Skip to main content
Log in

What’s in a name? Decomposing corporate reputation to assess the relative impact of temporal, firm and industry level factors

  • Published:
Journal of Management & Governance Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

While the perceptual nature of corporate reputation is rarely contested, the role of governance and firm financial performance does not have the same consensus. As reputation is an embedded capability that cannot be distinctly valued or traded, the ambiguity in reputation generation clouds researchers’ attempts to understand the relative importance of the underlying causal factors, particularly firm-specific attributes like board characteristics, governance and ownership—independent of the firm’s financial performance over time. Utilizing a resource—based view, we develop a theoretically grounded framework that enables us to deconstruct corporate reputation and parse out the impact at multiple levels and the factors therein. We decompose reputation into time, firm and industry level factors, offer hypotheses on the relative importance of the factors at each level, and thereafter we simultaneously assess within and across the temporal, firm and industry levels to quantify the impact of the causal factors. We find that 49.65 % of the variation in corporate reputation is firm-specific, independent of financial performance, while industry-specific variables account for just 5.04 %. The temporal factors including the multi-level interaction terms explain 46.06 % of reputational variation, of which financial performance accounts for only 18.53 % and the “halo effect” of prior financial performance is short-lived. Furthermore, the commonly accepted factors explain only 26.44 % of the total variation in corporate reputation, and some of the governance and ownership indicators contradict generally accepted agency expectations.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We thank an anonymous reviewer for pointing this out.

  2. We thank an anonymous reviewer for helping us arrive at this post hoc rationalisation.

References

  • Acquaah, M. (2003). Corporate management, industry competition and the sustainability of firm abnormal profitability. Journal of Management and Governance, 7, 57–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Acquaah, M., & Chi, T. (2007). A longitudinal analysis of the impact of firm resources and industry characteristics on firm-specific profitability. Journal of Management and Governance, 11, 179–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alessandri, S. W., & Alessandri, T. (2004). Promoting and protecting corporate identity: The importance of organizational and industry context. Corporate Reputation Review, 7, 252–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, C. A., & Anthony, R. N. (1986). The new corporate directors. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ang, S. H., & Wight, A.-M. (2009). Building intangible resources: The stickiness of reputation. Corporate Reputation Review, 12, 21–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, M. L. (2006). Waves of collectivizing: A dynamic model of competition and cooperation over the life of an industry. Corporate Reputation Review, 8, 272–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. B. (2001). Is the resource-based “view” a useful perspective for strategic management research? Yes. Academy of Management Review, 26, 41–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertels, S., & Peloza, J. (2008). Running just to stand still? Managing CSR reputation in an era of ratcheting expectations. Corporate Reputation Review, 11, 56–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black, E., Carnes, T., & Richardson, V. (2000). The market value of corporate reputation. Corporate Reputation Review, 1, 31–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, B., & Perry, S. (1994). Removing the financial performance halo from Fortune’s “most admired” companies. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1347–1359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter, S. M. (2006). The interaction of top management group, stakeholder, and situational factors on certain corporate reputation management activities. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 1145–1176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter, S. M., & Ruefli, T. W. (2006). Intra-industry reputation dynamics under a resource-based framework: Assessing the durability factor. Corporate Reputation Review, 9, 3–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castrogiovanni, G. J. (2002). Organization task environment. Have they changed fundamentally over time? Journal of Management, 28, 129–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Y. (2008). International dual listing: An analytical framework based on corporate governance theory. Journal of American Academy of Business, 12, 187–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi, J., & Wang, H. (2009). Stakeholder relations and the persistence of corporate financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 30, 895–907.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cordeiro, J. J., & Rajagopalan, N. (2003). Industry discretion as a determinant of the mix and level of executive compensation: A multilevel analysis. Academy of Management Best Papers Proceedings.

  • Crossland, C., & Hambrick, D. C. (2007). How national systems differ in their constraints on corporate executives: A study of CEO effects in three countries. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 767–789.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalton, D., Daily, D. M., Ellstran, A. E., & Johnson, J. L. (1998). Meta-analytic reviews of board composition, leadership structure, and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 269–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 555–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Deephouse, D. L. (2000). Media reputation as a strategic resource: An integration of mass communication and resource-based theories. Journal of Management, 26, 1091–1112.

    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, 329–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dess, G. G., & Beard, D. W. (1984). Dimensions of organizational task environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 52–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dolphin, R. R. (2004). Corporate reputation—a value creating strategy. Corporate Governance, 4(3), 77–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, L. (1990). The ethereal hand: Organizational economics and management theory. Academy of Management Review, 15, 369–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eccles, R. G., Newquist, S. C., & Schatz, R. (2007). Reputation and its risks. Harvard Business Review, February, 104–114.

