How Employer Branding is Affected by Country-of-Origin : And its effect on Employee Retention of Generation Z

(1)

How Employer Branding is Affected by

Country-of-Origin

And its effect on Employee Retention of Generation Z

BACHELOR THESIS WITHIN: Business Administration NUMBER OF CREDITS: 15 ECTS

PROGRAMME OF STUDY: International Management AUTHOR: Alex Wahlberg, Andreas Kilit & Philip Kaburek TUTOR: Quang Evansluong

(2)

Bachelor Thesis in Business Administration

Title: How Employer Branding is Affected by Country-of-Origin: And its effect on Employee Retention of Generation Z

Authors: Alex Wahlberg, Andreas Kilit & Philip Kaburek

Tutor: Quang Evansluong

Date: 2021-05-24

Key terms: Employer Branding; Country of Origin Effect (COO); Employee Retention; Generation Z;

Development Opportunities; Environmental, Social, Governance (ESG); Consumer Branding.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Abstract

Employer branding is becoming increasingly important, but the literature on the subject lacks vital elements. First, Country of Origin (COO) has been shown to affect employer branding, but this process is very poorly understood. Second, employee retention, although proven to have multiple benefits and to be impacted by employer branding, is underrepresented in employer branding research. Third, despite the importance of cultural context being well documented in literature, current employer branding research takes little consideration for this, especially in regards to Generation Z, who are becoming increasingly vital in the workforce.

To mend these important research gaps, this thesis aims to examine how employer branding is affected by COO, and, in extension, how this impacts employee retention among Generation Z employees. This purpose is fulfilled by answering the following research question:

“How is employer branding affected by COO when retaining Generation Z employees?” With this research question in mind, an abductive qualitative study was conducted using multiple-case studies in a Swedish MNE context. Semi-structured interviews with HR/employer branding managers and international Generation Z employees were conducted. This provided a dual perspective where both the views of employers and employees could be observed, analysed, and compared which was necessary to answer the research question. The results were then analysed using rigorous data-driven content-analysis.

Using this approach, the study answered the research question by finding that employer branding is affected indirectly by COO through the process of other primary factors in retaining Generation Z. The research led to the introduction of a new model; The Employer Brand Compass, which illustrates how employer branding is affected by COO through three main factors in employee retention of Generation Z; ESG, development opportunities, and consumer branding.

(3)

Acknowledgements

Firstly, sincere gratitude is directed towards our supervisor, Dr. Quang Evansluong, who throughout our work on this thesis has directed and helped us overcome countless obstacles. Through interesting discussions, where we could take part of your experience and guidance, we were able to put this thesis together. Truly, this would not have been possible without you, Quang. Thank you.

Secondly, we would like to express our appreciation to the students in our seminar group, who through their constructive feedback have given us new perspectives and insight that helped make this thesis what it is. We humbly thank you for your time and effort.

Additionally, we would like to thank all of the interviewees, and case companies, that participated in this study and made this possible, especially during the difficult times of a global pandemic. We sincerely thank you for your time and for entrusting us with your great insights.

Lastly, we would like to thank our respective families and friends for their loving support throughout our work, encouraging us to remain focused on the goal and the future ahead of us.

Andreas Kilit Alex Wahlberg Philip Kaburek ____________________ ____________________ ____________________

(4)

List of Tables

Table 1: Company Description……….………..30

Table 2: Data Collection Company 1………..32

Table 3: Data Collection Company 2………….……….33

Table 4: Data Collection Company 3……….……….33

Table 5: Cross-case first order codes employer………..35

Table 6: Cross-case first order codes employee………..36

Table 7. Cross-case second order codes employer………..37

Table 8. Cross-case second order codes employee……….38

Table 9. Aggregate Dimensions employer………..39

Table 10. Aggregate Dimensions employee………...40

List of Figures

Figure 1. How organisations value employer brand (LinkedIn, 2016) ………...15

Figure 2. Conceptual model of COO effects on employer attractiveness………19

Figure 3. Systematic Combining………28

Figure 4: Data structure………..45

Figure 5: The Employer Brand Compass………....57

Figure 6: Conceptual model of COO effects on employer attractiveness………57

Figure 7: The Employer Brand Compass: Example of Generation Z………..60

Figure 8: The Employer Brand Compass: Example of Case Companies………61

(7)

Definitions

- Generation Z: Exact definitions vary, but summing them up, the concept generally refers to people born between 1993-2015. (Statistics Canada, 2018; Agarwal & Vaghela, 2018; Schwieger & Ladwig, 2018; Cole & Macrum, 2015)

- Country of Origin (COO): The country of origin of something, usually a product or brand. The concept is used with the Country of Origin Effect, which refers to the effect the COO has on the perception of a product or brand.

- Employer Brand: The brand associated with a company, not as a producer of goods and services, but as an employer of people. In other words the perception people hold of a company as an employer.

- Employee Retention: The ability of an organisation to make employees stay within the organisation.

- International Employee: Someone born, raised and grown up outside of Sweden working outside of Sweden, or in Sweden as an expatriate.

- Swedish MNE: A company founded and headquartered in Sweden with operations in at least one other country outside of Sweden.

- ESG: Stands for Environmental, Social and Corporate Governance, and relates to sustainable business practice in regards to environment, social aspects and corporate governance.

(8)

1. Introduction

_____________________________________________________________________________ The first chapter of this thesis gives an introduction to the topic of employer branding, COO, employee retention and Generation Z. Additionally, the purpose and research question are developed and presented. Lastly, the limitations and delimitations are discussed. _____________________________________________________________________________ In today’s competitive labour market, it is important to stand out. To do so, employer branding can be used (Chhabra & Sharma, 2014; Ambler & Barrow, 1996; Backhaus, 2016). A strong employer brand creates many organisational improvements such as increased employee productivity, reducing hiring marketing costs, and overall creating a more robust company culture (Isaksson & Sundström, 2013; Backhaus, 2016; Moroko & Uncles, 2008; Schlager et al., 2011; Gaddam, 2008; Isaksson & Sundström, 2013). Although employer branding is a heavily studied subject, firstly, employer branding literature lacks insight on the impact of Country of Origin (COO) (Alshathry et al., 2014). Secondly, employer branding is often studied regarding recruiting, leaving a research gap on employer branding in regards to employee retention. Thirdly, there is a lack of research on employer branding in regards to Generation Z (born between 1993 and 2015), who are rapidly entering the labour market (Statistics Canada, 2018; Agarwal & Vaghela, 2018; Schwieger & Ladwig, 2018; Cole & Macrum, 2015; Acheampong, 2019). Additionally, the literature lacks a dual perspective, and mainly focuses on the employee or employer, not both. Research suggests that information behaviour needs to be investigated from the dual perspective of the information seeker and the information giver. This approach allows for the identification of disparity in perceptions (Yang, 2013). The dual perspective is important in branding research as well, as branding is an interplay between information/brand taker and information/brand giver (Shen & Bisell, 2013)

Based on these important research gaps, the purpose of this thesis is to examine how COO affects employer branding and how, in extension, this impacts employee retention among Generation Z employees. As such, (1) Employer branding is examined, as affected by (2) COO, in regards to its effect on (3) employee retention among (4) Generation Z.

