A Stakeholder Approach to Branding Clusters:Pointers to a Research Agenda

EDWARD KASABOV*† and USHA SUNDARAM‡*School of Management, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, UK. Email: E.Kasabov@bath.ac.uk†ESRC/EPSRC AIM (Advanced Institute of Management Research), London WC1B 5DN, UK‡University of Exeter Business School, Streatham Court, Rennes Drive, Exeter EX4 4PU, UK.

Email: us211@exeter.ac.uk

(Received December 2009: in revised form September 2011)

KASABOV E. and SUNDARAM U. A stakeholder approach to branding clusters: pointers to a research agenda, Regional Studies. Thispaper addresses gaps in the research of clusters and place brands by proposing the analysis of clusters as place brands and arguing forthe adoption of stakeholder management approaches for such a purpose. Analysis should also recognize the role of diverse stake-holders with potentially incompatible interests in cluster branding initiatives and the associated, processual issues of power appli-cation, discord and disagreement in clusters. By addressing these issues, two areas of academic enquiry, clusters and place branding,that share common object and aims of enquiry but which rarely recognize one another can be integrated. The call for a combinedlook at the two areas is driven by a belief in their complementarities and common inadequacies, and it provides an integrativeplatform, a dialogical platform as a theoretically enriched basis upon which to open up future research avenues.

Clusters Place brands Stakeholders Conflict Power Disciplinary power

KASABOV E. and SUNDARAM U. 以利益相关者方法考察品牌集群：一个研究议程，区域研究。本文通过提出集群分

析作为地方品牌，并选择利益相关者管理方法以实现上述目的，填补了集群及地方品牌研究中的空白。分析意识到

不同利益相关者的作用，其与集群品牌动机不相匹配的潜在兴趣点，权力应用中相关的过程性要素，以及不和协以及集群不一致。通过强调上述问题，研究在有区分的前提上将存在相同目标与目的的两个学术议题：集群以及地方品牌进行整合。上述整合是基于二者所具备的相互补充性与不足，它同时提供了一个整合平台，一个对话平台以作为理论基础启发未来的进一步研究。

集群 地方品牌 利益相关者 冲突 权力 规制力

KASABOV E. et SUNDARAM U. Une façon d’identifier l’image de marque des clusters qui porte sur les parties prenantes: des indi-cations quant au programme de recherche, Regional Studies. Cet article cherche à colmater les brèches dans la recherche à propos desclusters et de l’image de marque des lieux, et prône l’adoption des façons d’aborder cette question qui portent sur les parties pre-nantes. Toute analyse devrait tenir compte aussi du rôle des diverses parties prenantes concernées par des initiatives relatives àl’image de marque des clusters qui pourraient s’avérer incompatibles et des questions associées processuelles quant à l’applicationdu pouvoir, à la discorde et au désaccord des clusters. En abordant ces questions, on peut intégrer deux aspects, les clusters et l’imagede marque des lieux, dont l’objet et les objectifs sont communs mais qui se reconnaissent rarement, les uns, les autres. L’appel à uneanalyse simultanée des deux aspects est mené par une confiance envers leurs complémentarités et insuffisances communes, etfournit une plate-forme intégrée, une plate-forme dialogique comme base théoriquement riche sur laquelle on pourrait ouvrirde nouveaux horizons à rechercher.

Clusters Image de marque des lieux Parties prenantes Conflit Pouvoir Pouvoir disciplinaire

KASABOV E. und SUNDARAM U. Ein Stakeholder-Ansatz für die Markenbildung von Clustern: Wegweiser für ein Forschungspro-gramm, Regional Studies. In diesem Beitrag gehen wir auf die Lücken in der Erforschung von Clustern und Ortsmarken ein, indemwir eine Analyse von Clustern als Ortsmarken vorschlagen und für den Einsatz von Ansätzen des Stakeholder-Managements zudiesem Zweck plädieren. Bei der Analyse sollten außerdem die Rollen und potenziellen Interessenskonflikte der verschiedenenStakeholder bei den Initiativen zur Markenbildung von Clustern sowie die damit verbundenen Verfahrensprobleme hinsichtlichder Machtanwendung, Uneinigkeit und Meinungsverschiedenheiten in Clustern berücksichtigt werden. Durch eine Berücksich-tigung dieser Fragen lassen sich zwei Bereiche der wissenschaftlichen Forschung – Cluster und Markenbildung für Orte – mit-einander kombinieren, die gemeinsame Forschungsgegenstände und –ziele haben, aber sich gegenseitig kaum anerkennen. DerRuf nach einem kombinierten Ausblick auf diese beiden Bereiche wird durch die Überzeugung motiviert, dass sie sich durchKomplementaritäten und gemeinsame Schwachstellen auszeichnen; gleichzeitig ermöglicht er eine integrative bzw. dialogges-tützte Plattform als theoretisch erweiterte Basis zur Erschließung künftiger Forschungswege.

Regional Studies, pp. 1–14, iFirst article

0034-3404 print/1360-0591 online/11/000001-14 © 2011 Regional Studies Association http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2011.631907http://www.regional-studies-assoc.ac.uk

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Edw

ard

Kas

abov

] at

03:

25 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2011

Cluster Ortsmarken Stakeholder Konflikt Macht Disziplinarmacht

KASABOV E. y SUNDARAM U. Un enfoque de partes interesadas sobre la creación de marcas para aglomeraciones: consejos para unprograma de investigación, Regional Studies. En este artículo examinamos las lagunas en la investigación de las marcas de aglomer-aciones y lugares proponiendo el análisis de las aglomeraciones como marcas de lugares y abogando por la adopción de enfoques dela gestión de las partes interesadas para tal propósito. En el análisis también debería reconocerse el papel de los diferentes grupos deinterés con intereses potencialmente incompatibles en las iniciativas para la creación de marcas de aglomeraciones y las cuestionesprocesuales asociadas de la aplicación de poder, discordias y desacuerdos en las aglomeraciones. Al abordar estas cuestiones,podemos integrar dos campos de investigación académica –aglomeraciones y la creación de marcas de lugares– que compartenun objetivo y una finalidad de investigación comunes pero que rara vez se reconocen entre ellos. La exigencia de una perspectivacombinada de ambos campos está impulsada por una creencia en sus complementariedades y deficiencias comunes, y ofrece unaplataforma de integración y diálogo como una base enriquecida teóricamente con la que abrir futuras vías de investigación.

Aglomeraciones Marcas de lugares Grupos de interés Conflicto Poder Poder disciplinario

JEL classifications: L6, L65, M3, M37, M39, R1, R10

INTRODUCTION

This paper identifies, examines and problematizes extantgaps in two parallel areas of research enquiry: clustersand place branding. Based on a critical evaluation ofthese two literatures and the analysis of empiricalresearch findings in high-technology clusters, thepaper highlights the prevalence of several processualinadequacies including discord, disagreement and con-flict in cluster management. The discussion argues foradopting stakeholder management approaches in analys-ing clusters as place ‘brands’. This theoretical lens willprovide research perspectives alternative to the currentdepiction of clusters as uncontested creations, enablinga more pluralist and multidimensional research agendato come to the fore. The paper’s contribution ispositioned as bridging the gap and creating an integra-tive, dialogical platform between two parallel areas ofenquiry with similar research objectives with theadded contribution of putting forward stakeholderapproaches as a theoretically enriched basis uponwhich to open future research avenues.

The call for greater interdisciplinary insights andcooperation between both research areas is driven by abelief that, despite their shared complementarities, con-ceptual maturation is hindered by common inadequa-cies, the sources of which will be discussed below.Clusters are significant in regional development;however, little research informs the understanding ofhow they can be branded as ‘market organisations’(LORENZEN, 2004) for competitive advantage. Thereis also paucity of accounts of negative and unsuccessfulorganizational aspects of cluster level (DOHSE andSOLTWEDEL, 2006) which could otherwise provideproductive lessons. Similarly the branding of placessuch as cities, regions and nation-states is aimed at posi-tioning them advantageously for inward investment andregional development, but the research focus typicallydoes not extend beyond marketing place productssuch as tourism and aspects of visual and aesthetic

appeal. The field is marked by significant under-theorization and lack of empirically validated research(DINNIE, 2004; IVERSEN and HEM, 2008), attractingcomments about its infancy and immaturity. The vola-tility and fickleness of global capital emphasizes itsembedding and sustaining rather than simply attractinginward investment. Both areas demonstrate significantgrowth in research (FUCHS, 2001; PREVEZER, 2001;ZELLER, 2001) evidenced by increasing publicpolicy assistance of clusters assessed to be critical tonational and regional innovation and competitiveness(SAINSBURY et al., 1999; ERNST & YOUNG, 2000;THOMAS, 2000). Missing aspects of mainstream concep-tualization in both areas include:

. Appreciation of clusters as place ‘brands’.

