Identity based views of the corporation
Insights from corporate identity, organisational identity, social identity, visual identity, corporate brand identity and corporate image

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to consider advances in corporate identity scholarship on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the first special edition of corporate identity to appear in the European Journal of Marketing in 1997. Design/methodology/approach – The paper takes the form of a literature review. Findings – The notion of, what can be termed, “identity-based views of the corporation” is introduced. Each of the ten identity based perspectives that inform the above are underpinned by a critically important question which is believed to be of considerable saliency to marketing scholars and policy advisors alike. As a precursor to an exposition of these ten perspectives, the paper discusses five principal schools of thought relating to identity and identification ((the quindrivium) which can be characterised as: corporate identity (the identity of the organisation); communicated corporate identification (identification from the organisation); stakeholder corporate identification (an individual, or stakeholder group’s, identification with the organisation); stakeholder cultural identification (an individual, or stakeholder group’s, identification to a corporate culture); and envisioned identities and identifications (this is a broad category and relates to how an organisation, or group, envisions how another corporation or group characterises their identity or mode of identification.)) Practical implications – Each of the ten identity-based views of the corporation outlined here is underpinned by a question of critical importance which aims to be of assistance to senior executives in comprehending and managing identity-related concerns of the corporation. Originality/value – The introduction of notions relating to identity based views of the corporation/corporation brands represents, perhaps, a natural denouement for the “schools of ` thought” approach which has long-characterised the British School of scholarship vis-a-vis corporate identity scholarship since the early 1990s. Keywords Corporate identity, Corporate branding Paper type Research paper

Identity based views

Introduction “Where do we come from? Where are we? Where are we going to?” is the evocative title of what is, arguably, Paul Gauguin’s most celebrated painting. Executed on a large canvas, Gauguin’s magnum opus shares certain similarities with corporate identity scholarship. Both demand that we step back in order to discern their geography, content, and significance. Both have multiple levels of meaning. Both are a great deal more than the sum of their parts. Both demand considerable contemplation and reflection. The allegorical title of Gauguin’s painting has another purpose in that it provides me with a ready made route map for this article. As such, in reflecting on the extant literature ( Where do we come from?), I note the centrality of identity studies across a range of disciplines. In scrutinising the contemporary corporate identity scholarship (Where are we?) I outline five principal schools of thought that currently characterises corporate identity scholarship (the quindrivium). Musing on the future (Where are we going to?), I conclude that the identity spectrum will witness an exponential growth in importance as reflected in what I call “identity based views of the corporation” and “identity based views of corporate branding”. Adopting a panoptic view of corporate identity at this juncture seems apposite since this general review appears on, what is for me, a momentous occasion: the first ever special edition of an academic journal (the EJM) devoted to corporate identity (Balmer and Van Riel, 1997). In broader identity contexts we should also note that there has been a “veritable discursive explosion” around the concept of identity from scholars from a variety of disciplinary backgrounds (Hall, 1996). du Gay (2007), for instance, has observed how management scholars have accorded increasing importance to the concept of identity. He notes that its value as a management concept is derived from its practical and descriptive functions rather than in terms of its theoretical utility. Ten years on from the EJM special edition, our comprehension of corporate identity canvas is qualitatively different to what it was in 1997. For instance, increasing emphasis is accorded to deeper notions of corporate identity (ci) in terms of a corporation’s traits and less importance is afforded to corporate visual identification/symbolism. In addition, the marketing literature has been enriched by a repertoire of insights from identity studies generally, especially those drawn from scholarship relating to organisational identity (oi) undertaken by organisational behaviourists. It also should be added that both identity traditions (ci and oi) increasingly draw on social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1979, Cornelissen et al., 2007, He and Balmer, 2007). What is clearly evident is that marshalling marketing (corporate identity) organisational behaviour (organisational identity) and other identity perspectives (social identity theory, national identity etc) enables both scholars and policy makers to more fully discern what have been identified as ‘the multiple identities of the corporation’ (Balmer and Greyser, 2002). Within the management literature the two dominant disciplinary traditions and literatures have informed our comprehension of identity in institutional contexts namely: . marketing; and . organisational behaviour.

Although it can be argued that one or other disciplinary perspective negates the other it would appear that a consensus is gradually emerging that both traditions (including reference to the concepts of corporate identity and organisational identity) are complementary and, therefore, are mutually enriching. However, we should note that, in very broad terms, their respective foci tends to be different. For instance, corporate identity (ci) has a more overt external, customer/stakeholder and enjoys a hegemonic profile/usage in marketing scholarship and in management (as well as in general) parlance. Also, the literature on corporate identity tends to accord importance to practical and managerial perspectives. Its provenance is considerably older than that of organisational identity: reference to the concept dates at least as far back as 1964 (Balmer and Greyser, 2003, p. 67). Among organisational behaviourists the concept of organisational identity (oi) enjoys a hegemonic status in their scholarly discourse (Albert and Whetten, 1985, Hatch and Schultz, 2002). In contrast to corporate identity it has, traditionally, had an internal, employee foci. Whereas corporate identity is underpinned by a strong practical and managerial inheritance, organisational identity is chacterised by having a richer theoretical foundation. For a brief discussion of the effects (both positive and negative) of the increased reference to organisational identity by marketing scholars see the Appendix. Returning to the marketing perspective it seems logical to view corporate identity as one (albeit fundamental) element of a corporate gestalt which, for me, forms a key dimension of what I term corporate marketing. The family of concepts that underpin the nascent area of corporate marketing include corporate brand identity, corporate reputation, corporate image, corporate communications etc. Few, today, would refute the strategic importance of corporate identity to modern corporations and organisations. Typically, problems of corporate identity come to the fore when organisations reach a strategic fork in the road as a consequence of events associated with institutional change (mergers), changes in the business environment (such as deregulation) and with misperceptions held of the corporation (such as an outdated corporate images) among many others (Balmer and Greyser, 2002). It is at these junctures that corporate identity management is accorded particular importance by policy makers. du Gay (1996) cogently remarked that since identities are basically relational in terms of their existence and any change in terms of the latter is bound to affect the former. This is as true for corporate identity as it is for other identity types: a change of strategic direction by one corporation may cause another to alter its identity traits in response so as to maintain its competitive position. Two additional, and powerful, reminders of the saliency of the corporate identity construct relates to its utility to contemporary corporations and to senior managers generally. The existence of British Standards Institute definition of corporate identity (BSI 7000 Part 10)[1] and the issuance in 1995 of the “Strathclyde Statement” on corporate identity management by the International Corporate Identity Group (ICIG)[2]: are illustrative of the above and may also be seen to reflect the strategic nature of corporate identity. A good deal of the early literature on corporate identity was penned by leading UK, US and German identity and graphic design consultants and this literature was, and

Identity based views

881

EJM 42,9/10

882

remains, pervasive and influential (Pilditch, 1970; Margulies, 1977; Olins, 1978; Topalian, 1984; Birkigt and Stadler, 1986). We should note that later academic writing on corporate identity by marketing scholars was influenced by this practitioner literature and as such adopts an overtly managerial perspective (Abratt, 1989; Balmer and Greyser, 2002; Marwick and Fill, 1997; Simoes et al., 2005; Van Riel and Balmer, 1997; Westcott Alessandri, 2001.) Scrutinising the marketing literature on corporate identity over the last three decades it is possible to detect several significant shifts in emphasis. At first, scholars looked up the corporate marketing telescope and focused on the management of corporate image and examined the importance of corporate identity (especially corporate visual identity) in corporate image formation (Abratt, 1989). Then marketing scholars looked down the corporate marketing telescope and focused on deeper notions of corporate identity (in relation to an institution’s defining traits). This led to a corollary concern with corporate identity management and formation per se (Balmer, 2002; Bick et al., 2003; Melewar and Karaosmanoglou, 2006.) More recently, the literature has begun to stress the centrality of corporate identity to our comprehension of a variety of corporate level concepts such as corporate brand identity and, importantly, to the nascent area of corporate marketing (Badot and Cova, 19950; Balmer and Greyser, 2006). As such, it can be deduced that a broader, interdisciplinary perspective increasingly informs the literature on the area (Balmer and Greyser, 2002; Brown et al., 2006; Cornelissen et al., 2007, He and Balmer, 2006) which is very much in the British tradition of corporate identity scholarship. It is this tradition that informs my examination of identity based views of the corporation outlined here. Identity: the big picture Where Do We Come From? Since time immemorial many of the great themes of intellectual inquiry are related to identity. Identities are powerful and are impossible to ignore. Wars, alliances, and revolutions frequently have issues of identity at their core. The primordial nature of identity is such that questions of identity and identification have been accorded a good deal of importance by scholars from a variety of disciplines. Its intellectual roots are broad and deep. The nature of identity is a common leit motiv in philosophical discourse; the so called “identity-theory” enjoying a prominent place within the literature as the work of Armstrong, Feigl and Place attests. Moving beyond philosophy, Meyerson went so far as to claim that scientific inquiry is fundamentally concerned with the discovery and investigation of identities (Passmore, 1968, p. 329). What is clear is that without recourse to identity, our comprehension of gender, personality, religion, nationalism, and, of course, corporations are rendered difficult if not impossible. Moreover, identities are complicated, multidimensional and can be protean in character. Although identities are not always seen or fully understood their power can, all the same, be felt: their importance is irrefutable. In the following section I detail some of most important strands of thought relating to identity studies and place them in the context of corporate identity scholarship/marketing.

