Reputation management section Practitioner perceptions of corporate reputation: an empirical investigation

Transcription

1 Reputation management section Practitioner perceptions of corporate reputation: an empirical investigation Roger Bennett and Rita Kottasz The authors are based at London Guildhall University, London, UK. Keywords Coporate image, Public relations Abstract Owner-managers or managing directors of 106 UK public relations consultancies completed a questionnaire concerning the extent of their firms' client reputation management activities and their attitudes and opinions about reputational work. The results suggested widespread interest in the concept and practice of reputation management as an area of activity separate and distinct from other aspects of PR. However, respondents expressed concerns about the existence of barriers to the implementation of reputation management programmes within client companies. The executives most likely to agree with the ``academic'' definition of corporate reputation were those whose consultancies offered a large number of reputation management services; who believed that the demand for these services was about to rise; and who clearly distinguished between reputational and general PR activities. Only a small percentage of the sample disagreed with the proposition that most innovations in the field of reputation management were attributable to practitioners rather than academics. Electronic access The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at Volume 5. Number pp. 224±234 # MCB University Press. ISSN Introduction Few developments in the fields of corporate and marketing communications have been the subject of greater academic interest, scrutiny and analysis than the implementation of techniques and procedures for managing the reputations of companies; as opposed to corporate image, corporate identity and general public relations work (see for example Fombrun and Shanley, 1990; Fombrun, 1996; Fombrun and Van Riel, 1997; Whetten, 1997; Cooper, 1999 for details of relevant literature). One cause of this upsurge of interest in corporate reputation has been the conspicuous successes achieved by a number of high-profile crisis management programmes (see Barton, 1993; Argenti, 1997), in conjunction with firms' increasing desires to insure their corporate images against adverse publicity potentially arising from future disasters. According to Poe (1998, p. 16), moreover, the ``age of nonstop mergers, corporate takeovers and raging employee distrust'' has led to the reputations of businesses and their leaders routinely ``being shot down by the press, stock market analysts and other professional firing squads'' across all industry sectors. Thus, prudent companies will proactively seek to obviate the detrimental impact of possible bad publicity in the future, and the creation of a sound reputation is one means for achieving this aim. Another reason for the rise of reputation management has of course been the growing realisation that the possession of an excellent reputation can significantly enhance financial performance. Cooper (1999), for instance, suggests that between 8 per cent and 15 per cent of a company's share price may be ascribed to corporate reputation. This might be due to the ability of a high-reputation firm to attract customers, investors, and excellent employees; to motivate its suppliers; and to incur less hostility from regulatory bodies (Fombrun and Shanley, 1990; McMillan and Joshi, 1997). This paper presents the results of an empirical study of the extent to which reputation management has been taken up as a separate and substantial aspect of PR among a sample of UK public relations consultancies. Hence it offers an insight into current practice vis-aá-vis reputation management at the ``grass roots'' level, i.e. among PR practitioners operationally responsible for assisting client firms to

2 manage their corporate communications. As well as contributing to knowledge about PR consultancies' views and activities in this rapidly expanding area, the research has a more general significance considering the enhanced role of PR recently observed at both the marketing and corporate communications levels (Kitchen, 1996), and the likelihood, according to Pinkleton and Austin (1999), that fast changing commercial environments are actively forcing PR firms to re-examine fundamentally their facilities and services in order to demonstrate improved effectiveness. Pinkleton and Austin (1999, p. 85) argue that nowadays PR consultants whose past successes were based on practical understanding of local media, excellent contacts and powerful media skills increasingly ``find themselves struggling to maintain client confidence in an era of greater programme accountability and fewer financial resources''. The research also examined whether the PR executives participating in the study generally agreed or disagreed with the academic view of what ``corporate reputation'' involves. Note that UK (as opposed to US) approaches to PR have traditionally regarded the terms ``public relations'' and ``reputation'' as synonymous. The UK Institute of Public Relations, for