Journal of Communication Management

The relationship between corporate identity structures and communication structures

Frank Körver Betteke van Ruler
Article information:
To cite this document:
Frank Körver Betteke van Ruler, (2003),"The relationship between corporate identity structures and communication
structures", Journal of Communication Management, Vol. 7 Iss 3 pp. 197 - 208
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13632540310807377
Downloaded on: 14 March 2017, At: 16:57 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1948 times since 2006*
Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 16:57 14 March 2017 (PT)

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

(1997),"Corporate identity: the concept, its measurement and management", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31 Iss 5/6
pp. 340-355 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb060635
(2001),"Corporate identity, corporate branding and corporate marketing - Seeing through the fog", European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 35 Iss 3/4 pp. 248-291 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090560110694763

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:273599 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

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

 Academic papers
The relationship between corporate
identity structures and
communication structures
Received (in revised form): 29th November, 2002

Frank Körver
is a corporate communication consultant at Bennis Porter Novelli, the Dutch member of the international Porter Novelli
network. Frank holds a Master’s degree from the Free University of Amsterdam and a Bachelor’s degree from Fontys
University in Eindhoven.

Betteke van Ruler

Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 16:57 14 March 2017 (PT)

is an associate professor in communication science and communication management at the Free University of Amsterdam. She
carries out research into the relation between organisation and communication, and communication management.

Abstract Organisations differ in the ways that they organise their communication
disciplines. Contemporary literature features contributions from a number of noted
authors, all focusing on the centralisation of communication. Scant attention, however, is
paid to factors that are potentially capable of identifying the differences to be found in
practice. This paper describes the results of a qualitative research project involving 16
major companies in the Netherlands. This project was initiated by Bennis Porter Novelli
and designed to investigate the influence of corporate identity structure on the
organisation’s communication structure. The research clearly shows that organisations
with monolithic, branded and endorsed identity structures differ in the way they structure
and coordinate their external communication disciplines.

KEYWORDS: coordination of communication, corporate identity structures, public

relations, marketing communication, corporate communication, common starting points

INTRODUCTION communication activities is not an

Frank Körver
Bennis Porter Novelli,
Amsterdamsweg 204,
1182 HL Amstelveen,
The Netherlands.
Tel: +31 20 543 7600;
Fax: +31 20 543 7676;
E-mail: fkorver@bennispn.nl
Organisations differ in the ways that they
organise their communication disciplines.
According to van Riel organisations are
becoming ever more aware of the
dangers inherent in fragmented
communications.1 In the literature, a
strong tendency can be found towards
the integration of communication
disciplines, especially of marketing
communications and public relations (for
a summary, see Cornelissen et al.2).
Research in the USA and in the
Netherlands showed, however, that this
kind of functional integration of
empirically common phenomenon.3–5
Several authors examined various factors
that could give rise to these
differences.6–11 Grunig12 addressed factors
like the dominant coalition and the
environment. Nevertheless, there is no
evidence that such factors can
satisfactorily explain why organisations
differ in the way that they structure their
communication functions. Cornelissen et
al.13 provided what may prove to be a
more promising point of view. They
developed a conceptual framework that
delineated the most important factors.

# Henry Stewart Publications 1363–254X (2003) Vol. 7, 3 197–208 Journal of Communication Management 197
 Körver and van Ruler
Observing that organisations tend to
structure their corporate identity into one
or more brands, they hypothesised that
this could be an influencing factor.14
In this paper the authors describe the
results of a research project involving 16
major companies in the Netherlands.
These results show that there is indeed a
significant relationship between corporate
identity structures and the way that
companies structure their communication
activities.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Very little research has been carried out on
Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 16:57 14 March 2017 (PT)
the subject matter of this paper. It was this
that prompted the authors to conduct
qualitative, semi-structured research
centred around in-depth elite interviews.15
For comparability reasons, all interviews
were recorded on tape and typed out.
As the aim was to develop propositions
on the empirical relationship between
identity structure and communication
structure, it was necessary to gain insights
in the reasoning behind the facts.
According to Patton16 the prime aim of
in-depth interviews is to ‘enter the other
person’s perspective’. The actual quantity
of interviews conducted is less important
than their depth and the insights that they
provide.
The units of analysis are companies. In
order to render as excellent insights as
possible, candidate companies had to meet
three criteria. In order to be able to make
meaningful comparisons, the first criterion
was a sample, stratified according to three
identity structures: monolithic, branded
and endorsed. Considering the research
topic this is the independent variable in the
research, and was, therefore, an essential
condition. The preferred ratio of these
structures was 2:2:1, as that seemed
empirically reasonable, according to the
authors’ theoretical and practical
knowledge of the field.
Secondly, all the companies had to be
198 Journal of Communication Management Vol. 7, 3 197–208
major players in their own line of business,
which was operationalised as one of the
largest in terms of turnover and number of
employees. This was because research has
shown that large companies have higher
communication budgets than smaller
companies, which suggests a more active
communication programme.17 The third
criterion that candidate companies had to
meet was that they must have an active
communication department. This was
because only those companies that have
thought about their communication
structure were entered in this study. These
were defined as companies with well-
known and frequently conducted
communication campaigns.
The respondents also had to meet a
further set of criteria. The requirement for
elite interviews meant that it was necessary
to speak to ‘influential, prominent, and
well-informed individuals’.18 Accordingly,
they had to be able to define themselves as
‘experts’ in this field, while holding the
highest possible corporate communication
management position. This was because
these respondents had to be capable of
providing valuable information about their
companies, including the way in which the
communication disciplines were organised.
It was presumed that the higher their
hierarchical levels, the bigger the chance
that they were involved in the evaluations
of the best communication structure. A
final tally of 16 companies met the criteria
and were willing to participate in the
study (see Table 1).
LITERATURE SURVEY
Corporate identity structure
The literature contains many definitions of
corporate identity.19–23 One of the best-
known definitions was given by van Riel24
who followed Birkigt and Stadler25 by
defining corporate identity as ‘the self-
presentation of an organisation; it consists
of the cues an organisation offers about
# Henry Stewart Publications 1363–254X (2003)
 The relationship between corporate identity structures and communication structures

