides
within the individual, the company has to invest in practices
that facilitate knowledge sharing and in training to ensure that
each individual meets the expected standards. The notion that
companies can shape their human capital, even though they do
not own this resource per se, is supported in previous studies on
investments aimed at building an organizational knowledge
base (Youndt et al., 2004). Human capital is also a critical
resource of auditing firms, as the employees need skills to
manage interactions with customers and to understand the
specifics of each individual client company (Vomberg et al.,
2015).
The seminal work on service brand equity by Berry (2000)
demonstrates that the buyers’ experiences with their service
providers have a much stronger impact on their perceptions
than different forms of marketing communications. A study
among customers of a multinational chemical company
indicates that the clients’ perceptions of working with a
supplier, whose employees have superior skills, have a direct
positive effect on their satisfaction with the services and an
indirect positive effect on the supplier’s brand equity (van Riel
et al., 2005). A study conducted among top managers in
German B2B companies also demonstrates that managers’
judgments about a salesperson’s personality and behavior
directly affect their brand perceptions (Baumgarth and
Binckebanck, 2011). Furthermore, a study among purchasers
working in mechanical and plant engineering companies in
Germany suggests that the salesperson’s personality, among
other factors, has a positive impact on emotional brand
associations, and indirect positive effects on customer
satisfaction and brand loyalty (Elsäßer and Wirtz, 2017).
Drawing attention to companies’ human capital, a study
involving clients of a professional services firm in Sweden
demonstrates that employee role behavior and established
customer–employee rapport have positive effects on brand
associations, perceived quality and brand loyalty (Biedenbach
et al., 2011). Therefore, we contend that clients’ positive
perceptions of their service provider’s human capital have
positive effects on brand associations, perceived quality and
brand loyalty. In this study, we test the following hypotheses:
H3. Human capital has positive effects on (a) brand
associations, (b) perceived quality, and (c) brand loyalty.
2.4 Relational trust
Across different disciplines, trust has been extensively explored
by researchers aiming to capture psychological processes and
behavioral manifestations at the individual, group, firm and
institutional levels (Rousseau et al., 1998). Initially, trust was
conceptualized as “an individual’s optimistic expectation about
the outcome of an event” (Hosmer, 1995, p. 381). Later,
studies conducted within different disciplines specified various
levels of trust, its antecedents and consequences. For example,
the effects of trust have been widely examined in organizational
studies considering a large number of outcomes, which were
related to perceptions, attitudes, behaviors and performance
(Dirks and Ferrin, 2001). In marketing, studies conducted
within the research stream of relationship marketing confirm
the role of trust as a key condition for establishing and
4
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 34 · Number 1 · 2019 · 1–11
sustaining relationships between sellers and buyers (Morgan
and Hunt, 1994; Ganesan and Hess, 1997; Sirdeshmukh et al.,
2002). Regarding consumer markets, previous research
demonstrates the capacity of strong brands to elicit trust among
customers, which in turn determines the performance of
companies selling those brands (Chaudhuri and Holbrook,
2001). Similarly, within the literature on industrial marketing,
trust has been viewed as a central factor underlying buyer–seller
relationships (Doney and Cannon, 1997; Seppänen et al.,
2007; Ashnai et al., 2016). Furthermore, previous research
highlights the temporal nature of trust, which evolves as a result
of experiences related to actions and interactions taking place
between buyers and sellers (Huang and Wilkinson, 2013). In
addition, previous studies also point out the need to explore
further how trust shapes short- and long-term relationships in
industrial markets (Ekici, 2013).
In this study, we focus on relational trust that is defined as
“the perceived ability and willingness of the other party to
behave in ways that consider the interests of both parties in the
relationship” (Selnes and Sallis, 2003, p. 84). In other words,
relational trust can be seen as a general expectancy held by a
client that a service provider can be relied upon (Morgan and
Hunt, 1994). Previous studies show that the perceived
trustworthiness of organizations is affected by individual
factors, for example the representatives’ ability, benevolence
and integrity (Mayer et al., 1995). Previous findings
demonstrate that ability and integrity play a key role at the
beginning of a trust-based relationship, whereas benevolence
becomes more salient as the relationship develops (Schoorman
et al., 2007). In the professional services setting, employees of
service companies play a pivotal role, as personal relationships,
which can include both professional and social relationships
established with clients, affect the process and outcomes of a
service delivery (Lian and Laing, 2007). The relational trust
developed by a client toward a service provider can be expected
to be influenced by the former’s perceptions about the latter’s
skills and intentions to perform and complete tasks important
to the client. Therefore, we argue that clients’ perceptions
about the human capital of a service provider affect their
relational trust. Accordingly, we test the following hypothesis:
H4. Human capital has a positive effect on relational trust.
