The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0265-1335.htm

IMR
41,7 Rebranding after international
acquisitions: challenges
of legitimation in emerging
84 and developed countries
Received 4 February 2023 Manoella Antonieta Ramos and Svante Andersson
Revised 11 July 2023
6 November 2023 School of Business, Innovation and Sustainability, Halmstad University,
28 February 2024 Halmstad, Sweden, and
26 April 2024
Accepted 30 April 2024 Ulf Aagerup
J€onk€oping International Business School, J€onk€oping University,
J€onk€oping, Sweden

Abstract
Purpose – This study describes how a multinational enterprise (MNE) gains acceptance after rebranding
acquired brands from different countries among its internal and external stakeholders and identifies factors
that influence this process.
Design/methodology/approach – The study employed a single case-study approach, including 18 semi-
structured in-depth interviews with employees of a firm involved in the rebranding process in six countries.
The countries are Sweden, Germany, the United States, Brazil, Colombia and Mexico.
Findings – The findings reveal how the MNE integrated brands it acquired in different international markets
into one overarching corporate brand. The study shows that in emerging countries, external legitimation
(external implementation process, country profiles and customer buy-in) constitutes the most significant
challenge. By contrast, in developed countries, internal legitimation (employee buy-in and internal
implementation process) is more challenging.
Research limitations/implications – The study contributes to and extends the rebranding literature by
using a legitimation lens to analyze the rebranding process. This lens shows how internal and external
stakeholders are both crucial to successful rebranding. The study provides a comprehensive perspective of the
process, identifies challenging factors and differentiates between their importance in emerging and developed
countries.
Originality/value – To address the dearth of research on how firms legitimize a new brand in different
national contexts, the study compares the rebranding process in multiple countries and discusses the factors
influencing the rebranding process.
Keywords International branding, Rebranding, Acquisitions, Legitimation
Paper type Research paper

© Manoella Antonieta Ramos, Svante Andersson and Ulf Aagerup. Published by Emerald Publishing
Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone
may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and
non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full
terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
We thank the Getinge employees, who were immensely open to sharing with us, as well as those who
welcomed the researchers in each subsidiary and shared their experiences to assist the study.
This project received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation
International Marketing Review Programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 860364. This communication
Vol. 41 No. 7, 2024
pp. 84-116 reflects only the authors’ view, and the agency is not responsible for any use that may be made of the
Emerald Publishing Limited information it contains.
0265-1335
DOI 10.1108/IMR-02-2023-0019 The project also received funding from the KK-foundation, and we thank the financiers.
Introduction International
Acquiring an international presence through mergers and acquisitions has long been a Marketing Review
strategic avenue for multinational enterprises (MNEs) aiming to enhance growth and bolster
competitiveness (Casillas et al., 2015). Instead of acquiring market and technology knowledge
through experience, which takes time (Johanson and Vahlne, 1977), financially robust MNEs
often opt to purchase these assets through acquisitions to gain faster access to international
markets by exploiting economies of scale and scope (Lambkin and Muzellec, 2008; Heininger,
2022; Spiller, 2022). After acquisition, the buyer not only gains control of tangible assets but 85
also inherits the acquired company’s brand, which is a valuable intangible asset. However,
the main reason for an acquisition is seldom the brand per se, but access to new markets and
products (Lambkin and Muzellec, 2008). In acquisitions, a lack of brand focus is common (see
Ettenson, 2006) and can lead an MNE to have many different brands in different markets
without a clear strategy for how to deal with these brands.
Because the identities of the acquired brands are often different from the identity of the
buyer’s existing brands (Bruce, 2022) a common approach is to rebrand the acquired brands
and integrate them into the buyer’s existing brand structure. Although this is an increasingly
common occurrence (Heininger, 2022; Spiller, 2022), some aspects of the rebranding of
acquired brands are unclear and therefore require further research. Despite the critical
importance of rebranding, a critical gap exists in understanding the holistic impact of
rebranding on both internal and external stakeholders.
Existing research primarily focuses on either the internal or the external perspective.
A review of studies from authors such as Muzellec et al. (2003), Muzellec and Lambkin (2006)
and Daly and Moloney (2005), among others, highlights a predominantly unilateral focus
either on internal factors like organizational culture and employee buy-in or external factors
such as consumer perceptions and market positioning. Other examples, such as Collange and
Bonache (2015) delve into how customers perceive and rationalize rebranding efforts,
whereas Joseph et al. (2021) explore internal stakeholders’ perspective, particularly
employees. This dichotomy neglects the interconnected nature of internal and external
stakeholders in the rebranding process, which is crucial for the success of rebranding
initiatives. To remedy this omission, our research aims to address this gap by investigating
the influence of both internal and external stakeholders on the rebranding process.
Another neglected aspect in the rebranding literature is that previous studies have
overlooked the influence of international differences on the rebranding process. Few studies
have investigated how different national institutions affect rebranding processes, and few
studies have investigated rebranding in emerging countries, despite the unique challenges
posed by weak infrastructure and fluctuating institutions in emerging countries (Kiss et al.,
2012; Ernst et al., 2015; Zhang and White, 2016). The incomplete understanding of rebranding
in an international context with a focus on both internal and external stakeholders is evident.
Table 1 is illustrating the research gap we are aiming to close.

No focus on how international Focus on how international

differences affects the rebranding differences affects the rebranding
process process

Focus on either internal or Muzellec and Lambkin (2006), Bamfo Muzellec et al. (2003), Lambkin and Table 1.
external stakeholder et al. (2018) Muzellec (2008), Beise-Zee (2022) Positioning table for
Focus on both external and Daly and Moloney (2005), Lambkin Research gap the study on
internal stakeholders and Muzellec (2008) rebranding after
Source(s): Created by authors acquisitions
IMR This paper seeks to address these gaps by offering a comprehensive analysis of rebranding
41,7 processes in both emerging and developed countries with the purpose to describe how an
MNE gains acceptance among internal and external stakeholders for the rebranding of
acquired brands from different countries and to identify factors that influence this process.
Addressing these gaps is essential due to the fundamental role successful rebranding plays
after acquisitions to create a cohesive identity that reflects the new entity for both internal
and external stakeholders. Rebranding is not only an aesthetic exercise; it is a strategic
86 process. To understand it, we adopt a legitimation lens (see Deephouse et al., 2017). This lens
allows us to investigate factors related to the acceptance of rebranding both within the
company and outside of it, thereby integrating the disparate internal and external rebranding
research streams. This comprehensive approach provides a more nuanced view of the
rebranding process, including the challenges related to internal (employee buy-in and internal
implementation processes) and external (external implementation processes, country profiles
and customer buy-in) legitimation. The study contributes to international branding and
marketing literature by introducing a legitimation lens. Legitimation theory allows us to
identify that in emerging countries, rebranding factors related to external legitimation are
more challenging, while in developed countries, rebranding factors related to internal
legitimation are more challenging.

Rebranding after acquisitions

Rebranding, defined as the process of creating a new image or positioning through changes to
a company’s name, symbol, design, or a combination of these elements (Lambkin and
Muzellec, 2008), can occur at different levels (Singh et al., 2012). The term “rebranding”
indicates that the brand has been relaunched with a different concept (Stuart and Muzellec,
2004), and it can occur at three distinct levels in an organization: corporate, strategic business
unit and product levels (Muzellec et al., 2003). One type of rebranding strategy is brand
integration, which refers to the strategy of uniting the corporation and its constituent
businesses and products under a single name, and it is the most common strategy used in
companies (Muzellec et al., 2003). The most common reason firms use this strategy is
structural changes, particularly mergers and acquisitions (M&As) (Stuart and Muzellec,
2004; Muzellec and Lambkin, 2006)
During the acquisition process, managing brand identity can be a challenging task,
especially when the acquisition involves multiple subsidiaries and cultures (Gotsi et al., 2008).
Acquisitions often require significant changes in organizational culture and identity
(Muzellec and Lambkin, 2006) and the legitimation of a new brand strategy. Rebranding
during an acquisition occurs when an enterprise purchases the brand of another company
and is granted the right to use the brand assets, with the aim to enhance brand value and
increase market appeal (Zeng, 2017). When two companies enter the rebranding process, they
are effectively creating a new corporate identity, and this new identity must be nurtured to
allow stakeholders to identify with the new organization (Balmer and Dinnie, 1999).
Therefore, managing the brands’ identity during the acquisition process is critical.
The acquisitions-related marketing literature is slowly expanding (Heinberg et al., 2016),
as M&As are the most common reason for companies to rebrand (Muzellec and Lambkin,
2006). Rebranding after an acquisition can give firms the opportunity to leverage both
companies’ brands to send a clear signal to employees and the outside world. However, such
processes can sometimes destroy rather than create brand value for the involved companies.
This is unsurprising because acquiring a whole company is a complex endeavor that requires
many considerations. Corporate brand strategy is just one of them and therefore is generally
not given the attention it deserves (Ettenson, 2006). Even if it were, a successful rebranding
process would require that those affected accept and perceive it as legitimate.
 According to Joseph et al. (2021), previous rebranding studies have predominantly focused International
on external stakeholders, particularly customers. Collange and Bonache (2015) examine Marketing Review
consumer perceptions and reactions to rebranding. Marques et al. (2020) concentrate on
consumer perception of rebranding and its impact on brand equity. Roy and Sarkar (2015)
assess the impact of rebranding on consumer attitudes.
While focusing on customers is natural in rebranding studies, as their perceptions,
preferences, and behaviors are central to the success of any rebranding initiative, other
stakeholders are also important. For example, Kaikati and Kaikati (2003) highlight the crucial 87
role of internal stakeholders in rebranding success, whereas Daly and Moloney (2005) focus
on employees’ perspectives on rebranding communication strategy, emphasizing the
significance of internal consensus. Gotsi and Andriopoulos (2007) reinforce this stance by
advocating for early engagement of staff to endorse new corporate brand values through the
behavior of leaders. Table 2 provides a review of rebranding literature.
Although research has noted the importance of both internal and external stakeholders,
few studies have examined the influence of both in the rebranding process. Lee (2013)
discusses the necessity of aligning market-driven requirements with organizational identity,
acknowledging the interplay between internal adaptation and external stakeholder
expectations in the nonprofit sector; however, international differences are not considered.
This neglect highlights a notable gap in rebranding studies – namely, the absence of an
international perspective. Few studies have addressed how international differences affect
the rebranding process. Kaikati and Kaikati (2003) emphasize the relevance of local markets
and brand nationality in rebranding campaigns. Amujo and Otubanjo (2012) discuss how
nation branding and identity redeployment in post-disaster contexts can stimulate tourism,
underscoring the importance of socio-cultural contexts in rebranding. However, studies
explicitly focusing on institutional differences between emerging and developed countries in
the rebranding literature are lacking.
Considering the theoretical basis of previous rebranding studies, the primary focus is on
branding theory. In addition, research has adopted perspectives from marketing and
organizational science, such as internal branding and organizational change (see Table 2).
However, to understand how an MNE can gain acceptance from both its internal and external
stakeholders in different countries and to identify factors that influence the rebranding
process, we argue for a legitimation lens. Legitimation deals with both internal and external
stakeholders and institutional differences between different countries.

