Corporate Reputation: Perspectives Of Measuring And Managing A .
Corporate reputation:perspectives of measuring and managing a principal risk
ForewordMost of us would agree that reputation matters – itcan explain why customers choose your product orservice in preference to somebody else’s and can makethe difference between success and failure.But it is arguable that there are few issues that arequite so challenging to manage as reputation. Considerthe following: A well-deserved reputation that has been diligentlybuilt up over many years can be damaged beyondrepair in a day by circumstances that are relativelyinsignificant when seen against the overall picture.Think of businessmen and politicians whosereputations founder on issues related to theirpersonal rather than professional lives. A good reputation can, perversely, be built on ‘badboy behaviour’ or notoriety. Although a company’s reputation may be harmedby adversity, it may emerge from the episode withits reputation enhanced – simply due to the way ithandled the situation. On the other hand, anorganisation can squander golden opportunities forbuilding reputation through inept management.Added to such challenges is the fact that there are nohiding places any more. The internet, blogs and mobiletechnology have made it possible for anybody tobroadcast information to large audiences in a veryshort space of time. The media of course plays apowerful role in the making and breaking ofreputations.Furthermore, the ever-increasing shift towards greatercorporate accountability and transparency throughenhanced narrative reporting means that organisationsneed to understand and report on all those issues thathave a significant bearing on their future prospects andtheir risk profiles. We would argue that reputation isone such key issue.However difficult, it is important for organisations ofall sizes and sectors to be aware of the importance ofreputation and the attendant risks. Simply put, a goodreputation can: help the organisation to optimise shareholder valueby enabling it to attract customers and high qualitystaff enhance the business in good times and protect itduring the bad ones.Reputation is a major risk issue for all organisationsand needs to be considered alongside all the othermajor risks such as operational, strategic and financialrisks. What this means is that organisations need tomitigate against the effect of loss of reputation, butthey also need to be looking for the upsideopportunities to enhance their reputations.Against such a background, CIMA has commissionedthis Executive Report to explore various perspectives oncorporate reputation. It has been prepared by Dr ArloBrady and Garry Honey, two leading experts oncorporate reputation. Their approach was to interview anumber of key industry players to obtain insights froma range of perspectives such as governance, legal,human resources and the public sector. Theinterviewees represent some of the stakeholders thatchief financial officers should be aware of and mayeven have to engage with. This report gives some oftheir views on reputation and how they believe the riskto reputation should be managed and reported on. Itshould provide a tool to help members in businesswork with these different stakeholders. Profiles of theauthors and interviewees can be found in Appendices 2and 3.The report is in two key parts. Each part issupplemented by insights from the intervieweestogether with a number of case studies.1
Corporate reputation: perspectives of measuring and managing principal riskPart 1 explores reputation in terms of ten differentaspects: perceptions of control quality stakeholders reputation versus brand reputation as an asset the value of reputation reporting on reputation ownership trust damage.From these, the report identifies the following principalfindings: Organisations have no direct control overstakeholders’ perceptions, but they can influencethem. The quality of reputation must be monitored acrossall stakeholders. Organisations must look foropportunities for positive news especially in the midstof adverse situations. Organisations must understand who their stakeholdersare and what impact they have on the organisation. Reputation and brand are not the same thing. Reputation should be seen as an asset to theorganisation. It is difficult to value reputation in monetary terms. Reputation should be covered in narrative reports. It isbest dealt within the risk section as ‘reputation risk’. It is important to assign ownership for reputation –the board has prime responsibility for theorganisation’s reputation. Reputation is ultimately a measure of trust. The extent of damage to reputation caused by anevent will depend on how easily trust can berecovered. This will depend on the prior state ofreputation, the nature of the threat and the way thatthe situation is handled.2Part 2 looks at reputation risk in more detail. Arisk to reputation occurs where the organisationfails to meet the expectations of a specific group.The key to effective reputation risk managementis therefore the management of expectations.The report explores: how reputation risk relates to the organisation’srisk appetite causes of reputation risk effects of reputation damage identification of reputation risk measurement of reputation risk management of reputation risk reporting of reputation risk.A key finding is that organisations do not identifyreputation risk specifically as a risk. Nor do theyassign responsibility to a dedicated individual tomanage the risk. Organisations tend to claim thatreputation risk is covered adequately through existingoperational and strategic risk reporting procedures.However, notwithstanding this, it remains importantto devote dedicated attention to protecting andenhancing reputation. Most interviewees agreed thatreputation risk represents a principal risk that needsto be included in narrative reports such as theBusiness Review, Directors’ Report of the CompaniesAct 2006.The report concludes with an overview of possiblefuture trends with suggestions for further reading.
Although the report suggests some possible approachesto identifying and managing reputation risk, includingreputation measurement models, its main focus is tounderstand and explore the key issues surroundingreputation to stimulate discussion and debate. CIMAhopes that this will make a meaningful contributiontowards the development of good practice principles interms of reputation risk management.As a starting point, CIMA believes that the significanceof reputation is such that it should receive dedicatedand specific attention by an organisation’s board andmanagement despite the challenges associated withidentifying and measuring the risks related to it. It isonly by shining such a spotlight on the subject andassigning responsibility for it within the organisationthat progress towards commonly agreed principles islikely to be made.The next challenge will be to put a value againstreputation risk. This would identify reputation as avalue at risk and would show that reputation risk is atopic that management accountants should beconcentrating on.We would very much welcome your comments andfeedback on this report. We would also be interested inhearing about your experiences and challenges ofmanaging your corporate reputation.Comments should be sent to:The Technical DepartmentCIMA26 Chapter StreetLondon SW1P 4NPUnited KingdomE. technical.services@cimaglobal.com3
Corporate reputation: perspectives of measuring and managing principal risk4
Contents1 Reputation – a definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61.1Perceptions of control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61.2Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71.3Stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81.4Reputation versus brand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101.5Reputation as an asset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111.6The value of reputation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111.7Reporting on reputation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121.8Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131.9Trust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141.10 Damage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151.11 Principal findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 Reputation risk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172.1Appetite for risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192.2Causes of reputation risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202.2.1 Cultural risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202.2.2 Managerial risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202.2.3 External risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Effects of reputation damage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222.32.4Identification of reputation risk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24Measurement of reputation risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252.52.6Management of reputation risk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272.7Reporting of reputation risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283 Future trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Appendices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341 Reputation measurement models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342 Author profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383 Interviewee profiles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395
Corporate reputation: perspectives of measuring and managing principal risk1 Reputation – a definitionReputation is a word much used today. Pick up anewspaper and turn to the business, sport or travelsection and you will find the word reputation inrelation to a person, organisation or place. Many usethe word casually with little regard for its meaningespecially in the context of our celebrity-fixated culturewhere diary or gossip columns talk of fame andnotoriety as a goal in its own right. When Andy Warholclaimed everyone would be famous for 15 minutes heclearly didn’t anticipate YouTube or Big Brother.What then is reputation and moreover why shouldCIMA members take an interest in it?The short answer is that for a business or commercialorganisation reputation has a bearing on value.Reputation may not be identified as an asset on thebalance sheet but it affects investor confidence, staffrecruitment, supplier attitudes and a myriad of otherstakeholders in its capacity as relationship capital.Reputation represents a principal risk to any businessand as such falls within the Business Review, Directors’Report of the Companies Act 2006.Guy Jubb remarked that corporate reputation asa concept embodies the image and values of acompany, and was therefore intimately linkedwith the concept of corporate responsibility.There are at least ten aspects of reputation toconsider when defining it:1.1 Perceptions of controlA brand is created and controlled by an organisation,but a reputation is something that is attributed to it byothers. This fact raises the thorny issue of ‘control’. Thereputation of an organisation is influenced by itsperformance, policies and people, but ultimately it isthe stakeholders who decide what the reputation ofthe organisation actually is. Thus although stakeholdersexpect the management of an organisation to protectand enhance its reputation, this is somethingmanagement has only indirect control over.Reputation is a perception of past actions and futurebehaviour viewed not in isolation but in the context ofwhat others are doing in the marketplace. Thisrelativity is important: if all the companies in yoursector have a policy of charitable donations but yoursdoesn’t then by this omission your company willappear mean-spirited. A company with a poorreputation for employee relations might decide toimprove and upgrade its HR policy but it will take timefor that company to acquire a reputation as a goodemployer, because so much of its reputation dependson past performance.Reputation is a perception of character. For a person orplace it is what you expect them to be like based onwhat you know of them. For a business or organisationthis character is also a reflection of behaviour, what ithas done in certain situations and can be expected todo in future occasions. Behaviour is a good indicator ofmanagement priorities, as any dissatisfied passenger ofa suburban rail network will confirm.6
Bill Connell referred to a report published byIFAC in 2002 entitled ‘Managing Risk to EnhanceShareholder Value’ in which Steve Marshall,former Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Railtrack,wrote on reputation risk. Now replaced byNetwork Rail, Railtrack endured the mediaspotlight for 45 consecutive days during 2001 inthe light of the Hatfield rail crash. Steve Marshallis quoted as saying that: ‘If you haven’t got clearcontrol and you have great complexity, thenthings will go terribly wrong and your reputationwith it’.Management has no control over how an organisationis perceived by its stakeholders but it does have controlover the behaviour of the organisation and caninfluence the perceptions of stakeholders through this.1.2 QualityReputation is a fluid concept. A good one is earnedthrough hard work yet can be quickly lost throughmisfortune or incompetence; a bad one can take a longtime to lose especially if the cause is not fullyappreciated by the hapless owner.Apart from the dynamics of reputation, the qualitydepends on the relative values of the sector or itsstakeholders. An airline might be judged to have a goodreputation on punctuality but passenger safety is abusiness-critical ‘given’. Similarly a bank might have agood reputation for interest rates on savings, butdeposit security is likewise a business-critical ‘given’(see also section 1.9 on Trust).Grocery retailers in the UK traditionally fought over thereputation for ‘best value’ or ‘cheapest’, yet this canlead to a good reputation with customers but a badone with suppliers. Furthermore consumer valueschange with added concerns over product sourcing(food miles), mode of production (organic farming),labour conditions (fair trade) or packaging (wastecontrol). As the grocery market evolves so reputationschange.Fear of reputation damage can lead to a risk adversecorporate mindset blind to opportunity. Too oftenstrategic risk issues are met with an attitude of ‘whatcould go wrong?’ rather than an attitude of ‘how canwe harness this situation to our advantage?’. A mobilecommunications operator in the UK fearful of the wayaccess to the young could be exploited by predators,decided to develop user protection software to create aclaim for competitive advantage in the marketplace. Byturning a threat into an opportunity the manufactureroffered users a real benefit.Quality of reputation according toMark O’Connell of Skandia depends on HRpolicy. For a large employer the reputationamong existing and potential employees isparamount. HR policy maybe sensible and logicalbut the risk comes in how it is applied at a locallevel by managers. The aim of HR is to avoidlitigation which damages an employer’sreputation in the eyes of the employees andcustomers. Certain types of claims such as sexdiscrimination can incur unlimited damages andcertain types of industry attract more mediaattention for the sums involved. This can be seenin the City with some high profile and costlytribunal cases. Companies need to be seen tolearn from any inevitable exposure and henceswitch a potentially bad news story to thecompany’s advantage.7
Corporate reputation: perspectives of measuring and managing principal riskTo manage the quality of their reputation,organisations must constantly monitor and evolve theirpolicies to avoid reputation damage and ensure thatthey look for opportunities for positive news especiallyin the face of bad.1.3 StakeholdersA stakeholder is anyone affected by the organisation.Commonly grouped by interest group, someorganisations have as many as 30-40 stakeholdergroups; most have 12-15. It is of course possible tohave a good reputation with one group and a poor onewith another. Most stakeholder interest categories fallinto five super groups (see Figure 4 Ownership ofstakeholder super groups) each of which can bemanaged by a board director. Note that stakeholdersare pertinent to issues not companies and that witheach issue they are likely to differ.Bill Connell considers that organisations with alarge number of stakeholders or employeesshould identify reputation as a value at risk andmanagement accountants should be able to helpexpress this.While it is true ‘you can’t please all of the stakeholdersall of the time’, your reputation is likely to be betteramong those to whom you give preference rather thanamong those you ignore.Many businesses still focus primarily on two groups,customers and shareholders, as these are businesscritical. Case studies of Ratners Jewellers and Jarvisdemonstrate the importance of customers (Ratners)and shareholders (Jarvis) to reputation.Case Study: Ratners JewellersBackground: Ratners was a well-known high street jewellery chain, headed by the entrepreneur GeraldRatner. The business was successfully selling ‘affordable’ merchandise in the mass market.Tipping point: Gerald Ratner, at the Institute of Directors, incautiously referred to his merchandise as ‘crap’,primarily to get a laugh and attention. The quote found its way into the tabloids where it was seen by hiscustomers, who didn’t see the joke.Outcome: Customers turned their back on Ratners’ stores, sales plummeted and the chain ultimately folded.Moral: It is not wise to ridicule your customers. Even those who knew the goods were not top qualitywanted to believe they were buying a bargain. Reminding them of the commercial reality only made themfeel foolish. Once insulted, customers are lost forever.8
1 Reputation – a definitionCase Study: JarvisBackground: Jarvis was a major government contractor, building and maintaining railways, schools, hospitalsand other public sector infrastructures under the Private Financial Initiative (PFI) scheme. It was a verysuccessful and trusted bid vehicle for government contracts.Tipping point: On 10 May 2002, a fatal rail crash at Potters Bar pushed rail safety into the headlines andled to questions about the capability of Jarvis to deliver rail maintenance.Outcome: By April 2004, Jarvis finally admitted liability but by then the damage was done, share price hadfallen from 5 to just 30p and investor confidence was shattered. It transpired that other Jarvis PFI contractshad also suffered from corner cutting. By December 2004, the company was only saved by banks extendingfurther credit.Moral: Don’t get wrapped up in the hubris. The bid vehicle for contracts outstretched a delivery capacity onwhich it was supposed to be based. Ultimately, Jarvis proved the management axiom that you can delegateauthority but you can’t delegate responsibility.Stakeholder relationship mapping is not new but itdoes provide a valuable strategic planning tool toestablish the relationship between the organisation andits diverse stakeholder interest groups. It can be a basisfor a stakeholder engagement programme to helpmanage stakeholder relationships.For a government department there are manydifferent stakeholders, each of whom will judgeyour performance in relation to their ownexpectations. One of the most important isinvariably the Treasury as that is where yourfunding comes from. Nemat (Minouche) Shafik.Organisations should therefore understand who theirstakeholders are and the impact that each group ofstakeholders has on the organisation.9
Corporate reputation: perspectives of measuring and managing principal risk1.4 Reputation versus brandReputation is not the same as brand. A brand is createdby an organisation to symbolise a set of values; it isconsciously designed for consumers or purchasers. It isa cluster of attributes associated with a particularproduct. The brand might be a tangible product or anintangible concept that is ‘bought’ as an idea, but abrand is designed to be sold. A corporate brand mightbe targeted at fund managers and institutionalinvestors, who are relevant consumers of the brandmessage. Consider the acronym BRAND and what itoffers.Figure 1 Brand10BuyableA bundle of benefits completewith a promise for the purchaser.ReassuranceA guarantee of consistency,quality and value for money.AssociationA set of values with which thepurchaser can identify and belong.NameA symbol of identity. Recognitionfor repeat purchase and valuesabove.DifferenceA distinct set of features todistance itself from rivals orgenerics.The image of an organisation is its immediate externalperception, a snapshot frozen in time. The reputation ofan organisation is the historic and cultural dimensionof that image, the ‘social memory’ of the stakeholderswhich acts as a platform for expectation. A reputationis created by stakeholders and attributed to anorganisation (person or place), in response to theirexpectations of it. By contrast a brand is manufacturedby an organisation to sell to one stakeholder group,consumers. Brands are more controllable thanreputations.Brand owners should be aware of the growing trend foraltering a business’s brand website or publicity materialand then using the so called ‘spoof brand’ to negativelyimpact consumer behaviour. This is a form of hijack inwhich the positive associations of the brand aresupplanted by negative ones created by those withmalicious intent or grievance. The websitewww.adbusters.org provides an interesting insightinto this trend, and profiles a number of the morefamous.According to Richard Carpenter of Radley Yeldar,brands can have a reputation and leadingconsumer or high street brands are morevulnerable to reputation damage because thegeneral public at large represent a keystakeholder group of potential customers. Once abrand is deemed newsworthy it is susceptible toreputation damage through a failure toappreciate its vulnerability.
1 Reputation – a definition1.5 Reputation as an asset1.6 The value of reputationIs reputation an asset? Well it certainly isn’t a fixedasset or depreciable. It can be claimed to be anintangible asset but valuing it is controversial (seesection 1.6 The value of reputation). For reputation thelabel ‘asset’ is more emotive than financial, like itsopposite ‘liability’ which indicates that there is aproblem.How do you determine the value of a reputation? Canyou put a figure against it? Putting a value on a brandwas once thought impossible so valuing a reputationshould not be discounted for the future. However, onehas to consider why anyone would want to fix a valueon reputation. No insurer will offer a premium as themoral hazard is just too great for claims control. Thereare just too many factors which influence the value ofreputation to make this viable.‘Balance sheets are for stuff, not people or ideas.People aren’t assets because you can’t own them, youcan only rent them. Ideas are not assets because thepeople who generate them can’t be owned andbecause you can’t keep ideas bottled up for very long.If you want to measure the value of people and theirideas, you need to look at cash flows not assets.Balance sheets measure the value of stuff you own,cash flows measure the value of things you rent.’ Thishas been attributed to an anonymous banker but sumsup the view of many accountants and auditors towardsintangible assets.The reputation of CIMA is an asset to theinstitute because it is vital to the success of anymembership organisation in recruiting andretaining members. Both members and employersrecognise the standard set by CIMA and itsassurance of quality and integrity.Charles Tilley of CIMA.In most cases value is taken for granted untilthreatened, and depreciation results from damage toreputation. A good reputation is an asset and a bad oneis a liability. The aim of management should be toenhance a good reputation and build it into themarketing strategy of the organisation. This requires anunderstanding of the factors which contribute to agood reputation in the eyes of stakeholders.Where reputation is regarded as a liability then theobjective should be to contain or reduce the threat ofdamage. This leads to a protection policy andultimately a turnaround of fortune. This will take timeand skill but can be achieved. A brand like Skoda hasachieved this with considerable investment from theVolkswagen Group and a determination to address thecause of a poor reputation.So although reputation cannot be classed as an assetfor balance sheet purposes; a good reputation can beseen to be an asset to the organisation.11
Corporate reputation: perspectives of measuring and managing principal riskBill Connell considers that the next major thrustof interest for management accountants will begetting a handle on what creates stakeholdervalue. Fifteen years ago, before the internetrevolution, on average 80% of a company’s valuewas contained in the balance sheet, whereastoday it is nearer 30%. The difference lies invalue that has no immediate financial expressionsuch as intellectual capital. This may beknowledge, culture or some other intangible butwhen more of your enterprise value isoff-balance sheet than on it, there is an urgentneed for enterprise risk management.Reputation influences consumers in a far greater waythan could ever be measured on a balance sheet.Intuition tells you more about the value of a businessand this can be wrapped up in personalities: ‘what isthe value of The Body Shop without Anita Roddick orVirgin without Richard Branson?’. Reputation also has adifferent dynamic; it can change value faster than mostother assets. It isn’t just good or bad but valuablebecause of its inherent volatility.The value of reputation varies according to sector. Inthe private sector reputation is vital for inspiring andsustaining investor confidence; damage to reputationreduces the share value and ultimately marketcapitalisation. In the public sector reputation for aservice provider in health, education or transport isvital to maintain public trust in the provider. Forprofessional service and partnership businesses,reputation is valued for its ability to attract and retainclients as damage to value results in loss of clientconfidence.121.7 Reporting on reputationHow should you report reputation? There are somewho consider it falls under the section of intellectualcapital, where it could be recorded as reputationalcapital. Intellectual capital reporting is in its infancy,although with increasing value wrapped up inoff-balance sheet entities, it is worth investigatingalong with items such as workplace practices,knowledge management and human capital.Managing reputation requires both an understanding ofits drivers and a method of measuring changes in it.Given that any attempt to calculate financial value
opportunities for positive news especially in the midst of adverse situations. Organisations must understand who their stakeholders are and what impact they have on the organisation. Reputation and brand are not the same thing. Reputation should be seen as an asset to the organisation. It is difficult to value reputation in .
gaining control of issues, crisis, and corporate social responsibility, organizations need to reconceptualize and manage reputation in knowledge-based economies. I would rather go to any extreme than suffer anything that is unworthy of my reputation, or of that of my crown. —Elizabeth I It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five
Security Management System Advanced Threat API Guide 7 SMS Reputation Management API The following information describes the initial network topology, method for importing reputation entries into the Reputation Database, the Reputation import record format, and performance guidelines. It should be noted that Reputation Management is one portion .
corporate reputation and brand equity across industries. Using brands and companies that have won consumer acclaim as measured in two long-standing landmark Harris Poll studies— Reputation Quotient (RQ) , focused on corporate reputation, and EquiTrend , measuring brand equity—this article will describe at a high
corporate reputation management in the SME context without a large scale of resources or the separate marketing department. We want to fill the gap by providing empirical evidence on the process of improving reputation management in Finnish SME setting. The purpose of this thesis is to gain more in-depth understanding of the prevailing
A secure and effective p2p reputation system is proposed which focuses on using the reputation of both provider and requester. 3. Proposed Work . 3.1 Reputation Based Trust Model . First we categorize the peers in P2P into four classes: Honest Peer, Selfish Peer, Malicious Peer, and Evil Peer. Honest Peer: .
per IEC 60751 Class A Measuring deviation of the transmitter per IEC 60770 0.25 K Total measuring deviation according to IEC 60770 Measuring deviation of the measuring element the transmitter Measuring span Minimum 20 K, maximum 300 K Basic configuration Measuring range 0 . 150
(Walker, 2010; Jarvinen & Suomi, 2011), as its intangible essence makes it impossible for competing firms to replicate good reputation, at least in the short term (Keh & Xie, 2009). Despite rising interest in corporate reputation, there is no commonly agreed upon definition of the construct. Literature on
components were orientated according to the ASTM F 1440 and fixed using a high edge retention metallographic resin to the cement indication markers given on the femoral stem. In each case, the head – neck interface was immersed in 100 mL of 0.9 g/L NaCl. The head force was actuated against
