The relationship of integrating corporate branding with

different sociological paradigms

Mr. Rafiuddin AhmedAssistant Professor

Department of MarketingUniversity of Dhaka.

rafi_marketing4th@yahoo.comMobile: 01817-535904

Ishrat Jahan TaniaAssistant Professor

Business AdministrationStamford University Bangladesh

barsha_mkt@yahoo.comMobile: 01818-280205

Md. Moktar AliAssistant Professor, 

Department of Marketing,University of Dhaka.

Mobile: 01819 127030

The relationship of integrating corporate branding with

different sociological paradigms

Abstract

Corporate branding has received increased interest in marketing literature in the past

several years, and the attention given to it received a strong upswing around the mid-

1990s. To a great extent, the literature provides general agreement on how to perform the

corporate branding process, and one of the aims of this article is to review these theories.

Furthermore, this paper seeks to reflect upon and broaden the different opinions about

organizations and corporate branding, acknowledging that participants of a corporate

branding process will have diverse perceptions of organizations. Hence, this study uses

sociology in order to analyze corporate branding, and by doing so the existing literature

can be offered a more nuanced picture of the process. This article illustrates that

employees', consumers' and managers' basic assumptions regarding the nature of

organizations may be incompatible with each other. Corporate branding loses much of its

intentionality unless managers realize that stakeholders have different world views and

opinions of organizations. These diverse attitudes must be identified if corporate brand

management is to be successful. The paper concludes with a summary that considers the

different challenges a corporate brand manager faces when he or she makes allowances

for people's differing world views.

Keywords: Branding, corporation, reputation, sociology, paradigm

Introduction

It is obvious that branding becomes more important than only marketing. Marketing isn’t

working today. New products are failing at a disastrous rate. Most advertising campaigns

are failing to attract the attention of the customer due to the ad clutter and less

differentiation. Direct mail barely achieves its success. Most of the products come across

as interchangeable commodities rather than powerful brands (Martin Lindstrom, 2005).

Although branding is a part of marketing but by virtue of branding the farm can

differentiate its products as well as itself from its customers and make the organization

distinctive. Besides branding of products the organization can brand itself, its employees

(The IBM way) to make its market share and growth in the top list.

REVIEWING CORPORATE BRANDING LITERATURE

Marketing literature in general presents corporate branding as a philosophy that embraces

the entire organization. For instance, as Einwiller and Will (2002) define it, corporate

branding is '...a systematically planned and implemented process of creating and

maintaining favourable images and consequently a favourable reputation of the company

as a whole by sending signals to all stakeholders by managing behavior, communication,

and symbolism'. The integration of marketing and organizational theories is often pointed

out as a key element to fully understand how corporate branding works in practice, for

example, de Chernatony, Hatch and Schultz (2001), Ind. See Knox and Bickerton (2001)

for a thorough description of the convergence between these two domains in the

literature. Much theory on corporate branding embraces employees' roles as brand

ambassadors and notes how important they are as a part of a corporate brand, see Anixter,

Balmer (2003), de Chernatony, Hatch and Schultz, Indand Mitchell (1999).

Employees' significance is closely related to another central element in corporate

branding theories, multiple stakeholders. A stakeholder's perception of an organization is

formed by the interaction and communication she or he has with the organization, and

one must be aware of the fact that everything an organization says and does

communicates (Gioia & Petre, 1990). Every single source of communication must be

governed by similar messages to assure uniform delivery to all stakeholders. It is

therefore suggested that managers approach the process holistically, and maintain

consistency in both external and internal communication.

The responsibility for corporate brand building cannot be handed over to a marketing

department alone because it can act as a barrier and, furthermore, destroy rather than

create value (Hatch & Schultz, 2002). Corporate branding is a strategic process requiring

effort from all members of the organization in order to be carried out effectively. This is

explained further in the next section, in which essential constructs from corporate

branding theories are highlighted.

Why corporate branding?

Corporate branding originates from conventional product branding, and both schools

have the same goal—to create preferences and differentiation. The brand's targets are,

however, diverse: while product brands address a rather homogenous target group, a

corporate brand aims at all stakeholders simultaneously. Furthermore, Balmer and Gray

(2003) characterize the primary difference as follows: a product brand's values stem from

marketing and creative advertising, while a corporate brand's values are latent in the

values of the organization’s founders, owners, management and personnel.

The reason for increased interest in corporate branding can be broadly explained by three

main factors: differentiation, transparency and cost reduction.

Differentiation

Products and services have a tendency to become similar over time while organizations

are inevitably very different. The fact that there is fierce competition between market

actors and that product are increasingly being imitated and copied by competitors.

Furthermore, Olins (2000) argues that both information overload and increased noise in

communication channels strengthen the focus on corporate branding. Promoting the

whole company as a brand is then seen as a better way of separating one's self from the

crowd, with more potential sources of differentiation. A corporate brand gives consumers

the opportunity to choose based on a firm's attributes, image or reputation, rather than on

the product.

Transparency

Corporations and their brands have traditionally conducted themselves without

transparency. Today, organizations’ external audiences command, to a greater extent than

before, access to those who are behind the brand, what they stand for and their policy.

