By Steffen Rufenach, Managing Director, R.A.T.E. GmbH

Each year, numerous corporate rankings are published worldwide, such as “The World’s Best Employers” or “The World’s Most Admired Companies” – often without the knowledge and involvement of the listed companies. Depending on the position, these rankings can significantly impact corporate reputation. An active, systematic approach can influence ranking results and their reputation effects as well as capitalise on reputation-building opportunities.

In a world where people like to consume news in small bites with headlines that can be “liked” and shared, the appeal of corporate rankings is clear: they simplify. They transform intricate issues such as “Who is the most sustainable company in the world” into a clear ranking table. Thereby they shape the perceptions of key stakeholders such as employees, customers, job applicants, and shareholders.

While many companies are aware of the significance of rankings for their reputation, few possess a framework that assists in selecting relevant lists, enables prioritisation, and allows the development of a targeted strategy through integration with reputation management.

Systematic ranking management is a critical element of comprehensive reputation management

Rankings are often managed unsystematically and in a decentralised way, leaving the handling of a ranking to the respective functional departments or country organisations. This approach does not yield a consistent picture of rankings that would benefit the long-term goals of corporate communication and reputation management. Departments/country organisations often lack awareness of the global communicative relevance of many rankings. To manage rankings effectively, processes should be centralised, and a systematic approach should be developed in line with the communicative goals of the organisation.

Four steps to developing a systematic ranking management

First, companies should gain an overview of the rankings in which their company is listed or could potentially be listed, with particular attention to reputation-relevant areas and strategically important markets. The identified rankings should then be prioritised based on their “reputation impact” in the second step. This should involve answering questions such as:

  • How visible is a ranking, especially to strategically important stakeholder groups?
  • In which lists does the company rank well, and in which does it not, and why?
  • In which lists would the company like to be represented but has not been able to place so far?
  • Which lists are scientifically substantiated? Where are the problems or conflicts of interest?
  • In which rankings can companies actively participate, for example, by providing data?
  • What is the effort involved in participating in a ranking?
  • What benefit would participation bring? Does the ranking institute offer feedback reports? Does the ranking help to advance internal processes, for instance, by bringing new ideas into the company or collecting new data?

After narrowing down the universe of relevant rankings to key ones, these should be discussed with the departments in the third step. These discussions are crucial to verifying the selection, ensuring the departments’ support. First approaches for positioning and improvement possibilities in the rankings should also be discussed.

The measures derived from these discussions will then be recorded in an action plan in the fourth step, which should also include initial ideas for the internal and external communication of the results. The actions determined to improve the results depend on the methodology of the selected rankings. In some cases, improvements can be achieved with short-term measures; however, in many cases, long-term actions must also be taken, especially when the company’s performance in an aspect required for the ranking needs to be improved. In these situations, rankings can provide valuable impulses for internal discussion through benchmarking and best-practice examples.

Storytelling instead of self-praise

Creativity is required when communicating ranking results. To reach employees and key external stakeholders, more is needed than a self-congratulatory press release. Good ranking results can be an excellent communication stimulus if embedded in a larger context. What exactly is behind the result, such as a good place in an innovation ranking? Which aspect of the overall strategy does the result underline? What additional measures to increase innovative capacity are planned? The art lies in using the positioning in a ranking, which is nothing more than a mere number, as a basis for one’s storytelling.

Poor ranking results should also be communicated internally to ensure employees are well-informed. Interpretations of ranking results spread rapidly, even if based on misinformation or half-truths. It is, therefore, essential to communicate bad results reliably, at least to executives, to enable them to speak about it. Sometimes, the reasons for a missing or poor placement are easy to explain. For example, some rankings may focus on specific indicators irrelevant to the company. If the results are negative due to poor performance, the communication surrounding the ranking can address actions that have been taken or will be taken to improve in the future.

The landscape of corporate rankings has been expanding rapidly and is set to continue its growth, driven by increased transparency and regulatory requirements in corporate reporting. Corporate Communications departments will inevitably encounter both the positive and negative repercussions of these rankings on corporate reputation. Establishing a systematic management process is not just advisable – it’s essential to navigate these waters successfully and prevent being overwhelmed when the next wave of rankings hits the shore.