730-738

7/27/2019 730-738

1/9

ijcrb.webs.com

INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS

COPY RIGHT 2013 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 730

MAY 2013VOL 5,NO 1

Developing an Alternative Measurement of Corporate Reputation within

the Malaysian Context

Dwi Sunu KantoUniversitas Trilogi

12760, Jakarta, Indonesia

Ernest Cyril de RunUniversiti Malaysia Sarawak

94300, Sarawak, Malaysia

Abu Hassan bin Md IsaUniversiti Malaysia Sarawak

94300, Sarawak, Malaysia

Abstract

The measurement of corporate reputation is a growing issue for practitioners and academics. The corporate

reputation measurement literature concentrates on the United States and European countries. There is an obvious

lack of studies especially on the development of corporate reputation measurement in Malaysia. While interest

in the development of corporate reputation measurement has gained momentum in the last thirteen years, a

precise commonly agreed upon the measurement is still unclear. Therefore, this paper set out to develop a

conceptual model for developing an alternative measurement of corporate reputation within the Malaysian

context. Literature review, conceptual model, hypotheses development and research methodology are discussed.

These will allow companies in Malaysia to develop a new measurement of corporate reputation.

Keywords: Corporate Reputation Measurement, Malaysian Context, Conceptual Model.

7/27/2019 730-738

2/9

ijcrb.webs.com



MAY 2013VOL 5,NO 1

1. IntroductionThe identification of drivers of sustainable competitive advantages has gained momentum in the

increasing competition in a globalized economy (Schwaiger, 2004). The widespread search for these

drivers is no longer limited to tangibles, but also arrived at the field of intangibles. This fact is rather

surprising, since related surveys show that in the United States most executives consider corporate

reputation to be one of the most substantial drivers of firms success (Dunbar & Schwalbach, 2001;Hall, 1992).

Corporate reputation is vitally important. The importance of corporate reputation as one of intangible

assets has grown rapidly within the last two decades. A favorable corporate reputation can lead to

numerous strategic benefits to a company, such as creating market entry barriers (Deephouse, 2000;

Fombrun, 1996; Milgrom & Roberts, 1982), fostering customer retention (Fombrun, 1996; Fombrun &

Pan, 2006), and strengthening competitive advantages (Barney, 1991; Roberts & Dowling, 1997).

Creating and exploiting corporate reputation allows companies to drive markets, rather than to bemarket driven (Schwaiger, 2004). At the present time, there is no general agreement on the

measurement of corporate reputation. However, its condition is generally acknowledged by many

researchers in the area of corporate reputation measurement (Brady, 2003; Craven et al., 2003;

Schwaiger, 2004; Fombrun et al., 2000; Gabbioneta et al., 2007; Gardberg, 2006; Groenland, 2002;

Helm, 2005).

A practical measurement of corporate reputation would welcome by the Malaysian businesses and

academics. They will use it in numerous ways. To Malaysian companies, the measurement would

provide information on how to make them improved able to discharge their duties (Goldsmith, 2004).

Therefore, this paper set out to review the literature of corporate reputation measurement, develop a

conceptual model for developing an alternative measurement of corporate reputation, hypotheses

development and research methodology. The rest of this paper is organized as follows: Section 2

reviews related literature on corporate reputation measurement, Section 3 discusses the conceptual

model, and the hypotheses development is given in the Section 4. Section 5 describes the methodology

used and Section 6 is the conclusion of this paper.

2. Literature ReviewAn examination of the pertinent literature on the advantage of corporate reputation indicates that

companies with bad reputation require a long time to obtain gains (Roberts & Dowling, 1997; Vergin

& Qoronfleh, 1998). On the contrary, companies with good reputation are thought to be trusted by

stakeholders and it only requires relatively a shorter time to obtain gains because of the competitive

advantage and higher output of such companies (Roberts & Dowling, 1997). They are also thought tohave good market performance (Joneset al., 2000; Srivastavaet al., 1997). Despite this evidence on

the positive effect of good corporate reputation on companys performance, it is important to know a

fundamental question: In the Malaysian context, what are the measurements that make up a good

corporate reputation? It seems clear that without knowing measurements of corporate reputation,

academics and practitioners cannot effectively or efficiently advance research on corporate reputation

in Malaysia.

