European Journal of Marketing

Emerald Article: Corporate identity, corporate branding and corporate

reputations: Reconciliation and integration
Russell Abratt, Nicola Kleyn

Article information:
To cite this document: Russell Abratt, Nicola Kleyn, (2012),"Corporate identity, corporate branding and corporate reputations:
Reconciliation and integration", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46 Iss: 7 pp. 1048 - 1063
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090561211230197
Downloaded on: 04-08-2012
References: This document contains references to 76 other documents
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
This document has been downloaded 33 times since 2012. *

Users who downloaded this Article also downloaded: *

Sandy Bond, (2011),"Barriers and drivers to green buildings in Australia and New Zealand", Journal of Property Investment &
Finance, Vol. 29 Iss: 4 pp. 494 - 509
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14635781111150367

Hui Chen, Miguel Baptista Nunes, Lihong Zhou, Guo Chao Peng, (2011),"Expanding the concept of requirements traceability: The role
of electronic records management in gathering evidence of crucial communications and negotiations", Aslib Proceedings, Vol. 63
Iss: 2 pp. 168 - 187
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00012531111135646

François Des Rosiers, Jean Dubé, Marius Thériault, (2011),"Do peer effects shape property values?", Journal of Property
Investment & Finance, Vol. 29 Iss: 4 pp. 510 - 528
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14635781111150376

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by HOGSKOLAN I BORAS

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.com
With 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.
 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0566.htm

EJM
46,7/8 Corporate identity, corporate
branding and corporate
reputations
1048
Reconciliation and integration
Received 3 January 2010
Revised 19 August 2010
Russell Abratt
6 January 2011 Huizenga School of Business and Entrepreneurship,
Accepted 10 July 2011 Nova Southeastern University and Wits Business School,
University of the Witwatersrand, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, USA, and
Nicola Kleyn
Gordon Institute of Business Science, University of Pretoria, Pretoria,
South Africa

Abstract
Purpose – The main purpose of this paper is to explore, define, reconcile and depict corporate
identity (CI), corporate brand (CB) and corporate reputation (CR) in a framework that reflects the
dimensions of these constructs, discriminates between them and represents their inter-relatedness.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper draws on key literature relating to CI, CB and CR.
Findings – The paper develops a framework that explains and aligns the drivers of CB and CR.
Practical implications – Managers will be able to use the framework to help them align and
optimise brand and reputation building efforts of their organisation. Academics will be able to use the
framework as a basis for empirical research.
Originality/value – The article reconciles disparate views from a number of theoretical streams that
have investigated CI, CB and CR and develops a comprehensive framework that shows that although
the management and measurement of the constructs may overlap, the constructs themselves are not
interchangeable.
Keywords Corporate identity, Corporate branding, Corporate reputation
Paper type Conceptual paper

1. Introduction
The last few decades have witnessed significant growth in interest, conceptual
development and empirical research in the topics of corporate identity, corporate
branding, corporate image and corporate reputation. Studies that focus on corporate
identity (CI), corporate branding (CB) and corporate reputation (CR) research typically
are conducted within one of three domains:
(1) Problems and issues facing organisations, both in the private and public sectors.
(2) Theories and conceptual frameworks used to understand CI, CB and CR issues
European Journal of Marketing and challenges.
Vol. 46 No. 7/8, 2012
pp. 1048-1063 (3) Research methods, including research designs and analytical tools.
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0309-0566
DOI 10.1108/03090561211230197 This research was partially funded by the National Research Foundation of South Africa.
Given that academic researchers contribute to the literature in a number of ways, all of CI, CB and CRs:
these domains are necessary to extend knowledge and make a scholarly contribution in reconciliation
these areas. Scholarship comprises four dimensions: scholarship of discovery;
scholarship of integration; scholarship of application and; scholarship of teaching and integration
(Boyer, 1990). The scholarship of discovery is research that leads to new knowledge
(Macfarlane and Spence, 2003). Scholarship of integration refers to research that
synthesises knowledge and places it in its broader context (Boyer, 1990). Scholarship of 1049
application applies knowledge to problems (Macfarlane and Spence, 2003), whilst the
scholarship of teaching involves using the principles of good research in teaching.
This article falls into the categories of scholarship of integration and application in
that it synthesises the knowledge of CI, CB and CR to give direction to practitioners
who seek an integrated approach to managing CI and CB in order to build brand image
and corporate reputation. The purpose of the paper is to define, deconstruct and
reconcile the constructs of CI, CB and CR to provide academics and practitioners with a
consolidated framework that depicts construct definitions, dimensions and
inter-relatedness. Although a growing number of authors (see for example Nguyen
and Leblanc, 2001; Dacin and Brown, 2002; Argenti and Druckenmiller, 2004 and
Balmer and Greyser, 2006) have noted the linkages between two or all of the constructs
of CI, CB and CR, none have clearly articulated the differences and overlaps between
the constructs. At the same time chief executives and their management teams
recognise the importance of creating and maintaining both excellent reputations and
strong brands but do not know what this process entails in totality.

