URGENT!!!Summarize the following article into 5 pages(APA  style). Please emphasize on perceptions(perceptual context), beliefs, perspectives, antecedents and consequences. I mean: cover the whole article and its ideas but with more focus on the above mentioned areas.

Journal of General Management Vol. 32 No. 1 Autumn 2006 1

Using Reputation measurement
to create value: An analysis
and integration of existing
measures
Kevin Money

Director of the John Madejski Centre for Reputation and School of Reputation and
Relationships, Henley Management College, United Kingdom

Carola Hillenbrand

Research Fellow, School of Reputation and Relationships, Henley Management College,
United Kingdom

A large body of academic literature is concerned with the conceptualisation and measurement
of Corporate Reputation. However, it is not clear how di�erent conceptualisations interact,
complement or con¯ict with each other. Moreover, the theoretical rigour of individual models
of Reputation is not always clear. In recent years, there has been a call for a theoretical
development to provide a framework that can be used to identify the scope and potential utility
of di�erent Reputation measures.

This paper answers this call by providing a theoretical framework that integrates literature
analysing Reputation as a concept that resides in individuals’ perceptions, cognitions and actions
towards an organisation with literature that places Reputation as a key part of the strategic
thinking of an organisation. Existing measures of Reputation are then placed within this
theoretical framework and discussed at both the perceptual and strategic level. The results
show that di�erent measures seem complementary and based upon similar conceptual assump-
tions. The framework allows organisations to understand the utility of di�erent Reputation
measures and provides an approach by which reputation can be managed to create value.

Introduction

Corporate Reputation has been the focus of much academic research (e.g.
Logsdon and Wood, 2002). In recent years, there has been increasing evidence
of the value of the concept to both practitioners and scholars alike (Fombrun
and van Riel, 2004; Bromley, 2002). As a result, more e�ort has been placed
into the measurement of Reputation and at the same time more and more
models of Reputation measurement have emerged (e.g. Schwaiger, 2004;
Wartick, 2002; Caruana and Chircop, 2000). While this growth has been seen
as advancement, there have been words of caution (e.g. Mahon, 2002;
Lewellyn, 2002). From an academic perspective Wiedmann (2005), for
example, calls for a framework that could integrate these disparate studies

1±12

Kevin Money and Carola Hillenbrand

2 Journal of General Management Vol. 32 No. 1 Autumn 2006

so that a meaningful research agenda could be developed. The need for
integration is just as pressing in the practitioner world (e.g. Waddock, 2003;
Bennett and Kottasz, 2000).

How can companies know which Reputation measures they should use in
which circumstances? And which types of decisions can they make based upon
these di�erent measures? What is the aim and value of these di�erent models,
and what can one model o�er over another one? And how can companies use
Reputation models to answer strategic questions? In short, there is a growing
body of opinion that states that what is needed is not another set of Reputation
measures, but rather an understanding of the utility of the current measures
and how to use these in the pursuit of the strategic objectives of the ®rm.

Placing Reputation within a theoretical framework

Reputation is often seen as a key intangible asset of a ®rm that helps to create
value (Zabala et al., 2005; Roberts and Dowling, 2002). In order to understand
the development and value of Reputation for a business, it has been suggested
that reputation should be understood in the context of its antecedents and
consequences (Walsh and Wiedmann, 2004). This sequence is shown graphic-
ally below in Figure 1.

This basic theoretical chain is particularly useful, as it places Reputation
within a framework that seeks to understand the origins or antecedents of
Reputation, in other words what can be done to develop a good Reputation, as
well as consequences of Reputation, that is the value of Reputation. It is only
by understanding antecedents and consequences of Reputation that a business
can actively build intangible assets and create value. This basic framework will
now be explored in a strategic context from the perspective of business and in a
perceptual context from the perspective of individuals.

