Employer Branding For Eu Institutions

=== f369e1d182617e99976c4058cb83f649e7d4a4b5_398693_1 ===

Chapter I. Defining employer branding

1.1. Perspectives on employer branding

Andrew Mayo (2001) proposed a concise definition of employer branding, as the information or organizational practice, performed "consciously or unconsciously – to every employee or prospective employee" (Mayo, 2001, 123). As mentioned by the scholar, employer branding can be directly assumed by existing employees, who will inform the potential employees about the internal practices in the company or can be indirectly understood as an existing routine, which has to be preserved in order to maintain a positive organizational climate. In practice, employer branding produces positive effects for both employees and the company, when it is consciously adopted, as the employees are interested to create or maintain a suite of strategies positively affecting their status, similarly the company is interested in obtaining the maximal results of a positive employer branding, which will reflect on its corporate identity. For instance, analyzing the impact of employer branding of McDonald's on its profit and corporate image, the concept was associated with internal strategies used by the company to promote its products and image into a distinctive and attractive way, so that employees create themselves a perspective of affinity, susceptible to encourage them delivering the best performance in their positions. The management of the company combined traditional motivational strategies as financially rewarding the performance of certain employees, as well as the teams reaching the expected results with non-conventional strategies as contributory pension, shopping discounts, childcare discounts or private medical insurance, in order to stimulate their employees to develop the required behavior for the company to continue its positive development (Report Employer Branding and Total Reward, 2010, 4).

Stephen Taylor (2005) defines employer branding through its differences among similar concepts, suggesting what cannot be considered employer branding. For example, employer branding is not Human Resources, internal communication or marketing, yet it can be considered a "bridge" between them. Human resources, internal communication or marketing strategies used by a company are not costs to be supported by the organization, but creative spaces, where employees and supervisors create business value. Recently, more organizations are interested to recruit, retain and develop the right experts for the business, mostly in the case of service sector focusing on customer satisfaction and loyalty as essential criteria to obtain profit (Taylor, 2005, 24).

Alan Price (2007), analyzing the changes of business strategies adopted worldwide in the last decade, affirms that employer branding can be used as a marketing tool to target audience and create competitive differentiation, comparing with competitors on the market. As creating and sustaining employees' commitment to the company, the organization can deliver improved services or products, as well as attentively monitor through their feedback the evolution of the brand on the market, as employees might be in direct contact with the customers or in an improved relation with the customers, comparing with the representatives of the company (Price, 2007, 232).

The context of the global financial crisis emerging in 2008 determined companies worldwide to reconsider the employer branding strategies used until that moment or to implement new ones, in order to preserve and acquire experts. As highlighted by a study organized by Kienbaum Communications in 2009, 40% of the companies participating stated that their employer branding budget increased, comparing with the last period. In terms of employer branding strategies, companies focus on employer attractiveness (94%), employee retention (85%) and positive image of the company on the market as a reliable employer (78%). The study also revealed that international companies develop additional employer branding strategies, comparing with companies operating on national markets, as they have to attract employees on multiple labor markets, implementing their global strategies of recruiting and retention based on a local context (Christiaans, 2012, 4). In practice, employer branding can be associated with all the "final outcome of all brand-related activities"(Christiaans, 2012, 11). Totally, employer branding includes all decisions or strategies focusing on the planning, maintaining and controlling of employees' evolution in a particular company. Similarly to Taylor (2005), Christiaans (2012) considers that employer branding includes the functions of Human Resources and marketing, implemented in a collaborative pattern. Employer branding is as a consequence based on a dual nature, as follows: "When classifying HR management according to the levels into strategic, tactical and operational management, employer branding can be attributed to the category of strategic HR management, since it is focused on the strategic goals of the company as a whole. In comparison, tactical elements are focused on groups of employees and jobs while operational elements are aimed at single employees and jobs" (Christiaans, 2012, 12).

The concept of employer branding or employer brand is generally defined as the recruitment advertising or internal communication campaigns created by an organization to promote the private company or the public institution as the "great place to work" (Barrow, Mosley, 2011, 10) possible, comparing with similar offers that the candidates can receive from other companies or institutions. Similarly to the competition existing on the market among products or services, employer branding presumes a competition between companies or institution to attract the suitable experts to improve their current activity. As mentioned by Simon Barrow and Richard Mosley (2011), the research of employer branding basically omits essential facts as the potential functional, economic and psychological benefits on the long-term created by the employment of the correct persons, as the current studies tend to focus on the short-term priorities, recruitment and productivity (Barrow, Mosley, 2011, 10). In practice, employer branding is a collection of strategies created by the company, assumed by its employees, "to simplify and focus priorities, increasing productivity and improve recruitment, retention and commitment" (Barrow, Mosley, 2011, 5).

Employer branding is different to branding or corporate performance, as stated by Barrow and Mosley (2011), but in practice HR managers or other experts involved in the preservation of current stuff and attraction of new employees tend to associate the concept with these ideas. Basically, employer branding includes features associated with branding, recruiting or rewarding the employees performance, yet it is a different concept, directing branding or corporate performance, as mentioned by the scholars: "Reputation is important buy you must be successful as a business in order to have a good employer brand. You have to perform" (Barrow, Mosley, 2011, 8). In practice, employer branding includes other organization activities, additionally to branding or obtaining corporate performance, as suggested through Figure 1:

Figure 1. The Employer branding wheel (Barrow, Mosley, 2011, 9)

Suggestively named, the employer branding wheel, the perspective of Barrow and Mosley (2011) is based on a circular model of factors influencing the employer branding evolution in the case of an organization. The factors are interdependent, the omission of one of the factors or its negative impact being able to substantially alter the implementation of a profitable employer branding. Initially, employer branding debuts with an organizational vision, the team leaders or the executive team proposing particular values and objectives that the employees are requested to assume, in order to achieve positive individual and collective results. The second phase of the employer branding wheel consists in the implementation of policies and values, practically the experts involved in the process of employer branding create and direct particular projects such as rewarding performance able to support the values assumed by the employees in the first step of the model. In the third phase of the model, employer branding is directed on stimulating cooperation among existing stuff or new employees, as their efforts of supporting the company's goals have to be based on a common perspective, not on separated directions, generation misunderstanding or internal conflicts.

As all interests have been aligned to a common perspective, the company has achieved a corporate personality, its employees being interested in preserving and improving the assumed objectives. In the context of objectives assumed by employees and the creation of a corporate identity, the organization is able to impose on the market an external reputation, generally a positive image of the company that consumers, business partners and other stakeholders automatically associate with the products or services promoted by the company. Communication is a constant element of the business activities, in the case of employer branding wheel it is analyzed as a connection between current employees, employees and supervisors or the executive team, as well as new employees and the rest of the stuff, additionally new employees' connection with supervisors. An organization is interested in preserving a reliable climate of communication among employees, as well as between employees and supervisors, in order to achieve the assumed goals.

As the organization develops or faces internal changes as the resignations of few or multiple employees, recruitment is necessary to supply the existing stuff. Recruitment is continued by strategies able to stimulate communication and collaboration between the existing employees and the new employees. As the company established a suitable labor climate, it is prepared to develop its activities, by promoting new products or services, withdrawing the unsuccessful ones or adjusting them, in order to become profitable on the market. As the labor climate is reliable and the products or services promoted become more visible on the market, as a consequence more susceptible to be purchased, the company achieves performance management, a positive status allowing the executive team to create new strategies for the development of the business. The external performance as obtained through increasing sales has to be doubled by a reliable working environment, stimulating all employees to use the resources available, including their expertise, to support and develop the organization's brand.

The efforts of employees have to rewarded, in order to constantly stimulate their interest in supporting the company's objectives, as a consequence a satisfactory reward system is necessary to encourage their efforts. Rewards can be financial, but also non-financial, the supervisors in charge with rewarding have to establish a clear proportion between the types of rewards that the company can offer. The decision of an employee to renounce to his/her position in a company is a natural phenomenon on a dynamic labor market, the major challenge for the former employer being its ability to preserve a positive relation with the person leaving the business. Post-employment programs focus on the necessity to receive feedback from former employees, in order to correct the existing labor climate or to improve it, based on the opinions shared by the persons choosing another workplace (Barrow, Mosley, 2011, 9).

