`

Customer Relationship Management. Websites Analysis of

the Top Ten Consumer Goods Companies
Alexandru Ioan RÎPA1, Luminița NICOLESCU2
1 Bucharest University of Economic Studies, 6-8 Piața Romană, 010374 Bucharest, RO;
[email protected]
2 Bucharest University of Economic Studies, 6-8 Piața Romană, 010374 Bucharest, RO;
[email protected] (corresponding author) Received: August 2, 2023
Revised: September 7, 2023
Accepted: September 21, 2023
Published: December 10, 2023

Abstract: Customer relationship management (CRM) became one of the marketing practices that
is assumed to bring success to companies in recent years. Therefore, the present research aims
to identify the level of development of CRM in the top ten consumer goods companies as ranked
at world level in 2021. Different models describe components of the CRM and the present
research uses the theoretical framework proposed by Sin et al. (2005) that comprises four CRM
dimensions: key customer focus, CRM organization, knowledge management and technology-
based CRM. The methodology employed includes documentary research based on the public
information available on the websites of the selected companies. Two types of analyses are
conducted, descriptive analysis and comparative analysis. On overall, the dimension that is the
most visible is the key customer focus, while the dimension that is the least visible is CRM
organization. The results reveal that CRM is present in all top ten companies, but at different
levels of development. US companies are more oriented towards CRM than companies originating
from other countries. Companies that have a more developed CRM act in the direction of all four
CRM dimensions.

Keywords: customer relationship management (CRM); CRM dimensions; consumer goods; web
analysis.

Introduction

As more and more customers become the centre of the marketing activity, the higher is
the interest around their individual preferences (Kumar & Reinartz, 2018). Customer
relationship management (CRM) is one way to deal with and try to better satisfy
customers. CRM has gained popularity in the last decades due to the accelerated
development of information technology that supports its development. Yet, the concept
behind CRM is not revolutionary. It is the technology evolution that offers new and easier
opportunities to manage information and communication (Eichorn, 2004), so necessary
in CRM. Customer management on a long-term period is important in order to generate
profit for the organizations, especially when is coupled with process and product
innovations (Guerola-Navarro et al., 2021a). High degree of evolution in the business
environment and heightened competitiveness into volatile economic context generate
more interest for the management of the customers (Kumar & Reinartz, 2018).
Organizations adopting CRM achieve improved performance and develop a higher
competitiveness because of their changes in structure and operations (Chalmeta, 2006;
Guerola-Navarro et al., 2021a). A better relationship with the customers can finally lead
to increased loyalty, retention, and profit (Ngai, 2005). Moreover, CRM can be used in
improving new products development, consequently reducing failure rates (Ernst et al.,
2010). So, CRM is an orientation with beneficial consequences at multiple levels in an
organization.

In the context of increased importance of CRM, as an organizational strategy in recent

years, it is of interest to understand how CRM develops at company level. The research

How to cite
Rîpa, A. I., & Nicolescu, L. (2023). Customer Relationship Management. Websites Analysis of the Top
Ten Consumer Goods Companies. Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy, 11(4), 352-371.
DOI 10.2478/mdke-2023-0022
ISSN: 2392-8042 (online)
Journal Abbreviation: Manag. Dyn. Knowl. Econ.
https://content.sciendo.com/view/journals/mdke/mdke-overview.xml
353 | Alexandru Ioan RÎPA, Luminița NICOLESCU
Customer Relationship Management. Websites Analysis of the Top Ten Consumer Goods Companies

question that the study aims to answer is “What is the level of development of the CRM in
consumer goods companies?”. Further on, the research objectives envisage to: a) assess the
existence and development of the main CRM dimensions at company level and b) compare
companies, in respect to their levels of development of CRM.

Therefore, the present paper has the purpose to analyse the orientation towards CRM of
some of the top companies at world level from the fast-moving consumer goods field.
Consumer goods companies have been chosen, as they have a direct relationship with
customers. The study is based on the in-depth and detailed analysis of the public
information present on the companies’ websites. Sin, Tse and Yim (2005) conceptual
framework is used to analyse the dimensions of CRM. The results illustrate that, even
though most of the companies incorporate activities related to CRM, there are both
similarities and differences in the way CRM is applied at organizational level. Also, the key
customer focus dimension of CRM is prevalent in all companies, while other dimensions
are less visible.

The sections of the paper are the following: the next section focuses on how customer
relationship management is perceived in the literature; the following section presents the
methodology used for the present research; the third section illustrates the results of the
analysis and the paper ends with the conclusion section, that presents the implications
and the limitations of the study, as well as suggestions for future research.

Customer relationship management (CRM) in the literature

CRM definitions

In literature several authors have tried to define CRM and there is no consensus one clear
definition, as CRM are seen in the literature from different perspectives: tactical and
narrow, strategic, and broad and integrated customer oriented technological solutions
(Al-Homery et al., 2023). However, most definitions are built around the customer, as they
contain a customer-oriented component. One of the first definitions belongs to Swift
(2001, p. 12): “Customer relationship management is an enterprise approach to
understanding and influencing customer behaviour through meaningful communication
in order to improve customer acquisition, customer retention, customer loyalty and
customer profitability”. Payne and Frow (2009, p. 11) underline the importance of process
integration across departments within an organization and define CRM as “a cross-
functional strategic approach concerned with creating improved shareholder value
through the development of appropriate relationships with key customers and customer
segments”. Same interest in mentioning the collaboration between different functions of
the organization can be observed at Goldenberg (2015, p. 3): “Customer relationship
management is a business approach that integrates people, process, and technology to
maximize relationships with all customers, providing seamless collaboration between all
customer-facing functions”. Srivastava, Chandra and Srivastava (2019) point out that
organizations that implement CRM are customer-centric businesses which aim to satisfy
customers. For those organizations CRM represents an aggregation of strategies and
processes with proper software behind.

CRM dimensions

In the literature, CRM is described as consisting of various dimensions. Table 1 reveals the
main dimensions identified by different researchers and authors for CRM. In their
literature review Al-Homery et al. (2023) point out the multitude of facets and
components for CRM, identifying even divergent trends from the perspective of focusing
on one element or another. Also, Table 1 highlights some of the dimensions of the different
models overlap. In the current paper, the main dimensions used to characterize CRM are
the ones developed by Sin et al. (2005): Key Customer Focus, CRM Organization,
Knowledge Management and Technology-based CRM.
 Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy | 354
Vol.11 (2023) no.4, pp.352-371; DOI 10.2478/mdke-2023-0022

Table 1. CRM dimensions in the literature

CRM dimensions/pillars Authors
Personnel
Organization Raab et al. (2016)
Technology

Developed by: Sin et al. (2005)

Used by: Abdullateef et al. (2010);
Key customer focus
Mohammed & Rashid (2012); Mohammad et
CRM organization
al. (2013); Yim et al. (2004); Chetioui et al.
Knowledge management
(2017); Sofi et al. (2020); AlQershi et al.
Technology-based CRM
(2020); Al-Gasawneh et al. (2021); Hanaysha
& Al-Shaikh (2022); Al-Azzam (2016)

Organizational alignment
CRM technology
Pozza et al. (2018)
Customer management
CRM strategy implementation

CRM Capability:
• Information generation
• Information dissemination
• Responsiveness Jossiasen et al. (2014)
• CRM System Investments:
• CRM activity investments
• Relative CRM expenses

Information sharing
Customer partnership
Developed by: Ghafari et al. (2011)
Long term relationship
Used by: Shokouhyar et al. (2021)
Joint problem solving
Technology based CRM
Customer orientation
CRM technology
Ali et al. (2019)
CRM processes
CRM organization
Customer identification
Customer attraction Developed by: Ngai (2005)
Customer retention Used by: Guerola-Navarro et al. (2021b)
Customer development
Interaction management
Relationship development
Long et al. (2013)
Quality of services
Behavior of the employees

CRM Process:
• Customer information management
• Customer segment value management
Ernst et al. (2010)
• Multi-channel management
CRM Technology
CRM Reward Systems
Source: own processing based on literature

Next, Figure 1 presents synthetically the model.

