Corp Reputation Rev
DOI 10.1057/s41299-017-0041-4
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
The Corporate Reputation Reporting Framework (CRRF)
Salman Khan1 • Jacques Digout1
Ó Macmillan Publishers Ltd., part of Springer Nature & Reputation Institute 2017
Abstract Corporate reputation (CR) sciences have made
way into c-level management quite rapidly in the past two
decades. During the same period, numerous CR measure-
ment techniques also emerged. This study evaluates the
effectiveness and appropriateness of available models for
thoroughly reporting an organization’s CR. By highlighting
and rationalizing the central features of the ‘reputation’
construct, the usefulness of notable measurement approa-
ches for thoroughly reporting CR is critiqued. The analysis
reveals that most techniques deviate from theory, and in
several ways fall short of incorporating online aspects of
corporate (e-) reputation formation. A corporate reputation
reporting framework is modeled and directed towards
large-scale applicability across contexts. The proposed
framework robustly integrates a variety of CR features,
facilitating the creation of comprehensive CR reports and
delivers insights into the urgency of adapting to digital
aspects of reputation formation and management.
Keywords Corporate reputation  e-Reputation 
Reputation measurement  Reputation management 
Framework development  Reporting framework
Corporate reputation (hereafter, ‘‘CR’’) is one of the most
valuable organizational assets. The market value is com-
posed of four measures: physical, financial, intellectual,
and reputational capital (Fombrun and van Riel 2004).
Most present-day business analysis and performance
tracking procedures are disproportionately reliant on the
first two components (physical and financial). Traditional
& Salman Khan
s.khan@tbs-education.org
1
Toulouse Business School, Toulouse, France
reports being historically focused, omit ‘reputation’—a key
intangible, which lessens the relevance of these reports
(Cravens et al. 2003; Fill and Roper 2012; Tischer and
Hildebrandt 2014). Such an exclusion can also lead to
severe cases of misevaluation. Inadequate measurability of
‘reputation’ contributes to the under-representation of this
intangible in market valuation practices. For reputation
capital to be justly included in management functions and
reporting, further development of CR measurement and
depiction is imperative.
Moreover, corporations around the world are rapidly
adopting reputation management as an essential function.
Reputation executives must proactively monitor and
strengthen the position of their firm to safeguard from
potential crisis situations (Claeys and Cauberghe 2015).
The process of building, managing, and repairing CR
demands the ability to interpret, gauge, and depict repu-
tation thoroughly (Hannington 2004).
There are three fundamental issues with the CR analysis
techniques currently in practice. First, a significant fraction
of the systems in use is commercial solutions like TRI*M
and Alva. These methods are either not grounded in subject
theory or inadequately explained through academic
research. The second issue is the gap between definitions
and measurement frames. Dowling (2016) calls this
‘‘defining A, and measuring B.’’ The CR concept in liter-
ature is expansive in scope and flexible in nature. In con-
trast, most measurement methods generate simplistic,
narrow, and absolutist judgments, leaving little for inter-
pretation and inference. The third challenge is an outcome
of digitization. Internet-powered e-communications have
exceedingly influenced the reputation dynamic (Khan and
Digout 2017). Academics are yet to integrate the prospect
of e-reputation into the overall CR theory and computation
logic.

The purpose of this paper is three-fold. First is an
elaboration of the theoretical viewpoint on CR, as pre-
sented in the literature. The ‘background literature’ section
is an exploration of the definitions, construct conceptual-
izations and several CR features. Secondly, based on the
identified characteristics of CR, the current measurement
models’ strengths and weaknesses are reviewed in the
subsequent section ‘contemporary models.’ Thirdly, the
urgent need to envision a detailed, progressive and har-
monious CR reporting format is highlighted and addressed
under the ‘framework’ heading. The study builds a nor-
mative-integrated reputation reporting framework that has
a broad application across organizational contexts and is
inclusive of the digital aspects associated with CR.
Background Literature
Definition
CR has been studied from a variety of disciplinary per-
spectives. Over the years, the term received an inordinate
supply of definitions. The lexicon of this discipline is ever
in a state of reconstruction (Baka 2016). In 2013, Davies
noted decades-long disagreement among scholars regard-
ing the definition and envisioned the lack of consensus to
persist for many years to come. As the measurement of
reputation is profoundly dictated by definition (Clardy
2012), it is necessary for this study to mention the defini-
tion(s) of choice.
In recent years, researchers have collected, reviewed,
and attempted to consolidate the diverse array of defini-
tions. Barnett et al. (2006) reviewed 49 definitions and
proposed an integrated definition, ‘‘Observers’ collective
judgments of a corporation based on assessments of the
financial, social, and environmental impacts attributed to
the corporation over time.’’ This contribution was one of
the first to establish the distinction between the concept of
identity, image, and reputation. Walker (2010) conducted
the most thorough systematic review of the CR definitions,
covering the most prominent research of the preceding
27 years. Walker then constructed a definition with the
intent of guiding and aiding the efforts towards measure-
ment, ‘‘Corporate reputation is a relatively stable, issue-
specific aggregate perceptual representation of a com-
pany’s past actions and future prospects compared against
some standard.’’ Recently, Dowling (2016) reviewed 50
definitions and proposed a simpler alternative, ‘‘The
admiration and respect a person holds of an organization at
a point in time.’’
This study is built on the definition proposed by Walker
(2010), and Dowling (2016). Clearly, there is a
notable contrast in the complexity of both perspectives.
S. Khan, J. Digout
Such a combination serves well the intention of compre-
hensively exploring the diversity of this subject. From here,
a systematic development of the CR feature (proposition)
list is initiated. Some of the following propositions are
directly inspired by the above-mentioned definitions, while
other points are built rationally based on literature review.
Wide Scope
Every organization (like humans) is subject to bearing a
reputation among its observers. CR is a universal concept
that is relevant to all organizations around the world,
regardless of their size, or the market they operate in,
whether it is B2B, B2C, B2G, or G2C (Davies et al. 2003;
Fombrun and van Riel 2004; Bernett and Pollock 2012).
Reputation management is an equally pressing concern for
non-profit and non-commercial organizations (Fill and
Roper 2012; Khan and Digout 2017). Therefore, a CR
measurement and reporting framework must provide value
to organizations belonging to different contexts. The model
should be widely applicable in different countries, indus-
tries, and markets.
Proposition 1 CR is a widely applicable concept, span-
ning cultures, industries, and business markets.
Stability
Reputations are a stable construct that develop over the
long term. Academics concur that reputation formation
happens gradually (Rindova 1997; Mahon 2002; Rhee and
Haunschild 2006). This relatively stable and more enduring
nature of CR distinguishes it from ‘corporate images’ that
are often short-lived and volatile (Gray and Balmer 1998;
Rindova et al. 2005; Walker 2010). Thus, to be compatible
with literature, neither should a measurement tool produce
‘sticky’ results, nor display extreme ‘volatility.’
Proposition 2 CR is relatively stable and enduring.
Multiple Stakeholders
Every organization is subject to diverse stakeholders.
Martinez and Norman (2004) define stakeholders as ‘‘All
constituencies whose contact with the firm (voluntarily or
involuntarily) results in an effect on, or their being affected
by, the firm and its activities.’’ Customers, employees, the
general public, investors, suppliers, governments, and
media are some stakeholders that are generally relevant to
all types of organizations. Based on the industry and nature
of operations, there may also be other stakeholders
involved. The stakeholders can broadly be categorized into
two: internal (e.g., employees and board members), and
external (e.g., public, customers, and investors). Different
The Corporate Reputation Reporting Framework (CRRF)
stakeholders may hold different perceptions (Fombrun
1996; Helm 2007; Puncheva-Michelotti and Michelotti
2010; Harvey et al. 2017). For a CR model to be sound and
extensive, it must facilitate aggregated measurement of
stakeholder-specific reputations (Walker 2010).
