Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 108, Issue 1, pp 101–120 | Cite as

Using Discourse to Restore Organisational Legitimacy: ‘CEO-speak’ After an Incident in a German Nuclear Power Plant

Article

Abstract

We analyse managerial discourse in corporate communication (‘CEO-speak’) during a 6-month period following a legitimacy-threatening event in the form of an incident in a German nuclear power plant. As discourses express specific stances expressed by a group of people who share particular beliefs and values, they constitute an important means of restoring organisational legitimacy when social rules and norms have been violated. Using an analytical framework based on legitimacy as a process of reciprocal sense-making and consisting of three levels of analysis which capture the relationship between text and context, we investigate the discourse used by CEOs in their initial and subsequent accounts of the incident. We find that CEOs aim to negotiate a resolution between their initial account and organisational audiences’ incongruent interpretations of the event by adopting an ad hoc normative attitude to stakeholders. This manifests itself in the strategic use of the discourse of stakeholder engagement as a means of signalling change, yet maintaining the status quo. It suggests that CEOs strategically use discourse to manufacture organisational audiences’ consent regarding the continued operation of the nuclear power plant affected by the incident. Our findings contribute to the critical corporate communication literature which regards corporate narrative reporting as a means of consolidating the private interests of corporations, rather than increasing transparency and accountability.

Keywords

Legitimacy Impression management Nuclear industry Discourse Stakeholder management 