Reputation in a strategic context

At a strategic level, Reputation is often placed as an asset within models that
seek to explain the performance of the ®rm. A good example of such a strategic

Figure 1: Placing corporate reputation within a causal framework (based on Walsh and Wiedmann, 2004)

Figure 2: A strategic model of ®rm performance, adapted from Wiedmann and Prauschke, 2005

Using Reputation measurement to create value: An analysis and integration of existing measures

Journal of General Management Vol. 32 No. 1 Autumn 2006 3

model is that of Wiedmann and Prauschke (2005). This model is presented in
Figure 2.

Wiedmann and Prauschke discuss with reference to the above model that
the concept of Corporate Reputation can either be a market asset or a
mediator or moderator between internal intangible assets and market assets.
Corporate Reputation as a determinant of corporate success would be
regarded as a market asset. Alternatively, the authors suggest that Corporate
Reputation can be seen as moderating the relationship between internal
intangible assets and market assets or as mediating the relationship between
internal intangible assets and market assets. (For a discussion of moderating
versus mediating e�ects see Hair, Anderson, Tatham and Black, 1998). While
Wiedmann and Prauschke de®ne Corporate Reputation as an overall stake-
holder relationship variable, they do not answer the question as to where
Reputation actually ®ts in the model and pose more questions than answers in
this regard. Part of the problem that Wiedmann and Prauschke (2005)
encounter when discussing where Corporate Reputation ®ts into a strategic
model is that Reputation is not tightly de®ned or conceptualised. By
integrating the two frameworks presented so far, it is possible to provide
some structured answers to these questions.

Figure 3 sets out to identify Corporate Reputation, its antecedents and its
consequences can be expressed at a strategic level. Integrating these models’
antecedents, at the strategic level, can thus be seen as asset generating
activities of the ®rm, Corporate Reputation can be conceptualised as an
intangible asset and consequences are understood as market assets and
improved performance of a ®rm. This is in line with the large bank of
literature that identi®es Corporate Reputation as a key Intangible Asset (e.g.
Zabala et al., 2004; Cravens, Oliver and Ramamoorti, 2003; Roberts and
Dowling, 2002).

It should be noted that within the context of this paper many of the concepts
in the above model are seen as key to the creation of value. Intangible assets are
often closely associated with share price, while market assets such as employee
retention and customer loyalty are often linked to cash ¯ow. All these concepts
have been linked to value creation (MacMillan et al., 2004) and within this
same context, value creation is often seen as the key purpose of the ®rm. The
integrated model presented in Figure 3 is the ®rst step of a process to place
Corporate Reputation within a model of value creation. While the bringing
together of causal and strategic Reputation models goes some way towards
integrating the literature, one of the biggest streams of Reputation research
conceptualises Reputation in terms of stakeholder perceptions. Any theoret-
ical development would not be complete without understanding how this

Figure 3: Integrating strategic variables within the causal framework of Reputation

Kevin Money and Carola Hillenbrand

4 Journal of General Management Vol. 32 No. 1 Autumn 2006

literature links to the strategic and causal framework developed above. This
paper continues, therefore with a review of literature related with a perceptual
approach to reputation.

Reputation in the perceptual context

While Reputation is clearly an asset of the ®rm, it is also clearly a concept held
in the minds, or cognitions of stakeholders (Bromley, 2000). It should be
noted that Reputation is often conceptualised as either perceptions, attitudes
and/or beliefs of stakeholders. For example Fombrun (1996) suggests the
following de®nition: “A Corporate Reputation is a perceptual representation
of a company’s past actions and future prospects that describe the ®rm’s
overall appeal to all of its key constituents when compared with other leading
rivals.” (p.72). It is clear that Reputation is here both conceptualised as
perceptual construct, in terms of perceptions of a company’s past actions, as
well as an attitudinal construct, in terms of a ®rm’s appeal. In addition to this,
other Reputation models include other concepts such as experience, inten-
tions and behaviours of stakeholders (e.g. Waddock, 2003). What is often
missing is a theory of how perceptions develop and a theory of how these
di�erent concepts interact. In other words, do all these concepts refer to the
concept of Reputation, or are some antecedents and others consequences of
Reputation?

