180285-**** December 13th 2010

Marc Bennedsen

Teacher: Stephen Bruyant-Langer

Cand. Merc. Marketing Communication Management

Stakeholder Communication and Corporate Identity

- A study of the Medical Devices department within the Danish Medicines Agency

STU: 33.869

Page 0 of 19
180285-**** December 13th 2010

Contents
Introduction......................................................................................................................................................2
Methodology....................................................................................................................................................2
Delimitation..................................................................................................................................................2
Data..............................................................................................................................................................2
Theory..............................................................................................................................................................2
Data.................................................................................................................................................................. 2
Mission.........................................................................................................................................................2
Vision............................................................................................................................................................2
Values...........................................................................................................................................................2
Analysis.............................................................................................................................................................2
Conclusion........................................................................................................................................................2
Reference list....................................................................................................................................................2

Page 1 of 19
180285-**** December 13th 2010

Introduction
As Joep Cornelissen (2008) outlines in his book “Corporate Communication – A guide to theory
and practice”, the need for companies to manage their relationship with its different stakeholders is
one of the most important purposes of corporate communication.

Every company has a relationship with its stakeholders, regardless of how it communicates with
them, the issue becomes the state of this relationship and how it affects the company and
stakeholder. Companies will generally have to keep a good relationship with their stakeholders in
order to function, however, what happens if one applies the same principle on a governmental
agency? The same rules do not necessarily apply. The Danish Medicines Agency (from here on
referred to as DKMA) is enforcing laws about medicine, medical devices etc., and thus, its
“costumers”; companies, citizens and others, are “forced” to have a relationship with the DKMA, as
they are obligated to follow regulations, but the relationship does not necessarily have to be a good
one. On the other hand, a governmental agency will have a hard time promoting good practice if
they themselves do not engage in it. Additionally, although stakeholders without legitimacy to back
them up cannot influence the DKMA, other stakeholders at the same level of power and legitimacy,
and others above the DKMA can.

Based upon the above, the research proposal is formulated as follows;

A stakeholder analysis of the Consumer Safety department of Medical Devices to determine

stakeholders and the communication strategies involved. Additionally a Corporate Identity analysis
to assess the alignment between vision and culture of The Danish Medicines Agency compared to
the department of Medical Devices.

Methodology
The method used to approach this issue is a mix of desk and field research combined with
stakeholder-theory. Since the company analyzed is not a private corporation but a governmental
institution, different parts of the models used may not prove relevant to the organization or the
analysis, and these will be pointed out accordingly in the theory section.

Delimitation

Page 2 of 19
180285-**** December 13th 2010

The second part of this project will revolve around Hatch and Schultz’s toolkit for assessing the
alignment between vision, culture and image, but the focus will only be on the vision-culture gap in
the analysis. This is mainly due to logistical reasons, as the limitation of the project length and the
time constraint did not make it possible to collect enough data, and the two remaining parts will
therefore not be able to provide much value in an analysis. To fully understand the relationship
between the organization, its employees and its image with stakeholders, these other gaps of the
model will require additional research.

Furthermore, it is important to note, that in the stakeholder analysis, all of the stakeholders have not
been included, as the list in its entirety could not be included due to length-constraints. The Medical
Devices department (from here on MDD) engages in a myriad of relationships with an equal
amount of stakeholders. Therefore, the ten stakeholders that were mentioned most in the interviews
have been selected for analysis.

Data
To collect data for analysis, a survey was conducted amongst the employees of the MDD regarding
their views of The DKMA and how they saw the organization in relation to their own department.
This was then compared to the information retrieved from the organization’s webpage. Additionally
I did a small email-based interview of each employee to analyze which stakeholders existed for the
department (see Appendix). All data has been made anonymous to keep confidentiality. The survey
and email-interview was sent out to 13 people in the department, wherefrom ten responded.

The survey and interviews was done in Danish and afterwards translated into English. This was
intentional as, although everyone was fluent in English, I wanted to make sure not to miss any
Danish nuances that could otherwise have been left out.

