Building a Good Reputation STEPHEN BRAMMER, University of Reading STEPHEN PAVELIN, University of Reading In this paper, we develop a conceptual framework that emphasises the need, for the purposes of repu- tation building, for fit between CSR activities and other key characteristics of the firm. Furthermore, using data on a sample of 227 UK PLCs, we provide evidence in support of a role for fit in the link between reputation and social performance, which suggests a need to tailor CSR activities in light of a firm’s size and the nature of its principle business activity. Thus, we highlight the strategic impor- tance of correctly identifying the appropriate scope and extent of CSR activism. Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Corporate reputation, Social responsi- bility Introduction Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is an issue that has increasingly attracted business, political, and public interest in the past decade. Anecdotal evi- dence suggests there has been a shift in the breadth and nature of the perceived responsibilities of com- panies to the societies in which they operate. This shift poses significant strategic dilemmas for corpo- rate management. Companies are now forced to make decisions concerning the type and degree of responsibilities they have to stakeholders, such as lo- cal communities, the natural environment, and employees. Furthermore, these responsibilities must be balanced against those they have to financial inter- est groups such as investors and creditors. Clearly, this task would be less complicated if one could be sure that satisfying the expectations of social stake- holders contributed directly to the financial health of the organization. Unfortunately, existing evidence provides neither good evidence in favour of the ‘business case’ for improved corporate social respon- siveness (Griffin and Mahon, 1997), nor the means for companies to identify those aspects of social responsiveness that, given the nature of their busi- ness environment, would be expected to bring the greatest reward. Advocates of social responsiveness often highlight the catastrophic financial impacts of the collapse of ethically and socially unsound businesses such as Enron. However, this fall from grace should be viewed alongside Enron’s formerly favourable track record in many dimensions of social responsiveness, such as charitable contributions and community- based initiatives. A business case for CSR activism derived from the desire to avoid Enron-like financial ruin would only promote compliance with legal requirements for proper business practices. If we are also, and perhaps particularly, interested in those dimensions of CSR that lie outside of, or exceed, such requirements (e.g. charitable efforts on commu- nity and environmental projects) we must look be- yond Enron if we are to inform a relevant business case. Part of the difficulty in establishing the business case, if any, for improved corporate social responsiveness arises because both the desired outcomes (e.g. profit- ability, stock performance, employee attraction, motivation and retention, customer loyalty), and the socially responsive behaviours (e.g. charitable giving, investing in technologies that reduce environ- mental degradation, improving product safety, pro- viding safe working conditions for employees) are fundamentally multidimensional. This permits the study of such a wide variety of linkages that it is of- ten possible to make, or deny, a business case for al- most any arbitrarily chosen pair of indicators of firm and social performance (Griffin and Mahon, 1997). In this study, we examine the links between corpo- rate reputation and corporate social responsiveness. Reputation has been defined as, ‘‘a perceptual repre- sentation of a company’s past actions and future prospects that describe the firm’s overall appeal to all its key constituents when compared to other lead- ing rivals’’ (Fombrun, 1996, p. 72). As has been 704 European Management Journal Vol. 22, No. 6, pp. 704–713, December 2004 doi:10.1016/j.emj.2004.09.033 European Management Journal Vol. 22, No. 6, pp. 704–713, 2004 Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Printed in Great Britain 0263-2373 $30.00