Annual RepTrak™ Report - Kommunikationsforum · Danish Crow n Shell (Dansk Shell) Dansk...

RepTrak™ is a registered trademark of Reputation Institute © 2013 Reputation Institute, all rights reserved

Annual RepTrak™

Report

Denmark Country report 2013

2

About Reputation Institute

We enable leaders to make business decisions that build and protect reputation

capital and drive competitive advantage Reputation Institute is the world's leading reputation management consultancy, enabling leaders to make more confident business decisions that build and protect reputational capital and drive competitive advantage. Independently owned and founded in 1997, we operate in 30 countries. Our Global RepTrak™ Pulse is the world's largest reputation study. Measuring more than 2000 companies from 25 industries across 40 countries, the study provides key insights into what drives perceptions and how they influence marketplace behaviour. RepTrak™ Pulse provides powerful global benchmarking for tracking corporate reputations in industries and countries around the world, and serves as the basis for continued thought leadership in the field of reputation management.

Knowledge Advice Research

Insight Strategy

Activation

Publication Conferences Training

Information Analysis

Presentation

3

Table of contents

Introduction Section 1 4

Country results Section 2 11

Demographics Appendix 1 26

Methodology Appendix 2 28

Terminology Appendix 3 33

Introduction Section 1

About the study. The RepTrak™ model. Executive summary.

What follows are the results of the RepTrak™ Pulse 2013 reputation study conducted in Denmark by the Reputation Institute. The reputations of the biggest and most visible companies in Denmark were measured via an online survey among a representative sample of the general public in Denmark. Data collection took place in January and February 2013. Contact information For more information about the study please contact: Charlotte Bang-Møller: [email protected]

5

About this study

mailto:[email protected]

6

The RepTrak™ model explains Reputation For Deep Dive studies

1

2

3

The RepTrak™ Model Reputation Institute’s generic model for reputation is structured around four core themes, seven reputation dimensions and 23 reputation attributes. Together, these elements explain a company’s reputation. 1 - Reputation RepTrak™ Pulse is the core of a company’s reputation and shows how strong the emotional bond is between the company and the public. 2 - Dimensions The RepTrak™ model consists of seven operational dimensions and 23 attributes that explain the reputation profile. 3 - Attributes The individual attributes mean different things to people and are perceived differently in terms of weighted importance. Analyses identify areas that are most important for strengthening a company’s reputation. Drivers can be at dimension and attribute level and show how the company gains value for money in its communication.

7

RepTrak™ - Rational vs. Emotional For Deep Dive studies

What is the relationship between RepTrakTM Pulse and the 7 reputation dimensions? RepTrak™ Pulse measures the overall reputation based on people's immediate emotional perception of the company. In contrast, the 7 reputation dimensions examine people’s rational perception of corporate reputation based on specific and detailed statements. RepTrak™ Pulse score is not necessarily always equal to the average of the 7 reputation dimensions. People’s emotional perception may be influenced by an overall positive attitude to the company, which is not necessarily rewarded by a proper evaluation of the respective company's products, innovation, workplace, governance, citizenship, leadership or performance.

Emotional Rational explanation of the emotional

8

Why should we care about reputation? Getting to bottom-line results

Direct experience

What a company communicates

What others say

Touch Points Reputation Behavior Business Results

Significant differences In any study based on a sample of the population there is a statistical error in all measurements. The table below shows the difference needed between two scores before they can be said to be significantly different. Only score differences that are statistically significant will be shown in this report. Normative scale Using an extensive database containing results from thousands of studies throughout the world since 1998, Reputation Institute has developed a Normative Scale (in everyday language “The Traffic Light”) that indicates whenever a particular score is high or low when benchmarked against previous studies of a similar character.

RepTrak™ Pulse and Multi-statement dimensions

> 1,0

Single-statement dimensions and Attributes

> 1,5

Statistic Signif icance

9

About this study Significant differences and normative scale

Excellent/Top tier 80+Strong/Robust 70-79Average/Moderate 60-69Weak/Vulnerable 40-59Poor/Low est tier <40

Country Insights Section 2

Commentary by Henrik Strøier

11

Executive summary I

På et overordnet plan afslører dette års analyse et interessant ‘klima skifte’; den finansielle krise fik Danmark til at sætte fokus på ‘value for money’, produktkvalitet og god service og på bagkant af recessionen har forbrugere i Danmark efterspurgt klar, tydelig og ansvarlig ledelse … men siden krisestemningen toppede i 09 & 10 ser vi et tydeligt forventnings skrifte; nu efterspørges forretningsmoral, gennemsigtighed og ‘samfundssind’ i en kombination med evnen til at tjene penge. Der synes at være en tydelig rækkefølge; 1) Forbrugerfesten er slut – vi er i krise > jeg skal sørge for at passe på egne penge og optimere min egen købekraft.

