Corporate Branding
*[Brand values as merchandise through dialogue]
Masterthesis
d
[student] M.C. van der Geld [10608176]
B
[advisor/lecturer] mw. dr. S.C. de Bakker
¶
[Master track] Corporate Communication
2
[department] Graduate School of Communication
Z
[University] Universiteit van Amsterdam
2 Index
Abstract 3 Introduction 4 Theoretical Framework 9
The Organizational Environment 9
The New Stakeholder Model 9
The Influence From and On Stakeholders 11
Corporate Branding 13
The Properties of Corporate Brands 13
Interplay of Factors Within Corporate Branding 15
The Recognition of Brand Values and Brand Awareness 16
Issue Management and Bridging 21
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) 25
Method 28
Design and Manipulation 28
Materials 29 Procedure 30 Respondents 31 Independent Variables 32 Dependent Variables 32 Results 32 Discussion 34 References 38 Appendix 45
3 Abstract
More than ever, the current organizational environment is focused on dialogue; the
organization and its stakeholders recognize each other’s interests and attempt to achieve their goals by collaboration. Increasingly, organizations are getting more dependent from their stakeholders. Nowadays, stakeholders have the power to expect certain social values from the organization, outside of the provision of services. Organizations express these social values by means of a specific sign; the corporate brand. Within corporate brands, organizations express their point of view by means of corporate brand values (i.e. what its goals, beliefs and values are). Thus, for organizations it is necessary to form an identity in order to achieve a positive perception from their stakeholders. To achieve this positive perception, these brand values must be recognized by the stakeholders of the organizations. This study responds to this situation by measuring the extent to which recognition contributes to the shaping of the perception of the corporate brand. Next to that, it is studied whether the strategies of bridging and corporate social responsibility (CSR) could stimulate the stakeholders’ recognition of brand values or corporate brand perception. The effects were measured by means of a 2x3 experimental design. The results indicate that recognition of corporate brand values positively influences the stakeholders’ overall perception of the corporate brand, but that it is not
moderated by bridging or CSR.
4 Introduction
In the past decades, society developed itself to the stage of hypermodernism. This implies that humanity moved from a rigid industrialized world to a dynamic world of mass production and commerce (Lipovetsky, 2005). Along with this shift went the organizational world (Lopez-De-Pedro & Rimbau-Gilabert, 2012). It seems to have shifted from a
bureaucratic individualized structure to a dynamic and interdependent structure, based on acceleration of the development of new profit sources (Roberts & Armitage, 2006). Because of the growing interdependency between organizations and stakeholders, the achievement of a mutually beneficial relationship seems to be necessary. This notion might imply an
alteration within the organizational environment which shows a shift in the organization-stakeholder power balance (Bouwhuis, 2014).
In the past, organizations were authoritarian and were far less obliged to communicate with their publics (Christensen & Cornelissen, 2011). They had acquired the power to
disseminate messages like a hypodermic needle, who were widely assimilated by their public (Shaw, 1977). However, when they did so, organizations applied persuasive one-way
communication models, such as ‘press agentry’ or ‘public information’ (Grunig & Grunig, 1992). Christensen and Cornelissen (2011, p. 15) describe these models as ‘a conduit through which organizations simply relay and amplify their self-perceptions’, which implies the imposing of organizational communication on the public, without regard to the perception or opinion of the public. More specific, Grunig and Grunig (1992) conceptualized the ‘press agentry model’ and the public information model as one-way asymmetrical communication models of public relations; making the organization look good either through propaganda (i.e. press agentry) or by disseminating only favorable information (i.e. public information).
5 This illustrates that organizations must have had strong power over the actors in its environment. Thompson and McEwen (1958) strengthen this statement by arguing that, during their research, the environmental relations were dominated by the organizations. Therefore, Grunig and Grunig’s (1992) models are not based on research and strategic planning. They originate from self-interest of organizations within certain power relations, leaving the interests of the public neglected. Thus, they are based on monologue (i.e. asymmetry) and persuasion, rather than on research (Leichty & Springston, 1994).
Nowadays, the organizational environment developed into a more dialogue-based structure. Herein, the authors distinguish two ‘two-way communication models’, based on symmetry and asymmetry (i.e. the two-way symmetric model and the two-way asymmetric model). These two models differ from each other in the extent to which the organization implements the outcome of the dialogue. And although dialogue seems to be symmetric in its definition, the authors state that it can also be asymmetric.
Thus, central to these models is the concept of dialogue between the organization and its public. In a more practical way, it can be argued that organizations are not just notifying their publics about changes or persuading them to act in a specific manner anymore
(Christensen & Cornelissen, 2011). They are now merely obliged to take a considerable amount of actors to account within their organizational environment. These models illustrate a new situation, which is typified by ‘equal power, or at least shared power between the organization and its stakeholders’ (Schultz & Kitchen, 2004, p. 363).
Thus, organizations shifted from a passive, to an active character within their communications. An essential notion within this dialogue-based environment is that the organization is not addressing its external communication just to publics, but to so-called ‘stakeholders’ (Fassin, 2009; Freeman, 1984). In the last three decades, the relations between
6 the organization and its stakeholders became more salient, and ‘the public’ developed from a grey area to a more diverse and dynamic environment with specific actors (Cornelissen, 2011).
This development is perfectly illustrated by the stakeholder model (Donaldson & Preston, 1995; Fassin, 2009; Freeman, 1984; Freeman, 2003), which illustrates the environment of organizations these days in a clear manner. According to this model, the environment exists of a variety of stakeholders, which can be defined as ‘any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization’s objectives’ (Fassin, 2009, p. 116). In this definition, the reckoning with the old static image of the organizational environment becomes salient, and it makes way for a more dynamic environment, which is based on symmetry and two-sided communication (i.e. dialogue). Therefore, within the organizational environment, the organization influences the
stakeholders and vice versa (Donaldson & Preston, 1995). In this research, the stakeholder model will illustrate the context in which organizations act nowadays.
Due to the centrality of organizations in society, these days, organizations are obliged to take much more into account than just the provision of services or products. Consequently, organizations were suggested to ‘internalize the values of society’, or take an ‘outside-in perspective’ (Johansen & Valentini, 2013, p. 12). Because of this increased variety in tasks and departments within organizations, it became necessary for organizations to be clearer in their external communication, in order to market their brand successfully. This external communication became known as ‘corporate communication’ (i.e. it is closely related to marketing), which on the one hand brings the interests and demands of society into the organization, and on the other hand allows the organization to present itself as a coherent, legitimate entity (Cornelissen, 2011). Stakeholders needed to have a clear and unambiguous image of the values the organization stood for (Bouwhuis, 2014). By doing so, stakeholders
7 would know in which manner they could count on the organization. The best means of
showing the organization’s identity and values in an ambiguous way, expressed by symbols, might be the corporate brand (Abratt & Kleyn, 2012). By applying this corporate brand, organizations try to achieve a favorable association from their stakeholders with themselves. Nowadays, these favorable associations are achieved through brand values.
