Journal of Brand Management

https://doi.org/10.1057/s41262-020-00219-1

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Internal branding: conceptualization from a literature review

and opportunities for future research
David Barros‑Arrieta1   · Ernesto García‑Cali2 

Revised: 31 January 2020 / Accepted: 4 November 2020

© Springer Nature Limited 2020

Abstract
Recently, internal branding has gained relevance in the marketing literature because researchers recognize that corporate
brand management not only implicates external actions but also an internal approach that involves employees. Despite the
growing interest, there is no consensus among authors about antecedents, dimensions, and outcomes of internal branding. In
this sense, this paper aims to explore the conceptualization of internal branding and to offer opportunities for future research.
The study is a systematic literature review that uses a specific database. The contributions of each article were extracted,
organized, and processed following systematic procedures. This review defines internal branding as a cross-functional pro-
cess that involves both marketing and human resource departments. It focuses on managing the brand internally through
brand-centered human resource management, internal brand communications, and brand leadership, with the aim of achiev-
ing brand outcomes among employees (brand understanding, brand identification, brand commitment, brand loyalty, brand
citizenship behaviors) so they can build brand equity in front of external stakeholders. Although a lack of consensus had been
established, the literature evidenced similarities that gave rise to the conceptualization proposed in this study. Nevertheless,
the discussion about internal branding is still open because there are several issues to investigate in this field.

Keywords  Internal branding · Brand management · Corporate brand · Brand equity · Literature review

Introduction employees as internal customers (Du Preez and Bendixen

In the business context of the twenty-first century, human
resources can represent a source of competitive advantage
for organizations. Several authors (Iyer et al. 2018; King
2010; Poulis and Wisker 2016; Ragheb et al. 2018) highlight
the importance of employees to generate differentiation in
an increasingly competitive environment. The importance of
employees for organizational success was recognized more
than 40 years ago when Berry highlighted the need to see
Electronic supplementary material  The online version of this
article (https​://doi.org/10.1057/s4126​2-020-00219​-1) contains
supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
* David Barros‑Arrieta
dbarros4@cuc.edu.co; davidbarros7@hotmail.com
Ernesto García‑Cali
egarciacali@gmail.com
1 From this internal orientation of brand management
Department of Business Sciences, Universidad de la Costa,
080002 Barranquilla, Colombia
2 as “a management tool for ensuring that employees have a
Barranquilla, Colombia
2015). Nowadays, employees are considered key actors
within organizations who contribute to achieving corporate
objectives and, in turn, to build brand equity (Punjaisri and
Wilson 2011).
Employees are the visible face of the organization, espe-
cially in service companies (Piehler et al. 2016; Schlager
et al. 2011). Therefore, their behaviors largely determine
brand experience for customers (Erkmen and Hancer 2015;
Karanges et al. 2018). It has been recognized that interac-
tions between employees and customers impact customer
satisfaction, customer loyalty, and finally, corporate brand
equity (Saleem and Iglesias 2016). In this sense, brand
management can not only focus on external stakeholders,
but also an internal orientation to make employees brand
promoters through their actions (Anisimova and Mavondo
2010). In other words, an effective corporate brand manage-
ment must balance both external and internal efforts (Aydon
2009; Foster et al. 2010; Hytti et al. 2015; Kang 2016).
emerges the concept of internal branding, which is defined

Vol.:(0123456789)

shared understanding of the desired corporate brand and that
they are able and willing to reflect this image to other stake-
holders through their behavior” (Ragheb et al. 2018, p.83).
Internal branding provides to employees a clear direction
to effectively deliver the meaning and values of the brand
to external customers (Dechawatanapaisal 2018; Sandbacka
et al. 2013).
Despite the growing relevance of this new approach in
brand management, traditionally external branding has
received greater interest from researchers and managers
(Devasagayam et al. 2010; Hytti et al. 2015; Kang 2016;
Wagner and Peters 2009). For this reason, some authors
(Punjaisri and Wilson 2011; Punjaisri et al. 2009a; Saleem
and Iglesias 2016) call for further investigation about inter-
nal branding because there are some inconsistencies about
its conceptualization and its implementation process. There
is no consensus among researchers about the definition of
internal branding (Du Preez and Bendixen 2015), and some-
times it is used interchangeably with related concepts such as
employer branding (King and Grace 2010; Saini and Jawahar
2019) or internal marketing (Boukis et al. 2017; Bailey et al.
2016). As Saleem and Iglesias (2016) said: “to date no single
definition of internal branding has been accepted, much less
so a conclusive view as to what makes internal branding suc-
cess” (p. 46). Thus, internal branding is still considered as a
developing subject that needs more theoretical and empirical
studies (King and Grace 2010; Piehler et al. 2018; Saleem
and Iglesias 2016).
Based on the above statements, this article aims to
explore the conceptualization of internal branding to offer
a conceptual framework. It also seeks to identify opportu-
nities for future research in this field. First, this literature
review presents the conceptualization of internal branding
through its antecedents, dimensions, and outcomes. Also,
the study proposes a conceptual model that summarizes the
conceptualization of internal branding. Then, some manage-
rial implications are presented, and the last section reveals
some guidelines for future research.
Method
The current study is a systematic literature review. It is
defined as a process that uses a structured approach to select
and analyze the literature published about a particular sub-
ject (Gregory and Denniss 2018). The main characteristic
of this research design is that it uses a rigorous and critical
process to review the literature, making it easier to under-
stand (Saleem and Iglesias 2016).
The process of finding documents about internal brand-
ing was effectuated in the Emerald Insight database,
considering articles published during the last 10 years
(2009–2019). Three search equations were used to find
D. Barros‑Arrieta, E. García‑Cali
the documents that would be included in this review.
The first search considered the articles that contained
the term “internal branding” in their title or abstract:
(content-type:article) AND (title:”internal branding” OR
(abstract:”internal branding”)). This first search showed
a result of 57 articles. The second search considered the
articles that simultaneously included the terms “internal
branding” and “internal marketing” due to some authors
(Du Preez et al. 2017; Iyer et al. 2018; Ragheb et al. 2018;
Sharma and Kamalanabhan 2012) establish a strong rela-
tionship between these both concepts. The search equation
“(content-type:article) AND (“internal branding” AND
(“internal marketing”))” showed a result of 118 docu-
ments. The third search considered the articles that inte-
grated the terms “internal branding” and “human resource
management” because several authors (Anselmsson et al.
2016; Bodkin et al. 2016; Chang et al. 2016; Dechawa-
tanapaisal 2018; Foster et al. 2010; Hofer and Grohs 2018;
Iglesias and Saleem 2015; Iyer et al. 2018; Kang 2016;
Punjaisri and Wilson 2011; Saleem and Iglesias 2016;
Uen et al. 2012) recognize the importance of the human
resource department for the internal branding process.
This last search equation “(content-type:article) AND
(“internal branding” AND (“human resource manage-
ment”))” showed a result of 164 articles.
The results of each search were organized in three lists
(IB, IB and IM, IB and HRM), identifying the following
information of each article: year of the publication, title,
authors, journal, category or quartile of the journal (based on
Scimago ranking https:​ //www.scimag​ ojr.com/), and abstract.
These lists showed a general panorama of the initial sample
(339 results), but then some inclusion and exclusion crite-
ria were applied to consider the most relevant information.
Firstly, it was established that all documents included in this
review must belong to journals rank in quartile Q1 or Q2 due
to these quartiles contain the most prestigious journals. This
criteria excluded eight documents from the first list (IB), 21
documents from the second one (IB and IM), and 36 docu-
ments from the third one (IB and HRM). Also, this phase
excluded one result in the first list (IB) and two results in the
second one (IB and IM) which were editorial records. The
next step was to read the abstracts to identify the relevance
of each paper for the aim of this study. This process excluded
those articles that were not directly related to the central
issue of this study: three documents were excluded from the
first list (IB), 42 documents were excluded from the second
one (IB and IM), and 56 documents were excluded from the
third one (IB and HRM). After applying all the inclusion
and exclusion criteria, the final sample for each list was:
46 documents for the first list (IB), 55 documents for the
second one (IB and IM), and 70 documents for the third one
(IB and HRM). By integrating the final result of the three
lists, a sample of 171 documents was obtained. However,
Internal branding: conceptualization from a literature review and opportunities for future…
many articles appeared simultaneously in the three lists so
that, when the information was consolidated, a final list of
76 documents was obtained.
The sample was complemented by the inclusion of six
articles from the special issue of the Journal of Brand Man-
agement dedicated to Internal Brand Management. This spe-
cial issue was included as an independent search because
it represents a relevant contribution to the theory of inter-
nal branding. The inclusion of these articles determined a
definitive sample of 82 documents, which were the basis for
developing this systematic literature review.
Then, this study used a matrix in Microsoft Excel to
organize the contributions extracted from each document.
The information extracted from each paper was the follow-
ing: year of publication, title, authors, methodology, contri-
butions of the document to the conceptualization of internal
branding, and opportunities for future research according to
authors. It is important to note that the contributions from
each paper were extracted considering different categories,
such as contributions to the definition, antecedents, dimen-
sions, and outcomes of internal branding. This process facili-
tated the treatment and interpretation of the information.
An initial approach to internal branding
Before developing the conceptualization of internal brand-
ing, it is necessary to understand some key ideas. Branding
or brand management is the process of administering and
promoting the brand through strategic marketing efforts in
order to achieve economic exchanges and expected benefits
(Aydon 2009). The use of brands dates back to 1500 BC
when greeks marked their cattle to differentiate it from the
rest. However, the first corporate brand initiatives date back
in 1931, promoted by Procter and Gamble, which started
using labels on their products to help consumers identify
them. After the Second World War, Ford and General
Motors got involved in advertising battles, which nowadays
occur in all industries as a way to educate people about the
distinctive qualities of their products and services (Whis-
man 2009).
In 1960 the American Marketing Association defined the
brand as the name, term, sign, symbol, or a combination of
them, used to identify or differentiate goods and/or services
from competitors (Skaalsvik and Olsen 2014); however, this
definition has evolved and now a brand involves multiple
emotional dimensions that impregnate qualities and char-
acteristics distinctive that are assimilated by the consumers
(Hytti et al. 2015; Sheikh and Lim 2015). A brand should not
be considered only as a name, term, design, or symbol, but is
also an intangible resource that builds value for companies
(Iyer et al. 2018). Currently, a brand is defined as the global
promise or proposition that a firm projects in comparison
with the experience that the brand delivers. (Aydon 2009).
The brand is a strategic resource that can become a dis-
tinctive sign of consistency and quality (Erkmen and Hancer
2015). Because of this, firms have focused their efforts on
building strong brands through brand management; how-
ever, traditionally brand initiatives have focused on exter-
nal stakeholders, but recently, the importance of internal
customers is recognized and also the need to promote the
brand internally (Devasagayam et al. 2010; Kang 2016;
Sheikh and Lim 2015). King and Grace (2012) state that
employees are particularly important in brand management
because they deliver the functional and emotional values of
the brand through their interactions with customers. Employ-
ees are essential for delivering the brand promise; therefore,
they strongly influence on what customers perceive about
the organization and the brand (Aydon 2009; Cheung et al.
2014; Du Preez and Bendixen 2019; Zhang et al. 2016).
Employees are considered as the service brand because they
play a key role in the personification of corporate identity
and the building of brand reputation through their behaviors
(Cheung et al. 2014; Helm et al. 2016; Ragheb et al. 2018).
If employees do not understand the brand, they will not be
able to deliver the brand promise promulgated to custom-
ers through external branding actions (Erkmen and Hancer
2015). The messages transmitted to employees about the
brand are as important as those sent to external customers
(Anisimova and Mavondo 2010; Pinar et al. 2016). When
employees internalize the meanings and values of the brand,
they will be able to deliver it to external customers (Punjaisri
et al. 2009b).
Based on the above context, internal branding emerges in
the marketing literature to promote the brand internally to
guarantee that employees properly deliver the brand prom-
ise to external stakeholders (Foster et al. 2010). Employ-
ees need to understand clearly the brand promise so that
they can deliver it (Dechawatanapaisal 2018; Murillo and
King 2019a). Thus, through internal brand management,
employees can acquire the skills and knowledge required to
represent the Brand (King and Grace 2010). When internal
branding efforts are implemented, employees can understand
the brand and, as a consequence, they develop attitudes in
favor of it (Anisimova and Mavondo 2010).
There is debate over the exact date internal branding first
appears in marketing literature. Du Preez and Bendixen
(2015) established that this concept appeared in the 70s
when the approach of internal marketing suggested see-
ing employees as internal customers. According to Ragheb
et al. (2018), during the 80s and 90s, companies began using
brand management practices, including strategies oriented to
employees, but they clarify that internal branding acquires
relevance in the late 90’s. On the other hand, Schmidt and
Baumgarth (2018) assured that this term was used for the

