European Journal of MarketingEmerald Article: Identity based views of the corporation: Insights from corporate identity, organisational identity, social identity, visual identity, corporate brand identity and corporate imageJohn M.T. Balmer

Article information:

To cite this document: John M.T. Balmer, (2008),"Identity based views of the corporation: Insights from corporate identity, organisational identity, social identity, visual identity, corporate brand identity and corporate image", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 42 Iss: 9 pp. 879 - 906

Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090560810891055

Downloaded on: 05-10-2012

References: This document contains references to 124 other documents

Citations: This document has been cited by 29 other documents

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

This document has been downloaded 6932 times since 2008. *

Users who downloaded this Article also downloaded: *

Cees B.M. van Riel, John M.T. Balmer, (1997),"Corporate identity: the concept, its measurement and management", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31 Iss: 5 pp. 340 - 355http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb060635

John M.T. Balmer, Stephen A. Greyser, (2006),"Corporate marketing: Integrating corporate identity, corporate branding, corporate communications, corporate image and corporate reputation", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40 Iss: 7 pp. 730 - 741http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090560610669964

T.C. Melewar, Elif Karaosmanoglu, (2006),"Seven dimensions of corporate identity: A categorisation from the practitioners' perspectives", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40 Iss: 7 pp. 846 - 869http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090560610670025

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY KURUKSHETRA

For Authors: If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service. Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comWith over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

COMMENTARY

Identity based views of thecorporation

Insights from corporate identity, organisationalidentity, social identity, visual identity, corporate

brand identity and corporate image

John M.T. BalmerBrunel University, London, UK

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to consider advances in corporate identity scholarship on theoccasion of the tenth anniversary of the first special edition of corporate identity to appear in theEuropean 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” isintroduced. Each of the ten identity based perspectives that inform the above are underpinned by acritically important question which is believed to be of considerable saliency to marketing scholarsand policy advisors alike. As a precursor to an exposition of these ten perspectives, the paper discussesfive principal schools of thought relating to identity and identification ((the quindrivium) which can becharacterised as: corporate identity (the identity of the organisation); communicated corporateidentification (identification from the organisation); stakeholder corporate identification (an individual,or stakeholder group’s, identification with the organisation); stakeholder cultural identification (anindividual, or stakeholder group’s, identification to a corporate culture); and envisioned identities andidentifications (this is a broad category and relates to how an organisation, or group, envisions howanother corporation or group characterises their identity or mode of identification.))

Practical implications – Each of the ten identity-based views of the corporation outlined here isunderpinned by a question of critical importance which aims to be of assistance to senior executives incomprehending and managing identity-related concerns of the corporation.

Originality/value – The introduction of notions relating to identity based views of thecorporation/corporation brands represents, perhaps, a natural denouement for the “schools ofthought” approach which has long-characterised the British School of scholarship vis-a-vis corporateidentity scholarship since the early 1990s.

Keywords Corporate identity, Corporate branding

Paper type Research paper

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

www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0566.htm

The author wishes to thank friends and faculty colleagues for their generosity of spirit in kindlyreading through this manuscript and making a number of suggestions. He especially wishes tothank Professor Stephen Greyser (Harvard Business School) and Dr Jonathan Muir (BradfordSchool of Management) in this regard. He is also grateful to Alan Topalian who kindly provideddetails of the British Standards Institution’s definitions related to identity etc., which have beencited in this article. Lastly, the author is indebted to the Co-Editors of the EJM for their supportand encouragement in writing this commentary. This commentary marshals material containedin: Balmer, J.M.T. (2006) Bradford School of Management Working Paper No. 06/48 and Balmer,J.M.T. (2007) Bradford School of Management Working Paper No. 07/07.

Identity basedviews

879

European Journal of MarketingVol. 42 No. 9/10, 2008

pp. 879-906q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0309-0566DOI 10.1108/03090560810891055

Introduction“Where do we come from? Where are we? Where are we going to?” is the evocative titleof what is, arguably, Paul Gauguin’s most celebrated painting. Executed on a largecanvas, Gauguin’s magnum opus shares certain similarities with corporate identityscholarship. 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 dealmore than the sum of their parts. Both demand considerable contemplation andreflection. The allegorical title of Gauguin’s painting has another purpose in that itprovides me with a ready made route map for this article. As such, in reflecting on theextant literature ( Where do we come from?), I note the centrality of identity studiesacross a range of disciplines. In scrutinising the contemporary corporate identityscholarship (Where are we?) I outline five principal schools of thought that currentlycharacterises corporate identity scholarship (the quindrivium). Musing on the future(Where are we going to?), I conclude that the identity spectrum will witness anexponential growth in importance as reflected in what I call “identity based views ofthe corporation” and “identity based views of corporate branding”.

Adopting a panoptic view of corporate identity at this juncture seems apposite sincethis general review appears on, what is for me, a momentous occasion: the first everspecial edition of an academic journal (the EJM) devoted to corporate identity (Balmerand Van Riel, 1997).

In broader identity contexts we should also note that there has been a “veritablediscursive explosion” around the concept of identity from scholars from a variety ofdisciplinary backgrounds (Hall, 1996). du Gay (2007), for instance, has observed howmanagement scholars have accorded increasing importance to the concept of identity.He notes that its value as a management concept is derived from its practical anddescriptive functions rather than in terms of its theoretical utility.

Ten years on from the EJM special edition, our comprehension of corporate identitycanvas is qualitatively different to what it was in 1997. For instance, increasingemphasis is accorded to deeper notions of corporate identity (ci) in terms of acorporation’s traits and less importance is afforded to corporate visualidentification/symbolism. In addition, the marketing literature has been enriched bya repertoire of insights from identity studies generally, especially those drawn fromscholarship relating to organisational identity (oi) undertaken by organisationalbehaviourists. 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 tomore fully discern what have been identified as ‘the multiple identities of thecorporation’ (Balmer and Greyser, 2002).

Within the management literature the two dominant disciplinary traditions andliteratures have informed our comprehension of identity in institutional contextsnamely:

. marketing; and

. organisational behaviour.

EJM42,9/10

880

Although it can be argued that one or other disciplinary perspective negates the otherit would appear that a consensus is gradually emerging that both traditions (includingreference to the concepts of corporate identity and organisational identity) arecomplementary and, therefore, are mutually enriching.

However, we should note that, in very broad terms, their respective foci tends to bedifferent.

For instance, corporate identity (ci) has a more overt external, customer/stakeholderand enjoys a hegemonic profile/usage in marketing scholarship and in management (aswell as in general) parlance. Also, the literature on corporate identity tends to accordimportance to practical and managerial perspectives. Its provenance is considerablyolder than that of organisational identity: reference to the concept dates at least as farback 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 aninternal, employee foci. Whereas corporate identity is underpinned by a strongpractical and managerial inheritance, organisational identity is chacterised by havinga richer theoretical foundation.

For a brief discussion of the effects (both positive and negative) of the increasedreference to organisational identity by marketing scholars see the Appendix.

Returning to the marketing perspective it seems logical to view corporate identity asone (albeit fundamental) element of a corporate gestalt which, for me, forms a keydimension of what I term corporate marketing. The family of concepts that underpinthe nascent area of corporate marketing include corporate brand identity, corporatereputation, corporate image, corporate communications etc.

Few, today, would refute the strategic importance of corporate identity to moderncorporations and organisations. Typically, problems of corporate identity come to thefore when organisations reach a strategic fork in the road as a consequence of eventsassociated with institutional change (mergers), changes in the business environment(such as deregulation) and with misperceptions held of the corporation (such as anoutdated corporate images) among many others (Balmer and Greyser, 2002). It is atthese junctures that corporate identity management is accorded particular importanceby policy makers.

du Gay (1996) cogently remarked that since identities are basically relational interms of their existence and any change in terms of the latter is bound to affect theformer. This is as true for corporate identity as it is for other identity types: a change ofstrategic direction by one corporation may cause another to alter its identity traits inresponse so as to maintain its competitive position.

Two additional, and powerful, reminders of the saliency of the corporate identityconstruct relates to its utility to contemporary corporations and to senior managersgenerally. The existence of British Standards Institute definition of corporate identity(BSI 7000 Part 10)[1] and the issuance in 1995 of the “Strathclyde Statement” oncorporate identity management by the International Corporate Identity Group(ICIG)[2]: are illustrative of the above and may also be seen to reflect the strategicnature 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 basedviews

881

remains, pervasive and influential (Pilditch, 1970; Margulies, 1977; Olins, 1978;Topalian, 1984; Birkigt and Stadler, 1986). We should note that later academic writingon corporate identity by marketing scholars was influenced by this practitionerliterature and as such adopts an overtly managerial perspective (Abratt, 1989; Balmerand 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 threedecades it is possible to detect several significant shifts in emphasis. At first, scholarslooked up the corporate marketing telescope and focused on the management ofcorporate image and examined the importance of corporate identity (especiallycorporate visual identity) in corporate image formation (Abratt, 1989). Then marketingscholars looked down the corporate marketing telescope and focused on deeper notionsof corporate identity (in relation to an institution’s defining traits). This led to acorollary 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 identityto our comprehension of a variety of corporate level concepts such as corporate brandidentity 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 (Balmerand 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 thistradition that informs my examination of identity based views of the corporationoutlined here.

Identity: the big pictureWhere Do We Come From? Since time immemorial many of the great themes ofintellectual inquiry are related to identity. Identities are powerful and are impossibleto ignore. Wars, alliances, and revolutions frequently have issues of identity at theircore. The primordial nature of identity is such that questions of identity andidentification have been accorded a good deal of importance by scholars from avariety of disciplines. Its intellectual roots are broad and deep. The nature of identityis 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 andPlace attests.

Moving beyond philosophy, Meyerson went so far as to claim that scientific inquiryis fundamentally concerned with the discovery and investigation of identities(Passmore, 1968, p. 329). What is clear is that without recourse to identity, ourcomprehension of gender, personality, religion, nationalism, and, of course,corporations are rendered difficult if not impossible. Moreover, identities arecomplicated, multidimensional and can be protean in character. Although identities arenot always seen or fully understood their power can, all the same, be felt: theirimportance is irrefutable.

In the following section I detail some of most important strands of thought relatingto identity studies and place them in the context of corporate identityscholarship/marketing.

EJM42,9/10

882

Individual identityIndividual identity is (along with gender) the most fundamental of all identity types. Itsurfaces in the work of both Plato and Socrates and is the key theme of Sophoclestragedy Oedipus Tryannos (Oedipus the King). We should not forget that individualidentities can shape institutional (corporate) identities. Consider, for instance, theabiding 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 oftheories 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 thetechnologies of the self (see Martin et al., 1988) have been highly influential in relationto our comprehension of individual identity. Not surprisingly, Foucault’s theories havebeen marshalled by marketing scholars in broad corporate identity contexts (Motionand Leitch, 2002.)

Collective identityInformed by insights from the literatures on social psychology, nationality, and historyit has been shown that an individual’s membership of a collective (group) identity, aswell as non membership of a group, helps to define the self and influences anindividual’s behaviours and cognitions. Scholarship on collective identity has beeninformed by the work of social psychologists especially in relation to their articulationof social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1979). Similar perspectives can be found inthe 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 oncollective identity/social identity theory.

Juridical identitiesAlthough we may not always know it, it would seem clear that juridical insights bothfrom 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 notionthat the church’s identity exists in perpetuity and its (corporate) identity is distinctfrom the collective identity of its members has, in centuries past, informed jurists ofConstitutional and Commercial Law. In juridical terms, corporations are regarded aslegal persons with rights and responsibilities that are distinct from organisationalmembers. Noteworthy too, although seemingly abstruse, the Laws of Heraldry have formany centuries recognised that a corporation’s defining symbol (Coat ofArms/Armorial Bearings) was inheritable property and should be affordedprotection in law (Slater, 2005). By inference, this came with a realisation that anorganisation’s symbols – its visual identity - were invested with commercial, economicand 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 ofthe Lord Lyon (Bruce et al., 1999). The enduring influence of the laws of Canon andHeraldic law often finds a distinct and prominent voice, for instance, in the RoyalCharters granted to British and Commonwealth Universities for instance[3].

