SPM Bab 13

Journal of Product & Brand Management
How diverse is corporate brand Management research? Comparing schools of corporate brand
management with approaches to corporate strategy
Holger J. Schmidt, Jörn Redler,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Holger J. Schmidt, Jörn Redler, "How diverse is corporate brand Management research? Comparing schools of
corporate brand management with approaches to corporate strategy", Journal of Product & Brand Management, https://
doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-05-2017-1473
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-05-2017-1473
Downloaded on: 25 January 2018, At: 23:43 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 23:43 25 January 2018 (PT)
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1 times since 2018*
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:320271 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

How Diverse Is Corporate Brand Management Research?
Comparing Schools of Corporate Brand Management with
Approaches to Corporate Strategy
Abstract
Purpose – This paper contrasts research streams in corporate brand management (CBM) with an orientation toward
general strategy. The aim is to (a) examine whether CBM research is as diverse as research on general strategy and (b)
identify potentially new research perspectives within CBM.
Design/methodology/approach – First, the main dimensions to capture approaches and directions in general strategy
research are carved out and integrated into a framework for subsequent analysis (Strategy Descriptor Cube). Second,
research streams within CBM are clustered into predominating schools. Third, the framework is then used to classify
the identified schools, allowing further evaluation. In doing so, an innovative view on the status of and developments in
CBM research is provided.

Findings – Most schools of CBM are built on rational and prescriptive approaches, while political and emergent
conceptions are hardly addressed. Thus, from the strategy-derived dimensions, approaches to CBM are surprisingly
homogenous, with only one school diverging from the dominating pattern. A variety of perspectives as found in strategy
research cannot be validated for CBM. Alternative conceptualizations to CBM in terms of assumptions about the
genesis of strategic directions and the perspective of analysis might provide impetus for progress in CBM research.
Research limitations/implications – The question arises why emergent and political perspectives have not been
seriously pursued in the last decades of brand research. Researchers might seize opportunities to be further stimulated
from the many faceted research approaches in general strategy. Further dimensions for description as well as alternative
clusterings of CBM schools should be discussed.
Practical implications – A broadening of perspectives, including potentially a more attentive reception of agile trends
in CBM, might become increasingly relevant for CBM practitioners. As new realities shape the present and future of
corporate brand building, new paradigms should be explored and tested.
Originality/value – The corporate brand-strategy link is evidently important; however, to date, few papers have such a
focus. This is the first paper to apply reasoning and perspectives that have contributed to significant developments in
general strategy research to the current situation in CBM research. It introduces a novel way to analyze and discuss
developments between and within CBM schools.
Keywords Brand management, corporate branding, corporate strategy, strategy descriptor cube, brand co-creation
Paper type Conceptual paper
1 Introduction
Corporate strategy (CS) and corporate brand management (CBM) are well-developed disciplines in
modern management science. Apparently, they show much resemblance in their concerns (Ind,
1997a): both concern top-level evaluations regarding how to adjust an organization within a market
context (Hatch and Schultz, 2003) and discuss how competitive advantage can be achieved (Porter,
1980; Aaker, 1989). Therefore, common sense suggests that related research should not perpetuate
as two isolated lines of investigation but should be intertwined, with many references to each other
(Louro and Cunha, 2001). In this regard, among brand management scholars and practitioners, not
many would neglect the strategic nature of CBM (Balmer and Wang, 2016).
Notwithstanding, when analyzing the range and breadth of assumptions and methodological
perspectives that have been unveiled in inquiry on CS, one may wonder whether CBM, as a field
that emerged chronologically after strategy research (Urde and Koch, 2014), has been able to fully
exploit the heritage of the related discipline. Since the history of science shows that researchers are
often caught in the domains from which they originated, forming a kind of self-contained system
(Boulding, 1956a; Gerard, 1952), the question arises to what extent CBM researchers and their
corresponding schools of thought have been open to the ideas of impactful CS scholars. The
analysis presented in this paper will discuss whether CBM might seize opportunities to be further
stimulated from the extensive and many-faceted research approaches in general strategy.
Therefore, this paper aims to (a) contrast established, as well as recently emerging views, within the
dynamic field of CBM research with prominent approaches within the investigation of CS in order
to (b) identify angles that appear to be rather congruent within these research fields or that tend to
be unexplored viewpoints in CBM science. The overall goal is to (c) propose ways to exploit new
perspectives in order to contribute to the further development of the discipline. Given the limited
space of a journal article, the authors’ arguments, at one point or another, are pointedly formulated
and might seem rather provocative.
In line with the aforementioned research goals, the paper is organized as follows: Initially, the main
lines of strategy research are carved out, and the core dimensions of accessing CS are delineated. As
a preliminary result, the “Strategy Descriptor Cube” is introduced. Subsequently, the field of CBM
is narrowed down. A review of the literature on brand management, conversely, serves to identify
important research schools that are characterized by certain constitutive traits. Finally, CBM
schools are classified into the logic of the Strategy Descriptor Cube in order to explore to what
extent the approaches correspond. The paper closes with some explanations of the findings and a
discussion of the implications for CBM research.

2 Capturing the fundamental perspectives of approaches to corporate strategy
2.1 General concept of strategy and scope of corporate strategy
Strategy has been considered in various ways. Originating from a military context, the notion of
strategy diffused into business research and teaching. Authors such as Drucker (1954), Chandler
(1962), Ansoff (1965), Andrews (1971) or Porter (1980) are names that can be mentioned in the
forefront in this regard.

Recently, Ronda‐Pupo and Guerras‐Martin (2012, p. 180) have proposed a synthesis of previous
definitions, namely, that strategy is “the dynamics of the firm’s relation with its environment for
which the necessary actions are taken to achieve its goals and/or to increase performance by means
of the rational use of resources”. However, the ambiguity with a formal consensus definition of
strategy has repeatedly been accentuated (Mishra et al., 2015; Ronda‐Pupo and Guerras‐Martin,
2012; Carroll, 1987).
Apart from the debate regarding a comprehensive definition, the core of strategy might be revealed
by gathering typical attributes, relevant arguments and important logics that are used when strategic
situations or strategic behavior is discussed (Mintzberg, 1994; Andrews, 1971; Whittington, 2002;
Tovstiga, 2013; Ansoff, 1987; Nag et al., 2007). Hence, at least four intermediate conclusions might
be noteworthy. First, strategy guides the main routes of a company´s business orientation, allowing
for a target orientation of actions; they also exert a controlling effect. Second, strategy concerns
long-term effects and long-term success. Third, strategic situations entail a high extent of insecurity,
and the quality of the problem is unstructured and therefore requires deconstruction. Fourth,
strategy development is based on an evaluation of internal, as well as external factors, for a
company’s success.
Overall, the construct seems to rest on two accepted ideas as the main pillars. The first one refers to
the link between the company and its environment that strategy must establish (Ansoff, 1965, or
Andrews, 1987, were first main proponents of this thought). In other words, a concrete strategy will
evolve by simultaneously considering the inner and outer world of the company in order to derive a
suitable and successful framework for managerial action (see horizontal link in figure 1). Another
idea refers to the circumstance that strategy will serve as a kind of guideline for the question in what
way intended goals should be achieved and thus channel managerial actions (Cannon and Sayles,
1968; Glueck, 1972; Ansoff, 1987; see also the strategy mode “plan” described by Mintzberg,
1987). Hence, strategy links organizational goals and organizational actions (see the vertical link in
figure 1) and serves as “a map or compass for steering the corporate ship to its defined goal”
(Srinivasan, 2009, p. 129). Because of their nature, strategy decisions are a top-management issue
(e.g., Jemison, 1981; Carroll, 1987; Eisenhardt, 1999). Consequently, strategy can be characterized
by a dual link, as highlighted below in figure 1.
Figure 1: Dual link character of strategy.
As the following considerations focus on CS, its difference from business-level strategy requires
short consideration. Indeed, CS is frequently viewed as a kind of counter-concept to business-level
strategy (e.g., Johnson et al., 2014; Beard and Dess, 1981; Lynch, 2012; Varadarajan and Clark,
1994). CS centers the strategic orientations on the general or headquarters level of multi-product
companies (Andrews, 1987; Lynch, 2012; Johnson et al., 2014; Campbell and Park, 2005), and it
usually applies to the whole company and defines the businesses in which a company competes.
Related decisions create a picture of the kind of company that it is to be and therefore influence the
company on several levels while allocating a significant portion of a company’s resources to the
expected outcomes that unfold in the long run (Andrews, 1987). Important decisions apply to the
number and directions of strategic business units serving defined product-market constellations.
Therefore, strategy on a corporate level is mainly relevant to companies that engage in more than
one business (“multibusiness firms”; e.g., Chandler, 1991; Collins, 1996). Vertical
integration/parenting of corporations, multinational issues, diversification, mergers/acquisitions and
alliances or portfolio matrix management are considered the main topics of CS (Campbell and Park,
2005; Grant, 2012; Johnson et al., 2014; Goold et al., 1994), particularly as questions regarding
synergies need to be addressed.
Business strategy, in contrast, concerns settings for given business segments and patterns to respond
to customers, suppliers, competitors and other stakeholders within the concrete business (e.g.,
Hambrick, 1980). Its focus in on how business units compete to achieve market advantage. For
companies that engage in one business only, business strategy and CS might formally coincide.
Usually, CS is considered superordinate to business strategy (Hambrick, 1980).
2.2 Differences in accessing corporate strategy
Considering the CS literature, three levels of distinctions become apparent. First, different lines of
arguments exist on how a strategy originates. Second, contrasting ideas regarding the relevance of
internal resources for a successful strategy can be traced. Third, the way of perceiving and
analyzing strategy and developing CS can be conceptualized from different angles.
Prescriptive vs. emergent strategy
Prescriptive strategy represents a strategy that is defined before it is implemented. It is actively
designed in terms of an objective that had been set in advance. Task fields such as strategic
analysis, strategy development, and implementation are core activities; they are linked together
sequentially (Lynch, 2012; Campbell et al., 2011; de Wit and Meyer, 2010; Chakravarthy and
Lorange, 1991; Ackermann et al., 2004). This view corresponds to Ansoff´s (1987) “proactive
systematic mode”, which accentuates long-range, strategic planning and management. Prescriptive
conceptualizations of strategy not only dominate current management research and teaching (e.g.,
Andrews, 1987; Chakravarthy and Lorange, 1991; Chandler, 1962; Ansoff, 1965) but also prevail in
organizational practice (Lynch, 2012).
Critics of prescriptive strategy primarily argue that the approach is based on a number of dangerous
assumptions such as the ability to separate implementation from strategy extraction; the
consideration of a strategy merely as a management decision that then happens; the implementation
of a strategy that is merely a logical matter that can be managed in a way that it is proposed; the
understanding of the future as an object, which can be predicted sufficiently accurately to make
rational decisions; or the assumption that human beings constantly decide and act in a rational and
logic manner (Mintzberg, 1990, for a comprehensive overview). Related criticism has led, as a
counter project, to the elaboration of perspectives of emergent strategy.
Within an emergent strategy approach, the final objective is unclear, and elements of the strategy
evolve during the course of its life as the strategy proceeds (Johnson and Scholes, 1993; Lynch,
2012; Mintzberg, 1990; Mintzberg and McHugh, 1985). The strategy is not developed, but it has
emerged in adaptation to human needs and unknown innovations and developments. Furthermore, it
continues to develop further over time. In this way, the approach has taken up research on
organizational learning (e.g., Argyris, 1999; Senge, 1990). In essence, the emergent line of thinking
is that strategy might be best grasped by a process that emerges from organizational
experimentation and small steps forward. Within this perspective, core areas of analysis, strategy
development and implementation are interrelated – but not in a linear manner and with development
and implementation not being clearly separable as phases. This is why strategies, as patterns, are
recognizable only after the realization of management action; they might also become potentially
radical in nature (Mishra et al., 2015).

