Search results

This study aims to examine whether a good corporate reputation leads to superior investment returns. Theory and empirics provide support for the idea that a good corporate reputation improves firm value, but much of the previous research fails to consider the risk of the companies they study and relies only on accounting measures of performance such as return on assets. A complete picture of the relationship between corporate reputation and shareholder value should include risk-adjusted returns and correlation with benchmark returns.

The Harris Poll Reputation Quotient (RQ), based on the reputations of the 100 most visible companies, suggests that companies with a “solid reputation” are more likely to be attractive investments. The authors construct portfolios using deciles and the RQ categories, rebalancing annually as RQ rankings are updated. Returns are adjusted for risk using Jensen's alpha, the information ratio, the Sharpe ratio, Modigliani and Modigliani's M2 measure, and Muralidhar's M3 measure.

The results indicate that choosing a portfolio based on the highest RQ-ranked firms does outperform the market on a risk-adjusted basis, and that the relationship between rankings and time-weighted returns is roughly monotonic. The authors also observe that corporate reputation is persistent, and that the best and worst most-visible firms are more likely to be privately held.

This research adds to the literature by including both market-based return measures and risk in the examination of the relationship between corporate reputation and financial performance.

Scholarship on reputation in and of organizations has been going on for decades, and it always has separated along level of analysis issues, whereby the separate literatures on individual, group/team/unit, and organization reputation fail to acknowledge each other. This sends the implicit message that reputation is a fundamentally different phenomenon at the three different levels of analysis. We tested the validity of this implicit assumption by conducting a multilevel review of the reputation literature, and drawing conclusions about the “level-specific” or “level-generic” nature of the reputation construct. The review results permitted the conclusion that reputation phenomena are essentially the same at all levels of analysis. Based on this, we frame a future agenda for theory and research on reputation.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the moderating role of culture in terms of uncertainty avoidance in the antecedents of customer-based bank reputation in two countries with different cultural patterns.

This study was carried out by surveying 910 bank customers of the main banks in the UK and Spain. The hypotheses employed in this research were developed by contrasting the moderating role of uncertainty avoidance in the relationships between bank reputation and its antecedents, and were then tested through the use of partial least squares modelling.

Significant differences between British and Spanish bank customers were found with regard to the impact of innovation, workplace and leadership on bank reputation. However, the results obtained when considering uncertainty avoidance as a continuous moderator variable suggested that only the differences found as regards workplace and leadership were owing to this variable, thus providing empirical support for two out of the eight hypotheses developed on the basis of cultural theories.

This is the first study to analyse whether the relative importance of the antecedents of bank reputation differ with regard to customers’ uncertainty avoidance patterns, which is the cultural variable that is most closely linked in literature to customers’ banking decisions. This study contributes towards reputation research by showing that cultural differences in terms of uncertainty avoidance should be used with caution when establishing business guides for bank managers.

Considering a macro view of business and higher education interactions, this chapter explores key facets for business interest in other organizations (e.g., other businesses and their social agendas, nonprofits, and higher education) and a trend toward the creation of signature programs, which allow most companies to focus efforts by highlighting Carroll's (1991) Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility and Jacoby's (1973) Three Models of Behavior of the Business Enterprise. This chapter also addresses ethical opportunities and problems.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the contemporaneous relationship between changes in corporate reputations and stock prices.

The Harris Interactive Reputation Quotient^TM is used as a measure of corporate reputation. Stock return and risk measures are evaluated for each Reputation Quotient^TM survey period for the years 1999‐2007.

The results provide evidence that, in the aggregate, firm reputations are procyclical. Additionally, firms with improved reputations enjoy lower volatility in their stock prices than firms with diminished reputations.

Due to the Harris Poll Online methodology, it is not clear that the price changes occur concurrently with the change in reputation.

This paper contributes to the finance literature by examining the effect of a change in corporate reputation on stock price.

The corporate reputation of a firm and reputation risk is becoming increasingly important because of the rise of social media and the ongoing globalization. While defining and measuring corporate reputation and reputation risk represent the first steps in corporate reputation (risk) management, there is no general agreement in defining and measuring these two terms. Hence, this paper aims to give an overview of the existing literature in this regard, discuss it with respect to the operability in corporate reputation (risk) management and, based on this, present a holistic and consistent approach to define and measure corporate reputation and reputation risk.

The paper gives an overview of the literature regarding definitions and measurement methods of corporate reputation and reputation risk. Moreover, it discusses such definitions and measurement methods with respect to the operability in corporate reputation (risk) management.

Based on an overview of the literature regarding definitions and measurement methods of corporate reputation and reputation risk, the authors present a holistic and consistent approach to define and measure corporate reputation and reputation risk.

The authors present an holistic and consistent approach to define and measure corporate reputation and reputation risk with focus on (risk) management purposes.