One theory that is the basis of many of the concepts used in Reputation
measurement is that of Fishbein and Ajzen (1975). This theory also integrates
them in a causal framework and suggests how concepts, such as beliefs,
attitudes, intentions, and behaviours can be interlinked. The sequential
relation between these variables is described in Figure 4 below.

Fishbein and Ajzen conceputalise beliefs as the fundamental building blocks
of their conceptual chain that can be formed in one of three ways: on the basis
of experiences and observation, on the basis of information from outside
sources and on the basis of inference processes. In the conceptual chain, beliefs
determine people’s attitude toward an object. Attitudes toward an object are
then conceptualised as related to people’s intention to perform certain

Figure 4: Adapted from Fishbein and Ajzen (1975, p. 15): causal framework relating experiences, beliefs, attitudes,
intentions, and behaviours with respect to a given object.

Using Reputation measurement to create value: An analysis and integration of existing measures

Journal of General Management Vol. 32 No. 1 Autumn 2006 5

behaviours with respect to the object and each intention is related to the
corresponding behaviour.

This model is now integrated into the causal framework of Corporate
Reputation, its antecedents and consequences. In this way, antecedents of
Corporate Reputation can be seen as stakeholder experiences and observ-
ations, Corporate Reputation is conceptualised as stakeholder beliefs and
attitudes about an organisation and the consequences are the intentions and
behaviours they have with regard to the organisation. This integrated model is
now illustrated in Figure 5.

Integrating the strategic and perceptual
approaches to Reputation

It has been outlined above how Corporate Reputation is often conceptualised
as part of both strategic and perceptual frameworks. It is important to take
both approaches into account; understanding how Reputation ®ts into a
strategic framework helps to understand how Reputation can be used to create
value for a business. Understanding how Reputation is developed at a
perceptual level is important, because it can facilitate the development of
Reputation at grass roots level. It is therefore important to bring both
approaches together to understand how the strategic and the perceptual
approaches interact and impact each other. Integration would inform a
business about what can be done to in¯uence the development of positive
perceptions and therefore bring bene®ts back to a business. Using the causal
framework as the building block for integration, the work presented in the
sections above is now brought together. This integration is now represented
diagrammatically (Figure 6).

Figure 5: An integration of Fishbein and Ajzen’s model and the Causal Framework of Corporate Reputation

Figure 6: Integrating the strategic and perceptual approaches to place Reputation within a causal framework of value
creation

Kevin Money and Carola Hillenbrand

6 Journal of General Management Vol. 32 No. 1 Autumn 2006

Placing existing Reputation models within this
framework

Figure 6 above provides a way to integrate the strategic and the perceptual
approaches to Corporate Reputation within a causal framework. This focuses
on three aspects: Corporate Reputation, its antecedents and its consequences.
The value of the framework will be demonstrated by placing aspects of existing
Reputation models within it. This will allow researchers to identify gaps in the
scope of issues addressed by current models, to develop strategies about how
di�erent models can be linked together and to test the utility of di�erent
models. This will in turn allow practitioners to assess the value and appro-
priateness of di�erent measurement techniques.

Those interested in understanding how Reputation is developed, for
example, would focus on measures in Reputation models identi®ed as
antecedents. Those interested in placing a value on the intangible assets in
the ®rm would focus on understanding Corporate Reputation in terms of the
beliefs and attitudes of stakeholders towards a ®rm, while those interested in
understanding the value placed on Reputation and its impact on the
performance of the ®rm would look to measures associated with the
consequences of Reputation. Those interested in understanding reputation

Figure 7: Placing existing Reputation models within the integrated framework

Using Reputation measurement to create value: An analysis and integration of existing measures

Journal of General Management Vol. 32 No. 1 Autumn 2006 7

as a dynamic concept in both its strategic and perceptual will be interested in
the interrelation between these concepts.

