Abstract
This article studies argumentation for acceptability of corporate environmental actions in corporate environmental statements, with emphasis on stakeholder relations and environmental values. Stakeholder theory is commonly taken as the basis for corporate environmental management, and rhetoric typical of the stakeholder approach dominates the field. Although environmental issues are strongly charged with values, the dominant stakeholder approach does not stress the value dimension. The data of the study consists of environmental statements by Finnish forerunning business corporations in the forefront of corporate environmental responsibility. The results of the study indicate that the statements argue for the acceptability of corporate environmental actions through three power-related rhetorical forms that are competing ways to produce acceptability in the data: dominance, subordination and equality, and joint action. Each rhetorical form describes a power-based relationship between stakeholders and the corporation and leans on a specific value type producing legitimacy for that rhetoric form.
Abbreviations
- CEM:
-
Corporate environmental management
References
Bansal, P. and Roth, K.: 2000. “Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness.” Academy of management journal 43(4), 717–736
Berger, P.L. and Luckmann, T: 1998, Todellisuuden sosiaalinen rakentuminen. Kirjapaino Oy Like, Helsinki
Billig, M.: 1987, Arguing and Thinking: A Rhetorical Approach to Social Psychology (University Press, Cambridge)
Bishop, J.D.: 2000. “Framework for discussing normative theories in business ethics.” Business Ethics Quarterly 10(3), 565–591
Carroll, A.B: 1993. Business & Society. Ethics and Stakeholder Management. South Western Publishing Co, Cincinnati
Cordano, M., Hanson Frieze, I. and Ellis, K.M.: 2004, “Entangled Affilations and Attitudes: An Analysis of the Influences on Environmental Policy Stakeholders’ Behavioral Intentions”. Journal of Business Ethics 49, 27–40
DesJardins, J.: 1998, “Corporate Environmental Responsibility.” Journal of Business Ethics 17, 825–838
Dobers, P., Strannegård, L. & Wolff, R.: 2001, “Knowledge Interests in Corporate Environmental Management”. Business Strategy and Environment 10, 335–343
Donaldson, T. and L. E. Preston: 1995, ‹The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence and Implications’, in M. B. E. Clarkson (ed.), The Corporation and Its Stakeholders. Classic and Contemporary Readings (University of Toronto Press, Toronto)
Driscoll, C. and Starik, M.: 2004, “The Primordial Stakeholder: Advancing the Conceptual Consideration of Stakeholder Status for the Natural Environment.” Journal of Business Ethics 49, 55–73
Earl, G. and Clift, R.: 1999, “Stakeholder value analysis: a methodology for integrating stakeholder values into corporate environmental investment decisions.” Business strategy and the environment 8, 149–162
Egri, C.P. and Herman, S.: 2000, “Leadership in North American Environmental Sector: Values, Leadeship Styles, and Contexts of Environmental Leaders and their Organisations.” Academy of Management Journal 43(4), 571–604
Enderle, G.: 1997, “In search of a common ethical ground: Corporate environmental responsibility from the perspective of Christian environmental stewardship.” Journal of business ethics 16, 173–181
Eriksson, P. and Lehtimäki, H.: 2001, “Strategy rhetoric in city management – How the presumptions of classic strategic management live on?” Scandinavian Journal of Management 17(2), 201–223
Eskola, J. and Suoranta, J.: 1998. Johdatus laadulliseen tutkimukseen. Vastapaino, Tampere
Fineman, S.: 2001, “Fashioning the Environment.” Organisation articles 8(1), 17–31
Freeman, R.: 1984. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Pitman, Massachusetts
Fryxell, G.E. and Lo, C.W.H.: 2003, “The influence of environmental knowledge and values on managerial behaviours on behalf of the environment: An empirical examination of managers in China.” Journal of Business Ethics 46, 45–69
Grafe-Buckens, A. and Hinton, A-F.: 1998, “Engaging the Stakeholders: Corporate Views and Current Trends.” Business Strategy and Environment 7, 124–133
Hall, S.: 1997. Representation. Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices. Scotprint Ltd, Musselburh, Scotland
Hanson, J.D., Melnyk, S.A. and Calantone, R.J.: 2004, “Core values and environmental management. A strong inference approach.” Greener management international 46, 29–40
Harvey, B. and Schaefer, A.: 2001, “Managing Relationship with Environmental Stakeholders: A Study of U.K. Water and Electricity Utilities.” Journal of Business Ethics 30, 243–260
Henriques, I. and Sadorsky, P.: 1999, “The Relationship between Environmental Commitment and Managerial Perceptions of Stakeholder Importance.” Academy of Management Journal 42(1), 87–99
Holt, D. and Anthony, S.: 2000, “Exploring “Green” Culture in Nortel and Middlesex University.” Eco-Management and Auditing 3 (7), 143–154
