Seven dimensions ofcorporate identity

A categorisation from the practitioners’perspectives

T.C. MelewarBrunel Business School, Brunel University, London, UK, and

Elif KaraosmanogluIstanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey

Abstract

Purpose – This paper investigates what organisations perceive as the essential components ofcorporate identity concept and their contents. It proposes an operational definition of corporateidentity on the basis of the practitioners’ views.

Design/methodology/approach – The information was gathered through 32 in-depth interviewswith managers from different organisations (mainly multinational companies) and an analysis ofcorporate literature and web sites. The initial analysis is based on a multidisciplinary categorisationdeveloped by the first author, which facilitated the systematic analysis of a wide range of components(e.g. corporate communication, corporate design, corporate culture etc.) associated with corporateidentity.

Findings – The study shows that there is a considerable divergence in opinions concerning thefundamental components of corporate identity among practitioners. Most interviewees heavilyassociated identity with the areas of corporate design, communication, behaviour and strategywhereas there was no unanimous agreement as to whether or not corporate culture was a product ordeterminant of corporate identity.

Research limitations/implications – Developing sub-items and their measures for eachdimension presented in the proposed definition and examining the possible relationships betweenthem might be the further step. Also additional empirical research which considers consequences ofcorporate identity management in relation to company performance indicators could enhance overallunderstanding of the concept.

Practical implications – Senior company management can use the categorisation discussed in thispaper as a starting point for development of corporate identity management strategies.

Originality/value – Recategorisation of Melewar’s corporate identity dimensions, which help definecorporate identity concept in measurable terms.

Keywords Corporate identity, Corporate strategy, Organizational identity, Corporate image

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionFor a variety of reasons, both academic and business interests in corporate identityhave increased significantly in recent years. Organisations have realised that a strongidentity can help them align with the marketplace, attract investment, motivateemployees and serve as a means to differentiate their products and services. Thus,many organisations are striving to develop a distinct and recognisable identity. Certaincharacteristics of an efficacious corporate identity include a reputation for high quality

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0566.htm

EJM40,7/8

846

Received August 2003Revised September 2004and April 2005Accepted May 2005

European Journal of MarketingVol. 40 No. 7/8, 2006pp. 846-869q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0309-0566DOI 10.1108/03090560610670025

goods and services, a robust financial performance, a harmonious workplaceenvironment, and a reputation for social and environmental responsibility (Einwillerand Will, 2002).

Identity is now widely recognised as an effective strategic instrument and a meansto achieve competitive advantage (Schmidt, 1995) and being researched by moreacademics and practitioners. However, the lack of a clear definition (Balmer andGreyser, 2003) makes the research in corporate identity management area a formidabletask (Melewar and Jenkins, 2002), especially, in relation to determining the parametersof the research concept in guiding scholarly investigations (Balmer and Greyser, 2003;Cornelissen and Elving, 2003). This lack of clarity in the academic world is alsoreflected in the business world. Many executives confessed to having little knowledgeof how to manage, control or even explicitly define the concept (Melewar et al., 2003).

In academic research, since corporate identity has been associated with differentlevels of organisational phenomena and practices i.e. the road from visual expressionsto all expressions of the organisation (Cornelissen and Elving, 2003), developing bettermeasures to examine it as well as its components remain of considerable importance.Therefore there is a need for an in-depth analysis to decipher the essence of thecorporate identity construct and its derivatives (Cornelissen and Elving, 2003).However, the main aim of this paper is rather to develop a better understanding ofcorporate identity through examining the experiences and perceptions of managers.We review evaluations of the definitions of the corporate identity concept and elucidatethe components of corporate identity based on the literature, and investigateempirically how corporate identity management is practiced in comparison to itstheoretically defined components. By examining the managers’ views, we demonstratehow each component’s content has been explained and perceived in practice. Thecentral issue this paper assumes is that this approach will enable us to operationalisethe concept and its components by examining it in an “ecologically valid environment”(Smith et al., 1998, p. 64) rather than at a theoretical level, since any theoretical orconceptual argument needs to be tested in actual application (Allen and Janiszewski,1989).

Furthermore, from the perspectives of managers interviewed, it examines theimportance of each component in the overall corporate identity management. Thestudy uses both in-depth interviews and secondary sources of information fromacademic and corporate literature and tries to classify the essential components ofcorporate identity. As a result of this attempt, it provides an operational definition ofcorporate identity, which may aid further empirical research.

Corporate identity: the conceptA review of the literature over the past 20 years reveals that both academics andpractitioners are placing increased importance on the issue of corporate identity. Thevarious definitions of corporate identity were reviewed for the purpose of this study,largely based on research by a number of commentators (Balmer and Soenen, 1999;Ind, 1992; Melewar and Jenkins, 2002; Olins, 1990a, b).

Corporate identity could be interpreted as a strategic manifestation ofcorporate-level vision and mission, underpinned by the strategies which acorporation employs in its operations or production (Melewar and Wooldridge,2001). A strong emphasis is placed on ethical and cultural values, as well as

Dimensions ofcorporate

identity

847

organisational history and philosophy (Ind, 1992). The literature reviewed almostunanimously makes a profound link between corporate image and corporate identity,stating that image is the collective perception that the stakeholders have of corporateidentity.

Balmer’s research (1998) is useful in outlining some of the generally acceptedfeatures of corporate identity definitions. First, corporate identity is a multidisciplinaryfield. Second, it is a term used to identify the essence of what the firm is and thusincorporates many unique characteristics of the firm such as history, philosophy,culture, communication and the industry the firm operates in. Third, it is inseparablefrom the corporate personality of the organisation.

Furthermore, Balmer and Soenen (1999) also provide some useful judgments. Theyhighlight that although there is no consensus on what elements make up the corporateidentity mix, it is widely agreed that a multidisciplinary approach to the study ofcorporate identity is necessary (See also Bick et al., 2003). This opinion is supported byMelewar and Jenkins (2002) who state that the term “corporate identity” evolved fromundertakings in the area of marketing, primarily in areas such as corporate visualidentity systems, which are used to represent the organisational values and mission tothe outside world. However, the evolution of the corporate identity concept meant thatthe term became associated with a wide range of functions including business strategy,philosophy of key executives, corporate culture, behaviour and corporate design whichare both interdependent and unique to each organisation (Van Riel, 1997).

Melewar and Jenkins (2002) state that, whilst there is no distinctive differencebetween the views of practitioners and academics, there are differences in theapproaches the two groups viewed the fundamental components of the mix. Theapproach taken by practitioners is generally more process-orientated (Balmer, 1998)and is thus generally concerned with more tangible elements of identity with a strongemphasis on those areas that have a higher propensity for manipulation. Balmer andSoenen (1999) highlight that this can result in practitioners concentrating on visualaspects of identity and overlooking other areas. Academics generally take an approachthat is more orientated towards structure, and tend to address a greater number of themix components.