Table 1: List of participating companies

Monolithic identity structure Branded identity structure Endorsed identity structure

Shell International Procter & Gamble België-Nederland Nestlé Nederland

NUON Koninklijke Vendex KBB Fortis**
KLM Royal Dutch Airlines Interbrew Nederland AEGON Nederland**
Libertel* Sara Lee/DE
Siemens Nederland Koninklijke Ahold
Fortis** Intergamma
AEGON Nederland** Campina Melkunie*
Coca-Cola Nederland

* The study took place before Libertel and Campina Melkunie had changed their names to Vodafone and Campina
respectively.
** Fortis and AEGON have monolithic identity structures as well as endorsed identity structures

itself via behaviour, communication, and than any other, has been used in this paper.
symbolism, which are its forms of Companies with a monolithic identity
Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 16:57 14 March 2017 (PT)

expression’. Thus, corporate identity can
be seen as the way in which a company
makes itself known to the world.
Behaviour, communication and symbols
are its indicators. The focus in this paper is
symbolism and communication, the two
indicators for which public relations
departments and marketing
communication departments are
responsible. Symbolism is seen as the
binding agent, since it is expressed in the
corporate house style, in the name and in
the logo. Van Riel26 argues that ‘The
power of a symbol lies in the increased
attention that it attracts to the
communication output of the
organisation’. According to Birkigt and
Stadler27 and van Riel28 communication
refers to all intentionally implemented
(visual and verbal) messages sent by an
organisation. The authors adopted this
definition, but restricted themselves to
describing how external communication is
organised.
Many authors stipulate that companies
can ‘select’ one of a range of corporate
identity structures.29–31 They developed
typologies that distinguish different
corporate identity structures. Olins32
provided the best known and most
frequently used typology. He distinguishes
between monolithic, branded and endorsed
identity structures. This typology, more
structure use a single visual style and name.
These companies project a consistent
image by systematically using just the
corporate name plus the company’s logo
and communication style in all their
manifestations. Some examples of
companies of this type are Shell, Siemens
and KLM. A branded identity structure is
when strategic business units (SBUs) or
daughter companies have their own names
and styles, while in their communications
no connection is made with the parent
company. Unilever and Procter & Gamble
are classic examples of branded companies.
The third model identified by Olins is the
endorsed or mixed identity structure.
Within endorsed companies, while
daughter companies or SBUs have their
own names and styles, the parent remains
visible. Examples of endorsed companies
are L’Oreal, Nestlé and General Motors.
External communication disciplines
Different forms of organisations’ external
communications activities are commonly
divided into marketing communications
and public relations.33–35 Some 15 years
ago, the concept of corporate
communication was developed.
According to most authors the primary
function of marketing communication is
to support the sales of brands on the
product or services level.36,37 The aim of