As a matter of course, the emergent view of strategy has provoked several lines of counter-
arguments (e.g., Ansoff, 1991), and the main related issues concern a) the passive attitude and
approach from management without a clear vision; b) the allocation of resources without strategic
planning; c) the ignorance concerning findings that rational and logically derived decision making
has a greater likelihood of success; and d) the problems that arise around management control.
Resource-based vs. environment-based development modes

A resource-based approach to strategy considers the company’s resources and their heterogeneity
as the source of a company´s competitive advantage (Barney, 1991; Dicksen, 1996; Lynch, 2012;
Mishra et al., 2015; Johnson et al., 2014). The basic idea might already be traced in Drucker’s
(1954) work, as the author stresses the importance of acquisition and the deployment of resources in
his understanding of strategy. Likewise, authors such as Schendel and Hatten (1972), Wernerfelt
(1984), Peteraf (1993), Teece (1982, 1990), Nelson and Winter (1982) and McNichols (1977)
emphasize the role of a company’s chief resources and competencies as the principal source of
successful strategies.
Critics of the resource-based approach to strategy note that these theories do well in analyzing
competitive advantages once it has been achieved, but they offer rather less insight when it comes
to the question of how to develop competitive advantage or how to respond to a changing
environmental situation (Kraaijenbrink et al., 2010; Priem and Butler, 2001).
The environmental view of strategy, on the contrary, stresses the importance of external factors such
as governments, markets, customer segments or competitors for strategic success, which leads to
profitability. Within this perspective, profits are mainly delivered by accurately selecting the most
attractive industries and competing better than others within those industries (Wheelen and Hunger,
1992; Porter, 1980; Rumelt et al., 1991; Ōmae, 1983; Porter, 1985). Basic ideas within this area had
already evolved from the works of Chandler (1962), Andrews (1987), Ansoff (1965) and Sloan
(1964). An analytical exploration of opportunities and threats that an organization faces is

prototypical for environmental-based strategic thinking. However, Kay (1993) and Prahalad and
Hamel (1990), inter alia, have fundamentally criticized this approach, arguing that the essential
emphasis on competitive industry comparisons is misleading and neglects issues of own resources
and skills formation. The aspects that theories in this field overemphasize a formal strategic
planning process and much too often take a likewise simplistic position are the main criticism areas,
which Mintzberg (1987, 1994) holds in this regard. Environmental perspectives have been
combined by Aragon-Correa and Sharma (2003) with the resource-based view in strategy via a
contingent approach.
Rational vs. political analysis of strategy
Most academic literature (e.g., Hofer and Schendel, 1980; Porter, 1980; Ansoff, 1965) in the field
of strategy is characterized by basic beliefs of mainly rationalist origin. In this orthodoxy, strategy
is “perceived as a set of `rational´ techniques for managing complex businesses in a changing
environment” (Knights and Morgan, 1991, p. 251). This perspective assumes that top management
can agree on aims and priorities, can do thorough search for alternatives, and can integrate the
optimal choice into a CS (Fredrickson and Mitchell, 1984).
The above perspective has been challenged by authors such as Pettigrew (1977, 1985), Mintzberg
(1977) and Mintzberg and McHugh (1985), who emphasize the need for political approaches. The
political view unveils the inability that is inherent within rational strategy approaches in terms of
explaining the uncertain direction and speed of a company’s change (Knights and Morgan, 1991;
Eisenhardt and Bourgeois, 1988) and underlines the socially constructed character of strategy and
strategy development. As Dean and Sharfman (1993) note, political behavior indeed influences
company decisions.
Political analysis draws attention to strategy formation as a continuous process (Pettigrew, 1977;
Dean and Sharfman, 1993) of discrete decisions and choices of individuals and groups (Pettigrew,
1977) and assumes that strategy formulation might widely depend on the power that individual
managers or groups are able to exert, as well as their personal targets that do not need to be
congruent with those of the company. Managers’ own agenda might even distract managers’
attention from firms’ goals regarding self-interests (Dean and Sharfman, 1993). Beyond that, there
are aspects of mass public opinion, interest group pressure, government relations, and firm size on
strategic decisions are objects of interest (e.g., Neiheisel, 1992).
Through the lens of the political approach, CS is a set of discourses and practices of individual
subjects who secure their sense of purpose and reality by developing, evaluating and formulating
strategy (Knights and Morgan, 1991). That is why political analysis is attentive to the emergence,
development and reproduction of the discourse (with the concept of discourse referring to
Foucault’s work; e.g., Foucault, 1980), conceiving it as a “set of ideas and practices, which
condition out ways of relating to, and acting upon, particular phenomena” (Knights and Morgan,
1991). Following this argument, CS evolves from political processes of negotiation between
elements within an organization and between the organization and elements of its environment. The
political approach has been advanced by recent research. For example, Elbanna et al. (2014) show
that aspects of decisions, the environment and organizations affect the extent and direction of
political behavior. Eisenhardt and Bourgeois (1988) examine facets of coalitions, power
centralization, covert action and power enhancement, and Kapoutsis (2016) or Kapoutsis et al.
(2016) explore political influence styles and tactics.
In sum, the political view questions the extent to which strategy embodies rational processes
(Knights and Morgan, 1991), especially in complex contexts (e.g., Child and Rodrigues, 2012;
Eisenhardt and Bourgeois, 1988).
2.3 The Strategy Descriptor Cube as a means to typify approaches to corporate strategy
The above-discussed differences in accessing CS were based on the three distinctions between
“resource-based vs. external-based development mode”, “prescriptive vs. emergent nature of
strategy” and “rational vs. political analysis”. For the next steps of the examination, each pair of
attributes are considered as manifestations of underlying dimensions to describe specific strategy
approaches, as a new framework.
Derivation of dimensions:
• The contrast of a resource-based vs. external-based development mode concerns
assumptions about whether strategy development predominantly draws on factors internal or
external to the organization. It goes back to the important controversy on whether main
sources of strategic advantage should be based on internal resources or external factors. The
essential tendencies can be seen as different manifestations of a one-dimensional criterium
that shall be labeled a “source of strategic advantage”. Taking into account the
abovementioned views, it is of dichotomous categorical quality with “external factors” and
“intra-organizational factors” as two modifications of this dimension. The dimension
captures whether strategy is predominantly developed outside in or inside out.
• The distinction of a prescriptive vs. emergent nature of strategy refers to assumption on how
a strategy develops. A main body of literature assumes that CS is actively planned and
developed (“a prescriptive strategy”). As outlined above, this notion was challenged by the
idea that strategy situationally emerges and can be interpreted only retroactively (“emergent
strategy”). The divergence can be traced back to differences on a dimension “genesis of
strategy”, with its dichotomous values “prescriptive” and “emergent”.
• The contrast of a “rational vs. political analysis” of strategy goes back to perceptions, value
patterns and methods, on the one hand, and to the extent that power and the personal
interests of managers are included in the inspection and interpretation of strategy
development, on the other hand. These aspects are to be addressed by the dimension of
“perspective of analysis”. Picking up the discussions above, the two categorical values of
the criterion are “rational” and “political”. Whereas a “rational perspective” builds on a
positivist, rationalist technique for analyzing and developing strategy in a “neutral” way
(referring to paradigms of natural sciences), a “political perspective” considers the socially
constructed character of strategy and includes aspects of power and personal aims into the
analysis of strategy (referring to paradigms of social-constructivism and post-positivism).
Combining the dimensions to the Strategy Descriptor Cube: The three dimensions, (a) source of
strategic advantage, (b) genesis of strategy and (c) perspective of analysis, are logically independent
criteria to characterize facets of CS. Integration of these criteria leads to a three-dimensional

