Corporate Communications: An International Journal

Corporate communication: the challenge of transparency

Lars Thøger Christensen
Article information:
To cite this document:
Lars Thøger Christensen, (2002),"Corporate communication: the challenge of transparency", Corporate Communications: An
International Journal, Vol. 7 Iss 3 pp. 162 - 168
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13563280210436772
Downloaded on: 12 June 2015, At: 09:26 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 34 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 5614 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
John M.T. Balmer, Edmund R. Gray, (1999),"Corporate identity and corporate communications: creating a competitive
advantage", Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 4 Iss 4 pp. 171-177 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
EUM0000000007299
Downloaded by New York University At 09:26 12 June 2015 (PT)

John M.T. Balmer, Stephen A. Greyser, (2006),"Corporate marketing: Integrating corporate identity, corporate branding,
corporate communications, corporate image and corporate reputation", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40 Iss 7/8 pp.
730-741 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090560610669964
Benita Steyn, (2004),"From strategy to corporate communication strategy: A conceptualisation", Journal of Communication
Management, Vol. 8 Iss 2 pp. 168-183 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13632540410807637

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:198285 []
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.


Corporate
communication:
the challenge of
transparency
Lars Thùger Christensen
The author
Lars Thùger Christensen is Professor at the Department
of Marketing, University of Southern Denmark, Odense,
Denmark.
Keywords
Downloaded by New York University At 09:26 12 June 2015 (PT)
Corporate communications, Information, Disclosure
Abstract
When organizations set out to manage their
communications in accordance with the corporate ideal,
they seem to take for granted that they are transparent,
not only to their surroundings but also to themselves.
The notion of corporate communications, in other words,
builds on the assumption that organizations are able to
have a general view of themselves as communicating
entities. But is this really the case? And, if not, is it
possible to articulate the challenge of corporate
transparency in alternative, strategic terms? Since
contemporary organizations increasingly relate to their
surroundings as if they are transparent, these and related
questions are highly relevant in both theoretical and
practical terms. Discusses the notion of transparency both
as a condition and as a strategy, and deconstructs
conventional assumptions associated with the use of the
term. Looking at corporate transparency as a staging
process that involves strategic disclosure,
institutionalisation and mimetic behaviour, asks
fundamental questions about organizational openness in
an age of transparency.
Electronic access
The research register for this journal is available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregisters
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is
available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/1356-3289.htm
Corporate Communications: An International Journal
Volume 7 . Number 3 . 2002 . pp. 162±168
# MCB UP Limited . ISSN 1356-3289
DOI 10.1108/13563280210436772
162
Introduction
What makes communication ``corporate''? In
other words, what difference does it make to
conceive of communication as a specifically
corporate endeavour? Rather than listing a
number of organizational functions or
subdisciplines to which the field of corporate
communication can claim ownership ± an
approach typically found in introductory
books (e.g. Dolphin, 1999; Goodman, 1994,
2000) ± we must locate the answer to these
questions in the ambitions of the field and in
its implied assumptions about the
communication process. In a number of
important respects, these ambitions and
assumptions clearly set corporate
communication aside from other
management-oriented communication
disciplines.
In contrast to the fields of marketing
communications and organizational
communication, traditionally concerned with
consumers and employees respectively, the
aim of corporate communication as a distinct
field of theory and practice is to bring together
all communications that involve an
organization as a corporate entity (Harrison,
1995). The ambition of corporate
communication, thus, is different not simply
because it claims to include a broader range of
communication activities or to address more
audiences across formal organizational
boundaries, but because its raison d'eÃtre is to
organize an organization's communication
activities as one coherent totality (Jackson,
1987; van Riel, 1995). Rather than managing
different identities vis-aÁ-vis different
audiences (see, e.g. Cheney, 1991) or letting
different departments handle their
communications locally, corporate
communicators hope to project one uniform
and unambiguous image of what the
organization is and stands for. Obviously, this
objective implies more than simply
encompassing multiple communication
activities within the organizational setting. To
qualify as ``corporate'', all communications
(symbols, messages and strategies), we are
told, must be conceived, coordinated, and
integrated as one whole organizational
``body'' (van Riel, 1995; Yeshin, 1998;
Goodman, 2000), acknowledging of course
that this ``corpus'' may sometimes comprise a
set of interrelated organizations (as is the case
 Corporate communication: the challenge of transparency
Lars Thùger Christensen
with some business networks and
conglomerates).