A vast amount of research has been done about corporate branding (Harris & de Chernatony; Hatch & Schultz, 2003; Schultz & de Chernatony, 2002), which revealed that it might serve as an instrument for organizations by which their values can be expressed, in order to act more in line with the stakeholders. In turn, this maximizes the organization’s eventual goal; gaining profit (Johansen & Valentini, 2013). Brand values have also been a mentionable topic of research (Du, Bhattacharya & Sen, 2007; Lindgreen & Swaen, 2010; Bouwhuis, 2014). It revealed that associations with these values have a strong impact on stakeholders’ attributions and brand evaluations.
The antecedents that might achieve recognition of these brand values are ‘bridging’-strategies (Meznar & Nigh, 1995) and corporate social responsibility (Bouwhuis, 2014; Johansen & Valentini, 2013; Klein & Dawar, 2004). Joining this body of research is the research that has been done about the achievement of brand awareness and the recognition of certain brand values (Bigné, Currás-Pérez & Aldás-Manzano, 2012; Gylling & Lindberg-Repo, 2006; Hatch & Schultz, 2001; James, 2005; John, Loken, Kim & Monga, 2006; Michell, King & Reast, 2001; Yang & Wang, 2010; Yaniv & Farkas, 2005). This body of research revealed that recognition of brand values plays a key role in the perception of corporate brands. Symbols that express brand values attract the stakeholder to the corporate brand and are therefore the base of an association (James, 2005). The general rule reads; good associations enhance the corporate brand (French & Smith, 2013).
8 Much research has been done on the field of brand values, recognition of brand
values, bridging and CSR. These studies all measure the influences of these factors on stakeholders and vice versa. The essence of these factors, for organizations, is that they are being used in order to create a positive brand perception. However, unless the already existing literature on brand perception, the composition of the variables in this study is unique. It distinguishes itself from other studies by considering the importance of all these uniquely combined variables in relation to the stakeholders’ perception of the corporate brand. Hence, it is assumed that numerous factors are at the base of the perception of a brand. In previous research, a direct effect between these factors on brand perception is often
suggested. However, this study nuances this effect and suggests that the relation between certain organizational strategies and corporate brand perception is mediated by recognition of brand values.
This study enhances research on corporate branding, because it maps several present-day organizational strategies and tests them in their contribution to brand perception; an essential actor in corporate branding. Next to these explicit results, it explains why and how these strategies work the way they work. In this respect, organizations might learn whether bridging or CSR enhances their corporate brand, thereby providing explanations of how they do or do not work, with respect to recognition of brand values and brand perception. Through this way, organizations may obtain new insight in their corporate branding (e.g. what factors to accentuate or which factors have a key importance in the perception of a brand). The research question therefore is:
Research question: To what extent does the recognition of brand values contribute to the stakeholders’ overall perception of the corporate brand and what antecedents play a role in recognizing these values?
9 This study takes a stakeholder’s point of view. It shows what parts of different, well-known and already explored concepts are actually picked up by the stakeholder, thereby using the most up-to-date situation of the organizational environment in general. It describes several factors in corporate branding, such as brand values, bridging, CSR and brand
perception. Other studies in the field of corporate branding often emphasize on one of its factors, thereby leaving other important factors understudied. Next to that, no research has elaborated on the process to and the requirements for recognition of brand values, in combination with its subsequent effect on corporate brand perception.
This study unites two key factors of corporate branding (i.e. recognition of brand values and corporate brand perception) and gives them both, in its theoretical description, the same weight in importance. This was done in order to provide a clear insight in the factors that drive organizations in modern day society, and to draw up well-balanced conclusions and hypotheses. After that, this study considered the amount of coherence between these factors in the conceptual model and their role in it. From a pure theoretical point of view, what this research adds to the field of research in corporate branding is the notion that recognition of corporate brand values has a positive influence on corporate brand perception. Practically, by means of this study, managers can learn from stakeholders. It will provide extra insight in how organizations can express their brand values in the best way, in order to maximize recognition of brand values and thereby the success of their corporate brand.
The Organizational Environment
The New Stakeholder Model
In order to provide a clear image of the renewed relationship between organizations and their stakeholders it is necessary to explain the context in which organizations have to operate these days. At a certain point in the twentieth century, the relationship between
10 organizations and their stakeholders changed, leaving the old power relations for irrelevant. Therefore, several researchers tried to capture the relations in this new environment. This process ran in several phases.
In the first phase, the new environment was mapped by the stakeholder theory (Freeman, 1984). The design of the stakeholder model, which graphically constitutes the organizational environment, was influenced by the traditional input-output model of managerial capitalism in which the organization is related to four groups: Suppliers,
employees and shareholders who provide the basic resources for the company, and which are transformed into products or services for the fourth group, their clients (Fassin, 2009). Consequently, Fassin (2009, p. 114) states that this could be illustrated ‘on the base of a wheel, in which the firm is the hub and the stakeholders are at the ends of spokes around the rim’. Here, the influence of stakeholders became visible in a metaphoric way. They were responsible for the movement of the organization, which depends on them. The example of the organization as a hub illustrates the central position of the organization within its environment.
However, in the second and latest phase, Freeman (2003) states that the organization is more than a wheel, and consists of internal and external stakeholders. Freeman (2003) shapes his model, which is published by Fassin (2009), by naming five internal stakeholders (financiers, customers, suppliers, employees and communities) and six external stakeholders (governments, environmentalists, NGOs, critics, the media and others). In order to clarify the power roles, Donaldson and Preston (1995, p. 68) state that ‘all persons or groups with legitimate interests participating in an enterprise do so to obtain benefits and that there is no priority of one set of interests and benefits over another’. Hence, the arrows between the firm and its stakeholders run in both directions (figure 1).
11
Figure 1. The present-day organizational environment (Fassin, 2009, p. 115).
A frame of thought is that, because of globalization and technological evolution, the amount of stakeholders dramatically increased. Due to these developments everyone and everything, everywhere can affect or becomes affected by organizations. Consequently, ‘virtually everyone and everything should be considered as a stakeholder’ (Fassin, 2009, p. 117).
The latter finding and the whole body of research about the stakeholder model illustrates a new dynamic context with numerous different stakeholders within an
environment or a network, who all have different interests in organizations. The task for the organization is to take these interests into account and to advantageously respond to these influences, in order to keep all parties satisfied. In this study, the new stakeholder model will further serve as a context in which organizations and stakeholders act.
The Influence From and On Stakeholders
During the change of the organizational environment, organizations were thoroughly identifying their environment. They recognized what stakeholders needed, knew which
12 stakeholders they had to take into account and knew in which manner they could maintain their relationship with them (Mainardes, Alves & Raposo, 2012). No longer could they just disseminate favorable information to maintain a good reputation. Stakeholders became more exigent, created interests and demanded specific actions or opinions from the organizations. In short, the organization-stakeholder relationship became more issue related.