Legitimation of rebranding
Legitimation is a central concept in institutional theory (Deephouse et al., 2017).
Organizations need to appeal to resourceful and powerful groups of stakeholders to
successfully adapt to different economic, regulatory, societal and cultural factors to remain
legitimate (Angeli and Jaiswal, 2015). Suchman (1995, p. 573) defines legitimacy as “a
generalized perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or
appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, and
definitions.” Tyler (2006, p. 375) further states: “Legitimacy is a psychological property of
an authority, institution, or social arrangement that leads those connected to it to believe that
it is appropriate, proper, and just.” In the case of a successful rebranding strategy, different
stakeholders need to believe in the new branding strategy and find the new brand
appropriate (Hakala et al., 2017; Gustafson and Pomirleanu, 2021). These include both
external stakeholders, such as customers and regulatory authorities, and internal
stakeholders, including the firms’ international subsidiaries.
Internal legitimacy refers to “the acceptance and approval of an organizational unit by the
other units within the firm” (Kostova and Zaheer, 1999, p. 72). The achievement of internal
 88
41,7
IMR

Table 2.

rebranding
Review of literature on
B2B or
Theoretical International B2C
Authors External factors Internal factors Main findings basis differences context

Muzellec et al. No explicit mention of The execution of rebranding is Conceptual review of rebranding, Corporate Secondary data from Focus on
(2003) external factors discussed as mainly a marketing factors leading to it, and the process rebranding the UK, USA, the EU both B2B
function, which involves internal and examination of rebranding and others and B2C
processes such as repositioning, cases industries
renaming, redesign and relaunch
Kaikati and Focuses on logo The study centers on how Effective communication from top Brand Secondary data from Focus on
Kaikati (2003) reception in different internal stakeholders – management is crucial in guiding awareness and examples from B2C
cultures and management, employees and employees through the rebranding brand equity multiple countries context
marketplace standing other internal agents – are process. Additionally, selecting
involved in, affected by and unique symbols and appropriate
responsive to the rebranding colors for the new brand name can
process significantly enhance visibility and
distinction in a competitive
marketplace
Daly and Discusses brand’s Highlights employee Framework for rebranding Corporate International Focus on
Moloney communication of values consideration in the management: analysis, planning rebranding rebranding campaign, B2C
(2005) and target audience, communication strategy and evaluation focus on Ireland, context
including external without directly
audiences comparing
international
differences
Muzellec and No explicit mention of Importance of organization Focuses on the drivers and Rebranding; International Focus on
Lambkin external factors culture and structure in shaping implications of corporate brand hierarchy rebranding B2C
(2006) corporate brand rebranding, including the reasons and brand campaigns, without context
behind rebranding decisions, the equity directly comparing
impact on brand equity and the international
proposed conceptual model for differences
understanding corporate
rebranding

(continued )
 B2B or
Theoretical International B2C
Authors External factors Internal factors Main findings basis differences context

Gotsi and No explicit mention of Emphasizes the importance of Insights into pitfalls of corporate Corporate Primary data with no Focus on
Andriopoulos external factors aligning internal processes and rebranding and important factors. brand direct international B2C
(2007) systems to encourage employees These are: disconnecting with the management; comparison context
to endorse the new corporate core; stakeholder myopia; emphasis brand identity
brand values through their on labels, not meanings; one and equity;
attitudes and behaviors company, one voice: the challenge organizational
of multiple identities culture
Merrilees and No explicit mention of Focus on internal approach and Indicates the need for maintaining Corporate Primary data from Focus on
Miller (2008) external factors alignment of values and culture core values and cultivating the rebranding Canada, with no direct B2C
with rebranding brand, linking the existing brand international context
with the revised brand, targeting comparison
new segments, getting stakeholder
“buy-in,” achieving alignment of
brand elements and promoting
awareness building
Lambkin and No explicit mention of Oriented toward understanding Branding problem varies with size Rebranding, Secondary data from Focus on
Muzellec external factors and improving internal brand and international status of the brand multiple banks from B2C
(2008) management strategies and acquiring company and national hierarchy; and different countries context
decisions within the context of identity of the acquirer and the branded-house
M&As acquired brand play an important strategy
role in the decision as to whether to
rebrand
Gotsi et al. No explicit mention of Internal segmentation in the Aligning corporate culture with Corporate Primary data with no Focus on
(2008) external factors culture of an organization affects new brand values is a complex brand direct international B2C
overall alignment with brand process that requires integration of management; comparison context
values various subcultures in an cultural
organization alignment and
corporate
rebranding

(continued )
International
Marketing Review

89

Table 2.
 90
41,7
IMR

Table 2.
B2B or
Theoretical International B2C
Authors External factors Internal factors Main findings basis differences context

Lambkin and Since corporate B2B stakeholders (customers, Transfer of a brand name during Brand equity Primary data with no Focus on
Muzellec reputation drives brand employees and financial acquisitions encapsulates and brand direct international B2B
(2008) equity in B2B markets, analysts) welcome acquirer significant brand equity, often transfer comparison context
the adoption of a single brand redeployment, supported by a broader transfer of
name across an entire particularly where there is a marketing assets
product line is perceived benefit from the
recognised as having infusion of value from the new
some major benefit for owner
both buyers and
suppliers
Lee (2013) Mentions balancing Discusses tensions in managing Identify, describe and explain the Corporate Primary data with no Nonprofit
market requirements rebranding and internal tensions involved in managing the rebranding and direct international sector
with organizational stakeholder reactions process in which organizations brand comparison
identity in nonprofit must meet expectations from orientation
sector different stakeholders
Miller et al. No explicit mention of Importance of strong internal Critical to successful corporate Corporate Review with no direct Literature
(2014) external factors leadership as an enabler of rebranding are the identification rebranding international review
successful corporate rebranding. and application of six major comparison
Discusses how internal leaders enablers, including strong
who possess strategic relevance rebranding leadership and
and commitment to rebranding coordination among multiple
can differentiate strong from functions and stakeholder groups
weak outcome cases

(continued )
 B2B or
Theoretical International B2C
Authors External factors Internal factors Main findings basis differences context

Collange and Comprehensive model of No explicit mention of internal Surprise impacts attitudes toward Consumer Primary data with no Focus on
Bonache consumer attitudes factors product rebranding through a attitudes and direct international B2C
(2015) toward the practice of three-way process (automatic, surprise comparison context
product rebranding has higher-order cognitive, higher-
been proposed and order affective): a direct negative
tested effect, an indirect effect mediated
by incomprehension about the
reasons for the change and an
indirect effect mediated by the
negative emotions generated by the
change
Roy and Assesses impact of No explicit mention of internal Customer-based brand equity of an Rebranding and Primary data with no Focus on
Sarkar (2015) rebranding on customer- factors established brand diminishes brand equity direct international B2C
based brand equity and following rebranding news, while comparison context
consumer attitudes that of a less-established brand is
enhanced
Bolhuis et al. Corporate visual identity Employees, being more Organizations should incorporate Corporate Primary data with no Focus on
(2018) can significantly impact consistently exposed to and the input of internal and external visual identity direct international both
the impressions of integrally involved with the stakeholders in the rebranding comparison contexts
external stakeholders, organization, experience a more process and communicate well
primarily concerning the profound influence from changes about the new corporate visual
modernity and visual in corporate visual identity identity, both to their internal and
appeal of the to their external stakeholders
organization

(continued )
International
Marketing Review

91

Table 2.
 92
41,7
IMR

Table 2.
B2B or
Theoretical International B2C
Authors External factors Internal factors Main findings basis differences context

Bamfo et al. Rebranding had no No explicit mention of internal Rebranding activities in the Branding; Primary data with no Focus on
(2018) statistically significant factors Ghanaian banking industry had no customer direct international B2C
effect on perceived significant effect on customers’ satisfaction and comparison context
service quality, customer attitude towards the brand loyalty
satisfaction and
customer loyalty
Marques et al. Underscores the No explicit mention of internal Brand awareness and loyalty are Private label Primary data with no Focus on
(2020) importance of consistent factors the factors that relate the most to brand; direct international B2C
interaction with the consumers’ perceptions of the rebranding and comparison context
brand in facilitating the brand before its rebranding consumer-
adaptation to and based brand
acceptance of new brand equity
images and structures
Joseph et al. No explicit mention of Focus on internal perspectives of Emphasizes importance of Internal Primary data from UK Focus on
(2021) external factors employees on rebranding efforts rebranding communication by branding; with no direct B2C
leadership and employee buy-in corporate brand international context
identification; comparison
employee
engagement
Beise-Zee Leveraging the visible No explicit mention of internal Perceived corporate resources play Rebranding Primary data with no Focus on
(2022) and tangible elements of factors a critical role in retaining brand brand equity direct international B2B
a spin-off in a rebranding equity during rebranding efforts and resource- comparison context
campaign is essential based view
Source(s): Created by authors
legitimacy is important when an MNE with subsidiaries in different countries implements International
new strategies (Ciabuschi et al., 2017; Pratt and Foreman, 2000). Prior studies have shown that Marketing Review
the evaluation and legitimation of brands and products are related to the image of the firm
and/or the country of origin (He and Zhang, 2018; Held and Bader, 2018).
External legitimation refers to the acceptance and validation of the new brand by external
stakeholders (e.g. partners, customers, regulatory authorities, even competitors) (Drori and
Honig, 2013). External legitimacy can be acquired, for example, by partnering with successful
and established external entities (Rao et al., 2008; Turcan, 2012). Previous research has noted 93
the importance of establishing a legal entity and completing a business plan for new ventures
external legitimation (Delmar and Shane, 2004).
Research has used internal and external legitimation as a theoretical lens to examine the
emergence of new firms, industries, technologies and products (Rao et al., 2008; Geels and
Verhees, 2011; Zhang and White, 2016). However, few studies have used a legitimation
framework to assess rebranding strategies (Lounsbury and Crumley, 2007), and to our
knowledge, no research has explored in-depth how firms internally and externally legitimize
a rebranding process after acquisitions (Vaara and Monin, 2010; Sinha et al., 2015; Heinberg
et al., 2016). Legitimation is a context-dependent process influenced by a combination of
institutional and industry-specific factors.