Previous studies on corporate reputation had been conducted by using affective (Fombrun, 1996),cognitive (Gray & Ballmer, 1998), a combination of cognitive and affective components (Hall, 1992;

Schwaiger, 2004), and others have used perception approach (Larkin, 2003). Studies on the

measurement of corporate reputation are mainly conducted in developed countries such as the United

Kingdom (Chunget al., 1999), United States (Brady, 2003; Craven et al., 2003; Fombrun et al., 2000,

Gardberg, 2006), Germany (Dunbar & Schwalbach, 2000; Helm, 2005; Schwaiger, 2004), Netherlands

(Groenland, 2002), and Italy (Gabbionetta et al., 2007). There is no study on corporate reputation that

develops its measurement within the Malaysia context.

A review of existing models of corporate reputation measurement reveals a relatively small number ofwidely used models. The most prominent one seems to be variations of Fortunes America Most

Admired Companies (AMAC) from the practical side and the Reputation Quotient (RQ) from the

academics side (Fombrun & Van Riel, 2004; Fombrun, 1996). Also popular, but to a lesser extent

models such as the Corporate Personality (Davies et al., 2003) and the Stakeholder PerformanceIndicator and Relationship Improvement Tool (SPIRIT) (MacMillan et al., 2004). These models

7/27/2019 730-738

3/9

ijcrb.webs.com



MAY 2013VOL 5,NO 1

differed considerably in terms of their underlying approach, the stakeholder they surveyed, and what

they measured (Mahon, 2002).

The Reputation Quotient (RQ) as the most popular in academic approach can be applied to obtain data

on companys reputation from the point of views of the multiple stakeholders. Although, in practice,

survey with the normative, functional, customers, and diffused groups of stakeholders have been the

main focus of research. The RQ model measures perceptions of an organization in terms of socialexpectations of six dimensions such as products and services, emotional appeal, vision and leadership,

financial performance, workplace environment, and social responsibility (Fombrunet al., 2000).

The RQ has been tested within a cross-cultural setting among countries within the United States,

Europe, and Australia (Gardberg, 2006). It also has been validated in the Netherlands (Groenland,

2002). Nonetheless, the applicability of the RQ remains questionable in the Eastern societies. However,

the possibilities that these differences may stem from the Eastern societies were less explored, even in

Malaysia, such differences were never explored, thus leaving a significant contextual gap in theexisting literature. This requires an empirical investigation within the Malaysia context. Therefore, as

an initial approach this paper use six dimensions/factors of the RQ by Fombrun et al. (2000) to develop

an alternative measurement of corporate reputation within the Malaysian context.

There were a variety of measures used to assess corporate reputation. In western societies, thedimensions/factors of corporate reputation showed that they differ by nations (Chung et al., 1999;Fombrun et al., 2000; Gabbioneta et al., 2007; Groenland, 2002; Schwaiger, 2004). Although a cross-

cultural study has shown that the Reputation Quotient (RQ) was used as a supporting scale for

corporate reputation among countries in United States, Europe, and Australia (Gardberg, 2006),

however, there is no reliable evidence that the Reputation Quotient (RQ) is suitable for Malaysia. This

leaves a significant gap, not only contextually but also conceptually. Therefore, this would require an

empirical investigation on the dimensions/factors of corporate reputation that would be suitable for

Malaysia companies.

3. Conceptual Model

The general objective of this paper is to develop an alternative measurement of corporate reputationthat suitable for Malaysia companies. The general research objective is further broken down into

specific objectives. With regards to this main objective, this paper has to set out a conceptual model to:

(1) Identify the factors of corporate reputation, (2) Validate the Corporate Reputation (CR) model

resulting from this paper as an alternative measurement of corporate reputation, (3) Evaluate the

existing Reputation Quotient (RQ) model, and (4) Compare the CR model and the RQ model.

The first objective of this paper is to identify factors of corporate reputation that reflect corporate

reputation within the Malaysian context. Stakeholders attitude towards the corporation is manifested in

the six factors/dimensions of the Reputation Quotient (RQ) construct presented by Fombrun et al.

