Running Head: RHETORIC

Rhetoric and Corporate Social Responsibility

Øyvind Ihlen, University of Oslo

This is a preprint version of a text that appeared as Ihlen, Ø. (2011). Rhetoric and corporate social responsibility. In Ø. Ihlen, J. Bartlett & S. May (Eds.), Handbook of communication and corporate social responsibility (pp. 147-166). Oxford, UK: Wiley Blackwell.

RHETORIC |2

Abstract

The concept of rhetoric helps us to understand the specific textual strategies that corporations

employ when they communicate about corporate social responsibility (CSR). This chapter briefly

defines what rhetoric is, reviews the literature on CSR rhetoric, and then demonstrates the

relevance of two crucial rhetorical concepts—the rhetorical situation and ethos. The former alerts

us to how rhetorical utterances are influenced by their context. For instance, corporations have to

admit that they have responsibilities beyond profit-making, but do not necessarily have to go

overboard in terms of CSR engagement. The significance of rhetorical theory is also highlighted

by the concept of ethos, which is helpful in analyzing precisely how corporations attempt to

enhance their credibility when they communicate about CSR.

RHETORIC |3

Rhetoric and Corporate Social Responsibility

Rhetoric helps us to understand how knowledge is generated and socially constructed

through discourse. All “truths” and “objective facts” are dependent on some kind of social

consensus. Recognition of the central role of discourse has led to a turn towards rhetoric in many

academic disciplines. Scholars in the fields of communication, public relations, organizational

communication, philosophy, management, economics, law, political science, social psychology,

history, anthropology, political science, sociology, and literature have all drawn on the concept of

rhetoric (Lucaites, Condit, & Caudill, 1999). This chapter discusses how rhetoric also can

enhance our understanding of communication about corporate social responsibility (CSR).

The chapter starts with a short overview of the Western rhetorical tradition, before turning

to a discussion of how rhetoric has been applied in studies of CSR. The following two sections

then demonstrate how the notions of the rhetorical situation and ethos can be used to analyze

CSR rhetoric. The chapter concludes with suggestions for a research agenda for CSR rhetoric

studies.

The Western Rhetorical Tradition

When corporations communicate about CSR, they are faced with a number of challenges,

the most basic of which is finding a way to convince important stakeholders that their CSR

efforts are more than just window dressing. The rhetorical tradition provides useful theory for

understanding how corporations go about this and related communication tasks.

Scholars have identified ancient rhetorical traditions in countries such as China and Egypt

(Lipson & Binkley, 2009), but it is the Western rhetorical tradition originating in ancient Greece

and Rome that is most often referred to. The works of Aristotle, Cicero, and Quintilian

particularly stand out (e.g., Aristotle, trans. 1991; Cicero, trans. 2001; Quintilian, trans.

1920/1996). The best known definition of rhetoric in this tradition is that given by Aristotle: “Let

RHETORIC |4

rhetoric be [defined as] an ability, in each [particular] case, to see the available means of

persuasion” (Aristotle, trans. 1991, 1.2.1). There are, however, other influential ways of

understanding the concept. Isocrates, another of the ancient Greeks, pointed to the epistemic

quality of rhetoric when he stated that “we use the same arguments by which we persuade others

in our own deliberations” (Isocrates, trans. 2000, 15.256).

Although the ancient rhetoricians often disagreed with and criticized one another, they

also saw themselves as representatives and bearers of a glorious tradition. Originality was not

really the issue, as they were all writing within a larger project (Andersen, 1995). The insights

gleaned from these writings are often presented in the form of a five-phase system for speakers

that provides advice on the invention, disposition, formulation, memorization, and presentation of

a speech. Although this system was originally seen as a whole, and had a sophisticated

philosophical basis, later writers tended to emphasize only the latter parts of the system. Over the

years, rhetoric thus came to be associated with empty, flowery language and, accordingly, fell

into disrepute (Conley, 1990/1994; Kennedy, 1999).

