Search results

Companies in all industries are searching for new sources of competitive advantage since the competition in their marketplace is becoming increasingly intensive. The resource-based view of the firm explains the sources of sustainable competitive advantages. From a resource-based view perspective, relational based assets (i.e., the assets resulting from firm contacts in the marketplace) enable competitive advantage. The relational based assets examined in this work are brand image and corporate reputation, as components of brand equity, and customer value. This paper explores how they create value. Despite the relatively large amount of literature describing the benefits of firms in having strong brand equity and delivering customer value, no research validated the linkage of brand equity components, brand image, and corporate reputation, simultaneously in the customer value–customer loyalty chain. This work presents a model of testing these relationships in consumer goods, in a business-to-business context. The results demonstrate the differential roles of brand image and corporate reputation on perceived quality, customer value, and customer loyalty. Brand image influences the perception of quality of the products and the additional services, whereas corporate reputation actions beyond brand image, estimating the customer value and customer loyalty. The effects of corporate reputation are also validated on different samples. The results demonstrate the importance of managing brand equity facets, brand image, and corporate reputation since their differential impacts on perceived quality, customer value, and customer loyalty. The results also demonstrate that companies should not limit to invest only in brand image. Maintaining and enhancing corporate reputation can have a stronger impact on customer value and customer loyalty, and can create differential competitive advantage.

The purpose of this paper is to outline a theory-based approach to defining the corporate reputation construct.

The approach taken is to describe how to create a well-formed nominal definition of a construct and then show how this definition is translated into an operational definition that guides the selection of an appropriate measure. New definitions of corporate social reputation and appropriate measures of this construct are provided to illustrate this framework.

The definitional framework used suggests that many measures of corporate social responsibility and reputation are under specified. Thus, the measures derived from these definitions are poorly constructed. The strengths and weaknesses of three new types of measure of corporate social reputation are reviewed.

For scholars the advantages of creating a well-formed definition are that it will lead to a valid measure of the construct under investigation. This will then help to better interpret what are significant findings and non-findings of empirical research.

This paper is an extension of the author’s previous work on defining the corporate reputation construct. Because what is meant by corporate social responsibility is contested amongst scholars this and related constructs need more precise definition and measurement. This paper offers a theory-based approach to achieve this aim.

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 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.

The purpose of this study is to develop a valid and reliable instrument to measure the corporate reputation of large service organizations. The validity of a discipline’s constructs is a prerequisite for effective theory development and testing. Construct validity thus lies at the very heart of both decision-making and scientific progress in marketing. The use of marketing instruments that do not demonstrate sufficient evidence of construct validity can lead to invalid results, erroneous conclusions and poor decision-making. Despite several attempts to develop an instrument to measure the corporate reputation of service organizations effectively, lingering doubts remain about the construct validity of several published instruments.

Empirical data were collected from the clients of service organization using an online survey during three waves of data collection and scale purification. Invariance testing in two different service industries confirmed that the final instrument is completely invariant, suggesting that the measurement parameters of the measurement model are the same in both samples.

Rigorous scale development led to the development of a 19-item instrument that effectively measures a large service organization’s corporate reputation along five dimensions, namely, emotional appeal, corporate performance, social engagement, good employer and service points.

The study was limited to the measurement of the corporate reputation of large service organizations.

Given the fact that corporate reputation has been described as “the ultimate determinant of competitiveness” by some executives, the outcome of this study is a proposal that large service organizations measure this intangible asset along five dimensions, namely, emotional appeal, corporate performance, social engagement, good employer and service points.

Despite several attempts to do so, a valid and reliable instrument to effectively measure the corporate reputation of service firms (particularly large ones) has remained elusive. After more than two decades after the first attempts at measurement, there are many who now call for improved methodologies and more valid instruments to measure corporate reputation, based on more rigorous theoretical and conceptual development. This study addresses a matter of concern for many managers and academics.

The firm's reputation is one of its most valued intangible assets. Scientific and managerial interest in corporate reputation grows steadily. Reputation management – one of the cornerstones of corporate communications – seeks to align communication with stakeholder groups as to prevent a fragmented reputation. As yet, little is known about the perception of corporate reputation amongst the different stakeholders of a firm. Comparative empirical evidence has remained scarce. The aim of this paper is therefore to raise fundamental questions about reputation: how it may or may not differ between stakeholder groups and how firms can take these differences into account when measuring and managing corporate reputation.

A single‐case, but very substantial, quantitative empirical study among German consumers, employees, and private investors of a consumer goods producer. Methods of data analysis include cluster analysis, ANOVA, and structural equation modelling using partial least squares.

