See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/288256496

Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility Communication on Corporate Brand

Personality Assessment

Article · October 2013

CITATIONS READS

5 390

2 authors, including:

Manit Mishra
International Management Institute, Bhubaneswar
22 PUBLICATIONS   53 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Published in Psychology & Marketing View project

Published in Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Manit Mishra on 01 June 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Impact of Corporate Social
Responsibility Communication
on Corporate Brand Personality
Assessment
Manit Mishra* and Seba Mohanty**

This paper explores the relationship between corporate communications in

general, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) communication in particular, and
brand personality associations. Multidimensional Scaling (MDS) was used to
create a perceptual map of four brands of beverages: (1) Tata Tea; (2) Bisleri;
(3) Coca-Cola; and (4) Café-Coffee Day (CCD). The brand personalities were
assessed by creating Brand Personality Index (BPI) for all the brands. The four
corporate brands were distinct in terms of the emphasis on social problems in
their corporate communication and other information regarding the corporate
brand at the disposal of consumers. The study revealed two dimensions of the
perceptual map generated for these corporate brands: (1) Concern for social
issues vis-à-vis concern for self indulgence; and (2) Concern for consumer vis-
à-vis concern for company. Furthermore, Tata Tea was distinctively positioned
on the perceptual map. In terms of brand personality dimensions, Tata Tea was
perceived as a brand which is highly competent, sincere and full of excitement
but lacks sophistication and ruggedness.

Introduction
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and its impact in a social setting have been
widely researched and discussed. However, comparatively lesser amount of
attention has been paid by the research community towards the consequences of
CSR in general and CSR communication in particular on the consumers’ psyche (for
exception see Hoeffler and Keller, 2002). This is intriguing since irrespective of
whether CSR communication from a brand is aimed at consumers or not, it is bound
to have a collateral impact on their knowledge structure.

The study aims at bridging this hiatus by empirically examining the association
between two vital domains of research—CSR and corporate brand personality.

* Assistant Professor (Marketing & QT), International Management Institute, Bhubaneswar,

Odisha, India. E-mail: manitmishra@rediffmail.com
** Research Scholar, HSS Department, IIT Kharagpur, Kharagpur, West-Bengal, India.
E-mail: Mohanty.seba@gmail.com

26 The IUP Journal of Management Research, Vol. XII, No. 4, 2013

© 2013 IUP. All Rights Reserved.
The study is based on the premise that CSR communication tends to impact the
corporate brand personality, i.e., influences the human personality-like traits
associated with a corporate brand. Aaker (1997) posits that a brand’s human
personality traits result from any direct (endorser, spokesperson, CEO) or indirect
(product attributes, product category, brand name and symbol, advertising approach
and price) contact that an individual has with the brand. The process is aided,
sometimes deliberately and at other times inadvertently, by corporate communication.

Literature Review
CSR
One of the earliest definitions of social responsibility (as CSR was known then)
was given by Bowen (1953, p. 6) who stated that, “It refers to the obligations of
businessmen to pursue those policies, to make those decisions, or to follow those
lines of action which are desirable in terms of the objectives and values of our
society”. Friedman (1962) contended that the only responsibility that corporate
officials have towards the society is to make as much money as possible for the
stockholders. Davis and Blomstrom (1966, p. 12) put it in more specific context by
defining social responsibility as “a person’s obligation to consider the effects of his
decisions and actions on the whole social system. Businessmen apply social
responsibility when they consider the needs and interest of others who may be
affected by business actions. In so doing, they look beyond their firm’s narrow
economic and technical interests”. On the other hand, Samuelson (1971) argued
that engagement in socially responsible activities by corporate is no longer a matter
of choice, but is a necessity. According to Carroll (1979, p. 500), CSR encompasses
“the economic, legal, ethical and discretionary (philanthropic) expectations that
society has of organizations at a given point of time”. Carroll (1983, p. 604) elaborates
upon the discretionary activities by proposing that they are voluntary and
philanthropic. Drucker (1984, p. 62) stated that business ought to carry out its
social responsibility by converting social problem into economic opportunity resulting
in holistic growth of not just the organization and its stakeholders, but of the
society as a whole. Porter and Kramer (2006) delved into the relationship between
competitive advantage and CSR. They argued that if “corporations were to analyze
their prospects for social responsibility using the same frameworks that guide their
core business choices, they would discover that CSR can be much more than a
cost, a constraint, or a charitable deed—it can be a source of opportunity,
innovation, and competitive advantage”. Thus, a coherent CSR initiative closely
aligned with a company’s business provides it with an opportunity to leverage its
resources to deliver greater social impact as well as attain competitive advantage.
The present study is aimed at assessing one specific source of competitive
advantage for a corporate brand, viz., brand personality.

Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility Communication 27

on Corporate Brand Personality Assessment
Brand Personality
Hoeffler and Keller (2002) contend that “consumers’ perception as a whole and its
role in society can significantly affect a brand’s strength and equity”. This has led
to a rise in use of Corporate Societal Marketing (CSM) which has been defined as
“marketing initiatives that have at least one non-economic objective related to
social welfare” (Drumwright and Murphy, 2001, p. 164). Thus, an advertisement
highlighting the corporate brand and simultaneously spreading awareness about
a social problem is likely to influence the way the brand is perceived. This study is
concerned with the consumers’ association of human-like traits with a brand, called
brand personality, on the basis of their selection, organization and interpretation
of corporate brand communication. This premise is supported by the findings of
Aaker (1997), who argued that brand personality is influenced by, amongst other
things, the advertising approach adopted by the company for the brand.

Brand personality is an outcome of consumers’ tendency to anthropomorphize,

i.e., transfer human characteristics to inanimate objects on a regular basis (Boyer,
1996; and Bower, 1999). Aaker (1997) defined brand personality as “the set of
human characteristics associated with a brand”. The underlying dimensions of these
human characteristics being: Sincerity, Excitement, Competence, Sophistication and
Ruggedness. Azoulay and Kapferer (2003, p. 151) defined brand personality as “the
set of ‘human personality traits’ that are both ‘applicable to’ and ‘relevant for’ brands”.
The definitions emphasize upon brand personality as a collection of traits of human
personality that can be attributed to a particular brand by consumers. Ogilvy (1983,
p. 14) corroborated the relevance of brand personality when he suggested that
brands have personalities that “can make or break them in the market place”.

Brand personality can be conceptualized for corporate brands as well as product

brands. Corporate branding refers to the strategy in which brand and corporate
names are the same (De Chernatony, 1997). Corporate brand provides the firm
with greater resources in an era when new product development and advertising
costs are increasing, retailers are becoming dominant, and consumer expectations
are touching new heights (Alan, 1996). It can also be profiled in terms of attributes:
culture, intricate (multidimensional and multidisciplinary), tangible and ethereal (soft
and subjective dimensions) (Balmer, 1998). A corporate brand can be regarded as
the sum of the corporation’s marketing efforts to present a controlled representation
of the corporation’s value system and identity (Ind, 1997; and Balmer, 2001). What
makes corporate brand so vital to an organization is its reach and the range of
advantages that it brings to the company. Its reach extends beyond customers to
other stakeholders such as employees, investors, suppliers, partners, regulators
and local communities (Hatch and Schultz, 2001). A corporate brand aids in
differentiation from competitors (Balmer, 2001; and Harris and De Chernatony,
2001), enhances investor and employee confidence (Balmer and Gray, 2003), and
enhances firm’s visibility, recognition and reputation (Xie and Boggs, 2006).

28 The IUP Journal of Management Research, Vol. XII, No. 4, 2013

 An important ingredient of the corporate identity management system is corporate
personality (Stuart, 1999). The core of corporate branding consists of two important
concepts: corporate identity and corporate associations (Dacin and Brown, 2002).
Corporate associations refer to the beliefs and feelings that an individual has for
an organization. Corporate identity refers to the associations that strategists in an
organization want to implant in the minds of their internal and external constituencies.
Keller and Richey (2006) define corporate brand personality as “a form of brand
personality specific to a corporate brand”.