Rebranding in different institutional contexts

International rebranding means that MNEs must adapt to different institutional contexts (i.e.
adapt to institutions that influence their behavior and strategy; North, 1990; Peng et al., 2009).
Institutions’ most fundamental roles are to reduce uncertainty, define the boundaries of what
is legitimate and provide “rules of the game” (North, 1990; Scott, 1995).
In an international rebranding strategy, MNEs must handle organizational differences
between, for example, cultures and structures. Moreover, they must manage institutional
differences, depending on the context. Rebranding can be a consequence of an acquisition
strategy. If a firm owns many different brands, communicating an integrated message to
stakeholders in different countries can be challenging (Singh et al., 2012).
A product’s national origin can communicate product quality (Wang and Rafiq, 2014) and
can positively influence customers’ purchase intention (Peterson and Jolibert, 1995; Knight
and Calantone, 2000). Previous studies have argued that institutional differences between
different parts of an MNE play an important role in the legitimation of the organization (He
and Zhang, 2018; Zhang et al., 2019). However, empirical studies on such differences are
scarce (Zhang et al., 2019).
The concept of a country’s institutional profile underscores the significance of the
institutional environment in a given country, whether it be the home or host country (Van
Hoorn and Maseland, 2016). When firms operate in a particular country, they encounter a
spectrum of challenges and opportunities that emanate from the unique institutional
environment of that country (Kostova, 1997; Dunning and Lundan, 2008).
Prior research has shown that particularly contexts with unsettled institutional
frameworks, or so-called institutional voids, are possible for MNEs to influence, but also
that these institutional voids can hinder business activities (e.g. Meyer and Peng, 2005). The
term “institutional voids” describes an uncertain regulatory environment or an inefficient
judicial system with strict and complex bureaucratic systems to establish and enhance
business transactions (Liedong et al., 2020). Institutional voids are often prevalent in
emerging economies. They can manifest in different forms (Liedong et al., 2020) and create
challenges for different business operations (De Lange, 2016). Presumably, institutional voids
could therefore affect a rebranding process. In developed countries, institutions are more
settled and difficult to influence but easier to comprehend (Cantwell et al., 2010).
IMR Corporate and national cultures are essential factors in shaping the M&A processes and
41,7 outcomes (Weber and Tarba, 2010), so the institutional context can influence the rebranding
process and the legitimacy of a new brand. As context is responsible for sustaining
organizational characteristics, it not only involves where the action takes place but also
influences and shapes organizational occurrences (Buchanan et al., 2015), such that it can
create conditions, restrictions and possibilities for companies (Aldrich and Fiol, 1994).
Moreover, considering that foreign subsidiaries must comply not only with the rules and
94 standards of the local environment in which they operate but also with the parent company’s
requirements to succeed (Westney, 1993), we argue that the institutional context both at
headquarters, where the rebranding decision is made, and in markets, where the rebranding
process is implemented, influences the rebranding process and, therefore, the legitimation of
the new branding strategy.

Method
We chose to use a single case-study approach to capture the exploratory nature of our
research and to be able to investigate rebranding in its real-life context (Pettigrew, 1997;
Langley, 1999). Studying a single case in-depth enables researchers to identify nuances and
details of the process of rebranding in different national contexts (Dyer and Wilkins, 1991;
Andriani and McKelvey, 2007). We employed the Gioia method to analyze our data, as it is
suitable for in-depth qualitative analysis, allowing us to systematically identify and develop
key concepts through a process of data categorization into first- and second-order themes
(Gioia et al., 2013; Corley and Gioia, 2004).
The life sciences sector is one of the fastest-growing industries in the world, a context that
provides ample opportunities for individual firms to implement international growth
strategies (Cushman & Wakefield, 2019). Prior studies have shown the complexity of
internationalization of life science firms due to the many institutional differences between
national markets in this sector (Andersson et al., 2013; Laurell et al., 2013). Therefore, we
consider the life sciences industry a relevant sector to investigate an international acquiring
growth strategy and the subsequent rebranding strategy.

Research setting
Getinge AB is a global medical technology company that was founded in Sweden in 1904 and
had a history of producing equipment and systems for the healthcare and life sciences
industries. In the 1960s, it was acquired by the Swedish MNE Electrolux, which enabled it to
expand internationally. In 1989, Swedish entrepreneurs Rune Andersson and Carl Bennet
acquired Getinge from Electrolux and took the company public in 1993 by listing its shares on
the Stockholm Stock Exchange. In the following decades, Getinge made numerous
acquisitions of medical technology companies in Europe and the United States, including
Maquet in 2000 and Atrium, Datascope and the Cardiac Surgery and Vascular Surgery
divisions of Boston Scientific Corporation in 2010. These acquisitions helped Getinge become
a global leader in the surgical workflow field. As of 2022, the company had more than 10,000
employees worldwide and sold its products in 135 countries. It has production facilities in
China, France, Germany, Poland, Sweden, Turkey and the United States. In 2017, the
company’s top management decided to implement a single-name strategy to simplify its
customer offering and to clarify the company’s position further as a world-leading medical
device company (Getinge, 2017). The rebranding strategy was a long and complex process
but was regarded as necessary after many international acquisitions.
We selected Getinge as the focus of our investigation because the company recently
underwent a rebranding process following a long-term international growth strategy
involving the acquisition of multiple international brands. Moreover, one of the authors has a International
long-standing relationship with the company, which allowed us to access valuable data on the Marketing Review
rebranding process.
We used qualitative data from in-depth interviews to understand the process of
implementing a rebranding strategy after an MNE acquisition (Sarala et al., 2019). First, to
collect these data, we conducted three semi-structured in-depth interviews, each lasting from
one to three hours, with top executives involved in the rebranding process. All interviews
were recorded (except for the first interview) and transcribed. Second, we conducted 15 95
personal semi-structured in-depth interviews with employees of the firm involved in the
rebranding process in different countries (Andriopoulos and Slater, 2013): Germany, in which
a company acquired in 2000 had recently been rebranded; the United States, in which an
acquired company had experienced two rebranding processes after it was acquired; and the
Latin America team responsible for the Brazil, Colombia and Mexico markets. We chose these
countries partially as a result of interviews with the executives responsible for the process,
who indicated that these markets are vital for the company and have experienced issues that
have both hindered and facilitated the implementation of the rebranding strategy. Moreover,
the markets are diverse in terms of institutions, geography, culture and their level of
development. Therefore, they allow us to highlight the challenges of rebranding across
markets. This is important because, when acquisitions face cultural, geographic, or
institutional distances (Chakrabarti and Mitchell, 2013; Mukherji et al., 2013), their failure rate
tends to go up. Still, although this is a common situation facing many companies post-
acquisition, how country differences affect success in acquisitions is an under researched
area – the marketing and M&A research stream largely focuses on a relatively small number
of regions and countries (Christofi et al., 2017). To complement the interviews, we reviewed
secondary sources, including internal emails, brochures, websites and press releases
(Salda~na, 2021). We employed purposive sampling in the selection of our interviewees,
considering their roles, experiences and involvement in Getinge’s rebranding process.

Interview sample
We reached saturation with regard to the rebranding process after interviewing 18 people in
different subsidiaries of the company in different countries (Saunders et al., 2018). We chose
these interviewees by their proximity to and influence over the rebranding process.
Specifically, the CEO and the president in Latin America provided a strategic overview of the
rebranding initiative. Sales managers and marketing team members offered insights from a
customer-facing perspective, highlighting market reception and shifts in perception after the
rebranding. We also included the R&D team because of its role in ensuring that the
rebranding aligned with the company’s product innovations and core strengths, emphasizing
brand authenticity. Moreover, the marketing manager position changed during the data
collection, which enabled us to gather two perspectives on the rebranding process (during
and after implementation). Table 3 provides information about the interview sample.
The interviews took place between March 2019 and July 2022 and lasted an average of
49 min, for 14 h and 30 min of interviews in total. We conducted many of the interviews in
person (61.11%), and all were recorded with the interviewee’s permission. We spoke to three
people from Sweden, six from Germany, two from the United States, and seven from the Latin
America team.
To ensure consistency in our interviews, we developed general topics centered on the firm’s
rebranding process. We began with open-ended questions about the interviewees’ role in the
company and involvement in the rebranding process and then asked about their thoughts on
the positive and negative aspects of the process. We identified these topics through initial
interviews with the three top executives involved in the firm’s corporate rebranding.
IMR Interview Country/region Formal position Form of interview
41,7
Interview 1 Sweden President, life science* Personal
(Sweden subsidiary)
Interview 2 Sweden Vice president, strategy and Telephone
project office*
Interview 3 Sweden Director, brand management* Personal
96 (HQ in Sweden)
Interview 4 Germany Project manager, R&D Personal
(Germany subsidiary)
Interview 5 Germany R&D director Personal
(Germany subsidiary)
Interview 6 Germany Director of global business Personal
development (Germany subsidiary)
Interview 7 United States Territory manager Telephone
Interview 8 Germany Assistant engineer Telephone
Interview 9 United States Senior director, marketing Telephone
Interview 10 Germany Senior marketing Telephone
communications manager
Interview 11 Germany Product sales manager Telephone
Interview 12 Latin America Marketing communications Personal
manager, Latin America (Brazil subsidiary)
Interview 13 Latin America Senior sales director – Latin Personal
America (Brazil subsidiary)
Interview 14 Latin America President - Latin America Personal
(Brazil subsidiary)
Interview 15 Latin America Marketing manager – Latin Personal
America (Brazil subsidiary)
Interview 16 Latin America Managing director – Brazil Personal
(Brazil subsidiary)
Interview 17 Latin America Finance director – Brazil Personal
(Brazil subsidiary)
Interview 18 Belgium, the Netherlands, Sales director – BENELUX and Telephone
Luxembourg and Latin America Latin America
Table 3. Note(s): *The first three semi-structured interviews conducted
Interview sample Source(s): Created by authors

Data analysis
To gain a more detailed understanding of the process, we also explored the institutional
context of each site, using a thick description approach to clarify the sequences of the process
and illustrate the influence of national contexts (Langley, 1999). The findings were presented
as a case description. We then compared the implementation of the rebranding strategy in
each country and identified the factors that influenced the process. We conducted data
analysis by carefully reading the interview texts multiple times to gain a comprehensive
understanding of the data. We then compared their individual analysis and resolved any
disagreements through discussion and further analysis of the interviews. In a workshop, all
researchers participated in the discussion of different interpretations of the data and
compared them with existing literature (Dubois and Gadde, 2002). We used the Gioia method
as a tool for the analysis. The Gioia method is a qualitative approach to data analysis that
meet the rigorous standards of research (Magnani and Gioia, 2023). This method provides
greater rigor, since it employs a more systematic research approach (e.g. Grøgaard et al.,
2019). The Gioia method involves a progression towards greater abstraction, transitioning
from raw data to first- and second-order themes, culminating in aggregate dimensions. International
Initially, we identify examples by quotes extracted from the data, through which we Marketing Review
inductively discern first-order themes with informative labels (Gehman et al., 2018).
Subsequently, we derive second-order themes and aggregate dimensions by synthesizing the
emerging data from the field with existing theory.
This research process was abductive, as it involved considering both data and existing
theory simultaneously (see Alvesson and K€arreman, 2007; Gioia et al., 2012).
This process generated 11 first-order concepts that represented the experiences and views 97
of the interviewees. We then combined these to form five second-order themes that represent
theoretically distinct concepts. Finally, we identified two aggregate dimensions representing
the factors influencing the rebranding process (Corley and Gioia, 2004; Yin, 2011). After this
process, we presented the results to the firm for validation. The company affirmed the
findings, ensuring their relevance to the rebranding strategy.
In the next section, we present an informative story on the new concept development, with
careful presentation of the evidence. This is exemplified by the inclusion of quotations from
the informants (Gioia et al., 2012).