1.1 Problem Discussion

Employer branding is an important subject that lacks many critical perspectives in research. A positive employer brand gives a competitive advantage in an increasingly competitive labour market (Ambler & Barrow, 1996; Backhaus, 2016). Furthermore, a strong employer brand leads to higher profitability, better customer ratings and many other organisational benefits (Backhaus, 2016; Moroko & Uncles, 2008; Schlager et al., 2011.; Gaddam, 2008; Isaksson & Sundström, 2013). However, literature is lacking insight into how COO affects employer branding. Furthermore, most employer branding research anchors their purpose mainly to employee

(9)

acquisition rather than employee retention. Moreover, there is a lack of consideration for the cultural context of brand perceivers, or employees and job-seekers, specifically in Generation Z. It is essential to understand how COO affects employer branding, as it is only known to affect employer branding. (Froese et al., 2010; Zaveri & Mulye, 2011). Furthermore, employee retention needs to be considered, as employee retention provides many benefits, such as cost efficiency and higher worker morale (Annuar et al., 2021; Sokro, 2012; Yamamoto, 2011. Additionally, Generation Z needs to be considered in employer branding research since each generation has different brand perceptions, and Generation Z is the next generation entering the labour market (Berkup, 2014; Chegini et al., 2016; Kaiser & Regjepaj, 2019). COO, employee retention, and Generation Z need to be studied further in employer branding research to fully understand employer branding and use effectively in practice.

Employer branding is dependent on the cultural context, or COO, of the employer. Although this has a clear impact on employer branding, the understanding of the subject is very shallow. Current research suggests many factors that can impact employer branding, for example, market value, the innovation level of a company's products, customer focus and much more(Alnıaçık & Alnıaçık, 2012). In particular, research has shown that COO effects employer branding (Zaveri & Mulye; Froese et al., 2010). However, how COO affects employer branding is poorly understood and something that researchers in the field are asking for further study of (Alshathry et al., 2014). Although it is understood that COO impacts employer branding, the process of this relation is not known. The current literature establishes a quantitative fact that this interplay exists but lacks an in-depth qualitative understanding of how it works. It is crucial to understand how COO and employer brand interplay to fully understand and utilize them (Zaveri & Mulye, 2011). Studying employer branding without considering the COO is prone to provide little value in understanding how employer branding works. (Alshathry et al., 2014). Hence, understanding how employer brands are affected by COO is important to best use employer branding in practice and research it correctly. Overall it can be concluded, through current research, that employer branding is affected by cultural context and COO. Despite this, there is no understanding of how it works. Researchers are asking for further research into the topic, and companies will need to understand how their COO can impact their employer brand if they want to use it effectively.

Employee retention has shown to have many operational benefits for organisations, but practically retaining employees is hard as literature is overly-focused on employee acquisition and does not take into account cultural context or a dual perspective. (Yamamoto, 2011; Tanwar & Prasad, 2016; Sokro, 2012; Cloutier et al., 2015). Previous research shows that high employee retention results in increased employee loyalty, productivity and engagement while also being cheaper than recruiting new employees, and is therefore suggesting practitioners and researchers to focus on employee retention (Sokro, 2012; Tanwar & Prasad, 2016; Yamamoto, 2011; Hewitt, 2019; Bhasin et al., 2019; Kumavat, 2012; Coco, 2000; Ramlall, 2004; Stan, 2012). Literature also suggests that companies need to adapt their employer brands to different cultural contexts, especially Generation

(10)

Z, in order to achieve effective employee retention (Kaiser & Regjepaj, 2019; Müller & Piepenstock, 2016; Berkup, 2014; Chegini et al., 2016; Singh, 2014; Agarwal & Vaghela, 2018; Sidorcuka & Chesnovicka, 2017). Despite the importance of the above, employer branding research is skewed towards employee acquisition. Moreover, employee retention literature does not discuss how to actionably adapt to the cultural context of Generation Z neither on the part of the employer or the employee. Overall, literature is lacking a dual perspective considering employee and employer perspectives. Employee retention is vital for any company, and should therefore be adequately researched (Annuar et al., 2021). The importance of knowing how to adapt to cultural context in employee retention is stressed by researchers, especially in terms of Generation Z as they are becoming increasingly vital in the labour market (Berkup, 2014; Chegini et al., 2016; Kaiser & Regjepaj, 2019). Utilizing a dual perspective is vital in employee retention research to understand the subject fully, and be able to spot perceptional disparities (Yang, 2013; Shen & Bisell, 2013)Employee retention is important in practice so the blatant gaps in its research are worrying and should be addressed. Understanding employee retention from a dual perspective with regards for cultural context is something that research must focus on.

Generation Z are entering the labour market en masse, and are bringing new challenges for employers. Understanding Generation Z is key to understand how employers can adapt to them. Previous research establishes Generation Z as a cultural context with unique characteristics that need to be considered by employers (Chegini et al., 2016; Berkup, 2014; Kaiser & Regjepaj, 2019; Agarwal & Vaghela, 2018; Bernier, 2015; Singh, 2014; Sidorcuka & Chesnovicka, 2017; Alshathry et al., 2014). Literature states that these characteristics are worth researching further as it can result in discovering ways to also retain Generation Z (Singh, 2014; Dangmei & Singh, 2016; Acheampong, 2019). However, there is a lack of knowledge on Generation Z as employees, and how to retain them. Moreover, previously literature focuses mainly on Generation Z’s perceptions on employers, or employers perception of Generation Z, and does not provide a dual perspective on both spectrums. Understanding Generation Z as employees and not only job-seekers is vital to retain them (Singh, 2014; Dangmei & Singh, 2016; Acheampong, 2019). Furthermore, understanding the interplay between Generation Z and employers is important to spot disparities between these perceptions, and this can only be done through a dual perspective approach (Yang, 2013; Shen & Bisell, 2013). Literature on Generation Z discusses their characteristics without considering how employers can adapt to these to retain them. Researching the issue through a dual perspective is a necessity in order to fully understand it.

