Sustainability and reputation/image

Author: Meret Bruns, March 30, 2025

1.         Introduction

In the context of today’s highly competitive market, consumers have the privilege of choosing from a wide range of product and service providers. These market dynamics require companies to differentiate themselves from competitors, attract customers and build lasting, loyal relationships to ensure long-term survival. However, companies can no longer rely solely on product quality or competitive pricing to attract customers and generate financial returns. Instead, today’s consumers demand more, expecting companies to act ethically, engage in moral practices and demonstrate social and environmental responsibility. By demonstrating responsibility and commitment, a company can increase its attractiveness and standing in the minds of stakeholders¹. These qualities have been identified as contributing to the enhancement of a company’s intangible assets, particularly its reputation.

1.1       Core Concepts and Relations

Research indicates that the importance and impact of intangible assets on firm value has increased significantly in recent decades. There has been a remarkable shift: while in the 1970s intangible assets made up around 20% of a company’s total value, “today [they] account for more than 80%”². In line with this, research has identified corporate reputation as a company’s most valuable intangible asset, with studies suggesting that around “25 % of a company’s market value can be directly related to its reputation”³. Although reputation is an intangible asset that cannot be bought or sold and therefore does not directly impact financial returns, it does have a significant impact on stakeholders buying decisions⁴.Its indirect impact on corporate financial performance, customer attraction and the development of long-term, supportive stakeholder relations has led to increased recognition of its value in both practice and academic discourse. Today, practical sources acknowledge that the “integration of reputation management [is] a pivotal component of modern corporate governance“³. Research has identified a number of diverse benefits that result from a strong reputation, contributing to overall firm survival and superior financial performance. Given the growing recognition of reputation as an important and valuable asset, an increasing amount of research has been undertaken to understand the underlying dynamics. Nevertheless, as asserted by various authors, the concept of reputation remains to be fully elucidated and, as such, necessitates additional investigation^5,6.

In addition, sustainability and CSR have been identified as critical issues of our time, indicated by the scientific literature and confirmed in practice^7-9. This is primarily attributable to the climate change and a growing awareness of environmental and social issues. As a result, companies are under increasing public pressure to position themselves sustainably and demonstrate their commitment to environmental responsibility. As a significant contributor to global carbon emissions, companies are expected to take proactive measures to reduce their environmental impact, implement sustainable practices and transparently communicate their efforts externally. BCG (2022) highlights the negative consequences of “failing to [integrate] climate and sustainability into [its] strategy and day-to-day operations [warning that it] will result in the loss of capital, customers and talent”¹⁰ which potentially leads to business failure. Conversely, actively working to improve carbon footprint and reducing negative environmental impacts can have a positive impact on a company if communicated correctly. In addition, research also suggests that simply showing commitment and demonstrating care can already have beneficial impacts^11,12. This highlights the role of effective communication and disclosure as important means for this bachelor thesis.

The recognition of both reputation and sustainability as key factors influencing a company’s performance, underlines the importance to understand their relationship and the dynamics of their interaction. A review of global studies observing the field of corporate reputation in practice indicates that approximately 40% of a company’s reputation is based on its CSR performance^9,13,14. Ullah et al. (2020) observe “the decision of [a] company to join or stay away from CSR actions may change the reputation.” (p.198)¹⁵. Thus, several authors have identified a correlation between reputation and CSR practice or its absence^15-19. As a result, in recent years, corporate reputation, influenced by the growing demand for sustainability, has become an increasingly important topic of research. Nevertheless, the subject remains a topic of discussion within academic discourse, as it is not yet fully explicated and further research is required⁶. This underscores the necessity to address this research gap in order to enhance theoretical understanding, thus enabling the provision of practical advice. The importance of this assertion is further developed in the title of this bachelor’s thesis, “Corporate Reputation and Sustainability: A Literature Review and Practical Implementation“. In accordance with the title, the thesis’s primary objective is to furnish a fundamental and comprehensive understanding of reputation and its interplay with sustainability. Subsequently, it offers practical guidance on managing the interplay between reputation and sustainability, with the objective to provide managers and others with the knowledge to achieve optimal outcomes for their companies.

1.2       Relevance, Objectives and Structure

In more detail, the first part of this bachelor thesis examines the concept of reputation, its various influences and dimensions, with focus on its connection to sustainability. In this context, the theoretical emergence of a reputation for sustainable behaviour is identified and analysed. The mentioned positive correlation between reputation and CSR reveals a number of compelling outcomes that not only ensure a company’s survival, but also contribute to its long-term financial success. These findings provide a strong motivation for companies to actively integrate reputation management into their business practices. The outcomes demonstrate that focusing on reputation management is not only beneficial but essential to maintaining competitive advantage and sustainable growth. The second part of this study focuses on the practical implementation and management of the interplay between reputation and sustainability. The initial step is to raise awareness of the risks and barriers that companies face in practice regarding reputation, and how they can effectively overcome these challenges. Moreover, the primary objective of this part is to establish a structured, practical guide for companies to integrate sustainability into business practices, with the aim of ensuring a positive impact on corporate reputation. This elaboration is primarily based upon findings and suggestions from consultancies and other parties of practice. These insights are synthesised into a comprehensive approach that demonstrates its practical effectiveness, as it is rooted in practical recommendations.

It is evident that “every company has a reputation”²⁰, irrespective of its size. Consequently, the findings and analyses of this bachelor’s thesis are relevant to all members of a company involved in managing corporate reputation and communicating sustainability practices. As indicated, recognising reputation as an integral aspect of any business, companies should actively seek to shape it in a favourable way to secure and maintain stakeholder support, long-term customer loyalty and financial results²¹.

The current need for a deeper investigation of the relationship between reputation and sustainability is justified by the fact that consultancies describe reputation in combination with sustainability as a “new challenge”¹. According to a survey of CEOs around the world, “most senior managers are not entirely satisfied with what is available in terms of the information necessary to help them understand corporate reputation”¹. Moreover, an analysis of practical examples reveals that many companies are experiencing difficulties in integrating sustainability into their business models in a way that positively impacts their reputation. This observation highlights a commonly faced problem in which companies lack the necessary expertise to effectively integrate sustainability practices into their operations, thereby undermining their ability to enhance their reputation through sustainable initiatives. These findings underscore the necessity of clarifying the multidimensional construct behind corporate reputation making it more understandable and tangible, and, as a next step, enabling its effective management in practice. Nevertheless, a number of companies are already providing good examples for managing the interplay between corporate reputation and sustainability. The behaviours and methodologies demonstrated by these companies are adapted and translated into a three-step approach, providing a basis for other companies to manage the interplay between corporate reputation and sustainability. Rebuilding on the premise of a highly competitive market, a single company cannot risk being outperformed by its competitors, especially with regard to the sustainability demands of stakeholders. Consequently, it is imperative for all companies to implement, manage, demonstrate and communicate sustainability, as well as to build a strong and favourable reputation. Consequently, the research question arises of how companies can integrate sustainability into their reputation management, with the prior step being the understanding of the underlying theoretical construct of reputation.

2.         Literature Review

2.1       Definition

2.1.1          Definition and Composition of Corporate Reputation

Reputation represents one of the most important and valuable assets that a company can possess^22,23, as it “influences how stakeholders behave toward[s] [a] company” (p.11)²⁴. As such it can give rise to a number of beneficial outcomes ranging from financial to non-financial. Dealing with reputation is revealed as a complex issue as the definition of the term, its antecedents, formation and its outcomes have become complicated^19,25,26. Lange et al. (2011) suggest that the definitional complexity is based on the “underlying theoretical pluralism”¹⁹. Despite extensive research conducted by scientist in this field, there is still no consensus on a common definition²⁶. This results in a diverse range of definitions, which, despite their differences, share several fundamental similarities²⁷. Analysis reveals that these similarities are frequently based on Fombrun’s and Van Riel’s proposed definition (1997)^21,27-30:

“A corporate reputation is a collective representation of a firm’s past actions and results that describes the firm’s ability to deliver valued outcomes to multiple stakeholders.” (p.10)³¹.

The core ideas of this proposed definition are: reputation is collectively built, it is based on past actions and it reflects a firm’s ability to deliver value. A more recent definition, proposed by Charles Fombrun in 2012 defines reputation as “a collective assessment of a company’s attractiveness to a specific group of stakeholders”(p.100)³².

According to more recently proposed definitions, reputation can be regarded as representing a company’s attractiveness in the minds of their stakeholders³³. Reputation means, how stakeholders see and evaluate a company and its policy based on the entirety of its past actions that have come to their attention^28,34,35. This identifies judgement and access of information as crucial elements²³. The aspect of judgement and evaluations can be based on direct interactions, such as experiences with a company’s customer service or products, and on information disclosed either by the company itself or by third parties^19,36-38. This also addresses the possibility of access to information, as stakeholders can only make judgements based on what they have heard or personally experienced³⁹. Consequently, communication and disclosure must be seen as playing a crucial role in shaping a company’s reputation³³. By evaluating a company’s past actions, stakeholders aim to infer the future behaviour of the company in question and their ability to create value^35,40. In that case, reputation is used as a heuristic.

Reputation is built, when many of these individual evaluations and judgements come together and share similarities²³. Highouse et al. (2009) posit that “reputation cannot be held at the individual level” (p.1490)²³. This means that one single person cannot own a company’s reputation, it is rather the result of many people sharing similar perceptions^23,31,36. This conceptualises reputation as a social construct¹⁹, that demands exchange of stakeholder’s opinions about a company and identifies collectiveness as a key characteristic⁴¹. Attributable to the fact that reputation is the shared perception of many stakeholders, it is more resistant to short-term fluctuations and individual opinions^23,42. In other words, in the event of a negative experience being had by a single customer, reputation is unlikely to change. In consequence, reputation emerges as a resilient and durable resource, which is according to several sources superior to the resilience of other assets^22,43-45. Nevertheless, it can still be damaged or destroyed in a relatively short period of time if a significant number of people collectively disapprove of a company’s behaviour^23,24. This disapproval can be the result of scandals, ethical misconduct or breaches of trust⁴⁶. As Warren Buffett (1995) well states, “it takes twenty years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it”⁴⁷.

Building on these various characteristics of reputation and the scientific discourse regarding this topic, it becomes evident that reputation is an asset that cannot be purchased, it must be earned and built over time⁴⁸. It is therefore challenging, if not impossible, to replicate^23,43, which aligns with the VRIN model’s categorization – valuable, rare, inimitable, and non-substitutable⁴⁹. It seems to be a more valuable asset than a tangible one⁴⁸.

2.1.2          Differentiation between Identity, Image, Status, and Reputation

In order to effectively derive concrete implementation approaches from this work, it is essential to thoroughly understand the underlying theory. Therefore, distinguishing the concepts of identity, image, and status from reputation seems to be important, as these terms are often confused and used interchangeably^41,50. This provides a more detailed insight into the development of reputation, as it is often characterised as an accumulation of these concepts, in addition to other inputs for example sustainability^31,51. This paper compares the four concepts, which are occasionally compared in pairs or trios, but rarely all four are considered within a single study.

Identity

The concept of corporate identity is regarded as the fundamental basis and a significant influence on the other threeterms²². Originally tied to individual identity and personality⁵², in corporate context it refers to an organisation’s internal self-perception, encapsulated by the question, “[w]ho are we as an organisation?” (p.80)⁵³. Despite the absence of a standard definition, there appears to be a consensus among the scientific literature regarding a number of key characteristics, particularly those pertaining to the internal character of corporate identity²³. In contrast to reputation, corporate identity only exists without external judgement^22,54. Harvey (2014) defines it as how “employees understand their organisation” (p.6)⁵⁴. In a similar way, Barnett et al. (2006) describe corporate identity as the “character of the firm” (p.33)⁵⁵, including core values, missions, visions, and culture^22,41,55. Herbst’s (1998) approach of applying human characteristics to corporations can be utilised to derive the composition of corporate identity in an adaptive manner⁵². Furthermore, identity has a reciprocal effect, as it is shaped and lived by internal stakeholders (employees) while simultaneously influencing their behaviour^41,54.

Regarding the establishment of an environmental reputation or the enhancement of a corporate reputation through sustainable practices, corporate identity plays a fundamental role as it influences the subsequent dimensions⁵⁶. Therefore companies must initiate this process internally by aligning sustainability with their culture, values and missions, the core elements of corporate identity^55,56. This internal alignment constitutes a pivotal stage, since a robust corporate identity is a necessity for the effective communication of sustainability strategies⁵⁷.

Image

In an attempt to clarify the relationship between corporate reputation and corporate image, and to define image itself, Gotsi and Wilson (2001) examined four distinct assumptions from the academic discourse⁵⁸:

1. Reputation and image as synonymous
2. Reputation and image as totally different and separate concepts
3. Interrelated – Reputation as one dimension of corporate image^59,60
4. Interrelated – Image as one dimension of corporate reputation^22,38,61

Today, scholars describe the concept of corporate image as the externally perceived impression of an organisation’s identity held by individual stakeholders⁶². Conversely to reputation, which develops as a collective and enduring assessment over time, corporate image reflects immediate, individual reactions based on personal emotions and experiences^41,63-65. Consequently, there is always a wide variety of different images, as each individual forms their own perception of a company^21,66,67. Balmer (2009) describes image as the “immediate mental picture an individual has of an organisation” (p.558)​⁶⁸, thereby emphasising its transitory nature in contrast to the stability and durability of reputation^41,69. Highhouse et al. (2009) assert that “[a] company may have a reputation, but […] it does not have an image” (p.1490)²³, thus highlighting the volatility and the challenge of maintaining corporate image, especially as they change rapidly with every new information that emerges^55,70.

Since corporate image is built on corporate identity, it does not require a reputation, whereas a reputation only emerges when several images of similar stakeholders come together^22,23,41. This assumption serves to support approach 4 as the most compelling, a position which also receives the most widespread acceptance within the academic discourse^37,58. As a consequence, the concepts of image and reputation exhibit an asymmetrical relationship, with corporate image constituting a fundamental aspect of reputation, thereby exerting a direct influence^41,58,71. Conversely, reputation has only an indirect effect on individual images. This explanation also serves to refute approach 3⁷². Given the resilience of reputation, its strategic importance and its ability to exert a greater influence over it than image, it is recommended that companies assign reputation a higher priority. However, given the significant influence of image on corporate reputation, a comprehensive understanding of the nature and the process through which it is shaped remains essential for further investigations regarding reputation.

Status

The concept of corporate status represents another theoretical construct that influences reputation²⁷. Status, originating in sociology and being transferred into management research^73,74, complements corporate reputation, which comes from economic literature³⁵. Despite their different origins, both are subject to the evaluation and judgement of external stakeholders^27,75, shaped by past performance and experience^73,76.

In general, the concept of status represent a form of ranking or social standing that confers financial and non-financial privleges^74,76,77. Sauder et al. (2012) define it as “the position in a social hierarchy” (p.268)⁷⁸.  Additionally status is frequently associated with lasting quality and value, fostering favourable perceptions such as prestige³⁵, while enhancing corporate visibility and credibility⁷³. As would be anticipated, a high status is associated with a number of advantages, including political power, a perception of superior product quality, and trust premiums^74,75,79. Conversely, a low status can result in penalisation and disadvantages^74,78. 