Proposition 3 An organization has many stakeholder-
specific reputations.
Issue Specificity
Organizations are judged on a variety of issues such as
product/service quality, corporate social responsibility,
corporate governance, and innovation (Lewellyn 2002). It
is possible for a company to be perceived favorably for one
issue, and unfavorably for another. Take the case of Wal-
mart that has a sound reputation for financial prosperity
while scoring poorly in the employee treatment area. Bar-
nett et al. (2006) echoed this idea in their definition by
stating that organizations are assessed on ‘financial, social,
and environmental’ factors. Walker (2010) also highlights
the importance of distinctly capturing and reporting these
issue-specific reputations.
Proposition 4 An organization has many issue-specific
reputations.
Comparability
Reputation, by nature, is a relative element. Stakeholders
form perceptions regarding organizations, in comparison to
‘something.’ One of the primary comparative objects is
competition (Fombrun 1996). Walker (2010) also observes
potential comparison with past performances, industry
averages, and benchmarks. A key feature of CR is its high
dependency on the object of comparison. For example, the
CSR reputation of an organization may be weak in com-
parison with other local organizations. On the other hand, it
is possible that the same organization is perceived as the
best in its industry for CSR activities.
Proposition 5 Reputation is highly influenced by the
object of comparison.
Construct
An interesting CR debate is regarding the ‘construct of
reputation.’ Scholars are divided between conceptualizing
the construct as formative or a reflective measure. To
develop a measurement framework for CR, a discussion on
this issue and declaration of the authors’ theoretical
standpoint is vital.
General Aggregates
A formative measurement model happens when the indi-
cators cause the construct. For example, useful features,
good performance, and long durability (indicators) of a
smart-phone determine the gadget’s value (construct).
Correlation between the indicators is unimportant for for-
mative measures. In contrast, the direction of causality in
reflective measures is ‘construct to indicators.’ The scores
of different general knowledge tests (indicators) are all
outcomes of a person’s knowledge (construct). The mea-
surement variables here are a reflection of the construct. A
high correlation of indicators is expected since they are
affected by the same thing.
Based on the condition of correlation, Helm (2005)
advocates the formative motion. According to this view,
reputation is the construct, and some of the indicators
include product quality and employee treatment. Helm
argues that an improvement in the product quality barely
affects other indicators (in this instance: employee treat-
ment). Therefore, this weak correlation between indicators
is used to illustrate the construct as formative.
In our opinion, the formative motion supporters are
referring to the ‘overall corporate reputation’ that is formed
by many issue-specific reputations. The various issue-
specific reputations combine and form the overall reputa-
tion of an organization, as shown in Fig. 1. When the
overall CR is seen as a construct, the various non-corre-
lated issue-specific reputations act as indicators, confirm-
ing the formative-ness of this measure.
However, the sub issue-specific reputations themselves
are constructs, reflective of different indicators. For
example, the employee treatment reputation may utilize
indicators like (1) generous compensation packages, (2) a
good place to work, and (3) low turnover. These indicators
are highly correlated, and hence make the sub reputations
reflective.
In other words, overall CR is a second-order formative
construct with many first-order reflective dimensions that
we call issue-specific reputations. The singular reputation
being addressed by Helm, and others, is on the right (for-
mative) side of the structural model in Fig. 1, while the
reflective argument applies to issue-specific reputations
which are on the left (reflective) side.
Proposition 6 General CR aggregates are formative
constructs formed by various (non-correlated) issue-
specific reputations that are reflective measures.
Formative or Reflective?
Supporters of the formative notion also point to the fact
that changes in indicators cause changes in reputation

Indicator 1
Indicator 2 Issue-Specific Reputaon 1
Indicator 3
Indicator 1
Indicator 2 Issue-Specific Reputaon 2
Indicator 3
REFLECTIVE
Fig. 1 Reflective–formative structural model
construct; and not the vice versa. An example is presented
of CR being a consequence of delivering high-quality
products (driver/signal); whereas an improvement in CR
does not automatically make the product superior. This is
argued to be characteristic of a formative measure.
In response, it is paramount to reinstate that CR is the
summary view of ‘perceptions’ (Chun 2005), and CR
measurement is an endeavor to understand how an orga-
nization is perceived (Wartick 2002). As reputation is a
social construct—an indicator of ‘beliefs,’ Fombrun (1996)
sees it as independent of reality. Reputation is a mere
portrayal of ‘reality as perceived’ by people. Hence, Ponzi
et al. (2011) also argue that CR should be distinguished
from drivers and signals, as facts about a company may
reach the audience, tainted with social noise, misinterpre-
tations, and misrepresentations. Drivers/signals are the
actions and behavior of organizations that lead to the for-
mation of ‘perceptions.’ These perceptions are the ultimate
indicators of reputation. Therefore, CR is a second-order
latent variable.
Whether reputation is a reflective construct or not
depends on how a change in CR affects perceptions.
According to research (Barnett and Leih 2016), people tend
to perceive the offering of certain companies superior,
often because of the organization’s favorable CR. A better
reputation may not directly improve product quality, but it
does act as a catalyst in being perceived as a better value
provider. Hence, a change in the construct (reputation)
does affect the indicators (perceptions); pushing the debate
in favor of the ‘reflective’ motion.
S. Khan, J. Digout
Overall Corporate
Reputaon
FORMATIVE
Howsoever, this study affirms that CR is a construct too
complex to be categorized as either formative or reflective.
A commonly held view is that rich competence of an
organization garners a favorable reputation. Nonetheless,
the betterment of organizational competence may also be a
consequence of strong reputation. Caruana and Chircop
(2000) observed such a ‘halo effect’ where good reputation
facilitates better corporate performance, which further
improves CR. For example, companies with favorable
reputations are often equipped with the best talents; as a
result of which, talented job seekers are more inclined to
join such businesses. Furthermore, recent studies have
noted how reputation rankings influence financial perfor-
mance (Tischer and Hildebrandt 2014; Krueger and
Wrolstad 2016).
In many ways, CR functions as a self-fulfilling pro-
phecy. This is visualized in Fig. 2. Hence, this study con-
siders reputation to be a ‘reflexive’ measure. Sound CR
depictions must not only provide historical insights, but
also predict and enhance future performance.
Proposition 7 Reputation is a reflexive construct, pro-
viding historical representation, and also bearing predic-
tive power.
Drivers / Signals
Reputaon Percepon
Fig. 2 Reflexive construct
The Corporate Reputation Reporting Framework (CRRF)
Cognitive and Affective
Reputations form on two types of drivers: cognitive and
affective. Cognitive drivers employ learning, comprehen-
sion, and analysis of fact-based signals sent out from
organizations. Most reputation monitors capture cognitive
reputation indicators such as the quality of management,
corporate social responsibility, innovation, financial
soundness, and quality of the offering. These drivers are
easy to explain, monitor, and evaluate. On the part of
observers, it is an objective mode of perception formation.
In contrast, affective reputations rely on observer
experiences, feelings, and emotions towards an organiza-
tion. It stems from ‘affective commitment,’ a sense of
belonging and affection a person has towards an organi-
zation. Stakeholders may associate with an organization
based on its corporate visual identity (van den Bosch et al.
