【正文】 畢業(yè)論文（設(shè)計(jì)） 外文翻譯 一、外文原文 標(biāo)題： Principles of corporate rebranding 原文： Literature review In corporate branding, major classic works include Olins (1978, 1994), Gregory (1991),Dowling (1994), Fombrun (1996) and Ind (1997). Although invaluable and creative, they tend to follow a relatively traditional marketing munication and planning framework. More recent books (Balmer and Greyser, 2021。 Olins, 2021。 Ind, 2021。 Schultz et al., 2021。 Schroeder and SalzerMorling, 2021。 de Chernatony, 2021) have focused on nuances such as living the brand, the role of experiences and internal branding. Recent special issues of journals on the topic have extended the debate (Schultz and de Chernatony, 2021。 Balmer, 2021。 Balmer et al., 2021。 Melewar and Karaosmanoglu, 2021). Although we refer to corporate brands, very similar properties apply to anisational brands, service brands (Berry, 2021。 de Chernatony and SegalHorn, 2021。 de Chernatony et al., 2021) and retailer brands (Birtwistle and Freathy, 1998。 Burt and Sparks, 2021。 Davies and Chun, 2021。 Merrilees and Fry, 2021。 Ailawadi and Keller, 2021), with a high degree of interchangeability across the terms. One way of summarizing the corporate brand literature is to contrast the nature of corporate brands with product brands. Firstly, the anization features more strongly and explicitly in corporate brands (Hatch and Schultz, 2021). Culture and structure are critical for corporate brands, not simply for implementation reasons, but as a major part of the brand essence. Another way of expressing the anizational aspect is to emphasize the role of internal processes or internal branding as part of corporate branding (Bergstrom et al., 2021。 Gapp and Merrilees, 2021。 Vallaster and de Chernatony, 2021). Secondly, corporate brands are likely to be more central and strategic, controlled by higherlevel management such as the Chief Executive Officer (Hatch and Schultz, 2021). Thirdly, corporate brands are likely to be more abstract, representing higherorder values (like freedom or purity) pared to more functionally based product brands (de Chernatony, 2021。 Urde, 2021). Fourthly, corporate brands are more plex, with potentially different brand meanings across different stakeholders (Balmer and Greyser, 2021). Most relevant literature deals with specific issues such as the potential gap between the espoused corporate brand and the actual brand image stakeholders may have of a pany (Davies and Chun, 2021). However, Knox and Bickerton (2021) and Hatch and Shultz (2021, 2021) give useful frameworks for integrating ponents of corporate branding. Corporate rebranding can be contrasted to corporate branding, which refers to the initial coherent articulation of the corporate brand and can occur at any time. Corporate rebranding refers to the disjunction or change between an initially formulated corporate brand and a new formulation. The change in brand vision can be referred to as brand revision. The process of executing the revision throughout the anization would most likely require a change management process. With corporate branding, anizational issues may well involve some changes, but the emphasis is on getting gall units to adhere consistently to policy and procedure specifications (such as mon letterheads or business cards, or the use of colors). However, with corporate rebranding, all units need to be moved from one mindset/culture to another. Shifting focus from corporate branding to corporate rebranding, we find less research or consensus. An early academic paper on rebranding was Berry’s (1988) summary of Ogilvy and Mather’s brand revitalization program. A mon trigger for revitalizing brands is underperformance (Kapferer, 1997). Using renaming, a narrow approach to rebranding, both Muzellec et al. (2021) and Muzellec and Lambkin (2021) found that structural factors such as mergers and acquisitions were the main drivers of rebranding, with brand image improvement ranked lower. Before focusing on rebranding success factors, we note Stuart and Muzellec’s (2021) argument that rebranding may not be the solution to some problems. They suggest that rebranding considerations include prehensive assessment of potential benefits, clarity about what is being signaled, and checking that key stakeholders understand and support the proposed change. Four academic case studies make major contributions to understanding corporate rebranding. Ewing et al. (1995) studied the rebrand