framework that can be called the “Strategy Descriptor Cube” (SDC). This name refers to the
visually, dimensional space that is constituted by the dimensions, as shown below in figure 2.
The SDC constitutes an important intermediate result of our reflections: First, the SDC serves as a
possible means to describe and evaluate the situation of, inter alia, corporate brand research.
Second, the dimensions and specifications of the SDC provide important vocabulary to render the
characteristics of strategic ideas and directions accessible. Third, the SDC facilitates the
visualization of available constellations.
In the following reflections, the SDC will be applied to CBM research orientations in order to grasp
substantial traits of different research directions. However, before doing so, the main research
orientations (schools) of CBM need to be extracted. This is done in the following section.
Figure 2: Strategy Descriptor Cube (SDC)
3. Inventory of current corporate brand management research
3.1 Nature and origin of corporate brand management
While already in the twenties of the last century, scientific approaches to advertising (Hopkins,
1923) have been discussed to strengthen the positioning of product brands such as Listerine or
Coca-Cola (Wu, 2016), with some exceptions, including fashion houses such as Dior and Chanel or
automotive manufacturers such as Mercedes and BMW (Hatch and Schultz, 2009), the interest in
corporate brands emerged far later (Urde, 2013) and under a different headline. It was not until the
mid-fifties that marketing scholars such as Newman (1953), Boulding (1956b), Swanson (1957) and
Martineau (1958) increasingly looked into subjects such as corporate image, and corporate identity,
not before the seventies (Pilditch, 1970; see Abratt, 1989 for an overview). In fact, the advent of the
discipline CBM can only be dated back to the end of the last century when brand management
scholars felt inspired by the field of corporate identity management (e.g., Balmer and van Riel,
1997; Balmer, 1998; Melewar and Harrold, 2000). The first journal article that included the words
of corporate branding in its headline was that of Balmer (1995, also see Balmer, 2013); it was
written decades after the management of product brands had established itself as an important
aspect of the marketing discipline. Some of the major market-driven reasons for this shift in
attention were identified as the homogenization of products and services; the broadening of
competition within supply markets; the high number of mergers and acquisitions; globalization; the
increasing awareness of the financial value of brands; the shorting of product life cycles; the
increasing costs of promoting individual line brands; the introduction of category management; and
the growing importance of the service sector (Hatch and Schultz, 2009; Meffert and Bierwirth,
2005; de Chernatony, 1999; Hatch and Schultz, 2003). Additionally, the rise of identity-based
concepts of brand management in the mid-nineties accelerated the increased interest in corporate
brands (Kapferer, 1994; Harris and de Chernatony, 2001).
The enhanced level of interest in corporate brand issues led to a significant degree of fragmentation
in the corresponding approaches (Ind, 1997b). In this regard, Balmer (2001a) identifies a “dense
fog”, which prevents a clear view of corporate brands in many respects. One aspect, however,
seems to be undoubted: a corporate brand should be more than the outward manifestation of an
organization such as its name, logo or visual code (Ind, 1997b). It is not only visual or verbal; it
also comprises a behavioral expression of an organization’s business model (Knox and Bickerton,
2003) and “defines the organization that will deliver and stand behind the offering” (Aaker, 2004, p.
7). Therefore, the corporate brand, regarded as a “distinct identity type” (Balmer, 2012b, p. 1069),
should be closely aligned with the corporate identity (Balmer, 2001c; Hulberg, 2006). Balmer’s
AC4ID test of CBM can be helpful in achieving this affiliation (Balmer, 2012b, 2001b; Balmer and
Soenen, 1999).
Burmann et al. (2009a) define a corporate brand as a bundle of benefits that makes a specific
company sustainably different from other. It has also be described as an expression and image of an
organization’s identity (Abratt and Kleyn, 2012) or as a promise that an organization makes to its
stakeholders (Melewar et al., 2012). CBM aims to build a clearly defined brand proposition, which
“underpins organizational efforts to communicate, differentiate, and enhance the brand vis-á-vis key
stakeholder groups and networks” (Balmer, 2001a, p. 281). This closely corresponds to
Wiedmann’s view, who defines the process of corporate branding as “highlighting the most
valuable & valued corporate strengths” (2015, p. 750). Therefore, a corporate brand can also be
considered an information cue of company’s values and goals (Halliday, 1998; Kay, 2006; Urde,
2003).
3.2 Relevance, scope, and concern of corporate brand management
In most industries, the overall relevance of the corporate brand concept is significant, and
organizational practice therefore reflects a high degree of brand orientation (Urde, 2013). Many
experienced executives consider the brand of their organization to be something that is strategically
important (Balmer, 2010). Apart from multinational corporations, this is also true for small and
medium enterprises (Abimbola and Vallaster, 2007), social businesses (Schmidt et al., 2015),
political parties (O'Cass and Voola, 2011), educational institutions (Casidy, 2013; Morschheuser
and Redler, 2015), destinations (Hankinson, 2007), soccer clubs (Balmer, 2010) and many more
organizations (Urde and Greyser, 2015; Balmer, 2007).
The popularity of CBM across industries might be attributable to the following: a corporate brand
has something to do with the core values that define an organization (Ind, 1997b), insofar as this
core makes the company somehow different from competitors and adds value to the company’s full
product or service range (Ind, 1997b). This should be of interest to almost all role players within
today’s competitive market environment. Therefore, a corporate brand “involves the conscious
decision by senior management to distil and make known the attributes of the organization’s
identity in the form of a clearly defined branding proposition” (Balmer, 2001a, p. 281). Instructions
on how this can be done have been provided by various macro and micro models (Knox and
Bickerton, 2003), including the works of Dowling (1993), Hatch and Schultz (2001) and Balmer
and Soenen (1999).

Corporate brands have been described as brands that focus on multiple, internal and external
stakeholder groups (e.g., customers, employees, shareholders, suppliers and the general public;
Curtis et al., 2009), compared to product brands that focus mainly on customers (Balmer, 2001a;
Kernstock et al., 2014). Hence, corporate brands are in need of a different management approach
than product brand (Harris and de Chernatony, 2001), and CBM should therefore be integrated into
a much broader and comprehensive concept of corporate leadership that attracts and preserves all
relevant stakeholder groups (Wiedmann, 2015). A central characteristic of the corporate brand is its
function to build enduring confidence in the company’s offers (Griffin, 2002). The resulting trust is
one of the company’s central resources (Kernstock et al., 2014), which leads to a positive corporate
reputation (Argenti and Druckenmiller, 2004; Wiedmann, 2015). Other functions of corporate
brands include lending credibility (Argenti and Druckenmiller, 2004) and reducing media costs
(Schultz and de Chernatony, 2002) when launching new products or entering new markets;
connecting strategy and vision to a firm’s marketing functions (Argenti and Druckenmiller, 2004);
aligning organizational subcultures across functions and geographic boundaries (Schultz and de
Chernatony, 2002); supporting internal brand building (Aaker, 2004); and attracting talents (Balmer
and Gray, 2003).
3.3 Criteria to describe corporate brand management research activity
Within the last 25 years, brand management has gone through major changes (Veloutsou and
Guzman, 2017), which may be a reason for its fragmented nature (Ind, 1997b). The resulting
streams of thought can be classified in a number of ways (Balmer, 2013; Kernstock et al., 2014).
Considering the broad literature on brand management, four criteria might be helpful to structure
research directions and traditions in the field of CBM, and they are described below.
Instrumental objective(s). Overall objectives of brand management have been discussed in
marketing research, among them are trust and loyalty, the improvement of quality perceptions and
the realization of a price premium (e.g., Aaker, 1996). While these general targets, which are
considered to be favorable end states or terminal goals (Schwartz and Bilsky, 1987), seem to be
accepted by all CBM researchers, there is a wider range of instrumental objectives for CBM,
including the communication of a unique selling proposition (USP; Reeves, 1961) or an increase of
brand equity (Burmann et al., 2009b). Instrumental objectives, as used as a criterion here, refer to
the more substantiated sub-targets of the overall brand management objective that sketch the main
levers and that might have been considered a first step toward the operationalization of the brand
concept.
Conceptual kinship. Contributions to CBM have their roots in different traditions and address quite
a range of different problems. Accordingly, authors draw on an interdisciplinarily diversified body
of theory when developing their ideas. Within the considerable spectrum, some conceptual
approaches seem to be more frequent and might be considered central pillars in the advancement of
CBM research. The criterion conceptual kinship is used to characterize CBM research activity in
terms of its reference to other, basic or bordering theory.
Degree of cross-functionality. To realize CBM goals, an organization can make use of a broad
range of activities that involve multiple departments (e.g., Marketing, Sales, Human Resources, IT).
Brexendorf and Kernstock (2007, p. 33), in line with Balmer (2001a), call this a “multidisciplinary
approach”. In contrast, certain streams within CBM research consider some departments (e.g.,
marketing communications) to be of higher importance for CBM than others and, therefore, utilize a
much narrower scope of instruments.
Orientation of the CBM process. Significant differences exist in the design of the CBM process,
notably in the aspect of what the initial step in such a process might be and whether the outset
should be inside or outside of the company (Knox and Bickerton, 2003). Some researchers (e.g.,
Frazer, 1983; Supphellen, 2000) assume that a deep understanding of purchasers’ perceptions of the
brand is the fundamental step. A process such as this has been called an outside-in perspective of
brand management (Ind and Bjerke, 2007). In opposition to the outside-in perspective, researchers
might emphasize the brand, as constructed by brand executives, who design a brand identity, which
in turn, serves as a guideline to manage brand touchpoints. This is commonly called an inside-out
approach to CBM (Ind, 2003; Burmann et al., 2009a). With the so-called relational paradigm,
Louro and Cunha (2001, p. 865) propose a brand management process that integrates these views
and conceptualizes brand management “as an ongoing dynamic process, without a clear beginning
and ending”.
3.4 Clustering schools of corporate brand management
The above-explained criteria were considered to evaluate the literature on (corporate) brand
research. As a result of that analysis, we were able to identity five clusters. In the following, they
are introduced and characterized as schools (Balmer, 1995). These schools are one possible solution
to capture a pattern of the situation in CBM research and are primarily a means of reducing the
range of single research contributions in order to a manageable and manifest structure. Thus, it
should be noted that the presented categorization might at some point be perceived as “black-and-
white”; the schools might have significant areas of overlap when building on other criteria, and
evidently numerous CBM researchers have contributed to various of the schools outlined here. It is
in the nature of things that points of criticism of a reduction of complexity need be kept in mind.
Image school
A considerable strand of literature has its roots in approaches to corporate design and
communications (e. g., Ogilvy and Atherton, 1963). Contributions to this line of research highlight
the market-oriented view of the company, focusing on the satisfaction of individual and changing
customer needs and wants (Kohli and Jaworski, 1990; Shapiro, 1988), with the brand considered to
be an impression in the customer’s mind, which partially arises from perceptions of brand
differentiation (Doyle, 1990; Kotler, 1988; Murphy, 1992; Trout and Rivkin, 2010). A group of
contributions we name the image school, a term already mentioned in a piece by Meenaghan
(1995). According to this perspective, CBM should aim to position the brand, building on in-depth
insights into consumers’ evaluation of products, organizations and attitudes, while also using
findings from communication sciences. Regarding the instrumental objective, the positioning within
customers’ minds is meant to result in image creation and differentiation from competitors (Trout
and Ries, 1981). Important to note, the concept of positioning is closely linked to the term unique
selling proposition (USP), which has dominated product marketing for the past decades (Knox and
Bickerton, 2003).
To create the desired brand image, managers should rely primarily on marketing communications
(Speak and Hanson, 2008), specifically on advertising (Meenaghan, 1995). It is advertising
managers who are responsible for “inform[ing] consumers of the functional capabilities of the brand
while simultaneously imbuing the brand with symbolic values and meanings relevant to the
consumer” (Meenaghan, 1995, p. 23). This implies that ideas of the brand should be designed in
advance in order to be attractive to audiences and to meet their expectations (Wood, 2000).
Therefore, it is relevant to analyze how a company’s brand is perceived—also relatively to the
competition—in terms of critical attributes (Gwin and Gwin, 2003). Hence, CBM processes are
orientated rather outside in.
Behavioral school
Important research contributions might be assigned to a cluster to be named the behavioral school.
Articles within this assemblage draw on the market-oriented foundations of the image school, as
they also consider the corporate brand as a mental idea of a company (Aaker, 2004). Originating
from product branding ideas, they introduce the notion of customer-based brand equity (CBBE;
Keller, 2001), which is defined as the differential effect of brand knowledge on a person’s reaction
to marketing stimuli (Keller, 1993). The construct of brand knowledge is acknowledged as the
source of CBBE; it is operationalized via brand awareness and brand image associations (Keller,
1993), and it is partially influenced by the history of the brand (Keller, 2001). A main principle lies
in the establishment of favourable associations in the minds of the stakeholders. That is achieved by
a marketing department that is responsible for the implementation of integrated marketing
communication, with only little overlap with other corporate functions. As a theoretical grounding,
contributions within the school draw on learning theory and exceedingly recognize findings of
socio-scientific research.
Researchers who associate with this behavior-orientated perspective consequently concur that the
brand is a construct that is established in the minds of customers, in a sphere that is external to the
organization (e.g., Keller, 1993; Franzen and Bouwman, 2001; Kapferer, 2011; de Chernatony and
Dall'Olmo Riley, 1998). Ergo, within this school, brand planning emphasizes outside-oriented
aspects, such as brand awareness or brand associations, as fundamental pillars to achieve
competitive advantage. For example, Keller (1993, p. 14) advises marketers to define “knowledge
structures that they would like to create in the minds of consumers”.
Identity school
The roots that we group within an identity school might be traced to the works of Aaker (1989,
1996), Balmer (1995), Hatch and Schultz (2001), Balmer and Gray (2003), and Burmann et al.
(2009b), among others. The basic assumption is that building a corporate brand is an initiative of
the brand owner, based on the core competencies and characteristics of the organization itself (the
resource-based view; e.g., Balmer, 2007). This view is in accordance with Balmer’s suggestion that
“the management of the corporate brand should be founded on reality” (Balmer, 1995, p. 38). If this
is true, a deep look into the organization becomes specifically relevant in order to manage brands
(Harris and de Chernatony, 2001). Hence, authors subscribing to identity-based approaches stress
brand identity design as the key (instrumental objective) and claim the indirect emergence of an
external image over time (Wiedmann et al., 2011). This view is in line with important ideas of
(social) identity research.
Brand identity, in this school, is considered to be a crucial construct (Balmer et al., 2009) that
includes brand characteristics that from the viewpoint of internal stakeholders define the essence
and character of the brand over a longer period of time and along different brand touch points
(Burmann and Zeplin, 2005). On the one hand, brand identity can be grasped and determined by
analyzing the brand’s heritage (e.g., historic achievements, perceived track record, founding story;
Wiedmann et al., 2011; Urde et al., 2007). Conversely, its current status (e.g., competitive
differentiating characteristics, behavior of employees) and future strategy (Hatch and Schultz, 2003)
must also be considered.