# Henry Stewart Publications 1363–254X (2003) Vol. 7, 3 197–208 Journal of Communication Management 199
 Körver and van Ruler
marketing communication is to make the
target audience aware of the offering and,
if necessary, to promote the offering.38
Marketing communication practitioners
are often located on a decentralized,
business unit level.39 This is because
marketing communication is often the
responsibility of the marketing
department, which tends to be
decentralised and organised within
individual business units or
subsidiaries.40–43 Floor and van Raaij44
suggested, however, that the best way of
organising marketing communication
depends on the identity structure of the
Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 16:57 14 March 2017 (PT)
corporation in question.
>The second external communication
discipline that can be identified is public
relations. Its name can be misleading,
however. In both theory and practice, the
term is used as a synonym for
organisational communication, for
corporate communication and for
marketing publicity. According to van
Riel, organisational communication is an
umbrella term for public relations, public
affairs, investor relations, recruitment
communications, corporate advertising and
environmental communication. Within
most companies, however, the various
forms of organisational communications
are grouped under the term ‘public
relations’.45 In this regard, we have
complied with common practice. Many
authors believe that public relations always
requires a central corporate position.46,47
According to van Riel,48 public relations is
in practice indeed often organised at a
central corporate level. Other authors
however, believe that public relations
should be organised within the marketing
department.49
The third concept in common use is
‘corporate communication’, and there are
two different views about what it entails.
One is that corporate communication
relates to all intentionally deployed forms
of internal and external communication,
200 Journal of Communication Management Vol. 7, 3 197–208
including marketing communication. That
marketing communication has to be
included, is most of all because marketing
communication generally has the greatest
impact on an organisation’s corporate
image. For it has the largest budget of all
the communication disciplines, and because
its main channels are the mass media.50
Thus, of all the communication disciplines,
marketing communication is the one most
visible to the outside world. Van Riel51
defines corporate communication as ‘an
instrument of management by means of
which all consciously used forms of
internal and external communication are
harmonized as effectively and efficiently as
possible, so as to create a favourable basis
for relationships with groups upon which
the company is dependent’.
The second view is that corporate
communication relates to all forms of
communication except marketing
communications. Here, authors see
corporate communication as being
synonymous with public relations.52 In
their view, corporate communication is
defined as all communication generated
by an organisation in which the
organisation itself (or part of it) is central,
rather than its products or services.
Studies by Will et al.53 and by van Ruler
and de Lange54 showed that marketing
communication is more often organised
outside the corporate communication
department than within it. Therefore, the
corporate communication concept most
commonly used in practice is the one in
which a distinction is drawn between
product-centred communication
(marketing communication) and corporate
communication. The authors aim was to
determine why this is so.
Position of the external communication
disciplines
‘To centralize or to decentralize
communications? That is the question’, as
Argenti55 and others argue. Van Riel56
# Henry Stewart Publications 1363–254X (2003)
 The relationship between corporate identity structures and communication structures
suggests that organisations should combine
all their communication disciplines under
one corporate coordinating body,
consisting of the managers of the various
communication departments. Tixier,57
however, argues that corporate
communication always requires a central
department at the highest level. She
contends that ‘An integrated and
centralized structure is generally perceived
as the ideal way of generating synergy and
consistency in terms of corporate image
management’. Several other authors state
that a central and integrated
communication department is crucial for
Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 16:57 14 March 2017 (PT)
creating synergy and consistency in
communication and for optimising
corporate image management.59–63
In fact, a central department is even
believed to strongly determine the success
of corporate communication under all
circumstances.64 White and Mazur65
believe this corporate communication
department should have the following
structure: ‘At the top sits (. . .) the director
of corporate communications, reporting
directly to the chairman/chief executive
officer. Under him/her can be a
department of some substance which
covers a wide range of topics, or one
[department] which is quite lean and
handles only essentials’. The issues of
whether or not marketing communication
should be part of this central
communication department, and why
these departments are small or large, are
not, however, addressed.
Communication structure
In view of the work of Cornelissen et al.,66
it is assumed that the way an organisation
structures its communication disciplines is
influenced by its corporate identity
structure. Corporate identity structure
refers to the way in which a company
organises its corporate representation.
Mintzberg67 focuses on the structure of
organisations, defining it as ‘the sum total
# Henry Stewart Publications 1363–254X (2003) Vol. 7, 3 197–208
of the ways in which labor is divided into
distinct tasks and then its coordination is
achieved among these tasks’. From his
point of view, communication structure
refers to the structures organisations choose
for their communication functions.
Following this, the authors address the
way in which public relations and
marketing communication tasks are
divided within the organisational hierarchy
(centralisation versus decentralisation), and
how the disciplines are coordinated.
Level of centralisation and coordination
According to Robbins68 ‘centralization’
refers to the place where decisions are
made. An organisational structure is
looked upon as centralised when all power
is concentrated in a single position within
the organisation. ‘A single position’
generally denotes an individual, a unit, or
a department that is probably located at an
elevated, central level inside the
organisation.69 Decentralisation refers to
‘the extent to which the centre of an
organisation delegates decision-making to
units and managers lower down in the
hierarchy’.70
According to van Riel and Nedela,71
organisations use a range of methods to
coordinate their communication output.
This can be done through hierarchy,
through the geographical centralisation of
people, through meetings and other
consultative mechanisms, or through
common starting points.
To the best of the authors’ knowledge, no
connections have yet been made between
corporate identity structures and
coordination methods. It is reasonable to
assume, however, that the separation of
communication disciplines brings with it a
need for still greater coordination. One
method involves regular meetings by a
coordinating body by which employees
