Skip to main content
Log in

I Love That Company: Look How Ethical, Prominent, and Efficacious It Is—A Triadic Organizational Reputation (TOR) Scale

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Within the corporate social responsibility (CSR) research field, the construct of organizational reputation has been extensively scrutinized as a crucial mediator between the firm CSR engagement and valuable organizational outcomes. Yet, the existing literature on organizational reputation suffers from substantive divergence between the studies in terms of defining the construct’s domain, dimensional structure, and the methodological operationalization. The current study aims to refine the organizational reputation construct by reconciling varying theoretical perspectives within the construct’s definitional landscape, suggesting a holistic but parsimonious triadic view on the organizational reputation construct for customer stakeholders. Based on commonly used extant organizational reputation measures, we theoretically and empirically develop the customer-based triadic organizational reputation (TOR) scale and position it as a superordinate multidimensional construct (generalized favorability) influencing three distinct first-order dimensions: product and service efficacy, societal ethicality, and market prominence. Results show that the proposed triadic conceptualization of organizational reputation is theoretically defensible, and the resulting scale is cross-culturally generalizable and performs well compared with existing, longer measures of organizational reputation. Together, the organizational reputation model developed here suggests that, for cognitive economy and functional efficiency, customers will access a second-order reflective model of organizational reputation as the default implicit attitude (reputation as assessment), which in turn will activate reflections of the implicit attitude in the form of first-order dimensions (reputation as asset).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agarwal, J., Osiyevskyy, O., & Feldman, P. M. (2015). Corporate reputation measurement: Alternative factor structures, nomological validity, and organizational outcomes. Journal of Business Ethics, 130(2), 485–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahearne, M., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Gruen, T. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of customer-company identification: Expanding the role of relationship marketing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(May), 574–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Albert, S., & Whetton, D. A. (1985). Organizational identity. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi, R. P. (2011). Measurement and meaning in information systems and organizational research: Methodological and philosophical foundations. MIS Quarterly, 35(2), 261–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, M. L., Jermier, J. M., & Lafferty, B. A. (2006). Corporate reputation: The definitional landscape. Corporate Reputation Review, 9(1), 26–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergami, M., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2000). Self-categorization, affective commitment and group self-esteem as distinct aspects of social identity in the organization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39(4), 555–577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2003). Consumer-company identification: A framework for understanding consumers’ relationships with companies. Journal of Marketing, 67(2), 76–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J., & van Heerden, J. (2003). The theoretical status of latent variables. Psychological Review, 110(2), 203–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, B. K., Bergh, D. D., & Ketchen, D. J., Jr. (2010). Reconsidering the reputation–performance relationship: A resource-based view. Journal of Management, 36, 588–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, M. E., Highhouse, H., Russell, S., & Mohr, D. C. (2003). Familiarity, ambivalence, and firm reputation: Is corporate fame a double-edged sword? Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 904–914.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. B., & Reed, A. (2006). A multiple pathway anchoring and adjustment (MPAA) model of attitude generation and recruitment. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(1), 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10, 173–178.