355 | Alexandru Ioan RÎPA, Luminița NICOLESCU
Customer Relationship Management. Websites Analysis of the Top Ten Consumer Goods Companies

• Customer-centric marketing
• Organizational structure
• Key customer lifetime value
• Organization-wide commitment
identification
of resources
• Interactive cocreation marketing
• Human resources management
• Personalization

1. Key Customer
2. CRM Organization
Focus
CRM
Dimensions
4. Technology-based 3. Knowledge
CRM Management

• Knowledge learning and

• Accurate customer data
generation
• Software and hardware tools
• Knowledge dissemination and
• Databases, data warehouses, data sharing
mining
• Knowledge responsiveness

Figure 1. The CRM dimensions in Sin et al. (2005) model

Source: own processing

Key customer focus

Focusing on the key customers ensures a constant improvement in the goods or services
that an organization sells them, by for example personalizing its offering. This dimension
of CRM has four main facets: customer-centric marketing, key customer lifetime value
identification, personalization and interactive co-creation marketing (Sin et al., 2005).

Doing marketing from a customer centric perspective implies understanding and

satisfying the needs, desires and preferences of selected consumers (Sheth et al., 2000)
and treat consumers according to their level of strategic importance for the company
(Ryals & Knox, 2001). Customer-centric marketing is mandatory for a company in order
to develop an effective relationship marketing strategy. According to Vandermerwe
(2004) deep customer focus cannot be achieved only through CRM software
implementation or out of the box innovations. Companies have to encourage an internal
attitude towards customer centricity and identify with this value.

Customer lifetime value is an assessment way of the profit that each customer generates
during his or her lifecycle. The measurement is very complex as it requires large data sets,
forecasting techniques and future consumption behaviour and comprehensive analyses
on the accuracy of the model used to determine the lifetime value (Chang et al., 2012).

Personalization (in marketing) stands for developing tailored products or services for
individual needs of the customers. A personalized offer helps customers to reduce the time
spent to search and choose for the needed product or service (Chandra et al., 2022). The
personalization process has three steps: learning what the customers’ preferences are,
matching the organization’s offer to their preference and evaluating the two previous
steps (Murthi & Sarkar, 2003). Personalization becomes harder as the needs and
resources of the customers are more diverse and their purchase behaviour is harder to
predict (Sin et al., 2005).

Interactive co-creation marketing connects customers and companies in order to interact

and create value (Galvagno & Dalli, 2014) and involves both marketers and customers
 Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy | 356
Vol.11 (2023) no.4, pp.352-371; DOI 10.2478/mdke-2023-0022

interacting in different aspects of the product design and production (Narayandas &
Rangan, 2004). Value co-creation behaviour has a direct influence on attitudinal loyalty,
as customers may experience different emotions toward a product, this influencing their
preference for a certain supplier or recommendation to third parties. Attitudinal
behaviour does not necessarily drive to the actual purchase (Cossío-Silva et al., 2016).
Organizations and individual customers improve loyalty, generate relationship value, and
reduce the costs through collaboration, communication and cooperation organization (Sin
et al., 2005).

CRM organization

Organizations may take into account implementing CRM at all levels (Sofi et al., 2020).
Moreover, a CRM oriented organization appears when companies foster an internal
working environment through modern tools and proper tracking systems (Mechinda &
Patterson, 2011). There are three mandatory aspects that a company must work on in
order to organize its internal environment around CRM: organizational structure,
organization-wide commitment of resources and human resources management (Sin et
al., 2005).

Organizational structure is important as all the divisions within the company have to work
for a common goal (Sin et al., 2005). Companies have to establish a structure for its
functions, so that the entire CRM communication can be easily shared across departments
(Mohammad et al., 2013). From an organization point of view, companies have switched
from classical hierarchical structures to matrix structures, to better organize the complex
activities they conduct.

Organization-wide commitment of resources is the next step after organizational

structure is settled and it has the purpose to properly integrate resources such as: sales
and marketing capabilities, technical expertise, service excellence capabilities (Sin et al.,
2005). According to Hooley et al. (2005) marketing resources have an impact on customer
satisfaction and loyalty, this indirectly generating financial performance. CRM involves
coordination across several departments. Therefore, companies must be able to
coordinate expertise from several people within different departments. Input from
employees who work in technical and support departments is also required for large scale
projects. Because companies have switched to matrix structures, the newer and more
complex type of structure facilitate an easier dissemination of manpower resources and
knowledge across departments (Gillard, 2009).

Human resources management is another element of the CRM organization dimension.

According to Al-Refaie (2015), human resources management has several responsibilities
such as employee recruitment and training, identifying staff needs, measure performance
and offer proper compensation. Internal marketing that addresses employees, is
important for human resources management and for its contribution to the development
of CRM. Internal marketing is based on four processes: market training, internal
communication, reward organization and employee involvement (Sin et al, 2005). Abstein
and Spieth (2014) suggest that human resources management is contributing to
innovative work behaviour of employees and reduces work -life conflict. Well-motivated
employees can better contribute to foster CRM within organizations.

Knowledge management

The third dimension of CRM is knowledge management. In a highly competitive business

environment, knowledge creation and diffusion are becoming crucial for a company’s
success. Therefore, knowledge is treated as a valuable commodity rooted in products and
employees (Dalkir, 2005). Sin et al. (2005) explains that in regards with CRM, knowledge
represents a company’s learnings through experience or empirical studies. They consider
that the three facets of knowledge management are: knowledge learning and generation,
knowledge dissemination and sharing, knowledge responsiveness.
357 | Alexandru Ioan RÎPA, Luminița NICOLESCU
Customer Relationship Management. Websites Analysis of the Top Ten Consumer Goods Companies

Learning and generating knowledge about the customer can be accomplished directly and
indirectly. To do that, a company needs a two-way communication system and an
interactive feedback system. Knowledge generation is translated into a 360-degree
consumer view (Sin et. al., 2005).

Dissemination and sharing of knowledge are generating enlarged information for the
organization and its customers (Groff & Jones, 2003). Sharing process can be done either
in written or verbal and is meant to help others to solve issues, generate ideas or
implement procedures (Wang & Noe, 2010). Employees who share knowledge with their
co-workers help themselves and the organization to evolve. Consequently, knowledge is a
source for competitive advantage and many companies have designed systems and
encouraged personnel to share the knowledge (Yang & Wu, 2008).

