Corporate Reputation Review Volume 1 Numbers 1 and 2

The Reputational Landscape

Charles Fombrun, NYU-Stern School of Business
Cees Van Riel, Erasmus University, The Netherlands

Welcome to the inaugural double issue of relations, customer relations, or employee

the Corporate Reputation Review. At a time relations. In their everyday life, each is
when disciplines are fragmenting into deeply involved in managing a company’s
ever-more specialized domains, we are reputational assets. Yet all too few can iden-
pleased to announce the creation of an tify and provide well-reasoned and defensible
integrative medium for research and prac- answers to questions about corporate reputation
tice about reputation management. Indeed, and reputational dynamics.
the primary purpose of the Review is to A key purpose of the Corporate Reputa-
provide a forum for research-based discus- tion Review, then, is to help remedy that
sions about corporate reputations. We lack. Through conceptual articles, empiri-
expect these conversations to reflect the cal research, case studies of best practice,
diversity of academic disciplines that are and occasional book reviews, we hope to
actively contributing to knowledge in this draw on the expertise of leading researchers
area, whether grounded in strategic man- and practitioners concerned with corporate
agement, organization theory, economics, identity and identification, the strategic
marketing, communications, accounting, management of stakeholders, corporate
or finance. As such, the Review will branding, the valuation of intangibles,
assemble emerging scholarship about an communication, crisis management, and
area that is proving to be of considerable the socioeconomic analysis of competition.
interest to scholars with widely divergent
orientations. In this way, we hope to
encourage a closer examination of corpo- CORPORATE REPUTATION: A
rate reputations and thereby stimulate the CROSSROADS OF CONVERGING
growth of knowledge about the complex DISCIPLINES
socially constructed environments in Although corporate reputations are ubiqui-
which companies operate. tous, they remain relatively understudied
We also intend the Corporate Reputation (Fombrun, 1996). In part, it is surely
Review to address the proliferating because reputations are seldom noticed
demands by practitioners for answers to until they are threatened. In part, however,
questions about how reputations affect it is also a problem of definition. Accord-
competitive positioning, about how to ing to the ‘American Heritage Dictionary’
examine and value corporate reputations, (1970: 600) ‘reputation’ is ‘the general esti-
about how to build, maintain, and defend mation in which one is held by the public’.
those reputations (Hall, 1992). Many pro- Yet how does such a definition apply to
fessionals have a vested interest in develop- companies? Who constitutes ‘the public’ of
ing answers to these questions, be they a company, and what is being ‘estimated’
chief executive officers or strategic plan- by that public? Given the diversity of audi-
ners, brand managers or identity specialists, ences companies address themselves to,
accountants or financiers, heads of public whose perceptions and judgments count
relations, community relations, investor the most? Those of investors, employees,

Page 5
The reputational landscape

financial analysts, communities, regulators, what a company is, what it does, what it
CEOs? stands for. These perceptions stabilize inter-
The lack of systematic attention to cor- actions between a firm and its publics.
porate reputations can be traced to the Signalling theorists concur: reputations
diversity of relevant academic and practi- derive from the prior resource allocations
tioner literatures that explore different managers make to first-order activities
facets of the construct (Fombrun and Rin- likely to create a perception of reliability
dova, 1996). We point here to six distinct and predictability to outside observers
literatures that are currently converging in (Myers and Majluf, 1984; Ross, 1977; Stig-
their emphasis on corporate reputations as ler, 1962). Since many features of a com-
key but relatively neglected features of pany and its products are hidden from
companies and their environments. view, reputations are information signals
that increase an observer’s confidence in
the firm’s products and services.
The economic view Naturally, then, managers can make stra-
Economists view reputations as either traits tegic use of a company’s reputation to
or signals. Game theorists describe reputa- signal its attractiveness. When the quality
tions as character traits that distinguish of a company’s products and services is not
among ‘types’ of firms and can explain directly observable, high-quality producers
their strategic behavior. Signalling theorists are said to invest in reputation-building in
call our attention to the informational con- order to signal their quality (Shapiro,
tent of reputations. Both acknowledge that 1983). Their prior investments in reputa-
reputations are actually perceptions of tion-building allow them to charge pre-
firms held by external observers. mium prices, and may also earn them rents
Weigelt and Camerer (1988: 443) point from the repeat purchases that their quality
out that ‘. . . in game theory the reputation products will generate. In contrast, low-
of a player is the perception others have of quality producers avoid investing in repu-
the player’s values . . . which determine his/ tation-building because they do not foresee
her choice of strategies’. Information asym- repeat purchases (Allen, 1984; Bagwell,
metry forces external observers to rely on 1992; Milgrom and Roberts, 1986).
proxies to describe the preferences of rivals In fact, similar dynamics may operate in
and their likely courses of action. Consu- the capital and labor markets. For instance,
mers rely on firms’ reputations because managers routinely try to signal investors
they have less information than managers about their economic performance. Since
do about firms’ commitment to delivering investors are more favorably disposed to
desirable product features like quality or companies that demonstrate high and
reliability (Grossman and Stiglitz, 1980; stable earnings, managers often try to
Stiglitz, 1989). Similarly, since outside smooth quarterly earnings and keep divi-
investors in firms’ securities are less dend pay-out ratios high and fixed, despite
informed than managers about firms’ earnings fluctuations (Brealy and Myers,
future actions, corporate reputations 1988). Sometimes companies pay a pre-
increase investor confidence that managers mium price to hire high-reputation audi-
will act in ways that are reputation-consis- tors and outside counsel. They rent the
tent. For game theorists, then, reputations reputations of their agents in order to
are functional: they generate perceptions signal investors, regulators, and other pub-
among employees, customers, investors, lics about their firm’s probity and credibil-
competitors, and the general public about ity (Wilson, 1985).