Corporate branding requires that organizations have a social profile, and companies must

therefore be comfortable with a greater degree of openness. In addition, responsibility to

public institutions and to legislation necessitates access.

Costs & efficiency

Cost reduction is a potential advantage with corporate branding which can only be

achieved after successful continuation of farm. Rather than promote several brands

separately, promotion could be done jointly, and because a corporate brand creates

synergies among brands, consistent messaging costs less to communicate (Davies &

Chun 2002).

Recent scenario in corporate branding

Companies are recently very eager not only to brand their products but also themselves

(From Aktel to Robi, Lever brothers to Unilever as an example in Bangladesh’s case). It

focuses on how the corporate branding process should be carried out are somewhat

diverse with regard to describing the many procedural constructs. Still, theories on

corporate branding, generally, share fundamental similarities and common agreement on

how to perform the process. It appears to be a general assumption that views on corporate

branding are universal and applicable to all organizations (Arndt, 1985). Yet, the

literature on corporate branding shows little concern with critique of its own views and

statements. The outcomes of corporate branding are often presented in a more or less

glorified way, focusing on the means and ends of corporate branding, while ignoring

possible restraining factors.

Marketers tend to assume that all consumers can be, potentially, affected by marketing.

Simultaneously, marketers are likely to believe that all employees share the same view as

they do, and consequently will adapt to their wishes. But what if these assumptions are

wrong? What if consumers or employees have different world views than marketers or

leaders who implement a corporate branding strategy? Consider consumers who perceive

corporations and their brands as selfish and manipulative. How can they let themselves

believe what corporate brands want them to believe? And what happens when employees

resist adapting to the organizational norms and values: how can managers make them

become brand ambassadors? Managers in charge of corporate brands should take aspects

such as these into account in their daily work. In order to describe different human

assumptions regarding organizational reality, this paper further draws on sociology.

Impact of sociology in improving the corporate branding process:

This paper seeks to investigate what implications unequal world views have on corporate

branding and why employees and consumers may perceive the world differently than

managers. Thus, sociology is used as a tool to analyze the corporate branding process.

Sociology was defined by Giddens (2001) in the following statement: “the study of

human social life, groups and societies...demonstrates the need to take a much broader

view of why we are as we are, and why we act as we do.”

This study analyses corporate branding in light of an established sociological framework

developed by Burrell and Morgan (1980). In order to relate organizational theories to

their wider sociological context, they have categorized and systematized organizational

and sociological theories into four different paradigms. A paradigm is a perspective or a

way of thinking that reflects basic ideas and assumptions about organizations’ nature, and

can be regarded as a social construction reflecting dominating values and interests within

the paradigm (Aaker, 2004). One of Burrell and Morgan's four paradigms is the

functionalistic paradigm. This is the paradigm that more or less dominates present

marketing theories. It is characterized by rational theories, where organizations should

adapt to their environment. The second paradigm is the interpretive paradigm.

Assumptions and theories within this paradigm view reality as a socially made creation,

through interaction, and thus focus on process formation and how people 'create' their

own environment. The third, the radical humanist paradigm, is dominated by theories that

are critical to commercial objectives and states that people are isolated from their own

consciousness due to a materialistic world. The fourth paradigm is the radical structuralist

paradigm. Radical structuralist theories focus on the society's power balance and how

people with resources tend to exploit those without resources. These four sociological

paradigms can contribute to a new understanding of the corporate branding process

(Markwich & Fill, 1997). By stepping out of one's own point of view and observing the

environment from the perspectives of these four paradigms, one can readily realize that

people will have very different perceptions of the world and different attitudes towards

society and organizations.

The relationship of integration of corporate branding and sociological paradigms is

performed in this study in order to illustrate how consumers or employees perceive the

world differently than managers who implement corporate branding strategies, thus

illustrating that people's beliefs and perceptions will naturally be incompatible. The study

develops some managerial implications based on the literature review. It attempts to add

thoughts from another sphere and offer a reflective and enlightened approach (Kapferer,

1997). Managerial insights regarding brand strategy are highlighted throughout the paper,

challenging some current assumptions concerning corporate branding. In addition, the

summary suggests aspects that should be considered when managing a corporate brand.

By indicating those views which strengthen present thoughts on corporate branding,

applied sociology may be used to develop brand management as a domain.

Central constructs in the corporate branding process

According to Balmer (2003), there are no universal rules when managing corporate

brands. Nevertheless, the prevailing theories have many similarities regarding the

procedural elements of a corporate branding process. This section gives an overview of

what appear to be the most widely used constructs in the literature. These are identity,

organizational culture, behavior, values, image and reputation.

Identity

 There seems to be general acceptance that a corporate branding process 'starts' with

identity. According to Gioia et al. (2000), identity is the key to understanding modern

organizations. Historically, there are two schools regarding organizations' relations to

identity: corporate identity as viewed from a marketing theory perspective and

organizational identity as viewed from an organizational theory perspective. Corporate

identity was, at its conceptual inception, considered identical with organizational

nomenclature: logos, 'company house style' and visual identification, and was aimed at

external stakeholders. Eventually, employees were included as targets for corporate

identity, addressing both internal and external stakeholders. The somewhat similar

construct, organizational identity, which can be defined as the sum of employees'

perceptions of what the organization's identity is, has, according to van Rekom (2002),

been the dominating thought in identity theory. Organizational identity is communicated

to the external environment, whether planned or unplanned, through employees.

