Risk Analysis, Vol. 36, No. 5, 2016 DOI 10.1111risa.12643.docx

Risk Analysis, Vol. 36, No. 5, 2016 DOI: 10.1111/risa.12643
Current Topics
Risk Management Should Play a Stronger Role
in Developing and Implementing Social Responsibility
Policies for Organizations
Shital A. Thekdi∗
In late 2015, it was discovered that a leading vehi-
cle manufacturer had intentionally programmed en-
gines to underreport nitrogen oxide emissions during
laboratory testing. This practice resulted in billions of
dollars in fines and lawsuits. The nonmonetary reper-
cussions were even more serious as these emissions
are associated with pollution and health issues. As
the resulting public perception of the product is dam-
aged, it is unknown whether sales and reputation will
fully recover.
In addition to legal violations, these practices
conflicted with internal corporate social responsibil-
ity (CSR) policies developed by the manufacturer. In
recent years, such policies are increasingly being used
in organizations, but are these policies more than
decorative words? Are they really able to guide the
decision making for protecting the social, political,
and environmental footprint of the organizations?
The above vehicle manufacturer example seems to
indicate that this is not the case. In this article, we
discuss this topic. We argue that current thinking

about and approaches to CSR policies suffer from
some severe weaknesses related to risk and uncer-
tainty treatment, and that there is a large potential
for improvements by incorporating ideas and meth-
ods from the field of risk analysis and risk manage-
ment. This article presents challenges and opportuni-
ties to adapt the risk discipline to the study of CSR.
1. THE CHALLENGES
Firms are increasingly investing in CSR policies
to address ethical, sustainable, and social commit-
ments, such as waste and pollution reduction, fair la-
∗ Robins School of Business, University of Richmond, 1 Gate-
way Rd., Richmond, VA 23173, USA; tel: 804.289.1763;
[email protected]
richmond.edu.
bor practices, social programs, and philanthropy.(1)
These policies are often pursued to promote long-
term profit or react to past wrongdoings. For ex-
ample, consider investments in reaction to nega-
tive publicity assumed by BP after environmental
incidents.(2) Companies have invested as much as bil-
lions of dollars toward developing, advertising, and
implementing these policies, yet these CSR efforts
have varying effectiveness in improving reputation(3)
or financial performance.(4) One explanation for this
variability is that these organizations did not effec-
tively manage risk in policy adoption and implemen-
tation. They did not sufficiently consider uncertainty
or consequences such as damaged reputation, health
and safety issues, increased regulation, or ecosys-

tem damage. Although conflict with CSR policies can
cause irreversible harm to organizations, these poli-
cies are adopted with few guidelines and are not en-
forced by external regulation.
Policy selection for CSR is challenging for sev-
eral reasons. First, processes for developing and im-
plementing CSR policies have historically been non-
standardized and unique for each organization. The
recently published ISO 26000 standards(5) provide
very general guidance, but there remains a lack of
consensus on specific tools and practices. Second,
there are limited guidelines for policy selection that
consider risk and uncertainty associated with policy
adoption and implementation. Third, as CSR policies
are often developed at the strategic level, changes in
executive leadership can lead to inconsistent commit-
ments.
Implementation of CSR initiatives can also be
challenging. Similar to common risk applications,
the outcome of implemented CSR policies can be
difficult to measure and track using suitable metrics.
For example, gathering the sparse data representing
870 0272-4332/16/0100-0870$22.00/1 C© 2016 Society for
Risk Analysis
Current Topics 871
corporate culture, biodiversity, or pollutants can be
costly and time intensive. Additionally, the ability
to comply with CSR policies can be influenced by
factors that are uncontrollable and uncertain. For

example, organizational culture may be dynamic,
environmental conditions may be influenced by cli-
mate change or natural disasters, political conditions
may be variable, and other influential factors may be
unforeseen. Additionally, organizational procedures
may not currently exist for accountability in meeting
commitments.
CSR policies serve as a public announcement of
goals, which may simply be designed to improve cur-
rent reputation and shareholder value. There may be
little incentive for leadership to follow through with
CSR efforts due to short leadership tenures and rel-
atively low incentive for organizing actions to meet
long-term goals. Even with leadership dedicated to
meeting these goals, academic disciplines lack meth-
ods and tools for assessing and valuing the risks and
uncertainties associated with long-term CSR perfor-
mance and goals. Risk management is lacking in both
the development and implementation of CSR poli-
cies.
We consider CSR applications to present a chal-
lenging new frontier for risk management. Risk prin-
ciples, tools, and methods should be adapted to ad-
dress these dynamic and data-sparse applications.
This topic will become even more visible as enviro-
nmental sustainability, labor practices, and reputa-
tion become increasingly relevant for organizational
strategy.
2. SUGGESTED RISK PRINCIPLES APPLIED
TO SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
To overcome the challenges given above, there
is need to apply concepts of risk analysis and risk

management toward CSR applications. This section
explores how three core risk principles can be ap-
plied to the development and implementation of
CSR policies. A demonstration of the core risk prin-
ciples will be applied to the case of Volkswagen, as
follows.
Volkswagen, a leading vehicle manufacturer,
was recognized for adopting CSR standards and
integrating social and environmental standards
within its supply chain.(6) Its CSR policies included
high-level goals involving sustainability, community
involvement, safety, and diversity For example, the
CSR policy documentation describes the Volkswa-
gen Community Trust program in South Africa. This
trust was funded by a 300,000 euro per year invest-
ment for the purpose of community healthcare, spon-
soring nursery schools, financing school building, and
investing in worker training.(7) Similar to other orga-
nizations, Volkswagen had potential to benefit from
improved reputation, long-term shareholder value,
and potential avoidance of increased regulation for
related activities. In late 2015, it was discovered that
Volkswagen had installed a defeat device in over a
half-million diesel vehicles sold in the United States.
This device allowed the vehicles to emit up to 40
times the allowable limit for NOx emissions (U.S.
House of Representatives 2015, available at http://
docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF02/20151008/104046/H
HRG-114-IF02-Transcript-20151008.pdf, Accessed
November 30, 2015). NOx emissions can cause
serious health and environmental damage, including
respiratory illnesses and damage to soil and water
quality. As a result of Volkswagen’s actions, it is
facing fines of up to $45 billion,(8) potential class

action lawsuits, drop in shareholder value, and a
tarnished reputation. This oversight was not only a
legal shortcoming, but also in direct violation of its
CSR policies.
Regardless of how this breach of CSR occurred,
organizations should have safeguards in place to
manage risks associated with their CSR policy. One
reason for the Volkswagen breach could be insuffi-
cient incentive for management to comply with CSR
policies. This is a factor that is at least partially con-
trolled by the organization. However, another reason
for this breach could have been insufficient ability
to oversee policy compliance. For example, company
culture influencing decisions can be difficult for an
organization to control, thereby introducing uncer-
tainty and risk. Next, we will present the three prin-
ciples and discuss how they apply to this example.
Principle 1. Protecting value through risk man-
agement: CSR policies are commonly aimed at
ethical or social commitments that may directly
or indirectly contribute to shareholder value.(9) It
is common in private industry policy making to
convert nonmonetary values into dollars, which can
undermine valuation of important aspects such as
health and safety. Similarly, the primary goal of risk
management is to protect value, whether that value
is measured in monetary terms or in nonmonetary
terms involving health, safety, reliability, social
conditions, and many other aspects of performance.
However, common risk applications avoid convert-
ing these terms to dollars, and instead recognize that
objectives can be noncommensurate.

872 Thekdi
Another key difference between risk manage-
ment and CSR policy analysis is how future values
are projected. The risk perspective is designed to
protect current value against negative consequences
associated with an event such as a system disruption.
Conversely, traditional CSR policy perspective is
designed to project the growth of value by using
strategic investments. In other words, risk is focused
on managing the potential loss of value using like-
lihood of events, while CSR policies are focused
on the growth of value using optimistic future
projections. Although the optimistic projections are
useful for planning and goal setting, they neglect to
consider a wide variety of uncontrollable outside
factors that can interfere with the ability to meet
goals.
As applied to the Volkswagen example, its CSR
policies aimed for the following high-level objectives:
Acting responsibly has always been part of our corporate
culture. We understand social responsibility as being the
ability to harmonise our business activities with the long-
term goals of (a global) society.(7)
The CSR policy emphasizes concurrent objec-
tives as measured by business activities (monetary
or shareholder value) in addition to ecological and
social concerns. This policy document did not discuss
whether the goals were fully feasible, but instead
supported the policy statements by describing
ongoing CSR activities. Additionally, this policy
document did not address factors that could impede

the attainment of these goals, such as regionally
specific fuel emissions standards, customer senti-
ment, organizational culture, climate, fuel prices,
competition from other vehicle manufacturers, and
others.
In addition, there is no clear rationale for how
these current goals of business activities and society
are related. Can meeting the goals of a global society
contribute to shareholder value? Can these business
activities promote long-term goals of a global soci-
ety? There is also limited statement regarding how
to judge the relative importance of these juxtaposed
goals, or how successful attainment of goals is mea-
sured, or whether these goals are measured in com-
parable units of measurement. A risk assessment and
management approach to this policy development
and implementation would require dedicated consid-
eration of these topics.
Principle 2. Understanding uncertainties: Con-
sidering uncertainty is vital for successful policy
generation and implementation.(10) This uncertainty
exists in the inability to predict the outcome of
policy investments for several reasons, for example,
due to inability to model system outputs or due to
statistical variability.(11) Additionally, performance
can be influenced by dynamic conditions, such as
climate, politics, extreme events, and others. De-
spite the role of uncertainty in the effectiveness of
investments, CSR policy making traditionally treats
current conditions as unchanging and simply uses
the policies to reflect future goals. A risk assessment
and management approach for the policy selection
process would promote an understanding of the

most influential uncertainties, how the organization
should respond to uncertain scenarios, and deter-
mine which policy initiatives are robust to these
scenarios.
As applied to the Volkswagen example, the se-
lection and implementation of the CSR policy was
strongly influenced by uncertainty, for example, in
relation to whether external testing would detect the
defeat device software, whether public sentiment in
response to the information would influence share-
holder value, and whether the defeat device software
would be considered in violation of regional regula-
tions. There were also uncertainties about how the
organizational culture could have complied or hin-
dered the meeting of publicly available CSR goals.
Uncertainty could have been reduced by ensuring
that the CSR policy was feasible and integrated into
organizational culture, thereby allowing this factor
to be somewhat controlled. Although it is unknown
whether Volkswagen discussed what-if scenarios in-
cluding worst-case scenarios when selecting and im-
plementing the CSR policies, these practices may
have also helped manage risk.
Principle 3. Understanding human and cultural
factors: Risk management involves understanding
how human and cultural factors influence policies.
Similarly, CSR policy is aimed at influencing social
and cultural conditions, such as community health
and fair labor practices. However, these conditions
may be difficult to measure over short time hori-
zons and may not even be quantifiable. As the adage
claims “what gets measured gets done,” the inability
to quantify performance to objectives leads to inabil-
ity to determine whether objectives are being met.