When it comes to sustainability, status has an important impact on reputation. Park et al. (2020) examined the relationship between corporate status and corporate reputation by testing the halo effect theory to assess how high status affects perceptions of a company’s sustainability efforts using regression analysis³⁴. For context: the halo effect is a psychological phenomenon⁸⁰, that describes the human tendency, to make an assumption that is consistent with existing impressions of a subject⁸¹. Nisbett and Wilson (1977) aptly describe that when “we like a person, we often assume that those attributes of the person about which we know little are also favourable” (p.250)⁸⁰. Adaptively, unknown characteristics of a firm are inferred from known ones. In line with the results of the study the following halo effect was observed: a company with a high status also holds a more favourable reputation for sustainability, regardless of their actual performance on that subject. This finds application, when stakeholders rely on status as a heuristic, since they receive limited information on the actual (sustainable) performance⁸². As stated by Park et al. (2020) “[a] firm’s high status increases audiences’ positive perceptions of its environmental reputation“ (p.468)³⁴. Therefore their result is, that a corporate´s “status significantly enhances […] environmental reputation” (p.464)³⁴ and thus represents an interesting and promising influence for corporate reputation.

As visualised in Figure 1, all three concepts (identity, image and status) have a direct or indirect impact on reputation⁷³. They serve as components that significantly shape a company’s reputation, while also providing a framework for its strategic management.

2.1.3          Dimensions of Corporate Reputation

Beside the differentiation of reputation from related concepts, it is also useful to examine the dimensions of the concept itself in order to deeper comprehend the connection and differences between corporate environmental reputation and corporate reputation. Lange et al. (2011) reviewed numerous papers in order to gain a more detailed understanding, identifying three main sub-perspectives of reputation, labelling them: being known, being known for something and general favourability¹⁹. Their review has since become a fundamental reference, cited in many subsequent papers published up to the present day^8,83-86. Although their review was published in 2011, their findings can still be used to explain the connections and differences between corporate reputation and corporate environmental reputation as well as the influence of sustainability. This distinction is based on the findings of the review by Lange et al. compared with three frequently quoted papers which they themselves used as a basis^36,55,87. The purpose of the comparison is to explain the three dimensions of reputation in a more detailed manner to apply them to the topic of this thesis and to gain an understanding of the connection between reputation and sustainability.

Lange et al.19(2011)	Barnett et al.55(2006)	Rindova et al.87(2005)	Fischer and Reuber36(2007)
Being known“awareness of the firm without judgement”19	Awareness	Prominence	——
Being known for something	Assessment: involves evaluation and judgment	Perceived Quality	Componential Perspective
General favourability	Asset	——	Aggregate perspective

A comparison of the results in Table 1 reveals that all of the four papers employ similar categories, but with different labels. As Lange et al. refer to the sub-reputations as being known, being known for something and general favourability¹⁹ Barnett et al. also divide into three categories, which they refer to as awareness, assessment and asset⁵⁵. While the other two papers^36,87 address only two of the perspectives, the three-folded view remains valid, as each neglects a different perspective. Rindova et al. refer to the two mentioned dimensions as prominence and perceived quality, not taking into account the general favourability⁸⁷, while Fischer and Reuber focus on the componential and aggregate perspective, neglecting the being known perspective³⁶. Therefore the results in Table 1 emphasise the three-dimensional perspective presented by Lange et al.¹⁹, postulating their findings as being well-founded. Hence, the nomenclature proposed by Lange et al. will be referred to.

Being known

‘Being known’ simply represents the overall visibility of a firm^19,88. Thus it primarily reflects the extent to which stakeholders have heard of a company or recognise its logo, to increase trust. This can result in a heuristic, whereby stakeholders prefer companies they have heard of over those they are completely unfamiliar with¹⁹. Rindova et al. (2005) describe the ‘being known’ dimension as the “organisations’ prominence in the minds of stakeholders” (p.1033)⁸⁷. That implies, that stakeholders are aware of the existence of a company but they do not yet form an opinion based on specific attributes⁵⁵. Although this dimension does not address the aforementioned aspect of judgment, it still serves as foundation for the following dimensions. Also the aspect of collectiveness is of particular significance in this part of reputation. A company’s reputation for ‘being known’ increases with the level of recognition it achieves among the public⁸⁷. Since simply ‘being known’ is only based on the general fact of prominence, this perspective out of the mentioned three appears the easiest to control and change^19,88.

In the context of sustainability, evidence indicates a positive correlation between visibility and the impact of CSR practices as well as disclosure on reputation⁸⁹. This is attributable to the fact that the higher the visibility of a company, “the more information is available for stakeholders to evaluate its commitment to social and environmental responsibility” (p.93)⁹⁰. Consequently, larger companies bear a greater potential for accelerated scrutiny and heightened observation by stakeholders, particularly in the context of sustainable disclosure as well as higher expectations for the company to act environmentally responsible⁸. On the beneficial side, Lange et al. (2011) observe that “reputation is stronger if awareness of the firm is broader” (p.155)¹⁹. This can be attributed to the fact that, that if a company is known to a smaller number of people, a single image has a higher percentage share and therefore a higher impact on the reputation than for larger companies. Moreover visibility can result in augmented financial performance, as consumers are frequently willing to pay a premium for well-known brands while also offering the benefit of reaching a wider audience of potential buyers^87,91. Still, ‘being known’ remains a “double-edged sword”⁹², as it is challenging to regulate, may give rise to unfavourable perceptions and higher scrutiny, yet also offers notable benefits⁸.

Being known for something                           

The ‘being known for something’ dimension is closely related to the strategic character of the company and is defined by the attributes which a company is known for¹⁹. As illustrated in Table 1, all four papers refer to this dimension. Fischer and Reuber (2007) characterise it as the ‘componential perspective’ (p.57), which focuses on specific attributes or characteristics of a firm rather than on its overall perception³⁶. According to Alon and Vidovic (2015) “reputation is issue-specific [and it] requires differentiation among various reputations that companies may have” (p.340)⁸⁵. In general, a number of scholars endorse the proposition that a single company may possess multiple reputations, each associated with a distinct attribute^19,35,36. It is noteworthy that the degree of favourability associated with these attributes can vary significantly: for example, a company may be known for its high quality products while simultaneously being criticised for its negative environmental impact⁸⁵. The establishment of these reputations is based on the evaluations of specific attributes by stakeholders, which are shaped by the company’s past actions, behaviour in the specific areas, and communication efforts⁵⁵. In turn, these evaluations give rise to assumptions about the company’s future behaviour within the certain field^19,36,87,93. Additionally they often work as a heuristic and affect the trustworthiness and interpretation of new information within that field⁹⁴. To illustrate, if an organisation is perceived to have a poor reputation regarding sustainability, new, more positive information in this field may initially be met with scepticism⁹⁵. Consequently, a company’s prior reputation on a particular issue can affect how stakeholders react to positive updates. This can lead to the possibility, that even though a company engages in sustainable efforts, those efforts are not acknowledged by stakeholders and thus less effective^95,96.

In summary, the findings from Table 1 indicate that a company can establish a reputation based on sustainability⁹⁷. When a company is perceived as acting environmentally responsible, the resulting environmental reputation functions as an intermediary, enhancing the company’s general reputation⁹⁵. In the context of growing external demand for corporate environmental responsibility, the degree to which environmental reputation influences overall reputation is becoming increasingly significant²⁴. Moreover, in today’s highly competitive market, where consumers have more choices than ever before, a strong environmental reputation is a promising strategy for companies to differentiate themselves from the competition^36,49. In general, any form of ‘being known for something’ differentiates a company from its competitors. To have a beneficial impact, it is important, that perceived attributes are favourable.

General favourability

The third and final dimension of reputation is the ‘general favourability’¹⁹. This dimension represents the overall impression, character and esteem of a company, rather than specific attributes^8,55. Generally, this dimension represents the extent to which a company is perceived as negative or positive and liked in its entirety⁸. With the term ‘general’ already suggesting, this dimension incorporates the two aforementioned dimensions, which exert a significant and integral influence on the ‘general favourability’ of reputation. As a consequence the influence of corporate sustainable behaviour and the establishment of an environmental reputation exert an increasing influence on this dimension of reputation. A particular part of this reputation is represented by corporate character traits such as: trustworthiness, reliability, and legitimacy^22,93. Such characteristics serve to reinforce stakeholders’ perceptions by aligning with prevailing social norms and demonstrating an ability to adapt to their expectations and needs²¹. So it is possible to build a reputation that is widely seen as admirable and favourable.

Stakeholders use ‘general favourability’ to estimate the likelihood that a company will act in a particular positive way in the future^19,98. That is especially evident in cases where information emerges about a topic or attribute for which external stakeholders haven’t yet established a topic-specific reputation. In such circumstances, reputation in form of ‘general favourability’ is used as a heuristic, which incorporates all other forms of specific and strategic reputations that influence stakeholder perceptions^19,88. As this perception is markedly influenced by a company’s past behaviour, it affects stakeholders’ future assumptions^8,19,99,100. Fombrun aptly summarises it as “a perceptual representation of a company’s past actions and future prospects that describe the firm’s overall appeal […] when compared to other leading rivals”²². Consequently, another crucial aspect of this dimension is the comparison, as the ‘general favourability’ is typically evaluated in relation to other comparable companies¹⁹. This presents a challenge for companies to consider not only their own actions and reputation, but also those of their competitors³⁶. Implemented and managed correctly a favourable reputation is one of the most valuable assets that a company can possess, offering a number of key advantages^37,101( 3.4). This is attributable to this dimension incorporating stakeholders awareness of the company (‘being known’), its strategic character (‘being known for something’), and its qualitative characteristics^19,88.

This three-dimensional approach is particularly relevant when a company seeks to build a new reputation based on a specific attribute, such as sustainability. As has been demonstrated, ‘generalised favourability’ exerts a significant influence on the manner in which external stakeholders perceive and interpret new information, thereby contributing to the development of a ‘being known for something’ reputation^19,98. On the other hand, irrespective of a company’s general reputation, sustainable efforts can result in the development of an environmental reputation through consistent behaviour over time¹⁷. Such a reputation for a desirable concrete attribute, such as sustainability, has been shown to enhance overall favourability and significantly strengthen a company’s competitive advantage^85,102. As a result, it is imperative to understand this dual function that a general favourable or unfavourable reputation can have in the context of sustainability, as well as the influence of corporate sustainability efforts on a company’s general reputation.

2.1.4          Definition and Composition of Corporate Environmental Reputation

Definition of Corporate Reputation for this Bachelor Thesis

In conclusion, given the absence of a standard definition of reputation and the review of relevant and diverse literature, the following definition is used in this bachelor thesis:

• Reputation is the collective judgement on different attributes and the general attractiveness of the company by many stakeholders who share similar perceptions (images) of a company
  • Reputation is the result of long-term development, based on all available information that is evaluated by its stakeholders
  • Environmental reputation represents a part of the general reputation

2.2       Historical Background and Scientific Discourse

This section presents an analysis of the scientific discourse on corporate (environmental) reputation, tracing the emergence and evolution of theories from their earliest formulations to the present day. By analysing the progression of approaches over time, the section also highlights the increasing influence of sustainability on reputation and their relationship.

How the concept of Reputation developed

Until the late 1980s/ early 1990s the term reputation was often used synonymously with the concepts of corporate identity, corporate image, and status⁵⁸. That confusion can be traced back to the previous decades when those terms were primarily viewed in isolation rather than in relation to one another and were therefore mixed up^28,108-110. With the publication of Fombrun and Shanley’s paper “What’s in a name?” (1990) and their observation that reputation and financial performance could influence each other, corporate reputation received increasing attention^34,38,49. With the growing interest in reputation, attempts were made to distinguish it from the related concepts^22,28,38,61. Since then, theoretical and empirical research on the subject has grown until today⁴⁹. An increasing number of scholars began to consider the concepts, especially image and reputation, as different^22,50,111. Fombrun, Shanley, van Riel, and others have laid crucial and lasting groundwork within that field of research¹¹². Their work continues to be referenced and cited in related academic literature attempting to define the multidimensional construct behind the term reputation^28,102. It remains challenging to understand the mechanisms underlying reputation to a full extent, as it is an abstract concept with multiple influences, dimensions and high complexity. A common definition hasn´t been agreed on so far²⁷.

Current Scientific Discourse: Reputation and Sustainability

Up to today, reputation has become one of the most important and valuable intangible assets a company can possess¹⁰⁴, as it gives rise to a number of positive effects^37,101. As asserted by Kim and Kim (2017) “[c]orporate reputation related research has received ever-greater attention” (p.10)²⁴, as environmental sustainability issues became more important. Consequently, the relations between sustainability and reputation are increasingly being examined^23,83. As a result, two main areas of research have emerged in recent years⁸⁹.

1. The influence of sustainable practices on corporate (environmental) reputation  sustainability as a variable/ driver
   1. How does a favourable corporate (environmental) reputation help to credibly communicate sustainable efforts?

Regarding the first subcategory (1.), scholars currently discuss the extent to which a company can influence, enhance or harm its general reputation and thus corporate performance through sustainable practices, their absence or disclosure¹¹³. In this field sustainability represents a variable which may lead to a positive or negative reputation regarding corporate environmental performance¹¹⁴. With the development of a positive environmental reputation through sustainable practices, a company can benefit from gaining particular recognition for its commitment to environmental issues. This, in turn, exerts influence on the ‘general favourability’ of corporate reputation and may further enhance the positive effects of reputation¹⁰⁴.

In accordance with the second subcategory (2.), scholars examine the influence of corporate reputation, or if existing corporate environmental reputation, on the disclosure of sustainable and CSR efforts^114,115. The majority of papers in this field of research examine the potential benefits of a favourable reputation for the implementation and external associations of CSR practices^87,116. This involves investigating the extent to which a favourable (environmental) reputation may help to ensure the veracity and external acceptance of CSR practices and disclosed information¹¹⁷. Thereby reputation is seen as a medium through which sustainability initiatives can be presented as credible and transparent, or conversely, as lacking in such qualities.

While the majority of current papers indicates a reciprocal relationship between CSR practises and reputation¹¹⁴, the mechanisms and interdependencies connecting the two remain insufficiently examined and have yet to be fully elucidated^5,6. In fact, only a limited number of “studies have explored how sustainability performance impacts reputation” (p.229)¹⁷ (research area 1.). However, scholars appear to have reached a consensus, indicating a positive correlation between practicing CSR and the influence on corporate reputation^95,114. This approach presents a promising foundation for future exploration, particularly with respect to leveraging the relationship and deriving the associated benefits⁶.

2.3       Drivers of Corporate (Environmental) Reputation

The development of a strong and favourable environmental reputation and ultimately a favourable general reputation relies on understanding and addressing the key drivers effectively. These drivers may act as catalysts in effecting the desired outcomes ( 3.4). Through a comprehensive review and comparison of various papers, several key drivers of the general reputation have been identified^15,24,118. These can be broadly categorized into three interconnected categories: the stakeholder dimension, the attribute dimension, and the media exposure/ communication dimension. Each category influences and is influenced by the others, forming a complex, dynamic framework for managing reputation⁵⁸. With regard to the most recent developments in this field, current papers indicate that all three categories are increasingly influenced by the growing emphasis on sustainable demands^83,119. Sustainability therefore represents a driver for all three aspects with the potential to enhance or severely damage a company’s reputation¹¹⁶. This positions sustainability as both an interesting lever for corporate success and a significant challenge that must be carefully addressed. Therefore, understanding its pivotal role as an influential driver is critical to the long-term and beneficial cultivation of (environmental) reputation.

2.3.1          Stakeholder Dimension

The stakeholder dimension encompasses all factors directly related to a company’s stakeholders. The subsequent analysis will concentrate on (potential) buyers, although other stakeholder groups, particularly employees, also present valuable opportunities for further research regarding this dimension under the influence of sustainable aspects. Important influences of (potential) buyers are their individual images, based on their interactions with a company^21,67. This also encompasses factors such as experienced product quality, customer service, and more^19,23,120. Besides images as an influence, this dimension is also driven by stakeholders’ expectations, needs and demands^119,121. As already stated, there is currently a strong trend in expecting companies to act in a sustainable manner by adopting CSR practices^24,122. In order to gain a concrete understanding of the impact of CSR on corporate reputation and the formation of an environmental reputation, it is imperative to analyse both presence and absence of CSR practices. This is attributable to research indicating that the outcomes are more complex than a simple opposite^18,83,123. This finding indicates that corporate reputation and corporate environmental reputation are “affected by both behaviour and non-behaviour” (p.190)¹⁸.

By integrating CSR into their practices, companies are addressing or even meeting stakeholder expectations¹²⁴. Failing to do so, on the other hand, may result in unmet expectations¹²⁴. In terms of fulfilling expectations a review of the extant literature indicates that engaging in CSR exerts “a greater positive effect on reputation than not practicing” (p.408)⁸³ has a negative effect. Lin-Hi and Blumberg (2016) provide a more detailed examination of the relations between CSR and reputation as they identified three different signals that a company can send¹⁸. For practicing CSR they differentiate between participation in voluntary CSR engagement ‘doing good’ and alternatively the engagement in CSR only for the purpose of ‘avoiding bad’¹⁸. By practicing ‘avoiding bad’, companies attempt to ensure that they act in accordance with the social norms, in order to prevent being perceived as acting irresponsible¹⁸. By adopting this approach, companies merely fulfil the most basic requirements for which they are implicitly expected by stakeholders to do so but utilise it as a driver¹²⁵. However, not all companies adhere to the principles of ‘doing good’ or even ‘avoiding bad’, leading to a reputation for irresponsible behaviour on CSR issues and sustainable performance¹⁸. Referring to Lange et al., companies risk developing a reputation for irresponsible behaviour by neither ‘doing good’ nor ‘avoiding bad’, which can ultimately damage their overall reputation¹⁹. Consequently, the decision not to engage in sustainable practices can exert a disadvantageous influence on reputation or lead to a reputation associated with a lack of environmental concern. Although the negative impact is generally less harmful than the opposite, these findings highlights the imbalance between these two outcomes.

A number of researchers have identified a positive correlation between engagement in CSR practices and the enhancement of corporate reputation^18,38,124. The most impactful results are observed in companies that not only practice ‘avoiding bad’ but also engage in voluntary CSR initiatives in form of ‘doing good’¹⁸, identifying CSR practices as a compelling driver. It is therefore evident that the combined effort of ‘doing good’ and ‘avoiding bad’ is perceived by stakeholders as genuine and sincere¹⁸. By demonstrating consistent behaviour over time, companies can reap numerous benefits. Additionally, stakeholders’ sustainability demands could be strategically employed to build a reputation for ‘being known for something’¹⁹, thereby further leveraging the positive correlation between CSR and corporate (environmental) reputation^18,95. Consequently, stakeholder engagement, specifically meeting current stakeholder demands, can serve as a valuable influence for enhancing reputation. Indeed, several scholars highlight CSR as current key drivers of reputation^29,41,115, as stakeholders frequently tend to ascribe a superior reputation and attributes to organisations that demonstrate a greater commitment to CSR than their competitors³⁸. This emphasis on attributes gives rise to the subsequent dimension of drivers.

2.3.2          Attribute Dimension

The attribute dimension is closely related to the one mentioned before, as it also shapes and influences the relationship between a company and its stakeholders, yet focuses on the key qualities⁹⁰. The difference with the previous dimension is that the former embodies the company’s operative actions and its responsiveness to stakeholder demands for specific behaviour, while the attribute dimension captures the external perception of general qualities of the company. This encompasses essential qualities such as trustworthiness, legitimacy, and credibility^23,116. Together, these attributes constitute a basis for the external interpretation of corporate behaviour and communication^24,93. The importance of these attributes becomes particularly evident in stakeholder dialogue and information disclosure, as such actions inherently create an information asymmetry between the company and external parties^72,87,119. In the case of emerging information published by the company itself, stakeholders rely on the perceived reliability and trustworthiness of the firm to interpret and evaluate the disclosed information¹²⁶. Fombrun (1996) emphasises that organisations associated with these attributes are more likely to maintain a favourable reputation²². On the contrary, companies that develop character traits for being unreliable or as lacking trustworthiness are at risk of developing a less favourable reputation⁹³. In alignment with the signalling theory, these attributes can exert significant influence on the establishment of both a corporate environmental reputation and the general reputation, and are therefore identified as important drivers^23,93. When it comes to sustainability, these attributes play a critical role in ensuring the reliable disclosure of information necessary to reap the benefits of implementing CSR into corporate business, ultimately influencing reputation.

A crucial task for companies is the cultivation of trust/ trustworthiness as pivotal driver for the establishment of robust relationships with stakeholders. Trust is often seen as a situational factor, whereas it is the quality of being trustworthy that creates trust¹²⁶. Morgan and Hunt (1994) characterise trustworthiness as the “confidence in the [counterparts] reliability and integrity” (p.23)¹²⁷. In the context of sustainability several studies indicate a positive correlation between trustworthiness, reputation and voluntary CSR practices (‘doing good’) suggesting, that companies can enhance their reputation and perceived trustworthiness through CSR initiatives^48,126. Consequently, it is scientifically acknowledged that trustworthiness is of importance for the enhancement of reputation¹²⁶. An additional attributive driver is credibility, which exerts particular importance when disclosing information³⁷. In the context of sustainability disclosure, credibility is a crucial factor in ensuring that stakeholders have confidence in the accuracy of the communicated information¹¹⁹. A highly effective strategy for enhancing credibility is the verification of information by third parties and the assurance of information on sustainable performance by professional auditors^85,119,128. This serves to reinforce stakeholder confidence in the accuracy and reliability of the disclosed information^85,119. Additionally, obtaining assurance can serve to establish legitimacy, which also represents an important driver, influencing reputation^43,72,85,119. As with corporate reputation, legitimacy is based on the evaluation and judgement of stakeholders, and is positively correlated with financial returns¹⁷. The term legitimacy is typically defined as the stakeholders’ perception that a company’s actions are desirable, suitable, and in accordance with accepted norms and expectations⁴³. One method of increasing corporate legitimacy is through CSR communication, as favourable practices within that field are perceived as desirable, suitable, and in line with accepted norms^90,119. Nevertheless, legitimacy in general, and particularly in relation to sustainable activities, can only be established over an extended period of time^17,129. In order to rapidly profit from the benefits of legitimacy, some companies engage in greenwashing, a practice that often backfires for several self-evident reasons¹⁷.

In summary, this attribute dimension serves as a mediator between the other two dimensions: stakeholders and media exposure/ communication^37,116. It is already evident that trustworthiness, credibility, and legitimacy exert a positive and favourable influence on the outcome of media exposure and communication.

2.3.3          Media Exposure/ Communication Dimension

A crucial element in leveraging sustainability as a significant driver is the recognition of CSR or non-CSR practices by stakeholders^15,118. Without this dialogue, efforts would have no impact on the company’s reputation, neither improving nor damaging it. Thereby it is important to understand, that corporate (environmental) reputation is not solely grounded upon the information disclosed by the company itself, rather on the entirety of the information available about a firm, divided into unintentional and intentional³⁸. In fact, the impact of CSR practices on reputation is based on “how the firm communicates its CSR activities and how its activities are reported in the national media and other communication mediums”¹³⁰. Consequently, companies must carefully consider both channels of information and strive to influence and manage them in the most effective manner.

The unintentional form refers to information disclosed to the public by third parties without the company’s involvement or influence, and so beyond the company’s control⁴⁸. Third parties possess the ability to direct attention towards companies and report on them, thereby strongly influencing reputations and stakeholders^22,88. Their involvement can either have a beneficial or a detrimental impact on the companies concerned¹³¹. For external stakeholders, information provided by third parties, particularly those of a prominent nature, is regarded as a more reliable source of data⁸⁸. It is important to note, that “reputations do not exist without the intermediaries and networks that create, maintain, destroy, and give meanings to them” (p.653)²⁸. This form of information disclosure lies beyond the control of companies, but they might mitigate this by demonstrating favourable and responsible behaviour as well as proactively disclosing information themselves¹³².

The second channel of information is characterised by enhanced manageability. It consists of the company’s intended communication about itself. This enables the company to exercise direct influence over the content, address its stakeholders and strategically counteract any potential negative statements made by third parties¹³². “According to legitimacy and stakeholder theories, disclosure is part of the dialogue between a company and its stakeholders, allowing the company to effectively manage reputational risks” (p. 121)¹¹⁹. Thereby companies can disclose information in form of financial and sustainability reports, interviews, social media posts, or other self-presentations¹¹⁹. By disclosing information, companies seek to address the stakeholder dimension, specifically responding to stakeholders’ current needs and demands, by showing corporate sustainable commitment^119,121. This is an important and commonly used approach to enable companies to realise the potential benefits associated with these efforts to a fully extent^85,90.

A recent meta-analysis conducted by Barroso-Méndez et al. (2024) indicates that there is a “significant positive correlation […] between corporate sustainability disclosure and reputation” (p.1)¹¹³. CSR disclosure can serve as a strategic tool to enhance corporate (environmental) reputation^83,85. This effect is further enhanced with a higher quality of the disclosed information⁸⁵. In accordance with the signalling theory, that correlation strives out the importance of disclosing high quality information in order to establish or enhance attributes like an environmentally friendly reputation, credibility, trustworthiness and transparency^48,83,119. Conversely, a company’s favourable reputation can facilitate the reliable disclosure of CSR information, thereby engendering stakeholder trust¹⁶. As previously stated, the efficacy and trustworthiness of such publications in the minds of stakeholders are further reinforced by the assurance of external third parties⁸⁵. Thereby it is advantageous if a company’s sustainability report aligns with an independent source, such as a sustainability rating, in order to enhance credibility, trustworthiness, and again corporate reputation¹³³. Also positive and reinforcing effects of these efforts typically unfold over an extended and consistent behaviour over a period of time, rather than showing immediate results¹⁷.

Avoiding CSR practices or having a poor disclosure may have the opposite effects and will therefore lead to an unfavourable reputation in the long term⁸³. It is possible for a company “with a poor sustainability performance […] to get away temporarily with restricted reporting” (p.237)¹⁷ or even a form of greenwashing. But in addition to the ethical concerns raised by this practice, there is a risk of long-term reputational damage to the company, as well as negative changes in its relationship with its stakeholders, as they may feel betrayed¹⁷.

2.4       Outcomes of Corporate (Environmental) Reputation and Sustainability

As a valuable intangible asset, reputation, including an established environmental reputation where it exists, can lead to a variety of positive financial and non-financial outcomes^37,101. It must be acknowledged that these days, a favourable reputation is frequently a result of sustainability efforts. An environmental reputation is directly linked to corporate sustainable practices. Nevertheless, in most cases it is the reputation that leads to the majority of beneficial effects, not the sustainable practices itslef^85,87,102. Companies with a favourable (environmental) reputation benefit from the following outcomes, whereas companies that are perceived irresponsible with regard to sustainability may “face public scrutiny, social sanctions, and loss of legitimacy” (466)³⁴, along with the opposite outcomes.

Competitive advantage: The cultivation of a favourable reputation while simultaneously managing sustainability provides businesses with a superior market position and increases the companies attractiveness^36,83. Research indicates that a company’s reputation affects the decisions made by stakeholders when choosing between competing yet similar firms^37,88,134. In recent years, the intensification of competition between companies has led to an increased importance of corporate reputation, corporate environmental reputation, and corporate image¹³⁵. It is therefore important for a company to establish a reputation that is more favourable than that of its competitors in order to maintain a competitive advantage over time^85,87,102. In times like ours “[c]onsumers prefer to buy products and acquire services from companies with a favo[u]rable environmental reputation” (p. 310)¹⁰⁶. Fombrun et al. (2002) state “doing good […] improve[s] a company’s ability to attract resources, enhance its performance, and build [a] competitive advantage” (p.85)⁷². An extra benefit of a good and  favourable reputation is that it is characterised as an asset that is difficult or impossible to duplicate (VRIN-attributes)^38,134.

Financial performance: In accordance with the resource-based view, organisations that possess assets that meet the VRIN criteria may benefit from superior financial performance^42,49. Latest research findings suggest a positive correlation between reputation as well as corporate environmental reputation and financial performance^{89,104,136,137}. This indicates that a favourable corporate (environmental) reputation exerts an increasing influence on both current and future financial performance^8,49,117. Moreover, researchers found a reciprocal relationship between reputation and financial performance, identifying financial performance as both an outcome and again as a driver of corporate reputation^83,90.

A critical examination of the mechanism underlying the relationship between corporate reputation and financial performance reveals that the primary determinant is the fulfilment of stakeholder demands. According to Gomez-Trujillo et al. (2019) the interplay between sustainability and reputation may influence customers’ “satisfaction, [which] can influence their purchase and repurchase intentions” (p.407)⁸³. It can be reasonably deduced that a favourable reputation, particularly a corporate environmental reputation, has the potential to increase a company’s sale number, which in turn directly impacts financial performance^37,83,138. Firms with favourable reputations may benefit from higher profit margins³⁷, as this favourable position often legitimises higher prices and buyers are willing to pay a premium price^{19,22,38,42,87,139}. These companies may also be able to reduce their operating costs^49,117 through economies of scale and “cost savings, as suppliers and employees seek to be associated with the [reputable] firm” (p.12)¹⁰². Consequently, companies with a good reputation can benefit from an increase in their sales and prices while simultaneously reducing their costs. Research indicates positive outcomes in relation to the stabilising effects on stock value⁴⁹. It was also found that a favourable reputation may serve to “enhance firm equity and investor awareness” (p.1481)²³. A positive link between CSR practices and a firm’s stock value has been observed⁴⁸.

Loyal customers: A further beneficial outcome is that companies with a favourable reputation tend to enjoy long-term effects and stability. Research indicates, that companies with a positive environmental reputation are more likely to build these lasting, strong, and beneficial relationships with their stakeholders, especially with their buyers⁴⁸. A loyal customer base, represents a crucial part for a company’s financial performance. This is attributable to their direct influence on the outcome of corporate financial performance through their monetary actions, including (re)purchases and recommendations^15,23,69. Ullah et al. (2020) state that “studies have shown that CSR is a good marketing strategy to find a loyal customer” (p.197)¹⁵. This can be linked to the outcome of the competitive advantage gained by providing additional value to customers. Improving a corporate environmental reputation represents an effective strategy for achieving this objective, as it encourages stakeholders to support companies that are perceived as ‘doing good’^15,123,134. This has the effect, that it may result in the emergence of non-financial stakeholder support¹⁷. This form of support assumes particular importance in the event of a crisis, as loyal customers are of great significance. Should a company lose this support, its reputation is at risk. On the other hand, the positive alignment with stakeholders has been shown to enhance the company’s understanding of their needs and demands, thereby enabling more effective management of diverse risks and drivers^90,140.

(Loyal) employees: Another outcome of a favourable reputation attributed to a group of stakeholders is the fostering of employee loyalty and the attraction of a more qualified workforce^{19,83,139,141}. The academic literature reveals a preference among individuals for working in organisations that align with their personal values and are widely regarded as reputable by others^134,142. A look at more recent literature indicates that this is currently the case for companies that are known for holding a positive environmental reputation^101,106. In those circumstances employees are inclined to work more productively and demonstrate greater loyalty to their employers, which leads to lower fluctuation^48,116,142. Loyal employees not only represent a beneficial outcome, they also represent an important influence for reputation, as they play a crucial role in maintaining a corporate reputation. This can be seen as a mutually reinforcing cycle.