Identity basedviews

883

National and ethnic identities: questions of polity and communityThe literature on ethnicity and nationality makes a clear distinction between theidentity derived from a nation’s polity and the identity grounded in an ethniccommunity (Smith, 1991). Meinecke (1908), for instance, distinguished between theStaatsnation and the Kulturnation. As such, although it is frequently assumed thatnationality and ethnicity are tightly coupled this is not invariably so: whereas theUnited Kingdom is manifestly a Staatsnation England and Wales are indubitably“Kulturnations”. On reflection, we can observe that juridical and cultural identities caninform our comprehension of contemporary organisations: both identity types areperennial and universal in character. As such, in corporate contexts, I make adistinction between, what I call, legal and cultural identities. The former broadlyinforms our understanding of corporate identity (as viewed as a legal construct) in thesame way that the latter underpins a good deal of the literature on organisationalidentity (as viewed as a cultural construct). For instance, The Universities of Londonand Wales (both being large, federal, institutions) are both, indubitably, legal identitiesbut do not appear to have such a clearly identifiable and strong University-widecultural identity. However their constituent colleges and institutes do seem to havemore clearly identifiable cultural identities (compare and consider London BusinessSchool, the London School of Economics, Imperial College and Royal Holloway Collegeat London University in relation to their “parent”: the University of London).

The double entendre and triple entendre of identificationThe literatures on identity amply demonstrate that considerable circumspection isrequired on the part of marketing scholars when referring to identification owing to itsduality in usage in the literatures on identity. For instance, I have found that theliterature on ethnicity and nationalism ascribes two, distinct, meanings to the term. Atone level, identification refers to use of symbols such as ceremonies, flags, coinage toproject the national/ethnic self and celebrate a state’s/ethnic grouping’s success anddurability. It also refers to an individual’s or group’s identification with a nation orethnic community (Smith, 1991).

To me, there are strong parallels here to the corporate identity literature where asimilar duality in usage of identification characterises its use as applied tocorporations, institutional brands and corporate culture/s. As such, corporateidentification variously refers to:

. the, largely, outward-bound symbolic presentation of thecorporation/institutional brand/corporate culture/s using a variety ofcommunications conduits; and

. an individual’s (or group’s) identification with a corporation/institutionalbrand/corporate culture/s.

Developing the above, it would seem necessary that a tripartite distinction may bemade between identification from, to and with a troika of identity types that are ofseminal importance to marketing scholars (e.g. corporations, institutional brands andcorporate culture/s). Identification from refers to outward bound symbolic projection;identification with refers to an affiliation with a corporation or institutional brand andidentification to refers to an affiliation with a corporate cultural grouping (such as acorporate brand community or tribe).

EJM42,9/10

884

Identity and multiplicityAn important sub text within the identity literature is the view that there is a good dealof interpenetration between different identity types. A similar characteristic informsour 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 corporateidentities/brands, e.g. Nokia vis-a-vis Finland/the All Blacks Rugby Team vis-a-vis NewZealand/the Crown vis-a-vis Great Britain). In historical contexts it is also clear thatnations and states have been materially shaped by the corporate identities of thebusiness corporation: consider Canada vis-a-vis The Hudson Bay Company and theState of Sabah in Borneo (Malaysia) vis-a-vis The British North Borneo Company inthis regard. Importantly, too, is the fact that within, and between, institutions differentcorporate identities also interpenetrate. The corporate identity of Bentleyinterpenetrates with the identity of Volkswagen: its’ parent corporation. A“platform” corporation (focusing on branding, marketing and design rather thanproduction) such as Nike is also materially influenced by the actions of a PartnerCorporation upon whom it is reliant (consider the child labour controversy thatembroiled Nike). Increasingly, the modern corporation is reliant upon outsourcingcompanies and, again, illustrates how corporate identities interpenetrate: we may notbe familiar with the names of these outsourcing companies but this is not to deny theirgrowing importance. Among the more prominent of these organisations are France’sSodexho Alliance, India’s Infosys, China’s Neusoft as well as the ubiquitous IBM of theUSA.

The corporate identity quindriviumFrom my short, general, exegesis of the identity concept it will be apparent thatidentity and identification are portmanteau expressions which have a variety ofmeanings. Uncovering these various strands of thought may, at first sight, appear to beakin to untying the Gordian knot (Balmer and Greyser, 2003, p. 33). As a means ofuntying this knot (and as a prelude to introducing my broader conceptualisation ofidentity based views of the corporation) I begin by introducing five characterisations ofidentity and identification (the quindrivium). The literal meaning of quindrivium is:“the place where five roads meet”. As you may recall, in centuries past, a foundationalcourse for university students consisted of four parts (the quadrivium). It is hoped thatthe five-fold way to learning outlined here (the quindrivium) will serve a similarpurpose for students, teachers and practitioners of today. The quindrivium servesanother purpose in that it helps us to map out where we are ten years on after the firstspecial edition on corporate identity. In outlining the five approaches to identity andidentification I provide the following parsimonious descriptions of the various identitycharacterisations, e.g. (see Figure 1).

Figure 2 illustrates the first four of the five schools of thought (the identityquindrivium) in diagrammatic form.

Identity basedviews

885

Identity of a corporationFoci: juridical/economic and corporate. Underlying question: What are the corporation’sdistinguishing traits?Informed, principally, by a functionalist perspective, a corporate identity ischaracterised as having traits that are substantive and, whose effects areobservable; have a self-determining capacity (the ability to change their legal status,activities, working practices etc) and are susceptible to being managed (although notentirely so) and moulded. As outlined earlier, they also have a separate juridicalexistence as legal persons. For many institutions, legal incorporation is a (if not the)defining act of corporate identity creation: only when established can identificationwith a corporation occur and that a corporate culture/s and corporate brands begin todevelop. In addition, corporate identity provides the central platform upon whichcorporate communications policies are developed, corporate reputations are built andcorporate images and stakeholder identifications/associations with the corporation areformed.

This perspective regards corporate identities to be active and evolving organisms:their identities are always in the making and are never fully made. In institutionalcontexts, it is important to recognise that the corporate identity concept is equallyapposite to subsidiaries, industries, alliances as well as to corporations and otherorganisational types per se.

French scholars in making a ground-breaking contribution to corporate identityscholarship highlighted its importance by arguing that corporate identity traitsbestows a corporation with specificity, stability and coherence (Moingeon andRamanantsoa, 1997, Larcon and Reitter, 1979). Somewhat latter, and in a strikinglysimilar vein, the USA scholars Albert and Whetten (1985) in their magisterial andhighly perceptive examination of the identity concept in institutional contexts reacheda similar conclusion. They argued (albeit referring to what they termed organisationalidentity) that every entity is imbued with identity anchors that are central, distinctiveand enduring. By inference, uncovering that which accords an entity specificity,stability and coherence or that which is central, distinctive and enduring will reveal theorganisational patterns that define a corporation and differentiate one entity fromanother. As with the Swedish notion of “the business concept” (Norman, 1977;Alvesson, 1998), revealing the corporate identity is an analytical process. Onceestablished 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 corporatecommunications and image (forms the basis for institutional communications). Assuch, a corporate identity can only be meaningfully revealed by drawing on a varietyof perspectives and by making reference to, other, corporate marketing concepts.

Figure 1.

EJM42,9/10

886

Figure 2.The principal schools of

thought relating toidentity and identification

(excluding envisionedidentities)

Identity basedviews

887

Of course, the traits that define a corporation’s identity are numerous (Pugh, 1973). Forinstance, they encompass company ethos, activities, quality, market position, location,geographical scope, organisational type, structure, procedures and culture. Corporateidentities are informed by history (Ramanantsoa, 1989) and will have been shaped bypast strategies (Balmer, 2002). A corporation’s relationships and degree of dependencywith other corporations and with customers, shareholders and governments will alsomaterially influence the corporate identity. Increasingly, scholars focus on a number ofkey corporate identity traits encompassing strategy, structure, history and culture(Balmer, 2001; Melewar and Karaosmanoglu, 2006). Mention should be made of anarrower, but influential, articulation of identity traits articulated by the Germanauthors Birkigt and Stadler (1986).

The view is sometimes advanced that the enormity of the task in uncovering theidentity traits of a corporation means that it is futile and utterly redundantmanagement and academic activity. A powerful rejoinder to the above, however, is thatit is inconceivable that contemporary institutions (no matter their size or hue) can beadequately 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 bybi-polar/multiple-polar notions of identity or what might be called perspectives ofthe other. For instance, to me, it would seem that corporate identities are contingent (inpart draws on other identities) and relational (defined by making reference to otheridentities: not simply in terms of what we are but what we are not; for instance, Airbusvis-a-vis Boeing, BP vis-a-vis Exxon Mobil, Oxford University vis-a-vis CambridgeUniversity, Sony vis-a-vis Samsung and Unilever vis-a-vis Procter and Gamble etc.).The importance of binary/multiple oppositions in terms of relationship differenceswith other corporate identities is also of importance. This, what I call comparativecorporate identity, appears to provide an effective means of articulating a corporation’sessence. In order to know that an entity is distinct we have, of course, to know that it isdifferent. Figure 3 illustrates this perspective.

According to Balmer (2001a) the focus on the identity traits of the corporationmeans that corporate identity is characterised by their complexity (they aremultifaceted and multidimensional in nature in that they informed by variousspatial/temporal dimensions), variability (they are immutable but evolutionary incharacter) and heterogeneous (they are informed by multidisciplinary perspectives interms of comprehension and management). The evolutionary (variability) nature ofidentity detailed above differs, somewhat, from the original perspective of Albert andWhetten (1985) who regarded a corporation’s traits as fixed rather than flexible(identities are central, distinctive and enduring). I have argued that Albert andWhetten’s powerful tripartite characterisation of identity should be adapted so that aninstitution’s corporate identity is characterised by its central, distinctive and evolvingnature (Balmer, 2001a).

In terms of management, and strategy formulation, it would seem logical that seniorexecutives should make a distinction between policies that are philosophical ratherthan corporatist in foci. As used here, the former advances the view that seniorexecutives should demonstrate sensitivity to a corporate identity’s raison d’etre whichmight be expressed by a corporation’s founders/articles of association/charter. Incontrast, policies underpinning the latter might lead to policies where the continuance

EJM42,9/10

888

of a corporation is seen as an end in itself (based on the premise that to exist andflourish as a corporation is all that matters and where little regard may be accorded tothe vision of institutional founders or the ethos as expressed in the articles ofassociation etc.).

Identification from a corporationFoci: the symbolic and promotional. Underlying question: What the corporation espousesto be/project via symbolism - especially visual identity?For the main, identification from a corporation is predicated on the doctrine thatoutward bound symbolic communication from an entity can encapsulate, as well ascommunicate, the quintessence of a corporation including its, values, standards,purpose and distinctiveness has a considerable provenance. Dormer (1998) claimedthat symbolism can, in addition, assert authority, promote beliefs and convey

Figure 3.Comparative identity

Identity basedviews

889

ideologies. For instance, over many centuries, the catholic church has homed itssymbolism so that it underpins, projects and reinforces its central doctrines via aplethora of symbolic forms including architecture, festivals, language, music, rituals,and vestments: at more solemn enactments of its rites the marshalling of a variety ofsymbolic forms results in a full sensory experience (Balmer, 1998). By such means, thechurch’s magisterium are supported. Presumably, this means that that church is betterplaced to inculcate a strong sense of identification towards it from its members owingto its cogent symbolic identification from it as outlined above.

Reference can be made to Walter Margulies (1977) who, in a locus classicus, definedcorporate identity in terms of the ways a company chooses to identify itself to all itsstakeholders, especially through corporate visual identity. It is this perspective thatinitially 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 corporatecommunications/symbolic communications. Within the marketing literature an a priorilink is often made between visual identification and customer/stakeholder perceptionsof 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 therebyproject that which aspirational rather and downplaying the actual. As cogently arguedby Hobsbawn and Ranger (1983) in The Invention of Tradition that which is sometimesportrayed to be of considerable antiquity by institutions is, quite often, bogus and ofrecent origin. Of course, integration of corporate symbolism and communication isoften viewed to be of strategic importance by senior managers and AEG and LondonTransport are frequently cited as 20th century exemplars of where corporations haveachieved a high degree of symbolic integration. In the 19th century railways achievedmuch 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 dimensionsoutlined above such as corporate visual identity and house style. British StandardBS7000 Part 10 has a glossary of five terms (with definitions) relating to the above[4].