As a result, those responsible for implementing poli-
cies have little incentive to meet policy objectives.
Although there is no standardized method for han-
dling this issue, decision analytic methods commonly
found in risk applications can help guide investments
involving human and cultural factors. In addition,
Current Topics 873
risk methods such as stakeholder participation in risk
governance allow for value judgments to be included
during risk assessment, risk management, and com-
munication for policy decisions.(12)
As applied to the Volkswagen case, high-level
CSR goals included several sustainability, human,
and cultural aspects. For example, CSR documenta-
tion includes description of social-oriented programs,
such as helping corporate clients reduce fuel usage,
managing biodiversity, researching road safety, and
interacting with the community. However, it is dif-
ficult to quantify these factors and even more dif-
ficult to accurately attribute any improvements to
these specific programs. Although it is unknown how
Volkswagen performed this valuation, policy deci-
sions would have benefited from the use of stake-
holder dialogue and expert elicitation methods that
are supported by the risk field. For example, this
would have included considering expert elicitation in
the understanding of human and cultural uncertain-
ties that could influence policy effectiveness. In addi-
tion, this could have included the use of stakeholder
and expert survey data to understand whether human
and cultural goals are being met.

3. DISCUSSION
The risk approach introduced above offers sev-
eral improvements to CSR policy development and
implementation. First, it recognizes noncommensu-
rate objectives and potential tradeoffs that may exist
among shareholder value and social responsibility
practices. Second, it allows for the recognition of
uncertainties that may influence the effectiveness of
policy initiatives. Third, it emphasizes the complex
nature of policy modeling and investment while
considering human and cultural factors.
In addition to the principles given earlier, the
effectiveness of a risk-based CSR approach would
benefit from additional safeguards. Organizations
should compensate for the absence of regulatory
oversight by reinforcing policy compliance internally.
These policies should also have an active role within
the strategic management process while encouraging
stakeholder representation. After policies are imple-
mented, there should be an auditing procedure in
place to ensure that current operations are aligned
with CSR strategy. Additionally, the policy docu-
mentation should be clearly written and understood
by responsible parties. Finally, CSR policies should
be interpreted as a living document that remains rel-
evant to the current environment.
4. CONCLUSIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES
FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
This article has introduced a new research
agenda by describing the critical need for a risk-
based approach toward CSR policy analysis. The

commonalities and differences between traditional
risk applications and CSR policies can be leveraged
to develop more specific guidelines. For example,
guidelines can be developed to better understand
policy functions, explore key uncertainties, and ad-
vise investments for policy development and imple-
mentation.
The three common risk principles provide pre-
liminary guidance for this new research agenda. As
there is growing interest for organizations to man-
age social responsibility aspects within their overall
strategies, the risk-based approach to CSR policy will
serve as an effective method to protect organizations,
communities, and the environment.
REFERENCES
1. Carroll AB. Corporate social responsibility evolution of a
def-
initional construct. Business & Society, 1999; 38(3):268–295.
2. Krauss C. Oil spill’s blow to BP’s image may eclipse costs.
New York Times, 2010. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/
2010/04/30/business/30bp.html?_r=0.
3. Yoon Y, Gürhan-Canli Z, Schwarz N. The effect of cor-
porate social responsibility (CSR) activities on companies
with bad reputations. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2006;
16(4):377–390.
4. Johnson HH. Does it pay to be good? Social responsibility
and
financial performance. Business Horizons, 2003; 46(6):34–40.
5. International Organization for Standardization. Guidance on

social responsibility, ISO 26000:2010. Geneva, Switzerland,
2010.
6. Koplin J, Seuring S, Mesterharm M. Incorporating
sustainabil-
ity into supply management in the automotive industry—The
case of the Volkswagen AG. Journal of Cleaner Production,
2007; 15(11):1053–1062.
7. Volkswagen. Responsibility Knows No Boundaries, 2012.
Available at: http://www.volkswagenag.com/content/vwcorp/
info_center/en/publications/2013/01/Responsibility_knows_no
_bounds.bin.html/binarystorageitem/file/VW_CSR_Weltweit
_engl_eBook_DS.pdf, Accessed November 30, 2015.
8. Boston W, Viswanta A, Sloat S. Volkswagen Shares Fall on
Fears of Bigger U.S. Penalty, 2016. Available at: http://www.
wsj.com/articles/volkswagen-shares-fall-on-fears-of-bigger-u-s
-penalty-1452006491, Accessed November 30, 2015.
9. Godfrey PC, Merrill CB, Hansen JM. The relationship be-
tween corporate social responsibility and shareholder value:
An empirical test of the risk management hypothesis. Strate-
gic Management Journal, 2009; 30(4):425–445.
10. Aven T. Risk assessment and risk management: Review of
re-
cent advances on their foundation. European Journal of Op-
erational Research, 2016; 253(1):1–13.
11. Paté-Cornell ME. Uncertainties in risk analysis: Six levels
of treatment. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 1996;
54(2):95–111.
12. Renn O. Stakeholder and public involvement in risk gover-
nance. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 2015;

6(1):8–20.
http://www.volkswagenag.com/content/vwcorp/info_center/en/p
ublications/2013/01/Responsibility_knows_no_bounds.bin.html/
binarystorageitem/file/VW_CSR_Weltweit_engl_eBook_DS.pdf
http://www.wsj.com/articles/volkswagen-shares-fall-on-fears-
of-bigger-u-s-penalty-1452006491
Copyright of Risk Analysis: An International Journal is the
property of Wiley-Blackwell and
its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or
posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users
may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.
Mitigating reputational risks in
supply chains

Henry L. Petersen
Department of Management, University of Wisconsin-La
Crosse, La Crosse, Wisconsin, USA, and
Fred Lemke
Department of Marketing and Sustainability, Newcastle
University Business School, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore reputational
risk that are borne in the supply chain and contribute to this
contemporary
but growing research stream.
Design/methodology/approach – First, a theoretical framework
is provided to help in the characterisation of reputational risks
and how they
impact supply chain members that may be multiple tiers away
from the manufacturer. Then, semi-structured interviews were
conducted with
practitioners who were familiar with reputational risks and who
were engaging in varying mitigating techniques. Cognitive
modelling was
utilised to report the findings.
Findings – The practitioners in this paper were very familiar
with the risks and were active in varying mitigating practices as
budgets and
resource constraints would allow. The brevity of the risks
identified and the significance of specific risks with how they
impact a reputation
was revealed. Mitigation is an ongoing and haphazard process
with very little information available as would be expected with
a typical risk
management approach.
Research limitations/implications – This paper serves to provide
practitioners insight into the varying methods used by firms
with supply

chain members that number in hundreds. Based on our findings,
a recommendation was made that utilise corporate social
responsibility as
a foundation that is proposed to address a number of risks
including those related to price, availability and quality. The
limits of this work
are that it is specific to a select group of practitioners
specialised in this area. Although the information is rich, it is
not generalisable.
Originality/value – This paper makes a significant contribution
to the literature by providing insight into the perceptions of
practitioners who
make decisions on mitigating reputational risks. The results
suggest that this is a very new area of management that is
striving to find a way
to minimise their exposure.
Keywords Corporate responsibility, Risk management, Supply
chain ethics
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
We have known that supply chains can have a considerable
impact on the environment (Shi et al., 2012; Svensson and
Wagner, 2012), and significant strides have been taken to
address this fact (Simpson and Power, 2005; Tachizawa et al.,
2014). The practices with greening supply chains have shown
continual improvement. However, irresponsible business
activities remain a risk to others in the chain. A good example
is the most recent and perhaps memorable incident that
occurred with Apple Inc. The employees of Foxconn, a
manufacturer of electronic devices for many firms including
Apple, threatened mass suicide for the poor working
conditions in the facilities. As a result, Apple was implicated in
the sweatshop conditions (Guglielmo, 2013), merely by

association and their reputation was threatened. This example
serves to represent supply chain reputation risks where chain
members’ irresponsible actions have the potential to impact
other parties.
There are many other examples of this type of risk such as
Deepwater Horizon’s questionable activities resulting in the
worst oil disaster in the history of USA. Because of
Deepwater, British Petroleum (BP) paid the price
monetarily (Gilbert and Scheck, 2014) and with respect to
their reputation, the impact continues. In the USA, the
release of the screenplay “Deepwater Horizon” is
anticipated for September 2016 – IMDb.com, Inc., an
amazon.com company, already listed the movie as the
“Most Popular Feature Film released in 2016” in the
“Drama” category (Anonymous, 2015).
Although a close collaboration between chain members
can often lead to positive outcomes for all parties involved
(cf. Wagner and Alderdice, 2006), it is the dark side to it
(Juhasz, 2012) that deserves the most attention. The
“Horsemeat Scandal” in Europe (see Anonymous, 2013a
for the timeline of events) impacted many organisations
along the supply chain. Even large retailers fell victim to the
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is
available on
Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/1359-8546.htm
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
20/5 (2015) 495–510
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 1359-8546]
[DOI 10.1108/SCM-09-2014-0320]
Received 29 September 2014

