towards a conceptual model of the relationship between corporate trust and corporate reputation

Towards a Conceptual Model of theRelationship between Corporate Trust andCorporate Reputation

Adri WA J van der MerweDivision of Communication Management, Faculty of Economic and ManagementSciences, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa

Gustav PuthGfK Programme in Marketing Research, Faculty of Economic and ManagementSciences, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa

ABSTRACTThis paper challenges three key contentions in cur-rent theory regarding the relationship between cor-porate trust and corporate reputation. The firstcontention being challenged is that corporate trustplays less of a critical role in the sustained successand survival of an organisation than corporatereputation does. The second contention challengedis that, when the role of corporate trust in relation tocorporate reputation is recognised, it is regarded asan antecedent of corporate reputation. This lattercontention suggests that much of the currentunderstanding of the role of the corporate trust con-struct is superficial and that the use of and differ-entiation between the corporate trust andtrustworthiness constructs in relation to corporatereputation are blurred and indistinct. The thirdcontention this paper challenges relates to the moregenerally accepted antecedents of corporate reputa-tion, where current theory either does not includecorporate trustworthiness as an antecedent or whereit incorrectly includes corporate trust (viz-à-viztrustworthiness) as an antecedent to corporatereputation. This paper introduces a conceptualisa-tion of corporate trust, in relation to corporatereputation, within a broader framework of corporatesustainability. We propose a conceptual model

illustrating the relationship between corporate trustand corporate reputation. Where trust is usuallyregarded as an attribute or antecedent of reputation,our model suggests an inverse direction to this rela-tionship, namely that corporate trust is an outcomeof corporate reputation.Corporate Reputation Review (2014) 17, 138–156.doi:10.1057/crr.2014.4

KEYWORDS: conceptual model; corporatereputation; corporate sustainability; corporate trust; corporatetrustworthiness; stakeholders

INTRODUCTIONThis paper is based on a conceptual study,aimed at clarifying existing theory and pro-viding a new theoretical perspective on thenature and relationship between corporatereputation and trust as a contribution totheory building (Bacharach, 1989; Emory,1980; Meredith, 1995; Stanovich, 2007;Weick, 1989; Whetten, 1989). This is donewithin an extended corporate sustainabilityframework, one which recognises ethics as akey element that can enable an organisation

Corporate Reputation Review,Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 138–156© 2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd.,1363-3589

Corporate Reputation Review Volume 17 Number 2

www.palgrave-journals.com/crr/

http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/crr.2014.4

http://www.palgrave-journals.com/crr

to do, and continue to do, business andachieve its economic success in a mannerthat is maintainable, viable and whollymorally justifiable.

There are many examples in today’s busi-ness arena of the benefits that a well-estab-lished corporate reputation brings to anorganisation (Balmer and Greyser, 2003;Davies et al., 2010; Fombrun and Van Riel,2004; Greyser, 2003; Lloyd, 2007). Similarly,the benefits of corporate trust, which Kramer(2010) refers to as collective trust in anorganisation, are also well documented(Dirks and Ferrin, 2001; Dyer and Chu,2003; McEvily et al., 2008; Mouzas et al.,2007; Schoorman et al., 2007). The variousbenefits need not be repeated here, otherthan to note that both reputation andtrust are purported to bring a strategic advan-tage to an organisation and that both are seento enhance an organisation’s profitability.

However, despite the consensus about thepositive effects that result from a favourablereputation and the presence of trust in anorganisation, the current literature refers to agap in conceptualising the corporate trustconstruct – what it is and what its driversand dimensions are (Greenwood and VanBuren, 2010; Hosmer, 1995). Similarly, des-pite the expanding focus by researchers andpractitioners on reputation, there remains dis-parate knowledge about corporate repu-tation’s key dimensions and the relationshipsbetween them (Bromley, 2002; Helm, 2007;Lloyd, 2007).

The terms corporate reputation and cor-porate trust are patently related and interde-pendent, but the nature of these constructsand the conceptual relationship betweenthem are not clear. The ambiguity surround-ing the characteristics of and the interplaybetween these two constructs is prevalent insome of the current leading corporate repu-tation and trust models and measurementtools, which differ in their perception of thenature of and relationship between these twoconstructs.

For example, in the multi-dimensionalReputation QuotientSM (RQ) model deve-loped by Charles Fombrun and Harris Inter-active in 1999, as a standardised instrument tomeasure the reputation of an organisationand to calculate an overall reputation score,‘trust’ is regarded merely as one of theattributes (together with ‘like’ and ‘admire’)of the emotional appeal dimension (Einwillerand Will, 2001; Fombrun and Gardberg,2000; Fombrun and Van Riel, 2004; Lloyd,2007). Fortune’s America’s Most AdmiredCompanies model and measurement tool alsoincludes trust as an attribute or an antecedentof corporate reputation (Gardberg andFombrun, 2002).

In contrast, there are existing corporatereputation measurement tools with the word‘trust’ in the titles, such as the Edelman TrustBarometer based in the United States ofAmerica and the South African-based AskAfrika Trust Barometer (Ask Afrika, 2009;Edelman, 2010). The use of these titleswould at first suggest a different conceptualview of the relationship between these con-structs, namely that trust is an outcome ofreputation. However, despite the inclu-sion of the word ‘trust’ in the titles, bothbarometers also regard trust merely as oneof the factors that influences corporate repu-tation, treating the latter as the largerumbrella construct to be managed, measuredand protected.

Based on the underlying conceptualmodel of these measurement tools, trust isthen regarded to be an antecedent of corpo-rate reputation – a supposition that is chal-lenged by this paper. Furthermore, none ofthese models and measurement tools differ-entiates between corporate trust and trust-worthiness. We advocate that there is afundamental difference between these twoconstructs. As such, we contend that anyconceptual model that does not distinguishbetween trust and trustworthiness, also inrelation to its impact and role in corporatereputation, is deemed to be incomplete.

van der Merwe and Puth

139© 2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1363-3589 Vol. 17, 2, 138–156 Corporate Reputation Review

Essentially, we suggest that it is a possiblelack of understanding, of conceptual clarity,particularly regarding the relationship bet-ween these two corporate constructs, thatcontributes notably to the fact that consensusconcerning the core meaning and the build-ing blocks of corporate reputation and truststill elude academics and corporate leadersalike.

In an effort to contribute to greater con-ceptual clarity, this paper introduces a con-ceptualisation of corporate trust, including itsdimensions and relationship with trust-worthiness, in relation to corporate reputa-tion. We then propose a conceptual modelillustrating the relationship between corpo-rate trust and corporate reputation, whichcan be used to guide actions to manage andmeasure both of these processes, particularlywith the aim to use these to help ensure thelong-term economic sustainability of anorganisation.

In contrast to the generally accepted viewin the current literature, where trust is usuallyregarded as an attribute or antecedent ofcorporate reputation, our model suggests aninverse direction to this relationship. Weconceptualise trust as an outcome of corpo-rate reputation and as the more comprehen-sive construct in the relationship, in that it isseen to play the more critical role in thesustained success and survival of an organisa-tion. We then conceptualise reputation asbeing merely a means to an end, namely toearn stakeholders’ trust and therefore theircontinued support for the organisation.

We define stakeholders as any person orgroup who has a direct interest, involvementor investment in an organisation, who canaffect the organisation and its operations orwho can be affected by the organisation, itsdecisions and operations (Freeman et al.,2010; Friedman and Miles, 2009; Hatch andSchultz, 2008; King, 2009; Steyn and Puth,2000). A stakeholder is therefore not justregarded as a person or group of people whomay benefit from or be harmed by the

actions of the organisation (Davies et al.,2003), but as someone who can also eitherhinder or assist the organisation in itsendeavours.

This paper also operationalises the con-struct of trustworthiness and its relationshipto trust and reputation. We conceptualisetrustworthiness as the key driver of corporatetrust, and identify seven key areas in whichan organisation should display its trustworthi-ness. These are then identified as antecedentsof trust. Since these seven areas in which anorganisation can display its trustworthy beha-viour impact on its corporate reputation, wealso propose these as new antecedents forcorporate reputation in order to build areputation that will lead to stakeholders’ trustand support, and therefore to an organisa-tion’s continued sustainability. While it isacknowledged that these seven areas maynot be the only antecedents of corporatereputation, these would be the only onesthat will be focused on for the purpose of thispaper.

In order to prepare for our presentation ofthe actual conceptual model, the nature, roleof and relationships between the key con-structs related to the model first need to besystematically addressed. As such, we struc-ture the paper as follows: we commence witha brief overview of the particular paradig-matic perspective applied in this paper,before we describe the broader corporatesustainability framework within which theseconcepts are used in this paper. Next, weconceptualise corporate trust and discuss thedistinction between it and trustworthiness,and identify the antecedents of corporatetrust. We then conceptualise corporate repu-tation, and propose that the antecedents fortrust also be regarded as antecedents ofreputation.