. Focus on stakeholder perspectives and attendant pol-itical processual issues affecting both cluster manage-ment and cluster initiatives as ‘brands’.

. Attention to tensions and dislocations, in place of aprevalent predilection for success stories (referred tohere as ‘positiveness bias’).

It is the authors’ belief that both areas of enquiry sharecommon objectives, yet proceed on divergent, non-communicative siloed pathways. Despite the literaturerevealing some early signs of convergent thinking inthis area, there is little evidence to suggest that academicsand practitioners are combining efforts in examiningclusters as place brands. Using the relevant literaturereview as a basis, attention is draw to similar researchinadequacies in both areas. In an attempt to problema-tize or make sense of them, the underlying causes areconceptualized and empirical support for the authors’thinking is presented, based on findings from a long-standing research programme on high-technology clus-ters and an attempt is made to build discussion towards anew direction.

Towards this end, theoretical perspectives from thestakeholder literature are provided and they are

2 Edward Kasabov and Usha Sundaram

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Edw

ard

Kas

abov

] at

03:

25 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2011

supported with empirical findings, in order to justify thestudy of clusters as place brands. By combining concep-tual and empirical arguments, it is suggested that clustersand place brands share commonalities, can learn fromeach other’s achievements and mistakes, and that clustersare specific instances of place brands which can beanalysed by adopting theoretical lenses drawn from sta-keholder theory and management perspectives. Theauthors add their voice to a growing tradition of criticalreflection and evaluation by inviting academics in bothareas to take issues of multiple stakeholder interests, andmore specifically discord, disagreement, conflict andconsensus, power and process more seriously. Theanalysis highlights that, although clusters should bestudied as specific examples of place brands, clusterbranding requires a careful consideration of manage-ment of conflict, disagreement, and discord amongmultiple stakeholder groups with interests and agendasthat may be incompatible. Even though a strongcluster identity is desirable from public managementand practitioner perspectives, negotiating and commu-nicating such an identity may provide a fractious andchallenging task. The assumptions of clusters andstrong cluster brands as uncontested creations are ques-tioned by highlighting the importance of processualissues including sources of discursive dislocations.Stakeholder management is a complex process; never-theless, greater conceptual and empirical engagementin the analysis of clusters as place brands poses importantimplications for further integrative and critical work andprovides fruitful avenues of further research in examin-ing these as dialogical spaces.

SYMPTOMSOFRESEARCH INADEQUACIES

The position is summarized in three points:

. An overemphasis on snapshot approaches to the studyof clusters and place brands as established, finished‘products’, thus inviting cross-sectional and not longi-tudinal studies.

. The neglect of genesis and path dependence, with thefocus on established, finished products and contem-poraneous configurations of clusters and placebrands, resulting in the neglect of processes, startingpoints of cluster entities and path dependenceaspects of their development.

. Positiveness bias – a disturbing emphasis on under-standing and explaining success, at the expense ofthe analyses of problems, struggles and failureswhich may prove more productive – related toDOHSE and SOLTWEDEL’s (2006) comment oncurrent theory in the area.

Examples and illustrations from both research traditionsprovide support for the above claims.

Inadequacies of research of clusters

In the research of clusters, Porter’s thinking from the1980s onward (for example, PORTER, 1998) and manyof his early assumptions still define the limits of and legit-imatize cluster thinking. The Porterian legacy is visible incurrent studies of competitiveness determinants as out-comes of deep, continued involvement in webs of inter-actions and exchanges. It is pronounced in the choice ofissues and approaches to their study, and has dominatedearly, seminal works (JACOBS, 1984; SAXENIAN, 1994;BAGHAI et al., 1999) which share common themes,including the belief in knowledge as the basis ofinnovation efforts, attention to collaboration in inno-vation endeavours, and interest in multilevel, complexexchanges and relationships criss-crossing clusters. Argu-ments found in SAXENIAN’s (1994) work on SiliconValley and Route 128 are reminiscent of the claims ofJacobs and Porter about knowledge, innovation efforts,local agency, and the role of relationships and networksin promoting and facilitating learning. Discourses attri-bute the growing importance of regions (STORPER,1997) and the ‘associational paradigm’ (COOKE andMORGAN, 1998) to prominent issues of economicorganization and development. Exchanges and the com-munication of tacit knowledge are facilitated by sharingnorms, conventions and worldviews. It is precisely thesharing of norms, the successful formation of long-stand-ing yet dynamic and flexible networks, local knowledgegeneration and dissemination that allegedly account forthe importance of clusters to national innovativenessand competitiveness.

The desire to explain success still defines parameters ofcluster analysis. BELUSSI et al. (2008) identify the ingredi-ents of Emilia-Romagna’s ‘open innovation model’ inthe life sciences, attributing success to local institutionalinteractions, social embeddedness and knowledge spil-lovers, among others. OLIVER et al. (2008) link globalrelations, local knowledge generation and innovativenessin the contexts of the software and global ceramic tileindustries, respectively. Common themes include therole of cooperation (MASKELL et al., 2006; HAUSER

et al., 2007; LORENZ and DETLEF, 2008); networks,support networks and ‘innovation networks’ (VIRK-

KALA, 2007; QUERE, 2008; ROSIELLO, 2008; WATERS

and LAWTON SMITH, 2008); various aspects of inno-vation (VIRKKALA, 2007; MOLINA-MORALES andMAS-VERDU, 2008; PREVEZER, 2008; QUERE, 2008;ROSIELLO and ORSENIGO, 2008; ZABALA-ITURRIA-

GAGOITIA et al., 2008; EDUARDO and EDUARDO,2009); proximity (GROSSETTI, 2008); competitiveness(NORUS, 2006); growth (VAN STEL andNIEUWENHUIJ-

SEN, 2004); and policies aimed at assisting competitive-ness (FRENKEL et al., 2008; PRANGE, 2008;PREVEZER, 2008; QUERE, 2008; ROSIELLO, 2008;ROSIELLO and ORSENIGO, 2008).

However, there is growing evidence that a minorityof academics, mostly in new regionalism, have attended

A Stakeholder Approach to Branding Clusters: Pointers to a Research Agenda 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Edw

ard

Kas

abov

] at

03:

25 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2011

to issues of compositional and dynamic characteristics ofemerging clusters (CUMBERS et al., 2007); periphery(LAGENDIJK, 1999, 2000; SKURAS et al., 2005; LABRI-

ANIDIS, 2006; LAGENDIJK and LORENTZEN, 2007);cluster failure (BRESCHI et al., 2001); less successful(COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,2004) and ‘lagging’ clusters (GIULIANI, 2005; SKURAS

et al., 2005; COPUS and SKUPAS, 2006); disruption(DALUM et al., 2005); disagreement and ‘controversy’(TEIGLAND and LINDQVIST, 2007; FELDMAN andLOWE, 2008); and even politics (SUBRA andNEWMAN, 2008) in clusters. BRESCHI et al.’s(2001) case study of the failure of a biotechnologycluster in Italy is an atypical account of futile attemptsto design a successful, competitive supra-organizationalcreation.

Inadequacies of research in place branding

Place branding is typically defined in terms of effortsundertaken by governments and key industry sectorsto ‘market places’ (PAPADOPOULOS, 2004) throughthe selection of a ‘consistent mix of brand values’ repre-sentative of place (IVERSEN and HEM, 2008). Placebranding scholarship is rooted in seminal academic per-spectives on non-profit and social marketing (KOTLER

and LEVY, 1969; KOTLER and ZALTMAN, 1971) andpractitioner experiences of urban governmental tran-sitions to post-Fordist economies, documented in earlystudies of place promotion and place marketing(ASHWORTH, 1993; ASHWORTH and VOOGD, 1988,1990a, 1990b, 1994) and described as a new form of‘entrepreneurial governance’ (HARVEY, 1989) inurban spaces and cities (BARKE, 1999; LIPIETZ, 1993).The commoditization of cities as marketable spaces hasgradually grown to encompass other spatial entitiessuch as regions and nation-states (KOTLER et al., 1993;1999; KOTLER and GERTNER, 2002). Tourism anddestination marketing have been fertile sources ofideas for examining how extant tourism destinationimages can be leveraged for envisioning a panopticplace brand (GILMORE, 2002; GNOTH, 2002, HALL,2002) and communicated accordingly. Aside fromtourism imagery which dominates thinking in placebranding, some accounts also discuss the role of exportproducts and product–country–image in leveragingcountry-of-origin effects (JAFFE and NEBENZAHL,2001; O’SHAUGHNESSY and O’SHAUGHNESSY, 2000;PAPADOPOULOS, 2004), and other sources of placeimagery and competitive advantage, such as languagecompetencies, sporting prowess (ALLISON and MON-

NINGTON, 2001; BROWN et al., 2002; BERKOWITZ

et al., 2007) and culture (NOBILI, 2005).Contemporary accounts singularly identify place

branding with image and its management, which is cri-ticized by a minority of vocal scholars (POWER andHAUGE, 2008). Dominant city and country images aredescribed as malleable to promotional sound bites.

