IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rug/rugwps/03-175.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Reputation management: Sending the right signal to the right stakeholder

Author

Listed:
  • N. A. DENTCHEV
  • A. HEENE

Abstract

Corporate reputation is the result of a signaling activity (Shapiro, 1983), based on available information about a firms’ actions (Fombrun & Shanley, 1990, p. 234). Reputation is also a yardstick of the firm’s relative standing (Shenkar & Yuchtman-Yaar, 1997), routinely used by both internal and external stakeholders (Logsdon & Wood, 2002) when making firm related decisions. However, reputation is not only formed by the information signals sent by a firm or other information intermediaries (Fombrun & Shanley, 1990). Also the stakeholders’ perceptions and interpretations of the firm’s actions (Fombrun, 2001) form corporate reputations. These perceptions and interpretations then indicate how constituents understand the information signals sent by the firm (van Riel, 1997). Violina Rindova (1997) incorporates these two aspects (signals and perceptions) to explain the formation of reputation as ‘a cumulative outcome of ongoing creation between firms, constituents, and other actors in firms’ environments.’ (p. 189) This point of view implies at least a dyadic interaction between the firm and its stakeholder if we consider the case of a firm with only one stakeholder. In the case of a firm with more than one stakeholder, reputation is the result of a complex network of interactions between the firm and its stakeholders and among the stakeholders themselves. Under such conditions of structural and dynamic complexity of interactions some stakeholder groups may not fully or correctly understand and interpret the information signals. This complexity challenges the effectiveness of reputation management. Gardberg & Fombrun (2002) have recently published a study on nominations for the ‘best overall’ and the ‘worst overall’ corporate reputations in America and in Europe. Four findings in this study catch our attention.1 Firstly, no single firm was unanimously nominated for either best or worst reputation. Secondly, four companies received an almost equal number of nominations ‘best overall’ and ‘worst overall.’ Thirdly, strong mega brands were nominated for ‘worst overall’ due to major crises, and the observation that the concerned firms showed to be incapable of adjusting public perceptions after these crises. Fourthly, Microsoft and McDonalds received nominations predominantly for best corporate reputation in the USA, but both companies were nominated predominantly for worst reputations in the EU. This all does strongly suggest that some stakeholders ‘do not see the signal.’ Yet managers have to minimize sending information signals that remain unnoticed by stakeholders, as such practices contribute to generating more costs without any positive contribution to (potential) profits. This is also an important challenge for professional organizations (e.g. consultancy agencies) when advising companies on their communication strategies, since reputation management is apparently still in its infancy (Davies & Miles, 1998; Deephouse, 2002). Hence, an analysis on the antecedents of unnoticed signals will shed more light at the fundamentals of reputation management.This paper elaborates on the problem of not perceiving an information signal by a targeted recipient. The above-mentioned problems of corporate reputation receive no attention in the reputation management literature. Our contribution to the literature is the clarification and the analysis of these problems. Beginning with a strategic management perspective on corporate reputation, the paper emphasizes the fact that unnoticed information signals squander scarce resources. It then analyzes the information problems (Stiglitz, 2000) at the different levels of information efficiency (Fama, 1970). In this analysis, the value of corporate reputation as a strategic asset is evaluated at three different levels of information efficiency to conclude that reputation can contribute at any level to solve information related problems. Consequently, a more focused signaling strategy is suggested, arguing that effective reputation management is about sending the right signal to the right stakeholder. Finally, areas for future research are proposed.

