ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

In this paper, we develop a conceptual framework that emphasises the need, for the purposes of reputation building, for fit between CSR activities and other key characteristics of the firm. Furthermore, using data on a sample of 227 UK PLCs, we provide evidence in support of a role for fit in the link between reputation and social performance, which suggests a need to tailor CSR activities in light of a firm’s size and the nature of its principle business activity. Thus, we highlight the strategic importance of correctly identifying the appropriate scope and extent of CSR activism.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Building a Good
STEPHEN BRAMMER, University of Reading
STEPHEN PAVELIN, University of Reading
In this paper, we develop a conceptual framework
that emphasises the need, for the purposes of repu-
tation building, for fit between CSR activities and
other key characteristics of the firm. Furthermore,
using data on a sample of 227 UK PLCs, we provide
evidence in support of a role for fit in the link
between reputation and social performance, which
suggests a need to tailor CSR activities in light of
a firm’s size and the nature of its principle business
activity. Thus, we highlight the strategic impor-
tance of correctly identifying the appropriate scope
and extent of CSR activism.
Ó2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Corporate reputation, Social responsi-
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is an issue that
has increasingly attracted business, political, and
public interest in the past decade. Anecdotal evi-
dence suggests there has been a shift in the breadth
and nature of the perceived responsibilities of com-
panies to the societies in which they operate. This
shift poses significant strategic dilemmas for corpo-
rate management. Companies are now forced to
make decisions concerning the type and degree of
responsibilities they have to stakeholders, such as lo-
cal communities, the natural environment, and
employees. Furthermore, these responsibilities must
be balanced against those they have to financial inter-
est groups such as investors and creditors. Clearly,
this task would be less complicated if one could be
sure that satisfying the expectations of social stake-
holders contributed directly to the financial health
of the organization. Unfortunately, existing evidence
provides neither good evidence in favour of the
‘business case’ for improved corporate social respon-
siveness (Griffin and Mahon, 1997), nor the means
for companies to identify those aspects of social
responsiveness that, given the nature of their busi-
ness environment, would be expected to bring the
greatest reward.
Advocates of social responsiveness often highlight
the catastrophic financial impacts of the collapse of
ethically and socially unsound businesses such as
Enron. However, this fall from grace should be
viewed alongside Enron’s formerly favourable track
record in many dimensions of social responsiveness,
such as charitable contributions and community-
based initiatives. A business case for CSR activism
derived from the desire to avoid Enron-like financial
ruin would only promote compliance with legal
requirements for proper business practices. If we
are also, and perhaps particularly, interested in those
dimensions of CSR that lie outside of, or exceed,
such requirements (e.g. charitable efforts on commu-
nity and environmental projects) we must look be-
yond Enron if we are to inform a relevant business
Part of the difficulty in establishing the business case,
if any, for improved corporate social responsiveness
arises because both the desired outcomes (e.g. profit-
ability, stock performance, employee attraction,
motivation and retention, customer loyalty), and
the socially responsive behaviours (e.g. charitable
giving, investing in technologies that reduce environ-
mental degradation, improving product safety, pro-
viding safe working conditions for employees) are
fundamentally multidimensional. This permits the
study of such a wide variety of linkages that it is of-
ten possible to make, or deny, a business case for al-
most any arbitrarily chosen pair of indicators of firm
and social performance (Griffin and Mahon, 1997).
In this study, we examine the links between corpo-
rate reputation and corporate social responsiveness.
Reputation has been defined as, ‘‘a perceptual repre-
sentation of a company’s past actions and future
prospects that describe the firm’s overall appeal to
all its key constituents when compared to other lead-
ing rivals’’ (Fombrun, 1996, p. 72). As has been
704 European Management Journal Vol. 22, No. 6, pp. 704–713, December 2004
European Management Journal Vol. 22, No. 6, pp. 704–713, 2004
Ó2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Printed in Great Britain
0263-2373 $30.00
highlighted, denitions such as this emphasise the
aggregate or summative nature of corporate reputa-
tions that reect the perceptions of a host of individ-
ual stakeholders and that, therefore, reect a broader
concept of the performance of the organization than
the various measures of nancial performance previ-
ously employed to identify the payoffs from social
In the investigation of the link between business and
social performance there is much to be gained from
the addition of conceptual sophistication above that
present in many existing accounts. Among other
weaknesses, most conceptualisations suggest that
the benets (or costs) of improved social responsive-
ness apply to all types of social performance and that
they are available to, and therefore should be reaped
by, all organizations. Were this true, we should ex-
pect to see very little variance across rms in the pat-
tern of their social performance, whereas, in fact and
as we will show, such variation is considerable. In
the next section, we outline an argument, grounded
in stakeholder theory, which proposes that the repu-
tational payoffs to a rm of increased social respon-
siveness are contingent upon their being a t
between the type of socially responsive behaviour
and certain rm characteristics. This framework pro-
vides both an explanation of the variation across
rms in their social performance and predictions
regarding the circumstances under which there will
be reputational payoffs to improved social
In addition to providing a good summative proxy for
the performance of organizations, corporate reputa-
tion has been identied as an asset of considerable
interest and importance in its own right. There is
general agreement that corporate reputations con-
tribute signicantly to the long run competitive
advantages of organizations and that their manage-
ment is of critical importance to companies (Dow-
ling, 2004;Rose and Thomsen, 2004;Fombrun,
1996). However, there is less agreement concerning
the processes by which reputational capital is built
or destroyed. An important strand in this literature
has focused upon the role of social responsiveness
in inuencing perceptions of organizations in the
eyes of their stakeholders.
A seminal empirical study by Fombrun and Shanley
(1990) provides evidence that social responsiveness,
as measured by the level of corporate charitable
donations and the presence of a separately endowed
corporate charitable foundation, is positively associ-
ated with corporate reputation. Indeed, Williams
and Barrett (2000) provide more recent evidence in
support of a positive link between philanthropy
and corporate reputation. However, in a recent con-
ceptual contribution, Dowling (2004) raises the possi-
bility that attempts to enhance reputations through
demonstrating social responsiveness may not be
credible in some industries, such as tobacco, nuclear
energy, and weapons manufacture, where negative
perceptions of the industry dominate the efforts of
particular companies.
This study makes two contributions. First, our con-
ceptual framework emphasises the need for t be-
tween CSR activities and other key characteristics
of the rm if a reputational payoff is to be achieved.
Thus, we highlight the strategic importance to a rm
of correctly identifying the appropriate scope and ex-
tent of its CSR activism. Second, we analyse the link
between reputation and social performance, allowing
this link to vary across corporate characteristics.
Using data on a sample of 227 UK PLCs, we provide
evidence that for the purposes of reputation building
there is a need to t CSR activities with other key
rm characteristics.
The paper is structured as follows. The next section
develops our conceptual framework before we move
on to outline the data employed in our empirical
analyses. Subsequently, we document the variation
across companies in reputation and social perfor-
mance, and analyse the linkages between the two.