Brand consultants rank cities and nations along leaguetable constructions, replete with weighted indices(OLINS, 2002; ANHOLT, 2005, 2006). The extant litera-ture appeals to practitioners by focusing on successstories such as Spain and New Zealand. Despite callsfor a wider scanning beyond marketing and branding(DINNIE, 2004), the place-branding scholarshipremains constrained by thinking of orchestrated imageand aesthetics management. There is a marked tendencyto produce and systematize a synthetic ‘gaze’ (URRY,1991, 1995) under the aegis of professional experts,while ignoring the social realities, lived experiencesand what LEFEBVRE (1996) terms the ‘rhythmanalysis’of life within spaces. Branding approaches treat theprocess of production and consumption of places as sim-plistic and binary, ignoring discursive interdependenciesof multiple stakeholders in the branding process,excluded or marginalized user groups (ZUKIN, 1995).

A sub-stream of scholarship remains closer to its rootsin the place promotion of urban spaces by examining sta-keholder management and processual issues, albeit pre-dominantly in the context of European city marketingand branding. Building on early conceptual models(KAVARATZIS, 2004, 2005), this line of enquiry ques-tions city branding attempts through simple identityand image-management processes (KAVARATZIS andASHWORTH, 2005, 2006, 2007). Scholars have intro-duced stakeholder perspectives within a relationalnetwork (HANKINSON, 2004), highlighting the agenticroles of actors (MIHAILOVICH, 2006; WANG, 2006),and calling for greater interdisciplinary and integratedapproaches (BRAUN, 2008; KAVARATZIS, 2008) to themarketing of cities. However, owing to the overempha-sis on tourism promotion to enhance the visitoreconomy, contemporaneous place branding is often con-fused with tourism marketing, overlooking place ‘pro-ducts’ other than tourism (TRUEMAN et al., 2008), andrisking the neglect of other place product offers. Whatis required is a portfolio branding approach. Inevitablythis line of argument has drawn parallels with the con-temporary corporate branding literature (HANKINSON,2006, KAVARATZIS, 2009a) in examining how differentplace product offers work together under a singleumbrella (THERKELSEN and HALKIER, 2008).

While theoretical parallels with corporate brandingmake sense, practical realities are fraught with chal-lenges. Corporate and umbrella brand management isa relatively stable process given the cohesive organiz-ational boundaries of large corporations with complexbrand portfolios. In contrast, the ownership of placesas brandable entities remains deeply and fiercely con-tested, involving power and control issues, thus invitingthe politicization of policy-making in place marketingand regional development (WARD, 2000; BELLINI andPASQUINELLI, 2007; BELLINI et al., 2008). Theseaspects give even greater credence to the argumentthat stakeholder management can offer insights tobridge gaps between theory and practice by adopting a

4 Edward Kasabov and Usha Sundaram

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Edw

ard

Kas

abov

] at

03:

25 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2011

processual approach and extending contextual bound-aries beyond tourism (KAVARATZIS and ASHWORTH,2008, HANKINSON, 2009; KAVARATZIS, 2009b).

CAUSES OF RESEARCH INADEQUACIES

Though sharing a common object and aims of enquiry,researchers working in the two academic areas rarelycross the boundary separating their professional andintellectual communities. Analysts only infrequentlyrefer to, borrow from or attempt to contribute to adja-cent bodies of knowledge. Neither group talks to theother, and groups are often unfamiliar with the other’slanguage and rarely reaps the benefits from conceptualinnovation derived from such crossovers. The call fora combined look at the two areas is driven by a beliefin, firstly, the complementarities of the two researchareas; secondly, their common inadequacies whichhinder their maturation; and thirdly, the need for the lit-erature of clusters to avoid some of the inadequacies inthe research of place branding when borrowing fromsuch research.

The underlying premise is that scholarly enquiry isnot a solitary activity. Individual academics are associ-ated with particular theoretical or empirical contri-butions, and knowledge generation and replacementtend to be collective endeavours, with knowledgebeing ‘collectively sanctioned’ (BLOOR, 1976). There-fore, the state of development of the two research tra-ditions can be explained in terms of sets of interlinkedsociological, psychological and socio-psychologicalaspects which are key to understanding developmentswithin these research areas as distinct ‘reputationalorganizations’ (WHITLEY, 2000) characterized by provi-ders and users of knowledge (VON HIPPEL, 1994).

Cognitive aspects of theorizing address properties of‘black box of action’, such as absorptive capacity andmotiva-tional factors of theorists. They prevent analysts of clustersand place branding to look into the inadequacies high-lighted by us. Absorptive capacity, for instance, refers tothe capacity of theory groups to recognize, absorb andutilize new knowledge. This capacity is affected, firstly,by the influence of dominant names, including thelegacy of founders such as Porter, Saxenian, Kotler,Anholt and Olins; and secondly, by the cognitive dis-tance between assumptions of borrowing and lendingdisciplines. Research of clusters and place brandingbear the genetic makeup of ancestral theories, as specificarguments and fundamental ontological, epistemologi-cal, methodological and axiological assumptions (‘birthimprint’). The dominant influence of founders and consider-able cognitive distance account for the limited cognitivecapacity found in both research areas. New knowledgemay make little sense to a recipient, because it is per-ceived as being created in an ‘alien’ context (COHEN

and LEVINTHAL, 1990). Cognitive proximity is thusassociated with the ‘comfort’ of the ‘certain’ and

‘familiar’ (DAVIES and FITCHETT, 2005). Conceptualdistance is typically rejected and knowledge may be mis-understood (OTTESEN and GRØNHAUG, 2004), owingto this – the unfamiliarity of researchers with eachother’s disciplinary terminology. For newways of think-ing to penetrate both research areas, established perspec-tives may have to be ‘unlearned’ (HEDBERG, 1981). Thisis a testing task, though, due to knowledge rigidity(SANFORD, 1987) and its expressed political structures.Motivational factors affect the existence and height ofbarriers to learning. The authors only note here thatmotivation (intent) may be affected by prejudice. Orperhaps the inadequacies highlighted here are relativelycomplex issues that require considerable investmentand which do not meet political expectations in bothacademic areas of enquiry.

Related to matters of cognition are political factors,such as interpretation, theorizing criteria and thoughtworlds. Especially interesting is the question of criteriain theorizing. Being enacted by gatekeepers (researchelites such as associations, research centres and otherbodies, journal editors, publishers, reviewers, and finan-cing agents), they define the distinct disciplinary bound-aries of the two research areas studied here and shapelasting perceptions of what is allowed to be researchedin either area. Naturally, the mere existence of criteriaand people enforcing them does not presuppose rigiddiscourse rules and theory impoverishment. Nonethe-less, evaluation criteria are linked to beliefs (GARUD

and RAPPA, 1996). Information inconsistent withthese beliefs is habitually treated as noise and ignored.

The last point can be assessed in terms of the creepingmanagerialist agenda in research more generally andwith respect to the research of clusters and place brand-ing. Some of the issues that are identified as symptomaticof immaturity are ontologically and epistemologicallyopposed to researching ‘negativity’ (the ‘positivenessbias’ that are identified in both areas) and are incompa-tible with the short-term focus in academic research,with strict expectations about researching specific‘acceptable’ topics, producing a certain number ofpapers on such ‘legitimate’ topics, and meeting researchprogress indicators – symptomatic of the overemphasison short-term ‘deliverables’ and assessment cycles.Apart from communication barriers between academicsworking in these related fields with common researchinterests, dissemination bottlenecks also form contribu-tory factors to research inadequacies. Clusters andplace branding stand much to gain from multidisciplin-ary theoretical nourishment. Yet much of disseminationchannels run along silo lines of disciplinary thinking, dis-couraging out-of-the-box thinking that challenge disci-plinary boundaries. Such expectations and constraintsmay preclude carrying out research as the one advocatedhere, for such research is difficult, time consuming andcomplex, often producing critical and non-functionalknowledge, thus raising a host of political and pragmaticconcerns for its authors.