Individual identity Individual identity is (along with gender) the most fundamental of all identity types. It surfaces in the work of both Plato and Socrates and is the key theme of Sophocles tragedy Oedipus Tryannos (Oedipus the King). We should not forget that individual identities can shape institutional (corporate) identities. Consider, for instance, the abiding influence of Lord Reith at the BBC (Balmer, 1994). Scholars such as Sarup (1996) have noted that individual identities are, in part, determined by institutional (corporate) identities. Scholars of identity in exploring this link have a rich palette of theories to draw upon such as those relating to ideology and socialisation (role theory). Foucault’s early work relating to discourse theory and his latter writing on the technologies of the self (see Martin et al., 1988) have been highly influential in relation to our comprehension of individual identity. Not surprisingly, Foucault’s theories have been marshalled by marketing scholars in broad corporate identity contexts (Motion and Leitch, 2002.) Collective identity Informed by insights from the literatures on social psychology, nationality, and history it has been shown that an individual’s membership of a collective (group) identity, as well as non membership of a group, helps to define the self and influences an individual’s behaviours and cognitions. Scholarship on collective identity has been informed by the work of social psychologists especially in relation to their articulation of social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1979). Similar perspectives can be found in the work of historians (Colley, 1996) along with scholars of nationality (Mayo, 1974; Sahlins, 1989). Within marketing, notions of brand communities (Muniz and O’Guinn, 2001) and brand tribes (Cova and Cova, 2002) draw a good deal from the literature on collective identity/social identity theory. Juridical identities Although we may not always know it, it would seem clear that juridical insights both from Canon Law and the Law of Heraldry have, from the middle-ages onwards, materially shaped/shed light on our comprehension of the modern firm and, especially, our comprehension of corporate identity and identification. In Canon Law, the notion that the church’s identity exists in perpetuity and its (corporate) identity is distinct from the collective identity of its members has, in centuries past, informed jurists of Constitutional and Commercial Law. In juridical terms, corporations are regarded as legal persons with rights and responsibilities that are distinct from organisational members. Noteworthy too, although seemingly abstruse, the Laws of Heraldry have for many centuries recognised that a corporation’s defining symbol (Coat of Arms/Armorial Bearings) was inheritable property and should be afforded protection in law (Slater, 2005). By inference, this came with a realisation that an organisation’s symbols – its visual identity - were invested with commercial, economic and emotional value. Today, Heraldic Law still remains an integral, and purposeful, part of Scotland’s judicial system (both civil and criminal) as embodied in the Court of the Lord Lyon (Bruce et al., 1999). The enduring influence of the laws of Canon and Heraldic law often finds a distinct and prominent voice, for instance, in the Royal Charters granted to British and Commonwealth Universities for instance[3].

Identity based views

883

EJM 42,9/10

884

National and ethnic identities: questions of polity and community The literature on ethnicity and nationality makes a clear distinction between the identity derived from a nation’s polity and the identity grounded in an ethnic community (Smith, 1991). Meinecke (1908), for instance, distinguished between the Staatsnation and the Kulturnation. As such, although it is frequently assumed that nationality and ethnicity are tightly coupled this is not invariably so: whereas the United Kingdom is manifestly a Staatsnation England and Wales are indubitably “Kulturnations”. On reflection, we can observe that juridical and cultural identities can inform our comprehension of contemporary organisations: both identity types are perennial and universal in character. As such, in corporate contexts, I make a distinction between, what I call, legal and cultural identities. The former broadly informs our understanding of corporate identity (as viewed as a legal construct) in the same way that the latter underpins a good deal of the literature on organisational identity (as viewed as a cultural construct). For instance, The Universities of London and Wales (both being large, federal, institutions) are both, indubitably, legal identities but do not appear to have such a clearly identifiable and strong University-wide cultural identity. However their constituent colleges and institutes do seem to have more clearly identifiable cultural identities (compare and consider London Business School, the London School of Economics, Imperial College and Royal Holloway College at London University in relation to their “parent”: the University of London). The double entendre and triple entendre of identification The literatures on identity amply demonstrate that considerable circumspection is required on the part of marketing scholars when referring to identification owing to its duality in usage in the literatures on identity. For instance, I have found that the literature on ethnicity and nationalism ascribes two, distinct, meanings to the term. At one level, identification refers to use of symbols such as ceremonies, flags, coinage to project the national/ethnic self and celebrate a state’s/ethnic grouping’s success and durability. It also refers to an individual’s or group’s identification with a nation or ethnic community (Smith, 1991). To me, there are strong parallels here to the corporate identity literature where a similar duality in usage of identification characterises its use as applied to corporations, institutional brands and corporate culture/s. As such, corporate identification variously refers to: . the, largely, outward-bound symbolic presentation of the corporation/institutional brand/corporate culture/s using a variety of communications conduits; and . an individual’s (or group’s) identification with a corporation/institutional brand/corporate culture/s. Developing the above, it would seem necessary that a tripartite distinction may be made between identification from, to and with a troika of identity types that are of seminal importance to marketing scholars (e.g. corporations, institutional brands and corporate culture/s). Identification from refers to outward bound symbolic projection; identification with refers to an affiliation with a corporation or institutional brand and identification to refers to an affiliation with a corporate cultural grouping (such as a corporate brand community or tribe).

Identity and multiplicity An important sub text within the identity literature is the view that there is a good deal of interpenetration between different identity types. A similar characteristic informs our comprehension of individual corporate identities with regard to: . national identities (the USA traits of Coca-Cola); . identities of class (the working class traits of the Co-op Movement); . identities of gender (the male identity traits of the Japan’s Imperial Throne); and . religious identity (the Protestant traits of Glasgow Rangers Football Club). Of course, a nation’s psyche and identity can equally be informed by corporate ` ` identities/brands, e.g. Nokia vis-a-vis Finland/the All Blacks Rugby Team vis-a-vis New ` Zealand/the Crown vis-a-vis Great Britain). In historical contexts it is also clear that nations and states have been materially shaped by the corporate identities of the ` business corporation: consider Canada vis-a-vis The Hudson Bay Company and the ` State of Sabah in Borneo (Malaysia) vis-a-vis The British North Borneo Company in this regard. Importantly, too, is the fact that within, and between, institutions different corporate identities also interpenetrate. The corporate identity of Bentley interpenetrates with the identity of Volkswagen: its’ parent corporation. A “platform” corporation (focusing on branding, marketing and design rather than production) such as Nike is also materially influenced by the actions of a Partner Corporation upon whom it is reliant (consider the child labour controversy that embroiled Nike). Increasingly, the modern corporation is reliant upon outsourcing companies and, again, illustrates how corporate identities interpenetrate: we may not be familiar with the names of these outsourcing companies but this is not to deny their growing importance. Among the more prominent of these organisations are France’s Sodexho Alliance, India’s Infosys, China’s Neusoft as well as the ubiquitous IBM of the USA. The corporate identity quindrivium From my short, general, exegesis of the identity concept it will be apparent that identity and identification are portmanteau expressions which have a variety of meanings. Uncovering these various strands of thought may, at first sight, appear to be akin to untying the Gordian knot (Balmer and Greyser, 2003, p. 33). As a means of untying this knot (and as a prelude to introducing my broader conceptualisation of identity based views of the corporation) I begin by introducing five characterisations of identity and identification (the quindrivium). The literal meaning of quindrivium is: “the place where five roads meet”. As you may recall, in centuries past, a foundational course for university students consisted of four parts (the quadrivium). It is hoped that the five-fold way to learning outlined here (the quindrivium) will serve a similar purpose for students, teachers and practitioners of today. The quindrivium serves another purpose in that it helps us to map out where we are ten years on after the first special edition on corporate identity. In outlining the five approaches to identity and identification I provide the following parsimonious descriptions of the various identity characterisations, e.g. (see Figure 1). Figure 2 illustrates the first four of the five schools of thought (the identity quindrivium) in diagrammatic form.