Jackson, J: 1998, Business Ethics, Overview. In Wilson, L. (eds), Business Ethics and Contemporary Issues. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, Iowa
Jokinen, A: 1999, Vakuuttelevan ja suostuttelevan retoriikan analysoiminen. In Jokinen, A., Juhila, A. and Suoninen, E. (eds) Diskurssianalyysi liikkeessä. Vastapaino, Tampere
Jones, T.M. and Wicks, A: 1999, “Convergent stakeholder theory.” Academy of Management Review 24(2), 206–221
Juhila, K: 1993, Miten tarinasta tulee tosi? Faktuaalistamisstrategiat viranomaispuheessa. In Jokinen, A., Juhila, K. and Suoninen, E. (eds.). Diskurssianalyysin aakkoset. (Tampere, Vastapaino)
Kujala, J. and Kuvaja, S.: 2002, Välittäjä johtaminen. Sidosryhmät eettisen liiketoiminnan kirittäjinä. (Talentum, Helsinki)
Laine, M.: 2005, “Meanings of the term “sustainable development” in Finnish corporate disclosures.” Accounting Forum 29, 395–413
Madsen, H. and Ulhoi, J.P.: 2001, “Integrating Environmental and Stakeholder Management.” Business Strategy and the Environment 10, 77–88
Matikainen, E.: 1994, Stakeholder Theory – Classification and Analysis of Stakeholder Approaches, Helsinki School of Economics and Business Administration, Working Papers W-107
Näsi, J.: 1995, What is Stakeholder Thinking? A Snapshot of a Social Theory of the Firm. In Näsi, J. (ed.) Understanding Stakeholder Thinking. (Gummerus Kirjapaino, Jyväskylä)
Nielsen, B.: 2001. “Manuals for environmental dialogue.” Corporate environmental strategy 8(3): 217–223
Oxley Green, A. and Hunton-Clarke, L.: 2003, “A Typology of Stakeholder Participation for Company Environmental Decision Making.” Business Strategy and Environment 12, 292–299
Perelman, C.: 1982, The Realm of Rhetoric. (Notre Dame, London)
Potter, J.: 1996, Representing reality. Discourse, rhetoric and social construction. Cromwell Press Ltd, Wiltshire
Preuss, L.: 2005, “Rhetoric and Reality of Corporate Greening: a View from the Supply Chain Management Function.” Business Strategy and the Environment 14: 123–139
Puohiniemi, M.: 1995, Values, Consumer Attitudes and Behaviour: An Application of Schwartz’s Value Theory to the Analysis of Consumer Behaviour and Attitudes in Two National Samples, Doctoral dissertation, University of Helsinki
Puohiniemi, M: 2003, Löytöretki yrityksen arvomaailmaan. (Dark Oy, Vantaa)
Roome, N. & Wijen, F.: 2006, “Stakeholder Power and Organisational Learning in Corporate Environmental Management.” Organization Studies 27(2), 235–263
Saha, M. and Darnton, G.: 2005, “Green Companies or Green Con-Panies: Are Companies Really Green, or Are they Pretending to Be?”. Business and Society Review 110(2), 117–157
Schwartz, S.H.: 1992, “Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theory and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 25, 1–65
Schwartz, S.H.: 1994, “Are There Universal Aspects in the Content and Structure of Values?”. Journal of Social Issues 50, 19–45
Shrivastava, P: 1995, “Ecocentric management for a risk society.” Academy of Management Review 20, 118–137
Starik, M. and Marcus, A: 2000, “Introduction to the special research forum on the management of organisations in the natural environment: a field emerging from multiple paths, with many challenges ahead.” Academy of Management Journal 43(4), 539–546
Stead, W.E. and Stead J.G: 1996, Management for a Small Planet. (Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications)
Stern, P. C: 2000, “Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior.” Journal of Social Issues 56(3), 407–424
Summa, H: 1996, Kolme näkökulmaa uuteen retoriikkaan. Burke, Perelman ja Toulmin ja retoriikan kunnianpalautus. In Palonen, K. and Summa, H. (eds), Pelkkää retoriikkaa. (Vastapaino, Tampere)
van Marrewijk, M., Wuisman, I., De Cleyn, W., Timmers, J., Panapanaan, V. and Linnanen, L.: 2004, “A Phase-wise Development Approach to Business Excellence: Towards an Innovative, Stakeholder-Oriented Assessment Tool for Organisational Excellence and CSR.” Journal of Business Ethics 55, 83–98
Wicks, A., Gilbert, D. and Freeman, R.E.: 1994, “A Feminist Reinterpretation of the Stakeholder Concept”. Business Ethics Quarterly 4(4), 475–498
Wolff, R.: 1998, “Beyond environmental management – perspectives on environmental and management research”. Business strategy and the environment 7:297–308
Wood, D.J. and Jones, R.E.: 1995. Stakeholder Mismatching: A Theoretical Problem in Empirical Research on Corporate Social Performance. In Clarkson M.B.E. (eds) The Corporation and Its Stakeholders. Classic and Contemporary Readings. (Toronto University Press, Toronto)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Onkila, T.J. Corporate Argumentation for Acceptability: Reflections of Environmental Values and Stakeholder Relations in Corporate Environmental Statements. J Bus Ethics 87, 285–298 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9885-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9885-y