Stakeholder/s identification with the corporationFoci: 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 uponwhat 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 beingpositive, negative or ambivalent. Drawing upon the British Empiricist tradition itwould also seem logical to add that knowledge and identification with an entity canalso be influenced by our experiences of the corporation. An individual’s cognition of acorporation is important since perception effects behaviour (Martineau, 1958a, 1958b)and also materially influences how a customer (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003) or anemployee relates to, or defines the self with a corporation (Dutton et al., 1994). Thenotion that individuals can forge a unique affinity with an organisation challengestraditional theories of marketing, and neoclassical economics which is predicated onthe view that humans are rational beings and denies, for instance, the effect of emotion.In addition, individuals can also have identification with different corporate

EJM42,9/10

890

philosophies that reflect past and current organisational traits (corporate identities) asresearch with the BBC has shown (Balmer and Wilson, 1998). For the main, this schoolof thought (stakeholder/s identification with the corporation) is examined from thelevel of the group (Brown et al., 2006) but can also be examined from the perspective ofthe individual. Corporations and their managers are not passive actors in relation to theabove (Cardador and Pratt, 2006). For instance, as studies of ethnicity and nationalityhave shown, corporations can also use rituals and symbols to engender positiveidentification 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 theoutsourcing of production and service support, identification occurs at the level ofcorporate brand rather than to the corporate identity. As such, it would increasinglyappear to be the case that stakeholder brand identification becomes more meaningfuland employee identification with the corporate identity less so. The deficit resultingfrom a loss of identification with a corporation is not easily replaced, and gives rise tothe traumatic question: “What are we now?”

Stakeholder/s identification to a corporate cultureFoci: emotional/cultural and collective. Underlying question: Who am I/Who are we (inrelation to a corporate culture)?This aspect of identification has as its focus the identification with a corporate culturerather than with the corporation per se.

Having its origins in social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1979) it can beargued 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 anorganisational culture. The recent literature has embraced both customer andemployee perspectives on the area and has argued the efficacy of such an approach (Heand Balmer, 2004, 2007; Brown et al., 2006; Cardador and Pratt, 2006). These culturalgroups are defined by comparative and relational cognitive states with other (“out”)groups. Such membership is influenced by self esteem, as well as by cognitive andaffective states. Company stakeholders, as members of a corporate culture affirm theirstrong identification to a corporation by emphasising commonalities with othermembers of the cultural grouping as well as highlighting their differences withso-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 isnot fixed since individuals may migrate to other groups in order to leverage self esteemand self-identity. As such, stakeholder identification to a group is more likely to occurwhen such associations are linked to prestige (Pratt, 1998) and where, in addition, it isdistinctive 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 ofThought” of marketing where marketing effort is centered on the creation of social tiesbetween individuals (Jallat and Wood, 2005). This viewpoint takes account that aperson’s membership of a group or tribe is coveted above the consumption of productsand services (Badot and Cova, 1995) and represents a significant departure fromtraditional marketing thought. At the level of the individual, corporate identities can be

Identity basedviews

891

consumed (as well as deployed) by the individual in order to create, and project, a senseof identity (Sarup, 1996).

There also appears to be a distinct category of cultural identification embracingthose 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, forinstance, Manchester United supporters in the tribal communities of the rainforests ofBorneo or those USA and French citizens who “consume” the British monarchy as acorporate brand). As such, although the legal and tangible links with these institutionsand brands may appear to be weak we should not disregard the power of anindividual’s emotional bonds with such institutions/corporate brand and their criticalrole in defining the self.

Envisioned identities and identifications (envisioned identity of anothercorporation towards us; envisioned identification with our corporation by astakeholder group and envisioned identification of another corporateculture to our corporate culture)Foci: beliefs about beliefs relating to identity and identification and has its sources inperceptions and cognitions. As discussed here, it is examined in terms of a category ofquestions. An indicative example being: What do envision to be our identity traits asperceived by another corporation?)Perception, and a concern with corporate image and corporate reputation, has aconsiderable provenance within the marketing literature (see Martineau, 1958a, 1958b;Brown et al., 2006). Just as marketing scholars have focused on customer perception acorollary concern among organisational behaviourists relates to employee perception:Dutton and Dukerich (1991) are credited in having coined the concept of organisationalimage to denote the way in which employees conceptualise how others see theircorporation. In 1994 their clarified this standpoint by relabeling the concept asconstrued external image (Dutton et al., 1994). A logical development of the above hasled to a concern with construed images and what I prosaically characterise as “beliefsabout beliefs”. Within marketing the notion of construed image tends to be used torefer to corporate beliefs relating to how others view the corporation (Brown et al.,2006). Another related notion is that of managerial perceived identity which canmaterially influence corporate decision making (He and Balmer, 2005). As such, thenotion of construed image may be seen to belong to a much broader category which Iterm envisioned identities: a category that has a multitude of applications. Forinstance, it can be seen to operate between the following dyads, among others:corporate to corporate; corporate and stakeholder/s or stakeholder group and betweenstakeholders and cultures. Issues of envisioned identity and identification representimportant knowledge for marketers since perception can translate into behaviour. Theimportance of the category of envisioned identities and identifications is that itrepresents a potentially dangerous platform upon which to engage with othercorporations and cultures: what is required is acquired knowledge of beliefs. Inaddition, it provides a salient reminder that other companies and cultures might drawon this perspective in determining how they envision how we see them. The followingoutlines some of the more prominent forms of envisioned identities:

EJM42,9/10

892

. Envisioned corporate identity. Refers to how we envision how anothercorporation characterises our corporate identity traits.

. Envisioned corporate identification. Refers to how we envision to be the type ofidentification a particular group has towards us.

. Envisioned cultural identification. Refers to how our corporate culture envisionsto be the type of identification another corporate culture (including those of othercorporations) have towards them..

Figure 4 illustrates, in diagrammatic form, examples of envisioned corporate identity,envisioned stakeholder identification and envisioned corporate culture.

Identity-based views of corporate brandingThere appears to be a prima facie case for applying the quindrivium cited above tocorporate brands and what I call “an identity based view of corporate brands”, e.g. the

Figure 4.Envisioned

identity/identification/corporate culture

Identity basedviews

893

identity of a corporation brand; identification from a corporate brand; stakeholder/sidentification to a corporate brand; stakeholder/s identification with a corporate brandculture and identities and identifications envisioned (by an organisation or group) ofthe corporate brand/corporate brand culture etc.

Whereas a corporate identity draws on the complex mix of institutional traits theessence of corporate branding is to be found from the values which are associatedwith the brand and which represent an informal contract (sometimes called acovenant) between the institutional brand and its various stakeholders (Balmer andGreyser, 2002). To me, corporate brands are more appropriately viewed as a distinctidentity 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 adistinct category of (institutional) identity we should not loose sight that they can beseparate and divisible from the institution and nation from which they evolved. Forinstance, until recently the Hilton corporate brand was underpinned by twoinstitutional identities: one in the UK and the other in the USA. Recently, withinmarketing, a distinct literature is developing on this area (Aaker, 2004; Balmer andGray, 2003; Knox and Bickerton, 2003) although there is no evidence to currentlysuggest that a distinction has yet been made between product-orientated,service-orientated and industrial-orientated corporate brands. Just as the dividebetween the marketing and organisational behaviour literatures have begun todissipate in relation to identity (Brown et al., 2006; Cornelissen et al., 2007; Hatch andSchultz, 1997, He and Balmer, 2007,) the same has began to occur in relation tocorporate 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 newcategories of collective identitification and which are known as brand communities andbrand 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. Theyalso tend to be of smaller size than older-named sibling (Maffesoli, 1988; Cova andCova, 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 tocorporate brands they would of course embrace internal and external stakeholdergroups beyond customers.

Reflections on the corporate identity canvasIn gradually applying my final brush strokes to this article and in contemplating thebroad identity canvas that has been examined I explain why corporate identityscholars have reason to be doleful as well as hopeful and cheerful.

Reasons to be dolefulLike Tantalus who was punished by the Gods in being barred from seizing what couldso clearly be seen, a similar fate seems to have befallen corporate identity scholarswhose claims vis-a-vis the centrality and importance of the territory has (untilcomparatively recently) not been widely accepted. As such, and as perhaps as aconsequence, perhaps, of prejudice, inertia, and ignorance, on the part of some

EJM42,9/10

894

marketing academics in the past, this has led to a narrow conceptualisation of theidentity canvas. For instance, some scholars and practitioners still envision corporateidentity exclusively in terms of visual identity: the polemic and diatribe regarding theinflated benefits of visual identity by Aldersey-Williams (2000) exemplifies thisperspective. Others have substituted the corporate identity construct with that of thecorporate brand and use the concepts interchangeably. Worryingly, some appear to usethe concept of the corporate brand as a surrogate term for the corporation per se. Moredoleful news for all corporate identitists this side of the pond can be found in some ofthe non European marketing literature which makes only fleeting reference to theEuropean/Commonwealth literature on corporate identity even though a good deal ofthe latter pre-dates writing on the territory elsewhere. What is, for me, unsettling arethose marketing and communications scholars have turned their back on theirmarketing inheritance and have, now, embraced other identity perspectives where thetheoretical is emphasised at the expense of the practical and where marketingperspectives on the area are accorded little, or no, importance. Sometimes the corporateidentity concept is studiously ignored. Yet, it seems to me, that our ability to more fullydiscriminate the full richness of institutional landscapes in identity terms almostcertainly requires the adoption of multiple disciplinary perspectives and traditions.Taken in isolation, it might appear from the above that corporate identity scholarshave been unremittingly harried over the last decade and that the corporate identityhas, progressively, become entropic in character and has, by some, been assigned adefault position. However, this position is changing and there are other brightercolours to be, mused upon in scrutinising the broader identity mural.

Reasons to be hopefulThere are many reasons why marketing scholars should be up-beat. For instance, inrecent years, scholars of organisational identity have realised that the corporateidentity/marketing literature represents an untapped and fertile ground fororganisational behaviourists (Cardador and Pratt, 2006). Within marketing, ourgeneral discernment of the field has been assisted by the mapping of the territory byscholars 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 andBalmer, 2007; Cornelissen et al., 2007). The above have given rise to a number ofnormative models which are predicated on the view that there should be alignmentbetween 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 leadingbusiness schools, thereby building on earlier traditions established by Greyser atHarvard Business School in the 1980s onwards as well as by marketing scholars atStrathclyde Business School from the early 1990s and Bradford School of Managementfrom the late 1990s. Also heartening are the number of specialist conferences inEuropean and North America that have corporate identity as a core theme whichcontinues earlier traditions established in France in the 1980s and in the UK in the1990. 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, ofcourse, build on the legacy established by the EJM in 1997.

Identity basedviews

895

Reasons to be cheerfulToday, corporate identity has emerged as a primary colour in the broader identityopus. In addition, the integrationist and multidisciplinary agenda that informed theEJM’s special issue of 1997, along with earlier writing on corporate identity, chimeswith more recent clarion calls within the literature (Brown et al., 2006, Carador andPratt, 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 thereis much to be gained from adopting a panoptic rather than a narrow perspective. Thesetrends seem to presage a fuller appreciation of the identity tableau within marketingand general management literature. As such, this has led me to introduce the notion ofidentity-based views of the corporation.

To me, introducing identity based views of the corporation represents a naturaldenouement for the “schools of thought” approach which has long-characterised theBritish School of scholarship vis-a-vis corporate identity scholarship since the early1990s. (Of course, an identity based perspective will also be seen to inform the nascentarea of corporate marketing).

In short, comprehending the multiple facets of corporate meaning requires recourseto different identity types each of which is underpinned by a question of vitalimportance for scholars and managers alike. The notion that identity types/corporatemarketing concepts are underpinned by a key question has informed my musings onthe area for some time (Balmer, 1999).

As Bertrand Russell (1912) advised, questions can be of critical importance becausethey are questions. However, this often comes with a realisation that answering suchquestions may be problematic. Notably, Russell did not shy away from answeringsome great philosophical questions and much the same may surely be said in relationto the questions underpinning identity-based views of the corporation. A similarapproach should, plainly, be adopted by marketing scholars.

For me, marketing at its most powerful draws on a rich tradition which attends bothto the cerebral as well as to the practical. In advancing this legacy in terms of identityscholarship we should not loose sight that significant insights can be gained bydrawing on different perspectives. There is much to be gained by taking account ofdifferent research, disciplinary and philosophical traditions relating to identityscholarship.

Of course, the practical and utilitarian nature of corporate identity and identificationdoes, of course, have a considerable provenance as the work of the Harvard-basedscholar Renato Tagiuri (1982) attests. Many who have written in the EJM appear toshare his view that a fundamental role of senior managers is to comprehend bothcorporate identity and identification: both are pre-requisites for guiding thecorporation and its employees.

In Figure 5 the key questions that inform identity based views of the corporation areoutlined. Each question is underpinned by a distinct identity type. In the exhibit I takeaccount that there are multiple levels of “corporate” analysis and, as such, identitybased perspective is applicable to corporations, industries, subsidiaries as well as tocorporate brand identities.