example, defines PR as ``about reputation'', and PR practice as ``the discipline which looks after reputation'' (Institute of Public Relations, 1999, p. 1). Equally, however, the volume of academic literature dedicated to reputation management as a distinct and relatively selfcontained field of study has expanded enormously in recent years (see Fombrun and Van Riel, 1997; Balmer, 1998); numerous books have appeared about corporate reputation, and academic and other conferences committed to reputational matters have proliferated. To what extent have contemporary academic interpretations of and approaches towards reputation management spread among senior PR practitioners? This is a question worthy of investigation because, to the degree that differences of opinion concerning the meaning of corporate reputation occur between the academic and practitioner domains then far greater attention may need to be given to the dissemination of the findings of academic research about reputation management than previously has 225 been the case. Other interesting issues are whether practitioners see reputation management as nothing more than a ``management fad'' with a strictly limited lifespan, or a notion not essentially different from that of ``corporate image''. Reputation management in theory and practice Balmer's (1998) review of the evolution of the theory of corporate reputation identified three stages of development. The first phase (in the 1950s) focused on corporate image, giving way in the 1970s and 1980s to an emphasis on corporate identity and corporate communications, and then in the 1990s to a mounting interest in corporate brand management and thence reputation. According to Balmer (1998, p. 971), image differs from reputation in that whereas the former concerns the public's ``latest beliefs'' about an organisation, reputation represents a value judgement about the organisation's qualities ``built up over a period and focusing on what it does and how it behaves''. Thus, reputation has an historical dimension as it represents ``the estimation of the consistency over time of an attribute of an entity based on its willingness and ability to perform an activity repeatedly in a similar fashion'' (Herbig and Milewicz, 1995, p. 24). These assessments of past actions may derive from personal experience; yet equally could result from word-of-mouth information, a firm's media profile, or the company's general public relations. Fombrun and Van Riel (1997, p. 10) similarly emphasise the historical nature of reputation which, they suggest, is a ``subjective, collective assessment of an organisation's trustworthiness and reliability'' based on past performance. Because reputations evolve over time they cannot be fashioned as quickly as images. Moreover, an organisation might have a good reputation (e.g. for providing excellent products) yet possess a low-impact, oldfashioned or otherwise inappropriate image. The reverse could also be true: a strong image crafted via a powerful organisational identity programme, advertising, public relations and integrated marketing communications might not be matched by a cogent reputation. ``Images'' themselves involve the knowledge, feelings and beliefs about an organisation that

3 exist in the thoughts of its audiences (see Hatch and Schultz, 1997), i.e. ``what comes to mind when one hears the name or sees the logo'' (Gray and Balmer, 1998, p. 696). This is not the same as corporate ``identity'', which relates to the ``self presentation'' of an organisation and thus consists of the cues that it offers via its symbols, communications and other signals (Van Riel, 1995). Rather, image represents a mental interpretation of an entity based on these symbols. A substantial amount of academic research has been completed into how organisations manage their reputations (see, for example, Post and Griffin (1997) and Davies and Miles (1998) for details of recent literature). Investigations have focused both on corporate policies relating to reputation management (e.g. Schrum and Wuthnow, 1988; Fombrun and Shanley, 1990; Davies and Miles, 1998; Gray and Balmer, 1998) and on the marketing communications themes and channels employed by organisations engaged in reputation management (e.g. Wilson, 1985; Herbig and Milewicz, 1995; McMillan and Joshi, 1997; Fombrun and Rindova, 1998). In contrast, research into how reputational issues are seen by the PR consultancies and agencies which service the corporate sector has been sparse: a disturbing fact as the PR industry itself recognises that ``there is a consensus among consultants that corporate reputation management will be even more important just over ten years from now'' (Gray, 1999, p. 6). Moreover, the limited amount of research that has been undertaken has tended to focus on barriers and problems inhibiting the adoption of reputation management within client firms. Implementation difficulties allegedly include narrow thinking on the part of marketing executives, heavy commitments to conventional corporate image programmes in conjunction with a reluctance to invest in an unexplored field, lack of experience of and expertise in the techniques of