Anal section discusses the implications of the re-
search and concludes.
Corporate Reputation and Social
In developing a framework of the linkages between
corporate reputation and social performance, our
starting point is Fombrun and Shanleys seminal
model which hypothesises that corporate reputa-
tions, ‘‘represent publicscumulative judgements of
rms over time’’ which, in turn, hinge on rms, ‘‘rel-
ative success in fullling the expectations of multiple
stakeholders’’ (Fombrun and Shanley, 1990, p. 235).
Arms current reputation is determined by the sig-
nals that publics receive concerning its behaviours,
whether directly from the rm or via other informa-
tion channels, such as the media or the stock market.
Stakeholders are expected to have diverse prefer-
ences over rm actions, process and outcomes and
reputational assessments depend upon the congru-
ence between the apparent behaviours of the rm
and the expectations and preferences of those publics
(Fombrun and Shanley, 1990).
In this paper, we conne ourselves to a discussion of
the links between social performance of organiza-
tions and their reputations. In particular, we propose
that the nature and strength of these links are contin-
gent upon corporate characteristics that condition the
expectations of stakeholders concerning the conduct
of particular organizations. We will begin by outlin-
ing a general case for a link between reputation and
social performance, before extending the argument
to permit corporate characteristics to mediate this
European Management Journal Vol. 22, No. 6, pp. 704713, December 2004 705
relationship. In so doing, we will concentrate on two
particular corporate characteristicsindustry and
rm sizethat, we argue, play a particularly impor-
tant role in conditioning the link between reputation
and social performance.
Existing work has argued that social responsiveness
promotes favourable relationships with primary
stakeholder groups. This is because social respon-
siveness facilitates the process of identication,
whereby an individual perceives a good t between
his values and his beliefs about an organization
(Dowling, 2004). Achieving such a t is important be-
cause stakeholders (such as shareholders, employees,
consumers, pressure groups, Government and regu-
lators) that do not view the rm as following legiti-
mate courses of action have the power to either rest
power from managers, or to at least hamper the exe-
cution of corporate strategy (Mitchell et al., 1997).
Such salientstakeholder groups demand attention
from corporate management and, to the extent that
rms behave in accordance with their expectations,
they will be willing to continue to participate in the
activities of the rm. To the extent that social respon-
siveness helps managers, ‘‘induce constructive con-
tributions from their stakeholders’’ (Donaldson and
Preston, 1995), we should expect it to augment the
rms reputation since the expectations both of man-
agers and other stakeholders are satised. Indeed,
contributions from the strategy literature have ar-
gued that developing and sustaining good relation-
ships with stakeholders can help to form new and
valuable intangible assets (Hillman and Keim, 2001).
However, the links between social performance and
reputation may be more complex than has been sug-
gested thus far. If the demands made of the rm are
diverse, and perhaps conicting, the response must
be balanced and multi-faceted. Furthermore, since
operationalizations of corporate reputation are typi-
cally summative, in that they assess the status of an
organization in the eyes of many of its stakeholders
(if not all and if not with equal weight), there is un-
likely to be a straightforward relationship between
social performance and reputation. Instead, it is
likely that the overall reputational impact of social
responsiveness is jointly contingent upon which
dimension of social responsiveness is under consid-
eration, and which business sector the rm is primar-
ily associated with.
We propose that distinctions between types of busi-
ness activities, and between types of social perfor-
mance, play important roles in dening the
relationship between social performance and corpo-
rate reputation. Crucially, the perceived relatedness
of social performance to a rms activities is subject
to variation both across sectors, and within sectors
across types of social performance. The spectrum of
business activities can be divided into sectors such
as resources, retail, chemicals (including pharmaceu-
ticals), construction, high technology, banking, utili-
ties, business services, etc. Similarly, we can divide
social performance according to its focus upon com-
munities, the environment or employees.
Industry may be expected to be a key inuence on
the t between social performance and rm reputa-
tion, and therefore the strength of the link between
the two, because sectors are inherently more closely
related to some types of social performance than to
others. This relatedness springs directly from the
variation across sectors in the strength of stakeholder
expectations for specic socially responsive behav-
iours. Fullment of these expectations, where they
arise, enhances the perceptions of the organization
in the eyes of these stakeholders, whereas the failure
to do so harms the reputation of the organization
among these constituencies.
For example, the existing empirical literature has
identied a number of sectors as having high envi-
ronmental impacts, e.g. the metals, resources, paper
and pulp, power generation, water, and chemicals
sectors (Clemens, 2001;Bowen, 2000;Sharma et al.,
1999;Hoffman, 1999). In contrast, other industries,
particularly newer manufacturing industries and
the service sector have signicantly lower environ-
mental impacts and are associated with fewer highly
visible environmental issues. Where rms create sig-
nicant environmental externalities, they typically
face strong scrutiny from local communities, regula-
tors, and environmental pressure groups that expect
such organizations to reduce and make reparation
for such impacts. The environmental performance
dimension of social performance is therefore more
closely related to business activities that face visible
environmental issues, and we expect good environ-
mental performance to be more positively associated
with corporate reputation in such sectors.
Conversely, where environmental issues are less
apparent, it may be that the implementation of envi-
ronmental management and reporting systems bring
negligible benets via the improved relationships
with environmentally concerned stakeholders such
as regulators, legislators and pressure groups. Given
this, the accompanying administrative costs may
cause the net effect of investment in environmental
performance to harm the nancial performance of
the organization, and so make it less likely that the
expectations of creditors and shareholders are met.
If this is the case, a high level of environmental per-
formance would be expected to harm the overall rep-
utation of the rm in the eyes of its stakeholders.
Other industries are associated with alternative is-
sues, for example, the tobacco and alcoholic drinks
industries are associated with highly visible social is-
sues. They are thought to produce large social exter-
nalities (e.g. crime and health) and are subject to
strong regulatory regimes (competition, safety and
taxation). Similarly, the defence and pharmaceutical
industries receive particular attention from ethical
706 European Management Journal Vol. 22, No. 6, pp. 704713, December 2004
pressure groups, and the prole of workplace health
and safety concerns is relatively high in the construc-
tion, transportation, and resource extraction sectors.