2005), culture, age (Bartikowski et al. 2011), country of
origin, brand ambassadors (Wang et al. 2017), and business
partners. Stakeholders have also been found to form per-
ceptions about organizations based on CEO and board
members behavior (Dowling 2006; Men 2012; Turk et al.
2012). Such subjective and emotional antecedents of CR
form affective reputations, which give insights into how
stakeholders connect with an organization at a non-cogni-
tive level.
Proposition 8 CR is driven by cognitive and affective
drivers. Both domains must be factored into CR
computations.
Philosophical Orientation
Elasticity of Reputation
Reputation is an outcome of an organization’s actions and
behavior. To be perceived favorably by stakeholders, what
behavior is appropriate? Which stakeholders and issues are
important? What scales and indicators must be used to
measure reputation? There are many objective and sub-
jective answers to such questions. These variables change
between countries, cultures, markets, and industries. Yet,
most reputation measurement techniques strive to create a
single standard and restrictive structure to be used by all
organizations.
This study critiques those structures and systems that are
not customized for the respective contexts of study. Rep-
utation is a dynamic construct, built on mechanisms that
change from context to context. The authors favor more
than one way of modeling a CR report. As the drivers,
stakeholders, issues, and observers of reputation differ
from one market to another; measurement frameworks
should also facilitate customization. The importance of
issues, the priority of stakeholders, and selection of indi-
cators must all be derived from the context when a CR
study is pursued. Although less operational than other
‘short-form’ alternatives, this approach is adequately
aligned with the large-minded expression of the CR
literature.
Proposition 9 CR frameworks must be elastic to fit the
context, allowing alteration of issues, stakeholders, and
indicators.
Multi-Dimensional
The existence of multiple stakeholder-specific and issue-
specific reputations gives rise to the question, ‘‘which
reputations are right, and which are wrong?’’ A postmod-
ernist stance on this topic helps address such queries.
‘Reputation’ being a social construct is neither right nor
wrong. It is a construction of the society that ultimately
decides what is acceptable, and what isn’t. The quality of a
product, the citizenship of an organization, the employee
treatment at a company, is as depicted in reputation scores.
Whatever the stakeholders adjudge as good (bad) is good
(bad). Thus, CR precedes the definition of good and bad. It
is the use of CR measures that must guide organizations’
judgment of acceptable, and unacceptable. Therefore,
reputation is not a unipolar measure (Walker 2010). It must
be indicated as a bipolar construct, between ‘favorable’ and
‘unfavorable.’
Furthermore, Lange et al. (2011) proposed a three-di-
mensional representation of CR; being known (strength and
popularity), being known for something (cognitive reputa-
tions), and generalized favorability (affective reputations).
Each dimension further expands into sub-items. For
example, components of being known are media visibility
(Deephouse, 2000), prominence, and familiarity (Mari-
conda and Lurati 2014). This study encourages the addition
of all such dimensions and components in the CR reports.
Instead of attempting to give a washed-down, dogmatic
view of CR through a rank or a number, the information-
rich reports will transfer the authority of interpretation
from the report writers to the report readers. Financial
statements function in a similar manner. Diverse KPIs are
presented, without imposing a singular style of inference.
While one analyst may focus on debt–equity ratio, price/-
book value ratio, and return on equity, another might look
at cash flow–debt ratio, price/earnings ratio, and return on
assets. Each metric tells a part of the story. The final
sensemaking is subject to the reader’s views.
Reputation is an indicator of social standing, as financial
statements are indicators of business performance. The
reputation report should be a collective representation
utilizing multiple KPIs, just like financial reports. For CR

reports to be a comprehensive overview of one of the four
organizational assets (physical, financial, intellectual, and
reputational capital), such information-rich and open to
interpretation reporting is the way forward.
Proposition 10 CR is a multi-dimensional, multi-faceted,
and bipolar construct.
The E- Aspect
Corporate e-reputation (Ce-R) refers to the online reputa-
tion of organizations and can be considered an element of
CR (Dutot et al. 2016). Due to vast differences in the
characteristics of online and offline reputation concepts
(Dutot and Castellano 2015), it is necessary to discuss the
online concept independently, under a separate heading
(Khan and Digout 2017). For example, Amazon, Alibaba,
and Uber are all e-commerce businesses. The addition of
‘e-’ does not imply that all operations are digitized, or that
traditional commerce science does not apply to the ‘e-’
businesses. Rather, ‘e-’ is used for convenience, like an
umbrella over all digital aspects of business that are of a
nature different from ordinary offline commerce. Similarly,
the term Ce-R is only to differentiate the discussion from
offline reputations; nonetheless, this study views Ce-R
merely as an integral subset of CR.
Reputation formation depends on signals sent out by an
organization through various touchpoints. In offline con-
texts, these signals range from press releases and annual
reports to corporate image (Foroudi et al. 2014). Digiti-
zation grows the complexity of reputation formation by
exponentially adding numerous new touchpoints. For
example, organization-related activity on social media is
now a key predictor of reputation scores (Meadows and
Meadows 2016; Ji et al. 2017). As Internet levels the
playing field between big and small players, it is tough to
ascertain which online brands are heritage-rich, and which
aren’t. Hence, it is vital for reputation executives to
monitor and enhance their organization’s Ce-R
dedicatedly.
Besides injecting two-way communications, digital
technologies also promote stakeholder to stakeholder con-
versations about corporations. To form perceptions
regarding an organization, stakeholders now rely on new
sources of signals available online. User-generated content
(UGC) (Baka 2016) and word of mouth (WOM) (Walsh
and Beatty 2007) are critical drivers of CR. Rauschnabel
et al. (2016) emphasize the necessity of diligently moni-
toring brand-related social media activity, citing the
emergence of notorious ‘collaborative brand attacks’
(CBAs) by online bullies. van Noort and Willemsen (2012)
support this view by affirming the importance of moni-
toring eWOM across the web.
S. Khan, J. Digout
Ce-R indicators are often available on the Internet in
abundance, in the form of big data that can be synthesized
using sentiment analysis software. Studies have found such
analysis to be highly accurate and reliable (Mostafa 2013).
However, according to Gandomi and Haider (2015),
‘‘Conventional (pre-big data) sentiment analysis tech-
niques, may not be ideally suited to leverage big data.’’
Currently, academics are attempting to advance e-reputa-
tion tracking systems using sentiment analysis (Felbermayr
and Nanopoulos 2016; Shad Manaman et al. 2016). Pre-
sent-day technologies may not be sufficient to capture the
scope of Ce-R fully, but this remains an interestingly
promising area to watch.
Further academic investigations are required to formal-
ize a complete incorporation of Ce-R with CR sciences.
Advancement of tools and approaches for measuring Ce-R
is also critical (Dutot et al. 2016). At the moment, three
implications are derived from this discussion. First, mea-
surement models must incorporate the use of digital indi-
cators. Secondly, Ce-R must be noted as a separate, but
important issue for all organizations. Thirdly, CR frame-
works must leverage sentiment analysis and opinion min-
ing to acquire insights regarding the CR based on available
online big data. Some CR experts resist the use of such
information processing methods, stating that it only por-
trays a short-term ‘mood’ associated with an organization.
Howbeit, this rich source of information cannot be over-
looked and is worthy of inclusion in CR reports as a sep-
arate KPI.
Proposition 11 Digital (online) indicators and signals
provide key insights regarding Ce-R, an integral subset of
CR.
Contemporary Models
There are three main (overlapping) streams of reputation
measurement (Berens and van Riel 2004); trust, personifi-
cation, and social expectations. ‘Trust’ fundamentally
predicts future performance based on historical evidence.