To what extent, however, can an
organization actually manage its
communication this way? While several
writers have addressed this problem in terms
of organizational barriers to integration (e.g.
Blythe, 2000; Gayeski and Woodward, 1996;
Smith, 1996), this paper asks more
fundamentally about the assumptions
associated with the very idea of corporate
communications. Specifically, the essay
probes this issue through a deconstruction of
the notion of organizational transparency. Are
organizations able to know themselves and
their communications sufficiently to
implement their ``corporate'' ambitions? In
the hope of managing communications in
accordance with the corporate ideal,
Downloaded by New York University At 09:26 12 June 2015 (PT)
corporate policy makers and communication
experts seem to take for granted that their
organizations are transparent, not only to
their surroundings but also to themselves. But
is this really the case? And, if not, is it possible
to articulate the challenge of transparency in
alternative, strategic terms? Since
contemporary organizations increasingly
relate to their surroundings as if they are
transparent, these and related questions are
important in both theoretical and practical
terms.
Transparency as a condition or strategy?
There is a certain sense in which the notion of
transparency reflects the day-to-day
experiences of contemporary organizations.
Today, organizations feel under pressure not
only to stand out in a cluttered
communication environment saturated with
competing messages but also, and more
significantly, to present and express
themselves in their surroundings in coherent
and legitimate ways (e.g. Argenti, 1998;
Christensen and Cheney, 2000; Fombrun
and Rindova, 2000; van Riel, 2000). The
source of this pressure is manifold. While
legal restrictions force organizations to
disclose information about their actions and
plans, including the publishing of annual
reports (van Riel, 2000), business practices
are increasingly scrutinized by media and
business analysts (e.g. Deephouse, 2000). In
the current business environment, internal
and external stakeholders not only expect to
163
Corporate Communications: An International Journal
Volume 7 . Number 3 . 2002 . 162±168
have unrestricted access to corporate
information but also demand that
organizations are held accountable for their
strategic choices. The investment policies of
pension funds, for instance, are regularly
scrutinized these days by investors and other
citizens. Exposed to the critical gaze of
pressure groups, media, business analysts and
other inquisitive stakeholders, it is not
surprising to find that organizations of today
feel more vulnerable and, in a sense,
transparent than ever before. With the advent
of new communication technologies, most
notably the Internet, this feeling is intensified
considerably not only because the digitisation
of communication facilitates information
availability but also because organizations,
partly driven by these technologies, are
expected to contribute to transparency
themselves by sharing relevant information
with their surroundings. Transparency, thus,
is an essential dimension of the environmental
diagnosis through which contemporary
organizations understand themselves and
their communication strategies.
Given the uncertainty associated with the
condition of transparency, it is easy to
understand why organizations increasingly
emphasize the ``corporate'' dimension of their
communications. The trend among
contemporary organizations to brand
themselves rather than their products (Ind,
1997) is one manifestation of this uncertainty.
Indeed, it may be argued that the managerial
challenge to understand and orchestrate the
``whole'' of the organization as
communication, so often emphasized in
popular writings, is a direct and necessary
product of this condition. This logic captures
but part of the story. In their endeavours to
adapt to their surroundings, organizations
themselves often ``plant'', as Weick (1979)
points out, the very conditions they set out to
discover. Thus we find that contemporary
organizations not only describe their
communication environment in terms of
transparency but also prescribe transparency
in communications as the proper managerial
response. When, for example, van Riel (2000,
p. 158) talks about the transparency of
today's organizations as ``a basic
requirement'', it is not entirely clear where
this condition originates. Is it a pre-existing
condition or is it a considered strategy? While
a clear distinction between cause and effect
has always been problematic in the social
 Corporate communication: the challenge of transparency
Lars Thùger Christensen
sciences, and is certainly so within the domain
of strategy and persuasion, this problem
compels us to be sensitive to logical
inconsistencies or unsubstantiated
assumptions associated with the notion of
transparency and its application in
contemporary organizations. While
transparency is typically presented as a
condition shaping corporate communications,
it is simultaneously an assumption necessary
for organizations to pursue and justify their
corporate ambitions. This assumption and its
implications will be discussed below.
