JOURNAL OF MARKETING COMMUNICATIONS 9 195–220 (2003)

Determinants of the corporate identity

construct: a review of the literature
T.C. MELEWAR
Warwick Business School, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK

Corporate identity has received significant attention from both academics and practitioners
in the last 25 years. Despite many articles written in this area a definitive construct of
corporate identity and its measurements does not yet exist. The objective of this paper is
therefore to provide a review of the literature on the corporate identity construct and its
components and also to present the academic and managerial implications of this study.
KEYWORDS: Corporate identity; corporate image; corporate communications; marketing
communications; corporate reputation

INTRODUCTION
There has been a growing interest in the corporate identity concept over the last 25 years,
mainly due to changes in technology, market dynamics and consumer values and behaviour.
Deregulation and privatization programmes introduced by governments (Ind, 1992; Markwick
and Fill, 1997; Balmer and Soenen, 1998), the internationalization of companies (Schmitt et al.,
1995; Meijs, 2002), the availability of a vast amount of choice and information in the market, more
sophisticated consumers (Bickerton, 1999), lower traditional barriers to entry, changes in trade
channels, decentralized organizational structures and an increased number of mergers and acquisitions
(Ind, 1992; Melewar and Harrold, 2000) are some of the factors which have contributed to raising
interest in corporate identity.
Corporate identity emerged as a design concept and started to attract managerial interest as a
design issue in the 1970s. This led to corporate identity being regarded as a strategic tool and a
source for competitive advantage (Downey, 1987; Bickerton, 1999). Corporate identity is regarded
as a strategic resource for building credibility and support amongst a variety of stakeholders and
gaining competitive advantage in this new business environment. It is widely accepted that
corporate audiences rely on the reputations of firms in making investment decisions, career
decisions and product choices (Dowling, 1986). The definition of corporate identity proposed
in this paper is ‘the set of meanings by which a company allows itself to be known and through
which it allows people to describe, remember and relate to it’ (Topalian, 1984, p. 56; Olins, 1989;
Markwick and Fill, 1997).
There are several advantages of corporate identity. First, it can act as a central force that
motivates employees. As current staff can more clearly understand the purpose, direction and
speciality of their organization they will show greater pride and support for it (Downey, 1987).
Second, corporate identity enables employees to adapt existing cultures with greater sensitivity
and to integrate new cultures following a merger or an acquisition with less disruption (Downey,

Journal of Marketing Communications ISSN 1352–7266 print/ISSN 1466–4445 online

© 2003 Taylor & Francis Ltd http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/1352726032000119161
196 MELEWAR

1987). Third, corporate identity can help companies to recruit high-calibre executives (Stigler,
1962; Belt and Paolillo, 1982; Gray and Smeltzer, 1985, 1987; Olins, 1990; Melewar and Saunders,
1998). Fourth, a company’s stakeholders become aware of the organization’s business capabilities,
management strengths, competitive distinction and product and service diversity by the reflection
of its identity (Buzzell, 1968; Lippincott and Margulies, 1988). Fifth, consumers can be informed
about product quality and this in turn will provide support for a company’s products and brands.
Sixth, corporate identity enables the formation of a strong corporate brand that brings about
stakeholder loyalty (Balmer, 1995; Markwick and Fill, 1997). Seventh, the financial community
can better comprehend a company, which in turn attracts investors (Milgrom and Roberts,
1986), allows the assets to be more fairly valued and enhances the company’s access to capital
markets (Beatty and Ritter, 1986).
The idea of using corporate identity for strategic purposes soon attracted attention from other
academic disciplines such as strategic management, public relations, psychology, marketing and
organizational behaviour. In addition, practitioners such as graphic designers, communication
specialists and image researchers have contributed to the importance of corporate identity in
recent years.
The multidisciplinary nature of the corporate identity field has led to various definitions of
corporate identity. It is no wonder that there is neither a universally accepted definition of
corporate identity, nor the specific elements constituting the corporate identity construct
(Melewar and Harrold, 2000). With the contributions of consultants and academics from different
disciplines the concept has grown to include behaviour, culture and other communication
means. It has more recently been commonly agreed that corporate identity is a multidimensional
concept that comprises various aspects of a company such as business strategy, the philosophy of
key executives, corporate culture, behaviour and corporate design, all of which interact with
each other and result in distinguishing one company from another. However, corporate identity
is often confused with interrelated concepts such as corporate image, personality, reputation,
corporate communications and public relations. The relationship of these concepts to corporate
identity is explained in Appendices 1 and 5.
It is acknowledged that there is a lack of consensus on the definitive notion of corporate
identity and the components of corporate identity as a construct. It is suggested that a holistic
corporate identity construct be developed through an extensive review of the literature dealing
with the definition and identification of corporate identity. Therefore, the objectives of this
paper are (1) to provide a clear understanding of corporate identity, (2) to propose, specify and
define the components of the corporate identity construct through a review of the literature
and (3) to present the academic and managerial implications of the holistic corporate identity
construct.

DEFINITION OF CORPORATE IDENTITY

The word identity is defined in the Collins English Dictionary (2002) as ‘the individual characteristics
by which a person or thing is recognised’ (p. 201). In that sense identity refers to individuality,
that is a means by which others can differentiate one person from another. In the context of this
paper identity therefore refers to the individual characteristics by which one organization can be
differentiated from another. There are many definitions of corporate identity in the literature,
some of which are broad and take the multidimensional nature of the concept into account,
whereas others are narrowly focused (Bernstein, 1984). As stated earlier, there is no universally
accepted definition of corporate identity. This is mainly due to the diversity of the disciplines
DETERMINANTS OF THE CORPORATE IDENTITY CONSTRUCT 197

involved in the area. The International Corporate Identity Group acknowledges this phenomenon
(see Appendix 3).
The definition of corporate identity proposed in this paper is ‘the set of meanings by which
a company allows itself to be known and through which it allows people to describe, remember
and relate to it’ (Topalian, 1984, p. 56; Olins, 1989; Markwick and Fill, 1997; Melewar and Saunders,
1999). The author shares the view that corporate identity is the sum of all the factors that define
and project ‘what the organization is’, ‘what it stands for’, ‘what it does’, ‘how it does it’ and
‘where it is going’ (see Appendix 4). Thus, specification of an organization’s corporate identity
includes all means of communication, culture, business mission, goals, strategies, organizational structure,
the degree of centralization of control, products or services, markets and industries served, offices
and retail outlets (Schmidt, 1995; Olins, 1991; Markwick and Fill, 1997). Corporate identity is the
focus for a corporation’s identification. It involves a company’s verbal and visual presentation,
marketplace positioning and competitive differentiation at the corporate, business unit and product
levels. Therefore, it is closely linked to the way an organization does its business and the strategies
it adopts.
A corporation’s actions are indivisible: ‘how it behaves’, ‘what it says’, ‘how it treats people’
and ‘what it makes and sells’ are all parts of a single whole. Everything within the company has
an effect on everything else and everyone has an effect on everyone else (Olins, 1978). This
means that corporate identity is built up from the physical, operational and human characteristics
of an organization, which are closely interrelated (Topalian, 1984).

LITERATURE REVIEW AND THE CORPORATE IDENTITY TAXONOMY

This section of the paper develops a corporate identity taxonomy (Fig. 1). A holistic corporate
identity construct is derived, whereby its sub-constructs are specified through a review of the
literature. The elements that are proposed as the determinants of the corporate identity construct
are corporate communication, corporate design, corporate culture, corporate behaviour, corporate
structure, industry identity and corporate strategy (see Fig. 1 and Appendix 2).

Corporate communication
There are various communication approaches to corporate identity within the corporate identity
literature. The communicative approach regards corporate identity as the multifaceted way in
which an organization communicates. It brings in the concept of corporate communication
based on the premise that everything an organization says, makes and does will communicate in
some way (Baker and Balmer, 1997). According to this approach corporate identity is concerned
with the impressions, image and personality projected by an organization (Schmitt and Pan,
1994). This is the approach mostly favoured by public relations and marketing specialists and
designers (Balmer, 1998). According to Bernstein (1984), who formulated the issue of corporate
communication in terms of the traditional sender–receiver model, the organization’s corporate
identity defines the domain of the signals that can be sent to the stakeholders of the organization.
Olins (1991) argued that corporate identity ‘is everything that the corporation does, in every
way it communicates’ (p. 34). Bernstein (1984) shared this view and pointed out that ‘a company
needs to take a holistic view of communication because it is communicating all the time (even
if it does not realise it) to all of its stakeholders. The communication which is taking place, even
if unplanned or planned, is creating impressions and as a result images are being formed’ (p. 57).
Similarly Gray (1995) defined corporate communication as ‘the aggregate of sources, messages
198 MELEWAR

FIGURE 1. The proposed corporate identity taxonomy.

