Important drivers for customer satisfaction – a Swedish crisis reflection

Important drivers for customer

satisfaction – a Swedish

crisis reﬂection

Jacob Hallencreutz

Department of Civil and Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Science and

Technology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

Johan Parmler

EPSI Rating Group, Stockholm, Sweden, and

Love Westin

Academy of Innovation, Mälardalen University, Eskilstuna, Sweden

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this study is to examine crisis effects on customer satisfaction and underlying

drivers by adding a new set of data to previous research. The core questions are: are the ﬁndings from

Hallencreutz and Parmler (2019, 2021) sustained or can new customer demands, needs, expectations and

behaviours be traced in the wake of the ongoing crisis?

Design/methodology/approach – A ﬁrst study covering 2005–2017 was completed in 2018, published

online in 2019 and in print in 2021 (Hallencreutz and Parmler, 2021). This new study adds the years 2018–2023

to the data set and reuses the partial least squares (PLS) approach to structural equation models, also known

as PLS path modelling.

Findings – This additional study sustains the results from the initial study (Hallencreutz and Parmler, 2019,

2021). The variable product quality has been substituted by service quality as one of the most crucial drivers for

customer satisfaction together with brand image, and the current state of permacrisis has not changed that.

Research limitations/implications – The study is built on Swedish data from the EPSI Rating

Initiative (Eklöf and Westlund 2002) covering customer perceptions in banking, insurance (life and non-life),

telco (mobile operators, broadband and Pay-tv) and energy (trade, distribution and heating) over the years

2005–2023.

Practical implications – The study emphasizes the importance of understanding how customer

satisfaction drivers evolve over time in different industries and societal sectors, especially during crises. This

additional study sustains the paradigm shift in the studied industries – product quality has been substituted

by service quality as one of the most crucial drivers for customer satisfaction, and the current state of

economic downturn has not changed that.

Social implications – Society will have to learn to live with political and economic instability and

unpredictability for the foreseeable future. To recognize the increasing value deriving from ﬁrms’ intangible

assets while providing ﬂawless deliveries seems to be a way forward in troublesome times. This is also a

catalyst for existing societal trends: the necessary reforms to master sustainable transformations will require

an ongoing adaptation process, with both winners and losers across continents.

This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may

reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and

non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full

terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode

Customer

satisfaction

Received21 December 2023

Revised 27February 2024

Accepted8 April 2024

International Journal of Lean Six

Sigma

Emerald Publishing Limited

2040-4166

DOI 10.1108/IJLSS-12-2023-0224

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2040-4166.htm

Originality/value – The world has coped with a global pandemic, and Europe is currently experiencing a

humanitarian, political and economic crises caused by a war in Ukraine. This extended period of global

instability and insecurity could be called a permacrisis (Collins dictionary, 2022). This study offers a unique

quantitative analysis built on Swedish data from EPSI Rating initiative.

Keywords Customer perception, Customer satisfaction, Customer loyalty, Image, Expectations,

Value, Product quality, Service quality, Permacrisis

Paper type Research paper

Introduction

In 2019, the authors of this paper published a study showing a paradigm shift in crucial drivers

for customer satisfaction during the past decade (

Hallencreutz and Parmler, 2021). The study

was built on Swedish data from the EPSI Rating Initiative (Eklöf and Westlund, 2002)covering

customer perceptions in banking, insurance (life and non-life), telco (m obile operators,

broadband and Pay-tv) and energy (trade, distribution, and heating) over the years 2005–2017.

EPSI, formerly known as the European Satisfaction Index, is a well-known adoption from the

Swedish Customer Satisfaction Barometer (Fornell, 1992). The EPSI measurement model

framework encapsulates the customer experience into ﬁve drivers of brand image, customer

expectations, product quality, service quality and perceived value, which creates customer

satisfaction and loyalty. The study, using EPSIs measurement model, unravelled that that the

variable product quality during the past decade has been substituted by servic e qual ity as a core

driver for customer satisfaction, together with brand image. It showed that both private and

business customers in the studied industries in general are enlightened, conscious and

purposeful. Aspects such as social responsibility, sustainability, ethics and conduct are critical

and have been so for a long time. In a digital world, the average customer has also been

strongly affected and inﬂuenced by (social) media newsfeeds. Moreover, the study concluded

that service quality in practice is about closeness, simplicity and personal relations. Another

fundamental service quality aspect shown was the ability to proactively provide swift

responses to shifting customer needs, demands and expectations.