Contrary to the image and the behavioral school, identity school contributions assume that corporate
brand image will develop only over time, based on customers’ previous and holistic experiences
with the branded company (Wiedmann et al., 2011). Hence, the identity school focusses on a
brand’s values and on ways to make the value proposition come alive for customers and employees
(Saleem and Iglesias, 2016), which includes not only traditional marketing activities but also a
broad range of human resources and change management instruments (Punjaisri et al., 2009;
Burmann et al., 2009c; Punjaisri and Wilson, 2007). Consequently, the marketing department has to
co-work with other corporate functions to achieve its goals of creating and cultivating an identity.
Since the brand represents the company’s core values and beliefs, identity-oriented schools
conclude that core values and beliefs must be demonstrated in every internal and external activity in
which the company is involved (Simoes and Dibb, 2001). Following an inside-out approach (Urde
et al., 2013), the identity school begins with an analysis of the branded corporation and first
focusses on the roles of internal stakeholder groups (Burmann et al., 2009b). In this respect, aspects
of employees’ brand value internalization have been discussed as crucial (Morhart et al., 2009; de
Chernatony, 1999).
Strategy school
The cluster named the strategic school covers contributions to CBM that acknowledge that a strong
corporate brand not only provides social, emotional, and symbolic value (Balmer, 2012b) but also
leads to more revenue, lower costs and higher profits for the company (e.g., Madden et al., 2006
and Harter et al., 2005). From the school’s perspective, corporate brands are considered strategic
assets (Balmer, 2007; Veloutsou and Guzman, 2017) that might prosper and grow if vision,
strategy, culture and image are aligned (Hatch and Schultz, 2001, 2008; Balmer et al., 2009) –
aspects that reflect instrumental objectives. These objectives are compatible with the resource-based
view of strategy, which has noted that intangible capabilities, such as brands, create sustainable
competitive advantage (Abratt and Kleyn, 2012; Omar et al., 2009). Hence, this school attaches
strategic importance to CBM (Aaker, 2004; Vallaster et al., 2012), and it is consequently associated
with claims that top management needs to account for such factors (Balmer, 2010) and should strive
for a brand-oriented culture (Urde, 1999). As a consequence, CBM “requires total corporate
commitment to the corporate body from all levels of personnel" (Balmer, 2001a, p. 281). Such an
effort includes financial support and the attention of top management, even the CEO (Balmer,
2012a). With regard to this perspective, brand management is not merely a marketing department
task but rather one for the entire organization (Hatch and Schultz, 2001). Overall, this view seems
to be closely related to the ideas of the brand-oriented corporation (Urde et al., 2013).
Moreover, brand strategy is perceived to be the external face of business strategy and, conversely,
represents a central internal asset of company value on its own (Kernstock et al., 2014). The latter
argument, in particular, is evident in the works of Simoes and Dibb (2001, p. 218), who note that
corporate branding (seen as CBM) “becomes the strategic direction for an organization’s activities,
providing consistency through the connection between positioning, communication and staff
working style/behavior". Hence, through the brand, current business performance and long-term
strategy can be viewed simultaneously (Simoes and Dibb, 2001). Hatch and Schultz (2009, p. 122)
point in the same direction when proposing that corporate brands are channels “to communicate the
strategy of the organization to its own employees".

Co-creative school
The cluster that we name the co-creative school is shaped by recent contributions that call for a
more agile (Belz, 2006), organic (Iglesias et al., 2013; Saleem and Iglesias, 2016) or participative
(Christodoulides, 2009; Ind et al., 2012) approach, with some authors explicitly claiming that brand
management requires a paradigm shift (Ind, 2014; Lawer and Knox, 2007). The varied angles go
back to changing customer demands and new drivers of (empowered) customer value (Lawer and
Knox, 2007) and theory formation on digital interactivity. They are also affected by the “service
dominant” considerations of Vargo and Lusch (2004, 2017). Regarding the instrumental objective
level, the school might be characterized by brand management’s need to enable and influence social
processes that involve multiple stakeholders (Iglesias et al., 2013). In this regard, the definition of
corporate brand meaning can no longer be considered an internal activity that is solely initiated by
the branded company (Kornum et al., 2017; Wallpach et al., 2017). Rather, owing to major social
(e.g., the rise of communities; see O'Brien, 2011) and technological (e.g., advanced possibilities of
interaction through social media; see Hunter and Garnefeld, 2008; Arora et al., 2008) changes, as
well as shifting consumer expectations (e.g., increasing demand for customized products; Franke et
al., 2009; Romero and Molina, 2009), brand management might only provide direction, but it is no
longer in control of brand meaning (Iglesias et al., 2013). This includes the possibility that “brands
may allow society to regain control over massive international corporations lost during the recent
period of globalization” (Hatch and Schultz, 2010, p. 590). Hence, brand value is permanently
negotiated among many different stakeholders (Ind et al., 2013), which seems to be especially
relevant and complex for corporate brands (Roper and Davies, 2007). As brand value is considered
to be co-created by a number of parties, marketing is only one of many corporate functions that is
involved in this process, leading to a high degree of cross-functionality on the one hand and internal
and external triggers that need to be integrated as counter-acting streams in the CBM process on the
other hand.
Overview of schools
The arguments and positions that were expounded above are summarized in table 1. Referring to the
presented criteria for CBM descriptions, it might serve as a brief overview of the outlined
clustering.
Criteria Schools of CBM

Image Behavioral Identity Strategy Co-creative
school school school school school
Instrumental Find and com- Establish favora- Live a grown Create and Influence the
objective(s) municate a ble and unique and shaped cultivate a brand social processes
unique selling associations in brand identity at as a strategic that create brand
proposition the minds of every brand intangible asset; meaning; enable
(USP) that stakeholders; touch point to integrate a and guide
serves to create a influence brand indirectly corporate vision, negotiations of
differentiating knowledge influence brand culture and the brand by
image structures perceptions image to foster, many
inter alia, stakeholders
performance
Conceptual Product design Product Identity research Competitive Digital
kinship branding; advantage interactivity
learning research research
Degree of cross- Low; brands are Low; the Medium; the High; CBM is High; brand
functionality led by the marketing marketing linked with all value is co-
advertising unit division is division is in the strategic initia- created by all
responsible for lead, but it must tives and is stakeholders
integrated brand work closely meant to affect involving all
communications together with HR the main corporate
and/or other operational functions
divisions management
Orientation of Rather outside- Rather outside- Rather inside- Either inside-out Inside-out and
CBM process in; analysis of in; a focus on out; brand or outside-in outside-in as
external target external brand planning is (depending on counteracting
groups’ awareness and shaped by the the strategy and simultaneous
perception of brand knowledge competencies approach) perspectives
rules regarding determines brand and
brand planning planning characteristics of
the organization
that form the
brand values
2 examples of Ogilvy and Keller (1993); Balmer (1998); Simoes and Dibb Ind (2014);
contributions Atherton (1963); Franzen and Burmann et al. (2001); Hatch Iglesias et al.
Trout and Ries Bouwman (2009a) and Schultz (2013)
(1981) (2001) (2001)
Table 1: Overview of corporate brand management schools
4. Contrasting brand management schools with strategy research approaches
4.1 Idea and findings
In two independent steps of analysis, a) three basic dimensions that serve to characterize approaches
to CS (section 2) have been carved out, and b) according to valid criteria, CBM schools have been
clustered (section 3). In the following third step of our exploration, the CBM schools are analyzed
for the reported basic dimensions. The analysis aims at a) an assessment of which perspectives of
CS are prevalent in corporate brand research in order to b) stimulate a discussion for alternative
research directions within CBM. Note that this is not meant to demonstrate the superiority of any
school. On the basis of the dimensions from section 2, the CBM schools can be reasonably
characterized as follows:
Image school: As described above, the image school focuses on the instrumental objective of
creating an USP on the basis of which an image is created. This image will serve to build a
competitive advantage. As the image lies in the minds of brand stakeholders and is external to the
organization, this school might be classified as grounding on an external factor as the source of
strategic advantage, and that is why it is to be assigned to the value “external” on that dimension.
According to this school, brand managers do not primarily consider the strengths and capabilities of
the company; rather, they focus on positioning gaps that may offer a unique possibility for the brand
to grow (Sengupta, 2005). Regarding the genesis of strategy, prescriptive styles are dominant,
which becomes obvious based on the idea that brands can be artificially designed, probably to fit
into positioning gaps (Trout and Ries, 1981). Within this school, USP and images are tailored in
advance to the needs and wants of the target market (Wood, 2000); then, advertising is used to
realize the planned effects (Meenaghan, 1995). Thus, the school should be classified as
“prescriptive” on the genesis-of-strategy dimension. Since the brand planning process builds on
rationalist techniques of analysis and prediction (King, 2007, 1991), the process of strategy
development is assumed to be of objective quality, and as an analysis of power and managers’