The existence of an employer branding in a company or the intention of creating one is not sufficient, employer branding is associated with motivation strategies used by the company to encourage employees deliver the maximal results, so that the customers can receive improved goods or services. Employer branding is a permanent effort of the organization, to "nurture a working environment that prospective employees will want to join" (Sartain, Schuman, 2006, 7). Comparing with similar concepts, such as Human Resources management, employer branding focuses on finding and maintain a profitable relationship with strategic partners, which are found inside the company, in order to obtain the external success of the organization in terms of profit or positive corporate image (Sartain, Schuman, 2006, 7). Finding or already having the required partners for the development of the business is not satisfactory for a positive evolution, the company has to focus on the key values of its employees such as creativity, simplicity or agility, in order to use them for the creation of a suitable organizational culture based on "employee pride, advocacy and commitment" (Mosley, 2014, 1), which are likely to stimulate the delivery of unique products and services.

The origins of the concept are multiple, highlighting potential directions of research, as applied to a particular area of research. For example, in terms of organizational behavior, the employer branding is considered an internal strategy, with essential effects on the positive evolution of the company, as it relies on the efficient relationship between employer and employees. The relationship between employer and employee has to be analyzed as a temporal evolution, analyzing past, present and future details, in order to obtain a complete image of employer branding in a certain company. For instance, if a company faced a negative image regarding improper measures applied to its employees such as prolonged labor or underpayment, it is likely that the relationship between employer and employees to be vitiated, as consequence the employer branding to be negatively altered (Rosenthorn, 2009, 5). In sociological and psychological terms, employer branding becomes a "psychological contract" between the company and its employees, aiming to obtain positive results for both sides. The company creates as internal "deal" that employees adopt it, in order to obtain both collective and individual results. The internal negotiation also creates the background of a particular organizational culture, including relationships between the departments of the company, as well as among employees or relationships between departments and employees (Rosenthorn, 2009, 10).

Structurally, employer branding presumes the existence of a brand, exclusively focused on the perception of employers, as a consequence it is mandatorily to analyze the concept of brand applied to the activity of an organization. In practice, as suggested by Figure 1, the brand which includes both tangible such as the logo or the name and intangible features as the perception of employees or business partners. In addition, the employer branding can be defined as a set of internal and external features, including the image of a corporate brand, based on the perception of suppliers, customers, shareholders and essentially employees.

Figure 2. Brand and its stakeholders (Rosenthorn, 2009, 5)

As mentioned by Rosenthorn (2009), a brand created by a company, either focuses on a product or on the relationship established with employees, relies on mutual perceptions between the audiences involved in the process of brand creation. For instance, in the case of employer branding, the brand "consists of the perceptions of a number of distinct, but connected, audiences" (Rosenthorn, 2009, 6). Basically, employer branding is based on the perception of employees, but external factors as the impact of customers can also alter the evolution of employer branding, as consequence the concept has to be globally analyzed, based on internal and external potential influence (Rosenthorn, 2009, 6).

According to Tapomoy Deb (2006), employer branding is a complete internal and external process. The scholar mentions by negation what represents the concept of employer branding, attempting to clarify the organizational "myths" associated with it. For instance, employer branding is not recruitment advertising, as it can be primarily analyzed. In fact, recruitment advertising in an inherent element of the process, as the company sends external messages to potential targets about the internal employment experience, including aspects as performance of the organization, the reward system applied to employees, the employee-oriented strategies or the values of the organization. A second myth that the scholar abolishes is related to employer branding as the responsibility of the marketing department. In practice, the process of employer branding seldom engages a singular department as marketing or human resources, actually the concept is a constant communication chain between departments, aiming to improve the performance of the organization by drawing the attention of the most suitable experts on the market. Marketing and human resources departments are directed involved in the process, guiding the promotion and recruitment strategies, yet other departments as the syndicate of employees or the executive board of the company actively participate. The last myth associated with employer branding is that the concept represents consumer branding for employees. The scholar admits that employer branding includes principles and techniques similar to a consumer relationship between companies and employees, but the perspective is mostly one-dimensional in contemporary context. Organizations want a "product", the most experienced expert for its activities, yet the employees constantly "recreate" the products, as they invest in the organization essential resources as loyalty, satisfaction at workplace, as consequence they do not consider themselves "products" of the company, but partners to its positive evolution, which will undoubtedly reflect in their own financial or emotional performance in the company (Tapomoy, 2006, 276).

Analyzing the current theories related to employer branding, Caroline Welsing (2003) considers there two main directions for researching the concept. The first one considers employer branding as a "permanent addition to organizational (and thus HRM) strategy" (Welsing, 2003, 31), in this perspective the organizations focus on quantitative methods of using and improving the performance of current employees, as well as the attempts to capture the interest of new employees. The second perspective regards employer branding as a symbolic product "within the context of economic cycles and their effect on the labor market" (Welsing, 2003, 31). In this case, the predominant strategy adopted by the majority of organizations worldwide, employer branding is connected with the necessity of effectively integrating the activity of the employees, in order to achieve the company's goals and to promote a positive, reliable organizational image. Comparing with the first perspective, the second direction is mostly qualitative, the representatives of the company are interested in gradually evaluating and improving internal criteria as employee satisfaction, in order to stimulate them on the long-term, potentially to transform current employees in the promoters of the company's products and positive workforce. The second perspective can be summarized as "No shortage in the labor market, no employer branding" (Welsing, 2003, 31), the companies worldwide finding themselves on competition on the labor market, in their attempts to hire the most suitable employees. In practice, organizations purchase employment: current and future employees, in order to support its activities. In order to be attractive solutions on labor market, organizations constantly improve their employer branding, similarly to the strategies applied for the success of the product or service promoted on the market. Generally, organizations create their employer branding strategies based on the following issues:

Why does an employee (continue to) want to work in the organization?

Why does an employee labor for the organization?

Why does an employee speak positively about the organization?

Why do former employees return to the organization? (Welsing, 2003, 31)

As mentioned by Lena Christiaans (2012), the concept of employer branding is completed by additional perspectives as employer attractiveness, organizational identity, organizational image, corporate culture, corporate communication or corporate reputation. Currently, the research of employer branding is constantly associated with concepts as employer attractiveness or organizational image, suggesting that employer branding is a holistic process, engaging complementary aspects of the company's activity (Christiaans, 2012, 11). Unlike other scholars connected employer branding with HR activities, such as Christine Welsing (2003), Lena Christiaans (2012) states that employer branding represents a particular category of HR management, precisely a strategic evolution of the company, as focusing on the achieving of proposed goals, as through motivated current employees and future employees, a company can obtain profit or expand its activities (Christiaans, 2012, 12).

Traditionally, the employer branding was considered to be "the package of functional economic and psychological benefits provided by employment, and identified with the employing company" (Ambler, Barrow, 1996, 186). In practice, companies develop a suite of strategies to maintain the positive climate of their internal workplace, as well as to attract new employees susceptible to use their expertise in the benefit of the company. Employer branding includes all brand-related activities, as well as the process of reaching the positive outcome expected by the company, as consequence it will focus on decisions related to the planning, creation, management or controlling the activities of the employees, in order to obtain satisfactory results (Ambler, Barrow, 1996, 186).

An improved, modern perspective was imposed by Kristin Backhaus and Surinder Tikoo (2007), considering employer branding as a global organizational process of "building an identifiable and unique employer identity susceptible to determine the company differentiate from its competitors" (Backhaus, Tikoo, 2007, 503). Additionally to the internal and external identity it creates, the concept of employer branding also includes strategies associated with brand management or HR management. According to Tosin Oladipo, Jeremiah Iyamabo and Olutayo Otubanjo (2013), employer branding is a dynamic cycle of information in the organization, focusing on the necessity that current and potential employees to "gain greater significance through the understanding that a saturation of the best talents in a single organization under a well managed organizational structure attracts more business to that organization thereby posing a critical threat to competitors" (Oladipo, Iyamabo, Otubanjo, 2013, 55). As consequence, the employer branding is the effective application of traditional marketing principles to achieve the status of employer of choice on an extremely selective labor market, as through the positive image of the organization, the company attempt to reach the targeted candidates for the production chain (Oladipo, Iyamabo, Otubanjo, 2013, 55).