2) Krise er lig kaos > jeg støtter de virksomheder der trods krise og nedskæringer stadig holder fast i god kvalitet,

et højt service niveau og som på samme tid har en langsigtet plan; ‘hvad skal der ske?’

3) Krisen bider sig fast > virksomheder kæmper for overlevelse og indtjening via fyringsrunder virksomhedslukninger, prisstigninger, gebyrer og samtidig afsløres det at en række virksomheder benytter sig af kritisable og i visse tilfælde ulovlige overlevelsesstrategier; priskarteller, svindel med råvarer, kollektiv lønnedgang for alle undtagen direktørgangen …. listen er lang.

4) Moral og Profit > de virksomheder der vinder Danmarks hjerte og støtte er de virksomheder evner at tjene penge på en redelig facon – danske forbrugere lægger i stigende grad vægt på virksomhedens

opførsel, det betyder naturligvis ikke at kvalitet og service betyder mindre, det betyder derimod at Danmark forventer at høj moral og profit går hånd i hånd. … og der er flere gode eksempler på virksomheder der evner at leve op de forventninger, men desværre også flere eksempler på virksomheder der dumper i Danmarks øjne.

se udvikling i dimension vægt

12

Executive summary II

Dette års måling af de 40 mest synlige virksomheder afslører også at: • LEGO GROUP har placeret sig i en klasse for sig selv – virksomheden der for ganske få år siden blev betragtet som altmodisch og ude af

trit med markedet har genopfundet sig selv og er netop arketypen på en virksomhed hvor høj forretningsmoral, samfundssind, klasse produkter og profit går hånd i hånd.

• At Danmark elsker sine industri ikoner; Novo Nordisk, APMM, Danfoss og Grundfos – trods års snak om ny versus gammel økonomi, trods års snak om innovations- og effektivitetskrise i industrien så viser feltet af ‘gamle kendinge’ sig som endog meget krise resistente og danskerne belønner dem; med at udvise høj tillid og tildele dem forsat beundring.

• At Nordea forsat trodser tillidskrisen som bankerne generelt lider af … Nordea nedskrev, tog tabene og rebede sejlene som den første i sektoren og har med sikker hånd undgået at tabe på ‘goodwill kontoen’ - med tydelig sammenhæng mellem det sagte og det gjorte har Nordea cementeret sin lederrolle i en industri der mange ses som hovedårsagen til den finansielle krise.

• At Danske Bank har sat alle sejl til en ny CEO, en ny struktur og en ny strategi – tiltag der begejstrer aktiemarkedet og investorer men som i den grad dumper i Danskernes øjne. Den ensidige fokus på bedre nøgletal har kostet banken sin ‘goodwill egenkapital’ og man kan hævde at banken er gået ‘emotionelt konkurs’ i Danmarks øjne.

• At televirksomheder som TDC, Telenor og Telia der bryster sig af tilgængelighed, ‘ease of use’ og højt kundefokus stadig hører til blandt de virksomheder danske forbrugere ‘elsker at hade’ - Telenors kundeservice blevt hængt til tørre på Facebook og har over fire år sat hele ti omdømme point til.

• At Arla Foods langsomt har arbejdet sig ud af skammekrogen som en virksomhed der fik skyld for at have ‘taget livet’ af de lokale mejerier til i dag at være en global spiller med en ambition om at blive verdens største ‘sustainable dairy company’ - virksomhedens fokus på miljø, dyrevelfærd og madspil synes at vinde gehør blandt moderne danske forbrugere.

se udvikling i dimension vægt

Country results Section 3

List of nominated companies. Familiarity. Pulse rankings. Pulse development. Country drivers. Dimension rankings. Products vs. Enterprise

List of companiesDenmark[Sorted alphabetically]3 ISSA.P. Møller - Mærsk JP/Politikens hus RepTrak™ Pulse averageAldi JYSK 63,6Apple Inc. (Apple) LEGO Group (LEGO)Arla Foods MatasBang & Olufsen McDonald'sBerlingske media MicrosoftBP NordeaCarlsberg Group (Carlsberg) Novo NordiskColoplast Group Novozymes Denmark n=Coop PANDORA Group 10.747Danfoss Saxo BankDanish Crow n Shell (Dansk Shell)Dansk Supermarked Siemens Wind Pow erDanske Bank-koncernen SuperBestFalck TDCGoogle TelenorGrundfos TeliaHennes & Mauritz The Coca-Cola CompanyIKEA koncernen (IKEA) Vestas

14

Most visible companies

Berlingske media was fielded as Berlingske media (Berlingske, BT); Coop was fielded as Coop (Kvickly, SuperBrugsen, Dagli'Brugsen, Fakta og Irma); Dansk Supermarked was fielded as Dansk Supermarked (Bilka, Føtex og Netto); ISS was fielded as ISS (ISS Facility Services); JP/Politikens hus was fielded as JP/Politikens hus (JP, Politiken, Ekstrabladet; Vestas was fielded as Vestas (Vestas Wind Systems)

The published companies in Denmark 2013

15

Familiarity distribution Denmark (1/2)

Coop 3% n = 2.225Google 2% n = 689Dansk Supermarked 3% n = 2.464Matas 2% n = 689Arla Foods 1% n = 1.088The Coca-Cola Company 3% n = 689McDonald's 2% n = 689Microsoft 2% n = 689Hennes & Mauritz 3% n = 689JYSK 2% n = 689Aldi 2% n = 689TDC 2% n = 2.551Falck 2% n = 689IKEA koncernen (IKEA) 2% n = 2.872Danske Bank-koncernen 3% n = 3.094LEGO Group (LEGO) 2% n = 4.331SuperBest 2% n = 2.851Apple Inc. (Apple) 2% n = 689A.P. Møller - Mærsk 1% n = 1.910Bang & Olufsen 3% n = 689Novo Nordisk 1% n = 1.910Nordea 2% n = 3.215Vestas 1% n = 1.910Danish Crow n 2% n = 689Carlsberg Group (Carlsberg) 2% n = 4.031

Familiarity distribution (%)[Denmark][sorted by very familiar]

58%55%

53%51%

49%48%48%

45%45%44%

43%43%42%41%

40%40%39%38%37%

36%35%35%

33%33%32%

32%34%

35%38%41%

36%40%

41%39%

42%40%42%

43%41%

37%44%

42%38%

52%42%

53%36%

52%44%

42%

6%9%

7%8%

7%11%

9%12%

12%10%

13%11%11%

14%19%

13%15%

19%10%

18%9%

24%12%

19%21%

2%1%

1%1%1%

2%1%1%

2%1%1%

2%2%2%2%

2%2%3%

1%2%

1%2%

1%2%3%

Very familiar Somewhat familiar Have only heard the name Not at all familiar Not sure

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

JP/Politikens hus 3% n = 4.105Shell (Dansk Shell) 4% n = 4.057Telenor 3% n = 3.935Telia 3% n = 3.877Berlingske media 4% n = 4.046Danfoss 3% n = 5.412Grundfos 3% n = 5.4583 6% n = 4.588Siemens Wind Pow er 3% n = 689ISS 5% n = 4.846BP 4% n = 689PANDORA Group 5% n = 5.030Novozymes 5% n = 4.626Coloplast Group 5% n = 5.020Saxo Bank 5% n = 5.015

Familiarity distribution (%)[Denmark][sorted by very familiar]

29%26%26%25%

23%21%

18%18%

14%14%13%13%

12%9%9%

41%43%

35%40%

42%44%

40%28%

29%32%

30%29%

26%22%22%

22%24%

33%30%

27%29%

33%33%

35%36%

36%39%

37%43%

55%

4%3%3%3%

5%3%

5%15%18%14%17%14%

20%20%

9%

Very familiar Somewhat familiar Have only heard the name Not at all familiar Not sure

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

16

Familiarity distribution Denmark (2/2)

RepTrak™ PulseDenmark 2013

n = 10.747

87,1

82,2

79,5

79,1

79,0

78,9

76,6

75,7

74,9

73,9

73,9

73,5

72,9

72,6

72,2

70,4

68,3

66,1

65,9

65,6

65,0

61,9

61,6

60,2

58,3

57,9

56,6

56,2

54,3

52,9

51,6

51,2

50,6

49,7

48,5

47,9

46,9

46,0

42,3

35,8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

LEG

O G

roup

(LE

GO

)N

ovo

Nor

disk

Dan

foss

A.P

. Møl

ler

- Mæ

rsk

Goo

gle

Gru

ndfo

sFa

lck

Car

lsbe

rg G

roup

(Car

lsbe

rg)

Mat

asN

ovoz

ymes

App

le In

c. (A

pple

)B

ang

& O

lufs

enS

iem

ens

Win

d P

ower

Col

opla

st G

roup

IKEA

kon

cern

en (I

KE

A)

Coo

pM

icro

soft

Dan

sk S

uper

mar

ked

Arla

Foo

dsJY

SKV

esta

sH

enne

s &

Mau

ritz

Nor

dea

The

Coc

a-C

ola

Com

pany

JP/P

oliti

kens

hus

Dan

ish

Cro

wn

She

ll (D

ansk

She

ll)P

AN

DO

RA

Gro

upB

erlin

gske

med

iaIS

STe

leno

rS

uper

Best

TDC 3

Ald

iS

axo

Ban

kTe

liaM

cDon

ald'

sB

PD

ansk

e B

ank-

konc

erne

n

17

RepTrak™ Pulse Denmark 2013

Excellent/Top tier 80+Strong/Robust 70-79Average/Moderate 60-69Weak/Vulnerable 40-59Poor/Low est tier <40

18

RepTrak™ Pulse development Pulse ranking 2013 vs. 2012 (1/2)

Denmark[sorted by 2013] 2012 2013# 1 LEGO Group (LEGO) 89,6 87,1 -2,4 Highest score 2013# 2 Novo Nordisk 80,0 82,2 2,2 LEGO Group (LEGO)# 3 Danfoss 80,8 79,5 -1,3# 4 A.P. Møller - Mærsk 77,8 79,1 1,3# 5 Google 83,2 79,0 -4,2# 6 Grundfos 80,4 78,9 -1,5 Lowest score 2013# 7 Falck - 76,6 Danske Bank-koncernen# 8 Carlsberg Group (Carlsberg) 76,4 75,7# 9 Matas - 74,9# 10 Novozymes - 73,9# 11 Apple Inc. (Apple) 77,9 73,9 -4,0 Biggest climb 2013# 12 Bang & Olufsen 81,0 73,5 -7,5 McDonald's# 13 Siemens Wind Pow er 76,7 72,9 -3,8# 14 Coloplast Group - 72,6# 15 IKEA koncernen (IKEA) 72,2 72,2# 16 Coop 71,2 70,4 Biggest fall 2013 -17,6# 17 Microsoft 73,0 68,3 -4,7 Danske Bank-koncernen# 18 Dansk Supermarked 68,3 66,1 -2,2# 19 Arla Foods 62,4 65,9 3,5# 20 JYSK 71,7 65,6 -6,0# 21 Vestas 68,6 65,0 -3,6# 22 Hennes & Mauritz - 61,9# 23 Nordea 64,7 61,6 -3,1# 24 The Coca-Cola Company 60,9 60,2# 25 JP/Politikens hus - 58,3

n = 6.159 7.006

RepTrak™ Pulse development

87,1

35,8

4,1

2012-2013

Denmark[sorted by 2013] 2012 2013# 26 Danish Crow n - 57,9# 27 Shell (Dansk Shell) - 56,6# 28 PANDORA Group 53,5 56,2 2,8# 29 Berlingske media - 54,3# 30 ISS 55,0 52,9 -2,1# 31 Telenor 56,3 51,6 -4,7# 32 SuperBest 54,0 51,2 -2,8# 33 TDC 48,1 50,6 2,5# 34 3 46,1 49,7 3,6# 35 Aldi 50,1 48,5 -1,6# 36 Saxo Bank - 47,9# 37 Telia 47,8 46,9# 38 McDonald's 41,8 46,0 4,1# 39 BP 44,1 42,3 -1,8# 40 Danske Bank-koncernen 53,4 35,8 -17,6

n = 3.097 3.741

RepTrak™ Pulse development2012-2013

19

RepTrak™ Pulse development Pulse ranking 2013 vs. 2012 (2/2)