(2000), namely: emotional appeal, products and services, vision and leadership, financial performance,

social and environmental responsibility, and workplace environment; and other factors resulting from aqualitative study. A qualitative study through in-depth interviews is used in this paper in order to

capture the Malaysian view of the factors of corporate reputation that may not be included in the sixfactors/dimensions of the RQ. The factors of corporate reputation are presented in Figure 1.

The first, and the most important, step in this investigation of corporate reputation is to empirically

determine the factors of corporate reputation. To obtain the reliable measures of the factors of

corporate reputation, conventional practices from the descriptive aspect of the stakeholder theory are

applied to measure the factors of corporate reputation. The descriptive stakeholder theory refers to the

managements consideration of the different stakeholder groups when making a decision (Donaldson &

Preston, 1995; Freeman et al., 2010). Although some studies apply a variant of this theory to the

stakeholder management (Baumhart, 1968; Brenner & Molander, 1997; Clarkson, 1991; Halal, 1990;Posner & Schmidt, 1984), there were less studies on corporate reputation that systematically apply the

descriptive stakeholder theory to link it to corporate reputation (Freeman et al., 2010, Shamma, 2007).

Figure 1 depicts the descriptive aspect of the stakeholder theory (all arrows from corporate reputation

to their factors). This figure directs the scale development for each of the constructs/concepts andexamines their interrelationships.

7/27/2019 730-738

4/9

ijcrb.webs.com



MAY 2013VOL 5,NO 1

The second, third and fourth specific objectives are to validate the corporate reputation (CR) model,

evaluate the existing Reputation Quotient (RQ) model (Fombrun et al.,2000), and compare the CR

model with the RQ model. The best result from this paper is used as an alternative measurement of

corporate reputation within the Malaysian context.

To accomplish these objectives, a range of aspects of the factors of corporate reputation resulting from

qualitative study and combined with the six dimensions/factors of corporate reputation as presented inFigure 1 are subjected to empirical tests.

4. Hypotheses Development4.1 Hypotheses Developed for Corporate Reputati on Factors

The hypotheses in this area aim to test how the proposed factors of corporate reputation relate to the

corporate reputation itself. These hypotheses are developed to answer the first objective. Previous

studies have shown that the six dimensions/factors of corporate reputation, which are emotional

appeal, products and services, financial performance, vision and leadership, workplace environment,

and social and environmental responsibility; is positively related to corporate reputation (Fombrun et

al., 2000). Nevertheless, it is also widely held that those six factors have been cross-culturally testedamong countries in the United States, Europe, and Australia (Gardberg, 2006). Based on the results of

the qualitative study, in addition to the aforementioned factors, this thesis also tests other factors

proposed from the exploratory qualitative research (Study 1). In line with past researches and the result

of the qualitative study, this thesis hypothesizes the following 7 (seven) or more proposed factorsoffered for the hypotheses testing:

H1a: Corporate reputation will be reflected by Emotional Appeal.

H1b: Corporate reputation will be reflected by Products and Services.

H1c: Corporate reputation will be reflected by Vision and Leadership.

H1d: Corporate reputation will be reflected by Financial Position and Performance.

H1e: Corporate reputation will be reflected by Workplace Environment.

H1f: Corporate reputation will be reflected by Social and Environmental Responsibility.

H1g: Corporate reputation will be reflected by Other Factor(s).

Corporate

Reputation

Products and

Services

Emotional

Appeal

Financial

Perforrmance

Vision and

LeadershipWorkplace

Environment

Social

Responsibility

Others *

Fi ure 1: The Conce tual Model of Cor orate

Source:Adapted from Fombrun et al.

* determined later by qualitative research through in-depth interviews

7/27/2019 730-738

5/9

ijcrb.webs.com



MAY 2013VOL 5,NO 1

4.2 Hypothesis Developed for Vali dating the Corporate Reputation (CR) M odel

This hypothesis is developed to answer the second objective. Past researches provide various models

for measuring corporate reputation (Chung et al., 1999; Fombrun et al., 2000; Gabbioneta et al., 2007;

Groenland, 2002; Schwaiger, 2004). Their results empirically showed that the dimensions/factors of

corporate reputation differ by nations. Nevertheless, it is also widely held that in the Malaysia context

there may be different factors of corporate reputation. Based on the results of this qualitative study,and combined with the quantitative study, it is possible to develop a new measurement of corporate

reputation, namely the corporate reputation (CR) model. As a result, the CR model is offered to test itsvalidity. Therefore, supported by results from the qualitative studies and the theory and past empirical

research, the following research hypothesis is offered:

H2: The Corporate Reputation (CR) model will fulfill all the criteria of validity for the measurement

model of corporate reputation

4.3 Hypothesis Developed for Evaluati ng the Reputati on Quotient (RQ) Model

This hypothesis is developed to answer objective number 3. Prior studies in the United States had

validated the Reputation Quotient (RQ) model for measuring corporate reputation (Fombrun et al.,

2000). The RQ develops a companys rating among competitors based on 20 (twenty) attributes

comprising of the six dimensions/factors of corporate reputation, which are emotional appeal, productsand services, financial performance, vision and leadership, workplace environment, and social andenvironmental responsibility (Fombrun et al., 2000). Though the six factors have been cross-culturally

tested among countries in United States, Europe, and Australia (Gardberg, 2006), no studies have been

done in Malaysia to confirm this RQ. Therefore, supported by the theory and past empirical research,

the following research hypothesis is offered:

H3: The Reputation Quotient (RQ) Model will fulfill all the criteria of validity for the measurement

model of corporate reputation.

4.4 Hypothesis Developed for the Compari son between the Corporate Reputati on (CR) Model and

the Reputation Quoti ent (RQ) Model

This hypothesis is developed to answer objective number 4. Two competing models were tested to findthe best representative model of corporate reputation for the Malaysia context. Both models and their

measurements were based on relevant literatures. The first model, the Reputation Quotient (RQ)

model, was based on the Fombruns et al. (2000) instruments and has been cross-culturally tested

among countries in the United States, Europe, and Australia (Gardberg, 2006). The second model, the

Corporate Reputation (CR) model was based on the themes that emerged from the interviews

combined with the Fombruns et al.(2000) instruments. Therefore, supported by the theory and past

empirical research, the following research hypothesis is offered to test both models:

H4: The Corporate Reputation (CR) Model will have a better goodness of fit than the Reputation

Quotient (RQ) Model

5. MethodologyTo develop a better measures of corporate reputation, a multistage process advocated by Churchill

(1979) that includes the following sequential steps of inquiry: (1) explicate the domain of theconstructs, (2) purify the measures, (3) assess its reliability, and (4) assess its validity. This process is

built on reliability and validity (Churchill, 1979; Peter & Churchill, 1986). Thus, the procedures are

incorporated into each study to enhance the reliability and generalizability of the resulting measures

(Miyamoto & Iwasaki, 2005). In addition, the analytical procedures deemed most appropriate at each

stages of scale development are applied to the data (Churchill, 1979; Gerbing & Anderson, 1988).

However measures of the corporate reputation are adapted in accordance to the methodologies

accepted in the academic practices and topic of this research. The existing literature therefore provides

a clear guidance of both the processes and the tools necessary to complete the process. Table 1

summarizes the research plan and outlines the goals at each stage of the research.

7/27/2019 730-738

6/9

ijcrb.webs.com



MAY 2013VOL 5,NO 1

Table 1: Overview of Research Plan

Research Stage Research Objectives Analysis Sample

Study 1

(Preliminary

Investigations)

Qualitative Study

Identify the factors of

corporate reputation

In-depth interviews,

transcribing, coding

and summarizing

Malaysian working

individuals in

Kuala Lumpur and

Kuching who are

identified as bankstakeholders with a

university degree

and at least 25

years of age

Study 2

ExploratoryQuantitative

Research

Reduce the pools of itemsobtained from the

preliminary results to identify

the factors of corporate

reputation (CR)

Exploratory FactorAnalysis (EFA)

Malaysia Bankingstakeholders in

Kuala Lumpur and

Kuching who are at

least 25 years of

age

Study 3

(Main Study)

ConfirmatoryQuantitative

Research

Purify the scale for the

factors of corporate

reputation and assess itsdimensionality

Compare between the

Corporate Reputation (CR)

model obtained from this

study to the existing

Reputation Quotient (RQ)

model

Confirmatory

Factor Analysis

(CFA)Confirmatory

Factor Analysis

(CFA)

Malaysia Banking

stakeholders in

Kuala Lumpur andsurrounding areas

who are at least 25

years of age

Study 1 the qualitative research and preliminary investigations are exploratory endeavors conducted to

establish the original results of the corporate reputation factors derived from in-depth interview that

will be tested in the official scale development process. In Study 1, as the first stage, there is a requiredto conduct an exploratory qualitative study to apply the RQ model in assessing whether Malaysian

stakeholders agree or not to all of the RQ factors, and to explore are there any other factors beside thesix factors of the RQ which form the corporate reputation. This will allows identifying other

dimensions or factors of corporate reputation.

