Managing corporate respectability

Abstract

Purpose-With growing literature on corporate reputation, different perspectives are being reported on the concept of corporate reputation. These stem from different sets of issues to be managed, and various disciplinary competencies brought to bear on them. This paper presents a review of these efforts. Design/methodology/approach-Additionally, a new methodological basis for understanding perceptions of corporate reputation is presented. This paper introduces social judgement theory as a potentially useful theoretical and methodological basis for understanding perceptions of corporate respectability. Findings-Though it is generally recognized that subjectivity plays an important role in the assessment of reputation, that people rely on naïve theories of judgement to make such assessments, and that subjective or clinical judgements are generally not accurate, investigations of the process by which corporate respectability is assessed are not generally reported. However, a computerized procedure facilitates identification, measurement and reporting of judgemental sources of assessment of corporate respectability. Research limitations/implications-This paper provides an account of an empirical study as an example of how the procedure described here can be used for both research and practical application in formulating corporate reputation policy. Practical implications-The procedure described here can be used for both research and practical application in formulating corporate reputation policy. The approach presents an alternative approach to the assessment of corporate respectability. Originality/value-The description of policies in terms of parameters of the judgement process provides an operational definition of the decision makers' cognitive sets about the domain of corporate respectability. This information would prove invaluable in developing and implementing a judgement-based decision support system for the benefit of managers of public relations, corporate communications, and corporate reputation.

Linking corporate reputation and shareholder value using the publication of reputation rankings

“…A comprehensive overview of recent studies on the informational, risk reduction value and other forces of reputation is given in Table 1. Goldberg & Hartwick, 1990;Kotha et al, 2001;Lafferty & Goldsmith, 1999 Influences buying intentions Yoon et al, 1993 Leads to higher product prices Deephouse, 2000;Klein & Leffler, 1981;Landon & Smith, 1997;Podolny, 1993;Rindova et al, 2005;Shapiro, 1983; Increases repurchase Shapiro, 1983 Supplier: Reduces transaction costs Bromley, 2002b;Kotha et al, 2001;Williamson, 1985 Attracts better suppliers and increases their loyalty Podolny, 1993 May reduce contracting and monitoring costs Roberts & Dowling, 2002 Can lead to an anticipation of a long term relationship Groenland, 2002 Investors: Enables easy access to more capital with less effort Dhir & Vinen, 2005;Schwalbach, 2000 Almost all of the discovered effects can be attributed to the signal function of corporate reputation resulting from the lack of knowledge. Only increasing repurchases and higher product prices, as referred to by Shapiro (1983), are due to individual acceptance of and identification with an organization as a result of actual positive experiences.…”

“…As one of these factors, corporate reputation has become one of the most discussed (Abimbola & Vallaster, 2007;Caruana, 1997;Hunt & Morgan, 1995) and most valuable (Boot et al, 1993;Hall, 1992) intangibles. The latter point is attributed to the fact that reputation is considerably able to defend a competitive position (Jones et al, 2000;Dierickx & Cool, 1989) especially by buffering negative critical incidents (Dhir & Vinen, 2005).…”