The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1356-3289.htm

CCIJ
12,3

One reputation or many?

Comparing stakeholders perceptions
of corporate reputation

238

Sabrina Helm
Witten/Herdecke University, Witten, Germany
Abstract
Purpose The firms reputation is one of its most valued intangible assets. Scientific and managerial
interest in corporate reputation grows steadily. Reputation management one of the cornerstones of
corporate communications seeks to align communication with stakeholder groups as to prevent a
fragmented reputation. As yet, little is known about the perception of corporate reputation amongst
the different stakeholders of a firm. Comparative empirical evidence has remained scarce. The aim of
this paper is therefore to raise fundamental questions about reputation: how it may or may not differ
between stakeholder groups and how firms can take these differences into account when measuring
and managing corporate reputation.
Design/methodology/approach A single-case, but very substantial, quantitative empirical study
among German consumers, employees, and private investors of a consumer goods producer. Methods
of data analysis include cluster analysis, ANOVA, and structural equation modelling using partial
least squares.
Findings The data analysis shows that the criteria applied by individuals belonging to different
stakeholder groups in assessing corporate reputation are rather similar. Differentiation emerges in
relation to actual perceptions of various reputational facets.
Practical implications The findings have implications for building and interpreting the results of
stakeholder-related measures of corporate reputation and for reputation management.
Originality/value The paper integrates different stakeholders perceptions of corporate reputation
within one empirical design and delivers insights into the relevance of adapting reputation measures
to specific stakeholder groups.
Keywords Corporate social responsibility, Stakeholder analysis, Germany
Paper type Research paper

Corporate Communications: An
International Journal
Vol. 12 No. 3, 2007
pp. 238-254
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1356-3289
DOI 10.1108/13563280710776842

Introduction
If stakeholders are to feel and act positively towards a company, it will be in
reciprocation for that company making a contribution to their lives (Lewis, 2001,
p. 35). The combination of social and economic contributions that a firm makes to its
different stakeholders is captured in its corporate reputation which often has been
interpreted as a competitive advantage (Fombrun, 1996; Balmer and Greyser, 2003)
and an important intangible asset of the firm (Hall, 1993; Dowling, 1994). The
widespread interest taken in corporate reputation has led to a profusion of different
conceptualisations (Dowling, 1988; Lewis, 2001; Wartick, 2002). As yet, no consensus
has been achieved concerning the core meaning and the building-blocks of corporate
reputation. However, there is agreement about the importance and variety of positive
effects that result from a favourable reputation. For instance, customers are expected
to become more loyal and less price conscious, highly skilled job applicants join the
firm, investors provide capital more readily (Fombrun, 1996; Gardberg, 2001). These
diverse resources contribute to the formation of one of the most complex and

auspicious assets of a company that Low and Kalafut (2002, p. 109) claim to be the
ultimate intangible. Its literally nothing more than how the organization is perceived
by a variety of people.
De facto, all of the positive effects attributed to reputation are triggered by
perceptions and attitudes of individuals and therefore originate from stakeholders
decision making and subsequent behaviour. Reputation is rooted in the aggregated
perceptions of the firms stakeholders (Bromley, 2002; Fombrun et al., 2000). Whether
all types of stakeholders base their perceptions of reputation on the same
fundamental set of dimensions is open to significant debate (Bromley, 2002; Fombrun
et al., 2000; Gatewood et al., 1993). Broaching this issue leads to the question Do
firms have one reputation or many? (Fombrun and Shanley, 1990, p. 254). The
present paper aims at empirically investigating whether individuals who belong to
different stakeholder groups use the same set of criteria when evaluating a specific
firms reputation.
The paper is composed of five sections. In the following section, the major streams
in the literature on defining and measuring reputation from a stakeholder perspective
are presented. According to the context of the paper, corporate reputation is defined as
a collective, albeit perceptional construct. Followed by the section that outlines
the methodology. The empirical design of the studies which were conducted within
three stakeholder groups, the results of interviews, and the conceptualisation of the
reputation construct are presented. Major findings on the stakeholder relatedness of
reputation are presented in the section Findings of the studies research implications
and practical consequences for reputation measurement and management are
discussed in the penultimate section. Finally, limitations of the present study and
future research opportunities are dealt with in the last section.

Defining and measuring stakeholder perceptions of corporate reputation

Corporate reputation defined from a stakeholder perspective
Three research perspectives become evident in the literature dealing with
stakeholder-specific reputation(s). A first group of researchers interpret reputation
as an attitudinal construct that only exists in the minds of individuals. Wartick (1992,
p. 34) for instance, defines reputation as the aggregation of a single stakeholders
perceptions of how well organizational responses are meeting the demands and
expectations of many organizational stakeholders. In-depth investigation of
individual perceptions of reputation calls for qualitative research methods that are
suitable to capture heterogeneity (Berens and Van Riel, 2004; Bromley, 2002).
A second group of authors assume that reputational perceptions are matched within
stakeholder groups. Examples are Bromley (2002, p. 36) who claims that companies
[. . .] have as many reputations as there are distinct social groups (collectives) that take
an interest in them and Brown (1998, p. 216) who elucidates that:
. . . there are multiple audiences for any particular company. Each of these audiences may see
a company in more or less similar ways (e.g. the image of Microsoft Corporation may be the
same for most financial analysts), but the image will likely be based on different kinds of
information for different audiences (the author treats image and reputation
synonymously).

One reputation
or many?

