Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
August 27, 2020 1/150
Submitted by Antonio Cerkez, B.Sc. Matriculation number K01255218 Field code 066 973 Submitted to Institut für Strategisches Management Supervisor Mag.a Dr.in Sabine Reisinger August 2020
KEY SUCCESS
FACTORS OF DIGITAL
COMMUNICATION
STRATEGIES
ANALYZED THROUGH
THE LENS OF
COMPETITIVE MODES
Master’s Thesis
to confer the academic degree of
Master of Science
in the Master’s Program
General Management
August 27, 2020 2/150
SWORN DECLARATION
I hereby declare under oath that the submitted Master’s Thesis has been written solely by me
without any third-party assistance, information other than provided sources or aids have not
been used and those used have been fully documented. Sources for literal, paraphrased and
cited quotes have been accurately credited.
The submitted document here present is identical to the electronically submitted text document.
Linz, August 2020
Signature
August 27, 2020 3/150
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my thesis supervisor Mag.a Dr.in Sabine
Reisinger who not only guided me throughout the entire research process but shared her
invaluable knowledge with me concerning a broad variety of research areas. Her constant
support and encouragements were a pivotal factor for me to be able to compose this masters’
thesis.
Moreover, my deepest gratitude goes to my family whose seemingly unlimited care, support and
patience throughout my entire academic career has enabled me to overcome every obstacle on
my journey.
August 27, 2020 4/150
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 10
1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 12
1.1. Problem statement ...................................................................................................... 12
1.2. Objective of the thesis ................................................................................................. 14
1.3. Research questions ..................................................................................................... 14
1.4. Literature review approach .......................................................................................... 14
1.5. Outline of the thesis ..................................................................................................... 15
2. Literature review and theoretical background ................................................................ 16
2.1. Digital corporate communication.................................................................................. 16
2.1.1. Definition .......................................................................................................... 16
2.1.2. Strategic digital corporate communication ........................................................ 17
2.1.3. Digital Corporate Communication Strategies .................................................... 21
2.1.3.1. Internal and External Communication Strategies ................................ 22
2.1.3.1.a Internal Communication Strategy ...................................... 27
2.1.3.1.b External Communication Strategy ..................................... 33
2.1.3.2. Informational, Persuasive and Involvement Strategies ....................... 36
2.1.3.3. Expertise, Image and Hybrid Strategies ............................................. 46
2.1.3.4. Social Media Content Strategy ........................................................... 48
2.1.3.5. Online Corporate Communication Channels ...................................... 52
2.1.4. Framework of Digital Corporate Communication Strategies .............................. 55
2.2. Competitive modes ...................................................................................................... 59
2.2.1. Competition ...................................................................................................... 59
2.2.1.1. Theoretical background ...................................................................... 60
2.2.1.2. Rivalry analysis .................................................................................. 62
2.2.1.3. Competitive strategies ........................................................................ 64
2.2.2. Cooperation ...................................................................................................... 65
2.2.2.1. Theoretical background ...................................................................... 66
2.2.2.2. Types of cooperation .......................................................................... 68
2.2.3. Challenges and capabilities of competitive modes ............................................ 70
2.2.3.1. Challenges and capabilities of competition ......................................... 70
2.2.3.2. Challenges and capabilities of cooperation ........................................ 71
2.2.4. Conclusion of competition and cooperation ...................................................... 73
August 27, 2020 5/150
3. Research Method & Design .............................................................................................. 74
3.1. Research Method ........................................................................................................ 74
3.2. Population and sample ................................................................................................ 74
3.3. Data collection process and analytics .......................................................................... 75
3.3.1. Data units ......................................................................................................... 76
3.3.1.1. Websites ............................................................................................ 76
3.3.1.2. Social Media ...................................................................................... 76
3.3.2. Indicators and evaluation methodology ............................................................. 78
3.3.2.1. Indicators for internal and external communication strategy ............... 78
3.3.2.1.a Indicators for internal communication strategy .................. 79
3.3.2.1.b Indicators for external communication strategy ................. 79
3.3.2.2. Indicators for Informational, Persuasive and Involvement Strategies .. 80
3.3.2.2.a Indicators for Informational Strategy ................................. 80
3.3.2.2.b Indicators for Persuasive Strategy .................................... 80
3.3.2.2.c Indicators for Involvement Strategy ................................... 80
3.3.2.3. Indicators for Expertise, Image and Hybrid Strategies ........................ 81
3.3.2.3.a Indicators for Expertise Strategy ....................................... 81
3.3.2.3.b Indicators for Image Strategy ............................................ 81
3.3.2.3.c Indicators for Hybrid Strategy ............................................ 82
3.3.2.4. Indicators for Social Media Content Strategies ................................... 82
3.3.2.4.a Indicators for Informative vs. persuasive messaging ......... 83
3.3.2.4.b Indicators for soft-sell vs. hard-sell messaging .................. 83
3.3.2.4.c Indicators for frontstage vs. backstage messaging ............ 84
3.3.2.4.d Indicators for sales orientation vs. customer orientation
messaging ........................................................................ 84
3.3.2.5. Indicators for competition and cooperation ......................................... 84
3.3.2.5.a Indicators for competition .................................................. 85
3.3.2.5.b Indicators for cooperation ................................................. 85
4. Results .............................................................................................................................. 86
4.1. Distribution of coding units ........................................................................................... 86
4.2. Digital corporate communication strategy results ......................................................... 87
4.2.1. Dominant digital corporate communication strategies ....................................... 87
4.2.2. Social media digital corporate communication results ....................................... 90
4.2.2.1. Dominant digital corporate communication strategies on social media
per corporation ................................................................................... 91
August 27, 2020 6/150
4.2.2.2. Distribution of digital corporate communication strategies per social
media context unit .............................................................................. 94
4.2.2.2.a Digital corporate communication strategy distribution on
Facebook .......................................................................... 94
4.2.2.2.b Digital corporate communication strategy distribution on
Instagram.......................................................................... 97
4.2.2.2.c Digital corporate communication strategy distribution on
Twitter ............................................................................... 99
4.2.2.2.d Digital corporate communication strategy distribution on
Youtube ............................................................................ 99
4.2.3. Websites digital corporate communication results .......................................... 103
4.2.3.1. Dominant digital corporate communication strategies on websites ... 103
4.2.3.2. Distribution of digital corporate communication strategies per website
and corporation ................................................................................ 106
4.3. Competitive modes and digital corporate communication .......................................... 109
4.3.1. Interpretation of corporations’ dominant competitive mode regarding digital
corporate communication ............................................................................... 109
4.3.2. Interpretation of corporations’ dominant competitive mode per context unit .... 110
4.4. Conclusion of the results ........................................................................................... 112
5. Discussion ...................................................................................................................... 115
5.1. Summary of the findings ............................................................................................ 115
5.2. Generation of hypotheses.......................................................................................... 116
5.2.1. Stakeholder-based strategies and competitive modes .................................... 116
5.2.2. Objective-based strategies and competitive modes ........................................ 117
5.2.3. Content-based strategies and competitive modes .......................................... 119
5.2.4. Social media content strategies and competitive modes ................................. 120
5.3. Discussion of research questions .............................................................................. 122
5.4. Limitations and future research.................................................................................. 124
6. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 125
7. References ...................................................................................................................... 128
August 27, 2020 7/150
List of Figures
Figure 1: Stakeholder typology (Mitchell et al., 1997, p. 874) .....................................................24
Figure 2: Internal Corporate Communication (Welch & Jackson, 2007, p. 186) ..........................30
Figure 3: Models of organization-stakeholder communication (Cornelissen, 2011, p. 50) ..........37
Figure 4: Customer Engagement Cycle (Sashi, 2012, p. 261) ....................................................44
Figure 5: Stakeholder communication: from awareness to commitment (Cornelissen, 2011, p.
49) .............................................................................................................................................45
Figure 6: Taxonomical approach to understanding FGC on social media (Pan et al., 2019, p. 77)
..................................................................................................................................................51
Figure 7: VRIN Framework (Barney, 1991, p. 112) ....................................................................61
Figure 8: Porter's Five Forces (Porter, 1980, p. 4) .....................................................................63
August 27, 2020 8/150
List of Tables
Table 1: Internal communication matrix (Welch & Jackson, 2007, p. 185) ..................................28
Table 2: Framework of digital corporate communication strategies based on the preceding
literature review .........................................................................................................................57
Table 3: Corporations selected for the empirical research..........................................................75
Table 4: Internal stakeholder group and respective indicators ....................................................79
Table 5: External stakeholder groups and respective indicators .................................................79
Table 6: Informational strategy indicators ...................................................................................80
Table 7: Persuasive strategy indicators......................................................................................80
Table 8: Involvement strategy indicators ....................................................................................81
Table 9: Expertise strategy indicators ........................................................................................81
Table 10: Image strategy indicators ...........................................................................................82
Table 11: Informative and persuasive messaging and respective indicators ..............................83
Table 12: Soft-sell and hard-sell messaging and respective indicators.......................................83
Table 13: Frontstage and backstage messaging and respective indicators ................................84
Table 14: Sales and customer orientation and respective indicators ..........................................84
Table 15: Competition indicators ................................................................................................85
Table 16: Cooperation indicators ...............................................................................................85
Table 17: Distribution and number of analyzed coding units per corporations and context unit ..87
Table 18: Dominant digital corporate communication strategies per corporation ........................89
Table 19: Dominant communication strategies per corporation on analyzed social media
platforms ....................................................................................................................................93
Table 20: Distribution of digital corporate communication strategies on Facebook .....................96
Table 21: Distribution of digital corporate communication strategies on Instagram.....................98
Table 22: Distribution of digital corporate communication strategies on Twitter ........................ 100
Table 23: Distribution of digital corporate communication strategies on Youtube ..................... 102
Table 24: Dominant communication strategies per corporation on websites ............................ 105
Table 25: Distribution of digital corporate communication strategies on Websites .................... 108
Table 26: Dominant competitive mode per corporation regarding digital corporate communication
across context units ................................................................................................................. 110
Table 27: Dominant competitive mode regarding digital corporate communication per context
unit ........................................................................................................................................... 111
Table 28: Dominant digital corporate communication strategies and competitive modes per
corporation across all context units .......................................................................................... 114
Table 29: Stakeholder-based strategy and competitive mode per corporation ......................... 117
Table 30: Objective-based strategy and competitive mode per corporation ............................. 118
Table 31: Content-based strategy and competitive mode per corporation ................................ 119
August 27, 2020 9/150
Table 32: Social media content strategies per corporation predominantly in competition ......... 121
Table 33: Social media content strategies and their occurrence in fully competitive corporations
................................................................................................................................................ 122
August 27, 2020 10/150
Executive Summary
Since the advent of the Internet new challenges and opportunities emerged for corporations in
the way they communicate and exchange information with stakeholders (Ihator, 2001, p. 15).
Social networking sites have especially gained the attention of scholars and practitioners in
recent years since these networking tools have heavily been adopted by both corporations and
individuals (Macnamara & Zerfass, 2012; Ruehl & Ingenhoff, 2015). However, not only has the
arena changed in which information is being exchanged with stakeholders, but also competition
and cooperation have reshaped in a certain way to accommodate developments in digitalization
of the last decade, since geography, time and space are no longer perceived as such strict
boundaries for companies as they used to be in the past (Mäenpää & Korhonen, 2015, p. 89).
This master’s thesis explores in the first part different digital communication strategies and
competitive modes, namely competition and cooperation, based on the recent literature including
theoretical backgrounds. Four main corporate communication strategies have been identified
throughout the literature: Stakeholder-based strategy, content-based strategy, objective-based
strategy, and social media content strategy. These main strategies are found to contain several
sub-strategies. The stakeholder-based strategy is divided into internal and external corporate
communication strategies. The content-based strategy into expertise, image and hybrid
strategies. The objective-based strategy is divided into persuasive, informational or involvement
strategy. These strategies are elaborated within this thesis’ literature review following Bobocel’s
(2019) contribution to digital corporate communication strategies - which is characterized by the
similarity to the concepts presented within this thesis – however, enriching it with complementary
literature on these strategies as well as the areas of competition and cooperation. Lastly, the
social media content strategy is divided into informative and persuasive messaging, soft-sell and
hard-sell messaging, frontstage and backstage messaging, and customer orientation and sales
orientation. For the competitive modes, namely competition and cooperation, the theoretical
backgrounds are presented as well as certain challenges and capabilities.
The second part of this master’s thesis consists of an empirical research where 25 Austrian
companies’ digital communication strategies are examined. For the analysis the corporations’
respective social media profiles on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Youtube as well as the
respective websites have been analyzed. The aim is to discover differences in companies’ digital
communication strategies depending on their position on a competition-cooperation matrix. From
the research, several hypotheses could be derived: Predominantly competitive corporations tend
to implement persuasive objective-based communication strategies. These corporations’ social
media content messaging strategies are likely to contain persuasive, soft-sell, frontstage or sales
August 27, 2020 11/150
oriented elements across their respective websites and/or social media sites. Moreover, it has
been found that predominantly cooperative companies do not implement a persuasion strategy
as their dominant means of communication. Moreover, a corporation’s competitive mode does
neither influence the selection of a specific stakeholder-based communication strategy nor does
it influence the selection of a specific content-based digital communication strategy. Due to
several limitations encountered within this thesis’ empirical research further research should be
conducted in order to verify the hypotheses presented within this paper. One of the limitations
encountered was the current global crisis concerning the outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 and the
resulting shift of corporations’ digital communication towards this pandemic and how it affects
key stakeholders as well as their own business operations. Furthermore, some corporations
were found to not follow a steady digital corporate communication strategy across all channels.
Nevertheless, the research gives an indication towards how corporations in Austria
communicate on digital channels to their stakeholders depending on their positioning on a
competition-cooperation continuum.
August 27, 2020 12/150
1. Introduction
This master’s thesis starts within the problem statement with a brief description of challenges
companies are facing since the Internet’s transformative effect on communication and daily
business (Halliburton & Ziegfeld, 2009). Subsequently, the objective of this master’s thesis is
described within chapter 1.2. in order to capture the motivation behind writing this paper.
Afterwards, research questions are defined which are being answered by the empirical research
as the second main part of this thesis. A brief description of the approach to the literature review
and the outline of the whole thesis are also contained within this introduction.
1.1. Problem statement
The Internet has transformed into an effective tool for companies since it is globally accessible
and enables consumers to participate while corporate identity can be communicated towards a
large audience (Halliburton & Ziegfeld, 2009; Singh et al., 2005). In a dynamic and fast-paced
business environment, corporate communication (paired with corporate identity) can endow
companies with distinct competitive advantages (Balmer & Gray, 1999, p. 171).
In order to gain deep understanding of the scope of these advantages, the phenomenon of
competition shall be addressed beforehand. Due to significant increases in stakeholder power
(Arora & Sanni, 2019, p. 11) and globalization over the past years (Arvidsson, 2012), there
seems to be high demand for the conceptualization of competition and its dynamics which are,
according to Chen and Miller (2015, p. 758), spread over five dimensions: aims of competition,
mode of competing, roster of actors, action toolkit, and time horizon of interaction. These
dimensions help with the understanding of different modes of competition. Other moderating
factors such as industry and culture shall also be included in the analysis. Configurational,
transaction cost and stakeholder views are three perspectives on which the elaborated method
can be connected to (Chen & Miller, 2015, p. 758).
Corporate communication as a means of creating competitive advantage has enjoyed increasing
importance in management research (Balmer, 1995; Shee & Abratt, 1989; van Riel & Balmer,
1997), since dynamic market environments and trends demand a specific approach to the issue
of communicating corporate identity to stakeholders (Balmer & Gray, 1999, p. 171). According to
Balmer and Gray (1999, p. 171) corporate communication can be analyzed through a three part
August 27, 2020 13/150
system process which, in an ideal scenario, should complement each other: primary, secondary
and tertiary. Primary corporate communication aims to establish a strong reputation of the firm
and a positive image (e.g. market behavior, behavior towards employees, employee behavior to
other stakeholders, products & services). Secondary communication should support efforts of
primary communication (e.g. advertising, PR, graphic design, visual identification systems).
Tertiary communication also results in further improvement of corporate reputation (e.g. word-of-
mouth). However, it only comes into effect if primary and secondary communication techniques
are well-established. The authors found that this strategic approach is effective when it comes to
creating competitive advantages. Nonetheless, Balmer and Gray (1999, p. 175) claim that many
firms can be identified whose corporate communication ignores the required balance of the three
communication parts.
According to Bouwman et al. (2018, p. 105) companies benefit from recent developments in
digitalization. The researchers argue that a reason for that is the transformation from
conventional corporate communication to digital communication tools and strategies. Digital
communication is mainly conducted using online social media channels and is seen as an
innovative approach to influence stakeholders and improve corporate reputation (A. Kaul et al.,
2015, p. 456). According to Fertik and Thompson (2010, p. 2) corporate reputation is determined
by a firm’s online appearance and is a deciding factor for stakeholders when considering any
type of interaction with the firm. It also has a positive impact on stakeholder’s perception of a
firm’s financial value (Shenkar & Yuchtman-Yaar, 1997, p. 1361).
In addition to digital communication strategies enhancing corporate reputation, studies have
been conducted also in the field of consumer behavior and how it can be affected by firms using
digital channels as a means of communication (Rowley, 2008; Valentini et al., 2018). Customers’
perceptions of a particular service or product are increasingly formed and influenced by a
corporation’s performance on social networks (Valentini et al., 2018, p. 362). There is a large
number of expressions of consumer behavior on digital communication channels which firms can
use to engage with in order to achieve a competitive edge on the market (V. Kaul, 2015, p. 4).
Based on the statements above, this master’s thesis provides insights on corporations’ strategic
relevance of digital communication considering factors such as different stakeholder groups,
types of provided online content and different online channels, while trying to identify clear
communication differences between firms positioned across a competitive-cooperative-
continuum.
August 27, 2020 14/150
1.2. Objective of the thesis
This master’s thesis aims to analyze concepts of corporate digital communication strategies and
examines its relation to and differences between relational and rivalrous companies.
Correlations between certain types of these strategies and the theoretical framework will be
identified and utilized to develop hypotheses. Furthermore, the reader should obtain an
understanding about the strategic relevance of digital corporate communication and different
strategic approaches depending on competitive modes. Another objective of this thesis is to
provide an enriched comprehension and complementing findings to previously conducted
research (see Bobocel, 2019) on the topic of digital corporate communication for future research
to build on. In order to facilitate future research, a similar research methodology to the one
conducted by Bobocel (2019) is selected.
The empirical research conducted within this thesis primarily focuses on the identification of
patterns when comparing corporate digital communication strategies to companies’ positioning
on a competition-cooperation matrix.
1.3. Research questions
This master’s thesis addresses the following research questions:
• How and to what extent does either a competitive or cooperative business environment
impact a company’s digital communication strategy?
• How and to what extent does either competition or cooperation influence the design of
digital communication strategies?
• Which, if any, particular patterns occur when a comparison of corporations’ digital
communication strategies is undertaken?
1.4. Literature review approach
This master’s thesis consists of a theoretical and an empirical part. Starting with a thorough
investigation of current literature and theoretical frameworks the reader should obtain knowledge
about relevant concepts and types of the two underlying fields: digital corporate communication
August 27, 2020 15/150
and competitive modes. In order to ensure a systematic and transparent literature review, a
traditional concept, especially suited for business and management research, has been selected
(Fisch & Block, 2018). Information and knowledge is accumulated stemming from a wide range
of studies concerned with the two fields mentioned above, aiming to establish a reliable
knowledge base (Tranfield et al., 2003).
Peer-reviewed journal articles and books will be the primary source of information retrieved from
databases such as EBSCOhost (Business Source Premier), JSTOR, SAGE Journals,
SpringerLink, ScienceDirect, Emerald Insight and Google Scholar. The search queries used are
based on the two main research fields mentioned above; however, synonyms, alternative search
query combinations and other related keywords are used as well. The main keywords for the
research are the following: corporate communication, digital corporate communication, e-
communication, digital communication strategy, competition, cooperation. Backward citation
searching of selected articles as a means to expand the source of relevant literature is also
utilized.
The literature review is a basis for the subsequent empirical research. For this research 25
Austrian corporations are examined utilizing content analysis on the corporations’ websites and
social media profiles on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Youtube. Within a fixed timeframe of
30 days social media postings are analyzed and attributed to the presented corporate
communication strategies and competitive modes. This methodology is described in more detail
within chapter 3.
1.5. Outline of the thesis
This master’s thesis consists of six main chapters. Starting with an introduction, the reader
should gain insights of the underlying topics, the problem statement, objectives of the thesis,
research questions, and the literature review approach. Following this chapter, the theoretical
foundation will be laid out presenting frameworks and studies concerning firms’ digital
communication and literature on competition versus cooperation. The literature review is the
scientific basis for the empirical research conducted within thesis. Chapter three determines the
research design and methodology and defines the processes and execution of the empirical
analysis. Afterwards, results will be presented in chapter four, categorizing the findings and
supporting the development of hypotheses. The fifth chapter further discusses the results and
provides managerial implications of the findings. Furthermore, it presents limitations to the
August 27, 2020 16/150
conducted empirical research. Chapter six concludes the master thesis, summarizing main
results and giving an outlook to future research.
2. Literature review and theoretical background
This chapter acts as a basis for the empirical research conducted within chapter 3 and aims to
provide the reader with information and knowledge based on the current scientific work from the
fields of strategic management, (digital) communication, and competitive modes.
2.1. Digital corporate communication
In order to gain insight and an understanding of the strategic relevance of digital corporate
communication, this chapter will illuminate several aspects of this topic. Firstly, definitions of
corporate communication and corporate communication within a digital context will be provided.
Secondly, the relevance of digital corporate communication within strategic management will be
highlighted. Thirdly, corporate communication strategies and digital communication channels will
be described. Fourthly, a framework of corporate communication strategies is presented to
provide an overview.
The following chapter provides several definitions for corporate communication and digital
corporate communication.
2.1.1. Definition
In order to achieve a better understanding of digital corporate communication, which is one of
the main pillars of this master’s thesis, definitions will be provided beforehand. Cornelissen
(2011, p. 5) defines corporate communication as “a management function that offers a
framework for the effective coordination of all internal and external communication with the
overall purpose of establishing and maintaining favourable reputations with stakeholder groups
upon which the organization is dependent.” Corporate communication is defined by Van Riel and
Blackburn (1995, p. 24) as “the integrated approach to all communication produced by an
organization, directed at relevant target groups”. Christensen et al. (2008, p. 3) see corporate
August 27, 2020 17/150
communication as “a mindset, an ambition to encompass all communications within one
perspective” and further add that “managing everything the organizations says or does in a
unitary and consistent manner” needs to be emphasized. Due to the relatedness to corporate
communication, the term ‘public relations’ also needs to be defined. Long and Hazelton (1987, p.
6) define public relations as “a communication function of management through which
organizations adapt to, alter, or maintain their environment for the purpose of achieving
organizational goals”.
Adams and Frost (2006, p. 281) stress the importance of the Internet and the changes this
technology brought to strategic corporate communication. The researchers claim that the web
has altered the way organizations communicate to different stakeholder groups, especially to
those groups interested into environmental and social performance of the firm. They add that
firms who are somewhat dependent on the engagement with relevant stakeholders, design their
web sites in a specific strategic manner, so that environmental and social reporting are
communicated effectively (Adams & Frost, 2006, p. 284). Ki and Childers Hon (2006, p. 27) also
acknowledge the importance of companies’ web sites and strategies used to build and maintain
strong relationships with relevant stakeholders. Argenti (2006, p. 364) argues that many
opportunities are provided by digitalization in general when it comes to effective corporate
communication. The researcher points out that intranets, email group lists and specific
enterprise software can be utilized in order to help employees to stay up to date with the
company’s activities across the world.
Organizations drastically changed their approaches and strategies to engage and communicate
with relevant stakeholder groups in recent years, mainly due to the emergence of the Internet
and social media (Adams & Frost, 2006; Colleoni, 2013; Ki & Childers Hon, 2006; Kim et al.,
2014; Mills, 2012). Therefore, the following chapter elaborates the strategic importance of digital
corporate communication and its relevance in the field of strategic management.
2.1.2. Strategic digital corporate communication
The prevailing strategic management literature has often neglected or insufficiently incorporated
the concept of corporate communication in strategic processes (Moss & Warnaby, 1998, p. 131).
Since corporate communication plays an important role to establish lasting relationships with
internal and external stakeholders, and the either positive or negative effects corporate
communication can have on an organization’s reputation, Moss and Warnaby (1998, p. 136)
argue that corporate communication may find its justification within the strategic planning
August 27, 2020 18/150
process and therefore is in need of proper strategic management. The researchers further claim
that an appropriate strategic management of corporate communication is needed to resolve
issues that may emerge with stakeholder groups. Grunig (1992, p. 103) further argues that
effective public relations can be a contributing factor to efficiently execute a corporate strategy.
Haedrich (1992, p. 262) points out three aspects that may be advantageous to a company’s
efficient execution of its strategy when considering corporate communications as a strategic
factor: Firstly, an organization’s public relations may construct a strategic direction that facilitates
differentiation to competitors. Secondly, the organization can identify with internal and external
stakeholders easier. Thirdly, an organization’s effective public relations may positively impact its
legitimacy in society due to its increased range of action (Haedrich, 1992, p. 262). Grunig et al.
(2006, p. 38) further emphasize that “the senior public relations executive is involved with the
strategic management process of the organization, and communication programs are developed
for strategic publics identified as a part of this strategic management process”.
Even though several scholars acknowledge the above mentioned positive impacts corporate
communication can have on a corporate strategy (Grunig, 1992; Haedrich, 1992; Moss &
Warnaby, 1998), stakeholder skepticism towards companies’ public relations efforts and
communications may bear significant disadvantages (Bachmann & Ingenhoff, 2016, p. 386).
Bachmann & Ingenhoff (2016) examined in an experimental study if and to what extent
stakeholders have skeptical beliefs towards a Swiss commodity trading company’s CSR
disclosures on their web site and to what extent this skepticism impacts a company’s legitimacy.
233 social sciences students made up the sample of this study in order to test assumptions of
socio-psychological processes. The results of the study show that even though external
stakeholders may have highly skeptical assumptions towards an organization’s CSR disclosures
due to organization’s persuasion intents, an organization’s legitimacy and credibility may
increase or even be regained if absent (Bachmann & Ingenhoff, 2016, pp. 391-392). A reason
for the positive mediating effect of a company’s CSR disclosure on its credibility may be
explained by individuals’ tendencies to attribute truth towards information they are exposed to
frequently (Koch & Zerback, 2013, p. 939). Therefore, Bachmann and Ingenhoff (2016, p. 392)
conclude that a company’s extensive CSR disclosure on its website increases stakeholders’
perception on the truthfulness of the projected content.
As mentioned above, the strategic relevance attributed to corporate communication is scarcely
elaborated in the common management literature (Moss & Warnaby, 1998, p. 131), however
Steyn (2004, p. 178) conceptualizes in her paper the corporate communication strategy within
strategic management. The author argues that corporate communication is based on the
functional level of strategic management since it supports an organization’s adaptation to its
August 27, 2020 19/150
external environment. This is achieved by creating a balance between actions executed by the
business in order to function economically, and, on the other hand, its behavior which should be
perceived as acceptable by society. Furthermore, the identification of stakeholder-relevant
issues, efforts to resolve these issues, and building and maintaining strong relationships with
stakeholders on whom the organization depends on, are viewed as major factors for an
organization to meet financial goals while not neglecting social and political matters (Steyn,
2004, p. 178). Macnamara and Zerfass (2012, p. 17) point out that, especially in a digital
context, strategic communication contrasts traditional approaches to this matter which are rather
organization-centric. They argue that online social media is characterized by increased public
participation and openness and requires governance and organizational planning that is in
alignment with the networked characteristics of stakeholders (Macnamara & Zerfass, 2012, p.
17). Steyn (2004, p. 178) also argues that an organization is a part of a socioeconomic system,
hence being highly dependent on partnerships with stakeholders since they create value through
collaborations with the goal to solve problems. Therefore, the author stresses that the
corporation’s strategic handling of corporate communication is mostly impacted by the
community it is surrounded by. By incorporating each stakeholder’s political help, financial
resources, and specific knowledge, an organization may be able to transform these factors into
social and financial wealth. This supports the organization not only in its efforts to become a
socially responsible entity but creates also a competitive advantage to the firm (Steyn, 2004, p.
178). These arguments are in alignment with the concept of corporate community developed by
Halal (2000, pp. 11–12), who states that economic and social wealth can be increased by
including special knowledge and resources from stakeholders such as the public, investors,
employees, customers, and associated corporations.
To further formulate the relevancy of corporate communication within the field of strategic
management, Steyn’s (2004, p. 179) conceptualization where corporate communication strategy
is viewed as a functional strategy is elaborated. The author argues that corporate
communication strategy links corporate strategies with the function of corporate communication.
Strategic communication is to a large extent influenced by the enterprise strategy, especially
when a corporate communication professional is involved in strategy formulation and occupies
functions within the organization’s top management relevant to strategic corporate
communication (Steyn, 2004, p. 179). Therefore, Steyn (2004, p. 179) notes that the corporate
communication function and its contributions to strategy formulation lies not solely on either the
finance-oriented corporate level nor on the level of competition-oriented business units, but more
so on the enterprise level where efficient stakeholder management and communication towards
the stakeholders is a major focus. Nonetheless, the author points out that corporate
communication functions may support the implementation of strategies on the corporate,
August 27, 2020 20/150
business and other functional levels. Moreover, Steyn (2004, p. 179) emphasizes that the
creation of a corporate communication strategy occurs within the firm’s boundaries. However,
the author adds that top managers and senior communication practitioners focus on the
assessment of the firm’s external environment during the development process, so that the
strategic decisions are steered towards identifying, managing, and communicating to
strategically relevant stakeholders. Therefore, the corporate communication strategy may create
a competitive advantage for the firm by increasingly focusing on the identification and resolution
of emerging problems with the support of strategic stakeholders (Steyn, 2004, p. 180). A
corporate communication strategy is then perceived as effective, when strong relationships
between a firm and its stakeholders is built and maintained over time while supportive behaviors
are being promoted by both parties (Ki & Hon, 2007, p. 15). Moreover, Steyn (2004, p. 180)
argues that a corporate communication strategy is an emergent strategy since communication
goals are usually not defined initially but evolve over time due to continuous adaptation to
stakeholder needs. Therefore, for the corporate communication strategy to be effective, the
organizational communication requires constant adaptation to changing needs (Steyn, 2004, p.
180).
The previously described concept of corporate communication strategy acting as a functional
strategy being dependent on stakeholder needs tends to simplify complex organizations, as
Holtzhausen (2014, p. 4) points out that common literature on strategic corporate communication
neglects the wide range of communication functions and its differences across organizational
departments and divisions. The author acknowledges that marketing communication is a part of
an organization’s marketing department, the public affairs department oversees community
relations, and investor relations are a part of the finance department, while internal
communication lies under the umbrella of human resources. However, the author states that the
strategic communication function should find its integration into one organizational function. She
further adds that in an ideal scenario, strategic corporate communication maximizes its
effectiveness through cross-department inclusion, meaning that communication practitioners
from differing departments work together even though it is highly complex due to strict roles from
each practitioner and the differing reporting schemes (Holtzhausen, 2014, p. 4). However, by
consolidating mentioned departments in their strategic communication efforts, corporate
communication can be conceptualized as a functional strategy, connecting knowledge from
differing departments (Cornelissen, 2014, p. 81).
Although scholars such as Holtzhausen (2014) and Cornelissen (2014) provide suggestions on
how to maximize a corporate communication strategy’s effectiveness, there are differing
strategies depending on several factors which need to be considered, such as the specific goals
August 27, 2020 21/150
of an organization’s corporate communication efforts, the targeted audience, as well as the
communicated content (Cornelissen, 2014; Kim, 2011; Kim & Rader, 2010; Morsing & Schultz,
2006). Therefore, the following chapter examines several corporate communication strategies
separately and concludes with a framework which should facilitate understanding of the
differences between each of the selected strategies based on the current literature.
2.1.3. Digital Corporate Communication Strategies
The goal of this section is to provide information and findings on current literature concerning
digital corporate communication strategies. Recent academic literature and studies are the
foundation of this analysis as well as Bobocel’s (2019) literature review on corporate
communication, however, expanding it further by the concepts of competition and cooperation.
After presenting several communication strategies, a typology is provided within a digital
corporate communication strategies framework. This framework suits as the foundation of the
empirical part of this master’s thesis, since specific code units are derived from named
strategies.
The stakeholder approach acts as the basis of the first bundle of communication strategies and
therefore puts its focus on the receiving end of communication. Strategic communication
differences are demonstrated depending on a firm’s internal as well as external stakeholders
(Argenti, 1996; Cheney & Christensen, 2001; Cornelissen, 2014; Welch & Jackson, 2007).
