Response to Cornelissen, Chapters 3 and 4

Stakeholders

I am employed in public education, and I live in fear of neoliberal policies and “market-driven” decision-making taking over that realm. Thus, when that term is employed, I am usually skeptical and assume it to be a euphemism for “shareholder.” Cornelissen’s third chapter did make me ease back on my disdain for the word. This is due to his broad definitions for the term and the outlines of different models of stakeholder engagement. The stakeholder salience model and the power-interest matrix present logical frameworks for how corporate entities categorize stakeholders and determine when they must be engaged with. The three strategies of engagement mentioned (informational, persuasive, dialogue) also provide a useful guide for understanding how those entities choose to communicate with stakeholders.

I do take issue (perhaps due to my bias mentioned above) with how Cornelissen has framed this discussion. He carefully distinguishes the old neo-classical model of stakeholder engagement, which gives primacy to profits and shareholders, with the newer socio-economic model of engagement, which takes into account the different contexts in which corporations must engage different stakeholders. Prior to making that distinction, Cornelissen claims that the “widespread adoption of the stakeholder perspective in business marks a move away from” the neo-classical to the socio-economic. I am not sure this is the case. While I do believe the stakeholder model and socio-economic theory have changed how corporations communicate, I would assert that primacy is still given to shareholders; that is, the shareholders are engaged and the remaining stakeholders are managed.

Identity and Branding

In a past life, when I was working in the grocery industry, I knew a Brownberry Bread vendor who disparaged one of his competitors, owned by the Sara Lee Corporation, by saying it was good bread, “if you want your bread made by razor blade manufacturers.” This was before Sara Lee sold off all of its non-food inventory to other corporations, among those other corporations was Unilever. Cornelissen’s discussion of Unilever’s transition from branded corporate identity to monolithic highlights both why the monolithic strategy “creates” value for corporations and why consumers might be skeptical of the strategy. It makes sense that this is a profitable strategy because the corporations using it (Disney, Apple, Google, GE) are already exceedingly powerful and the monolithic strategy serves to consolidate that power within one overarching brand that is attractive to shareholders and prospective shareholders. The downside to this strategy is the negative perception that it can create with consumers. As a consumer, I am put off by monolithic branding because I do not want any corporations to become too powerful, but, call me a hipster or elitist if you like, I like supporting boutique brands and unique products. I do not think I am alone in either of those perspectives.

In looking at these aspects, stakeholder management and branding, through the lens of corporate communication, I am led back to concepts from Chapters 1 and 2. In the same way that marketing and public relations have overlapped and become extensions of each other, so too have stakeholder engagement and branding. Strategic engagement of stakeholders is identity building regardless of the models any corporation is working within.