The corporate identity, total [624321]

Licență

The corporate identity, total [624321]

Byadmin ianuarie 1, 2024

The corporate identity, total
corporate communications,
stakeholders ’attributed
identities, identi ﬁcations and
behaviours continuum
John M.T. Balmer
The Marketing and Corporate Brand Research Group,
Brunel University Business School, Brunel University, London, UK
Abstract
Purpose –This paper aims to introduce a new integrated strategic framework entitled, “The corporate
identity, total corporate communications, stakeholders ’attributed identities, identi ﬁcations and behaviours
continuum ”and elucidates the central and strategic importance of corporate identity apropos corporate
communications, corporate image, attributed stakeholder identi ﬁcations and resultant behaviours. The
strategic importance of corporate identity is noted. The continuum incorporates a variety of disciplinary/
theoretical perspectives.
Design/methodology/approach –The paper/framework is informed by corporate marketing and
strategic perspectives; legal theory of the ﬁrm; social identity branch theories; and stakeholder theory. The
effects and management of corporate identity are seen as a continuum. The framework accommodatesTagiuri ’s (1982) scholarship on corporate identity.
Findings –This paper formally introduces and explicates “The corporate identity, total corporate
communications, stakeholders ’attributed identities, identi ﬁcations and behaviours continuum ”. Corporate
identity management is an on-going strategic senior management/strategic requisite. Notably, the legaltheory of company law –routinely overlooked –and its impact on corporate identity management is accepted,
acknowledged and accommodated. The importance of stakeholders and stakeholder identi ﬁcation
(a derivative of social identity theory) is underscored.
Practical implications –Via the explication of the continuum, managers can comprehend the nature and
importance of corporate identity; appreciate that corporate identity adaptation/change is on-going;comprehend its interface/s with corporate communications, stakeholder attributed identities, identi ﬁcations
and the business environment; understand the need for on-going ﬁdelity to an institution ’s legally based core
purposes and corporate identity traits (juridical identity); cognise the ef ﬁcacy of constant stakeholder and
environmental analysis. Corporate identity sustainability requires corporate identity to be advantageous,
© John M.T. Balmer. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and
create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to
full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen athttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode
This article is dedicated to the memory of the late and great Professor Renato Tagiuri, (1919-
2011), who was Professor of Social Sciences in Business Administration, Emeritus, at Harvard
Business School (HBS). The author was privileged to discuss his work on corporate identity with
Professor Tagiuri throughout the 1990s-2000s. Professor Tagiuri was an academic of considerable
intellect and re ﬁnement. Our meetings –of which there were many –were always stimulating,
challenging and agreeable. It is the author ’s ambition that his working paper on corporate identity
(Tagiuri, 1982 ) will become better known. Fama semper vivat! (May his fame live forever!).EJM
51,9/10
1472
Received 7 July 2017
Accepted 10 July 2017
European Journal of Marketing
Vol. 51 No. 9/10, 2017
pp. 1472-1502
Emerald Publishing Limited
0309-0566DOI 10.1108/EJM-07-2017-0448The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0566.htm

beneﬁcial, critical, differentiating and effectual. Stakeholder prioritisation is not solely dependent on power,
legitimacy and urgency but on legality, ef ﬁcacy, ethicality and temporality.
Originality/value –The resultant framework/approach, therefore, aims to make a meaningful advance on
the territory and, moreover, seeks to be of utility to scholars and practitioners of corporate marketing, strategyand company law. Arguably, therefore, the framework is more ambitious than extant framework on the
domain. The resultant framework/approach, therefore, aims to make a meaningful advance on the territory
and seeks to be of utility to scholars and practitioners of corporate identity, communications, images,identi ﬁcation, stakeholder theory, company law and, importantly, corporate strategy.
Keywords Corporate identity, Corporate communications, Organizational identity, Company law,
Corporate image, Stakeholder identi ﬁcation
Paper type Conceptual paper
The heart of scholarship is not only vision but revision: re-vision. McCraw (2008 , p. 226).
Introduction
Corporate identity, for all its strategic signi ﬁcance, is habitually overlooked, disregarded or
narrowly conceived by scholars and managers alike. Adopting a broad revisionist
scholarship agenda, an explicit aim of this article is to further elucidate the strategic and
pivotal utility of corporate identity and, additionally, to explicate the corporate identity, totalcorporate communications, stakeholders ’attributed identities, identi ﬁcations and
behaviours continuum.
As such, the ambitions of this article/schema are broader than hitherto seems to be the
case apropos corporate identity scholarship. The article aims to be of scholarly and
instrumental utility.
The notion of a continuum is noteworthy because this refers to a continuous sequence.
This is highly salient in relation to the above because it emphasises the on-going
interactions of the above areas and highlights the perpetual nature of corporate identity/
corporate marketing management ( Balmer, 2011a ).
The approach adopted herein is in accordance with the precepts of the corporate
marketing paradigm ( Balmer, 1998 ;Balmer and Greyser, 2006 ;Balmer, 2011a ), which
marshals multidisciplinary standpoints apropos corporate identity, total corporate
communications, corporate image and reputation, and stakeholders ’attributed identities,
identi ﬁcations and behaviours.
This article and resultant schema is mindful of the tripartite nature of scholarship as
advocated by McGraw (2008, p. 226) in terms of vision, revision and re-vision:
/C15First, this article/schema is informed by the vision of Renato Tagiuri1(†2011) vis-à-vis
his corporate identity management framework ( Tagiuri, 1982 ). Tagiuri was a celebrated
Harvard Business School Professor. Altho ugh renowned for his scholarship on family
businesses. Moreover, he was also a pioneering scholar and advocate of the corporateidentity ﬁeld. In several important ways, his framework along with his re ﬂections on
corporate identity presaged Albert and Whetten ’s (1985) organisational identity notion
andAshforth and Mael ’s (1989) organisational identi ﬁcation concept. See Appendix 1
for a tribute and overview of Tagiuri ’s contribution to corporate identity scholarship in
terms of his article and framework.
/C15Second , in terms of revision , this article/schema updates Tagiuri ’s model and may be
deemed to be expedient in that it considers the territory via the lenses of corporate
marketing and stakeholder orientations. Whereas Tagiuri places “the corporation ”at
the centre of his framework, in this article “corporate identity ”is positioned at the heart
of the continuum.The corporate
identity
continuum
1473

/C15Third , and ﬁnally, there is a degree of re-visioning the corporate identity ﬁeld by
means of noting the diverse philosophical and theoretical perspectives which inform
the various facets of corporate identity management as re ﬂected in new schema
detailed herein. As such, the new schema takes account of legal theory, total
corporate communications, stakeholder theory and the branch theories of social
identity theory apropos company –customer identi ﬁcation and organisational
identi ﬁcation. As such, this article in mindful of the importance of theory to
marketing scholarship and practice ( Lee and Greenley, 2010 ). Expansive in scope,
the new schema is also innovative because it draws on and seeks to advance
corporate identity/corporate marketing scholarship via instrumental and theoretical
perspectives.
Whilst this article celebrates and develops the work of Tagiuri (1982) , it is important to note
that in the annals of corporate identity scholarship, other notable scholars, in varying
degrees, have discussed the signi ﬁcance of corporate identity including Larcon and Reitter
(1979a ,1979b );Edwards et al. (1982) ;Hoffsteter and Ramanantsoa (1981) ;Gagliardi (1982 ,
1986 ); and Downey (1986) .
For a more-detailed examination of corporate identity contexts see Appendix 2 , where
the following themes are discussed:
/C1520 years on: re-assessing corporate identity;
/C15orthodox and heterodox perspectives; and
/C15corporate identity indifference in organisational behaviour.
The conceptual scheme (the continuum) detailed herein is informed by diverse theoretical,
disciplinary and instrumental perspectives. Owing to the complexity of the territory, the
article and schema are pragmatic in character and, for the sake of expediency, marshals a
good deal of the author ’s work on the ﬁeld. Of course, the broad ambitions of this schema/
continuum simply cannot capture every nuance –let alone the totality –of corporate
identity, total corporate communications, stakeholder attributed identities, identi ﬁcations,
behaviours, environmental analysis and the strategic management of corporate identity.
This is not to say the schema/continuum is without utility. Tagiuri (1982) , tellingly,
advanced the following argument for his framework, and hopefully, it applies to the schema/
continuum detailed in this article. He said:
A conceptual scheme that corresponds well to a phenomenon is not an academic luxury; it is a
practical tool for action ( Tagiuri, 1982 , p. 19).
Corporate identity adaption and change
Corporate identities are never entirely “ﬁxed”: they are in a constant state of ﬂux. They are
not immutable. Internal or external change often has a domino effect in terms of an entity ’s
corporate identity traits and corporate marketing activities, viz: “the corporate identity wheel
of change ”(Balmer, 2001a ). This is especially apparent in terms of key identity interfaces:
Because of rapid institutional and environmental change the resolution of one identity interface
invariably means that another interface requires attention: identity change is, it would appear for
many organisations, a constant feature of organisational life. The author has called this
phenomenon the identity wheel of change. ( Balmer, 2001a , p. 19)
This principle underscores this article and schema and, as such, speaks to the potential
efﬁcacy of the approach undertaken here.EJM
51,9/10
1474

The magnitude and critical importance of corporate identity comes to the fore, and its
nature is made apparent, when organisations reach a fork in the road ( Balmer and Greyser,
2002 ;Balmer et al. , 2009 ): for instance, when senior managers are confronted with a crisis
(e.g.reputational loss ); an external threat (e.g. a hostile takeover bid ); or when embarking on
major institutional transformation (e.g. the internationalisation of the ﬁrm). At such
junctures, board-level comprehension and management of corporate identity come to theforefront.
However, given the above, it is also clear that corporate identity management should not
just emerge as a senior management concern during situations of major organisationalchange. This should come with a recognition that constant identity adaptation (and change)is a sine qua non of organisational life and is an on-going institutional characteristic.
Therefore, corporate identity management and maintenance should be a senior managementconstant and should always be on a senior managers ’agenda and radar.
In managing corporate identity senior managers need to be able address questions of
considerable consequence including –but not limited to –the following:
/C15“What is the organisation ’s purpose? ”
/C15“What is the ﬁrm’s business? ”
/C15“What are the institution ’s distinguishing and differentiating traits? ”
/C15“What is the entity legally allowed or obliged to do, or how is it constrained in what
it can do? ”
/C15“For whom –and for whose bene ﬁt–is the organisation primarily acting in legal,
realistic and pragmatic terms? ”
/C15“What value does the organisation accord to customers and other key
stakeholders? ”
/C15“What is the nature of the mutual pro ﬁtability of the company –customer/
stakeholder relationship? ”
Coupled with the above other questions are attendant considerations which can also be of
import:
/C15“What is our corporate image and reputation among customers, employees,
shareholders and other key stakeholder groups? ”
/C15“What do we communicate and to whom apropos corporate communications? ”
/C15“What changes in the competitive and business environment should the
organisation be mindful of? ”
Broad in scope, but profound in nature, addressing these fundamentals requires managers
to uncover its raison d ’etreand take account of both internalities and externalities to either
articulate and reinforce the extant identity or enunciate and effect a modi ﬁed–orin extremis
a radically different –corporate identity.
The importance of managers in shaping corporate identity represents a signi ﬁcant tenor
within the literature and comes with a recognition that corporate identity management is aprofound and consequential senior management issue ( Tagiuri, 1982 ;Gagliardi, 1986 ;
Balmer ,1995, 2001a ;Van Riel and Balmer, 1997 ;Balmer and Soenen, 1999 ;Stuart, 1999 ;
Alvesson and Wilmott, 2002 ;Balmer and Greyser, 2002 ;Abratt and Kleyn, 2012 ).
For instance, Gagliardi (1986) found corporate identity maintenance to be a dominant
strategic imperative, whereas Tagiuri (1982) andKotter (1990) argued that it was the role of
senior managers to ensure that an organisation ’s corporate identity is strategically sound,The corporate
identity
continuum
1475

