ArticlePDF Available

The Corporate Brand Identity and Reputation Matrix – The case of the Nobel Prize

January 2016
Journal of Brand Management 23(1):89-117

DOI:10.1057/bm.2015.49

Authors:

Mats Urde

Lund University

Stephen A. Greyser

Harvard University

ABSTRACT The purpose of this article is to explore corporate brand identity and reputation, with the aim of integrating them into a single managerial framework. The Nobel Prize serves as an in-depth field-based case study, and is analysed using the Corporate Brand Identity and Reputation Matrix (CBIRM), introduced here for the first time. Eight key reputation elements adapted from the literature and enriched by the case study are incorporated within an existing corporate brand identity framework. Among the key findings are structural links outlining essential connections among elements of corporate brand identity and reputation. The new framework provides a structure for managing a corporate/organisational brand. It is a potential tool in the definition, alignment and development of such brands. A limitation is that the communication dimension – the journey from identity to reputation and vice versa – is included, but not explored in detail. The originality of the article is two-fold: first, developing a new integrated framework; and second, refining and applying the framework to a distinctive research study of a specific organisational case, in this instance, the Nobel Prize. Specific quotes from extensive field interviews support the development of the new CBIRM and its broader managerial relevance and applicability. Journal of Brand Management (2016) 23, 89–117. doi:10.1057/bm.2015.49 Keywords: corporate brand identity; corporate brand reputation; corporate brand management; brand orientation; market orientation; Nobel Prize

The Nobel Prize: A networked brand and its stakeholders (Urde and Greyser, 2014).

…

: Comparing corporate brand identity management and corporate brand reputation management

…

Methodological flowchart: An iterative research process at empirical and theoretical levels.

…

: Elements of reputation, with definitions and with our 'guiding questions'

…

The Corporate Brand Identity Matrix. Source: Urde (2013).

…

Figures - uploaded by Mats Urde

Content may be subject to copyright.

Content uploaded by Mats Urde

Content may be subject to copyright.

Original Article

The Corporate Brand Identity and

Reputation Matrix – The case of

the Nobel Prize

Received (in revised form): 20th October 2015

Mats Urde

is Associate Professor of brand strategy at Lund University, Sweden. He is head of Lund Brand Management Research Group

and has contributed to leading journals with pioneering work related to brand orientation, brand core values and brand

heritage. He has more than 20 years of international experience as strategic consultant on the management of brands.

Stephen A. Greyser

is Richard P. Chapman Professor (Marketing/Communications) Emeritus, Har vard Business School. He is responsible for 17

books in marketing, advertising, etc., numerous journal articles, and some 300 published cases. He created Harvard’s

Corporate Communications and Business of Sports courses, and has career achievement awards in advertising, corporate

communications and sports business. His specialty areas include reputation, identity, branding and corporate level marketing.

ABSTRACT The purpose of this article is to explore corporate brand identity and

reputation, with the aim of integrating them into a single managerial framework.

The Nobel Prize serves as an in-depth ﬁeld-based case study, and is analysed using the

Corporate Brand Identity and Repu tation Matrix (CBIRM), introduced here for the

ﬁrst time. Eight key reputation elements adapted from the literature and enriched by

the case study are incorporated within an existing corporate brand identity framework.

Among the key ﬁndings are structural links outlining essential connections among ele-

ments of corporate brand identity and reputation. The new framework provides a

structure for managing a corporate/organisational brand. It is a potential tool in the

deﬁnition, alignment and development of such brands. A limitation is that the com-

munication dimension – the journey from identity to reputation and vice versa – is

included, but not explored in detail. The originality of the article is two-fold: ﬁrst,

developing a new integrated framework; and second, reﬁning and applying the frame-

work to a distinctive research study of a speciﬁc organisational case, in this instance,

the Nobel Prize. Speciﬁc quotes from extensive ﬁeld interviews support the develop-

ment of the new CBIRM and its broader managerial relevance and applicability.

Journal of Brand Management (2016) 23, 89–117. doi:10.1057/bm.2015.49

Keywords: corporate brand identity; corporate brand reputation; corporate brand

management; brand orientation; market orientation; Nobel Prize

Correspondence:

Mats Urde, Lund University

School of Economics and

Management, PO BOX 7080,

SE 220 07 Lund, Sweden

E-mail: mats.urde@fek.lu.se

www.palgrave-journals.com/bm/

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this article is to explore

corporate brand identity and reputation,

with the aim of integrating them into a

single managerial framework. The principal

context for our qualitative study is the

Nobel Prize organisation. The Nobel Prize

is a unique entity for investigating the phe-

nomenon we are studying. First, the Nobel

Prize is very much in the public eye and

highly visible as a global institution with

multiple stakeholders. Second, the founda-

tion for the rich identity of the Nobel Prize

is the essence of Alfred Nobel’s will –‘for

the beneﬁt of mankind’–and this identity is

backed by an impressive track record and

heritage. Third, to our knowledge, this is

the ﬁrst ﬁeld-based study of the identity and

reputation of the Nobel Prize viewed as a

corporate/organisational brand. The case in

itself is intriguing since most know of the

Nobel Prize’s prestigious reputation but

very few know how it acquired its elevated

position.

Our initial ﬁeldwork focused on corpo-

rate brand identity, but we came to realise

that reputation is an essential dimension in

order to understand the Nobel Prize.

Reviewing the literature, we found an

opportunity to further integrate the con-

cepts of corporate brand identity and repu-

tation. We attempt this by extending an

existing corporate brand identity frame-

work and integrating it with reputation

elements adapted from the literature and

enriched by our case research. The new

managerial framework presented in this

article is applied to the Nobel Prize and

thereby further developed.

Our work relates to decades of signiﬁcant

expansion and interest in conceptual devel-

opment and empirical research on the topics

of corporate image, corporate branding,

corporate identity and corporate reputation.

Studies that focus on corporate identity,

corporate branding and corporate reputa-

tion typically are conducted within one of

three domains: (i) Problems and issues

facing organisations, both private and public

sector; (ii) Theories and conceptual frame-

works; and (ii) Research methods, including

research design and analytical tools (Abratt

and Kleyn, 2011).

Both scholars and practitioners agree on

the importance of corporate identity and

corporate reputation (Balmer et al, 2013).

There is equally strong agreement that these

concepts are interrelated (for example,

Aaker, 2004; Fombrun and Van Riel, 2004;

Kapferer, 2012; Roper and Fill, 2012).

However, a serious corporate brand man-

agement problem is the lack of a widely

agreed framework that can deﬁne a corpo-

rate brand identity and also align its different

reputation elements so that they come

together as one entity: ‘Chief executives

and their management teams recognise the

importance of creating and maintaining

both excellent reputations and strong brands

but do not know what this process entails in

totality’ (Abratt and Kleyn, 2011, p. 1049).

We view our research as a response to a

meaningful challenge for corporate brand

management.

Here is our roadmap. First, we present

the Nobel Prize as a networked brand with

its stakeholders. Second, we explain our

methodology and the clinical research rela-

ted to the case study. Third, we review the

literature with a focus on managing corpo-

rate brand identity and reputation. We

identify a gap in the literature regarding a

managerial framework that considers both

corporate brand identity and reputation, and

we specify criteria to utilise to ﬁll it. Next,

we select and adapt reputation elements

primarily from the existing literature and

consolidate them with nine brand identity

elements based on those in the existing cor-

porate brand identity matrix (CBIM). Ele-

ments of brand identity and reputation are

thus combined into a single more coherent

whole – the new Corporate Brand

Identity and Reputation Matrix (CBIRM).

Urde and Greyser

Then, we apply and reﬁne the CBIRM to

our case analysis – the Nobel Prize. After a

discussion of the case and our ﬁndings, we

conclude with the article’s implications for

theory and practice, and limitations.

UNDERSTANDING THE NOBEL

PRIZE

The Oxford Dictionary describes the Nobel

Prize as ‘the world’s most prestigious

award’, and its extraordinary reputation is

widely conﬁrmed. As stated recently by

Stanford University president John Hen-

nessy: ‘In … [Silicon] Valley, everyone talks

about your IPO [Initial Public Offering to

the stock market] … but in the sciences they

talk about going to Stockholm [as Nobel

laureates], and you go to Stockholm only if

you make a fundamental breakthrough that

really reshaped the ﬁeld. That’s the kind of

impact we really look for in our research’

(Financial Times, 3 February 2014).

The Nobel Prize was possibly the ﬁrst

intellectual prize of its kind, and was estab-

lished at about the same time as the modern

Olympics in 1896. Michael Sohlman, for-

mer director of the Nobel Foundation,

described the Prize to us as ‘the Olympics of

the intellect’.

The Alfred Nobel legacy and ‘the will’

Born in Sweden, Alfred Nobel (1833–

1896) was the inventor of Dynamite

(a registered trademark) and held patents for

many inventions in his name. Alfred Nobel

was a cosmopolite and had not been a

registered resident of any country since the

age of 9; therefore, he was jokingly called

‘The richest vagabond in Europe’

(Sohlman, 1983, p. 86). In 1888, Alfred

Nobel was astonished to read his own obit-

uary, entitled The merchant of death is dead,in

a French newspaper. Because it was, in fact,

Alfred’s brother Ludvig who had died, this

obituary was eight years premature (Larsson,

2010).

Nobel eventually died in 1896 and left

one of the largest fortunes of his century.

His legacy rests in his will. ‘His handwritten

will contained no more than an outline of

his great visionary scheme for ﬁve prizes’

(Sohlman, 1983, p. 1). A section of the will

reads, ‘… constitute a fund, the interest on

which shall be annually distributed in

the form of prizes to those who, during the

preceding year, shall have conferred the

greatest beneﬁt to mankind ’ (Nobelprize.

org). The last phrase has been and is central

to the identity and reputation of the Nobel

Prize.

Those who are now entrusted to carry

out the ﬁnal wishes of Alfred Nobel descri-

bed the will as ‘a strength and a ruler’ and as

‘a constitution’. The Nobel Prize has been

awarded since 1901 for achievements ‘for

the beneﬁt of mankind’ to be continued in

perpetuity. This responsibility characterises

the Nobel Prize and the people behind it.