The second stream attempts to personify organizational
reputations; while the third stream gauges reputation using
ever-evolving cognitive scales.
Here we discuss models built on these streams, with
emphasis on the compatibility of the respective models
with the features (propositions) of CR identified earlier in
the paper. This study scrutinizes only the most widely
studied and applied examples from each stream. For the
‘trust’ stream, reference is made to Fortune’s ‘World’s
Most Admired Companies (WMAC)’ ranking. The ‘per-
sonification’ stream is explained using the ‘Corporate
Character Scale (CCS).’ The ‘RepTrakÒ’ model represents
The Corporate Reputation Reporting Framework (CRRF)

the third stream, ‘social expectations.’ Although none of Furthermore, the lists are driven heavily by cognitive
these are outright CR reporting frameworks, they serve as drivers of reputation, with no consideration for affective
prime constituents for the creation of one. factors. The outcome generated with this method is a
unidimensional, one-or-two digit metric (rank) that does
Ranking Lists and Monitors not serve the purpose of representing reputational capital in
the fullest possible terms. Due to various massive short-
Each year, Fortune Magazine’s WMAC list surveys comings, the CR ranking lists and monitors are unsuited to
approximately 4000 hand-picked executives to evaluate the be standardized for CR measurement and reporting.
CR of enterprises on nine-item criteria. The indicators are
neither cross-culturally validated, nor have any theoretical
Personification Metaphors
underpinning (Fombrun and van Riel 2007). In the most
recent WMAC survey, only 680 companies were short-
Corporate Character Scale (CCS) uses personification
listed for evaluation (based on revenue), from a mere 28
metaphor to assess the CR of organizations (Davies et al.
countries. The sampling is not only small and biased
2004). Personification is intended less to measure and
(Bromley 2002), but also overlooks NGOs and other non-
define CR, and more to explain why some companies have
commercial entities. Most reputation ranking lists and
a better reputation than others (Davies et al. 2001).
monitors operate similarly.
Although the method is remarkably suitable for use in
This method produces unstable (Brown and Turner
diverse contexts and cultures (Davies 2013), the theoretical
2008), and sometimes, ‘sticky’ reputations (Fill and Roper
grounding of this approach is alarming (Berens and van
2012). New companies abruptly overtake heritage-rich
Riel 2004; Clardy 2012).
brands to take top ranks; and at times, big names ranking
The personification method does provide stable results
high in a year, totally get dropped out the subsequent year.
and can be used to attain multiple stakeholder views. As
For example, Samsung Electronics fell off the ‘All-Star
this framework focuses on two stakeholder views:
List’ of WMAC in 2017. According to the rationale of the
employees and customers (Davies et al. 2003), it is best
model, the ‘combustible phone batteries’ issue was suffi-
suited for service industries. However, generating issue-
cient to overshadow Samsung Electronics’ five decades of
specific reputations, and reputation aggregates are beyond
industry-wide legacy. In contrast, some brands demonstrate
the scope of this model.
a ‘stickiness’ towards their rank. Year on year, despite
Furthermore, Clardy (2012) raised a concern about the
depreciating public admiration, the large and visible enti-
lack of clarity with the results. Whether a specific result on
ties stickily renew their positions in such CR monitors
the character scale is favorable or unfavorable (positive or
(Schultz et al. 2001). This volatility and stickiness of
negative) remains unclear. This makes it difficult to com-
results lead to instability and unreliability of such CR
pare and benchmark CR using this technique. The depen-
depiction methods.
dence on language is a significant limitation for CCS, and
The method even falls short of representing multi-
other similar methods. As language evolves, the structural
stakeholder views. According to Fombrun (1998), narrow
integrity of such scales fades.
external stakeholder views are presented in WMAC, serv-
Personification is scarcely useful in understanding issue-
ing ‘narrow agendas.’ Fombrun et al. (2000) voice con-
specific performance and presents no predictive capacity.
cerns by mentioning the weak representation of social and
Despite the shortcomings, this tool remains an intriguing
employee issues. The ratings appear to be grounded in fi-
way of looking at things. As this model is made to capture
nancial performance and investment potential (Fryxell and
affective drivers of reputation (Davies 2013), it can com-
Jia Wang 1994). Additionally, the rankings do not facili-
plement the numeric and cognitive alternatives of CR
tate the aggregation of issue-specific reputations. Conse-
representation.
quently, due to excessive focus on finances only, this
technique only provides a historical representation of
organizations, while failing to predict performance related Scales
to other issues.
Also, the comparison facilitated herein is extremely RepTrakÒ is a well-researched model, profoundly reasoned
limited. For the reputation of two companies to be com- academically (Fombrun et al. 2015), and generates elabo-
pared, both must be ranked on the same ranking list or rate and stable results. Reputation Institute uses this tool to
monitor. Additionally, comparison of reputation with ear- measure the CR of over 7000 companies in 25 countries.
lier self-imposed benchmarks is only possible if an orga- The 23-indicator scale employed to capture public per-
nization was listed by a particular list or monitor in ceptions related to seven issues have been validated in six
preceding years. countries, making it highly appropriate for cross-cultural

use. The results render the historical representation of
performance and bear immense predictive potential. This
technique even makes it straightforward to compare the
reputations of organizations in different contexts.
CR measurement scales have been held for overly
focusing on cognitive drivers of reputation (Sarstedt et al.
2013). RepTrakÒ, however, utilizes a short-form general-
ized favorability indicator called RepTrakÒ Pulse as a
complementary KPI, which adds an affective dimension to
the CR measurement. The structure of this method aids the
depiction of stakeholder-specific and issue-specific repu-
tations that can be aggregated into general reputation. In
comparison with the former two models of CR measure-
ment, scales are relatively progressive.
Summary
All of the three models above have specific shortcomings.
In common, all lack the portrayal of multi-dimensional and
bipolar KPIs, which draw a complete picture of CR. Fur-
thermore, none of the measurement techniques provide
elasticity to customize the measurement framework for the
particular contexts. Also, the use of automated digital
signals is absent from all options currently available. Some
commercial alternatives like TRI*M and Alva have
implemented the use of e-reputation monitoring indicators.
Being Known Being Known For Something
Strength & Popularity
Visibility
Prominence
Familiarity Stakeholder-Specific
Source: Survey
Fig. 3 Corporate reputation reporting framework
S. Khan, J. Digout
However, since these alternatives are not academically
validated, it leaves a huge gap in the CR measurement field
(Casado and Peláez 2014). In the next section, we build and
propose a new CR measurement and reporting framework
that better aligns with the literature.
Framework
We propose a Corporate Reputation Reporting Framework
(CRRF) (Fig. 3) comprised of three dimensions, as sug-
gested by Lange et al. (2011). The first dimension, being
known, portrays how well known an organization is. The
second dimension, being known for something, describes
how an organization is perceived across issues by different
stakeholders. The third dimension named generalized
favorability represents the stakeholders’ overall fondness
and emotional connection with an organization.
Data required to inform the various components under
each dimension of CRRF can broadly be extracted from two
sources: (1) surveys, and (2) online signals. In the following
discussion, we explain which components can utilize data
from which of the two sources. Although this paper pre-
scribes some processes for carrying out tasks related to
CRRF, the focus here is not on ‘how things should be done,’
but rather on ‘what should be done, and why.’
Generalized Favorability
Cognive Reputaon Affecve Reputaon
Reputaon Matrix Favorability Scores
Priority Matrices Senment Analysis
Issue-Specific
e-Reputaon
Comparisons
Source: Online Signals
The Corporate Reputation Reporting Framework (CRRF)
This framework is meant to aid the creation of CR
reports that are based on opinions, norms, and subjectivity.
