Erratum to: Corporate Reputation Measurement: Alternative Factor Structures, Nomological Validity, and Organizational Outcomes (original) (raw)
Related papers
J Bus Ethics, 2014
Management scholars have paid close attention to the construct of organizational or corporate reputation (CR), particularly in the applied business ethics and corporate social responsibility (CSR) fields. Extant research demonstrates that CR is one of the key mediators between CSR and important organizational outcomes, which ultimately improve organizational performance. Yet, hitherto the research focused on CR construct has been plagued by multiple definitions, conflicting conceptualizations, and unclear operationalizations. The purpose of this article is to provide theoretical ground for positioning of CR as an assessment construct that is modeled as a second-order factor affecting individual first-order dimensions (having a reflective nature), and to provide methodological and empirical support toward such conceptualization. We assert that intangible, socially complex, and causally ambiguous CR (latent construct) can be accurately estimated through its individual measurable dimensions. Using survey data from Peru, we empirically test the hypothesized secondorder reflective model within a hierarchy of nested and non-nested models, and compare its model fit and predictive power (nomological validity) with alternative conceptualizations. Modeling CR as a second-order reflective construct relies on a set of theoretical propositions and yields several methodological advantages, including strong conceptual interpretability and parsimony when tested within a nomological context. We explicitly demonstrate positive organizational outcomes of CR: customer trust, corporate identification, in-role behavior, and extra-role behavior. Then, we demonstrate that the shorter scales of CR can be used as a good proxy for the full construct measure. The paper concludes by highlighting theoretical insights, and methodological and managerial implications of the findings.
Challenges in Measuring Corporate Reputation
Reputation Management, 2011
Corporate reputation is a driver of economic performance. Thus, the measurement of corporate reputation becomes an important field for academic research and the development of reputation management applications (Barnett, Jermier a. Lafferty 2006). Empirical studies using measurement approaches for corporate reputation range from specific explorative approaches merely describing the construct of reputation (Walsh and Beatty 2007) to studies which embed more sophisticated models of corporate reputation in a wider nomological network. The latter regard corporate reputation as an intangible asset interacting with firm-related antecedents and economic consequences (Money a. Hillebrand 2006). This paper aims at providing an overview of major challenges facing the researcher or reputation manager when building or using a measurement tool for reputation.
Defining and Measuring Corporate Reputations
European Management Review, 2016
Corporate reputation is a construct that has gained widespread recognition in the disciplines of strategy, corporate social responsibility, management and marketing because a good reputation is thought to be more commercially valuable than a bad reputation. However, recent reviews of the scholarly literature suggest that because the construct of corporate reputation has been defined in a wide variety of ways it is difficult to understand the antecedents and consequences of the construct. To illustrate this problem 50 different definitions of corporate reputations are reviewed. This analysis suggests that some of the most prominent measures are not grounded in the definitions that are thought to underpin them. This phenomena presents a challenge to anybody wanting to meta-analyze findings and to build new theories of corporate reputation. To help advance the field a framework is presented to guide the refinement of scholarly definitions so that they are well constructed and thus capable of guiding the development of valid measures of the construct. To illustrate this framework a new definition and some new measures are provided.
Business Research
The study of reputation figures prominently in management research, yet the increasing number of publications makes it difficult to keep track of this growing body of literature. This paper provides a systematic review of the literature based on a large-scale bibliometric analysis. We draw on bibliographic data of 5885 publications published until 2016, inclusively, and combine co-citation analysis and bibliographic coupling with network visualization. Results show how research on corporate reputation is embedded in the broader field of scholarship on reputation in general. When zooming into the publication cluster on corporate reputation more closely, the concept’s origins in economics, organizational studies, and marketing as well as corresponding theoretical and methodological discussions are revealed. Beyond providing a structured overview of the field, the bibliometric analyses also reveal conceptual incoherencies that lead to ambiguities in research. Our assessment builds on t...
Looking Back: Reputation Research Published in the Journal of Management
Journal of Management, 2010
This issue of the Journal of Management includes a series of three articles on reputation. "Reconsidering the Reputation-Performance Relationship: A Resource-Based View" was written by Brian Boyd, Donald Bergh, and David Ketchen (2010). Boyd et al. reanalyzed the data from 107 business schools in the United States (used in a study by Rindova, Williamson, Petkova, & Sever, 2005) to develop and test a resource-based view of reputation and performance. Violina Rindova, Ian Williamson, and Antoaneta Petkova became aware of this in press article and submitted a proposal to follow up Boyd et al.'s article with their article "Reputation as an Intangible Asset: Reflections on Theory and Methods in Two Empirical Studies of Business School Reputations." In the spirit of completing the discussion, I asked Boyd et al. to write a response (Bergh, Ketchen, Boyd, & Bergh, 2010), which resulted in the three articles appearing in this issue. These three articles led me to reflect on the wide range of reputation research published in the Journal of Management. What follows is a summary of reputation research spanning 27 years and looking forward into 2011. Looking Back: Reputation Research Work on reputation has also led to important Review Issue articles at the Journal of Mana gement. For example, Scott Highhouse, Margaret Brooks, and Gary Greguras (2009) wrote a review article titled "An Organizational Impression Management Perspective on the Formation of Corporate Reputations," which examined the role of reputation research from the perspective of corporations as social actors. They discussed the differences and similarities between organizational reputation, image, identity, and legitimacy. Looking forward, authors are currently working on a 2011 Review Issue article titled "Organizational Reputation: A Review." Another article on reputation and business schools generated a great deal of discussion.
A new approach for measuring corporate reputation
Revista de Administração de Empresas, 2014
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 15 different industrial sectors, in Peru. The results indicate that the proposed index variables are not necessarily of greatest interest to the study sample in which companies have a better performance. Also greater memorial companies aren't necessarily those that enjoy a greater corporate reputation. Managerial implications for the organizations in the process of managing and monitoring the dimensions involved of this key asset are also referenced.
Measuring Corporate Reputation: A Case Example
Corporate Reputation Review, 2000
Corporate reputation emerges from the images held by various publics of an organization. A positive reputation can result in a number of bene®cial consequences that ultimately facilitate better corporate performance. However, meaningful research can only result from measures of reputation that are psychometrically sound. A review of the empirical studies that employ a corporate reputation measure is undertaken and the role of the halo eect is considered. A case study of the beverage industry in Malta is used to describe a typical process for the development of an instrument to measure corporate reputation with the general public. Results are discussed and limitations are noted.
The Reputation QuotientSM: A multi-stakeholder measure of corporate reputation
Journal of Brand Management, 2000
a private research organisation dedicated to advancing knowledge about reputa tion measurement, valuation and management. He has published three books and over 50 arti cles on organisational adaptation, strategic man agement and corporate reputation. He is the author of the acclaimed: 'Reputation: Realizing Value for the Corporate Image', (Harvard Busi ness School Press, 1996).