The prestige of the Nobel Prize

The Nobel Prize award holds a unique

position. The tradition of establishing prizes

and awards can be traced back in time, and

relates to cultural values and the economics

of prestige (see English, 2005 for an over-

view). The Legacy of Alfred Nobel, written by

Nobel’s assistant and later, the executor of

his will, provides valuable insights into the

establishment of the Nobel Prize (Sohlman,

1983). Alfred Nobel’s life and the con-

troversy and prestige associated with the

awards contribute to the general interest

and curiosity inspired by the Nobel Prize

(Feldman, 2012).

We see four main reasons why the Nobel

Prize has acquired its elevated position.

First, the Nobel Prize was one of the ﬁrst

international prizes to be established

(1901), in a time when nationalism was

strong. Second, the Nobel Prize attracted

The Corporate Brand Identity and Reputation Matrix

immediate attention and stirred curiosity,

debate and criticism (Källstrand, 2012). The

third reason is the recognition over time of

the absolute criteria and rigour in its

awarding processes. As one member of an

awards committee (scientiﬁc) succinctly

explained, ‘The discovery. That’s it. We

disregard other aspects’. Finally, the Nobel

Prize rapidly gained iconic status via its

associations with extraordinary discoveries

and individuals. ‘This is the prize awarded to

Albert Einstein, the prizes that have chan-

ged our understanding of the world’,a

Nobel committee member told us.

The Nobel Prize: ‘A small federative

republic’

To the world at large, the Nobel Prize is an

annual series of awards for distinguished

achievements. Upon close examination,

however, the actual awards and the cele-

brations in Stockholm and Oslo are the

visible manifestations of the processes of

interrelated institutions, organisations and

individuals. What is reported in interna-

tional media during the annual Nobel

Week is only a fraction of the total activities

of the overall Nobel ‘federation’. The

Nobel Prize has been characterised by one

Nobel ofﬁcial as ‘a small federative repub-

lic’, as shown in Figure 1. In fact, it is a

group of awards living together as a net-

work (cf. Ford et al, 2011, for an overview

of network theory).

The Nobel Prize is the ‘hub’ of the net-

work and the core of its corporate/organi-

sational brand identity (centre; ﬁrst circle).

Four prize-awarding institutions (second

circle), the Nobel Foundation (third circle),

as well as the Nobel Museum, Nobel Peace

Center and Nobel Media (fourth circle)

make up the principal entities in the

‘federation’. The laureates represent an

essential part of the network and are

also stakeholders (outer circle). They all

Karolinska institutet

Swedish Academy

Norwegian

Nobel committee

Royal Swedish

Academy of Sciences

The Nobel Foundation

Nobel Museum, Nobel Peace Center, Nobel Media

General public

(stakeholder)

Media

(stakeholder)

REPUTATION:

COMMUNICATION:

Scientific

communities

(stakeholder)

IDENTITY:

Nobel Prize

“For the benefit of mankind”

Laureates

(stakeholder)

Sponsors (stakeholder)

Figure 1: The Nobel Prize: A networked brand and its stakeholders (Urde and Greyser, 2014).

Urde and Greyser

communicate the ‘Nobel Prize’ directly or

indirectly. The scientiﬁc communities, the

general public, sponsors and the media are

examples of key stakeholder groups that

inﬂuence the network’s reputation (for

more information on each of the key net-

work organisations, see Urde and Greyser,

2014).

In our depiction of the Nobel Prize, we

have included identity, communication and

reputation in order to develop a more

extensive and holistic understanding. This

inspired us to explore further the integra-

tion of identity and reputation for a corpo-

rate brand.

METHODOLOGY

Brands acquire their meanings in the minds

and hearts of people; in this sense, brands

are ‘social constructions’ (Berger and

Luckmann, 1966; Blumer, 1969; Strauss

and Corbin, 1990). Since this study con-

cerns the relationship between the identity

and reputation of a corporate/organisational

brand, we needed to understand and inter-

pret internal and external stakeholders’ per-

ceptions (Bryman and Bell, 2011). We used

the Nobel Prize case in this study to

describe an entity, to apply theory and to

generate theory (Yin, 1989, 1993). The aim

of our revelatory case study is three-fold,

and goes beyond an illustration. First, it

provides an opportunity to study the phe-

nomena of corporate brand identity and

reputation ﬁrsthand. Second, it provides an

opportunity to apply and reﬁne the new

framework. Third, it is part of the genera-

tion of theory and essential to the ground-

ing and ‘sense-making’ of the results (Glaser

and Strauss, 1967).

In a methodological ﬂowchart (Figure 2),

we provide an overview of our qualitative

iterative research process at both the

empirical and theoretical levels (Glaser and

Strauss, 1967; Strauss and Corbin, 1990).

One row represents the empirical grounding –

the Nobel Prize case study. The other row

presents the theoretical development with

emerging concepts and theories that can

potentially be generalised and thereby

become applicable to other corporate

brands. The upper right ‘arrow’ in our

methodological ﬂowchart is given a grey

shade to illustrate schematically how more

general theoretical insights may emerge as a

result of case-based research (cf. Flyvbjerg,

2006; Bryman and Bell, 2011).

Initially, our interest in studying the

Nobel Prize was, as noted, to investigate its

Initial fieldwork leads to

first understanding of

the Nobel Prize

case …

The literature is

reviewed with a focus on

how brand identity and

reputation are integrated.

Gap identified and

research questions are

formulated …

Continued fieldwork

with interviews to

provide a greater

understanding of the

brand identity and

reputation of the

Nobel Prize …

Criteria for a new

framework; selection

and definition of key

reputational elements.

Adding ‘R’ to the

CBIM leads to the new

CBIRM …

The CBIRM is

applied to the Nobel

case and refined in

the exploration of its

brand identity and

reputation …

The case is analysed

by coding and

identifying emerging

themes from the

fieldwork. Brand

identity and

reputation linkages

are explored …

Case-specific

conclusions and

managerial implications.

General theoretical

and managerial

conclusions relating to

integration of corporate

brand identity and

reputation.

THEORETICAL

DEVELOPMENT:

Emerging concepts

and theories

EMPIRICAL

GROUNDING:

The Nobel Prize

case study

PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 4

Ongoing interaction between empirical case and theory

Figure 2: Methodological ﬂowchart: An iterative research process at empirical and theoretical levels.

The Corporate Brand Identity and Reputation Matrix

corporate brand identity. However, when

attempting to describe the Nobel Prize, we

realised that reputation was an additional

necessary dimension. A more holistic

understanding of an organisation calls for

access to the organisation’s leadership and

key stakeholders, a qualitative research

approach advocated by Gummesson (2005).

It was particularly important to learn how its

different component (network) entities

regard the organisation; that is, its work

(structure), purpose (identity) and standing

(reputation). We reviewed the literature

alongside our own experiences, and found a

gap regarding managerial frameworks that

encompasses both corporate brand identity

and reputation. The ﬁrst phase, which led to

the formulation of the study’s purpose, was

partly based on and shaped by our ﬁeld

observations.

In the second phase, our continued

ﬁeldwork and literature review was more

focused in order to provide insights into the

identity and reputation of the Nobel Prize

as a corporate brand. Eight key reputation

elements were selected and deﬁned by what

we term ‘guiding questions’. These ques-

tions were used during our interviews, and

we formulated and reformulated them to

‘ﬁt’ and ‘work’ in managerial situations.

To us, it is essential that the research results

‘ﬁt’ within the reality of the Nobel Prize

organisation (and its embedded network

organisations). Furthermore, we believe

that the research results should ‘work’–in

the sense that they should be under-

standable and potentially useful for those we

have met in our ﬁeld research and, more

broadly, for practitioners in corporate brand

management (Glaser and Strauss, 1967;

Jaworski, 2011). Notably, there were con-

stant iterations between the empirical

grounding (the case study) and the theoretical

development throughout the research process

(Bryman and Bell, 2011). The reputation

elements were thereafter integrated into the

existing CBIM (Urde, 2013).

In the third phase, we employed the new

CBIRM – with the ‘R’ added – in the

analysis of the Nobel Prize case study. The

linkages and relations among the different

corporate brand identity and reputation

elements were explored and deﬁned. The

three steps in the selection of reputation

elements are described in detail below (in

the section ‘A new managerial framework’).

In another critical step in the development

of the new framework, managers and parti-

cipants in executive programmes were

invited to apply it. In total, 14 managerial

groups, during 1-day sessions in Scandinavia

and the United States, used or discussed the

framework to explore their corporate

brands’ identities and reputations.

In the fourth phase, the resulting theore-

tical and managerial conclusions and implica-

tions are presented. We make a distinction

between case-speciﬁc(relatedtotheNobel

Prize) and general implications (as repre-

sented by the grey-shaded arrow in Figure 2).

A key aspect of clinical research is to broaden

applicability from the practical to the general

(Barnes et al, 1987; Bryman and Bell, 2011).

We envision our conceptual contributions in

the attempt to bridge corporate brand iden-

tity and reputation to be related primarily to

‘delineating and integrating new perceptions’

(MacInnis, 2011, p. 138).

Operationally, we were granted access by

the Nobel Prize organisation network to

key relevant stakeholder individuals and

groups (Figure 1). This empowered us to

conduct open and semi-structured inter-

views, undertake document and archival

studies, and also incorporate observation

into the research process (Bryman and Bell,

2011). In total, we conducted 27 interviews

with 18 individuals (see Appendix for a list

of interviews). We individually interviewed

the four selection-committee heads (in

Stockholm and Oslo, for 1.5–2.5 hours

each), the present and former directors as

well as the current chairman of the Nobel

Foundation, three Nobel laureates, the

Urde and Greyser

CEO of Nobel Media and also the director

of the Nobel Museum and sponsors of

Nobel events (such as the Nobel Dialogue

Week). The Nobel Foundation and the

Nobel Museum supplied us with docu-

ments on relevant subjects; for example,

regarding the history of the Nobel Prize and

Nobel laureates. Accreditation to the Nobel

Award ceremonies (Nobel Dialogue Week,

the Prize Ceremony and the Banquet in

Stockholm in December 2013 and Decem-

ber 2014) provided us with an opportunity

for ﬁrsthand observation and informal con-

versations that led to further interviews.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Brand identity and reputation can be

said to be two sides of the same coin

(deChernatony, 1999; Balmer, 2010;

Kapferer, 2012). Identity is primarily an

internal perspective, while reputation is pri-

marily an external one (Roper and Fill,

2012), and the distinction between the two

depends upon the perspective of the obser-

ver. In essence, corporate brand identity is

about the organisation and its manage-

ment’s perceptions, while reputation is all

about stakeholders’ perceptions (Balmer,

2012). Therefore, to have a more extensive

understanding of ‘the phenomenon of a

corporate brand’, it is necessary to adopt

multiple perspectives (Balmer, 2010; Abratt

and Kleyn, 2011). However, for a corporate

brand manager, two fundamental questions

about identity and reputation remain: What

to manage, and how to manage it (Knox

and Bickerton, 2003; Schultz et al, 2005;

Balmer et al, 2013).

