Content uploaded by Ernest Cyril De Run
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ernest Cyril De Run
Content may be subject to copyright.
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
730
MAY 2013
VOL 5, NO 1
Developing an Alternative Measurement of Corporate Reputation within
the Malaysian Context
Dwi Sunu Kanto
Universitas Trilogi
12760, Jakarta, Indonesia
Ernest Cyril de Run
Universiti Malaysia Sarawak
94300, Sarawak, Malaysia
Abu Hassan bin Md Isa
Universiti Malaysia Sarawak
94300, Sarawak, Malaysia
Abstract
The measurement of corporate reputation is a growing issue for practitioners and academics. The corporate
reputation measurement literature concentrates on the United States and European countries. There is an obvious
lack of studies especially on the development of corporate reputation measurement in Malaysia. While interest
in the development of corporate reputation measurement has gained momentum in the last thirteen years, a
precise commonly agreed upon the measurement is still unclear. Therefore, this paper set out to develop a
conceptual model for developing an alternative measurement of corporate reputation within the Malaysian
context. Literature review, conceptual model, hypotheses development and research methodology are discussed.
These will allow companies in Malaysia to develop a new measurement of corporate reputation.
Keywords: Corporate Reputation Measurement, Malaysian Context, Conceptual Model.
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
731
MAY 2013
VOL 5, NO 1
1. Introduction
The identification of drivers of sustainable competitive advantages has gained momentum in the
increasing competition in a globalized economy (Schwaiger, 2004). The widespread search for these
drivers is no longer limited to tangibles, but also arrived at the field of intangibles. This fact is rather
surprising, since related surveys show that in the United States most executives consider corporate
reputation to be one of the most substantial drivers of firms’ success (Dunbar & Schwalbach, 2001;
Hall, 1992).
Corporate reputation is vitally important. The importance of corporate reputation as one of intangible
assets has grown rapidly within the last two decades. A favorable corporate reputation can lead to
numerous strategic benefits to a company, such as creating market entry barriers (Deephouse, 2000;
Fombrun, 1996; Milgrom & Roberts, 1982), fostering customer retention (Fombrun, 1996; Fombrun &
Pan, 2006), and strengthening competitive advantages (Barney, 1991; Roberts & Dowling, 1997).
Creating and exploiting corporate reputation allows companies to drive markets, rather than to be
market driven (Schwaiger, 2004). At the present time, there is no general agreement on the
measurement of corporate reputation. However, its condition is generally acknowledged by many
researchers in the area of corporate reputation measurement (Brady, 2003; Craven et al., 2003;
Schwaiger, 2004; Fombrun et al., 2000; Gabbioneta et al., 2007; Gardberg, 2006; Groenland, 2002;
Helm, 2005).
A practical measurement of corporate reputation would welcome by the Malaysian businesses and
academics. They will use it in numerous ways. To Malaysian companies, the measurement would
provide information on how to make them improved able to discharge their duties (Goldsmith, 2004).
Therefore, this paper set out to review the literature of corporate reputation measurement, develop a
conceptual model for developing an alternative measurement of corporate reputation, hypotheses
development and research methodology. The rest of this paper is organized as follows: Section 2
reviews related literature on corporate reputation measurement, Section 3 discusses the conceptual
model, and the hypotheses development is given in the Section 4. Section 5 describes the methodology
used and Section 6 is the conclusion of this paper.
2. Literature Review
An examination of the pertinent literature on the advantage of corporate reputation indicates that
companies with bad reputation require a long time to obtain gains (Roberts & Dowling, 1997; Vergin
& Qoronfleh, 1998). On the contrary, companies with good reputation are thought to be trusted by
stakeholders and it only requires relatively a shorter time to obtain gains because of the competitive
advantage and higher output of such companies (Roberts & Dowling, 1997). They are also thought to
have good market performance (Jones et al., 2000; Srivastava et al., 1997). Despite this evidence on
the positive effect of good corporate reputation on company’s performance, it is important to know a
fundamental question: In the Malaysian context, what are the measurements that make up a good
corporate reputation? It seems clear that without knowing measurements of corporate reputation,
academics and practitioners cannot effectively or efficiently advance research on corporate reputation
in Malaysia.
Previous studies on corporate reputation had been conducted by using affective (Fombrun, 1996),
cognitive (Gray & Ballmer, 1998), a combination of cognitive and affective components (Hall, 1992;
Schwaiger, 2004), and others have used perception approach (Larkin, 2003). Studies on the
measurement of corporate reputation are mainly conducted in developed countries such as the United
Kingdom (Chung et al., 1999), United States (Brady, 2003; Craven et al., 2003; Fombrun et al., 2000,
Gardberg, 2006), Germany (Dunbar & Schwalbach, 2000; Helm, 2005; Schwaiger, 2004), Netherlands
(Groenland, 2002), and Italy (Gabbionetta et al., 2007). There is no study on corporate reputation that
develops its measurement within the Malaysia context.
A review of existing models of corporate reputation measurement reveals a relatively small number of
widely used models. The most prominent one seems to be variations of Fortune’s America Most
Admired Companies (AMAC) from the practical side and the Reputation Quotient (RQ) from the
academics side (Fombrun & Van Riel, 2004; Fombrun, 1996). Also popular, but to a lesser extent
models such as the Corporate Personality (Davies et al., 2003) and the Stakeholder Performance
Indicator and Relationship Improvement Tool (SPIRIT) (MacMillan et al., 2004). These models
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
732
MAY 2013
VOL 5, NO 1
differed considerably in terms of their underlying approach, the stakeholder they surveyed, and what
they measured (Mahon, 2002).
The Reputation Quotient (RQ) as the most popular in academic approach can be applied to obtain data
on company’s reputation from the point of views of the multiple stakeholders. Although, in practice,
survey with the normative, functional, customers, and diffused groups of stakeholders have been the
main focus of research. The RQ model measures perceptions of an organization in terms of social
expectations of six dimensions such as products and services, emotional appeal, vision and leadership,
financial performance, workplace environment, and social responsibility (Fombrun et al., 2000).
The RQ has been tested within a cross-cultural setting among countries within the United States,
Europe, and Australia (Gardberg, 2006). It also has been validated in the Netherlands (Groenland,
2002). Nonetheless, the applicability of the RQ remains questionable in the Eastern societies. However,
the possibilities that these differences may stem from the Eastern societies were less explored, even in
Malaysia, such differences were never explored, thus leaving a significant contextual gap in the
existing literature. This requires an empirical investigation within the Malaysia context. Therefore, as
an initial approach this paper use six dimensions/factors of the RQ by Fombrun et al. (2000) to develop
an alternative measurement of corporate reputation within the Malaysian context.
There were a variety of measures used to assess corporate reputation. In western societies, the
dimensions/factors of corporate reputation showed that they differ by nations (Chung et al., 1999;
Fombrun et al., 2000; Gabbioneta et al., 2007; Groenland, 2002; Schwaiger, 2004). Although a cross-
cultural study has shown that the Reputation Quotient (RQ) was used as a supporting scale for
corporate reputation among countries in United States, Europe, and Australia (Gardberg, 2006),
however, there is no reliable evidence that the Reputation Quotient (RQ) is suitable for Malaysia. This
leaves a significant gap, not only contextually but also conceptually. Therefore, this would require an
empirical investigation on the dimensions/factors of corporate reputation that would be suitable for
Malaysia companies.
3. Conceptual Model
The general objective of this paper is to develop an alternative measurement of corporate reputation
that suitable for Malaysia companies. The general research objective is further broken down into
specific objectives. With regards to this main objective, this paper has to set out a conceptual model to:
(1) Identify the factors of corporate reputation, (2) Validate the Corporate Reputation (CR) model
resulting from this paper as an alternative measurement of corporate reputation, (3) Evaluate the
existing Reputation Quotient (RQ) model, and (4) Compare the CR model and the RQ model.
The first objective of this paper is to identify factors of corporate reputation that reflect corporate
reputation within the Malaysian context. Stakeholders’ attitude towards the corporation is manifested in
the six factors/dimensions of the Reputation Quotient (RQ) construct presented by Fombrun et al.
(2000), namely: emotional appeal, products and services, vision and leadership, financial performance,
social and environmental responsibility, and workplace environment; and other factors resulting from a
qualitative study. A qualitative study through in-depth interviews is used in this paper in order to
capture the Malaysian view of the factors of corporate reputation that may not be included in the six
factors/dimensions of the RQ. The factors of corporate reputation are presented in Figure 1.
The first, and the most important, step in this investigation of corporate reputation is to empirically
determine the factors of corporate reputation. To obtain the reliable measures of the factors of
corporate reputation, conventional practices from the descriptive aspect of the stakeholder theory are
applied to measure the factors of corporate reputation. The descriptive stakeholder theory refers to the
management’s consideration of the different stakeholder groups when making a decision (Donaldson &
Preston, 1995; Freeman et al., 2010). Although some studies apply a variant of this theory to the
stakeholder management (Baumhart, 1968; Brenner & Molander, 1997; Clarkson, 1991; Halal, 1990;
Posner & Schmidt, 1984), there were less studies on corporate reputation that systematically apply the
descriptive stakeholder theory to link it to corporate reputation (Freeman et al., 2010, Shamma, 2007).
Figure 1 depicts the descriptive aspect of the stakeholder theory (all arrows from corporate reputation
to their factors). This figure directs the scale development for each of the constructs/concepts and
examines their interrelationships.
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
733
MAY 2013
VOL 5, NO 1
The second, third and fourth specific objectives are to validate the corporate reputation (CR) model,
evaluate the existing Reputation Quotient (RQ) model (Fombrun et al., 2000), and compare the CR
model with the RQ model. The best result from this paper is used as an alternative measurement of
corporate reputation within the Malaysian context.
To accomplish these objectives, a range of aspects of the factors of corporate reputation resulting from
qualitative study and combined with the six dimensions/factors of corporate reputation as presented in
Figure 1 are subjected to empirical tests.
4. Hypotheses Development
4.1 Hypotheses Developed for Corporate Reputation Factors
The hypotheses in this area aim to test how the proposed factors of corporate reputation relate to the
corporate reputation itself. These hypotheses are developed to answer the first objective. Previous
studies have shown that the six dimensions/factors of corporate reputation, which are emotional
appeal, products and services, financial performance, vision and leadership, workplace environment,
and social and environmental responsibility; is positively related to corporate reputation (Fombrun et
al., 2000). Nevertheless, it is also widely held that those six factors have been cross-culturally tested
among countries in the United States, Europe, and Australia (Gardberg, 2006). Based on the results of
the qualitative study, in addition to the aforementioned factors, this thesis also tests other factors
proposed from the exploratory qualitative research (Study 1). In line with past researches and the result
of the qualitative study, this thesis hypothesizes the following 7 (seven) or more proposed factors
offered for the hypotheses testing:
H1a: Corporate reputation will be reflected by Emotional Appeal.
H1b: Corporate reputation will be reflected by Products and Services.
H1c: Corporate reputation will be reflected by Vision and Leadership.
H1d: Corporate reputation will be reflected by Financial Position and Performance.
H1e: Corporate reputation will be reflected by Workplace Environment.
H1f: Corporate reputation will be reflected by Social and Environmental Responsibility.
H1g: Corporate reputation will be reflected by Other Factor(s).
Corporate
Reputation
Products and
Services
Emotional
Appeal
Financial
Perforrmance
Vision and
Leadership
Workplace
Environment
Social
Responsibility
Others *
Figure 1: The Conceptual Model of Corporate
Reputation
Source : Adapted from Fombrun et al.
(2000)
* determined later by qualitative research through in-depth interviews
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
734
MAY 2013
VOL 5, NO 1
4.2 Hypothesis Developed for Validating the Corporate Reputation (CR) Model
This hypothesis is developed to answer the second objective. Past researches provide various models
for measuring corporate reputation (Chung et al., 1999; Fombrun et al., 2000; Gabbioneta et al., 2007;
Groenland, 2002; Schwaiger, 2004). Their results empirically showed that the dimensions/factors of
corporate reputation differ by nations. Nevertheless, it is also widely held that in the Malaysia context
there may be different factors of corporate reputation. Based on the results of this qualitative study,
and combined with the quantitative study, it is possible to develop a new measurement of corporate
reputation, namely the corporate reputation (CR) model. As a result, the CR model is offered to test its
validity. Therefore, supported by results from the qualitative studies and the theory and past empirical
research, the following research hypothesis is offered:
H2: The Corporate Reputation (CR) model will fulfill all the criteria of validity for the measurement
model of corporate reputation
4.3 Hypothesis Developed for Evaluating the Reputation Quotient (RQ) Model
This hypothesis is developed to answer objective number 3. Prior studies in the United States had
validated the Reputation Quotient (RQ) model for measuring corporate reputation (Fombrun et al.,
2000). The RQ develops a company’s rating among competitors based on 20 (twenty) attributes
comprising of the six dimensions/factors of corporate reputation, which are emotional appeal, products
and services, financial performance, vision and leadership, workplace environment, and social and
environmental responsibility (Fombrun et al., 2000). Though the six factors have been cross-culturally
tested among countries in United States, Europe, and Australia (Gardberg, 2006), no studies have been
done in Malaysia to confirm this RQ. Therefore, supported by the theory and past empirical research,
the following research hypothesis is offered:
H3: The Reputation Quotient (RQ) Model will fulfill all the criteria of validity for the measurement
model of corporate reputation.
4.4 Hypothesis Developed for the Comparison between the Corporate Reputation (CR) Model and
the Reputation Quotient (RQ) Model
This hypothesis is developed to answer objective number 4. Two competing models were tested to find
the best representative model of corporate reputation for the Malaysia context. Both models and their
measurements were based on relevant literatures. The first model, the Reputation Quotient (RQ)
model, was based on the Fombrun’s et al. (2000) instruments and has been cross-culturally tested
among countries in the United States, Europe, and Australia (Gardberg, 2006). The second model, the
Corporate Reputation (CR) model was based on the themes that emerged from the interviews
combined with the Fombrun’s et al. (2000) instruments. Therefore, supported by the theory and past
empirical research, the following research hypothesis is offered to test both models:
H4: The Corporate Reputation (CR) Model will have a better goodness of fit than the Reputation
Quotient (RQ) Model
5. Methodology
To develop a better measures of corporate reputation, a multistage process advocated by Churchill
(1979) that includes the following sequential steps of inquiry: (1) explicate the domain of the
constructs, (2) purify the measures, (3) assess its reliability, and (4) assess its validity. This process is
built on reliability and validity (Churchill, 1979; Peter & Churchill, 1986). Thus, the procedures are
incorporated into each study to enhance the reliability and generalizability of the resulting measures
(Miyamoto & Iwasaki, 2005). In addition, the analytical procedures deemed most appropriate at each
stages of scale development are applied to the data (Churchill, 1979; Gerbing & Anderson, 1988).
However measures of the corporate reputation are adapted in accordance to the methodologies
accepted in the academic practices and topic of this research. The existing literature therefore provides
a clear guidance of both the processes and the tools necessary to complete the process. Table 1
summarizes the research plan and outlines the goals at each stage of the research.
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
735
MAY 2013
VOL 5, NO 1
Table 1: Overview of Research Plan
Research Stage
Research Objectives
Analysis
Sample
Study 1
(Preliminary
Investigations)
Qualitative Study
Identify the factors of
corporate reputation
In-depth interviews,
transcribing, coding
and summarizing
Malaysian working
individuals in
Kuala Lumpur and
Kuching who are
identified as bank
stakeholders with a
university degree
and at least 25
years of age
Study 2
Exploratory
Quantitative
Research
Reduce the pools of items
obtained from the
preliminary results to identify
the factors of corporate
reputation (CR)
Exploratory Factor
Analysis (EFA)
Malaysia Banking
stakeholders in
Kuala Lumpur and
Kuching who are at
least 25 years of
age
Study 3
(Main Study)
Confirmatory
Quantitative
Research
Purify the scale for the
factors of corporate
reputation and assess its
dimensionality
Compare between the
Corporate Reputation (CR)
model obtained from this
study to the existing
Reputation Quotient (RQ)
model
Confirmatory
Factor Analysis
(CFA)
Confirmatory
Factor Analysis
(CFA)
Malaysia Banking
stakeholders in
Kuala Lumpur and
surrounding areas
who are at least 25
years of age
Study 1 the qualitative research and preliminary investigations are exploratory endeavors conducted to
establish the original results of the corporate reputation factors derived from in-depth interview that
will be tested in the official scale development process. In Study 1, as the first stage, there is a required
to conduct an exploratory qualitative study to apply the RQ model in assessing whether Malaysian
stakeholders agree or not to all of the RQ factors, and to explore are there any other factors beside the
six factors of the RQ which form the corporate reputation. This will allows identifying other
dimensions or factors of corporate reputation.
Study 1 proposes the uses of in-depth interviews as an exploratory qualitative approach. As stated by
McCracken (1988:7), “in-depth interviews call for special kinds of preparation and structure, including
the use of an open-ended questionnaire, so that the investigator can maximize the value of time spent
with the respondent”. This paper also proposes the uses semi structured questionnaire with contains
two main questions: (a) “In your belief, what are the factors that make up a good corporate
reputation?”, and (b) “In the Malaysian context, are there any other corporate reputation factors besides
the six factors mentioned earlier?”. Also, some questions probing related to the issue at hand is also
implemented to allow detailed discussions of the topic (Goldsmith, 2004). The respondents will first
briefed on the six factors of corporate reputation (RQ) that were introduced by Fombrun et al. (2000)
before asking the second question.
This qualitative study uses a convenience sampling technique with established criteria for individual
participant selection for every stakeholder group. There are four stakeholder groups: customer group,
functional group, normative group, and diffused group (Dowling, 1994). The respondents in the age
category of 25 years or more and have possess tertiary education have been identified as sampling
targets according to their stakeholder groups. A total of 36 respondents are suggested, nine will
selected from every stakeholder group (Dowling, 1994; Perry, 1998; Schumann et al., 1991).
All data are then recorded and transcribed. This extract of interview transcript is labeled to codes
(Berg, 2004) and categories (Zikmund et al, 2010). The corporate reputation factors within the
Malaysian context will be developed by summarizing the interview findings. A questionnaire will be
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
736
MAY 2013
VOL 5, NO 1
developed based on the findings from the factors of corporate reputation. This will followed by an
exploratory quantitative study (Study2).
Study 2 focuses on refining the scale items and the most fundamental stage in the scale development
process. When the goal is to determine and describe the factors of corporate reputation, an exploratory
factor analysis is a useful technique to apply (Dowling, 1988). Based on the conceptualization of the
indicators and factors of corporate reputation, and the result from the preliminary investigations, a
model of the factors is fitted using the exploratory factor analysis. The exploratory factor analysis
reduces the pool of the scale items to those attributes suggestive of the unique indicators and factors of
corporate reputation. These factors are then subjected to statistical and reliability tests, such as the
Cronbach alpha and the item-to-total correlation. Sample of the Study 2 will be taken from Malaysian
working individuals in Kuala Lumpur (West Malaysia) and Kuching (East Malaysia). The respondents
should be working individuals who are identified as bank stakeholders with at least 25 years of age.
Study 3 further purifies the scale of the factors of corporate reputation and assesses its dimensionality.
The results from the qualitative study (study 1) and study 2 are used to reduce the number of scale
items and to modify the survey instruments accordingly. The confirmatory factor analysis provides a
more rigorous test and interpretation of the underlying data structure and is performed to verify the
dimensionality of the factors of corporate reputation. The result from this stage is known as the
corporate reputation (CR) model. Also, Study 3 are to validate the corporate reputation (CR) model,
evaluate the existing Reputation Quotient (RQ) model (Fombrun et al., 2000), and compare the CR
model with the RQ model. The goodness of fit indexes from the confirmatory factor analysis for these
two models is employed here. The same sample respondents’ criteria with Study 2 will be used for this
main study.
6. Conclusion
In the Western societies, the widespread visibility given to the topic by the periodic publications of
corporate reputation ratings and academic literature, it is doubtful that anyone today would argue that
corporate reputation is not important to the firm. In the Eastern societies, where is no periodic
publications of corporate reputation ratings and academic literature, knowing corporate reputation
measurement are immense by both practitioners and academics. Without knowing corporate reputation
measurement scales, however, it is difficult to move forward in this field of study and make meaningful
contributions theoretically. Although the existing Reputation Quotient (RQ) was used as a supporting
scale for corporate reputation among countries in United States, Europe, and Australia (Fombrun et al.,
2000; Gardberg, 2006), however, there is no reliable evidence that the Reputation Quotient (RQ) is
suitable for Malaysia. This paper has set out to propose a conceptual model for developing an
alternative measurement of corporate reputation within the Malaysian context. This paper also set out
to validate the Corporate Reputation (CR) model as an alternative measurement of corporate
reputation, evaluate the existing RQ model, and compare the CR model and the RQ model. This paper
has discussed literature review on corporate reputation measurement, conceptual model of corporate
reputation, hypotheses development, and methodology. Practicing this paper instantly will allow
Malaysian companies to develop an alternative of corporate reputation by themselves. It is a good start
to help Malaysian companies to identify the corporate reputation factors/dimensions and to move
forward in corporate reputation measurement studies in Malaysia.
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
737
MAY 2013
VOL 5, NO 1
References
Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of
Management, 17: 99-120.
Baumhart, R. (1968). An Honest Profit – What Businessmen Say about Ethics in Business. New York:
Holt, Reinhart & Winston.
Berg, B. L. (2004). Qualitative research methods for social sciences (5
th
eds.). Boston: Pearson.
Brady, A. K. (2003). How to generate sustainable brand value from responsibility. Journal of Brand
Management, 10(4/5): 279-289.
Brenner, S. N. & Molander, E. A. (1977). Is the ethics of business changing? Harvard Business
Review, 58(1): 54-65.
Chung, S. Y., Schneeweis, T., & Eneroth, K. (1999). Corporate reputation and investment
performance:The UK and UK expertise. SSRN Electronic Paper Collection.
Churchill, G. A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal
of Marketing Research, 16(1): 64-73.
Clarkson, M. B. E. (1991). Defining, evaluating, and managing corporate social performance: A
stakeholder management model. In Research in corporate social performance and policy (J.
E. Post, ed.), p.331-358. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Cravens, K., Oliver, E. G., & Ramamoorti, S. (2003). The reputation index: Measuring and managing
corporate reputation. European Journal of Management, 21(2): 201-212.
Davies, G., Chun, R., Da Silva, R. V., Roper, S. (2003). Corporate Reputation and Competitiveness,
New York: Routledge.
Deephouse, D. L. (2000). Media reputation as a strategic resource: An integration of mass
communication and resource-based theories, Journal of Management, 26(6): 1091– 1112.
Donaldson, T. & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: concepts, evidence,
and implications, Academy of Management Journal, 20(1): 65-91.
Dowling, G. R. (1988). Measuring Corporate Images: A Review of Alternative Approaches. Journal of
Business Research, 17: 27-34.
Dowling, G. R. (1994). Corporate reputations: Strategies for developing the corporate brand.
Melbourne: Longman Professional Publishing.
Dunbar, R. L. M., & Schwalbach, J. (2000). Corporate reputation and performance in Germany.
Corporate Reputation Review, 3(2), 115-123.
Fombrun, C. J. (1996). Reputation: Realizing Value from the Corporate Image. Boston, MA: Harvard
Business School Press.
Fombrun, C. J., Gardberg, N. A., Sever, J. M. (2000). The Reputation Quotient
SM
: A multi-stakeholder
measure of corporate reputation. The Journal of Brand management, 7(4): 241-255.
Fombrun, C. J. & Pan, M. (2006). Corporate reputations in China: How do consumers feel about
companies? Corporate Reputation Review,91(3), 165-170.
Fombrun, C. J. & Van Riel, C. B. M. (2004). Fame and Fortune: How Successful Companies Build
Winning Reputation, New Jersey: Pearson Education.
Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Parmar, B., & De Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder Theory:
The state of art. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gabbioneta, C., Ravasi, D. & Mazzola, P. (2007). Exploring the drivers of corporate reputation: A
study of Italian securities analyst. Corporate Reputation Review, 10(2): 99-123.
Gardberg, N. A. (2006). Reputatie, Reputation, Réputation, Reputazione, Ruf: A Cross-Cultural
Qualitative Analysis of Construct and Instrument Equivalence, Corporate Reputation Review,
9(1): 39-61.
