Corporate branding: an exploration of the influence of CRE

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to understand how corporate real estate (CRE) can add value to corporate branding and how corporate branding strategies for CRE can be determined.Design/methodology/approachThe paper presents a theoretical background for corporate branding and real estate and links these two concepts through interviews with 19 CRE managers of service providers.FindingsAnalysis of the relationship between CRE and the corporate brand brings forward two links: CRE influences the perception of the corporate brand directly and indirectly (via employee behaviour). Corporate identity and its six characteristics (structure, strategy, culture, communication, behaviour and design) formed a useful tool to determine the proper branding strategy for an organization. Especially, “design” and “communication” define the way CRE should communicate the corporate brand. Two location issues are seen as the most important CRE aspects to support branding strategies.Research limitations/implicationsThe field research is explorative, so it only studies a small sample of four types of service providers: real estate brokers, architects, lawyers and multinationals.Practical implicationsUnderstanding the key factors of CRE that orchestrate the direct and the indirect influence on the corporate brand provides guidelines for CREM for designing CRE that supports a successful corporate brand.Originality/valueResearch done so far on corporate branding highlights the importance of CRE for corporate branding, but does not explicitly discuss the importance of (all) different CRE aspects.

The effectiveness of physical office environments for employee outcomes

“…Not all methods have been applied to all input categories in this sample of studies (Table IX and Figure 6). The studies with physical measurements focus on indoor climate (Feige et al , 2013), psychosocial aspects (Lee et al , 2015) and aesthetics (Appel-Meulenbroek et al , 2010). The field studies (with questionnaires, interviews and/or observations) tend to focus on individual space, office layout and services/facilities (Maarleveld et al , 2009).…”

“…Lee et al, 2015) and aesthetics (e.g. Appel-Meulenbroek et al, 2010). The field studies (with questionnaires, interviews and/or observations) tend to focus on individual space, office layout and services/facilities (e.g.…”

Corporate branding literature: A research paradigm review

“…Better corporate brand image has been found to result in those decisions that are often infl uenced by top management ( Griffi n, 2002, p. 232 ), and they possess a close interrelationship with ' Vision ' , ' Employee values ' and ' Organizational culture ' ( De Chernatony, 2002 ). The dominant themes that have been addressed in the literature are corporate branding strategy ( Leitch and Richardson, 2003 ;Inskip, 2004 ;Xie and Boggs, 2006 ;Hankinson, 2007 ;Muzellec and Lambkin, 2009 ;Appel-Meulenbroek et al , 2010 ), stakeholder perspective ( De Chernatony and Harris, 2000 ;Schultz and Kitchen, 2004 ;Hulberg, 2006 ;Fiedler and Kirchgeorg, 2007 ;Gregory, 2007 ;Roper and Davies, 2007 ;Aspara and Tikkanen, 2008a ), M & A perspective ( Daffey and Abratt, 2002 ;He and Balmer, 2006 ;Jaju et al , 2006 ;Balmer and Thomson, 2009 ), customer perspective ( Merrilees and Fry, 2002 ;Schoenfelder and Harris, 2004 ;Gylling and Lindberg-Repo, 2006 ;Sichtmann, 2007 ), internal marketing perspective ( Einwiller and Will, 2002 ;Aspara and Tikkanen, 2008b ), organizational culture perspective ( Kowalczyk and Pawlish, 2002 ;De Chernatony and Cottam, 2008 ), return of investment perspective ( Gregory, 2001 ) and corporate social responsibility per spective ( Palazzo and Basu, 2007 ).…”

Why is trait scepticism not consistently reflected in state scepticism? An exploratory study into the role of aesthetic engagement

“…Three different videos were prepared to depict the three levels of aesthetic environment. In determining the elements of the environment that would vary across the three videos, reference was made to literature in architecture and psychology (e.g., Barclay and York, 2001;Vilnai-Yavetz et al, 2005;Elsbach and Pratt, 2007;Appel-Meulenbroek et al, 2010;McElroy and Morrow, 2010). Care was taken to ensure that the characteristics of the environment that varied across the three videos did not convey different information as to the likelihood of the entity continuing as a going concern.…”