However, since that ﬁrst publication, the world has coped with a global pandemic, and Europe

is cu rrently experiencing a humanitarian, political and economic crises caused by a war in

Ukraine. Compared to the relatively stable decades after the fall of the Berlin Wall, we now seem

to be living in a volatile “new normal”, with one challenge seamlessly followed by the next. This

extended period of global instability and insecurity could be called a permacrisis (

Collins

dictionary, 2022), in the sense that society at large will have to cope with crisis consequences for

years to come. The economic impact of the permacrises is structural, not cyclical, so effects will

persist over time. This state is also a catalyst for existing societal trends: the necessary reforms to

master sustainable transformations will require an ongoing adaptation process, with both

winners and losers across continents. The Covid-19 crises was a great wake-up call, because it

demonstrated how fragile business is (Sheth, 2020). It created disruption in supply chains both

domestically and globally, which has been further deepened during the past years.

This follow-up study focuses on developments in Sweden. The past decade has been

characterized by economic stability, and during the pandemic years 2020–2021, the Swedish

economy stood relatively strong. However, the GDP growth in Sweden was merely 2.6% 2022, and

forecasts indicate a stalemate in 2023. Customers have during the past two years faced economic

uncertainty, perhaps most recognizable in the rising inﬂation, rapid changes in central bank policies

and an extended energy demand, which have resulted in major spikes in energy prices (scb.se).

In times of crisis, new trends in consumer behaviour emerge (Loxton et al., 2020).

Research shows that customers generally re-evaluate behaviours during crisis. For example,

IJLSS

customers are likely to be more stressed and feel like they have lost their sense of control

(

Herzenstein et al.,2015). There has also been much anecdotal evidence on how a crisis such

as a global pandemic impacts an individual’s psyche, but a coherent research effort is still

lacking (Kordostrami and Kordostrami, 2021). In addition, previous research shows that

individual differences exist in responses to crisis. Thomson et al. (2011) demonstrated that

individuals’ cognitive and emotional responses to threatening messages depend on their

predispositions, such as whether they see themselves as vulnerable or not.

Thus, it is reasonable to assume that the past years troublesome developments have

affected customer behaviours and perceptions in many aspects. Could such changes also be

traced in EPSI’s customer perception data?

In this business environment, ﬁnancial and non-ﬁnancial performance measurements

capturing past, present and future performance seems even more critical than before.

Sisodia et al. (2007) documented that companies that take care of multiple stakeholders such

as employees, suppliers, community and customers ﬁnancially outperform as compared to

companies that are only shareholder-driven. This symbiotic relationship between different

stakeholders will probably become increasingly important as crisis threats now create

greater uncertainty for businesses to operate and survive ﬁnancially.

A critical stakeholder is the customer (Hallencreutz et al., 2020). The quality movement

has long been customer-oriented, and aspects of customer focus and satisfaction have been

widely discussed for decades, and regarded as fundamental building blocks of different

quality management concepts such as Lean and Six Sigma (Bergman et al., 2022). Among

the non-ﬁnancial measurements, customer satisfaction is recognized as the performance

indicator that is the most widespread (Birch-Jensen et al.,2018; Bititci et al.,2012;

Hallencreutz et al.,2020; Iveroth and Hallencreutz, 2015; Taticchi et al.,2010).

The term customer focus has also been used to describe the desired starting point of

organisations’ improvement efforts (

Hellsten and Klefsjö, 2000; Sousa, 2003). It is shown that

satisﬁed customers have a positive effect on ﬁnancial results as well as company image,

market shares and customer loyalty (Birch-Jensen et al.,2018; Fornell et al., 1996; Fornell

et al.,2016; Kristensen and Westlund, 2003; Eklöf et al.,2017, 2018). Customer satisfaction is

also recognized as an important predictive indicator for future ﬁnancial performance (Bititci

et al.,2012; Eskildsen et al., 2003; Fornell et al., 1996; Stern, 2006).

The purpose of this study is to examine crisis effects on customer satisfaction and

underlying drivers by adding a new set of data to previous research. The core questions are:

are the ﬁndings from

Hallencreutz and Parmler (2019, 2021) sustained or can new customer

demands, needs, expectations and behaviours be traced in the wake of the ongoing crisis?