Trust and decrease in uncertainty: Trust and perceived trustworthiness both a driver and an outcome of reputation^87,116. The conceptualisation of trust as an outcome enables the reduction of customer uncertainty through the establishment of a favourable reputation^22,36,87. This is particularly evident in instances where the disclosure of CSR and sustainable practices result in the development of a positive reputation^24,83. The beneficial outcomes for companies based on “characteristics such as trust, reassurance, reputation, image and responsiveness [are that they] are seen as more durable and less likely to suffer from competitive erosion” (p.403)¹²⁸. All this leads to loyal customers and increased support^17,45,126.

Crisis management: In the event of an internal or external crisis a favourable reputation might serve as a “buffer”⁸ by mitigating the emerging risk^{37,38,83,89,139}. As with status, this ‘buffer’ effect of reputation manifests itself in the form of a halo effect, as stakeholders tend to interpret information in a way that is consistent with their pre-existing perceptions⁸. Thus, stakeholders holding a company in high regard, are very likely to give it the “benefit of the doubt” (S.169)¹⁹, by offering the organisation a second chance or overlooking inconsistent and unfavourable information as they emerge²³. Furthermore, a favourable reputations also helps to foster strong relationships with these stakeholders, increasing the organisation’s chances of survival and helping it to manage and recover from crises³⁷. It has also been shown that in the event of a crisis, companies with an established favourable reputation or environmental reputation are in a good position to rebuild stakeholder trust by engaging in proactive CSR reporting¹³⁹. Consequently, companies with favourable reputations experience smaller market declines during internal or external crises and can profit form the reciprocal relationship with sustainability⁹⁸.

3    Practical Implementation

This literature review shows, that companies must understand how to manage their reputation proactively. Reports from management practice show, that the number of purchases made by consumers varies significantly in accordance with the level of sustainability management undertaken by the company¹⁴³. They also suggests that corporate environmental responsibility enhances a company’s reputation, enabling it to differentiate itself from competitors and underline the consensus with the academic literature^11,144. Practice also demonstrates that the establishment of a favourable reputation, whilst simultaneously addressing sustainability demands, is of critical importance for avoiding corporate damage and ensuring the company’s long-term survival¹⁴⁵. Companies such as RepTrak and Deloitte, who collaborate with organisations to enhance their competitive advantage and reputation, strongly recommend the integration of sustainability into a company’s strategy to minimise risk^11,144. An unfavourable reputation is seen as a beginning for “many other risks, particularly economic ones”¹⁴⁶.

3.1       Risks, Barriers and Tensions in Practice

Managers often find it difficult to control reputation at all due to its multidimensional and multifaceted nature, as well as their lack of understanding and expertise in this area¹⁴⁵. To quote Warren Buffett, “risk comes from not knowing what you’re doing”¹⁴⁷. This barrier includes a lack of knowledge regarding the following barriers and tensions, a knowledge that must be identified and understood. Given the variety of factors that influence a reputation, there is a corresponding multitude of potential risks. Potential risks have the capacity to damage a reputation and “come in many forms, seen and hidden”¹⁴⁸.

External crisis: In recent years, external events such as natural disasters, the climate crisis, wars and the global pandemic have had a significant impact on the perceptions and reputations of organisations^9,149. Such crises have consequences, such as a reduction in purchases, and further Deloitte demonstrates the importance of these events for the reputation of a company¹⁵⁰. They propose that reputational risks emerge subsequent to other risks¹⁵⁰. This implies that, in addition to the general (e.g. financial) negative effects on a company, they can also give rise to reputational risks^13,150,151. Additionally, they can lead to a shift in stakeholder demands, as demonstrated by the climate crisis and the increasing demand for sustainability. These shifts often require companies to adapt their business strategy in a short period of time or risk a loss of reputation by failing to meet expectations. These events have also been shown to be a risk to the trust relationship between a company and its stakeholders and therefore increased and more careful communication can be highly beneficial¹⁴⁶.

External stakeholders – buyers: Fombrun et al. already identified “each stakeholder group [as] a source of reputational risk [that must] be managed” (p.88)⁷². Similarly, in practice external stakeholders are recognised as a crucial part of a company’s success and survival, given their role as (potential) buyers¹⁵². Because of their impact on a company’s financial position, it is imperative for any company to cultivate and maintain positive and tension free relationships with them¹⁵³. A failure to address these stakeholders in the right manner can pose a significant risk, as it can result in an unfavourable reputation and consequently lead to disadvantageous outcomes and even penalisation. The correct communication and disclosure of information is therefore essential ( 4.3.3), yet practice shows that many companies struggle to manage this effectively. In practice, this challenge of communication and disclosure is frequently neglected, resulting in miscommunication, reputational damage, and limited strategic success. Global players, may have the additional difficulty that even the same stakeholder group (e.g. buyers) can have different preferences and trending desires depending on their location and country¹⁵⁴. Consequently, a company may have a resilient reputation in one country and simultaneously a declining reputation in another, which presents a challenge in implementing the right implications¹⁵⁴.

CSR – a stakeholder demand: Another barrier, closely related to stakeholders is the growing demand for a company to act responsible, with a particular emphasis on sustainability¹⁴⁶. In particular, matters pertaining to CSR have evolved to be one of the most significant reputational issues¹⁵⁵. By not engaging or disclosing sustainability practices, companies are failing to meet this important and rapidly growing stakeholder demands¹⁴⁶. Engagement in the absence of disclosure has been shown to result in a failure to capitalise on the potential benefits of sustainable efforts^13,146,150. As a result, the potential positive effects on corporate reputation would remain unrealised.

Consequently, organisations are compelled to cultivate, not only to capitalise the advantages, but also to avoid the risk of sanctions through external stakeholders¹⁵⁶. A survey conducted by Woman Action Sustainability (WAS) has revealed that the disclosure of sustainable efforts is also subject to barriers and risks that must be addressed¹³. Poorly implemented ESG engagement and disclosure risks being perceived as insincere or greenwashing^7,13,157, while scepticism about genuine intrinsic commitment can further weaken its impact¹⁵⁸. Both factors undermine stakeholder trust and the intended benefits of these initiatives. These circumstances taken together result in the significant revelation that both engagement and disengagement as well as disclosing and not disclosing entail risk. Practice indicates, that the benefits resulting from successful implementation and disclosure of sustainability practices outweigh the potential drawbacks¹³. As a result, companies need to ensure effective disclosure to profit from the benefits and avoid the perception of insincerity or greenwashing^13,157. Furthermore, companies have the capacity to control and mitigate this risk to a certain extent, as they are able to actively manage their communication strategy¹⁵⁹.

Media: The external media represent an additional burden that, similar to an external crisis, lies beyond a company’s control. This is attributable to the enabling of multiple source to report about everything combined with stakeholders access to a vast quantity of information from any location and at any time in an exceptionally rapid pace¹. As a consequence, media has a significant impact on the information that stakeholders receive about a company and therefore on the outcome of the reputation^160,161. Through the way they report and disclose information about different companies, they have the ability to either harm or support it. This characterises the media as a significant driver of increasing uncertainty and riskiness, a barrier that must be faced and that needs to be mitigated¹⁴⁹. As a result, many companies seek to build relationships with the media in order to influence their reporting as much as possible¹⁶¹.

With the rapidity of information, especially in times of social media, one identified burden is that companies often lack the time to respond effectively to information published about them, leaving them susceptible to immediate public scrutiny, criticism and judgement^156,160. Furthermore, the revelation of unfavourable information has the potential to give rise to tensions in the relationship between companies and their stakeholders with regard to matters such as trust³. In addition, the disclosure of information that a company wanted to keep confidential is more problematic when it is disclosed by third parties rather than the company itself, resulting in a perceived absence of transparency¹⁶². Similarly, the emergence of inconsistencies in communication or actions conveyed through media can serve to further erode trust¹⁴⁵. Together these examples demonstrate, that the media pose many different types of risk. Still, with the right knowledge, companies can mitigate these risks or even leverage external reporting to enhance corporate visibility, prominence, and attention. Despite the fact that external media may be beyond the control of the company, it has been demonstrated that companies can decrease the risk and leverage media through proactive communication and disclosure.

Internal stakeholders – employees: Characterised as an often overlooked aspect that can be a burden to reputation if not managed properly is the role of employees^163,164. Their risk arises from their pivotal role for a company’s operative and also strategical business as well as their “[being] privy to extremely valuable information”¹⁶⁴. Although this represents a further risk to a company’s reputation, it can be managed and influenced by the company¹⁵⁹. Consequently, it is imperative for companies to establish relationships that engender satisfaction and loyalty, with a view to preventing employees from disclosing information that may be damaging to the corporate reputation^159,164. Besides, companies bear responsibility for the behaviour of their workforce, as they embody the corporate identity, which leads to images that ultimately influence reputation. If employees do not represent this identity effectively, the result can be an inappropriate image that damages the company’s reputation¹⁴⁴. Therefore an effective employee management is crucial. Without it, tensions can arise between the corporate identity and its external perception, undermining trust and credibility towards external stakheolders¹⁴⁴.

In conclusion, the effective management of reputational risk is critical to a company’s long-term success and financial stability. Organisations that fail to do so face the threat of negative business consequences, making reputation management a strategic priority¹³. While employee engagement plays a critical role in minimising reputational risks, other aspects of reputation are best addressed through strategic communication and transparent disclosure. By proactively managing these elements, companies can not only protect their reputation but also strengthen their financial performance¹⁵⁰. It is therefore essential to analyse a company’s position, its stakeholders and to manage external communications.

3.2       Corporate Analysis

Before a company can begin to influence or reshape its reputation, it is crucial to understand its current position and to gain a comprehensive understanding of its market, its stakeholders, and the most significant risks¹⁵⁰. Before deriving implications that serve to enhance corporate (environmental) reputation, it is necessary to gather data and information³. Without this fundamental knowledge, derived from both internal and external analyses, any attempts to influence reputation and to address the interests and expectations of its key stakeholders would be comparable to navigating blindly. To illustrate this point with a simple metaphor: it would be similar to buying shoes without knowing or considering the correct size – in most cases, they simply would not fit. When it comes to reputation, the case is much more complex.

Thus, the initial step in enhancing corporate (environmental) reputation is to comprehend one’s current position and the interests of stakeholders¹⁴⁶. In order to achieve this objective, there are a variety of methodologies that can be employed to analyse a company’s position^148,165. These include means like stakeholder analysis, SWOT analysis, benchmarking, trend analysis and reputation analysis, which again can be carried out by using a range of different measurement tools. Kalra (2024), a Forbes council member, proposes a multifaceted approach involving the use of diverse instruments to achieve a more nuanced and detailed depiction, enabling a company to make more informed and effective decisions¹⁴⁸. The following is an illustrative three-step process.

Stakeholder analysis

As an initial step, it is important to identify the relevant stakeholder groups and understand their preferences prior to analysing their reputation of one’s company. It is imperative that companies identify the preferences, desires and the influence of their stakeholders^11,13,20. “Although a few years old, it’s still relevant”²⁰, with these words Young (2023) quotes the following older McKinsey report (2009) which asserts that organisations must “enhance their listening skills [in order] to reinvigorate their understanding of, and relationships with, critical stakeholders; and to go beyond traditional PR by activating a network of supporters”¹⁶⁵. This underscores the imperative of understanding one’s stakeholders while also highlighting that their identification enables the development and implementation of more targeted and effective measures.

The objective of stakeholder analysis is to create a comprehensive overview of a company’s internal and external stakeholder groups, while also gaining an initial understanding of their characteristics and needs. This process involves the identification of factors such as the predominating age group, education level, interests and others Q. Given that “not all stakeholders [are] equally relevant for all companies”¹⁶⁶ it is imperative to prioritise between relevant and less relevant parties. In this regard, Deloitte (n.d.) employs the approach of “[c]ontinuous engagement with [their] internal and external stakeholders [to gain an] understanding of who Deloitte impacts”¹⁶⁷. Based on these insights, decisions need to be made regarding who is most relevant and of the utmost importance for the company’s (financial) performance. In the majority of cases, customers, employees and the media represent the most significant groups of stakeholders with regard to reputation and therefore require enhanced and further attention^146,148. Even if a company’s key stakeholders are in most cases quite similar, their attributes can differ significantly and thus require identification.

Reputation/ Data analysis

As asserted by McKinsey (2021), the previous step of identifying and selecting is foundational to the subsequent step of deeper understanding the specific stakeholders’ preferences, demands, needs and most significantly, their reputation of the company¹⁶⁶. In order to gain an understanding and to gather information, Forbes (2024) proposes to address the relevant stakeholders directly, for example, “in the form of surveys, analysis of engagements on social media and word of mouth”¹⁴⁸. Other possible steps are the monitoring of different communication channels or the evaluation of received feedback or rankings¹⁶⁸.

One of the simplest methods of ascertaining one’s reputational standing is the Net Promoter Score (NPS), which measures customer loyalty “by asking how likely customers are to recommend a product or service”¹⁶⁹. The main advantage is the simplicity of assessment and evaluation, coupled with high participation rates due to the minimal time required. Nevertheless, NPS is merely a first indicator, as it lacks qualitative insight – knowing that someone wouldn’t recommend a company doesn’t provide clarity as to why or what improvements are needed. Although it serves as an effective initial indicator, it is imperative that it is supplemented by more profound analytical methodologies in order to identify areas for improvement.

These days, the internet provides vast quantities of data in a remarkably short period of time^3,170. It is often the case that stakeholders share their opinions unsolicited due to the low barrier to entry and rapid sharing capabilities of social media³. The using of social media accounts, comment sections, or similar platforms enables companies to reach a large target audience and a quantity of public feedback with minimal effort. As previously indicated, these channels also pose certain risks, such as the potential for public backlashes, and other risks that must be recognised and effectively mitigated¹⁷¹. Nonetheless, if properly moderated and evaluated, this approach offers the advantage of real-time feedback and the opportunity to gain a diverse and representative view of one’s own reputation^148,172. The sheer volume of data necessitates complex evaluation processes, due to the high quantity and the fact that it is often available in qualitative form^173,174. The same challenge applies to other methods of data selection and analysis.

As a result, there is a need for more advanced analytical methods, which are frequently more expensive and more challenging to implement¹⁷⁵. On the positive side, the utilisation of artificial intelligence (AI) tools for the analysis of surveys, the monitoring of social media, and the evaluation of other feedback channels is becoming increasingly feasible and advantageous^3,148. The primary benefit of this technology (AI) is that it provides real-time data, reveals stakeholder sentiments, as well as simplifying and compressing complex information for easier interpretation³. Forbes (2024) advocates the implementation of AI-tools, identifying it as a “strategy […] for [the] early detection and mitigation of potential reputation risks”¹⁴⁸. However, when collecting and analysing data, organisations need to be cautious about the potential risks to privacy and ethical considerations, particularly when using AI technologies or other specific survey methods¹⁶⁶.

Prior to the emergence of AI, a range of concrete tools and models for measuring reputation had been developed. Among these, reputation platforms are particularly noteworthy. People of practice consider them highly valuable, as they provide robust and well-founded analysis, enabling companies to gain a deeper insight into their reputation³ by using a “combination of qualitative and quantitative data”¹⁷³. One of the most prominent platforms in this field is the RepTrak Company¹⁷⁶. Their “proprietary RepTrak model is the global standard for measuring and analysing the sentiment of the world using proven data science models and machine learning techniques”¹⁷⁶. It is employed by the company in order to analyse the reputations of the 100 most reputable organisations in the world^176,177. As a consequence, RepTrak and other similar platforms have the capacity to facilitate a more profound comprehension of the values and interests that stakeholders consider important¹⁷⁷. These reputation-related insights are frequently communicated independently of specific companies and can be applied across various industries, and so enable the identification of current trends, providing valuable cross-sectoral relevance. They assist companies to „identify growth opportunities, […] navigate potential challenges [, as well as] maintaining a stellar reputation”³. This serves to mitigate the disadvantage of ranking exclusively the largest companies, as practitioners assert that smaller companies can also benefit from of these platforms in an adaptive manner¹⁷⁷.