A Stakeholder Approach to Branding Clusters: Pointers to a Research Agenda 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Edw

ard

Kas

abov

] at

03:

25 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2011

Due to cognitive, motivational and political factors,both research fields exhibit strong institutionalization,with various types of isomorphism impacting on thelegitimacy of topics and ways of studying these topics.Efforts to break such path-dependent development areneeded in order to achieve some form of balancebetween exploitation (as commonly emphasized inresearch areas) and exploration, as attempted concep-tually in the preceding discussion and empirically inthe next section.

IN SEARCH OF A RESEARCH AGENDA: ANEMPIRICAL ILLUSTRATION

Introducing the empirical research of a biotechnology cluster

In support of the line of argument, previously unpub-lished narratives from an empirical research documentedelsewhere (KASABOV, 2010, 2011) are briefly presented.The empirical research of biotechnology clusters inIreland and the United Kingdom incorporated separatephases of quantitative and qualitative research and wascarried out by one of the authors. Survey research in2001 (Ireland) and 2005 (Oxford, Central Scotlandand the South West England) preceded interviews in2001 and 2004 in Ireland (KASABOV, 2008), and in2004–2006, 2007 and 2009 in the UK (KASABOV andDELBRIDGE, 2008). A few select findings from in-depth interviews with twenty key private sector actors(managing directors, consultants, service providers andscientists) and three public sector actors in South WestEngland biotechnology are presented next. Interviewswith practitioners lasted thirty-five to sixty-threeminutes and discussions focused on the history, insti-tutional and support infrastructure, cluster resourcecomposition, relational and networking traits, andplace branding initiatives. Semi-structured interviewswith public policy officials, lasting forty-eight toeighty-one minutes, were used to clarify concernsraised during earlier conversations with practitioners,and to discuss public policy branding initiatives, theirimpact on cluster visibility and stakeholder interactions.

Empirical findings about the biotechnology cluster as a brand

The empirical findings provide an insight into problemsspecific to the cluster. Particularly disturbing were nar-ratives of inadequate individual and collective agency;insufficient density and variety of actors, resources, andcluster activities; inadequate number and variety ofintra- and inter-cluster relations and networks; and inef-fective public sector and infrastructural support(KASABOV, 2010, 2011). As fascinating as these findingsmay be, of immediate interest were three unreportedtopics that surfaced during the research:

. The absence of agreement among key internal stake-holder groups (firstly, between public sector bodies

and consultants; secondly, between public sectorbodies and small and medium-sized enterprise(SME) managers; thirdly, between public sectorbodies and university researchers; and finally, evenwithin the public sector, about the cluster’s natureand future direction as well as attendant disagreementand discord.

. Problematic internal and external cluster reputationand image, its sources and consequences in terms ofdisputes and conflict among distinct internal stake-holder groups in the cluster as well as the region.

. Inadequate, inconsistent branding initiatives by thepublic sector, the absence of consultation and invol-vement, lack of awareness amongst private sectorand university stakeholders, and the resultantfrustration.

The views of public sector policy bodies were collectedduring interviews and from documents and reports. TheSouth West Regional Development Agency (hereafterSouth West RDA) identifies ‘distance from majormarkets’ as one key issue facing the region (BIOAP-

PROACHES, 2006a). Accordingly, among the prioritiesset up in the report are improvements to regional ‘trans-port network’ and coverage and usage of ‘broadbandcommunication technologies’. In a document aboutthe regional economic strategy, South West RDA(BIOAPPROACHES, 2006b) identifies its ‘relative periph-erality’ as the region’s ‘most distinguishing feature’. Tothe authors of the report, ‘peripherality’ is both ‘oppor-tunity’ and ‘hindrance’. Nonetheless, documents rarelymention regional perceptions and ways of changingthem, an observation also confirmed during interviewswith public sector managers. A single reference tothese issues has been uncovered in a document whereSOUTH WEST RDA (2004) mentions perceptions ofthe region without referring to ‘place branding’ assuch. Among the priorities mentioned in the documentis the need to ‘improve the way that the South West isperceived by investors, businesses, potential workers andvisitors’ and the importance of ‘promot[ing] the renais-sance of the region’s largest urban areas as dynamicinternational cities’ (p. 27). Partly in response to suchviews, South West RDA recently launched a marketingcampaign. South West of England branding has alsobeen created (see http://www.southwestbrand.info).

A public sector manager (narrator 15; interview dates:June and July 2008) emphasized the number and varietyof branding and communication programmes that wererunning at the time. These included events organizedwith the South West Angel Investor Network(SWAIN) and various missions such as the one toFlorida in 2008, planned in association with BioFlorida.‘Wewant to make a presence’, commented the narrator.Events were also organized, such as the ‘Innovation toEnterprise’ meeting in April 2008 at the InnovationCentre (University of Exeter), organized on behalf ofSouth West RDA, BioApproaches, Enterprise Europe

6 Edward Kasabov and Usha Sundaram

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Edw

ard

Kas

abov

] at

03:

25 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2011

Network, NHS Innovations SW and UK Trade &Investment (UKTI). The narrator also pointed out thestrength of South West of England’s brand in the areasof food and tourism. As regards similar efforts in thearea of the life sciences, it was noted that:

There is recognition for that need, to support biotechnol-ogy and the wider medical technology. … We plan theadverts and the events [because] the RDA want theregion to be seen as a science and technology area

as formalized in a strategy document: the Regional Econ-omic Strategy published by South West RDA. Similarly,an interviewee noted ‘adverts and articles about theregion … placed in trade publications’ (narrator 17;interview date: July 2008).

Though public sector interviewees felt that awarenessof the region had improved as a result of such efforts, theeffect of these campaigns appears limited, as will beexplained below, and the emphasis seems to havebeen placed solely on the tourist sector, the creativeand leisure industries, and not on knowledge-basedsectors, as would have been in accordance with theexpressed wish of South West RDA to develop theseand to raise their profile nationally and internationally.Furthermore, the representation of South WestEngland on UKTI’s Marketing Strategy Board isminimal – crucial to any branding efforts, due to therole of the board in communicating to ‘target audi-ences’ using ‘direct channel communications’, publicand private channels. The board seems to be dominatedby multinational corporations (MNCs) (mostly situatedin the South East of England) and other representativesof South East England such as the Cambridge-basedBusiness Angels and the Oxford-based MedicalDiagnostics.

Private sector practitioners challenged the above dis-cussed public sector discourses. A number of issues illus-trate the divide between the public sector and privatesector actors in the region and highlight contentiouspoints, disagreement and even openly communicatedconflict. Issues in question relate to practitioner concernsabout the poor regional and cluster record for invest-ment, periphery, branding, and conversations withinternal and key external stakeholders alike. A numberof private sector stakeholders noted the absence of anoverall and clear, unambiguous cluster identity,suggesting that no such identity was being activelyused to formulate and communicate clearly messages,about the cluster to internal and external audiencesalike. Narrator 1 (interview date: May 2006) notedthat identity ‘obviously has to improve’, with publicsector bodies in charge of such policies ‘promoting theSouth West as an area of excellence in this field …but obviously it still needs to be improved yeah’. Narra-tor 2 (interview date: May 2006) recommended ‘con-siderably greater advocacy’ on the part of regionalpublic sector bodies:

Well I suppose they’ll have to start shouting a bit loudermaybe, it’s difficult to say isn’t it … and equal preferenceshould be given to the English regions as well as Scotlandand Wales

echoing a major theme in narrator 4’s interview (inter-view date: May 2006) of the ‘need to improve its repu-tation’; and narrator 5’s interview (interview date: May2006) of ‘instead of such futile efforts’ to ‘raise theprofile’ of the region and the cluster and to buildmomentum, adding that ‘I don’t really see any of thatmomentum at the moment.’

Such ‘futility’ of the efforts of public sector bodiesand ‘the little nebulous … contribution of some of theorganisations’ (narrator 1; interview date: May 2006)was framed, by private sector stakeholders, in terms of‘individuals’ having ‘too limited… experience’ (narrator1; interview date: May 2006), their ‘lack of understand-ing of what a high tech sector needs and little in the wayof consulting private sector players’ (narrator 3; inter-view date: May 2006), their growth ‘under a Conserva-tive Government where the push was for services andthey’re institutionalised in their thinking with regardto that’ (narrator 3; interview date: May 2006). Thechoice of words of the interviewees (for example, ‘Idon’t have criticisms of the individuals but …’; ‘I’vegot to be careful there’; ‘it’s frustrating uh when …’)revealed restrained anger and annoyance with initiativesthat had not been consulted and some of which werejudged to ‘make little business sense’.