reﬂects corporate aims and meets stakeholder needs. Balmer (1995 ,2001a ) acknowledged
the signi ﬁcance of corporate identity to the management of change. Alvesson and Wilmott
(2002) stated that organisational meaning is contingent on corporate identity.
Finally, whilst the author concurs with the following assertion by Roberts, albeit with
one vital caveat. Roberts (2004 , p. 9) opined:
The most fundamental responsibilities of general management are setting strategy and designing
the organisation to implement it.
What, precisely, is the vital caveat?
It is this: the strategic stewardship of an organisation ’s corporate identity.
Thus, the most fundamental responsibilities of general management are setting strategy
and designing the organisation to implement it and this necessitates the on-going strategicstewardship of an organisation ’s corporate identity.
The corporate identity, total corporate communications, stakeholders ’
attributed identities, identi ﬁcations and behaviours continuum
The remainder of this article discusses the constituent parts of the schema/continuum which
is shown in diagrammatic form in Figure 1 .
Corporate identity
Theﬁrst part of the schema, and the cornerstone element of the continuum, is the corporate
identity. This section explains the orthodox school of thought vis-à-vis corporate identity);
discusses the nature and importance of corporate identity traits (the author outlines ﬁve criteria
by in assessing corporate identit y trait determinants); and brie ﬂy explains the fundamentals
and importance of the legal theory of the or ganisation apropos corporate identity.
From the outset, it should be noted that the orthodox school of thought regards corporate
identities as having manifestly discernible traits: they are seen to have stand-aloneexistences beyond organisational members and have “lives of their own ”. Correspondingly,
the legal theory of the company takes a similar philosophical stance. Company law regardscompanies as having separate legal realities and legally enforceable traits. It is illegal forsenior managers to abjure these legal obligations. Clearly, there is a similarity and
synergistic relationship between the above which, to date, has seemingly been overlooked.
As such, this article seeks to re-address this imbalance.
Adopting the orthodox school of thought apropos corporate identity ( Balmer et al 2016 ),
organisations are viewed as having a tangible essence and distinctiveness, and thisperspective informs the schema. This perspective has long characterised the literaturewhich stressed that organisations have a personality or essence ( Newman, 1953 ;Martineau,
1958a ,Harrison, 1972 ;Golden, 1975 ;Nolan, 1975 ).
This institutional essence is to be found in the mix of corporate characteristics/traits
which de ﬁne realise the company ’s mission and legal requisites. Moreover, in accordance
with a corporate marketing perspective, importance is accorded both to corporate identityand to stakeholders ( Balmer, 1998 ,2011b ). As such, senior managers need to ensure that an
entity ’s corporate identity traits are meaningful and attractive to customers and
stakeholders, mindful of the need for bi-lateral stakeholder-company value.
Thus, following and building on the work of Albert and Whetten (1985) ,a n
organisation ’s identity traits should be not only central and distinctive but also –as argued
here –valuable in stakeholder terms.EJM
51,9/10
1476

Figure 1.
The corporate
identity, total
corporate
communications,
stakeholders ’
attributed identities,
identi ﬁcations and
behaviours
continuum
The corporate
identity
continuum
1477

Determining an organisation ’s key corporate identity traits
An organisation ’s corporate identity traits are many. Some (sometimes many) are
established by law and, as such, senior management have a legal obligation in this regard.Signiﬁcantly, it would be illegal not to do so . This aspect will be discussed a little later on.
Typically, key corporate identity traits encompass (but are most certainly no limited to):
/C15an institution ’s organisational type;
/C15its purpose(s);
/C15activities;
/C15ethos and values;
/C15market position;
/C15markets and customers served;
/C15product and service quality;
/C15management and employee behaviours; and
/C15geographic scope, etc.
The ethos and vision of company founders can also inhabit an entity ’s formative identity
and, sometimes, may endure ( Albert and Whetten, 1985 ;Balmer 1994, 1995 ;Kimberly and
Bouchikhi, 1995 ).
Usefully, Larcon and Reitter (1979a ,1979b ) noted that core identity traits relate to those
institutional characteristics that confer speciﬁcity, stability and coherence. For their part,
Albert and Whetten (1985) averred that the essential requisites of core identity traits should
be conceived as central, distinctive and enduring.
Melewar (2003) provided a multi-faceted taxonomy of corporate identity traits.
The above being noted, given the legal imperatives apropos an organisation ’sc o r p o r a t e
identity traits, it is the role and responsibility of senior managers to also take cognisance ofstrategic, stakeholder, corporat e marketing, corporate positioning and environmental requisites.
Thus, taking account of the aforementioned, there is a need to provide more detailed
instrumental guidance in ﬁnalising/con ﬁrming an entity ’s most meaningful identity traits.
Speciﬁcally, therefore, key corporate identity traits should –in the author ’s estimation –
meet ﬁve criteria which take account of a corporate marketing philosophy. As such, in
establishing key corporate identity trait determinants senior managers should assesswhether they are:
/C15advantageous (from a strategic perspective);
/C15beneﬁcial(from a key stakeholder perspective);
/C15critical (from a corporate marketing perspective);
/C15differentiating (from a corporate positioning perspective); and
/C15effectual (from a corporate environment perspective).
Figure 2 reproduces the corporate identity criteria in diagrammatic form. Table I explains
each criterion in greater detail.
The legal theory of the organisation and corporate identity
The juridical (legal) theory of the corporation is of importance to senior managers in
comprehending both the orthodox understanding of corporate identity and represents a key
philosophical perspective apropos the nature of organisations ( Balmer, 2008 ).EJM
51,9/10
1478

Table I.
Key corporate
identity trait
determinantsTrait classification (A-E) Trait fociCorporate identity management
responsibilities
A: ADVANTAGEOUS Strategic imperative Substantiate identity traits which are
advantageous in supporting the
organisation ’s aims and obligations
B: BENEFICIAL Stakeholder imperative Substantiate identity traits which are
mutually bene ﬁcial to both customers and
other key stakeholders and the
organisation
C: CRITICAL Corporate marketing
imperativeSubstantiate identity traits which are
critical to the ﬁrm’s core activities vis-à-vis
product/service/brand quality and which
also deliver the corporate brand promise
D: DISTINGUISHING Corporate positioning imperative Substantiate identity traits which
meaningfully and favourably distinguishyour organisation from competing/
challenger organisations
E: EFFECTUAL Corporate environment
imperativeSubstantiate identity traits which are in
effectual alignment with the current andfuture corporate (business) environment
(political, economic, ethical, social and
technological forces)Figure 2.
Key corporate
identity trait
determinants
The corporate
identity
continuum
1479

This because the legal theory of the corporation and the orthodox school apropos corporate
identity both view organisations to be real, have a tangible essence and legal corporatepersonality and have the same rights and obligations as individuals. They can sue, can
be sued and hold property. As with the legal right of individuals, they can create their own
progeny –subsidiaries, for instance ( Maitland, 1908 ;Micklethwait and Wooldrige, 2005 ;
Kraakman et al., 2009 ;Kershaw, 2012 ).
Importantly, in law, they are regarded as stand-alone entities (identities): they are
independent of their members.
Signiﬁcantly for managers, an organisation ’s key identity traits are often determined by
law ( Kraakman et al. ,2 0 0 9 ;Kershaw, 2012 ). Senior managers, therefore, may have a legal
duty to maintain these designated identity traits.
For example, an organisation ’s articles of association/constitution invariably determine its
organisational type (plc, partnership, charity, etc .), ownership and habitually regulate its business
scope, mission, markets served and modes of opera tion, along with legal r equisites demanded of
senior managers vis-à-vis governance, stakeholder prioritisation and relationships.
Moreover, an institution ’s legal bases often re ﬂect the sentiments and organisational
objectives of an entity ’s founders. They are likely to have carefully deliberated on and
deﬁned an entity ’s purposes, activities and scope in their founding legal documents (articles
of association/Royal Charter).
As such, the legal theory of the organisation is important and may offer a powerful
navigational tool for managers. Recently, the British Council placed an advertisement for the
position of a new Chairman/Chairwomen which stated:
He/she will play a prominent role in representing the British Council ’s interest to key stakeholders
in the UK and across the 110 countries in which it operates. The successful candidate will be
comfortable with the ambassadorial element of the role, and identify closely with the values and
mission set out in its Royal Charter .(The Economist, 2015 )
For further information of the legal theory of the organisation and corporate identity see
Appendix 3 .
Total corporate communications and stakeholder prioritisation
The next part of the schema/continuum focuses on two critical concerns: total corporate
communications and stakeholder prioritisation. Because of their critical importance, senior
managers need to be regularly appraised of both areas. Understanding and meeting theneeds of customers and other key stakeholders is a cornerstone of corporate marketing and a
requisite for business success and survival.
As with corporate identity and other parts of the continuum, total corporate
communications are notsubject to unquali ﬁed management ﬁat; corporate identity and the
entire continuum cannot be entirely managed.
However, this is different from saying there is no need for management: some aspects of
total corporate communications and the continuum most certainly dorequire on-going
management. Moreover, all facets of total corporate communications (and the continuum per
se) require senior management understanding and vigilance.
Total corporate communications
It is important for senior managers to appreciate how total corporate communications
represent a nexus –a tripartite bridge –between an organisation ’s corporate identity and
the perceptions (corporate images, corporate reputations and attributed identities) assignedto the organisation ’s stakeholders ( Balmer and Gray, 1999 ).EJM
51,9/10
1480

