MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1588355676

Corporate Reputation: Is Your Most Strategic Asset at Risk?

2012· preprint· en· W1588355676 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics · 2012
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Identity and Reputation
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReputationIntangible assetBusinessAsset (computer security)Value (mathematics)MarketingAccountingFinancePolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Corporate reputation is increasingly identified as the most important strategic asset in value creation for a company. Scholarly interest in the concept of corporate reputation has led to a five-fold increase in the number of peer-reviewed articles and studies over the past decade (Barnett et al., 2006). Yet, there is no commonly accepted definition. We propose a definition of corporate reputation based on a number of academic sources as well as work by practitioners. Corporate reputation is an intangible asset that is built up over time and represents the value and trust that stakeholders have for the company. It is a key asset, which favours the achievement of strategic objectives such as value creation, profitable growth, and sustainable competitive advantage. Companies' reputations are more vulnerable than ever today because of globalization, increasing business complexity, economic and financial turbulence, the exponential growth of social media, and the speed of the news cycle. These factors can provoke difficult to predict crises which can destroy even the most carefully built reputations. Recently, both corporate board members and risk management professionals identified risk to reputation as the number one risk facing companies (EisnerAmper, 2011; Economist Intelligence Unit, 2005). We are all aware of crises that have severely damaged well established corporate reputations, causing at the same time a dramatic loss of stock market value. One example is Canada's largest, most prestigious tech company, Research In Motion. RIM began 2011 as Canada's fifth most admired company in ratings established by Canadian Business magazine and the Reputation Institute (Canadian Business, May 19, 2011). Then, a failed product launch and a disastrous loss of service to millions of Blackberry users set the company on a steep slide in value. The loss of trust in RIM intensified when company executives waited three days before offering a public explanation and apology for the loss of service. RIM shares dropped 75 percent in value between March and December of 2011 (Canadian Business, January 19, 2012). A more recent case, in February 2012, is that of Canada's most respected engineering firm SNC-Lavalin, which has seen its shares drop by over 20 percent due to issues of questionable expenses. This report combines the authors' exploratory study of Quebec's top companies with the review of most of the current studies and research on corporate reputation published over the last 12 years. Our Quebec survey shows that only half the companies surveyed recognize the importance of reputation. None appear to be managing reputation in a proactive way. CIRANO and Preventa will introduce a framework and processes to improve the way organizations manage their most valuable asset. This report provides a road map for companies to make the transition from reactive management to proactive management of reputation.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.366
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.104
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.204 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it