Organizational Reputation: A Review
Abstract
The idea of organizational reputation is intuitive and simple in its common usage. However, it is surprisingly complex when employed and investigated in management research, as evidenced by the multiple definitions, conceptualizations, and operationalizations that have emerged across studies. The authors see the past decade as a formative phase of the research, characterized by attempts to bring theoretical coherence and rigor to the subject area. In their review of the management literature, the authors focus on this formative period in particular. They attempt to inspire and guide management researchers by clarifying what organizational reputation is. In particular, they identify three dominant conceptualizations, namely, that reputation consists of familiarity with the organization, beliefs about what to expect from the organization in the future, and impressions about the organization’s favorability. The final part of the review is an overview of recent empirical findings in the management literature pertaining to the effects or causes of organizational reputation. The authors conclude by drawing attention to some important directions for future research, including the needs to investigate organizational reputation as multidimensional and dynamic and to model its antecedents and effects as more complex than the unidirectional models typically proposed.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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?
A firm's environmental reputation is positively associated with its environmental performance ratings.
“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 Lange, Lee, and Dai, 2011
Cites
Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches
Suchman, M. C. (1995) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258788 · Cited by 19,903 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Hur, W.-M., Kim, H., & Woo, J. (2014) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-013-1910-0 · Cited by 538 · see citing works
Hsu, K.-T. (2012) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-011-1118-0 · Cited by 430 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
Gatzert, N. (2015) · European Management Journal · doi:10.1016/j.emj.2015.10.001 · Cited by 256 · see citing works
Reputation and Status: Expanding the Role of Social Evaluations in Management Research
George, G., Dahlander, L., Graffin, S. D., & Sim, S. (2016) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2016.4001 · Cited by 161 · see citing works
Exploring the impact of social axioms on firm reputation: a stakeholder perspective
West, B., Hillenbrand, C., Money, K., Ghobadian, A., & Ireland, R. D. (2016) · British Journal of Management · doi:10.1111/1467-8551.12153 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
McDonnell, M.-H., & King, B. (2014) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2373974 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
- Authors
- Lange, D., Lee, P. M., & Dai, Y.
- Affiliations
- Arizona State University (US)
- The University of Texas at Austin (US)
- Corresponding author
- Lange, Donald
- ORCID
- Lange, Donald
- Venue
- Journal of Management
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2010-12-20
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 153-184
- ISSN
- 0149-2063 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-1211
- OpenAlex
- W1979032294
- Cited by
- 960
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 67 · 2025: 50 · 2024: 91 · 2023: 72 · 2022: 79 · 2021: 90 · 2020: 74 · 2019: 86 · 2018: 67 · 2017: 60 · 2016: 64 · 2015: 42 · 2014: 56 · 2013: 30 · 2012: 19
- FWCI
- 57.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Management (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 › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Organizational Strategy and Culture
- Keywords
- organizational reputation, reputation model
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