Corporate communication management: A framework based on dec
Introduction
Understanding corporate communication strategy takes on critical importance whenever organisations are threatened by environmental changes (e.g. globalisation, economic recession or growing consumer needs) that lead to the redefinition of the role of the organisation in relation to its key stakeholders. In line with van Riel and Fombrun (2007, 9), ‘[ ... ] the only way to overcome the existing fragmentation of communications in most organisations [ ... ] and thereby to create economic value’ is to adopt a strategic approach to the management of corporate communication. Along the same lines, Hallahan et al. (2007, 4) defined strategic communication as ‘the purposeful use of communication by an organization to fulfill its mission’. In addition, corporate communications need an integrated approach to their management (Cornelissen 2008).
Given that researchers in the field of corporate communication are currently attempting to establish corporate communication as an autonomous discipline of management, they are increasingly viewing it as a matter of great importance to develop the said strategic approach. Nevertheless, only a few contributions to the literature on corporate communication deal specifically with this issue. As a consequence, we intend to focus research efforts on those elements that contribute to the development of corporate communication as a distinct strand of management research.
Literature review
In corporate communication studies, different conceptual models of management have been developed with regard to corporate image (Kennedy 1977; Dowling 1986; Abratt 1989) and identity (Marwick and Fill 1997; van Riel and Balmer 1997; Stuart 1999). Such models provide researchers and practitioners with a broad variety of practices and effective tools for corporate identity management that range from the basic to the complex, thereby ‘[ ... ] accentuating the need for practitioners to take a greater number of variables into account when developing corporate identity programs’ (Stuart 1999).
However, these models do not address corporate communication management (CCM) as such. This field of study is not limited expressly to identity but concerns the overall relationships a company has with its stakeholders. Said models do not examine corporate communication strategy in depth, in terms of the type of decision entailed and the link between strategic and tactical decisions involved in the communication. Indeed, the idea that corporate communication requires strategic thinking has received very little attention in the literature (Tibble 1997; Steyn 2003). Only in recent years, in public relations (PR) studies (Hallahan et al. 2007; Sriramesh and Vercic 2009) has the need to address the communication according to a (stakeholder-oriented) strategic approach definitively emerged.
In part, this is due to the fact that ‘communication is often still seen as a largely tactical activity with practitioners acting as communication “technicians”’ (Cornelissen 2008, 99). This outlook is reflected in practice, in that also senior management tends to consider communication largely as a tactical function (White and Dozier 1992) responsible for programmes of communication and the preparation and production of communication materials (e.g. concrete messages – slogans – for external audiences, press conferences, trade shows and promotional campaigns). Kitchen and Schultz (2000) arrived at similar conclusions; they found that most of firms confined their activities to the tactical coordination of promotional activities and only very few organisations operated on a strategic level in this respect.
It has, therefore, been suggested that the management of communication needs to move from a tactical to a strategic perspective (Holm 2006). The idea of integrating marketing and PR within corporate communication, proposed as a ‘strategic managing system’ (Varey 1998; Varey and White 2000), contributes to no mean extent to the debate on communication management strategy. In such a system, communication activities are built around relationships with several stakeholder groups. From this point of view, CCM has to have a prominent and active role in the organisation’s corporate strategy, ‘coordinating [ ... ] interdependent relationships to contribute strategically to overall corporate performance and capability enhancement’ (Varey 1998, 185). Scholars who adopt this perspective view communication strategy as a functional strategy formulated by corporate communication departments that operate at management level of an organisation (Steyn 2003; van Riel and Fombrun 2007; Cornelissen 2008).
A firm’s communication strategy is functional to focusing on the development of planned communications consistent with its corporate mission and vision and on meeting the corporate objectives set out in its corporate strategy policy (Steyn 2003; Argenti 2007). Corporate communication strategy is, therefore, the outcome of a strategic way of thinking and of decision-making process involving different parties (the communication manager, the chief executive officer (CEO) and the executive directors of other functional areas in the organisations), all working together to shape and make these strategic decisions (Steyn 2003; Cornelissen 2008). Communication strategy is a derivative of the corporate strategy and aligned with the core values (i.e. corporate culture) shared by the members of an organisation. On the one hand, strategic decisions need to be translated into a specific communication strategy for various stakeholder groups. On the other hand, corporate strategy should take into account stakeholder and reputation issues informed by communication function/department (Cornelissen 2008). In fact, borrowing some elements from studies linked to the postmodern approach to management (Stroh 2007), it is usually emphasised that the effectiveness of decisions depends on the variety and diversity of the decision-makers involved in the process. This situation is achieved by involving and having dialogue with the various publics that contribute to the significance and the setting of priorities in the communication process, thereby further supporting ‘the activist role’ of the corporate communication manager (Holtzhausen 2002).
Such empowerment, resulting from the experiences of different contributors, does not preclude the company from defining its strategic intent, as it is of core importance in communication strategy. It concerns decision-making in terms of identifying desired position for an organisation and how it wants to be seen in terms of corporate reputation by its different stakeholders groups upon which the organisation is dependent (Cornelissen 2008). In an era of stakeholder management (Freeman 1984; Donaldson and Preston 1995; Berman et al. 1999), corporate communication strategy should be tightly knit to the strategic management of a company and stakeholders relations (Steyn 2003). From this perspective, communication strategy is concerned with how to develop interaction with stakeholders to achieve organisation’s vision and to support corporate objectives, i.e. communication strategy is concerned with creating a favourable basis for relationships with key stakeholder groups (van Riel 1995). Building, safeguarding and consolidating a favourable corporate reputation are the ultimate goals of corporate communication (van Riel 1995; Cornelissen 2008) and some of the most important strategic organisational objectives. To sum up, a company’s objectives of developing a favourable reputation have lent further support to the conceptualisation of a CCM, in which the focus is on the stakeholders’ involvement and collaboration (Bronn and Bronn 2003; Podnar and Jancˇicˇ
2006; Welch and Jackson 2007), i.e. the adoption of an interactive approach.
Planned and unplanned communications
From the literature review, it emerges that CCM involves a set of decisions in which the development and enhancement of relationships with key stakeholder groups are crucial. To this end, planned communications (organisation controlled or intentional) initiate and keep alive a dialogue process (Gro¨nroos 2004). On the other hand, unplanned communications (e.g. employee gossip and word-of-mouth communication) can significantly affect stakeholders’ perceptions (Duncan and Moriarty 1997).
Planned corporate communications consist in one-way and two-way (personal and non-personal) communications (Hartley and Pickton 1999) implemented through corporate identity cues or signals, such as (1) symbolism (e.g. corporate visual identity),
(2) planned forms of marketing communications and PR (e.g. sponsorship, publicity, advertising and sales promotion) and (3) representational forms of behaviour (e.g. the behaviour of store employees or a company’s call centre staff) and the product performance, i.e. communication effects of products (van Riel and Balmer 1997; Balmer 2001; Cornelissen and Elving 2003).
The term ‘behaviour’ describes how employees, managers and CEOs interact with one another and with external audiences during social events. Face-to-face communications are crucial in transmitting brand values. Indeed, these values are discernible through a firm’s corporate behaviour and activity (Balmer and Gray 2003). CEOs, managers and staff all play an important role in stakeholder perceptions of an organisation (Ind 1990; Gray and Balmer 1998), because how members of an organisation behave projects its image and spreads corporate and brand values (Kennedy 1977; Dowling 1986; Hatch and Schultz 2001; Rao, Agarwal, and Dahloff 2004). In fact, top management ‘has a special role to play in representing the organisation to internal and external audiences. In particular, the [ ... ] CEO plays an important symbolic role as the spiritual and emotional leader of the organization’ (van Riel and Fombrun 2007, 16). On the other hand, organisational behaviour is not the only means by which individual members of an organisation interact with stakeholders. Stakeholders also perceive organisational behaviour from the point of view of corporate performance. Socially responsible behaviour can be seen as planned communications, such as corporate social responsibility (CSR)-related advertising and annual reports on an organisation’s themes, strategies, initiatives and managerial practices (Lewis 2003; Dawkins and Lewis 2003; McWilliams, Siegel, and Wright 2005).
Corporate CSR communications, however, constitute only one part of overall discussions about ‘corporate responsibility’: activists and protest movements appear to play a major role in determining unplanned communications. CSR communication not only creates awareness of sustainability initiatives but also enhances stakeholder identification and stimulates interaction and collaboration between the company and its stakeholders on a specific issue (Maignan and Farrell 2004; Morsing and Schultz 2006). From this perspective, CSR initiatives – or better defined corporate social responsiveness (Carroll and Buchholtz 2006) – are important elements of building, enhancing and maintaining a firm’s reputation (Fombrun and Shanley 1990; Sarbutts 2003; McWilliams, Siegel, and Wright 2005; Hillenbrand and Money 2007).
However, the signals conveyed by an organisation consist both of those that are deliberately planned and timed, and also of those that are unplanned (Gro¨nroos 2000a). In the latter category are accidental cues or unintended messages, such as those arising from informal and unofficial communications and the spontaneous behaviour of staff members of an organisation with respect to outsiders, which cannot be fully controlled (Melewar and Jenkins 2002). Unplanned communications are often concealed from organisation and very often unwelcome (Markwick and Fill 1997; Fill 2005).
Other sources of uncontrolled and uncontrollable communications are those launched by a firm’s competitors (e.g. deliberately comparative advertising), interpersonal communications (online/offline word of mouth), intermediary communications (word of mouth disseminated by the mass media, opinion leaders, non-governmental organisations and institutions) and intrapersonal communications (the psychological consequences of previous personal experiences and memories of the individual; Cornelissen 2000; Gro¨nroos 2000b). Uncontrolled environment-related communications reflect either positively or negatively on the organisation and can affect stakeholder perceptions and corporate reputation building (Melewar and Jenkins 2002).
The role of unplanned communications has increased dramatically with the growth of online communication, and it is mainly determined by progressive consumer empowerment (Pires, Stanton, and Rita 2006; Kucuk and Krishnamurthy 2007), considered as a pervasive process that modifies the stakeholder– firm relationship. In this perspective, empowerment gives stakeholders an increasingly influential role in opinion- making activities on the net and determines the progressive loss of a firm’s control on online information (Gorry and Westbrook 2009), especially in social media environments. Within these digital contexts, online word of mouth is a major part of online interactions, and it is controlled by consumers. These circumstances create more opportunities for consumers to express their dissatisfaction against firms and give them the chance to damage corporate image and reputation (Melewar and Smith 2003). Consequently, building, safeguarding and consolidating a favourable corporate reputation increasingly relies on feedback generated by unplanned communications.
