Enhancing Business Decision Making through a New Corporate Reputation Measurement Model: Practical Application in a Supplier Selection Process
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper is well founded and very complex which gives it consistency. The model used is a useful one for improving the decision-making process in the field of managing the company's corporate reputation. The importance of the model used lies in the integration of sustainability by including variables related to sustainable practices in the measurement of corporate reputation. Thus, key factors are used in the evaluation of corporate reputation, such as social responsibility, business ethics, environmental management.
The observations are minor, namely
In section 4 of the paper, the number of the figure, respectively Figure 7, must be mentioned.
In section 6 of the paper, at the end of paragraph 1, table 10 should be added, respectively tables 5.10.11 instead of 5.10.
Author Response
Thank you sincerely for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our paper. We appreciate your positive assessment of the paper's foundation and complexity, highlighting the consistency it brings. Your recognition of the utility of the model for enhancing decision-making in corporate reputation management is encouraging.
We also appreciate your acknowledgment of the significance of the model's integration of sustainability, incorporating variables related to sustainable practices in the assessment of corporate reputation.
We have proceeded to address the two mentioned errors. Firstly, regarding Figure 7, we have labeled it in Section 4 of the document. Similarly, we have made the necessary corrections for the references to Tables 5 and 10 in Section 6.
Thank you once again for your valuable feedback.
Point 1: In section 4 of the paper, the number of the figure, respectively Figure 7, must be mentioned.
Response 1: Thank you for this recommendation. Reference to figure 4 is included.
Point 2: In section 6 of the paper, at the end of paragraph 1, table 10 should be added, respectively tables 5.10.11 instead of 5.10.
Response 2: The tables 5 and 10 have been added, as they represent the CRS values for companies with ID = 5 and ID = 8.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for the invitation to review the manuscript (sustainability-2791094) entitled “Enhancing Business Decision Making through a New Corporate Reputation Measurement Model: Practical Application in a Supplier Selection Process.” It is an interesting and accurately written paper. I have some minor comments
· Abstract:
ü The abstract is informative and precisely written.
· Introduction:
ü In general, the introduction is interesting and well-written.
ü The motivation is genuine. However, the gap/problem must be explained in more detail. What is different must be described in more detail.
ü The contributions are well documented.
· Literature review:
ü The literature review is up-to-date. Each variable is adequately explained.
ü This section provides some interesting insights from the literature.
· Methodology, Results, and Conclusion
ü In general, the methodology seems correct and appropriate to the requirements of the paper.
ü Each section is adequately described.
ü The analysis techniques are relevant and the results are interesting. They are interpreted correctly.
ü The paper has some novel implications for managers and policymakers.
ü Future research directions are well drawn.
ü What are the limitations?
· Other comments
ü Write the page number when quoting something.
ü Professional proofreading is recommended due to some grammatical errors.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThere are some grammatical issues
Author Response
Thank you sincerely for your detailed and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate your positive assessments and thoughtful suggestions. Your insights are invaluable in refining the quality of our work. We would like to express our gratitude for the time and effort you dedicated to providing such comprehensive comments.
We are pleased to acknowledge your positive remarks, particularly regarding the informative and precise nature of the abstract, the overall quality of the introduction, and the well-documented contributions. Your observations on the literature review, methodology, results, and conclusions are highly appreciated, and we will certainly address the specific points you highlighted.
We also take note of your suggestions for providing additional detail on the motivation and problem gap in the introduction, as well as for describing differences more elaborately.
Furthermore, we appreciate your attention to detail in suggesting the inclusion of page numbers when citing references and the recommendation for professional proofreading to address any grammatical errors.
Once again, thank you for your valuable input.
Point 1: The motivation is genuine. However, the gap/problem must be explained in more detail. What is different must be described in more detail.
Response 1: Thank you for this recommendation. We have included the following paragraph in the introduction section, which at least attempts to address the suggested gap or problem.
“Corporate reputation and corporate sustainability are critical concepts in the business context and are also interrelated in several ways. Sustainability refers to a company's ability to operate in a way that balances economic profitability, social responsibility, and environmental impact. In today's dynamic and interconnected business environment, the importance of corporate reputation cannot be overstated. A company's reputation serves as a crucial asset that influences customer loyalty, investor confidence, employee morale, and overall stakeholder trust. Moreover, in an era where information spreads rapidly through various channels, maintaining a positive corporate reputation is integral to navigating challenges and capitalizing on opportunities. Companies with strong reputations are better positioned to attract top talent, foster strategic partnerships, and weather crises more effectively. Therefore, understanding and actively managing both corporate reputation and sustainability are paramount for long-term success and resilience in the contemporary business landscape.”
Point 2: Methodology, Results, and Conclusion. What are the limitations?
Response 2: Thank you for your insightful question regarding the limitations of our proposed model. We appreciate the opportunity to further elaborate on this aspect.
The model demonstrates a high level of flexibility, facilitating the inclusion of multiple criteria and sub-criteria, and allowing for a customized weighting process for each. This adaptability ensures that the model can dynamically adjust to continuously evolving business contexts. Although we conducted an extensive review of the literature in the state of the art, we did not find literature specifically addressing the decision-making process applied to the classification of corporate reputation.