The ideal of self-transparency
Although the condition of transparency
experienced by contemporary organizations
Downloaded by New York University At 09:26 12 June 2015 (PT)
does not necessarily imply that organizations
are transparent to themselves, the ambition
and strategy of coordinating and aligning an
organization's communication within one
corporate entity presupposes that the
organization is indeed self-transparent. This,
however, is hardly the case.
In his excellent book The Transparent
Society, the Italian philosopher Vattimo
(1992) discusses the advent of postmodernity,
a social condition he terms ``the society of
communication''. According to Vattimo, we
live today in a society of generalized
communication, a society of the mass media
in which virtually everything is expected to
become an immediate object of
communication. Whereas modernity was
guided by the utopian ideal of absolute
self-transparency ± reflected in positive
science and facilitated by open and
``unrestricted discussion'' ± it is the ubiquity
of the mass media of postmodernity that
finally makes this ideal technically possible.
By offering information in ``real time'' about
practically everything that happens on the
globe, the mass media, according to Vattimo
(1992, p. 6), could be seen as ``a concrete
realization of Hegel's Absolute Spirit: the
perfect self-consciousness of the whole of
humanity, the coincidence between what
happens, history and human knowledge''.
Such potential of the mass media, however,
has not materialized. While late modern
philosophy had already eroded the notion of a
supreme or comprehensive viewpoint capable
of unifying all others, the mass media has ± in
sharp contrast to the gloomy prophecies of
164
Corporate Communications: An International Journal
Volume 7 . Number 3 . 2002 . 162±168
philosophers like Adorno and Horkheimer
(and novelists like George Orwell) ±
facilitated what Vattimo (1992, p. 5) calls
``a general explosion and proliferation of
Weltanschauungen, of world views''. With the
increase in information about possible forms
of reality, the notion of one single perspective
or reality becomes impossible to sustain.
Although individuals and collectivities like
organizations frequently manifest what
Vattimo (1992, p. 11) calls ``a deep-seated
nostalgia for the reassuring, yet menacing,
closure of horizons'', disorientation and a
general pluralism of voices and dialects are
the order of the day. Within this context,
Vattimo claims, the realization of the ideal of
self-transparency is in fact beyond reach.
Still, we find numerous attempts in
contemporary society to impose projects of
self-transparency. Popular management
programmes, like for example total quality
management and business process re-
engineering, are prominent examples. Across
their differences, these programmes try to
create organizational efficiency through
meticulous self-description. In line with these
principles, the ultimate ambition of corporate
communication is to map out in detail all
communicative dimensions relevant to the
projection of a coherent and legitimate image
in the organization's surroundings. Corporate
design manuals exemplify one dimension of
this ambition. Although quite different in
vocabulary, the ``corporate culture''
movement of the 1980s and beyond was
founded on a similar idea. Whereas the
manager of corporate communication seeks to
conceptualise the organization as a totality of
interconnected messages, the corporate
culture endeavour is focused on myths, rituals
and stories articulated and managed in order
to integrate the organization's members
around one shared reality. Both endeavours
(corporate communication and corporate
culture) can be described as projects of self-
transparency concerned with wholeness, unity
and cohesion.
Interestingly, however, such cohesion may
be easier to attain if the ``shared'' dimensions
of the organization are not articulated too
explicitly. As Weick (1995) points out,
ambiguity can be ironically productive
because it allows the coexistence of several
perspectives within one organizational unity
(see Eisenberg's (1984) account of ``strategic
ambiguity''). Following Vattimo, we should at
 Corporate communication: the challenge of transparency
Lars Thùger Christensen
least be sensitive to the possibility that the
intensification in communication associated
with projects of transparency rather than
producing self-transparency leads to the
exposure of pluralism, to a multiplicity of
voices (see Bakhtin's (1981) notion of
``heteroglossia'').
