IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/acctbr/v54y2024i3p304-336.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Definitions and measures of corporate reputation in accounting and management: commonalities, differences, and future research

Author

Listed:
  • Jochen Bigus
  • Kieu Phuong Mai Hua
  • Sascha Raithel

Abstract

This study reviews and compares the definitions and measurements of ‘corporate reputation’ used in 173 studies published in seven top-tier accounting and management journals between 1980 and 2020. Accounting scholars frequently fail to define ‘reputation,’ and if they do, definitions vary considerably between the accounting and management fields. We further find that measures of reputation do not fit well with its definition. The accounting literature often employs secondary financial measures, which poorly reflect stakeholders’ reputation assessments. We develop a conceptual framework to better classify prior research and identify appropriate measures of reputation that match the chosen definition. We also suggest a number of further research opportunities: Accounting scholars may focus more on (a) stakeholders’ subjective nonfinancial assessments; (b) the emotional appeal of companies and its relationship with competence and integrity assessments; (c) the role of stakeholders’ normative expectations and (d) explicitly consider a multi-stakeholder perspective, where corporations have multiple reputations rather than one.

Suggested Citation

  • Jochen Bigus & Kieu Phuong Mai Hua & Sascha Raithel, 2024. "Definitions and measures of corporate reputation in accounting and management: commonalities, differences, and future research," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(3), pages 304-336, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:acctbr:v:54:y:2024:i:3:p:304-336
    DOI: 10.1080/00014788.2022.2149458
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/00014788.2022.2149458
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/00014788.2022.2149458?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:acctbr:v:54:y:2024:i:3:p:304-336. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

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

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

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

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RABR20 .

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

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