Knowledge responsiveness is represented by the adaptability of the company to offer

customized products or services to their clients, after segmenting them based on the
learned and disseminated knowledge (Sin et al., 2005). Organizations’ responsiveness is
based on flexibility and dialogue. Through organizational responsiveness companies can
face changes and environmental fluctuations easier (Opara, 2022). Being flexible involves
a quick reconfiguration of the processes in order to meet new requirements from the
market via sharing information across the organization (Hoyt et al., 2007).

Technology-based CRM

Organizations that use technology-based CRM to strengthen their relationship with

customers use IT infrastructure and IT applications. Moreover, those organizations focus
on automation of the business process such as marketing, sales, or customer services
(Hanaysha & Al-Shaikh, 2022). With the help of technology, customer data is gathered and
analysed (Chetioui et al., 2017) and IT systems contribute to business improvement and
processes optimization (Badwan et al., 2017). The fast evolution of information
technology helped organizations to establish new ways of interacting with customers
(Harrigan et al., 2015). Technology is so important in CRM implementation that some
authors consider that CRM is actually a technology or a process of data mining (Soltani et
al., 2018). Authors consider that data mining techniques contribute to extract information
of value from huge data sets that is used further to develop useful information about
customers. In this context, there are authors that even defined data mining CRM (DCRM)
as a separate form of CRM (Pynadath et al., 2023). Besides the use of big data, other
technological trends that can contribute to the development of “perfect” CRM systems
include IoT, Social, Mobile and Cloud (Avdagić-Golub et al., 2022). Anyhow, technology
plays an important role in CRM due to the fact that through technology organizations
collect, analyse, and interpret consumer data to predict future behaviour. Technology-
based CRM is regarded as one of the main practices in CRM, as a technological solution
that is applied in the fields of marketing, customer services and support (Guerola-Navarro
et al., 2021a).

Methodology

The purpose of the present paper is to assess the presence and the extent of the
development of the customer relationship management function as included in the
information made public by top multinational companies. Accordingly, the research
question is “What is the level of development of the CRM in consumer goods companies?”.
The associated research objectives are: a) assess the existence and development of the
main CRM dimensions at company level; and b) to compare companies, in respect to their
levels of development of CRM. The information to assess CRM is collected from the
websites of companies. Websites contain representative information that companies wish
to make public about their activities (Nicolescu & Dominici, 2021) and therefore, are
considered a good source of information to be analyzed in order to identify how CRM
through its dimensions is present in companies.
 Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy | 358
Vol.11 (2023) no.4, pp.352-371; DOI 10.2478/mdke-2023-0022

To reach this purpose, the top ten world-wide consumer goods companies were selected
for analysis. The ten top multinational companies have been identified based on a yearly
ranking that is realized by Consumer Goods Technology using the companies’ annual
revenues. Table 2 includes the list of the top ten companies included in the study with
details on their activities.

We hypothesize that successful companies have a strong customer relationship

management function that comprises and integrates several important dimensions.

Table 2. Top ten consumer goods companies - 2021 ranking

Annual
Name of Country of
No. revenue – Field of activity Main Brands Website
company origin
2021 Bill. $

Nescafe,
Food &
1. Nestle SA 95.701 Switzerland KitKat, www.nestle.com
beverage
Nespresso
United Food &
2. Pepsi Co. 79.474 Pepsi, Lay’s www.pepsico.com
States beverage
Pampers,
Procter& United Personal care & Head &
3. 76.118 www.us.pg.com
Gamble States hygiene Shoulders,
Gillette
Swift,
4. JBS SA 65.454 Brazil Food processing www.jbs.com.br
Pilgrim’s
Beauty &
wellbeing, Dove,
Great
5. Unilever 62.047 personal care, Omo/Persil, www.unilever.com
Britain
home care & Hellman’s
nutrition
Anheuse Budweiser,
6. r-Busch 54.304 Belgium Beverage Corona, www.ab-inbev.com
InBev Stella Artois
Tyson United Tyson,
7. 47.049 Food www.tysonfoods.com
Foods States Jimmy Dean
Wine & spirits,
Fashion &
LVMH Tiffany &
leather, perfume
Moët Co.,
& cosmetics,
8. Henness 45.630 France Christian www.lvmh.com
watches &
y Louis Dior, Moët &
jewellery,
Vuitton Chandon
selective
retailing
Nike, Air
United Athletic
9. Nike, Inc. 44.538 Jordan, www.nike.com
States equipment
Converse
Imperial
Great Davidoff, www.imperialbrands
10. Brands 39.517 Tobacco
Britain Winston plc.com
PLC
Source: https://consumergoods.com/top-100-consumer-goods-companies-2022

The present paper uses as methodology the qualitative content analysis of the official
websites of the multinational companies included in the sample with the aim to identify
the main dimensions of CRM within the selected companies. Data collection was based
solely on the information published by companies on their websites.

The orientation towards CRM was assessed through the existence of the four CRM
dimensions as developed by Sin et. al (2005) on the companies’ official websites’ content.
359 | Alexandru Ioan RÎPA, Luminița NICOLESCU
Customer Relationship Management. Websites Analysis of the Top Ten Consumer Goods Companies

To determine the degree of presence for each dimension, all the website sections were
consulted. Two types of analysis have been conducted: a descriptive analysis and a
comparative analysis through a three-step process.

The documentary analysis and the associated qualitative interpretation followed a three-
step process: a) the first step of the analysis was based on an extensive examination of the
companies’ websites and their sections. The purpose of the in-depth exploration in this
analysis was to identify declarative evidence of the CRM orientation of the company; b) in
the second step of the analysis it was summarized and structured an overview of CRM
dimensions’ credentials on the official website for each company and c) in the third step
of the analysis, a comparative synthesis was conducted using the Sin et al. (2005)
framework for the CRM dimensions and the items for the CRM dimensions’
operationalization. Two categories of elements of the Sin et al. (2005) CRM framework
were used to conduct the two types of analysis: firstly, for the descriptive analysis there
were used the key facets for each of the four main elements of the framework and
secondly, for the comparative analysis, there were used the items that operationalized
each of the CRM dimensions. The next section presents the results of both analyses.

Customer relationship management and dimensions in the top ten multinational

companies

Descriptive analysis

The main four CRM dimensions and their key elements are shortly and synthetically
presented for the top ten companies analysed in the present study.

Key customer focus

The first CRM dimension, the key customer focus, has as main facets the following:
customer-centric marketing, key customer lifetime value identification, personalisation
and interactive co-creation marketing (Sin et al., 2005).

