Building corporate reputation with stakeholders

Abstract

Ambiguity and Authenticity: Managing hybrid reputations. ABSTRACT Purpose:Research remains silent on how ambiguity in external communications can create a consistent brand position and corporate reputation. Specifically we investigate the case of hybrid organizations-organizations that need to act commercially to pursue non-profit or social goals-and how they retain consistency in their positioning of authenticity through ambiguity in planned, inferred and maintenance messages. Method:Twenty-five depth-interviews were conducted in the Trappist beer market using projective techniques to explore Trappist communications. The informants represented members of the Trappist Order, secular employees, business customers, distributors, retailers, end consumers, and industry representatives. Findings:Authenticity is promoted in multiple forms in Trappist advertising and promotion so that multiple interpretations of the brewery's reputation are unified around the idea of 2 authenticity. In this context, Trappist breweries use multiple messages to reinforce a deliberately ambiguous strategic position. Research Limitations:The findings are derived from a single industry case study involving organizations with unique values and marketing problems. The research does not provide insight into transferability to other contexts nor the ethical implications of using ambiguity in communications. Finally, research needs to look at how far one can stretch the ambiguity of the organization's image without diluting the organization's reputation and meaning. Practical Implications:It appears that hybrid organizations are using strategic ambiguity for maintenance of organizational reputation or image so that they improve stakeholder impressions. This paper demonstrates how hybrid organizations apply communication ambiguity at an organizational level to retain credibility so that stakeholders selectively interpret information to support existing attitudes about the organization.

Engaging and marketing to stakeholders in World Heritage Site management: a United Kingdom multiple case study perspective

“…However, given the myriad of interests that characterise organisations, balancing stakeholders is a byzantine process due to diverse and often conflicting concerns (Garriga, 2014). Indeed, stakeholders can impact on an organisation's reputation and functionality through coalitions, boycotts, legislation and word-of-mouth (Dickinson-Delaporte, Beverland, & Lindgreen, 2010;Fry & Polonsky, 2004). In response, careful planning, negotiation, inclusion and compromise are required when attempting to engage in stakeholder relations (Bendheim, Waddock, & Graves, 1998).…”

A review of the uses of corporate reputation: Different perspectives and definitions

“…For instance, Moerman and Van Der Laan (2006) state that corporate reputation is used and presented to stakeholders as a corporate valuable (Okano et al, 1999) or as an intangible asset that creates value in the future (DTI, 2001). The same idea is supported by economics scholars (see Dierickx & Cool, 1989), who contend that corporate reputation is used as an asset, which cannot be bought, and thus is not easy to imitate or substitute. Some management scholars also hold a similar idea in that corporate reputation is regarded as an asset, which cannot be bought, and thus is not easy to imitate or (2004) S9 Generates good returns on a firm's investment over time…”

“…Moreover, when managers understand the nature of their firm's reputation, they can determine whether to initiate dedicated wordof-mouth campaigns to sustain other ongoing promotional activities or new product launches. Similarly, Dickinson-Delaporte, Beverland and Lindgreen (2010) argued that to enhance corporate reputation, social marketers should orient themselves to their stakeholders and conduct ongoing research to identify their goals, their biases, and the cues they use to inform judgments about the legitimacy of the firm's actions. As part of this strategy, firms should receive or allow stakeholder dialogue by developing a web forum, which can serve to communicate the firm's situation and reinforce the firm's positioning.…”

“…It is an asset that cannot be bought, is not easy to imitate, and cannot be substituted (Barney, 1991;Dierickx & Cool, 1989). In general, it is difficult to copy interaction between a firm and its stakeholders (Fombrun & van Riel, 1997).…”

Corporate Reputation Management Decisions: Customer’s Perspective

“…As state, the right perception of stakeholder groups that is related with the organization and its historic nature, depends on the ability of the organization to communicate. Thus, the communication, maintained by the organization, builds confidence-based relationship with separate groups of stakeholders (Dickinson-Delaporte et al, 2010). The interaction of corporate reputation and relationship with stakeholder groups is based on two antecedents of the process for developing the equity of relationship.…”