Editing Reputation (section)

==Corporate reputation==

=== Reputation as a concept for companies ===

==== Academic literature ====
Since 1980, the study of 'corporate reputation' has attracted growing scholarly attention from economics, sociology, and management.<ref name=":1">{{Cite book|title=Oxford Handbook of Corporate Reputation|last1=Barnett|first1=Michael|last2=Pollock|first2=Timothy|publisher=Oxford University Press|year=2012|isbn=9780199596706|location=United Kingdom|pages=22–36}}</ref> The concept of reputation has undergone substantial evolution in the academic literature over the past several decades.<ref name=":1" /><ref name=":2" /><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Money|first1=K|last2=Hillenbrand|first2=C|date=2006|title=Using reputation measurement to create value: An analysis and integration of existing measures|journal=Journal of General Management|volume=32|pages=1–12|doi=10.1177/030630700603200101|s2cid=146416325}}</ref> Terminology such as reputation, branding, image and identity is often used interchangeably in both the popular press and – until recently – in the academic literature, as well.

The academic literature has generally settled on a small cluster of perspectives on "what reputation is" in a company context. 
[[Mark C. Suchman]] (1995) examines the relationship between legitimacy, status, and reputation, emphasizing that while these concepts are interconnected, they represent distinct forms of social evaluation. Legitimacy refers to the degree to which an organization's actions align with societal norms and values, status reflects its position within a social hierarchy, and reputation is based on assessments of its past actions and achievements. Understanding these distinctions is essential for organizations seeking to navigate their social environments successfully.<ref>Suchman, M. C. (1995). "Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches." Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610. [https://doi.org/10.2307/258788 doi:10.2307/258788]</ref>

Economists use game-theory to describe corporate reputations as strategic signals that companies use to convey to markets some of their qualities and abilities.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Milgrom|first1=P|author1-link=Paul Milgrom|last2=Roberts|first2=J|date=1982|title=Predation, reputation, and entry deterrence|url=https://www.google.com/search?q=journal+of+economic+theory|journal=Journal of Economic Theory|volume=27|issue=2|pages=280–312|via=Elsevier|doi=10.1016/0022-0531(82)90031-X|doi-access=free|hdl=10419/220787|hdl-access=free}}</ref>  Sociologists view corporate reputation as descriptions of the relative status that companies occupy in an institutional field of rivals and stakeholders.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=DiMaggio|first1=PJ|last2=Powell|first2=WW|date=1983|title=The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields|journal=American Sociological Review|volume=48|issue=2|pages=167–160|doi=10.2307/2095101|jstor=2095101|s2cid=22470481 |url=https://bibliotecadigital.fgv.br/ojs/index.php/rae/article/view/37123 }}</ref>  Management scholars describe corporate reputations in one of two main ways,<ref name=":2">{{Cite journal|last1=Lange|first1=Donald|last2=Lee|first2=Peggy M.|last3=Dai|first3=Ye|date=2011-01-01|title=Organizational Reputation: A Review|journal=Journal of Management|language=en|volume=37|issue=1|pages=153–184|doi=10.1177/0149206310390963|s2cid=143793428|issn=0149-2063}}</ref> including:

*'''the broad view:''' as an aggregation of perceptions that form as audiences judge the behaviors of companies.<ref name=":6">{{Cite journal|last1=Fombrun|first1=CJ|author1-link=:ht:Charles Fombrun|last2=Shanley|first2=MS|date=1990|title=What's in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy|journal=Academy of Management Journal|volume=33|issue=2|pages=233–258|doi=10.5465/256324|doi-broken-date=1 November 2024 }}</ref>
** This is often evaluated by broad ranking measures of the company as a whole, such as the Fortune ''Most Admired Companies'' rankings<ref name=":7">{{Cite journal|last1=Pfarrer|first1=Michael D.|last2=Pollock|first2=Timothy G.|last3=Rindova|first3=Violina P.|date=2010-10-01|title=A Tale of Two Assets: The Effects of Firm Reputation and Celebrity on Earnings Surprises and Investors' Reactions|journal=Academy of Management Journal|volume=53|issue=5|pages=1131–1152|doi=10.5465/amj.2010.54533222|issn=0001-4273}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Brown|first1=Brad|last2=Perry|first2=Susan|date=1994-10-01|title=Removing the Financial Performance Halo From Fortune's "Most Admired" Companies|journal=Academy of Management Journal|volume=37|issue=5|pages=1347–1359|doi=10.5465/256676|doi-broken-date=1 November 2024 |issn=0001-4273}}</ref>
*'''the specific view:''' as an assessment, by some specific audience, of the company's ability to perform or behave in a certain way.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Rindova|first1=Violina P.|last2=Williamson|first2=Ian O.|last3=Petkova|first3=Antoaneta P.|last4=Sever|first4=Joy Marie|date=2005|title=Being Good or Being Known: An Empirical Examination of the Dimensions, Antecedents, and Consequences of Organizational Reputation|journal=The Academy of Management Journal|volume=48|issue=6|pages=1033–1049|doi=10.2307/20159728|jstor=20159728|issn=0001-4273|doi-access=free}}</ref><ref name=":8">{{Cite web|last1=Jensen|first1=Michael|last2=Kim|first2=Heeyon|last3=Kim|first3=Bo Kyung|editor2-first=Michael L|editor2-last=Barnett|editor1-first=Timothy G|editor1-last=Pollock|date=2012-07-19|title=Meeting Expectations: A Role-Theoretic Perspective on Reputation|url=https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199596706.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199596706-e-7|access-date=2020-08-25|website=The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Reputation|language=en|doi=10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199596706.001.0001|isbn=9780199596706}}</ref> These are split into two broad categories: (a) outcome/capability reputation and (b) behavior/character reputation,<ref name=":3">{{Cite journal|last1=Mishina|first1=Yuri|last2=Block|first2=Emily S.|last3=Mannor|first3=Michael J.|date=2012|title=The path dependence of organizational reputation: how social judgment influences assessments of capability and character|journal=Strategic Management Journal|language=en|volume=33|issue=5|pages=459–477|doi=10.1002/smj.958|hdl=10044/1/15612|s2cid=167766573 |issn=1097-0266|hdl-access=free}}</ref> which is intended to capture both the economic and sociological forms of reputation.<ref name=":3" /><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Parker|first1=Owen|last2=Krause|first2=Ryan|last3=Devers|first3=Cynthia E.|date=2019-04-22|title=How Firm Reputation Shapes Managerial Discretion|url=http://journals.aom.org/doi/10.5465/amr.2016.0542|journal=Academy of Management Review|language=en|volume=44|issue=2|pages=254–278|doi=10.5465/amr.2016.0542|s2cid=169617029|issn=0363-7425|url-access=subscription}}</ref>
** (a) '''''outcome/capability reputation''''': this reputation type involves an assessment of how ''well'' the company performs on a certain dimension. The most common examples of these is performing well financially<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Roberts|first1=Peter W.|last2=Dowling|first2=Grahame R.|date=2002|title=Corporate reputation and sustained superior financial performance|journal=Strategic Management Journal|language=en|volume=23|issue=12|pages=1077–1093|doi=10.1002/smj.274|issn=1097-0266}}</ref> or providing high quality products or services.<ref name=":5">{{Cite journal|last1=Rhee|first1=Mooweon|last2=Haunschild|first2=Pamela R.|date=2006-02-01|title=The Liability of Good Reputation: A Study of Product Recalls in the U.S. Automobile Industry|journal=Organization Science|volume=17|issue=1|pages=101–117|doi=10.1287/orsc.1050.0175|issn=1047-7039}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Benjamin|first1=Beth A.|last2=Podolny|first2=Joel M.|author2-link=Joel M. Podolny|date=1999-09-01|title=Status, Quality, and Social Order in the California Wine Industry|journal=Administrative Science Quarterly|language=en|volume=44|issue=3|pages=563–589|doi=10.2307/2666962|jstor=2666962|s2cid=143602162|issn=0001-8392}}</ref> All of these dimensions can be objectively ordered, such as better/worse financial performance (as evaluated by objective, market-based measures of financial performance) or better/worse product quality (as evaluated by a collection of users).<ref name=":5" />
** (b) '''''behavior/character reputation''''': this reputation type is said to arise when a company is recognized as ''consistently'' ''behaving'' in a certain way,<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Milgrom|author1-link=Paul Milgrom|first1=Paul|last2=Roberts|first2=John|date=1986|title=Price and Advertising Signals of Product Quality|journal=Journal of Political Economy|volume=94|issue=4|pages=796–821|doi=10.1086/261408|jstor=1833203|s2cid=154506015|issn=0022-3808|url=http://cowles.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/pub/d07/d0709.pdf|access-date=2020-09-04|archive-date=2020-08-06|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200806034037/http://cowles.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/pub/d07/d0709.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Weigelt|first1=Keith|last2=Camerer|first2=Colin|author2-link=Colin Camerer|date=1988|title=Reputation and corporate strategy: A review of recent theory and applications|journal=Strategic Management Journal|language=en|volume=9|issue=5|pages=443–454|doi=10.1002/smj.4250090505|issn=1097-0266}}</ref> in a manner that is relatively devoid of objectively identifiable performance. For instance, a company might prioritize investment in innovation, the improvement of its operational efficiency, or sourcing from local suppliers.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Ravasi|first1=Davide|last2=Rindova|first2=Violina|last3=Etter|first3=Michael|last4=Cornelissen|first4=Joep|date=2018-04-11|title=The Formation of Organizational Reputation|url=https://journals.aom.org/doi/10.5465/annals.2016.0124|journal=Academy of Management Annals|volume=12|issue=2|pages=574–599|doi=10.5465/annals.2016.0124|s2cid=150287794|issn=1941-6520|hdl=10398/956fac68-89a9-44b3-bbf1-99d794702f8c|hdl-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Bitektine|first1=Alex|last2=Hill|first2=Kevin|last3=Song|first3=Fei|last4=Vandenberghe|first4=Christian|date=2018-09-25|title=Organizational Legitimacy, Reputation, and Status: Insights from Micro-Level Measurement|url=https://journals.aom.org/doi/10.5465/amd.2017.0007|journal=Academy of Management Discoveries|volume=6|issue=1|pages=107–136|doi=10.5465/amd.2017.0007|s2cid=149754189|url-access=subscription}}</ref>

==== Practical measurement of reputation ====
In practice, corporate reputations are revealed by the relative rankings of companies created and propagated by information intermediaries.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Deephouse|first1=David L.|last2=Heugens|first2=Pursey P. M. A. R.|date=2009-06-01|title=Linking Social Issues to Organizational Impact: The Role of Infomediaries and the Infomediary Process|journal=Journal of Business Ethics|language=en|volume=86|issue=4|pages=541–553|doi=10.1007/s10551-008-9864-3|s2cid=62806448|issn=1573-0697}}</ref>  For example, business magazines and newspapers such as ''Fortune'', ''Forbes'', ''Business Week'', ''Financial Times'', and ''The Wall Street Journal'' regularly publish lists of the best places to work, the best business schools, or the most innovative companies. These rankings are explicit orderings of corporate reputations, and the relative positions of companies on these rankings reflect their relative performance on various cognitive attributes. Corporate reputations are found to influence the attractiveness of ranked companies as suppliers of products, as prospective employers, and as investments.<ref name=":0">{{Cite book|title=Reputation: Realizing Value from Corporate Image|last=Fombrun|first=Charles J|author-link=:ht:Charles Fombrun|publisher=Harvard Business School Press|year=1996|isbn=9780875846330|location=Cambridge, MA|url-access=registration|url=https://archive.org/details/reputationrealiz0000fomb}}</ref>  For those reasons, companies themselves have become increasingly involved with the practice of [[reputation management]].

=== Connections to related, company-level concepts ===
Like any social construct, reputation is similar to (i.e., [[Convergent validity|convergent]] with) certain concepts and different (i.e., [[Discriminant validity|discriminant]]) from others. Reputation can be compared to other "social evaluation" or "social judgment" constructs. For instance, reputation is said to be '''convergent with''' adjacent concepts like corporate image, identity, celebrity, status, legitimacy, social approval (likability), and visibility (prominence), but '''discriminant from''' related constructs like stigma and infamy.<ref name=":1" /><ref name=":4">{{Cite book|last=Roulet, Thomas (Thomas J.)|url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1143840507|title=The power of being divisive : understanding negative social evaluations|date=September 2020|isbn=978-1-5036-1390-4|location=Stanford, California|oclc=1143840507}}</ref> Reputation is often considered to be a pragmatic evaluation – actors determine whether the target of the evaluation can be seen as useful to them.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Suchman|first=Mark C.|author-link=Mark C. Suchman|date=July 1995|title=Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080331|journal=Academy of Management Review|volume=20|issue=3|pages=571–610|doi=10.5465/amr.1995.9508080331|s2cid=168050730 |issn=0363-7425|url-access=subscription}}</ref>

Until recently, the relationships with these adjacent constructs were merely theoretical; that is, they were not formally tested or empirically validated<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=MacKenzie|first1=Scott B.|last2=Podsakoff|first2=Philip|author2-link=Philip Podsakoff|last3=Podsakoff|first3=Nathan|date=2011-06-01|title=Construct measurement and validation procedures in MIS and behavioral research|url=https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.5555/2017507.2017510|journal=MIS Quarterly|volume=35|issue=2|pages=293–334|doi=10.2307/23044045|jstor=23044045|language=EN|url-access=subscription}}</ref> for their "[[Nomological network|nomological]] relationships" with these other, related constructs.

*'''''Conceptual relationships:''''' In 2012, the ''Oxford Handbook of Corporate Reputation''<ref name=":1" /> was released to provide some clarity to the increasingly fragmented field of social evaluation constructs, all of which had been referred to (either implicitly or explicitly) under an umbrella of "reputation" concepts. In 2020, the introductory part of ''The Power of Being Divisive: Understanding Negative Evaluations'',<ref name=":4" /> develops a framework to disentangle a variety of concepts in the field of social evaluations – in particular making the point that negative and positive evaluations can be on different continua, and social actors can be both positively and negatively evaluated at the same time. In this opus and in the Oxford handbook, scholars made incremental efforts to distinguish between handfuls of these constructs, such as:
** reputation vs. celebrity<ref name=":7" />
** reputation vs. status<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Stern|first1=Ithai|last2=Dukerich|first2=Janet M.|last3=Zajac|first3=Edward|date=2014|title=Unmixed signals: How reputation and status affect alliance formation|journal=Strategic Management Journal|language=en|volume=35|issue=4|pages=512–531|doi=10.1002/smj.2116|issn=1097-0266}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Pollock|first1=Timothy G.|last2=Lee|first2=Peggy M.|last3=Jin|first3=Kyuho|last4=Lashley|first4=Kisha|date=2015-09-01|title=(Un)Tangled: Exploring the Asymmetric Coevolution of New Venture Capital Firms' Reputation and Status|journal=Administrative Science Quarterly|language=en|volume=60|issue=3|pages=482–517|doi=10.1177/0001839215585602|s2cid=54640595|issn=0001-8392}}</ref>
** reputation vs. legitimacy vs. status<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Bitektine|first=Alex|date=2011-01-01|title=Toward a Theory of Social Judgments of Organizations: The Case of Legitimacy, Reputation, and Status|journal=Academy of Management Review|volume=36|issue=1|pages=151–179|doi=10.5465/amr.2009.0382|issn=0363-7425}}</ref>
** reputation vs. social approval<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Bundy|first1=Jonathan|last2=Pfarrer|first2=Michael D.|date=2014-10-16|title=A Burden of Responsibility: The Role of Social Approval at the Onset of a Crisis|journal=Academy of Management Review|volume=40|issue=3|pages=345–369|doi=10.5465/amr.2013.0027|issn=0363-7425}}</ref>
** reputation vs. stigma<ref>{{Cite web|last1=Mishina|first1=Yuri|last2=Devers|first2=Cynthia E|editor2-first=Michael L|editor2-last=Barnett|editor1-first=Timothy G|editor1-last=Pollock|date=2012-07-19|title=On Being Bad: Why Stigma is not the Same as a Bad Reputation|url=https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199596706.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199596706-e-10|access-date=2020-08-25|website=The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Reputation|language=en|doi=10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199596706.001.0001|isbn=9780199596706}}</ref>
** reputation vs. status vs. celebrity vs. stigma<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Pollock|first1=Timothy G.|last2=Lashley|first2=Kisha|last3=Rindova|first3=Violina P.|last4=Han|first4=Jung-Hoon|date=2019-04-08|title=Which of These Things Are Not Like the Others? Comparing the Rational, Emotional, and Moral Aspects of Reputation, Status, Celebrity, and Stigma|journal=Academy of Management Annals|volume=13|issue=2|pages=444–478|doi=10.5465/annals.2017.0086|s2cid=150762458|issn=1941-6520}}</ref>
*'''''Empirical relationships:''''' In 2020, Bitektine and colleagues<ref name=":9">{{Cite journal|last1=Bitektine|first1=Alex|last2=Hill|first2=Kevin|last3=Song|first3=Fei|last4=Vandenberghe|first4=Christian|date=2018-09-25|title=Organizational Legitimacy, Reputation, and Status: Insights from Micro-Level Measurement|journal=Academy of Management Discoveries|volume=6|issue=1|pages=107–136|doi=10.5465/amd.2017.0007|s2cid=149754189}}</ref> conducted the first major construct validation study to: (a) create scales for the constructs of reputation, cognitive legitimacy, sociopolitical legitimacy, and status, and (b) empirically distinguish between them by undertaking a multiple studies involving several [[Confirmatory factor analysis|confirmatory factor analyses]]. 
** This construct validation effort addressed the "broad view" of reputation as a company-level evaluation (not an evaluation for specific attributes).<ref name=":6" /> The scale items for reputation that resulted from this effort, as evaluated by an audience of respondents representing the general public, included: "The reputation of this company is excellent", "[this] is a reputable company", and "[this] is a dependable company".<ref name=":9" />
** There still exists no construct validation effort for the "specific view" of reputation (i.e., that reputation is best understood as a specific audience's view of the company with respect to a specific attribute<ref name=":8" />).