Organizations also developed more interests in their stakeholders. Due to this
development, the organizational environment stays dynamic and changes more often. Grunig and Grunig (1992) interpret these mutual interests as a result of organizations starting a dialogue with stakeholders. Therefore, as counterpart of the press agentry and the public information model, they created the two-way asymmetrical, and the two-way symmetrical model. The first model uses research and scientific persuasion to identify messages, most likely to produce the support of the public without having to change organizational behavior (e.g. inquiring what the stakeholders want, and when beneficial for the organization,
implementation the outcome in decision making). The latter model uses bargaining, negotiating, and conflict-resolution strategies and facilitates understanding and
communication to bring symbiotic changes in the knowledge, attitudes, and behavior of both publics and the organization (e.g. engaging in a fair dialogue; Grunig & Grunig, 1992).
These two-way models capture the developing relationship between organizations and stakeholders, and thereby the increasing openness from organizations in a successful way. This implies that organizations, henceforth, have to take stakeholders into account and are forced to engage into a dialogue with them in order to benefit. The authors argue that both models involve an open-systems orientation, in that public relations practitioners collect as well as disseminate information. This information is used to make strategic and tactical decisions.
13 However, only the two-way symmetric model incorporates the concept of
morphogenesis (i.e. the development of a fair dialogue), the alteration of the organization’s internal operations and structures in response to the environment.
Grunig and Grunig’s (1992) theory puts the dialogue to the center of the attention. For example, when a customer is not satisfied with his or her service, s/he can start a dialogue with the organization in order to discuss the problem. Favorable response retains the customer. Unfavorable response is often visible to more customers and may cause severe reputation loss. According to the report of Bouwhuis (2014), nowadays people ask
organizations to perform another role in their lives. They expect more than just a product or a service. Organizations are now obliged to work outside of their conventional margins, so they have to give away some power.
This notion illustrates a shift in power balance. Hence, if an organization’s goals and standards are communicated to the consumer, the organization must comply with these values. Otherwise, the credibility of the organization decreases. The credibility of an
organization is important for the reputation of an organization. Hence, ‘the more credible the organization is, the better the reputation’ (Elving & Kartal, 2012, p. 452).
Corporate Branding
The Properties of Corporate Brands
In this day and age, brands are inseparable from the streetscape. Take a step outside and one will be overwhelmed by billboards, posters and all other types of advertisements (Picken, 1999). These advertisements all contain a brand, expressed in a recognizable symbol (MacInnis, Shapiro & Mani, 1999). This symbol forms the visual or physical aspect of the corporate brand of an organization, and is often expressed in a logo with a tagline beneath it.
14 Brands embody the long-term experience that a customer has with a service provider; in effect, ‘the brand is a “summary statistic” characterizing the cumulative temporal relationship between two parties, the customer and the service provider’ (Sweeney & Swait, 2008, p. 180). Moreover, it is the result of interplay and dialogue between organizations and stakeholders.
In order to succeed, a corporate brand has to take more aspects into account. The definition of corporate branding therefore is; ‘a systematically planned and implemented process of creating and maintaining favorable images and consequently a favorable
reputation of the company as a whole by sending unambiguous signals to all stakeholders by managing behavior, communication, and symbolism’ (Van Riel, 2001, p. 12).
Strategy, unambiguousness, favorableness and stakeholders play a key role within this definition. This implies that organizations, in the attempt to build a successful brand, have to be interactive with their stakeholders on a broad spectrum. However, throughout this broad spectrum, ‘the organization is defined, shaped, and controlled by an overall corporate message’ (Christensen & Cornelissen, 2011, p. 12); its corporate brand.
By many organizations, this message is put up in a sophisticated way. This is important because organizations benefit from corporate branding when they use it as a pan-company activity that cuts across both functional areas and business units (Schultz & de Chernatony, 2002). These authors argue that this ‘pan-company perspective changes corporate branding from a marketing-communication activity into a strategic framework, which gives companies a clear sense of direction and provides the basis for competitive advantage’ (p.105). In short, until today, the corporate brand is an explicit sign board of an organization within the market (Sweetin, Knowles, Summey & McQueen, 2013).
15 However, in staying competitive, corporate brands also have to be unique. In the process of differentiation from other corporate brands, positioning was necessary. Accordingly, ‘the values symbolized by the organization become key elements of differentiation strategies’ (Hatch & Schultz, 2003, p. 1041). Values can be described as ‘concepts or beliefs that pertain to desirable end states or behaviors that transcend specific situations, and guide selection or evaluation of behaviors and events’ (Johansen & Valentini, 2013, p. 5). Thus, brand values are in function as the achievers of that desirable end state of stakeholders; a positive perception of the corporate brand. It seems to be the case that this end state might be directly affected by corporate brand values, which are derived from a dialogue. Therefore, corporate branding can be seen as a profound way of presenting an organization’s image in accordance with its stakeholders.
Interplay of Factors Within Corporate Branding
As might be clear, the relationship between an organization and its stakeholders is founded by plural processes. In order to map these processes, Hatch and Schultz (2003) provide a framework for understanding corporate branding as underpinned by processes that link strategic vision, organizational culture and corporate images to each other. Moreover, as was explained in the second phase of the stakeholder theory (figure 1, p. 11), it can be posed that a corporate brand is a vast collection of internal and external organizational influences. Inside the organization, this brand-building process is more about linking mission, vision and organizational values (Gylling & Lindberg-Repo, 2006). Therefore, a strong interplay
between these fundamental values is necessary in order to put the corporate brand on a central spot between the organization and the stakeholder. According to Hatch and Schultz (2003, p. 1062), ‘effective corporate branding will come with dedication to honest
self-assessment, responsive attitudes toward stakeholders, and respect for the values that attract all parties to the corporation’.
16 As may be derived, a corporate brand seems to be a visible instrument of an
organization, which expresses its values and vision, partly tuned to its dynamic environment, subsequently creating necessary associations of its stakeholders. From the side of the
organization, it is therefore argued that corporate branding works through adapting to the expectations of stakeholders. They need to be able to adjust their strategies and their
corporate brands at all times, due to the dependency of their stakeholders. By adjusting their brand values to the values that are considered to be dominant for their stakeholders, their corporate brands remain current. In turn, stakeholders pick up these brand values and adjust their brand perception to them.
According to the stakeholder model (Fassin, 2009), nowadays organizations have interest in different actors in their environment, and stakeholders have a specific interest in the organization. This notion indicates that the achievement of goals runs through dialogue. Moreover, it indicates a shift in power, which is in the advantage of the stakeholders. Increasingly, stakeholders demand certain values from their organizations. Therefore, an important characteristic of a successful brand is the ‘consistency of the perception of those values, as well as the nature of those values’ (Harris & de Chernatony, 2001, p. 443). This implies that corporate brand values have to be recognizable and have to meet the
expectations.