first time in 1999. Finally, Bodkin et al. (2016) affirm that
several articles were published in the middle of the 2000s
focusing on explaining internal branding and the reasons
why managers should implement this process in their
companies.
Although there is no consensus about the beginnings
of internal branding, this topic has gained greater interest
among academics and professionals in recent years, gen-
erating multiple research in various industries. However,
some authors (Hytti et  al. 2015; King and Grace 2010;
Piehler et al. 2018; Saleem and Iglesias 2016; Zhang, et al.
2016) recognize that internal branding is a developing sub-
ject, which needs more empirical and conceptual studies to
strengthen its theory.
Conceptualization of internal branding
Internal branding has emerged in the marketing literature as
a strategy to promote the brand within the organization to
ensure that employees adequately deliver the brand prom-
ise to external customers (Cheung et al. 2014; Sang and
Swinney 2012). Internal branding is considered a subset of
internal marketing due to its focus on the internal customer
(Du Preez et al. 2017; Iyer et al. 2018; Ragheb et al. 2018;
Sharma and Kamalanabhan 2012). Hofer and Grohs (2018)
affirm that internal marketing and internal branding look
similar because both concepts seek to positively influence
the beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors of employees toward the
firm. For this reason, Appel-Meulenbroek et al. (2010) stated
that both terms are used interchangeably in the marketing
literature. However, several studies on the subject (Bailey
et al. 2016; Boukis 2019; Boukis and Gounaris 2014; Boukis
et al. 2015; Huang and Rundle-Thiele 2015; Liu et al. 2019;
Mainardes et al. 2019; Schulz et al. 2017; Suleiman and
Mohammad 2011) establish that internal marketing repre-
sents the general vision of internal orientation. Its objec-
tive is to create value for internal customers (employees),
so that they get motivated, trained, and committed to deliver
an excellent service and to achieve marketing objectives.
Internal branding focuses on a specific aspect of marketing,
i.e., brand management among employees to build powerful
brands to external customers (Cheung et al. 2014; Ragheb
et al. 2018). Thus, although internal marketing and inter-
nal branding are two closely related concepts, there are dif-
ferences regarding the precision of their objectives. These
aspects must be considered to avoid the indiscriminate use of
both terms. Instead, internal marketing should be considered
as a facilitator of internal branding (Vella et al. 2009).
Employer branding is another concept that has been
confused with internal branding due to its orientation
toward employees (Foster et  al. 2010; Schlager et  al.
2011). However, Saleem and Iglesias (2016) clarify that
D. Barros‑Arrieta, E. García‑Cali
both terms should not be used interchangeably because
employer branding aims to make the firm an attractive
place to work for potential employees, while internal
branding focuses on promoting the brand among cur-
rent employees to motivate them to successfully deliver
the brand to external stakeholders. But it is necessary to
recognize that both concepts are related because Hoppe
(2018) empirically demonstrated that internal branding
is an antecedent of employer branding. Some researchers
(Du Preez and Bendixen 2015; Punjaisri and Wilson 2011;
Saleem and Iglesias 2016) agree that the confusion about
internal branding is since there is no unified definition.
However, over time a significant number of definitions
have been generated, which opens up the possibility of
formulating a unified definition. Table 1 shows some of the
most relevant definitions identified in this review.
In the previous definitions, it is possible to identify
different perspectives about internal branding; however,
there are some common aspects among authors. Firstly, it
is clear that internal branding consists of an internal ori-
entation of the brand, centered on employees. It seeks to
promote the brand among employees so that they exhibit
positive attitudes and behaviors to the brand. The defini-
tions highlight the importance of employees in brand per-
formance, even they are invited to become brand ambas-
sadors (Bodkin et al. 2016; Quaratino and Mazzei 2018;
Schmidt and Baumgarth 2018). For this reason, internal
branding focuses on aligning employees with brand val-
ues to create a workforce committed to deliver what the
brand promises. Secondly, it is possible to identify that
although internal branding is focused within the organi-
zation (employees), its ultimate purpose is to generate a
positive impact on the brand externally. Most of the defini-
tions evidence that internal branding seeks to ensure that
employees correctly deliver the brand promise to exter-
nal customers. It attempts that attitudes and behaviors of
employees are consistent with brand values and, in con-
sequence, customers perceive a positive brand experience
during the service. And, thirdly, the definitions show that
one of the main objectives of internal branding is to create
synergy between external and internal brand messages.
Some authors (Anisimova and Mavondo 2010; Dechawa-
tanapaisal 2018; Helm et al. 2016; Pinar et al. 2016; Pun-
jaisri et al. 2009b) recommend maintaining consistency
between internal and external brand messages. Therefore,
it is necessary to align the employee behaviors to brand
values to make them correctly deliver the brand promise.
Thus, the initial discussion defines internal branding
as an internal orientation of brand management and its
objective is to promote the brand internally to ensure
that employees are willing to deliver the brand promise
to external stakeholders, creating consistency between
internal and external brand messages.
Internal branding: conceptualization from a literature review and opportunities for future…
Table 1  Definitions of internal branding
References
Punjaisri et al. (2009b)
Ghose (2009)
Whisman (2009)
Foster et al. (2010)
Punjaisri and Wilson (2011)
King and Grace (2012)
Chang et al. (2012)
Sharma and Kamalanabhan (2012) Internal branding is a result of employer’s internal communication effort to develop a workforce that is com-
Sang and Swinney (2012)
Cheung et al. (2014)
Du Preez and Bendixen (2015)
Saleem and Iglesias (2016)
Pinar et al. (2016)
Bodkin et al. (2016)
Du Preez et al. (2017)
Ragheb et al. (2018)
Dechawatanapaisal (2018)
Anees-ur-Rehman et al. (2018) Internal branding can be used as an important tool to align firm’s brand values with those of employees
Hoppe (2018)
Hasni et al. (2018)
Iyer et al. (2018)
Definition
Internal branding aims at inducing employees’ behavioral changes to support the delivery of the brand
promise
Internal branding consists of motivation level of the employees to serve the brand vision along with
resource support by the organization to ensure the brand vision
Internal branding is a formal program of engaging internal constituents in a dialogue about the brand devel-
opment process
Internal branding focuses largely on the adoption of the branding concept inside an organization to ensure
that employees deliver the brand promise to the external stakeholders
Internal branding is about ensuring that the brand promise will be transformed by employees into reality,
reflecting the espoused brand values that set customers’ expectations
Internal brand management seeks to internalize the brand so that employees are better equipped to fulfill the
explicit and implicit promises inherent in the brand
Internal branding is regarded as the process of promoting the brand to employees, educating them what the
brand value is, and then making employees’ perception and behaviors transformed. During the process, if
the employees’ needs are satisfied through the exchange relations, the employees can result in better brand
attitude, brand psychological ownership and altruistic behavior, thus contribute to customer satisfaction
mitted, loyal and identifies with the set of organizational values and goals
Internal branding is defined as aligning employees’ disparate attitudes and beliefs toward an organization’s
brand value to earn commitment (employee buy-in) toward the organization. The main purpose of internal
branding is to ensure all employees of an organization have congruent attitudes toward the brand values
and are committed to delivering these values to customers
Internal branding is about ensuring that employees transform the brand promise into reality, which helps
to meet customers’ expectations through the espoused brand values. It is a means to create a powerful
corporate brand, and is an enabler of an organization’s success by delivering the brand promise to meet
customers’ brand expectations
Internal brand management strives to deliver staff who are “living the brand” values, delivering an on-brand
experience; resulting in customers being well served. This process focuses on the internal development,
strengthening and maintenance of a firm’s brand
Internal branding is a process through which brands aim to facilitate the internalization of brand values by
employees, so that employee behavior aligns with these brand values when delivering the brand promise
Internal branding involves training service delivery personnel on the brand promise and brand strategy in
order for them to provide customers with the desired brand experience (enabling the brand promise).
Internal branding consists of marketing directed toward internal employees to make them brand ambassa-
dors, developing attitudes and behaviors in favor of the brand
Internal branding activities seek to promote the brand for the purpose of ensuring that its internal stakehold-
ers (i.e., employees) accept the value that the brand represents and transform it into reality when serving
customers
Internal branding is considered a tool for ensuring that employees have a shared understanding of the
desired corporate brand image and that they are able and willing to reflect this image to other stakeholders
through their own behavior
Internal branding involves activities that help employees comprehend and buy into brand values, and
facilitate them to perform the roles as advocated by the management with a goal of keeping consistency
between internal and external brand message
Internal branding efforts aim to strengthen the corporate brand, e.g., by facilitating brand-supportive behav-
iors from employees
Internal branding empowers a company to fulfill its brand promise to its consumers through employees
Internal branding is an extension of the internal marketing approach that focuses on developing symbolic
ties between employees and brands. Involves developing the human capital through training, seminars, and
communication for brand management

