Strategic ambiguity in emergent coalitions: the triple bottom line

Abstract

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to explore and expand the role of strategic ambiguity (SA) in the field of organizational communication. It treats the triple bottom line (TBL) as indicative of an emerging coalition. This coalition brings together three loosely coupled discourse communities each attempting to advance the notion of green business, corporate social responsibility and sustainability. Design/methodology/approach -This case directs attention to how SA and equivocation built into TBL aids three loosely networked discourse communities -formulated around "profits", "people" and "planet" -emerge, coalesce and diffuse despite being rooted in imprecise and loosely formulated measures. Findings -The findings indicate that despite its imprecision, lack of specificity and operational indices the TBL provides its members with the belief that they are far better off joining the coalition than going it alone. TBL's openness to multiple interpretations enables each of the discourse communities in the emerging network to expect to win concessions from others and to protect its values from encroachment. Originality/value -This treatment of TBL suggests that SA can be expanded beyond an intra-organizational focus to one encompassing emergent coalitions. The expanded notion of SA helps explain the stickiness of knowledge transfer in the early stage of coalition formation and the propensity of critics to view new imprecise but inspiring ideas like TBL as nothing but a fad or passing enthusiasm.

Corporate identity as an enabler and constraint on the pursuit of corporate objectives

“…Strategic ambiguity was thus a necessary component of the relationship between the LSN and its members. Indeed, we concur with Wexler (2008) that strategic ambiguity may be a vital component of coalition formation more generally.…”

Who’s responsible for food waste? Consumers, retailers and the food waste discourse coalition in the United Kingdom

“…According to Hultman and Corvellec (2012), policy around the waste hierarchy enacts a double movement between 'blackboxing' economy and environment as ontologically distinct, unproblematic categories, and problematizing this fundamental dichotomy, positing environment and economy as co-constitutive. As such we suggest the waste hierarchy represents a 'strategic ambiguity' enabling actors with potentially antagonistic discursive positions, such as environmental groups pursuing an ecological rationality and businesses pursuing an economic rationality, to enter into coalition (Wexler, 2009). Hajer (2006) notes that misunderstanding, as much as mutual understanding, can be highly functional for the creation of discourse coalition (see also Stark, 2009).…”

Paradox and legitimacy in construction: how CSR reports restrict CSR practice

“…SA allows contradictory interpretations to coexist but, at the same time, satisfy diverse and disparate stakeholder interests through a single piece of information (Eisenberg 1984). Indeed, previous work has found evidence of ambiguous language use when communicating social, environmental and financial information that served to develop shared understandings between the organisation and its stakeholders (Wexler, 2009). For organisations, communicating via ambiguous language helps them to: 1) allow and promote diverse opinions, 2) provide an overview without detail, 3) use flexible and vague concepts, and 4) allow changes to occur easily (Fernando and Sim, 2011…”