The data analysis shows that the criteria applied by individuals belonging to different stakeholder groups in assessing corporate reputation are rather similar. Differentiation emerges in relation to actual perceptions of various reputational facets.

The findings have implications for building and interpreting the results of stakeholder‐related measures of corporate reputation and for reputation management.

The paper integrates different stakeholders' perceptions of corporate reputation within one empirical design and delivers insights into the relevance of adapting reputation measures to specific stakeholder groups.

The purpose of this study is to decompose common reputation measurement systems into behavioural organisation–public relationship outcomes, cognitive representations of an organisation in the minds of publics and evaluations of organisational performance. In the proposed model, propensity for active communication behaviour and familiarity are suggested as correlated precursors of organisation–public relationship outcomes (eg trust, satisfaction, commitment and control mutuality) and organisation–public relationship outcomes are hypothesised to have a direct effect on evaluations of organisational performance as well as an indirect effect via the mediation of cognitive representations of the organisation. The authors investigated different types of five Korean‐based organisations )two domestic corporations in different industries, a multinational corporation, a sports association and a non‐profit organisation) to validate the model across different types of organisations. The findings of this study suggest that relationship outcomes lead to favourable representations of an organisation and positive evaluations of performance of the organisation.

The purpose of this paper is to develop and validate a reliable and valid alternative scale to measure customer-based corporate reputation (CBCR) specific to the banking industry only, where high risks and uncertainties of choosing a service provider exist.

Both qualitative and quantitative methods were employed to develop and validate an alternative scale to measure CBCR in the banking industry. Following Churchill’s (1979) paradigm and other prominent scale development studies, a scale development procedure was generated, which consists of three main stages: scale generation and initial purification, scale refinement and scale validation.

As a consequence of the current study, a reliable and valid multidimensional scale was obtained, consisting of 20 items and four dimensions to measure CBCR in banking industry: financial performance and financially strong company, customer orientation, social and environmental responsibility and trust.

This study provides insight to managers to comprehend and manage their CBCR. Since this study has empirically demonstrated that the four dimensions of the CBCR are associated with the five important customer outcome variables, the study provides further support toward the importance of corporate reputation in strategic marketing decisions in the banking industry.

Numerous different disciplines have focused on corporate reputation measurement by adapting different perspectives and approaches. However, a reliable and valid measurement tool has been proposed here to evaluate corporate reputation from customers’ perspective specific to banking industry.

The purpose of this paper is to describe a study which examined the effects of underwriter reputation market segments on the value relevance of firm specific risk measures in the pricing of initial public offerings (IPOs).

The study abandons the notion of a homogenous market for IPOs and focuses instead on the differential demand for information across identifiable segments of the IPO market in the pre‐market offering period leading to the first day trading closing prices. Ordinary least square (OLS) regressions were used to test the two hypotheses developed in the paper.

It was found that firm‐specific risk measures are associated with the initial trading day returns of IPOs managed by low reputation underwriters, but not those by high reputation underwriters. However, as expected, these risk measures are impounded in initial trading day returns only for a sub‐sample of high‐risk junk IPOs that were marked down in price by the underwriter prior to the offering in order to make them more attractive to investors.

As with all empirical studies the tests are joint tests of the hypotheses stipulated and econometric assumptions underlying OLS. The findings of the study may not be generalized to an unrelated domain.

The findings suggest that ex ante risk measures are useful in picking among junk IPOs those with the best chances of survival, and thus earning an initial trading return on those IPOs.

This is the first study to look at junk IPOs in a systematic manner using a quasi‐experimental design.

Corporate reputation (CR), the new buzz word has created many waves in the business world and thereby has become a topic of interest of many researchers. CR is often addressed as an intangible asset that brings with itself lots of advantages and benefits that may build the company and push it forward or may bring a company completely down. CR is a multidisciplinary concept generating parallel interpretations, and as a consequence, disagreements arise regarding its definition and its measurement techniques.

This paper attempted to address this issue by bringing in more clarity to the concept and objectivity in its measurement. To address this issue a new comprehensive definition of CR is developed by reviewing the semi-centennial evolution of the construct. By bringing a critical analysis of the currently followed methods of measurement the paper has classified them into the five broad categories on the basis of the guiding definition, methodology and data sources, multiple stakeholders emphasised and the extent of objectivity inherent in the methodology. Establishing linkage between different concepts a model is developed for better understanding of the process of corporate reputation building.

Based on the renewed understanding, a new method has been suggested for measuring corporate reputation from the perspective of multiple stakeholders.

This method is claimed to be superior as it is founded on a comprehensive meaning of the concept and designed to use easily available and accessible objective data.