  • Cronin, J. J., Jr., Brady, M. K., & Hult, G. T. M. (2000). Assessing the effects of quality, value, and customer satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service environments. Journal of Retailing, 76(2), 193–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, G., Chun, R., Da Silva, R., & Roper, S. (2003). Corporate reputation and competitiveness. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Castro, G. M., López, J. E. N., & Sáez, P. L. (2006). Business and social reputation: Exploring the concept and main dimensions of corporate reputation. Journal of Business Ethics, 63(4), 361–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deephouse, D. L., & Carter, S. M. (2005). An examination of differences between organizational legitimacy and organizational reputation. Journal of Management Studies, 42(2), 329–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devers, C. E., Dewett, T., Mishina, Y., & Belsito, C. A. (2009). A general theory of organizational stigma. Organization Science, 20, 154–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamantopoulos, A., Riefler, P., & Roth, K. P. (2008). Advancing formative measurement models. Journal of Business Research, 61(12), 1203–1218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, J. R. (2001). Multidimensional constructs in organizational behavior research: An integrative analytical framework. Organizational Research Methods, 4(2), 144–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, J. R. (2011). The fallacy of formative measurement. Organizational Research Methods, 14(2), 370–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, J. R., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2000). On the nature and direction of relationships between constructs and measures. Psychological Methods, 5(2), 155–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, E., & Reuber, R. (2007). The good, the bad, and the unfamiliar: The challenges of reputation formation facing new firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(1), 53–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fombrun, C. J. (1996). Reputation: Realizing value from the corporate image. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fombrun, C. J. (2001). Corporate reputations as economic assets. In M. A. Hitt, R. E. Freeman, & J. S. Harrison (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of strategic management. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fombrun, C. J. (2012). The building blocks of corporate reputation: Definitions, antecedents, consequences. In M. L. Barnett & T. G. Pollock (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of corporate reputation (pp. 94–113). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fombrun, C. J., Gardberg, N. A., & Sever, J. M. (2000). The reputation quotient: A multi-stakeholder measure of corporate reputation. Journal of Brand Management, 7, 241–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fombrun, C. J., & Van Riel, C. B. M. (2004). Fame and fortune: How successful companies build winning reputations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fryxell, G. E., & Wang, J. (1994). The Fortune corporate reputation index—Reputation for what? Journal of Management, 20(1), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gioia, D. A., Schultz, M., & Corley, K. G. (2000). Organizational identity, image, and adaptive instability. Academy of Management Review, 25, 63–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helm, S. (2005). Designing a formative measure for corporate reputation. Corporate Reputation Review, 8(2), 95–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Highhouse, S., Brooks, M. E., & Gregarus, G. (2009). An organizational impression management perspective on the formation of corporate reputations. Journal of Management, 35(6), 1481–1493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutton, C. (1986). America’s most admired companies. Fortune International, 113, 32–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jarvis, C. B., Mackenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2003). A critical review of construct indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(2), 199–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K. (1993). Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing, 57(3), 53–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. The Journal of Marketing, 57, 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1993). Knowledge of the firm and the evolutionary theory of the multinational corporation. Journal of International Business Studies, 24, 625–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koys, D. J., & DeCotiis, T. A. (1991). Inductive measures of psychological climate. Human Relations, 44(3), 265–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kreiner, G. E., & Ashforth, B. E. (2004). Evidence toward an expanded model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(1), 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lange, D., Lee, P. M., & Dai, Y. (2011). Organizational reputation: A review. Journal of Management, 37(1), 153–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Law, K. S., Wong, C. S., & Mobley, W. H. (1998). Toward a taxonomy of multidimensional constructs. Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 741–755.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lii, Y. S., & Lee, M. (2012). Doing right leads to doing well: When the type of CSR and reputation interact to affect consumer evaluations of the firm. Journal of Business Ethics, 105(1), 69–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 114–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lourenço, I. C., Callen, J. L., Branco, M. C., & Curto, J. D. (2014). The value relevance of reputation for sustainability leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 119(1), 17–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Love, E. G., & Kraatz, M. (2009). Character, conformity, or the bottom line? How and why downsizing affected corporate reputation. Academy of Management Journal, 52(2), 314–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mackenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2011). Construct measurement and validation procedures in MIS and behavioral research: Integrating new and existing techniques. MIS Quarterly, 35(2), 293–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maxham, J. G., III, & Netemeyer, R. G. (2002). A longitudinal study of complaining customers’ evaluations of multiple service failures and recovery efforts. Journal of Marketing, 66(4), 57–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58, 