In this literature review, we discuss the

broader theoretical concepts of corporate

brand identity and corporate brand reputa-

tion – the ‘what to manage’ part – in rela-

tion to existing frameworks that purport to

explain to ‘how to manage it’.

Corporate brand identity is based on the

broader concept of corporate identity

(Abratt, 1989, offers the conceptual ante-

cedents). Corporate identity comprises the

key attributes of any organisation (Alvesson

and Berg, 1992; Melewar and Jenkins,

2002; Knox and Bickerton, 2003; Balmer,

2008, 2010). From a reservoir of corporate

identity attributes, a corporate brand’s

identity is ‘distilled’ (Balmer, 2010, p. 186).

Corporate brands come to life once they are

communicated and ‘their value is only rea-

lised when they are assimilated by stake-

holders’ (Abratt and Kleyn, 2011, p. 1055).

Consequently, corporate identity is distilled

into corporate brand identities, which in

turn, when communicated and perceived

by others, result in a corporate brand

(Balmer, 1995, 2010) with an image and a

reputation (Roper and Fill, 2012).

From a management standpoint, both the

deﬁnition and alignment of corporate brand

identity constitute the formulation of a

strategic intent (Prahalad and Hamel, 1989;

Aaker and Joachimsthaler, 2000; Kapferer,

2012). Since there are other views in any

given organisation beyond those of man-

agement (or even within management), it is

essential to consider the multiple identities

of a corporate brand (Balmer and Greyser,

2002; Schultz et al, 2005; Balmer, 2008).

The notion of multiple identities is equally

relevant in the discussions about how the

corporate brand is to be perceived by inter-

nal and external stakeholders.

Corporate brand reputation is closely

related to the image concept (Boulding,

1956; Gruning, 1993), which can be

deﬁned as a current perception, with repu-

tation being an accumulation of images over

time. A brand’s image may therefore change

more rapidly than its reputation (cf. Chun,

2005, on image and reputation). In a brand

crisis, for example, an image (short-term

and speciﬁc) and its reputation (long-term

and general) may be affected (Greyser,

2009). Reputation is deﬁned as ‘a collec-

tive representation of a ﬁrm’s past actions

and results that describes the ﬁrm’s (the

The Corporate Brand Identity and Reputation Matrix

organisation’s) ability to deliver valued out-

comes to multiple stakeholders. It gauges a

ﬁrm’s (organisation’s) relative standing both

internally with employees and externally

with its stakeholders, in both its competitive

and institutional environments’ (Fombrun

et al, 2000). Reputation reﬂects personal

judgements based on a company’s or orga-

nisation’s past and present actions (Fombrun

and Van Riel, 2004). Therefore, the repu-

tation that constituents ascribe to an orga-

nisation’s corporate brand is a collection of

opinions and judgements.

The reputation of a corporate brand is

inﬂuenced by multiple internal and external

stakeholders’ perceptions (deChernatony

and Harris, 2000; Roper and Fill, 2012).

In fact, it is relevant to think of a corporate

brand’s reputation in plural terms, since

there are multiple stakeholder groups such

as customers, community, investors and

employees (Abratt and Kleyn, 2011). Fur-

thermore, an organisation’s brand structure

may consist of a brand portfolio (Aaker and

Joachimsthaler, 2000; Balmer, 2010;

Kapferer, 2012). The reputation held by a

stakeholder group of the corporate brand

may therefore be one reputation, while the

reputation of its speciﬁc product or service

brands may be notably different (cf. Balmer

and Gray, 2003, on corporate brand roles;

Veloutsou and Moutinho, 2009, on rela-

tionships to brands). From a managerial

perspective, ‘perception is reality’; that is to

say, the way a brand is perceived by a

particular stakeholder group will affect its

competitive strength and/or the will-

ingness-to-support (Greyser, 2009). The

reality in terms of perceptions – grounded

in factual circumstances or not – determines

the conditions and circumstances for the

management of brands.

In the literat ure and practice of strat egi c

brand m anagement (with corporate brand

management as a subset), a main dividing

question is ‘what is to be ﬁtted to what’:

Should the organisation adapt its brand

identity (resources) to its environment, or

should it attempt to adapt the environment

to its b rand identity (resources)? The

approach taken could in principle be f rom

theinsideout(withthecorporatebrand’s

identity in focus) or from the outside in

(with the corporate brand’sreputationin

focus). An organisation with a brand-

oriented approac h wo uld be more inc lined

‘satisfy the needs and wants of its custo-

mers and stakeho lders with in the bound-

aries of its brand identity’ (Urde et al, 2 01 1,

p. 14). In contrast, an organisation with a

market-oriented approach would respond

toandbeguidedby‘the needs and wants

of its customers and stakeholders’ in the

corporate brand-building process (Keller,

2001; Urde et al, 2011). On t he one side,

there are arguments p ut f orward to f ocus

on the internal brand strength and identity

– taking an inside-out perspective. On the

other s ide, there are equally strong argu-

ments for adopting an outside-in perspec-

tive and focussing on external market

opportunities (cf. De Wi t and Meyer,

2010). Brand orientation and market

orientation are different but synergistic

approaches, and typically an organisation

would be guided by a combination of the

two (Urde et al, 2011).

Strategic brand management maintains

an inherent tension between the inside-out

versus the outside-in perspective. This ten-

sion is manifested in questions such as: What

should be the strategic focus in the man-

agement of our brands? Should the identity

of a brand be the point of departure, or

should it be identical to the brand’s reputa-

tion? Below, we present different views

from the literature on how managers should

address these questions and try to resolve the

tension.

Managing corporate brand identity

Adopting an inside-out perspective implies

a management focus on brand identity.

Urde and Greyser

Corporate brand identity relates to intern-

ally rooted questions such as: Who are we?

Where do we come from? What do we

stand for? What is our raison d’être? and,

What is our wanted position? In principle,

authentic answers to these kinds of ques-

tions about the corporate brand identity

primarily come from the organisation and

its management (cf. Gryd-Jones et al, 2013,

on ‘co-creation’ of a brand’s identity invol-

ving for example customers).

In the process of deﬁning a corporate

brand’s identity – and subsequently building

and safeguarding it – the internal commit-

ment and engagement of the organisation

remain essential (Ind, 2007; Baumgarth,

2010). This calls for an agreement and/or a

managerial decision to deﬁne and align

the brand’s essential identity elements

(Kapferer, 2012). The role and function of a

brand platform is to provide the organisa-

tion and its management with a blueprint of

the corporate brand’s identity (Keller, 2001;

Aaker, 2004; deChernatony, 2010). Since a

brand identity is always an expression of

strategic intent (cf. Prahalad and Hamel,

1989), it will differ in various respects from

its actual position, image and reputation as

perceived by internal and external stake-

holders (Hatch and Schultz, 2001; Balmer

and Greyser, 2002; Gryd-Jones et al, 2013).

The brand platform (and other related

steering documents such as a corporate

brand policy and cultural ‘Our Way’ docu-

ments) crystallises the corporate brand

identity process (deChernatony, 1999;

Davies et al, 2003; Hatch and Schultz, 2008).

The formulation of a ‘wanted position’ is

another essential identity management task

(Brexendorf and Kernstock, 2007; Kapferer,

2012), an effort to describe the organisation

and its management’s corporate brand

ambition. The process of positioning can be

approached from the inside out or from the

outside in (cf. Urde and Koch, 2014, on

brand- and market-oriented positioning).

Ultimately, the aim for corporate identity

management is to support the accumulation

of distinctive brand resources to gain com-

petitive advantages (Abratt and Kleyn,

2011). Finding a strategic ﬁt with the

inside-out approach is ‘an adaptation of

environment’: the organisation’s corporate

brand is positioned in the marketplace with

the brand identity as its point of reference

and continuing frame of reference (Urde

and Koch, 2014).

Managing corporate brand reputation

Adopting an outside-in perspective implies

continuous management of brand reputa-

tion that takes the environment as the start-

ing point (cf. De Wit and Meyer, 2010).

The political, economical, social, technolo-

gical, environmental and legal aspects

therefore need to be taken into account (cf.

PESTEL framework; De Wit and Meyer,

2010). Reputation management as a cor-

porate function rests on a foundation that

traditionally has been encompassed in (and

in practice, managed by) such ancillary

functions as ‘corporate communications ’,

‘public relations’, ‘corporate affairs’ and

‘corporate relations’ (Hutton et al, 2001).

Reputation, being primarily externally

rooted, contrasts with identity (Davies and

Miles, 1998; Davies et al, 2003; Grifﬁn,

2008; Greyser, 2009). It relates to questions

such as: How do others actually perceive

us? How are we ideally to be perceived?

How do others expect us to be perceived?

(cf. Higgins, 1987; Chun, 2005). Manage-

ment’s constant focus on attaining an

advantageous brand reputation (Boyd et al,

2010) implies a positioning of the corporate

brand guided by this market-oriented dic-

tum: ‘To satisfy the needs and wants of the

customers and non-customer stakeholders’

(Urde and Koch, 2014, p. 482). Other

necessary tasks for reputation management

are to track continuously the brand’s actual

competitive position(s) and to follow the

competitors’ marketplace moves and

The Corporate Brand Identity and Reputation Matrix

positions (Aaker and Joachimsthaler, 2000).

The outside-in view emphasises ‘market

demands over brand resources’ and the

point of departure is ‘external opportunity-

driven market demand’ (Boyd et al, 2010;

De Wit and Meyer, 2010).

Table 1 provides an overview compar-

ison of corporate brand identity and corpo-

rate brand reputation management.

Having discussed the ‘what to manage’

question based upon the literature, we next

move on to the question of ‘how to manage’

corporate brand identity and reputation.