As relational trust develops in a client–supplier relationship, the
parties are more likely to share information that they otherwise
would consider sensitive and create constructive and creative
dialogues to the benefit of both parties (Selnes and Sallis,
2003). In general, relationships characterized by trust are
highly valued by buyers and suppliers, such that they desire to
commit themselves to such relationships (Morgan and Hunt,
1994). A study conducted in the thoroughbred consignment
industry in the USA confirms the impact of buyer–seller
relationship quality on seller brand equity (Marquardt, 2013).
A recent study proposing a dynamic model of brand equity
demonstrates that trust contributes to brand relationships,
which facilitate the development of brand equity
(Chatzipanagiotou et al., 2016). In industrial markets, trust is
found to represent one of the emotional components
determining B2B brand value (Leek and Christodoulides,
2012). Previous research shows that affective and cognitive
elements of trust have positive effects on the liking of a supplier
 B2B brand equity
Galina Biedenbach, Peter Hultén and Veronika Tarnovskaya
and commitment to it, as well as overall relationship
performance (Dowell et al., 2015). Furthermore, decision-
makers in industrial companies consider trust to be a
determinant of overall brand equity (Srivastava and Mookerjee,
2004).Therefore, relational trust can be expected to lead to
more positive brand associations and higher levels of perceived
quality and brand loyalty. In this study, we test the following
hypotheses:
H5. Relational trust has positive effects on (a) brand
associations, (b) perceived quality and (c) brand loyalty.
3. Methodology
Our examination of how clients’ perceptions of a service
provider’s human capital and the relational trust affect the
development of brand equity is based on data from
organizations that purchase professional services in Sweden.
The contact information of potential respondents was acquired
through the client database of one of the Big Four auditing
firms. The study was conducted among randomly selected
clients of this service provider. The sample included CEOs and
CFOs, who were in charge of purchasing auditing, accounting
and consultancy services. Before collecting the data, the survey
was pre-tested on an expert group of marketing and
management executives from the auditing firm. Trained
interviewers then contacted the respondents and completed the
surveys over the phone. The total sample included 3,030
organizations. The interviewers were unable to reach 56 per
cent of these organizations due to wrong numbers or
unanswered calls. Overall, the data collection resulted in 632
valid surveys and a response rate of 21 per cent.
The measurement scales for the three dimensions of brand
equity were adapted from previous research on B2B brand
equity (Biedenbach and Marell, 2010). Initially, these scales
were developed based on previous conceptual models (Aaker,
1991, 1996) and empirical studies (Koçak et al., 2007; Pappu
et al., 2005; Washburn and Plank, 2002; Yoo and Donthu,
2001). The measurement scales for the factors, which were
hypothesized to affect brand equity, were adapted from
previous research on human capital (Youndt et al., 2004) and
relational trust (Selnes and Sallis, 2003). The survey included
items that were measured on a five-point Likert-type scale. We
assessed the reliability of the measures by calculating
Cronbach’s alpha coefficients. For all five constructs, the
reliability coefficients exceeded the minimum required value of
0.70 (Hair et al., 2006). Table I presents Cronbach’s alpha
coefficients, descriptive statistics and correlation coefficients.
The constructs and their measures are shown in Table II.
Table I Descriptive statistics and correlations
Constructs Mean (SD) Cronbach’s a
(1) Brand associations 4.07 (0.64) 0.84
(2) Perceived quality 3.89 (0.53) 0.73
(3) Brand loyalty 3.85 (0.89) 078
(4) Human capital 3.81 (0.60) 0.79
(5) Relational trust 4.42 (0.58) 0.90
Note: *Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed)
5
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 34 · Number 1 · 2019 · 1–11
4. Analysis and results
The analysis was conducted by using SPSS 23 and AMOS 24.
Before testing the hypothesized effects, we examined the
presence of a common method bias. The common method bias
was assessed by conducting Harman’s single-factor test
(Podsakoff et al., 2003). The exploratory factor analysis based
on the principal components method did not result in a single
predominant factor. By restricting the extracted number of
factors to one, the one-factor solution extracted a total of 44.77
per cent of the variance. The rotated five-factor solution
resulted in a cumulative variance of 67.66 per cent. The
identified five components were matching the analyzed
variables. In addition, the common method bias was tested by
using the common latent factor method in structural equation
modeling (Podsakoff et al., 2003). By including the common
latent factor in our measurement model, we calculated the
common variance to be equal to 20.25 per cent. Based on these
results, we can conclude that there was no common method
bias present in this study.
The proposed conceptual model was examined by structural
equation modeling. The structural model included five
variables, which captured three dimensions of brand equity (i.e.
brand associations, perceived quality and brand loyalty), and
two factors hypothesized to affect these dimensions (i.e. human
capital and relational trust). Table II shows standardized
loadings for each item included in the structural model. The
results of structural equation modeling showed acceptable
levels of variance extracted for each construct and construct
reliability (Hair et al., 2006). The calculated fit indices
confirmed a good fit between the structural model and the data
(Table III). The findings of structural equation modeling
demonstrated a significant positive effect of brand associations
on perceived quality ( b = 0.47, p < 0.01), and also a significant
positive effect of perceived quality on brand loyalty ( b = 0.33,
p < 0.01). Therefore, H1 and H2 about the presence of
hierarchical effects between the dimensions of brand equity
were supported. The results showed that clients’ perceptions
about human capital had significant positive effects on brand
associations ( b = 0.58, p < 0.01), perceived quality ( b = 0.33,
p < 0.01) and brand loyalty ( b = 0.30, p < 0.01), which
confirmed H3a, H3b and H3c. Furthermore, confirming H4,
human capital was found to have a significant positive effect on
relational trust ( b = 0.68, p < 0.01). The findings
demonstrated significant positive effects of relational trust on
brand associations ( b = 0.30, p < 0.01), perceived quality ( b =
0.10, p < 0.01) and brand loyalty ( b = 0.19, p < 0.01), which
confirmed H5a, H5b and H5c. In general, human capital and
relational trust had a stronger effect on brand associations than
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
1
0.63* 1
0.56* 0.54* 1
0.65* 0.59* 0.53* 1
0.66* 0.58* 0.53* 0.59* 1
 B2B brand equity Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Galina Biedenbach, Peter Hultén and Veronika Tarnovskaya Volume 34 · Number 1 · 2019 · 1–11

Table II Constructs and standardized loadings

Constructs
Brand associations
(VE = 0.59; CR = 0.85)
Perceived quality
(VE = 0.49; CR = 0.74)
Brand loyalty
(VE = 0.48; CR = 0.78)
Human capital
(VE = 0.49; CR = 0.79)
Relational trust
(VE = 0.65; CR = 0.90)
Notes: *p < 0.01; VE = variance extracted; CR = construct reliability
Scale items Standardized loadings*
AS1. XXX show empathy 0.67
(1 = strongly disagree . . . 5 = strongly agree)
AS2. XXX are flexible 0.72
(1 = strongly disagree . . . 5 = strongly agree)
AS3. XXX are reliable 0.81
(1 = strongly disagree . . . 5 = strongly agree)
AS4. XXX are pragmatic 0.85
(1 = strongly disagree . . . 5 = strongly agree)
PQ1. How would you evaluate overall quality of XXX services? (1 = very low . . . 5 = very high) 0.79
PQ2. How consistent is quality of XXX services? (1 = very inconsistent . . . 5 = very consistent) 0.73
PQ3. How would you evaluate quality of XXX services compared to quality of services provided 0.56
by their competitors? (1 = much lower . . . 5 = much better)
LO1. XXX would be the first choice if my company would need auditing services 0.7
(1 = strongly disagree . . . 5 = strongly agree)
LO2. I would use their services again 0.7
(1 = strongly disagree . . . 5 = strongly agree)
LO3. I would recommend XXX services to others 0.65
(1 = strongly disagree . . . 5 = strongly agree)
LO4. I consider myself to be loyal to XXX 0.71
(1 = strongly disagree . . . 5 = strongly agree)
HC1. XXX employees are highly skilled 0.80
(1 = strongly disagree . . . 5 = strongly agree)
HC2. XXX employees are creative and bright 0.71
(1 = strongly disagree . . . 5 = strongly agree)
HC3. XXX employees are experts in their particular jobs and functions 0.73
(1 = strongly disagree . . . 5 = strongly agree)
HC4. XXX employees develop new ideas and knowledge 0.52
(1 = strongly disagree . . . 5 = strongly agree)
RT1. I believe XXX will respond with understanding in the event of problems 0.61
(1 = strongly disagree . . . 5 = strongly agree)
RT2. I trust that XXX are able to fulfill contractual agreements 0.75
(1 = strongly disagree . . . 5 = strongly agree)
RT3. I trust that XXX are competent at what they are doing 0.81
(1 = strongly disagree . . . 5 = strongly agree)
RT4. There is general agreement in my organization that XXX are trustworthy 0.92
(1 = strongly disagree . . . 5 = strongly agree)
RT5. There is general agreement in my organization that the contact people from XXX are 0.91
trustworthy
(1 = strongly disagree . . . 5 = strongly agree)

Table III Structural model estimates and fit indices

Hypothesized effects Standardized estimates Conclusion
H1. Brand associations fi Perceived quality 0.47 ( p < 0.01) Supported
H2. Perceived quality fi Brand loyalty 0.33 ( p < 0.01) Supported
H3a. Human capital fi Brand associations 0.58 ( p < 0.01) Supported
H3b. Human capital fi Perceived quality 0.33 ( p < 0.01) Supported
H3c. Human capital fi Brand loyalty 0.30 ( p < 0.01) Supported
H4. Human capital fi Relational trust 0.68 ( p < 0.01) Supported
H5a. Relational trust fi Brand associations 0.30 ( p < 0.01) Supported
H5b. Relational trust fi Perceived quality 0.10 ( p < 0.10) Supported
H5c. Relational trust fi Brand loyalty 0.19 ( p < 0.01) Supported
Notes: Fit indices: x 2 = 889.57; df = 161; x 2/df = 5.52; RMSEA = 0.08; GFI = 0.87; CFI = 0.90; IFI = 0.90

6
 B2B brand equity
Galina Biedenbach, Peter Hultén and Veronika Tarnovskaya
on the other dimensions of brand equity. Based on the
empirical results, perceived quality was found to have the
strongest effect on brand loyalty. However, human capital and
relational trust also had a strong positive impact on brand
loyalty. The study, thus, confirmed the hypothesized significant
positive effects of human capital and relational trust on the
three dimensions of B2B brand equity.
5. Discussion
The findings reported in this study point to the important role
that human capital plays for enhancing brand equity and
building a strong B2B brand. These results advance previous
studies, which indicate the critical impact that employees
providing services in industrial markets have on clients’
perceptions about their respective companies (van Riel et al.,
2005; Baumgarth and Binckebanck, 2011; Biedenbach et al.,
2011; Marquardt, 2013). As hypothesized, we found positive
effects of human capital on brand associations, perceived
quality and brand loyalty, which represent the core dimensions
of B2B brand equity (see Table III). These findings
demonstrate that whereas the professional services offered by a
service provider in a B2B context include many standardized
components, the employees’ interactions with the clients may
include unique tasks that require special knowledge, skills and
creative problem-solving capabilities. The results confirm
theoretical propositions about the outstanding impact that an
individual employee has on not only enabling a service
provision but also shaping current and potential clients’
perceptions about the entire company (Berry, 2000; Youndt
et al., 2004; Vomberg et al., 2015). The support for H3a thus
illustrates the close connection between the clients’ perceptions
about service provider’s knowledge, skills and abilities as well as
the clients’ brand associations. The support for H4 is further
evidence of the role that human capital plays in creating and
maintaining trust in the relationships between the clients and
providers of professional services. Developing previous insights
about relational trust (Selnes and Sallis, 2003), our findings
confirm that the relational trust in industrial markets is based
on the clients’ general beliefs in the service provider’s ability to
fulfill contractual agreements and to assist the client should
problems arise. The relational trust is, thus, founded on the
clients’ previous experiences from earlier interactions with the
service provider, which shape their expectations about future
experiences. With regard to such expectations, the support for
H3b and H3c illustrates how human capital affects the clients’
perceptions of service quality and their loyalty intentions. The
support for H2 demonstrates that brand loyalty is determined
by not only clients’ judgmental views of human capital but also
their general evaluations of perceived quality. Therefore,
clients’ brand loyalty can be seen as being founded on a
combination of having received services of high quality in the
past and having positive expectations about the service
provider’s ability to deliver such services in the future.
The results of this study demonstrate that relational trust has
a significant impact on the three dimensions of brand equity
(Table III). These findings support previous research, which
has provided extensive evidence about the critical role that trust
plays for building relationships in industrial markets (Mayer
et al., 1995; Selnes and Sallis, 2003; Schoorman et al., 2007).
7
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 34 · Number 1 · 2019 · 1–11
Interestingly, our findings show that the direct effects of
relational trust on all dimensions of brand equity are weaker
compared with the direct effects of human capital. A tentative
explanation for these results is the nature of the relationships
between the client and the auditing firm. From the client’s
perspective, the value of core services provided by an auditing
firm is likely to be restricted to satisfying regulatory demands
from the taxation authorities and from other stakeholders, such
as owners and banks, whereas they have little, if any, impact on
the client firm’s core business. Thus, the service provider is not
involved in any joint efforts that require close cooperation to
strengthen the client’s R&D and general position in the market.
Another factor that can explain the relatively moderate impact
of relational trust on the dimensions of brand equity might be
the ethical policies of auditing firms. Our findings could, thus,
reflect the fact that employees of an auditing firm need to keep a
certain professional distance and not forge friendship ties that
prevent them from reporting the truth about the client
company’s financial situation. Furthermore, many of the
auditing firm’s employees serve a large number of clients. The
relatively low impact of the relational trust may reflect the time
constraints for serving each client. Nevertheless, the support for
H5a and H5b confirms that relational trust can lead to more
positive brand associations and higher levels of perceived
quality. A possible explanation for these effects can be the
intangible nature of professional services, where the
trustworthiness of the service providers trigger positive
organizational associations and expectations of high-quality
work. The support for H5c confirms a well-established fact that
trust underlies organizational commitment and loyalty in
industrial markets (Doney and Cannon, 1997; Seppänen et al.,
2007).
To conclude, our examination of human capital and
relational trust provides insights into the antecedents that
impact the brand equity of a professional service provider.
Evidently, these two factors enhance the hierarchical effects
between brand associations, perceived quality and brand
loyalty. Specifically, our findings illustrate the important role
that human capital plays in shaping the clients’ perceptions of a
service provider in a B2B context. Also evident is the strong
impact that human capital has on the clients’ trust in their
relationships with the service provider, which support the
creation of a strong organizational brand.
6. Conclusions
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of
human capital and relational trust on B2B brand equity. By
examining the clients’ perceptions of human capital and
relational trust, our research has answered the calls for
studies on the determinants of B2B brand equity (Leek
and Christodoulides, 2011; Seyedghorban et al., 2016).
Specifically, we have explored how hierarchical effects between
the B2B brand equity dimensions are affected by factors of
central importance in the relationships between service
providers and their clients. In this study, human capital, which
measures the clients’ perceptions of service provider’s
knowledge, skills and abilities (Youndt et al., 2004), was found
to have a major influence on brand associations, perceived
quality and brand loyalty. Leading to the creation of relational
 B2B brand equity
Galina Biedenbach, Peter Hultén and Veronika Tarnovskaya
trust and having a strong impact on the dimensions of B2B
brand equity, human capital can be seen as an organizational
asset that needs careful management. Acknowledged in
previous research (van Riel et al., 2005; Baumgarth and
Binckebanck, 2011; Biedenbach et al., 2011; Marquardt, 2013)
and demonstrated in this study, the clients’ perceptions about
the employees of companies providing services in industrial
markets are critical for enhancing the brand equity of B2B
brands.
6.1 Managerial implications
Marketing managers working in the professional services
context, such as those in the auditing industry, are encouraged
to consider the nature of B2B brand equity and its
determinants in their planning and implementation of branding
strategies. From an internal perspective, the recruitment of new
employees should involve a detailed assessment of their
knowledge, skills and abilities, which are not only critical for
fulfilling contractual obligations toward clients but also for
enhancing competitiveness of the company in the future.
Promotional campaigns aiming to attract prospective
employees can emphasize expected capacities as well as
communicate clearly how a company providing professional
services supports employees in enhancing their competence
during different career stages. It is notable that auditing firms
are currently implementing initiatives aiming to not only
develop professional knowledge but also create possibilities for
employees to meet their personal needs and use a more mindful
approach to managing their work and life. The empirical
evidence reported in this study about the important role that
human capital plays should be considered when assessing a
firm’s current competitive position, forecasting future
developments and allocating budgets for internal promotional
campaigns as well as training of employees.
From an external perspective, considering the significant
effects of human capital on the dimensions of brand equity,
marketing managers are recommended to assess how their
clients perceive the knowledge, skills and expertise of those
representing their organization. In the context of professional
services, brand equity can be enhanced through positive
experiences from earlier interactions with a service provider.
The clients’ positive perceptions about their past experiences
and their expectations that future assignments will be handled
in a timely and professional manner are thus assets that protect
a company against competitors’ offers. As a consequence, it
may be difficult to “win” clients that have established a trusting
relationship with a competitor by offering service packages that
are more or less equal to those of their current service provider.
Therefore, to compete successfully, it will be necessary to offer
extended and/or tailored service packages that, in addition to
current services, provide greater value to the client. To attract
new clients, a professional service firm must be able to show
evidence of having strong human capital. Consequently,
marketing managers are advised to allocate resources to
activities that make it possible for employees to demonstrate
their knowledge and skills to potential clients.
From a policymaking perspective, the current legislation and
regulations issued by professional bodies can be reassessed
considering the evolving context of auditing and other
associated professional services. The continuous development
8
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 34 · Number 1 · 2019 · 1–11
of new technological innovations as well as the increasing
importance of digital environment, which affect contemporary
business practices, need to be considered when analyzing the
current and future challenges in the professional services
industry. For example, a raising number of automated services
may require new regulatory initiatives that address how the
increased use of new technologies affects the service providers’
tasks and responsibilities. To conclude, the development of
human capital is a strategic investment for companies seeking
to increase their brand equity in industrial markets as well as to
meet potential legislator demands on those whose professional
judgments multiple stakeholders in society rely on.
6.2 Limitations and future research
This study provides primary evidence about the impact of
human capital and relational trust on B2B brand equity in the
context of professional services. Based on the findings, we
suggest that future studies should investigate how these factors
impact brand equity in other industrial sectors. Comparative
studies can thus provide valuable insights about the effects of
human capital and relational trust in different industrial
markets. Furthermore, it is of interest to learn how human
capital and relational trust develop over time as well as how
different contextual conditions, such as the increased
digitalization of society, can strengthen or weaken their effects.
For example, the impact of these factors could be investigated
considering cases of successful client businesses versus client
organizations experiencing problems. Assuming that the
service provider offers the same services to the successful clients
and the ones in trouble, it is of interest to examine which of
them will be more satisfied with the received services.