Research objectives As detailed in the previous sections, significant contributions to the debate on communication strategy and management can be found in the literature. However, a conceptual framework that offers a deeper perspective on communication decisions within CCM still needs to be devised. Corporate communication can be characterised as a management function (van Riel 1995) that involves a whole range of managerial activities, such as planning, coordinating and advising the CEO and top management (Cornelissen 2008). However, these issues deserve further attention and in-depth analysis. Communication resources and the decisions required to create and use them are worthy of closer examination. In effect, decision-making related to the use of resources is one of the main issues that arise from earlier studies of corporate strategy (Chandler 1962; Ansoff 1965; Andrews 1971). The proper utilisation of resources is essential for achieving corporate objectives and as such is considered as one of the building blocks of corporate strategy (Hofer and Schendel 1978). In studies of strategic management, the important role played by resources in the elaboration of corporate strategies is confirmed and further strengthened by the studies underpinned by resource-based view. The latter borrows heavily from earlier research by Penrose (1959) and stresses the importance of firm- specific resources for achieving sustainable competitive advantage over a relatively long period (Lippman and Rumelt 1982; Rumelt 1984; Wernerfelt 1984; Barney 1986a, 1986b, 1991; Dierick and Cool 1989; Grant 1991; Mahoney and Pandian 1992; Peteraf 1993). To this end, the resource-based view of the firm posits that resources must be rare, durable, imperfectly imitable and imperfectly substitutable. Any resources that meet these criteria are of value and are typically rooted in a unique historical pattern of firm development tending to provide an enduring advantage as they are protected by one or both of two isolating mechanisms, namely social complexity and causal ambiguity (Reed and DeFilippi 1990).
Resources are also key factors in corporate communication. Any strategic intent may be pursued only if the resources required to support it are available. Therefore, decisions on creating and using these resources play a fundamental role in the formulation and implementation of corporate communication strategy. As pointed out in the literature on corporate communication, resources are an important factor in setting an effective communication strategy and the achievement of communication objectives (Argenti 2007). However, said resources have only been discussed in the literature at a general level: money, human resources and time. The need arises for a more specific focus and in-depth analysis of the resources that may be used for corporate communication. As emphasised by researchers who support the resource-based view, not all corporate resources are easily tradable. Valuable resources (strategic resources) are created within the organisation (Barney 1991). Barney’s notion is also valid in relation to the corporate resources of communication.
Consider a key resource, corporate brand. A strong, well-managed corporate brand meets the criteria posited by a resource-based view, and thereby qualifies as a sustainable valuable resource (Balmer and Gray 2003). ‘A corporate brand is rare because it is the result of a unique historical pattern of development which suffuses a corporate brand, not only with a rich palette of characteristics that are functional (quality, performance, familiarity and predictability), but also with myriad ethereal elements that are rich in image as well as in symbolic terms’ (Balmer and Gray 2003, 987). Such values have their roots in an organisation’s identity (De Chernatony 1999; Balmer 2001) as well as in its culture (Hatch
and Schultz 1997). A corporate brand is durable because it tends to decay relatively slowly (Grant 1991). This makes the corporate brand a resource that enjoys a greater longevity than most other types of valuable resources. A corporate brand is also generally thought to be imperfectly imitable, because both of the two isolating mechanisms (i.e. social complexity and causal ambiguity) are at work (Balmer and Gray 2003). Finally, the fact the unique process that went into the building of the brand renders it imperfectly substitutable. Apart from considerations about brand, in the literature on the management of corporate communication, there is little mention of how resources are identified or of the relevant decisions required to create and use them. This paper aims to address this gap and to provide an in-depth examination of the issues that have been neglected in the past. Therefore, the study presents a conceptual framework for CCM that is based on communication resources and the decisions that are made on how to use them, in terms of
their capacity to change or consolidate an organisation’s reputation.
A framework for CCM based on Parsons’ view of organisational decisions
The specification of a framework that meets the requirements outlined in the previous section has to be based on the prior identification of communication resources.
In line with some basic assumptions underpinning the resource-based view, communication resources can be categorised as being either firm specific or non-firm specific. Firm-specific communication resources express the specific capabilities, strengths, core values and/or historical references relevant to a particular organisation. They are rooted in the concept of identity enabling a firm and its products to be recognised by stakeholders. Therefore, firm-specific communication resources are valuable and unique, and strongly support the creation and maintenance of competitive advantage. Consequently, these resources are the outcome of strategic decisions and have long- term implications. These characteristics allow the main firm-specific communication
resources to be identified as:
● Basic key words, such as common starting points (van Riel 1995; van Riel and Fombrun 2007), themed messages (Cornelissen 2008) and brand mantras (Keller 1999). Basic key words constitute the basis of distinctive short messages (slogans/taglines; van Riel and Fombrun 2007).
● Participatory mechanisms, such as, establishing common process rules (CPRs; Christensen, Firat, and Torp 2008) to reduce the rigidity of a vertical and hierarchical communication structure and enable organisation members to listen continually to various stakeholder groups (Schultz and Kitchen 2004) and create an interactive dialogue with them.
● Unique symbols and sounds, i.e. elements of corporate visual identity (house style
manual) and corporate jingles (Birkigt and Stadler 1986; Bernstein 1984; Abratt 1989; Olins 1989; van Riel 1995; van Riel and Balmer 1997; Melewar and Saunders 1998; van Riel and Fombrun 2007).
● Sets of rules or heuristics related to the management and expression of corporate brand (Tilley 1999; Balmer and Gray 2003; Punj and Hillyer 2004).
● Organisational storytelling (Czarniawska 1997, 1998; Gabriel 2000; Brown et al. 2004) deriving from corporate stories (Myrsiades 1987; Larsen 2000; Smith and Keyton 2001; van Riel and Fombrun 2007).
Communication measurement methods and techniques; in the event, they are developed/adapted inside an organisation.
Table 1. Corporate communication decision-making: a framework based on decisions on the creation and utilisation of communication resources.
Levels of decision-making
in CCM Corporate communication decisions
Decisions on policy and coordination in communication are a part of the communication strategy outlined in the proposed framework. Indeed, communication strategy is considered to be a ‘dual’ decision involving two types of closely linked decisions related to (1) the strategic intent of an organisation, concerning its desired position in terms of corporate reputation as informed by the vision of the CEO and senior executives (i.e. organisational vision; Cornelissen 2008) and (2) the creation and coordination of firm-specific communication resources (see Table 1). Strategic intent involves either the change or the consolidation of an organisation’s reputation.
Policy and coordination decision-making refers to the stages of planning, organisation and coordination at the strategic level of CCM.
Allocation and coordination decisions of communication at the tactical– operational level
Under the proposed framework, decisions on allocation and coordination pertain to choices on the utilisation (the ‘what’, ‘when’ and ‘how’) of communication resources (firm specific and non-firm specific) in the short-term planned communication programmes and campaigns related to the carrying out of strategic intent. These decisions concern the integration, harmonisation and realisation of coherent, effective messages (internal and external communications) and the combination of promotional elements of the communication mix to obtain the synergistic effects of integrated communications (van Riel 1995; Thorson and Moore 1996; Schultz and Kitchen 2000).
Decisions on allocation and coordination are taken by communication manager and practitioners/consultants and refer to the stages of planning, organisation and coordination at the tactical– operational level within CCM (see Table 1).
Policy, allocation and coordination decision-making within the cyclical process of CCM
Following the implementation of a communication strategy, the subsequent stage of communication control within CCM involves the collection of data (feedback) on the results of corporate communication and the assessment of the effects of communication via methods and techniques of reputation measurement (van Riel and Fombrun 2007). In this stage, a gap analysis procedure is carried out to ascertain how the organisation is seen by different stakeholders (its corporate reputation) and its desired position (Cornelissen 2008). The gap analysis forms the basis of the formulation of strategic intent aimed at changing or consolidating the organisation’s reputation. This analysis provides guidance for further decision-making on policy, allocation and coordination (see Figure 1).
approach, together with co-creating processes (CPRs), supports the diffusion of communication capabilities that value a two-way communication, dialogue and cooperation with stakeholders.
Creation and utilisation of firm-specific communication resources
The cyclical process of CCM within corporate communication function/department is part of a wider process. In this process, internal and external stakeholders use communication resources in their own way when carrying on conversations. Stakeholders can contribute with suggestions and stimuli that define/re-define firm-specific resources or use such resources in an innovative way (see Figure 2).
In relation to this wider process of corporate communication, the challenge is to make planned and unplanned communications work as conceptually and operationally distinct functions within a single managerial framework (Varey 1998). In the cyclical process of CCM, CPRs play an important role in integrating planned and unplanned communications. As stated, these CPRs are the product of policy decisions destined to create the mechanisms that favour a two-way communication and an interactive dialogue with stakeholders. CPRs enable CCM to be based on stakeholder involvement and collaboration. Using an interactive approach enables the organisation to fine-tune its response to continuous environmental changes by means of redefining corporate communication strategy. Use of specific media enables to implement these rules.
Public Internet discussion boards and forums, social networking websites, blogs, etc., help the creation and utilisation of communication resources. Consumer-generated media encompasses online word of mouth (opinions, experiences, advice and commentary about products, brands, companies and services). Creating a page on a social network, for example can be an opportunity to incorporate comments from customers regarding customer service. This page represents a firm-specific communication resource for the stakeholders and a platform on which to develop conversations between a firm and its customers. When customers use the page, they share a firm-specific communication resource and may stimulate the creation of new communication resources. Indeed, they may coin new key words in conversations on the organisation’s brand, and a communication manager may borrow anything particularly effective to create a new firm-specific communication resource. Another example could come from any stakeholder suggestions generated by a corporate blog. These suggestions could have an impact on the organisation’s decisions to use this communication resource.
Therefore, in the process of CCM, the role played by internal and external stakeholders is crucial. They may engage in active information search and create new flows of communication, also thanks to new interactive media of communication (De Bussy, Ewing, and Pitt 2003). ‘The result of these “continuing dialogs” between corporate representatives and the firm’s suppliers, partners, customers and other stakeholders will be an increasing reliance on communication interchange’ (Schultz and Kitchen 2004, 359), so that the integration of planned and unplanned communications into one communication process can provide the ‘necessary balance between innovation and stability [ .. . ] within a stakeholder community’ (Varey and White 2000, 10).
Practical implications
The conceptual framework proposed herein constitutes a useful means of support for managers of corporate communication function/department. It offers a comprehensive view of the different types of communication decisions that need to be taken within CCM in corporate life.
Policy and coordination decisions of communication are mostly made when an organisation is in the start-up stage and needs to create firm-specific communication resources. However, there are other circumstances in which managers must take decisions on communication policy and coordination to change one or more firm-specific communication resources, for example in the cases of brand repositioning and overcoming a crisis of reputation. These situations usually involve changes in the positioning expressions of an organisation, and policy-coordination decisions may be required, for example, to:
● Redefine common starting points/themed messages, thereby adapting them to express core themes around which an organisation can focus its actions and distinctiveness.
● Re-establish CPRs to stimulate a two-way communication and a dialogue with internal and external stakeholders, enabling the organisation considered to adapt to environmental changes.
● Modify one or more elements of corporate symbolism to strengthen emotional appeal and to enable perception of an organisation to be perceived as being more transparent and coherent (via the alignment of core organisational purpose, values and beliefs with employees, managers and CEO behaviour).
approach. This approach introduces new tasks within corporate communication function/department. On the one hand, internal and external stakeholders in their conversations (unplanned communications) use firm-specific communication resources, disseminate key words that identify the organisation and offer suggestions for creating (or adapting) firm-specific communication resources. On the other hand, the communication manager and his/her staff must be able to carefully choose these stimuli for a more effective process of CCM based on the creation and utilisation of firm-specific communication resources.
The setting of communication strategy as a dual decision also contributes to view that corporate communication is a separate area of management. It underpins the view that any strategic intent may be pursued only if strategic communication resources are created. If communication strategy is considered as a dual decision, it follows that the creation of firm-specific resources via policy decisions is of great importance in fulfilling strategic intent.