The second categorization is based on a corporate communication strategy’s intention and what
the communication wants to provoke in the recipients. The recipient is again defined as an
organization’s strategic stakeholder for the remainder of this master’s thesis. Based on the
findings of Morsing and Schultz (2006), three strategies will be explored: information strategy,
persuasion strategy, and involvement strategy.
The third categorization explores the content corporate communication presents, which is based
on three strategies in accordance with Kim and Rader (2010): Corporate ability strategy,
corporate social responsibility strategy, and hybrid strategy. The researchers explored in their
study Fortune 500 companies and examined which of the three strategies is predominantly used
by these organizations. Kim and Rader (2010, p. 59) state that the strategies are intended to
affect public’s associations with an organization. Within the subchapters of these three
strategies, the term ‘corporate ability’ is substituted by ‘expertise’ and the term ‘corporate soc ial
responsibility’ is substituted by ‘image’. The argument for the selection of these terms is based
August 27, 2020 22/150
on the literature concerning corporate image and corporate expertise which will be further
examined within chapter 2.1.3.3. (Kim, 2011; Kim et al., 2014; Kim & Rader, 2010).
Since this master’s thesis’ empirical part analyzes corporations’ digital communication via
websites and social media platforms, a fourth categorization is added which elaborates social
media content strategies. Based on Pan et al. (2019), four firm-generated content strategies are
examined: informative versus persuasive strategies, soft-sell versus hard-sell strategies,
backstage versus frontstage strategies, and sales-oriented versus customer-oriented strategies.
The following subchapters present the previously mentioned corporate communication
strategies, providing an in-depth analysis.
2.1.3.1. Internal and External Communication Strategies
Internal communication can be addressed from different perspectives in management research.
For human resource scholars internal communication is a management tool (Fitz-enz, 1990;
Lachotzki & Noteboom, 2005), while those specialized in marketing research develop concepts
of internal marketing which help to interact with employees (Ahmed & Rafiq, 2002; Dunmore,
2002). Other researchers perceive internal communication as a key requirement that can be
utilized in order to achieve positive reputation and external corporate image (Argenti & Forman,
2002; Goldhaber, 1993; Kitchen, 1997; Tench & Yeomans, 2006). Others state that internal
communication acts as a instrument that is able to enhance relationship management and
increase commitment within an organization (Cutlip & Broom, 2006; Grunig, 1992; Jo & Shim,
2005; Ledinghan & Bruning, 2000). Cheney and Christensen (2001, p. 231) define this type of
communication from a more general standpoint as “employee relations, statements of mission
and organizational development”.
External communication, on the other end of the spectrum, is built on the belief that for a
corporation to survive financially, it is necessary that a strategic norm is established in order to
properly communicate with its surroundings (Dirsmith & Covaleski, 1983, p. 137). Cheney and
Christensen (2001, p. 231) define external communication as “public relations, marketing and
issues management”. Dirsmith and Covaleski (1983, p. 137) point out in their article that an
organization’s environment is a crucial factor when corporate strategies are formulated, since
the external environment impacts an organization and vice versa. Therefore, several scholars
suggest that organizations depend on their environment, while a constant exchange of
information, tangible and intangible assets and financial resources is required (Aharoni et al.,
August 27, 2020 23/150
1981; Lenz, 1981; Mintzberg, 1981). Creating an effective exchange of named resources is a
challenge for many firms as Adams and Frost (2006, p. 281) point out in their research. The
researchers see a way in overcoming these challenges in the use of the Internet, which could
support an organization’s engagement with its stakeholders. They argue that due to
stakeholders’ access to data, traditional reports published by organizations may not be sufficient
to fully engage with these interest groups. The Internet however, covers a wide range of
advantages, as the researchers claim, such as the possibility for organizations to update their
data frequently and identify the number of stakeholders’ website visits. On the other perspective,
stakeholders can use search engines to quickly find relevant data (Adams & Frost, 2006, p.
281).
Even though the above definitions of internal and external corporate communication may imply
that clear distinctions are drawn between these two types of corporate communication,
Cornelissen (2014, p. 77) points out that some aspects may overlap, leading to a
conglomeration so that there are no longer clear differences amongst internal and external
corporate communication. Welch and Jackson (2007, p. 180) also argue that due to blurred
organizational boundaries, internal and external corporate communication may blend into each
other quickly, for instance by forwarding an email to an external stakeholder which contains
information exchange between two employees of the same organization. Cheney and
Christensen (2001, p. 231) even go further by arguing that “internal and external communication
no longer exist as separate fields” due to the mentioned vagueness of organizational
boundaries. Furthermore, due to increased demands by the public on organizations to become
more transparent in their activities, internal and external corporate communication increasingly
seems to be a part of an integrated unit (Cornelissen, 2014, p. 77; Welch & Jackson, 2007, p.
180).
Cornelissen (2014, pp. 55–56) states that it is important to consider stakeholder engagement
when it comes to corporate communication, that is an organization’s active engagement with its
stakeholders and an increased focus on building and maintaining relationships with them.
Moreover, stakeholder engagement is linked to the long-term objectives of a company and is
driven by its values, mission and corporate strategies (Cornelissen, 2014, p. 55). Therefore, it is
argued that an organization’s corporate communication is based on the relationship it has with
its stakeholders with the aim to provide value to them while also profiting from the relationship
itself (Cornelissen, 2014, p. 103). In order to map out the relationship an organization has with
its stakeholders, Mitchell et al. (1997) developed the stakeholder salience model. Based on
stakeholder salience and three attributes, namely power, urgency, and legitimacy, a typology is
proposed as depicted in figure 1 (Mitchell et al., 1997, p. 874).
August 27, 2020 24/150
Firstly, stakeholder attributes are elaborated. Mitchell et al. (1997, p. 865–868) define three
distinct attributes: power, legitimacy, and urgency. Dahl (1957, pp. 202–203) defines power as
follows: “A has power over B to the extent that he can get B to do something that B would not
otherwise do”. Based on that Mitchell et al. (1997, p. 865) argue that one social actor in a
relationship has power over the other when he or she can enforce his or her will within the
relationship. However, the researchers add that power is a variable and can therefore be lost
(Mitchell et al., 1997, p. 866). Legitimacy refers to the acceptance of structures or behaviors
within a social context and its norms, beliefs, and values (Mitchell et al., 1997, p. 866). The
interrelatedness between legitimacy – or legitimate behavior – and power can be derived from
Davis’ (1973, p. 314) distinction between the usage of power in either a legitimate or illegitimate
way: The researcher argues that individuals who use their power in a way that is considered
irresponsible by other social actors will probably lose it in the long run. Urgency, as the third
stakeholder attribute, captures interactions between an organization and its stakeholders in a
more dynamic context since it may be based on both, time sensitivity – the degree to which
delays in managerial respondence of stakeholder needs is acceptable –, and criticality – the
Figure 1: Stakeholder typology (Mitchell et al., 1997, p. 874)
August 27, 2020 25/150
relevance of the stakeholder’s claims or the manager-stakeholder relationship (Mitchell et al.,
1997, p. 867). Based on this, Mitchell et al. (1997, p. 867) define urgency as “the degree to
which stakeholder claims call for immediate attention”. Adding to the three stakeholder attributes
defined above, salience is also examined which acts as the fourth key construct. Salience is
based on the assumption that managers cannot respond to all stakeholder claims in the exact
same way since complex considerations have to be taken into account within each manager-
stakeholder relationship (Mitchell et al., 1997, p. 854). Mitchell et al. (1997, p. 854) define
salience as “the degree to which managers give priority to competing stakeholder claims”.
Secondly, stakeholder types are defined which emerge when combining above mentioned
stakeholder attributes. Mitchell et al. (1997, p. 873) define those stakeholders who hold either
the attribute ‘power’ or ‘legitimacy’ or ‘urgency’ as “latent”. Based on the researchers’ proposition
that stakeholder salience increases when attributes are accumulated, they further define
stakeholders who hold two attributes at the same time are moderately salient stakeholders and
define them with the term “expectant” while those stakeholders who feature in a combination of
all three attributes simultaneously are highly salient stakeholders (Mitchell et al., 1997, p. 873).
As depicted in figure one, those stakeholders who possess only one attribute are latent and can
be described as either dormant, discretionary, or demanding stakeholders. Stakeholders
possessing two attributes at the same time are dominant, dependent, or dangerous stakeholders
while those possessing all three attributes are considered as definitive stakeholders. Mitchell et
al. (1997, p. 873) define individuals or entities without any of the three mentioned attributes as
“non-stakeholders” or “potential stakeholders”.
Finally, to provide a deeper understanding of the examined concept proposed by Mitchell et al.
(1997, pp. 872–874), the following elaborates each stakeholder type in more detail starting with
the group of latent stakeholders. Dormant stakeholders are those who from a manager’s
perception only possess power as a single attribute. For instance, such a stakeholder may have
a lot of financial resources or a significant amount of influence on the media. Therefore, Mitchell
et al. (1997, pp. 874–875) argue that even though dormant stakeholders only possess a single
attribute, they are in need of an acceptable degree of attention by managers since this type of
stakeholders may have resources to acquire a second stakeholder attribute. The second type
within the group of latent stakeholders are discretionary stakeholders (Mitchell et al., 1997, p.
875): These stakeholders are in possession of legitimacy and gained reasonable attention from
researchers especially in the field of corporate social responsibility (Carroll, 1979, 1991; Wood,
1991). Even though Mitchell et al. (1997, p. 875) argue that managers do not have pressure to
actively engage with discretionary stakeholders due to their lack of power and urgency, the
researchers add that managers still may have the option to do so and build relationships with
August 27, 2020 26/150
them, i.e. donating money to nonprofit organizations. Demanding stakeholders are those whose
claims towards an organization are characterized by urgency. Due to lack of legitimacy and
power by these stakeholders, managers may expect them to stay latent and pay little attention to
their claims even though they might be somewhat disturbing at times (Mitchell et al., 1997, pp.
875–876). Expectant stakeholders are described in the following (Mitchell et al., 1997, pp. 876–
878): Dominant stakeholders possess power and legitimacy simultaneously. Therefore, it is
expected that they have influence on the firm while their salience increases to moderate levels
which is in accordance with the proposition that moderate stakeholder salience emerges where
two stakeholder attributes are present (Mitchell et al., 1997, p. 876). In practice some formal
structures are present which acknowledge the importance of the relationship between the firm
and dominant stakeholders such as an investor relations department or human resource
department (Mitchell et al., 1997, p. 876). Dependent stakeholders possess urgent and
legitimate claims and are dependent either on other stakeholders or organizations who can exert
their power which is needed for the dependent stakeholders to enforce their will. An example for
dependent stakeholders are residents who have been negatively affected by an organization’s
pollution of their environment, reaching out to the local government and/or court system to use
their power to protect or enforce the residents’ will onto the organization (Mitchell et al., 1997, p.
877). Stakeholders who lack legitimacy but possess both, urgency and power are described as
dangerous stakeholders since they may engage in unlawful actions to enforce their will onto an
organization and harming it. Examples for actions of dangerous stakeholders are terrorism and
employee sabotage (Mitchell et al., 1997, p. 877). Definitive stakeholders are those with the
highest level of salience due to managers’ high readiness to give high priority to their claims
since managers perceive them to occupy three stakeholder attributes – power, legitimacy, and
urgency – simultaneously (Mitchell et al., 1997, p. 878). Mitchell et al. (1997, p. 878) argue that a
common example for definitive stakeholders are stockholders with a significant amount of a
company’s share. The researchers claim that even if stockholders may only possess legitimacy
and power, urgency can also be acquired if they are confronted with plummeting stock values.
However, as mentioned before, any expectant stakeholder can turn into a definitive stakeholder
by acquiring a third attribute. Therefore, managers’ cognition of those stakeholders is advised
(Mitchell et al., 1997, pp. 878–879).
The above proposed typology of stakeholders, their attributes and characteristics may serve as
a basis for identifying and categorizing an organization’s message recipients when conducting
its communication strategy (Cornelissen, 2014; Mitchell et al., 1997). A corporate communication
strategy again is dependent on each stakeholder and differences between internal and external
communication shall be outlined since each group of recipients may be in need of specific
managerial operations thus needing differing strategic approaches (Cornelissen, 2014; Mitchell
August 27, 2020 27/150
et al., 1997; Welch & Jackson, 2007). Therefore, the following two subchapters explore internal
and external communication strategies separately.
2.1.3.1.a Internal Communication Strategy
This subchapter elaborates the concept of internal communication and its connection to strategy.
Starting with Welch and Jackson’s (2007) theoretical proposition of strategic internal
communication, four different dimensions and their peculiarities concerning typology, contents
and participants within an organization are presented in order to provide knowledge about the
potential effectiveness and relevance of internal communication. Afterwards, several internal
communication tools are presented considering specific impacts they may have on an
organization, its employees and the environment while taking into account several advantages
and disadvantages of the examined tools. Due to this master’s thesis focus on digitalization,
special attention is given to digital communication tools. This approach shall provide the reader
with adequate knowledge about the different aspects of internal communication strategy.
Welch and Jackson (2007, p. 178) argue that internal communication occurs constantly through
either informal chats between employees or actively managed communication. The authors
differentiate, within the context of internal communication, between four different dimensions:
internal line management communication, internal team peer communication, internal project
peer communication and internal corporate communication (Welch & Jackson, 2007, p. 185).
Table 1 provides an overview of the four dimensions considering the organizational level where
communication predominantly is initiated for each dimension, the direction of the messages, the
communication participants, and the content that is communicated.
August 27, 2020 28/150
Dimension Level Direction Participants Content
Internal line
management
communication
Line managers /
supervisors
Predominantly
two-way
Line managers-
employees
Employees’ roles
Personal impact,
e.g. appraisal
discussions,
team briefings
Internal team
peer
communication
Team colleagues Two-way Employee-
employee
Team
information, e.g.
team task
discussions
Internal project
peer
communication
Project group
colleagues Two-way
Employee-
employee
Project
information, e.g.
project issues
Internal
corporate
communication
Strategic
managers / top
management
Predominantly
one-way
Strategic
managers-all
employees
Organizational /
corporate issues,
e.g. goals,
objectives, new
developments,
activities and
achievements
Table 1: Internal communication matrix (Welch & Jackson, 2007, p. 185)
The first dimension proposed by Welch and Jackson (2007, p. 185) is line management which
exists on multiple levels within organizations since communication occurs between senior
managers and chief executive officers. Mostly, the content of internal line management
communication covers employees’ roles and is undertaken for instance within appraisal
meetings and discussions. Team peer communication occurs between peers within a team, thus
may involve task discussions. On a project level, group colleagues who work together on a
specific project often discuss project-related issues and exchange project information (Welch &
Jackson, 2007, p. 185). Internal corporate communication, as the fourth dimension, focuses on
all employees within an organization and emphasizes employee engagement (Saks, 2006, p.
615; Welch & Jackson, 2007, p. 186). The following especially emphasizes the dimension of
internal corporate communication due to its relevance to strategic managers and internal
stakeholders (Welch & Jackson, 2007, p. 186).
August 27, 2020 29/150
Welch and Jackson (2007, p. 188) define four objectives of internal corporate communication:
Firstly, internal corporate communication shall contribute to relationships provoked by employee
commitment. Secondly, employees shall gain a sense of belonging within the organization.
Thirdly, employees’ awareness towards external changes shall be developed. Fourthly,
employees’ ability to develop an understanding towards an organization’s needs to respond and
anticipate environmental changes is considered. In order for an organization to accomplish
named objectives within internal communication, Welch and Jackson (2007, p. 185) argue that
strategic managers direct their messages towards all employees. The researchers claim that
messages contain mainly organizational issues, such as objectives, new developments, special
achievements, and activities (see table 1). Figure 2 is a depiction of the four objectives of
internal corporate communication based on Welch and Jackson (2007, p. 186). The tips of the
four arrows emitted by the center of the circle are a representation of the four goals of internal
corporate communication and the dotted circles represent the corporation’s employees. The
following paragraphs elaborate the four goals of internal corporate communication in more detail
since they serve as a basis for internal corporate communication and its purpose (Welch &
Jackson, 2007, p. 188).
The first goal of internal communication - employee commitment - is based on the three-
component model of commitment proposed by Meyer and Allen (1997, pp. 11–13): The first type
of employee commitment is characterized by affectedness, meaning that employees have an
emotional connection to the organization they are working for. The second type is called
continuance commitment and is related to ‘switching costs’ the employee would face if he or she
would leave the company. The third type is normative commitment and implies that employees
are related to the organization due to their obligation to do so (Meyer & Allen, 1997, p. 13).
According to De Ridder (2004, p. 21) commitment may be defined as employees’ positive
attitudes and their identification with a company, and adds that it can especially be affected
through adequate task communication within line management, team and project communication
which have been elaborated above (De Ridder, 2004, p. 21; Welch & Jackson, 2007, p. 185).
According to Welch and Jackson (2007, p. 189), employees’ feeling of a member of a group
plays another important role within internal corporate communication and enables employees to
identify themselves with the firm (Cornelissen, 2004, p. 68). Several scholars in the field of social
sciences acknowledge the importance of people’s need for belongingness, as it may affect
motivation positively (Baumeister & Leary, p. 522; Maslow, 1943). Smidts et al. (2001, p. 1052)
claim that employees’ feeling of identification within an organization can be affected by internal
communication which is in alignment with Welch and Jackson’s (2007, p. 189) argumentation
August 27, 2020 30/150
that an employee who has a strong team mentality may highly perform within a team resulting in
a positive feeling of identity.
Employees’ awareness towards environmental change and their understanding of how this
change could affect the organization’s goals may be designed by internal corporate
communication (Welch & Jackson, 2007, p. 190). However, internal communication occurs
within a dynamic context and across macro, micro, and internal environment levels (Palmer &
Hartley, 2011; Welch & Jackson, 2007, p. 190). Welch and Jackson (2007, p. 190) point out that
through the provision of strategic direction by managers and effective internal communication,
employees’ awareness towards changes on different environmental levels can be enhanced,
while potentially increasing employee commitment (De Ridder, 2004, p. 20). Figure 2 is a
depiction of the four goals of internal corporate communication pointing at all employees of an
organization and the three levels of environment. Moreover, according to Welch and Jackson
(2007, p. 187) one-way communication emerging from strategic managers is an unavoidable
necessity in internal corporate communication, adding that, except in small companies,
Figure 2: Internal Corporate Communication (Welch & Jackson, 2007, p. 186)
August 27, 2020 31/150
managers often lack resources to discuss their strategic intentions with all employees. This
relation is illustrated by the four arrows emerging from the circle center.
Due to substantial advancements in information technology over the past years, corporations are
facing an increasing number of challenges managing internal communications (Lipiäinen,
Karjaluoto, & Nevalainen, 2014, p. 276). However, these challenges can be converted into
opportunities, especially through promotion of active communication behaviors within an
organization, so that intangible resources, i.e. knowledge and attitudes of employees, have a
positive impact on a firm’s success (Mazzei, 2010, p. 222). In order to utilize employees’
knowledge as a tool to enhance working processes, Mazzei (2010, p. 224) further emphasizes
on employee allegiance which stimulates knowledge application to named processes.
Furthermore, the author suggests that active internal communication behavior promotes
purposeful dissemination, search and utilization of information and knowledge, whereas specific
information impacting the organization’s positive external reputation disseminates and surfaces
on the organization’s environment.
Following the above mentioned advantages, Hallahan (2001, p. 34) argues that specific
strategies to activate internal communication and transform inactive employees to active
employees are needed. The researcher claims that constraints, as well as employees’ lacking
abilities, sensitivity and awareness promote inactivity. Mazzei (2010, p. 231) stresses the
importance of improving training, coaching and motivation to develop competent communication
within the organization. In order to achieve this goal, the researcher states that the department
of human resources as well as internal communication strategists could collaborate in this
regard.
According to Tkalac Verčič et al. (2012, p. 223) internal corporate communication is an important
function within public relations and corporate communication. Friedl and Verčič (2011, p. 84)
identify in their work that internal communication provides on the one hand crucial information
and on the other hand promotes an emotion of belonging within members of a firm. A strong
community can be formed if a relationship between employees, supervisors and the firm is
established (Tkalac Verčič et al., 2012, p. 223). These arguments are in alignment with above
described objectives of internal corporate communication which intends to promote employees
commitment and belongingness (Welch & Jackson, 2007, p. 189). According to Sluss et al.
(2008, p. 457) there are a number of different relationships which can be established within an
organization, however, the researchers pay special attention to relationships between
employees and their direct supervisor and employees’ relationship with their firm, since these
two factors seem to strongly influence employee engagement (Karanges et al., 2015, p. 130). An
August 27, 2020 32/150
overall positive and work-related mindset of employees decreases attrition, improves the
company’s reputation, increases productivity and finally positively impacts a firm’s financial
situation (Schaufeli et al., 2002, p. 71).
The fact that digital media, which may be utilized to improve and promote internal corporate
communication, is increasingly being adopted by organizations (Lipiäinen et al., 2014, p. 275) is
a major reason why this thesis puts attention towards this phenomenon. Beirne and Cromack
(2009, p. 83) claim in their paper that, in contrast to traditional tools such as wall posters,
corporate magazines and TV, modern digital media incorporated by organizations encourage a
greater reciprocal exchange between employees and the organization, hence encouraging
internal communication. Especially the use of internal social media can enable a high number of
members of an organization to create content simultaneously (Lipiäinen et al., 2014, p. 275).
Collaborative projects such as social bookmarking applications and wikis (Kaplan & Haenlein,
2010, p. 60), as well as intranet portals in general, have gained increased attention from
corporate communication scholars and practitioners due to increasing pressures to adopt
digitalized internal communication in organizations (Neill & Richard, 2012, p. 147). An intranet,
as a tool for internal communication, should serve to communicate intraorganizational updates
and newsletters from several management levels (Muller, 2002, p. 204). Moreover, Soliman and
Mosbeh (2008, p. 375) claim that intranet enables individuals to easily communicate with each
other independently of the hardware used and their location. The researchers also state that
there exists a high need for companies to disseminate information and enable communication
between individuals of an organization. Internal operations can therefore be optimized and an
expanded use of internal resources can be enabled through the use of an intranet (Soliman &
Mosbeh, 2008, p. 375). Denton (2006, p. 5) suggests that strategic decision-making can be
supported by utilizing intranet as a performance measurement tool, providing critical information
to managers on strategic issues. Nevertheless, Stenmark (2003, p. 207) claims that an intranet
to become an efficient tool for internal communication, the management must permit and
encourage employees to actively participate in the construction of the organization’s information
landscape.
Lipiäinen et al. (2014, p. 275) suggest blogs to also be a useful tool for internal communication
which supports updating employees and influence conversation by providing information. De
Pelsmacker et al. (2007, p. 528) describe blogs as personalized journals where content can be
created by sharing ideas, while others can comment on that content. Smudde (2005, p. 34)
identified that in a business context blogs are relatively formal due to the appearance of the top
management. The author added that this makes the corporate blog more engaging and useful
August 27, 2020 33/150
for the members of the organization, since they gain access to a perspective higher up the
hierarchical ranks.
According to Lipiäinen et al. (2014, p. 276) email, as a means of internal communication, is still
used the most by organizations even though there are numerous other modern tools available.
Due to its easy adoption and low cost it remains to be very popular for internal communication.
Nevertheless, Hewitt (2006, p. 78) points out that fast information distribution facilitated by email
can provoke information overload and hinders traditional face-to-face communication. When it
comes to transmitting information and motivating employees, Stevens and McElhill (2000, p.
271) argue that written communication, in this case email, encounters some severe limitations
concerning effective internal communication. Following this argument, Hallowell (1999, p. 58)
states that by excessive use of email, employees distance themselves not only from the
company but also create major gaps between themselves, which again contrasts the above
proposed advantages of promoting internal communication (Friedl & Verčič, 2011; Schaufeli et
al., 2002; Tkalac Verčič et al., 2012). However, Friedman and Currall (2003, p. 1325)
acknowledge positive aspects of email such as reviewability and revisability; the former referring
to the ability for email participants to gain access to the comments of conversation participants,
while the latter refers to the ability to analyze, correct and confirm a message before it is sent,
which in verbal communication is not possible.
To conclude, the above examined framework aims to support managing internal stakeholder
interactions and the subsequent relationships in a strategic manner while considering four
dimensions of internal corporate communication (Welch & Jackson, 2007, p. 193). The matrix
represented by table 1 may prove to be helpful to classify internal communication (Welch &
Jackson, 2007, p. 193) and supports the use of digital communication tools such as email
(Lipiäinen et al., 2014, p. 276), intranet (Denton, 2006, p. 5), and blogs (De Pelsmacker et al.,
2007, p. 528; Lipiäinen et al., 2014, p. 275). Therefore, this tool may be useful on the one hand
to evaluate internal communication, while on the other hand supporting managers during the
development of internal communication strategies while considering the different dimensions as
well as specific stakeholders (Welch & Jackson, 2007, p. 193). The following subchapter
examines external communication strategies.
2.1.3.1.b External Communication Strategy
Due to the interrelatedness of an organization and its external environment, Dirsmith and
Covaleski (1983, p. 137) claim that an external corporate communication strategy could be
August 27, 2020 34/150
formulated by incorporating certain factors considering interactions with external stakeholders.
The researchers add that information can be viewed as a crucial resource which brings
environmental changes as well as organizational failures to the surface (Dirsmith & Covaleski,
1983, p. 138). However, Steyn (2004, p. 168) claims that it is insufficient to merely consider an
organization’s external environment when developing a strategy for external corporate
communication. The author states that the internal environment influencing enterprise, corporate
and business unit strategies and policies need to be synthesized with the external environment
which impacts key strategic issue identification. On the contrary, Cornelissen (2014, p. 5) argues
that for an external communication strategy to be effective, an organization has to put its
communication focus on external stakeholders such as consumers, suppliers, governmental
institutions, investors, external partners, etc. Dirsmith and Covaleski (1983, p. 139) stress the
importance of adequate communication of information to the organization’s external
environment, especially when the organization operates within dynamic environments. The
authors reason that by conveying information to external stakeholders showing how the
organization coped with changes in the external context in the past, may portray a high ability for
environmental adaptation. Dirsmith and Covaleski (1983, p. 139) add that an organization’s
ability to adequately adapt to environmental changes may have a more positive effect on
external parties than just portraying past achievements, since previously successful actions may
not be as effective in the future due to ongoing changes in the environment.
Steyn (2004, p. 179) also emphasizes the importance of focusing on the external environment
when it comes to establishing a corporate communication strategy. The researcher argues that
communication managers need a strategic approach to their decision-making process when it
comes to identifying and managing strategic stakeholders. Determining which strategic
stakeholder is in need of more attention and solving the right problems at the right time are key
factors for the external corporate communication strategy to be effective. Steyn (2004, p. 180)
concludes that the organization’s ability to identify and understand external stakeholders’
opinions and expectations may create competitive advantages while the corporate
communication strategy acts as a bridge between the organization’s mission and the
communication goals.
Digitalization recently has improved efficient information exchange and communication in the
business context (Mantrala & Albers, 2013, p. 539). By using digital communication platforms,
organizations are able to quickly provide relevant information to external stakeholders on
products and services (Agnihotri et al., 2012, p. 333). Customers can review products and
services online and this again enables a business to quickly take action and adapt accordingly
(Agnihotri et al., 2012, p. 333). Therefore, according to Wenzler and Schmidthaler (2019, p.
August 27, 2020 35/150
102), individual customer needs can be addressed efficiently, while customer perceived value
can be enhanced (Andzulis et al., 2012, p. 305). Wenzler and Schmidthaler (2019, p. 102) as
well as Andzulis et al. (2012, p. 305) claim that both buyers and sellers could benefit from digital
communication tools by transforming the selling process and therefore enhancing interactions
between the two parties. Social media is considered as a powerful tool since it assists in the
collection of relevant information about decision makers, purchase risks, and needs in general
(Andzulis et al., 2012, p. 305; Sashi, 2012, p. 253). Companies can increase the efficacy of their
external communication efforts by utilizing digital interaction tools in order to establish trust
between the business and the external parties which are involved in a given transaction (Ferrell
et al. 2010, p. 157). Andzulis et al. (2012, p. 306) state that during a sales process, potential
buyers have the possibility to publicly express their questions before making a decision.
According to the authors, this enables a company to better interact with prospects, since needs
can be better analyzed, and right questions can be asked. They further argue that the
organization can educate its potential customers more effectively while promoting engagement
(Andzulis et al., 2012, p. 306).
Nevertheless, in the times of social media information about an organization and its products
can constantly be published by external stakeholders while this information is accessible to
noncommunicative members of a social media platform (Rim & Song, 2016, p. 478). Especially
negative comments about an organization may be harmful since people tend to perceive
negative information about a product or a firm as more important than positive information about
the same firm (Ahluwalia, 2002, p. 270; Herr et al., 1991, p. 454). This bias towards negative
information has been researched and confirmed by several scholars (Ahluwalia, 2002; Wu,
2013). Therefore, an organization’s strategy to counteract consumer-generated negative content
on online social media is suggested within the scope of external corporate communication,
based on Rim and Song’s (2016) research.
Rim and Song (2016, p. 479) emphasize the importance of two-sided messages as counter-
arguments to negative consumer comments since they may influence behavior and attitudes of
the commenter more effectively (Hastak & Park, 1990, p. 329). Two-sided messages include not
only the persuader’s argument but also the opposing argument which are found to lead to a
higher degree of credibility of a marketer (Eisend, 2006, p. 187; Rim & Song, 2016, p. 479). Rim
and Song (Rim & Song, 2016, pp. 489–490) conclude that by leveraging social media platforms
for external corporate communication, organizations can effectively communicate for instance
corporate social responsibility efforts. However, the researchers add that communication
practitioners may need adequate strategies to counter negative consumer-generated comments
since these comments may affect behavior and attitudes of other external stakeholders. By
August 27, 2020 36/150
countering negative commentary through two-sided messages perceived negativity may be
reduced while favorable attitudes are elicited (Rim & Song, 2016, p. 490). Rim and Song (2016,
p. 490) further argue that two-sided messages that include both negative and positive
information require recipients to have more cognitive capabilities and thus result in enhanced
persuasion. Moreover, in contrary to some practitioners’ efforts to mitigate negative reputation
on online social media platforms due to negative user-generated comments by deleting the
comments, Rim and Song (2016, p. 491) argue that their proposed strategy of responding to
comments with two-sided messages may be a better strategy, since company self-disclosure of
negative commentary is found to have less damaging effects on the organization (Fennis &
Stroebe, 2014, p. 109).
2.1.3.2. Informational, Persuasive and Involvement Strategies
Based on the intended effects a sender of a message wants to have on the receiver, and the
motivation behind the sender’s intentions, Morsing and Schultz (2006, p. 336) present in their
paper three different strategies which support managers when informing, engaging with and
involving strategic stakeholders through corporate communication: stakeholder information
strategy, stakeholder response strategy, and stakeholder involvement strategy (Morsing &
Schultz, 2006, pp. 326–328). Cornelissen’s (2011, p. 50) approach is rather similar and also
describes three different communication strategies: informational strategy, persuasive strategy,
and dialogue strategy. Informational strategy is described as a one-way symmetrical model of
communication, persuasive strategy as two-way asymmetrical, and dialogue strategy as a two-
way symmetrical communication model (Cornelissen, 2011, p. 50). Figure 3 is a depiction of
these three variants. The tips of the arrows indicate the message receiver (Cornelissen, 2011, p.
50). The following section elaborates each strategy in more detail.
The first strategy type – information strategy – is based on the presumption that communication
is one-way when information is being transmitted from an organization to its stakeholders
(Morsing & Schultz, 2006, p. 326). Morsing and Schultz (2006, p. 327) argue that in such a case,
a message is intended to inform the stakeholders as objectively as possible without any
intentions to persuade them while simultaneously portraying the organization’s good intentions,
actions and performance in order to strengthen the support by strategic stakeholders.
August 27, 2020 37/150
According to Cornelissen (2011, p. 49) an organization may execute this strategy by publishing
information via newsletters or reports on the website. The author further adds that such provision
of information to relevant stakeholders contributes to stakeholders’ awareness of the
organization’s strategic decisions and may also enhance understanding of why the organization
acted in a certain way. This argument is in alignment with Morsing & Schultz’ (2006, p. 327)
definition of the main strategic goal of an information strategy which is to ensure that positive
information about an organization’s activities and decisions are communicated to relevant
stakeholders in an effective manner.
The second strategy organizations may use is the persuasive strategy (Cornelissen, 2011, p.