In contrast, all three aspects of social performance
may be perceived to only distantly relate to the busi-
ness services and high technology sectors, due to the
relative lack of environmental impact, proximity to
nal consumers, and employee health and safety
To summarize, it is expected that the nature of the
link between reputation and social performance is
inuenced by the nature of the stakeholder environ-
ments rms face. To a great extent, expectations con-
cerning corporate social responsiveness are related to
the nature of the rms principle business activity,
such that rms are expected by stakeholders to par-
ticipate in activities designed to mitigate, or offer
compensation for, antisocial outcomes typically asso-
ciated with that line of business. Social performance
that is perceived to bear little or no relation to a
rms activities may be thought of as wasteful man-
agerial excess, and so harm reputation, whereas
examples perceived as relevant are more favourably
In addition to a rms industry, its size may also play
a role in inuencing the nature of the link between
social performance and reputation. Size matters for
a number of reasons. First, a number of contributions
have emphasised that larger rms may be particu-
larly susceptible to scrutiny from stakeholder groups
since they are highly visible to external groups and
more commercially vulnerable to adverse reactions
among such constituencies (Roberts, 1992;Watts
and Zimmermann, 1978). The level of pressure to
demonstrate social responsiveness falls dispropor-
tionately upon large rms because they are more
availableto relevant publics, in the sense that these
publics tend to be better informed regarding their
activities (Tversky and Kahneman, 1974). Second,
larger rms have larger and more diverse stake-
holder constituencies than smaller rms because they
are, on average, more diversied across geographical
and product markets. It is more likely, therefore, that
they are subject to demands for social responsiveness
from (at least some part of) their stakeholder constit-
uency. Third, corporate size has itself become a con-
troversial issue. As some business organizations
have grown to a scale that rivals and surpasses the
economic activities of many countries, debate has
intensied surrounding the accountability of such
large organizations to individuals, local communities
and the wider society.
These arguments suggest that, for a number of rea-
sons, corporate reputation may, in general be more
closely linked to social responsiveness for large orga-
nizations than for small organizations. By demon-
strating their social responsiveness, large rms can
satisfy the expectations of their stakeholder constitu-
encies, demonstrate their accountability to society,
and encourage advantageous outcomes from the
high level of public and political scrutiny to which
they are subject. It is worth noting these arguments
suggest that the inuence of rm size on the link be-
tween social performance and reputation should ap-
ply equally across all dimensions to social
Our sample consists of 227 UK PLCs chosen largely
according to the availability of reputation data (see
). Therefore, this sample, while drawn from
a wide range of industrial sectors, is not randomly
selected. Instead, there is a focus upon the largest
rms within each industrial sector, including 90%
of FTSE 100 companies. Nevertheless, there is consid-
erable variation in reputational scores both within
and between industrial sectors.
Corporate Reputation
To measure corporate reputation we utilise the
Britains most admired companiessurvey from
Management Today, 2002, which employs a similar
methodology to that used to construct the Fortune
Index, a commonly-used measure of the reputations
of US rms (e.g. Fombrun and Shanley, 1990;
McGuire et al., 1988;Fryxell and Wang, 1994). The
chairmen, managing directors and selected main
board directors of the 10 largest companies in 24
industrial sectors were surveyed, as were analysts at
a selection of leading investment companies. Partici-
pants were asked to rate each company in their sector
(excluding their own company) on a scale of zero
(poor) to 10 (excellent) for their performance in nine
criteria: quality of management; nancial soundness;
ability to attract, develop and retain top talent; quality
of products/services; value as a long term invest-
ment; capacity to innovate; quality of marketing;
community and environmental responsibility;
of corporate assets. The assessments received for each
rm were averaged across criteria and respondents to
produce a single reputational score.
Social Performance
Social performance data were obtained from the Eth-
ical Investment Research Service (EIRIS), who spe-
cialise in the measurement of corporate social
performance against a consistent and objective set
of criteria, principally for the consumption of inves-
tors. EIRIS survey rms concerning their social per-
formance, but also undertake their own research.
As a result, they are able to provide social perfor-
mance scores for a rm irrespective of whether it par-
ticipates in an EIRIS survey. They offer the largest
European Management Journal Vol. 22, No. 6, pp. 704713, December 2004 707
and most complete multidimensional social perfor-
mance coverage of UK rms, covering issues relating
to employment, the environment, community, hu-
man rights and supply chain management. Due to
the limited availability of data regarding the last
two of these, we will restrict our attention to the rst
three dimensions of social performance.
Our indicator of employee responsibility is based
upon ve separate components relating to health
and safety systems, training and development, equal
opportunities practices, employee relations and job
creation and security. Similarly, our indicator of envi-
ronmental responsiveness is based upon four separate
components relating to the quality of environmental
policies, systems, reporting and performance. Our
indicator of community responsiveness is entered as
a single measure by EIRIS. Following the general ap-
proach used by Graves and Waddock (1994) for
KLD data,
we translated the EIRIS text-grade rating
for each measure into a number-grade rating. Each
environmental measure has ve text categories; the
employment measures have three text categories,
while community has four. We coded each of the envi-
ronment text scales into ve point scales, each of the
employee responsibility text scales into three point
scales and created a four-point scale for community
responsiveness. In each case, the codes began with a
value of 1 and larger numbers indicated more social
responsiveness. To summarise, our measures of the
three dimensions of social performance are:
vCommunity performance graded 1 to 4.
vEnvironmental performance: policies; systems;
reporting; and performance. Each category
graded 1 to 5. Environmental impact score out
of 20.
vEmployee performance: health and safety; train-
ing and development; equal opportunities;
employee relations; job creation; and job security.
Each category graded 13. Employment responsi-
bility score out of 18.
To arrive at a single aggregate measure (termed so-
cial performance) we summed the three scores hav-
ing normalised each to a 14 grading. This
generates an overall score out of 12.
Other Corporate Attributes
A measure of each rms size (the natural logarithm
of the value of total assets), and principle business
activity (approximately equivalent to the three-digit
NACE industry) were extracted from accounting
data courtesy of DataStream. Using the DataStream
industry classication, we allocated each rm to
one of twelve sectors: Retail, Finance, Utilities,
Resources, Consumer products, High
technology, Construction, Business services, Trans-
portation, Engineering, Media.
This section will be divided into two parts. The rst
focuses upon the patterns of reputation and social
performance across rms, as reected in the averages
across the sample as a whole, and by the manner in
which these averages vary with rm size and across
sectors. The aim is to familiarise the reader with the
scope and character of the data and provide some
useful (and scarcely reported) stylised facts in re-
spect of both corporate reputation and social perfor-
mance. The second section explores the key focus of
the paper, the link between reputation and social
performance, as reected by the correlation between
the two, and the manner of its variation with rm
size and across sectors.
Patterns in Reputation and Social Performance
Over the sample as a whole, some 227 rms, the
average reputational score is 52.8; the average social
performance score is 4.00; the average scores relating
to community, environmental and employee perfor-
mances are 1.44, 4.68 and 5.98, respectively. These
gures provide useful benchmarks against which to
assess the reputation and social performance of indi-
vidual rms (which we will not do here) or groups of
rms, suitably dened. We will begin by dening
such groups according to rm size (as measured by
total assets).
As we have rm size data for only 215 of the 227
rms, we must use this slightly smaller set of rms
for this part of the analysis. We ranked the rms in
terms of their size and divided them into ve
groups, each containing 43 rms. The size range in
group 1 is £8 m to £525 m, in group 2 is £570 m to
£1,284 m, in group 3 is £1,290 m to £2,901 m, in
group 4 is £2,968 m to £7,425 m and in group 5 is
£7,505 m to £358,534 m. Thus, there is considerable
variation in total assets across the sample and also
notable differences between groups in terms of aver-
age rm size. Table 1 presents the patterns in aver-
age reputation and social performance across the
ve size groups.
Table 1 shows that, among our sample, larger rms
tend to hold better reputations. However, the (ab-
sence of) shading in the bottom half of the table illus-
trates the reputational differences between the size
groups are largely statistically insignicant. It is only
when comparing the average reputations in groups 1
and 5 (the smallest and the largest) that one nds lar-
ger rms have signicantly better reputations than
smaller rms. Therefore, these ndings are indicative
of a general tendency for larger rms to be more
highly regarded, but one that is only starkly signi-
cant when the differences in size are approaching
the broadest found among UK PLCs.
708 European Management Journal Vol. 22, No. 6, pp. 704713, December 2004
Regarding all aspects of social performance, again
larger rms tend to achieve higher scores. However,
these differences between size groups are far more
commonly statistically signicant. For overall social
performance, all pair-wise differences between
groups (1 & 2, 1 & 3, 1 & 4, 1 & 5, 2 & 3, 2 & 4, 2
& 5, 3 & 4, 3 & 5, 4 & 5) are signicant, and the same
is true of community performance. For environmen-
tal and employee performance, almost all differences
are similarly signicant. In each case, it is the differ-
ences between adjacent size groups (2 & 3 for the for-
mer, 1 & 2 and 3 & 4 for the latter) that are not
sufciently marked. Therefore, these ndings are
indicative of a general tendency for larger rms to
be more socially responsive, and one that is starkly
signicant across the full breadth of the size range
found among UK PLCs.
Moving away from rm size, we can return to the
full sample of 227 rms to group rms instead
according to their principle business activities. We
allocate each rm to one of twelve industrial sectors
(as described previously) to investigate the variation
in reputation and social performance across diverse
business environments. Table 2 presents the patterns
in average reputation and social performance across
the twelve sectors; Table 3 summarises, for both rep-
utation and social performance, the differences be-
tween the average score for a particular sector and
that recorded across all other rms - the sign indi-
cates whether that sector is associated with a rela-
tively high (+) or low () score, and shading
indicates whether any such differences are statisti-
cally signicant.
There is considerable and signicant variation across
sectors regarding both reputation and social perfor-
mance, and particularly the latter. However, before
inspecting individual sectors, it is worth noting a
general tendency for a sector to exhibit above aver-
Table 1 Average Reputation and Social Performance across Firms, by Firm Size
NB. Shading indicates significance at the 95% level of confidence
Table 2 Average Reputation and Social Performance across Firms, by Sector
Sector nAverage Reputation Average Social Performance
Overall Community Environment Employee
Retail 27 55.6 3.60 1.44 3.81 5.33
Finance 26 49.4 5.35 2.00 5.85 8.38
Utilities 15 47.3 6.00 2.07 7.87 7.87
Chemicals 18 52.9 4.58 1.56 5.61 6.94
Resources 9 57.6 6.69 2.22 9.11 8.56
Consumer products 21 52.1 4.30 1.52 5.19 6.29
High technology 25 49.4 2.59 1.04 2.44 4.44
Construction 31 55.3 3.39 1.06 4.71 4.52
Business services 24 55.0 2.27 0.83 2.08 4.46
Transportation 13 54.4 4.42 1.54 5.54 6.23
Engineering 8 58.8 2.96 1.00 4.00 3.75
Publishing 10 51.2 4.38 1.90 3.70 7.50
All firms 227 52.8 4.00 1.44 4.68 5.98
European Management Journal Vol. 22, No. 6, pp. 704–713, December 2004 709
age reputations and below average social perfor-
mance or below average reputations and above aver-
age social performance. This is true of seven sectors:
Retail, Business services and Engineering adhering to
the former pattern; Finance, Utilities, Chemicals and
Consumer products adhering to the latter. This sug-
gests that the pressure for social responsiveness is
associated with a poor reputation. Perhaps CSR
activism provides a means to rebuild a bad name.
Conversely, in sectors where good reputations are
commonly found there may be less impetus to be so-
cially responsive as rms are less burdened by stake-
holder concerns regarding the strategic positioning
of the organisation.
There are ve departures from this pattern. In Re-
sources, rms exhibit relatively strong social perfor-
mance despite enjoying relatively good reputations.
This may reect the particular salience of a wide
variety of community-, environment- and employ-
ee-related issues in that sector. For example, the
end-use of extraction sites has often become a notable
local community and environmental issue and the
working conditions of miners throughout the world
are subject to continuing debate. A similar pattern
is found in the Transportation sector, where the
external pressure may primarily be exerted by the
extensive regulatory infrastructure that is brought
to bear on much of that industry. Conversely, the rel-
atively poor social performance of High Technology
rms may reect the absence of salient social issues
in that sector.
The other two exceptions derive from unusual pat-
terns of behaviour across the three dimensions of so-
cial performance. In particular, in all but two sectors
there is, in all three dimensions, either relatively high
or relatively low performance. However, in Con-
struction, relatively poor community and employee
performance is matched with relatively good envi-
ronmental performance; in the Media sector, rela-
tively good community and employee performance
is matched with relatively poor environmental per-
formance. It is worth noting that these behaviours
seem to reect the relative importance and unimpor-
tance of environmental issues in the Construction
and Media sectors, respectively.
Table 3 Mean Differences in Reputation and Social Performance, by Sector
NB. Shaded cells indicate that the difference in means is signicant at the 95% level of condence
Table 4 Correlations between Reputation and Social Performance, by Size Group
Size Group Correlations between Reputation and Social Performance
Overall Community Environment Employee
1 0.062 0.100 0.048 0.014
2 0.134 0.253 0.042 0.083
3 0.131 0.123 0.124 0.072
40.023 0.124 0.085 0.107
5 0.444
All rms 0.257
The coefcient is signicantly different from zero at a 90% level of condence
The coefcient is signicantly different from zero at a 95% level of condence.
The coefcient is signicantly different from zero at a 99% level of condence
710 European Management Journal Vol. 22, No. 6, pp. 704713, December 2004
The Link between Reputation and Social
We have shown a tendency for larger rms to have
both better reputations and better social performance.
However, we have also shown a tendency at the sec-
tor-level for better average reputations to be matched
with poorer average social performance. While one
can interpret the latter as evidence that social perfor-
mance can be used to augment reputation, it is fair to
say that the link between the two is somewhat unclear
from the preceding analyses. Our next aim is, to at
least some extent, clarify the nature of this link as it
exists among our sample of rms. To do so, we will
inspect the rm-level correlations between reputation
and our measures of social performance. Firstly, we
group rms according to their size.
Table 4 presents the correlation coefcients between
reputation and each of overall social performance,
community performance, environmental perfor-
mance and employee performance, for each of the
ve size groups. The coefcients that are signicantly
different from zero (at a 90% level of condence or
greater) are indicated with asterisks. Across the sam-
ple as a whole, there are signicant positive coef-
cients relating to all four measures of social
performance. This indicates a positive rm-level link
between reputation and social performancethat
better social performance is associated with a better
reputation. However, only four of the coefcients
that relate to the ve size groups are statistically sig-
nicant, all of which are positiveagain indicating a
positive link between reputation and social perfor-
manceand all of which relate to group 5indicat-
ing that the link is most pronounced among the
largest rms. It is worth noting that these ndings
are consistent with a reputation-building property
of social performance that is, across all types of
CSR activities, strongest among the largest rms.
As such, they are consistent with the predictions of
the conceptual framework outlined previously.
Table 5 presents the results of the same type of rm-
level correlations, but with rms grouped according
to their principle business activity, rather than size.
Again, all coefcients that are statistically different
from zero are also positive. However, there is consid-
erable variation across sectors. For example, in only
four sectors (Finance, Chemicals, Resources and Con-
sumer products) is there a signicant link between
reputation and overall social performance. Further-
more, there is marked variation across the three
dimensions of social performance both across and
within sectors. For example, in Retail the insignicant
coefcients on environmental and employee perfor-
mance, and indeed on overall social performance,
are matched with a signicant positive coefcient
on community performance. This perhaps reects
that sectors proximity to nal consumers, and the lo-
cal communities in which they live. In contrast, a po-
sitive and signicant link between reputation and
social performance is found for all three dimensions
in the Consumer products sector. This suggests that
the manufacturing activities of such rms ensure they
face a broader set of salient social issues.
Looking down the columns of Table 5, it is worth
noting, for each dimension of social performance,
in which sectors there is a signicant positive link
to reputation. For community performance, such a
link is found in Retail, Finance, Utilities, Chemicals,
Consumer products and Business services. For envi-
ronmental performance, such a link is found for
Chemicals, Resources and Consumer products. For
employee performance, such a link is found for Fi-
nance and Consumer products. These patterns are
Table 5 Correlations between Reputation and Social Performance, by Sector
Sector nCorrelations between Reputation and Social Performance
Overall Community Environment Employee
Retail 27 0.296 0.349
0.227 0.241
Finance 26 0.573
0.293 0.576
Utilities 15 0.424 0.452
0.302 0.354
Chemicals 18 0.586
Resources 9 0.759
0.389 0.970
Consumer products 21 0.651
High technology 25 0.285 0.329 0.228 0.203
Construction 31 0.282 0.229 0.243 0.167
Business services 24 0.230 0.367
0.153 0.043
Transportation 13 0.407 0.399 0.300 0.439
Engineering 8 0.371 0.045 0.479 0.489
Media 10 0.201 0.028 0.261 0.169
All rms 227 0.257
The coefcient is signicantly different from zero at a 90% level of condence
The coefcient is signicantly different from zero at a 95% level of condence
The coefcient is signicantly different from zero at a 99% level of condence
European Management Journal Vol. 22, No. 6, pp. 704713, December 2004 711
broadly consistent with expectable cross-sector vari-
ation in stakeholder environments. The sectors
highlighted for community performance are (apart
from Business services) close to nal consumers (as
Chemicals includes Pharmaceuticals and Finance in-
cludes a large number of High Street banks and
insurers). Those highlighted for environmental per-
formance are closely associated with environmental
concerns. That those highlighted for employee per-
formance have large workforces, but encounter few
salient health and safety issues, is somewhat surpris-
ing and perhaps reects a general pressure to dem-
onstrate social responsiveness in those sectors.
In this paper, we develop a conceptual framework
that emphasises the need, if a reputational payoff is
to be achieved, for t between CSR activities and
other key characteristics of the rm. Furthermore,
using data on a sample of 227 UK PLCs, we provide
evidence in support of a role for t in the link between
reputation and social performance. In particular, our
ndings suggest that, for the purposes of reputation
building, there is a need to tailor CSR activities in
light of both a rms size and the nature of its princi-
ple business activity. Thus, we highlight the strategic
importance to a rm of correctly identifying the
appropriate scope and extent of its CSR activism.
Regarding the importance of t, organisational attri-
butes other than size and industry may also be rele-
vant. There is ample scope for future work to
investigate the importance, for the purposes of repu-
tation building, of t between social performance
and rm characteristics such as broad corporate
strategy, media exposure and protability. It could
be, for example, that the positive reputational im-
pacts from good social performance are contingent
upon nancial performance that is acceptable in the
eyes of nancial stakeholders, or upon the rm pur-
suing a wider strategy to develop, among its custom-
ers, an association with quality-provision rather than
As we argued at the outset, examination of the link
between the social responsiveness of organizations
and their general performance has produced mixed
results. Our analysis suggests that this link is more
complex than has been appreciated in much of the
existing literature, and specically that the payoffs
to being socially responsive are contingent upon
organizational characteristics. Further research that
deploys this central logic in an investigation of the
relationship between social and nancial perfor-
mance would, we suggest, prove fruitful. In addition,
future research of this kind may rene and extend
the distinctive normative prescriptions for corporate
strategy in the area of social responsiveness devel-
oped here.
1. We have reputation data for 240 rms. However, restricted
availability of other data (principally regarding social perfor-
mance) necessitated the loss of 13 of these rms from the
2. Given our focus upon the links between social performance and
reputation, it would be preferable to remove a score for
perceived social (community and environmental) responsive-
ness from these reputational scores. Unfortunately, we cannot
do this. However, we believe that this component, which
contributes only one ninth of the score, is dominated by other
aspects of reputation. Furthermore, existing evidence suggests
that similarly constructed aggregated measures of reputation
speak most directly to a rms reputation as an investment (e.g.
Fryxell and Wang, 1994).
3. Kinder, Lindenberg, Domini and Company (KLD) is a social
choice investment advisory rm that objectively rates (mainly
US) rms on nine dimensions of social performance.
4. The chemicals sector includes pharmaceuticals. We tested the
sensitivity of our ndings to this aggregation and found the
omission of pharmaceutical companies from the chemicals
sector brought no material change in the results.
Bowen, F.E. (2000) Environmental visibility: A trigger of
green organisational responsiveness? Business Strategy
and the Environment 9,92107.
Clemens, B. (2001) Changing environmental strategies over
time: An empirical study of the steel industry in the
United States. Journal of Environmental Management 61,
Donaldson, T. and Preston, L.E. (1995) The stakeholder
theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence and
implications. Academy of Management Review 20,6591.
Dowling, G.R. (2004) Corporate reputations: Should you
compete on yours? California Management Review 46,
Fombrun, C. (1996) Reputation: Realising Value from the
Corporate Image. Harvard Business School Press, Har-
vard, MA.
Fombrun, C. and Shanley, M. (1990) Whats in a name?
Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy
of Management Journal 33, 233258.
Fryxell, G.E. and Wang, J. (1994) The Fortune corporate
reputationindex: Reputation for what? Journal of
Management 20,114.
Graves, S.B. and Waddock, S.A. (1994) Institutional owners
and social performance. Academy of Management Jour-
nal 37, 10341046.
Grifn, J.J. and Mahon, J.F. (1997) The corporate social
performance and nancial performance debate:
Twenty ve years of incomparable research. Business
and Society 6, 315331.
Hillman, A.J. and Keim, G.D. (2001) Shareholder value,
stakeholder management and social issues: Whats the
bottom line? Strategic Management Journal 22, 125
Hoffman, A.J. (1999) Institutional evolution and change:
Environmentalism and the U.S. chemical industry.
Academy of Management Journal 42, 351371.
McGuire, J.B., Sundgren, A. and Schneeweiss, T. (1988)
Corporate social responsibility and rm nancial
performance. Academy of Management Review 31,
Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R. and Wood, D.J. (1997) Toward a
theory of stakeholder identication and salience:
Dening the principle of whom and what really
counts. Academy of Management Review 22, 853886.
Roberts, R.W. (1992) Determinants of corporate social
responsibility disclosure: An application of stake-
712 European Management Journal Vol. 22, No. 6, pp. 704713, December 2004
holder theory. Accounting Organisations and Society 17,
Rose, C. and Thomsen, S. (2004) The impact of corporate
reputation on performance. European Management
Journal 22, 201210.
Sharma, S., Pablo, A. and Vredenburg, H. (1999) Corporate
environmental responsiveness strategies: The impor-
tance of issue interpretation and organisational con-
text. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science 35,87109.
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1974) Judgement under
uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science 185,
Watts, R.I. and Zimmermann, J.L. (1978) Towards a
positive theory of the determination of accounting
standards. The Accounting Review 53, 112134.
Williams, R.J. and Barrett, J.D. (2000) Corporate philan-
thropy, criminal activity, and rm reputation: Is there
a link. Journal of Business Ethics 26, 341350.
Department of Manage-
ment, University of Bath,
Claverton Down, Bath
BA2 7AY, UK. E-mail:
Stephen Brammer is Lec-
turer in Business Eco-
nomics at the University
of Bath, UK. His current
research addresses empiri-
cal issues in the business and society field from the
perspective of strategic management. Recent publica-
tions include articles in the Journal of Business
Ethics and Business Ethics: A European Review.
The Business School,
University of Reading,
Reading RG6 6AH, UK.
E-mail: s.pavelin@reading.
Stephen Pavelin is Lec-
turer in Economics at the
University of Reading,
UK, having previously
held posts at the Univer-
sity of East Anglia, UK
and University College Dublin, Ireland. His current
research interests include foreign direct investment and
corporate social responsibility, and recent publications
include articles in the International Journal of
Industrial Organisation and Business Ethics: A
European Review.
European Management Journal Vol. 22, No. 6, pp. 704713, December 2004 713
... Several CSR scholars have examined the relationship between CSR and a firm's reputation. For instance, studies conducted by Brammer andPavelin (2004 & and Lynch-Wood et al., (2009) suggested that a firm can build a good reputation by pursuing CSR actions. Also, a company's reputation for CSR is positively related to its ability to attract investment. ...
... Several CSR scholars have examined the relationship between CSR and a firm's reputation. For instance, studies conducted by Brammer andPavelin (2004 & and Lynch-Wood et al., (2009) suggested that a firm can build a good reputation by pursuing CSR actions. Also, a company's reputation for CSR is positively related to its ability to attract investment. ...
Full-text available
This study investigates the need for SMEs to practice corporate social responsibility (CSR) in building their brand image in Ghana. The study aims at exploring the role impact of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in building small and medium enterprises (SMEs) brand image in Ghana. Evaluating the role of CSR in building the brand image of SMEs adopted research designs/methods and approached to solicit both secondary and primary data. To identify the perceptions held by SMEs, motives for CSR practices, benefits associated with CSR practices, and the impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on SMEs' Brand Image, questionnaires and interviews were conducted with SMEs operators and Environmental Protection Agency officials in the Kumasi metropolis. The findings show that SMEs perceived CSR as a means of paying back to society what has been received as profit and also as a means of protecting and improving the quality of the natural environment as well as spending revenue to the state. It was noted that organizations practice Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) to project the right corporate image, used as a marketing strategy, and to make employees happy and satisfied Benefits from CSR regarding customer loyalty, gaining goodwill from the community, enhanced government relations, and building client relations was also ascertained. Despite the numerous benefits associated with CSR activities, other challenges were also identified as free giveaway products and the high cost of CSR programs. Some suggestions such as the honest provision of accurate information about the SMEs products, organizing programs to suit students, a regular donation to the societies, and total collaboration between SMEs and their communities were made to promote firms' image through CSR practices.
... However, in these studies, ESG scores were not used as an indicator to measure sustainability. Other authors have shown interest in understanding how ESG scores relate to the cost of capital [9,12,13]. Nevertheless, there is a scarcity of studies that explain their relationship in LatAm. Consequently, an opportunity is evident in the literature to evaluate ESG scores and the cost of capital in LatAm firms. ...
... Therefore, we propose the following research question: How are ESG scores related to the cost of capital in LatAm? Since we have found evidence in the literature of a statistically significant inverse effect of sustainability and cost of capital on firms [9,18,29,30], we propose the following hypotheses to address our research question ( Figure 2): ...
Full-text available
Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) scores play a pivotal role in the strategic design of firms. The literature has demonstrated the importance of sustainability issues in the financial performance of firms around the world. In particular, understanding the relationship between sustainability and the cost of capital is crucial for determining financial strategy and decision making. We identify an opportunity in the literature to analyze this relationship within Latin America (LatAm) firms. Thus, this study analyzes the relationship between ESG scores with the cost of capital of firms with headquarters in LatAm using a data set that includes 606 observations corresponding to information about 202 firms from 2017 to 2019. To conduct our analysis, two fixed effects panel data models were estimated. We model this relationship by taking ESG scores and each of its ESG Pillar scores—i.e., Environmental, Social, and Governance pillar scores—as independent variables and analyzing how they affect the cost of capital. According to the results, there is an inverse effect relationship between ESG scores and the cost of capital. Additionally, we did not find a relationship between the Social Pillar score and the Environmental Pillar score with the cost of capital. By contrast, the Governance Pillar score shows a negative relationship with the cost of capital. This indicates that the increase in transparency about internal processes and governance entities can be an essential driver of value creation for firms and higher financing confidence in LatAm firms. This study represents a breakthrough in explaining the impact of ESG scores on the cost of capital in LatAm. Ultimately, the current study presents the potential for further research in this field.
... The intensified competition will inevitably lead to a large number of substitutes in the market. At this time, consumers tend to choose goods produced by companies with a good reputation and excellent ESG performance (Brammer and Pavelin, 2004). Therefore, companies have the incentive to practice environmental, social, and corporate governance responsibilities to release positive signals about their operations and development to the outside. ...
Full-text available
Directors’ and Officers’ liability insurance (abbreviated as “D&O insurance”) was born in the United States in the 1930s and has been widely used in Western countries. In contrast, China introduced D&O insurance in 2002, and its development has been relatively slow. With the revision and improvement of Chinese regulatory laws and regulations, such as the new Securities Law in March 2020, which further regulates the obligations and responsibilities of corporate management, and increases the penalties for information disclosure violations of listed companies, the risk to directors and executives performing their duties is promoted. This makes D&O insurance the focus of China’s capital market, with huge potential for future development. Therefore, it is of urgent practical importance to study the impact of director liability insurance on corporate governance in China. At the same time, D&O insurance, as an effective risk management mechanism, has not yet reached a unified conclusion in the academic circles on its corporate governance effectiveness. On the one hand, D&O insurance may encourage directors and senior executives to be proactive to enhance the company’s market value by taking risks, and on the other hand, it may induce opportunistic behavior of managers and reduce the company’s value. Under the new development form, analyzing and researching the governance effect of D&O insurance from different angles will help to provide a theoretical basis for its further development and popularization in China’s capital market. Thus, using a sample of Chinese A-share listed companies from 2011 to 2020, this study investigates the impact of D&O insurance on corporate ESG performance. The results show that D&O insurance significantly improves corporate ESG performance. Additional analysis suggests that the contribution of D&O insurance to ESG performance is achieved by improving independent director function-performing effectiveness and increasing corporate risk-taking. The findings of this paper have policy implications for a better understanding of the governance role of D&O insurance, encouraging companies to improve corporate ESG performance.
... In spite of this, many researchers conceded OI is a dynamic process that tend to evolve over time as organizational context change (e.g. Ashforth andMael, 1989; Balmer, 2001;Dinnie, 2003;Brammer and Pavelin, 2004; van Riel and Balmer, 1997). ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
city whereas rarely literate people live in rural area. Even worst, population of the country has already touched the 1.3 billion mark; according to a survey such a large population requires tremendous physical and Human resources in order to serve them. Being a developed country, India is padding with great budget constraints. However, citizen expectations towards government have increased tremendously led by the rising number of youths. Developing countries across the world are not fairly relying on IT for the managing their office. Instead, manual system of working is prevalent. For the effective usage of IT, citizen’s literacy needs to be high. Realizing this need, government of India has envisioned a new scheme tilting ‘digital India’. The prime objective of this scheme is to increase the digital literacy and to empower the citizens. This scheme will cover the Pan India in phased manner. This is a collaborative scheme of central and state governments to felicitate the faster implementation of any project and to reduce hassle. Digital India aims to offer a single window of contact for any government request. Initially, it will solely be funded by the central government; gradually state government has to contribute their shares. Cloud computing has emerged as utility based model where subscribers are paying as you go model(Yeo, Buyya, R., & Assuncao, et. al, 2007). Minimum upfront cost, no significant up-gradation in hardware and software purchase, etc. are some of the significant benefits of cloud computing. Cloud computing can be leveraged by subscribing to the variety of services offered by the cloud provider. Subscriber can subscribe to platform as service(PaaS), software as service(SaaS) or infrastructure as Service(IaaS) offered by the cloud paradigm through its public, private, hybrid and community model of cloud computing (Singh, 2014 ; Ring, 2015). Majority of the cloud services can be accessed with the help of wide variety of devices including desktop, laptop, tablets, Smartphone’s etc (Mell and Grance, 2013). In addition, there is no restriction of place and time of accessibility. These unique features are widely appreciated by the subscribers and consequently this paradigm has witnessed 25% compound annual growth rate (CAGR). Amazon, Microsoft, Go Grid, IBM tec. Are the prominent cloud service providers and offering their services in range of domain including IaaS, PaaS, SaaS, etc (Schrutt, 2013;Singh, 2014)).
... İtibar, esas olarak "bir örgütün bilinir olmasıyla" ilgili bir kavramdır (Lange, Lee, & Dai, 2011: 155). İşletmeler stratejilerinde ve çevreyle olan ilişkilerinde farklılık yaratarak yüksek bir itibara sahip olabilmektedirler (Brammer & Pavelin, 2004). Kurumsal itibarın kolektif gözlemci algıları olduğu, sosyal inşa sürecinden oldukça yüksek seviyede etkilendiği ve yeni bilgilerin gözlemciler için gün yüzüne çıkmasıyla itibarın yeniden inşa edilebileceği anlaşılmaktadır (Lange vd., 2011). ...
This article explores the relationship between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and innovation, focusing on medium-sized enterprises and adopting a stakeholder-based view. Using a platform launched by the Italian government, which provides information about CSR efforts and innovation performances at the firm level, the authors distinguish, by means of a hierarchical cluster analysis, two types of CSR approaches (going lateral and going vertical) that differ in terms of breadth and depth of the stakeholder-oriented actions implemented. A bivariate probit model, estimated to explain the different types of innovations (product and/or process), shows that firms adopting a going lateral approach are more likely to innovate in both products and processes. Results provide a theoretical contribution regarding the CSR-innovation relationship, by adopting a stakeholder theory lens. Most studies delve into the relationship between specific stakeholder-oriented CSR actions and innovation, while we consider them in aggregation. Our research also increases knowledge on CSR in medium-sized companies, which are scarcely investigated.
A corporate social performance model is dependent on strategies involving the processes of social responsiveness. From this perspective, this article observes that the voluntary disclosure of corporate social performances (CSP‐D) is a proactive behavior based on “responsiveness” because it corresponds to the ability to reduce the gap between disclosed content and the perception of the content by stakeholders. The study examines the voluntary disclosure actions undertaken through social media by 60 T&T companies to communicate to their stakeholders how they contribute to reducing environmental negative externalities, plastic pollution in particular. Then, a co‐word analysis is carried out, adopting social network maps to highlight and compare the cognitive paths that characterize disclosure and reaction. The findings suggest that when the cognitive pathways of stakeholders tend to converge towards the behavior disclosed by companies, their expectations are met and this enhances CSP‐D effectiveness. Finally, social media are suitable for generating this alignment, reducing the legitimacy gap and building a good reputation.
Full-text available
El propósito fundamental de este trabajo es contribuir al debate existente sobre el impacto que la orientación de las empresas hacia la Responsabilidad Social Empresarial (RSE) tiene en diferentes medidas de desempeño. Para ello proponemos un modelo conceptual, con base en la teoría de los stakeholders, y conceptualizamos la RSE como una construcción amplia y multidimensional con siete dimensiones: empleados, socios, clientes, agricultores, medioambiente, comunidad y competencia. Adoptamos, asimismo, una concepción extendida del desempeño empresarial que incluye tanto a variables tangibles (desempeño financiero y desempeño exportador), como intangibles (imagen, reputación y satisfacción de los stakeholders). Se pretende, asimismo, analizar el impacto de la orientación a la RSE de estas empresas sobre su capacidad de innovación y en qué medida esta última favorece los diferentes tipos de desempeño antes señalados. Otro de los objetivos de este estudio es analizar en qué medida la orientación a la RSE puede verse, a su vez, favorecida por la capacidad de las empresas para adquirir, asimilar y aplicar nuevos conocimientos en materia de RSE, así como por la importancia que sus directivos otorgan a la ética y a la responsabilidad social. Como contexto de estudio se ha elegido el sector agroalimentario de la provincia de Almería, el cual ha sido centro de atención de numerosos investigadores por la relevancia que los aspectos sociales y medioambientales han tenido en su desarrollo. Para contrastar el modelo propuesto se aplicó la técnica de mínimos cuadrados parciales (PLS-SEM) sobre datos recogidos a través de una encuesta realizada a los gerentes de una muestra de 107 empresas que representan el 81,4 % de la facturación del sector analizado. Los resultados muestran que la orientación de las empresas a la RSE se relaciona positiva y significativamente con su capacidad de innovación, su desempeño financiero, su imagen y reputación y la satisfacción de sus stakeholders. No queda confirmada, sin embargo, la existencia de una relación positiva y significativa de la orientación de las empresas a la RSE con su desempeño exportador. Los resultados nos indican, asimismo, que existe una relación positiva y significativa de la capacidad de innovación de las empresas con su desempeño financiero, su desempeño exportador y su imagen y reputación. Queda sin confirmar, sin embargo, la existencia de una relación positiva y significativa entre la capacidad de innovación de las empresas y el nivel de satisfacción de sus stakeholders. Por último, los resultados del presente trabajo muestran que la capacidad de absorción de conocimiento en materia de RSE por parte de las empresas se relaciona positiva y significativamente con su orientación a la RSE. Asimismo, la importancia que sus directivos otorgan a la ética y la responsabilidad social se relaciona, también, positiva y significativamente con la orientación de las empresas hacia prácticas social y medioambientalmente responsables. Investigaciones adicionales podrían examinar el modelo a partir de las percepciones de otros stakeholders (por ejemplo, clientes, empleados y proveedores), utilizando un diseño de investigación longitudinal y explorando otros contextos.
Full-text available
Hizmet sektöründe faaliyet gösteren turizm işletmelerine gelen ziyaretçilerin, ekonominin diğer sektörlerindeki gibi ürünü veya hizmeti kullanmadan ya da satın almadan önce test etme veya deneme şansı yoktur. Bu nedenle potansiyel müşteriler bilgi toplamak amacıyla internet ortamında yaratılan kullanıcı güdümlü içeriklere yönelmekte ve işletme hakkında bilgi aramaktadırlar. Teknolojik gelişmelerin yaşanması ile internet çift yönlü bilgi paylaşımına elverişli hale gelmiş ve kullanılan sosyal platformlar mevcut ve potansiyel müşterilerin bilgi alışverişi yapabileceği ortamlara dönüşmüştür. Kullanıcı güdümlü içerikler olumlu yönde olabileceği gibi olumsuz yönde de olabilmekte ve bu olumsuz içerikler işletme imajına ve ününe zarar verebilmektedir. Günümüzde işletmeler, küreselleşme ve buna bağlı olarak yaşanan büyük değişimlerin olduğu ortamlarda işletmelerini diğer işletmelerden üstün kılacak ve işletmelere farklı bir rekabet avantajı sağlayacak olumlu ve güçlü bir işletme imajı ve ünü oluşturmalıdır. İşletme imajının ve ününün tüm işletmeler için önemli olduğu çeşitli çalışmalarda ve araştırmalarda da ortaya konmuştur. Bu nedenle bu çalışmada turizm sektöründe işletme imajının ve ününün devamlılığının sağlanmasında kullanıcı güdümlü içeriklerin öneminin ortaya konması amaçlanmaktadır.
Full-text available
In this study, we hypothesize that institutions invest more heavily in companies with strong corporate social performance. Analysis indicated a significant, positive relationship between social performance and the number of institutions holding the shares of a company and a positive but insignificant relationship between social performance and the percentage of shares held by institutions. We conclude that improving a company's corporate social performance invokes no penalty in institutional ownership.
Full-text available
While all companies would like a better corporate reputation, many are not sure what it takes to create a good reputation and others are not sure that they should use their good reputation to compete in their various markets. Mimicking the behavior of respected companies does not provide a reliable resolution to these dilemmas. This article presents a framework to help managers create a better corporate reputation for their organization and assist them in deciding whether to use this as a primary basis for competition. The article also exposes some of the main costs for an organization that decides to compete on its corporate reputation.
We test the relationship between shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issue participation. Building better relations with primary stakeholders like employees, customers, suppliers, and communities could lead to increased shareholder wealth by helping firms develop intangible, valuable assets which can be sources of competitive advantage. On the other hand, using corporate resources for social issues not related to primary stakeholders may not create value for shareholders. We test these propositions with data from S&P 500 firms and find evidence that stakeholder management leads to improved shareholder value, while social issue participation is negatively associated with shareholder value. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
We test the relationship between shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issue participation. Building better relations with primary stakeholders like employees, customers, suppliers, and communities could lead to increased shareholder wealth by helping firms develop intangible, valuable assets which can be sources of competitive advantage. On the other hand, using corporate resources for social issues not related to primary stakeholders may not create value far shareholders. We test these propositions with data from S&P 500 firms and find evidence that stakeholder management leads to improved shareholder value, while social issue participation is negatively associated with shareholder value. Copyright (C) 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Many decisions are based on beliefs concerning the likelihood of uncertain events such as the outcome of an election, the guilt of a defendant, or the future value of the dollar. Occasionally, beliefs concerning uncertain events are expressed in numerical form as odds or subjective probabilities. In general, the heuristics are quite useful, but sometimes they lead to severe and systematic errors. The subjective assessment of probability resembles the subjective assessment of physical quantities such as distance or size. These judgments are all based on data of limited validity, which are processed according to heuristic rules. However, the reliance on this rule leads to systematic errors in the estimation of distance. This chapter describes three heuristics that are employed in making judgments under uncertainty. The first is representativeness, which is usually employed when people are asked to judge the probability that an object or event belongs to a class or event. The second is the availability of instances or scenarios, which is often employed when people are asked to assess the frequency of a class or the plausibility of a particular development, and the third is adjustment from an anchor, which is usually employed in numerical prediction when a relevant value is available.
Stakeholder theory has been a popular heuristic for describing the management environment for years, but it has not attained full theoretical status. Our aim in this article is to contribute to a theory of stakeholder identification and salience based on stakeholders possessing one or more of three relationship attributes: power, legitimacy, and urgency. By combining these attributes, we generate a typology of stakeholders, propositions concerning their salience to managers of the firm, and research and management implications.