239

CCIJ
12,3

240

Reputations differ between stakeholder groups but are believed to be homogeneous

within groups because of the congruent roles individuals take vis-a-vis a certain firm
(Dowling, 1988).
While following these two streams of reasoning leads to the conclusion that a firm
does not have one distinct reputation, a third stream of interpretation suggests the
contrary. In this case (certain) reputational perceptions converge across stakeholder
group boundaries, forming a general reputation of the firm. Corporate reputation then
signifies a collectives view of a firm which tends to revolve around broad dimensions
(Fombrun et al., 2000). This last interpretation comes closest to the etymological root of
the word. According to Websters Collegiate Thesaurus (1976, p. 671), reputation is
the estimation in which one is generally held which implies a consensus. The following
definitions illustrate the third concept: A corporate reputation is a collective construct
that describes the aggregate perceptions of multiple stakeholders about a companys
performance (Fombrun et al., 2000, p. 242), it is a synthesis of the opinions, perceptions,
and attitudes of an organizations stakeholders (Post and Griffin, 1997, p. 165).
Corporate reputation measured from a stakeholder perspective
Considering the three possible interpretations, it is not surprising that the literature
provides different solutions to the problem of appropriate stakeholder adaptation
of reputation measures. Dowling (1988) for instance, cautions that investigations of
reputation call for an adaptive approach meaning that a measurement model for
reputation needs to be developed for each stakeholder group. Evidently, such an
approach reduces possibilities to compare results across stakeholder groups and,
hence, limits an integrative approach to reputation management.
Gatewood et al. (1993) claim that the widely discussed criteria used in Fortunes Most
Admired Companies index (FMAC; Fombrun, 1998) are not appropriate to measure
reputation within all stakeholder groups. For instance, job applicants perceptions of
corporate reputation may not be captured correctly. The same is pinpointed by Scholes
and Clutterbuck (1998, p. 237) who claim that there is no effective vehicle for comparing,
say, customer perceptions of company reputation with employees perceptions.
Regarding the measurement approach formerly used by the Reputation Institute,
the reputation quotient (RQ), Van Riel and Fombrun (2002) explain that it was designed
for use with any stakeholder group. So far, empirical investigations have only focused
on the general public (Wartick, 2002). Fombrun and Wiedmann (2001) assume that
there are no large differences between the perceptions of individuals belonging to
different stakeholder groups. Therefore, they suggest that reputation should be
measured using the same set of indicators for all stakeholder groups, bearing in mind
that the weights of the reputational criteria might vary between groups. For example,
the RQ dimensions vision and leadership or financial performance might be more
important to investors than to customers (Reynolds et al., 1994; Caruana, 1997;
Bromley, 2002). However, the authors do not use the RQ database to empirically test
this assumption and there is a lack of information about the process by which the scale
and dimensions of reputation have been developed.
The notion of coexisting stakeholder-specific reputations and a general construct of
reputation is shown in Figure 1 (adapted from Meffert and Bierwirth, 2002, p. 190). The
importance individual stakeholder groups attach to reputational criteria is indicated by
the different arrows.

consumerspecific
reputation

investorspecific
reputation

employeespecific
reputation

supplierspecific
reputation

reputation
specific to the
generalpublic

consumers

investors

employees

suppliers

general
public

One reputation
or many?

241
emotional
appeal

product and
service quality

vision and
leadership

financial
performance

workplace
environment

social
responsibility

general reputation

The further analysis will be limited to investigating whether a consensus on reputation

exists among different stakeholder groups and what constitutes such general
reputation. It will result in the development of a measure of reputation which can be
employed across stakeholder groups. This is important because, from a managerial
standpoint, the conceptual disadvantages of using an identical measure for all
stakeholder groups can be outweighed by the opportunity to compare stakeholder
groups perceptions and, subsequently, to work towards a consistent reputation. A
consensus can exist concerning the overall opinion about a firms reputation which can
be measured as an aggregate construct (overall measure of reputation) by statements
such as ABC has a good reputation (Nguyen and Leblanc, 2001, p. 311). Consensus
might also exist concerning the kind and importance of the building blocks (i.e. facets)
of reputation which can be measured with a more sophisticated approach
(multi-faceted measure of reputation). The RQ and FMAC represent this form of
conceptualisation.
The further analysis will be motivated by the following research questions:
RQ1. The criteria used to evaluate general reputation by individuals belonging to
different stakeholder groups are homogeneous
Should there be affirmative evidence for this research question, a standardised scale to
measure reputation within different stakeholder groups can be developed. Testing the
scale can then provide statistically significant evidence for the questions whether
RQ2. Reputational perceptions of individuals belonging to different stakeholder
groups do or do not differ when (a) Employing a single-item measure of
overall general reputation; (b) Employing a multi-faceted measure of general
reputation.
Methodology
Design
In order to analyse the research questions, a two-step empirical design was chosen that
follows the common procedures suggested for developing measures for hypothetical

Figure 1.
General and stakeholder
group-specific concepts of
corporate reputation