While careful self-examinations and self-
evaluations can be extremely valuable and
generate important insight about internal
processes, it would be erroneous to assume
that such exercises make organizations
transparent to themselves as one whole entity.
``Wholeness'' or ``unity'' is itself a definition ±
a point of reference in our struggle to grasp
and hold on to that thing we call ``identity''.
In the context of an organization, such a
definition manifests itself as a privileged
account or representation of the
Downloaded by New York University At 09:26 12 June 2015 (PT)
organizational self, typically embodied by a
leader or a team of managers. Management
therefore is only a ``part'' that hopes to
observe, capture and represent the whole.
Since our representation of the world never
includes our point of observation ±
epistemologically this is not possible (see, e.g.
Maturana and Varela, 1980) ± something
always escapes the account or self-description
referred to as the ``whole''. The notion of a
whole or unity, thus, is simply one local
representation among other possible local
representations. Other ``local'' representations
would be, for example, those of the assembly
line workers, the marketing people or the
engineers. Instead of comprising all the parts
of the organization, the ``whole'' is a
simplified abstraction, which is added to the
organization as yet another, albeit often quite
privileged, part. Thus, while organizations
may be increasingly aware that their
communications are part of a larger and more
complex whole, this awareness is a far cry
from the self-transparency envisioned by the
notion of corporate communication.
Transparency vis-aÁ-vis external
audiences
Although organizations operate with
incomplete images of themselves as a
corporate ``body'', we need to allow for the
possibility that they increasingly appear
transparent if not to themselves then at least
to external audiences. Indeed, as we have seen
above, the growing exposure to critical voices
165
Corporate Communications: An International Journal
Volume 7 . Number 3 . 2002 . 162±168
and the sheer availability of corporate
information make room for the claim that
organizations can no longer hide from their
surroundings. Organizations of all stripes
must be ready to yield as well as to put forth
all sorts of information about their operations,
including the life of their products from
``cradle to grave''. Still, the assumption that
all this posturing, information exchange, and
responsiveness constitute real transparency
needs to be investigated in more detail.
What, more specifically, does the notion of
organizational transparency suggest with
respect to corporate communication and its
reception among external audiences? First,
there seems to be an implicit assumption in
the literature that external audiences in
general want or even demand organizational
transparency. And, since this transparency is
established through the means of
communication, external audiences demand
more and more communication (e.g.
Fombrun and Rindova, 2000; van Riel,
2000). Second, communication is typically
seen as equivalent with information. External
audiences, in other words, desire more
information. Accordingly, the notion of
organizational transparency takes for granted
that external audiences not only have
unlimited access to information but also
unlimited information processing capacity.
Third, it is assumed that more information
helps such audiences develop more
sophisticated images of the organization in
question. Information availability, it is
believed, breeds trust and credibility and
reduce alienation (e.g. Fombrun and
Rindova, 2000). These assumptions are
significant because they shape the strategies
that organizations pursue in order to cope
with the feeling of transparency. With their
emphasis on continuous and unrestricted
communication based on unlimited access to
information, these assumptions are important
also because they model our most noble
expectations with respect to democracy and a
free marketplace.
Interestingly, however, external audiences
may not care for such unrestricted
communication. As Christensen and Cheney
(2000) argue, most consumers are neither
interested nor involved in what organizations
have to say about themselves. Except for a few
professional audiences (e.g. pressure groups)
that clearly demand insight into
organizational procedures and practices, most
 Corporate communication: the challenge of transparency
Lars Thùger Christensen
people seem cynical or blase about
organizational attempts to create more
``transparency''. While the typical
organization of today is almost religious about
its identity, few consumers really care who the
organization behind the brand product is
(Davidson, 1998; Morgan, 1999). This is not
to suggest that identity programs and other
kinds of organizational self-presentations are
unimportant. Indeed, the pressure on
organizations to differentiate themselves in a
cluttered communication environment is
more pronounced than ever. To say, however,
that external audiences in general want more
communication from corporations is to
mistake uncertainty avoidance with interest.
Consumers want some minimum assurance
that the companies behind the products or
brands they are purchasing are ``behaving''
Downloaded by New York University At 09:26 12 June 2015 (PT)
properly. That is all. Except for a few highly
devoted brand loyalists, consumers do not
really want to be communicated to (Morgan,
1999).
