Key Issues in the Changing Of Unilever Branding Strategy
Unilever is a multinational company with over 180 000 persons on six continents. It has research laboratories in different parts of the world. Unilever’s profit in 2005 stood at ˆ40 billion, making it one of the leaders in international market.
The business at Unilever has an incorporated board of controllers and the company works as a single organization.
Who buys private brands?
A conspicuous response is that consumers who are looking to extend their money are more likely to purchase personal brands. This demeanor is exactly attached to earnings grades as well as to a macro-economic environment. Past studies have attempted to produce definitions for personal label buyers to body material out this image. However, since personal label buying alters over merchandise classes, generalizations regarding the demographic characteristics have been tough to describe. These studies failed to recognize any socio-economic characteristics of sections of a market which may be apparently delineated. Crittenden and Hawes (1979) found that purchasing generic goods affiliated to smaller house income. Further studies discovered that older consumers who had smaller earnings distinguish personal label buyers (Hoch, 1996). Prendergast and Marr (1997) verified that the association between smaller earnings in New Zealand. Howell (2004) accounts clues which indicate that personal label purchasing is particularly common “among large, juvenile families on a budget.” The accounts are supplemented by investigations displaying that personal label buyers can be distinguished using cost sensitivity (Hoch, 1996), whereas this attribute differs over merchandise class (Erdem et al., 2004).
Not many investigations look at demographics to indicate comprehending motivations or mind-sets of personal label buyers. Goldsmith and Flynn (2006) stated that when the mind-set of nationwide brand buyers are in evaluation of personal label buyers, previous results offer favorable rankings towards nationwide brands considering its “familiarity, uniqueness, relevance” and believe that manage personal label buyers. The converse convention occurs when the subject is personal labels. Jin and Suh (2005) stated that, in Korea, consumer innovativeness is affiliated to an affirmative mind-set in the direction of and aim to trial personal labels. A KPMG (2000) report recounts mind-set of personal label buyers, yet this is restricted by declarations regarding finances, buying, advocating and disclosing nothing about how consumers perceive the personal marks they purchase.
As with advertising and other marketing phenomena, a number of different theoretical mechanisms and perspectives have been brought to bear in the study of branding. Although there are a number of industry perspectives that highlight important concepts and relationships with respect to branding and brand management, three main streams of academic research that have formally identified or conceptualized brand equity, using either consumer psychology, economics, biology and sociology, are briefly summarized here.
Researchers studying branding results from a cognitive psychology viewpoint frequently have adopted associative network memory approaches in order to develop theories and concepts, in part because of the comprehensiveness and diagnostic value they offer (for empirical demonstrations, see Krishnan, 1996; Henderson et al., 1998; Lassar et al.,1995). The brand is perceived as a node within the memory with a selection of various modes of associations that differ in strength. Relatedly, prior research has also often adopted a categorization perspective to memory representations of branding (Boush & Loken, 1991). This strategy presupposes that consumers perceive brands as categories which are related to a selection of certain criteria, founded in the qualities related to various products that reflect the individual members of the brand category (Loken & Roedder John, 1993).
Researchers have also relied on numerous concepts and principles from social psychology and social cognition in developing models of consumer brand-related decisions; for example, affect referral mechanisms, attributional processes, accessibility-diagnosticity considerations, expectancy value formulations. Researchers have also used models of consumer inference-making fairly extensively. Teas & Grapentine (1996) construct a framework of the role of brand names in consumer purchase decision-making processes from a marketing research perspective which highlights some of these considerations.
I will now investigate two key models of brand equity that depend upon the manner in which consumer psychology principles regarding their development (see also Farquhar, 1989). In his work, Aaker (1991, 1996; Aaker & Joachimsthaler, 2000) moves towards brand equity, mainly from the viewpoint of a managerial and corporate approach, yet reinforces consumer behavior.
In his writing, Aaker has developed a number of distinct and useful concepts related to brand identity, brand architecture, and brand marketing programs, and have addressed a number of managerial branding challenges.