The extent to which reputation models allow antecedents, Corporate
Reputation and its consequences to be measured and linked has a direct
correlation to their utility in both a practical and research sense. Practitioners
and academics are both concerned with ways to develop and protect the
Corporate Reputation, understanding its link to performance and how
these aspects can be measured. Reputation models are now integrated into
the framework developed in the previous section and this is presented in
Figure 7.

From the analysis above it is clear that Fombrun’s Reputation Quotient
(RQ) (1996) ®ts within the measurement of Corporate Reputation. On a
strategic level it provides information about the intangible assets within the
®rm. At a perceptual level it provides a measure of both beliefs and
attitudes of stakeholders. Beliefs and attitudes can thus be seen as proxies
for the intangible assets in the ®rm. In terms of providing information that
can be linked together to enhance strategic decision-making, application of
the framework to the RQ suggests that this tool provides the possibility to
understand how the beliefs of individuals regarding an organisation’s
Reputation impact on their attitudes in terms of the emotional appeal
that they feel towards a business.

Standing alone, this model does not provide a measure or link to the other
antecedents of Reputation or its consequences at either a strategic or
perceptual level and may have most impact when used in conjunction with
other measures. It thus provides a good indication of the current reputation of
the organisation, but does not provide the direct means to assess how an
organisation has developed or could enhance its reputation, or what the
consequences of this reputation could be. It should be noted, however that the
beliefs measured may provide a strong indication of the experiences and
observations that form them. An organisation with a poor reputation for
vision and leadership, for example, would almost certainly set out to improve
stakeholder experience of leadership and communicate that it is doing this.

The Davies Corporate Personality Scale (2003) measures the Reputation of
organisations by asking stakeholders to make judgements about the per-
sonality of an organisation. As such, stakeholders are asked to make judge-
ments about the organisation as a personi®ed or rei®ed whole. Therefore, the
scale provides an indication of stakeholder beliefs about an organisation. Like
the RQ, therefore, it ®ts within the Corporate Reputation space, providing
information about the intangible assets in the ®rm at a strategic level and
beliefs of stakeholders at a perceptual level. As with the RQ, standing alone it
does not provide a measure of the antecedents or consequences of Reputation
at either a strategic or perceptual level. Davies has, however, included
measures of satisfaction and commitment as in many of his studies. As such
he has provided the possibility to test the link between Corporate Reputation
and some of its consequences.

Berens and van Riel (2004) do not provide a model of Reputation, but do
provide a comprehensive review of the reputation models that have been
developed in the last 50 years. As such their research warrants inclusion, even

Kevin Money and Carola Hillenbrand

8 Journal of General Management Vol. 32 No. 1 Autumn 2006

though the two models reviewed above ®t within this review. Their study
identi®es three main approaches that other researchers have taken in the
measurement of Reputation. The ®rst is identi®ed as the judgements that
people make regarding the Reputation of an organisation in terms of social
expectations. Fombrun’s RQ is given as one example of such a model, and as
such research in this area is clearly within the realm of measuring Corporate
Reputation. As such it provides a measure of intangible assets and the beliefs
and attitudes of stakeholders.

The second approach identi®ed by Berens and van Riel focuses on
researchers who have looked on Reputation in terms of a personality meta-
phor. The Davies model is one such approach and these models are thus very
much in the area of measuring Corporate Reputation, giving an indication of
the level of intangible assets in the ®rm and the beliefs of stakeholders. As with
the Davies model, standing alone, these measures of Reputation as personality
do not provide a measure to the antecedents or consequences of Reputation at
either a strategic or perceptual level.

The third approach, identi®ed by Berens and van Riel, are those studies that
conceptualise Reputation in terms of the trust that stakeholders feel towards
an organisation. Trust is associated with the esteem in which an organisation is
held and is thus akin to positive or negative attitudes of stakeholders hold
towards the ®rm. As such, these studies sit within the measurement of
Corporate Reputation and provide an indication of the intangible assets
within the ®rm. Standing alone these measures do not provide the data to
conduct analyses that would allow for the consequences or antecedents of
Reputation to be identi®ed. Berens and van Riel, do imply however, that some
studies looking at trust may focus on the organisational activities that could
foster the development of trust and as such, these aspects may provide
potential measures of the antecedents of reputation.

