The Corporate Brand Identity andReputation Matrix – The case ofthe Nobel PrizeReceived (in revised form): 20th October 2015
Mats Urdeis Associate Professor of brand strategy at Lund University, Sweden. He is head of Lund Brand Management Research Groupand has contributed to leading journals with pioneering work related to brand orientation, brand core values and brandheritage. He has more than 20 years of international experience as strategic consultant on the management of brands.
Stephen A. Greyseris Richard P. Chapman Professor (Marketing/Communications) Emeritus, Harvard Business School. He is responsible for 17books in marketing, advertising, etc., numerous journal articles, and some 300 published cases. He created Harvard’sCorporate Communications and Business of Sports courses, and has career achievement awards in advertising, corporatecommunications and sports business. His specialty areas include reputation, identity, branding and corporate level marketing.
ABSTRACT The purpose of this article is to explore corporate brand identity andreputation, with the aim of integrating them into a single managerial framework.The Nobel Prize serves as an in-depth field-based case study, and is analysed using theCorporate Brand Identity and Reputation Matrix (CBIRM), introduced here for thefirst time. Eight key reputation elements adapted from the literature and enriched bythe case study are incorporated within an existing corporate brand identity framework.Among the key findings are structural links outlining essential connections among ele-ments of corporate brand identity and reputation. The new framework provides astructure for managing a corporate/organisational brand. It is a potential tool in thedefinition, alignment and development of such brands. A limitation is that the com-munication dimension – the journey from identity to reputation and vice versa – isincluded, but not explored in detail. The originality of the article is two-fold: first,developing a new integrated framework; and second, refining and applying the frame-work to a distinctive research study of a specific organisational case, in this instance,the Nobel Prize. Specific quotes from extensive field interviews support the develop-ment of the new CBIRM and its broader managerial relevance and applicability.Journal of Brand Management (2016) 23, 89–117. doi:10.1057/bm.2015.49
INTRODUCTIONThe purpose of this article is to explorecorporate brand identity and reputation,with the aim of integrating them into asingle managerial framework. The principalcontext for our qualitative study is theNobel Prize organisation. The Nobel Prizeis a unique entity for investigating the phe-nomenon we are studying. First, the NobelPrize is very much in the public eye andhighly visible as a global institution withmultiple stakeholders. Second, the founda-tion for the rich identity of the Nobel Prizeis the essence of Alfred Nobel’s will – ‘forthe benefit of mankind’ – and this identity isbacked by an impressive track record andheritage. Third, to our knowledge, this isthe first field-based study of the identity andreputation of the Nobel Prize viewed as acorporate/organisational brand. The case initself is intriguing since most know of theNobel Prize’s prestigious reputation butvery few know how it acquired its elevatedposition.
Our initial fieldwork focused on corpo-rate brand identity, but we came to realisethat reputation is an essential dimension inorder to understand the Nobel Prize.Reviewing the literature, we found anopportunity to further integrate the con-cepts of corporate brand identity and repu-tation. We attempt this by extending anexisting corporate brand identity frame-work and integrating it with reputationelements adapted from the literature andenriched by our case research. The newmanagerial framework presented in thisarticle is applied to the Nobel Prize andthereby further developed.
Our work relates to decades of significantexpansion and interest in conceptual devel-opment and empirical research on the topicsof corporate image, corporate branding,corporate identity and corporate reputation.Studies that focus on corporate identity,corporate branding and corporate reputa-tion typically are conducted within one of
three domains: (i) Problems and issuesfacing organisations, both private and publicsector; (ii) Theories and conceptual frame-works; and (ii) Research methods, includingresearch design and analytical tools (Abrattand Kleyn, 2011).
Both scholars and practitioners agree onthe importance of corporate identity andcorporate reputation (Balmer et al, 2013).There is equally strong agreement that theseconcepts are interrelated (for example,Aaker, 2004; Fombrun and Van Riel, 2004;Kapferer, 2012; Roper and Fill, 2012).However, a serious corporate brand man-agement problem is the lack of a widelyagreed framework that can define a corpo-rate brand identity and also align its differentreputation elements so that they cometogether as one entity: ‘Chief executivesand their management teams recognise theimportance of creating and maintainingboth excellent reputations and strong brandsbut do not know what this process entails intotality’ (Abratt and Kleyn, 2011, p. 1049).We view our research as a response to ameaningful challenge for corporate brandmanagement.
Here is our roadmap. First, we presentthe Nobel Prize as a networked brand withits stakeholders. Second, we explain ourmethodology and the clinical research rela-ted to the case study. Third, we review theliterature with a focus on managing corpo-rate brand identity and reputation. Weidentify a gap in the literature regarding amanagerial framework that considers bothcorporate brand identity and reputation, andwe specify criteria to utilise to fill it. Next,we select and adapt reputation elementsprimarily from the existing literature andconsolidate them with nine brand identityelements based on those in the existing cor-porate brand identity matrix (CBIM). Ele-ments of brand identity and reputation arethus combined into a single more coherentwhole – the new Corporate BrandIdentity and Reputation Matrix (CBIRM).
Then, we apply and refine the CBIRM toour case analysis – the Nobel Prize. After adiscussion of the case and our findings, weconclude with the article’s implications fortheory and practice, and limitations.
UNDERSTANDING THE NOBELPRIZEThe Oxford Dictionary describes the NobelPrize as ‘the world’s most prestigiousaward’, and its extraordinary reputation iswidely confirmed. As stated recently byStanford University president John Hen-nessy: ‘In… [Silicon] Valley, everyone talksabout your IPO [Initial Public Offering tothe stock market]… but in the sciences theytalk about going to Stockholm [as Nobellaureates], and you go to Stockholm only ifyou make a fundamental breakthrough thatreally reshaped the field. That’s the kind ofimpact we really look for in our research’(Financial Times, 3 February 2014).
The Nobel Prize was possibly the firstintellectual prize of its kind, and was estab-lished at about the same time as the modernOlympics in 1896. Michael Sohlman, for-mer director of the Nobel Foundation,described the Prize to us as ‘the Olympics ofthe intellect’.
The Alfred Nobel legacy and ‘the will’Born in Sweden, Alfred Nobel (1833–1896) was the inventor of Dynamite(a registered trademark) and held patents formany inventions in his name. Alfred Nobelwas a cosmopolite and had not been aregistered resident of any country since theage of 9; therefore, he was jokingly called‘The richest vagabond in Europe’(Sohlman, 1983, p. 86). In 1888, AlfredNobel was astonished to read his own obit-uary, entitled The merchant of death is dead, ina French newspaper. Because it was, in fact,Alfred’s brother Ludvig who had died, this
obituary was eight years premature (Larsson,2010).
Nobel eventually died in 1896 and leftone of the largest fortunes of his century.His legacy rests in his will. ‘His handwrittenwill contained no more than an outline ofhis great visionary scheme for five prizes’(Sohlman, 1983, p. 1). A section of the willreads, ‘… constitute a fund, the interest onwhich shall be annually distributed inthe form of prizes to those who, during thepreceding year, shall have conferred thegreatest benefit to mankind’ (Nobelprize.org). The last phrase has been and is centralto the identity and reputation of the NobelPrize.
Those who are now entrusted to carryout the final wishes of Alfred Nobel descri-bed the will as ‘a strength and a ruler’ and as‘a constitution’. The Nobel Prize has beenawarded since 1901 for achievements ‘forthe benefit of mankind’ to be continued inperpetuity. This responsibility characterisesthe Nobel Prize and the people behind it.
The prestige of the Nobel PrizeThe Nobel Prize award holds a uniqueposition. The tradition of establishing prizesand awards can be traced back in time, andrelates to cultural values and the economicsof prestige (see English, 2005 for an over-view). The Legacy of Alfred Nobel, written byNobel’s assistant and later, the executor ofhis will, provides valuable insights into theestablishment of the Nobel Prize (Sohlman,1983). Alfred Nobel’s life and the con-troversy and prestige associated with theawards contribute to the general interestand curiosity inspired by the Nobel Prize(Feldman, 2012).
We see four main reasons why the NobelPrize has acquired its elevated position.First, the Nobel Prize was one of the firstinternational prizes to be established(1901), in a time when nationalism wasstrong. Second, the Nobel Prize attracted
The Corporate Brand Identity and Reputation Matrix
immediate attention and stirred curiosity,debate and criticism (Källstrand, 2012). Thethird reason is the recognition over time ofthe absolute criteria and rigour in itsawarding processes. As one member of anawards committee (scientific) succinctlyexplained, ‘The discovery. That’s it. Wedisregard other aspects’. Finally, the NobelPrize rapidly gained iconic status via itsassociations with extraordinary discoveriesand individuals. ‘This is the prize awarded toAlbert Einstein, the prizes that have chan-ged our understanding of the world’, aNobel committee member told us.
The Nobel Prize: ‘A small federativerepublic’To the world at large, the Nobel Prize is anannual series of awards for distinguishedachievements. Upon close examination,however, the actual awards and the cele-brations in Stockholm and Oslo are the
visible manifestations of the processes ofinterrelated institutions, organisations andindividuals. What is reported in interna-tional media during the annual NobelWeek is only a fraction of the total activitiesof the overall Nobel ‘federation’. TheNobel Prize has been characterised by oneNobel official as ‘a small federative repub-lic’, as shown in Figure 1. In fact, it is agroup of awards living together as a net-work (cf. Ford et al, 2011, for an overviewof network theory).
The Nobel Prize is the ‘hub’ of the net-work and the core of its corporate/organi-sational brand identity (centre; first circle).Four prize-awarding institutions (secondcircle), the Nobel Foundation (third circle),as well as the Nobel Museum, Nobel PeaceCenter and Nobel Media (fourth circle)make up the principal entities in the‘federation’. The laureates represent anessential part of the network and arealso stakeholders (outer circle). They all
Karolinska institutet
Swedish Academy NorwegianNobel committee
Royal SwedishAcademy of Sciences
The Nobel Foundation
Nobel Museum, Nobel Peace Center, Nobel Media
General public(stakeholder)
Media(stakeholder)
REPUTATION:
COMMUNICATION:Scientific
communities(stakeholder)
IDENTITY:Nobel Prize
“For the benefit of mankind”
Laureates(stakeholder)
Sponsors (stakeholder)
Figure 1: The Nobel Prize: A networked brand and its stakeholders (Urde and Greyser, 2014).
communicate the ‘Nobel Prize’ directly orindirectly. The scientific communities, thegeneral public, sponsors and the media areexamples of key stakeholder groups thatinfluence the network’s reputation (formore information on each of the key net-work organisations, see Urde and Greyser,2014).
In our depiction of the Nobel Prize, wehave included identity, communication andreputation in order to develop a moreextensive and holistic understanding. Thisinspired us to explore further the integra-tion of identity and reputation for a corpo-rate brand.
