Corporate Reputation: The Definitional Landscape

Abstract

While interest in the concept of corporate reputation has gained momentum in the last few years, a precise and commonly agreed upon definition is still lacking. This paper reviews the many definitions of corporate reputation present in the recent literature and categorizes these definitions based on their similarities and differences. The purpose of the study is to review, analyze and evaluate prior definitional statements of corporate reputation. The analysis led us to conclude that the cluster of meaning that looks most promising for future definitional work uses the language of assessment and specific terms such as judgment, estimation, evaluation or gauge. Based on this review work and a lexicological analysis of the concept of reputation, we propose a new definitional statement that we think adds theoretical clarity to this area of study. The statement defines corporate reputation more explicitly and narrowly and distinguishes this concept from corporate identity, corporate image and corporate reputation capital. It is our hope that this study and the resulting definition will provoke further scholarship devoted to developing one voice when it comes to corporate reputation as a concept. Corporate Reputation Review (2006) 9, 26 -38.

Corporate Reputation and Corporate Ethics: Looking Good or Doing Well

“…what a firm really is and how it presents itself-and develops as the company tries to build a favorable image-i.e. a short-term and immediate impression of the firm (Barnett et al 2006;Christensen and Askegaard 2001;Dhalla 2007;Fombrun 1996;Fombrun and Shanley 1990). In consequence, a corporate reputation depends on what the company is -its character-and how the company presents itself -its public picture.…”

“…The annual evolution of the reputation-business ethics research followed a clear and progressive Insert Table 2 After our review, it can be stated according to other researchers, that business ethics scholars have used these three concepts as interchangeable terms (Balmer and Greyser 2002, Barnett et al 2006, Souiden et al 2006, Walker 2010, Wei 2002, or allied constructs (Chun 2005).…”

“…(Dutton and Dukerich 1991). Reputation also participates in this cycle, having an effect on identity and image and being reciprocally influenced by them (Barnett et al 2006;Dhalla 2007;Fombrun and Shanley 1990;Fombrun and van Riel 1997;Logsdon and Wood 2002;Souiden et al 2006;Wei 2002) 6 .…”

“…In consequence, CIM can be seen as the overall perception of a firm held by those meaningful interest groups, who have a stake into the company; therefore, a company is supposed to be accountable to them. For this reason, a firm's image is partially based on its ability to meet and satisfy the particular needs and interests of its stakeholders (Barnett et al 2006, Riordan et al 1997). …”

Lens or prism? How organisations sustain multiple and competing reputations

“…Schwaiger (2004) further augmented these by suggesting that other dimensions such as fairness towards competitors, while transparency, openness and credibility were also important. Moreover, Barnett et al (2006) However, theoretically, these approaches to corporate reputation draw on the impressionist school in which reputations are constructed through clearly defined, relatively static, traitbased characteristics. We describe these approaches as 'lens-like', taking a metaphor from physics.…”