Research methodologyA review of the corporate identity literature was conducted along with a review ofrelated topics such as corporate strategy, strategic planning, marketing strategies andorganisational behaviour. The literature review revealed that although there areseveral studies on corporate identity, there is still a need for a more elaborateoperational definition of the concept. Through analysing the views of bothpractitioners and academics a functional definition of the term was developed by theauthors.

The initial analysis is based on the categorisation developed by Melewar (1993) asthis provides a multidisciplinary approach and facilitates the systematic analysis of awide range of components associated with corporate identity. The seven maindimensions put forward in Melewar’s categorisation are; corporate communication,corporate design, corporate culture, behaviour, corporate structure, industry identityand corporate strategy. Figure 1 depicts the initial categorisation.

EJM40,7/8

848

The research aimed to ascertain what respondents believed were the core componentsof corporate identity and the relationship between these components. The method ofresearch was a case study approach, which comprised 32 in-depth interviews mainlywith directors and senior managers but also with some lower level employees in 20companies. The study was oriented towards providing an operational definition, andso the interviews aimed to examine a wide range of experiences and perspectives.

The companies included in the study came from a broad spectrum of industriesincluding two multinational banks, two multinational accountancy firms, two

Figure 1.The original corporateidentity categorisation

Dimensions ofcorporate

identity

849

multinational oil companies, two multinational engineering companies, twomultinational IT companies, four multinational conglomerates, two internetinsurance companies, two toy companies and two marketing consultancies. Of the32 individuals interviewed, ten held positions in the field of marketing, four heldhuman resources positions, 14 were senior general managers or directors and four wereon graduate training schemes. In certain organisations we interviewed more than oneindividual.

A broad spectrum of academic research on the topic of corporate identity was alsoconducted for the purpose of this investigation. Secondary sources of information werealso used such as company literature, information from their respective websites andrelevant press releases about each company.

A broad cross-section of companies was chosen because part of the investigationaimed to analyse why particular firms might perceive certain components as moreimportant than others. For example, whether the choice of components and identitywere related to the size of the firm, the industry in which it operates or any otherfirm-specific influence. The sample thus reflects a diverse set of organisations,functional areas, and positions. The interviews did not follow any particular structure.

Unfolding the corporate identity conceptCorporate communicationA number of academics have stressed the links between corporate communication andcorporate identity (Cornelissen and Harris, 2001; Van Riel, 1995; Varey and Lewis,2000). Corporate communication is a term that encompasses all the ways in which theorganisation communicates with its various stakeholders. Thus, all of the messagesemanating from an organisation, everything that it produces and all of the activities itis involved in will act to shape stakeholders’ perceptions. Corporate communicationcan be both controlled and uncontrolled in nature. Communication intentionallyinstigated by management with the aim of improving stakeholder relationships isclassified as controlled corporate communication. Conversely, uncontrolledcommunication takes place when organisations influence stakeholders’ perceptionsunintentionally.

Controlled corporate communication. A distinction can be made between three maintypes of corporate communication, categorised as management, marketing andorganisational communication. Grunig (1993) argues that the particular “mix” of thesesubdivisions of communication is integral to the concept of corporate communication.

Marketing communication is generally associated with the 4Ps of product, price,place and promotion and is aimed at supporting the sales of an organisation’s productsor services. These include, advertising, public relation activities and direct marketing.

Organisational communication is conceptualised by Van Riel (1995) as all forms ofcommunication with stakeholders with whom an organisation has an interdependentrelationship. Investor relations and labour relations are part of organisationalcommunication. Marketing and organisational communication both act as theprincipal link between image and strategic management (Hatch and Schultz, 1997).

Management communication applies to attempts to “communicate the vision andmission of the company in order to establish a favourable image and ultimately a goodreputation amongst its internal and external stakeholders” (Olins, 1989). Examples

EJM40,7/8

850

include, house journal and magazines for employees and annual and environmentalreports for external audiences.

Importance of controlled corporate communicationThere was a strong consensus amongst the interviewees that controlled corporatecommunication was an important component of the overall corporate identity concept.An interviewee from the engineering company reflected this sentiment when askedabout the importance of corporate communication to overall identity:

It really must be. We must now be more accountable with respect to our activities and thismeans that efficient mechanisms must be implemented to communicate with the wide varietyof groups who have an interest in our company.

An interviewee from one oil company stated that the inter-relationships of corporatecommunication and identity meant that the two concepts were inseparable:

Corporate communication is not just what the company says but how it is viewed in theoutside world, so it is to a large extent what your identity is based upon. Everything . . .(company name) does, communicates something, from our environmental stance to ourshareholder statements and our identity is based on how all these forms ofcommunication are received by our staff, customers and investors.

Management communication is perceived by many academics and practitioners asbeing the most important of these three forms of communication, as it involves theexpression of organisational goals directly to internal stakeholders (Kennedy, 1997;Kiriakidou and Millward, 2000). Most of the interviewees concurred with this view, forexample, an interviewee from a trading (conglomerate) company stated:

The most important thing in a company is that everyone is aiming for the same thing,therefore, the corporate management has to put forward its goals, its mission and try to sellthese to its employees. Once managers do this then the other corporate problems become fareasier to solve.

It is also apparent that communication directed at the external stakeholdermanagement communication plays a fundamental role in developing the desiredcorporate image and in creating a strong competitive advantage (Kiriakidou andMillward, 2000). In general, most of the companies believed that marketing andorganisational communication were also highly significant forms of corporatecommunication. However, many of the interviewees explicitly stated that they feltthe sub-divisions of marketing, organisational and management communicationwere a little artificial and impractical as the inter-linkages often made it impossibleto distinguish between these different types of communication.

Uncontrolled corporate communication. Cornelissen (2000) argues that the linearmodels of corporate identity (For models see Stuart, 1999b) overlook the fact thatcorporate identity perceived by publics, i.e. corporate image, is a total product ofcontrolled and non-controlled messages. Balmer (1995, p. 35) states that “. . . everythingthe organisation does will in some way communicate the organisation’s identity”,which implies that unplanned communication has a considerable role in corporateidentity management (Stuart, 1999b).

Dimensions ofcorporate

identity

851

Importance of uncontrolled corporate communicationThe majority of interviewees also perceived the matter of uncontrolled communicationas being highly important to corporate identity. The dearth of academic literature onthe subject is thus all the more surprising and there is a clear need for more research inthis area. An interviewee from an accountancy firm expressed the concern that hisorganisation had about uncontrolled corporate communication:

. . . all of the players in our industry are now under such close scrutiny from the media that wemust operate at the highest standards, because bad publicity really has a more detrimentalimpact on our business than ever before.

Another method of influencing uncontrolled corporate communication that wasperceived to be highly effective by more than one interviewee was to ensure thatemployees were highly motivated and to develop an internal culture of integrity andhonesty. This makes sense as uncontrolled communication often takes place whenemployees interact with external stakeholders (Moingeon and Ramanantsoa, 1997).One interviewee from a marketing consultancy stressed this link between a virtuouscompany culture and positive uncontrolled communication about the company:

. . . values of probity and integrity will always be of the utmost importance and are the key tosuccess in most companies and if you are running a company with these values you willdevelop a positive image which is reflected to the outside world.