This study has examined clients’ perceptions of their
provider of auditing services. An interesting avenue for future
research would therefore be to investigate the opposite
perspective by targeting the viewpoints and experiences of
those who represent a company’s human capital. Thus, by
capturing the employees’ perceptions, we can learn about their
approaches to enhancing positive brand associations, to
improving quality and to creating higher levels of brand loyalty
in industrial markets. Clearly, valuable insights that advance
extant knowledge can be generated by integrating an internal
perspective in future studies on B2B brand equity.
References
Aaker, D.A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity, The Free Press,
New York, NY.
Aaker, D.A. (1996), “Measuring brand equity across products
and markets”, California Management Review, Vol. 38 No. 3,
pp. 102-120.
Ashnai, B., Henneberg, S.C., Naudé, P. and Francescucci,
A. (2016), “Inter-personal and inter-organizational trust
in business relationships: an attitude–behavior–outcome
model”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 52,
pp. 128-139.
Baumgarth, C. and Binckebanck, L. (2011), “Sales force
impact on B-to-B brand equity: conceptual framework and
empirical test”, Journal of Product & Brand Management,
Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 487-498.
 B2B brand equity
Galina Biedenbach, Peter Hultén and Veronika Tarnovskaya
Bendixen, M., Bukasa, K.A. and Abratt, R. (2004), “Brand
equity in the business-to-business market”, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 371-380.
Berry, L.L. (2000), “Cultivating service brand equity”,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 1,
pp. 128-137.
Beverland, M., Napoli, J. and Yakimova, R. (2007), “Branding
the business marketing offer: exploring brand attributes in
business markets”, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing,
Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 394-399.
Biedenbach, G. (2012), “Brand equity in the business-to-
business context: examining the structural composition”,
Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 19 No. 8, pp. 688-701.
Biedenbach, G. and Marell, A. (2010), “The impact of
customer experience on brand equity in a business-to-
business services setting”, Journal of Brand Management,
Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 446-458.
Biedenbach, G., Bengtsson, M. and Wincent, J. (2011),
“Brand equity in the professional service context: analyzing
the impact of employee role behavior and customer–
employee rapport”, Industrial Marketing Management,
Vol. 40 No. 7, pp. 1093-1102.
Blombäck, A. and Axelsson, B. (2007), “The role of
corporate brand image in the selection of new
subcontractors”, Journal of Business & Industrial
Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 418-430.
Bröcheler, V., Maijoor, S. and van Witteloostuijn, A. (2004),
“Auditor human capital and audit firm survival: the Dutch
audit industry in 1930-1992”, Accounting, Organizations &
Society, Vol. 29 No. 7, pp. 627-646.
Cassia, F., Cobelli, N. and Ugolini, M. (2017), “The effects of
goods-related and service-related B2B brand images on
customer loyalty”, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing,
Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 722-732.
Chatzipanagiotou, K., Veloutsou, C. and Christodoulides, G.
(2016), “Decoding the complexity of the consumer-based
brand equity process”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69
No. 11, pp. 5479-5486.
Chaudhuri, A. and Holbrook, M.B. (2001), “The chain of
effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand
performance: the role of brand loyalty”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 65 No. 2, pp. 81-93.
Davis, D.F., Golicic, S.L. and Marquardt, A.J. (2008),
“Branding a B2B service: does a brand differentiate a logistics
service provider?”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 37
No. 2, pp. 218-227.
Dick, A.S. and Basu, K. (1994), “Customer loyalty: toward an
integrated conceptual framework”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 99-113.
Dirks, K.T. and Ferrin, D.L. (2001), “The role of trust in
organizational settings”, Organization Science, Vol. 12 No. 4,
pp. 450-467.
Doney, P.M. and Cannon, J.P. (1997), “Trust in buyer-
seller relationships”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61 No. 2,
pp. 35-51.
Dowell, D., Morrison, M. and Heffernan, T. (2015), “The
changing importance of affective trust and cognitive trust
across the relationship lifecycle: a study of business-to-
business relationships”, Industrial Marketing Management,
Vol. 44, pp. 119-130.
9
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 34 · Number 1 · 2019 · 1–11
Ekici, A. (2013), “Temporal dynamics of trust in ongoing
inter-organizational relationships”, Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 42 No. 6, pp. 932-949.
Elsäßer, M. and Wirtz, B.W. (2017), “Rational and emotional
factors of customer satisfaction and brand loyalty in a
business-to-business setting”, Journal of Business & Industrial
Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 138-152.
Farquhar, P.H. (1989), “Managing brand equity”, Marketing
Research, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 24-33.
Ganesan, S. and Hess, R. (1997), “Dimensions and levels of
trust: implications for commitment to a relationship”,
Marketing Letters, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 439-448.
Glynn, M.S., Motion, J. and Brodie, R.J. (2007), “Sources of
brand benefits in manufacturer-reseller B2B relationships”,
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 6,
pp. 400-409.