CCIJ
12,3

242

constructs (Churchill, 1979; Bagozzi and Baumgartner, 1994; Diamantopoulos and

Winklhofer, 2001; Rossiter, 2002). In a first step, individuals understanding of
reputation had to be investigated to find out whether representatives of different
stakeholder groups perceive corporate reputation as a stakeholder-specific or as a
general construct. To allow for possible heterogeneity, a qualitative method seemed
suitable that reduced the possibility of bias induced by researchers preconceptions.
Interviews were conducted and then used to create the construct measure of reputation
(Churchill, 1979; Rossiter, 2002; Helm, 2005).
To test a construct measure according to common procedures in psychometric
modelling, it needs to be employed in a quantitative study (Churchill, 1979; Bagozzi
and Baumgartner, 1994). With this second step of the empirical design, it becomes
possible to focus the second set of research questions. It serves to determine whether
there are significant differences in stakeholders evaluations of different reputation
measures and the building-blocks of reputation. Therefore, and after finalising the
survey instrument based on the qualitative input (Churchill, 1979; Rossiter, 2002),
representatives of three stakeholder groups were contacted and asked to fill in
standardised questionnaires. The details of the qualitative and quantitative research
steps are now outlined in more detail.
Qualitative interviews
In-depth interviews with 40 individuals representing consumers, employees, or private
investors of large German firms were conducted. Interviews lasted about 45 minutes on
average and were structured by the following questions: What aspects occur to you
when you hear the term reputation of a company? Which characteristics or activities
determine a companys reputation? How would you explain what reputation of a
company means? Please, define the term and Which specific companies have a really
good or a really bad reputation as a producer of goods/employer/investment choice?.
Lastly, respondents were asked to assess their own behaviour and to state whether
they think that a companys reputation does influence their behaviour as a
consumer/employee/investor. Answers were transcribed and analysed by two
researchers.
It was expected that respondents in the role of consumer might name different
characteristics of reputable firms than those named by employees or private investors.
But this was not the case: all three groups of interviewees used comparable terms to
describe companies with a good or a bad reputation, especially in emphasising the
quality of products, treatment of employees, and treatment of the environment.
Independent of stakeholder group affiliation, the consensus was that reputation can be
defined as the individuals perception of the general estimation in which a firm is held
because of its contributions to its different stakeholders.
The results of two focus group interviews including students and fellow researchers
also did not support the notion that the interpretation of reputation largely differs
between stakeholder groups. Participants were asked the identical questions which are
mentioned above; in a second part of the focus group interview, they were asked to
discuss whether consumers, employees, and private investors might differ in their
perceptions of the meaning of corporate reputation or the building-blocks of the
construct. Respondents used a restricted and inter-individually comparable set of
attributes to describe highly reputed companies. They did not see stakeholder

group-related differences in the construct itself, only in its meaning for the behaviour of
different stakeholders.
Taking into account these qualitative findings, RQ1 can be answered affirmatively:
respondents of the different stakeholder groups use homogeneous criteria to describe
and evaluate the general reputation of the firm. Although more empirical evidence is
certainly needed to finalise any verdict on the content of reputation, there is no evident
need to build stakeholder-specific and therefore incomparable reputation
measures. On the contrary, there seems to be a consensus about what a good or bad
reputation means in a general sense, no matter which stakeholder group respondents
belong to. This view is also supported by Gardberg (2001, p. 160) who explains that
individuals do not reduce evaluation of reputational attributes to the ones most
relevant to their own stakeholder role but attend to information beyond the traditional
boundaries. Following the procedures to build construct measures (Churchill, 1979;
Rossiter, 2002), the results imply to develop standardised measures of overall
reputation and to use these to investigate whether stakeholders opinions
about reputation and its determinants significantly differ in regard to a specific firm
(RQ2, a and b).
The survey instrument
Potential indicators for the multi-faceted measure were identified taking into account
the results of the interviews. All in all, a list of 59 possible indicators was gathered
from both types of interviews. As not all of them are equally useful for construct
development, a three-step pretest was conducted (Anderson and Gerbing, 1991; Helm,
2005). In the first step, students and colleagues at the research institute were asked to
check for overlaps between the suggested items. Also, they were to determine on a
four-point scale how important the remaining 25 items are in explaining whether a firm
has a good or bad reputation. These items are listed in Table I; ten of them were
mentioned by representatives of all of the three stakeholder groups and therefore
included in the final measurement model. Furthermore, a single-item measure for
overall reputation was included. In a final test, questionnaires were personally
administered to 20 representatives of each stakeholder group who were asked for
detailed verbal comments (Dillman, 2007).
Concerning the epistemic structure of the construct (Bollen and Lennox, 1991; Jarvis
et al., 2003), the multi-faceted measure of corporate reputation was modelled with
formative indicators. This means that reputation is interpreted as an aggregation of all
its indicators such as product quality, quality of management, and so forth (Helm,
2005). Partial least squares (PLS) was used for data analysis (Chin, 1998).
Survey process and sample structures
The aim of the empirical study was to explain variance resulting from different levels
of perceived reputation and to compare stakeholder groups. Therefore, the study
was restricted to one firm and three of its stakeholder groups: customers, private
investors, and employees. A well-known international consumer goods producer
(fast-moving consumer goods such as detergents and cosmetics) agreed to cooperate
and to provide the addresses of 1,120 individual investors in Germany, 700 employees,
and to conduct a survey of German consumers; all of these possible respondents were
provided a standardised questionnaire. The response rates amounted to 56 percent

One reputation
or many?

243

CCIJ
12,3

244

Table I.
Indicators of corporate
reputation aggregated
statements of different
stakeholders

No

Company characteristic

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Corporate success
Customer orientation
Quality of products
Respectability of activities on markets
Familiarity of company brands
Sincerity concerning the information of the public
Market leadership
Innovation potential
Stability of market presence
Value for money of products
Superiority to competitors
Service offers for customers
Credibility of advertising claims
Commitment to protecting the environment
Consideration of consumer rights
Investment in advertising/frequency of advertising
Continuity in advertising
Corporate philosophy
Taking responsibility for public matters
Person of CEO
Commitment to charitable causes (e.g. social or
cultural causes)
Qualification of management
Treatment of employees
Financial performance of firm
Attractiveness as investment

22
23
24
25

Consumers
(18)
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

Mentioned by
Investors Employees
(12)
(10)
x
x
x

x
x
x
x
x

x
x
x

x
x

x
x
x
x

x
x
x
x
x

x
x
x
x
x

x
x
x
x

Note: Terms marked in italics type were mentioned by most of the interviewees within all of the three
stakeholder groups and were therefore chosen as indicators for the standardised multi-faceted
measure

(952 cases) in the consumer sample. Respondents needed to be customers of the firm
and knowledgeable about its reputation (Berens and Van Riel, 2004). They were
qualified by filter questions accordingly (Dillman, 2007). This led to an effective sample
size of 762 usable questionnaires. In the investor sample, the response rate came up to
59 percent (665 cases) and in the employee sample, 69 percent (484 cases) were
achieved. All of these response rates are acceptable (Dillman, 2007).
Findings of the studies
In a first step, it will be investigated whether perceptions of individuals belonging to
different stakeholder groups vary concerning the overall reputation of the firm.
Therefore, the ratings of the stakeholders on the single-item measure will be compared
and tested for significant differences between the groups.
A comparison of the stakeholders perceptions of overall reputation is shown in
Figure 2. It depicts the frequency distribution of ratings across the three stakeholder
groups. Fombrun and Wiedmann (2001) suggest that employees rate reputation more
positively than any other stakeholder group because of their comparatively high

One reputation
or many?

percent
60
50
40

245
30

consumers
investors
employees

20

(mean: 2.03)
(mean: 1.71)
(mean: 1.81)

10
0
Reputation is

1
=
very
good

2
=
good

3
4
=
=
rather neutral
good

5
=
rather
bad

6
=
bad

7
=
very
bad

commitment and dependency on their employer, as well as their more detailed

knowledge of the firm. This could in part be confirmed in the study. Employees hold a
more positive view of reputation than consumers, but the highest ratings come from
the group of private investors. The significance of these differences can be tested by a
single-factor ANOVA. The hypothesis whether the variable reputation has the same
means within the different stakeholder groups is tested (Hair et al., 2006). Variance
analysis shows a significant result (F 38.1; p , 0.001). The Duncan-test leads to
three homogeneous subgroups that correspond with the three stakeholder groups. This
means that the three stakeholder groups significantly differ in evaluating the overall
reputation of the firm.
In a second step, a similar procedure can be used to test for differences in the
perception of the multiple facets of reputation. First, the formative measurement
models are investigated to see which indicators are most important in determining
stakeholders view of reputation. Additionally, we investigate whether respondents
belonging to different stakeholder groups vary in the number of reputation
characteristics they evaluate in the survey. Finally, a cluster analysis is used to find out
whether respondents stakeholder status can be correctly identified by their ratings of
reputation indicators.
An evaluation of a formative measurement model is based on the weights and
t-values of the indicators (Chin, 1998)[1]. In Table II, the resulting values are listed.
Weights and t-values that are not significant at p , 0.05 are marked in italics type.
Although no stakeholder-related differences in the creation of reputation became
evident during the qualitative studies, the quantitative study reveals some noteworthy
discrepancies. In each sample, some indicators have weights below 0.1, five in
the consumer and investor samples, four indicators in the employee sample. These
findings might suggest scale purification. It has to be noted though, that the literature
is inconsistent concerning the elimination of formative indicators (Bollen and Lennox,
1991; Rossiter, 2002; Helm, 2005). While circumventing comparability of stakeholder

Figure 2.
Relative frequencies for
the single-item measure of
overall reputation

CCIJ
12,3

Indicator Description
x1
x2
x3

246

x4
x5
x6
x7
x8
x9
x10

Table II.
Information on the
measurement models

Quality of products
Value for money of products
Commitment to protecting the
environment
Corporate success
Treatment of employees
Customer orientation
Commitment to charitable and
social issues
Financial performance
Qualification of management
Credibility of advertising claims

Consumers
Weight t-value

Employees
Weight t-value

0.273
0.303

5.113
6.155

0.026 0.328
0.045 0.567

0.220
0.018
2 0.024
0.129

3.163
0.325
0.292
2.777

0.173
0.016
0.137
0.539

0.100
0.022
0.031
0.302

1.430
0.399
0.545
5.745

0.223
2 0.089
0.286
0.078

Investors
weight t-value
0.122
0.154

2.132
2.025

2.364
0.185
1.687
5.963

0.105
0.392
2 0.090
0.038

1.308
5.588
0.890
0.448

2.574
1.272
2.362
0.800

0.263
0.064
0.256
0.216

2.682
0.674
2.837
3.135

Note: Question (multi-faceted measure of reputation): Please indicate, what kind of reputation does
company x have in the public concerning the following attributes?; Scale: 1 a very good
reputation 7 a very bad reputation; the scale was entirely verbalised. Question (single-item
measure of reputation): Please indicate, what kind of reputation does company x have in the public?;
Scale: 1 a very good reputation 7 a very bad reputation; the scale was entirely verbalised

group results, scale purification leads to stakeholder-specific insights and

parsimonious models.
Concerning the consumer sample, scale purification would lead to a reputation
model that includes the items quality of products value for money of products
commitment for protecting the environment customer orientation and credibility
of advertising claims. Considering the main interests and expectations of consumers,
these might well be the most important determinants in building a firms reputation
(Page and Fearn, 2005). Respondents were asked to rate the firms general reputation,
though, and not to take into account specific roles of the firm (for example, as producer
of goods; Meffert and Bierwirth, 2002).
In the employee sample, commitment for protecting the environment corporate
success treatment of employees commitment for charitable and social issues and
qualification of management are in a statistical sense the most important
reputational attributes. Surprisingly, quality of products is not among these. On an
absolute scale, this indicator is rated most favourably in each stakeholder group and, in
reality, the firms main mission is the unparalleled quality of all its offerings. The
results of the study might suggest that employees doubt that product quality (still) is
the stronghold of the firm.
In the investor sample, quality of products value for money of products
corporate success commitment for charitable and social issues qualification of
management and credibility of advertising claims feature significant weights.
Interestingly, financial performance was not amongst the sufficiently weighted
indicators. Although this attribute is certainly of prominent interest to shareholders,
the respondents might not have interpreted it as important in determining a firms
general reputation.
Some stakeholders may have a more profound knowledge of a firms reputation
than others. Consumers, for instance, usually do not have detailed knowledge about

numerous characteristics of a firm, leading to a rather narrow view of reputational

attributes (Page and Fearn, 2005), whereas employees are better informed and consider
more details when evaluating a companys reputation. This issue has also been
investigated by Gardberg (2001). The author tests whether stakeholder group
affiliation determines the kind and/or number of reputational attributes answered by
screening answering patterns. The same procedure can be applied to the study at hand.
Table III lists the percentages of items answered per individual in each stakeholder
group (the items below average are marked in italics type). For example, the item
treatment of employees has been rated by 470 of the consumers (61.7 percent), the
rest chose the dont know-answer option. These observations stress that individual
stakeholders base their evaluation of a firms reputation on more or less complex and
subjective schemata (Gardberg, 2001), which can at least partly explain the differences
in indicator weights noted above. The most complex schemata were applied by
employees, the most limited ones by consumers.
Gardberg (2001, p. 31) also claims that The greater the number of stakeholder
groups to which an individual belongs to, the greater his/her schema complexity. In
the study at hand, participants in the consumer, employee, and investor samples were
asked whether they have multiple affiliations to the consumer goods producer and can
therefore be characterised as hybrid stakeholders. Among the consumers, there were
nearly no (former) employees or shareholders. In the investor sample, 25.8 percent of
respondents were also (former) employees. Within the employee study, 65.8 percent of
respondents were also shareholders of their employer. As both, employees and
shareholders, can be assumed to use the companys products, no separate investigation
of possible overlap was conducted. However, it was analysed whether investoyees
perceived the reputation of the company differently in comparison to those participants
who were only affiliated to the company as employees or investors. An ANOVA
showed no significant differences in the evaluation of the overall reputation or
multi-faceted measure of reputation. Hence, there is no sufficient evidence to support
the assumption that hybrid stakeholders have a more or less favourable impression of
the companys reputation than pure employees or investors.
In a next step, it was tested whether the three stakeholder groups may be distinguished
as individual clusters, applying Wards clustering method (Hair et al., 2006).

Reputational attribute
Quality of products
Commitment for protecting the environment
Corporate success
Treatment of employees
Customer orientation
Commitment for charitable and social issues
Value for money of products
Financial performance
Qualification of management
Credibility of advertising claims

Consumers
(N 762)

Investors
(N 665)

Employees
(N 484)

98.7
80.3
92.4
61.7
94.8
67.6
98.8
79.4
74.8
96.2
84.5

99.2
84.6
97.3
60.0
92.5
69.4
95.9
96.7
89.0
95.6
88.0

97.3
89.0
95.0
92.6
90.5
90.3
94.8
92.1
84.7
93.8
92.0

98.4
84.6
94.9
71.3
92.6
75.8
96.5
89.4
82.8
95.2
88.2

One reputation
or many?

247

Table III.
Percentage of responses
to reputational attributes

CCIJ
12,3

248

Taking into account the information on all respondents ratings concerning the ten
indicators, a three-cluster solution results. Of the valid cases, 90.5 percent are correctly
classified by a discriminant analysis (Hair et al., 2006). Subsequent cross-tabulation of the
three clusters and stakeholder group affiliation shows significant, but weak correlation
(contingency coefficient 0.178). This means that the three clusters cannot be identified
on the basis of stakeholder group affiliation to a statistically significant extent.
The three stakeholder groups rate the ten reputational characteristics
rather homogeneously. Summarising, these results do not provide sufficient
evidence for differences in stakeholders perception of reputational building-blocks.
Stakeholder group affiliation does not sufficiently explain the notable, but
insignificant, differences in reputation ratings shown in Figure 3.
In a last step, an explanation is sought for the seemingly inconsistent finding that
the single-item measure is rated heterogeneously by the three stakeholder samples,
whereas the multiple-item measure does not show significant differences. This evident
discrepancy might result because the construct of reputation is not totally explained by
the ten indicators. The relationship between the single-item and the multi-faceted
measures can be investigated in more detail (Figure 4). The R 2 lies between 0.38
(employee sample) and 0.46 (consumer sample), which are acceptable values within the
scope of PLS-modelling (Falk and Miller, 1992; Chin, 1998). Still, these values imply
that there are additional determinants (or facets) explaining overall reputation that
remained outside the scope of this study in spite of the thorough scale development
process. In that case, divergent findings concerning the ratings of single-item and
multi-faceted measure are not inconsistent.

quality of products
credibility of
advertising claims

commitment to
protecting the environment

2
qualification of
management

corporate
success
1

financial
performance

Figure 3.
Differences concerning the
perception of reputation
indicators

value for money

of products

treatment of
employees
consumers
investors
employees

customer orientation

commitment to charitable
and social issues
Shortened version of original scale (7-point scale from 1=very good reputation, 7=very bad reputation)

quality of products
commitment for protecting
of the environment

= 0.68; t=26.40 (consumer sample)