2. Corporate identity, brands and reputation as strategic resources

The resource-based view within the strategy literature has argued that sustainable
competitive advantage is created primarily from intangible capabilities, including
brands and reputations (Omar et al., 2009). RBV posits that resources are
heterogeneously distributed between firms, with resource heterogeneity leading to
inter-firm performance variations (e.g. Grant, 1996; Wernerfelt, 1984). Resources are
viewed as assets enabling firms to accrue economic rents through the conception and
execution of strategy within resource-based view thinking (Conner, 1991). In order for a
firm resource to have a competitive advantage, it must be associated with the following
four attributes:
(1) it must be valuable, in the sense that it can exploit opportunities and/or
neutralise threats in a firm’s environment;
(2) it must be rare among a firm’s current and potential competition;
(3) it must be imperfectly imitable; and
(4) there cannot be strategically equivalent substitutes for this resource that are
valuable but neither rare or imperfectly imitable (Barney, 1991).

We argue that an organisation’s reputation, its corporate brand as well as certain

elements of its corporate identity, meet these four attributes. Corporate brands and
reputations are important assets in enabling organisations to exploit opportunities and
mitigate threats (Argenti and Druckenmiller, 2004). Although every company has a
corporate brand and develops a reputation over time, strong brands and reputations
are rare and impossible to imitate in totality owing to the unique sets of assets, skills
EJM and choices made by organisations and the broad number of dimensions used across
46,7/8 stakeholders to evaluate corporate brands and reputations.
Management of these strategic resources calls for a clear understanding of
definitions, constituent components and overlaps of and between the constructs. The
framework aligning CI, CB and CR is shown in Figure 1. Multi-directional arrows show
the systemic nature of the elements.
1050 Reputation is an outcome of interactions between stakeholders and the organisation
over time (Argenti and Druckenmiller, 2004). An organisation does not have a single
reputation at any point in time. It has a number of reputations depending on the
stakeholders concerned. Interactions with brand-associated stimuli (including mass
communication, employees, agents or other individuals and groups that are linked to
the brand), enables stakeholders to form their perceptions of an organisation. These
perceptions consolidate to become a single impression at a point in time – the brand
image. Over time these fragmentary images evolve to become the stakeholder’s
perception of the reputation of the organisation.
The corporate brand comprises two aspects: corporate expression and stakeholder
images of the organisation’s identity. The former includes all mechanisms employed
by the organisation to express its corporate identity to all stakeholder groups.
Corporate expression links the organisation’s corporate identity with its corporate
brand and accordingly is classified as part of both constructs. The strategic choices
that organisational leaders must make to determine the corporate expression include
the conceptualisation and communication of the visual identity, the brand promise and
the brand personality. The second aspect of corporate branding encompasses
stakeholders’ perspectives of an organisation’s brand. A stakeholder can never interact
with an organisation’s corporate identity in its entirety – they interact with aspects of
the organisation’s identity and in so doing build their perception of the corporate
brand. As stakeholders experience the brand, they develop brand images. Although

Figure 1.
Corporate identity,
corporate brand and
corporate reputation: an
integration
every stakeholder will experience the brand, only some will form brand relationships CI, CB and CRs:
or become part of brand communities. During these interactions, stakeholders will reconciliation
judge the brand by considering the extent to which the brand has fulfilled the brand
promise and will evaluate the brand’s personality relative to their expectations and and integration
requirements.
The corporate identity of the organisation is concerned with what the organisation
is and what it seeks to be, and comprises two parts. First, the strategic choices made by 1051
the organisation including the organisation’s mission, vision, strategic intent, values
and corporate culture and, secondly the corporate expression, which is also part of the
corporate brand.
In summary, an organisation that seeks to create positive reputations amongst its
various stakeholder groups must understand the dimensions on which stakeholders
evaluate reputation. These include, but are not limited to, the organisation’s
performance, its products and services, its citizenship activities, service, innovation,
the workplace, governance and ethics. The organisation creates its identity though its
strategic choices and corporate expression. Thereafter, it must develop a strong
corporate brand, through its corporate expression and influence of brand image. Each
element of the framework will now be discussed in detail.

3. Corporate identity
We define corporate identity as an organisation’s strategic choices and its expression
thereof. He and Balmer (2007) have identified four sub-perspectives of corporate
identity:
(1) visual identity;
(2) corporate identity;
(3) organisation’s identity; and
(4) organisational identity.

Visual identity refers to the various visual cues that a company marshals as part of its
corporate communications policy. Visual identity includes the organisation’s name,
logo, slogan, colour and anything else that is related to graphic design. Corporate
identity is an area dominated by multiple identity categorisations. Balmer and Greyser
(2003) identified six separate corporate identity types:
(1) actual identity;
(2) communicated identity;
(3) conceived identity;
(4) ideal identity;
(5) desired identity; and
(6) the corporate brand identity.

Organisation’s identity is the defining characteristics of an organisation (He and

