Content area
Full Text
ABSTRACT
In contrast to most studies of reputation ranking systems, this paper discusses the constitutive aspects of such systems. It analyzes the mechanics used to construct them, thus making their procedures the object of research. Based on a study of a Danish ranking system similar to the Fortune system, the authors suggest that reputation is sticky over time in spite of shifting ranking criteria and fragile statistical methods. We show that the ongoing development of an increasingly complex measurement system paradoxically becomes `more of the same' and thus creates sticky reputation for large and visible companies.
INTRODUCTION
Reputation combines everything that is knowable about a firm. As an empirical representation, it is a judgment of the firm made by a set of audiences on the basis of perceptions and assessments that are assembled and made available via a ranking system, which defines, assesses, and compares firms' reputation according to certain predefined criteria. Typically, national 'hit-- lists' of reputation are published annually by national business magazines, of which the US-based Fortune Magazine's ranking is the best known, though many other national and regional reputation ranking systems share its principles (Caruana & Chircop, 2000; Dunbar & Schwalbach, 2000; Fombrun, 1998; Fombrun & Gardberg, 2000). Examples of other ranking systems in the Fortune-tradition are Asia's Most Admired Companies, published by Asian Business and Britain's Most Admired Companies, published by Management Today (see Fombrun, 1998, for further details).
These ranking systems have been subjected to research. One stream of research relates reputational ranks to stock market performance and/or to accounting performance (eg, Black, Carries, & Richardson, 2000; Deephouse, 2000; Dunbar & Schwalbach, 2000; Fombrun, 1998; Fombrun & Shanley, 1990; Jones, Jones, & Little, 2000; McMillan & Joshi, 1997). Others have related it to the role of intermediaries and media (eg, Andersen & Sorensen, 1999; Argenti, 1998; Argenti & Forman, 2000; Deephouse, 2000; Dukerich & Carter, 2000; Fombrun, 1998; Fombrun & Rindova, 2000; Morsing, 1999; Schultz & Ervolder, 1998). Both streams of research attempt to look at the antecedents to and consequences of the rankings and attempt to explain the outputs from ranking systems.
THE CONSTRUCTION OF REPUTATION
In this paper, we take a different approach by analyzing the mechanics of ranking systems, taking the system itself as...