SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Business and Economics Research Journal / 2019 / Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 5

Corporate Reputation and Business Outcomes in Turkey

ÖZLEM SAYILIR
Telford Carl VİCTOR
Pages
1143–1153
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Material and moral support for social responsibility projects of a company depend on corporate social responsibility, emotional commitment, financial strength, and quality of management.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The main purpose of this study is to examine how corporate reputation dimensions - management, quality, working brand, corporate social responsibility, emotional commitment, and recognition - correlate with business outcomes.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The study utilizes the dataset of “2012 Corporate Reputation Research” conducted by the Reputation Research Center of Turkey (RepMan).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Material and moral support for social responsibility projects of a company depend on corporate social responsibility, emotional commitment, financial strength, and quality of management.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2012 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

The main purpose of this study is to examine how corporate reputation dimensions - management, quality, working brand, corporate social responsibility, emotional commitment, and recognition - correlate with business outcomes. The study utilizes the dataset of “2012 Corporate Reputation Research” conducted by the Reputation Research Center of Turkey (RepMan). The research comprises seven corporate reputation dimensions, five business outcome indicators, and eleven sectors in Turkey. The findings of regression analysis ascertain a strong positive relation between corporate reputation dimensions and business outcome indicators. One can say companies should attempt to improve related reputation components to enhance performance in business outcomes. According to our results, people would like to recommend a company’s product or service if the companies are good in product/service quality. They would like to recommend the company as a work place even for their children if company has good emotional commitment and product and service quality. They will buy long-term stock because of good corporate social responsibility, emotional commitment, and financial strength. Material and moral support for social responsibility projects of a company depend on corporate social responsibility, emotional commitment, financial strength, and quality of management.

🔖

Cite This Article

SAYILIR, Ö., VİCTOR, T. C. (2019). Corporate Reputation and Business Outcomes in Turkey. Business and Economics Research Journal, Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 5, 1143–1153. https://ajindex.com/articles/143235

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Abimbola, T., & Vallaster C. (2007). Brand, organisational identity and reputation in SMEs: An overview. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 10(4), 341-348.
  2. Arbel, A., & Strebel, P. (1983). Pay attention to neglected firms! The Journal of Portfolio Management, 9(2), 37-42.
  3. Antunovich, P., & Laster, D. (1999). Do investors mistake a good company for a good investment? February 1999,
  4. SSRN Electronic Journal, DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.115020. Cornell, B., & Shapiro, A. C. (1987). Corporate stakeholders and corporate finance. Financial Management, 16(1), 5-14.
  5. Clayman, M. (1987). In search of excellence: The investor’s viewpoint. Financial Analysts Journal, 43(3), 54-63.
  6. Davies, G., Chun, R., & Kamins, M. A. (2010). Reputation gaps and the performance of service organizations. Strategic Management Journal, 31(5), 530-546.
  7. Dunbar, R. L., & Schwalbach, J. (2000). Corporate reputation and performance in Germany. Corporate Reputation Review, 3(2), 115-123.
  8. Eberl, M., & Schwaiger, M. (2005). Corporate reputation: Disentangling the effects on financial performance. European Journal of Marketing, 39(7/8), 838-854.
  9. Fombrun, C. (1996). Reputation. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Harris, R. K., Drakenberg, T., & Wennerström, H. (1975). Bandshape phenomena in liquids. In Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (pp. 141-173).
  10. Herremans, I. M., Akathaporn, P., & McInnes, M. (1993). An investigation of corporate social responsibility reputation and economic performance. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 18(7-8), 587-604.
  11. Hammond, S. A., & Slocum, J. W. (1996). The impact of prior firm financial performance on subsequent corporate reputation. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(2), 159-165.
  12. Inglis, R., Morley, C., & Sammut, P. (2006). Corporate reputation and organisational performance: An Australian study. Managerial Auditing Journal, 21(9), 934-947.
  13. McArthur, A. W., & Nystrom, P. C. (1991). Environmental dynamism, complexity, and munificence as moderators of strategy-performance relationships. Journal of Business Research, 23(4), 349-361.
  14. McGuire, J. B., Sundgren, A., & Schneeweis, T. (1988). Corporate social responsibility and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 31(4), 854-872.
  15. McGuire, B., Pizzuto, T., & Getz, L. L. (1990). Patterns of visitation in prairie voles (Microtus ochrogaster) reveal a role for males in population regulation. In Social systems and population cycles in voles (pp. 98-99). Birkhäuser, Basel. Nanda, S., Schneeweis, T., & Eneroth, K. (19