The Recognition of Brand Values and Brand Awareness
Within dialogue, organizations have their own interests and thereby their own strategies to achieve these goals. From an organizational perspective, the corporate brand is an instrument to reach certain goals. The most important feature of a corporate brand is the perception that it triggers within the heads of its stakeholders, thereby establishing the recognition of the brand, eventually leading to a specific goal; generating wealth, the main
17 interest of organizations to engage in a dialogue with their stakeholders (Johansen &
Valentini, 2013). This instrumentalist perspective is emphasized by Hatch and Schultz (2001) and Yaniv and Farkas (2005). These authors argue that branding is also an instrument that must be managed to create alignment between the internal culture and the external image of the organization. This means that a brand must also give forth on core values from within the organization, so that stakeholders can explicitly see and judge the beliefs of the organization. Hereby, the instrument lies in the use of symbols in external communication, in order to achieve the state that leads to organizational profit; the recognition of brand values. Through these symbols, stakeholders may easily recognize the values that the organization stands for. In short, for organizations, the utility of corporate branding is generating profit. However, in practice this is achieved by shaping the brand into an instrument that resonates organizational values, in order to create goodwill.
On the path to recognition, for organizations it is necessary to create brand awareness. Gylling and Lindberg-Repo (2006, p. 264) state that a consumer’s awareness of a brand or the brand image, is ‘a reflection of the different associations held in the consumer’s memory’. More specific, Michell, King and Reast (2001, p. 416) argue that ’the inherent strength of a brand is generated through the leverage of its name, symbol, or logo, that is, those parts of a brand that can be vocalized or communicated’. Accordingly, ‘stakeholders might associate, thus recognize a corporate brand with a particular attribute or feature, usage situation, product spokesperson or logo’ (John, Loken, Kim & Monga, 2006, p. 549).
The achievement of stakeholders’ brand awareness, is established by the transfer of brand values in a visual and explicit way, but can also be based on explicit and implicit attributes of the corporate brand (James, 2005). These tangible and intangible attributes of the brand can be seen as instruments for forming the stakeholder’s favorable associations with brand values, which are part of its brand awareness. But whether this awareness is positive or
18 negative depends on the organization. Accordingly, Tauber (1988) argues that brand
associations determine the leverage of that brand. Therefore, when stakeholders have to choose a brand, they will choose the brand toward which they hold the most positive attitude (Keller, 1993). Thus, James (2005, p.15) concludes that ‘a stronger brand attitude builds a stronger brand’.
When we take the perspective of the stakeholder model, it can be argued that the manner of applying corporate branding defines the relationship between the organization and the stakeholder (as is illustrated by the two-sided arrows in the new stakeholder model; figure 1, p. 11). This manner evokes certain brand awareness. But how exactly does brand
awareness contribute to the corporate brand?
Well, brand awareness is related to ‘the strength of a brand’s node in the stakeholders’ memory (i.e. an association) and can be reflected by a stakeholder’s ability to recognize the brand within various contexts or situations’ (Wang & Yang, 2010, p. 179). It is therefore defined as ‘the ability to recognize or recall a brand’ (Homburg, Klarmann & Schmitt, 2010, p. 201). Hoyer and Brown (1990, p. 141) make a subtle distinction between brand awareness and recognition, by stating that ‘the former is denoting a state of knowledge possessed by the stakeholder and the latter a cognitive process resulting from awareness’. Thus, the
recognition of brand values seems to be the key product of brand awareness. Therefore, recognition is an important signal for how stakeholders perceive a brand (Wang & Yang, 2010).
From the organizational perspective, recognition can be encouraged through signals within the brand, such as a logo and a slogan. However, recognition boosts when a
distinguishing feature is added in the corporate brand such as brand values. Then stakeholders can identify the use of the brand, because it is distinguishable from other brands (Swartz,
19 1983). For example, ‘Brand A’ and ‘Brand B’ might offer the same service or product, but when ‘Brand A’ offers a more sustainable service, which it communicates through its corporate brand values, it is distinguishable from ‘Brand B’ which might evoke more
recognition. Swartz (1983) therefore argues that differentiation is crucial in branding, because of the existing similarity of a large amount of products and services. Herein, differentiation is achieved when specific properties of corporate brands are recognized.
Not only distinguishableness is important in recognition of brand values. Credibility and trust are also key players. That is, because a brand attitude can be strong at one moment, but it can only be maintained over time through stakeholder/organization interactions. However, when trust is violated, credibility can easily be lost, which makes brand credibility a responsibility for all facets of the organization at all times in order to achieve brand
awareness and recognition of its values (Sweeney & Swait, 2008). According to Kemp and Bui (2011, p. 430), ‘brands must have the utility to continuously deliver what has been promised’, because repetition links positively to recognition. As a result, more trusted brands are more credible and purchased more frequently than less trusted brands (Kemp & Bui, 2011). Thus, recognition of brand values can be seen as a mediator between the strategy used by the organization and the perception of the corporate brand. As a result, Yaniv and Farkas (2005, p. 447) argue that ‘a high perception level of the organization, in turn, means a higher trust in the brand and in the corporate body that stands behind it’, which results in ‘a more powerful brand’.
In short, nowadays, corporate branding works through expressing the values and/or sources of desire that attracts stakeholders to the organization and encourages them to feel a sense of belonging to it. According to Hatch and Schultz (2001, p. 1046) ‘it is this attraction and sense of belonging that affects the decisions and behaviors on which an organization is
20 built’. Presumably, this suggests an influence of the associations of stakeholders on their perception of the brand.
Moreover, when an organization wants to create a strong corporate brand, it should ventilate attractive messages (e.g. relevant symbols, based on current expectations) that make stakeholders experience and express their values, which in turn keeps them active.
Conclusively, it is important to get a clear vision of how stakeholders experience (i.e. recognize) a brand and its values.
According to Brakus, Schmitt and Zarantonello (2009) the understanding of these experiences is crucial in forming strategies and, thus, values. Additionally, Schembri (2009) argues that brand experience is subject to co-construction between the organization and stakeholders. Stakeholders consume and experience a brand. In this process they will define the brand and will learn what that brand means, even if that meaning is not identical to the intended meaning by the organization (Schembri, 2009). In short, both organization and stakeholders define corporate brands. Brand values are parts that provide meaning to the brand from the side of the organization. Also stakeholders define the organization’s brand values (i.e. through brand experience), which might lead to a certain change in attitude towards the brand as a whole. Hence, a stakeholder has specific interests in an organization and therefore has a specific attitude towards the organization (Hutchinson & Bennett, 2012).
Logically the process of sense making between organization and stakeholders results in two options; there is congruence between the intended brand values of the organization and the self-made definition of the brand values from the stakeholders, or there is incongruence between these two definitions (Bigné, Currás-Pérez & Aldás-Manzano, 2012). Regardless of whether there is congruence or incongruence, from the side of the stakeholders, this process
21 of sense making indicates a relationship between brand experience and a certain attitude towards the brand (Hutchinson & Bennett, 2012).