1.2. Branding and the influence of employees

Employer branding became an essential criterion for most employers worldwide in the last decade, as more and more companies faced tremendous change of stuff based on demographic or social factors, affecting their brands on the market. Instead of creating strategic advantages, companies were forced to find the suitable experts on the market to potentially support their activities, which increased their costs with employees, as well as additional costs related to the launch of new products or services. As mentioned in a survey organized by Hewitt Associates in 2010, in the case of the Germany, up to 70% of the companies participating considered that they face a talent shortage caused by the global economic crisis. In practice, the companies participating to study affirmed they have difficulties in finding the suitable technical, IT or business experts to support their activities, as their brand or the company creating it is considered an unattractive employer by potential candidates. The German example can be completed by multiple cases, companies operating on different markets or an unique market finding it difficult to find and retain the experts needed for the successful implementation of their strategies (Christiaans, 2012, 3).

As mentioned by Oladipo, Iyamabo and Otubanjo (2013), branding as the constant process of "endearing customers to a product/service and sustaining brand loyalty" (Oladipo, Iyamabo and Otubanjo, 2013, 55). Companies are interested in developing the suitable products or services, susceptible to capture and maintain the intentions of potential customers or existing customers to purchase them, but the resources used to achieve this objective are slightly researched (Oladipo, Iyamabo and Otubanjo, 2013, 55). In practice, the success of a brand is associated with the sales strategies applied by the company, while in fact a profitable brand is the cumulative effort of employees and supervisors or other executive teams involved in the creation or preservation of the brand. According to Oladipo, Iyamabo and Otubanjo, (2013), the major attention of research on branding should focus on employees, excluding executive team representatives, as employees convinced to work for the evolution of the brand are able to permanently actualize the vision of the brand, through their feedback. Having clarified that employees are essential in the positive evolution of the brand, there are two major situations, in practice they are interdependent, that a company has to analyze, in order to obtain the maximal results:

The engagement of current employees

The opportunity of attracting and engaging new employees (Oladipo, Iyamabo and Otubanjo, 2013, 55).

Basically, the existing employees are familiar with the brand, having contributing to its evolution, as a consequence they do not need to be introduced to goals of the company. Relying on the current stuff is generally an advantage for the company, while implementing new strategies to promote the brand, yet in the case of the existing employees there are negative factors that can alter their implication in the brand evolution, such as fatigue or dissatisfaction. In order to avoid the potential negative effects of current employees' on branding, companies have to develop strategies of monitoring and correcting the potential dysfunctions related to employees' perceptions on the brand. On the other hand, in the case of new employees who are required to support the positive development of the brand, the company has to develop the suitable strategies to create a sense of loyalty to the brand, as well as a positive relationship with the existing stuff. Similarly to the brand itself, employer branding is subject of adjustments, based on the changing context of the company on the market. If a brand generates unsatisfactory results, comparing with the company's analysis, it is likely to be withdrawn or adjusted, as a consequence the employees associated with it are indirectly or directly affected by its transformation. In addition, if a brand creates positive results, the company is likely to invest more resources in its development, relocating employees or changing their current tasks, as well as hiring other employees to support the evolution of the brand (Oladipo, Iyamabo and Otubanjo, 2013, 55).

A similar perspective is sustained by Christiaans (2012), considering that employer branding is "targeted at the needs and expectations of current employees (internal employer branding) and potential employees (external employer branding)" (Christiaans, 2012, 18), while corporate branding is focused on all stakeholders' interests, including the employees', but also the interests of consumers, suppliers or investors. Based on the existence of multiple stakeholders, the brand is planned and implemented, in order to obtain a favorable reputation of the company on the market (Christiaans, 2012, 18).

Brands are created and developed by people: employees, executive teams or other persons in the organization focusing on branding. Brands evolve, as a "strong degree of consistency and continuity" is invested by people inside the organization to support its credibility on the market. Employees responsible with the analysis of a brand performance focus on the changes occurring to customers' aspirations or needs, so that the brand promoted by the organization can be perceived as the best alternative on the market, comparing with competing brands. In order to promote a permanently attractive brand, "managers constantly need to refresh the way in which the brand is communicated and delivered. Products and services need to be constantly improved and upgraded" (Barrow, Mosley, 2011, 67). On the current dynamic market, brands either successful or not in terms of sales cannot be static, being forced by the changes on the market as the emergence of new competitors or by the changes of perspectives in the case of customers' needs. For instance, Windows, the operating system proposed by Microsoft during the last decades can be considered one of the most successful brands on the software market, being sold in billions of units, yet the brand is subject to constant upgrades based on the evolution of competitors and the fluctuant behavior of customers, who might be interested by a similar performance promoted with a more accessible cost. In practice, the brand communication is a "constant creative attention to find new ways of dramatizing brand messages. Brand managers also need to explore new avenues for stretching and growing the brand by extending the product range, targeting new audiences or taking the brand into new geographical territory" (Barrow, Mosley, 2011, 67). During the process of launching or improving a brand, employees are essential, since they support the effective activities of the company focusing on the brand management. Similarly to customers, employees needs and aspirations might change, the company being required to analyze the changes occurring in the perception of employees, as in order "to grow and flourish, employer brand need constant renewal and refreshment" (Barrow, Mosley, 2011, 67).

Once brand management is successfully applied, the company reputation is likely to increase, stimulating the commitment of customers. In order to reach this objective, executive teams are exponentially interested in attracting, retaining or engaging the most skilled employees, who are transformed into "brand ambassadors" (Barrow, Mosley, 2011, 68).

Analyzing the evolution of major American companies as Apple in the last decade, Mosley (2014) considers that organizations are lately interested in attracting and maintaining among its employees "great talent" (Mosley, 2014, 1). In practice, the financial perspective of being hired in a great company is attractive, but the scholar mentions that is not an exclusive criterion, experts on the market being interested in fulfilling opportunities by becoming the employee of a certain company. Mosley (2014) develops a similar perspective as Oladipo, Iyamabo and Otubanjo (2013), affirming that hiring new experts to a business is not satisfactory, they have to develop shared behaviors and beliefs with the existing stud, in order to create positive levels of motivation, loyalty and performance (Mosley, 2014, 1).

Concretely, in 2012, 4300 HR managers and similar experts were interviewed in Boston Consulting and World Federation of People Management Associations' study on the performance of the company they represent. The findings of the study revealed that "good people practices confer a performance advantage" (Mosley, 2014, 2). In practice, as suggested through Table 1, employer branding is considered an impactful management practice nowadays, as well as profitable recruitment, on-boarding, retention of employees or talent management, in order to obtain the maximal results possible based on the creativity or other positive features of employees.

Table 1. The impact of HR capabilities on financial performance (Mosley, 2014, 2)

As noticed, employer branding tends to include features associated by HR experts with complementary tasks, such as recruiting or retention programs. In order to create a profitable labor climate in the company, HR managers focus on recruiting the best experts on the market, simultaneously with the preservation of the existing stuff. For both new and current employees, the company is interested to use their particular talent, in order to support the positive evolution of the brand on the market and to reward it, in order to stimulate their commitment to the company.

1.3. Analysis of employer branding

Historically, the concept of employer branding was initially analyzed in the UK, in the 1980s, in recruitment communications industry. The studies of that period focused on the effects produced by the "contract between the employer and employee" (Rosenthorn, 2009, 16), in terms of the effective implementation of a mutual understanding between the two parts. The idea of a contract, as a psychological understanding between the parts agreeing to it, is generally an unwritten practice in companies, describing how employees should behave, in order to obtain the expected results and how the company will provide the required possibilities to achieve them. In practice, the internal contract between the company and its employees consists of intangible elements, "caught up in the experience of employment, often delivered by an immediate boss and also enshrined in organizational stories and myths" Starting with the 1990s, employer branding developed a new meaning, as a "sensed of order to the consumer and organizational glue to the employee" (Rosenthorn, 2009, 16). Concretely, companies worldwide are interested in preserving a positive internal climate, which will directly affect the corporate image of the organization. In the contemporary context of digital communication, companies focus on maintaining positive brands, including employer branding, in order to stimulate and preserve beneficial brand behaviors for the company (Rosenthorn, 2009, 16).

As employer branding is a concept based on both internal performance and the corporate image of the company, Helen Rosenthorn (2009) proposes an analysis model, focusing on the interdependence relationship between the two components, as suggested in table 1:

Table 2. Internal and external analysis of employer branding (Rosenthorn, 2009, 28)

Focusing on internal and external factors, which might affect employer branding, organizations are able to create a relevant segmentation. Initially, the company starts developing an internal analysis of its employees' performance, which can be completed with additional researches, if the executive team finds it appropriate to completely understand certain dysfunctions or arguments for employees' dissatisfaction.