Theory
The project builds upon theory regarding stakeholder management, communication and corporate
identity, image and reputation.

Since the late 1980’s there has been an increasing focus for companies to develop and maintain a
relationship with more groups than just investors and costumers. This marks a move from the neo-
classical view of strategic management, with the standard input-output model, where we see the
investors, suppliers and employees giving input to the organization which in turn provide output for
costumers. This has turned into a more socio-economic model that contrasts with the input-output

Page 3 of 19
180285-**** December 13th 2010

model. Here the organization is in constant communication and dialogue with all who has legitimate
interest in the organization and no one group takes precedence over the other,. This means that the
input and output that were otherwise one-sided in the neo-classical model becomes a two-way
relationship for all involved. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has its outset in the stakeholder
management model and can be seen as the most common representation of a company’s attempt to
engage in communication with stakeholders outside of direct financial transaction (Cornelissen
2008).

Generally, a stakeholder can be defined as follows: “As stakeholder is any group or individual who
can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization’s purpose and objectives.” (Freeman
cited by Cornelissen 2008, p42). The stakes of one group may very well coincide with the stakes of
another, pressuring the organization to balance the interests of different stakeholders. To understand
the size and shape of interest relating to each group the organization needs to identify and address
each of these stakeholders. In order to identify these, Cornelissen (2008) lists five questions that
should be investigated:

1) Who are the organization’s stakeholders?

2) What are their stakes?
3) What opportunities and challenges are presented to the organization in relation to these
stakeholders?
4) What responsibilities (economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic) does the organization
have to all its stakeholders?
5) In what way can the organization best communicate with and respond to these stakeholders
and address these stakeholder challenges and opportunities?

These questions form the basis for the main model of stakeholder analysis in this project; the
Stakeholder Salience model.

Here, stakeholders are classified according to three attributes, namely power (how much power a
stakeholder has over the organization, legitimacy (of the claim put forth by the stakeholder) and
urgency (how time sensitive the claim of the stakeholder is) (Mitchell et al 1999). These attributes
spawn seven different types of stakeholders (see Fig. 1 in Appendix). The first three types of
stakeholders (referred to as latent) are located at the periphery of each attribute and are classified as
Dormant-, discretionary- and demanding stakeholders. They each only possess one attribute, and

Page 4 of 19
180285-**** December 13th 2010

are as such not overly important to the organization, the dormant stakeholders being the exception,
as these already has power and has the potential to acquire another attribute, which is why a
company should make sure to be aware of them.

The second group contains those claiming two out of three attributes; dominant-, dangerous- and
dependent stakeholders, which are classified as expectant stakeholders. The first have power and
legitimacy, the second have power and urgency and the last have legitimacy and urgency. The
second is labeled dangerous because it lacks legitimacy, and may use coercion as a replacement.

The seventh and last group; the definitive stakeholders, have all three attributes, which means the
organization, will definitely need to communicate with this group. This is also the group which
dominant stakeholders can switch into if they obtain urgency, marking out both groups as needing
ongoing communication (Mitchell et al 1999).

One thing potentially serving as critique for the Salience model is the urgency attribute. Firstly, the
definition of urgency will by all accounts be highly subjective, and will be defined differently in
each organization, or very likely even different within each department of the organization. Adding
to this is the moderator-effect that the urgency attribute has. It modifies power and legitimacy,
making for a potential misinterpretation of the results, misplacement of stakeholders, and incorrect-
or at least changed managerial decisions. This is because as the urgency of a powerful stakeholder
increases, the negative impact on the organization from inaction is accelerated, increasing the
chance of a manager’s compliance. Also, if the urgency of the claim is socially accepted, the
manager will be more likely to agree, prioritizing this claim above others (Neville & Menguc 2003).