Bigné et al. (2012) add to this notion by arguing that congruence exists on the base of a link between a social cause (i.e. a self-made definition) and a brand. Hereby, stakeholders determine the fit (i.e. congruence) by comparing their own brand perception to the perception of the cause it is linked to. When there is congruence, brand values are recognized in a coherent and intended manner by stakeholders, which might lead to mutual understanding and, in turn, a more positive attitude or perception of the corporate brand. Herein,
stakeholders’ attitude is influenced by the recognition of the brand values. When there is incongruence, recognition of brand values is probably low after experiencing the brand and might lead to a less favorable attitude or perception of stakeholders. In order to test the link between the recognition of brand values and the perception after the brand experience, the first hypothesis was set:
Hypothesis 1: The recognition of brand values directly influences the stakeholders’ perception of corporate brands.
This hypothesis covers the first part of the research question, by examining the part to which the recognition of brand values explains and contributes to the perception of the corporate brand overall. This means that the higher the recognition of brand values, the higher the perception of corporate brands.
Issue Management and Bridging
In a period where competitiveness is of main importance, ‘corporate brands can no longer just stand there, they must stand for something’ (Gylling & Lindberg-Repo, 2006, p. 261). Due to the more dialogical character of the relationship between the organization and
22 its stakeholders these days, a wider range of issues that concern them, now also concerns the organization. In fact, stakeholders have certain expectancies from organizations (Yaniv & Farkas, 2005). Therefore, for an organization it is important to scan its environment in a continuous way (Cornelissen, 2011). As is illustrated by the stakeholder model (Fassin, 2009), due to the interest that the organization has, it does not only have to take its own actions into account, but also how these actions are perceived by its stakeholders. According to Cornelissen (2011), this is a major task for communication practitioners within
organizations, because the range of variables is so high. Many of those variables will give rise to opportunities and others will exert threats on the organization.
Cornelissen (2011) continues by arguing that the impact of environmental forces on the organization depends on how the organization itself, in terms of the strengths and
weaknesses in its values, resources and competencies, can respond to them. Consequently, it seems to be that when issue management is well-performed within an organization, their relationship with their environment (i.e. different stakeholders) is maximal. When its
performance is worse, the emergence of a crisis lies at hand. Practically, the relationship with the environment is maintained by expressing affection in their corporate brands (Michel & Rieunier, 2012). This implies that they adjust their brands to current issues, which are relevant to their stakeholders, thereby meeting their expectations.
A major goal of issue management is developing and maintaining brand awareness and recognition of brand values, because of their impact on decision making of the
stakeholders (Baldauf, Cravens & Binder, 2003). However, the process of creating this awareness and recognition must run in accordance to the expectations of the stakeholders. Schembri (2009, p. 1299) argues that ‘brands can develop a distinct personality and even iconic status with a complex identity aligned with social and political issues’. But what do organizations do to create and to maintain brand awareness and recognition of brand values?
23 In order to be legitimate and to act in alignment with its stakeholders’ beliefs and expectations, organizations use different types of public affairs activities (Meznar & Nigh, 1995). According to Meznar and Nigh (1995) organizations need to apply
‘bridging’-strategies, which are tools that help organizations in adapting organizational activities so that they are aligned with external expectations’. It implies that ‘organizations actively try to meet and exceed regulatory requirements in their industry or that they attempt to quickly identify changing social expectations in order to promote organizational conformance to those expectations’ (Meznar & Nigh, 1995, p. 976). According to Hillman, Keim and Schuler (2004), bridging is a reactive form of behavior, which monitors the development of
legislation or regulation in order to achieve compliance in its regulation. Key words regarding bridging-behavior are therefore, ‘passive reaction’, ‘positive anticipation’ and
‘non-bargaining’.
This behavior basically leads to linking developments in the organizational environment to internal adaptation within the organization. Thereby, it closes the gap
between what society expects of the organization and what the organization is actually doing, in order to avoid inconsistencies with regard to stakeholders (Meznar & Nigh, 1995). It can be argued that organizations that use bridging-strategies can ‘respond to opportunities, serve as catalysts and facilitators between different levels of governance, and across resource and knowledge systems’ (Berkes, 2009, p. 1695). Stakeholders might possibly note bridging-strategies when they recognize current relevant values in corporate communication.
As was explained earlier, there is a relationship between brand experience, where recognition of brand values is part of, and stakeholders’ perception of a corporate brand (Hutchinson & Bennett, 2012). But prior to that, organizational efforts must achieve this brand experience and recognition. They have to create strategies to reach the awareness of stakeholders. Bridging is one of the strategies that might advance brand experience. This is
24 because in corporate branding, this strategy implies the active engagement of organizations in meeting the values of stakeholders. In practice, bridging implies that organizations make adjustments in their policies when they find that stakeholders adhere to new beliefs. When applied, this might lead to congruence or incongruence (Hutchinson & Bennett, 2012), but due to the nature of bridging, it might be likely that it would lead to congruence with the beliefs of the stakeholders, because they will find their own values in the brand values. In short, bridging-strategies might lead to more recognition of brand values. Therefore, the second hypothesis reads:
Hypothesis 2: Bridging-behavior of organizations influences the recognition of corporate brand values.
Strategies such as bridging are submissive to goals of the organizations that apply them. In case of a dialogue, strategies serve the goal of the achievement of a positive brand perception of the stakeholders. However, when taking the perspective of the stakeholder, the relationship between these two factors might be dependent of personal affection with
organizations that are meeting one’s expectations. Fock, Chan and Yan (2011) share this argument, and state that in order to gain a positive perception, cause-related strategies which call for sympathetic and altruistic responses are demanded. Next to that, the authors argue that affinity with an organization corresponds with the ‘desire to support the organization’ (Fock et al., 2011, p. 678). This suggests a link between bridging, which implies showing affinity with stakeholders, and brand perception. Therefore, the following hypothesis was composed:
Hypothesis 3: Bridging-strategies directly influence stakeholders’ perception of corporate brands.
25 Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
For several decades, a countermovement to the exhaustion of the earth came up, characterized by ecological consciousness, raising the awareness on sustainability (Barber, 2006). Its roots are mainly earthed within society, and this thought of sustainability thus affected the organizational environment. For organizations, this mainly meant that they had to mind their responsibility within society, just because they were key players within it.
Bouwhuis (2014) added to this notion by reporting that ‘when an organization is not able to approach the values that it represents within society in a fundamental different way these days, but solely focusses on profit, it will engage in problems’. To avoid these problems and to make stakeholders recognize the brand in a positive way, the implementation of these values in brand values was necessary.
The implementation of these values can be ranged under ‘corporate social
responsibility’ (CSR). CSR can therefore be defined as ‘the managerial obligation to take action to protect and improve both the welfare of society as a whole, with responsiveness to its perceived obligations, and the interest of organizations’ (Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001, p. 226). Moreover, although it is perceived to be an obligation, it seems to be an ultimate strategy to meet stakeholders’ interests.