Bridging corporate brand identity and

reputation management

In the literature, there are theoretical

frameworks that take both brand identity

and reputation into account. Especially

relevant to the purpose of this article are

those that include internal and external

links and alignments (for example, Abratt,

1989; Dutton and Dukerich, 1991;

Dowling, 1994; Davies and Miles, 1998;

deChernatony, 1999; Hatch and Schultz,

2001). Alignment is deﬁned by Van Riel

(2012, p. 1) as ‘a mutually rewarding

relationship between a company and its sta-

keholders that enables the ﬁrm to meet its

objectives and realise its purpose’. When an

organisation is viewed in a ‘favourable light’

by its stakeholders it has earned a ‘licence to

operate’, according to Van Riel (2012).

This echoes the philosophy of Arthur W.

Page, legendary head of public relations at

AT&T (1927–1946): ‘All business in a

democratic country begins with public per-

mission and exists by public approval’

(Arthur W. Page Society, 2014). Alignment

of brand identity and reputation – and

the subsequent identiﬁcations of gaps and

how to avoid pitfalls – are of particular

interest for corporate brand management

professionals (cf. Balmer and Soenen, 1999;

Balmer and Greyser, 2002, on ‘misalign-

ment’). However, it is important to note

that the implication of a ‘ match’ or ‘mis-

match’ needs to be interpreted by manage-

ment (Davies and Chun, 2003). For

example, in the repositioning of a corporate

brand, ‘identity and reputation mismatches’

are to be expected and must be addressed.

Davies and Miles (1998) asked three

questions: ‘what the company is ’; ‘what

the company says it is’ and ‘what the

Table 1: Comparing corporate brand identity management and corporate brand reputation management

Corporate brand identity management Corporate brand reputation management

Perspective Inside-out Outside-in

Key questions Who are we? Where do we come from?

What do we stand for? and, What is our

wanted position?

How do others actually perceive us? How are

we ideally to be perceived? How do others

expect us to be perceived?

Source Organisational (management) agreement and/

or decision

Stakeholder perceptions based on market

information

Key concepts Internal commitment Image, perceptions and expectations

Emphasis on Brand resources over market demands Market demands over brand resources

Strategic focus Building distinctive brand resources Attaining advantageous reputation

Positioning (a) Deﬁning the wanted brand position(s).

(b) Positioning the organisation’s brand(s) to

satisfy the needs and wants of the

customer and non-customer

stakeholders – within the boundaries of

its identity.

(a) Positioning the organisation’s brand(s) to

satisfy the needs and wants of the

customer and non-customer

stakeholders.

(b) Tracking the brand’s actual position(s).

Strategic ﬁtby Adaptation of environment Adaptation to environment

Point of departure Internal strength-driven brand potential External opportunity-driven market demand

Urde and Greyser

customers think it is’, with ‘gaps’ forming

the centre of a triangle-shaped framework.

This conceptualisation provides an over-

view of relations linking identity and repu-

tation with the vision. In a similar fashion,

the concepts ‘vision-culture-image’ were

linked by Hatch and Schultz (2001) to

illustrate corporate brand alignment. Later,

Schultz et al (2005, p. 184) outlined ﬁve

steps in a corporate brand building process:

(1) who you are and who you want to

become; (ii) organising behind your iden-

tity; (iii) involving all relevant stakeholders;

(iv) integrating all expressions of your

brand; and (v) monitoring results through

performance measurements. Balmer and

Greyser (2002) underscored the corpora-

tion’s ‘multiple identity’ character and pro-

vided structured actual case examples of

‘misalignments’. In an attempt to capture

‘the gestalt of the corporation’, Balmer and

Greyser (2006) asked: ‘what we feel we are’;

‘what we indubitably are’; ‘what we say we

are’; ‘whom we seek to serve’; ‘what is

promised and expected’; and ‘what we are

seen to be’. These questions are the 6Cs of

corporate marketing, and are a compendium of

questions relating to identity and reputation

(Balmer, 2008). Ultimately, corporate brand

reputation is most strongly inﬂuenced by

corporate behaviour, what Greyser (2009)

called acta non verba (deeds, not words).

The CBIM (Urde, 2013) differs from

other corporate brand frameworks by hav-

ing a ‘core’ as a structural hub. The CBIM is

limited in the sense that it does not include

the reputational or the communication

dimensions (Figure 3). However, it is an

attempt to structure, describe and integrate

nine ‘brand identity elements’ into a three-

by-three matrix. The arrows radiating from

the centre of the framework convey the

logic that all elements of the matrix are

interrelated and form an organised entity.

The content of one element ‘echoes’ that of

the others, with the core as the centre

square of the framework (cf. Kapferer’s

‘brand identity prism’, 2012).

In a coherent corporate brand identity,

thecorereﬂects all elements, and every ele-

ment reﬂects the core (Figure 3). The nine

elements deﬁne the essentials of a corporate

brand’s identity. Its internal (sender) elements

are described in terms of three organisational

characteri stics: ‘mission and vision’, ‘culture’

and ‘competences’. The external (receiver)

component comprises ‘value proposition’,

‘relationships’ and ‘position’. The matrix is

Competences:

What are we particularly good at,

and what makes us better than the

competition?

Position:

What is our intended position in

the market, and in the hearts and

minds of key customers and non-

customer stakeholders?

Relationships:

What should be the nature of our

relationship with key customers and

non-customer stakeholders?

Mission & Vision:

What engages us, beyond the aim of

making money (mission)? What is

our direction and inspiration (vision)?

Culture:

What are our attitudes and how do

we work and behave?

Value proposition:

What are our key offerings and

how do we want them to appeal to

customers and non-customer

stakeholders?

Brand core:

What do we promise, and

what are the core values that

sum up what our brand stands

for?

Personality:

What combination of human

characteristics or qualities

forms our corporate character?

Expression:

What is unique or special about

the way we communicate and

express ourselves, making it

possible to recognise us at a

distance?

Figure 3: The Corporate Brand Identity Matrix.

Source: Urde (2013).

The Corporate Brand Identity and Reputation Matrix

completed by three elements that are both

internal and external. ‘Personality’ describes

the corporate brand’s individual character,

whereas ‘expression’ deﬁnes the verbal and

visual manifestations of the brand. The

‘brand core’, consisting of a brand promise

and supporting core values, is at the heart of

the corporate brand identity (Urde, 2013).

Overall, the literature revie w shows a

further need to bridge the concepts of

corporate brand identity and corporat e

brand reputat ion. From a managerial per-

spective, the me aning an d dimensio ns o f

corporate brand identity and reputation

represent a true challenge. This fr ustration

and confusion is in our view illustrated by

thefollowingquotefromaCEO:‘Repu-

tation, identity, image of the company, I

think it is so interchangeable, they are just

so directly linked. I don’t know how on e

would say the identity is different from

the image of the company; it is different

from the reputation – for me they are

just so intertwined’ (Reddiar et al, 2012,

p. 33).

Towards a managerial framework

Ourintenthereistoprovidethemanagement

of corporate brands with a larger framework

that takes both brand identity and reputation

into consideration. We set out to develop a

managerial framework that outlines key

CBIM connections by adding reputation as an

additional dimension. (We acknowledge that

communication – although important – will

not be addressed at length.)

From a theoretical point of view, a usable

framework for deﬁning and aligning a cor-

porate brand’s identity and reputation needs

to do the following:

●

Identify key reputation elements

●

Logically link reputation and identity

brand elements

●

Outline and combine the concept of

corporate brand reputation with identity

into a single framework

●

Allow shifting between outside-in and

inside-out perspectives

●

Apply to different types of corporate

brands (companies, institutions and other

entities)

From the managerial point of view, such a

framework needs to do the following:

●

Provide a structured and comprehensible

overview to describe (‘what are the key

elements?’) a corporate brand’s identity

and reputation

●

Guide the deﬁnition (answering ‘what

questions and whose perceptions?’)ofa

corporate brand’s identity and reputation

●

Inform discussions of key linkages and

alignment (matches and mismatches)

among essential elements of a corporate

brand’s identity and reputation

●

Help to identify issues and areas of

improvement to strengthen the reputa-

tion and/or help the organisation stay

true to its corporate brand identity

●

‘Fit’ and ‘work’ in a managerial context

A NEW MANAGERIAL FRAMEWORK:

THE CBIRM

The CBIRM is a reinforcing framework of

elements and linkages, with a core consist-

ing of a set of values supporting a promise.

It is intended to serve as a tool for an orga-

nisation’s management of its corporate

brand identity and reputation, including

communications.

Elements of reputation

Conceptualising and measuring reputation is

a research area in itself that engages practi-

tioners and academics alike (Davies et al,

2003; Ponzi et al, 2011; Reddiar et al, 2012;

Van Riel, 2012). A review of reputation

elements in the literature (and in proprietary

reputation models) identiﬁes credibility, per-

formance, responsibility and trustworthiness

Urde and Greyser

as the four elements that are most often cited

(Herbig and Milewicz, 1993; Fombrun,

1996; Ponzi et al, 2011). Proprietary brand

strength and reputation models (for example,

Interbrand and Reputation Institute) include

other reputation elements, such as differ-

entiation, authenticity, relevance, govern-

ance and citizenship. These models also serve

to measure reputation for ﬁnancial brand

value estimates and rankings. Greyser (1995,

2009) used ‘willingness-to-support’ as a

reputation impact measure.

In advertising, models are often based on

consumer interviews to provide insights

into a (corporate) brand’s image (here and

now perception) and reputation (over time

and overall perception). The proprietary

Young & Rubicam model, for example,

measures esteem, energised differentiation,

relevance and knowledge. Roper and

Fill (2012, p. 42) provided a comprehen-

sive overview of ‘criteria that inﬂuence

reputation’ including: product and service

quality, customer satisfaction, employee

satisfaction, comprehensive reputation, cus-

tomer service, market position, innovation,

proﬁtability, corporate social responsibility,

and vision and leadership. The ‘personality’

of a brand is related to its reputation and is

discussed in terms of sincerity, excitement,

competence, sophistication and ruggedness

(Aaker, 1997). Roper and Fill (2012)

viewed reputation as a ‘gestalt’ and recom-

mend that business leaders ‘consider that

reputation is greater than the mere sum of

all the parts of the organisation’ (p. 23).

Fombrun (1996) concluded that ‘a reputa-

tion comes into being as constituents strug-

gle to make sense of a company’s past and

present actions’ (p. 72).

From a business pe rspective , the lat e

Lord Marshall, former chairman of British

Airways, identiﬁed management’stask

regarding corporate identity and image:

‘Corpor ate and brand identi ty are living

entities. Once launched a nd accepted, they

no longer belong to the management of an

organisation, but to all its stakeholders –

customers, shareholders, employees, busi-

ness partners and suppliers . The job of

management is to take custody of cor-

porate identity and brand image, to protect

them and to strengthen them in the face

of new b usines s opportunities and fresh

business challenge’ (Balmer et al, 2009,

p. 18) .