Revised 9 February 2015
7 June 2015
20 June 2015
Accepted 21 June 2015
495
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/SCM-09-2014-0320
phenomenon, with IKEA withdrawing their product from
14 European countries (Pollak, 2013) and Tesco
investigating and revising their list of approved suppliers
(Stones, 2013) in an effort to rebuild their reputation and
trust with their customers. Tim Smith, Group Technical
Director at Tesco, emphasised:
We want to leave customers in no doubt that we will do
whatever it takes
to ensure the quality of their food and that the food they buy is
exactly
what the label says it is (Anonymous, 2013b).
The following article builds upon the concept of
reputational risks generated in the supply chain. We begin
with reviewing the reputation and risk literature and
instances in which this has become a topic. Next, a model
is proposed theorising how member activities may affect the
reputation of partnering firms. We then present the results
of a qualitative investigation, highlighting how practicing
managers perceive the phenomenon. Lastly, we discuss the
varying risk management approaches that may be taken and
the opportunities for further research.
Reputation
Reputation is a dynamic asset, and, as a resource that

creates value, it can mitigate the negative outcomes
stemming from a crisis (Vanhamme and Grobben, 2009)
and serve as a fundamental source of competitive advantage
(Dierickx and Cool, 1989). A positive reputation has been
linked to improving upon the bottom line (Finch, 2004),
attracting capital, closing contracts and having a positive
influence on consumer behaviour (Dowling, 2001).
Reputation is derived from three foundational elements:
1 the perceptions of individuals;
2 the aggregate of those individual perceptions captured
as stakeholder perceptions; and
3 the comparability of those perceptions (Fombrun,
1996).
Consumers develop an impression of an organisation by a
number of different methods. It may be from their
individual experiences with the firm’s people (Lemke et al.,
2011), their perceptions of how the firm manages its assets
or how it may interact with the local community (Castro
et al., 2006). Essentially, each consumer forms impressions
through a multitude of different avenues and, when
considered collectively with other stakeholders, results in a
reputation. From a distance, stakeholders can then be
mapped on a network and separated into definable groups
(Ackermann and Eden, 2011). Understanding these groups
is critical for managing them appropriately (cf. Money et al.,
2012). This allows managers to observe and evaluate the
reputation of corporations over time – at least on theoretical
grounds – which makes its management that much more
plausible.
Dollinger et al. (1997) noted that individual perceptions of
reputation was accrued based on the practices of management,
the financial performance of the firm and, lastly, the

characteristics of its product. These are the raw and somewhat
physical layers that managers accept and control for. But there
are other interwoven dimensions that cut across companies and
describe reputation in detail. With the growing risk of supply
chain partner behaviour, and in consideration of the
business-to-business (B2B) relationships found in supply
chains,
we adopted the model suggested by Fombrun (1996) and
Fombrun and Shanley (1990) to unravel the reputational
construct (Figure 1).
In Figure 1, reputation rests at the core and is formed by
perceptions of: management and their capabilities, how the
organisation utilises its resources, the long-term
investments made, products and services offered, the
management of employees, innovativeness and, lastly,
corporate social responsibility (CSR). These serve as
variables in the formation and development of a reputation,
which reflects a multi-stakeholder acuity whether it is in a
business-to-consumer or B2B setting. These dimensions
are particularly suitable for capturing the perspectives of all
stakeholders associated with the processes and outcome of
a supply chain. It also provides insight as to how a
reputation may be damaged (Dowling, 2004; Hamilton,
1995).
In the supply chain context, corporations will develop a
reputation depending upon where they find themselves
along the chain (Eltantawy et al., 2009). Figure 2 represents
a simplified view of a supply chain. We only consider one
raw material producer, processor and manufacturer for
practical purposes, but there may be many more with
multiple tiers. Yet, the basic principle remains the same:
reputations are formed based upon the perceptions of
stakeholders with respect to the firm’s activities and

competences for each of the dimensions.
What we are now seeing is that the reputation derived
from any one or more dimensions has the probability of
being transferred from one party to another (Fiol et al.,
2001; Kotha et al., 2001; Lemke and Petersen, 2013). For
instance, a manufacturing firm that has a significant
reputation for innovation, like Nike, may have a spill over
effect and thereby enhance the innovation domain of a
partnering firm, as shown for supply chain “A”, in the upper
part of Figure 3. Put another way, the retailer borrows the
reputation for innovation from the manufacturer.
In contrast, the lower part “B” of the figure shows a raw
material supplier that operates sweatshops and/or causes a
significant amount of damage to the natural environment.
This behaviour will develop a reputation that predominates
within the CSR dimension[1] and entails being dirty or of
committing human rights atrocities. There is now a high
probability that partnering firms will experience a spill over
effect in which they may also be associated with the
misdeed, placing their reputation at risk. It is important to
understand that reputational dimensions are transferrable
in both the positive and negative cases. Likewise, knowing
which dimensions remain with the party that essentially
earned it is key for capturing reputation holistically. This
helps us to understand when or where risks should be
mitigated. We differentiate between “reputational owners”
and “reputational borrowers” (discussed elsewhere, see
Lemke and Petersen, 2013) and that both reputational roles
co-exist throughout the supply chain. The reputational
owner actively creates reputation through the market
offering, communication and action, while the reputational
borrower passively receives reputation from the owner
merely by association. Transferring reputation from the

Mitigating reputational risks in supply chains
Henry L. Petersen and Fred Lemke
Volume 20 · Number 5 · 2015 · 495–510
496
owner to the borrower is the spill over effect – the principle
that ties the two roles together. In this light, mitigation
begins with analysing how the dimensions of reputation are
developed and transferred. What appeared to be a separate
firm-specific reputation actually has the potential to surface
in the supply chain as a holistic and multi-source construct
that poses a risk to all chain members.
Risks
Risk management typically addresses issues related to
strategy, operations, economics and hazards (Andersen,
2008). As a universal principle, risks and returns typically
go hand in hand. Most investments have varying degrees of
risk and, at times, diversification may be used to offset the
loss in one area with gains in another (Wang et al., 2003).
For many risks that are related to liability, an organisational
portfolio provides managers with the tools for identification
and classification (Donaldson et al., 2012). The risks are
then assessed for their probability of occurrence, the costs
to be incurred if the risk were to be realised and, then lastly,
what portion of the burden/cost the organisation should
take on. This assessment facilitates risk prioritisation. From

Figure 1 Reputational dimensions relevant to all stakeholders
Figure 2 Diagrammatic representation of a supply chain and
reputational risk elements
Volume 20 · Number 5 · 2015 · 495–510
497
there, four generic decision options are taken: risk
avoidance, loss prevention and control, risk transference
and risk retention (Bodie and Merton, 1998). Risks to a
corporation’s reputation, reputational risks, tend to fall
outside of basic risk management practices.
Reputational risks have been defined as the cumulative
likelihood that events stemming from exogenous or
endogenous sources can occur and negatively impact
stakeholder perceptions of the firm’s behaviour and
performance (Roehrich et al., 2014). They may be based
upon an economic, societal or environmental event that the
firm was engaged in directly or may arise indirectly via the
activities of another organisation in the supply chain
(Hoejmose et al., 2014). However, these risks are typically
overlooked. As we have pointed out, an organisation’s
reputation may be placed at risk if a member organisation
conducts itself in such a manner that the behavioural

outcomes spread beyond its organisational boundaries.
Given the simple and isolated “input, throughput and
output view” of a single company, it is no surprise that this
type of risk may occur largely unnoticed. There may be
several reasons for this. On the one hand, reputational risks
rarely result in the disruption of resources and they hardly
impact the quality and quantity of a supply, two major risks
that receive the most attention. On the other hand, it is
generally problematic to assess their associated costs,
making mitigation difficult to justify. Lastly, estimating the
probability of an event occurring and the impact the event
will have on a reputation (and to what extent) is completely
off the charts. Hence, assessing the costs and benefits of risk
management is highly unpredictable.
This phenomenon led us to a set of interrelated
questions: What are the risks from a practitioner’s
viewpoint, how (if at all) do they impact on reputation and
how could these be mitigated in a supply chain context?
One of the corporate governance mechanisms for
managing risks to reputation has been the implementation
of sustainable development or CSR. Roehrich et al. (2014)
suggested that reputational risks were the primary driver for
implementing sustainability practices in the supply chain
and that managing social issues or sustainability could come
under the umbrella of social responsibility (Hoejmose et al.,
2014) or the greening of supply chains (Lamming and
Hampson, 1996). Hence, we turn our focus to CSR with
respect to risk mitigation for practical and theoretical
foundations (Dollinger et al., 1997; Fombrun, 1996;
Fombrun and Shanley, 1990).
CSR and the mitigation of risks
From a traditional stakeholder vantage point[2], one of the

primary roles or responsibilities of business is wealth
generation (Friedman, 1970) which guides them on their
duties as for-profit entities (Davis, 1973). Included in the
building up of monetary wealth, business now must also
strive to assume CSR which entails responsibilities
surrounding economic, societal and environmental issues
(Inoue and Lee, 2011; Jo and Harjoto, 2012; Orlitzky et al.,
2003; Petersen and Vredenburg, 2009a, 2009b). Although
it is becoming common practice for organisations to assume
other responsibilities, the CSR concept is still somewhat
ill-defined (Freeman and Hasnaoui, 2011). This is due, in
part, to varying stakeholder expectations (Franz and
Petersen, 2012; Jamali, 2008) and what one would consider
to be a CSR-related action (cf. Alessandri et al., 2011).
Adding to the ambiguity is that, in some circles, CSR is
considered a voluntary business strategy and may very well
Figure 3 Diagrammatic representation of a supply chain and
reputational risk spill over effects
Volume 20 · Number 5 · 2015 · 495–510
498
be impacted by the discrepancy of “what firms think” about
CSR (cognitive), “what firms say” (linguistic) and “how
firms tend to behave” (conative), according to Basu and
Palazzo (2008). This portends to an eclectic practice that

