Rhetoric and argument in social and environmental reporting: the Dirty Laundry case

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore the interactive element in social and environmental reporting during a controversy between business organisations and a stakeholder over environmental performance. Design/methodology/approach – The paper adopts Aristotle's triangular framework of the rhetorical situation to examine how the writer, the audience, and the purpose of communication interact in the choice of rhetorical strategies used to persuade others of the validity and legitimacy of a claim during a public controversy. The analysis focuses on the strategies (i.e. moves and their rhetorical realisations) in the form of logos (appealing to logic), ethos (appealing to authority), and pathos (appealing to emotion), with a particular emphasis on metaphor, used to achieve social and political goals. The authors base the analysis on a case study involving a conflict between Greenpeace and six organisations in the sportswear/fashion industry over wastewater discharge of hazardous chemicals. The conflict played out in a series of 20 press releases issued by the parties over a two-month period. Findings – All six firms interacting with Greenpeace in the form of press releases eventually conceded to Greenpeace's demand to eliminate hazardous chemicals from their supply chains. The paper attributes this to Greenpeace's ability to harness support from other key stakeholders and to use rhetoric effectively. Results show the extensive use of rhetoric by all parties. Originality/value – The authors regard legitimacy construction as reliant on communication and as being achieved by organisations participating in a dialogue with stakeholders. For this purpose, the paper develops an analytical framework which situates environmental reporting in a specific rhetorical situation and links rhetoric, argument, and metaphor.

A project for Romania? The role of the civil society’s counter-accounts in facilitating democratic change in society

“…RMGC reacted to the new developments, but its actions were meant to restore its image in society rather than to initiate and support debate. An unwillingness to make significant changes in business operations, despite a threat to their legitimacy is frequently masked by the use of various persuasive textual strategies in corporate reports (Higgins and Walker, 2012;Brennan and Merkl-Davies, 2014). These aim at soothing public discontent by convincing dissatisfied stakeholders of the rightness of corporate activities (O'Donovan, 2002).…”

Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting: The Last 40 Years and a Path to Sharing Future Insights

“…In particular, employees have argued that the definition of ‘social responsibility’ can be tokenistic, allowing firms to avoid substantive commitments to improved working conditions and fair pay (Baker and Modell, ; Baker and Roberts, ). In tracking the impact of stakeholders on reporting, a number of studies have drawn attention to both the successful and unsuccessful use of rhetoric and activism as a means to change reporting practices (Brennan and Merkl‐Davies, ; Lauwo et al ., ; Tregidga, ). While stakeholders appear to have had an impact, NGOs remain a fragmented community and as a consequence, they can struggle to raise public awareness about corporate social and environmental impacts (O'Dwyer et al ., ).…”

Building legitimacy and trust between a mining company and a community to earn social license to operate: A Peruvian case study

“…Influential legitimacy is attained by being responsive to stakeholders and incorporating society's wider interests into the company's decision-making process (Suchman, 1995). Active stakeholder engagement, which includes stakeholder representation in decision-making bodies/on committees can add to this by demonstrating that mining companies are cognizant of stakeholder concerns and are attempting to address them (Brennan & Merkl-Davies, 2014;Carels, Maroun, & Padia, 2013). Active stakeholder engagement, which includes stakeholder representation in decision-making bodies/on committees can add to this by demonstrating that mining companies are cognizant of stakeholder concerns and are attempting to address them (Brennan & Merkl-Davies, 2014;Carels, Maroun, & Padia, 2013).…”

“…Stakeholder representation on decision-making committees can contribute to stakeholder engagement by demonstrating that mining companies are cognizant of stakeholder concerns (Brennan & Merkl-Davies, 2014;Carels et al, 2013;Provasnek, Sentic, & Schmid, 2017). In the case of the Quellaveco project, one of the final agreements was that a Participatory Monitoring Committee and a Surveillance Committee, formed by key stakeholders, civil society, and institutions belonging to the local and regional governments would be created to monitor the environmental impact of the mine's operation.…”

“…In the context of the mining industry, this would include generating sound financial returns while introducing initiatives to tackle important environmental or social issues, such as climate change or occupational health and safety risks (see Chamber of Mines of South Africa, 2016;PwC, 2012). Active stakeholder engagement, which includes stakeholder representation in decision-making bodies/on committees can add to this by demonstrating that mining companies are cognizant of stakeholder concerns and are attempting to address them (Brennan & Merkl-Davies, 2014;Carels, Maroun, & Padia, 2013). For this type of legitimacy, the community asks itself questions such as the following: What do they want, and what is in it for us?…”