The impact of brand relationships on corporate brand identity and reputation: An integrative model

Barros, Teresa et al. Article The impact of brand relationships on corporate brand identity and reputation: An integrative model Journal of Risk and Financial Management Provided in Cooperation with: MDPI – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Basel Suggested Citation: Barros, Teresa et al. (2020) : The impact of brand relationships on corporate brand identity and reputation: An integrative model, Journal of Risk and Financial Management, ISSN 1911-8074, MDPI, Basel, Vol. 13, Iss. 6, pp. 1-21, https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm13060133 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/239221 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Journal of Risk and Financial Management Article The Impact of Brand Relationships on Corporate Brand Identity and Reputation—An Integrative Model Teresa Barros 1, Paula Rodrigues 2, Nelson Duarte 1, Xue-Feng Shao 3, F. V. Martins 4, H. Barandas-Karl 4and Xiao-Guang Yue 1,5,6,7,* 1CIICESI-ESTG, Politécnico do Porto, 4610-156 Felgueiras, Portugal; [email protected] (T.B.); [email protected] (N.D.) 2Faculty of Economics and Management, Universidade Lusíada Norte, 4369-006 Porto, Portugal; [email protected] 3Business School, University of Sydney, Sydney 2006, Australia; [email protected] 4Faculty of Economics, University of Porto, 4099-002 Porto, Portugal; [email protected] (F.V.M.); [email protected] (H.B.-K.) 5Department of Computer Science and Engineering, School of Sciences, European University Cyprus, Nicosia 1516, Cyprus 6Rattanakosin International College of Creative Entrepreneurship, Rajamangala University of Technology Rattanakosin, Nakhon Pathom 73170, Thailand 7School of Domestic and International Business, Banking and Finance, Romanian-American University, 012101 Bucharest, Romania *Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 9 May 2020; Accepted: 15 June 2020; Published: 22 June 2020   Abstract: The current literature focuses on the cocreation of brands in dynamic contexts, but the impact of the relationships among brands on branding is poorly documented. To address this gap a concept is proposed concerning the relationships between brands and a model is developed, showing the influence of the latter on the identity and reputation of brands. Therefore, the goal of this study is to develop a brand relationships concept and to build a framework relating it with corporate brand identity and reputation, in a higher consumer involvement context like higher education. Structural equation modelling (SEM) was used for this purpose. In line with this, interviews, cooperatively developed by higher education lecturers and brand managers, were carried out with focus groups of higher education students, and questionnaires conducted, with 216 complete surveys obtained. Data are analyzed using confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modelling. Results demonstrate that the concept of brand relationships comprises three dimensions: trust, commitment, and motivation. The structural model reveals robustness regarding the selected fit indicators, demonstrating that the relationships between brands influence brand identity and reputation. This suggests that managers must choose and promote brand relationships that gel with the identity and reputation of the primary brand they manage, to develop an integrated balanced product range. Keywords: brand interrelationships; corporate identity; brand reputation; higher education; students’ perceptions 1. Introduction Consumer brand knowledge is multidimensional and needs to be understood and accounted for, in order to provide the right perspective and background for research on branding as it relates to J. Risk Financial Manag. 2020,13, 133; doi:10.3390/jrfm13060133 www.mdpi.com/journal/jrfm J. Risk Financial Manag. 2020,13, 133 2 of 21 consumers (Keller 2003). This research aims at developing a concept that defines the relationships among brands and analyzes the influences on brand identity and the reputation of corporate brands. The context under study is higher education. We propose a model for higher education institutions which integrates the particularities of brand relationships in the management of corporate brand identity and reputation. Academics and professionals value reputation as a precious asset, as it reduces stakeholders’ uncertainty about the future and increases the value of goods and services. Where branding is concerned, the strength of reputation lies in the corporate brand’s promise, therefore companies should keep it as a means of managing corporate reputation (Argenti and Druckenmiller 2004). The scientific community believe that brand reputation depends on brand identity, so a good brand reputation is the result of a good management of that identity. While brand relationships are known to have impacts on brand identity, the literature on this subject is scarce. Relationships have been traditionally positioned in the theory of networks among companies (Ford et al. 2003;Hakansson and Ford 2002;Hakansson and Snehota 1989,1995). Although previous studies may acknowledge the influence of brand relationships on the identity of organizations (Hakansson and Snehota 1989,1995), no empirical studies have supported this. In the current context, where the environment is increasingly dynamic and transformations are difficult to predict, the development of technology results in increasing interactions among corporate brands, as well as between corporate brands and their consumers. These end-users are now, more than ever, considered as cocreators of brands (Hatch and Schultz 2010;Madden et al. 2006; Payne et al. 2009; Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2004 ;Da Silveira et al. 2013). Similarly, we argue that the identity of a corporate brand is developed as it adapts to consumers’ demands. It develops alongside other recognized brands to build an identity with a desirable reputation among all stakeholders, especially consumers. In line with the development of the proposed model regarding branding, a number of researchers, Kapferer (1986,2008), Fombrum (1996,2006) and Vidaver-Cohen (2007), focus on reputation. Other recent studies on reputation in higher education (Priporas and Kamenidou 2011;Suomi 2014) were based on the reputation of researchers and consultants, so that the model could provide insights from academics with responsibilities in the field. The current study is intended to constitute policy advice to general managers and to those in positions of responsibility for higher education brands. This study is distinctive because it: - helps fill a gap in the literature by supplying a concept of brand relationships - introduces the concept of brand relationships in the management of brand identity and reputation in higher education; - relates the concept of corporate brand reputation with the management of corporate brand identity; - leads brand managers into new perspectives for building a new dynamic construct under a brand relationship approach. This paper is organized as follows. Section 2highlights the relevant literature and describes the structure of the proposed framework for managing corporate brand identity under a relational approach. Section 3provides an explanation of methods used to assess the concept of corporate brand relationships and the structural model, together with a brief description of the sample. The hypotheses and definitions of the measures used are provided in this section. Section 4reports our findings and summarizes the model validity and applicability. Section 5offers a brief discussion of the results and draws the conclusion together with recommendations for future research. 