A dynamic inter-relationship between culture and communication must beacknowledged. Corporate cultures will generally be communicated to stakeholders insome form, particularly through employee behaviour and therefore one method ofreducing the occurrence of negative uncontrolled communication is by gainingemployee commitment of core corporate values.

Every respondent believed that corporate communication was a fundamentalinfluence on the corporate identity at his or her company. However, many intervieweesdid state that communication could only be effective if it was supported byperformance achievements and that corporate rhetoric must be congruent with thereality of its operations and behaviour.

Corporate design (visual identity)Corporate design is a term used to describe the vast number of visual cues that areassociated with a specific organisation. Corporate visual identity system (CVIS) iscomposed of five main elements: the organisation’s name, slogan, logotype/symbol,color and typography (Dowling, 1994; Melewar and Saunders, 1998; Topalian, 1984).Visual identity can be conveyed in other ways, for example, through the companies’products and vehicles and the location as well as the architecture of its buildings. Theinterior office design, for example, may symbolise many aspects of the corporateculture. Dowling (1994) also highlights other applications of CVIS includingadvertising, clothing, packaging and promotion and give-aways. Furthermore, Olins(1990a, b) highlights the importance of the organisational environment in expressingthe corporate identity.

Baker and Balmer (1997) state that visual identity has two fundamental purposes,firstly, it represents the organisation’s values and philosophy, and secondly, itsupports corporate communication. The organisation’s visual identity can influencemany of the stakeholders including employees and investors as well as consumers. It is

EJM40,7/8

852

the most frequently discussed aspect of corporate identity and in consequence, one ofthe most commonly used methods to indicate a transition in identity by organisationsis a name change, often along with alterations to the corporate image.

Importance of corporate designBoth the literature and the interviews supported the assertion that many organisationsuse design as a means of expressing the strengths and qualities of the firm (Melewarand Saunders, 1999). One interviewee from an insurance company reflected the generalconsensus that design was a crucial element of corporate identity:

It [corporate design] gives our employees a sense what is expected of them and gives ourcustomers, who are largely other businesses, a sense of what the company is about,professionalism and a high level of service.

Although there was considerable agreement that corporate design was an importantpart of the overall corporate identity concept some sub-components of design wereconsidered more important. Numerous interviewees believed that the slogan was animportant aspect of design stating that slogans can have a powerful effect onstakeholders’ perceptions of the organisation and can be useful in remindingemployees of the corporate mission. The interviewee from an IT company emphasisedthat:

When you set up a new company you must make it clear what the new policies and catchphrases are going to be and these can have a strong impact on the overall company identity.

Again, the relationship between design and culture is apparent, as corporate sloganand mission are often cited as key components of culture as well as design. There wasalso a strong consensus, particularly amongst the interviewees from largemultinationals, that architecture and location are an important aspect of corporatevisual identity. An interviewee from an oil company suggested that a particular changein location and office layout had had a profound effect on the internal culture of thefirm:

When . . . [company name] brought everyone into the new centre at Waterloo (London) therewas an impact on the culture and this came with a new office layout, probably symbolising achange to some extent in the way things were to be done.

To summarise, the majority of interviewees believed that design was an importantaspect of corporate identity. However, they felt that some of the sub-elements of designwere more important. The slogan, architecture and office layout, were of particularimportance whilst there was some scepticism surrounding the benefits of changing thecompany name. Another important element that might be considered is the design ofthe company’s web site. Web sites are becoming an ever more popular medium thatstakeholders use to gather information about the company and thus are important inshaping perceptions of corporate identity.

Corporate cultureThere is a plethora of different views as to what constitutes corporate culture. Someargue that it is strongly associated with rituals, for example, one interviewee explicitlystated that culture: “. . . is the way we do things around here”. In contrast, others suchas Peter and Waterman (1982) argue that employees are central to culture and what is

Dimensions ofcorporate

identity

853

important is the “shared values” of participants, although the evidence for thisperspective has been strongly questioned.

There is a range of views concerning the relationship between corporate culture andcorporate identity. Culture epitomises the consensus within a company about howactivities should be accomplished and is conceived as a result of a group’s sharedexperience and learning with respect to matters of external adaptation and internalintegration (Schein, 1985). In contrast, identity pertains to who we are as anorganisation. Moingeon (1999) states that the use of the identity concept is a result offield researchers’ perceptions of the “inadequacy of the culture concept to go past thedescriptive level in organisational analysis”. Downey (1986) believes that corporateculture is the consequence of corporate identity and argues that culture is the “what” ofa company and identity is the “why”.

Importance of corporate culture and its sub-componentsThere was unanimous agreement amongst the interviewees that the corporate cultureat their organisation was fundamental to its commercial success. Most of theinterviewees were able to define the characteristics of their specific corporate culture,for example, the interviewee from a trading (conglomerate) company stated that theculture represented:

Probity, teamwork and integrity.

There was considerable debate amongst the interviewees over the relationshipbetween corporate culture and corporate identity. A significant number of intervieweesperceived the two concepts as being fairly separate and distinct entities. For example,an interviewee from the engineering company stated that:

I think corporate culture is something that builds up over years and years, it has nothing todo with the corporate identity of the company which is projected to the public.

This view seems to perceive corporate identity as being an image developed by theorganisation for marketing purposes to outside stakeholders and not intrinsicallylinked to internal aspects of the firm, and thus perceives corporate culture as being anentirely separate entity from corporate identity. A respondent from a toy companystated that his company would try to project a different corporate identity dependingon the groups they intended to appeal to and was thus more malleable in contrast toculture, which existed purely in the minds of employees:

Corporate culture is what really goes on in our companies. It is the true reality of howemployees feel about working for us. Corporate identity is more to do with how we want to beseen by various groups.

However, many interviewees suggested that corporate culture and corporate identitywere inseparably connected. For example, one respondent from an oil companyclaimed:

. . . corporate culture and corporate identity are certainly connected and it is actually verydifficult to dissect the two. Corporate culture drives the development of the identity of theorganisation but also is generated by it.

Out of all of the components of corporate identity, the issue of corporate culture threwup the widest range of opinions. Some of the interviewees regarded culture as being

EJM40,7/8

854

exactly the same thing as identity, others felt that culture was simply a component ofidentity and some even expressed the opinion that culture transcended and was a farbroader concept than identity itself. All of the interviewees felt that a strong culturewas fundamental to the success of their organisations and the relationship betweencorporate culture and identity is clearly one that would benefit from further academicand business research.

In order to allow a systematic and objective evaluation of the concept of corporateculture, its various sub-components will be analysed. Although there is no universallyaccepted definition of corporate culture, the literature review suggested that thefollowing are important elements of culture; philosophy, mission, values, principles,guidelines, history, national culture, the founder of the company and subculture(Ambler and Barrow, 1996; Czarniawska and Wolff, 1998; Schmidt, 1995).

