Identifying the Role of Heritage Communication: A Stakeholder-Function Framework

Abstract

This article uses the case of family business to distinguish the range of potential aims and outcomes of corporate heritage communication. In family businesses, the challenges of heritage communication are particularly salient as the past of the firm is simultaneously that of the controlling family. Based on a study of 55 websites of Swedish and German family-owned firms, we classify aims and outcomes of heritage communication with reference to different stakeholders. Our findings elucidate the need to consider various stakeholders when planning heritage communications, and the value of such communication for different corporate functions, such as marketing, management and governance. To aid decision making, we offer a framework to map aims and stakeholders of heritage communication related to a company's functions.

Navigating relative invariance: Perspectives on corporate heritage identity and organizational heritage identity in an evolving nonprofit institution

“…Such a view provides an important lens for understanding how employees perceive their organization's heritage identity traits, not only in retrospective terms, and in the present, but in omni-temporal terms as they take meaning and relevance from the corporate heritage identity for the past, present and future direction of the organization. Blombäck and Brunninge (2016) demonstrate how organizational heritage identity can diverge from the interpretations by external stakeholders, showing that when family businesses interact with multiple stakeholders, they must communicate their intended identity differently toward certain stakeholders to ensure long-term success. Their evidence of diverging identities (owners vs company), and the need to strike a balance between the influence of business and family identities, may prove challenging for many organizations and their people.…”

“…Balmer's (2011b) identification of relative invariance in corporate heritage identity does indicate that multiple role identities do not remain stable over time, as pressures are put on them to adapt. Blombäck and Brunninge (2016) identify instability in corporate heritage identity in family firms, due to the pressures put on organizations to conform to different stakeholders' expectations. Similarly, in Burghausen and Balmer (2015, p.42) we see employees "marshalling" the corporate heritage identity, to protect it from erosion over time.…”

“…However, beyond Balmer's (2011b;2013) theorization and empirics from Blombäck and Brunninge (2016) and Burghausen and Balmer (2015), there is limited exploration of the impact of identity challenging situations on multiple role identity organizations in general, let alone heritage identity organizations. Prior empirical research on identity stability has only been conducted on single-identity organizations, and the results have been somewhat inconclusive.…”

“…Balmer (2011bBalmer ( , p. 1386 argues there is a role for managers to "marry brand archaeology, a concern about brand provenance and historic attractiveness, with brand strategy, marshalling the corporate heritage brand to maintain its brand salience and competitive advance for the future". Blombäck and Brunninge (2016) Although such studies represent important advances, they do not focus on distinct periods of managerial challenge, nor on potential tensions between the multiple role identities in heritage identity organizations, which we aim to further in this study.…”

“…Most nonprofits have an organizational brand; not sub-brands or brand portfolios. By mimicking brand architecture from corporate brand portfolios and treating different fundraising vehicles as unique products, nonprofits can communicate differently with different audiences, complementing the works of Rindell, Santos and De Lima (2015) and Blombäck and Brunninge (2016), both of which identify corporate heritage brands portraying different corporate heritage identity images to different stakeholders. We show that each of Macmillan's fundraising sub-brands has a clear target customer, allowing for unique communication that does not undermine the core corporate heritage identity.…”