Ultimately, practitioners taking the framework as a reference are enabled to make decisions on CCM by means of a method that clarifies basic assumptions, steps and objectives, and their implications. The insights provided by the study may be considered as a ‘stimuli’ to encourage a change in the perception of corporate communication as a managerial function based on professional knowledge and competence, rather than as a peripheral area of management made up of a set of technical skills possessed by practitioners.
Acknowledgements
Although the views and ideas expressed in this paper are those of Alfonso Siano, Agostino Vollero, Maria Giovanna Confetto, and Mario Siglioccolo, the sections ‘Introduction’, ‘A framework for corporate communication management based on Parsons’ view of organisational decisions’, ‘Creation and utilisation of firm-specific communication resources’, and ‘Summary and conclusions’ are attributed to Alfonso Siano, the sections ‘Literature review’ and ‘Research objectives’ are attributed to Agostino Vollero, the section ‘Planned and unplanned communications’ is attributed to Maria Giovanna Confetto, and the section ‘Practical implications’ is attributed to Mario Siglioccolo.
Notes on contributors
Alfonso Siano is Professor and Chair of Corporate Communication at the University of Salerno (Italy) where he is Founder and Chair of the Doctoral Programme in Marketing and Communication. He has previously been Researcher and Lecturer in Management at the University of Rome ‘La
Sapienza’. He teaches and carries out research in corporate communication and reputation, marketing communications, arts and heritage marketing, place communications. He has published six books and several book chapters. He has published in a wide range of international academic journals, including Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Journal of Brand Management, Museum Management and Curatorship, International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, The International Journal of Knowledge Culture and Change Management. He presented competitive papers at several international conferences.
Agostino Vollero, PhD, is Research Fellow in Marketing at the Department of Political, Social and Communication Sciences, University of Salerno (Italy). His primary research interests are in the areas of Corporate Communication, CSR, Corporate Reputation and E-marketing. He has published
one book and articles in a wide range of academic journals, including Journal of Brand Management. He presented numerous competitive papers at international conferences, including International Conference on Reputation, Brand, Identity & Competitiveness and Corporate and Marketing Communications Conference.
Maria Giovanna Confetto, PhD, is Researcher and Lecturer in Marketing and Communication at the University of Salerno, Italy. She teaches and carries out research in marketing, marketing and corporate communications, place marketing and place communications. She has published one book
and various book chapters. She has published in a wide range of academic journals, including Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Museum Management and Curatorship, The International Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Change Management, The International Journal of the Inclusive Museum. She presented numerous competitive papers at several international conferences.
Mario Siglioccolo, PhD, is Lecturer in ‘Arts and Culture Marketing’ and ‘Advertising and Media Planning’ at the University of Salerno, Italy. He took his PhD in ‘Marketing and Communication’ in 2008. During 2008 and 2009 he performed post-doctoral research in London (at London Metropolitan University), and Bristol (at University of the West of England), focusing on museum
marketing. He has published in a wide range of academic journals, including Museum Management and Curatoship, International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, International Journal of Electronic Customer Relationship Management, International Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Change Management in Organizations, and International Journal on Inclusive Museums. He presented numerous competitive papers at several international conferences.
References
Abratt, R. 1989. A new approach to the corporate image management process. Journal of Marketing Management 5, no. 1: 63 – 76.
Andrews, K. 1971. The concept of corporate strategy. Homewood, IL: Dow-Jones-Irwin.
Ansoff, H.I. 1965. Corporate strategy: An analytic approach to business policy for growth and expansion. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Argenti, P.A. 2007. Corporate communication. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Balmer, J.M.T. 2001. The three virtues and seven deadly sins of corporate branding. Journal of General Management 27, no. 1: 1 – 17.
Balmer, J.M.T., and E.R. Gray. 2003. Corporate brands: What are they? What of them? European Journal of Marketing 37, nos. 7/8: 972 – 97.
Barney, J.B. 1986a. Strategic factor markets: Expectations, luck and business strategy. Management Science 32, no. 10: 1231 – 41.
———. 1986b. Organizational culture: Can it be a source of sustained competitive advantage?
Academy of Management Review 11, no. 3: 656 – 65.
———. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management 17: 99 – 120.
Berman, S., A. Wids, S. Kotha, and T. Jones. 1999. Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal 42: 488 – 506.
Bernstein, D. 1984. Company image and reality. A critique of corporate communications.
Eastbourne: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Birkigt, K., and M. Stadler. 1986. Corporate identity: Grundlagen, funktionen, fallbeispiele.
Landsberg am Lech: Moderne Industrie.
Blomba¨ck, A., and O. Brunninge. 2009. Corporate identity manifested through historical references.
Corporate Communications: An International Journal 14, no. 4: 404 – 19.
Bronn, P.S., and C. Bronn. 2003. A reflective stakeholder approach: Co-orientation as a basis for communication and learning. Journal of Communication Management 7, no. 4: 291 – 303.
Brown, J.S., S. Denning, K. Groh, and L. Prusak. 2004. Storytelling in organizations: Why storytelling is transforming 21st century organizations and management. Boston, MA: Butterworth Heinemann.
Carroll, A.B., and A.K. Buchholtz. 2006. Business and society: Ethics and stakeholder management.
Mason, OH: South-Western College.
Chandler, A.D. 1962. Strategy and structure. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Christensen, L.T., A.F. Firat, and S. Torp. 2008. The organisation of integrated communications: Toward flexible integration. European Journal of Marketing 42, nos. 3 – 4: 423 – 52.
Cornelissen, J. 2000. Corporate image: An audience centred model. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 5, no. 2: 119 – 25.
———. 2008. Corporate communication. A guide to theory and practice. London: Sage.
Cornelissen, J.P., and W.J.L. Elving. 2003. Managing corporate identity: An integrative framework of dimensions and determinants. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 8, no. 2: 114 – 20.
Czarniawska, B. 1997. Narrating the organization: Dramas of institutional identity. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
———. 1998. A narrative approach to organization studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Davis, J.F., D. Schoorman, and L. Donaldson. 1997. Toward a stewardship theory of management.
Academy of Management Review 22, no. 1: 20 – 47.
Dawkins, J., and S. Lewis. 2003. CSR in stakeholder expectations: And their implication for company strategy. Journal of Business Ethics 44, nos. 2 – 3: 185 – 93.
DeChernatony, L. 1999. Brand management through narrowing the gap between brand identity and brand reputation. Journal of Marketing Management 15, nos. 1 – 3: 157 – 80.
De Bussy, N.M., M.T. Ewing, and L.F. Pitt. 2003. Stakeholder theory and internal marketing communications: A framework for analyzing the influence of new media. Journal of Marketing Communications 9, no. 3: 147 – 61.
Dierickx, I., and K. Cool. 1989. Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage. Management Science 35, no. 12: 1504 – 11.
Donaldson, T., and L.E. Preston. 1995. The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review 20: 65 – 91.
Dowling, G.R. 1986. Managing your corporate image. Industrial Marketing Management 15: 109– 15. Duncan, T., and S. Moriarty. 1997. Driving brand value. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Fill, C. 2005. Marketing communications: Engagement, strategies and practice. Harlow: Pearson Education.
Fombrun, C.J. 1996. Reputation: Realizing value from the corporate image. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Fombrun, C.J., and M. Shanley. 1990. What’s in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy.
Academy of Management Journal 33: 233 – 58.
Fombrun, C.J., and C.B.M. van Riel. 2004. Fame and fortune. How successful companies build winning reputations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Freeman, R.E. 1984. Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA: Pitman. Gabriel, Y. 2000. Storytelling in organizations: Facts, fictions, and fantasies. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Gorry, G.A., and R.A. Westbrook. 2009. Winning the internet confidence game. Corporate Reputation Review 12: 195 – 203.
Grant, R.M. 1991. The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: Implications for strategy formulation. California Management Review 33, no. 3: 114 – 35.
Gray, E.R., and J.M.T. Balmer. 1998. Managing corporate image and corporate reputation. Long Range Planning 31, no. 5: 695 – 702.
Gro¨nroos, C. 2000a. Service management and marketing: A customer relationship management approach. New York: Wiley.
———. 2000b. Creating a relationship dialogue: Communication, interaction, value. Marketing Review 1, no. 1: 5 – 14.
———. 2004. The relationship marketing process: Communication, interaction, dialogue, value.
Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing 19, no. 2: 99 – 113.
Hallahan, K., D. Holtzhausen, B. van Ruler, D. Vercˇicˇ, and K. Sriramesh. 2007. Defining strategic communication. International Journal of Strategic Communication 1, no. 1: 3 – 35.
Hartley, B., and D. Pickton. 1999. Integrated marketing communications requires a new way of thinking. Journal of Marketing Communications 5: 97 – 106.
Hatch, M.J., and M. Schultz. 1997. Relations between organizational culture, identity and image.
European Journal of Marketing 31, no. 5: 356 – 65.
———. 2001. Are the strategic stars aligned for your corporate brand? Harvard Business Review 79, no. 2: 128 – 34.
Hillenbrand, C., and K. Money. 2007. Corporate responsibility and corporate reputation: Two separate concepts or two sides of the same coin? Corporate Reputation Review 10: 261 – 77.
Hofer, C.W., and D. Schendel. 1978. Strategy formulation: Analytical concepts. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company.
Holm, O. 2006. Integrated marketing communication: From tactics to strategy. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 11, no. 1: 23 – 33.
Holtzhausen, D.R. 2002. Towards a postmodern research agenda for public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research 28, no. 3: 251 – 64.
Ind, N. 1990. The corporate image. Strategies for effective identity programmes. London: Kogan Page. Keller, K.L. 1999. Brand mantras: Rationale, criteria and examples. Journal of Marketing
Management 15, nos. 1 – 3: 43 – 51.
Kennedy, S.H. 1977. Nurturing corporate images: Total communication or ego trip? European Journal of Marketing 11, no. 1: 120 – 64.
Kitchen, P.J., and D.E. Schultz. 2000. A response to theoretical concept or management fashion.
Journal of Advertising Research 40, no. 5: 17 – 21.
Kucuk, S.U., and S. Krishnamurthy. 2007. An analysis of consumer power on the internet.
Technovation 27, nos. 1 – 2: 47 – 56.
Larsen, M.H. 2000. Managing the corporate story. In The expressive organisation – linking identity, reputation, and the corporate brand, ed. M. Schultz, M.J. Hatch, and M.H. Larsen, 196 – 207. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lewis, S. 2003. Reputation and corporate responsibility. Journal of Communication Management 7, no. 4: 356 – 66.
Lippman, S., and R. Rumelt. 1982. Uncertain imitability: An analysis of interfirm differences in efficiency under competition. The Bell Journal of Economics 13: 418 – 53.
Lundstro¨m, B. 2006. Grundat 1876. Historia och fo¨retagsidentitet inom Ericsson. Stockholm: Royal Institute of Technology.
Maignan, I., and O.C. Farrell. 2004. Corporate social responsibility and marketing: An integrative framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 32, no. 1: 3 – 19.
Mahoney, J.T., and J.R. Pandian. 1992. The resource-based view within the conversation of strategic management. Strategic Management Journal 15, no. 5: 363 – 80.