49–50), or stakeholder response strategy (Morsing & Schultz, 2006, p. 327). The denomination
‘persuasive strategy’ is used within this master’s thesis due to little contrast between these
strategies. According to Morsing and Schultz (2006, p. 327) and Cornelissen (2011, pp. 50–51)
the persuasive strategy is based on two-way asymmetric communication. Two-way
communication implies that information on the one hand flows towards stakeholders and on the
other hand is emitted from stakeholders and directed towards the organization. The term
Figure 3: Models of organization-stakeholder communication (Cornelissen, 2011, p. 50)
August 27, 2020 38/150
‘asymmetric’ implies that the organization does not undertake adjustments due to messages
from stakeholders directed towards the organization. However, the messages stemming from
the organization attempt to change stakeholders’ behavior and attitudes by projecting that
strategic decisions by the organization are somewhat relevant to them with the objective to gain
support (Morsing & Schultz, 2006, p. 327). For instance, an organization may create a positive
image through advertising while attempting to create understanding of strategic decisions in the
minds of strategic stakeholders (Cornelissen, 2011, p. 50). Surveys may be conducted by the
organization in order to measure whether the advertising campaign enhanced stakeholders’
understanding of organizational decisions. However, it is criticized that especially in corporate
social responsibility communications, communications managers conduct surveys in a way that
respondents – strategic stakeholders – are invited to provide answers in a manner that is
favorable for the organization. Therefore, this method could be understood as a one-way type of
communication (Morsing & Schultz, 2006, pp. 327–328). Cornelissen (2011, p. 50) also points
out that persuasive communication strategies are often designed with the mere objective to
create a positive image of the organization.
A third strategic option presented by Cornelissen (2011, p. 50) is the dialogue strategy. Morsing
and Schultz (2006, p. 328) previously described this type of strategy as stakeholder involvement
strategy. The denomination ‘involvement strategy’ is used for the remainder of this master’s
thesis due to high similarity between the two terms and their underlying theoretical concepts.
According to Cornelissen (2011, p. 50) the involvement strategy is characterized by mutual
exchange of information and opinions between the organization and its strategic stakeholders.
Relevant stakeholders are actively engaged in providing ideas to the organization, while on the
other side the organization seeks their consultation in order to further enhance stakeholders’
understanding of strategic decisions and even involve some of them into strategic decisions
(Cornelissen, 2011, p. 50). Due to both parties’ – the organization and its relevant stakeholders
– active engagement in information exchange and attempts to persuade the other party to
change in a favorable manner, the involvement strategy is characterized as a symmetrical
communication strategy (Morsing & Schultz, 2006, p. 328). Cornelissen (2011, p. 51) points out
that this particular strategy may be described as symmetrical since strategic self-interest of the
organization is left behind while exchange of opinions as well as understanding towards the
other party are focused.
Since the involvement strategy focuses mainly on active stakeholder engagement (Cornelissen,
2011, p. 50; Morsing & Schultz, 2006, p. 328), seven engagement stages are presented which
describe customers’ engagement with an organization (Sashi, 2012). A detailed understanding
of these factors influencing stakeholder engagement may support managers when developing
August 27, 2020 39/150
an involvement-based corporate communication strategy with the proposed goals of enhancing
organization-stakeholder interaction, building relationships with stakeholders, and increasing
stakeholder involvement in corporate messages in general (Morsing & Schultz, 2006, p. 326).
Especially due to the emergence of online social media platforms and their embedded
interactive characteristics, stakeholder engagement may be enhanced when considered properly
by strategic managers and communication practitioners (Sashi, 2012, p. 254). Since this
master’s thesis’ empirical research puts its main focus on corporations’ strategic online social
media communication, a deeper understanding about stakeholders’ perceptions, behaviors and
influences may be highly relevant to form a nexus between strategic practices in corporate
communication and their effects on stakeholders. The following paragraphs describe the seven
engagement stages in more detail.
Connection
Heinonen (2011) identified in her paper that one main motivation for consumers to actively
engage in online social media is their need for social connection. The researcher further argues
that consumers like to connect with peers who either look for the same specific information or
already have existing experiences and can help to share knowledge. Therefore, online social
networking can be an option to connect a buyer with a seller (Sashi, 2012, p. 260). Sashi (2012,
p. 260) notes that customers may search for specific solutions online while the company can
assist them to encounter the right product or service for them. This type of connection between
buyers and sellers is found to be especially important in intermediate transactions in business
markets, since product choices often emerge through a number of subsequent transactions
across departments (Sashi, 2009, p. 129). Van Woerkum and Aarts (2008, p. 203) argue that an
organization’s ability to connect with all of its stakeholders is a key factor in order to develop a
desirable image and suggest that an organization locates their key strategic stakeholders and
invests in continuous contact with them.
Interaction
After an initial connection has been established, a customer can interact with other customers
and the seller. Social media enables interactions not only in real time across the globe, but also
enriches these interactions among large communities and organizations. In a business context,
sellers can better satisfy customer needs through interaction on social media and even adapt
and modify existing products to meet emerging needs (Sashi, 2012, pp. 261-262). Tikkanen et
al. (2009, p. 1357) also acknowledge the relevance of social interaction between buyers and
sellers in a virtual environment and argue that organizations can obtain high amounts of
customer input. According to Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004, p. 5) buyer-seller interaction is
where value is created and extracted. Especially in the software engineering industry, Axtell et
August 27, 2020 40/150
al. (1997, p. 323) claim that it is necessary to emphasize on agile approaches to understand
customer needs while building a lasting cooperation between buyer and seller.
According to Rapp et al. (2013, p. 548) social media is also found to be a widely utilized tool to
facilitate interactions between suppliers and retailers. The researchers state that it offers quick
and effective communication between partners and further promotes brand interactions.
Consequently, the interactions between the two parties on social networks may be used to
enhance goal similarity as well as long-term orientation from which both can benefit. The
researchers conclude that the buyer’s and the supplier’s performances increase when social
media is used symmetrically, and that also consumers indirectly benefit due to up-to-date
information stemming from the retailer.
Satisfaction
The customer-seller interaction only leads to customer engagement if the interaction itself results
in satisfaction (Sashi, 2012, p. 262). Satisfactory emotions provoked in the customer increase
the likeliness to maintain the connection, however, as Mittal and Kamakura (2001, p. 132) claim,
satisfaction itself should not be an organization’s definitive goal, but rather an intermediary to
achieve that goal. Firat and Dholakia (2006, p. 125) also agree that customer empowerment
provided by long-term partnerships has a much higher significance to organizations than solely
focusing on satisfaction. Nevertheless, Sashi (2012, p. 262) points out that satisfaction is a
required condition for customer engagement.
Further research on the topic of customer satisfaction in relation to social media usage indicates
that information communication behavior by salespeople, dissemination of critical information
and customer-centric knowledge projection on social media are key factors to consider when
trying to achieve customer satisfaction (Agnihotri et al., 2016, p. 162). Seller’s responsiveness to
customers is also encouraged by utilizing social media (Agnihotri et al., 2016, p. 162), which
results in a sense of directness to buyer-seller relationships (Rodriguez et al., 2012, p. 365) and
indirect effects on customer satisfaction (Agnihotri et al., 2016, p. 163). Agnihotri et al. (2012, p.
162) suggest that a social media strategy’s success is dependent on a predetermined set of
clear objectives which should give direction on information sharing processes, performance
monitoring, and competitor information gathering. Consequently, customer satisfaction through
social media usage can be maximized by reaching named objectives (Agnihotri et al., 2016, p.
162).
Retention
August 27, 2020 41/150
According to Sashi (2012, p. 262) strong positive emotions or long-term satisfaction can result in
customer retention. Gustafsson et al.’s (2005, p. 210) research on affective and calculative
commitment, customer satisfaction and customer retention suggests that both satisfaction and
calculative commitment positively impact retention, while on the other hand affective
commitment does not imply customer retention.
Culnan et al. (2010) conducted research on the impact of social media on customer retention in
large U.S. companies. The researchers suggest that social media platforms can create virtual
customer environments which can be understood as communities for customers to exchange
information about a specific company, several products or a brand. Branding activities, such as
public relations, content creation and delivery, and advertising, create value for the company.
Value again, stems from increased traffic, viral marketing, customer loyalty and customer
retention Especially those customers who create content on a firm’s virtual customer
environment on a regular basis, are considered as insiders and are likely to be devoted to
existing products while at the same time being open to try new products. Furthermore, they
resist negative information about the specific firm. Therefore, the researchers conclude that
customer retention can be achieved by a firm’s successful usage of social media (Culnan et al.,
2010, p. 243).
Commitment
As already defined above, one can distinguish two types of commitment, namely affective
commitment and calculative commitment (Gustafsson et al., 2005, p. 210). Turri et al. (2013, p.
201) examined affective brand relationships emerging in an online social media context. The
researchers claim that consumers can attribute certain meanings and personal experiences to a
brand which connect the brand and the consumer building a relationship between them.
Therefore, marketers increasingly use social media to promote a brand while trying to establish
brand relationships (Chen et al., 2011, p. 85). Social media platforms such as Facebook,
LinkedIn and Twitter enhance a sense of social community within consumers and are based on
relationship building, sharing interests and exchanging information (Turri et al., 2013, p. 201).
The concept of online personal branding (Labrecque et al., 2011, p. 37) can be utilized as the
basis to support the assumption that emotional relationships between a brand and a consumer
can arise due to self-connection and intimacy the consumer attributes to a specific brand while
openly communicating his or her affection for a brand either through micro postings, comments,
or similar communication. Turri et al. (2013, p. 201) conclude that these aspects lead to
emotional bonding and affective commitment towards the brand. Affectively committed
consumers are highly valued from an organization’s point of view since they are easily retained,
unlikely to switch to competitors, less affected by service deficiencies, and are able to advocate
August 27, 2020 42/150
the brand which can have an impact on others converting them to customers as well (Bolton et
al., 2000, p. 95; Grisaffe & Nguyen, 2011, p. 1052).
A study conducted by Giannakis-Bompolis and Boutsouki (2014) examined the relatedness of
customers’ calculative commitment and their likeliness to increasingly engage and get involved
in a relationship with their banks. The researchers examined customers’ behavior on social
media and the type of commitment they show towards their banks and concluded that
customers’ calculative commitment is not strongly linked to increased engagement and
involvement. Furthermore, surprisingly the research neither supports the idea that affective
commitment increases customers’ involvement willingness in the retail banking sector. However,
due to the strong connection between calculative commitment and affective commitment,
Giannakis-Bompolis and Boutsouki (2014, p. 67) assume that a long-term relationship between
the consumer and the bank, if solely based on calculative commitment – i.e. economic benefits
for the consumer -, may result in an emotional connection, hence affective commitment,
impacting the consumer’s willingness to increasingly get involved in new types of relationships
with the bank and overall customer engagement. The researchers add that the findings may also
apply to similar economic sectors with already well-established customer relationship
management systems, however, further research needs to verify this assumption (Giannakis-
Bompolis & Boutsouki, 2014, p. 76).
Sashi (2012, pp. 263) argues that delighted customers are a result of affective consumer
commitment due to trust and increasing emotional bonds with a seller. On the other hand, the
researcher states that customer loyalty stems from calculative consumer commitment.
Moreover, customers who are both loyal and delighted encompass calculative and affective
commitment resulting in a long-term relationship between buyer and seller (Sashi, 2012, p. 263).
Advocacy
The advent of the Internet facilitated effective brand advocacy due to easy access and
transparency (Kozinets et al., 2010, p. 71). Wallace et al. (2012, p. 128) define active brand
advocates as consumers with a strong emotional connection towards a brand who actively
engage in word-of-mouth activities. Van Doorn et al. (2010, p. 253) state that advocacy
implicates non-transactional behavior of a consumer which benefits a brand, i.e. Facebook
‘Likes” and word-of-mouth. Wallace et al. (2012, p. 128) explore in their paper the connection
between brand advocacy and ‘Likes’ on the social media platform Facebook. They conclude that
consumers express themselves by ‘liking’ a brand while implicitly advocating the specific brand
to their network. Further research on customer advocacy indicates that there is a positive
correlation between customer advocacy and brand engagement (Hollebeek, 2011; Verhoef et
August 27, 2020 43/150
al., 2010). Liu et al. (2018, p. 269) argue that a customer’s confrontation with a specific brand
may lead to engagement on a cognitive, behavioral and affective level, which again leads to
non-transactional activities favorable for the brand. Nordin (2009, p. 1652) also acknowledges
that customers turn into advocates when they connect and interact with the seller.
Urban (2004, p. 77) claims that sellers can also advocate their customers, especially due to
technologies such as the Internet. The researcher states that digital technologies caused firms to
shift the relationship marketing towards actions which are best for their customers and advocate
them. He further adds that firms must always look for the best solution and products for their
customers even if this means to offer them their competitors’ products. Urban (2004, p. 77)
argues that this kind of advocacy towards customers will pay off in the future since it builds trust
and loyalty between the seller and the buyer.
Engagement
According to Sashi (2012, p. 264) delightedness as well as loyalty are prerequisites for a
customer to fully engage with a seller. However, prior to customer engagement a customer may
increasingly share his or her delight on social media with others and advocate for the company
or a specific product. The researcher also claims that for customer engagement to appear,
affective as well as calculative commitment are needed. Customer engagement surfaces when
the customer bonds emotionally to the seller when making an exchange and it leads to co-
creation of value for the seller, since the customer connects to other customers and non-
customers and advocates the company’s product or the company itself. Hibbard et al. (2001, p.
45) state in their research paper that potential problems in a buyer-seller relationship which
includes engaged customers, do not have to result in disengagement but are rather solved
through discussions between the seller and the buyer or through passively accepting these
problems. De Vries and Carlson (2014, p. 495) conducted research on customer brand
engagement on Facebook. They concluded that customer engagement on Facebook brand
pages impact brand performance and are influenced by the intensity of customer’s usage of
brand pages, social value, and co-creation value. Therefore, the researchers stress the
importance for brand managers to actively provide user gratifications on social media brand
pages, as well as building strong relationships between customers and the brand, since these
factors enable increased customer engagement with social media brand pages. Gummerus et
al. (2012, p. 857) provide further managerial implications for social media strategists and brand
managers by empirically testing and confirming the relevance of entertainment and social
benefits offered on Facebook brand pages. These two aspects are, according to the
researchers, key factors to enable customer loyalty and customer satisfaction towards the seller.
August 27, 2020 44/150
Figure 4: Customer Engagement Cycle (Sashi, 2012, p. 261)
Strengthened emotional bonds, relational exchanges, commitment and an ongoing relationship
between a buyer and a seller result in advanced interactions and new networks, forging a solid
customer engagement cycle as depicted in the figure above (Sashi, 2012). In order to steer the
theoretical elaboration of strategies concerning information, persuasion and involvement into a
modernized context, Capriotti’s (2011) contribution to corporate communication and the
transformation it has witnessed during the past years is examined. The researcher points in his
paper towards the transformation of message receivers – stakeholders – into active
communication participants due to new media and the Internet in general (Capriotti, 2011, p.
360). Stakeholders are found to increasingly seek for information and/or create information
across several channels (Springston, 2001, p. 603). Capriotti (2011, p. 360) reasons that the
Internet is a major facilitator when it comes to information exchange and therefore needs special
attention from strategic managers and communication practitioners. The researcher further adds
that in the past information and data was mainly controlled by the organization. Today, several
August 27, 2020 45/150
stakeholders are able to create data and disseminate information via the Internet which results in
more information being available to the public (Capriotti, 2011, p. 361). Capriotti (2011, p. 362)
argues that due to the emergence of the Internet, symmetrical communication between
stakeholders and an organization is facilitated since older communication tools were mostly not
flexible enough to support symmetrical communication. Especially due to the emergence of
blogs and social media platforms, stakeholders and organizations are increasingly encouraged
to participate in more interactive two-way and symmetrical communications (Capriotti, 2011, p.
362; Jo & Jung, 2005, p. 24). As a consequence, dialogue between an organization and its
stakeholders is promoted and supported by the Internet (Capriotti, 2011, p. 362). According to
Capriotti (2011, p. 364) numerous companies such as Intel or General Electric offer even
personalized online brochures, presentations and videos on their websites to inform each
stakeholder individually about certain corporate social responsibility activities. Furthermore,
these organizations offer blogs where opinions and ideas can be exchanged between each
stakeholder and between stakeholders and the organization promoting two-way symmetrical
communication (Capriotti, 2011, p. 364).
Morsing & Schultz 2006 → the 3 types of strategies are based on them!
Based on the above provided analysis of the three communication strategies, figure 5 provides
an overview of the effects each strategy may have on stakeholders. These effects may also be
understood as the particular goal of each strategy from a communication manager’s point of
view. Furthermore, it provides examples of practitioners’ tools and approaches to reach named
goals (Cornelissen, 2011, pp. 49–50).
The following chapter builds upon the content of corporate communication and examines three
strategy types based on Kim and Rader’s (2010) research on Fortune 500 companies.
Figure 5: Stakeholder communication: from awareness to commitment (Cornelissen, 2011, p. 49)
August 27, 2020 46/150
2.1.3.3. Expertise, Image and Hybrid Strategies
As stated by Kim and Rader (2010, p. 60) favorable associations of a corporation and its
activities are found to be an essential factor when building and maintaining a strong relationship
between the corporation and the public, i.e. stakeholders. Steyn (2007, p. 140) argues that the
public’s demands and interests can be met by creating a corporate communication strategy that
addresses strategic objectives and the public’s goals. Therefore, Kim and Rader (2010, p. 60)
identify two different strategies that may support an alignment between an organization’s and the
public’s objectives while promoting favorable corporate associations: corporate ability-focused
(CAb) strategy and corporate social responsibility-focused (CSR) strategy. Both are based on
marketing literature (Brown & Dacin, 1997; Madrigal, 2000), the former referring to a consumer’s
emotional associations he or she has towards an organization’s expertise and the latter referring
to the perception a consumer has on an organization’s efforts to act in a socially responsible
manner (Kim & Rader, 2010, p. 60). Moreover, Kim and Rader (2010) additionally present a third
strategy acting as a hybrid of corporate ability-focused strategy and corporate social
responsibility-focused strategy. The denominations ‘corporate ability’ and ‘corporate social
responsibility’ are replaced by ‘expertise’ and ‘image’ for the rest of this master’s thesis since
corporate ability and corporate social responsibility resonate strongly in marketing literature
(Brown & Dacin, 1997; Madrigal, 2000), while this master’s thesis’ focus is steered towards the
area of strategic management. The following describes each strategy in more detail.
The first strategy proposed by Kim and Rader (2010, p. 63) is based on a corporation’s expertise
and ability in providing goods and services to its customers in high quality. Therefore,
associations consumers may have towards a company may relate to perceptions they have
towards the company’s ability to provide named goods and services. Kim and Rader (2010, p.
63) further add that also other stakeholders such as the government, employees, community
members, and suppliers may have these associations to a company. Corporate ability
associations influence stakeholders’ expectations and evaluations of an organization’s products
and services, which is why organizations attempt to have an influence on these expectations
and therefore on the stakeholder-organization relationship (Kim & Rader, 2010, p. 64). Sheinin
and Biehal (1999, p. 63) suggest in their research that a consumer’s associations towards an
organization and its products may only be influenced when the brand of the organization is
visible on a product advertisement. Berens et al. (2005, p. 35) also claim that a so-called
‘monolithic’ brand strategy – that is when products in an advertisement are labeled only by a
corporate brand – results in most effective corporate ability associations. Therefore, it can be
August 27, 2020 47/150
noted that by choosing a corporate communication strategy with the objective to increase
product sales, increasing corporate ability associations should be also a key factor to consider
since those associations are linked with the corporation’s expertise to deliver products and
services on a high quality standard (Kim & Rader, 2010, p. 65).
The corporate social responsibility-focused strategy, or image strategy, is based on the
assumption that strategic managers and communication practitioners tend to provoke corporate
associations which relate to socially responsible corporate behavior. Kim and Rader (2010, p.
63) argue that corporate image associations are predominantly not related to products, but to the
corporation’s status in society regarding environmental practices, social responsibility, and
political issues. Again, corporate communication recipients are not limited at consumers but may
also include several other stakeholders (Kim & Rader, 2010, p. 63). Stakeholders’ CSR
associations with a company are strongly influenced by their overall evaluation of the company
(Brown & Dacin, 1997, p. 68). Berens et al. (2005, p. 35) claim that by incorporating an
‘endorsed’ or ‘dual’ brand strategy, that is when a product advertisement is labeled by the
corporate brand and product brand name simultaneously, the effectiveness of CSR associations
towards the company are highest. Therefore, the objective of a CSR-related corporate
communication strategy is to create and influence stakeholders’ CSR associations which are
again based on the company’s efforts to be a socially responsible member of society (Kim &
Rader, 2010, p. 65).
Lastly, Kim and Rader (2010, p. 60) also suggest a third corporate communication strategy
which incorporates the goals of both the expertise strategy and the image strategy and is
therefore referred to as a ‘hybrid’ strategy. Schumann et al. (1991, p. 35) focus in their research
on corporate advertising and therefore suggest hybrid or umbrella advertisements to combine a
corporation’s CSR activities and product-specific promotions in their communication strategy.
This is in accordance with Drumwright’s (1996, p. 71) findings on corporate campaigns that
include non-economic as well as economic goals. However, the researcher states that hybrid
campaigns with mixed objectives – economic and non-economic – are focused on reaching
company-oriented objectives rather than increasing product sales (Drumwright, 1996, pp. 71–
72).
Selecting the most suitable corporate communication strategy from the three options described
above, is depending on several factors (Kim, 2011, p. 218). However, Kim’s (2011, p. 218)
research on communication strategy selection suggests that well-known corporations tend to
implement a CSR strategy. The researcher argues that consumers’ CSR associations and CAb
associations both are influenced by a CSR communication strategy from an eminent corporation.
August 27, 2020 48/150
From this argumentation it can be indicated that a well-known corporation’s CSR messages
create consumers’ CSR associations towards the corporation while also provoking CAb
associations. On the other hand, the researcher states that only CAb associations are provoked
when using a corporate ability-focused communication strategy (Kim, 2011, p. 234). Moreover, a
hybrid corporate communication strategy is likely to create both CAb and CSR associations
simultaneously. However, Kim (2011, pp. 234–235) adds that associations created by a hybrid
strategy are not as strong as those created by a CSR strategy. Nevertheless, a previously
conducted study (Kim et al., 2009, p. 77) on communication strategy’s effects on consumer
associations suggests that a corporation’s CSR-based communication strategy does not create
CAb and CSR associations but only CSR associations, and that a hybrid strategy tends to
provoke stronger CAb and CSR associations. Furthermore, it is noted that this particular study
measured consumers’ associations on a fictitious corporation (Kim et al., 2009, p. 77).
Therefore, Kim (2011, p. 235) suggests that strong CAb and CSR associations may only
simultaneously be created through a CSR-based strategy, if the corporation is well known and
has already built a positive reputation in the past. The reason why consumers’ CSR and CAb
associations are both created by a corporation’s CSR-based communication strategy may be
due to consumers’ prior awareness of the corporation which they use to evaluate its products
while enhancing corporate associations that they built in the past. Consumers may perceive the
company as a responsible member of society which uses its monetary power to support society.
Therefore, consumers may have the feeling that such a company is likely to be able to produce
high quality goods (Kim, 2011, p. 235). On the other hand, Kim (2011, p. 235) argues that a
company with a strong CAb-based strategy, consumer CSR associations are very unlikely to be
created since consumers do not directly associate a company’s ability to produce high quality
products with the same company’s philanthropic efforts in society.
In conclusion, three corporate communication strategies based on content can be identified in
the literature (Drumwright, 1996; Kim, 2011; Kim et al., 2009; Kim & Rader, 2010; Schumann et
al., 1991). The following chapter elaborates content strategies on online social media platforms.
2.1.3.4. Social Media Content Strategy
The emergence of social media has had a critical impact on how corporations communicate to
their internal and external stakeholders (Pan et al., 2019, p. 73). Micro-blogging tools such as
Twitter, social networks such as Facebook and sharing tools such as YouTube all transformed
the Internet into a platform partly dependent on the participation of its users. Furthermore,
especially social media platforms support organizations and stakeholders to engage in
August 27, 2020 49/150
symmetrical communication which helps to build strong relationships (Capriotti, 2011, p. 359).
However, organizations may face challenges concerning the content they want to project and
impacts it may have on the public (Pan et al., 2019, p. 73). Therefore, based on Pan et al.’s
(2019) research on social media communications, this chapter elaborates four content-related
communication strategies that firms may use to effectively communicate on social media
platforms.
Pan et al. (2019, p. 77) present four different firm-generated content (FGC) message strategies
which will be examined in the following paragraphs:
1) Informative vs. persuasive messaging
2) Soft-sell vs. hard-sell messaging
3) Backstage vs. frontstage messaging
4) Sales orientation vs. customer orientation (SOCO)
Academic literature on advertising generally separates informative (Butters, 1977; Grossman &
Shapiro, 1984) from persuasive advertising (Lauga, 2011; Nelson, 1970). Informative advertising
is mainly targeted at uninformed consumers and aims to inform about prices, certain
characteristics and the existence of a product (Milgrom & Roberts, 1986, p. 796). Product quality
is mainly communicated through persuasive advertising (Lauga, 2011, p. 119). Persuasive
messages may have several effects on consumers such as increasing their willingness to pay
for a product, altering the demand for product variety, and/or increasing consumers’ perception
of differences between products of competing firms (Pan et al., 2019, p. 78; Von der Fehr &
Stevik, 1998). On the other hand, informative messaging is an effective strategy for products
whose characteristics and quality can be observed by the consumer before purchasing it (Pan et
al., 2019, p. 78). According to Pan et al. (2019, p. 78) products whose value and quality can only
be determined by consuming them, tend to be advertised via persuasive messaging. The
researchers reason that consumers have no possibility to physically examine these types of
products and therefore tend to rely on recommendations and the company’s reputation.
Furthermore, Pan et al. (2019, p. 78) add that successful persuasive messaging may have
positive effects on a consumer in the long run since it affects his or her preferences. However, in
the past persuasive advertising has been criticized to provoke needs that are undesirable for the
consumer (Hunt, 1976, p. 5). Undeterred by this criticism, Pan et al. (2019, p. 78) acknowledge
informative and persuasive messaging as powerful tools which can be used strategically in order
to transmit information about products’ quality and characteristics while urging consumers to
purchase the products.
August 27, 2020 50/150
According to Pan et al. (2019, p. 79) companies may select a certain communication strategy,
hard-sell or soft-sell strategy, to persuade consumers to purchase their products. Homer (2008,
p. 722) defines a soft-sell strategy as an attempt to create images that a consumer associates
with the actual use of the product while product quality itself is barely mentioned. On the other
hand, within a hard-sell strategy the communication focusses on “claims about the intrinsic merit,
inherent quality, and functional value of the product itself” (Snyder & DeBono, 1985, p. 587). Pan
et al. (2019, p. 80) further emphasize that a hard-sell communication strategy uses directness
and forcefulness in regards to a product’s or brand’s benefits which may be in contrast with a
competitor’s product. In contrary to this, a soft-sell approach communicates superior benefits in
a more subtle way and does not push a consumer to buy the product. Pan et al. (2019, p. 80)
criticize that hard-sell messages may have a negative effect on consumers’ trust with the
company. This claim is in accordance with Chu et al. (1995, p. 97) who note that trust is more
likely to be built and maintained through a soft-sell communication strategy. Pan et al. (2019, pp.
80–81) add that a soft-sell strategy aims to project information with implicit conclusions that the
communication manager wants to be drawn in consumers’ minds. However, Nye (2008, p. 94)
argues that provoking implicit conclusions may not always lead to the desired effect since
consumers may draw their own conclusions from soft-sell messages.
Adding to hard-sell and soft-sell strategies, Pan et al. (2019, p. 81) also present frontstage and
backstage messaging which can be used within a company’s FGC communication strategy.
Similar to the previously described hard-sell and soft-sell strategies, frontstage and backstage
messaging refers to the way a message sender can influence and/or persuade a message
recipient. Pan et al. (2019, p. 81) state that frontstage messages are mostly transparent and
easily understood by the message recipient. On the other hand, backstage messages are
directed towards a recipient with the aim to mitigate the recipient’s awareness of being
influenced by the message sender. Therefore, Steensma and van Millingen (2003, p. 113) refer
to backstage messages as being somewhat devious. Pan et al. (2019, p. 82) state that
backstage tactics can be used in social media advertising where a brand or product is placed at
the end of an emotional message so that the brand or product is connected to the emotions
evoked in the message recipient. On the contrary, a firm-generated frontstage message is easily
noticed by the recipient since it actively tries to persuade the message recipient to purchase a
product by openly communicating the product’s characteristics and quality (Pan et al., 2019, p.
82).
The last FGC strategy presented has been adopted from Saxe and Weitz’ (1982, p. 343)
introduction of sales orientation and customer orientation. Pan et al. (2019, p. 82) claim that
these two concepts can also be applied as a FGC strategy. The authors refer to the concept of
August 27, 2020 51/150
customer orientation as an approach where a customer’s interest and satisfaction are in the
focus while an immediate sale may be sacrificed. On the contrary, the sales orientation
approach focuses heavily on the sale to a customer while the customer’s personal interest,
preferences or satisfaction with the product or service are widely neglected (Pan et al., 2019, p.
82). Pan et al. (2019, p. 82) further argue that due to the time intensiveness of the customer
orientation approach and due to highly varying personal needs and preferences of customers, a
sales-oriented FGC message strategy may be more favorable when it comes to social media
advertising.
Figure 6: Taxonomical approach to understanding FGC on social media (Pan et al., 2019, p. 77)
Pan et al. (2019, pp. 76–77) include the previously examined FGC strategies within a framework
which helps explain the effect FGC social media strategies have on consumers’ behaviors. As
shown in figure 6 the first phase represents named FGC strategies. Phase two represents the
company’s content or messages on social media. Preliminary outcomes are captured within
phase three. Here the message recipients’ attitudes towards the messages, electronic word-of-
mouth behavior (such as liking or sharing a social media post), and consumers’ purchase
intentions are represented. Phase four includes outcomes relevant for the company such as the
actual purchase of the product or service, a consumer’s overall satisfaction, and/or the
consumer’s loyalty towards the company’s brand. Pan et al. (2019, p. 77) conclude that this
framework may propose an indirect effect of a firm’s FGC strategy on attitudes, behaviors and
perceptions of consumers related to a brand on social media.
August 27, 2020 52/150
The previous chapters examined several digital corporate communication strategies, namely the
internal and external communication strategies (Dirsmith & Covaleski, 1983; Steyn, 2004; Welch
& Jackson, 2007), informational, persuasive and involvement strategies (Cornelissen, 2011;
Morsing & Schultz, 2006), expertise, image and hybrid strategies (Kim & Rader, 2010), as well
as firm-generated social media content strategies (Pan et al., 2019), the following chapter
examines five online communication channels which corporations may use to execute their
strategies. The five channels are a corporation’s website, and, respectively its official Facebook,
Instagram, Twitter, and Youtube page.
2.1.3.5. Online Corporate Communication Channels
Online corporate communication via a corporate website or social media networks have
drastically changed the environment of public relations offering numerous opportunities for
communication practitioners to build low-cost strategies aiming to access and influence the
target audience (Kim et al., 2014, p. 343; Pan & Xu, 2009, p. 251). This chapter aims to explore
companies’ usage of each of the five online corporate communication channels – website,
Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and Youtube – and examines differences between named
channels.
Starting with a corporation’s website, Pan and Xu (2009, pp. 251–253) discovered cultural
differences in the use of this channel. The researchers discovered that corporations from the
U.S.A. tend to include a high number of interactive elements on their website, such as interactive
newsletters or job placements. Moreover, overall information about the products and the
company, personal assistance for choosing the right product, as well as content including
product customization are mostly emphasized by U.S. corporations (Pan & Xu, 2009, p. 252).
However, Pan and Xu (2009, p. 252) add that Chinese corporations tend to focus more on two-
way communication between their customers on their websites by implementing chat rooms for
their website visitors. In conclusion, the researchers state that U.S. websites strongly emphasize
online shopping, services and product customization while Chinese corporate websites tend to
enhance consumer interaction (Pan & Xu, 2009, p. 252). When it comes to a corporation’s public
image, Pan and Xu (2009, p. 252) also discovered differences in the communication, stating that
Chinese company websites tend to provide more information about the company’s history and
quality certifications than their U.S. American counterparts. Hetze and Winistörfer (2016, pp.
501–502) emphasize in their paper the importance of communicating CSR on corporate
websites, arguing that corporations are increasingly urged to establish and maintain lasting
relationships with stakeholders. The authors found in their study that three quarters of analyzed
August 27, 2020 53/150
banks include some type of CSR communication on their website. The researchers further add
that the analyzed companies tend to locate the CSR issues either in the “About Us” section or
separately inside a “CSR” tab on the landing page (Hetze & Winistörfer, 2016, p. 501).