personal interests are not examined, the image school seems to fit the rational value on the
dimension “perspective of analysis”.
Behavioral school: According to this school, the success of CBM is attributed to stakeholders’
learning of brand associations as a reaction to the systematic use of communication stimuli (Keller
and Lehmann, 2006). Like an image, learned brand associations concern reactions in the minds of
stakeholders, something that is external to the organization. Consequently, the behavioral school of
CBM is categorized as grounding on an external factor as the source of strategic advantage. Since
aspired associations are systematically planned in advance (Keller, 1993) to design a suitable
communication mix to ensure that learning outcomes are achieved, a prescriptive approach to brand
strategy genesis might be revealed. The perspective of analysis, further, is more a rational one. This
is apparent in the circumstance that questions of power and discourse are not commonly addressed
while rationalist thinking prevails in analysis and assumptions about decision making. In particular,
the stimulus-reaction perspective of learning plays a major role (Villas-Boas, 2004; van Osselaer
and Alba, 2000).
Identity school: In terms of the source of strategic advantage, contributions within the identity
school emphasize internal factors. In particular, the company’s resources, such as competencies,
culture and knowledge, are in focus and are considered to be the building blocks to gain an
advantage (Aaker, 1989, 1996; Wiedmann et al., 2011; Urde et al., 2007). External factors, such as
market trends, weaknesses among competition, and stakeholder expectations, are acknowledged but
considered secondary inputs to develop a brand strategy (Burmann et al., 2009b). The process of
brand building is guided by phase models or blueprints as apparent in the papers of Urde (2013) or
Keller (2001). Therefore, looking at the dimension “genesis of strategy”, the school seems to be
prescriptively oriented. Though some work has been done to analyze how internal commitment
regarding brands can be achieved (King and Grace, 2008; Mitchell, 2002; Balmer et al., 2011),
most contributions take a more rational perspective: neither the organizational discourse or
negotiation of brand strategy nor power analysis are seriously addressed.
Strategy school: Contributions within this school refer to internal as well as to external aspects as
sources of comparative advantage (Hatch and Schultz, 2001; O'Cass and Viet Ngo, 2007).
Accordingly, this school might be assigned to both values on the dimension “source of strategic
advantage”. In terms of the “genesis of strategy”, there is evidence that the school should be
classified as being rather prescriptive: included contributions assume that the brand strategy is
actively planned and derived from CS in order to be implemented afterward (Hambrick and
Fredrickson, 2001). Additionally, brand strategy development is considered to be of a rational
nature and by use of objective methods (as in, e.g., Park et al., 1986) without considering humans,
their interactions and power. Thus, the strategy school might be well positioned in the “rational”
intercept of the “perspective of analysis” axis.
Co-creative school: Regarding the description of this school on the dimension “source of strategic
advantage”, it might be stated that contributions to the co-creative school fit both with the external
and the internal value of the criterion. This might be transparent when considering that according to
this school, a brand as the means of advantage is co-created by the company and the stakeholders
(Ind, 2014; Wallpach et al., 2017). It is also owing to the co-creation principle that the school
should be classified by taking a political perspective since the brand results from negotiation rather
than from a rational decision (Hatch and Schultz, 2009; Iglesias et al., 2013); it also builds heavily
on the analysis and formation of social processes (Black and Veloutsou, 2017; Merz et al., 2009).
Furthermore, brand strategy is considered to develop during the process of negotiation and is not
determined in advance (Berthon et al., 2009). Thus, the school’s approach is more political than
rational; brands are understood as being socially constructed and unstable. As Veloutsou and
Guzman (2017) claim, a brand is not to be considered a transactional tool. This approach reflects
the way in which a strategy develops from the point of view of the co-creative school. It gives
support to viewing the school as being rather “emergent” in terms of the “genesis of strategy”: a
brand manager’s control of the brand management process diffuses, and CBM shifts from being
organization centered to being relationship centered (Melewar et al., 2012; Leitch and Richardson,
2003).
The analysis of CBM schools for the dimensions of the SDC is summarized in table 2. The findings
from this third step of analysis can now, from an overall viewpoint, be examined further, as
presented in the following paragraphs.
Dimension Source of advantage Genesis of strategy Perspective of analysis

School External Internal Prescriptive Emergent Rational Political
Image X 0 X 0 X 0
Behavioral X (X) X 0 X 0
Identity (X) X X 0 X 0
Strategy X X X 0 X 0
Co-creative X X 0 X (X) X
Explanation: X = strong correspondence, (X) = weak correspondence, 0 = no correspondence
Table 2: Classification of CBM schools in the logic of the SDC
Analysis for dimensions: The findings show that external and internal viewpoints regarding the
source of strategic advantages are balanced across all CBM schools: external and internal
approaches are identified several times. However, for other dimensions, the effect is noticeably
different. Regarding the genesis of strategy, most schools show a prescriptive approach, and
considering the perspective of analysis, the rational approach is clearly prevalent throughout most
schools. Based on the analysis of the current research, one might say that the research perspective is
one sided.
Analysis for schools: Comparisons among the different schools reveal that the image and the
behavior schools share similarities regarding their dimensional characteristics. Furthermore, it
becomes obvious that most schools differ from each other in one dimension only. The co-creative
school, however, is an exception to this pattern, since it differs with regard to both the strategy
genesis and analysis perspective.

These findings can be visualized by locating CBM schools in the SDC, as shown in figure 3. The
results reveal the following picture:
• four of the five schools accumulate in the sections of the SDC that build on rational and
prescriptive approaches;
• one (the co-creative) school has a distinctively different position compared with the other
schools; and
• many sections of the cube are void of any approach to corporate brand research, which
implies that approaches of a political prescriptive or rational emergent nature have not (yet)
taken shape.
In sum, our findings indicate that on the one hand, though there seems to be a spectrum of research
approaches to CBM (as shown above), the approaches differ in traditions but are, regarding the
deduced dimensions, not as controversial and as diversified as it was traceable for CS. Based on our
results, it might actually be argued that the overall picture of brand research schools is largely
unbalanced. Seen through the lenses of the SDC, the field of brand research schools might even be
considered to be a two-cluster solution, with the co-creative school representing a first and all other
schools forming a second cluster.
Conversely, the cube analysis highlights unexplored sections of the cube, which reveals potential
toeholds for alternative research concepts. They might offer promising perspectives to challenge
and advance CBM research. Currently, the co-creative school seems to be the only ones to counter
other existing schools.

Figure 3: Matching CBM schools to the SDC
4.2 Implications
The analysis of current research in CBM shows that is possible to categorize schools that should be
considered groups of similar bodies of literature. This is, however, not to suggest that there is no
evidence of interconnections between authors and lines of thought. Some authors might even have
contributed to the development of different schools. Research might therefore address the questions
of what schools can be found from different angles, how schools are interconnected and whether,
for example, a co-creative school inspires or threatens other CBM schools.
Our research borrows perspectives from the CS field and thereby might encourage altering some of
CBM’s metaphors (Whetten 1989). The findings especially provide insights into aspects regarding
the scope and diversity of CBM research. Regarding the idea that competitive advantage might
originate from internal or external factors, our analysis supports the existence of competing
approaches. However, regarding some other criteria, the schools’ positions in the SDC are
comparatively similar. Most of them were classified as building predominantly on rationalist ways
of analysis and as prescriptive in their perspective. Emergent perspectives and political approaches
to analysis, however, were not discernible from our analysis. This is worrying: a broadening of
perspectives and a more attentive reception of agile trends in CBM might become increasingly
relevant, as new media and communication realities shape the present and the future of brand
building. The recent discussion on digital branding (e.g., Cocoran, 2013; Edelman, 2010; Kohli et
al., 2015; Erdem et al., 2015) and consumer engagement in brand communities (e.g., Dessart et al.,
2015; Ind et al., 2013; Black and Veloutsou, 2017) could be considered another argument for the
latter.
Further research could examine contributions of emergent views and of political approaches for
CBM research. An absorption of the co-creative school of CBM research might be a connecting line
as, according to our analysis, this school is the only one to address emergent and political
perspectives. Since these co-creative approaches are rather new and have not been exhaustively
discussed in the literature, there is thus a significant need for research in this particular field. Table
3 below provides an overview of some imperatives for CBM research that is fueled by our
argumentation. By gaining and building on these primary findings, CBM research might learn from
developments in the strategy discipline. It might as well strengthen its awareness for dialectics and
discourse between conflicting perspectives and approaches for the progress of the discipline.
Topic General issues Benefits

Research streams on CBM tend to How can CBM benefit from CBM might learn from the much
take a prescriptive and rational emergent and political perspectives more developed field of CS. This
perspective. on CS? might unfold broader perspectives.
Schools of CBM are if not isolated How are the different schools Existing approaches to CBM do not
from each other than not well interconnected? How, for example, need to be rewritten. Schools of
connected. does co-creation inspire other CBM CBM can adapt to current
schools? challenges.
Co-creative school gains popularity Is the low acceptance of the co- CBM might be pushed forward.
within the world of product brands, creative school dangerous? How can Developed blueprints will improve
but they are neither well recognized a co-creative approach develop CBM. CBM will adapt to the
nor fully accepted within CBM. blueprints? How can we engage changing reality.
employees, customers, and other
stakeholders to take part in the brand
management process? What will be
next?
Table 3: Imperatives for CBM research
5. Concluding remarks
The paper began with the notion that CBM research and CS research are isolated lines of
investigation. It aimed to contrast CBM research directions with major approaches to CS research in
order to reveal parallels and differences among these perspectives. Fundamental views on strategy
were hence condensed into the SDC, which emerged as an important tool to characterize issues of
strategy. The tool was then used to describe and typify CBM schools. This approach led to a new
landscape of CBM research, which might provide an impetus for further CBM research. The main
findings indicate that CBM research tends to be one sided and that it may run the risk of being
blinkered. Intensifying efforts in widening such research approaches might be a notable effort. It
also appears that the co-creative school might be capable of challenging and inspiring future CBM
research efforts.
References
Aaker, D.A. (1989), “Managing assets and skills. The key to a sustainable competitive advantage”, California
Management Review, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 91–106.
Aaker, D.A. (1996), Building strong brands, Free Press, New York.
Aaker, D.A. (2004), “Leveraging the Corporate Brand”, California Management Review, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 6–
18.
Abimbola, T. and Vallaster, C. (2007), “Brand, organisational identity and reputation in SMEs. An overview”,
Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 341–348.
Abratt, R. (1989), “A new approach to the corporate image management process”, Journal of Marketing
Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 63–76.
Abratt, R. and Kleyn, N. (2012), “Corporate identity, corporate branding and corporate reputations”,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46 7/8, pp. 1048–1063.
Ackermann, F., Eden, C. and Brown, I. (2004), The practice of making strategy: A step-by-step guide, Sage,
London.
Andrews, K.R. (1971), The Concept of Corporate Strategy, Richard D. Irwin, Homewood.
Andrews, K.R. (1987), The Concept of Corporate Strategy, Richard D. Irwin, Homewood.
Ansoff, H.I. (1965), Business Strategy: Selected Readings, Penguin, Baltimore.
Ansoff, H.I. (1987), Corporate strategy, rev. ed, Penguin, London.
Ansoff, H.I. (1991), “Critique of Henry Mintzberg's ‘The design school: reconsidering the basic premises of
strategic management’”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 449–461.
Aragon-Correa, J.A. and Sharma, S. (2003), “A contingent resource-based view of proactive corporate
environmental strategy”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 71–88.
Argenti, P.A. and Druckenmiller, B. (2004), “Reputation and the Corporate Brand”, Corporate Reputation
Review, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 368–374.
Argyris, C. (1999), “Teaching smart people how to learn”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 77 No. 3, pp. 99–
109.
Arora, N., Dreze, X., Ghose, A., Hess, J.D., Iyengar, R., Jing, B., Joshi, Y., Kumar, V., Lurie, N. and Neslin, S.
(2008), “Putting one-to-one marketing to work: Personalization, customization, and choice”, Marketing
Letters, Vol. 19 3-4, pp. 305–321.
Balmer, J.M.T. (1995), “Corporate branding and connoisseurship”, Journal of General Management, Vol. 21
No. 1, pp. 24–46.
Balmer, J.M.T. (1998), “Corporate Identity and the Advent of Corporate Marketing”, Journal of Marketing
Balmer, J.M.T. (2001a), “Corporate identity, corporate branding and corporate marketing-seeing through
the fog”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 3/4, pp. 248–291.
Balmer, J.M.T. (2001b), “From the Pentagon. A new identity framework”, Corporate Reputation Review,
Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 11–22.
Balmer, J.M.T. (2001c), “The three virtues and seven deadly sins of corporate brand management”, Journal
of General Management, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 1–17.