Antecedents of internal branding
The antecedents of internal branding have not been dis-
cussed extensively in the literature. Most of the research
about internal branding has focused on studying its compo-
nents and outcomes, but it is also necessary to analyze what
factors facilitate the implementation of internal branding.
This review identified that brand orientation and internal
market orientation (IMO) are two crucial organizational
antecedents for internal branding because they both create
favorable conditions for its implementation process.
Brand orientation is defined by Urde (1994) as “an
approach in which the processes of the organization revolve
around the creation, development and protection of brand
identity in an ongoing interaction with target customers
with the aim of achieving lasting competitive advantages
in the form of brands” (cited by Zhang et al. 2016, p.85). In
other words, brand orientation is the degree to which a firm
catalog the brand and brand management as a critical factor
to their success. Brand-oriented organizations do not only
expect to fulfill customer needs but also to build a strategic
meaning to their brands (Zhang et al. 2016). If an organiza-
tion is a brand-oriented firm, its managers will be willing
to contribute efforts and resources to promote the brand
internally because they recognize the positive implications
in the long term (Iyer et al. 2018). Thus, it will be easier to
implement internal branding in brand-oriented organizations
than those that are not.
On the other hand, internal market orientation (IMO)
was also identified as a key antecedent of internal brand-
ing because it improves perceptions of employees about
the brand (Boukis et al. 2017). IMO represents the multi-
dimensional version of internal marketing. It is defined as
management behaviors that lead firms to create value for
employees through the identification and satisfaction of their
needs, motivating them to support the marketing objectives
(Boukis 2019; Liu et al. 2019). Organizations that adopt
IMO consider their employees as fundamental actors to busi-
ness success, thus they attempt to create value to employees
through different strategies (Boukis and Gounaris 2014). In
this sense, IMO is shown as a facilitator of internal branding
because internal orientation motivates managers to execute
strategies for employees (Boukis et al. 2017).
On the other hand, the literature review leads to iden-
tify that internal branding is a cross-functional process that
involves simultaneous efforts from marketing and human
resources departments (Anselmsson et al. 2016; Bodkin
et al. 2016; Dechawatanapaisal 2018; Foster et al. 2010;
Hofer and Grohs 2018; Iglesias and Saleem 2015; Iyer
et al. 2018; Kang 2016; Punjaisri and Wilson 2011; Saleem
and Iglesias 2016; Uen et al. 2012). The cross-functional
effort between these two departments is not an antecedent
of internal branding, but in practical terms, it is a necessary
D. Barros‑Arrieta, E. García‑Cali
condition for the implementation process. The marketing
department manages symbolic and experimental aspects of
the brand, communication about the brand values, and all
the experiences that employees live with the brand (Bodkin
et al. 2016). The human resources department is responsible
for recruit employees according to brand values, training
about the brand, and motivate employees to deliver the brand
promise (Anselmsson et al. 2016). In this sense, the bar-
riers between marketing and human resource management
must be shot down to create new roles and mutually design
brand experiences for employees (Dechawatanapaisal 2018).
This process implies avoiding the old paradigm that internal
branding is the sole responsibility of the marketing area, in
terms of internal communications (Punjaisri et al. 2009b),
since some processes and structures of internal branding fall
within the domain of human resource management.
Dimensions of internal branding
Just as the definition of internal branding has not been
clearly defined, its dimensions also need to be clarified.
During this review, different components were identified
according to authors. For example, Punjaisri et al. (2009a, b)
state that internal branding involves internal communication
from the marketing department to share information about
the brand and training programs from the human resource
department to improve employee brand knowledge. In the
same vein, others authors (Bravo et al. 2017; Gammoh et al.
2018; Hofer and Grohs 2018; Iyer et al. 2018; Zhang et al.
2016) express that internal communication and training
programs are the main dimensions of internal branding. On
the other hand, Xie et al. (2016) ensure that job participa-
tion is an important component to promote the brand among
employees through effective communication between lead-
ers and employees that facilitates the appropriation of brand
values within firms. The authors also highlight the role of
leaders in internal brand management due to they are respon-
sible for motivating employees to acquire behaviors aligned
with brand values.
A significant contribution to this issue was made by Sal-
eem and Iglesias (2016), who identified five dimensions of
internal branding in their literature review: (1) brand ide-
ologies that refer to incorporate the mission, vision, objec-
tives, norms, and values into the corporate brand promise;
(2) brand leadership that involves the efforts of leaders and
employees to dissemination brand ideologies; (3) brand-
centered human resource management consisting of recruit-
ing, selecting, compensating and training employees using
structures that promote brand values; (4) internal brand com-
munication to communicate the brand message within the
organization; and (5) internal brand communities which are
physical or virtual communities that encourage brand iden-
tification among employees.
Internal branding: conceptualization from a literature review and opportunities for future…

Table 2  Dimensions of internal branding identified by authors

Dimension Author(s)

Internal brand communications
Branding training programs
Brand-oriented recruitment
Brand rewards systems
Brand leadership
Brand-based performance evaluation Chiang et al. (2018), Coleman et al. (2015), Iglesias and Saleem (2015), Lee et al. (2019), Piehler (2018),
External brand communications
Internal brand communities
Brand ideologies
Brand ambassador programs
Brand promotional products
Sponsorship
Anees-ur-Rehman et al. (2018), Anisimova and Mavondo (2010), Biedenbach and Manzhynski (2016),
Bodkin et al. (2016), Bravo et al. (2017), Cheung et al. (2014), Coleman et al. (2015), Dechawatana-
paisal (2018), Du Preez et al. (2017), Foster et al. (2010), Hasni et al. (2018), Hofer and Grohs (2018),
Hoppe (2017), Iglesias and Saleem (2015), Iyer et al. (2018), Kang (2016), Karanges et al. (2018), King
(2010), King and Grace (2010, 2012), Murillo and King (2019a, b), Piehler (2018), Piehler et al. (2016),
Punjaisri et al. (2009a, b), Punjaisri and Wilson (2011), Quaratino and Mazzei (2018), Ragheb et al.
(2018), Saleem and Iglesias (2016), Sang and Swinney (2012), Sharma and Kamalanabhan (2012), Uen
et al. (2012), Zhang et al. (2016)
Anees-ur-Rehman et al. (2018), Bodkin et al. (2016), Bravo et al. (2017), Chang et al. (2012), Cheung
et al. (2014), Chiang et al. (2018), Coleman et al. (2015), Dechawatanapaisal (2018), Du Preez and
Bendixen (2015), Du Preez et al. (2017), Foster et al. (2010), Gammoh et al. (2018), Hasni et al. (2018),
Helm et al. (2016), Hofer and Grohs (2018), Iglesias and Saleem (2015), Iyer et al. (2018), Kang (2016),
Karatepe (2015), Murillo and King (2019a, b), Piehler (2018), Piehler et al. (2016), Pinar et al. (2016),
Poulis and Wisker (2016), Punjaisri et al. (2009a, b), Punjaisri and Wilson (2011), Quaratino and
Mazzei (2018), Ragheb et al. (2018), Saleem and Iglesias (2016), Sandbacka et al. (2013), Skaalsvik and
Olsen (2014), Xie et al. (2016), Zhang et al. (2016)
Anees-ur-Rehman et al. (2018), Chang et al. (2012), Coleman et al. (2015), Chiang et al. (2018), Du
Preez and Bendixen (2015), Du Preez et al. (2017), Foster et al. (2010), Helm et al. (2016), Iglesias and
Saleem (2015), Kang (2016), King and Grace (2012), Lee et al. (2019), Murillo and King (2019a, b),
Piehler (2018), Piehler et al. (2016), Pinar et al. (2016), Poulis and Wisker (2016), Saleem and Iglesias
(2016)
Anselmsson et al. (2016), Chiang et al. (2018), Dechawatanapaisal (2018), Devasagayam et al. (2010), Du
Preez et al. (2017), Iglesias and Saleem (2015), Karatepe (2015), Piehler (2018), Piehler et al. (2016),
Pinar et al. (2016), Punjaisri and Wilson (2011), Ragheb et al. (2018), Saleem and Iglesias (2016)
Boukis et al. (2017), Dechawatanapaisal (2018), Du Preez and Bendixen (2015), Du Preez et al. (2017),
Lee et al. (2019), Murillo and King (2019a), Piehler (2018), Piehler et al. (2016), Ruediger et al. (2012),
Saleem and Iglesias (2016), Uen et al. (2012), Xie et al. (2016)
Quaratino and Mazzei (2018), Ragheb et al. (2018)
Bravo et al. (2017), Hofer and Grohs (2018), Piehler (2018), Piehler et al. (2016)
Devasagayam et al. (2010), Saleem and Iglesias (2016)
Du Preez and Bendixen (2015), Saleem and Iglesias (2016)
Schmidt and Baumgarth (2018)
Bodkin et al. (2016)
Hofer and Grohs (2018)

The above discussion reveals that there is no consensus
about the dimensions of internal branding. For this reason,
it is necessary to identify the main components according
to the literature. Table 2 shows the dimensions identified in
this review.
The information presented in Table 2 determines that
internal brand communications, branding training pro-
grams, brand-oriented recruitment, brand rewards sys-
tems, brand leadership, and brand-based performance
evaluation are the most important dimensions of inter-
nal branding. Within these dimensions, the recruitment,
training, and compensation activities are functions from
the human resources department; therefore, they could be
integrated into the main dimension named brand-centered
human resource management, which was cited by several
authors (Chang et al. 2012; Chiang et al. 2018; Du Preez
et al. 2017; Foster et al. 2010; Helm et al. 2016; King
and Grace 2010; Piehler 2018; Piehler et al. 2016; Saleem
and Iglesias 2016). Thus, the main dimensions of internal
branding proposed in this research are the follows: brand-
centered human resources management (brand-oriented
recruitment, branding training programs, brand rewards
systems, and brand-based performance evaluation), inter-
nal brand communications, and brand leadership.
Other dimensions identified in the literature, such as
internal brand communities, brand ideologies, brand
ambassador programs, brand promotional products,
and sponsorship, need further empirical studies to be
considered principal dimensions of internal branding.
External brand communications were identified in the
literature review for their influence on what employees
perceive about the brand (Hofer and Grohs 2018). How-
ever, these actions should not be considered as a dimen-
sion of internal branding because their target audience is
not employees, but external stakeholders. Based on Sal-
eem and Iglesias (2016), external brand communications

