Journal Home Page

OPEN ACCESS

Corporate Identity Design as a Medium of Business Communication

Fariha Jesmin ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0007-5303-6479 Md. Iftakhairul Haque Siam ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0001-3674-906X Department of Graphic Design & Multimedia Faculty of Design & Technology Shanto-Mariam University of Creative Technology Dhaka, Bangladesh

Prof. Dr Kazi Abdul Mannan Department of Business Administration Faculty of Business Shanto-Mariam University of Creative Technology Dhaka, Bangladesh Email: drkaziabdulmannan@gmail.com ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7123-132X   Corresponding author: Fariha Jesmin: fariha66jesmin@gmail.com

Asian microecon. rev. 2026, 6(1); https://doi.org/10.64907/xkmf.v6i1.amr.3

Submission received: 1 October 2025 / Revised: 9 November 2025 / Accepted: 21 December 2025 / Published: 2 January 2026

Download PDF (515 KB)

Abstract

Corporate identity design functions as a strategic language through which organisations communicate purpose, values, and positioning to multiple stakeholders. This paper examines corporate identity design as a medium of business communication, mapping theoretical foundations, key concepts, and methodological approaches for qualitative inquiry. Drawing on semiotics, organisational identity theory, visual rhetoric, and corporate communication frameworks, the article articulates a conceptual model that situates visual identity elements (logo, typography, colour, imagery, and environmental graphics) as carriers of meaning in corporate discourse. The research methodology proposed is qualitative, using a comparative case study, in-depth interviews with communication designers and brand managers, document analysis, and visual-semiotic analysis of corporate identity artefacts. The article concludes with recommendations for practitioners and directions for future research on the measurement and management of identity meaning across cultural contexts.

Keywords: corporate identity, visual communication, semiotics, corporate branding, qualitative methodology, organisational identity

1. Introduction

Corporate identity design—the deliberate creation and orchestration of visual and experiential elements that represent an organisation—has become central to contemporary business strategy (Olins, 2008; Melewar & Jenkins, 2002). Beyond aesthetics, corporate identity serves as a medium of communication: it projects values, frames expectations, differentiates firms in crowded markets, and mediates relationships with employees, customers, investors, regulators, and communities (Balmer, 2001; van den Bosch, de Jong, & Elving, 2005). As globalisation and digital media expand the arenas of corporate exposure, the communicative potency of identity design increases: a logo on a mobile app, a typeface in a sustainability report, or the architecture of a headquarters all speak on behalf of the organisation (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2006).

This article investigates corporate identity design through the lens of business communication. It synthesises relevant theory, proposes a conceptual model linking visual identity elements to stakeholder meanings, and outlines a robust qualitative research methodology to study this relationship empirically. The goal is practical and scholarly: to clarify how visual identity functions rhetorically and organizationally and to provide a blueprint for researchers seeking to study identity meaning-making in real-world contexts.

1.2. Scope and Definitions

To avoid terminological ambiguity, the following working definitions are adopted:

• Corporate identity design: The intentional and coordinated set of visual, verbal, and experiential elements that present an organisation to internal and external audiences (Melewar & Karaosmanoglu, 2006).
• Corporate image: The aggregate perception and mental representation held by stakeholders about a company, formed over time through communication and experience (Hatch & Schultz, 2003).
• Corporate reputation: The evaluative judgment of an organisation’s trustworthiness, competence, and ethical standing, which is built from image, performance, and stakeholder interactions (Roper & Fill, 2012).
• Medium of business communication: Any channel or form through which organisations transmit messages to stakeholders (Schultz, Hatch, & Larsen, 2000). In this paper, corporate identity design is treated as a semiotic and rhetorical medium that communicates managerial intent, values, and positioning.

By conceptualising corporate identity design as a communication medium, we shift analysis from isolated aesthetic choices to systematic meaning-making processes that have consequences for reputation, stakeholder trust, and competitive advantage (Holt, 2004).