Identity based views

885

EJM 42,9/10

886

Identity of a corporation Foci: juridical/economic and corporate. Underlying question: What are the corporation’s distinguishing traits? Informed, principally, by a functionalist perspective, a corporate identity is characterised as having traits that are substantive and, whose effects are observable; have a self-determining capacity (the ability to change their legal status, activities, working practices etc) and are susceptible to being managed (although not entirely so) and moulded. As outlined earlier, they also have a separate juridical existence as legal persons. For many institutions, legal incorporation is a (if not the) defining act of corporate identity creation: only when established can identification with a corporation occur and that a corporate culture/s and corporate brands begin to develop. In addition, corporate identity provides the central platform upon which corporate communications policies are developed, corporate reputations are built and corporate images and stakeholder identifications/associations with the corporation are formed. This perspective regards corporate identities to be active and evolving organisms: their identities are always in the making and are never fully made. In institutional contexts, it is important to recognise that the corporate identity concept is equally apposite to subsidiaries, industries, alliances as well as to corporations and other organisational types per se. French scholars in making a ground-breaking contribution to corporate identity scholarship highlighted its importance by arguing that corporate identity traits bestows a corporation with specificity, stability and coherence (Moingeon and Ramanantsoa, 1997, Larcon and Reitter, 1979). Somewhat latter, and in a strikingly ¸ similar vein, the USA scholars Albert and Whetten (1985) in their magisterial and highly perceptive examination of the identity concept in institutional contexts reached a similar conclusion. They argued (albeit referring to what they termed organisational identity) that every entity is imbued with identity anchors that are central, distinctive and enduring. By inference, uncovering that which accords an entity specificity, stability and coherence or that which is central, distinctive and enduring will reveal the organisational patterns that define a corporation and differentiate one entity from another. As with the Swedish notion of “the business concept” (Norman, 1977; Alvesson, 1998), revealing the corporate identity is an analytical process. Once established a corporate identity can serve as the basis for corporate-wide coordination (unity of corporate purpose); integration (a sense of belonging among employees); direction (guides management actions, decisions and actions); and corporate communications and image (forms the basis for institutional communications). As such, a corporate identity can only be meaningfully revealed by drawing on a variety of perspectives and by making reference to, other, corporate marketing concepts.

Figure 1.

Identity based views

887

Figure 2. The principal schools of thought relating to identity and identification (excluding envisioned identities)

EJM 42,9/10

888

Of course, the traits that define a corporation’s identity are numerous (Pugh, 1973). For instance, they encompass company ethos, activities, quality, market position, location, geographical scope, organisational type, structure, procedures and culture. Corporate identities are informed by history (Ramanantsoa, 1989) and will have been shaped by past strategies (Balmer, 2002). A corporation’s relationships and degree of dependency with other corporations and with customers, shareholders and governments will also materially influence the corporate identity. Increasingly, scholars focus on a number of key corporate identity traits encompassing strategy, structure, history and culture (Balmer, 2001; Melewar and Karaosmanoglu, 2006). Mention should be made of a narrower, but influential, articulation of identity traits articulated by the German authors Birkigt and Stadler (1986). The view is sometimes advanced that the enormity of the task in uncovering the identity traits of a corporation means that it is futile and utterly redundant management and academic activity. A powerful rejoinder to the above, however, is that it is inconceivable that contemporary institutions (no matter their size or hue) can be adequately understood, or managed, without revealing key identity characteristics. Considerable, if incomplete, knowledge is always preferable to complete ignorance. Comprehending corporate identities can, in part, be informed by bi-polar/multiple-polar notions of identity or what might be called perspectives of the other. For instance, to me, it would seem that corporate identities are contingent (in part draws on other identities) and relational (defined by making reference to other identities: not simply in terms of what we are but what we are not; for instance, Airbus ` ` ` vis-a-vis Boeing, BP vis-a-vis Exxon Mobil, Oxford University vis-a-vis Cambridge ` ` University, Sony vis-a-vis Samsung and Unilever vis-a-vis Procter and Gamble etc.). The importance of binary/multiple oppositions in terms of relationship differences with other corporate identities is also of importance. This, what I call comparative corporate identity, appears to provide an effective means of articulating a corporation’s essence. In order to know that an entity is distinct we have, of course, to know that it is different. Figure 3 illustrates this perspective. According to Balmer (2001a) the focus on the identity traits of the corporation means that corporate identity is characterised by their complexity (they are multifaceted and multidimensional in nature in that they informed by various spatial/temporal dimensions), variability (they are immutable but evolutionary in character) and heterogeneous (they are informed by multidisciplinary perspectives in terms of comprehension and management). The evolutionary (variability) nature of identity detailed above differs, somewhat, from the original perspective of Albert and Whetten (1985) who regarded a corporation’s traits as fixed rather than flexible (identities are central, distinctive and enduring). I have argued that Albert and Whetten’s powerful tripartite characterisation of identity should be adapted so that an institution’s corporate identity is characterised by its central, distinctive and evolving nature (Balmer, 2001a). In terms of management, and strategy formulation, it would seem logical that senior executives should make a distinction between policies that are philosophical rather than corporatist in foci. As used here, the former advances the view that senior ˆ executives should demonstrate sensitivity to a corporate identity’s raison d’etre which might be expressed by a corporation’s founders/articles of association/charter. In contrast, policies underpinning the latter might lead to policies where the continuance

Identity based views

889

Figure 3. Comparative identity

of a corporation is seen as an end in itself (based on the premise that to exist and flourish as a corporation is all that matters and where little regard may be accorded to the vision of institutional founders or the ethos as expressed in the articles of association etc.). Identification from a corporation Foci: the symbolic and promotional. Underlying question: What the corporation espouses to be/project via symbolism - especially visual identity? For the main, identification from a corporation is predicated on the doctrine that outward bound symbolic communication from an entity can encapsulate, as well as communicate, the quintessence of a corporation including its, values, standards, purpose and distinctiveness has a considerable provenance. Dormer (1998) claimed that symbolism can, in addition, assert authority, promote beliefs and convey