As can be derived from this definition, the general thought in CSR resides in working together towards common goals. This concept is stakeholder-oriented, and herein ‘CSR holds that organizations exist within networks of stakeholders, face the potentially conflicting demands of these stakeholders, and translate the demands into CSR objectives and policies’ (Lindgreen & Swaen, 2010, p. 2). Moreover, ‘CSR is a visible way for organizations to articulate values’ (Johansen & Valentini, 2013, p. 4). In this approach, organizations are expected to manage their environment in a social responsible way. In accordance with
26 Meznar and Nigh (1995), Lindgreen and Swaen (2010) additionally state that to achieve the successful implementation of CSR, managers must build bridges with their stakeholders, through formal and informal dialogues. Consequently, the corporate brand also has to contain elements that are the derivative of this dialogue. This means that the corporate brand has to be socially responsible, in order to excite and maintain favorable perceptions. Moreover, ‘CSR awareness or the lack hereof, is a key stumbling block for companies looking to reap strategic benefits from their CSR’ (Du, Bhattacharya & Sen, 2007, p. 238). The ethical tradition motivates CSR with reference to it being the right thing to do. Responsible behavior is a derivative from the increasing importance of basic human rights and growing concern for the environment (Johansen & Valentini, 2013).
This notion might be at the base of the recognition of brand values, because CSR values are often very explicit and expectable (e.g. there is a clear link between a coffee company and values of sustainability). CSR is an accessible tool for organizations to show their responsibility (Vanhamme & Grobben, 2009). In the past years, organizations are becoming increasingly skilled in CSR, which led to numerous big campaigns (i.e. the H&M ‘conscious collection’). It is therefore assumed that the recognition of brand values might be influenced by CSR.
However, a danger occurs when managers try to implement CSR strategies. Bouwhuis (2014) reported that a lot of entrepreneurs poor CSR as some sort of ‘sauce’ over their brand. According to the report this does not work, because CSR has to be the ‘main course’ of the organization in order to be credible or to achieve congruence with its stakeholders. When an organization wants to apply CSR strategies successfully, it has to go back to its roots where their real core values lie. Subsequently, these values have to be expressed so that stakeholders know why the owners started the organization in the first place. When an organization then holds on to these core values, after years, they will harvest from their values. CSR has to be a
27 philosophy that is based on the long run, not just a quick management trick (Bouwhuis, 2014). Du et al. (2007), add to this notion that when a brand is known as a ‘CSR-brand’, it is likely to raise more recognition than a brand that just engages in CSR.
This latter fact contributes to the notion that organizations increasingly use CSR activities to position their corporate brand in the eyes of consumers and other stakeholders (Lindgreen & Swaen, 2010). Research by Klein and Dawar (2004, p. 215) explains this notion by finding that ‘CSR associations have a strong and direct impact on stakeholders’ attributions and brand evaluations, provided that the associations suit the stakeholder’s interest or issue’.
The same explanation as with bridging-strategies might be applicable to the situation of CSR-strategies. That is, the nature of CSR-strategies is acting responsibly, which comes from a specific demand of stakeholders. When organizations do act upon this demand, it seems to be more plausible that congruence between the organization and its stakeholders exists, than when they do not act upon it; the CSR-values of the organization are then aligned with the values of the stakeholders. Due to this notion, stakeholders recognize brand values better than when there is less congruence with the brand values. This is what might make CSR an important antecedent for the recognition of brand values. Consequently, the third hypothesis reads:
Hypothesis 4: CSR-strategies influence the recognition of corporate brand values.
Because it is expected that bridging-strategies will serve as an antecedent for recognition of brand values, the same goes for CSR-strategies. Personal interest in or affection with CSR might be an important measure in exposing the link between CSR and brand perception. Öberseder, Schlegelmilch and Murphy (2013, p. 1850) reinforce this argument by stating that ‘consumers attach different weight to CSR domains, reflecting their
28 personal values and opinions’. Chu and Lin (2012) add to this argument by suggesting that stakeholders are willing to reward an organization that acts in an ethical and responsible way. Next to that, they argue that ‘CSR-related messages elicit more favorable attitudes toward brands and organizations’, and that they will ‘potentially help to enhance company image’ (Chu and Lin, 2012, p. 58). Consequently, it may be expected that by means of stakeholders’ affinity with CSR (i.e. because it is a token of responsibility), brand perception is affected. Hypothesis 5 therefore is:
Hypothesis 5: CSR-strategies directly influence stakeholders’ perception of corporate brands.
Figure 2. The conceptual model of this research.
Method
Design and Manipulation
In order to gain data for the hypotheses, an experiment was prepared. It consists out of a control group and an experimental group. The experiment makes use of a 2x3 experimental design, with the following six conditions:
29 (2) control group, CSR-condition;
(3) control group, no bridging or CSR-condition; (4) experimental group, bridging-condition; (5) experimental group, CSR-condition;
(6) experimental group, no bridging or CSR-condition; Table 1. The experimental design and hypotheses of this research.
This experiment made use of two manipulations. Respondents from four out of six conditions were manipulated by a general definition of bridging or CSR (appendix) before they were exposed to a brand. In this manner, it was made possible to check whether, when respondents obtained awareness of these organizational strategies, it would influence their overall perception of brands or their recognition of brand values.
Materials
The answers that respondents gave to the items within the online survey were all based on a real-life brand. Hence, the research focused on the recognition of brand values, and in order to be sincere, using real-life brands and values was better than using fictional ones. The used brand is a world famous brand, that applies bridging and CSR, and is therefore ideal material (i.e. that makes it possible to manipulate bridging or CSR). Most people are customers of the brand and might therefore already have an attitude toward the brand. Within all surveys, the brand existed of a visual display of the logo of the
30 organization, its tagline and a short description of the organization’s vision and mission. On basis of these materials, respondents had to answer to the items.
Procedure
The research was conducted by means of an online survey. From the 9th of May 2014 on, data was collected throughout the social media-accounts of the researcher (i.e. Facebook and LinkedIn) for the period of ten days. All gathered respondents received an URL with the online survey (prepared with the software from Qualtrics), which they could hand in
electronically after completion. The first page in the online survey (appendix) contained a description of the research as a whole, the definition of some critical terms within that research and a note that the survey was strictly confidential. This was followed by several general questions about gender, age, education, current occupation and place of residence. After these general questions, participants were randomly assigned to one of the six conditions. Each respondent then received a display of the Philips-logo, its tagline and a brand description. On the next page, dependent of the condition the respondents were in, the surveys varied. Next to the manipulations, described below, the control group received three brand values of Philips and had to consider to what extent the brand reflected these values
The experimental group received an extra multiple choice item after the display of the brand, wherein they had to pick three suitable brand values, in order to check whether there was congruence between Philips and the respondents after reading Philips’ vision and mission. The item consisted out of three real-life brand values and seven fictional brand values. The three real-life brand values were; ‘making consumers happy’, ‘sustainable development’, and ‘being innovative’. The control group skipped this multiple choice item and received all three of Philips’ brand values before moving on. After that, all respondents received items about their recognition of the brand values (i.e. congruence or incongruence of
31 with Philips came to light through these items). Following these items were items about the respondent’s attitude towards the brand. At the end of the online survey the respondents were thanked for their efforts and were again noted that their answers were confidential. Overall, it took approximately five minutes to complete the experiment.