To reduce communication to information
does not solve the problem. Clearly, many
organizations seem to believe that they
communicate with consumers and other
stakeholders simply because they provide data
to these audiences. Needless to say, this is not
the case. To equate communication with
information is to presume a conduit metaphor
of communication by which messages are
simply transferred from a sender to a receiver
in accordance with the intentions of the
former (Putnam et al., 1996). As reception
theory has taught us, receivers interpret
messages in a creative and rather self-
referential manner that can neither be
circumscribed nor fully understood by the
sender (Iser, 1974; see also Eco, 1979).
Transparency, thus, is not a property of the
information environment per se. Even if we
imagine for a moment that the external
audience had unlimited access to information
about organizations, their images of the
organizations in question would still be
limited by their ability to process information.
And here, Simon's notions of ``bounded
rationality'' and ``satisficing'' (as opposed to
optimizing) are still relevant. While these
notions can be seen as a celebration of
rationality, they simultaneously remind us
that our knowledge of the world is not only
limited by a lack of information but also by
our capacity to handle it (see Feldman and
March, 1981).
166
Corporate Communications: An International Journal
Volume 7 . Number 3 . 2002 . 162±168
Consequently, we cannot take for granted
that sheer availability of information about an
organization produces more sophisticated
images among its audiences. Transparency, it
seems, is in the eyes of the beholder. Although
information is a precondition for knowledge
and insight, the opposite is true as well: to
make sense of information as in-formation
(``a difference that makes a difference''
(Bateson, 1972)) we need knowledge and
insight. Put differently, we need frameworks
of knowledge within which to ``plug'' or test
new bits of information. And such knowledge
is not an a priori condition. As a consequence,
our increased access to information may
instead produce distrust and increase
alienation.
Rather than equating transparency with
information availability or assuming that
transparency is an objective condition to
which organizations need to adapt, we should
look at transparency as a social phenomenon
shaped by expectations and strategies among
central corporate actors. This point will be
elaborated below.
The staging of transparency: some
remarks for future research
If organizations are neither transparent to
themselves nor to their surroundings, what is
this transparency business all about? And, to
what extent is transparency relevant
practically to what organizations do? Clearly,
transparency has become a central value in
the current business landscape to the effect
that organizations increasingly talk about the
necessity of being transparent to their
stakeholders and to society in general (van
Riel, 2000). And it is not idle talk alone. To a
growing extent, organizations make important
information about their practices available to
external audiences, as is the case with, for
example, environmental reporting. But of
course, organizations do not simply break
down the boundaries between themselves and
their surroundings and expose their presumed
inner selves to the external world.
``Transparency'' is staging.
The question of which information to
provide and in which form is an important
strategic issue. As Fombrun and Rindova
(2000, p. 94) point out, ``a primary
mechanism for achieving `transparency' is
expressive communication with
 Corporate communication: the challenge of transparency
Lars Thùger Christensen
stakeholders''. This expressiveness, they
claim, is organized around the organization's
identity. More specifically, transparency,
according to Fombrun and Rindova (2000,
p. 94) is ``a state in which the internal identity
of the firm reflects positively the expectations
of key stakeholders and the belief of these
stakeholders about the firm reflect accurately
the internally held identity''. Transparency in
this shape, however, does not necessarily
imply clarity or insight. What Fombrun and
Rindova talk about here is merely accordance
or agreement between different sets of
interpretations ± as when people from
different walks of life agree on a specific
conception of reality. This idea is quite
different from the notion of transparency.
However, although their definition is
problematic, it makes us aware that
Downloaded by New York University At 09:26 12 June 2015 (PT)
``transparency'' first and foremost is a
question of establishing a consensual system
of meaning between different actors in the
corporate landscape. If internal and external
audiences agree on interpretations, there is in
effect ``transparency''.