20

RepTrak™ Pulse development 2010 – 2013

Denmark[sorted by 2013] 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013# 1 LEGO Group (LEGO) 88,2 88,0 87,2 89,6 87,1 # 21 Vestas 82,7 80,9 73,8 68,6 65,0# 2 Novo Nordisk 82,7 82,0 83,5 80,0 82,2 # 22 Hennes & Mauritz - - - - 61,9# 3 Danfoss 84,6 81,1 81,3 80,8 79,5 # 23 Nordea 59,8 60,0 61,4 64,7 61,6# 4 A.P. Møller - Mærsk 77,6 76,1 76,4 77,8 79,1 # 24 The Coca-Cola Company - - 62,8 60,9 60,2# 5 Google - - 81,6 83,2 79,0 # 25 JP/Politikens hus - - - - 58,3# 6 Grundfos 80,7 79,9 80,4 80,4 78,9 # 26 Danish Crow n 59,9 54,4 57,9 - 57,9# 7 Falck 79,2 79,1 - - 76,6 # 27 Shell (Dansk Shell) 59,8 56,7 57,7 - 56,6# 8 Carlsberg Group (Carlsberg) 78,4 78,6 77,1 76,4 75,7 # 28 PANDORA Group - - - 53,5 56,2# 9 Matas - - - - 74,9 # 29 Berlingske media - - - - 54,3# 10 Novozymes 79,0 78,0 77,9 - 73,9 # 30 ISS 51,1 53,2 56,8 55,0 52,9# 11 Apple Inc. (Apple) 78,5 78,6 - 77,9 73,9 # 31 Telenor - 61,4 55,9 56,3 51,6# 12 Bang & Olufsen 80,6 78,3 81,0 81,0 73,5 # 32 SuperBest - 42,6 50,8 54,0 51,2# 13 Siemens Wind Pow er - 72,8 - 76,7 72,9 # 33 TDC 52,0 56,3 48,6 48,1 50,6# 14 Coloplast Group 77,4 76,9 74,4 - 72,6 # 34 3 - - 48,8 46,1 49,7# 15 IKEA koncernen (IKEA) 75,7 76,8 77,0 72,2 72,2 # 35 Aldi 45,7 45,8 50,6 50,1 48,5# 16 Coop 68,9 69,8 - 71,2 70,4 # 36 Saxo Bank - 54,1 49,3 - 47,9# 17 Microsoft 68,5 69,0 70,4 73,0 68,3 # 37 Telia 46,7 45,2 46,8 47,8 46,9# 18 Dansk Supermarked 67,6 65,1 - 68,3 66,1 # 38 McDonald's 43,7 44,4 49,9 41,8 46,0# 19 Arla Foods 55,7 58,4 63,1 62,4 65,9 # 39 BP - - - 44,1 42,3# 20 JYSK 70,3 67,5 68,8 71,7 65,6 # 40 Danske Bank-koncernen 59,8 49,5 58,8 53,4 35,8

n = 6.349 6.121 4.443 5.328 6.111 3.250 3.910 5.051 3.928 4.635

RepTrak™ Pulse development

n = 10.410Adj. R2 = 0,675

Dimension driversDenmark 2013

12,2% 19,5%

15,2% 11,5%

12,9% 11,5%

17,2%

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013Products & Services 27,2 25,7 23,3 21,2 19,5Innovation 10,7 10,7 11,1 9,9 11,5Workplace 9,9 9,8 11,0 11,9 11,5Governance 14,8 15,6 14,7 17,3 17,2Citizenship 13,3 13,7 13,9 14,9 15,2Leadership 15,7 15,5 15,8 12,5 12,9Performance 8,4 9,0 10,1 12,3 12,2

n = 17.832 14.700 13.200 6.512 10.410Adj. R2 = 0,669 0,638 0,688 0,681 0,675

DenmarkDimension drivers

Products & Services

InnovationWorkplace

Governance

Citizenship

LeadershipPerformance

5

10

15

20

25

30

21

Denmark drivers 2013 and development

22

Dimension distribution Denmark

Dimension distribution Q1 2013

ScoreProducts & Services 11% 12% 66,2Innovation 11% 20% 62,7Workplace 9% 45% 61,1Governance 14% 32% 57,8Citizenship 12% 39% 58,8Leadership 10% 38% 62,8Performance 7% 31% 68,1

n = 10.747

Denmark[by dimension order]

46%

43%

28%

36%

32%

32%

34%

31%

26%

18%

17%

17%

20%

28%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Negative (1-2) Neutral (3-5) Positive (6-7) "Not sure %"

23

Denmark dimension ranking

** indicates single statement dimension

Products/Services, Innovation, Workplace

n = 3.276 n = 3.272 n = 2.858

Danfoss

Siemens Wind Pow er**

Bang & Olufsen**

IKEA koncernen (IKEA)

