Reporting as a booster of the corporate social performance effect on corporate reputation

Abstract

Corporate social performance (CSP) is one of the main drivers of corporate reputation. The main aim of this study is to analyze the moderating effect of corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting quality on the relation of CSP and corporate reputation through two effects. First, it may enhance the firm's credibility because CSR reporting favors CSP consistency by reducing managers' CSR discretion and easing CSP comparability along the time. Second, it may increase the visibility of CSR actions beyond direct stakeholders involved in them. Analyzing an international sample of 132 companies from nine countries for the period 2011-2016, we show that all of the CSP dimensions (social, environmental, and economic) positively affect corporate reputation. We also find that good CSR reporting quality increases the intensity of the environmental and social performance effects on corporate reputation. Results provide a new perspective of the role CSR reporting quality that managers have to deal to get better impacts of CSP on corporate reputation. K E Y W O R D S corporate reputation, corporate social responsibility performance, corporate social responsibility reporting, stakeholder-agency theory

Does corporate social responsibility reporting actually destroy firm reputation?

“…Researchers can thus polish theoretical frameworks to prevent the use of a single theoretical approach. Furthermore, the inclusion of CSR consistency complements recent studies that suggest that CSRR needs to be supported by actions to minimise reputational risk (Hetze, 2016; Pérez‐Cornejo et al, 2019). In addition, our findings provide empirical evidence on the prevalence of a symbolic approach to CSRR, because stakeholders tend to perceive CSRR initiatives as opportunistic behaviour.…”

“…Our dependent variable, CRep, was designed by considering the reputation rankings provided by the Reputation Institute. This measurement considers a multidimensional approach of CRep and uses a rigorous methodology widely supported in academic research (Dell'Atti, Trotta, Iannuzzi, & Demaria, 2017; Pérez‐Cornejo et al, 2019; Soleimani, Schneper, & Newburry, 2014). The Reputation Institute creates the ranking through a multi‐item online survey using a seven‐point Likert scale that measures the perceptions of a range of individuals about different aspects of CRep across seven key dimensions of reputation: innovation, leadership, workplace, products and services, citizenship performance and governance (Vidaver‐Cohen & Brønn, 2015).…”

“…Therefore, CSRR has emerged as a significant firm strategy. However, the literature acknowledges that empirical evidence on the impact of CSRR on CRep is contradictory and further in‐depth analyses are required (Adams, 2008; Pérez, 2015; Pérez‐Cornejo, de Quevedo‐Puente, & Delgado‐García, 2019). Our study thus extends previous research by introducing CSR consistency to better explain the relationship between CSRR and CRep.…”

Moderating role of corporate reputation in the influence of external support on organisational resilience and performance

“…Considering all the approaches above, the definition by Barnett et al (2006) seems very apt as it covers all aspects and describes corporate reputation as "observers' collective judgments of a corporation based on assessments of the financial, social, and environmental impacts attributed to the corporation over time" (Barnett et al, 2006, p. 34). Noteworthy is also the definition of a higher degree of generality provided by Pérez-Cornejo et al (2019), where "corporate reputation is defined as the expectations of various stakeholders regarding the company's ability to satisfy their interests" (Pérez-Cornejo et al, 2019, p. 1252.…”

“…In the first case, organisations have to meet certain conditions (imposed by the supporting institution). In the second case, however, an organisation deals with stakeholder perceptions of its reputation, which is a kind of patchwork of previous stakeholder experiences gained dealing with the organisation, as well as of possible future benefits gained due to the ability of the organisation "to satisfy their interests" (Pérez-Cornejo et al, 2019). These perceptions become an important factor that determines the scope of external support.…”