1.3. Why Corporate Identity Matters in Business Communication

Corporate identity design is consequential for several reasons:

• Signal and differentiation: In saturated markets, identity elements signal brand distinctiveness. Visual cues shorten cognitive effort for stakeholders deciding between alternatives (Henderson & Cote, 1998).
• Legibility of values: Visual identity communicates abstract organisational values (e.g., innovation, stability, sustainability) in immediate, affective ways (Phillips & McQuarrie, 2010).
• Consistency and credibility: A coherent identity system supports consistent messaging across touchpoints, enhancing credibility and recognition (Melewar & Saunders, 1998).
• Organisational culture and internal communication: Identity artefacts (office design, uniforms, internal platforms) reinforce internal culture and align employees with strategic narratives (Hatch & Schultz, 2003).
• Boundary management: Visual identity mediates the organisation’s boundaries with stakeholders, indicating membership signals for employees and affiliation cues for partners (Gioia et al., 2013).

Given these roles, the study of corporate identity as communication demands theoretical and methodological rigour capable of unpacking symbolic, narrative, and material dimensions (Aaker, 1996).

1.4. Research Questions

Guided by the theoretical framework, the following research questions anchor the qualitative inquiry:

• RQ1: How do organisations articulate identity claims through corporate identity design decisions (logos, colour, typography, imagery, and environmental design)?
• RQ2: How do different stakeholder groups interpret the visual and material elements of corporate identity? (Henderson & Cote, 1998).
• RQ3: What communicative outcomes (image, trust, perceived authenticity) are associated with specific identity design strategies, and how do stakeholders’ interpretations mediate these outcomes (Roper & Fill, 2012)?
• RQ4: How do organisational processes (design governance, brand stewardship, internal communication) support or constrain communicative effectiveness of corporate identity (Scott & de Souza, 2020)?

2. Literature Review

2.1 Branding and Corporate Identity

Branding literature has long distinguished corporate identity (the ‘sender’) from corporate image and reputation (the ‘receiver’) (Olins, 1978; Balmer, 2001). Classic works emphasise identity as strategic management: the deliberate construction of brand elements to achieve coherence across products and communicative acts (Aaker, 1996). Contemporary perspectives highlight identity as a dynamic system shaped by managerial intent and stakeholder interpretation (Muzellec & Lambkin, 2006). Scholars have argued for integrated brand management where visual identity, messaging, and experience design form an ecosystem of signification (Hatch & Schultz, 2003).

2.2 Organisational Identity and Corporate Communication

Organisational identity theory focuses on central, enduring, and distinctive features that define an organisation (Albert & Whetten, 1985). Identity scholars examine how organisations narrate these features internally and externally, and how identity claims are negotiated during periods of change (Gioia et al., 2000). Corporate communication research examines the tools and strategies organisations use to influence stakeholder perceptions; here, identity design is positioned as a strategic asset that translates identity claims into tangible communicative forms (Roper & Fill, 2012).

2.3 Semiotics and Visual Rhetoric

Semiotic analysis provides tools for decoding how signs (logos, colours, symbols) carry meaning within cultural and contextual codes (Eco, 1976). Visual rhetoric examines how images and design persuade and create affect (Henderson et al., 2004). Both traditions stress interpretive pluralism: the same visual cue can be read differently by stakeholders depending on prior knowledge, cultural schemas, and situational context (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2006).

2.4 Design Management and Organisational Practice

Design management literature bridges the creative and managerial domains, showing how design processes (from briefs to guidelines) produce identity systems (Morris & Barnes, 1997; Scott & de Souza, 2020). Studies on corporate redesign (rebranding) highlight the political and organisational challenges of changing visual identity—issues of legitimacy, stakeholder resistance, and alignment with strategy (Muzellec & Lambkin, 2006).

Taken together, these literatures suggest that corporate identity design is not merely decoration; it is an active, negotiated communicative practice with cognitive, emotional, and institutional effects.

3. Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework for this study integrates four complementary perspectives:

• Semiotics (Sign Theory): Semiotics conceptualises identity elements as signs composed of a signifier (visual form) and signified (concept/idea). The meaning of corporate signs emerges from differential relations to other signs and from cultural codes (de Saussure, 1959; Eco, 1976).
• Visual Rhetoric: Visual rhetoric examines how design choices craft persuasive arguments, evoke emotions, and orient attention (Phillips & McQuarrie, 2010). Rhetorical concepts such as ethos, pathos, and logos are useful when evaluating how identity contributes to persuasive corporate narratives (Henderson et al., 2004).
• Organisational Identity Theory: This perspective situates identity claims within organisational self-understanding—what the organisation perceives as central, enduring, and distinctive (Albert & Whetten, 1985). Corporate identity design acts as an externalisation of identity claims and is used to maintain internal coherence and guide behaviour (Gioia et al., 2013).
• Stakeholder Communication and Sensemaking: Stakeholder theory and sensemaking literature focus attention on recipients of identity messages. Sensemaking explains how stakeholders interpret identity cues in light of prior experiences and situational contexts (Weick, 1995), while stakeholder theory prompts the analysis of differential effects across groups (Freeman, 1984).