2. Literature Review This review provides detailed information about the conceptualization of the constructs and measures used in the developed model, to manage corporate brand identity under a relational approach. The methodology used to assess the references was search and analysis of the databases at our disposal, like B-ON, Science Direct, JSTOR, ISI Web of knowledge, Scopus, Springer Link, and others. J. Risk Financial Manag. 2020,13, 133 3 of 21 2.1. Brand Relationships The concept of brand relationships needs clarification in order to investigate the influence of relationships on corporate brand identity, since relationships are vital for the interactions between consumers and brands. Consumer–brand interactions extend beyond mere utilitarian benefits (Aggarwal 2004). According to Fournier (1998), relationships constitute a series of repeated exchanges between two parties known to each other, who also evolve in response to these exchanges and to fluctuations in the contextual environment. Fournier (1998) and Muniz and Muniz and O’Guinn (2001) argue that people form relationships with brands in the same way that they form relationships with each other in social contexts. We can extend this approach to the relationships between brands and state that brands tend to relate to each other in a social context and that this association can be used to attract specific members of the public. This is not the same thing as a brand alliance, because such alliances involve all joint marketing activities in which two or more brands are simultaneously presented to consumers (Rao et al. 1999;Simonin and Ruth 1998). In this study, brand relationships are mutually oriented interactions among corporate brands whose target is education (universities and other higher education institutions) and other reputed brands which may attract students to create a commitment. The definition of relationships between companies (Hakansson and Snehota 1995) supports this perspective. A relationship is a mutually oriented interaction between two reciprocally committed parties (p. 25). The parties agree that the notion of a relationship is defined by concepts of mutual orientation and commitment over time, which are common in interactions between brands. The specific characteristics of corporate brands make them different from other brands: Their bases are brand promise, multidisciplinary roots, and medium to long-term gestation. Their focus is external focused, but they are largely supported by internal stakeholders, who value highly communication and visual identity (Balmer and Gray 2003); these facts make it necessary to adapt the dimensions of brand relationships to these notions. This required that we review the literature on services focused on the theory of relational networks and branding and search for characteristics that suited the concept of the relationships among brands connected to education services. Five different but related dimensions were used to assess the quality of the relationships in the context of services in the B2B markets: recognized quality of the service, trust, commitment, satisfaction, and service quality (Rauyruen and Miller 2007), but there is little empirical investigation on the subject. However, the empirical studies of Dwyer et al. (1987) and Moorman et al. (1992) concluded that the quality of relationships is characterized by three dimensions: trust, commitment, and satisfaction. Berry (1995) emphasizes the relationships that customers have with service companies. Beatty et al. (1988) are in favor of trust and commitment to explain the mechanisms underlying stable preferences. Other researchers examined the roles of trust and commitment in the relationships that customers develop with service companies (Garbarino and Johnson 1999;Sirieix and Dubois 1999). Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001) and Kennedy et al. (2000) found a positive relationship between trust and commitment to consumer products. Most recently, Alkhawaldeh et al. (2020) accessed the effect of brand familiarity and perceived service quality on brand image as and explored the position of brand image on student ´ s satisfaction. The findings showed that familiarity with the brand and perceived quality of service had an important and beneficial connection with the image of the brand and there was an important and positive connection between brand image and students ´ satisfaction. Yet, these results were tested in the private field, and ours is focused on public institutions. Next to trust we take commitment, recently described as an important major aspect of strategic partnerships (Søderberg et al. 2013). We followed the definition of Hardwick and Ford (1986) and Wilson (1995). Commitment influences or benefits internal and external stakeholders’ perceptions of future value. Failing to find a scale characterizing the commitment among brands, we developed a scale procedure to select items for this dimension. Motivation has to do with the internal and external variables stakeholders consider when choosing an educational institution. It is also based on the relationships that the university/institution is able to provide. The scale procedure that we followed had to be adapted, so we decided to develop a scale J. Risk Financial Manag. 2020,13, 133 4 of 21 procedure to select items for this dimension as well, because we could not find a suitable scale in the literature. 