We then present our proposed conceptualmodel that illustrates the specific relationshipbetween corporate trust and reputation. Weconclude by summarising our argumentsregarding the three key contentions in

Relationship between Corporate Trust and Corporate Reputation

140 Corporate Reputation Review Vol. 17, 2, 138–156 © 2014 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 1363-3589

current theory that are challenged by thispaper, and by examining how practitionersand theorists may benefit from our proposedconceptual model.

PARADIGMATIC PERSPECTIVEThe underlying world view of this paper isbased on general systems theory, particularlysociological systems theory. We regard anorganisation as an open, complex and sociallyengineered system; one that is capable ofinteracting purposefully with its variouscomponents and with its environment andof adapting itself based on the feedback itreceives, in order to achieve its goal to sustainand grow its economic performance. As asocial actor in its own right, it is also capableof transforming itself to manage how itinteracts with, and therefore how it isinfluenced by, its environment (Kast andRosenzweig, 1972; King et al., 2010;Littlejohn and Foss, 2005; Turban andMeredith, 1981; Von Bertalanffy, 1972).

In contrast to a general system, where itsvarious components interact either in linear,functional or interdependent processes inorder to achieve the specific goal of thesystem, the key interaction process that isstressed in this view of an organisation as asocial system involves more than just inter-dependency, and is extended to highlight therelationship perspective.

Social systems are anchored in the atti-tudes, beliefs, perceptions, habits, motiva-tions and expectations of human beings; thus,the glue that holds them together is essentiallypsychological (Kast and Rosenzweig, 1972;King et al., 2010). As such, this paper contendsthat an organisation’s continued economicsuccess and survival is based on how well itmanages the relationship it has with its stake-holders, which is determined by how effectivethat relationship is (ie is it doing the rightthings) (Narayanan and Nath, 1993) toevoke the emotional response required from its

stakeholders that will ensure their cooperationand support for the organisation.

Since the relationship between an organi-sation and its stakeholders is defined byuncertainty and risks brought about by theirmutual interdependence (Mayer et al., 1995;McEvily et al., 2008; McPhee and Zaug,2001), we regard corporate trust as a keystrategy that can be used to alleviate stake-holders’ feelings of uncertainty, and toimprove, manage and measure the effective-ness of an organisation’s relationship with itsstakeholders. Trust then fulfils a key func-tional role in social corporate relationships(Bachmann, 2006; Luhmann, 1979).

The key premise of this paper is that theability of an organisation (as a complex socialsystem) to generate sustainable wealth overtime and to ensure its own long-term eco-nomic sustainability is related to the level oftrust that its stakeholders have in it, based ona corporate reputation for being a trust-worthy organisation. To do this, it needs toboth become and be seen to be an ethical,trustworthy organisation (King, 2009). Thishighlights the importance to understand therelationship between corporate reputationand trust.

CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITYFRAMEWORKThe concept of sustainability is usuallyregarded to refer to the concurrent adoptionof three key sustainability principles: eco-nomic prosperity, social equity and environ-mental integrity (Adams, 2006; BañonGomis et al., 2011; Haque, 2010; Porter andKramer, 2006; Sarkis et al., 2006). It is alsogenerally accepted that corporate sustainabledevelopment is achieved only at the inter-section of these three principles, since notany one of these principles on its own embo-dies a sufficient condition for sustainability(Bansal, 2005).

However, the actual management ofthe interrelationships and potential conflicts



between these three pillars of sustainabilityremains a challenge (Haque, 2010; Jamali,2006; Sarkis et al., 2006). If sustainability isfound at the core of the intersection betweenthe principles of environment, society andeconomy, it is then considered that it mustensue from a unifying and universalisticrationality that is both common to all threeand more basic than that which is peculiar toeach one individually. Ethics is regarded assuch an underlying and guiding rationality(Bañon Gomis et al., 2011).

As such, the concept of corporate sustain-ability is extended in this paper to includeethics as a key element that can assist leadersto manage the potential conflicts, disputesand compromises between the three sustain-ability principles more effectively and toguide conduct in an organisation (BañonGomis et al., 2011). In this sense, corporatesustainability then pertains to an attitude orrespect that an organisation demonstratestowards the world (Bañon Gomis et al.,2011), which rests on the principle of respon-sible leadership. This is characterised bya proactive adoption of an ethical stancetowards sustainability (Adams, 2006; Jones,2007; King, 2009; Paine, 1994); an acknowl-edgment that the organisation’s responsibil-ities extend towards its multiple stakeholders,beyond increasing profit for shareholders(Bandsuch et al., 2008; Gao and Zhang,2006; King, 2009; Stout and Blair, 2001)and a commitment to create a sustainable andtrustworthy organisation and consistently actin line with what it states itself to be (MossKanter, 2011).

We define corporate sustainability as anorganisation’s ability to do, and continue todo, business and achieve its economic success– its profit and growth – in a manner that ismaintainable, viable and wholly morally jus-tifiable, now and in the future, since it hasadopted ethics as its core principle to guideconduct in the organisation. A sustainableorganisation conducts its present business insuch a way that it does not put the likelihood

of its own sustained existence and its capacityto meet its future needs at risk (King, 2009;Moss Kanter, 2011).

We then regard corporate sustainability tobe related to an organisation’s ability toconduct its operations, to consistently behave,in an ethical manner. We maintain that anorganisation’s ability to ensure its long-termeconomic success in a sustainable manneris unequivocally linked to its ability tobe trustworthy and to purposefully work toincrease its stakeholders’ trust in it (Ingenhoffand Sommer, 2010; Moon and Muthuri,2008; Perrini and Castaldo, 2008).

CONCEPTUALISING CORPORATE TRUSTAND TRUSTWORTHINESSA brief overview of trust as a sociologicalevent as well as of trustworthiness is requiredbefore we conceptualise these as corporateconstructs.

Trust as a Sociological EventBased on social theory, trust is conceptualisedas an inter-subjective, multi-dimensionaland systemic social reality (Ingenhoff andSommer, 2010; Lewis and Weigert, 2008;Wicks et al., 1999). Trust in a sociolo-gical context is regarded on the basis offour elements: (1) a person who trusts(2) someone (3) in some respect, (4) in aspecific context. As such, trust occurs in aparticular relationship between two people,in which there is a trustor (the person whotrusts) and a trustee (the person who istrusted), in some respect (in terms of whatthe trustor trusts the trustee with) and withina specific context or situation (Hardin, 2002;Kramer, 2010; Mayer et al., 1995; McEvily etal., 2008; Nooteboom, 2002; Stout andBlair, 2001; Vanneste et al., 2011).

The key characteristic of trust is that it isneeded or present whenever there is animbalance in a relationship, regardless of thecontext, which puts the trustor in a position



of vulnerability or at risk to the actions of theother party, and therefore in a position wherehe has to expect that the trustee will act in amanner that will not be harmful to him as thetrustor (Ingenhoff and Sommer, 2010).

Trust has definite cognitive, affective andbehavioural dimensions, which combinedform a single social experience. The cogni-tive dimension relates to the trustor’s percep-tion of or cognitive familiarity with theability, benevolence and integrity of thetrustee (Ingenhoff and Sommer, 2010; Lewisand Weigert, 2008; Luhmann, 1979). Theaffect-based dimension is characterised bytwo key elements, namely emotion and theunderlying moral element inherent in a trustrelationship (Luhmann, 1979; Wicks et al.,1999). The emotional bond between thetrustor and the trustee is grounded not somuch in the relationship itself, but rather inthe trustor’s subjective belief in the moralcharacter, goodwill or in the benevolentintention of the trustee in the trusting rela-tionship (Wicks et al., 1999). The thirddimension of trust lies in its behaviouralexecution, in its practical application (Lewisand Weigert, 2008). Trust is only regarded tobe trust if it manifests in behaviour, wherethe trustor shows the trustee his trust(McEvily et al., 2008).

We therefore conceptualise the inherentnature of trust as an expectation or belief, as adecision and as an action or behaviouralmanifestation by the trustor.

TrustworthinessThe concepts of trust and trustworthiness arenot the same, although they are intricatelyrelated, with the former depending upon anexpectation of the latter (Casson and DellaGiusta, 2006; Ingenhoff and Sommer, 2010;McEvily et al., 2008; Stout and Blair, 2001;Vanneste et al., 2011). Whereas trust isdefined as an expectation, a subjective beliefthat a trustor has about the trustee,trustworthiness is defined as an objective

characteristic of the trustee that makes himworthy of having the trustor’s trust placed inhim.

With trustworthiness, the focus is placedon the importance of internal factors and theunderlying moral element inherent in a trustrelationship, such as the intrinsic character,identity and values of the trustee that pro-duces his trustworthiness, and which in turnencourages the trustor’s trust in the trustee asa situational outcome of the relationship(Blois, 1999; Stout and Blair, 2001; Swift,2001).