Davies and Chun (2002) stated that while product brands may need to appeal
to a limited group of stakeholders (mostly consumers), the corporate brands may
need to appeal to a number of disparate groups such as employees, suppliers and
customers. However, a corporate brand is perceived as a set of personality traits
that is more diversified in comparison to the set of personality traits for each of the
product brand owned by the company. Aaker (2004) posits that a corporate brand
is different from a product brand in terms of the wide range of associations it
generates related to heritage, assets and capabilities, people, values and priorities,
a local or global frame of reference, citizenship programs and a performance record.

In order to assess the influence of corporate communication on the consumers’

knowledge structure in shaping the brand personality, while simultaneously
considering the distinction between corporate and product brands, the authors
have taken into consideration those brands which use the company name
prominently to label their individual product brands.

Background
The process of formation of brand personality and the brand personality output
perceived as a result of consumers’ exposure to corporate communication hold a
lot of importance for any company in the social milieu. The present study emphasizes
the notion that a better understanding of the relative contribution of CSR communication
to the brand personality formation process and output would enable marketers in aligning
it with their corporate objectives so as to create competitive advantage.

The focus of the study was Tata Tea, since it has significant brand awareness,
and the recent Jaago re campaign to spread awareness against various social
problems has contributed towards its image. The execution of the campaign and a
synergistic assimilation between corporate brand name and socially relevant
message makes it an automatic choice as the focal point of the study. On the basis
of brainstorming sessions with experts, three more brands were considered: Bisleri,
Coca-Cola and Café Coffee Day (CCD). These four brands were comparable in
terms of two commonalities: (1) They are all from the beverages industry; and
(2) They have adopted similar brand architecture strategy. Urde (2003) asserts
that there are four basic brand architectures available to firms: corporate, product,

Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility Communication 29

on Corporate Brand Personality Assessment
corporate and product (with dominant use of the corporate brand) and product
and corporate (with dominant use of product brands). The brands considered for
this study are either using corporate brand architecture (Bisleri, Coca-Cola and
CCD) or corporate and product brand architecture (Tata Tea). In either case it is
the corporate brand name that gets prominently displayed.

The brands, however, are different with respect to the copy and execution of
the corporate communication. Tata Tea has resorted to brand communication
with an inherent and relevant social message. The communication with the tag
line Jaago re exhorted young men and women to rise against the various evils in
our social system, e.g., not voting in elections, corruption, etc. Coca-Cola has
also carried out communication related to social issues through its jingle,
Ummeedon waali dhoop… (Ray of hope...); however, the advertisements are not
so pronounced and explicit in their social content. Bisleri spreads awareness
regarding fresh water scarcity on its website but has not executed any mass
communication campaigns in this regard. And CCD’s communication is outright
commercial, devoid of any social content.

Objectives of the Study

The purpose of the study is to carry out exploratory research towards the
contribution of corporate communication in general and CSR communication in
particular in shaping brand personality. The paper intends to fulfill three objectives:

1. To identify unrecognized dimensions in brand personality formation as a

result of corporate communication;

2. To obtain relative position of four corporate brands—Tata Tea, Bisleri, Coca-

Cola and CCD—on a perceptual map. It is pertinent to mention here that
while all the four corporate brands from beverages industry adopt a largely
unitary branding strategy, they differ in terms of the socially relevant
content in their corporate communication; and

3. To gauge the impact of Tata Tea’s CSR communication on its brand

personality assessment by consumers.