Selection of reputation elements

Here we describe the three-step process of

identifying and selecting reputation ele-

ments, as noted above in the Methodology

section. This in turn will lead to our new

expanded model.

First, we reviewed the relevant literature

on reputation, and selected elements that

we believe, as a totality, capture vital aspects

of the dimensions of the concept. We also

considered how each different reputation

element we chose reﬂected – and could be

structurally and logically linked to – the

nine CBIM brand identity elements

(Figure 3). Our ﬁeldwork within the Nobel

Prize case provided us with a holistic view

of its identity and reputation as a corporate

brand. From the continuous process of

transcribing, coding and pattern-matching

of the empirical data, we ﬁtted relevant

quotes to the corresponding identity ele-

ments (Strauss and Corbin, 1990). Further-

more, the aforementioned ‘bench tests’

with managerial groups in executive pro-

grammes supported the selection process.

We also wanted the elements ideally not to

overlap, and moreover to ﬁt and work in a

managerial context.

Second, we used dictionary deﬁnitions of

the reputation elements to provide their gen-

erally accepted meanings in language. The use

of dictionaries, thesauruses and etymologies is

helpful to review potential overlaps between

and among concepts and to provide linguistic

precision. We found inspiration and sup-

port from the linguist deSaussure’s (1983)

The Corporate Brand Identity and Reputation Matrix

distinction between language and speech.The

dictionary deﬁnition of a word represents its

meaning in general language, while the

same word can be given a different mean-

ing in a speciﬁc context or community. For

example, the word ‘credibility’ has its

principal dictionary deﬁnition, but c an also

be deﬁned in the context of theoretical and

managerial models for measuring many

attributes, including reputation and brand

strength. In an attempt to overcome issues

of different interpret ations, we resort to

dictionary deﬁnition – the use of language,

as de Saussure would put it.

Third, the general (language) meaning of

each reputation element provided the basis

for our formulation of what we call ‘guiding

questions’. For example, ‘How consistent

and solid are their [the company’s or orga-

nisation’s] quality and performance?’ reﬂects

performance (Table 2). In an earlier version of

the reputation elements we used ‘relia-

bility’, but this description was considered

to be easily confused with ‘credibility’ and

‘trustworthiness’, according to managers in

our ‘bench test’. Therefore, we opted for

‘performance’ instead.

Notably, the identity questions (Figure 3)

commence with what, while the reputation

questions (Table 2) commence with how.

The pronouns we and they underscore the

fact that the questions refer to an organisa-

tion and its corporate brand. Because our

view is that identity pertains to the company

or organisation itself, a guiding question

regarding identity should be framed in

terms of we. In contrast, since reputation

reﬂects stakeholders

’ perceptions, a guiding

question regarding reputation needs to be

framed in terms of they (the company or

organisation) and must be understandable in

general language.

Consolidating elements of corporate

brand identity and reputation

Any managerial system involving brand iden-

tity and reputation needs measurements of

how different stakeholders view the organisa-

tion in a given context (Aaker, 1991; Aaker

and Joachimsthaler, 2000; Keller, 2001;

Burmann et al, 2009, on ‘brand equity’;and

Van Riel, 2012, on ‘alignment and stake-

holder support’). The CBIRM aims to

Table 2: Elements of reputation, with deﬁnitions and with our ‘guiding questions’

Element of reputation Dictionary deﬁnition Guiding question

Relevance

(Young & Rubicam)

Closely connected or appropriate to the matter at hand.

The condition of being relevant. Pertinent, to the

purpose, applicable, suitable

How appealing and meaningful is the

value they offer?

Trustworthiness

(Fombrun, 1996)

Firm belief in the reliability, truth, or ability. A

relationship built on mutual trust and respect:

conﬁdence, belief, faith, freedom from suspicion

How dependable are their words and

deeds?

Differentiation

(Young & Rubicam)

Distinction, distinctiveness, contrast, difference,

demarcation

How distinctive is their position in the

market?

Credibility

(Fombrun, 1996)

… the quality of being convincing or believable How believable and convincing are

they?

Performance

(Fombrun, 1996)

Consistently good in quality or performance, able to be

trusted

How solid and consistent are their

quality and performance?

Responsibility

(Fombrun, 1996)

… a moral obligation to behave correctly towards or in

respect of

How committed and accountable are

they?

Willingness-to-support

(Greyser, 2009)

Approve of, encourage, stand-behind, stand up for,

endorse, recommend …

How engaging and inspiring are their

purposes and practices?

Recognisability

(Young & Rubicam)

Identiﬁcation from previous encounters or knowledge.

Recollection, recall, remembrance

How distinct, visible and consistent

are their overall communications?

Urde and Greyser

provide management with a general outline

of key corporate brand identity and reputa-

tion elements and essential linkages (Figure 4).

The guiding questions and the structuring of

the elements can help management tap into

how its multiple stakeholders perceive the

brand, and to what extent these external per-

ceptions match the internally driven identity.

Elements of corporate brand identity (boxes

in the matrix) and of reputation (surrounding

the matrix) are thus combined into a single

more coherent whole – the new CBIRM.

The logic and connections in the CBIM

(Urde, 2013) are extended here to incorpo-

rate reputation. The four dotted arrows – two

diagonals, one vertical and one horizontal –

illustrate this and are explained below.

Next we shall apply the new managerial

framework to what we learned from our

study of the Nobel Prize.

APPLYING THE CBIRM: CASE

ANALYSIS

In this section, we present our own ana-

lysis, interpretation and perspectives o n

theNobelPrizeasacorporatebrand,

particularly its identity an d reputatio n.

We explore the li nkages among t he ke y

corporate brand identity and reputation

elements in the CBIRM. The use and

‘ben ch test’ of the new manager ial frame-

work in an operational context is part of

its development and re ﬁne ment. Figure 5

summarises o ur analysis of the Nobel Prize

as a corporate brand.

The identity elements articulated

within the matrix in Figure 5 are from the

study by Urde and Greyser (2014) and

support our analysis o f the Nobel Prize’s

corporate/organisatio nal bra nd ide ntity.

On the basis of our ﬁeldwork and analysis,

we have selected relev ant quotes linking

reputation elements to the N obel Prize’ s

corporate brand identity. The quotes from

our research represent impressions of the

Nobel Prize’s reputation as perceived by

both internal stakeholders (for example,

members of Nobel committees and direc-

tors of the foundations) and external ones

(for example, a president of a u niversity,

laureates and sponsors).

REPUTATION

COMMUNICATION

Competences:

What are we particularly

good at, and what makes us

better than the competition?

Position:

What is our intended position in

the market, and in the hearts

and minds of key customers

and non-customer

stakeholders?

Willingness-to-support:

How engaging and inspiring are

their purposes and practices?

Responsibility:

How committed and

accountable are they?

Performance:

How solid and consistent are

their quality and performance?

Recognisability:

How distinct, visible and

consistent are their

overall communications?

Trustworthiness:

How dependable are their words

and deeds?

Relevance:

How appealing and

meaningful is the

value they offer?

Credibility:

How believable

and convincing

are they?

Differentiation:

How distinctive is their

position in the market?

Culture:

What are our attitudes and

how do we work and

behave?

Mission & Vision:

What engages us, beyond the

aim of making money

(mission)? What is our

direction and inspiration

(vision)?

Personality:

What combination of

human characteristics or

qualities forms our

corporate character?

Relationships:

What should be the nature

of our relationship with key

customers and non-

customer stakeholders?

Value proposition:

What are our key offerings

and how do we want them to

appeal to customers and

non-customer stakeholders?

Expression:

What is unique or special

about the way we

communicate and express

ourselves, making it possible

to recognise us at a distance?

IDENTITY

Brand core –promise and

core values:

What do we promise, and what

are the core values that sum up

what our brand stands for?

Figure 4: The Corporate Brand Identity and Reputation Matrix (CBIRM).

The Corporate Brand Identity and Reputation Matrix

Linking key identity and reputa tion

elements

We ﬁrst review the brand core (promise and

core values), since it occupies a pivotal role

for the Nobel Prize network and the

CBIRM framework. The role (and func-

tion) of the brand core is that of a hub, and

all brand identity and reputation elements

are thereby interconnected and inﬂuenced

by it. The brand core concept is deﬁned as

‘an entity of core values supporting and

leading to a promise’ (Urde, 2013, p. 752).

As part of the Alfred Nobel Will, the phrase

‘for the beneﬁt of mankind’ encapsulates

the overall covenant of the ‘federative

republic’, according to Urde and Greyser

(2014). The core values that sum up what

the Nobel Prize stands for are deﬁned as

‘discovery’, ‘excellence’ and ‘engagement

for higher ideals’ (see centre square of fra-

mework in Figure 5).

The following sequential analysis is

used in order to explore systematically the

relations between pairs of corporate

brand identity and reputation elements.

The strategy diagonal, the competition

diagonal, the interaction vertical and the

communication horizontal are key linkages

in our analysis, and are shown as dotted

arrows in Figure 6.

Each of the four connections is intro-

duced by a brief general description, fol-

lowed by an exploration and analysis of

the linkages between pairs of corporate

brand identity and reputation elements.

Tables 3–6 include the ‘guiding questions’

and the ‘responses’ excerpted from quotes

from the ﬁeld study. Additionally, each

table has a ‘navigational tool’ to depict

which part of the framework is being

investigated.

The strategy diagonal

The strategy diagonal cuts across the

matrix (Figure 5) and spans between the

reputation element willingness-to-support to

mission and vision to the brand core (promise

and core values) in the centre of the fra-

mework, and continues to pos ition, which

Mission & Vision:

The Alfred Nobel Will

Culture:

Objectivity, independence

and collegiality

Competences:

Rigorous processes to

evaluate award candidates

Value proposition:

Celebration and propagation

of scientific discovery and

cultural achievements

Relationships:

Integrity, respect and

dialogue

Position:

The world’s most prestigious

award

Expression:

Symbolic according to

traditions with a modern

open approach

Personality:

Impartial cosmopolitan with

a passion for science and

cultural enlightenment

IDENTITY:

Promise and core values:

“For the benefit of mankind”

Discovery, Excellence,

Engagement for higher ideals

REPUTATION

COMMUNICATION:

Performance:

‘The institutions’ ability, proven

over a long period of time, to select

the most worthy laureates and the

most important discovery’

Relevance:

‘The Nobel Prize …

move[s] the world from

one position to another’

Credibility:

‘They have a motto: a

good prize one year

will be a better on

next [year]. They feel

no pressure’

Differentiation:

‘… that’s the impact we are

looking for in our research’

Recognisability:

‘Nobel is the last

word in recognition’

Willingness-to-support:

‘The Nobel Prize serves to identify for the

public both the ongoing pursuit of

knowledge and also the importance of

science for human progress’

Trustworthiness:

‘ … the seriousness of the proce ss and its nature, and the history

… The Prize has been given to the likes of Bohr and Einstein’

Responsibility:

‘It’s not some committee that meets via Skype once or twice

a year and make a cursory discussion of their friends’ work’

Figure 5: The Nobel Prize analysed with the CBIRM.