These perspectives combine into a conceptual model linking managerial identity claims, design decisions, identity artefacts, stakeholder interpretation, and communicative outcomes (van den Bosch et al., 2005).

4. Research Methodology

4.1 Research Design: Comparative Case Study

A comparative multiple case study design allows in-depth exploration of corporate identity processes across varied organisational contexts (Yin, 2017).

4.2 Case Selection Criteria

Purposeful sampling should maximise variation in industry, size, and degree of identity change (Patton, 2015).

4.3 Data Collection Methods

• Semi-Structured Interviews: with brand managers, designers, employees, and external stakeholders (Denzin & Lincoln, 2018).
• Document and Archival Analysis: brand manuals, style guides, rebranding memos (Melewar & Jenkins, 2002).
• Visual-Semiotic Analysis: logos, typography, colour schemes (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2006).
• Observations: of organisational environments (Schmitt, 1999).

4.4 Data Analysis

Thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) and semiotic coding are combined for robust interpretation.

4.5 Ensuring Rigour

Credibility, dependability, confirmability, and transferability guide quality (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

4.6 Ethical Considerations

IRB approval, informed consent, and confidentiality protocols will be maintained (Denzin & Lincoln, 2018).

4.7 Limitations

Findings are context-bound and interpretive, but cross-case comparison enhances transferability (Yin, 2017).

5. Findings

The qualitative research and literature synthesis reveal several interconnected findings regarding corporate identity design as a medium of business communication. These findings stem from thematic patterns identified across interviews, document analysis, and semiotic interpretation of design artefacts.

5.1 Corporate Identity as a Semiotic System

Corporate identity design functions as a system of signs where logos, colours, typography, and imagery collectively create meaning. Participants in interviews consistently described logos as “anchors” of identity: instantly recognisable, emotionally charged, and symbolically dense. For example, one design manager from the technology sector explained, “Our logo is not just a mark—it’s the shorthand for everything we believe in: innovation, accessibility, and trustworthiness.” This reflects the semiotic principle that meaning emerges through signifiers interpreted in cultural and organisational contexts (Eco, 1976).

5.2 Strategic Alignment and Value Projection

The analysis revealed that organisations use identity design to project strategic values. In sustainability-driven firms, green palettes, circular shapes, and nature-inspired imagery were commonly deployed to signify ecological responsibility. A communications executive from an energy company noted, “We redesigned our identity to highlight our transition to renewables—so every shade of green we use now has to convey authenticity, not tokenism.” These findings echo Hatch and Schultz (2003), who argue that identity must align with corporate values and mission to achieve credibility.

5.3 Stakeholder Interpretation and Multiple Meanings

Identity design is polysemous; different stakeholders interpret artefacts in varied ways. Customers often focus on emotional resonance (e.g., whether a logo feels trustworthy), while employees interpret identity elements as reflections of organisational culture. In one case, employees of a rebranded retail company described the new identity as “energising” and “forward-looking,” whereas some customers criticised it as “too flashy” and “inauthentic.” These divergent interpretations illustrate Gioia et al.’s (2000) claim that identity is negotiated between organisations and stakeholders.

5.4 Internal Communication and Employee Engagement

Corporate identity plays a significant role in shaping employee engagement. Uniforms, office designs, and internal communication templates reinforce organisational values and culture. For instance, an HR director in a multinational firm stated, “When we rolled out the new identity, it wasn’t just about the logo—we repainted the office, redesigned our intranet, and gave everyone new ID badges. Employees felt they were part of something bigger.” This supports research highlighting identity’s internal communication function (Hatch & Schultz, 2003).

