How can invented heritage shape brand identity and consumer trust?

Authenticity is one of the most valued currencies in branding. Consumers reward companies that feel genuine, and heritage—a real history, a founding story, a connection to place and tradition—is one of the most reliable signals of that genuineness. But what happens when the heritage is invented? When the founding story never happened, the tradition was created last year, or the century-old brand name was purchased from a defunct company purely for its symbolic weight?

This conceptual paper by Brunninge and Hartmann examines the phenomenon of invented corporate heritage—cases where firms deliberately construct, fabricate, or appropriate a past to serve present strategic needs. Drawing on marketing theory, organizational identity research, and the sociological concept of invented traditions, the authors explore how these fabricated narratives operate, why they can feel authentic despite being fictional, and what risks they carry.

What We Studied

This is not an empirical study but a critical reflection grounded in theory and illustrated with real-world cases. The authors integrate work on omni temporality (the idea that organizations exist simultaneously in past, present, and future), brand authenticity, and myth-making in marketing. They also draw on Hobsbawm and Ranger’s influential concept of invented traditions—practices that appear ancient but were recently created to serve contemporary purposes.

Two cases anchor the discussion. A Swedish restaurant chain fabricates exotic global origins to create an adventurous brand persona. A German startup acquires the name of a 168-year-old gold trading firm to claim instant credibility—a move that later led to a lawsuit for misleading marketing. These examples illustrate a spectrum from creative storytelling to outright deception.

Key Insights

Heritage is always constructed, never simply remembered

The paper’s foundational argument is that corporate heritage is not a fixed archive of facts. It is a narrative that organizations actively shape based on current needs and future aspirations. Every company selects which parts of its history to emphasize, which to downplay, and which to reinterpret. The difference between “curating” a real past and “inventing” a fictional one is a matter of degree, not of kind. This challenges the assumption that heritage is inherently authentic—it is always, to some extent, a construction.

Invented heritage works because authenticity is felt, not verified

Consumers rarely fact-check a brand’s founding story. What they respond to is the aura of authenticity—the emotional resonance of a narrative that conveys values, purpose, and continuity. A compelling backstory, even a fictional one, can establish symbolic continuity and build trust. The mechanism is not rational evaluation but emotional identification: does the story feel true? Does it align with the brand experience? If the answer is yes, the factual basis may matter less than marketing theory traditionally assumes.

Myth-making fills identity gaps

Companies invent heritage when they lack a distinctive history of their own. A startup without a founding narrative, a brand entering a market where tradition signals quality, a company that has undergone so many ownership changes that its original identity is unrecoverable—all face the temptation to create what they cannot claim. The authors note that this can be strategically effective in the short term but may mask deeper problems: unclear values, uncertain positioning, or a disconnection between internal culture and external messaging.

Heritage has become a tradeable commodity

One of the paper’s more striking observations is that history itself is now a market asset. Companies can acquire dormant brand names, purchase historic trademarks, or license heritage associations—buying a past rather than building one. The Degussa case illustrates both the appeal and the risk: instant credibility purchased at the cost of potential legal exposure and reputational damage when the fabrication surfaces. The broader implication is that in an economy where narratives are assets, pasts—even fictional ones—have market value.

Takeaways

Treat heritage as a living resource, not a static archive

Organizations with genuine histories should actively curate them—selecting, preserving, and communicating the stories that connect past values to present purpose. Heritage that sits in a dusty archive is a wasted asset. Heritage that is actively woven into branding, leadership development, and stakeholder communication becomes a competitive advantage.

Distinguish between storytelling and fabrication

There is a meaningful difference between emphasizing the most resonant elements of a real history and inventing events that never occurred. The former is strategic communication. The latter is deception that carries legal, reputational, and relational risks—especially when stakeholders discover the truth. Organizations should set clear guidelines about what is acceptable in brand narratives.

Recognize that authenticity is relational, not absolute

A story’s authenticity depends not just on its factual accuracy but on its alignment with the organization’s current behavior and values. A literally true founding narrative that contradicts how the company operates today will feel inauthentic. A selectively curated history that resonates with current practice will feel genuine. The goal is coherence between narrative and reality, not documentary precision.

Impact

This paper challenges comfortable assumptions about heritage and authenticity in branding. For firms with deep, real histories—including family businesses that have maintained continuity across generations—the message is both reassuring and cautionary. Their genuine heritage is a significant asset, but it requires active management: the stories must be told, curated, and connected to contemporary strategy. Letting competitors with invented narratives dominate the heritage space is a strategic failure.

For firms without established histories, the paper offers a sober warning. Invented heritage may generate short-term brand equity, but it introduces fragility. The risk of exposure grows with scale, media scrutiny, and competitive pressure. The most sustainable approach to branding remains building a genuine story over time—one that may be less dramatic than a fabricated myth but is infinitely more durable.

Recommendations

1. Conduct a heritage audit. Review the stories told in marketing materials, leadership speeches, and internal documents. Verify their accuracy and assess their alignment with current values and operations.
2. Invest in documenting real history. Preserve founding stories, key milestones, and the evolution of the firm’s identity through interviews, archives, and visual records. This material becomes more valuable over time.
3. Set narrative boundaries. Establish clear guidelines for what is acceptable in brand storytelling. Emphasizing real events is legitimate; fabricating them is not.
4. Connect heritage to the present. The most powerful brand narratives link past values to current practice. Use heritage to explain why the firm operates as it does today, not as nostalgia for its own sake.