synchronise their views. Another is the use
of so-called ‘common starting points’.
According to van Riel,72 common starting
Journal of Communication Management 201
 Körver and van Ruler
points are derived directly from the chosen
communications strategy, itself a
consequence of the company’s actual and
desired corporate identity and the
company’s image, and can be seen as
guidelines for all forms of internal and
external communication activities. They
are the central values which function as the
basis for undertaking any kinds of
communication envisaged by an
organisation. Common starting points play
a crucial role when coordinating and fine-
tuning communications, because they
enhance the consistency of the messages
that an organisation circulates to its
stakeholders.73 Research has shown that
Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 16:57 14 March 2017 (PT)
the use of common starting points is
related to successful corporate
communication.74 Common starting
points are in any case good means to
effectively create and protect a desired
corporate image, as they make good
reference points for communication
activities.
As Birkigt and Stadler75 indicated, the
identity of a company not only manifests
itself in the use of corporate symbols, such
as logos, but also through communication
activities and corporate behaviour. As
consistency is commonly seen as one of the
key elements of corporate communication
the authors take the view that any
organisation needs a set of specified
common starting points to accurately steer
all communication activities. It is
presumed that the more decentralised the
communication responsibilities are, the
more common starting points are needed
to avoid fragmented communication.
Moreover, the authors like to differentiate
for monolithic and branded companies.
They presume that the difference will be
that within branded companies, the
common starting points should not be too
specific at the corporate level, in order to
leave the business units, daughter
companies or brands enough creative
room to develop custom-made, common
202 Journal of Communication Management Vol. 7, 3 197–208
starting points, according to their brands.
Following this reasoning the authors
propose that in endorsed companies there
will be a mix of common starting points
for the mother brand as well as for the
underlying sub-brands.
Research questions
Although there is quite some literature on
both variables, the authors could not
identify a relationship between corporate
identity structure and communication
structure. In order to fill in this gap, the
following research questions were
formulated:
— Does corporate identity structure influence
the level of centralisation of
communication disciplines?
— Does corporate identity structure influence
the coordination of communication
disciplines via meetings and /or the use of
common starting points?
RESEARCH FINDINGS
Level of centralisation
All of the 16 companies that participated
in the study have central corporate
communication departments headed by a
communication director. All of them
account directly to the board of directors.
Many believe that this is necessary ‘to give
you the power to influence decision-
making within the organisation’. Each of
the companies in this research project have
corporate communication departments
that are represented at the highest level.
These departments, however, differ from
one another in terms of the
communication disciplines for which they
are responsible.
Tasks of corporate communication
departments in monolithic companies
Within five of the monolithic or semi-
monolithic companies, the corporate
communication department is responsible
# Henry Stewart Publications 1363–254X (2003)
 The relationship between corporate identity structures and communication structures
for both public relations and marketing
communication. Furthermore, they all
have specialised sub-departments, focusing
on advertising, public affairs, public
relations, internal communications etc.
Several interviewees said that it was an
‘absolute necessity to be responsible for all
communication disciplines’, and that ‘all
official communications are to be seen by
them in order to control the profiling of
the organisation’. They expressed the view
that ‘Given our monolithic identity
structure, I feel responsible for all forms of
communication. In the interests of our
image, corporate communications is
Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 16:57 14 March 2017 (PT)
responsible for any and all
communications’. One corporate
communication (CC) officer stated that ‘I
am responsible for all company
communications, both internal and
external. Thus I am also responsible for the
communications of the business units’. So,
it is the central communication department
at the corporate centre that bears ultimate
responsibility for development and
coordination of all formal
communications. Moreover, most central
communication departments do have
executive tasks, especially for public
relations and corporate branding. This
influences the size of the department. The
central departments of monolithic
companies are relatively large, compared
to the departments of branded companies.
Tasks of corporate communication
departments in branded companies
Seven out of eight branded companies
appeared to have central communication
departments with responsibility for public
relations but not for marketing
communication. As one CC officer said ‘It
is impossible to centralise marketing
communication. That must be positioned
at brand level. Nor do we have a global
corporate brand, other than for financial
parties. All other communication is
decentralised’. Another interviewee
# Henry Stewart Publications 1363–254X (2003) Vol. 7, 3 197–208
explained that ‘Marketing communication
is completely separated from the corporate
brand. That is part of our history as a
purely branded company. Marketing
communication is the responsibility of the
local marketing departments’.
Consequently, these branded companies
have relatively small central communication
departments. In one case, this department
consisted of just one person. He told the
authors ‘I decide on what issues should be
managed at the corporate level. That is only
the case for long-term strategic decisions
and for decisions that are liable to involve
considerable stock fluctuations’. On first
sight it seems logical that marketing
communication is decentralised in branded
companies. Research76 shows, however,
that also for branded companies the
‘company behind the brand’ is important.
This would imply that complete separation
is questionable. Supposedly, the ‘company
behind the brand’ gets hardly any attention
in marketing communications of branded
companies.
Tasks of corporate communication
departments in endorsed companies
Also interviewed were communication
directors of companies with endorsed
identity structures. Two out of the three
researched companies with an endorsed
identity structure have central
communication departments that are
responsible for both public relations and
marketing communications. In the
remaining company, marketing
communications is the responsibility of the
marketing department. The interviewee
pointed out that ‘The product managers
are responsible for marketing
communication. I have no responsibility
for that, but now and then I advise them’.
Endorsed companies have characteristics of
monolithic as well as of branded
companies. The authors suppose that the
more visible the company behind the
brand, the more important the role of the
Journal of Communication Management 203
 Körver and van Ruler

Table 2: Corporate identity structures and communication structures

Number of companies examined Number of companies examined

that centralised the responsibility
of both public relations
and marketing communications
in a single, central
communication department
that did not centralise the
responsibility of both public
relations and marketing
communications in a single,
central department

Companies with monolithic

identity structures 5 2 7

Companies with branded

identity structures 1 7 8

Companies with endorsed

identity structures 2 1 3
Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 16:57 14 March 2017 (PT)

corporate communication department will within different sections or sub-

be. As will be discussed in the next section,
it also has its influence on the
communication rules.
In summary, it can be assumed that the
corporate identity structure is closely
related with the degree to which the
communication disciplines are centralised.
Marketing communications appears to be
the major area of difference between
companies with monolithic identity
structures and those with branded identity
structures (see Table 2).
Level of coordination
This section addresses the second research
question ‘Does corporate identity structure
influence the level of coordination by the
use of a coordinating body and/or the use
of common starting points?’.
Use of a coordinating body
As stated above, the premise is that the
greater the differentiation of responsibilities
for communication tasks, the greater the
need for coordination. Coordination can
be carried out by a coordinating body and/
or through the use of common starting
points.
While the central communication
departments of monolithic companies seem
to coordinate both public relations and
marketing communications, they do so
departments. These sections attach great
value to using all kinds of internal
consultation machinery to support,
complement and motivate each other and
to synchronise. ‘We have weekly meetings
both of the management team itself and of
the various other teams. Once a month we
have a plenary meeting’. Several
companies also organise regular meetings
of all central and decentralised
communication professionals. One
interviewee explained that ‘These
communications conferences are held to
exchange information about what is going
on. But they are also intended to help
people develop a common view on issues’.
In the branded companies that were
examined, however, marketing
communication seems to be completely
isolated from public relations. Hardly any
internal consultation machinery exists for
interactions between public relations and
marketing communication professionals.
The authors’ premise would therefore
seem to be unsupported by empirical
evidence. Reports suggest, however, that
the current situation leads to frustrations,
because ‘chances are overlooked’, as some
of the respondents said. One interviewee
pointed out that ‘The marketing
department is obviously not inclined to
keep the public relations department

204 Journal of Communication Management Vol. 7, 3 197–208 # Henry Stewart Publications 1363–254X (2003)
 The relationship between corporate identity structures and communication structures

Table 3: Corporate identity structures and coordination of communication activities

Number of companies that Number of companies that

use common starting points do not use common starting
for communication activities points for communication activities

Companies with monolithic

identity structures 4 3 7

Companies with branded

identity structures 1 7 8

Companies with endorsed

identity structures 1* 2 3

* This company has an endorsed identity structure and a monolithic identity structure

properly informed, thereby hampering the that only five of the 16 companies whose
latter’s ability to take care of publicity. staff were interviewed have developed
Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 16:57 14 March 2017 (PT)

This is not a case of obstinacy on their communication-oriented common starting

part, but a total lack of interest in forms of
communications other than marketing
communications’. One interviewee said
that this is because: ‘They speak another
language’.
These findings suggest that integrative
communication is less well developed
inside companies with branded identity
structures than in those with monolithic
identity structures.
It could be presumed, that common
starting points are used to achieve
integration of communication. But as will
be pointed out, this is not the case.
Use of common starting points
Common starting points are defined as
guidelines for all forms of internal and
external communication activities. As
Adema et al.77 showed, the development
of common starting points could be an
effective way to integrate all of an
organisation’s communicative utterances. It
is presumed that the more decentralised
the communication responsibilities are, the
more instruments or consultative
mechanisms are needed to avoid
fragmented communication. The authors
assumed that these would be specified in
great detail in monolithic companies but
only in general terms within branded
companies. It was, however, surprising
points. Remarkably, four of these
companies have monolithic identity
structures or a mixed form of monolithic
as well as endorsed identity structures (see
Table 3). Some of the other companies do
have general corporate values described,
but these are not specially oriented
towards communication and can therefore
not be seen as common starting points for
communications.
It may be concluded that monolithic
companies can be assumed to hold
structural meetings in order to be able to
coordinate both their sub-departments and
their central and decentralised
communication departments. In branded
companies, however, public relations and
marketing communication seem to act in
isolation. It would seem that the use of
common starting points is anything but
common.
CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION
The interviews support the hypothesis that
there is a relationship between corporate
identity structures and the structure of the
organisation’s external communication
disciplines. Further research is needed in
order to expand these findings. The authors
believe, however, that these findings do
give an interesting insight of current
practice and new research questions.

