The Roles of Celebrities in Public Disputes: Climate Change and the Great Barrier Reef

Abstract

Celebrities are increasingly important actors in social disputes, with their high public profiles used to amplify political campaigns and business firms utilising celebrity endorsements to promote their brands and justify their actions. Engaging with the conceptual framework of Boltanski and Thévenot's 'orders of worth', we explore the public dispute over coral bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef, analysing the different roles that celebrities have played and how their claims are evaluated. We demonstrate how celebrities as powerful agents for industries and environmental campaigns perform three key roles -popularizers, authorities, and visionaries. Our article contributes to the management literature on public disputes by explaining the evaluative processes underlying sustainability controversies. We also contribute by providing a better understanding of the roles and capacity of celebrities in in public debates over contentious issues. We discuss the policy implications of celebrity roles in addressing the climate crisis and mobilizing action to limit further disruption.

Reassessing Moral Legitimacy in Times of Instability

“…Hence, some sources might remain marginal even if their argument contributes to a revised order. These conclusions also expand on work that showed how criteria that are 'foreign' to one's role might be deployed strategically to invoke change (Scherer et al, 2013;Wright and Nyberg, 2022) and contrasts with work suggesting change as ultimately constrained by the criteria individuals are socialized into (see Greenwood et al, 2002;Lamin and Zaheer, 2011). Whilst showing how discursive (critical) capacities, and even success in mobilizing validation institutions, do not necessarily lead to emancipation for marginal sources, we provide a less rigid perspective on the social/macro constraints that actors are subject to.…”

“…For instance, a court of justice should uphold law and equity (Civic), however judges might be accused of conflicts of interest and their legitimacy as spokesperson for the Civic world called into question. This can happen because the EW sees individuals as critical thinkers, capable of employing different criteria, to suit a specific situation, despite their social positioning (see Wright and Nyberg, 2022).…”

“…Interviews. Semi-structured interviews were the primary source, a method commonly employed in EW work (Wright and Nyberg, 2022). Sampling focused on the experts involved in designing tax strategies of ASX-200 companies [2] -CFOs (n = 4), Heads of Tax (n = 22), Senior Tax Executives (n = 2) and Financial Controllers (n = 2).…”

“…Finally, the loose coupling of criteria‐sources we theorized implies that some sources might gain status as validation institutions in contexts where they lack expertise: a familiar occurrence with the status gained by businessmen and celebrities in discussions about climate change (see Wright and Nyberg, 2022). Although we show how discursive developments contribute to adjudicating whether sources gain legitimacy on a topic, more research is needed on whether any source can gain legitimacy in any context.…”

“…Importantly, justifications shape perceptions of legitimacy hence the evolution of perceived consensus on organizational practices. As demonstrated by others, the EW framework adds to existing work examining the evolving legitimacy of practices by offering a discursive lens of how actors justify behavior as serving a moral purpose (Gond et al, 2016; Patriotta et al, 2011; Wright and Nyberg, 2022). Through this lens, we asked: How do justifications legitimize contested organizational practices?…”