Balmer, J.M.T. (2007), “A Resource-Based View of the British Monarchy as a Corporate Brand”,
International Studies of Management and Organization, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 20–44.
Balmer, J.M.T. (2010), “Explicating corporate brands and their management: Reflections and directions
from 1995”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 180–196.
Balmer, J.M.T. (2012a), “Corporate Brand Management Imperatives: Custodianship, Credibility And
Calibration”, California Management Review, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 6–33.
Balmer, J.M.T. (2012b), “Strategic corporate brand alignment. Perspectives from identity based views of
corporate brands”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46 7/8, pp. 1064–1092.
Balmer, J.M.T. (2013), “Corporate brand orientation. What is it? What of it?”, Journal of Brand
Balmer, J.M.T. and Gray, E.R. (2003), “Corporate brands: what are they? What of them?”, European Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 37 7/8, pp. 972–997.
Balmer, J.M.T., Powell, S.M., Punjaisri, K. and Wilson, A.M. (2011), “Internal branding process: Key
mechanisms, outcomes and moderating factors”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 45 9/10, pp.
1521–1537.
Balmer, J.M.T. and Soenen, G.B. (1999), “The acid test of corporate identity management™”, Journal of
Marketing Management, Vol. 15 1-3, pp. 69–92.
Balmer, J.M.T., Stuart, H. and Greyser, S.A. (2009), “Aligning identity and strategy. Corporate branding at
British Airways in the late 20th century”, California Management Review, Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 6–23.
Balmer, J.M.T. and van Riel, C.B.M. (1997), “Corporate identity. The concept, its measurement and
management”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31 5/6, pp. 340–355.
Balmer, J.M.T. and Wang, W.-Y. (2016), “The corporate brand and strategic direction. Senior business
school managers’ cognitions of corporate brand building and management”, Journal of Brand
Barney, J. (1991), “Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage”, Journal of Management, Vol. 17
No. 1, pp. 99–120.
Beard, D.W. and Dess, G.G. (1981), “Corporate-level strategy, business-level strategy, and firm
performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 663–688.
Belz, C. (2006), Spannung Marke: Markenführung für komplexe Unternehmen [Tension brand: Brand
management for complex corporations], Gabler Springer, Wiesbaden.
Berthon, P., Pitt, L.F. and Campbell, C. (2009), “Does brand meaning exist in similarity or singularity?”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 62 No. 3, pp. 356–361.
Black, I. and Veloutsou, C. (2017), “Working consumers. Co-creation of brand identity, consumer identity
and brand community identity”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 70, pp. 416–429.
Boulding, K.E. (1956a), “General Systems Theory. The Skeleton of Science”, Management Science, Vol. 2 No.
3, pp. 197–208.
Boulding, K.E. (1956b), The Image, The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
Brexendorf, T.O. and Kernstock, J. (2007), “Corporate behaviour vs brand behaviour. Towards an integrated
view?”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 32–40.
Burmann, C., Hegner, S. and Riley, N. (2009a), “Towards an identity-based branding”, Marketing Theory,
Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 113–118.
Burmann, C., Jost-Benz, M. and Riley, N. (2009b), “Towards an identity-based brand equity model”, Journal
of Business Research, Vol. 62 No. 3, pp. 390–397.
Burmann, C. and Zeplin, S. (2005), “Building brand commitment: A behavioural approach to internal brand
management”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 279–300.
Burmann, C., Zeplin, S. and Riley, N. (2009c), “Key determinants of internal brand management success: An
exploratory empirical analysis”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 264–284.
Campbell, D., Edgar, D. and Stonehouse, G. (2011), Business strategy: an introduction, Palgrave Macmillan,
London.
Cannon, J.T. and Sayles, L.R. (1968), Business strategy and policy, Harcourt, Brace & World, New York.
Carroll, G.R. (1987), “Organizational approaches to strategy: an introduction and overview”, California
Casidy, R. (2013), “The role of brand orientation in the higher education sector. A student-perceived
paradigm”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 803–820.
Chakravarthy, B.S. and Lorange, P. (1991), Managing the strategy process: a framework for a multibusiness
firm, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River.
Chandler, A.D. (1962), Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of the American enterprise, MIT Press,
Cambridge.
Child, J. and Rodrigues, S.B. (2012), “How organizations engage with external complexity. A political action
perspective”, in Understanding Organizations in Complex, Emergent and Uncertain Environments,
Springer, pp. 13–44.
Christodoulides, G. (2009), “Branding in the post-internet era”, Marketing Theory, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 141–
144.
Cocoran, I. (2013), The art of digital branding, Skyhorse Publishing, New York.
Curtis, T., Abratt, R. and Minor, W. (2009), “Corporate brand management in higher education. The case of
ERAU”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 404–413.
de Chernatony, L. (1999), “Brand Management Through Narrowing the Gap Between Brand Identity and
Brand Reputation”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 15 1-3, pp. 157–179.
de Chernatony, L. and Dall'Olmo Riley, F. (1998), “Defining A "Brand": Beyond The Literature With Experts'
Interpretations”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 417–443.
de Wit, B. and Meyer, R. (2010), Strategy: process, content, context: An international perspective, Cengage
Learning EMEA, Andover.
Dean, J.W. and Sharfman, M.P. (1993), “Procedural rationality in the strategic decision-making process”,
Journal of management Studies, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 587–610.
Dessart, L., Veloutsou, C. and Morgan-Thomas, A. (2015), “Consumer engagement in online brand
communities. A social media perspective”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp.
28–42.
Dicksen, P.R. (1996), “The static and dynamic mechanics of competitive theory”, Journal of Marketing, Vol.
60 No. 10, pp. 102–106.
Dowling, G.R. (1993), “Developing your company image into a corporate asset”, Long Range Planning, Vol.
26 No. 2, pp. 101–109.
Doyle, P. (1990), “Building successful brands. The strategic options”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 7
No. 2, pp. 5–20.
Drucker, P. (1954), The Practice of Management, Harper & Row, New York.
Edelman, D.C. (2010), “Branding in the digital age”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 88 No. 12, pp. 62–69.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1999), “Strategy as strategic decision making”, MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 40
No. 3, p. 65.
Eisenhardt, K.M. and Bourgeois, L.J. (1988), “Politics of strategic decision making in high-velocity
environments. Toward a midrange theory”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 737–
770.
Elbanna, S., C. Thanos, I. and M. Papadakis, V. (2014), “Understanding how the contextual variables
influence political behaviour in strategic decision-making. A constructive replication”, Journal of
Strategy and Management, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 226–250.
Erdem, T., Keller, K.L., Kuksov, D. and Pieters, R. (2015), “Understanding Branding in a digitally empowered
world”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 3–10.
Foucault, M. (1980), Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings: 1972-1977, Pantheon,
München.
Franke, N., Keinz, P. and Steger, C.J. (2009), “Testing the value of customization: when do customers really
prefer products tailored to their preferences?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 73 No. 5, pp. 103–121.
Franzen, G. and Bouwman, M. (2001), The mental world of brands: Mind, memory and brand success,
World Advertising Research Centre, Henley-on-Thames (Oxfordshire).
Frazer, C.F. (1983), “Creative Strategy. A Management Perspective”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 12 No. 4,
pp. 36–41.
Fredrickson, J.W. and Mitchell, T.R. (1984), “Strategic decision processes. Comprehensiveness and
performance in an industry with an unstable environment”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 27
No. 2, pp. 399–423.
Gerard, R.W. (1952), “The organization of science”, Annual review of physiology, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 1–13.
Glueck, W.F. (1972), Business policy: Strategy formation and management action, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Griffin, J.J. (2002), “To Brand or Not To Brand? Trade-offs in Corporate Branding Decisions”, Corporate
Reputation Review, Vol. 5 2-3, pp. 228–240.
Gwin, C.F. and Gwin, C.R. (2003), “Product attributes model: A tool for evaluating brand positioning”,
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 30–42.
Halliday, A. (1998), “Corporate Branding”, Urban land, Vol. 57, p. 12.
Hambrick, D.C. (1980), “Operationalizing the concept of business-level strategy in research”, Academy of
Hambrick, D.C. and Fredrickson, J.W. (2001), “Are you sure you have a strategy?”, The Academy of
Management Executive, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 48–59.
Hankinson, G. (2007), “The management of destination brands. Five guiding principles based on recent
developments in corporate branding theory”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 240–
254.
Harris, F. and de Chernatony, L. (2001), “Corporate branding and corporate brand performance”, European
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 3/4, pp. 441–456.
Harter, G., Koster, A., Peterson, M. and Stomberg, M. (2005), “Managing Brands for Value Creation”,
available at: http://www.strategyand.pwc.com/media/uploads/ (accessed 25 April 2016).
Hatch, M.J. and Schultz, M. (2001), “Are the strategic stars aligned for your corporate brand”, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 79 No. 2, pp. 128–134.
Hatch, M.J. and Schultz, M. (2003), “Bringing the corporation into corporate branding”, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 37 7/8, pp. 1041–1064.
Hatch, M.J. and Schultz, M. (2008), Taking brand initiative: How companies can align strategy, culture, and
identity through corporate branding, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Hatch, M.J. and Schultz, M. (2009), “Of Bricks and Brands: From Corporate to Enterprise Branding”,
Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 117–130.
Hatch, M.J. and Schultz, M. (2010), “Toward a theory of brand co-creation with implications for brand
governance”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 17 No. 8, pp. 590–604.
Hofer, C.W. and Schendel, D.E. (1980), Strategy formulation: Analytical concepts, West Publishing, St. Paul.
Hopkins, C.C. (1923), Scientific advertising, New Line Publishing.
Hulberg, J. (2006), “Integrating corporate branding and sociological paradigms. A literature study”, Journal
of Brand Management, Vol. 14 1-2, pp. 60–73.
Hunter, G.L. and Garnefeld, I. (2008), “When does consumer empowerment lead to satisfied customers?
Some mediating and moderating effects of the empowerment-satisfaction link”, Journal of Research for
Consumers No. 15, pp. 1–14.
Iglesias, O., Ind, N. and Alfaro, M. (2013), “The organic view of the brand. A brand value co-creation
model”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 20 No. 8, pp. 670–688.
Ind, N. (1997a), The Corporate Brand, Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Ind, N. (1997b), The Corporate Brand, Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Ind, N. (2003), “Inside out. How employees build value”, The Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 10 No. 6,
pp. 393–402.
Ind, N. (2014), “How participation is changing the practice of managing brands”, Journal of Brand
Ind, N. and Bjerke, R. (2007), Branding governance: a participatory approach to the brand building process,
John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
Ind, N., Fuller, C. and Trevail, C. (2012), Brand together: How co-creation generates innovation and re-
energizes brands, Kogan Page, London.
Ind, N., Iglesias, O. and Schultz, M. (2013), “Building brands together”, California Management Review, Vol.
55 No. 3, pp. 5–26.
Jemison, D.B. (1981), “The contributions of administrative behavior to strategic management”, Academy of
Johnson, G. and Scholes, K. (1993), Exploring Corporate Strategy, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River.
Johnson, G., Whittington, R., Scholes, K., Angwin, D. and Regner, P. (2014), Exploring Corporate Strategy,
Pearson, Edinburgh Gate.
Kapferer, J.-N. (1994), Strategic brand management: New approaches to creating and evaluating brand
equity, Free Press, New York.
Kapferer, J.-N. (2011), The new strategic brand management: Creating and sustaining brand equity long
term, 4th ed., Kogan Page, London.
Kapoutsis, I. (2016), “Playing the political game at work. The roles of politics will, political prudence, and
political skill”, in Vigoda-Gadot, E. and Drory, A. (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Politics, 2nd ed.,
Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 40–58.
Kapoutsis, I., Papalexandris, A. and Thanos, I.C. (2016), “Hard, soft or ambidextrous? Which influence style
promotes managers’ task performance and the role of political skill”, The International Journal of
Human Resource Management, pp. 1–30.
Kay, J. (1993), Foundations of corporate success, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Kay, M.J. (2006), “Strong brands and corporate brands”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40 7/8, pp.
742–760.
Keller, K.L. (1993), “Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 1–22.
Keller, K.L. (2001), Building Customer-Based Brand Equity: A Blueprint for Creating Strong Brands, Working
Paper Series, Cambridge.
Keller, K.L. and Lehmann, D.R. (2006), “Brands and branding. Research findings and future priorities”,
Marketing science, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 740–759.
Kernstock, J., Esch, F.-R., Tomczak, T., Redler, J. and Langner, T. (2014), “Bedeutung des Corporate Brand
Management erkennen und Denkschulen verstehen [Recognizing the importance of corporate brand
management and understanding the various schools of thought]”, in Esch, F.-R., Tomczak, T., Kernstock,
J., Langner, T. and Redler, J. (Eds.), Corporate Brand Management, Springer, Wiesbaden, pp. 3–26.
King, C. and Grace, D. (2008), “Internal branding: Exploring the employee's perspective”, Journal of Brand
King, S. (1991), “Brand-building in the 1990s”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 3–13.
King, S. (2007), “The Anatomy of Account Planning”, in Lannon, J. and Baskin, M. (Eds.), A master class in
brand planning: The timeless works of Stephen King, Wiley, Chichester, pp. 7–12.
Knights, D. and Morgan, G. (1991), “Corporate strategy, organizations, and subjectivity: A critique”,
Organization studies, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 251–273.
Knox, S. and Bickerton, D. (2003), “The six conventions of corporate branding”, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 37 7/8, pp. 998–1016.
Kohli, A.K. and Jaworski, B.J. (1990), “Market orientation: the construct, research propositions, and
managerial implications”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 1–18.
Kohli, C., Suri, R. and Kapoor, A. (2015), “Will social media kill branding?”, Business Horizons, Vol. 58 No. 1,
pp. 35–44.
Kornum, N., Gyrd-Jones, R., Al Zagir, N. and Brandis, K.A. (2017), “Interplay between intended brand
identity and identities in a Nike related brand community. Co-existing synergies and tensions in a
nested system”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 70, pp. 432–440.
Kotler, P. (1988), Marketing Management, 6th ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River.
Kraaijenbrink, J., Spender, J.-C. and Groen, A.J. (2010), “The resource-based view: a review and assessment
of its critiques”, Journal of Management, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 349–372.
Lawer, C. and Knox, S. (2007), “Reverse-Market Orientation and Corporate Brand Development”,
International Studies of Management and Organization, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 64–83.
Leitch, S. and Richardson, N. (2003), “Corporate branding in the new economy”, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 37 7/8, pp. 1065–1079.
Louro, M.J. and Cunha, P.V. (2001), “Brand Management Paradigms”, Journal of Marketing Management,
Vol. 17 7-8, pp. 849–875.
Lynch, R.L. (2012), Strategic management, Always learning, 6th ed., Pearson, Harlow.
Madden, T.J., Fehle, F. and Fournier, S. (2006), “Brands matter: An empirical demonstration of the creation
of shareholder value through branding”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 34 No. 2,
pp. 224–235.
Martineau, P. (1958), “Sharper focus for the corporate image”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 36
Nvember/December, pp. 49–58.
McNichols, T.J. (1977), Policy making and executive action, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Meenaghan, T. (1995), “The role of advertising in brand image development”, Journal of Product & Brand
Meffert, H. and Bierwirth, A. (2005), “Corporate Branding. Führung der Unternehmensmarke im
Spannungsfeld unterschiedlicher Zielgruppen [Corporate branding: Managing the corporate brand
within the tenison of different target groups]”, in Meffert, H., Burmann, C. and Koers, M. (Eds.),
Markenmanagement: Identitätsorientierte Markenführung und praktische Umsetzung [Brand
management: Identity based brand management and practical implementation], 2nd ed., Gabler,
Wiesbaden, pp. 143–162.
Melewar, T.C., Gotsi, M. and Andriopoulos, C. (2012), “Shaping the research agenda for corporate branding.
Avenues for future research”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46 No. 5, pp. 600–608.
Melewar, T.C. and Harrold, J. (2000), “The role of corporate identity in merger and acquisition activity”,
Journal of General Management, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 17–31.
Merz, M.A., He, Y. and Vargo, S.L. (2009), “The evolving brand logic. A service-dominant logic perspective”,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 328–344.
Mintzberg, H. (1977), “Policy as a field of management theory”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 2
No. 1, pp. 88–103.
Mintzberg, H. (1987), “The Strategy Concept I: Five Ps For Strategy”, California Management Review, Vol.
30 No. 1, pp. 257–272.
Mintzberg, H. (1990), “The design school: reconsidering the basic premises of strategic management”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 171–195.
Mintzberg, H. (1994), “The fall and rise of strategic planning”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 72 No. 1, pp.
107–114.
Mintzberg, H. and McHugh, A. (1985), “Strategy formation in an adhocracy”, Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 160–197.
Mishra, S.P., Mohanty, A.K. and Mohanty, B. (2015), “Are There Dominant Approaches to Strategy
Making?”, Vilakshan: The XIMB Journal of Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 1–42.
Mitchell, C. (2002), “Selling the brand inside”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 80 No. 1, 99-101, 103-5, 126.
Morhart, F.M., Herzog, W. and Tomczak, T. (2009), “Brand-specific leadership: Turning employees into
brand champions”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 73 No. 5, pp. 122–142.