should be considered as a support within internal brand
communications.
During the review, it was possible to identify other
components, but they could be included within the dimen-
sions already identified. For example, Hasni et al. (2018)
and King (2010) identified role clarity as a dimension of
internal branding. They define it as the clarity that employ-
ees have about their functions thanks to brand knowledge;
however, role clarity could be distinguished as a result of
branding training programs because this dimension aims to
improve brand knowledge and abilities that employees need
to develop their functions according to their roles and brand
values (Bravo et al. 2017; Cheung et al. 2014; Gammoh et al.
2018).
Organizational socialization and positive relationship
orientation were other components identified by King and
Grace (2012). Organizational socialization implies support-
ing employees to acquire the skills, knowledge, and under-
standing necessary to fulfill their duties and responsibilities,
but these actions could be included within branding train-
ing programs and internal brand communications because
both seek the same consequences (Dechawatanapaisal 2018;
Zhang et al. 2016). On the other hand, positive relationship
orientation is defined as the positive behaviors that employ-
ees receive from the organization (respect, cooperation,
communication, trust), establishing a reciprocal relation-
ship between both, however, Punjaisri and Wilson (2011)
ensure that these elements are part of the work environment
that influence employee brand behaviors, but they are not a
dimension of internal branding.
To conclude the analysis of the dimensions of internal
branding, the following paragraph to describe the main
dimensions identified in this literature review (brand-cen-
tered human resources management, internal brand com-
munications, and brand leadership).
Brand‑centered human resources management
The human resources department becomes a key actor
within the internal branding process (Chang et al. 2012;
Chiang et al. 2018; Piehler 2018). Human resources man-
agement impacts on how employees interact with customers,
which in turn influences their perceptions about the Brand
(Anselmsson et al. 2016; App and Büttgen 2016; Chang
et al. 2016; Vella et al. 2009). The reason is that “many
processes and structures that fall under the domain of human
resources management are essential in aligning employee
behavior with brand values” (Saleem and Iglesias 2016,
p.49).
In the context of internal branding, recruitment, training,
rewards, and evaluation processes are considered crucial to
align employees with brand values (Anselmsson et al. 2016;
Chiang et al. 2018; Devasagayam et al. 2010; Du Preez et al.
D. Barros‑Arrieta, E. García‑Cali
2017; Piehler 2018; Piehler et al. 2016; Saleem and Iglesias
2016). All these functions are included in the dimension
named brand-centered human resources management, which
is defined as “the human resources practices that make
employees produce positive attitude and behaviors toward
the brands of the firm” (Chang et al. 2012, p.629).
The recruitment process is the starting point of inter-
nal branding, thus organizations are invited to select peo-
ple whose values are according to brand values (Saleem
and Iglesias 2016). Firms need to attract applicants with a
strong organizational fit (Helm et al. 2016; Murillo and King
2019b) because they probably will exhibit better attitudes
and behavior toward the brand (Piehler et al. 2016). In this
sense, human resources managers must design recruitment
structures to select those candidates suitable for the brand
values (King and Grace 2012).
Training programs are cataloged as a central component
of internal branding (Zhang et al. 2016) because they train
and educate employees on how to promulgate brand val-
ues proposed in the brand promise (Punjaisri and Wilson
2011). These programs allow employees to appreciate the
basic notions of the brand and understand how their behav-
ior affects brand equity (Poulis and Wisker 2016). Piehler
(2018) suggests that events, training sessions, coaching and
mentoring can be implemented as branding training tools.
Brand rewards systems were also highlighted as an
important factor within internal branding management (Igle-
sias and Saleem 2015; Piehler 2018; Punjaisri and Wilson
2011). Rewarding employees for their behavior toward the
brand positively affects in delivering the brand promise to
external customers (Saleem and Iglesias 2016). Likewise,
these practices help to maintain brand standards by promot-
ing attitudes consistent with brand values (Ragheb et al.
2018). According to Foster et al. (2010), rewards systems
support training processes because employees proactively
internalize important aspects related to the brand. Hence, it
is necessary to offer incentives for employees to strengthen
the brand and to achieve corporate objectives (Anselmsson
et al. 2016; Dechawatanapaisal 2018).
And finally, the human resources department must estab-
lish evaluation systems to monitor employee brand perfor-
mance to correct the failures timely (Quaratino and Mazzei
2018). According to Chiang et al. (2018), brand-based per-
formance evaluation should assess if employees display
brand-related traits and attitudes (i.e., agreeableness, service
orientation), behaviors (i.e., customer-oriented behaviors,
helping others, team spirit), and those aspects related to per-
formance (i.e., customer satisfaction, profitability). Further-
more, Lee et al. (2019) add that brand-based performance
evaluation should be applied for leaders in terms of execu-
tive competence, brand communication skills, interpersonal
relationships, and leadership through comments from them-
selves, subordinates, superiors, and colleagues.
Internal branding: conceptualization from a literature review and opportunities for future…
Internal brand communications
Internal brand communications were the most mentioned
dimension by authors. It is considered a key mechanism of
internal branding (Sang and Swinney 2012), and its func-
tion is to transmit to employees a clear idea about the brand
(Punjaisri et al. 2009a), improving their understanding and
knowledge about the role they play in delivering the brand
promise (Punjaisri and Wilson 2011). Sharma and Kama-
lanabhan (2012) state that internal brand communications
induce brand identification of employees and promote a
sense of unity over brand values. In addition, Biedenbach
and Manzhynski (2016) ensure that good internal commu-
nications management facilitate the positive employees’ per-
ceptions about the firm, which in turn increases their level
of organizational commitment.
Anees-ur-Rehman et al. (2018) stated that an effective
internal brand management depends on a strategic design
of internal brand communications through written messages
and verbal and non-verbal signals that facilitate the under-
standing of the brand. Within the internal branding litera-
ture, specific internal communications techniques have been
proposed, such as daily briefing, newsletters, corporate web-
sites, groups meetings, brand manuals, notice boards, cor-
porate videos, corporate magazines and brochures (Cheung
et al. 2014; Dechawatanapaisal 2018; Du Preez et al. 2017;
Hasni et al. 2018; Hoppe 2017; Punjaisri et al. 2009a). Addi-
tionally, Piehler et al. (2016) and Piehler (2018) recognize
these techniques are effective for communicating relevant
information about the brand, but they also emphasize the
need to promote constant and fluid communication from
managers to employees and vice versa.
On the other hand, it is necessary to affirm that internal
brand communications must be supported by external brand
communications to create congruence between internal and
external brand messages (Pinar et al. 2016; Hofer and Grohs
2018). About this issue, Anees-ur-Rehman et al. (2018,
p.305) express that “brand communication is essentially a
communicative interaction process between employees, cus-
tomers, and stakeholders in the co-creation of brand experi-
ence”. For this reason, Saleem and Iglesias (2016) express
that employees receive information about the brand from
different sources, formal and informal, at an internal and
external level. In this regard, it is clear that brand messages
that employees receive come from different sources, how-
ever, messages transmitted within the organization constitute
the main source for employees to understand and internalize
all the information about the Brand (Bravo et al. 2017).
Brand leadership
All internal branding efforts would be in vain if organi-
zations did not have leaders who motivate employees to
translate brand values in reality (Dechawatanapaisal 2018).
Leaders are key actors in developing an organizational brand
climate and motivating their team to engage with the Brand
(Ruediger et al. 2012). Managers are called to be leaders to
guide their employees to achieve brand objectives (Poulis
and Wisker 2016). Though, any member of the organiza-
tion can become a brand leader who can motivate others to
exhibit behaviors toward the brand (Du Preez et al. 2017).
In this sense, Saleem and Iglesias (2016) affirm that brand
leadership implies the existence of people within firms who
act as transformational leaders that promote brand ideology
and facilitate Brand understanding.
Du Preez et al. (2017) ensure that the role of brand leaders
is to make employees internalize the brand as part of their
identity. Leaders must strive to influence employees through
internalizing brand values to motivate them to exhibit brand
behaviors in-role and extra-role (Lee et al. 2019). Besides,
leaders must identify and understand how employees receive
information about the brand to ensure that all messages are
consistent with the brand image (Boukis et al. 2017). Thus,
leaders should promote the brand within the organization
under a unique message that guides employees to exhibit
brand behaviors.
The positive impact of brand leadership on the internal
branding process can be confirmed by Xie et al. (2016), who
found that leadership is positively related to employee brand
building behavior, which in turn generates favorable cus-
tomer perceptions about the brand. Uen et al. (2012) also
empirically demonstrated that transformational leadership
positively influences the development of brand organiza-
tional climate and employee brand behavior. If employees
know and understand the brand, their daily functions will
be able to “live the brand” to external customers and also
to promote brand leadership at all levels in the organization
(Du Preez and Bendixen 2015).
Outcomes of internal branding
The review of the concept and dimensions of internal brand-
ing revealed that it generates positive outcomes for firms.
Some authors (Aydon 2009; Biedenbach and Manzhynski
2016; Helm et al. 2016) refers to purely internal benefits,
especially for employees; but other authors (Cheung et al.
2014; Coleman et al. 2015; Erkmen and Hancer 2015; Poulis
and Wisker 2016; Sang and Swinney 2012) recognize inter-
nal benefits, but they emphasize that the ultimate outcomes
are projected to external sector, specifically to customer sat-
isfaction and building of brand equity.
Punjaisri et al. (2009b) consider that internal branding has
a positive impact on the attitude and behavior of employee
to deliver the brand promise. Their findings demonstrated
that internal branding positively influences brand identifi-
cation, brand engagement, and brand loyalty in employees.
 D. Barros‑Arrieta, E. García‑Cali

These findings were also supported by Dechawatanapaisal
(2018), who provided empirical evidence confirming that
internal branding promotes brand identification and brand
commitment. On the other hand, Du Preez et al. (2017)
showed in their study that internal branding not only influ-
ences brand commitment and brand citizenship behaviors,
but also job satisfaction and intention to stay in the organiza-
tion. Brand citizenship behavior is also supported by Piehler
et al. (2016), who also identified brand understanding, brand
identification, and brand commitment as outcomes of inter-
nal branding.
From another perspective, Hasni et al. (2018) affirm that
internal branding contributes to deliver the brand promise
by employees, generating a positive impact on-brand equity.
Their statistical findings confirm that internal branding
plays a crucial role in creating customer-based brand equity
because if employees have the skills and motivation they
need to deliver the brand promise, they can fulfill the expec-
tations of customers, which in turn increases brand equity.
Similarly, Punjaisri and Wilson (2011) state that internal
branding impacts directly on employees’ ability to deliver
the brand promise, and as a result, they improve their brand
performance. They also add that personal variables such as
age, educational background, and length of service, influ-
ence how internal branding impacts on employees.
The above paragraphs evidenced that there is also a dis-
cussion about the outcomes of internal branding. Table 3
shows the outcomes identified in this literature review.
According to the information presented in Table 3, it is
noted that brand commitment, brand citizenship behaviors,
brand identification, brand equity, and brand loyalty, are the
main outcomes of internal branding. Brand knowledge was
identified as an important consequence of internal brand-
ing; however, Piehler (2018) ensures that brand knowledge
is part of a multidimensional concept named brand under-
standing, which also includes other components that must
be considered within the outcomes of internal branding. For
this reason, this review will consider brand understanding
instead of brand knowledge. Job satisfaction was also identi-
fied as a consequence of internal branding; however, some
authors (Cheung et al. 2014; Du Preez et al. 2017; Iyer et al.
2018; Saleem and Iglesias 2016) consider it as a secondary
positive effect of internal brand management because the
main focus of internal branding is not employee satisfaction,
but brand-related outcomes among employees. On the other
hand, intention to stay was also identified as a consequence
of internal branding; however, this benefit can be considered
as brand loyalty.
In summary, the principal outcomes of internal branding
identified in this literature review are brand understanding,

Table 3  Outcomes of internal branding identified by authors

Outcome References

Brand commitment
Brand citizenship behaviors
Brand identification
Brand equity
Brand loyalty
Brand knowledge
Job satisfaction
Intention to stay
Biedenbach and Manzhynski (2016), Bodkin et al. (2016), Chang et al. (2012), Cheung et al. (2014), Chiang et al.
(2018), Dechawatanapaisal (2018), Du Preez et al. (2017), Du Preez and Bendixen (2015, 2019), Gammoh et al.
(2018), Hoppe (2017), Iyer et al. (2018), Kimpakorn and Tocquer (2010), Murillo and King (2019a), Ngo et al.
(2019), Park et al. (2019), Piehler (2018), Piehler et al. (2016), Punjaisri et al. (2009a, b), Punjaisri and Wilson
(2011), Ragheb et al. (2018), Saleem and Iglesias (2016), Sang and Swinney (2012), Skaalsvik and Olsen
(2014), Watson et al. (2018)
Aydon (2009), Bodkin et al. (2016), Boukis et al. (2017), Bravo et al. (2017), Chang et al. (2012), Cheung et al.
(2014), Chiang et al. (2018), Dechawatanapaisal (2018), Du Preez and Bendixen (2019), Erkmen and Hancer
(2015), Gammoh et al. (2018), Helm et al. (2016), Hoppe (2017), Iyer et al. (2018), Kang (2016), Karanges et al.
(2018), Murillo and King (2019a, b), Ngo et al. (2019), Piehler (2018), Piehler et al. (2016), Poulis and Wisker
(2016), Punjaisri et al. (2009b), Quaratino and Mazzei (2018), Ragheb et al. (2018), Ruediger et al. (2012),
Saleem and Iglesias (2016)
Bodkin et al. (2016), Boukis et al. (2017), Bravo et al. (2017), Dechawatanapaisal (2018), Gammoh et al. (2018),
Helm et al. (2016), Iyer et al. (2018), Murillo and King (2019a), Piehler et al. (2016), Punjaisri et al. (2009a, b),
Punjaisri and Wilson (2011), Saleem and Iglesias (2016), Sang and Swinney (2012), Whisman (2009)
Anees-ur-Rehman et al. (2018), Cheung et al. (2014), Chang et al. (2012), Du Preez et al. (2017), Erkmen and
Hancer (2015), Hasni et al. (2018), Iyer et al. (2018), Kang (2016), Karanges et al. (2018), Poulis and Wisker
(2016), Quaratino and Mazzei (2018), Saini and Jawahar (2019), Sang and Swinney (2012), Zhang et al. (2016)
Bodkin et al. (2016), Du Preez and Bendixen (2015), Hasni et al. (2018), Punjaisri et al. (2009a), Poulis and
Wisker (2016), Punjaisri et al. (2009b), Punjaisri and Wilson (2011), Quaratino and Mazzei (2018), Sang and
Swinney (2012), Skaalsvik and Olsen (2014)
Anees-ur-Rehman et al. (2018), Biedenbach and Manzhynski (2016), Boukis et al. (2017), Cheung et al. (2014),
Murillo and King (2019a), Ngo et al. (2019), Piehler et al. (2016)
Cheung et al. (2014), Du Preez et al. (2017), Du Preez and Bendixen (2015, 2019), Gammoh et al. (2018), Iyer
et al. (2018), Saleem and Iglesias (2016)
Dechawatanapaisal (2018), Du Preez et al. (2017), Karatepe (2015), Ragheb et al. (2018), Saleem and Iglesias
(2016), Watson et al. (2018)
Internal branding: conceptualization from a literature review and opportunities for future…