EJM 42,9/10

890

ideologies. For instance, over many centuries, the catholic church has homed its symbolism so that it underpins, projects and reinforces its central doctrines via a plethora of symbolic forms including architecture, festivals, language, music, rituals, and vestments: at more solemn enactments of its rites the marshalling of a variety of symbolic forms results in a full sensory experience (Balmer, 1998). By such means, the church’s magisterium are supported. Presumably, this means that that church is better placed to inculcate a strong sense of identification towards it from its members owing to its cogent symbolic identification from it as outlined above. Reference can be made to Walter Margulies (1977) who, in a locus classicus, defined corporate identity in terms of the ways a company chooses to identify itself to all its stakeholders, especially through corporate visual identity. It is this perspective that initially informed a good deal of the literature written by practitioners (Olins, 1978; Napoles, 1988) and by marketing scholars (Abratt, 1989; Melewar and Saunders, 1999; Schmitt et al., 1995) and which accords importance to coordinated corporate communications/symbolic communications. Within the marketing literature an a priori link is often made between visual identification and customer/stakeholder perceptions of the corporation (Abratt, 1989, Dowling, 1993, Gray and Balmer, 1998, Stuart, 1999, Dacin and Brown, 2002). One, very real, problem with outward bound identification is the danger of artifice; that the corporation may be concerned with projecting the “ideal self” and thereby project that which aspirational rather and downplaying the actual. As cogently argued by Hobsbawn and Ranger (1983) in The Invention of Tradition that which is sometimes portrayed to be of considerable antiquity by institutions is, quite often, bogus and of recent origin. Of course, integration of corporate symbolism and communication is often viewed to be of strategic importance by senior managers and AEG and London Transport are frequently cited as 20th century exemplars of where corporations have achieved a high degree of symbolic integration. In the 19th century railways achieved much the same: “Brunel’s” Great Western Railway (GWR) is a case in point. It should be noted that a variety of terms are used to capture the various dimensions outlined above such as corporate visual identity and house style. British Standard BS7000 Part 10 has a glossary of five terms (with definitions) relating to the above[4]. Stakeholder/s identification with the corporation Foci: Underlying question: Who am I/who am I in relation to the corporation? A stakeholder or stakeholder group’s identification with an entity is predicated upon what is believed and/or known about an organisation (Cardador and Pratt, 2006; Tagiuri, 1982; He and Balmer, 2004, 2007) and, to me, is further characterised by being positive, negative or ambivalent. Drawing upon the British Empiricist tradition it would also seem logical to add that knowledge and identification with an entity can also be influenced by our experiences of the corporation. An individual’s cognition of a corporation is important since perception effects behaviour (Martineau, 1958a, 1958b) and also materially influences how a customer (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003) or an employee relates to, or defines the self with a corporation (Dutton et al., 1994). The notion that individuals can forge a unique affinity with an organisation challenges traditional theories of marketing, and neoclassical economics which is predicated on the view that humans are rational beings and denies, for instance, the effect of emotion. In addition, individuals can also have identification with different corporate

philosophies that reflect past and current organisational traits (corporate identities) as research with the BBC has shown (Balmer and Wilson, 1998). For the main, this school of thought (stakeholder/s identification with the corporation) is examined from the level of the group (Brown et al., 2006) but can also be examined from the perspective of the individual. Corporations and their managers are not passive actors in relation to the above (Cardador and Pratt, 2006). For instance, as studies of ethnicity and nationality have shown, corporations can also use rituals and symbols to engender positive identification with the corporation/and or corporate brand (McAlexander et al., 2002) and, for employees, can achieve the same via socialisation and rewards (Pratt, 1998). Increasingly, as a consequence of the hollowing out of the corporate shell caused by the outsourcing of production and service support, identification occurs at the level of corporate brand rather than to the corporate identity. As such, it would increasingly appear to be the case that stakeholder brand identification becomes more meaningful and employee identification with the corporate identity less so. The deficit resulting from a loss of identification with a corporation is not easily replaced, and gives rise to the traumatic question: “What are we now?” Stakeholder/s identification to a corporate culture Foci: emotional/cultural and collective. Underlying question: Who am I/Who are we (in relation to a corporate culture)? This aspect of identification has as its focus the identification with a corporate culture rather than with the corporation per se. Having its origins in social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1979) it can be argued that stakeholder identification – encompassing customer identification (Bhattacharya et al., 1995; Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003) and employee identification relates to how individuals and groups define themselves by their relationships with an organisational culture. The recent literature has embraced both customer and employee perspectives on the area and has argued the efficacy of such an approach (He and Balmer, 2004, 2007; Brown et al., 2006; Cardador and Pratt, 2006). These cultural groups are defined by comparative and relational cognitive states with other (“out”) groups. Such membership is influenced by self esteem, as well as by cognitive and affective states. Company stakeholders, as members of a corporate culture affirm their strong identification to a corporation by emphasising commonalities with other members of the cultural grouping as well as highlighting their differences with so-called “out groups” (Tajfel and Turner, 1985; Holt, 1995; Donavan et al., 2006). To me it seems logical to assume that an individual’s membership of such a group is not fixed since individuals may migrate to other groups in order to leverage self esteem and self-identity. As such, stakeholder identification to a group is more likely to occur when such associations are linked to prestige (Pratt, 1998) and where, in addition, it is distinctive and of high saliency to group members (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003; Holt, 1995). Such a perspective shares some commonalities to the so called “Latin School of Thought” of marketing where marketing effort is centered on the creation of social ties between individuals (Jallat and Wood, 2005). This viewpoint takes account that a person’s membership of a group or tribe is coveted above the consumption of products and services (Badot and Cova, 1995) and represents a significant departure from traditional marketing thought. At the level of the individual, corporate identities can be

Identity based views

891

EJM 42,9/10

892

consumed (as well as deployed) by the individual in order to create, and project, a sense of identity (Sarup, 1996). There also appears to be a distinct category of cultural identification embracing those individuals or groups whose links with a particular culture/corporation appear, at first sight to be tenuous but who, nonetheless demonstrate a strong cultural affinity: I characterise this as being vicarious identification to a corporate culture (consider, for instance, Manchester United supporters in the tribal communities of the rainforests of Borneo or those USA and French citizens who “consume” the British monarchy as a corporate brand). As such, although the legal and tangible links with these institutions and brands may appear to be weak we should not disregard the power of an individual’s emotional bonds with such institutions/corporate brand and their critical role in defining the self. Envisioned identities and identifications (envisioned identity of another corporation towards us; envisioned identification with our corporation by a stakeholder group and envisioned identification of another corporate culture to our corporate culture) Foci: beliefs about beliefs relating to identity and identification and has its sources in perceptions and cognitions. As discussed here, it is examined in terms of a category of questions. An indicative example being: What do envision to be our identity traits as perceived by another corporation?) Perception, and a concern with corporate image and corporate reputation, has a considerable provenance within the marketing literature (see Martineau, 1958a, 1958b; Brown et al., 2006). Just as marketing scholars have focused on customer perception a corollary concern among organisational behaviourists relates to employee perception: Dutton and Dukerich (1991) are credited in having coined the concept of organisational image to denote the way in which employees conceptualise how others see their corporation. In 1994 their clarified this standpoint by relabeling the concept as construed external image (Dutton et al., 1994). A logical development of the above has led to a concern with construed images and what I prosaically characterise as “beliefs about beliefs”. Within marketing the notion of construed image tends to be used to refer to corporate beliefs relating to how others view the corporation (Brown et al., 2006). Another related notion is that of managerial perceived identity which can materially influence corporate decision making (He and Balmer, 2005). As such, the notion of construed image may be seen to belong to a much broader category which I term envisioned identities: a category that has a multitude of applications. For instance, it can be seen to operate between the following dyads, among others: corporate to corporate; corporate and stakeholder/s or stakeholder group and between stakeholders and cultures. Issues of envisioned identity and identification represent important knowledge for marketers since perception can translate into behaviour. The importance of the category of envisioned identities and identifications is that it represents a potentially dangerous platform upon which to engage with other corporations and cultures: what is required is acquired knowledge of beliefs. In addition, it provides a salient reminder that other companies and cultures might draw on this perspective in determining how they envision how we see them. The following outlines some of the more prominent forms of envisioned identities:

.

.

.

Envisioned corporate identity. Refers to how we envision how another corporation characterises our corporate identity traits. Envisioned corporate identification. Refers to how we envision to be the type of identification a particular group has towards us. Envisioned cultural identification. Refers to how our corporate culture envisions to be the type of identification another corporate culture (including those of other corporations) have towards them..