Page 6
 Fombrum and Van Riel

The strategic view The marketing view

To strategists, reputations are both assets In marketing research ‘reputation’ (often
and mobility barriers (Caves and Porter, labeled ‘brand image’) focuses on the
1977). Established reputations impede nature of information processing, resulting
mobility and produce returns to firms in ‘pictures in the heads’ (Lippmann, 1922)
because they are difficult to imitate. By cir- of external subjects, attributing cognitive
cumscribing firms’ actions and rivals’ reac- and affective meaning to cues received
tions, reputations are therefore a distinct about an object they were directly or indir-
element of industry-level structure (Fom- ectly confronted with. ‘Objects’ in market-
brun and Zajac, 1987). ing research are predominantly ‘products’
Reputations are difficult to duplicate (beer, detergents, computers), while consu-
because they derive from unique internal mers seem to be the principal ‘subject’ of
features of firms. By accumulating the analyses.
history of firms’ interactions with stake- According to the notions of the Ela-
holders they suggest to observers what boration Likelihood Model of Petty and
companies stand for (Freeman, 1984; Cacioppo (1986), information processing
Dutton and Dukerich, 1991). Reputations results in three layers of elaboration: high,
are also externally perceived, and so are medium and low. A high degree of ela-
largely outside the direct control of boration of information about an object
firms’ managers (Fombrun and Shanley, results in a complex network of meanings
1990). It takes time for a reputation to chunked in memory, enabling a subject to
coalesce in observers’ minds. Empirical give a sophisticated description of an
studies show that even when confronted object. A low degree of elaboration results
with negative information, observers in simple descriptions like ‘good/bad’ or
resist changing their reputational assess- ‘attractive/unattractive’. A medium degree
ments (Wartick, 1992). Therefore, reputa- of elaboration creates a set of attributes
tions are valuable intangible assets enabling a subject to describe an object in
because they are inertial (Cramer & terms of salient beliefs and evaluations
Ruefli, 1994). (Azjen and Fishbein, 1975; Poeisz, 1988).
Like economists, then, strategists call The degree of elaboration is a conse-
attention to the competitive benefits of quence of the existing knowledge of an
acquiring favorable reputations (Rindova individual, the level of involvement of the
and Fombrun, 1997). They implicitly sup- subject with the object, and the intensity
port a focus on the resource allocations and integrated nature of the marketing
that firms must make over time to erect communications (Schultz, Lauterbron and
reputational barriers to the mobility of Tannenbaum, 1994) through which a
rivals (Barney, 1986). Since primary company tries to create an attractive,
resource allocations also stand to improve desirable brand.
organizational performance directly, how- Building brand equity requires the crea-
ever, it proves difficult to isolate their tion of a familiar brand that has favorable,
unique impact on performance and reputa- strong and unique associations (Keller, 1993).
tion. This explains why empirical studies This can be done both through the initial
have had difficulty untangling a causal choice of the brand identity (the brand
ordering: both are produced by the same name, the logo) and through the integra-
underlying initiatives (McGuire, Sundgren, tion of brand identities into the supporting
and Schneeweiss, 1988; Chakravarthy, marketing program so that consumers pur-
1986). chase the product or service.