Methodology and data

The original study was completed in 2018, published online in 2019 and in print in 2021

(

Hallencreutz and Parmler, 2021). The study ﬁndings were further elaborated and discussed

by Iveroth and Hallencreutz (2020) and commented by Gremyr et al. (2020) as well as

Bergman and Klefsjö (2020).

This new study adds the years 2018–2023 to the data set and reuses the partial least

squares (PLS) approach to structural equation models, also known as PLS path modelling

(PLS-PM). Essentially, PLS-PM is made of a system of interdependent equations based on

simple and multiple regressions. Such a system estimates the network of relations among

the latent variables as well as the links between the manifest variables and their own latent

variables. In the EPSI model, applied in this and previous study, seven interrelated latent

variables are used, see Figure 1

, which is based on well-established theories and approaches

in customer behaviour (Eklöf and Westlund, 2002).

Customer

satisfaction

The latent variables on the left-hand side of the model are to be seen as drivers

explaining customer satisfaction and loyalty. Main causal relationships are indicated by the

arrows. A set of manifest variables is associated with each of the latent variables. This

structure is the foundation of the EPSI model. The entire model is important for determining

the main result variable, being customer satisfaction:

Image relates to the brand name and what kind of associations the customers get from the

product/brand/company.

Customer expectations relate to the prior anticipations of the said product in the eyes of the

customer. Such expectations are the result of active company/product promotion as well as

hearsay and prior experience from the product/provider.

The perceived quality concept includes two parts (“product” and “service”). With the “product”

component is meant the quality of the product as such (in the eyes of the customer), while

“service” relates to associated service quality like guarantees given, after sale service provision,

availability, engagement, reception etc.

Perceived value concerns the “value-for-money” aspect as experienced by the customer. It is here

seen to be aﬀected by perceived quality and indirectly by image and expectations.

Customer satisfaction is measured by three standard items, overall satisfaction, fulﬁlment of

expectations and how well do you think “your provider” compares with your ideal provider.

Perceived loyalty relates to repurchase, word-of-mouth and recommendation.

The additional data set has been collected mainly through computer-assisted telephone

interviews (CATI) based on a structural questionnaire, as outlined in Appendix

Respondents have been asked to rate all variables between 1 and 10, and the EPSI model

then transforms the output to index values between 0 and 100. As previously described and

discussed, a customer satisfaction score above 75 indicates a high level of satisfaction, while

a score below 60 indicates customer dissatisfaction. Respondents may also leave open

comments for further text analysis.

The study aggregates cross-sectional data from several industries conducted by the

Swedish operation of EPSI Rating Group known as Svenskt Kvalitetsindex. Focus is on the

relationship between the estimated latent variables, and not on examining each industry’s

measurement model. The study data comprises 708,542 customer interviews, including both

Figure 1.

The EPSI model is a

model designed to

measure the cause–

effect relationships

speciﬁed in the

model. Customer

satisfaction and

loyalty are seen as

result of the driving

latent variables on

the left-hand side of

the model

IJLSS

private and corporate customers, covering the years 2005–2023. It includes numerical values

on the EPSI model latent variables for the following industries:



banking;



insurance (life and non-life);



telco (mobile operators, broadband and pay-tv); and



energy (trade, distribution and heating).

The analysis in this study followed the same process as in Hallencreutz and Parmler (2021)

and was executed as follows:

(1) a gross compilation of the result variable “customer satisfaction” was derived from the

total set of interviews is presented for the studied period providing an index trend;

(2) the data on latent level was used to estimate the path in the network of latent variables;

(3) from the estimation, the total effect between drivers and the result variable

customer satisfaction was calculated for each year following the steps:

a. gather customer survey data on latent-level from selected industries; and

b. estimate the inner model and calculate the total effect and relative importance on:

i. image to customer satisfaction;

ii. product quality to customer satisfaction;

iii. service quality to customer satisfaction; and

iv. perceived value to customer satisfaction.

c. Normalize each of the total impacts in step b. by making the sum of b. i to b.

iv equal to 1.

d. Step a. to c. is iterated over time.

(4) the results are presented as relative impact scores. Hence, the relative impact from

the network of latent variables on the target variable, customer satisfaction, was

calculated. Higher value indicates higher importance.

To exemplify, Figure 2 presents an estimated inner model for year 2022. The path

coefﬁcients were used to calculate the total effect and relative importance by the steps

above. This procedure was repeated for every year studied.

Results and ﬁndings

The chart below presents the general customer satisfaction trend between 2005 and 2023.