Markwick, N., and C. Fill. 1997. Towards a framework for managing corporate identity. European Journal of Marketing 31, nos. 5/6: 396 – 409.
McWilliams, A., D.S. Siegel, and P.M. Wright. 2005. Corporate social responsibility: Strategic implications. Working Papers in Economics, Number 506, May, Department of Economics, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, New York.
Melewar, T.C., and J. Saunders. 1998. Global corporate visual identity systems: Standardisation, control and benefits. International Marketing Review 15, no. 4: 291 – 308.
Melewar, T.C., and E. Jenkins. 2002. Defining the corporate identity construct. Corporate Reputation Review 5, no. 1: 76 – 93.
Melewar, T.C., and N. Smith. 2003. The internet revolution: Some global marketing implications.
Marketing Intelligence and Planning 21, no. 6: 363 – 9.
Morsing, M., and M. Schultz. 2006. Corporate social responsibility communication: Stakeholder information, response and involvement strategies. Business Ethics: A European Review 15, no. 4: 323 – 38.
Myrsiades, L.S. 1987. Corporate stories as cultural communications in the organizational setting.
Management Communication Quarterly 1, no. 1: 84 – 120.
Olins, W. 1989. Corporate identity – Making business strategy visible through design. London: Thames & Hudson.
Parsons, T. 1956. Suggestions for a sociological approach to the theory of organizations.
Administrative Science Quarterly 1, nos. 1: 63 – 85.
Penrose, E.T. 1959. The theory of the growth of the firm. New York: Wiley.
Peteraf, M.A. 1993. The cornerstone of competitive advantage: A resource based view. Strategic Management Journal 14, no. 3: 179 – 91.
Pires, G.D., J. Stanton, and P. Rita. 2006. The internet, consumer empowerment and marketing strategies. European Journal of Marketing 40, nos. 9 – 10: 936 – 49.
Podnar, K., and Z. Jancˇicˇ. 2006. Towards a categorization of stakeholder groups: An empirical verification of a three-level model. Journal of Marketing Communications 12, no. 4: 297 – 308. Punj, G.N., and C.L. Hillyer. 2004. A cognitive model of customer-based brand equity for frequently purchased products: Conceptual framework and empirical results. Journal of Consumer
Psychology 14, nos. 1/2: 124 – 31.
Rao, V.R., M.K. Agarwl, and D. Dahloff. 2004. How is manifested branding strategy related to the intangible value of a corporation? Journal of Marketing 68, no. 4: 126 – 41.
Reed, R., and R.J. DeFilippi. 1990. Causal ambiguity, barriers to imitation, and sustainable competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review 15, no. 1: 88 – 102.
Rumelt, R.P. 1984. Towards a strategic theory of the firm. In Competitive strategic management, ed.
R. Lamb, 556 – 70. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Sarbutts, N. 2003. Can SMEs “do” CSR? A practitioner’s view of the ways small and medium-sized enterprises are able to manage reputation through corporate social responsibility. Journal of Communication Management 7, no. 4: 340 – 7.
Schultz, D.E., and P.J. Kitchen. 2000. Communicating globally: An integrated marketing approach.
New York: Palgrave.
———. 2004. Managing the changes in corporate branding and communication: Closing and re-opening the corporate umbrella. Corporate Reputation Review 6, no. 4: 347 – 66.
Schultz, M., M.J. Hatch, and M.H. Larsen, eds. 2000. The expressive organisation – Linking identity, reputation, and the corporate brand. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schulze, H. 1987. Wir sind was wir geworden sind. Mu¨nchen: Piper.
Schwartz, M.S. 2001. The nature of the relationship between corporate codes of ethics and behavior.
Journal of Business Ethics 32, no. 3: 247 – 62.
Smith, F.L., and J. Keyton. 2001. Organizational storytelling: Metaphors for relational power and identity struggles. Management Communication Quarterly 15, no. 2: 149 – 82.
Sriramesh, K., and D. Vercic. 2009. The global public relations handbook. Theory, research and practice. New York, NY: Routledge.
Steyn, B. 2003. From strategy to corporate communication strategy: A conceptualisation. Journal of Communication Management 8, no. 2: 168 – 83.
Stroh, U. 2007. An alternative postmodern approach to corporate communication strategy. In The future of excellence in public relations and communication management: Challenges for the next generation, ed. L. Toth, 199 – 220. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Stuart, H. 1999. Towards a definitive model of the corporate identity management process.
Corporate Communications: An International Journal 4, no. 4: 200 – 7.
Thorson, E., and J. Moore, eds. 1996. Integrated communication: Synergy of persuasive voices.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Tibble, S. 1997. Developing communications strategy. Journal of Communication Management 1, no. 4: 356 – 61.
Tilley, C. 1999. Built-in branding: How to engineer a leadership brand. Journal of Marketing Management 15, nos. 1 – 3: 181 – 91.
van den Bosch, A.L.M., M.D.T. de Jong, and W.J.L. Elving. 2005. How corporate visual identity supports reputation. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 10, no. 2: 108 – 16.
van Riel, C.B.M. 1995. Principles of corporate communication. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice-Hall. van Riel, C.B.M., and J.M.T. Balmer. 1997. Corporate identity: The concept, its measurement and
management. European Journal of Marketing 31, nos. 5/6: 340 – 55.
van Riel, C.B.M., and C.J. Fombrun. 2007. Essentials of corporate communication. Abingdon: Routledge.
Varey, R.J. 1998. Locating marketing within the corporate communication managing system.
Journal of Marketing Communications 4, no. 2: 177 – 90.
Varey, R.J., and J. White. 2000. The corporate communication system of managing. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 5, no. 1: 5 – 11.
Welch, M., and P.R. Jackson. 2007. Rethinking internal communication: A stakeholder approach.
Corporate Communications: An International Journal 12, no. 2: 177 – 98.
Wernerfelt, B. 1984. The resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal 5, no. 2: 171 – 80.
White, J., and D.M. Dozier. 1992. Public relations and management decision-making. In Excellence in public relations and communications management, ed. J.E. Grunig, 91 – 108. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Understanding corporate communication strategy takes on critical importance whenever organisations are threatened by environmental changes (e.g. globalisation, economic recession or growing consumer needs) that lead to the redefinition of the role of the organisation in relation to its key stakeholders. In line with van Riel and Fombrun (2007, 9), ‘[ ... ] the only way to overcome the existing fragmentation of communications in most organisations [ ... ] and thereby to create economic value’ is to adopt a strategic approach to the management of corporate communication. Along the same lines, Hallahan et al. (2007, 4) defined strategic communication as ‘the purposeful use of communication by an organization to fulfill its mission’. In addition, corporate communications need an integrated approach to their management (Cornelissen 2008).
Given that researchers in the field of corporate communication are currently attempting to establish corporate communication as an autonomous discipline of management, they are increasingly viewing it as a matter of great importance to develop the said strategic approach. Nevertheless, only a few contributions to the literature on corporate communication deal specifically with this issue. As a consequence, we intend to focus research efforts on those elements that contribute to the development of corporate communication as a distinct strand of management research.
Literature review
In corporate communication studies, different conceptual models of management have been developed with regard to corporate image (Kennedy 1977; Dowling 1986; Abratt 1989) and identity (Marwick and Fill 1997; van Riel and Balmer 1997; Stuart 1999). Such models provide researchers and practitioners with a broad variety of practices and effective tools for corporate identity management that range from the basic to the complex, thereby ‘[ ... ] accentuating the need for practitioners to take a greater number of variables into account when developing corporate identity programs’ (Stuart 1999).
However, these models do not address corporate communication management (CCM) as such. This field of study is not limited expressly to identity but concerns the overall relationships a company has with its stakeholders. Said models do not examine corporate communication strategy in depth, in terms of the type of decision entailed and the link between strategic and tactical decisions involved in the communication. Indeed, the idea that corporate communication requires strategic thinking has received very little attention in the literature (Tibble 1997; Steyn 2003). Only in recent years, in public relations (PR) studies (Hallahan et al. 2007; Sriramesh and Vercic 2009) has the need to address the communication according to a (stakeholder-oriented) strategic approach definitively emerged.
In part, this is due to the fact that ‘communication is often still seen as a largely tactical activity with practitioners acting as communication “technicians”’ (Cornelissen 2008, 99). This outlook is reflected in practice, in that also senior management tends to consider communication largely as a tactical function (White and Dozier 1992) responsible for programmes of communication and the preparation and production of communication materials (e.g. concrete messages – slogans – for external audiences, press conferences, trade shows and promotional campaigns). Kitchen and Schultz (2000) arrived at similar conclusions; they found that most of firms confined their activities to the tactical coordination of promotional activities and only very few organisations operated on a strategic level in this respect.
It has, therefore, been suggested that the management of communication needs to move from a tactical to a strategic perspective (Holm 2006). The idea of integrating marketing and PR within corporate communication, proposed as a ‘strategic managing system’ (Varey 1998; Varey and White 2000), contributes to no mean extent to the debate on communication management strategy. In such a system, communication activities are built around relationships with several stakeholder groups. From this point of view, CCM has to have a prominent and active role in the organisation’s corporate strategy, ‘coordinating [ ... ] interdependent relationships to contribute strategically to overall corporate performance and capability enhancement’ (Varey 1998, 185). Scholars who adopt this perspective view communication strategy as a functional strategy formulated by corporate communication departments that operate at management level of an organisation (Steyn 2003; van Riel and Fombrun 2007; Cornelissen 2008).
A firm’s communication strategy is functional to focusing on the development of planned communications consistent with its corporate mission and vision and on meeting the corporate objectives set out in its corporate strategy policy (Steyn 2003; Argenti 2007). Corporate communication strategy is, therefore, the outcome of a strategic way of thinking and of decision-making process involving different parties (the communication manager, the chief executive officer (CEO) and the executive directors of other functional areas in the organisations), all working together to shape and make these strategic decisions (Steyn 2003; Cornelissen 2008). Communication strategy is a derivative of the corporate strategy and aligned with the core values (i.e. corporate culture) shared by the members of an organisation. On the one hand, strategic decisions need to be translated into a specific communication strategy for various stakeholder groups. On the other hand, corporate strategy should take into account stakeholder and reputation issues informed by communication function/department (Cornelissen 2008). In fact, borrowing some elements from studies linked to the postmodern approach to management (Stroh 2007), it is usually emphasised that the effectiveness of decisions depends on the variety and diversity of the decision-makers involved in the process. This situation is achieved by involving and having dialogue with the various publics that contribute to the significance and the setting of priorities in the communication process, thereby further supporting ‘the activist role’ of the corporate communication manager (Holtzhausen 2002).
Such empowerment, resulting from the experiences of different contributors, does not preclude the company from defining its strategic intent, as it is of core importance in communication strategy. It concerns decision-making in terms of identifying desired position for an organisation and how it wants to be seen in terms of corporate reputation by its different stakeholders groups upon which the organisation is dependent (Cornelissen 2008). In an era of stakeholder management (Freeman 1984; Donaldson and Preston 1995; Berman et al. 1999), corporate communication strategy should be tightly knit to the strategic management of a company and stakeholders relations (Steyn 2003). From this perspective, communication strategy is concerned with how to develop interaction with stakeholders to achieve organisation’s vision and to support corporate objectives, i.e. communication strategy is concerned with creating a favourable basis for relationships with key stakeholder groups (van Riel 1995). Building, safeguarding and consolidating a favourable corporate reputation are the ultimate goals of corporate communication (van Riel 1995; Cornelissen 2008) and some of the most important strategic organisational objectives. To sum up, a company’s objectives of developing a favourable reputation have lent further support to the conceptualisation of a CCM, in which the focus is on the stakeholders’ involvement and collaboration (Bronn and Bronn 2003; Podnar and Jancˇicˇ
2006; Welch and Jackson 2007), i.e. the adoption of an interactive approach.