Keller (1993, 1998) has approached brand equity as somewhat more of a consumer behavior viewpoint. According to him, “customer-based brand equity” is considered to be the differential influence that brand knowledge has upon the consumer or customer reaction to brand marketing. Regarding this model, the brand is usually considered to have a brand equity which is positive from a customer perspective as they respond well towards a product. In most cases, brand equity take place when the customer has a very high level of consciousness and acquaintance with the brand and holds some sturdy, positive, and exclusive brand associations in memory.
Keller views brand building in terms of a series of rational steps: establishing the appropriate brand identity, creating the appropriate brand meaning, extract the right brand responses, and falsify suitable brand relationships with customers.
Despite their somewhat different foundations, the Aaker & Keller models share much in common with each other, as well as with other psychologically based approaches to brand equity. Most importantly, both acknowledge that brand equity symbolize the “added value” gifted towards merchandise as a consequence of savings in the brand’s marketing. It should be noted that the Aaker & Keller models depend upon distributing activation processes between an associative network memory model. Janiszewski & van Osselaer (2000) offer some evidence to suggest that connectionist systems of brand-quality association may provide a more robust explanation of consumer reactions to various branding strategies than a spreading activation account, under certain conditions (see also van Osselaer & Janiszewski, 2001). With this model, consumers are assumed to be adaptive learners who are “learning to value.” This is opposed to the spreading activation perspective, which, they argue, is more relevant for consumers who are “learning to recall.” Meyers-Levy (1989) showed that organizations were not necessarily beneficial and could produce intrusion properties and lower memory performance.
Although behavioral models have been perhaps the dominant basis to studying branding effects and brand equity, as noted above other valuable viewpoints have also emerged. For example, Erdem (1998a, 1998b) takes information economics view of the worth (or equity) that is attached to a brand by the individual consumer. Erdem uses the premise of asymmetrical information market strategy as the foundation to his approach that centers on the role of credibility as the main determinant of “consumer-based brand equity.” Erdem states that as customers are not informed of a product’s worth or quality, brand identity is used to reassure a consumer about the product’s quality and “credibility.” In this manner, therefore, brands can reduce a customer’s sense of “risk” when purchasing a product and this reduces information costs. She provides empirical support for these signaling mechanisms in an umbrella branding application to the oral hygiene market.
Similarly, Rao et al. (1999) have argued that: “a brand name can credibly convey unobservable quality when it is the case that false claims would result in intolerable economic losses, due to either losses of reputation, sunk investments, or losses of future profits.”In a brand alliance application with hypothetical television brands, they showed that consumers’ evaluations of the quality of a product with a significant attribute were improved when the brand was associated with a second brand that was perceived to be vulnerable to customer sanctions.
Sociology- and Biology-based Approaches
Some researchers have studied branding from more of a sociological, anthropological, or biological perspective. For example McCracken (1986, 1993) considered the broader cultural meaning of brands and products. As outlined in subsequent sections, other researchers have explored topics like brand communities and relationships.
Other researchers have adopted more of a perceptual or even subconscious approach towards branding. For example, as described in more detail below, Schmitt (1999a, 1999b) views branding in a more experiential way in terms of the effects on all five senses. Zaltman (Zaltman & Higie, 1995; Zaltman & Coulter, 1995) use metaphors as a guiding theme and qualitative research techniques to uncover the mental models driving consumer behavior with respect to brands.
Unilever Brand Strategy
Many people still cling to the misconception that being large scale is better. For employers, primarily the result can be pleased with the conviction that only the dimensions shown in immunity to the trials and tribulations faced by others. History, however, are full of wounded, and killed the profile of this flawed logic.
It seems that Unilever has no purpose in addition to its ownership of the hall of shame. According to react quickly to early signs, the role of the international community in the diet, housing and personal care products has been organized to develop and maintain strong quarterly development is now close to double digits. Even the world’s financial deterioration was unable to stop its revival.