SWOT analysis

In the final stage of the analysis phase, it is recommended to use a SWOT analysis to structure and interpret the insights gained. This facilitates the leveraging of the specific corporate position and the identification of specific approaches that have the potential to enhance reputation. Despite the absence of explicit mention of SWOT analysis in articles related to practice, its fundamental principles have been articulated. The recommendation of this approach is founded upon the observation that authors have, yet always only in part, highlighted the identification of “strength”³, “risk”^150,159 or “issue”^11,178 (threats), “weakness”³, and “opportunities”^3,178. When considered collectively, these elements form a SWOT analysis. Adopting this approach is conducive to the establishment of a comprehensive understanding of the company’s present situation and the most urgent CSR issues requiring immediate attention, as well as the identification of possible new chances and ideas^3,11,178,179. As suggested by Deloitte, companies intending to enhance their corporate (environmental) reputation should prioritise the identification of their specific CSR risks and opportunities¹⁵⁰.

By systematically categorising the information gathered, companies can leverage their identified strengths and risks through appropriate management actions to maximise the effectiveness of their CSR initiatives¹⁷⁸. Following the identification and categorisation of the four perspectives, targeted strategies can be developed with the aim of minimising weaknesses, building on strengths, leveraging opportunities and managing threats.

Strengths (intern)Being knownLoyal customersLoyal and qualified employeesStrong sustainability management…	Weaknesses (intern)Lack of transparencybad disclosure and poor communication146Misconduct or irresponsible behaviour of employees146Poor customer relations…
Opportunities (extern)Poor industry average in matters of sustainability and CSR  Opportunity for a company to differentiate itselfRegulations and voluntary guidelinesCooperating with NGOs.…	Threats (extern)Criticism from the media or pressNew regulatory requirementsBad ratings or reviews146…

3.3       Corporate (Environmental) Reputation Strategy

For this phase the objective is to proactively manage the interplay between corporate reputation, corporate environmental reputation and sustainability. Therefore, corporate strategies and managerial approaches are presented in order to receive favourable outcomes while overcoming the aforementioned barriers, risks and tensions. Thereby, it is imperative to utilise the insights gathered to effectively align the company’s reputation management strategy¹⁴⁵. Based on the premise that every company is different, it is argued that there is no universal approach to integrating sustainability into business operations¹⁸⁰. Instead, companies must develop an individual strategy that is aligned with their unique circumstances, as well as their desired images and reputation, whilst also meeting the expectations of their customers⁶. Despite the apparent complexity and intricacy of the concept of reputation, an article published by Forbes (2023), says “your reputation is impacted by factors beyond your control, but [it is] not beyond your influence”²⁰. This may offer a sense of optimism and encouragement, because it suggests that reputation can be changed and even improved over time using the right approaches. After reviewing several reports and practical guides on the subject of facilitating CSR to enhance corporate (environmental) reputation, the most frequently recommended strategies were identified, synthesized, and structured into the following steps:

• Define measurable goals
  • Create an internal foundation
  • Communication and disclosure – (most critical step)

3.3.1          Define (measurable) Goals

Following the execution of a corporate analysis, consultancies such as McKinsey recommend organisations to define clear goals for the desired reputational changes and outcomes they wish to accomplish¹⁶⁶. Ideally, the goals are formulated in a measurable way, thereby enabling the monitoring and evaluation of the implemented changes and progress^145,157,166. The ability to monitor defined goals helps organisations in two ways. Firstly, it allows them to track their own progress effectively. Secondly, it enables them to demonstrate their achievements to the public with concrete evidence, a quality that is particular beneficial for the subsequent disclosure phase ( 4.3.3).

Since (potential) buyers represent one of the most important stakeholder groups for a company, it is recommended to formulate goals that are aligned with their expectations. This includes the undertaking of commitments on matters important to them, namely subjects concerning CSR, the integration of these practice into business operations, and their subsequent fulfilment⁹. This commitment to meeting their expectations does not only contribute to enhance “reputation [, these actions] build the trust, loyalty, and growth that are key to long-term success”¹¹. The potential to build trust, particularly by demonstrating (measurable) CSR performance, also helps to mitigate risks, to undermine potential conflicts, and to reduce reputational damage¹⁸¹. The more effectively a company meets CSR expectations and the more precisely the related goals are formulated, the higher the likelihood of establishing a beneficial and favourable reputation^9,11. As a consequence, it is recommended to formulate (measurable) objectives, work on them and communicate both the objectives and the results to external stakeholders.

To illustrate this recommendation in the context of sustainability, a formulated goal could take the form of a company setting a target to reduce its carbon footprint¹⁵⁷. This objective is consistent with the stakeholders’ demand for greater environmental responsibility. A key benefit of the proposed goal is its quantifiable nature, which facilitates the comparison of results, namely the desired reduction in carbon footprint. Research indicates that carbon footprint assessment is an effective initial strategy in the context of corporate sustainability, as it “provides an overall view of your emissions, enabling you to implement actions to reduce them”¹⁸². Other illustrative examples could be performing “a materiality assessment or completing [CSR] data tracking using [common] standards like the TCFD (Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosure) reporting”¹⁵⁷. This approach facilitates improved transparency, better risk management and a deeper understanding of the impact being made, while identifying areas for potential improvement^13,157. A further optionis the commitment to donate a specified amount, such as 1% of sales, to environmental causes. This approach has been adopted by companies such as Patagonia¹⁸³. A significant benefit of this approach is its simplicity of implementation, with results being observed immediately and, most importantly, it does not require any modifications to the organisation’s existing business processes. The absence of necessary changes is a considerable advantage, as these changes often require time, substantial pre-investment, and a lot of expertise. However, Ross (Forbes, 2024) asserts that while this “project […] works for Patagonia, [it] may not work for you”¹⁸⁴. This further illustrates the fact that each company must develop its own strategy, customised in accordance with the desired impact, the intended reputation, and the company’s identity as well as their specific stakeholders.

3.3.2          Create an Internal Foundation

In order to achieve the formulated objectives and enhance the reputation, it is imperative to start by incorporating the internal stakeholders. Beginning at the strategic level of a company, leaders such as a CEO need to understand and embody the defined goals and reputation strategy. Understanding the strategy and goals enables them to articulate and communicate these priorities to the workforce credibly, ensuring their alignment, engagement, and effective implementation^145,185. This responsibility identifies leadership as an important instrument for influencing the breadth of employees on reputation. Younger (Forbes, 2023) stated, “[i]f the CEO doesn’t own the company’s reputation strategy, [the company doesn’t] have a reputation strategy”²⁰. This can be attributed to the fact that the manager would be unable to motivate the employees with regard to the defined goals, and would not be able to communicate the intended approaches in a reliable and authentic way. A leader needs to set “a clear statement of the reputation a company aspires to, [otherwise] employees are left to improvise”²⁰ in defining and representing it. As a consequence, the intended reputation might not be achieved.

With regard to the operational business, the breadth of employees is identified as an important stakeholder group relevant to the development of a corporate reputation^148,150. RepTrak (2024) even defines them as a company’s “second most important stakeholder group, behind customers, whose influence on corporate reputation cannot be overstated”¹¹. It is important that the employees of the company can identify with the established reputation strategy and feel responsible for it²⁰. To achieve this, the strategy must be embedded in the corporate identity, which is embodied by the employees, who act as advocates for the company¹¹. As stated in the literature review, this identity is perceived externally, shaping individual images that collectively contribute to the overall reputation. In order to leverage the workforce as valuable advocates for the (environmental) reputation, it is essential to ensure their motivation and connectedness to the company, their culture and their values¹¹. In addition to the establishment of long-term and loyal relationships with suitable employees, it is also essential for the stability of reputation to attract further qualified employees and to reduce staff turnover. In order to address this necessity, the management must cultivate the aforementioned attributes and connectedness through means such as salary, general work conditions, or even by owning a favourable reputation¹⁸⁶. An additional and currently effective approach, which can significantly enhance employee loyalty, attraction and identification with the company is, again, a strong commitment to sustainability. This commitment has been demonstrated to attract qualified employees and to reduce staff turnover¹⁸⁷.

Niels B. Christiansen, CEO of Lego, which RepTrak ranked as the most reputable company in 2023 and 2024¹⁸⁸, found words of gratitude and pride, referring in particular to the employees. By saying that their reputable position “is [a] testament to the dedication of [their] colleagues who all play a part in building a sustainable future and a better world […]”¹⁸⁹, he highlights the importance of the workforce in establishing and improving corporate (environmental) reputation. Stating “[the] commitment of our colleagues to help keep our promises during a year shaped by significant challenges”¹⁹⁰,  Christiansen further underlines his recognition of the workforce as an important lever in managing reputation.

3.3.3          External Communication and Disclosure

After these two steps, an additional discipline that must be carefully considered and managed is the communication and disclosure of practices and defined goals related to CSR to the external world. External communication and disclosure has been identified as the riskiest step when it comes reputation, because communication and disclosure can backfire and exert the opposite effect to that intended^157,191. This risk is particularly high if communication and disclosure are handled in a disadvantageous, restrictive or inaccurate manner^113,148. For instance, if the message is perceived as insincere or revealed to be inaccurate, it can result in a loss of stakeholder confidence, which may ultimately lead to sanctions and a damaged reputation¹⁵⁶. Not disclosing information about ones sustainability performance is not a viable option, since this would prevent companies benefiting from the positive impact their sustainable efforts and financial investments could have on their reputation^13,146,150.  Despite the potential for disclosure to negate the altruism that underpins such actions, Simpson (Forbes, 2024) offers a clear direction by asserting the imperative to “[p]rioriti[s]e transparency and communication: In times of low trust, silence is not an option”¹⁴⁵. A number of authors are urging companies not only to adopt sustainable and CSR practices, but also to disclose them¹³. This assertion is further reinforced by the observation that companies with a favourable environmental reputation “are those that have recognised the correlation between sustainability and their business activities and goals”¹⁵⁷. Taken together, these findings indicate that corporate sustainability efforts and responsibility, combined with the right disclosure, currently represent the most effective strategy for enhancing corporate (environmental) reputation. With regard to communication, a distinction can be made between the disclosure of defined objectives prior to their implementation and the communication of actual business practices and results.

Disclosure of pre-defined goals – By clearly communicating these goals and the timeframe for achieving them, organisations can reap a number of benefits. These companies have already recognised the value of this approach:

Apple: “[O]ur ambitious goal [is] to make every product carbon neutral by 2030”¹⁹²

Nestle: “We aim that above 95% of our plastic packaging will be designed for recycling by 2025”¹⁹³

Siemens: By “2030, [we] intend […] to achieve a 90 percent reduction in CO₂ emissions” ¹⁹⁴

By communicating such internally developed goals, companies enable stakeholders to monitor their promises and progresses towards the defined objectives^145,157,166. This has the advantage of showing externally “where you are on the journey and what the next stages are in your plan to become more eco-friendly”¹⁵⁷. Additionally, it has been demonstrated that this constitutes an effective strategy for the purpose of strengthening relations and connectedness with external stakeholders, as well as enhancing transparency¹³. In addition, it facilitates stakeholder engagement and fosters a sense of integration, involvement and visibility among them¹³. A further advantageous aspect of communicating one’s set goals externally is that this act of communication represents the most immediate response to present social demands. To illustrate, for example, reducing a company’s carbon footprint takes a considerable amount of time, whereas communicating that the company’s goal is to reduce it by a certain amount within a certain timeframe can be accomplished in significantly shorter time and demonstrates the company’s awareness and responsibility for sustainability issues, while also conveying that they actively engage to improve within this field. Communicating defined goals can be seen as a first step towards environmental responsibility, as, “[e]ven if you are just starting with sustainability, customers will appreciate it”¹⁵⁷. Consequently, the disclosure of defined goals can facilitate as a strategic approach, enabling a company to quickly respond to its stakeholders and to demonstrate early engagement and commitment to CSR and sustainability¹³. In order to ensure that these communicated goals have a positive impact, it is crucial that a company either already possesses a favourable reputation that should be further enhanced or maintained, or that the company has demonstrated reliable and trustworthy communication in the past¹¹. In the absence of either of these factors, external stakeholders may be sceptical about a company disclosing its goals¹⁹⁵.

In this case, it is essential to first cultivate a positive reputation through transparent disclosure of actual results and practices in order to establish the necessary qualities such as reliability and accountability^11,13. Irrespective of the company’s reputation, the disclosure of actual corporate performance should be a standard practice for all companies, whereas disclosure of goals can be regarded as a voluntary approach.

Disclosure of actual corporate performance and results – This aspect of disclosure involves communicating actual achieved results and is a fundamental part of “[t]ell[ing] your company’s story consistently”¹⁹⁶. First of all, it is a crucial complement if a company has announced its defined goals, reinforcing the principle of “practice what you preach”¹⁹⁷. Stakeholders do not simply seek promises; in addition, they require reliable information that reflects a company’s commitment to CSR and shows actual results^184,198. Secondly, regardless of whether the targets have been communicated in advance, companies and their reputation benefit from demonstrating their achievements and practices with regard to CSR concerns^15,17,20. The appropriate disclosure of actual sustainable results enables a company to distinguish itself from competitors by clearly communicating its commitment to responsible behaviour¹⁸⁴. By reflecting the company’s actual behaviour, it serves as a critical benchmark of its genuine commitment to sustainability, thus assuming greater significance than goal disclosure. Consequently, demonstrating qualitative disclosure over time has the potential to enhance transparency and cultivate trustworthiness, ultimately contributing to the establishment of a favourable (environmental) reputation¹⁵⁷.

In line with the principles of signalling theory, it is imperative to send the right signals. Effective disclosure must be designed to appeal to the defined target group and address topics that are relevant to them in the correct manner¹⁴³. In essence, all external communications should aim to represent attributes such as reliability, trustworthiness, responsibility, honesty and benevolence. These attributes ultimately lead to a favourable perception of the company. In order to establish those attributes, a company may use a number of different approaches.

In the first place, a company should genuinely strive to act environmentally responsible, ideally driven by intrinsic motivation. From a moral and ethical perspective, this should be self-evident, yet practical evidence demonstrates that companies repeatedly attempt to get away with greenwashing or greenlighting (highlighting small sustainable achievements to distract from larger harmful practices). Both have been exposed as practices that often backfire and, when exposed publicly, result in huge reputational damage¹⁵⁷. One of the best known examples of this is the VW emissions scandal. While other automotive companies are featured in the 2024 RepTrak report (Mercedes-Benz ranked 2^nd, Rolls-Royce 7^th, Toyota 42^nd, and Volvo 51^st), Volkswagen did not make it into the top 100¹⁹⁹. Although a number of factors contributed to this result, the company still remains associated with the emissions scandal, emphasising the enduring impact on Volkswagen’s reputation.

