This thesis informed by a single case study and adopting a multi-internal stakeholder perspective of a middle-ranked and London-based Business School, constitutes an explanatory investigation of the corporate identity, architecture, identification triad and their antecedents. The dissertation draws on social identity and attribution theories. This doctoral research focuses on a contemporary phenomenon within a real-life context. Based on the multi-disciplinary approach, the research generated four empirical insights; (i) a favourable Business School corporate identity has a commensurate influence on architecture; (ii) a favourable Business School corporate identity has a commensurate influence on stakeholders; (iii) a favourable Business School architecture increases identification with the Business School; and (iv) specifically, a favourable Business School corporate identity impacts on the Business School architecture on five dimensions. This study resulted in the introduction of a validated conceptual framework and the resultant theoretical framework details the corporate identity, architecture and identification dynamic as it pertains to a middle ranking Business School. The research is significant in that although corporate identity, architecture, and identification have been acknowledged as a significant area of research in marketing, corporate identity and design literatures, their relationships have remained vague. Extant studies lack a firm theoretical underpinning. As such, this thesis makes a theoretical contribution to our understanding of the corporate identity, architecture, and identification triad. A survey-based single case study research design marshalling explanatory research involving data collection comprised semi-structured interviews, focus groups and a collection of visual data in the preliminary stage of this research. This along with a review of the literature informed the conceptual framework. The conceptual framework was examined via the insights from 309 questionnaires. Structural equation modelling with AMOS was conducted to again insight into the various influences and relationships in relation to the corporate identity, architecture and identification triad. Most of the hypotheses underpinning the conceptual framework were confirmed apart from 1 which was an unexpected relationship between corporate visual identity and symbolic artifacts/decor and 3 unexpected relationships between the philosophy, mission and value and architecture components. Management implications from this research are as follows: (i) corporate identity should be managed strategically, and should be in alignment with the identity elements (company’s corporate an entity’s visual identity, communication, and philosophy, mission and value); (ii) an entity’s architecture should be managed strategically, and should be in alignment with other visual identity elements (decor and artifacts/symbolic artifacts, spatial layout and functionality/physical structure, and ambient conditions/physical stimuli); (iii) corporate identity/architecture gap should be constantly and carefully managed; (iv) architecture/identification (emotional attachment) gap should be regularly monitored. Moreover, this thesis provides policy/management recommendations to multiple substantive areas in higher education in the UK. In other words, a clear understanding of the dimensions of the relevant concepts can assist managers in policy development to develop a coherent policy for managing favourable corporate identity and architecture which can influence stakeholders’ identification. In addition, the findings of this study may support and shape business policy.