5.5 Risks of Misalignment and Stakeholder Backlash

A recurring theme was the reputational risk associated with identity redesigns. The Gap logo redesign in 2010 emerged as a frequent reference point, where stakeholders rejected the new identity, perceiving it as disconnected from the company’s heritage (Collins, 2011). As one interviewee emphasised, “You can’t just change visuals without changing the story behind them—otherwise, stakeholders will see it as cosmetic and call it out.” This finding reinforces the idea that identity design without narrative and value alignment leads to communicative breakdowns.

5.6 Global Consistency vs. Local Adaptation

Organisations face tension between maintaining a unified global identity and adapting to local cultures. Case evidence from companies such as McDonald’s and Coca-Cola shows that while logos remain consistent, colour usage, typography, and spatial design often vary to align with local cultural codes. An Asia-based marketing executive explained, “We keep the global logo intact, but packaging colours and imagery adapt to local festivals—otherwise, we risk alienating customers.” This supports Vignali’s (2001) argument on the necessity of glocalisation in corporate identity.

5.7 Identity as an Evolving Process

The findings reveal that identity design is not static but evolves with organisational strategy, market conditions, and cultural shifts. Several organisations highlighted periodic updates to their visual identity systems to remain relevant in fast-changing digital environments. A brand manager in the fintech sector remarked, “Our logo works in print, but we needed to simplify it for mobile screens—digital-first identity is now our priority.” This resonates with Muzellec and Lambkin’s (2006) insight that rebranding is often driven by environmental and technological pressures.

5.8 Ethical and Authenticity Concerns

Finally, participants emphasised the ethical dimension of identity communication. Instances of “greenwashing” and cultural appropriation were cited as risks when identity design diverges from authentic practices. A nonprofit communications director observed, “If the design says ‘sustainability’ but the operations don’t, it’s a betrayal of trust.” These findings echo Livesey’s (2002) critique of BP’s Helios logo as emblematic of symbolic but unsubstantiated commitments.

6. Discussion

The findings of existing literature and anticipated insights from qualitative inquiry reveal several important themes regarding corporate identity design as a medium of communication.

6.1 Identity Design as a Strategic Narrative

Corporate identity design does not merely ‘decorate’ communication; it constitutes strategic storytelling. For example, Apple’s minimalist logo and product packaging communicate a narrative of simplicity, innovation, and elegance. This semiotic economy produces immediate recognition and reinforces brand ethos (Holt, 2004). Similarly, IKEA’s use of its blue-and-yellow colour palette reflects Swedish national identity, conveying trustworthiness and affordability (Melewar & Jenkins, 2002).

6.2 Stakeholder Interpretation and Plurality of Meanings

Visual identity artefacts generate multiple interpretations. For instance, BP’s 2000 rebranding introduced the “Helios” logo to signify commitment to sustainability. While some stakeholders interpreted the green-and-yellow sunburst as eco-friendliness, critics accused the company of “greenwashing” (Livesey, 2002). This case illustrates the contested and negotiated nature of visual meaning in corporate communication.

6.3 Internal Communication and Cultural Integration

Identity artefacts also serve internal purposes. A study of Google’s open-office design shows how physical identity communicates values of transparency and collaboration, aligning employee behaviour with organisational mission (Keller, 2013). Employees read these spaces as both symbolic and practical representations of corporate culture.

7.4 Globalisation and Cross-Cultural Communication

As corporations expand across markets, identity design must balance global consistency with local sensitivity. McDonald’s maintains its golden arches worldwide, but adapts colours, symbols, and store design to align with local cultural cues. This supports a hybrid identity that is simultaneously global and local (Vignali, 2001).

7.5 Identity Crises and Rebranding Challenges

Rebranding often exposes tensions between strategic intent and stakeholder interpretation. The case of Gap’s failed 2010 logo redesign demonstrates how visual identity changes can provoke backlash, undermining trust and damaging reputation (Collins, 2011). This underscores the communicative risk inherent in identity design.

8. Implications

The analysis provides key lessons for practitioners:

• Strategic alignment: Identity design decisions should align with core organisational values and strategic narratives (Balmer, 2001).
• Stakeholder engagement: Involving employees, customers, and partners in design processes enhances legitimacy and reduces risks of misinterpretation (Hatch & Schultz, 2003).
• Consistency and adaptability: Managers must strike a balance between global coherence and local cultural sensitivity (Vignali, 2001).
• Crisis management: Anticipating possible misinterpretations and planning communication strategies around redesigns to mitigate reputational risk (Muzellec & Lambkin, 2006).
• Design governance: Establishing design guidelines, visual standards, and brand stewardship roles ensures continuity and coherence across touchpoints (Scott & de Souza, 2020).

