Brand, Identity and Reputation: Exploring, Creating New Realities ...

Abstract
Systematic Review on B2B Branding: Research Issues and Avenues for Future Research
Joona Keränen, Lappeenranta University of Technology, Finland
Kalle A. Piirainen, Lappeenranta University of Technology, Finland
Risto T. Salminen, Lappeenranta University of Technology, Finland
The economic value of business-to-business (B2B) transactions is significantly greater than that of consumer
transactions (Hutt & Speh, 2010, p. 4), but traditionally preponderance of branding research has been conducted in the
context of consumer products (Lynch & De Chernatony, 2004; Webster & Keller, 2004). Consequently, a number of
past studies lament the status of B2B branding research, claiming that it has been under-researched (Roper & Davis,
2010), scarce (Roberts & Merrilees, 2007) and lagging behind industry practice (Mudambi, 2002). However, as
business markets have become more intense under the pressures of commoditization, globalization and growing
customer power, B2B firms are increasingly seeking competitive advantage by branding their products (Mudambi,
Doyle, & Wong, 1997; Walley et al., 2007). In today´s hypercompetitive B2B market, a strong brand may be the only
truly sustainable competitive advantage (Kotler & Pfoertsch, 2007). It is even argued that ―brands are one of the most
valuable intangible assets that firms have‖ (Keller & Lehmann, 2006).
As a response to the increasing industry attention, recent years have witnessed the publication of a vast number of B2B
branding papers, and recent special issues devoted to B2B branding in such journals as the Journal of Brand
Management (2004), the Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing (2007), Industrial Marketing Management (IMM,
2010) and the upcoming special issue in IMM evidence the current importance of this topic. In addition, B2B branding
is highlighted as a prominent area requiring further research in a recent literature review examining the future avenues
of B2B marketing (Sheth & Sharma, 2006).
However, despite this recent interest on B2B branding, extant literature remains still fragmented, and areas with limited
or inconclusive research warrant further examination (Glynn, Motion & Brodie 2007; Kuhn, Alpert & Pope 2008).
Academics have for long raised a concern about the lack of systematic investigation on B2B branding (e.g. Cretu &
Brodie, 2007). Yet to date, most of the literature overviews concerning the extant state of B2B branding have been
largely subjective in nature, (e.g. Cretu & Brodie 2007; Zablah, Brown, & Donthu, 2010) and thus limited in their
scope. With very few preliminary exceptions (Sinclair, 2009), little has been done to comprehensively organize and
summarize the findings and knowledge gained from previous B2B branding research.
In order to advance any expanding discipline, a frequent re-examination of the current state of the research is required
(Cooper, 2010). It is argued that the state of B2B branding discipline is nascent (Zablah et al., 2010) and lacking a
―critical mass of studies‖ (Roberts & Merrilees, 2007). Therefore the intention of this study is to facilitate the
advancement of B2B branding research by identifying research issues that hinder the advancement of B2B branding
discipline and thus provide guidance for future research. We attempt to do this by utilizing a systematic review
(Petticrew & Roberts, 2006), which is aimed at comprehensively identifying, appraising and synthesizing all the
relevant studies on B2B branding. The key advantages of a systematic review are its methodological rigor,
transparency, exhaustive literature coverage and reproducibility (e.g Cooper, 2010; Tranfield, Denyer, & Smart, 2003).
We address the following research question: What kind of research issues limit the advancement of B2B branding
research?
Our systematic review allowed us to identify a total of 73 academic publications explicitly addressing B2B branding.
Based on an extensive review of this literature, we identified five major issues limiting current research: The dispersed
theoretical rooting. A wide range of theories are used to explain different perspectives on B2B branding, but attempts to
develop a common theoretical base have been highly fragmented. This variety of theoretical lenses poses a challenge
for integrating a unifying conceptual framework to model B2B branding. The transference of consumer concepts. Most
of the quantitative studies draw largely on consumer branding tenets, but several authors clearly demonstrate that all the
branding frameworks from consumer context do not transfer without adaptation to B2B context (e.g. Beverland, Napoli,
& Lindgreen, 2007; Kuhn et al., 2008). The dominance of quantitative research. The majority of empirical research is
quantitative by nature, which in a nascent research field runs the risk of producing ambiguous measures with
questionable validity and reliability as well as leading to findings which emerge by mere chance (Edmondson and
McManus, 2007). The lack of longitudinal research. Although brands are considered as relational assets which are
accumulated over time, only three past studies employed longitudinal analysis, and the dynamic observations of the
brand building efforts have been virtually absent. The focus on single industries. A large part of the empirical research
is focused on single industries, thus limiting the applicability of the results and the comparability between studies.
274