Barrow and Mosley (2011) consider that the awareness on employer branding is a recent trend, debuting in 2003, when the first researches were based on informal interviews among HR managers regarding the satisfaction degree of the coordinated employees. For example, in 2003, the newspaper The Economist organized a panel of interviews among HR managers in UK, USA and developed countries in Asia-Pacific area, revealing that 61% of the participants were interested in maintaining a satisfactory degree of satisfaction among employees, as well as recruiting new experts to support the company's goals. The major level of awareness was registered among HR managers located in Asia-Pacific area (45%) and USA (42%), while in UK only 36% of participants were interested in the concept of employer branding. The study organized by the The Economist includes several gaps, such as the fact that it was not organized in formal context including statistic methods as surveys or directed interviews, as well as the omission of European advanced economies such as France or Germany, which could deliver essential data for a complete image on the use of employer branding. As an initial research based on employer branding, the project developed by The Economist highlighted by the companies are interested in preserving and attract experts, susceptible to support and improve the current activity of the organization, in the order to achieve positive results. On the other hand, formal results were obtained previously, through the surveys organized in the Conference Board in 2001, when 40% of the 138 companies participating affirmed they are actively involved in projects of employer branding, in order to obtain a maximal performance of their stuff (Barrow, Mosley, 2011, 3).

Employer branding is generally analyzed in terms of the results obtained, such as enhanced recruitment, retention or employee engagement, suggesting that a reliable employer branding is able to deliver unexpected positive results for the company. Additionally to the results already obtained through the studies organized by the Hewitt Associates, the Conference Board of The Economist, Barrow and Mosley (2011) consider that employer branding can be also analyzed based on the following criteria:

Costs

While in the case of promoting and improving brands, the costs assumed by companies are substantial, applying employer branding strategies is generally a more affordable strategy. As suggested by a study developed by Towes Perring in 2003, including 35 000 employees in USA and 4 500 employees in Canada, there is a positive correlation between employee engagement and the reduced costs of products or services sold on the market. Primarily, in the case of recruitment costs tend to decrease, if a reliable employer branding strategy is applied. Instead of replacing current employees with potential experts on the labor market, the companies are interested in satisfying the needs of the current stuff, in order to transform them into active promoters of the brand. Additionally to the employee commitment created inside the company, the reliable retention of employee can create external positive effective, leading to the reduction of costs. For example, if the fluctuation with the stuff in the case of a company is lower, comparing with the competitors' situation, the company can obtain an advantage, as the costs with the employees are reduced, by contrary its competitors will face increased stuff costs. Tesco is one of the British retailers managing to impose a profitable employer branding based on retention programs including a suite of rewarding strategies as discounts for the purchase of goods promoted in the retailer's network, vouchers for vacations or medical services. As the employee engagement was formed, Tesco managers implemented additional strategies to stimulate overall performance, such as improved wastage or loss through theft, which deliver a clear advantage comparing with its competitors (Barrow, Mosley, 2011, 69-71).

Customer satisfaction

Customer satisfaction is an essential criterion to companies, visible in the profit rates obtained. If the employees understand the needs of customers as designed by the company and are committed to support any effort directed to their satisfaction, the brand is likely to positively evolve on the market, as in the case of Sears, an US retailer. In the 1990s, the executive team of Sears created a management plan focusing on three interdependent pillars, as follows: employer brand (the executive team was interested in evaluating if Sears was a compelling place to work for its employees), customer brand (Sears representatives evaluating if Sears was a compelling place for customers, comparing with competitors) and financial brand perspective (Sears representatives were interested to find out if the company was a compelling place for investors). Based on the three directions of research, Sears organized an internal survey in 800 stores and discovered that the employee satisfaction estimated at 60% had an essential impact on the increase of customer satisfaction, reaching 80%, comparing with the previous period, customer satisfaction being estimated at 70%. In practice, as the employee satisfaction increased with 5 units, it established a positive correlation of 1.3 unit increase in the case of customer satisfaction. Analyzing both levels of satisfaction, Sears representative concluded that the revenues of the company increased with 0.5%. A similar perspective was revealed by The Gallup Organization's Q12 Workplace Survey in the case of major US retailers. The employee satisfaction revealed was associated with 39% increased in customer satisfaction scores (Barrow, Mosley, 2011, 72-73).

Financial results (Barrow, Mosley, 2011, 73-75).

As employer branding is susceptible to create the favorable context of reducing costs and increasing customer satisfaction, it is likely to develop a positive correlation with an improved financial performance. For example, in the case of Sears internal study, an increase of 4% in employee satisfaction was associated with $200 million increase in company's revenues. A similar perspective was registered in the case of an UK retailer, suggesting that an increase of one point in employee satisfaction is able to generate 9% increase in sales. In practice, if employees are satisfied by their workplace, they are likely to invest more resources as time or commitment to promote the brand of the company, which will positively affect its performance on the market, as customers might be influenced by the attitude of employees. As in the case of Sears or Tesco, employees tend to daily interact with customers, since the retailing industry is based on face-to-face connection between the company and potential customers, interested in purchasing certain products. The positive correlation can be noticed in other business activities such as banking, where the majority of interactions between customers and employees are likely to be on the phone or via chat. Customers are substantially influenced by the attitude of employees, associating with trust the company they represent (Barrow, Mosley, 2011, 75-77).

Additionally to the model proposed by Barrow and Mosley (2011), Christiaans (2012) adds several elements of analysis. The scholar considers that in practice employer branding has to also cover areas as training or retirement, in addition to the acquisition level as previously mentioned. Hiring the best experts on the market is not sufficient for a company to support its goals, comparing with the evolution of the competitors, it is required to provide constant training and satisfactory retirement of the employees deciding to end their collaboration with the organization (Christiaans, 2012, 26).

Bibliography:

Ambler, Tim; Barrow, Simon (1996), „The Employer Brand”, in Journal of Brand Management, no 4, 185-206.

Backhaus, Kristin; Tikoo, Surinder (2004), „Conceptualizing and Researching Employer Branding”, in Career Development International, no 9(5), 501-517.

Barrow, Simon; Mosley, Richard (2011), The Employer Brand, New York, John Wiley and Sons.

Christiaans, Lena (2012), International Employer Brand Management: A Multilevel Analysis and Segmentation of Students' Preferences, New York, Springer.

Deb, Tapomoy (2006), Strategic Approach to Human Resource Management. Concept, Tools and Application, New York, Atlantic Publishers.

Mayo, Andrew (2001), The Human Value of the Enterprise, London, Nicholas Brealey Publishing.

Mosley, Richard (2014), Employer Brand Management, New York, John Wileye and Sons Ltd.

Oladipo, Tosin; Iyamabo, Jerermiah; Otubanjo, Olutayo (2013), „Employer Branding: Moulding Desired Perceptions in Current and Potential Employees”, in Journal of Management and Sustainability, vol 3, no 3, 55- 65.

Price, Alan (2007), Human Resource Management in a Business Context, New York, Thomson Learning.

Report Employer Branding and Total Reward (2010), The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, available on http://www.cipd.co.uk/binaries/employer-branding-and-total-reward_2010.pdf.

Rosenthorn, Helen (2009), The Employer Brand, London, Gower Publishing Limited.

Sartain, Libby; Schumann, Mark (2006), Brand from the Inside, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.

Taylor, Stephen (2005), People Resourcing, London, Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.

Welsing, Caroline (2003), HR Marketing. A New Perspective on Human Resources Management, New York, Prentice Hall.

=== f369e1d182617e99976c4058cb83f649e7d4a4b5_398693_2 ===

Chapter II. European institutions and employer branding

2.1. European institutions

The European Union as the coherent concept existing in the current context in the majority of the European states, relies on the efficient system of the European institution such as the European Parliament (Peterson, Schackleton, 2006, 3).

As a historic reality, European institutions existed starting with the debut phase of the EU, such as the Council of Europe, but gradually they developed as major institutions divided and assigned their responsibilities to smaller institutions, able to focus on particular objectives such as the durable development of a certain community, while the major institutions are associated with the role of supervisor, monitoring the activity of the subordinated institutions. It is the case of the Council of Europe, whose purpose is to implement and protect the parliamentary democracy across member states, having in its subordination European institutions as the European Court of Human Rights or the European Youth Center (http://en.strasbourg-europe.eu/council-of-europe,2090,en.html). As suggested through their titles, each subordinated European institution to the Council of Europe is assigned to a particular objective such as the correction of abuses against human rights or the stimulation of youth to become complete European citizens.

