INTEGRATED MODEL FOR REPUTATION EVALUATION BASED ON REPTRAK AND AMEC

Authors

  • Mykhaylo Shuranov Author
  • Tetiana Hrynyshak Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.60022/3(5)-9S

Keywords:

corporate reputation, communication evaluation, digital environment, stakeholders, managerial decisions

Abstract

The article addresses the problem of evaluating corporate reputation in the context of digital transformation. It is determined that traditional approaches to communication evaluation are largely focused on quantitative indicators, such as media outputs, reach, and frequency, which limits their ability to capture actual changes in stakeholder perceptions and behavior. This creates a gap between operational communication metrics and strategic management outcomes. In this regard, the study substantiates the need for an integrated approach that allows linking communication activities with reputational changes and organizational performance. The purpose of the research is to develop an integrated model for reputation evaluation based on the combination of the RepTrak methodology and the AMEC Integrated Evaluation Framework. The proposed model includes three interconnected levels: operational, tactical, and strategic. The operational level focuses on monitoring communication activities and information signals, including their volume, tone, and distribution channels. The tactical level is aimed at assessing changes in stakeholder perceptions using reputation drivers and emotional indicators. The strategic level evaluates how these perception changes are transformed into behavioral and economic outcomes, such as trust, recommendation, investment intentions, and support for the organization. The model provides a structured approach to identifying  causal relationships between communication processes, perception dynamics, and organizational results. The practical significance of the research lies in the possibility of applying the proposed model to improve reputation management systems, enhance analytical capabilities, and support evidence-based decision making in digital environments characterized by uncertainty, high information intensity, and the rapid spread of both reliable and manipulative content. The implementation of this approach contributes to bridging the gap between communication measurement and strategic management, ensuring a more comprehensive and effective evaluation of corporate reputation.

References

1. Ocean Tomo (2025) Intangible Asset Market Value Study: analytical report. URL: https://oceantomo.com/intangible-asset-market-value-study

2. World Economic Forum (2025) Global Risks Report 2025: analytical report. Geneva: World Economic Forum, URL: https://reports.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Global_Risks_Report_2025.pdf

3. Chapekis, A., Lieb, A., Shah, S., & Smith, A. (2025) What Web Browsing Data Tells Us About How AI Appears Online: analytical report. Pew Research Center. URL: https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2025/05/pl_2025.05.23_metered-data-ai_report.pdf

4. Олтаржевський Д., Шуранов М. (2025). Модель управління кризовими корпоративними комунікаціями залежно від типу конфліктної ситуації в основі кризи. Наукові записки Інституту журналістики. № 86 (1). С. 95-107. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17721/2522-1272.2025.86.8

5. Macnamara, J. (2018) A Review of New Evaluation Models for Strategic Communication: Progress and Gaps. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 12(2), pp. 180–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/1553118X.2018.1428978.

6. Zerfass, A., Verčič, D., & Volk, S. C. (2017) Communication evaluation and measurement: Skills, practices and utilization in European organizations. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 22(1), pp. 2–18. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-08-2016-0056.

7. He, H., Kang, F., & Zhao, L. (2026) Corporate Reputation and Internal Control Quality: Evidence from Fortune 1000 Companies. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 19(1), 65. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm19010065.

8. Bundy, J., Iqbal, F., & Pfarrer, M. D. (2021) Reputations in Flux: How a Firm Defends Its Multiple Reputations in Response to Different Violations. Strategic Management Journal, 42(6), pp. 1109–1138. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3276.

9. Candoğan, M., & Acar, M. (2025) The Impact of Reputation Capital on Stock Return in Banks: A Case Study in Borsa Istanbul. International Journal of Economics, 40(2), pp. 410–433. https://doi.org/10.24988/ije.1478640.

10. Пушак Я. Я., Завербний А. С (2020) Корпоративна репутація як ключовий вектор підвищення рівня економічної безпеки. Соціально-правові студії. Вип. 2(8). С. 130–136. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32518/2617-4162-2020-2-130-136.

11. Ponzi, L. J., Fombrun, C. J., & Gardberg, N. A. (2011) RepTrak™ Pulse: Conceptualizing and Validating a Short-Form Measure of Corporate Reputation. Corporate Reputation Review, 14(1), pp. 15–35.

https://doi.org/10.1057/crr.2011.5.

12. Fombrun, C. J., Ponzi, L. J., & Newburry, W. (2015) Stakeholder Tracking and Analysis: The RepTrak® System for Measuring Corporate Reputation. Corporate Reputation Review, 18(1), pp. 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1057/crr.2014.21.

13. AMEC (2020) Barcelona Principles 3.0: Principles, Framework and Guidance. 2020. URL: https://amecorg.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/BP-Presentation-3.0-AMEC-webinar-10.07.20.pdf

14. AMEC (2016) AMEC Integrated Evaluation Framework. 2016. URL: https://amecorg.com/amecframework/

15. Government Communication Service (2018) Evaluation Framework 2.0. 2018. URL: https://gcs.civilservice.gov.uk/guidance/evaluation/

Published

2026-05-09

How to Cite

Shuranov, M., & Hrynyshak, T. (2026). INTEGRATED MODEL FOR REPUTATION EVALUATION BASED ON REPTRAK AND AMEC. Current Problems of Sustainable Development, 3(5), 76-83. https://doi.org/10.60022/3(5)-9S