Rather than focusing on how individual
firms cope with the condition of transparency,
our investigation of this phenomenon needs
to move beyond individual response strategies
to study how ``transparency'' is produced
collectively and institutionalised in the
current business environment. Not only
should we study how transparency is defined
in different industries and in different
business networks, we also need to look at the
expectations among relevant stakeholders to
which the strategy of transparency claims to
be an adaptive response. How, for example,
are the notions of organizational ``credibility'',
``accountability'', ``responsiveness'', and
``responsibility'' understood and defined
among influential stakeholders? What does
``clarity'' and ``consistency'' in corporate
communications suggest to these audiences?
And what kinds of communicative
relationships do they expect corporations to
establish with them? Most writings tend to
assume that the answers to these questions are
self-evident, that while the world in general
wants more information it is up to the
organizations themselves to proactively define
the exact nature of corporate transparency.
Without suggesting that individual firms
control this process, it is interesting to observe
how transparency is continuously staged
through interorganizational enactments.
167
Corporate Communications: An International Journal
Volume 7 . Number 3 . 2002 . 162±168
First, organizations selectively disclose
information through ``signalling'' (Heil and
Robertsen, 1991). By selecting, simplifying
and summarizing data, organizations not only
make themselves more accessible to external
audiences but also help promote transparency
as an important marketing issue. Rindova
(2000) talks about ``polished transparency'' as
a form of marketing aesthetics used to appeal
to certain educated and inquisitive
stakeholders. On a more radical note,
Baudrillard (1988) talks about ``rituals of
transparency'' through which we simulate that
our desire for information leads to more
knowledge. This, he claims, is hardly the case.
Second, organizations simultaneously
define the arena on which the transparency
game is played out. Obviously, this definition
is a co-definition involving many
organizations observing and reacting to each
other. By setting and complying with
standards for corporate openness,
organizations at once produce transparency as
an environmental condition and create a joint
understanding of what transparency means.
Take, for instance, the case of social
accountability where organizations in many
countries now articulate charters to
standardize corporate attitudes to, say,
layoffs.
When standards for corporate disclosure
are defined and institutionalised, they provide
guidance to organizations and allow them to
reduce uncertainty through the display of
mimetic behaviour. Whether this kind of
staged transparency reduces uncertainty
among external audiences is another issue. As
a comfort mechanism for organizations
operating in an uncertain environment,
however, the strategy of transparency allow
organizations to (re)define their boundaries
between ``inside'' and ``outside'', between
openness and closure. The real issue in this
process is not so much whether organizations
really are transparent to their stakeholders ±
or to themselves ± but how corporate
standards for transparency are defined and
developed, who the major players in this
process are, how different voices are
integrated, etc.
Of course, we need to ask ourselves what
the limits are to this staging of transparency. If
transparency is becoming part of the
marketing or PR mix of contemporary
organizations, how will this development
shape our notions of corporate credibility and
 Corporate communication: the challenge of transparency
Lars Thùger Christensen
accountability in the future? Is the staging of
transparency, then, simply a simulation of
openness? If so, what then does it mean to
have access to or to ``know'' an organisation?
And what kinds of measures will be needed
for organizations that sincerely wish to
communicate openness to their surroundings?
No matter what the answers to these
questions are, organizations need to realize
that although transparency may be a
necessary strategy to cope with inquisitive
stakeholders, its meaning will change
concurrently with the attempts of corporate
communicators to transform it from a market
condition to a business strategy.
References
Downloaded by New York University At 09:26 12 June 2015 (PT)
Argenti, P.A. (1998), Corporate Communication, 2nd ed.,
Irwin McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA.
Bakhtin, M.M. (1981), The Dialogic Imagination,
University of Texas Press, Austin, TX.
Bateson, G. (1972), Steps to an Ecology of Mind,
Ballantine Books, New York, NY.
Baudrillard, J. (1988), The Ecstasy of Communication,
Semiotext(e), New York, NY.
Blythe, J. (2000), Marketing Communications, Financial
Times ± Prentice-Hall, Harlow.
Cheney, G. (1991), Rhetoric in an Organizational Society.
Managing Multiple Identities, University of South
Carolina Press, Colombia, SC.
Cheney, G. and Christensen, L.T. (2001), ``Identity at issue:
linkages between `internal' and `external'
organizational communication'', in Jablin, F. and
Putnam, L.L. (Eds), The New Handbook of
Organizational Communication, Sage, Thousand
Oaks, CA, pp. 231-69.