Identity based views

893

Figure 4 illustrates, in diagrammatic form, examples of envisioned corporate identity, envisioned stakeholder identification and envisioned corporate culture. Identity-based views of corporate branding There appears to be a prima facie case for applying the quindrivium cited above to corporate brands and what I call “an identity based view of corporate brands”, e.g. the

Figure 4. Envisioned identity/identification/ corporate culture

EJM 42,9/10

894

identity of a corporation brand; identification from a corporate brand; stakeholder/s identification to a corporate brand; stakeholder/s identification with a corporate brand culture and identities and identifications envisioned (by an organisation or group) of the corporate brand/corporate brand culture etc. Whereas a corporate identity draws on the complex mix of institutional traits the essence of corporate branding is to be found from the values which are associated with the brand and which represent an informal contract (sometimes called a covenant) between the institutional brand and its various stakeholders (Balmer and Greyser, 2002). To me, corporate brands are more appropriately viewed as a distinct identity type which can have a life their own of its own in that they can be bought, sold and borrowed – as in the case of franchise arrangements (Balmer, 2005). As a distinct category of (institutional) identity we should not loose sight that they can be separate and divisible from the institution and nation from which they evolved. For instance, until recently the Hilton corporate brand was underpinned by two institutional identities: one in the UK and the other in the USA. Recently, within marketing, a distinct literature is developing on this area (Aaker, 2004; Balmer and Gray, 2003; Knox and Bickerton, 2003) although there is no evidence to currently suggest that a distinction has yet been made between product-orientated, service-orientated and industrial-orientated corporate brands. Just as the divide between the marketing and organisational behaviour literatures have begun to dissipate in relation to identity (Brown et al., 2006; Cornelissen et al., 2007; Hatch and Schultz, 1997, He and Balmer, 2007,) the same has began to occur in relation to corporate brand management. Drawing on social identity theory the marketing literature has, in recent years, examined customer identification with brands per se. This has given rise to new categories of collective identitification and which are known as brand communities and brand tribes. Brand communities refer to those social groupings that are homogeneous, distinct and stable in nature, having a shared consciousness, rituals and traditions (Muniz and O’Guinn, 2001, McAlexander et al., 2002; Balmer, 2005a; Kozinets et al., 2007). In contrast, brand tribes and heterogeneous, ambiguous, and short-lived. They also tend to be of smaller size than older-named sibling (Maffesoli, 1988; Cova and Cova, 2001, 2002; Arnauld et al., 2002; Solomon, 2003; Kozinets et al., 2007). Whilst notions of brand cultures and tribes would appear to be equally applicable to corporate brands they would of course embrace internal and external stakeholder groups beyond customers. Reflections on the corporate identity canvas In gradually applying my final brush strokes to this article and in contemplating the broad identity canvas that has been examined I explain why corporate identity scholars have reason to be doleful as well as hopeful and cheerful. Reasons to be doleful Like Tantalus who was punished by the Gods in being barred from seizing what could so clearly be seen, a similar fate seems to have befallen corporate identity scholars ` whose claims vis-a-vis the centrality and importance of the territory has (until comparatively recently) not been widely accepted. As such, and as perhaps as a consequence, perhaps, of prejudice, inertia, and ignorance, on the part of some

marketing academics in the past, this has led to a narrow conceptualisation of the identity canvas. For instance, some scholars and practitioners still envision corporate identity exclusively in terms of visual identity: the polemic and diatribe regarding the inflated benefits of visual identity by Aldersey-Williams (2000) exemplifies this perspective. Others have substituted the corporate identity construct with that of the corporate brand and use the concepts interchangeably. Worryingly, some appear to use the concept of the corporate brand as a surrogate term for the corporation per se. More doleful news for all corporate identitists this side of the pond can be found in some of the non European marketing literature which makes only fleeting reference to the European/Commonwealth literature on corporate identity even though a good deal of the latter pre-dates writing on the territory elsewhere. What is, for me, unsettling are those marketing and communications scholars have turned their back on their marketing inheritance and have, now, embraced other identity perspectives where the theoretical is emphasised at the expense of the practical and where marketing perspectives on the area are accorded little, or no, importance. Sometimes the corporate identity concept is studiously ignored. Yet, it seems to me, that our ability to more fully discriminate the full richness of institutional landscapes in identity terms almost certainly requires the adoption of multiple disciplinary perspectives and traditions. Taken in isolation, it might appear from the above that corporate identity scholars have been unremittingly harried over the last decade and that the corporate identity has, progressively, become entropic in character and has, by some, been assigned a default position. However, this position is changing and there are other brighter colours to be, mused upon in scrutinising the broader identity mural. Reasons to be hopeful There are many reasons why marketing scholars should be up-beat. For instance, in recent years, scholars of organisational identity have realised that the corporate identity/marketing literature represents an untapped and fertile ground for organisational behaviourists (Cardador and Pratt, 2006). Within marketing, our general discernment of the field has been assisted by the mapping of the territory by scholars via the identification of various identity types and schools of thought (Balmer, 1995a; Soenen and Moingeon, 2002, Hatch and Shultz, 2004; Brown et al., 2006; He and Balmer, 2007; Cornelissen et al., 2007). The above have given rise to a number of normative models which are predicated on the view that there should be alignment between various identity types (Balmer and Soenen, 1999; Balmer and Greyser, 2002; Hatch and Schultz, 2001, 2003). The importance of the domain is increasingly reflected in the curriculum of leading business schools, thereby building on earlier traditions established by Greyser at Harvard Business School in the 1980s onwards as well as by marketing scholars at Strathclyde Business School from the early 1990s and Bradford School of Management from the late 1990s. Also heartening are the number of specialist conferences in European and North America that have corporate identity as a core theme which continues earlier traditions established in France in the 1980s and in the UK in the 1990. The conferences of the Design Management Institute of the USA which, invariably, have corporate identity as the core theme are also noteworthy. The now, seemingly, regular call for papers from leading journals on corporate identity do, of course, build on the legacy established by the EJM in 1997.

Identity based views

895

EJM 42,9/10

896

Reasons to be cheerful Today, corporate identity has emerged as a primary colour in the broader identity opus. In addition, the integrationist and multidisciplinary agenda that informed the EJM’s special issue of 1997, along with earlier writing on corporate identity, chimes with more recent clarion calls within the literature (Brown et al., 2006, Carador and Pratt, 2006, Cornelissen et al., 2007). This brings me on to the third part of the triptych: Where are we going to? For me, an exciting development is the growing symbiosis of thought within the marketing/management literatures on identity and the mounting realisation that there is much to be gained from adopting a panoptic rather than a narrow perspective. These trends seem to presage a fuller appreciation of the identity tableau within marketing and general management literature. As such, this has led me to introduce the notion of identity-based views of the corporation. To me, introducing identity based views of the corporation represents a natural denouement for the “schools of thought” approach which has long-characterised the British School of scholarship vis-a-vis corporate identity scholarship since the early 1990s. (Of course, an identity based perspective will also be seen to inform the nascent area of corporate marketing). In short, comprehending the multiple facets of corporate meaning requires recourse to different identity types each of which is underpinned by a question of vital importance for scholars and managers alike. The notion that identity types/corporate marketing concepts are underpinned by a key question has informed my musings on the area for some time (Balmer, 1999). As Bertrand Russell (1912) advised, questions can be of critical importance because they are questions. However, this often comes with a realisation that answering such questions may be problematic. Notably, Russell did not shy away from answering some great philosophical questions and much the same may surely be said in relation to the questions underpinning identity-based views of the corporation. A similar approach should, plainly, be adopted by marketing scholars. For me, marketing at its most powerful draws on a rich tradition which attends both to the cerebral as well as to the practical. In advancing this legacy in terms of identity scholarship we should not loose sight that significant insights can be gained by drawing on different perspectives. There is much to be gained by taking account of different research, disciplinary and philosophical traditions relating to identity scholarship. Of course, the practical and utilitarian nature of corporate identity and identification does, of course, have a considerable provenance as the work of the Harvard-based scholar Renato Tagiuri (1982) attests. Many who have written in the EJM appear to share his view that a fundamental role of senior managers is to comprehend both corporate identity and identification: both are pre-requisites for guiding the corporation and its employees. In Figure 5 the key questions that inform identity based views of the corporation are outlined. Each question is underpinned by a distinct identity type. In the exhibit I take account that there are multiple levels of “corporate” analysis and, as such, identity based perspective is applicable to corporations, industries, subsidiaries as well as to corporate brand identities.