Trust can thus not be enforced – a trusteecan only earn it on the basis of his owntrustworthy behaviour (Hardin, 2002;Vanneste et al., 2011). Trustworthiness isthen held to be a key factor that influencestrust, which means that trust is not sustainablewithout trustworthiness (Li and Betts, 2004;McEvily et al., 2008). As these two terms aretwo distinct constructs, they cannot be usedinterchangeably.

Corporate Trust as a Higher Level of TrustCorporate trust, as a high-level trust concept,similar to institution-based trust and systemstrust, is based on the understanding of trustas a collective rather than a personal attri-bute (Bromley, 2002; Greenwood and VanBuren, 2010; Luhmann, 1979). In makingthe distinction between interpersonal trustand collective trust, Kramer (2010) highlightsthat the distinctive characteristic of collectivetrust is that its target is the organisation and itscollective membership as a whole.

Corporate trust then occurs in a relation-ship (albeit on a less-personal level) betweenan organisation as the trustee and its stake-holders as multiple trustors (Bachmann, 2006;Greenwood and Van Buren, 2010; King,2009; King et al., 2010; Kramer, 2010; Moonand Muthuri, 2008; Nooteboom, 2002),where stakeholders trust it to act in an ethical,trustworthy and socially responsible manner inthe course of its commercial activities.



Similar to personal trust, where trust is aresult of getting to know and trust the trusteebased on the personality that the trusteepresents of himself (symbolic behaviour)as well as the trustee’s consistent actions(substantive behaviour) associated with itsself-presentation, an organisation has to com-municate and build a relationship with itsstakeholders – it has to ‘present’ itself so thatits stakeholders can get to know what itstands for. It does this through the use ofwords and symbols to tell its stakeholdersabout itself in order to develop shared systemsof belief and meaning or to indicate a strategicchange of existing value and meaning systems,which stakeholders can interpret and use as abasis on which they can evaluate the characterand intentions of the organisation (Gioia andChittipeddi, 1991; Grunig, 2003; Johnson,1990; Kim et al., 2007; Snow, 2001).

This is where corporate communication andreputation-building activities (Nooteboom,2002; Nooteboom, 2006) fulfil key func-tions. However, we argue that in order forthese activities to contribute to demonstrat-ing the organisation’s trustworthiness, it iscritical for the messages about and the man-ner in which it symbolically presents itself tobe consistently integrated and aligned withthe identity and values of the organisation asan ethical and responsible corporate citizen.Continuous inconsistency in messages orself-presentation will break down the imageof trustworthiness that the organisation wantsto portray.

While consistency in symbolic messagingis important, this consistency also has tobe apparent in the organisation’s actions,since symbolic and substantive behaviouralrelationships are complexly intertwined(Feldman, 1986; Grunig, 2003; Kim et al.,2007; Snow, 2001; Urbany et al., 2008).However, we hold that it is actually consis-tency in an organisation’s substantive beha-viour that has a greater impact on earningstakeholders’ trust. So, while an inconsis-tency in words is regarded to be damaging

to the concept of trustworthiness, an incon-sistency in actions is deemed to be destructiveto trustworthiness. The key point here is thattrust can only really be earned on the basis ofconsistent, substantive trustworthy behaviour(Hardin, 2002; Nooteboom, 2002).

Corporate trust is defined in this study as asubjective attitude, belief and optimisticexpectation by a stakeholder or a group ofstakeholders that their dependence on theorganisation will not be abused, which influ-ences their decisions and allows them tosupport the organisation. This belief is basedon the organisation’s consistent demonstra-tion that it has voluntarily accepted itsincumbent moral duty to act in a mannerthat is ethically justifiable and socially respon-sible. It does this by taking morally correctdecisions and actions, based upon ethical pri-nciples of analysis to protect the rights andinterests of all its stakeholders to the good ofsociety, in any joint endeavour, economicexchange as well as in the manner that itconducts its overall operations as a responsi-ble corporate citizen. Based on this belief andexpectation, stakeholders will then committo and actively support the organisation(Einwiller and Will, 2001; Luhmann, 2000).

At the same time, it is posited that anorganisation is also vulnerable to its stake-holders’ actions, in that it needs to earn itsstakeholders’ trust and support to be success-ful in its business operations in a morecomplex context marked by less familiarity(Kramer, 2010). Since stakeholders hold theorganisation accountable for its actions, theycan revoke the status and authority they havebestowed on the organisation and withdrawsupport, should their trust be violated. Thissignifies that an element of prudence andsocial control is built into the corporate trustrelationship (Greenwood and Van Buren,2010; Hardin, 2002).

We therefore contend that an organisationcan use trust as a strategy to manage theircomplex social and organisational relation-ships, particularly to reduce the risk brought



about by their dependency on others toachieve their goals. The presence of trustthen allows for these relationships and inter-actions to happen on a simple and confidentbasis, whereas the absence of trust can posesuch complexity of contingent outcomes thatit could lead to paralysing action (Bachmann,2006; Lewis and Weigert, 2008).

Corporate TrustworthinessThe concept of corporate trustworthiness refersto a set of virtues held by the organisation,exhibiting its worthiness to be trusted as anentity in its own right, separate from the virtuesheld by the employees or representatives of theorganisation (Bachmann, 2006; Green-woodand Van Buren, 2010; King et al., 2010;Kramer, 2010; Moon and Muthuri, 2008).

We then define corporate trustworthinessas an objective characteristic of an organisa-tion that makes it worthy of having itsstakeholders’ trust placed in it. While it isnot possible for an organisation to make astakeholder trust it, it is possible for it todemonstrate its trustworthiness to its stake-holders, which may then make it possible forthem to trust the organisation. As such, weconceptualise trustworthiness as the key dri-ver of corporate trust, and identify seven keyareas in which an organisation should displayits trustworthiness. These seven areas inwhich an organisation should display itstrustworthiness (in both its symbolic andsubstantive behaviour) as the antecedents oftrust and the relationship between them willbe briefly discussed:

Antecedents of trust: Seven areas inwhich an organisation should display itstrustworthiness

AbilityAbility is defined as an organisation’s collec-tive set of skills, competencies and character-istics, such as expertise, reliability and attention

to detail, that enables it to function progres-sively and to effectively meet its goals andresponsibilities, because it is technically com-petent to fulfil its specific role (Gillespie andDietz, 2009; Greenwood and Van Buren,2010; Hardin, 2002; Hosmer, 1995;Ingenhoff and Sommer, 2010; Kramer, 2010;Mayer et al., 1995; Pirson, 2009; Rodgers,2010; Walsh and Wiedmann, 2004).

BenevolenceBenevolence is defined as an organisation’scollective and consistent behaviour indicat-ing genuine care and concern for the well-being of all its stakeholders, aside from anegocentric profit motive. An organisation’sbenevolence can be evident from its actions,which reveal its orientation towards its stake-holders (Gillespie and Dietz, 2009; Greenwoodand Van Buren, 2010; Ingenhoff and Sommer,2010; Kramer, 2010;Mayer et al., 1995; Pirson,2009; Rodgers, 2010; Schoorman et al.,2007; Walsh and Wiedmann, 2004).

IntegrityIn this paper, integrity is viewed as beingdevoid of any normative content, and isinstead characterised as the objective state orcondition of an object, system, person, group,or organisational entity, where its state orcondition is whole, complete, unimpairedand sound (Erhard et al., 2009). We thendefine integrity as the level of congruencebetween an organisation’s words and actions;its ability to consistently honour its word andto deliver on its promises or to communicateto those who were counting on the organisa-tion to keep its word as soon as it knows that itwill not be able to do so, for whatever reason,and then to take steps of retribution.

An organisation that acts with integrity istherefore one that ensures agreement betweenits symbolic and substantive behaviour – onewhich ‘walks its talk’ – in order to be regardedas credible (Bartkus and Glassman, 2008;Grunig, 2003; Kim et al., 2007; Mahon, 2002).



Ethical behaviour Our definition of ethi-cal behaviour incorporates that which isusually included in the definition of integrityin much of the current literature. We defineethical behaviour as the organisation’s con-sistent conduct and adherence to a set ofmoral principles and ethical behavioural stan-dards (including legal compliance and proce-dural fairness) or values that the stakeholdersfind worthy and acceptable within the widersocietal context (Gillespie and Dietz, 2009;Greenwood and Van Buren, 2010; Ingenhoffand Sommer, 2010; Jones, 2007; Mayer et al.,1995; Paine, 1994; Pirson, 2009; Wicks et al.,1999).The organisation then uses this set of

moral principles or values to direct its com-mercial activity, its decision-making, actionsand business operations, to ensure that it actsfairly, honestly and responsibly towards all itsstakeholders in everything it does (Cacioppeet al., 2008; Cartwright and Craig, 2006;Jones, 2007; Kapstein, 2001; Murphy, 2005;Wood, 2002).