Google**

Novo Nordisk

LEGO Group (LEGO)

Grundfos

Danfoss

Falck**

Matas**

Microsoft**


Bang & Olufsen**

Products & Services

Bang & Olufsen**

Google**

LEGO Group (LEGO)

Novo Nordisk

Grundfos

Denmark dimension top 10

Google**

Apple Inc. (Apple)**

Novo Nordisk

LEGO Group (LEGO)

Grundfos

Danfoss

Matas**

A.P. Møller - Mærsk


Coloplast Group

WorkplaceInnovation

Novozymes

87,3

83,8

83,3

83,1

82,9

81,0

78,8

78,2

77,8

77,3

85,4

85,0

84,3

82,8

78,0

76,5

76,3

75,3

71,5

71,3

81,1

80,1

78,6

77,1

73,7

72,2

72,2

71,5

71,1

70,7

24



Governance, Citizenship

n = 3.768 n = 3.773

Grundfos

Danfoss

Novo Nordisk

Google**

LEGO Group (LEGO)Governance

Coloplast Group

Novozymes

Carlsberg Group (Carlsberg)

Matas**



Carlsberg Group (Carlsberg)

Vestas**

Novozymes

LEGO Group (LEGO)

Grundfos

Novo Nordisk

Danfoss

A.P. Møller - Mærsk

Citizenship


Google**

79,6

77,1

75,1

74,5

71,0

69,1

69,0

68,8

68,3

68,0

81,8

79,9

79,3

78,6

74,6

72,9

72,2

71,7

71,6

70,9

25



Leadership, Performance

n = 3.788 n = 3.277


Microsoft** Microsoft**

IKEA koncernen (IKEA)

LEGO Group (LEGO) Novo Nordisk

Novo Nordisk Google**

A.P. Møller - Mærsk LEGO Group (LEGO)

Leadership

Carlsberg Group (Carlsberg) Grundfos

JYSK** Novozymes

Novozymes JYSK**

Grundfos Apple Inc. (Apple)**

Danfoss A.P. Møller - Mærsk


Performance84,4

83,9

80,9

79,1

77,6

76,7

76,1

75,6

74,0

71,3

87,7

85,2

85,1

84,9

81,3

79,6

79,4

78,0

77,8

76,5

26

Support for the most and least reputable companies in Denmark

Supportive behavior distributionCount

5 Most reputable companies 5% 14% n = 2.326

5 least reputable companies 43% 11% n = 1.127



















Hear positive things about

Benefit of the doubt

Work for

Most reputable companies vs. least reputable companies

Recommend as investment

Buy

Recommend products

Trust

Recommend company

Say something positive

Invest

36%

36%

35%

38%

39%

42%

34%

35%

39%

44%

35%

25%

33%

26%

31%

28%

35%

46%

41%

41%

45%

10%

49%

8%

48%

11%

51%

9%

51%

11%

37%

8%

35%

8%

41%

7%

57%

10%

41%

11%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Negative (1-2) Neutral (3-5) Positive (6-7) Not sure

27

Industry ranking Denmark

Pharmaceuticals (3) n = 1.960Computer (3) n = 317

Consumer Products (3) n = 693Retail - General (4) n = 610

Energy (7) n = 1.515Information & Media (3) n = 891

Retail - Food (4) n = 961Financial - Insurance (5) n = 1.309

Financial - Bank (6) n = 1.829Telecommunications (4) n = 1.207

Total n= 11.292

DenmarkIndustry rank

76,2

68,4

60,4

58,4

53,4

73,7

65,3

58,5

57,2

49,7

0 20 40 60 80 100

Demographics Appendix 1

Respondent profile.

Respondent profile Denmark 2013

29

Denmark

7.420

GenderMale 50%Female 50%

18-24 14%25-34 19%35-44 24%45-64 43%

Capital area 25%Islands 33%Jutland 42%

Low education 13%Middle education 17%Long education 71%

All respondents

Age

Region

Education

Demographic group: counts and %

Methodology Appendix 2

Fielding methodology. Research design. Key analyses and modelling techniques.