Identity based views

897

Figure 5. Identity based views of the corporation

EJM 42,9/10

898

It will also be seen a number of identity types that have not been previously been referred to in this article are included, e.g.: Desired Identity (the future orientated identity that lives in the hearts and minds of senior management) and Ideal Identities (the optimum positioning of the corporation in a given time frame based on strategic analysis). In the exhibit I accord especial importance to the corporate brand identity or what I call the covenanted identity. As such, the Covenanted Identity refers to the covenant that underpins a corporate brand. The exhibit is indicative rather than comprehensive in character. The exhibit can be adapted so that its primary focus is on corporate brand identity. In practical terms, a key inference from identity based views of the corporation is that it is potentially very dangerous when individual identity types are considered in isolation from each other. For instance, an overeliance on the communicated identity may mask reality and lead to corporate self deception: the failure of British Airway’s visual identity programme of the late 1990s (Project Utopia) which used over fifty visual images from around the globe typifies the above. In a similar vein, undue emphasis accorded to identification with an internal corporate culture may give rise to powerful cadres which are self serving: consider the Enron, and Parmalat debacles. The broad topography of the territory represented by identity based views of the corporation may, at first sight, appear somewhat daunting in terms of marketing research and scholarship but, perhaps, should be regarded as reflecting our increased understanding/saliency of identity based views of the modern corporation and especially with regard to corporate marketing. To me, adopting an identity based view of the modern corporation captures a good deal of the Zeitgeist in terms of contemporary identity scholarship undertaken by both marketing and other management scholars (see Figure 5).

Conclusion In reaching this important milestone all of us who intuitively have adopted an identity-based perspective of the corporation will be buoyant at the thought that identity studies appears to have shifted inextricably towards the central ground within marketing. It is sometimes the case for new insights and developments to spend a good deal of time on the margins and for such perspectives to be occasionally ridiculed, dismissed or ignored. A decade on from the first special edition on corporate identity in the EJM all of us working in this broad territory will be aware that although there is much work that still needs to be done which should not underestimate the real progress that has been made to our comprehension of the territory not only by the recent (and very significant) advances by North American marketing scholars but also by the enviable legacy bequeathed to us by an earlier generation of scholars from the UK, Europe, the Commonwealth and North America (the case-study work of Greyser at Harvard Business School is noticeable in this regard, e.g. Phillips and Greyser, 1999). Many of us realise that the various facets of institutional identity and identification are characterised not merely by complexity but also their richness. To me, ten years on from the first special edition of the EJM devoted to the area, it is clear that corporate identity is so much more than meets the eye: very much like Gauguin’s piece de resistance.

Notes 1. The British Standard’s Institute definition of corporate identity is as follows: “Articulation of what an organisation is, what it stands for, what it does and the way it goes about its business especially the way it relates to its stakeholders and the environment.” 2. The Strathclyde statement on corporate identity management (issued by The International Corporate Identity Group-ICIG) is broadly similar to the British Standard’s definition cited above: “Corporate identity management is concerned with the conception, development, and communication of an organisation’s mission, philosophy and ethos. Its orientation is strategic and is based on a company’s values, cultures and behaviours.” “The management of corporate identity draws on many disciplines, including strategic management, marketing, corporate communications, organisational behaviour, public relations and design.” “It is different from traditional brand marketing directed towards household or business-to-business product/service purchases since it is concerned with all of an organisation’s stakeholders and the multifaceted way in which an organisation communicates.” “It is dynamic, not static, and is greatly affected by changes in the external environment.” “When well managed, an organisation’s identity results in loyalty from its diverse stakeholders.” “As such it can positively affect organisational performance, e.g. its ability to attract and retain customers, achieve strategic alliances, recruit executives and employees, be well positioned in financial markets, and strengthen internal staff identification with the firm.” (John M.T. Balmer and Stephen A. Greyser, 1995) 3. The opening words of The Royal Charter granted to Brunel University by the Crown illustrates the enduring legacy of Canon Law (CL *) and Heraldic Law (HL *) in terms of defining the corporation in identity terms: “There shall be hereby constituted and henceforth for ever shall be one body politic and corporate with perpetual succession (CL *) and a Common Seal by the name and style of “Brunel University” with power to obtain through Our College of Arms a grant of armorial bearings (HL *).” 4. In terms of identification from the corporation via symbolic means The British Standard Institute provides five terms and definitions: Corporate Logotype. “Distinctive way in which an organisation’s name is rendered, principally in typographic form”. Corporate Symbol. “Distinctive representative or abstract emblem used by an organisation to identify itself”. Visual Identity. “Visual expression of an organisation’s corporate identity: the face it puts on itself, its activities and outputs”. Visual Image. “Sum of visual impressions and quality of the output of an organisation built up in the minds of its stakeholders and the public”. Visual Identification System. “Principal means by which an organisation manifests visually its corporate identity”.

Identity based views

899

References Aaker, D.A. (2004), “Leveraging the corporate brand”, California Management Review, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 6-18. Abratt, R. (1989), “A new approach to the corporate image management process”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 63-76. Albert, S. and Whetten, D. (1985), “Organizational identity”, in Cummings, L.L. and Straw, B. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 7, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 263-9. Aldersey-Williams, H. (2000), “Ten reasons why corporate identity is irrelevant”, Royal Society of Arts Journal, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 4-5.

EJM 42,9/10

900

Alessandri, S.W. (2001), “Modeling corporate identity: a concept explication and theoretical explanation”, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 173-82. Alvesson, M. (1998), “The business concept as symbol”, International Studies of Management and Organizations, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 57-85. Arnauld, E., Price, L. and Zinkham, G. (2002), Consumers, McGraw Hill, New York, NY. Badot, O. and Cova, B. (1995), “Communuate et consommation: prospective pour un marketing tribal”, Revue Francaise du Marketing, Vol. 1 No. 151, pp. 5-17. Balmer, J.M.T. (1994), “The BBC’s corporate identity: myth, paradox and reality”, Journal of General Management, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 33-49. Balmer, J.M.T. (1998), “Corporate identity and the advent of corporate marketing”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 14 No. 8, pp. 963-96. Balmer, J.M.T. (1999), “Corporate identity”, in Baker, M.J. (Ed.), IEBM Encyclopedia of Marketing, Thomson Business Press, London, pp. 732-46. Balmer, J.M.T. (2001), “Corporate identity, corporate branding and corporate marketing: seeing through the fog”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 Nos 3/4, pp. 248-91. Balmer, J.M.T. (2002), “Of identities lost and identities found”, International Studies of Management and Organizations, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 10-27. Balmer, J.M.T. (2005), “Corporate brand cultures and communities”, in Schroeder, J.E. and Salzer-Morling, M. (Eds), Brand Culture, Routledge, London, pp. 34-49. Balmer, J.M.T. and Gray, E.R. (2003), “Corporate brands. What are they? What of them?”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37 Nos 7/8, pp. 972-97. 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. (2003), Revealing the Corporation: Perspectives on Identity, Image, Reputation, Corporate Branding, and Corporate-level Marketing, Routledge, London. Balmer, J.M.T. and Greyser, S.A. (2006), “Corporate level marketing: integrating corporate identity, corporate branding, corporate communications, and corporate reputation”, European Journal of Marketing (Special edition on Corporate Marketing), Vol. 40 Nos 7/8, pp. 730-41. Balmer, J.M.T. and Soenen, G.B. (1999), “The acid test of corporate identity management”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 15, pp. 69-92. Balmer, J.M.T. and Van Riel, C.B.M. (Eds) (1997), European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31 Nos 5/6. Balmer, J.M.T. and Wilson, A. (1998), “Corporate identity: there is more to it than meets the eye”, International Studies of Management and Organizations, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 12-31. Bhattacharya, C.B. and Sen, S. (2003), “Consumer-company identification: a framework for understanding consumers’ relationships with companies”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 67, April, pp. 76-89. Bhattacharya, C.B., Rao, H. and Glynn, M.A. (1995), “Understanding the bond of identification: an investigation of its correlates among art museum members”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59, pp. 46-57. Bick, G., Jacobson, M.G. and Abratt, R. (2003), “The corporate identity management process revisited”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 19, pp. 835-55. Birkigt, K. and Stadler, M. (1986), Corporate identity: Grundlagen, funktionen und beispielen, Verlag Moderne Industrie, Landsberg an Lech.