has resulted in a multitude of contradictory definitions
(Freeman and Hasnaoui, 2011) and actions. Because CSR
is a normative construct, it is shaped by the activities of the
firm, the environmental situation and the perceptions of
respective stakeholders – a phenomenon that is similar to
that of reputation.
In the supply chain context, Awaysheh and Klassen
(2010, p. 1,248) note that social responsibility is also
undefined and call for “a mid-range definitional construct”
so that more research may be conducted to identify the
tools needed to manage chain members. Although
Hoejmose et al. (2013) extend this by referring to socially
responsible supply chain management as the integration of
social issues that are within the control of operations and
supply chain managers, the problem is that not everything
can be easily controlled for and reputational risks are one of
them. Building on from this, and the works that have
defined and identified stakeholder expectations (Carroll,
1979, 1991; Epstein and Roy, 1998, 2001; Franz and
Petersen, 2012; Petersen and Vredenburg, 2009b), we refer
to the operational approach used by Lemke and Petersen (2013),
which is composed of four distinctive spheres: governance,
ethics, environment and social (Figure 4).
The first CSR sphere, governance, views a corporation as
being embedded in existing social structures and
international business networks. This sphere encapsulates
how organisational resources are being deployed and the
type of interaction the organisation has with its stakeholders
(Daily et al., 2003; Turnbull, 1997). Responsible firms have
better organisational performance, good risk management
practices, contributions by institutional investors, satisfied
employees and loyal customers (Becker-Olsen et al., 2006;
Du et al., 2007; Groza et al., 2011; Hansen et al., 2011;
Kiron, 2012; Peloza and Shang, 2011; Petersen and

Vredenburg, 2009b).
The second sphere is ethics which captures the
expectations of stakeholders and also the corporation’s
willingness to assume its ethical responsibility (Perrini,
2006). In general, ethical behaviour has a direct impact on
shareholder value (Johnson, 2003) and, in the supply chain,
organisations are serving a more diverse and global market
and, thus, have to cooperate with multiple and sometimes
international suppliers and buyers. Often, multiple tiers of
suppliers are involved. Ethics covers the materials and
working processes used at each link of the supply chain that
may start in one country and crosses national boundaries,
cultural zones, legal systems and individual viewpoints.
Thus, the interpretation of ethics can and does change and
what appeared to be ethical at one stage – even with the best
intentions at a given time – may look neutral or unethical in
the next (cf. Adebanjo et al., 2013). The final ethical verdict
comes from the end-consumer, which highlights the
necessity that the ethical interpretation of all supply chain
members becomes united and reflects one and the same
ethical approach.
The environment represents the third sphere and it
captures the responsibilities and actions pertaining to the
management of the natural environment. This sphere
includes business processes (Brundtland, 1987) so that the
organisation and the environment form a symbiotic
relationship in which both entities flourish. In this instance,
a future-oriented and pro-active environmental strategy
could reap financial rewards for the business (Yu et al.,
2014), although market demands and business offerings are
not yet quite in sync when it comes to environmental issues
(Lemke and Luzio, 2014).

The last CSR sphere is social and it involves the public’s
expectations on business leaders that surpass their fiduciary
duties. Just as we would expect of a good citizen to
participate in alleviating social ills, businesses are also
expected to contribute in the same way. Human rights
atrocities, racial disparity, the prevention of child labour,
creating awareness of alcohol abuse, anti-smoking
campaigns – there are many issues needing attention and
socially responsible firms get behind those that they believe
they can contribute the most.
This four-lenses perspective allows us to appreciate the
complexity of the CSR construct while articulating a
definition, a mid-range definition, of CSR in context.
Hence, CSR is based on a commitment to governance,
ethics, environmental and social dimensions, and it is
reflected in what the firm thinks, does, says and associates
with. As a corporate mechanism, CSR is suggested to have
the potential to improve upon the risk identification process
(Ennis, 2015) and, as Peters and Romi (2014) note, may
also increase the transparency of members. From this
perspective, we wanted to assess whether reputational risks
are indeed a relevant practitioner issue and if so, the
mitigation methods they are considering, including CSR.
Practice
Given our close relationships with supply chain
practitioners, we interviewed selected individuals to get
their expert opinions on reputational risks. Helmer and
Rescher (1959) introduced the systematic investigation
technique for making predictions based on an unbiased
multi-experts’ assessment of a current, real and uncertain
event or situation. Because we are right on the interface of
varying views, and through witnessing and recording the
Figure 4 Four spheres of CSR

Volume 20 · Number 5 · 2015 · 495–510
499
communication process among experts, we know how
experienced participants think and act. This is in line with
Dewey’s (1910) rationale for cognitive investigations as well
as with the spirit of the “reflective practitioner” by Schön
(1995). Due to the richness of the information that emerged
in the data collection process, qualitative sample sizes are
typically small. In this light, Baker (2002) recommends
following the researcher’s judgement who tries to
understand such an exploratory area. Our qualitative
investigation has a clear scope that blends reputation, risk
and CSR within the supply chain setting. Depending on the
details of the interviews, Carson et al. (2001) recommend a
sample size of 6-12 to reach the data saturation point. We
selected eight participants based on their expertise in supply
chain management and risk assessment.
In our investigation, we adopted established guidelines
for data collection (Dalkey and Helmer, 1963; Delbecq
et al., 1975; Okoli and Pawlowski, 2004; Schmidt, 1997).
The experts in our study are key informants (Campbell,
1955), which we selected because they had a full
understanding of the strategic direction of their
organisation, were involved in supply chain management

and possessed in-depth knowledge about the operational
implications of reputational risks which made them a useful
source of insight (Husted and Allen, 2007). They came from
the aerospace, electronics, energy, logistics and life sciences
industries. They were not direct competitors, and the
organisations were located at different stages of the supply
chain.
The interviews took approximately 45 minutes on average and
followed a semi-structured protocol.
Being that this was exploratory, and that we were seeking
to understand managerial perceptions of the different types
of risks in the supply chain, we adopted a mental models
approach to organise and display our findings. Mental
modelling is a method that provides a cognitive map of a
person’s belief or understanding of a concept (Morgan
et al., 2002). The information that was gathered was
categorised into prototypes that, when combined, compose
a schema (Palmer and Pickett, 1999) which is the
declarative state of knowledge that answers the question of
“what”. In short, it is utilised to impose meaning upon
situations.
Mental modelling serves to capture a snapshot of a
schema and, in combination with others, creates a single
description that summarises the pooled knowledge of
people (Morgan et al., 2002). This method is particularly
helpful to assess comprehension, using before and after
analyses and risk communications to gauge the effectiveness
of information that is conveyed (Slovic, 1992). With
regards to the latter, the method maps the collective
knowledge of a professional group, thereby providing a tool
to assess how risks are perceived. Based on these
characteristics, the method is appropriate for this research.
It is worth noting that the model does not identify specific

cause and effect relationships. Rather, it simply but
elegantly allows us to present a very rich set of information
that uncovers important points and concepts that are
related. As a result, the arrows used in the following maps
serve as a representation of nomological space in which
meaning is translated in the associations of prototypes that
comprise the schema. The circles represent the ideas or
concepts related to the subject in question.
Cognitive modelling uses specific aspects of the case
study method as a means of reinforcing the mental models.
This method provides a suitable procedure for observing
and measuring behaviour in a realistic setting (Macdonald
et al., 2011; Yin, 2009). Similar to the methodological
approach by Pagell and Wu (2009), we targeted the specific
firms that are doing something different. For validity
purposes, and in-line with the prescribed case method for
triangulation, we reviewed the internal documentation of
the respective firms as well as the public records such as
newspaper articles and practitioner magazines. The
interviews were recorded, transcribed and then the
researchers categorised them independently first and
collectively later to increase the validity of the findings.
Our primary questions are reported here, but have been
supplemented by probing questions:
1 Risks:
● What types of risks affect your organisation?
● Do members of the supply chain carry the same risks
or are there differences?
2 Reputation:
● In a business context, what does the term “reputation”

entail?
● Do your business partners effect the reputation of
your organisation?
● If so, how?
3 Corporate social responsibility:
● What CSR activities does your organisation do?
● Why do you do these things?
● Do these activities relate to any of the risks discussed
earlier?
● Have all supply chain members the same
opportunities to engage in CSR?
4 CSR and reputational risk:
● Does CSR impact the reputation of your organisation?
● Can CSR be used to address the reputational risks of
your organisation?
In the following section, our findings are orchestrated in the
logical flow that practitioners associate with these topics,
supported by original quotes of respondents.
Risks
All participants recognised a multiple number of risks
facing their companies in the supply chain context. In
listing these, the following description does not reflect an
order of priority or magnitude, rather it is simply
acknowledgment and awareness.
To start with, specific risks related to the availability of
the service or product was identified. This included the

timeliness of the delivery, the acquisition of the product as
well as obsolescence. The second set of risks was with
respect to quality, risks surrounding noncompliance, the
(chemical) composition of the products, the performance
levels and the regulatory requirements. Regarding the
chemical composition, numerous mentions of the
Dodd-Frank Act (Anand, 2011) were made. The use of
materials from conflict zones was a concern, as well as
Volume 20 · Number 5 · 2015 · 495–510
500
products having materials that were banned or deemed
unsafe.
Safety was identified as a common risk. Operational
issues associated to fires, hazards, explosions, chemicals or
technologies were pointed out. The concern with safety was
a reflection of their concern for the public, their employees
and customers. References were made to BP and the
contractor used to drill the well that led to the disaster in
the Gulf of Mexico (Juhasz, 2012):
Have you looked at the whole BP thing? Remember, BP tried to
blame it
on someone else. But it was a supplier and so everyone sees it
as BP’s oil

spill (Director/Manager, Energy Industry).
Financial risks were also identified. These pertained to the
price of partner products, the financial strength of the
partner, commodity prices, exchange rates and interest
rates. With respect to the environment, having an
environmental policy was important. Vendors have
expressed an interest in established policies, which were
believed to be reflective of current practice. Other
environmental issues raised were energy use, climate
change, resource scarcity and impacts on the natural
environment:
No environmental policy is a threat of losing customers like
WalMart,
AT&T and Verizon etc. They have a lot of questionnaires that
involves
our supply chain (Director/Manager, Electronics Industry).
We really do think that climate change and resources are a true
risk to us
and limited resources can drive costs (Director/Manager,
Electronics
Industry).
There were several social risks identified. Human rights
were pointed out and the Apple and Foxconn case
(Guglielmo, 2013) was referred to on numerous occasions.
Ethics or unethical practices were also identified as a risk as
were stakeholder pressures. Figure 5 provides a snapshot of
the perceived risks in a supply chain.
Having identified the major risk areas, we then examine
the results on how risks threaten an organisation’s
reputation, if at all.