Fielding methodology & Research design

Qualified respondents are: Adults between 18-64 who reported that they were either “Somewhat Familiar” or “Very Familiar” with one of the companies in the study. Furthermore, respondents who are not able to give valid responses to 3 of the 4 Pulse questions are screened out. Data collection method: Respondents filled out a 15 minute online RepTrak™ questionnaire designed to measure overall corporate reputation and related questions. The questionnaire used for this research is based on the proprietary RepTrak™ model developed by Reputation Institute for analysis of corporate reputations. Respondents were invited to participate in this project through emailed invitations sent to a carefully screened online panel managed by an established commercial market research firm, member of ESOMAR. Respondents were randomly assigned to rate up to 5 companies in a Pulse study and 2 companies in a Deep Dive study with which they were familiar. Fielding period: January – February, 2013 Number of respondents: A minimum of 300 respondents provided ratings for each Deep Dive and a minimum of 100 for each Pulse company in the study. Sample representation: Responses were weighted to represent the national profile on demographics, including age and gender. Note on Gaps: All Gaps are calculated using exact scores. Occasionally reported gaps appear to differ by 0.1 from gaps calculated between scores with one decimal. This is due to rounding error. Note on Sample Sizes: All sample sizes reported are based on weighted data. Occasionally the weighting procedure produces a slightly smaller or larger sample size than the unweighted raw data otherwise would. The example to the right shows n = 298 where the raw unweighted count is actually 300. Note on RepTrak™ Pulse Scores: The RepTrak™ Pulse is calculated on the basis of the answers from the four variables that measure the respondent’s esteem, feeling, admiration and trust (captured in the Pulse score on a 0-100 scale). .

31

Key Analysis & Modeling Techniques

RepTrak™ Pulse Score All RepTrak™ analyses begin with a single reputation score (the RepTrak™ Pulse) that is decomposed into a set of underlying dimensions and attributes. The process of decomposition involves application of various forms of multivariate analyses designed to address interdependence and multi-collinearity in data obtained from cognitive research. At the core, the RepTrak™ Pulse measures reputation consisting of three questions about the emotional appeal of the company and a rating of the “Overall Reputation” of the company. Structural Equation Modelling indicates that these four variables are a reliable indicator of the reputation construct. • [Company] is a company I have a good feeling about • [Company] is a company that I trust • [Company] is a company that I admire and respect • [Company] has a good overall reputation

Attributes were measured on 7-point scales, where 1 = Strongly Disagree and 7 = Strongly Agree. Results are re-scaled to 100-point scale for easier interpretation. Driver Analysis The relative contribution of individual attributes/single-statement dimensions to the RepTrak™ Pulse is calculated from a factor adjusted regression modeling procedure. Individual attribute/single-statement dimension weights range from 0-1, and total to 100%. Dimension weights are calculated from the attribute weights. To determine drivers of reputation, the weights are developed with a Factor Adjusted Linear Regression:

Factor analysis is used to determine the unique contribution of each attribute to the variance of the RepTrak™ Pulse. Equamax rotation is used to assign the factors to the attributes/single-statement dimensions. It creates an orthogonal structure of uncorrelated variables that allows the regression to be performed without interference from multicollinearity. It is used to maximize interpretation of the final set of regression coefficients. Linear Regression is run using the Raw Pulse Construct as the dependent variable and the factor scores as the independent variables. Only attributes that were found to be significantly correlated with the reputation (p<0.05) have driver weights assigned.

32

Reporting Results

Statistical Significance of Results Reported in RepTrak™ Projects Individual responses to questions asked in a survey enable the calculation of various statistical measures, including averages (means) and standard deviations. The greater the number of responses used in calculating an average, the more confident we are about the accuracy of the score. Similarly, the smaller the range of responses made to a specific question, the more confident we are about the score. Reputation Institute reports scores with a 95% confidence interval in the surveys that we conduct. The interval describes our confidence that, if we conducted the same study repeatedly, 95 times out of 100 the obtained score would lie within the confidence interval. It therefore describes how statistically different a score is likely to be from another score. If a measure is created from multiple questions, the variation in responses is reduced, and our confidence in the average obtained from the combined questions is higher, thereby shrinking the confidence interval. The specific formula Reputation Institute therefore uses to calculate a 95% confidence interval around the mean is therefore:

Confidence Interval = Average Score +/- 1.96 * Average Standard Deviation of Attributes / SQRT (Sample Size * # of Attributes) Directional Scores When analyzing subgroups and/or specific and hard-to-reach stakeholders, sample sizes will often have limited power and reliability. As the sample size shrinks, results become directional in nature. At extremely low counts, results become unreliable and are not shown. In this report low and insufficient counts are denoted as per below:

*Low counts (<50) – scores are directional (refer to appendix for details on directional scores) **Insufficient counts (<30)

33

Standardizing all Reputation Scores

RepTrak™ Scores - Standardized and Comparable Market research shows that people are inclined to rate companies more or less favorably in different countries, or when they are asked questions directly or online. When asked in a personal interview, for example, it’s known that people tend to give a company higher ratings than when they are asked by phone, or when they are asked to answer questions about the company online. This is a well-established source of ‘systematic bias’. Another source of systematic bias comes from national culture - in some countries, people are universally more positive in their responses than in other countries. In statistical terms, it means that the entire distribution of scores in a ‘positive’ country is artificially ‘shifted’ in a positive direction for all companies, good or bad. The distribution of scores in that country may also be more ‘spread out’ than in another because people have more information and are able to make more subtle differences between companies. To overcome this systematic bias, Reputation Institute’s policy is to adjust all RepTrak™ scores by standardizing them against the aggregate distribution of all scores obtained from the Reputation Institute’s Annual Global RepTrak™ Pulse. Standardization has the effect of lowering scores in countries that tend to over-rate companies, and has the effect of raising scores for companies in countries that tend to rate companies more negatively. . Two adjustments are made for every RepTrak™ Score Reputation Institute uses its cumulative database of RepTrak™ Pulse scores about reputation scores internationally to carry out two adjustments: Country Adjustment: All scores derived from surveys are standardized by subtracting the country mean and dividing by the standard deviation of all known scores previously obtained in that country. In statistical terms, this adjustment ‘normalizes’ the distribution of scores in the country to a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1, producing a ‘z-score’ for the observation. Global Adjustment: The ‘z-score’ obtained on the country level is then used to determine the globally adjusted score. In order to do this, the results are scaled back by multiplying each company’s score by the global standard deviation and adding back the global mean. The resulting number is the globally adjusted score. As additional global research comes in, Reputation Institute regularly updates the country and global distributions that are used to create our standardized RepTrak™ scores. All RepTrak™ results are therefore comparable across industries, countries, and over time. .

Global distribution of attitudes

US & Canada, 4%

Europe, -3%

Asia, 12%

Australia & New Zealand, -9%

South Africa, 20%

Latin America, 14%

Very positivePositiveNeutralNegativeVery negative

34

Terminology Appendix 3

List of abbreviations.

Abbreviations Supportive behaviours and dimensions

36

Question Short form Full formQ515_1 Trust If [COMPANY] w as faced w ith a product or service problem, I w ould trust them to do the right thingQ515_2 Say something positive I w ould say something positive about [COMPANY]Q515_3 Buy If I had the opportunity, I w ould buy the products/services of [COMPANY]Q515_4 Recommend products I w ould recommend the products/services of [COMPANY]Q515_5 Invest If I had the opportunity, I w ould invest in [COMPANY]Q515_6 Recommend as investment If I had the opportunity, I w ould recommend [COMPANY] as an investmentQ515_7 Work for I w ould w ork for [COPMANY1]Q515_8 Hear positive things about [COMPANY] is a company that I generally hear people say positive things aboutQ515_9 Benefit of the doubt I w ould give the benefit of the doubt to [COMPANY] if the company w as facing a crisis Q515_10 Recommend company I w ould recommend [COMPANY] to othersQ515_11 Communicate something negative about I w ould go out of my w ay to communicate something negative about [Company1]

AbbreviationsSupportive behavior

Question Short form Full formQ310_1 Products & Services [COMPANY] offers high quality products and services -- it offers excellent products and reliable servicesQ310_2 Innovation [COMPANY] is an innovative company -- it makes or sells innovative products or innovates in the w ay it does businessQ310_3 Workplace [COMPANY] is an appealing place to w ork -- it treats its employees w ellQ310_4 Citizenship [COMPANY] is a good corporate citizen -- it supports good causes and protects the environmentQ310_5 Governance [COMPANY] is a responsibly-run company -- it behaves ethically and is open and transparent in its business dealingsQ310_6 Leadership [COMPANY] is a company w ith strong leadership -- it has visible leaders and is managed effectivelyQ310_7 Performance [COMPANY] is a high-performance company -- it delivers good financial results

Dimensions

Date post:	26-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Annual RepTrak™ Report - Kommunikationsforum · Danish Crow n Shell (Dansk Shell) Dansk...

Documents