DETERMINANTS OF THE CORPORATE IDENTITY CONSTRUCT 199

and media by which the corporation conveys its uniqueness or brand to its various audiences’
(p. 254). These observations imply that corporate communication, when compared to marketing
communication, is fundamentally different and more complicated (Van Riel and Balmer, 1997).
Chaloner (1990) defined corporate communication as the management of the perceptions
of an organization and the management of change. For him corporate communication ‘… ranges
from the switchboard operator’s efficiency to employee relations, financial performance and
management style’ (Chaloner, 1990, p. 29). This view was shared by Haynes (1990), who stated
that ‘We define corporate communication as every form, manner and medium by which a
company communicates with its various audiences’ (p. 30) (Marketing, 1990). This is because
‘corporate identity is projected to the stakeholders using a variety of cues, and it represents how
the organisation would like to be perceived’ (Markwick and Fill, 1997, p. 396). In the author’s
view these cues can be orchestrated so that deliberately planned messages are delivered to specific
target audiences in order to achieve particular objectives. Typical of these planned communications
are the use of corporate identity programmes, consistent content in advertising messages (British
Airways), dress codes and operating procedures (McDonald’s) and policies towards customer
contact (answering the telephone at TNT overnight). Markwick and Fill (1997) further argued
that some of these planned cues will constitute an organization’s visual identity, that is the
design and graphics associated with an organization’s symbols and elements of self-expression,
whereas other cues will focus on behaviour, the actions of the organization and other forms of
communication.
According to Balmer and Soenen (1998) corporate communication includes uncontrolled
communication, for example (1) staff communication to external stakeholders, (2) controllable
communication, i.e. management, marketing and organizational communication, (3) visual identity,
(4) the behaviour of employees and (5) indirect communication, which refers to any communication
about the organization initiated by external stakeholders, for example articles in the press, news
on television and comments by competitors. Schmidt (1995) defined corporate communication
as all internal and external information means and measures that aim to influence perceptions. His
corporate communication covers corporate design, the form and content of internal and external
corporate communication, marketing communication, architecture, interior design and location
as one of the determinants of the corporate identity construct he developed.
This paper adopts Gray and Balmer’s (1998) definition of corporate communication, which is
‘the aggregate of messages from both official and informal sources through a variety of media
by which a company conveys its identity to its multiple audiences or stakeholders’ (p. 697).
Consequently, the corporate communication element of the corporate identity construct
comprises controlled corporate communication (management communication, organizational
communication and employee communication), uncontrolled communication and indirect
communication. However, corporate design or visual identification is hypothesized as a separate
sub-construct in the model rather than being included as a part of the corporate communication
sub-construct.

Controlled corporate communication

Corporate communication has no universal meaning among various professional groups. Some
authors see corporate communication as synonymous with public relations (e.g. Grunig, 1993)
and others see it as corporate advertising (e.g. Garbett, 1988). Corporate communication is not
only composed of specialized areas such as public relations and corporate advertising, but also
media relations, financial relations, employee communication and crisis communication (Argenti,
1998; Van Riel, 1997a).
200 MELEWAR

Controlled corporate communication is a part of general corporate communication. It is a

management tool by which all consciously used forms of internal and external communication
are harmonized effectively and efficiently for creating a favourable basis for a relationship with
an organization’s stakeholders (Van Riel, 1995; Van Rekom, 1997). Van Riel (1995) distinguished
three types of communications that are adopted and controlled by organizations: management
communication, marketing communication and organizational communication.
However, many authors do not differentiate corporate communication as controlled or uncon-
trolled. They tend to define corporate communication as always being controlled. For example,
Ind (1992) focused on corporate communication as the primary linkage between identity and image,
while Ind (1992) and Markwick and Fill (1997) emphasized the cues that organizations deliberately
use for presenting themselves to their stakeholders and described corporate communication as
the process that translates corporate identity into image.
Van Riel’s (1995) classification is used for the controlled corporate communication element of
the corporate identity construct developed in this paper. This element consists of management
communication, marketing communication and organizational communication.
(1) Management communication. According to Olins (1989) management communication
refers to the process of communicating the vision and mission of the company defined
by its management in order to establish a favourable image and ultimately a good reputation
amongst its internal and external stakeholders. Management communication constitutes
part of the link between corporate personality and identity, as well as establishing the
link between strategic management, personality and identity (Hatch and Schultz, 1997).
It is viewed as the primary means by which top-level managers disseminate the goals and
objectives of an organization (Melewar and Wooldridge, 2001). Kennedy (1977) empha-
sized both the internal and external aspects of management communication, for example
the house journal and press releases and the chairman’s annual statement for internal and
external communication, respectively.
(2) Marketing communication. Van Riel (1995) defined marketing communication as the
form of communication that supports the sales of an organization’s goods or services.
Most of an organization’s communication with the marketplace occurs through a carefully
planned and controlled promotional programme. The tools and techniques used for
achieving an organization’s marketing communication objectives are called the ‘promo-
tion mix’. The basic elements of the promotion mix include advertising, personal selling,
public relations, direct marketing and sales promotion (Dickson, 1997).
(3) Organizational communication. Van Riel (1995) defined organizational communication
as all forms of communication with stakeholders with whom an organization has an
interdependent relationship. Public relations and public affairs are the oldest, most common
and well-known forms of organizational communication. Recently it has been separated
into several functional areas such as finance and human resources, being responsible for
aspects of organizational communication such as investor relations and labour relations,
respectively.
Both marketing and organizational communications serve as dominant communication links
between identity and image and as links between image and strategic management (Hatch and
Schultz, 1997). Both graphic designers and marketers suggest that the communication of a
company with all of its stakeholders must be consistent (Bernstein, 1984; Schmitt et al., 1995; Van
Riel and Balmer, 1997).
DETERMINANTS OF THE CORPORATE IDENTITY CONSTRUCT 201

Uncontrolled communication
Uncontrolled communication usually involves the communication between the employees of an
organization and the external stakeholders through their interaction (Moingeon and Ramanantsoa,
1997). In many cases an organization communicates by sending signals that have not been created
in a deliberate or conscious way: such a kind of communication is called uncontrolled commu-
nication. For example, the hours that a company’s switchboard is open and the way in which
telephone calls are managed are the signals sent by the company to its environment (Olins, 1985;
Moingeon and Ramanantsoa, 1997). Even the telephone conversations or letters sent reveal
corporate identity. For example, telephone conversation takes into account how long people
take to answer the telephone and in what manner it is answered. Similarly, a letter takes into
account the content of the letter, the time taken to respond, the politeness, clarity and level of
literacy of the reply and the physical qualities demonstrated by the letterhead. Newer factors
such as the potential power of the ‘word of mouse’ via, for example, customer to customer on-line
communities, are also formed as uncontrollable communication.

Indirect communication
Indirect communication refers to any communication about the organization initiated by external
parties. It includes transmitted unintentional or emergent messages, articles in the press, news
about the organization on television, comments by competitors and third-party reports about the
organization.

Corporate design
The visual aspect of corporate identity forms a major part of a corporation’s identity (Melewar
and Saunders, 1998). Corporate design is used interchangeably with visual identification. In terms
of the visual aspect of corporate identity the dominant view in the literature is that everything
the company does underlines its special characteristics. However, there are different views about
the components of corporate visual identity. In the corporate identity construct proposed in
this paper corporate design is stated as a sub-construct of corporate identity covering corporate
visual identity and the applications of corporate visual identity, both of which have further
subcomponents.

