Indices of Corporate Reputation: An Analysis of Media Rankings and Social Monitors Ratings

Transcription

1 Corporate Reputation Review Volume 1 Number 4 Indices of Corporate Reputation: An Analysis of Media Rankings and Social Monitors Ratings Charles J. Fombrun New York University, Stern School of Business ABSTRACT Corporate reputational rankings and ratings are proliferating. This article examines a variety of corporate reputational rankings published by various general media, specialized publications and social monitors. We compare these reputational rankings and ratings in terms of their methodologies, the criteria they rely on to assess companies, and their results. The analysis reinforces the need for a more coherent conceptual framework to assess corporate reputations. INTRODUCTION The initial publication of Fortune magazine s survey of America s Most Admired Companies in 1983 spawned a veritable industry devoted to profiling corporate reputations. Since 1983, the proliferation of comparable perceptual ratings and rankings of companies has continued unabated. Many are published regularly in major media outlets. Others are featured in books, while still others are distributed privately by social monitors to their constituents. Close inspection suggests that even seemingly comprehensive reputational ratings such as Fortune s are biased. For one, they tend to focus on larger, public companies, within particular industries or countries (mostly US-based); for another, they tend to sample principally managerial audiences and financial analysts, and so stress financial indicators. This analysis begins by examining the principal sources of corporate reputational data. The article then compares their findings, and identifies the companies and criteria around which they appear to converge. It concludes with some thoughts about the theoretical framework needed to build a valid reputational index. SOURCES OF CORPORATE REPUTATIONAL DATA There are three principal sources of corporate ratings and rankings: (1) Sponsored research published in various business media (2) research highlighting special interests (3) research conducted and disseminated by social monitors. These are reviewed in turn. MEDIA RATINGS There are five publications that regularly produce reputational ratings of companies by seeking out the assessments of constituents. By far the most visible and frequently cited source of corporate reputational data is Fortune s annual survey of the world s Most Admired Companies. First published in 1982, Fortune s rankings only rate US companies (although it includes some domestic subsidiaries of large multinationals, for instance Shell Oil the US subsidiary of the Royal Dutch/Shell Group). The popularity of the annual survey has encouraged various regional publications to imitate Fortune s methodology, with proliferating rankings of companies in Europe and Asia, as well as Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 1, No. 4, 1998, pp # Henry Stewart Publications, Page 327

2 Indices of Corporate Reputation country-specific rankings of companies in the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Australia. Fortune s methodology is examined in detail, followed by a review of some of its principal imitators. Fortune s Most Admired Corporations 1 Every year, Fortune invites over 10,000 senior executives, outside directors and financial analysts to rate a list of the ten largest companies in their own industry on eight criteria of excellence. The resulting rankings compiled from the respondents have been published annually since January The eight criteria on which each company gets rated are: quality of management quality of products or services innovativeness long-term investment value financial soundness ability to attract, develop, and keep talented people responsibility to the community and the environment wise use of corporate assets. Figure 1 depicts the companies that have appeared most frequently among the top 10 in Fortune s reputational rankings from 1983 to Asian Business: Asia s Most Admired Companies 2 The monthly magazine Asian Business uses a similar methodology to Fortune s. Specifically, the magazine compiles a list of 250 of Asia s largest companies by turnover (sales); adds a variety of multinationals active in the region; sends questionnaires to a group of Asia s business leaders, soliciting their opinions on the companies various attributes. Respondents are asked to rate companies on overall admiration and then on the quality of their products and services and of their management; and their contribution to the local economy (record as an employer, potential for growth). Finally, respondents are asked to indicate how important they think each of these attributes are in forming an overall opinion about a company. Far Eastern Economic Review REVIEW Four hundred surveys are sent randomly to subscribers of the Far Eastern Economic Figure 1 Companies Most Frequently Cited among Fortune s Top 10 ( ) Page 328