  • Fanelli, A., Misangyi, V. F., & Tosi, H. (2009). In charisma we trust: The effects of CEO charismatic visions on securities analysts. Organization Science, 20, 1011–1033.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finkelstein, S., & Boyd, B. K. (1998). How much does the CEO matter? The role of managerial discretion in the setting of CEO compensation. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 179–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finkelstein, S., & D’Aveni, R. A. (1994). CEO duality as a double-edged sword: How boards of directors balance entrenchment avoidance and unity of command. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1079.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fombrun, C. J. (1996). Reputation: Realizing value from the corporate image. Boston: Harvard Business School 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 (pp. 289–312). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fombrun, C. J., Gardberg, N. A., & Barnett, M. L. (2000). Opportunity platforms and safety nets: Corporate citizenship and reputational risk. Business and Society Review, 105, 85–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fombrun, C. J., & Shanley, M. (1990). What’s in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 233–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fortune Datastore. (2008). Fortune corporate reputation industry reports. http://www.timeinc.net/fortune/datastore/reputation/cr_report.html. Accessed January 25, 2008.

  • Fortune. 2011. World’s most admired companies, McDonald’s. http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/mostadmired/2011/snapshots/2262.html. Accessed June 21, 2011.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • G.E. (2007). General Electric: Notice of 2007 annual meeting and proxy statement, February 28, 2007.

  • Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91, 481–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greve, H. R., & Goldeng, E. (2004). Longitudinal analysis in strategic management. In D. J. Ketchen Jr. & D. D. Bergh (Eds.), Research methodology in strategy and management (Vol. 1, pp. 135–163). Oxford, UK: Elsevier JAI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, R. (1992). The strategic analysis of intangible resources. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 135–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, R. (1993). A framework linking intangible resources and capabilities to sustainable competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 607–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick, D. C. (2007). The field of management’s devotion to theory: Too much of a good thing? Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1346–1352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick, D. C., & Abrahamson, E. (1995). Assessing managerial discretion across industries: A multimethod approach. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1427–1441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, J. S., & Freeman, R. E. (1999). Stakeholders, social responsibility, and performance. Empirical evidence and theoretical perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 479–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heugens, P. M. A. R., & Zyglidopoulos, S. C. (2008). From social ties to embedded competencies: The case of business groups. Journal of Management and Governance, 12, 325–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hitt, M. A., Beamish, P. W., Jackson, S. E., & Mathieu, J. E. (2007). Building theoretical and empirical bridges across levels: Multilevel research in management. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1385–1399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoopes, D. G., Madsen, T. L., & Walker, G. (2003). Guest editors’ introduction to the special issue: Why is there a resource-based view? Toward a theory of competitive heterogeneity. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 889–902.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hough, J. R. (2006). Business segment performance redux: A multilevel approach. Strategic Management Journal, 27, 45–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M. C. (1993). The modern industrial revolution, exit, and the failure of internal control mechanisms. Journal of Finance, 48, 831–880.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khalil, S., & Magnan, M. (2007). Dual-class shares: Governance, risks, and rewards. Ivey Business Journal, May/June, 1–4.

  • Koehn, D., & Ueng, J. (2010). Is philanthropy being used by corporate wrongdoers to buy good will? Journal of Management and Governance, 14, 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotha, S., Rajgopal, S., & Rindova, V. (2001). Reputation building and performance: An empirical analysis of the top-50 pure internet firms. European Management Journal, 19, 571–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kraatz, M. S., & Love, E. G. (2006). Studying the dynamics of reputation: A framework for research on the reputational consequences of corporate actions. In D. J. Ketchen Jr. & D. D. Bergh (Eds.), Research methodology in strategy and management (Vol. 3, pp. 343–383). Oxford, UK: Elsevier JAI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, M. B. (2001). In praise of slack: Time is of the essence. Academy of Management Executive, 15(3), 125–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Logsdon, J. M., & Wood, D. J. (2002). Reputation as an emerging construct in the business and society field: An introduction. Business and Society, 41, 365–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madhok, A. (1996). The organization of economic activity: Transaction costs, firm capabilities, and the nature of governance. Organization Science, 7, 577–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahon, J. F. (2002). Corporate reputation: A research agenda using strategy and stakeholder literature. Business and Society, 41, 415–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Makadok, R. (2001). Toward a synthesis of the resource-based and dynamic capability views of rent creation. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 387–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGahan, A. M., & Porter, M. E. (1997). How much does industry matter, really? Strategic Management Journal, 18, 15–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGahan, A. M., & Porter, M. E. (2002). What do we know about variance in accounting profitability? Management Science, 48, 834–851.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMillan, G. S., & Joshi, M. P. (1997). Sustainable competitive advantage and firm performance: The role of intangible resources. Corporate Reputation Review, 1, 81–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. (2003). An asymmetry-based view of advantage: Towards an attainable sustainability. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 961–976.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. (2007). Paradigm prison, or in praise of atheoretic research. Strategic Organization, 5, 177–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Misangyi, V. F., Elms, H., Greckhamer, T., & Lepine, J. A. (2006). A new perspective on a fundamental debate: A multilevel approach to industry, corporate, and business unit effects. Strategic Management Journal, 27, 571–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, K. (2003). Reputation: Managing the single greatest risk facing business today. Journal of Communication Management, 8, 142–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Musteen, M., Datta, D. K., & Kemmerer, B. (2010). Corporate reputation: Do board characteristics matter? British Journal of Management, 21, 498–510.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neter, J., Kutner, M. H., Nachtsheim, C. J., & Wasserman, W. (1996). Applied linear statistical models. New York: WCB/McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newburry, W. (2010). Reputation and supportive behavior: Moderating impacts of foreignness, industry and local exposure. Corporate Reputation Review, 12, 388–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Obloj, T., & Obloj, K. (2006). Diminishing returns from reputation: Do followers have a competitive advantage? Corporate Reputation Review, 9, 213–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oxley, J., Rivkin, J., Ryall, M., & others at the Strategy Research Initiative. (2010). Recognizing and encouraging high quality research in strategy. Strategic Organization, forthcoming. http://strategyresearchinitiative.wikispaces.com/High+Quality+Research. Accessed August 7, 2010.