To avoid such developments, companies need to disclose CSR information in a transparent, truthful and comprehensive manner^13,178. The quality of transparency enhances the credibility of the information disclosed, ultimately strengthening the company’s reputation and trustworthiness^{11,13,157,196}. Comprehensive disclosure means showing the good as well as the bad in terms of sustainability. Research demonstrates that this practice helps to prevent greenlighting and improves transparency as well as reputation²⁴. For practical understanding, this point can be illustrated with a best practice example of a sustainability setback at Lego and their excellent handling of the situation. Realising that Lego would not be able to meet its 2030 sustainability target, the company did not remain silent. Instead, they proactively communicated this setback, providing a detailed explanation of the failure¹². Being honest served Lego to reinforce stakeholder trust, to prevent reputational damage and to underscore the importance of transparency¹². Transparent communication, in the context of failure, can be regarded as an indication of the intrinsic motivation for sustainable practices¹¹. This is a significant finding, given that companies tend to refrain from boasting about failure. In addition, Legos positive example indicates that actions that demonstrate a company’s proactive commitment and caring are what ultimately influences a positive reputation, credibility, trustworthiness, and legitimacy, while reactive engagement is perceived as intrinsic and financially motivated¹³. Forbes (2024) advises companies to “[e]nsure that any actions […] take[n] are perceived as genuine efforts to address stakeholder concerns, rather than self-serving maneuvers”¹⁴⁵. Lego’s open and honest policy lead to a consistently and strong reputation as indicated by the fact as a repeated 1^stplace at RepTraks ranking^181,199. Showing that you care to communicate your journey transparently is more important than perfection. In the long term, this approach has a more positive effect on corporate (environmental) reputation than resorting to short-term strategies such as greenwashing or greenlighting.

Instruments to assure credibility – In the more desired case of a fulfilled goal, companies are also recommended to disclose and communicate relevant information. For positive results on CSR performance, companies should seek third-party verification and report their results using common standards to increase their quality and impact^178,200. The disclosure of some information and reports is already obligatory due to regulatory requirements¹⁹⁸. Any additional disclosures undertaken by the company could serve to increase transparency and enhance the attributes of credibility, trustworthiness, and legitimacy. Using reporting standards, a company can ensure that the information it discloses is presented clearly and supported by appropriate evidence to demonstrate its validity, reliability, and accuracy^11,13. According to PwC (n.d.), the most commonly used standards are based on the CSRD (Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive) policy²⁰¹. Another source recommends reporting that is “aligned with standards such as GRI (Global Reporting Initiative) or SASB (Sustainability Accounting Standards Board)”¹⁷⁸. A noticeable benefit of all reporting standards is their structured nature, which facilitates standardisation and so provides a framework for the comparability of companies²⁰². It enables companies to demonstrate their progress by employing “specific metrics on energy use, carbon emissions, community support and board diversity”¹⁷⁸. Strong performance in these areas can assist companies to gain a competitive advantage over their rivals, while providing stakeholders with a comprehensive assessment of their standing². Reporting standards have the disadvantage of high complexity due to the need to measure and collect a large volume of diverse data²⁰¹. Consequently, the disclosure of information, for instance in the form of a sustainability report, is a costly and time-consuming process that demands specific employee knowledge and often powerful IT systems²⁰¹.

Third-party verification has been shown to improve the quality of corporate disclosure and provides assurance. It can take the form of either requested or unsolicited media confirmation of reported information^1,198. One form of third party verification, similar to using reporting standards, with adaptive advantages and disadvantages, is the validation of business operations through certification. Thereby a third party provides companies with a certificate, such as “B Corporation certification [for] overall environmental and social performance [or] Fair Trade certification [which] indicates producer support and fair pay”¹⁷⁸. Another area where third party assurance is becoming increasingly common is in the context of reports. PwC (2024) states that “the scrutiny of what organisations report and the commitments they make has never been greater”²⁰³. So companies are actively seeking third-party verification to mitigate this risk. In addition to that, a growing number of companies are having their reports externally and independently verified¹⁹⁸. The possession of both certificates and verified reports has been demonstrated to enhance the veracity of disclosed information, increase externally perceived transparency, and create value for the company^178,203.

Reaching a wider audience – After publishing information about a company’s sustainable performance, the next step is often to find the right words and the right channel to reach the wide range of external stakeholders, especially the breadth of potential buyers. This is a crucial step, as disclosure, for example in the form of corporate sustainability reports, is often voluminous, detailed and so requires specific knowledge. For illustration purpose: Apple’s Environmental Progress Report (2023) extends to 113 pages²⁰⁴, Nestlé’s Sustainability Report (2023) has 89 pages²⁰⁵, and one of Siemens reports (2023) even comprises 158 pages²⁰⁶. In addition, most large companies produce not only one, but a number of reports, each with a different focus and content, and sometimes for different audiences, such as customers, governments or investors. The result is an enormous amount of data and information, much of which isn’t necessary for everyone. In fact, the majority of potential buyers are unlikely to read such a document, and many of them may struggle to understand it. This should lead companies to find the right words to simplify their reports as well as to find the appropriate channel to publish the compressed information to ensure that all stakeholders can understand the results. In practice, this means explaining and contextualising sustainability reports for the specific, identified target groupe¹⁵⁷. Deloitte, for instance, explain that the manner in which they report and disclose is designed for their most important stakeholders¹⁶⁷. In the majority of cases, it is therefore advisable to use an understandable, clear and universal language. According to Forbes, the most effective media channels at present are the corporate website and social media platforms¹⁸⁴. In addition, one of their studies revealed that more than half of consumers prefer to receive sustainability information through social media channels¹⁸⁴. Consequently, companies are encouraged to work on their social media presence, with the ultimate aim of influencing corporate reputation. Nonetheless, despite the known risks of the media, it seem to be important, to strategically use it as a tool to reach a wider audience. This underlines the importance of seeing media not just as a challenge but as a critical component of reputation management.

3.3.4          Integrating a reputation management

Once this process has been completed, it is important to recognise that reputation management is an ongoing effort, rather than a one-time undertaking. As a result, it is essential to make these steps of corporate analysis, followed by the various steps of corporate (environmental) reputation strategy, an ongoing, never-ending process. This assertion is founded upon the premise that the maintenance of a reputation is an ongoing process which is not static and is influenced by several risks, thus requires consistent effort and engagement^55,159. 

In light of the findings and the acknowledgement of reputation as one of the most valuable assets a company can possess, practical literature recommends the establishment of a reputation management system^1,3,159,168. One of their primary responsibilities should be the real time monitoring of data and stakeholders’ sentiment to identify shifts in preferences, perceptions of the company, and emerging risks^3,159 ( 4.2). This can take the form of social media monitoring, where negative feedback “serv[es] as an early warning system that enables [quick] responses [whereas] positive feedback can be leveraged in promotional strategies”³. The ability to detect changes – especially risks – at an early stage enables a company to quickly react to changing demands, thereby increasing business resilience²⁰⁷. By identifying changes, organisations can adjust their strategic objectives accordingly ( 4.3.1) or, in the case of emerging risks, gain valuable time to mitigate potential impacts.

Another significant function of reputation management is the oversight and direction of the entirety of corporate communication ( 4.3.3). This includes taking the necessary steps to protect the company’s (environmental) reputation and to externally mitigate potential issues or even scandals. It involves aligning communication with the measures mentioned in point 4.3.3 above, ensuring that it meets stakeholder expectations and sustainability requirements through the implementation of appropriate disclosure practices. Furthermore, reputation management is responsible for the continuous development of the CSR programme based on the insights and information gathered derived from real time data²⁰⁰. Lastly, a key responsibility is to establish the communication strategy in a manner that fosters ongoing engagement with stakeholders¹. In the current business environment, it is recommended that businesses employ social media as a tool to enhance their connections with customers and demonstrate corporate commitment to sustainability¹⁴⁸. This can be achieved by engaging with potential buyers through the comments section or by sharing posts that align with the identified interests of the target group^146,148.

In summary, companies should engage in a continuous process of corporate analysis through ongoing monitoring, followed by the establishment of clear objectives and the active management of their (environmental) reputation through strategic communication. As a fundamental aspect, it is crucial to maintain a strong and stable internal foundation as the driving force of the entire process ( 4.3.2)

4    Conclusion

This bachelor’s thesis explored the relationship between reputation and sustainability in order to gain a deeper understanding of the topic and derive practical implications. Despite the absence of a universally accepted definition of reputation, an extensive body of literature has been identified, revealing numerous similarities, which formed the basis for the further analysis. Furthermore, a review of both practical and academic literature has identified sustainability as an increasingly influential driver, impacting corporate reputation. In this context, a specific form of reputation, namely the environmental reputation, can emerge either in a positive or negative way. The literature review revealed that an environmental reputation is built on a specific attribute¹⁹, namely a company’s commitment and responsibility for sustainability, perceived by external stakeholders and represents a part of the general corporate reputation. In addition, it is influenced “by both behaviour and non-behaviour”¹⁸, highlighting the necessity for companies to respond to the stakeholder demand for sustainability. As a result, not taking action on CSR issues is not a viable option for companies seeking to build a favourable reputation. Contrary to the finding of sustainability as an influence, both reputation and environmental reputation have been shown to influence corporate sustainability disclosure, highlighting their interdependency and the importance of maintaining reputations in a favourable manner.

In consideration of the proposed definition of reputation, which suggests that reputation is based on all available information about a company and is shaped depending on the way in which external stakeholders evaluate it, the practical implementation focused on identifying the most effective communication strategies. The findings suggest that a company’s reputation benefits most from a comprehensive, honest and transparent sustainability disclosure strategy^11,13,145, illustrated by the positive example of Lego. It was identified that in order to enhance reputation, companies must ensure to disclose sustainability efforts at all. Failure to do so can result in potential buyers remaining unaware of the responsibility that a company is trying to take, resulting in no reputational benefit  and, at worst, negative consequences. Consequently, it is imperative for companies to establish a clear communication strategy to effectively communicate CSR goals, practices, and results, ensuring to reach the right stakeholders, with social media currently playing a crucial role in this process¹³. The development and maintenance of a robust communication strategy is important for companies, as it enables them to proactively influence the external perception of their sustainability efforts. Consequently, such strategies provide companies with the opportunity to mitigate potential risks and positively influence corporate (environmental) reputation.

Conversely, the information published by third party media lies beyond a company’s control, making it a significant reputational risk that needs to be mitigated. It has been found that a transparent and comprehensive corporate communications strategy is the most effective way to manage this risk, as it minimises the chances of third party exposing a company in a negative light. On the other hand, external media can also represent a significant opportunity when leveraged correctly, as it can enhance credibility, provide assurance and increase visibility.

In summary, as highlighted in the literature review, reputation is a valuable intangible asset representing a significant part of a corporate value². Numerous advantageous outcomes have been identified, including enhanced financial performance, competitive advantage and long-term survival^37,101. Reputation can be seen as a strategic tool and a form of corporate governance, not only to protect reputation and minimise risk, but also to better integrate new requirements such as stakeholder sustainability demands¹⁹⁸.

Various authors in different fields agree that thorough reputation management is an important investment in a company’s future and survival, and plays a crucial role in building and maintaining a positive environmental reputation¹⁴⁹. To rebuild on the quote of Warren Buffett (1995) “”it takes twenty years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it”⁴⁷, companies must constantly adapt to shifting trends and demands, identify risks as they emerge, and take all necessary steps to protect their reputations. The adoption of sustainable practices can be regarded as a strategic decision that demonstrates a commitment to environmental responsibility and fosters relationships with stakeholders. It has been demonstrated that, especially in times of crisis, such as the present climate crisis, demonstrating responsibility can be advantageous and positively impact corporate reputation.

Lastly, after continuously managing one’s reputation – identifying risks, setting measurable goals, demonstrating commitment and maintaining dialogue with key stakeholders -companies can use reputation rankings or NPS to assess their progress¹. Identifying a strong and positive reputation is an indicator that the efforts made are having a positive effect and that the company is on the right track.

References

1          Llanos, C. Dircoms and the challenge of reputational management, <https://llyc.global/en/ideas/dircoms-and-the-challenge-of-reputational-management> (2019).

2          Behncke, N. From pure compliance through to value-oriented management and stakeholder communications, <https://www.pwc.de/en/sustainability/sustainability-steering-reporting-and-assurance.html> (n.d.).

3          Burton, J. The C-Suite’s Guide to Reputation Management., <https://resources.reputation.com/c-suite-guide/c-suites-guide-to-reputation-management> (2024).

4          Anderson, L. Online Reputation Management: How To Protect Your Brand, <https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbesagencycouncil/2024/02/15/online-reputation-management-how-to-protect-your-brand> (2024).

5          Kumar, A. Environmental reputation: Attribution from distinct environmental strategies. Corporate Reputation Review 21, 115-126 (2018). 

6          In, S. Y., Lee, Y. J. & Eccles, R. G. Looking back and looking forward: A scientometric analysis of the evolution of corporate sustainability research over 47 years. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management31, 2225-2259 (2024). 

7          Ramsden-Knowles, B. & Griffin, A. From marginalised to ‘mainstreamed’: reputation management in the era of ESG, <https://www.pwc.co.uk/issues/esg/reputation-management-in-era-of-esg.html> (n.d.).

8          Wei, J., Ouyang, Z. & Chen, H. Well known or well liked? The effects of corporate reputation on firm value at the onset of a corporate crisis. Strategic Management Journal 38, 2103-2120 (2017). 

9          Alloza, Á. Reputation and sustainability: the ultimate roadmap for the future of business, <https://llyc.global/en/corporate-affairs/tendencias/reputation-and-sustainability-the-ultimate-roadmap-for-the-future-of-business> (2022).

10        Santamarta, S. et al. The Challenges of a Sustainability Transformation, <https://www.bcg.com/publications/2022/the-challenges-of-a-sustainability-transformation> (2022).

11        RepTrak. Q2 2024 Data Dose: Reputation Power Plays, <https://www.reptrak.com/blog/reputation-strategy-stakeholder-favor> (2024).

12        Alfred. Lego’s brick wall: a lesson in corporate reputation, <https://www.alfredlondon.com/blog/legos-brick-wall> (2023).

13        Ilunion & WAS. ILUNION Guide WAS 2023: Sustainability and it´s impact on reputation, <https://www.ilunion.com/sites/default/files/publicaciones-archivos/ilunion-guide-was-2023-sustainability-impact-reputation.pdf> (2023).

14        RepTrak. The ultimate ESG guide, <https://www.reptrak.com/blog/the-ultimate-esg-guide> (2022).

15        Ullah, Z., Ahmad, N., Nazim, Z. & Ramzan, M. Impact of CSR on corporate reputation, customer loyalty and organizational performance. Governance and Management Review (GMR) 5, 195-210 (2020). 

16        Sánchez‐Torné, I., Morán‐Álvarez, J. C. & Pérez‐López, J. A. The importance of corporate social responsibility in achieving high corporate reputation. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 27, 2692-2700 (2020). 

17        Sehgal, V., Garg, N. & Singh, J. Impact of sustainability performance & reporting on a firm’s reputation. International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management 14, 228-240 (2022). 

18        Lin-Hi, N. & Blumberg, I. The link between (not) practicing CSR and corporate reputation: Psychological foundations and managerial implications. Journal of Business ethics 150, 185-198 (2016). 

19        Lange, D., Lee, P. M. & Dai, Y. Organizational reputation: A review. Journal of management 37, 153-184 (2011). 

20        Younger, J. Stop Mismanaging Your Company’s Reputation: Six Principles To Follow, <https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonyounger/2023/08/07/stop-mismanaging-your-companys-reputation-six-principles-to-follow/> (2023).

21        Bihler, U. & Müller, F. Modernes Reputationsmanagement.  (Springer, 2021).

22        Fombrun, C.     (Boston, MA: Business School Press, 1996).

23        Highhouse, S., Brooks, M. E. & Gregarus, G. An organizational impression management perspective on the formation of corporate reputations. Journal of management 35, 1481-1493 (2009). 

24        Kim, S.-B. & Kim, D.-Y. Antecedents of corporate reputation in the hotel industry: The moderating role of transparency. Sustainability 9, 951 (2017). 

25        Baruah, L. & Panda, N. M. Measuring corporate reputation: a comprehensive model with enhanced objectivity. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration 12, 139-161 (2020). 

26        Dowling, G. R. Defining and measuring corporate reputations. European management review 13, 207-223 (2016). 

27        Veh, A., Göbel, M. & Vogel, R. Corporate reputation in management research: a review of the literature and assessment of the concept. Business research 12, 315-353 (2019). 