3 Fombrun Review and to the publishers of five of Asia s most prominent business magazines. The study sought to develop reputational ratings of 200 companies operating in the Far East: 110 headquartered in 11 Asian nations, and 90 multinationals based outside Asia. Respondents were asked to rate listed companies on each of the following five criteria: quality of services or products long-term vision of management innovativeness in responding to customers needs financial soundness being a company that others try to emulate. Included in the survey were top companies based in Australia, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan and Thailand. Management Today Britain s Most Admired Companies 4 Management Today has published an annual reputational ranking of Britain s largest companies since The survey methodology is similar to Fortune s in that business executives are asked to rate their peers performance in six categories: quality of management financial soundness ability to attract, develop and retain top talent quality of marketing community and environmental responsibility use of corporate assets. Financial Times Europe s Most Respected Companies 5 Every year, Financial Times sponsors a study in which a detailed questionnaire is sent to 1,000 senior executives in 18 European countries and 22 business sectors. Respondents are asked to rank the companies they most respect on a variety of criteria in their country, their sector, and throughout Europe. According to the Financial Times, respondents cite five sets of reasons for nominating particular companies, illustrated in Table 1. Table 1 Selection criteria Most important reason Least important reason Business performance Clear leadership and people management Effective strategy Products and services Corporate environment Consistent growth and longterm profitability Attracts, develops and retains excellent people Has a positive, realistic vision/ capitalizes on growth opportunities in global markets Its products are a benchmark for quality Established policies and procedures to assess its business environmental impact A high return on capital employed Displays a high level of social responsibility It adapts successfully to changing market and economic conditions It invests heavily in R&D Its policy shows on its products and packaging Page 329

4 Indices of Corporate Reputation CORPORATE RATINGS IN SPECIALIZED PUBLICATIONS Besides the ratings published in general management media, companies are also regularly scrutinized, rated, and ranked by specialized audiences. Some are published in specialty magazines, others gain visibility from widespread distribution as best-selling business books. The principal ones are described below. Business Ethics America s 100 Best Corporate Citizens 6 In May/June 1996, Business Ethics published its first listing of America s 100 Best Corporate Citizens. The ratings were based on a survey that purported to measure both financial and social criteria. Social responsibility was determined from many factors, including numbers of women and minorities, treatment of gay men and lesbians, environmental performance, and the company s ethics policies. Profitability was measured mainly as earnings growth. The survey was conducted as follows: The magazine identified 1,000 or so American public companies that were judged socially responsible by multiple social monitors Surveys were mailed to them, requesting most recent annual report, proxy filing, 10K, and 10Q. About 500 companies participated; missing data reduced the set to 300; minimum financial performance standards reduced the final set to 200 companies. Companies were rated on scales reflecting performance on both social and financial criteria, to constitute the BE 100. Working Mother Magazine s The 100 Best Companies for Working Women 7 The magazine publishes an annual list of the companies deemed most attractive for working women. The list is derived from internet nominations ( Companies are rated on four criteria: Relative pay: Companies that pay better than their competitors. Opportunities to advance: The proportion of women in senior management, among the top 20 per cent highest paid, and in officer positions; whether managers are assessed (and possibly given bonuses) for promoting women. Childcare: Does the company provide on site childcare or assistance to parents? Additional concerns include: before and after school care, holiday care, backup care, summer programs, sick child care (in addition to vacation days). Resource and referral service to locate dependent care. Pre-tax set aside for dependent care. Family friendly benefits: Does the company encourage various familyfriendly programs, including job sharing, telecommuting, paid paternity leave, phase-back to work, childbirth leave, adoption aid, flex time, and women s support groups? The 100 Best Companies to Work for in America 8 The widely cited book was first published in It summarizes a study conducted by Robert Levering and Milton Moskowitz in which the authors interviewed hundreds of employees in top rated workplaces and summarized their assessments of the best of the best on six criteria: Pay/benefits: Whether pay was at or near the top of the industry; whether the company provided unusual or unique benefits; whether the company demonstrated special sensitivity to work/family issues and health needs of Page 330