Identifiability This paper contends thatidentifiability as an antecedent of trustincludes, but is greater than, the concepts ofgeneral familiarity and similarity, whichallow stakeholders to get to know and toidentify with an organisation. When stake-holders identify with an organisation, theyinternalise its preferences and align them-selves with the organisations’ goals (Pirson,2009; Vanneste et al., 2011). We hold that,for stakeholders to be able to identify with anorganisation, there needs to be valuecongruence between the stakeholders andthe organisation. An organisation that wantsto earn its stakeholders’ trust then needs tomake itself identifiable, by focusing oncommunicating and behaving in line withvalues, norms and beliefs that its stakeholderscan identify with.As an antecedent of trust, identifiability

then includes the concepts of familiarity and

similarity, but we define it specifically tomean that an organisation should ensure thatits core values are congruent with – and canresonate with – its stakeholders’ core values,and that it should then create a sense offamiliarity and similarity with the valuesof an organisation, with its core identity inorder to enable its stakeholders to perceive amatch in values and identify with the orga-nisation (Burke, 2011; Lewis and Weigert,2008; Murray and White, 2005; Pirson,2009; Vanneste et al., 2011).

Transparency Transparency is defined tomean the extent to which an organisation isactively open and transparent about its opera-tions and what it stands for, by sharingrelevant information with and not withhold-ing relevant information from its stake-holders, guided by a culture of ethicalgovernance in the organisation and in linewith its inclusive stakeholder governanceapproach (Bandsuch et al., 2008; Fombrunand Van Riel, 2004; Pirson, 2009).

Likability as an affective antecedent oftrust While the first six antecedents arekey cognitive antecedents of trust, the lastantecedent has an emotional or psychologicaldimension. As with any social system, anorganisation is anchored in the attitudes,beliefs, perceptions, habits, motivations andexpectations of its stakeholders as subjec-tive, emotional human beings (Kast andRosenzweig, 1972; King et al., 2010). Asan open, socially engineered system, anorganisation’s continued economic successand survival is then also based on how wellit manages the emotional bond between itand its stakeholders.As such, an organisation needs to manage

its symbolic communication and substantivebehaviour with its stakeholders in such amanner that it can evoke the emotionalresponse required from its stakeholders –their subjective belief in the moral character,



goodwill or in the benevolent intention ofthe organisation (Wicks et al., 1999) – thatwill ensure their cooperation and support forthe organisation (Narayanan and Nath,1993). When a stakeholder likes or admiresan organisation, it is likely to increase hismotivation to approach, interact and form aconnection with and to trust the organisation(Williams, 2001). Since trust develops on thebasis of the emotional bond that stakeholdersfeel towards an organisation, we proposelikability as the last antecedent.Likability as an antecedent of trust is then

defined to mean the extent to which anorganisation’s identity (its vision, values,behaviour and communication) is admiredand liked, based on how strongly it resonateswith its stakeholders’ emotions or beliefs. Anorganisation’s likability invokes people’sneed to belong and it motivates stakeholders’behaviours to maintain relationships, and tosupport and recommend the organisation.We hold that when an organisation deliber-ately demonstrates the emotive elementslinked to or inherent in its identity, itincreases its emotional attractiveness – itslikability – and enhances the extent to whichits stakeholders will form a positive emo-tional bond with the organisation.

Relationship between the antecedentsAlthough each of the antecedents discussedabove is unique and separable, it is importantto note that all seven are related but notmutually exclusive of each other, and thatthese antecedents collectively determine howtrustworthy an organisation is perceived tobe. Stakeholders’ perceptions of the ability,benevolence, integrity, ethical behaviour,identifiability, transparency and likability ofan organisation would determine how theyevaluate the trustworthiness of the organisa-tion, and this evaluation should be thoughtof as being along a continuum. Rather thanperceiving the organisation as being eithertrustworthy or not trustworthy at all, there is

a range that can vary between beingperceived as highly trustworthy on the oneend of the scale and not trustworthy on theother end.

Similarly, the relationship between each ofthe seven antecedents can be seen as existingalong a continuum. If stakeholders perceiveall the antecedents to be high, the organisa-tion would be regarded as being very trust-worthy (Greenwood and Van Buren, 2010:429; Mayer et al., 1995: 721). In a situationwhere all the antecedents are present, but notall of them are perceived to be high, ameaningful level of trustworthiness can stillbe perceived. While each of these antece-dents can then vary along this range, itremains important for all of them to bepresent for a perception of trustworthinessto exist (Greenwood and Van Buren, 2010;Mayer et al., 1995).

Integrity and ethical behaviour are thebasis for stakeholder trust across the board,but these become the most importantand significant factors in perceived trust-worthiness in a situation where the trustee(organisation) is unknown to the trustor(stakeholder), or where there is no existingrelationship between them (Greenwood andVan Buren, 2010; Pirson and Malhotra,2008).

CONCEPTUALISING CORPORATEREPUTATIONCorporate reputation is regarded in this paperas the subjective and collective opinion andassessment that stakeholders make of anorganisation, rather than their mere aware-ness of it (Chun, 2005; Fombrun and VanRiel, 2003). We define corporate reputation(one that will lead to stakeholders’ trust andthus to their continued support and commit-ment to ensuring the long-term sustainabilityof the organisation) as the collective assess-ment that all stakeholders make about thetrustworthiness of an organisation, of itscharacter, which influences their decision to



trust and support it (Chun, 2005; Fombrunand Van Riel, 2003).

Corporate identity is regarded as the corefoundation of corporate reputation (Kingand Whetten, 2008). While organisationalidentity is by nature more removed, variedand diverse than personal identity (Gioiaet al., 2000a), organisational identificationcan be regarded as a specific form of socialidentification (Ashforth and Mael, 1989;Hogg and Terry, 2000). As such, an exten-ded social identity theory perspective is usedto inform our conceptualisation of corporatereputation.

Social identity theory proposes that peoplecategorise themselves and others into socialgroups, based on their perception of a posi-tive emotional connection and shared valuesand norms. This is related to how they seekto achieve or maintain a positive socialidentity in order to boost their own self-esteem. By positively differentiating thegroup they belong to on some valued dimen-sion, people’s individual sense of self is thendefined in terms of their social identity(Brown, 2000; Cooren et al., 2011; Hoggand Terry, 2000). This has significant con-sequences for an organisation.

We define corporate identity as an organi-sation’s inherent character; that which it is,what it stands and can be held accountablefor, and which encompasses its vision andvalues that effectively makes it unique anddistinctive from other organisations (Balmerand Gray, 2001; Barnett et al., 2006; Kingand Whetten, 2008).

Since its stakeholders grant an organisationits legitimacy, they can legitimately expectand demand congruence between socialvalues and the organisation’s actions. Thispaper asserts that an organisation, in itsquest to attain a goal of sustainable economicgrowth, albeit in the longer term, shouldinclude the need to behave in a transparent,ethical and trustworthy manner as part of itsinherent identity, character and basic focus.This will ensure that its core values resonate

on an emotional level with its stakeholders,and thus increase the probability that theywill like, admire and positively identify withit and its values. An organisation’s identity,characterised by shared values, goals andexpectations, can then earn the stakeholders’trust if an organisation builds its corporatereputation on the basis of an ethical, trust-worthy character.

An organisation’s unique identity origi-nates from its vision, its values and culture,and in how it demonstrates this in its sub-stantive behaviour, as well as in its use ofsymbols and physical designs to symbolicallypresent itself collectively to its stakeholders(Grunig, 2003). This collective presentationbecomes institutionalised over time (Kinget al., 2010; King and Whetten, 2008) and,as such, that which is core to the organisa-tion, that which is labelled and perceived aspresumably most central, enduring and dis-tinctive about the organisation’s character,contributes to earn it its corporate reputation(Albert and Whetten, 2003; Brickson, 2000;Cooren et al., 2011; Gioia et al., 2000b;Hatch and Schultz, 2008; King et al., 2010;King and Whetten, 2008; Olins, 2003; Scottand Lane, 2000a).

Real corporate identity is then aboutbehaviour as much as appearance, and cer-tainly about reality, as much as symbolism(Olins, 2003). This dynamic perspective onidentity and self-conceptual prominence hasclear implications for a corporate context.On the basis of its own social identity selec-tion and the articulation of its desired iden-tity, an organisation provides stakeholderswith a promise, a standard by which theycan make an assessment of it, also in compar-ison with other similar organisations (Kingand Whetten, 2008).

