When evaluating an organization, corporate image represents a sign of quality and has the ability to affect the degree of customers loyalty and stakeholders decision rules (Fornell & Dekimpe, 2010; Nguyen & LeBlanc, 2001). In addition, the relationship with stakeholders can be improved as well as the corporate reputation of the organization (Tran, Nguyen, Melewar, & Bodoh, 2015).

In the higher education sector, competition to attract resources, students and professors has expanded to international levels (Altbach, Reisberg, & Rumbley, 2010) and the decrease in government funding has contributed to the development of private institutions in the sector (Lafuente-Ruiz-de-Sabando et al., 2017).

Higher education institutions have understood the importance of managing intangible assets such as image to differentiate themselves over competitors and to improve the relationship with their stakeholders (Nguyen & LeBlanc, 2001).

Universities are assigning more resources to manage their image and improve it in society's and stakeholders eyes (Curtis, Abratt, & Minor, 2009) since in the higher education sector, intangible perceptions could be more relevant than measurable substances for stakeholders decisions.

Additional problems that higher education institutions have been facing over the years relate to stakeholders and society's perceptions that universities efforts focus on research instead of teaching. The issues of how these institutions handle money and the lack of efforts to serve the public in the correct manner has also been a problematic area (Khurana & Nohria, 2008; Phair, 1992). Therefore, due to the crisis of trust, the need to regain public trust through intangible assetś management and correct communication with the different stakeholders in their environment increases its importance.

Despite the relevance that holding a positive image has for higher education institutions, there is still lack of empirical research to understand in a deeper degree which elements and strategies might be crucial to manage it in an efficient manner (Duarte, Alves, & Raposo, 2010; Wilkins & Huisman, 2015).

University's image has been defined in several ways, Alessandri, Yang, and Kinsey (2006, p. 259) considered it as “the public's perception of the university”. Other authors, as “the sum of all beliefs an individual has towards the university” (Duarte et al., 2010, p. 23). Arpan, Raney, and Zivnuska (2003, p. 100) defined image in the higher education context as “various beliefs about a university that contribute to an overall evaluation of the university”.

Image is considered a multidimensional and formative construct in the higher education context (Lafuente-Ruiz-de-Sabando et al., 2017). Despite the lack of agreement of its dimensions, scholars have tried to clarify this aspect. Beerli Palacio, Díaz Meneses, and Pérez Pérez (2002) identified two university's image components, the cognitive and affective dimension. Also, Kazoleas, Kim, and Anne Moffitt (2001) analysed the organizational, personal and environmental factors that affected the university's image perception.

Corporate reputation has been considered as a valuable intangible asset for organizations due to its relationship with positive performance (Rindova et al., 2005). Researchers believe that reputation affect the evaluations that stakeholders make about organizations (Czinkota et al., 2014; Fombrun et al., 2000; Gotsi & Wilson, 2001).

Universities operate in a highly complex environment, competing for economic resources from the government as well as for talented students, prestigious professors and competent employees internationally (Christensen & Gornitzka, 2017; Hemsley-Brown et al., 2016; Plewa et al., 2016; Verčič et al., 2016). Furthermore, despite the existing criticism (Barron, 2017), stakeholders and society's expectations regarding the scores hold by universities in quality and employability rankings are increasing, augmenting the pressure for these organizations.

Moreover, currently universities need to focus, not only on professors or a unique interest group, but on numerous groups of stakeholders whose support is a key element for their success and survival (Christensen & Gornitzka, 2017).

Under this scenario, institutions in the higher education sector have been adopting more business-like practice in their management (Veloutsou, Paton, & Lewis, 2005) and a more market-orientated approach.

The literature has shown that favourable reputation has many benefits for organizations, and in the higher education sector, due to its intangible nature and the fact that its quality might be difficult to evaluate before it is experienced (Suomi, 2014) reputation will serve as a quality sign, and therefore, will reduce uncertainty for stakeholders in their decision-making processes (Hemsley-Brown, 2012).

However, despite the importance of achieving and maintaining a good reputation towards the different institution's stakeholders, there is still lack of clarity on its management and it continues to be a challenge for universities (Vidaver-Cohen, 2007) since empirical investigations are still limited (Volkwein & Sweitzer, 2006; Watkins & Gonzenbach, 2013).

Some researchers have tried to find a more accurate definition of concept within the academic field, such as, Šontaitė and Bakanauskas (2011) which defined it as a subjective and collective recognition and evaluation of among all stakeholder groups during a specific period, influenced by their past behaviour, communication and potential to satisfy expectations in comparison with rivals. Other authors such as Alessandri et al. (2006, p. 261) offered the following definition of reputation: it is “the collective representations that the university's multiple constituents hold of the university over time”.

Despite there being many factors affecting reputation in the academic field, faculty and students conditions such as salaries and graduation rates appear as relevant in the literature (Volkwein & Sweitzer, 2006). Some of the other dimensions that were identified in the literature were the quality of academic performance, quality of external performance and emotional engagement (Alessandri et al., 2006); leadership, teaching, research, the service offered and quality (Brewer & Zhao, 2010). In trying to identify the determinants and antecedents of reputation in the academic context, Vidaver-Cohen (2007) developed a conceptual model to measure reputation in the business school field. Suomi (2014) performed a study to identify the dimensions that form reputation in a master's degree program through the application of the conceptual model developed by Vidaver-Cohen (2007) and including a variety of internal and external stakeholder groups.

When analysing the relationship and differences between corporate image and reputation, there is no consensus on how to use each construct. Gotsi and Wilson (2001) consider that the different nature of both constructs has received more support in terms of the references. Some scholars have used them as synonymous (Furman, 2010) while others such as Gotsi and Wilson (2001) have treated both variables as completely independent concepts. Furthermore, in the attempt to clarify the confusion, image and reputation have been also found to be different but related concepts in the literature (Zineldin et al., 2011). Due to this situation, researchers face the challenge to clarify this matter and define how image and reputation differ and relate (Gotsi & Wilson, 2001).

Within the literature several common traits shared between image and reputation have been identified. Both variables can be considered as crucial strategic assets for organization's survival and competitive position in the market (Gray & Balmer, 1998), and both consider what external stakeholders perceive about the organization (Nguyen & LeBlanc, 2001).

Many scholars have tried to differentiate image and reputation according to several characteristics. Reputation is the result of a consistent behaviour, whereas image is managed and modified in an easier manner through communication campaigns (Gray & Balmer, 1998). Many scholars have highlighted as a relevant difference the temporality (Smaiziene & Jucevicius, 2009), since reputation can be the result of maintaining a consistent image over time, while image can be created in a shorter period of time and it is easier to change (Smaiziene et al., 2009).

However, despite the clear differences between image and reputation, most of the work developed by scholars agrees on the fact that both variables are different but related.

The images held by different stakeholder groups will result in the organization's reputation over a longer period of time (Fombrun & Van Riel, 1997). Therefore, reputation will be the result of being able to maintain a strong image over time, so image will affect reputation (Gray & Balmer, 1998; Tran et al., 2015). Tran et al. (2015) defined corporate image as the tangible and intangible aspects interconnected with reputation. Other authors have considered that better corporate image results in a better reputation (Fornell, Rust, & Dekimpe, 2010). Therefore, corporate reputation could be understood as the result and final outcome of building and maintaining corporate image since an organization's reputation is shaped by the images of the given institution (Harvey, Morris, & Müller Santos, 2017).

In conclusion, maintaining a corporate image will move in a deeper manner into stakeholderś minds and will shift from superficial awareness to deeper aspects such as favourability which is similar to aspects related to how corporate reputation is formed (Worcester, 2009). Podnar and Golob (2017) supported the idea of the dependence that an entity's reputation has on the day-to day-images held by its stakeholders and argues the need of additional research on the relationships and differences between image and reputation in order to clarify this matter.

Based on the literature review on the manner in which image and reputation relate, the following hypothesis is proposed:Hypothesis 1

Image is an antecedent of reputation