Balmer, 2007). This is seen as the perceptions of the organisation’s various
stakeholders about the organisation: “the identity of the organisation”. Organisational
identity refers to the identity of people within the organisation. According to Hatch and
Schultz (1997, p. 357), “Organisational identity refers broadly to what members
EJM perceive, feel and think about their organisations. It is assumed to be a collective,
46,7/8 commonly-shared understanding of the organisation’s distinctive values and
characteristics”. Organisational identity is defined as the characteristics of an
organisation that contribute to the distinctiveness and uniqueness of an organisation
(Albert and Whetten, 1985).
While He and Balmer (2007) are correct in identifying these four perspectives of
1052 corporate identity, we argue that visual identity is also part of the corporate brand as it
forms part of what we term corporate expression. Balmer and Greyser (2003) identified
six types of corporate identity; two of the types they mention, communicated identity
and corporate brand identity are also part of the corporate branding decisions that an
organisation has to make. In our model, communicated identity needs to be integrated
with brand communication and corporate brand identity with the elements that form
brand image.
Our view is that corporate identity consists of an organisation’s strategic choices and
how it elects to express these. Strategy formulation and implementation is well
documented in the literature (see Barney, 1991 amongst others). Values expressed
through various subcultures lie at the core of organisation and underpin the identity
formation process (Abratt, 1989; Balmer and Gray, 2003; Aaker, 2004). Core values (that
may or may not be explicitly defined) make up the backbone of an organisation’s brand
track record and must be aligned with the organisation’s promises (Urde, 2009). Culture,
defined by Kiriakidou and Millward (2000) as the corporate values that are held by staff
and management and their concrete manifestation in organisational symbolism and
behaviour which frame the way the organisation operates, is also part of CI.
The second aspect of CI that builds on strategic choices is corporate expression,
which consists of the decisions concerning visual identity, the brand promise, brand
personality and brand communication. This brand expression overlaps with corporate
branding decisions and will be discussed as part of corporate branding.

4. Corporate branding
There is little agreement in the literature as to what constitutes a corporate brand.
According to Balmer and Gray (2003) corporate brands are marks denoting ownership;
image-building devices; symbols associated with key values; means by which to
construct individual identities; and a conduit by which pleasurable experiences may be
consumed. Knox and Bickerton (2003, p. 1,013) proposed the following definition of
corporate brand, “A corporate brand is the visual, verbal and behavioural expression
of an organisation’s unique business model”.
In attempting to differentiate between the constructs of corporate brand and corporate
reputation, Corkindale and Belder (2009) note that the focus of the corporate brand building
focuses on relevancy to customers whereas reputation concentrates on legitimacy of the
organisation with respect to the stakeholders. We disagree and hold the view that the
corporate brand is integral in building corporate reputations across all stakeholder groups,
not only customers. Our perspective conforms with the views of Hatch and Schultz (2001)
who state that the corporate brand contributes not only to customer-based images of the
organisation, but to the images formed and held by all its stakeholders.
Argenti and Druckenmiller (2004), note that a company engages in corporate
branding when it markets the company itself as a brand. They state further that the
reputation of the organisation is strengthened when the corporate brand promise is kept.
According to Aaker (2004), the corporate brand defines the organisation that will deliver CI, CB and CRs:
and stand behind the offering, and will potentially have a rich heritage, assets and reconciliation
capabilities, people, values and priorities, a local or global frame of reference, citizenship
programs, and a performance record. Urde et al. (2007) define a heritage brand as one and integration
with a positioning and a value proposition based on its heritage. Balmer and Thompson
(2009) observe that corporate brands are multidisciplinary in scope and strategic in
nature and must be underpinned by the brand promise and aligned with the corporate 1053
identity. According to Balmer and Gray (2003), corporate brands are different to product
brands in terms of disciplinary scope and management, and have a multi-stakeholder
rather than customer orientation. They acknowledge that the terms corporate brands
and corporate identities are used interchangeably, but argue that there are fundamental
differences between them. According to Balmer and Gray (2003), corporate identity
refers to the distinct attributes of an organisation which addresses the questions, “who
are we? And what are we?” and is relevant to all types of organisations. They go on to
state that corporate brands on the other hand are not applicable to all organisations, and
would not for example, be necessary for a monopoly (Balmer and Gray, 2003). We
disagree, and argue that as a consequence of their formation, all organisations have a
corporate brand, whether they make explicit choices to communicate it to all stakeholder
groups or not. Organisations are identified by their name, symbols, colours, assets and
the people who work for them. We define a corporate brand as expressions and images of
an organisation’s identity. For organisations, it is the mechanism that conveys the
elements and builds the expectations of what the organisation will deliver for each
stakeholder group. Core elements of its corporate identity include corporate affinities,
products and services, and social responsibility programmes. These reflect the
organisation’s values and culture. Corporate identity is expressed through the corporate
brand in the form of visual identity, the brand promise, the brand personality as well as
by using brand communications which may be tacit or explicit. The corporate brand is
thus the interface between the organisation’s stakeholders and its identity. Organisations
seeking to build strong corporate brands must align their internal communications
activities and human resource management practices with the brand values (Gotsi and
Wilson, 2001). We argue that corporate identity is an internal organisational strategic
decision, and the corporate brand is the mechanism that allows for alignment between
the desired identity and how stakeholders “see” the identity.