It is against this promise that stakeholderscan assess how well the organisation is ful-filling its promise to them, based on whatthey experience from its culture and actualbehaviour, as well as based on what they hearabout the organisation and learn from its use



of communication, symbols and physicaldesigns to present itself to its stakeholders.The organisation’s reputation then emergesbased on those collective social comparisonprocesses, whereby stakeholders use institu-tionalised standards to assess and compareorganisations (King and Whetten, 2008).

As such, the stakeholders will then eitheridentify with, support and commit to anorganisation whose identity contributes totheir own positive self-esteem since its iden-tity is compatible with salient aspects of theirown identities, or they will distance them-selves from the organisation if they do notagree with what it does, with its ‘social’identity (Ashforth and Mael, 1989; Brown,2000; Cooren et al., 2011; Scott and Lane,2000b). This makes the definitive linkbetween corporate identity and reputation(King and Whetten, 2008).

We contend that a credible, sustainablecorporate reputation that will earn an orga-nisation its stakeholders’ trust and supportis determined by more than reputation-building activities such as accomplished cor-porate advertising, public relations activitiesand visual displays to present itself favourablyto its stakeholders. While these and othercorporate communication activities and sym-bolic behaviour certainly play a vital role infamiliarising stakeholders with the organisa-tion, this paper posits that a reputation thatwill enhance the opportunities for stake-holders to get to know it, to assess its pastbehaviour in a positive light and to ‘con-vince’ them to trust and support it, is evi-dently dependent on the authentic identityof the organisation, which it strategically andconsistently reveals, demonstrates and pre-sents through its aligned substantive beha-viour and symbolic self-presentation (Hardin,2002; Hatch and Schultz, 2008; Kim et al.,2007; Nooteboom, 2002; Olins, 2003).

The key point, however, is that it is notonly authenticity and consistency in beha-viour and appearance that is important, butrather the intrinsic characteristics of the

organisation’s identity, based on ethicalvalues and normative rules (Argandoña,2008) that stakeholders can identify with,which will make it worthy of having itsstakeholders’ trust placed in it (Casson andDella Giusta, 2006; Li and Betts, 2004;McEvily et al., 2008).

Since human decisions cannot be scienti-fically predicted, our view is that an organisa-tion that uses ethics, as the ‘law that governshuman behaviour’ (Argandoña, 2008), as itskey decision-making criteria, will ensure thatits decisions are not just focused on its ownshort-term interest, but also that the validself-interests of its stakeholders are taken intoaccount. A reputation in this sense is thenactually a reputation for not being opportu-nistic (Wicks et al., 1999).

It is therefore held that an organisationthat defines and institutionalises its corporateidentity around its purpose and values, andwhich uses ethics as its guide to consistentorganisational decisions and behaviour(Argandoña, 2008; Fukuyama, 1995; Jones,2007) will be able to build a good reputa-tion that will lead to stakeholders’ trust(Argandoña, 2008; Hosmer, 1995). Unlessstakeholders, who are vulnerable to theactions of the organisation, believe that theycan rely on it to typically act in a manner thatwill also protect their rights and interests,they will not trust it – and therefore they willnot engage in trust-informed risk-takingbehaviour to support it (Dietz and DenHartog, 2006; Ingenhoff and Sommer,2010; Lewis and Weigert, 2008; Linthicumet al., 2010; McEvily et al., 2008; Mouzaset al., 2007; Swift, 2001).

The difference between having a goodreputation and being trusted is a subtle butimportant one, in that an organisation witha good reputation can be relied upon tobehave in a manner that is consistent with itsreputation, but might not be trusted tobehave ethically under uncertain circum-stances (Blois, 1999; Swift, 2001). A strong,sustainable corporate reputation, earned on



the basis of the organisation’s ethical char-acter and consistent trustworthy behaviour,can then be regarded as a strategic asset, as itsreputational capital (Rangan, 2011). It givesthe organisation credibility and signals to itsstakeholders that it can be trusted; that it isworthy of trust, which in turn will lead totrusting and mutually beneficial relationships(Swift, 2001) and, as is argued in thispaper, to supportive stakeholder behaviourand trust, which will impact positivelyon the organisation’s long-term economicsustainability.

Trust is then considered as an outcome ofreputation, provided that the reputation issubstantiated in the organisation’s ethicalcorporate identity and congruent trust-worthy behaviour (Blois, 1999; Casson andDella Giusta, 2006; Einwiller, 2003; Helmand Gray 2009; Hosmer, 1995; McKnightand Chervany, 2006; Nooteboom, 2002;Swift, 2001).

Trustworthiness is then regarded as thekey driver of corporate reputation and cor-porate trust (Nooteboom, 2002; Casson andDella Giusta, 2006). This means that neithercorporate reputation nor corporate trust issustainable without trustworthiness. This iswhy we posit that the seven antecedents oftrust – the different ways in which anorganisation can display its trustworthy char-acteristics – should then also be regarded asantecedents of corporate reputation.

Our proposal in this regard is based in thefirst place on the premise that these sevenareas in which an organisation can display itstrustworthy behaviour impact on its corpo-rate reputation – on how stakeholders per-ceive and assess an organisation in terms of itsability, benevolence, integrity, ethical beha-viour, identifiability, transparency and lik-ability. In the second place, our proposalthat these seven antecedents of trust shouldalso be regarded as antecedents of corporatereputation is based on the premise that thetrust antecedents compare closely with thefive characteristics that Fombrun and Van

Riel (2004) identified as key ingredients forbuilding star-quality reputations. In theirfive-star model, Fombrun and Van Riel(2004) identified corporate visibility, trans-parency, distinctiveness, consistency andauthenticity as the five principles that arekey to building strong corporate reputations.In contrast to the original key dimensions ofreputation in the multi-dimensional RQmodel developed in 1999, we argue thatthese reputation dimensions in the five-starmodel are more closely related to the ante-cedents of trust; or to be similar to thecharacteristics of trustworthiness. However,we acknowledge that these seven areas maynot be the only antecedents of corporatereputation.

By regarding the seven antecedents of trustalso as new antecedents for corporate reputa-tion, we hold that an organisation can thenbuild a strong reputation that will lead tostakeholders’ trust and support, and thereforeto an organisation’s continued sustainability.

THE CONCEPTUAL MODELThe discussion in this paper thus far hasfocused on conceptualising the nature of andrelationships between the key constructsincluded in our proposed conceptual model.It should be noted that the proposed model isat this stage not yet at the level where itsconstructs can be measured. The statisticalmeasurement and modelling of the con-structs in the proposed model will beaddressed in the next research phase. Theconceptual model illustrating this relation-ship is presented next (see Figure 1). Thepresentation of the model serves as asummation of the preceding discussion, sothe model will be self-explanatory.

DISCUSSION: CHALLENGING THREEKEY CONTENTIONSWe challenge three key contentions in cur-rent theory in this paper: that corporate trust



does not play a critical role in the sustainedsuccess and survival of an organisation, inas-much as corporate reputation does; that,when the role of corporate trust in relationto corporate reputation is recognised, it isregarded as an antecedent of corporate repu-tation; and the general exclusion of corporatetrustworthiness as an antecedent or the incor-rect inclusion of corporate trust as an ante-cedent to corporate reputation.

This paper has successfully challengedthese three contentions. Corporate trust hasbeen conceptualised as the more compre-hensive construct in the relationship, in thatit, rather than corporate reputation, isregarded as the more critical influencer of anorganisation’s ability to generate sustainablewealth over time and to ensure its own long-term economic sustainability. Corporatereputation has thus been conceptualised asbeing merely a means to an end – to earnstakeholders’ trust and therefore their com-mitment and continued support – and not asan end in itself.

Next, as corporate reputation is defined asthe collective assessment that stakeholders

make of the character of an organisation, ithas been clarified that corporate trust (as asubjective expectation of and belief in thecharacter of the organisation) is an outcomeof corporate reputation. Corporate trust, asan expectation of stakeholders, cannot beused to drive and shape the organisation’scharacter in order to influence how stake-holders perceive and assess it. Corporatetrustworthiness (as an intrinsic, objectivecharacteristic of an organisation), on theother hand, can be used to drive and shapehow stakeholders perceive and assess theorganisation’s character, since it can choosewhich characteristics it wants to emphasise,demonstrate and display. The seven key areasin which an organisation should validate itstrustworthiness have been identified as theantecedents of trust.