reputation management, budgetary constraints, and lengthy timetables for research and strategic planning (Semons, 1998). Schultz and Ervolder's (1998, p. 30) study of 93 Danish marketing consultancies (including PR agencies) noted the difficulties that the professional suppliers of reputation management services themselves commonly experience when ``crossing boundaries'' into the provision of fresh ``value-based'' services 226 such as image/reputation management. The authors attributed these difficulties in part to client firms demanding ``familiar and compartmentalised services'' (Schultz and Ervolder's, 1998 p. 39) and to their not being able to grasp the natures of the relationships between image-related constructs. The study An exploratory investigation was deemed appropriate consequent to the paucity of prior research in the area. Exploratory studies are suitable for ``probing new substantive areas which may rest on still unformalised and unintegrated theoretical, hypothetical and methodological arguments'' (Mills, 1959, p. 32), and where relatively little is known about an issue (Churchill, 1991, p. 70). Accordingly, the aim of the study was to establish frameworks for future analysis rather than to specify and test particular hypotheses per se. Information was collected via a mail questionnaire (reproduced in the Appendix) comprising four sections. The first part queried the nature of the reputation management services offered by the respondent consultancy. Firms which undertook dedicated reputational work were then asked to indicate the extents of their involvement (sections 2.1 and 2.). This was followed by a listing of the eight items incorporated into the Fortune reputation index and a request to specify whether the consultancy provided reputation building or measurement services in relation to any or all of these headings. The Fortune index is by far the most commonly used and debated measure of corporate reputation (see Fombrun, 1998). It has been criticised for resting heavily on matters concerned with a financial orientation (see Caruana, 1996; Van Riel, 1995, pp ), yet remains a popular measure which has been found to perform reliably across a variety of disparate industry sectors (see Fombrun and Shanley, 1990; Cordeiro, 1999). Section 3 of the questionnaire explored respondents' perceptions of the levels of client demand for reputation management services (items 3.1(a) and 3.2(a), (d) and (e)); their attitudes towards measurement (3.2(f) and (h)) and implementation problems (3.1(b) to (f)); and opinions regarding reputation management generally. The final section

4 Table I Definitions of reputation Definition Source 1 A reputation can be defined as a bundle of attributes and the interrelationships Andersen et al. (1999) among them, shared among a group of individuals in a socio-cognitive community 2 Corporate reputation refers to the perception of an organisation which is built Balmer (1998) up over a period of time and which focuses on what it does and how it behaves 3 Corporate reputation is the evaluation (respect, esteem, estimation) in which an Dowling (1994) organisation's image is held by people 4 A corporate reputation is a perceptual representation of a company's past Fombrun (1996) actions and future prospects that describes the firm's appeal to all of its key constituents when compared with other leading rivals 5 Corporate reputation is a collective representation of a firm's past actions and Fombrun, and results that describe the firm's ability to deliver valued outcomes to multiple Rindova, (1996) stakeholders. It gauges a firm's relative standing both internally with employees and externally with its stakeholders, in both its competitive and institutional environments 6 Reputation is a representation of the cumulative judgements of a constituency Fombrun and Shanley, group over time, based upon socially constructed perceptions of an (1990) organisation's substantive and symbolic actions 7 Corporate reputation indicates a value judgement about a company's attributes Gray and Balmer, and evolves over time as a result of consistent performance, reinforced by (1998) effective communication 8 Reputation is the estimation of the consistency over time of an attribute of an Herbig and Milewicz, entity. This estimation is based on the entity's willingness and ability to (1995) perform an activity repeatedly in a similar fashion. An attribute is some specific part of the entity ± price, quality, marketing skills. Reputation is an aggregate composite of all previous transactions over the life of the entity, a historical notion, and requires consistency of an entity's actions over a prolonged time for its formation 9 A company's reputation ± from a buyer's perception ± consists of the extent to Levitt (1965) which the firm is well known, good or bad, reliable, trustworthy, reputable and believable 10 Corporate reputation is a synthesis of the opinions, perceptions, and attitudes Post and Griffin (1997) of an organisation's stakeholders, employees, customers, suppliers, investors, community members, activists, media, and other stakeholders 11 A firm's corporate reputation is a shorthand