Study 1 proposes the uses of in-depth interviews as an exploratory qualitative approach. As stated by

McCracken (1988:7), in-depth interviews call for special kinds of preparation and structure, includingthe use of an open-ended questionnaire, so that the investigator can maximize the value of time spent

with the respondent. This paper also proposes the uses semi structured questionnaire with contains

two main questions: (a) In your belief, what are the factors that make up a good corporate

reputation?, and (b) In the Malaysian context, are there any other corporate reputation factors besides

the six factors mentioned earlier?. Also, some questions probing related to the issue at hand is also

implemented to allow detailed discussions of the topic (Goldsmith, 2004). The respondents will first

briefed on the six factors of corporate reputation (RQ) that were introduced by Fombrun et al.(2000)

before asking the second question.

This qualitative study uses a convenience sampling technique with established criteria for individual

participant selection for every stakeholder group. There are four stakeholder groups: customer group,functional group, normative group, and diffused group (Dowling, 1994). The respondents in the age

category of 25 years or more and have possess tertiary education have been identified as sampling

targets according to their stakeholder groups. A total of 36 respondents are suggested, nine will

selected from every stakeholder group (Dowling, 1994; Perry, 1998; Schumann et al., 1991).

All data are then recorded and transcribed. This extract of interview transcript is labeled to codes(Berg, 2004) and categories (Zikmund et al, 2010). The corporate reputation factors within the

Malaysian context will be developed by summarizing the interview findings. A questionnaire will be

7/27/2019 730-738

7/9

ijcrb.webs.com



MAY 2013VOL 5,NO 1

developed based on the findings from the factors of corporate reputation. This will followed by an

exploratory quantitative study (Study2).

Study 2 focuses on refining the scale items and the most fundamental stage in the scale development

process. When the goal is to determine and describe the factors of corporate reputation, an exploratory

factor analysis is a useful technique to apply (Dowling, 1988). Based on the conceptualization of the

indicators and factors of corporate reputation, and the result from the preliminary investigations, a

model of the factors is fitted using the exploratory factor analysis. The exploratory factor analysis

reduces the pool of the scale items to those attributes suggestive of the unique indicators and factors ofcorporate reputation. These factors are then subjected to statistical and reliability tests, such as the

Cronbach alpha and the item-to-total correlation. Sample of the Study 2 will be taken from Malaysian

working individuals in Kuala Lumpur (West Malaysia) and Kuching (East Malaysia). The respondents

should be working individuals who are identified as bank stakeholders with at least 25 years of age.

Study 3 further purifies the scale of the factors of corporate reputation and assesses its dimensionality.The results from the qualitative study (study 1) and study 2 are used to reduce the number of scale

items and to modify the survey instruments accordingly. The confirmatory factor analysis provides a

more rigorous test and interpretation of the underlying data structure and is performed to verify the

dimensionality of the factors of corporate reputation. The result from this stage is known as the

corporate reputation (CR) model. Also, Study 3 are to validate the corporate reputation (CR) model,

evaluate the existing Reputation Quotient (RQ) model (Fombrun et al.,2000), and compare the CR

model with the RQ model. The goodness of fit indexes from the confirmatory factor analysis for these

two models is employed here. The same sample respondents criteria with Study 2 will be used for this

main study.