Respondents
A group of 237 respondents participated on this research (N = 237). Due to the fact that this research was conducted by the means of social networks, the age of the respondents (all Dutch) varied from 17 years old to 87 years old. Within the group of respondents, 48.4% were men (N = 104) and 51.6% were women (N = 108; 8 respondents missing). Respondents were randomly assigned to one out of six online surveys. Altogether, 97 respondents were assigned to the control group, and 101 respondents were assigned to the experimental group. Prior to the main questionnaire, respondents were asked to fill in several questions regarding educational level and their current occupation (to be found below in table 2 and table 3).
Table 2. Education level of the respondents (achieved educational degree).
32 Independent Variable
Recognition of brand values. The variable consisted of a scale from Aaker (1996) and a scale from Yoo and Donthu (2001). Both scales were separately measured in the
questionnaire on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) and later on standardized to one variable. As a whole, the variable was not reliable (α = .61). However, when the item ‘I have difficulty in imagining Philips in my mind’ was left out, it was reliable (α = .73). Both scales can be found in the appendix.
Dependent Variable
Corporate brand perception. In this research, this variable consists of a scale containing six items from Aaker (1996) and is measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). This scale was reliable (α = .83) and can be found in the appendix.
Results
H1. The design of this research suggests a direct effect between the mediator in the conceptual model, recognition of brand values, and the perception of the corporate brand. Hypothesis 1 was therefore ‘the recognition of brand values directly influences the
stakeholders’ perception of corporate brands’. The outcome of a regression analysis
indicated a moderate significant relationship between recognition of brand values and corporate brand perception, F (1, 92) = 6.10, p < .05. The model of regression can therefore predict corporate brand perception, b* = .14, t = 2.47, p < .05, 95% CI [.03, .25], and recognition of corporate brand values covered 6% of the total variance (R² = .06). These results imply that hypothesis 1 was accepted. As was argued in the method-chapter, respondents were also asked to fill in their perceived brand values of Philips, in order to
33 check whether there was congruence between Philips and the respondents. The descriptive data shed light on the comprehension of the respondents; out of 101 respondents, 24
respondents knew that ‘making customers happy’ was a brand value of Philips (i.e. 23.8%). Next to that, 66 respondents knew ‘sustainable development’ (i.e. 65.3), and 82 respondents knew ‘being innovative’ (i.e. 81.2%).
H2. Hypothesis 2 implied; ‘bridging-behavior of organizations influences the
recognition of corporate brand values’. In order to measure the possible influence in this
relation, a one sample t-test was conducted, which provided insight in the differences
between the mean of the recognition of brand values from respondents that were manipulated with an example of bridging (M = 3.38; SD = 1.17), compared to the mean of the recognition of brand values from the respondents of the experimental condition that was not manipulated (M = 3.40; SD = 1.11). However, the outcome of the t-test proved to be insignificant (t = -.09;
df = 35; p > .05). It can therefore be concluded that hypothesis 2 was rejected.
H3 Hypothesis 3 implied; ‘bridging-strategies directly influence stakeholders’
perception of corporate brands’. The expectation was that bridging would influence the
overall perception of corporate brands. To map this effect, the data of the respondents in the experimental bridging condition (M = 3.56; SD = .55) were extracted and compared to the mean of overall perception of the non-manipulated experimental group (M = 3.42; SD = .73) in a t-test. Because of the fact that the results were not significant (t = 1.52; df = 36; p > .05), hypothesis 3 was rejected.
H4. Hypothesis 4 implied; ‘CSR-strategies influence the recognition of corporate
brand values’. The test of this hypothesis followed the same canvas as hypothesis 2 and was
tested by means of a t-test containing the means of the experimental condition that was manipulated with a CSR message (M = 3.40; SD = 1.10) and the non-manipulated
34 experimental condition (M = 3.40, SD = 1.11), which, leveled to a hundredth, have the same mean. Unfortunately, this t-test also proved to be insignificant (t = -.01; df = 31; p > .05). Hypothesis 4 was therefore rejected.
H5. Hypothesis 5 implied; ‘CSR-strategies directly influence stakeholders’ perception
of corporate brands’. The means of the CSR-manipulated experimental group (M = 3.44; SD
= .52) and the non-manipulated experimental group (M = 3.42; SD = .73) were compared in a t-test. Unfortunately, also this hypothesis was rejected because of insignificance of the t-test (t = .22; df = 30; p > .05).
Table 4. The results of the t-tests (i.e. H2, H3, H4, H5)
Discussion
The experiment examined the effects of bridging and CSR-strategies on the
recognition of brand values and corporate brand perception, and the effect from recognition of brand values on corporate brand perception. The most important result indicated that recognition of brand values positively influences corporate brand perception in a moderate manner. The base for this effect is created within the dialogue that organizations and stakeholders maintain these days. Within this dialogue, the organization’s aim is to guide stakeholders towards a positive brand perception.
35 The first step in this process is achieving brand awareness. According to James
(2005), brand awareness is achieved by the transfer of explicit brand values. Thus, whether stakeholders pay attention or are attracted to a brand depends on the brand values. This critical point is determined by the brand experience of the stakeholders. According to Schembri (2009) this experience is co-constructed by the organization on one side, and the stakeholders on the other side. This implies that organizations express values in their brands with a certain meaning behind them, and stakeholders form their own beliefs of the brand by self-defining and evaluating those brand values.
When there is a fit, or congruence, between what the organization intends with its brand values and what the stakeholders perceive of these brand values this leads to a certain affection to the brand (Bigné et al., 2012). The authors claim that congruence ‘facilitates the association between the two agents, produces more meaning transfer from social cause to brand and avoids egoistic attributions to the brand motives’ (p. 578). Moreover, when
stakeholders get attracted to a brand through recognition of its brand values (i.e. congruence), it might cause a sense of belonging to the brand (Hatch & Schultz, 2001). This affection with the corporate brand indicates a relationship between the recognition of brand values and an attitude or a perception towards the corporate brand (Hutchinson & Bennett, 2012). In short, the theory suggests that a good brand experience facilitates the recognition of brand values. The results confirm that this recognition slightly influences the stakeholders’ perception of the corporate brand.
Because of this fact, organizations must try to achieve as much congruence as
possible. They must make sure that no gap exists between what the organization intends with its corporate brand and what the stakeholder perceives of that corporate brand, in order to optimize their recognition of their brand values. This could be achieved by making brand
36 values more explicit, in order to leave less space for devious interpretations. Next to that, brand values must be attractive, in order to raise awareness.