5 Fombrun employees; whether fitness centers and childcare support were well addressed. Opportunities: Whether the company offered valuable training programs; had enough growth to create opportunities for employees; whether the company favored promotion from within; whether there were clearly specified avenues for advancement (job postings, annual reviews); and whether women and minorities do well at the company. Job security: Does the company have a no-layoff policy; has it gone through difficult periods without resorting to layoffs? Pride in work/company: Is the company organized so that people at all levels feel connected to its products and services; do employees feel like they are helping to make the company an industry leader; are employees proud of the company s corporate citizenship activities? Openness/fairness: Are top executives accessible to everyone; is there much two-way communication to keep employees informed and to ensure the upward flow of ideas; is there an explicit grievance system; and are executive perks minimized? Camaraderie/friendliness: Do employees feel like they are part of an extended family, a team, a community; do they enjoy working (and playing) with each other; does the company encourage social functions; is there much laughter in the halls? The Best Companies for Minorities 9 The book published by Lawrence Otis Graham in 1993 summarizes the results of a study of 625 public companies and private firms who were asked to provide information on a three-page questionnaire. The study requested information about the treatment of minorities in those companies, including: percentage of minorities in company s workforce percentage of minorities within management pool minority members on the board of directors minority recruiting programs at colleges, graduate schools and job fairs contribution to minority organizations or causes company-sanctioned minority employee groups diversity training programs and sensitivity training workshops company-sponsored minority suppliervendor programs minority mentoring programs management training for minority employees minority internship programs highest-ranking minority executives. The Best Companies for Women 10 A book published by Barbara Zeitz and Loraine Dusky in It describes a set of companies that were nominated by people with specialized knowledge on women s issues. Seventy-six executive recruiters, 72 professional women s groups and 15 researchers collectively nominated 198 companies. The heads of human resources at the nominated companies were sent a six-page questionnaire addressing company policies and practices in recruitment, handling of sexual discrimination and sexual harassment, training, pay policies, use of flextime, maternity, paternity and adoption benefits, and childcare. The 100 Best Companies for Gay Men and Lesbians 11 Published by Ed Mickens in 1994, the book describes a network sample of companies nominated from word-of-mouth referrals and published reports. Companies were rated favorably if they were judged to demonstrate progressive policies for non- Page 331

6 Indices of Corporate Reputation discriminatory treatment of gay men and lesbians on four criteria: written and enforced policy of nondiscrimination inclusion of lesbian and gay issues within diversity training recognition of a gay and lesbian employee group availability of benefits for same-sex domestic partners. CORPORATE RATINGS BY SOCIAL MONITORS Numerous corporate watchdogs have come to the fore in recent years and rate companies on narrow issues. They regularly distribute their findings to interested parties, including their constituents and the media. The list of those narrow monitors is long indeed. Rather than review those, highlighted in this section are the most visible and established of those social monitors all of which rate companies on a wide variety of issues rather than on a single issue. Many of these social monitors circulate their reports and give awards to top-rated companies. Their influence extends to academic researchers and journalists who regularly consult these social monitors when trying to determine valid ratings of corporate reputations. Most of the social monitors hope to influence investors and consumers purchase decisions, in an effort to reward socially responsible companies and penalize companies whose activities are less socially desirable. Council on Economic Priorities According to the Council on Economic Priorities (CEP): CEP is a non-profit public service research organization dedicated to accurate and impartial analysis of the social and environmental records of corporations. Our research is designed to enhance the incentives for superior corporate social and environmental performance and to encourage the transfer of cold war resources to a productive civilian economy. CEP information empowers consumers, investors, managers, employees and activists to cast their economic vote as conscientiously as their political vote. CEP conducts original research and rates companies on various criteria, including their success in promoting women and minorities, making charitable contributions, reaching out to local communities, offering family-friendly benefits, supporting the environment, and avoiding animal testing and weapons development. CEP sells its research to interested parties as research reports, case studies, and published books. CEP s SCREEN reports provide brief one-page analyses on over 700 US companies and many foreign companies. Its best-selling book Shopping for a Better World identified the corporate parents behind many popular branded products, and sought to better inform consumers which products to buy and which to avoid. Every year CEP also hosts its Corporate Conscience Awards at which various companies are honored for their innovative policies in environmental stewardship, charitable activities, equal employment opportunity, community involvement, and responsiveness to employees. CEP s Campaign for Cleaner Corporations identifies companies with the worst environmental records in the most hazardous industries, and coordinates a nationwide effort to encourage black-listed companies to improve their practices. Kinder, Lydenberg Domini & Company, Inc. Founded in 1988, Kinder, Lydenberg Domini & Company (KLD) provides social research and company benchmarking Page 332