Findings: the rebranding process of Getinge

Background
Getinge initiated the rebranding process to change the perception that the company was a
set of small entities rather than a large MNE. In 2015, the brand portfolio consisted of
more than 60 brands with different stages of growth, success, position in the market and
history. The rebranding process was part of a reorganization in which the firm sought to
simplify its strategy, as many brands were tied to different international supply chains
and different sales organizations. A reorganization therefore promised considerable
economies of scale.
When Getinge acquired those companies among Maquet, and this is why it was obvious that this
step will come, because if you don’t have a strong brand, a strong company, you will stay like small
pieces fighting in that area. (Director, Germany)
In line with our ongoing transformation to make our company even more customer-centric, we have
taken the next step of unifying all of our brands under the single brand of Getinge. This new brand
structure will further strengthen our position as a leading global medtech company. Some of these
brands, such as Maquet, will become product family names under the Getinge master brand.
(President, United States)
Rebranding was taken into consideration, according to the company’s president of life
sciences, as it is regarded as a tactic that can reduce expenses in the future. He said: “The
branding started to be necessary due to the growing need for cost cuts. It became necessary
after so many acquisitions to reorganize the brands.” Rebranding was also important to
simplify customer offerings and clarify the company’s position as a world-leading medical
device company rather than many different small companies.
Even if we are one of the top 25 players in the world, we were seen as a group of small, small entities.
(Vice president, Sweden)
Another reason to rebrand was that hospitals, an important customer segment, had changed
their buying behavior. In the past, they operated in a more decentralized manner, and Getinge
could directly promote products to different parts of the hospital. However, buying decisions
had become more centralized, with hospitals tending to want more system solutions and an
overview of all Getinge’s offers.
IMR The whole reason for going into this whole reorganization was that we had seen a customer changing
behavior that when they buy, you do not buy one product you want to have a big supplier that you
41,7 can buy a lot from instead, so you minimize your number of suppliers, from a hospital perspective.
(Director, Sweden)
Moreover, top managers considered the efficacy of the sales teams when deciding to begin the
rebranding process. They realized that Getinge was visiting the same clients on different
occasions with different sales teams and that improving this process was necessary.
98
That is a fairly inefficient way when the same company goes to meet the same customers with five
different products, [at] five different time points. (Vice president, Sweden)

Structure, analysis and re-evaluation of the rebranding strategies

Figure 1 illustrates the intended brand architecture before and after the company’s
rebranding process in three phases. Initially, the company adopted a house-of-brands
strategy. The figure depicts the progress from a house-of-brands to a hybrid branded-house
approach from 2000 to 2018. This progression reflects the strategic decisions in managing the
relationship between the corporate brand and its product brands.
In 2000, the company initiated a house-of-brands strategy following the acquisition of
Maquet. Although Getinge owned all the brands in the portfolio, the Getinge and Maquet
brands were communicated as separate brands to customers. In 2010, the company’s
acquisition of Datascope led to a rebranding change, in an effort to integrate Datascope with
Maquet while continuing with the house-of-brands strategy. In 2017, the company planned to
rebrand to a branded-house strategy, in which it aimed to consolidate its brands under one
master brand, Getinge.
So [we] had a pre-launch for certain people, so we did a presentation for communicators already in
December or something like that. So that they [could] prepare the material to communicate that
change, so first we did a communication like, now we are getting Getinge as one brand. (Director,
brand management, Sweden)

Figure 1.
Evolution of brand
architecture strategy
However, after some internal pushback, the company turned to a hybrid branded-house International
strategy. Getinge remained the corporate brand, and the Maquet brand was included in the Marketing Review
product brands. This means that the corporate brand is now Getinge on all levels but that the
products that before had the brand name Maquet still have Maquet as part of their product
names. This change allowed for the continuation of the high-profiled brand name Maquet.
The result is a brand architecture that is simpler, with a clear focus on an overarching brand,
and product brands that benefit from the historical name of the old brand. This approach
effectively connects all elements of the company’s portfolio under one unified umbrella. 99
We decided on a hybrid version of one master brand, but on a product category level we kept the
Maquet [name] on the table [for] equipment brand[s], but the logo on the product will always be the
Getinge brand. (Vice president, strategy and project office, Sweden)

Analysis and planning (headquarters in Sweden)

The brand change process began in 2017 and was scheduled to last for more than seven years.
According to the project coordinator, this long process was necessary because “it is not that
expensive, and we do not lose customers.” The process was planned to happen in six steps: (1)
analyzing the brands separately; (2) interviewing employees (54 interviews) and customers
(100 interviews); (3) planning; (4) launching, which entailed conferences; meetings and
internal training; (5) corporate brand integration; and (6) product rebranding.
By unifying all brands into one, Getinge aimed to offer holistic solutions, including
planning, maintenance and support of systems of products and services from a single source.
To align the transition with Getinge’s overall strategy to build one company, the firm
implemented the rebranding process with a new promise to customers and new logos. The
first stage was a two-month internal campaign that focused on why the change was
occurring.
So the first thing that we did as a company, [we] started the conversation around why we are making
these changes, why we are bringing [these] brands together, all the individual company and product
names are eventually becoming under the Getinge brand. (Director, United States)
Although the rebranding process occurred simultaneously in all its subsidiaries, the process
happened more quickly at the company’s headquarters in Sweden. The company was already
using the Getinge brand there, so changes to the logo and visual identity were the focus.
Moreover, because functions such as human resources, marketing and communication were
also based in Sweden, many employees there were already working on the macro rebranding
process and had no execution problems or perceived significant changes in their daily
activities.
The brand change process was easier than expected in Sweden, according to the vice
president of strategy and project office. However, the countries that faced the most difficulties
in implementing the new brand were Germany, the United States and Brazil. Understanding
the perception of the brand in these countries was challenging for the headquarters team, as
they were not as familiar with the local context.

Implementation: Germany
The rebranding process was less accepted at the German subsidiary. According to the
interviews, this was because the newly acquired company had a successful history with its
previous brand, Maquet. In Germany, where Getinge’s position in infection control had been
historically weak, Maquet still had a strong presence, even after the acquisition.
According to the team responsible for the rebranding process, the Getinge brand was not
well received because of employees’ and customers’ perception that the Maquet brand was
IMR superior. The process began with meetings with the German unit leaders, followed by a
41,7 presentation to all employees of the unit, explaining the reasons for the change. However,
employees did not agree with the choice of Getinge as the main brand. Some changes were
also noticed before the official internal meeting, with some employees becoming aware of the
change through the new wallpaper on company computers.
So Maquet is bigger than Getinge . . . So it was more like a small company buying a big one and
100 giving the big one its name. So, you could imagine that not everybody likes it. (Product sales
manager, Germany)
Because the previous brand Maquet is so well-known in the German market, the brand
change proved difficult. In the former headquarters of Maquet in Rastatt (Germany), it is still
possible to find the brand name at the location, on internal signs, and even on signs of the
street on which the company is located.
As observed, one difficulty of the rebranding stems from the many employees with more
than 20 years of work at Maquet not accepting the new brand as the main one. For example,
employees still answer the phone using the name Maquet, and they say both internally and in
social settings that they work for Maquet.
The presence of the Maquet brand is still widely apparent in the company, and according
to one interviewee, it will take time for the presence of the old brand to disappear. Because the
products have not yet been changed to the main Getinge brand due to the use of old materials,
this process also helps preserve the old brand. Interviewees also highlighted the language
aspect, as with the increase of communication in English, some employees could not fully
understand the change.
I think that this would cause the negative things that not all the employees are able to follow up with
the speeds, follow the language in the same structure, like today so more or less, I would say the
negative is that we will lose some percentage of effectiveness because of language translations. (R&D
director, Germany)

Implementation: the United States

The rebranding outcomes were different at the US subsidiary, which was already in the
process of changing due to a previous rebranding in 2008, from Datascope to Maquet. This
first change was difficult for employees and customers because of Datascope’s strong brand
image in the country. The sales team also received the change poorly, as it changed the
brand’s visual identity, including the product colors by which customers used to order. This
interference with the way products were used in hospitals was an issue. As the first change of
the brand was so intense, the second change for Getinge did not interfere in the employees’
daily lives:
And back in 2008, we were really upset about [the change]. Angry, we [did] not want to lose our name.
We [had] pride in that name. (Territory manager, United States).
The change of brand in the subsidiary took place as planned, through an internal conference
with employees, press media and communications sent to all customers in the country.
However, the main challenge was during medical congresses in which the company
participated with the new brand.
When I really notice the difference is when I worked at a conference this year, and people came to me
and said, “What in the world is that? What happens to Maquet?” And [they] don’t know even how to
pronounce [the name], they do not know what they do not know. (Territory manager, United States).
Even with the difficulties presented, the US interviewees believed that the main problem of
brand acceptance is not with customers but internally:
 Honestly, I am not worried about the customers, I am more worried internally. I do not think it is International
going to be a problem with the customers because we will put together a communication. (Senior Marketing Review
marketing communications manager, United States).

Implementation: Latin America

In Latin America, the challenges were different. Owing to team restructuring and the office’s
move to a new location in Brazil, the rebranding process happened quickly. First, the 101
subsidiary’s leadership was modified as a result of judicial problems with the Brazilian
government. The “Operaç~ao Lava Jato” in Rio de Janeiro was a nationwide initiative to
combat money laundering and corruption in Brazil, and Getinge was investigated during this
operation. Recognizing the need for transparent action, Getinge restructured the entire
company’s commercial unit, which had significant impacts on its operations, employees,
relationships with stakeholders and corporate reputation. This is an example of the
instability of institutions in emerging countries and how they affect rebranding. The
reconstruction meant that a new team entered the company simultaneously with the new
brand. Second, the entire team moved to a new office that was already fully equipped with the
visual identity of the leading brand Getinge. Moreover, owing to a high turnover of employees
in emerging countries, the teams in Colombia and Mexico also changed during the process.
With these significant changes in staff and location, the process of implementing the new
brand was quick. According to the president in Latin America, when he found materials with
old Maquet or Datascope branding, he himself took the materials out of circulation. These
changes were positive, improved employee engagement and increased headquarters’
confidence in the region’s leadership.
We have been rebuilding Latin America a lot here, especially Brazil, which has gone through some
challenges, and this reconstruction helped to regain the confidence of the staff at the headquarters in
Gothenburg. (President, Latin America)
In Brazil, customers recognized the brand change, and the rebranding process left the brand
with a multinational identity.
When we bring customers here, they realize that it is indeed a respected multinational. So it changes
a lot . . . it is a job of professionalism that people also see. (President, Latin America)
To encourage the sales team to get used to the new brand, sales managers began meting out
“fines” every time sales representatives mentioned the old brand name Maquet, which made
this activity fun and interactive:
There was a pot that every time someone said the word Maquet, they had to pay a fine, they had to
put a real coin in it, and we started then, man, no no, this is not Maquet, fine. (Senior sales director,
Latin America)
The Latin American workforce is younger than employees in other Getinge locations,
partially due to the high turnover rate among workers in emerging countries, but also
because of the clear out of old staff related to the corruption problems mentioned previously.
Today, the Latin American team is a much younger team. And being young and with less time in the
company, they are much more connected with this brand issue. (Marketing manager, Latin America)
People from Latin America have a different relationship with work than people from Europe; here it
is a survival factor, thinking “If I don’t work well . . . the company can fire me and I won’t get a job
soon.” (Marketing manager, Latin America)
Although the stakeholders in Latin America were generally positive about the change, one
difficulty is that even with the new brand’s restructuring, the company’s legal name remains
IMR registered as Maquet. This has caused confusion among customers, who receive the Getinge
41,7 product with a Maquet invoice, and among employees because of the employment contracts.
So some continued to send [the invoice] like Maquet, and then it doesn’t help, obviously, which also
doesn’t help my invoice leaving Maquet from Brazil. (Senior sales director, Latin America)

102 Analysis
Drawing from the details of the case study, Figure 2 presents the outcomes of the Gioia
analysis performed on the interview data. After we developed themes and dimensions
influencing the implementation of the rebranding process using Gioia et al.’s (2013) method,
we identified two aggregate dimensions influencing the process: internal and external
legitimation.