This chapter expands traditional approaches to Corporate Reputation Management by employing postmodernist approaches to value co-creation in order to identify how Facebook Features can be used to facilitate company–consumer Corporate Reputation co-creation.

Using content analysis of Facebook Fan Pages, the chapter explores how 29 of the world’s most reputable corporations use Facebook Features.

To a surprising degree, the corporations in the sample, despite having virtually limitless access to marketing communications resources, fail to make full use of the opportunities Facebook offers them. It appears that they have not yet fully adapted to this novel medium.

Facebook together with the locus has also shifted the focus of corporate communications from one-way company-controlled transmission of information to multiparty user-controlled conversations. Thus, Corporate Reputations can no longer be managed. Instead, by offering consumers experiences and emotional triggers, corporations can engage them into willingly marketing the corporation and its products to each other.

This is the first systematic analysis of the practices the world’s most prominent corporations utilize (or fail to employ) on Facebook. It illustrates that companies that adapt to the Social Media ecology can successfully orchestrate customer experiences that foster the co-creation of the desired Corporate Reputation.

While research has shown that corporate social responsibility (CSR) can enhance a company's reputation, less is known about the effects of CSR communication on nonprofits. Hence, the current study seeks to understand how corporate reputation, message credibility and message source may impact consumers' attitudinal and behavioral intentions toward nonprofits.

A 2 (corporate reputation: low vs high) × 2 (CSR communication source: newspaper blog vs nonprofit blog) between-subjects online experiment was conducted. Real-world corporations (Toyota and Volkswagen) and a nonprofit (World Wildlife Fund) were chosen based on a pretest.

Nonprofit reputation increased after reading a CSR message, especially when it involved a partnership with a low-reputation corporation. Nevertheless, CSR partnerships with high-reputation corporations evoked higher volunteer intentions. Message credibility mediated the relationship between corporate reputation and nonprofit reputation. When the communication source was the nonprofit and the partnership involved a high-reputation corporation, positive evaluations of nonprofit likeability and competence resulted.

Nonprofit communication managers should understand the merit of communicating CSR partnerships with their constituents, regardless of medium. Additionally, the choice of a corporate partner is important for certain nonprofit outcomes. Lastly, message credibility is another important factor that should be considered.

The study bridges literature in communications that typically examines CSR by focusing on its effects on corporate outcomes with literature in nonprofit management that looks at nonprofit outcome measures. This study demonstrated that nonprofit–corporate alliances can also influence nonprofit reputation and donation/volunteer intentions based on the reputation of the corporate partner.

This article aims to hypothesize a model of trust in both senses of the word – a model, as in something to emulate, and a model as in a structural framework that describes its components. Almost all business people agree that winning and keeping the trust of customers, investors, employees and other stakeholders is critical to business success. There is also broad agreement that trust in business and government has been in serious decline over the past few decades, as documented in a number of studies. Ironically, however, there is little agreement on the nature of trust. Researchers and strategists use the word loosely, without a common definition of its components and with no clear understanding of the process by which it is built, nurtured – and lost.

Based on syndicated research and the more than three-decades experience in public relations, the author suggests that trust has both rational and emotional components that arise from stakeholders’ perception of their own affinity with a brand, company or individual, as well as their judgments of its competencies and purpose. Stakeholder perceptions along these dimensions can be displayed within a three-dimensional matrix, which can explain a range of rational/emotional reactions ranging from simple disappointment and begrudging respect to complete distrust and unquestioned trust.

The model of trust is useful for analyzing a brand, company or individual’s present trust position. It will also enable strategists to design a thoughtful, balanced approach to maintaining or improving stakeholder trust. The model allows strategists to articulate a set of actions and behaviors that will build on strengths, fill voids and correct past errors.

This is a theoretical hypothesis that still needs to be tested, but it appears to present a useful approach to considering issues of trust.

The new model builds on existing research to address an issue that has become even more critical to organizations and individuals in a world of instant communication and everyman publishing. Applying the model to business decision-making will protect firms from inadvertently losing stakeholder trust and enhance their ability to build even stronger stakeholder relationships.

Strategic management researchers have devoted increasing attention to the study of corporate reputation over the past two decades. Reputation has been conceptualized as a valuable intangible asset, and numerous studies have sought to identify its antecedents and foundations. This chapter recommends a dynamic approach toward reputation research. We argue that studies should examine the processes through which reputational assets are accumulated and depleted over time (i.e. that they should attend to reputational “flows” in addition to reputational “stocks”). We specifically suggest that research focus upon particular corporate actions, examining how (and if) corporate reputations change in their wake. We provide pragmatic and theoretical rationales for this approach toward reputation research. We construct a framework for conducting dynamic, action-focused studies of reputational change. We provide general guidelines for designing such studies, and also provide some specific (i.e. “nuts and bolts”) advice about executing them. We provide one in-depth example of research conducted within this framework. We also identify a number of other corporate actions that could be readily examined using the same methodological and theoretical approach.