Suggested Citation

  • N. A. Dentchev & A. Heene, 2003. "Reputation management: Sending the right signal to the right stakeholder," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 03/175, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
  • Handle: RePEc:rug:rugwps:03/175
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://wps-feb.ugent.be/Papers/wp_03_175.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alchian, Armen A & Demsetz, Harold, 1972. "Production , Information Costs, and Economic Organization," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 62(5), pages 777-795, December.
    2. Fama, Eugene F, 1970. "Efficient Capital Markets: A Review of Theory and Empirical Work," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 25(2), pages 383-417, May.
    3. Carl Shapiro, 1983. "Premiums for High Quality Products as Returns to Reputations," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 98(4), pages 659-679.
    4. George A. Akerlof, 1970. "The Market for "Lemons": Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 84(3), pages 488-500.
    5. Ranjay Gulati, 1999. "Network location and learning: the influence of network resources and firm capabilities on alliance formation," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(5), pages 397-420, May.
    6. Ronald H. Coase, 2022. "The Market for Goods and the Market for Ideas," Econ Journal Watch, Econ Journal Watch, vol. 19(1), pages 166–175-1, March.
    7. Jensen, Michael C. & Meckling, William H., 1976. "Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 305-360, October.
    8. Mirrlees, James A, 1997. "Information and Incentives: The Economics of Carrots and Sticks," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 107(444), pages 1311-1329, September.
    9. Joseph E. Stiglitz, 2000. "The Contributions of the Economics of Information to Twentieth Century Economics," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 115(4), pages 1441-1478.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Stefano Denicolai & Antonella Zucchella & Gabriele Cioccarelli, 2010. "Reputation, Trust and Relational Centrality in Local Networks: An Evolutionary Geography Perspective," Chapters, in: Ron Boschma & Ron Martin (ed.), The Handbook of Evolutionary Economic Geography, chapter 13, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. Veronica Scuotto & Massimo Morellato, 2013. "Entrepreneurial Knowledge and Digital Competence: Keys for a Success of Student Entrepreneurship," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 4(3), pages 293-303, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Todorova, Tamara, 2022. "Оливър Уилямсън: Новатор На 20 Век И Основател На Новата Институционална Икономика [Oliver Williamson: an innovator of the 20th century and founder of the new institutional economics]," MPRA Paper 121077, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Dan Amiram & Zahn Bozanic & James D. Cox & Quentin Dupont & Jonathan M. Karpoff & Richard Sloan, 2018. "Financial reporting fraud and other forms of misconduct: a multidisciplinary review of the literature," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 732-783, June.
    3. Kirsten Burkhardt, 2011. "Le rôle des sociétés de capital-risque dans la formation d’alliances stratégiques:Une synthèse de littérature - The Role of Venture Capitalists in the Formation of Strategic Alliances:An academic lite," Working Papers CREGO 1111102, Université de Bourgogne - CREGO EA7317 Centre de recherches en gestion des organisations.
    4. Thomas Holtfort, 2019. "From standard to evolutionary finance: a literature survey," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 69(2), pages 207-232, June.
    5. Quentin Dupont & Jonathan M. Karpoff, 2020. "The Trust Triangle: Laws, Reputation, and Culture in Empirical Finance Research," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 163(2), pages 217-238, May.
    6. Edward M. Iacobucci & Ralph A. Winter, 2005. "Asset Securitization and Asymmetric Information," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 34(1), pages 161-206, January.
    7. Giorgio Coricelli & Luigi Luini, 1999. "Double Moral Hazard: an Experiment on Warranties," CEEL Working Papers 9901, Cognitive and Experimental Economics Laboratory, Department of Economics, University of Trento, Italia.
    8. Joseph E. Stiglitz, 2004. "Information and the Change in the Paradigm in Economics, Part 2," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 48(1), pages 17-49, March.
    9. Kiplan Womack, 2012. "Real Estate Mergers: Corporate Control & Shareholder Wealth," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 44(4), pages 446-471, May.
    10. Reddy, Kotapati Srinivasa, 2015. "Extant Reviews on Entry-mode/Internationalization, Mergers & Acquisitions, and Diversification: Understanding Theories and Establishing Interdisciplinary Research," MPRA Paper 63744, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 2015.
    11. An, Suwei, 2023. "Essays on incentive contracts, M&As, and firm risk," Other publications TiSEM dd97d2f5-1c9d-47c5-ba62-f, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    12. Klaus Möller & Ramin Gamerschlag & Finn Guenther, 2011. "Determinants and effects of human capital reporting and controlling," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 311-333, November.
    13. Murizah Osman Salleh & Aziz Jaafar & M. Shahid Ebrahim, 2011. "The Inhibition of Usury (Riba An-Nasi'ah) and the Economic Underdevelopment of the Muslim World," Working Papers 11002, Bangor Business School, Prifysgol Bangor University (Cymru / Wales).
    14. repec:eee:labchp:v:2:y:1986:i:c:p:789-848 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Morten Balling & Ernest Gnan, 2013. "The development of financial markets and financial theory: 50 years of interaction," SUERF 50th Anniversary Volume Chapters, in: Morten Balling & Ernest Gnan (ed.), 50 Years of Money and Finance: Lessons and Challenges, chapter 5, pages 157-194, SUERF - The European Money and Finance Forum.
    16. Allen Kaufman & Ernie Englander, 2011. "Behavioral Economics, Federalism, and the Triumph of Stakeholder Theory," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 102(3), pages 421-438, September.
    17. Shoaib Khan & Yasushi Suzuki, 2016. "Ownership and Capital Structure of Pakistani Non Financial Firms," Financial Internet Quarterly (formerly e-Finanse), Sciendo, vol. 12(1), pages 57-67.
    18. Alexander Brink, 2010. "Enlightened Corporate Governance: Specific Investments by Employees as Legitimation for Residual Claims," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 93(4), pages 641-651, June.
    19. César Camisón & José Antonio Clemente & Sergio Camisón-Haba, 2022. "Asset tangibility, information asymmetries and intangibles as determinants of family firms leverage," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 16(7), pages 2047-2082, October.
    20. Henderson, James & Leleux, Benoit & White, Ian, 2006. "Service-for-equity arrangements: Untangling motives and conflicts," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 21(6), pages 886-909, November.
    21. Srinivasan Balakrishnan & Isaac Fox, 1993. "Abstract," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(1), pages 3-16, January.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rug:rugwps:03/175. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Nathalie Verhaeghe (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ferugbe.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.