A corporate research group that openly publishes can elevate both science and company reputation.

Evidence

My advice led to measurement equipment and anechoic chambers being installed to improve design capabilities, but subjective evaluations were needed to confirm success. It was not long before I suggested that the company needed its own research group to continue the work begun at the NRCC—its output would be knowledge, not products. It would also create a listening facility and administer the double-blind listening tests necessary to confirm the performance of loudspeakers as they were developed. Remarkably, Chairman Dr. Sidney Harman and senior management agreed, and more importantly, they agreed that the new corporate researchers could publish their results, following the scientific tradition of open information exchange. This of course informed the entire audio industry, not just Harman. It was an exceptionally generous decision as many corporations insist on keeping such knowledge as their own, although it usually leaks out as employees migrate to other companies. The future could not have been predicted, but in retrospect it was an astute decision because the name Harman has become known and respected for its contributions to the science of audio as well as for its products. — Toole, Floyd E, Sound reproduction- the acoustics and…, 199

Categorization

• ADDENDUM: The Harman corporate research model — knowledge not products, open publication, double-blind listening — exemplifies how an audio company built credibility through the same experimental discipline the sacrifice/grafting articles describe as infrastructure. Connects broadly to how brands signal trustworthiness.
• XREF: connects to: Life science firm value is managed through strategic information release. — Kean Birch, Rethinking Value in the Bio-economy:…, 102