Secondly, the social media platform Facebook can be used similarly as websites when it comes
to communicating a corporation’s CSR activities and/or its expertise in producing and delivering
high quality products and services to its customers (Kim et al., 2014, p. 343). Within chapter
2.1.3.3., image, expertise and hybrid strategies have already been presented. Nonetheless, this
chapter steers towards the peculiarity of Facebook as a communication channel. One of
Facebook’s features is the “like” function that users can activate on an organization’s posting.
Kim et al. (2014, pp. 355–356) found in their study that a corporation’s Facebook fans (i.e.
subscribers to the corporation’s brand to receive postings) are more likely to “like” the
corporation’s posting if the content they publish is personalized. The researchers add that if
content is published which specifically asks for action-oriented engagement by the user, “likes”
and “comments” are increasing in frequency. Kim et al. (2014, p. 356) also emphasize the
importance of responding to fans’ comments and postings on the corporate Facebook page,
since this is found to have a positive impact on “like” and “comment” frequencies. On the other
hand, the study shows that a corporation’s frequency of updating its Facebook wall by publishing
postings does not affect users’ “like” and “comment” frequencies (Kim et al., 2014, p. 356).
The next digital communication channel which is being examined is the micro-blogging platform
Twitter. Organizations increasingly utilize this channel for strategic campaigns to reach relevant
stakeholders by sharing information to the target audience through messages limited to 140
characters (Waters & Jamal, 2011, p. 321). Although it may be assumed that dialogic two-way
communication is used to meet the need for building organization-stakeholder relationships
(Cornelissen, 2011, pp. 49–51; Morsing & Schultz, 2006, pp. 327–328), Waters and Jamal
(2011, p. 321) found in their study that non-profit organizations share information on Twitter
primarily in a one-way fashion. The researchers argue that these organizations use the platform
primarily with the goal to share relevant information rather than building relationships with their
stakeholders, and further criticize that even though this type of communication may foster a
feeling of trust towards the organization, it may harm the relationship between the organization
and the follower due to the asymmetrical nature of the relationship (Waters & Jamal, 2011, p.
323). Similar to these results, Gálvez-Rodríguez et al. (2016, p. 1052) found by conducting a
content analysis study on non-profit organizations’ (NPOs) Twitter accounts that especially
highly donor-dependent NPOs tend to utilize Twitter as a one-way communication tool to share
information on the platform. Another study conducted by Colleoni (2013, p. 228) shows that even
if organizations focus on symmetrical and two-way communication with their audience on
August 27, 2020 54/150
Twitter, users tend to perceive an organization’s messages as a marketing practice rather than a
sincere effort to build a relationship.
The social media and video streaming platform Youtube is the next digital communication
channel that is being examined. Bonsón et al. (2014, p. 485) consider the platform to be an
important channel for corporate communication since it is the largest platform for video sharing.
Furthermore, the researchers argue that from a psychological perspective social video drives
consumer engagement due to stimulating effects on the human senses such as sound and sight
where emotions are triggered. Bonsón et al. (2014, p. 487) further point out that the given
possibility for consumers to like, dislike and comment on videos helps to create open
communication and build relationships between the corporation and the consumers. Kaplan and
Haenlein (2010, p. 59) confirm that such types of stakeholder engagement may build lasting
relationships. Bonsón et al. (2014, p. 496) found in their study that those corporations who
proactively produce content on Youtube and communicate with their audience, have more
subscribers than those who just have a Youtube page without actively using it. The researchers
add that corporations may use the platform to share information, advertise their products and
communicate to potential and current customers (Bonsón et al., 2014, p. 494).
Ultimately, Instagram is being examined as the last corporate communication channel.
According to Guidry et al. (2015, p. 345) Instagram serves as a video and photo sharing
application for smartphones and tablets, and therefore may potentially cause crises for
corporations since users may share negative information about a brand and/or company easily
to millions of other users. However, the researchers add that the social media platform may also
suit as a tool to increase brand awareness and loyalty from customers while additionally serve
as a pre-crisis management application for corporate communication practitioners. Nevertheless,
Guidry et al. (2015, p. 355) found in their study that from the companies that made up the study
sample, none of them engaged with negative posts published by stakeholders. This behavior is
contrary to Saxton and Waters’ (2014, p. 280) suggestion of engaging in two-way
communication with stakeholders in order to establish rapport and a lasting relationship. Klassen
et al. (2018) found in their study that there are differences of corporations’ usage of Instagram
and the employed communication strategies and messages. The researchers state that brands
related to the food industry try to boost user engagement through encouragement to eat,
organizations in the health industry promote their messages by stating facts and statistics, and
lifestyle brands posted mainly positive content to which consumers can relate to. Those
companies who provided links in their posts which led to purchasable products were found to
have a higher number of interactions than those posts which did not include links. Researchers
such as Guidry et al. (2015, p. 355), Stieglitz and Dang-Xuan (2013, p. 217), as well as Klassen
August 27, 2020 55/150
et al. (2018) suggest that positive messages conveyed on Instagram – and other social media
networks – are associated to have a larger amount of user interactions. This is in accordance
with Smith’s (2013, p. 357) research on social media users’ engagement with posts published by
organizations, which is found to increase when positive emotions are provoked. According to
Guidry et al. (2015, p. 355) many companies in their study sample neglect or barely use
hashtags on Instagram in order to direct their messages to their stakeholders in a more effective
way.
As described above, the five corporate communication channels which are being examined
within this thesis – corporate website, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Youtube – have their
own peculiarities but also similarities that corporate communication practitioners may use to
leverage an organization’s awareness across channels (Bonsón & Bednárová, 2013, p. 981) and
target relevant stakeholders (Kim et al., 2014, p. 343; Pan & Xu, 2009, p. 251). As a conclusion,
social media may be interpreted as revolutionary communication platforms that to a significant
extent transformed the information exchange between an organization and its stakeholders
(Mills, 2012, p. 162).
The following chapter serves as a summarization of the previously examined corporate
communication strategies and their specific features.
2.1.4. Framework of Digital Corporate Communication Strategies
Within this chapter, a framework is presented compiled by the four corporate communication
strategies analyzed, i.e. internal and external communication strategies, informational,
persuasive and involvement strategies, expertise, image and hybrid strategies, and social media
content strategy. Apart from the social media content strategy, this framework is similar to and
partly based on Bobocel’s (2019) literature review on the topic of corporate communication
strategies. The framework serves on the one hand as a summarization of the main findings and
on the other hand as an overview on the typologies.
August 27, 2020 56/150
Strategy Communication
focus
Sub-strategy Communication focus
Internal and
external
communication
strategies
Stakeholders as
corporate
communication
targets: dormant,
discretionary,
dominant,
demanding,
dependent,
definitive,
dangerous
stakeholders
Internal
communication
Predominantly one-way corporate communication
with internal stakeholders (i.e. all employees)
emitted from top management containing corporate
issues (i.e. goals, activities, achievements, etc.)
aiming to create commitment, awareness,
belonging, and understanding
External
communication
Corporate communication targeting external
stakeholders. Aims to create competitive
advantages within the external environment.
Informational,
persuasive
and
involvement
strategies
Corporate
communication
objectives and
desired effects
Informational
corporate
communication
One-way symmetrical communication aiming to
generate awareness by providing information and
facts
Persuasive
corporate
communication
Two-way asymmetrical communication aiming to
create understanding and influence stakeholder
behavior
Involvement
corporate
communication
Two-way symmetrical communication aiming for
stakeholder involvement and create commitment
Expertise,
image and
hybrid
strategies
Corporate
communication
content
Expertise
strategy
Corporate communication focusing on the
corporation’s ability to produce high quality
products and provide high-quality services
Image strategy Corporate communication focusing on the
corporations being a legitimate and socially
responsible community member
Hybrid strategy Corporate communication focusing on
incorporating attributes simultaneously from image
strategies and expertise strategies
August 27, 2020 57/150
Strategy Communication
focus
Sub-Strategy Communication focus
Social media
content
strategy
Corporate
communication
is primarily
carried out on
social media
Informative
messaging
Corporate messages informing consumers about
pricing, product existence and product
characteristics
Persuasive
messaging
Corporate messages focusing on conveying
product quality aiming to enhance consumers’
willingness to pay for a product and/or increase
consumers’ perception of distinctions between
products of competing firms
Soft-sell
messaging
Corporate messages persuading consumers to
purchase a product creating images that
consumers associate with the product and its
usability
Hard-sell
messaging
Corporate messages persuading consumers to
purchase a product by conveying the quality and
functional value of the product
Backstage
messaging
Corporate messages persuading consumers to
purchase a product aiming to mitigate the
recipient’s awareness of being affected by the
message sender
Frontstage
messaging
Corporate messages persuading consumers to
purchase a product aiming to convey transparent
and easily understandable information
Sales
orientation
Corporate messages focusing on the sale to
consumers while consumers’ personal interests,
preferences and/or satisfaction with the product or
service are widely neglected
Customer
orientation
Corporate messages focusing on consumers’
interests and satisfaction with the product or
service while sacrificing the immediate sale
Table 2: Framework of digital corporate communication strategies based on the preceding literature review
Table 2 summarizes the typologies and main characteristics of corporate communication
strategies in a digital context which were examined during the preceding literature review. Firstly,
the “internal and external communication strategies” typology is based on corporate digital
communication strategies aiming at internal and external corporate stakeholders – i.e.
employees, customers, policy makers, shareholders, etc. – as the message recipients (see
Argenti, 1996; Cheney & Christensen, 2001; Cornelissen, 2014; Dirsmith & Covaleski, 1983;
August 27, 2020 58/150
Mitchell et al., 1997; Welch & Jackson, 2007). Secondly, “informational, persuasive and
involvement strategies” focus on the strategies’ objectives and desired effects (see Cornelissen,
2014; Morsing & Schultz, 2006). Thirdly, “expertise, image and hybrid strategies” focuses on the
content conveyed by each strategy (Kim, 2011; Kim & Rader, 2010). Finally, “social media
content strategy” focuses on the message content and impact on recipients within the social
media context (Pan et al., 2019). Cornelissen (2011) states that communication strategies in
corporations could vary over time due to a potentially altered context and changing objectives of
the communication strategy chosen by the corporation which also results into non-excludability
between certain strategies. Based on these arguments, a corporate communication strategy
could for example be an expertise-focused, external, persuasive strategy with a soft-sell
messaging strategy on a particular social media platform.
The following chapter examines competitive modes, namely competition and cooperation.
Consequently, it also acts as a foundation for the subsequent empirical research.
August 27, 2020 59/150
2.2. Competitive modes
According to Chen and Miller (2015) companies’ relational states can be classified into three
modes: competition, coopetition and cooperation. The authors argue that companies’ actions
towards each other depend on the relational state that they find themselves in. The literature
shows that these three concepts differ significantly when it comes to their theoretical
backgrounds (Brandenburger & Nalebuff, 1996; Porter, 1990; Wang & Krakover, 2008).
According to Chen and Miller (2015, p. 762) these differences can be observed in a company’s
behavior with other companies on a market regarding the relation between the companies and
each company’s characteristics. Adding to the theoretical concept of relational states, the
intensity of firm’s relationships is also examined within this literature review. Common literature
draws distinctions between tightly integrated and loose relationships (see Bailey & Koney, 2000;
Ring & van de Ven, 1994; Wang & Krakover, 2008). Within this master’s thesis, the concept of
coopetition will not be further elaborated due to the limited scope of this thesis. Furthermore,
within the empirical part of this thesis’ selected companies are either determined as cooperative
or competitive in order to simplify the research and results.
The following subchapters examine the theoretical foundations of competition and cooperation
while providing insight into the different intensity levels that both competitive modes contain.
Furthermore, specific challenges and capabilities are examined for corporations on either side of
the competition-cooperation continuum. Since several concepts presented within the previous
chapters concerning corporate digital communication strategies also resonate within the
subsequent chapters concerning competitive modes, the following chapters present less findings
in order to not present concepts that have already been examined. Therefore, the scope of this
part of the literature review is reduced compared to the chapters of digital communication
strategies.
2.2.1. Competition
Chen et al. (2007, p. 102) state that competition between firms is given once actions and
reactions are interchangeably executed between an attacking and a defending party. Therefore,
Chen (2008, p. 290) argues that competitive interactions are distinct from cooperative ones. In
order to provide understanding of named actions, researchers such as Chen (1996) and Yu and
Cannella (2007) present a framework that determines a firm’s actions: The awareness-
motivation-capability (AMC) framework is based on the assumption that a rivalrous firm cannot
August 27, 2020 60/150
respond to another firm’s action unless there is awareness of the action, a motivation for
reaction, and a capability of giving a response to the action. Chen and Miller (2015, pp. 759–
760) argue in their paper that an understanding of firm actions and their sources and outcomes
are vital for the discussion of rivalrous states of companies.
2.2.1.1. Theoretical background
According to Ferrier et al. (1999, p. 372) several resources for companies are limited or
unavailable. Therefore, the authors state that a company attempts to claim as many of these
resources as possible from another party if a competitive relationship is given (Ferrier et al.,
1999). Peter’s (2008, p. 21) theoretical approach to competitive relationships concludes from this
that if one company gains limited resources, a competitor must lose resources simultaneously
since a balanced amount of resources must be given.
The beforementioned views are on the one hand based on the game theory, in particular the
‘zero sum game’ (Chen & Miller, 2015, p. 761), and on the other hand on the resource based
view (Barney, 1991; Wernerfelt, 1984). Researchers such as Babu (1998, p. 53) and Zagare
(1984, p. 7) state that within the game theory, the parties interact with each other and try to
achieve their specific goals by selecting certain options that allow output maximization. Babu
(1998, p. 53) adds that decisions are based on predicting the other party’s intentions which helps
to achieve one’s own goals to add more value to the own company. Due to rising criticism
towards this approach, alternatives to the resource based view and zero sum game were
adopted to the concept of competitiveness, such as the ‘positive sum game’ and the stakeholder
approach (Chen & Miller, 2015, p. 760).
Due to a company’s recurring interactions with internal and external stakeholders, the
stakeholder approach is a theoretical concept that developed through a company’s fundamental
necessity of satisfying the claims of certain stakeholder groups. Since the organization has to
react to varying demands, stakeholders are assumed to have certain amounts of influence on
the organization (Mitchell et al., 1997, p. 856). Freeman and McVea (2001, p. 189) argue that
this influence surfaces when an organization maximizes value and allocates it to its
stakeholders. However, the amount of allocated value on each stakeholder group depends on
the importance of the certain stakeholder group from the organization’s perspective, as Mitchell
et al. (1997, p. 874) classified the groups according to the urgency, legitimacy, and power of
stakeholder groups’ needs and demands (see chapter 2.1.3.1). Chen and Miller (2015, p. 760)
stress the importance of maintaining strong relationships to especially those stakeholders who
August 27, 2020 61/150
possess resources which are crucial to the organization. Håkansson and Snehota’s (2006, p.
258) theory on resource dependency assumes that an organization’s longevity is determined by
the access to these resources while, in addition, Miles and Snow (1984, p. 36) argue that an
organization may only have a competitive advantage if resources are not only available but must
be utilized in an effective manner. This competitive advantage again may lead to a stronger
bargaining position towards an organization’s consumers and suppliers (Porter, 1985, p. 3).
Moreover, an organization’s competitive advantage may be fortified through the establishment of
market entry barriers that new potential entrants are confronted with (Chen, 1996, p. 107).
When it comes to the identification of those resources which may generate a competitive
advantage to the corporation that occupies them, Prahalad and Hamel (1990, p. 79) argue within
the core competences approach that an organization may develop key competencies through
accumulation of knowledge within the organization. In order to achieve a high amount of
knowledge, Teece et al. (1997, p. 509) argue that an organization may invest heavily into
research and development activities. This approach, however, contradicts Prahalad and Hamel’s
(1990, p. 80) assumption that knowledge within an organization is not necessarily linked to
research and development but more importantly to an effective combination of resources such
as knowledge and information in general. Organizational core competences that result in a
competitive advantage can be identified using the VRIN model presented by Barney (1991).
Hereby, Barney (1991, pp. 105–112) states that a resource may lead to a sustainable
competitive advantage if it is valuable – meaning it can be used to exploit an opportunity and/or
overcome environmental threats –, rare, imperfectly imitable, and non-substitutable.
Figure 7: VRIN Framework (Barney, 1991, p. 112)
August 27, 2020 62/150
Barney (1991, p. 105) further adds that resources that are valuable, rare, imperfectly imitable,
and non-substitutable to result in lasting competitive advantage, named resources must be
heterogenic and immobile. Figure 8 illustrates this dependency.
Adding to the notion of sustained competitive advantage, several scholars (D’Aveni & Gunther,
1994; Powell, 2001, pp. 885ff) argue that due to the dynamic characteristic of an organization’s
environment, needs are rapidly changing and, therefore, sustained competitive advantage is not
achieved solely by possessing core competencies that fit Barney’s (1991, p. 112) VRIN
framework but by also incorporating dynamic capabilities as described by Teece et al. (1997, p.
509). Moreover, Mäenpää and Korhonen (2015, pp. 89–90) state that digitalization and
especially the appearance of the Internet transformed the concept of competition. The
researchers argue that consumers have the possibility to compare the value of products and
services of competing firms which vastly changes the understanding of conducting business and
competition in general.
For an organization to be able to take advantage in a competitive environment, it is important to
analyze competitors’ positions and resources (Johnson et al., 2017, p. 58). Therefore, within the
following chapter rivalry analysis is being explored in more detail.
2.2.1.2. Rivalry analysis
Since rivals usually possess similar strengths and weaknesses due to similar accesses to
resources, a categorization of competing companies may be useful to determine rivalry amongst
named companies (Chen, 1996, p. 107). A set of organizations can be divided into direct and
indirect competitors. This classification is dependent on aspects such as geographical proximity
of competing organizations, product characteristics and distribution networks (Johnson et al.,
2017, p. 82). Generally, Chen and Miller (2015, p. 763) define direct rivals as companies of
similar size and market focus, while indirect rivals distinguish themselves from the focal entity in
these two particular aspects. According to Chen (1996, pp. 100–101) rivalry analysis within the
strategic management of firms aims to provide deep understanding of rivalry itself while
additionally attempting to predict behavior between companies on an interactive market. A
competitor’s behavior may be interpreted as an attack on an industry with numerous companies
operating in it, hence being affected by the action (Chen & Miller, 1994, p. 88). Prahalad and
Hamel (1990) argue that such an attack resonates within affected companies and is likely to be
responded to with similar rivalrous actions which may lead to negative impacts on profitability in
this particular industry (Chen & Miller, 1994, p. 90).
August 27, 2020 63/150
Porter (1980, p. 4) presents a model which aids strategic managers to determine the
attractiveness of an industry whereas rivalry itself is at a focal point within the model since it is
being influenced by five forces: rivalry among existing firms in the particular industry, bargaining
power of buyers, bargaining power of suppliers, potential threat of substitute products or
services, and potential threat of new market entrants. Rivalry among existing firms, is increased
when barriers to exit the industry and the number of direct competitors is high. Bargaining power
of buyers is considered high when buyers have access to information and suppliers’ barga ining
power is influenced by factors such as the number of suppliers and the importance of the
suppliers’ service. Substitutes are considered as threats primarily if the price of the substitute
product is lower. Lastly, new market entrants are a potential threat to incumbent market players
if they are able to overcome scale economies present in the industry (Porter, 1980, pp. 6f). The
following figure illustrates the model.
Figure 8: Porter's Five Forces (Porter, 1980, p. 4)
While Porter’s (1980) five forces model mainly helps to determine the attractiveness within an
industry, Chen (1996, p. 111) provides a framework that links competitor analysis and interfirm
August 27, 2020 64/150
rivalry together. The author states that competitor analysis is determined by market commonality
and resource similarity and have an impact on competitor behavior. Market commonality is given
when firms compete on the same markets simultaneously (Chen, 1996, p. 106). Resource
similarity, on the other hand, “is defined as the extent to which a given competitor possesses
strategic endowments comparable, in terms of both type and amount, to those of the focal firm”
(Chen, 1996, p. 107). Therefore, firms are considered as direct competitors when market
commonality and resource similarity are high for a given resource endowment (Chen, 1996, p.
108). Interfirm rivalry is determined by the likelihood of an attack and response which both are
predicted and driven by certain competitive behavior, namely awareness, motivation, and
capability (Chen, 1996, p. 110). Chen (1996, p. 110) concludes that rivalry among firms has an
impact on several organizational outcomes; these outcomes may be changes in an
organization’s economic performance and/or altered market share.
Since competitive actions between rivalrous organizations within an industry affect the
circumstances within which the organizations are operating, Chen (1996, p. 110) argues that
competitive strategies are needed in order to evade the threats stemming from competitors’
attacks. The following chapter examines common competitive strategies defined in the literature
(D’Aveni, 1995; Porter, 1980).
2.2.1.3. Competitive strategies
Porter (1980, p. 31) developed in his work two competitive strategies, namely cost leadership
and differentiation. According to the researcher, a cost leadership strategy aims to generate
efficient product output while pushing costs to low levels in order to ensure economies of scale.
Block et al. (2015, p. 41) label cost leadership as low-price strategy, arguing that an
organization’s costs must have the same low level of those of competitors in order to be able to
offer lower pricing. Prajogo’s (2007, p. 78) research on cost leadership in competitive markets
concludes that cost leadership does not necessarily have to affect product quality negatively.
The author argues that companies aiming to reduce costs by for example investing in production
failure prevention, quality can be improved by these measures (Prajogo, 2007, p. 77). Porter’s
(1980) second competitive strategy, the differentiation strategy, is based on an organization’s
aim to provide its customers with highly valuable products which may lead to a competitive
advantage. Echchakoui’s (2018, p. 138) research on differentiation concludes that organizations
tend to provide higher value to customers within a special niche. However, Johnson (2017, p.
202) states that this strategy tends to be effective in a market environment with rather mild
competition.
August 27, 2020 65/150
Bowman and Faulkner (1997) in their work present a combination of differentiation and cost
leadership strategies and label the outcome as hybrid strategy, stating that a product’s benefit
perceived by customers, needs to be as high as possible while sacrifices from the organization’s
perspective have to be low in order to ensure competitive advantages. Echchakoui (2018, p.
140) states that the Swedish furniture retailer IKEA builds its competitive advantage on offering
products highly valued by customers while keeping the costs at a minimum. This particular
example interestingly contradicts Porter’s (1980, p. 41) criticism towards companies
incorporating hybrid strategies since they are not sufficiently specialized in neither of the two
generic strategies of cost leadership and differentiation, and are likely to run into problems such
as low economic performance.
Porter’s (1980) views on differentiation and cost leadership have further been challenged by
D’Aveni (1995, p. 11) who claims that modern organizations are operating in a highly dynamic
competitive environment. Due to this circumstance, the researcher argues that corporations are
keen to adapt their competitive strategies frequently with the goal to tackle current and new
problems on the competitive market. This argumentation is in alignment with Johnson et al.’s
(2017, p. 205) research stating that an organization following a differentiation strategy could
lower its pricing which could result in difficulties for an organization following a cost leadership
strategy. Håkansson and Snehota (2006, p. 259) claim that an option to deal with these strategic
shifts in the competitive landscape, could be the effective combination and exchange of internal
resources.
Chen and Miller (2015, p. 758) conceptualize in their paper another dimension of relational
states between companies, namely cooperation. This concept is elaborated in the following
chapter.
2.2.2. Cooperation
According to Wood and Gray (1991, p. 139) cooperation between companies is defined by
making decisions together in order to either achieve shared or similar goals and/or efficiently
deal with similar problems. Therefore, it is expected that competitive arrangements between
cooperative firms are widely neglected (Wang & Krakover, 2008, p. 128). Khanna et al. (1998, p.
197) argue that companies in a cooperative arrangement act as if they were one firm. A result of
such behavior may be a shift in dynamics within an industry, since the threat of substitutes may
be lower if companies act cooperatively (Porter, 1980).
August 27, 2020 66/150
Some of the reasons why organizations would engage in cooperative behavior include easier
access to resources such as technology, lower expenses, and lower risk exposure within the
market (Eckel & Hartley, 2008, p. 614; Powell, 1990, p. 315). Todeva and Knoke (2005, p. 126)
argue that cooperative firms aim to increase production output and achieve organizational
learning from their cooperative ally. The researchers add that for companies to engage in
cooperation, certain measures have to be met such as legal independence between the parties
after the established cooperation, fitting corporate cultures, and shared knowledge between the
organizations (Todeva & Knoke, 2005, p. 133). Ando and Kee Rhee (2009, p. 16) additionally
claim that interorganizational trust is a prerequisite to yield higher results from the cooperation.
Due to the complexity of organizational cooperation, Wood and Gray (1991, p. 139) claim that
the theoretical foundation may consist of several theories in management and economic
research. The following chapter will in this context explore the transaction cost model
(Williamson, 1981), agency theory (Jensen & Meckling, 1976), the market-based view (Porter,
1985), organizational learning (Crossan et al., 1999), the resource-based view (Barney, 1991)
and the network theory (Granovetter, 1985).
2.2.2.1. Theoretical background
The model of transaction cost holds that a transaction is the center of analysis in order to
analyze organizations (Williamson, 1981, p. 548). Wood and Gray (1991, p. 14) argue in this
context that two organizations may reduce their transaction cost – that is the cost that stems
from exchanging resources with their environment – when both firms share their ideas of their
goals as well as working side by side to solve problems that both firms are facing. However,
Williamson (1981, p. 553) argues within the transaction cost model that opportunism and
bounded rationality may result from high asset specificity. Therefore, Quintana-García and
Benavides-Velasco (2004, p. 928) state that a cooperative agreement between firms may be
impaired over time.
The second theoretical model is the agency theory which is based on the assumption that costs
occur in an organization due to asymmetrical information between agents and principals (Jensen
& Meckling, 1976). Badraoui (2013, p. 232) states that these problems especially occur between
organizations who find themselves in a vertical relationship. The author argues that due to
monitoring efforts, which are implemented in order to mitigate transaction costs, are a
considerate factor in a situation with asymmetrical information between two organizations. In
August 27, 2020 67/150
order to overcome this problem, Badraoui (2013, p. 234) suggests that transactions may be
increasingly controlled by forward integration which may result in reduced costs.
Followed by the agency theory, the market-based view presents ways to create advantages in
the competitive landscape of a firm (Porter, 1985). Johnson et al. (2017, p. 115) state that
competitive advantage may be ensured by reducing risks and own weaknesses while
simultaneously work on taking advantage of external opportunities and internal strengths. Since
many suggestions from the market-based view stem from the scenario of competitive firms,
Wood and Gray (1991, p. 9) state that there is a chance to create competitive advantage within
the cooperation context. Badraoui (2013, p. 234) for example states that organizations may be
chosen to be included into a cooperation who could contribute to the realization of competitive
advantages. However, according to Todeva and Knoke (2005, pp. 140f) such a partner shall
operate within a suitable industry and be a sufficiently large organization. Moreover, Shah and
Swaminathan (2008, p. 487) complement this argument by stating that commitment to the
partnership and trust between the parties are also two fundamental factors in order to ensure a
successful cooperation.
The fourth theory which is being examined within the context of organizational cooperation is
organizational learning. Saadat and Saadat (2016, pp. 219–220) claim that organizations need
to increase their learning capacities in order to successfully take advantage of resources which
they obtained during a cooperation. Crossan et al. (1999) suggest that for an organization to be
able to enhance learning, processing information in an effective manner and strategic adaptation
are existential. The authors state that organizational learning starts with the intuition of an
individual which is affected by his or her experiences from the past, to then go over to learning
as a group where information is being interpreted and discussed by all group members (Crossan
et al., 1999, p. 525). After information is being fully processed and accepted by the group, ideally
it is integrated into the organization itself (Saadat & Saadat, 2016, p. 222). As a consequence,
the new information is institutionalized by the organization which may result in strategic
adjustments of certain structures and systems (Crossan et al., 1999, p. 525).
The fifth theory which is examined within the field of organizational cooperation is the resource-
based view (Barney, 1991). Within this theoretical foundation several resources of an
organization are assessed in terms of providing sustainable competitive advantages. Barney
(1991, p. 101) argues that these resources are assessed on factors such as ability to being
imitated, their value, rareness and ability of being substituted by other resources, and differ
between firms. Mowery et al. (1998) consider the resource-based view in their paper when it
comes to cooperative partnerships between organizations. The researchers emphasize the
August 27, 2020 68/150
importance of technological overlaps between organizations who might enter a cooperation.
Therefore, Mowery et al. (1998, p. 507) argue that the resource-based view is supported when it
comes to partner selection. Moreover, scholars such as Chen (1996) and Fang et al. (2011)
argue that heterogeneity of resources may positively affect cooperative partnerships, however,
the researchers further add that cooperative firms who act on the same market while possessing
heterogenous resources may also enter a competitive state at the same time.
Since, according to Mac Fhionnlaoich (1999, p. 11), partnerships between corporations are often
depending on the access to critical resources such as knowledge, information, and physical
assets which complement each other’s’ operations, the network theory can also act as a
theoretical basis for cooperation due to the partnering corporations’ interconnectedness
(Granovetter, 1985, p. 498). Granovetter (1985, p. 498) argues that networks as such may
create social and economic well-being while Powell (1990, p. 323f) states that there are three
factors that compose a network, namely trust, demand for speed and know how. The author
states that know how shared between collaborative firms may lead to valuable capabilities as
well as trust into the relationship itself. Powell (1990) adds that demand for speed is needed in a
collaborative environment since partners need to quickly achieve certain technological objectives
with the goal of cost reduction. The author concludes that opportunistic behavior between
partnering firms may be reduced if the above key factors are considered by both parties (Powell,
1990, p. 324).
Building on this theoretical fundament, the next chapter examines four different types of
cooperation based on research by Wang and Krakover (2008).
2.2.2.2. Types of cooperation
Since organizations may differ in economic goals and organizational culture, Todeva and Knoke
(2005) argue that due to this factor, cooperation may surface in several shapes. Four types of
cooperation are identified by Wang and Krakover (2008, p. 131) which will be examined in more
detail within this chapter: Affiliation, coordination, collaboration, and strategic networks/alliances.
The authors mainly distinguish these forms according to the intensity of cooperation which is
dependent on factors such as the structural complexity of the partnership, the integration and
formalization (Wang & Krakover, 2008, p. 126).
The first type of cooperation presented by Wang and Krakover (2008, p. 132) is affiliation which
is characterized by mainly informal exchange of information and personal relationships between
August 27, 2020 69/150
individuals of the two organizations. The authors claim that the organizations’ activities can be
aligned by putting certain tasks into place that complement each other. Even though an affiliate
relationship may have low structural complexity, factors such as trust and commitment are seen
to be relevant. The affiliate relationship may be maintained by exchanging information, refer to
key stakeholders and/or endorse one another (Wang & Krakover, 2008, p. 132).
Coordination seeks for an alignment of activities of two partnering organizations in order to fulfil
common tasks (Wang & Krakover, 2008, p. 132). Wang and Krakover (2008, p. 132) claim that
within this type of cooperation interests are aligned with one another while proving the other
party with manpower and/or even financial resources. Moreover, the authors claim that tourism
businesses may adjust their services on fairs and events in order to better serve their customers
in general (Wang & Krakover, 2008, p. 132). Todeva and Knoke (2005, p. 125) state that certain
manufacturing and trade standards may stem from coordination between partnering
organizations.
The third type of cooperation presented by Wang and Krakover (2008) is collaboration.
According to the authors, collaborations between two organizations aim to establish long-term
advantages for both businesses. The authors state that this is achievable by developing
strategies jointly (Wang & Krakover, 2008, p. 131). Through formalizing the relationship by
agreements and contracts, both parties aim to help each other to become a more efficient
organization while agreeing to more long-term commitments (Wang & Krakover, 2008, p. 133).
Examples of collaborative partnerships are franchises and cartels (Todeva & Knoke, 2005, p.
125) or trade associations especially between international organizations (Wood & Gray, 1991,
p. 4).
The fourth type of cooperation presented by Wang and Krakover (2008) is called strategic
network. According to the authors strategic networks are found to be highly structured in form in
comparison to the previously described types of cooperation (Wang & Krakover, 2008, p. 133).
Todeva and Knoke (2005, p. 125) also state that the partnering organizations are also highly
integrated into one another. Todeva and Knoke (2005, p. 124) present three examples for
strategic networks. The first are equity investments where one firm purchases shares from
another firm. The second are joint ventures where both parties create a legal entity with the goal
to serve a specific purpose such as marketing or research and development. The third example
of strategic networks surfaces in the form of hierarchical relations. These relations exist through
mergers or acquisitions where one organization controls assets of the other party and
coordinates certain actions (Todeva & Knoke, 2005, p. 124).