Reputation
Each participant identified how their actions, products,
communications, public relations and more formed the
reputation held by their various stakeholders. Regarding
business partners affecting their organisation’s reputation,
all respondents confirmed a reputational impact, followed
by detailed business examples. Interestingly enough, all of
the examples, but one, were associated to ethical and
regulatory practices surrounding the environment or social
responsibility. Availability and pricing, by contrast, were
not mentioned. Unfortunately, we are unable to report on
specific instances here without the risk of compromising the
anonymity of our participants and their organisations. The
following quote may serve as a testament to the growing
body of evidence that social and environmental practices of
chain members, several tiers away, are a risk:
There have been occasions here where people protested in front
of my
company for something that was three or four layers down the
supply
chain that we knew nothing about (Director/Manager, Energy
Industry).
There was also the expression that all of the risks identified
were a threat to the organisation’s reputation. This
stemmed from the supply chain but also extended directly
to the organisation’s own practices. For instance, one
respondent emphasised that they stood to lose some of their
big box retailers if their firm – and in particular their
suppliers – had no environmental policy:
All risk can eventually impact the reputation of the company
(Director/
Manager, Aerospace Industry).

When asked about a partner’s reputation impacting their
organisation’s reputation, all respondents answered “yes”:
If something happens with one of our suppliers and it is
associated with
some kind of negative connotation or some kind of act that does
not align
with [our company’s] values that is a reflection on our company
as well
(Director/Manager, Aerospace Industry).
A positive reputation is a trust that has been built up between us
and our
customers and hopefully us and our suppliers and vice versa
(Director/
Manager, Energy Industry).
Figure 5 Cognitive model of participants for supply chain risks
Volume 20 · Number 5 · 2015 · 495–510
501
Risk mitigation
Mitigating the identified risks, and in particular the risks to
the firm’s reputation, was a concern of all participants. This
was especially important for participants whose chain
members were numbered in the hundreds. One particular

partner had varying tiers with approximately 1,300
suppliers in 26 countries:
We could have up to 500 suppliers that go into one product
(Director/
Manager, Electronics Industry).
It is incredibly difficult for one manufacturer to go out to all of
our
suppliers, launch these questionnaires, follow up with an audit
or
somehow get some level of verification, and then the next year,
when our
product line changes, do it all over again (Director/Manager,
Electronics
Industry).
Mitigation of many of the risks was attempted with the
typical contractual obligations regarding availability,
quality and cost (i.e. counter party risks). For risks related
to the environment and social responsibility, mitigation was
performed via questionnaires that seemed to be prolific
going up and downstream in the supply chain:
We have seen a lot coming from our customers, pressing us as
part of
their supply chain and the more they press on us the more we
press on
our suppliers and they press on theirs (Director/Manager, Life
Science
Industry).
We see partners building supply chain audit programs and we
get a lot of
questionnaires. We get them on both sides. We get them from
our

resource side and we get them from our vendor side (Executive,
Life
Science Industry).
On an indirect level, i.e. with partners that were more than
one tier away, validation was identified as needed but not
easily implemented. Hence, the organisations in this study
used questionnaires to transfer the mitigation of the risks
throughout the supply chain to partnering organisations,
which, in turn, may influence their chain partners with
questionnaires and so on and so forth. Partnering programs
were implemented by two of the eight participants
interviewed. This involved partnering firms working
together to minimise risks and fortifying the connection.
The approach was effective but had limited reach beyond
direct partners.
Other forms of mitigation entailed communications and
public relations. Lastly, transparency was also considered a
mitigating technique. Although we could have grouped
transparency with communications, the item arose in its
own context and, therefore, is listed as such. Figure 6
outlines the mitigating activities that participants elicited in
our interviews:
If you are just as open in sharing challenges that you face as
you are with
your successes, you become a more credible voice and more
believable. The
results seem more believable when you are willing to share the
challenges as
well (Director/Manager, Energy Industry).
Corporate social responsibility
We adopted CSR as an entry point to capture and illustrate
expert views in relation to reputational risk. All of the

participants were descriptive of their CSR activities. The
number of activities and their scale were enormous and
entailed activities as would be expected for the environment
(reducing the carbon footprint, taking back programs of
goods sold, biodiversity, reverse logistics) and society
(employee engagement, education, diversity, non-profit
partnerships). There were a significant number of reporting
mechanisms such as the Dow Jones Sustainability Index,
FTSE4 good or the carbon disclosure project. Lastly,
philanthropy was a common activity with organisations
donating money, assets such as technology, employee time
and even skills.
With respect to why the organisations engaged in CSR,
the answers varied and can be viewed in Figure 7.
Stakeholder expectations were a common factor.
Participants mentioned how investor expectations have
changed and requests were made for them to participate in
the Dow Jones Sustainability Index or FTSE4good. They
also made explicit that investors wanted more information
like environmental practices, thereby forcing their firms to
address items that may have not been on their radar
beforehand. Customers were considered an influential
stakeholder as were employees. With respect to the latter,
the emphasis was on employee engagement and
satisfaction, and there was a belief that CSR attracted new
recruits. Lastly, there was a perception that supply chain
partners were attempting to influence CSR activities along
the chains via questionnaires, inquiries and contractual
expectations. However, audit or some form of validation
was rarely performed:
Internally our employees are very proud of our CSR reputation
(Executive, Life Sciences Industry).

Another factor that influenced these organisations for
engaging in CSR activities were to mitigate the many risks
that were discussed earlier. When asked whether CSR adds
to their reputation, all respondents expressed an
affirmative. Likewise, CSR was also considered a mitigating
factor for the risks that have the potential to impact their
reputation. Lastly, CSR was believed to have a positive
Figure 6 Cognitive model representing participants’ perception
of mitigating actions for supply chain risks
Volume 20 · Number 5 · 2015 · 495–510
502
impact on the business which led to increases in efficiencies,
the acquisition of contracts, attracting better employees and
the making of appropriate investments that improved the
bottom line:
We believe in doing good. On the other hand, CSR is very
profitable
[. . .] so investment, where it makes sense, is a key priority for
us
(Director/Manager, Life Sciences).
When you go into negotiations for a bid and you review the RFP
[request

for proposal], everything is weighted and as a contracting
officer, your
opinion of the past performance of different companies is a
weighted
value. So, even if they may not be the most cost efficient when
awarding
contracts the reputation definitely goes into the subjective side
of
awarding a contract (Director/Manager, Logistics Industry).
Figure 8 is an illustration of how our participant-group
perceived risks in the supply chain, the different mitigation
practices that they use and CSR. With respect to the risks
identified, there was a direct association to ethical issues
and their respective impact on the organisation’s
reputation. Human rights atrocities or environmental
negligence is a significant societal issue that garners a great
deal of attention.
For mitigation practices, the techniques were typical for
common risks such as timeliness of delivery, quality and
price. For reputational risks, particularly those drawing
upon ethics, specific activities were related to social
responsibility because it mitigates the negative reputational
impacts of supplier activities. That is certainly not the only
reason for their engaging in such activities, but this is one of
the benefits. With respect to their influence of other
members of the chain, this is sporadic. The direct influence
on partnerships is limited due to resource constraints.
Currently, the plethora of questionnaires raises the topic of
social responsibility, although the effectiveness of this
method is questionable as mentioned.
Discussion and implications
The present study builds on the work of Hoejmose et al.
(2013) with respect to reputational risks in the supply chain

and generates a rich set of data that verifies the seriousness
of the threat. In this paper, we extend the definitional
construct to include risks that extend beyond sustainability
and greening the chain, and we add to this by including a
multi-dimensional construct of reputation that
demonstrates the potential for spill over. The professionals
in this select group expressed how these types of risks
typically remain undetected by the organisation and that
these stemmed from unethical or at best ethically
questionable activities. It is understandable that
practitioners would first seek to manage the risks associated
with availability, cost and quality as these are often
characteristics that directly impact a product or service
offering. It is also easy to see how these three aspects would
have an immediate and direct effect on the survivability of
a firm, which suggests that these risks may appear to be of
higher order. This may also explain why reputational risks
have limited resources as pointed out by Roehrich et al.
(2014). Nevertheless, reputational risks were identified as
significant and mitigation practices are evolving. For
classification purposes, we refer back to the risk
management process of identification, probability, costs
and prioritisation. Identifying these risks is incredibly
difficult. Given that these stem from unethical or
questionable behaviour, this is not something that is
directly advertised or even reported upon. That is until an
event has occurred. In fact, identifying the threat in the
supply chain may be all but impossible. Without a historical
record, it is difficult to know who is a potential offender.
From here, assessing the probability of an event occurring
and its impact on an organisation’s reputation is perplexing.
It seems not all events impact partnering firm reputations
and when one does, the exposure is selective. For instance,
Apple received a considerable amount of attention for the
sweatshop conditions alleged at Foxconn, a manufacturer

