2014
DOI: 10.1590/s0034-759020140102
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Abstract: This study describes the concept of corporate reputation and reviews some of the major points that exist when it comes to measuring it. It thus suggests a new index for measurement and its advantages and disadvantages are pointed out. The consistency of the seven key variables for the collecting indicator is described by the results of a factor analysis and correlations. Finally, the indicator is put to test by gathering the perception of corporate reputation of 1500 individuals for 69 companies belonging to 1… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
69
1
2

Year Published

2017
2017
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 89 publications
(75 citation statements)
references
References 42 publications
3
69
1
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Reputation management's role as a strategic instrument genuinely serves to align followers' expectations with leadership behaviour. In this capacity a well-managed reputation can ensure equilibrium between leaders and stakeholders (Hodgson, 2004;Feldman et al, 2014). Yet reputation is -as pointed out above -conspicuously and surprisingly missing in any typology of leadership research.…”
Section: What Is Leadership?mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Reputation management's role as a strategic instrument genuinely serves to align followers' expectations with leadership behaviour. In this capacity a well-managed reputation can ensure equilibrium between leaders and stakeholders (Hodgson, 2004;Feldman et al, 2014). Yet reputation is -as pointed out above -conspicuously and surprisingly missing in any typology of leadership research.…”
Section: What Is Leadership?mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…), which causes the ambiguity of the concepts of identity, image, reputation. (Chun, 2005;Barnet et al, 2006;Сornelissen et al, 2007;Walker, 2010;Clardy, 2012;Feldman et al, 2014). It also leads to a ambiguous understanding of the corporate reputation itself, since it can be considered as an awareness of the stakeholders, an asset and an assessment (Barnet et al, 2006;Lange et al, 2011;Jakab and Happ 2017).…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…6.1. Calculation of AFRIX AFRIX is an index (ranging from 0.0 to 5.0) calculated based on attributes scored by stakeholders group using a six (06) point scale as proposed by Feldman et al (2014): Absolutely Disagree (0), Disagree Very Much (1), Somewhat Disagree (2), Somewhat Agree (3), Agree Very Much (4), Absolutely Agree (5). The data for the measurement of AFRIX is from two sources: 1.…”
Section: Recommendations: a Framework Proposal (Afrix)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Many practitioners and academics have shown interest in defining and measuring corporate reputation during the past decade and this elicited much publications (Feldman, Bahamonde, &Bellido, 2014;Trotta & Cavallaro, 2012;Schwaiger, 2004;Babić-Hodovića, Mehića, &Arslanagić, 2011;Chun, 2005 etc). It seems to be commonly agreed that corporate reputation origins sustainable competitive advantage to organisations that work to manage it efficiently (Walker, 2010;Adeosun &Ganiyu, 2013;Schwaiger, 2004 etc.).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%