Planned and unplanned communications
From the literature review, it emerges that CCM involves a set of decisions in which the development and enhancement of relationships with key stakeholder groups are crucial. To this end, planned communications (organisation controlled or intentional) initiate and keep alive a dialogue process (Gro¨nroos 2004). On the other hand, unplanned communications (e.g. employee gossip and word-of-mouth communication) can significantly affect stakeholders’ perceptions (Duncan and Moriarty 1997).
Planned corporate communications consist in one-way and two-way (personal and non-personal) communications (Hartley and Pickton 1999) implemented through corporate identity cues or signals, such as (1) symbolism (e.g. corporate visual identity),
(2) planned forms of marketing communications and PR (e.g. sponsorship, publicity, advertising and sales promotion) and (3) representational forms of behaviour (e.g. the behaviour of store employees or a company’s call centre staff) and the product performance, i.e. communication effects of products (van Riel and Balmer 1997; Balmer 2001; Cornelissen and Elving 2003).
The term ‘behaviour’ describes how employees, managers and CEOs interact with one another and with external audiences during social events. Face-to-face communications are crucial in transmitting brand values. Indeed, these values are discernible through a firm’s corporate behaviour and activity (Balmer and Gray 2003). CEOs, managers and staff all play an important role in stakeholder perceptions of an organisation (Ind 1990; Gray and Balmer 1998), because how members of an organisation behave projects its image and spreads corporate and brand values (Kennedy 1977; Dowling 1986; Hatch and Schultz 2001; Rao, Agarwal, and Dahloff 2004). In fact, top management ‘has a special role to play in representing the organisation to internal and external audiences. In particular, the [ ... ] CEO plays an important symbolic role as the spiritual and emotional leader of the organization’ (van Riel and Fombrun 2007, 16). On the other hand, organisational behaviour is not the only means by which individual members of an organisation interact with stakeholders. Stakeholders also perceive organisational behaviour from the point of view of corporate performance. Socially responsible behaviour can be seen as planned communications, such as corporate social responsibility (CSR)-related advertising and annual reports on an organisation’s themes, strategies, initiatives and managerial practices (Lewis 2003; Dawkins and Lewis 2003; McWilliams, Siegel, and Wright 2005).
Corporate CSR communications, however, constitute only one part of overall discussions about ‘corporate responsibility’: activists and protest movements appear to play a major role in determining unplanned communications. CSR communication not only creates awareness of sustainability initiatives but also enhances stakeholder identification and stimulates interaction and collaboration between the company and its stakeholders on a specific issue (Maignan and Farrell 2004; Morsing and Schultz 2006). From this perspective, CSR initiatives – or better defined corporate social responsiveness (Carroll and Buchholtz 2006) – are important elements of building, enhancing and maintaining a firm’s reputation (Fombrun and Shanley 1990; Sarbutts 2003; McWilliams, Siegel, and Wright 2005; Hillenbrand and Money 2007).
However, the signals conveyed by an organisation consist both of those that are deliberately planned and timed, and also of those that are unplanned (Gro¨nroos 2000a). In the latter category are accidental cues or unintended messages, such as those arising from informal and unofficial communications and the spontaneous behaviour of staff members of an organisation with respect to outsiders, which cannot be fully controlled (Melewar and Jenkins 2002). Unplanned communications are often concealed from organisation and very often unwelcome (Markwick and Fill 1997; Fill 2005).
Other sources of uncontrolled and uncontrollable communications are those launched by a firm’s competitors (e.g. deliberately comparative advertising), interpersonal communications (online/offline word of mouth), intermediary communications (word of mouth disseminated by the mass media, opinion leaders, non-governmental organisations and institutions) and intrapersonal communications (the psychological consequences of previous personal experiences and memories of the individual; Cornelissen 2000; Gro¨nroos 2000b). Uncontrolled environment-related communications reflect either positively or negatively on the organisation and can affect stakeholder perceptions and corporate reputation building (Melewar and Jenkins 2002).
The role of unplanned communications has increased dramatically with the growth of online communication, and it is mainly determined by progressive consumer empowerment (Pires, Stanton, and Rita 2006; Kucuk and Krishnamurthy 2007), considered as a pervasive process that modifies the stakeholder– firm relationship. In this perspective, empowerment gives stakeholders an increasingly influential role in opinion- making activities on the net and determines the progressive loss of a firm’s control on online information (Gorry and Westbrook 2009), especially in social media environments. Within these digital contexts, online word of mouth is a major part of online interactions, and it is controlled by consumers. These circumstances create more opportunities for consumers to express their dissatisfaction against firms and give them the chance to damage corporate image and reputation (Melewar and Smith 2003). Consequently, building, safeguarding and consolidating a favourable corporate reputation increasingly relies on feedback generated by unplanned communications.
Research objectives As detailed in the previous sections, significant contributions to the debate on communication strategy and management can be found in the literature. However, a conceptual framework that offers a deeper perspective on communication decisions within CCM still needs to be devised. Corporate communication can be characterised as a management function (van Riel 1995) that involves a whole range of managerial activities, such as planning, coordinating and advising the CEO and top management (Cornelissen 2008). However, these issues deserve further attention and in-depth analysis. Communication resources and the decisions required to create and use them are worthy of closer examination. In effect, decision-making related to the use of resources is one of the main issues that arise from earlier studies of corporate strategy (Chandler 1962; Ansoff 1965; Andrews 1971). The proper utilisation of resources is essential for achieving corporate objectives and as such is considered as one of the building blocks of corporate strategy (Hofer and Schendel 1978). In studies of strategic management, the important role played by resources in the elaboration of corporate strategies is confirmed and further strengthened by the studies underpinned by resource-based view. The latter borrows heavily from earlier research by Penrose (1959) and stresses the importance of firm- specific resources for achieving sustainable competitive advantage over a relatively long period (Lippman and Rumelt 1982; Rumelt 1984; Wernerfelt 1984; Barney 1986a, 1986b, 1991; Dierick and Cool 1989; Grant 1991; Mahoney and Pandian 1992; Peteraf 1993). To this end, the resource-based view of the firm posits that resources must be rare, durable, imperfectly imitable and imperfectly substitutable. Any resources that meet these criteria are of value and are typically rooted in a unique historical pattern of firm development tending to provide an enduring advantage as they are protected by one or both of two isolating mechanisms, namely social complexity and causal ambiguity (Reed and DeFilippi 1990).
Resources are also key factors in corporate communication. Any strategic intent may be pursued only if the resources required to support it are available. Therefore, decisions on creating and using these resources play a fundamental role in the formulation and implementation of corporate communication strategy. As pointed out in the literature on corporate communication, resources are an important factor in setting an effective communication strategy and the achievement of communication objectives (Argenti 2007). However, said resources have only been discussed in the literature at a general level: money, human resources and time. The need arises for a more specific focus and in-depth analysis of the resources that may be used for corporate communication. As emphasised by researchers who support the resource-based view, not all corporate resources are easily tradable. Valuable resources (strategic resources) are created within the organisation (Barney 1991). Barney’s notion is also valid in relation to the corporate resources of communication.
Consider a key resource, corporate brand. A strong, well-managed corporate brand meets the criteria posited by a resource-based view, and thereby qualifies as a sustainable valuable resource (Balmer and Gray 2003). ‘A corporate brand is rare because it is the result of a unique historical pattern of development which suffuses a corporate brand, not only with a rich palette of characteristics that are functional (quality, performance, familiarity and predictability), but also with myriad ethereal elements that are rich in image as well as in symbolic terms’ (Balmer and Gray 2003, 987). Such values have their roots in an organisation’s identity (De Chernatony 1999; Balmer 2001) as well as in its culture (Hatch
and Schultz 1997). A corporate brand is durable because it tends to decay relatively slowly (Grant 1991). This makes the corporate brand a resource that enjoys a greater longevity than most other types of valuable resources. A corporate brand is also generally thought to be imperfectly imitable, because both of the two isolating mechanisms (i.e. social complexity and causal ambiguity) are at work (Balmer and Gray 2003). Finally, the fact the unique process that went into the building of the brand renders it imperfectly substitutable. Apart from considerations about brand, in the literature on the management of corporate communication, there is little mention of how resources are identified or of the relevant decisions required to create and use them. This paper aims to address this gap and to provide an in-depth examination of the issues that have been neglected in the past. Therefore, the study presents a conceptual framework for CCM that is based on communication resources and the decisions that are made on how to use them, in terms of
their capacity to change or consolidate an organisation’s reputation.
A framework for CCM based on Parsons’ view of organisational decisions
The specification of a framework that meets the requirements outlined in the previous section has to be based on the prior identification of communication resources.
In line with some basic assumptions underpinning the resource-based view, communication resources can be categorised as being either firm specific or non-firm specific. Firm-specific communication resources express the specific capabilities, strengths, core values and/or historical references relevant to a particular organisation. They are rooted in the concept of identity enabling a firm and its products to be recognised by stakeholders. Therefore, firm-specific communication resources are valuable and unique, and strongly support the creation and maintenance of competitive advantage. Consequently, these resources are the outcome of strategic decisions and have long- term implications. These characteristics allow the main firm-specific communication
resources to be identified as:
● Basic key words, such as common starting points (van Riel 1995; van Riel and Fombrun 2007), themed messages (Cornelissen 2008) and brand mantras (Keller 1999). Basic key words constitute the basis of distinctive short messages (slogans/taglines; van Riel and Fombrun 2007).
● Participatory mechanisms, such as, establishing common process rules (CPRs; Christensen, Firat, and Torp 2008) to reduce the rigidity of a vertical and hierarchical communication structure and enable organisation members to listen continually to various stakeholder groups (Schultz and Kitchen 2004) and create an interactive dialogue with them.
● Unique symbols and sounds, i.e. elements of corporate visual identity (house style
manual) and corporate jingles (Birkigt and Stadler 1986; Bernstein 1984; Abratt 1989; Olins 1989; van Riel 1995; van Riel and Balmer 1997; Melewar and Saunders 1998; van Riel and Fombrun 2007).
● Sets of rules or heuristics related to the management and expression of corporate brand (Tilley 1999; Balmer and Gray 2003; Punj and Hillyer 2004).
● Organisational storytelling (Czarniawska 1997, 1998; Gabriel 2000; Brown et al. 2004) deriving from corporate stories (Myrsiades 1987; Larsen 2000; Smith and Keyton 2001; van Riel and Fombrun 2007).
Communication measurement methods and techniques; in the event, they are developed/adapted inside an organisation.
Besides these firm-specific communication resources, other resources could be included, such as corporate codes of conduct and ethics (Schwartz 2001) and/or corporate governance codes, as these have a significant impact on the way communication initiatives
– both internally and externally – are conducted by organisational members.
