Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Corporate Argumentation for Acceptability: Reflections of Environmental Values and Stakeholder Relations in Corporate Environmental Statements

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger, P.L. and Luckmann, T: 1998, Todellisuuden sosiaalinen rakentuminen. Kirjapaino Oy Like, Helsinki

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A.B: 1993. Business & Society. Ethics and Stakeholder Management. South Western Publishing Co, Cincinnati

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DesJardins, J.: 1998, “Corporate Environmental Responsibility.” Journal of Business Ethics 17, 825–838

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobers, P., Strannegård, L. & Wolff, R.: 2001, “Knowledge Interests in Corporate Environmental Management”. Business Strategy and Environment 10, 335–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eskola, J. and Suoranta, J.: 1998. Johdatus laadulliseen tutkimukseen. Vastapaino, Tampere

    Google Scholar 

  • Fineman, S.: 2001, “Fashioning the Environment.” Organisation articles 8(1), 17–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R.: 1984. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Pitman, Massachusetts

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grafe-Buckens, A. and Hinton, A-F.: 1998, “Engaging the Stakeholders: Corporate Views and Current Trends.” Business Strategy and Environment 7, 124–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, S.: 1997. Representation. Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices. Scotprint Ltd, Musselburh, Scotland

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holt, D. and Anthony, S.: 2000, “Exploring “Green” Culture in Nortel and Middlesex University.” Eco-Management and Auditing 3 (7), 143–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, J: 1998, Business Ethics, Overview. In Wilson, L. (eds), Business Ethics and Contemporary Issues. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, Iowa

    Google Scholar 

  • Jokinen, A: 1999, Vakuuttelevan ja suostuttelevan retoriikan analysoiminen. In Jokinen, A., Juhila, A. and Suoninen, E. (eds) Diskurssianalyysi liikkeessä. Vastapaino, Tampere

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T.M. and Wicks, A: 1999, “Convergent stakeholder theory.” Academy of Management Review 24(2), 206–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Juhila, K: 1993, Miten tarinasta tulee tosi? Faktuaalistamisstrategiat viranomaispuheessa. In Jokinen, A., Juhila, K. and Suoninen, E. (eds.). Diskurssianalyysin aakkoset. (Tampere, Vastapaino)

    Google Scholar 

  • Kujala, J. and Kuvaja, S.: 2002, Välittäjä johtaminen. Sidosryhmät eettisen liiketoiminnan kirittäjinä. (Talentum, Helsinki)

    Google Scholar 

  • Laine, M.: 2005, “Meanings of the term “sustainable development” in Finnish corporate disclosures.” Accounting Forum 29, 395–413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madsen, H. and Ulhoi, J.P.: 2001, “Integrating Environmental and Stakeholder Management.” Business Strategy and the Environment 10, 77–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, B.: 2001. “Manuals for environmental dialogue.” Corporate environmental strategy 8(3): 217–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perelman, C.: 1982, The Realm of Rhetoric. (Notre Dame, London)

    Google Scholar 

  • Potter, J.: 1996, Representing reality. Discourse, rhetoric and social construction. Cromwell Press Ltd, Wiltshire

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Google Scholar 

  • Roome, N. & Wijen, F.: 2006, “Stakeholder Power and Organisational Learning in Corporate Environmental Management.” Organization Studies 27(2), 235–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S.H.: 1994, “Are There Universal Aspects in the Content and Structure of Values?”. Journal of Social Issues 50, 19–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shrivastava, P: 1995, “Ecocentric management for a risk society.” Academy of Management Review 20, 118–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stead, W.E. and Stead J.G: 1996, Management for a Small Planet. (Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications)

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern, P. C: 2000, “Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior.” Journal of Social Issues 56(3), 407–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wicks, A., Gilbert, D. and Freeman, R.E.: 1994, “A Feminist Reinterpretation of the Stakeholder Concept”. Business Ethics Quarterly 4(4), 475–498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolff, R.: 1998, “Beyond environmental management – perspectives on environmental and management research”. Business strategy and the environment 7:297–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Jyväskylä, PL 35, 40014, Jyvaskyla, Finland

    Tiina Johanna Onkila

Authors
  1. Tiina Johanna Onkila
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tiina Johanna Onkila.

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-9885-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation