Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Accreditation and rankings Reputation and Legitimacy: Accreditation and Rankings to Assess Organizations Jennifer L Bartlett Josef Pallas Magnus Frostenson 1 Accreditation and rankings 2 Abstract A key perspective on reputation is that of assessment. Much of the communication literature focuses on the influence organizations have on impression formation. In this chapter, however, we suggest that in order to understand reputation assessment, it is also important to understand the related concept of legitimacy. We address two approaches to understanding reputation in this chapter: accreditation and ranking. Accreditation alludes to concepts of legitimacy in which firms may acquire credibility by meeting formalized standards of certification. Ranking deals with categorizing and rating organizational reputations so that they may be assessed relative to one another. The chapter explores the various ways in which the mechanisms of accreditation and ranking operate and the role of social actors in developing and applying them. Ranking systems that provide the mechanism for comparing organizations and assessing their relative value are also explored. Keywords: accreditation, communication, legitimacy, rankings, reputation, Accreditation and rankings 3 Reputation and Legitimacy: Accreditation and Rankings to Assess Organizations The notion of corporate reputation has developed since the 1980s into a concept that is widely used both in the academy and in practice. While scholars differ on the specifics of defining the term reputation (Fombrun & van Riel, 1997), there is greater consensus around how it has been used in the literature. Barnett suggests that the multitude of reputation definitions have been used in three ways: awareness, assessment, and as an asset. The predominant perspective is of reputation as assessment (Barnett et al., 2006). Such a perspective reflects Fombrun and van Riel’s (1997) assertion that “a corporate reputation is a collective representation. It gauges a firm’s relative standing both internally with employees and externally with stakeholders” (p. 10). Relative assessment of organizations, however, suggests that first organizations meet standards in order to then be judged in relation to each other. One way to consider this twopart phenomenon is to consider the related concepts of legitimacy and reputation (Deephouse & Carter, 2005). On the one hand, reputation is about the assessment of future value and relativity (Fombrun & Shanley, 1990). Legitimacy, on the other hand, relates to meeting social expectations (Deephouse & Carter, 2005). To date, much of the communication literature has focused on an instrumental perspective of maximizing the way organizations can influence the impressions it makes on others and therefore its reputation (van Riel, 1997). This opens the opportunity, however, to understand more deeply the mechanisms through which organizations gain legitimacy and relative standing, both of which are collective phenomena. We do this by examining the relative standing of organizations (reputation), and the processes of accreditation and ranking that reflect this. We also pay attention to the roles of various social actors in this process, - in particular, the role of organizations in shaping Accreditation and rankings 4 perceptions and the role of external social actors, - with an emphasis on those that can exert soft regulatory pressure on organizations and ranking systems. Fombrun and van Riel’s (1997) seminal piece on the reputational landscape noted that there are multiple approaches to corporate reputation—economic, strategic, marketing, organizational, sociological, and accounting. Marketing and organizational approaches tend to favor personalized assessment and subjective perceptions of firm. Economic and strategic approaches incorporate both the antecedents and consequences of reputation for firm values. The accounting model focuses on both accounting for and reporting on reputation, which also includes attempts to quantify and account for intangible firm assets such as reputation. For sociologists, the interest is in prestige and status and how reputation, with its emphasis on comparative stature, is conceptualized. To shed light on legitimacy, reputation, accreditation, and ranking, we draw on a sociologically-informed perspective. This provides insights into the mechanisms of how socially agreed standards emerge against which organizations and their reputations are compared and rated. It also yields insights into the social actors involved in this process and the implications for research into reputation. The reputation literature has focused on the raft of proprietary models organizations used in practice to make such assessments (Hillenbrand & Money, 2007), and we consider the role of these models in the accreditation and ranking process. We address two approaches to understanding reputation in this chapter: ranking and accreditation. Ranking is about categorizing and ranking organizational reputations so that they may be considered in comparison to others. Accreditation alludes to concepts of legitimacy in which firms may acquire credibility by meeting formalized standards of certification. Central to understanding this perspective on reputation is the concept of legitimacy, which is widely used in sociological perspectives of organization studies. Using Accreditation and rankings 5 this as a theoretical underpinning, the chapter explores the various ways in which these mechanisms operate and the role of social actors in developing and applying them. Ranking systems provide the mechanism for comparing organizations and assessing their relative value; theoretical and empirical work around reputation assessment is presented and tensions revealed. Finally, directions for future research are discussed. Legitimacy and reputation Legitimacy is the central imperative of neo-institutional theory, the dominant perspective in organization theory (Greenwood, Oliver, Suddaby, & Sahlin, 2008). Institutional accounts dealing with the issue of legitimacy tend to emphasize that legitimacy for groups of organizations depend on the adaptation of organizational practices or structures to “symbolic myths” reflecting normative ideas or assumptions in society (Meyer & Rowan, 1977). While this discussion often focuses on groups of organizations or the overarching field, legitimacy has, in recent decades, become a concept that is looked upon strategically in the management literature. Typical of the management literature is the treatment of legitimacy as a strategic resource (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). This means that legitimacy, whether moral (building on value correspondence), pragmatic (resting on self-interested assumptions), or cognitive (reflecting meaningfulness or comprehensibility), is understood at the organizational level as something that could and should be managed in order to get hold of other resources (Suchman, 1995). Research on legitimacy has, one could claim, gone through a “strategic turn” in which the concept has been transformed into something that the individual organization can, at least to some extent, actively manage through manipulation or other strategic activities (Suchman, 1995; Deephouse & Suchman, 2008). This development has also implied the proximity of legitimacy to the concept of reputation, which is also dependent on evaluations made in the organizational environment (Fombrun, 1997). Accreditation and rankings 6 The link between legitimacy and reputation is clear. For instance, Suchman (1995, p. 574) defined legitimacy as “a generalized perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions”. On the other hand, Deephouse and Suchman (2008, p. 59) described reputation as “a generalized expectation about a firm’s future behavior or performance based on collective perceptions (either direct or, more often, vicarious) of past behavior or performance”. While the generation and sources of both legitimacy and reputation are more or less similar, reputation seems to be an issue at the organizational level that involves, to a higher degree than legitimacy, future expectations on behavior. Reputation, thus, is a continuous measure that is also relative to other organizations in a certain sector or other sectors. Its essence, according to Deephouse and Carter (2005), lies in comparisons among organizations. As they noted in a study of commercial U.S. banks, and in line with traditional assumptions about legitimacy, isomorphism (the pressure to create similar structures and processes within a field) increases legitimacy. But this does not imply effects on reputation for each organization active in the specific field; rather, the reputation of an organization is relative to other organizations in the sector. Deephouse and Carter (2005) also noted that higher financial performance tends to increase reputation, but does not increase the legitimacy of high performing banks. The strategic turn in legitimacy research underscores the fact that legitimacy can be understood at different levels. Societal legitimacy is closely linked to the existence of overarching ideas—those that are successful or popular with a strong capacity of diffusion. By adopting or conforming to such ideas (often in a modified or “translated” form, see Sahlin and Wedlin, 2008), organizations are perceived as legitimate in a social context. What is striking when one turns to organizational legitimacy at the micro-level is the fact that organizations adopt different strategies whose outcomes are dependent on the ruling or Accreditation and rankings 7 dominant master-idea, such as shareholder value or the ideology of globalization. This means that there is always a discursive backdrop to organizational processes for legitimacy. Mazza and Alvarez (2000) suggested that legitimacy is a concept that is also valid for management ideas or practices. Their analysis, much like accounts of management ideas as fads (e.g., Abrahamson, 1996), suggests that organizations can to some extent obtain legitimacy by adopting management concepts or practices that are in vogue. This is a form of indirect legitimation of organizations, where the adoption or existence of a certain practice (cf. activities related to corporate social responsibility) may in itself contribute to organizational legitimacy. Management ideas may originate at some authoritative center (Røvik, 2004) and are diffused through management education institutions, consultants, the popular press, or other actors. From a managerial point of view, it is, perhaps paradoxically enough, possible for organizations with high legitimacy to deviate from established practices (Sherer & Lee, 2002). Legitimacy thus enables change and provides a degree of freedom for developing new practices or structures. One consequence of this is that legitimacy—most easily gained by conforming to environments (Suchman, 1995) —may itself be a resource that allows for heterogeneity rather than homogeneity. If so, there is a possibility for business schools, taking them as an example, to develop programs, practices, or structures deviating from standards. The concept of legitimacy allows us to consider the role organizations play in seeking to manage the way others see them, and as such, lays the foundations for assessing organizational reputation relative to others. This has tended to be a central role of communication. Strategic communication attempts seek to manage impressions of the organization and its activities. Strategic communication by outsiders to the organization, such as special interest groups and activists, also play a role in the assessment of organizations in Accreditation and rankings 8 comparison to others. Communication is also used to created broader social standards against which organizations are assessed. This leads us to consider the role that accreditations and rankings play in reputational assessment. Accreditations and Rankings: The Signals of Legitimacy and Reputation Contemporary organizations are subjected to organizational as well as institutional pressures to be accountable for their activities. These pressures are not only expressed in terms of financial and economic effectiveness and adjustment to legal and regulatory constraints; the organizations are also expected to project and justify their commitments to moral values and social norms and expectations (Djelic & Sahlin, 2006; Engwall et al., forthcoming; Scott, 2000). In many cases, these expectations are shaped by other societal institutions outside the organization’s control (Beck, 1994), which expose the organizations to a number of reputational and legitimacy risks (Power, Scheytt, Soin, & Sahlin, 2009; Solove, 2007). This is especially important in times when organizations operate in an environment characterized by increased distrust and lack of confidence in corporate affairs (Frostenson et al., 2010). The institutional demands come, however, only partly in terms of coercive measures. Instead they take a form soft regulation—rules and norms that emerges through the work of non-hierarchical actors that scrutinize, monitor, and evaluate organizations and their activities (Jacobsson & Sahlin-Andersson, 2006, p. 259; Mörth, 2004). Regulation, both hard and soft, has led to the emergence of a wide variety of external evaluations and audits that describe and assess how well organizations deal with and respond to the different pressures and expectations (Power, 1997; Saunder & Espeland, 2009; Wedlin, 2007). These external audits are central to what Suchman (1995) described as evaluative and cognitive dimensions of legitimacy (see also Meyer & Rowan, 1977 and DiMaggio & Powell 1983). Such external Accreditation and rankings 9 auditing, in its various forms, operates as a tool for defining the constitutional properties of organizations. That is to say, auditing reflects organizational ability to gain or defend a favorable position in relevant societal contexts such as industries, fields, or entire societies (Power 2007; see also Deephouse & Carter, 2005; DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). Societies are not static or monolithic, however, and the evaluative processes do not represent absolute or consistent values and norms. In this context, the various auditing firms and agencies take an active role in production of codes, rankings, certifications, and accreditations through which organizations such as business firms, universities, museums, and political parties are assessed and evaluated (Sahlin-Andersson & Engwall, 2002; Wedlin, 2007). In the following section, we will focus on two major forms of external audits— accreditations and ranking—and the way they signal the legitimacy and reputational status of organizations. In line with Deephouse and Carter’s (2005) discussion of the difference between legitimacy and reputation, we see ranking as mainly based on the “relative standing or desirability” of an organization, whereas accreditation focuses on “meeting and adhering to the expectations of a social system’s norms, values, rules and meanings” (Deephouse and Carter, 2005, p. 331; McKee, 2005; Schwarz & Westerheijden, 2005). Similarly, Hedmo et al. (2006) argued that rankings and accreditations differ with respect to the underlying principles of what they focus on: “while accreditation rest on inclusion, ranking rest on exclusion. A ranking puts in place a hierarchy between those included, and the inclusion of some means the exclusion of others” (p. 322). Thus, rankings provide not only an external assessment of organizational reputation, they also signal the positional status of an organization vis-à-vis its different stakeholders (Martins, 2005; Sauder, 2008). This means that whereas some forms of auditing—such as accreditations and Accreditation and rankings 10 certifications—emphasize legitimacy as based on conformity with prevailing institutional values and norms, other forms—such as rankings and awards—work on the basis of how well an organization scores on these values and norms relative to other organizations sharing same institutional environment (Wedlin, 2007, p. 25). The legitimacy signals expressed by accreditation processes testify to an organization’s ability and desire to imitate the models and prescriptions included in the accreditation criteria (Hedmo et al., 2005, p. 203). By their inclusive and imitative function, accreditations serve to spread and stabilize prevailing institutional values, rules, models, and ideas among organizations occupying same social landscape (cf. DiMaggio & Powell, 1983, p. 152; Hedmo et al., 2006, p. 309). Ranking and its impact on an organization’s reputation influences the status positions of organizations and embeds organizations in status hierarchies that shape relations within relevant fields (Rao, 1994; Sauder, 2006). Ranking and reputational status thereby also signal an organization’s propensity to actively adopt and respond to revised or innovative methods, criteria, and principles for assessment (Sauder, 2006). Thus, rankings order organizations with respect to their abilities, values, and assumptions, not only in terms of what is considered proper and legitimate, but also what is considered competitive and distinctive (Elsbach & Kramer, 1996; Martins, 2005; Rao, 1994). Ranking systems Much of the work on rankings in the reputation literature involves identifying and understanding the various ranking systems available. While there have been various forms of public rankings of organizations conducted especially through the media, the surge of interest in and proliferation of ranking systems has emerged concurrent with the emergence of reputation in the literature. The Reputation Institute identified 183 ranking systems across 38 Accreditation and rankings 11 countries (Fombrun, 2007). The majority of the lists were based on whether an organization was a good place to work for, or on overall reputation. The remaining public lists rated or ranked firms on the basis of citizenship, performance, innovation, governance, or products (Fombrun, 2007). The reputation rankings are not based on financial performance but on “soft(-er)” factors such as citizenship and governance (Fombrun, 2007). The variety of reputation ranking lists and the criteria on which they assess firms are in themselves the subject of study (Campbell & Sherman, 2010). One of the chief issues with the reputation ranking lists is being able to compare the outcomes for each firm. There are two key reasons for the differences in ranking outcomes for firms between ranking systems. The first is the methodology used to assess reputation. The second is the differences in the criteria upon which firms are assessed (Schultz et al., 2001). These differences create significant variation between which organizations feature high on the lists and raise questions about the value of reputation rankings as a measure of organizational performance and value (Portfolio.com, 2008). From a communicative perspective however, high rankings are an important indicator that communicate with stakeholders about the organization’s relative worth. As such, achieving a ranking, especially a high level one, provides a distinctive attribute that forms part of an organization’s identity. Such symbols of status provide useful references to facilitate identification and alignment with an organization by both insiders and outsiders to the organization (Hatch & Schultz, 1997). This again highlights the strategic turn organizations have taken in seeking to manage legitimacy and reputation. Strategic action around reputation If reputation is relative and future-looking, the role of legitimacy accreditation and rankings play important roles in the mechanisms of reputation. These roles rely on two Accreditation and rankings 12 elements which we will now discuss—the strategic communication work of organizations to show that they are legitimate and to highlight the dimensions in which they are distinctive; and the assessment work by a variety of social actors to rate organizational legitimacy. Organizations’ strategic attempts to manage legitimacy The journal Corporate Reputation Review highlights the fact that understanding reputation is a multidisciplinary arena that brings together various views around the concept (Fombrun & van Riel, 1997). Earlier in this chapter, we focused on the contribution that sociological perspectives and organization theory make to understanding the accreditation and ranking dimensions of reputation. This literature noted the strategic attempts of various social actors to shape perceptions of organizational compliance and alignment with social standards and to make comparisons between organizations and their attributes. This highlights the role of communication in the phenomena surrounding reputation, a role considered in both the management and communication literatures. Within the management literature, one stream of legitimacy research focuses on the rhetoric for obtaining legitimacy for action. As Erkama and Vaara (2010) noted, legitimacy is actively sought through different rhetorical strategies. The dynamics of legitimation involve justifying actions, decisions, and structures by means of well-known rhetorical strategies such as logos (rational arguments), pathos (emotional arguments), and ethos (reference to authority), as well as what these authors call autopoeisis (auto-communication or selfinvented narratives about who we