The global financial crisis emerging in 2008 determined a tremendous fall of trust in the European Union and its institutions. The negative trend was noticed particularly in the countries that were traditionally perceived as supporting the European Union concept, including its institutions. For instance, in France public trust in the efficiency of European Union has decreased from +10 to -22%, in Germany from +20 to -29% and in Italy from +30 to -22%, while Spain faced the most dramatic level of trust from +42% to -52% (Report A Guide to Information Sources on Euroscepticism, 2013, p. 3). The salvation of European Union was associated with the need of "re-design" (Bârgăoanu, Radu, Negrea-Busuioc, 2014, 14) its project, mostly in the case of Greece' major debt, considered a potential danger to the EU's stability (Bârgăoanu, Radu, Negrea-Busuioc, 2014, 15).

On the contrary, state members as Sweden or the potential members as Iceland were favored by the existence of the financial and economic crisis. For instance, in Sweden the crisis is a positive factor, supporting the pro-European politicians and organizations, considering that the country should join the Eurozone (Leconte, 2010, 24).

Globally, the financial crisis, although it affected the population's trust in the efficiency of the European institutions, created a social movement able to surpass the economical collapse, regarding an essential change of the European Union's strategies of communicating with member states and citizens. For instance, there are ongoing public debates related to the objectives of the European institutions as the representatives of the European Union's interests (Leconte, 2010, 24). Generally, the current themes adopted by the public debate organized by the European institutions regards the efficiency of the contemporary expansion of the EU, there are two major questions mentioned in the debates:

– Does European Union support excessive integration?

– Does European Union provide an insufficient integration process? (Report A Guide to Information Sources on Euroscepticism, 2013, p. 3)

The questions related to the expansion of the EU are caused by the costs of the recent enlargement, including Romania and Bulgaria, the European institutions, as well as the citizens being interested to find the suitable solution for the EU expansion (Report A Guide to Information Sources on Euroscepticism, 2013, p. 4).

Among the most influential European institutions, a major presence is figured by the European Parliament, considered the central pillar of European Union's structure (Bache, Bulmer, George, Parker, 2011, 45). The European Parliament is associated with the legislative, budgetary and supervisory functions of the European Union. As a legislative authority, the European Parliament is a co-legislator with the Council of Ministers, establishing the frames of EU legislation in the case of ordinary legislative procedure, applied according to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Similarly to the legislative prerogative, the European Parliament shares its budgetary authority with the Council of Ministers. In the case of the supervisory function, the function is fulfilled in cooperation with the Commission and the Council (Bache, Bulmer, George, Parker, 2011, 270).

As stated in the Maastricht Treaty, the European Parliament can approve the appointment of the President and members of the Commission, while the Treaty of Amsterdam strengthened the European Parliament's prerogative in the case of the President, being required its particular approval. The Treaty of Lisbon specified that the candidate for the presidency has to be chosen based on the results of the European Parliament elections. Additionally, the European Parliament can dismiss the Commission based on a vote of censure, but it can't target individual Commissioners. For the adoption of a motion of censure, an absolute majority of MEPs is required and two-thirds of the votes cast (Bache, Bulmer, George, Parker, 2011, 271).

The European Parliament has also the right to ask the Commission written or oral questions related to the issues it considers essential for the development of European Union. As noticed, the powers of the European Parliament are limited in order to create a balanced participation between the European Parliament, European Council and the Council of Ministers, for instance, according to the Lisbon Treaty, the European Parliament can ask for a report of each European Council meeting, so that the legislative authority can take into consideration the strategies discussed. A consultative role is also fulfilled in the case of the Common Foreign and Security Policy or the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, the European agencies preserving a close collaboration with the European Parliament (Bache, Bulmer, George, Parker, 2011, 272-273).

In the case of the European Parliament, some special characteristics are to be mentioned, both as the central European institution, as well as a particular democratic institution in the world.  

Firstly, the European Parliament is the world’s most far-reaching experiment in transnational democracy, where international diplomacy is replaced – or at least complemented by – transnational democracy. 

Secondly, it is part of a unique and historically unprecedented institutional system: the European Union, with its mixture of supranational powers and intergovernmental cooperation. 

Thirdly, its very existence is controversial, although it existed for decades in the the democratic space of the European Union, as some politicians in hew member states are still opposing to its development. 

Fourthly, it is evolving quickly. Elected for the first time in 1979, the European Parliament is still a young parliament, comparing with national parliaments as the French one, but has developed its role and powers considerably in the 32 years that have passed since then. 

Fifthly, it is obliged by the member states to operate in three different locations rather than have a single seat, as noticed in the case of the national parliaments. 

Sixthly, it is multilingual to a degree unknown elsewhere (only the Indian and South African parliaments are even remotely comparable) with interpretation at its meetings and translation of all documents. 

Seventhly, like the US Congress, but unlike the national parliaments of the member states, no government emerges directly from a majority in Parliament and the elections are not therefore about preserving or changing an executive. 

Eighthly, the Parliament continues to expand in size, from 410 members from 9 countries when it was first elected to 734 from 27 now and a scheduled 751 soon. 

Ninthly, its Members emerge from a vast number (nearly 200) political parties,  though they are affiliated to a handful of European groupings as the Social Democrats, the Liberals or the Greens. 

Tenthly, unlike most national parliaments in European countries, it has a fixed term of office and cannot be dissolved for early elections (Wallace, Pollack, Young, 2010, 100-104).

For all these reasons, the European Parliament cancels the common categorization of national parliaments. Moreover, it cannot be understood without reference to the European Union as a concept. The structure of the European Parliament and its mechanism influenced other European institutions as the European Commission or the European Council. Basically, the European institutions are created the represent in a democratic perspective the national interests of all member states, with the respect of the common interests of the European Union (Tocci, 2014, 45).

In terms of the common interests accepted by the European institution, there is a pragmatic driving force behind European integration, namely the practical concern to manage the growing economic interdependence of European countries. The creation of a single European market, with goods and services freely circulating from one country to another, has reinforced this, requiring a degree of common policy-making.

A common market needs common rules and the assurance that everyone will apply those rules. It needs a level playing field and harmonization of the ways in which public authorities intervene in the market. It generates pressure for common European-level rules in areas such as consumer protection, environmental standards, external trade, assistance to less prosperous regions, competition policy, and workplace standards, and for common policies in areas where all governments intervene in the market, notably transport and agriculture (McGowan, Phinnemore, 2015, 104). 

After the creation of the European Union, we now have “a classic two chamber legislature: in which the Council represents the states and the European Parliament represents the citizens” (Hix, 1999, 54). Whether it is “classic” or not, the policy performed at EU level is not just a matter for national governments, but for the directly-elected Parliament as well. 

The Parliament also has a role in scrutinizing the executive in the form of the European Commission. Commissioners are politicians nominated (like national ministers) by Prime Ministers or Presidents. The team of Commissioners as a  whole requires the approval of a majority in Parliament to take office and, once in  office, can be dismissed by (and only by) a vote of no confidence taken in the  European Parliament – and both these aspects have been dramatically illustrated in  recent years (Schimdt, 2010, 37). 

The European Parliament is not a „normal” Parliament in media terms. Compared to many national parliaments, it lacks the tension of debate between government and opposition. Like the US Congress, its real work is performed in committees.  The plurality of languages used makes the debates far from spectacular, as presented by the media (Corbett, Jacobs, Shackelton, 2011, 99).

But concerning the legislative or budgetary work, members of the EP shape legislation in a way that members of many national parliaments do not. In the national context, when a government publishes a bill, it is usually clear what will surpass the procedure, but is not the case in the European Parliament, where every document is respected by all member states, interested in the fulfillment of the common interests, with the preservation of their national objectives (Hix, 1999, 75).

The nature of day-to-day work is also different. One measure of a good member of the Parliament in a national context is someone who is a good debater, able to score points over his or her opponents. An effective member of the EP is someone who is good at explaining, persuading and negotiating with colleagues from 27 different countries.

The fulfillment of common interests, with the preservation of the national interests is performed at three levels. Firstly, within Political Groups, as members of the EP from different national parties work towards developing a common position as a Group.