The data is a compilation of the studied industries [1]

The following general ﬁndings can be noted in Figure 3:



the customer satisfaction index shows a positive trend 2005–2010;



customer satisfaction peaked in 2010 but declined till 2016, mainly due to lagging

effects from the ﬁnancial crisis 2008–2009;



a recovery is seen between 2017 and 2021. Thus, no negative “pandemic effect” can

be traced in this data’ and



a downturn from 2022 is noted, linked to the economic crisis not unlike the dip in 2011.

Figure 4 presents the analysis of the relative importance of each of the latent variables

considering the impact on customer satisfaction, with a speciﬁc focus on the additional

years 2018–2023. The following general ﬁndings can be noted:

Customer

satisfaction



the latent variable image has in all years been the most important driver. The trend

in the recent years is slightly negative but still the highest in impact despite current

crisis. A trusted brand is crucial in uncertain times;



product quality was stable until 2010, but the importance of this latent variable has

been reduced signiﬁcantly since then. Current crisis has not changed that, although

an upturn was seen in 2020–2021, but the relative importance is from 2022 back to

pre-pandemic levels;



service quality has increased signiﬁcantly over the past ten years, although a

downturn can be noted from 2022; and



the variable perceived value has been low on the importance-scale but has increased

signiﬁcantly from 2022. the relative importance of perceived value (of purchased

goods and services) is over time also affected by inﬂation, which is in line with

Figure 3.

The general customer

satisfaction trend

derived from the

studied data

Figure 2.

PLS structural

equation modelling to

estimate the impact of

latent variables

IJLSS

previous research ﬁndings (Jonung and Laidler, 1988). It can be noted that this

variable correlates with the Swedish inﬂation rate during the years of this study

(coefﬁcient 0.57).

Discussion

Based on data presented in this study, previous research and discussions with clients and

colleagues, the following reﬂections can be articulated:



customer satisfaction in the measured Swedish industries has recovered since 2016 but is

currently under pressure. During the past decade, consumers have become more

conscious, critical and demanding. Questions about sustainability, social commitment,

business ethics and conduct today inﬂuence the choice of con scious customers more than

before, in all studied industries. This trend was accelerated during the pandemic and

further enhanced by the crisis caused by the war in Ukraine, followed by a general global

instability. It can also be seen that customers’ purchasing behaviours change as social

media interaction and digital netw orking grows, which is in line with previous research,

summarized by Iveroth and Hallencreutz (2020). Speed, simplicity and convenience are

key elements. Poor digital platforms cannot be compensated. Consumers and companies

will expect a consistent experience across all channels and platforms, in real time.

Shopping hey days seem to be over for now, but in general, despite many uncertainties,

most organisations in the studied industries have succeeded in both managing a stable

basic delivery and responding to changing customer needs, requirements, expectations

and behaviours. The customer satisfact ion indices are after all relatively stable over time,

but it is reasonable to assume prolonged crisis effects in the years to come;



the importance of brand image is strengthened. Because the latent variable image

remains strong, it can be concluded that intangible assets (such as brand awareness, trust

and reputation) have a sustai ned impact on customers percepti ons also during periods of

crisis. Trust’s importance has also been stressed in previous research (Drewniak and

Karaszewski, 2016). Customers are likely to purchase products and services based on

speciﬁcfeaturesofabrand(moorman et al.,1993). In times of uncertainty, people tend to

turn to big, stable and strong brands. Customers with one single provider are again more

satisﬁed. Now is not the time for experiments and risk-taking;

Figure 4.

The latent variables

relative importance

on customer

satisfaction over time

Customer

satisfaction



product quality aspects still have less impact on customer satisfaction. product

speciﬁcations and features seem to have a very volatile effect on customer

satisfaction, although a certain positive effect could be noted 2020–2021, mainly due

to the relative importance of seamless digital platforms and services during the time

of lock down and remote working. Basic features and digital functionality are now

fundamental quality aspects in the era of digitalization, but softer service quality

aspects still stand out as more important. However, it should be emphasized that

this ﬁnding differs between industries;



service quality still breeds customer satisfaction. It has been stated by market

researchers that customer satisfaction is mainly based upon the level of service

quality provided (lee et al., 2000), and service quality acts as determinant of

customer satisfaction (Wilson et al., 2008). This study sustains these statements.