are; for example correspondence with self-formulated strategies or visions) and cosmos (a reference to “predetermined” inevitable change mechanisms at a higher societal level). Such strategies are of course not only a possibility for management, but also a possibility for individuals or groups trying to resist management action or plans, for example, those related to shutdowns of production sites. From this Accreditation and rankings 13 perspective, legitimacy is a resource emanating from a discursive struggle. As Vaara and Tienari (2008) noted, such a struggle may involve the use of different discursive elements like authorization (legitimation by referring to authority), rationalization (legitimacy based on perceived utility of action), moralization (values-based legitimation), and mythopoesis (legitimation through narratives). Erkama and Vaara (2010) see a particularly prominent role for autopoeisis as a strategy for advancing legitimacy in a sensitive shutdown case of a production site. This strategy has to do with what the organization formulates its nature and identity to be. Institutions that have deeply rooted self-images (such as educational institutions) often try to strengthen this identity through spelling out codes and other documents that endorse this self-image. Communication scholars have also contributed to our understanding in numerous ways. Corporate Reputation Review emphasizes the role of corporate communication in managing reputation. Van Riel (1997) suggested that strategic and integrated corporate communication is one of the most promising ways for organizations to manage their reputation. Van Riel (1995) argued that coordinated communication activities from advertising, marketing, and public relations departments within the organization are significant contributors to perceptions of the organization. This view suggests that communication about the organization’s identity results in images of the organization. From this perspective, the images held by multiple stakeholders over time create the reputation of an organization (van Riel, 1995). Such communication is not only an externally focused matter. Communication to employees is also the subject of significant attention in the literature. Research on image and identity highlights the integral role of employees in the process. This was first noted with the suggestion that employees play a significant role in influencing the image of an organization Accreditation and rankings 14 (Kennedy, 1977). Every time an employee has an interaction with another stakeholder, especially one outside the organization, he or she is bringing to life the identity of that organization (Hatch & Schultz, 1997). Employees play an active role both in presenting the corporate identity to those outside the organization and in translating insights into how the organizational image back into the organization which can further shape the identity and image symbols (Hatch & Schultz, 2002). For example, Dutton, Dukerich, and Harquail (1994) showed in the Port Authority case that when an organization’s legitimacy was questioned, that employees’ individual identity was also challenged. In the Port Authority case, employees were active in influencing management to change corporate practices to influence the organization’s legitimacy. This suggests that organizations need to actively substantiate their reputation with employees across the organization. Fombrun (2007) argued that it is imperative to communicate reputation to managers as well as how to use it and what it means for them. Similarly, Dowling (2007) discussed the importance of storytelling with employees in order to continue to highlight and substantiate the distinctive elements of the organization’s reputation, and to therefore replicate these areas of differentiation. This focus on the role of corporate communication in influencing reputation has also led to suggestions that this organizational function is in fact responsible for reputation. This is an assumption and claim made often by practitioners and is reflected in the number of public relations firms that describe their practices as reputation management (Bartlett & Hill, 2007). However, this claim is problematic as it can lead to claiming responsibility for aspects of reputation which are outside the control of the communication professional (Hutton, Goodman, Alexander, & Genest, 2001). Hutton et al. (2001) noted that because reputation is considered on a range of organizational attributes such as product quality, governance, leadership qualities, and the like, the communication professional cannot be responsible for such attributes and therefore for reputation as a whole. Accreditation and rankings 15 Particular attention has been paid to the role of the media in relation to legitimacy, reputation, and ranking. This has been examined from two perspectives. The first has focused on the influence of the media as a communication channel on reputation. Given the prior discussion on corporate communication, this perspective views the role of the media in firms’ strategic communication attempts to influence and manage reputation. The second perspective, which we will discuss later, focuses on the media as social actors in their own right. This allows us to consider the media’s role in ranking reputations. As Deephouse and Suchman (2008) noted, studies are increasingly using different sources through which legitimacy can be measured or estimated—for example, media statements, certification, licensing, endorsements, and links to prestigious organizations. This management perspective highlights the role of media in disseminating information about organizational attributes that in turn contributes to the perception of an organization’s legitimacy. From the communication perspective, Carroll and McCombs (2003) investigated the influence of media coverage on reputation. Drawing on the influential work on the role of media agenda setting, Carroll and McCombs (2003) posited that just as media agendas can influence the salience and attributes of political issues and opinions, media coverage can also influence opinions about corporate reputation. For example, media coverage about an organization achieving a particular certification or accreditation then influences opinion about that organization. The individual level effects on opinions contribute to how organizations and corporate activities are perceived to comply with social and institutionalized norms (accreditation), but also to a cognitive ranking schema of organizations in relation to one another. The media also play a role as social actors in their own right in shaping perceptions of an organization and influencing elements related to reputation. Through this lens, the media Accreditation and rankings 16 are playing a purposive role in reputation and legitimacy management. In the organization theory literature, the role of the media has been understood as that of a legitimating agent (Deephouse & Suchman, 2008), conferring legitimacy on organizations and corporate practices. This provides a useful perspective from which to consider the role of both accreditation and ranking. Rather than seeing the media as merely providing information about an organization for individual audience members to make sense of, this perspective highlights the role of the media as social actors in determining what is appropriate at a societal level. In such a view, the role of the media is emphasized—alongside those of other institutional intermediaries such as academia, consultants, and industry associations—as central for building an organization’s reputation. The extent and patterns of media coverage are directly involved in the way an organization’s reputation accumulates and evolves, not least by way of the media’s varying focus on different reputational components such as visibility, level of distinctiveness, and tenor (cf. Greenwood, Li, Prakash, & Deephouse, 2005; Rindova, Petkova, & Kotha, 2007). As Pollock and Rindova (2003) found, media visibility has a strong effect not only on name recognition of a firm, but also on the firm’s market and financial performance (see also Jonsson & Buhr, 2010; Jonsson, Greve, & Fujiwara-Greve, 2009). The ability of the media to influence the social status of individual organizations (i.e., reputation) is in this context intimately related to the proliferation of media products such as rankings, certifications, and accreditations (Fombrun, 1998; Power, et al., 2009). These are often mentioned as major drivers of the way organizations are perceived, evaluated, and acted upon (Deephouse, 2000; Fombrun, 1998; Pollock & Rindova, 2003). Rhee and Valdez (2009), in discussing how organizational age and diversity of market segmentation influence Accreditation and rankings 17 stakeholders’ perception of an organization, included media-based quality ratings, winning awards, and certifications as contributing both to reputational damage and to organizational ability to retain a positive stand. As discussed earlier in the chapter, ranking and accreditations work differently in their ability to discriminate between organizations sharing join social contexts (ranking) and the extent to which organizations are perceived as following normative prescriptions and constraints (accreditations). Through the publishing of ranking lists, awards, and accreditations, the media’s involvement in reputation building is connected to their function to 1) affiliate organizations with prominent/deviant field members; and 2) spread and proliferate moral and professional norms, values, and expectations (Carey, 1992; Jonsson & Buhr, 2010; Jonsson, et al., 2009; Rao, Davis, & Ward, 2000; Wry, Deephouse, & McNamara, 2006). The later form of media involvement in reputation building—the creation, translation, and distribution of models, ideas, and other normative thoughts about what an organization is, should be, or wants to be—is also a part of the identity formation of individual organizations as well as the contexts (e.g., organizational fields) that the organizations are a part of (SahlinAndersson & Engwall, 2002). Media-framed identity formation and its evaluation and categorization is a central part of reputational status because it addresses the increasing need of organizations to clarify and communicate who they are, what they stand for, and what moral standards they are built upon (Chun, 2005; Schultz, Hatch, & Holten Larsen, 2000). The way in which organizations can access and influence media and their coverage has far-reaching consequences not only for their immediate market and financial performance, but also for their long-term ability to build institutional foundations—such as reputation and legitimacy—for their survival (Motion & Weaver, 2005; Pallas & Fredriksson, 2010). Meijer and Kleinnijenhuis (2006) showed in the context of business news how the Accreditation and rankings 18 second-level effect of agenda-setting influences the reputation of organizations. They not only confirmed earlier findings concerning the way news about a certain issue stimulated the salience of that issue, they also introduced an ownership perspective, suggesting that if organizations are perceived as not controlling the issue, they may also suffer of reputation losses (see also Eisenegger & Imhof, 2008; Schultzet al., 2001). NGOs, consultants, and other social actors Ranking the reputation of organizations has also been taken up by NGOs and business consultancies and contributes to the plethora of ranking systems. The notion of transparency as a business imperative around social and environmental activities has evolved from the central neo-liberal market principle that open information facilitates efficient markets (Nadesan, 2011). While governments have not regulated this sector as they have financial markets, they have supported the role of NGOs in providing checking and monitoring systems for business activity that might contribute to reputation (Nadesan, 2011). Rindova, Williamson, Petkova, & Sever (2005) conceptualized reputation as including two elements: economic and marketing attributes that illustrate organization’s ability to generate desirable products and services and thereby economic profit, and institutional recognition that places organizations in a context of larger societal settings such as organizational fields (see also Wedlin, 2006). Even though the latter has been found to be more decisive in terms of the effect on organizational reputation (Rindova, et al., 2005), contemporary research suggests that both of these components are necessary to understand the accumulative/historical and relative evaluation of organizational performance (Jonsson & Buhr, 2010; Rindova, Pollock, & Hayward, 2006) . Ranking is also a commercial arena where different actors compete with each other to establish their own criteria for inclusion and exclusion. It is notable, for instance, that ranking Accreditation and rankings 19 indices are managed by private consulting firms. One example is the Dow Jones Sustainability Indices, where the Swiss consulting firm SAM plays a constitutive role in assessing the sustainability performance of companies from all industries. Following a bestin-class approach, companies are evaluated against a number of long-term economic, social, and environmental criteria. Indices may also be values-based (only including companies living up to certain values) or compiled according to other criteria. Often, commercial actors like KLD combine these indexing and rating services with the screening of companies according to social or environmental investment criteria with other traditional consulting services. It is evident that corporate ranking and reputation has created a commercial industry marked by active product and service innovation. For companies and other ranked or rated institutions, the downside of this is not only the risk of reputational loss but also the burden of information placed on them by the actors in the field. Non-synchronized forms and questionnaires from a variety of competing actors must be filled out, and this task becomes in itself a full-time duty for employees, for example at the communications or CSR departments (cf. Dubbink, Graafland, & van Liedekerke, 2008). One should also bear in mind that media rankings are often carried out with the assistance