1.2 Purpose

The literature on employer branding suggests that it is impacted by COO, but does not indicate how this effect works (Zaveri & Mulye, 2011; Froese et al., 2010). Furthermore, research on the topic is limited to employee acquisition and does not yet show if the effect is the same in employee retention, which is a principal aspect of employer branding (Sokro, 2012; Tanwar & Prasad, 2016; Yamamoto, 2011; Hewitt, 2019; Bhasin et al., 2019; Berthon et al., 2002). Additionally, current

(11)

research on the subject takes little consideration for the cultural context of the brand perceiver, which has proven important in employer branding, specifically in regards to Generation Z who are becoming increasingly vital in the workforce (Chegini et al., 2016; Berkup, 2014; Kaiser & Regjepaj, 2019; Agarwal & Vaghela, 2018; Bernier, 2015; Singh, 2014; Sidorcuka & Chesnovicka, 2017; Alshathry et al., 2014). To understand these aspects, it is imperative to observe employer branding, as affected by COO, in regards to its effect on employee retention among Generation Z. Thus, the purpose of this thesis is to examine how employer branding is affected by COO, and, in extension, how this impacts employee retention among Generation Z employees. The stated purpose is fulfilled in the following way:

(1) Employer branding is examined, as affected by (2) COO, in regards to its effect on (3) employee retention among (4) Generation Z. First, employer branding is studied in regards to how it is affected by COO. Second, employee retention is studied as an effect of employer branding. Third, employee retention, and in extension employer branding and COO, is studied in the context of Generation Z employees.

1.3 Research Question

The importance of employer branding research is clear, and yet there are blatant academic gaps that are vital to understand. Overall, the research purpose based on the academic background coupled with economic, corporate, and demographic trends leads to the following research question:

“How is employer branding affected by COO when retaining Generation Z employees?” This research question will serve as a point of departure for the study and be used as a reference point when developing the methodology of the thesis, as well as when conducting the empirical study, and analysis. The research question allows the thesis to stay consistent and focused on the purpose stated above.

1.4 Contributions

This study further builds upon current research in many ways.

First employer branding literature has very little consideration for the COO effect despite its proven effect on employer branding. This thesis builds an understanding of these two concepts and the interplay between them. Further, the empirical setting in Sweden means that the Swedish COO effect will be better understood.

Second, the study contributes to the literature on employer branding and HR management by explicitly looking at the effect employer branding has on the understudied area of employee retention. This will provide understanding of how employer branding and COO works, separately

(12)

and together, when retaining employees. This creates a broader and deeper interconnected understanding of these concepts, which does not exist in today's literature.

Third, the study contributes to understanding the maturing Generation Z who are, because of their relative novelty in the labour market, not very well understood as employees. This understanding, in turn, will help researchers in the future when studying Generation Z in other contexts, which is something that will become increasingly important going forward.

Furthermore, this thesis will also contribute to practice. In particular, the thesis will help organisations know how to actionably deploy employer branding strategies to retain the increasingly important Generation Z as employees, with consideration for the COO effect. Furthermore, the better understanding of Swedish COO will help Swedish companies use their COO in their marketing and branding, towards both employees, investors, and consumers. In general, the recognition of the above mentioned concepts should contribute to businesses better adapting their employment and branding of said employment, especially in regards to Generation Z.

1.5 Delimitations

Delimitation is implemented in the research to create better focus in the study. These delimitations are highlighted in this section.

Sweden was chosen as the empirical setting as it is more feasible and effective because of the contact network available and the added benefits of researching within one's country of origin, like linguistic, cultural similarities, and an understanding of regional differences (Wüstenberg, 2008). Therefore, it becomes more practical to research from a Swedish context than another country’s context. First, it is easier to contact Swedish companies due to a greater knowledge of the Swedish market. Second, by using Swedish multinational enterprises language barriers are negated. Third, Sweden as an empirical setting has a relatively large economic importance. Swedish Multinational Enterprises (MNEs) are expanding rapidly internationally and have a high ratio of penetration in international markets (Han & Gu, 2016). Lastly, Sweden's COO effect is poorly understood, meaning that this study can create demanded knowledge on the topic.

Specifically, Swedish MNEs are chosen to get access to international employees working for Swedish companies, so that the Swedish COO effect can be practically researched. International employees are important in the research since Swedish employees might be biased to the Swedish culture and/or might not notice the effects of Swedish COO as they are used to it. Therefore, it is more practical to study the Swedish COO effect on international employees that have chosen to work at a Swedish company.

(13)

1.6 Limitations

The main limitations of our study are related to two main factors. First, the study was conducted through Microsoft Teams and Zoom due to covid-19 restrictions. This has impacted our ability to conduct interviews in the best possible way as audio quality, lack of personal connection, and face-to-face interaction is limiting communication and understanding. Problems with internet connection occasionally create difficulties in the flow of conversation and can make the transcription process a little harder.

Second, the interviews with international employees were conducted in English. Hence, creating a slight language barrier as English is not the native language for either the interviewers or interviewees.

(14)

2. Theoretical Framework

_____________________________________________________________________________ The beginning of the second chapter consists of a method for the theoretical framework. Thereafter, a discussion on the topic of employer branding, COO, employee retention and Generation Z follows. The chapter ends with stating the purpose and research question.

_____________________________________________________________________________

2.1 Method of Theoretical framework

This paragraph provides information of how data was collected for the theoretical framework. Employer branding is a quite new concept, but there still exists a lot of previous research on the topic. Thus, it was important to understand what has not been researched and what has been researched to create a strong base to the study. The researchers used a number of different databases to discover relevant information for the theoretical framework. The databases used were Google Scholar, Primo and Scopus which are known to have academic articles. Specific keywords were used to find the needed information on the databases. For this study the keywords used were ‘Country of Origin’, Employer Branding’, Generation Z’, and Employee Retention. These words were combined with each other as well to find articles combining all aspects. To make sure that the data collected are reliable the journals had to be peer-reviewed or part of the ABS list of journals. If any article neither was Peer-Reviewed or ABS listed the information was needed to be stated from another journal as well. As there existed a limited number of articles including more than two of the keywords, information was collected from articles only including one aspect which in turn were combined with information from another source.

2.2 Employer Branding

“If the reputation of a company’s products and services is its face, the employer brand is its heart and soul. It represents the collective goodwill of the people that make the company go.”

(Stringer & Rueff 2006).

Employer branding can be defined as “the process of building an identifiable employer identity, or more specifically, the promotion of a unique and attractive image as an employer” (Theurer et al., 2016). Developing a positive employer brand can be utilized to acquire a competitive advantage in an increasingly competitive labour market and to display an attractive and engaging image to both current and potential employees (Ambler & Barrow, 1996; Backhaus, 2016) Existing research indicates a correlation between a positive employer brand and employee satisfaction (Verčič, 2021). Furthermore, a strong employer brand leads to higher profitability, better customer ratings among many other organisational benefits (Backhaus, 2016; Moroko & Uncles, 2008;

(15)

Schlager et al, 2011.; Gaddam, 2008; Isaksson & Sundström, 2013). Overall, employer branding is quite a heavily studied subject. However, employer branding research lacks understanding of input factors from theoretical concepts such as COO. Furthermore, the majority of prior employer branding research anchors their purpose mainly to the acquisition of talents, rather than employee retention. Moreover, there is a lack of consideration for the cultural context of brand perceivers, or employees and job-seekers, specifically in regards to Generation Z. Overall companies find employer branding important:

Figure 1. How organisations value employer brand (LinkedIn, 2016)

Hence, it is important to understand the concept. Specifically, it is important to include COO in employer branding research as it has been shown to impact employer branding, and as such understanding this process is imperative for an organisation to fully utilize its employer brand and make use of its many benefits (Froese et al., 2010; Zaveri & Mulye, 2011). Furthermore, it is important to study the retention of employees, as employee retention brings strong benefits for organisations such as cost efficiency, increased stability as well as worker morale and loyalty (Annuar et al., 2021;Sokro, 2012 ;Yamamoto, 2011). In particular, it is also important to include Generation Z in employer branding research because each generation perceives employer brands differently (Berkup, 2014; Chegini et al., 2016; Kaiser & Regjepaj, 2019). As Generation Z are increasingly entering the labour market their perception of employer brands will increasingly become more important for employers (Agarwal & Vaghela, 2018; Bernier, 2015). Employer branding is a relatively new concept that has been heavily studied in a short time span, indicating its importance and usage. However, the literature lacks many important perspectives such as COO

(16)

and retention, as well as generational cultural considerations. These perspectives need to be studied further to fully understand employer branding, and in order to be able to effectively use it in practice.

Starting with the perspective of COO, it is clear that employer branding is dependent on the cultural context of the employer. Although this has a clear impact on employer branding, the understanding of the subject is very shallow. Current research suggests many factors that can impact employer branding, for example market value, the innovation level of a company's products, customer focus and much more (Alnıaçık & Alnıacık, 2012). One important factor that research has shown does impact employer branding is COO (Zaveri & Mulye, 2011; Froese et al., 2010). Within employer branding, COO can be referred to as the cultural context of the employer, and researchers in the field are asking for further study of employer branding in different cultural contexts, to be able to understand the subject better (Alshathry et al., 2014). However, the research on the employer’s cultural context and its impact on employer branding is extremely limited. Although it is understood that the COO of the employer impacts employer branding, the process of this relation is not known. The current literature establishes a quantitative fact that this interplay exists, but lacks the qualitative in-depth understanding of how it works. More specifically, how the nationality and COO of a corporation impacts its employer brand is very poorly understood. With COO being an important factor in employer brands, it is important to understand how these concepts interplay in order to fully understand and utilize them (Zaveri & Mulye, 2011). In researching employer branding, being “context-blind” to cultural factors, which most studies are, is very limiting to the value of the research. Studying employer brands without considering the cultural context and COO of the brand is prone to provide little value on understanding how employer brands work (Alshathry et al., 2014). Hence, understanding how employer brands are affected by COO is important in order to best use employer branding in practice and in order to research it correctly. Overall it can be concluded, through current research, that employer branding is affected by cultural context and COO. Despite this clear connection being established, there is no understanding of how it works. Researchers are asking for further research into the topic, and companies will need to understand how their COO can impact their employer brand if they want to use it effectively.

Although input factors impacting employer branding are important to understand, one must also study the output effects of employer branding. The purpose of employer branding is not only to market employment to future employees, but also to market it internally to current employees in order to reap the many benefits of improved employee retention. Literature states that employer branding is relevant in the context of employee retention (Berthon et al., 2002). Research shows that low employee retention leads to demoralization of the existing workforce and reduced productivity, while high employee retention results in increased employee loyalty and engagement, as well as an improved internal knowledge base and employee support system while also being much cheaper than recruiting new employees. (Sokro, 2012; Tanwar & Prasad, 2016; Yamamoto,

(17)

2011; Hewitt, 2019; Bhasin et al., 2019) Overall, the research states that employer branding can, and should, be used to retain employees. Employer branding has been researched mainly on external branding for the purpose of employee acquisition, which is strange considering the concept was more focused on employee retention when it was proposed (Ambler & Barrow, 1996). Employer branding has been shown to impact employee retention, but how it does so in practice is not well understood, compared to the understanding of employer branding in employee acquisition. This disparity in research between employee retention and acquisition is surprising considering research suggests it is much more efficient and beneficial to retain current employees rather than recruit new ones. Better cost efficiency, as well as increased stability, worker morale and loyalty are just some examples of how employee retention benefits corporations (Annuar et al., 2021;Sokro, 2012 ;Yamamoto, 2011). As such, understanding how employer branding impacts employee retention is not only of academic importance but also vital for organisations in practice. Employer branding has been shown to impact employee retention, which in turn has been shown to have very many positive effects on business performance. Despite this there is little research on how employer branding impacts employee retention in practice. Without this understanding, businesses cannot fully utilize their employer brand, and researchers cannot fully understand the concept of employer branding.

Whether examining input factors or output effects of employer branding, quality research is not possible without understanding the cultural context of the brand perceiver. Although employer branding is important in business, the concept is poorly understood from different cultural contexts, like how generational differences impact employer brand perceptions, especially looking at Generation Z. Literature suggests a strong employer brand to be vital in business since it allows for differentiation in the labour market and gives a competitive advantage when it comes to acquiring and retaining talent (Chhabra & Sharma, 2014). But what constitutes a strong employer brand differs depending on the cultural context of the perceiver, like the generation one belongs to (Chegini et al., 2016; Berkup, 2014; Kaiser & Regjepaj, 2019). As Generation Z are rapidly growing in importance as employees, understanding their perception of employer branding is vital. (Agarwal & Vaghela, 2018; Bernier, 2015) Current research suggest that Generation Z, compared to previous generations, are more entrepreneurial and tolerant, more dedicated to ESG, and not as motivated by money, but they are also more impatient, and highly dependent on technology (Singh, 2014; Dangmei & Singh, 2016; Agarwal & Vaghela, 2018; Sidorcuka & Chesnovicka, 2017). Another important aspect of Generation Z is that they are more prone to switching employers than other generations (Bapat et al., 2019; Crouch, 2015; Deloitte, 2019; Sidorcuka & Chesnovicka, 2017). Overall, literature states that understanding the characteristics of Generation Z and how to retain them as employees is important and worth exploring (Acheampong, 2019). Despite the importance of understanding how to cater employer branding to Generation Z, current literature does not discuss enough how to do so. In general, the cultural context of the brand perceiver is often ignored in employer branding research. Although literature suggests that a dual perspective approach is needed in branding research, it is not present in employer branding research (Yang,

(18)

2013; Shen & Bisell, 2013). As literature shows, the employer brand is important, but to fully understand and take advantage of it, cultural context is needed. Understanding those who perceive the employer brand is vital in order to understand the employer brand itself and how it works to attract and retain employees (Alshathry et al., 2014). Specifically, understanding how Generation Z are affected by employer branding is becoming increasingly important as they rapidly enter and mature in the labour market (Acheampong, 2019; Agarwal & Vaghela, 2018; Bernier, 2015) utilizing a dual perspective, both the perspective of those using employer branding (employers) and those perceiving it (employees) will be understood, while disparities in employer branding usage and perception can be examined (Yang, 2013; Shen & Bisell, 2013). Even though employer branding has been shown to greatly impact organisations, the research is missing a vital part. The very important aspect of who (what cultural context) the brand is perceived by is often left out in employer branding research and as such the literature lacks depth and clear perspective, particularly in regards to how the increasingly important Generation Z relates to employer branding. In order to fully understand and make use of employer branding, understanding of the cultural context is a necessity, and in order to meet the needs of the employees of the future a particular focus on Generation Z is needed.

2.3 Country of origin Effect (COO)

“...COO of an employer will have a significant direct effect on employer attractiveness” (Zaveri & Mulye, 2011)

COO is usually discussed in terms of product branding, but it also affects employer branding (Zaveri & Mulye, 2011; Froese et al., 2010). But, how COO affects employer branding is not yet understood. COO has been proven through multiple studies to affect consumer purchasing behaviour, and branding (Eghtebasi et al., 2012; Piron, 2000; Cai, 1994; Urbonavičius & Gineikienė, 2009; Sankar, 2006; Krupka et al., 2014). Furthermore, previous literature states that a nation's values, religion, language, social organisation, and culture impact organizational values within a country (Khan & Law, 2018). Although the COO effect is well-researched in general, almost all studies look at COO in the context of consumer branding, a few on business to business branding, and almost none examine COO in employer branding. Thus, the literature lacks an understanding of how COO affects employer branding. To understand the effect COO has on employer branding further research is required. Research on the COO effect has furthered the understanding of consumer branding, and it stands to reason that studying the COO effect in employer branding should further the understanding of this topic as well. (Eghtebasi et al., 2012; Piron, 2000; Cai, 1994; Urbonavičius & Gineikienė, 2009; Sankar, 2006; Krupka et al., 2014). Because of this, researchers are calling for the COO effect to be studied in the context of employer branding (Alshathry et al., 2014). COO is proven to have a large impact on product branding, but it’s effect on employer branding is still very poorly understood. Researching this gap will create a better understanding of employer branding and bring it into a new light.

(19)

Although the COO effect in employer branding is poorly understood, the few studies that do exist on the topic show that COO does affect employer branding. However the mechanism behind this effect has not yet been studied. Literature states that COO together with traditional marketing theories can be used within employer branding, and is a way for employers to improve employer attractiveness (Figure 2.) (Zaveri & Mulye, 2011).

Figure 2. Conceptual model of COO effects on employer attractiveness

COO has shown to impact employee decisions when choosing an employer (Froese et al., 2010). Overall, research shows that COO significantly affects employer branding (Zaveri & Mulye, 2011; Froese et al., 2010). The literature shows that COO affects employer branding, but only discusses employee acquisition, and not how COO can work to retain employees through employer branding. Moreover, current literature on the topic is solely theoretical or quantitative and does not utilize a dual perspective, meaning that literature currently does not explain how COO affects employer branding in practice. Because COO is contextual to a specific country, the fact that the only nation-contextual literature solely examines Vietnam, Japan and the USA, gravely limits the understanding of the topic. Since literature states that employer branding impacts both employee acquisition and retention, it is important to also study how COO affects retention, and not only acquisition, as is the case with current research (Zaveri & Mulye, 2011; Froese et al., 2010; Berthon et al., 2002). Furthermore, a dual perspective examining both employers and employees would improve understanding of the topic by showing how COO is used and how it is perceived in regards to employer branding. (Yang, 2013; Shen & Bisell, 2013). Furthermore, empirical qualitative research on COO in employer branding in practice is needed in order to gain an in-depth understanding of the topic and to identify patterns as a basis further research (Maxwell, 2012; Bettis et al., 2015) Because the COO effect differs between nations, researching the COO effect on employer branding in other national contexts is needed to fully understand its effect on

(20)

employer branding. It is clear that COO affects the employer brand, although the process with which this happens is not yet understood. Overall, current literature on the subject is extremely limited and is missing many vital parts that would help researchers and practitioners understand and use COO and employer branding in their respective fields.

Establishing the attributes of the consumer COO effect is vital to understand how the effect manifests in an employer brand (Ghielen et. al., 2020). The COO effect is, by its nature, different between nations, and what little is understood about the Swedish COO effect points to it being positive overall. Literature points to certain connotations related to Swedish COO such as: Good quality, functionality, equality and human rights, scenic landscapes, rich country and cold people that are hard to get close to. The Swedish COO can be difficult to distinguish, as it may be similar between the Nordic countries. Hence, the Swedish COO can generally be viewed as a Scandinavian COO (Persson, 2008).The Swedish COO effect is subject to very little research in current literature, and the only study that has tried to present what the Swedish COO effect is only looks at Swedish COO from a French perspective, meaning that the topic is very unsaturated. Furthermore, literature on the topic does not employ a dual perspective which makes it hard to understand how the Swedish COO is used and, respectively, perceived, in practice. A better understanding of the Swedish COO would also contribute to defining the COO of Scandinavia in general (Persson, 2008). Followingly, it would make it easier for Scandinavian companies to use their COO in their branding and more effectively adapt branding endeavors based on this. Additionally, using a dual perspective when researching Swedish COO is important in order to understand the whole process of the effect, from its use to its perception (Shen & Bisell, 2013). Overall, there is a severe lack of research on Swedish COO and COO in employer branding. Researchers are calling for further research in regards to employer branding, and specifically, how these concepts relate to each other in a Swedish context (Berthon, Ewing, & Hah, 2005).

2.4 Employee Retention

“As many organizations are competing for the most talented employees it is important to attract, and even more important to retain those who are already within the organization”

(Isaksson & Sundström, 2013)

Good employee retention is very important for businesses as it comes with many benefits while reducing costs. Despite this, current research does not adequately address the subject. Previous literature shows the importance of a strong link between employee acquisition and retention (Stan, 2012; Eger et al., 2019). For example, having good exit experiences for employees after an internship or long-term employment increases the probability of retaining interns and reacquiring boomerang employees (Kumavat, 2012; Coco, 2000). Furthermore, employer branding is cited as having an impact on the retention of employees (Sokro, 2012). Research shows that good employee retention increases employee morale, loyalty & productivity, while saving time and

(21)

resources (Yamamoto, 2011; Tanwar & Prasad, 2016; Sokro, 2012; Cloutier et al., 2015). Research is even suggesting practitioners, in particular Swedish MNEs, to focus more on employee retention (Stan, 2012). Overall, the academic consensus seems to be that employee retention provides many important benefits and should be a focus both for practitioners and researchers (Kumavat, 2012; Coco, 2000; Ramlall, 2004; Kaiser & Regjepaj, 2019). As one researcher put it; “Employee retention is king” (Stan, 2012)Despite the apparent benefits of retention as opposed to recruitment, the current literature is unreasonably skewed towards the latter. While research shows that recruitment does impact retention, this is far from the only factor impacting employee retention, and more research is needed on other factors surrounding the concept, especially in regards to employer branding. Retaining employees is obviously very beneficial and important, and organizations are thus implementing various employee retention strategies (Annuar et al., 2021). The fact that employer brand research is so skewed towards employee acquisition shows employer branding literature has lost focus, as employer branding was originally introduced with an emphasis on employee retention (Ambler & Barrow, 1996). Because of the reasons above, refocusing employer branding research towards employee retention is vital; both for academia to have a better understanding of a concept growing in importance, and also for companies to be able to make better use of employee retention. Although there is research on employee retention, the focus has shifted, superfluously, towards employee acquisition. The strong benefits associated with employee retention for corporations paired with its cost efficiency makes it a vital part in any business, and as such important to understand through academic research.

Although there is much research on what factors impact employee retention, important aspects relating to cultural context, and employer branding are missed in current literature. Research shows that important factors for employee retention are development opportunities, work environment, leadership, training, employee engagement, job satisfaction, and more (Kamalaveni et.al, 2019; Stan, 2012; Sokro, 2012). Furthermore, employee satisfaction is suggested as a main factor in retaining employees, and having diversity at the workplace is an important way to increase employee satisfaction (Hunt et al., 2015). Overall, the literature suggests that there are many factors impacting employee retention. Despite this, one important factor in employer branding that, followingly, impacts employee retention is not mentioned in literature on the topic; There is a clear lack of academic discussion on how COO impacts employee retention through employer branding. In other words, there is no clear connection between marketing theory, such as COO, and employer branding in employee retention. Moreover, literature does not discuss if adapting employee retention strategies to the cultural context of employees (such as generation or nationality) is needed. Additionally, literature only discusses what employees demand and what employers can do to meet these demands separately, and do not employ a dual perspective approach. As research has shown that COO impacts employer branding, which in turn impacts employee retention, the lack of discussion on COO in employee retention research is concerning (Sokro, 2012; Zaveri & Mulye, 2011; Froese et al., 2010). To have effective employee retention, it is necessary to know the demands of employees in order to adapt to them (Sokro, 2012). As such, it is important to put

(22)

employee retention under a cultural lens to understand how the culture of employees affects employee retention, as cultural context has been shown to affect employee demands (Kaiser & Regjepaj, 2019; Müller & Piepenstock, 2016; Chegini et al., 2016; Berkup, 2014; Singh, 2014; Agarwal & Vaghela, 2018). Followingly, it is important for employee retention research to utilize a dual perspective approach, as examining employers and employees together can indicate disparities in what employers provide and what employees want (Yang, 2013). Despite much research on employee retention, literature is not conclusive on how employers can market and communicate employment to retain employees. To solve this disparity more research is needed utilizing a dual perspective approach and applying a cultural lens to both employers (by considering COO) and employees.

It is important for companies to adapt their retention strategies to different audiences, in particular to Generation Z, who are becoming increasingly important as employees. However, research lacks insight on how companies can actionably adapt to this generation. The literature suggests that companies need to adapt their employer brands to different audiences in order to achieve effective employee retention (Kaiser & Regjepaj, 2019; Müller & Piepenstock, 2016; Berkup, 2014; Chegini et al., 2016). In particular, Generation Z is hailed as an important audience for employers to consider. Research shows that Generation Z have different traits and motivations compared to other generations (Singh, 2014; Dangmei & Singh, 2016; Agarwal & Vaghela, 2018; Sidorcuka & Chesnovicka, 2017). Additionally, research states that Generation Z are more prone to temporary employment rather than long-term employment which means that they will not hesitate to switch jobs if unsatisfied and requirements are not met (Sidorcuka & Chesnovicka, 2017). The literature states various characteristics inherent to Generation Z as employees, but does not discuss how to actionably and practically adopt retention strategies to these. The lack of a dual perspective in researching employee retention of Generation Z has led to only the demands of Generation Z being well understood, while the employers perspective in how to cater to these demands are not. The lack of actionable translation of current Generation Z employee retention theory into practical strategy is visible in the high turnover rate in Generation Z employees (Bapat et al., 2019; Crouch, 2015; Deloitte, 2019; Sidorcuka & Chesnovicka, 2017). Generation Z are growing in importance in the workforce, but employers and researchers still do not understand how to adapt retention strategies to this generation (Agarwal & Vaghela, 2018; Bernier, 2015). utilizing a dual perspective would illuminate the topic from the perspective of both employers and Generation Z which would allow the interplay between these to be understood. Followingly, dual perspective research on retaining Generation Z would pave the way to a fuller understanding of the topic, as is needed in order to retain Generation Z in practice, and comprehend the subject in theory. Literature determines characteristics of Generation Z and the importance of adapting retention strategies and employer branding to these. However, research does not show how to adapt theory into practical retention strategies for Generation Z. utilizing a dual perspective could solve these issues and give both academics and practitioners a much needed understanding of the interplay between employers’ retention strategies and its adaptation to Generation Z.