Page 7
The reputational landscape

Companies apply three types of brand- practices, as well as the kinds of relation-
ing strategies (Olins, 1978; Kotler, 1991): ships that managers establish with key sta-
individual names for all products without keholders. Corporate culture influences
any explicit mention of the company; all managers’ perceptions and motivations
products refer to the company, identifying (Barney, 1986; Dutton and Penner, 1992).
the company name on all products; or Corporate identity affects how managers
combining the company name with the both interpret and react to environmental
product brand names. Preferences for one circumstances (Meyer, 1982; Dutton and
of the three branding strategies has to be Dukerich, 1991). Shared cultural values
based on the similarity between the endor- and a strong sense of identity therefore
ser and the inferred product/service. Most guide managers, not only in defining what
marketing literature deals with an endorse- their firms stand for, but in justifying their
ment of one brand by another brand in the strategies for interacting with key stake-
same product category (image transfer by holders (Miles and Cameron, 1982; Porac
line extensions, Aaker and Keller, 1990; and Thomas, 1990).
Park, Milberg and Lawson, 1991), products Thick cultures homogenize perceptions
complementing each other (co-branding, inside a firm and so increase the likelihood
Rao and Ruekert, 1994) or linking organi- that managers will make more consistent
zational associations (eg social responsibility self-presentations to external observers. By
and financial performance) to product asso- creating focal principles, that is, general
ciations (Belch and Belch, 1987; Keller and understanding of the right way of doing
Aaker, 1994). An endorsement will be things in a firm, thick cultures contribute
more successful if consumers perceive simi- to the consistency of firms’ images with
larity between the core brand and its stakeholders (Camerer and Vepsalainen,
extension (Boush and Loken, 1991). 1988).
Umbrella branding (Kapferer, 1992; Identity and culture are related. Identity
Dawar, 1993) or more specific ‘corporate describes core, enduring, and distinctive
branding’ (all processes that are inclined to features of a firm that produce shared
enhance the value of the corporate brand, interpretations among managers about
Maathuis and Van Riel, 1996) will be how they should accommodate to external
more successful if the information asym- circumstances (Albert and Whetten, 1985).
metry between buyer and seller creates an For instance, a comparative study of Bay
incentive for service providers to capitalize Area hospitals showed how each institution
on a firm’s reputation and introduce new responded differently to a strike because of
services for existing customers (Nayyar, their distinct self-images (Meyer, 1982). A
1990); when consumers perceive a high case study of how the Port Authority
degree of risk acquiring the product/ser- coped with the problem of homelessness in
vice; and finally, when the endorser’s attri- New York demonstrated how an organiza-
butes are highly relevant in the context of tion’s self-image as a high-quality, first-
the intended processes of image transfer class institution played a central role in
(Keller, 1993; Brown and Dacin, 1997). constraining managers’ action to cope with
the problem (Dutton and Dukerich, 1991).
The organizational view These reports suggest that firms with
To organizational scholars, corporate repu- strong, coherent cultures and identities are
tations are rooted in the sense-making more likely to engage in systematic efforts
experiences of employees. A company’s to influence the perceptions of stakeholders.
culture and identity shape a firm’s business Managers in such firms will probably