evaluation of the stock of information Schweizer and about that firm in the possession of a particular actor or group of actors that is Wijnberg (1999) used by those actors to make decisions, involving a certain degree of risk with regard to the firm, without feeling the need to collect more information 12 Reputations describe the expectations that key stakeholders have about a Sever and Fombrun company's products, practices and performance (1992) 13 Corporate reputation refers to a corporation's values which are kept alive in a Smythe et al. (1992) collective memory of its behaviour, with its leaders responsible for keeping the vision of its founders fresh 14 Corporate reputation is the outcome of a competitive process in which firms Spence (1974) signal their key characteristics to constituents to maximise social status 15 Corporate reputation is a set of economic and non-economic attributes ascribed Weigelt and Camerer to a firm, inferred from the firm's past actions (1988) 16 A company's reputation reflects the history of its past actions Yoon et al. (1993). 227

5 presented the executive with an ``academic'' definition of reputation and then asked for assessments of its usefulness (sec. 4(a) to (d)). Table I lists 16 definitions of corporate reputation obtained from a review of academic literature on the subject and thence employed to derive the compound statement appearing in section 4. It can be seen from Table I that, so far as the academic community is concerned, reputation has a cognitive-perceptual dimension (definitions 1 to 4, 6, 7, 9 to 11), an historical dimension (definitions 2, 4 to 8, 13, 15, 16), and involves a firm's qualities and behaviour (definitions 1, 2, 7, 8, 14, 15), stakeholders (definitions 4 to 6, 10, 12, 14), corporate image (definitions 3, 4, 9 to 11) and expectations about how the business will act in the future (definitions 4, 8, 12). These elements were synthesised by the authors into a general definition which was then placed before five senior academics specialising in marketing communications. On receipt of their comments the statement was iteratively reworded until a consensus that it accurately reflected the ``academic'' view of corporate reputation emerged. The draft questionnaire was pre-tested via discussions with academic experts in the PR field plus executives in three leading UK PR consultancies, and a trial distribution of the questionnaire to 50 PR firms selected at random from the sampling frame. After the pre-test the wording of the questionnaire was refined and the final version mailed to a further 355 UK public relations consultancies selected at random (using the random number generator available on SPSS) from Section 4 (``PR Consultancies: UK'') of the Hollis UK Press and Public Relations Annual As the purpose of the study was to obtain an insight into the views of the PR consultancy sector as a whole, five PR firms appearing in the sampling frame and known to specialise exclusively in reputation management (Shandwick for instance) were excluded from the survey. Data obtained from such consultancies could be heavily biased in favour of all aspects of reputation management. After a follow-up, responses were received from 46 chief executives, 16 chairmen and 44 other senior managers of the businesses approached, representing 26.5 per cent of the sampling frame. Responses were scanned for differences between the average values of the replies received from the earliest per cent and latest 30 per cent of return mailings, no significant disparities emerging. Firms in the sample had an average of nine employees. Results Only 15 per cent of the sample consultancies stated that they did not offer any of the services listed in questionnaire section 1.2 (see the Appendix). The commonest services reported by the remaining 85 per cent of the firms were crisis management (78 per cent), the provision of advice on reputation building strategy (70 per cent), and the completion of surveys and research to establish how key audiences perceive clients' reputations (48 per cent). Around one-third of the respondents recorded their involvement in reputation measurement and auditing; similar proportions applied to each of the other section 1.2 items. About a quarter of the firms spent less than 10 per cent of their time on reputation management; a further 25 per cent spent between 11 per cent and 20 per cent of their time on the activity. Only 13 per cent devoted more than half their time to reputational matters, and just 8 per cent had a separate person or section solely employed on client reputation management (2.2). As regards the elements of the Fortune reputation index (2.3), the four main areas in which the consultancies helped clients promote their reputations were community and environmental responsibility (54 per cent), the quality of goods and services (56 per cent), and innovativeness (41 per cent). The least reported area was ``long term investment value'' (13 per cent). Responses to section 3 from the entire 106-strong sample indicated a division of opinion on whether clients were generally uninterested in reputation management (3.1(a)). Twenty-eight per cent agreed or strongly agreed with this proposition, 44 per cent either disagreed or strongly disagreed. However, a clear majority (58 per cent) agreed/strongly agreed that clients will increasingly demand reputation management services in the future (item 3.2(a)). There was general consensus that reputation management was as vital an ingredient of business as accounting, finance etc. (3.2(b)), with 78 per cent of the sample agreeing/ strongly agreeing with the proposition. A quarter of the sample believed nevertheless that corporate reputation was nothing more