Secondly, with other Groups in the Parliament, as no Group has an overall majority and coalitions must be created. The type of majority can vary from one issue to another as there is no predetermined coalition, but instead a general willingness to work by means of achieving substantial majorities on most issues.

Thirdly, once Parliament has an official position, there is the need to negotiate with Council for the final outcome. Such a parliamentary style leaves ample scope for an active member of the EP, providing that he or she is good at building the necessary majorities (Tocci, 2014, 50-54). 

Nearly all international parliamentary assemblies consist of representatives nominated from members of national parliaments. Since 1979, but the members of the European Parliament have been directly elected. This status is not unique – the Central American Parliament is also now directly elected – but the much greater powers of the European Parliament set it apart (Hix, 1999, 10). 

The treaties existing in the European Union established that elections to the European Parliament should be by a uniform electoral procedure. After years of failing to agree such a procedure, the treaties were amended (through the Amsterdam Treaty of 1997) to allow for the adoption of “common principles” as an alternative to a totally uniform procedure (Kyriakos, 2015, 49). 

This procedure was established in 2002, to be applied from the 2004 elections. In practice, although elections are organized transnationally, the Member States have used different electoral systems, albeit with a degree of convergence in recent years.  Unlike other areas of Community law where it is the Commission that has the right of initiative, in this case it is the European Parliament itself that enjoys the right to propose a common system or common principles. Its proposal must then go to the Council, which must adopt a procedure by unanimity (Kyriakos, 2015, 57).

A first and fundamental issue over the years has been whether there should be an obligation to have a system of proportional representation in all countries. The main exception in this regard was the majority system used in the UK from 1979- 1999, which could alone alter the entire political balance in the European Parliament. A small swing in votes can produce a magnified swing in seats in a “first  past the post” system. This was all the more so in the large constituencies that were used for European elections with relatively fewer “safe seats” (Topaloff, 2012, 100).

As a result the overall balance in the European Parliament could be changed more by a small swing of votes in some 40 marginal seats in Britain than by a large swing across  the rest of Europe. Whichever one of the two main British parties was ahead of the  other could take a near clean sweep of the British (i.e. UK excluding Northern Ireland) seats, as the Conservatives did in 1979 winning 60 of the 78 seats available,  and Labor did in 1994 winning 62 out of 84. Other British parties were squeezed out entirely: the Liberal Democrats won no seats at all until 1994, despite being Europe’s largest Liberal party with as much as 19.5 per cent of the vote in 1984, and  the UK Greens obtained no seats with 14 per cent in 1989 (Topaloff, 2012, 104-105).

This system affected the overall balance of Groups across Europe. In 1984, the European Democratic Group, of which the Conservatives were the main component, won 50 seats with 6 million votes across Europe compared with only 32 seats obtained by the Liberal Group with 10 million votes. In 1994, the Socialist Group received the bonus, keep-  ing them larger than the EPP, despite having obtained fewer votes. The British electoral system was thus not only a British matter, but one of concern for the whole Parliament (Harmsen, Spiering, 2004, 67). 

The overall composition of the European Parliament has changed greatly since previous direct elections, when it only had 198 members, fewer than either of the two largest Political Groups in the 2009 Parliament.

It continued to grow steadily after the successive enlargements from 410 after the first direct elections to 626 in the 1999-2004 Parliament.

The Parliament had itself suggested that the upper limit on its size should be 700, and this was accepted by the Member States and incorporated into the Amsterdam Treaty, but later revised upwards to 732 in the Treaty of Nice and subsequently adjusted to 736 (Leconte, Camille, 2010, 145-147).

After the accession of Bulgaria and Romania the number rose to 785 members for the second half of the 2004-2009 parliamentary term, since the number of MEPs from the existing Member States remained the same until the next elections (as happened in May 2004, when  the 626 existing MEPs were joined by 162 MEPs from the 10 new Member States,  and the total number briefly went up to 788 until after the June elections). 

The Lisbon Treaty provides for 751 MEPs, with 12 countries gaining a total of 18  seats (4 more from Spain, 2 more from Austria, France and Sweden, and 1 more  from Bulgaria, Italy, Latvia, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Slovenia and the United Kingdom), and one country (Germany) losing 3 seats.

It had been hoped that the Lisbon Treaty would be in force by the 2009 elections, but it was only ratified afterwards, and 736 MEPs were thus elected under Nice Treaty rules. The European Council later agreed that a Protocol be adopted, and then ratified by all Member States, in order to implement this increase during the lifetime of the 2009-2014 Parliament, but without penalizing Germany, so that it can be allowed to keep its current total of 99 MEPs until the next elections in 2014. The EP decided in principle that, after signature of the Protocol, but pending its ratification, the additional Members would be able to take their seats already as observers (non-voting Members).  How the additional MEPs are chosen has proved to be controversial (Kyriakos, 2015, 342-245).

Most  Member States are simply taking the person(s) who would have been elected had  the extra seat already been in place at the time of the election – and indeed the extra  seat often featured in the 2009 election campaign. France, however, announced its intention to nominate the two extra MEPs from the French Parliament (Tocci, 2014, 98).

There were strong objections to this by many in the EP as a matter of principle, which held up the procedure for several months in an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to make  the French government think again. In the Italian Parliament a vote had to be taken on which method of calculation would be used, as each would give the additional Italian seat to a different party (Corbett, Jacobs, Shackelton, 2011, 24). 

The results of the Eurobarometer 81 (2014) reveal essential details about the Europeans` approach to European Union. For instance, the national economic situation is seen as "good" by 34% of the Europeans, marking an increase of +3%, comparing with the previous research. This detail is remarkable, as European space was affected by the financial crisis in the 2008 and still, the answers of the Europeans suggest the highest proportion of positive opinions on this indicator since the survey developed in 2007 (Eurobarometer, 2014, 30.

Despite the positive results obtained in the case of national economy performance, asked about the economic situation in the EU, the respondents developed a critical attitude: 31% of Europeans think that the economic situation in the EU is "good", but their proportion is reduced to the number of respondents satisfied by the national economy. The predominantly dissatisfaction related to the inefficient economical evolution of EU can be a justification for the Euroscepticism, as respondents tend to perceive their own countries as efficient, while the European instituations can`t deliver the same results (Eurobarometer, 2014, 30).

Figure 1. Europeans` perspective concerning the evolution of national and European economies (Eurobarometer, 2014, 7)

Asked whether they consider their interests are reflected by the European institutions, the respondents to the Eurobarometer 81 predominantly manifested a positive attitude. In 11 Member States, most people say that their voice counts in the EU, as in the case of Sweden (78%), Denmark (75%), Netherlands (63%), Croatia (59%), Finland (58%), Germany (57%), Belgium (55%), Malta (55%), France (54%), Luxembourg (51%) and Austria (50%). The results are similar to the data revealed by the previous research in 2013, when the majority of European citizens in particularly, the same member states as Denmark (65%), Sweden (58%), the Netherlands (56%), Belgium (54%), Malta (51%) and Luxembourg (50%) suggested the same attitude (Eurobarometer, 2014, 10).

At this level, it is noticeable that the positive attitude regarding the reflection of national interests in the common European strategies is supported by citizens from traditional member states as France or Belgium. On the other, the opposite attitude manifests at both traditional or new member states. For instance, 35% of the Romanians consider that their voices aren`t analyzed in the European decision-making process, while 33% of the British citizens affirm that their national interests aren`t considered by the European Institutions (Eurobarometer, 2014, 10).

Figură 2. Reflection of national interests represented by the EU (Eurobarometer, 2014, 10)

May 2014 marked the elections to the eighth European Parliament, globally highlighting the emergence of a center-right current, as most MEPS belong to political groups representing this political direction. In terms of political perspective of the European Parliament, the 2014 elections represented a particular situation: as center-right political groups became more visible, the number of Eurosceptic MEPs also recorded an impressive number, including both the populist left and the right political representative. In terms of representativeness, the 2014 elections were the largest in the EU`s history, yet the turnout was disappointing. Approximately 42.54% of the eligible European citizens to vote in the European space effectively vote their representatives in the European Parliament, being the lowest rate of turnout among EP elections (McGowan, Phinnemore, 2015, 230).