Internal legitimation
Our findings corroborate previous research that shows that resistance to change can
significantly impede a rebranding process (Gotsi et al., 2008). The presented case study
indicates that internal legitimation depends on two main factors; whether employees are
onboard with the idea to rebrand (employee buy-in of the rebranding) and how the rebranding
is implemented (the internal implementation process).
Research suggests that rebranding will only be successful if employees accept the new
brand (Fram and McCarthy, 2004; Daly and Moloney, 2005). Thus, a critical element in
effective corporate rebranding is that the company’s employees understand the reason for the
changes to the brand and support the new corporate brand strategy, especially in a business-
to-business or service marketing context, in which personal contacts are important to
communicate the perception of the firm and brands (De Chernatony, 2010; Aagerup et al.,
2022). Employees’ buy-in is correlated with how effectively they transmit the message to
others. During the interviews, employee buy-in of the rebranding emerged as a significant
factor in the rebranding process. We set two first-order factors for this dimension: employee
emotional attachment to the old brand and employee tenure.
First, Employees’ emotional attachment to the old brand was related to the pride they felt
in working for a respected company. Employees were also not convinced that the new brand
signaled the same high quality to customers as the old brand. Especially the sales teams
noted the difficulty of convincing customers of a message they themselves did not believe.
. . . we were really upset about it. Angry, we do not want to lose our name. We have pride in that
name. (Territory Manager, the U.S.)
Second, our study sheds light on the disparities in employees’ adaptation depending on their
tenure with the company, echoing the findings of Gotsi et al. (2008). We classified this aspect
into two key facets: adjustment of long-standing employees to the new brand and the
receptiveness of new hires to the rebranding efforts. Notably, employees with longer tenures
had more difficulty in embracing the transition. While tenure often fosters a sense of loyalty
and familiarity, it can also impede adaptability during periods of rebranding. These insights
underscore the importance for firms to implement tailored strategies when navigating
transitions for their long-serving staff. Recognizing the depth of loyalty cultivated over
employees’ tenure can inform strategies geared toward facilitating a smoother rebranding
process.
People are working here, the average is between 15 and 20 years for working for the same company,
receiving a salary from Maquet, seeing Maquet on the street, there is a bus station called Maquet, so it
 International
Marketing Review

103

Figure 2.
Internal and external
legitimation factors
IMR is written in the mind[s] and heart[s] of the people. (Director of global business development,
Germany)
41,7
Unsurprisingly, we found that long-tenured employees with strong emotional attachment to
the old brand were less likely than others to comply with the brand change. This behavior
was more or less overt. Usually, it manifested as reluctance, oftentimes unconscious, to adapt.
Am I proactive in communicating with our customers? No. I’ve talked to some people about the
104 change, and they say, “OK, no big deal at all.” But I did not actively go out and tell our customers. It
didn’t even cross my mind. (Territory manager, Germany)
These findings complement previous rebranding studies that argue that companies may not
achieve the full potential of a new brand during new brand implementation as a result of a
lack of internal buy-in (Yakimova et al., 2015).
In addition to employee buy-in, we identified two process-related themes associated with
the rebranding implementation: resources and planning and employees’ abilities. First,
because of the vast number of activities that must be timed and coordinated, planning is
crucial. Our case, however, revealed that sometimes, the internal brand communication
suffered because other matters took priority. For example, the US territory manager was
unpleasantly surprised that the color-coded packaging was suddenly changed, which meant
that he no longer knew which products came in which boxes. His confusion could have been
avoided by clear and timely communication. The lack of planning meant that he was not told
of the change, and what could have been a routine update became a major irritation.
Rebranding also requires adequate resources, and a lack thereof can affect the effectiveness
of the process.
I think one difficulty was how do you manage this consciously. If you have unlimited resources, then,
of course, you can do whatever you want, right? If you need to have the cost element included, of
course, you have to [set] some boundaries of what you can do or not. (Vice president strategy and
project office, Sweden)
Prioritizing urgent matters related to operations over marketing issues is a common mistake
(Ettenson, 2006). Our findings validate previous research by identifying that this tendency
also exists in life sciences.
Second, we found that when the acquired companies were suddenly incorporated into a
one-company, one-brand organization, employees were suddenly expected to communicate in
English. In Germany, this was not a welcome change. The switch emphasized employees with
different language skills and cultural backgrounds faced difficulties understanding and
embracing the brand change. This further slowed down the transition.
I think that this [change] would cause the negative things that not all the employees are able to
follow-up with the speeds [or] follow the language in the same structure like today, so more or less I
would say the negative is that we will lose some percentage of effectiveness because of language
translations. (R&D director, Germany)
External legitimation. Legitimation is mainly related to corporate concerns about stakeholder
perceptions and societal expectations. While research has studied external legitimation in
various contexts (Turcan, 2012; El-Bassiouny and Letmathe, 2018), the rebranding literature
lacks insight into this issue. During our assessment, we were also able to observe more
differences between emerging (Brazil, Colombia and Mexico) and developed (Sweden,
Germany and the United States) countries.
Several themes became evident from the case findings. First, several interviewees spoke of
specific regulations and practices, especially in Latin America. The dimension of external
implementation process can be explored through two first-order concepts: regulations and
industry buying processes. Regulations were mentioned in the interviews because when a firm
modifies key brand elements, such as the company name, the change must take specific International
country regulations and timelines into consideration, which can cause significant operational Marketing Review
difficulties.
So there are some complexities to [rebrand]. But the bigger issue is the timing because you have to
reregister all the bodies in the world. That you are changing the brand name, it is not something that
we can snap our finger and be done. (Marketing communications manager, Latin America)
The rebranding process faced challenges in effectively communicating with external 105
stakeholders, largely due to the slow pace of change driven by regulatory factors. Insights
gleaned from interviews with the sales team shed light on this issue. They noted that
inconsistencies in brand names across invoices, items, products, websites and other materials
created confusion among customers, ultimately impeding sales efforts. The sales team also
emphasized the importance of retaining the old brand (Maquet) on items, citing its association
with high-quality products as crucial for maintaining customer trust and sales momentum.
One thing that also makes it difficult sometimes is the name of the company itself. We are registered
as Maquet, so here in Brazil, what we did was to give the fancy name Getinge, but employment
contracts are Maquet. (President Latin America)
The institutional voids in the Latin America regions created barriers and delayed the
implementation of the necessary legal name change due to the complex nature of the
industry’s regulatory framework. These voids, characterized by inadequate legal structures
and political and cultural barriers, decelerated the rebranding process and, as a result,
confused customers during the new brand adaptation period.
Moreover, changes in buying behaviors in the life sciences industry are also a significant
factor influencing the rebranding process. According to the interviews, the new preference
from hospitals to purchase from a single supplier rather than multiple entities was one of the
reasons to start the rebranding process. This shift was primarily driven by the need for
efficiency in operations and cost reductions, making the brand change necessary to align to
this industry trend.
And we see [the shift] with competitors doing that also. So, it’s where the whole industry goes. (Sales
manager, Germany)
Second, the dimension of country profiles can be comprehensively understood by examining
two primary concepts: the stability of institutions and the level of industrial and technological
development in the home country. The case of Maquet in Brazil aptly illustrates the stability of
institutions. Here, the company encountered protracted legal procedures, which put the
brakes on its endeavor to change its name, serving as a vivid example of the sluggish and
bureaucratic processes prevalent in the region.
The drawn-out process of altering a brand’s name underscored the challenges inherent in
rebranding, stemming not only from country regulations but also from cultural barriers
characteristic of emerging economies. These barriers include a lack of transparency and
clarity in the rebranding process, as well as the need for additional measures to combat
corruption – a common issue in emerging markets
From the factory in Sweden to our sales and service unit in France, [altering the brand’s name] quite
easy. It’s much more difficult, for example, in Brazil, in Latin America in general, because of the taxes,
because of different eco terms, and sort of the legal and compliance aspects. (Sales director, Benelux
and Latin America)
The level of industrial and technological development in the home country, in this case,
Sweden, can present both barriers and facilitators during the rebranding process. In
emerging countries (e.g. Brazil), the home country’s advanced industrial and technological
IMR competence is viewed with admiration, enhancing the perceived quality and professionalism
41,7 of the brand. However, in developed countries (e.g. Germany, the United States), such
advancements may not be as impressive, given the comparable industrial and technological
advancements of these countries. Consequently, when customers in emerging countries visit
the company, they are impressed and perceive it as a symbol of a “respected multinational
corporation” rooted in the home country standards. Finally, customer buy-in of the rebranding
was also a factor highlighted during the interviews. This aspect influences the perception and
106 reception of the Getinge brand among its customers and external stakeholders in general.
This dimension can be explored through two first-order concepts: awareness of the new brand
and acceptance of the new brand. Interviewees expressed how customers had a difficult time
recognizing the new brand (Getinge) compared with the old brand (Maquet). Customers are
not fully aware of the brand transition, and Maquet still predominates in their minds.
I went in, and I only heard the comments, “Ah, Maquet is here, but, wow, with that [new] name,” and
then they would come. And then when I was inside talking to one of our specialists, “Wow, you don’t
know how [long] I looked for you. I was looking for Maquet yet.” (Marketing manager, Latin
America)
However, after customers learn about the rebranding, most of them accept it, as long as they
believe that the value proposition is the same as before.
If I get there and say the name of this product is no longer Maquet, it is Getinge, it makes no
difference, [the customer] wants that same product, and for him, the branding does not imply so
much. I never had a call from a client to say: “Gee, it’s not the same.” Never. (Sales manager, Brazil)
As the company operates in life sciences, one explanation for the observed challenges could
be that customers in this industry often engage more with the product’s functional utility and
less with the symbolic elements. Instead, the greatest challenge in establishing external
legitimacy in a rebranding process is informing customers about the change and then
convincing them that the new brand represents the same functional value as the
discontinued brand.