METHODOLOGYBrands acquire their meanings in the mindsand hearts of people; in this sense, brandsare ‘social constructions’ (Berger andLuckmann, 1966; Blumer, 1969; Straussand Corbin, 1990). Since this study con-cerns the relationship between the identityand reputation of a corporate/organisationalbrand, we needed to understand and inter-pret internal and external stakeholders’ per-ceptions (Bryman and Bell, 2011). We usedthe Nobel Prize case in this study todescribe an entity, to apply theory and to
generate theory (Yin, 1989, 1993). The aimof our revelatory case study is three-fold,and goes beyond an illustration. First, itprovides an opportunity to study the phe-nomena of corporate brand identity andreputation firsthand. Second, it provides anopportunity to apply and refine the newframework. Third, it is part of the genera-tion of theory and essential to the ground-ing and ‘sense-making’ of the results (Glaserand Strauss, 1967).
In a methodological flowchart (Figure 2),we provide an overview of our qualitativeiterative research process at both theempirical and theoretical levels (Glaser andStrauss, 1967; Strauss and Corbin, 1990).One row represents the empirical grounding –the Nobel Prize case study. The other rowpresents the theoretical development withemerging concepts and theories that canpotentially be generalised and therebybecome applicable to other corporatebrands. The upper right ‘arrow’ in ourmethodological flowchart is given a greyshade to illustrate schematically how moregeneral theoretical insights may emerge as aresult of case-based research (cf. Flyvbjerg,2006; Bryman and Bell, 2011).
Initially, our interest in studying theNobel Prize was, as noted, to investigate its
Initial fieldwork leads to a first understanding of the Nobel Prize case …
The literature is reviewed with a focus on how brand identity and reputation are integrated. Gap identified and research questions are formulated …
Continued fieldwork with interviews to provide a greater understanding of the brand identity and reputation of the Nobel Prize …
Criteria for a new framework; selection and definition of key reputational elements. Adding ‘R’ to the CBIM leads to the new CBIRM …
The CBIRM is applied to the Nobel case and refined in the exploration of its brand identity and reputation …
The case is analysed by coding and identifying emerging themes from the fieldwork. Brand identity and reputation linkages are explored …
Case-specific conclusions and managerial implications.
General theoretical and managerial conclusions relating to integration of corporate brand identity and reputation.
THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENT: Emerging concepts and theories
EMPIRICAL GROUNDING:The Nobel Prize case study
PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 4
Ongoing interaction between empirical case and theory
Figure 2: Methodological flowchart: An iterative research process at empirical and theoretical levels.
The Corporate Brand Identity and Reputation Matrix
corporate brand identity. However, whenattempting to describe the Nobel Prize, werealised that reputation was an additionalnecessary dimension. A more holisticunderstanding of an organisation calls foraccess to the organisation’s leadership andkey stakeholders, a qualitative researchapproach advocated by Gummesson (2005).It was particularly important to learn how itsdifferent component (network) entitiesregard the organisation; that is, its work(structure), purpose (identity) and standing(reputation). We reviewed the literaturealongside our own experiences, and found agap regarding managerial frameworks thatencompasses both corporate brand identityand reputation. The first phase, which led tothe formulation of the study’s purpose, waspartly based on and shaped by our fieldobservations.
In the second phase, our continuedfieldwork and literature review was morefocused in order to provide insights into theidentity and reputation of the Nobel Prizeas a corporate brand. Eight key reputationelements were selected and defined by whatwe term ‘guiding questions’. These ques-tions were used during our interviews, andwe formulated and reformulated them to‘fit’ and ‘work’ in managerial situations.To us, it is essential that the research results‘fit’ within the reality of the Nobel Prizeorganisation (and its embedded networkorganisations). Furthermore, we believethat the research results should ‘work’ – inthe sense that they should be under-standable and potentially useful for those wehave met in our field research and, morebroadly, for practitioners in corporate brandmanagement (Glaser and Strauss, 1967;Jaworski, 2011). Notably, there were con-stant iterations between the empiricalgrounding (the case study) and the theoreticaldevelopment throughout the research process(Bryman and Bell, 2011). The reputationelements were thereafter integrated into theexisting CBIM (Urde, 2013).
In the third phase, we employed the newCBIRM – with the ‘R’ added – in theanalysis of the Nobel Prize case study. Thelinkages and relations among the differentcorporate brand identity and reputationelements were explored and defined. Thethree steps in the selection of reputationelements are described in detail below (inthe section ‘A new managerial framework’).In another critical step in the developmentof the new framework, managers and parti-cipants in executive programmes wereinvited to apply it. In total, 14 managerialgroups, during 1-day sessions in Scandinaviaand the United States, used or discussed theframework to explore their corporatebrands’ identities and reputations.
In the fourth phase, the resulting theore-tical and managerial conclusions and implica-tions are presented. We make a distinctionbetween case-specific (related to the NobelPrize) and general implications (as repre-sented by the grey-shaded arrow in Figure 2).A key aspect of clinical research is to broadenapplicability from the practical to the general(Barnes et al, 1987; Bryman and Bell, 2011).We envision our conceptual contributions inthe attempt to bridge corporate brand iden-tity and reputation to be related primarily to‘delineating and integrating new perceptions’(MacInnis, 2011, p. 138).
Operationally, we were granted access bythe Nobel Prize organisation network tokey relevant stakeholder individuals andgroups (Figure 1). This empowered us toconduct open and semi-structured inter-views, undertake document and archivalstudies, and also incorporate observationinto the research process (Bryman and Bell,2011). In total, we conducted 27 interviewswith 18 individuals (see Appendix for a listof interviews). We individually interviewedthe four selection-committee heads (inStockholm and Oslo, for 1.5–2.5 hourseach), the present and former directors aswell as the current chairman of the NobelFoundation, three Nobel laureates, the
CEO of Nobel Media and also the directorof the Nobel Museum and sponsors ofNobel events (such as the Nobel DialogueWeek). The Nobel Foundation and theNobel Museum supplied us with docu-ments on relevant subjects; for example,regarding the history of the Nobel Prize andNobel laureates. Accreditation to the NobelAward ceremonies (Nobel Dialogue Week,the Prize Ceremony and the Banquet inStockholm in December 2013 and Decem-ber 2014) provided us with an opportunityfor firsthand observation and informal con-versations that led to further interviews.
LITERATURE REVIEWBrand identity and reputation can besaid to be two sides of the same coin(deChernatony, 1999; Balmer, 2010;Kapferer, 2012). Identity is primarily aninternal perspective, while reputation is pri-marily an external one (Roper and Fill,2012), and the distinction between the twodepends upon the perspective of the obser-ver. In essence, corporate brand identity isabout the organisation and its manage-ment’s perceptions, while reputation is allabout stakeholders’ perceptions (Balmer,2012). Therefore, to have a more extensiveunderstanding of ‘the phenomenon of acorporate brand’, it is necessary to adoptmultiple perspectives (Balmer, 2010; Abrattand Kleyn, 2011). However, for a corporatebrand manager, two fundamental questionsabout identity and reputation remain: Whatto manage, and how to manage it (Knoxand Bickerton, 2003; Schultz et al, 2005;Balmer et al, 2013).
In this literature review, we discuss thebroader theoretical concepts of corporatebrand identity and corporate brand reputa-tion – the ‘what to manage’ part – in rela-tion to existing frameworks that purport toexplain to ‘how to manage it’.
Corporate brand identity is based on thebroader concept of corporate identity
(Abratt, 1989, offers the conceptual ante-cedents). Corporate identity comprises thekey attributes of any organisation (Alvessonand Berg, 1992; Melewar and Jenkins,2002; Knox and Bickerton, 2003; Balmer,2008, 2010). From a reservoir of corporateidentity attributes, a corporate brand’sidentity is ‘distilled’ (Balmer, 2010, p. 186).Corporate brands come to life once they arecommunicated and ‘their value is only rea-lised when they are assimilated by stake-holders’ (Abratt and Kleyn, 2011, p. 1055).Consequently, corporate identity is distilledinto corporate brand identities, which inturn, when communicated and perceivedby others, result in a corporate brand(Balmer, 1995, 2010) with an image and areputation (Roper and Fill, 2012).
From a management standpoint, both thedefinition and alignment of corporate brandidentity constitute the formulation of astrategic intent (Prahalad and Hamel, 1989;Aaker and Joachimsthaler, 2000; Kapferer,2012). Since there are other views in anygiven organisation beyond those of man-agement (or even within management), it isessential to consider the multiple identitiesof a corporate brand (Balmer and Greyser,2002; Schultz et al, 2005; Balmer, 2008).The notion of multiple identities is equallyrelevant in the discussions about how thecorporate brand is to be perceived by inter-nal and external stakeholders.
Corporate brand reputation is closelyrelated to the image concept (Boulding,1956; Gruning, 1993), which can bedefined as a current perception, with repu-tation being an accumulation of images overtime. A brand’s image may therefore changemore rapidly than its reputation (cf. Chun,2005, on image and reputation). In a brandcrisis, for example, an image (short-termand specific) and its reputation (long-termand general) may be affected (Greyser,2009). Reputation is defined as ‘a collec-tive representation of a firm’s past actionsand results that describes the firm’s (the
The Corporate Brand Identity and Reputation Matrix
organisation’s) ability to deliver valued out-comes to multiple stakeholders. It gauges afirm’s (organisation’s) relative standing bothinternally with employees and externallywith its stakeholders, in both its competitiveand institutional environments’ (Fombrunet al, 2000). Reputation reflects personaljudgements based on a company’s or orga-nisation’s past and present actions (Fombrunand Van Riel, 2004). Therefore, the repu-tation that constituents ascribe to an orga-nisation’s corporate brand is a collection ofopinions and judgements.
The reputation of a corporate brand isinfluenced by multiple internal and externalstakeholders’ perceptions (deChernatonyand Harris, 2000; Roper and Fill, 2012).In fact, it is relevant to think of a corporatebrand’s reputation in plural terms, sincethere are multiple stakeholder groups suchas customers, community, investors andemployees (Abratt and Kleyn, 2011). Fur-thermore, an organisation’s brand structuremay consist of a brand portfolio (Aaker andJoachimsthaler, 2000; Balmer, 2010;Kapferer, 2012). The reputation held by astakeholder group of the corporate brandmay therefore be one reputation, while thereputation of its specific product or servicebrands may be notably different (cf. Balmerand Gray, 2003, on corporate brand roles;Veloutsou and Moutinho, 2009, on rela-tionships to brands). From a managerialperspective, ‘perception is reality’; that is tosay, the way a brand is perceived by aparticular stakeholder group will affect itscompetitive strength and/or the will-ingness-to-support (Greyser, 2009). Thereality in terms of perceptions – groundedin factual circumstances or not – determinesthe conditions and circumstances for themanagement of brands.