The above model lays the foundation that enables us to define the communication strategies that
are, can and should be used in relation to the company’s stakeholders. This model (See Fig. 2 in
Appendix) shows three distinct strategies; informational-, persuasive- and dialogue strategy, each
involving different tactics and having a different outcome on stakeholders. The first creates
awareness through a mixture of one-way communications such as newsletters, reports and memos.
The second strategy is used to create understanding, and has a hint of the informational strategy in
it, comprising things like discussions, meetings, advertising and campaigns. This strategy is usually
used when a company is trying to induce a certain type of understanding about its decisions, its
products or its values (Cornelissen 2008). A dialogue strategy is, as the name suggests, meant to
create involvement and commitment, which is where the company engages stakeholders directly, in

Page 5 of 19
180285-**** December 13th 2010

exchanging ideas, critique, opinions, actively involving these and getting their input on
organizational decisions.

The above part of the theory covers the way companies can communicate with stakeholders and
who these stakeholders might be, and what challenges they present. This second part of the theory is
one way companies can handle the challenges that arises, namely through corporate identity, image
and reputation. The way companies can use this is through “projecting a particular positive image of
the organization, […] to build, maintain and protect strong reputations with their stakeholders. Such
strong reputations in turn lead to acceptance of the organization by different stakeholders and to the
organization being found legitimate.” (Cornelissen 2008, p64). Where as normal corporate
communication is a matter of exchanging information, corporate image is about symbolism,
constructing the image a corporation desires and projecting this to its stakeholders so that one can
add another layer beneath the communication strategy.

As Cornelissen (2008) states, investment in a corporate image has strategic advantages for a
company in the form of; Distinctiveness-, impact- and stakeholders advantage. Distinctiveness help
stakeholders to remember and locate the firm among the “clutter”, and the recognition and
familiarity can induce confidence in the company as its values stand out. Impact is relating to the
effect that the image can create in the form of stakeholder support, which can directly affect the
company’s performance, by for example having stakeholders buy one’s product or not going against
company-decisions. Stakeholder advantage is also the product of consistent image projection, and it
can help the firm avoid pitfalls that would otherwise occur if there was a difference between its
internal and external communication. It is important for firms to remember that many stakeholders
can possess more than one role. Cornelissen (2008) makes the example of the employee which is
often also a consumer in the marketplace which means they are exposed to both the internal and
external image, and if these two do not align it will threaten the integrity, as employees experience
conflicting images of the corporation.

The projected image is build upon corporate identity, which can also be seen as the personality of a
firm. It is important to note that corporate identity and organizational identity is not identical, as
corporate identity is the picture that the firm presents to its external stakeholders (image), whereas
the organizational identity is based on the firm’s culture. These two are therefore extremely closely
linked, and is mutually affective, which again makes it very important to align these. Finding or
developing this identity requires an in-depth analysis of the whole culture and being of the

Page 6 of 19
180285-**** December 13th 2010

company, its values, vision and mission. This is because, the culture will influence the identity of
the company, and likewise, the image projected, will have an impact on its culture. This means that
if a firm is not thorough enough in its analysis and conveys the wrong values in its external
message, it will affect its employees, as these will mirror themselves in whatever is sent out external
stakeholders (Cornelissen 2008). As these things should thus not be considered separately, it is
important to obtain an alignment between the culture of the company, the image that stakeholders
have of the organization and the vision that managers have.

To analyze this alignment, this project utilizes Hatch and Schultz’s toolkit (As cited by Cornelissen
2008) (See Fig. 3 in Appendix), which consists of different diagnostic questions based on the three
elements of vision, culture and image. The toolkit considers the following questions;

1) Does the organization practice the values it promotes?

2) Does the organization’s vision inspire all its subcultures?
3) Are the organization’s vision and culture sufficiently differentiated from those of its
competitors?

These should help uncover if there is potential for misalignment between the expressed vision of the
company, and what is perceived and experienced by its employees. The two first questions are
relevant to the project, but the third holds less value, as DKMA is a governmental institution, and
therefore as such cannot be seen to have competitors to take over their “market share”.

Data
The following has been collected from the DKMA webpage:

Mission

 We aim to ensure the availability of effective and safe healthcare products – medicinal
products, medical devices and new therapies
 We promote the proper use of such products.

Vision

 We will influence the international development of medicinal products and other healthcare
products

Page 7 of 19
180285-**** December 13th 2010

 We will focus on the health and welfare of both people and animals with due consideration
to affordable and economic treatments.

