Since the United Nations introduced the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), businesses have become important actors in their attainment. The SDGs serve as a benchmark for integrating sustainability into corporate operations, while SDG reporting allows firms to communicate their progress. This study examines SDG disclosure in the integrated reports of companies listed in the Spanish IBEX-35 index. Using a mixed-methods design that combines semi-automated content analysis with correspondence analysis to compare disclosure patterns across companies and sectors, and interpret the results through the lens of legitimacy theory. The findings reveal a pronounced focus on "Partnership", alongside sector-specific variations, with some sectors showing concentrated disclosure efforts and others displaying more homogeneous behavior. The study contributes by showing that SDG disclosure in integrated reports reflects sector-specific legitimacy pressures and by offering a replicable framework for benchmarking disclosure across firms and sectors.
Drawing on the resource-based view of the firm and signaling theory, we examine the interplay of corporate reputation and market valuation during the multi-year, multi-event lifecycle of a corporate misconduct investigation. Employing event study methodology and moderated multiple regression in the context of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) violations, we find that prior corporate reputation buffers firms from negative market reactions during the initial misconduct disclosure. Yet, the same reputation that shields firms from market valuation loss subsequently erodes as analysts and executives revise their assessments of the firm during the trigger event and most subsequent investigation events. Counter to expectations on average, the greatest reputation loss, on average, occurs following a regulatory event rather than the trigger event. We further find that firms with stronger prior reputations experience greater reputational erosion following misconduct allegations, consistent with heightened violations of stakeholder expectations. By examining events across the lifecycle of a corruption investigation rather than a single crisis event, we show that buffering and suffering are corresponding rather than contradictory processes. Our findings reveal how reputational capital both protects and is depleted during prolonged corporate crises.
This study examines how users’ perceptions of two forms of stakeholder engagement in corporate digital responsibility (CDR) communication — dialogic and collaborative — are associated with trust in AI companies through perceived bias remediation and organizational responsiveness. Hypotheses were tested using partial least squares structural equation modeling based on a U.S. national survey (N = 747) conducted in December 2024 via Prolific. Results show that perceived dialogic engagement was positively associated with both perceived organizational responsiveness and perceived bias remediation, which were in turn positively associated with trust. Perceived collaborative engagement was positively associated with perceived bias remediation but not perceived organizational responsiveness. The indirect associations of perceived dialogic engagement with trust through both mediators were significant, whereas perceived collaborative engagement showed a significant indirect association with trust through perceived bias remediation but not perceived organizational responsiveness. Among the control variables, perceived credibility of AI-generated content was positively associated with trust, whereas privacy concerns and a more negatively perceived tone of AI-related media coverage were negatively associated with trust. Findings advance stakeholder engagement theory by demonstrating distinct patterns through which users’ perceptions of dialogic and collaborative engagement are associated with trust in GenAI companies.
Strategic management research often treats reputation as a macro-level attribute, leaving undertheorized the cognitive linkages through which it shapes stakeholder judgments. We examine an alternative account in which reputation operates as an intermediate interpretive frame that shapes individuals’ competence beliefs and, through them, behavioral intentions. Using a repeated-measures experiment and a field study, we find that reputation operates both directly, as a heuristic influencing willingness to pay and loyalty, and indirectly, by shaping competence inferences. Following alleged wrongdoing, however, both functions collapse. Although some repair strategies partially reactivate reputation’s indirect framing role, its direct heuristic function does not return, and recovery remains incomplete. We recast reputation as a fragile and conditional cognitive frame whose value depends on the credibility of the competence inferences it supports.
Organizational reputations of public and non-profit entities are dynamic and multidimensional phenomena that vary across different audience groups, creating a challenging environment for administrators. We conducted 82 in-depth interviews with top-level decision-makers in collegiate athletics to better understand reputational issues during times of field-wide volatility. Results highlighted the importance of mission valence as an important but overlooked reputational dimension. Environmental volatility drove agencies to emphasize outcome-oriented dimensions rather than process, and short- rather than long-term reputational goals. We identified the centrality of peer audiences from other agencies, an audience that defies the traditional internal/external dichotomization of reputation. Our findings show how, in a landscape of interdependent agencies, shifting goals and norms illustrate the complexity of reputation management for the public administrator.
