Interactive Network Branding dimensions 25 

The specific position of a firm in its embedded business network, once it has been established, should constantly be developed and maintained (Freeman & Sandwell 2008, Koporcic & Törnroos 2015). In order to do so, companies accept certain roles in a network, and implement INB activities, which affect corporate identities and reputation (see Figure 5). In other words, throughout the interactions, in which companies19 _{act in their accepted roles and try to achieve their desired} positions, the identities and reputation of each firm is also being influenced and is influencing the identities and reputation of other business actors. These activities correspond to strategizing in business networks.

Figure 5. Elements of strategizing through INB

Strategizing is defined by IMP researchers as “efforts of a firm to influence its position in the network of which it is part” (Gadde, Huemer & Håkansson 2003, p. 358). However, besides networking activities, branding presents another crucial aspect of strategizing. From the INB perspective, strategizing denotes both engineered and unplanned branding activities that aim towards the creation of a desired network position. Finally, as Koporcic and Halinen (2017, p. 7) argue: “Strategizing is achieved through collaborations and interactions between individuals that create mutually perceived value outcome for each company, each relationship, and for a broader business network.”

19 _{Although Figure 5 presents the organizational level of analysis, it is inevitably connected and}

In order to accomplish the goals of strategizing through INB, companies need to pay particular attention to the following three dimensions of INB, namely the internal, external, and mutual INB dimensions.

3.2.1. The internal branding dimension

The internal branding dimension is characterized by the identities of companies embedded in a certain network of business actors. Identity is defined here as self- referential and mutual understanding that each company builds internally and chooses to be present to other business actors of the same network (Stern et al. 2001, Koporcic & Törnroos 2015). Through business interactions, companies build, re-build and adapt their identities in order to become more attractive to their current and potential business partners. Identity building therefore presents a dynamic process that evolves and changes over time (Gioia 1998, Koporcic & Törnroos 2015).

The internal dimension can also be described as how a company desires to be seen by its public (Stern et al. 2001). In other words, through their identities, companies try to affect and influence what outside actors and the public think of them, i.e. how they perceive them. This follows Koporcic and Törnroos’s (2015, p. 10) argument: “However, bearing in mind that companies interact with each other in order to do business, this positioning of a specific corporate identity in the mind-set of other actors in the network becomes a key strategic concern.”

The internal dimension, from its theoretical background in organizational studies on corporate branding (see Section 2.2.1), has been developed by predominantly focusing on a single-firm and its employees. Although this perspective develops a profound understanding of individual human actors and their crucial importance for brand building, previous research on this dimension has been done focusing mainly on intra-firm relationships. As such, the importance of inter-firm interactions with individuals from other firms has been neglected. In order to fill this gap, the external branding dimension is elaborated on next, focusing on the importance of business partners and their influence on a firm’s networking and branding processes.

3.2.2. The external branding dimension

The external branding dimension has been predominantly developed in business marketing literature as regards corporate branding (see Section 2.2.2), with a focus on external business partners and a focal company’s activities to attract them. However, these studies were often conducted solely at an organizational level, studying relationships between companies, but neglecting the importance of

individual human actors as representatives of these companies. Although trust and commitment were investigated, it was once more from the inter-firm perspective, without acknowledging the role of human actors inside or outside the focal firm.

As a key concept describing the external branding dimension, corporate reputation is presented, together with its role for firm positioning in a business network. In simple terms, reputation is understood here as an impression that a certain business actor holds about the focal actor and its corporate brand (Johnson & Zinkhan 1990, Koporcic & Törnroos 2015). The reputation is thus constantly changing and evolving, through positive and negative events and occurrences in the network. During this process, companies interact with each other and try to achieve their desired network positions.

However, as an INB dimension, reputation is understood more profoundly, by being shaped through interactions between human actors, in which each company influences and is being influenced by other actors with whom they cooperate. In other words, this specific type of connection that occurs between human actors influences how each firm is perceived by relevant others (Koporcic & Törnroos 2015).

Figure 6. INB dimensions

Considering that this view slightly differs from the traditional view on external branding, further elaboration is needed to create a full picture of branding in business networks. Therefore, the mutual INB dimension is introduced next.

3.2.3. The mutual INB dimension

Previous research on corporate branding has already included discussions about internal and external dimensions, but mainly just by focusing on their comparison (see Hatch & Schultz 2001, Schultz & de Chernatony 2002). However, their interrelatedness is crucial for the development of the field (Schultz & de Chernatony 2002, Koporcic & Törnroos 2015). Therefore, from the INB perspective these dimensions are closely related in such a way that reputation influences and is being influenced by the firm´s identity, and vice versa. In order to understand these connections, the study introduces the mutual INB dimension, described as an “in-between space, where internal dimensions influence the external ones through the process of interaction” (Koporcic & Törnroos, p. 13).

The mutual INB dimension thus presents a point of departure, from which INB has developed and come into existence. INB is characterized by human actors that simultaneously present themselves as individuals and as representatives of their companies, while interacting with each other. They communicate and act both inside their own companies as well as between companies. Agreeing with Håkansson & Snehota (1995, p. 193): “Much of how companies in business markets become related can be explained from how individuals perceive their own [identity] and other companies [reputation]”. The influence of one firm’s identity and reputation on another is therefore noted. Thus, the mutual INB dimension includes social network connections built by inter-firm and interpersonal relationships between representatives of companies embedded in a business network. These relationships can improve and direct firm strategizing, provide external knowledge and information, and assist in entering new social and business networks. For instance, organizational theory understands the importance of a managers´ flexibility for the strategic development of a firm, as well as for the development, re-configuration and usage of resources in business markets (Wright et al. 2005). These are listed as some of the crucial components, which will make a difference between successful and unsuccessful companies (Uhlenbruck et al. 2003, Wright et al. 2005).

INB thus elaborates on networking and branding processes conducted through business connections, but also through social and personal relationships of individual representatives. Hence, in order for a company to create a desired network position, it needs to be aware of INB processes and the alignment of its

dimensions. In other words, companies need to accomplish coherence between their identity, desired and current reputation, and socially created relational value. As such, “INB can be seen through a specific point in time as an outcome of interactions between these three branding dimensions.” (Koporcic & Törnroos 2015, p. 14). In addition, the double-sided arrow (see Figure 6) denotes the INB process as being created by past interactions in the present, as well as noting future expectations of potential and current business partners (see Halinen & Törnroos 1995).

The next section presents the Pyramid of INB, and elaborates further on its actors, activities, and resources.