The final contention challenged by thispaper has revealed that instead of includingtrustworthiness as one of the attributes orantecedents of corporate reputation, we con-tend that all the antecedents of trust shouldalso be regarded as antecedents of corporatereputation. This is based on the rationale that

Corporatetrust

Long-termeconomic/corporate

sustainability

Ability

Integrity

Benevolence

Ethical behaviour

Transparency

Identifiability

Likability

Corporatereputation

An intrinsic, objective characteristicof an organisation, using ethics as a

guide to ensure consistenttrustworthy corporate decisions

and behaviour:

Multiple stakeholders’ perceptions andassessment of how trustworthy the

organisation is, based on their overallexperience of/exposure over time to its

identity/character via its actions and self-presentation, which in turn affects theirdecisions on how to behave towards it

An outcome of reputation; as asubjective expectation of and beliefin the stable/enduring ethical and

trustworthy character of theorganisation; they trust that they candepend on it now/in future, since it

will continue to act in character

Leading to stakeholders’continued commitment and

supportive behaviourtowards the organisation,particularly in uncertain/unfamiliar circumstances

Trustworthiness

The key areas in which an organisation shoulddisplay its corporate trustworthiness, regardedas key antecedents of an enduring corporatereputation that will lead to stakeholders’ trust:

Figure 1: A conceptual model of the relationship between corporate trust and corporatereputation in an organisationSource: (Researchers’ own construct, based on literature reviewed in this study)



an organisation that uses the seven antece-dents of trust to demonstrate its trustworthycharacteristics and to make these visible to itsstakeholders in everything it does and says(using its overall strategic corporate commu-nication activities as reputation-buildingblocks), will be able to build an enduringcorporate reputation that will lead to anoutcome where stakeholders trust, and there-fore support, the organisation.

The specific contribution of this paper isheld to be in the specificity of the relation-ship between corporate reputation and cor-porate trust. As such, the conceptual model ispresented in such a way that this relationshipis specifically highlighted: that corporatereputation depends on the inherent charac-teristics of an organisation (its trustworthi-ness), and that trust is the outcome of areputation that has been built and sustainedon the basis of the seven key antecedentsof corporate trust, which then influencesthe organisation’s continued growth andsustainability.

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCHA methodological limitation of this study isthat the model has not yet been empiricallytested. While the nature of and the relation-ship between the key constructs included inour proposed model have been explained ona conceptual level, the model is not yet at thelevel where these constructs can be measuredempirically. Furthermore, while the discus-sion on the relationship between the sevenantecedents of trust, based on current litera-ture, illustrates that these antecedents areclearly related and mutually interdependenton face value, little research has been done todetermine the extent of the relationship tothe level of statistical equation modelling.Future research should focus on addressingthe statistical measurement and modelling ofthe constructs in the proposed model, as wellas to determine the extent of the relationshipbetween the seven antecedents of trust.

CONCLUSIONWe conclude with the final observation thatit is believed that a significant contributionhas been made by this paper to address thecurrent perceived lack of conceptual clarityregarding the relationship between corporatetrust and corporate reputation within a cor-porate sustainability framework.

The conceptual model developed as theresult of this study suggests an inverse direc-tion to the generally accepted view in currentliterature of the relationship between corpo-rate trust and reputation. Where trust isusually regarded as an attribute or antecedentof corporate reputation, we have conceptua-lised corporate trust as an outcome of corpo-rate reputation.

Our operationalisation of the trustworthi-ness and trust constructs has also clarified therelationship between these two constructs,which in turn informed the conceptualisa-tion of the relationship between corporatereputation and corporate trust. In many ofthe existing reputation models, trustworthi-ness and trust are either not linked to the keydimensions of reputation, or trust (not trust-worthiness) is merely indicated as an attributeof one of the key antecedents of corporatereputation. This also then brings into ques-tion which key criterion or criteria are usedto identify the antecedents of corporatereputation.

In conclusion, it is then held that thispaper, as a conceptual overview aimed atclarifying current and existing theory and ofproviding a new theoretical perspectiveregarding the nature and relationshipbetween corporate reputation and corporatetrust, will have both theoretical and practicalvalue in expanding the field. The key con-tribution of this paper can be regarded as onethat results in a paradigm shift, which requiresa qualitative change in focus and assumptionsin how academics and practitioners view andmanage corporate reputation and corporatetrust – a paradigm shift that opens up newavenues for further research.



REFERENCES

Adams, W.M. (2006) ‘The future of sustainability:Re-thinking environment and development in thetwenty-first century’, Report of the IUCNRenowned Thinkers Meeting, 29–31 January,2006, http://www.iucn.org, accessed 4 February,2012.

Albert, S. and Whetten, D. (2003) ‘Organizationalidentity’, in J.M.T. Balmer and S.A. Greyser(eds.), Revealing the Corporation: Perspectives onIdentity, Image, Reputation, Corporate Branding andCorporate-Level Marketing, Routledge, London,pp. 77–105.

Argandoña, A. (2008) ‘Integrating ethics into actiontheory and organizational theory’, Journal of BusinessEthics, 78(3), 435–446.

Ashforth, B.E. and Mael, F. (1989) ‘Social identitytheory and the organization’, Academy of ManagementReview, 14(1), 20–39.

Ask Afrika (2009) ‘Trust Barometer: Corporatereputation benchmark’, http://www.askafrika.co.za/work/trust-barometer, accessed 12 December,2009.

Bacharach, S.B. (1989) ‘Organizational theories: Somecriteria for evaluation’, Academy of ManagementReview, 14(4), 496–515.

Bachmann, R. (2006) ‘Trust and/or power: Towards asociological theory of organizational relationships’, inR. Bachmann and A. Zaheer (eds.), Handbook ofTrust Research, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK,pp. 393–408.

Balmer, J.M.T. and Gray, E.R. (2001) ‘Corporatebrands: What are they? What of them?’ EuropeanJournal of Marketing, 37(7/8), 972–997.

Balmer, J.M.T. and Greyser, S.A. (2003) (eds.),‘Editors’ introduction to section four: Corporateimage and reputation: The other realities’, inRevealing the Corporation: Perspectives on Identity,Image, Reputation, Corporate Branding and Corporate-Level Marketing, Routledge, London, pp. 173–185.

Bandsuch, M., Pate, L. and Thies, J. (2008) ‘Rebuildingstakeholder trust in business: An examination ofprinciple-centered leadership and organizationaltransparency in corporate governance’, Business andSociety Review, 113(1), 99–127.

Bañon Gomis, A.J., Guillén Parra, M., Hoffman, W.M.and McNulty, R.E. (2011) ‘Rethinking the conceptof sustainability’, Business and Society Review, 116(2),171–191.

Bansal, P. (2005) ‘Evolving sustainably: A longitudinalstudy of corporate sustainable development’, StrategicManagement Journal, 26(3), 197–218.

Barnett, M.L., Jermier, J.M. and Lafferty, B.A. (2006)‘Corporate reputation: The definitional landscape’,Corporate Reputation Review, 9(1), 26–38.

Bartkus, B.R. and Glassman, M. (2008) ‘Do firmspractice what they preach? The relationshipbetween mission statements and stakeholdermanagement’, Journal of Business Ethics, 83(2),207–216.

Blois, K.J. (1999) ‘Trust in business to businessrelationships: An evaluation of its status’, Journal ofManagement Studies, 36(2), 197–215.

Brickson, S. (2000) ‘Exploring identity: Where are wenow?’ In: M.G. Pratt, P.O. Foreman, S.G. Scott, V.R. Lane, D.A. Gioia, M. Schultz, K.G. Corley, S.Brickson, A.D. Brown, K. Starkey, M.A. Hogg andD.J. Terry. Identity Dialogues, Academy of ManagementReview, 25(1), 141–152.

Bromley, D. (2002) ‘Comparing reputations: Leaguetables, quotients, benchmarks, or case studies?’Corporate Reputation Review, 5(1), 35–50.

Brown, R. (2000) ‘Social identity theory: Pastachievements, current problems and futurechallenges’, European Journal of Social Psychology,30(6), 745–778.

Burke, W.W. (2011) ‘A perspective on the field oforganization development and change: TheZeigarnik effect’, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,47(2), 143–167.

Cacioppe, R., Forster, N. and Fox, M. (2008)‘A survey of managers’ perceptions of corporateethics and social responsibility and actions that mayaffect companies’ success’, Journal of Business Ethics,82(3), 681–700.

Cartwright, W. and Craig, J.L. (2006) ‘Sustainability:Aligning corporate governance, strategy andoperations with the planet’, Business ProcessManagement, 12(6), 741–750.

Casson, M. and Della Giusta, M. (2006) ‘Theeconomics of trust’, in R. Bachmann and A. Zaheer(eds.), Handbook of Trust Research, Edward Elgar,Cheltenham, UK, pp. 332–354.

Chun, R. (2005) ‘Corporate reputation: Meaning andmeasurement’, International Journal of ManagementReviews, 7(2), 91–109.

Cooren, F., Kuhn, T., Cornelissen, J.P. and Clark, T.(2011) ‘Communication, organizing andorganization: An overview and introduction to thespecial issue’,Organization Studies, 32(9), 1149–1170.

Davies, G., Chun, R. and Kamins, M.A. (2010)‘Reputation gaps and the performance of serviceorganisations’, Strategic Management Journal, 31(5),530–546.

Davies, G., Chun, R., Da Silva, R.V. and Roper, S.(2003) Corporate Reputation and Competitiveness,Routledge, London.