7 Fombrun services, primarily to investors. The criteria they use cover a wide range of social issues, including workforce diversity, environmental performance, community involvement, and product quality programs. KLD tracks the performance of more than 4,000 firms and publishes reports on 650 publicly-traded US corporations. KLD s best known products include the Domini 400 Social Index (DSI) and SOCRATES, its proprietary social screening database targeted to investment professionals. The Domini Social Index 400 tracks the financial performance of 400 companies that meet its social tests. KLD regularly reviews the records of public corporations. The information is maintained in SOCRATES, a database and software package which is easily available but mostly sold to institutional investors. SOCRATES allows users to screen portfolios on 63 criteria, and then call up KLD social reports on any screened company. KLD uses exclusionary screens to eliminate automatically companies that own interests in nuclear power plants; companies that derive 4 per cent or more of current sales from the nuclear power industry; and companies that derive 2 per cent or more of current sales from weapons-related products, the manufacture of alcohol, tobacco or gambling products. Companies with poor environmental records and a recent history of unstable employee relations are also excluded. Ethical Investment Research Service Ethical Investment Research Service (EIRIS) was founded in 1983 by a group of churches and charities. The mission of the non-profit organization is to help investors apply ethical criteria to their investment decisions and promote a wider understanding of corporate responsibility. EIRIS conducts research on over 1,000 UK and international firms. Firms are evaluated on broad criteria that encompass water pollution and hazardous waste, community involvement and alcohol production. In screening companies, clients are able to choose which of almost 300 criteria they consider important. Franklin Research & Development Corporation Since its inception in 1982, Franklin Research & Development Corporation (Franklin) has become the largest independent investment management firm concentrating solely on socially responsible investing. Franklin s objectives are to provide superior products and services that meet both social and financial goals of investors, promote excellence and innovation in social research and social investing, provide a positive work environment, and support others working to build a just world society. Franklin s monthly newsletter, Insight, contributes to its mission of informing a wide network of worldwide investors. The newly released Fresh Produce aims to empower young people to fight for a just future society. Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR) is a non-profit organization based in New York City. Its two sister organizations the Ecumenical Committee for Corporate Responsibility (ECCR) based in London, England and the Taskforce on the Churches and Corporate Responsibility (TCCR) based in Toronto, Canada give the organization an international presence. All three monitors examine the policies and practices of major companies worldwide, with an emphasis on non-financial benchmarks laid out in ICCR s Principles for Global Corporate Responsibility, itself based on the CERES principles (Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Econom- Page 333