Corporate visual identity

Corporate visual identity is the graphic design at the core of a firm’s visual identity (Melewar and
Saunders, 1999). Corporate visual identity is the outer sign of the inward commitment of a
company (Abratt, 1989; Melewar and Saunders, 2000). In other words corporate visual identity
is an assembly of visual cues by which an audience can recognize the company and distinguish
it from others.
Dowling (1994) described corporate identity as referring to ‘the symbols an organisation uses
to identify itself to people’ (p. 40). Balmer (1995) examined the use of visual identity by organi-
zations and found that organizations use graphic design for two basic purposes. First, they are
used for encapsulating the organization’s cultural values. Second, they are used for underpinning
the organization’s communications efforts. Melewar and Saunders (1999) argued that corporate
visual identity is a part of corporate identity that companies can use for projecting their quality,
prestige and style to stakeholders. The authors constructed a corporate visual identity mix
comprising name, slogan, logo type and/or symbol, typography and colour.
202 MELEWAR

Applications of corporate visual identity

Melewar and Saunders (2000) indicated that corporate visual identity helps a company to transmit
its visual identity through a wide range of applications such as products, buildings, vehicles and
other business collateral. Henrion and Parkin’s (1967) argument was similar to this wider view
about visual identity. They indicated that every organization has a face that it presents to its
stakeholders. In their view the face it puts on itself, its activities and its packaging of the contents
make up its visual identity. They stated that visual identity can be projected by the appearance of
an organization’s products, printed material (i.e. correspondence, business forms and promotional
literature) and the exterior and interior design of premises (i.e. manufacturing plants, offices,
warehouses, showrooms and retail outlets). Along the same lines Dowling (1994) argued that a
company’s building architecture, location, interior decor of offices and the uniforms of its
employees will help people recognize the company.
What can be concluded from the above arguments is that any company is continually
producing materials that convey clear messages through the way they are designed. These can be
product design, environmental design and other applications such as communication materials,
vehicles and corporate clothing (Olins, 1985; Melewar and Saunders, 2000). Schmidt (1995),
for example, indicated that product design is closely associated with a company’s corporate
identity. Similarly, Seiler (1984) emphasized the significance of the office building and its
relationship with corporate identity. Melewar and Saunders (2000) found that other applications
of corporate visual identity include corporate clothing, advertising, promotion and give-aways
and packaging.

Corporate culture
Although there is no consensus with regard to the components of corporate identity, the
element most largely acknowledged as being part of the corporate identity construct is an
organization’s core value, namely corporate culture (Bernstein, 1984; Balmer and Soenen, 1997).
There are two different views on corporate culture with regard to its link with corporate identity,
which are mainly reflected in marketing academics’ and organization behaviourists’ perspectives
(Alvesson, 1994).
The first view, which is the functionalist perspective, treats culture as a variable and asks the
question ‘what function does culture fulfil in the organization?’ This view is formed by marketing
academics. On the other hand, according to the second view, which is the symbolic perspective
(social–constructionist view), culture is seen as a metaphor and the fundamental question is
‘what is the meaning of the organization to its members?’ (Schultz, 1994; Rowlinson and Procter,
1999). The social–constructionist view is widely accepted by organizational behaviourist.
Corporate culture plays an important role in corporate identity formation. Similarly, Kiriakidou
and Millward (1999) argued that culture plays an important role in the development and enactment
of corporate identity. Moreover, they argued that values reflect the organization’s identity, the
type and quality of its products and services, company performance and corporate behaviour.
Dowling (1986) asserted that corporate culture, which has been described as a company’s
shared values, beliefs and behaviour, flows from and is the consequence of corporate identity.
Downey (1987) stated that corporate identity is the source of corporate culture. He confirmed
Dowling’s (1986) definition of culture and concluded that culture is the ‘what’ of a company
and identity is the ‘why’.
Ambler and Barrow (1996) defined corporate culture as the values that support the organizational
purpose and strategy or corporate identity. Likewise, Barley (1983) highlighted the link between
DETERMINANTS OF THE CORPORATE IDENTITY CONSTRUCT 203

corporate identity and corporate culture by defining corporate culture as ‘a complex set of values,
beliefs, assumptions and symbols that define the way in which a firm conducts its business’ (p. 396).
Along the same lines Normann (1991) viewed corporate culture as a determinant of corporate
identity by emphasizing that normative guiding principles and culture are distinguishing features
and crucial success factors of an organization (Wilson, 1997). Schmidt (1995) included culture as
one of the components in his corporate identity model. The following are some of the elements
of corporate culture.

Corporate philosophy
Corporate philosophy embodies the core values and assumptions of a company that constitute
the corporate culture (Abratt, 1989). Balmer (1995) defined corporate philosophy as the business
mission and values espoused by the management board or the founder. Bernstein’s (1984) linkage
of corporate philosophy and corporate identity arose out of his belief that corporate identity
firstly captures and secondly serves as a vehicle for expression of the company’s philosophy
(Abratt, 1989).

Corporate values
The consensus from the literature suggests that the values held by a company play a significant
role in the formation of its corporate identity. Corporate values are the beliefs and moral principles
that lie behind the company’s culture. Similarly, Van Riel and Balmer (1997) defined corporate
values as dominant systems of beliefs within an organization that comprise everyday language,
ideologies and rituals of personnel and form the corporate identity.

Corporate mission
Corporate mission can be defined as the reason for which a company exists (De Witt and
Meyer, 1998). Abratt (1989) regarded corporate mission as the most important part of the corporate
philosophy. He defined mission as the company purpose, ideally setting it apart from all other
companies. He argued that corporate mission contributes to the corporate identity formation as
it shapes the strategic management of the business. De Witt and Meyer (1998) stated that the
corporate mission concept is often confused with corporate vision. In their view the corporate
mission outlines the basic points of departure, whereas a corporate vision outlines the desired
future at which the company hopes to arrive.

Corporate principles
According to Schmidt (1995) corporate principles define the mission, targets and values of a
company and form the basis of and standards for all corporate actions. Fritz (1999) claimed that
the statements of corporate principles become the basis for right and wrong, that is a prioritizing
criterion. Even the mission statement functions as a principle of order.

Corporate guidelines
Corporate guidelines contain actualization and interpretation of the corporate principles for
individual areas of business activity and functions. Schmidt (1995) showed the link between
corporate identity and corporate guidelines by stating that guidelines explain the relevance of
the corporate principles to the actions and behaviour of all employees, departments and
functions.
204 MELEWAR

Corporate history
Many studies on corporate culture involve links with corporate history. Identity is the product
of the history of the organization (Rowlinson and Procter, 1999). However, identity also produces
history. For example, Balkaran (1995) revealed the influence of a company’s history on its identity
by saying ‘Everyday routines and activities in an entity do not simply happen but occur because
of tradition or history’ (p. 58). This example shows that corporate history has an impact on corporate
identity through its link with corporate culture.

The founder of the company

The existing corporate identity literature reveals that the majority of the models of corporate
identity, corporate image and corporate reputation are vision driven (Olins, 1978; Gray and Smeltzer,
1985; Dowling, 1986, 1993; Abratt, 1989; Balmer, 1995; Van Riel, 1995; Van Riel and Balmer,
1997). For example, Olins (1978) stated that an organization’s identity tends to be inseparable
from that of an organization’s founder. Deal and Kennedy (1982) referred to the link between
corporate success, corporate culture and the founder of the company.

Country of origin
Adopting a communication and image formation point of view Varey (1999) considered the link
between corporate identity and national identity from a particular perspective through a ‘country-of-
origin’ concept. The country of origin imagery has been defined as ‘the picture, the reputation,
and the stereotype that consumers attach to products of a specific country’ (Piron, 2000, p. 30).
Based on research on a number of Scottish firms in Scotland Varey (1999) found out that, when
national focus conveys benefits, companies promote their national identities as part of their
corporate identities. In the same study Varey (1999) concluded that British people are described
as proud, civilized, cultured and cold, Germans are described as efficient, industrious, competitive
and innovative and Americans are described as competitive, adventurous, sociable and fun loving.
He showed that the adjectives associated with the national characters are linked directly with the
business image.
Avison (1997) dealt with this issue as well. He stated that ‘Germanness can mean great engi-
neering, and perhaps this is the reason for AEG to be using the slogan in its advertisements:
“Advanced Engineering from Germany”. Additionally, “Made in Japan” is perceived as innova-
tive and high-tech products since Japanese imagery effectively combines delicacy with boldness.
To trade on this perception, Dixon is using a Japanese sounding name “Matsui” for its own
brand’ (Avison, 1997, p. 35). These examples show that firms can use country of origin imagery for
communicating their identities.