brand identification, brand commitment, brand loyalty, brand
citizenship behaviors, and brand equity. Each of these results
will be defined below.
Brand understanding
Brand understanding is defined as “employees’ comprehen-
sion of brand-related information” (Piehler et al. 2016, p.
1580). This concept has been used interchangeably with
other terms such as brand knowledge, internal brand knowl-
edge, corporate brand knowledge, or knowledge of desired
brand image (Murillo and King 2019a). However, Piehler
(2018) ensures that brand understanding is a multidimen-
sional concept that should not be limited only to brand
knowledge. The author expresses that brand understanding
include four dimensions: (1) brand relevance (employees
understand that the brand is important to the organization’s
success); (2) behavior relevance (employees understand that
they contribute, through their behavior, to the brand’s suc-
cess); (3) brand knowledge (employees are informed about
the brand and they know what it represents); and (4) brand
confidence (employees can translate abstract brand identi-
ties and brand promises into specific, brand strengthening
behaviors in their daily work).
Murillo and King (2019a) state that brand understand-
ing is achieved when employees appropriate explicit knowl-
edge such as mission, vision, brand values, among others,
but also tacit knowledge when employees engage with the
brand from their personal beliefs. If employees understand
the brand, they will surely show positive behaviors toward
the brand because they know how to do it (Karanges et al.
2018). In this sense, more than just having information about
the brand, internal branding make employees have a deep
understanding of all aspect related to the brand, and the role
they play in brand success.
Brand identification
Brand identification is another important outcome of internal
branding, and it is also a consequence of understanding the
Brand (Piehler et al. 2016). Brand identification has been
defined from the social identity theory as a specific form
of organizational identification (Helm et al. 2016). Accord-
ing to Saleem and Iglesias (2016), brand identification is a
psychological membership that employees feel toward the
brand as a sense of belonging. Piehler et al. (2016) affirm
that brand identification have a cognitive component and an
affective component: “cognitive identification refers to the
extent to which people perceive themselves as belonging to
an organization. Affective identification instead is the extent
to which people have positive feelings about being part of an
organization” (p.1579).
In this sense, if employees identify with the brand, they
will feel a personal attachment to the brand, what makes
them exhibit a better performance in-role and extra-role
(Gammoh et al. 2018; Ngo et al. 2019). Likewise, employ-
ees who are identified with the brand will show strong
support for achieving organizational objectives in terms
of brand management (Helm et al. 2016). The above state-
ments can be validated thanks to Punjaisri et al. (2009a)
and Piehler et al. (2016), who empirically demonstrated
that brand identification is an antecedent of employee
brand commitment. For this reason, organizations need to
manage brand identification, even more in service compa-
nies (Punjaisri et al. 2009a). Thus, internal branding is a
critical tool to promote unique and distinctive brand values
that help employees to internalize and promote their brand
identification (Foster et al. 2010).
Brand commitment
Brand commitment is the psychological attachment
employee feel toward the Brand (King 2010). According
to Schulz et al. (2017), the literature identifies three dif-
ferent forms of organizational commitment (i.e., affective,
continuance and normative), but the affective commitment
has the major effect on employee performance because
it represents their intention to strive for the organization
success and motivation to support its mission, objectives,
and values. In fact, Piehler (2018) ensures that brand com-
mitment is an affective consequence of internal branding
and it should be classified as a unidimensional construct
that reflects the emotional link between employees and
brands. Committed employees are expected to have posi-
tive perceptions of the organization and to feel motivated
to achieve organizational objectives (Biedenbach and
Manzhynski 2016) because brand commitment makes
employees improve their performance (Park et al. 2019),
resulting in greater customer satisfaction (Watson et al.
2018) and brand success (King and Grace 2012).
On the other hand, Kimpakorn and Tocquer (2010)
recognize that brand commitment begins with employee
brand identification and their motivation to make an addi-
tional effort to achieve brand objectives, resulting in their
intention to stay. When employees share their faith with
the brand, they are expected to generate an emotional
attachment to the brand, thereby increasing their inten-
tion to stay. In this sense, if employees feel committed to
the brand, they will be loyal to the organization, reducing
turnover levels (Skaalsvik and Olsen 2014; Watson et al.
2018). That is why brand commitment is considered an
antecedent of brand loyalty (Punjaisri et al. 2009a, b).

Brand loyalty
Loyalty is a key indicator of successful relationships, either
with employees or with customers. If a firm achieves the
loyalty of their employees, in response, they will work for
customer loyalty (Hasni et al. 2018). Therefore, one of the
objectives of internal branding is to ensure that employees
are loyal to the brand so that they can successfully represent
the brand to customers through their behavior (Poulis and
Wisker 2016). From the theory of internal branding, brand
loyalty is defined as the intention of employees to remain in
the organization (Punjaisri et al. 2009a). This intention to
stay is the result of the psychological contract that employ-
ees develop with the Brand (Saleem and Iglesias 2016).
The literature notes that some authors (Dechawatana-
paisal 2018; Du Preez et al. 2017; Karatepe 2015; Ragheb
et al. 2018; Watson et al. 2018) do not use the term “brand
loyalty”, but they mentioned “intention to stay”, however,
both concepts have been used interchangeably as the inten-
tion of employees to remain in the organization. Brand
loyalty has become an important factor for organizational
success because it reduces turnover intention, saving time
and financial costs (Watson et al. 2018). Punjaisri et al.
(2009b) explains that brand loyalty is critical because “it
drives down costs through reduced recruitment and training
expenditures and all the cost efficiencies which accrue from
skilled workers who are up to speed and familiar with both
the tasks at hand and their customers, thereby improving an
organization’s profits” (p.213). For this reason, Du Preez and
Bendixen (2015) and Hasni et al. (2018) recommend imple-
menting internal branding to guarantee greater job longevity
and positive outcomes in terms of brand management.
Brand citizenship behaviors
The internalization of brand values by employees is dem-
onstrated through attitudes and behaviors (King and Grace
2012). Thus, the main consequence that managers seek when
implementing internal branding is to achieve that employee
behaviors are aligned with the Brand (Murillo and King
2019b). If employees internalize the attributes of the brand,
they will naturally be able to express these attributes through
their behavior to external customers, fulfilling their expecta-
tions regarding the brand (Poulis and Wisker 2016).
Based on the above statements, brand citizenship behav-
iors as one of the principal objectives of internal branding. It
is defined by Piehler et al. (2016) as “all employee behaviors
that are consistent with the brand identity and brand prom-
ise such that together they strengthen the Brand” (p. 1577).
According to Quaratino and Mazzei (2018) and Ruediger
et al. (2012), different terminologies have been used to refer
to brand citizenship behaviors, for example, brand support-
ing behaviors, or brand-adequate behavior, brand consistent
D. Barros‑Arrieta, E. García‑Cali
behaviors, behavioral branding, and brand-aligned employee
behavior, however, these terms refer to all those verbal or
non-verbal behaviors that determine the experience and
brand value.
About this subject, Piehler (2018) states that the diversity
of actions that integrate brand citizenship behaviors make it
a multidimensional construct that include: (1) brand com-
pliance, which means following the rules to maintain the
brand; (2) brand endorsement, which involves representing
the brand favorably, and also recommending it and defending
it to potential customers, other employees, and other stake-
holders; and (3) brand development, which includes behav-
iors that promote brand improvement, such as developing
expertise, participating in training, developing ideas, taking
over extra duties and responsibilities, or making suggestions
to improve customers’ brand experience. In consequence,
all of these brand behaviors facilitate to fulfill the brand
promise to external customers.
Brand equity
The concept of brand equity can be defined from a financial
or marketing perspective. In financial terms, brand equity
is the monetary value of a brand that may be useful for a
merger, acquisition, or divestiture purposes, however, from
a marketing perspective, which is considered for internal
branding purposes, brand equity refers to how customers
perceive the brand and how they build value about it in their
minds (Kimpakorn and Tocquer 2010). Employees are criti-
cal actors in building brand equity because they represent
the brand to customers and other stakeholders through their
behaviors (Chang et al. 2012; Erkmen and Hancer 2015;
Schlager et al. 2011). In fact, some authors (Poulis and
Wisker, Anees-ur-Rehman et al. 2018; Poulis and Wisker
2016; Skaalsvik and Olsen 2014) state that building brand
equity begins when organizations adopt an internal approach
to brand management to promote the brand among their
employees.
Brand equity has been identified as the final consequence
of internal branding (Anees-ur-Rehman et al. 2018; Poulis
and Wisker 2016). It means each of the brand actions ori-
ented toward employees generates a set of outcomes, which
in turn builds brand equity (Pinar et al. 2016). Although
employees are the target group for internal branding, it is
expected that long-term consequences will be projected
externally by strengthening the brand. From this perspec-
tive, Sang and Swinney (2012) summarize internal branding
as the alignment of employees’ attitudes and beliefs toward
the creation of brand equity. These results can be validated
by reviewing the findings of Hasni et al. (2018), who empiri-
cally demonstrated that internal branding helps employees
successfully deliver brand promises and, in consequence,
create brand equity among customers.
Internal branding: conceptualization from a literature review and opportunities for future…
A proposal for a conceptual model of internal
branding
After reviewing each of the elements of the conceptualiza-
tion of internal branding in detail, this article attempts to
propose a conceptual model based on the empirical evidence
found in the literature review. Additionally, this study con-
sidered the importance given by authors to each element
included in the conceptual model. Despite internal branding
is still a developing subject, the conceptual model proposed
in this study (see Fig. 1) represents a relevant contribution
to consolidate knowledge generated about internal branding.
The structure used by Punjaisri and Wilson (2011) was
taken as a reference to develop our conceptual model. Firstly,
the model proposes that brand orientation and internal mar-
ket orientation are organizational antecedents that facilitate
the implementation of internal branding. Firms that adopt
these two approaches will be more willing to implement
internal branding programs because they consider brand
management and the internal market as two key factors for
their organizational success. Secondly, the model presents
internal branding as a cross-functional effort between mar-
keting and human resources departments, and it is composed
of three dimensions: (1) brand-centered human resources
management, which in turn includes brand-oriented recruit-
ment, branding training programs, brand rewards systems,
and brand-based performance evaluation; (2) internal brand
communications, and (3) brand leadership. And, thirdly, the
model highlights the outcomes of internal branding. The
consequences for employees are brand understanding, brand
Brand-centred human
resources management
Brand Brand-oriented recruitment
Branding training programs
Orientation
Brand rewards systems
Brand-based performance
evaluation
Internal brand
communications
Internal
Market
Orientation Brand leadership
Supported by cross-functional efforts
from Marketing and HR departments
Fig. 1  Conceptual framework proposed from the literature review
identification, brand commitment, brand loyalty, brand citi-
zenship behaviors, and then these outcomes make employees
build brand equity to external stakeholders. The sequence
in outcomes of internal branding show in the conceptual
model is supported by the empirical evidence found in the
literature. Piehler et al. (2016) empirically demonstrated
that brand understanding has positive effects on-brand
identification, and in turn, brand identification influences
brand commitment. According to Punjaisri et al. (2009b),
brand commitment is a precursor of brand loyalty because
they found that employees who are committed to the brand
exhibit loyalty toward the brand, in terms of their intention
to stay. There were not found empirical evidence to demon-
strate the relationship between brand loyalty and brand citi-
zenship behaviors, but some research (Piehler 2018; Piehler
et al. 2016) found that brand commitment does impact brand
citizenship behaviors.
Based on the elements included in the conceptual model,
this study proposes the following definition of internal
branding: Internal branding is a cross-functional process
between the marketing and human resources departments,
which focuses on managing the brand within the organiza-
tion through brand-centered human resources management,
internal brand communications, and brand leadership, with
the objective of achieving brand consequences in employees
(brand understanding, brand identification, brand commit-
ment, brand loyalty, and brand citizenship behaviors), so that
they can build brand equity to external stakeholders.
The above definition is significant because it includes the
most relevant elements within the internal branding process.
Brand understanding
Brand indentification
Brand
Brand commitment
equity
Brand loyalty
Brand citizenship
behaviors