Page 8
 Fombrum and Van Riel

attend carefully to how their firms’ key To sociologists, then, reputations are
audiences feel about them (Albert and indicators of legitimacy: they are aggregate
Whetten, 1985). assessments of firms’ performance relative
to expectations and norms in an institu-
The sociological view tional field. Sociologists point to the multi-
Most economic and strategic models ignore plicity of actors involved in the process of
the socio-cognitive process that actually constructing reputations and their intercon-
generates reputational rankings (Granovet- nectedness.
ter, 1985; White, 1981). In contrast, organi-
zational sociologists point out that rankings The accounting view
are social constructions that come into A vocal group of academic accountants has
being through the relationships that a focal recently acknowledged the insufficiency of
firm has with its stakeholders in a shared financial reporting standards in document-
institutional environment (Ashforth & ing the value of intangibles. They highlight
Gibbs, 1990). Firms have multiple evalua- the widening gap between factual earnings
tors, each of whom apply different criteria reported in annual statements and the
in assessing firms. However, these evalua- market valuations of companies. They also
tors interact within a common organiza- criticize accepted practice that requires
tional field and exchange information, managers to expense research and develop-
including information about firms’ actions ment (R&D) activities, advertising, and
relative to norms and expectations. Thus, training expenses—activities which strate-
corporate reputations come to represent gists recognize as critical enhancements of
aggregated assessments of firms’ institu- firms’ actual and perceptual resource posi-
tional prestige and describe the stratifica- tions (Scheutze, 1993; Lev and Sougiannis,
tion of the social system surrounding firms 1996). As Deng and Lev (1997: 2) suggest,
and industries (Shapiro, 1987; DiMaggio current accounting practice induces a mis-
and Powell, 1983). match in the allocation of costs to reven-
Faced with incomplete information ues, and so misleads observers about the
about firms’ actions, observers not only earning capabilities of firms and the true
interpret the signals that firms routinely value of their assets. In regards to the
broadcast, but also rely on the evaluative valuation of R&D, they conclude that
signals refracted by key intermediaries such ‘. . . hundreds of corporate executives, along
as market analysts, professional investors, with their auditors appear to be able to
and reporters. Intermediaries are actors in value R&D and technology in the devel-
an organizational field. They transmit and opment stage. This apparent inconsistency
refract information among firms and their between the current regulatory environ-
stakeholders (Abrahamson and Fombrun, ment which sanctions immediate expend-
1992). An empirical study of firms ing of R&D and a fast developing business
involved in nuclear-waste disposal and practice, obviously deserves a careful
photovoltaic cell development demon- examination . . .’
strated how in both these industries reputa- Instead, many accounting researchers are
tional status depended, not only on now calling for a broad-based effort to
structural factors like company size and develop better measures of how invest-
economic performance, but also on a firm’s ments in branding, training, and research
position in the interaction networks linking build important stocks of intangible assets
firms in each institutional field (Shrum and not presently recorded in financial state-
Wuthnow, 1988). ments—assets that, not coincidentally, are

Page 9
The reputational landscape

said by strategists to build higher reputa- filling social responsibilities (Etzioni,

tional assessments among observers (Rin- 1988; Lydenberg et al., 1986).
dova and Fombrun, 1997; Barney, 1986).
Appropriate capitalization of these expen- Consistent with these characteristics, we
ditures would better describe the value of a therefore propose the following definition
company’s investments in what are funda- (Fombrun and Rindova, 1996): A corporate
mentally reputation-building activities. reputation is a collective representation of a
firm’s past actions and results that describes the
Towards an integrative view firm’s ability to deliver valued outcomes to mul-
Jointly, these five academic literatures sug- tiple stakeholders. It gauges a firm’s relative
gest that reputations constitute subjective, standing both internally with employees and
collective assessments of the trustworthiness externally with its stakeholders, in both its
and reliability of firms, with the following competitive and institutional environments.
characteristics (Fombrun and Rindova,
1996). OUR DOMAIN . . . OUR CHARTER
The Corporate Reputation Review invites
— Reputations are derivative, second-order original research that explores the growing
characteristics of an industrial system convergence between these six academic
that crystallize the emergent status of literatures, between corporate reputation
firms in an organization field. and strategic positioning; corporate iden-
— Reputations are the external reflection tity, communications, and image; brand-
of a company’s internal identity—itself ing and profiling; valuation and
the outcome of sense-making by performance. In particular, we welcome
employees about the company’s role in rigorously conducted research, including
society. quantitative, qualitative, experimental, and
— Reputations develop from firms’ prior field studies.
resource allocations and histories and At heart, therefore, the Corporate Reputa-
constitute mobility barriers that constrain tion Review discourages contributions that
both firms’ own actions and rivals’ are exclusively focused on a narrow disci-
reactions. plinary perspective, whether from advertis-
— Reputations summarize assessments of ing, public relations, speech
past performance by diverse evaluators communication, journalism, media studies,
who assess firms’ ability and potential organizational analysis, or strategic man-
to satisfy diverse criteria. agement. These belong in appropriate spe-
— Reputations derive from multiple but cialized publications. Suitable articles
related images of firms among all of a should reveal authors’ familiarity and
firm’s stakeholders, and inform about understanding with complementary posi-
their overall attractiveness to employees, tions in relevant disciplines. For instance,
consumers, investors, and local commu- relevant articles might examine how repu-
nities. Simplifying the complex con- tations:
struct of performance helps observers
deal with the complexity of the mar- — evolve from employee communications
ketplace. through a process of organizational
— Reputations embody two fundamental identification;
dimensions of firms’ effectiveness: an — relate to a firm’s social responsibility
appraisal of firms’ economic performance, and its grassroots management activ-
and an appraisal of firms’ success in ful- ities;