of commercial actors. One example is the Newsweek 2010 Green Ranking, an assessment of the largest companies in the U.S. and in the world. These rankings were the result of teamwork between Newsweek and three commercial research organizations within the environmental field. This also shows that there is not only a connection between the media and NGOs when it comes to monitoring companies (Grafström, Göthberg, & Windell, 2008), but also between commercial organizations and the media in terms of ranking and rating. One corollary of the expansion of the ranking industry is that intermediaries, such as consultancies, play a dual role when it comes to ranking and reputation. They are part of the Accreditation and rankings 20 ranking industry while at the same time benefitting from the existence of the ranking industry because they assist commercial actors and others in the quest for improving reputations. And recently, a new arena for consultants has been created by the rise of social media, where the ranking and rating industry to some extent becomes privatized. Academic literature on the relationship between social media and reputation is still limited, but parallels can be made; social media provides a broadcast form of word of mouth that has impacts in terms of both dissemination of information in the same way that traditional mass media have functioned. However, social media has an added dimension of personal influence in that the information from person to person influences the perceptions of the subject (Katz & Lazarsfeld, 1964). If we consider reputation as largely based on perceptions, then social media raises numerous issues about organizations’ ability to attempt to manage perceptions of the organization. It also allows a range of social actors to influence large numbers of people about organizations and organizational attributes. Scholarly tensions and future research While reputation has been a central concern for practitioners, there has been relatively little attention paid to accreditation and ranking in the communication literature. As noted earlier, much of the literature around reputation arises from an applied area of corporate communication that encompasses public relations, integrated marketing communication, and employee communication. There is also an arm of marketing literature devoted to image, identity and branding, and reputation that is significant. Media and reputation work is arguably the most theoretically sophisticated. The concept of the reputation ranking process, however, is inherent within all these discussions, as previously mentioned, in terms of their role in capturing future expectations (Deephouse & Suchman, 2008) and relativity (Deephouse & Carter, 2005). Accreditation and rankings 21 Much of the existing work has considered the role of reputation—which is inherently work on rankings—as an antecedent or consequence of various organizational performance factors. For example, the relationship between financial performance and reputation has been noted. These are not overtly the domain of communication scholars. The role of communication has centered more on the communication or dissemination of reputation attributes, accreditations, and rankings to influence perception of an organization. Van Riel (1995), for example, suggested that this is one of the most important contributors to reputation for an organization. This process, however, can be understood at multiple levels. The first is from the organization’s perspective, focusing on their strategic approach to communicating the distinctive attributes of their business while also managing the legitimacy of their business or alignment with existing rules. The second focuses on the role of the channels of this communication. The third focuses on the perception formation of the communicated attributes and on reputation. Strategic communication, reputation, rankings, and accreditation The role of communication in seeking to strategically manage reputation is prominent in the literature, which leads us to consider the structure-agency debate. At present, the applied communication perspective of communication and reputation reflects a largely instrumental approach to reputation which emphasizes the agentic approach. However, the implications at a macro level is that multiple organizations engaging in the reputation ranking competition creates effects in its own right. At one level, the largely instrumental approach institutionalizes the emphasis on organizational performance on non-financial measures, which aligns with the corporate social responsibility movement and the triple bottom line imperative for organizations. It also is related to governance and transparency movements where, again, a range of organizational matters are of importance for executives. Accreditation and rankings 22 Channel The internal-external dimension of employees’ impacting how their firm is perceived also opens up a host of research opportunities for examining the role of employees as channels of communication related to reputation. Hatch and Schultz (1997; 2002) have discussed the intertwining of the internal and external aspects of how organizations seek to construct what is distinctive about them, and also the role of employees in interpreting and enacting those desired images. There is also a literature on “dirty work” (Ashforth & Kreiner, 1999, p.?) and the role of employees in managing their own and the organization’s reputation when that reputation is very poor. This highlights the paradox of organizations that can continue to operate and be considered legitimate, while at the same time having a poor reputation. This requires us to consider the implications of rating and accreditations in the perception formation process. Accreditations and ratings are evaluated and awarded by specific social actors (e.g., formal accreditation bodies, the media, NGOs). The question is how the achievement of accreditation and ranking is communicated to others, how perceptions are formed, and what the implications are for other relationships and dimensions of the organization- stakeholder relationship. There is an assumption that a good ranking leads to greater access to resources. This further suggests that the perceptions of some stakeholders are more important than others, particularly in relation to their ability to provide access to resources. Therefore, the instrumental suggestion that good employee communication is important for reputation requires far deeper exploration and understanding. This might relate to how knowledge of accreditation and ranking may boost the identification between employee and organization and, in turn, higher levels of service provision, third party endorsement, and problem solving. Accreditation and rankings 23 The existing consideration of the role of employees in the third party endorsement process also requires extension as the boundaries of organizations continue to expand. As noted earlier, to date there has been limited empirical research on the role of social media in relation to reputation, and while there is considerable interest in the topic, this work remains in its nascent stages. However, social