  • Podolny, J. M. (1993). A status-based model of market competition. American Journal of Sociology, 98, 829–872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porritt, D. (2005). The reputational failure of financial success: The “bottom line backlash” effect. Corporate Reputation Review, 8, 198–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raudenbush, S., Bryk, A., Cheong, Y. F., Congdon, R., & du Toit, M. (2004). HLM 6: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ray, G., Barney, J. A., & Muhanna, W. A. (2004). Capabilities, business processes, and competitive advantage: Choosing the dependent variable in empirical tests of the resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 23–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rhee, M., & Valdez, M. E. (2009). Contextual factors surrounding reputation damage with potential implications for reputation repair. Academy of Management Review, 34, 146–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabate, J. M. d.l. F., & Puente, E. d. Q. (2003). The concept and measurement of corporate reputation: An application to Spanish financial intermediaries. Corporate Reputation Review, 5(4), 280–301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schultz, M., Mouritsen, J., & Gabrielsen, G. (2001). Sticky reputation: Analyzing a ranking system. Corporate Reputation Review, 4, 21–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharfman, M. P., Wolf, G., Chase, R. B., & Tansik, D. A. (1988). Antecedents of organizational slack. Academy of Management Review, 13, 601–614.

    Google Scholar 

  • Short, J. C., Ketchen, D. J., Jr, Bennett, N., & du Toit, M. (2006). An examination of firm, industry, and time effects on performance using random coefficients modeling. Organizational Research Methods, 9, 259–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Short, J. C., Ketchen, D. J., Jr., Palmer, T. B., & Hult, G. T. M. (2007). Firm, strategic group, and industry influences on performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 147–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, J. V. (1986). Performance, slack, and risk taking in organizational decision making. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 562–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Surroca, J., Tribo, J. A., & Waddock, S. (2010). Corporate responsibility and financial performance: The role of intangible resources. Strategic Management Journal, 31, 463–490.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szwajkowski, E., & Figlewicz, R. E. (1997). Of babies and bathwater. Business & Society, 36, 362–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 509–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wade, J. B., Porac, J. F., Pollock, T. G., & Graffin, S. D. (2006). The burden of celebrity: the impact of CEO certification contests on CEO pay and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 643–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wartick, S. T. (2002). Measuring corporate reputation: Definition and data. Business and Society, 41, 371–392.

    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 

  • Wiggins, R., & Ruefli, T. W. (2002). Sustained competitive advantage: Temporal dynamics and the incidence and persistence of superior economic performance. Organization Science, 13, 81–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilcox, K., Vallen, B., Block, L., & Fitzsimons, G. J. (2009). Vicarious goal fulfillment: When the mere presence of a healthy option leads to an ironically indulgent decision. Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 380–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, R. J., Schnake, M. E., & Fredenberger, W. (2005). The impact of corporate strategy on a firm’s reputation. Corporate Reputation Review, 8, 187–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winn, M., Macdonald, P., & Zietsma, C. (2008). Managing industry reputation: The dynamic tension between collective and competitive reputation management strategies. Corporate Reputation Review, 11, 35–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sujit Sur.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sur, S., Sirsly, CA.T. What’s in a name? Decomposing corporate reputation to assess the relative impact of temporal, firm and industry level factors. J Manag Gov 17, 1047–1072 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-012-9214-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-012-9214-9

Keywords

Navigation