Methodology
Multidimensional Scaling (MDS), a decompositional multivariate analysis technique,
is used as the research method since it has the capability of mapping out the
perceptions held by consumers in terms of brand personality. A perceptual map
was generated from the obtained responses using MDS which aided in fulfillment
of the objectives of the study. The application of MDS is useful since it can produce
a visual geometric representation of the subjective construct brand personality.
For the purpose of our study, MDS is the relevant method since the focus is not on
the object but on how the consumer perceives or interprets it.

30 The IUP Journal of Management Research, Vol. XII, No. 4, 2013

Sample
The assessment of a highly intangible aspect such as brand personality demanded
the respondents to have an exposure to business management curriculum.
Therefore, the sample primarily comprised of teachers and students belonging to
various business management institutions affiliated to Biju Patnaik University of
Technology (BPUT), Odisha. A total of 240 questionnaires (refer Appendix) were
distributed, out of which 204 filled questionnaires were received. The sample
comprised 104 men and 100 women.

Questionnaire Design
The questionnaire for seeking responses was divided into three sections. The first
section was meant for collection of similar data between all possible pairs of brands:
Tata Tea and Bisleri, Tata Tea and Coca-Cola, Tata Tea and CCD, Bisleri and Coca-
Cola, Bisleri and CCD, and Coca-Cola and CCD. The input data was obtained by
asking the respondents to imagine the personality traits associated with a brand
on the basis of its corporate communication content. To overcome any difficulty in
getting started in their description, the questionnaire contained a snapshot of the
actual communication by the brands to act as a guide. Thereafter, the respondents
were asked to assess the pair-wise similarity among the brand personalities on a
4-point scale ranging from 1 – Highly dissimilar to 4 – Highly similar.

The MDS PROXSCAL Version 1.0 program within SPSS 16.0 was used to combine
the responses and create a single perceptual map through an aggregate analysis.
The PROXSCAL routine created distances based on a Euclidean scaling model of
two dimensions.

The second section of questionnaire comprised queries on the extent of brand

personality traits possessed by each brand under study. It has the advantage of
offering respondents some semblance of tangibility, unlike the similarity ratings.
The rating for each of the corporate brand was collected on each one of the 15
facets of brand personality using the Aaker’s (1997) Brand personality scale. Each
corporate brand was rated on how descriptive each personality trait was for it
according to a 4-point scale ranging from 1 – Not at all descriptive to 4 – Extremely
descriptive on each facet. The 15 personality traits on which responses were
solicited pertained to the five facets: sincerity (down-to-earth, honest, wholesome
and cheerful), excitement (daring, spirited, imaginative and up-to-date), competence
(reliable, intelligent and successful), sophistication (upper class and charming),
and ruggedness (outdoorsy and tough).

The interval data generated were aggregated for each brand on each one of
the facets (sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication and ruggedness) so
as to provide summary measures. The total ratings obtained were then indexed
for each brand on each facet (Keller, 2003, p. 449) with respect to the base value
of each facet. The base value was arrived at by considering a ‘descriptive’ response

Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility Communication 31

on Corporate Brand Personality Assessment
(2) on the descriptiveness scale (1-4) for each facet separately. The Brand
Personality Index (BPI) profile thus obtained for each brand was used to carry out
relative comparison between the brands. BPI also facilitated identification of
dimensions of the perceptual map derived from the similarity data using PROXSCAL.

The third section of the questionnaire sought demographic information from

the respondents.

Results and Discussion

PROXSCAL, like other MDS techniques, involves applying a mathematical algorithm
to a matrix of proximities. The algorithm performs calculations on the dissimilarity
data provided to locate each brand on a multidimensional matrix. The optimal
statistical fit for the multidimensional model generated is indicated by two statistics:
(1) Stress measure; and (2) Squared correlation index (R2). The Kruskal’s S-stress
is the most commonly used measure and indicates the ‘proportion of the variance
of the disparities (differences in distances between objects on the perceptual map
and the similarity judgments of the respondents) not accounted for by the MDS’.
PROXSCAL calculates the Dispersion Accounted For (DAF) which is a reflection of R2.
A low S-stress and high R2 value (above 0.60) suggests a good fit and aids in
selecting the dimensionality of the perceptual map (Hair et al., 2006).

