EMPLOYER BRANDING AND IT’S IMPACT ON EMPLOYEE RETENTION IN

PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY OF GUJARAT

1
Jaimini Yagnik & 2Dr. Kavita Kshatriya
1
Assistant Professor, Faculty of Management, GLS University, GLS Campus, Opp. Law
Garden, Ellis Bridge, Ahmedabad - 6, Gujarat, India.
2
Professor, Head of Department, IMBA Programme, Faculty of Management, GLS
University, GLS Campus, Opp. Law Garden, Ellis Bridge, Ahmedabad - 6, Gujarat, India.

ABSTARCT

In this time, Talented and faithful Employees is a basic resource of World-wide associations.
To pull in and retain the correct ability is vivacious assignment for every single association.
Prior, Organizations were just advancing themselves before clients however with the
expanding war of skill; companies have begun picking up notoriety according to
representatives and potential candidates as Great Employer to work with. The study has been
attempted to comprehend the effect of hierarchical practices to appeal and hold on Employer
Branding.424 members (424 representatives of Pharmaceutical Industry) have been taken as
test of the examination. The information is gathered with the assistance of structured survey
and is analysed utilizing Smart PLS(Partial Least Square).

Keywords: Employee Retention, Organisational attractiveness, Employer Branding,

Millennial, Organisational belongingness

INTRODUCTION

Inadequacy of all around qualified and competent agents in current circumstance makes the
need to attract and hold the helpful specialists as the most smoking Human Resource issue for
all the affiliations. Over the time allotment, the affiliation has started giving highlight on its
HR for better execution. Precisely how to gain customers, you need to make constructive
character in the minds of customer, the capacity pool is also extended by planting helpful
character of the affiliations. All associations have drawn some character on the demeanour of
the impressive number of accomplices. In this genuine presence where the organisations are
being judged and surveyed on various regions nearby how and what things and organizations
affiliations are offering, HR masters' huge task is to grandstand the organisation's image as
"an alluring business" in the minds of all collaborators and delegate all around organized

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3607173

procedures and win them by managing skilled able specialists. Allurement of
Employer/Employer‘s attractiveness is defined as ―the envisioned benefits that a potential
employee sees in working for a specific organization and it is the most challenging task for
Human Resource Department. Along these lines, productive trials, consistent progress and
endeavours have been relied upon for HR to showcase as a business according to workers and
potential representatives to be “great employer to work with”.

Employer Branding

The topic Employer Branding was invented by Ambler in 1996 in the context of Application
of techniques of brand management in UK organisations. According to Ambler,An attractive
employer branding means the process of providing psychological, economic and financial
benefits to the current working employees to connect potential applicants to the employer
(Ambler, 1996). Employer Branding is where ways of thinking of advertising, explicit the
"study of marketing", is applied to HR activities for present and potential representatives.
Employer Branding idea is applied to make better work involvement in a supposition that
when employees experience with the organisation, it upgrades the estimation of the business
and impact potential representatives to connect with. Employer Branding helps the
connotation in expanding information sharing among workers and furthermore helps in
expanding competitive advantage of the association.

Employer Branding in Global Perspective

Organisations have begun understanding the significance of right proficients in the

achievement of the association. To make techniques of obtaining and retaining the correct
workers, organisations must comprehend what representatives need from a business and that
is the initial step of manager marking. An exhaustive overview of 175,000 salaried grown-
ups in 30 countries about their business inclinations, we see changes in perspectives that
demonstrate employees need more than an alluring compensation and advantages. Over half
of the representatives lean toward Job Security over Compensation and Benefits as most
significant factor while picking the association to connect with (Report, 2018). A decent
work-life balance, vocation advancement possibilities and adaptable work commitment are
progressively significant characteristics they look for in a potential boss.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3607173

LITERATURE REVIEW ON EMPLOYER BRANDING

Meaning

Backhaus and Tikoo discussed Employer Branding as “Differentiation of a firm’s

characteristics as an employer from those of its competitors, the employment brand highlights
the unique aspects of the firm’s employment offerings or environment” (Backhaus, 2004).