EJM42,9/10

896

Figure 5.Identity based views of the

corporation

Identity basedviews

897

It will also be seen a number of identity types that have not been previously beenreferred to in this article are included, e.g.: Desired Identity (the future orientatedidentity 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 strategicanalysis). In the exhibit I accord especial importance to the corporate brand identity orwhat I call the covenanted identity. As such, the Covenanted Identity refers to thecovenant that underpins a corporate brand. The exhibit is indicative rather thancomprehensive in character. The exhibit can be adapted so that its primary focus is oncorporate brand identity.

In practical terms, a key inference from identity based views of the corporation isthat it is potentially very dangerous when individual identity types are considered inisolation from each other. For instance, an overeliance on the communicated identitymay mask reality and lead to corporate self deception: the failure of British Airway’svisual identity programme of the late 1990s (Project Utopia) which used over fiftyvisual images from around the globe typifies the above. In a similar vein, undueemphasis accorded to identification with an internal corporate culture may give rise topowerful cadres which are self serving: consider the Enron, and Parmalat debacles.

The broad topography of the territory represented by identity based views of thecorporation may, at first sight, appear somewhat daunting in terms of marketingresearch and scholarship but, perhaps, should be regarded as reflecting our increasedunderstanding/saliency of identity based views of the modern corporation andespecially with regard to corporate marketing.

To me, adopting an identity based view of the modern corporation captures a gooddeal of the Zeitgeist in terms of contemporary identity scholarship undertaken by bothmarketing and other management scholars (see Figure 5).

ConclusionIn reaching this important milestone all of us who intuitively have adopted anidentity-based perspective of the corporation will be buoyant at the thought thatidentity studies appears to have shifted inextricably towards the central ground withinmarketing. It is sometimes the case for new insights and developments to spend a gooddeal 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 inthe EJM all of us working in this broad territory will be aware that although there ismuch work that still needs to be done which should not underestimate the real progressthat has been made to our comprehension of the territory not only by the recent (andvery significant) advances by North American marketing scholars but also by theenviable 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 atHarvard 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 arecharacterised not merely by complexity but also their richness. To me, ten years onfrom the first special edition of the EJM devoted to the area, it is clear that corporateidentity is so much more than meets the eye: very much like Gauguin’s piece deresistance.

EJM42,9/10

898

Notes

1. The British Standard’s Institute definition of corporate identity is as follows: “Articulation ofwhat an organisation is, what it stands for, what it does and the way it goes about itsbusiness especially the way it relates to its stakeholders and the environment.”

2. The Strathclyde statement on corporate identity management (issued by The InternationalCorporate Identity Group-ICIG) is broadly similar to the British Standard’s definition citedabove: “Corporate identity management is concerned with the conception, development, andcommunication of an organisation’s mission, philosophy and ethos. Its orientation isstrategic and is based on a company’s values, cultures and behaviours.” “The managementof corporate identity draws on many disciplines, including strategic management,marketing, corporate communications, organisational behaviour, public relations anddesign.” “It is different from traditional brand marketing directed towards household orbusiness-to-business product/service purchases since it is concerned with all of anorganisation’s stakeholders and the multifaceted way in which an organisationcommunicates.” “It is dynamic, not static, and is greatly affected by changes in theexternal environment.” “When well managed, an organisation’s identity results in loyaltyfrom its diverse stakeholders.” “As such it can positively affect organisational performance,e.g. its ability to attract and retain customers, achieve strategic alliances, recruit executivesand employees, be well positioned in financial markets, and strengthen internal staffidentification 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 Crownillustrates the enduring legacy of Canon Law (CL *) and Heraldic Law (HL *) in terms ofdefining the corporation in identity terms: “There shall be hereby constituted and henceforthfor ever shall be one body politic and corporate with perpetual succession (CL *) and aCommon Seal by the name and style of “Brunel University” with power to obtain throughOur College of Arms a grant of armorial bearings (HL *).”

4. In terms of identification from the corporation via symbolic means The British StandardInstitute 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 toidentify itself”.Visual Identity. “Visual expression of an organisation’s corporate identity: the face it puts onitself, its activities and outputs”.Visual Image. “Sum of visual impressions and quality of the output of an organisation builtup in the minds of its stakeholders and the public”.Visual Identification System. “Principal means by which an organisation manifests visuallyits corporate identity”.

References

Aaker, D.A. (2004), “Leveraging the corporate brand”, California Management Review, Vol. 46No. 3, pp. 6-18.

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), “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 ofArts Journal, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 4-5.

Identity basedviews

899

Alessandri, S.W. (2001), “Modeling corporate identity: a concept explication and theoreticalexplanation”, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 6 No. 4,pp. 173-82.

Alvesson, M. (1998), “The business concept as symbol”, International Studies of Managementand 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 marketingtribal”, 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 ofGeneral Management, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 33-49.

Balmer, J.M.T. (1998), “Corporate identity and the advent of corporate marketing”, Journal ofMarketing 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: seeingthrough 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 ofManagement and Organizations, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 10-27.

Balmer, J.M.T. (2005), “Corporate brand cultures and communities”, in Schroeder, J.E. andSalzer-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 corporateidentity, 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 forunderstanding 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: aninvestigation 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 processrevisited”, 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.

EJM42,9/10

900

Brown, T.J., Dacin, P.A., Pratt, M.G. and Whetten, D. (2006), “Identity, intended image, construedimage 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; bridgingmanagement 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 identityand corporate identity: towards an integrated understanding of processes, patternings andproducts”, 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 Frenchin-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 theconduct 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 brandidentification 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 RangePlanning, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 101-9.

du Gay, P. (1996), “Organizing identity. Entrepreneurial governance and public management”, inHall, 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 inorganizational adaption”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34, pp. 517-54.

Dutton, J.E., Dukerich, J.M. and Harquail, C.V. (1994), “Organisational images and memberidentification”, 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”, EuropeanJournal of Marketing, Vol. 37 Nos 7/8, pp. 1941-64.

Hatch, M.J. and Schultz, M. (1997), “Relations between organisational culture, identity andimage”, 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 basedviews

901

He, H-W. and Balmer, J.M.T. (2004), “Identity studies; multiple perspectives and implications forcorporate-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 ofManagement, Bradford.

He, H-W. and Balmer, J.M.T. (2007), “Identity studies: multiple perspectives and implications forcorporate-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 UniversityPress, Cambridge.