The key customer focus dimension is present in most of the analysed companies, mainly
via its first dimension, the customer-centric marketing, while the other facets are less
visible on the companies’ websites. Companies that offer fast moving consumer goods
focus on the key customers only partially, given the profiles of these companies that sell
products such as food, beverages, cosmetics for a large customer base. For example, at
Nestle, the information on the website suggests a certain level of customer-centric
marketing: the company constantly innovates the market through “creative exploration
and consumer insights” and has a product portfolio which “is always evolving to meet
consumer demands”. Even though, isolating key customers is difficult given the company’s
products profile, Nestle develops specific products for specific groups of customers (ex:
the introduction of compostable capsules based on demand from customers). For PepsiCo,
the key customer dimension is also present only via a customer-centric approach, as the
company states that it plans to be “even more consumer-centric”, by “listening to, learning
from and being led by the communities we serve is the only way we can take on the biggest
challenges facing our global society”, so that “in each market, our approach is customized
to meet local needs”. In this way the company shows that it makes an effort to find out
what are the customer needs and that has the interest in providing customized products
to their consumers. P&G established very clearly its consumer centric approach by
considering that “people are the centre of all we do”, the company being “obsessed with
finding solutions to the everyday problems” that their consumers are facing, in order to
anticipate “consumers’ potential problems years in advance”. At JBS S.A, the Brazilian
origin multinational food company, the key customer focus and customer centric
marketing results from the company’s declarations on its website that it wants to
“optimize the efforts for developing products with higher demand among customers” and
to offer “exclusive products for each region, in order to meet demands from different parts
 Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy | 360
Vol.11 (2023) no.4, pp.352-371; DOI 10.2478/mdke-2023-0022

of Brazil and the world”. Unilever demonstrates its customer-centric marketing as it uses
different channels to find out what are the needs of its consumers: partnerships with retail
chains and access to technology are used to “generate insights” and “create shopper
profiles” that allow “to target and personalize campaigns”. Unilever is aware of the fact
that having business success is strongly related to the capability to “adapt to shifting
consumer needs” and “anticipate and respond” to the changes people encounter all over
the world. The company’s aim is to understand consumers’ “wants and needs better”, so
that “best products and services possible” to be offered. Anheuser-Busch InBev, the
Belgian global company activating in the drink and brewing sectors is customer centric,
as it makes and effort to meet consumers’ needs through its “digital platforms, dedicated
research labs, technology centres”. In addition, it responds to new market needs “as
consumer trends evolve”, by respecting the “consumer desire of choice” and linking with
consumers “by offering meaningful experiences”.

As a concrete example, the company developed a direct-to-consumer channel “to provide

the best experience across all beverage occasions”. This was done through an e-commerce
platform that connect consumers from Brazil, for example, with retailers “to deliver cold
beer straight to their doorsteps within 30 minutes”. This organization identified that
“customers demand for premium brews has reached new heights” and developed its own
infrastructure to react and bring its visions faster into the market. Tyson Foods declares
that is represented by a “caring team that puts the customer first”. This organization
understands “consumers are always looking for quality and value” and that a new lifestyle
(that focuses on convenience) evolves. They demonstrate their customer centric
marketing, as they know that consumers’ preferences go towards “healthier meal options”
and “foods that are fresher, less processed”. Therefore, the organization is constantly
working on developing “products that meet these needs – products that are all-natural,
organic, gluten-free”.

LVMH Group, the holder of the Louis Vuitton brand, presents itself as “the world leader in
luxury” and its customer centric approach is reflected by the effort this company makes in
order to understand consumer needs. This is identified in the job-related section of the
website. For example, an artistic director has “to observe fashion trends and know how to
anticipate customer needs”. Also, a perfumer, must “identify innovations, trends” as part
of the job tasks. Nike makes an effort to understand consumers and to improve their
experience with the brand by bringing together advanced technologies with “creative
thinkers”. It has collaborations with “commerce leaders, product and site merchants,
digital marketers, strategists, data scientists, designers and analytics talent” and offer
consumers “world-class retail and ecommerce experiences”. Imperial Brands PLC, the
British company that operates in the tobacco industry, has a customer centric marketing,
as it argues that it can “adapt and respond to consumer needs and market trends” with
innovative solutions. An example is Zone X bamboo fibre pouches developed to capitalize
on “consumer interest in modern oral nicotine products in certain markets”.

The consumer centric marketing dimension is present at all companies. Personalisation

as another facet of key customer focus, is less present on the websites of companies. The
Nestle company realizes personalisation rather at group and market segment level, than
at individual level. PepsiCo also focuses on personalisation of products and services as it
has the capacity to “develop personalized nutrition solutions beyond the athletes” via its
Advanced Personalization Ideation Center. This center’s mission is to “deliver actionable,
personalized nutrition solutions across PepsiCo brands, to help support individuals on
their health and wellness journey”. LVMH Group declares the use of personalisation as one
important facet of the key customer dimension, via shopping experiences, rather than
products. Due to the uniqueness of each customer, the organization offers a shopping
experience to every single client. Its objective is to “transform shopping into a unique
experience” through “constant innovation, digitalization and personalization of
relationships”. Nike’s effort to provide customized and personalised services to its
consumers is well represented by its “Nike Training Club app”. This is “an app for
everybody”, giving people the possibility of doing their workouts anywhere, serving
361 | Alexandru Ioan RÎPA, Luminița NICOLESCU
Customer Relationship Management. Websites Analysis of the Top Ten Consumer Goods Companies

“athletes in all phases and life stages”. Through its digital capabilities Nike is “reimagining
how design and technology meet to serve consumers more directly and personally”,
offering “highly personalized, lifelong relationships with 100 million consumer members”.
It can be observed that personalisation for the consumer goods companies is rather
related to services associated to their products than the physical products themselves.

The interactive co-creation marketing is a dimension of CRM that is also less visible on the
companies’ websites. However, at Nike, even though interactive co-creation marketing is
not present in terms of product design and production, it is present in terms of
“communicating openly and transparently” with internal and external stakeholders in
order to customize their offering. Also, the dimension is highlighted as P&G as they have a
declarative conversation with the customer in their public information published on the
website: “we listen to you - making sure the products we design meet your expectations
for safety and performance”. Although members of this organization “find inspiration in
people” and do their best to solve “the problems real consumers face every day” there is
no exact mention on the website of the precise forms of an ongoing dialogue with
customers.

About the identification of the key customer lifetime value, there is no information on the
websites of the analysed companies, but it is not expected, as this is confidential
information.

CRM organization

The second CRM dimension, CRM organization, has as main elements the following:
organizational structure, organization-wide commitment of resources and human
resource management (Sin et al., 2005).

The CRM organization at Nestle can be characterized by organizational structure that is

based on customer-focused teams and marketing employees that have the role to
“encompasses all aspects of brand building”, while sales employees are “handling shopper
management, customer relationship” in order to delight consumers and help them “live
happier and healthier lives”. PepsiCo has an organizational structure that nurtures
customer relationships, as the company fosters “a passionate culture of engagement that
motivates employees to be their best”. The company’s website includes a section on
careers with available jobs around the globe, as it has the desire to keep a “diverse and
inclusive workplace” for employees capable of keeping good customer relationships.
Procter & Gamble is operating a research & development department which consists of
“in-house collective of experts who innovate with intent, sculpting science into irresistibly,
superior consumer solutions”, proving its organization design around customers. Unilever
has a complex organizational chart that proves that the company is organized around its
customers. Its sales and marketing expertise in CRM, is depicted by the several functions
with interest on consumers: marketing, data and analytics, customer development,
research & development. The marketing department is structured in brand teams,
business teams, digital hubs, media, consumer insights and artwork experience.
Anheuser-Busch InBev has in its organizational structure a large number of functions and
tools focused on consumers: digital platforms, research labs, technology innovation
centres, accelerators, direct-to-consumer channels, data analytics, IT & Solutions,
illustrating an organizational structure focused on customer. Tyson Foods is organized
with a structure around the consumers, as depicted by the existence of several customer-
related departments such as research and development, data science and analytics, data
engineering and innovation centres. Nike has an organizational structure that is based on
its customers: departments like marketing, retail stores, sports marketing, strategic
planning, technology are all customer oriented. The marketing functions are “using
channels ranging from retail stores to social media” in order to “connect the science and
art of Nike innovations to the hearts and minds of athletes around the world”.

