The Reputation of Companies across Different Countries: Some Keys to Validating the Comparison of Results

Abstract

Economic globalization is leading large companies to focus on international strategic management. Nowadays, the assets referred to as “corporate intangibles,” such as corporate reputation, are becoming increasingly important because they are considered a key factor for the viability of an organization, and companies therefore need to incorporate them into their scorecards for management. The problem is that their measurement is subjective and latent. These two characteristics impede direct international comparison and require demonstrating the accuracy of comparison via a minimum of two tests – construct equivalence and metric equivalence. As regards corporate reputation, construct equivalence was verified by Naomi Gardberg (2006). However, the subsequent studies did not address metric equivalence. Based on the results of a survey provided by the Reputation Institute (n = 5,950, 50 firms evaluated in 17 countries in the Americas, Europe, Asia and Australia), the degree of RepTrak metric equivalence has been tested, using two different methodologies, multigroup analysis (structural equation model), and a new technique from 2016, the Measurement Invariance of Composite Model procedure from the Partial Least Square Path Modeling family. As one would expect from other cross-cultural studies, reputation metrics do not meet the full metric equivalence, which is why they require standardization processes to ensure international comparability. Both methodologies have identified the same correction parameters, which have allowed validation of the mean and variance of response style by country.

Citation

Carreras-Romero, E., Carreras-Franco, A. and Alloza-Losada, Á. (2019), "The Reputation of Companies across Different Countries: Some Keys to Validating the Comparison of Results", Global Aspects of Reputation and Strategic Management (Research in Global Strategic Management, Vol. 18), Emerald Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 211-267. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1064-485720190000018014