Importance of missionCorporate philosophy is associated with the fundamental values and assumptions of acompany created by senior management. Corporate values according to Van Riel andBalmer (1997), are concerned with the beliefs within the organisation and includelanguage, rituals and ideologies that guide the company’s culture and form thecorporate identity. All of the companies (except for the smallest, a toy manufacturer)had a clear set of explicit statements pertaining to corporate philosophies and goals.Most of the interviewees stated that these were in place to clarify organisational ethicsand objectives to a wide variety of stakeholder groups.

The corporate mission pertains to the reason for the existence of the company and isthus seen by many as the most important element of corporate philosophy (Abratt,1989). The interviewee from a trading (conglomerate) company maintained the need fora mission statement:

. . . at the end of the day if you don’t have a mission, if you don’t have goals, then you’refinished.

Corporate principles are an important influence on essential corporate actions such astargets, values and the mission of an organisation. Corporate guidelines are vital inexplaining the significance of corporate principles to all levels of the hierarchy withinthe organisation. Many interviewees stated that corporate philosophy, values,principles and guidelines are embedded in the mission statement of the company.

Importance of corporate historyThere is a clear link between corporate culture and corporate history because culturedevelops through the interaction between individuals over time. Moingeon andRamanantsoa (1997) state that while history is instrumental in defining the corporateidentity, identity in itself is instrumental in guiding history by its contribution to thedevelopment of cultural norms manifested in perceptions and actions of members, thusa dynamic linkage is evident between these two elements. Most of the intervieweeswere of the opinion that corporate history was a significant constituent of the corporateidentity concept. One interviewee from an IT company stated that corporate historycould have a lasting impact on reputation:

. . . if you’ve got a reputation that’s historic; it’s often very difficult to change thatreputation . . .

Dimensions ofcorporate

identity

855

This is evidence of the fact that stakeholders’ perceptions of organisations are formedover long periods of time, so the history of organisational activities such as behaviour,communication and strategy is the key to the foundations of identity. Thus, themajority of respondents believed history to be an important element to both cultureand identity. Moreover, history is also strongly related to the next sub-component, thefounder of the company.

Importance of the founder of the companyIn general, every interviewee believed that the founder of the company had at somestage been an important influence on corporate culture. Some were more adamant thanothers about the perpetuation of that influence as time went on but the fact that everysingle interviewee knew a bit about the founder of their organisation suggests that thefounder usually plays some role in the development of corporate culture. Oneinterviewee from an engineering company, when asked if he felt that the founder of thecompany had a significant impact on corporate identity reflected this view:

. . . the founders had a big influence on the company because they brought different nationalcultures to the organisation, as I’ve said this Anglo-Dutch influence is very important to thisday. Also their business strategies are still important particularly regarding growth and risk.

The following example in particular shows the obvious links between the founder andother components of corporate identity such as the company name (as the companyfounder’s name). The respondent from an accountancy firm stated that:

He certainly did in . . . [company name], a chap called . . . [founder’s name] set the company up.The work ethic that he developed which was a very harsh one for the city in those days hasbeen maintained despite the years that have passed.

Importance of country-of-originMany academics maintain that a strong link exists between the national culture fromwhich the company originated and its corporate identity (Foo and Lowe, 1999;Rowlinson and Procter, 1999; Varey and Lewis, 2000). For example, commonassociations are made such as “German efficiency” and “Japanese innovation”. Ingeneral, the interviewees believed that there was a country-of-origin (COO) effectpresent within their organisation. However, this had been diluted in manyorganisations, which had been operating overseas for a long period of time with adecentralised structure. The COO effect also appeared weaker in organisations thathad grown through international mergers. One interviewee from an engineering firmwas probably most adamant about the importance of national culture on overallcorporate identity:

. . . when you talk about . . . [company name] you talk about a German company, which hasgrown over many years within Germany and many of the businesses and communities wedeveloped strong links with were also German and this made our national identity a strongpart of our overall identity.

Most respondents believed that the COO was a significant influence on corporateculture. However, many were of the opinion that the influence of national culture wasdeclining as a result of globalisation. This sentiment was strongly expressed byrespondents from an oil company. Thus, these companies might now be described as a

EJM40,7/8

856

true multinational company that has transcended the COO effect as its operations takeplace in so many different countries and it has adapted its activities to local conditionsin these countries. An interesting area of research might therefore be to analysewhether or not the increasing spate of mergers and acquisitions in manymultinationals has meant that national characteristics are no longer as important tocorporate identity as they have previously been.

Importance of sub-culturesThe unitary perspective assumes that culture is monolithic and reflections of thefounder’s beliefs and in consequence organisational members share a sense of loyaltyand commitment to the organisation (Schein, 1985). However, this view is a littlemisleading since there is no substantive reason why employees across the organisationwould share consistent and stable values. Hence, many commentators have embraced adifferentiation perspective, viewing the organisation as an amalgamation ofsub-cultures (Balmer and Wilson, 1998; Deal and Kennedy, 1982; Meyerson, 1991).They go on to explain that because corporate culture is highly inter-meshed withhistorical and behavioural characteristics of the firm and its employees, and the factthat each employee will interpret history and management communication differently,the evolution of a unitary corporate culture is virtually impossible.

There was a wide range of opinions amongst the interviewees. Some respondentsclaimed that many sub-cultures could be identified in their organisation and that thiscould be problematic. Others stated that they had little influence and some even statedthat they did not exist in any significant capacity.

One interviewee from a trading company argued that sub-cultures could have adetrimental impact on corporate identity:

. . . a classic example of this, 10 years ago I sold a company that had just started off as 3 of usand ended with 90 people who were put in their own 5 sub-divisions to allow them to do theirown thing, be more creative. And what happened was that they all got jealous of each otherand I’ve seen this many times in other companies that I’ve worked with when in fact theinternal brands can often become more destructive towards each other than the actualcompetitor brands.

Another interviewee from a marketing consultancy spoke of the negative impact that aclash of national cultures had had within his organisation:

. . . particularly as a result of merging with an American company. Many of our UKemployees ended up forming cliques and I suppose they did the same, it all really becomes abit dysfunctional when you’re trying to work towards one goal as a team, but that’s whathappened and there was a bit of animosity.

In summary, respondents felt that corporate culture was of fundamental importance tovirtually every aspect of their firm’s operations. Factors which respondents feltstrongly influenced corporate culture include; mission statements, history, country oforigin, subculture and to a lesser extent the founder of the company. There was a widerange of opinions concerning the relationship between culture and identity rangingfrom the two terms being essentially the same thing to a view that the two were fairlydistinct and separate entities.

Dimensions ofcorporate

identity

857

BehaviourBehaviour is another fairly intangible aspect of corporate identity. However, ananalysis is made easier by breaking it down into a number of elements that make upbehaviour including, corporate, employee and management behaviour. Manycommentators suggest that the actions of a corporation are a fundamental elementof its identity (Albert and Whetten, 1985; Hatch and Schultz, 1997; Kiriakidou andMillward, 2000; Topalian, 1984).