However, this part of the experiment was also subject to some limitations. The associations and experiences that stakeholders have with a brand vary from one person to another. This is explained by the mutual differences in recognizing Philips’ real-life brand values within the questionnaire. This experiment only measured stakeholders’ recognition of brand values and did not map any other cognitive processes. That is why future research needs to map what precise processes are behind the recognition of brand values. Thus, it needs to elaborate more on the cognitive side of brand experience.
From the organizational perspective, understanding brand experience is crucial, in order to develop strategies (Brakus et al., 2009). It was therefore expected that certain specific strategies lied at the base of this brand experience and the eventual recognition of brand values. In the experiment, the strategies of bridging and CSR were used in order to examine this. However, the results opted that these strategies are neither at the base of recognition of brand values nor corporate brand perception.
Michel and Rieunier (2012) argue that organizations show affection in order to maintain their relationship with stakeholders. It was therefore expected that their strategies would elicit affection, which in turn would lead to congruence. Hence, both strategies focus on meeting stakeholders’ expectations. They are therefore related to each other, because in order to achieve a successful CSR-strategy, bridges must be built with stakeholders through dialogue (Lindgreen & Swaen, 2010). Building these bridges, for organizations is adjusting policies to stakeholders’ expectations and values. Consequently, stakeholders will find their own values within the organization’s brand values, resulting in congruence (Hutchinson & Bennett, 2012). Therefore, a relationship between bridging and recognition of brand values
37 was suggested. The same situation applies to CSR. Lindgreen and Swaen (2010) argue that within a dialogue, organizations translate stakeholders’ demands into CSR objectives and policies. It is a much more explicit strategy than bridging, because it is popular for its reputation as ‘the right thing to do’. Therefore it was expected that stakeholders would feel affection more instantly.
Evidence for the suggested direct relationship between bridging and CSR-strategies and corporate brand perception was found in literature. For bridging, Fock et al. (2011) found that strategies that focus on sympathetic and altruistic responses are necessary to achieve a positive brand perception. For CSR, Chu and Lin (2012) found that stakeholders are acting grateful towards responsible brands and thereby develop favorable attitudes or perceptions.
The examination of the effects indicated insignificant results. However, certain limitations might have caused this, because recognition of brand values does not happen without antecedents. It is likely to be the product of a certain strategy. A reason might be found in the manipulation within the experiment. Respondents were manipulated on the basis of descriptions about bridging and CSR-strategies. However, it is not sure whether this manipulation worked, because it was not checked by a specific item. In that light, arguments about the results on bridging and CSR are highly speculative. They might not cover their subject. Next to that, it is possible that the distinction between bridging and CSR is too little. In fact, CSR is part of bridging. As was stated above, both strategies focus on meeting stakeholders’ expectations. It is therefore possible that bridging strikes people as CSR-strategies and vice versa. The last limitation sheds light on Philips as a subject of the experiment. Due to their world-famous reputation, respondents might already have had an attitude upon which they acted.
38 No valid statements can be made about bridging and CSR-strategies as antecedents for the recognition of brand values and brand perception. That is why future research needs to avoid biases, by displaying (more, situated in different branches) fictional or lesser-known brands, and needs to test bridging and CSR-strategies in a different experimental setting. Next to that, it is necessary to test other strategies as well, in order to gain a complete image of what processes happen prior to the recognition of brand values. Through that way research and organizations might take a step in gaining more affection for their corporate brands, with all the favorable consequences that will entail.
References
Aaker, D. A. (1996). Measuring brand equity across products and markets. California
management review, 38(3), 102-120.
Abratt, R., & Kleyn, N. (2012). Corporate identity, corporate branding and corporate
reputations: Reconciliation and integration. European Journal of Marketing, 46(7/8), 1048-1063.
Baldauf, A., Cravens, K. S., & Binder, G. (2003). Performance consequences of brand equity management: evidence from organizations in the value chain. Journal of product &
brand management, 12(4), 220-236.
Barber, B. R. (2006). Jihad vs. McWorld. In Ritzer, G. McDonaldization: The Reader (232-238). Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press.
Berkes, F. (2009). Evolution of co-management: Role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. Journal of environmental management, 90(5), 1692-1702.
39 Bigné, E., Currás-Pérez, R., & Aldás-Manzano, J. (2012). Dual nature of cause-brand fit:
Influence on corporate social responsibility consumer perception.European Journal
of Marketing, 46(3/4), 575-594.
Bouwhuis, M. (Narrator). (2014, April 6). BNR Pro: De Klantenshow [Radio broadcast episode]. In BNR Niewsradio (Producer). Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Brakus, J. J., Schmitt, B. H., & Zarantonello, L. (2009). Brand experience: what is it? How is it measured? Does it affect loyalty?. Journal of Marketing, 73(3), 52-68.
Christensen, L.T., & Cornelissen J. (2011). Bridging corporate and organizational communication: Review, development and a look into the future. Management
Communication Quarterly, 25(3), 383-414.
Chu, S. C., & Lin, J. S. (2013). Consumers’ perception of corporate social responsibility in the United States and China: A study of female cosmetics consumers. International
Journal of Strategic Communication, 7(1), 43-64.
Cornelissen, J. (2011). Corporate communication: A guide to theory and practice. London, UK: Sage Publications.
Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of management Review, 20(1), 65-91.
Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2007). Reaping relational rewards from corporate social responsibility: The role of competitive positioning. International Journal of
Research in Marketing, 24(3), 224-241.
Elving, W. J., & Kartal, D. (2012). Consistency in behavior of the CEO regarding corporate social responsibility. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 17(4), 449-461.
40 Fassin, Y. (2009). The stakeholder model refined. Journal of Business Ethics, 84(1), 113-135.
Fock, H., Chan, A. K., & Yan, D. (2011). Member–organization connection impacts in affinity marketing. Journal of Business Research, 64(7), 672-679.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.
Freeman, R. E.: 2003, Lecture – Stakeholder Management Revisited: What’s the State of the Art? Leuven, 20 November.
French, A., & Smith, G. (2013). Measuring brand association strength: a consumer based brand equity approach. European Journal of Marketing, 47(8), 1356-1367. Grunig, J. E., & Grunig, L. A. (1992). Models of public relations and
communication. Excellence in public relations and communication management, 285-326.
Gylling, C., & Lindberg-Repo, K. (2006). Investigating the links between a corporate brand and a customer brand. The Journal of Brand Management, 13(4), 257-267.
Harris, F., & De Chernatony, L. (2001). Corporate branding and corporate brand performance. European Journal of marketing, 35(3/4), 441-456.
Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. (2001). Are the strategic stars aligned for your corporate brand?. Harvard business review, 79(2), 128-34.
Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. (2003). Bringing the corporation into corporate branding.
European Journal of Marketing, 37(7/8), 1041-1064.
Hillman, A. J., Keim, G. D., & Schuler, D. (2004). Corporate political activity: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 30(6), 837-857.
