The Agitator has recently reported on the latest body blows to the reputation of the nonprofit/charity sector, specifically with respect to fundraising practices.

One would think that attention to reputation would be of paramount concern to our sector, but there isn’t much sign that individual nonprofit organisations think about their reputation in a systematic way.

So I thought I’d share this latest report on corporate reputation — US Consumer Reptrack Report — presenting the 2015 ‘Top 100’ rankings of US consumer-facing companies as measured by the Reputation Institute. The rankings reflect assessments provided by about 25,000 survey respondents.

The perceptions tested to determine reputation involve: high quality products/services, innovation, appealing workplace, ethical/transparent governance, citizenship (supports causes, environmentally responsible), visible leadership/effective management, and good financial performance.

Like me, I suspect you’ll have at least a voyeur’s interest in who came out on the very top:

1. Amazon
2. Kellogg’s
3. LEGO
4. Fruit of the Loom
5. Campbell’s
6. Levi Strauss & Co
7. Snap-on
8. Hershey
9. Panera Bread
10. Briggs & Stratton

But beyond idle curiosity, there are some key lessons embedded in the Reputation Institute’s analysis of who’s on top and why. I think these lessons apply to organizations in the nonprofit/charity sector as well.

As the Reputation Institute sees it, ‘reputation’ is an emotional bond consisting of feeling, esteem, admiration and trust. And that bond ensures:

• Consumers use your products;
• Customers recommend you;
• Investors support you;
• Policy-makers and regulators give you the benefit of the doubt;
• Employees are aligned and deliver on your strategy.

Tell me those goals (with some minor adjustments in phrasing) don’t apply to nonprofits!

Here’s one table that illustrates the perceptual benefits of strong positive reputation (click to enlarge):

Favorable perceptions lead to more tangible benefits I suspect all nonprofits would like to reap:

• Strong stock performance (including after a crisis) — apply your fund-raising language to that;
• Benefit of a doubt in crisis;
• Influence on policy-making;
• More recommendation;
• More buying;
• Attracting the best talent;
• Higher employee engagement and alignment.

So, the next time The Agitator rants about fundraising abuses, ask yourself simply:

1. How would my nonprofit stack up against criteria like these?

2. Does my organization systematically attend to the factors that shape positive reputation?

3. If not, isn’t it time to begin?

Tom