During the course of the twentieth century, however, a new concept of rhetoric emerged,

one driven by debates over epistemology, that is, how knowledge is generated and constructed. In

general, rhetorical scholars in this era attempted to move away from an aesthetic understanding of

rhetoric as preoccupied with form, favoring a scientific understanding and the modernist notion

of objectivity. Burke (1950/1969) and Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca (1969/1971) were among

the most prominent figures in this new rhetoric. Burke’s goal was to rediscover and restore

rhetorical elements that he felt had been obscured and even vandalized by the emphasis on

aesthetics. Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca shared these sentiments and were particularly

interested in reinstating matters of rationality.

Critics in the 1960s and onwards helped to end the hegemony of neo-traditionalists who

RHETORIC |5

leaned on the “founding father” of the rhetorical tradition—Aristotle. Interest in simple classical

models of pedagogy was also gradually replaced by a desire to understand the relationship

between rhetoric and social theory; that is, rhetoric should not be treated only as intellectual

history. One particular misgiving was the way in which rhetoric as an academic area since the

days of Aristotle had neglected to discuss its basic philosophical underpinnings. More than two

thousand years had passed since the principles of rhetoric were first formulated, and, in light of

the comprehensive social, political, economic, and cultural changes that had taken place since, it

was argued that these principles could hardly be uniformly germane in the twentieth century

(Black, 1965/1978; Fogarty, 1959).

The new rhetoricians thus set out to expand the scope of rhetoric to include all forms of

symbol use, and also began to explore how modern rhetors can use the mass media to reach

larger and vastly more diverse audiences. Another important point for new rhetoricians

subscribing to a social-epistemic viewpoint was that rhetoric constructs and modifies reality,

social conditions, and relationships (Farrell, 1999; Scott, 1999). All human behavior involves

rhetoric, and rhetoric constructs social knowledge. Rhetoric helps some ideas to be accepted and

others to be rejected. It is not possible to “discover” or “unearth” truth, as all types of knowledge

rest upon some kind of human consensus (Farrell, 1999; Scott, 1999). Referring back to the work

of Isocrates, it is possible to say that rhetoric is epistemic, but it seems fruitful to comprehend it

as having a dialectic relationship with the ontological.

The following section provides an overview of how perspectives such as these have been

applied in analysis of CSR communication.

Literature on Rhetoric and CSR

It must be emphasized that the keyword combination “rhetoric and CSR” is nonexistent in

the main rhetoric journals such as the Quarterly Journal of Speech. Furthermore, the business

RHETORIC |6

ethics and management journals that publish CSR studies—for instance, the Journal of Business

Ethics and Business Strategy and the Environment—typically use the term “rhetoric” as a

synonym for empty words in contrast to “reality” (e.g., Preuss, 2005). There are of course

exceptions (e.g., Onkila, 2009), but, overall, the amount of literature on rhetoric and CSR is

meager. However, the list grows larger if the search is extended to the fields of public relations

and organizational communication and if it encompasses rhetorical studies that focus on

particular aspects of CSR, such as environmental strategies. Three partly overlapping streams of

research stand out: corporate advocacy or issues management (see also Chapter 16), ethos or

legitimacy, and the corporate role or aspects of morality (see also Chapter 9).

The first stream, corporate advocacy or issues management, comprises research

investigating how corporations attempt to keep track of and influence social issues that have

consequences for their way of doing business (e.g., Crable & Vibbert, 1983; Heath, 1980;

Hoover, 1997). Bostdorff and Vibbert (1994), for instance, have pointed to organizations’

attempts to appeal to shared cultural values to enhance their image, deflect criticism, and/or

establish value premises that they can later employ in their rhetoric. Similarly, Livesey and

Kearins (2002) studied the nonfinancial reports of the Body Shop and Shell. They concluded that

these corporations had attempted to blur the distinctions between themselves and their potential

critics by portraying themselves as operating within a framework of common humanity that

included such values as caring and sustainability.