August 27, 2020 70/150
As the previous chapters laid the theoretical foundation of competition and cooperation, the next
chapter examines challenges and capabilities organizations within a particular relational state
may face.
2.2.3. Challenges and capabilities of competitive modes
The following sub-chapters elaborate specific challenges organizations are facing within either
competitive or cooperative market situations. Adding to that, capabilities for each competitive
mode are presented to complement the challenges.
2.2.3.1. Challenges and capabilities of competition
Porter (1980, p. 31) presents in his work the dependability of an organization’s position within a
competitive landscape. As explained in chapter 2.2.1.3 an organization may choose between a
cost leadership or differentiation strategy. According to the author, organizations in competitive
markets are facing the challenge of taking a choice between either of the two strategies (Porter,
1980, p. 31), or select a hybrid strategy (Bowman & Faulkner, 1997). DeSarbo et al. (2006, p.
113) present another challenge which is the identification of competitors within the market.
Especially, when it comes to access to crucial information, the authors state that organizations
are facing major challenges. Furthermore, Ray et al. (2004, p. 24) state that rivalrous
organizations face the challenge of optimizing their processes by efficiently utilizing key
resources. The authors state that often organizations have to substitute certain processes which
do not yield the desired outcomes with processes that are more effective (Ray et al., 2004, pp.
24–25). Moreover, Song et al. (2002, p. 970) identify challenges specifically when competing
across national borders, since these transactions may be affected by cultural aspects. The
authors argue that competitiveness is influenced partly by different cognitive perceptions
between managers of two different cultural backgrounds (Song et al., 2002, pp. 969–970).
In order to identify measures to counteract challenges organizations in competitive situations are
facing, specific capabilities are also presented. Porter (1980, p. 29) states that competitive
organizations may overcome these challenges if they possess the adequate capabilities.
According to Rosenzweig et al. (2003, p. 437) the tightness of an organization’s supply chain
may lead it to be capable to operate their processes with a higher degree of flexibility while
saving costs. Moreover, the authors claim that product quality and reliable delivery of products
are also a competitive capability (Rosenzweig et al., 2003, p. 441). Prahalad and Hamel (1990,
August 27, 2020 71/150
p. 80) present in their paper the necessity for an organization to quickly react to changes in the
competitive market such as new entrants or changing customer needs. Levine et al. (2017, p.
2392) present in their study the importance of two cognitive skills, namely analytic skill (in order
to enable technical knowledge and problem solving) and strategic intelligence (in order to
understand actions of the competition). The authors claim that these cognitive skills of a
manager or CEO may result in competitive capability (Levine et al., 2017).
The following sub-chapter examines some of the challenges and capabilities cooperative
organizations may face.
2.2.3.2. Challenges and capabilities of cooperation
Gebrekidan and Awuah (2002, p. 680) claim that organizations within strategic alliances may
face the challenges of not knowing the local conditions if they find themselves in a new market.
The authors state that the different economic circumstance, as well as socially and culturally
differing aspects may challenge a corporation in a new strategic alliance and even hinder certain
business activities. Moreover, Gebrekidan and Awuah (2002, p. 680) claim that differing motives
why to enter a strategic alliance could result in challenges for cooperative organizations. Khanna
et al. (1998, p. 200) state that another challenge in cooperative agreements may be the share of
benefits between the firms. The researchers argue that opportunistic behavior and competition
may occur if firms strive for more private than common benefits. Brandenburger and Nalebuff
(1996) argue that the chance for such behavior is higher when two organizations of significantly
differing size engage in a cooperation, since usually the larger organization has the power to
claim more benefits due to its size and bargaining power. According to Todeva and Knoke
(2005, p. 134) opportunistic behavior within cooperative agreements may also occur due to
asymmetries of organizations’ access to knowledge. The authors argue that one party may use
the other party’s lack of knowledge in order to improve its own performance. Moreover, Todeva
and Knoke (2005, p. 133) acknowledge the importance of sharing knowledge between the
organizations in order to achieve higher degrees of successful strategic decision making.
Rahman and Korn (2010, p. 809) state that trust between the cooperative parties is an important
capability since it strengthens the relationship between the organizations. Moreover, according
to these authors, compatible structures need to be in place which is found to decrease
transaction costs. Rahman and Korn (2010, p. 818) add that a higher degree of formalization of
the alliance may lead to lower transaction costs. Nevertheless, the authors further argue that a
higher degree of formalization tends to increase bureaucratic costs, which is why organizations
August 27, 2020 72/150
within an alliance should aim for equilibrium between the extent of formalization and the different
cost factors (Rahman & Korn, 2010, p. 821). Another capability in strategic alliances is the
organizations’ ability to benefit from each other’s past experiences, since both parties may
complement each other with their obtained knowledge and resources, and hence improve
problem solving (Robson et al., 2019, p. 137). However, Robson et al. (2019, p. 139) state that if
the degree of formalization is too high, these complementary benefits may be hindered.
Kohtamäki et al. (2018, p. 191) conceptualize within their literature review that three major
dimensions, or capabilities, should be present within a strategic alliance if the goal is to
encounter benefits for the two participants simultaneously: managing, integrating, and learning in
strategic alliances. The authors find that within the management capabilities, alliance target
setting, task implementation and the evaluation of alliances are beneficial (Kohtamäki et al.,
2018, p. 191). Within the dimension of alliance integration, improvements within relational
embeddedness, and developing suitable structures are crucial (Kohtamäki et al., 2018, p. 193–
194). And lastly, within the learning capability, factors such as knowledge creation, assimilation
and internalization are required (Kohtamäki et al., 2018, p. 194).
Since main challenges and capabilities of competitive as well as cooperative organizational
relations have been examined, the subsequent chapter aims to achieve the following:
summarize the literature review on the topics of competition and cooperation and differentiate
the concepts of competition and cooperation. The findings are backed by scientific literature from
the respective chapters. The presented continuum also serves as a part of the subsequent
empirical research conducted within this master’s thesis.
August 27, 2020 73/150
2.2.4. Conclusion of competition and cooperation
This chapter acts as a summary of the findings presented in the previous chapters concerning
the concepts of competition and cooperation. The competitive modes are presented in a
contrasting manner including their respective challenges and capabilities.
The challenges detected within the concept of competition are selecting the proper strategy in
order to achieve competitive advantages (Porter, 1980), identify competitors within the market
(DeSarbo et al., 2006), cultural differences and their influence on the competitive strategy (Song
et al., 2002), and business process effectiveness where less effective processes are substituted
(Ray et al., 2004). On the other hand capabilities have been detected such as increased
flexibility of processes due to a tighter supply chain (Rosenzweig et al., 2003). High product
quality and product deliverability are also considered as capabilities within the competitive mode
(Rosenzweig et al., 2003).
Organizations who engage in cooperative agreements and strategic alliances have been found
within the literature review to be confronted with, inter alia, lack of knowledge about the new
markets they are engaging in (Gebrekidan & Awuah, 2002). Organizations who have different
motives for their engagement in a cooperation may also pose a challenge (Gebrekidan &
Awuah, 2002). Opportunistic behavior and unequally distributing benefits amongst participants
have also shown to be challenges, as well as disproportionately striving for private benefits
rather than for common benefits (Khanna et al., 1998).
Lastly, a participant who has lacking access to crucial information may have difficulties in the
cooperative relationship (Todeva & Knoke, 2005). Contrary to these challenges, several
capabilities have been examined. Cooperating organizations may build trust between each other
strengthening their relationship (Rahman & Korn, 2010). Compatible structures are found to
decrease transaction cost, while a balanced level of formalization of the cooperation may also be
a capability (Rahman & Korn, 2010). Moreover, resources and knowledge from each party can
complement the partner organization (Robson et al., 2019). Lastly, managing, integrating, and
learning within strategic alliances has been found to increase cooperation performance
(Kohtamäki et al., 2018).
August 27, 2020 74/150
3. Research Method & Design
Before conducting this master’s thesis empirical research, a research method and design are
defined and presented within the subsequent chapters. Since Bobocel’s (2019) work on strategic
choice/determinism and its relation to digital corporate communication aims to find correlations
of these two topics, the research design and methodology of this master’s thesis empirical
research is chosen to be largely identical. The reason for this is for potential future research on
digital corporate communication on the one hand, and strategic choice/determinism and
competitive modes on the other hand, could extract valuable insights from Bobocel’s (2019)
work as well as from this master’s thesis.
3.1. Research Method
The method chosen for the empirical research of the master’s thesis is content analysis.
According to Krippendorff (2018, pp. 40–43) content analysis is characterized, among others, by
the following three specific features: (1) Unobtrusiveness (data observed by the researcher is
not altered), (2) original data is used as relevant input stemming from third parties, and (3)
context sensitivity (context of each data piece is incorporated into the analysis).
3.2. Population and sample
The population comprises corporations with active business operations in Austria. The selection
of the sample was based on those organizations featuring in the research project “Creating
competitiveness – Erfolgreich in einer globalisierten, digitalen Welt” conducted by Reisinger et
al. (2017). Based on Bobocel’s (2019) random selection of the population, the sample of this
thesis are the same 25 corporations. The same corporations are chosen with the goal to identify
similarities and differences between two major dimensions and corporations’ positioning within
strategic management: path dependency and/or strategic choice versus competition and/or
cooperation. These dimensions are an integral part of the recently developed Creating
Competitiveness Framework (CC-framework) which aims to create a structured and scientific
approach to strategic management styles and dynamics within competitive markets (Reisinger &
Lehner, 2020, p. 4).
August 27, 2020 75/150
The table below lists those 25 corporations which are examined throughout this research:
Table 3: Corporations selected for the empirical research
3.3. Data collection process and analytics
The procedure on gathering and analysing data is aligned with the thesis’ objectives. The
respective data units and analysis indicators are presented within the following sub-chapters.
August 27, 2020 76/150
3.3.1. Data units
Based on McMillan (2000, p. 82) specific denominations for data units are chosen: Coding units
are the smallest content pieces which are collected and analyzed. These coding units are found
in context units. Within this specific research, the context units are represented by corporations’
official social media profiles (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and YouTube) and their respective
websites. The coding units are postings within social media profiles (in form of either images,
videos or texts, or the combination of these elements) or images, videos or texts or the
combination of these elements within the corporate website.
3.3.1.1. Websites
Data collected on corporate websites only stem from the first webpage which appears when
entering the corporate domain in a web browser. Data from other pages or subdomains within
the corporate domain will neither be extracted nor viewed. The coding units on the main page
may consist the following: individual pieces of text, images, videos, sliders, menu bars, etc. The
number of coding units per main corporate webpage, which comprise of one of the particular
elements, are limited to ten. Since numerous webpages comprise more than ten coding units,
the ones which seem the most relevant (due to position, size, etc.) are extracted and analyzed.
3.3.1.2. Social Media
In order to collect a set of relevant data which represents a corporation’s digital communication
strategy, only verified corporate social media pages are analyzed. The social media platforms
analyzed are the following: Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and YouTube. A verified corporate
social media page is identified by a blue mark next to the page name. The page name is usually
the corporation’s name. If a blue mark is not visible, the page that seems to be the official page
of the corporation is selected as the context unit. This is usually determined on the page by the
following indicators: available link to the company website, meaningful content that represents
the corporation’s business activities, overall professionalism, etc. If organizations used multiple
local versions of their social media profile, either an Austrian or German version is used. If such
version is not available, this context unit will not be further analyzed.
August 27, 2020 77/150
A fixed date of observation is determined The date of observation is June 8th 2020. A maximum
of ten postings per social media page are observed. The selected postings are determined by
the total number of interactions (such as likes, shares, comments, reactions, etc.). Within a time
period of 30 days (counting backwards from the date of observation), the top ten postings
regarding interaction count are selected. If there are less than ten postings on the social media
page within the 30 days time frame, then the total number of coding units is less than ten. A
posting is defined as a content piece on a social media page such as images, videos, links, texts
or a combination of these elements.
For the data extraction, the social media monitoring software Storyclash is used (see
https://www.storyclash.com). Storyclash is a software which allows the user to quickly and
efficiently extract relevant social media data of chosen sources. The user is able to select a
specific time frame, social media channels and interaction rates and can export the data easily
without having to visit every social media page separately.
The following interaction elements are used for the analysis: like, emoji reactions (“sad”, “angry”,
“wow”, “haha”, “love”, “hug”), comment, shares. Each user interaction with one of the elements
counts as one interaction. Therefore, a user may “like” and comment a posting which would be
considered as two interactions on this particular posting.
The following interaction elements are used for the analysis: likes, comments, and shares.
The following interaction elements are used for the analysis: likes, comments, retweets, and
shares on external platforms.
YouTube
The following interaction elements are used for the analysis: likes, dislikes, comments, and
shares on external platforms.
August 27, 2020 78/150
3.3.2. Indicators and evaluation methodology
The following describes analysis indicators in order to determine corporate communication
strategies and the corporations’ positioning on the competition-cooperation continuum. The four
corporate communication strategies analyzed are the following:
1. Internal & External communication strategy
2. Informational, Persuasive and Involvement strategies
3. Expertise, Image and Hybrid Strategies
4. Social Media Content Strategies
On corporate websites, ten coding units are defined. Each of these coding units is evaluated
individually. The dominant indicator for a specific corporate communication strategy and the
corporation’s competitive mode is taken into account. Consequently, the final evaluation of the
website is based on the sum of all indicators pointing towards specific corporate communication
strategies and the competitive mode.
On social media pages, each coding unit is also analyzed individually. Indicators for a specific
corporate communication strategy and the competitive mode are identified and assigned. This
process is done on up to a maximum of ten coding units within the context unit. The results were
summed up and the predominant communication strategy and competitive mode are
determined.
In order to determine an organization’s predominant corporate communication strategies and its
position on the competition-cooperation continuum, the previous assessments on the particular
context units are aggregated.
3.3.2.1. Indicators for internal and external communication strategy
Internal and external communication strategies and their indicators are differentiated in order to
be able to distinguish the stakeholder groups who are the recipients of the corporation’s
corporate communication.
August 27, 2020 79/150
3.3.2.1.a Indicators for internal communication strategy
Based on Welch and Jackson (2007), the following indicators are determined in order to identify
an internal corporate communication strategy:
Internal stakeholder Indicators: Internal communication strategy
Employee - Images and/or videos of the corporation’s
employees or events targeted at employees
- Text targeted at employees
Table 4: Internal stakeholder group and respective indicators
3.3.2.1.b Indicators for external communication strategy
Inspired by Cornelissen (2014) and Kim et al. (2014), the recipients of a corporation’s external
communication strategy (external stakeholder groups) and their corresponding indicators are
defined as the following:
External stakeholder Indicators: External communication strategy
Consumers / Customers Content portraying purchasable goods and/or services,
special offers, discounts
Non-governmental
organizations (NGOs)
Content portraying topics regarding protecting the
environment, promoting equality among society,
philanthropy, and other aspects regarding social
responsibility
Governmental institutions Content portraying conformity in respect to the local law
system regarding aspects such as trade compliance, labor,
health, environment, etc.
Shareholders Content portraying investor-oriented services and
information, financial data, share price, etc.
Potential employees Content portraying open job positions, events targeted at
potential employees, current employees persuading job
seekers to start a career at the respective organization,
career opportunities, etc.
Potential partners Content portraying the ambition to start new cooperations
with potential partners
Table 5: External stakeholder groups and respective indicators
August 27, 2020 80/150
3.3.2.2. Indicators for Informational, Persuasive and Involvement
Strategies
Based on Cornelissen (2011) and Morsing and Schultz (2006) the indicators for a corporation’s
choice of either informational, persuasive or involvement communication strategy are evaluated
separately for each of these three strategies.
3.3.2.2.a Indicators for Informational Strategy
The following table represents indicators for an informational corporate communication strategy:
Indicators: Informational Strategy
Content portraying several types of informative data such as numbers, graphs and figures
Content portraying scientific or other factual (third-party) proof of corporate activities
Content portraying general information without any provocative or persuading statements
and/or elements
Table 6: Informational strategy indicators
3.3.2.2.b Indicators for Persuasive Strategy
The following table represents indicators for a persuasive corporate communication strategy:
Indicators: Persuasive Strategy
Content portraying elements which are explicitly directed towards potential stakeholders
with the aim to persuade the stakeholder to either actively purchase a good or service or
submit personal data such as: Call to action buttons, data submission forms, link to a
webshop, discount announcements
Content portraying self-promotion by either the organization itself (such as advertisements)
or third parties (customer success stories, promotional customer quotes, etc.)
Table 7: Persuasive strategy indicators
3.3.2.2.c Indicators for Involvement Strategy
The following table represents indicators for an involvement corporate communication strategy:
August 27, 2020 81/150
Indicators: Involvement Strategy
Content aimed to provoke immediate involvement of stakeholders while giving the
stakeholder the possibility to do so such as: questions, appeals to comment a statement,
quizzes, links to discussion or chat forums
Job announcements with elements that actively promote the stakeholder’s involvement
Table 8: Involvement strategy indicators
3.3.2.3. Indicators for Expertise, Image and Hybrid Strategies
This chapter lists indicators for either expertise, image or hybrid communication strategies
separately. The indicators for all three strategies are based on Kim and Rader (2010).
3.3.2.3.a Indicators for Expertise Strategy
The following table represents indicators for a corporation’s expertise communication strategy:
Indicators: Expertise Strategy
Content portraying the corporation’s ability to ensure high quality products and/or services
Content portraying the corporation’s success due to its products and/or services
Content portraying the corporation’s quality control procedures, systems, tools and/or data
Content portraying the corporation’s influence on the industry and/or market due to its
products and/or services
Content portraying information about the corporation’s efforts and/or investments in
innovation and/or research and development
Content portraying stakeholders’ testimonials and success stories such as quotes and/or
case studies
Table 9: Expertise strategy indicators
3.3.2.3.b Indicators for Image Strategy
The following table represents indicators for a corporation’s image communication strategy:
August 27, 2020 82/150
Indicators: Image Strategy
Content portraying the corporation’s investments or other efforts in environmental
sustainability
Content portraying the corporation’s investments or other efforts in philanthropy
Content portraying the corporation’s investments or other efforts in education
Content portraying the corporation’s investments or other efforts in employee benefits such
as special employee discounts, educational programs, and other employee development
programs
Content portraying the corporation’s commitments in culture, entertainment, sports, and
similar activities
Content portraying the corporation’s general efforts to be a socially responsible part of
society
Table 10: Image strategy indicators
3.3.2.3.c Indicators for Hybrid Strategy
A hybrid corporate communication strategy exists when the coding or context unit contains
exactly 50% image-based indicators and 50% expertise-based indicators.
3.3.2.4. Indicators for Social Media Content Strategies
This chapter lists indicators for each social media content strategy based on Pan et al. (2019).
The four different firm-generated content message strategies are the following:
1. Informative vs. persuasive messaging
2. Soft-sell vs. hard-sell messaging
3. Backstage vs. frontstage messaging
4. Sales orientation vs. customer orientation (SOCO)
The following subchapters each list indicators for the respective social media content strategy
and dividing them again into each sub-strategy.
August 27, 2020 83/150
3.3.2.4.a Indicators for Informative vs. persuasive messaging
The following table represents indicators for informative messaging and persuasive messaging:
Indicators: Informative messaging Indicators: persuasive messaging
Content informing about prices Content communicating product or service
quality
Content informing about certain
characteristics of a product or service
Content aiming to increase consumers’
willingness to pay for a product or service
Content informing about the existence of a
product or service
Content aiming to differentiate the
corporation’s product or service from
competitors’ products and/or services
Table 11: Informative and persuasive messaging and respective indicators
3.3.2.4.b Indicators for soft-sell vs. hard-sell messaging
The following table represents indicators for a corporation’s soft-sell and hard-sell messaging
strategies:
Indicators: Soft-sell messaging Indicators: Hard-sell messaging
Content aiming to persuade consumers to
purchase a product or service by portraying
the actual use of the product or service
Content aiming to persuade consumers to
purchase a product or service by portraying
the inherent quality and the value of the
product itself
Content aiming to persuade consumers to
purchase a product or service in a subtle
way
Content aiming to persuade consumers to
purchase a product or service by directness
and forcefulness, eventually stressing
differences to competitors’ products and
services
Table 12: Soft-sell and hard-sell messaging and respective indicators
August 27, 2020 84/150
3.3.2.4.c Indicators for frontstage vs. backstage messaging
The following table represents indicators for a corporation’s frontstage and backstage
messaging strategies:
Indicators: Frontstage messaging Indicators: Backstage messaging
Content portrayed in a transparent and
easily understandable manner
Content portrayed aiming to mitigate the
recipient’s awareness of being influenced
by the message sender (i.e. placing a
product or brand at the end of an emotional
message)
Content openly communicating the
product’s or service’s characteristics and
quality
Table 13: Frontstage and backstage messaging and respective indicators
3.3.2.4.d Indicators for sales orientation vs. customer orientation messaging
The following table represents indicators for a corporation’s sales-oriented and customer-
oriented messaging strategy:
Indicators: Sales orientation messaging Indicators: Customer orientation
messaging
Content aiming to provoke consumers to
purchase a product or service while
consumers’ interests and satisfaction are
widely neglected
Content aiming to mirror or represent
consumers’ interests and satisfaction while
eventually sacrificing the immediate sale of
a product or service
Table 14: Sales and customer orientation and respective indicators
3.3.2.5. Indicators for competition and cooperation
This chapter lists indicators for coding units that indicate a corporation’s position on a
competition-cooperation continuum based on the literature review.
August 27, 2020 85/150
3.3.2.5.a Indicators for competition
The following table lists indicators for a corporation’s competitive behavior within the context of
digital corporate communication:
Indicators: Competition
Content communicating the differences and/or superiority of products and/or services
compared to competitors
Content communicating cost leadership
Table 15: Competition indicators
3.3.2.5.b Indicators for cooperation
The following table lists indicators for a corporation’s cooperative behavior:
Indicators: Cooperation
Content portraying current partnerships with other organizations such as suppliers,
governmental institutions, etc.
Content portraying the organization’s interest in engaging in new partnerships
Table 16: Cooperation indicators
August 27, 2020 86/150
4. Results
This chapter provides the results of this master’s thesis’ empirical research. Firstly, the
distribution and number of analyzed coding units is provided. Secondly, the dominant digital
communication strategies per analyzed corporation are presented. Here the results are then split
into respective context units in order to gain understanding about the derivation of the final
results. Thirdly, results concerning the dominant competitive mode of each corporation are
displayed. These results are also further split into respective context units where the results
stem from. It is pointed out that this chapter solely acts as a depiction of the results without any
further analyses and interpretations regarding correlations and possible hypotheses that may be
derived from the findings. However, these aspects are separately presented within the
subsequent chapter “Discussion”.
4.1. Distribution of coding units
The subsequent table lists the number and distribution of coding units analyzed within the
research process.
Corporation Number of analyzed coding units
Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube Website Total
Atos SE 10 6 10 5 10 41
Austro Holding GmbH 0 0 0 0 10 10
BRP-Rotax GmbH & Co KG 5 2 3 0 9 19
Doppler Group 0 0 0 0 10 10
Fronius International GmbH 6 5 10 1 10 32
Gebrüder Haider Group 0 0 0 0 4 4
Greiner AG 10 9 9 2 5 35
Hartlauer Handels GmbH 10 10 0 0 10 30
Hogast reg.Gen.m.b.H. 4 0 0 0 10 14
Kellner & Kunz AG 8 10 0 4 10 32
Kelly GmbH 7 7 0 1 10 25
Kremsmüller Holding GmbH 0 0 0 2 7 9
Lisec Holding GmbH 10 10 0 1 10 31
Melecs Holding GmbH 0 0 0 0 3 3
August 27, 2020 87/150
Corporation Number of analyzed coding units
Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube Website Total
Miele & Cie. KG 10 10 1 10 4 35
Österreichische Post AG 10 5 0 5 10 30
Palfinger AG 10 10 0 1 10 31
Red Bull GmbH 10 10 10 10 10 50
Samsung Group 4 9 0 1 10 24
Spitz S. GmbH 5 0 0 0 9 14
Starlinger & Co GmbH 9 0 9 0 5 23
Trenkwalder International AG 0 10 3 0 10 23
T-Systems MMS GmbH 10 1 10 5 10 36
Voestalpine AG 1 0 4 4 10 19
Welser Profile Austria GmbH 6 0 0 0 9 15
Total 145 114 69 52 215 595
Table 17: Distribution and number of analyzed coding units per corporations and context unit
A total of 595 coding units were analyzed within the research. As shown in table 17, some
corporations did not possess the maximum amount of 10 coding units per context unit due to
irrelevant coding units and/or non-existent coding units within the timeframe of observation.
4.2. Digital corporate communication strategy results
The following subchapters present the dominant digital corporate communication strategies of
each of the 25 corporations. Starting with the dominant cross-platform strategies (meaning the
four analyzed social media platforms plus websites), these results are then divided into dominant
strategies on social media platforms on the one hand and respective websites on the other
hand.
4.2.1. Dominant digital corporate communication strategies
The dominant digital corporate communication strategies per corporation are derived from each
corporation’s dominant strategies on the four social media platforms plus its respective website
and are represented by the following table.
August 27, 2020 88/150
Corporations Stakeholder- based strategy
Objective-based strategy
Content-based strategy Social media content strategies
Atos SE External Persuasive Expertise Persuasive Soft-sell Frontstage Sales orientation
Austro Holding GmbH External Informational Expertise Informative Soft-sell Backstage Customer orientation
BRP-Rotax GmbH & Co KG External Informational / Persuasive Expertise
Informative / Persuasive Soft-sell Frontstage Sales orientation
Doppler Group External Persuasive / Involvement Expertise Persuasive Soft-sell Frontstage Sales orientation
Fronius International GmbH External
Informational / Involvement Expertise Persuasive Soft-sell
Backstage / Frontstage Sales orientation / Customer orientation
Gebrüder Haider Group External Informational / Persuasive Expertise Persuasive Soft-sell Backstage Sales orientation
Greiner AG External Informational Hybrid Informative / Persuasive Soft-sell
Backstage / Frontstage Customer orientation
Hartlauer Handels GmbH External Persuasive Expertise Persuasive Hard-sell Frontstage Sales orientation
Hogast reg.Gen.m.b.H. External Persuasive Hybrid Persuasive
Soft-sell / Hard-sell Frontstage Sales orientation
Kellner & Kunz AG External Persuasive Expertise Persuasive Soft-sell / Hard-sell Frontstage Sales orientation
Kelly GmbH External Persuasive Expertise Persuasive Soft-sell Frontstage Sales orientation
Kremsmüller Holding GmbH External Persuasive / Involvement Expertise
Informative / Persuasive Soft-sell
Backstage / Frontstage Sales orientation / Customer orientation
Lisec Holding GmbH External Persuasive / Involvement Expertise Informative / Persuasive Soft-sell Backstage Customer orientation
Melecs Holding GmbH External Persuasive / Involvement Expertise Informative Soft-sell Frontstage Sales orientation
Miele & Cie. KG External Persuasive Expertise Persuasive Soft-sell Frontstage Sales orientation / Customer orientation
August 27, 2020 89/150
Corporations Stakeholder- based strategy
Objective-based strategy
Content-based strategy Social media content strategies
Österreichische Post AG External Persuasive / Involvement Expertise Persuasive Soft-sell
Backstage / Frontstage Sales orientation / Customer orientation
Palfinger AG External Informational / Persuasive / Involvement Expertise Persuasive Soft-sell Frontstage Sales orientation / Customer orientation
Red Bull GmbH External Persuasive Expertise Persuasive Soft-sell Frontstage Sales orientation
Samsung Group External Persuasive Hybrid Persuasive Soft-sell Backstage Sales orientation / Customer orientation
Spitz S. GmbH External Informational / Persuasive Hybrid Persuasive Soft-sell Backstage / Frontstage Sales orientation / Customer orientation
Starlinger & Co GmbH External
Informational / Persuasive / Involvement Expertise Persuasive Soft-sell Backstage Sales orientation / Customer orientation
Trenkwalder International AG External
Informational / Persuasive / Involvement Expertise Persuasive Soft-sell Frontstage Sales orientation
T-Systems MMS GmbH External Persuasive Expertise Persuasive
Soft-sell / Hard-sell
Backstage / Frontstage Sales orientation / Customer orientation
Voestalpine AG External Informational Expertise Informative Soft-sell Backstage Customer orientation
Welser Profile Austria GmbH External Persuasive Expertise Persuasive Soft-sell Frontstage Sales orientation
Table 18: Dominant digital corporate communication strategies per corporation
August 27, 2020 90/150
The table above represents each corporation’s dominant digital corporate communication
strategies across social media and websites. It is important to point out that the corporations
tend to have a mix of strategies and do not usually follow one particular strategy across all
channels. This has also been found in Bobocel’s (2019, p. 98) empirical research and is again
apparent in the research conducted within this master’s thesis. However, the above depicts the
strategies that are present the most for each corporation.
The observed corporations all follow an external corporate communication strategy as they
primarily target external stakeholders across all observed channels. This may be due to the very
nature of the observed channels to be primarily designed to target external stakeholders. Within
the objective-based strategies the vast majority of corporations tend to follow a persuasive
strategy either by self-promotion or the provision of call-to-action buttons and similar elements to
steer the viewer towards a purchase. Regarding content-based strategies, it has been observed
that the majority of corporations follow an expertise strategy, communicating their ability to
provide high quality products. However, four corporations are found to have a mix of expertise
and image strategies, hence following a hybrid strategy. Regarding the corporate social media
messaging strategies, the majority focuses on a persuasive and soft-sell approach. This was
clear through persuading potential customers to pay for the presented products while the actual
use of the products was openly depicted. Frontstage and backstage social media content
strategies are used in an interchangeable manner, hence no major direction towards one
particular strategy can be observed. Nonetheless, the majority of corporations tends to use a
sales orientation approach when it comes to their messaging. However, some corporations do
focus primarily on customer orientation, sacrificing immediate sales, due to either the complex
nature of their products and/or trust that needs to be established beforehand in order to secure a
lasting relationship between buyer and seller.
4.2.2. Social media digital corporate communication results
This chapter presents corporations’ dominant digital corporate communication strategies on
social media. For this analysis the following four context units were observed: Facebook,
Instagram, Twitter, Youtube. Firstly, each corporations’ dominant strategies across the four
context units are presented. Secondly, each corporation’s dominant strategies on each of the
four context units are presented. Finally, on each of the context units, the distribution in percent
is also depicted.
August 27, 2020 91/150
4.2.2.1. Dominant digital corporate communication strategies on social media
per corporation
This chapter represents each corporation’s dominant communication strategies on social media
context units. Since four corporations either did not have a social media account on the
observed context units at the date of observation, or there were no observable coding units
within the timeframe of observation, this sample only consists of 21 corporations. Table 19
represents the dominant digital corporate communication strategies across the analyzed social
media platforms for these corporations.
It can be observed that regarding stakeholder-based strategies, there is no difference to
corporations’ total communication strategies depicted in table 18. Concerning objective-based
strategies, a persuasive approach is also the dominating strategy. However, content-based
strategies differ slightly on social media as three corporations use a hybrid and three use an
image strategy across their social media channels. Regarding social media content strategies, a
persuasive approach seems to be predominantly utilized as well as soft-selling. Within the social
media context units, a more significant direction towards frontstage messaging could be
observed with 13 corporations using this strategy, 7 using backstage messaging and 1
corporation using a mix of frontstage and backstage messaging. Regarding corporations’
tendencies towards either a sales oriented or customer oriented messaging approach, the
results show that the strategies are evenly distributed since 8 corporations follow sales
orientation, 8 use a customer oriented approach and 4 use a mix of both across their social
media channels. For one corporation, no significant tendencies towards either sales nor
customer orientation could be identified in all social media coding units.
August 27, 2020 92/150
Corporations Stakeholder- based strategy Objective-based strategy
Content-based strategy Social media content strategies
Atos SE External Persuasive Expertise Persuasive Soft-sell Frontstage Sales orientation / Customer orientation
BRP-Rotax GmbH & Co KG External Informational Expertise Informative Soft-sell Frontstage
Fronius International GmbH External Informational Hybrid Persuasive Soft-sell Backstage Customer orientation
Greiner AG External Informational Hybrid Persuasive Soft-sell Frontstage Sales orientation / Customer orientation
Hartlauer Handels GmbH External Persuasive / Informational Expertise Persuasive
Soft-sell / Hard-sell Frontstage Sales orientation
Hogast reg.Gen.m.b.H. External Persuasive Image Persuasive Hard-sell Frontstage Sales orientation
Kellner & Kunz AG External Persuasive Expertise Persuasive Hard-sell Frontstage Sales orientation
Kelly GmbH External Persuasive Expertise Persuasive Soft-sell Frontstage Sales orientation / Customer orientation
Kremsmüller Holding GmbH External Persuasive Expertise Persuasive Soft-sell Frontstage Sales orientation
Lisec Holding GmbH External Persuasive Expertise Persuasive Soft-sell Backstage Customer orientation
Miele & Cie. KG External Persuasive Expertise Persuasive Soft-sell Frontstage Customer orientation
Österreichische Post AG External Persuasive Expertise Persuasive Soft-sell Backstage Customer orientation
Palfinger AG External Informational Expertise Persuasive Soft-sell Frontstage Customer orientation
Red Bull GmbH External Persuasive Expertise Persuasive Soft-sell Frontstage Sales orientation
August 27, 2020 93/150
Corporations Stakeholder- based strategy Objective-based strategy
Content-based strategy Social media content strategies
Samsung Group External Persuasive / Involvement Image Persuasive Soft-sell Backstage Sales orientation
Spitz S. GmbH External Persuasive Image Persuasive Soft-sell Frontstage Sales orientation
Starlinger & Co GmbH External Persuasive / Involvement Hybrid Persuasive Soft-sell Backstage Customer orientation
Trenkwalder International AG External Persuasive / Involvement Expertise Persuasive Soft-sell Backstage / Frontstage
Sales orientation / Customer orientation
T-Systems MMS GmbH External Persuasive Expertise Persuasive Soft-sell Backstage Customer orientation
Voestalpine AG External Informational / Persuasive / Involvement Expertise
Informative / Persuasive Soft-sell Backstage Customer orientation
Welser Profile Austria GmbH External Persuasive Expertise Persuasive
Soft-sell / Hard-sell Frontstage Sales orientation
Table 19: Dominant communication strategies per corporation on analyzed social media platforms
August 27, 2020 94/150
4.2.2.2. Distribution of digital corporate communication strategies per social
media context unit
Within this chapter a distribution of the communication strategies on each of the social media
context units is presented. This step is done in order to show more detailed information on how
the results within table 19 are compiled.
4.2.2.2.a Digital corporate communication strategy distribution on
The following table represents each corporation’s strategy distribution on its respective
Facebook channel. The dominant strategy is determined as the one having the highest
percentage, since this showed to have the highest number of indicators for this specific strategy.
It can be observed that some corporations have a strategy distribution of 0%. This can be traced
back to the fact that no significant indicators for this particular strategy have been identified on
the coding units within the timeframe of observation. If the distribution of a strategy is exactly
50% and 50% respectively to the sub-strategy, then the dominant strategy is determined to be a
mix of the two sub-strategies. Which corporations use a mix of sub-strategies can be easier
viewed in table 19.
As depicted within table 20, an external stakeholder-based strategy is mainly used, where
between 76 and 100 percent of the communication on Facebook was steered towards external
stakeholders. Surprisingly, there was still one corporation who targeted internal stakeholders
60% of the time, hence following an internal stakeholder-based strategy on Facebook.
Concerning objective-based strategies, three corporations use the platform to solely inform
stakeholders without any persuasion. The rest of the sample utilized persuasion and
involvement elements in order to communicate with the target audience. An expertise-based
strategy was predominantly used by most of the corporations as well as persuasive content
messaging. Moreover, the majority of corporations used soft-sell messaging solely. Only 6
corporations used hard-sell tactics. In regards to backstage and frontstage messaging, 7
corporations follow the former and 12 the latter form of messaging strategy predominantly.
Concerning the last two sub-strategies, three corporations did not use any of them, while 7 were
sales-oriented and 8 customer-oriented. Therefore, no significant differences could be observed.
August 27, 2020 95/150
Corporations Stakeholder-based strategy Objective-based strategy Content-based strategy Social Media Content Strategies
Internal External Informational Persuasive Involvement Expertise Image Hybrid Informative Persuasive Soft-sell
Hard-sell Backstage Frontstage
Sales orientation
Customer orientation
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Atos SE 33% 67% 58% 8% 33% 67% 17% 17% 80% 20% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0%
BRP-Rotax GmbH & Co KG 0% 100% 71% 0% 29% 0% 0% 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0%
Fronius International GmbH 14% 86% 100% 0% 0% 50% 50% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0%
Greiner AG 30% 70% 100% 0% 0% 30% 40% 30% 60% 40% 100% 0% 25% 75% 0% 100%
Hartlauer Handels GmbH 0% 100% 0% 75% 25% 100% 0% 0% 25% 75% 22% 78% 0% 100% 89% 11%
Hogast reg.Gen.m.b.H. 0% 100% 25% 50% 25% 0% 75% 25% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 66% 33%
Kellner & Kunz AG 0% 100% 22% 67% 11% 71% 29% 0% 0% 100% 20% 80% 20% 80% 100% 0%
Kelly GmbH 0% 100% 0% 75% 25% 66% 33% 0% 50% 50% 100% 0% 33% 66% 33% 66%
Lisec Holding GmbH 0% 100% 40% 10% 50% 89% 11% 0% 66% 33% 100% 0% 80% 20% 0% 100%
Miele & Cie. KG 0% 100% 0% 83% 17% 88% 0% 12% 0% 100% 100% 0% 30% 70% 38% 62%
Österreichische Post AG 9% 91% 58% 8% 33% 14% 43% 43% 25% 75% 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100%
Palfinger AG 30% 70% 56% 33% 11% 89% 11% 0% 17% 83% 100% 0% 20% 80% 17% 83%
Red Bull GmbH 0% 100% 18% 64% 18% 83% 17% 0% 0% 100% 100% 0% 78% 22% 67% 33%
August 27, 2020 96/150
Corporations Stakeholder-based strategy Objective-based strategy Content-based strategy Social Media Content Strategies
Samsung Group 0% 100% 25% 25% 50% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 66% 33% 66% 33% 50% 50%
Spitz S. GmbH 60% 40% 0% 66% 33% 40% 60% 0% 0% 100% 100% 0% 0% 100% 100% 0%
Starlinger & Co GmbH 0% 100% 15% 46% 38% 33% 11% 56% 17% 83% 100% 0% 88% 13% 17% 83%
T-Systems MMS GmbH 0% 100% 0% 59% 41% 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 30% 70% 20% 80% 100% 0%
Voestalpine AG 0% 100% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100%
Welser Profile Austria GmbH 17% 83% 17% 83% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 50% 50% 0% 100% 80% 20%
Table 20: Distribution of digital corporate communication strategies on Facebook
August 27, 2020 97/150
4.2.2.2.b Digital corporate communication strategy distribution on
On Instagram, only 15 corporations had a relevant presence with at least one social media
posting within the timeframe of observation. Again, most of the corporations used external
stakeholder communication. However, it could be observed that 8 corporations used internal
communication at least once. Concerning the objective-based approach, 8 corporations used the
persuasive strategy predominantly and 5 only using Instagram as a platform for their
informational strategy. Two thirds of the corporations used an expertise strategy primarily and
only one corporation used an image strategy as its dominant content-based strategy. The
majority of corporations incorporated a persuasive social media content strategy and a soft-sell
approach. 5 corporations were found to predominantly use backstage messaging and 8 used
frontstage messaging.
Table 21 represents the strategy distribution per corporation in detail.
August 27, 2020 98/150
Corporation Stakeholder-based strategy Objective-based strategy Content-based strategy Social Media Content Strategies
Internal External Informational Persuasive Involvement Expertise Image Hybrid Informative Persuasive Soft-sell
Hard-sell Backstage Frontstage
Sales orientation
Customer orientation
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Atos SE 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
BRP-Rotax GmbH & Co KG 0% 100% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0%
Fronius International GmbH 17% 86% 100% 0% 0% 50% 50% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100%
Greiner AG 22% 70% 83% 17% 0% 33% 33% 33% 50% 50% 100% 0% 25% 75% 0% 100%
Hartlauer Handels GmbH 0% 100% 0% 45% 55% 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 78% 22% 40% 60% 50% 50%
Kellner & Kunz AG 45% 55% 10% 60% 30% 33% 66% 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 100% 0%
Kelly GmbH 0% 100% 0% 78% 22% 100% 0% 0% 17% 83% 86% 14% 43% 57% 50% 50%
Lisec Holding GmbH 33% 66% 18% 55% 27% 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 0% 43% 57% 86% 14%
Miele & Cie. KG 0% 100% 25% 75% 0% 75% 0% 25% 0% 100% 100% 0% 44% 56% 44% 56%
Österreichische Post AG 0% 100% 20% 40% 40% 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 0% 100% 0% 25% 75%
Palfinger AG 20% 80% 55% 36% 9% 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 0% 30% 70% 30% 70%
Red Bull GmbH 0% 100% 0% 63% 37% 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 60% 40% 40% 60% 80% 20%
Samsung Group 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 0% 75% 25% 50% 50%
Trenkwalder International AG 20% 80% 10% 70% 20% 57% 43% 0% 0% 100% 83% 17% 78% 22% 25% 75%
T-Systems MMS GmbH 50% 50% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Table 21: Distribution of digital corporate communication strategies on Instagram
August 27, 2020 99/150
4.2.2.2.c Digital corporate communication strategy distribution on
On Twitter, 11 corporations had enough presence and coding units within the timeframe of
observation. The results concerning the distribution of digital corporate communication strategies
on this particular platform are presented on table 22.
From the observed corporations, only three had some elements of internal stakeholder
communication, however, not to a significant degree. Therefore, all of the corporations on Twitter
predominantly used the platform to target external stakeholders. Concerning objective-based
strategies, only two corporations used an informational strategy, and two a persuasive strategy
as their dominant strategy. The rest either used an involvement strategy or a mix of persuasive
and involvement strategy. Out of the 11 corporations, 9 followed an expertise-based content
strategy and also a majority incorporated persuasive content messaging on Twitter.
Furthermore, a majority utilized soft-sell messaging and slightly more than half of them engaged
in backstage messaging. Also, sales orientation versus customer orientation messaging
strategies are almost evenly distributed amongst the corporations.
4.2.2.2.d Digital corporate communication strategy distribution on
Youtube
Within this research there were 15 corporations with enough presence on Youtube to be
analyzed. All of those corporations, except one, targeted external stakeholders through their
communication and 12 utilized a persuasive objective-based strategy. Again, expertise
communication is the preferred strategy of most of the analyzed corporations, while
simultaneously using persuasive messaging. The majority of corporations followed a soft-sell
strategy when it came to promoting their products and services. 9 corporations engaged in
frontstage messaging and 4 in backstage messaging. 6 corporations were customer oriented in
their messaging on Youtube, while 7 were mostly sales oriented. These results are depicted in
more detail on table 23.
August 27, 2020 100/150
Corporations Stakeholder-based strategy Objective-based strategy Content-based strategy Social Media Content Strategies
Internal External Informational Persuasive Involvement Expertise Image Hybrid Informative Persuasive Soft-sell
Hard-sell Backstage Frontstage
Sales orientation
Customer orientation
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Atos SE 0% 100% 11% 44% 44% 100% 0% 0% 10% 90% 88% 12% 80% 20% 67% 33%
BRP-Rotax GmbH & Co KG 0% 100% 50% 25% 25% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0%
Fronius International GmbH 9% 91% 6% 50% 44% 80% 10% 10% 0% 100% 89% 11% 67% 33% 33% 67%
Greiner AG 11% 89% 45% 36% 18% 56% 11% 33% 14% 86% 100% 0% 71% 29% 57% 43%
Miele & Cie. KG 0% 100% 0% 50% 50% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Red Bull GmbH 0% 100% 0% 50% 50% 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 90% 10% 44% 56% 100% 0%
Starlinger & Co GmbH 0% 100% 8% 25% 67% 11% 22% 67% 43% 57% 100% 0% 86% 14% 25% 75%
Trenkwalder International AG 0% 100% 0% 40% 60% 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 67% 33% 33% 67% 67% 33%
T-Systems MMS GmbH 0% 100% 5% 45% 50% 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 80% 20% 60% 40% 20% 80%
Voestalpine AG 0% 100% 20% 0% 80% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100%
Welser Profile Austria GmbH 17% 83% 17% 83% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 50% 50% 0% 100% 80% 20%
Table 22: Distribution of digital corporate communication strategies on Twitter
August 27, 2020 101/150
Corporations Stakeholder-based strategy Objective-based strategy Content-based strategy Social Media Content Strategies
Internal External Informational Persuasive Involvement Expertise Image Hybrid Informative Persuasive Soft-sell
Hard-sell Backstage Frontstage
Sales orientation
Customer orientation
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Atos SE 11% 89% 0% 80% 20% 88% 0% 12% 12% 88% 100% 0% 25% 75% 14% 86%
BRP-Rotax GmbH & Co KG 0% 100% 71% 0% 29% 0% 0% 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0%
Fronius International GmbH 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Greiner AG 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% 100% 0% 0% 100% 100% 0%
Kellner & Kunz AG 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 0% 0% 100% 100% 0%
Kelly GmbH 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 0% 0% 100% 100% 0%
Kremsmüller Holding GmbH 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 0% 0% 100% 100% 0%
Lisec Holding GmbH 50% 50% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100%
Miele & Cie. KG 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100%
Österreichische Post AG 0% 100% 0% 56% 44% 80% 0% 20% 0% 100% 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100%
Palfinger AG 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 0% 0% 100% 100% 0%
Red Bull GmbH 0% 100% 0% 67% 33% 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 0% 40% 60% 40% 60%
Samsung Group 0% 100% 0% 50% 50% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 50% 50% 0% 100% 100% 0%
August 27, 2020 102/150
Corporations Stakeholder-based strategy Objective-based strategy Content-based strategy Social Media Content Strategies
T-Systems MMS GmbH 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100%
Voestalpine AG 33% 67% 0% 100% 0% 50% 0% 50% 0% 100% 100% 0% 50% 50% 100% 0%
Table 23: Distribution of digital corporate communication strategies on Youtube
August 27, 2020 103/150
4.2.3. Websites digital corporate communication results
This chapter presents corporations’ dominant digital corporate communication strategies on their
respective websites and the strategies’ distribution.
4.2.3.1. Dominant digital corporate communication strategies on
websites
Each corporation’s dominant digital corporate communication strategies were analyzed on the
corporations’ respective websites. As all corporations who made up the sample for this research
possessed a website with enough relevant content within the timeframe of observation, results
were found for all 25 of them. Table 24 is a representation of the corporations’ dominant
strategies on websites. It is pointed out that even though social media content strategies, as
presented within chapter 2.1.3.4., are understood as messaging strategies used on social media
platforms only, the strategies have been also analyzed on corporations’ websites due to the
sample’s characteristics of consisting mostly of business-to-business corporations.
Similar to dominant communication strategies on social media, also on websites the
corporations tend to address external stakeholders. Regarding objective-based strategies, 8
corporations predominantly used their websites in order to persuade the viewer, 6 mainly
informing them, while the rest of the sample used either a mix or an involvement strategy. All
corporations were found to execute an expertise strategy. 19 of the 25 corporations used
persuasive messaging and 21 engaged in soft selling. 16 corporations were found to be very
open about their messaging, hence using frontstage tactics and sales orientation. Chapter
4.2.3.2. addresses the distributions of the analyzed digital corporate communication strategies
on the corporations’ websites.
August 27, 2020 104/150
Corporations Stakeholder- based strategy Objective-based strategy
Content-based strategy Social media content strategies
Atos SE External Persuasive Expertise Persuasive Soft-sell Frontstage Sales orientation
Austro Holding GmbH External Informational Expertise Informative Soft-sell Backstage
Customer orientation
BRP-Rotax GmbH & Co KG External Persuasive Expertise Persuasive Soft-sell Frontstage Sales orientation
Doppler Group External Persuasive / Involvement Expertise Persuasive Soft-sell Frontstage Sales orientation
Fronius International GmbH External Involvement Expertise Persuasive Soft-sell Frontstage Sales orientation
Gebrüder Haider Group External
Informational / Persuasive / Involvement Expertise Persuasive Soft-sell Backstage Sales orientation
Greiner AG External Informational Expertise Informative Soft-sell Backstage Customer orientation
Hartlauer Handels GmbH External Persuasive Expertise Persuasive Hard-sell Frontstage Sales orientation
Hogast reg.Gen.m.b.H. External Persuasive Expertise Persuasive Soft-sell Frontstage Sales orientation
Kellner & Kunz AG External Persuasive Expertise Persuasive Soft-sell Frontstage Sales orientation
Kelly GmbH External Persuasive Expertise Persuasive Soft-sell Frontstage Sales orientation
Kremsmüller Holding GmbH External Involvement Expertise Informative Soft-sell Backstage
Customer orientation
Lisec Holding GmbH External Involvement Expertise Informative Soft-sell Backstage Customer orientation
Melecs Holding GmbH External Persuasive / Involvement Expertise Informative Soft-sell Frontstage Sales orientation
Miele & Cie. KG External Persuasive / Involvement Expertise Persuasive Soft-sell Frontstage Sales orientation
Österreichische Post AG External Involvement Expertise Persuasive Soft-sell Frontstage Sales orientation
August 27, 2020 105/150
Corporations Stakeholder- based strategy Objective-based strategy
Content-based strategy Social media content strategies
Palfinger AG External Persuasive / Involvement Expertise Persuasive Soft-sell Frontstage Sales orientation
Red Bull GmbH External Persuasive / Involvement Expertise Persuasive Soft-sell Frontstage Sales orientation
Samsung Group External Informational / Persuasive / Involvement Expertise Persuasive Soft-sell Backstage
Customer orientation
Spitz S. GmbH External Informational Expertise Persuasive Soft-sell Backstage Customer orientation
Starlinger & Co GmbH External Informational Expertise Persuasive - Backstage Sales orientation
Trenkwalder International AG External Informational Expertise Persuasive Soft-sell Frontstage Sales orientation
T-Systems MMS GmbH External Persuasive Expertise Persuasive Hard-sell Frontstage Sales orientation
Voestalpine AG External Informational Expertise Informative - Backstage / Frontstage
Customer orientation
Welser Profile Austria GmbH External Persuasive Expertise Persuasive Soft-sell Frontstage Sales orientation
Table 24: Dominant communication strategies per corporation on websites
August 27, 2020 106/150
4.2.3.2. Distribution of digital corporate communication strategies per website and corporation
Table 25 represents the distribution of digital corporate communication strategies on websites
per corporation. Even though all corporations used an external communication strategy, it can
be observed that some still incorporated some elements addressed to internal stakeholders.
Concerning the persuasive strategy, which was used the most by corporations on their websites,
it can be observed that the distribution is relatively evenly spread out. Corporations seldomly
were found to focus solely on one particular form concerning their objective-based strategy.
Concerning content-based strategies, corporations do tend to focus heavily on one strategy with
some exceptions. As on social media, most corporations followed an expertise-focused strategy.
6 corporations incorporated informative messaging on their website while 18 used persuasive
messaging. All analyzed corporate websites, except one, focused on a soft-sell approach while
15 corporations focused on frontstage messaging. 9 corporations utilized the backstage
approach with their messaging. 18 out of the 25 analyzed corporations focused on sales on their
website while the rest was mainly customer oriented.
Concluding, it can be stated that the analyzed corporations tend to target external stakeholders
primarily. The objective of the communication is to persuade stakeholders for the most part,
while the content is often related to the corporations’ expertise and quality of their products and
services. In regard to messaging strategies, the majority tends to persuade stakeholders and
using soft sell tactics. The corporations also tend to use frontstage messaging while focusing on
sales.
Differences and similarities between corporations’ choices of strategies on social media and
websites, are elaborated in more detail within the chapter “Discussion”.
August 27, 2020 107/150
Corporations Stakeholder-based strategy Objective-based strategy Content-based strategy Social Media Content Strategies
Internal External Informational Persuasive Involvement Expertise Image Hybrid Informative Persuasive Soft-sell
Hard-sell Backstage Frontstage
Sales orientation
Customer orientation
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Atos SE 0% 100% 0% 77% 23% 90% 0% 10% 30% 70% 100% 0% 0% 100% 100% 0%
Austro Holding GmbH 9% 91% 91% 0% 9% 100% 0% 0% 90% 10% 100% 0% 100% 0% 22% 78%
BRP-Rotax GmbH & Co KG 0% 100% 7% 53% 40% 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 63% 37% 12% 88% 88% 12%
Doppler Group 0% 100% 0% 50% 50% 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 0% 0% 100% 100% 0%
Fronius International GmbH 29% 71% 18% 38% 44% 78% 11% 11% 44% 56% 100% 0% 20% 80% 67% 33%
Gebrüder Haider Group 20% 80% 33% 33% 33% 75% 25% 0% 50% 50% 100% 0% 75% 25% 100% 0%
Greiner AG 17% 83% 42% 29% 29% 40% 20% 40% 75% 25% 100% 0% 75% 25% 25% 75%
Hartlauer Handels GmbH 0% 100% 0% 53% 47% 100% 0% 0% 38% 62% 20% 80% 10% 90% 90% 10%
Hogast reg.Gen.m.b.H. 17% 83% 6% 50% 44% 70% 20% 10% 10% 90% 78% 22% 40% 60% 60% 40%
Kellner & Kunz AG 23% 77% 6% 50% 44% 70% 20% 10% 44% 56% 71% 29% 22% 78% 70% 30%
Kelly GmbH 0% 100% 0% 91% 9% 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 0% 10% 90% 90% 10%
Kremsmüller Holding GmbH 0% 100% 40% 10% 50% 89% 11% 0% 67% 33% 100% 0% 80% 20% 0% 100%
Lisec Holding GmbH 0% 100% 31% 31% 38% 100% 0% 0% 78% 22% 100% 0% 78% 22% 10% 90%
Melecs Holding GmbH 0% 100% 20% 40% 40% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0%
Miele & Cie. KG 0% 100% 0% 50% 50% 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100% 0% 0% 100% 100% 0%
August 27, 2020 108/150
Corporations Stakeholder-based strategy Objective-based strategy Content-based strategy Social Media Content Strategies
Österreichische Post AG 17% 83% 0% 47% 53% 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 64% 36% 10% 90% 73% 27%
Palfinger AG 9% 91% 24% 38% 38% 90% 0% 10% 14% 86% 83% 17% 30% 70% 89% 11%
Red Bull GmbH 0% 100% 0% 50% 50% 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 53% 47% 10% 90% 100% 0%
Samsung Group 9% 91% 33% 33% 33% 90% 10% 0% 0% 100% 100% 0% 90% 10% 10% 90%
Spitz S. GmbH 0% 100% 50% 25% 25% 78% 11% 11% 0% 100% 67% 33% 78% 22% 29% 71%
Starlinger & Co GmbH 0% 100% 80% 0% 20% 80% 20% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 67% 33%
Trenkwalder International AG 0% 100% 73% 18% 9% 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 88% 12% 10% 90% 100% 0%
T-Systems MMS GmbH 0% 100% 19% 44% 37% 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 40% 60% 10% 90% 90% 10%
Voestalpine AG 0% 100% 90% 0% 10% 83% 17% 0% 83% 17% 0% 0% 50% 50% 0% 100%
Welser Profile Austria GmbH 0% 100% 9% 73% 18% 89% 0% 11% 0% 100% 100% 0% 22% 78% 100% 0%
Table 25: Distribution of digital corporate communication strategies on Websites
August 27, 2020 109/150
4.3. Competitive modes and digital corporate communication
The following section the empirical research comprises an analysis and assessment of
corporations’ tendencies towards a competitive mode – either competition, cooperation or a
hybrid of the two forms – regarding corporations’ digital communication on social media and their
respective websites. The following sub-chapters present the interpretations of corporations’
competitive modes across all analyzed context units, whereas chapter 4.3.2. dives into the
predominant competitive mode per corporation on each context unit.
4.3.1. Interpretation of corporations’ dominant competitive mode regarding
digital corporate communication
The interpretation of corporations’ dominant competitive mode was undertaken in a similar
fashion as dominant corporate communication strategies were assessed within the previous
chapters. On each context unit, indicators defined in chapters 3.3.2.5.a and 3.3.2.5.b were
identified and assigned. A dominant competitive mode was assigned to a corporation when a
majority of indicators were assigned to a specific competitive mode.
Table 26 is a representation of corporations’ dominant competitive mode regarding each
corporation’s entire digital communication. Out of the sample of 25 corporations, 19 of them
were assessed as communicating in a competitive manner. 3 corporations tended to be more
cooperative regarding their digital corporate communication. Another 3 corporations were found
to be positioned in a hybrid form between competition and cooperation.
The following sub-chapter examines the dominant competitive modes per corporation in more
detail by breaking down the results into the context units.
August 27, 2020 110/150
Corporation Total Digital Corporate Communication
Atos SE Competition
Austro Holding GmbH Cooperation
BRP-Rotax GmbH & Co KG Cooperation
Doppler Group Competition
Fronius International GmbH Competition
Gebrüder Haider Group Competition
Greiner AG Competition
Hartlauer Handels GmbH Competition
Hogast reg.Gen.m.b.H. Competition/Cooperation
Kellner & Kunz AG Competition
Kelly GmbH Competition
Kremsmüller Holding GmbH Competition
Lisec Holding GmbH Competition
Melecs Holding GmbH Competition
Miele & Cie. KG Competition
Österreichische Post AG Competition/Cooperation
Palfinger AG Competition/Cooperation
Red Bull GmbH Competition
Samsung Group Competition
Spitz S. GmbH Competition
Starlinger & Co GmbH Competition
Trenkwalder International AG Cooperation
T-Systems MMS GmbH Competition
Voestalpine AG Competition
Welser Profile Austria GmbH Competition
Table 26: Dominant competitive mode per corporation regarding digital corporate communication across context units
4.3.2. Interpretation of corporations’ dominant competitive mode per context
unit
The following table represents dominant competitive modes per corporations’ websites and
social media platforms. The reason for this separation is to identify potential differences between
the platforms.
August 27, 2020 111/150
Corporation Website Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube
Atos SE Competition Competition - Cooperation Competition
Austro Holding GmbH Cooperation - - - -
BRP-Rotax GmbH & Co KG Competition Cooperation Cooperation Competition Cooperation
Doppler Group Competition - - - -
Fronius International GmbH Competition
Competition / Cooperation
Competition / Cooperation Competition Cooperation
Gebrüder Haider Group Competition - - - -
Greiner AG Competition Cooperation Competition / Cooperation Competition Competition
Hartlauer Handels GmbH Competition Cooperation Competition - -
Hogast reg.Gen.m.b.H. Competition Cooperation - - -
Kellner & Kunz AG Competition - Competition - Competition
Kelly GmbH Competition Competition Competition - Competition
Kremsmüller Holding GmbH Competition - - - Competition
Lisec Holding GmbH Competition Competition
Competition / Cooperation - Competition
Melecs Holding GmbH Competition - - - -
Miele & Cie. KG Competition Competition Competition Cooperation Competition
Österreichische Post AG Competition Cooperation Cooperation - Competition
Palfinger AG Competition Cooperation Cooperation - Competition
Red Bull GmbH Competition Competition Competition Competition / Cooperation Cooperation
Samsung Group Competition Competition Cooperation - Competition
Spitz S. GmbH Competition Competition - - -
Starlinger & Co GmbH Competition Competition -
Competition / Cooperation -
Trenkwalder International AG Competition - Cooperation Cooperation -
T-Systems MMS GmbH Competition
Competition / Cooperation -
Competition / Cooperation Competition
Voestalpine AG Competition Competition - Competition Competition
Welser Profile Austria GmbH Competition Competition - Competition -
Table 27: Dominant competitive mode regarding digital corporate communication per context unit
August 27, 2020 112/150
All corporations, with one exception, were identified to have a ‘competition’ as their main
competitive mode on their respective websites. Concerning the social media platforms, some
companies did not have any corporate page or sufficiently relevant posts within the timeframe of
observation. Therefore, some areas are left blank.
From the data that was analyzed on Facebook, 10 corporations tend to communicate in a
competitive way, 6 corporations focused on cooperation, and 2 corporations were identified to
incorporate a hybrid form. On Instagram, 5 corporations engage in competition, 5 in cooperation,
and 3 in a hybrid form. Additionally, on Twitter, 5 corporations were found to be competitive in
the way they communicated, while 3 were cooperative, and 3 were evenly competitive and
cooperative. On Youtube, a clearer assessment could be drawn towards one dominant
competitive mode, as 12 corporations focused on competitiveness, and only 3 communicated in
a cooperative manner.
4.4. Conclusion of the results
In order to provide an overall assessment and easier overview of the results stemming from the
empirical research, the dominant digital corporate communication strategies depicted in table 18
and the assessment of dominant competitive modes per corporation depicted in table 26, are
drawn together and depicted in table 28. This aggregation is undertaken in order to be able to
elaborate the research questions stated in chapter 1.3.
August 27, 2020 113/150
Corporations
Stake-holder- based strategy
Objective-based strategy
Content-based strategy Social media content strategies
Competitive mode
Atos SE External Persuasive Expertise Persuasive Soft-sell Frontstage
Sales orientation Competition
Austro Holding GmbH External Informational Expertise Informative
Soft-sell Backstage
Customer orientation Cooperation
BRP-Rotax GmbH & Co KG External
Informational / Persuasive Expertise
Informative / Persuasive
Soft-sell Frontstage
Sales orientation Cooperation
Doppler Group External Persuasive / Involvement Expertise Persuasive
Soft-sell Frontstage
Sales orientation Competition
Fronius International GmbH External
Informational / Involvement Expertise Persuasive
Soft-sell
Backstage / Frontstage
Sales orientation / Customer orientation Competition
Gebrüder Haider Group External
Informational / Persuasive Expertise Persuasive
Soft-sell Backstage
Sales orientation Competition
Greiner AG External Informational Hybrid
Informative / Persuasive
Soft-sell
Backstage / Frontstage
Customer orientation Competition
Hartlauer Handels GmbH External Persuasive Expertise Persuasive
Hard-sell Frontstage
Sales orientation Competition
Hogast reg.Gen.m.b.H. External Persuasive Hybrid Persuasive
Soft-sell / Hard-sell Frontstage
Sales orientation
Competition / Cooperation
Kellner & Kunz AG External Persuasive Expertise Persuasive
Soft-sell / Hard-sell Frontstage
Sales orientation Competition
Kelly GmbH External Persuasive Expertise Persuasive Soft-sell Frontstage
Sales orientation Competition
Kremsmüller Holding GmbH External
Persuasive / Involvement Expertise
Informative / Persuasive
Soft-sell
Backstage / Frontstage
Sales orientation / Customer orientation Competition
Lisec Holding GmbH External
Persuasive / Involvement Expertise
Informative / Persuasive
Soft-sell Backstage
Customer orientation Competition
Melecs Holding GmbH External
Persuasive / Involvement Expertise Informative
Soft-sell Frontstage
Sales orientation Competition
Miele & Cie. KG External Persuasive Expertise Persuasive
Soft-sell Frontstage
Sales orientation / Customer orientation Competition
Österreichische Post AG External
Persuasive / Involvement Expertise Persuasive
Soft-sell
Backstage / Frontstage
Sales orientation / Customer orientation
Competition / Cooperation
Palfinger AG External
Informational / Persuasive / Involvement Expertise Persuasive
Soft-sell Frontstage
Sales orientation / Customer orientation
Competition / Cooperation
Red Bull GmbH External Persuasive Expertise Persuasive Soft-sell Frontstage
Sales orientation Competition
August 27, 2020 114/150
Corporations
Stake-holder- based strategy
Objective-based strategy
Content-based strategy Social media content strategies
Competitive mode
Samsung Group External Persuasive Hybrid Persuasive
Soft-sell Backstage
Sales orientation / Customer orientation Competition
Spitz S. GmbH External Informational / Persuasive Hybrid Persuasive
Soft-sell
Backstage / Frontstage
Sales orientation / Customer orientation Competition
Starlinger & Co GmbH External
Informational / Persuasive / Involvement Expertise Persuasive
Soft-sell Backstage
Sales orientation / Customer orientation Competition
Trenkwalder International AG External
Informational / Persuasive / Involvement Expertise Persuasive
Soft-sell Frontstage
Sales orientation Cooperation
T-Systems MMS GmbH External Persuasive Expertise Persuasive
Soft-sell / Hard-sell
Backstage / Frontstage
Sales orientation / Customer orientation Competition
Voestalpine AG External Informational Expertise Informative Soft-sell Backstage
Customer orientation Competition
Welser Profile Austria GmbH External Persuasive Expertise Persuasive
Soft-sell Frontstage
Sales orientation Competition
Table 28: Dominant digital corporate communication strategies and competitive modes per corporation across all
context units
The following chapter aims to clarify differences and similarities of results on different context
units, and to discuss potential linkages between corporations’ competitive modes and their
choice of specific digital corporate communication strategies. Furthermore, within the discussion
an attempt is made to identify clear patterns between competitive modes and communication
strategies.