Christensen, L.T. and Cheney, G. (2000), ``Self-absorption
and self-seduction in the corporate identity game'',
in Schultz, M., Hatch, M.J. and Larsen, M.H. (Eds),
The Expressive Organization, Oxford University
Press, Oxford, pp. 246-70.
Davidson, D.K. (1998), ``Consumers don't really care about
brand products' owners'', Marketing News, Vol. 32
No. 5, 23 November, pp. 5-6.
Deephouse, D.L. (2000), ``Media reputation as a strategic
resource: an integration of mass communication
and resource-based theories'', Journal of
Management, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 1091-112.
Dolphin, R.R. (1999), The Fundamentals of Corporate
Communications, Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford.
Eco, U. (1979), The Role of the Reader, Indiana University
Press, Bloomington, IN.
Eisenberg, E. (1984), ``Ambiguity as strategy in
organizational communication'', Communication
Monographs, Vol. 51, pp. 227-42.
Feldman, M.S. and March, J.G. (1981), ``Information in
organizations as signal and symbol'', Administrative
168
Corporate Communications: An International Journal
Volume 7 . Number 3 . 2002 . 162±168
Science Quarterly, Ithaca, New York, NY, Vol. 26,
No. 2, pp. 171-86.
Fombrun, C.J. and Rindova, V.P. (2000), ``The road to
transparency: reputation management at Royal
Dutch/Shell'', in Schultz, M., Hatch, M.J. and
Larsen, M.H. (Eds), The Expressive Organization,
Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 77-96.
Gayeski, D.M. and Woodward, B.E. (1996), ``Integrated
communication: from theory to performance''.
http://www.omnicomassociates.com/omninteg.html
Goodman, M.B. (1994), Corporate Communication.
Theory and Practice, State of New York Press,
Albany, NY.
Goodman, M.B. (2000), ``Corporate communication: the
American picture'', Corporate Communications: An
International Journal, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 69-74.
Harrison, S. (1995), Public Relations: An Introduction,
Routledge, London.
Heil, O. and Robertson, T.S. (1991), ``Toward a theory of
competitive market signalling: a research agenda'',
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 12 No. 6,
pp. 403-18.
Ind, N. (1997), The Corporate Brand, Macmillan Press,
London.
Iser, W. (1974), The Implied Reader, Johns Hopkins
University, Baltimore, MD.
Jackson, P. (1987), Corporate Communication for
Managers, Pitman, London.
Maturana, H.R. and Varela, F.J. (1980), Autopoiesis and
Cognition. The Realization of the Living, D. Reidel
Publishing, Dordrecht.
Morgan, M. (1999), Eating the Big Fish. How Challenger
Brands Can Compete Against Brand Leaders,
John Wiley, New York, NY.
Putnam, L.L., Phillips, N. and Chapman, P. (1996),
``Metaphors of communication and organization'',
in Clegg, S.R., Hardy, C. and Nord, W. (Eds),
Handbook of Organization Studies, Sage, London,
pp. 375-408.
Rindova, V.P. (2000), Panel on ``Transparency: condition
or strategy in reputation building?'', held at the 5th
International Conference on Corporate Reputation,
Identity & Competitiveness, Paris, 17-19 May 2001.
Smith, P. (1996), ``Benefits and barriers to integrated
communications'', Admap, February.
Yeshin, T. (1998), Integrated Marketing Communications.
The Holistic Approach, Butterworth Heinemann,
Oxford.
van Riel, C.B.M. (1995), Principles of Corporate
Communication, Prentice-Hall, London.
van Riel, C.B.M. (2000), ``Corporate communication
orchestrated by a sustainable corporate story'',
in Schultz, M., Hatch, M.J. and Larsen, M.H. (Eds),
The Expressive Organization, Oxford University
Press, Oxford, pp. 157-81.
Vattimo, G. (1992), The Transparent Society, Polity Press,
Cambridge.
Weick, K.E. (1979), The Social Psychology of Organizing,
2nd ed., Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Weick, K.E. (1995), Sensemaking in Organizations, Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA.