Previously, an organisation's attributes (corporate appeal, product and services, social responsibility, vision and leadership, workplace environment, and financial performance) were used as determinants of corporate reputation. In other words, corporate reputation was measured using a multidimensional single construct. However, there are arguments suggesting that, in order to obtain more accurate conclusions, an organisation's attributes need to be treated as antecedents whereby organisation's attributes are used to predict corporate reputation. Thus, this study is aimed at testing the impact of an organisation's attributes that is product, corporate personality and corporate responsibility on corporate reputation, and the mediating effect of corporate reputation in influencing stakeholders' purchase intention. Malaysia national car brands are used as a case reference for this study. Using a quantitative research approach, this study found that not all attributes contribute to positive reputation and intentions. The impact of each attribute varies across different stakeholder groups and across brands. Using a sample of 419 automobile customers and 300 Malaysia national car dealers, this study shows that only corporate personality has a positive and significant influence on corporate reputation and it is consistent across both groups and brands. Corporate responsibility, on the other hand, is found to have a positive influence on corporate reputation assessed by customers, but is not significant for dealers. The effect of customers' and dealers' satisfaction on the products is rather mixed. Results from this study provide empirical evidence that reputation should not be measured using a multidimensional single construct in order to draw a more accurate conclusion. This study also contributes to practice as it provides a distinct view for corporations to establish good rapport and to assist in developing effective strategies for the relevant groups of stakeholders. Recommendations are also discussed to provide focus for future research.

No description available.

Le thème de la sécurité invite généralement à aborder les pratiques de travail dans les industries à risques à partir des règles. Cette thèse décale le questionnement vers l’analyse d’une activité non explicitée dans une organisation formelle : l’entretien des installations. Un collectif diffus se forme sur cette base ; il unit plusieurs collectifs situés, définis à partir de l’organisation sans s’y restreindre. L’entretien consiste à rattraper un fonctionnement productif qui échappe continuellement à toute emprise, en raison de la dégradation matérielle des installations et des contraintes de flux tendu. Dans une ambiance d’urgence, les travailleurs essayent d’éviter les accidents et l’arrêt de la production, intriqués et toujours latents. Ils régulent leurs coopérations en essayant d’avoir prise à la fois sur les machines, sur leurs trajectoires professionnelles et, par là, sur la composition des collectifs. Parallèlement, les procédures de sécurité relèvent d’un dispositif bureaucratique plus large, à la fois insaisissable et omniprésent. Au nom de la « sécurité », ce dernier est censé concilier une production en flux tendu avec la prévention des accidents par un contrôle de la main-d’œuvre. Il intervient en pratique comme repère mais surtout en tant que menace : incapables de mesurer les écarts entre la réalité et la prescription, les travailleurs redoutent d’être mis en cause en cas d’accident. Les démarches de participation censées améliorer ce dispositif ne permettent pas de faire valoir le caractère incontrôlable des machines. Les membres du collectif diffus évitent alors de participer pour minimiser l’emprise hiérarchique sur l’ordre social construit en interne. / The theme of security generally invites to consider work practices in hazard industries from the point of view of rules. This thesis shifts the questioning towards the analysis of a non-explicit activity in a formal organization: the maintenance of facilities. A diffuse collective is formed on this basis; it units several sited collectives, defined from the organization without being restricted to it. The maintenance consist in catching up an efficient operation that constantly escapes beyond any control, due to material deterioration of facilities and to just-in-time constraints. In an urgency atmosphere, the workers try to avoid accidents and production arrests, intricately linked and always latent. They regulate their cooperation by trying to gain control on machines and on their own career paths, and thus on the composition of collectives. In parallel, security procedures relate to a larger bureaucratic apparatus, which is both elusive and omnipresent. On behalf of « security », this latest is supposed to conciliate just-in-time production with accident prevention through a control of workforces. It intervenes in practice as a benchmark but mainly as a threat: workers, unable to measure the deviations from reality to requirements, fear to be charged in case of accident. Participative actions supposed to improve this apparatus do not allow emphasizing the uncontrollable nature of machines. The members of the diffuse collective thus avoid participating in order to minimize the hierarchical hold on the in-house-built social order.