The model provided by Walsh and Wiedmann (2004) is an extension of the
RQ, based on a qualitative analysis of Reputation in Germany. The study
suggests that when conceptualised in the German context, Reputation should
be measured by adding a number of additional variables to the RQ. Measures
for these concepts are not developed, but the importance of measuring them is
highlighted. The study provides a call for researchers to measure the
antecedents of Reputation in future studies and highlights the importance
of measuring stakeholder experience and involvement in this regard. It also
suggests that future measures of Reputation should include the additional
dimensions of sympathy, transparency, fairness, perceived customer orienta-
tion of the organisation and stakeholder feelings of satisfaction and trust. In
terms of the integrated model, these concepts ®t as stakeholder beliefs and
attitudes towards an organisation.

They also suggest that future studies should include measures of stake-
holder loyalty and word of mouth (the extent to which stakeholders will not
talk negatively about an organisation). In terms of the combined framework
these can be categorised as the intentions of stakeholders. As such they ®t as
consequences of reputation and can be seen to be linked to the market assets
and performance of a business. While the model suggests the development of
concepts, it stops short of providing measures for these and as such does not

Using Reputation measurement to create value: An analysis and integration of existing measures

Journal of General Management Vol. 32 No. 1 Autumn 2006 9

provide the tools required to test the links between Reputation, its con-
sequences and antecedents.

The MacMillan et al. SPIRIT model (2004) of Reputation provides
measures in four areas. First, it provides a measure of the experiences
that stakeholders have of a business. These are in terms of stakeholder
experience of the communication (listening and informing), service bene-
®ts, non-material bene®ts, material bene®ts, shared values, keeping com-
mitments, coercion and termination costs experienced by stakeholders. In
terms of the framework, these measures clearly ®t as antecedents of
Reputation as they refer to stakeholder experiences of an organisation.
On a strategic level, they can thus be seen as providing an insight of the
asset generating activities that an organisation could engage in to improve
the experience of stakeholders.

Second, it provides a measure of stakeholder experience of outside
in¯uences. This includes experience of what the media and pressure groups
say about an organisation. These measures are again antecedents of Reputa-
tion as they refer to stakeholder observations and experiences of third parties.
Once again these measures can be used to assess an organisations ability to
engage in asset generating activities such as fostering positive PR.

The third measure provided by the SPIRIT model is stakeholder emotional
support towards a business; these include concepts such as stakeholder trust
and emotional commitment towards a business and the level of positive and
negative emotions stakeholders feel towards a business. In terms of the
framework these measures provide an indication of the positive or negative
attitudes that stakeholders feel towards a business. It can thus be seen as a
measure of Corporate Reputation and at a strategic level, an indicator of the
intangible assets that reside in the ®rm.

The fourth measure provided is that of stakeholder behavioural support
towards a business. This includes stakeholder intentions to behave in certain
ways towards the business in the future. Concepts identi®ed and measured
include stakeholder advocacy, co-operation, extension, retention and sub-
version. Since they are conceptualised as intentions, they can be categorised as
consequences of reputation within the integrated framework. These measures
can be used to assess an organisation’s ability to engender the support of key
stakeholders in the future. At a strategic level they, therefore, provide an
indicator of the future performance and market value of ®rm, as it is upon
these supportive stakeholder behaviours that performance depends.

The SPIRIT methodology does not provide a measure of stakeholder beliefs
about an organisation or its attributes in terms of societal expectations or
metaphors, such as personality. The focus is rather on the antecedents of
Reputation, the consequences of Reputation and Reputation as a positive or
negative attitudinal concept. The measures provide the opportunity to use
statistical techniques to understand Reputation and its link to antecedents and
consequences. Practitioners and theorists interested in how they can engage in
activities to improve and protect Reputation, as well as those wanting to
measure its value at a strategic level can use the SPIRIT measures within the
framework outlined above to research these questions and identify potential
answers.