= 0.65; t=22.35 (investor sample)
= 0.61; t=18.47 (employee sample)

overall reputation

R
singleitem
R2 consumer sample = 0.46
R2 investor sample = 0.43
R2 employee sample = 0.38

multifacet

One reputation
or many?

value for money of products

corporate success
treatment of employees

249

customer orientation
commitment to charitable
and social issues
financial performance
quality of management
credibility of advertising claims

Discussion and implications

Discussion of major findings
The aim of this analysis is to answer the research questions whether individuals who
belong to different stakeholder groups have similar impressions about a firms general
reputation and/or use similar or different sets of criteria when evaluating the firms
general reputation. The findings of the empirical studies seem to confirm that there is
common ground in interpreting the construct.
The findings of the qualitative interviews seem to suggest that there is a consensus
concerning the main reputational criteria among members of different stakeholder
groups. These criteria are not only matched within the groups, as for instance,
suggested by Brown (1998) and Bromley (2002), but also between them. Likewise, the
quantitative analysis does not reveal significant differences between the stakeholder
groups when rating the multi-faceted measure of reputation. It does show that the
criteria differ in their relevance for determining reputational perceptions, though.
Moreover, the results indicate that the facets seem not to represent the entire set of
reputational criteria that are relevant to form an overall impression of corporate
reputation. Concerning perceptual phenomena, this is a common outcome that has also
been observed for satisfaction and other hypothetical constructs (Nagy, 2002). An
overall attitudinal rating is not composed as a mental averaging or summation of the
different components of the object in question. General attitudes towards the firm
(or overall reputation) can function as an affective halo for the different reputational
facets (Schwarz et al., 1994). An explanation for this is that comprehensive affects are
mentally available much faster than the ratings on the different facets. While the scope
of interpretation is rather limited with regard to a concept such as satisfaction,
reputation is a rather elusive or woolly phenomenon (Davies et al., 2003, p. 57) to a lot
of individuals, emphasising that much effort is still necessary to build valid measures.
Even the comprehensive formative approach (Helm, 2005) to develop a multi-faceted
measure that was followed here cannot rule out that some differences still exist between
respondents/stakeholder groups that are not represented in the measurement model.

Figure 4.
Structural model
combining single-item and
multi-faceted models

CCIJ
12,3

250

Also, it has to be taken into account that not all stakeholders have a distinct
knowledge of the attributes of the reputation of a specific firm and their parameter
values. This problem is also implied by Schultz et al. (2001) who observe that
respondents often use intuition when answering multi-faceted scales of reputation
and that they are unable to discriminate finely between the criteria they are asked to
quantify. Over time, [. . .] particular endeavours get lost in general impressions of how
the company performs (Schultz et al., 2001, p. 37). Gestalt psychologists confirm that
holistic perceptions of the whole (overall reputation) lead to a more intense mental
effect than the summed perceptions of the parts (facets of reputation) (Kohler, 1992). As
the study results indicate, a measure of overall reputation performs rather well when
integrated into a structural model that links reputational perceptions to attitudinal,
intentional, and behavioural outcomes (Helm, 2006). These findings point at a possible
halo-effect: respondents who have insufficient knowledge about some reputational
characteristics might judge them according to the characteristics familiar to them.
Characteristics which are especially important to some participants might guide them
in evaluating other characteristics. This line of reasoning might explain a lack of
variance in respondents answering patterns. But the argument neither helps to explain
the divergent weights of indicators/characteristics between stakeholder groups, nor the
significant differences in the evaluation of the overall reputation measure.
Multi-faceted measures of reputation are useful if information about the formation
of reputation is needed. The measure developed here was shown to perform
considerably well. The ten indicators are relevant to all the stakeholder groups and
they do explain a considerable part of overall reputation. The divergent weights of the
items indicate which reputational criteria are the most important levers for reputation
management, should managers of the firm seek to improve reputation across or within
specific stakeholder groups. Although it is a general shortcoming in psychometric
measurement approaches that some facets relevant to the different respondents/the
different stakeholder groups are not covered, this might be countervailed by the
efficiency of using only one standardised measure.
Implications for reputation measurement and management
The findings have implications for the development of measures for reputation as well
as for reputation management. According to the study results, the standardised
measurement approach is suitable for measuring overall reputation in all stakeholder
groups, but it led to divergent results when comparing the three groups. According to
Whetten (1997, p. 28), the level of agreement among relevant stakeholders regarding
the content of an organizations reputation is an indicator of reputational strength.
Significant differences between the stakeholder groups perceptions indicate
weaknesses in reputation. A homogeneous reputation is a more valuable asset and
stronghold in crises (Nguyen and Leblanc, 2001). Reputation management should aim
at levelling the differences in the valence of reputation and enhance reputation in those
stakeholder groups that have a less favourable impression of the firm. Still, it has to be
pointed out as a further challenge that stakeholder group affiliation is not one-to-one,
meaning that an individual can simultaneously (or consecutively) belong to several
stakeholder groups. The less clear-cut the boundaries between stakeholder groups, the
less probable are stakeholder group-specific differences in reputational perceptions.
The results of the study showed no significant differences of hybrid stakeholders who

simultaneously are employees and investors. Research has not yet covered the
phenomenon of hybrid stakeholders to a notable degree, but evidently, the blurring
boundaries of stakeholder groups are challenging reputation management and the
communicative functions of the firm. As Hatch and Schulz (2000, p. 18) remark:
. . . muddying of categories and interests creates ambiguity about where the organizational
boundary lies and who has responsibility for monitoring and managing these different
groups and their perceptions of the organization.