All of these firm-specific resources should be handled according a stewardship approach (Davis, Schoorman, and Donaldson 1997) to CCM, in which the communication manager directs the various communication initiatives and makes the firm-specific communication resources available, encouraging their cooperative use by both internal and external stakeholder groups.
In contrast, non-firm-specific communication resources are typically acquired through market transactions and are not based on a firm’s identity. They are tradable and have short-term implications. Typical non-firm-specific communication resources are the means of communication (media) and the services/expertise of communication (copywriters, art directors, storytellers, etc.) required by an organisation to implement communication strategy in short-term campaigns.
To identify a decision-making framework for the use of firm-specific and non-firm- specific communication resources, Parsons’ view (1956) of organisational decisions is useful. The contextualisation of the Parsonsian sets of decisions applied to the decision- making processes for CCM is a further step in defining the proposed framework. In fact, Parsons identifies three types of organisational decisions that focus on the creation, utilisation and coordination of resources: policy, allocation and coordination. Policy decisions are those that commit the organisation as a whole. They concern decision- making for creating the resources required by an organisation and often lead to significant changes in existing resources. Allocation decisions refer to the choices related to the effective implementation of the resources created by policy decisions. The latter in Parsons’ scheme concerns the utilisation of the resources available to the organisation. Finally, coordination decisions are aimed at achieving the systemic integration of the organisation as a whole to achieve effective coordination of resources.
Policy and coordination decisions of communication at the strategic level
Within the framework, policy decision-making at the strategic level concerns the firm- specific communication resources created by an organisation and has long-term implications. For instance, by establishing common starting points ‘[ ... ] is particularly useful in creating clear priorities, e.g. to facilitate an eventual control and evaluation of the total communication policy’ (van Riel 1995, 19).
Policy decision-making usually involves a number of different parties, namely communication manager, CEOs, managers of other departments and practitioners. Firm- specific resources are made coherent, harmonised and synergised by decisions related to the coordination of communication. Thus, integrated communication occurs not only at a tactical– operational level but also at a strategic level (Schultz and Kitchen 2000).
For instance, corporate visual identity symbolises an organisation and hence contributes to its image and reputation (Schultz, Hatch, and Larsen 2000). Together with other firm-specific communication resources, corporate visual identity should be expressed via decisions made on policy and coordination to support communication requirements to build a strong reputation, e.g. visibility, distinctiveness, authenticity, transparency and consistency (Fombrun 1996; Fombrun and van Riel 2004). These five requisite qualities are all inter-related and are intertwined with impressions based on the symbols and means of communication used within an organisation (van den Bosch, de Jong, and Elving 2005).
– both internally and externally – are conducted by organisational members.
All of these firm-specific resources should be handled according a stewardship approach (Davis, Schoorman, and Donaldson 1997) to CCM, in which the communication manager directs the various communication initiatives and makes the firm-specific communication resources available, encouraging their cooperative use by both internal and external stakeholder groups.
In contrast, non-firm-specific communication resources are typically acquired through market transactions and are not based on a firm’s identity. They are tradable and have short-term implications. Typical non-firm-specific communication resources are the means of communication (media) and the services/expertise of communication (copywriters, art directors, storytellers, etc.) required by an organisation to implement communication strategy in short-term campaigns.
To identify a decision-making framework for the use of firm-specific and non-firm- specific communication resources, Parsons’ view (1956) of organisational decisions is useful. The contextualisation of the Parsonsian sets of decisions applied to the decision- making processes for CCM is a further step in defining the proposed framework. In fact, Parsons identifies three types of organisational decisions that focus on the creation, utilisation and coordination of resources: policy, allocation and coordination. Policy decisions are those that commit the organisation as a whole. They concern decision- making for creating the resources required by an organisation and often lead to significant changes in existing resources. Allocation decisions refer to the choices related to the effective implementation of the resources created by policy decisions. The latter in Parsons’ scheme concerns the utilisation of the resources available to the organisation. Finally, coordination decisions are aimed at achieving the systemic integration of the organisation as a whole to achieve effective coordination of resources.
Policy and coordination decisions of communication at the strategic level
Within the framework, policy decision-making at the strategic level concerns the firm- specific communication resources created by an organisation and has long-term implications. For instance, by establishing common starting points ‘[ ... ] is particularly useful in creating clear priorities, e.g. to facilitate an eventual control and evaluation of the total communication policy’ (van Riel 1995, 19).
Policy decision-making usually involves a number of different parties, namely communication manager, CEOs, managers of other departments and practitioners. Firm- specific resources are made coherent, harmonised and synergised by decisions related to the coordination of communication. Thus, integrated communication occurs not only at a tactical– operational level but also at a strategic level (Schultz and Kitchen 2000).
For instance, corporate visual identity symbolises an organisation and hence contributes to its image and reputation (Schultz, Hatch, and Larsen 2000). Together with other firm-specific communication resources, corporate visual identity should be expressed via decisions made on policy and coordination to support communication requirements to build a strong reputation, e.g. visibility, distinctiveness, authenticity, transparency and consistency (Fombrun 1996; Fombrun and van Riel 2004). These five requisite qualities are all inter-related and are intertwined with impressions based on the symbols and means of communication used within an organisation (van den Bosch, de Jong, and Elving 2005).
 |
Levels of decision-making
in CCM Corporate communication decisions
Strategic Corporate communication strategy (dual decision; long-term implications)
Tactical and operational Allocation and coordination decisions
(short-term implications)
Strategic intent
Policy and coordination decisions
Tactical and operational Allocation and coordination decisions
(short-term implications)
Strategic intent
Policy and coordination decisions
Decisions on policy and coordination in communication are a part of the communication strategy outlined in the proposed framework. Indeed, communication strategy is considered to be a ‘dual’ decision involving two types of closely linked decisions related to (1) the strategic intent of an organisation, concerning its desired position in terms of corporate reputation as informed by the vision of the CEO and senior executives (i.e. organisational vision; Cornelissen 2008) and (2) the creation and coordination of firm-specific communication resources (see Table 1). Strategic intent involves either the change or the consolidation of an organisation’s reputation.
Policy and coordination decision-making refers to the stages of planning, organisation and coordination at the strategic level of CCM.
Allocation and coordination decisions of communication at the tactical– operational level
Under the proposed framework, decisions on allocation and coordination pertain to choices on the utilisation (the ‘what’, ‘when’ and ‘how’) of communication resources (firm specific and non-firm specific) in the short-term planned communication programmes and campaigns related to the carrying out of strategic intent. These decisions concern the integration, harmonisation and realisation of coherent, effective messages (internal and external communications) and the combination of promotional elements of the communication mix to obtain the synergistic effects of integrated communications (van Riel 1995; Thorson and Moore 1996; Schultz and Kitchen 2000).
Decisions on allocation and coordination are taken by communication manager and practitioners/consultants and refer to the stages of planning, organisation and coordination at the tactical– operational level within CCM (see Table 1).
Policy, allocation and coordination decision-making within the cyclical process of CCM
Following the implementation of a communication strategy, the subsequent stage of communication control within CCM involves the collection of data (feedback) on the results of corporate communication and the assessment of the effects of communication via methods and techniques of reputation measurement (van Riel and Fombrun 2007). In this stage, a gap analysis procedure is carried out to ascertain how the organisation is seen by different stakeholders (its corporate reputation) and its desired position (Cornelissen 2008). The gap analysis forms the basis of the formulation of strategic intent aimed at changing or consolidating the organisation’s reputation. This analysis provides guidance for further decision-making on policy, allocation and coordination (see Figure 1).
If a firm’s strategic intent is not implemented effectively, further policy decision- making might be necessary to change the current firm-specific communication resources and/or further allocation decision-making to change how the firm’s communication resources are used. In an interactive, networked marketplace, the allocation and coordination decisions of communication require a sense– adapt– respond approach (Schultz and Kitchen 2004), in which communication directors and practitioners must constantly listen to the various stakeholder groups to satisfy declared or undeclared needs and respond via the most appropriate communication channels and forms. In addition, participatory mechanisms, such as CPRs, are also necessary to help organisational members and stakeholders in the process of discovering new ideas and solutions that can affect the creation and utilisation of firm-specific resources. A sense– adapt– respond
approach, together with co-creating processes (CPRs), supports the diffusion of communication capabilities that value a two-way communication, dialogue and cooperation with stakeholders.
Creation and utilisation of firm-specific communication resources
The cyclical process of CCM within corporate communication function/department is part of a wider process. In this process, internal and external stakeholders use communication resources in their own way when carrying on conversations. Stakeholders can contribute with suggestions and stimuli that define/re-define firm-specific resources or use such resources in an innovative way (see Figure 2).
In relation to this wider process of corporate communication, the challenge is to make planned and unplanned communications work as conceptually and operationally distinct functions within a single managerial framework (Varey 1998). In the cyclical process of CCM, CPRs play an important role in integrating planned and unplanned communications. As stated, these CPRs are the product of policy decisions destined to create the mechanisms that favour a two-way communication and an interactive dialogue with stakeholders. CPRs enable CCM to be based on stakeholder involvement and collaboration. Using an interactive approach enables the organisation to fine-tune its response to continuous environmental changes by means of redefining corporate communication strategy. Use of specific media enables to implement these rules.
Public Internet discussion boards and forums, social networking websites, blogs, etc., help the creation and utilisation of communication resources. Consumer-generated media encompasses online word of mouth (opinions, experiences, advice and commentary about products, brands, companies and services). Creating a page on a social network, for example can be an opportunity to incorporate comments from customers regarding customer service. This page represents a firm-specific communication resource for the stakeholders and a platform on which to develop conversations between a firm and its customers. When customers use the page, they share a firm-specific communication resource and may stimulate the creation of new communication resources. Indeed, they may coin new key words in conversations on the organisation’s brand, and a communication manager may borrow anything particularly effective to create a new firm-specific communication resource. Another example could come from any stakeholder suggestions generated by a corporate blog. These suggestions could have an impact on the organisation’s decisions to use this communication resource.
Therefore, in the process of CCM, the role played by internal and external stakeholders is crucial. They may engage in active information search and create new flows of communication, also thanks to new interactive media of communication (De Bussy, Ewing, and Pitt 2003). ‘The result of these “continuing dialogs” between corporate representatives and the firm’s suppliers, partners, customers and other stakeholders will be an increasing reliance on communication interchange’ (Schultz and Kitchen 2004, 359), so that the integration of planned and unplanned communications into one communication process can provide the ‘necessary balance between innovation and stability [ .. . ] within a stakeholder community’ (Varey and White 2000, 10).
Practical implications
The conceptual framework proposed herein constitutes a useful means of support for managers of corporate communication function/department. It offers a comprehensive view of the different types of communication decisions that need to be taken within CCM in corporate life.
Policy and coordination decisions of communication are mostly made when an organisation is in the start-up stage and needs to create firm-specific communication resources. However, there are other circumstances in which managers must take decisions on communication policy and coordination to change one or more firm-specific communication resources, for example in the cases of brand repositioning and overcoming a crisis of reputation. These situations usually involve changes in the positioning expressions of an organisation, and policy-coordination decisions may be required, for example, to:
● Redefine common starting points/themed messages, thereby adapting them to express core themes around which an organisation can focus its actions and distinctiveness.
● Re-establish CPRs to stimulate a two-way communication and a dialogue with internal and external stakeholders, enabling the organisation considered to adapt to environmental changes.