Urde and Greyser

in turn points to the reput ation element

differentiation. In corporate brand identity

deﬁnitio n and alignment, this diagonal is

essential, as it connects the organisation’s

mission and vi sion and it s wanted pos i-

tion. Lastly, the stakeholders’ per ceptions

are reﬂected by willingness-to-support and

differentiation.

Table 3 above links ‘mission and vision’

and ‘willingness-to-support’. The Nobel

Prize identity is based on the Alfred Nobel

will; therefore, the will itself represents the

mission and vision (lower left square of

Figure 5). It is a response to the guiding

question(s): ‘What engages us (mission)?

What is our direction and inspiration

(vision)?’ The engagement and inspiration

found in the mission and vision is closely

linked to the promise –‘for the beneﬁtof

mankind’. The reputation element most

closely linked to the mission and vision is

willingness-to-support (lower left). It is

explained by the guiding question, ‘How

engaging and inspiring are their [The Nobel

Prize] purposes and practices?’ A laureate

commented on this question: ‘The Nobel

Prize serves to identify for the public both

the ongoing pursuit of knowledge and also

the importance of science for humanity …

Science is, after all, the source for human

progress’. A sponsor commented, ‘At

Ericsson, we speak about the use of tech-

nology for connectivity for the future of

society and business. Looking into Ericsson

values, such as innovation and technology,

they relate our vision to the idea behind the

Nobel Prize’.

Table 3 also links ‘position’ and ‘differ-

entiation’.Thewanted position is an identity

element in the framework, emphasising

thattheambitionispartofwhatabrand

stands for and how it would like to be

perceived by internal and external stake-

holders. The Nobel Prize’swantedposi-

tion (upper right square of Figure 5) is to

be ‘the world’s most prestigious awar d’

,as

a response to the question, ‘What is our

intended position in the market, and in the

heart and minds of k ey customers and non-

customer stakeholders?’ The wanted posi-

tion relates to the reputation element dif-

ferentiation (upper right): ‘How dis tinctive

is their position in the mar ket?’ The Volvo

Group’s head of sponsorship commented

on the shared position of Volvo and the

Nobel Prize: ‘In my view, caring c an be

seen as an essence of our values – safety,

quality, and environment. It is about caring

for our customers and p eople . The con-

nectiontoAlfredNobel’s testament – for

the beneﬁtofmankind– we think

becomes evident in this perspective. The

Communication

horizontal

diagonal

Interaction

Competition

vertical

Strategy

IDENTITY:

REPUTATION:

COMMUNICATION:

Figure 6: Key CBIRM linkages between identity and reputation.

The Corporate Brand Identity and Reputation Matrix

fundamental values relate very well’.A

comment from a spons or (L.M. Ericsson

Ltd) underscores a different kind of shared

position: ‘TheNobelPrizehasitslong

history and co nnec tion to Sweden, th is we

have in common’. The aforementione d

quote from Stanford University’spresident

also illustrates the distinctiveness of the

Nobel Prize.

The competition diagonal

The competition diagonal (Table 4)

encompasses value-creating processes. The

essence of the identity element competences

concerns an organisation’s capabilities and

resources and how they are combined into

value-creating processes and potential com-

petitive advantages. The competences are

prerequisites to substantiate the value

proposition, and the connection between

these two identity elements is the overall

promise. The strength and clarity of the

competition diagonal is reﬂected by the

stakeholders’ perceptions of the reputation

elements relevance and performance.

Table 4 links ‘value proposition’ to ‘rele-

vance’. The Nobel Prize’s value proposition

(upper left square of Figure 5) is summed up

as the ‘celebration and propagation of sci-

entiﬁc discovery and cultural achievements’.

The guiding question is: ‘What are our key

offerings and how do we want them to

appeal to customers and non-customer sta-

keholders?’ The Nobel Prize needs to spe-

cify value propositions that resonate with its

multiple stakeholder groups; for example,

to the scientiﬁc community and individual

researchers. The perceived relevance of the

Nobel Prize’s value proposition is a related

Table 3: From ‘willingness-to-support’ to ‘differentiation’

The strategy diagonal

IDENTITY ELEMENT:

Mission and vision

REPUTATION ELEMENT:

Willingness-to-support

What engages us, beyond the aim of making money

(mission)? What is our direction and inspiration

(vision)?

GUIDING QUESTION: How engaging and inspiring are their purposes and

practices?

irP leboN ehT‘:ESNOPSERlliW leboN derflA ehT ze serves to identify for the public both the

on-going pursuit of knowledge and also the importance of

science for humanity. … Science is after all the source for

human progress.’ (Laureate)

‘At Ericsson, we speak about the use of technology for

connectivity for the future of society and business.

Looking into Ericsson values, such as innovation and

technology, they relate our vision to the idea behind the

Nobel Prize.’ (Sponsor)

IDENTITY ELEMENT:

Position

REPUTATION ELEMENT:

Differentiation

What is our intended position in the market, and in the

hearts and minds of key customers and non-customer

stakeholders?

GUIDING QUESTION: How distinctive is their position in the market?

The world’s most prestigious award RESPONSE: ‘… in the sciences they talk about going to Stockholm [as

Nobel laureates], and you go to Stockholm only if you

make a fundamental breakthrough [that] really reshaped

the field. That’s the kind of impact we really look for in

our research.’ (Stanford President)

‘The Nobel Prize has its long history and connection to

Sweden, this we have in common.’ (Sponsor)

Urde and Greyser

reputation element. The answers to the

question, ‘How appealing and meaningful is

the value they offer?’ are important for the

identity of the Nobel Prize network. The

former director of the Nobel Foundation

commented on the basis of the value pro-

position: ‘The Nobel Prize is based on the

enlightenment and a philosophy of pro-

gress, to move the world from one position

to another’.

Table 4 also links ‘competences’ and

‘per formance’.Thecompetences(lower

rightsquareofFigure5)oftheNobel

Prizenetworkaredeﬁned in the model as

‘rigorous processes to evaluate awa rd can-

didates’. We acknowle dge the importanc e

of the four institutions’ unique proc esses

that have been developed, sustaine d and

proven for more than a ce ntury. These

processes, as noted in the case study, are

described as ‘watertight compartments’.As

in the construction of a ship, the function

is to prevent the breakage of any com-

partment from endanger ing the ship ’ s

stability and ﬂotation. The implications of

this in the Nobel Prize network are related

to brand pr otection and safeguarding the

reputation. The processes differ but the

rigour is a shared key trait. The compe-

tences element points and rel ates to the

core of the framework; in other words, the

promise. The reputation element perfor-

mance (lower right), represented by the

question, ‘How s olid and consistent a re

their quality and performance?’, m irrors

competences. A member of a Nobel com-

mittee commented thusly on this question:

‘The institution ’sability,provenforalong

period of time , to sel ect the most worthy

laureates and th e most impor tant dis-

covery, with relatively few questionable

decisions’.

The communication horizontal

The communication horizontal stretches

betweenthetworeputationelements

recognisability and credibility . According to

Table 4: From ‘relevance’ to ‘performance’

The competition diagonal

IDENTITY ELEMENT:

Value proposition

REPUTATION ELEMENT:

Relevance

What are our key offerings

and how do we want them

to appeal to customers and non-customer

stakeholders?

GUIDING QUESTION: How appealing and meaningful is the value they offer?

Celebration and propagation of scientific discovery

and cultural achievements

RESPONSE:

‘The Nobel Prize is based on the enlightenment and a

philosophy of progress, to move the world from one

position to another’ (former Director of Foundation)

IDENTITY ELEMENT:

Competences

REPUTATION ELEMENT:

Performance

What are we particularly good at, and what makes us

better than the competition?

GUIDING QUESTION:

How solid and consistent are their quality and

performance?

Rigorous processes to evaluate award candidates RESPONSE:

‘The institutions’ ability, proven for a long period of time,

to select the most worthy laureates and the most important

discovery, with relatively few questionable decisions’

(Member of Nobel committee)

The Corporate Brand Identity and Reputation Matrix

the framework, the identity element per-

sonality is closely linked to credibility. The

question to deﬁne personality – that is,

‘What combination of human character-

istics or qualities forms our corporate

character?’–reﬂects the answer to t he

question on credibility: ‘How convincing

and b eli eva ble are t hey? ’ An organisation’s

expression typically encompasses all forms

of communication, including advertising,

design and choice of media. This identity

element is primarily related to recognisa-

bility, one of the reputation elements in

the framework.

Table 5 links ‘expression’ and ‘recogni-

sability’. The personality of the Nobel Prize

is reﬂected by the identity element expres-

sion (middle left squar e of Figure 5): what is

unique or special about the way the Nobel

Priz e netwo rk expresses itself, making it

possible, so to speak, to recognise the

Nobel Prize at a dis tance ? The expression is

succinctly deﬁned as ‘symbolic according to

traditions with a modern open approach’.

The use of symb ols – both physical and

ﬁgurative – is essential in communicating

the Nobel Prize heritage. At the same time,

the more recent ‘reaching out’ initiatives,

including the (international) Nobel

Dialogue Week and the active use of

nobelprize.org explain the ad ditio n of ‘with

a modern open approach’. Recognisability

(middle left) is the related reputation

eleme nt that mirrors expression. As a

member of a Nobel committee explained

to us, ‘The diffe rent awards have an addi-

tive effect. T he Literature and Peace awards

create interest in broader audiences, while

the awards in physics, medicine and chem-

istry provide prestige among experts’.

A laureate commented separately on the

recognisability the awards a nd the organi-

sations behind them: ‘Nobel is the last word

in recognition’.

Table 5 also links ‘

personality’ and ‘cred-

ibility’. The Nobel Prize’s corporate brand

Table 5: From ‘recognisability’ to ‘credibility’

The communication horizontal

IDENTITY ELEMENT:

Expression

REPUTATION ELEMENT:

Recognisability

What is unique or special about the way we

communicate and express ourselves making it

possible to recognise us at a distance?

GUIDING QUESTION:

How distinct, visible and consistent are their overall

communications?

Symbolic according to traditions with a modern open

approach

RESPONSE:

‘The different awards have an additive effect. The

Literature and Peace awards

create interest in broader

audiences while the awards in physics, medicine and

chemistry provide prestige among experts’ (member of

committee)

‘Nobel is the last word in recognition’ (Laureate)

IDENTITY ELEMENT:

Personality

REPUTATION ELEMENT:

Credibility

What combination of human characteristics or

qualities forms our corporate character?

GUIDING QUESTION: How believable and convincing are they?

Impartial cosmopolitan with a passion for science and

cultural enlightenment

RESPONSE:

‘[The rigorous process] is one of the reasons why the

Nobel Prize stands head and shoulders above the rest.

There are many awards; some of them more lucrative, but

there is no scientist alive that would not return all of them

in the exchange for of the Nobel Prize’ (Laureate)

Urde and Greyser

personality (middle right square of Figure 5)

reﬂects Alfred Nobel’s personality – an

‘impart ial cos mopolitan with a passion

for science and cultural enlightenment’.

Credibility (middle right) is the related

reputation element. A laureate com-

mented, ‘[The rigorous process] is one of

thereasonswhytheNobelPrizestands

head and shoulde rs above the rest. There

are many awards, some of them more

lucrative, but there is no scienti st alive that

would not return all of them in ex change

for the Nobel Prize’.

The interaction vertical

The interaction vertical demonstrates how

the reputation elements ‘trustworthiness’

and ‘responsibility’ are connected to

and inﬂuenced by a corporate bran d’s

identity. Trustworthiness, according to the

CBIRM, reﬂects ‘the nature’ of the rela-

tionships an organisa tion is striving to

have or to build with its customer and

non-customer stakeholders. In turn, th e

extent to which an organisation is per-

ceived to be responsible is primarily

reﬂected and shaped by its culture. As for

all connections in the framework, the

brand core forms the ce ntre.

Table 6 above links ‘relationships’ and

‘trustworthiness’. In the CBIRM, culture

relates to and reﬂects the identity element

relationships (top centre square of Figure 5).

‘What should be the nature of the organisa-

tion’s relationships with its key stakeholders?’

For the Nobel Prize network, these are

deﬁned as ‘integrity’, ‘respect’ and ‘dialogue’.

Trustworthiness (top centre) is related to

relationships. A laureate commented on the

dependability of the Nobel Prize network’s

words and deeds; in other words, on trust-

worthiness: ‘They have the motto: A good

prize one year will be a better one the next.

They feel no pressure, and will rather wait

until they are absolutely sure’.

Table 6 also links ‘culture’ and ‘responsi-

bility’. What are the institutional attitudes of

the Nobel Prize network, and how does it

work and behave? This is the guiding

Table 6: From ‘trustworthiness’ to ‘responsibility’

The interaction vertical

IDENTITY ELEMENT:

Relationships

REPUTATION ELEMENT:

Trustworthiness

What should be the nature of our relationship with

key customers and non-customer stakeholders?

GUIDING QUESTION: How dependable are their words and deeds?

Integrity, respect and dialogue RESPONSE:

‘They have the motto ‘A good prize one year will be a

better one the next’. They feel no pressure, and will rather

wait until they are absolutely sure’ (Laureate)

IDENTITY ELEMENT:

Culture

REPUTATION ELEMENT:

Responsibility

What are our attitudes and how do we work and

behave?

GUIDING QUESTION: How committed and accountable are they?

Objectivity, independence and collegiality RESPONSE:

‘We are entrusted to steward and ensure quality of the

Nobel Prize which is culturally significant for the world.

We do this with honour and a strong sense of loyalty and

duty’ (former Director of Foundation)

The Corporate Brand Identity and Reputation Matrix

question for the identity element culture

(bottom centre square of Figure 5). The

Nobel Prize network’s culture is deﬁned

with three words –‘objectivity’, ‘indepen-

dence’ and ‘collegiality’. Responsibility

(bottom centre) is the reputation element

related to culture. The former Foundation

director commented: ‘We are entrusted to

steward and ensure quality of the Nobel

Prize, which is of culturally signiﬁcant for

the world. We do this with honour and a

strong sense of loyalty and duty’.

DISCUSSION

Reﬂecting on our research with the Nobel

Prize case and the application of the new

framework, the integration of corporate

brand identity and corporate brand man-

agement was indeed conﬁrmed as essential

for the management of a corporate brand

(cf. Abratt, 1989; Dutton and Dukerich,

1991; Dowling, 1994; Davies and Miles,

1998; deChernatony, 1999; Hatch and

Schultz, 2001; Balmer, 2010; Van Riel,

2012). We have in our research identiﬁed

and incorporated eight reputation elements

and paired them with their identity coun-

terparts from an established corporate iden-

tity framework (Urde, 2013). The new

managerial framework differs from existing

ones by having a pivotal core and by its

structure – outlined by essential links

between the elements of brand identity and

reputation. The structure has helped us to

make clearer distinctions between corporate

brand identity and reputation, responding to

a managerial concern as noted by Abratt and

Kleyn (2011). Further, each element is asso-

ciated with a speciﬁc ‘guiding question’.The

idea to formulate ‘guiding questions’ proved

to be useful in the continuous development

of the framework. For example, we could

formulate and reformulate questions to bet-

ter ‘ﬁt’ and ‘work’ in managerial contexts

and in application (Glaser and Strauss, 1967;

Jaworski, 2011). In the Nobel Prize case

analysis, the systematic relating of identity

and reputation elements supported by quotes

provided a structured overview of this unu-

sual corporate brand. The usefulness of a

holistic view was a recurring observation of

managers who applied the framework in

executive programmes. This was one of the

criteria we set in the development of the

new framework.

Emerging from our ﬁeldwork with the

Nobel Prize case and the application of the

new framework we recognize a tension

between corporate brand identity and

reputation management (Roper and Fill,

2012). This tension can also be described

in terms of ﬁnding a balance between

brand orientation and market orientation

(cf. Baumgarth, 2010; De Wit and Meyer,

2010; Urde et al, 2011; Gryd-Jones et al,

2013). A quote from one of our interviews

with a Nobel ofﬁcial illustrates this tension:

I don’t think the reputation of the Nobel

Prize was built by people caring about the

reputation of the Prize. It achieved that

reputation because people carried out the

intentions of Alfred Nobel ’s will and they

wanted to reward deserving scientists. If

we adhere to aspirationa l descriptions of

ourselves such as objectivity, integrity,

and rigour, I think we are doing our job.

Referring to public attitudes, he went on to

say this:

It is not necessarily a remit [responsibility]

to go out and ﬁnd out what the world

thinks of the Nobel Prize and try to adjust

our behaviour because of that. Every

organisation wants to be very conscious

about what its audience wants and to

behave up to those expectations in order

to grow and expand. Therein lies a big

question for the Nobel Prize: what are we

about, should we serve what the audience

wants, or should we just do what we think

is right – that is, to continue working as we

always have from the Nobel Foundation’s

Urde and Greyser

point of view. It is interesting to know

what the world thinks of the Nobel Prize,

but should that change our behaviour?

Therefore, if it would change our beha-

viour, ﬁne, let’s ﬁnd out; if not, we should

continue doing what we are doing.

One of the essential questions that we dis-

cern from the quote about public attitudes is

this: Should those who manage the Nobel

Prize try to shape external perceptions – or

even internal perceptions – to ﬁt its goals,

policies and behaviour? Modern times, with

higher demands for openness and transpar-

ency, represent both a challenge and an

opportunity for the network (Ford et al,

2011) and its stewardship (cf. Balmer, 1995,

2010). For the Nobel Prize, stewardship

derives from both those in the network and

its stakeholders, such as the laureates. These

individuals may be seen as guardians of

identity, and they serve as custodians of

reputation and heritage (Urde et al, 2007).

The aggregated mindsets of the individuals in

the network inﬂuence the organisational

mindset (cf. Alvesson and Berg, 1992; Hatch

and Schultz, 2008). We emphasise that the

laureates, elevated to world-recognised sta-

tus, are themselves Nobel custodians.

We see the Nobel Prize network as a

heritage-based corporate brand (cf. Urde

and Greyser, 2014). Further, we consider

heritage to be rooted in identity, and con-

sider it to both reﬂect and generate reputa-

tion. This certainly applies to the Nobel

Prize. Our ﬁndings support those of

Burghausen and Balmer’s (2014) study of

‘corporate heritage identity’, and extend the

discussion by a stronger focus on ‘corporate

heritage brand reputation’. The Nobel Prize

has thrived for over 100 years without a

formal brand platform (cf. Balmer et al,

2006, study of monarchies as corporate

brands). We understand this and attribute it

primarily to the strong identity-driven

approach (with the Nobel Will as bedrock)

and its culture of widely shared values. The

management of the awards and the

management of the brand are ingrained

within the network, based on its culture and

on principles such as ‘never be commercial’

and ‘absolute integrity’.

In this article, we have discussed the

‘what to manage’ and ‘how to manage’

questions, but we are reminded of the ‘why

to manage’ question as we reﬂect upon our

case research. The legal and moral impor-

tance associated with the Alfred Nobel Will

–‘for the beneﬁ t of mankind’–and its status

as the de facto point of departure for the

overall approach of the Nobel Prize indi-

cates that it is brand-oriented to a high

degree. An organisation with a stronger

brand-oriented approach is guided by its

identity to a higher degree. In contrast, an

organisation with a stronger market-orien-

ted approach would to a higher degree be

responsive to and guided by the needs and

wants of its key stakeholders. The percep-

tion of the brand – that is, its image and

reputation – in a market-oriented approach

inﬂuences the organisation’s strategy pro-

cess. In our view, a challenge for the man-

agement of the Nobel Prize is to preserve its

core identity and simultaneously stimulate

progress (cf. Collins and Porras, 1998). The

case illustrates the importance of mitigating

the tension between corporate brand iden-

tity and corporate brand reputation.