Corporate and organizational identity may be viewed in parallel to the study's observation

of integrating, respectively, marketing and organizational theories in order to facilitate

successful corporate branding.

Organizational culture

As a consequence of the general trend towards corporate branding, brand management is

becoming, internally, culture management. Organizational culture is often described as a

group's fundamental and common set of values, assumptions, attitudes and behavior,

which is a result of, or reflects, an organization's history. Culture can be viewed as a

means of achieving competitive advantage and thus as a foundation for differentiation. If

an organization's culture is rare and imperfectly imitable, it may contribute to a lasting

competitive advantage. From this point of view, organizational culture should be a part of

a corporate brand's positioning strategy (Van Riel, 1997).

Nearly all organizations have multiple cultures, and Brown points out research that

demonstrate three types of subcultures: enhancing culture, orthogonal culture and counter

culture. The importance of identifying potential subcultures is often stressed, due to their

possible negative effects. When an organization's objective is to increase the performance

of its culture, it must adapt to changes and seek to satisfy the needs of employees,

customers and other stakeholders. Adapting to the environment may seem obvious in

branding, generally, while in corporate branding it is critical since one must regard every

stakeholder simultaneously.

Behavior

Behavior is stressed as a crucial part of corporate branding. Employees are ambassadors

for the organization and hold a vital role regarding communication of the corporate brand

to the external audience. A corporate brand is created through stakeholders' experience

with employees and managers, and can consequently be claimed to be what managers and

employees believe it to be. Furthermore, Anixter argues that all individuals contribute to

the living theatre of a brand's fulfillment because their actions manifest the brand, and

their works demonstrate the brand.

The high focus on employee behavior in branding is shown through the so-called 'living

the brand' ideology (see, for instance, Ind and Mitchell, 2004). This ideology is about

creating highly motivated employees who not only deliver the brand, but also live and

enact the brand's message. The intention is to have workers who love their organization's

brand and who show this through their interaction with stakeholders. The objective is to

create a distinct position that eventually proves beneficial to the organization and its

profit.

Values

Values are vital in corporate branding because they shall reflect the absolute essence in

an organization and indicate its strategy. Since corporate branding implies a combination

of behaviors and conventional communications aimed at multiple stakeholders, values

may be seen as the glue that holds the corporate brand together. An organization's values

should be timeless tenets and act as a guide for the organization and the branding process.

Thus, the values should be built into the brand, expressed through behavior and reflected

in the communications. The values of the organization's members should also be aligned

with and reflected in the corporate brand's values. This will prevent a gap from

developing between real and espoused values, ensuring that the organization's members

and the corporate brand move in a similar direction.

Image

Image is described and defined in a variety of ways. While identity is about how

organizations shape their truth, their 'self', and how it expresses this, image concerns how

external stakeholders interpret it. Such external definitions of image are most common in

the marketing tradition, and are described as perceptions or pictures stakeholder groups

have of an organization. There are many sources that affect a corporate image: planned

and unplanned communication, external stakeholders and environment, trends and

competition. Because an organization has many stakeholders that differ in their

relationships to the organization, image will also vary among stakeholder groups.

Reputation

The final central construct in corporate branding is reputation. It is often used

synonymously with image, although one distinct difference between them is time. While

image refers to a customer's perception at a specific point in time, reputation is developed

and created over time. Furthermore, reputation has a projecting feature; reputation is a

result of an organization's actions, and arises along with stakeholders' impressions

(images). Collectively, these constitute reputation.

Keller (2003), argues that many of the marketing winners of the future will be those who

manage a strong corporate brand. This may be true, but it does not necessarily mean that

present views on how to manage a corporate brand are the most adequate. There may be

aspects that influence corporate branding that have not yet been highlighted. As noted,

sociology can contribute to developing corporate brand management and can present

critical viewpoints in order to assist in managing a corporate brand effectively.

Sociological paradigms and their relevance to corporate branding are thus explained,

followed by an analysis of corporate branding in light of the paradigms.

FOUR SOCIOLOGICAL PARADIGMS

This section gives an explanation of sociological paradigms in general, in order to

integrate them with corporate branding in the subsequent section. A paradigm is a

perspective or way of thinking that reflects basic ideas and assumptions about an

organization's nature, and which is shared by those who are in the particular paradigm.

Paradigms can be regarded as social constructions reflecting dominant values and

interests within the paradigm, and represent philosophical frameworks. Morgan (1980)

argues, further, that a paradigm appears as a frame of reference and is implicit in a

researcher's fundamental assumptions. These assumptions are often unconscious, and

thus the paradigms can be preservative since the researcher rarely moves outside his or

her own paradigm. Receiving information of both one's own and others' paradigms can

stimulate new thinking and enhance existing knowledge.