Values

We are Competent

We implement our decisions into definite, timely and effective action. We place emphasis on
allowing the authorization of innovative health care products, for the benefit of people and animals,
without unnecessary delay.

We are European

We participate actively in the European arena – in individual cases, in formulating general

requirements and in setting a common course for the better regulation of health care products.

We are Receptive

We base our work on our expert knowledge and scientific data. We attach great importance to
openness and honesty and in sharing knowledge and data with others.

We are Trustworthy

We are receptive to new knowledge and sound argument, but resist pressure from special interest
groups.

We are Attentive

We are continuously in touch with our partners and other associates. We see criticism as an
invitation to dialogue to improve our performance.

To see how the medical devices department and DKMA in general are aligned, a survey was
conducted amongst the employees of the Medical Devices department. When asked to assign
DKMA 3 values; “Professionalism” was the most chosen, closely followed by “trustworthy”, and
then “competent”, “responsible” and “ambitious” shared third place.

Page 8 of 19
180285-**** December 13th 2010

The values assigned for the MDD itself also saw “professionalism” as the highest ranked, followed
by “responsible”, and then “trustworthy” and “competent” sharing third place. Everyone (100%) in
the department knew that DKMA had stated mission, vision and values, mainly because many of
the employees had been a part of the process that saw them formed. Upon asked what these values
were, the numbers change however, as 90% were able to name two out of five values, where as
60% could name a third, 50% could name a fourth, and only 40% could name a fifth value.

70% of respondents meant that DKMA communicated enough about the overall strategy and goals
of the agency, but only 50% saw these as being relevant to their job. Additionally, when asked how
respondents would perceive critique of the department, 80% answered they perceived it as a lack of
knowledge from the stakeholder, compared to 40% perceiving it as an opportunity to communicate
about performance improvements in the department. The above 100%-total is due to some
respondents selecting both options, stressing case-variation as the determining factor.

When asked how the DKMA could improve their image with stakeholders, the action rated highest
was more clear and open communication. Second action should be more dialogue in a face-to-face
environment (workshops, info-stalls, education etc.). The third chosen action was a tie between the
DKMA showing more control, doing more informational campaigns, and a higher degree of
education for both employees and public.

Based upon the email interview conducted at the MDD, the 10 most mentioned groups of
stakeholders were found.

Citizens

This group usually has concrete questions, and has claims to the MDD regarding knowledge of the
law. They report incidents with medical devices or inquire about certain products. This group is
generally lacking in knowledge, but often maintains good communication.

Hospitals/healthcare personnel

Have obligations to report incidents, but are sometimes unaware of their responsibilities. They show
limited communication and additional information regarding cases can be hard to extract. There will
often be no response when DKMA reports back upon closing reports. This group also makes
general inquiries, and sometimes makes claims about investigating certain incidents. On the other
hand, this group often experience a long response time from the MDD when incidents are reported.

Page 9 of 19
180285-**** December 13th 2010

Manufacturers

These produce medical devices and consists of both Danish and foreign firms. There will normally
be good cooperation as many companies are familiar with the overall rules. The Danish
manufacturers will also apply for Free Sale Certificates, allowing them to sell their products in other
markets outside of Denmark. They will usually have questions relating to their business. They can
be seen to make claims regarding case specifics in relation to incident-reports. The MDD can take
legal action against manufacturers. Additionally, manufacturers must report incidents that come to
their knowledge. Larger corporations will often have better knowledge of their field than smaller
firms, but vary more in response time. Communication is usually competent and will not be urgent.

Branch organizations

This group can be seen as the “big brother” of manufacturers. When whole branches are affected
due to general implementation of laws, cooperation between branch organizations and the MDD
will occur to accelerate understanding. Branch organizations will also make inquiries from time to
time.

Distributors

This group consists of firms that distribute medical devices on behalf of the manufacturing
company. Communication from this group is often inconsistent, and it is fluctuant in its degree of
cooperation.