August 27, 2020 115/150
5. Discussion
This chapter discusses the results of this thesis’ empirical research in more depth. While
addressing possible reasons for differences and similarities between dominant communication
strategies and competitive modes regarding specific context units, main findings are also
summarized. Furthermore, hypotheses are presented aiming to answer the research questions
stated in chapter 1.3. Moreover, limitations of the empirical research as well as propositions for
further research are presented.
5.1. Summary of the findings
As depicted in table 28, all analyzed corporations primarily target external stakeholders, namely
potential and/or existing customers, and/or shareholders. 22 of the analyzed corporations either
predominantly focus on persuasion as their objective-based communication strategy, or at least
have some persuasive elements to a significant degree implemented in their digital
communication. 21 corporations focus on their expertise to provide high quality products and
services, while only 4 corporations incorporated a hybrid form of content-based strategy
including some elements aiming to communicate corporate social responsibility and other
philanthropical aspects. None of the observed corporations was found to focus predominantly on
an image strategy across all context units. Similar to the objective-based communication
strategies, the persuasive social media content messaging strategy seems to be a popular
choice with 22 corporations either predominantly using this communication strategy or at least
incorporating persuasive messaging elements to a significant degree. 3 corporations primarily
focused on informative messaging. 24 out of the 25 corporations followed a soft-sell social
media messaging strategy either as their dominant strategy or at least mixing it with some hard-
sell characteristics. Frontstage messaging was the dominant strategy for 13 corporations, while
6 used backstage messaging with the remaining 6 corporations implementing a mixture of both
strategies. 12 corporations were sales oriented, and 4 were customer oriented, the rest following
a mix of the two strategies. Concerning the competitive modes, 19 corporations communicated
in a competitive manner primarily. Only 3 three corporations were found to communicate in a
cooperative way with the rest of the sample incorporating a hybrid form.
The reason for the predominant occurrence of competition as opposed to cooperation, could be
traced back to the fact that most of the corporations operate in a competitive business
August 27, 2020 116/150
environment. Therefore, these corporations are found to explicitly communicate their products’
and services’ superiority in order to increase sales. Almost all corporations who tend to
communicate competitiveness are also found to focus primarily on a persuasion-oriented digital
communication strategy, while simultaneously, for the most part, communicating their ability to
provide high quality products and services, hence following an expertise strategy. Moreover, as
the indicators for competitive communication in chapter 3.3.2.5.a certainly imply competitive
superiority, potential partners could also be attracted using this type of communication without
explicitly communicating the corporation’s interest in new partnerships as described in chapter
3.3.2.5.b. However, for this analysis only explicit communication aiming to engage with new
partners or to represent current partnerships have been assigned to a cooperative mode of
communication.
5.2. Generation of hypotheses
This chapter presents correlations between this thesis’ main areas of research, namely digital
corporate communication strategies and competitive modes. Significant correlations between
competitive modes and each digital corporate communication strategy have been identified.
Therefore, generated hypotheses are split into the following sub-chapters.
5.2.1. Stakeholder-based strategies and competitive modes
As depicted on the following table, all analyzed corporations predominantly targeted external
stakeholders across their entire digital corporate communication. Since the corporations are
interpreted either in competition, cooperation or a hybrid form of competitive modes, it is
hypothesized that a corporation’s competitive mode does not affect its selection towards a
specific stakeholder-based communication strategy.
August 27, 2020 117/150
Corporations Stakeholder- based strategy Competitive mode
Atos SE External Competition
Austro Holding GmbH External Cooperation
BRP-Rotax GmbH & Co KG External Cooperation
Doppler Group External Competition
Fronius International GmbH External Competition
Gebrüder Haider Group External Competition
Greiner AG External Competition
Hartlauer Handels GmbH External Competition
Hogast reg.Gen.m.b.H. External Competition / Cooperation
Kellner & Kunz AG External Competition
Kelly GmbH External Competition
Kremsmüller Holding GmbH External Competition
Lisec Holding GmbH External Competition
Melecs Holding GmbH External Competition
Miele & Cie. KG External Competition
Österreichische Post AG External Competition / Cooperation
Palfinger AG External Competition / Cooperation
Red Bull GmbH External Competition
Samsung Group External Competition
Spitz S. GmbH External Competition
Starlinger & Co GmbH External Competition
Trenkwalder International AG External Cooperation
T-Systems MMS GmbH External Competition
Voestalpine AG External Competition
Welser Profile Austria GmbH External Competition
Table 29: Stakeholder-based strategy and competitive mode per corporation
This finding concerning stakeholder-based communication strategies leads to the following
hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: A corporation’s competitive mode does not affect the selection of a certain
stakeholder-based communication strategy.
5.2.2. Objective-based strategies and competitive modes
Concerning objective-based communication strategies, corporations who predominantly act in a
cooperative mode do not implement a dominant persuasion strategy across their entire digital
corporate communication. They either follow an informational strategy or a mixture of objective-
based strategies. On the other hand, corporations which fully engage in competition are likely to
either predominantly implement a persuasive objective-based strategy or at least partly
implement it in their communication strategy. In total, 16 corporations were found to follow this
pattern, as depicted in the following table:
August 27, 2020 118/150
Corporations Objective-based strategy Competitive mode
Atos SE Persuasive Competition
Austro Holding GmbH Informational Cooperation
BRP-Rotax GmbH & Co KG Informational / Persuasive Cooperation
Doppler Group Persuasive / Involvement Competition
Fronius International GmbH Informational / Involvement Competition
Gebrüder Haider Group Informational / Persuasive Competition
Greiner AG Informational Competition
Hartlauer Handels GmbH Persuasive Competition
Hogast reg.Gen.m.b.H. Persuasive Competition / Cooperation
Kellner & Kunz AG Persuasive Competition
Kelly GmbH Persuasive Competition
Kremsmüller Holding GmbH Persuasive / Involvement Competition
Lisec Holding GmbH Persuasive / Involvement Competition
Melecs Holding GmbH Persuasive / Involvement Competition
Miele & Cie. KG Persuasive Competition
Österreichische Post AG Persuasive / Involvement Competition / Cooperation
Palfinger AG Informational / Persuasive / Involvement Competition / Cooperation
Red Bull GmbH Persuasive Competition
Samsung Group Persuasive Competition
Spitz S. GmbH Informational / Persuasive Competition
Starlinger & Co GmbH Informational / Persuasive / Involvement Competition
Trenkwalder International AG Informational / Persuasive / Involvement Cooperation
T-Systems MMS GmbH Persuasive Competition
Voestalpine AG Informational Competition
Welser Profile Austria GmbH Persuasive Competition
Table 30: Objective-based strategy and competitive mode per corporation
The findings regarding objective-based strategies lead to the generation of the following
hypotheses:
Hypothesis 2.1: Corporations predominantly in cooperation do not implement a dominant
persuasion strategy.
Hypothesis 2.2: Corporations predominantly in competition tend to either implement a
persuasive objective-based strategy, or at least include it partially.
August 27, 2020 119/150
5.2.3. Content-based strategies and competitive modes
Regarding content-based strategies and their correlation with respective competitive modes, no
significant patterns were detected. Therefore, it can be hypothesized that a corporation’s
competitive mode does not influence its selection for a specific content-based strategy. As
depicted in the following table, the majority of corporations steer their content-based strategy
predominantly towards expertise.
Corporations Content-based strategy Competitive mode
Atos SE Expertise Competition
Austro Holding GmbH Expertise Cooperation
BRP-Rotax GmbH & Co KG Expertise Cooperation
Doppler Group Expertise Competition
Fronius International GmbH Expertise Competition
Gebrüder Haider Group Expertise Competition
Greiner AG Hybrid Competition
Hartlauer Handels GmbH Expertise Competition
Hogast reg.Gen.m.b.H. Hybrid Competition / Cooperation
Kellner & Kunz AG Expertise Competition
Kelly GmbH Expertise Competition
Kremsmüller Holding GmbH Expertise Competition
Lisec Holding GmbH Expertise Competition
Melecs Holding GmbH Expertise Competition
Miele & Cie. KG Expertise Competition
Österreichische Post AG Expertise Competition / Cooperation
Palfinger AG Expertise Competition / Cooperation
Red Bull GmbH Expertise Competition
Samsung Group Hybrid Competition
Spitz S. GmbH Hybrid Competition
Starlinger & Co GmbH Expertise Competition
Trenkwalder International AG Expertise Cooperation
T-Systems MMS GmbH Expertise Competition
Voestalpine AG Expertise Competition
Welser Profile Austria GmbH Expertise Competition
Table 31: Content-based strategy and competitive mode per corporation
Therefore, the following hypothesis could be generated:
Hypothesis 3: Content-based strategy selection is not influenced by a corporation’s competitive
mode.
August 27, 2020 120/150
5.2.4. Social media content strategies and competitive modes
Within social media content strategies, four different subcategories of strategies were examined:
persuasive versus informative messaging, soft-sell versus hard-sell messaging, frontstage
versus backstage messaging, and sales orientation versus customer orientation. For the
generation of hypotheses within this sub-chapter, every subcategory of social media content
strategies has been compared to the corporations’ overall dominant competitive mode
separately.
Similar to objective-based strategies, predominantly competitive corporations are found to be
likely to engage either predominantly in persuasive messaging or at least incorporate persuasive
messaging partially within their messaging strategies. Overall, 16 corporations who are
predominantly competitive regarding communication followed the described pattern. Moreover,
18 predominantly competitive corporations selected either soft-sell messaging as a dominant
strategy or at least incorporated a mix of soft-sell and hard-sell messaging.
As 14 fully competitive corporations implemented frontstage tactics either partially or
predominantly, and 10 fully competitive corporations implemented backstage tactics either
partially or predominantly, it is assumed that fully competitive corporations are more likely to use
frontstage messaging across their digital corporate communication. Since strongly competitive
corporations were found to present their products and services openly while communicating
superiority, it is not surprising that these corporations often focus on frontstage messaging trying
to influence the message recipient openly.
These findings correlate with the pattern of predominantly competitive firms who are more likely
to be either predominantly sales oriented or at least partly sales oriented and partly customer
oriented. In total, 16 predominantly competitive corporations have been found to follow this
particular pattern.
As an insignificant number of corporations are either fully cooperative or hybrids, for the
generation of the following hypothesis only 19 predominantly competitive firms are assessed. 13
of those corporations predominantly implemented persuasive messaging, 16 implemented soft-
sell messaging predominantly, 9 implemented frontstage messaging, and 9 were sales oriented
in a dominant way. The following tables represent these findings:
August 27, 2020 121/150
Corporations Social media content strategies Competitive mode
Atos SE Persuasive Soft-sell Frontstage Sales orientation Competition
Doppler Group Persuasive Soft-sell Frontstage Sales orientation Competition
Fronius International GmbH Persuasive Soft-sell
Backstage / Frontstage
Sales orientation / Customer orientation Competition
Gebrüder Haider Group Persuasive Soft-sell Backstage Sales orientation Competition
Greiner AG Informative / Persuasive Soft-sell
Backstage / Frontstage
Customer orientation Competition
Hartlauer Handels GmbH Persuasive Hard-sell Frontstage Sales orientation Competition
Kellner & Kunz AG Persuasive Soft-sell / Hard-sell Frontstage Sales orientation Competition
Kelly GmbH Persuasive Soft-sell Frontstage Sales orientation Competition
Kremsmüller Holding GmbH
Informative / Persuasive Soft-sell
Backstage / Frontstage
Sales orientation / Customer orientation Competition
Lisec Holding GmbH Informative / Persuasive Soft-sell Backstage
Customer orientation Competition
Melecs Holding GmbH Informative Soft-sell Frontstage Sales orientation Competition
Miele & Cie. KG Persuasive Soft-sell Frontstage
Sales orientation / Customer orientation Competition
Red Bull GmbH Persuasive Soft-sell Frontstage Sales orientation Competition
Samsung Group Persuasive Soft-sell Backstage
Sales orientation / Customer orientation Competition
Spitz S. GmbH Persuasive Soft-sell Backstage / Frontstage
Sales orientation / Customer orientation Competition
Starlinger & Co GmbH Persuasive Soft-sell Backstage
Sales orientation / Customer orientation Competition
T-Systems MMS GmbH Persuasive
Soft-sell / Hard-sell
Backstage / Frontstage
Sales orientation / Customer orientation Competition
Voestalpine AG Informative Soft-sell Backstage Customer orientation Competition
Welser Profile Austria GmbH Persuasive Soft-sell Frontstage Sales orientation Competition
Table 32: Social media content strategies per corporation predominantly in competition
August 27, 2020 122/150
Social media content strategy Occurrence % Total
Persuasive 14 74% 100%
Informative 2 11%
Persuasive / Informative 3 15%
Soft-sell 16 84% 100%
Hard-sell 1 5%
Soft-sell / Hard-sell 2 11%
Frontstage 9 48% 100%
Backstage 5 26%
Frontstage / Backstage 5 26%
Sales orientation 9 47% 100%
Customer orientation 3 16%
Sales orientation / Customer orientation 7 37%
Table 33: Social media content strategies and their occurrence in fully competitive corporations
As depicted in table 33, fully competitive corporations are most likely to follow at least one of the
following social media content strategies: persuasive, soft-sell, frontstage, sales orientation. This
finding leads to the generation of the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 4: Predominantly competitive corporations are likely to implement persuasive, soft-
sell, frontstage or sales orientated messaging across their entire digital corporate
communication.
5.3. Discussion of research questions
The research questions set forth within this master’s thesis are discussed within this chapter
supported by the findings and hypotheses of the preliminary chapters. The research questions
are as follows:
• How and to what extent does either a competitive or cooperative business environment
impact a company’s digital communication strategy?
• How and to what extent does either competition or cooperation influence the design of
digital communication strategies?
• What patterns can be identified when comparing companies’ digital communication
strategies to their competitive mode?
August 27, 2020 123/150
Regarding the first research question, it can be stated that a corporation leaning towards the
competitive side of relational modes is likely to aim to persuade message recipients across its
digital communication efforts. This is primarily done to provoke the recipient to engage in buying
the corporation’s products and/or services while simultaneously communicating the superiority of
named products and/or services in terms of quality and price. On the other hand, clear results
could not be drawn for corporations acting in a cooperative way, since only three out of the 25
corporations comprising the sample could be characterized as mainly cooperative. As mentioned
before, it is assumed that corporations which may be thought of being cooperative in their nature
of business, engage in rather competitive messaging in order to attract potential partners. These
corporations were therefore labeled as predominantly competitive within this research.
Concerning the design of digital corporate communication strategies, clear distinctions between
a corporation’s state on a competition-cooperation continuum could not be drawn due to the
insignificant number of cooperative firms. In addition, since the majority of the analyzed
corporations either did not possess significant social media presence or did not follow a specific
social media strategy across their entire digital communication, it is assumed that for those
corporations a specific design of a digital corporate communication strategy was not prioritized
when considering the development of their corporate communication and public relations.
Even though not many significant patterns could be determined between cooperative
corporations and their choice of digital corporate communication strategies, it has been shown
that out of the cooperative corporations none of them implemented a persuasive communication
strategy. This was not the case for competitive firms as those seem to be likely to either focus
predominantly on a persuasive strategy or implement a mix including persuasive elements.
Concerning a corporation’s choice for a specific stakeholder-based communication strategy, it
can be stated that in general the competitive mode of a corporation did not determine if external
or internal stakeholders should be targeted as all 25 corporations targeted external stakeholders
predominantly. Furthermore, no correlation between a corporation’s competitive mode and the
choice of a specific content-based strategy could be identified as the majority chose an
expertise-based communication strategy.
For the selection of social media content strategies, no patterns could be determined linked to
cooperative corporations. However, concerning competitive corporations, the preferred choices
for social media content strategies were persuasive, soft-sell, frontstage and sales-oriented
messaging when analyzed across corporations’ entire digital corporate communication.
Concluding, some clear patterns could be identified when comparing competitive corporations’
choices for digital corporate communication strategies, however, correlations to cooperative
August 27, 2020 124/150
businesses could not be drawn. This and several other limitations of this research are discussed
within the following chapter.
5.4. Limitations and future research
During the process of collecting and analyzing data within this thesis’ empirical research, several
limitations have been encountered which are presented within the following statements. Firstly, it
is pointed out that the social media monitoring software Storyclash has been used in order to
extract relevant data in an efficient way, especially when it comes to extracting relevant coding
units according to user interactions on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Youtube. However, the
corporate websites have been analyzed by the author without any technological support. The
selection of relevant coding units from corporate websites was undertaken by observing the
most significant blocks of text, images, videos and or combinations of those. Single words, even
though they might meet the analysis criteria were not taken into account due to insignificant
relevance concerning obviousness and visibility on the site.
Since the research sample consists of only 25 corporations and the timeframe of observation
was 30 days counting backwards from a specific date of observation, some coding units could
not be extracted even though they were present on corporations’ social media pages but were
not published within the determined timeframe. Similar limitations were also identified within
Bobocel’s (2019, p. 143) empirical research. Therefore, it could be argued that when selecting a
larger timeframe, more coding units could have been extracted leading to a more meaningful
database for the development of potential hypotheses. Some corporate social media pages
contained postings which were posted irregularly, hence a higher number of coding units could
have been extracted if the timeframe of observation was either relocated or extended.
Another limitation was the sample’s heterogeneity concerning corporate business models and
consequently corporations’ social media appearance. Clear differences could be observed
between business-to-business and business-to-consumer corporations regarding their presence
on social platforms and the design of social media appearance. Some analyzed corporations,
especially business-to-business corporations, did not have any or a very low number of relevant
coding units on some social media platforms. Therefore, future research could be conducted
with, on the one hand, a larger sample size, and on the other hand, with corporations who have
already built a considerable social media presence with a higher number of postings which are
published regularly across all relevant platforms.
August 27, 2020 125/150
Furthermore, the insignificant number of corporations within the sample who predominantly
acted in a cooperative manner concerning their corporate digital communication, posed a
limitation when it came to determining differences between corporations’ choices of specific
digital corporate communication strategies and their state within the competition-cooperation
continuum. Therefore, most patterns that have been identified included corporations in a
predominantly competitive relational state.
Lastly, the emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic which triggered a global health as well as
economic crisis was apparent during the empirical research process since numerous firms within
this sample addressed issues concerning their everyday business activities as well as key
stakeholders and how these factors were influenced by the pandemic. Further research could
yield differing results during times in which corporations follow their regular digital
communication strategies and address their stakeholders within an environment that is less
volatile and uncertain as it was during the timeframe of observation within this master’s thesis’
empirical research.
Implications may also be provided for future research combining this thesis’ and Bobocel’s
(2019) findings concerning digital corporate communication, and competitive modes as well as
strategic choice/determinism in order to enrich corporations’ behavior on social media and other
digital platforms.
The following chapter concludes the entire master’s thesis summarizing the findings of the
empirical research and the literature review concerning digital corporate communication
strategies and corporations’ state on the competition-cooperation continuum.
6. Conclusion
This master’s thesis is divided into a thorough literature review, consisting of current findings and
frameworks concerning digital corporate communication strategies and the concepts of
competition and cooperation, and a practical research conducted by analyzing corporations’
social media presence and their practical implementations of the previously presented
theoretical concepts. It may also serve as a complementary contribution to Bobocel’s (2019)
similarly conducted research, building upon his findings on the correlation between digital
August 27, 2020 126/150
corporate communication strategies and strategic choice/determinism, adding a third dimension,
namely that of competitive modes.
The first part of the literature review presents four main corporate communication strategies and
listed them within a comprehensive framework: Stakeholder-based strategies, objective-based
strategies, content-based strategies, and social media content strategies. In contrast to
Bobocel’s (2019) literature review, named strategies were steered towards potential correlations
with competitive modes. For each of the four main strategies, sub-strategies were identified and
classified as follows: The stakeholder-based strategies are classified into internal and external
communication strategies, the objective-based strategies into informational, persuasive and
involvement strategies, the content-based strategies into expertise, image and hybrid strategies
(see also Bobocel, 2019), and the social media content strategies into informative messaging,
persuasive messaging, soft-sell messaging, hard-sell messaging, frontstage messaging,
backstage messaging, customer orientation and sales orientation. Aiming to provide the reader
with an understanding of strategic corporate communication, especially in a digital environment,
an emphasis was also put on presenting each strategies’ peculiarities when it comes to the
strategic communication foci based on the literature (e.g., Cornelissen, 2011; Dirsmith &
Covaleski, 1983; Kim, 2011; Kim & Rader, 2010; Mitchell et al., 1997; Morsing & Schultz, 2006;
Pan et al., 2019; Steyn, 2004; Welch & Jackson, 2007).
The second part of the literature review presents the concept of competitive modes primarily
based on Chen and Miller’s (2015) paper on competitive dynamics. Mainly the concepts of
competition and cooperation are examined within this literature review in order to complete the
necessary theoretical foundation for this thesis’ empirical research while each competitive
mode’s specific capabilities and challenges are presented based on the available research (e.g.,
Barney, 1991; Brandenburger & Nalebuff, 1996; D’Aveni, 1995; D’Aveni & Gunther, 1994;
Johnson et al., 2017; Porter, 1990; Todeva & Knoke, 2005; Wang & Krakover, 2008; Williamson,
1981; Wood & Gray, 1991).
The goal of the empirical research was to identify correlations between the previously described
concepts of digital corporate communication strategies and competitive modes in order to derive
hypotheses. As a first step, several indicators have been defined based on preceding research
presented within the literature review. Then, a sample of 25 corporations was defined and
content analysis was undertaken within a previously defined timeframe on the corporations’
respective websites and specific social media channels, i.e. Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and
Youtube. In total 103 context units were selected and within those a total number of 595 coding
units were analyzed. 5 hypotheses were derived from the entire empirical research. It is noted
August 27, 2020 127/150
that the empirical research was undertaken in a similar fashion to Bobocel’s (2019) work on
digital corporate communication strategies. It is reasoned that future research may be able to
combine the findings of Bobocel’s (2019) and this master’s thesis in order to test correlations
between corporations’ selection of digital corporate communication strategies and their
positioning on a strategic choice/determinism continuum on the one hand, and a
competition/cooperation continuum on the other hand in order to enrich understanding of
corporations’ behavior on digital communication channels.
Since the majority of the sample was dedicated towards competition as a preferred competitive
mode, clear differences and correlations between a corporation’s competitive mode and selected
set of digital corporate communication strategies could not fully be backed by the data extracted
within the research. However, the hypothesis that cooperative corporations do not tend to
implement a persuasion strategy as their dominant digital communication strategy could be
derived clearly. Mostly, the derived hypotheses provided indications and predictions for the
selection of specific digital communication strategies for corporations which are predominantly
competitive in their form of online communication. Overall, this master’s thesis can be viewed as
a scientific baseline of the status quo concerning digital corporate communication, backed by
scientific literature, and its strategic implications while being complemented by a body of
research which, despite limitations, hints towards clear patterns between corporations’
competitive dynamics and communication strategies.
August 27, 2020 128/150
7. References
Adams, C. A., & Frost, G. R. (2006). The internet and change in corporate stakeholder
engagement and communication strategies on social and environmental performance.
Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, 2(3), 281–303.
https://doi.org/10.1108/18325910610690090
Agnihotri, R., Dingus, R., Hu, M. Y., & Krush, M. T. (2016). Social media: Influencing customer
satisfaction in B2B sales. Industrial Marketing Management, 53, 172–180.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.09.003
Agnihotri, R., Kothandaraman, P., Kashyap, R., & Singh, R. (2012). Bringing „Social“ into Sales:
The Impact of Salespeople’s Social Media Use on Service Behaviors and Value
Creation. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 32(3), 333–348.
https://doi.org/10.2753/PSS0885-3134320304
Aharoni, Y., Maimon, Z., & Segev, E. (1981). Interrelationships between environmental
dependencies: A basis for tradeoffs to increase autonomy. Strategic Management
Journal, 2(2), 197–208. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250020208
Ahluwalia, R. (2002). How Prevalent Is the Negativity Effect in Consumer Environments? Journal
of Consumer Research, 29(2), 270–279. https://doi.org/10.1086/341576
Ahmed, P. K., & Rafiq, M. (2002). Internal marketing: Tools and concepts for customer-focused
management. Butterworth-Heinemann.
Ando, N., & Kee Rhee, D. (2009). Antecedents of Interorganizational Trust: Joint Decision-
Making, Cultural Adaptation, and Bargaining Power. Journal of Asia Business Studies,
3(2), 16–28. https://doi.org/10.1108/15587890980001513
Andzulis, J. M., Panagopoulos, N. G., & Rapp, A. (2012). A Review of Social Media and
Implications for the Sales Process. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management,
32(3), 305–316. https://doi.org/10.2753/PSS0885-3134320302
Argenti, P. (1996). Corporate Communication as a Discipline: Toward a Definition. Management
Communication Quarterly, 10(1), 73–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318996010001005
August 27, 2020 129/150
Argenti, P. A. (2006). How Technology Has Influenced the Field of Corporate Communication.
Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 20(3), 357–370.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651906287260
Argenti, P., & Forman, J. (2002). The Power of Corporate Communication. McGraw-Hill.
Arora, A. S., & Sanni, S. A. (2019). Ten Years of ‘Social Media Marketing’ Research in the
Journal of Promotion Management: Research Synthesis, Emerging Themes, and New
Directions. Journal of Promotion Management, 25(4), 476–499.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10496491.2018.1448322
Arvidsson, S. (2012). The corporate communication process between listed companies and
financial analysts: A focus on trends and challenges. Corporate Communications, 17(2),
98–112. https://doi.org/10.1108/13563281211220238
Axtell, C. M., Waterson, P. E., & Clegg, C. W. (1997). Problems integrating user participation
into software development. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 47(2),
323–345. https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.1997.0143
Babu, P. G. (1998). Game theory. Resonance, 3(7), 53–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02837313
Bachmann, P., & Ingenhoff, D. (2016). Legitimacy through CSR disclosures? The advantage
outweighs the disadvantages. Public Relations Review, 42(3), 386–394.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2016.02.008
Badraoui, I. (2013). Value chain vertical integration. An implementation framework for
agricultural producers’ organisations in Morocco. Journal of Agricultural Science and
Applications, 02(04), 232–240. https://doi.org/10.14511/jasa.2013.020407
Bailey, D., & Koney, K. (2000). Strategic Alliances among Health and Human Services
Organizations: From Affiliations to Consolidations. SAGE Publications.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483328546
Balmer, J. M. T. (1995). Corporate Branding and Connoisseurship. Journal of General
Management, 21(1), 24–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/030630709502100102
Balmer, J. M. T., & Gray, E. R. (1999). Corporate identity and corporate communications:
Creating a competitive advantage. Corporate Communications: An International Journal,
4(4), 171–177. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000007299
August 27, 2020 130/150
Barney, J. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of
Management, 17(1), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (o. J.). The Need to Belong: Desire for Interpersonal
Attachments as a Fundamental Human Motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–
529.
Beirne, M., & Cromack, C. (2009). Managing creative coalitions: Reflections on the social side of
services innovation. European Management Journal, 27(2), 83–89.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2009.01.002
Berens, G., van Riel, C. B. M., & van Bruggen, G. H. (2005). Corporate Associations and
Consumer Product Responses: The Moderating Role of Corporate Brand Dominance.
Journal of Marketing, 69(3), 35–48. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.69.3.35.66357
Block, J. H., Kohn, K., Miller, D., & Ullrich, K. (2015). Necessity entrepreneurship and
competitive strategy. Small Business Economics, 44(1), 37–54.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-014-9589-x
Bobocel, S. (2019). Key success and competitive factors of digital communication strategies
analyzed through the lens of strategic choice and determinism. Johannes Kepler
University Linz.
Bolton, R. N., Kannan, P. K., & Bramlett, M. D. (2000). Implications of Loyalty Program
Membership and Service Experiences for Customer Retention and Value. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 28(1), 95–108.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070300281009
Bonsón, E., & Bednárová, M. (2013). Corporate LinkedIn practices of Eurozone companies.
Online Information Review, 37(6), 969–984. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-09-2012-0159
Bonsón, E., Bednarova, M., & Escobar-Rodríguez, T. (2014). Corporate YouTube practices of
Eurozone companies. Online Information Review, 38(4), 484–501.
https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-07-2013-0181
Bouwman, H., Nikou, S., Molina-Castillo, F. J., & de Reuver, M. (2018). The impact of
digitalization on business models. Digital Policy, Regulation and Governance, 20(2),
105–124. https://doi.org/10.1108/DPRG-07-2017-0039
August 27, 2020 131/150
Bowman, C., & Faulkner, D. (1997). Competitive and corporate strategy. Irwin.
Brandenburger, A., & Nalebuff, B. (1996). Co-opetition (2. Aufl.). Profile Books LTD.
Brown, T. J., & Dacin, P. A. (1997). The Company and the Product: Corporate Associations and
Consumer Product Responses. Journal of Marketing, 61(1), 68–84.
https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299706100106
Butters, G. R. (1977). Equilibrium Distributions of Sales and Advertising Prices. The Review of
Economic Studies, 44(3), 456–491. https://doi.org/10.2307/2296902
Capriotti, P. (2011). Communicating Corporate Social Responsibility through the Internet and
Social Media. In J. Bartlett, S. K. May, & Ø. Ihlen (Hrsg.), Handbooks in communication
and media. The handbook of communication and corporate social responsibility (Bd. 107,
S. 358–378). Wiley-Blackwell.
Carroll, A. B. (1979). A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Performance.
Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 497–505.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1979.4498296
Carroll, A. B. (1991). The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Toward the Moral
Management of Organizational Stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4), 39–48.
Chen, Ming-jer, Su, K.-H., & Tsai, W. (2007). Competitive Tension: The Awareness-Motivation-
Capability Perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 101–118.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.24162081
Chen, MJ. (1996). Competitor analysis and inter-firm rivalry: Towards a theoretical integration.
Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 100–134.
Chen, M.-J. (2008). Reconceptualizing the Competition— Cooperation Relationship: A
Transparadox Perspective. Journal of Management Inquiry, 17(4), 288–304.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492607312577
Chen, M.-J., & Miller, D. (1994). Competitive attack, retaliation and performance: An expectancy-
valence framework. Strategic Management Journal, 15(2), 85–102.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250150202
August 27, 2020 132/150
Chen, M.-J., & Miller, D. (2015). Reconceptualizing competitive dynamics: A multidimensional
framework. Strategic Management Journal, 36(5), 758–775.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2245
Chen, Y., Fay, S., & Wang, Q. (2011). The Role of Marketing in Social Media: How Online
Consumer Reviews Evolve. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 25(2), 85–94.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2011.01.003
Cheney, G., & Christensen, L. T. (2001). Organizational Identity: Linkages Between Internal and
External Communication. In F. M. Jablin & L. L. Putnam (Hrsg.), The new handbook of
organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (S. 231–269).
SAGE Publications.
Christensen, L. T., Morsing, M., & Cheney, G. (2008). Corporate communications: Convention,
complexity, and critique. SAGE.
Chu, W., Gerstner, E., & Hess, J. D. (1995). Costs and Benefits of Hard-Sell. Journal of
Marketing Research, 32(1), 97–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224379503200111
Colleoni, E. (2013). CSR communication strategies for organizational legitimacy in social media.
Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 18(2), 228–248. https://doi.org/DOI
10.1108/13563281311319508
Cornelissen, J. (2004). Corporate communications: Theory and practice. SAGE Publications.
Cornelissen, J. (2011). Corporate Communication: A Guide to Theory and Practice (3. Aufl.).
SAGE.
Cornelissen, J. P. (2014). Corporate communication: A guide to theory and practice (4. Aufl.).
SAGE.
Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., & White, R. E. (1999). An Organizational Learning Framework:
From Intuition to Institution. The Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 522–537.
https://doi.org/10.2307/259140
Culnan, M. J., & McHugh, P. J. (2010). How large U.S. companies can use twitter and other
social media to gain business value. MIS Quarterly Executive, 9(4), 17.
Cutlip, S., & Broom, G. (2006). Effective Public Relations. Pearson International Edition.
August 27, 2020 133/150
Dahl, R. A. (1957). The concept of power. Behavioral Science, 2(3), 201–215.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bs.3830020303
D’Aveni, R. A. (1995). Hypercompetitive Rivalries: Competing in Highly Dynamic Environments.
Free Press.
D’aveni, R. A., & Gunther, R. (1994). Hypercompetition—Managing the Dynamics of Strategic
Maneuvering (First Printing). Free Press.
Davis, K. (1973). The Case for and Against Business Assumption of Social Responsibilities.
Academy of Management Journal, 16(2), 312–322. https://doi.org/10.2307/255331
De Pelsmacker, P., Geuens, M., & Van Den Bergh, J. (2007). Marketing Communications: A
European Perspective (3. Aufl.). Prentice-Hall.