The particular situations related to the 2014 elections continued with suggestive discrepancies at the national level. For instance, member states as Belgium (90%), Luxembourg (86%) and Malta (75%) recorded a constant turnout, while a member state as Italy marked an impressive decrease of turnout, from 65% registered in 2009 to 57% in 2014, a similar situation being noticed in the case of Ireland too, whose turnout decreased from 59% in 2009 to 52% in the current EP elections (McGowan, Phinnemore, 2015, 232).

The results of the European Parliament elections in 2014 were the effects of a complex phenomenon affecting Europe during the last decade, deepened by austerity perspective of the financial crisis. The European Commission, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund constantly involved in the national evolution of each European state member affected by the financial crisis, in order to secure the global structure of European Union, which generated a wave of public revolt or distrust about the necessity of this measure. Major leaders as the German chancellor Angela Merkel manifested their sympathy to the countries affected by crisis, yet they were perceived as unable to monitor the progress of economical recovery or implementation of reliable reforms (Kyriakos, 2015, 45).

In addition, the presence of International Monetary Fund (IMF) on European agenda was regarded be European states as extremely strict, based on their punctual demands of returning the funds granted to countries as Greece or Cyprus, while a softer approach was expected to be adopted. Facing the Greece's difficulties in implementing a reliable economical recovery, the IMF had to change its projections of the austerity programs created for the countries it borrowed, granting more flexible strategies of returning the funds. Ireland in December 2013 and Portugal in June 2014 managed to leave the tutelage of the troika (the monitor of the progress registered by indebted countries), while Greece and Cyprus are still vigilantly monitored (Kyriakos, 2015, 46).

The impact of the economic austerity programs substantially affected politics and social life. Concretely, citizens in several state members are dissatisfied by their national democracy, as well as by the European Union's evolution. According to the results of the Eurobarometer in 2014, citizens of the state members in Southern, Central and Eastern Europe perceive that their "voice" doesn't count in the mechanism of the European Union. For instance, in the autumn of 2013 results obtained in 13 state members including Portugal, Spain, Greece, Italy, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Bulgaria and Romania pointed that 29% of the respondents consider that their national position is not taken into account by Central European authorities. On the other hand, in Denmark the highest value of trust in European authorities was registered, 57% of Danish citizens consider that their national demands are analyzed and implemented by the European Union (Eurobarometer, 2014, 24).

At the end of 2008, the European Union seemed to face a risky phase of its evolution, featuring a lack of consistency between public support and the decision-making process. Additionally to the external critics regarding European Union's strategies, internal dissatisfaction occurred as a former Prime Minister and an European expert openly stated that the imbalance affecting the European Union is justified by the slow reaction of the state members in the case of the issue consecutively affecting the European Union's evolution. The state members are expected to react    in a more supportive perspective to the European policy, in order to reduce the effects of the financial crisis (Bârgăoanu, Radu, Negrea-Busuioc, 2014, 10).

During the period 2008-2013, citizens in the Eurozone manifested an increased dissatisfaction, their confidence in European Union's efficiency decreasing from 52% in 2008 to 43% to 2013. In addition, as the financial crisis deepened, the public perspective substantially changed, especially in the case of Euro-zone countries, becoming more skeptical regarding the efficiency of European Union, as well as the necessity to expand the European Union. The Greece's difficulties concerning its economical recovery became a central topic on agenda, transforming into the center of the current Euro crisis. From the status of most expensive state member, absorbing more than 400 billion euros, Greece was considered an inevitable bankruptcy case (Bârgăoanu, Radu, Negrea-Busuioc, 2014, 14).

Greece was not the only European state with financial difficulties, but it created the context of a public frustration directed to the efficiency of European Union, based on its previous experience as constant beneficiary of European funds. Due to the austerity measures implemented in most of member states, Greece became the symbolic guilty of the current financial situation of European Union. State members as Spain, Portugal, Italy or Ireland expressed their skeptical attitude regarding the crisis of Eurozone (Bârgăoanu, Radu, Negrea-Busuioc, 2014, 15).

In this tense context, the European institutions are perceived as stable representations of the European concept, expected to interfere in order to re-establish political, economic or social order.

2.2. Employees for the European institutions

The recruitment process in the case of the European institutions is one of the most transparent employer branding concepts implemented on the labor market. In addition, each European institution is interested in preserving the transparent mechanism of acquiring new experts, as well as preserving the loyalty of the existing ones. In practice, the European institution spend about 6% of their annual budget on costs associated with employer branding, administration of the stuff and the maintenance of the buildings. Concretely, the cost of the European administration is basically supported by the member states, their contribution being estimated at 94%, while the European Union effectively contribute with 6% (Arrowsmith, Puligano, 2013, 104).

For instance, the European Commission has its activity divided into Directorates, similar in prerogatives to ministries. Each Directorate is associated with a particular area of activity, such as environment protection or European commercial relations, being leaded by a Director, reporting to a Commissioner. In practice, 33 000 experts are employed in the Directorates of the European Commission, their expertise being fundamental for the correct monitor of the activity associated with the Directorate, as well as with the issue of improvements, in order to obtain the maximal results (Genrad, Judge, 2005, 135).

In the case of the European Parliament, the number of the experts is reduced, being estimated at 6 000 employees in the general secretariat of the institution, as well on the different political groups. Their proportion is completed by the elected members of the European Parliament and their staff. Another European institution that uses a reduced number of experts, yet without affecting its activity, is the Council of the European Union, relying on 3 500 experts (Gaxie, Hube, Rowell, 2013, 24).

In terms of nationalities, the major proportion of employees in the European institutions is represented by the French experts, approximatively 2.257.981 experts, followed by the British experts, their number being estimated at 1.036.900, as suggested in the figure below.

Figură 3. The national distribution of employees in the European institutions (Gaxie, Hube, Rowell, 2013, 27)

The last place of the major national distribution is represented by the Swedish experts, estimated at 601.035. The rest of the experts emerging from other member states do not surpass the level of the Swedish experts (Gaxie, Hube, Rowell, 2013, 27).

While analyzing their activity in the European institutions, the experts generally associate it with the idea of a generous salary, that could not be obtained in their national institutions, as suggested in the figure below analyzing the perspective of becoming an European expert, based on the nationality of each respondent.

Figură 4. Reasons of becoming an European expert (Gaxie, Hube, Rowell, 2013, 30)

The most optimist experts about the salary to be received as a European expert are the experts emerging from Netherlands (+2.9%), who consider that a job in a European institution is more attractive in terms of income, comparing with Belgium experts (+2.3%). On the other hand, the Deutsch experts (-4.5%) consider hiring into a European institution as the less attractive opportunity to use their skills, followed by the British experts (-3.2%) and the French ones (-0.3%). The results suggest that the most frequent experts as the British and the French do not regard being hired into a European institution as a positive evolution as suggested by the previous analysis (Gaxie, Hube, Rowell, 2013, 30).

Despite the potential disappointment related to the attractiveness of the job, the income obtained is still a major criterion to convince experts through reliable employer branding strategies focused on the financial stability. Concretely, the Belgium experts (+3.6%) consider that the salary increases as being hired into a European institution, rather than in another institution or company, as a consequence it is particularly attractive to be an expert for the European Union. The same position is shared by the Netherlanders and French experts (+2%), each of them perceive the increase of the salary in the European institutions as possible and satisfactory. The British and the German experts (+1.3%) are less optimistic about the salary increase, yet they consider it sufficiently attractive to direct their attention towards the possibility of being hired or preserving their jobs in the European institutions (Gaxie, Hube, Rowell, 2013, 30).

In the case of pension contribution, the experts in France (7.85%) and the Netherlands (6.42%) consider that the costs of retirement are too expensive as employed to the European Institutions, comparing with the British experts (3.5%). The potential justification of this attitude is that the experts emerging in this state members benefit of a reliable private pension system in their native countries, as a consequence the labor contract signed with an European institution might not satisfy their interests in a reliable retirement as expected. Similarly, in Belgium and Germany, there are private systems of contribution to the retirement, yet the experts originated in these state members consider there is no difference between being an expert for the European Union and being a local expert (Gaxie, Hube, Rowell, 2013, 30).

While considering the level of the maximum pension they could achieve, the British (75%) and French experts (75%) consider that being hired to a European institution is definitely a positive fact, supporting them to reach an improved level of their retirement incomes, followed by the Deutsch experts (71.25%). The less confident in the perspective of obtaining an improved pension are the experts in the Netherlands (2.05%), while the Belgian ones perceive it from a neutral perspective, as being hired to a European institution in this case is similar to be the employee of any other institution or company (Gaxie, Hube, Rowell, 2013, 30).

