Page 98 - Corporate Communication

Cornelissen-03.qxd 10/9/2004 9:04 AM Page 87

Stakeholders, Identity and Reputation 87

into their associations with the company as they see them.This usually provides very
rich and anecdotal data of stakeholder views of the company. Quantitative research
where stakeholders are asked to rate the company (and its nearest rivals) on a number
of pre-selected attributes is another option. Quantitative research leads to more dis-
crete data that can be statistically manipulated, but is less rich and may also be less
insightful (i.e.it reflects to a lesser extent the particular lens of the individual stakeholder).
The choice for either qualitative or quantitative research techniques is based on con-
tent issues as well as pragmatic and political considerations. Qualitative techniques
are chosen when the attributes upon which an organization is rated are simply not
yet known, or when there is a need for a comprehensive, detailed and rich account
of stakeholders’ perceptions and associations with the firm. Quantitative surveys are
preferred when the attributes upon which an organization is rated are to a large
extent known, allowing for a structured measurement across large sections of stake-
holder groups. Many companies also opt for quantitative surveys as these are rela-
tively easy to administer and process, and as it provides them with a ‘tangible’
indication (that is, a number). Figure 3.4 illustrates the reputations of two companies
through an attribute rating that produces such numerical values. A tangible indica-
tion is also one of the motives for companies to buy into panel studies such as the
Reputation Quotient, which provides them with a score that they can fence and
work with, and sets a benchmark for future years.
Continuously measuring reputation is essential in order to understand how stake-
holders think of an organization, whether this is in line with the projected corpo-
rate identity of the organization, and whether the organization is accepted and
valued. Managers and communications practitioners will be particularly interested in
what values the company is respected for and whether the core and projected values
are actually salient in the minds of stakeholders. This will provide them with an
important strategic indication as to whether the company’s identity is at all valued
and whether the company’s identity has been successfully communicated. In the first
scenario, when a company’s identity is in itself not valued enough, managers may
want to redefine their organization, strategies and operations with values that do
matter to stakeholders and make a difference in the marketplace. Corporate giants
such as BP and Shell in the oil sector (see Chapter 2) in the restyling of their iden-
tities into responsible businesses are a good example of this.When an identity is not
effectively communicated or understood, the second scenario, management needs to
rethink the company’s stakeholder engagement programmes and the visibility and
effectiveness of the communications tools that it has previously used. Gathering
feedback from reputation research is an important step in the process of developing
and refining corporate identity strategies including stakeholder engagement and
communications programmes.

3.5 Chapter summary

In this chapter three theoretical cornerstones were presented.The stakeholder model
of strategic management was outlined, together with the concepts of identity and
reputation that take shape within it. Each of these concepts – stakeholder, identity,
reputation – are central to the corporate communications function and the strategic