The perceptual mapping of the brands was based on the similarity/dissimilarity

evaluation carried out by the respondents. An assessment of the dissimilarity matrix
involving the four corporate brands using PROXSCAL resulted in a two-dimensional
perceptual map (Figure 1). The two-
dimensional perceptual map was Figure 1: Aggregated Perceptual
considered optimal solution based on Map Based on Similarity Data
the values of stress (Kruskal’s S- Object Points
stress = 0.325) and R2 (DAF = 0.87). Common Space
Thus, 87% of the variance of
disparities is accounted for, 0.6
Bisleri
suggesting that the two-dimensional
configuration obtained is an 0.4
adequate reflection of the similarity Tata Tea
Dimension 2

evaluation by respondents. 0.2

Figure 1 indicates that Tata Tea

is positioned at the extreme positive 0.0
level on one dimension (horizontal
axis), while on the other dimension –0.2
Coca-Cola
(vertical axis), it is positioned
CCD
positively in comparison to most –0.4
other brands. Overall, the
–0.6 –0.4 –0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6
distinctiveness of Tata Tea relative
to other beverages brand is evident. Dimension 1

32 The IUP Journal of Management Research, Vol. XII, No. 4, 2013

 The MDS dimensions are most often labeled by inspection of location of the
brands. For the present study, however, such a subjective evaluation was
supplemented by constructing a BPI profile for each brand (Table 1).

Table 1: Brand Personality Index Profile

Brand/Facet Tata Tea Bisleri Coca-Cola CCD

Sincerity 1.56 1.27 1.39 1.23

Excitement 1.51 1.22 1.46 1.22

Competence 1.68 1.39 1.47 1.25

Sophistication 1.29 1.31 1.44 1.49

Ruggedness 1.36 1.21 1.39 1.11

A comparative assessment of brands on each trait indicates that Tata Tea stands
out at the top position in BPI in terms of ‘competence’, ‘excitement’ and ‘sincerity’.
However, the difference between Tata Tea and the second ranked brand on each
of these facets is highest in case of ‘competence’ (0.21), followed by ‘sincerity’
(0.17) and ‘excitement’ (0.05). This is in conformity with the findings of some of the
earlier researchers who have suggested that engagement in CSR activities would
bolster the ‘sincerity’ facet of brand personality (Hoeffler and Keller, 2002). The
finding has logical credibility, since upon exposure to CSR communication, consumers
are likely to perceive the organization behind the brand as caring and genuine.
The perception of Tata Tea as high on ‘competence’ perhaps stems from the
combative nature of its communication wherein the protagonist faces the social
problem (e.g., corruption) head-on while the corporate brand maintains its presence
in the background. It is worth mentioning here that Tata Tea is lagging behind
other brands when it comes to ‘sophistication’ (lowest in BPI) and ‘ruggedness’
(second to Coca-Cola).

It is important to mention here that even as respondents were guided with

glimpses of corporate brand communication, their perception regarding brand
personality may have been influenced by information received from various other
sources. Therefore, a subjective evaluation of the position of brands on the perceptual
map (Figure 1) and the attribute ratings (Table 1) would indicate two dimensions,
viz., ‘concern for social issues vis-à-vis concern for self indulgence’ (horizontal axis)
and ‘concern for consumer vis-à-vis concern for company’ (vertical axis).

Conclusion
The key findings of the study can be summarized as follows:

• The underlying dimensions of perceptual map created by consumers on

the basis of exposure to communication regarding a corporate brand are:

Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility Communication 33

on Corporate Brand Personality Assessment
 – Concern for social issues vis-à-vis concern for self-indulgence (horizontal
axis).

– Concern for consumer vis-à-vis concern for company (vertical axis).

• The perceptual mapping of the four corporate brands from beverages

industry (Tata Tea, Bisleri, Coca-Cola and CCD) revealed that on a two-
dimensional solution, Tata Tea is perceived very distinctively from the other
brands. It is considered to be extremely concerned towards social problems
and highly concerned about its consumers.

• Tata Tea is perceived as a highly competent and very sincere brand. The
consumers also consider it to be having a personality that is full of
excitement. However, the brand personality of Tata Tea lacks sophistication
and ruggedness.

The paper conceptually establishes and empirically demonstrates the relationship

between CSR communication and corporate brand personality, thus laying a baseline
for future research. In times when firms are finding it increasingly difficult to beat
the clutter and capture a share of consumers’ heart, mind and wallet, the study
elucidates on the capability of CSR communication to shape a distinctive and relevant
corporate brand personality. Tata Tea is a shining example of this. The study
vindicates Tata Tea’s strategic thrust on making a difference, while simultaneously
creating a differentiation for its corporate brand by exuding a distinct brand
personality. @

References
1. Aaker D A (2004), “Leveraging the Corporate Brand”, California Management
Review, Vol. 46, No. 3, pp. 6-18.

2. Aaker J L (1997), “Dimensions of Brand Personality”, Journal of Marketing

Research, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 347-356.

3. Alan M (1996), “Dangers of Corporate Branding”, Marketing Week, Vol. 19,

No. 15, pp. 22-24.

4. Azoulay A and Kapferer J (2003), “Do Brand Personality Scales Really Measure
Brand Personality?”, Brand Management, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 143-155.

5. Balmer J M T (1998), “Corporate Identity and the Advent of Corporate

Marketing”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 14, pp. 993-996.

6. Balmer J M T (2001), “The Three Virtues and Seven Deadly Sins of Corporate
Brand Management”, Journal of General Management, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 1-17.

7. Balmer J M T and Gray E R (2003), “Corporate Brands: What are They? What
of Them?”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37, Nos. 7 & 8, pp. 972-997.

34 The IUP Journal of Management Research, Vol. XII, No. 4, 2013

 8. Bowen H R (1953), Social Responsibilities of the Businessman, Harper and Row.

9. Bower B (1999), “When Stones Come to Life: Researchers Ponder Curious

Human Tendency to View all Sorts of Things as Alive”, Science News, Vol. 155,
June, pp. 360-362.

10. Boyer P (1996), “What Makes Anthropomorphism Natural? Intuitive Ontology

and Cultural Representations”, Journal of Royal Anthropology Institute, Vol. 2,
No. 1, pp. 83-97.

11. Carroll A B (1979), “A Three-Dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Social

Performance”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 497-505.

12. Carroll A B (1983), Corporate Social Responsibility: Will Industry Respond to

Cutbacks in Social Program Funding?”, Vital Speeches of the Day, Vol. 49,
July, pp. 604-608.

13. Dacin P A and Brown T J (2002), “Corporate Identity and Corporate

Associations: A Framework for Future Research”, Corporate Reputation Review,
Vol. 5, Nos. 2 & 3, pp. 254-263.

14. Davies G and Chun R (2002), “Gaps Between the Internal and External
Perceptions of the Corporate Brand”, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 5,
Nos. 2 & 3, pp. 144-158.

15. Davis K and Blomstrom R L (1966), Business and Its Environment, McGraw-Hill, NY.

16. De Chernatony L (1997), “Integrated Brand Building using Brand Taxonomies”,

Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 56-63.

17. Drucker P F (1984), “The New Meaning of Corporate Social Responsibility”,

California Management Review, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 53-63.

18. Drumwright M and Murphy E (2001), “Corporate Societal Marketing”, in P N

Bloom and G T Gundlach (Eds.), Handbook of Marketing and Society, pp. 162-183,
Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

19. Friedman M (1962), Capitalism and Freedom, University of Chicago Press.

20. Hair Jr. J F, Black W C, Babin B J, Anderson R E and Tatham R L (2006), Multivariate
Data Analysis, pp. 677-678, Pearson Education, New Delhi.