Morschheuser, P. and Redler, J. (2015), “Reputation Management for Scientific Organisations – Framework
Development and Exemplification”, Marketing Instytucji Naukowych i Badawczych, Vol. 4 No. 18, pp. 1–
36.
Murphy, J.M. (1992), “What Is Branding?”, in Murphy, J.M. (Ed.), Branding: A Key Marketing Tool, Palgrave
Macmillan UK, London, pp. 1–12.
Nag, R., Hambrick, D.C. and Chen, M. (2007), “What is strategic management, really? Inductive derivation of
a consensus definition of the field”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 28 No. 9, pp. 935–955.
Neiheisel, S.R. (1992), Corporate Strategy and the Politics of Goodwill: A Political Analysis of Corporate
Philanthropy in America, Peter Lang, New York.
Nelson, R.R. and Winter, S.G. (1982), An evolutionary theory of economic change, Belkap Press, Cambridge.
Newman, W.H. (1953), “Basic objectives which shape the character of a company”, Journal of Business, Vol.
26 October, pp. 211–223.
O'Brien, C. (2011), “The emergence of the social media empowered consumer”, Irish Marketing Review,
Vol. 21 1/2, p. 32.
O'Cass, A. and Viet Ngo, L. (2007), “Market orientation versus innovative culture. Two routes to superior
brand performance”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 41 7/8, pp. 868–887.
O'Cass, A. and Voola, R. (2011), “Explications of political market orientation and political brand orientation
using the resource-based view of the political party”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 27 5-6,
pp. 627–645.
Ogilvy, D. and Atherton, R. (1963), Confessions of an advertising man, Atheneum, New York.
Ōmae, K. (1983), The mind of the strategist: Business planning for competitive advantage, Reprinted,
Penguin, Harmondsworth.
Omar, M., Williams Jr, R.L. and Lingelbach, D. (2009), “Global brand market-entry strategy to manage
corporate reputation”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 177–187.
Park, C.W., Jaworski, B.J. and Maclnnis, D.J. (1986), “Strategic brand concept-image management”, Journal
of Marketing, pp. 135–145.
Peteraf, M.A. (1993), “The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-based view”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 179–191.
Pettigrew, A.M. (1977), “Strategy formulation as a political process”, International Studies of Management
and Organization, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 78–87.
Pettigrew, A.M. (1985), “Examining change in the long-term context of culture and politics”, in Pennings,
J.M. (Ed.), Organizational strategy and change, Jossey Bass, San Francisco, pp. 269–318.
Pilditch, J. (1970), Commmication by Design: A Study in Corporate Identity, McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead.
Porter, M.E. (1980), Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors, Free Press,
New York.
Porter, M.E. (1985), The Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance, Free Press,
New York.
Prahalad, C.K. and Hamel, G. (1990), “The core competence of the corporation”, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 68 No. 3, pp. 79–91.
Priem, R.L. and Butler, J.E. (2001), “Is the resource-based “view” a useful perspective for strategic
management research?”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 22–40.
Punjaisri, K., Evanschitzky, H. and Wilson, A.M. (2009), “Internal branding: an enabler of employees' brand-
supporting behaviours”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 209–226.
Punjaisri, K. and Wilson, A.M. (2007), “The role of internal branding in the delivery of employee brand
promise”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 57–70.
Reeves, R. (1961), Reality in advertising, Knopf, New York.
Romero, D. and Molina, A. (2009), “Value co-creation and co-innovation: Linking networked organisations
and customer communities”, in Camarinha-Matos, L.M., Paraskakis, I. and Afsarmanesh, H. (Eds.),