● Modify one or more elements of corporate symbolism to strengthen emotional appeal and to enable perception of an organisation to be perceived as being more transparent and coherent (via the alignment of core organisational purpose, values and beliefs with employees, managers and CEO behaviour).
● Rethink the way of storytelling and/or corporate codes of conduct to render the statements and behaviour of an organisation more credible and transparent in
ambiguous situations.
At the same time, practitioners frequently focus on decisions of allocation and coordination in terms of making the best use of a firm’s communication resources. Such decisions may be useful in a variety of different ways to increase the visibility and distinctiveness of communication initiatives. This would involve a rather different use of firm-specific communication resources. For instance, an unusual or alternative way of using a corporate blog could be an appropriate type of allocation decision.
References to the history of the organisation are another interesting instance of this. Such references can be important manifestations of corporate identity and ‘can be particularly valuable for corporate communications thanks to the reliability age can provide’ (Blomba¨ck and Brunninge 2009). Communication managers could make allocation decisions that involve the selective use of corporate history to legitimise ideas related to the distinctiveness of an organisation (Schulze 1987; Blomba¨ck and Brunninge 2009). This technique enables specific aspects of the organisation’s history that managers wish to highlight in corporate communication to be emphasised from time to time (Lundstro¨m 2006).
Summary and conclusions
The framework for decision-making within the CCM that is proposed herein has the overall aim of contributing to the further development of corporate communication as an autonomous area of management that builds, protects and consolidates a favourable corporate reputation. To this end, the framework is focused on firm-specific communication resources and decisions concerning the creation and utilisation of these resources, a topic that has been neglected in the literature. In fact, the analysis of firm- specific communication resources represents an initial attempt at addressing an issue that requires further investigation.
The distinguishing characteristics of the framework may be summarised as consisting of:
● The distinction between two sets of communication resources: firm specific (according to resource-based view) and non-firm specific.
● The contextualisation of the Parsonsian view of organisational decisions to the CCM decision-making process.
● The distinction between two sets of decision-making on communication resources:
(1) policy and coordination decision-making at a strategic level (decisions on the creation of firm-specific communication resources) and (2) allocation and coordination decisions at a tactical– operational level (decisions on the utilisation of firm-specific and non-firm-specific communication resources).
● The need for coordination decisions both at the strategic and tactical– operational levels.
● The consideration of the communication strategy as a ‘dual decision’, concerning strategic intent and policy and coordination decisions of communication.
The framework also takes into account some elements of the postmodernism that attribute to stakeholders a proactive role and establish the need for a nonlinear, interactive-based
ambiguous situations.
At the same time, practitioners frequently focus on decisions of allocation and coordination in terms of making the best use of a firm’s communication resources. Such decisions may be useful in a variety of different ways to increase the visibility and distinctiveness of communication initiatives. This would involve a rather different use of firm-specific communication resources. For instance, an unusual or alternative way of using a corporate blog could be an appropriate type of allocation decision.
References to the history of the organisation are another interesting instance of this. Such references can be important manifestations of corporate identity and ‘can be particularly valuable for corporate communications thanks to the reliability age can provide’ (Blomba¨ck and Brunninge 2009). Communication managers could make allocation decisions that involve the selective use of corporate history to legitimise ideas related to the distinctiveness of an organisation (Schulze 1987; Blomba¨ck and Brunninge 2009). This technique enables specific aspects of the organisation’s history that managers wish to highlight in corporate communication to be emphasised from time to time (Lundstro¨m 2006).
Summary and conclusions
The framework for decision-making within the CCM that is proposed herein has the overall aim of contributing to the further development of corporate communication as an autonomous area of management that builds, protects and consolidates a favourable corporate reputation. To this end, the framework is focused on firm-specific communication resources and decisions concerning the creation and utilisation of these resources, a topic that has been neglected in the literature. In fact, the analysis of firm- specific communication resources represents an initial attempt at addressing an issue that requires further investigation.
The distinguishing characteristics of the framework may be summarised as consisting of:
● The distinction between two sets of communication resources: firm specific (according to resource-based view) and non-firm specific.
● The contextualisation of the Parsonsian view of organisational decisions to the CCM decision-making process.
● The distinction between two sets of decision-making on communication resources:
(1) policy and coordination decision-making at a strategic level (decisions on the creation of firm-specific communication resources) and (2) allocation and coordination decisions at a tactical– operational level (decisions on the utilisation of firm-specific and non-firm-specific communication resources).
● The need for coordination decisions both at the strategic and tactical– operational levels.
● The consideration of the communication strategy as a ‘dual decision’, concerning strategic intent and policy and coordination decisions of communication.
The framework also takes into account some elements of the postmodernism that attribute to stakeholders a proactive role and establish the need for a nonlinear, interactive-based
approach. This approach introduces new tasks within corporate communication function/department. On the one hand, internal and external stakeholders in their conversations (unplanned communications) use firm-specific communication resources, disseminate key words that identify the organisation and offer suggestions for creating (or adapting) firm-specific communication resources. On the other hand, the communication manager and his/her staff must be able to carefully choose these stimuli for a more effective process of CCM based on the creation and utilisation of firm-specific communication resources.
The setting of communication strategy as a dual decision also contributes to view that corporate communication is a separate area of management. It underpins the view that any strategic intent may be pursued only if strategic communication resources are created. If communication strategy is considered as a dual decision, it follows that the creation of firm-specific resources via policy decisions is of great importance in fulfilling strategic intent.
Ultimately, practitioners taking the framework as a reference are enabled to make decisions on CCM by means of a method that clarifies basic assumptions, steps and objectives, and their implications. The insights provided by the study may be considered as a ‘stimuli’ to encourage a change in the perception of corporate communication as a managerial function based on professional knowledge and competence, rather than as a peripheral area of management made up of a set of technical skills possessed by practitioners.
Acknowledgements
Although the views and ideas expressed in this paper are those of Alfonso Siano, Agostino Vollero, Maria Giovanna Confetto, and Mario Siglioccolo, the sections ‘Introduction’, ‘A framework for corporate communication management based on Parsons’ view of organisational decisions’, ‘Creation and utilisation of firm-specific communication resources’, and ‘Summary and conclusions’ are attributed to Alfonso Siano, the sections ‘Literature review’ and ‘Research objectives’ are attributed to Agostino Vollero, the section ‘Planned and unplanned communications’ is attributed to Maria Giovanna Confetto, and the section ‘Practical implications’ is attributed to Mario Siglioccolo.
Notes on contributors
Alfonso Siano is Professor and Chair of Corporate Communication at the University of Salerno (Italy) where he is Founder and Chair of the Doctoral Programme in Marketing and Communication. He has previously been Researcher and Lecturer in Management at the University of Rome ‘La
Sapienza’. He teaches and carries out research in corporate communication and reputation, marketing communications, arts and heritage marketing, place communications. He has published six books and several book chapters. He has published in a wide range of international academic journals, including Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Journal of Brand Management, Museum Management and Curatorship, International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, The International Journal of Knowledge Culture and Change Management. He presented competitive papers at several international conferences.
Agostino Vollero, PhD, is Research Fellow in Marketing at the Department of Political, Social and Communication Sciences, University of Salerno (Italy). His primary research interests are in the areas of Corporate Communication, CSR, Corporate Reputation and E-marketing. He has published
one book and articles in a wide range of academic journals, including Journal of Brand Management. He presented numerous competitive papers at international conferences, including International Conference on Reputation, Brand, Identity & Competitiveness and Corporate and Marketing Communications Conference.
Maria Giovanna Confetto, PhD, is Researcher and Lecturer in Marketing and Communication at the University of Salerno, Italy. She teaches and carries out research in marketing, marketing and corporate communications, place marketing and place communications. She has published one book
and various book chapters. She has published in a wide range of academic journals, including Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Museum Management and Curatorship, The International Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Change Management, The International Journal of the Inclusive Museum. She presented numerous competitive papers at several international conferences.
Mario Siglioccolo, PhD, is Lecturer in ‘Arts and Culture Marketing’ and ‘Advertising and Media Planning’ at the University of Salerno, Italy. He took his PhD in ‘Marketing and Communication’ in 2008. During 2008 and 2009 he performed post-doctoral research in London (at London Metropolitan University), and Bristol (at University of the West of England), focusing on museum
marketing. He has published in a wide range of academic journals, including Museum Management and Curatoship, International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, International Journal of Electronic Customer Relationship Management, International Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Change Management in Organizations, and International Journal on Inclusive Museums. He presented numerous competitive papers at several international conferences.
References
Abratt, R. 1989. A new approach to the corporate image management process. Journal of Marketing Management 5, no. 1: 63 – 76.
Andrews, K. 1971. The concept of corporate strategy. Homewood, IL: Dow-Jones-Irwin.
Ansoff, H.I. 1965. Corporate strategy: An analytic approach to business policy for growth and expansion. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Argenti, P.A. 2007. Corporate communication. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Balmer, J.M.T. 2001. The three virtues and seven deadly sins of corporate branding. Journal of General Management 27, no. 1: 1 – 17.
Balmer, J.M.T., and E.R. Gray. 2003. Corporate brands: What are they? What of them? European Journal of Marketing 37, nos. 7/8: 972 – 97.
Barney, J.B. 1986a. Strategic factor markets: Expectations, luck and business strategy. Management Science 32, no. 10: 1231 – 41.
———. 1986b. Organizational culture: Can it be a source of sustained competitive advantage?
Academy of Management Review 11, no. 3: 656 – 65.
———. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management 17: 99 – 120.
Berman, S., A. Wids, S. Kotha, and T. Jones. 1999. Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal 42: 488 – 506.
Bernstein, D. 1984. Company image and reality. A critique of corporate communications.
Eastbourne: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Birkigt, K., and M. Stadler. 1986. Corporate identity: Grundlagen, funktionen, fallbeispiele.
Landsberg am Lech: Moderne Industrie.
Blomba¨ck, A., and O. Brunninge. 2009. Corporate identity manifested through historical references.
Corporate Communications: An International Journal 14, no. 4: 404 – 19.
Bronn, P.S., and C. Bronn. 2003. A reflective stakeholder approach: Co-orientation as a basis for communication and learning. Journal of Communication Management 7, no. 4: 291 – 303.
Brown, J.S., S. Denning, K. Groh, and L. Prusak. 2004. Storytelling in organizations: Why storytelling is transforming 21st century organizations and management. Boston, MA: Butterworth Heinemann.
Carroll, A.B., and A.K. Buchholtz. 2006. Business and society: Ethics and stakeholder management.
Mason, OH: South-Western College.
Chandler, A.D. 1962. Strategy and structure. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Christensen, L.T., A.F. Firat, and S. Torp. 2008. The organisation of integrated communications: Toward flexible integration. European Journal of Marketing 42, nos. 3 – 4: 423 – 52.
Cornelissen, J. 2000. Corporate image: An audience centred model. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 5, no. 2: 119 – 25.
———. 2008. Corporate communication. A guide to theory and practice. London: Sage.
Cornelissen, J.P., and W.J.L. Elving. 2003. Managing corporate identity: An integrative framework of dimensions and determinants. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 8, no. 2: 114 – 20.
Czarniawska, B. 1997. Narrating the organization: Dramas of institutional identity. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
———. 1998. A narrative approach to organization studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Davis, J.F., D. Schoorman, and L. Donaldson. 1997. Toward a stewardship theory of management.