21. Harris F and De Chernatony L (2001), “Corporate Branding and Corporate Brand
Performance”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35, Nos. 3 & 4, pp. 441-456.

22. Hatch M J and Schultz M (2001), “Are the Strategic Stars Aligned for your
Corporate Brand?”, Harvard Business Review, February, pp. 128-134.

23. Hoeffler S and Keller K L (2002), “Building Brand Equity Through Corporate
Societal Marketing”, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, Vol. 21, No. 1,
pp. 78-89.

Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility Communication 35

on Corporate Brand Personality Assessment
24. Ind N (1997), The Corporate Brand, Macmillan, London.

25. Keller K L (2003), Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, and Managing
Brand Equity, PHI, India.

26. Keller K L and Richey K (2006), “The Importance of Corporate Brand Personality
Traits to a Successful 21st Century Business”, Journal of Brand Management,
Vol. 14, pp. 74-81.

27. Ogilvy D (1983), Ogilvy on Advertising, Vintage Books, NY.

28. Porter M E and Kramer M R (2006), “Strategy and Society: The Link Between
Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility”, Harvard Business
Review, December, pp. 78-93.

29. Samuelson P A (1971), “Love that Corporation”, Mountain Bell Magazine.

30. Stuart H (1999), “Towards a Definitive Model of the Corporate Identity

Management”, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 4,
No. 4, pp. 200-207.

31. Urde M (2003), “Core Value-Based Corporate Brand Building”, European Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 37, Nos. 7 & 8, pp. 1017-1039.

32. Xie H Y and Boggs D J (2006), “Corporate Branding Versus Product Branding in
Emerging Markets: A Conceptual Framework”, Marketing Intelligence and
Planning, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 347-364.

36 The IUP Journal of Management Research, Vol. XII, No. 4, 2013

 Appendix

A. Above, is given the communication for four different brands: Tata Tea, Bisleri,
Coca-Cola and Café Coffee Day (CCD). Assuming that these four brands transform
into human beings, they are likely to display some unique personality characteristics
(e.g. Mercedes-Benz would be a 50 year old successful, upper class man). Please
assess the similarity in personality characteristics of the following pairs of brands.
Award greater points on a (1-4) scale (1 – Highly dissimilar; 2 – Dissimilar;
3 –Similar; and 4 – Highly similar) for greater degree of similarity between the
brands.

Similarity Similarity
Pair of Brands Pair of Brands
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Tata Tea and Bisleri Bisleri and

Coca-Cola

Tata Tea and Bisleri and CCD

Coca-Cola

Tata Tea and CCD Coca-Cola and

CCD

Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility Communication 37

on Corporate Brand Personality Assessment
 Appendix (Cont.)
B. Given below are 15 human personality characteristics. Assume that the brands
(Tata Tea, Bisleri, Coca-Cola and CCD) transform into persons. Thereafter, kindly
indicate how descriptive (well-suited) each personality trait is to each brand. Award
greater points on a (1-4) scale (1 – Not at all descriptive; 2 – Descriptive; 3 – Very
descriptive; and 4 – Extremely descriptive) for greater degree of descriptiveness
(suitability) of a personality characteristic for a brand.

Sl. Brand Tata Tea Bisleri Coca-Cola CCD

No. Personality
Facet 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

1. Down-to-Earth
2. Honest
3. Wholesome
(Decent)
4. Cheerful
5. Daring
6. Spirited
7. Imaginative
8. Up-to-Date
9. Reliable
10. Intelligent
11. Successful
12. Upper Class
13. Charming
14. Outdoorsy
15. Tough

C. Kindly furnish the following information.

1. Gender: Male Female 2. Marital Status: Married Single

3. Age (Years):

4. Occupation:

5. Monthly Family Income:

Reference # 02J-2013-10-02-01

38 The IUP Journal of Management Research, Vol. XII, No. 4, 2013

 Copyright of IUP Journal of Management Research is the property of IUP Publications and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.

View publication stats