The intended reports must not only describe CR but also
help in understanding the underlying phenomena. Based on
these fundamental characteristics, this framework is
deemed ‘normative.’ Furthermore, the application strives
to produce a comprehensive and balanced CR representa-
tion. We combine features from a myriad of CR concepts
and measurement models, in a complementary fashion.
Hence, CRRF is also set on an integrative approach. The
remainder of this discussion provides a description, critical
overview, and defense of this normative-integrated CRRF.
Being Known
The being known dimension portrays the strength of an
organization based on its popularity and fame. This
dimension consists of three components proposed by
Mariconda and Lurati (2014): (1) visibility, (2) promi-
nence, and (3) familiarity, each of which is quantitatively
defined. While most CR models use these components as
qualifiers for organizations to get onto the ranking lists or
to be part of a CR study, CRRF favors the inclusion of
quantitative aspects as a separate dimension of the CR
report. Collectively and individually, the components in
this dimension capture the overall renown of a company.
Although precise measurement of these components is
unattainable, use of digital signals can help indicate the
overall standing of an organization relative to other
players.
Visibility
Visibility, simply put, represents how many people are
talking about an organization. It is the exposure an orga-
nization gains via mentions by customers, media, third
parties, and the public. Calculating visibility in the offline
world is difficult. However, visibility in online terms
translates to eWOM, UGC, and third-party aided PR. It is
the ‘earned media’ over which organizations have no
control. This type of media can easily be monitored and
quantified using numerous software solutions. Some of the
leading vendors for visibility tracking are Brand24, Cision,
Meltwater, Mention, and Trendkite.
Table 1 Reputation matrix
Stakeholder group 1
Issue 1 I1.S1
Issue 2 I2.S1
Issue 3 I3.S1
Prominence
Prominence, on the other hand, is a measure of an orga-
nization’s influence, and impact via its ‘owned media.’ It
represents how many listeners are reached when the
organization talks. The visitor traffic on the company
website, engagement on a brand’s social media accounts,
and reach of online press releases are all examples of
organizational prominence. The KPIs of this component
can be informed by digital signals using tools such as
Alexa, SEMrush, SimilarWeb, Simply Measured, and
Socialbakers.
Familiarity
Familiarity measures how well individuals think they
know an organization. Most CR measurement models
only evaluate organizations with a high level of famil-
iarity in public. The RepTrakÒ scale for example, only
reports responses from respondents that declare them-
selves as ‘‘somewhat’’ or ‘‘very’’ familiar with an orga-
nization. We denounce the use of familiarity as a filter
and argue that a lack of response to a question in the
survey, delivers vital insights about the familiarity level of
the stakeholder with an organization, on that particular
issue. Although the perceptions of individuals declaring
themselves as unfamiliar with an organization cannot and
should not count, the very issue of ‘unfamiliarity,’ war-
rants reporting.
Being Known For Something
Organizations are not merely ‘known’ they are ‘known for
something,’ a fact that is captured in this dimension of
CRRF. Collectively, the six components of this dimension
assess the stable cognitive reputations built over long term
by stakeholders objectively observing various issues rela-
ted to an organization. Below, each of the components is
explained in detail.
Reputation Matrix
A reputation matrix (Table 1) consists of two axes: (1)
stakeholder groups (S) (examples: customers, employees,
Stakeholder group 2 Stakeholder group 3
I1.S2 I1.S3
I2.S2 I2.S3
I3.S2 I3.S3

and investors), and (2) issues (I) (examples: product
quality, workplace, and financial performance). The matrix
indicates the averaged perceptions within each stakeholder
group for the corresponding issues. Each issue is indicated
by multi-item (indicator) scales. For example, the work-
place issue utilizes two items: (1) fairness of employee
treatment, and (2) quality of work environment. The cre-
ation of such a matrix involves a 2-step process: landscape
setup and surveys.
To set up the landscape for a CR study, the following
must be established: (1) stakeholder groups being investi-
gated, (2) issues being examined, and (3) scales being used
to measure various issues. The CR construct, the variety of
stakeholders, the range of issues, and suitability of mea-
surement scales varies across contexts (Greyser 1999; Ali
et al. 2015; Tetrault Sirsly and Lvina 2016). The RepTrakÒ
model measuring seven issues, using a total of 23 indicators,
serves as an excellent base for CRRF. However, in some
cases, another set of indicators may be better suited for the
context. For example, Wepener and Boshoff (2015) present
a customer based reputation scale created for large service
organizations. CRRF is a flexible framework—independent
of scales, amply supporting necessary customization for
better application of CR analysis, as prescribed by Walsh
et al. (2015).
To fill values in the reputation matrix, surveys must be
carried out across stakeholder groups. The indicators used to
measure various issues must be bipolar, that is, a scale ranging
from negative to positive. The possible values for each
response in the issue indicators must include 1 for favorable
reputation, 0 for neutral, and -1 for unfavorable reputation.
For example: to measure workplace quality, the following
item, ‘‘the organization treats and rewards employees fairly,’’
must be supplied with these responses: (1) agree—value 1, (2)
neutral—value 0, and (3) disagree—value -1. Thus, a net-
positive score would indicate favorable reputation in a cate-
gory, a score of 0 would indicate neutrality of reputation, and
a net-negative score across a stakeholder group would indi-
cate unfavorable reputation for that issue.
Table 2 Priority matrices
Issue priority for stakeholder group
Issue 1
Issue 2
Issue 3
Stakeholder group priority
According to industry experts (PE)
According to organization (PO)
S. Khan, J. Digout
Priority Matrices
The priority matrices (Table 2) represent (1) the impor-
tance of issues to stakeholders, (2) stakeholder group sig-
nificance in an industry and (3) stakeholder group
importance to an organization. It is likely that different
stakeholder groups give different importance to various
issues, as explained earlier. For example, the workplace
quality issue is of high importance to the employee
stakeholder group, and of low-to-average importance to the
customers. Similarly, it is also likely that in a specific
sector, some stakeholder groups are more important than
others. For example, tobacco companies ascribe more
weight to the perceptions of customers than of the general
public. Thus a method is needed to ensure that priorities—
both of issues and of stakeholders—can be mathematically
captured in the proposed framework.
Two preliminary surveys would be required to create
such matrices. First, a sample from each stakeholder group
must be surveyed to identify the importance given to var-
ious issues by the respective group. For the second part,
researchers should reach out to industry observers and
experts, enquiring the importance of the identified stake-
holders to the organizations in an industry (PE). In the
proposed framework, priorities shall be ranked on a scale
of 1–3, representing declining priority. Additionally, if the
CR study is being conducted for the use of a particular
organization’s management, the matrix can also be used to
identify the prioritization of stakeholders by that organi-
zation (PO). Once priorities are captured, the data collected
in the reputation matrix component should be adjusted to
the weighting scheme, to derive stakeholder-specific and
issue-specific reputation aggregates.
Stakeholder-Specific Reputations
To determine the reputation of an organization within a
particular stakeholder group, it is crucial to combine the
reputation ratings assigned to the organization by respon-
dents from that stakeholder group. As explained earlier in
the paper, stakeholders are focused on different issues
based on their interests and nature of relationship with the
Stakeholder group 1 Stakeholder group 2 Stakeholder group 3
IP1.S1 IP1.S2 IP1.S3
IP2.S1 IP2.S2 IP2.S3
IP3.S1 IP3.S2 IP3.S3
PE.S1 PE.S2 PE.S3
PO.S1 PO.S2 PO.S3
The Corporate Reputation Reporting Framework (CRRF)
organization. This renders it necessary to measure the
stakeholder-specific reputations by adjusting for priorities.