Gordon, G.L., Calantone, R.J. and di Benedetto, C.A. (1993),
“Brand equity in the business-to-business sector: an
exploratory study”, Journal of Product & Brand Management,
Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 4-16.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and
Tatham, R.L. (2006), Multivariate Data Analysis, Pearson
Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River.
Hitt, M.A., Bierman, L., Shimizu, K. and Kochhar, R. (2001),
“Direct and moderating effects of human capital on strategy
and performance in professional service firms: a resource-
based perspective”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44
No. 1, pp. 13-28.
Homburg, C., Klarmann, M. and Schmitt, J. (2010), “Brand
awareness in business markets: when is it related to firm
performance?”, International Journal of Research in Marketing,
Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 201-212.
Hosmer, L.T. (1995), “Trust: the connecting link between
organizational theory and philosophical ethics”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 379-403.
Huang, Y. and Wilkinson, I.F. (2013), “The dynamics and
evolution of trust in business relationships”, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 455-465.
Hutton, J.G. (1997), “A study of brand equity in an
organizational-buying context”, Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 6 No. 6, pp. 428-439.
Jalkala, A.M. and Keränen, J. (2014), “Brand positioning
strategies for industrial firms providing customer solutions”,
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 3,
pp. 253-264.
Keller, K.L. (1993), “Conceptualizing, measuring and
managing customer-based brand equity”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Keller, K.L. (2003), Strategic Brand Management: Building,
Measuring and Managing Brand Equity, Prentice Hall, Upper
Saddle River.
Kim, J. and Hyun, Y.J. (2011), “A model to investigate the
influence of marketing-mix efforts and corporate image on
brand equity in the IT software sector”, Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 424-438.
Knechel, W.R. (2007), “The business risk audit: origins,
obstacles and opportunities”, Accounting, Organizations &
Society, Vol. 32 Nos 4/5, pp. 383-408.
Koçak, A., Abimbola, T. and Özer, A. (2007), “Consumer
brand equity in a cross-cultural replication: an evaluation of a
 B2B brand equity
Galina Biedenbach, Peter Hultén and Veronika Tarnovskaya
scale”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 23 Nos 1/2,
pp. 157-173.
Kotler, P. and Pfoertsch, W. (2007), “Being known or being
one of many: the need for brand management for business-
to-business (B2B) companies”, Journal of Business &
Industrial Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 357-362.
Kuhn, K.A.L., Alpert, F. and Pope, N.K.L. (2008), “An
application of Keller’s brand equity model in a B2B context”,
Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Vol. 11
No. 1, pp. 40-58.
Kumar, V., Cohen, G.S. and Rajan, B. (2015),
“Establishing brand equity among business-to-business
referral sources in the emerging markets: the case of
specialty medical practice”, Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 51, pp. 26-34.
Leek, S. and Christodoulides, G. (2011), “A literature review
and future agenda for B2B branding: challenges of branding
in a B2B context”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 40
No. 6, pp. 830-837.
Leek, S. and Christodoulides, G. (2012), “A framework of
brand value in B2B markets: the contributing role of
functional and emotional components”, Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 106-114.
Li, L. (2011), “Marketing of competence-based solutions to
buyers in exploratory relationships: perspective of OEM
suppliers”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 40 No. 7,
pp. 1206-1213.
Lian, P.C. and Laing, A.W. (2007), “Relationships in the
purchasing of business to business professional services: the
role of personal relationships”, Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 709-718.
Marquardt, A.J. (2013), “Relationship quality as a resource to
build industrial brand equity when products are uncertain
and future-based”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 42
No. 8, pp. 1386-1397.
Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. and Schoorman, F.D. (1995), “An
integrative model of organizational trust”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 709-734.
Michell, P., King, J. and Reast, J. (2001), “Brand values related
to industrial products”, Industrial Marketing Management,
Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 415-425.
Morgan, R.M. and Hunt, S.D. (1994), “The commitment-
trust theory of relationship marketing”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 20-38.
Morgan, F., Deeter-Schmelz, D. and Moberg, C.R. (2007),
“Branding implications of partner firm-focal firm
relationships in business-to-business service networks”,
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 6,
pp. 372-382.
Mudambi, S. (2002), “Branding importance in business-to-
business markets: three buyer clusters”, Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 525-533.
Nyadzayo, M.W., Matanda, M.J. and Ewing, M.T. (2016),
“Franchisee-based brand equity: the role of brand
relationship quality and brand citizenship behavior”,
Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 52, pp. 163-174.
Pappu, R., Quester, P.G. and Cooksey, R.W. (2005),
“Consumer-based brand equity: improving the measurement –
empirical evidence”, Journal of Product & Brand Management,
Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 143-154.
10
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 34 · Number 1 · 2019 · 1–11
Pedeliento, G., Andreini, D., Bergamaschi, M. and Salo, J.
(2016), “Brand and product attachment in an industrial
context: the effects on brand loyalty”, Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 53, pp. 194-206.