8 Indices of Corporate Reputation ics), albeit broader in scope. The organization uses company information such as the existence of health and safety managers and plant closing policies, along with independent consumer organization reports to create quantifiable benchmarks. ICCR s primary focus is investor activism. The organization provides information on a variety of issues for the purpose of encouraging socially significant resolutions. The Proxy Resolutions Book identifies social resolutions submitted by shareholders of major companies. The Corporate Examiner examines policies and practices of major companies. Socially-significant events and investor activism are regularly reported along with official statements on social issues. Investor Responsibility Research Center Like ICCR, the Investor Responsibility Research Center (IRRC), founded in 1972, is also a not-for-profit firm offering impartial research on proxy voting, company profiles and portfolio screening. Its corporate social responsibility research is concentrated primarily on environmental issues through its Environmental Information Service (EIS). EIS provides specific objective information on individual companies. A typical report includes: waste generation and transfer/release of toxic and hazardous materials by weight EPA superfund sites for which the company or a subsidiary is responsible corrective actions required by the company to come into compliance with any federal environment or safety regulations whether a company carries environmental liability insurance and has an environmental Total Quality Management program. IRRC also offers proprietary software to help screen corporations according to userdefined benchmarks on a variety of environmental performance criteria. Data are available on over 1,500 companies. A key service EIS offers is the Corporate Environmental Profiles Directory which profiles all companies in Standard & Poor s 500 index. Company reports contain environmental performance data in tabular and graphical formats, which are then contrasted with industry averages computed for each S&P 500 industry group. ON WHAT CRITERIA ARE COMPANIES EVALUATED? The criteria used to measure a company s reputation vary widely, and depend on the principal constituency a particular magazine, book, or social monitor is targeting. Nonetheless, there are demonstrable areas of convergence across lists. Summarized in this section are six sets of criteria that appear to dominate the construction of the reputational ratings published by the media and by social monitors. Financial performance Raters attempting to judge a company s social responsibility generally recognize the importance of the company s financial health. A company may have excellent employee benefits, but if they go out of business those benefits become meaningless. Growing companies can offer employees more opportunities for advancement. Specific criteria used to judge financial health include profitability, earnings growth, earnings per share, and return on investment data. Product quality Better-regarded companies appear to earn reputation by offering better quality and more innovative products and services. Their reputations suffer when they produce controversial products (ie tobacco, alcohol, nuclear energy, weapons, unhealthy foods). Page 334

9 Fombrun Employee treatment Better-regarded companies are generally expected to offer greater job security, better relative pay, have good labor relations; better health benefits, retirement benefits, employee stock ownership, and profit sharing. Raters favor companies whose employees demonstrate enjoyment and pride on the job, and whose employees have regular and close contact with top management. Increasingly, the favorable treatment of employees is also expected to manifest itself in heightened employee diversity. Community involvement Depending on a company s size and industry focus, a company s involvement with local communities will vary widely. Companies that earn reputation from their community involvement appear to make more charitable contributions, encourage more employee volunteer programs, and have greater local economic impact (tax revenues, jobs, and investments). Environmental performance Companies that earn kudos and reputation from reduced environmental impact have fewer Superfund sites; lower Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) data; a better history of environmental accidents, fines and permit violations; and participation in voluntary environmental programs (ie EPA Toxics 33/50, Green Lights, Responsible Care, CERES). Organizational issues Better-regarded companies are also expected to establish an organizational infrastructure that supports not only equality of opportunity and diversity, but also that stimulates good environmental performance and improved ethical behavior. Mission statements, ethical and environmental audits, and senior executive appointments are organizational signals that better regarded companies appear to broadcast. WHO ARE THE TOP COMPANIES ACROSS LISTS? The study juxtaposed ten of the main ratings and rankings compiled from media publications, books, and social monitors. Some of these are ordinal rankings of companies, while others are ratings. Table 2 lists the 115 companies that were nominated in more than one of these reputation lists, with Hewlett-Packard the only firm nominated across all lists. Given the financial bias of the media lists published by Fortune and Asian Business, the companies on the list were divided into two groups on the basis of their relative ranking in these two surveys. A value of high financial performance was given if the company achieved a ranking of 50 or better in both of these two surveys; a value of low if its ranking was less than 50 in either one. To gauge relative social performance, a value of high was ascribed to companies that were nominated in more than five of the eight socially-oriented surveys that were reviewed. Figure 2 cross-tabulates a set of 19 companies that appeared consistently across these lists. The table identifies four clusters of companies, all of which have legitimate claim to most admired company status based on their external visibility. In particular, Tier 1 companies stand out; they appear on over 70 per cent of the financial and social lists that were reviewed, and were ranked 50th or better on the Fortune list. TOWARDS AN ACCURATE REPUTATIONAL INDEX The principal surveys and criteria used by journalists and social monitors to measure corporate reputations demonstrate significant weaknesses. For one, most of them are biased in both the companies they rate Page 335