Many of the analysed companies have an organizational structure that can nurture CRM.
 Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy | 362
Vol.11 (2023) no.4, pp.352-371; DOI 10.2478/mdke-2023-0022

The organizational commitment of resources is not made public by many companies in

the sample. Yet, this is present at Nestle, as the company provides its employees “the tools
and information to take right decisions quickly and easily” through digital evolution and
usage of artificial intelligence, illustrating the commitment of technological resources to
CRM. Also, PepsiCo commits its knowledge resources to serve the customer. For example,
the company’s employees engage with “key external stakeholders to educate about the
role PepsiCo products play in increasing consumer choice and deliver a broader range of
healthier products”.

Very detailed human resources management information is not available at neither of the
companies analysed, as being sensitive information. Nonetheless, some companies
include some information on relevant human resource activities. For example, at Nestle
the customer orientation of the company is present as one of the six business principles
of Nestle is “Focusing on Consumers”. P&G provides employee training for skill
development, as it offers an “expansive array of skill-building programs that allow
employees to grow their individual skills”, including for example trainings on data
processing and management of security incidents regarding consumer information. There
are companies that do not have at all information related to CRM organization on their
websites: JBS SA, LVMH Group and Imperial Brands PLC.

Knowledge management

The third dimension of CRM, knowledge management has three key facets: knowledge
learning and generation, knowledge dissemination and sharing and knowledge
responsiveness (Sin et al., 2005).

Knowledge management at Nestle is represented by knowledge learning and generation

as the organization combines “global resources with local know-how to create value for
both society and shareholders”. Also, PepsiCo is involved in knowledge learning and
generation. The company’s website provides a customer service section where consumers
can share comments or compliments, concerns or issues, general questions, suggestions,
and ideas. P&G learns from its customers as it has a very comprehensive “Contact us” page
within its website. The contact points are structured based on the type of stakeholders.
For example, this webpage is offering dedicated contact point for: partners and suppliers,
media, retail customers, non-profit organizations, customers away from home and general
contact data for each branch in which country where it operates, allowing the collection
of specific and differentiated information. Similarly, JBS SA has a “Contac us” page in its
website with the purpose to “clarify doubts, make compliments, give suggestions or
criticism”. Unilever strongly believes in knowing the customer needs. This company has
“teams of analysts” that process numerous “amounts of data” received daily from the
consumers”, in order to “meet the constantly evolving needs of consumers”. Anheuser-
Busch InBev uses digital platforms, research laboratories and a technology centre, for
“unlocking and gaining unprecedented insight into the needs of our consumers and
customers to deliver more innovation, more sustainability, more occasions and more
value”. Tyson Foods has a Data Science and Analytics function for “developing algorithms
to surface new insights” and at the same time, the company’s culinary professionals look
at trends and listen to consumers in order to get innovative. The LVMH Group states on
its site that there are job tasks that require employees to “observe fashion trends”,
“anticipate customer needs”, “to meet specific demands of customers”, but there are no
further details about the concrete tools used for this purpose. Nike is very consumer
centric and uses different means for learning about consumers: consumer insights and
analytics, based on “big data” which is turned “into digestible decision-making tools”. Also,
the company analyses “consumer needs and market capacity” through its merchandising
team. Imperial Brands also learns about consumers by “investing to support a consistent
approach to consumer insight” and is continuing “to cater to the changing needs of
consumers”. All companies pursue knowledge learning, but only some of them focus on
big data analysis and foster detailed knowledge generation.
363 | Alexandru Ioan RÎPA, Luminița NICOLESCU
Customer Relationship Management. Websites Analysis of the Top Ten Consumer Goods Companies

Also, knowledge dissemination and sharing are present at Nestle as it has mechanisms to
collect information from customers (the “Contact us” section as a two-way communication
system) and from other stakeholders, as it declares “We believe it's essential to engage
with stakeholders and bring in relevant external views on important issues. This approach
enables us to create opportunities for knowledge sharing, open discussion, and deep
dialogue”. PepsiCo disseminates and shares knowledge on its websites. For example, the
company has relevant sections for consumers, such as “the nutrition center”, “resource
centre” and “events and webinars” where consumers can educate themselves about topics
as nutrition, ingredients, health. At, P&G consumers can subscribe and receive regular
information. JBS SA mentions an “interface between JBS and its main stakeholders”,
among which consumers, with the purpose of “enabling a constant dialogue between the
parties of interest”. Unilever enabled a two-way communication with customers: “We will
use a combination of channels, which includes product labels, websites, careline phone
numbers and/or consumer leaflets to communicate openly with our consumers”. The
company can be contacted through the “contact us” form and its social media platforms.
Nike uses two-way communication channels via the Nike “get help” section where
consumers can contact the company via phone or messages and can find out information
on shipping, delivery, order, returns and offers.

Most companies disseminate and share information with their customers. All companies
have a “Contact us” function, but only in some companies this is more complex and more
intensively used for both knowledge learning and generation and knowledge
dissemination and sharing.

Knowledge responsiveness is present at Nestle in the sense that Nestle’s portfolio “is
always evolving to meet consumer demands” and is constantly adapted “with products
that are right for consumers” and the company wishes to “make a positive impact on
people’s lives”, based on the information collected from the customers and markets. At JBS
SA the company tracks the consumer profiles and makes “investments in research and
technology”, in order to “make JBS a ground-braking company” in innovating products.
Anheuser-Busch InBev uses the insights gained using the technology innovation centers
help to a better understanding of consumers’ needs and “create new occasions and
experiences” for them. Tyson Foods transforms consumer insights into “ambitious and
imaginative foods” as well as “breakthrough new products” through its research and
development teams. Nike through its “cutting-edge digital product creation capabilities”,
can offer “quicker responses” and through “physical and digital retail”, consumers are
granted “complete access to premium products and immersive experiences every day”.
Therefore, Nike’s employees from retail stores are willing to help customers in a
responsive manner.

Only half of the analysed companies referred to the way they respond to the market and
how they incorporate in their activities the knowledge they collect about the consumer.

Technology-based CRM

The fourth dimension of CRM, technology-based CRM incorporates IT in traditional CRM

and includes aspects such as web-enabled approaches, customer information systems,
automation of customer support and call centers (Sin et al., 2005).