On the one hand, the definition responds to “what” when it
highlights that internal branding is a cross-functional pro-
cess between marketing and human resources departments.
On the other hand, the definition responds to “how” when it
details all dimensions required to implement internal brand-
ing. And finally, the definition responds to “what for” when
it identifies the outcomes of internal branding in employees
and what they can build externally.
Most of the definitions of internal branding show it from a
general perspective; however, the definition proposed in this
study considers the multidimensionality of internal branding
in their components and outcomes, offering a comprehen-
sive conceptualization. This study recognizes that further
research on this issue is needed. However, the conceptual
model and the definition proposed in this review can be
considered a starting point to generate a unified vision of
internal branding.
Some managerial implications of internal branding
from this literature review
This study has highlighted that brand management not only
involves external actions but also involves an internal ori-
entation that seeks to promote the brand among employees.
In this sense, managers must consider internal branding
as a key process within their brand management strategy,
which successfully complements all brand efforts made
externally. Intending to contribute to the implementation of
internal branding, this section will show some managerial
implications.
First, this literature review found that the brand has
become a strategic resource for organizations because, more
than a name or symbol, it can represent a source of competi-
tive advantage. For this reason, organizations must adopt a
brand orientation, making the brand a strategic resource to
achieve business success. On the other hand, this study also
invites organizations to adopt an internal market orientation
because employees are key players in brand management
because they represent the brand through their attitudes and
behaviors. Firms that simultaneously adopt brand orientation
and internal market orientation will be motivated to imple-
ment internal branding programs because they recognize the
importance of brand management and the role that employ-
ees play in this process.
Second, this study identified that internal branding is a
cross-functional process that involves marketing and human
resources departments. Therefore, managers must strategi-
cally integrate these two areas when planning, executing,
and monitoring brand management internally. Organizations
must recognize that internal branding is not the sole respon-
sibility of the marketing department due to some processes
are under the domain of the human resources department
(brand-oriented recruitment, branding training programs,
D. Barros‑Arrieta, E. García‑Cali
brand rewards systems, and brand-based performance
evaluation).
Third, this study recommends that managers must imple-
ment internal branding following three specific dimensions:
1. Brand-centered human resources management. Some
functions of the human resources area must be carried
out according to the brand. Firms need to design recruit-
ment structures according to the brand to hire employ-
ees who adequately fit with brand values. This process
implies use scales to measure how much a job candi-
date fits with the brand, and also implies to follow the
brand performance of new employees during their trial
period. Likewise, it is necessary to train employees on
how they should represent the brand through their daily
tasks. Also, the human resources department should
create brand rewards systems to compensate employees
for their results toward the brand. The rewards can be
financial, in species, or recognition in front of others.
Finally, employee performance should be evaluated con-
sidering the individual and/or group performance toward
the brand.
2. Internal brand communications through daily briefings,
newsletters, corporate websites, meetings, brand manu-
als, bulletin boards, corporate videos, brand books, and
corporate magazines are useful mechanisms to transmit
to employees a clear idea about the brand and what it
represents.
3. Brand leadership as a strategy to develop leaders willing
to promote the brand within the organization. This does
not exclusively involve managers, but also employees
who have the skills to influence others.
And fourth, this literature review proposes that organi-
zations must implement internal branding due to its out-
comes among employees, and also for its consequences at
the external level. The literature showed empirical evidence
that demonstrates the positive effects of internal branding on
employees in terms of brand understanding, brand identifica-
tion, brand commitment, brand loyalty, and brand citizen-
ship behaviors. And then, all of these outcomes motivate
employees to build brand equity for external publics. Thus,
internal branding is a fundamental requirement within the
brand management strategy because if employees properly
internalize the brand, they will be able to represent it in front
of external stakeholders, building brand equity.
Opportunities for future research in the field
of internal branding
Traditionally, external branding has received more atten-
tion from researchers and professionals (Hytti et al. 2015;
Wagner and Peters 2009). Some authors (Hytti et al. 2015;
Internal branding: conceptualization from a literature review and opportunities for future…
King and Grace 2010; Piehler et al. 2018; Saleem and
Iglesias 2016; Zhang, et al. 2016) consider that internal
branding is a subject still in developing. For this reason,
the last section of this paper aims to offer a guide for future
research in the field of internal branding.
Initially, it is convenient to analyze the industries where
research about internal branding has been carried out. This
review noted that studies about internal branding have
been developed in various industries, however, some of
them catch more attention than others. For example, the
hotel industry gathered the largest number of paper in this
review (Chang et al. 2012; Chiang et al. 2018; Cheung
et al. 2014; Kimpakorn and Tocquer 2010; Punjaisri et al.
2009a; b; Punjaisri and Wilson 2011; Sevel et al. 2018;
Uen et al. 2012), followed by the financial industry (Bravo
et al. 2017; Du Preez and Bendixen 2015; Lee et al. 2019;
Pinar et al. 2016; Ragheb et al. 2018; Schmidt and Baum-
garth 2018). Other service industries such as universities
(Whisman 2009; Yousaf and Li 2015), hospitals (Hoppe
2017, 2018; Hytti et al. 2015), restaurants (Murillo and
King 2019a, b; Watson et al. 2018), and airlines (Erkmen
and Hancer 2015), were identified in this review. Addition-
ally, other authors (Boukis et al. 2017; Ghose 2009; King
and Grace 2010, 2012) developed their studies in service
companies, but they did not specify what type of industry.
The above details show that service industries con-
centrates most of the researches included in this review.
This results could be explained according to Du Preez
and Bendixen (2015), Kimpakorn and Tocquer (2010)
and Ragheb et al. (2018), who affirm that internal brand-
ing acquires relevance in service firms because the brand
experience is built through interactions between custom-
ers and employees in each service encounter. However,
this literature review also found studies in the B2B sector
(Anees-ur-Rehman et al. 2018; Anisimova and Mavondo
2010; Biedenbach and Manzhynski 2016; Coleman et al.
2015; Dechawatanapaisal 2018; Sandbacka et al. 2013;
Zhang, et al. 2016), what demonstrates the importance of
internal branding in this sector. The brand has become a
key factor for any company, therefore, internal and exter-
nal brand strategies are relevant in the B2B sector as much
as the B2C sector (Skaalsvik and Olsen 2014; Zhang et al.
2016). Supporting this idea, Piehler et al. (2018) recom-
mend future research to investigate the implications of
internal branding in the B2B sector compared to B2C.
Thus, there is an opportunity to carry out more research
about internal branding in the B2B sector. Some research
questions in this field could be: What role does internal
branding play in B2B firms?, What particularities of the
B2B sector can limit the success of internal branding in
these types of firms?, What dimensions of internal brand-
ing acquire greater relevance in the B2B sector? Is there
any difference between outcomes of internal branding for
B2B firms compared to B2C ones?, How does internal
branding affect brand equity in B2B firms?
The public sector is another context to explore from the
perspective of internal branding. Only two studies about
this issue were found in this literature review. One of them
was the research of Sharma and Kamalanabhan (2012), who
investigated the impact of corporate internal communica-
tions on internal branding from the perception of Indian
public sector employees. The other research was developed
by Hytti et al. (2015), who studied the challenges in deliv-
ering the brand promise in municipal hospitals. To find a
few papers about internal branding in the public sector rep-
resents an opportunity for future research because public
sector firms run under particular conditions, which would
be interesting to investigate. In this sense, this study pro-
poses the following research questions: How would internal
branding be implemented in the public sector, considering
the variety of organizations included in this sector?, What
challenges do public sector firms face in implementing
brand-centered human resources management, considering
their special conditions to recruit and compensate?, What
outcomes do public sector firms expect to achieve by imple-
menting internal branding?
Sustainability is another topic that also represents
an opportunity for future research in the field of internal
branding. Few studies involving this issue were found in this
review (App and Büttgen 2016; Biedenbach and Manzhyn-
ski 2016). Sustainability acquires importance in the field of
marketing, so it must be considered within the investigation
of internal branding. The findings of Biedenbach and Man-
zhynski (2016) demonstrated that employees who reflected a
high level of brand knowledge and brand commitment, also
perceive the importance of sustainability for the firm. The
authors state that internal branding improves the awareness
of employees about sustainability and facilitate their positive
evaluations of the company’s sustainability performance.
For this reason, at the end of their paper Biedenbach and
Manzhynski (2016) invite to investigate more about the rela-
tionship between internal branding and sustainability. Here
are some research questions about it: How is the process
of promoting the brand and sustainability simultaneously
through internal branding?, How does internal branding
affect sustainability performance in organizations?, What
dimensions of internal branding allow employees to align
with sustainability?, Is there any difference in implement-
ing the internal branding process in sustainability-oriented
companies compared to those that do not?
The literature review also showed that most of the stud-
ies on internal branding are focused on employees’ per-
spectives. Few studies from customers’ perspectives were
found in this review (Anselmsson et al. 2016; Chang et al.
2012; Chiang et al. 2018; Kang 2016), Kimpakorn and
Tocquer 2010). That is why some authors (Erkmen and

Hancer 2015; Piehler et al. 2018; Pinar et al. 2016; Sharma
and Kamalanabhan 2012) suggest to include the custom-
ers’ perspectives to measure the impact of internal brand-
ing on external publics. Piehler et al. (2018) recommend
empirically investigating the effects of internal branding
on organizational performance, in terms of what custom-
ers perceive and financial performance. In response to
the above, the following research questions are proposed:
How do external customers perceive the implementation
of internal branding in their interactions with employees?,
How do customers influence the information that employ-
ees receive about the brand?, How do external customers
perceive the outcomes of internal branding in terms of
their satisfaction?, How can firms measure the impact of
internal branding on-brand equity in customers and other
stakeholders?, How does internal branding impact organi-
zational financial performance?
In methodological terms, the literature review showed
that most of the studies were developed under cross-sectional
designs. Only two studies included in this review used lon-
gitudinal designs (Murillo and King 2019a; Schmidt and
Baumgarth 2018). For this reason, it is necessary to extend the
methodologies used to study internal branding. Several authors
(Anees-ur-Rehman et al. 2018; Anselmsson et al. 2016; App
and Büttgen 2016; Bravo et al. 2017; Chang et al. 2012; Chi-
ang et al. 2018; Coleman et al. 2015; Dechawatanapaisal 2018;
Gammoh et al. 2018; Hasni et al. 2018; Hoppe 2018; Hytti
et al. 2015; Iyer et al. 2018; Lee et al. 2019; Murillo and King
2019a, b; Ngo et al. 2019; Piehler et al. 2018; Punjaisri and
Wilson 2011; Uen et al. 2012; Watson et al. 2018) highlighted
the need to conduct research using longitudinal designs to
analyze changes or evolutions over time. Using this design,
Murillo and King (2019a) investigated the drivers of employee
brand understanding in a restaurant chain for 7 months. They
found that branding understanding runs through distinct
stages over time, so differentiated internal branding actions
are needed to consolidate brand knowledge in the long term.
In this sense, they demonstrated that longitudinal studies offer
significant findings to the theory of internal branding, and also
provides practical implications for managers. On the other
hand, Ngo et al. (2019) and Piehler et al. (2018) also suggest
carry out studies using experimental designs to analyze causal
relationships when some variables within the internal brand-
ing process are manipulated. Thus, this review suggests some
research questions: What are the outcomes of internal branding
at different time intervals?, How do the dimensions of inter-
nal branding behave over time?, How would a differentiated
internal branding process be implemented, and what would
its implications be?, How are the cause-effect relationships
between the antecedents, dimensions and outcomes of internal
branding if they are analyzed from experimental designs?
The sampling procedure was another methodological
aspect for improvement in future research. Most of the
D. Barros‑Arrieta, E. García‑Cali
papers included in this review apply non-probabilistic sam-
pling, even, some research (Du Preez et al. 2017; Du Preez
and Bendixen 2015; Erkmen and Hancer 2015; Hytti et al.
2015; Murillo and King 2019a; Punjaisri et al. 2009a; Sand-
backa et al. 2013; Schmidt and Baumgarth 2018; Sevel et al.
2018) corresponded to case studies carried out in particu-
lar contexts. This is why some authors (Bodkin et al. 2016;
Cheung et al. 2014; Helm et al. 2016; Pinar et al. 2016;
Ragheb et al. 2018; Xie et al. 2016; Yousaf and Li 2015)
invite to investigate using probabilistic samples to get repre-
sentative findings. Likewise, this review identified the need
to investigate internal branding in different sectors, coun-
tries, and cultures in order to achieve significant generaliza-
tions in its theory. As Piehler et al. (2018) summarize, most
of the empirical studies of internal branding have focused on
individual organizations or small groups of firms, limiting
the opportunity to generalize the findings. Therefore, future
research should focus on replicating previous studies in other
contexts to reaffirm or adjust the findings. Researchers can
also conduct studies that simultaneously include different
cultures and countries to generalize their findings.
Other opportunities for future research were identified in
the conceptual approach analyzed in this study. Initially, it
was found there is no consensus about the historical ante-
cedents of internal branding. This discussion represents an
opportunity to explore the beginning of internal branding
through a bibliometric study or a literature review. Also,
additional research is needed to analyze the antecedents of
internal branding. This review proposes that brand orienta-
tion and internal market orientation are the antecedents of
internal branding, however, this statement must be validated
with further empirical evidence.
On the other hand, this literature review found diverse
opinions about the dimensions of internal branding. The
consolidation of the different contributions allowed identi-
fying brand-centered human resource management, internal
brand communications, and brand leadership as the main
dimensions of internal branding. However, this review iden-
tified other components (internal brand communities, brand
ideologies, brand ambassador programs, brand promotional
products, sponsorship) that could be considered for future
research to explain deeply how each one influences on inter-
nal branding.
The conceptual model proposed in this study is the result
of a literature review, therefore, future research is needed to
empirically validate the relationships established between
the antecedents, dimensions, and outcomes of internal
branding. Also, researchers can study the moderating effects
between elements included in the conceptual model.
Finally, this review supports the recommendation made
by Piehler et al. (2018), who invite to expand the research
framework of internal branding to the context of multiple
brands, considering that some firms act under this model.
Internal branding: conceptualization from a literature review and opportunities for future…
Traditionally, internal branding research has focused on cor-
porate branding, but multiple brands represent an issue that
should be investigated.
Concluding remarks
Internal branding has acquired relevance in recent years due
to the importance of brand management for organizations.
Previous studies criticized there was no consensus among
authors about the definition of internal branding, and they
invited to investigate more about it to consolidate its theory.
For this reason, this paper aimed to explore the conceptu-
alization of internal branding and also offers opportunities
for future research.
This study identified different perspectives about the
definitions of internal branding, although similarities found
among authors allowed to conclude that internal branding
is a cross-functional process between the marketing and
human resources departments, which focuses on managing
the brand among employees to make them build brand equity
externally. The objective of internal branding is to promote
the brand internally so that employees can successfully rep-
resent it to customers and other external audiences.
Thanks to the literature review, this study developed a
conceptual model of internal branding that identifies the
main antecedents, dimensions, and outcomes of internal
branding. Brand orientation and internal market orientation
were identified as the organizational antecedents of internal
branding. Brand-centered human resource management,
internal brand communications, and brand leadership were
identified as the main dimensions of internal branding.
These dimensions determine the implementation process,
which must be supported by a cross-functional effort from
the marketing and human resources departments. In terms of
consequences, this review found that brand understanding,
brand identification, brand commitment, brand loyalty, and
brand citizenship behaviors are the main outcomes of inter-
nal branding, and in turns, these outcomes make employees
build brand equity in front of external stakeholders.
The last section of this paper showed that internal branding
offers various opportunities for future research. This review
showed some contexts where internal branding has not been
thoroughly investigated (i.e., some industries, sectors or
countries, from the perspective of external actors, the field
of sustainability, or the context of multiple brands). Further-
more, it is necessary to consider some methodological aspects
to diversify how researchers obtain their findings and also
achieve significant generalizations about internal branding.
The conceptual model proposed in this study can be consid-
ered a relevant contribution to the conceptualization of inter-
nal branding, however, researchers are called to empirically
evaluate the relationships established in the model.
Finally, this study aimed to consolidate the knowledge
available in the literature to offer a conceptualization of
internal branding. The proposed conceptual model is a
starting point to unify the fragmented ideas about internal
branding, however, the discussion is still open so that other
researchers can contribute to building a unified definition of
internal branding.
Compliance with ethical standards 
Conflict of interest  On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author
states that there is no conflict of interest.
References
Anees-ur-Rehman, M., H. Wong, P. Sultan, and B. Merrilees. 2018.
How brand-oriented strategy affects the financial performance of
B2B SMEs. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 33 (3):
303–315.
Anisimova, T., and F. Mavondo. 2010. The performance implications
of company-salesperson corporate brand misalignment. European
Journal of Marketing 44 (6): 771–795.
Anselmsson, J., N. Bondesson, and F. Melin. 2016. Customer-based
brand equity and human resource management image: Do retail
customers really care about HRM and the employer brand? Euro-
pean Journal of Marketing 50 (7/8): 1185–1208.
App, S., and M. Büttgen. 2016. Lasting footprints of the employer
brand: Can sustainable HRM lead to brand commitment?
Employee Relations 38 (5): 703–723.
Appel-Meulenbroek, R., D. Havermans, I. Janssen, and A. Van Kem-
pen. 2010. Corporate branding: An exploration of the influence of
CRE. Journal of Corporate Real Estate 12 (1): 47–59.
Aydon, J. 2009. “Both sides now”: Aligning external and internal
branding for a socially responsible era. Marketing Intelligence &
Planning 27 (5): 681–697.
Bailey, A.A., F. Albassami, and S. Al-Meshal. 2016. The roles of
employee job satisfaction and organizational commitment in the
internal marketing-employee bank identification relationship.
International Journal of Bank Marketing 34 (6): 821–840.
Biedenbach, G., and S. Manzhynski. 2016. Internal branding and sus-
tainability: Investigating perceptions of employees. Journal of
Product & Brand Management 25 (3): 296–306.
Bodkin, C., C. Peters, and J. Thomas. 2016. The impact of employee
work perceptions on purchase intentions from a company store.
Journal of Product & Brand Management 25 (5): 479–489.
Boukis, A. 2019. Internal market orientation as a value creation mecha-
nism. Journal of Services Marketing 33 (2): 233–244.
Boukis, A., and S. Gounaris. 2014. Linking IMO with employees’ fit
with their environment and reciprocal behaviours towards the
firm. Journal of Services Marketing 28 (1): 10–21.
Boukis, A., S. Gounaris, and I. Lings. 2017. Internal market orientation
determinants of employee brand enactment. Journal of Services
Marketing 31 (7): 690–703.
Boukis, A., K. Kaminakis, A. Siampos, and I. Kostopoulos. 2015.
Linking internal marketing with customer outcomes. Marketing
Intelligence & Planning 33 (3): 394–413.
Bravo, R., I. Buil, L. De Chernatony, and E. Martínez. 2017. Managing
brand identity: Effects on the employees. International Journal of
Bank Marketing 35 (1): 2–23.