2.2. Corporate Brand Identity The past few years have witnessed a burgeoning interest—among both practitioners and academics—in consumers’ “love” for brands (Batra and Bagozzi 2012). Brands are frequently represented in the minds of consumers as a set of humanlike characteristics (van der Lans et al. 2014). In this context, recognized higher education institutions tend to evoke feelings and emotions like “love” in students and prospective students. Most of the recognized faculties in the country in which this research was conducted behave like corporate brands by demonstrating specific characteristics that distinguish them from their peers. Legally, they are part of a university that aggregates them, but brand images of faculties are so strong and distinctive from one another that they can be considered as corporate brands. According to Muniz and O’Guinn (2001) there are brand communities of faculties. These authors define a community as a core construct in social thought and a brand community is a specialized, nongeographically-bound community, based on a structured set of social relations among admirers. We readily become aware of these faculty brand communities when students choose one in which to study after finishing high school. Balmer et al. (2010) used business schools as a model to investigate corporate brand management and identification. In addition, according to Han et al. (2018) , the establishment of good interpersonal relationships among community members will enable members to have a sense of belonging and social identity, thereby enhancing customer satisfaction within the community. Kapferer (1986,2008) refers to the prism of brand identity as consisting of an internal partbrand “culture,” “personality,” and “self-image”, as well as an external part—“physical dimension,” “relation,” and “reflected consumer.” He considers the external part of the identity prism highly important, especially in the case of corporate brands, since it is exposed to constant interactions with the public. “Reflected consumer” is an external and intangible dimension which reflects the way the consumer wishes to be regarded for “using” a certain brand (Kapferer 1986,2008). This dimension is characterized by the following features: being better prepared for the labor market; being more capable of creating/innovating as successful professionals; and professionals with high credibility. The relation dimension has tangible and intangible aspects. It defines the behavior that identifies the brand and the way it interacts with its consumers (Kapferer 1986,2008). It is characterized by the following: friendliness, respect, trust, motherly and close. Finally, the “physical” dimension of brand identity is defined by Kapferer (2008), as an exterior dimension that communicates the physical traits, colors, forms, and qualities of the brand. This dimension has features such as: the physical traits of the university/institution; modernity, sophistication, functional, and adequate. 2.3. Brand Reputation Reputation is considered the most valuable asset of an organization, for the following reasons: its positive effects on reducing stakeholder uncertainty about future performance; the trust it creates in the public; the expectation of being rewarded for the excellence of goods and services. Fortune Magazine published a list of The World ´ s Most Admired Companies, which reveals that a 5 percent increase in reputation of an entity corresponds to a 3 percent increase in its market value. According to Fombrum (1996) , such an organization attracts qualified employees and external investors; so, the defense of reputation is the cause of the growing interest in corporate brands. Vidaver-Cohen (2007) based her concept of reputation on the Rep Trak model (Fombrum 2006), which was successfully adapted to a business school. Suomi (2014) and Priporas and Kamenidou (2011) followed the same model in their studies of branding and reputation in higher education. The prime objectives of this study are: to measure and define the concept of brand relationships (relationships among brands) and demonstrate the validity and reliability of its dimensions; to integrate the concept of brand relationships in the management of corporate brand identity as an antecedent of the external part of identity; and to J. Risk Financial Manag. 2020,13, 133 5 of 21 integrate the concept of brand reputation in the management of corporate brand identity, showing that it is a result of the management of the external part of identity under a relational approach. 3. Methodology Service brands act in dynamic contexts, where brand building is developed with the help of consumers. In higher education, this is particularly visible, as students are consumers (they pay to attend university) and staffare part of the university ´ s identity. We thought it would be appropriate to interview a sample of engineering students, as engineering faculties are recognized for developing highly salient brand identities based on their societal interventions (e.g. building bridges and private infrastructure, developing innovative artifacts, processes, and technologies for industries that are frequently funded by national/international research centers). 3.1. Research Stages We developed this research into the two stages explained below. 1. Exploratory research used a case study methodology developed in two engineering faculties to find items to characterize the dimensions proposed in the model; and 2. Confirmatory research was pursued by developing a questionnaire for higher education engineering students. A total of 216 complete surveys were obtained. In the first stage, we followed King (1991), Balmer (2001), and Aaker (2004), who stated that senior management members must be selected as informants because they are important in terms of corporate brand management. Further, informants who had day-to-day strategic management responsibilities were also selected. We conducted in-depth interviews with lecturers/researchers and focus groups with students. Interviews were developed for senior management and staff, and focus groups were created for students at undergraduate, master, and doctoral levels. Before the interviews were conducted, several preparatory procedures were undertaken. These included discussions with academics and practitioners national and internationally recognized in higher education (Barros et al. 2011) . These discussions indicated the necessity of having a protocol in the interviews and focus groups. This initial study marshaled insights from thirteen in-depth interviews (seven in one faculty and six in the other), following a predesigned interview protocol. Each interview lasted for about two hours, and some informants were interviewed more than once. All interviews were recorded with the permission of interviewees. Four focus groups of students were created, two in each institution. Each focus group had six to eight students. To ensure the accuracy of interview data, we conducted member checks (Lincoln and Guba 1985). In addition to interviews, desk research was conducted by consulting faculties’ websites and media news. Data were coded first by hand, because we thought this would bring us closer to the data. Both stages were coded separately. In accordance with the general protocol for a previously designed qualitative study, data collection, analysis, and interpretation were undertaken simultaneously, generating tables of synthesized data. Simultaneously, several long meetings were held between the authors to obtain an in-depth understanding of the phenomena under study. This exploratory research suggested that, in contexts of high consumer involvement, the relationships of a corporate brand with highly recognized brands have a definite impact on the identity and reputation of the corporate brand, by influencing the perceptions of the stakeholders and the educational services being offered. This initial research suggested that corporate brand relationships with recognized brands have impacts on identity and reputation. To confirm this conclusion, a second stage was designed, in which the proposed model (with the selected dimensions and items previously selected in the first stage) was tested. See Figure 1. A questionnaire was developed for higher education engineering students; 216 complete surveys were obtained. The data permitted us to validate a new concept defining the relationships among brands from the students’ point of view. The investigated relationships were the J. Risk Financial Manag. 