The new data tells that the variable service quality has in general a greater impact

on customer satisfaction than product quality. The shift took place in 2013, and

since then, the gap has remained, although a decline can be noted from 2022. Thus,

it is crucial to focus on the customer end of the supply chain also during crises. A

fundamental service quality aspect in a volatile business environment is to

proactively provide swift responses to shifting customer needs, demands,

expectations and behaviours; and



price is important again. After a period of relative economic stability characterized

by low interest rates and low inﬂation, the Swedish economy is now experiencing a

cost explosion, which recalls the economic crisis of the early 1990s. Consequently,

the latent EPSI model variable perceived value has gained a greater relative impact

on customer satisfaction from 2022, and this variable will most likely remain

prominent in future studies, given the economic development.

In conclusion, this study emphasizes the importance of understanding how customer

satisfaction drivers evolve over time in different industries and societal sectors, especially

during crises. This additional study sustains the paradigm shift in the studied industries –

product quality has been substituted by service quality as one of the most crucial drivers for

customer satisfaction – although certain crisis effects can be seen such as the relative

importance of price and perceived value.

In general, most organizations have coped with the instability and unpredictability that

this new era entails. Despite major uncertainties, the studied industries have succeeded in

both managing a stable basic delivery and responding to changing customer needs,

requirements, expectations and behaviours. The most dramatic development was perhaps

within the Swedish energy sector. Loud political debate, threats of electricity shortages,

extreme price variation and cost crisis obviously left a mark. In a year like 2022, both the

media, neighbours, friends and business acquaintances have inﬂuenced the customer

experience, as well as the direct contact with the electricity supplier. Customer dialogues in

the energy sector have, in some cases, been about pure crisis management, but the situation

has been stabilized during 2023, and to some extent, substituted by a debate about grocery

prices and provoking proﬁt margins in the banking sector. How will things go forward?

Does anyone dare say anything? An educated guess is that society will have to learn to live

with political and economic instability and unpredictability for the foreseeable future – the

term permacrisis is therefore painfully relevant.

Customer focus has been on the quality management (QM) agenda for decades, and the

need for further research on the integration of customer orientation with core business

processes has been stressed for long, see for instance

Hellsten and Klefsjö (2000). Although

IJLSS

the topic has been thoroughly discussed, there is still a gap between academic theories,

political rhetoric and actual implementation in practice (Isaksson, 2019). Moreover, it has

been argued that quality management tools and practices must be developed to support

sustainability considerations from a stakeholder perspective (Siva et al., 2016; Antony et al., 2024).

The authors therefore suggest further conceptual work and research on stakeholder management

to connect quality management to sustainable development in practice. Our contribution to this

development could be to emphasise the need to measure and understand different perspectives on

stakeholder perceptions, with a speciﬁc focus on the customer.

Lastly, more research is needed to extend these ﬁndings to different industries in a

European context as well as strengthening the understanding on how to provide reliable

indications for future ﬁnancial and non-ﬁnancial performance. To recognize the increasing

value deriving from ﬁrms’ intangible assets while providing ﬂawless deliveries seems to be

a way forward in troublesome times.

Note

1. More information on diﬀerent studies can be found at

www.kvalitetsindex.se and www.epsi-rating.com

References

Antony, J., Bhat, S., Sony, M., Fundin, A., Sorqvist, L. and Molteni, R. (2024), “Sustainable development

through quality management: a multiple-case study analysis of triumphs, trials and

tribulations”, The TQM Journal,doi:10.1108/TQM-12-2023-0424.

Bergman, B. and Klefsjö, B. (2020), Kvalitet Från Behov till Användning, Studentlitteratur, Lund, Sweden.

Bergman, B., Bäckström, I., Garvare, R. and Klefsjö, B. (2022), Quality from Customer Needs to

Customer Satisfaction, Studentlitteratur, Lund, Sweden.

Birch-Jensen, A., Gremyr, I., Hallencreutz, J. and Rönnbäck, Å. (2018), “Use of customer satisfaction

measurements to drive improvements”, Total Quality Management and Business Excellence,

Vol. 31 Nos 5/6, doi: 10.1080/14783363.2018.1436404.

Bititci, U., Garengo, P., Dörﬂer, V. and Nudurupati, S.S. (2012), “Performance measurement: challenges

for tomorrow”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 305-327.

Collins Dictionary (2022), available at:

www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english

Drewniak, R. and Karaszewski, R. (2016), “Brand management in a situation of an economic crisis:

methods of strengthening the brand value in the scope of emerging markets”, Asia Paciﬁc

Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 743-758.