4.1 Corporate expression

The process of corporate expression spans an organisation’s corporate identity and its
corporate brand building activities. It includes the development of visual identity, the
brand promise and brand personality as well as the communication thereof.
4.1.1 Visual identity. According to Melewar and Saunders (1998, p. 291) “corporate
visual identity consists of the corporate name, logotype and/or symbol, typography
and colour”. These visual elements are used on an organisation’s buildings, vehicles,
corporate clothing and its stationery. Careful development and communication of
corporate symbols and logos to all stakeholder groups confers organisations with
enhanced stakeholder recognition and associations. A distinctive and well
communicated visual identity is thus an important anchor that enables stakeholders
to associate an experience with a specific brand, and over time, to build a perception of
the organisation’s reputation.
EJM 4.1.2 Brand promise. A corporate brand is underpinned by a powerful, albeit
46,7/8 informal, contract or brand promise, which can be compared to a covenant in that
customers and other stakeholder groups often have a religious-like loyalty to the
corporate brand (Balmer and Greyser, 2006). Stakeholder understanding is required to
develop an aligned, relevant brand promise that will meet a stakeholder’s expectations
which may be functional and/or emotional. For example, a customer may want a
1054 branch near the workplace or home (a functional expectation), they also want to be
proud to wear the corporate clothing (an emotional expectation). In the case of
product-based brands these expectations can be tightly controlled by production,
communication, distribution and service systems. In the case of the corporate brand
however, the entire organisation must be mobilised to deliver the brand promise to all
stakeholders. Employees play an important role in expressing and delivering to the
brand promise and need to be trained and encouraged accordingly. Organisational
culture and business processes are also important levers that must be aligned with the
brand promise. Development of a positive brand image will only occur when the brand
promise expected by stakeholders is delivered. If this occurs consistently over time, a
strong positive corporate reputation will result.
4.1.3 Brand personality. Brand personality has been defined as “the set of human
characteristics associated with a brand” (Aaker, 1997, p. 347). According to Keller and
Richey (2006) corporate brand personality is a form of brand personality specific to a
corporate brand. Unlike a product brand personality that typically relies on consumer
and user imagery to project a personality, a corporate brand personality can be defined
in terms of the human characteristics or traits of the employees of the corporation as a
whole and will reflect the values, words and actions of all employees of the
organisation (Keller and Richey, 2006). Because the projection of corporate brand
personality is so reliant on employees, internal brand building is required to align
behaviour of employees and any others who represent the corporate brand with a
corporate brand’s identity (Vallaster and de Chernatony, 2006).
Keller and Richey (2006) characterise corporate brand personality dimensions in
terms of the tripartite view of attitudes, which consists of affective (feelings), cognitive
(thoughts) and conative (actions) dimensions. These dimensions reflect three distinct
sets of personality traits that can guide employees in the organisation and are
described as “heart”, “mind” and “body” (Keller and Richey, 2006). The heart of the
company comprises two traits: passion and compassion. The mind of the company
encompasses a further two traits: creativity and discipline. The body of the company is
made up of the final two traits: agility and collaboration. A company with a strong
brand personality will thus manifest as passionate, compassionate, creative,
disciplined, agile and collaborative.
4.1.4 Brand communication. Corporate communication refers to the ways in which
the organisation communicates with its various stakeholders (Melewar and
Karaosmanoglu, 2006). Van Riel (1995, p. 26) notes that “corporate communication is
an instrument of management by which all consciously used forms of internal and
external communication are harmonised as effectively and efficiently as possible, so as
to create a favourable basis for relationships with groups upon which the company is
dependent.” Van Riel (1995) divides communication into three sub-types: marketing
communication, organisational communication and management communication.
Marketing and brand managers use marketing communication to support the sales of
the organisation’s products and services. Organisational communication is all forms of CI, CB and CRs:
communication with stakeholders with whom an organisation has an independent reconciliation
relationship. Stakeholders such as media may in turn communicate with other
stakeholders. Management communication occurs when management communicate and integration
with organisational employees. Melewar et al. (2006) highlight the necessity for chief
executive officers to be good communicators, particularly when the vision of the
company must be communicated to external stakeholders. Successful branding also 1055
depends on consistency in communication, which reinforces organisational credibility
(Bronn et al., 2006).
Although corporate brands are birthed in organisations, their value is only realised
when they are assimilated by stakeholders (Fournier, 1998, Holt, 2003). Brand
management is thus a double-sided process that involves managing and influencing
the expression of the brand as well as understanding and responding to the images
that these expressions create in the minds of stakeholders.

