The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Meeting Expectations: A Role-Theoretic Perspective on Reputation
Abstract
This article combines reputation theory from economics with role theory from sociology to develop a rigorous framework for studying corporate reputation. Reputation research has taken different paths in economics, sociology, and management. The article argues that integrative reputation definitions limit reputation research in at least three different ways. The role-theoretic perspective on reputation tightens the link between theory development and empirical research. The role expectations and role performances allow reputation to function as a mechanism that can result in status mobility. Additionally, the role-theoretic approach to reputation research obviously increases the theoretical and empirical demands for future research in terms of determining the role expectations necessary to understand and assess the role performances that strengthen reputation. It is believed that integrating role theory into reputation research is an effort well worth undertaking to provide reputation research with a stronger theoretical footing and empirical direction.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Implicit in this operationalization is the notion that these environmental performance ratings are positively correlated with a firm's environmental reputation, or the degree to which a firm is known for strong environmental performance and practices(Lange, Lee, and Dai, 2011;Jensen, Kim, and Kim, 2012).”
From Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic (2018) · cites this paper as Jensen, Kim, and Kim, 2012
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic
Carlos, W. C., & Lewis, B. W. (2018) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.1177/0001839217695089 · Cited by 393
Metadata
- Authors
- Jensen, M., Kim, H., & Kim, B. K.
- Affiliations
- University of Michigan (US)
- Southern Methodist University (US)
- Venue
- Oxford Handbooks Online
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press
- Published
- 2012-07-19
- OpenAlex
- W1683681834
- Cited by
- 96
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 9.22
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Oxford University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Corporate Identity and Reputation
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management and Organizational Studies
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting
- Keywords
- corporate reputation, role theory, role expectations, role performance, status mobility, reputation theory, integrative theory
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review