Page 10
 Fombrum and Van Riel

— develop from consolidated approaches Stern School of Business at New York

to marketing, organization, and strat- University on January 17–18, 1997. The
egy; conference was sponsored by the Royal
— are orchestrated internally through joint Dutch/Shell group of companies, and
programs for managing investors, brought together a multi-disciplinary
employees, customers, analysts, and group of international scholars and practi-
regulators. tioners to discuss their research and experi-
ence in the area of reputation management.
The Corporate Reputation Review also We organized the presentations around
invites contributions from practitioners five themes.
that address the strategic development and
— How reputations develop
maintenance of corporate reputations.
— How valuable are reputations
Practitioners’ articles will be reviewed by
— How reputations affect corporate per-
the editors and by members of our Execu-
formance
tive Advisory Panel. Topics could include
— How reputations have other favorable
best practice in crisis management, media
and unfavorable consequences
relations, employee involvement programs,
— How reputations should be managed in
packaging and design, advertising cam-
good times and bad times
paigns, strategic reorientations, and their
implications for a company’s reputation. In this inaugural issue of the Corporate
Occasionally, the Review will also publish Reputation Review, we capture the essence
relevant book reviews that address impor- of the conceptual, empirical, and case-
tant topics related to reputational manage- based contributions made by conference
ment. participants during their stay in New
Ultimately, the Corporate Reputation York. In particular, we asked contributors
Review targets a core audience of aca- to abridge and revise their comments for
demics, client practitioners, journalists, and this issue, in the belief that the inaugural
management consultants interested in repu- issue would have greater impact if it pre-
tation management. The Review should sented a complete picture of the ‘reputa-
also be of considerable relevance to senior tional landscape’. In so doing, of course,
executives responsible for nurturing and we risk over-simplification: authors’ ideas
defending corporate reputations. In addi- are necessarily less fully articulated than
tion, likely to welcome the Review are pro- they would otherwise be in more extensive
fessionals whose everyday life revolves expositions. By encompassing the breadth
around building, maintaining, or defending of sessions in the conference, doubtless we
reputation, be they identified with strategic have distorted the individual ‘trees’ of the
management, investor relations, public reputational forest. We defend doing so
relations, marketing, advertising, employee here, however, because we believe the ben-
communications, or public affairs. efits of breadth outweigh the costs of depth
in this fragmented domain. The inaugural
THE CONFERENCE ON CORPORATE issue therefore clearly emphasizes our
REPUTATION, IMAGE, AND common agenda rather than our many dif-
COMPETITIVENESS—JANUARY 17–18, ferences.
1997 If all goes according to plan, researchers
To iniatiate dialogue and celebrate the and practitioners will have ample opportu-
launching of the Corporate Reputation nity to articulate more fully their evolving
Review, we organized a conference at the views in subsequent issues of the Corporate