Sullivan explained Employer Brand as, “a targeted strategy to manage mindfulness and
perceptions of employees, potential applicants and other related stakeholders of a particular
organization” (Sullivan, 2004).

To elaborate the concept, Miles (Miles, 2004)has defined employer brand as “"the procedure
by which employees masquerade the ideal brand picture and are inspired to extend the picture
to clients and other authoritative constituent".

Factors affecting Employer Branding

The elements while picking the associations to connect with differs as socioeconomics of the
potential enlisted people changes. Inclination of significant components contrast as the ages
changes. Like, Millennial want to work in groups however, the individuals brought into the
world after WW2 have supported the request. (Gilbert, September,2011)Age X favors pay
and work life balance. Where, Baby boomers lean toward sufficiency and security (Employer
Branding, 2013)). The other demographical factor that changes the impression of workers
while choosing the business is sexual orientation. Male and female anticipate that various
develops should be in their positive managers' practices. The examination on Employees
desires from manager (on 100 chosen organizations in Sri Lanka) discovered that female
respondents all things considered stressed over versatile working methods, an extraordinary
work-life balance, settlement of the work space and an awesome working environment while
picking the relationship to work with. Where Men look for association for organisation with
stable assets, future possibilities, extraordinary organization, overall expert victories,
Training and developmental undertakings and nature of the things/organizations affiliation
offer.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3607173

(P. Brosi • I. M. Welpe, 2014)The investigation set up that imperative variables for Post
Doctorate academicians were the relationship with Guide and general preparing openings in
the examination of what pulls in global post docs as the business culture and work of
Academicians would be altogether different.

(Neeti Leekha Chhabra, 2014)clarifies the fundamental factor is the hierarchical Culture,
Brand name pay despite everything hold the most elevated positions with regards to engaging
quality elements.

Impact of Employer Branding

(Edward, February,2010)Shows If the association shows excessively positive picture of the

organisation, the allure as a business would be higher and desires for the potential candidates
would be higher about the authoritative qualities. The organisations which are working for
Society and having high notoriety in doing corporate social obligation have more tendency by
the potential representatives.

(Tarek A. Al Badawy, 2015)Authors have focused more on EB and it's impact (Motivation
and Retention). Results demonstrated that there is a feeble inconsequential, yet, a positive
connection between Employer Branding and goal to remain in the association, which was
negating of the prior investigations. Results indicated a moderate positive connection
between Employer Branding and inspiration to associate with company is factually
remarkably vast.

IDENTIFICATION OF GAPS

The review of the literature has revealed that study on impact of Employer Branding on
Current working employees has not been focused much in research so far. To fill this gap,
this research will mainly focus on impact of Employer Branding practices on employees’
perception towards Employee Retention in Pharmaceutical industry in Gujarat.

OBJECTIVES

1. To analyse the perception of employees of Pharmaceutical industry towards Employer

Branding.

2. To analyse the impact of employees’ perception towards Employer Branding practices on

Employee Retention.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3607173

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The research design is descriptive and causal research design in nature. The primary data is
collected with the help of structured questionnaire from the employees working in
Pharmaceutical Industry in Gujarat. The sample units in total 424 responses are collected. For
data collection, non-probability convenience sampling method is used. The secondary data is
collected from journals, research articles, industry publications, etc. For analysing the
collected sample, Regression model through PLS is used to analyse the purposes of the
sresearch. The test is performed in Smart PLS 3.0 software.

ANALYSIS & FINDINGS

Descriptive Analysis
The descriptive analysis is performed on 424 responses collected. The results are presented in
the Table no.1.
Table no. 1: Profile of Employees
Gender Frequency Percent
Male 382 91.1
Female 42 9.9
Total 424 100.0
Educational Qualification Frequency Percent
Doctorate 52 12.3
Post Graduate 252 59.4
Professional 72 17.0
Graduate 48 11.3
Under Graduate 52 12.3
Total 424 100.0

The results presented in table no. 1 shows that demographic nature of the respondents. Out of
the 424 respondents, 382 are male and 42 are female. 52 out of the 426 respondents are
having the qualification of Doctorate.
Hypothesis:

H01: Perception of Employees towards Compensation & Benefits does not not impact
Employer Branding.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3607173

H01.1: Perception of employees towards salary offered by the organisation is high does not
impact Compensation & Benefits.