Importance of behaviourCorporate behaviour stems from corporate actions in their entirety, both those that areplanned and congruent with corporate culture and those that occur spontaneously. Themajority of the interviewees believe that corporate behaviour can have a verylong-term effect on the overall corporate identity of organisations and it was fairlyunanimously agreed that corporate behaviour could have a huge impact on corporateidentity. This is unsurprising as what the organisation “does” is clearly linked toperceptions of what it “is”.

Interviewees were also questioned about the importance of management behaviour.Many academics suggest that management behaviour, i.e. the communication andactions emanating from top management, can have a significant impact on corporateidentity (Fritz et al., 1999; Hatch and Schultz, 1997) and the interviewees substantiatedthis view. Most interviewees believed that lower level employees saw seniormanagement as role models and that management behaviour was fundamental insetting standards for employee behaviour, a view expressed by one of the bankingdirectors:

. . . one of our directors, decided to run the London Marathon, now all of the employees wereimpressed by this and it sent out a strong message to the outside world that a director from abank was fit and healthy enough to do this and many positive associations were then made.

Finally, respondents were asked how important employee behaviour was ininfluencing corporate identity. Most respondents stated that employee behaviourinfluences customers and other stakeholders and employees’ actions are perceived as areflection of the corporate identity, thus employee behaviour is generally seen as a vitalcomponent of identity. Other interviewees corroborated this view, for example, aninterviewee from an accountancy firm stated that the behaviour of individuals had asignificant impact on other employees:

. . . all of us influence each other, we’re all driven to do well at the company and I think it is aforce of motivation.

This is also evidence of the link that exists between corporate culture and employeebehaviour. If there is a culture of hard work present within an organisation this willpositively translate itself into employee behaviour. Virtually all of the intervieweesstated that recruitment, training and education were vital in order to develop thisculture and emphasise this desired behaviour to employees.

Consequently, the majority of interviewees believe behaviour is integral to identity.Behaviour was strongly associated with other components of identity such as cultureand communication providing more evidence of the interdependency between thevarious components. The importance interviewees felt behaviour had on overall

EJM40,7/8

858

corporate identity is unsurprising as ultimately what organisations “do” will play a bigpart in shaping perceptions of what they “are”.

Corporate structureCorporate structure consists of organisational structure and branding structure and iscited by several authors as being a fundamental component of corporate identity(Chajet, 1989; Ind, 1992; Olins, 1986; Strong, 1990).

Brand structure. Organisations engage in branding strategies in order todifferentiate themselves from competitors. Strong brands are fundamental inestablishing an identity in the marketplace, strengthening customer loyalty and formany companies are vital in counteracting the growing power of retailers (Douglas,2001).

Three varieties of corporate identity structures are put forward by Olins (1986).First, the monolithic structure is one where the organisation uses a consistent nameand visual style and in consequence the corporate identity of the company is the brandto the consumer. British Airways, Shell and IBM all tend to follow this approach.Second, there is the endorsed structure, in which corporate identity of the parentcompany is associated with the name of the subsidiaries. Finally, the branded structureis one where products are differentiated through different brand names. Examples areUnilever and Procter and Gamble.

Importance of brand structureTwo respondents emphasised the importance of the branded structure. Theinterviewees from a food and domestic products conglomerate stated that:

Our corporate identity is not really in place to boost our image to consumers. It’s there forother groups such as investors or graduates. Our brands are what make us successful in thefast moving consumer goods market. No one really cares who is behind the brands unless thecompany gets a bad reputation.

Similarly, the interviewee from the trading (conglomerate, tobacco) company statedthat the brand identity was far more important to consumers than the overall corporateidentity. He asserted the vast majority of consumers were unaware of the companiesbehind the brands in the cigarette industry and that brand identity was their solesource of competitive advantage.

On the whole, the interviewees had a range of views concerning the relationshipbetween brand structure and corporate identity. Some felt that brand structure in itselfwas not a component of identity and was more a consequence of it, in that the identitydictated the subsequent brand structure. Others felt that the brand strategy was acomponent of identity as “what” the organisation produced had a considerable impacton what it “is” in the eyes of stakeholders.

Organisational structure. The organisational structure is associated with theorganisational hierarchy, lines of communication and reporting responsibilities. Ofgreatest importance is the degree of centralisation and decentralisation, in terms ofboth geography and across products (Cornelissen and Harris, 2001; Van Riel, 1995;Varey and Lewis, 2000). Organisational structure is inexorably related to brandstructure. A corporate dominant structure (Laforet and Saunders, 1999) leads tomonolithic identity and is more likely to be implemented by centralised companies dueto the opportunities it allows for standardisation. Companies with a high degree of

Dimensions ofcorporate

identity

859

centralisation are likely to deny autonomy to subsidiaries. Conversely, where there is ahigh degree of decentralisation, subsidiaries often develop very distinct identities.Olins (1986) argues that this allows managers far more autonomy and thatbrand-dominant structures are far more likely to emerge. This situation was found tobe true in one of the conglomerates where the interviewee stated that brand identitieswere distinct from the overall corporate identity.

Importance of organisational structureThere were again mixed opinions as to whether or not organisational structure is atangible component of corporate identity but the general consensus tended to be that itwas a product of corporate identity rather than something that makes up the identity,as expressed by this interviewee:

. . . I think the corporate structure is a tool; the corporate identity is set up and then thecorporate structure is developed to deliver the aspirations which are clear in the corporateidentity.

A respondent from a marketing consultancy believed that corporate structure has astrong impact on corporate culture. However, he felt that culture was a distinct entityfrom identity. He argued that identity was solely associated with external perception ofthe company.

The responses naturally show that different organisations take differentapproaches to corporate identity concept and its relation to corporate structure(Stuart, 1999a). The companies with diversified structures, i.e. the conglomerate in thiscase, give more emphasis to its constituting parts and distinguish overall corporateidentity than the brand identities, whereas the companies with professional structure,i.e. the marketing consultancy in this case, strongly mention the benefits of corporateculture and take company identity as an external manifestation (for further discussionabout the link between structure and identity see Stuart, 1999a).

Many respondents claimed that structure was something that could easily bechanged, whilst identity and culture were far more enduring firm-specificcharacteristics that evolved over time and were difficult to change. The impact ofchanges of structure on corporate identity was also inconclusive. Some respondents feltthat permanent structural changes could have a far-reaching impact on culture, whilstothers stated that these changes could be short term in nature and subsequently wereonly of fleeting importance. Although it is not very clear from the responses whethercorporate identity is a product of corporate structure or vice versa, it could beconcluded that corporate structure has an interceding role in corporate identitymanagement (Stuart, 1999a).

Industry identityIndustry identity pertains to characteristics such as competitiveness, size and rates ofchange, which influence the corporate identity of a company (Balmer, 1997). Companiesoperating in an industry with a clear and strong identity may adopt very similarstrategies in areas of corporate identity management, and in consequence theycommonly develop similar identities. The influence of industry identity is particularlysignificant in certain industries in this study, in particular the banking and oilcompanies.