4.2 Brand image

The brand image of an organisation represents the current and immediate reflection
that the stakeholders have towards an organisation (Bick et al., 2003). It is related to the
various physical and behavioural attributes of the organisation, such as business
name, architecture, variety of products and services, tradition, ideology, and to the
quality cues communicated by the organisation’s products, services and people
(Nguyen and Leblanc, 2001). The concept of image is relevant in stakeholders’
perceptions of organisations as it embodies their opinions of the firm at a point in time
(Balmer, 1998; Gray and Balmer, 1998). A variety of perspectives have been used to
illustrate how consumers construe their imagery of a brand; these include brand
experiences, brand relationships and brand communities.
4.2.1 Brand experience. Organisations wishing to build stakeholder loyalty need to
consider the experiences of stakeholders when they interact with the corporate brand.
Customers are exposed to many brand-related stimuli including brand identifying
colours, shapes, typefaces, background design elements, slogans, brand characters,
packaging, marketing communications, and the environment in which the brand is
sold (Brakus et al., 2009). These are linked with four dimensions of brand experience:
sensory, affective, behavioural, and intellectual.
Sensory experiences occur when consumers use their visual or other senses to
perceive brand-related stimuli. Affective experiences lead the consumer to have strong
emotions for a brand. Behavioural experiences comprise the physical actions and
behaviours that consumers associate with consumption of a brand. Intellectual
experiences result in the consumer being curious and encourage cognitive reflections
on the part of when they experience the brand
Brand experiences strengthen consumers’ memories and depths of association with
brands. Without any experience of a brand a consumer cannot build a strong brand
image. Although much of the brand experience research has been conducted within the
context of consumer stakeholders, we argue that in the case of the corporate brand,
brand experiences across stakeholder groups including for example suppliers,
distributors and shareholders need to be designed, influenced, managed and monitored
in order to build strong corporate brands and ultimately reputations.
EJM 4.2.2 Brand relationships. Researchers recognise that consumers conceptualise
46,7/8 brands as relationship partners and those relationships represent bonds between the
exchange partners (Fournier, 1998). According to Fournier (1998) the consumer-brand
relationship will manifest in a number of forms, depending on the personality of
consumers and the manner in which these individuals develop relationships. Although
the building of company relationships with customers has received extensive attention in
1056 the marketing literature (Rowley and Haynes, 2005), relatively little consideration has
been paid to the relationships that consumers form with corporate brands. Bhattacharya
and Sen (2003) found that the strength of a consumer’s relationship with a company is
positively related to the perceived attractiveness of the corporate identity. They suggest
that companies must articulate and communicate their identities clearly, coherently, and
in a persuasive manner. Employees play an important role in influencing a brand’s
relationship with its customers and other stakeholders. Power et al.’ (2008) study
confirmed the central role that trust plays in building relationships. We argue that
consistent communication and delivery of brand promises across stakeholder groups
will strengthen brand relationships and in so doing, the corporate brand.
4.2.3 Brand communities. Muniz and O’Guinn (2001, p. 412) define a brand
community as “a specialized, non-geographically bound community, based on a
structured set of social relations among admirers of a brand”. According to Veloutso
and Moutinho (2009), brand communities comprise groups of individuals who are
enduring and self selected and share a system of values, standards and
representations, and who accept and recognise bonds of membership with each
other and with the whole. Brand communities are more formal than brand tribes, which
are looser in nature (Veloutsou and Moutinho, 2009). Because members of brand
communities join and remain as a result of their positive belief in the brand, we argue
that organisations with strong brand communities are more likely to build stronger
reputations over time. Organisations that sponsor communities of customers and other
stakeholders can reinforce their loyalty to the corporate brand and their willingness to
recommend it to others. Although research around brand communities has focused on
the roles played by customers (Schau et al., 2009) it stands to reason that any
stakeholder group can form a brand community. Brand communities carry out
important functions on behalf of the brand, such as sharing information, perpetuating
the history and culture of the brand, and providing assistance.
Virtual communities can also be seen as a rapidly growing form of brand
community. Due to the low cost of interaction with others in cyberspace, consumers
can easily and more frequently share their brand feelings or experiences with others,
and the feelings of belonging, trust, and obligation, as well as group symbols, culture,
and rules, can be developed in the virtual community (Shang et al., 2006). Virtual
consumer communities may provide an easier alternative to traditional face-to-face
brand communities for admirers of a brand. We believe that they play an important
role in the development of the brand image and ultimately the reputation of the
organisation.

5. Corporate reputation
The domain of corporate reputation draws academic attention from the management,
marketing, accounting, economics, and sociology areas (Brown et al., 2006). Corporate
reputation is much more than corporate image or corporate identity as it involves a
temporal dimension that the latter do not consider (Cravens and Oliver, 2006). Helm CI, CB and CRs:
(2007) observed that no consensus has been achieved concerning the core meaning and reconciliation
building-blocks of corporate reputation, although there is considerable agreement
about the positive effects that stem from having a good reputation. According to and integration
Firestein (2006), reputation is the strongest determinant of any organisation’s
sustainability. While strategies can always be changed, when reputation is gravely
injured, it is difficult for an organisation to recover. 1057
Reputation is rooted in the aggregated perceptions of the organisation’s
stakeholders (Fombrun et al., 2000). Fombrun and van Riel (2003) suggest that
organisations with good reputations attract positive stakeholder engagement. A
favourable corporate reputation results in business survival and profitability (Roberts
and Dowling, 2002), is an effective mechanism to maintain competitive advantage, and
can aid in building customer retention and satisfaction (Caminiti, 1992) and obtaining
favourable media coverage (Fombrun et al., 2000). Fombrun (1996) observes that
managers should pay increased attention to building and sustaining their reputation
for greater economic returns. What is not immediately clear is whether a good
reputation leads to better returns, or good financial performance leads to a good
reputation. A study by Inglis et al. (2006) failed to establish any relationship between
reputation and performance. This is inconsistent with the findings of Rose and
Thomsen (2004); Roberts and Dowling (2002) and Eberl and Schwaiger (2005) who
showed that strong reputations have a positive impact on future financial performance.
Strong corporate reputations have also been positively associated with successful
organisational relationships with clients (Ewing et al., 1999).
While the definition of corporate reputation is debatable, the one proposed by Gotsi
and Wilson (2001, p. 29) is instructive: “A corporate reputation is a stakeholder’s
overall evaluation of a company over time. This evaluation is based on the
stakeholder’s direct experiences with the company, any form of communication and
symbolism that provides information about the firm’s actions and/or a comparison
with the actions of other leading rivals.” Following a review of the corporate reputation
literature, Walker (2010, p.370) defines corporate reputation as “a relatively stable,
issue specific aggregate perceptual representation of a company’s past actions and
future prospects compared against some standard”. In his review of 43 well cited
articles, only 19 provided a definition. None of these 19 definitions had repeat citations.
Given the ongoing focus on corporate reputation in the academic literature, this is
surprising, but illustrates the lack of consensus on the construct’s definition.
Because not all organisations are companies, we define corporate reputation as: a
stakeholder’s overall evaluation of an organisation over time. This evaluation is based
on the stakeholder’s experiences with the organisation and its brand(s), relationships
with these and the organisation’s employees and representatives, memberships of
brand communities and, any other perceived communication and symbolism that
provides information about the organisation’s actions and /or a comparison with the
organisation’s rivals.
Stakeholder theory recognises stakeholders may vary in their expectations of a
company (Freeman, 1984). Adopting a stakeholder perspective enables marketers to
better understand and leverage relationships between the firm and its stakeholders.
According to Freeman (1984) “a stakeholder in an organisation is (by definition) any
group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the
EJM organisation’s objectives”. Not all stakeholders have the same influence. Wheeler and
46,7/8 Sillanpaa (1997) and Clarkson (1995) categorise stakeholders by the level and nature of
their influence as primary or secondary ones. Primary stakeholders interact with the
organisation on a regular basis and include shareholders, customers, employees’
suppliers, investors and other business partners. Secondary stakeholders typically do
not transact regularly with the firm and include government, the media, social pressure
1058 groups and competitors.
In developing a corporate identity and the corporate brand, it should be recognised
that some stakeholders are more important than others. Organisations seeking to
change stakeholder’s images and reputational perceptions will need to change some
aspect of their strategic choices, and or their corporate expression. Either elements of
their corporate identity will have to be changed or the brand expression will need to be
tailored.
Identification of the dimensions that drive stakeholders’ perceptions of the
organisation is integral to successful reputation management (Gabbioneta et al., 2007).
Managers need to build an understanding of these in order to focus their efforts in
building and managing corporate reputation. A review of the literature evidenced
varied recipes that purported to comprise the dimensions of corporate reputation.
Walker (2010) and O’Callaghan’s (2007) state that these dimensions are issue specific
for each stakeholder and/or company and a one size fits all approach to corporate
reputation fails to consider the complexity inherent in managing corporate reputation.
Dimensions used to assess corporate reputation include environmental practices
(Toms, 2002), sound leadership and good management practices including the personal
reputation of top management, investments in good governance, competence
development including training and relevant compensation packages (Dowling,
2004), engaging in socially responsible behaviour (Brammer and Pavelin, 2004) and
displaying high ethical values (Porter and Kramer, 2006). Having quality products,
products that are safe and service levels that fit the needs of customers are also
important in reputation building, as is evidence of innovations in production processes
that bring down costs and introduction of new products that satisfy needs (Cravens
et al., 2003). Another key to gaining a positive reputation is to be seen as a good
employer, to respects the rights of workers, and to remunerate and reward
appropriately (Gatewood et al., 1993). Ethical conduct, particularly as it is associated
with the brand, is another driver of reputation. According to Fan (2005) branding is a
social construct as well as an economic construct. Ethical branding relates to certain
moral principles that define right and wrong behaviour in branding decisions. Ethical
brands make a positive contribution to the public good and do not harm the public
good (Fan, 2005). We believe that the main drivers of reputation emanate from the
organisation’s corporate identity as they are all strategic choices that leaders have to
make. In addition they are also linked to what we term corporate expression, and thus
are also part of the corporate brand.

