Reputation Results of the Largest Companies in The ... · Introduction 4 The RepTrak™ Method 6...
Transcript of Reputation Results of the Largest Companies in The ... · Introduction 4 The RepTrak™ Method 6...
Reputation Resultsof the Largest Companiesin The Netherlands
2010
Copyright © Reputation InstituteAll rights of reproduction are reserved to the Reputation Institute
Introduction 4
The RepTrak™ Method 6
The Global RepTrak™ Pulse Study 2010 8
Reputation Results of the Largest Companies in The Netherlands 9
Global Industry Reputations 14
Reputation Intelligence: The Changing Face of Corporate Reputation 15
About Reputation Institute The Netherlands 18
Reputation Institute around the World 20
14th International Conference May 19th – 21st 2010, Rio de Janeiro 21
Content
REPUTATION RESULTS | 3
Reputation Resultsof the Largest Companiesin The Netherlands
2010
4 | REPUTATION RESULTS
Cees B.M. van RielVice Chairman and Co-Founderof the Reputation Institute
This year we celebrate a very special occasion:
2010 is the 10th consecutive year that we have
measured the reputations of Dutch companies.
In 1999, the Reputation Institute started measuring the reputations of companies with an
instrument called RQ, the Reputation Quotient, to develop detailed ratings and analyses of
some of the most visible companies in the world. Initially used in the USA, the RQ was soon
adopted in other countries. In fall 2001, we invited representative samples of consumers in
The Netherlands, Italy and Denmark to rate the reputations of the most visible companies
in their countries.
Keeping up with latest research and trends, there have been some changes in the decade
of reputation research that followed. Extensive qualitative and quantitative research
with consumers in USA, Europe, Latin America, Russia, Australia, South Africa and China
indicated that ‘Corporate Reputation’ can be represented by a standardized measure based
on four questions asked of consumers about their trust, admiration, feeling and esteem for
the company: The RepTrak™ Pulse was born. The RepTrak™ Pulse became the beating heart
of the RepTrak™-method, which replaced the RQ-model in 2006.
During the last years, reputation measurement has truly taken a global lift-off: In 2010,
the reputations of the largest companies have been measured in a whopping 35 countries
worldwide, surveying consumers about their perceptions of more than 1,800 companies.
This has enabled us to create a unique database of reputation scores of the largest
companies in the world.
Introduction
REPUTATION RESULTS | 5
Having a database of ten years of Dutch reputation scores allows us to distinguish some
very interesting trends and shifts:
• There appears to be a link between the economic cycle and average reputation scores:
when consumer confidence is negative, reputation scores are declining; when consumer
confidence is positive, reputation scores generally show improvements.
• Reputations need to be carefully built. Philips’ reputation is top of the bill these last
years, but in 2001 Philips only obtained 14th place in our reputation ranking; it was even
outperformed by Sony. During recent years, Philips managed to transform the company
into a leading brand in the area of health and well-being which has had a tremendous
positive impact on its reputation.
• Nevertheless, strong reputations should not be taken for granted. Even strong
reputations require continuous maintenance. Ahold was the winner of the first RQ
ranking in 2001. We all know what happened to Ahold after that. Yet, Ahold’s
reputation has made a remarkable recovery in the last years.
We are very pleased to present to you the newest reputation results of the largest
Dutch companies in 2010 and the highlights of ten years of Dutch reputation results.
I am looking forward to welcoming you to the Annual Event of the Reputation Institute
in the Amstel Hotel on April 28th, 2010.
6 | REPUTATION RESULTS
The RepTrak™ Method
The Reputation Institute created the RepTrak™
method, to provide companies with a
standardized framework for enabling the
identification of factors that drive reputations
and for benchmarking their corporate
reputations internationally.
RepTrak™ is the world’s first standardized
and integrated tool for tracking corporate
reputations globally across stakeholder groups.
The RepTrak™ Model is a tool that tracks
23 key performance indicators grouped around
7 reputation dimensions that research has
proven to be effective in getting stakeholders
to support the company.
The beating heart of the RepTrak™ Model is
the Pulse. The RepTrak™ Pulse measures the
health of a company’s overall reputation with
consumers. The RepTrak™ Pulse score is based
on four statements: the esteem, good feeling,
trust, and admiration that consumers feel
towards a company.
Establishing a good reputation is not a goal in
itself; the ultimate goal is getting stakeholders
to support the company. Supportive behaviors
can be shown in various areas, such as the
willingness to purchase products from a
company or to invest in company stock.
Pulse
esteem
feel
ing adm
ire
trust
PurchaseProducts & Services
Innovation
Workplace
Governance
Citizenship
Leadership
Performance
Recommend
Crisis proof
Verbal support
Invest
Work
REPUTATION RESULTS | 7
Internationally standardized andcomparable reputation scores
In some countries, people are universally
more positive in their responses than in other
countries. The distribution of scores in that
country may also be more ‘spread out’ than in
another because people have more information
and are able to make more subtle differences
between companies.
To overcome these sources of systematic bias,
Reputation Institute’s policy is to adjust all
RepTrak™ scores by standardizing them against
the aggregate distribution of all scores obtained
from the RI’s Annual Global RepTrak™ Pulse.
Standardization has the effect of lowering
scores in countries that tend to overrate
companies, and has the effect of raising
scores for companies in countries that tend
to rate companies more negatively. Due to this
procedure, all RepTrak™ reputation scores are
comparable across industries, countries, and
over time.
The global distributionof reputations
The global mean is 64.2 and the largest
concentration of companies have a RepTrak™
Pulse between 60.0 and 70.0. Based on the
global distribution of scores, Reputation
Institute proposes the following benchmarks
for benchmarking standardized corporate
reputation results internationally:
Maintain (>70)
Improve (60-69)
Immediate action (<60)
50
40
30
20
10
020 40 60 80 100
# of
Com
pani
es
Global RepTrak Pulse
Measuring the reputations ofthe world’s largest companies
The RepTrak™ Pulse 2010 is the annual study of
the reputations of the world’s largest companies.
The study was developed by the Reputation
Institute to provide executives with a high-level
overview of their company’s reputation with
consumers. Online interviews with consumers
were conducted in January and February 2010.
More than 260,000 ratings were used to create
reliable measures of the ‘corporate reputation’
of more than 1,800 companies.
In 2010 the Global RepTrak™ Pulse studyis conducted in 35 countries:
Europe:
Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland,
France, Germany, Greece, Hungary,
Ireland, Italy, The Netherlands,
Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russia,
Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey,
United Kingdom
Asia:
China, India, Japan, Singapore,
South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand
North America:
Canada, Mexico, United States
Latin America:
Brazil, Bolivia, Chile
Africa:
South Africa
Oceania:
Australia
Companies rated
The Global RepTrak™ 2010 measures the
reputations of the largest corporations in
each country based on their ‘total revenues’.
Rated companies had to have significant
consumer presence and be sufficiently familiar
to the general public. All companies are
measured in their home country only.
Survey methodology
The Global RepTrak™ 2010 was conducted
online in all countries. The RepTrak™ Pulse
is calculated by sampling an average of
150 local respondents a month, who are
familiar with the company. The Global RepTrak™
2010 questionnaire is a 10 minute long survey
that invites respondents to describe their
perceptions of companies. The Reputation
Institute uses online surveys since they are
more diverse than traditional samples in many
domains (e.g. gender, geographic location and
socioeconomic status).
8 | REPUTATION RESULTS
The Global RepTrak™ Pulse Study
2010
REPUTATION RESULTS | 9
Companies rated
The Global RepTrak™ Pulse 2010 measures
the reputations of the 30 largest corporations
in The Netherlands based on their ‘total revenues’.
Rated companies had to have significant
consumer presence and be sufficiently familiar
to the general public in The Netherlands.
These conditions have as a consequence that
a small number of corporations were not included
in the list (e.g. UVIT); the general public in
The Netherlands is not familiar enough with
the companies to evaluate them in a valid way.
Profile of respondentsin The Netherlands
More than 15,000 respondents were surveyed
during January and February of 2010 to come
to the reputation ranking in The Netherlands.
Respondents had to be familiar with the
company they were rating and were allowed
to rate up to four companies. The surveys
were conducted online. The data is weighted
to obtain representative samples for
The Netherlands based on age and gender.
Reputation Results of the Largest
Companies in The Netherlands
45 - 64
age
35 - 44
25 - 34
18 - 24
0 1000 2000 3000 # of respondents
Female Male
0%
10%
20%
Low
23.1%
30%
40%
50%
Level of educationMiddle
44.2%
High
32.8%
77.776.3
73.6 73.472.9
71.871.570.770.770.0
67.166.968.766.365.865.665.365.3
63.4 63.362.862.662.462.061.360.960.8
59.854.4
48.8
1. Philips Electronics2. Rabobank Groep
3. Air France-KLM4. Friesland Campina
5. Heineken6. Unilever
7. AkzoNobel8. TNT
9. Ahold10. CZ
11. Randstad12. DSM
13. Reed Elsevier14. VolkerWessels
15. BAM Groep16. KPN
17. Nutreco18. ING Groep
19. Shell20. Delta Lloyd Groep
21. Eneco22. Eureko/Achmea
23. Essent24. Aegon
25. USG People26. Nuon
27. ABN Amro28. SNS Reaal
29. Nederlandse Spoorwegen30. Fortis
Reputation results of the largestcompanies in The Netherlands
This year’s reputation leader in The Netherlands
is Philips with a RepTrak™ Pulse of 77.7.
Rabobank Groep takes the second place with a
Pulse score of 76.3, followed by Air France-KLM
(73.6).
Reputation scores above 70 are hard to
achieve as we have seen over the years.
This year, one third of the largest
Dutch companies manage to accomplish this
top achievement.
10 | REPUTATION RESULTS
“Een gezonde reputatie is een gekoesterd bezit in een tijd waarin het aanzien vanbedrijven meer dan ooit ter discussie staat. Bij Philips hebben we de afgelopen jarenmet zijn allen hard gewerkt aan een ware metamorfose rond de thema's 'markt' en'gezondheid en welzijn'. Dat in deze periode onze reputatie zich goed heeft gehoudenis voor ons een belangrijke graadmeter. Het zegt ons dat klanten en andere belang -hebbenden temidden van de verandering vertrouwen blijven stellen in een ondernemingwaar je met recht trots op kunt zijn. We zijn ons er echter terdege van bewust datreputatie te voet komt en te paard gaat. Het feit dat we nu opnieuw deze ReputatieAward uitgereikt krijgen beschouwen wij dan ook niet als een verworvenheid, maarals een aansporing om met beraad en discipline voort te gaan met een strategie eneen bedrijfsvoering die Philips ook in de toekomst uitzicht geeft op een evenwichtigereputatie en duurzaam vertrouwen.”
Gerard Kleisterlee
Voorzitter Raad van Bestuur, Koninkijke Philips Electronics N.V.
REPUTATION RESULTS | 11
Shifts in the reputation ranking
Philips has managed to score a hattrick:
Philips was also number one in 2008 and 2009.
Rabobank is again the number 2, which is a
remarkable performance compared to the
reputations of other banks all over the world.
The numbers 3 and 4 (FrieslandCampina and Air
France-KLM) have switched positions this year.
Top 5 Reputation Improvements
Fortis +5.8
ING Groep +4.6
BAM Groep +3.4
AkzoNobel +3.1
ABN Amro +2.1
Top 5 Reputation Declines
Nederlandse Spoorwegen -6.1
Shell -2.8
TNT -2.3
Nuon -2.2
Randstad -2.0
Fortis shows the largest improvement in its
reputation (+5.8 points). However, due to the
downfall of the company’s reputation earlier,
Fortis still lingers at the bottom of the ranking.
ING Groep and BAM Groep also belong to the
Top 5 Reputation Improvers. As a result, both
BAM Groep and ING Groep climb nine places in
the ranking this year: BAM Groep from the 24th
to the 15th position, ING Groep from the 27th
to the 18th. Striking newcomer in the top 10 is
AkzoNobel, which climbs from the 12th to the
7th position, due to its reputation improvement
of 3.1 points.
Climbers in the ranking inevitably entail
decreases of others. Nuon has made the largest
drop in the ranking. As a result of its reputation
decline (-2.2 points) it loses four places, as it
goes down from the 22nd to the 26th position.
The reputation of the Nederlandse Spoorwegen
seems to suffer a great deal from the snowy
conditions in The Netherlands lately, yet
Nederlandse Spoorwegen is only set back one
place in the ranking; it’s reputation is still well
above Fortis’ reputation.
Corporate leaders onreputation dimensions in 2010
A reputation is built on seven pillars from which
a company can create a strategic platform for
communicating with its stakeholders.
Reputation Institute measured not only
perceptions of companies on the four Pulse
attributes, but also asked respondents to rate
the companies on the seven key dimensions.
12 | REPUTATION RESULTS
Products & Services Innovation Workplace
1 FrieslandCampina 1 Philips 1 Heineken
2 Heineken 2 Unilever 2 AkzoNobel
3 Philips 3 Heineken 3 Philips
4 Unilever 4 Ahold 4 CZ
5 AkzoNobel 5 AkzoNobel 5 FrieslandCampina
Governance Citizenship Leadership
1 Heineken 1 Rabobank Groep 1 Heineken
2 Philips 2 Philips 2 Philips
3 FrieslandCampina 3 FrieslandCampina 3 AkzoNobel
4 CZ 4 AkzoNobel 4 Rabobank Groep
5 Rabobank Groep 5 Ahold 5 Ahold
Performance
1 Heineken
2 Ahold
3 Shell
4 Rabobank Groep
5 Unilever
REPUTATION RESULTS | 13
This year’s leader on reputation, Philips, is
present in the top 5 of six of these dimensions
(only in Performance it does not hold a top 5
position). This clearly underlines the robustness
of Philips’ reputation platform.
Compared to last year, the reputation foundations
of the Rabobank Groep seem to have been
hollowed out slightly: last year the Rabobank
Groep was present in six of the top fives, this
year in four. Nonetheless, the Rabobank Groep
still has a strong number 1 position on
Citizenship.
Heineken is currently present in the top 5 of
six reputation dimensions and is even ranked
1st in four of those dimensions (Workplace,
Governance, Leadership and Performance).
AkzoNobel’s reputation improvement is also
visible with the reputation dimensions.
AkzoNobel holds a top 5-position in five
reputation dimensions. Noteworthy is Ahold,
which really has come a long way since 2001
and is now back in the top 5 of four reputation
dimensions.
Wij zijn zeer verheugd met het feit dat Rabobank – net als vorig jaar – deop een na hoogste reputatiescore van het Nederlandse bedrijfsleven weette noteren. Wij zien het als blijk van waardering voor onze manier vanopereren als coöperatieve financiële dienstverlener. Dit geldt te meer methet oog op de teruggang in reputatie van de financiële sector wereldwijd,vooral als gevolg van de kredietcrisis. Al meer dan 100 jaar stelt deRabobank het gemeenschappelijk belang van mensen en gemeenschappenvoorop. De resultaten van de meting die jaarlijks door het ReputationInstitute wordt gehouden bevestigen nogmaals dat de respectvolle,integere, professionele en duurzame manier van werken van de Rabobankdoor het algemeen publiek hoog wordt gewaardeerd. Uiteraard is dezebevestiging voor ons zeer motiverend.
Gerlinde Silvis, member of the Executive Board, Rabobank Nederland
Global Industry Reputations
Industry results provide an indication of the
context within which companies operate. Eight
industries show an average score above 70:
Consumer Products, Food Manufacturing, Retail-
Food, Industrial Products, Computer, Electrical &
Electronics, Retail-General and Beverage. In
contrast, Financial-Diversified and Tobacco
companies have a weak industry reputation,
showing an average industry score below 60.
Most of the global industry reputations have
improved this year. The largest improvements
have been made by the Food Manufacturing
industry, Insurance companies and Services
providers. On the other hand, the reputations
of Tobacco companies show the largest decline
compared to 2009.
Our top 30 Dutch companies fare very well in
comparison to the ‘average’ players within their
global industry: the majority of the Dutch
companies have a higher reputation than their
average counterpart in their global industry.
Most noteworthy in this respect is of course
the Rabobank, that is in the top of the Dutch
ranking, while Financial institutions are
generally among the least-reputed
organizations. But also CZ performs well in this
respect, by scoring a 70.0, which is 8.2 points
above the global Financial-Insurance average.
14 | REPUTATION RESULTS
51.2
75.575.4
72.372.271.971.2
70.770.3
67.567.5
67.367.3
66.166.065.965.3
65.063.6
62.762.461.861.160.9
58.1
Consumer ProductsFood Manufacturing
Retail - FoodIndustrial Products
ComputerElectrical & Electronics
Retail - GeneralBeverage
AutomotivePharmaceuticals
ConglomerateAirlines & Aerospace
Raw MaterialsServices
Transport & LogisticsChemicals
EnergyUtilities
Construction/EngineeringInformation & MediaFinancial - Insurance
Financial - BankTelecommunications
Financial - DiversifiedTobacco
1.60.6
3.7
2.91.0
1.5
3.6
0.40.2
0.22.3
2.1-2.2
-0.6
-1.4
-0.5
-1.0-4.2
1.1
2.5 0.0
3.24.4
1.1
0.1
2010-2009
REPUTATION RESULTS | 15
A decade of reputation evolution
It wasn’t that long ago that the concept of reputation
was a purely academic exercise, centering around four
basic questions:
1 How is reputation defined?
2 Does reputation matter?
3 Can reputation be measured?
4 Is reputation valuable?
One catalyst for bringing the academic debate about
reputation into mainstream dialogue globally in the
mid-1990s was the fierce competition among business
schools to move up in the annual rankings of Business
Week, U.S. News & World Report and the Financial
Times. By 2000, the dialogue centered around the
twin concepts of ‘if’ and ‘how’ reputation can be
measured. The burning questions were measuring
intangibles, reputation creation, understanding
perceptions and linking perceptions to behaviors.
At the same time, Reputation Institute’s annual
studies on the world’s most visible companies gave
new prominence to the emerging discipline of
reputation management.
To understand what drives reputation around the
world and identify the companies who have been able
to build strong relations with key stakeholders,
Reputation Institute embarked on the most ambitious
global research project on reputation in 2006. Each
year, the annual Global Reputation Pulse Study
measures perceptions of over 50,000 consumers in
over 25 countries to find out what the ties are that
bind more than 1,000 of the world’s largest companies
to the stakeholders they serve.
In the four year history of the Global Reputation Pulse,
Italian food group Barilla won in 2006, followed by
Danish toy manufacturer Lego (2007), Japanese
automaker Toyota (2008) and Italian confectionary
giant Ferrero (2009). What is the common
denominator to these winners? They all compete
globally and locally with strong reputation platforms
that align corporate value across corporate vision,
stakeholder perceptions, supportive behaviors and
employee beliefs. They all invest in winning
multistakeholder reputation platforms in order to
reduce the perceptual or behavioral gaps between
these elements through properly configured
messaging, engagement and aligning strategies.
Through unlocking the power of reputation these
companies see accelerated value creation.
Reputation Intelligence:
The Changing Face of Corporate Reputation1
1 Excerpt taken from “Reputation Intelligence 2009”, published by Reputation Institute’s Knowledge Center.
Current state of reputation
The world’s most reputable companies don’t
wait for a crisis to test their reputation; rather,
they proactively work to inoculate and manage
their reputation risks, leading to an
unquestionably strong link between reputation
and support. In 2009, those companies in
Reputation Institute’s Global Reputation
Pulse rankings that improved reputation by
5 points saw an increase in support by 6.75%
on average, which manifests itself in positive
word-of-mouth recommendations to others.
This material level of support creates a
competitive advantage for the “best of the best”
and raises the bar for those companies playing
catch-up with skeptical stakeholders.
Today, there are changing global shifts around
which reputation drivers are most relevant to
stakeholders as the economic landscape moves
from bull markets to recessions. The increasing
importance of governance (#2 overall in 2009
Global Reputation Pulse) speaks to the virtue
of companies going beyond compliance when it
comes to ethical leadership and transparency.
In fact, governance is the #1 reputation driver
in four countries: Canada, India, Thailand and
Turkey. Over the last three years, there has also
been a shift towards the Workplace, Leadership
& Financial Performance dimensions at the
global level. All of this suggests that managing
reputation is never static or formulaic, and the
importance of managing a corporate reputation
platform across all seven dimensions is now
more mission-critical than ever.
In addition, recent years have seen the
emergence of strong reputation leaders in
emerging markets: an unprecedented fourteen
companies from Brazil, Russia, India & China
(BRIC) took the 2009 Global Top 50 rankings
by storm. Large companies in emerging
markets have been able to foster more
emotional, “hometown connections” with
consumers in their home markets. Corporate
managers should look to local companies in
key markets in Africa, Asia and Latin America
for best practices on how to build stronger
relationships with their burgeoning middle-class
customers.
Another unmistakable trend from emerging
markets is the rise of companies hailing from
traditionally reputation-challenged global
sectors who delight stakeholders in their home
markets nonetheless. Clearly, Petrobras (#4 in
2009, Brazil), China Faw (#22, China) and State
Bank of India (#29, India) were not dragged
down by the dreary global outlook for the
energy, automotive and banking sectors from
a reputation standpoint.
16 | REPUTATION RESULTS
REPUTATION RESULTS | 17
What does the future holdfor reputation?
The future orientation of reputation
management centers around how to create
strong reputations, with four related questions:
1 What are the actions that stakeholders
expect and want from companies?
2 How can we partner with external
stakeholders to co-create a better future?
3 How do we align employees in the creation
of stakeholder support?
4 How do we manage the risks and leverage
the opportunities more systematically?
What does the future holdfor reputation?
The next decade of reputation management
promises to be even more exciting and dynamic
than the first ten years were, and it’s up to all
of us to ensure that both the art and science of
reputation are preserved and enhanced during
the present economic challenges and the
emergence of a post-crisis world.
“AkzoNobel has been through a period of great transformation, which culmi -nated in our rebranding in 2008. So I was very pleased to learn that over thelast 12 months the company has made big strides with respect to its reputation.As the world’s largest coatings company, it’s something we pay careful atten -tion to. Because our reputation matters. It affects our products, reflects onour employees and, of course, can influence our share price. But how do welook after it? Well, we have to ensure that people understand us as a company.So we put a lot of effort into the quality of our communications. We applyworld class standards to everything we do, and that includes talking to theoutside world. We speak openly to the media, we have fully embraced thebenefits of online technology and social media and we care about the relation -ships we have with our customers. We realize that engaging audiences inconversations about what we do is crucial to how we are perceived. Thank -fully, we seem to be doing a good job. But we know we can do even better.”
Hans Wijers, CEO AkzoNobel
18 | REPUTATION RESULTS
About Reputation Institute
The Netherlands
Reputation Institute The Netherlands is
located in Rotterdam. Reputation Institute
The Netherlands brings together a diverse
group of academics and corporate practitioners
from institutions around the country. Reputa -
tion Institute The Netherlands cooperates with
the Corporate Communication Centre, which is
a joint initiative of the Rotterdam School of
Management, Erasmus University and the
business community. The Corporate Communica -
tion Centre conducts academic and applied
research, consults to blue-chip companies, and
educates the next generation of communication
leaders.
Cees B.M. van Riel is Vice-Chairman and
co-founder of Reputation Institute and RI
Director for The Netherlands. Dr. van Riel
is also a Professor at Erasmus University
Rotterdam and head of the Corporate
Communication Centre.
Corporate Members &RƒN Members
Door wonen gedreven
REPUTATION RESULTS | 19
Corporate Communication Centre
Dr. Majorie DijkstraSenior research consultantE-mail: [email protected]
Marijke Baumann ConsultantE-mail: [email protected]
Ahong GuConsultantE-mail: [email protected]
Patricia Heijndijk Research consultantE-mail: [email protected]
Amidé StevensConsultantE-mail: [email protected]
Reputation Institute Products
RepTrak™ - A tool which measures reputation
across stakeholders, countries and industries.
The RepTrak™ model tracks 23 key performance
indicators (attributes) grouped around 7 core
dimensions.
Media RepTrak™ - A tool that assesses the impact
of media coverage on a company’s reputation;
whether and how media coverage is contribu -
ting to building up or breaking down reputation.
RepTrak™ Risk - A tool that helps organizations
evaluate intangible risks in real time. A tool
to prioritize and mitigate risks as well as
a standardized approach to risk reporting.
CountryRepSM - A tool that measures the
emotional appeal of countries.
The Strategic Alignment Monitor - A tool for
measuring employee alignment and analyzing
the relative effectiveness of internal communi -
cations to ensure that everyone in the organi -
zation does their part to realize the strategy.
Corporate Brand Value Assessor® - A tool to assess
the strengths of a corporate brand name as
endorser for new plus existing product/BU names.
Corporate Story Development - Building a
corporate story that functions as a communi -
cation platform for internal and external
messages, based on archival data, workshops
and, if necessary, an internal survey.
Organizational Identity Assessor - A tool to
assess the core organizational characteristics by
comparing the projected identity with the desired
and perceived identity.
20 | REPUTATION RESULTS
Reputation Institute
Around the World
RI Offices:
Brazil – Chile – China – Denmark – Netherlands
South Africa – Spain – United States
RI Associates:
Australia – Bolivia – Canada – Colombia – France
Germany – Greece – India – Ireland – Italy – Japan
Norway – Portugal – Russia – Sweden – Switzerland
Turkey – Ukraine – United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
Ana Luisa de Castro Almeida —Managing Director RI Brazil: InBrazil’s emerging economy it isimportant for our large companies
to be able to benchmark their activities andresulting reputation to those of top-tiercompanies globally. The Global RepTrak™Pulse gives them exactly that possibility.