6. ConclusionIn the Western societies, the widespread visibility given to the topic by the periodic publications of

corporate reputation ratings and academic literature, it is doubtful that anyone today would argue that

corporate reputation is not important to the firm. In the Eastern societies, where is no periodic

publications of corporate reputation ratings and academic literature, knowing corporate reputation

measurement are immense by both practitioners and academics. Without knowing corporate reputationmeasurement scales, however, it is difficult to move forward in this field of study and make meaningful

contributions theoretically. Although the existing Reputation Quotient (RQ) was used as a supporting

scale for corporate reputation among countries in United States, Europe, and Australia (Fombrun et al.,

2000; Gardberg, 2006), however, there is no reliable evidence that the Reputation Quotient (RQ) is

suitable for Malaysia. This paper has set out to propose a conceptual model for developing an

alternative measurement of corporate reputation within the Malaysian context. This paper also set out

to validate the Corporate Reputation (CR) model as an alternative measurement of corporate

reputation, evaluate the existing RQ model, and compare the CR model and the RQ model. This paper

has discussed literature review on corporate reputation measurement, conceptual model of corporate

reputation, hypotheses development, and methodology. Practicing this paper instantly will allow

Malaysian companies to develop an alternative of corporate reputation by themselves. It is a good startto help Malaysian companies to identify the corporate reputation factors/dimensions and to move

forward in corporate reputation measurement studies in Malaysia.

7/27/2019 730-738

8/9

ijcrb.webs.com



MAY 2013VOL 5,NO 1

References

Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of

Management, 17: 99-120.

Baumhart, R. (1968). An Honest Profit What Businessmen Say about Ethics in Business. New York:

Holt, Reinhart & Winston.Berg, B. L. (2004). Qualitative research methods for social sciences(5

theds.). Boston: Pearson.

Brady, A. K. (2003). How to generate sustainable brand value from responsibility. Journal of Brand

Management, 10(4/5): 279-289.

Brenner, S. N. & Molander, E. A. (1977). Is the ethics of business changing? Harvard Business

Review, 58(1): 54-65.

Chung, S. Y., Schneeweis, T., & Eneroth, K. (1999). Corporate reputation and investment

performance:The UK and UK expertise. SSRN Electronic Paper Collection.Churchill, G. A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal

of Marketing Research, 16(1): 64-73.

Clarkson, M. B. E. (1991). Defining, evaluating, and managing corporate social performance: A

stakeholder management model. In Research in corporate social performance and policy (J.

E. Post, ed.), p.331-358. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Cravens, K., Oliver, E. G., & Ramamoorti, S. (2003). The reputation index: Measuring and managingcorporate reputation.European Journal of Management, 21(2): 201-212.

Davies, G., Chun, R., Da Silva, R. V., Roper, S. (2003). Corporate Reputation and Competitiveness,

New York: Routledge.

Deephouse, D. L. (2000). Media reputation as a strategic resource: An integration of mass

communication and resource-based theories,Journal of Management, 26(6): 10911112.

Donaldson, T. & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: concepts, evidence,

and implications,Academy of Management Journal, 20(1): 65-91.

Dowling, G. R. (1988). Measuring Corporate Images: A Review of Alternative Approaches. Journal of

Business Research, 17: 27-34.

Dowling, G. R. (1994). Corporate reputations: Strategies for developing the corporate brand.

Melbourne: Longman Professional Publishing.

Dunbar, R. L. M., & Schwalbach, J. (2000). Corporate reputation and performance in Germany.

Corporate Reputation Review, 3(2), 115-123.Fombrun, C. J. (1996). Reputation: Realizing Value from the Corporate Image. Boston, MA: Harvard

Business School Press.

Fombrun, C. J., Gardberg, N. A., Sever, J. M. (2000). The Reputation QuotientSM

: A multi-stakeholder

measure of corporate reputation. TheJournal of Brand management, 7(4): 241-255.Fombrun, C. J. & Pan, M. (2006). Corporate reputations in China: How do consumers feel about

companies? Corporate Reputation Review,91(3), 165-170.

Fombrun, C. J. & Van Riel, C. B. M. (2004). Fame and Fortune: How Successful Companies Build

Winning Reputation, New Jersey: Pearson Education.

Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Parmar, B., & De Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder Theory:

The state of art. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Gabbioneta, C., Ravasi, D. & Mazzola, P. (2007). Exploring the drivers of corporate reputation: A

study of Italian securities analyst. Corporate Reputation Review, 10(2): 99-123.

Gardberg, N. A. (2006). Reputatie, Reputation, Rputation, Reputazione, Ruf: A Cross-CulturalQualitative Analysis of Construct and Instrument Equivalence, Corporate Reputation Review,

9(1): 39-61.