media open up organizational boundaries in two ways. First, social media give stakeholders who are perceived to have credible knowledge about an organization a platform from which their views may be constructed, accessed, and disseminated. This is particularly so in an environment characterized by increased distrust and lack of confidence in organizational operations (Frostenson et al., 2010). Second, the potential reach in disseminating information about the organization through social media is global. Role of evaluating organizations Constructing the guidelines for accreditation and ranking organizations opens up important questions about communication—not for the focal organizations who are the subject of reputation rankings, but for those organizations creating and employing the guidelines. These groups often include NGOs, media, and social movement groups (Engwall et al., forthcoming). The management literature has paid little attention to these groups, particularly in relation to legitimacy (Deephouse & Carter, 2005). The role of these groups in the broader process of constructing the norms underpinning accreditation and ranking also opens up theoretical research opportunities. The social constructionist perspective, for example, can be useful in this task. Because societies, legitimacy, and evaluation standards are constantly evolving (Meyer & Rowan, 1977), the role of communication in the processes through which this takes place offers important opportunities for further research. One perspective is on the role of communication as organization (Taylor & van Every, 2000; Cooren, 1999) so that communication constitutes the organization and the meaning of its Accreditation and rankings 24 attributes. Lammers and Barbour (2006) also suggested that the insights on the social construction of reality (Berger & Luckmann, 1966) from institutional theory (Meyer & Rowan, 1977) can also add macro level perspectives to understanding communication phenomena. These perspectives allow communication and management studies to inform each other in relation to how communication studies allow us to understand the ways that social norms develop and how accreditation and ranking systems evolve. Doing this allows a shift in the exploration of reputation away from the instrumental perspective, which is largely at the level of the organization and management of perceptions, to a broader perspective from which legitimacy and reputation as social norms and organizational differentiation can be studied. Conclusion In this chapter, we have examined the role of accreditation and rankings in relation to studies of corporate reputation. Given that reputation is a matter of relative standing between organizations, accreditation and ranking provide ways to examine the inclusion and exclusion of organizations, as well as the order of standing among competitors. We noted that both the management and communication literatures have been involved in research on these topics, and both provide insights into the reputation process. The two literatures also suggest a host of interesting and important future studies that offer greater understanding of the dynamics of reputation ranging from the micro, across the meso, and up to the macro level of analysis. Given the emphasis in industry on the importance of reputation, and the claims by the public relations industry, in particular in regards to reputation management, there are significant opportunities for the academic research to further inform this area of organizational life. Accreditation and rankings 25 References Abrahamson, E. (1996). Management fashion. Academy of Management Review, 21, 254285. Ashforth, B. E., & Kreiner, G. E. (1999). How can you do it?: Dirty work and the challenge of constructing positive identity. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 413-434. Barnett (2006). Bartlett, J. L., & Hill, H. (2007). Footprints in the sand: Insights into the public relations profession in Queensland. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Relations, 8(1), 109-120. Beck (1994). Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New York: Anchor Books. Bromley, D. B. (2000). Psychological aspects of corporate identity, image and reputation. Corporate Reputation Review, 3(3), 240-252. Campbell, K., & Sherman, W. R. (2010). Lists and more lists: Making sense of corporate reputations. Journal of Business and Economics Research, 8(7), 47-58. Carey, J. W. (1992). Communication as culture: Essays on media and society (Repr. ed.). New York: Routledge. Carroll & McCombs (2003) Chun, R. (2005). Corporate reputation: Meaning and measurement. International Journal of Management Reviews, 7(2), 91-109. Cooren, F. (1999). The organizing property of communication. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins. Deephouse, D. L. (2000). Media reputation as a strategic resource: An integration of mass communication and resource-based theories. Journal of Management, 26(6), 10911112. Deephouse, D. L., & Carter, S. (2005). An examination of differences between organizational legitimacy and organizational reputation. Journal of Management Studies, 42(2), 329360. Deephouse, D. L., & Suchman, M. C. (2008). Legitimacy in organizational institutionalism. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 49-77). London, UK: Sage. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160. Djelic & Sahlin (2006) Dowling (1994) Dubbink, W., Graafland, J., & van Liedekerke, L. (2008). CSR, transparency and the role of intermediate organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 82,391–406. Dutton, Dukerich, & Harquail (1994) Eisenegger, M., & Imhof, K. (2008). The true, the good and the beautiful: Reputation management in the media society. In A. Zerfass, B. Ruler & K. Sriramesh (Eds.), Public relations research (pp. 125-146). Place: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Elsbach & Kramer (1996). Engwall et al. (forthcoming) Erkama, N., & Vaara, E. (2010). Struggles over legitimacy in global organizational restructuring: A theoretical perspective on legitimation strategies and dynamics in a shutdown case. Organization Studies, 31, 813-839. Fombrun, C. J. (1997) Accreditation and rankings 26 Fombrun, C. J. (1998). Indices of corporate reputation: An analysis of media rankings and social monitors' ratings. Corporate Reputation Review, 1(4), 327-340. Fombrun, C. J. (2007). List of lists: A compilation of international corporate reputation ratings. Corporate Reputation Review, 10(2), 144-153. Fombrun, C. J., & Shanley, M. (1990). What's in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 233 - 258. Fombrun, C., & van Riel, C. (1997). The reputational landscape, Corporate Reputation Review, 1(1-2), 5-13. Frostenson et al. (2010). Gardberg, N. A., & Fombrun, C. J. (2002). The global reputation quotient project: First steps towards a cross-nationally valid measure of corporate reputation. Corporate Reputation Review, 4(4), 303-303-307. Grafström, M., Göthberg, P., & Windell, K. (2008). CSR: Företagsansvar I förändring, Liber, Malmö. Greenwood, R., Li, S. X., Prakash, R., & Deephouse, D. L. (2005). Reputation, diversification, and organizational explanations of performance in professional service firms. Organization Science, 16(6), 661-673. Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Sahlin, K., & Suddaby, R. (2008). Introduction. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 1-46). London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. (1997). Relations between organizational culture, identity and image. European Journal of Marketing, 31(5/6), 356-365. Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. (2002). The dynamics of organizational identity. Human Relations, 55(8), 989. Hedmo et al. (2005) Hedmo et al. (2006). Hillenbrand & Money (2007). Hutton, J., Goodman, M., Alexander, J., & Genest, C. (2001). Reputation management: the new face of corporate public relations? Public Relations Review, 27(3), 247-261. Jacobsson & Sahlin-Andersson (2006). Jonsson, S., & Buhr, H. (2010). The limits of media effects: Field positions and cultural change in a mutual fund market. Organizatinal Science, Articles in Advance. Jonsson, S., Greve, H. R., & Fujiwara-Greve, T. (2009). Lost without deserving: The spread of legitimacy loss in response to reported corporate deviance. Administrative Science Quarterly. Katz, E., & Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1964). Personal influence: the part played by people in the flow of mass communication. New York: Free Press. Kennedy, S. H. (1977). Nurturing corporate images: Total communication or ego trip? European Journal of Marketing, 11(3), 120-164. Lammers, J. C., & Barbour, J. B. (2006). An institutional theory of organizational communication. Communication Theory, 16, 356-377. Martins (2005). Mazza, C., &Alvarez, J. L. (2000). Haute couture and Prêt-à-Porter: The popular press and the diffusion of management practices. Organization Studies, 21(3), 567-588. McKee (2005) Meijer, M.M., & Kleinnijenhuis, J. (2006). Issue news and corporate reputation: Applying the theories of agenda setting and issue ownership in the field of business communication. Journal of Communication, 56(3), 543-559. Meyer, J.W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340-363. Accreditation and rankings 27 Mörth (2004). Motion, J., & Weaver, C. K. (2005). The epistemic struggle for credibility: Rethinking media relations. Journal of Communication Management, 9(3), 246–255. Pallas, J., & Fredriksson, M. (2010). Providing, promoting and co-opting: Corporate media work in a mediatized society. Journal of Communication Management, Accepted for publication. Pfeffer, J., Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations. New York: Harper & Row. Pollock, T. G., & Rindova, V. P. (2003). Media legitimation effects in the market for initial public offerings, Academy of Management Journal, 46, 631-642. Portfolio.com (Producer). (2008, 25 January 2010). Heroes and Zeros in Corporate America. website Power (1997). Power (2007). Power, M., Scheytt, T., Soin, K., & Sahlin, K. (2009). Reputational risk as a logic of organizing in late modernity. Organization Studies, 30(2-3), 301-324. Rao, H. (1994) Rao, H., Davis, G. F., & Ward, A. (2000). Embeddedness, social identity and mobility: Why firms leave the NASDAQ and join the New York Stock Exchange. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(2), 268-292 Rhee, M., & Valdez, M. E. (2009). Contextual surrounding reputation damage with potential implication for reputation repair. Academy of Management Review, 34(1), 146-168. Rindova, V. P., Petkova, A. P., & Kotha, S. (2007). Standing out: how new firms in emerging markets build reputation. Strategic Organization, 5(1), 31-70. Rindova, V. P., Pollock, T. G., & Hayward, M. L. A. (2006). Celebrity firms: The construction of market popularity. Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 50-71. Rindova, V. P., Williamson, I. O., Petkova, A. P., & Sever, J. M. (2005). Being good or being known: An empirical examination of the dimensions, antecedents, and consequences of organizational reputation. Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), 1033-1049. Røvik, K.A. (2004). Moderna organizationer – trender inom organizationstänkandet vid millennieskiftet, Liber, Malmö. Sahlin, K., Wedlin, L. (2008). Circulating ideas: Imitation, translation and editing. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver. K. Sahlin and R. Suddaby (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism (pp. 218-242). London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Sahlin-Andersson, K., & Engwall, L. (Eds.). (2002). The expansion of management knowledge: Carriers, flows, and sources. Stanford, Ca: Stanford University Press. Saunder (2006) Saunder (2008) Saunder & Espeland (2009). Schultz, M., Hatch, M. J., & Holten Larsen, M. (Eds.). (2000). The expressive organization: Linking identity,reputation, and the corporate brand. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Schultz, M., Mouritsen, J., & Gabrielsen, G. (2001). Sticky reputation: Analyzing a ranking system. Corporate Reputation Review, 4(1), 24-41. Schwarz & Westerheijden (2005). Scott (2000). Sherer, P.D. and Lee, K. (2002), Institutional change in large law firms: A resource dependency and institutional perspective, Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 102-119. Solove (2007) Accreditation and rankings 28 Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571-610. Taylor & van Every (2000). Vaara & Tienari (2008) van Riel, C. B. (1995). Principles of corporate communication. London: Prentice Hall. van Riel, C. B. (1997). Wedlin, L. (2006). Ranking business schools: Forming fields, identities, and boundaries in international management education. Northhampton, MA: Edward Elgar Pub. Wedlin, L. (2007). Wry, T., Deephouse, D. L., & McNamara, G. (2006). Substantive and evaluative media reputations among and within cognitive strategic groups. Corporate Reputation Review, 9, 225-242. Accreditation and rankings 29 BIOGRAPHIES Jennifer Bartlett (Ph.D., Queensland University of Technology, 2007) is senior lecturer in the School of Advertising, Marketing, and Public Relations at the School of Business at Queensland University of Technology, Australia. Her research has been published in the Public Relations Review, the Asia Pacific Journal of Public Relations,the Journal of Communication Management, and the Australian Journal of Communication. She serves on the editorial boards of Prism: The Online Public Relations Journal in Australia and New Zealand. Bartlett is the previous Secretary and incoming Vice-Chair of the International Communication Association’s Public Relations division. She is also a Fellow of the Public Relations Institute of Australia (PRIA). Josef Pallas Josef Pallas (Ph.D.) is lecturer and researcher in the Department of Business Studies and the Department of Informatics and Media at Uppsala University. His research focuses mainly on the increased mediatization of the Western economy and the implications this has for the way modern organizations are governed. He is co-author and co-editor of number of books/book chapters as well as of journal articles and reports dealing with the topics of mediatization, corporate communications, and corporate governance. Magnus Frostenson