Page 11
The reputational landscape

Reputation Review. As editors, we look for- mance’, Strategic Management Journal, 7: 437–458.
ward to helping authors develop their ideas Cramer, S. & Ruefli, T. (1994) ‘Corporate reputa-
tion dynamics: Reputation inertia, reputation risk,
into valuable contributions to knowledge and reputation prospect’, Paper presented at the
and understanding about corporate reputa- National Academy of Management Meetings,
tions. We embark on this challenging jour- Dallas.
ney full of hope and not a little trepidation Dawar, N. and Parker, P. (1994) ‘Marketing univer-
at the considerable responsibility it will sals: consumers’ use of brand name, price, physical
appearance, and retailer reputation as signals of
entail. We hope you will join us in this
product quality, Journal of Marketing, 58, 2, 81–95.
exciting endeavor. Deng, Z. & Lev, B. (1997) ‘Flash-Then-Flush: The
Valuation of Acquired R&D in Process’, New
York University, Stern School of Business,
REFERENCES Accounting Department Working Paper.
Aaker, D. and Keller, K.L. (1990), ‘Consumer DiMaggio, P.J. & Powell, W.W. (1983) ‘The iron
Evaluations of Brand Extensions’, Journal of cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and
Marketing, vol. 54, January, 27–41. collective rationality in organizational field’,
Abrahamson, E. & Fombrun, C. (1992) ‘Forging the American Sociological Review, 48: 147–160.
iron cage: . . .’ Journal of Management Studies. Dutton, J.E. & Dukerich, J.M. (1991) ‘Keeping an
Abrahamson, E. & Fombrun, C. (1992) ‘Macrocul- eye on the mirror: Image and identity in organiza-
tures: Determinants and Consequences’, Academy tional adaptation’, Academy of Management Journal,
of Management Review. 34: 517–554.
Albert, S. & Whetten, D. (1985) ‘Organizational Dutton, J. & Penner, W. (1992) ‘The importance of
identity’, in L.L. Cummings & B.M. Staw (Eds.), organizational identity for strategic agenda
Research in Organizational Behavior, vol. 7: 263– building’, in Johnson, G., and Hendry, J. (Eds.),
295. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. ‘Leadership strategic change, and the learning
Allen, F. (1984) ‘Reputation and product quality’, organization’.
Rand Journal of Economics, v. 15, 311–327. Etzioni, A. (1988) ‘The Moral Dimension’, NY: Free
Bagwell, K. (1992) ‘Pricing to signal product line Press.
quality’ Journal of Economics and Management Fombrun, C.J. (1996) ‘Reputation: Realizing Value
Strategy, 1, 151–174. from the Corporate Image’, Cambridge, MA:
Barney, J.B. (1986) ‘Organizational culture: Can it Harvard Business School Press.
be a source of sustained competitive advantage?’ Fishbein, M. & Azjen, I. (1975) ‘Belief, attitude,
Academy of Management Review, 11: 656–665. intention and behavior’, Addison-Wesley,
Belch, G.E. and Belch, M.A. (1987) ‘The Applica- Reading, Mass.
tion of an Expectancy Value Operationalization of Fombrun, C.J. & Rindova, V. (1996) ‘Who’s Tops
Function Theory to Examine Attitudes of Boycot- and Who Decides? The Social Construction of
ters and Non Boycotters of a Consumer Product’, Corporate Reputations’, New York University,
Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 14, 232–236. Stern School of Business, Working Paper.
Boush, D. and Loken, B. (1991) ‘A Process-Tracing Fombrun, C.J. & Shanley, M. (1990) ‘What’s in a
Study of Brand Extension Evaluation’, Journal of name? Reputation-building and corporate
Marketing, vol. 28, issue 1, 16–28. strategy’, Academy of Management Journal, 33: 233–
Brealy, R. and Myers, S. (1988) ‘Principles of 258.
Corporate Finance’, NY: McGraw-Hill. Fombrun, C.J. & Zajac, E.J. (1987) ‘Structural and
Brown, T.J. and Dacin, P.A. (1997) ‘The Company perceptual influences on intraindustry stratifica-
and the Product: Corporate Associations and tion’, Academy of Management Journal, 30: 33–50.
Consumer Product Responses’, Journal of Freeman, R.E. (1984) ‘Strategic management: a
Marketing, January, 1997, vol. 61, 68–84. stakeholder approach’, Boston, MA: Pitman Press.
Camerer, C. & Vepsalainen, A. (1988) ‘The Granovetter, M. (1985) ‘Economic action and social
economic efficiency of corporate culture’ Strategic structure: The problem of embeddedness’,
Management Journal 9: 115–126. American Journal of Sociology, 91: 481–510.
Caves, R.E. & Porter, M.E. (1977) ‘From entry Grossman, S. & Stiglitz, J. (1980) ‘On the impossi-
barriers to mobility barriers’, Quarterly Journal of bility of informationally efficient markets’,
Economics, 91: 421–434. American Economic Review 70: 393–408.
Chakravarthy, B. (1986) ‘Measuring strategic perfor- Hall, R. (1992) ‘The strategic analysis of intan-