(23)

2.5 Generation Z

“The inclusion of Gen Z into the labor market will initiate a new era in workplace culture, their presence will disrupt the nature of work as we know it today... knowing how to harmonize and

steer a workplace that includes Generation Z should be a top priority for any employer.” - Petter Nylund, CEO of Universum (Universum, 2017)

A brand is a perception and must be viewed in the context of the perceiver. As such, it is prudent to specify a perceiver through a cultural context when researching brands. Despite this, there is not a lot of research on the topic in regards to employer branding, where generational and cultural context is often overlooked, especially the context of Generation Z. Research shows that employer brand is perceived differently depending on the cultural context of the perceiver, like what generation one belongs to. As such, effective employer branding requires adaptation to the cultural context of the perceiver (Chegini et al., 2016; Berkup, 2014; Kaiser & Regjepaj, 2019; Müller & Piepenstock, 2016). In particular literature holds Generation Z as an important cultural context, with unique traits, that employer branding needs to be adapted to (Singh, 2014; Dangmei & Singh, 2016; Agarwal & Vaghela, 2018; Sidorcuka & Chesnovicka, 2017; Acheampong, 2019; Bernier, 2015). Although there exists some research on cultural context in branding, it is lacking within the employer branding field, especially in the cultural context of Generation Z. In the few cases this is taken into account, it is often not done so in a deliberate and meaningful way. The fact that the employer brand is dependent on the generational culture of the perceiver is established, but why and how is not known. The perspective of Generation Z is lacking in employer branding research, but, even more so, the dual perspective between employer and Generation Z is missing. Understanding the link between generational cultural context and employer branding perceptions, and not only knowing that it exists, is important. Firstly, it helps corporations understand how their brand is viewed by different people, importantly generations entering the workforce en masse, such as Generation Z. Secondly, it helps researchers understand branding, in general, not only as an objective concept, but as a subjective perception of cultural context. Specifically Generation Z are becoming increasingly important to understand in this regard as they are rapidly entering the workforce (Agarwal & Vaghela, 2018; Bernier, 2015). Moreover, employing a dual perspective to the research of Generation Z in employer branding is important to truly understand the interplay between employer and Generation Z as employees, while allowing disparities in employer branding usage and perception to be examined (Yang, 2013; Shen & Bisell, 2013). Overall, it is alarming to see that employer branding research does not take cultural and generation context into account in a deliberate manner. Doing so would help academics and businesses to get a better grasp of employer branding in action in specific cultural groups. In particular more research on the cultural context of Generation Z is needed, and should be accomplished with a dual perspective. Employers will have to adjust their employer branding in order to cater to Generation Z as they are rapidly entering the workforce. Although Generation Z’s characteristics are well understood,

(24)

literature is mostly limited to the perspective of acquisition rather than retention, and research does not employ a dual perspective considering both the cultural context of Generation Z and the employer (Cloutier et al., 2015). Literature determines that Generation Z compared to previous generations are more entrepreneurial, tolerant, and less motivated by money and more by meaningful work through ESG (Dangmei & Singh, 2016). Research also presents negative traits associated with Generation Z, such as high dependency on technology & impatience (Singh, 2014; Agarwal & Vaghela, 2018). Additionally, literature suggests that Generation Z normally enters the labour market through internships or part-time jobs, often paired with university studies, while employers are partnering with universities in order to draw upon this employment pool (Coco, 2000; Jackson, 2016). Researchers state that recognizing the characteristics of Generation Z can benefit companies in retaining them (Acheampong, 2019). The literature mostly discusses Generation Z as job seekers, and not as employees, leading to a lack of research on employee retention of Generation Z. Furthermore, although the cultural context is established as important both in regards to the employer and employee, literature does not employ a dual perspective considering these aspects. As Generation Z continues to mature as active labour participants, it will become increasingly important to understand how to retain , rather than acquire, Generation Z, especially considering their predisposition to job-hopping. Additionally, understanding the interplay between the cultural context of the employee and the cultural context is important as both have shown strong effects individually, and should therefore have strong effects together (Chegini et al., 2016; Berkup, 2014; Kaiser & Regjepaj, 2019; Müller & Piepenstock, 2016; Zaveri & Mulye, 2011; Froese et al., 2010). Followingly, employing a dual perspective in research where both these aspects are considered is important. (Shen & Bisell, 2013; Yang, 2013) Generation Z has specific characteristics that make them different from previous generations, specifically as employees. Although many of these characteristics are well researched, it is not fully understood how to cater to these characteristics to retain Generation Z employees, which is important as Generation Z are increasingly maturing in the workforce. Furthermore, the lack of dual perspective in research on cultural context is worrying as a dual perspective is needed to understand the interplay between employer and employee.

2.6 Concluding Remarks

In this study, employer branding is examined in the following way:

(1) Employer branding is examined, as affected by (2) COO, in regards to its effect on (3) employee retention among (4) Generation Z. Literature already establishes that employer branding is affected by COO, but to understand the mechanism of action in this regard, it is necessary to qualitatively and deeply study the interplay between the concepts empirically (Zaveri & Mulye, 2011; Froese et al., 2010). Furthermore, employer branding has a proven effect on employee retention which has been shown to have many benefits, although more research is needed to understand how employer branding can be used for employee retention. (Sokro, 2012; Tanwar & Prasad, 2016; Yamamoto, 2011; Hewitt, 2019; Bhasin et al., 2019; Berthon et al., 2002). Additionally, Generation Z need to be included in employer branding research as they are

(25)

becoming increasingly vital as employees, and have unique characteristics that need to be considered by employers (Chegini et al., 2016; Berkup, 2014; Kaiser & Regjepaj, 2019; Agarwal & Vaghela, 2018; Bernier, 2015; Singh, 2014; Sidorcuka & Chesnovicka, 2017; Alshathry et al., 2014). To understand these aspects and their interplay, a dual perspective is needed as it creates an understanding of the process of employer branding usage and perception (Yang, 2013; Shen & Bisell, 2013). Utilising a dual perspective in examining employer branding, as affected by COO, in regards to its effect on employee retention among Generation Z, a deeper understanding of these topics and their interaction is created. Although this deeper understanding is currently lacking in literature, it is something that is of great importance both for practitioners and academics.

Based on the theoretical framework, a clear purpose emerges;

Examining how employer branding is affected by COO, and, in extension, how this impacts employee retention among Generation Z employees.

To fulfill the purpose of the thesis, the following research question is created:

“How is employer branding affected by COO when retaining Generation Z employees?” Using this research question, the stated purpose is fulfilled in the following way:

First, employer branding is studied in regards to how it is affected by COO. Second, employee retention is studied as an effect of employer branding. Third, employee retention, and in extension employer branding and COO, is studied in the context of Generation Z employees.

(26)

3. Research Methodology

_____________________________________________________________________________ The following chapter presents an explanation of the research approach that lies in the background of this thesis. It includes descriptions of the methodology, data collection, the chosen sample and data analysis. Further, it outlines the qualitative research approaches and the

multiple-case study design.

_____________________________________________________________________________

3.1 Interpretive qualitative approach

3.1.1 Interpretive approach

The interpretive paradigm is highly used in qualitative research and rejects the belief that assumptions and methodologies can explicitly assess the social world. Interpretivism is based on the relationship between society, individuals and the complexity of human behaviour, and emphasizes the necessity to understand disparities in individual perceptions (Nelson & Potrac, 2014). Because the study of employer branding, COO, employee retention, and Generation Z, are based on human behaviour, and social and interpersonal relationships, the interpretivist approach is fitting. Furthermore, for applying a dual perspective, interpretivism is advantageous because of its focus on individual perspectives and disparities between these (Yang, 2013; Shen & Bisell, 2013). As this thesis qualitatively studies human behaviour and disparity in individual perception, the interpretive research approach is most suitable.

3.1.2 Qualitative approach

The thesis employed qualitative research for the following reasons; Firstly, it provides the opportunity to employ a dual perspective when researching employees and employers, and the interaction between them. (Ambler & Barrow, 1996; Yang, 2013; Shen & Bisell, 2013). Secondly, a qualitative approach is needed to collect in-depth answers from participants, and understand the “how?” of the research question (Pratt, 2009; Gartner & Birley, 2002; Isaksson & Sundström, 2013).

The dual perspective was applied as interviews were conducted with employers and employees within the case companies. Thus, it enabled comparison between the employers and employees which allowed the study to highlight possible agreements and disagreements, which was necessary to evaluate if the employer branding is effective (Yang, 2013; Shen & Bisell, 2013). If only one perspective had been known, the result would not have been as trustworthy due to the risk of receiving biased answers.

(27)

For example, these two statements come from the same company in the same study:

−“People in the organisation do not believe in the company’s stated values – they are just an empty statement from top management.” (employee)

−“Our values are the driver of our business, everybody follows them and they are embedded in our people.” (employer)

(Ambler & Barrow, 1996).

In this thesis, a quantitative approach was not appropriate as it would not provide the ability to address the question of “how” or collect in-depth answers. A quantitative approach can be helpful to identify relationships between particular variables or testing a hypothesis, which is not the aim of this thesis (Pratt, 2009; Gartner & Birley, 2002 Isaksson & Sundström, 2013). The research requires in-depth insight into the respondents' reasoning and notion regarding the employer branding, COO and employee retention, to understand natural behaviors and perceptions among humans and firms. This is only possible with a qualitative approach. (Pratt, 2009; Gartner & Birley, 2002; Isaksson & Sundström, 2013)

3.1.3 Research Design

The study implemented a multiple-case study design which is common in management and business research (Bryman & Bell, 2011). An advantage of a multiple-case study design is that it encourages researchers to explore common and unique aspects between different cases. As the thesis aims to research ‘’how’’ and why a multiple-case study through a qualitative approach is most suitable as it can provide in-depth answers (Creswell et al., 2007)

For this thesis, primary data was collected from interviews with employers and employees from the multiple-case MNEs. The data was transcribed and coded for the purpose of analyzing and identifying patterns in the data related to the research subject. This data collection process is characteristic to a qualitative research design and correlates with the interpretive approach which has been applied in order to present results with high reliability and validity.

3.2 Abductive approach

When conducting research, a necessary distinction is whether to use an inductive, deductive or abductive approach. For this research, an abductive approach is most relevant as it involves forming a conclusion from known information with the major premise being evident and the minor premise only probable (Paul, 1993). In research, abduction is a versatile approach which helps this study to explore the relation between COO, employer branding, and employer retention in a MNE context. Moreover, the abductive approach addresses both inductive and deductive approaches as it constantly moves from the empirical to theoretical dimensions of analysis (see Figure 3) (Alrajeh et al., 2012). In this study, the empirical dimension consists of the case studies, while the theoretical dimension consists of COO & employer branding.

(28)

Figure 3. Systematic Combining

In the study, a deductive research approach was used with an initial assumption of COO and employer branding, also known as top-down thinking, that later reached a specific conclusion from the already existing theoretical and conceptual theories (Shepherd et al.,, 2011). An inductive research approach was used in relation to the interpretive paradigm. It provided the possibility to develop a theory founded on the collection data, known as bottom-up (Shepherd et., 2011). Thus, an abductive approach is applied as it grants the research to include both an inductive and deductive approach. The abductive approach is becoming a significant part of interpretive research as it captures and takes advantage of the systematic character of the empirical world theoretical models (Figure 3) (Dubois & Gadde, 2002).

3.3 Data Collection

3.3.1 Primary Data

In this study, the primary data was collected from interviews with employees and employers from Swedish Multinational Enterprises. For this research, HR managers or Employer branding managers were the people reached out to first, since they can provide the best primary data for our research and connect us with employees. The primary data provides in-depth answers that are required to get an understanding of how each company views their own employer branding. Thus, primary data is the most reliable and provides specific information of the research areas that is not possible with secondary data (Kabir, 2016).