H01.2: Perception of employees towards organisation providing good health benefits does not
impact Compensation & Benefits.

H01.3: Perception of employees towards organisation providing insurance coverage for

employees and dependents does not impact Compensation & Benefits.

H02: Perception of Employees towards Ethics & CSR does not impact Employer
Branding.

H02.1: Perception of employees towards organisation has fair attitude towards employees
does not impact Ethics & CSR.

H02.2: Perception of employees towards organisation has rules and regulations which
employees are expected to follow does not impact Ethics & CSR.

H02.3: Perception of employees towards organisation as humanitarian organisation does not

impact Ethics & CSR

H02.4: Perception of employees towards confidential procedure to report misconduct at work

does not impact Ethics & CSR.

H03: Perception of employees towards Healthy Work Environment/Atmosphere does

not impact Employer Branding.

H03.1: Perception of employees towards organisation providing autonomy to the employees to

take decision does not impact Healthy Work Atmosphere.

H03.2: Perception of employees towards organisation providing opportunity to enjoy a group

atmosphere does not impact Healthy Work Atmosphere.

H03.3: Perception of employees towards organisation recognises when the employees do good
work does not impact Healthy Work Atmosphere.

H03.4: Perception of employees towards organisation offering relatively stress-free work

environment does not impact Healthy Work Atmosphere.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3607173

H03.5: Perception of employees towards organisation offering opportunity to work in teams
does not impact Healthy Work Atmosphere.

H04: Perception of employees towards Training & Development does not impact
Employer Branding.

H04.1: Perception of employees towards organisation providing online courses to employees

does not impact Training and Development.

H04.2: Perception of employees towards organisation organising various conference,

workshops and training programme on regular basis does not impact Training and
Development.

H04.3: Perception of employees towards organisation offering opportunities to work on

foreign projects does not impact Training and Development.

H04.4: Perception of employees towards organisation investing heavily training and

development for employees does not impact Training and Development.

H04.5: Perception of employees towards skill development is a continuous process in

organisation does not impact Training and Development.

H04.6: Perception of employees towards organisation communicating clear advancement path

for employees does not impact Training and Development.

H05: Perception of employees towards Work Life Balance does not impact Employer
Branding.

H05.1: Perception of employees towards organisation providing flexible working hours does
not impact Work Life Balance.

H05.2: Perception of employees towards organisation providing opportunities to work from

home does not impact Work Life Balance.

H05.3: Perception of employees towards organisation providing on-site sports facilities does
not impact Work Life Balance

Employee Retention Model:

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3607173

R2 Values

All the mediating constructs like Healthy work atmosphere, Training and Development,
Work Life Balance, Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility and Compensation &
Benefits have collective outcome on Employee Retention with R2 values of 0.357. This
divulges the fact the structural model for Employee Retention has analytical relevance.
Further, the examination of the adjusted R Square value of Employer Branding is 0.350,
which showcases the analytical relevance of the variables with Employee Retention.

R Square R Square Adjusted

Employee Retention 0.357 0.350

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3607173

Total Effects on Employee Retention

Hypothesis Path T Statistics Path Co-efficient Decision

(|O/STDEV|)
1-5

H01: Compensation & 3.804 0.163 Supported

Compensation & Benefits
Benefits does
impact on
Employee
Retention

H02: Ethics & Ethics & CSR 3.008 0.130 Supported

CSR does
impact on
Employee
Retention

H03: Healthy Healthy Work 6.301 0.247 Supported

Work Environment
Environment
does impact on
Employee
Retention

H04: Training & Training & 0.851 -0.036 Not

Development Development Supported
does impact on
Employee
Retention

H05: Work Life Work Life Balance 9.198 -0.382 Supported

Balance does
impact on
Employee

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3607173

Retention

t-values for two-tailed test: *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001