De Ridder, J. A. (2004). Organisational communication and supportive employees. Human
Resource Management Journal, 14(3), 20–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-
8583.2004.tb00124.x
De Vries, N. J., & Carlson, J. (2014). Examining the drivers and brand performance implications
of customer engagement with brands in the social media environment. Journal of Brand
Management, 21(6), 495–515. https://doi.org/10.1057/bm.2014.18
Denton, K. (2006). Strategic intranets: The next big thing? Corporate Communications: An
International Journal, 11(1), 5–12. https://doi.org/10.1108/13563280610643507
DeSarbo, W. S., Grewal, R., & Wind, J. (2006). Who competes with whom? A demand‐based
perspective for identifying and representing asymmetric competition. Strategic
Management Journal, 27(2), 101–129. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.505
Dirsmith, M. W., & Covaleski, M. A. (1983). Strategy, external communication and environmental
context. Strategic Management Journal, 4(2), 137–151.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250040205
Drumwright, M. E. (1996). Company Advertising with a Social Dimension: The Role of
Noneconomic Criteria. Journal of Marketing, 60(4), 71–87.
https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299606000407
Dunmore, M. (2002). Inside-out marketing: How to create an internal marketing strategy. Kogan
Page.
August 27, 2020 134/150
Echchakoui, S. (2018). An analytical model that links customer-perceived value and competitive
strategies. Journal of Marketing Analytics, 6(4), 138–149. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41270-
018-0043-9
Eckel, P. D., & Hartley, M. (2008). Developing Academic Strategic Alliances: Reconciling
Multiple Institutional Cultures, Policies, and Practices. The Journal of Higher Education,
79(6), 613–637. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2008.11772121
Eisend, M. (2006). Two-sided advertising: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Research in
Marketing, 23(2), 187–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2005.11.001
Fang, S.-R., Chang, Y.-S., & Peng, Y.-C. (2011). Dark side of relationships: A tensions-based
view. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(5), 774–784.
Fennis, B. M., & Stroebe, W. (2014). Softening the Blow: Company Self-Disclosure of Negative
Information Lessens Damaging Effects on Consumer Judgment and Decision Making.
Journal of Business Ethics, 120(1), 109–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1647-9
Ferrell, L., Gonzalez-Padron, T. L., & Ferrell, O. C. (2010). An Assessment of the Use of
Technology in the Direct Selling Industry. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
Management, 30(2), 157–165. https://doi.org/10.2753/PSS0885-3134300206
Ferrier, W. J., Smith, K. G., & Grimm, C. M. (1999). The role of competitive action in market
share erosion and industry dethronement: A study of industry leaders and challengers.
Academy of Management Journal, 42(4), 372–388. https://doi.org/10.2307/257009
Fertik, M., & Thompson, D. (2010). Wild West 2.0: How to Protect and Restore Your Reputation
on the Untamed Social Frontier. AMACOM.
Fisch, C., & Block, J. (2018). Six tips for your (systematic) literature review in business and
management research. Management Review Quarterly, 68(2), 103–106.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-018-0142-x
Fitz-enz, J. (1990). Human Value Management: The value-adding human resources
management strategy for the 1990s. Jossey-Bass.
Fırat, A. F., & Dholakia, N. (2006). Theoretical and philosophical implications of postmodern
debates: Some challenges to modern marketing. Marketing Theory, 6(2), 123–162.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1470593106063981
August 27, 2020 135/150
Freeman, R. E. E., & McVea, J. (2001). A Stakeholder Approach to Strategic Management.
SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.263511
Friedl, J., & Verčič, A. T. (2011). Media preferences of digital natives’ internal communication: A
pilot study. Public Relations Review, 37(1), 84–86.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2010.12.004
Friedman, R. A., & Currall, S. C. (2003). Conflict Escalation: Dispute Exacerbating Elements of
E-mail Communication. Human Relations, 56(11), 1325–1347.
Gálvez-Rodríguez, M., Caba-Pérez, C., & López-Godoy, M. (2016). Drivers of Twitter as a
strategic communication tool for non-profit organizations. Internet Research, 26(5),
1052–1071. https://doi.org/10.1108/IntR-07-2014-0188
Gebrekidan, D. A., & Awuah, G. B. (2002). Interorganizational cooperation: A new view of
strategic alliances The case of Swedish firms in the international market. Industrial
Marketing Management, 31(1), 679–693. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-8501(01)00179-
1
Giannakis-Bompolis, C., & Boutsouki, C. (2014). Customer Relationship Management in the Era
of Social Web and Social Customer: An Investigation of Customer Engagement in the
Greek Retail Banking Sector. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 148, 67–78.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.07.018
Goldhaber, G. (1993). Organizational Communication. Brown & Benchman.
Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness.
The American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481–510.
Grisaffe, D. B., & Nguyen, H. P. (2011). Antecedents of emotional attachment to brands. Journal
of Business Research, 64(10), 1052–1059. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2010.11.002
Grossman, G. M., & Shapiro, C. (1984). Informative Advertising with Differentiated Products.
Review of Economic Studies, 51(1), 63–81. https://doi.org/10.2307/2297705
Grunig, J. E. (Ed. ). (1992). Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management.
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Grunig, J., Grunig, L., & Dozier, D. (2006). The excellence theory. In C. Botan & V. Hazelton
(Hrsg.), Public relations theory II (S. 21–62). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
August 27, 2020 136/150
Guidry, J., Messner, M., Jin, Y., & Medina-Messner, V. (2015). From #mcdonaldsfail to
#dominossucks: An analysis of Instagram images about the 10 largest fast food
companies. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 20(3), 344–359.
https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-04-2014-0027
Gummerus, J., Liljander, V., Weman, E. A., & Pihlström, M. (2012). Customer engagement in a
Facebook brand community. Management Research Review, 35(9), 857–877.
https://doi.org/10.1108/01409171211256578
Gustafsson, A., Johnson, M. D., & Roos, I. (2005). The Effects of Customer Satisfaction,
Relationship Commitment Dimensions, and Triggers on Customer Retention. Journal of
Marketing, 69(4), 210–218. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.2005.69.4.210
Haedrich, G. (1992). Public Relations im System des Strategischen Managements. In H.
Avenarius & W. Armbrecht (Hrsg.), Ist Public Relations eine Wissenschaft? Eine
Einführung (S. 257–278). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Håkansson, H., & Snehota, I. (2006). No business is an island: The network concept of business
strategy. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 22(3), 256–270.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2006.10.005
Halal, W. E. (2000). Corporate community: A theory of the firm uniting profitability and
responsibility. Strategy & Leadership, 28(2), 10–16.
https://doi.org/10.1108/10878570010341582
Hallahan, K. (2001). The Dynamics of Issues Activation and Response: An Issues Processes
Model. Journal of Public Relations Research, 13(1), 27–59.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532754XJPRR1301_3
Halliburton, C., & Ziegfeld, A. (2009). How do major European companies communicate their
corporate identity across countries? - An empirical investigation of corporate internet
communications. Journal of Marketing Management, 25(9–10), 909–925.
https://doi.org/10.1362/026725709X479291
Hallowell, E. (1999). The human moment at work. Harvard Business Review, 77(1), 58–66.
Hastak, M., & Park, J.-W. (1990). Mediators of Message Sidedness Effects on Cognitive
Structure For Involved and Uninvolved Audiences. In M. E. Goldberg, G. Gorn, & R. W.
August 27, 2020 137/150
Pollay (Hrsg.), NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 17 (S. 329–336).
Association for Consumer Research.
Heinonen, K. (2011). Consumer activity in social media: Managerial approaches to consumers’
social media behavior. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 10(6), 356–364.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.376
Herr, P. M., Kardes, F. R., & Kim, J. (1991). Effects of Word-of-Mouth and Product-Attribute
Information on Persuasion: An Accessibility-Diagnosticity Perspective. Journal of
Consumer Research, 17(4), 454–462. https://doi.org/10.1086/208570
Hetze, K., & Winistörfer, H. (2016). CSR communication on corporate websites compared
across continents. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 34(4), 501–528.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBM-02-2015-0022
Hewitt, P. (2006). Electronic mail and internal communication: A three‐factor model. Corporate
Communications: An International Journal, 11(1), 78–92.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13563280610643570
Hibbard, J. D., Kumar, N., & Stern, L. W. (2001). Examining the Impact of Destructive Acts in
Marketing Channel Relationships. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(1), 45–61.
https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.38.1.45.18831
Hollebeek, L. (2011). Exploring customer brand engagement: Definition and themes. Journal of
Strategic Marketing, 19(7), 555–573. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2011.599493
Holtzhausen, D. (2014). Strategic Communication. In W. Donsbach (Hrsg.), The International
Encyclopedia of Communication (S. 1–8). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405186407.wbiecs106.pub2
Homer, P. M. (2008). Perceived quality and image: When all is not „rosy“. Journal of Business
Research, 61(7), 715–723. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.05.009
Hunt, S. D. (1976). Informational vs. Persuasive Advertising: An Appraisal. Journal of
Advertising, 5(3), 5–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.1976.10672644
Ihator, A. (2001). Corporate Communication: Challenges and Opportunities in a Digital World.
Public Relations Quarterly, 46(4), 15–18.
August 27, 2020 138/150
Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs
and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(76)90026-X
Jo, S., & Jung, J. (2005). A cross‐cultural study of the world wide web and public relations.
Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 10(1), 24–40.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13563280510578187
Jo, S., & Shim, S. W. (2005). Paradigm shift of employee communication: The effect of
management communication on trusting relationships. Public Relations Review, 31(2),
277–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2005.02.012
Johnson, G., Whittington, R., Regnér, P., Scholes, K., & Angwin, D. (2017). Exploring Strategy:
Text and Cases (11. Aufl.). Pearson.
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and
opportunities of Social Media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59–68.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003
Karanges, E., Johnston, K., Beatson, A., & Lings, I. (2015). The influence of internal
communication on employee engagement. A pilot study. Public Relations Review, 41(1),
129–131. https://doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.12.003
Kaul, A., Chaudhri, V., Cherian, D., Freberg, K., Mishra, S., Kumar, R., Pridmore, J., Lee, S. Y.,
Rana, N., Majmudar, U., & Carroll, C. E. (2015). Social Media: The New Mantra for
Managing Reputation. Vikalpa: The Journal for Decision Makers, 40(4), 455–491.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0256090915618029
Kaul, V. (2015). Digital Landscape and Consumer Communication. Journal of Marketing &
Communication, 11(2), 4–13.
Khanna, T., Gulati, R., & Nohria, N. (1998). The dynamics of learning alliances: Competition,
cooperation, and relative scope. Strategic Management Journal, 19(3), 193–210.
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199803)19:3<193::AID-SMJ949>3.0.CO;2-C
Ki, E., & Childers Hon, L. (2006). Relationship maintenance strategies on Fortune 500 company
web sites. Journal of Communication Management, 10(1), 27–43.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13632540610646355
August 27, 2020 139/150
Ki, E.-J., & Hon, L. C. (2007). Testing the Linkages Among the Organization–Public Relationship
and Attitude and Behavioral Intentions. Journal of Public Relations Research, 19(1), 1–
23. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627260709336593
Kim, S. (2011). Transferring Effects of CSR Strategy on Consumer Responses: The Synergistic
Model of Corporate Communication Strategy. Journal of Public Relations Research,
23(2), 218–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2011.555647
Kim, S., Haley, E., & Schumann, D. W. (2009). Primary consequences of corporate
communication strategy on consumer responses. 77.
https://search.proquest.com/openview/fa595dc562fb81a9527f20bb524b1750/1?pq-
origsite=gscholar&cbl=40231
Kim, S., Kim, S.-Y., & Hoon Sung, K. (2014). Fortune 100 companies’ Facebook strategies:
Corporate ability versus social responsibility. Journal of Communication Management,
18(4), 343–362. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-01-2012-0006
Kim, S., & Rader, S. (2010). What they can do versus how much they care: Assessing corporate
communication strategies on Fortune 500 web sites. Journal of Communication
Management, 14(1), 59–80. https://doi.org/10.1108/13632541011017816
Kitchen, P. J. (1997). Public Relations: Principles and Practice. International Thomson Business
Press.
Klassen, K. M., Borleis, E. S., Brennan, L., Reid, M., McCaffrey, T. A., & Lim, M. S. C. (2018).
What people „like“: Analysis of social media strategies used by food industry brands,
lifestyle brands, and health promotion organizations on Facebook and Instagram. Journal
of Medical Internet Research, 20(6). https://doi.org/10.2196/10227
Koch, T., & Zerback, T. (2013). Helpful or Harmful? How Frequent Repetition Affects Perceived
Statement Credibility. Journal of Communication, 63(6), 993–1010.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12063
Kohtamäki, M., Rabetino, R., & Möller, K. (2018). Alliance capabilities: A systematic review and
future research directions. Industrial Marketing Management, 68(1), 188–201.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2017.10.014
August 27, 2020 140/150
Kozinets, R. V., Valck, K. D., Wojnicki, A. C., & Wilner, S. J. S. (2010). Networked Narratives:
Understanding Word-of-Mouth Marketing in Online Communities. Journal of Marketing,
74(2), 71–89. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.74.2.71
Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content Analysis: An introduction to its methodology (4. Aufl.). Sage
publications.
Labrecque, L. I., Markos, E., & Milne, G. R. (2011). Online Personal Branding: Processes,
Challenges, and Implications. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 25(1), 37–50.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2010.09.002
Lachotzki, F., & Noteboom, R. (2005). Beyond control: Managing strategic alignment through
corporate dialogue. John Wiley & Sons.
Lauga, D. (2011). Persuasive Advertising With Sophisticated But Impressionable Consumers. In
R. Ahluwalia, T. L. Chartrand, & R. K. Ratner (Hrsg.), NA - Advances in Consumer
Research (Bd. 39, S. 119–120). Association for Consumer Research.
Ledinghan, J. A., & Bruning, S. D. (Eds. ). (2000). Public Relations as Relationship
Management: A Relational Approach to the Study and Practice of Public Relations.
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lenz, R. T. (1981). ‘Determinants’ of organizational performance: An interdisciplinary review.
Strategic Management Journal, 2(2), 131–154. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250020204
Levine, S. S., Bernard, M., & Nagel, R. (2017). Strategic Intelligence: The Cognitive Capability to
Anticipate Competitor Behavior. Strategic Management Journal, 38(12), 2390–2423.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2660
Lipiäinen, H., Karjaluoto, H., & Nevalainen, M. (2014). Digital channels in the internal
communication of a multinational corporation. Corporate Communications: An
International Journal, 19(3), 275–286. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-07-2012-0050
Liu, R. L., Sprott, D. E., Spangenberg, E. R., & Czellar, S. (2018). Engaging with Brands: The
Influence of Dispositional and Situational Brand Engagement on Customer Advocacy. In
R. W. Palmatier, V. Kumar, & C. M. Harmeling (Hrsg.), Customer Engagement Marketing
(S. 269–292). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61985-9_12
August 27, 2020 141/150
Long, L. W., & Hazelton, V. (1987). Public relations: A theoretical and practical response. Public
Relations Review, 13(2), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(87)80034-6
Mac Fhionnlaoich, C. (1999). Interorganizational Cooperation: Towards a Synthesis of
Theoretical Perspectives. The 15th Annual IMP Conference.
Macnamara, J., & Zerfass, A. (2012). Social Media Communication in Organizations: The
Challenges of Balancing Openness, Strategy, and Management. International Journal of
Strategic Communication, 6(4), 287–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/1553118X.2012.711402
Madrigal, R. (2000). The Role of Corporate Associations in New Product Evaluation. In S. J.
Hoch & R. J. Meyer (Hrsg.), Advances in Consumer Research (Bd. 27, S. 80–86).
Association for Consumer Research.
http://acrwebsite.org/volumes/8363/volumes/v27/NA-27
Mäenpää, R., & Korhonen, J. J. (2015). Digitalization in Retail: The Impact on Competition. In J.
Collin, K. Hiekkannen, J. J. Korhonen, M. Halen, T. Itälä, & M. Helenius (Hrsg.), IT
Leadership in Transition. The impact of Digitalization on Finnish Organizations (S. 89–
102). Unigrafia Oy.
Mantrala, M. K., & Albers, S. (2013). The Impact of the Internet on B2B Salesforce Size and
Structure. In G. L. Lilien & R. Grewal (Hrsg.), ISBM Handbook on Business-to-Business
Marketing (S. 539–563). Edward Elgar Publishing.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396.
Mazzei, A. (2010). Promoting active communication behaviours through internal communication.
Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 15(3), 221–234.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13563281011068096
McMillan, S. J. (2000). The Microscope and the Moving Target: The Challenge of Applying
Content Analysis to the World Wide Web. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly,
77(1), 80–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900007700107
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the Workplace: Theory, Research, and
Application. SAGE.
Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (1984). Designing strategic human resources systems.
Organizational Dynamics, 13(1), 36–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616(84)90030-5
August 27, 2020 142/150
Milgrom, P., & Roberts, J. (1986). Price and Advertising Signals of Product Quality. Journal of
Political Economy, 94(4), 796–821. https://doi.org/10.1086/261408
Mills, A. J. (2012). Virality in social media: The SPIN Framework. Journal of Public Affairs, 12(2),
162–169. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.1418
Mintzberg, H. (1981). What is planning anyway? Strategic Management Journal, 2(3), 319–324.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250020308
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification
and Salience: Defining the Principle of who and What Really Counts. Academy of
Management Review, 22(4), 853–886. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1997.9711022105
Mittal, V., & Kamakura, W. A. (2001). Satisfaction, Repurchase Intent, and Repurchase
Behavior: Investigating the Moderating Effect of Customer Characteristics. Journal of
Marketing Research, 38(1), 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.38.1.131.18832
Morsing, M., & Schultz, M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility communication: Stakeholder
information, response and involvement strategies. Business Ethics: A European Review,
15(4), 323–338. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8608.2006.00460.x
Moss, D., & Warnaby, G. (1998). Communications strategy? Strategy communication?
Integrating different perspectives. Journal of Marketing Communications, 4(3), 131–140.
https://doi.org/10.1080/135272698345807
Mowery, D. C., Oxley, J. E., & Silverman, B. S. (1998). Technological overlap and interfirm
cooperation: Implications for the resource-based view of the firm. Research Policy, 27(5),
507–523. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(98)00066-3
Muller, N. J. (2002). Challenges of intranet management. In S. Purba (Hrsg.), New Directions in
Internet Management: Best Practices Series (S. 203–221). Auerbach Publications.
Neill, W. D., & Richard, J. E. (2012). Intranet portals: Marketing and managing individuals’
acceptance and use. Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ), 20(2), 147–157.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2011.10.003
Nelson, P. (1970). Information and Consumer Behavior. Journal of Political Economy, 78(2),
311–329. https://doi.org/10.1086/259630
August 27, 2020 143/150
Nordin, F. (2009). Transcendental marketing: A conceptual framework and empirical examples.
Management Decision, 47(10), 1652–1664. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740911004736
Nye, J. S. (2008). Public Diplomacy and Soft Power. The Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science, 616(1), 94–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716207311699
Palmer, A., & Hartley, B. (2011). The Business Environment (7. Aufl.). McGraw-Hill Higher
Education.
Pan, P.-L., & Xu, J. (2009). Online strategic communication: A cross-cultural analysis of U.S.
and Chinese corporate websites. Public Relations Review, 35(3), 251–253.
https://doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.04.002
Pan, Y., Torres, I. M., & Zúñiga, M. A. (2019). Social Media Communications and Marketing
Strategy: A Taxonomical Review of Potential Explanatory Approaches. Journal of
Internet Commerce, 18(1), 73–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332861.2019.1567187
Peters, H. (2008). Game Theory. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Porter, M. (1990). Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors.
The Free Press.
Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and
Competitors. Free Press.
Porter, M. E. (1985). The Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior
Performance. Free Press. https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=193
Powell, T. C. (2001). Competitive advantage: Logical and philosophical considerations. Strategic
Management Journal, 22(9), 875–888. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.173
Powell, W. W. (1990). Neither Market Nor Hierarchy: Network Forms of Organizations. Research
in Organizational Behavior, 12, 295–336.
Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The Core Competence of the Corporation. Harvard
Business Review, 68(3), 79–91.
Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value
creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(3), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/dir.20015
August 27, 2020 144/150
Prajogo, D. I. (2007). The relationship between competitive strategies and product quality.
Industrial Management & Data Systems, 107(1), 69–83.
https://doi.org/10.1108/02635570710719061
Quintana-García, C., & Benavides-Velasco, C. A. (2004). Cooperation, competition, and
innovative capability: A panel data of European dedicated biotechnology firms.
Technovation, 24(12), 927–938.
Rahman, N., & Korn, H. J. (2010). Alliance structuring behavior: Relative influence of alliance
type and specific alliance experience. Management Decision, 48(5), 809–825.
https://doi.org/10.1108/00251741011043939
Rapp, A., Beitelspacher, L. S., Grewal, D., & Hughes, D. E. (2013). Understanding social media
effects across seller, retailer, and consumer interactions. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 41(5), 547–566. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-013-0326-9
Ray, G., Barney, J. B., & Muhanna, W. A. (2004). Capabilities, business processes, and
competitive advantage: Choosing the dependent variable in empirical tests of the
resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 25(1), 23–37.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.366
Reisinger, S., & Lehner, J. M. (2020). Teaching Strategy in a Disruptive World. 1–7.
Reisinger, S., Lehner, J., & Strehl, F. (2017). Creating Competitiveness: Erfolgreich in einer
globalisierten, digitalen Welt. Johannes Kepler Universität Linz.
Rim, H., & Song, D. (2016). “How Negative Becomes Less Negative”: Understanding the Effects
of Comment Valence and Response Sidedness in Social Media. Journal of
Communication, 66(3), 475–495. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12205
Ring, P. S., & van de Ven, A. H. (1994). Developmental Processes of Cooperative
Interorganizational Relationships. The Academy of Management Review, 19(1), 90–118.
JSTOR. https://doi.org/10.2307/258836
Robson, M. J., Katsikeas, C. S., Schlegelmilch, B. B., & Pramböck, B. (2019). Alliance
capabilities, interpartner attributes, and performance outcomes in international strategic
alliances. Journal of World Business, 54(2), 137–153.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2018.12.004
August 27, 2020 145/150
Rodriguez, M., Peterson, R. M., & Krishnan, V. (2012). Social Media’s Influence on Business-to-
Business Sales Performance. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 32(3),
365–378. https://doi.org/10.2753/PSS0885-3134320306
Rosenzweig, E. D., Roth, A. V., & Dean, J. W. (2003). The influence of an integration strategy on
competitive capabilities and business performance: An exploratory study of consumer
products manufacturers. Journal of Operations Management, 21(4), 437–456.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-6963(03)00037-8
Rowley, J. (2008). Understanding digital content marketing. Journal of Marketing Management,
24(5–6), 517–540. https://doi.org/10.1362/026725708X325977
Ruehl, C. H., & Ingenhoff, D. (2015). Communication management on social networking sites:
Stakeholder motives and usage types of corporate Facebook, Twitter and YouTube
pages. Journal of Communication Management, 19(3), 288–302.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-04-2015-0025
Saadat, V., & Saadat, Z. (2016). Organizational Learning as a Key Role of Organizational
Success. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 230(1), 219–225.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.09.028
Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 600–619. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940610690169
Sashi, C. M. (2009). Buyer Behavior in Business Markets: A Review and Integrative Model.
Journal of Global Business Issues, 3(2), 129–138.
Sashi, C. M. (2012). Customer engagement, buyer‐seller relationships, and social media.
Management Decision, 50(2), 253–272. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251741211203551
Saxe, R., & Weitz, B. A. (1982). The SOCO Scale: A Measure of the Customer Orientation of
Salespeople. Journal of Marketing Research, 19(3), 343–351.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3151568
Saxton, G. D., & Waters, R. D. (2014). What do Stakeholders Like on Facebook? Examining
Public Reactions to Nonprofit Organizations’ Informational, Promotional, and Community-
Building Messages. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(3), 280–299.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2014.908721
August 27, 2020 146/150
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of
engagement and burnout. A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of
Happiness Studies, 3(1), 71–92. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015630930326
Schumann, D. W., Hathcote, J. M., & West, S. (1991). Corporate Advertising in America: A
Review of Published Studies on Use, Measurement, and Effectiveness. Journal of
Advertising, 20(3), 35–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.1991.10673346
Shah, R. H., & Swaminathan, V. (2008). Factors influencing partner selection in strategic
alliances: The moderating role of alliance context. Strategic Management Journal, 29(5),
471–494. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.656
Shee, P. S. B., & Abratt, R. (1989). A new approach to the corporate image management
process. Journal of Marketing Management, 5(1), 63–76.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.1989.9964088
Sheinin, D. A., & Biehal, G. J. (1999). Corporate Advertising Pass-through onto the Brand: Some
Experimental Evidence. Marketing Letters, 10(1), 63–74.
Shenkar, O., & Yuchtman-Yaar, E. (1997). Reputation, Image, Prestige, and Goodwill: An
Interdisciplinary Approach to Organizational Standing. Human Relations, 50(11), 1361–
1381. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679705001102
Singh, N., Zhao, H., & Hu, X. (2005). Analyzing the cultural content of web sites: A cross‐
national comparision of China, India, Japan, and US. International Marketing Review,
22(2), 129–146. https://doi.org/10.1108/02651330510593241
Sluss, D. M., Klimchak, M., & Holmes, J. J. (2008). Perceived organizational support as a
mediator between relational exchange and organizational identification. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 73(3), 457–464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2008.09.001
Smidts, A., Pruyn, A. T. H., & Van Riel, C. B. (2001). The impact of employee communication
and perceived external prestige on organizational identification. Academy of
Management Journal, 44(5), 1051–1062.
Smith, S. (2013). Conceptualising and Evaluating Experiences with Brands on Facebook.
International Journal of Market Research, 55(3), 357–374. https://doi.org/10.2501/IJMR-
2013-034
August 27, 2020 147/150
Smudde, P. M. (2005). Blogging, Ethics and Public Relations: A Proactive and Dialogic
Approach. Public Relations Quarterly, 50(3), 34–38.
Snyder, M., & DeBono, K. G. (1985). Appeals to Image and Claims About Quality:
Understanding the Psychology of Advertising. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 49(3), 586–597.
Soliman, K. S., & Mosbeh, R. (2008). An exploratory analysis of factors affecting users’ adoption
of corporate intranet: A Tunisian study. Management Research News, 31(5), 375–385.
https://doi.org/10.1108/01409170810865172
Song, M., Calantone, R. J., & Benedetto, C. A. D. (2002). Competitive forces and strategic
choice decisions: An experimental investigation in the United States and Japan. Strategic
Management Journal, 23(10), 969–978. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.258
Springston, J. (2001). Public relations and the new media technology: The impact of the internet.
In R. L. Heath (Hrsg.), Handbook of public relations (S. 603–614). SAGE Publications.
Steensma, H., & Milligen, F. V. (2003). Bases of power, procedural justice and outcomes of
mergers: The Push and pull factors of influence tactics. Journal of Collective
Negotiations, 30(2), 113–134. https://doi.org/10.2190/TBQ7-KJ12-LB05-F9CD
Stenmark, D. (2003). Knowledge creation and the web: Factors indicating why some intranets
succeed where others fail. Knowledge and Process Management, 10(3), 207–216.
https://doi.org/10.1002/kpm.173
Stevens, G. R., & McElhill, J. (2000). A qualitative study and model of the use of e‐mail in
organisations. Internet Research, 10(4), 271–283.
https://doi.org/10.1108/10662240010342531
Steyn, B. (2004). From strategy to corporate communication strategy: A conceptualisation.
Journal of Communication Management, 8(2), 168–183.
https://doi.org/doi:10.1108/13632540410807637
Steyn, B. (2007). Contribution of Public Relations to Organizational Strategy Formulation. In E.
L. Toth (Hrsg.), The Future of Excellence in Public Relations and Communication
Management. Challenges for the Next Generation (S. 137–172). Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
August 27, 2020 148/150
Stieglitz, S., & Dang-Xuan, L. (2013). Emotions and Information Diffusion in Social Media—
Sentiment of Microblogs and Sharing Behavior. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 29(4), 217–248. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222290408
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management.
Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-
0266(199708)18:7<509::AID-SMJ882>3.0.CO;2-Z
Tench, R., & Yeomans, L. (2006). Exploring Public Relations. Prentice-Hall.
Tikkanen, H., Hietanen, J., Henttonen, T., & Rokka, J. (2009). Exploring virtual worlds: Success
factors in virtual world marketing. Management Decision, 47(8), 1357–1381.
https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740910984596
Tkalac Verčič, A., Verčič, D., & Sriramesh, K. (2012). Internal communication: Definition,
parameters, and the future. Public Relations Review, 38(2), 223–230.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.12.019
Todeva, E., & Knoke, D. (2005). Strategic Alliances and Models of Collaboration. Management
Decision, 43(1), 123–148.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence-
Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review. British Journal of
Management, 14(3), 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375
Turri, A. M., Smith, K. H., & Kemp, E. (2013). Developing affective brand commitment through
social media. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 14(3), 201–214.
Urban, G. L. (2004). The Emerging Era of Customer Advocacy. MIT Sloan Management Review,
45(2), 77–82.
Valentini, C., Romenti, S., Murtarelli, G., & Pizzetti, M. (2018). Digital visual engagement:
Influencing purchase intentions on Instagram. Journal of Communication Management,
22(4), 362–381. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-01-2018-0005
van Doorn, J., Lemon, K. N., Mittal, V., Nass, S., Pick, D., Pirner, P., & Verhoef, P. C. (2010).
Customer Engagement Behavior: Theoretical Foundations and Research Directions.
Journal of Service Research, 13(3), 253–266.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670510375599
August 27, 2020 149/150
van Riel, C. B. M., & Balmer, J. M. T. (1997). Corporate identity: The concept, its measurement
and management. European Journal of Marketing, 31(5/6), 340–355.
https://doi.org/10.1108/eb060635
Van Riel, C. B. M., & Blackburn, C. (1995). Principles of Corporate Communication. Prentice
Hall.
van Woerkum, C., & Aarts, N. (2008). Staying connected: The communication between
organizations and their environment. Corporate Communications: An International
Journal, 13(2), 197–211. https://doi.org/10.1108/13563280810869613
Verhoef, P. C., Reinartz, W. J., & Krafft, M. (2010). Customer Engagement as a New
Perspective in Customer Management. Journal of Service Research, 13(3), 247–252.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670510375461
Von der Fehr, N.-H., & Stevik, K. (1998). Persuasive advertising and product differentiation.
Southern Economic Journal, 65(1), 113–126. https://doi.org/10.2307/1061355
Wallace, E., Buil, I., & de Chernatony, L. (2012). Facebook ‘friendship’ and brand advocacy.
Journal of Brand Management, 20(2), 128–146. https://doi.org/10.1057/bm.2012.45
Wang, Y., & Krakover, S. (2008). Destination marketing: Competition, cooperation or
coopetition? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 20(2), 126–
141. https://doi.org/10.1108/09596110810852122
Waters, R. D., & Jamal, J. Y. (2011). Tweet, tweet, tweet: A content analysis of nonprofit
organizations’ Twitter updates. Public Relations Review, 37(3), 321–324.
https://doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.03.002
Welch, M., & Jackson, P. R. (2007). Rethinking internal communication: A stakeholder
approach. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 12(2), 177–198.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13563280710744847
Wenzler, M., & Schmidthaler, M. (2019). Readiness, Use and Enablers of Digital Customer
Interaction Tools in Austria. In M. Überwimmer, R. Füreder, M. Schmidthaler, & M.
Gaisch (Hrsg.), Cross-Cultural Business Conference 2019 Proceedings. (S. 99–106).
Shaker Verlag GmbH.
August 27, 2020 150/150
Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2),
171–180. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250050207
Williamson, O. E. (1981). The Economics of Organization: The Transaction Cost Approach.
American Journal of Sociology, 87(3), 548–577. JSTOR.
Wood, D. J. (1991). Corporate Social Performance Revisited. The Academy of Management
Review, 16(4), 691–718. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1991.4279616
Wood, D. J., & Gray, B. (1991). Toward a Comprehensive Theory of Collaboration. The Journal
of Applied Behavioral Science, 27(2), 139–162.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886391272001
Wu, P. F. (2013). In Search of Negativity Bias: An Empirical Study of Perceived Helpfulness of
Online Reviews. Psychology & Marketing, 30(11), 971–984.
https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20660
Yu, T., & Cannella, A. A. (2007). Rivalry between multinational enterprises: An event history
approach. Academy of Management Journal, 50(3), 665–686.
Zagare, F. C. (1984). Game theory: Concepts and applications. Sage Publications.