Lawyers & consultants

This group mostly makes inquiries about laws and regulations. Consultants will in many cases act
on behalf of the manufacturers.

Other agencies/governmental institutions

Generally there will be a high degree of cooperation between these and the MDD in regulative
overlaps, which also entails a mostly equal relationship, where demands back and forth regarding
investigations into particular cases occur. The claims to each department are often mutual and are
building upon the expectation of cooperation.

Danish Ministries/Parliament/Committees

Page 10 of 19
180285-**** December 13th 2010

This group consists of The Danish Parliament, Danish health Ministry and others. Different types of
committees and subcommittees are subject to different ministries, and all will make inquiries which
must be answered. Parliament has demands regarding information in different cases or issues, often
with shorter deadlines than normal.

Press

Press will often inquire into specific incidents or products, demanding urgency. This can mean
pressure on the MDD as the cases can be sensitive in nature. Legally, journalists hold no more
legitimacy on their claim than regular citizens, but due to their ability to “pressure” the department
they are often given extra attention to ward off bad press.

Analysis
What is important to note for all MDD stakeholders, is that they all posses legitimacy. The degree
or significance of this vary considerably, but all have the legitimate claim of receiving an answer, as
the MDD has an obligation to answer all (reasonable) inquiries. This will however not mean in all
cases that a group can be perceived as having legitimacy, as the legitimacy of the claim itself may
be questionable even though the demand for an answer can be seen as legitimate.

Citizens do not possess any power over the MDD, and normally their claims will not be urgent, thus
legitimacy becomes their only real attribute, marking them as discretionary stakeholders. The same
goes for lawyers, who will almost always have a legitimate claim as they should be versed in the
law, and know how to approach the system. Their claims do not usually possess urgency. They do
however indirect power in the form of lawsuits which they could possibly bring against the
department if some form of misconduct happened. The power however is not strong enough to
warrant a move into the dominant stakeholder group in my opinion, and they are therefore also
classified as discretionary stakeholders. The same goes for the hospital/healthcare personnel group,
as these do not have power nor urgency, but have legitimacy in prompting investigations. Likewise,
branch organizations lack power and rarely have urgent claims, but still retain legitimacy.

As stated earlier, consultants often act on behalf of manufacturers, and they will put their claims as
urgent, but lack the power or legitimacy to see it through. Thus they become demanding
stakeholders.

Page 11 of 19
180285-**** December 13th 2010

Manufacturers do not possess any power to influence the MDD, but they do have legitimate claims,
both in relation to getting response, but also in getting for example Free Sale Certificates issued if
they are complied with regulations about the documents they need to submit. This makes them a
dependent stakeholder. Distributors will also fit this type of stakeholders. Both groups will often
rely on others to get their claim through, for example by lawyers and consultants who know the
system better. Normally this type of stakeholder would rely on another group of stakeholders who
have power to get their claim through. This however, is one of the points where the fact that the
MDD is a governmental institution makes a difference, as the stakeholder group that manufacturers
and distributors rely on only has the advantage of knowledge and not power.

Other agencies and governmental institutions are another matter. These all have legitimacy, but also
power, although this relationship is as mentioned earlier, mutual, meaning that the power works
both ways. Additionally they can have urgent claims, which mark them out a definitive stakeholder,
as they possess all three attributes necessary. This is also true for the group consisting of the Danish
Parliament and its committees and subcommittees. This group must likely holds more power than
the before, with the same amount of legitimacy. Oftentimes however, this group will have a lot
more urgent claims, although not necessarily for very well founded reasons. One of these reasons
can be related to the Press, which is the last group of stakeholders. This group has the ability to put
pressure on the MDD as mentioned earlier, by writing about a certain case they can bring an
unwanted amount of attention the process, which is not desirable as this means that employees will
be pressured into spending a lot more time on a case than what would otherwise be necessary.
Putting a certain case in “the spotlight” can incite pressure from either of the two definitive
stakeholders giving the press a sort of pseudo power which must be taken into account. The Press
will also often pose the claim as urgent, but without any real legitimacy, marking journalists as
dangerous stakeholders. All dominant, dangerous and dependent stakeholders are termed expectant
stakeholders.