For example, Nestle has hardware and software tools that generate a high capacity of
analysing comprehensive databases: “Quick access to actionable data insights is key to
understanding fast-changing consumer needs”. Also, Nestle improves engagement
processes with consumers as it states: “We are also leveraging AI (artificial intelligence)
with end-to-end analytics to deepen collaboration with customers, prioritize production
and enhance promotion effectiveness”. PepsiCo focuses on collecting and mining “data for
analytical insights” and has a database of its customers (as there is a newsletter in place),
but there is not enough information on the website to assess if the company has the
appropriate technical personnel to provide support for CRM technology. P&G has a
 Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy | 364
Vol.11 (2023) no.4, pp.352-371; DOI 10.2478/mdke-2023-0022

database with customers. Also, employees are trained on “data processing and privacy
obligations” and the “management of security incidents”, indicating that the company has
the right technical personnel to provide technical support for the utilization of computer
technology in building customer relationships. Unilever collects, processes and analyses
big amount of data about the customers and uses customers’ databases for CRM “we have
access to a wide variety of datasets that we use to analyse consumer behaviour”, “we track
over a billion digital consumer connections every day for insights, trends and
opportunities”, “we have teams of analysts working hard to process the dizzying amounts
of data we receive from our consumers each day”. Anheuser-Busch InBev owns a IT &
Solutions team that is performing analytics of big-data, has databases with customers and
has technology innovation centres that are used as “hubs of exploration, piloting and
scaling of artificial intelligence, machine learning, could and data analytics” as well as
“other technology capabilities”.

Tyson Foods has a Data Science and Analytics department where “data scientists are
developing algorithms to surface new insights and improve the decisions”. At Nike,
“knowledge is power” and “data is supreme”. The DevOps engineering team “works to
collect and display metadata for automated services, systems, and technologists that use
Nike data to make decisions”. Nike Global Technology teams “reimagine the future”
through “managing big data and providing leading edge engineering and systems
support”. Through “high interest in consumer science and analytics, digital marketing,
software development, and social media” Nike can offer “personalized digital experiences
through every phase of brand engagement”. The company relies heavily on technology in
its CRM. At Imperial Brands, there is an IT department which provides “new strategies and
technologies that support a <<collaborative, consumer centric, data driven approach>>”,
but no further details are outlined on the website. Some companies do not have on their
websites information about the technologies used for CRM: JBS SA and LVMH Group.

Based on the available public information, it can be stated that the majority of the studied
companies (80%) have the IT infrastructure and technologies required to conduct big data
analysis that is essential for pursuing CRM.

Comparative analysis

This section compares the four CRM dimensions based on the way Sin et al. (2005)
operationalized each dimension. Table 3 presents the comparison of the ten top
companies analysed in terms of presence of the different operational aspects for each of
the four CRM dimensions: key customer focus, CRM organization, knowledge management
and technology-based CRM. As can be noticed the key customer focus is the CRM
dimension that is the most frequently evidenced on the websites of the top ten consumer
goods companies. All companies make an effort to find out what are the customers’ needs
and at the same time, they offer customized products and services to key customers.

The next most visible CRM dimension on the companies’ websites refers to knowledge
management, also in terms of knowledge learning by collecting information in order to
understand the customers’ needs and in terms of two-way communication with
customers. The third CRM dimension noticeable on the websites is the technology
dimension. Most of the companies (7 out of 10) offer information about dealing with big
data in order to know the consumer using both specific hardware and software for this
purpose. The CRM dimension which is the least represented on the companies’ websites
is the CRM organization, mainly because it deals with confidential information. However,
most of the companies have an appropriate organizational structure to implement CRM.

There are companies that have a stronger CRM orientation (as evaluated through the four
CRM dimensions and the way they are operationalized) than others, as depicted by the
information available on their websites. Overall, Nike, the US based company displays the
strongest CRM function, as it is active in 15 out of the 18 activities (18 items used to
operationalize the four dimensions of the CRM). At the opposite end is the French
365 | Alexandru Ioan RÎPA, Luminița NICOLESCU
Customer Relationship Management. Websites Analysis of the Top Ten Consumer Goods Companies

company LVMH Group, that is the least visible in terms of CRM dimensions based on the
information available on the website.

Companies that are active in more than half of the elements used to operationalize CRM
are seen as having a good CRM representation. The top three companies in terms of
visibility of the CRM function are: Nike (15 out of 18), P&G (13 out of 18) and Nestle (12
out of 18), the first two of US origin and the third of European origin. There are other two
companies whose visibility of the CRM is based on more than half of the operationalized
items: PepsiCo and Unilever (11 out of 18). A medium representation of the CRM has
Anheuser-Busch InBev, the Belgian company that has active 9 out of the 18 CRM items.
Companies with less than half of the number of CRM items are seen as being overall less
active in CRM. The least visible in terms of CRM are LVMH Group (4 out of 18), JBS SA and
Imperial Brands (5 out of 18) and Tyson Foods (7 out of 18).

Based on these results, it can be concluded that the hypothesis was partially verified, as
only half of the top ten successful companies have strong representation of the CRM
dimensions and items on their web sites.

Figure 2 presents the hierarchy of the ten analysed companies according to the level of
development of CRM, based on their visibility on the companies’ websites and the number
of CRM items identified at company level.

16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

Figure 2. The CRM level of development and visibility in the analysed companies (the number
of CRM items present in the company)
Source: own processing

Three of the four US companies, part of the top ten consumer goods companies, have a
strong developed CRM, with many of the CRM activities being present and very visible in
these companies.
 Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy | 366
Vol.11 (2023) no.4, pp.352-371; DOI 10.2478/mdke-2023-0022

Table 3. Comparative analysis CRM dimensions in top ten companies

Companies

CRM Dimensions LVMH Moët

Procter& Anheuser- Tyson Nike, Imperial
Nestle Pepsi Co. JBS SA Unilever Hennessy
Gamble Busch InBev Foods Inc. Brands PLC
Louis Vuitton
A. Key Customer Focus
Customized offerings via ongoing
✓
dialogue with key customers
Customized services and products to
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
key customers
Effort to find out what key customers
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
need
Product / service modified according
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
to customer needs
B. CRM Organization
Sales & marketing expertise and
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
resources to succeed in CRM
Trainings to develop the skills for
acquiring and deepening customer ✓ ✓
relationships
Clear business goals related to
customer acquisition, development,
retention, and reactivation
Employee performance measured
and based on meeting customer
needs and on successfully serving the
customer
Organizational structure meticulously
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
designed around customers
367 | Alexandru Ioan RÎPA, Luminița NICOLESCU
Customer Relationship Management. Websites Analysis of the Top Ten Consumer Goods Companies

Table 3. Comparative analysis CRM dimensions in top ten companies - continued

Companies
Nestle Pepsi Co. Procter& JBS SA Unilever Anheuser- Tyson LVMH Moët Nike, Imperial
CRM Dimensions Gamble Busch InBev Foods Hennessy Inc. Brands PLC
Louis Vuitton
C. Knowledge management
Employees are willing to help
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
customers in a responsive manner
Understanding the needs of key
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
customers via knowledge learning
Channels to enable ongoing, two-
way communication with key ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
customers
Customers can expect prompt
✓ ✓ ✓
service from employees
D. Technology-based CRM
The right technical personnel to
provide support in utilization of ✓
computer technology in CRM
The right software to serve ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
customers
The right hardware to serve ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
customers
Individual customer information is
✓ ✓
available at every point of contact
Maintenance of a comprehensive
✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
database of customers
TOTAL 12 11 13 5 11 9 7 4 15 5
Source: Authors’ interpretation based on the official websites of companies
 Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy | 368
Vol.11 (2023) no.4, pp.352-371; DOI 10.2478/mdke-2023-0022

Conclusions

The paper started from a number of conceptual models depicting the CRM at company
level and the Sin et al. (2005) theoretical framework was chosen to pursue the research
purpose. The study aimed to identify the level of development of the CRM activities in the
top ten consumer goods companies, as ranked in 2021. The four CRM dimensions (key
customer focus, CRM organization, knowledge management and technology-based CRM)
proposed by Sin et al. (2005) and the way they were operationalized were used to collect
data about the companies from their websites and to compare them. Based on the public
data available on the official websites of the ten selected companies, two types of analyses
were conducted: a) a descriptive analysis that identified the main elements of the four
CRM dimensions and b) a comparative analysis that compared companies according to
their level of CRM development.