Structured to Failure
For Unilever, the new millennium, said increase in the international fight later revealed its fragility and lead to stagnation. Organizational structure was clearly not on a large scale in this phase. Business in each country enjoys substantial autonomy. While decentralization has its advantages, in this case, the structure generated by the high incidence of companies, which replicate on a gigantic scale was the norm. Not surprisingly, the observers said Unilever was cumbersome and in need of aggression and open competition.
The answer was to launch a five-year design merit “path to growth”, as one of the central tasks for transforming a fragmented organization into a strong local rock. Companies have been sold, renovated with strategic acquisitions that bear the emblem SlimFast and Ben & Jerry’s, and the number has decreased dramatically. Business had to squeeze his regime and to compete with less fronts seen as the way forward. Being an adherent to free up more resources for the development of the emblem was one more advantage such an approach. However, the start can not provide their primary goal, since in 2004 the development was started by the end. Add to that a lot of falling market and influence the initial conditions were inevitable.
Creating a New Company, Unilever
Good concept only the desired result, if run properly. That’s where Unilever. But the achievement is no less equipped companies recognize that the measures:
* New thinking to join this organization;
* Simplification of the structure to provide for more effective implementation of the new strategy
* Implementation of solid plans to record and keep improving.
New thinking actually arose by accident; leaders coined the term “sustainability” on the use of market opportunities associated with a healthy consumption in the developed and developing countries. This notion is echoed by a compromise emblem issue of healthy products, but later developed to show vitality within the organization and its people.
Unilever has been organized into two divisions: “food and personal hygiene” items and “shelter.” Although this is a step in the right direction, the main headline was a matter of replication and services for large retail customers. What, then, is the answerThe conclusion was a promise to join the organization in each country of origin under the “One Unilever” banner.
Unilever Key staff are bright, confident and articulate and start from different countries. Paradoxically, however, it became clear wine during the implementation of the strategy. WhyThe withdrawal was to talk and have less action. Some administrators are aware that the shortcoming solved the problem through an initiative known as “Strategy in Action” (SIA). When their methodology was effectively only addressed in Australia, it was transferred quickly into all around the world. The universal implementation is assumed that both clarity and consistency improved.
Viability and the SAI must progress in a given period to the strategic framework, which includes:
* A powerful approach to the business mission;
* The Body;
* The main strategic goals apparently recognized the metric;
* Confirmation of the unique purpose of the old leaders;
* Create a one page article telling the whole strategic content that will be subsequently used for communication and review purposes;
This change is often in contact with the skepticism that was not lost on Unilever. It is therefore important that the point of connection in an effort to minimize resistance. General discussion appeared and was a key part of the workshops. This set of active intention that local chiefs, class and destination were on board, while alternative strategies are being developed. It is also equipped with working groups of the best way to establish your knowledge and skills. The conclusion saw that, after performing the method for all 180,000 of its employees, it checked another clever way to get all individuals to pull in the same direction.
Principles of management have been published and teaching double support was verified on-site seminars and other events held to make the most strategic point. Unlike earlier, when the heads were raised by various programs and alternatives; the task was an easy target for the organization of their own situation. In just five months, the predominant alignment of strategic and apartments have been achieved in each area. One can imagine how it will affect the entire organization.
This is not surprising that the evaluation is conducted on carefully reviewed monthly using a traffic light scheme and annual processing method and strategic content. Fervent leaders were installed to provide the company with many key business processes for strategic implementation. A significant part of the remuneration boss is currently linked to the achievement of strategic objectives.
Fruits of Labor
Unilever refuses to rest on the laurels went to pay in the form:
* Conclusion solutions much faster;
* Rationalization of the organization, which prides itself on customer experience that is applicable in an international team. However, many of the desires of retailers and their customers are currently being considered at the local level;
* The Authority more action-oriented;
* Less time spent organizing meetings and strategic accounts in the article are being used instead;
* Increased cooperation and understanding of strategic issues.