Burrell and Morgan classified sociological and organizational theories into different

paradigms in an attempt to illustrate that all theories are based on theorists' backgrounds

and their assumptions about society and research. This categorization represents a

framework for understanding one's own and others' paradigms. The four paradigms are

illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Four paradigms for the analysis of social theory (Burrell and Morgan, 1979)

Burrell and Morgan claim that the four paradigms '...offer alternative views of social

reality, and to understand the nature of all four is to understand four different views of

society' (p. 25). The functionalist and interpretive paradigms are characterized by theories

that are regulating and harmonized. Theories from these paradigms are recognized by

social order, social integration, and solidarity and need satisfaction. In contrast, the

radical humanist and the radical structuralist paradigms are highly critical and are

characterized by the belief that society and organizations are restrictive of human

creativity and development, as well as restrictive of society's progress. Therefore, these

two paradigms are regarded as sociology of radical change, recognized by structural

conflict, modes of domination, contradiction and free will. An explanation and analysis

of corporate branding in view of these four paradigms follows.

CORPORATE BRANDING IN LIGHT OF SOCIOLOGICAL PARADIGMS

This section analyses existing corporate branding theories by integrating them with

Burrell and Morgan's four sociological paradigms. It is important to note that in order to

fully understand the different paradigms' applications and views, one should step away

from one's own assumptions and step into the premises of the particular paradigm.

The functionalist paradigm

The greater part of the existing literature on corporate branding originates from basic

assumptions and ideas within the functionalist paradigm. Researchers in this tradition are

concerned with rational explanations and see the world as created and given. A given

world refers to a deterministic view which implies that organizations must adapt to their

environment. Functionalists are, further, characterized by a means-end mentality, and use

theories that offer practical solutions to practical 'problems'. Organizations are considered

to be rational actors with economic profit as their objective, and a corporate brand is,

accordingly, a means to attain this end. In the functionalist paradigm, corporate branding

seeks to create brand meaning further than rational and functional product attributes,

which is communicated to employees and external markets.

Beyond the product or service, the corporate brand must be managed via other means: by

behavior, communication and symbolism. Behavior is hard to govern, although it is

possible to arrange for proper behavior. The workplace acts as a secondary socialisation

institution where social interactions help humans learn values, norms and beliefs which

make up patterns of culture. Living the brand as an ideology can be regarded as a

socialisation institution. It is argued that the link between marketing and human relations

today is too weak and that these two domains should be more fully integrated in order to

recruit, train and develop people who are accordant with the brand.

Another key aspect of the functionalist paradigm is organizational adaptation to the

environment, which is stressed as necessary if the culture is to affect corporate

performance. Communication can, to a certain extent, be managed, such as planned

communication. It is important to integrate external and internal communication because

communicating internally is part of the socialisation process, and, therefore, results in

developed behaviors. Since employee's behaviors communicate, it is preferable that

internal communication be approached simultaneously with external communication to

obtain the desired objectives.

Symbolism can, to a great extent, be controlled. Olins places emphasis on an identity's

significance, pointing out the importance of the organization's name, symbol, design,

font, color, interior and exterior. Symbols are controllable elements, and can make

employees proud of belonging to the organization. Symbols can, therefore, underscore the

employees' socialisation process.

The interpretive paradigm

This paradigm concerns the formation and maintenance of processes, and is illustrated by

those who have a holistic approach in order to study phenomena in a deeper way. Reality

is socially constructed through interaction between people, and the control- or

management aspects do not exist. Rather than looking at communication as an influence

in order to reach an objective, a perspective which very much dominates functionalist

thought, one investigates the creation of processes and phenomena. Although these

characteristics do not make the interpretive paradigm completely contradictory to the

functionalist paradigm, both being sociologies of regulation, these characteristics suggest

that this paradigm is somewhat divergent from present marketing theories. In the

interpretive paradigm, a corporate brand is not something that can be formed or

controlled by managers or owners; it is created through interplay between stakeholders.

Given the assumptions of the interpretive paradigm, organizational values cannot be

dictated by anyone, including managers. This fact is opposed to, for example, Mitchell,

who calls attention to the importance of convincing the employees, and selling the brand

to employees. Values are analogous to a corporate brand created in the interplay between

stakeholders, and, thus, the issue of aligning the brand's and employees' values (e.g-

Harris and de Chernatony, (2001), and Hatch and Schultz, 2004) is no longer important

because stakeholders' interactions create both natural and real values.

The existence of organizations is questioned in the interpretive paradigm. Organizations

in a functionalistic form do not exist, and it is not reasonable to distinguish between the

outside or inside of an organization, nor between external and internal stakeholders. Due

to an absence of control and management elements, corporate brand managers should not

try to persuade or force employees to live the brand or adjust their behavior according to

the corporate brand. Rather, the managers should realize that they would naturally create

the best suitable brand.

Despite the 'lack of' organizations, one can discuss the phenomenon of corporate

branding. The organization creates its identity in interplay with stakeholders, and people

socially and symbolically make their own organizational reality. People have a strong

need to express themselves and indicate belonging, and, by 'dressing' themselves with

brands that have the right associations and symbolic value, they can satisfy their needs. A

part of people's consumption happens because they enjoy sharing the consumption

experiences with members of the group in which they participate. Corporate brands can

offer such an opportunity, and give meaning to stakeholders in the form of belonging. At

the same time, these stakeholders participate in creating the corporate brand. This

indicates that the interaction process might be perceived as valuable to those who

participate, and thus the corporate brand has the potential of being sustainable.