The results of the research reveal that CRM is present in most of the top ten consumer
goods companies. There are certain CRM dimensions that are more developed than others
in the top companies: the key customer focus is fully present in all ten companies, while
CRM organization is only present through a limited number of activities and within a small
number of companies.

In terms of organizations, US origin companies seem more oriented towards adopting

CRM, with Nike being the top CRM company, while PepsiCo and P&G follow closely. The
companies with the lowest level of development and visibility of the CRM taking into
account our data sample originated from France, Brazil and Great Britain.

The present paper has theoretical implications as it applies, tests, and shows the validity
of the CRM framework developed by Sin et al. (2005) in a multi-company and multi-
national context. The study also has practical implications, because based on the results
of the current study, any of the analysed companies can improve their visibility of the CRM
principles and practices. Also, the study may set an example for other companies willing
to incorporate CRM in their activities and makes it visible.

As any other research, the present research has its limitations, in the sense that the
methodology employed comprised only one type of data source (the websites), thus this
limits the data that can be collected by making it dependent on the availability of
information on the website. Future research can complement the present one by
extending the methodology and by integrating qualitative interviews with representatives
of the companies to integrate new data source in order to have a more comprehensive
overview of the CRM at company level. The paper has used one of the classical frameworks
of CRM, but newer conceptual directions can be of interest. Another direction for future
research can be to approach empirically the new trend in CRM, namely the one that
contributed to the development of sustainable customer relationship management
(SCRM), which takes into account the social, economic and environmental impacts of the
CRM strategies and practices (Ferrer-Estévez & Chalmeta, 2023).

References

Abdullateef, A. O., Mokhtar, S. S., & Yusoff, R. Z. (2010) The Impact of CRM dimensions on
call center performance. International Journal of Computer Science and Network
Security, 10(12), 184-195.
Abstein, A., & Spieth, P. (2014). Exploring HRM meta-features that Foster employees’
innovative work behaviour in times of increasing work-life conflict. Creativity and
Innovation Management, 23(2), 211–225. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12053
Avdagić-Golub, E., Kosovac, A., Čolaković, A., & Begović, M. (2022, May). New trends and
approaches in the development of customer relationship management.
In International Conference “New Technologies, Development and
369 | Alexandru Ioan RÎPA, Luminița NICOLESCU
Customer Relationship Management. Websites Analysis of the Top Ten Consumer Goods Companies

Applications” (pp. 695-703). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/

10.1007/978-3-031-05230-9_83
Al-Azzam, A. F. M. (2016). The impact of customer relationship management on hotels
performance in Jordan. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 7(4),
200-210.
Al-Gasawneh, J. A., Anuar, M. M., Dacko-Pikiewicz, Z., & Saputra, J. (2021). The impact of
customer relationship management dimensions on service quality. Polish Journal
of Management Studies, 23(2), 24–41. https://doi.org/10.17512/
pjms.2021.23.2.02
Al-Homery, H. A., Ashari, H., & Ahmad, A. (2023). Customer relationship management: a
literature review approach. International Journal of Global Optimization and Its
Application, 2(1), 20-38. https://doi.org/10.56225/ijgoia.v2i1.160
Ali, R., Ali, S., Ahmad, M., & Nazish, Z. (2019). Impact of CRM capability dimensions on
organizational performance. SMART Journal of Business Management Studies,
15(2), 80. https://doi.org/10.5958/2321-2012.2019.00017.4
AlQershi, N., Mokhtar, S. S., & Abas, Z. B. (2020). Innovative CRM and performance of SMEs:
the moderating role of relational capital. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology,
Market, and Complexity, 6(4), 155. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc6040155
Al-Refaie, A. (2015). Effects of human resource management on hotel performance using
structural equation modeling. Computers in Human Behavior, 43, 293–303. https:/
/doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.016
Badwan, J. J., Al Shobaki, M. J., Abu Naser, S. S., & Abu Amuna, Y. M. (2017). Adopting
technology for customer relationship management in higher educational
institutions. International Journal of Engineering and Information Systems, 1(1),
20-28.
Chalmeta, R. (2006). Methodology for customer relationship management. Journal of
Systems and Software, 79(7), 1015–1024. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jss.2005.10.018
Chandra, S., Verma, S., Lim, W. M., Kumar, S., & Donthu, N. (2022). Personalization in
personalized marketing: trends and ways forward. Psychology & Marketing,
39(8), 1529–1562. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21670
Chang, W., Chang, C., & Li, Q. (2012). Customer lifetime value: a review. Social Behavior and
Personality: An International Journal, 40(7), 1057–1064. https://doi.org/
10.2224/sbp.2012.40.7.1057
Chetioui, Y., Abbar, H., & Benabbou, Z. (2017). Do CRM dimensions improve hotels
occupancy rates? Evidence from the Moroccan hospitality sector. International
Journal of Management Excellence, 9(3), 1172. https://doi.org/10.17722/
ijme.v9i3.378
Cossío-Silva, F. J., Revilla-Camacho, M. Á., Vega-Vázquez, M., & Palacios-Florencio, B.
(2016). Value co-creation and customer loyalty. Journal of Business Research,
69(5), 1621–1625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.028
Dalkir, L. (2005). Knowledge Management in Theory and Practice. MIT Press.
Eichorn, F. L. (2004). Internal customer relationship management (IntCRM): a framework
for achieving customer relationship management from the inside out. Problems
and Perspectives in Management, 2(1), 154-177.
Ernst, H., Hoyer, W. D., Krafft, M., & Krieger, K. (2010). Customer relationship management
and company performance—the mediating role of new product performance.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(2), 290–306. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11747-010-0194-5
Ferrer-Estévez, M., & Chalmeta, R. (2023). Sustainable customer relationship
management. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 41(2), 244-262. https://doi.org/
10.1108/MIP-06-2022-0266
Frow, P. E., & Payne, A. F. (2009). Customer relationship management: a strategic
perspective. Journal of Business Market Management, 3(1), 7–27. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s12087-008-0035-8
Galvagno, M., & Dalli, D. (2014). Theory of value co-creation: a systematic literature
review. Managing Service Quality, 24(6), 643–683. https://doi.org/10.1108/msq-
09-2013-0187
 Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy | 370
Vol.11 (2023) no.4, pp.352-371; DOI 10.2478/mdke-2023-0022