6. Conclusion
Although the importance of CI, CB and CR is recognised by academics and managers,
the lack of scholarship of integration has resulted in a difficulty on their part to
integrate these concepts in a cohesive approach. We have presented a comprehensive
framework that reconciles and integrates these constructs. We have suggested that
corporate identity and corporate branding are key drivers of an organisation’s CI, CB and CRs:
reputation management. We also highlight the key role of stakeholders in forming the reconciliation
organisation’s various reputations.
We make the point that reputation is a strategic resource that creates a competitive and integration
advantage for an organisation. The building blocks of reputation management are not
always clear, but we have attempted to identify these in Figure 1. Every organisation
seeks to build a strong positive reputation amongst its stakeholders who need to be 1059
considered when organisations make strategic choices. Leadership needs to establish
their corporate identity by asking and answering the questions of who and what the
organisation is, and what it seeks to be. This will set the stage to develop the mission,
vision and strategic intent. It will also create a platform to articulate the core values of
the organisation and establish an appropriate corporate culture. We have argued that
this is the first stage of the development of an organisation’s corporate identity.
The second stage of corporate identity development is the formulation of what we
term the organisation’s corporate expression. Corporate expression includes decisions
about the organisation’s visual identity, brand promise and brand personality and how
these will be communicated across stakeholders groups. Thus, corporate expression is
not only part of corporate identity development, but it is also a major component of
corporate brand development. The corporate brand is developed by management on a
continuous basis not only through the decisions made about its corporate expression,
but also through creating brand images in the minds of stakeholders.
We have argued that corporate branding comprises two components, firstly the
creation of corporate expression by the organisation, and secondly the creation of
brand images for all stakeholders through the provision of good brand experiences
which enable them to form strong brand relationships and to support brand
communities where relevant. As stakeholders experience, relate to and commune with
the brand, they are afforded opportunities to evaluate the brand on a number of core
dimensions. When considered in totality over time, these form the organisation’s
reputation. It is important for an organisation’s leaders to consider these dimensions
when formulating the corporate identity by making strategic choices and building
corporate expression.
Practitioners seeking to build their reputations need to take stakeholder dimensions
of reputation into account when they decide who they are and wish to be, and how they
express this to their respective stakeholder groups. Building strong reputations
requires strategic choices by an organisation to align decisions around strategy,
culture and corporate communication. In addition, marketing communication, human
resources and operations functions must build on these by working together to
communicate and deliver brand experiences in order to build strong reputations across
stakeholders. Rather than continuing to focus on construct conceptualisation and
integration in the fields of CI, CB and CR, what is now needed is additional empirical
research to test the validity of the constructs and relationships proposed. Whilst the
corporate identity literature has always considered multiple stakeholder groups,
literature on corporate branding has tended to focus only on customers and more
recently on employees. Although the two constructs overlap, each has its place in
stakeholder research. Both are multi-stakeholder constructs with corporate expression
as their binding force. We therefore call for academics to recognise the importance of
both corporate identity and corporate branding when determining how to build
EJM organisational reputations. There is an opportunity for academic researchers in the
46,7/8 area of corporate branding to extend their research on brand experience, brand
relationships and brand communities beyond customers as stakeholders to all
stakeholder groups.