contracted by Apple (Blanchard, 2012). However, many US and
European firms contract Foxconn. Why others were not
implicated in the many offences allegedly committed by
Foxconn
is a mystery. Nevertheless, the probability of an event occurring
may be assessed, but the probability of the outcome impacting
one firm as opposed to another would be difficult. Perhaps this
would have to do with the revenue or industry position of a firm
(i.e. industry lead) and the level of brand awareness. More work
needs to be done in this area and this would help in assessing
the
costs of the risk if realised.
Given the problems with characterising the risks,
investments in collecting more data are highly
Figure 7 Cognitive map of participants’ perception for why their
firm engaged in CSR
Volume 20 · Number 5 · 2015 · 495–510
503
recommended. Decisions for mitigation are essentially
dependent upon the quality of the information available
and, given the newness of this phenomenon, additional
research is needed. The current risk management practices

fall under generic risk management categories that we
discussed earlier: avoidance, loss prevention and control,
transference and lastly retention. Avoidance would entail a
change in managerial and institutional practices so that
exposure to the risk is either minimised or removed
altogether. For instance, Sony (2015) avoids certain
materials in their product to prevent being implicated in
sourcing materials from areas of conflict. Avoiding a
product or material is one option. Perhaps avoiding a type
of firm and its consequential behaviour is another. In fact,
utilising memberships to specialised associations may allow
for some form of screening to minimise potential offenders.
This will be discussed later.
Another risk management method may be found in loss
prevention and control. For instance, Apple attempted to
manage the reputational damage stemming from the
Foxconn incident by contracting another manufacturer.
Amidst the news of abuses with the new partner, Apple
indicated that they were not aware of the problems and that
steps would be taken to manage this in the future (Neate,
2013). This was their attempt at controlling the situation,
minimising the impact or potential losses and trying to
control the outcome.
Transference is a common mechanism, but we were not
aware of what insurance may be purchased and what the
cost of this option would be. Transference of the risk to
Figure 8 Participants’ cognitive representation (schema) for
supply chain risks, methods for mitigation and impetus for CSR

Volume 20 · Number 5 · 2015 · 495–510
504
other partnering firms is, in some ways, practiced via the
questionnaires that serve as a means of transferring the risk.
By simply asking the questions about policy, there seemed
to be a hope that this brought about awareness of the topic
in question. Not one of the participants knew of a follow-up
to a questionnaire and there was no mention of how the
answers on the questionnaire impacted the relationship.
Finally, retention of the risk is the last option. Here, no
action is taken and the costs of the risk, if realised, are
anticipated and covered. Based on our interviews, we know
that this is the current default option because mitigation of
such an intangible risk remains difficult and uncertain.
With regards to all risk mitigating methods used today,
the contractual obligations appear to be the strongest.
Hence, any attempt to enter into a contractual agreement
would be advised. As one participant put it:
It is not if they comply, they must comply if they want to do
business with
us (Director/Manager, Electronics Industry).
However, as the chain broadens, contractual agreements
become less effective and more costly. There is also the
consideration that if your position of influence is not
significant, as a powerful buyer or supplier, the likelihood of
controlling partnering behaviour weakens. There is also the

issue of verification, as the tools needed to verify actions are
slow
to develop (Awaysheh and Klassen, 2010). The same can be said
of questionnaires and codes of conduct. Short of adopting an
auditing program or hiring third parties to conduct audits, the
effectiveness of the current methods is speculative. For
instance,
Lee (2014) found that questionnaires and a code of conduct did
not mitigate the risks of suppliers using child labourers. Still,
auditing is costly and given the fluid nature of some chains, this
option is incredibly complex.
We recommend the adoption of a more holistic practice
of forming an association, whereby participants or members
agree to a set of CSR policies that serve as a foundation for
good governance. In part, we recognise the mitigating
potential of CSR and we refer back to Figure 4.
What CSR offers is the pre-emptive guidance for
addressing many supply chain risks. An organisation
committed to fair wages and not engaging in human rights
atrocities, as described in their CSR policies, may be less
likely to offend. Certainly, they do run the risk of a public
outcry and possibly persecution by their immediate
stakeholders if they were found to be operating contrary to
proclaimed practices. This would appear to be more
effective than the current proliferation of questionnaires.
What CSR accomplishes, that the questionnaires do not, is
an attempt at transparency, public accountability and
perhaps a refining of corporate governance on a multi-tier
level (Tachizawa et al., 2014). Table I demonstrates how
CSR may address the different risks posed in the supply
chain. Each of the four spheres (on the right of the table)
can serve as a placeholder to a set of corporate policies that
commit an organisation to take on specific responsibilities.

In this sense, all members would be strategically aligned
to design and control for varying risks in the chain. Table II
shows how CSR and its four spheres may mitigate the risks
for each of the dimensions of reputation. For example,
within the sphere of governance, the organisation would
commit to a corporate policy for the effective use of
resources. No policy is effective without measures. This
means that the consequent development of a management
system leads to continual improvement. This sphere would
similarly address financial performance and thereby
decrease the likelihood that a risk will be generated there.
As can be seen in the table, mitigation may be initiated
for many dimensional risks before they even start.
Extending this further, we believe that by focusing on each
of the dimensions of reputation, and not simply mitigating
the risks but bolstering the dimension, may serve as an
effective means of enhancing a firm’s reputation in the
supply chain setting.
Conclusion
The potential for research in this area is tremendous, both
qualitative and quantitative. There is a great deal of data
making its way through the chains via the many
questionnaires being filled out. This data would prove to be
insightful. Also, knowing how many firms are impacted by
this phenomenon and the varying methods being used will
help in the development of best practices. This research is
by no means representative of the population or
generalisable having relied upon a selective and small
sample. Although this work contributes an in-depth
cognitive perspective of practicing managers, more research
is needed in other industries, in different cultures and in
differing positions along the chains.
Another area ripe for research is the impact of supply chain

activities on stakeholder perceptions for each of the
individual dimensions of a reputation. Each of these may be
explored in both the negative and positive frames. Finally,
do companies actually assess the partner profile with
regards to reputational risk potential and how does this
compare to other established and documented selection
factors, such as price, quality and delivery performance?
Given that we identified other factors that contribute to the
reputational risk, it is fair to ask whether reputation should
be an overriding supplier selection factor or not, and if so,
is this objectively captured or does this remain on the
subjective level only?
Supply chain management is a relatively difficult
management task and the significant gap that exists
between theory and practice just does not help (Storey
et al., 2006). Even suggesting that there may not be an
unified agreed upon definition of supply chain management
(Stock and Boyer, 2009), which is foundational for
harmonising and advancing research that aids practice,
makes it that much more challenging. Although we are
emphasising and promoting the mitigation of reputational
risks borne from partners in a supply chain, we must
highlight the fact that given the underwhelming
performance of supply chain management (Storey et al.,
2006; Zumsteg et al., 2012), let alone the risk management
practices (Fischl et al., 2014), recommendations for
multi-tier mitigation process are weak at best. What we are
suggesting is that a CSR policy adopted by associated members
may address reputational risk and may also apply to the
mitigation of generic supply chain risks related to quality and
disruptions. However, not unlike the questionnaires and codes
of
conducts, the process begins with a commitment by tier-one

Volume 20 · Number 5 · 2015 · 495–510
505
Ta
bl
e
I
Su
pp
ly
ch
ai
n
ris
ks
an
d
m
iti
ga

tin
g
ac
tiv
iti
es
(P
re
se
nt
an
d
fu
tu
re
)
–
he
at
m
ap
Ri
sk
s

M
it
ig
at
io
n
Pr
es
en
t
ac
ti
vi
ti
es
Fu
tu
re
ac
ti
vi
ti
es
CS

R
A
ud
it
s
Q
ue
st
io
nn
ai
re
s
Co
nt
ra
ct
ua
l
ag
re
em
en
ts

Tr
an
sp
ar
en
cy
Co
m
m
un
ic
at
io
n
Pa
rt
ne
ri
ng
pr
og
ra
m
s

G
ov
er
na
nc
e
Et
hi
cs
En
vi
ro
nm
en
t
So
ci
al
A
va
ila
bi
lit
y

�
�
�
En
vi
ro
nm
en
t
�
�
�
�
Fi
na
nc
ia
l
�
�
�
�
�

Q
ua
lit
y
an
d
co
m
pl
ia
nc
e
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Sa
fe
ty
�
�

�
�
�
�
�
So
ci
al
re
sp
on
si
bi
lit
y
�
�
�
�
�
�
Re
ac
h

of
m
it
ig
at
in
g
ac
ti
on
Ti
er
-1
Ti
er
s
1-
2
Ti
er
-1
Ti
er
-1

Ti
er
-1
Ti
er
-1
En
tir
e
ch
ai
n
En
tir
e
ch
ai
n
En
tir
e
ch
ai
n

En
tir
e
ch
ai
n
Volume 20 · Number 5 · 2015 · 495–510
506
partners to an association with a set of corporate policies and
practices. They in turn influence their partnering firms, who in
turn exercise their influence over partnering firms and so on
and so forth. This mitigating action can have a domino effect
that spreads up and downstream. Aligning organisational
commitments is like choosing friends. Pick them carefully, lest
you find yourself running with the wrong crowd.
Notes
1 We exclusively refer to CSR as a simplified mean to
facilitate our discussion. Note that reputations
represent a cumulative perception of all eight
dimensions, and not just one.