Discussion
Role of internal and external legitimation in the rebranding process
As the case findings indicate, the major obstacles can be distinguished by context and
legitimation throughout the rebranding process. By focusing on the context of the countries
where the rebranding implementation took place, we show that in the emerging countries of
Latin America, the company faced more significant challenges in external legitimation, due to
factors related to the external implementation process, country profiles and customer buy-in
of the rebranding. In this vein, several interviewees noted the specific industry regulations
and complex change processes. That is, regulations and the lack of clarity of communication
delayed the process, as did the slow pace of the national institutions responsible for
implementing the change, such as governmental institutions responsible for approving the
legal name change. These findings align with previous research that highlights how
consumer goods ingrained in a culture for an extended period, such as food, are significantly
shaped by the local national culture. By contrast, industrial goods, services and novel high-
tech products such as medical technology items tend to be less affected by national culture
(Andersson, 2006).
The internal legitimation of the transition was not a hindrance during the process, given
Sweden’s positive national image, the strong appeal of international companies in emerging
countries, and the high staff turnover in emerging countries. This is in line with prior research
stressing that a brand’s national origin can communicate product quality and positively
influence customers’ purchase intention (Peterson and Jolibert, 1995; Knight and Calantone, International
2000; Wang and Rafiq, 2014). In line with this discussion, we propose the following: Marketing Review
P1. In emerging countries, rebranding factors related to external legitimation (external
implementation process, country profiles and customer buy-in) are more challenging.
P2. In emerging countries, rebranding factors related to internal legitimation (employee
buy-in and internal implementation process) are less challenging.
107
While resistance to change is likely during a rebranding process (Gotsi et al., 2008), the
differences in legitimation challenges between different countries are noteworthy. As
institutions are more settled and difficult to influence (Cantwell et al., 2010), internal
legitimation was the main barrier in developed countries. Although we agree with Fram and
McCarthy (2004) and Gotsi et al. (2008) that internal marketing is essential during the
rebranding process, we argue that internal legitimation challenges are more prevalent in
developed countries. Our study shows that in Germany and the United States, the major
challenge of brand acceptance was on the employee rather than the customer side. In
developed countries, the resistance to the brand change was partially a result of employees’
doubts about whether the new brand represented the same high quality to customers as the
old brand. By contrast, in the emerging countries of Latin America, the employees accepted
the change without difficulty. Therefore, we propose the following:
P3. In developed countries, rebranding factors related to internal legitimation (employee
buy-in and internal implementation process) are more challenging.
P4. In developed countries, rebranding factors related to external legitimation (external
implementation process, country profiles and customer buy-in) are less challenging.

Conclusion
From the data, we conclude that the different types of challenges to the rebranding process
include external and internal legitimation, with the degree of prominence depending on the
country’s context. On the one hand, external legitimation refers to the acceptance and
validation of the new brand (after rebranding) of external stakeholders (e.g. partners,
customers, even competitors). Challenges include regulations and practices, country profiles
and customer brand knowledge. On the other hand, internal legitimation refers to the
acceptance and validation of the new brand from internal stakeholders (e.g. employees), with
challenges including employees’ emotional attachment to the old brand and their tenure. We
considered emerging countries those with institutional voids. These voids can hinder unique
external legitimation, as firms must deal with inconsistent regulatory environments and
often diverse, rapidly changing internal landscapes. This reflects the potential instability of
operating in these markets, particularly during periods of organizational change such as
rebranding. By contrast, we viewed developed countries as those with more stable
institutions and typically long-tenured employees. While these conditions may provide a
more predictable environment for rebranding, they also present distinct challenges
internally, as long-tenured employees may resist rebranding efforts because of their
loyalty to the existing brand. Figure 3 summarizes our conclusion, though with certain
limitations. The study focuses on a singular context within the life sciences industry, guided
by insights from a single case study approach.

Theoretical contributions
This research examined the process of rebranding from both an internal and external
perspective in three emerging and three developed countries and identified factors that
IMR
41,7

108

Figure 3.
Challenges in the
rebranding process in
emerging and
developed countries

influenced this process. The study extends international branding and marketing literature by
invoking a theory that rebranding studies have not used before – namely, legitimation
(Deephouse et al., 2017) – to analyze the rebranding process in different national contexts.
Legitimation theory allows us to consider how both internal and external stakeholders are
crucial to successful rebranding, thus integrating the two previous research streams (e.g. Gotsi
and Andriopoulos, 2007; Collange and Bonache, 2015; Roy and Sarkar, 2015) and providing a
comprehensive view of how a company gains acceptance of rebranding among its internal and
external stakeholders in different national contexts.
Legitimation also highlights the importance of acceptance and not only communication.
Contrary to Muzellec et al. (2003), who found that the execution of rebranding is mainly a
marketing function, our study identifies the complexity of the process beyond marketing
activities, involving deeper legitimation considerations. Prior research has emphasized the
importance of internal communication during the rebranding process and portrayed
rebranding as a top-down activity implemented by top management (Gotsi et al., 2008).
However, we argue that top-down strategies are not enough and that internal stakeholders
may push back against such methods, which will force management to revise their initial
strategy. Rebranding only works if stakeholders accept it, and legitimation theory therefore
allows us to understand this reaction. That is, by identifying different relationships between
well-accepted constructs (internal and external legitimation) in different national contexts
(emerging and developed countries), we can identify different challenges in the rebranding
process and explain why these difference occur (Whetten, 1989; Yadav, 2010).
Moreover, relating the specific characteristics of the life science industry (functional
products, high complexity and high level of regulation) to the case allows us to extend theory
on rebranding. We identify that to successfully rebrand functional products in the mind of the
customer, information about the change is more important than persuasion – as long as
customers know about it, rebranding is acceptable. We also identify that the success of
rebranding of functional products is not dependent on adaptation to local cultures. We
further identify that for rebranding of highly complex products it is crucial to engage
employees early and effectively in the rebranding process, and provide them with the
rationale behind the change to equip them with the knowledge to embody the new brand. International
While this is important in all rebranding ventures, highly complex products are especially Marketing Review
vulnerable to misalignment between brand promise and employee actions, which can lead to
confusion, and diminish trust among clients and partners. Finally, we also identify that for
rebranding in highly regulated industries, success is determined to a considerable degree by
the company’s knowledge, not only of regulations, but also of buying processes (e.g.
customers behaviour change) and institutional stability (e.g. compliance aspects).
The study also contributes to the international business literature by describing and 109
analyzing how firms implement a rebranding strategy after acquisitions across geographic
markets. This is a common challenge for practitioners, but one that is under-researched
(Christofi et al., 2017). In contrast with previous studies (e.g. Kaikati and Kaikati, 2003;
Muzellec and Lambkin, 2006), we found that informal institutions (culture) influenced the
rebranding process less than formal institutions (laws and regulations) in emerging
countries. More specifically, the study describes how rebranding plays out differently in
developed and emerging countries, which is an area that has previously received scant
attention (Stuart, 2018). We identify that in emerging countries, rebranding factors related to
external legitimation are more challenging, while in developed countries, rebranding factors
related to internal legitimation are more challenging. This difference allows us to differentiate
between markets and advocate for different actions to legitimize rebranding depending on
the country’s development level. The developed framework (Figure 3) can be useful in a
variety of contexts and from a managerial perspective when implementing the rebranding
process across multiple global subsidiaries.

Managerial implications
This study has significant implications for companies undergoing rebranding. It provides a
detailed analysis of the rebranding process in an MNE, shows that different challenges exist
in developing and emerging countries, and reveals the strategies needed to overcome these
challenges (e.g. in our case, the original brand strategy with just one master brand was
changed to also include product names, which made the rebranding process easier to accept
by internal stakeholders in developed countries). The study also highlights the emotional
connection with an old brand when implementing a new brand (Vallaster and Lindgreen,
2013). Legitimation strategies should be modified in accordance with the context in which
subsidiaries are located, with a focus on external stakeholders in emerging countries and
internal stakeholders in developed countries.
For both emerging and developed countries, acquiring local knowledge during the
rebranding process is essential. In emerging countries, external legal and legislative expertise
are necessary to address regulatory and institutional issues effectively. This team should
include legal professionals familiar with the local business environment as well as cultural
connections that can facilitate smoother communication between the company and local
regulatory bodies, for example. In developed countries, it is vital to have internal local
expertise, such as brand ambassadors, to effectively promote the new brand. Managers
should prioritize internal campaigns, using tools such as intranet portals or dedicated
training modules to strengthen the rebranding process. It is recommended to involve
employees in the rebranding process actively. Finally, the study showed that in emerging
countries, regulatory processes take time. Different timetables in different countries are
necessary, as influencing regulatory processes in different countries is difficult for firms.

Limitations and future research

The rebranding topic discussed in this study has significant scope for further research. One
limitation is the use of a single case study, which cannot produce results that are directly
IMR generalizable to other contexts but is suitable for investigating processes and developing
41,7 theory through analytical generalization (Yin, 2011). We argue that our findings regarding
the external legitimation of brands are relevant for other life science firms (and other sectors
with strong regulatory requirements). However, we suggest that further research tests the
propositions developed herein with a larger sample of MNEs in this and other sectors.
Furthermore, a comparison within emerging countries and within developed countries is
crucial to establish if the challenges observed are consistent across similar economic
110 landscapes.
Additionally, given the conclusion that institutional voids in emerging countries pose
unique challenges for external legitimation during the rebranding process, future research can
explore deeper on how companies deal with these voids during the rebranding process. This
could include, for example, studying how firms engage with local external stakeholders.
Moreover, we suggest to expand the scope of research to include different stakeholders, beyond
employees and customers, could find deeper insights into the rebranding process. For example,
engaging with regulators, would provide a richer understanding of external legitimation.
Finally, another aspect to consider is the contrast between employees’ emotional
connection with the old brand and customers’ rational thinking in the industry. Future
studies on rebranding could investigate this seemingly contradictory insight. Such studies
could benefit from a comparative analysis across different economic contexts to see if these
emotional and rational dynamics are applicable or vary.

References
Aagerup, U., Andersson, S. and Awuah, G.B. (2022), “Building a warm and competent B2B brand
personality”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56 No. 13, pp. 167-193, doi: 10.1108/EJM-06-
2019-0528.
Aldrich, H.E. and Fiol, C.M. (1994), “Fools rush in? The institutional context of industry creation”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 645-670, doi: 10.5465/amr.1994.9412190214.
Alvesson, M. and K€arreman, D. (2007), “Constructing mystery: empirical matters in theory
development”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 1265-1281, doi: 10.5465/
amr.2007.26586822.
Amujo, O.C. and Otubanjo, O. (2012), “Leveraging rebranding of ‘unattractive’ nation brands to
stimulate post-disaster tourism”, Tourist Studies, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 87-105, doi: 10.1177/
1468797612444196.
Andersson, S. (2006), “International growth strategies in consumer and business-to- business
markets in manufacturing and service sectors”, Journal of Euromarketing, Vol. 15 No. 4,
pp. 35-56, doi: 10.1300/J037v15n04_03.
Andersson, S., Evers, N. and Griot, C. (2013), “Local and international networks in small firm
internationalization: cases from the Rh^one-Alpes medical technology regional cluster”,
Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Vol. 25 Nos 9-10, pp. 867-888, doi: 10.1080/
08985626.2013.847975.
Andriani, P. and McKelvey, B. (2007), “Beyond Gaussian averages: redirecting international business
and management research toward extreme events and power laws”, Journal of International
Business Studies, Vol. 38 No. 7, pp. 1212-1230, doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400324.
Andriopoulos, C. and Slater, S. (2013), “Exploring the landscape of qualitative research in international
marketing: two decades of IMR”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 384-412,
doi: 10.1108/IMR-03-2012-0061.
Angeli, F. and Jaiswal, A.K. (2015), “Competitive dynamics between MNCs and domestic companies at
the base of the pyramid: an institutional perspective”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 48 No. 3,
pp. 182-199, doi: 10.1016/j.lrp.2013.08.010.
Balmer, J.M. and Dinnie, K. (1999), “Corporate identity and corporate communications: the antidote to International
merger madness”, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 4 No. 4, Marketing Review
pp. 182-192, doi: 10.1108/13563289910299300.
Bamfo, B.A., Dogbe, C.S.K. and Osei-Wusu, C. (2018), “The effects of corporate rebranding on
customer satisfaction and loyalty: empirical evidence from the Ghanaian banking industry”,
Cogent Business and Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, 1413970, doi: 10.1080/23311975.2017.1413970.
Beise-Zee, R. (2022), “Brand equity retention after rebranding: a resource-based perspective”, Journal
of Brand Management, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 208-224, doi: 10.1057/s41262-021-00263-5. 111
Bolhuis, W., De Jong, M.D. and Van Den Bosch, A.L. (2018), “Corporate rebranding: effects of
corporate visual identity changes on employees and consumers”, Journal of Marketing
Communications, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 3-16, doi: 10.1080/13527266.2015.1067244.
Bruce, I. (2022), “B2B rebranding is on the rise”, available at: https://www.forrester.com/blogs/b2b-
rebranding-is-on-the-rise/ (accessed 3 November 2023).
Buchanan, D.A., Denyer, D., Jaina, J., Kelliher, C., Moore, C., Parry, E. and Pilbeam, C. (2015), “How do
they manage? A qualitative study of the realities of middle and front-line management work in
health care”, Working paper, Cranfield University School of Management, 3 February.
Cantwell, J., Dunning, J.H. and Lundan, S.M. (2010), “An evolutionary approach to understanding
international business activity: the co-evolution of MNEs and the institutional environment”,
Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 567-586, doi: 10.1057/jibs.2009.95.
Casillas, J.C., Barbero, J.L. and Sapienza, H.J. (2015), “Knowledge acquisition, learning, and the initial
pace of internationalization”, International Business Review, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 102-114, doi: 10.
1016/j.ibusrev.2014.06.005.
Chakrabarti, A. and Mitchell, W. (2013), “The persistent effect of geographic distance in acquisition
target selection”, Organization Science, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 1805-1826, doi: 10.1287/orsc.1120.0811.
Christofi, M., Leonidou, E. and Vrontis, D. (2017), “Marketing research on mergers and acquisitions: a
systematic review and future directions”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 34 No. 5,
pp. 629-651, doi: 10.1108/IMR-03-2015-0100.
Ciabuschi, F., Kong, L. and Su, C. (2017), “Knowledge sourcing from advanced markets subsidiaries:
political embeddedness and reverse knowledge transfer barriers in emerging-market
multinationals”, Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 311-332, doi: 10.1093/icc/dtx001.
Collange, V. and Bonache, A. (2015), “Overcoming resistance to product rebranding”, Journal of
Product and Brand Management, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 621-632, doi: 10.1108/JPBM-10-2014-0730.
Corley, K.G. and Gioia, D.A. (2004), “Identity ambiguity and change in the wake of a corporate spin-
off”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 173-208, doi: 10.2307/4131471.
Cushman & Wakefield (2019), “Life science: great promise and rapid growth”, available at: https://
cushwake.cld.bz/Life-Science-Great-Promise-Rapid-Growth (accessed 3 November 2023).
Daly, A. and Moloney, D. (2005), “Managing corporate rebranding”, Irish Marketing Review, Vol. 17
Nos 1/2, pp. 30-36.
De Chernatony, L. (2010), From Brand Vision to Brand Evaluation: The Strategic Process of Growing
and Strengthening Brands, Routledge, Oxford.
De Lange, D.E. (2016), “Legitimation strategies for clean technology entrepreneurs facing institutional
voids in emerging economies”, Journal of International Management, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 403-415,
doi: 10.1016/j.intman.2016.06.002.
Deephouse, D.L., Bundy, J., Tost, L.P. and Suchman, M.C. (2017), “Organizational legitimacy: six key
questions”, in The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, Sage, Thousand Oaks,
CA, pp. 27-54.
Delmar, F. and Shane, S. (2004), “Legitimating first: organizing activities and the survival of new
ventures”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 385-410, doi: 10.1016/S0883-9026(03)
00037-5.
IMR Drori, I. and Honig, B. (2013), “A process model of internal and external legitimacy”, Organization
Studies, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 345-376, doi: 10.1177/017084061246715.
41,7
Dubois, A. and Gadde, L.-E. (2002), “The construction industry as a loosely coupled system:
implications for productivity and innovation”, Construction Management and Economics,
Vol. 20 No. 7, pp. 621-631, doi: 10.1080/01446190210163543.
Dunning, J.H. and Lundan, S.M. (2008), Multinational Enterprises and the Global Economy, Edward
Elgar Publishing, Bodmin.
112
Dyer, Jr., W.G. and Wilkins, A.L. (1991), “Better stories, not better constructs, to generate better
theory: a rejoinder to Eisenhardt”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 613-619,
doi: 10.5465/amr.1991.4279492.
El-Bassiouny, D. and Letmathe, P. (2018), “The adoption of CSR practices in Egypt: internal efficiency
or external legitimation?”, Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, Vol. 9
No. 5, pp. 642-665, doi: 10.1108/SAMPJ-10-2017-0126.
Ernst, H., Kahle, H.N., Dubiel, A., Prabhu, J. and Subramaniam, M. (2015), “The antecedents and
consequences of affordable value innovations for emerging markets”, Journal of Product
Innovation Management, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 65-79, doi: 10.1111/jpim.12171.
Ettenson, J.K.R. (2006), “Merging the brands and branding the merger”, MIT Sloan Management
Review, Vol. 47, pp. 39-49.
Fram, E.H. and McCarthy, M.S. (2004), “What’s not to like?”, Marketing Management, Vol. 13 No. 4,
pp. 36-39.
Geels, F.W. and Verhees, B. (2011), “Cultural legitimacy and framing struggles in innovation journeys:
a cultural-performative perspective and a case study of Dutch nuclear energy (1945-1986)”,
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 78 No. 6, pp. 910-930, doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.
2010.12.004.
Gehman, J., Glaser, V.L., Eisenhardt, K.M., Gioia, D., Langley, A. and Corley, K.G. (2018), “Finding
theory–method fit: a comparison of three qualitative approaches to theory building”, Journal of
Management Inquiry, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 284-300, doi: 10.1177/1056492617706029.
Getinge (2017), Getinge Establishes New Brand Structure and Becomes a Single Brand Company, Press
Release, 20 March, available at: https://www.getinge.com/int/company/news/press-releases/
2017/2498283-Getinge-establishes-new-brand-structure-and-becomes-a/ (accessed 3
November 2023).
Gioia, D.A., Corley, K.G. and Hamilton, A.L. (2012), “Organizational research”, Organizational Research
Methods, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 15-31, doi: 10.1177/1094428112452151.
Gioia, D.A., Corley, K.G. and Hamilton, A.L. (2013), “Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research:
notes on the Gioia methodology”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 15-31,
doi: 10.1177/1094428112452151.
Gotsi, M. and Andriopoulos, C. (2007), “Understanding the pitfalls in the corporate rebranding
process”, Corporate Communications, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 341-355, doi: 10.1108/
13563280710832506.
Gotsi, M., Andriopoulos, C. and Wilson, A. (2008), “Corporate re-branding: is cultural alignment the
weakest link?”, Management Decision, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 46-57, doi: 10.1108/00251740810846734.
Grøgaard, B., Colman, H.L. and Stensaker, I.G. (2019), “Legitimizing, leveraging, and launching:
developing dynamic capabilities in the MNE”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 53
No. 4, pp. 636-656, doi: 10.1057/s41267-019-00245-5.
Gustafson, B.M. and Pomirleanu, N. (2021), “A discursive framework of B2B brand legitimacy”,
Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 93, pp. 22-31, doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.12.009.
Hakala, H., Niemi, L. and Kohtam€aki, M. (2017), “Online brand community practices and the
construction of brand legitimacy”, Marketing Theory, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 537-558, doi: 10.1177/
1470593117705695.
He, X. and Zhang, J. (2018), “Emerging market MNCs’ cross-border acquisition completion: International
institutional image and strategies”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 93, pp. 139-150, doi: 10. Marketing Review
1016/j.jbusres.2018.04.014.
Heinberg, M., Ozkaya, H.E. and Taube, M. (2016), “A brand built on sand: is acquiring a local brand in
an emerging market an ill-advised strategy for foreign companies?”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 44 No. 5, pp. 586-607, doi: 10.1007/s11747-015-0452-7.
Heininger, J. (2022), “M&A surge drives rebranding: what are your options?”, available at: https://
www.forbes.com/sites/forbesagencycouncil/2022/05/25/ma-surge-drives-rebranding-what-are- 113
your-options/ (accessed 3 November 2023).
Held, K. and Bader, B. (2018), “The influence of images on organizational attractiveness: comparing
Chinese, Russian and US companies in Germany”, International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 510-548, doi: 10.1080/09585192.2016.1173085.
Johanson, J. and Vahlne, J.-E. (1977), “The internationalization process of the firm—a model of
knowledge development and increasing foreign market commitments”, Journal of International
Business Studies, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 23-32, doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490676.
Joseph, A., Gupta, S., Wang, Y. and Schoefer, K. (2021), “Corporate rebranding: an internal
perspective”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 130, pp. 709-723, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.
04.020.
Kaikati, J.G. and Kaikati, A.M. (2003), “A rose by any other name: rebranding campaigns that work”,
Journal of Business Strategy, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 17-23, doi: 10.1108/02756660310509451.
Kiss, A.N., Danis, W.M. and Cavusgil, S.T. (2012), “International entrepreneurship research in
emerging economies: a critical review and research agenda”, Journal of Business Venturing,
Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 266-290, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2011.09.004.
Knight, G.A. and Calantone, R.J. (2000), “A flexible model of consumer country-of-origin perceptions: a
cross-cultural investigation”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 127-145, doi: 10.
1108/02651330010322615.
Kostova, T. (1997), “Country institutional profiles: concept and measurement” in Taneja, S. (Ed.),
Academy of Management Proceedings, Academy of Management, Briarcliff Manor, NY,
pp. 180-184.
Kostova, T. and Zaheer, S. (1999), “Organizational legitimacy under conditions of complexity: the case
of the multinational enterprise”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 64-81, doi:
10.5465/amr.1999.1580441.
Lambkin, M. and Muzellec, L. (2008), “Rebranding in the banking industry following mergers and
acquisitions”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 328-352, doi: 10.1108/
02652320810894398.
Langley, A. (1999), “Strategies for theorizing from process data”, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 691-710, doi: 10.5465/amr.1999.2553248.
Laurell, H., Andersson, S. and Achtenhagen, L. (2013), “The importance of industry context for new
venture internationalization: a case study from the life sciences”, Journal of International
Entrepreneurship, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 297-319, doi: 10.1007/s10843-013-0116-y.
Lee, Z. (2013), “Rebranding in brand-oriented organisations: exploring tensions in the nonprofit
sector”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 29 Nos 9/10, pp. 1124-1142, doi: 10.1080/
0267257X.2013.812978.
Liedong, T.A., Peprah, A.A., Amartey, A.O. and Rajwani, T. (2020), “Institutional voids and firms’
resource commitment in emerging markets: a review and future research agenda”, Journal of
International Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, 100756, doi: 10.1016/j.intman.2020.100756.
Lounsbury, M. and Crumley, E.T. (2007), “New practice creation: an institutional perspective on
innovation”, Organization Studies, Vol. 28 No. 7, pp. 993-1012, doi: 10.1177/
0170840607078111.
IMR Magnani, G. and Gioia, D. (2023), “Using the Gioia Methodology in international business and
entrepreneurship research”, International Business Review, Vol. 32 No. 2, 102097, doi: 10.1016/j.
41,7 ibusrev.2022.102097.
Marques, C., da Silva, R.V., Davcik, N.S. and Faria, R.T. (2020), “The role of brand equity in a new
rebranding strategy of a private label brand”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 117,
pp. 497-507, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.06.022.
Merrilees, B. and Miller, D. (2008), “Principles of corporate rebranding”, European Journal of
114 Marketing, Vol. 42 Nos 5/6, pp. 537-552, doi: 10.1108/03090560810862499.
Meyer, K.E. and Peng, M.W. (2005), “Probing theoretically into Central and Eastern Europe:
transactions, resources, and institutions”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 36
No. 6, pp. 600-621, doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400167.
Miller, D., Merrilees, B. and Yakimova, R. (2014), “Corporate rebranding: an integrative review of
major enablers and barriers to the rebranding process”, International Journal of Management
Reviews, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 265-289, doi: 10.1111/ijmr.12020.
Mukherji, A., Mukherji, J., Dibrell, C. and Francis, J.D. (2013), “Overbidding in cross-border
acquisitions: misperceptions in assessing and valuing knowledge”, Journal of World Business,
Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 39-46, doi: 10.1016/j.jwb.2012.06.005.
Muzellec, L. and Lambkin, M. (2006), “Corporate rebranding: destroying, transferring or creating
brand equity?”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40 Nos 7/8, pp. 803-824, doi: 10.1108/
03090560610670007.
Muzellec, L., Doogan, M. and Lambkin, M. (2003), “Corporate rebranding-an exploratory review”, Irish
Marketing Review, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 31-40.
North, D.C. (1990), Economic Performance, Cambridge, University Press, New York.
Peng, M.W., Sun, S.L., Pinkham, B. and Chen, H. (2009), “The institution-based view as a third leg for a
strategy tripod”, Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 63-81, doi: 10.5465/
amp.2009.43479264.
Peterson, R.A. and Jolibert, A.J. (1995), “A meta-analysis of country-of-origin effects”, Journal of
International Business Studies, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 883-900, doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490824.
Pettigrew, T.F. (1997), “Generalized intergroup contact effects on prejudice”, Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 173-185, doi: 10.1177/0146167297232006.
Pratt, M.G. and Foreman, P.O. (2000), “Classifying managerial responses to multiple organizational
identities”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 18-42, doi: 10.5465/amr.2000.
2791601.
Rao, R.S., Chandy, R.K. and Prabhu, J.C. (2008), “The fruits of legitimacy: why some new ventures gain
more from innovation than others”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 72 No. 4, pp. 58-75, doi: 10.1509/
jmkg.72.4.058.
Roy, S. and Sarkar, S. (2015), “To brand or to rebrand: investigating the effects of rebranding on brand
equity and consumer attitudes”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 340-360, doi:
10.1057/bm.2015.21.
Salda~
na, J. (2021), The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Sarala, R.M., Vaara, E. and Junni, P. (2019), “Beyond merger syndrome and cultural differences: new
avenues for research on the “human side” of global mergers and acquisitions (M&As)”, Journal
of World Business, Vol. 54 No. 4, pp. 307-321, doi: 10.1016/j.jwb.2017.10.001.
Saunders, B., Sim, J., Kingstone, T., Baker, S., Waterfield, J., Bartlam, B., Burroughs, H. and Jinks, C.
(2018), “Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and
operationalization”, Quality and Quantity, Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 1893-1907, doi: 10.1007/s11135-
017-0574-8.
Scott, W.R. (1995), Institutions and Organizations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Singh, A.K., Tripathi, V. and Yadav, P. (2012), “Rebranding and organizational performance-some International
issues of relevance”, American Journal of Sociological Research, Vol. 2 No. 5, pp. 90-97, doi: 10. Marketing Review
5923/j.sociology.20120205.01.
Sinha, P., Daellenbach, U. and Bednarek, R. (2015), “Legitimacy defense during post-merger
integration: between coupling and compartmentalization”, Strategic Organization, Vol. 13 No. 3,
pp. 169-199, doi: 10.1177/1476127015580486.
Spiller, T. (2022), “M&A transactions 2021 higher than ever before”, available at: https://www.
empowersuite.com/en/blog/mergers-aquisitions-2021-record-year?hsLang5en 115
Stuart, H. (2018), “Corporate branding and rebranding: an institutional logics perspective”, Journal
of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 96-100, doi: 10.1108/JPBM-05-
2016-1198.
Stuart, H. and Muzellec, L. (2004), “Corporate makeovers: can a hyena be rebranded?”, Journal of
Brand Management, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 472-482, doi: 10.1057/palgrave.bm.2540193.
Suchman, M.C. (1995), “Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 571-610, doi: 10.5465/amr.1995.9508080331.
Turcan, R.V. (2012), “External legitimation in international new ventures: toward the typology of
captivity”, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, Vol. 15 No. 2,
pp. 262-283, doi: 10.1504/IJESB.2012.045207.
Tyler, T.R. (2006), “Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation”, Annual Review of
Psychology, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 375-400, doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190038.
Vaara, E. and Monin, P. (2010), “A recursive perspective on discursive legitimation and organizational
action in mergers and acquisitions”, Organization Science, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 3-22, doi: 10.1287/
orsc.1080.0394.
Vallaster, C. and Lindgreen, A. (2013), “The role of social interactions in building internal corporate
brands: implications for sustainability”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 297-310,
doi: 10.1016/j.jwb.2012.07.014.
Van Hoorn, A. and Maseland, R. (2016), “How institutions matter for international business:
institutional distance effects vs institutional profile effects”, Journal of International Business
Studies, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 374-381, doi: 10.1057/jibs.2016.2.
Wang, C.L. and Rafiq, M. (2014), “Ambidextrous organizational culture, contextual ambidexterity and
new product innovation: a comparative study of UK and C hinese high-tech firms”, British
Journal of Management, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 58-76, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2012.00832.x.
Weber, Y. and Tarba, S.Y. (2010), “Human resource practices and performance of mergers and
acquisitions in Israel”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 203-211, doi: 10.
1016/j.hrmr.2009.08.007.
Westney, D.E. (1993), “Institutionalization theory and the multinational corporation”, in Organization
Theory and the Multinational Corporation, Springer, London.
Whetten, D.A. (1989), “What constitutes a theoretical contribution?”, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 490-495, doi: 10.5465/amr.1989.4308371.
Yadav, M.S. (2010), “The decline of conceptual articles and implications for knowledge development”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 74 No. 1, pp. 1-19, doi: 10.1509/jmkg.74.1.1.
Yakimova, R., Merrilees, B. and Miller, D. (2015), “Engaging internal stakeholders: revitalizing
community organizations through rebranding”, Looking Forward, Looking Back: Drawing on
the Past to Shape the Future of Marketing: Proceedings of the 2013 World Marketing Congress,
Springer, Cham, pp. 764-771, doi: 10.1509/jmkg.74.1.1.
Yin, R.K. (2011), Applications of Case Study Research, Sage, London.
Zeng, X. (2017), “Research on the development strategy of product under the strategy of brand merger
and acquisition”, International Conference on Applied System Innovation (ICASI), IEEE, New
York, NY, pp. 963-965.
IMR Zhang, W. and White, S. (2016), “Overcoming the liability of newness: entrepreneurial action and the
emergence of China’s private solar photovoltaic firms”, Research Policy, Vol. 45 No. 3,
41,7 pp. 604-617, doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2015.11.005.
Zhang, J., Jiang, J. and Noorderhaven, N. (2019), “Is certification an effective legitimacy strategy for
foreign firms in emerging markets?”, International Business Review, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 252-267,
doi: 10.1016/j.ibusrev.2018.09.003.

116 About the authors

Manoella Antonieta Ramos is a Marie Skłodowska-Curie early-stage researcher within the Legitimation
of Newness and its Impact on Eu Agenda for Change project. In her research, Manoella examines how
institutional contexts and policies shape and are shaped by the emergence, legitimation and
internationalization processes of life science industries (such as medical technology, pharmaceuticals
and biotechnology). Manoella Antonieta Ramos is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
[email protected]
Svante Andersson is Professor in Business Administration at Halmstad University. His areas of
research include marketing, entrepreneurship and international business. He is on the editorial board of
Journal of International Entrepreneurship and has published in International Marketing Review, Journal
of Business Venturing, Journal of International Marketing, European Journal of Marketing and
Entrepreneurship and Regional Development.
Ulf Aagerup is an associate professor in marketing. He teaches courses in marketing, branding,
consumer behavior, methods, ethics, etc. He was appointed as Excellent Teacher in 2019 and has been
awarded the Best Business Teacher Prize five times. Ulf has supervised dissertations on all levels from
bachelor to PhD. Prior to his academic career, Ulf worked professionally with marketing, sales and
business development in several multinationals, like Procter and Gamble, Philips and Electrolux. Ulf’s
research areas are mainly in branding and consumer behavior, but he has also published on business-to-
business and internationalization.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]