Outer Loading

Compensat Employee Ethics & Healthy Training & Work Life

ion & Retention CSR Work Developm Balance
Benefits Environme ent
nt
CB1 0.584
CB2 0.682
CB3 0.758
ECSR1 0.659
ECSR2 0.712
ECSR3 0.626
ECSR4 0.537
ER1 0.605
ER2 0.702
ER3 0.439
ER4 0.406
ER5 0.406
ER6 0.372
ER7 0.486
ER8 0.559
HWA1 0.771
HWA2 0.339
HWA3 0.177
HWA4 0.466
HWA5 0.572
TD1 -0.016
TD2 0.191
TD3 0.491
TD4 0.535

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3607173

 TD5 0.677
TD6 0.460
WLB1 0.967
WLB2 -0.131
WLB3 -0.268

Hypothesis Tests Original Factor T Statistics Decisions

Sample (O) Loading) (|O/STDEV
|)

1.1. CB1 does impact CB1 <- 0.584 8.000 Supported

on C&B Compensation &
Benefits

1.2 CB2 does impact CB2 <- 0.682 10.200 Supported

on C&B Compensation &
Benefits

1.3 CB3 does impact on CB3 <- 0.758 12.019 Supported

C&B Compensation &
Benefits

6.1 ER1 does impact on ER1 <- 0.605 8.261 Supported

Employee
ER
Retention

6.2 ER2does impact on ER2 <- 0.702 9.409 Supported

Employee
ER
Retention

6.3 ER3 does impact on ER3 <- 0.439 7.643 Supported

Employee
ER
Retention

6.4 ER4 does impact on ER4 <- 0.406 5.675 Supported

Employee
ER
Retention

6.5 ER5 does impact on ER5 <- 0.406 13.587 Supported

Employee
Retention

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3607173

ER

6.6 ER6 does impact on ER6 <- 0.372 18.388 Supported

Employee
ER
Retention

6.7 ER7 does impact on ER7 <- 0.486 7.842 Supported

Employee
ER
Retention

6.8 ER8 does impact on ER8 <- 0.559 6.595 Supported

Employee
ER
Retention

2.1 ECSR1 does impact ECSR1 <- Ethics 0.659 6.545 Supported
on ECSR & CSR

2.2 ECSR2 does impact ECSR2 <- Ethics 0.712 4.898 Supported
on ECSR & CSR

2.3 ECSR3 does impact ECSR3 <- Ethics 0.626 8.728 Supported
on ECSR & CSR

2.4 ECSR4 does impact ECSR4 <- Ethics 0.537 11.683 Supported
on ECSR & CSR

3.1 HWA1 does impact HWA1 <- 0.771 12.934 Supported

on HWA Healthy Work
Environment

3.2 HWA2 does impact HWA2 <- 0.339 2.797 Supported

on HWA Healthy Work
Environment

3.3 HWA3 does impact HWA3 <- 0.177 1.288 Not Supported
on HWA Healthy Work
Environment

3.4 HWA4 does impact HWA4 <- 0.466 5.057 Supported

on HWA Healthy Work
Environment

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3607173

3.5 HWA5 does impact HWA5 <- 0.572 6.463 Supported
on HWA Healthy Work
Environment

4.1 T&D1 does impact TD1 <- Training -0.016 0.069 Not Supported
on T&D & Development

4.2 T&D2 does impact TD2 <- Training 0.191 0.905 Not Supported
on T&D & Development

4.3 T&D3 does impact TD3 <- Training 0.491 2.463 Supported
on T&D & Development

4.4 T&D4 does impact TD4 <- Training 0.535 2.873 Supported
on T&D & Development

4.5 T&D5 does impact TD5 <- Training 0.677 4.120 Supported
on T&D & Development

4.6 T&D6 does impact TD6 <- Training 0.460 2.436 Supported
on T&D & Development

5.1 WLB1 does impact WLB1 <- Work 0.967 26.070 Supported
on WLB Life Balance

5.2 WLB2 does impact WLB2 <- Work -0.131 0.856 Not Supported
on WLB Life Balance

5.3 WLB3 does impact WLB3 <- Work -0.268 1.773 Not Supported
on WLB Life Balance

Reflections of the study:

To discuss about the constructs of Employer Branding, all endogenous variables have been
selected from the scale of Berthon et.al (2005). Berthon has industrialized a scale which was
approved by the expert before starting the data collection. After analysing the reliability of
the data Smart PLS has been used on the records to create a theoretical framework of Impact

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3607173

of Employer Branding on Employee Retention. The following discussions are the constructs
and the results of SEM.

1. Compensation & Benefits:

In an organisation, to attract and retain the human resource the most used method is to
provide better package of compensation & Benefits. Compensation includes the pay delivered
by an employer to an employee for concentrated services in the organisation: it includes time,
skills, and efforts. Berthon has verified that Compensation & Benefits provided by the
organisation are the construct of Employer Branding.

For the data of 424 employees, all the statements have impact on Compensation & Benefit as
a construct as all the T-statistics value is more than 1.96, so we reject the null hypothesis that
H01.1-H01.3 does impact Compensation & Benefits.

To further elaborate, Compensation & Benefit has path co-efficient more than 0.1(0.163) and
T-Statistics more than 1.96 (3.804). So we can prove that compensation & Benefits has
impact on Employee Retention

2. Ethics & CSR:

Gaining attention through Corporate Social Responsibility is trending preach adapted by

organisations. Generally it is multidimensional practice for the organisation. There have been
various trainings done to prove that Ethics and CSR practice are integral part of Employer
Branding.

For the data of 424 employees,all the statements have impact on Ethics and CSR as a
construct as all the T-statistics value is more than 1.96, so we reject the null hypothesis that
H02.1-H2.4 does impact Ethics & CSR.

To further elaborate, Ethics & CSR has path co-efficient more than 0.1(0.130) and T-
Statistics more than 1.96 (3.008). So we can prove that Ethics & CSR has impact on
Employee Retention.

3. Healthy Work Environment

For the data of 424 employees, all the statements have impact on Healthy Work Environment
as a construct as all the T-statistics value is more than 1.96, i.e. 11.020, 2.691, 4.445, 2.855
except Perception of employees towards organisation recognises when the employees do

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3607173

good work does not impact Healthy Work Atmosphere, so we reject the null hypothesis that
H03.1, H03.2,H3.4 does impact Healthy Work Environment and H03.3-Perception of employees
towards organisation recognises when the employees do good work does not impact Healthy
Work Atmosphere.

To further elaborate, Healthy Work Environment has path co-efficient more than
0.1(0.247)and T-Statistics more than 1.96 (6.301). So we can prove that Healthy Work
Environment has positive impact on Employee Retention.

4. Training & Development

Growth prospects is generally every employee wants in his professional career. For the data
of 424 employees, all the statements have impact on Training & Development as a construct
as all the T-statistics value is more than 1.96,except Perception of employees towards
organisation providing online courses to employees & Perception of employees towards
organisation organising various conference, workshops and training programme on regular
basis , so we reject the null hypothesis that H04.3,H4.4, H4.5 does impact Training &
Development and H04.1 ,H04.2. Perception of employees towards organisation providing online
courses to employees does not impact Training and Development & Perception of employees
towards organisation organising various conference, workshops and training programme on
regular basis does not impact Training and Development.

To further elaborate, Training & Development has path co-efficient less than 0.1(-0.036) and
T-Statistics less than 1.96 (0.851). So we can prove that Training & Development has not
significant impact on Employee Retention.

5. Work Life Balance

For the data of 424 employees, all the statements have impact on Work Life Balance as a
construct as the T-statistics value is more than 1.96, except Perception of employees towards
organisation providing opportunities to work from home does not impact Work Life Balance.
& Perception of employees towards organisation providing on-site sports facilities does not
impact Work Life Balance.