2 This takes into consideration that there are several
different business models and private firms that may
have as their objectives an end to a societal problem. In
this case, we are referring to public firms utilising the
equity garnered on an exchange.
References
Ackermann, F. and Eden, C. (2011), “Strategic management
of stakeholders: theory and practice”, Long Range Planning,
Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 179-196.
Adebanjo, D., Ojadi, F., Laosirihongthong, T. and Tickle, M.
(2013), “A case study of supplier selection in developing
economies: a perspective on institutional theory and
corporate social responsibility”, Supply Chain Management:
An International Journal, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 553-566.
Alessandri, T.M., Black, S.S. and Jackson, W.E. (2011),
“Black economic empowerment transactions in South
Africa: understanding when corporate social responsibility
may create or destroy value”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 44
No. 4, pp. 229-249.
Anand, S. (2011), Essentials of the Dodd-Frank Act, 1st ed.,
Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
Andersen, T.J. (2008), “The performance relationship of
effective risk management: exploring the firm-specific
investment rationale”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 41 No. 2,
pp. 155-176.
Anonymous (2013a), How the Horsemeat Scandal Unfolded –
Timeline: How Revelations Have Emerged About the
Contamination of Meat Products from Beefburgers to Lasagne,

The Guardian – Press Association, available at: www.
theguardian.com/world/2013/feb/08/how-horsemeat-
scandal-unfolded-timeline/print (accessed 20 May 2014).
Anonymous (2013b), Tesco Statement on Investigation into
Meat Contamination, Tesco, available at: www.tescoplc.
com/index.asp?pageid�17&newsid�732 (accessed 20 May
2014)
Anonymous (2015), “Most popular feature films released in
2016”, available at: www.imdb.com/search/title?year�2016
,2016&title_type�feature&explore�title_type:IMDb.com,
Inc (accessed 23 June 2015).
Awaysheh, A. and Klassen, R.D. (2010), “The impact of
supply chain structure on the use of supplier socially
responsible practices”, International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, Vol. 30 No. 12, pp. 1246-1268.
Baker, M.J. (2002), “Sampling”, The Marketing Review, Vol. 3
No. 1, pp. 103-120.
Basu, K. and Palazzo, G. (2008), “Corporate social
responsibility: a process model of sensemaking”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 122-136.
Becker-Olsen, K.L., Cudmore, B.A. and Hill, R.P. (2006),
“The impact of perceived corporate social responsibility on
consumer behavior”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 59
No. 1, pp. 46-53.
Blanchard, B. (2012), “Apple, Foxconn scandal highlights
exploitation of Chinese workers by foreign firms”,
Huffington Post, available at: www.huffingtonpost.com/
2012/03/07/apple-foxconn-scandal_n_1325930.html (accessed
30 August 2014).

Bodie, Z. and Merton, R.C. (1998), Finance, Prentice Hall,
Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Brundtland, G.H. (1987), Our Common Future, from One
Earth to One World, World Commission on the
Environment and Development (WCED), Oxford.
Campbell, D.T. (1955), “The informant in quantitative
research”, The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 60 No. 4,
pp. 339-342.
Carroll, A.B. (1979), “A three-dimensional conceptual model
of corporate performance”, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 497-505.
Carroll, A.B. (1991), “The pyramid of corporate social
responsibility: toward the moral management of
organizational stakeholders”, Business Horizons, Vol. 34
No. 4, pp. 39-48.
Carson, D.J., Gilmore, A., Perry, C. and Gronhaug, K.
(2001), Qualitative Marketing Research, SAGE, London.
Castro, G.M.D., López, J.E.N. and Sáez, P.L. (2006),
“Business and social reputation: exploring the concept and
main dimensions of corporate reputation”, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 63 No. 4, pp. 361-370.
Daily, C.M., Dalton, D.R. and Cannella, A.A.J. (2003),
“Corporate governance: decades of dialogue and data”, The
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 28 No. 3,
pp. 371-382.
Table II Mitigating qualities of corporate social responsibility’s
spheres

on reputational dimensions
Dimensions of
reputation
Corporate social responsibility’s spheres
Governance Ethical Environmental Social
Financial
performance
� �
Managerial
quality
� � �
Long-term
investments
� �
Resource use � �
Products and
services
� �
Employee
management
� �
Innovation �
CSR � � � �

Volume 20 · Number 5 · 2015 · 495–510
507
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/feb/08/how-horsemeat-
scandal-unfolded-timeline/print
http://www.tescoplc.com/index.asp?pageid=17&newsid=732
http://www.tescoplc.com/index.asp?pageid=17&newsid=732
http://www.imdb.com/search/title?year=2016,2016&title_type=f
eature&explore=title_type:IMDb.com,Inc
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/07/apple-foxconn-
scandal_n_1325930.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/07/apple-foxconn-
scandal_n_1325930.html
Dalkey, N. and Helmer, O. (1963), “An experimental
application of the Delphi method to the use of experts”,
Management Science, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 458-467.
Davis, K. (1973), “The case for and against business

assumption of social responsibilities”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 312-322.
Delbecq, A.L., Van De Ven, A.H. and Gustafson, D.H.
(1975), Group Techniques for Program Planning: A Guide to
Nominal Group and Delphi Processes, Scott Foresman,
Glenview, IL.
Dewey, J. (1910), How We Think, DC Heath & Co., Boston,
MA.
Dierickx, I. and Cool, K. (1989), “Asset stock accumulation
and sustainability of competitive advantage”, Management
Science, Vol. 35 No. 12, pp. 1504-1511.
Dollinger, M.J., Golden, P.A. and Saxton, T. (1997), “The
effect of reputation of the decision to joint venture”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 127-140.
Donaldson, L., Charlier, S.D. and Qiu, J.X.J. (2012),
“Organizational portfolio analysis: focusing on risk inside
the corporation”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 45 No. 4,
pp. 235-257.
Dowling, G.R. (2001), Creating Corporate Reputations:
Identity,
Image, and Performance, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Dowling, G.R. (2004), “Corporate reputations: should you
compete on yours?”, California Management Review, Vol. 46
No. 3, pp. 19-36.
Du, S., Bhattacharya, C.B. and Sen, S. (2007), “Reaping
relational rewards from corporate social responsibility: the
role of competitive positioning”, International Journal of
Research in Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 224-241.

Eltantawy, R.A., Fox, G.L. and Giunipero, L. (2009),
“Supply management ethical responsibility: reputation and
performance impacts”, Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 99-108.
Ennis, T. (2015), “Risk management: reputation is key”,
Professional Safety, Vol. 60 No. 1, p. 8.
Epstein, M.J. and Roy, M.-J. (1998), “Managing corporate
environmental performance: a multinational perspective”,
European Management Journal, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 284-296.
Epstein, M.J. and Roy, M.-J. (2001), “Sustainability in action:
identifying and measuring the key performance drivers”,
Long Range Planning, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 585-604.
Finch, P. (2004), “Supply chain risk management”, Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 9 No. 2,
pp. 183-196.
Fiol, C.M., O’Connor, E.J. and Aguinis, H. (2001), “All for
one and one for all? The development and transfer of power
across organizational levels”, The Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 224-242.
Fischl, M.C., Scherrer-Rathje, M., Friedli, T., Wagner, B.
and Wagner, B. (2014), “Digging deeper into supply risk: a
systematic literature review on price risks”, Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 19 Nos 5/6.
Fombrun, C. and Shanley, M. (1990), “What’s in a name?
Reputation building and corporate strategy”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 233-258.
Fombrun, C.J. (1996), Reputation: Realizing Value from the

Corporate
Image, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Franz, R.S. and Petersen, H.L. (2012), “Role of business: a
portfolio model of corporate social responsibility”, Journal
of Global Responsibility, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 83-110.
Freeman, I. and Hasnaoui, A. (2011), “The meaning of
corporate social responsibility: the vision of four nations”,
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 100 No. 3, pp. 419-443.
Friedman, M. (1970), “The social responsibility of business is
to
increase its profits”, New York Times Magazine, 13 September.
Gilbert, D. and Scheck, J. (2014), “Bp is found grossly
negligent in deepwater horizon disaster”, Wall Street
Journal, 4 September.
Groza, M., Pronschinske, M. and Walker, M. (2011),
“Perceived organizational motives and consumer responses
to proactive and reactive CSR”, Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 102 No. 4, pp. 639-652.
Guglielmo, C. (2013), “Apple’s supplier labor practices in
China scrutinized after Foxconn, Pegatron reviews”, Forbes,
available at: www.forbes.com/sites/connieguglielmo/2013/
12/12/apples-labor-practices-in-china-scrutinized-after-
foxconn-pegatron-reviewed/ (accessed 1 July 2014).
Hamilton, J.T. (1995), “Pollution as news: media and stock
market reactions to the toxics release inventory data”,
Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 28
No. 1, pp. 98-113.
Hansen, S.D., Dunford, B.B., Boss, A.D., Boss, R.W. and

Angermeier, I. (2011), “Corporate social responsibility and the
benefits of employee trust: a cross-disciplinary perspective”,
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 102 No. 1, pp. 29-45.
Helmer, O. and Rescher, N. (1959), “On the epistemology of
the inexact sciences”, Management Science, Vol. 6 No. 1,
pp. 25-52.
Hoejmose, S., Brammer, S. and Millington, A. (2013), “An
empirical examination of the relationship between business
strategy and socially responsible supply chain
management”, International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 589-621.
Hoejmose, S.U., Roehrich, J.K. and Grosvold, J. (2014), “Is
doing more doing better? The relationship between
responsible supply chain management and corporate
reputation”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 43
No. 1, pp. 77-90.
Husted, B.W. and Allen, D.B. (2007), “Strategic corporate
social responsibility and value creation among large firms:
lessons from the Spanish experience”, Long Range Planning,
Vol. 40 No. 6, pp. 594-610.
Inoue, Y. and Lee, S. (2011), “Effects of different dimensions
of corporate social responsibility on corporate financial
performance in tourism-related industries”, Tourism
Management, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 790-804.
Jamali, D. (2008), “A stakeholder approach to corporate
social responsibility: a fresh perspective into theory and
practice”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 82 No. 1,
pp. 213-231.
Jo, H. and Harjoto, M. (2012), “The causal effect of corporate

governance on corporate social responsibility”, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 106 No. 1, pp. 53-72.
Johnson, H.H. (2003), “Does it pay to be good? Social
responsibility and financial performance”, Business
Horizons, Vol. 46 No. 6, pp. 34-40.
Volume 20 · Number 5 · 2015 · 495–510
508
http://www.forbes.com/sites/connieguglielmo/2013/12/12/apples
-labor-practices-in-china-scrutinized-after-foxconn-pegatron-
reviewed/
reviewed/
reviewed/
Juhasz, A. (2012), “Bp owes $192 billion for gulf oil disaster,
not $15 billion settlement it’s seeking”, The Huffington Post,
11 June.
Kiron, D. (2012), “Get ready: mandated integrated reporting
is the future of corporate reporting”, MIT Sloan
Management Review, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 1-5.