Disagreement was detected not only between privateand public sector stakeholders, but also within the ranksof the public sector. A public sector manager, whenasked whether a strong identity existed among individ-uals, organizations, and between the private and publicsectors in the region, noted that shared identity was‘extremely strong’ but only ‘among some organisations’and ‘natural groupings’ which did not include publicsector stakeholder groups (narrator 15; interview date:July 2008). The interviewee was able to identity onlyone such ‘grouping’. No other examples of acommon, overarching identity that crossed the publicsector-private sector boundary were uncovered.

More recently, narrator 22 (interview dates: July2008, April 2009 and November 2009) expressed his/her concern about the ‘absence of a strong image inscience and commercialisation’ of South WestEngland, attributed to the ‘stronger representation ofother regions [and] the disjointed individual initiatives’in South West England. While this narrator as well asother narrators (for example, narrator 8; interviewdate: May 2006; and narrator 22; interview date: May2009) recognized the importance of trade missions tothe Iberian peninsula, Brazil and Japan, there was a dis-tinct, consistent concern about the effect of efforts onthe part of public sector bodies in areas of brandingand promoting the region and cluster – in clear disagree-ment with the official stance of South West RDA and

A Stakeholder Approach to Branding Clusters: Pointers to a Research Agenda 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Edw

ard

Kas

abov

] at

03:

25 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2011

public sector organizations interviewed for the purposesof this research:

Not sure if the resulting brand is strong. If you’re compar-ing it to the Boston area, the South West hasn’t got astrong brand.

(narrator 8; interview date: May 2006)

Narrators responded negatively when asked whetherconsultations had preceded the planning of such mis-sions and other branding initiatives. Narrator 22 (inter-view date: November 2009) noted that they were ‘notsure why’ the missions were organized at all and whythey had focused on forging links with the specificparts of the world: ‘Possibly it was felt there were simi-larities with these areas … a mix of rural and urbandevelopment.’ An earlier and more general frustrationwith ‘surprising’ public sector initiatives was expressedby narrator 5 (interview date: May 2006):

the big problem that biotechs have… is not the technology,it’s about… all these regional organisations which purportto say we’ll help you … and so they flatter to deceive.

Similarly, with respect to public sector branding andnetworking schemes, narrator 7 (interview date: May2006) pointed out ‘a problem that we find throughoutthe UK’, namely that

The Government organisations or organisations set up byGovernment as agencies … put a lot of money into theseand I actually don’t … I’m not saying there isn’t somevalue in there, but I really feel that there could be betterways to spend that money.

Though not as strongly worded, most of the inter-viewed private sector stakeholders share narrator 7’s(interview date: May 2006) view that

Um and to be honest the regional um … the regional sortof… assistance and the fact that we are never consulted…we find of very little benefit whatsoever.

None of the interviewed private sector managers,service providers, consultants and the scientists hadseen or been familiarized with the above-mentionedtrade publications adverts, nor had they been consultedabout these adverts and the campaigns based on them.No consultations seemed to have preceded the initiat-ives of South West RDA and UKTI either. As far asthe narrators were concerned, they were ‘Not awareof any such meetings. … I don’t know anyone whomight have been invited’ (narrator 22; interview date:November 2009). Two interviewees reported theirinvolvement in ‘informal chats’ only which, though,did not appear to focus on specific needs and issuesabout branding and place branding but were ‘generalin terms of the topics we discussed’ (narrator 12; inter-view date: May 2006) and

were … more in terms of the frustration … for not beingable to raise the profile [of the region due to] the difficultyto get people to engage with these things.

With public sector stakeholders not soliciting privatesector input and advice, and with private sector actorsnot being provided with the correct forum to table con-cerns, some private sector stakeholders appear to have‘resigned’ (narrator 12; interview date: May 2006) tothe idea of participating in meetings, even on the rareoccasion when they are invited to such meetings.Narrator 4 (interview date: May 2006) shared:

I prefer to keep out of their way… you know I always cri-ticise perhaps all of the regional organisations … simplybecause I don’t think they have the experience withintheir own organisations. … They tend to be … wellthey … seem to me much like civil servants who areguarding a public pot of money rather than seeing thebenefit that should be accruing from um getting it outinto reasonable and viable opportunities. … I think ifregional organisations um just grasp that simple fact andtry to do less um but did it in an organisational sense …then I think they’d be better.

These findings are not trivial. They draw attention todisagreements and discord within and across distinct sta-keholder groups, to absent or weak consultation ofdiverse actors in the cluster, and to the frustrationespecially of private sector stakeholders with publicsector initiatives. Indicative were comments about‘different agendas’, ‘lack of collaboration’, and ‘sporadicconflicts and disagreements’ between the public andprivate sector, ‘no meeting of minds’, and the sixinstances of interviewees responding with laughter toquestions about regional development agencies andother bodies assisting with the establishment of relations,raising the visibility, image and reputation of the clusterand of individual companies (narrators 5 and 8; inter-view date: May 2006; narrators 15 and 17; interviewdate: July 2008; and narrator 22; interview date: May2009). As regards the outcome of their effort in theseareas and especially as regards branding, the authorswere reminded of ‘[their being] very reticent’, ‘not[being] as powerful as they should be’, and ‘Oh it’s defi-nitely not adequate [laughter], it’s not very effective atall really, but it’s the best we have.’ There was a distinctcognitive distance among the stakeholder groups interms of how they conceptualized the region and thebiotechnology cluster inhabiting it, how they believedand expected external stakeholders saw it. The publicsector literature and interviews with key public sectorfigures helped generate a number of positive themesbriefly outlined in the opening of this section on empiri-cal findings, whereas the responses of private sectoractors were ones of: ‘Its reputation [laughs] that’s afunny question because you have to make some assess-ment of what you think its reputation is now toanswer that question’ (narrator 3; interview date: May2006);

I do think we’re under exploiting that opportunity um Ithink at the moment what’s happening is that the onlyinvestment coming in is to buy up prime properties and

8 Edward Kasabov and Usha Sundaram

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Edw

ard

Kas

abov

] at

03:

25 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2011

that’s the problem, that is really an endemic problemespecially in Cornwall.

(narrator 1; interview date: May 2006)

Where public sector stakeholders saw increased visi-bility, improved reputation and mushrooming net-working initiatives, the private sector saw inaction,lack of understanding and poor initiative taking: ‘Ithink um it’s probably better than Central Scotland[laughs] … but I’m not sure it compares’ (narrator 1;interview date: May 2006); ‘I don’t think it can evenhold a candle to the South East’ (narrator 17; interviewdate: August 2009); and ‘It’s probably somewhere notenormously dissimilar to Northern Ireland’ (narrator 5;interview date: May 2006). While public sector stake-holders described assistance and active collaborationwith the private sector, managers underlined ‘isolation’and ‘frustration … that they do not understand [us]’:‘[being] left alone’ as illustrated in a narrative about‘we just invested a million pounds in a new buildingwith absolutely no support from the Regional Develop-ment Agency’ (narrator 7; interview date: May 2006).Some private sector stakeholders attributed such‘disagreement’ (what is referred to as cognitive distance)to the ‘timescales [of private sector initiatives inbiotechnology which] are much longer than any singleGovernment is in office for’ (narrator 7; interviewdate: May 2006).

Such findings provided a portrait of a cluster as a non-established entity, an unfinished and evolving ‘placebrand’ whose identity has been chiselled out of multiplepublic and private sector agentic understandings,changes and their periodical transformations. The find-ings justify the analysis of processual issues, politics inagenda setting and the notion of clusters as contestedplace brands. The next section provides directions forconceptual maturation for such analysis drawing on rel-evant stakeholder management perspectives that mayinform analysis of not only just processual issues in clus-ters, but also attendant issues of disagreement, conflict,power dynamics and their interplay in determiningcluster brand identity.

IN SEARCH OF A RESEARCH AGENDA:IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

The discussion and empirical illustration demonstratethe importance of analysing clusters as specific examplesof place brands, which are rarely discussed and writtenabout in leading outlets. Conceptually and empirically,the following can now be argued:

. Research in clusters and place brands have much incommon and can learn from each other’s achieve-ments and mistakes.

. Clusters are specific examples of place ‘brands’ requir-ing careful management of conflict, disagreement anddiscord among key actors.

. Cluster success requires strong cluster identity, itsnegotiation and communication, yet it may be diffi-cult and fractious to achieve (KASABOV, 2010).