28        Olegario, R. & McKenna, C. Introduction: Corporate reputation in historical perspective. Business History Review87, 643-654 (2013). 

29        Kıymalıoğlu, A. & Yetkin Özbük, R. M. Coalescence of CSR and happiness for corporate sustainability: A systematic review of literature. Management Decision 62, 614-642 (2024). 

30        Wang, X. & Ye, Y. Environmental protection tax and firms’ ESG investment: Evidence from China. Economic Modelling 131, 106621 (2024). 

31        Fombrun, C. & Riel, C. The Reputational Landscape. Corporate Reputation Review 1, 1-16 (1997). 

32        Fombrun, C. J. The building blocks of corporate reputation: Definitions, antecedents, consequences.  (2012). 

33        Nuortimo, K., Harkonen, J. & Breznik, K. Exploring corporate reputation and crisis communication. Journal of Marketing Analytics, 1-22 (2024). 

34        Park, S., Yang, D., Cha, H. & Pyeon, S. The halo effect and social evaluation: how organizational status shapes audience perceptions on corporate environmental reputation. Organization & Environment 33, 464-482 (2020). 

35        Sorenson, O. Status and reputation: synonyms or separate concepts? Strategic Organization 12, 62-69 (2014). 

36        Fischer, E. & Reuber, R. The good, the bad, and the unfamiliar: The challenges of reputation formation facing new firms. Entrepreneurship theory and practice 31, 53-75 (2007). 

37        Irfan, M., Hassan, M. & Hassan, N. Unravelling the fuzzy effect of economic, social and environmental sustainability on the corporate reputation of public-sector organizations: A case study of Pakistan. Sustainability10, 769 (2018). 

38        Fombrun, C. & Shanley, M. What’s in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy of management Journal 33, 233-258 (1990). 

39        Schaltegger, S. Information costs, quality of information and stakeholder involvement–the necessity of international standards of ecological accounting. Eco‐Management and Auditing 4, 87-97 (1997). 

40        Deephouse, D. L. & Suchman, M. Legitimacy in organizational institutionalism. The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism 49, 77 (2008).

41        Fleischer, A. Reputation und Wahrnehmung: Wie Unternehmensreputation entsteht und wie sie sich beeinflussen lässt.  (Springer-Verlag, 2014).

42        Roberts, P. W. & Dowling, G. R. Corporate reputation and sustained superior financial performance. Strategic management journal 23, 1077-1093 (2002). 

43        Pérez, A. Corporate reputation and CSR reporting to stakeholders: Gaps in the literature and future lines of research. Corporate communications: An international journal 20, 11-29 (2015). 

44        Illia, L. & Balmer, J. M. Corporate communication and corporate marketing: Their nature, histories, differences and similarities. Corporate communications: An international journal 17, 415-433 (2012). 

45        Surroca, J., Tribó, J. A. & Waddock, S. Corporate responsibility and financial performance: The role of intangible resources. Strategic management journal 31, 463-490 (2010). 

46        Crête, R. The Volkswagen scandal from the viewpoint of corporate governance. European Journal of Risk Regulation 7, 25-31 (2016). 

47        Buffett, W. Buffett: The making of an American capitalist.  (Broadway Books., 1995).

48        Branco, M. C. & Rodrigues, L. L. Corporate social responsibility and resource-based perspectives. Journal of business Ethics 69, 111-132 (2006). 

49        Flatt, S. J. & Kowalczyk, S. J. Creating competitive advantage through intangible assets: The direct and indirect effects of corporate culture and reputation. Journal of Competitiveness Studies 16, 13 (2008). 

50        Shenkar, O. & Yuchtman-Yaar, E. Reputation, image, prestige, and goodwill: An interdisciplinary approach to organizational standing. Human Relations 50, 1361-1381 (1997). 

51        Davies, G., Chun, R., da Silva, R. V. & Roper, S. The personification metaphor as a measurement approach for corporate reputation. Corporate reputation review 4, 113-127 (2001). 

52        Herbst, D. Corporate identity.  (Cornelsen Berlin, 1998).

53        Albert, S., Whetten, D. A., Cummings, L. & Staw, B. Organizational identity. Revealing the corporation: perspectives on identity, image, reputation, corporate branding, and corporate-level marketing: an anthology, 77-105 (1985). 

54        Harvey, W. in Corporate Social Responsibility and Human Resource Management     31-50 (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2014).

55        Barnett, M. L., Jermier, J. M. & Lafferty, B. A. Corporate reputation: The definitional landscape. Corporate reputation review 9, 26-38 (2006). 

56        Simões, C. & Sebastiani, R. The nature of the relationship between corporate identity and corporate sustainability: Evidence from the retail industry. Business Ethics Quarterly 27, 423-453 (2017). 

57        Jayanti, R. K. Sustainability based corporate identity: A study of corporate websites. Academy of Marketing Studies Journal 22, 1-16 (2018). 

58        Gotsi, M. & Wilson, A. M. Corporate reputation: seeking a definition. Corporate communications: An international journal 6, 24-30 (2001). 

59        Barich, H. & Kotler, P. A framework for marketing image management. MIT Sloan Management Review 32, 94 (1991). 

60        Mason, J. C. What image do you project? Management Review 82, 10 (1993). 

61        Rindova, V. P. Part VII: Managing reputation: Pursuing everyday excellence: The image cascade and the formation of corporate reputations. Corporate reputation review 1, 188-194 (1997). 

62        Thøger Christensen, L. & Askegaard, S. Corporate identity and corporate image revisited‐A semiotic perspective. European journal of Marketing 35, 292-315 (2001). 

63        Buß, E. Image und Reputation–Werttreiber für das Management. Handbuch Unternehmenskommunikation, 227-243 (2007). 

64        Kandampully, J., Juwaheer, T. D. & Hu, H.-H. The influence of a hotel firm’s quality of service and image and its effect on tourism customer loyalty. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration 12, 21-42 (2011). 

65        Weiwei, T. Impact of corporate image and corporate reputation on customer loyalty: A review. Management Science and Engineering 1, 57 (2007). 

66        Flavian, C., Guinaliu, M. & Torres, E. The influence of corporate image on consumer trust: A comparative analysis in traditional versus internet banking. Internet research 15, 447-470 (2005). 

67        Chattananon, A., Lawley, M., Trimetsoontorn, J., Supparerkchaisakul, N. & Leelayouthayothin, L. Building corporate image through societal marketing programs. Society and Business Review 2, 230-253 (2007). 

68        Balmer, J. M. Corporate marketing: apocalypse, advent and epiphany. Management Decision 47, 544-572 (2009). 

69        Wiedmann, K.-P., Fombrun, C. J. & Van Riel, C. B. Ansatzpunkte zur Messung der Reputation von Unternehmen. der markt 45, 98-109 (2006). 

70        Caudron, S. Forget image. Industry Week/IW 246, 13-15 (1997). 

71        von Berlepsch, D., Lemke, F. & Gorton, M. The importance of corporate reputation for sustainable supply chains: A systematic literature review, bibliometric mapping, and research agenda. Journal of Business Ethics 189, 9-34 (2022). 

72        Fombrun, C. J., Gardberg, N. A. & Barnett, M. L. Opportunity platforms and safety nets: Corporate citizenship and reputational risk. Business and society review 105, 85-106 (2000). 

73        Benjamin, B. A. & Podolny, J. M. Status, quality, and social order in the California wine industry. Administrative science quarterly 44, 563-589 (1999). 

74        Liu, Y., Dai, W., Liao, M. & Wei, J. Social status and corporate social responsibility: Evidence from Chinese privately owned firms. Journal of Business Ethics 169, 651-672 (2021). 

75        Bitektine, A. Toward a theory of social judgments of organizations: The case of legitimacy, reputation, and status. Academy of management review 36, 151-179 (2011). 

76        Piazza, A. & Castellucci, F. Status in organization and management theory. Journal of Management 40, 287-315 (2014). 

77        George, G., Dahlander, L., Graffin, S. D. & Sim, S.  Vol. 59   1-13 (Academy of Management Briarcliff Manor, NY, 2016).

78        Sauder, M., Lynn, F. & Podolny, J. M. Status: Insights from organizational sociology. Annual Review of Sociology38, 267-283 (2012). 

79        Dwortz, M. F., Curley, J. P., Tye, K. M. & Padilla-Coreano, N. Neural systems that facilitate the representation of social rank. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 377, 20200444 (2022). 

80        Nisbett, R. E. & Wilson, T. D. The halo effect: Evidence for unconscious alteration of judgments. Journal of personality and social psychology 35, 250 (1977). 

81        Rosenzweig, P. Misunderstanding the nature of company performance: The halo effect and other business delusions. California Management Review 49, 6-20 (2007). 

82        Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases: Biases in judgments reveal some heuristics of thinking under uncertainty. science 185, 1124-1131 (1974). 

83        Gomez-Trujillo, A. M., Velez-Ocampo, J. & Gonzalez-Perez, M. A. A literature review on the causality between sustainability and corporate reputation: what goes first? Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal 31, 406-430 (2020). 

84        Ravasi, D., Rindova, V., Etter, M. & Cornelissen, J. The formation of organizational reputation. Academy of Management Annals 12, 574-599 (2018). 

85        Alon, A. & Vidovic, M. Sustainability performance and assurance: Influence on reputation. Corporate Reputation Review 18, 337-352 (2015). 

86        Miller, S. R., Eden, L. & Li, D. CSR reputation and firm performance: A dynamic approach. Journal of Business Ethics 163, 619-636 (2020). 

87        Rindova, V. P., Williamson, I. O., Petkova, A. P. & Sever, J. M. Being good or being known: An empirical examination of the dimensions, antecedents, and consequences of organizational reputation. Academy of management journal 48, 1033-1049 (2005). 

88        Rindova, V. P., Petkova, A. P. & Kotha, S. Standing out: How new firms in emerging markets build reputation. Strategic organization 5, 31-70 (2007). 

89        Wu, W., Liang, Z. & Zhang, Q. Effects of corporate environmental responsibility strength and concern on innovation performance: The moderating role of firm visibility. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 27, 1487-1497 (2020). 

90        Michelon, G. Sustainability disclosure and reputation: A comparative study. Corporate reputation review 14, 79-96 (2011). 

91        Podolny, J. M. Market uncertainty and the social character of economic exchange. Administrative science quarterly, 458-483 (1994). 

92        Brooks, M. E., Highhouse, S., Russell, S. S. & Mohr, D. C. Familiarity, ambivalence, and firm reputation: Is corporate fame a double-edged sword? Journal of Applied Psychology 88, 904 (2003). 

93        Love, E. G. & Kraatz, M. Character, conformity, or the bottom line? How and why downsizing affected corporate reputation. Academy of management Journal 52, 314-335 (2009). 

94        Matuleviciene, M. & Stravinskiene, J. How to develop key stakeholders trust in terms of corporate reputation. Inžinerinė ekonomika 27, 472-478 (2016).

95        Arli, D., Van Esch, P., Northey, G., Lee, M. S. & Dimitriu, R. Hypocrisy, skepticism, and reputation: the mediating role of corporate social responsibility. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 37, 706-720 (2019). 

96        Ennenbach, S. & Barkela, B. Effects of CSR-Related Media Coverage on Corporate Reputation. Corporate Reputation Review, 1-14 (2024). 

97        Gangi, F., Daniele, L. M. & Varrone, N. How do corporate environmental policy and corporate reputation affect risk‐adjusted financial performance? Business Strategy and the Environment 29, 1975-1991 (2020). 

98        Pfarrer, M. D., Pollock, T. G. & Rindova, V. P. A tale of two assets: The effects of firm reputation and celebrity on earnings surprises and investors’ reactions. Academy of management Journal 53, 1131-1152 (2010). 

99        Watrick, S. Measuring Corporate Reputation: Defining and Data. Business and Society. Journal of Marketing 41, 371-392 (2002). 

100      Mahon, J. F. Corporate reputation: Research agenda using strategy and stakeholder literature. Business & Society 41, 415-445 (2002). 

101      Nguyen, N. P. & Adomako, S. Environmental proactivity, competitive strategy, and market performance: The mediating role of environmental reputation. Business Strategy and the Environment 30, 2008-2020 (2021). 

102      Almeida, M. d. G. M. C. & Coelho, A. F. M. The antecedents of corporate reputation and image and their impacts on employee commitment and performance: The moderating role of CSR. Corporate Reputation Review 22, 10-25 (2019). 

103      Martín‐de Castro, G., Amores‐Salvadó, J., Navas‐López, J. E. & Balarezo‐Núñez, R. M. Corporate environmental reputation: Exploring its definitional landscape. Business Ethics: A European Review 29, 130-142 (2020). 

104      De Miguel De Blas, M. Impact of environmental performance and policy on firm environmental reputation. Management Decision 59, 190-204 (2021). 

105      Wang, X. & Zhao, J. The green reputation: Corporate culture and environmental reputation risk. Finance Research Letters 58, 104247 (2023). 

106      Morales-Raya, M., Martín-Tapia, I. & Ortiz-de-Mandojana, N. To be or to seem: The role of environmental practices in corporate environmental reputation. Organization & Environment 32, 309-330 (2019). 

107      Dewi, R. R. Building reputation through environmental disclosure. Indonesian Management and Accounting Research 18, 1-16 (2020). 

108      Kennedy, S. H. Nurturing corporate images. European Journal of marketing 11, 119-164 (1977). 

109      Bernays, E. L. Down With Image, Up With Reality. Public Relations Quarterly 22 (1977). 

110      Budd Jr, J. B. A MIRROR ON THE CORPORATE IMAGE. SAM Advanced Management Journal (00360805) 34 (1969). 

111      Gray, E. R. & Balmer, J. M. Managing corporate image and corporate reputation. Long range planning 31, 695-702 (1998). 

112      E. Carroll, C. & Olegario, R. Pathways to corporate accountability: Corporate reputation and its alternatives. Journal of Business Ethics 163, 173-181 (2019). 

113      Barroso-Méndez, M. J., Pajuelo-Moreno, M.-L. & Gallardo-Vázquez, D. A meta-analytic review of the sustainability disclosure and reputation relationship: aggregating findings in the field of social and environmental accounting. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal (2024). 

114      Lee, Y.-M. & Hu, J.-L. Integrated approaches for business sustainability: The perspective of corporate social responsibility. Sustainability 10, 2318 (2018). 

115      Siddiqui, F., YuSheng, K. & Tajeddini, K. The role of corporate governance and reputation in the disclosure of corporate social responsibility and firm performance. Heliyon 9 (2023). 

116      Zhao, Y. et al. Exploring the relationship between corporate social responsibility, trust, corporate reputation, and brand equity. Frontiers in Psychology 12, 766422 (2021). 

117      Febra, L., Costa, M. & Pereira, F. Reputation, return and risk: A new approach. European Research on Management and Business Economics 29, 100207 (2022). 

118      Yadav, R. S., Dash, S. S., Chakraborty, S. & Kumar, M. Perceived CSR and corporate reputation: the mediating role of employee trust. Vikalpa 43, 139-151 (2018). 

119      Odriozola, M. D. & Baraibar‐Diez, E. Is corporate reputation associated with quality of CSR reporting? Evidence from Spain. Corporate social responsibility and environmental management 24, 121-132 (2016). 

120      Van de Ven, B. An ethical framework for the marketing of corporate social responsibility. Journal of business ethics 82, 339-352 (2008). 

121      Martínez‐Ferrero, J., Ruiz‐Cano, D. & García‐Sánchez, I. M. The causal link between sustainable disclosure and information asymmetry: The moderating role of the stakeholder protection context. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 23, 319-332 (2015). 