10 Indices of Corporate Reputation Table 2: The Most Frequently Nominated Companies in Reputational Surveys ( ) Fortune s Domini Job Seeker s Best for Total # of Most Asian Business Social Guide to SR Best Best for Best for Working Best for Company Lists ( ) Admired Business Ethics Index Companies 12 Workplace Minorities Women Mothers G&L (1995) (1995) (1996) (1994) (1995) (1993) (1993) (1993) (1995) (1994) Hewlett Packard x x x x x x Procter & Gamble x x x x x x x Xerox x x x x x x 3M x x x x x AT&T x x x x x Gannett x x x x x x IBM x x x x x x Johnson & Johnson x x x x x American Express x x x x Avon Products x x x x x Colgate Palmolive x x x x Dayton Hudson x x x x x Dupont x x x x x Federal Express x x x x x General Mills x x x x x Merck 7 24 x x x x x x US West 7 92 x x x x x x BankAmerica x x x Ben & Jerry s 6 28 x x x x x Corning x x x x Delta Airlines x x x Eastman Kodak x x x x General Motors x x x x Herman Miller 6 25 x x x x x Motorola x x x x Penney (JC) x x x x Pepsi Cola x x x x Pitney Bowes x x x x x Apple Computer x x x Bell Atlantic Corp x x x Coca-Cola x x x Donnelley (RR) & Sons x x x Dow Chemical 5 38 x x x x Exxon x x x Levi Strauss 5 16 x x x x Marriott 5 20 x x x x Microsoft x x x x Nynex x x x Pacific Gas & Electric x x x Sprint x x x Sun Microsystems x x x Time Warner 5 92 x x x x TRW Inc x x x Anheuser Busch x x Atlantic Richfield x x x Becton Dickinson & Co x x Boeing x Campbell Soup 4 1 x x x Page 336

11 Fombrun Table 2 (continued) Fortune s Domini Job Seeker s Best for Total # of Most Asian Business Social Guide to SR Best Best for Best for Working Best for Company Lists ( ) Admired Business Ethics Index Companies 12 Workplace Minorities Women Mothers G&L (1995) (1995) (1996) (1994) (1995) (1993) (1993) (1993) (1995) (1994) Chase Manhattan x x Chevron x x Chrysler x x Citicorp x x Compaq Corp x x x Consolidated Freightways x x Cooper Tire x x x Cummins Engine x x x Enron x x Ford x x Fuller (HB) Company 4 4 x x x General Electric x x Honeywell x x Intel 4 6 x x x McDonald s 4 4 x x x Nordstrom x x x Pfizer x x Rubbermaid x x x St. Paul Companies 4 13 x x x Texas Instruments x United Parcel Service x x Wal-Mart 4 52 x x x Walt Disney x x Adolph Coors x Albertson s 3 15 x x Allied Signal x Amoco 3 47 x x Armstrong World 3 62 x x Deere (John) 3 58 x x Home Depot 3 5 x x JP Morgan 3 22 x x McDonnell Douglas Medtronic 3 5 x x Mobil x Norwest Corp 3 6 x x Oracle Systems 3 23 x x Phillip Morris x x Southwest Air 3 42 x x United Technologies x US Healthcare 3 28 x x Weyerhaueser x x 3Com Corporation 2 14 x Andarko 2 x x Apache 2 x x Cabot Oil & Gas 2 x x Conseco Inc x Fluor 2 20 x Gillette 2 12 x Page 337