Subcultures
The dominant view in the corporate identity literature is that an organization has a single company
culture. However, a number of marketing academics disagree with this position (Balmer and
Wilson, 1998). For example, Meyerson (1991) concluded that much of the popular literature
(particularly on the integration perspective by Deal and Kennedy (1982), Peters and Waterman
(1982), Barley (1983) and Schein (1991)) rests on the mistaken assumption that organizational
culture consists of shared meanings and commonalties that are quite homogeneous, monolithic and
organization wide. According to the integration perspective espoused values are consistent with
formal practices that are consistent with informal beliefs, norms and attitudes. Consequently,
cultural members share the same values, which promotes a shared sense of loyalty and commitment
DETERMINANTS OF THE CORPORATE IDENTITY CONSTRUCT 205

to an organization (Balmer and Wilson, 1998). This unitary view of culture, which usually tends
to see organizational culture as a reflection of the founder’s beliefs and values, appears to be
simplistic and misleading (Louis, 1985; Alvesson and Berg, 1992; Alvesson, 1994).
Balmer (1995) rejected this integration perspective. He favoured a differentiation perspective,
as he argued that an organization is a composite of multiple cultures. Thus, according to the
differentiation perspective, consensus, rather than being organization wide, occurs only within
the boundaries of a subculture. He cited Van Maanen’s (1991) study of Disneyland, where
groups of employees were found to identify with specific groups rather than with the entire
organization. These specific groups or subcultures were found to be related to different jobs and
different levels of organizational status, gender and class. Balmer and Wilson (1998) concluded
from the results of their case studies that what is unique about a given organization’s culture is
the particular mix of subcultural differences within an organization’s boundaries.
Hatch (1997) and Rowlinson and Procter (1999) suggested that organizations should be seen
as containers for subcultures. Moingeon and Ramanantsoa (1997) used Bourdieu’s (1989) theory
of the concept of ‘social fields’. The social field is created from a set of fields that are composed
of subfields functioning as fields with different subfields. In terms of organizations this means
that one division of an organization can be understood as a subfield of the organizational field
that has relative autonomy, a collective imagery (basic assumptions, impulses and values that
govern the behaviours of organization members) and symbolic products (manifestations of the
collective imagery).

Behaviour
Behaviour refers to a particular way of acting. The consensus from the literature reveals that
organizational identity is shaped by the closeness of fit between the organization and the employees:
the spirit with which they work and participate in the running and development of the organi-
zation. In addition, identity is also concerned with the employees’ sense of belonging by the
similarities in personal and corporate standards and priorities, their sense of well-being within
the organization and their loyalty towards the organization (Topalian, 1984). Consequently,
behaviour is generally accepted as an essential element of corporate identity. The following are
some of the elements of behaviour.

Corporate behaviour
The sum total of the corporate actions, which results from the corporate attitudes that are planned
in line with the company culture or that occur spontaneously, is called corporate behaviour.
According to the organizational behaviourist perspective, identity refers to what employees
perceive, feel and think about their organizations. Identity is assumed to be a collective, com-
monly shared understanding of the organization’s distinctive values and characteristics. Similarly,
Van Riel (1997a and b) defined corporate identity as the self-presentation of an organization,
rooted in the behaviour of individual organizational members, expressing the organization’s
‘sameness over time’ or continuity, ‘distinctiveness’ and ‘centrality’. Lambert (1989) asserted that
corporate identity describes all the manifestations of an organization that enable it to be distinctive.
Along the same lines Goodman (2001) emphasized corporate behaviour as an element of identity.
Similarly, in his corporate identity definition Northart (1980) implicitly revealed that corporate
behaviour is an element of identity. He stated that ‘Corporate identity is the organisation’s products
or services, its employees, its management, its attitude and work climate, and its citizenship’
(Northart, 1980, p. 29). According to Ludlow (1997), ‘Corporate behaviour is surely a dimension
206 MELEWAR

of identity’ (p. 88). He stated that corporate behaviour (i.e. corporate affairs and press relations)
affects the perceptions of a company’s stakeholders as strongly as visual identity and even more
strongly at times of crises.

Employee behaviour
Academics have increasingly acknowledged that corporate identity refers to an organization’s
unique characteristics, which are rooted in the behaviour of employees (Balmer, 1995; Van Riel,
1997b; Balmer and Wilson, 1998). Hatch and Schultz (1997) articulated the difference between
organizational and corporate identity. They argued that organizational identity is primarily
concerned with the way in which members identify with the organization, whereas the literature
on corporate identity emphasizes the task of senior management in bringing forward and ensuring
communication of the corporate vision and strategy.
Balmer and Wilson (1998) believed that corporate identity is the deliberately managed organi-
zational identity. Olins (1991) emphasized the crucial role of personnel and the role of behaviour
in corporate identity formation. According to these authors organizational identity is grounded
in local meanings and the organizational symbols. Thus, identity is founded in the organizational
culture, which they saw as symbolic context for the development and maintenance of organi-
zational identity. Following Kennedy’s (1977) point, subsequent writers acknowledged the role
of employees in corporate identity formation.

Management behaviour
There is a common perception in the corporate identity literature that senior management usually
drive a company’s corporate identity. They express the organization’s central idea to internal and
external audiences through communication and behaviour (Hatch and Schultz, 1997). Hatch and
Schultz (1997) asserted that the actions and statements of top managers simultaneously affect
organizational identity and image.

Corporate structure
Corporate structure, which is a key component of corporate identity (Olins, 1986; Chajet, 1989;
Strong, 1990; Melewar and Saunders, 1998), consists of brand structure and organizational structure
(Ind, 1992; Melewar and Saunders, 1998).

Brand structure
Corporate branding is about creating differentiation and preference. Although there is a consen-
sus in the literature that corporate identity and brands often appear together on an offering
(Balmer, 1999) there are differences on how corporate identity relates to brand structure and
strategy. Murphy (1987), Olins (1989) and Laforet and Saunders (1999) also highlighted the
interplay between corporate identity and branding. Olins (1989) proposed three approaches to
structure corporate identities: monolithic, endorsed and branded structures
(1) Monolithic structure. The corporation uses one name and a visual style throughout. In
this case, the corporate identity of a company is the brand to the consumer.
(2) Endorsed structure. Corporate identity is used in association with the name of the
subsidiaries, the visual styles of which can be diverse.
(3) Branded structure. This type of structure has products under totally different brand
names and appearances.
DETERMINANTS OF THE CORPORATE IDENTITY CONSTRUCT 207

Organizational structure
Organizational structure is the part of corporate structure that is concerned with the lines of
communication and reporting responsibilities (Melewar and Saunders, 1998). The fundamental
concern with the organizational structure is the degree of centralization and decentralization
(Ind, 1992), both geographically and across products.
The organizational structure of a company plays a role in its corporate identity through its
influence on brand structure (Laforet and Saunders, 1999). Companies with many subsidiaries,
such as Unilever, are in a different position compared to companies with close parental links,
such as Mars. Laforet and Saunders (1999) argued that a corporate dominant structure, which
leads to a monolithic identity, is more likely to be adopted in centralized companies since there are
more chances for standardization. A company that operates within a highly centralized structure
usually denies autonomy for its subsidiary units and controls all the key functions at the centre.
Therefore, in such a case the identity is likely to be similar in both the parent company and its
subsidiaries (Melewar and Saunders, 1998). Conversely, highly decentralized companies, such as
GlaxoSmithKline, retain no strict control and allow their international subsidiaries to develop
their own identities. In support of this view, Olins (1989) suggested that, in decentralized com-
panies, where the controls are weak and managers have the chance of implementing their ideas,
brand-dominant structures are more likely to be adopted (Laforet and Saunders, 1999).

Industry identity
Industry identity, which involves the underlying economic and technical characteristics of
an industry, such as industry size, growth patterns, rates of change, competitiveness and use of
technology, has a role in shaping the corporate identity of a company (Olins, 1995). The identity
of the industry in which a company operates influences the extent to which the company can
have and project its individual corporate identity. Balmer (1995) argued that strong generic or
industry-wide identity causes companies to have similar strategic plans and mission statements.
An empirical study in the banking sector by Morison (1997) revealed that, when the generic
identity remains so strong, it is very difficult for the companies to project their individual
corporate identities. Melewar and Jenkins (2002) shared this view.

