The relationship of integrating corporate branding with

different sociological paradigms

Mr. Rafiuddin Ahmed

Assistant Professor
Department of Marketing
University of Dhaka.
rafi_marketing4th@yahoo.com
Mobile: 01817-535904

Ishrat Jahan Tania

Assistant Professor
Business Administration
Stamford University Bangladesh
barsha_mkt@yahoo.com
Mobile: 01818-280205

Md. Moktar Ali

Assistant 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:
The The radical The radical
When focus
functionalist The interpretive paradigm humanist structuralist
is:
paradigm paradigm paradigm
Strength—
Consumers can Corporate
be influenced by brands are
employee seen as
Generally,
behavior, manipulative,
differentiation
market therefore
through
communication presenting a
Differentiation is within traditional
and symbols. tough
reach, but not achieved by marketing
Employees can challenge for
predetermined instructions channels is
be used as tools managers.
from managers. met with
to improve Differentiate
Differentiation is naturally critical eyes.
Differentiation differentiation. through non-
created in stakeholder Convince
Weakness— commercial
interplay. Consumers buy stakeholders
consumers are channels—for
and use brands as an that the
exposed to a example,
extension of their personal corporate
huge load of good
identity. brand does
messages customer
not suppress
continuously service, non-
any of the
and it is difficult profiled
stakeholders.
to separate corporate
from the crowd social
and be truly responsibility.
unique.
Transparency This is an Organizational boundaries This may be People are
effective tool are gone, which implies possible, but viewed as
when building a easy access for everyone. not in selfish and
strong Organizational reality is accordance hide their
corporate created. with a actions in
 When stakeholders have a world view characterized by:
The The radical The radical
When focus
functionalist The interpretive paradigm humanist structuralist
is:
paradigm paradigm paradigm
order to gain
profit, and
brand. Still,
may abuse
organizations
manager's others to do
are 'forced' to
traditional so. Great
accept a high
wishes rewards exist
degree of
regarding for those who
openness. At a
predetermine manage to
minimum, large
d values nor stay
corporate
living the transparent
brands cannot
brand and convince
afford to have
ideology. the audience
little
of non-
transparency.
economic
motives.
Strength—
Will be
corporate Possible. Not
viewed
branding a particularly
Possible. Not a particularly negatively, as
Cost reduction reduces costs. vulnerable
vulnerable area to anyone. a mean to
Rationality and area to
increase
efficiency are in anyone.
profit.
focus.
Challenges One should Managers must accept to Stay away Be socially
and reflect on other 'lose control' since from responsible.
opportunities world views, organizational reality is traditional Adapt to the
and created in stakeholder commercial society and
acknowledge interplay. No control aspect marketing do not exploit
that not all exists. when building loopholes in
 When stakeholders have a world view characterized by:
The The radical The radical
When focus
functionalist The interpretive paradigm humanist structuralist
is:
paradigm paradigm paradigm
people are
easily affected the corporate order to
by market brand. increase
communication. Do not profit.
Strive to stay compel Do not
transparent, employees to engage in
keep act in ways business
consistency in that can be which is
internal and viewed as a generally
external means to seen as
communication improve unethical,
and protect the shareholder such as child
organizational value. labor.
reputation.

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.