EJM40,7/8

860

Importance of industry identityVirtually all of the respondents claimed that the corporate identity of theirorganisations was strongly influenced by the industry that they compete in. Theevidence from an oil company is a good example of this. It appears that the companyhas had difficulty in changing its identity due to the criticisms of its environmentalpractices. Thus, a link between sources of uncontrollable communication and the effectof industry identity is also clear. For example, criticism from environmental groups hasnot only affected individual firms but also the entire industry. It appears that controlover their corporate identity was made more difficult because many stakeholders donot differentiate between companies and may associate the oil industry with pollutionand exploitation. A respondent from the oil company reflected this view:

. . . in previous years the oil companies were dominated by technical concerns on theexploration side and upstream business. But now it’s more downstream, marketing toconsumers.

Hence, this particular oil company has begun to invest heavily in trying to improve theperception that various stakeholders have of them. In consequence, perceptions of theindustry as a whole are improving, particularly because other oil companies are alsoengaging in similar activities such as third party ethical and environmental audits.

The link between uncontrollable communication and its effect on industry identitywas again highlighted when speaking to an employee from an accountancy firm:

Yes, I mean we’re all aware of the events in our industry and it would be ridiculous to arguethat our senior partners haven’t tried to adapt our identity so that our reputation of integrityand best-practice is maintained, even though we haven’t actually been implicated in any ofthe scandals.

The interviewee was referring to the accountancy scandals that have recently takenplace in America and it seems that these events have had a significant impact on all ofthe companies in the accountancy industry, even those not associated with them. Itseems that media and public attention can have a massive impact on stakeholders’perceptions of the entire industry, which in turn shapes their perceptions of individualfirms within that industry.

In general, the respondents from the accountancy companies, oil companies andbanks felt that the industry identity had the most salient impact on their overallcorporate identity. Those working in companies that conduct the majority of theirbusiness with other businesses rather than selling directly to consumers appeared tobelieve that industry identity had less influence on corporate identity.

Corporate strategyCorporate strategy is the blueprint of the firm’s fundamental objectives and strategiesfor competing in their given market. It thus determines what the company produces,the level of profit made and stakeholder perceptions about the company. Manycommentators suggest that a strong link exists between corporate strategy andcorporate identity. Gray and Balmer (1998) see the major components of corporateidentity as being: “the company’s strategy, philosophy, culture and organisationaldesign”.

Differentiation strategy. Differentiation strategy is an aspect of overall corporatestrategy pertaining to the specific strengths of a company and how it chooses to

Dimensions ofcorporate

identity

861

compete by using these. Many writers agree that this is strongly linked with corporateidentity as Simpson (1988) states differentiation takes advantage of a firm’s strengthsthat are important constituents of its basic identity.

Positioning strategy. Positioning strategy is associated with the identity that acompany strives for. Companies position themselves in order to be distinguished fromcompetitors and they do this through an analysis of their inherent strengths andweaknesses.

Importance of corporate strategyCorporate strategy is often instrumental in attempts to change corporate identity, a factthat was substantiated by many interviewees. Another point claimed by manyinterviewees was that corporate strategy could have a massive impact on identity,particularly when it resulted in the restructuring of the workforce. A respondent fromthe IT firm stated that:

Yes, it is having a very big impact. We had to focus, we had to restructure, we had todownsize, in order to meet the strategic objectives and that had a big impact on the identity ofthe company and there was a big impact particularly the internal employees start to wonderwhat their future is and what the future of the company is.

An interviewee from the toy company spoke of how corporate identity providesdirection and purpose for his company and is therefore intrinsically linked to strategy:

Yes, the identity is useful in providing a sense of direction for employees and the strategyprovides the plan as to where the company is going, so really, neither can be complete withoutthe other.

Thus, strategy can be considered as a subset of corporate identity in this situationbecause it provides the means by which identity is perpetuated throughout thecompany. There was almost unanimous agreement concerning the importance of therelationship of strategy with identity and further work in this area is necessary. Onesuch area maybe to determine the impact of strategic change on corporate identity,which is becoming increasingly common in the form of downsizing and outsourcing.

Summary and conclusionEvery respondent had a unique perception of corporate identity and the majority of therespondents claimed that corporate identity was an increasingly importantphenomenon. There was a considerable range of opinions amongst the intervieweespertaining to the importance of the various components of the concept. To a largeextent this can be explained by the multidisciplinary nature of the term (Bick et al.,2003). However, those working in the same company generally agreed on thefundamental characteristics of the corporate identity of their firm.

In general, most interviewees heavily associated identity with the areas of corporatedesign, communication, behaviour and strategy. However, there was no unanimousagreement as to whether or not corporate culture was a product or determinant ofcorporate identity.

The responses about controlled corporate communication reflect that marketing,management and organisational communication are intertwined and it is hard to setstrict borders between them. However, managers’ ability to create an internalunderstanding of the mission and vision of their organisation as well as its

EJM40,7/8

862

communication strategy is considered as the main step in order to have effectiveexternal communication. The role of uncontrolled communication was stressed too.Most of the respondents agreed that a better reflection of internal integrity of acompany via its employees will have a positive impact on its perception, hence willcreate favourable word-of-mouth. Another point also stressed was the management ofmedia relations.

The majority of the managers have mentioned that corporate design supports thecommunication of a company’s identity both internally and externally. However, moreemphasis is given to slogan as well as architecture and location by the respondents.They have asserted that these three aspects help a company create a sense ofattachment for its employees and shape what consumers associate with it.

The respondents’ approaches to the link between corporate culture and corporateidentity are twofold. Some interviewees believed that corporate culture and corporateidentity are in fact inseparable, whilst others felt that corporate culture is distinct fromidentity. However, the interviewees mentioned that corporate history, which preservescompany norms and practices over years; the founder of the organisation, who initiallysets the business philosophy of a company; country-of-origin, which links nationalculture characteristics to a business’s working principles and practices; andsub-cultures, like different departments with different needs and desires as well asdifferent nationalities having stake in a company, have a considerable impact oncorporate culture. Therefore, it could be concluded that even if some respondentsexcluded corporate culture from the components of corporate identity, an indirectrelationship between them is implicitly assumed in their responses.

The behavioural aspect of an organisation has been mostly associated with howmanagers disseminate information to employees about their organisational goals andpractices. It is believed by many respondents that their organisations will have a betterimage and gain more recognition if their employees are able to represent theorganisation’s values to external audiences. Additionally, they mentioned that theirorganisations’ reactions towards certain issues such as environmental problems willconvey cues about their company’s identity.

The evidence from the interviews shows that corporate structure has an impact onhow brand structure of a company is determined and managed as well as howcompanies with different hierarchical structures approach the concept of corporateidentity. For organisations with complex structures, corporate identity has a role incommunication with shareholders, investors etc. but individual brand identities are themeans of communication with consumers. Less sophisticated organisations emphasisethe link between structure and culture more and imply an indirect relationship betweencorporate structure and identity.

The industry identity is also deemed as having an effect on how individualcompanies are viewed. Companies especially in high profile sectors such as oil andaccounting have to carefully manage their relationships with the intermediaries suchas the media, NGOs etc. so that they can protect themselves from the potential badpublicity of the industry in which they transact.

