University of Vaasa - Vaasan yliopisto

121
argues that industries with a close contact to environment are more likely to interact
with CR issues. However, best practises are from industries such as food, IT, and
cosmetics (Kotler & Lee 2005). Nevertheless, it seems that all industries are
becoming more vulnerable, and over time no industry will have immunity to CR
concerns.
The Configuration school of strategy states that "each school has its own time, in its
own place" (Mintzberg, Ahlstrand & Lampel 1998). In positioning school (Porter
1980, 1985, 1996), or porterism (Näsi 1996), according to the capabilities of a firm
and conditions of an industry, one of the three or a combination of the three generic
strategies is chosen for a competitive strategy that can enhance a strategic position
that creates barriers for competition (Porter 1985).
Being aware of the generic strategy trap (Miller 1992) and the pitfall of
oversimplifying the analysis (Haberberg & Rieple 2008), the differentiation strategy
appears suitable for CR: in differentiation a company seeks for ways to be unique
(often beyond the physical product) that lead to a price premium (Porter 1980, 1985),
and due to environmental concerns, differentiation opportunities are growing
(Winsemius & Guntram 2002).
Reputation, Image and Identity
Corporate reputation is an intangible way to differentiate services and products from
competitors. The reputation is built upon ethics and morality; history; efficiency; the
product; public image; and human resource management (Siltaoja 2006b). Therefore,
a favorable image is one of the factors that over time create a favorable reputation.
However, according to Pruzan (2001) a creation of an outer image alone, may not
lead to desired results. In order to have an improved and a more inclusive description
of the organization and its performance, the new image should rather be a reflection
of an internal identity (Pruzan 2001). This leads to the first working proposition that
suggests that [WP1] a reflected image is more likely to lead to desired results than a
merely pragmatic image. Heikkurinen and Ketola (2009) suggest that in order to
have a more coherent and stable image and reputation firms should focus on being
their identity rather than trying to manage it.
Identity of an organization is formed by cognitions, emotions, and aesthetic
appreciations of its members (Hatch & Schultz, 2004: 4), and functions as an
umbrella term for corporate identity (Heikkurinen & Ketola 2009). The distinction
by Bendixen and Abratt (2007) between corporate identity (i.e. what the firm is) and
corporate image (i.e. what the firm is perceived to be) seems to accepted throughout
the business life and academia. Arguably, the internalizing of a CR identity is less
complicated and requires less organizational learning if the organization has some
experience of responsible behavior. And the more the CR is an integral part of the
culture the easier it is to communicate the norms and values underlying the concept
(Cramer 2005).
The value theory connects reputation and CR (Siltaoja 2006b). Since reputation is a
very context related issue (Siltaoja 2006a) as well as the CR (Halme, Roome &