6 than ``old wine in new bottles'' (as opposed to 43 per cent holding the alternative view ± see 3.2(c)). More than half the sample thought that reputation management was about to become as important as corporate image, but only 5 per cent reported current switches of client expenditures towards reputation at the expense of other PR activities (3.2(d) and (e)). Opinions differed regarding whether measuring reputation was basically the same as measuring corporate image. Forty-four per cent agreed or strongly agreed with this statement, while 35 per cent held the opposite view. A similar breakdown applied to item 3.2(g) about whether managing a client's reputation was comparable to managing its image. It was the case nonetheless that the majority of respondents clearly distinguished reputation management from other PR activities (3.2(m)), although 31 per cent still thought there was no need to differentiate between reputational work and PR generally (51 per cent disagreed or strongly disagreed with this position). Likewise, 67 per cent felt there was a real difference between reputation management and PR (item 3.2(o)), with just 16 per cent disagreeing. Only 24 per cent of the sample equated corporate reputation with corporate identity (3.2(k)). Respondents did not generally feel that the PR industry had failed to understand how to manage clients' reputations (3.2(j)). Also, less than a quarter of the sample did not believe that reputation management would require long-term changes in the ways that PR firms operate (3.2(l)). On the other hand, respondents were less than complimentary about their clients' abilities to participate effectively in reputation management programmes. Only 20 per cent disagreed or strongly disagreed with the proposition that clients frequently lack the expertise necessary to participate effectively in reputation management programmes (3.1(b)). Moreover, 71 per cent saw clients as being so heavily committed to conventional corporate image programmes that reputation management took a back seat (3.1(c)), and only 18 per cent of the respondents believed that clients' internal cultures were conducive to the introduction of reputation management. The main complaint however was that clients were reluctant to employ extra staff to implement relationship management on behalf of their companies. Eighty-four per cent agreed/strongly agreed and less than 2 per cent disagreed with this statement (3.1(f)). 229 A majority of the respondents believed that new ideas concerning reputation management came from practitioners rather than academics (52 per cent in favour of statement 3.2(i), 7 per cent against and 41 per cent having no firm opinion). However, many more respondents (64 per cent) agreed or strongly agreed that the ``academic'' definition of corporate reputation reproduced in section 4 accurately captured the true meaning of corporate reputation than disagreed/ strongly disagreed with the proposition (17 per cent). The difference was more pronounced among the consultancies actually offering reputation management (70 per cent in favour and 14 per cent against). Also, just 8 per cent of the sample regarded the stated definition as irrelevant to the majority of their clients, and only 26 per cent disagreed or strongly disagreed that it offered a sound foundation for devising reputation management policies. These results are heartening from an academic perspective as they indicate that practitioners in consultancies most heavily involved in reputational work are significantly more likely than others to agree with the academic definition. Regression analysis In order to analyse more closely the determinants of agreement or disagreement with the academic definition presented in section 4, a multinomial logistic regression was completed using the three categories: 2 = agree or strongly agree that the definition accurately captures the true meaning of corporate reputation; 1 = neither agree nor disagree; 0 = disagree or strongly disagree, as the dependent variable. Covariates were selected via a stepwise procedure whereby any explanatory variable failing to attain significance at the 0.05 level was deleted from the regression. (Items 3.1(a) and 3.2(a), (d) and (e) were highly intercorrelated (R = 0.81; Cronbach's alpha = 0.9) and thus were combined into a single scale labelled ``perception that the demand for reputation management will rise sharply''.) A multinomial logistic/regression model was employed because it enables the calculation of the probability that a particular response will fall into any one of three or more categories. Table II presents the results, which are based on the use of the category ``neither agree nor disagree'' as the ``reference category'' for the

