IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i17p9987-d629989.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Examination of the Consumers’ Expectations Regarding Company’s Contribution to Ontological Security

Author

Listed:
  • Réka Saáry

    (Keleti Károly Faculty of Business and Management, Óbuda University, H-1084 Budapest, Hungary)

  • Ágnes Csiszárik-Kocsir

    (Keleti Károly Faculty of Business and Management, Óbuda University, H-1084 Budapest, Hungary)

  • János Varga

    (Keleti Károly Faculty of Business and Management, Óbuda University, H-1084 Budapest, Hungary)

Abstract

Security is considered a basic human need, according to Maslow’s hierarchy; however, it is hard to define exactly what the term means. Globalization, the digital environment, bring new dimensions and increasingly diverse interpretations of security to life. These new approaches, while reducing the consistency of the concept, allow an understanding of individual attitudes towards security. In recent years, several researchers have analyzed the psychological dimension of security at a personal level and ontological security in relation to citizens, residents, employees and students; however, based on a review of research history, there is still a scientific gap with regard to the perspective of customers and consumers. Accepting the fact that market actors are increasingly taking their share of creating a secure environment, in our empirical study we focus on corporate involvement and contribution through an examination of consumers’ perceptions of security. Corporate security is originally a field supporting the smooth operation of the organization, but nowadays it has become an important element of corporate strategy and also a factor of competitiveness. Keeping that in mind, our objective is to get a picture of how consumers judge the contribution of companies to the general sense of security in Hungary, what security-related tasks they expect from the corporate actors, and how they feel about a company’s security-related performance. In our study, we develop the ontological security model of consumers, into which we integrate—next to the individual socio-psychological features and the macro-environmental elements—the dimension of the assessment of corporate performance, the possible components of which are analyzed during the quantitative primary research.

Suggested Citation

  • Réka Saáry & Ágnes Csiszárik-Kocsir & János Varga, 2021. "Examination of the Consumers’ Expectations Regarding Company’s Contribution to Ontological Security," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-19, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:17:p:9987-:d:629989
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/17/9987/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/17/9987/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lindenberg, Marc, 2002. "Measuring Household Livelihood Security at the Family and Community Level in the Developing World," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 301-318, February.
    2. Málovics, György & Csigéné, Noémi Nagypál & Kraus, Sascha, 2008. "The role of corporate social responsibility in strong sustainability," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 907-918, June.
    3. Elms, Heather & Phillips, Robert A., 2009. "Private Security Companies and Institutional Legitimacy: Corporate and Stakeholder Responsibility," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 19(3), pages 403-432, July.
    4. Hella Engerer, 2009. "Security Economics: Definition and Capacity," Economics of Security Working Paper Series 5, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chen, Shih-Chih & Hung, Chung-Wen, 2016. "Elucidating the factors influencing the acceptance of green products: An extension of theory of planned behavior," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 155-163.
    2. You, Heyuan & Zhang, Xiaoling, 2017. "Sustainable livelihoods and rural sustainability in China: Ecologically secure, economically efficient or socially equitable?," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 1-13.
    3. Tom Thomas & Eric Lamm, 2012. "Legitimacy and Organizational Sustainability," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 110(2), pages 191-203, October.
    4. Samreen Hamid & Asif Saeed & Umar Farooq & Faisal Alnori, 2022. "A Bibliometric Retrospection of CSR from the Lens of Finance and Economics: Towards Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-25, December.
    5. Wang, Weiwen & Gong, Jian & Wang, Ying & Shen, Yang, 2021. "Exploring the effects of rural site conditions and household livelihood capitals on agricultural land transfers in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    6. Taryn De Mendonca & Yan Zhou, 2020. "When companies improve the sustainability of the natural environment: A study of large U.S. companies," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(3), pages 801-811, March.
    7. Adam Sulich & Letycja Sołoducho-Pelc, 2021. "Renewable Energy Producers’ Strategies in the Visegrád Group Countries," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-21, May.
    8. Sarker, M Sazzadur Rahman & Sayem, Sheikh Mohammad & Alam, M Akhtarul & Rahman, Khandaker M Mostafizur, 2020. "Livelihood And Food Security Status Of The Working People In Safari Parks Of Bangladesh: A Multivariate Regression Analysis," Bangladesh Journal of Agricultural Economics, Bangladesh Agricultural University, vol. 40(1&2), February.
    9. Yves Fassin, 2010. "A Dynamic Perspective in Freeman’s Stakeholder Model," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 96(1), pages 39-49, August.
    10. Yaozu Xue & Lei Huang, 2019. "Factors influencing the livelihoods of ecological migrants in coal mined-out areas in China," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 1853-1867, August.
    11. Polin Kumar Saha & Shahida Akhter & Azizul Hassan, 2021. "Framing Corporate Social Responsibility to Achieve Sustainability in Urban Industrialization: Case of Bangladesh Ready-Made Garments (RMG)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-19, June.
    12. Robertas Vaitkus & Asta Vasiliauskaitė, 2022. "An Assessment of the Impact of Legal Regulation on Financial Security in OECD Countries," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-19, February.
    13. Holly M Burke & Whitney Moret & Samuel Field & Mario Chen & Yanwu Zeng & Firmin M Seka, 2016. "Assessing Household Economic Vulnerability in HIV-Affected Communities in Five Regions of Côte d'Ivoire," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(9), pages 1-19, September.
    14. Ellen Mangnus & A.C.M. (Guus) Van Westen, 2018. "Roaming through the Maze of Maize in Northern Ghana. A Systems Approach to Explore the Long-Term Effects of a Food Security Intervention," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-19, October.
    15. Kraus, Sascha & Rehman, Shafique Ur & García, F. Javier Sendra, 2020. "Corporate social responsibility and environmental performance: The mediating role of environmental strategy and green innovation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    16. Erik Roos Lindgreen & Roberta Salomone & Tatiana Reyes, 2020. "A Critical Review of Academic Approaches, Methods and Tools to Assess Circular Economy at the Micro Level," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-27, June.
    17. Thomas A. Tsalis & Kyveli E. Malamateniou & Dimitrios Koulouriotis & Ioannis E. Nikolaou, 2020. "New challenges for corporate sustainability reporting: United Nations' 2030 Agenda for sustainable development and the sustainable development goals," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(4), pages 1617-1629, July.
    18. Merih Angin & Beyza Taşdemir & Cenk Arda Yılmaz & Gökcan Demiralp & Mert Atay & Pelin Angin & Gökhan Dikmener, 2022. "A RoBERTa Approach for Automated Processing of Sustainability Reports," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-25, December.
    19. Shuxin Mao & Sha Qiu & Tao Li & Mingfang Tang, 2020. "Rural Households’ Livelihood Strategy Choice and Livelihood Diversity of Main Ethnic Minorities in Chongqing, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-15, October.
    20. Taryn De Mendonca & Yan Zhou, 2019. "What does targeting ecological sustainability mean for company financial performance?," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(8), pages 1583-1593, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:17:p:9987-:d:629989. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.