This study reviews and compares the definitions and measurements of ‘corporate reputation’ used in 173 studies published in seven top-tier accounting and management journals between 1980 and 2020. Accounting scholars frequently fail to define ‘reputation,’ and if they do, definitions vary considerably between the accounting and management fields. We further find that measures of reputation do not fit well with its definition. The accounting literature often employs secondary financial measures, which poorly reflect stakeholders’ reputation assessments. We develop a conceptual framework to better classify prior research and identify appropriate measures of reputation that match the chosen definition. We also suggest a number of further research opportunities: Accounting scholars may focus more on (a) stakeholders’ subjective nonfinancial assessments; (b) the emotional appeal of companies and its relationship with competence and integrity assessments; (c) the role of stakeholders’ normative expectations and (d) explicitly consider a multi-stakeholder perspective, where corporations have multiple reputations rather than one.