Gerbing, D. W. & Anderson, J. C. (1988). An updated paradigm for scale development incorporating
unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal of Marketing Research, 25: 186-192.
Goldsmith, P. (2004). Would businesses and stakeholders in the UK welcome the measurement and
ranking of corporate reputations? Paper presented at the 8
th
Annual Research Conference on
Corporate Reputation, and Identity, 20-23 May 2004, Fort Lauderdale, FL.
Gray, E. R. & Balmer, J. M. T. (1998). Managing corporate image and corporate reputation. Long
Range Planning, 31: 695-702.
Groenland, E.A.G. (2002). Qualitative research to validate the RQ-dimensions. Corporate Reputation
Review, 4(4): 309-315.
Halal, W. E. (1990). The new management: Business and social institutions in the information age.
Business in the Contemporary World, 2(2): 41-54.
ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
738
MAY 2013
VOL 5, NO 1
Hall, R. (1992). The strategic analysis of intangible resources. Strategic management Journal, 13, 135-
144.
Helm, S. (2005). Designing a formative measure for corporate reputation. Corporate Reputation
Review, 8(2): 95-109.
Jones, G., Jones, B., & Little, P. (2000). Reputation as a reservoir: Buffering against loss in times of
economic crisis. Corporate Reputation Review, 3(1): 21-29.
Larkin, J. (2003). Strategic reputation management. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
MacMillan, K., Money, K., Downing, S., and Hillenbrand, c. (2004). Giving your organization SPIRIT:
An overview and call to action for directors on issues of corporate governance, corporate
reputation and corporate responsibility. Journal of General Management, 30(2), 15-42.
Mahon, J. F. (2002). Corporate reputation: A research agenda using strategy and stakeholder literature.
Business & Society, 41(4): 415-446.
McCracken, G. (1988). The long interview, Qualitative research methods, Sage Publication Inc., 13, 7.
Milgrom, P. & Roberts, J. (1982). Predation, reputation and entry deterrence. Journal of Economic
Theory, 27: 280-312.
Miyamoto, T. & Iwasaki, K. (2005). Development of a standard convention city attractiveness scale: In
search of generalizability in construct validity through simultaneous EFA and multi-group
CFA with five sample data sets. Paper presented at the ANZMAC Conference 2005, 4-6
December 2005, Perth, Australia.
Perry, C. (1998). Processes of a case study methodology for postgraduate research in marketing.
European Journal of Marketing, 32(9/10): 785-802.
Peter, P. J. & Churchill, G. A. (1986). Relationships among Research Design Choices and
Psychometric Properties of Rating Scales: A Meta Analysis. Journal of Marketing Research,
23 (Pebruary): 1-10.
Posner, B. Z. & Schmidt, W. H.(1984). Values and the American manager. California Management
Review, 26(3): 202-216.
Roberts, P. W., & Dowling, G. R. (1997). The value of a firm's corporate reputation: How reputation
helps attain and sustain superior profitability. Corporate Reputation Review, 1(1-2), 72-76.
Schumann, D., Hatchcote, J., & West, S. (1991). Corporate advertising in America: A review of
published studies on use, measurement, and effectiveness. Journal of Advertising,
20(September): 35-56.
Schwaiger, M. (2004). Component and parameter of corporate reputation: An empirical study.
Schmalenbach Business Review, 56, 46-71.
Shamma, H. M. (2007). A stakeholder perspective for examining corporate reputation: An empirical
study of the US wireless telecommunication industry. Unpublished PhD Dissertation: School
of Business, the George Washington University.
Srivastava, R. K., McIrish, T. H., Wood, R. A., & Capraro, A. J. (1997). The value of corporate
reputation: Evidence from equity markets. Corporate Reputation Review, 1(1-2): 62-68.
Vergin, R. C. & Qoronfleh, M. W. (1998). Corporate reputation and the stock market. Business
Horizons, 41(1): 19-26.
Zikmund, W. G., Babin, B. J., Carr, J. C., & Griffin, M. (2010). Business Research Methods (8
th
ed.).
South-Western: Cengage Learning.