Kevin Money and Carola Hillenbrand

10 Journal of General Management Vol. 32 No. 1 Autumn 2006

Conclusion

A framework that places Reputation at the heart of value creation has been
provided in this paper. Value creation is seen as the development of intangible
assets, market assets and ultimately ®rm performance. The framework
integrates a causal model seeking to conceptualise Corporate Reputation
with its antecedents and its consequences with two approaches of looking at
Corporate Reputation, one from a strategic level and the other from a
perceptual level. By placing existing models of Reputation within this
integrated framework a number of practical and academic implications are
drawn.

First, the framework allows a business to choose measures and methodol-
ogies that can facilitate the measurement of Corporate Reputation, its
antecedents, its consequences and the link between any or all of these
concepts. The choice of approach will depend upon the strategic requirements
of a business at any time. While much bene®t can be achieved through looking
at antecedents, Corporate Reputation and consequences in isolation, a key
bene®t of the integrated framework is the ability to link these concepts
together. In this way, we can predict how di�erent reputation measures could
®t within a causal framework and conduct studies to test these links.

Researchers could, for example, identify a key antecedent of an aspect of
Reputation that is in turn the key driver of a consequence linked to the
performance of a ®rm. Practically, this can be achieved by linking ante-
cedents to outcomes through the use of techniques such as regression
analysis and structural equation modelling. An example of an application
of these techniques in the context of Corporate Reputation can be found in
MacMillan et al., (2005).

A further implication is that the framework will allow organisations to
understand the utility of di�erent Reputation measures and then choose and
combine di�erent measures to meet their requirements. In addition to linking
variables, the framework also allows di�erent Reputation models to be used in
conjunction with one another. This is because aspects of di�erent models may
®t as antecedents, Corporate Reputation or its consequences. This allows
many sources of information to be integrated to maximise both the e�ective-
ness of strategic decision making as well as for the development of strategies to
develop Reputation.

The extent to which di�erent models overlap or complement each other can
be assessed and choices can be made on this basis to identify the use of existing
measures and the development of new ones. An organisation with a bank of
data referring to its reputation in terms of the RQ, for example, may express
the need to have a better understanding of the antecedents and consequences
of these stakeholder beliefs and attitudes. It could use the framework to
identify models and measures that will allow it to complete this analysis. In this
way it could make the most of existing measures and channel resources into
research activities in a more informed way.

The framework also provides a way for organisations to place their data
collection activities in context. Are they collecting too much data? Are they
collecting data that provides di�erent types of information? And are they

Using Reputation measurement to create value: An analysis and integration of existing measures

Journal of General Management Vol. 32 No. 1 Autumn 2006 11

collecting data that can be integrated within a strategic framework? Data that
provides information about the antecedents of Reputation can be usefully
understood as being connected to the past performance of an organisation.
Data about Reputation itself can be usefully associated with the current
performance of the organisation. While data about the consequences of
Reputation can be usefully associated with the future performance of organ-
isations. In this way, the framework provides a way for managers and investors
to assess organisations and their strategies, in terms of both historical and
leading indicators.

An implication at a more theoretical level is that existing models of
Reputation can be placed within a single conceptual framework. Two
observations can be drawn from that. First, the measures within these models
seem to be complementary and seem, to a certain extent, to be based upon
similar conceptual assumptions. This is important, because it will allow future
researchers to integrate existing data and future studies to move the Reputa-
tion ®eld along as a more coherent and integrated discipline. Secondly,
applying the integrated framework to existing literature highlights the fact
that Reputation research has, in the main, been devoted to developing models
that measure Corporate Reputation, rather than its antecedents or conse-
quences.

The need for the development of measures of antecedents and conse-
quences is thus highlighted as a key area for future research. Following on from
this, research linking Corporate Reputation to consequences and antecedents
is also needed. This research will be key if the study of Corporate Reputation is
to be fully legitimised within the academic and business community, as it will
demonstrate the utility of Reputation as a concept and the applicability of
models that underpin its development.

References
Bennett, R. and Kottasz, R. (2000), `Practitioner perceptions of corporate reputation: an

empirical investigation’, Corporate Communications, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 224±234.

Berens, G and van Riel, C.B.M. (2004), `Corporate Associations in the Academic literature:

Three Main Streams of Thought in the Reputation Measurement Literature’, Corporate

Reputation Review, Vol.7, No. 2, pp.161±178.

Bromley, D. (2002), `Comparing Corporate Reputations: League Tables, Quotients, Bench-

marks or Case Studies?’, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 35±50.

Bromley, D. (2000), `Psychological Aspects of Corporate Identity, Image and Reputation’,

Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 240±252.

Caruana, A. and Chircop, S. (2000), `Measuring Corporate Reputation: A case example’,

Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 43±57.

Cravens, K., Goad Olver, E. and Ramamoorti, S. (2003), `The Reputation Index: Measuring and

Managing Corporate Reputation’, European Management Journal, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 201±

213.

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

Competitiveness, London and New York: Routledge.

Fishbein, M and Ajzen, I. (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to

Theory and Research, Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Fombrun, Ch. J. (1996), Reputation, Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.

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

Winning Reputations, FT: Prentice-Hall.

Kevin Money and Carola Hillenbrand

12 Journal of General Management Vol. 32 No. 1 Autumn 2006

Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. and Black, W.C. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis,

Fifth Edition, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Lewellyn, P.G. (2002), `Corporate Reputation: Focusing the Zeitgeist’, Business & Society, Vol.

41, No. 4, pp. 446±455.

Logsdon, J.M. and Wood, D.J. (2002), `Reputation as an Emerging Construct in the Business

and Society Field: An Introduction’, Business & Society, Vol. 41, No. 4, pp. 365±370.

MacMillan, K., Money, K., Downing, S. and Hillenbrand, C. (2004), `Giving your organisation

SPIRIT: an overview and call to action for directors on issues of corporate governance,

corporate reputation and corporate responsibility’, Journal of General Management, Vol. 30,

No. 2, pp.15±42.

MacMillan, K., Money, K., Downing, S. and Hillenbrand, C. (2005), `Reputation in Relation-

ships: Measuring Experiences, Emotions and Behaviors’, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol.

8, No. 3, pp. 214±233.

Mahon, J.F. (2002), `Corporate Reputation: A Research Agenda Using Strategy and Stakeholder

Literature’, Business & Society, Vol. 41, No. 4, pp. 415±445.

Roberts, P.W. (2002), `Corporate Reputation and Sustained Superior Financial Performance’,

Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 23, No. 12, pp. 1077±1094.

Schwaiger, M. (2004), `Components and Parameters of Corporate Reputation ± An Empirical

Study’, Schmalenbach Business Review, Vol. 56, pp. 46±71.

Waddock, S. (2003), `Stakeholder Performance implications of Corporate Responsibility’,

International Journal of Performance Management, Vol. 5, No. 2±3, pp. 114±124.

Walsh, F. and Wiedmann, K.-P. (2004), `A Conceptualization of Corporate Reputation in

Germany: An Evaluation and Extension of the RQ’, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 6, No.

4, pp. 304±312.

Wartick, S.L. (2002), `Measuring Corporate Reputation: De®nition and Data’, Business &

Society, Vol. 41, No. 4, pp. 371±393.

Wiedmann, K.-P. and Prauschke, C. (2005), `Intangible Assets and Corporate reputation ±

Conceptual Relationships and Implications for Corporate Practice’, Paper presented at the

Reputation Institute Conference, Madrid.

Zabala, I., Panadero, G., Gallardo, L.M., Amate, C.M., Saanchez-Galindo, M., Tena, I. and

Villalba, I. (2005), `Corporate Reputation in Professional Sevices Firms: Reputation

Management Based on Intellectual Capital Management’, Corporate Reputation Review,

Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 59±71.