Moreover, the total corporate communications approach differs from the standard
corporate communications logic in that it is informed by a panoptic approach which
recognises the importance of both “controlled ”(integrated) and “uncontrolled ”corporate
communications. This approach is based on an institutional logic whereby institutions emit
not only intended but also unintended expressions of themselves. As an aside, Goffman
(1959) noted much the same in his cornerstone study of individual character. For a
discussion of total corporate communications, corporate communications and corporate
marketing, see Illia and Balmer (2012) .
To more comprehensively understand the dimensions of total corporate communications,
the author has given additional labels to each of the total corporate communications
dimensions which he calls latent, overt andtangential communication .
As such, the total corporate communications approach takes account of:
/C15latent (primary communications);
/C15overt (secondary corporate communications); and
/C15tangential (tertiary corporate communications) in ﬂuences.
Details of the component dimensions of total corporate communications are as follows:
/C15Primary communications (LATENT COMMUNICATIONS) : The communications
inﬂuences of an organisation ’s corporate identity traits (viz.: the corporate
communications impacts of corporate activities and behaviours, product and service
quality, management and employee behaviour etc.).
/C15Secondary communications (OVERT COMMUNICATIONS) : the communications
inﬂuences and effects of integrated (planned and controlled) formal corporate
communications (viz.: the corporate communications impacts of corporateadvertising, corporate design, corporate public relations, etc.).
/C15Tertiary communications (TANGENTIAL COMMUNICATIONS) :t h e
communications effects of third-party “uncontrolled ”communications (viz.: the
corporate communications impacts of wo rd-of-mouth communication (on social
media, for instance), government/le gal pronouncements, commentary on
broadcast and in printed media, competitor communication, commentary on the
industry/sector, commentary on organ isations in the supply chain/business
network, etc.).
Whilst it is apparent that senior managers should take cognisance of total corporate
communications, it is also transparent that it cannot be fully managed.
Importantly, a failure to adopt a total corporate communications perspective can mean
that there is a considerable risk of inconsistent, contradictory and even false
manifestations of their corporate identity. For instance, word of mouth, media
commentary or employee behaviour may conve y a somewhat different identity canvas
from that conveyed in of ﬁcially sanctioned corporate communications campaigns and
initiatives ( Balmer, 1995 ).
The total corporate communications notion is based on the logic that:
Everything an organisation does will in some way communicate the organisation ’s identity
(Balmer, 1995 , p. 35).
As such, total corporate communications (which encompasses discourses between
stakeholders and others) will communicate an organisation ’s identity and, moreover, willThe corporate
identity
continuum
1481

inﬂuence perceptions (and ultimately behaviours) of an entity. See Appendix 3 for further
reﬂections on total corporate communications.
Stakeholder prioritisation: power, legitimacy, urgency, legality, e ﬃcacy, ethicality and temporality
As previously detailed, another key aspect of this schema/continuum is to have a
stakeholder focus, and to this end, senior managers must engage in stakeholderprioritisation.
Stakeholder theory ( Donaldson and Preston, 1985 ) is a core dimension of a corporate
marketing logic whereby not only customers but also stakeholders generally are deemed tobe of importance for institutional continuity and success. Stakeholder theory de ﬁnes a
stakeholder as any individual or group who can affect or is affected by, the achievement ofany corporate purpose ( Freeman, 1984 ). Within the corporate marketing ﬁeld, however,
there has been a long realisation that corporate publics can also be institutional actors.
A key concern within corporate marketing/stakeholder theory is the prioritisation of
stakeholders.
Mindful of, and building on, Mitchell et al ’s(1997) stakeholder prioritisation framework,
a new stakeholder prioritisation approach is introduced, which seeks to take account of bothcorporate marketing and corporate identity fundamentals. As an aside, it should be notedthat there are differences between large organisations and small companies, especially smallfamily-owned businesses, in which there is likely to be a close alignment with board andshareholder interests. Such companies are also often imbued with a distinctive character andethos which is easy for stakeholders to discern ( Lee, 2011 ).Also, it is important to realise
that managers are constitute a distinct stakeholder group ( Balmer and Wang, 2016 ).
Mitchell et al. (1997) argue that stakeholders can be prioritised on a scale by considering
three criteria: power, legitimacy and urgency. As such, stakeholders possessing power,
urgency and legitimacy are designated as the most important stakeholder group, and thoselacking the legitimacy criterion are accorded the least importance. Mitchell et al. (1997) note
the dynamic nature of stakeholders. For instance, stakeholder groups can gain (as well aslose) legitimacy and power.
However, in the author ’s assessment, four other considerations may be taken into
account vis-à-vis stakeholder prioritisation in corporate marketing/corporate identity,
namely:
/C15legality;
/C15efﬁcacy;
/C15ethicality; and
/C15temporality.
As such, senior managers clearly need to make a judgement about which criterion to apply,
and it is not suggested that all four should be applied but that all should at least beconsidered in terms of their utility.
Figure 3 shows the author ’s expanded stakeholder prioritisation criteria.
The logic of the aforementioned additional criteria can be brie ﬂy explained as follows:
/C15Legality : Takes account of an organisation ’s juridical identity. For instance, an
organisation ’s legal articles of association (or similar) not only will detail ownership
(in terms of shareholders whilst recognising employees, customers and otherorganisations that can also be owners) and may also stipulate which groups are tobe prioritised.EJM
51,9/10
1482

/C15Efﬁcacy: In certain circumstances, it may be prudent to adopt a broader approach to
the “stakeholder ”notion and to be mindful, for instance, of groups with
discretionary power: the Communist Party in China is a case in point or, in western
democracies, opposition parties which may form a Government.
/C15Ethicality : Corporate marketing has an explicit ethical/corporate social
responsibility (CSR) remit, and therefore, in appraising stakeholder groups,
consideration should be given to the ethical and CSR dimension (Sometimes a
judgement needs to be made as to which criterion takes precedence: for instance,
issues of ef ﬁcacy might con ﬂict with the ethicality criterion).
/C15Temporality : Again, corporate marketing is informed by an Omni-temporal
perspective. In stakeholder terms, therefore, consideration should be given to key
stakeholders of the past (those who may have established and ﬁnanced an entity or
have meaningfully contributed to its success (co-operatives, partnerships and
mutuals are cases in point). Also, adopting a prospective stakeholder perspective,
there may be utility in identifying and giving consideration to key stakeholder
groups of the future.
Attributed identities
This part of the schema/continuum notes the saliency to senior managers of attributed
identities and also notes the signi ﬁcance of corporate images and corporate reputations.
Corporate images and corporate reputations being the building blocks of attributedidentities.
Following Tagiuri (1982 , p. 12), the author makes a distinction between “internal ”and
“external ”stakeholders. Whilst Tagiuri ’s model gives prominence to internal stakeholders
(and employees in particular) publics in the author ’s model accords equal importance to both
external and internal publics. Individuals can belong to several stakeholder groups and,therefore, can boundary span the often problematic internal/external divide.Figure 3.
An augmented
stakeholder
prioritisation
framework
The corporate
identity
continuum
1483

For the main, the aforementioned will have been shaped by total corporate
communications: “the total corporate communications effect ”. Management comprehension
of attributed identities is important because these represent a “reality ”to stakeholders and
beliefs not only affect identi ﬁcation with the organisation but also in ﬂuence stakeholders ’
responses including their behaviours.
The importance of perception and their effects (images, reputations and attributions) vis-
à-vis the management of companies has been stressed by authors for some considerable time
(Abratt, 1989 ;Dowling, 1993 ;Fombrun and Shanley, 1990 ;Gray and Smeltzer, 1985 ;Gray
and Balmer, 1998 ;Kennedy, 1977 ;Tagiuri, 1982 ). Thus, issues of perception are accorded
importance. Whilst the framework accords importance to attributed identity this is not, in
any way, to disregard the signi ﬁcance of corporate image and reputation. Indeed, the
contrary is the case.
Corporate images and corporate reputations
Corporate images and reputations are primarily established as a consequence of total
corporate communications eff ects (societal and r eligious norms, et c. may also have an
impact). As noted by Gray and Balmer (1998) a corporate image is the immediate
mental picture which comes to mind of an organisation, whereas a corporate
reputation emerges in a stakeholder ’s mind over time where a thread of consistent
images result in a clear set of expectations about a ﬁrm in terms of what it does and/or
how it behaves and/or what it says and claims. Corporate reputations are mouldedfrom by a variety of factors (broadly equati ng to total corporate communications).
Social, cultural, and religious mores a nd precepts can also have a bearing on the
above.
Attributed identities
On the basis of corporate images and, moreover reputations, among others, stakeholders
will discern what they believe are an organisation ’s identity traits and, as such, attribute an
identity to the form (attributed identity). As noted by Tagiuri (1982 , p. 18):
[…] the behaviour of both employees and other stakeholders inside and out depend to a large
extent upon the identity they attribute to the company. These behaviours, in turn, can mean thesuccess of failure of the ﬁrm.
As such, corporate images, reputations and attributed identities, as modes of organisational
perception, are intertwined. This is shown in Figure 4 .
External and internal stakeholder identi ﬁcation and attitudes
The nature and strength of key stakeholders ’identi ﬁcations with an organisation is another
key senior management concern. In corporate marketing contexts, stakeholder identi ﬁcation
relates to how stakeholders de ﬁne themselves (or not) in terms an organisation and this will
inform their attitudes towards a company.
Stakeholder identi ﬁcation extends the customer-company identi ﬁcation ( Bhattacharya
and Sen, 2003 ) and employee-company (organisational identi ﬁcation) notions ( Ashforth and
Mael, 1989 ) notion so that it has a broader applicability to stakeholders. The aforementioned
can be considered as branch theories of social identity theory self-categorisation theory
which are well-known social-psychological theoretical perspective/s ( Turner, 1975 ;Tajfel ,
1981, 1982 ;Bergami and Bagozzi, 2000 ). Arguably, stakeholder identi ﬁcation represents a
logical dénouement of social identity/self-characterisation theories.EJM
51,9/10
1484

In this part of the schema/continuum, the importance of stakeholder identi ﬁcation is
detailed. Stakeholders ’attributed identities are a precursor to their identi ﬁcation, or
misidenti ﬁcation, or ambivalence, towards an organisation. Occasionally, too, there can be
schizo-identi ﬁcation as well: this is where and individual both identi ﬁes and disidenti ﬁes
with an on organisation ( Dukerich et al.,1 9 9 8 ).
Positive identi ﬁcation
In corporate marketing contexts, identi ﬁcation broadly equates with a positive stakeholder
identi ﬁcation to an organisation ’s corporate identity.
Positive stakeholder identi ﬁcation is where stakeholders –informed by their attributed
identities –accept and internalise an organisation ’s corporate identity traits. This is because
an organisation is seen to meet an individual ’s life tasks ( Tagiuri, 1982 ). As such, the
organisation becomes part of a stakeholder ’s persona, and this may result in a stakeholder
having a strong, enduring and committed relationship with an organisation which may beemotional/affective in character ( Tagiuri, 1982 ;Albert and Whetten, 1985 ;Bhattacharya and
Sen, 2003 ).
A sense of positive identi ﬁcation, customers may become corporate champions
(Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003 ) and organisational members may have enhanced work
satisfaction ( Tagiuri, 1982 ).
Where a corporate identity is viewed to be salient, stable and internally consistent, the
identi ﬁcation/internalisation of the identity will be greater ( Tagiuri, 1982 ;Ashforth and
Mael, 1989 ;Alvesson, 1990 ;Bouchikhi and Kimberly, 2003 ).
At its most positive, identi ﬁcation can result in stakeholders becoming devotees (it
should be noted that in extreme forms of positive identi ﬁcation a stakeholder can be
unbalanced or “brainwashed ”: this sometimes occurs in political and religious
organisations).
However, in a corporate marketing context, both branch theories are deemed to be salient
to social identity theory. Employee identi ﬁcation, for instance, is important because
corporate marketing is characterised as a company-wide philosophy.
As such, positive staff identi ﬁ
c a t i o nt o w a r d sa ne n t i t yi si m p o r t a n t ;t h i si so f
particular germane within service industr ies, where employees represent the front-Figure 4.
Corporate images,
corporate reputations
and attributed
identities
The corporate
identity
continuum
1485

line (the face) of the organisation. As noted by Tagiuri (1982) , positive employee
identi ﬁcation expedites an organisational member ’s integration with a ﬁrm.
Importantly, senior managers can be vie wed as a distinct stakeholder group ( Balmer
and Wang, 2016 ), and issues of identi ﬁcation are equally germane for them and for the
company ( He and Balmer ,2007b, 2013 ).
Ambivalent identi ﬁcation and the three psychological approaches of identi ﬁcation
Whilst recognising that there can be numerous modes of stakeholder identi ﬁcation, the
framework only refers to positive identi ﬁcation ( identiﬁcation ) and negative identi ﬁcation
(disidenti ﬁcation ), but there can be ambivalent identi ﬁcation too, where a stakeholder has a
vague or unde ﬁned sense of identi ﬁcation with a ﬁrm (Tagiuri, 1982 ;Pratt, 2000 ).
By means of context, “positive ”identi ﬁcation is characterised as one of three
psychological approaches: compliance, identi ﬁcation and internalisation (Handy, 1993 ,
pp. 144-145). In the context of the framework, compliance, identi ﬁcation and internalisation
explain the various degrees by which a key stakeholder/stakeholder group associates –or
has a meaningful af ﬁnity –with a corporate identity. The three psychological states of
positive stakeholder identi ﬁcation (derived from Handy, 1993 ) are as follows:
(1) Compliance: It is a psychological mechanism where a key stakeholder has an
association with a corporate identity (compliance can be a short-term andexpeditious association with a corporate identity; it may be tactical rather than ameaningful, sincere or committed response on the part of a stakeholder).
(2) Identiﬁcation : It is a psychological mechanism where a key stakeholder
meaningfully identi ﬁes with a corporate identity.
(3) Internalisation : It is a psychological mechanism where a stakeholder has powerful
feelings of belonging to a corporate identity, so much so that it becomes part of astakeholder ’s persona.
Disidenti ﬁcation (negative stakeholder identi ﬁcation)
Disidenti ﬁcation broadly equates with negative stakeholder identi ﬁcation to an
organisation ’s corporate identity. Disidenti ﬁcation, using Tagiuri ’s (1982 a) terminology, is
where stakeholders –informed by their attributed identities –reject an organisation ’s
corporate identity traits. This may be because an organisation is not felt to be meaningful toan individual ’s life tasks. As such, the organisation does not become part of the
stakeholder ’s persona, and this may result in the stakeholder having a weak, transitory and
indifferent relationship with the organisation.
At its extreme, disidenti ﬁcation can result in a destruct ive, enduring and hostile
relationship with an entity. Where there is disidenti ﬁcation, there can be stakeholder
resentment and dissatisfaction; stake holders will distance themselves from a ﬁrm and
may, in extremis, become visible and vocal corporate detractors: in short, adversaries.
Sometimes, disidenti ﬁcation occurs beca use a stakeholder ’s primary loyalty might
be to a subsidiary or to a business unit rather than to the organisation per se (for
instance, an academic ’s primary loyalty might be to Harvard Business School rather
than to Harvard University).
Issues of identi ﬁcation have a causal impact on the beha viour of stakeholders, and this is
taken into account in the schema/continuum. The schema shows “feedback ”arrows between
identi ﬁcation/disidenti ﬁcation and behaviours owing to the implicit correlations between them.EJM
51,9/10
1486

External and internal stakeholder behaviour con ﬁrms corporate identity
From a senior management perspective, the tran slation of a positive external/internal
stakeholder identi ﬁcation with a corporate identity i nvariably translates into positive
behaviours towards an organisat ion. Thus, the link between identi ﬁcation and
behaviour is likely to be palpable. Stakehol der behaviours, clearly, are of important,
viz., customer, employee, shareholder loy alty and a willingness of governments, local
communities and suppliers, etc. to support the organisation. Tagiuri (1982) notes how
internal and external identi ﬁcation con ﬁrms a corporate identity. Understandably,
positive stakeholder behav iour towards an entity is a key consequence of effectual
corporate identity management.
As the literature attests, positive identi ﬁcation can result in supporting/bene ﬁcial
behaviour towards an organisation in term s of attracting new cu stomers, favourable
word-of-mouth communicati ons and increased loyalty ( Bhattacharya et al. ,1 9 9 5 ;
Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003 ). For instance, customers m ay feel that an organisation ’s
corporate identity, as evinced in its produ cts, service, expression s and ethos, conform
to their values and needs in terms of quality, reliability and soci al responsibility:
consumers will often use an organisation ’s products, brands and services to “deﬁne
the self ”(McAlexander et al. , 2002 ). Other external stakeho lders, such as business
partners, governments, the local co mmunity, etc. having positive identi ﬁcation with
an organisation may have a strong sense of loyalty to the ﬁrm and might, for instance,
feel that their own corporate identities a re burnished by their associations with a
particular organisation.
Much has been written about positive employee identi ﬁcation too, and it has been
shown to have a positive impact on employees ’work, including work motivation and
satisfaction, and to decrease emp loyee turnover because its signi ﬁcance meaningfully
informs their work ( Alvesson and Wilmott, 2002 ;Pratt, 1998 ;Cardador and Pratt,
2006 ).
More work needs to be undertaken apropos other stakeholder groups, but it seems
probable that there is a similar, positive, correlation between positive identi ﬁcation and
positive behaviour.
There is one very important caveat reg arding the above in terms of corporate
identity management. As such, because the r esultant attitudes an d behaviours of key
stakeholders are based on attr ibuted identities (c orporate identity perceptions), there
may be a discrepancy between their perceived actualité and the organisational réalité .
Hence, although key stakeholders may belie ve that their attitudes and behaviours
support the corporate identity, they may not. Senior managers need to take
cognisance of this phenomenon, and this explains why there are dotted lines from the
two corresponding boxes in t he model to the box entitled “Senior management
intervention, management and leadership ”because such a misalignment may well be
prejudicial to an entity ’s core purposes, activities, on -going success and, ultimately,
its survival.
External and internal behaviour discon ﬁrms corporate identity
Senior managers also need to be appr aised of the effect of disidenti ﬁcation (negative
stakeholder identi ﬁcation) and its possible bearing on the behaviour of customers and
other stakeholders. This may lead to discon ﬁrming of the corporate identity ( Tagiuri,
1982 ).
This is because stakeholders may percei ve that their self-characterisation –and
moreover, their behaviours –are not in calibration with, and are not empathetic of, theThe corporate
identity
continuum
1487

corporate identity. For would-be customers, this may well result in less favourability
towards, or avoidance or rej ection of, an organisation ’s products and/or services. For
other external stakeholders, there may be an unwillingness to support theorganisation. For internal stakeholders, a repudiation of a perceived corporateidentity may be disagreeabl e, and this lack of calibration may result in low esteem/
low job-satisfaction and, perhaps, in beh aviours that are antagonistic towards the
organisation. External stakeholders may occupy a middle ground and be ambivalent.
Senior managers need to be sensitive whe re there is stakeholder disinterest or
estrangement from the ﬁrm in terms of their identi ﬁcations, because this may impact
on their (negative) behaviour towards a ﬁrm and undermine an organisation ’s
purpose, mission and, ther efore, its viability.
Strategic analysis of business environment
The ef ﬁcacy of strategic analysis of the business environment is a necessary dimension of
the schema and account should be taken of this as well as issues of stakeholder attributions,
identi ﬁcation and behaviours and the total corporate communications effect, etc. As noted
by the celebrated business economist and strategist, Roberts (2004) , both strategy and an
organisations activities/design are important. Moreover, he avers that there needs to be a ﬁt
between strategy, the organisation and the technological, legal and competitive environment
(Roberts, 2004 , p. 11).
Analysis of the business environment is a strategic imperative ( Andrews, 1987 ;Kay,
1995 ). Such analyses shape corporate strategy and changes in strategy and will, by default,
modify an organisation ’s future corporate identity. Moreover, senior managers should take
account of the current identity in terms of strategy design. Owing to the vital importance ofcorporate identity as detailed in earlier, it is negligent, if not reckless, to ignore corporate
identity as part of an entity ’s strategic deliberations.
Increasingly, the volatility of the contem porary business environment means that
on-going monitoring of the aforementione d and its impact on corporate identity is a
strategic necessity. As such, senior manager s need to take cognisance of, among others,
regulatory, competitive and technologic al change and to respond to shifts in public
mores and precepts, etc.
Changes in the business environment can be evolutionary and progressive but can also
be drastic and sudden. A failure on the part of senior executives to accommodate
environmental changes apropos corporate identity may lead to organisational stagnationand, in extremis , failure. Tellingly, corporations which were once household names but
which failed to adapt to environmental change –such as Olivetti and AT&T –have been
consigned to the annals of historical memory.
Sometimes too, whilst an entity ma yh a v es t r o n ga n dp o s i t i v ei d e n t i ﬁcations
among key stakeholders, it may need to reappr aise its key corporat e identity traits in
light of its legal identity and corporate m ission. Such analyses may reveal that its
activities are not sustainable if, for instance, they are not economically pro ﬁtable. For
scholars, the above reinforces the perspectiv e that in their totality, an organisation ’s
corporate identity traits are dynamic. Howe ver, this is not to say that certain traits are
not constant: at its most pow erful this can be seen in relati on to corporate heritage
institutions ( Balmer, 2011b ).
Management intervention, direction and leadership
Following an explicit corporate marketing logic and the establishment of company-
customer value, a key strategic senio r management task is the determination,EJM
51,9/10
1488

modiﬁcation, alteration and termination of corporate identity traits. Another is to
ensure that corporate ident ity traits are comprehended by customers and other key
stakeholders but area also meaningfu l and for them. As such, a key senior
management function is for senior executi ves to regularly appraise the saliency,
sustainability and pro ﬁtability (from compa ny-stakeholder perspectives) of an
entity ’s corporate identity attributes.
A key principle of the schema outlined here is that corporate identities are not invariable but
are dynamic in character and can be shaped by external triggers (government interventions,
economic and technology changes, shortage s in high-quality personnel, an intensi ﬁed competitive
environment, etc.). However, this does not vit iate the fundamental resp onsibilities of senior
managers apropos corpora te identity stewardship.
As such, senior managers may deem there should be a major repositioning of the
corporation vis-à-vis corporate expansion, retraction or retrenchment; when core activities and
competencies and markets served are altered; where there is a decision change of institutionaltype and ownership (from a publicly-owned to a private entity; where there is a merger or when
there is an acquisition by another corporate identity); where core activities are outsourced, etc.
However, whilst this article stresses the signi ﬁcance of senior management roles
and responsibilities apro pos corporate identity, it does not follow that senior
managers are omnipotent in terms of shaping identity or can shape the attributed
identities, identi ﬁcations and behaviours of ke y stakeholder by management ﬁat.
Stewardship
Indeed, the label “stewardship ”is a more apposite one than manager. This is because in addition
to their magisterial role, senior managers also should be aware of their analytical, legal,
consensual, socially responsible and O mni-temporal resp onsibilities viz:
/C15Magisterial : Senior managers have responsibilities and considerable authority
which should be used-albeit wisely.
/C15Analytical : Senior managers need to regularly and methodically appraise and
analyse the various dimensions of the continuum.
/C15Legal: Senior managers have legal responsibilities and obligations apropos the legal
theory of the ﬁrm (juridical identity).
/C15Consensual: Senior managers as the servants of stakeholders and following a
corporate marketing logic, need to be mindful of stakeholders ’images, attributed
identities, identi ﬁcations and behaviours.
/C15Socially responsible: Senior managers should be mindful of the organisation ’s
ethical/social responsible responsibilities-this is in accordance with a key precept ofcorporate marketing.
/C15Omni-temporal: Senior managers should be attentive to the past, present and
prospective future apropos the organisation/stakeholders: for instance, to take
account (where appropriate) of the organisation ’s roots, founder ’s wishes and long-
term obligations for stakeholders of the future (this is in line with a corporatemarketing philosophical approach).
Strategy and complexity
As the schema reveals, corporate ident ity management should be viewed as a
continuum; albeit a complex continuum . It is a necessary and m ultifaceted seniorThe corporate
identity
continuum
1489

management task. Seemingly here there a re ostensible linkages with strategic
management. For example, Roberts (2004 , p. 282) notes that creating an effectual
strategy is immensely complex . It requires a holistic mind-set; one that has regard for
not only numerous organisational choices bu t also their interdependencies. As such,
senior managers need to decide the scope of a corporation-what it is going to do,
where, how and for whom. For the author, t he linkages with corporate identity
management are palpable.
Corporate identity appraisal
Corporate identity trait saliency not only waxes but also wanes. Over time, identitytraits can atrophy. For instance, identity traits that were once core to an organisation ’s
mission and meaningful to customers and other stakeholders can become peripheral or
redundant to an institution ’s aims and strategy and may become inconsequential or
viewed in a negative light by key stakeholder s. A failure to evaluate identity attributes
may result in multiple identity weaknesses going over undetected, and this may, over
time, prove to be perilous. It is the respon sibility of senior managers to decide what
identity characteristics should or should not be maintained, changed, ended or
abandoned. Moreover, senior managers nee dt od e c i d eh o wa n dw h e nt h ea b o v es h o u l d
be effected. Arguably, the longitudinal case study of British Airways corporate
identity/corporate brand is an exemplar of the above ( Balmer et al. , 2009 ). Hence, to
effect to corporate identity change, it is imperative for senior managers to understandthe current identity along with an entity ’s total corporate communications;
stakeholders ’images, reputations, attributed identities, identi ﬁcations and behaviours
and to take account of changes (and anticipat ed changes) in the business environment.
This explains why the schema may have utility.
Robust, meaningful and mutually pro ﬁtable corporate identity traits
Moreover, senior executives need to ensure that an institution ’s key corporate identity traits
are robust, meaningful and mutually pro ﬁtable:
/C15robust (aligned with the legal identity, corporate mission and the business
environment);
/C15meaningful (to customers and other key stakeholders); and
/C15mutually pro ﬁtable (in the broad meaning of the word, to create value for
customers/key stakeholders and the organisation).
An analogous perspective has been given by Kotter (1990) , who argued an
organisation ’s corporate identity needs to be strat egically sound, serve key corporate
constituencies and meet a company ’s aims. As a corollary, it also their task –taking
an explicit strategic and future-ori entated corporate marketing focus –to introduce,
nurture and bring to the fore new corpora te identity traits which are deemed to be
salient, sustai nable and pro ﬁtable. Sometimes too, this requires secondary identity
traits to be ampli ﬁed so that they occupy a more impor tant position. In very general
terms, the above approach owes something to contingency theory/rational adaption
theory ( Miles, 1984 ).
Moreover, senior managers should ensur e (whilst recognising the limitations of
management ﬁat) a degree of dynamic calibration between and amongst corporate
identity and total corporat e communications, attribut ed identities, stakeholder
identi ﬁcations and behaviours and the busin ess environment too. Such a premiseEJM
51,9/10
1490

underscores the ACID Test alignment app roach of corporate identity management
(Balmer, 2001a ).
Leadership
Corporate identity management not only n ecessitates intervention but also requires
an organisation ’s CEO to have leadership and vis ionary qualities. Therefore,
corporate identity manag ement should ideally be view ed as a function of both
strategy and leadership. Coping with corporate identity complexity and with theregular, often numerous minor/moderate changes to a corporate identity is a keysenior management task. This requires bot h analytical and general management
skills.
However, the initiation and oversight of signi ﬁcant corporate identity change is a
strategic requisite a CEO should have clear leadership skills and, usefully, have a visionunderpinned by a corporate marketing philosophy, corporate identity, and a smart strategy.It should be delivered with clarity, conviction and energy.
Importance of guardianship: “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? ”(Juvenal circa 55 –127)
Juvenal ’s celebrated phrase, “But who will guard the guardians? ”, is often used today
to question the ef ﬁcacy of guardianship of corporate leaders ( Hurwicz, 2007 ). Whilst
senior managers are ﬁrst tier guardians of corporate identity, sometimes, they are
miscreants.
Where this is the case, it is the task o f second tier non-senior management
guardians (Chairmen, Non-Executive Dir ectors, Boards of Governors/Overseers or, in
Germany, the Aufsichtsrat, etc.) to inter vene. However, there is a quandary here in
that second-tier guardians might require monitoring too. As Hurwicz (2007 p. 286)
noted in his Nobel Prize Lecture, guardian ship is both useful and problematic. As he
remarked:
The need to guard second-level guardians conjures the image of an in ﬁnite regress of guardians.
In short, mindful of the limitations of corporate identity management, there is no fail-safe
method of ensuring effective guardianship of identity. However, awareness of theimportance of corporate identity and the requisite for its on-going management are keyguardianship imperatives which should, perhaps, be accorded greater import. Imperativewhich should also inform courses in corporate marketing and strategy.
Reﬂection
The heart of scholarship is not only vision but revision: re-vision. McCraw (2008 , p. 226)
In the introduction, the author explained how this article aimed to speak to the above
scholarly sentiments. It was explicated ho w this commentary was informed by the
vision ofTagiuri (1982) apropos his corporate identity management framework. In
terms of revision , this article/schema updates Tagiuri ’s model and may be deemed to be
expedient in that it considers the territory via the lenses of corporate marketing andstakeholder orientations. Finally, this essay re-visions the corporate identity ﬁeld by
taking account of legal theory, total corpor ate communications, stakeholder theory and
the branch theories of social identity theory.
As such, a key aim of this article has been to advance the territory by speaking to the
aforementioned cerebral objects.The corporate
identity
continuum
1491

The practical and instrumental intents of this article/schema were also expounded.
Mindful of the above, this commentary, with its managerial ambitions, also aims to
progress the ﬁeld.
As such to particularise and augment McCraw ’s( 2 0 0 8 , p. 226) statement vis-à-vis this
tract ’s normative contribution, the author resolves:
The heart of corporate identity management and is not only vision, revision, re-vision but also
termination.
For instance, the article showed how the vision of company founders can ﬁnd voice in the
legal theory of the company. It has revealed how key corporate identity traits require
constant scrutiny and frequent revision . Moreover, the article has shown how, to remain
sustainable, a corporate identity may need a radical re-vision: and, quite often, termination.
Corporate identity cessation is a necessary, commonplace and occurrence often harrowing-management task. This is often overlooked in the literature.
Sometimes the winding-up of identities is b ecause of environment al factors beyond
the control of managers. Regularly, howev er, corporate identities are euthanised
because, senior managers have been negligen t in their corporate identity management
responsibilities.
Occasionally, corporate identity expiration is a moment of celebration.
For instance, when an organisation has achieved its purpose: where a charity established
to combat a disease is wound-up because the disease has been eradicated.
Consider the real-life example of The First Salisbury and District Perfect Thrift Building
Society. Established with the aim of securing home-ownership for all its members, and
having met its corporate and legal objectives (all its members had become home-owners), it
was closed-down in 1980 ( Balmer and Wilkinson, 1991 ).
In this and in analogous circumstances, strategic corporate identity management can be
seen to have reached its apogee: where managers have ful ﬁlled the vision of its founders;
have met their organisation ’s legal objects and have successfully served the wants and
needs of customers and other key stakeholders.
A case of a vital senior management responsibility which has been competently and
admirably done, namely, the strategic management of corporate identity.
References
Aberg, L. (1990), “Theoretical model and praxis of total communications ”,International Public Relations
Review , Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 13-16.
Abratt, R. (1989), “A new approach to the corporate image management process ”,Journal of Marketing
Management , Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 63-76.
Abratt, R. and Kleyn, N. (2012), “Corporate identity, corporate branding and corporate reputations:
reconciliation and integration ”,European Journal of Marketing , Vol. 46 Nos 7/8, pp. 1048-1063.
Albert, S. and Whetten, D. (1985), “Organizational identity ”, in Cummings, LL. and Staw, B.M. (Eds),
Research in Organizational Behavior , JAI Press, CT, Vol. 7, pp. 263-295.
Alvesson, M. (1990), “Organization: from substance to image? ”,Organization Studies , Vol. 11 No. 3,
pp. 373-394.
Alvesson, M. and Wilmott, H. (2002), “Identity regulations as organizational control producing the
appropriate individual ”,Journal of Management Studies , Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 619-644.
Andrews, K.R. (1987), The Concept of Corporate Strategy , Richard D Irwin, New York, NY.
Ashforth, B.E. and Mael, F.E. (1989), “Social identity theory and the organization ”,The Academy of
Management Review , Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 20-39.EJM
51,9/10
1492

Baker, M.J. and Balmer, J.M.T. (1997), “Visual identity: trappings or substance? ”,European Journal of
Marketing , Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 366-382.
Balmer, J.M.T. (1995), “Corporate branding and connoisseurship ”,Journal of General Management ,
Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 24-42.
Balmer, J.M.T. (1998), “Corporate identity and the advent of corporate marketing ”,Journal of Marketing
Management , Vol. 14 No. 8, pp. 963-996.
Balmer, J.M.T. (2001a), “From the pentagon: a new corporate identity framework ”,Corporate
Communications: An International Journal , Vol. 4 No. No. 1, pp. 11-22.
Balmer, J.M.T. (2001b), “Corporate identity, corporate branding and corporate marketing-seeing
through the fog ”,European Journal of Marketing , Vol. 35 Nos 3/4, pp. 248-291.
Balmer, J.M.T. (2008), “Identity-based views of the corporation: insights from corporate identity,
organisational identity, social identity, visual identity, corporate brand identity and corporateimage ”,European Journal of Marketing , Vol. 42 No. 9, pp. 879-906.
Balmer, J.M.T. (2011a), “Corporate marketing myopia and inexorable rise of a corporate marketing
logic: perspectives from identity-based views of the ﬁrm”,European Journal of Marketing ,
Vol. 45 Nos 9/10, pp. 1329-1352.
Balmer, J.M.T. (2011b), “Corporate heritage identities, corporate heritage brands and the multiple
heritage identities of the British Monarchy ”,European Journal of Marketing , Vol. 45 Nos 9/10,
pp. 1380-1398.
Balmer, J.M.T. (2014), “Wally Olins (1930 –2014), corporate identity ascendancy and corporate brand
hegemony. Celebrating the life of Wally Olins: leading corporate identity exponent andprominent brand proponent ”,Journal of Brand Management , Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 459-468.
Balmer, J.M.T. (2015), “Corporate identity, corporate identity scholarship and Wally Olins (1930-2014) ”,
Corporate Communications: An International Journal , Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 4-10.
B a l m e r ,J . M . T .a n dG r a y ,E . R .( 1 9 9 9 ) , “Corporate identity and corporate communications: creating a
competitive advantage ”,Corporate Communications: An International Journal ,V o l .4N o .4 ,
pp. 171-176.
Balmer, J.M.T. and Greyser, S.A. (2002), “Managing the multiple identities of the corporation ”,
California Management Review , Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 72-86.
Balmer, J.M.T. and Greyser, S.A. (2006), “Corporate marketing: integrating corporate identity, corporate
branding, corporate communications, corporate image and corporate reputation ”,European
Journal of Marketing , Vol. 40 Nos 7/8, pp. 730-741.
Balmer, J.M.T. and Soenen, G.B. (1999), “The ACID test of corporate identity management ”,Journal of
Marketing Management , Vol. 15 Nos 1/3, pp. 69-92.
Balmer, J.M.T. and Wang, W.-Y. (2016), “Why business school managers are a distinct stakeholder
group ”,International Studies of Management and Organization , Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 247-255.
Balmer, J.M.T. and Wilkinson, A.J. (1991), “Building societies: change, strategy and corporate identity ”,
Journal of General Management , Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 20-33.
Balmer, J.M.T., Johansen, T. and Nielsen, A.N. (2016), “Scrutinising stakeholder theory: orthodoxy or
heterodoxy? ”,International Studies of Management and Organization , Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 205-215.
Balmer, J.M.T., Stuart, H. and Greyser, S.A. (2009), “Aligning identity and strategy: corporate branding at
British Airways in the late 20th century ”,California Management Review , Vol. 51 No. 31, pp. 6-23.
Bergami, M. and Bagozzi, M. (2000), “Self-categorization, affective commitment and group self-esteem
as distinct aspects of social identity in the organization ”,British Journal of Social Psychology ,
Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 555-577.
Bhattacharya, C.B. and Sen, S. (2003), “Consumer-customer identi ﬁcation: a framework for
understanding consumer ’s relationships with companies ”,Journal of Marketing , Vol. 67 No. 2,
pp. 76-88.The corporate
identity
continuum
1493

Bhattacharya, C.B., Rao, H. and Glynn, M.A. (1995), “Understanding the bond of identi ﬁcation: an
investigation of its correlates among art museum members ”,Journal of Marketing , Vol. 59 No. 4,
pp. 46-57.
Blake, J.E. (Ed.), (1971), A Management Guide to Corporate Identity , Council of Industrial Design, London.
Bouchikhi, H. and Kimberly, J.R. (2003), “Escaping the identity trap ”,MIT Sloan Management Review ,
Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 20-26.
Brown, T.J., Dacin, P.A., Pratt, M.G. and Whetten, D.A. (2006), “Identity, intended image, construed
image, and reputation: an interdisciplinary framework and suggested terminology ”,Academy of
Marketing Science Journal , Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 99-106.
Cardador, M.T. and Pratt, M.G. (2006), “Identi ﬁcation management and its bases: bridging
management and marketing perspectives through a focus on af ﬁliation dimensions ”,Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science , Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 174-184.
Cornelissen, J.P., Haslam, S.A. and Balmer, J.M.T. (2007), “Social identity, organizational identity and
corporate identity: towards an integrated understanding of processes, patternings andproducts ”,British Journal of Management , Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 1-16.
Dignam, A. and Lowry, J. (2010), Company Law , Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Donaldson, T. and Preston, L.E. (1985), “The stakeholder theory of the corporation: concepts, evidence
and implications ”,Academy of Management Review , Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 65-91.
Dowling, G.R. (1993), “Developing your company image into a corporate asset ”,Long Range Planning ,
Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 101-109.
Downey, S.M. (1986), “The relationship between corporate culture and corporate identity ”,Public
Relations Quarterly , Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 7-12.
Dukerich, J.M., Kramer, R. and McLean-Parks, J. (1998), “The dark side of organizational identi ﬁcation ”
in Whetten, D. and Godfrey, P.C. (Eds), Identity in Organizations: Building Theory Through
Conversations , Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 245-267.
Edwards, J., Egan, D. and Whelan, B. (1982), “Identifying the identity ”, Corporate Identity Building
Seminar (CERAM), March 1.
Fombrun, C.J. (1996), Reputation: Realizing Value from the Corporate Image , Harvard Business School
Press, Cambridge, MA.
Fombrun, C.J. and Shanley, M. (1990), “
What ’s in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy ”,
Academy of Management Journal , Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 233-258.
Freeman, R.E. (1984), Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach , Pitman, Boston, MA.
Gagliardi, P. (1982), “L’identite. Ressource pour l ’intergration et la motivation ”, Corporate identity
building seminar (CERAM), March 1.
Gagliardi, P. (1986), “The creation and change of organizational cultures: a conceptual framework ”,
Organization Studies , Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 117-134.
Golden, L.L.L. (1975), “Corporations cannot exist to be faceless ”,Harvard Business Review , Vol. 53
No. 5, pp. 6-9.
Goffman, E. (1959), The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life , Doubleday, Garden City, New York, NY.
Gray, E.R. and Balmer, J.M.T. (1998), “Managing corporate image and corporate reputation ”,Long
Range Planning , Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 695-702.
Gray, E.R. and Smeltzer, L.R. (1985), “Corporate image: an integral part of strategy ”,Sloan
Management Review , Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 73-78.
Handy, C. (1993), Understanding Organizations , Penguin, London.
Harrison, R. (1972), “Understanding your organization ’s character ”,Harvard Business Review , Vol. 50
No. 3, pp. 119-128.
Hatch, M.J. and Schultz, M. (2004), Organizational Identity: A Reader , Oxford University Press, Oxford.EJM
51,9/10
1494

He, H.-W. and Balmer, J.M.T. (2007a), “Identity studies: multiple pers pectives and implications
for corporate-level marketing ”,European Journal of Marketing , Vol. 41 Nos 7/8, pp. 765-
785.
He, H.-W. and Balmer, J.M.T. (2007b), “Perceived corporate identity/strategy dissonance: triggers and
managerial responses ”,Journal of General Management , Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 71-91.
He, H.-W. and Balmer, J.M.T. (2013), “A grounded theory of the corporate identity and corporate
strategy dynamic: a corporate marketing perspective ”,European Journal of Marketing , Vol. 47
Nos 3/4, pp. 401-443.
Henderson, P.W. and Cote, J.A. (1998), “Guidelines for selecting or modifying logos ”,Journal of
Marketing , Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 14-30.
Henrion, F. and Parkin, A. (1967), Design Co-ordination and Corporate Image , Studio Vista, London.
Hoffsteter, C. and Ramanantsoa, B. (1981), “La maitrise de l ’identite par la gestion du processus de
focalisation: Une nouvelle donnee strategique? ”,Direction et Gestion , Vol. 4, pp. 19-33.
Hurwicz, L. (2007), “But who will guard the guardians? ”,Nobel Prize Lecture (The Sveriges Riksbank
Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel) delivered in Stockholm on December 8,Published by the Nobel Prize Foundation , Stockholm, pp. 280-291.
Illia, L. and Balmer, J.M.T. (2012), “Corporate communication and corporate marketing: their nature,
histories, differences and similarities ”,Corporate Communications: An International Journal ,
Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 415-433.
Ireland, P. (1996), “Capitalism without the capitalist: the joint stock company share and the emergence of
the modern doctrine of separate corporate personality ”,The Journal of Legal History ,V o l .1 7N o .1 ,
pp. 41-73.
Kay, J. (1995), Foundations of Corporate Success , Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Kennedy, S.H. (1977), “Nurturing corporate images: total corporate communications or ego trip? ”,
European Journal of Marketing , Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 120-164.
Kershaw, D. (2012), Company Law in Context: text and materials , Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Kimberly, J.R. and Bouchikhi, H. (1995), “The dynamics of organizational development and change: how
the past shapes the present and constrains the future ”,Organizational Science , Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 9-18.
Kotter, J.P. (1990), “What leaders really do ”,Harvard Business Review
, May-June.
Kraakman, R., Armour, J., Davies, P. and Enrique, L. (2009), The Anatomy of Corporate Law: A
Comparative and Functional Approach , Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Larcon, L. and Reitter, R. (1979a), “L’identite de l ’enterprise, un facteur-cle de sa survie ”,Direction et
Gestion , Vol. 3, pp. 11-16.
Larcon, L. and Reitter, R. (1979b), Structure de pouvior et identite de l ’enterprise , Nathan, Paris.
Lee, J. (2011), Family values at a discount ,Financial Times , October 1, p. 8.
Lee, N. and Greenley, G. (2010), “The theory-practice divide: thoughts from the editors and senior
advisory board of EJM ”,European Journal of Marketing , Vol. 44 Nos 1/2, pp. 5-12.
McAlexander, J.H., Schouten, J.W. and Koenig, H.F. (2002), “Building brand community ”,Journal of
Marketing , Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 38-54.
McCraw, T.K. (2008), “Alfred Chandler: his vision and achievement ”,Business History Review , Vol. 82
No. 2, pp. 207-226.
Machen, A.W. (1911), “The corporate personality ”,Harvard Law Review , Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 347-365.
Mael, F. and Ashforth, B.E. (1989), “Alumni and their alma mater: a partial test of the reformulated model
of organizational identi ﬁcation ”,Journal of Organizational Behavior , Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 103-123.
Maitland, F.W. (1908), The Constitutional History of England , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Margulies, W. (1975), “Make the most of your corporate identity ”,Harvard Business Review , Vol. 55
No. 4, pp. 66-77.The corporate
identity
continuum
1495

Martineau, P. (1958), “The personality of the retail store ”,Harvard Business Review , January-February,
pp. 47-55.
Melewar, T.C. (2003), “Determinants of the corporate identity construct: a review of the literature ”,
Journal of Marketing Communications , Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 195-220.
Micklethwait, J. and Wooldrige, A. (2005), The Company. A Short History of a Revolutionary Idea ,
Modern Library, New York, NY. pp. 13-23.
Miles, R. (1984), Macro-Organizational Behavior , Goodyear, Santa Monica, CA.
Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R. and Wood, D.J. (1997), “Toward a theory of stakeholder identi ﬁcation and
salience de ﬁning the principle of who and what really counts ”,Academy of Management Review ,
Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 853-896.
Newman, W.H. (1953), “Basic objectives which shape the character of a company ”,The Journal of
Business , Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 211-223.
Nolan, J. (1975), “Protect your public image with performance ”,Harvard Business Review , Vol. 53 No. 2,
pp. 135-142.
Olins, W. (1989), Corporate Identity: Making Business Strategy Visible through Design , Thames and
Hudson, London.
Perez, A. and Ignacio Rodríguez del Bosque, I. (2014), “Organizational and corporate identity revisited:
toward a comprehensive understanding of identity in business ”,Corporate Reputation Review ,
Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 3-27.
Pilditch, J. (1971), Communications by Design: A Study in Corporate Identity , McGraw Hill, Maidenhead.
Pratt, M.G. (1998), “To be or not to be? Central questions in organizational identi ﬁcation ”, in Whetten,
D. and Godfrey, P. (Eds), Identity in Organizations: Developing Theory Through Conversations ,
Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Pratt, M.G. (2000), “The good, the bad and the ambivalent: managing identi ﬁcation among Amway
distributors ”,Administrative Science Quarterly , Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 456-493.
Radin, M. (1932), “The endless problem of corporate personality ”,Columbia Law Review , Vol. 32 No. 4,
pp. 643-667.
Roberts, J. (2004), The Modern Firm , Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Schultz, D.E., Tannerbaum, S.I. and Lauternborn, R.F. (1994), Integrated Marketing Communication:
Pulling it Together and Making It Work , NTC Business Books, Chicago, IL.
Schmitt, B.H., Simonson, A. and Marcus, J. (1995), “Managing corporate image and identity ”,Long
Range Planning , Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 82-92.
Selame, E. and Selame, J. (1975), The Company Image , John Wiley, New York, NY.
Shannon, C.E. and Weaver, W. (1949), The Mathematical Theory of Communication , University of
Illinois Press, Urbana, IL.
Stewart, K. (1991), “Corporate identity: a strategic marketing issue ”,International Journal of Bank
Marketing , Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 32-39.
Stuart, H. (1999), “Towards a de ﬁnitive model of the corporate identity management process ”,
Corporate Communications: An International Journal , Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 200-207.
Tagiuri, R. (1982), “Managing corporate identity: the role of top management ”, Harvard Business
School Working Paper Series, Harvard Business School. No: HBS 82-68.
Turner, J.C. (1975), “Social comparison and social identity: some perspectives for intergroup behaviour ”,
European Journal of Social Psychology , Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 1-34.
Tajfel, H. (1981), Human Groups and Social Categories: Studies in Social Psychology , Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Tajfel, H. (1982), “Social psychology of intergroup relations ”,Annual Review of Psychology , Vol. 33
No. 1, pp. 1-39.EJM
51,9/10
1496

The Economist (2015), “Advertisement for the position of Chair of the British Council ”, November 28,
p. 21.
Van Riel, C.B.M. (1995), Principles of Corporate Communication , Prentice Hall, London.
Van Riel, C.B.M. and Balmer, J.M.T. (1997), “Corporate identity: the concept, its measurement and
management ”,European Journal of Marketing , Vol. 31 Nos 5/6, pp. 340-335.
Further reading
Melewar, T.C. and Saunders, Balmer, J.M.T. (2001), “Cause, effect and bene ﬁts of a standardised
corporate visual identity system of UK companies operating in Malaysia ”,European Journal of
Marketing , Vol. 35 Nos 3/4, pp. 414-442.
Balmer, J.M.T. and Chen, W.F. (2015), “China's brands, China's brand development strategies and
corporate brand communications in China ”,Journal of Brand Management , Vol. 22 No. 3,
pp. 175-193.
Cornilissen, J.P., Haslam, S.A. and Balmer, J.M.T. (2006), “Social identity, organizational identity and
corporate identity: towards an integrated understanding of processes, patternings and
products ”,British Journal of Management , Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 1-16.
Dutton, J.E. and Dukerich, J.M. (1991), “Keeping an eye on the mirror: image and identity in
organizational adaptation ”,Academy of Management Journal , Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 517-554.
Gioia, D.A., Schultz, M. and Corley, K.G. (2000), “Organizational identity, image, and adaptive
instability ”,Academy of Management Review , Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 63-81.
Wilkins, M. (2008), “Chandler and global business history ”,Business History Review , Vol. 82 No. 2, p. 265.
Appendix 1. Professor Renato Tagiuri ’s working paper “managing corporate identity:
the role of top management ”(1982)
Appreciation
This article is dedicated to the memory of Professor Renato Tagiuri. Today, the late Renato Tagiuri
(1919-2011), Professor of Social Sciences in Business Administration Emeritus at Harvard Business
School (HBS), is widely recognised as a leading scholar of his generation vis-à-vis family businesses,
interpersonal relations and the human aspects of management. However, his single contribution to thecorporate identity ﬁeld –his HBS working paper ( Tagiuri, 1982 ) is also of note and, in the author ’s
estimation, should be better known. The framework expounded in this article take account of the above.
Conversations
During the early 1990s, as part of his PhD studies, when the author made several research visits at
HBS (in part to hold meetings with Professor Stephen A. Greyser) that he unearthed Tagiuri ’
s
working paper in HBS ’s Baker Library. This led to a number of meetings with Professor Renato
Tagiuri, and these continued in many highly fruitful meetings with Professor Tagiuri at Harvard and
also in the UK over the intervening years, until his sad death in 2011.
Significance of Tagiuri ’s framework
Taguiri ’s working paper is signi ﬁcant because it is the ﬁrst corporate identity framework of its type,
and it foreshadowed what eventually became known as organisational identity/organisational
identi ﬁcation. Arguably, Taguiri ’s framework is the ﬁrst conceptual corporate identity model of its
kind. In a radical departure, his model not only stresses the pivotal importance of employees but alsoemphasises the central role of senior managers in managing and effecting corporate identity adaptionand change. Such themes will be familiar to corporate marketing scholars today. For organisational
behaviourists too, his work is of pivotal importance. This is because his observations on attributedThe corporate
identity
continuum
1497

identity presaged Albert and Whetten ’s theoretical insights (1985) on organisational identity, whereas
his re ﬂections on employee identi ﬁcation preﬁgured the formal introduction of the organisational
identiﬁcation theoretical notion ( Mael and Ashforth, 1989 ).
Key contributions
The author has been mindful of Tagiuri ’s framework in the schema outlined here, and scholars will
wish to scrutinise, compare and contrast both frameworks and descriptions. For the author, Tagiuri ’s
(1982) framework is distinctive in that it:
/C15focusses on senior management roles and responsibilities apropos corporate identity and
emphasises the importance of employee identi ﬁcation;
/C15differentiates between employee identi ﬁcation, disidenti ﬁcation and ambivalent
identi ﬁcation and notes how this in ﬂuences employee;
/C15notes the in ﬂuence of social and environmental contexts; and
/C15whilst having a resolutely employee and management focus, the article and framework
also notes the importance of other constituencies but accords external constituencies andcustomers in particular little attention.
Appendix 2. Corporate identity contexts
20 Years on: re-assessing corporate identity
There is another reason why a reconsideration of corporate identity and its import and its impacts
can be viewed as opportune, timely and necessary. This is because 2017 marks the anniversary of theground-breaking European Journal of Marketing ( EJM) special edition devoted to corporate identity
(Van Riel and Balmer, 1997 ). As such, this is a providential moment to revisit the corporate identity
construct to re-asses its theoretical and strategic utility and take account of developments within thecanon.
The above being noted, it is clear that an increasing number of marketing scholars view
corporate identity to be a pivotal, powerful and profound dimension of organisational life andmanagement. In corporate marketing contexts, corporate marketing is of critical import to thephilosophy and the attendant theories of corporate marketing. Moreover, the literature exempli ﬁes
the critical importance of corporate identity to the theoretical and instrumental understanding of keycorporate marketing concepts.
For instance, Van Riel (1995) noted the centrality of corporate identity apropos corporate
communication; Fombrun (1996) acknowledged its signi ﬁcance to the understanding of corporate
reputation; Gray and Balmer (1998) recognised its consequence to both corporate image and
corporate reputation; and Balmer (1995) found that it was imperative in comprehending corporatebrands. Following the above, corporate identity can be viewed to be of equivalent signi ﬁcance in
instrumental and, moreover, strategic terms.
20 years ago, it was still common for corporate identity to be narrowly conceived (and all too
often narrowly constrained) by its close association with graphic design ( Henrion and Parkin, 1967 ;
Blake, 1971 ;Pilditch, 1971 ;Selame and Selame, 1975 :Margulies, 1975 ;Olins, 1989 ;Stewart, 1991 ;
Schmitt et al. , 1995 ) or a by a constricted conceptualisation in terms of corporate communications
(Van Riel, 1995 ). The work of Wally Olins was of seminal importance ( Balmer ,2014, 2015 ). Whilst the
insights associated with visual identity were noteworthy ( Baker and Balmer, 1997 ;Henderson and
Cote, 1998 ; Melewar et al. , 2001) and the signi ﬁcant of visual identity should not be disregarded, this
tended to disregard a more holistic, strategic and multi-disciplinary understanding of corporateidentity which was starting to transpire ( Balmer, 1995 ;2001a ).EJM
51,9/10
1498

Thus, 20 years on from this special edition, there is a logic in scrutinising and comprehending
corporate identity via the broader visor of corporate marketing in philosophical and instrumentalterms. Corporate marketing recognises organisations and their corporate brands (and not justproducts and services) are critically important platforms via which mutually bene ﬁcial
organisational-stakeholder relations take place ( Balmer, 2001b ,2011a ,2011b ).
Orthodox and heterodox perspectives
Whilst recognising that both orthodox and heterodox perspectives can substantively inform the
corporate identity ﬁeld (Balmer et al. , 2016 ), it has been decided to pursue an orthodox and strategic
perspective. Such an approach is appropriate owing to the emphasis accorded to strategic and legalperspectives of corporate identity management in this article/schema. Whereas the orthodoxstandpoint adopts an endogenous and institutional approach to corporate identity and focusses on an
organisation ’s inherent identity traits, ethos and capabilities the heterodox approach, in contrast,
reﬂects a constructionist and critical viewpoint where corporate identities are deemed to be co-created
by organisations and stakeholders.
Balmer ’s (1995 ,2008 ) understanding of corporate identity often equates to an orthodox
perspective whereby he regards corporate identity as equating to an organisation ’s distinct and
differentiating and de ﬁning –and more often than not tangible –identity traits. However, the schema
also requires senior managers to take cognisance of stakeholders ’attributed identities, identi ﬁcations
and resultant behaviours. This is in accord with a core precept of marketing/corporate marketing(Balmer ,2011a, 2011b ).
Corporate identity indifference in organisational behaviour
For all the importance attached to corporate identity by corporate marketing scholars, it has to be
acknowledged that scholars outside the marketing discipline frequently show indifference to, and
sometimes studiously ignore, the corporate identity concept.
Regrettably, this sometimes results in a partisan, constrained and at times myopic identity
perspective. Moreover, it tends to privilege organisational behaviour theoretical and scholarlyperspectives, gives undue attention to employees and can result in the strategic management ofcorporate identity from corporate marketing and stakeholder perspectives being discounted orconceived via a narrow organisational behaviour/human resources lenses. Unfortunately, the
privileging of the scholarship of organisational behaviour has led some to credit organisational
behaviourists Albert and Whetten (1985) as the founding architects of the identity domain in
business studies.
Yet whilst acknowledging the import and the magisterial nature of Albert and Whetten ’s (1985)
scholarship, it is bewildering why no mention is made of corporate identity: a concept which waswell-developed by the mid-1980s. However, notably and importantly, leading organisationalbehaviourists Hatch and Schultz (2004) concede the seminal importance of the corporate identity
concept and the work of marketing scholars and practitioners (albeit in the briefest of asides) in
“leading the way ”apropos business identity studies.
Arguably, however, collaborative initiatives by marketing and organisational behaviour
scholars provide more-balanced overviews of the domain with initiatives taking place both in the UK(Cornelissen et al. , 2007 ) and in the US ( Brown et al. , 2006 ;Cardador and Pratt, 2006 ).
However, US scholars give little attention to the non-US literature and thus has resulted in
different and narrower conceptualisations of corporate identity and, therefore, the broader identity
territory.The corporate
identity
continuum
1499

Notably, reviews of the identity literature by European-based marketing scholars strive to give
a more balanced assessment of the corporate identity/organisational identity ﬁelds ( He and Balmer,
2007a ;Balmer, 2008 ; Perez and Ignacio Rodriguez del Bosque, 2014).
Appendix 3. Further deliberations on the legal theory of the organisation and corporate
identity, total corporate communications
The legal theory of the organisation and corporate identity: Some further deliberations
The legal corporate personality: a dif ﬁcult notion . Many students of marketing (as well as in law) ﬁnd
the legal theory of the organisation, and, moreover, the legal concept of the legal corporate
personality to be dif ﬁcult. Author has found a similar bemusement among marketing and
management scholars.
Roots in canon and roman laws . This theory has its roots in two ancient legal systems: Roman
law and Canon Law, ( Micklethwait and Wooldrige, 2005 ;Balmer, 2008 ) and is both philosophical but
also practical in nature. At the heart of theory is the legal concept of the corporate personality
(persona ﬁcta).
Notably, this juridical theory is a cornerstone of the Canon Law of the catholic church. As such,
it underscores the legal theory of the Catholic Church ’s corporate identity, along with its constituent
entities (religious orders and af ﬁrming churches and ordinaries).
The origins and importance of the corporate personality legal notion . A key aspect of canon law
and, now, a key component of many of the world ’s legal systems vis-à-vis company is the legal notion
of the corporate personality ( Machen, 1911 ;Radin, 1932 ;Ireland, 1996 ).
The establishment of the corporate personality in canon law was the result of an intense
philosophical debate surrounding the day-to-day practicalities of codifying the relationships of the
clergy and the church including the status of their appointments.
For instance, if a Abbot acting on behalf of his Abbey held land would this mean at his death
the Abbey would no longer hold legal right to the land ( Dignam and Lowry, 2010 p[0].16)?
This conundrum was deliberated over for some time but, in the end, the Church held the answer
was no. The Abbey (or religious order) was found to be a distinct legal entity that was separable fromits members. In short, it was deemed to have a “life of its own ”.
As such the establishment of the legal corporate personality enabled the organisations of the
church and the Church itself had analogous legal rights as individuals. Over time, this legal theorywas applied to organisations per se and, today, is viewed as a cardinal precept of company law.
Legal theory of the corporation: similar to the orthodox school of thought apropos corporate
identity . The doctrine of the legal theory of the corporation is, in many, ways analogous to the
orthodox school of thought apropos corporate identity. As pointed out by Balmer et al. (2016) this
philosophical perspective accords an endogenous and institutional approach to corporate identity and
focusses on, and recognises, that organisation have inherent identity traits, ethos and capabilities. Inshort –as with the legal notion of the corporate personality –for legal and for practical reasons
corporate identities are deemed to be real.
Company/Corporate Law, typically, allows for organisations to exist in perpetuity will
sometimes also prescribe the time period a company may exist; more usually this is “in perpetuity ”.
Some organisational forms came to an end once certain objectives had been met: TerminatingBuilding Societies were a case in point ( Balmer and Wilkinson, 1991 ).EJM
51,9/10
1500

Failure to take account of an entity ’s juridical entity may well vitiate a de ﬁning corporate
marketing precept (where account is accorded to issues of Omni-temporality vis-à-vis the past, present
and prospective future, especially in relation to key stakeholders) in terms of an entity ’s founders who
deliberated on and de ﬁned the entity ’s purposes, activities and scope in their founding legal
documents (articles of association/Royal Charter).
Total corporate communications: Some further deliberations
A corporate marketing orientation is mindful of the total communications logic which recognises that
everything an organisation says, makes and does –as well as what others say about a ﬁrm –
communicates ( Balmer and Gray, 1999 ) and also accords importance to a stakeholder orientation,
whereby signi ﬁcance is given not only to customers but also to other key stakeholders. In short, it
comes with a realisation that a stakeholder perspective is important for an entity ’s on-going survival
and success. Notably, the corporate marketing doctrine takes account not only of stakeholders of the
present but also those of the future. It is mindful of the legacy bequeathed by earlier stakeholders:
this is especially the case with mutual and not-for-pro ﬁt entities.
The total corporate communications approach ( Balmer and Gray, 1999 ) epitomises a much-
expanded theoretical perspective relating t o corporate communications, as evinced by the
approaches of Aberg (1990) ,Van Riel (1995) and the integrated marketing communication
approach of Schultz et al. (1994) . Total corporate communications also represent a radical
departure from traditional one-way communications models which emphasise “controlled
communications ”(Shannon and Weaver, 1949 ).
Whilst total corporate communications cannot be entirely managed, it should, nonetheless, be
completely understood and taken into account. In addition, senior management cognisance of total
corporate communications vis-à-vis strategic corporate identity formation, management and
maintenance avoids a narrow conceptualisation of corporate communications in terms of “integrated/
controlled corporate communications ”which, arguably, is myopic and potentially perilous because
corporate communications may be narrowly conceived.
Where the effects of total corporate communications on stakeholders represent an inaccurate,
out-dated or confused image of a ﬁrm’s corporate identity, this may result in confusion and may
result in weak or prejudicial stakeholder-company identi ﬁcation and in behaviours which are not
supportive of corporate identity.
Whilst the total corporate communications approach is seemingly applicable to developed,
Western economies, there are other factors to consider in other countries. For instance, in China (and
no doubt other countries), consideration must be given to Party (the Communist Party of China),
Guanxi (the critical importance of business and personal networks) and Family (the importance
attached to Family): see Balmer and Chen (2015).
About the author
John M.T. Balmer is a Professor of Corporate Marketing at Brunel University Business School London,
quondam a Professor of Corporate Brand/Identity Management at Bradford University School of
Management and a Director of the Marketing and Corporate Brand Research Group at BrunelUniversity. He took his PhD at Strathclyde University in 2006 and within three years was elected to a
personal (full) chair as a Professor of Corporate Identity at Bradford University School of Management.
Subsequently, he was conferred the title of Professor of Corporate Brand/Identity Management at the
same institution in recognition of his pioneering scholarship in these ﬁelds. In 2007, he was appointed to
a personal chair at Brunel University London where and was conferred the title Professor of Corporate
Marketing. All three professorial appointments are understood to be the ﬁrst of their kind. Recognised
for his scholarship on corporate identity, he is credited with writing the ﬁrst articles on corporate
brands (1995) and corporate marketing (1998) and co-developed the corporate heritage notion (2006). HeThe corporate
identity
continuum
1501

is the Chairman of the Board of Senior Consultant Editors of the Journal of Brand Management ;s i t so n
the senior advisory board of the Journal of Product and Brand Management and has served on the
editorial board of the European Journal of Marketing for 20 years. He has edited/co-edited well over 20
special editions of academic journals. His articles have been published in California Management
Review, British Journal of Management, European Journal of Marketing, Journal of Business Research,
Long Range Planning, Industrial Marketing Management, International Studies of Management and
Organizations, Journal of Brand Management, Journal of General Management among other journals.
In 1994, he established the International Corporate Identity Group (ICIG). Launched in the House ofLords ( Palace of Westminster, London ) he is the Chairman and Conference Organiser of the ICIG:
symposia have been held in Denmark, Malaysia, South African, Spain, Switzerland as well as at the
Universities of Oxford, Strathclyde, Brunel, Essex and at the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre in
London. He established the International Corporate Heritage Symposium in 2011 and is its Chairman
and Conference Organiser. John M.T. Balmer can be contacted at: John.Balmer@brunel.ac.uk
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htmOr contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.comEJM
51,9/10
1502

Copyright Notice

© Licențiada.org respectă drepturile de proprietate intelectuală și așteaptă ca toți utilizatorii să facă același lucru. Dacă consideri că un conținut de pe site încalcă drepturile tale de autor, te rugăm să trimiți o notificare DMCA.

Acest articol: The corporate identity, total [624321] (ID: 624321)

Dacă considerați că acest conținut vă încalcă drepturile de autor, vă rugăm să depuneți o cerere pe pagina noastră Copyright Takedown.

The corporate identity, total [624321]

Copyright Notice

CERCETĂRI PRIVIND ÎNMULȚIREA VEGETATIVĂ LA CACTACEAEE Absolvent: Cristian SURDU Conducător Științific: Prof. Dr. Maria CANTOR CLUJ-NAPOCA 2018… [309567]

Colectivul de Științe ale Informării și Documentării [620572]

CLASIFICAREA TEMPERAMENTELOR ȘI A TIPOLOGIILOR [306467]

CONF. UNIV. DR. RUXANDRA GHERGHINESCU MODULUL I: PRIVIRE GENERAL Ă ASUPRA ISTORIEI PSIHOLOGIEI UNITATEA DE ÎNV ĂȚ ARE 1 CURS INTRODUCTIV Plan de… [626267]

ANALIZA RISCULUI ÎN INVESTIȚIILE DIRECTE (CAPITAL BUDGETING) [613125]

Războiul Anglo -argentinean sau [629723]

Copyright Notice

Similar Posts