Brown, T.J., Dacin, P.A., Pratt, M.G. and Whetten, D. (2006), “Identity, intended image, construed image and reputation: an interdisciplinary framework and suggested terminology”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sciences, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 99-106. Bruce, A., Calder, J. and Cator, M. (1999), Keepers of the Kingdom, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London. Cardador, M.T. and Pratt, M.G. (2006), “Identification management and its bases; bridging management and marketing perspectives through a focus on affiliation dimensions”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 174-84. Colley, L. (1996), Britons. Forging the Nation, Vintage, London. Cornelissen, J.P., Haslam, A. and Balmer, J.M.T. (2007), “Social identity, organisational identity and corporate identity: towards an integrated understanding of processes, patternings and products”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 18 S.1, pp. 1-94. Cova, B. and Cova, V. (2001), “Tribal aspects of postmodern consumption: the case of French in-line roller skaters”, Journal of Consumer Behavior, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 67-76. Cova, B. and Cova, V. (2002), “Tribal marketing: the tribalisation of society and its impact on the conduct of marketing”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 36 Nos 5/6, pp. 595-620. Dacin, P.A. and Brown, T.J. (2002), “Corporate associations: perspectives for future research”, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 5 Nos 2/3, pp. 253-66. Donavan, D.T., Janda, S. and Suh, J. (2006), “Environmental influences in corporate brand identification and outcomes”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 14 Nos 1/2, pp. 125-36. Dormer, P. (1998), Design Since 1945, Thames and Hudson, London. Dowling, G.R. (1993), “Developing your corporate image into a corporate asset”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 101-9. du Gay, P. (1996), “Organizing identity. Entrepreneurial governance and public management”, in Hall, S. and du Gay, P. ( (Eds), Questions of Cultural Identity, Sage, London, pp. 151-69. du Gay, P. (2007), Organizing Identity, Sage, London. Dutton, J.E. and Dukerich, J.M. (1991), “Keeping an eye on the mirror: image and identity in organizational adaption”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34, pp. 517-54. Dutton, J.E., Dukerich, J.M. and Harquail, C.V. (1994), “Organisational images and member identification”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 239-63. 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. Hall, S. (1996) in Hall, S. and du Gay, P. (Eds), Questions of Cultural Identity, Sage, London, pp. 1-17. Hatch, M.J. and Schultz, M. (2003), “Bringing the corporation into corporate branding”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37 Nos 7/8, pp. 1941-64. Hatch, M.J. and Schultz, M. (1997), “Relations between organisational culture, identity and image”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31 Nos 5/6, pp. 356-65. Hatch, M.J. and Schultz, M. (2001), “Are the strategic stars aligned for your corporate brand?”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 79 No. 2, pp. 144-58. Hatch, M.J. and Schultz, M. (2002), “The dynamics of organizational identity”, Human Relations, Vol. 55, pp. 989-1018. Hatch, M.J. and Schultz, M. (Eds) (2004), Organizational Identity, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Identity based views

901

EJM 42,9/10

902

He, H-W. and Balmer, J.M.T. (2004), “Identity studies; multiple perspectives and implications for corporate-level marketing”, Working Paper 05/04, Bradford School of Management, Bradford. He, H.W. and Balmer, J.M.T. (2006), “Managerial perceived identity/strategy dissonance. Antecedents and cognitive responses”, Working Paper 05/07, Bradford School of Management, Bradford. He, H-W. and Balmer, J.M.T. (2007), “Identity studies: multiple perspectives and implications for corporate-level marketing”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 41 Nos 7/8, pp. 765-85. Hobsbawn, E. and Ranger, T. (Eds) (1983), The Invention of Tradition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Holt, D.B. (1995), “How consumers consume: a typology of consumption practices”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 22, pp. 1-16. Jallat, F. and Wood, E. (2005), “Exploring deep and wide stakeholder relations in service activity”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39 Nos 9/10, pp. 1013-24. Kozinets, R., Cova, B. and Shankar, A. (Eds) (2007), Consumer Tribes: Theory, Practice, and Prospects, Elsevier/Butterworth-Heinemann, London. Knox, S. and Bickerton, D. (2003), “The six conventions of corporate branding”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37 Nos 7/8, pp. 998-1016. Larcon, J.P. and Reitter, R. (1979), Structures de pouvoir et identite de l’entreprise, Nathan, Paris. ¸ McAlexander, J.H., Schouten, J.W. and Koening, H.F. (2002), “Building brand community”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 38-54. Maffesoli, M. (1988), Le Temps des Tribus: Le Declin de l’individualisme dans les Societes de Masse, Meridiens Klincksieck, Paris. Margulies, W. (1977), “Make the most of your corporate identity”, Harvard Business Review, July-August, pp. 66-77. Martin, L.H., Gutman, H. and Hutton, P.H. (Eds) (1988), Technologies of the Self. A Seminar with Michel Foucault, Tavistock, London. Martineau, P. (1958a), “The personality of the retail store”, Harvard Business Review, January/February, pp. 47-55. Martineau, P. (1958b), “Sharper focus for the corporate image”, Harvard Business Review, November/December, pp. 49-58. Marwick, N. and Fill, C. (1997), “Towards a framework for managing corporate identity”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31 Nos 5/6, pp. 396-409. Mayo, P. (1974), The Roots of Identity: Three National Movements in Contemporary European Politics, Allen Lane, London. Meinecke, F. (1908), in Smith, A.D. (1991), National Identity, Penguin, London. Melewar, T.C. and Karaosmanoglu, E. (2006), “Seven dimensions of corporate identity: a categorization from the practitioners’ perspectives”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40 Nos 7/8, pp. 846-69. Melewar, T.C. and Saunders, J. (1999), “International corporate visual identity: standardization or localization?”, International Journal of Business, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 583-98. Moingeon, B. and Ramanantsoa, D. (1997), “Corporate identity: understanding the French school of thought”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31 Nos 5/6, pp. 253-395. Motion, J. and Leitch, S. (2002), “The technologies of corporate identity and brands”, International Studies of Management and Organizations, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 46-64.

Muniz, A.M. Jr. and O’Guinn, T. (2001), “Brand community”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 412-32. Napoles, V. (1988), Corporate Identity Design, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY. Norman, R. (1977), Management for Growth, John Wiley, London. Olins, W. (1978), The Corporate Personality: An Inquiry Into the Nature of Corporate Identity, Design Council, London. Olins, W. (1989), Corporate Identity, Thames and Hudson, London. Olins, W. (2003), “Make the most of your corporate identity”, adapted from a lecture delivered at the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufacturers and Trades (London), in 1978, in Balmer, J.M.T. and Greyser, S.A. (Eds) (2003), Revealing the Corporation: Perspectives on Identity, Image, Reputation, Corporate Branding, and Corporate-Level Marketing, Routledge, London, pp. 53-65. Passmore, J. (1968), A Hundred Years of Philosophy, Penguin, London. Phillips, P. and Greyser, S. (1999), Creating a Corporate Identity for a $20 Billion Start Up: Lucent Technologies, The Design Management Institute, Boston, MA. Pilditch, J. (1970), Communication by Design: A Study in Corporate Identity, McGrawHill, Maidenhead. Pratt, M.G. (1998), “To be or not to be? Central questions in organizational identification”, in Whetten, D. and Godfrey, P. (Eds), Identity in Organizations: Developing Theory Through Conversations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 171-207. Pugh, D.S. (1973), “The measurement of organization structures: does context determine form?”, Organizational Dynamics, Spring, pp. 19-34. Ramanantsoa, B. (1989), “Histoire et identite de l’entreprise”, Revue Francaise de gestion, Janvier/Fevrier, pp. 107-11. Russell, B. (1912), The Problems of Philosophy, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Sahlins, P. (1989), Boundaries: The Making of France and Spain, Berkeley University Press, Los Angeles, CA. Sarup, M. (1996), Identity, Culture and the Postmodern World, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh. Schmitt, B.H., Simonson, A. and Marcus, J. (1995), “Managing corporate image and identity”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 82-92. Simoes, C., Dibb, S. and Fisk, R.P. (2005), “Managing corporate identity: an internal perspective”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 33, pp. 153-68. Slater, S. (2005), The Illustrated Book of Heraldry, Hermes House, London. Smith, A.D. (1991), National Identity, Penguin, London. Soenen, G. and Moingeon, B. (Eds) (2002), Corporate and Organizational Identity: Integrating Strategy, Marketing, Communication and Organizational Perspectives, Routledge, London. Solomon, M.R. (2003), Conquering Consumerspace. Marketing Strategies for a Branded World, Amacom, New York, NY. Stuart, H. (1999), “Exploring the corporate identity/corporate image interface: an empirical study”, Journal of Communication Management, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 357-71. Tagiuri, R. (1982), “Managing corporate identity: the role of top management”, paper presented at The International Seminar on Corporate Identity Building, Centre d’Enseignement et de Recherche Appliques au Management, Sophia Antipolis, France, March 25-26.