# Henry Stewart Publications 1363–254X (2003) Vol. 7, 3 197–208 Journal of Communication Management 205
 Körver and van Ruler
The findings suggest that monolithic
companies generally have full service and
centrally positioned communication
departments of a reasonable size and job
differentiation. These are responsible for all
aspects of public relations, including
executive tasks, as well as for the
development and planning of marketing
communication activities, eg for the brand
as well as for the company behind the
brand. In contrast, most branded
organisations have much smaller centrally
positioned communication departments,
which are responsible only for public
relations. The marketing communication
Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 16:57 14 March 2017 (PT)
departments have hardly any contact with
the ‘company behind the brand’ aspects of
the organisation. In endorsed companies,
the role of the central communication
department depends on the visibility of the
company behind the brand.
A second finding is that companies with a
monolithic identity structure coordinate
their public relations and marketing
communication activities by means of
internal consultation machinery. In
branded companies, on the other hand,
public relations and marketing
communication seem to be isolated from
each other. Their marketing
communication departments have hardly
any contact with the central
communication departments, and,
consequently, with the ‘company behind
the brand’.
The third finding is that
communication-oriented, common starting
points are not commonly used. Those
companies that do use them tend to have a
monolithic identity structure. Further
research is required in order to test these
propositions properly.
The first item discussed here is the
concept of corporate communication. The
authors’ research results indicate that there
is a significant relationship between
corporate identity structures and the
centralisation of the communication
206 Journal of Communication Management Vol. 7, 3 197–208
activities. Their research shows that
marketing communication is included in
the case of companies with a monolithic
identity structure. In the case of companies
with a branded identity structure,
however, only public relations is
centralised and marketing communication
is decentralised. Clearly, none of the
concepts referred to is able to define the
situation as it exists in practice.
Monolithic companies seem to use the
concept of corporate communication
defined by van Riel,78 while branded
companies seem to use the concept defined
by Grunig.79 The authors’ conclusion
therefore, is that both concepts are one-
sided. In order to develop a more suitable
definition, both concepts should be
combined. In view of this, they would like
to propose the following parameters for
the use of the concept of corporate
communication in the light of the practice
of central corporate communication
departments. Corporate communication is
an umbrella term for coordination of
communication disciplines that an
organisation intentionally deploys in order
to create a favourable internal and external
image. Whether or not marketing
communication is included depends on the
corporate identity structure that has been
adopted.
This, however, leaves the problem of
coordination undiscussed. It is obvious that
the use of common starting points is not
an empirical fact, at least not in the
researched companies. Moreover, literature
suggests a direct relation between the level
of centrality and the level of coordination:
the more decentralisation of
communication activities, the more
coordinating mechanisms are needed. The
findings suggest a different relation
between these two variables: the more
decentralisation of communication
activities, the fewer coordinating
mechanisms are established. Only the
monolithic companies in this research
# Henry Stewart Publications 1363–254X (2003)
 The relationship between corporate identity structures and communication structures
established internal consultancy
mechanisms. And only a very few
companies actively use communication-
oriented common starting points. The
authors had no chance to consider their
idea that branded companies need more
loosely formulated common starting points
than monolithic companies. Remarkably,
it was concluded that monolithic
companies not always make use of
common starting points, and branded
companies even less. The authors concur
with van Riel’s view that this can lead to
fragmentation and, moreover, to a
contradictory and diffused image of the
company as a whole.80 It is assumed that,
Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 16:57 14 March 2017 (PT)
whether they have monolithic, branded, or
endorsed identity structures, all companies
strive for positive corporate images. In that
case, all companies need to be aware of the
necessity of coordination of the
communications on the brand and the
communications on the company behind
the brand as the primary means of
establishing, protecting and strengthening
a positive corporate image. It is an
intriguing question why brand
communication is so isolated from
communication about ‘the company
behind the brand’ as was encountered in
this research. It is obvious that not many
companies and certainly not branded
companies in this research feel any need to
give attention to the ‘company behind the
brand’. The authors can hardly believe that
this is a matter of cultural differences
between corporate communication and
marketing communication departments, as
one interviewee suggested. The authors’
next research will be aimed at this
question.
References
1. Van Riel, C. B. M. (1995) ‘Principles of corporate
communication’, Prentice Hall, London.
2. Cornelissen, J. P., Lock, A. R. and Gardner, H. (2001)
‘The organisation of external communication
disciplines: an integrative framework of dimensions
# Henry Stewart Publications 1363–254X (2003) Vol. 7, 3 197–208 Journal of Communication Management
and determinants’, International Journal of Advertising,
Vol. 20, pp. 67–88.
3.. Gronstedt, A. (1996) ‘Geÿntegreerde communicatie
vereist geÿntegreerde organisatie’, in Tijdschrift voor
Strategische Bedrijfscommunicatie, No. 30, pp. 40–54.
4. Grunig, J. E. and Grunig, L. A. (1998) ‘The
relationship between public relations and marketing in
excellent organizations: Evidence from the IABC
study’, Journal of Marketing Communications, Vol. 4,
No. 3, pp. 141–162.
5. Van Ruler, B. (2000) ‘Communication management
in the Netherlands’, Public Relations Review, Vol. 26,
No. 4, pp. 403–423.
6. Adema, R. L. A., van Riel, C. B. M. and Wieringa,
B. (1993) ‘Kritische succesfactoren bij het management
van corporate communication’, Eburon, Delft.
7. Argenti, A. (1998) ‘Corporate communication’, Irwin/
McGraw-Hill.
8. Dozier, D. M. and Grunig, L. A. (1992) ‘The
organization of the Public Relations Function’ in
Grunig, J. E. (ed.) ‘Excellence in public relations and
communication management’, Lawrence Erlbaum,
Hillsdale, NJ.
9. Dozier, D. M., Grunig, L. A. and Grunig, J. E. (1995)
‘Manager’s guide to excellence in public relations and
communication management’, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates. New Jersey.
10. Grunig, J. E. (ed.) (1992) ‘Excellence in public relations
and communication management’, Lawrence Erlbaum,
Hillsdale, NJ.
11. Grunig and Grunig (1998) op. cit.
12. Grunig (1992) op. cit.
13. Cornelissen et al. (2001) op. cit.
14. Ibid., p. 78.
15. Denzin, N. K. (1989) ‘The research act: A theoretical
introduction to sociological methods’, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs.
16. Patton, M. Q. (1987) ‘How to use qualitative methods
in evaluation’, Sage Publications, Newbury Park,
p. 109.
17. Van Ruler, B. and Lange, R. de (2000) ‘Monitor
communicatiemanagement en — advies 1999: de stand
van zaken in de Nederlandse beroepspraktijk’,
Tijdschrift voor Communicatiewetenschap, Vol. 28, No. 2,
pp. 103–124.
18. Baarda, D. B. and Goede, M. P. M. de, and Teunissen,
J. (1998) ‘Kwalitatief onderzoek. Praktische
handleiding voor het opzetten en uitvoeren van
kwalitatief onderzoek’, Educatieve Partners Nederland,
Houten.
19. Antonoff, R. (1985) ‘CI-Report 85: Identitt und
Image excellenter Unternehmen, Verbände, Städte:
Analyse-Projekte’, Trench, Frankfurt.
20. Birkigt, K. and Stadler, M. M. (1986) ‘Corporate
identity, Grundlagen, Funktionen. Fallspielen’, Verlag
Moderne Industrie, Landberg am Lech.
21. Lux, P. G. C. (1986) ‘Zur Durchführung von
Corporate Identity Programmen’, in Birkigt, K. and
Stadler, M. (1986) ‘Corporate identity, Grundlagen,
Funktionen, Fallspielen’, Verlag Moderne Industrie,
Landsberg am Lech, pp. 515–537.
22. Van Riel, C. B. M. (1997) ‘Identiteit en Imago.
207
 Körver and van Ruler