2020,13, 133 6 of 21 ones among corporate brands whose mission was education; these included universities and other higher education institutions and strategic partnerships with national reputed research centers or international reputed universities such as MIT, Harvard, and Oxford, with which these brands interact in the context of conjoint degrees, international mobility, or other forms of interaction. To define each dimension, we adopted a holistic perspective for reviewing the literature on several fields of study, including B2B marketing, psychology, and organizational studies. We developed a procedure to determine the pool of items to use in this research; these are shown in Table 1. J.RiskFinancialManag.2020,13,xFORPEERREVIEW6of21 universitiesandotherhighereducationinstitutionsandstrategicpartnershipswithnationalreputed researchcentersorinternationalreputeduniversitiessuchasMIT,Harvard,andOxford,withwhich thesebrandsinteractinthecontextofconjointdegrees,internationalmobility,orotherformsof interaction.Todefineeachdimension,weadoptedaholisticperspectiveforreviewingtheliterature onseveralfieldsofstudy,includingB2Bmarketing,psychology,andorganizationalstudies.We developedaproceduretodeterminethepoolofitemstouseinthisresearch;theseareshowninTable 1.  Figure1.ProposedModel(developedbytheauthors). Table1.SummaryofProcedurestoDevelopNewMulti‐ItemScales. ProceduretoDevelopMulti‐ItemScalesTechniquesandIndicators 1—DevelopatheoryLiteraturereviewanddiscussionwithexperts 2—Generateaninitialpoolofitemsfor eachdimension/scale Theory,secondarydata,andthirteeninterviewswithlecturersand universitymanagers,fourfocusgroupsofstudents(bachelor, master,anddoctoral) 3—Selectareducedsetofitemsbasedon qualitativejudgment Paneloftenexperts(nationalandinternational,academics,and practitioners) 4—CollectdatafromalargepretestsamplePretestonasampleofeightyhighereducationStudents 5—PerformstatisticalanalysisReliability;factoranalysis 6—PurifythemeasuresAnalysisoftheresultsofthepretestsampleanddiscussionwith experts 7—CollectdataSurveyofhighereducationstudents(216completesurveys) 8—Assessreliabilityand unidimensionalityCronbach’salphaandfactoranalysis 9—Assessvalidity Construct(AVEandCR),discriminant(comparisonbetweenthe squaredrootofAVEandthesimplecorrelations),andnomological validity(significantsimplecorrelationsexamination) Figure 1. Proposed Model (developed by the authors). Table 1. Summary of Procedures to Develop New Multi-Item Scales. Procedure to Develop Multi-Item Scales Techniques and Indicators 1—Develop a theory Literature review and discussion with experts 2—Generate an initial pool of items for each dimension/scale Theory, secondary data, and thirteen interviews with lecturers and university managers, four focus groups of students (bachelor, master, and doctoral) 3—Select a reduced set of items based on qualitative judgment Panel of ten experts (national and international, academics, and practitioners) 4—Collect data from a large pretest sample Pretest on a sample of eighty higher education Students 5—Perform statistical analysis Reliability; factor analysis 6—Purify the measures Analysis of the results of the pretest sample and discussion with experts 7—Collect data Survey of higher education students (216 complete surveys) J. Risk Financial Manag. 2020,13, 133 7 of 21 Table 1. Cont. Procedure to Develop Multi-Item Scales Techniques and Indicators 8—Assess reliability and unidimensionality Cronbach’s alpha and factor analysis 9—Assess validity Construct (AVE and CR), discriminant (comparison between the squared root of AVE and the simple correlations), and nomological validity (significant simple correlations examination) 10—Perform statistical analysis Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) Structural equation modelling (SEM) Sources: Adapted from Churchill (1979) and Malhotra (1981,2004). AVE—Average Variance Extracted; CR—Construct Validity. 3.2. Proposed Model and Testing Regarding the first construct—brand relationships—we found that it is formed by three dimensions: trust, commitment, and motivation. Trust was adapted from existing scales in the literature, but motivation and commitment (although based on the concepts of Hardwick and Ford (1986) and Wilson (1995)) were developed in this research, by using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The scales used to define the brand relationships construct were found to be valid and reliable. To test the structural model, we used corporate brand identity (external part), which was developed in a previous study. The items used to characterize the physical dimension, the relation and the reflected consumer dimension were the result of previous research pursued by Barros et al. (2016). The authors used the external part of the brand identity prism to argue that the relationships among brands (brand relationships) influence the external part of corporate brand identity and reputation. The result of a well-managed corporate brand identity is a positive reputation. Therefore, brand reputation is the expected result of an active corporate brand identity management under a relational approach. It is widely suggested in the literature that identity precedes reputation (Burmann et al. 2009; de Chernatony 1999;Kapferer 1986,2008). Corporate brands should actively choose and select recognized brands with which to develop relationships, to bridge the gap between brand identity and reputation. The result of this management should be an increase in brand reputation. We also used the reputation concept unidimensionality, developed by Vidaver-Cohen (2007), to connect with this research. Data were analyzed using CFA and structural equation modeling (SEM). A structural equation model was developed to test the brand relationships concept as an antecedent to corporate brand identity and reputation. According to Nachtigall et al. (2001), SEM represents the relationship between latent variables (brand relationships, corporate brand identity, and brand reputation in our model) and their manifest or observable indicators (the items that characterize the latent variables). The most prominent feature of SEM is the capability to deal with latent variables. These variables are connected to observable ones by a measurement model (Edwards and Bagozzi 2000). 