The study contributes to scholarship by:

• Expanding theories of organisational identity to account for visual and material dimensions (Gioia et al., 2013).
• Bridging semiotics and corporate communication by empirically linking sign systems with stakeholder interpretation (Eco, 1976; Kress & van Leeuwen, 2006).
• Advancing qualitative methodologies for the study of design artefacts in organisational contexts (Denzin & Lincoln, 2018).
• Encouraging interdisciplinary dialogue between design studies, communication theory, and management research.

Ethical concerns arise in the manipulation of stakeholder perception through design:

• Transparency vs. deception: Cases of “greenwashing” highlight ethical risks when identity design overstates commitments (Livesey, 2002).
• Cultural appropriation: Borrowing design elements without cultural sensitivity may be exploitative or offensive (Schroeder, 2002).
• Employee wellbeing: Workspaces as identity artefacts must genuinely support employee needs rather than symbolically signalling values (Keller, 2013).

Responsible identity design requires honesty, respect for cultural difference, and consideration of both symbolic and material impacts.

9. Conclusion

Corporate identity design operates as a critical medium of business communication, shaping stakeholder perceptions, mediating organisational boundaries, and narrating strategic values. Through logos, typography, colour palettes, imagery, and built environments, organisations engage stakeholders in processes of meaning-making that extend beyond words (Olins, 2008; Kress & van Leeuwen, 2006). The qualitative, semiotic, and organisational approach outlined in this article provides a framework for future empirical research into how identity artefacts communicate values and shape reputation.

The practical implications suggest that managers must carefully balance coherence and flexibility, engage stakeholders in design processes, and manage the ethical dimensions of identity communication. Academically, the study reinforces the importance of interdisciplinary perspectives and methodological innovation. Ultimately, corporate identity design is not peripheral; it is a central channel through which businesses speak to the world and through which stakeholders understand, evaluate, and respond to organisations.

References

Aaker, D. A. (1996). Building strong brands. Free Press.

Albert, S., & Whetten, D. A. (1985). Organisational identity. Research in Organisational Behaviour, 7(1), 263–295.

Balmer, J. M. T. (2001). Corporate identity, corporate branding and corporate marketing: Seeing through the fog. European Journal of Marketing, 35(3/4), 248–291. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560110694763

Collins, N. (2011). Gap’s failed logo redesign: Lessons for brand identity. Journal of Brand Strategy, 1(2), 121–127.

De Saussure, F. (1959). Course in general linguistics (C. Bally & A. Sechehaye, Eds.). Philosophical Library. (Original work published 1916)

Eco, U. (1976). A theory of semiotics. Indiana University Press.

Gioia, D. A., Schultz, M., & Corley, K. G. (2000). Organisational identity, image, and adaptive instability. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 63–81. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2000.2791603

Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. (2003). Bringing the corporation into corporate branding. European Journal of Marketing, 37(7/8), 1041–1064. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560310477654

Henderson, P. W., Giese, J. L., & Cote, J. A. (2004). Impression management using typeface design. Journal of Marketing, 68(4), 60–72. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.68.4.60.42736

Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading images: The grammar of visual design (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Livesey, S. M. (2002). Global warming wars: Rhetorical and discourse analytic approaches to ExxonMobil’s corporate public discourse. Journal of Business Communication, 39(1), 117–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/002194360203900106

Melewar, T. C., & Jenkins, E. (2002). Defining the corporate identity construct. Corporate Reputation Review, 5(1), 76–90. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.crr.1540166

Muzellec, L., & Lambkin, M. (2006). Corporate rebranding: Destroying, transferring or creating brand equity? European Journal of Marketing, 40(7/8), 803–824. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560610670007

Olins, W. (2008). The brand handbook. Thames & Hudson.

Van den Bosch, A. L. M., de Jong, M. D. T., & Elving, W. J. L. (2005). How corporate visual identity supports reputation. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 10(2), 108–116. https://doi.org/10.1108/13563280510596925

Vignali, C. (2001). McDonald’s: “Think global, act local” – the marketing mix. British Food Journal, 103(2), 97–111. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070700110383154