References
1060 Aaker, D.A. (2004), “Leveraging the corporate brand”, California Management Review, Vol. 46
No. 3, pp. 6-18.
Aaker, J.L. (1997), “Dimensions of brand personality”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34,
August, pp. 347-56.
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.A. (1985), “Organizational identity”, in Staw, B.M. and Cummings, L.L.
(Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 7, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 263-95.
Argenti, P.A. and Druckenmiller, B. (2004), “Reputation and the corporate brand”, Corporate
Reputation Review, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 368-74.
Barney, J. (1991), “Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 99-120.
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. and Gray, E.R. (2003), “Corporate brands: what are they? What of them?”,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37 Nos 7/8, p. 972.
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 marketing, integrating corporate identity,
corporate branding, corporate communications, corporate image and corporate
reputation”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40 Nos 7/8, pp. 730-41.
Balmer, J.M.T. and Thompson, I. (2009), “The shared management and ownership of corporate
brands: the case of Hilton”, Journal of General Management, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 15-37.
Bhattacharya, C.B. and Sen, S. (2003), “Consumer-company identification: a framework for
understanding consumers’ relationships with companies”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 67
No. 2, pp. 76-88.
Bick, G., Jacobson, M.C. and Abratt, R. (2003), “The corporate identity management process
revisited”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 19 Nos 7/8, pp. 835-55.
Boyer, E.L. (1990), Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate, Jossey-Bass,
San Francisco, CA.
Brakus, J.J., Schmitt, B.H. and Zarantonello, L. (2009), “Brand experience: what is it? How is it
measured? Does it affect loyalty?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 73, May, pp. 52-68.
Brammer, S. and Pavelin, S. (2004), “Building a good reputation”, European Management
Journal, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 704-13.
Bronn, P., Engell, A.E. and Martinsen, H. (2006), “A reflective approach to uncovering actual
identity”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40 Nos 7/8, pp. 886-901.
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 Science, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 99-106.
Caminiti, S. (1992), “The payoff from a good reputation”, Fortune, Vol. 125 No. 3, pp. 49-53.
Clarkson, M.B.E. (1995), “A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social CI, CB and CRs:
performance”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 92-117.
reconciliation
Conner, K. (1991), “A historical comparison of resource-based theory and five schools of thought
within industrial organization economics: do we have a new theory of the firm?”, Journal of and integration
Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 121-54.
Corkindale, D. and Belder, M. (2009), “Corporate brand reputation and the adoption of
innovations”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 242-50. 1061
Cravens, K. and Oliver, E.G. (2006), “Employees: the key link to corporate reputation
management”, Business Horizons, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 293-302.
Cravens, K., Oliver, E.G. and Ramamoorti, S. (2003), “The reputation index: measuring and
managing corporate reputation”, European Management Journal, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 201-12.
Dacin, P.A. and Brown, T.J. (2002), “Corporate identity and corporate associations: a framework
for future research”, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 5 Nos 2/3, pp. 254-63.
Dowling, D.G. (2004), “Corporate reputations: should you compete on yours?”, California
Management Review, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 19-36.
Eberl, M. and Schwaiger, M. (2005), “Corporate reputation: disentangling the effects on financial
performance”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39 Nos 7/8, pp. 838-54.
Ewing, M., Caruana, A. and Loy, E.R. (1999), “Corporate reputation and perceived risk in
professional engineering services”, Corporate Communications, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 121-8.
Fan, Y. (2005), “Ethical branding and corporate reputation”, Corporate Communication, Vol. 10
No. 4, pp. 341-50.
Firestein, P.J. (2006), “Building and protecting corporate reputation”, Strategy & Leadership,
Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 25-31.
Fombrun, C. (1996), Reputation: Realizing Value from the Corporate Image, Harvard Business
School Press, Boston, MA.
Fombrun, C.J. and van Riel, C.B.M. (2003), Fame and Fortune: How Successful Companies Build
Winning Reputations, FT Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Fombrun, C., Gardberg, N. and Sever, J. (2000), “The reputation quotient: a multi-stakeholder
measure of corporate reputation”, The Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 7 No. 4,
pp. 241-55.
Fournier, S. (1998), “Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumer
research”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24, March, pp. 343-73.
Freeman, R.E. (1984), Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Pitman Publishing,
Boston, MA.
Gabbioneta, C., Ravasi, D. and Mazzola, P. (2007), “Exploring the drivers of corporate reputation:
a study of Italian securities analysts”, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 10 No. 2,
pp. 99-123.
Gatewood, R.D., Gowan, M. and Lautenschlager, G.J. (1993), “Corporate image, recruitment
image, and initial job choice decisions”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36 No. 2,
pp. 414-27.
Gotsi, M. and Wilson, A. (2001), “Corporate reputation: seeking a definition”, Corporate
Communications, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 24-30.
Grant, R. (1996), “Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: organizational
capability as knowledge creation”, Organization Science, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 375-87.
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.
EJM Hatch, M.J. and Schultz, M. (1997), “Relations between organizational culture, identity and
image”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31 Nos 5/6, pp. 356-65.