In the literature and practice of strategicbrand management (with corporate brandmanagement as a subset), a main dividingquestion is ‘what is to be fitted to what’:Should the organisation adapt its brand
identity (resources) to its environment, orshould it attempt to adapt the environmentto its brand identity (resources)? Theapproach taken could in principle be fromthe inside out (with the corporate brand’sidentity in focus) or from the outside in(with the corporate brand’s reputation infocus). An organisation with a brand-oriented approach would be more inclinedto ‘satisfy the needs and wants of its custo-mers and stakeholders within the bound-aries of its brand identity’ (Urde et al, 2011,p. 14). In contrast, an organisation with amarket-oriented approach would respondto and be guided by ‘the needs and wantsof its customers and stakeholders’ in thecorporate brand-building process (Keller,2001; Urde et al, 2011). On the one side,there are arguments put forward to focuson the internal brand strength and identity– taking an inside-out perspective. On theother side, there are equally strong argu-ments for adopting an outside-in perspec-tive and focussing on external marketopportunities (cf. De Wit and Meyer,2010). Brand orientation and marketorientation are different but synergisticapproaches, and typically an organisationwould be guided by a combination of thetwo (Urde et al, 2011).
Strategic brand management maintainsan inherent tension between the inside-outversus the outside-in perspective. This ten-sion is manifested in questions such as: Whatshould be the strategic focus in the man-agement of our brands? Should the identityof a brand be the point of departure, orshould it be identical to the brand’s reputa-tion? Below, we present different viewsfrom the literature on how managers shouldaddress these questions and try to resolve thetension.
Managing corporate brand identityAdopting an inside-out perspective impliesa management focus on brand identity.
Corporate brand identity relates to intern-ally rooted questions such as: Who are we?Where do we come from? What do westand for? What is our raison d’être? and,What is our wanted position? In principle,authentic answers to these kinds of ques-tions about the corporate brand identityprimarily come from the organisation andits management (cf. Gryd-Jones et al, 2013,on ‘co-creation’ of a brand’s identity invol-ving for example customers).
In the process of defining a corporatebrand’s identity – and subsequently buildingand safeguarding it – the internal commit-ment and engagement of the organisationremain essential (Ind, 2007; Baumgarth,2010). This calls for an agreement and/or amanagerial decision to define and alignthe brand’s essential identity elements(Kapferer, 2012). The role and function of abrand platform is to provide the organisa-tion and its management with a blueprint ofthe corporate brand’s identity (Keller, 2001;Aaker, 2004; deChernatony, 2010). Since abrand identity is always an expression ofstrategic intent (cf. Prahalad and Hamel,1989), it will differ in various respects fromits actual position, image and reputation asperceived by internal and external stake-holders (Hatch and Schultz, 2001; Balmerand Greyser, 2002; Gryd-Jones et al, 2013).The brand platform (and other relatedsteering documents such as a corporatebrand policy and cultural ‘Our Way’ docu-ments) crystallises the corporate brandidentity process (deChernatony, 1999;Davies et al, 2003; Hatch and Schultz, 2008).
The formulation of a ‘wanted position’ isanother essential identity management task(Brexendorf and Kernstock, 2007; Kapferer,2012), an effort to describe the organisationand its management’s corporate brandambition. The process of positioning can beapproached from the inside out or from theoutside in (cf. Urde and Koch, 2014, onbrand- and market-oriented positioning).Ultimately, the aim for corporate identity
management is to support the accumulationof distinctive brand resources to gain com-petitive advantages (Abratt and Kleyn,2011). Finding a strategic fit with theinside-out approach is ‘an adaptation ofenvironment’: the organisation’s corporatebrand is positioned in the marketplace withthe brand identity as its point of referenceand continuing frame of reference (Urdeand Koch, 2014).
Managing corporate brand reputationAdopting an outside-in perspective impliescontinuous management of brand reputa-tion that takes the environment as the start-ing point (cf. De Wit and Meyer, 2010).The political, economical, social, technolo-gical, environmental and legal aspectstherefore need to be taken into account (cf.PESTEL framework; De Wit and Meyer,2010). Reputation management as a cor-porate function rests on a foundation thattraditionally has been encompassed in (andin practice, managed by) such ancillaryfunctions as ‘corporate communications’,‘public relations’, ‘corporate affairs’ and‘corporate relations’ (Hutton et al, 2001).Reputation, being primarily externallyrooted, contrasts with identity (Davies andMiles, 1998; Davies et al, 2003; Griffin,2008; Greyser, 2009). It relates to questionssuch as: How do others actually perceiveus? How are we ideally to be perceived?How do others expect us to be perceived?(cf. Higgins, 1987; Chun, 2005). Manage-ment’s constant focus on attaining anadvantageous brand reputation (Boyd et al,2010) implies a positioning of the corporatebrand guided by this market-oriented dic-tum: ‘To satisfy the needs and wants of thecustomers and non-customer stakeholders’(Urde and Koch, 2014, p. 482). Othernecessary tasks for reputation managementare to track continuously the brand’s actualcompetitive position(s) and to follow thecompetitors’ marketplace moves and
The Corporate Brand Identity and Reputation Matrix
positions (Aaker and Joachimsthaler, 2000).The outside-in view emphasises ‘marketdemands over brand resources’ and thepoint of departure is ‘external opportunity-driven market demand’ (Boyd et al, 2010;De Wit and Meyer, 2010).
Table 1 provides an overview compar-ison of corporate brand identity and corpo-rate brand reputation management.
Having discussed the ‘what to manage’question based upon the literature, we nextmove on to the question of ‘how to manage’corporate brand identity and reputation.
Bridging corporate brand identity andreputation managementIn the literature, there are theoreticalframeworks that take both brand identityand reputation into account. Especiallyrelevant to the purpose of this article arethose that include internal and externallinks and alignments (for example, Abratt,1989; Dutton and Dukerich, 1991;Dowling, 1994; Davies and Miles, 1998;deChernatony, 1999; Hatch and Schultz,2001). Alignment is defined by Van Riel(2012, p. 1) as ‘a mutually rewarding
relationship between a company and its sta-keholders that enables the firm to meet itsobjectives and realise its purpose’. When anorganisation is viewed in a ‘favourable light’by its stakeholders it has earned a ‘licence tooperate’, according to Van Riel (2012).This echoes the philosophy of Arthur W.Page, legendary head of public relations atAT&T (1927–1946): ‘All business in ademocratic country begins with public per-mission and exists by public approval’(Arthur W. Page Society, 2014). Alignmentof brand identity and reputation – andthe subsequent identifications of gaps andhow to avoid pitfalls – are of particularinterest for corporate brand managementprofessionals (cf. Balmer and Soenen, 1999;Balmer and Greyser, 2002, on ‘misalign-ment’). However, it is important to notethat the implication of a ‘match’ or ‘mis-match’ needs to be interpreted by manage-ment (Davies and Chun, 2003). Forexample, in the repositioning of a corporatebrand, ‘identity and reputation mismatches’are to be expected and must be addressed.
Davies and Miles (1998) asked threequestions: ‘what the company is’; ‘whatthe company says it is’ and ‘what the
Stakeholder perceptions based on marketinformation
Key concepts Internal commitment Image, perceptions and expectationsEmphasis on Brand resources over market demands Market demands over brand resourcesStrategic focus Building distinctive brand resources Attaining advantageous reputationPositioning (a) Defining the wanted brand position(s).
(b) Positioning the organisation’s brand(s) tosatisfy the needs and wants of thecustomer and non-customerstakeholders – within the boundaries ofits identity.
(a) Positioning the organisation’s brand(s) tosatisfy the needs and wants of thecustomer and non-customerstakeholders.
(b) Tracking the brand’s actual position(s).
Strategic fit by Adaptation of environment Adaptation to environmentPoint of departure Internal strength-driven brand potential External opportunity-driven market demand
customers think it is’, with ‘gaps’ formingthe centre of a triangle-shaped framework.This conceptualisation provides an over-view of relations linking identity and repu-tation with the vision. In a similar fashion,the concepts ‘vision-culture-image’ werelinked by Hatch and Schultz (2001) toillustrate corporate brand alignment. Later,Schultz et al (2005, p. 184) outlined fivesteps in a corporate brand building process:(1) who you are and who you want tobecome; (ii) organising behind your iden-tity; (iii) involving all relevant stakeholders;(iv) integrating all expressions of yourbrand; and (v) monitoring results throughperformance measurements. Balmer andGreyser (2002) underscored the corpora-tion’s ‘multiple identity’ character and pro-vided structured actual case examples of‘misalignments’. In an attempt to capture‘the gestalt of the corporation’, Balmer andGreyser (2006) asked: ‘what we feel we are’;‘what we indubitably are’; ‘what we say weare’; ‘whom we seek to serve’; ‘what ispromised and expected’; and ‘what we areseen to be’. These questions are the 6Cs ofcorporate marketing, and are a compendium ofquestions relating to identity and reputation(Balmer, 2008). Ultimately, corporate brand
reputation is most strongly influenced bycorporate behaviour, what Greyser (2009)called acta non verba (deeds, not words).
The CBIM (Urde, 2013) differs fromother corporate brand frameworks by hav-ing a ‘core’ as a structural hub. The CBIM islimited in the sense that it does not includethe reputational or the communicationdimensions (Figure 3). However, it is anattempt to structure, describe and integratenine ‘brand identity elements’ into a three-by-three matrix. The arrows radiating fromthe centre of the framework convey thelogic that all elements of the matrix areinterrelated and form an organised entity.The content of one element ‘echoes’ that ofthe others, with the core as the centresquare of the framework (cf. Kapferer’s‘brand identity prism’, 2012).
In a coherent corporate brand identity,the core reflects all elements, and every ele-ment reflects the core (Figure 3). The nineelements define the essentials of a corporatebrand’s identity. Its internal (sender) elementsare described in terms of three organisationalcharacteristics: ‘mission and vision’, ‘culture’and ‘competences’. The external (receiver)component comprises ‘value proposition’,‘relationships’ and ‘position’. The matrix is
Competences:What are we particularly good at, and what makes us better than the
competition?
Position:What is our intended position in the market, and in the hearts and minds of key customers and non-
customer stakeholders?
Relationships: What should be the nature of our
relationship with key customers and non-customer stakeholders?
Mission & Vision:What engages us, beyond the aim of making money (mission)? What is
our direction and inspiration (vision)?
Culture:What are our attitudes and how do
we work and behave?
Value proposition:What are our key offerings and
how do we want them to appeal to customers and non-customer
stakeholders?
Brand core:What do we promise, and
what are the core values that sum up what our brand stands
for?