Grondslagen van corporate communication’, 48. Van Riel (1995) op. cit.
Academic Service, Schoonhoven. 49. Kotler, P. (1997) ‘Marketing management. Analysis,
23. Tanneberger, A. (1987) ‘Corporate Identity. Studie zur planning, implementation, and control’, Prentice Hall,
theoretischen Fundierung und Präzisierung der Englewood Cliffs.
Begriffe Unternehmenspersönlichkeit und 50. Van Riel (1995) op. cit.
Unternehmensidentität’, Dissertation, Universität 51. Ibid., p. 26.
Freiburg, Switzerland. 52. Grunig (1992) op. cit.
24. Van Riel (1995) op. cit., p. 36. 53. Will et al. (1999) op. cit.
25. Birkigt and Stadler (1986) op. cit. 54. Van Ruler and de Lange (2000) op. cit.
26. Van Riel (1995) op. cit., p. 39. 55. Argenti (1998) op. cit.
27. Birkigt and Stadler (1986) op. cit. 56. Van Riel (1995a) op. cit.
28. Van Riel (1995) op. cit. 57. Tixier (1999) op. cit.
29. Kammerer, J. (1988) ‘Beitrag der Product zur 58. Ibid., p. 365.
Corporate Identity’, GBI-Verlag, München. 59. Argenti (1998) op. cit.
30. Olins, W. (1989) ‘Corporate identity: Making business 60. Caywood, C. L. (1997) ‘Twenty-first century public
strategy visible through design’, Thames & Hudson, relations: The strategic stages of integrated
London. communications’ in Caywood, C. L. (ed.) ‘The
31. Van Riel (1997) op cit. handbook of strategic public relations & integrated
32. Olins (1989) op. cit. communications’, McGraw-Hill, New York.
33. Cornelissen et al. (2001) op. cit. 61. Dolphin (1999) op. cit.
Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 16:57 14 March 2017 (PT)

34. Dolphin, R. R. (1999) ‘The fundamentals of corporate
communications’, Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford.
35. Grunig and Grunig (1998) op. cit.
36. Van Riel (1997) op. cit.
37. Floor, K. and van Raaij, F. (1993) ‘Marketing-
communicatiestrategie’, Educatieve Partners
Nederland, Houten.
38. Fill, C. (1995) ‘Marketing communications.
Frameworks, theories and applications’, Prentice Hall,
London.
39. Will, M., Probst, M. and Schmidt, T. (1999) ‘Who’s
managing corporate reputation? A survey of leading
communication European companies’, Corporate
Reputation Review, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 301–306.
40. Argenti (1998) op. cit.
41. Batra, R., Myers, J. G. and Aaker, D. A. (1996)
‘Advertising management’, Prentice Hall, Inc., New
Jersey.
42. Floor and Van Raaij (1993) op. cit.
43. Tixier, M. (1999) ‘Corporate communications:
Conception and structure in some European,
American and Asian countries’, Journal of
Communication Management, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 363–
379.
44. Floor and van Raaij (1993) op. cit.
45. Van Riel (1997) op. cit.
46. Dozier and Grunig (1992) op. cit.
47. White, J. and Mazur, L. (1995) ‘Strategic
communication management. Making public relations
work’, Addison-Wesley, Wokingham.
62. Tixier (1999) op. cit.
63. White and Mazur (1995) op. cit.
64. Argenti (1998) op. cit.
65. White and Mazur (1995) op. cit., p. 74.
66. Cornelissen et al. (2001) op. cit.
67. Mintzberg, H. (1983) ‘Structure in fives: Designing
effective organizations’, Prentice Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ, p. 2.
68. Robbins, S. P. (1990) ‘Organizational behavior:
Concepts, controversies, and applications’, Prentice-
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
69. Ibid.
70. Johnson, G. and Scholes, K. (1999) ‘Exploring
corporate strategy’, Prentice Hall Europe, Harlow, pp.
423.
71. Van Riel, C. B. M. and Nedela, J. (1989) ‘Profiles in
corporate communication in financial institutions’,
Eburon, Delft.
72. Van Riel (1997) op. cit.
73. Ibid.
74. Adema et al. (1993) op. cit.
75. Birkigt and Stadler (1986) op. cit.
76. Kitchen, P. J. and Schultz, D. E. (2001) ‘Raising the
corporate umbrella’, Palgrave, New York, p. 181. See
also Harris, T. L. (1998) ‘Value-added public relations’,
Wiley & Sons, New York.
77. Adema et al. (1993) op. cit.
78. Van Riel (1995) op. cit.
79. Grunig (1992) op. cit.
80. Van Riel (1995) op. cit.