Academy of Management Review 22, no. 1: 20 – 47.
Dawkins, J., and S. Lewis. 2003. CSR in stakeholder expectations: And their implication for company strategy. Journal of Business Ethics 44, nos. 2 – 3: 185 – 93.
DeChernatony, L. 1999. Brand management through narrowing the gap between brand identity and brand reputation. Journal of Marketing Management 15, nos. 1 – 3: 157 – 80.
De Bussy, N.M., M.T. Ewing, and L.F. Pitt. 2003. Stakeholder theory and internal marketing communications: A framework for analyzing the influence of new media. Journal of Marketing Communications 9, no. 3: 147 – 61.
Dierickx, I., and K. Cool. 1989. Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage. Management Science 35, no. 12: 1504 – 11.
Donaldson, T., and L.E. Preston. 1995. The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review 20: 65 – 91.
Dowling, G.R. 1986. Managing your corporate image. Industrial Marketing Management 15: 109– 15. Duncan, T., and S. Moriarty. 1997. Driving brand value. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Fill, C. 2005. Marketing communications: Engagement, strategies and practice. Harlow: Pearson Education.
Fombrun, C.J. 1996. Reputation: Realizing value from the corporate image. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Fombrun, C.J., and M. Shanley. 1990. What’s in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy.
Academy of Management Journal 33: 233 – 58.
Fombrun, C.J., and C.B.M. van Riel. 2004. Fame and fortune. How successful companies build winning reputations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Freeman, R.E. 1984. Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA: Pitman. Gabriel, Y. 2000. Storytelling in organizations: Facts, fictions, and fantasies. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Gorry, G.A., and R.A. Westbrook. 2009. Winning the internet confidence game. Corporate Reputation Review 12: 195 – 203.
Grant, R.M. 1991. The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: Implications for strategy formulation. California Management Review 33, no. 3: 114 – 35.
Gray, E.R., and J.M.T. Balmer. 1998. Managing corporate image and corporate reputation. Long Range Planning 31, no. 5: 695 – 702.
Gro¨nroos, C. 2000a. Service management and marketing: A customer relationship management approach. New York: Wiley.
———. 2000b. Creating a relationship dialogue: Communication, interaction, value. Marketing Review 1, no. 1: 5 – 14.
———. 2004. The relationship marketing process: Communication, interaction, dialogue, value.
Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing 19, no. 2: 99 – 113.
Hallahan, K., D. Holtzhausen, B. van Ruler, D. Vercˇicˇ, and K. Sriramesh. 2007. Defining strategic communication. International Journal of Strategic Communication 1, no. 1: 3 – 35.
Hartley, B., and D. Pickton. 1999. Integrated marketing communications requires a new way of thinking. Journal of Marketing Communications 5: 97 – 106.
Hatch, M.J., and M. Schultz. 1997. Relations between organizational culture, identity and image.
European Journal of Marketing 31, no. 5: 356 – 65.
———. 2001. Are the strategic stars aligned for your corporate brand? Harvard Business Review 79, no. 2: 128 – 34.
Hillenbrand, C., and K. Money. 2007. Corporate responsibility and corporate reputation: Two separate concepts or two sides of the same coin? Corporate Reputation Review 10: 261 – 77.
Hofer, C.W., and D. Schendel. 1978. Strategy formulation: Analytical concepts. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company.
Holm, O. 2006. Integrated marketing communication: From tactics to strategy. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 11, no. 1: 23 – 33.
Holtzhausen, D.R. 2002. Towards a postmodern research agenda for public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research 28, no. 3: 251 – 64.
Ind, N. 1990. The corporate image. Strategies for effective identity programmes. London: Kogan Page. Keller, K.L. 1999. Brand mantras: Rationale, criteria and examples. Journal of Marketing
Management 15, nos. 1 – 3: 43 – 51.
Kennedy, S.H. 1977. Nurturing corporate images: Total communication or ego trip? European Journal of Marketing 11, no. 1: 120 – 64.
Kitchen, P.J., and D.E. Schultz. 2000. A response to theoretical concept or management fashion.
Journal of Advertising Research 40, no. 5: 17 – 21.
Kucuk, S.U., and S. Krishnamurthy. 2007. An analysis of consumer power on the internet.
Technovation 27, nos. 1 – 2: 47 – 56.
Larsen, M.H. 2000. Managing the corporate story. In The expressive organisation – linking identity, reputation, and the corporate brand, ed. M. Schultz, M.J. Hatch, and M.H. Larsen, 196 – 207. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lewis, S. 2003. Reputation and corporate responsibility. Journal of Communication Management 7, no. 4: 356 – 66.
Lippman, S., and R. Rumelt. 1982. Uncertain imitability: An analysis of interfirm differences in efficiency under competition. The Bell Journal of Economics 13: 418 – 53.
Lundstro¨m, B. 2006. Grundat 1876. Historia och fo¨retagsidentitet inom Ericsson. Stockholm: Royal Institute of Technology.
Maignan, I., and O.C. Farrell. 2004. Corporate social responsibility and marketing: An integrative framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 32, no. 1: 3 – 19.
Mahoney, J.T., and J.R. Pandian. 1992. The resource-based view within the conversation of strategic management. Strategic Management Journal 15, no. 5: 363 – 80.
Markwick, N., and C. Fill. 1997. Towards a framework for managing corporate identity. European Journal of Marketing 31, nos. 5/6: 396 – 409.
McWilliams, A., D.S. Siegel, and P.M. Wright. 2005. Corporate social responsibility: Strategic implications. Working Papers in Economics, Number 506, May, Department of Economics, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, New York.
Melewar, T.C., and J. Saunders. 1998. Global corporate visual identity systems: Standardisation, control and benefits. International Marketing Review 15, no. 4: 291 – 308.
Melewar, T.C., and E. Jenkins. 2002. Defining the corporate identity construct. Corporate Reputation Review 5, no. 1: 76 – 93.
Melewar, T.C., and N. Smith. 2003. The internet revolution: Some global marketing implications.
Marketing Intelligence and Planning 21, no. 6: 363 – 9.
Morsing, M., and M. Schultz. 2006. Corporate social responsibility communication: Stakeholder information, response and involvement strategies. Business Ethics: A European Review 15, no. 4: 323 – 38.
Myrsiades, L.S. 1987. Corporate stories as cultural communications in the organizational setting.
Management Communication Quarterly 1, no. 1: 84 – 120.
Olins, W. 1989. Corporate identity – Making business strategy visible through design. London: Thames & Hudson.
Parsons, T. 1956. Suggestions for a sociological approach to the theory of organizations.
Administrative Science Quarterly 1, nos. 1: 63 – 85.
Penrose, E.T. 1959. The theory of the growth of the firm. New York: Wiley.
Peteraf, M.A. 1993. The cornerstone of competitive advantage: A resource based view. Strategic Management Journal 14, no. 3: 179 – 91.
Pires, G.D., J. Stanton, and P. Rita. 2006. The internet, consumer empowerment and marketing strategies. European Journal of Marketing 40, nos. 9 – 10: 936 – 49.
Podnar, K., and Z. Jancˇicˇ. 2006. Towards a categorization of stakeholder groups: An empirical verification of a three-level model. Journal of Marketing Communications 12, no. 4: 297 – 308. Punj, G.N., and C.L. Hillyer. 2004. A cognitive model of customer-based brand equity for frequently purchased products: Conceptual framework and empirical results. Journal of Consumer
Psychology 14, nos. 1/2: 124 – 31.
Rao, V.R., M.K. Agarwl, and D. Dahloff. 2004. How is manifested branding strategy related to the intangible value of a corporation? Journal of Marketing 68, no. 4: 126 – 41.
Reed, R., and R.J. DeFilippi. 1990. Causal ambiguity, barriers to imitation, and sustainable competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review 15, no. 1: 88 – 102.
Rumelt, R.P. 1984. Towards a strategic theory of the firm. In Competitive strategic management, ed.
R. Lamb, 556 – 70. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Sarbutts, N. 2003. Can SMEs “do” CSR? A practitioner’s view of the ways small and medium-sized enterprises are able to manage reputation through corporate social responsibility. Journal of Communication Management 7, no. 4: 340 – 7.
Schultz, D.E., and P.J. Kitchen. 2000. Communicating globally: An integrated marketing approach.
New York: Palgrave.
———. 2004. Managing the changes in corporate branding and communication: Closing and re-opening the corporate umbrella. Corporate Reputation Review 6, no. 4: 347 – 66.
Schultz, M., M.J. Hatch, and M.H. Larsen, eds. 2000. The expressive organisation – Linking identity, reputation, and the corporate brand. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schulze, H. 1987. Wir sind was wir geworden sind. Mu¨nchen: Piper.
Schwartz, M.S. 2001. The nature of the relationship between corporate codes of ethics and behavior.
Journal of Business Ethics 32, no. 3: 247 – 62.
Smith, F.L., and J. Keyton. 2001. Organizational storytelling: Metaphors for relational power and identity struggles. Management Communication Quarterly 15, no. 2: 149 – 82.
Sriramesh, K., and D. Vercic. 2009. The global public relations handbook. Theory, research and practice. New York, NY: Routledge.
Steyn, B. 2003. From strategy to corporate communication strategy: A conceptualisation. Journal of Communication Management 8, no. 2: 168 – 83.
Stroh, U. 2007. An alternative postmodern approach to corporate communication strategy. In The future of excellence in public relations and communication management: Challenges for the next generation, ed. L. Toth, 199 – 220. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Stuart, H. 1999. Towards a definitive model of the corporate identity management process.
Corporate Communications: An International Journal 4, no. 4: 200 – 7.
Thorson, E., and J. Moore, eds. 1996. Integrated communication: Synergy of persuasive voices.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Tibble, S. 1997. Developing communications strategy. Journal of Communication Management 1, no. 4: 356 – 61.
Tilley, C. 1999. Built-in branding: How to engineer a leadership brand. Journal of Marketing Management 15, nos. 1 – 3: 181 – 91.
van den Bosch, A.L.M., M.D.T. de Jong, and W.J.L. Elving. 2005. How corporate visual identity supports reputation. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 10, no. 2: 108 – 16.
van Riel, C.B.M. 1995. Principles of corporate communication. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice-Hall. van Riel, C.B.M., and J.M.T. Balmer. 1997. Corporate identity: The concept, its measurement and
management. European Journal of Marketing 31, nos. 5/6: 340 – 55.
van Riel, C.B.M., and C.J. Fombrun. 2007. Essentials of corporate communication. Abingdon: Routledge.
Varey, R.J. 1998. Locating marketing within the corporate communication managing system.
Journal of Marketing Communications 4, no. 2: 177 – 90.
Varey, R.J., and J. White. 2000. The corporate communication system of managing. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 5, no. 1: 5 – 11.
Welch, M., and P.R. Jackson. 2007. Rethinking internal communication: A stakeholder approach.
Corporate Communications: An International Journal 12, no. 2: 177 – 98.
Wernerfelt, B. 1984. The resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal 5, no. 2: 171 – 80.
White, J., and D.M. Dozier. 1992. Public relations and management decision-making. In Excellence in public relations and communications management, ed. J.E. Grunig, 91 – 108. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
上一篇：暂无
下一篇：暂无
