EMPLOYER BRANDING
Corporate communication 2022/2023
Lecturer: Prof. Dr. Päivö Laine
Name: Arlette Merveille Djuikam Tamgue
Student ID: 2238317
INTRODUCTION
This Term paper explain what employer branding all is about. Employer Branding is really the image
of an organization for the people working in the organization. It is this notoriety that the organizations
make of themselves inside their premises competitors, the customers, the customers furthermore the
other people who are influenced by the procedure of the organization. An employee brands guarantees
a feeling of belonging in the people and this makes the employees assume a basic part in the
accomplishment of achievement. Ambler and Barrow (1996, p. 187) were some of the earliest academics
to define the topic, and they defined it as: “The package of functional, economic and psychological
benefits provided by employment, and identified with the employing company”. Employer branding is
an interesting topic as it has integrated two significant organisational fields, branding and human
resources, and together they provide a rounded view on how to attract and retain suitable employees
(Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004). An employer brand should represent an organisation as a potential employer,
and the organisation should aim to position itself as an employer that provides a superior employment
experience against competitors, to enable competitive advantage (Love & Singh, 2011). It has been
identified that a strong employer brand should include rewards, salary, benefits, career progression, and
scope for added value (Jain & Bhatt, 2015; Lievens & Highhouse, 2003).
The concept of employer branding and its ability to retain the right individuals is extremely crucial to
companies regarding organisational success (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004). Interest into the topic is
ongoing, and research suggests that the success of a business can depend on its capability to attract and
retain employees, thus identifying the growing importance of employer branding (Burmann & Zeplin,
2005; Gilliver, 2009; Moroko & Uncles, 2008; Sengupta, Bamel, & Singh, 2015).
Theoretical framework of employer branding
The term "employer brand" was first introduced into the management of human resources in the last
decade of the last century. The first definition of the term is given by Simon Barrow, Chairman of the
“People in Business” Association and Tim Ambler, Senior Lecturer at London Business School in the
“Journal of Brand Management.” They define it as "a set of functional, economic and psychological
benefits provided by the employer and associated with the company" [Ambler, T., Barrow, S. (1996),].
According to Ambler and Barrow, the employer brand is an important aspect of the organizational
image, and specifically refers to what is most associated with and known of the organization as an
employer It is claimed that a company’s possession of valuable resources is the key to competitive
advantage (Barney, 1991). One such resource is human capital, which can be explained as the
employees’ acquired knowledge and capabilities that allow for unique and innovative actions (Becker,
1962). To create value, the resource of human capital needs to be managed properly, which is a
challenging task for managers (Sirmon & Hitt, 2007).
It is claimed that to attract and retain the employees of a company, a strong employer brand is needed
(Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004). An employer brand can be understood as the overall image of a company’s
unique employment benefits perceived by both current and potential employees.
The actual activity of employer branding is defined as: “the process of building an identifiable and
unique employer identity” (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004:502). The process of building an employer brand
can be divided into three main steps. Step one is to identify the value proposition, which is the set of
unique employment benefits that the company offers to its employees (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004). The
identification of the employer brand needs to be based on information about the organizational culture,
the management style, characteristics of current employees and their image of how the company is as
an employer (Sullivan, 2002). Step two is to market the employer brand externally to target potential
employees, and finally, step three is to practice internal branding, which integrates the brand promise
made to recruits with the internal practices and the organizational culture (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004).
The practice of internal branding aims to enhance employee retention but also to incorporate common
values for employees to strive for the same goals (Backhaus & Tikoo, 2004).
A practice with similar purpose as employer branding is HRM, which can be understood as a function
that handles everything concerning the employees of a company, such as recruitment, selection, training
and development and further actions that improve employees’ working conditions and performance.
Furthermore, it is suggested that the HR operations should take a strategic approach (Boxhall & Purcell,
2008; Morell & Rundgren, 2012; Shuler & Jackson, 1987) Strategic HRM, is in essence, a function that
takes a long-term perspective and a holistic business approach where the HR operations support the
strategies and the overall business goals through being conducted in cooperation with the business
executives (Morell & Rundgren, 2012).
The practice of employer branding is predicated on the assumption that human capital brings value to
the firm, and through skilful investment in human capital, firm performance can be enhanced. Resourcebased view (RBV) supports this, suggesting that characteristics of a firm’s resources can contribute to
sustainable competitive advantage (Barney, 1991). Arguably, the possession of resources that are rare,
valuable, non-substitutable and difficult to imitate allow a firm to move ahead of its competitors
(Barney, 1991). While we commonly think of plant, equipment and capital as resources that create
competitive advantage, human capital has also been shown to operate as an important resource creating
competitive advantage (Priem and Butler, 2001). For example, a state-of-the-art facility and technology
can create competitive advantage only when there is a highly competent workforce to utilize them
(Boxall,1998).
External marketing of the employer brand establishes the firm as an employer of choice and thereby
enables it to attract the best possible workers. The assumption is that the distinctiveness of the brand
allows the firm to acquire distinctive human capital. Further, once recruits have been attracted by the
brand, they develop a set of assumptions about employment with the firm that they will carry into the
firm, thereby supporting the firm’s values and enhancing their commitment to the firm.
Internal marketing helps create a workforce that is hard for other firms to imitate. By systematically
exposing workers to the value proposition of the employer brand, the workplace culture is molded
around the corporate goals, enabling the firm to achieve a unique culture focused on doing business the
firm’s way.
The theory of the psychological contract and its effect on the employee organizational relationship
provides a second foundation for employer branding. In the traditional concept of the psychological
contract between workers and employers, workers promised loyalty to the firm in exchange for job
security (Hendry and Jenkins, 1997). However, the recent trend toward downsizing, outsourcing, and
flexibility on the part of the employer has imposed a new form of psychological contract, in which
employers provide workers with marketable skills through training and development in exchange for
effort and flexibility (Baruch, 2004). In the face of negative perceptions of this new employment reality,
firms use employer branding to advertise the benefits they still offer, including training, career
opportunities, personal growth and development. In general, firms have been perceived to fail to deliver
some of these offerings (Newell and Dopson, 1996; Hendry and Jenkins, 1997) so employer branding
campaigns can be designed to change perceptions of the firm.
The concept of brand equity provides a complementary theoretical perspective for understanding
employer branding. In marketing terms, brand equity is “a set of brand assets and liabilities linked to a
brand that add to or subtract from the value provided by a product or service to a firm and/or to that
firm’s customers” (Aaker, 1991). Customer based brand equity relates to the effect of brand knowledge
on consumer response to the marketing of the product (Keller, 1993). In terms of employer branding,
brand equity applies to the effect of brand knowledge on potential and existing employees of the firm.
Employer brand equity propels potential applicants to apply. Further, employer brand equity should
encourage existing employees to stay with and support the company. Employer brand equity is the
desired outcome of employer branding activities. In other words, potential or existing employees will
react differently to similar recruitment, selection, and retention efforts from different firms because of
the underlying employer brand equity associated with these firms. Pret A Manger, a specialty fast food
company based in the UK, conducted a campaign that has yielded strong employer brand equity. The
company combined its product brand appeal with its employer brand package to emphasize the concept
of “passion” for food, for customers, and employees. Preˆt A Manger’s campaign has significantly
impacted the number of applications it received, as well as its retention rate (O’Halloran, 2003).
Employer branding is a way of positioning the company and this can be done either internally in the
company or externally to an outside audience (fig.1). Employer branding is mostly carried out to both
audiences at the same time. The employer branding steps can be visually explained by the employer
branding framework created by Backhaus & Tikoo: (Backhaus, K. B., & Tikoo, S. (2004).
Figure 1. theoretical framework of employer branding (Backhaus & Tikoo,2004)
The process starts by defining the company’s identity as an employer and it is directed to both internal
and external audiences. The external features start with employer brand associations which should drive
at good employer image and increased employer attraction. The internal set starts with the effect of the
employer brand on the company’s identity aiming to lead to brand loyalty [Backhaus, K. B., & Tikoo,
S. (2004)].
One of the first attempts to measure the strength of the employer brand belongs to Cable and Turban
[Cable, D. M., & Turban, D. B. (2001), who suggest that the strength of the employer brand is closely
related to the knowledge of the employer. Figure 2 below shows the main components which, according
to Cable and Turban, construct the knowledge of the employer in one job candidate. These three
dimensions act, in authors’ opinion, as a template that future employees use to classify, accrue and
update information about different employers.
Fig.2: Job seekers’ employer knowledge (Adapted from Cable & Turban 2001, 122)
Cable and Turban, 2001) define the “employer familiarity” indicator as "the level of awareness that the
job seeker has for the organization." The authors define "employer reputation" as "the job seeker's beliefs
about the emotional assessment society gives to the organization." The Employer reputation is the
conviction of the man about the way others value the organization, while the "employer image" is the
individual's own beliefs about the company.
A closely related to the employer’s brand concept which measures its strength is "the employer
attractiveness" [Berthon, P., Ewing, M., & Hah, L. L. (2005).]. The concept of the employer
attractiveness has been discussed in many areas such as management, applied psychology,
communication, and marketing. Employer attractiveness is defined as "the overall benefits the potential
employee sees in his work for a particular organization." The available literature does not fully answer
questions about the perceived levels of importance of each dimension, nor about the psychological
differences between individuals with different characteristics. Hubschmid, E. (2012) asserts that people
determine the attractiveness of the organization differently due to their differences in age, gender,
education and cultural characteristics. In this way, the development of common attractive characteristics
of employers will not always be accurate, making it extremely important to know the expectations of
the target groups of employees (Hubschmid, E. (2012).
As the competition for the best employees becomes almost as fierce as competition for customers,
organizations must differentiate themselves from their competitors and be regarded as attractive
employers by potential candidates and current employees. It is important for organizations to understand
what attracts job seekers to an organization. The purpose of this study is to show what makes an
organization an attractive employer example Heraeus Group.
Target Company Heraeus Group
HERAEUS COMPANY PROFILE
Heraeus, the technology group headquartered in Hanau, Germany, is a leading international familyowned portfolio company. The company’s roots go back to a pharmacy operated by the family since
1660. Today, Heraeus combines businesses in the environmental, energy, electronics, health, mobility,
and industrial applications sectors. In the 2018 financial year, Heraeus generated total revenues of €20.3
billion, with approximately 15,000 employees in 40 countries. Heraeus is now one of the top 10 familyowned companies in Germany and holds a leading position in its global markets. With technical
expertise, a commitment to excellence, a focus on innovation and entrepreneurial leadership, they are
constantly striving to improve their performance. They create high-quality solutions for their clients and
strengthen their long-term competitiveness by combining unique material expertise with leadership in
technology. The Heraeus Group is organized under the umbrella of Heraeus Holding in Global Business
Units (GBUs) With 12 business unit and 9 start-ups. These units are market-oriented and functionally
structured. In the global markets, Heraeus contribute significantly to their value creation and
strengthening their competitiveness.
With The mission of Contributing positively to the communities and environment. Heraeus value their
leaders and their unique contribution, customer focus, innovation, entrepreneurial spirit, and excellence.
Having as vision to Strengthen their diversified business portfolio with substantial investment and
making the group and its businesses an attractive place of work.
Heraeus Employer branding implies customer experience, access to data, advancement,
building/customer administration magnificence and flexibility to their employees and potential hires.
Employer branding exercises received at Heraeus the gigantic opportunities gave to youthful
professionals. The employer branding is taken care of through a cross utilitarian group by
communication, HR branding and logistics experts. Heraeus additionally has internal entryway called
Heraeus touch. they work intimately with instructive organizations, support understudies and supports,
specialized talks, support research in particular regions. They have an in-house communication device
which conveys day by day news and data overhaul to Heraeus client. This application depends on
distinctive stages. Heraeus gives employee value proposition through after:
1. The most noteworthy value proposition gave to employees at Heraeus is global exposure, where
employees inspire opportunities to chip away at world-class ventures. This open door clears approach
to comprehend, correspond, and work with culturally diverse group. This really goes about as a
wilderness for their employees to learn and activate the skills furthermore to be at standard or exceed
expectations past the farthest point.
2. The environment at Heraeus gives its employees to work unreservedly in territories where the bent,
talent and interests of the people are more engaged upon. Flexibility at work means that Heraeus gives
plentiful opportunities to its employees to work crosswise over different modern verticals, practical areas
furthermore on innovation stages. This gives the great circumstances to the employees to investigate
their own space/region which they best fit into.
3. A Workplace with Many Advantages. We believe when our employees feel their best, they can work
at their personal best. Heraeus has a performance-driven culture that recognizes and rewards your hard
work with a comprehensive package of benefits. These can vary according to location and position. In
general, Heraeus offer Retirement savings plans, Work-life-balance, Development opportunities, Health
care programs, Wellness initiatives, Competitive salaries Paid time off.
4. Innovation Culture. At Heraeus, we turn bold into real world innovation for our customers, to
accelerate these efforts, we capitalise on joint research and development partnership with leading
universities, scientific research organisation, business incubators and emerging start-up company.
To improve employer branding, I will recommend Heraeus to be more Active in their Current Employer
Brand. By having a Google Alerts where Google can help them stay instantly up to date with the people
who are talking about their brand and what they are saying.
Being Active social media will extend Heraeus Job Posting Visibility which is important to have an
impact on the general public. They could also offer a behind-the-scenes look of the company, and
communicating with candidates through on social platforms because nowaday 92% of
employers already use social sites as part of their hiring strategy.
Heraeus also need to Optimize on their Careers Page. by Engaging with employee testimonials, it will
good that employees to share in their own words the distinctions of their culture and the qualities that
make the organization a great place to work.
CONCLUSION
In Summary of the term paper, we can clearly say that employer branding is practiced because of the
importance of attracting and retaining the right sort of employees in order to achieve differentiation in
the market, and thereby gain a competitive advantage. The most important aspects of employer branding
is the internal approach. Where an organisation employer branding is not to be seen as a separated
activity since all HR-activities that improves the workplace are of significance for the employer brand.
A good workplace will most likely encourage employees to be ambassadors and share their positive
experiences, which will strengthen the employer brand. In order to provide a good workplace it’s
important with well-functioning HR activities while working with attraction and retention of employees.
REFRENCES
1. Aaker, D.A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name, The
Free Press, New York, NY.
2. Ambler, T., Barrow, S. (1996), “The employer brand”, Journal of Brand Management Vol. 4
No. 3, pp. 185 – 206.
3. Backhaus, K. B., & Tikoo, S. (2004). Conceptualizing and researching employer branding.
Career Development International, 9(5), 501-517.
4. Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of management,
17(1), p. 99-120.
5. Baruch, Y. (2004), Managing Careers: Theory and Practice, Prentice-Hall, Harlow.
6. Berthon, P., Ewing, M., & Hah, L. L. (2005). Captivating company: dimensions of
attractiveness in employer branding. International Journal of Advertising, 24(2), 151-172.
7. Becker, G. S. (1962). Investment in Human Capital: A theoretical Analysis, The journal of
Political Economy, 70(5), p. 9-49.
8.
Boxall, P., Purcell, J. (2008). Strategy and Human Resource Management, 2nd edn.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
9. Burmann, C., & Zeplin, S. (2005). Building brand commitment: A behavioural approach to
internal brand management. Journal of Brand Management, 12(4), 279-300.
10. Burmann, C., Zeplin, S., & Riley, N. (2009). Key determinants of internal brand management
success: An exploratory empirical analysis. Journal of Brand Management, 16(4), 264-284.
11. Cable, D. M., & Turban, D. B. (2001), “Establishing the Dimensions, Sources and Values of
Job Seekers' Employer Knowledge during Recruitment”, in G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in
Personnel and Human Resource Management, New York.
12. Carrerarc . (2022 ) Retrieved 26.11.2022. How to Improve Employer Branding in 4 Easy Steps
- CareerArc social recruiting.
13. Hendry, C. and Jenkins, R. (1997), “Psychological contracts and new deals”, Human Resource
Management Journal, Vol. 7, pp. 38-44.
14. Heraeus,
2022.
Company
History
Retrieved
the
16.11.2022
from
https://staffbase.com/en/customers/heraeus/
15. Heraeus
carrer,
2022
Retrieved
16.11.2022
from
https://www.heraeus.com/en/group/careers/working_at_heraeus/careers.html.
16. Hubschmid, E. 2012. Shaping Efficient Employer Branding Strategies to Target Generation Y.
Peter Lang AG. Bern
17. Keller, K.L. (1998), Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring and Managing Brand
Equity, Prentice- Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
18. Minchington, B. (2014), Employer Branding Global Trends Study Report, Employer Brant
International, Available at: www.employerbrandinternational.com, Accessed: 21 May 2017 195
View publication.
19. Morell C., Rundgren A. (2012). Vad innebär strategiskt HR-arbete? En studie av strategiskt HRarbete. Kandidatuppsats från Göteborgs Universität Handelshögskola.
20. Newell, H. and Dopson, S. (1996), “Muddle in the middle: organizational restructuring and
middle management careers”, Personnel Review, Vol. 25, pp. 4-20.
21. O’Halloran, E. (2003), “Employer branding at Pret a Manger”, The Executive Issue, June,
available at: www.mce.be/download/newsletter/pretmanger.pdf. (Accessed October 22, 2003).
22. Priem, R.L. and Butler, J.E. (2001), “Is the resource-based view a useful perspective for
strategic management research”, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26, pp. 22-40.
23. Love, L.F., & Singh, P. (2011). Workplace Branding: Leveraging Human Resources
Management Practices for Competitive Advantage Through “Best Employer” Surveys. Journal
of Business and Psychology, 26(2), 175-181.
24. Sirmon D.G., Hitt M.A. & Duane R. (2007). Managing firm resources in dynamic environments
to create value: looking inside the black box. Academic of Management Review, Texas A&M
University, 32(1), p. 273–292.
25. Stredwick, J. (2003): An introduction to human resource management. Oxford et. al.
Butterworth Heinemann.