3.3. Research Hypotheses Authors like de Chernatony (1999) and Kapferer (1986,2008) state that brand identity precedes brand reputation. It is our aim to confirm this hypothesis, in order to be able to argue that the management of corporate brand identity is developed under a relational approach. It follows that the choice and selection of recognized brands to develop should be carried out by the brand management team, taking into account the fact that brand identity develops and interacts with the external dynamic environment. We propose three research hypotheses: Hypothesis 1 (H1). The constructs trust, commitment, and motivation are a part of a higher dimension construct named brand relationships; J. Risk Financial Manag. 2020,13, 133 8 of 21 Hypothesis 2 (H2). The brand relationships construct influences the external part of corporate brand identity; and Hypothesis 3 (H3). The external part of corporate brand identity influences brand reputation. We conducted CFA with the three second-order constructs: brand relationships, corporate brand identity, and brand reputation, using a total of 34 measures, detailed as follows: (a) A list of eighteen items was obtained from qualitative research to measure the constructs that define the brand relationships concept: trust (7 items), motivation (7 items), and commitment (four items); (b) Eight items were considered before testing the validity of the measurement model. The guidelines followed by the literature regarding SEM suggested a drop of T4. In line with this, the trust dimension was characterized by seven items; (c) A list of thirteen items was derived from previous research by Barros et al. (2016), regarding corporate brand identity (external part) and its measures: physical (four items); relation (five items); reflected consumer (four items); (d) A list of four items was adapted from the brand reputation scale developed by Vidaver-Cohen (2007). Previously, ten items had been selected from the framework, but we found that this concept was bidimensional, so, we selected one dimension that we considered to be more connected with this research. After analyzing the measurement model, we decided to maintain three of the four items. We began by developing measures for the concepts we intended to connect: brand relationships, corporate brand identity (external part), and brand reputation. First, we tested construct reliability and unidimensionality for the proposed measures for brand relationships: trust, commitment, and motivation. The same procedure was followed for brand reputation. The measures that formed corporate brand identity have been analyzed previously, and the construct has been found to be reliable and unidimensional. Next, we developed the measurement model for the brand relationships concept (using CFA). The results regarding the selected fit indices were considered acceptable. After dropping one item from the trust dimension, we developed the second-order model. The results revealed robustness regarding the selected criteria. Finally, we tested the structural model, using brand relationships as the cause of the salience of the external part of corporate brand identity and brand reputation as the result of the management of corporate brand identity (external part), using a relational approach. 4. Results 4.1. Unidimensionality and Reliability of Scales for Measuring Brand Relationships, Reputation and Corporate Identity The first-order model had three factors (trust, commitment, and motivation) and nineteen corresponding reflective indicators, as listed in Tables 2and 3. The goal of most research projects is not just to develop unidimensional and reliable measurement scales, but to build and test theory. To summarize the data in terms of a set of underlying constructs, a factor analysis was conducted. We measured the unidimensionality and reliability of the proposed scales. To measure unidimensionality, we conducted principal component analysis with varimax rotation and Kaiser normalization to each scale. The scale items that did not show factorial stability were candidates for elimination. To measure reliability, we selected Cronbach’s alpha. J. Risk Financial Manag. 2020,13, 133 15 of 21 suggestive of adequate fit (Hair et al. 2006). The loadings, standardized residuals, and modification indices maintained approximately the same values. Regarding the standardized residuals: 2.704 between F4 and Rep2.2; 2.805 between R5 and C3; and 2.787 between R5 and C2. The problematic items relating to the modification indices are: −R5 and C3 =11.752 These small differences did not require further analysis, because, at this stage, the focus was on diagnosing the relationships among constructs. A good model fit alone is insufficient to support a structural theory. It is also necessary to examine the individual parameter estimates that represent each specific hypothesis (Hair et al. 2006). Table 9summarizes the main indicators and conclusions. Table 9. Structural equation model results. Relationships between the Constructs Regression Estimates Statistics Unstandardized S.E. Standardized C.R. p-Value Decision External Corporate Brand ID <—Brand relationships 0.652 0.135 0.876 4.830 <0.001 H2 supported Physical <— External Corporate Brand ID 1.000 0.421 Relation <— External Corporate Brand ID 1.419 0.302 0.762 4.695 <0.001 Reflected consumer <— External Corporate Brand ID 1.185 0.242 0.797 4.890 <0.001 Trust <—Brand relationships 1.000 0.801 Motivation <—Brand relationships 0.625 0.093 0.771 6.698 <0.001 Commitment <—Brand relationships 1.031 0.144 0.937 7.156 <0.001 Reputation <— External Corporate Brand ID 1.302 0.260 0.824 5.012 <0.001 H3 supported Notes: S.E.—standard error; CR—Critical ratio. Examining the paths among constructs showed that they were all statistically significant in the predicted direction. The path that represented the weight between brand relationships and external corporate brand identity was characterized by β BR.ECBI =0.652; S.E. =0.135; β BR.ECBI =0.876; p<0.001. This means that the regression weight for brand relationships in the prediction of external corporate brand identity was significantly different from zero at the 0.001 level (two-tailed). The path that represented the weight between external corporate brand identity and reputation was characterized by β ECBI.Rep =1.302; S.E. =0.260; β ECBI.Rep =0.824; p<0.001, meaning that the regression weight for external corporate brand identity in the prediction of reputation was significantly different from zero at the 0.001 level (two-tailed). We analyzed the variance explained estimates for the endogenous constructs in Table 10 and found that the predictors of the physical construct explained 17.7 percent of variance. This means that the error variance of the physical dimension was approximately 82.3 percent of the variance of this dimension itself. As for the other constructs, no problems were found. We can conclude that our model supported both Hypotheses 2 and 3. Therefore, the relationships among brands (brand relationships) influenced external corporate brand identity, and later, the brand reputation. J. Risk Financial Manag. 