Kotha, S., Rajgopal, S. and Rindova, V. (2001), “Reputation
building and performance: an empirical analysis of the
top-50 pure internet firms”, European Management Journal,
Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 571-586.
Lamming, R. and Hampson, J. (1996), “The environment as
a supply chain management issue”, British Journal of
Management, Vol. 7 No. S1, pp. S45-S62.
Lee, S.Y. (2014), Samsung Halts Business with Supplier in
China on Child Labor Concern, Reuters, Seoul, available at:
www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/14/us-samsung-elec-
child-labour-china-idUSKBN0FJ05Y20140714 (accessed
23 July 2014).
Lemke, F., Clark, M. and Wilson, H. (2011), “Customer
experience quality: an exploration in business and consumer
contexts using repertory grid technique”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 39 No. 6, pp. 846-869.
Lemke, F. and Luzio, J.P.P. (2014), “Exploring green
consumers’ mind-set towards green product design and life
cycle assessment: the case of sceptical Brazilian and
Portuguese green consumers”, Journal of Industrial Ecology,
Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 619-630.
Lemke, F. and Petersen, H.L. (2013), “Teaching reputational
risk management in the supply chain”, Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 18 No. 4,
pp. 413-428.
Macdonald, E.K., Wilson, H., Martinez, V. and Toossi, A.
(2011), “Assessing value-in-use: a conceptual framework
and exploratory study”, Industrial Marketing Management,
Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 671-682.

Money, K., Hillenbrand, C., Henseler, J. and Da Camara, N.
(2012), “Exploring unanticipated consequences of strategy
amongst stakeholder segments: the case of a European
revenue service”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 45 Nos 5/6,
pp. 395-423.
Morgan, M.G., Fischhoff, B., Bostrom, A. and Atman, C.J.
(2002), Risk Communication: A Mental Models Approach,
Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
Neate, R. (2013), “Apple investigates new claims of China
factory staff mistreatment”, The Guardian, available at:
www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jul/29/apple-
investugates-claims-china-factory (accessed 24 June 2015).
Okoli, C. and Pawlowski, S.D. (2004), “The Delphi method as a
research tool: an example, design considerations and
applications”, Information & Management, Vol. 42 No. 1,
pp. 15-29.
Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F.L. and Rynes, S.L. (2003), “Corporate
social and financial performance: a meta-analysis”,
Organization Studies, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 403-441.
Pagell, M. and Wu, Z. (2009), “Building a more complete
theory of sustainable supply chain management using case
studies of 10 exemplars”, Journal of Supply Chain
Palmer, T.B. and Pickett, G.M. (1999), “The role of mental
models in control theory: understanding cognitive factors
influencing the behaviors of salespeople”, Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 17-29.
Peloza, J. and Shang, J. (2011), “How can corporate social
responsibility activities create value for stakeholders? A

systematic review”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 117-135.
Perrini, F. (2006), “SMEs and CSR theory: evidence and
implications from an Italian perspective”, Journal of Business
Ethics, Vol. 67 No. 3, pp. 305-316.
Peters, G.F. and Romi, A.M. (2014), “Does the voluntary
adoption of corporate governance mechanisms improve
environmental risk disclosures? Evidence from greenhouse gas
emission accounting”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 125
No. 4, pp. 637-666.
Petersen, H.L. and Vredenburg, H. (2009a), “Corporate
governance, social responsibility and capital markets:
exploring the institutional investor mental model”,
Corporate Governance, Vol. 9 No. 5, pp. 610-622.
Petersen, H.L. and Vredenburg, H. (2009b), “Morals or
economics? Institutional investor preferences for corporate
social
responsibility”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 90 No. 1, pp.
1-14.
Pollak, S. (2013), “Horsemeat scandal spreads to Ikea
Swedish meatballs: the Swedish furniture giant is the latest
company to be dragged into the European horsemeat
scandal that began early this year”, Time, available at: http://
world.time.com/2013/02/26/horsemeat-scandal-spreads-to-
ikea-swedish-meatballs/ (accessed 20 May 2014).
Roehrich, J.K., Grosvold, J. and Hoejmose, S.U. (2014),
“Reputational risks and sustainable supply chain
management: decision making under bounded rationality”,
International Journal of Operations & Production

Schmidt, R.C. (1997), “Managing Delphi surveys using
nonparametric statistical techniques”, Decision Sciences,
Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 763-774.
Schön, D.A. (1995), The Reflective Practitioner: How
Professionals Think in Action, Ashgate Publishing, Farnham.
Shi, V.G., Koh, S.C.L., Baldwin, J. and Cucchiella, F.
(2012), “Natural resource based green supply chain
management”, Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 54-67.
Simpson, D.F. and Power, D.J. (2005), “Use the supply
relationship to develop lean and green suppliers”, Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 10 No. 1,
pp. 60-68.
Slovic, P. (1992), “Public perceptions of risk”, Risk
Management, Vol. 39 No. 3, p. 54.
Sony (2015), “Responsible sourcing of raw materials”,
available at: www.sony.net/SonyInfo/csr_report/sourcing/
materials/ (accessed 23 June 2015).
Stock, J.R. and Boyer, S.L. (2009), “Developing a consensus
definition of supply chain management: a qualitative
study”, International Journal of Physical Distribution &
Logistics Management, Vol. 39 No. 8, pp. 690-711.
Stones, M. (2013), “Vion sells Debbie & Andrew’s sausage
brand”, FoodManufacture.co.uk, available at: www.

Volume 20 · Number 5 · 2015 · 495–510
509
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/14/us-samsung-elec-
child-labour-china-idUSKBN0FJ05Y20140714
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/14/us-samsung-elec-
child-labour-china-idUSKBN0FJ05Y20140714
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jul/29/apple-
investugates-claims-china-factory
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jul/29/apple-
investugates-claims-china-factory
http://world.time.com/2013/02/26/horsemeat-scandal-spreads-
to-ikea-swedish-meatballs/
http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/csr_report/sourcing/materials/
http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/csr_report/sourcing/materials/
http://www.foodmanufacture.co.uk/Business-News/Vion-sells-
Debbie-Andrew-s-sausage-brand
foodmanufacture.co.uk/Business-News/Vion-sells-Debbie-
Andrew-s-sausage-brand (accessed 20 May 2014).
Storey, J., Emberson, C., Godsell, J. and Harrison, A. (2006),
“Supply chain management: theory, practice and future
challenges”, International Journal of Operations & Production
Svensson, G. and Wagner, B. (2012), “Implementation of a

sustainable business cycle: the case of a Swedish dairy
producer”, Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 93-97.
Tachizawa, E.M., Wong, C.Y. and Wagner, B. (2014),
“Towards a theory of multi-tier sustainable supply chains: a
systematic literature review”, Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, Vol. 19 Nos 5/6.
Turnbull, S. (1997), “Corporate governance: its scope,
concerns and theories”, Corporate Governance: An
International Review, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 180-205.
Vanhamme, J. and Grobben, B. (2009), “‘Too good to be
true!’. The effectiveness of CSR history in countering
negative publicity”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 85 No. 2,
pp. 273-283.
Wagner, B.A. and Alderdice, A.D.G. (2006), “Managing the
distribution channel: the case of scot trout and salmon”,
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 11
No. 2, pp. 104-107.
Wang, H., Barney, J.B. and Reuer, J.J. (2003), “Stimulating
firm-specific investment through risk management”, Long
Range Planning, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 49-59.
Yin, R.K. (2009), Case Study Research: Design and Methods,
SAGE, London.
Yu, W., Chavez, R., Feng, M., Wiengarten, F. and
Wagner, B. (2014), “Integrated green supply chain
management and operational performance”, Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 19 Nos 5/6.
Zumsteg, J.M., Cooper, J.S. and Noon, M.S. (2012),

“Systematic review checklist”, Journal of Industrial Ecology,
Vol. 16 No. S1, pp. S12-S21.
Corresponding author
Henry L. Petersen can be contacted at: [email protected]
uwlax.edu
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please
visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]
Volume 20 · Number 5 · 2015 · 495–510
510
http://www.foodmanufacture.co.uk/Business-News/Vion-sells-
Debbie-Andrew-s-sausage-brand
mailto:[email protected]
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without
permission.
Mitigating reputational risks in supply
chainsIntroductionReputationRisksCSR and the mitigation of
risksPracticeRisksReputationRisk mitigationCorporate social
responsibilityDiscussion and implicationsConclusionReferences

Risk Analysis, Vol. 36, No. 5, 2016 DOI 10.1111risa.12643.docx

Risk Analysis, Vol. 36, No. 5, 2016 DOI 10.1111risa.12643.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Risk Analysis, Vol. 36, No. 5, 2016 DOI 10.1111risa.12643.docx

Similar to Risk Analysis, Vol. 36, No. 5, 2016 DOI 10.1111risa.12643.docx (20)

More from healdkathaleen

More from healdkathaleen (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Risk Analysis, Vol. 36, No. 5, 2016 DOI 10.1111risa.12643.docx