Exploring the Mechanisms of Corporate Reputation and Financial Performance: A Meta-Analysis
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Corporate reputation is prevalent in the management literature and the reputational effects on financial performance of firms have been broadly examined. However, we do not have a complete and systematic understanding of the mechanisms of this relationship. In order to fill this gap, we conducted a meta-analysis to identify the mediators of the reputational effect on firm performance. Based on 766 correlations from 71 empirical studies, we tested three mediators including customer support, corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities and mitigation of market uncertainties/risks. Furthermore, we demonstrate how the social trend context of corporate reputation (before 2000 vs. after 2000), the measurement of corporate performance (internal financial performance vs. external competitive advantage), and the measurement of customer support (in-role behaviors vs. ex-role behaviors) moderate the relationships studied. By aggregating and analyzing existing research, our study reveals longitudinal insights into the reputational effect, and provides meaningful directions for future research.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it