Corporate Reputation of Family-Owned Businesses: Parent Companies vs. Their Brands

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The research objective is not particularly relevant on its own, but it does have special relevance thanks to its analysis methodology.

I suggest the authors to further specify that their analysis is an online reputation analysis, as sometimes (especially in the abstract) it seems that they are going to analyse the overall reputation of the company. I also recommend specifying the sample of analysis and the social networks analysed in the abstract.

On the other hand, in the conclusions, the summary of the results is too descriptive and does not link to or reflect on the initial state of the question. I suggest that the authors include such a reflection with a broader vision than that of their research, trying to draw conclusions beyond the sample analysed.

Author Response

First of all, let us thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions on how to improve the quality of the study we present. Given the form in which the content management system offers steps in the review procedure at this stage, we have not yet submitted a modified study (this will only be possible by completing a round of answers), so let us comment on the points in questions:

"The research objective is not particularly relevant on its own, but it does have special relevance thanks to its analysis methodology.

I suggest the authors to further specify that their analysis is an online reputation analysis, as sometimes (especially in the abstract) it seems that they are going to analyse the overall reputation of the company. I also recommend specifying the sample of analysis and the social networks analysed in the abstract."

Answer: Thank you very much for the suggestions, we will fully incorporate in the abstract a clarification of the nature of the analysis. We will also add in the abstract the specification of the sample and the social network within which the data collection itself took place.

"On the other hand, in the conclusions, the summary of the results is too descriptive and does not link to or reflect on the initial state of the question. I suggest that the authors include such a reflection with a broader vision than that of their research, trying to draw conclusions beyond the sample analysed."

Answer: In conclusion, we will summarize the results more clearly in direct relation to the object of research. We will also better link the presented text directly to the area of family business.

Reviewer 2 Report

IMHO, I have some important concerns about:

• the representativeness of the sample within the methological section, as author(s) wrote "The object of the research is 750 largest family companies operating on the global market. The research sample is made up of the ten largest companies in this group";
• Also, I think that there is the risk that choosing largest companies would produce a bias in the selection of the sample, with size as an influencing variable affecting the general validity of the results.

Could author(s) please provide more details, motivate and justify these above mentioned aspects?

Author Response

First of all, let us thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions on how to improve the quality of the study we present. Given the form in which the content management system offers steps in the review procedure at this stage, we have not yet submitted a modified study (this will only be possible by completing a round of answers), so let us comment on the points in questions:

"IMHO, I have some important concerns about:

• the representativeness of the sample within the methological section, as author(s) wrote "The object of the research is 750 largest family companies operating on the global market. The research sample is made up of the ten largest companies in this group";
• Also, I think that there is the risk that choosing largest companies would produce a bias in the selection of the sample, with size as an influencing variable affecting the general validity of the results.

Could author(s) please provide more details, motivate and justify these above mentioned aspects?"

Answer: Thank you very much for defining the problem points, from the point of view of sample selection in lines 46 to 50, we are approaching our initial motivation for sample selection. In lines 85 to 91 we approximate the criteria for the selection of subjects. Subsequently, in lines 249 to 251 we specify both the file and the sample.

• The first point points to the file size and samples, in terms of file size we were limited by the data source, which formed the ranking (PWC and the Family Capital), in footnote 1 on page 8 we provide a more detailed explanation of the parameter on which the subjects were ranked. The order of entities was defined by their revenues in 2017 expressed in USD, at that time it was the most up-to-date data available. Given the available sources, we proceeded to the selection of the sample, which in our opinion was a significant and at the same time available starting point for the analysis.

• The second point deals with the risks arising from the size and nature of the sample, we fully identify with it. In the introduction, in lines 58 to 61, we comment on the specifics in terms of size, we are of the opinion that within the Internet (lines 204 to 209) the influence of the size of the entity is partially reduced, or that in certain circumstances an individual may endanger such a local company, as well as a global corporation (Jeff Jarvis and DELL for example). Consider that it is ultimately possible (as we state in line 257) to use the method of abstraction and subsequent induction. However, we are aware of the importance of approaching the text with the utmost precision, so we fill in the justifications in the part of the article that mentions the limitations of research.

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper discusses an actual and interesting topic, the reputation of companies as tangible assets. I liked the problem setting and the research design very much.

My main concerns, however, are connected with the main focus: the family business status. In my opinion, most companies involved in this research are rather real multinational corporates than family businesses (even in some cases the companies' bonds are traded on stock exchanges). So, I am not sure, what are the family characters of these companies to be investigated? How the family business values influence their operations and reputation? I am not convinced about that even the research design is really appropriate and advanced.

My recommendation is to specify your approach in the introduction part and/or include a "Limitations" chapter where these methodological concerns are explained and delimited.

Author Response

First of all, let us thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions on how to improve the quality of the study we present. Given the form in which the content management system offers steps in the review procedure at this stage, we have not yet submitted a modified study (this will only be possible by completing a round of answers), so let us comment on the points in questions:

"The paper discusses an actual and interesting topic, the reputation of companies as tangible assets. I liked the problem setting and the research design very much.

My main concerns, however, are connected with the main focus: the family business status. In my opinion, most companies involved in this research are rather real multinational corporates than family businesses (even in some cases the companies' bonds are traded on stock exchanges)."

Answer: We fully identify with your opinion, in line 79 we comment on the relative ambiguity within the whole researched issue. Subsequently, we describe the selection of criteria based on the relevant source (line 87), in lines 87-91 we define the criteria according to which we then direct the entire research (from the point of view of file and sample selection).

"So, I am not sure, what are the family characters of these companies to be investigated? How the family business values influence their operations and reputation? I am not convinced about that even the research design is really appropriate and advanced."

Answer: The key aspects determining the direction of research were determined on the basis of a study of the literature, they are presented in lines 82 to 84, then in lines 85 to 95 we briefly define their specifics with respect to the topic. From the specifics, we are looking for models that we present in lines 98 -100. In line 118 we move on to the description of market dynamics, where in line 131 we come to the definition of the justification of the topic we have chosen. In line 167 we define the initial assumption for the dynamics of the environment. According to us, the following text represents a thought thread, which goes through the whole theoretical overview to the part in line 187. In it we present the outcome of the whole issue and then we go to the description of selected analytical methods, from which we select our preferred.

"My recommendation is to specify your approach in the introduction part and/or include a "Limitations" chapter where these methodological concerns are explained and delimited."

Answer: We fully identify with your point of view, we realize that the scope of the theoretical study may suppress certain specific parts in the background, which subsequently lack the necessary weight within the whole. In the part describing the limitations, we will add a part dealing with the inconsistency of the topic and explicitly express the need for further research in the issue in order to clearly define the fundamentals of the issue as such. (In lines 612 to 614, we commented on this, in any case, the statement needs to be specified so as to fully remove the ambiguity that was outlined very precisely in the question, thank you again).

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The responses are satisfactory enough.