2.3. Recruitment process in terms of employer branding

Nowadays, employer branding is a concept affecting multiple companies and institutions, as it coordinates their strategies to create a corporate brand, as well as to recruit the most valuable employees for the organization. In terms of recruitment, employer branding surpasses traditional strategies of recruiting employees as offering substantial rewards, in order to attract and render loyal the experts on the market. In practice, employer branding invites organizations to adopt long-term strategies of recruiting, based on different needs of the potential employees such as self-esteem, fulfillment of personal ambition, without neglecting the financial aspect of the recruitment itself: "Value is not just about pay parity; it’s about flexibility, it’s about understanding, and it’s about seeing the person not just as a unit of production, but as a person who wants to be the best they can be – not just the best professional, but the best colleague, the best leader, the best husband and the best father. Loyalty comes not through cash, but through empathy" (Armstrong, 2006, 395).

Concretely, the organizations nowadays are interested in recruiting the best employees to support on the long-term the activity of the organization. In this perspective, employer branding strategies are focused on the following essential questions:

What is an “employer brand” to the organization, in terms of profitability?

How is it different from the wider organizational brand presented in relation to products and services, or to the reputation and “brand” presented to shareholders? 

How is an employer brand built? (Jorn, 2015, 2007).

Analyzing the framework proposed by Jorn (2015), it is noticeable the inclusion of employer branding into the organization`s strategies on the long term, as a profitable method to improve the organization`s performance on the market, which is likely to create a positive image among stakeholders, positively affecting its sales or in the case of public institutions its public image. Secondly, a strategy of employer branding, although it is structured on two common organizational concepts as "branding" and "recruitment" surpass their current effects, as employer branding is a double process, implementer on an internal level, including the strategies related to existing employees and their activities, as well as on an external level, attracting new employees. The results of an efficient employer branding is the creation of a reliable corpus of experts improving the activity of the organization, as well as the creation or the improvement of its performance on the market, generating positive effects as a reliable image among stakeholders. Based on its essential importance, the third question of Jorn (2015) is in fact a conclusion of the previous facts, the scholar asking how an organization could a long-term employer branding strategy.

In addition to the framework presented, the recruitment process in the case of employer branding can be also structured on the following issues, that an institution or company is interested to constantly verify, before hiring new persons or through the loyalty programs already implemented:

How is an employer brand conveyed to people considering joining an organization?

And how is it conveyed to current employees to build their engagement and commitment? 

What happens to an employer brand when disaster strikes an organization’s  broader “corporate” brand, and what should be done in this circumstance? 

How might a good employer brand be affected and/or retained during times  when a restructure and downsizing might be needed? 

What might be needed if two organizations, with existing strong brands, join  together to create a new entity?  (Trevor Yu, Cable, 2013, 291)

As analyzing the suite of questions above mentioned, an employer branding concept is critical to the attraction of talented people, and to the retention of good people inside a company or institution. Experts included in the recruitment process are interested to notice and persuade the experts on the market, in order to become the organization`s employees, while in the case of the existing employees, who have contributed to the evolution of the company, they are willing to implement the most suitable programs of loyalty, responding to their needs of motivation and reward (Trevor Yu, Cable, 2013, 292).

Companies are facing problems concerning the attraction and retention of talented employees, due to the shortage of individuals with competence. Employer branding is a relatively new concept that can function as an instrument for firms to position themselves as an employer, in order to attract and retain wanted employees, as "a generalized recognition for being known among key stakeholders for providing a high quality employment experience, and a distinctive organizational identity which employees value, engage with and feel confident and happy to promote to others" (Trost, 2014, 45).

Employer branding refers to the process by which branding concepts and marketing, communications and HR techniques are applied to create this generalized recognition.  Until quite recently, most practitioners working in this field have focused on  the attraction of new talent, largely because of the ‘talent wars’ that characterized  much of the 1990s and millennium until the onset of the global financial crisis in  2007-2008 (Armstrong, 2006, 400).

In practice, the process of recruitment in the case of employer branding became associated with the external labor market application of marketing and communications tools (recruitment advertising, publicity, events) to attracting potential employees. Even then this external branding of the organization in labor markets always rested on having existing employees ‘live the brand’ because of their potential influence on customers and potential  employees (Brannan, Parsons, Priola, 2011, 108).

With the onset of recession and a sovereign debt crisis in many countries, the focus on employer branding gradually shifted to improving levels of employee engagement, arguably an even more important role given the potential returns on getting the maximum payback from often heavy investments in human and social capital (Trevor Yu, Cable, 2013, 294). 

While the importance of talent attraction and engagement make employer  branding a serious contender for inclusion in any list of high performance work  practices, it’s believed that employer branding can play a strategic role in ‘future- proofing’ corporate reputations, arguably a bigger agenda (Brannan, Parsons, Priola, 2011, 110).

Employer branding can be utilized both externally to attract potential employees, and internally to increase commitment and loyalty among current employees. In the context of recruitment, Employer Branding can make the process more effective. For the Employer Brand to be trustworthy and successful the consistency between the internal values and the external image is vital (Davies, Moir, 2011, 24).

Bibliography:

Armstrong, Michael (2006), Human Resource Management Practice, London, Kogan Page.

Arrowsmith, Jim; Puligano, Valeria (2013), The Transformation of Employment Relations in Europe, Institutions and Outcomes in the Age of Globalization, London and New York, Routledge.

Bârgăoanu, A., Radu, L., Negrea-Busuioc, E. (2014), The Rise of Euroscepticism in Times of Crisis. Evidence from 2008-2013 Eurobarometers. Revista Română de comunicare și relatii publice, vol. 16, no. 1, 9-23.

Bache, Ian; Bulmer, Simon; George, Stephen; Parker, Owen (2011), Politics in the European Union, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Brannan, Matthew; Parsons, Elizabeth; Priola, Vicenza (2011), Branded Lives. The Production and Consumption of Meaning at Work, London, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.

Corbett, Richard; Jacobs, Francis; Shackelton, Michael (2011), The European Parliament. 8th edition, London, John Harper Publishing.

Davies, Hugh; Moir, Susan (2011), Employer Branding, Case studies and comments from industry professionals, London, Book Pal.

Eurobarometer. Public Opinion in the European Union (2014), report no 81, Brussels, Directorate-General Press and Communication, 1-161.

Gaxie, Daniel; Hube, Nicolas; Rowell, Jay (2013), Perceptions of Europe: A Comparative Sociology of European Attitudes, London, ECRP Press.

Gernard, John; Judge, Graham (2005), Employee Relations, London, Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.

Harmsen, Robert; Spiering, Menno (2004), Euroscepticism: Party Politics, National Identity and European Integration, Rodopi, Amsterdam & New York.

Hix, Simon (1999), The Political System of the European Union, London, Macmillan.

Jorn, Axel (2014), New Ways of Personnel Marketing and Recruitment, Hamburg, Anchor Academic Publishing.

Kyriakos, Demetriou (2015), The European Union in Crisis. Explorations in Representation and Democratic Legitimacy, New York, Springer International Publishing.

Leconte, Camille (2010), Understanding Euroscepticism, London & New York, Palgrave Macmillan.

McGowan, Lee; Phinnemore, David (2015), A Dictionary of the European Union, New York, Taylor & Francis.

Peterson, John; Shackleton, Michael (2006), The Institutions of the European Union. 3th edition, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Schmidt, Herbert (2010), European Parliament Elections After Eastern Enlargement, New York, Taylor & Francis.

http://en.strasbourg-europe.eu/council-of-europe,2090,en.html.

Tocci, Nathalie (2014), Imagining Europe: Towards a More United and Effective EU, Rome, Edizioni Nuova Cultura.

Topaloff, Liubomir (2012), Political Parties and Euroscepticism, London & New York, Palgrave Macmillan.

Trevor Yu, Kang Yang; Cable, Daniel (2013), The Oxford Handbook of Recruitment, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Trost, Armin (2014), Talent Relationship Management. Competitive Recruiting Strategies in Times of Talent Shortage, New York, Springer.

Wallace, Hellen; Pollack, Mark, Young, Alasdair (2010), Policy-Making in the European Union, Oxford, Oxford University Press.