It is undeniable that corporate social responsibility (CSR) occupies an important place in managerial practice, but also in academic circles. Due to the strengthening of competition between companies, and the constant need for companies to be sustainable in a market and innovative sense, it becomes clear that it is necessary to integrate social responsibility into the company's business. Corporate social responsibility activities, which will be the subject of analysis, are in theory synthesized in the form of economic, legal, ethical and philanthropic activities. These corporate social responsibility activities should intuitively lead to building a positive reputation for the company. Reputation is an intangible but long-term investment. In the modern economy, where due to the speed of information transfer, it is very difficult to hide something, building a reputation is seen as one of the basic challenges of any company. The research focuses on the connection between the activities of corporate social responsibility and the reputation of large companies in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Therefore, the paper analyzes the perception of managers about the connection of corporate social responsibility activities with the reputation of large and medium companies in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The main goal of this paper is to examine the perception of managers about the relationship between corporate social responsibility activities and the reputation of companies in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Alvarado H, Schlesinger M. Dimensionalidad de la responsabilidad social empresarial percibida y sus efectos sobre la imagen y la reputación: Una aproximación desde el modelo de Carroll. Estudios Gerenciales. 2008;24(108):37–59.
Brammer S, Millington A. Corporate Reputation and Philanthropy—An Empirical Analysis. Journal of Business Ethics. 2005;61:29–44.
4.
Carroll A. A three-dimensional model of corporate performance. Academy of Management Review. 1979;4(4):497–505.
5.
Cretu AE, Brodie RJ. The influence of brand image and company reputation where manufacturers market to small firms: A customer value perspective. Industrial Marketing Management. 2007;36:230–40.
6.
Deephouse DL, Carter SM. An examination of differences between organizational legitimacy and organizational reputation. Journal of Management Studies. 2005;42(2):329–60.
7.
Fombrun CJ, Gardberg NA, Sever JM. The reputation quotient: a multi-stakeholder measure of corporate reputation. Journal of Brand Management. 2000;7(4):241.
8.
Fombrun C, Riel C. The reputational landscape. Corporate Reputation Review. 1997;1(1–2):5–13.
9.
Foreman J, Argenti PA. How corporate communication inufluences strategy implementation, reputation and the corporate brand: an exploratory qualitative study. Corporate Reputation Review. 2005;8(3):245–64.
10.
Gardberg N, Fombrun C. The Global Reputation Quotient Project: First steps towards a cross-nationally valid measure of corporate reputation. Corporate Reputation Review. 2002;4(4):303–7.
11.
Hatch MJ, Schultz M. Are the strategic stars aligned for your corporate brand? Harvard Business Review. 2001;79(2):128–34.
12.
Huang YH. Trust and relational commitment in corporate crises: the effects of crisis communicative strategy and form of crisis response. Journal of Public Relations Research. 2008;20(3):297–327.
13.
Jones R. Finding sources of brand value: Developing a stakeholder model of brand equity. Brand Management. 2005;13(1):10–32.
14.
Ker-Tah H. The advertising effects of corporate social responsibility on corporate reputation and brand equity: Evidence from the life insurance industry in Taiwan. Journal of Business Ethics. 2012;109:189–201.
15.
Lai CS, Chiu CJ, Yang CF, Pai DC. The effects of corporate social responsibility on brand performance: The mediating effect of industrial brand equity and corporate reputation. Journal of Business Ethics. 2010;95(1):457–69.
16.
Mahon JF. Corporate reputation: a research agenda using strategy and stakeholder literature. Business & Society. 2002;41(4):415–45.
17.
Mahon JF, Wartick SL. Dealing with stakeholders: how reputation, credibility and framing influence the game. Corporate Reputation Review. 2003;6(1):19–35.
18.
McWilliams A, Siegel DS. Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review. 2001;26(1):117–27.
19.
McWilliams A, Siegel D, Wright PM. Corporate social responsibility. Strategic implicationsJournal of Management Studies. 2006;43(1):1–18.
20.
Meijer M, Kleinnijenhuis J. Issue news and corporate reputation: applying the theories of agenda setting and issue ownership in the field of business communication. Journal of Communication. 2006;56(3):543–59.
21.
Melewar TC, Karaosmanoglu E, Paterson D. Corporate identity: concept, components and contribution. Journal of General Management. 2005;31(1):59–81.
22.
Schwartz M, Carroll AB. Corporate social responsibility: a three domain approach. Business Ethics Quarterly. 2003;13(4):503–30.
23.
Tan GYW, Komaran RV. Perceptions of Corporate Social Responsibility: An Empirical Study in Singapore. In: Strategic Management Policy International Conference on Advances in Management Lisbon. 2006. p. 1–14.
24.
Werther WB, Chandler D. Strategic corporate social responsibility as a global brand insurance. Business Horizons. 2005;48(4):317–24.
25.
Zietsma CE, Winn MI. Building chains and directing flows: Strategies and tactics of mutual infeuence in stakeholder conflicts. Business and Society. 2008;47:68–01.
Citation
Copyright
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