The authors call for social scientists, pracademics, prac-titioners and policy officials to embrace the metaphorof clusters as place brands, to work towards a deeperunderstanding of collective identity at the supra-organizational level (HANNAN et al., 2004; HSU andHANNAN, 2005), and to engage with conceptualizationsof ‘regional industrial identity’ as ‘social code’ affectingeconomic decisions shared by stakeholder groups. Thestrength of such a collective identity is a reflection ofthe extent to which internal and external stakeholdergroups subscribe to its specific version. In the empiricalcontext of South West England studied here, internaland external consensus about the region’s naturalbeauty, relaxed lifestyle and distance from the stressesof twenty-first-century lifestyles is mirrored by theextent of disagreement regarding the cluster’s reputationand brand image as an area of excellence in science andtechnology.

The existence of both consensus and conflict withinand across sets of stakeholders in this study demonstratesboth conceptually and empirically the need to engagewith stakeholder management perspectives for concep-tual maturation of such analysis. Multiple stakeholdergroups – defined by DONALDSON and PRESTON

(1995) as individuals and groups who have legitimateinterests and represent some intrinsic value to the organ-ization – help shape entities such as clusters and theirbrand images. By highlighting the existence of bothconflict and consensus, the authors here have questionedthe relatively unitary perspectives found in studies ofclusters and place brands and the depiction of clustersas uncontested creations. Greater attention to bothstakeholder management perspectives is invited toexamine processes of negotiation, consensus, disagree-ment and discord, and also empirical examinations ofconflict management and power dynamics amongststakeholders that may shape cluster identity and image.Empirical evidence pointing to disagreement, conflicts,competing coalitions between and among stakeholders,underpinned by contested views of clusters and clusterdevelopment, would give rise to new conceptualizationsof clusters as ‘relational model’ organizations. Theseviewpoints are drawn not from an inherited Porterianlegacy but are akin to PESQUEUX and DAMAK-AYADI’s(2005) view of stakeholder theories that help inform amore in-depth understanding of the interests, expec-tations, needs and processes that stakeholders bring intheir realization of goals and objectives.

The ideal of creating superior value for diverse stake-holder groups in the context of cluster managementappears a more complex process than in the privatesector. Issues worthy of further research include:

. The relative importance of diverse stakeholder groupsin defining parameters of cluster image, irrespective of

A Stakeholder Approach to Branding Clusters: Pointers to a Research Agenda 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Edw

ard

Kas

abov

] at

03:

25 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2011

normative and symbiotic perspectives in stakeholdertheory (FREEMAN, 1984, 1999; EVAN andFREEMAN, 1988; CARROLL, 1989).

. The changing value and importance of stakeholdergroups depending on their life cycle value (JAWAHAR

and MCLAUGHLIN, 2001) and hierarchical positions(CLARKSON, 1995; COHEN, 1995) in the cluster.

. Tensions engendered by responses to multiple stake-holder influences and individual ones simultaneously(ROWLEY, 1997).

. The relative value of resources that stakeholders bringto the cluster, reminiscent of resource dependencetheories and capability perspectives (PFEFFER andSALANCIK, 1978; MITCHELL et al., 1997; FROOMAN

et al., 1999) and the power dynamics that influenceresource allocations, management and control.

. The perceptions and effect of pragmatic and cognitivelegitimacy (SUCHMAN, 1995) of the aims, objectivesand actions of diverse stakeholders within the cluster.

. Places such as cities, regions, clusters and nationstypically comprise a multitude of influential, internaland external stakeholder groups whose multipleinteractions and influence affect the production andcommunication of place images and messages.Stakeholder groups play multiple, simultaneous andeven disputed roles in their contribution towards theconstruction, dissemination and sustenance of theplace’s brand identity.

The summary of the empirical findings underscores theimportance of conceptually engaging with non-consen-sual and political issues of stakeholder interactions inconstructing and communicating cluster identities.Differences across the ‘logics’ of diverse stakeholder

groups may act as a powerful and insurmountabledivide across communities – each with its distinctive‘identity’, agendas and interests. Matters of power,legitimacy and contestation are not inconsequential.The discussion simply highlights the importance ofsuch awareness in selective dominating discourses atthe expense of others, the consideration of legitimationfactors, and attendant pressures.

Further research is required to uncover empiricallythe types of power that legitimize the claims of selectstakeholder groups to set agendas, predetermine thearray of choices or issues, act as gatekeepers in allowingrestricted sets of issues and points of views to be putforth as regards branding of a place and its identity rep-resentations – an insidious and disciplining power type(FOUCAULT, 1991, 1997). The authors also call for apluralist, non-unitary and non-deterministic analysisthat bridges the cognitive divide between research ofclusters and place brands and is intrigued by and opento the investigation of disagreements and contestationin clusters and ways in which their identities as placebrands are constructed and reconstructed. In this, theauthors’ thinking bears similarity to the critiques ofbrand experiences including relationships (FOURNIER,1998), brand communities (O’GUINN and MUNIZ,2005), the dialectical nature of brands (HOLT, 2002)and anti-branding (KLEIN, 2000). Such approachesquestion basic assumptions about brand ownership,the control of branding agenda and the use of varioustypes of power in the structuring of dialogical spacesamongst brand stakeholders where power relations(FOUCAULT, 1991, 1997) constitute the discursiveobject of the brand.

REFERENCES

ALLISON L. and MONNINGTON T. (2001) Sport, prestige, and international relations, Government and Opposition 37, 107–134.ANHOLT S. (2005) Editorial, Place Branding 1, 333–346.ANHOLT S. (2006) Is place branding a capitalist tool?, Place Branding 2, 1–4.ASHWORTH G. (1993) Marketing of places: what are we doing?, in AVE G. and CORSICO F. (Eds) Urban Marketing in Europe,

pp. 643–649. Torino Incontra, Turin.ASHWORTH G. and VOOGT H. (1988) Marketing the city, Town Planning Review 59, 65–79.ASHWORTH G. and VOOGT H. (1990a) Selling the City. Belhaven, London.ASHWORTH G. and VOOGT H. (1990b) Can places be sold for tourism?, in ASHWORTH G. and GOODALL B. (Eds) Marketing Tourism

Places, pp. 1–16. Routledge, London.ASHWORTH G. and VOOGT H. (1994) Marketing and place promotion, in GOLD J. and WARD S. (Eds) Place Promotion: The Use of

Publicity and Marketing to Sell Towns and Regions, pp. 39–52. Wiley, Chichester.BAGHAI M., COLEY S. and WHITE D. (1999) The Alchemy of Growth – Practical Insights for Building the Enduring Enterprise. Perseus,

Cambridge, MA.BARKE M. (1999) City marketing as a planning tool, in PACIONE M. (Ed.) Applied Geography: Principles and Practice, pp. 486–496.

Routledge, London.BELLINI N., LOFFREDO A. and PASQUINELLI C. (2008) Images of Otherness in Place Marketing (available at: http://www.regional-

studies-assoc.ac.uk/events/2008/may-prague/papers/Bellini.pdf).BELLINI N. and PASQUINELLI C. (2007) The Political Economy of Competing Regional Images. Working Paper Series Scuola Superiore

Sant’Anna, Pisa (available at: http://www.main.sssup.it/wp/200704.pdf).BELUSSI F., SAMMARRA A. and SEDITA S. (2008) Managing long distance and localized learning in the Emilia Romagna life science

cluster, European Planning Studies 16, 665–692.BERKOWITZ P., GJERMANO G., GOMEZ L. and SCHAFER G. (2007) Brand China: using the 2008 Olympic Games to enhance China’s

image, Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 3, 164–178.

10 Edward Kasabov and Usha Sundaram

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Edw

ard

Kas

abov

] at

03:

25 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2011

BIOAPPROACHES (2006a) Bio-business Success in South West England. South West RDA, Exeter.BIOAPPROACHES (2006b) The Lifesciences and Biotechnology Sector Economy and Support. South West RDA, Exeter.BLOOR D. (1976) Knowledge and Social Imagery. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.BRAUN E. (2008) City Marketing: Towards and Integrated Approach. Erasmus Research Institute of Management, Rotterdam.BRESCHI S., LISSONI F. and ORSENIGO L. (2001) Success and Failure in the Development of Biotechnology Clusters: The Case of Lombardy

(available at: nt-notes.liuc.it/ricerca/IstitutoEconomia.nsf/0/a13ef9d5ce2843aec1256a14006878de/$FILE/Stuttbook.PDF).BROWN G., CHALIP L., JAGO L. and MULES T. (2002) The Sydney Olympics and brand Australia, in MORGAN N., PRITCHARD A. and

PRIDE R. (Eds) Destination Branding: Creating the Unique Destination Proposition, pp. 279–305. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.CARROLL A. (1989) Business and Society: Stakeholder Management. Southwestern, Cincinnati, OH.CLARKSON M. (1995) A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance, Academy of Management

Review 20, 92–117.COHEN S. (1995) Stakeholders and consent, Business and Professional Ethics Journal 14, 3–16.COHEN W. and LEVINTHAL D. (1990) Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation, Administrative Science

Quarterly 35, 128–152.COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (2004) Creating Smart Systems: A Guide to Cluster strategies in Less Favoured Regions.

Commission of the European Communities, Brussels.COOKE P. and MORGAN K. (1998) The Associational Economy. Firms, Regions and Innovation. Oxford University Press, Oxford.COPUS A. and SKURAS D. (2006) Business networks and innovation in selected lagging areas of the European Union: a spatial per-

spective, European Planning Studies 14, 79–93.CUMBERS A., LEIBOVITZ J. and MACKINNON D. (2007) Institutional features, path dependencies and regional industrial change:

comparing mature and embryonic clusters in an old industrial region, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Man-agement 7, 424–435.

DALUM B., PEDERSEN C. and VILLUMSEN G. (2005) Technological life-cycles: lessons from a cluster facing disruption, EuropeanUrban and Regional Studies 12, 229–246.

DAVIES A. and FITCHETT J. (2005) Beyond incommensurability? Empirical expansion on diversity in research, European Journal ofMarketing 39, 272–293.

DINNIE K. (2004) Place branding: overview of an emerging literature, Place Branding 1, 106–110.DOHSE D. and SOLTWEDEL R. (2006) Recent developments in the research on innovative clusters, European Planning Studies 14,

1167–1170.DONALDSON T. and PRESTON A. (1995) The stakeholder theory of the corporation: concepts, evidence and implications, Academy of

Management Review 20, 65–91.EDUARDO G. and EDUARDO A. (2009) Innovation and spatial knowledge spillovers: evidence from Brazilian patent data, Regional

Studies 43, 513–528.ERNST & YOUNG (2000) The Economic Contributions of the Biotechnology Industry to the US Economy (available at: http://www.bio.

org/speeches/pubs/ernstyoung.pdf).EVAN W. and FREEMAN R. (1988) A stakeholder theory of the modern corporation, in BEAUCHAMP T. and BOWIE N. (Eds) Ethical

Theory and Business, pp. 75–93. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.FELDMAN M. and LOWE N. (2008) Consensus from controversy: Cambridge’s biosafety ordinance and the anchoring of the biotech

industry, European Planning Studies 16, 395–410.FOUCAULT M. (1991) The Foucault Reader. Penguin, London.FOUCAULT M. (1997) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Vintage, New York, NY.FOURNIER S. (1998) Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumer research, Journal of Consumer Research

24, 343–373.FREEMAN R. (1984) Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. HarperCollins, Boston, MA.FREEMAN R. (1999) Divergent stakeholder theory, Academy of Management Review 24, 233–236.FRENKEL A., SHEFER D. and MILLER M. (2008) Public versus private technological incubator programmes: privatizing the techno-

logical incubators in Israel, European Planning Studies 16, 189–210.FROOMAN J. (1999) Stakeholder influence strategies, Academy of Management Review 24, 191–205.FUCHS G. (2001) Biotechnology in comparative perspective, Small Business Economics 17, 1–2.GARUD R. and RAPPA M. (1996) A socio-cognitive model of technology evolution: the case of cochlear implants, in MEINDL J.,

STUBBART C. and PORAC J. (Eds) Cognition Within and Between Organizations, pp. 441–474. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.GILMORE F. (2002) A country – can it be repositioned? Spain – the success story of country branding, Journal of Brand Management 9,

281–293.GIULIANI E. (2005) Cluster absorptive capacity: why do some clusters forge ahead and others lag behind?, European Urban and

Regional Studies 12, 269–288.GNOTH J. (2002) Leveraging export brands through a tourist destination brand, Journal of Brand Management 9, 262–280.GROSSETTI M. (2008) Proximities and embedding effects, European Planning Studies 16, 629–642.HALL D. (2002) Brand development, tourism, and national identity: the re-imaging of former Yugoslavia, Journal of Brand Manage-

ment 9, 323–334.HANKINSON G. (2004) Relational network brands, Journal of Vacation Marketing 10, 109–121.HANKINSON G. (2006) The management of destination brands, Journal of Brand Management 14, 240–254.HANKINSON G. (2009) Managing destination brands, Journal of Marketing Management 25, 97–115.

A Stakeholder Approach to Branding Clusters: Pointers to a Research Agenda 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Edw

ard

Kas

abov

] at

03:

25 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2011

HANNAN M., PÓLOS L. and CARROLL G. (2004) Toward a theory of forms: similarity and categorization. Paper presented at theAnnual Organizational Ecology Conference, Washington University, St. Louis, MO, USA, 2004.

HARVEY D. (1989) From managerialism to entrepreneurialism, Geografiska Annaler 71, 3–17.HAUSER C., TAPPEINER G. and WALDE J. (2007) The learning region: the impact of social capital and weak ties on innovation,

Regional Studies 41, 75–88.HEDBERG B. (1981) How organizations learn and unlearn, in NYSTROM P. and STARBUCK W. (Eds) Handbook of Organizational

Design, pp. 3–27. Oxford University Press, Oxford.HOLT D. (2002) Why do brands cause trouble? A dialectical theory of consumer culture and branding, Journal of Consumer Research

29, 70–90.HSU G. and HANNAN M. (2005) Identities, genres, and organizational forms, Organization Science 16, 474–490.IVERSEN N. and HEM L. (2008) Provenance associations as core values of place umbrella brands: a framework of characteristics,

European Journal of Marketing 42, 603–626.JACOBS J. (1984) Cities and the Wealth of Nations. Random House, New York, NY.JAFFE E. and NEBENZAHL I. (2001) National Image and Competitive Advantage: The Theory and Practice of Country-of-Origin Effect.

Copenhagen Business School Press, Copenhagen.JAWAHAR I. and MCLAUGHLIN G. (2001) Towards a descriptive stakeholder theory, Academy of Management Review 26, 397–414.JAWAHAR I. and MCLAUGHLIN G. (2001) Towards a descriptive stakeholder theory: an organizational life cycle approach, Academy of

Management Review 26, 397–414.KASABOV E. (2008) The challenge of devising public policy for high-tech, science- and knowledge-based communities: evidence

from a life science and biotechnology community, Environment and Planning: C 26, 210–228.KASABOV E. (2010) Why every cluster cannot be a successful community?, European Planning Studies 18, 1445–1469.KASABOV E. (2011) Towards a theory of peripheral, early stage clusters, Regional Studies 45, 827–842.KASABOV E. and DELBRIDGE R. (2008) Innovation, embeddedness, and policy: evidence from life sciences in three UK regions,

Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 20, 185–210.KAVARATZIS M. (2004) From city marketing to city branding, Journal of Place Branding 1, 58–73.KAVARATZIS M. (2005) A review of trends and conceptual models, Marketing Review 5, 329–342.KAVARATZIS M. (2008) From City Marketing to City Branding. University of Groningen, Groningen.KAVARATZIS M. (2009a) Cities and their brands, Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 5, 26–37.KAVARATZIS M. (2009b) What can we learning from city marketing practice?, European Spatial Research and Policy 16, 41–58.KAVARATZIS M. and ASHWORTH G. (2005) City branding, Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 96, 506–514.KAVARATZIS M. and ASHWORTH G. (2006) City branding: an effective assertion of identity or a transitory marketing trick?, Place

Branding 2, 183–194.KAVARATZIS M. and ASHWORTH G. (2007) Partners in coffee shops, canals and commerce: marketing the city of Amsterdam, Cities

24, 16–25.KAVARATZIS M. and ASHWORTH G. (2008) Place marketing: how did we get here and where are we going?, Journal of Place Manage-

ment and Development 1, 150–165.KLEIN N. (2000) No Logo. Picador, London.KOTLER P., ASPLUND C., REIN I. and HAIDER D. (1999) Marketing Places Europe : How to Attract Investments, Industries, Residents and

Visitors to Cities, Communities, Regions and Nations in Europe. Financial Times-Prentice Hall, London.KOTLER P. and GERTNER D. (2002) Country as brand, product, and beyond, Journal of Brand Management 9, 249–261.KOTLER P., HAIDER D. and REIN I. (1993) Marketing Places: Attracting Investment, Industry, and Tourism to Cities, States and Nations.

Free Press, New York, NY.KOTLER P. and LEVY S. (1969) Broadening the concept of marketing, Journal of Marketing 33, 10–15.KOTLER P. and ZALTMAN G. (1971) Social marketing: an approach to planned social change, Journal of Marketing 35, 3–12.LABRIANIDIS L. (2006) Fostering entrepreneurship as a means to overcome barriers to development of rural peripheral areas in

Europe, European Planning Studies 14, 3–8.LAGENDIJK A. (1999) Regional anchoring and modernization strategies in non-core regions: evidence from the UK and Germany,

European Planning Studies 7, 775–793.LAGENDIJK A. (2000) Learning in non-core regions: towards ‘intelligent’ clusters addressing business and regional needs, in BAKKERS

S., RUTTEN R., MORGAN K. and BOEKEMA F. (Eds) Learning Regions, Theory, Policy and Practice, pp. 165–191, Edward Elgar,Aldershot.

LAGENDIJK A. and LORENTZEN A. (2007) Proximity, knowledge and innovation in peripheral regions. On the intersection betweengeographical and organizational proximity, European Planning Studies 15, 457–472.

LEFEBVRE H. (1996) Writings on Cities. Blackwell, Oxford.LIPIETZ A. (1993) Toward a New Economic Order. Polity, Cambridge.LORENZ B. and DETLEF S. (2008) Patterns of social capital in West German regions, European Urban and Regional Studies 15,

229–248.LORENZEN M. (2004) The cluster as market organisation, Urban Studies 41, 991–1009.MASKELL P., BATHELT H. and MALMBERG A. (2006) Building global knowledge pipelines: the role of temporary clusters, European

Planning Studies 14, 997–1013.MIHAILOVICH P. (2006) Kinship branding: a concept of holism and evolution for the nation brand, Place Branding and Public Diplo-

macy 2(3), 229–247.

12 Edward Kasabov and Usha Sundaram

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Edw

ard

Kas

abov

] at

03:

25 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2011

MITCHELL R., AGLE B. and WOOD D. (1997) Towards a theory of stakeholder identification and salience, Academy of ManagementReview 22, 853–886.

MOLINA-MORALES F. and MAS-VERDU F. (2008) Intended ties with local institutions as factors in innovation, European PlanningStudies 16, 811–827.

NOBILI V. (2005) The role of European capital of culture events within Genoa’s and Liverpool’s branding and positioning efforts,Place Branding 1, 316–328.

NORUS J. (2006) Building sustainable competitive advantage from knowledge in the region: the industrial enzymes industry,European Planning Studies 14, 681–696.

O’GUINN T. and MUNIZ A. (2005) Communal consumption and the brand, in MICH D. and RATNESHWAR S. (Eds) Inside Consump-tion: Frontiers of Research on Consumer Motives, pp. 252–272. Routledge, London.

O’SHAUGHNESSY J. and O’SHAUGHNESSY N. (2000) Treating the nation as a brand: some neglected issues, Journal of Macromarketing20, 56–64.

OLINS W. (2002) Branding the nation – the historical context, Journal of Brand Management 9, 241–248.OLIVER J., GARRIGOS J. and PORTA J. (2008) Knowledge asymmetries among clusters within global value chains: the case of the

ceramic tile district of Castellon, European Planning Studies 16, 507–520.OTTESEN G. and GRØNHAUG K. (2004) Barriers to practical use of academic marketing knowledge, Marketing Intelligence and Plan-

ning 22, 520–530.PAPADOPOULOS N. (2004) Place branding: evolution, meaning, and implications, Place Branding 1, 36–49.PESQUEUX Y. and DAMAK-AYADI S. (2005) Stakeholder theory in perspective, Corporate Governance 5, 5–21.PFEFFER J. and SALANCIK G. (1978) The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. Harper & Row,

New York, NY.PORTER M. (1998) Clusters and the new economics of competition, Harvard Business Review November–December, 77–90.POWER D. and HAUGE A. (2008) No man’s brand – brands, institutions and fashion, Growth and Change 39, 123–143.PRANGE H. (2008) Explaining varieties of regional innovation policies in Europe, European Urban and Regional Studies 15, 39–52.PREVEZER M. (2001) Ingredients in the early development of the US biotechnology industry, Small Business Economics 17, 17–29.PREVEZER M. (2008) Technology policies in generating biotechnology clusters: a comparison of China and the US, European Plan-

ning Studies 16, 359–374.QUERE M. (2008) Innovation networks in the life sciences industry: a discussion of the French Genopoles policy, European Planning

Studies 16, 411–427.ROSIELLO A. (2008) Rethinking innovation systems in life sciences: implications for regional and innovation policy, European Plan-

ning Studies 16, 329–335.ROSIELLO A. and ORSENIGO L. (2008) A critical assessment of regional innovation policy in pharmaceutical biotechnology, Euro-

pean Planning Studies 16, 337–357.ROWLEY T. (1997) Moving beyond dyadic ties: a network theory of stakeholder influences, Academy of Management Review 22,

887–910.SAINSBURY D. (1999) Biotechnology Clusters: Report of a Team Led by Lord Sainsbury, Minister for Science. Department of Trade and

Industry, London.SANFORD A. (1987) The Mind of Man. Harvester, Brighton.SAXENIAN A. (1994) Regional Advantage – Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128. Harvard University Press,

Cambridge, MA.SKURAS D., MECCHERI N., MOREIRA M., ROSELL J. and STATHOPOULOU S. (2005) Business growth and development trajectories in

lagging and remote areas of Southern Europe, European Urban and Regional Studies 12, 333–351.SOUTH WEST REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY (2004) Biosciences in the South West of England (available at: http://www.

southwestrda.org.uk/what-we-do/business-growth/inward-investment/downloads/document.asp?documentid).STORPER M. (1997) The Regional World. Territorial Development in a Global Economy. Guilford, New York, NY.SUBRA P. and NEWMAN P. (2008) Governing Paris: planning and political conflict in Ile-de-France, European Planning Studies 16,

521–535.SUCHMAN M. (1995) Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches, Academy of Management Review 20, 571–610.TEIGLAND R. and LINDQVIST G. (2007) Seeing eye-to-eye: how do public and private sector views of a biotech cluster and its cluster

initiative differ?, European Planning Studies 15, 767–786.THERKELSEN A. and HALKIER H. (2008) Contemplating place branding umbrellas, Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism 8,

159–175.THOMAS K. (2000) Creating regional cultures of innovation? The regional innovation strategies in England and Scotland, Regional

Studies 34, 190–198.TRUEMAN M., COOK D. and CORNELIUS N. (2008) Creative dimensions for branding and regeneration: overcoming negative

perceptions of a city, Place Branding and Public Diplomacy 4, 29–44.URRY J. (1991) The Tourist Gaze: Leisure and Travel in Contemporary Societies. Sage, London.URRY J. (1995) Consuming Places. Routledge, London.VAN STEL A. and NIEUWENHUIJSEN H. (2004) Knowledge spillovers and economic growth: an analysis using data of Dutch regions

in the period 1987–1995, Regional Studies 38, 393–407.VIRKKALA S. (2007) Innovation and networking in peripheral areas: a case study of emergence and change in rural manufacturing,

European Planning Studies 15, 511–529.

A Stakeholder Approach to Branding Clusters: Pointers to a Research Agenda 13

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Edw

ard

Kas

abov

] at

03:

25 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2011

VON HIPPEL E. (1994) ‘Sticky information’ and the locus of problem solving: implications for innovation, Management Science 40,429–439.

WANG J. (2006) Localising public diplomacy: the role of sub-national actors in nation branding, Place Branding and Public Diplomacy2, 32–42.

WARD K. (2000) Front rentiers to rantiers, Urban Studies 37, 1093–1107.WATERS R. and LAWTON SMITH H. (2008) Social networks in high-technology local economies: the case of Oxfordshire and Cam-

bridgeshire, European Urban and Regional Studies 15, 21–37.WHITLEY R. (2000) The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences. Oxford University Press, Oxford.ZABALA-ITURRIAGAGOITIA J., GUTIEREZ-GRACIA A. and JIMENEZ-SAEZ F. (2008) Benchmarking innovation in the Valencian com-

munity, European Urban and Regional Studies 15, 333–347.ZELLER C. (2001) Clustering biotech: a recipe for success? Spatial patterns of growth of biotechnology in Munich, Rhineland and

Hamburg, Small Business Economics 17, 123–141.ZUKIN S. (1995) Landscapes of Power: From Detroit to Disney World. University of California Press, Los Angeles, CA.

14 Edward Kasabov and Usha Sundaram

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Edw

ard

Kas

abov

] at

03:

25 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2011