References

  1. Abrahamsson, G., Englund, H., & Gerdin, J. (2011). Organisational identity and management accounting change. Accounting, Auditing, and Accountability Journal, 24(3), 345–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aerts, W., & Cormier, D. (2009). Media legitimacy and corporate environmental communication. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34(1), 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amernic, J. H., & Craig, R. J. (2006). CEO speak: The language of corporate leadership. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Amernic, J. H., & Craig, R. J. (2007). Guidelines for CEO-speak: Editing the language of corporate leadership. Strategy and Leadership, 35(3), 25–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arndt, M., & Bigelow, B. (2000). Presenting structural innovation in an institutional environment: Hospital’s use of impression management. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3), 494–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ashforth, B. E., & Gibbs, B. W. (1990). The double-edge of organizational legitimation. Organization Science, 1(2), 177–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bartsch, M., Dohmen F., Kaiser, S., Knauer, S., Ludwig, U., Meyer, C., & Nelles, R. (2007). German mishaps put nuclear power under scrutiny, Spiegel Online. http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,494707,00.html.
  8. Berliner Zeitung. (2007, June 30). Brandheiße Alternativen, http://www.berlinonline.de/berliner-zeitung/spezial/dossiers/klimawandel/81066/index.php.
  9. Borglin, O., Lindell, G., & Lindström, S. (2008). Isomorphic learning at a disciplined nuclear power plant (School of Business Economics and Law, Göteborg University). Bachelor Thesis, http://gupea.ub.gu.se/bitstream/2077/17870/1/gupea_2077_17870_1.pdf.
  10. Brennan, N. M., & Conroy, J. P. (2010). Executive hubris: The case of a bank CEO, Working Paper.Google Scholar
  11. Breton, G., & Coté, L. (2006). Profit and the legitimacy of the Canadian banking industry. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 19(2), 512–539.Google Scholar
  12. Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit. (2006). Große Mehrheit der Bevölkerung für Beibehaltung des Atomausstiegs. http://www.bmu.de/atomenergie_sicherheit/downloads/doc/37879.php.
  13. Cho, C. H. (2009). Legitimation strategies used in response to environmental disaster: A French case study of Total SA’s Erika and AZF incidents. European Accounting Review, 18(1), 33–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Craig, R. J., & Amernic, J. H. (2004a). The deployment of accounting-related rhetoric in the prelude to privatization. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 17(1), 41–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Craig, R. J., & Amernic, J. H. (2004b). Enron discourse: the rhetoric of a resilient capitalism. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 15(6/7), 813–851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Craig, R. J., & Amernic, J. H. (2006). The mobilization of accounting in preening for privatization. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 19(1), 82–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Craig, R. J., & Amernic, J. H. (2008). A privatization success story: Accounting and narrative expression over time. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 21(8), 1085–1115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Crowther, D., Carter, C., & Cooper, S. (2006). The poetics of corporate reporting: Evidence from the UK water industry. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 17(1/2), 175–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Der Spiegel. (2007, July 11). Merkel furious about nuclear mishaps, http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,493775,00.html.
  20. Der Spiegel. (2007, July 16). Energy giant fires nuclear boss, http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,494734,00.html.
  21. Der Spiegel. (2007, July 18). The Fallout continues: Vattenfall Europe Boss Rauscher Resigns, http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,495264,00.html.
  22. Die Welt. (2007, July 2). Streit über Wiederanfahren von Brunsbüttel, http://www.welt.de/welt_print/article990186/Streit_ueber_Wiederanfahren_von_Brunsbuettel.html.
  23. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dowling, J., & Pfeffer, J. (1975). Organizational legitimacy: Social values and organizational behavior. Pacific Sociological Review, 18, 122–136.Google Scholar
  25. Elsbach, K. D. (1994). Managing organizational legitimacy in the Californian cattle industry: The construction and effectiveness of verbal accounts. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(1), 57–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Elsbach, K. D. (2001). The Architecture of legitimacy: Constructing accounts of organisational controversies. In J. T. Jost & B. Major (Eds.), The psychology of legitimacy (pp. 391–415). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  28. Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Text analysis for social research. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Fairclough, N. (2009). A dialectical-relational approach. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods for critical discourse analysis (2nd ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  30. General-Anzeiger. (2007, June 30). Debatte über Sicherheit; ENERGIE: Pannen in Kernkraftwerken geben Rätsel auf.Google Scholar
  31. Ginzel, L. E., Kramer, R. M., & Sutton, R. I. (2004). Organizational impression management as a reciprocal influence process: The neglected role of the organisational audience. In M. J. Hatch & M. Schultz (Eds.), Organizational identity (pp. 223–261). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday Anchor Books.Google Scholar
  33. Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  34. Greenwood, M. (2007). Stakeholder engagement: Beyond the myth of corporate responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 74(4), 315–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hatch, M. J., & Cunliffe, A. L. (2006). Organisation theory: Modern, symbolic, and postmodern perspectives (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Hooghiemstra, R. (2000). Corporate communication and impression management—New perspectives why companies engage in corporate social reporting. Journal of Business Ethics, 27(1–2), 55–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hyland, K. (1998). Exploring corporate rhetoric: Metadiscourse in the CEO’s letter. The Journal of Business Communication, 35(2), 224–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  39. Lightstone, K., & Driscoll, C. (2008). Disclosing elements of disclosure: A test of legitimacy theory and company ethics. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 25(1), 7–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lindblom, C. K. (1994). The implications of organizational legitimacy for corporate social performance and disclosure. New York: Critical Perspectives on Accounting Conference.Google Scholar
  41. Linsley, P., & Kajüter, P. (2008). Restoring and repairing legitimacy: A case study of impression management in response to a major risk event at Allied Irish Banks plc. International Journal of Financial Services Management, 3(1), 65–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Livesey, S. M. (2002a). Global warming wars: Rhetorical and discourse analytical approaches to exxon mobile’s corporate public disclosure. Journal of Business Communication, 39(1), 117–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Livesey, S. M. (2002b). Transparent and caring corporations? A study of sustainability reporting by the body shop and royal Dutch/shell. Organization and Environment, 15(3), 233–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Llewellyn, S. (1999). Narratives in accounting and management research. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 12(2), 220–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mäkelä H., & Laine, M. (2011). A CEO with many messages: Comparing the ideological representations provided by different corporate reports. Accounting Forum, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  46. McKenna, D. J., & Graham, P. (2000). Technocratic discourse: A primer. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 30(3), 219–247.Google Scholar
  47. Merkl-Davies, D. M., & Brennan, N. M. (2011). A conceptual framework of impression management: New insights from psychology, sociology, and critical perspectives. Accounting and Business Research, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  48. Merkl-Davies D. M., & Koller, V. (2011). Metaphoring people out of this world: A critical discourse analysis of a chairman’s statement of a UK defence firm. Accounting Forum, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  49. Milne, M., Tregidga, H., & Walton, S. (2009). Words not action! The ideological role of sustainable development reporting. Accounting, Auditing, and Accountability Journal, 22(8), 1211–1257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ogden, S., & Clarke, J. (2005). Customer disclosure, impression management and the construction of legitimacy: Corporate reports in the UK privatised water industry. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 18(3), 313–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. O’Higgins, E. R. E. (2010). Corporations, civil society, and stakeholders: An organisational conceptualization. Journal of Business Ethics, 94(2), 157–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. O’Keefe, P., & Conway, S. (2008). Impression management and legitimacy in a NGO environment. University of Tasmania, School of Accounting Working Paper Series 02/2008.Google Scholar
  53. Palazzo, G., & Scherer, A. G. (2006). Corporate legitimacy as deliberation: A communicative framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 66(1), 71–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Roose, J. (2010). Der endlose Streit um die Atomenergie. Konfliktsoziologische Untersuchung einer dauerhaften Auseinandersetzung. In P. H. Feindt & T. Saretzki (Eds.), Umwelt- und Technikkonflikte. Wiesbaden: Vs Verlag.Google Scholar
  55. Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management: The self-concept, social identity, and interpersonal relations. Monterey: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  56. Schultz, F., & Wehmeier, S. (2010). Institutionalisation of Corporate social responsibility within corporate communications: Combining institutional, sensemaking and communication perspectives. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 15(1), 9–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Stoett, P. (2003). Toward renewed legitimacy? Nuclear power, global warming, and security. Global Environmental Politics, 3(1), 99–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Research, 20(3), 571–610.Google Scholar
  59. Tagesspiegel. (2007, December 10). Vattenfall verliert 250.000 Kunden, http://www.tagesspiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/vattenfall-verliert-250-000-kunden/1118412.html.
  60. TAZ. (2007, July 4). Vattenfall vertuscht Atomunfall, http://www.taz.de/?id=475andart=1498andno_cache=1.
  61. Tomer, J. (2008). Beyond the rationality of economic man: toward the true rationality of human man. Journal of Socio-Economics, 37(5), 1703–1712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Tregidga H., Milne, M., & Kearins, K. (2007). Organisational legitimacy in bridging the text and context of social and environmental reporting, Working paper. http://www.acis.canterbury.ac.nz/documents/Markus_Milne_Research_Programmes/Organisational_Legitimacy_and_SER.pdf.
  63. van Dijk, T. A. (2003). Critical discourse analysis. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. H. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis. Malden and Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  64. Vattenfall. (2007, June 28). Kernkraftwerke Brunsbüttel und Krümmel vom Netz, http://www.vattenfall.de/www/vf/vf_de/225583xberx/232127press/232157press/232187archi/258228press/index.jsp?pmid=112839.
  65. Weber, M. (1968). Economy and society, 3 volumes. Towata: Bedminster Press.Google Scholar
  66. Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2009). Critical discourse analysis: History, agenda, theory and methodology. In R. Wodak & R. M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods for critical discourse analysis (2nd ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bangor Business SchoolBangor UniversityBangorUK

Personalised recommendations