=== Consequences ===

==== Performance outcomes ====
Myriad reputation studies from the 1980s to the 2000s demonstrated that a company's reputation was positively related to various performance measures, such as financial success and profitability.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Rao|first=Hayagreeva|author-link=Hayagreeva Rao|date=1994|title=The Social Construction of Reputation: Certification Contests, Legitimation, and the Survival of Organizations in the American Automobile Industry: 1895–1912|journal=Strategic Management Journal|language=en|volume=15|issue=S1|pages=29–44|doi=10.1002/smj.4250150904|issn=1097-0266}}</ref><ref name=":6" /> However, more recent work demonstrated that reputation can be both "a benefit and a burden",<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Zavyalova|first1=Anastasiya|last2=Pfarrer|first2=Michael D.|last3=Reger|first3=Rhonda K.|last4=Hubbard|first4=Timothy D.|date=2015-07-24|title=Reputation as a Benefit and a Burden? How Stakeholders' Organizational Identification Affects the Role of Reputation Following a Negative Event|journal=Academy of Management Journal|volume=59|issue=1|pages=253–276|doi=10.5465/amj.2013.0611|issn=0001-4273}}</ref> suggesting that "the bigger you are, the harder you (might) fall" with respect to reputation.<ref name=":5" />

==== Decision outcomes ====
Relatedly, researchers have theorized or demonstrated that a company's reputation could also influence the decisions and perceptions of its managers;<ref name=":11">{{Cite journal|last1=Petkova|first1=Antoaneta P.|last2=Wadhwa|first2=Anu|last3=Yao|first3=Xin|last4=Jain|first4=Sanjay|date=2013-05-28|title=Reputation and Decision Making under Ambiguity: A Study of U.S. Venture Capital Firms' Investments in the Emerging Clean Energy Sector|journal=Academy of Management Journal|volume=57|issue=2|pages=422–448|doi=10.5465/amj.2011.0651|s2cid=167381065|issn=0001-4273}}</ref> in some cases, reputation can promote the use of '''risk-reduction''' strategies by managers as they seek to preserve the reputation they have cultivated.<ref name=":11" /> In other cases, researchers argue that reputation can embolden managers to '''take risks''' in areas unrelated to their reputation, since stakeholders may be focused on the reputation itself and inattentive to other areas of the company.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Barnett|first=Michael L.|date=2012-02-03|title=Why Stakeholders Ignore Firm Misconduct|journal=Journal of Management|language=en-US|volume=40|issue=3|pages=676–702|doi=10.1177/0149206311433854|s2cid=146428499|issn=0149-2063}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=APA PsycNet|url=https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1991-97723-000|access-date=2020-08-25|website=psycnet.apa.org|language=en}}</ref>