Stakeholder-specific reputations constitute columns
appearing in the reputation matrix where each value is the
rating given to the organization by the specific group of
stakeholders, for the corresponding issue. These values are
multiplied by the respective weighting figure in Table 2 to
yield an adjusted score. This adjusted score is the stake-
holder-specific weighted aggregate.
Stakeholder Group 1 Specific Reputation
Pn
ðIi:S1Þ  ðIPi:S1Þ
¼ i¼1Pn
i¼1 ðIPi:S1Þ
Such an approach facilitates the aggregation of internal,
external, and overall CR ratings. The weighting mechanism
aided by reputation matrix and priority matrices estab-
lishes a significant progress over methods that eschew the
use of weighting.
Issue-Specific Reputations
What is the reputation of an organization for a specific
issue? To answer this, CRRF proposes computation of is-
sue-specific reputations that are similar in structure to the
stakeholder-specific reputations discussed above. Issue-
specific aggregates constitute rows appearing in the repu-
tation matrix. The weighted importance of the corre-
sponding stakeholders to the organization is listed in the
priority matrices (Table 2). Using the same weighted
averaging technique as of the previous component, CR
aggregate scores specific to particular issues are obtained.
Pn
ðI1:SiÞ  ðPE:SiÞ
Issue 1 Specific Reputation ¼ i¼1Pn
i¼1 ðPE:SiÞ
e-Reputation
As explained earlier, Ce-R is functionally distinct from
brick-and-mortar CR, and hence, is treated as a separate
component in the CRRF. For e-reputation, all stakeholders
are surveyed as one group, although the same bipolar scale
(ranging from -1 to 1) is maintained. Ce-R can be measured
using the four-item scale provided by Dutot and Castellano
(2015): (1) online brand characteristics, (2) website quality,
Table 3 Hypothetical
comparison table
Investors
Employees
Customers
Public
Media
(3) quality of service, and (4) social media presence. Each of
these categories makes a discrete contribution to the con-
struct of organizational e-reputation. However, as identified
by the developers of the scale, the e-reputation science is in
infancy, and much conceptual development is required to
cover this aspect of CR appropriately.
Comparisons
Reputation statements being normative are expressions of
implicit evaluations relative to something. Companies are
not known for something in a vacuum. When organizations
come to be known, the cognitive knowledge is structured in
the form of specific comparisons.
Consider the hypothetical example illustrated in
Table 3. Delta Air Lines is a legacy carrier based in the
United States. Although its customers will compare it with
other local legacy carriers like American Airlines and
United Airlines, the general public may weigh the value
offering of Delta against low-cost carriers; Southwest
Airlines and JetBlue. The media might compare the com-
pany with top foreign players like Singapore Airlines and
Qatar Airways. Employees such as aircraft mechanics and
technicians working at the airline will understandably
compare the organization with alternative employers of
their occupation; example: Boeing, an aircraft manufac-
turer, or Netjets—a charter airline. The investors evaluate
the performance of Delta against better-performing stocks
from the transport sector that can strengthen financial
portfolios. These benchmarks can range from FedEx—a
freighter, to Union Pacific—a rail transportation company.
An explanation of comparisons is, therefore, crucial for
any CR report. Surveys can be employed to reveal infor-
mation about which entities do stakeholder groups compare
an organization with. Delivering these insights along with
other measures puts stakeholder-specific reputations into
better contextual perspective.
Generalized Favorability
This dimension represents affective reputations, formed on
individual experiences, emotions, and feelings. Unlike the
stable cognitive counterparts of the second dimension, the
Which company do you compare Delta Air Lines with?
FedEx Corporation (Air freight)/Union Pacific (Rail transport)
Boeing (Aircraft manufacturer)/Netjets (Charter airline)
American Airlines/United Airlines (Legacy carriers)
Southwest Airlines/JetBlue (Low-cost carriers)
Singapore Airlines/Qatar Airways

elements of this dimension are very volatile, as the moods
of stakeholders drive these. The first component of this
dimension, favorability scores, relies on data from surveys,
while sentiment analysis is done using big data from the
internet.
Favorability Scores
One of the two definitions used as a base for this study
presented CR as a generalized favorability associated with
an organization. Going by the definition of Dowling (2016),
overall favorability can be calculated on two indicators:
admiration and respect. Another scale that can guide the
measurement of this component is one proposed by Ponzi
et al. (2011), using four indicators: (1) feeling, (2) admira-
tion and respect, (3) trust, and (4) esteem. The choice of
scale to be employed is at the researcher’s discretion.
CRRF does however assert the condition of (1) using a
bipolar scale (-1 to 1) for this score, and (2) measuring the
scores separately across stakeholder groups; just as in the
other framework items. For ease of presentation, the radar
chart presented in Fig. 4 demonstrates how this component
is conveyed visually. It depicts the favorability scores for
each stakeholder, from -1 to 1. The dark shade on the 0
grid marks neutrality of reputation, between the favorable
and unfavorable extremes.
Sentiment Analysis
Sentiment analysis captures the short-term mood and
qualitative aspects of Ce-R. Information regarding per-
ceptions related to an organization resides on the Internet,
in blog posts, reviews, social media chatter, discussion
boards, forums, and so on. This large data set spread across
the web is big data for CR. Sentiment analysis is the pro-
cess of determining the feelings and overall contextual
polarity in a text. For the purpose of generating insights
Favorability Scores Radar
Investors
0.83
Public Customers
-0.41 0.36
-0.98 0.27
Media Employees
Fig. 4 Favorability scores radar
S. Khan, J. Digout
into stakeholder opinions about an organization, the scores
are calculated through a process of online text mining,
analyzing, and machine learning. This science is develop-
ing rapidly and is already being widely adopted by cor-
porations seeking to ascertain their digital presence.
Currently, the function is best powered by BrandsEye,
Brandwatch, Crimson Hexagon, Digimind, Synthesio, and
Talkwalker. The artificial intelligence technology—Wat-
son, being developed by IBM, also holds immense promise
for this area of CR measurement.
Conclusion
The value of this normative-integrated CRRF is the gen-
eralizability and multi-dimensionality. The structure is
firmly rooted in theory, and broadly applicable. The main
implication for practice is that firms should take a well-
balanced long-term view of CR. Also, the reputation
matrix enables organizations to systematically and cate-
gorically analyze the CR, based on stakeholder-specific and
issue-specific perspectives; which bear historical repre-
sentation, as well as predictive power. The framework also
accommodates ‘affective’ reputations in the form of fa-
vorability scores. Moreover, CRRF is elastic, facilitating
customization per context, and is made progressive through
the inclusion of digital signals of CR insights.
The authors acknowledge the limitation of the study and
identify an avenue for future research based on each
shortcoming. First, this framework describes in detail ‘what
to report and why’ without concentrating much on the
question of ‘how to capture relevant signals.’ More
research is needed to expand on scientific methods for
computing each of the KPIs. Additionally, there is a need
to create a comprehensive list of possible stakeholders,
issues, and indicators to be included in the landscape, in a
variety of contexts. Lastly, this study only proposes a short
list of software to capture digital signals. Future research is
encouraged to operationalize this framework and report on
the applicability of different tools and software to perform
the necessary tasks for CR report generation. Big data, data
sciences, and machine learning can also be availed to
develop a broad range of semi-automated real-time visu-
alization dashboards for CRRF. Academic progression in
this direction will guide the development of related soft-
ware technologies and enhance the CR science reflexively.
References
Ali, R., et al. 2015. The moderating influences on the relationship of
corporate reputation with its antecedents and consequences: A
meta-analytic review. Journal of Business Research 68 (5):
1105–1117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.10.013.
The Corporate Reputation Reporting Framework (CRRF)
Baka, V. 2016. Formative reputation: From being an organizational
asset to becoming a process in the making. Corporate Reputation
Review 19 (2): 152–165. https://doi.org/10.1057/crr.2016.4.
Barnett, M.L., J.M. Jermier, and B.A. Lafferty. 2006. Corporate
reputation: The definitional landscape. Corporate Reputation
Review 9 (1): 26–38. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.crr.1550012.
Barnett, M.L., and S. Leih. 2016. Sorry to (not) burst your bubble: The
influence of reputation rankings on perceptions of firms. Business
and Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650316643919.
Bartikowski, B., G. Walsh, and S.E. Beatty. 2011. Culture and age as
moderators in the corporate reputation and loyalty relationship.
Journal of Business Research. 64 (9): 966–972. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jbusres.2010.11.019.
Berens, G., and C.B.M. van Riel. 2004. Corporate associations in the
academic literature: Three main streams of thought in the
reputation measurement literature. Corporate Reputation Review
7 (2): 161–178. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.crr.1540218.
Bernett, M.L., and T.G. Pollock. 2012. The Oxford handbook of
corporate reputation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bromley, D. 2002. Comparing corporate reputations: League tables,
quotients, benchmarks, or case studies? Corporate Reputation
Review 5 (1): 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.crr.1540163.
Brown, M., and P. Turner. 2008. The admirable company: What it
takes to be ranked among the best. London: Profile Books.
Caruana, A., and S. Chircop. 2000. Measuring corporate reputation: A
case example. Corporate Reputation Review 3 (1): 43–57.
https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.crr.1540098.
Casado, A.M., and J.I. Peláez. 2014. Intangible management monitors
and tools: Reviews. Expert Systems with Applications. Elsevier Ltd
41 (4): 1509–1529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2013.08.048.
Chun, R. 2005. Corporate reputation: Meaning and measurement.
International Journal of Management Reviews 7 (2): 91–109.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2005.00109.x.
Claeys, A.-S., and V. Cauberghe. 2015. The role of a favorable pre-
crisis reputation in protecting organizations during crises. Public
Relations Review 41 (1): 64–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.
2014.10.013.
Clardy, A. 2012. Organizational reputation: Issues in conceptualiza-
tion and measurement. Corporate Reputation Review 15 (4):
285–303. https://doi.org/10.1057/crr.2012.17.
Cravens, K., E.G. Oliver, and S. Ramamoorti. 2003. The reputation
index: Measuring and managing corporate reputation. European
Management Journal 21 (2): 201–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0263-2373(03)00015-X.
Davies, G., et al. 2001. The personification metaphor as a measure-
ment approach for corporate reputation. Corporate Reputation
Review 4 (2): 113–127. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.crr.
1540137.
Davies, G., et al. 2003. Corporate reputation and competitiveness.
London: Routledge.
Davies, G., et al. 2004. A corporate character scale to assess employee
and customer views of organization reputation. Corporate
Reputation Review 7 (2): 125–146. https://doi.org/10.1057/
palgrave.crr.1540216.
Davies, G. 2013. In support of personality as a measure of reputation:
A rejoinder to Clardy’s ‘‘Organizational reputation: Issues in
conceptualization and measurement’’ (2012). Corporate Reputa-
tion Review 16 (2): 168–173. https://doi.org/10.1057/crr.2013.7.
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. https://doi.org/10.
1177/014920630002600602.
Dowling, G. 2006. Reputation risk: It is the board’s ultimate
responsibility. Journal of Business Strategy 27 (2): 59–68.
https://doi.org/10.1108/02756660610650055.
Dowling, G. 2016. Defining and measuring corporate reputations.
European Management Review 13 (3): 207–223. https://doi.org/
10.1111/emre.12081.
Dutot, V., and S. Castellano. 2015. Designing a measurement scale
for e-reputation. Corporate Reputation Review 18 (4): 294–313.
https://doi.org/10.1057/crr.2015.15.
Dutot, V., E. Lacalle Galvez, and D.W. Versailles. 2016. CSR
communications strategies through social media and influence on
e-reputation. Management Decision 54 (2): 363–389. https://doi.
org/10.1108/MD-01-2015-0015.
Felbermayr, A., and A. Nanopoulos. 2016. The role of emotions for
the perceived usefulness in online customer reviews. Journal of
Interactive Marketing 36: 60–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
intmar.2016.05.004.
Fill, C., and S. Roper. 2012. Corporate reputation: Brand and
communication. Harlow: Pearson.
Fombrun, C.J. 1996. Reputation: Realizing value from the corporate
image. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Fombrun, C.J. 1998. Indices of corporate reputation: An analysis of
media rankings and social monitors’ ratings. Corporate Repu-
tation Review 1 (4): 327–340. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.
crr.1540055.
Fombrun, C.J., N.A. Gardberg, and J.M. Sever. 2000. The Reputation
QuotientSM: A multi-stakeholder measure of corporate reputa-
tion. Journal of Brand Management 7 (4): 241–255. https://doi.
org/10.1057/bm.2000.10.
Fombrun, C.J., L.J. Ponzi, and W. Newburry. 2015. Stakeholder
tracking and analysis: The RepTrakÒ system for measuring
corporate reputation. Corporate Reputation Review 18 (1): 3–24.
https://doi.org/10.1057/crr.2014.21.
Fombrun, C.J., and C.B.M. van Riel. 2004. Fame and fortune: How
successful companies build winning reputations. Upper Saddle
River: FT Prentice Hall.
Fombrun, C.J., and C.B.M. van Riel. 2007. Essentials of corporate
communication: Implementing practices for effective reputation
management. Abingdon: Routledge.
Foroudi, P., T.C. Melewar, and S. Gupta. 2014. Linking corporate
logo, corporate image, and reputation: An examination of
consumer perceptions in the financial setting. Journal of
Business Research 67 (11): 2269–2281. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jbusres.2014.06.015.
Fryxell, G.E., and Jia Wang. 1994. The fortune corporate ‘‘Reputa-
tion’’ index: Reputation for what? Journal of Management 20
(1): 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639402000101.
Gandomi, A., and M. Haider. 2015. ‘Beyond the hype: Big data
concepts, methods, and analytics. International Journal of
Information Management 35 (2): 137–144. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ijinfomgt.2014.10.007.
Gray, E.R., and J.M.T. Balmer. 1998. Managing corporate image and
corporate reputation. Long Range Planning 31 (5): 695–702.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-6301(98)00074-0.
Greyser, S.A. 1999. Advancing and enhancing corporate reputation.
Corporate Communications: An International Journal 4 (4):
177–181. https://doi.org/10.1108/13563289910299292.
Hannington, T. 2004. How to measure and manage your corporate
reputation. Aldershot: Gower Pub Co.
Harvey, W.S., et al. 2017. Lens or prism? How organisations sustain
multiple and competing reputations. European Journal of
Marketing 51 (4): 821–844. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-03-
2016-0122.
Helm, S. 2005. Designing a formative measure for corporate
reputation. Corporate Reputation Review 8 (2): 95–109.
https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.crr.1540242.
Helm, S. 2007. One reputation or many? Comparing stakeholders’
perceptions of corporate reputation. Corporate Communications:

An International Journal 12 (3): 238–254. https://doi.org/10.