2020,13, 133 16 of 21 Table 10. Squared correlations (R2). Endogenous Construct R2 External Corporate Brand ID 0.768 Physical 0.177 Relation 0.581 Reflected consumer 0.636 Trust 0.641 Motivation 0.595 Commitment 0.878 Reputation 0.680 Because theory has become essential in assessing the validity of a structural model, we examined an equivalent model, with the purpose of testing an alternative theory. For the previous model, we dropped the physical dimension, for comparison purposes. In line with these findings, we accepted the second and third hypotheses and concluded that the brand relationships construct influences the external part of corporate brand identity (H2) and that the brand identity influences brand reputation (H3). Therefore, the management of corporate brand identity depends on the investment and selection of strong relationships with reputed brands, to attract students and increase brand reputation. 5. Discussion and Conclusions This study presents empirical findings in the field of higher education branding, where studies are mainly limited to business schools (Balmer and Liao 2007;Priporas and Kamenidou 2011; Suomi 2014; Vidaver-Cohen 2007). It contributes to filling a gap in the literature regarding the relationships among brands, as well as their influence on brand identity management and reputation. Students’ perceptions of relationships among their higher education institutions indicate that the concept of brand relationships is formed by three dimensions: trust, commitment, and motivation. Trust and commitment are also considered relevant variables in the car industry (Morgan and Hunt 1994), as well as in a branding context: development of a scale to brand confidence (Gurviez and Korchia 2002). The relationships concept has been traditionally positioned in the theory of networks among companies (Ford et al. 2003;Hakansson and Ford 2002;Hakansson and Snehota 1989,1995); however, although the literature may acknowledge corporate brand identity’s influence on the organizational identity (Hakansson and Snehota 1989,1995), empirical research on this topic is scarce. An initial step is to further examine the relationships and clients’ experience (Keller and Lehmann 2006). This study empirically supports the statements of Hakansson and Snehota (1989,1995), by connecting brand relationships with the corporate brand identity construct. This finding empirically proves that brand identity can also be managed by issues considered external to identity. Previous researchers have established links between corporate brand and reputation (de Chernatony 1999) , as well as between brand identity and reputation (de Chernatony and Harris 2000); and between reputation, satisfaction, and loyalty (Helm 2007). But few authors have examined the links among brand relationships and the impact of those relationships on corporate brands’ identity or reputation. Our research establishes these missing links by empirically testing this impact. It is important to analyze brands in the services sector, because of its particular characteristics, especially the intangibility of the relationships that allow services to materialize. We particularly selected higher education because of its higher consumer involvement. In the higher education context, students are internal stakeholders and consumers at the same time. It is our own view that students’ base part of their appreciation of the university/institution they attend on the relationships it has with other recognized brands, by means of trust, commitment and motivation. Such features improve the visibility of the reflected consumer and their image in society. J. Risk Financial Manag. 2020,13, 133 17 of 21 We measured the external corporate brand identity in line with the proposed definition of external brand identity by Kapferer (1986,2008). We concluded quantitatively that the three dimensions: relation, reflected consumer and tangible physical, make sense together and that there is a higher external dimension formed by these three factors. This a very important input for academics and also for brand managers in order to adapt the external dimensions of the corporate brand identity to their publics. Moreover, the use of quantitative methods allowed us to find a higher dimension called corporate brand identity, formed by five of the six factors proposed by Kapferer (1986,2008): self-image, personality, relation, reflected consumer and tangible physical. The brand identity prism of the mentioned author also includes the culture dimension. We also included it in this research by using the findings revealed by Deshpande et al. (1993). We were able to identify the perceived culture by each student regarding their university/institution. In line with this, we demonstrated that cultures perceived as being performance oriented develop more salient corporate brand identities (measured by the model fit). We divided the sample into two groups in accordance with Deshpande et al. (1993) and verified that the sample compound by the students that perceived their university/institution as being performance oriented revealed better identity salience than the other sample. We consider this of great importance to the management of brand identity in universities/higher education institutions. It reveals the power of the students’ perceptions and its influence in the corporate brand identity dimensions. The perceptions regarding brand culture must be managed by the brand managers so as to create the desired perceptions in the students making the desired corporate brand identity coincident with the existing one. This finding also reveals the influence of the culture dimension in the other dimensions of the corporate brand identity, something that we have not found in previous studies. This research also revealed the importance of joining qualitative and quantitative methodologies and proved that the latter is also applicable to a field of studies where quantitative studies are scarce. As far as our knowledge is concerned, it is the first time that the brand identity prism developed by Kapferer (1986,2008) is measured in the mentioned context. 6. Limitations of the Research, Future Directions and Contributions Even though the sample of engineering students was adequate for the purposes of this research, it would be extremely useful to compare these findings with those of other samples, consisting of students with other characteristics. Such studies would confirm our findings and improve generalizability. A new perspective of the physical dimension in the brand identity prism was revealed. We named it “Intangible Physical”. This dimension is present in the physical dimension defined by Kapferer (1986,2008) . Yet, taking in account the used sample, the research revealed that this dimension, although valid and reliable, did not show enough discriminant validity to be considered a single differentiated factor. Therefore, we consider that other samples with different characteristics should be studied. Furthermore, other services with high levels of consumer involvement should be tested for generalization purposes, such as insurance or medical services. Regarding the contributions to the literature and to brand management, the conclusions of this research highlight the importance of designing, choosing, and investing in relationships with brands. These relationships should be coherent with the desired brand identity and reputation, in such a way that they cocreate value for stakeholders. The brand managers of higher education corporate brands should pay more attention to the process of engaging with other brands that are perceived by students and stakeholders as providing value to their institution. Author Contributions: Conceptualization and methodology, T.B., P.R., and N.D.; writing—original draft preparation, T.B., P.R., and N.D.; writing—review and editing, F.V.M., H.B.-K., X.-G.Y. and X.-F.S.; funding acquisition, X.-F.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research received no external funding. Acknowledgments: The authors are grateful to anonymous MDPI referees and editors. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. J. Risk Financial Manag. 2020,13, 133 18 of 21 References Aaker, David Allen. 2004. Leveraging the Corporate Brand. California Management Review 46: 6–18. [CrossRef] Aggarwal, Pankaj. 2004. The Effects of Brand Relationship Norms on Consumer Attitudes and Behavior. Journal of Consumer Research 31: 87–101. [CrossRef] Alkhawaldeh, Abdelbaset, Abdallah Alsaad, Abdallah Taamneh, and Hussein Alhawamdeh. 2020. Examining Antecedents and Consequences of University Brand Image. Management Science Letters 10: 953–60. [CrossRef] Argenti, Paul, and Bob Druckenmiller. 2004. Reputation and the Corporate Brand. Corporate Reputation Review 7: 368–74. [CrossRef] Bagozzi, Richard, Youjae Yi, and Lynn Philips. 1991. Assessing Construct Validity in Organizational Research. Administrative Science Quarterly 36: 421–58. [CrossRef] Balmer, John M. T. 2001. From the Pentagon: A new identity framework. Corporate Reputation Review 4: 11–22. [CrossRef] Balmer, John, and Edmund Gray. 2003. Corporate Brands: What Are They? What of Them? European Journal of Marketing 37: 972–97. [CrossRef] Balmer, John, and Mei-Na Liao. 2007. Student Corporate Brand Identification: An Exploratory Case Study. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 12: 356–75. [CrossRef] Balmer, John, Mei-Na Liao, and Wei-Yue Wang. 2010. Corporate Brand Identification and Corporate Brand Management: How Top Business Schools Do It. Journal of General Management 35: 77–102. [CrossRef] Barros, Teresa, Francisco Vitorino Martins, and Hort ê nsia Gouveia Barandas. 2011. Corporate Brand Identity Management—Proposal of a New Framework. In 7th International Conference of: The AM’s Brand and Corporate Reputation SIG. Oxford: Academy of Marketing. Barros, Teresa, Francisco Vitorino Martins, and Hort ê nsia Gouveia Barandas. 2016. Corporate Brand Identity Measurement—An Application to the Services Sector. International Journal of Innovation and Learning 20: 214–31. [CrossRef] Batra, Rajeev, and Richard Bagozzi. 2012. Brand Love. Journal of Marketing 76: 1–16. [CrossRef] Beatty, Sharon, Pamela Homer, and Lynn Kahle. 1988. The Involvement—Commitment Model: Theory and Implications. Journal of Business Research 16: 149–67. [CrossRef] Bentler, Peter. 1990. Comparative Fit Indexes in Structural Models. Psychological Bulletin 107: 238–46. [CrossRef] Berry, Leonard. 1995. Relationship Marketing of Service: Growing Interest, Emerging Perspectives. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 23: 236–45. [CrossRef] Bland, J. Martin, and Douglas Altman. 1997. Statistics Notes: Cronbach’s Alpha. British Management Journal 314: 572. [CrossRef] Browne, Michael, and Robert Cudeck. 1993. Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit. Sage Focus Editions 154: 136. [CrossRef] Burmann, Christoph, Marc Jost-Benz, and Nicola Riley. 2009. Towards an Identity-based Brand Equity Model. Journal of Business Research 62: 390–97. [CrossRef] Byrne, Barbara. 1989. A Primer of LISREL: Basic Applications and Programming for Confirmatory Factor Analytic Models. New York: Springer. Byrne, Barbara. 2010. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. Abingdon-on-Thames: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group. Chaudhuri, Arjun, and Morris Holbrook. 2001. The Chain of Effects from Brand Trust and Brand Affect to Brand Performance: The Role of Brand Loyalty. Journal of Marketing 65: 81–93. [CrossRef] Churchill, Gilbert. 1979. A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs. Journal of Marketing Research 16: 64–73. [CrossRef] Da Silveira, Catherine, Carmen Lages, and Cl á udia Sim õ es. 2013. Reconceptualizing Brand Identity in a Dynamic Environment. Journal of Business Research 66: 28–36. [CrossRef] de Chernatony, Leslie. 1999. Brand Management through Narrowing the Gap between Brand Identity and Brand Reputation. Journal of Marketing Management 15: 157–79. [CrossRef] de Chernatony, Leslie, and Fiona Harris. 2000. Developing Corporate Brands through Considering Internal and External Stakeholders. Corporate Reputation Review 3: 268–74. [CrossRef] J. Risk Financial Manag. 2020,13, 133 19 of 21 Dekovic, Maja, Jan M. Janssens, and Jan R. Gerris. 1991. Factor Structure and Construct Validity of the Block Child Rearing Practices Report (CRPR). Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 3: 182–87. [CrossRef] Deshpande, Rohit, Farley John, and Webster Frederick Jr. 1993. Corporate Culture, Customer Orientation, and Innovativeness in Japanese Firms: A Quadrad Analysis. Journal of Marketing 57: 23–37. [CrossRef] DeVellis, Robert. 2003. Scale Development: Theory and Applications. Chapel Hill: Sage, University of North Carolina. Dwyer, Robert, Paul Schurr, and Sejo Oh. 1987. Developing Buyer-Seller Relationships. Journal of Marketing 51: 11–27. [CrossRef] Edwards, Jeffrey, and Richard Bagozzi. 2000. On the Nature and Direction of the Relationship between Constructs and Measures. Psychological Methods 5: 155–74. [CrossRef] Fombrum, Charles. 1996. Reputation: Realizing Value from the Corporate Image. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Fombrum, Charles. 2006. The Rep Track System. Paper presented at the 10th Anniversary Conference on Reputation, Image, Identity and Competitiveness, New York, NY, USA, May 25–28. Ford, David, Lars-Erik Gadde, Hakan Hakansson, and Ivan Snehota. 2003. Managing Business Relationships. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons. Fournier, Susan. 1998. Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in Consumer Research. Journal of Consumer Research 24: 343–73. [CrossRef] Garbarino, Ellen, and Mark S. Johnson. 1999. The Different Roles of Satisfaction, Trust, and Commitment in Customer Relationships. Journal of Marketing 63: 70–87. [CrossRef] Gurviez, Patricia, and Michael Korchia. 2002. Proposition d’Une É chelle de Mesure Multidimensionnelle de la Confiance dans la Marque. Recherche et Applications en Marketing 17: 41–61. [CrossRef] Hair, Joseph, William Black, Barry Babin, Rolph Anderson, and Ronald Tatham. 2006. Multivariate Data Analysis. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall. Hakansson, Hakan, and David Ford. 2002. How should Companies Interact in Business Networks? Journal of Business Research 55: 133–39. [CrossRef] Hakansson, Hakan, and Ivan Snehota. 