122      Abad-Segura, E., Cortés-García, F. J. & Belmonte-Ureña, L. J. The sustainable approach to corporate social responsibility: A global analysis and future trends. Sustainability 11, 5382 (2019). 

123      Hult, G. T. M., Mena, J. A., Gonzalez-Perez, M. A., Lagerström, K. & Hult, D. T. A ten country-company study of sustainability and product-market performance: Influences of doing good, warm glow, and price fairness. Journal of Macromarketing 38, 242-261 (2018). 

124      Stanaland, A. J., Lwin, M. O. & Murphy, P. E. Consumer perceptions of the antecedents and consequences of corporate social responsibility. Journal of business ethics 102, 47-55 (2011). 

125      Lin-Hi, N. & Müller, K. The CSR bottom line: Preventing corporate social irresponsibility. Journal of Business Research 66, 1928-1936 (2013). 

126      Greenwood, M. & Van Buren III, H. J. Trust and stakeholder theory: Trustworthiness in the organisation–stakeholder relationship. Journal of business ethics 95, 425-438 (2010). 

127      Morgan, R. & Hunt, S. The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing (1994). 

128      Lynch, J. & De Chernatony, L. The power of emotion: Brand communication in business-to-business markets. Journal of Brand management 11, 403-419 (2004). 

129      Hengst, I.-A., Jarzabkowski, P., Hoegl, M. & Muethel, M. Toward a process theory of making sustainability strategies legitimate in action. Academy of Management Journal 63, 246-271 (2020). 

130      Rettab, B., Brik, A. B. & Mellahi, K. A study of management perceptions of the impact of corporate social responsibility on organisational performance in emerging economies: The case of Dubai. Journal of business ethics 89, 371-390 (2009). 

131      Mändli, F., Amer, E. & Bonardi, J.-P. in Academy of Management Proceedings.  16491 (Academy of Management Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510).

132      de Oliveira Ferreira, R. & de Melo, F. A. M. Due Diligence-An Approach to Mitigating Risk In Relationships With Third Parties. Journal of Law and Corruption Review 5, e051-e051 (2023). 

133      Parguel, B., Benoît-Moreau, F. & Larceneux, F. How sustainability ratings might deter ‘greenwashing’: A closer look at ethical corporate communication. Journal of business ethics 102, 15-28 (2011). 

134      Lai, C.-S., Chiu, C.-J., Yang, C.-F. & Pai, D.-C. The effects of corporate social responsibility on brand performance: The mediating effect of industrial brand equity and corporate reputation. Journal of business ethics95, 457-469 (2010). 

135      Smith, N. C. Corporate social responsibility: whether or how? California management review 45, 52-76 (2003). 

136      Li, J., He, H., Liu, H. & Su, C. Consumer responses to corporate environmental actions in China: An environmental legitimacy perspective. Journal of Business Ethics 143, 589-602 (2017). 

137      Hou, T. C. T. The relationship between corporate social responsibility and sustainable financial performance: Firm‐level evidence from Taiwan. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 26, 19-28 (2019). 

138      Schuler, D. A. & Cording, M. A corporate social performance–corporate financial performance behavioral model for consumers. Academy of management Review 31, 540-558 (2006). 

139      Bebbington, J., Larrinaga, C. & Moneva, J. M. Corporate social reporting and reputation risk management. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 21, 337-361 (2004). 

140      Friedman, A. L. & Miles, S. Socially responsible investment and corporate social and environmental reporting in the UK: an exploratory study. The British accounting review 33, 523-548 (2001). 

141      Schaarschmidt, M., Walsh, G. & Ivens, S. Digital war for talent: How profile reputations on company rating platforms drive job seekers’ application intentions. Journal of Vocational Behavior 131, 103644 (2021). 

142      Robinson, M., Kleffner, A. & Bertels, S. Signaling sustainability leadership: Empirical evidence of the value of DJSI membership. Journal of business ethics 101, 493-505 (2011). 

143      NielsenIQ, M. a. Consumers care about sustainability – and back it up with their wallets, <https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/consumer-packaged-goods/our-insights/consumers-care-about-sustainability-and-back-it-up-with-their-wallets> (2023).

144      Deloitte. Wo liegt der Unterschied zwischen „Brand“ und „Reputation“ und warum ist das Steuern von Reputationsrisiken so wichtig geworden?, <https://www.deloitte.com/de/de/services/risk-advisory/services/brand-reputation-protection-and-management.html> (2024).

145      Simpson, R. Signs Of Trouble: Understanding And Rebuilding Corporate Reputation, <https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbesagencycouncil/2024/05/09/signs-of-trouble-understanding-and-rebuilding-corporate-reputation> (2024).

146      BOUTRON, L. Detecting Your Reputation Risks: Risk Matrices and Analysis for Social Media, <https://blog.digimind.com/en/insight-driven-marketing/detecting-your-reputation-risks-matrices-and-social-media-analysis> (2023).

147      Berman, J. & Buffett, W. The Three Essential Warren Buffett Quotes To Live By, <https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesberman/2014/04/20/the-three-essential-warren-buffett-quotes-to-live-by/> (2014).

148      Member, E. P. o. F. C. 16 Effective Strategies For Measuring Reputation Risk, <https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbescommunicationscouncil/2024/07/18/16-effective-strategies-for-measuring-reputation-risk> (2024).

149      Deloitte. Strategy, Brand & Reputation, <https://www.deloitte.com/de/de/services/risk-advisory/services/strategy-and-brand.html> (2024).

150      Deloitte. Brand and Reputation Protection and Management, <https://www.deloitte.com/de/de/services/risk-advisory/services/brand-reputation-protection-and-management.html> (2024).

151      Deloitte. Managing reputational risk in an activist world, 2020).

152      Aguiar, M., Dubner, R., Frontani, F. & Grice, A. From Purpose to Trust to Lasting Value, <https://www.bcg.com/publications/2024/driving-company-value-with-stakeholders-perceptions> (2024).

153      Forbes. 20 Ways To Build Strong Relationships With External Stakeholders, <https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbesbusinesscouncil/2024/06/27/20-ways-to-build-strong-relationships-with-external-stakeholders> (2024).

154      RepTrak. Regional Reports: 7 quick-slides to make your mark on the U.K., France, and Germany., <https://www.reptrak.com/blog/regional-data-quick-slides> (2024).

155      wtw. Die tatsächlichen Kosten von Reputations- und ESG-Risiken berechnen, <https://www.wtwco.com/de-de/insights/2023/10/die-tatsaechlichen-kosten-von-reputations-und-esg-risiken-berechnen> (2024).

156      Weghmann, K. How good governance can keep corporates clean from greenwashin, <https://www.ey.com/en_gl/insights/assurance/how-good-governance-can-keep-corporates-clean-from-greenwashing> (2023).

157      Loughlin, B. Tips to build a company’s reputation for sustainability, <https://climatejournal.news/news/tips-to-build-a-company-s-reputation-for-sustainability> (2024).

158      Money, K., Saraeva, A., Garnelo-Gomez, I., Pain, S. & Hillenbrand, C. Corporate reputation past and future: A review and integration of existing literature and a framework for future research. Corporate Reputation Review20, 193-211 (2017). 

159      Deloitte. Reputation risk, <https://www2.deloitte.com/gr/en/pages/governance-risk-and-compliance/articles/reputation-risk.html> (2024).

160      Amendola, J. How Social Media Can Make Or Break Your Business’s Reputation, <https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbesagencycouncil/2019/08/09/how-social-media-can-make-or-break-your-businesss-reputation> (2019).

161      Starman, J. How To Form Valuable Relationships With The Media, <https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbesbusinesscouncil/2023/07/06/how-to-form-valuable-relationships-with-the-media> (2023).

162      Deloitte. Code of Ethics and Professional Cond, <https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/sg/Documents/about-deloitte/sea-about-code-of-ethics.pdf> (2017).

163      Garsten, N. Why employees are crucial to corporate reputation, <https://www.managementtoday.co.uk/why-employees-crucial-corporate-reputation/article/1861148> (2024).

164      Woollcott, E. & Piasecka, I. Protecting your organisation’s reputation from insider risks, <https://www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/article/1859235/protecting-organisations-reputation-insider-risks> (2024).

165      Bonini, S. C., David; Marchi, Alberto. Rebuilding corporate reputations, <https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/leadership/rebuilding-corporate-reputations> (2009).

166      Hunt, D. V., Nuttall, R. & Yamada, Y. From principle to practice: Making stakeholder capitalism work, <https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/from-principle-to-practice-making-stakeholder-capitalism-work> (2021).

167      Deloitte. Stakeholder engagement and materiality, <https://www.deloitte.com/global/en/about/governance/global-impact-report/stakeholder-engagement-and-materiality.html> (n.d.).

168      Herd, J. The Critical Role Of Reputation Management, <https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbesagencycouncil/2023/10/09/the-critical-role-of-reputation-management> (2023).

169      Petrilli, A. How Every CEO Can Embrace The Power Of Reputation Metrics, <https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbesbusinesscouncil/2024/12/26/how-every-ceo-can-embrace-the-power-of-reputation-metrics> (2024).

170      SAP. What is Big Data?, <https://www.sap.com/products/technology-platform/what-is-big-data.html> (n.d.).

171      Michail, J. Social Media Isn’t Responsible For Maintaining Your Business’s Good Reputation, <https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbescoachescouncil/2023/04/18/social-media-isnt-responsible-for-maintaining-your-businesss-good-reputation> (2023).

172      Marks, A. How Connectivity Technologies Can Unlock Sustainability Value. The Wall Street Journal (2024). 

173      Kiely, T. Brand Reputation Measurement: Definition, Tools, Models, <https://www.meltwater.com/en/blog/reputation-measurement> (2025).

174      RepRisk. ESG with a risk lens and transparency, <https://www.reprisk.com/approach#why-reprisk> (n.d.).

175      Deloitte. Hearing the stakeholder voice – Effective stakeholder engagement for better decision making, <https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/uk/Documents/risk/deloitte-uk-risk-hearing-the-stakeholder-voice.pdf> (2018).

176      RepTrak. The RepTrak Company, <https://www.reptrak.com/about/company> (2025).

177      Grujić, B. RepTrak: Wie Sie die Reputation Ihres Unternehmens messen können, <https://pr-blogger.de/2017/03/21/reptrak-konzept-wie-misst-man-die-reputation-eines-unternehmens> (2017).

178      Hickey, S. How ESG Benefits a Company’s Reputation And Brand Image?, <https://esg.gpsi-intl.com/blog/how-esg-benefits-a-companys-reputation-and-brand-image> (2023).

179      Lucidya. Brand Reputation Analysis: Understanding its Significance and its Positive Impact on Your Business, <https://www.lucidya.com/blog/brand-reputation-analysis> (n.d.).

180      Cleveland, S., Sullivan, K., Poole, V. & Chahed, Y. Overcoming the hurdles to integrating sustainability into business strategy, <https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/environmental-social-governance/integrating-sustainability-into-business-strategy.html> (2023).

181      RepTrak. 2023 Global RepTrak most reputable companies, <https://ri.reptrak.com/hubfs/GRT2023_X%20(5).pdf> (2023).

182      Stephanie, S. Why Produce a CSR Report and How Should it be Presented?, <https://greenly.earth/en-us/blog/ecology-news/why-produce-a-csr-report-and-how-should-it-be-presented> (2024).

183      Patagonia. We support grassroots activism, <https://www.patagonia.com/home> (n.d.).

184      Ross, P. Embracing Transparency: How To Practice Corporate Social Responsibility, <https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbesbusinesscouncil/2024/01/04/embracing-transparency-how-to-practice-corporate-social-responsibility> (2024).

185      Villa, D. 6 Effective Strategies For Communicating Your Company’s Vision, <https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbesagencycouncil/2024/07/26/6-effective-strategies-for-communicating-your-companys-vision> (2024).

186      Burleigh, E. Here’s what actually makes employees happy and more likely to stay at their jobs <https://fortune.com/2024/09/26/worker-loyalty-drivers-tenure-report> (2024).

187      Sherman, J. Sustainability and Employee Retention: A Winning Combination for Businesses, <https://sensiba.com/resources/insights/sustainability-and-employee-retention-a-winning-combination-for-businesses> (2023).

188      RepTrak. The top 5 most reputable companies, <https://www.reptrak.com/globalreptrak> (2024).

189      Group, L. The LEGO Group recognised as the most reputable company in the world for the second consecutive year, <https://www.lego.com/en-us/aboutus/news/2024/april/reptrak-2024> (2024).

190      Group, L. The LEGO Group recognised as the most reputable company in the world, <https://www.lego.com/en-us/aboutus/news/2023/march/reptrak-2023> (2023).

191      TCFD. About: Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, <https://www.fsb-tcfd.org/about/> (n.d.).

192      Apple. Apple announces major progress toward climate goals ahead of Earth Day, <https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2023/04/apple-announces-major-progress-toward-climate-goals-ahead-of-earth-day> (2023).

193      Nestle. Waste reduction, <https://www.nestle.com/sustainability/waste-reduction> (n.d.).

194      Siemens. Siemens achieves strong progress on sustainability targets, <https://press.siemens.com/global/en/pressrelease/siemens-achieves-strong-progress-sustainability-targets> (2024).

195      Corson, M. How can corporate reporting bridge the ESG trust gap?, <https://www.ey.com/en_gl/insights/assurance/how-can-corporate-reporting-bridge-the-esg-trust-gap> (2022).

196      PwC. PwC’s 2024 Trust Survey. 8 key findings, <https://www.pwc.com/us/en/library/trust-in-business-survey.html> (2024).

197      Wagemans, M. Sustainability communications and buy-in creation, <https://kpmg.com/be/en/home/services/sustainability-services/sustainability-communications-and-buy-in-creation.html> (n.d.).

198      reputation, I. Nachhaltigkeitsberichterstattung der grössten kotierten Schweizer Unternehmen nach internationalen Standards, <https://www.irf-reputation.ch/de/know-how/blog/detail/nachhaltigkeitsberichterstattung-der-groessten-kotierten-schweizer-unternehmen-nach-internationalen-standards.html> (2024).

199      RepTrak. 2024 Global RepTrak 100, <https://www.reptrak.com/globalreptrak/#4b04F4sUxyfL7BtR378ZN3> (2024).

200      Kirkpatrick, C. Five Steps To Getting Corporate Social Responsibility Right, <https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbesagencycouncil/2019/06/21/five-steps-to-getting-corporate-social-responsibility-right> (2019).

201      Merdan, D. & Lösken, B. Our solution for efficient sustainability reporting, <https://www.pwc.de/en/strong-alliances/pwc-and-sap/pwcs-esg-reporting-manager-csrd.html> (n.d.).

202      Deloitte. Sustainability & Climate, <https://www.deloitte.com/de/de/issues/sustainability-climate.html> (n.d.).

203      PwC. Sustainability reporting in 2024, <https://www.pwc.co.uk/issues/esg/sustainability-reporting/sustainability-reporting-2024-what-is-coming-and-actions-you-can-take.html> (2024).

204      Apple. Environmental Progress Report, <https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/Apple_Environmental_Progress_Report_2024.pdf> (2023).

205      Nestlé. Creating Shared Value and Sustainability Report 2023, <https://www.nestle.com/sites/default/files/2024-02/creating-shared-value-sustainability-report-2023-en.pdf> (2023).

206      Siemens. Sustainability report 2023, <https://assets.new.siemens.com/siemens/assets/api/uuid:00095b96-4712-4cd1-b045-19d5df704358/sustainability-report-fy2023.pdf> (2023).

207      Deloitte. Managing reputational risk in an activist world, <https://www.deloitte.com/global/en/services/risk-advisory/research/managing-reputation-and-risk-for-resilient-organizations.html> (2020).