7 Table II Multinomial regression analysis Practitioner perceptions of corporate reputation Agree/ strongly agree Disagree/ strongly disagree Independent variables Odds p Odds p (a) Perception that the demand for reputation management will rise sharply (i.e. the composite of 3.1(a) and 3.2(a), (d) and (e)) (b) Extent of reputation management services provided (c) Belief that reputation management will require long-term changes in how PR firms operate (3.2(l)) (d) Belief that there is no difference between reputation management and general PR (3.2(o)) (e) Belief that reputation management is just ``old wine in new bottles'' (3.2(e)) Notes: Model Chi-square (6 df) = 14.45, p < 0.025; Nagelkerke R-square = dependent variable. Thus, the ``Odds'' columns of Table II show the changes in the probabilities of a respondent either agreeing or disagreeing with the definition consequent to a one-unit increase in each of the explanatory variables, relative to the reference category. (Odds values below unity indicate inverse relationships, i.e. reductions in the odds.) It can be seen that, for instance, a unit rise in the perception that the demand for reputation management will grow in the future (regressor (a)) leads to a 2.31 times increase in the probability that a respondent will agree or strongly agree with the academic definition. Table II reveals that the greatest positive impact on the probability of agreement is exerted by independent variable (b): the extent of the reputation management services provided by the consultancy. This variable was formed by counting the number of items ticked in questionnaire section 1.2. The belief that reputation management will require longterm changes on how PR firms operate (variable (c)) was also a positive and significant determinant of agreement. Conversely, people who thought that reputation management was ``old wine in new bottles'' and that there is really no difference between reputation management and general PR were significantly more inclined to disagree with the utility of the academic definition. Conclusion The results suggest that most PR practitioners in the UK have taken on board the concept and practice of reputation management as an activity separate and distinct from general public relations work. There was widespread support for the propositions that clients will increasingly demand additional reputation management services and that in the future PR consultants will provide a broader range of reputation management facilities. On the other hand, the responses indicated (see section 3.1) a number of barriers to the adoption of reputation management among companies. Respondents overwhelmingly believed that new ideas concerning reputation management have come from PR practitioners rather than academics. However, the definition of corporate reputation derived from the academic literature on the subject received substantial support from practitioners in consultancies actually engaged in reputation management. Respondents who agreed with the definition tended to be those whose firms provided a large number of reputation management services, who thought that client demand for reputation management would rise in the future, and who believed that reputation management was new and different from general PR and would require change in PR firms' working practices. Although the section 4 definition of corporate reputation (with which practitioners substantially agreed) was derived from the academic literature in the reputation area, only a meagre 7 per cent of the sample disagreed with the statement that most new reputation management ideas came from practitioners rather than the academic domain. An implication of the present study is therefore that the academic community needs to broadcast and emphasise the value of its contributions in these regards more forcefully than previously has been the case. Further research is required into the precise mechanisms whereby academic developments relating to reputation management are disseminated to PR executives ``in the field''. References Andersen, P. Houman and Sorensen, H.B. (1999), ``Reputational information: its role in interorganisational collaboration'', Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp

8 Argenti, P.A. (1997), ``Dow Carning's breast implant controversy: managing reputation in the face of `junk science''', Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 1 No. 3, Balmer, J.M.T. (1998), ``Corporate identity and the advent of corporate marketing'', Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 14 No. 8, pp Barton, L. (1993), Crisis in Organisations: Managing and Communicating in the Heat of Chaos, South-West Publishing Company, Cincinnati, OH. Caruana, A. (1996), ``Organisational reputation: concept and measurement'', in 2021 a Vision for the Next 25 Years, Proceedings of the 1996 MEG Conference CD- ROM Track 4 Session A, University of Strathclyde, Strathclyde. Churchill, G.A. (1991), Marketing Research: Methodological Foundations, 5th ed., Dryden