Personality:What combination of human characteristics or qualities
forms our corporate character?
Expression: What is unique or special about the way we communicate and express ourselves, making it possible to recognise us at a
distance?
Figure 3: The Corporate Brand Identity Matrix.Source: Urde (2013).
The Corporate Brand Identity and Reputation Matrix
completed by three elements that are bothinternal and external. ‘Personality’ describesthe corporate brand’s individual character,whereas ‘expression’ defines the verbal andvisual manifestations of the brand. The‘brand core’, consisting of a brand promiseand supporting core values, is at the heart ofthe corporate brand identity (Urde, 2013).
Overall, the literature review shows afurther need to bridge the concepts ofcorporate brand identity and corporatebrand reputation. From a managerial per-spective, the meaning and dimensions ofcorporate brand identity and reputationrepresent a true challenge. This frustrationand confusion is in our view illustrated bythe following quote from a CEO: ‘Repu-tation, identity, image of the company, Ithink it is so interchangeable, they are justso directly linked. I don’t know how onewould say the identity is different fromthe image of the company; it is differentfrom the reputation – for me they arejust so intertwined’ (Reddiar et al, 2012,p. 33).
Towards a managerial frameworkOur intent here is to provide the managementof corporate brands with a larger frameworkthat takes both brand identity and reputationinto consideration. We set out to develop amanagerial framework that outlines keyCBIM connections by adding reputation as anadditional dimension. (We acknowledge thatcommunication – although important – willnot be addressed at length.)
From a theoretical point of view, a usableframework for defining and aligning a cor-porate brand’s identity and reputation needsto do the following:
● Identify key reputation elements● Logically link reputation and identitybrand elements
● Outline and combine the concept ofcorporate brand reputation with identityinto a single framework
● Allow shifting between outside-in andinside-out perspectives
● Apply to different types of corporatebrands (companies, institutions and otherentities)
From the managerial point of view, such aframework needs to do the following:
● Provide a structured and comprehensibleoverview to describe (‘what are the keyelements?’) a corporate brand’s identityand reputation
● Guide the definition (answering ‘whatquestions and whose perceptions?’) of acorporate brand’s identity and reputation
● Inform discussions of key linkages andalignment (matches and mismatches)among essential elements of a corporatebrand’s identity and reputation
● Help to identify issues and areas ofimprovement to strengthen the reputa-tion and/or help the organisation staytrue to its corporate brand identity
● ‘Fit’ and ‘work’ in a managerial context
A NEW MANAGERIAL FRAMEWORK:THE CBIRMThe CBIRM is a reinforcing framework ofelements and linkages, with a core consist-ing of a set of values supporting a promise.It is intended to serve as a tool for an orga-nisation’s management of its corporatebrand identity and reputation, includingcommunications.
Elements of reputationConceptualising and measuring reputation isa research area in itself that engages practi-tioners and academics alike (Davies et al,2003; Ponzi et al, 2011; Reddiar et al, 2012;Van Riel, 2012). A review of reputationelements in the literature (and in proprietaryreputation models) identifies credibility, per-formance, responsibility and trustworthiness
as the four elements that are most often cited(Herbig and Milewicz, 1993; Fombrun,1996; Ponzi et al, 2011). Proprietary brandstrength and reputation models (for example,Interbrand and Reputation Institute) includeother reputation elements, such as differ-entiation, authenticity, relevance, govern-ance and citizenship. These models also serveto measure reputation for financial brandvalue estimates and rankings. Greyser (1995,2009) used ‘willingness-to-support’ as areputation impact measure.
In advertising, models are often based onconsumer interviews to provide insightsinto a (corporate) brand’s image (here andnow perception) and reputation (over timeand overall perception). The proprietaryYoung & Rubicam model, for example,measures esteem, energised differentiation,relevance and knowledge. Roper andFill (2012, p. 42) provided a comprehen-sive overview of ‘criteria that influencereputation’ including: product and servicequality, customer satisfaction, employeesatisfaction, comprehensive reputation, cus-tomer service, market position, innovation,profitability, corporate social responsibility,and vision and leadership. The ‘personality’of a brand is related to its reputation and isdiscussed in terms of sincerity, excitement,competence, sophistication and ruggedness(Aaker, 1997). Roper and Fill (2012)viewed reputation as a ‘gestalt’ and recom-mend that business leaders ‘consider thatreputation is greater than the mere sum ofall the parts of the organisation’ (p. 23).Fombrun (1996) concluded that ‘a reputa-tion comes into being as constituents strug-gle to make sense of a company’s past andpresent actions’ (p. 72).
From a business perspective, the lateLord Marshall, former chairman of BritishAirways, identified management’s taskregarding corporate identity and image:‘Corporate and brand identity are livingentities. Once launched and accepted, theyno longer belong to the management of an
organisation, but to all its stakeholders –customers, shareholders, employees, busi-ness partners and suppliers. The job ofmanagement is to take custody of cor-porate identity and brand image, to protectthem and to strengthen them in the faceof new business opportunities and freshbusiness challenge’ (Balmer et al, 2009,p. 18).
Selection of reputation elementsHere we describe the three-step process ofidentifying and selecting reputation ele-ments, as noted above in the Methodologysection. This in turn will lead to our newexpanded model.
First, we reviewed the relevant literatureon reputation, and selected elements thatwe believe, as a totality, capture vital aspectsof the dimensions of the concept. We alsoconsidered how each different reputationelement we chose reflected – and could bestructurally and logically linked to – thenine CBIM brand identity elements(Figure 3). Our fieldwork within the NobelPrize case provided us with a holistic viewof its identity and reputation as a corporatebrand. From the continuous process oftranscribing, coding and pattern-matchingof the empirical data, we fitted relevantquotes to the corresponding identity ele-ments (Strauss and Corbin, 1990). Further-more, the aforementioned ‘bench tests’with managerial groups in executive pro-grammes supported the selection process.We also wanted the elements ideally not tooverlap, and moreover to fit and work in amanagerial context.
Second, we used dictionary definitions ofthe reputation elements to provide their gen-erally accepted meanings in language. The useof dictionaries, thesauruses and etymologies ishelpful to review potential overlaps betweenand among concepts and to provide linguisticprecision. We found inspiration and sup-port from the linguist deSaussure’s (1983)
The Corporate Brand Identity and Reputation Matrix
distinction between language and speech. Thedictionary definition of a word represents itsmeaning in general language, while thesame word can be given a different mean-ing in a specific context or community. Forexample, the word ‘credibility’ has itsprincipal dictionary definition, but can alsobe defined in the context of theoretical andmanagerial models for measuring manyattributes, including reputation and brandstrength. In an attempt to overcome issuesof different interpretations, we resort todictionary definition – the use of language,as de Saussure would put it.
Third, the general (language) meaning ofeach reputation element provided the basisfor our formulation of what we call ‘guidingquestions’. For example, ‘How consistentand solid are their [the company’s or orga-nisation’s] quality and performance?’ reflectsperformance (Table 2). In an earlier version ofthe reputation elements we used ‘relia-bility’, but this description was consideredto be easily confused with ‘credibility’ and‘trustworthiness’, according to managers inour ‘bench test’. Therefore, we opted for‘performance’ instead.
Notably, the identity questions (Figure 3)commence with what, while the reputationquestions (Table 2) commence with how.The pronouns we and they underscore thefact that the questions refer to an organisa-tion and its corporate brand. Because ourview is that identity pertains to the companyor organisation itself, a guiding questionregarding identity should be framed interms of we. In contrast, since reputationreflects stakeholders’ perceptions, a guidingquestion regarding reputation needs to beframed in terms of they (the company ororganisation) and must be understandable ingeneral language.
Consolidating elements of corporatebrand identity and reputationAny managerial system involving brand iden-tity and reputation needs measurements ofhow different stakeholders view the organisa-tion in a given context (Aaker, 1991; Aakerand Joachimsthaler, 2000; Keller, 2001;Burmann et al, 2009, on ‘brand equity’; andVan Riel, 2012, on ‘alignment and stake-holder support’). The CBIRM aims to
Table 2: Elements of reputation, with definitions and with our ‘guiding questions’
Element of reputation Dictionary definition Guiding question
Relevance(Young & Rubicam)
Closely connected or appropriate to the matter at hand.The condition of being relevant. Pertinent, to thepurpose, applicable, suitable
How appealing and meaningful is thevalue they offer?
Trustworthiness(Fombrun, 1996)
Firm belief in the reliability, truth, or ability. Arelationship built on mutual trust and respect:confidence, belief, faith, freedom from suspicion
provide management with a general outlineof key corporate brand identity and reputa-tion elements and essential linkages (Figure 4).The guiding questions and the structuring ofthe elements can help management tap intohow its multiple stakeholders perceive thebrand, and to what extent these external per-ceptions match the internally driven identity.Elements of corporate brand identity (boxesin the matrix) and of reputation (surroundingthe matrix) are thus combined into a singlemore coherent whole – the new CBIRM.
The logic and connections in the CBIM(Urde, 2013) are extended here to incorpo-rate reputation. The four dotted arrows – twodiagonals, one vertical and one horizontal –illustrate this and are explained below.
Next we shall apply the new managerialframework to what we learned from ourstudy of the Nobel Prize.
APPLYING THE CBIRM: CASEANALYSISIn this section, we present our own ana-lysis, interpretation and perspectives on
the Nobel Prize as a corporate brand,particularly its identity and reputation.We explore the linkages among the keycorporate brand identity and reputationelements in the CBIRM. The use and‘bench test’ of the new managerial frame-work in an operational context is part ofits development and refinement. Figure 5summarises our analysis of the Nobel Prizeas a corporate brand.
The identity elements articulatedwithin the matrix in Figure 5 are from thestudy by Urde and Greyser (2014) andsupport our analysis of the Nobel Prize’scorporate/organisational brand identity.On the basis of our fieldwork and analysis,we have selected relevant quotes linkingreputation elements to the Nobel Prize’scorporate brand identity. The quotes fromour research represent impressions of theNobel Prize’s reputation as perceived byboth internal stakeholders (for example,members of Nobel committees and direc-tors of the foundations) and external ones(for example, a president of a university,laureates and sponsors).
REPUTATION
COMMUNICATION
Competences:What are we particularly
good at, and what makes us better than the competition?
Position:What is our intended position in
the market, and in the hearts and minds of key customers
and non-customer stakeholders?
Willingness-to-support:How engaging and inspiring are
their purposes and practices?
Responsibility:How committed and
accountable are they?
Performance:How solid and consistent are
their quality and performance?
Recognisability:How distinct, visible and
consistent are their overall communications?
Trustworthiness:How dependable are their words
and deeds?
Relevance:How appealing and
meaningful is the value they offer?
Credibility:How believable and convincing
are they?