Lastly, the respondents have mentioned with high consensus that corporatestrategy provides the processes to be followed about how to manage theirorganisations’ identities on a daily basis as well as in the long run. In other words,corporate strategy determines what a company’s identity is and is going to be.

Dimensions ofcorporate

identity

863

From the preceding analysis, the following definition and the revised dimensions ofcorporate identity are proposed:

Corporate identity is the presentation of an organisation to every stakeholder. It is whatmakes an organisation unique and it incorporates the organisation’s communication, design,culture, behaviour, structure, industry identity and strategy. It is thus intrinsically related toboth the corporate personality and image.

The responses reveal that the companies studied approach corporate identity conceptmore from a communications point of view encompassing both internal and externalcommunication. Therefore, the definition above is generated within the borders ofcommunication management theory, which also enables us to achieve our objective ofproviding an operational definition of corporate identity (Cornelissen and Elving,2003). It dissects the three elements of corporate identity mix, i.e. symbolism,communication and behaviour (Van Riel, 1995), and incorporates the following aspects:culture, structure, industry identity and strategy. These last four elements should beconsidered from the communication perspective as well. For example, whileoperationalising industry identity, the impact of communicated industry identity onthe perception of an organisation’s identity should be measured. We believe that thisapproach will aid further empirical research, since it provides measurable terms(Cornelissen and Elving, 2003).

ImplicationsIn this article, we have reviewed the literature to provide a theoretical background thatstructures our investigation about how corporate identity is perceived (see Figure 1)and which components are related to the concept in practice. Through the responsesgiven by the managers of the companies studied we present a view of components ofcorporate identity in comparison to its theoretically defined dimensions.

Figure 2 depicts the revised components of corporate identity concept and thesub-items for each category, which are deemed as the most important aspects by therespondents. It mainly differs from the categories mentioned in the Stuart’s (1999b)model in the areas of corporate structure, corporate strategy, corporate culture andcorporate personality. In line with Bick et al. (2003) and Cornelissen and Harris (1999),the definition proposed suggests that corporate strategy is about how a companyreacts in the market in terms of positioning and differentiation, whereas corporatepersonality is a reflection of strategy and culture through mission and core values of anorganisation. Therefore, personality dimension is implicitly incorporated in mission,vision and values whereas Stuart’s model (1999b) mentions it as separate dimension.Corporate culture is deemed as the context (Hatch and Schultz, 1997) by which history,founder of the organisation, country-of-origin and sub-cultures are manifested intomission, vision and values of a company, whereas Stuart (1999b) models it as theoverarching context to all dimensions. It recognises the environmental forces asStuart’s (1999b) model does. However, it highlights industry identity as the majoraspect of environmental forces.

The article posits an operational definition on the basis of the information gatheredfrom the companies under investigation which may aid future research. First,developing sub-items and their measures for each dimension presented in the proposeddefinition and examining the possible relationships between them might be the further

EJM40,7/8

864

Figure 2.The revised categorisation

of corporate identitydimensions and their

sub-items

Dimensions ofcorporate

identity

865

step. Taking that step also helps to test the value of the definition proposed in thisarticle. Second, while the dimensions of corporate identity and importance of itsmanagement has been the focus of this paper, additional empirical research whichconsiders consequences of corporate identity management in relation to companyperformance indicators could enhance overall understanding of the concept(Cornelissen and Elving, 2003; Dacin and Brown, 2002).

For managerial implications, this investigation suggests that there are considerablebenefits to be gained from developing a virtuous corporate identity includingmotivation of employees, improving customer loyalty and bringing investment into acompany. From this exploratory study we have developed a more all-encompassingdefinition of corporate identity as well as formulated the revised corporate identitycategorisation. We believe that this categorisation provides a useful starting point forsenior company management to formulate the appropriate corporate identity strategyfor their company. Furthermore, this categorisation will enable companies to conductresearch that aims to find out which specific components of corporate identitystakeholders find most important. Companies can then use this information to managetheir corporate identity and project the desired identity to the different stakeholders.

There are certain key issues that need to be addressed:. The sustainability of corporate identity in providing both competitive advantage

and trust-based relationship with stakeholders. The majority of the respondentsstated that their corporate identity had changed significantly in the last 5-10years. Management, in many cases with the help of external consultants, hadinitiated these changes and their short-term nature may result in stakeholdersquestioning whether or not their identities are genuine or just a form of hype.

. The existence of sub-cultures provides a useful reminder that organisations aremade up of many heterogeneous social groups. Pratt and Foreman (2000) arguethat the existence of these different groups is one reason why organisationalidentity is a strategic tool that requires serious consideration. Organisations cantake on multiple identities for example depending on different departments suchas marketing or finance or in the case of a conglomerate, the industry sector inwhich a subsidiary company operates (Balmer and Greyser, 2002).

. The evidence from the interviews shows that corporate identity is a morecomplex issue than being a straightforward phenomenon (Cornelissen andElving, 2003). An effective corporate identity management requires consideringall the dimensions mentioned in the proposed definition as well as thecontingencies relevant to them, especially, when forming positioning strategies.

References

Abratt, R. (1989), “A new approach to the corporate image management process”, Journal ofMarketing Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 63-76.

Albert, S. and Whetten, D. (1985), “Organisational identity”, in Cummings, L.C. and Staw, B.M.(Eds), Research in Organisational Behaviour, Vol. 17, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.

Allen, C. and Janiszewski, C.A. (1989), “Assessing the role of contingency awareness inattitudinal conditioning with implications for advertising research”, Journal of MarketingResearch, Vol. 26, February, pp. 30-43.

EJM40,7/8

866

Ambler, T. and Barrow, S. (1996), “The employer brand”, The Journal of Brand Management,Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 185-206.

Baker, M.J. and Balmer, J.M.T. (1997), “Visual identity: trappings or substance?”, EuropeanJournal of Marketing, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 366-82.

Balmer, J.M.T. (1995), “Corporate branding and connoisseurship”, Journal of GeneralManagement, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 24-46.

Balmer, J.M.T. (1997), “Corporate identity: past present and future”, University of Strathclyde,Glasgow, ICCIS Working Paper 4.

Balmer, J.M.T. (1998), “Corporate identity and advent of corporate marketing”, Journal ofMarketing Management, Vol. 14, pp. 963-96.

Balmer, J.M.T. and Greyser, S.A. (2002), “Managing the multiple identities of the corporation”,California Management Review, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 72-86.

Balmer, J.M.T. and Greyser, S.A. (Eds) (2003), Revealing the Corporation: Perspectives on Identity,Image, Reputation and Corporate Branding, Routledge, London.

Balmer, J.M.T. and Soenen, G.M. (1999), “The acid test of corporate identity management”,Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 15 Nos 1/3, pp. 69-92.

Balmer, J.M.T. and Wilson, A. (1998), “Corporate identity: there is more to it than meets the eye”,International Studies of Management and Organisation, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 12-31.