46,7/8 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.
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.
1062 Helm, S. (2007), “One reputation or many? Comparing stakeholders’ perceptions of corporate
reputation”, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 238-54.
Holt, D. (2003), Brands as Icons, Harvard Business School Publishing, Boston MA.
Inglis, R., Morley, C. and Sammut, P. (2006), “Corporate reputation and organizational
performance: an Australian study”, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 21 No. 9, pp. 934-47.
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.
Kiriakidou, O. and Millward, L.J. (2000), “Corporate identity: external reality or internal fit?”,
Corporate Communications, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 49-58.
Knox, S. and Bickerton, D. (2003), “The six conventions of corporate branding”, European
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37 Nos 7/8, pp. 998-1016.
Macfarlane, B. and Spence, L.J. (2003), “Redefining the scholarship of business ethics: an editorial”,
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 1-6.
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. (1998), “Global corporate visual identity systems: standardization,
control and benefits”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 291-308.
Melewar, T.C., Bassett, K. and Simoes, C. (2006), “The role of communication and visual identity
in modern organizations”, Corporate Communications, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 138-47.
Muniz, A.M. Jr and O’Guinn, T. (2001), “Brand community”, Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 412-32.
Nguyen, N. and Leblanc, G. (2001), “Corporate image and corporate reputation in customers’
retention decisions in services”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 8 No. 4,
pp. 227-36.
O’Callaghan, T. (2007), “Disciplining multinational enterprises: the regulatory power of
reputational risk”, Global Society, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 95-117.
Omar, M., Williams, R.L. and Lingelbach, D. (2009), “Global brand market-entry to manage
corporate reputation”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 177-87.
Porter, M.E. and Kramer, M.R. (2006), “Strategy and society”, Harvard Business Review,
December, pp. 3-16.
Power, J., Whelan, S. and Davies, G. (2008), “The attractiveness and connectedness of ruthless
brands: the role of trust”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 42 Nos 5/6, pp. 586-602.
Roberts, P.W. and Dowling, G.R. (2002), “Corporate reputation and sustained superior financial
performance”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 23 No. 12, pp. 1077-93.
Rose, C. and Thomsen, S. (2004), “The impact of corporate reputation on performance: some
Danish evidence”, European Management Journal, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 201-10.
Rowley, J. and Haynes, L. (2005), “Customer relationship management: the Matalan way”,
The Marketing Review, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 175-87.
Schau, H.J., Muñiz, A.M. Jr and Arnould, E.J. (2009), “How brand community practices create CI, CB and CRs:
value”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 73 No. 3, pp. 30-51.
Shang, R.A., Chen, Y.-C. and Liao, H.-J. (2006), “The value of participation in virtual consumer
reconciliation
communities on brand loyalty”, Internet Research, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 398-418. and integration
Toms, J.S. (2002), “Firm resources, quality signals and the determinants of corporate
environmental reputation: some UK evidence”, British Accounting Review, Vol. 34 No. 3,
pp. 257-82. 1063
Urde, M. (2009), “Uncovering the corporate brand’s core values”, Management Decision, Vol. 47
No. 4, pp. 616-38.
Urde, M., Greyser, S.A. and Balmer, J.M.T. (2007), “Corporate brands with a heritage”, Journal of
Brand Management, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 4-19.
Vallaster, C. and de Chernatony, L. (2006), “Internal brand building and structuration: the role of
leadership”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40 Nos 7/8, pp. 761-8.
Van Riel, C. (1995), Principles of Corporate Communication, Prentice Hall, Hemel Hempstead.
Veloutsou, C. and Moutinho, L. (2009), “Brand relationships through brand reputation and brand
tribalism”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 62 No. 3, pp. 314-22.
Walker, K. (2010), “A systematic review of the corporate reputation literature: definition,
measurement, and theory”, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 357-87.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984), “A resource based view of the firm”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 5
No. 2, pp. 171-80.
Wheeler, D. and Sillanpaa, M. (1997), The Stakeholder Corporation: A Blueprint for Maximizing
Stakeholder Value, Pitman Publishing, London.

Further reading
Dutton, J.E., Dukerich, J.M. and Harquail, C.V. (1994), “Organizational images and member
identification”, Administrative Science Quarterty, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 239-63.
Urde, M. (2003), “Core value-based corporate brand building”, European Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 37 Nos 7/8, pp. 1017-40.
Van den Bosch, A.L.M., de Jong, M.D.T. and Elving, W.J.L. (2005), “How corporate visual identity
supports reputation”, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 10 No. 2,
pp. 108-16.

About the authors

Russell Abratt is Professor of Marketing at Nova Southeastern University in Florida, USA and he
is also a part-time Professor of Marketing at the University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa. His
research interests include corporate reputation, branding and corporate identity. His work in these
areas have been published in the European Journal of Marketing, Journal of Marketing
Management, Journal of Business Ethics, Corporate Reputation Review, Journal of Brand
Management, Journal of Product & Brand Management, and Corporate Communications, amongst
others. Russell Abratt is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: Abratt@nova.edu
Nicola Kleyn is a Senior Lecturer at the Gordon Institute of Business Science at the University
of Pretoria in South Africa. Her research interests include branding, stakeholder management
and corporate reputation.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints