Pathways to Corporate Accountability: Corporate Reputation and Its Alternatives

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 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 

  2. Baudot, L., Johnson, J., Roberts, A., & Roberts, R. W. (2019). Is corporate tax aggressiveness a reputation threat? Corporate accountability, corporate social responsibility, and corporate tax behavior. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04227-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Beatty, R. P., Bunsis, H., & Hand, J. R. M. (1998). The indirect economic penalties in SEC investigations of underwriters. Journal of Financial Economics,50(2), 151–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-405X(98)00035-X.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bergstresser, D., & Philippon, T. (2006). CEO incentives and earnings management. Journal of Financial Economics,80(3), 511–529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2004.10.011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 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.

  6. 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)

  7. Busuioc, M., & Lodge, M. (2017). Reputation and accountability relationships: Managing accountability expectations through reputation. Public Administration Review,77(1), 91–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 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 

  9. 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 

  10. 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 

  11. Carroll, C. E. (2017). Corporate reputation and the news media: The origin story. Corporate Reputation Review,20(3), 165–170. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41299-017-0038-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 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 

  13. Cho, C. H., Guidry, R. P., Hageman, A. M., & Patten, D. M. (2012). Do actions speak louder than words? An empirical investigation of corporate environmental reputation. Accounting, Organizations and Society,37(1), 14–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2011.12.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Christensen, L. T., Morsing, M., & Thyssen, O. (2013). CSR as aspirational talk. Organization,20(3), 372–393. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508413478310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2002). Helping crisis managers protect reputational assets. Management Communication Quarterly,16(2), 165–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/089331802237233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Dahlsrud, A. (2008). How corporate social responsibility is defined: An analysis of 37 definitions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,15(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Davis, K. (1973). The case for and against business assumption of social responsibilities. Academy of Management Journal,16(2), 312–322.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Deephouse, D. L., & Carter, S. M. (2005). An examination of differences between organizational legitimacy and organizational reputation. Journal of Management Studies,42(2), 329–360. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2005.00499.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Dhiman, A., Sen, A., & Bhardwaj, P. (2018). Effect of self-accountability on self-regulatory behaviour: A quasi-experiment. Journal of Business Ethics,148(1), 79–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2995-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Dupont, Q., & Karpoff, J. M. (2019). The trust triangle: Laws, reputation, and culture in empirical finance research. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3105693.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Elias, R. Z. (2002). Determinants of earnings management ethics among accountants. Journal of Business Ethics, 40(1), 33–45. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1019956821253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Fang, L. H. (2005). Investment bank reputation and the price and quality of underwriting services. The Journal of Finance,60(6), 2729–2761. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.2005.00815.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Fombrun, C. J., & Shanley, M. (1990). What’s in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy of Management Journal,33(2), 233–258. https://doi.org/10.2307/256324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 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 

  26. Greenwood, M. (2007). Stakeholder engagement: Beyond the myth of corporate responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics,74(4), 315–327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9509-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Habermas, J. (1990). Moral consciousness and communicative action (trans: C. L. S. W. Nicholson). Cambridge: MIT Press.

  28. Illia, L., Romenti, S., Rodríguez-Cánovas, B., Murtarelli, G., & Carroll, C. (2017). Exploring corporations’ dialogue about CSR in the digital era. Journal of Business Ethics,146(1), 39–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2924-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Jones, T. M. (1980). Corporate social responsibility revisited, redefined. California Management Review,22(3), 59–67. https://doi.org/10.2307/41164877.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 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 

  31. Le Breton-Miller, I., & Miller, D. (2019). Ideals-based accountability and reputation in select family firms. Journal of Business Ethics. (special issue)

  32. Lewis, S. C., Sanders, A. K., & Carmody, C. (2019). Libel by algorithm? Automated journalism and the threat of legal liability. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly,96(1), 60–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699018755983.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Martin, K. (2018). Ethical implications and accountability of algorithms. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3921-3.

  34. 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.

  35. Niemi, J. I. (2008). The foundations of Jürgen Habermas’s discourse ethics. The Journal of Value Inquiry,42(2), 255–268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10790-008-9119-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 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 

  37. Roberts, J. (2003). The manufacture of corporate social responsibility: Constructing corporate sensibility. Organization,10(2), 249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Romenti, S. (2010). Reputation and stakeholder engagement: An Italian case study. Journal of Communication Management,14(4), 306–318. https://doi.org/10.1108/13632541011090428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Salant, J. (2013). Mutual funds increasingly support corporate disclosure of donations. Bloomberg News. (special issue)

  40. Schlenker, B. R., Britt, T. W., Pennington, J., Murphy, R., & Doherty, K. (1994). The triangle model of responsibility. Psychological Review,101(4), 632–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Schweitzer, M. E., Ordóñez, L., & Douma, B. (2004). Goal setting as a motivator of unethical behavior. Academy of Management Journal,47(3), 422–432. https://doi.org/10.5465/20159591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Skaife, H. A., & Werner, T. (2019). Changes in firms’ political investment opportunities, managerial accountability, and reputational risk. Journal of Business Ethics. (special issue)

  43. 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.

  44. Sundaramurthy, C., & Lewis, M. (2003). Control and collaboration: paradoxes of governance. Academy of Management Review, 28(3), 397–415. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2003.10196737.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Swift, T. (2001). Trust, reputation and corporate accountability to stakeholders. Business Ethics: A European Review, 10(1), 16–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8608.00208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 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 

  47. Tetlock, P. E. (1985). Accountability: The neglected social context of judgment and choice. Research in Organizational Behavior,7, 297–332.

    Google Scholar 

  48. 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 

  49. Tetlock, P. E., Vieider, F. M., Patil, S. V., & Grant, A. M. (2013). Accountability and ideology: When left looks right and right looks left. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,122(1), 22–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.03.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Torres-Spelling, C. (2016). Shooting your brand in the foot: What Citizens United invites. Rutgers Law Review,68(3), 1297–1365.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Craig E. Carroll.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

E. Carroll, C., Olegario, R. Pathways to Corporate Accountability: Corporate Reputation and Its Alternatives. J Bus Ethics 163, 173–181 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04228-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Corporate reputation
  • Accountability
  • Disclosure