Bick, G., Jacobson, M.C. and Abratt, R. (2003), “The corporate identity management processrevisited”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 19, pp. 835-55.

Chajet, C. (1989), “The making of a new corporate image”, The Business of Strategy, May-June,pp. 18-20.

Cornelissen, J. (2000), “Corporate image: an audience centred model”, Corporate Communications:An International Journal, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 119-25.

Cornelissen, J. and Elving, W.J.L. (2003), “Managing corporate identity: an integrative frameworkof dimensions and determinants”, Corporate Communications: An International Journal,Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 114-20.

Cornelissen, J. and Harris, P. (1999), “Two perspectives on corporate identity: as the expression ofthe corporate personality and as the essential self”, Working Paper Series 99/5, Universityof Strathclyde, Glasgow.

Cornelissen, J. and Harris, P. (2001), “The corporate identity metaphor: perspectives, problemsand prospects”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 17 Nos 1/2, pp. 49-71.

Czarniawska, B. and Wolff, R. (1998), “Concepting new identities in established organisationfields”, International Studies of Management and Organisation, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 32-56.

Dacin, P.A. and Brown, T.J. (2002), “Perspectives for future research”, Corporate ReputationReview, Vol. 5 Nos 2/3, pp. 253-66.

Deal, T.E. and Kennedy, A.A. (1982), Corporate Cultures: The Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life,Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Douglas, S. (2001), “Executive insights; integrating branding strategy across markets: buildinginternational brand architecture”, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 2,pp. 97-115.

Dowling, G.R. (1994), Corporate Reputations, Kogan Page, London.

Downey, S.M. (1986), “The relationship between corporate culture and corporate identity”, PublicRelations Quarterly, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 7-12.

Dimensions ofcorporate

identity

867

Einwiller, S. and Will, M. (2002), “Towards an integrated approach to corporate branding:findings from an empirical study”, Corporate Communications: An International Journal,Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 100-9.

Foo, C.T. and Lowe, A. (1999), “Modelling for corporate identity studies: case of identity ascommunications strategy”, Corporate Communications, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 89-91.

Fritz, J.M.H., Arnett, C.R.C. and Conkel, M. (1999), “Organisational ethical standards andorganisational commitment”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 289-99.

Gray, E.R. and Balmer, J.M.T. (1998), “Managing corporate image and corporate reputation”,Long Range Planning, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 695-702.

Grunig, J.E. (1993), “Image and substance: from symbolic to behavioural relationships”, PublicRelations Review, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 121-39.

Hatch, M.J. and Schultz, M. (1997), “Relations between organisational culture, identity andimage”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 356-65.

Ind, N. (1992), The Corporate Image, Kogan Page, London.

Kennedy, S.H. (1997), “Nurturing corporate images: total communication or ego trip?”, EuropeanJournal of Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 120-64.

Kiriakidou, O. and Millward, L.J. (2000), “Corporate identity: external reality or internal fit?”,Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 49-58.

Laforet, S. and Saunders, J. (1999), “Managing brand portfolios: why leaders do what they do”,Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 51-66.

Melewar, T.C. (1993), “Determinants of the corporate identity concept: a review of literature”,Journal of Marketing Communications, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 195-220.

Melewar, T.C. and Jenkins, E. (2002), “Defining the corporate identity concept”, CorporateReputation Review, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 76-94.

Melewar, T.C., Karaosmanoglu, E. and Paterson, D. (2003), “Resolving the corporate identityconundrum: an exploratory study of the concept and its contribution”, in Veloutsou, C.(Ed.), Communicating with Customers: Trends and Developments, ATINER, Athens,Greece.

Melewar, T.C. and Saunders, J. (1998), “Global corporate visual identity systems: standardisation,control and benefits”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 291-308.

Melewar, T.C. and Saunders, J. (1999), “International corporate visual identity: standardization orlocalization?”, Journal of Business Studies, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 583-98.

Melewar, T.C. and Wooldridge, A. (2001), “The dynamics of corporate identity”, Journal ofCommunication Management: An International Journal, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 327-40.

Meyerson, D. (1991), “Acknowledging and uncovering ambiguities in cultures”, in Frost, P.J.,Moore, L.F., Louis, M.R., Lundberg, C.C. and Martin, J. (Eds), Reframing OrganisationalCulture, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.

Moingeon, B. (1999), “From corporate culture to corporate identity”, Corporate ReputationReview, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 352-60.

Moingeon, B. and Ramanantsoa, B. (1997), “Understanding corporate identity: the French schoolof thought”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 383-95.

Olins, W. (1986), “The strategy of design”, Management Today, May, pp. 52-5.

Olins, W. (1989), Corporate Identity, Thames and Hudson, London.

Olins, W. (1990a), “The corporate search for identity”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 68 No. 5,pp. 153-65.

EJM40,7/8

868

Olins, W. (1990b), “Marketing guide no. 15: corporate identity”, Marketing, Vol. 4, pp. 21-4.

Peter, T.J. and Waterman, R.H. (1982), In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America’s Best-runCompanies, Harper and Row Publications, New York, NY.

Pratt, M. and Foreman, P. (2000), “Classifying managerial responses to multiple organisationalidentities”, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 18-42.

Rowlinson, M. and Procter, S. (1999), “Organisational culture and business history”,Organisational Studies, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 369-96.

Schein, E.H. (1985), Organisational Culture and Leadership, Jossey-Bass Publications,San Francisco, CA.

Schmidt, K. (Ed.) (1995), The Quest for Identity: Strategies, Methods and Examples, Cassell,London.

Simpson, M. (1988), “Introduction”, in Simpson, M. (Ed.), Corporate Identity: Name, Image andPerception, The Conference Board Inc., New York, NY.

Smith, P.W., Feinberg, R.A. and Burns, D.J. (1998), “An examination of classical conditioningprinciples in an ecologically valid advertising context”, Journal of Marketing Theory andPractice, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 63-72.

Strong, F.P. (1990), “A company study: Kodak beyond 1990”, The Journal of Business andIndustrial Marketing, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 29-36.

Stuart, H. (1999a), “The effect of organisational structure on corporate identity management”,Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 151-64.

Stuart, H. (1999b), “Towards a definitive model of the corporate identity management process”,Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 200-7.

Topalian, A. (1984), “Corporate identity: beyond the visual overstatements”, InternationalJournal of Advertising, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 55-62.

Van Riel, C.B.M. (1995), Principles of Corporate Communication, Prentice-Hall, London.

Van Riel, C.B.M. (1997), “Research in corporate communication: an overview of an emergingfield”, Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 288-309.

Van Riel, C.B.M. and Balmer, J.M.T. (1997), “Corporate identity: the concept, its measurement andmanagement”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 340-55.

Varey, R.J. and Lewis, B.R. (2000), Internal Marketing: Directions of Management, Routledge,London.

About the authorsT.C. Melewar is Professor of Marketing and Strategy at Brunel Business School, BrunelUniversity, London, UK.

Elif Karaosmanoglu is a member of faculty at Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul,Turkey.

Dimensions ofcorporate

identity

869

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.