Gerbing, D. W. & Anderson, J. C. (1988). An updated paradigm for scale development incorporating

unidimensionality and its assessment.Journal of Marketing Research, 25: 186-192.

Goldsmith, P. (2004). Would businesses and stakeholders in the UK welcome the measurement and

ranking of corporate reputations?Paper presented at the 8th

Annual Research Conference on

Corporate Reputation, and Identity, 20-23 May 2004, Fort Lauderdale, FL.

Gray, E. R. & Balmer, J. M. T. (1998). Managing corporate image and corporate reputation. LongRange Planning, 31: 695-702.

Groenland, E.A.G. (2002). Qualitative research to validate the RQ-dimensions. Corporate Reputation

Review, 4(4): 309-315.

Halal, W. E. (1990). The new management: Business and social institutions in the information age.

Business in the Contemporary World, 2(2): 41-54.

7/27/2019 730-738

9/9

ijcrb.webs.com



MAY 2013VOL 5,NO 1

Hall, R. (1992). The strategic analysis of intangible resources. Strategic management Journal, 13,135-

144.

Helm, S. (2005). Designing a formative measure for corporate reputation. Corporate Reputation

Review, 8(2): 95-109.

Jones, G., Jones, B., & Little, P. (2000). Reputation as a reservoir: Buffering against loss in times of

economic crisis. Corporate Reputation Review, 3(1): 21-29.

Larkin, J. (2003). Strategic reputation management. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.MacMillan, K., Money, K., Downing, S., and Hillenbrand, c. (2004). Giving your organization SPIRIT:

An overview and call to action for directors on issues of corporate governance, corporatereputation and corporate responsibility.Journal of General Management, 30(2), 15-42.

Mahon, J. F. (2002). Corporate reputation: A research agenda using strategy and stakeholder literature.

Business & Society, 41(4): 415-446.

McCracken, G. (1988). The long interview, Qualitative research methods, Sage Publication Inc.,13, 7.

Milgrom, P. & Roberts, J. (1982). Predation, reputation and entry deterrence. Journal of Economic

Theory, 27: 280-312.Miyamoto, T. & Iwasaki, K. (2005).Development of a standard convention city attractiveness scale: In

search of generalizability in construct validity through simultaneous EFA and multi-group

CFA with five sample data sets. Paper presented at the ANZMAC Conference 2005, 4-6

December 2005, Perth, Australia.

Perry, C. (1998). Processes of a case study methodology for postgraduate research in marketing.European Journal of Marketing, 32(9/10): 785-802.

Peter, P. J. & Churchill, G. A. (1986). Relationships among Research Design Choices and

Psychometric Properties of Rating Scales: A Meta Analysis. Journal of Marketing Research,

23 (Pebruary): 1-10.

Posner, B. Z. & Schmidt, W. H.(1984). Values and the American manager. California Management

Review, 26(3): 202-216.

Roberts, P. W., & Dowling, G. R. (1997). The value of a firm's corporate reputation: How reputation

helps attain and sustain superior profitability. Corporate Reputation Review, 1(1-2), 72-76.

Schumann, D., Hatchcote, J., & West, S. (1991). Corporate advertising in America: A review of

published studies on use, measurement, and effectiveness. Journal of Advertising,

20(September): 35-56.

Schwaiger, M. (2004). Component and parameter of corporate reputation: An empirical study.

Schmalenbach Business Review, 56, 46-71.Shamma, H. M. (2007). A stakeholder perspective for examining corporate reputation: An empirical

study of the US wireless telecommunication industry . Unpublished PhD Dissertation: School

of Business, the George Washington University.

Srivastava, R. K., McIrish, T. H., Wood, R. A., & Capraro, A. J. (1997). The value of corporate

reputation: Evidence from equity markets. Corporate Reputation Review, 1(1-2): 62-68.Vergin, R. C. & Qoronfleh, M. W. (1998). Corporate reputation and the stock market. Business

Horizons, 41(1): 19-26.

Zikmund, W. G., Babin, B. J., Carr, J. C., & Griffin, M. (2010). Business Research Methods (8th

ed.).

South-Western: Cengage Learning.

730-738

Documents