One group that has not been mentioned in the dataset, but is none the less present is of course the
employees, which has both power and legitimacy towards the MDD, making them a dominant
stakeholder. This group is mentioned here because it will almost always have an impact on a
company, whether it is governmental in form or not, and they are incremental to the second part of
the analysis which will have strings drawn back to this model also. For a visual representation of the
different stakeholder groups, see Fig. 4 in Appendix.

Page 12 of 19
180285-**** December 13th 2010

Having classified all stakeholder groups, attention can now be given towards the type of
communication strategy that will be prudent in each case. As mentioned earlier, these strategies will
have varying effects on the stakeholders, and it is thus important to match each group with the
appropriate strategy.

For the latent stakeholders an informational strategy should normally suffice, as it is not advisable
to spend too much time on this group. The sole purpose of this strategy is to create awareness,
which as stated in the theory section is usually done through newsletters, reports etc. The MDD,
along with the whole of the DKMA has the “basis information” on their webpage, which makes it
easy to be time efficient when dealing with this group, as many inquiries can be directed to the
webpage instead of taking the time of an employee. One exception to this group would be the
consultants. Although they would normally only warrant an informational strategy, there are several
things that speak in favor of a persuasive strategy instead, which would entail discussions,
meetings, and campaigns of various sorts. First of all, the consultants act on behalf of other
companies, and secondly they will represent a variety of different firms and will often have very
specific questions, where the answers might not be on the webpage. Therefore it could be advised to
try to move this group from awareness to understanding by performing informational or educational
campaigns. This action did not seem to be performed by the MDD.

This same persuasive strategy should also be used for manufacturers and distributors as part of the
expectant stakeholders, as these also constitute a large group, who will have the same type of
questions as the consultants, and should therefore be given an understanding of the inner workings,
to avoid confusion or even obstruction of the work routines. The Press can also potentially belong
under this strategy, as it can be advantageous to involve journalists to a certain degree in special
cases. The key is not only to spark understanding, but also interpersonal relationships, which can
work to the agency’s advantage when dealing with difficult cases. The MDD does not directly
employ a persuasive strategy for the press, as sensitive cases are passed on to the DKMA Press
Officer.

For employees and the two definite stakeholders, a dialogue strategy should be used, which
involves consultation and debate as the main tactics for involvement, and collective problem
solving for the commitment. This is widely practiced both in the MDD but also in the DKMA in
general, by having group discussions about new cases, themed meetings for all departments and

Page 13 of 19
180285-**** December 13th 2010

department days to name but a few. This also helps to streamline the involvement from different
departments.

The second part of the analysis try to answer the two questions stated in the theory section; to
discern if the organization practices the values it promotes and if the vision inspires its subcultures.
Comparing the survey to the values found at the DKMA webpage, the employees of the MDD had
two out of five values listed in the overall top five of chosen values for the department and DKMA
in general; competent and trustworthy. Strangely enough only 50% and 40% respectively was able
to name these two values as the values of the DKMA, instead; European and receptive was the most
cited. An argument can however be made that professionalism also covers competent, depending on
your particular view, thus making competent the most chosen value.

This means that in total, the employees of the MDD on a surface level only embody two out of five
values, despite the fact that many employees took part in the formulation of these values. However,
if one adds up the two most mentioned of DKMA’s values; receptive and European this number
jumps to four out of five, which is a good number of recollections as many business books states
that a company should try to limit its values to around three. The European and receptive values are
also indirectly applied in a push-format, as Denmark as a part of Europe is asked to participate in
many committees and hearings and so on, ensuring that the department does not actively need to
remember to be European. Likewise, the receptive value refers to being open and sharing
knowledge, which is partly done by the fact that firms, hospitals, citizens etc. contact the MDD to
ask questions, thus forcing them to be “open” with information.