Differentiation:How distinctive is their position in the market?
Culture:What are our attitudes and
how do we work and behave?
Mission & Vision:What engages us, beyond the
aim of making money (mission)? What is our
direction and inspiration (vision)?
Personality:What combination of
human characteristics or qualities forms our corporate character?
Relationships: What should be the nature
of our relationship with key customers and non-
customer stakeholders?
Value proposition:What are our key offerings
and how do we want them to appeal to customers and
non-customer stakeholders?
Expression: What is unique or special
about the way we communicate and express
ourselves, making it possible to recognise us at a distance?
IDENTITY Brand core –promise and
core values:What do we promise, and whatare the core values that sum up
what our brand stands for?
Figure 4: The Corporate Brand Identity and Reputation Matrix (CBIRM).
The Corporate Brand Identity and Reputation Matrix
Linking key identity and reputationelementsWe first review the brand core (promise andcore values), since it occupies a pivotal rolefor the Nobel Prize network and theCBIRM framework. The role (and func-tion) of the brand core is that of a hub, andall brand identity and reputation elementsare thereby interconnected and influencedby it. The brand core concept is defined as‘an entity of core values supporting andleading to a promise’ (Urde, 2013, p. 752).As part of the Alfred Nobel Will, the phrase‘for the benefit of mankind’ encapsulatesthe overall covenant of the ‘federativerepublic’, according to Urde and Greyser(2014). The core values that sum up whatthe Nobel Prize stands for are defined as‘discovery’, ‘excellence’ and ‘engagementfor higher ideals’ (see centre square of fra-mework in Figure 5).
The following sequential analysis isused in order to explore systematically therelations between pairs of corporatebrand identity and reputation elements.
The strategy diagonal, the competitiondiagonal, the interaction vertical and thecommunication horizontal are key linkagesin our analysis, and are shown as dottedarrows in Figure 6.
Each of the four connections is intro-duced by a brief general description, fol-lowed by an exploration and analysis ofthe linkages between pairs of corporatebrand identity and reputation elements.Tables 3–6 include the ‘guiding questions’and the ‘responses’ excerpted from quotesfrom the field study. Additionally, eachtable has a ‘navigational tool’ to depictwhich part of the framework is beinginvestigated.
The strategy diagonalThe strategy diagonal cuts across thematrix (Figure 5) and spans between thereputation element willingness-to-support tomission and vision to the brand core (promiseand core values) in the centre of the fra-mework, and continues to position, which
Mission & Vision:The Alfred Nobel Will
Culture:Objectivity, independence
and collegiality
Competences:Rigorous processes to
evaluate award candidates
Value proposition:Celebration and propagation of scientific discovery and
cultural achievements
Relationships:Integrity, respect and
dialogue
Position:The world’s most prestigious
award
Expression:Symbolic according to
traditions with a modern open approach
Personality:Impartial cosmopolitan with
a passion for science and cultural enlightenment
IDENTITY:Promise and core values:
“For the benefit of mankind”Discovery, Excellence,
Engagement for higher ideals
REPUTATION:
COMMUNICATION:
Performance:‘The institutions’ ability, proven
over a long period of time, to selectthe most worthy laureates and the
most important discovery’
Relevance: ‘The Nobel Prize … move[s] the world from one position to another’
Credibility:‘They have a motto: a
good prize one year will be a better on
next [year]. They feel no pressure’
Differentiation: ‘… that’s the impact we are looking for in our research’
Recognisability:‘Nobel is the last word in recognition’
Willingness-to-support:‘The Nobel Prize serves to identify for the public both the ongoing pursuit of knowledge and also the importance of science for human progress’
Trustworthiness:‘ … the seriousness of the proce ss and its nature, and the history
… The Prize has been given to the likes of Bohr and Einstein’
Responsibility:
‘It’s not some committee that meets via Skype once or twice a year and make a cursory discussion of their friends’ work’
Figure 5: The Nobel Prize analysed with the CBIRM.
in turn points to the reputation elementdifferentiation. In corporate brand identitydefinition and alignment, this diagonal isessential, as it connects the organisation’smission and vision and its wanted posi-tion. Lastly, the stakeholders’ perceptionsare reflected by willingness-to-support anddifferentiation.
Table 3 above links ‘mission and vision’and ‘willingness-to-support’. The NobelPrize identity is based on the Alfred Nobelwill; therefore, the will itself represents themission and vision (lower left square ofFigure 5). It is a response to the guidingquestion(s): ‘What engages us (mission)?What is our direction and inspiration(vision)?’ The engagement and inspirationfound in the mission and vision is closelylinked to the promise – ‘for the benefit ofmankind’. The reputation element mostclosely linked to the mission and vision iswillingness-to-support (lower left). It isexplained by the guiding question, ‘Howengaging and inspiring are their [The NobelPrize] purposes and practices?’ A laureatecommented on this question: ‘The NobelPrize serves to identify for the public boththe ongoing pursuit of knowledge and alsothe importance of science for humanity …Science is, after all, the source for humanprogress’. A sponsor commented, ‘At
Ericsson, we speak about the use of tech-nology for connectivity for the future ofsociety and business. Looking into Ericssonvalues, such as innovation and technology,they relate our vision to the idea behind theNobel Prize’.
Table 3 also links ‘position’ and ‘differ-entiation’. The wanted position is an identityelement in the framework, emphasisingthat the ambition is part of what a brandstands for and how it would like to beperceived by internal and external stake-holders. The Nobel Prize’s wanted posi-tion (upper right square of Figure 5) is tobe ‘the world’s most prestigious award’, asa response to the question, ‘What is ourintended position in the market, and in theheart and minds of key customers and non-customer stakeholders?’ The wanted posi-tion relates to the reputation element dif-ferentiation (upper right): ‘How distinctiveis their position in the market?’ The VolvoGroup’s head of sponsorship commentedon the shared position of Volvo and theNobel Prize: ‘In my view, caring can beseen as an essence of our values – safety,quality, and environment. It is about caringfor our customers and people. The con-nection to Alfred Nobel’s testament – forthe benefit of mankind – we thinkbecomes evident in this perspective. The
Communication horizontal
diagonal
diagonalInteraction
Competition
vertical Strategy
IDENTITY:
REPUTATION:
COMMUNICATION:
Figure 6: Key CBIRM linkages between identity and reputation.
The Corporate Brand Identity and Reputation Matrix
fundamental values relate very well’. Acomment from a sponsor (L.M. EricssonLtd) underscores a different kind of sharedposition: ‘The Nobel Prize has its longhistory and connection to Sweden, this wehave in common’. The aforementionedquote from Stanford University’s presidentalso illustrates the distinctiveness of theNobel Prize.
The competition diagonalThe competition diagonal (Table 4)encompasses value-creating processes. Theessence of the identity element competencesconcerns an organisation’s capabilities andresources and how they are combined intovalue-creating processes and potential com-petitive advantages. The competences areprerequisites to substantiate the value
proposition, and the connection betweenthese two identity elements is the overallpromise. The strength and clarity of thecompetition diagonal is reflected by thestakeholders’ perceptions of the reputationelements relevance and performance.
Table 4 links ‘value proposition’ to ‘rele-vance’. The Nobel Prize’s value proposition(upper left square of Figure 5) is summed upas the ‘celebration and propagation of sci-entific discovery and cultural achievements’.The guiding question is: ‘What are our keyofferings and how do we want them toappeal to customers and non-customer sta-keholders?’ The Nobel Prize needs to spe-cify value propositions that resonate with itsmultiple stakeholder groups; for example,to the scientific community and individualresearchers. The perceived relevance of theNobel Prize’s value proposition is a related
Table 3: From ‘willingness-to-support’ to ‘differentiation’
The strategy diagonal
IDENTITY ELEMENT:
Mission and vision
REPUTATION ELEMENT:
Willingness-to-support
What engages us, beyond the aim of making money (mission)? What is our direction and inspiration
(vision)?
GUIDING QUESTION: How engaging and inspiring are their purposes and practices?
irP leboN ehT‘:ESNOPSERlliW leboN derflA ehT ze serves to identify for the public both the on-going pursuit of knowledge and also the importance of science for humanity. … Science is after all the source for human progress.’ (Laureate)
‘At Ericsson, we speak about the use of technology for connectivity for the future of society and business. Looking into Ericsson values, such as innovation and technology, they relate our vision to the idea behind the Nobel Prize.’ (Sponsor)
IDENTITY ELEMENT:
Position
REPUTATION ELEMENT:
Differentiation
What is our intended position in the market, and in the hearts and minds of key customers and non-customer
stakeholders?
GUIDING QUESTION: How distinctive is their position in the market?
The world’s most prestigious award RESPONSE: ‘… in the sciences they talk about going to Stockholm [as Nobel laureates], and you go to Stockholm only if you make a fundamental breakthrough [that] really reshaped the field. That’s the kind of impact we really look for in our research.’ (Stanford President)
‘The Nobel Prize has its long history and connection to Sweden, this we have in common.’ (Sponsor)
reputation element. The answers to thequestion, ‘How appealing and meaningful isthe value they offer?’ are important for theidentity of the Nobel Prize network. Theformer director of the Nobel Foundationcommented on the basis of the value pro-position: ‘The Nobel Prize is based on theenlightenment and a philosophy of pro-gress, to move the world from one positionto another’.
Table 4 also links ‘competences’ and‘performance’. The competences (lowerright square of Figure 5) of the NobelPrize network are defined in the model as‘rigorous processes to evaluate award can-didates’. We acknowledge the importanceof the four institutions’ unique processesthat have been developed, sustained andproven for more than a century. Theseprocesses, as noted in the case study, aredescribed as ‘watertight compartments’. Asin the construction of a ship, the functionis to prevent the breakage of any com-partment from endangering the ship’s
stability and flotation. The implications ofthis in the Nobel Prize network are relatedto brand protection and safeguarding thereputation. The processes differ but therigour is a shared key trait. The compe-tences element points and relates to thecore of the framework; in other words, thepromise. The reputation element perfor-mance (lower right), represented by thequestion, ‘How solid and consistent aretheir quality and performance?’, mirrorscompetences. A member of a Nobel com-mittee commented thusly on this question:‘The institution’s ability, proven for a longperiod of time, to select the most worthylaureates and the most important dis-covery, with relatively few questionabledecisions’.
The communication horizontalThe communication horizontal stretchesbetween the two reputation elementsrecognisability and credibility. According to
Table 4: From ‘relevance’ to ‘performance’
The competition diagonal
IDENTITY ELEMENT:
Value proposition
REPUTATION ELEMENT:
Relevance
What are our key offerings and how do we want them to appeal to customers and non-customer
stakeholders? GUIDING QUESTION: How appealing and meaningful is the value they offer?