Holt, D.B. (1995), “How consumers consume: a typology of consumption practices”, Journal ofConsumer Research, Vol. 22, pp. 1-16.

Jallat, F. and Wood, E. (2005), “Exploring deep and wide stakeholder relations in serviceactivity”, 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, andProspects, Elsevier/Butterworth-Heinemann, London.

Knox, S. and Bickerton, D. (2003), “The six conventions of corporate branding”, EuropeanJournal 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 deMasse, 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 withMichel 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 EuropeanPolitics, 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: acategorization 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 orlocalization?”, International Journal of Business, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 583-98.

Moingeon, B. and Ramanantsoa, D. (1997), “Corporate identity: understanding the French schoolof 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.

EJM42,9/10

902

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 atthe Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufacturers and Trades (London), in1978, in Balmer, J.M.T. and Greyser, S.A. (Eds) (2003), Revealing the Corporation:Perspectives on Identity, Image, Reputation, Corporate Branding, and Corporate-LevelMarketing, 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: LucentTechnologies, 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”, inWhetten, D. and Godfrey, P. (Eds), Identity in Organizations: Developing Theory ThroughConversations, 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, LosAngeles, 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: IntegratingStrategy, 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 empiricalstudy”, Journal of Communication Management, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 357-71.

Tagiuri, R. (1982), “Managing corporate identity: the role of top management”, paper presentedat The International Seminar on Corporate Identity Building, Centre d’Enseignement et deRecherche Appliques au Management, Sophia Antipolis, France, March 25-26.

Identity basedviews

903

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”, InternationalJournal of Advertising, Vol. 3, pp. 55-62.

Van Riel, C.B.M. and Balmer, J.M.T. (1997), “Corporate identity: the concept, its measurement andmanagement”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31, pp. 340-56.

Further reading

Abratt, R. and Mofokeng, T.N. (2001), “Development and management of corporate image inSouth Africa”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 Nos 3/4, pp. 368-86.

Balmer, J.M.T. (1995), “Corporate branding and connoisseurship”, Journal of GeneralManagement, 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 corporateidentity”, 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 uncoveringcorporate 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 frameworkof 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 BusinessSchool Press, Cambridge, MA.

Fournier, S. (1998), “Consumers and their brands: developing research theory in consumerresearch”, 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 RelationsJournal, Vol. 50 No. 7, pp. 40-2.

Gray, E.R. and Smeltzer, L.R. (1985), “Corporate image: an integral part of strategy”, SloanManagement Review, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 73-8.

Haslam, A.S., Postmes, T. and Ellemers, N. (2003), “More than a metaphor: organizationalidentity 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 workmotivation: Rethinking the contribution of the group to positive and sustainableorganizational 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.

EJM42,9/10

904

He, H.W. (2005), “Identity strategies. Identity studies. Multiple perspectives and implications forcorporate 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 andbranding”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 29, pp. 70-90.

Keller, K.L. and Richey, K. (2006), “The importance of corporate brand personality traits to asuccessful 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?”, EuropeanJournal of Marketing, Vol. 11, pp. 120-64.

Knutson, B., Rick, S., Wimmer, G.E., Prelec, D. and Loewenstein, G. (2007), “Neural predictors ofpurchases”, Neuron, Vol. 53, pp. 147-56.

Melewar, T.C., Saunders, J. and Balmer, J.M.T. (2001), “Cause, effect and benefits of astandardised visual identity system of UK companies operating in Malaysia”, EuropeanJournal 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. DesignManagement Institute case study of 2001”, in Balmer, J.M.T. and Greyser, S.A. (Eds),Revealing the Corporation: Perspectives on Identity, Image, Reputation, CorporateBranding, 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 andpresentation 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 psychologiesociale, Vol. 1, Larousse, Paris, pp. 272-302.

Van Rekom, J. (1997), “Deriving an operational measure of corporate identity”, European Journalof Marketing, Vol. 31 Nos 5/6, pp. 410-22.

Appendix. The use of the organisational identity concept within the marketingliteratureRecently, some marketing and communications scholars have begun to eshew all reference tocorporate 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 itsscope, lineage and utility. In particular, it has tended to abrogate earlier, significant, insightsdrawn from marketing practice and consultancy which appears in the practitioner literature: thework of Olins (1978, 1989, 2003) is a case in point. It can also give the impression that academicinterest in the area dates back to the mid 1980s. It may, unwittingly, emphasize North Americanscholarship relating to organisational behaviour at the expense of marketing scholarship fromEurope, the Commonwealth and North America. Marketing scholarship relating to identity hasan enviable provenance.

The blanket use of the concept of organisational identity by some can also undermine theimportant convention within marketing where the prefix corporate is assigned to the concepts ofidentity (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

Identity basedviews

905

and corporate image rather than to organisational identity and image. The use of the prefixcorporate also means that marketing scholars and practitioners share a common argot.

There is another consideration. For instance, the organisational prefix is rarely used whenreferring 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 countriesand of course is equally applicable to collective groups.

However, marketing scholars should not loose sight of the fact that the theories fromorganisational behaviour which underpin the concepts of organisational identity, identificationand image provide critically important perspectives on this territory.

We should take care, however, to incorporate these concepts within the corporate marketinglexicon with care and without undermining our rich marketing inheritance. There is much to begained by drawing on this, as well as other traditions, relating to identity scholarship.

About the authorJohn M.T. Balmer is Professor of Corporate Marketing at Brunel University, London. He wasProfessor of Corporate Identity at Bradford School of Management where he went on to hold theChair in Corporate Brand/Identity Management. Previously, he was Director of the InternationalCentre for Corporate Identity Studies at Strathclyde Business School, Scotland. He has served asa Guest Editor for 12 journals on corporate identity, corporate branding and corporatemarketing. His published output has appeared in California Management Review, EuropeanJournal of Marketing, Journal of Business Ethics, Long Range Planning, The British Journal ofManagement, and International Studies of Management and Organizations amongst others. Heis also the co-author with Stephen A. Greyser (Harvard Business School) of Revealing theCorporation (Routledge, 2003) on corporate identity, image, reputation, corporate branding andcorporate level marketing. He is the Founder-Director of the International Corporate IdentityGroup (1994) which was launched at the House of Lords in 1995. He has worked with a variety oforganisations 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

EJM42,9/10

906

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