Eklöf, J. and Westlund, A. (2002), “The pan-European customer satisfaction index programme-current

work and the way ahead”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 13 No. 8, pp. 1099-1106.

Eklöf, J., Hellström, K., Malova, A., Parmler, J. and Podkorytova, O. (2017), “Custom er perception measures

driving ﬁnancial performance”, Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 51-57.

Eklöf, J., Podkorytova, O. and Malova, A. (2018), “Linking customer satisfaction with ﬁnancial

performance: an empirical study of Scandinavian banks”, Total Quality Management and

Business Excellence, Vol. 31 No 15/16, doi: 10.1080/14783363.2018.1504621.

Eskildsen, J., Westlund, A., H. and Kristensen, K. (2003), “The predictive power of intangibles”,

Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 46-54.

Fornell, C. (1992), “A national customer satisfaction barometer: the Swedish experience”, Journal of

Marketing, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 6-21.

Fornell, C. , Johns on, M.D. , Ande rson, E .W., C ha, J. and Bryant, B.E. (1996), “The American

customer satis faction index: nature, purpose, and ﬁndings”, Journal of Marketing,Vol.60

No. 4, pp. 7-18.

Customer

satisfaction

Fornell, C., Morgeson, F., Hult, G. and Tomas, M. (2016), “Stock returns on customer satisfact ion do beat

the market: gauging the effect of a marketing intangible”, Journal of Marketing,Vol.80No.5,doi:

10.1509/jm.15.0229.

Gremyr, I., Bergquist, B. and Elg, M. (2020), Quality Management: An Introduction, Studentlit teratur, Lund.

Hallencreutz, J. and Parmler, J. (2021), “Important drivers for customer satisfaction – from product focus

to image and service quality”, Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 32

Nos. 5/6, pp. 501-510.

Hallencreutz, J., Deleryd, M. and Fundin, A. (2020), “Decoding sustainable success”, Total Quality

Management and Business Excellence,doi:10.1080/14783363.2020.1863779.

Hellsten, U. and Klefsjö, B. (2000), “TQM as a management system consisting of values, techniques, and

tools”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 238-244.

Herzenstein, S., Horsky, S. and Posavac, S. (2015), “Living with terrorism or withdrawing in terror:

perceived control and consumer avoidance”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 14,

pp. 228-236.

Isaksson, R. (2019), “Excellence for sustainability – maintaining the license to operate”, Total Quality

Management and Business Excellence,doi:10.1080/14783363.2019.1593044.

Iveroth, E. and Hallencreutz, J. (2015), Effective Organizational Change: Leading through Sensemaking,

Routledge, New York, NY.

Iveroth, E. and Hallencreutz, J. (2020), Leadership and Digital Change, Routledge, New York, NY.

Jonung, L. and Laidler, D. (1988), “Are perceptions of inﬂation rational? Some evidence for Sweden”,

The American Economic Review, Vol. 78 No. 5, pp. 1080-1087.

Kristensen, K. and Westlund, A. (2003), “Valid and reliable measurements for sustainable non-ﬁnancial

reporting”, Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 161-170.

Lee, H., Lee, Y. and Yoo, D. (2000), “The determinants of perceived service quality and its relationship

with satisfaction”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 217-231.

Moorman, C., Deshpande, R. and Zalman, G. (1993), “Factors affecting trust in market research

relationships

”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 1, p. 81.

Sheth, J. (2020), “Business of business is more than business: managing during the covid crisis”,

Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 88, pp. 261-264.

Sisodia, R., Wolfe, D. and Sheth, J. (2007), Firms of Endearment: The Pursuit of Purpose and Proﬁt,:

Wharton Publishing Group, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Siva, V., Gremyr, I., Bergquist, B., Garvare, R., Zobel, T. and Isaksson, R. (2016), “The support of quality

management to sustainable development: a literature review”, Journal of Cleaner Production,

Vol. 138, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.020.

Sousa, R. (2003), “Linking quality management to manufacturing strategy: an empirical investigation of

customer focus practices”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 1-18.

Stern, L.D. (2006), A Guide to Global Acquisitions, Fultus Corporation Palo Alto, CA.

Taticchi, P., Tonelli, F. and Cagnazzo, L. (2010), “Performance measurement and management: a literature

review and a research agenda”, Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 4-18.

Wilson, A., Zeithaml, V.A., Bitner, M.J. and Gremler, D.D. (2008), Services Marketing,McGraw–Hill Education.