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS

In this article, we have attempted to further

bridge the concepts of corporate brand

identity and reputation by introducing the

new CBIRM.

Theoretical implications

We suggest three main theoretical implica-

tions related directly or indirectly to ‘the big

ﬁve’ in the research ﬁeld of corporate brand

management: Corporate identity, corporate

branding, corporate reputation, corporate

The Corporate Brand Identity and Reputation Matrix

communication and corporate marketing

(ICIG Cape Town, 2014).

First, the new CBIRM represents an

integration of corporate brand identity and

corporate brand reputation. The suggested

managerial framework provides a holistic

view of the two dimensions and thereby

responds to a gap in the current literature

and practice. As a reinforcing framework,

the CBIRM, with its integrated elements

and linkages, suggests and supports the

notion of a core, consisting of a set of values

supporting a promise. The corporate

brand’s core role and function as a hub are

emphasised by the two diagonals, the hor-

izontal and the vertical that interconnect its

elements. The framework suggests a logic

and structure providing insights into the

deﬁnition and alignment of the key reputa-

tional and identity elements of a corporate

brand construct. The CBIRM thereby has

potential as an analytical tool and an aid in

identifying the key elements of corporate

brand identity and corporate reputation –

and understanding how they are related.

Second, a selection and deﬁnition of

reputation elements provide a con-

ceptualisation of a corporate brand’s repu-

tation. This conceptualisation contributes

by linking each reputation element to a

corresponding identity element that ﬁts into

one single framework. The selection process

of the resulting eight reputation elements

included a literature review, a linguistic

translation of theoretical deﬁnitions into

common language and insights from the

ﬁeldwork, applying eight guiding questions.

These guiding questions were theoretically

supported and empirically grounded in

order to ﬁt a managerial context. The

deﬁned reputation elements represent an

integration of expansive reputation con-

cepts based on sometimes overlapping and

speciﬁc existing theoretical and practice-

oriented constructs. The result is potentially

a more general conceptualisation in a man-

agerial context. Furthermore, the CBIRM

expands the CBIM (Urde, 2013), which

previously did not include reputation

dimensions. The CBIRM differs from other

models by outlining in more detail which

elements are primarily related and how, as

well as why that is so. The framework sup-

ports the importance placed on the brand

core with its promise and supporting core

values.

Third, the empirically based case con-

textualises the ‘brand orientation and mar-

ket orientation tension’. The clinical

application of the new CBIRM framework

to the Nobel Prize case pinpoints the ‘brand

orientation versus market orientation’

question that delineates the two paradigms:

To what extent in managing its brand(s)

should an organisation be guided by its

identity [brand orientation], and to what

extent should it be guided by others’ views

and wishes [market orientation]? The lit-

erature review compared corporate brand

identity and corporate brand reputation

management (Table 1). The case study

provides insights into how and why a focus

on a corporate brand’s reputation rather

than a focus on its identity may result in

tensions within an organisation. The

CBIRM framework’s holistic view has the

potential to provide a basis for common

understanding of the two necessary per-

spectives of a corporate brand.

Managerial implications

The case study and the new CBIRM con-

tribute by providing insights into the

dynamics between corporate brand identity

and reputation management. We suggest

ﬁve managerial situations where the new

framework provides guidance as an analy-

tical tool. As described in the Methodology

section, the framework has been applied

(for development and reﬁnement) in other

managerial contexts (for example, in

executive education) besides the Nobel

Prize case study.

Urde and Greyser

First, the CBIRM can be used to deﬁne a

corporate brand platform, taking into

account both identity and reputation. Illus-

tratively, by reviewing existing strategy

documents and market data and by orga-

nising workshops, an initial overview can be

constructed. Thereafter, a systematic review

of the key ‘how’ questions (external repu-

tation elements), combined with the

answering of the ‘what’ questions (internal

identity elements), can reveal essential

insights in the process of deﬁning the cor-

porate brand. Questions without answers,

and/or questions with several conﬂicting

answers, indicate the necessity for further

input and discussion.

Let us consider the following example.

In one industrial organisation, working with

an international executive team, managers

were ﬁ rst asked to review the identity of

their corporate brand. In light of a series of

recent acquisitions and a new pan-

European strategy, the CEO saw the need

for agreement regarding the corporate

brand identity. Divided into groups, the

managers presented their views of the cor-

porate brand’s identity under these condi-

tions. After intense discussions, an initial

agreement on identity was reached;

however, questions arose relating to the

current reputation(s) and actual position(s).

At this stage, reputation elements of

the CBIRM framework were discussed

based on the managers’ experiences sup-

ported by market data. Afterward, a partici-

pant said, ‘Now we understand the bigger

picture’.

Second, the CBIRM can be used for

troubleshooting. The framework enables

identifying ‘matches or mismatches’

between a corporate brand’s reputation and

its identity. An alignment or misalignment

can be general (looking at the corporate

brand’s identity and reputation broadly)

or speciﬁc (looking at individual reputa-

tional or identity elements). If a stake-

holder group perceives the relevance

(the answer to the guiding reputational

question: ‘How appealing and meaningful is

the value they offer?’) to be low, this sug-

gests that management would be well-

advised to revaluate the value proposition

(identity element) and how it is being

communicated.

In another illustration, a newspaper’s

marketing management group ﬁrst con-

cluded that their corporate brand identity

was indeed strong and rooted internally.

Furthermore, in analysing the individual

guiding questions associated with the eight

reputation elements, all but one was con-

sidered ‘

strong’ or ‘very strong’. None-

theless, the relevance of the newspaper’s

value proposition was singled out as an issue

to be prioritised.

Third, the CBIRM can be used to assess

key reputational and identity issues in a crisis

situation. For example, a group of execu-

tives was asked to analyse the BP Deep

Horizon crisis case (cf. Balmer et al, 2011)

using the framework as a point of departure

for the discussion. The ‘trustworthiness’,

‘credibility’, ‘performance’, ‘responsibility’

and ‘willingness-to-support’ were the pri-

mary reputation elements that were judged

to be affected negatively. On the other

hand, the management group did not see

‘differentiation’ and ‘relevance’ as being

directly affected by the crisis situation.

A follow-up discussion centred on the

question of whether BP should in fact

review its corporate brand identity (or not)

in the aftermath of the crisis. In this parti-

cular situation, the CBIRM proved its

worth as a crisis assessment tool for corpo-

rate brand management.

Fourth, the case and the framework can

be used to pinpoint the importance of the

approach and mindset to brands. This dis-

cussion is potentially relevant for individual

managers, organisations and external

partners: Is the point of departure brand-

oriented or market-oriented? As noted, a

market-oriented approach is guided to a

The Corporate Brand Identity and Reputation Matrix

higher degree by external perceptions, with

image and reputation in focus, while a

brand-oriented approach takes external

perceptions into account, identity remain-

ing the ‘ﬁxed star’. This insight lessens the

risk for misunderstandings and promotes

constructive discussions.

Fifth, the framework can be used to discuss

accountabilities and responsibilities within

corporate brand management. The CBIRM’s

‘guiding questions’ outline relationships and

links that explain a corporate brand’s modus

operandi, especially its identity and reputation.

In a discussion with an executive team that

had worked with the framework, the ques-

tion arose regarding ‘who should be accoun-

table and responsible for which components?’

The manager for human resources com-

mented, ‘I can now clearly see where my

department ﬁts into our business’.

LIMITATIONS AND FURTHER

RESEARCH

A principal limitation of this research is that

the communication dimension – the jour-

ney from identity to reputation and vice versa

– is included, but is not explored in detail.

In addition, while the reputation elements

are illustrated with selected quotes from

our ﬁeldwork, they are not quantiﬁed.

Although not broadly generalisable in all

aspects, we think the several applications of

our framework reported here offer promise

and support for its application in relevant

settings. Further research mitigating these

limitations – to explore and integrate the

communication dimension into the frame-

work and to test the validity and reliability

of the model’s elements quantitatively –

would strengthen the framework’s general-

isablity. We believe the work in this article

opens up opportunities for further study

and operationalisation of the new CBIRM

framework in different corporate brand

contexts.

REFERENCES

Aaker, D.A. (1991) Managing Brand Equity. New York:

The Free Press.

Aaker, D.A. (2004) Leveraging the corporate brand.

California Management Review 46(3): 6–26.

Aaker, D.A. and Joachimsthaler, E. (2000) Brand

Leadership. New York: The Free Press.

Aaker, J.L. (1997) Dimensions of brand personality.

Journal of Marketing Research 34(3): 347–356.

Abratt, R. (1989) A new approach to the corporate

image management process. Journal of Marketing

Management 5(1): 63–76.

Abratt, R. and Kleyn, N. (2011) Corporate identity,

corporate branding and corporate reputations:

Reconciliation and integration. European Journal of

Marketing 46(7/8): 1048–1063.

Alvesson, M. and Berg, P.O. (1992) Corporate Culture and

Organisational Symbolism. Berlin, Germany: de Gruter.

Arthur W. Page Society (2014) Membership Directory

2014–15. New York: Arthur W. Page Society.

Balmer, J.M.T. (1995) Corporate branding and

connoisseurship. Journal of General Management 21(1):

3368–3374.

Balmer, J.M.T. (2008) Identity-based views of the

corporation: Insights from corporate identity,

organisational identity, social identity, visual identity,

corporate brand identity and corporate image.

European Journal of Marketing 42(9/10): 879–906.

Balmer, J.M.T. (2010) Explicating corporate brands

and their manage ment: Reﬂections and directions

from 1995. Journal of Brand Management 18(3):

180–196.

Balmer, J.M.T. (2012) Corporate brand management

imperatives: Custodianship, credibility and calibration.

California Management Review 54(3): 6–33.

Balmer, J.M.T., Brexendorf, T.O. and Kernstock, J.

(eds.) (2013) Corporate brand management – A

leadership perspective. Journal of Brand Management

20(9): 717–815.

Balmer, J.M.T. and Gray, E.R. (2003) Corporate brands:

What are they? What of them? European Journal of

Marketing 37(7–8): 972–997.

Balmer, J.M.T. and Greyser, S.A. (2002) Multiple

identities of the corporation. California Management

Review 44(3): 72–86.

Balmer, J.M.T. and Greyser, S.A. (2006) Corporate

marketing integrating corporate identity, corporate

branding, corporate communications, corporate image

The Corporate Brand Identity and Reputation Matrix – The case of the Nobel Prize

Abstract and Figures