Corporate strategy
Corporate strategy is the master plan of a company that circumscribes the company’s products
and market scope, its overall objectives and the policies through which the company competes
in its chosen markets (Gray and Balmer, 1998). Corporate strategy affects what the company
produces, how much profit it makes on them and how those products affect the customers’
feelings about the company. Kiriakidou and Millward (1999) established the link between
corporate strategy and identity in their conception of corporate identity. Similarly, Shee and Abratt
(1989) showed a link between corporate strategy and identity through a personality concept.
They advocated that corporate strategy lies within the personality of the organization. Corporate
personality is regarded as the sum of the organization’s total characteristics from which its identity
is generated. Thus, strategy is a component of corporate identity (Markwick and Fill, 1995).
Similarly, Stuart (1998) found corporate identity to be an expression of corporate personality
based on corporate strategy.
Markwick and Fill (1997) considered corporate strategy and strategic management as a part of
corporate identity. Birkight and Stadler (1986) included corporate strategy in their corporate
208 MELEWAR

identity mix, which was composed of communication, personality, symbolism, behaviour, strategy
and image. Balmer and Soenen (1997) also considered strategy as a part of corporate identity that
they defined as encompassing the ‘soul’, ‘mind’ and ‘voice’ of an organization and delineated
‘what an organization is’.
Van Riel (1995) and Morison (1997) highlighted the role of corporate strategy in corporate
identity change programmes and argued that corporate strategy should be a key component of
corporate identity. Morison (1997) asserted that corporate identity is contingent on the objectives
of the company. Thus, identity follows strategy.

Differentiation strategy
Simpson (1988) focused on the link between the differentiation strategy of a company and its
identity. He defined identity as the unique capabilities of a company – the cross-functional mix
of experience, skills, knowledge and talents – that distinguish the company and determine its
ability for creating value in proprietary ways. He gave the example of McDonald’s, namely its
priority on people and people-sensitive issues before price and its complex formula of quality,
service, cleanliness and value, which has helped the company in successfully differentiating itself
from other fast-food restaurants. He stated that, for such companies like McDonald’s, differen-
tiation means capitalizing on the inherent capabilities that define the organization in terms of its
basic identity: ‘who it is’ and, by extension, ‘who it is not’ (Simpson, 1988). In support of
Simpson (1988), Smith (1990) stated that corporate identity comprises ‘who is the company as an
organization?’ ‘what distinguishes it from the competitors as a whole?’ and ‘what is the company
really good at?’

Positioning strategy
Positioning encapsulates the aimed-for identity. Golnick (1985) defined positioning as a word that
defines a company’s business identity and the type of business it seeks. A company’s position that
differentiates it from its competitors is developed out of the way the company understands itself.

CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

This paper has examined the corporate identity concept from a multidisciplinary perspective. A
taxonomy of corporate identity, which is composed of a number of interrelated elements, has
been developed. The contribution of this paper in the corporate identity literature is that it has
specified all the salient elements of corporate identity.
Four conclusions can be drawn from this analysis. First, corporate identity has become very
popular as a concept since its strategic importance for an organization was realized. Corporate
identity is an interdisciplinary and integrated subject comprising strategic management, marketing,
public relations, graphic design, psychology, organizational behaviour and ethnography. Second,
corporate personality is acknowledged as the basis of corporate identity and it implies that the
identity of a company is driven by its organizational culture, values and principles. Third, corporate
identity needs consistent management in order to build a favourable reputation and competitive
advantage. Fourth, managers tend to focus on the tangible aspects of corporate identity, which are
relatively easy to manage. This means that the most addressed elements of the identity construct
are corporate communication and corporate design.
The corporate identity taxonomy, which has been developed by the specification and definition
of the elements of the corporate identity construct, has a number of academic and managerial
DETERMINANTS OF THE CORPORATE IDENTITY CONSTRUCT 209

implications. As already mentioned in this paper corporate identity is comprised of various academic
disciplines. This has led to diverse approaches to the definition of corporate identity, thereby
causing a lack of consensus on the elements of the corporate identity construct. Therefore,
there has been a need for a multidisciplinary approach to the study of corporate identity.
Corporate identity is transmitted to the stakeholders of a company, who can then shape certain
images that form the foundations of the company’s reputation, which is crucial for developing
competitive advantage. The corporate identity taxonomy can be helpful for managers in that
respect since it covers all the elements of corporate identity. A company must communicate
effectively in order to establish a strong corporate brand and achieve competitive advantage. The
holistic corporate identity construct can guide managers in that respect since it clarifies the
corporate identity concept and specifies its elements.
In conclusion, this paper has attempted to list the various determinants of corporate identity
as inclusively as possible and the results are revealed in diagrammatic form in the proposed corporate
identity taxonomy. The taxonomy shows the determinants leading into the final corporate identity,
but the varying range of factors and the degree of overlap between them raises the important
question as to how these different determinants are acknowledged and managed in practice. In
other words, what mechanisms have evolved for evaluating and modifying corporate identity in
relation to changing market situations. The importance given to these mechanisms will vary from
firm to firm and from sector to sector and in relation to products and to target customers. The
flow indicated in the taxonomy also operates in the reverse direction, but how and where this
reverse flow originates is a question which can only be answered by practical research in the field.
Such research would seek to establish how highly companies rate the question of corporate
identity, the ways in which they seek to define it and either develop or change it and how they
assess its appropriateness for prevailing economic conditions. It is important to know how and
where issues of corporate identity are discussed within a company and how the results of these
discussions are fed into management structure. Future research should involve an investigation of
the practitioners’ and experts’ viewpoints of what constitute corporate identity. Some form of
qualitative analysis should then be pursued in order to formulate some operational hypotheses
that could be tested.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to thank the editors, two referees, Andrew Pettigrew, David Wilson, Godfrey Carr,
Scott Dacko and Goknil Vural for their comments and suggestions throughout the development
of this article.

REFERENCES
Abratt, R. (1989) A new approach to the corporate image management process. Journal of Marketing
Management 5(1), 63–76.
Alvesson, M. (1994) Talking in organizations: managing identity and impressions in an advertising agency.
Organizations Studies 15(4), 535–63.
Alvesson, M. and Berg, P.O. (1992) Corporate Culture and Organizational Symbolism: An Overview. Berlin:
Walter de Gruyter.
Ambler, T. and Barrow, S. (1996) The employer brand. Journal of Brand Management 4(3), 185–206.
Argenti, P. (1998) Corporate Communication, 2nd edn. Boston: Irwin/McGraw Hill.
Avison, S. (1997) The race to go global: brand development in new markets. Journal of Brand Management
5, 28–39.
210 MELEWAR