Dietz, G. and Den Hartog, D.N. (2006) ‘Measuringtrust inside organisations’, Personnel Review, 35(5),557–588.



http://www.iucn.org

http://www.askafrika.co.za/survey_tb.htm

http://www.askafrika.co.za/survey_tb.htm

Dirks, K.T. and Ferrin, D.L. (2001) ‘The role of trust inorganizational settings’, Organization Science, 12(4),450–467.

Dyer, J.H. and Chu, W. (2003) ‘The role oftrustworthiness in reducing transaction costs andimproving performance: Empirical evidence fromthe United States, Japan, and Korea’, OrganizationScience, 14(1), 57–68.

Edelman (2010) ‘Trust Barometer: An annual globalopinion leaders study’, http://www.edelman.com/trust/2010/, accessed 12 April, 2010.

Einwiller, S. (2003) ‘When reputation engenders trust:An empirical investigation in business-to-consumerelectronic commerce’, Electronic Markets, 13(3),196–209.

Einwiller, S. and Will, M. (2001) ‘The role ofreputation to engender trust in electronic markets’,In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference onCorporate Reputation, Identity and Competitiveness,Paris, France, 17–19 May, 2001; ReputationInstitute, 17(19), 196–209.

Emory, C.W. (1980) Business Research Methods, Irwin,Homewood, IL.

Erhard, W., Jensen, M.C. and Zaffron, S. (2009) ‘Anew model of integrity: An actionable pathway totrust, productivity and value’, Harvard BusinessSchool NOM Working Paper No. 07-01, http://ssrn.com/abstract=932255, accessed 26 March,2012.

Feldman, S.P. (1986) ‘Management in context: Anessay on the relevance of culture to theunderstanding of organizational change’, Journal ofManagement Studies, 23(6), 587–607.

Fombrun, C.J. and Gardberg, N. (2000) ‘Who’s tops incorporate reputation’, Corporate Reputation Review,3(1), 13–17.

Fombrun, C.J. and Van Riel, C.B.M. (2003) ‘Thereputational landscape’, in J.M.T. Balmer and S.A.Greyser (eds.), Revealing the Corporation: Perspectives onIdentity, Image, Reputation, Corporate Branding andCorporate-Level Marketing, Routledge, London,pp. 223–233.

Fombrun, C.J. and Van Riel, C.B.M. (2004) Fame andFortune: How Successful Companies Build WinningReputations, Pearson Education, Upper SaddleRiver, NJ.

Freeman, R.E., Harrison, J.S., Wicks, A.C., Parmar, B.L.and De Colle, S. (2010) Stakeholder Theory: The State ofthe Art, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Friedman, A.L. and Miles, S. (2009) Stakeholders:Theory and Practice, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Fukuyama, F. (1995) Trust: The Social Virtues and theCreation of Prosperity, Free Press, New York.

Gao, S.S. and Zhang, J.J. (2006) ‘Stakeholderengagement, social auditing and corporate

sustainability’, Business Process Management, 12(6),722–740.

Gardberg, N.A. and Fombrun, C.J. (2002) ‘The globalreputation quotient project: First steps towardsa cross-nationally valid measure of corporatereputation’, Corporate Reputation Review, 4(4),303–307.

Gillespie, N. and Dietz, G. (2009) ‘Trust repair after anorganization-level failure’, Academy of ManagementReview, 34(1), 127–145.

Gioia, D.A., Schultz, M. and Corley, K.G. (2000a)‘Where do we go from here?’ In: M.G. Pratt, P.O.Foreman, S.G. Scott, V.R. Lane, D.A. Gioia, M.Schultz, K.G. Corley, S. Brickson, A.D. Brown, K.Starkey, M.A. Hogg and D.J. Terry. IdentityDialogues, Academy of Management Review, 25(1),141–152.

Gioia, D.A. and Chittipeddi, K. (1991) ‘Sensemakingand sensegiving in strategic change initiation’,Strategic Management Journal, 12(6), 433–448.

Gioia, D.A., Schultz, M. and Corley, K.G. (2000b)‘Organizational identity, image and adaptive instability’,Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 63–81.

Greenwood, M. and Van Buren, H.J. (2010) ‘Trust andstakeholder theory: Trustworthiness in theorganisation-stakeholder relationship’, Journal ofBusiness Ethics, 95(3), 425–438.

Greyser, S.A. (2003) ‘Advancing and enhancingcorporate reputation’, in J.M.T. Balmer and S.A.Greyser (eds.), Revealing the Corporation: Perspectives onIdentity, Image, Reputation, Corporate Branding andCorporate-Level Marketing, Routledge, London,pp. 234–242.

Grunig, J. (2003) ‘Image and substance: From symbolicto behavioral relationships’, in J.M.T. Balmer andS.A. Greyser (eds.), Revealing the Corporation:Perspectives on Identity, Image, Reputation, CorporateBranding and Corporate-Level Marketing, Routledge,London, pp. 204–222.

Hardin, R. (2002) Trust and Trustworthiness, RussellSage Foundation, New York.

Hatch, M.J. and Schultz, M. (2008) Taking BrandInitiative: How Companies Can Align Strategy, Cultureand Identity Through Corporate Branding, Jossey-Bass,San Francisco, CA.

Haque, U. (2010) ‘Ethical capital is capitalism’s newcornerstone’, Harvard Business Review, HBR BlogNetwork, http://blogs.hbr.org/2010/06/ethical-capital/, accessed 12 December, 2012.

Helm, S. (2007) ‘One reputation or many? Comparingstakeholders’ perceptions of corporate reputation’,Corporate Communication: An International Journal,12(3), 238–254.

Helm, S. and Gray, B. (2009) ‘Corporate reputation asanticipated corporate conduct – Introduction to the



http://www.edelman.com/trust/2010/

http://www.edelman.com/trust/2010/

http://ssrn.com/abstract=932255


http://blogs.hbr.org/haque/2010/06/ethical_ capital.html

http://blogs.hbr.org/haque/2010/06/ethical_ capital.html

AMJ special issue’, Australasian Marketing Journal,17(2), 65–68.

Hogg, M.A. and Terry, D.J. (2000) ‘Social identityand self-categorization processes in organizationalcontexts’, Academy of Management Review, 25(1),121–140.

Hosmer, L.T. (1995) ‘Trust: The connecting linkbetween organizational theory and philosophicalethics’, Academy of Management Review, 20(2),379–403.

Ingenhoff, D. and Sommer, K. (2010) ‘Trust incompanies and CEOs: A comparative studyof the main influences’, Journal of Business Ethics,95(3), 339–355.

Jamali, D. (2006) ‘Insights into triple bottom lineintegration from a learning organization perspective’,Business Process Management, 12(6), 809–821.

Johnson, G. (1990) ‘Managing strategic change: Therole of symbolic action’, British Journal of Management,1(4), 183–200.

Jones, G.R. (2007) Organizational Theory, Design, andChange, 5th edn., Pearson Prentice Hall, UpperSaddle River, NJ.

Kapstein, E.B. (2001) ‘The corporate ethics crusade’,Foreign Affairs, 80(5), 105–119.

Kast, F.E. and Rosenzweig, J.E. (1972) ‘Generalsystems theory: Applications for organizationand management’, Academy of Management Journal,15(4), 447–465.

Kim, J., Bach, S.B. and Clelland, I.J. (2007) ‘Symbolicor behavioral management? Corporate reputation inhigh-emission industries’, Corporate ReputationReview, 10(2), 77–98.

King, M.E. (2009) ‘King report on corporategovernance in South Africa’, Institute of Directors inSouthern Africa, http://african.ipapercms.dk/IOD/KINGIII/kingiiireport/, accessed 30 March, 2010.

King, B. and Whetten, D.A. (2008) ‘Rethinking therelationship between reputation and legitimacy: Asocial actor conceptualization’, Corporate ReputationReview, 11(3), 192–207.

King, B.G., Felin, T. and Whetten, D.A. (2010)‘Finding the organization in organizational theory:A meta-theory of the organization as a social actor’,Organization Science, 21(1), 290–305.

Kramer, R.M. (2010) ‘Collective trust withinorganizations: Conceptual foundations and empiricalinsights’, Corporate Reputation Review, 13(2), 82–97.

Lewis, J.D. and Weigert, A. (2008) ‘Trust as a socialreality’, Social Forces 63(4), in, R. Bachmann andA. Zaheer (eds.), Landmark Papers on Trust. Vol. 1,Edgar Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, pp. 967–985.

Li, F. and Betts, S.C. (2004) ‘Between expectation andbehavioral intent’, Journal of Organizational Culture,Communications and Conflict, 8(2), 1–11.

Linthicum, C., Reitenga, A.L. and Sanchez, J.M.(2010) ‘Social responsibility and corporatereputation: The case of the Arthur Andersen Enronaudit failure’, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy,29(2), 160–176.