Corporate communication and behaviour contribute to creating and maintaining a

solid, sustainable, unambiguous reputation (Bosch et al., 2005, p. 115).
Vis-a`-vis reputation management, the corporate communications function is faced
with the challenge that in a complex marketplace, it is virtually impossible to
perfectly target a particular group without members of the other groups also receiving
the message (Waller and Polonsky, 1998, p. 88). Furthermore, it is important to realise
that the sum of their internal and external communications can create a fragmented
reputation. While not a lot is known about the stakeholder dependency of reputation,
most authors seem to agree that it is favourable for a firm to prevent fragmented
perceptions by aligning and integrating communicative efforts (Scholes and
Clutterbuck, 1998; Massie and Anderson, 2003; Christensen, 2002).

Limitations and future research

To date, cross-sectional studies of multiple stakeholder groups perceptions of
reputation have rarely been published but would of course, be necessary to gain further
insights into stakeholder-specificity of reputational perceptions. Considerable effort is
necessary, though, to determine and survey representatives of a variety of stakeholder
groups within a cross-sectional design. As long as not all stakeholder groups are
represented among respondents, the study results are biased and do not validly
represent the collective construct of corporate reputation.
As yet, most attempts to build reputation measures seem to focus on multi-faceted
measures. The development of better measures calls for more research on the
aggregation process that combines individual perceptions to form the collective
construct of corporate reputation. Also, the weighting system behind the aggregation
processes needs further attention to antagonise Warticks (2002, p. 379) view that A
weighting system really does little more than raise new issues relating to the
weightings themselves. Future projects should also aim at developing and validating
single-item and multiple-item measures of overall reputation.
The findings of the study imply that there are stakeholder-specific priorities in
evaluating reputational criteria. Neither the stakeholder-specific evolution of
reputation, nor the implications of possibly harmonic or conflicting reputations
have been dealt with in detail in the literature yet (Davies et al., 2001). Therefore, it
might be investigated whether divergent ratings between stakeholder groups do occur
frequently, and to identify the reasons, and outcomes concerning reputational strength.
Such focused research endeavours could indicate what a weak general reputation or
variance between stakeholder-specific reputations mean for the achievement of the
firms goals, corporate performance, and its communicative functions.

One reputation
or many?

251

CCIJ
12,3

252

Note
1. They can only be determined by including the multi-item measurement model in a structural
model. Here, this model contained reputation, satisfaction, and loyalty; the findings have
been presented by Helm (2006).
References
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1991), Predicting the performance of measures in a
confirmatory factor analysis with a pretest assessment of their substantive validities,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 76, pp. 732-40.
Bagozzi, R. and Baumgartner, H. (1994), The evaluation of structural equation models and
hypothesis tests, in Bagozzi, R. (Ed.), Principles of Marketing Research, Blackwell, Oxford,
pp. 386-422.
Balmer, J.M.T. and Greyser, S.A. (2003), Revealing the Corporation, Routledge, London.
Berens, G. and Van Riel, C.B.M. (2004), Corporate associations in the academic literature: three
main streams of thought in the reputation measurement literature, Corporate Reputation
Review, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 161-78.
Bollen, K. and Lennox, R. (1991), Conventional wisdom on measurement: a structural equation
perspective, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 110 No. 2, pp. 305-14.
Bosch, A.L.M.vanden, Jong, M.D.T.de and Elving, W.J.L. (2005), How corporate visual identity
supports reputation, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 10 No. 2,
pp. 108-16.
Bromley, D. (2002), Comparing corporate reputations: league tables, quotients, benchmarks, or
case studies?, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 35-50.
Brown, B. (1998), Do stock market investors reward companies with reputations for social
performance?, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 271-80.
Caruana, A. (1997), Corporate reputation: concept and measurement, Journal of Product &
Brand Management, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 109-18.
Chin, W. (1998), The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling, in
Marcoulides, G. (Ed.), Modern Methods for Business Research, Erlbaum, London,
pp. 295-336.
Christensen, L.T. (2002), Corporate communication: the challenge of transparency, Corporate
Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 162-8.
Churchill, G.A. (1979), A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 16, pp. 64-73.
Davies, G., Chun, R. and Vinhas da Silva, R. (2001), The personification metaphor as a
measurement approach for corporate reputation, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 4
No. 4, pp. 113-27.
Davies, G., Chun, R., Vinhas da Silva, R. and Roper, S. (2003), Corporate Reputation and
Competitiveness, Routledge, London.
Diamantopoulos, A. and Winklhofer, H.M. (2001), Index construction with formative indicators:
an alternative to scale development, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38, pp. 269-77.
Dillman, D.A. (2007), Mail and Internet Surveys, 2nd ed., Wiley, New York, NY.
Dowling, G. (1988), Measuring corporate images: a review of alternative approaches, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 27-34.
Dowling, G.R. (1994), Corporate Reputations, Kogan Page, London.
Falk, R. and Miller, N. (1992), A Primer for Soft Modeling, University of Akron Press, Akron, OH.