Persson, N. (2010), “An exploratory investigation of the
elements of B2B brand image and its relationship to price
premium”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 39 No. 8,
pp. 1269-1277.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y. and Podsakoff,
N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in behavioral
research: a critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5,
pp. 879-903.
Quinn, J.B., Anderson, P. and Finkelstein, S. (1996),
“Managing professional intellect: making the most of the
best”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 74 No. 2, pp. 71-80.
Rauyruen, P., Miller, K.E. and Groth, M. (2009), “B2B
services: linking service loyalty and brand equity”, Journal of
Services Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 175-186.
Roberts, J. and Merrilees, B. (2007), “Multiple roles of brands
in business-to-business services”, Journal of Business &
Industrial Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 410-417.
Ross, A. (2016), “Establishing a system for innovation in a
professional services firm”, Business Horizons, Vol. 59 No. 2,
pp. 137-147.
Rousseau, D.M., Sitkin, S.B., Burt, R.S. and Camerer, C.
(1998), “Not so different after all: a cross-discipline view of
trust”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 3,
pp. 393-404.
Russell-Bennett, R., McColl-Kennedy, J.R. and Coote, L.V.
(2007), “Involvement, satisfaction, and brand loyalty in a
small business services setting”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 60 No. 12, pp. 1253-1260.
Saunders, J.A. and Watt, F.W. (1979), “Do brand names
differentiate identical industrial products?”, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 114-123.
Schoorman, F.D., Mayer, R.C. and Davis, J.H. (2007), “An
integrative model of organizational trust: past, present and
future”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 2,
pp. 344-354.
Selnes, F. and Sallis, J. (2003), “Promoting relationship
learning”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 67 No. 3, pp. 80-95.
Seppänen, R., Blomqvist, K. and Sundqvist, S. (2007),
“Measuring inter-organizational trust – a critical review of
the empirical research in 1990-2003”, Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 249-265.
Seyedghorban, Z., Matanda, M.J. and LaPlaca, P. (2016),
“Advancing theory and knowledge in the business-to-
business branding literature”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 69 No. 8, pp. 2664-2677.
Sharp, B. (1996), “Brand equity and market-based assets of
professional service firms”, Journal of Professional Services
Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 3-13.
Sinclair, S.A. and Seward, K.E. (1988), “Effectiveness of
branding a commodity product”, Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 23-33.
Sirdeshmukh, D., Singh, J. and Sabol, B. (2002), “Consumer
trust, value, and loyalty in relational exchanges”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 15-37.
 B2B brand equity
Galina Biedenbach, Peter Hultén and Veronika Tarnovskaya
Srivastava, N.V. and Mookerjee, A. (2004), “Determinants of
brand equity for banking business application software
products”, International Journal of Technology Management,
Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 128-138.
Taylor, S.A., Hunter, G.L. and Lindberg, D.L. (2007),
“Understanding (customer-based) brand equity in financial
services”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 4,
pp. 241-252.
Turner, C. (2009), “Combating commoditisation in service
provision: evidence from the UK telecommunications
market”, Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 6,
pp. 439-451.
Van Riel, A.C.R., de Mortanges, C.P. and Streukens, S.
(2005), “Marketing antecedents of industrial brand
equity: an empirical investigation in specialty
chemicals”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 34
No. 8, pp. 841-847.
Veloutsou, C. and Guzmán, F. (2017), “The evolution of
brand management thinking over the last 25 years as
recorded in the Journal of Product and Brand Management”,
Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 26 No. 1,
pp. 2-12.
Vomberg, A., Homburg, C. and Bornemann, T. (2015),
“Talented people and strong brands: the contribution of
human capital and brand equity to firm value”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 36 No. 13, pp. 2122-2131.
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
11
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 34 · Number 1 · 2019 · 1–11
Washburn, J.H. and Plank, R.E. (2002), “Measuring brand
equity: an evaluation of a consumer-based brand equity
scale”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 10
No. 1, pp. 46-62.
Webster, F.E. and Keller, K.L. (2004), “A roadmap for
branding in industrial markets”, Journal of Brand
Management, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 388-402.
Widener, S.K. (2004), “An empirical investigation of the
relation between the use of strategic human capital and the
design of the management control system”, Accounting,
Organizations & Society, Vol. 29 Nos 3/4, pp. 377-399.
Yoo, B. and Donthu, N. (2001), “Developing and validating a
multidimensional consumer-based brand equity scale”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Youndt, M.A., Subramaniam, M. and Snell, S.A. (2004),
“Intellectual capital profiles: an examination of investments
and returns”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 41 No. 2,
pp. 335-361.
Zhang, J., Jiang, Y., Shabbir, R. and Du, M. (2015), “Building
industrial brand equity by leveraging firm capabilities and co-
creating value with customers”, Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 51, pp. 47-58.
Corresponding author
Galina Biedenbach can be contacted at: galina.
biedenbach@umu.se