Celebration and propagation of scientific discovery and cultural achievements
RESPONSE:‘The Nobel Prize is based on the enlightenment and a philosophy of progress, to move the world from one position to another’ (former Director of Foundation)
IDENTITY ELEMENT:
Competences
REPUTATION ELEMENT:
Performance
What are we particularly good at, and what makes us better than the competition?
GUIDING QUESTION:How solid and consistent are their quality and
performance?
Rigorous processes to evaluate award candidates RESPONSE:
‘The institutions’ ability, proven for a long period of time, to select the most worthy laureates and the most important
discovery, with relatively few questionable decisions’(Member of Nobel committee)
The Corporate Brand Identity and Reputation Matrix
the framework, the identity element per-sonality is closely linked to credibility. Thequestion to define personality – that is,‘What combination of human character-istics or qualities forms our corporatecharacter?’ – reflects the answer to thequestion on credibility: ‘How convincingand believable are they?’ An organisation’sexpression typically encompasses all formsof communication, including advertising,design and choice of media. This identityelement is primarily related to recognisa-bility, one of the reputation elements inthe framework.
Table 5 links ‘expression’ and ‘recogni-sability’. The personality of the Nobel Prizeis reflected by the identity element expres-sion (middle left square of Figure 5): what isunique or special about the way the NobelPrize network expresses itself, making itpossible, so to speak, to recognise theNobel Prize at a distance? The expression issuccinctly defined as ‘symbolic according to
traditions with a modern open approach’.The use of symbols – both physical andfigurative – is essential in communicatingthe Nobel Prize heritage. At the same time,the more recent ‘reaching out’ initiatives,including the (international) NobelDialogue Week and the active use ofnobelprize.org explain the addition of ‘witha modern open approach’. Recognisability(middle left) is the related reputationelement that mirrors expression. As amember of a Nobel committee explainedto us, ‘The different awards have an addi-tive effect. The Literature and Peace awardscreate interest in broader audiences, whilethe awards in physics, medicine and chem-istry provide prestige among experts’.A laureate commented separately on therecognisability the awards and the organi-sations behind them: ‘Nobel is the last wordin recognition’.
Table 5 also links ‘personality’ and ‘cred-ibility’. The Nobel Prize’s corporate brand
Table 5: From ‘recognisability’ to ‘credibility’
The communication horizontal
IDENTITY ELEMENT:
Expression
REPUTATION ELEMENT:
Recognisability
What is unique or special about the way we communicate and express ourselves making it
possible to recognise us at a distance?GUIDING QUESTION:
How distinct, visible and consistent are their overall communications?
Symbolic according to traditions with a modern open approach
RESPONSE:
‘The different awards have an additive effect. The Literature and Peace awards create interest in broader audiences while the awards in physics, medicine and
chemistry provide prestige among experts’ (member of committee)
‘Nobel is the last word in recognition’ (Laureate)
IDENTITY ELEMENT:
Personality
REPUTATION ELEMENT:
Credibility
What combination of human characteristics or qualities forms our corporate character?
GUIDING QUESTION: How believable and convincing are they?
Impartial cosmopolitan with a passion for science and cultural enlightenment
RESPONSE:
‘[The rigorous process] is one of the reasons why the Nobel Prize stands head and shoulders above the rest. There are many awards; some of them more lucrative, but there is no scientist alive that would not return all of them in the exchange for of the Nobel Prize’ (Laureate)
personality (middle right square of Figure 5)reflects Alfred Nobel’s personality – an‘impartial cosmopolitan with a passionfor science and cultural enlightenment’.Credibility (middle right) is the relatedreputation element. A laureate com-mented, ‘[The rigorous process] is one ofthe reasons why the Nobel Prize standshead and shoulders above the rest. Thereare many awards, some of them morelucrative, but there is no scientist alive thatwould not return all of them in exchangefor the Nobel Prize’.
The interaction verticalThe interaction vertical demonstrates howthe reputation elements ‘trustworthiness’and ‘responsibility’ are connected toand influenced by a corporate brand’sidentity. Trustworthiness, according to theCBIRM, reflects ‘the nature’ of the rela-tionships an organisation is striving tohave or to build with its customer andnon-customer stakeholders. In turn, the
extent to which an organisation is per-ceived to be responsible is primarilyreflected and shaped by its culture. As forall connections in the framework, thebrand core forms the centre.
Table 6 above links ‘relationships’ and‘trustworthiness’. In the CBIRM, culturerelates to and reflects the identity elementrelationships (top centre square of Figure 5).‘What should be the nature of the organisa-tion’s relationships with its key stakeholders?’For the Nobel Prize network, these aredefined as ‘integrity’, ‘respect’ and ‘dialogue’.Trustworthiness (top centre) is related torelationships. A laureate commented on thedependability of the Nobel Prize network’swords and deeds; in other words, on trust-worthiness: ‘They have the motto: A goodprize one year will be a better one the next.They feel no pressure, and will rather waituntil they are absolutely sure’.
Table 6 also links ‘culture’ and ‘responsi-bility’. What are the institutional attitudes ofthe Nobel Prize network, and how does itwork and behave? This is the guiding
Table 6: From ‘trustworthiness’ to ‘responsibility’
The interaction vertical
IDENTITY ELEMENT:
Relationships
REPUTATION ELEMENT:
Trustworthiness
What should be the nature of our relationship with key customers and non-customer stakeholders?
GUIDING QUESTION: How dependable are their words and deeds?
Integrity, respect and dialogue RESPONSE:‘They have the motto ‘A good prize one year will be a
better one the next’. They feel no pressure, and will rather wait until they are absolutely sure’ (Laureate)
IDENTITY ELEMENT:
Culture
REPUTATION ELEMENT:
Responsibility
What are our attitudes and how do we work and behave?
GUIDING QUESTION: How committed and accountable are they?
Objectivity, independence and collegiality RESPONSE:
‘We are entrusted to steward and ensure quality of the Nobel Prize which is culturally significant for the world. We do this with honour and a strong sense of loyalty and
duty’ (former Director of Foundation)
The Corporate Brand Identity and Reputation Matrix
question for the identity element culture(bottom centre square of Figure 5). TheNobel Prize network’s culture is definedwith three words – ‘objectivity’, ‘indepen-dence’ and ‘collegiality’. Responsibility(bottom centre) is the reputation elementrelated to culture. The former Foundationdirector commented: ‘We are entrusted tosteward and ensure quality of the NobelPrize, which is of culturally significant forthe world. We do this with honour and astrong sense of loyalty and duty’.
DISCUSSIONReflecting on our research with the NobelPrize case and the application of the newframework, the integration of corporatebrand identity and corporate brand man-agement was indeed confirmed as essentialfor the management of a corporate brand(cf. Abratt, 1989; Dutton and Dukerich,1991; Dowling, 1994; Davies and Miles,1998; deChernatony, 1999; Hatch andSchultz, 2001; Balmer, 2010; Van Riel,2012). We have in our research identifiedand incorporated eight reputation elementsand paired them with their identity coun-terparts from an established corporate iden-tity framework (Urde, 2013). The newmanagerial framework differs from existingones by having a pivotal core and by itsstructure – outlined by essential linksbetween the elements of brand identity andreputation. The structure has helped us tomake clearer distinctions between corporatebrand identity and reputation, responding toa managerial concern as noted by Abratt andKleyn (2011). Further, each element is asso-ciated with a specific ‘guiding question’. Theidea to formulate ‘guiding questions’ provedto be useful in the continuous developmentof the framework. For example, we couldformulate and reformulate questions to bet-ter ‘fit’ and ‘work’ in managerial contextsand in application (Glaser and Strauss, 1967;Jaworski, 2011). In the Nobel Prize case
analysis, the systematic relating of identityand reputation elements supported by quotesprovided a structured overview of this unu-sual corporate brand. The usefulness of aholistic view was a recurring observation ofmanagers who applied the framework inexecutive programmes. This was one of thecriteria we set in the development of thenew framework.
Emerging from our fieldwork with theNobel Prize case and the application of thenew framework we recognize a tensionbetween corporate brand identity andreputation management (Roper and Fill,2012). This tension can also be describedin terms of finding a balance betweenbrand orientation and market orientation(cf. Baumgarth, 2010; De Wit and Meyer,2010; Urde et al, 2011; Gryd-Jones et al,2013). A quote from one of our interviewswith a Nobel official illustrates this tension:
I don’t think the reputation of the NobelPrize was built by people caring about thereputation of the Prize. It achieved thatreputation because people carried out theintentions of Alfred Nobel’s will and theywanted to reward deserving scientists. Ifwe adhere to aspirational descriptions ofourselves such as objectivity, integrity,and rigour, I think we are doing our job.
Referring to public attitudes, he went on tosay this:
It is not necessarily a remit [responsibility]to go out and find out what the worldthinks of the Nobel Prize and try to adjustour behaviour because of that. Everyorganisation wants to be very consciousabout what its audience wants and tobehave up to those expectations in orderto grow and expand. Therein lies a bigquestion for the Nobel Prize: what are weabout, should we serve what the audiencewants, or should we just do what we thinkis right – that is, to continue working as wealways have from the Nobel Foundation’s
point of view. It is interesting to knowwhat the world thinks of the Nobel Prize,but should that change our behaviour?Therefore, if it would change our beha-viour, fine, let’s find out; if not, we shouldcontinue doing what we are doing.
One of the essential questions that we dis-cern from the quote about public attitudes isthis: Should those who manage the NobelPrize try to shape external perceptions – oreven internal perceptions – to fit its goals,policies and behaviour? Modern times, withhigher demands for openness and transpar-ency, represent both a challenge and anopportunity for the network (Ford et al,2011) and its stewardship (cf. Balmer, 1995,2010). For the Nobel Prize, stewardshipderives from both those in the network andits stakeholders, such as the laureates. Theseindividuals may be seen as guardians ofidentity, and they serve as custodians ofreputation and heritage (Urde et al, 2007).The aggregated mindsets of the individuals inthe network influence the organisationalmindset (cf. Alvesson and Berg, 1992; Hatchand Schultz, 2008). We emphasise that thelaureates, elevated to world-recognised sta-tus, are themselves Nobel custodians.
We see the Nobel Prize network as aheritage-based corporate brand (cf. Urdeand Greyser, 2014). Further, we considerheritage to be rooted in identity, and con-sider it to both reflect and generate reputa-tion. This certainly applies to the NobelPrize. Our findings support those ofBurghausen and Balmer’s (2014) study of‘corporate heritage identity’, and extend thediscussion by a stronger focus on ‘corporateheritage brand reputation’. The Nobel Prizehas thrived for over 100 years without aformal brand platform (cf. Balmer et al,2006, study of monarchies as corporatebrands). We understand this and attribute itprimarily to the strong identity-drivenapproach (with the Nobel Will as bedrock)and its culture of widely shared values. Themanagement of the awards and the
management of the brand are ingrainedwithin the network, based on its culture andon principles such as ‘never be commercial’and ‘absolute integrity’.