Page 12
 Fombrum and Van Riel

gible resources’, Strategic Management Journal, 13: Routes to Attitude Change’, Springer Verlag,
135–144. New York.
Kapferer, J.N. (1992) ‘Strategic Brand Management’, Poeisz, T.B.C. (1988) ‘The Image Concept: its place
Kogan Page, London. in consumer psychology’, Journal of Economic
Keller, K.L. (1993) ‘Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Psychology, 10, 457–472.
Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity’, Journal Porac, J.F. & Thomas, H. (1990) ‘Taxonomic mental
of Marketing, vol. 57, January, 1–22. models in competitor definition’, Academy of
Klein, B. & Leffler, K. (1981) ‘The role of market Management Review, 15: 224–240.
forces in assuring contractual performance’, Journal Rao, A.R. and Ruekert, R.W. (1994) ‘Brand
of Political Economy, 89: 615–641. alliances as signals of product quality’, Sloan
Kotler, P. (1991) ‘Marketing Management: Analyses, Management Review, Fall, 87–97.
Planning and Control’, 8th ed. Englewood Cliffs, Rindova, V. & Frombrun, C.J. (1997) ‘Constructing
NJ, Prentice Hall. Competitive Advantage’, Strategic Management
Lev, B. & Sougiannis, T. (1996) ‘The capitalization, Journal, forthcoming.
amortization, and value-relevance of R&D’, Ross, S.A. (1977) ‘The determination of financial
Journal of Accounting and Economics, 21: 107–138. structure: The incentive-signalling approach’, Bell
Lippmann, W. (1922) ‘Public Opinion’, New York. Journal of Economics, 23–40.
Lydenberg, S.D., Marlin, A.T. & Strub, S.O. (1986) Scheutze, W. (1993) ‘What is an Asset?’ Accounting
‘Rating America’s corporate conscience’, Horizons, Vol. 7.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Schultz, D.E., Tannenbaum, S.I. and Lauterbron,
Maathuis, O.J.M. and Van Riel, C.B.M. (1996) ‘The R.F. (1994) ‘Integrated Marketing Communica-
Added Value of the Corporate Brand’, Manage- tion’, NTC Books, Chicago.
ment Report Series, Rotterdam School of Shapiro, C. (1983) Premiums for high-quality
Management, Rotterdam. products as returns to reputations’, Quarterly
McGuire, J.B., Sundgren, A. & Schneeweis, T. Journal of Economics, 98: 659–681.
(1988) ‘Corporate social responsibility and firm Shapiro, S.P. (1987) ‘The social control of imper-
financial performance’, Academy of Management sonal trust’, American Journal of Sociology, 93:
Journal, 31 (4): 854–872. 623–658.
Meyer, A. (1982) ‘Adapting to environmental jolts’, Shrum, W. & Wuthnow, R. (1988) ‘Reputational
Administrative Science Quarterly, 27: 515–537. status of organizations in technical systems’,
Miles, R. with Cameron, K. (1982) ‘Coffin Nails and American Journal of Sociology, 93: 882–912.
Corporate Strategies’, Englewood-Cliffs, NJ: Stigler, G.J. (1962) ‘Information in the labor market’,
Prentice-Hall. Journal of Political Economy, 1962, 70: 49–73.
Milgrom, P. & Roberts, J. (1986) ‘Relying on the Stiglitz, J.E. (1989) ‘Imperfect information in the
information of interested parties’, Rand Journal of product market’, in Schmalensee, R. & Willig, R.
Economics, 17: 18–32. (Eds.), ‘Handbook of Industrial Organization’,
Myers, S., & Majluf, N. (1984) ‘Corporate financing Chapter 13: 769–847, Amsterdam, Holland:
and investment decisions when firms have infor- North-Holland Press.
mation investors do not have’, Journal of Financial Wartick, S.L. (1992) ‘The relationship between
Economics, 13. intense media exposure and change in corporate
Nayar, P.R. (1990) ‘Information Asymetries: A reputation’, Business & Society, 31: 33–49.
Source of Competitive Advantage for Diversified Weigelt, K. & Camerer, C. (1988) ‘Reputation and
Firms, Strategic Management Journal, 11, 513–519. corporate strategy: A review of recent theory
Olins, W. (1978) ‘The Corporate Personality, and applications’, Strategic Management Journal 9:
Thames and Hudson, London. 443–454.
Park, C.W., Milberg, S. and Lawson, R. (1991) White, Harrison C. (1981) ‘Where do markets come
‘Evaluations of brand extensions: the role of from?’ American Journal of Sociology, 87: 517–547.
product feature similarity and brand concept Wilson, R. (1985) ‘Reputations in games and
consistency’, Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 2, markets’ in Roth, A.E. (Ed.), ‘Game-theoretic
185–193. models of bargaining’, Cambridge University
Petty, R.E. and Cacioppo, J.T. (1986) ‘Communica- Press.
tion and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral

Page 13
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.