Cited by 743Corporate Identity and ReputationConsumer Behavior in Brand Consumption and IdentificationCustomer Service Quality and Loyalty

The Liability of Good Reputation: A Study of Product Recalls in the U.S. Automobile Industry

Rhee, Mooweon, Haunschild, Pamela R.·2006·Organization Science

Abstract

In this paper, we explore opposing theoretical claims about how organizational reputation affects market reactions to product defects. On the one hand, good reputation could be a disadvantage because expectations about product quality are more likely to be violated by defects in highly reputed products. On the other hand, a good reputation could be an advantage because of strong inertial effects on reputation orderings. We empirically test these competing hypotheses using data on product recalls in the U.S. automobile industry from 1975 to 1999. Our results support for the idea that reputation can be an organizational liability in that highly reputed firms suffer more market penalty as a result of their product recalls. We also propose that the reputational effects are moderated by two important factors: substitutability and generalism/specialism. Our results show that having few substitutes with an equivalent level of reputation, or a focused product identity stemming from specialism, buffers the negative market reactions to product recalls. We conclude with a discussion on the implications of these results for institutional, reputation, and status theories.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1287/orsc.1050.0175

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • An organization with a strong domain-specific reputation receives more severe punishments and greater media attention than peers for similar wrongdoing, especially when the threat contradicts expectations from its reputation in that domain.

    “an organization with a strong domain-specific reputation receives more-severe punishments and greater media attention than its peers for similar episodes of wrongdoing”

    From Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic (2018) · cites this paper as Rhee and Haunschild, 2006

  • Organizations with strong generalized reputations are generally more visible and disproportionately celebrated by the public and media.

    “Organizations that have established strong generalized reputations are generally more visible than their peers and are disproportionately celebrated by the public”

    From Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic (2018) · cites this paper as Rhee and Haunschild, 2006

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rhee, M., & Haunschild, P. R.
Affiliations
  • University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa (US)
  • The University of Texas at Austin (US)
Venue
Organization Science
Published
2006-02
Volume
17
Issue
1
Pages
101-117
ISSN
  • 1047-7039 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-5455
OpenAlex
W2110405866
Cited by
743
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 42 · 2025: 42 · 2024: 46 · 2023: 50 · 2022: 56 · 2021: 55 · 2020: 41 · 2019: 49 · 2018: 49 · 2017: 51 · 2016: 47 · 2015: 46 · 2014: 39 · 2013: 30 · 2012: 23
FWCI
35.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Organization Science (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Corporate Identity and Reputation
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Consumer Behavior in Brand Consumption and Identification
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Customer Service Quality and Loyalty
Keywords
organizational reputation, product recall, automotive industry, defective products, market reaction, product substitutability, firm specialization, status theory, institutional theory, reputation 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