1989. No Business is an Island: The Network Concept of Business Strategy. Scandinavian Journal of Management 5: 187–200. [CrossRef] Hakansson, Hakan, and Ivan Snehota, eds. 1995. Developing Relationships in Business Networks. London: Routledge. Han, Min, Jiacong Wu, Yu Wang, and Mingying Hong. 2018. A Model and Empirical Study on the User’s Continuance Intention in Online China Brand Communities Based on Customer-Perceived Benefits. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity 4: 46. [CrossRef] Hardwick, Bob, and David Ford. 1986. Industrial Buyer Resources and Responsibilities and the Buyer–Seller Relationships. Industrial Marketing and Purchasing 1: 3–26. Hatch, Mary Jo, and Majken Schultz. 2010. Brand Management Vol. 17, 8, 590–604. 1350-23IX. New York: Macmillan Publishers Ltd. Helm, Sabrina. 2007. The Role of Corporate Reputation in Determining Investor Satisfaction and Loyalty. Corporate Reputation Review 10: 22–37. [CrossRef] Holden, Ronald, Cynthia Fekken, and Dorothy Cotton. 1991. Assessing Psychopathology Using Structured Test-Item Response Latencies. Psychological Assessment 3: 111–18. [CrossRef] Hu, Li-Tze, and Peter M. Bentler. 1999. CutoffCriteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria versus New Alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling 6: 1–55. [CrossRef] James, Lawrence R., Stanley A. Mulaik, and Jeanne M. Brett. 1982. Causal Analysis: Assumptions, Models and Data. Beverly Hills: Sage. Jöreskog, Karl, and Dag Sörbom. 2001. LISREL 8: User’s Reference Guide, 2nd ed. Chicago: Scientific Software International. Kapferer, Jean-Noel. 1986. Beyond Positioning, Retailer’s Identity. Brussels: Esomar Seminar Proceedings, pp. 167–76. Kapferer, Jean-Noel. 2008. The New Strategic Brand Management—Creating and Sustaining Brand Equity Long Term, 4th ed. London: Kogan Page Publishers. Keller, Kevin Lane. 2003. Brand Synthesis: The Multidimensionality of Brand Knowledge. Journal of Consumer Research 29: 595–600. [CrossRef] Keller, Kevin Lane, and Donald R. Lehmann. 2006. Brands and Branding: Research Findings and Future Priorities. Marketing Science 25: 740–59. [CrossRef] J. Risk Financial Manag. 2020,13, 133 20 of 21 Kennedy, Mary Susan, Linda Ferrel, and Debbie Thorne LeClair. 2000. Consumers’ Trust of Salesperson and Manufacturer: An Empirical Study. Journal of Business Research 51: 73–86. [CrossRef] King, Stephen. 1991. Brand building in the 1990s. Journal of Marketing Management 7: 3–13. [CrossRef] Lincoln, Yvonna S, and Egon G. Guba. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park: Sage Publications. Madden, Thomasrank J., Frank Fehle, and Susan Fournier. 2006. Brands Matter: An Empirical Demonstration of the Creation of Shareholder Value through Branding. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 34: 224–35. [CrossRef] Malhotra, Naresh K. 1981. A Scale to Measure Self-concepts, Person Concepts, and Product Concepts. Journal of Marketing Research 18: 456–64. [CrossRef] Malhotra, Naresh K. 2004. Marketing Research, 4th ed. Upper Saddle River: Pearson-Prentice Hall. Mar ô co, Jo ã o. 2010. An á lise de Equaç õ es Estruturais, Fundamentos Te ó ricos, Software & Aplicaç õ es. P ê ro Pinheiro: ReportNumber, Lda, ISBN 9789899676336. Marsh, Herbert, John Balla, and Kit-Tai Hau. 1996. An Evaluation of Incremental Fit Indices: A Clarification of Mathematical and Empirical Properties. In Advanced Structural Equation Modeling: Issues and Techniques. Edited by George A. Marcoulides and Randall E. Schumacker. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 315–53. Moorman, Christine, Gerald Zaltman, and Rohit Deshpande. 1992. Relationships between Providers and Users of Market Research: The Dynamics of Trust. Journal of Marketing Research 29: 314–28. [CrossRef] Morgan, Robert M., and Shelby D. Hunt. 1994. The Commitment–Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing. Journal of Marketing 58: 20–38. [CrossRef] Muniz, Albert Muñiz, Jr., and Thomas C. O’Guinn. 2001. Brand Community. Journal of Consumer Research 27: 412–32. [CrossRef] Nachtigall, Christof, Rolf Steyer, and Wuthich-Martone. 2001. Causal Effects in Empirical Research. In Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Causality: Bern Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science. Edited by Michael May and Uwe Ostermeier. Norderstedt: Libri Books, pp. S1–S100. Nunnally, Jum. 1978. Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. Nunnally, Jum, and Ira Bernstein. 1994. Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher. Payne, Adrian, Kaj Storbacka, Pennie Frow, and Simon Knox. 2009. Co-creating Brands: Diagnosing and Designing the Relationship Experience. Journal of Business Research 62: 379–89. [CrossRef] Ping, Robert A. 2004. On Assuring Valid Measures for Theoretical Models Using Survey Data. Journal of Business Research 57: 125–41. [CrossRef] Prahalad, Coimbatore Krishnarao, and Venkat Ramaswamy. 2004. Co-creation Experiences: The Next Practice in Value Creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing 18: 5–14. [CrossRef] Priporas, Constantinos Vasilios, and Irene Kamenidou. 2011. Perceptions of Potential Postgraduate Greek Business Students towards UK Universities Brand and Brand Reputation. Journal of Brand Management 18: 264–73. [CrossRef] Rao, Akshay R., Lu Qu, and Robert W. Rueker. 1999. Signaling Unobservable Product Quality through a Brand Ally. Journal of Marketing Research 36: 258–68. [CrossRef] Rauyruen, Papassapa, and Keneth E. Miller. 2007. Relationship Quality as a Predictor of B2B Customer Loyalty. Journal of Business Research 60: 21–31. [CrossRef] Simonin, Bernard, and Julie Ruth. 1998. Is a Company Known by the Company It Keeps? Assessing the Spillover Effects of Brand Alliances on Consumer Brand Attitudes. Journal of Marketing Research 35: 30–42. [CrossRef] Sirieix, Lucien, and Pierre-Louis Dubois. 1999. Vers un Mod è le Qualit é -satisfaction Int é grant la Confiance? Recherche et Applications en Marketing 14: 1–22. [CrossRef] Søderberg, Anne-Marie, Sundar Krishna, and Pernille Bjørn. 2013. Global Software Development: Commitment, Trust and Cultural Sensitivity in Strategic Partnerships. Journal of International Management 19: 347–61. [CrossRef] Suomi, Kati. 2014. Exploring the Dimensions of Brand Reputation in Higher Education—A Case Study of a Finnish Master’s Degree Programme. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 36: 646–60. [CrossRef] van der Lans, Ralf, Bram van den Bergh, and Evelien Dieleman. 2014. Partner Selection in Brand Alliances: An Empirical Investigation of the Drivers of Brand Fit. Marketing Science 33: 551–66. [CrossRef] J. Risk Financial Manag. 2020,13, 133 21 of 21 Vidaver-Cohen, Deborah. 2007. Reputation beyond the Rankings: A Conceptual Framework for Business School Research. Corporate Reputation Review 10: 278–304. [CrossRef] Wilson, David T. 1995. An Integrated Model of Buyer–Seller Relationships. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 23: 335–45. [CrossRef] © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).