1108/13563280710776842.
Ji, Y.G., et al. 2017. Staking reputation on stakeholders: How does
stakeholders’ Facebook engagement help or ruin a company’s
reputation? Public Relations Review 43 (1): 201–210. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2016.12.004.
Khan, S., and J. Digout. 2017. A synthetic literature review and
prognosis of corporate e-reputation. Indian Journal of Computer
Science 2 (2): 7–27. https://doi.org/10.17010/ijcs/2017/v2/i2/
112039.
Krueger, T.M., and M.A. Wrolstad. 2016. Impact of the Reputation
QuotientÒ on investment performance. Corporate Reputation
Review 19 (2): 140–151. https://doi.org/10.1057/crr.2016.5.
Lange, D., P.M. Lee, and Y. Dai. 2011. Organizational reputation: A
review. Journal of Management 37 (1): 153–184. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0149206310390963.
Lewellyn, P.G. 2002. Corporate reputation: Focusing the zeitgeist.
Business and Society 41 (4): 446–455. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0007650302238777.
Mahon, J.F. 2002. Corporate reputation: Research agenda using
strategy and stakeholder literature. Business and Society 41 (4):
415–445. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650302238776.
Mariconda, S., and F. Lurati. 2014. Being known: A literature review
on media visibility, public prominence and familiarity with
implications for reputation research and management. Corporate
Reputation Review 17 (3): 219–236. https://doi.org/10.1057/crr.
2014.11.
Martinez, R.J., and P.M. Norman. 2004. Whither reputation? The
effects of different stakeholders. Business Horizons 47 (5):
25–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2004.07.005.
Meadows, C.Z., and C.W. Meadows. 2016. Corporate reputation on
mass media, public opinion, and YouTube: Examining the
factors influencing reputation of Fortune 500 companies. Cor-
porate Reputation Review 19 (4): 345–356. https://doi.org/10.
1057/s41299-016-0011-2.
Men, L.R. 2012. CEO credibility, perceived organizational reputation,
and employee engagement. Public Relations Review. 38 (1):
171–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.12.011.
Mostafa, M.M. 2013. More than words: Social networks’ text mining
for consumer brand sentiments. Expert Systems with Applications
40 (10): 4241–4251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2013.01.019.
Ponzi, L.J., C.J. Fombrun, and N.A. Gardberg. 2011. RepTrakTM
Pulse: Conceptualizing and validating a short-form measure of
corporate reputation. Corporate Reputation Review 14 (1):
15–35. https://doi.org/10.1057/crr.2011.5.
Puncheva-Michelotti, P., and M. Michelotti. 2010. The role of the
stakeholder perspective in measuring corporate reputation.
Marketing Intelligence and Planning 28 (3): 249–274. https://
doi.org/10.1108/02634501011041417.
Rauschnabel, P.A., N. Kammerlander, and B.S. Ivens. 2016. Collab-
orative brand attacks in social media: Exploring the antecedents,
characteristics, and consequences of a new form of brand crises.
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 24 (4): 381–410.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10696679.2016.1205452.
Rhee, M., and P.R. Haunschild. 2006. The liability of good
reputation: A study of product recalls in the U.S. automobile
industry. Organization Science 17 (1): 101–117. https://doi.org/
10.1287/orsc.1050.0175.
Rindova, V.P. 1997. Part VII: Managing reputation: Pursuing
everyday excellence: The image cascade and the formation of
corporate reputations. Corporate Reputation Review 1 (2):
188–194. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.crr.1540042.
Rindova, V.P., et al. 2005. Being good or being known: An empirical
examination of the dimensions, antecedents, and consequences
of organizational reputation. Academy of Management Journal
S. Khan, J. Digout
48 (6): 1033–1049. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2005.
19573108.
Sarstedt, M., P. Wilczynski, and T.C. Melewar. 2013. Measuring
reputation in global markets—a comparison of reputation
measures’ convergent and criterion validities. Journal of World
Business 48 (3): 329–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2012.07.
017.
Schultz, M., J. Mouritsen, and G. Gabrielsen. 2001. Sticky reputation:
Analyzing a ranking system. Corporate Reputation Review 4 (1):
24–41. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.crr.1540130.
Shad Manaman, H., S. Jamali, and A. AleAhmad. 2016. Online
reputation measurement of companies based on user-generated
content in online social networks. Computers in Human Behav-
ior 54: 94–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.061.
Tetrault Sirsly, C.-A., and E. Lvina. 2016. From doing good to looking
even better: The dynamics of CSR and reputation. Business and
Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650315627996.
Tischer, S., and L. Hildebrandt. 2014. Linking corporate reputation
and shareholder value using the publication of reputation
rankings. Journal of Business Research 67 (5): 1007–1017.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.08.007.
Turk, J.V.S., et al. 2012. Examining the interplay of an organization’s
prior reputation, CEO’s visibility, and immediate response to a
crisis. Public Relations Review 38 (4): 574–583. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.pubrev.2012.06.012.
Walker, K. 2010. A systematic review of the corporate reputation
literature: Definition, measurement, and theory. Corporate
Reputation Review 12 (4): 357–387. https://doi.org/10.1057/crr.
2009.26.
Walsh, G., and S.E. Beatty. 2007. Customer-based corporate repu-
tation of a service firm: Scale development and validation.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 35 (1): 127–143.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-007-0015-7.
Walsh, G., S.E. Beatty, and B.B. Holloway. 2015. Measuring client-
based corporate reputation in B2B professional services: Scale
development and validation. Journal of Services Marketing 29
(3): 173–187. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-04-2014-0141.
Wang, S.W., G.H.-Y. Kao, and W. Ngamsiriudom. 2017. Consumers’
attitude of endorser credibility, brand and intention with respect
to celebrity endorsement of the airline sector. Journal of Air
Transport Management 60: 10–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jairtraman.2016.12.007.
Wartick, S.L. 2002. Measuring corporate reputation: Definition and
data. Business and Society 41 (4): 371–392. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0007650302238774.
Wepener, M., and C. Boshoff. 2015. An instrument to measure the
customer-based corporate reputation of large service organiza-
tions. Journal of Services Marketing 29 (3): 163–172. https://doi.
org/10.1108/JSM-01-2014-0026.
van den Bosch, A.L.M., M.D.T. De Jong, and W.J.L. Elving. 2005.
How corporate visual identity supports reputation. Corporate
Communications: An International Journal 10 (2): 108–116.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13563280510596925.
van Noort, G., and L.M. Willemsen. 2012. Online damage control:
The effects of proactive versus reactive webcare interventions in
consumer-generated and brand-generated platforms. Journal of
Interactive Marketing 26 (3): 131–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
intmar.2011.07.001.
Salman Khan is an Online Marketing Certified Professional
(OMCP), holding a marketing specialized Bachelor, Master, and
Doctorate in Business Administration. He has years of professional
experience in branding, communications, and marketing (B2B and
B2C) contexts. He teaches marketing courses and currently pursues
The Corporate Reputation Reporting Framework (CRRF)
research in the area of corporate reputation. His other areas of interest
include data sciences, opinion mining, and strategic management.
Jacques Digout is a professor, and director of various masters and
doctorate programs at Toulouse Business School, overseeing aca-
demic operations at various branches of the school across the globe.
He has a significant record of publishing articles, books, and
delivering conference speeches on various disciplines of business,
including marketing, corporate reputation, e-business, communica-
tion, among others. His published work in English, French, and
Spanish, includes significant contributions to e-reputation.