In this article, we have discussed the‘what to manage’ and ‘how to manage’questions, but we are reminded of the ‘whyto manage’ question as we reflect upon ourcase research. The legal and moral impor-tance associated with the Alfred Nobel Will– ‘for the benefit of mankind’ – and its statusas the de facto point of departure for theoverall approach of the Nobel Prize indi-cates that it is brand-oriented to a highdegree. An organisation with a strongerbrand-oriented approach is guided by itsidentity to a higher degree. In contrast, anorganisation with a stronger market-orien-ted approach would to a higher degree beresponsive to and guided by the needs andwants of its key stakeholders. The percep-tion of the brand – that is, its image andreputation – in a market-oriented approachinfluences the organisation’s strategy pro-cess. In our view, a challenge for the man-agement of the Nobel Prize is to preserve itscore identity and simultaneously stimulateprogress (cf. Collins and Porras, 1998). Thecase illustrates the importance of mitigatingthe tension between corporate brand iden-tity and corporate brand reputation.
CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONSIn this article, we have attempted to furtherbridge the concepts of corporate brandidentity and reputation by introducing thenew CBIRM.
Theoretical implicationsWe suggest three main theoretical implica-tions related directly or indirectly to ‘the bigfive’ in the research field of corporate brandmanagement: Corporate identity, corporatebranding, corporate reputation, corporate
The Corporate Brand Identity and Reputation Matrix
communication and corporate marketing(ICIG Cape Town, 2014).
First, the new CBIRM represents anintegration of corporate brand identity andcorporate brand reputation. The suggestedmanagerial framework provides a holisticview of the two dimensions and therebyresponds to a gap in the current literatureand practice. As a reinforcing framework,the CBIRM, with its integrated elementsand linkages, suggests and supports thenotion of a core, consisting of a set of valuessupporting a promise. The corporatebrand’s core role and function as a hub areemphasised by the two diagonals, the hor-izontal and the vertical that interconnect itselements. The framework suggests a logicand structure providing insights into thedefinition and alignment of the key reputa-tional and identity elements of a corporatebrand construct. The CBIRM thereby haspotential as an analytical tool and an aid inidentifying the key elements of corporatebrand identity and corporate reputation –and understanding how they are related.
Second, a selection and definition ofreputation elements provide a con-ceptualisation of a corporate brand’s repu-tation. This conceptualisation contributesby linking each reputation element to acorresponding identity element that fits intoone single framework. The selection processof the resulting eight reputation elementsincluded a literature review, a linguistictranslation of theoretical definitions intocommon language and insights from thefieldwork, applying eight guiding questions.These guiding questions were theoreticallysupported and empirically grounded inorder to fit a managerial context. Thedefined reputation elements represent anintegration of expansive reputation con-cepts based on sometimes overlapping andspecific existing theoretical and practice-oriented constructs. The result is potentiallya more general conceptualisation in a man-agerial context. Furthermore, the CBIRM
expands the CBIM (Urde, 2013), whichpreviously did not include reputationdimensions. The CBIRM differs from othermodels by outlining in more detail whichelements are primarily related and how, aswell as why that is so. The framework sup-ports the importance placed on the brandcore with its promise and supporting corevalues.
Third, the empirically based case con-textualises the ‘brand orientation and mar-ket orientation tension’. The clinicalapplication of the new CBIRM frameworkto the Nobel Prize case pinpoints the ‘brandorientation versus market orientation’question that delineates the two paradigms:To what extent in managing its brand(s)should an organisation be guided by itsidentity [brand orientation], and to whatextent should it be guided by others’ viewsand wishes [market orientation]? The lit-erature review compared corporate brandidentity and corporate brand reputationmanagement (Table 1). The case studyprovides insights into how and why a focuson a corporate brand’s reputation ratherthan a focus on its identity may result intensions within an organisation. TheCBIRM framework’s holistic view has thepotential to provide a basis for commonunderstanding of the two necessary per-spectives of a corporate brand.
Managerial implicationsThe case study and the new CBIRM con-tribute by providing insights into thedynamics between corporate brand identityand reputation management. We suggestfive managerial situations where the newframework provides guidance as an analy-tical tool. As described in the Methodologysection, the framework has been applied(for development and refinement) in othermanagerial contexts (for example, inexecutive education) besides the NobelPrize case study.
First, the CBIRM can be used to define acorporate brand platform, taking intoaccount both identity and reputation. Illus-tratively, by reviewing existing strategydocuments and market data and by orga-nising workshops, an initial overview can beconstructed. Thereafter, a systematic reviewof the key ‘how’ questions (external repu-tation elements), combined with theanswering of the ‘what’ questions (internalidentity elements), can reveal essentialinsights in the process of defining the cor-porate brand. Questions without answers,and/or questions with several conflictinganswers, indicate the necessity for furtherinput and discussion.
Let us consider the following example.In one industrial organisation, working withan international executive team, managerswere first asked to review the identity oftheir corporate brand. In light of a series ofrecent acquisitions and a new pan-European strategy, the CEO saw the needfor agreement regarding the corporatebrand identity. Divided into groups, themanagers presented their views of the cor-porate brand’s identity under these condi-tions. After intense discussions, an initialagreement on identity was reached;however, questions arose relating to thecurrent reputation(s) and actual position(s).At this stage, reputation elements ofthe CBIRM framework were discussedbased on the managers’ experiences sup-ported by market data. Afterward, a partici-pant said, ‘Now we understand the biggerpicture’.
Second, the CBIRM can be used fortroubleshooting. The framework enablesidentifying ‘matches or mismatches’between a corporate brand’s reputation andits identity. An alignment or misalignmentcan be general (looking at the corporatebrand’s identity and reputation broadly)or specific (looking at individual reputa-tional or identity elements). If a stake-holder group perceives the relevance
(the answer to the guiding reputationalquestion: ‘How appealing and meaningful isthe value they offer?’) to be low, this sug-gests that management would be well-advised to revaluate the value proposition(identity element) and how it is beingcommunicated.
In another illustration, a newspaper’smarketing management group first con-cluded that their corporate brand identitywas indeed strong and rooted internally.Furthermore, in analysing the individualguiding questions associated with the eightreputation elements, all but one was con-sidered ‘strong’ or ‘very strong’. None-theless, the relevance of the newspaper’svalue proposition was singled out as an issueto be prioritised.
Third, the CBIRM can be used to assesskey reputational and identity issues in a crisissituation. For example, a group of execu-tives was asked to analyse the BP DeepHorizon crisis case (cf. Balmer et al, 2011)using the framework as a point of departurefor the discussion. The ‘trustworthiness’,‘credibility’, ‘performance’, ‘responsibility’and ‘willingness-to-support’ were the pri-mary reputation elements that were judgedto be affected negatively. On the otherhand, the management group did not see‘differentiation’ and ‘relevance’ as beingdirectly affected by the crisis situation.A follow-up discussion centred on thequestion of whether BP should in factreview its corporate brand identity (or not)in the aftermath of the crisis. In this parti-cular situation, the CBIRM proved itsworth as a crisis assessment tool for corpo-rate brand management.
Fourth, the case and the framework canbe used to pinpoint the importance of theapproach and mindset to brands. This dis-cussion is potentially relevant for individualmanagers, organisations and externalpartners: Is the point of departure brand-oriented or market-oriented? As noted, amarket-oriented approach is guided to a
The Corporate Brand Identity and Reputation Matrix
higher degree by external perceptions, withimage and reputation in focus, while abrand-oriented approach takes externalperceptions into account, identity remain-ing the ‘fixed star’. This insight lessens therisk for misunderstandings and promotesconstructive discussions.
Fifth, the framework can be used to discussaccountabilities and responsibilities withincorporate brand management. The CBIRM’s‘guiding questions’ outline relationships andlinks that explain a corporate brand’s modusoperandi, especially its identity and reputation.In a discussion with an executive team thathad worked with the framework, the ques-tion arose regarding ‘who should be accoun-table and responsible for which components?’The manager for human resources com-mented, ‘I can now clearly see where mydepartment fits into our business’.
LIMITATIONS AND FURTHERRESEARCHA principal limitation of this research is thatthe communication dimension – the jour-ney from identity to reputation and vice versa– is included, but is not explored in detail.In addition, while the reputation elementsare illustrated with selected quotes fromour fieldwork, they are not quantified.Although not broadly generalisable in allaspects, we think the several applications ofour framework reported here offer promiseand support for its application in relevantsettings. Further research mitigating theselimitations – to explore and integrate thecommunication dimension into the frame-work and to test the validity and reliabilityof the model’s elements quantitatively –would strengthen the framework’s general-isablity. We believe the work in this articleopens up opportunities for further studyand operationalisation of the new CBIRMframework in different corporate brandcontexts.
REFERENCESAaker, D.A. (1991) Managing Brand Equity. New York:
The Free Press.Aaker, D.A. (2004) Leveraging the corporate brand.
California Management Review 46(3): 6–26.Aaker, D.A. and Joachimsthaler, E. (2000) Brand
Leadership. New York: The Free Press.Aaker, J.L. (1997) Dimensions of brand personality.
Journal of Marketing Research 34(3): 347–356.Abratt, R. (1989) A new approach to the corporate
image management process. Journal of MarketingManagement 5(1): 63–76.
Abratt, R. and Kleyn, N. (2011) Corporate identity,corporate branding and corporate reputations:Reconciliation and integration. European Journal ofMarketing 46(7/8): 1048–1063.
Alvesson, M. and Berg, P.O. (1992) Corporate Culture andOrganisational Symbolism. Berlin, Germany: de Gruter.
Arthur W. Page Society (2014) Membership Directory2014–15. New York: Arthur W. Page Society.
Balmer, J.M.T. (1995) Corporate branding andconnoisseurship. Journal of General Management 21(1):3368–3374.
Balmer, J.M.T. (2008) Identity-based views of thecorporation: Insights from corporate identity,organisational identity, social identity, visual identity,corporate brand identity and corporate image.European Journal of Marketing 42(9/10): 879–906.
Balmer, J.M.T. (2010) Explicating corporate brandsand their management: Reflections and directionsfrom 1995. Journal of Brand Management 18(3):180–196.
Balmer, J.M.T., Brexendorf, T.O. and Kernstock, J.(eds.) (2013) Corporate brand management – Aleadership perspective. Journal of Brand Management20(9): 717–815.
Balmer, J.M.T. and Gray, E.R. (2003) Corporate brands:What are they? What of them? European Journal ofMarketing 37(7–8): 972–997.