Ghafari, P., Karjalian, R., & Mashayekhnia, A. (2011). Studying the relationship between
different dimensions of CRM and innovation capabilities in Melli bank of
Iran. World academy of science, engineering and technology, 60(12), 906-10.
Gillard, S. (2009). Soft skills and technical expertise of effective project managers. Issues in
Informing Science and Information Technology, 6, 723–729. https://doi.org/
10.28945/1092
Goldenberg, B. J. (2015). The definitive guide to social CRM: maximizing customer
relationships with social media to gain market insights, customers, and profits.
Pearson Education.
Groff, T., & Jones, T. (2003). Introduction to knowledge management. Routledge.
Guerola-Navarro, V., Oltra-Badenes, R., Gil-Gomez, H., & Iturricha Fernández, A. (2021a).
Customer relationship management (CRM) and innovation: a qualitative
comparative analysis (QCA) in the search for improvements on the firm
performance in winery sector. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 169,
120838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120838
Guerola-Navarro, V., Gil-Gomez, H., Oltra-Badenes, R., & Sendra-García, J. (2021b).
Customer relationship management and its impact on innovation: a literature
review. Journal of Business Research, 129, 83–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jbusres.2021.02.050
Hanaysha, J. R., & Al-Shaikh, M. E. (2022). An examination of customer relationship
management dimensions and employee-based brand equity: a study on ride-
hailing industry in Saudi Arabia. Research in Transportation Business &
Management, 43, 100719. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2021.100719
Harrigan, P., Soutar, G., Choudhury, M. M., & Lowe, M. (2015). Modelling CRM in a social
media age. Australasian Marketing Journal, 23(1), 27–37. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ausmj.2014.11.001
Hooley, G. J., Greenley, G. E., Cadogan, J. W., & Fahy, J. (2005). The performance impact of
marketing resources. Journal of Business Research, 58(1), 18–27. https://doi.org/
10.1016/s0148-2963(03)00109-7
Hoyt, J., Huq, F., & Kreiser, P. (2007). Measuring organizational responsiveness: the
development of a validated survey instrument. Management Decision, 45(10),
1573–1594. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740710837979
Kumar, V., & Reinartz, W. (2018). Customer relationship management. Springer-Verlag
GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2006, 2012, 2018.
Long, C. S., Khalafinezhad, R., Ismail, W. K., & Rasid, S. Z. (2013). Impact of CRM factors on
customer satisfaction and loyalty. Asian Social Science, 9(10), 247. https://
doi.org/10.5539/ass.v9n10p247
Mechinda, P., & Patterson, P. G. (2011). The impact of service climate and service provider
personality on employees’ customer‐oriented behavior in a high‐contact setting.
Journal of Services Marketing, 25(2), 101–113. https://doi.org/10.1108/
08876041111119822
Mohammad, A., bin Rashid, B., & bin Tahir, S. (2013). Assessing the influence of customer
relationship management (CRM) dimensions on organization performance.
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology, 4(3), 228–247. https://doi.org/
10.1108/jhtt-01-2013-0002
Murthi, B. P., & Sarkar, S. (2003). The role of the management sciences in research on
Personalization. Management Science, 49(10), 1344–1362. https://doi.org/
10.1287/mnsc.49.10.1344.17313
Narayandas, D., & Rangan, V. K. (2004). Building and sustaining buyer–seller relationships
in mature industrial markets. Journal of Marketing, 68(3), 63–77. https://doi.org/
10.1509/jmkg.68.3.63.34772
Ngai, E. W. T. (2005). Customer relationship management research (1992‐2002).
Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 23(6), 582–605. https://doi.org/10.1108/
02634500510624147
Nicolescu, L., & Dominici, G. (2021). Mission Statements in Top Higher Education
Institutions—What Do They Have in Common? In Business Revolution in a Digital
Era: 14th International Conference on Business Excellence, ICBE 2020, Bucharest,
371 | Alexandru Ioan RÎPA, Luminița NICOLESCU
Customer Relationship Management. Websites Analysis of the Top Ten Consumer Goods Companies

Romania (pp. 159-173). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/

101007/978-3-030-59972-0_12
Opara, D.N. (2022). Multi-layered knowledge diffusion in the advancing of organizational
responsiveness in money deposit banks in rivers state. International Journal of
Business Education, Management Science and Marketing Research, 10(2).
Pozza, I. D., Goetz, O., & Sahut, J. M. (2018). Implementation effects in the relationship
between CRM and its performance. Journal of Business Research, 89, 391–403.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.02.004
Pynadath, M.F., Rofin, T.M., & Thomas, S. (2023). Evolution of customer relationship
management to data mining-based customer relationship management: a
scientometric analysis. Quality & Quantity, 57, 3241–3272. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11135-022-01500-y
Goddard, M. G. J., Raab, G., Ajami, R. A., & Gargeya, V. B. (2012). Customer relationship
management: A global perspective. Gower Publishing, Ltd.
Ryals, L., & Knox, S. (2001). Cross-functional issues in the implementation of relationship
marketing through customer relationship management. European Management
Journal, 19(5), 534–542. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0263-2373(01)00067-6
Sheth, J. N., Sisodia, R. S., & Sharma, A. (2000). The antecedents and consequences of
customer-centric marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(1),
55–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070300281006.
Shokouhyar, S., Shokoohyar, S., Raja, N., & Gupta, V. (2021). Promoting fashion customer
relationship management dimensions based on customer tendency to outfit
matching: mining customer orientation and buying behaviour. International
Journal of Applied Decision Sciences, 14(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1504/
ijads.2021.112932
Sin, L. Y. M., Tse, A. C. B., & Yim, F. H. K. (2005). CRM: conceptualization and scale
development. European Journal of Marketing, 39(11/12), 1264–1290. https://
doi.org/10.1108/03090560510623253
Sofi, M. R., Bashir, I., Parry, M. A., & Dar, A. (2020). The effect of customer relationship
management (CRM) dimensions on hotel customer’s satisfaction in Kashmir.
International Journal of Tourism Cities, 6(3), 601–620. https://doi.org/10.1108/
ijtc-06-2019-0075
Soltani, Z., Zareie, B., Milani, F. S., & Navimipour, N. J. (2018). The impact of the customer
relationship management on the organization performance. The Journal of High
Technology Management Research, 29(2), 237–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.hitech.2018.10.001
Srivastava, S. K., Chandra, B., & Srivastava, P. (2019). The impact of knowledge
management and data mining on CRM in the service industry. Nanoelectronics,
Circuits and Communication Systems, 511, 37–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
981-13-0776-8_4
Swift, R. S. (2001). Accelerating customer relationships: Using CRM and relationship
technologies. Prentice Hall Professional.
Vandermerwe, S. (2004). Achieving deep customer focus. IEEE Engineering Management
Review, 32(3), 62–62. https://doi.org/10.1109/emr.2004.25108
Wang, S., & Noe, R. A. (2010). Knowledge sharing: a review and directions for future
research. Human Resource Management Review, 20(2), 115–131. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.10.001
Yang, H. L., & Wu, T. C. T. (2008). Knowledge sharing in an organization. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 75(8), 1128–1156. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.techfore.2007.11.008
Yim, F. H., Anderson, R. E., & Swaminathan, S. (2004). Customer relationship management:
its dimensions and effect on customer outcomes. Journal of Personal Selling and
Sales Management, 24(4), 265-280.

© 2023 Author(s). This is an open-access article licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-
NonCommercial-NoDerivs License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).