The radical humanist paradigm

This paradigm is concerned with people being separated from their own consciousness

and considers elements that may hamper this reality. Radical humanists believe the

consciousness of humans is dominated by ideological superstructures within which they

interact and seek release from constraints that social arrangements place upon human

progress. In contrast to the sociologies of regulation, and, particularly, the functionalist

paradigm, radical humanists have a more radical point of departure, seek to shed light on

themes, and seek to illuminate in order to change. They are critical of commercial

elements, and look upon them as manipulation and an element which potentially

distances humans from their own consciousness.

A key aspect of this paradigm involves behavior. According to the corporate branding

literature, mainly recognized by the functionalist paradigm's assumptions, employees

who live the brand and adjust their behavior in accordance with the brand are preferred. If

one considers this from a radical humanist's viewpoint, it is reasonable to ask, who will

make use of this employee behavior. The answer appears to be owners, investors and,

also, managers of corporate brands. In the radical humanist paradigm, similar to the

interpretive paradigm, branding seems to be problematic in a functionalist form, where

the biggest issue with leadership is to gain employees' comprehension and emotional

acceptance. Consider a situation where some employees' basic assumptions stem from the

radical humanist paradigm. How is it possible for a functionalistic manager to have

workers who live and enact the brand? From the employees' point of view, living the

brand as an ideology is nothing more than deliberate manipulation that prevents freedom

of consciousness and restricts human potential. Consequently, the ideology exhibits a

negative socialisation phenomenon, and employees will refuse to accept or adapt to the

brand-related predefined values.

Marx's theory of fetishism criticizes much of the philosophy upon which current branding

theories are founded, wherein products achieve a mystical value created by humans in

connection with selling them. This is the added value created outside of the product to

give it meaning. Adding meaning to a brand, meaning that does not realistically exist,

would be an example of fetishism which a radical humanist would see as a source of

separation, and would therefore dislike (see Fournier for an example of such fetishism

between humans and brands). Despite this tendency, an increased trend within marketing

is getting consumers to identify and express themselves through brands, implying that

people do add meaning to the brands and use them as expressions of something. Olins

(1990) claims that empathy is a major factor explaining why brands have become so

important during recent years, because people take pleasure in the company of the brands

and depend on relationships with them, since they can help people define who they are.

Apparently, this is brand heaven for many marketers, but how is it possible to have

consumers identifying themselves with brands if they view products, symbols and

organizations as constructions that hamper human potential and development? The

contrasts between a radical humanist's perspective and present branding theories seem to

be quite clear.

The radical structuralist paradigm

The radical structuralist paradigm regards structural social conditions as a conflict area.

Gioia and Pitre (1990) suggest class society, a separation and categorizing mechanism,

and industry structures as examples of conflict areas within this paradigm. Essential

elements in the radical structuralist paradigm are totality, contradiction and crisis. A

radical structuralist is concerned with how those with power in the society seek to

dominate those without power, and sees social forces and conflicts as the basis for

change, unlike radical humanists who focus on individuals as means to achieve change.

The radical structuralist paradigm is, to a great extent, influenced by Marx, who was

particularly concerned with the clash of interests within the economic production

structures of capitalism. Capitalism is, on one hand, recognized by private ownership,

which implies that those who do not own the means of production must sell their labor to

organizations, where the latter can be viewed as a form of mastery or ruling class. Marx

suggested the division of social classes into those who own the means of production, and

those who do not. Individuals in the same class are assumed to have similar interests;

nevertheless, people are known to be selfish and to act with self-interest. Humans, within

the radical structuralist paradigm, are governed by social class, by belonging and by

seeking to adapt to the environment. Owners of organizations want economic wealth, do

not allow for workers' interests, and are not primarily concerned with satisfying

consumers' needs. In this view, it is implied that stakeholders are of little interest to the

organization, beyond their economic contributions leading to the organization's profit and

survival.

According to Marx, capitalism will have negative consequences for workers because the

strong focus on profit will cause the sacrifice of the workers' wellbeing and improvement,

increases in automation and decreases in income, thereby fortifying class distinctions.

Marx's emphasis on the ownership of the means of production and worker suppression in

a capitalistic system is parallel to the focus of Klein (2000), who describes how large

corporations and their brands have gained enormous power and reach on a global scale.

What Marx described as class distinctions, localized within country borders, and is

replaced, in part, by globalization. As an example of the related social conflicts inherent

in this paradigm, Klein points out outsourcing of production to countries with low

production costs, where global corporations take advantage of low-paid workers, treat

them badly and hide their negative social behavior from the public. In this case, the

organizations act with self-interest and may blame environmental factors when their

motivation is questioned. According to radical structuralists' assumptions, a radical

change will occur. But this is not as easy as it sounds: a radical change will, after all,

require access to the necessary means. The poor and suppressed working class Marx

discussed has not disappeared, but has, in a sense, been moved to countries further away

from people, and is therefore less visible.

Corporate branding that addresses people behaving within the radical structuralist

paradigm will be a tough task because managers and owners will continuously be

followed with critical eyes by those without power. This may explain, in part, the

increased demand for transparency and access to those who are behind the brand, one of

the major reasons for recently increased interest in corporate branding. Klein gives

examples of organizations for whom increased media attention and demands for access

by the general public resulted in increases in transparency and access, over the last few

years.

CONCLUSIONS

The shift in focus from product brands to corporate brands incurs greater risks but also

provides corresponding rewards. This is a reasonable argument, viewed from a

functionalist perspective. The goal of this paper, to review present corporate branding

theories, and enlighten and broaden them by using a sociological perspective, produces

new perceptions that can be useful to the functionalist, as well. As mentioned, corporate

branding theories are, to a great extent, affected by people recognized as functionalists.

Table 1 summarizes the challenges that managers face, viewed from a functionalistic

perspective. The three main factors differentiation, transparency and cost reduction—

which explain the swelling interest in corporate branding, are used as the basis for the

summary.

ANNEX: 1

Table 1. Corporate brand challenges seen in a functionalistic

perspective

  When stakeholders have a world view characterized by:

When focus

is:

The

functionalist

paradigm

The interpretive paradigm

The radical

humanist

paradigm

The radical

structuralist

paradigm

DifferentiationStrength—

Consumers can

be influenced by

Differentiation is within

reach, but not achieved by

predetermined instructions

Corporate

brands are

seen as

Generally,

differentiation

through

  When stakeholders have a world view characterized by:

When focus

is:

The

functionalist

paradigm

The interpretive paradigm

The radical

humanist

paradigm

The radical

structuralist

paradigm

employee

behavior,

market

communication

and symbols.

Employees can

be used as tools

to improve

differentiation.

Weakness—

consumers are

exposed to a

huge load of

messages

continuously

and it is difficult

to separate from

the crowd and

be truly unique.

from managers.

Differentiation is naturally

created in stakeholder

interplay. Consumers buy

and use brands as an

extension of their personal

identity.

manipulative,

therefore

presenting a

tough

challenge for

managers.

Differentiate

through non-

commercial

channels—for

example, good

customer

service, non-

profiled

corporate

social

responsibility.

traditional

marketing

channels is

met with

critical eyes.

Convince

stakeholders

that the

corporate

brand does

not suppress

any of the

stakeholders.

Transparency This is an

effective tool

when building a

strong

corporate

brand. Still,

organizations

are 'forced' to

Organizational boundaries

are gone, which implies easy

access for everyone.

Organizational reality is

created.

This may be

possible, but

not in

accordance

with a

manager's

traditional

wishes

People are

viewed as

selfish and

hide their

actions in

order to gain

profit, and

may abuse

  When stakeholders have a world view characterized by:

When focus

is:

The

functionalist

paradigm

The interpretive paradigm

The radical

humanist

paradigm

The radical

structuralist

paradigm

accept a high

degree of

openness. At a

minimum, large

corporate

brands cannot

afford to have

little

transparency.

regarding

predetermined

values nor

living the

brand

ideology.

others to do

so. Great

rewards exist

for those who

manage to

stay

transparent

and convince

the audience

of non-

economic

motives.

Cost reduction

Strength—

corporate

branding

reduces costs.

Rationality and

efficiency are in

focus.

Possible. Not a particularly

vulnerable area to anyone.

Possible. Not

a particularly

vulnerable

area to

anyone.

Will be

viewed

negatively, as

a mean to

increase

profit.

Challenges

and

opportunities

One should

reflect on other

world views,

and

acknowledge

that not all

people are

easily affected

Managers must accept to

'lose control' since

organizational reality is

created in stakeholder

interplay. No control aspect

exists.

Stay away

from

traditional

commercial

marketing

when building

the corporate

brand.

Be socially

responsible.

Adapt to the

society and do

not exploit

loopholes in

order to

increase

  When stakeholders have a world view characterized by:

When focus

is:

The

functionalist

paradigm

The interpretive paradigm

The radical

humanist

paradigm

The radical

structuralist

paradigm

by market

communication.

Strive to stay

transparent,

keep consistency

in internal and

external

communication

and protect the

organizational

reputation.

Do not compel

employees to

act in ways

that can be

viewed as a

means to

improve

shareholder

value.

profit.

Do not

engage in

business

which is

generally seen

as unethical,

such as child

labor.

Table 1 illustrates what a functionalistic manager should keep in mind when building a

corporate brand and, simultaneously, considers stakeholders' different world views. The

illustration indicates that managers of corporate brands face tough challenges.

This article argues that it is hard to manage and direct organizations' members according

to a predefined behavior because stakeholders' assumptions may not correspond to

marketers' visions and intentions. Peoples' world views are undoubtedly very different,

and perhaps the primary discovery of this study is that managers should be open-minded

and realize that others do not necessarily perceive the world within the same or an

equivalent frame of reference. Thus, strategic and holistic corporate brand management

must be taken one step further, to discover the participating actors' frames of reference.

It is the managers in organizations who should identify their stakeholder's world views,

and know how these people think, feel and act. When they know what kind of people

they are dealing with and accordingly those people's world views, the managers should

note them, mark the challenges they represent and decide upon an appropriate and

adequate response behavior, in accordance with their stakeholders' basic world views and

assumptions.

References

1. Aaker, D. A. (2004) 'Leveraging the corporate brand', California Management

Review, Vol. 46, No. 3, pp. 6–18.

2. Anixter, J. (2003) 'Transparency or not: Brand Inside: Brand Outside™—The

most obvious yet overlooked next source for the brand's authentic evolution in

Ind, N. (ed.) Beyond Branding', Kogan Page, London.

3. Arndt, J. (1985) 'On making marketing science more scientific: Role of

orientations, paradigms, metaphors, and puzzle solving', Journal of Marketing,

Vol. 49, No. 3, pp. 11–23.

4. Balmer, J. M. T. and Gray, E. R. (2003) 'Corporate brands: What are they? What

of them?' European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37, No. 7/8, pp. 972–997.

5. Balmer, J. M. T. (1995) 'Corporate branding and connoisseurship', Journal of

General Management, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 24–46.

6. Balmer, J. M. T. and Wilson, A. (1998) 'Corporate identity', International Studies

of Management & Organization, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 12–31.

7. Barich, H. and Kotler, P. (1991) 'A framework for marketing image management',

Sloan Management Review, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 94–104.

8. Brønn, P. S. (2002) 'Corporate communication and the corporate brand', in Brønn,

P. S. and Wiig, R. (eds.) Corporate Communication: A Strategic Approach to

Building Reputation', Gyldendal Akademisk, Oslo.

9. Barney, J. B. (1986) 'Organizational culture: Can it be a source of sustained

competitive advantage?' Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp.

656–665.

10. Brown, A. D. (1998) 'Organisational Culture', 2nd edn, Financial Times Pitman,

London.

11. Blindheim, T. (2003) 'Hvorfor kjøper vi? Om forbruk og reklame', Abstrakt

Forlag, Oslo.

12. Burrell, G. and Morgan, G. (1979) 'Sociological Paradigms and Organizational

Analysis', Heinemann, London.

13. Clarke, S. (2001) 'The globalization of capital, crisis and class struggle', Capital &

Class, Autumn, Issue. 75, pp. 93–101.

14. Collins, J. C. and Porras, J. J. (2000) 'Built to last', 3rd edn, Random House

Business Books, London.

15. Davies, G. and Chun, R. (2002) 'Gaps between the internal and external

perceptions of the corporate brand', Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 5, No.

2/3, pp. 144–158. 

16. De Chernatony, L. (2001) 'From Brand Vision to Brand Evaluation', Butterworth

Heinemann, Oxford.

17. Deshpande, R. (1983) 'Paradigms lost: On theory and method in research in

marketing', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 47, No. 4, pp. 101–110.

18. Dacin, P. A. and Brown, T. J. (2002) 'Corporate identity and corporate

associations: A framework for future research', Corporate Reputation Review,

Vol. 5, No. 2/3, pp. 254–263.

19. Deal, T. E. and Kennedy, A. A. (1982) 'Corporate Cultures: The Rites and Rituals

of Corporate Life', Addison-Wesley, California.

20. Dowling, G. (2001) 'Creating Corporate Reputations: Identity, image and

performance', Oxford University Press, Oxford. Knox, S. and Bickerton, D.

(2003) 'The six conventions of corporate branding', European Journal of

Marketing, Vol. 37, No. 7/8, pp. 998–1016.

21. Einwiller, S. and Will, M. (2002) 'Towards an integrated approach to corporate

branding—An empirical study', Corporate Communications, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp.

100–109.

22. Fombrun, C. J. (1996) 'Reputation: Realizing Value from the Corporate Image',

Harvard Business School, Boston.

23. Fombrun, C. J. and van Riel, C. B. (1997) 'The reputational landscape', Corporate

Reputation Review, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 5–13.

24. Fournier, S. (1998) 'Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory

in consumer research', Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 343–

373.

25. Gronstedt, A. and Shultz, D. E. (2001) 'Corporate and marketing communications:

Interaction + Integration = Synergy', in Kitchen, P. J. and Schultz, D. E. (eds.)

Raising the Corporate Umbrella', Palgrave, New York.

26. Gad, T. (2003) 'Leadership branding in Ind, N. (ed.) Beyond Branding', Kogan

Page, London.

27. Giddens, A. (2001) 'Sociology', 4th edn, Polity, Cambridge.

28. Gioia, D. A. and Pitre, E. (1990) 'Multiparadigm perspectives on theory building',

Academy of Management Review, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 584–602.

29. Gioia, D. A, Schultz, M. and Corley, K. G. (2000) 'Organizational identity, image,

and adaptive instability', Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp.

63–81.

30. Hatch, M. J. and Schultz, M. (2003) 'Bringing the corporation into corporate

branding', European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37, No. 7/8, pp. 1041–1064.

31. Hatch, M. J. and Schultz, M. (2001) 'Are the strategic stars aligned for your

corporate brand?' Harvard Business Review, Vol. 79, No. 2, pp. 128–134.

32. Hatch, M. J. and Schultz, M. (1997) 'Relations between organizational culture,

identity and image', European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31, No. 5/6, pp. 356–

365.

33. Harris, F. and de Chernatony, L. (2001) 'Corporate branding and corporate brand

performance', European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35, No. 3, pp. 72–86.

34. Hatch, M. J. and Schultz, M. (2000) 'Scaling the Tower of Babel: Relational

differences between identity, image, and culture in organizations in Schultz, M.,

Hatch, M. J. and Larsen, M. H. (eds.) The Expressive Organization', Oxford

University Press, Oxford.

35. Hatch, M. J. and Schultz, M. (2002) 'The dynamics of organizational identity',

Human Relations, Vol. 55, No. 8, pp. 989–1018.

36. Hofstede, G. (1991) 'Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind',

McGraw-Hill, London.

37. Ind, N. (2004) 'Living the brand', 2nd edn, Kogan Page, London.

38. Ind, N. (1997) 'The Corporate Brand', Macmillan Business, London.

39. Jhally, S. (1990) 'The codes of advertising: Fetishism and the political economy

of meaning in the consumer society', Routledge, New York.

40. Kapferer, J-N. (1997) 'Strategic Brand Management: Creating and Sustaining

Brand Equity Long Term,' 2nd edn, Kogan Page, London.

41. Keller, K. L. (2003) 'Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring and

Managing Brand Equity', 2nd edn, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.

42. Kitchen, P. J. and Schultz, D. E. (2001) 'Raising the corporate umbrella—The

21st-century need', in Kitchen, P. J. and Schultz, D. E. (eds.) Raising the

Corporate Umbrella', Palgrave, New York.

43. Kotter, J. P. and Heskett, J. L. (1992) 'Corporate Culture and Performance', Free

Press, New York.

44. Klein, N. (2000) 'No Logo', Flamingo, London.

45. Knox, S. (2004) 'Positioning and branding your organization', Journal of Product

& Brand Management, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 105–115.

46. Kuhn, T. S. (1970) 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions', University of

Chicago Press, Chicago.

47. Lindstrom, M. (2005). ‘ Brand Sense- Build powerful brands through touch,

Taste, Smell, Sight and Sound’. Free Press. USA.

48. Meyers, D. (2003) 'Whose brand is it anyway?' in Ind, N. (ed.) Beyond Branding',

Kogan Page, London.

49. Marsden, D. and Littler, D. (1996) 'Evaluating alternative research paradigms: A

market-oriented framework', Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 12, No. 7,

pp. 645–655.

50. Mitchell, A. (1999) 'Out of the shadows', Journal of Marketing Management, Vol.

15, No. 1–3, pp. 25–42.

51. Macrae, C. (1996) 'The Brand Chartering Handbook', Addison Wesley, Essex.

52. Mitchell, C. (2002) 'Selling the brand inside', Harvard Business Review, Vol. 80,

No. 1, pp. 99–105.

53. Markwick, N. and Fill, C. (1997) 'Towards a framework for managing identity',

European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31, No. 5/6, pp. 396–409.

54. Mahon, J. F. and Wartick, S. L. (2003) 'Dealing with stakeholders: How

reputation credibility and framing influence the game', Corporate Reputation

Review, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 396–409.

55. Morgan, G. (1980) 'Paradigms, metaphors and puzzle solving in organization

theory', Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 25, No. 4, pp. 605–623.

56. Morgan, G. (1997) 'Images of Organization', Sage Publications, London.

57. Olins, W. (2000) 'Why brands are taking over the corporation', in Schultz, M.,

Hatch, M. J. and Larsen, M. H. (eds.) The Expressive Organization', Oxford

University Press, Oxford.

58. Olins, W. (1990) 'The Wolff Olins Guide to Corporate Identity', The Design

Council, London.

59. Osterberg, D. (1988) 'Two notes on consumption in Otnes, P. (ed.) The Sociology

of Consumption', Solum Forlag, Oslo.

60. Porter, M. E. (1985) 'Competitive Advantage', Free Press, New York.

61. Schultz, D. E. and Kitchen, P. J. (2004) 'Managing the changes in corporate

branding and communication: Closing and re-opening the corporate umbrella',

Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 347–366.

62. Soenen, G. and Moingeon, B. (2002) 'The five facets of collective identities:

Integrating corporate identity and organizational identity', in Moingeon, B. and

Soenen, G. (eds.) Corporate and Organizational Identities', Routledge, London.

63. Urde, M. (2003) 'Core value-based corporate brand building', European Journal of

Marketing, Vol. 37, No. 7/8, pp. 1017–1040.

64. van Riel, C. B. and Balmer, J. M. T. (1997) 'Corporate identity: The concept, its

measurement and management', European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31, No. 5/6,

pp. 340–355.

65. van Riel, C. B. (1995) 'Principles of Corporate Communication', Prentice-Hall,

London.

66. van Rekom, J. (2002) 'Manifestations in behaviour versus perceptions of identity:

Convergence or not?' in Moingeon, B. and Soenen, G. (eds.) Corporate and

Organizational Identities', Routledge, London.

67. Wilson, A. M. (2001) 'Understanding organizational culture and the implications

for corporate marketing', European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35, No. 3/4, pp.

353–367.