Effects of National Institutions on Corporate Brand Ability Associations During the Pandemic. (RESEARCH ARTICLE)

1 Introduction

The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has affected people's lives and consumers' behavior in many ways. Some corporate brands lost importance, and others gained attention, e.g., through offers that suddenly became necessary (Das et al., 2021; Jabeen et al., 2022). Firms, such as Pfizer, have signaled their expertise and ability to produce and deliver specific offers, such as the first potent vaccine against the virus in Western countries (FDA, 2020; Pfizer, 2020). (1) The resulting so-defined corporate brand ability associations (CBAA), stored in the memory of target groups, are beneficial in many ways (Brown & Dacin, 1997): improving performance, employee actions, or consumer preferences (Berens et al., 2005; Matarazzo et al., 2020; Tsai et al., 2015). However, whether consumers' CBAA differs across countries or changes for firms with specific abilities or competitors during a black swan event is unclear. Such events are improbable, unpredictable, but highly impactful disruptions, which appear less random in hindsight than they factually were (Mac-Kay & Chia, 2013; Taleb, 2007, pp. xvii-xviii). This gap is not surprising, as most corporate brand studies focus on few countries, quiet times, and one point in time (e.g., Matarazzo et al., 2020; Walsh & Bartikowski, 2013). We assume that national institutions matter for consumers' CBAA in general and more before than during the pandemic. We contribute to literature by developing institutional-theoretical reasons for the determining role of national institutions and hierarchically testing their explained variance.

Scholars have broadly studied consumer behavior during the pandemic (e.g., nationally showing opposite effects of increasing brand trust or hate in the pandemic, Jabeen et al., 2022; Jian et al., 2020). (2) Fewer international studies exist (see Table 1). Seven studies focus on brands by comparing 2-3 countries. Some show how brands have won or lost during the pandemic (e.g., through perceived pandemic fit, attachment, or anxieties, Ahmad et al., 2023; Ozsomer et al., 2022; Ozuem et al., 2021; Verlegh et al., 2021). Others study vaccinations, delivery sentiments, or advertising (Chan & Saqib, 2021; Meena & Kumar, 2022; Park et al., 2022). Ahmad et al. (2023) and Meena and Kumar (2022) show country differences but without rationales for them. Neither does the only study in many countries (consumer conflict and brands, Dineva et al., 2023). Thus, most studies show contradictory consequences for brands, compare few countries at one point in time, and do not theorize the roles of national institutions. Seven further studies on consumer behavior in a few countries assume such roles (e.g., national culture for pandemic spread, Cho et al., 2022; Pantano et al., 2021, government actions for trust, Davvetas et al., 2022; Dzandu, 2023; Prentice et al., 2021, norms for compliance, Danatzis & Moller-Herm, 2023; Sakib et al., 2023). Across nations, four studies examine national institutions (e.g., culture for pandemic spread, Ahmadi et al., 2022; Dheer et al., 2021, government actions for trust, Liu et al., 2022, or religiosity for vaccination, Orlandi et al., 2022). However, we know little regarding national institutions' impacts on consumer CBAA during the pandemic.

In summary, one gap in our knowledge is the absence of theoretical reasons developed to explain cross-national differences in CBAA in general, as will be shown in Sect. 2.2, and during the pandemic. These are important for research and innovative multinational corporations (MNCs), especially during black swan events (He & Harris, 2020; Matarazzo et al., 2020; Tsai et al., 2015). Despite COVID-19 studies, scholars and practitioners know little about the respective changing effects of national institutions on CBAA or corporate brands across nations. Because of its importance, scholars have called for such research (e.g., Ahmadi et al., 2022; Jabeen et al., 2022; Mukherjee et al., 2021).

We address the research gaps by analyzing two research questions. First, do national institutions affect consumers' CBAA across countries, and if so, how? Second, how has the COVID-19 pandemic changed this influence of national institutions on consumers' CBAA for a pandemic-relevant manufacturer and its competitors? We offer two contributions.

First, insights into the effects of national institutions on CBAA across countries foster new, important knowledge from the consumer perspective. Institutions are known to be relevant for consumer perceptions (e.g., of reputation, image, Leonidou et al., 2022; Swoboda et al., 2016). Corporate ability represents a specific kind of firm expertise and is seen as a highly purchase-relevant signal (Brown & Dacin, 1997; Walsh & Bartikowski, 2013). However, signaling theory does not explain country differences in consumers' CBBA. We provide novel rationales by employing institutional theory to complement signaling theory. Regulative, normative, and cultural-cognitive institutions are prevalent in IB research and guide MNCs' social credibility and acceptance (i.e., external legitimacy, Kostova et al., 2020; Scott, 2014, pp. 55-74). We contribute to IB and CBAA research by developing respective theoretical mechanisms and testing them.