208 Journal of Communication Management Vol. 7, 3 197–208 # Henry Stewart Publications 1363–254X (2003)
 This article has been cited by:

1. Danny Moss, Fraser Likely, Krishnamurthy Sriramesh, Maria Aparecida Ferrari. 2017. Structure of the public relations/
communication department: Key findings from a global study. Public Relations Review 43:1, 80-90. [CrossRef]
2. Andreas Andrikopoulos, Aristeidis Samitas, Michalis Bekiaris. 2014. Corporate social responsibility reporting in financial
institutions: Evidence from Euronext. Research in International Business and Finance 32, 27-35. [CrossRef]
3. Paola Castellani Department of Business Administration, University of Verona, Verona, Italy Chiara Rossato Department of
Business Administration, University of Verona, Verona, Italy . 2014. On the communication value of the company museum
and archives. Journal of Communication Management 18:3, 240-253. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. Andrea Pérez, Ignacio Rodríguez del Bosque. 2014. Organizational and Corporate Identity Revisited: Toward a Comprehensive
Understanding of Identity in Business. Corporate Reputation Review 17:1, 3-27. [CrossRef]
5. Rafael Bravo, Leslie de Chernatony, Jorge Matute, José M Pina. 2013. Projecting banks’ identities through corporate websites:
A comparative analysis of Spain and the United Kingdom. Journal of Brand Management 20:7, 533-557. [CrossRef]
6. Lida Holtzhausen. 2013. Managing corporate identities of non-profit organisations in the social welfare sector. Jàmbá: Journal
of Disaster Risk Studies 5:2. . [CrossRef]
7. Dolores Gallardo-Vázquez, María Isabel Sánchez-Hernández, María Beatriz Corchuelo-Martinez-Azua. 2013. Validación de un
Downloaded by Universitas Gadjah Mada At 16:57 14 March 2017 (PT)

instrumento de medida para la relación entre la orientación a la responsabilidad social corporativa y otras variables estratégicas
de la empresa. Revista de Contabilidad 16:1, 11-23. [CrossRef]
8. Lida Holtzhausen, Lynnette Fourie. 2011. Employees' perceptions of institutional values and employer-employee relationships
at the North-West University. Journal of Public Affairs 11:4, 243-254. [CrossRef]
9. Olutayo Otubanjo, Olusanmi C Amujo, Nelarine Cornelius. 2010. The Informal Corporate Identity Communication Process.
Corporate Reputation Review 13:3, 157-171. [CrossRef]
10. Hamid Nach, Albert Lejeune. 2010. Coping with information technology challenges to identity: A theoretical framework.
Computers in Human Behavior 26:4, 618-629. [CrossRef]
11. Michael GoodmanLida HoltzhausenSchool of Communication Studies, North‐West University, Potchefstroom, South
Africa Lynnette FourieSchool of Communication Studies, North‐West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa. 2009.
Employees' perceptions of company values and objectives and employer‐employee relationships. Corporate Communications:
An International Journal 14:3, 333-344. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
12. Michael B. GoodmanLida HoltzhausenSchool of Communication Studies, North‐West University, Potchefstroom, South
Africa Lynnette FourieSchool of Communication Studies, North‐West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa. 2008.
Communicating to a diverse workforce. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 13:1, 80-94. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
13. Michael Bendixen, Russell Abratt. 2007. Corporate Identity, Ethics and Reputation in Supplier–Buyer Relationships. Journal
of Business Ethics 76:1, 69-82. [CrossRef]
14. Wybe T. Popma, Eric Waarts, Berend Wierenga. 2006. New product announcements as market signals: A content analysis in
the DRAM chip industry. Industrial Marketing Management 35:2, 225-235. [CrossRef]
15. Betteke van Ruler, Dejan Vercic, Gerhard Bütschi, Bertil Flodin. 2004. A First Look for Parameters of Public Relations in
Europe. Journal of Public Relations Research 16:1, 1-34. [CrossRef]