Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
the totality of emotional and intellectual disposition towards an organization that derives from
the assumptions, perceptions and beliefs about what an organization is, how it is run and what
it stands for.
This dei nition highlights how reputation is a non-tradable intangible resource stem-
ming from a development process over time that depends on past events and choices.
Moreover, reputation plays a signii cant role in the time-space distribution of routines
through the so-called 'routine replication process' (Boschma and Frenken, 2006; Kogut
and Zander, 1993). The latter is partial and imperfect, thus it leads to a contingent adap-
tation that stimulates variety (Boschma and Frenken, 2006).
An interesting study by Cambridge University (Brady, 2002) deepens the sources of
this emotional and intellectual disposition and suggests that corporate reputation is
grounded on seven factors:
1. emotional connections;
2. social credibility;
3. leadership, vision and desire;
4. knowledge and skills;
5. quality;
6. i nancial credibility;
7. environmental credibility.
The dynamics of these elements develop the i rm reputation that is the result of a wide
signalling activity (Fombrun and Shanley, 1990; Shapiro, 1983) based on available infor-
mation on the above-mentioned factors. However, reputation is also shaped over time
by the individual perception and interpretation of this signalling activity among i rms,
customers and other stakeholders (Fombrun, 2001; Kreps and Wilson, 1980). Three
determining factors of reputation are very similar to the mentioned sources of 'relational
trust': emotional connections (1), social credibility (2) and leadership (3). While three
more elements seem closely connected to the concept of 'competence-based trust' and
in general to more objective characteristics of the i rm: knowledge and skills (4), quality
(5), i nancial credibility (6). Environmental credibility (7) can be considered as a constant
within local clusters, since it is connected to context-specii c factors.
If dif erent forms of trust exist, then reputation is also a complex phenomenon char-
acterized by dif erent forms (Cao and Schniederjans, 2006). Therefore, according to the
taxonomy adopted in this study, we can introduce a distinction between
relational repu-
tation
and
competence- based reputation
.
We expect that relational trust af ects relational reputation (Aringhieri et al., 2006).
It means that network structure inl uences i rm variety. The degree of reputation is cor-
related to local social capital and past experiences known and shared by all local network
nodes (Nooteboom and Gilsing, 2004) and especially concerns factors such as emotional
connections, social credibility and leadership capability. A i rm that informs another one
about a positive [negative] business experience with a third i rm, can increase [decrease]
the reputation degree of the latter, especially when there is a strong trust relation between
the two i rms that have shared the information about that business experience (Köszegi,
2002; Zucker, 1986). This feeds the selection process of partners and routines. Trust and
past experiences create a cognitive map of social identities and reputation about each