12 Indices of Corporate Reputation Table 2 (continued) Fortune s Domini Job Seeker s Best for Total # of Most Asian Business Social Guide to SR Best Best for Best for Working Best for Company Lists ( ) Admired Business Ethics Index Companies 12 Workplace Minorities Women Mothers G&L (1995) (1995) (1996) (1994) (1995) (1993) (1993) (1993) (1995) (1994) Informix 2 56 x Kimberly-Clark 2 31 x Monsanto Nike 2 25 x Northwestern Mutual Life 2 56 x Penzoil 2 x x Pioneer Hi-Bred Intl x Shell Oil Sony 2 30 x Texaco x United American Healthcare 2 12 x United HealthCare 2 11 x York International Corp. 2 8 x and the respondents they survey. For another, companies are rated on diffuse criteria that are not systematically articulated and often reflect narrow stakeholder agendas. These unsystematically developed criteria used to build reputational profiles make generalization problematic. Research done using one set of ratings (say Fortune s) does not necessarily compare to research done that relies on other ratings (say those of KLD). Cumulative research findings depend heavily on the ability to converge on a constitutional definition of reputation that clearly identifies the underlying criteria that make up corporate reputations. In fact, the comparison of these diverse ratings suggests that there is indeed a relatively finite set of criteria on which most observers actually judge companies an aggregation of stakeholder concerns. If such a convergence is sensible, it suggests the possibility of arriving at a universal and consistent set of criteria by which companies can be judged, and which companies can use to build reputation. Obviously lacking in the current haphazard criteria used to rate companies is a theoretical framework on which to base measures of reputation. Developing such a framework would help significantly to advance both theory-building and practice in reputation management. Based on the review of existing reputational ratings, the author suggests that a suitable conceptual framework within which to examine corporate reputations should recognize: the multiple stakeholders whose assessments aggregate into collective judgments the different but overlapping financial and social criteria according to which stakeholders judge companies. A true reputational index if it is to provide managers and researchers with an accurate barometer of corporate reputations can only result from sampling a representative set of stakeholders on a conceptually relevant set of criteria. Page 338

13 Fombrun Candidates for Top Reputational Status Figure 2 ~ Xerox Hewlett-Packard Higher Federal Express Procter & Gamble Colgate-Palmolive 3M Johnson & Johnson AT&T Merck Social General Mills Performance Corning Herman Miller Dupont Pepsico Microsoft Lower Time Warmer Levi Straus Motorola Dow Chemical " Lower Higher Financial Performance ACKNOWLEDGMENT Many thanks to Shanley Hinge for her research assistance in preparing this analysis. REFERENCES (1) Fortune (1995) America s Most Admired Companies, March. (2) Asian Business (1995) Asia s Most Admired Companies, June. (3) Far Eastern Economic Review (Levering & Moskowitz) Review 200, Plume. (4) Management Today, Britain s Most Admired Companies, annual publication. (5) Financial Times, Europe s Most Respected Companies, annual publication. (6) Business Ethics (1996) The 100 Best Corporate Citizens, May/June. (7) Working Mother Magazine, The 100 Best Companies for Working Women, annual publication. (8) Levering, R. and Moskowitz, M (1993) The 100 Best Companies to Work for in America. (9) Graham, L.O. (1993) The Best Companies for Minorities, Plume. (10) Zeitz, B. and Dusky, L. (1993) The Best Companies for Women, Simon & Shuster. (11) Mickens, E. (1994) The 100 Best Companies for Gay Men and Lesbians. (12) Jankowski, K. (1995) The Job Seeker s Guide to Socially Responsible Companies, Visible Ink Press. CONTACT INFORMATION Investor Responsibility Research Center 1350 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC Business Ethics 52 S. 10th Street, #110 Minneapolis, MN The Council on Economic Priorities 30 Irving Place New York, NY Page 339

14 Indices of Corporate Reputation Kinder, Lydenberg, Domini & Co. 129 Mt. Auburn Street Cambridge, MA Ethical Investment Research Service 504 Bondway Business Centre London SW8 1SQ United Kingdom Franklin Research & Development Corporation 711 Atlantic Avenue Boston, MA Interfaith Center for Corporate Responsibility 475 Riverside Drive, Ste. 566 New York, NY Ecumenical Council for Corporate Responsibility 11 Burnham Wood Fareham, Hants, PO16 7UD United Kingdom Taskforce on Churches for Corporate Responsibility 129 St. Clair Ave. Toronto, Ontario M4V 1N5 Canada Page 340