Pathways to Corporate Accountability: Corporate Reputation and Its Alternatives
The aim of our themed symposium is to explore the limits and possibilities of corporate reputation for enabling corporate accountability. We articulate three perspectives on corporate accountability. The communicative perspective equates accountability with disclosure and stakeholder engagement. The phenomenological perspective focuses on stakeholder expectations and reputation management. The consequential perspective focuses on effects/consequences. We then examine how corporate accountability is understood, how it relates to ideals, mission, and purpose, alternative pathways to corporate accountability, reputational consequences, and the role algorithms play in relationships between corporate reputation and accountability. Using a multitude of organizational contexts, these papers advance our understanding of how corporate reputation can be used as a mechanism for creating greater corporate accountability, and for identifying alternative pathways when corporate reputation fails to do so.
KeywordsCorporate reputation Accountability Disclosure
- Barnett, M. L., & Pollock, T. G. (2012). Charting the landscape of corporate reputation research. In M. L. Barnett & T. G. Pollock (Eds.), The oxford handbook of corporate reputation (pp. 1–15). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Bowen-Craggs, & Observatory on Corporate Reputation. (2019). The Explain Yourself Index 2019: Which companies are best at using online channels to explain themselves? Retrieved from https://www.bowencraggs.com/Bowen-Craggs-Index/Explain-yourself-index.
- Buhmann, A., Paßmann, J., & Fieseler, C. (2019). Managing algorithmic accountability: Balancing reputational concerns, engagement strategies and the potential of rational discourse. Journal of Business Ethics. (special issue)Google Scholar
- Carroll, C. E. (2010). Corporate reputation and the news media: Agenda setting within business news in developed, emerging, and frontier markets. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Carroll, C. E. (2013a). Corporate reputation and the multiple disciplinary perspectives of communication. In C. E. Carroll (Ed.), The handbook of communication and corporate reputation (pp. 1–10). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Carroll, C. E. (2013b). The future of communication research in corporate reputation studies. In C. E. Carroll (Ed.), The Handbook of communication and corporate reputation (pp. 590–596). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Carroll, C. E., & Einwiller, S. A. (2014). Disclosure alignment and transparency signaling in CSR reporting. In R. P. Hart (Ed.), Communication and language analysis in the corporate world (pp. 249–270). Hershey: IGI-Global.Google Scholar
- Davis, K. (1973). The case for and against business assumption of social responsibilities. Academy of Management Journal, 16(2), 312–322.Google Scholar
- den Hond, F., Rehbein, K. A., de Bakker, F. G. A., & Lankveld, H. K.-V. (2014). Playing on two chessboards: Reputation effects between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and corporate political activity (CPA). Journal of Management Studies, 51(5), 790–813. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12063.Google Scholar
- Gillespie, T. (2014). The relevance of algorithms. In T. Gillespie, P. J. Poczkowski, & K. A. Foot (Eds.), Media technologies: Essays on communication, materiality, and society (pp. 167–194). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Habermas, J. (1990). Moral consciousness and communicative action (trans: C. L. S. W. Nicholson). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Karpoff, J. M. (2012). Does reputation work to discipline corporate misconduct? In M L Ba T G Pollock (Ed.), The oxford handbook of corporate reputation (pp. 261–382). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Le Breton-Miller, I., & Miller, D. (2019). Ideals-based accountability and reputation in select family firms. Journal of Business Ethics. (special issue)Google Scholar
- Martin, K. (2018). Ethical implications and accountability of algorithms. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3921-3.
- Minfee, I., McDonnell, M.-H., & Werner, T. (in progress). Getting caught and saving face: Disclosure of controversial covert corporate political activity. Working paper, Iowa State University. Working paper.Google Scholar
- Pieczka, M., & Zorn, T. E. (2013). The reputation of corporate reputation: Fads, fashions, and the mainstreaming of corporate reputation research and practice. In C. E. Carroll (Ed.), The Handbook of Communication and Corporate Reputation (pp. 513–529). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Roberts, J. (2003). The manufacture of corporate social responsibility: Constructing corporate sensibility. Organization, 10(2), 249.Google Scholar
- Salant, J. (2013). Mutual funds increasingly support corporate disclosure of donations. Bloomberg News. (special issue)Google Scholar
- Schlenker, B. R., Britt, T. W., Pennington, J., Murphy, R., & Doherty, K. (1994). The triangle model of responsibility. Psychological Review, 101(4), 632–652.Google Scholar
- Skaife, H. A., & Werner, T. (2019). Changes in firms’ political investment opportunities, managerial accountability, and reputational risk. Journal of Business Ethics. (special issue)Google Scholar
- Stohr, G. (2015). Americans want supreme court to turn off political spending spigot. Bloomberg News. Retrieved from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-28/bloomberg-poll-americans-want-supreme-court-to-turn-off-political-spending-spigot.
- Taylor, M. (2010). Public relations in the enactment of civil society. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of public relations (2nd ed., pp. 5–15). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Tetlock, P. E. (1985). Accountability: The neglected social context of judgment and choice. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, 297–332.Google Scholar
- Tetlock, P. E. (1992). The impact of accountability on judgment and choice: Toward a social contingency model. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 331–376). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Torres-Spelling, C. (2016). Shooting your brand in the foot: What Citizens United invites. Rutgers Law Review, 68(3), 1297–1365.Google Scholar