20–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narver, J. C., & Slater, S. F. (1990). The effect of a market orientation on business profitability. Journal of Marketing, 54(4), 20–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oshagbemi, T. (1999). Overall job satisfaction: How good are single versus multiple-item measures? Journal of Managerial Psychology, 14(5), 388–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peteraf, M. A. (1993). The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 14(3), 179–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539–569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ponzi, L. J., Fombrun, C. J., & Gardberg, N. A. (2011). RepTrak pulse: Conceptualizing and validating a short-form measure of corporate reputation. Corporate Reputation Review, 14(1), 15–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rindova, V. P., Williamson, I. O., Petkova, A. P., & Sever, J. M. (2005). Being good or being known: An empirical examination of the dimensions, antecedents, and consequences of organizational reputation. Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), 1033–1049.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, P., & Dowling, G. R. (2002). Corporate reputation and sustained superior financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 23(12), 1077–1093.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossiter, J. R. (2002). The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development in marketing. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 19, 305–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saeidi, S. P., Sofian, S., Saeidi, P., Saeidi, S. P., & Saaeidi, S. A. (2015). How does corporate social responsibility contribute to firm financial performance? The mediating role of competitive advantage, reputation, and customer satisfaction. Journal of Business Research, 68(2), 341–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sánchez, J. L. F., & Sotorrío, L. L. (2007). The creation of value through corporate reputation. Journal of Business Ethics, 76(3), 335–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarstedt, M., Wilczynski, P., & Melewar, T. C. (2013). Measuring reputation in global markets—A comparison of reputation measures’ convergent and criterion validities. Journal of World Business, 48(3), 329–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwaiger, M. (2004). Components and parameters of corporate reputation—an empirical study. Schmalenbach Business Review, 56, 46–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. R. (2001). Institutions and organizations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shamsie, J. (2003). The context of dominance: An industry-driven framework for exploiting reputation. Strategic Management Journal, 24(3), 199–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sirdeshmukh, D., Singh, J., & Sabol, B. (2002). Consumer trust, value, and loyalty in relational exchanges. Journal of Marketing, 66(January), 15–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Staw, B. M., & Epstein, L. D. (2000). What bandwagons bring: Effects of popular management techniques on corporate performance, reputation, and CEO pay. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 523–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steenkamp, J. B. E., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 78–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trevino, L. K., & Brown, M. E. (2004). Managing to be ethical: Debunking five business ethics myths. The Academy of Management Executive, 18(2), 69–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsiotsou, R. (2006). The role of perceived product quality and overall satisfaction on purchase intentions. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 30(2), 207–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turker, D. (2009). Measuring corporate social responsibility: A scale development study. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(4), 411–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2003). The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(4), 349–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 4–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, K. (2010). A systematic review of the corporate reputation literature: Definition, measurement, and theory. Corporate Reputation Review, 12(4), 357–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, K., & Dyck, B. (2014). The primary importance of corporate social responsibility and ethicality in corporate reputation: An empirical study. Business and Society Review, 119(1), 147–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, G., & Beatty, S. E. (2007). Customer-based corporate reputation of a service firm: Scale development and validation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35(1), 127–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, G., Beatty, S. E., & Shiu, E. M. (2009). The customer-based corporate reputation scale: Replication and short form. Journal of Business Research, 62(10), 924–930.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Y., & Berens, G. (2015). The impact of four types of corporate social performance on reputation and financial performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 131(2), 337–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whetten, D. A., & Mackey, A. (2002). A social actor conception of organizational identity and its implications for the study of organizational reputation. Business and Society, 41, 393–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, T. D., Lindsey, S., & Schooler, T. Y. (2000). A model of dual attitudes. Psychological Review, 107(1), 101–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoo, B., & Donthu, N. (2001). Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer-based brand equity scale. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(2), 195–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Oleksiy Osiyevskyy.

Appendix: Triadic Organizational Reputation Scale Items

Appendix: Triadic Organizational Reputation Scale Items

Items 1, 2, and 3 represent Product and Service Efficacy. Items 4, 5, and 6 represent Societal Ethicality. Items 7, 8, and 9 represent Market Prominence.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Agarwal, J., Stackhouse, M. & Osiyevskyy, O. I Love That Company: Look How Ethical, Prominent, and Efficacious It Is—A Triadic Organizational Reputation (TOR) Scale. J Bus Ethics 153, 889–910 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3421-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3421-2

Keywords

Navigation