Abstract This paper shows that stakeholders attempt to rely on the reports issued by ‎experts for demonstrating their corporate reputation. On the other hand, ‎experts can affect our attitude and understanding about organizations by ‎using their own criteria. This paper tries to introduce Fortune model and ‎Fombrun Reputation Quotient, which are used for reputation measurement in ‎the western countries. Furthermore, it introduces the Industrial Management ‎Institute Index (IMI100), since there is no other similar list of superior ‎companies in use. ‎ The reader will find out that in today’s conditions, the most favorable ‎streams toward reputation measurement are based on social expectations, ‎whereas there are other reputation measurement streams like reputation ‎measurement that are based on company personality or trust to company. We ‎will try explore the weak and strong points of the IMI100 and bring out ‎some suggestions to improve this model according to social expectations ‎measurement.‎

Abstract In this paper, our aim was to get a definition of reputation that can be accepted in management literature. But the results of the research showed that there is not a common definition over reputation, because the meaning of reputation has been examined in diverse areas and domains. However, through collecting different definitions about reputation in various areas, the research attempted to present a new model of corporate reputation. The proposed corporate reputation model is a combination of corporate identity mix, corporate image, organizational culture, corporate social responsibility, crisis management and their relationships. The model was tested by path analysis model on seven Iranian banks. In the reminder of this paper, new suggestions offered for the bank managers. Futher, the stakeholders conceptual differences about the constructs were explored.