MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The role of image and reputation as intangible resources in non-profit organisations: a relationship management perspective

2010· article· en· W38861909 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Eric Kong, Mark Farrell

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Identity and Reputation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersIndependent University, BangladeshUniversidade Estadual PaulistaTshwane University of TechnologyUppsala UniversitetUniversity of JohannesburgUniversidad de Buenos AiresUniversity of GalwayInyuvesi Yakwazulu-NataliCape Peninsula University of TechnologyHong Kong Polytechnic UniversityLappeenranta University of TechnologyZayed UniversityUniversidad Católica del NorteUniversity of the Western CapeUniversity of Technology SydneyOrta Doğu Teknik ÜniversitesiCranfield UniversityUniversity of LimerickInternational Business Machines CorporationHøgskolen i HedmarkLiverpool Hope UniversityLoughborough UniversityUlster UniversityRowan UniversityBournemouth UniversitySyracuse UniversityLebanese American UniversityUniversidade de CoimbraUniversity of TorontoUniversitat Politècnica de CatalunyaUniversity of WolverhamptonAmerican University of BeirutUniversity of Portsmouth
KeywordsReputationBusinessProfit (economics)MarketingCompetitive advantageResource-based viewKnowledge managementEconomicsMicroeconomicsSociologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current research on relationship management primarily focuses on enhancing customer relationships through image or reputation in organisations. The resource-based theory portrays image and reputation as important intangible resources that are derived from combinations of internal investments and external appraisals. With this in mind, the role of image and reputation in value creation needs to be carefully delineated. In non-profit settings, stronger image and reputation are likely associated with higher quality of goods and services, better delivery of those goods and services, improved management of donations and funds, and improved outcomes (e.g., higher capability to make a difference in societies). \n \nFollowing a critical analysis of current literature with relevant examples, this paper argues that image and reputation are the keystones of non-profit organisations’ differentiation strategy. The resource-based theory suggests that resource factors represent a stronger explanation of differences in firm performance. Organisations are more likely to grow and develop higher performance potential if more resources are invested in image and reputation. By integrating several disparate resources, image and reputation as intangible resources can become more difficult to imitate and provide a more sustainable source of competitive advantage in organisations. Thus both image and reputation are likely influential elements that assist non-profit organisations in developing and managing relationships with external stakeholders, and thereby aid organisations in attracting important resources such as donations and volunteer support. \n \nThe study findings contribute to the more general understanding of image and reputation from a relationship management perspective in the non-profit context. Thus, the paper adds a new dimension to the body of literature by arguing that image and reputation can be utilised as relationship management tools in non-profit organisations. However, image and reputation are external to organisations and volatile in nature. Non-profit managers must strategically develop relationship management activities in their organisations, with image and reputation being central.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.013
Scholarly communication0.0180.014
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCorporate Identity and ReputationFrench-language works237,207