Fombrun, C. (1996), Reputation, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

Fombrun, C. (1998), Indices of corporate reputation: an analysis of media rankings and social
monitors ratings, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 327-40.
Fombrun, C. and Shanley, M. (1990), Whats in a name? Reputation building and corporate
strategy, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 233-58.
Fombrun, C. and Wiedmann, K. (2001), Reputation quotient (RQ), Working Paper, Department
of Marketing, University of Hannover, Hannover.
Fombrun, C., Gardberg, N. and Sever, J. (2000), The reputation quotientSM: a multi-stakeholder
measure of corporate reputation, The Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 7 No. 4,
pp. 241-55.
Gardberg, N. (2001), How do individuals construct corporate reputations?, dissertation, New
York University, New York, NY.
Gatewood, R., Gowan, M. and Lautenschlager, G. (1993), Corporate image, recruitment image,
and initial job choice decisions, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36 No. 2,
pp. 414-27.
Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., Anderson, R. and Tatham, R. (2006), Multivariate Data Analysis,
6th ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hall, R. (1993), A framework linking intangible resources and capabilities to sustainable
competitive advantage, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 14, pp. 607-18.
Hatch, M. and Schultz, M. (2000), Scaling the tower of babel: relational differences between
identity, image, and culture in organizations, in Schultz, M., Hatch, M. and Holten Larsen,
M. (Eds), The Expressive Organization, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, pp. 11-35.
Helm, S. (2005), Designing a formative measure of corporate reputation, Corporate Reputation
Review, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 95-109.
Helm, S. (2006), Exploring the impact of corporate reputation on consumer satisfaction and
loyalty, Journal of Customer Behaviour, Vol. 5, pp. 59-80.
Jarvis, C., Mackenzie, S. and Podsakoff, P. (2003), A critical review of construct indicators and
measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 199-218.
Kohler, W. (1992), Gestalt Psychology, Liveright Books, New York, NY.
Lewis, S. (2001), Measuring corporate reputation, Corporate Communications: An International
Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 31-5.
Low, J. and Kalafut, P.C. (2002), Invisible Advantage, Perseus Books, Cambridge.
Massie, L. and Anderson, C.L. (2003), Integrating communications: is the ideal achievable?,
Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 223-8.
Meffert, H. and Bierwirth, A. (2002), Corporate branding Fuhrung der Unternehmensmarke im
Spannungsfeld unterschiedlicher Zielgruppen (corporate branding leading the brand in
conflicting stakeholder relationships), in Meffert, H., Burmann, C. and Koers, M. (Eds),
Markenmanagement (Brand Management), Gabler, Wiesbaden, pp. 181-200.
Nagy, M. (2002), Using a single-item approach to measure facet job satisfaction, Journal of
Occupational & Organizational Psychology, Vol. 75, pp. 77-86.
Nguyen, N. and Leblanc, G. (2001), Image and reputation of higher education institutions in
students retention decisions, The International Journal of Educational Management,
Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 303-11.
Page, G. and Fearn, H. (2005), Corporate reputation: what do consumers really care about?,
Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 45, pp. 305-13.

One reputation
or many?

253

CCIJ
12,3

254

Post, J. and Griffin, J. (1997), Corporate reputation and external affairs management, Corporate
Reputation Review, Vol. 1 Nos 1/2, pp. 165-71.
Reynolds, T., Westberg, S. and Olson, J. (1994), A strategic framework for developing and
assessing political, social issue and corporate image advertising, Working Papers in
Marketing, No. 186, The Mary Jean and Frank P. Smeal College of Business
Administration, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.
Rossiter, J. (2002), The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development in marketing, International
Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 305-35.
Scholes, E. and Clutterbuck, D. (1998), Communication with stakeholders: an integrated
approach, Long Range Planning, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 227-38.
Schultz, M., Mouritsen, J. and Gabrielsen, G. (2001), Sticky reputation: analyzing a ranking
system, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 24-41.
Schwarz, N., Bless, H., Hippler, H-J., Strack, F. and Sudman, S. (1994), Cognitive and
communicative aspects of survey measurement, in Borg, I. and Mohler, P. (Eds), Trends
and Perspectives in Empirical Social Research, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 40-56.
Van Riel, C. and Fombrun, C. (2002), Which company is most visible in your country? An
introduction to the special issue on the global RQ-project nominations, Corporate
Reputation Review, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 296-302.
Waller, D. and Polonsky, M. (1998), Multiple senders and receivers: a business communication
model, Corporate Communications, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 83-91.
Wartick, S. (1992), The relationship between intense media exposure and change in corporate
reputation, Business & Society, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 33-49.
Wartick, S. (2002), Measuring corporate reputation, Business & Society, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 371-92.
Websters Collegiate Thesaurus (1976), Websters Collegiate Thesaurus, Merriam-Webster, Inc.,
Springfield, MA.
Whetten, D. (1997), Theory development and the study of corporate reputation, Corporate
Reputation Review, Vol. 1 Nos 1/2, pp. 26-34.
Further reading
Baden-Fuller, C., Ravazzolo, F. and Schweizer, T. (2000), Making and measuring reputations,
Long Range Planning, Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 621-50.
Bettman, J.R. (1973), Perceived risk and its components: a model and empirical test, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 184-90.
Emerson, R.M. (1976), Social exchange theory, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 2, pp. 335-62.
About the author
Sabrina Helm is a Professor of Strategic Marketing at Witten/Herdecke University, Germany.
Her research interests include reputation management and measurement, valuation of
stakeholder relationships and referral management. She has authored several books and articles
appearing in European Journal of Marketing, Managing Service Quality, Journal of Relationship
Marketing, Industrial Marketing Management. New research projects focus reputation price
premiums, industry and intercultural differences in reputational perceptions and reputation
management. Sabrina Helm can be contacted at: sabrina.helm@uni-wh.de

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.