In addition, the roles and responsibilities of the effects seemed to be more pronounced, and studies have also been revised. Key centers are strategically located so that it is likely that the strike is quick to market with new ideas. Competition for moving personnel and know-how was the most favored by the conclusion of transfers where the company could not provide serial communications lines in the international framework.
Unilever now boasts a portfolio of business is simple and a lot of time was granted unconditional purchase method deliberately selected for their ability to increase the viability of the concept. As the powerful emblem of international revenues increased significantly, it concluded that more workers in developing and emerging markets. Since innovations s needed to facilitate further development of these markets, the expectation is more positive. Innovative ideas often thrive, and all markets are looking at new proposals. In addition, the business integration of international emblems is quicker than launching into markets, although it often happens simultaneously.
Mixed with higher productivity and lower taxes dramatically reduced capital visits this entire rosy picture. Search of better income later, however. SIA remains the subject of continuous improvement and is especially enthusiastic Unilever to focus on team commitment; it is regarded as the foundation for success. Unilever detergents had to fight to convince UNSCOM that the actions must be targeted at a European level and not national. Unilever who had “the overall strategy to align business operations back into the light Single European Act of 1986” looked to establish leverage in Europe. Talks amongst the detergent and the coordinating Committee on European centralization of European legislation regarding the non-tariff barriers topic is not mentioned directly. The co-ordination of detergents founded the arguments for integrated European strategy away from general economic policy.
However, the reality of the detergents is very different from other products of Unilever co-ordination. “Consumer Other related coordination”, he said in 1987, differs from the detergents, as “the unity of a global consumer attitudes and competitive structure […] that [is] against a competitor.” Unilever’s efforts at combining 16 companies nationwide in an effort to work “on the arm of Europe” in Brussels, “is not a magic formula to create a night of European strategy for success.” The initial effort was to apply this approach had unsatisfactory results. It has been considered that Unilever was hesitant to react to the introduction of dust which was concentrated in the European market. This advanced from nothing to third between 1988 and 1993. In 1994 Ariel P & G was successfully relaunched in a “concentrated powder” form. Unilever stated that the innovative product was created to challenge the P & G’s European position in the textile market. This innovative product gained a lot of momentum because it contains about 70% of new ingredients, such as innovative “accelerator technology”, new disinfectant, a number of new enzymes and a new fragrance.
The product was also designed to promote “key benefits” for the consumer. For example, the innovative new washing powder claimed to provide “the elimination of spots in the first place.” Also, as well as claimed to remove stubborn stains, the product claimed to “benefit” the environment. This claim was reinforced by the fact that the product functions at lower temperature, and therefore, used less energy. Elsewhere, the “Tower System” permits 80% of saved energy from the production of the product. Also, the concentration of chemicals resulted in less food and less packaging. The Capital investment program was launched across eleven European countries, costing more than ?200 million. Unilever implemented a radical change with their rapid deployment across Europe, but this was example of their innovative European strategy.
However, there have been problems identified with the accelerator, as for example, specific combinations of colors might cause damage to certain materials. The competitors of Unilever looked to exploit this fault and to undermine the new product. This demonstrates how the European integrated marketing strategy did not guarantee success as the simultaneous release of the product did not allow for any time to identify problems, and consequently, an error that if it affected one market, it affected them all. Unilever typically looks to handle products on the market and adapts their product to consumer responses. The risk of a simultaneous release is compounded when the error occurs in the context of conscious efforts to reduce costs and streamline Unilever’s European lever. The efforts in R and D, therefore, do not apply through a series of “leaders”, as in the past, but a centralized one lever for development.
