Proceedings

2. ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTITY AND CORPORATE IDENTITY
Identity construction in social practices has constituted one of the main foci of
research in sociolinguistics over the last twenty years (De Fina, 2007). Within identity
theory, social constructionism is perhaps the most general perspective. It views
identity as a process, not as a given or a product, always embedded in social practices
and thus takes an anti-essentialist view of the self. The approach is a dynamic one,
allowing for constant flux and interplay between different aspects of an individual’s
diverse social and personal identities in response to contextual influences (Holmes,
2006).
Hatch and Schultz (1997) distinguish between organizational identity and corporate
identity. The discussion of identity within the organizational literature has developed
around the concept of organizational identity, while the marketing literature focuses
on corporate identity.
Organizational identity refers to members’ perceptions, feelings and thoughts about
their organization. Scholars and academics share a common orientation towards
organizational identity as a dynamic, processual phenomenon (Oliver, Statler and
Roos, 2010).
Bhatia and Lung (2006: p.266) define corporate identity as “…a multidimensional
and dynamic construct that is realized in and through the discursive practices of
members of business and disciplinary cultures”. Corporate identity is conceptualized
as a function of leadership and it is formulated by top management. There are cases,
like the one described by Gérard Mestrallet, the Chairman and CEO of GDF Suez
(France), where the corporate identity of an entity is the result of a bottom-up,
grassroots movement in which all employees participate. However, this is the
exception rather than the rule. The corporate identity lays the ground rules of the
ideology and performance of the corporation, and it is usually put together by top
management. The construction of corporate identity is constrained by the goals of the
corporate world and its ideology and is moulded on the basis of the differences
between specific communities. Identity is co-constructed in relation to a specific
audience (Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, 2010).
We consider that the identity assessment is crucial in formulating an eligible discourse
that represents the vision of the company. Most of the cases, the companies set out
this discourse in a formal manner as a set of principles, objectives, policies which are
aggregated in one document, or a set of interrelated documents that comprise the
company’s code of ethics or conduct.
3. CORPORATE CODES OF ETHICS AND CODES OF CONDUCT
Langlois and Schlegelmilch (1990) defined a code of ethics as a corporate statement
that registers corporate principles, ethics, rules of conduct, codes of practice, or
company philosophy concerning responsibility to stakeholders, the environment, or
any other aspects of society external to the company.
Corporate codes of ethics contain valuable information about corporate commitments
regarding desired behaviour of management and employees. Such commitments have
~ 548 ~