Littlejohn, S.W. and Foss, K.A. (2005) Theories of HumanCommunication, 8th edn., Wadsworth, Belmont, CA.

Lloyd, S. (2007) ‘Corporate reputation: Ontologyand measurement’, Unpublished doctoral thesis.Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand,http://aut.researchgateway.ac.nz/handle/10292/409,accessed 3 April, 2010.

Luhmann, N. (1979) Trust and Power, John Wiley,Chichester.

Luhmann, N. (2000) ‘Familiarity, confidence, trust:Problems and alternatives’, in D. Gambetta (ed.),Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations.Electronic edition, Department of Sociology,University of Oxford: pp. 94–107.

Mahon, J.F. (2002) ‘Corporate reputation: Researchagenda using strategy and stakeholder literature’,Business & Society, 41(4), 415–445.

Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. and Schoorman, F.D. (1995)‘An interactive model of organizational trust’,Academy of Management, 20(3), 709–734.

McEvily, B., Perrone, V. and Zaheer, A. (2008) ‘Trust asan organizing principle’, in R. Bachmann andA. Zaheer (eds.) Landmark papers on trust. Edgar Elgar:Cheltenham, UK,Organization Science, 14(1), 91–103.

McKnight, D.H. and Chervany, N.L. (2006)‘Reflections on an initial trust-building model’, in R.Bachmann and A. Zaheer (eds.), Handbook of TrustResearch, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, pp. 29–51.

McPhee, R.D. and Zaug, P. (2001) ‘Organizationaltheory, organizational communication, organiza-tional knowledge, and problematic integration’,Journal of Communication, 51(3), 574–591.

Meredith, J.R. (1995) ‘What is empirical research?’Decision Line 26(2), http://www.decisionsciences.org/decisionline/Vol26/26_2/res26_2.htm, accessed19 September, 2012.

Moon, J. and Muthuri, J. (2008) ‘Corporatecommunity investment: Trends, developments andattitudes’, International Centre for Corporate SocialResponsibility, Nottingham, United Kingdom,Research Paper Series, 52, pp. 1–75..

Moss Kanter, R. (2011) ‘How great companies thinkdifferently’, Harvard Business Review, 89(11), 66–78.

Mouzas, S., Henneberg, S. and Naudé, P. (2007) ‘Trustand reliance in business relationships’, EuropeanJournal of Marketing, 41(9/10), 1016–1032.

Murphy, P.E. (2005) ‘Developing, communicatingand promoting corporate ethics statements: Alongitudinal analysis’, Journal of Business Ethics, 62(2),183–189.



http://www.iodsa.co.za/products_reports.asp? CatID=149

http://www.iodsa.co.za/products_reports.asp? CatID=149

http://aut.researchgateway.ac.nz/ handle/10292/409

http://www.decisionsciences.org/decisionline/Vol26/262/res262.htm

http://www.decisionsciences.org/decisionline/Vol26/262/res262.htm

Murray, K. and White, J. (2005) ‘CEO’s views onreputation management’, Journal of CommunicationManagement, 9(4), 348–358.

Narayanan, V.K. and Nath, R. (1993) OrganizationTheory – A Strategic Approach, Irwin, Homewood, IL.

Nooteboom, B. (2002) Trust: Forms, Foundations, Functions,Failures and Figures, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.

Nooteboom, B. (2006) ‘Forms, sources and processesof trust’, in R. Bachmann and A. Zaheer (eds.),Handbook of Trust Research, Edward Elgar,Cheltenham, UK, pp. 247–263.

Olins, W. (2003) ‘Corporate identity: The myth and thereality’, in J.M.T. Balmer and S.A. Greyser (eds.),Revealing the Corporation: Perspectives on Identity, Image,Reputation, Corporate Branding and Corporate-LevelMarketing, Routledge, London, pp. 53–65.

Paine, L.S. (1994) ‘Managing for organizationalintegrity’, Harvard Business Review, 72(2), 106–114.

Perrini, F. and Castaldo, S. (2008) ‘Corporate socialresponsibility and trust: Editorial introduction’,Business Ethics: A European Review, 17(1), 1–2.

Pirson, M. and Malhotra, D.K. (2008) ‘Unconventionalinsights for managing stakeholder trust’, HarvardBusiness School NOM Working Paper No. 08-057,http://ssrn.com/abstract= 1088111, accessed 14December, 2011.

Pirson, M. (2009) ‘Facing the trust gap – Measuringand managing stakeholder trust’, in J. Friedland (ed.),Doing Well and Good: The Human Face of the NewCapitalism, Information Age Publishing, Charlotte, NC.

Porter, M.E. and Kramer, M.R. (2006) ‘Strategy andsociety: The link between competitive advantageand corporate social responsibility’, Harvard BusinessReview, 84(12), 78–92.

Rangan, S. (2011) ‘The new era of sustainableperformance in business’, Pictet Report: Focus onperformance, 6(6), 4–8.

Rodgers, W. (2010) ‘Three primary trust pathwaysunderlying ethical considerations’, Journal of BusinessEthics, 91(1), 83–93.

Sarkis, J., Meade, L. and Presley, A. (2006) ‘An activitybased management methodology for evaluatingbusiness processes for environmental sustainability’,Business Process Management Journal, 12(6), 751–769.

Schoorman, F.D., Mayer, R.C. and Davis, J.H. (2007)‘An integrative model of organizational trust: Past,present, and future’, Academy of Management Review,32(2), 344–354.

Scott, S.G. and Lane, V.R. (2000a) ‘Fluid, fractured, anddistinctive? In search of a definition of organizationalidentity’, in M.G. Pratt, P.O. Foreman, S.G. Scott,V.R. Lane, D.A. Gioia, M. Schultz, K.G. Corley,S. Brickson, A.D. Brown, K. Starkey, M.A. Hogg,and D.J. Terry. Identity Dialogues, Academy ofManagement Review, 25(1), 141–152.

Scott, S.G. and Lane, V.R. (2000b) ‘A stakeholderapproach to organizational identity’, Academy ofManagement Review, 25(1), 43–62.

Snow, D.A. (2001) ‘Extending and broadeningBlumer’s conceptualization of symbolicinteractionism’, Symbolic Interaction, 24(3), 367–377.

Stanovich, K. (2007) How to Think Straight aboutPsychology, 8th edn., Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA.

Steyn, B. and Puth, G. (2000) Corporate CommunicationStrategy, Heinemann, Sandown.

Stout, L.A. and Blair, M.M. (2001) ‘Trust,trustworthiness, and the behavioral foundations ofcorporate law’, University of Pennsylvania LawReview, June 2001, Social Science Electronic Publish-ing, http://ssrn.com/abstract=241403, accessed 14December, 2011.

Swift, T. (2001) ‘Trust, reputation and corporateaccountability to stakeholders’, Business Ethics: AEuropean Review, 10(1), 16–26.

Turban, E. and Meredith, J.R. (1981) Fundamentals ofManagement Science, Business Publications, Plano,TX.

Urbany, J.E., Reynolds, T.J. and Phillips, J.M. (2008)‘How to make values count in everyday decisions’,MIT Sloan Management Review, 49(4), 75–80.

Vanneste, B.S., Puranam, P. and Kretschmer, T. (2011)‘When does trust increase over time? Meta-analysisand theory’, Social Science Electronic Publishing, http://ssrn.com/ abstract=1523209, accessed 14 December2011.

Von Bertalanffy, L. (1972) ‘The history and status ofgeneral systems theory’, Academy of ManagementJournal, 15(4), 407–426. (Reprinted, with permission,from: Klir, G.J. (ed.) (1972). Trends in General SystemsTheory, Wiley-Inter science, New York.

Walsh, G. and Wiedmann, K. (2004) ‘A conceptua-lization of corporate reputation in Germany: Anevaluation and extension of the RQ’, CorporateReputation Review, 6(4), 304–312.

Weick, K.E. (1989) ‘Theory construction as disciplinedimagination’, Academy of Management Review,14(4), 516–531.

Whetten, D.A. (1989) ‘What constitutes a theoreticalcontribution?’ Academy of Management Review,14(4), 490–495.

Wicks, A.C., Berman, S.I. and Jones, T.M. (1999) ‘Thestructure of optimal trust: moral and strategicimplications’, Academy of Management Review,24(1), 99–116.

Williams, M. (2001) ‘In whom we trust: Groupmembership as an affective context for trustdevelopment’, Academy of Management Review, 26(3),377–396.

Wood, G. (2002) ‘A partnership model of corporateethics’, Journal of Business Ethics, 40(1), 61–73.



http://ssrn.com/abstract= 1088111


http://ssrn.com/ abstract=1523209

http://ssrn.com/ abstract=1523209

towards a conceptual model of the relationship between corporate trust and corporate reputation

Documents