The one large discrepancy where this culture is not “inspired”, is in the last value; being attentive.
The text states that “We see criticism as an invitation to dialogue to improve our performance.”
(DKMA.dk 2010), but the survey clearly shows, that 80% sees criticism of the department as being
rooted in a lack of knowledge on the part of the stakeholder. This could be interpreted as a lack of
the receptive-value, as this text states that “We attach great importance to openness and honesty and
in sharing knowledge and data with others.” (DKMA.dk 2010), and the lack of knowledge for the
stakeholder could be seen as the DKMA failing to be receptive and share enough information.
However, if one spends enough time on the company webpage, it becomes clear that there are
actually many actions being taken to align with the company vision of influencing the international
development of medicinal products, and focus on health and the affordable treatment (the actions
requiring too much space to be able to mention them here, but they can be found at the company

Page 14 of 19
180285-**** December 13th 2010

webpage, see reference list for link). These however, are not prominently displayed for stakeholders
to see, and is not advertised anywhere else than on the DKMA webpage. This could also be why
many stakeholders, according to MD employees, view the department as cumbersome and difficult
to deal with. As a direct result of this, the action that employees would like to see most
implemented by the DKMA in order to improve its image, is more open and clear communication
(see Appendix). In the same breath, more face-to-face dialogue and educational- and informational
campaigns are mentioned.

Conclusion
As seen in the analysis, the MDD has two definitive stakeholders within the 10 most common
analyzed. These two, along with employees (as a dominant stakeholder) are the only ones that
demand a dialogue strategy from the department. Other less powerful or less visible stakeholders
can be communicated with through a persuasive (press, consultants, manufacturers and distributors)
and informational (citizens, lawyers, hospitals/healthcare personnel and branch organizations)
strategy respectively, although a case could be made for moving the Press up to a dialogue strategy
to enhance the relationship and further positive publicity. Currently it seems that the DKMA is
employing the strategies for each group as it is advised in this project to a varying degree, the
exception being the Press, although due to project constraints it is unclear what course is taken
when a case is passed on to the Press Officer of DKMA. It does seem however, that the persuasive
strategy should see an increase in activity, as MDD employees cite lack of knowledge as the main
reason for criticism. As the employees also states, more clear and open communication and more
informational- and educational campaigns, which would fit nicely into a revamped persuasive
strategy.

Turning to corporate identity, we see a fairly high degree of embodiment, as four out of five values
are either openly recognized or practiced through the daily routines. This high degree of value
practice is both due to staff involvement in the creation process, but also through exposure to the
values through for example coffee cups with the values written on them. It should be noted
however, that except for the European value, the remaining are fairly generic, which makes them
more difficult to recall. The gap between vision and culture was only truly evident in the attentive
value (albeit also a bit in the receptive value), where the MDD does not view criticism as the values
states one should. However, many employees states nonetheless, as mentioned above, several things
they would like to see improved, which would go a long way towards aligning the MDD with the

Page 15 of 19
180285-**** December 13th 2010

overall scheme of DKMA, as would more visual performance-contracts, as this would make
strategies and goals for the DKMA more relevant to the MDD.

Page 16 of 19
180285-**** December 13th 2010

Reference list
Cornelissen, Joep, (2008), “Corporate Communication – A guide to theory and practice”, Sage
publications.

Neville, A. Benjamin & Menguc, Bulent, 2003, “Stakeholder Salience reloaded: operationalising
corporate social responsibility”, ANZMAC Conference Proceedings Adelaide.

Agle, B. R., R. K. Mitchell, et al. (1999). "Who matters to CEOs? An investigation of

stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance, and CEO values." Academy of
Management Journal 42(5): 507-525.

Hatch, M.J. and Schultz, M. (2001), “Are the strategic star aligned for your corporate brand?”,
Harvard business review, February: 128-135.

DKMA Webpage (2010), [URL: http://www.dkma.dk/1024/visUKLSArtikel.asp?artikelID=1450 ],

first accessed on October 20th.

“steps towards improved consumer safety”, DKMA Webpage (2010), [URL:

http://www.dkma.dk/1024/visUKLSArtikel.asp?artikelID=9716 ], first accessed on December 4th.

Page 17 of 19