Baker, M.J. and Balmer, J.M.T. (1997) Visual identity: trappings or substance? European Journal of Marketing
31(5), 366–82.
Balkaran, L. (1995) Corporate culture. The Internal Auditor 52(4), 56–60.
Balmer, J.M.T. (1995) Corporate branding and connoisseurship. Journal of General Management 21(1), 24–46.
Balmer, J.M.T. (1998) Corporate identity and the advent of corporate marketing. Journal of Marketing
Management 14, 963–96.
Balmer, J.M.T. (1999) Corporate Brands: Avoiding the Deadly Sins. Working paper, International Centre for
Corporate Identity Studies, Department of Marketing, University of Strathclyde.
Balmer, J.M.T. and Soenen, G.B. (1997) Rethinking the Corporate Identity Mix. International Centre for
Corporate Identity Studies Working Paper Series, University of Strathclyde.
Balmer, J.M.T. and Soenen, G.B. (1998) A New Approach to Corporate Identity Management. International
Centre for Corporate Identity Studies Working Paper Series, University of Strathclyde.
Balmer, J.M.T. and Wilson, A. (1998) Corporate identity: there is more to it than meets the eye. International
Studies of Management and Organisation 28(3), 12–31.
Barley, S.R. (1983) Semiotics and the study of occupational and organizational cultures. Administrative
Science Quarterly 28, 393–413.
Beatty, R.P. and Ritter, J.R. (1986) Investment banking, reputation, and underpricing of initial public
offerings. Journal of Financial Economics 15, 213–32.
Belt, J.A. and Paolillo, J.G.P. (1982) The importance of corporate image and specificity of candidate
qualifications on response to recruitment advertisements. Journal of Management 8, 105–12.
Bernstein, D. (1984) Company Image and Reality: A Critique of Corporate Communications. London: Cassel
Educational.
Bickerton, D. (1999) Corporate Marketing: Rediscovering Drucker’s Lost Agenda for Marketing. International
Centre for Corporate Identity Studies Working Paper Series, University of Strathclyde.
Birkight, K. and Stadler, M. (1986) Corporate Identity. Grundiagen, Funktionen und Beispoelen, Verlag,
Moderne Industrie, Landsberg am Lech.
Bourdieu, P. (1989) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. London: Routledge.
Buzzell, R.D. (1968) Can you standardize multinational marketing? Harvard Business Review 46, 102–13.
Campbell, A. and Yeung, S. (1991) Creating a sense of mission. Long Range Planning 24, 10–20.
Chajet, C. (1989) The making of a new corporate image. Journal of Business Strategy 20, 18–20.
Chaloner, N. (1990) Corporate communications: marketing dossier positive vibes. Marketing 21 June, 29–30.
Collins English Dictionary (2002) Collins English Dictionary. London: William Collins and Sons Co. Ltd.
Cornelissen, J. and Harris, P. (1999) Two Perspectives on Corporate Identity: As the Expression of the Corporate
Personality and as the Essential Self. International Centre for Corporate Identity Studies Working Paper
Series, University of Strathclyde.
Deal, T.E. and Kennedy, A.A. (1982) Corporate Cultures. Reading, MA: Perseus Books.
De Witt, R. and Meyer, R. (1998) Strategy: Process, Content, Context. London: International Thomson
Business Press.
Dickson, P.R. (1997) Marketing Management. Orlando: The Dryden Press.
Dowling, G.R. (1986) Managing your corporate images. Industrial Marketing Management 15(2), 109–15.
Dowling, G.R. (1993) Developing your image into a corporate asset. Long Range Planning 26(2), 101–9.
Dowling, G.R. (1994) Corporate Reputations. London: Kogan Page.
Downey, S.M. (1987) The relationship between corporate culture and corporate identity. Public Relations
Quarterly 31(4), 7–12.
Fritz, J. (1999) Organisational ethical standards and organisational commitment. Journal of Business Ethics
20(4), 289–99.
Garbett, T. (1988) How to Build a Corporation’s Identity and Project its Image. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Goldman, T. (1988) Big spenders develop newspaper communications. Marketing Communications, 13(1), 24.
Golnick, L.S. (1985) Creating a business identity. Bankers Monthly Magazine 15 November, 17.
Goodman, M.B. (2001) Current trends in corporate communications. Corporate Communication: An
International Journal 6(4), 117–23.
DETERMINANTS OF THE CORPORATE IDENTITY CONSTRUCT 211

Gray, E. (1995) Corporate image as a strategic concept. In Proceedings of the 13th Annual Conference of the
Association of Management, Vancouver, 250–7.
Gray, E.R. and Balmer, J.M.T. (1998) Managing corporate image and corporate reputation. Long Range
Planning 31(5), 695–702.
Gray, E.R. and Smeltzer, L.R. (1985) Corporate image: an integral part of strategy. Sloan Management
Review 73–8.
Gray, E.R. and Smeltzer, L.R. (1987) Planning a face-lift: implementing a corporate image program. Journal
of Business Strategy 8(1), 4–10.
Grunig, J.E. (1993) Image and substance: from symbolic to behavioral relationships. Public Relations Review
19(2), 121–39.
Hatch, M.J. (1997) The dynamics of organizational culture. Academy of Management Review 18, 657–93.
Hatch, M.J. and Schultz, M. (1997) Relations between organisational culture, identity and image. European
Journal of Marketing 31(5), 356–65.
Haynes, L. (1990) Corporate communications: marketing dossier positive vibes. Marketing 21 June, 29–30.
Henrion, H. and Parkin, A. (1967) Design Coordination and Corporate Image. London: Studio Vista.
Hunt, T. and Grunig, J.E. (1994) Public Relations Techniques. Fort Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart and Winston Inc.
Hutton, J. (1997) The influence of brand and corporate identity programmes on consumer behaviour:
a conceptual framework. Journal of Brand Management 5(2), 120–35.
Ind, N. (1992) The Corporate Image: Strategies for Effective Identity Programmes. London: Kogan Page.
Kennedy, S.H. (1977) Nurturing corporate images: total communications or ego trip? European Journal of
Marketing 11, 120–64.
Kiriakidou, O. and Millward, L.J. (1999) Corporate Identity: External Reality or Internal Fit. International
Centre for Corporate Identity Studies Working Paper Series, University of Strathclyde.
Kitchen, P.J. and Moss, D. (1995) Marketing and public relations: the relationship revisited. Journal of
Marketing Communications 1(2), 7–11.
Kotler, P. and Mindak, W. (1978) Marketing and public relations. Journal of Marketing 42(4), 13–20.
Laforet, S. and Saunders, J. (1999) Managing brand portfolios: why leaders do what they do? Journal of
Advertising Research 39(1), 51–66.
Lambert, A. (1989) Corporate identity and facilities management. Facilities December, 7–12.
Lippincott, A. and Margulies, W. (1988) America’s Global Identity Crisis 2: Japan and Europe Move Ahead.
New York: Lippincott and Margulies Inc.
Louis, M. (1985) An investigator’s guide to workplace culture. In P.J. Frost, L. Moore, M. Louis, M. Laudberg
and J. Martin (eds), Organisational Culture. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 381–9.
Ludlow, C. (1997) The global identity crisis in the airline industry. The Journal of Brand Management 5(2),
85–91.
Marketing (1990) Marketing dossier positive vibes. Marketing 21 June, 15–18.
Markwick, N. and Fill, C. (1997) Towards a framework for managing corporate identity. European Journal
of Marketing 31(5), 396–409.
Meijs, M. (2002) The myth of manageability of corporate identity. Corporate Reputation Review 5(1), 20–34.
Melewar, T.C. and Harrold, J. (2000) The role of corporate identity in merger and acquisition activity.
Journal of General Management 26(2), 17–31.
Melewar, T.C. and Jenkins, E. (2002) Defining the corporate identity construct. Corporate Reputation Review
5(1), 76–91
Melewar, T.C. and Saunders, J. (1998) Global corporate visual identity systems: standardisation, control
and benefits. International Marketing Review 15(4), 291–308.
Melewar, T.C. and Saunders, J. (1999) International corporate visual identity: standardisation or localisation?
Journal of International Business Studies 30(3), 583–98.
Melewar, T.C. and Saunders, J. (2000) Global corporate visual identity systems: using an extended marketing
mix. European Journal of Marketing 34(5), 538–50.
Melewar, T.C. and Wooldridge, A. (2001) The dynamics of corporate identity: a review of a process model.
Journal of Communication Management 5(4), 327–40.
212 MELEWAR

Merims, A.M. (1972) Marketing’s stepchild: product publicity. Harvard Business Review 36(5), 107–13.
Meyerson, D. (1991) National ambiguity? A glimpse of an occupational culture. In P.J. Frost, L. Moore,
M. Louis, M. Laudberg and J. Martin (eds) Organisational Culture. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications,
pp. 241–52.
Milgrom, P. and Roberts, J. (1986) Price and advertising signals of product quality. Journal of Political
Economy 94, 796–821.
Moingeon, B. and Ramanantsoa, B. (1997) Understanding corporate identity: the French school of
thought. European Journal of Marketing 31(5), 383–95.
Morison, I. (1997) Breaking the monolithic mould. International Journal of Bank Marketing 15(5), 153–62.
Murphy, J.M. (ed.) (1987) Branding: A Key Marketing Tool. London: MacMillan.
Normann, R. (1991) Service Management. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Northart, L.J. (1980) Corporate identity is not a design problem. Public Relations Journal November, 28–36.
Novelli, W.D. (1988) Stir some PR into your communication mix. Marketing News 22, 5.
Olins, W. (1978) The Corporate Personality: An Inquiry into the Nature of Corporate Identity. London: Design
Council.
Olins, W. (1985) Management by design. Management Today 62–9.
Olins, W. (1986) The strategy of design. Management Today May, 52–5.
Olins, W. (1989) Corporate Identity: Making Business Strategy Visible Through Design. London: Thames and
Hudson.
Olins, W. (1990) Marketing guide no. 15: corporate identity. Marketing 2 April, 21–4.
Olins, W. (1991) The power of corporate identity. World Executive’s Digest October, 34–9.
Olins, W. (1995) The New Guide to Identity. London: Design Council.
Peters, T.J. and Waterman, R.H. (1982) The Search of Excellence. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.
Piron, F. (2000) Consumers’ perceptions of the country of origin effect on purchasing intentions of (in)
conspicuous products. Journal of Consumer Marketing 17(4), 30–9.
Rowlinson, M. and Procter, S. (1999) Organisational culture and business history. Organisation Studies
20(3), 369–96.
Schein, E.H. (1992) Organisational Culture and Leadership, 2nd edn. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Schmidt, K. (1995) The Quest for Identity. London: Cassell.
Schmitt, B.H. and Pan, Y. (1994) Managing corporate and brand identities in the Asia-Pacific region.
California Management Review 36, 34–48.
Schmitt, B.H., Simonson, A. and Marcus, J. (1995) Managing corporate image and identity. Long Range
Planning 28(5), 82–92.
Schultz, M. (1994) On Studying Organisational Cultures: Diagnosis and Understanding. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Seiler, J.A. (1984) Architecture at work. Harvard Business Review 62, 111–84.
Shee, P.S.B. and Abratt, R. (1989) A new approach to the corporate image management process. Journal of
Marketing Management 5, 63–76.
Simpson, M. (1988) Introduction. In M. Simpson (ed.), Corporate Identity: Name, Image and Perception. New
York: The Conference Board, pp. 1–2.
Smith, P. (1990) How to present your firm to the world. Journal of Business Strategy 11, 32–6.
Spector, A.J. (1961) Basic dimensions of the corporate image. Journal of Marketing 25, 47–51.
Stigler, G.L. (1962) Information in the labour market. Journal of Political Economy 70, 49–73.
Strong, F.P. (1990) A company study, Kodak: beyond the visual overstatements. International Journal of
Advertising 3, 55–62.
Stuart, H. (1998) Exploring the corporate identity/corporate image and corporate reputation. Long Range
Planning 31(5), 695–702.
Topalian, A. (1984) Corporate identity: beyond the visual overstatements. International Journal of Advertising
3, 55–62.
Van Maanen, J. (1991) The smile factory: work at Disneyland. In P.J. Frost, L. Moore, M. Louis,
M. Laudberg and J. Martin (eds), Organisational Culture. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications,
pp. 412–23.
DETERMINANTS OF THE CORPORATE IDENTITY CONSTRUCT 213

Van Rekom, J. (1997) Deriving an operational measure of corporate identity. European Journal of Marketing
31(5), 410–22.
Van Riel, C. (1995) Principles of Corporate Communication. London: Prentice Hall.
Van Riel, C. (1997a) Research in corporate communication: an overview of an emerging field. Management
Communication Quarterly 11(2), 288–309.
Van Riel, C. (1997b) Protecting the corporate brand by orchestrated communication. Journal of Brand
Management 4(6), 409–18.
Van Riel, C. and Balmer, J.M.T. (1997) Corporate identity: the concept, its measurement and management.
European Journal of Marketing 31(5), 340–55.
Varey, R.J. (1999) Managing Identity at the Crossroads of the National Highroads of the Corporate Lowroad.
International Centre for Corporate Identity Studies Working Paper Series, University of Strathclyde.
Wilson, A. (1997) The culture of the branch team and its impact on service delivery and corporate identity.
International Journal of Bank Marketing 15(5), 163–8.

BIOGRAPHY
Dr T C Melewar is Lecturer in Marketing and Strategic Management at Warwick Business
School, University of Warwick. He has previous experience at MARA Institute of Technology,
Malaysia, Loughborough University (UK) and De Montfort University (UK). He has a first
degree in Business from Indiana University (Bloomington, USA), an MBA from Cleveland State
University (USA) and PhD from Loughborough University. Dr Melewar teaches Marketing
Management and International Marketing on a range of undergraduate, MBA and executive
courses with organisations such as Nestle, Sony, Corus, Safeway, Rank Hovis McDougal (RHM),
ESC Grenoble (France) and Humboldt University (Berlin). His research interests include corporate
identity and international marketing strategy. He has published in the Journal of International Business
Studies, International Marketing Review, Journal of Global Marketing, International Journal of Advertising,
Corporate Reputation Review, Journal of Asia Pacific Business and the European Journal of Marketing among
others. He is the author/writer for the Instructor’s Resource Manual for Principles of Marketing; The
European Edition by Philip Kotler, Gary Armstrong, John Saunders and Veronica Wong. He has
written case studies available form European Case Clearing House and has presented research
papers worldwide.

APPENDIX 1: CONFUSION OF THE RELATED CONCEPTS

There are a number of concepts associated with corporate identity such as corporate personality,
image and reputation. These concepts are so closely linked that usually they are confused and
used interchangeably. Although it is not the purpose of this research to explain these related
concepts in detail and to establish the relationship between them, each of these will be defined
briefly for guidance.

Corporate personality
Corporate personality refers to the values held by personnel within the organization. It is defined
as the collective, commonly shared understanding of the organization’s distinctive values and
characteristics (Baker and Balmer, 1997; Cornelissen and Harris, 1999). Many authors regard
corporate personality as the sum total of the organization’s characteristics from which corporate
identity is generated (Bernstein, 1984; Birkight and Stadler, 1986; Abratt, 1989; Olins, 1989; Shee
and Abratt, 1989; Hutton, 1997; Cornelissen and Harris, 1999). Encompassing corporate philosophy,
214 MELEWAR

mission, vision, strategy and principles, corporate personality constitutes a main subset of corporate
identity.

Corporate image
Corporate image is the totality of stakeholders’ perceptions of the way an organization presents
itself, either deliberately or accidentally. It is the net result of the interaction of all the experiences,
beliefs, feelings, knowledge and impressions that each stakeholder has about an organization
(Spector, 1961; Bernstein, 1984; Topalian, 1984; Markwick and Fill, 1997). The conclusion derived
from these definitions is that corporate identity resides in the organization, whereas corporate
image resides in the heads of the stakeholders (Dowling, 1986; Van Rekom, 1997).

Corporate reputation
Although they mean different things the term ‘reputation’ is often used synonymously with image,
which causes confusion. Dowling (1994) stated that corporate image is the total impression an
entity makes, whereas corporate reputation is the evaluation or esteem in which an organization’s
image is held. Reputation is a reflection of the historical accumulated impacts of previously
observed identity cues and possible transactional experiences. Corporate image may be altered
relatively quickly as a result of organizational changes or communication programmes, whereas
corporate reputation requires nurturing through time and image consistency. Consequently,
reputation is more durable than image. It may represent a relatively consistent store of goodwill
and support in favourable cases (positive reputation) or distrust and avoidance in adverse situations
(negative reputation) (Markwick and Fill, 1997).
Corporate image always starts with an organization’s corporate identity because the organiza-
tion’s identity is perceived and interpreted by its stakeholders in terms of its image (Van Rekom,
1997). Therefore, the objective of corporate identity management in an organization is to acquire
a favourable corporate image amongst the key stakeholders so that, in the long run, it can result
in the acquisition of a favourable corporate reputation, which leads to key stakeholders having
a favourable disposition towards the organization.

Public relations
Public relations is the management of communication between an organization and its publics
(Hunt and Grunig, 1994). Many writers of public relations have stated that practitioners and
academics are often confused about the difference between public relations and other organi-
zational communications functions, in particular marketing (Kotler and Mindak, 1978; Kitchen
and Moss, 1995). An increasing number of articles have been presented in which marketing
communication and public relation practices are recognized as increasingly integrating and
converging concepts (Merims, 1972; Goldman, 1988; Novelli, 1988).

APPENDIX 2: THE SUB-CONSTRUCTS OF THE CORPORATE IDENTITY

CONSTRUCT
Corporate communication
(1) Controlled corporate communication.
(2) Management communication.
DETERMINANTS OF THE CORPORATE IDENTITY CONSTRUCT 215

(3) Marketing communication.

(4) Organizational communication.
(5) Uncontrolled communication.
(6) Indirect communication.

Corporate design
(1) Corporate visual identity system.
(2) Name.
(3) Slogan.
(4) Typography.
(5) Logo type and/or symbol.
(6) Colour.
(7) Applications of a corporate visual identity system.
(8) Product design.
(9) Environmental design.
(10) Building architecture.
(11) Interior design of the office building.
(12) Decoration.
(13) Landscape.
(14) Other applications of a corporate visual identity system.
(15) Stationery.
(16) Publications.
(17) Vehicles.
(18) Signs.
(19) Clothing.
(20) Forms.
(21) Advertising.
(22) Packaging.
(23) Promotion/give-aways.

Corporate culture
(1) Corporate philosophy.
(2) Corporate values.
(3) Corporate mission.
(4) Corporate principles.
(5) Corporate guidelines.
(6) Corporate history.
(7) Founder of the company.
(8) Country of origin.
(9) Subcultures.

Behaviour
(1) Corporate behaviour.
(2) Employee behaviour.
(3) Management behaviour.
216 MELEWAR

Corporate structure
(1) Brand structure.
(2) Organizational structure.

Industry identity
Corporate strategy
(1) Differentiation strategy.
(2) Positioning strategy.

APPENDIX 3: THE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATE IDENTITY GROUP’S

STATEMENT ON CORPORATE IDENTITY
The Strathclyde Statement
Every organization has an identity. It articulates the corporate ethos, aims and values and presents
a sense of individuality that can help in differentiating the organization within its competitive
environment. When well managed corporate identity can be a powerful means of integrating the
many disciplines and activities essential to an organization’s success. It can also provide the visual
cohesion necessary for ensuring that all corporate communications are coherent with each other
and result in an image consistent with the organization’s defining ethos and character. By man-
aging its corporate identity effectively an organization can build understanding and commitment
among its diverse stakeholders. This can be manifested in an ability to attract and retain custom-
ers and employees, achieve strategic alliances, gain the support of financial markets and generate
a sense of direction and purpose. Corporate identity is a strategic issue. Corporate identity differs
from traditional brand marketing since it is concerned with all of an organization’s stakeholders
and the multifaceted ways in which an organization communicates.
This is a revised version of the original statement, which was drafted on 17 and 18 February
1995 at Strachur, Argyll, UK (Van Riel and Balmer, 1997)

APPENDIX 4: QUESTIONS FOR WHICH CORPORATE IDENTITY ELEMENTS

HAVE THE ANSWERS
(1) Who is the company as an organization? The answer is hidden in culture (subcultures
and values), behaviour and corporate structure.
(2) What does the organization stand for? The answer is hidden in culture (mission, values
and philosophy).
(3) Why is the company there? The answer is hidden in culture (philosophy and mission)
and strategy.
(4) Where does the company come from? The answer is hidden in culture (history and founder).
(5) Where is the company going? The answer is hidden in strategy and culture (vision,
mission and philosophy).
(6) What is the company good at? The answer is hidden in differentiation (unique capabilities
and core competencies).
(7) What does the company make or sell? The answer is hidden in products and services.
(8) How does the company do the things it does? The answer is hidden in culture (principles
and guidelines), behaviour, strategy and corporate structure.
DETERMINANTS OF THE CORPORATE IDENTITY CONSTRUCT 217

(9) How is the company organized? The answer is hidden in corporate structure (organizational
structure).
(10) Where does the company make what it makes? The answer is hidden in industry identity.
(11) How does the company behave? The answer is hidden in corporate behaviour.
(12) How does the company explain what it is about? The answer is hidden in corporate
communication (controlled communication and uncontrolled communication), corporate
design, culture, behaviour, corporate structure and corporate strategy.

APPENDIX 5: DEFINITIONS OF THE SUB-CONSTRUCTS AND ITEMS

WITHIN THE CORPORATE IDENTITY CONSTRUCT
Corporate communication
Corporate communication
This is the aggregate of messages from both official and informal sources, through a variety of
media, by which a company conveys its identity to its multiple audiences or stakeholders (Gray
and Balmer, 1998).

Controlled corporate communication

This is the instrument of management by means of which all consciously used forms of internal
and external communication are harmonized effectively and efficiently in order to create a
favourable basis for relationships with the groups upon which the company is dependent
(Van Rekom, 1997).

Management communication
This is the process of communicating the vision and mission of a company defined by its
management in order to establish a favourable image and ultimately a good reputation amongst
its internal and external stakeholders (Olins, 1989).

Marketing communication
This is the forms of communication that support the sales of an organization’s goods or services
(Van Riel, 1995).

Organizational communication
This is all the forms of communication with stakeholder audiences with whom an organization
has an interdependent relationship (Van Riel, 1995).

Uncontrolled communication
This is the communication of an organization by sending signals that are not created deliberately
or consciously (Moingeon and Ramanantsoa, 1997).

Corporate design
Corporate design
This is a design system that is specific to a company that includes the visual style of all manifestations
and all the characteristic elements such as typographic style, colour and form (Schmidt, 1995).
218 MELEWAR

Corporate visual identity system

This is an assembly of visual cues by which an audience can recognize the company and distinguish
it from others (Bernstein, 1984).

Name
This is a word or phrase that constitutes the distinctive designation of a company (Dowling,
1994).

Slogan
This is a short sentence or statement that summarizes the mission, purpose or positioning of an
organization or the products and services offered by it (Baker and Balmer, 1997).

Typography
This is the style, size and arrangement of the letters in a piece of printing.

Logo type
This is a specific visual presentation of an organization’s name. It is sometimes used interchange-
ably with symbol, which actually means the sign or shape used for representing a company
(Henrion and Parkin, 1967).

Corporate culture
Corporate culture
This is the system of shared core values and beliefs of an organization that interacts with people,
organizational structure and systems in order to produce norms (Schein, 1992).

Corporate philosophy
This is the core values and assumptions that constitute the corporate culture, business mission
and values espoused by the management board or founder of the company (Abratt, 1989).

Corporate values
This is the dominant system of beliefs and moral principles that lie within the organization that
comprise everyday language, ideologies, rituals and beliefs of personnel (Campbell and Yeung,
1991).

Corporate mission

This is the company purpose, the reason for which a company exists or objectives (De Witt and
Meyer, 1998).

Corporate principles
This defines the mission, targets and values of a company and forms the basis of and standards
for all corporate actions (Schmidt, 1995).
DETERMINANTS OF THE CORPORATE IDENTITY CONSTRUCT 219

Corporate guidelines
This refers to the articulation and interpretation of corporate principles for individual areas of
business activity and functions to guide the behaviour of individuals in an organization (Fritz, 1999).

Founder of the company

This is the person who brought the company in to existence.

Country of origin
Country of origin imagery is the picture, reputation and the stereotype that consumers attach to
products of a specific country (Varey, 1999).

Subcultures
This refers to the different cultures belonging to different divisions or departments in an organization
(Van Maanen, 1991).

Behaviour
Behaviour
This refers to the nature of human interaction and conduct within them.

Corporate behaviour
This is the sum total of those actions resulting from the corporate attitudes that influence the
identity, either planned in line with the company culture or occurring by chance or arbitrarily
(Schmidt, 1995).

Employee behaviour
This refers to the attitude – way of acting – of the company personnel in their daily work
(Hatch and Schultz, 1997).

Management behaviour
This refers to the attitude – way of acting – of top management, which expresses the organization’s
central idea to the internal and external audiences (Hatch and Schultz, 1997).

Corporate structure
Brand structure
This is the part of corporate structure that is concerned with the branding of the products,
business units and the corporate umbrella and how they appear to an organization’s audience. It
is closely related to brand strategy, which refers to the way firms mix and match their corporate,
house and individual brand names on their products (Gray and Smeltzer, 1985).

Organizational structure
This is the established pattern of relationships between the component parts of an organization
outlining communication, control and authority patterns (Melewar and Saunders, 1998).
220 MELEWAR

Industry identity
Industry identity
This refers to the underlying economic and technical characteristics of an industry. Industry size,
growth patterns, rates of change, competitiveness and use of technology are some of the
elements of these characteristics (Olins, 1995).

Corporate strategy
Corporate strategy
This is the master plan of a company that circumscribes the company’s products and market
scope, its overall objectives and the policies through which it competes in its chosen markets
(Gray and Balmer, 1998).

Differentiation strategy
This is capitalizing on the inherent capabilities that define the organization in terms of its basic
identity (Simpson, 1988).

Positioning strategy
This is the process in which the company is assigned a clearly defined position, derived from its
self-perception, in order to differentiate it from the competition (Schmidt, 1995).