Values can be advocated and issues managed in other ways too, as Paystrup (1995, 1996)

demonstrated in her research on how the U.S. plastics industry had introduced recycling as a

strategy to combat restrictions. Livesey (2002) similarly showed how a corporate rhetor—

ExxonMobil—had argued against regulations on carbon dioxide emissions by applying the

terministic screen (see Burke, 1966) of the market to shift focus from the consequences of global

RHETORIC |7

warming to the consequences of government policy. In its rhetoric, the corporation turned the

market into a god term, replaced precaution with prudence, and made scapegoats of the

government, most scientists, and environmentalists while portraying itself as the protector of a

certain way of life. Livesey and Graham (2007) pointed out how another oil company—Shell—

pursued an opposite strategy, employing CSR discourse and sustainable development as part of

its identity work, thus revising the capitalist progress myth.

Feller (2004) has investigated the way in which corporate environmental reports often

take the form of utopian narratives that do not discuss underlying problems or the paradoxes of

corporate practice. This trend becomes particularly important when corporations discuss climate

change. Ihlen (2009a), for example, demonstrated how the climate rhetoric of the world’s 30

largest companies can be categorized by four main topics: (a) the environmental situation is

characterized as grave (pathos); (b) the corporation claims to act in line with the scientific

consensus and the international political process in curbing emissions (testimony); (c) the

corporation admits it must take measures to reduce its own emissions (relationship); and (d) the

climate challenge is cast as providing a business opportunity (circumstance). He found few of

these corporations to be discussing the more fundamental systemic problems stemming from

economic growth and the use of nonrenewable energy sources.

A second research stream consists of studies that focus on ethos or legitimacy. Although

ethos and legitimacy strategies can certainly involve appeals to shared values, this body of work

points to a wider repertoire of strategies that do not necessarily focus on issues as such (Ihlen,

2009b; Wæraas & Ihlen, 2009). As Saiia and Cyphert (2003) have noted, some rhetorical

demands stem from the civic discourse that corporations must identify and meet to ensure the

success of their CSR communication. Sincerity is one such demand.

Onkila (2009) identified three rhetorical forms that corporations employ to argue for their

RHETORIC |8

environmental legitimacy: (a) the rhetoric of dominance, which presents the corporation as a

leading and environmentally responsible actor (its stakeholders are followers); (b) the rhetoric of

subordination, in which the corporation has limited influence over the external forces that

influence its environmental actions; and (c) the rhetoric of joint action and equality, in which the

corporation joins with partners in striving for a common goal. These forms build upon and gain

their legitimacy from different values: self-direction and willingness to change, respect for others,

and the value of the common good (Onkila, 2009).

McMillan (2007) offered an important conceptual critique within this body of research,

fundamentally questioning whether companies are currently poised to take on the responsibility

challenge. She sees a problem in corporate rationality, arguing that CSR rhetoric is characterized

by such traits as “instrumentality, exclusivity, attribution, monologue and narcissism” (p. 22). In

her view, there is a need for a shift towards connection, reciprocity, and trust, which is in line

with the understanding of ethos as a mutual dwelling place for the rhetor and the audience

(Smith, 2004). Corporate ethos strategies are discussed in greater depth in a later section of this

chapter.

Studies within the third research stream reflect on both values and legitimacy, but they

also offer a wider perspective on the role of corporations in society. These studies often involve

discussions of aspects of morality or ideals, or both. Public relations scholar Robert Heath, for

instance, has made numerous explicit and implicit references to the importance of CSR for

organizations, as well as for public relations as a discipline (e.g., Heath & Ryan, 1989, see

Chapter 4 on public relations). His recurring point is that modern organizations need to adapt the

Quintilian rhetor ideal and seek to become good organizations that communicate well (Heath,

2001). The route to the latter is via public relations practice that builds on an interactive

dialogical process. The public relations practitioner must not only advocate the needs of the

RHETORIC |9

organization, but also the needs, concerns, and points of view of stakeholders. (Heath, 1993)

argued that self-interest is tempered by the responses of other stakeholders, thus rendering the

process ethical.

References to morality abound in the CSR rhetoric. Bostdorff (1992) showed how rhetoric

is used to demonstrate the positive value of corporate acts and the purity of corporate purpose, as

well as how corporations have embraced a highly valued social role. In an empirical analysis of

Swedish companies, the existence of the marketplace was found to be the most important topic

when corporations argued about their role, but more ethical arguments were identified in the CSR

rhetoric of highly visible companies (Fredriksson, 2008).

In what was arguably the first lengthy scholarly investigation of CSR and rhetoric,

Llewellyn (1990) argued that CSR rhetoric is theological at root. Looking at the Ball

Corporation, a packaging manufacturer, and the pharmaceutical firm Eli Lilly, and their

interpretations of CSR, Llewellyn argued for the existence of two branches of CSR rhetoric: sect

and church discourse. Sect discourse presents companies as “true believers,” with CSR issues

treated in black and white terms, whereas church discourse is more nuanced, but builds on the

notion that CSR will pay in the long run.

Although we’ve imposed categorization on the above-referenced studies, it must be said

that these works, even those within a single stream, rarely reference one another. Furthermore,

several of the studies fail to employ the CSR phrase, and hence no dominant definition of CSR

has emerged. It is also difficult to argue that these scattered studies have had much impact.

To the degree that it is possible to talk about tension in this body of literature, the critical

versus practical orientation is probably the most important. Most of the aforementioned studies

point to the shortcomings of CSR rhetoric and demonstrate its negative effect on society in the

sense that such rhetoric helps corporations to carry on with harmful activities by deflecting

RHETORIC |10

criticism. Corporations privilege their own interests and curtail the public interest with the help of

CSR rhetoric. The two main questions that then arise are: What responsibility do the academics

conducting this type of critical research (e.g., Kuhn & Deetz, 2008) shoulder? Should

communication scholars also offer positive ideals and offer a direction for ethical communication

practices with regard to CSR? The practical recommendation to embrace the Quintilian rhetor

ideal has been put forward, and Heath has argued that rhetoric is intrinsically ethical, as it

“fosters truth as best as can be done; it serves to solve problems that confront the public” (Heath,

2007, p. 50); that is, it makes it possible to engage in public dialogue.

Cheney and Christensen (2001) have criticized the ontological assumptions of Heath’s

argument and his apparent faith in a well-functioning “marketplace of ideas” in which the

resource issue plays no role. Counterarguments are that there really are no guarantees that

different voices will be heard, nor that better arguments will prevail over self-interested ones, nor

that corporations will sacrifice short-term profit to meet CSR goals. Rhetoric can be used for

good or ill.

To summarize, although the body of literature on CSR rhetoric is small, it can be divided

into three partly overlapping streams that focus on corporate advocacy or issues management,

ethos or legitimacy, and the corporate role or aspects of morality. What follows are two in-depth

examples of how rhetorical theory can be used to analyze CSR communication. We deal first

with the notion of the rhetorical situation and then with the concept of ethos.

The Rhetorical Situation

The idea of the rhetorical situation was introduced by Bitzer (1968), and is helpful in

understanding the contextual influences on rhetoric. In the following, I illustrate how this concept

can be applied to analysis of the CSR communication of the top 30 corporations on the 2009

Fortune Global 500 list (see Appendix 1).

RHETORIC |11

Problem, Audience, and Constraints

The first element of the rhetorical situation is a pressing problem (exigence), some

imperfection that demands a rhetorical response and must be solved (wholly or partially) with the

help of rhetoric (Bitzer, 1968). One such pressing problem for the multinational corporation

arises from criticism of the way in which it conducts its business. Looking at the aforementioned

list of the top 30 corporations, it becomes clear that all of them have been involved in scandals.

They have faced accusations of environmental destruction or greenwashing, or both; violations of

labor rights or lax work security, or both; human rights violations; and/or corruption or poor

corporate governance, or both. Examples include the now classic scandals of Shell’s collusion

with the Nigerian military regime in the 1990s (Wheeler, Fabig, & Boele, 2002) and

ExxonMobil’s attempts to undermine international climate negotiations this decade (Union of

Concerned Scientists, 2007). The public debate surrounding corporate conduct (e.g., Bakan,

2004; Klein, 2000) seems to demand a discursive response from corporations to deter measures—

regulations, consumer boycotts, and so forth—that would hamper business.

The second element of the rhetorical situation is the audience, that is, the target of the

rhetor’s attempts to change thoughts, decisions, or actions (Bitzer, 1968). In the example of the

multinational corporation, the audience is the entity that can confer legitimacy on the corporation.

Corporations have to pay attention to governments and other authorities that can have an

immediate impact on business through legislation and policies. At the same time, other

stakeholders—critical NGOs, the mass media, community groups, investors, and so forth—can

also have a direct or indirect influence through politicians and legislators. The multinational

corporations on the Fortune Global 500 list operate in highly complex environments and meet

stakeholders at the local, regional, national, and international level (see also Chapter 14 on

stakeholders). It is beyond the scope of this chapter to present detailed analysis of these

RHETORIC |12

environments, but suffice it to say that several of these corporations are closely scrutinized by

critical stakeholder groups (e.g., www.corpwatch.org).

The third element constituting the rhetorical situation is constraints. These constraints can

be rhetorical, but also physical and/or cultural (Bitzer, 1968). The first constraint that suggests

itself in the rhetorical situation of the multinational corporation is the requirement for it to declare

its responsibility. As noted in the introductory chapter, CSR is embraced by most leading

institutions (e.g., Commission of the European Communities, 2001), and market research has

consistently shown that customers expect corporations to behave responsibly (Environics

International Ltd, 2000). Large corporations at the very least have to declare that they care about

something beyond profits. To argue the contrary in public would invite criticism and endanger

their relationships with key stakeholders and markets. Hence, CSR reporting has become the

norm, not the exception (KPMG, 2008). Twenty-seven of the top 30 corporations on the Fortune

list publish stand-alone, nonfinancial reports on their websites (see Appendix 2). Touting CSR

must be seen as the main corporate response to criticism of corporate conduct and the corporate

role.

Another major constraint facing corporations, however, is that a substantial portion of the

public is skeptical about corporate claims (Edgecliffe-Johnson, 2008). Some critics see CSR as a

form of manipulation used to deceive the public (Christian Aid, 2004; Cloud, 2007). The business

argument for CSR is typically summarized as “enlightened self-interest,” and CSR often has an

instrumental or utilitarian basis where most things are seen in monetary terms (Snider, Hill, &

Martin, 2003). Further stress is thus placed on the corporate ethos, as this perspective can be

juxtaposed with the Kantian view of CSR as doing the right thing without regard for such

consequences as lost profits (see Chapter 9 on ethics).

Another type of constraint worth mentioning is the complexity of the cultural systems in

RHETORIC |13

which multinational corporations navigate. Specific cultural values also present a constraint to the

corporate rhetor. For instance, a minimalist approach is advised in Scandinavian countries. One

survey showed that although almost every Dane believes CSR to be very important, most of them

are skeptical and do not want corporations to communicate too “loudly” about their CSR

commitments (Morsing, Schultz, & Nielsen, 2008, p. 109).

These then are some of the important factors that a corporate rhetor must identify and

formulate fitting responses to. The rhetorical situation can, in this sense, function as a heuristic,

but it is also suggested in the following that a rhetorical situation also presents the rhetor with

possibilities that have to be identified.

Possibilities in the Situation

The epistemological basis of the rhetorical situation has been the cause of much debate

(Jasinski, 2001; Vatz, 1973). The point has been made that the rhetorical response is not a

product of objective events, but rather is the result of the way in which rhetor and audience

interpret the situation or problem. The rhetor can be creative and active. What most scholars can

agree upon is that rhetoric plays a dual role: it is both a response to situations and a creator and

shaper of situations (Garret & Xiao, 1993; Jasinski, 2001). This reworked notion of the rhetorical

situation allows us to focus on the possibilities within a situation that a rhetor can utilize.