There are many key elements that are the “pillars of effective communication” as well as brand identity. Research shows that the most successful media messages were repetitive, continuous and consistent. These forms of message, which is shown for long periods of time and usually on various media forms/channels generally demand a lot of financial investment. Organizations generally invest a lot of money into brand promotion. The core brand statement is usually fixed to produce a level of continuity, as well as consistency. Brand symbols may be implemented and appropriated across time and cultures so that they are relevant and contemporary. This is an important factor that ensures the brand remains appealing to the contemporary audience.
Children and Brand Recognition
Several academics and journalists have, in the past, criticized the commercialization of childhood by these brands. They argue that these approaches seem to be targeted at very young children. Paul Fischer observed that, out of 22 brand logos, 12 of displayed a preschool children3-5 symbol on the product. He also discovered that the rate of recognition of the Disney Channel and McDonald’s symbol was 92 and 82% respectively. It was also seen that 91% of children younger than six recognized the image of “Joe Camel” with a cigarette. Recognizing particular logos was highly associated with age for and it was assumed that recognition rates would be higher among older participants.
What issues organizations should considerCompanies must identify the different parts of their brand, such as the personality, which is a human-like trait. A company needs to produce a brand association which resounds amongst the public. The brand must identify user images and the ways in which the average user of this mark is defined. The symbols and logos that are associated with the brand must be considered in this description, as well as new product category growth. Elsewhere, they face important choices regarding the factors which should remain fixed and those which are flexible and can be appropriated. To interact with the international market, these factors are typically fixed internationally: the corporate image, logo, “essence and values.” Elements which can differ across nations can be a brand’s motto, products, product names as well as marketing strategies, which are usually adapted to suit the location they are acting in.
Managers should look to avoid settling for immediate profits at the expense of a long-term gain. Such pressures for short-term gains can be solved using a mark for related areas, which leads to a dilution of the brand, and to public uncertainty. An alternative method is to encourage managers to fall in the market with the same brand as it will then devalue. Organizations often use “umbrella brand” to reinforce new strategies, and ensure their success. Apple, for example, relies on the brand image of the iPod, iPhone and iMac to convince individuals to purchase products that have a premium of 20% of the price. Therefore, they are purchasing more than just a MP3 player, of cell phone; they are buying the brand. This is important, however, as independent innovation can be replicated. Therefore, a brand must think about investing in an innovative way to make their brand appeal.
This is usually done with a focus on aesthetics and ease of use. For example, Nissan developed their ranking of the mark by placing emphasis on a clear, bold design to make it stand out from competitors such as Honda and Toyota. Elsewhere, effective brand marketing has seen Samsung have seen their value greatly improve and overtake Sony. This shows the basic elements and advantages of brand building; within ten years, an independent manufacturer of household electronics retailed lesser-known brands such as Tantus and Yepp. He abandoned these unknown brands and invested his efforts into establishing Samsung as a major brand. He paid close attention to having an upscale image that promoted the quality, design and innovation of the product; in this instance televisions and cell phones. As contemporary consumers rely on cell phones and televisions, there was a large market for this kind of product.
Branding and Marketing
One of the most fertile but still largely unexplored developments in global marketing is global branding. This is, of course, an outgrowth of the voluminous 1990s study on brand equity. Having a distinct name and logo is a major standardized feature for international companies and their marketing strategy. Yet, a lot of studies into branding generally identify the international status of major brands implicitly. Truly international brand research takes the global dimensions of well-known brands explicitly into account.
International branding research has actually a rather long and, to some extent, illustrious history. The list of mistakes made by marketers attempting to standardize brand names whose meaning in a different language is misleading, comical, or otherwise an affront to local sensibilities is long (Ricks, 1993). Rosen et al. (1989) show that while of American consumer brands more than half (66%) are used identically abroad; the majority of sales (80%) come from the home market. More recent research, however, suggests that there are important scale returns associated with a unified brand identity across the globe.
Two large brand research firms, US-based Landor and Interbrand in London, have developed brand equity ratings for many of the world’s brands. The global reach of the brands figure prominently in the ratings; Interbrand’s criteria are illuminating in this respect. Four dimensions are used to score each brand. First, the “Dominance,” mainly in terms of market share; second the brand “Stretch”, suggesting a capability of brand extensions into new products and markets.
A third dimension is “Franchise”, which indicates the degree to which the brand may bridge social, cultural, and national boundaries. Fourth is “Commitment”, the degree to which the brand has managed to develop a followership among its customers on the grounds of shared values. Brand globality logically enters into all four of these dimensions, and it is hardly surprising to find that the top “power” brands are those with global presence. The empirical validity of these measures, in particular the extent to which these dimensions are universally applicable, is still an unresolved issue, and a fruitful area for further investigation.
The shift toward brand equity has led to a conception of brands as one of the major assets of large multinationals. Growing that asset has become a major preoccupation of marketing managers (Douglas et al., 2001). Consequently, recent research into global brands has come to focus on the implementation and management of global branding strategies, rather than the value of those strategies as such. This research is still in its emerging stages, although promising efforts have been made. Kapferer’s updated publication (1997) is focused more on how to globalize a brand portfolio, and Brandt & Johnson (1997) discuss global branding strategies in high technology firms.
Articles and books on international branding include a significant number from European-based authors, possibly because of the new pan-European branding possibilities (Gad, 2001; Macrae, 1996). By contrast, a striking majority of US contributions are focused on the domestic market. For example, while Keller’s (1998) textbook does discuss the international dimension, and Aaker and Joachimsthaler’s 2000 book, Brand Leadership, covers global branding strategies, in both cases the content is fitted into one single chapter.
The basic thrust of these managerially oriented efforts is the advice to balance global uniformity against local sensitivity – the classic Doz and Prahalad paradigm. That is, the more-or-less implicit assumption is that there has to be local sensitivity coupled with global power. How this balance is to be struck is not easy to discern, depending as it is on the specific product and country involved. Nevertheless, it seems the global branding is easier for technology-based products. Strikingly, with the exception of Kapferer (1997), very little attention and systematic research have so far been given to the local customer reaction to a global brand entry. Kapferer is strong on identifying possible negative or positive reactions, but his work is still mainly concerned with solutions to managerial problems, not underlying behavioral mechanisms.
Research on country-of-origin cues by Tse and Gorn (1993) has shown how a brand can have a definite national identity despite being produced elsewhere. In particular, this is the case for brands whose country-of-origin is well established -planned or not, their positioning always involves a nationality cue. For example, a Sony television set made in the US is apparently still “Japanese” too many consumers. Coca-Cola soft-drinks and Levi jeans are typically “American” wherever produced and sold, eliciting either favor or rejection depending upon time and place. There is still a lot of fruitful research to be done on global branding.
One question revolves around the way customer perceptions are affected by the globalist of a brand. The opinions here differ among observers. Some argue that the customer will not care about the globalist itself, always seeing the purchase as a local phenomenon. The typical anecdotal evidence includes the youngster from Hong Kong who, when on a US vacation with his family, exclaims: “They got McDonald’s here too!” On the other side of the argument is the notion that in many markets the global brand possesses a cachet that local brands lack. This does not only happen in previously closed, emerging markets with their pent-up demand, but even in a market such as the US, where previously ethnocentric customers now allow themselves the luxury of finally enjoying world-leading cellular phone makes, foreign beers, and soccer.
As Alden et al. (1999) find in a path-breaking article, it is possible to target an emerging global consumer culture with a global advertising message, where the globalist of the brand does enter into the buyer’s evaluative criteria. Of course, with the recent rise of a very visible anti-globalization movement, the fact that a brand is global might actually deter consumers.
Cowles, M. G., (1996), ‘Business means Europe—who built the market?’, in Bond, M., Smith,
J., Wallace, W., eds., Eminent Europeans: personalities who shaped contemporary Europe, pp. 192–212
Dunning, J., (1990), ‘European economic integration and TNC activity, 1958–1988: the record
assessed’, study prepared by Economists Advisory Group Ltd for the United Nations Center on Transnational Corporations
Dunning, J., Robson, P., (1998), ‘Multinational corporate integration and regional economic integration’, in Multinationals and the European Community (Oxford), pp. 1–23
Dyer, D., Dalzell, F., Olegario, R., (2004), Rising Tide: Lessons from 165 Years of Brand Building at Procter & Gamble (Boston)
Fennell, R., (1997), The Common Agricultural Policy: Continuity and Change (Oxford)
Fieldhouse, D. K., (1994), Merchant Capital and Economic Decolonisation (Oxford)
Gillingham, J., (1991), Coal, steel, and the rebirth of Europe, 1945–1955: the Germans and
French from Ruhr Conflict to Economic Community (Cambridge)
Greenwood, J., (1997), Representing Interests in the European Union (Basingstoke)
Greenwood, J., Aspinwall, M., eds., (1998), Collective Action in the European Union: Interests and the New Politics of Associability
Heller, F. H., Gillingham, J., eds., (1996), The United States and the Integration of Europe (NewYork)
Hilger, S., (2004), ‘Reluctant Americanisation?: the reaction of Henkel to the influences andcompetition from the United States’, in Kudo, A., Kipping, M., Schroter, H. G., eds.,German and Japanese Business in the Boom Years: Transforming AmericanManagement and Ttechnology Models, pp. 193–220
Hogan, M. J., (1987), The Marshall Plan: America, Britain and the reconstruction of Western Europe, 1947–1952 (Cambridge)
Humes, S., (1993), Managing the Multinational: Confronting the Global-Local Dilemma
Jones, G., (2002), ‘Control, performance and knowledge transfers in large multinationals: Unilever in the US, 1945–1980’, in Bus. His. Rev., vol. 76, pp. 435–78
(2005), Renewing Unilever: Transformation and Tradition (Oxford)
Killick, J., (1997), The United States and European reconstruction, 1945–1960 (Edinburgh)
Kipping, M., (1999), ‘American management consulting companies in Western Europe, 1920 1990: products, reputation, and relationships’, in Bus. Hist. Rev., vol. 73, pp. 190–220
Bjarnar, O., eds., (1998) The Americanisation of European Business: the Marshall Plan and the Transfer of US Management Models
Tiratsoo, N., eds., (2002), Americanisation in Twentieth Century Europe: Business,Culture, Politics (Lille)
Krause, L. B., (1938,) European Economic Integration and the United States (Washington, D.C)
McKinlay, A., Mercer, H., Rollings, N., (2002), ‘Reluctant Europeans?: the Federation of British
Industries and European integration, 1945–63’, in Bus. Hist. Rev., vol. 42, issue. 4, pp. 91–116
Mayes, D., Hart, P., (1994), The Single Market Programme as a Stimulus to Change:
Comparisons between Britain and Germany (Cambridge)
Mazey, S., Richardson, J., eds., (1993), Lobbying in the European Community (Oxford)
Miskell, P., (2004), ‘Cavity protection or cosmetic perfection?: innovation and marketing o toothpaste brands in the United States and Western Europe, 1955–1985’, in Bus. Hist.Rev., vol. 78, pp. 29–60
Moravcsik, A., (1993), ‘Preferences and power in the European Community: a liberal intergovernmentalist approach’, in J. Common Market Stud., no. 3, pp. 473–524
Moravcsik, A., (1998), The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maastricht (Ithaca, NY)
Nerb, G., (1998), ‘Research on the “cost of non-Europe” basic findings, III: the completion of the internal market’, a survey of European industry’s perception of the likely effects (Brussels)
Van, Paridon, C. W. A. M., (1996), ‘European economic integration: did it matter in the past, will it matter in the future?’, in Tilly, R., Welfens, P. J., eds., European EconomicIntegration as a Challenge to Industry and Government: Contemporary and HistoricalPerspectives on International Economic Dynamics (Berlin), pp. 29–65