The proposed model follows a methodology that enables the evaluation of corporate reputation for any company, providing a structured method. While leaving the choice of criteria and sub-criteria to the discretion of the companies might be perceived as a limitation, it encourages thoughtful consideration and discourages the application of mechanical models in decision-making management processes.
Thank you once again for your thoughtful inquiry.
Point 3: Other comments.
- Write the page number when quoting something.
Response 3: The referencing style used does not allow for the inclusion of specific page numbers when citing explicit text in the document.
- Professional proofreading is recommended due to some grammatical errors.
Response 4: The text has undergone a grammatical review.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. The topic of the article is relevant and arouses great interest among readers
2. It is advisable to refer to more recent research than the authors as relevant (1. Introduction) - "........It is a fact that we have experienced a real reputation crisis in recent decades, which 66 has led to an increased interest in corporate reputation. According to the UNCTAD 2010 67 report, the economic crisis of 2007-2008, which affected the world, provoked a clear need 68 to rethink the corporate reputation of companies and its impact on their strategic pro- 69 cesses.........."
3. IN 2. Theoretical background 2.1. Corporate Reputationthe authors - made a very detailed analysis that deserves respect and will be appropriate.
4. I N 2.2 Criteria for measuring Corporate Reputation - good fresh analytics until 2023, also reasonable use of models with their descriptions.
5. 3. Methodology- a good section, with a detailed description of the advantages and disadvantages, the calculation part, as well as visualization of the models that need to be used, with.
6. the article has a good theoretical part, analytical, as well as calculations
Author Response
Thank you sincerely for your detailed and positive comments on our article. We are pleased to hear that you find the topic relevant and of significant interest to readers. We also appreciate your constructive suggestions, particularly regarding the recommendation to reference more recent research in the introduction and the suggestion to incorporate information from the 2010 UNCTAD report. Your recognition of the detailed analysis in the theoretical framework and your appreciation for the quality of the methodology section are valued.
Your insights are invaluable to us, and we will carefully consider your feedback to enhance the overall quality of our work. We appreciate the time and attention you dedicated to reviewing our article.
Thank you once again for your valuable contributions.
Point 1: It is advisable to refer to more recent research than the authors as relevant.
Response 1: Thank you for this recommendation. In recent decades, the business landscape has witnessed a pronounced reputational crisis, underscoring the fundamental importance of corporate reputation for any company's service procurement. The aftermath of the economic crisis in the years 2007-8 further emphasized the critical role of corporate reputation in shaping decision-making processes. However, in response to these challenges, there has been a continuous reevaluation and redevelopment of corporate image strategies. The latest study, as of December 21, 2023, from UNCTAD published in Transnational Corporations, contributes valuable insights to this ongoing discourse. This evolving understanding of corporate image and reputation development is pivotal for academic and industry discourse, offering a contemporary perspective on the strategic significance of corporate reputation.
An effort has been made to ensure that the state of the art and references in the article are as current as possible. However, by grounding ourselves in the historical evolution of corporate reputation models and drawing on contemporary studies, we have not identified references that specifically address an assessment of corporate entity with a methodology akin to that presented in this article.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper proposes a model that takes into account of several variables and their relative importance for the evaluation of corporate reputation. Specifically, the study considers four criteria in the evaluation of corporate reputation, which are capability, benevolence, integrity, and net promote score. Overall, the topic is interesting and writing is clear.
My major suggestion is to have more discussions about the trust variable. According to the paper, the major novelty of the proposed model is the inclusion of the trust variable. However, I don't find many discussions of how including this variable in the model contributes to the measurement of corporate reputation. Moreover, in the section of practical application (section 5), the authors might want to compare the results from the proposed and other models and models with and without the consideration of the trust variable.
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable feedback on our paper. We appreciate your positive remarks on the overall clarity and interest of the topic. Your suggestion regarding the trust variable is well-noted, and we acknowledge the importance of further discussing its role in the proposed model.
Once again, we thank you for your insightful comments, and your input is instrumental in refining our work.
Point 1: My major suggestion is to have more discussions about the trust variable. According to the paper, the major novelty of the proposed model is the inclusion of the trust variable. However, I don't find many discussions of how including this variable in the model contributes to the measurement of corporate reputation. Moreover, in the section of practical application (section 5), the authors might want to compare the results from the proposed and other models and models with and without the consideration of the trust variable.
Response 1: Thank you for your comment. While reference [1] in the manuscript explicitly states, "Thus, the aim of this paper is to propose a model for the assessment of corporate reputation that tries to adjust to the definitions and variables most used by experts in the academic and professional fields. The main novelty of this model is the inclusion of the trust variable, and more specifically, it is based on the model of the generation of organizational trust by," our article does not explicitly reference that trust is a direct consequence of measuring the variables described in the referenced document [1], namely Ability, Benevolence, and Integrity. Additionally, in our model, we have introduced an additional criterion—the assessment of the Net Promoter Score (NPS). All these variables collectively constitute the corporate reputation model outlined in the paper, and consequently, they contribute to the level of trust that customers may place in companies.
[1] M. et al, “An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust Author ( s ): Roger C . Mayer , James H . Davis and F . David Schoorman Published by : Academy of Management Stable URL : http://www.jstor.com/stable/258792 REFERENCES Linked references are available on JSTOR f,” Acad. Manag. Rev., vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 709–734, 1995.