Press, Orlando, FL. Cooper, A. (1999), ``What's in a name?'', Admap, Vol. 34 No. 6, pp Cordeiro, J.J. (1999), ``Some preliminary evidence on the structure and determinants of global corporate reputations'', paper presented at the Third International Conference on Corporate Reputation, Image and Competitiveness, Puerto Rico, 6-9 January 1999, Stern School of Business, New York University, New York, NY. Davies, G. and Miles, L. (1998), ``Reputation management: theory versus practice'', Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp Dowling, G. (1994), Corporate Reputations: Strategies for Developing the Corporate Brand, Kogan Page, London. Fombrun, C. (1996), Reputation: Realizing Value from the Corporate Image, 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 Fombrun, C. and Rindova, V. (1996), ``Who's tops and who decides? The social construction of corporate reputations'', working paper, New York University Stern School of Business, New York, NY. Fombrun, C. and Shanley, M. (1990), ``What's in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy'', Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp Fombrun, C.J. and Rindova, V. (1998), ``Reputation management in Global 1000 firms: a benchmarking study'', Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp Fombrun, C. and Van Riel, C.B.M. (1997), ``The reputational landscape'', Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 1 Nos 1/2, pp Gray, R. (1999), ``Trendspotting: the top 150 PR consultancies 1999'', PR Week, 30 April, pp Gray, E.R. and Balmer, J.M.T. (1998), ``Managing corporate image and corporate reputation'', Long Range Planning, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp Hatch, M.J. and Schultz, M. (1997), ``Relations between organisational culture, identity and image'', European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31 Nos 5/6, pp Herbig, P. and Milewicz, J. (1995), ``To be or not to be... credible that is: a model of credibility among competing firms'', Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp Institute of Public Relations (1999), Handbook 1999, IPR, London. Kitchen, P.J. (1996), ``Public relations in the promotional mix: a three-phase analysis'', Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp Levitt, T. (1965), Industrial Purchasing Behaviour: A Study of Communications Effects, Harvard Business School Cambridge, MA. McMillan, G.S. and Joshi, M.P. (1997), ``Sustainable competitive advantage and firm performance: the role of intangible resources'', Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 1 Nos 1/2, pp Mills, C.W. (1959), The Sociological Imagination, Oxford University Press, New York, NY. Pinkleton, B.E. and Austin, E.W. (1999), ``Orientations in public relations research and campaign evaluation'', Journal of Marketing Communications, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp Poe, R. (1998), ``Where to turn when your reputation is at stake'', Across the Board, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp Post, J.E. and Griffin, J.J. (1997), ``Corporate reputation and external affairs management'', Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp Schrum, W. and Wuthnow, R. (1988), ``Reputational status of organisations in technical systems'', American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 93 No. 4, pp Schultz, M. and Ervolder, L. (1998), ``Culture, identity and image consultancy: crossing boundaries between management, advertising, public relations and design'', Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp Schweizer, T.S. and Wijnberg, N.M. (1999), ``Transferring reputation to the corporation in different cultures: individuals, collectives, systems and the strategic management of corporate reputation'', Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp Semons, A. (1998), ``Reputation management: the Shandwick way'', Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp Sever, J. and Fombrun, C. (1992), ``The Harris-Fombrun reputation quotient (RQ)'', Louis Harris & Associates, Inc., New York University's Stern School of Business Working Paper, New York, NY. Smythe, J., Dorward, C. and Reback, J. (1992), Corporate Reputation: Managing the New Strategic Asset, Century Business Ltd, London. Spence, A.M. (1974), Market Signalling: Informational Transfer in Hiring and Related Screening Processes, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Van Riel, C.B.M. (1995), Principles of Corporate Communication, Prentice Hall Europe, Hemel Hempstead. Weigelt, K. and Camerer, C. (1988), ``Reputation and corporate strategy: a review of recent theory and applications'', Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 9, pp Whetten, D.A. (1997), ``Theory development and the study of corporate reputation'', Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 1 Nos 1/2, pp Wilson, R. (1985), ``Reputations in games and markets'', in Roth, A.E. (Ed.), Game Theoretic Models of Bargaining, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, pp Yoon, E., Guffey, H.J. and Kijewski, V. (1993), ``The effects of information and company reputation on intention to buy a business service'', Vol. 27, pp

9 Appendix: The questionnaire 232

10 233

11 234