Balmer, J.M.T. and Greyser, S.A. (2002) Multipleidentities of the corporation. California ManagementReview 44(3): 72–86.
Balmer, J.M.T. and Greyser, S.A. (2006) Corporatemarketing integrating corporate identity, corporatebranding, corporate communications, corporate imageand corporate reputation. European Journal of Marketing40(7/8): 730–741.
Balmer, J.M.T., Greyser, S.A. and Urde, M. (2006) TheCrown as corporate brand: Insights from monarchies.Journal of Brand Management 14(1/2): 137–161.
Balmer, J.M.T., Powell, S. and Greyser, S.A. (2011)Explicating ethical corporate marketing. Insightsfrom the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe: Theethical brand that exploded and then imploded.Journal of Business Ethics 102(1): 1–14.
Balmer, J.M.T. and Soenen, G.B. (1999) The acid test ofcorporate identity management. Journal of MarketingManagement 15(1/3): 69–92.
Balmer, J.M.T., Stuart, H. and Greyser, S.A. (2009)Aligning identity and strategy: Corporate brandingat British airways in the late 20th century. CaliforniaManagement Review 51(3): 6–23.
Barnes, L.B., Christensen, R.C. and Hansen, A.J. (1987)Teaching and the Case Method: Text, Cases, and Readings.Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Baumgarth, C. (2010) Living the brand: Brandorientation in the business-to-business sector.European Journal of Marketing 44(5): 653–671.
Berger, P. and Luckmann, T. (1966) The SocialConstruction of Reality. London: Penguin Books.
Blumer, H. (1969) Symbolic Interactionism: Perspectives andMethod. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Boulding, K.E. (1956) The Image. Ann Arbor, MI: TheUniversity of Michigan Press.
Boyd, B.K., Bergh, D.D. and Ketchen, Jr. D.J. (2010)Reconsidering the reputation-performance relation-ship: A resource-based view. Journal of Management36(3): 588–609.
Brexendorf, T.O. and Kernstock, J. (2007) Corporatebehaviour vs brand behaviour: Toward an integratedview? Journal of Brand Management 15(1): 32–40.
Bryman, A. and Bell, E. (2011) Business Research Methods.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Burghausen, M. and Balmer, J.M.T. (2014) Corporateheritage identity management and the implementationof corporate heritage identity. Journal of Business Research67(11): 2311–2323.
Burmann, C., Jost-Benz, M. and Riley, N. (2009)Towards an identity-based brand equity model.Journal of Business Research 62(3): 390–397.
Chun, R. (2005) Corporate reputation: Meaning andmeasurement. International Journal of ManagementReviews 7(2): 91–109.
Collins, J.C. and Porras, J.I. (1998) Built to Last. London:Random House.
Davies, G., Chun, R., daSilva, R. and Roper, S. (2003)Corporate Reputation and Competitiveness. London:Routledge.
Davies, G. and Miles, L. (1998) Reputation management:Theory versus practice. Corporate Reputation Review2(1): 16–27.
Davies, G. and Chun, R. (2003) Gaps between theinternal and external perceptions of corporate brand.Corporate Reputation Review 5(2/3): 144–158.
deChernatony, L. (1999) Brand management throughnarrowing the gap between brand identity and brandreputation. Journal of Marketing Management 15(1–3):157–179.
deChernatony, L. (2010) From Brand Vision to BrandEvaluation. Amsterdam, the Netherlands:Butterworth-Heinemann.
deChernatony, L. and Harris, F. (2000) Developingcorporate brands through considering internal andexternal stakeholders. Corporate Reputation Review3(3): 268–274.
deSaussure, F. (1983) Course in General Linguistics.Translated by Harris, R. London: Duckworth.
De Wit, B. and Meyer, R. (2010) Strategy: Process,Content, Context. Amsterdam, the Netherlands:South-Western Cengage Learning.
Dutton, J.J. and Dukerich, J.M. (1991) Keeping an eyeon the mirror: Image and identity in organizationaladaptation. Academy of Management Journal 34(3):517–554.
English, J.F. (2005) The Economy of Prestige – Prizes,Awards, and the Circulation of Cultural Value. Boston,MA: Harvard University Press.
Feldman, B. (2012) The Nobel Prize: A History of Genius,Controversy, and Prestige. New York: ArcadePublishing.
Financial Times (2014) John Hennessy, President ofStanford University, February 3.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2006) Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry 12(2): 219–245.
Fombrun, C.J. (1996) Reputation: Realizing Value from theCorporate Image. Boston, MA: Harvard BusinessSchool Press.
Fombrun, C.J., Gardberg, N.A. and Sever, J.M. (2000)The reputation quotient: A multi-stakeholdermeasure of corporate reputation. Journal of BrandManagement 7(4): 241–255.
Fombrun, C.J. and Van Riel, C.B.M. (2004) Fame andFortune: How Successful Companies Build WinningReputations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: PearsonEducation.
Ford, D., Gadde, L.E., Hakansson, H. and Snehota, I.(2011) Managing Business Relationships. Chichester,West Sussex, UK: J. Wiley.
Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. (1967) The Discovery ofGrounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research.Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
Greyser, S.A. (1995) Reputation and willingness-to-support. Presentation at Harvard Business School,Boston, MA.
Griffin, A. (2008) New Strategies for Reputation Management:Gaining Control of Issues, Crises and Corporate SocialResponsibility. London: Kogan Page Limited.
Gryd-Jones, R., Helm, C. and Munk, J. (2013)Exploring the impact of silos in achieving brandorientation. Journal of Marketing Management29(9/10): 1056–1078.
Gruning, J.E. (1993) Image and substance: Fromsymbolic to behavioral relationships. Public RelationsReview 19(2): 121–139.
Gummesson, E. (2005) Qualitative research in marketing.European Journal of Marketing 39(3/4): 309–327.
Hatch, M.J. and Schultz, M. (2001) Are the strategic starsaligned for your corporate brand? Harvard BusinessReview 79(2): 128–134.
The Corporate Brand Identity and Reputation Matrix
Hatch, M.J. and Schultz, M. (2008) Taking BrandInitiative – How Companies can Align Strategy, Culture,and Identity through Corporate Branding. San Francisco,CA: Jossey-Bass.
Herbig, P. and Milewicz, J. (1993) The relationship ofreputation and credibility to brand success. Journal ofConsumer Marketing 10(3): 18–24.
Higgins, E.T. (1987) Self-discrepancy: A theory relatingself and affect. Psychological Review 94(3): 319–340.
Hutton, J.G., Goodman, J.B. and Genest, A.C.M. (2001)Reputation management: The new face of corporatepublic relations? Public Relations Review 27(1):247–261.
ICIG Cape Town (2014) 17th International CorporateIdentity Group Symposium: The Big Five –Corporate identity, Corporate Branding, CorporateReputation, Corporate Communication, CorporateMarketing. Cape Town, University of Cape Town.
Ind, N. (2007) Living the Brand, 3rd edn. London: KoganPage.
Jaworski, B.J. (2011) On managerial relevance. Journal ofMarketing 75(July): 211–224.
Källstrand, G. (2012) Medaljens framsida: Nobelpriset ipressen 1897–1911 (The Medal: The Nobel Prize in thePress 1897–1911). Stockholm, Sweden: Carlsonsbokförlag.
Keller, K.L. (2001) Building customer-based brandequity: A blueprint for creating strong brands.Market Science Institute 1(107): 3–31.
Knox, S. and Bickerton, D. (2003) The six conventionsof corporate branding. European Journal of Marketing37(7/8): 998–1016.
Larsson, U. (2010) Alfred Nobel: Networks of Innovation.1Sagamore Beach, MA: Science History Publications.
MacInnis, D.J. (2011) A framework for conceptualcontributions in marketing. Journal of Marketing75(July): 136–154.
Melewar, T.C. and Jenkins, J. (2002) Defining thecorporate identity construct. Corporate ReputationReview 5(1): 76–90.
Ponzi, L.J., Fombrun, C.J. and Gardberg, N.A. (2011)RepTrakTM pulse: Conceptualizing and validating ashort-form measure of corporate reputation.Corporate Reputation Review 14(1): 15–35.
Prahalad, C.K. and Hamel, G. (1989) Strategic intent.Harvard Business Review (May/June): 63–76.
Reddiar, C., Kleyn, N. and Abratt, R. (2012) Director’sperspectives on the meaning and dimensions ofcorporate reputation. South African Journal of BusinessManagement 43(3): 29–39.
Roper, S. and Fill, C. (2012) Corporate Reputation: Brandand Communication. Harlow, Essex, UK: Pearson.
Schultz, M., Antorini, Y.M. and Csaba, F.F. (2005)Corporate Branding: Purpose/People/Process. Copenhagen,Denmark: Copenhagen Business School.
Sohlman, R. (1983) The Legacy of Alfred Nobel: The StoryBehind the Nobel Prizes. London: The Bodley Head.
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1990) Basics of QualitativeResearch. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Urde, M. (2013) The corporate brand identity matrix.Journal of Brand Management 20(9): 742–761.
Urde, M., Baumgarth, C. and Merrilees, B. (2011)Brand orientation and market orientation: Fromalternatives to synergy. Journal of Business Research66(1): 13–20.
Urde, M., Greyser, S.A. and Balmer, J.M.T. (2007)Corporate brands with a heritage. Journal of BrandManagement 15(1): 4–19.
Urde, M. and Greyser, S.A. (2014) The Nobel Prize:A ‘Heritage-based’ Brand-Oriented Network.Working Paper. Boston, Harvard Business School15-010, 19 August.
Urde, M. and Koch, C. (2014) Market- and brand-oriented schools of positioning. Journal of Product andBrand Management 23(7): 478–490.
Van Riel, C.B.M. (2012) Alignment Factor: Leveraging thePower of Total Stakeholder Support. New York:Routledge.
Veloutsou, C. and Moutinho, L. (2009) Brandrelationships through brand reputation andbrand tribalism. Journal of Business Research 62(3):314–322.
Yin, R.K. (1989) Case Study Research: Design and Method.Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Yin, R.K. (1993) Applications of Case Study Research.Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
APPENDIX
Interviews September 2013 – May2015Amelin, Olov. Director, Nobel Museum,
the Nobel Foundation. 8 November2013: Stockholm.
Deckeman, Maria. Communication andBrand Manager, Karolinska Institutet.11 February 2014.
Englund, Peter. Secretary Swedish Acad-emy. 2 June 2014, et seq.
Fyrenius, Mattias. CEO, Nobel Media.4 October 2013: Stockholm.
Hansson, Göran K. Vice Chairman of theNobel Foundation, Secretary of theNobel Committee for Physiologyor Medicine, Karolinska Institutet.8 November 2013: Stockholm.
Heikensten, Lars. Executive Director of theNobel Foundation. 8 November 2013,et seq: Stockholm.