Second, we contribute to IB research by theorizing the changing role of national institutions in consumers' CBAA during a black swan event. Scholars have studied institutional changes (e.g., regulations, culture on entry modes, performance, Beugelsdijk et al., 2018; Puck et al., 2009). In contrast, we study changes in consumers' consciousness and thus changed roles of objectively mostly stable country-level institutions on individual-level associations. Black swan events change individual behavior (Donthu & Gustafsson, 2020) and likely the relevance of institutions from the consumer perspective. Those events have mostly been linked with negative consequences (e.g., individual distrust of regulations, supply chain risks, Davvetas et al., 2022; Lin, 2020), while we newly theorize a more favorable response to MNCs' important signals and weaker influences of institutions on CBBA (e.g., Nielsen et al., 2023; Wenzel et al., 2021). Insights into whether regulative, normative, or cultural-cognitive cross-national differences have become less important from a consumer viewpoint are valuable to managers who coordinate consumer interests globally, as CBAA formed in times of crisis is beneficial in the long term (He & Harris, 2020). Explained variance in multilevel structural equation modeling (MSEM) reveal this empirically.

2 Theory and Hypotheses

We propose a framework in which objectively mostly stable national institutions determine consumers' CBAA (see Fig. 1). We conceptualize the prevalent institutional pillars in IB research (Kostova et al., 2020) and their relative effects at two points in time, 2019 ([t.sub.0], pre-crisis) and 2021 ([t.sub.1], mid-crisis).

2.1 Conceptual Differentiation

CBAA represents consumers' evaluation of a firm's expertise and ability to produce and deliver high-quality and innovative offerings (based on external information or memory, Berens et al., 2007; Brown & Dacin, 1997; Gurhan-Canli & Batra, 2004). Scholars have consistently referred to the conceptualization by Brown and Dacin (1997). However, research has mostly revolved around three types of important corporate brand associations: CBAA, corporate social responsibility (CSR), and corporate reputation (CR). We must therefore briefly differentiate them conceptually.

CSR reflects evaluations of how well a firm meets its stakeholders' expectations and societal obligations by engaging in voluntary activities (Berens et al., 2007; Brown & Dacin, 1997). It has been studied together with CBAA (e.g., Bartikowski & Berens, 2021; Khan & Kamal, 2021). However, the latter focuses on quality and innovation, which more strongly and more directly shape consumer responses toward a firm (Contini et al., 2019; Giirhan-Canli & Batra, 2004; Walsh & Bartikowski, 2013). CBAA can compensate for CSR effects but is not compensated by CSR (Berens et al., 2007).

Perceived CR represents broad consumer evaluations of firms' customer orientation, responsibility, product range quality, good employer status, and financial strength (in a customer-based CR scale, Walsh & Beatty, 2007; for alternatives, see Sarstedt et al., 2013). Those dimensions are integrated into an overall value or holistic level of esteem that stakeholders have for a firm (e.g., Deephouse et al., 2016), and studies seldom examine individual CR dimensions. Thus, CBAA is more specific and may be a mediator but not part of CR (Contini et al., 2019; Khan & Kamal, 2021).

2.2 Past Cross-National Research on CBAA

We conceptually focus on CBAA, i.e., the ability of a firm to deliver specific offers from the consumer perspective (Brown & Dacin, 1997). Conceptually, these associations develop as consumers perceive a firm's focus on its expertise, innovativeness and superior processing, its industry leadership, or through prior experience with a company, word-of-mouth, or media communication (Berens et al., 2007; Brexendorf & Keller, 2017; Brown & Dacin, 1997). Empirically, various aspects were shown to drive high levels of CBBA. Scholars address corporate brand knowledge, firms' publicity or ability communication, and the (quality of) offered products, for example (e.g., Berens et al., 2005; Einwiller et al., 2006; Kim et al., 2019; Teng, 2020). In the context of black swan events, firms with specific abilities especially provide offerings that may directly alleviate the event's impacts. During the COVID-19 pandemic or the Ebola fever epidemic, this may have been the introduction of a vaccine to reduce the risk of a (severe) contraction of the disease (e.g., Altmann & Boyton, 2022). Regarding natural catastrophes, Walmart used its specific abilities in logistics to promptly provide free food and supplies after hurricane Katrina in 2005 (e.g...