So, we reject the null hypothesis that H 05.1 does impact Work Life Balance and , H05.2, H05.3
Perception of employees towards organisation providing on-site sports facilities does not

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3607173

impact Work Life Balance, Perception of employees towards organisation providing
opportunities to work from home does not impact Work Life Balance

To further elaborate, Healthy Work Environment has path co-efficient less than -0.1(-0.382)
and T-Statistics more than 1.96 (9.198). So we can prove that Work Life Balance has
negative impact on Employee Retention.

CONCLUSION

From the study it can be concluded that the impact of Healthy Work Environment, Ethics &
CSR and Compensation & Benefit have more on the positive impact on Employee Retention.
While Work Life Balance has negative impact on Employee Retention On the basis of the
test results, it can be concluded that most of the employees’ perception towards retention
practices leads to constructive impact on Employee Retention in pharmaceutical industry
except Training & Development. The perception of employees towards the amenities done by
these companies is on appropriate satisfaction level.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3607173

Bibliography
(2013). Employer Branding.

Ambler, T. &. (1996). The employer brand. Journal of Brand Management, 185-206.

Ambler, T. S. (1996). The employer brand. Journal of Brand Management [online]., 185-206.

Anne-Mette Sivertzen, E. R. (2013). Employer branding: employer attractiveness and the use of
social media. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 473–483.

Backhaus, K. a. (2004). Conceptualizing and researching employer branding”,. Career Development

International, , 17-501.

Berthon, P. E. (2005). Captivating company: dimensions of attractiveness. International Journal of

Advertising, Vol. 24 No. 2,, pp. 151-72.

Dr. J. Anitha, 2. M. (July - Sep, 2012). A study on the impact of Personality Characteristics on
Employer Attractiveness. Journal of Contemporary Research in Management  Vol. 7; No. 3,
11-21.

Edward, M. (February,2010). An integrative review of employer branding and OB theory. Personnel

Review, 5-23.

Edwards, M. R. (2010). An integrative review of employer branding and OB theory. Personnel Review
Vol. 39 No. 1,, pp. 5-23.

Gilbert. (September,2011).

Hana Urbancová, M. H. (2017). BENEFITS OF EMPLOYER BRAND AND THE SUPPORTING TRENDS.
Economics & Sociology, Vol. 10, No. 4 , 41-50.

Hasan Gilani, S. J. (2016). An exploratory study on the impact of recruitment process outsourcing on
employer branding of an organisation. Strategic Outsourcing: An International Journal Vol. 9
No. 3, 303-323.

Kristína Babíková. (2017). A Relationship Between Talent and Employer: A Conceptual framework.

Lloyd, S. (2002). “Branding from the inside out”,. Business Review Weekly, Vol. 24 No. 10,, pp. 64-66.

Martin, G. a. (2003). Branding and People Management. London: CIPD Research Report.

Miles, M. a. (2007). 77.

Miles, S. a. (2004). A conceptualization of the employee branding process. Journal of Relationship

Marketing,, 65–87.

Moroko, L. U. (n.d.). Characteristics of successful employer brands. Journal of Brand Management.

Neeti Leekha Chhabra, S. S. (2014). Employer branding: strategy for improving employer
attractiveness. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 48-60.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3607173

P. Brosi • I. M. Welpe. (2014). Employer branding for Universities: what attracts international
postdocs? Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg .

Papirfly. (n.d.). Retrieved from Papirfly: https://www.papirfly.com/knowledge-hub/employer-

branding

Pop. (2008).

Rajwinder Kaur. (2018). Employer Branding in the Indian Armed Forces Context: A Comparative
Study of Potential Defence Applicants and Defence Employees. Vision, 199–210.

Report, R. E. (2018). Randstad Employer Brand Report. Randstad.

Sullivan, J. (2004). The 8 Elements of a Successful Employment Brand. ER Daily.

Tarek A. Al Badawy, V. M. (2015). Can Employer Branding Surge the Retention and Motivation of
Egyptian Employees? CF Vol. 13 (2),.

Wilden, R. G. (2010). Employer branding: Strategic implications for staff recruitment. Journal of
Marketing Management, 56-73.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3607173