Chang, A., H. Chiang, and T. Han. 2012. A multilevel investigation of
relationships among brand-centered HRM, brand psychological
ownership, brand citizenship behaviors, and customer satisfaction.
European Journal of Marketing 46 (5): 626–662.
Chang, K., B. Nguyen, K.-T. Cheng, C.-C. Kuo, and I. Lee. 2016. HR
practice, organisational commitment & citizenship behaviour: A
study of primary school teachers in Taiwan. Employee Relations
38 (6): 907–926.
Cheung, C., H. Kong, and H. Song. 2014. How to influence hospital-
ity employee perceptions on hotel brand performance? Interna-
tional Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 26 (8):
1162–1178.
Chiang, H.H., T.S. Han, and D. McConville. 2018. The attitudinal and
behavioral impact of brand-centered human resource manage-
ment: Employee and customer effects. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management 30 (2): 939–960.
Coleman, D.A., L. De Chernatony, and G. Christodoulides. 2015. B2B
service brand identity and brand performance: An empirical inves-
tigation in the UK’s B2B IT services sector. European Journal of
Marketing 49 (7/8): 1139–1162.
Dechawatanapaisal, D. 2018. Employee retention: The effects of inter-
nal branding and brand attitudes in sales organizations. Personnel
Review 47 (3): 675–693.
Devasagayam, P., C. Buff, T. Aurand, and K. Judson. 2010. Building
brand community membership within organizations: A viable
internal branding alternative? Journal of Product & Brand Man-
agement 19 (3): 210–217.
Du Preez, R., and M. Bendixen. 2015. The impact of internal brand
management on employee job satisfaction, brand commitment
and intention to stay. International Journal of Bank Marketing
33 (1): 78–91.
Du Preez, R., and M. Bendixen. 2019. Outsourcing contact centers:
Internal branding challenges and consequences. Journal of Busi-
ness & Industrial Marketing 34 (5): 921–930.
Du Preez, R., M. Bendixen, and R. Abratt. 2017. The behavioral con-
sequences of internal brand management among frontline employ-
ees. Journal of Product & Brand Management 26 (3): 251–261.
Erkmen, E., and M. Hancer. 2015. “Do your internal branding efforts
measure up?” Consumers’ response to brand supporting behaviors
of hospitality employees. International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management 27 (5): 878–895.
Foster, C., K. Punjaisri, and R. Cheng. 2010. Exploring the relationship
between corporate, internal and employer branding. Journal of
Product & Brand Management 19 (6): 401–409.
Gammoh, B.S., M.L. Mallin, E.B. Pullins, and C.M. Johnson. 2018.
The role of salesperson brand selling confidence in enhanc-
ing important sales management outcomes: A social identity
approach. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 33 (3):
277–290.
Ghose, K. 2009. Internal brand equity defines customer experience.
Direct Marketing: An International Journal 3 (3): 177–185.
Gregory, A., and A. Denniss. 2018. An introduction to writing narrative
and systematic reviews-tasks, tips and traps for aspiring authors.
Heart, Lung and Circulation 27 (7): 893–898.
Hasni, M., J. Salo, H. Naeem, and K. Abbasi. 2018. Impact of internal
branding on customer-based brand equity with mediating effect of
organizational loyalty: An empirical evidence from retail sector.
International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 46
(11/12): 1056–1076.
Helm, S., U. Renk, and A. Mishra. 2016. Exploring the impact of
employees’ self-concept, brand identification and brand pride on
brand citizenship behaviors. European Journal of Marketing 50
(1/2): 58–77.
Hofer, K.M., and R. Grohs. 2018. Sponsorship as an internal brand-
ing tool and its effects on employees’ identification with the
brand. Journal of Brand Management 25: 266–275.
D. Barros‑Arrieta, E. García‑Cali
Hoppe, D. 2017. Multiple commitments and behaviors: A mixed
concept approach. Journal of Product & Brand Management
26 (2): 190–203.
Hoppe, D. 2018. Linking employer branding and internal branding:
Establishing perceived employer brand image as an antecedent
of favourable employee brand attitudes and behaviours. Journal
of Product & Brand Management 27 (4): 452–467.
Huang, Y.T., and S. Rundle-Thiele. 2015. A holistic management
tool for measuring internal marketing activities. Journal of Ser-
vices Marketing 29 (6/7): 571–584.
Hytti, U., P. Kuoppakangas, K. Suomi, C. Chapleo, and M. Gio-
vanardi. 2015. Challenges in delivering brand promise—Focus-
ing on municipal healthcare organisations. International Jour-
nal of Public Sector Management 28 (3): 254–272.
Iglesias, O., and F.Z. Saleem. 2015. How to support consumer-brand
relationships: The role of corporate culture and human resource
policies and practices. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 33
(2): 216–234.
Iyer, P., A. Davari, and A. Paswan. 2018. Determinants of brand
performance: The role of internal branding. Journal of Brand
Management 25: 202–216.
Kang, D. 2016. Turning inside out: Perceived internal branding in
customer-firm relationship building. Journal of Services Mar-
keting 30 (4): 462–475.
Karanges, E., K.A. Johnston, I. Lings, and A.T. Beatson. 2018. Brand
signalling: An antecedent of employee brand understanding.
Journal of Brand Management 25: 235–249.
Karatepe, O.M. 2015. Do personal resources mediate the effect of
perceived organizational support on emotional exhaustion and
job outcomes? International Journal of Contemporary Hospi-
tality Management 27 (1): 4–26.
Kimpakorn, N., and G. Tocquer. 2010. Service brand equity and
employee brand commitment. Journal of Services Marketing
24 (5): 378–388.
King, C. 2010. “One size doesn’t fit all” Tourism and hospitality
employees’ response to internal brand management. Interna-
tional Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 22
(4): 517–534.
King, C., and D. Grace. 2010. Building and measuring employee-based
brand equity. European Journal of Marketing 44 (7/8): 938–971.
King, C., and D. Grace. 2012. Examining the antecedents of positive
employee brand-related attitudes and behaviours. European Jour-
nal of Marketing 46 (3/4): 469–488.
Lee, Y.H., C. Hsiao, H.Y. Chan, and I.C. Lee. 2019. Explorations
of employee-based brand equity in the banking industry from a
perceived-leadership perspective. International Journal of Bank
Marketing 38 (2): 425–455.
Liu, X., B. Mi, F. Li, and D. Zou. 2019. Ritualized retail events and
brand-centric employee culture. Qualitative Market Research 22
(3): 250–269.
Mainardes, E.W., L.S. Rodrigues, and A. Teixeira. 2019. Effects of
internal marketing on job satisfaction in the banking sector. Inter-
national Journal of Bank Marketing 37 (5): 1313–1333.
Murillo, E., and C. King. 2019a. Examining the drivers of employee
brand understanding: A longitudinal study. Journal of Product &
Brand Management 28 (7): 893–907.
Murillo, E., and C. King. 2019b. Why do employees respond to hos-
pitality talent management: An examination of a Latin American
restaurant chain. International Journal of Contemporary Hospi-
tality Management 31 (10): 4021–4042.
Ngo, L.V., N.P. Nguyen, K.T. Huynh, G. Gregory, and P.H. Cuong. 2019.
Converting internal brand knowledge into employee performance.
Journal of Product & Brand Management 29 (3): 273–287.
Park, S., K. Johnson, and S. Chaudhuri. 2019. Promoting work engage-
ment in the hotel sector: Review and análisis. Management Research
Review 42 (8): 971–990.
Internal branding: conceptualization from a literature review and opportunities for future…
Piehler, R. 2018. Employees’ brand understanding, brand commitment,
and brand citizenship behaviour: A closer look at the relationships
among construct dimensions. Journal of Brand Management 25:
217–234.
Piehler, R., D. Grace, and C. Burmann. 2018. Internal brand management:
Introduction to the special issue and directions for future research.
Journal of Brand Management 25: 197–201.
Piehler, R., C. King, C. Burmann, and L. Xiong. 2016. The importance of
employee brand understanding, brand identification, and brand com-
mitment in realizing brand citizenship behaviour. European Journal
of Marketing 50 (9/10): 1575–1601.
Pinar, M., T. Girard, P. Trapp, and Z. Eser. 2016. Services branding tri-
angle: Examining the triadic service brand promises for creating
a strong brand in banking industry. International Journal of Bank
Marketing 34 (4): 529–549.
Poulis, A., and Z. Wisker. 2016. Modeling employee-based brand equity
(EBBE) and perceived environmental uncertainty (PEU) on a firm’s
performance. Journal of Product & Brand Management 25 (5):
490–503.
Punjaisri, K., and A. Wilson. 2011. Internal branding process: Key
mechanisms, outcomes and moderating factors. European Journal
of Marketing 45 (9/10): 1521–1537.
Punjaisri, K., A. Wilson, and H. Evanschitzky. 2009a. Internal branding
to influence employees’ brand promise delivery: A case study in
Thailand. Journal of Service Management 20 (5): 561–579.
Punjaisri, K., H. Evanschitzky, and A. Wilson. 2009b. Internal branding:
An enabler of employees’ brand-supporting behaviours. Journal of
Service Management 20 (2): 209–226.
Quaratino, L., and A. Mazzei. 2018. Managerial strategies to promote
employee brand consistent behavior: The new frontier for brand
building strategies. EuroMed Journal of Business 13 (2): 185–200.
Ragheb, S., A. Ahmed, and H. Hussein. 2018. Internal corporate brand-
ing impact on employees’ brand supporting behaviour. Journal of
Product & Brand Management 27 (1): 79–95.
Ruediger, H., D. Vrontis, M. Czinkota, and A. Hadiono. 2012. Corporate
branding and transformational leadership in turbulent times. Journal
of Product & Brand Management 21 (3): 192–204.
Saini, G., and I. Jawahar. 2019. The influence of employer rankings,
employment experience, and employee characteristics on employer
branding as an employer of choice. Career Development Interna-
tional 24 (7): 636–657.
Saleem, F., and O. Iglesias. 2016. Mapping the domain of the fragmented
field of internal branding. Journal of Product & Brand Management
25 (1): 43–57.
Sandbacka, J., S. Nätti, and J. Tähtinen. 2013. Branding activities of a
micro industrial services company. Journal of Services Marketing
27 (2): 166–177.
Sang, J., and J. Swinney. 2012. Aligning business owners for a successful
downtown brand. Journal of Place Management and Development
5 (2): 102–118.
Schlager, T., M. Bodderas, P. Maas, and J. Luc Cachelin. 2011. The
influence of the employer brand on employee attitudes relevant for
service branding: An empirical investigation. Journal of Services
Marketing 25 (7): 497–508.
Schmidt, H.J., and C. Baumgarth. 2018. Strengthening internal brand
equity with brand ambassador programs: Development and test-
ing of a success factor model. Journal of Brand Management 25:
250–265.
Schulz, S.A., T. Martin, and H.M. Meyer. 2017. Factors influencing
organization commitment: Internal marketing orientation, external
marketing orientation, and subjective well-being. Journal of Man-
agement Development 36 (10): 1294–1303.
Sevel, L., R. Abratt, and N. Kleyn. 2018. Managing across a corporate
and product brand portfolio: Evidence from a large South African
service organization. Journal of Product & Brand Management 27
(1): 18–28.
Sharma, N., and T. Kamalanabhan. 2012. Internal corporate communica-
tion and its impact on internal branding: Perception of Indian public
sector employees. Corporate Communications: An International
Journal 17 (3): 300–322.
Sheikh, A., and M. Lim. 2015. The making of brand attachment and brand
meanings: The case of a UK engineering services firm. Marketing
Intelligence & Planning 33 (6): 887–907.
Skaalsvik, H., and B. Olsen. 2014. Service branding: Suggesting an
interactive model of service brand development. Kybernetes 43 (8):
1209–1223.
Suleiman, M., and D.A. Mohammad. 2011. The impact of internal mar-
keting on commercial banks’ market orientation. International Jour-
nal of Bank Marketing 29 (4): 308–332.
Uen, J., T. Wu, H. Teng, and Y. Liu. 2012. Transformational leadership
and branding behavior in Taiwanese hotels. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management 24 (1): 26–43.
Vella, P.J., J. Gountas, and R. Walker. 2009. Employee perspectives of
service quality in the supermarket sector. Journal of Services Mar-
keting 23 (6): 407–421.
Wagner, O., and M. Peters. 2009. Can association methods reveal the
effects of internal branding on tourism destination stakeholders?
Journal of Place Management and Development 2 (1): 52–69.
Watson, A.W., B. Taheri, S. Glasgow, and K.D. O’Gorman. 2018.
Branded restaurants employees’ personal motivation, flow and
commitment: The role of age, gender and length of service. Inter-
national Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 30 (3):
1845–1862.
Whisman, R. 2009. Internal branding: A university’s most valuable
intangible asset. Journal of Product & Brand Management 18 (5):
367–370.
Xie, L., Y. Li, S. Chen, and T. Huan. 2016. Triad theory of hotel manage-
rial leadership, employee brand-building behavior, and guest images
of luxury-hotel brands. International Journal of Contemporary Hos-
pitality Management 28 (9): 1826–1847.
Yousaf, S., and H. Li. 2015. Social identity, collective self esteem and
country reputation: The case of Pakistan. Journal of Product &
Brand Management 24 (4): 399–411.
Zhang, J., Y. Jiang, R. Shabbir, and M. Zhu. 2016. How brand orienta-
tion impacts B2B service brand equity? An empirical study among
Chinese firms. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 31 (1):
83–98.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
David Barros‑Arrieta  Full-time Professor and Researcher in the Market-
ing and Advertising Program at Universidad de la Costa (Barranquilla,
Colombia). He is a Master Student of Business Administration, with
emphasis on marketing. He is member of the Innomarket Research
Group at Universidad de la Costa. His primary research interests are
marketing, internal marketing, branding, internal branding, and cus-
tomer experience management. His main area of expertise is marketing
management.
Ernesto García‑Cali  Ph.D. in Managerial Sciences, Professor and Senior
Researcher. Member of RISEI, CAEL, REDIVEP research networks.
Management Services Consultant in marketing management. Currently,
he is Chief Customer Experience of Noria Studios and Postgraduate
Professor at Corporación Universitaria Americana (Barranquilla,
Colombia). His areas of research are marketing management, customer
experience management, and creativity and innovation.