Leveraging Knowledge for Innovation in Collaborative Networks: 10th IFIP WG 5.5 Working Conference
on Virtual Enterprises, PRO-VE 2009, Thessaloniki, Greece, October 7-9, 2009, Proceedings, Springer,
Berlin, pp. 401–412.
Ronda-Pupo, G.A. and Guerras-Martin, L.Á. (2012), “Dynamics of the evolution of the strategy concept
1962–2008: a co-word analysis”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 162–188.
Roper, S. and Davies, G. (2007), “The Corporate Brand. Dealing with Multiple Stakeholders”, Journal of
Rumelt, R.P., Schendel, D.E. and Teece, D.J. (1991), “Strategic management and economics”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 12 S2, pp. 5–29.
Saleem, F.Z. and Iglesias, O. (2016), “Mapping the domain of the fragmented field of internal branding”,
Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 43–57.
Schendel, D.E. and Hatten, K.J. (1972), “Business Policy or Strategic Management: A Broader View for an
Emerging Discipline”, Academy of Management Proceedings, pp. 99–102.
Schmidt, H.J., Baumgarth, C., Wiedmann, K.-P. and Lückenbach, F. (2015), “Strategic orientations and the
performance of Social Entrepreneurial Organisations (SEOs). A conceptual model”, Social Business, Vol.
5 No. 2, pp. 131–155.
Schultz, M. and de Chernatony, L. (2002), “The Challenges of Corporate Branding”, Corporate Reputation
Review, Vol. 5 2-3, pp. 105–112.
Schwartz, S.H. and Bilsky, W. (1987), “Toward A Universal Psychological Structure of Human Values”,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 550–562.
Senge, P.M. (1990), “The leader´s new work: Building learning organisations”, Sloan Management Review,
Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 7–22.
Sengupta, S. (2005), Brand Positioning: Strategies for Competitive Advantage, 2nd ed., Tata McGraw-Hill
Education, New Dehli.
Shapiro, B.P. (1988), “What the hell is market oriented?”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 66 No. 6, pp. 119–
125.
Simoes, C. and Dibb, S. (2001), “Rethinking the brand concept: new brand orientation”, Corporate
Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 217–224.
Sloan, A.P. (1964), My years with general motors, Doubleday, New York.
Speak, K.D. and Hanson, G. (2008), “Brand inside meets brand outside”, Design Management Review, Vol.
19 No. 2, pp. 21–28.
Srinivasan, M.S. (2009), “Rethinking Corporate Strategy-A Consciousness Perspective”, Vilakshan: The XIMB
Journal of Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 119–130.
Supphellen, M. (2000), “Understanding core brand equity: guidelines for in-depth elicitation of brand
associations”, International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 319–338.
Swanson, C.E. (1957), “Branded and company images changed by advertising”, ADMAP, pp. 302–318.
Teece, D.J. (1982), “Towards an economic theory of the multiproduct firm”, Journal of Economic Behavior &
Organization, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 39–63.
Teece, D.J. (1990), “Contributions and impediments of economic analysis to the study of strategic
management”, in Fredrickson, J.W. (Ed.), Perspectives on Strategic Management, Harper Business, New
York, pp. 39–80.
Tovstiga, G. (2013), Strategy in Practice: A Practitioner's Guide to Strategic Thinking, Wiley, Chichester.
Trout, J. and Ries, A. (1981), Positioning, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Trout, J. and Rivkin, S. (2010), Differentiate or die: Survival in our era of killer competition, John Wiley &
Sons.
Urde, M. (1999), “Brand orientation. A mindset for building brands into strategic resources”, Journal of
Urde, M. (2003), “Core value-based corporate brand building”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37 7/8,
pp. 1017–1040.
Urde, M. (2013), “The corporate brand identity matrix”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 20 No. 9, pp.
742–761.
Urde, M., Baumgarth, C. and Merrilees, B. (2013), “Brand orientation and market orientation—From
alternatives to synergy”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 13–20.
Urde, M. and Greyser, S.A. (2015), “The Nobel Prize. The identity of a corporate heritage brand”, Journal of
Product & Brand Management, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 318–332.
Urde, M., Greyser, S.A. and Balmer, J.M.T. (2007), “Corporate brands with a heritage”, Journal of Brand
Urde, M. and Koch, C. (2014), “Market and brand-oriented schools of positioning”, Journal of Product &
Brand Management, Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 478–490.
Vallaster, C., Lindgreen, A. and Maon, F. (2012), “Strategically Leveraging Corporate Social Responsibility. A
Corporate Branding Perspective”, California Management Review, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 34–60.
van Osselaer, S.M.J. and Alba, J.W. (2000), “Consumer Learning and Brand Equity”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 1–16.
Varadarajan, P.R. and Clark, T. (1994), “Delineating the scope of corporate, business, and marketing
strategy”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 93–105.
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2004), “Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 1–17.
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2017), “Service-dominant logic 2025”, International Journal of Research in
Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 46–67.
Veloutsou, C. and Guzman, F. (2017), “The evolution of brand management thinking over the last 25 years
as recorded in the Journal of Product and Brand Management”, Journal of Product & Brand
Villas-Boas, J.M. (2004), “Consumer learning, brand loyalty, and competition”, Marketing science, Vol. 23
No. 1, pp. 134–145.
Wallpach, S. von, Hemetsberger, A. and Espersen, P. (2017), “Performing identities. Processes of brand and
stakeholder identity co-construction”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 70, pp. 443–452.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984), “A resource-based view of the firm”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp.
171–180.
Wheelen, T. and Hunger, D. (1992), Strategic Management and Business Policy, Addison-Wesley, Reading.
Whittington, R. (2002), “Practice Perspectives On Strategy. Unifying And Developing A Field”, Academy of
Management Proceedings, Vol. 2002 No. 1, C1-C6.
Wiedmann, K.-P. (2015), “The future of brand and brand management. Some provocative propositions
from a more methodological perspective”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 21 No. 9, pp. 743–757.
Wiedmann, K.-P., Hennigs, N., Schmidt, S. and Wuestefeld, T. (2011), “The importance of brand heritage as
a key performance driver in marketing management”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp.
182–194.
Wood, L. (2000), “Brands and brand equity: definition and management”, Management Decision, Vol. 38
No. 9, pp. 662–669.
Whetten, D. A. (1989), "What constitutes a theoretical contribution?", Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 490–495.
Wu, T. (2016), The attention merchants: The epic scramble to get inside our heads, A Borzoi book, First
edition, Alfred A. Knopf, New York.

SPM Bab 13

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SPM Bab 13

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Product & Brand Management

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

CBM research is provided.

and might seem rather provocative.

discussion of the implications for CBM research.

2.1 General concept of strategy and scope of corporate strategy

forefront in this regard.

2012; Carroll, 1987).

strategy development is based on an evaluation of internal, as well as external factors, for a

by a dual link, as highlighted below in figure 1.

Figure 1: Dual link character of strategy.

short consideration. Indeed, CS is frequently viewed as a kind of counter-concept to business-level

integration/parenting of corporations, multinational issues, diversification, mergers/acquisitions and

synergies need to be addressed.

Usually, CS is considered superordinate to business strategy (Hambrick, 1980).

2.2 Differences in accessing corporate strategy

analyzing strategy and developing CS can be conceptualized from different angles.

Prescriptive vs. emergent strategy

Prescriptive strategy represents a strategy that is defined before it is implemented. It is actively

organizational practice (Lynch, 2012).

counter project, to the elaboration of perspectives of emergent strategy.

radical in nature (Mishra et al., 2015).

Resource-based vs. environment-based development modes

to the question of how to develop competitive advantage or how to respond to a changing

environmental situation (Kraaijenbrink et al., 2010; Priem and Butler, 2001).

(1964). An analytical exploration of opportunities and threats that an organization faces is

Rational vs. political analysis of strategy

is “perceived as a set of `rational´ techniques for managing complex businesses in a changing

optimal choice into a CS (Fredrickson and Mitchell, 1984).

strategic decisions are objects of interest (e.g., Neiheisel, 1992).

(2016) explore political influence styles and tactics.

Eisenhardt and Bourgeois, 1988).

“resource-based vs. external-based development mode”, “prescriptive vs. emergent nature of

approaches, as a new framework.

• The contrast of a resource-based vs. external-based development mode concerns

assumptions about whether strategy development predominantly draws on factors internal or

essential tendencies can be seen as different manifestations of a one-dimensional criterium

abovementioned views, it is of dichotomous categorical quality with “external factors” and

“intra-organizational factors” as two modifications of this dimension. The dimension

captures whether strategy is predominantly developed outside in or inside out.

strategy”). The divergence can be traced back to differences on a dimension “genesis of

strategy”, with its dichotomous values “prescriptive” and “emergent”.

interests of managers are included in the inspection and interpretation of strategy

analysis of strategy (referring to paradigms of social-constructivism and post-positivism).

criteria to characterize facets of CS. Integration of these criteria leads to a three-dimensional

visualization of available constellations.

Figure 2: Strategy Descriptor Cube (SDC)

3. Inventory of current corporate brand management research

3.1 Nature and origin of corporate brand management

brands (Kapferer, 1994; Harris and de Chernatony, 2001).

3.2 Relevance, scope, and concern of corporate brand management

organizations (Urde and Greyser, 2015; Balmer, 2007).

and Soenen (1999).

and Gray, 2003).

3.3 Criteria to describe corporate brand management research activity

Instrumental objective(s). Overall objectives of brand management have been discussed in

a range of different problems. Accordingly, authors draw on an interdisciplinarily diversified body

terms of its reference to other, basic or bordering theory.

much narrower scope of instruments.

3.4 Clustering schools of corporate brand management

(Speak and Hanson, 2008), specifically on advertising (Meenaghan, 1995). It is advertising

Therefore, it is relevant to analyze how a company’s brand is perceived—also relatively to the

orientated rather outside in.