Identity based views

903

EJM 42,9/10

904

Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C. (1979), “An integrative theory of intergroup conflict”, in Austin, W.G. and Worchel, S. (Eds), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Brooks/Cole, Monterey, CA, pp. 7-24. Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C. (1985), “The social identity theory of intergroup behavior”, in Worchel, S. and Austin, W.W. (Eds), Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Vol. 2, Nelson-Hall, Chicago, IL, pp. 7-24. Topalian, A. (1984), “Corporate identity: beyond the visual overstatements”, International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 3, pp. 55-62. Van Riel, C.B.M. and Balmer, J.M.T. (1997), “Corporate identity: the concept, its measurement and management”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31, pp. 340-56. Further reading Abratt, R. and Mofokeng, T.N. (2001), “Development and management of corporate image in South Africa”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 Nos 3/4, pp. 368-86. Balmer, J.M.T. (1995), “Corporate branding and connoisseurship”, Journal of General Management, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 24-46. Balmer, J.M.T. (2005), “Brand cultures and communities”, in Schroeder, J.E. and Salzer-Morling, M. (Eds), Brand Culture, Routledge, London, pp. 34-49. Balmer, J.M.T. and Wilkinson, A. (1991), “Building societies: change, strategy and corporate identity”, Journal of General Management,, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 20-34. Blake, J.E. (Ed.) (1971), A Management Guide to Corporate Identity, Council of Industrial Design, London. Bronn, P.S., Engell, W.J.L. and Martinsen, H. (2006), “A reflective approach to uncovering corporate identity”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40 Nos 7/8, pp. 886-901. Chajet, C. and Shachtman, T. (1998), Image by Design, McGraw Hill, New York, NY. Cornelissen, J. and Elving, W.J.L. (2003), “Managing corporate identity: an integrative framework of dimensions and determinants”, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 114-20. Fombrun, C. (1996), Reputation: Realizing Value from the Corporate Image, Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, MA. Fournier, S. (1998), “Consumers and their brands: developing research theory in consumer research”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 13, pp. 196-213. Garbett, T.F. (1988), How to Build a Corporate Identity and Project its Image, Lexington Books, Toronto. Gorman, C. (1994), “Developing an effective corporate identity program”, Public Relations Journal, Vol. 50 No. 7, pp. 40-2. Gray, E.R. and Smeltzer, L.R. (1985), “Corporate image: an integral part of strategy”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 73-8. Haslam, A.S., Postmes, T. and Ellemers, N. (2003), “More than a metaphor: organizational identity makes organizational life possible”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 14, pp. 357-69. Haslam, S.A., Powell, C. and Turner, J.C. (2000), “Social identity, self-categorization and work motivation: Rethinking the contribution of the group to positive and sustainable organizational outcomes”, Applied Psychology: An International Review, Vol. 49, pp. 319-39. Hatch, M.J. and Rubin, J. (2006), “Hermeneutics of branding”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 14 Nos 1/2, pp. 40-59.

He, H.W. (2005), “Identity strategies. Identity studies. Multiple perspectives and implications for corporate level marketing”, Working Paper 05/04, Bradford School of Management. Holt, D.B. (2002), “Why do brands cause trouble? A dialectical theory of consumer culture and branding”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 29, pp. 70-90. Keller, K.L. and Richey, K. (2006), “The importance of corporate brand personality traits to a successful 21st century business”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 14 Nos 1/2, pp. 74-81. Kennedy, S.H. (1977), “Nurturing corporate images: total communications or ego trip?”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 11, pp. 120-64. Knutson, B., Rick, S., Wimmer, G.E., Prelec, D. and Loewenstein, G. (2007), “Neural predictors of purchases”, Neuron, Vol. 53, pp. 147-56. Melewar, T.C., Saunders, J. and Balmer, J.M.T. (2001), “Cause, effect and benefits of a standardised visual identity system of UK companies operating in Malaysia”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 Nos 3/4, pp. 414-27. Nolan, J. (1975), “Protect your public image with performance”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 53, pp. 135-42. Phillips, P.L. and Greyser, S.A. (2003), “Bank one: the uncommon partnership. Design Management Institute case study of 2001”, in Balmer, J.M.T. and Greyser, S.A. (Eds), Revealing the Corporation: Perspectives on Identity, Image, Reputation, Corporate Branding, and Corporate-level Marketing, Routledge, London, pp. 318-44. Schroeder, J.E. (2002), Visual Consumption, Routledge, London. Suvatjis, J.Y. and DeChernatony, L. (2005), “Corporate identity modeling: a review and presentation of a new multi-dimensional model”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 21 Nos 7/8, pp. 809-34. ´ ` Tajfel, H. (1972), “La categorization sociale”, in Moscovici, S. (Ed.), Introduction a la psychologie sociale, Vol. 1, Larousse, Paris, pp. 272-302. Van Rekom, J. (1997), “Deriving an operational measure of corporate identity”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31 Nos 5/6, pp. 410-22.

Identity based views

905

Appendix. The use of the organisational identity concept within the marketing literature Recently, some marketing and communications scholars have begun to eshew all reference to corporate identity in the literature and use the concept of organisational identity as a surrogate. Regrettably, this can lead to a narrow conceptualisation of the identity construct in terms of its scope, lineage and utility. In particular, it has tended to abrogate earlier, significant, insights drawn from marketing practice and consultancy which appears in the practitioner literature: the work of Olins (1978, 1989, 2003) is a case in point. It can also give the impression that academic interest in the area dates back to the mid 1980s. It may, unwittingly, emphasize North American scholarship relating to organisational behaviour at the expense of marketing scholarship from Europe, the Commonwealth and North America. Marketing scholarship relating to identity has an enviable provenance. The blanket use of the concept of organisational identity by some can also undermine the important convention within marketing where the prefix corporate is assigned to the concepts of identity (corporate identity), image (corporate image), reputation (corporate reputation), branding (corporate brands) and communications (corporate communications). The use of the corporate prefix within marketing is not merely one of custom and practice (important though this is). For instance, managers are more inclined to refer to corporate identity

EJM 42,9/10

906

and corporate image rather than to organisational identity and image. The use of the prefix corporate also means that marketing scholars and practitioners share a common argot. There is another consideration. For instance, the organisational prefix is rarely used when referring to institutional communications (e.g. corporate communications) or institutional brands (e.g. corporate brands). In addition, reference to the prefix corporate (rather than organisational) allows for the above concepts to be applied to entire industries, as well as to cities and countries and of course is equally applicable to collective groups. However, marketing scholars should not loose sight of the fact that the theories from organisational behaviour which underpin the concepts of organisational identity, identification and image provide critically important perspectives on this territory. We should take care, however, to incorporate these concepts within the corporate marketing lexicon with care and without undermining our rich marketing inheritance. There is much to be gained by drawing on this, as well as other traditions, relating to identity scholarship.

About the author John M.T. Balmer is Professor of Corporate Marketing at Brunel University, London. He was Professor of Corporate Identity at Bradford School of Management where he went on to hold the Chair in Corporate Brand/Identity Management. Previously, he was Director of the International Centre for Corporate Identity Studies at Strathclyde Business School, Scotland. He has served as a Guest Editor for 12 journals on corporate identity, corporate branding and corporate marketing. His published output has appeared in California Management Review, European Journal of Marketing, Journal of Business Ethics, Long Range Planning, The British Journal of Management, and International Studies of Management and Organizations amongst others. He is also the co-author with Stephen A. Greyser (Harvard Business School) of Revealing the Corporation (Routledge, 2003) on corporate identity, image, reputation, corporate branding and corporate level marketing. He is the Founder-Director of the International Corporate Identity Group (1994) which was launched at the House of Lords in 1995. He has worked with a variety of organisations and institutions on corporate marketing projects including the Swedish Monarchy, the BBC, the WPP Group and Mercedes Benz. He can be contacted at: john.balmer@brunel.ac.uk

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

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