William Pullen — ManagingDirector RI Chile: As one of themembers of the global ReputationInstitute network we are proud to
help organizations further improve their reputationin Latin America.
Matthew Pan — Managing DirectorRI China: Two of the five biggest‘gainers’ in terms of reputation inthe Global RepTrak™ Pulse study
of last year were Chinese, showing the increasedimportance of Chinese companies in the globalmarket.
Fernando Prado — ManagingDirector RI Spain: Last year’s‘winner’ in Spain, Mercadona, seestheir top-tier reputation score as a
confirmation of the public’s appreciation of theirfocus on quality and service.
Henrik Stroier — Managing DirectorRI Denmark: We have been respon -sible for the tracking of companyreputations for the Nordic countries
for many years now, as a proud part of the globalReputation Institute network. Over the years, manyNordic companies haven proven to be amongstthe top performers on reputation worldwide.
Dominik Heil — Managing DirectorRI South Africa: As Africanrepresentatives of the ReputationInstitute network we help African
companies manage their reputation. The GlobalRepTrak™ Pulse gives them the means to puttheir own reputations into perspective, andinspires them to increase their performancein order to reach tier-1 positions as well.
Anthony Johndrow — ManagingDirector RI US: Our list of the200 companies with top-rankingreputations - published each year in
Forbes - is held in high regard by US corporations,since it is based on the Global RepTrak™ Pulsestudy, which reviews over 1,800 companies in35 countries this year.
REPUTATION RESULTS | 21
14th
International Conference on Corporate
Reputation, Brand, Identity and Competitiveness
“The Sustainability
Imperative:
A Strategic Role for
Reputation Management”
May 19th to 21st 2010, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Corporate Reputation, Brand, Identity and Competitiveness
22 | REPUTATION RESULTS
Plenary Session Wednesday 14:30-16:00 hoursThe triple bottom line of Sustainability – the experience of Brazilian companiesin sustainable management of financial, social and environmental issuesJosé Sérgio Gabrielli - President of Petrobras
Zeca Rudge - Executive Vice-President of Itaú Unibanco
Marcos Bicudo - President of Philips Brasil
Moderator: Prof. Dr. Ana Luisa Almeida - Managing Director of Reputation Institute Brazil
Plenary Session Wednesday 18:00-19:30 hoursA Second Wave of Corporate Responsibility: from a Top Down strategy to a Bottom-up Co-creation with StakeholdersProf. Dr. C. B. Bhattacharya - Professor at European School of Management and Technology, Germany
Moderator: Prof. Dr. Cees van Riel - Vice-chairman of Reputation Institute
Plenary Session Thursday 9:00-10:00 hoursCreating Value with Sustainability: “Relentlessly committed to wind” – securing sustainable energy though windMr. Morten Albaek - Senior Vice-President at Vestas
Moderator: Kasper Nielsen - Managing Partner at Reputation Institute
Plenary Session Thursday 13:30-14:30 hoursSustainability through the Social Media Lens: Comparing the US and BRIC ExperienceJon Low - Co-founder of Predictiv LLC
Courtney Barnes - Co-Author of Digital Strategies for Powerful Corporate Communications
Plenary Sessions
REPUTATION RESULTS | 23
Plenary Session Thursday 16:30-17:30 hoursCreating internal and external support for SustainabilityPeter van Minderhout - Former Director of Corporate Communication & Sustainability of TNT
Internal and External Strategic AlignmentProf. Dr. Cees van Riel - Vice-Chairman of Reputation Institute
Plenary Session Friday 11:00-12:30 hoursWhat companies that manage their reputation have learned and what are their next challengesProf. Dr. Charles Fombrun - Chairman of Reputation Institute
Eduardo Eisler - Director of Marketing at Tetra Pak Brasil
Moderator: Prof. Dr. Dominik Heil - Managing director of Reputation Institute South Africa
Plenary Session Friday 12:30-13:30 hoursCross Cultural Competence in Global Corporate Reputation. Culture: Key Factor of Success to effectively build and sustain Good Corporate Reputation across National Borders and at HomeSalvador Apud - Senior Partner of ITIM International for the Americas
PLEASE VISIT OUR WEBSITE:
www.Reputationinstitute.com
FOR MORE INFORMATION AND TO REGISTER
10
24
1. B
&T
Ont
wer
p en
adv
ies