First of all, it must be pointed out that the Fortune Global corporations differ widely in

terms of the pressure they experience and the extent to which their legitimacy is challenged. An

obvious example is that an oil company has a much greater effect on the environment than does

an insurance company. In addition, the mass media’s limited resources and limited amount of

space and time see to it that some very large companies slip under the media radar and are not

covered in any systematic fashion. As an illustration, consider that of the top corporations on the

Fortune Global 500 list 2009, you will often find Shell (No. 1) in the media spotlight, but rarely

RHETORIC |14

will you find that light shining on the Dexia Group (No. 16). A simple web-based search for

articles appearing in major media outlets such as the New York Times (U.S.), Daily Telegraph

(U.K.), and Sueddeutsche Zeitung (Germany) in 2009 produces a total of 1,337 hits for Shell, but

just eight for the Dexia Group. In other words, the latter is able to operate with much less scrutiny

of its role and the effects of its business.

Second, it has been argued that corporations do not necessarily have to go overboard in

their engagement in CSR. The argument that CSR “pays” seems to be true for some corporations,

in some situations, some of the time (Vogel, 2005). As already noted, consumers do not

necessarily reward CSR, and some of the most profitable companies in the world have offended

environmentalists (e.g., ExxonMobil) or operate in ethically questionable sectors (e.g., tobacco,

arms manufacturing, pornography). Furthermore, it appears that for some companies, although a

CSR scandal may result in a short-term reputational dent, it does not necessarily translate into a

major crisis that threatens the very survival of the company. The situation may of course be

entirely different for small and/or unknown corporations. The stakeholders of multinational

corporations are widely dispersed and have different degrees of legitimacy and power and

different interests and values (Mitchell, Agle, & Wood, 1997). Unless there is a critical mass of

detractors and a coordinated campaign against them (think Shell and Nike), it seems that large

corporations generally suffer only minor setbacks from a CSR scandal.

A third and related point is that many corporations are so embedded in the social fabric

that they may be “forgiven” for a CSR transgression. Oil companies extract nonrenewable

resources and contribute to climate change through the production of fossil fuels, and yet they

can point to increased energy demands and the fact that alternative energy sources will not be

able to meet that demand for many years to come (International Energy Agency, 2008).

Fourth, the ambiguous nature of the CSR concept allows companies to define CSR in a

RHETORIC |15

way that fits in with their strategic interests. No commonly agreed CSR definition exists, and as

long as corporations can argue that they pay attention to the environment and to society, they can

also lay claim to the CSR label (see discussion in the Introduction).

All in all, it is argued here that the rhetorical situation helps us to understand this paradox:

although a great deal of criticism is heaped upon many of the world’s top corporations, few suffer

major long-term consequences. By paying attention to the constraints of the rhetorical situation

and juxtaposing them with the possibilities that also exist, or can be constructed and exploited, in

that situation, we can recognize the collective discourse that has grown around CSR and that

helps corporations to carry on with their business. Corporations talk about CSR in a similar

fashion, which is also given away by corporate ethos strategies.

Ethos

Surveys show that there is a general lack of trust in business and, moreover, that the level

of trust has declined (Edelman, 2009) (see also Chapters 2 and 11). In other words, corporations

face a formidable rhetorical challenge when they lay claim to the pursuit of goals other than

profit. To come across as trustworthy, a corporation can make logical arguments (logos) or

emotional appeals (pathos), but they also need to make some kind of ethical appeal. Here, ethos

plays a role. Ethos can be defined as “character as it emerges in language” (Baumlin, 2001, p.

263). In addition to such direct ethos, however, ethos can also be strengthened indirectly through

other aspects of discourse (Kinneavy & Warshauer, 1994). In rhetoric, ethos is seen as being able

to trump logos. Although a rhetor may make a compelling case by logical standards, if the

audience does not believe the rhetor to be trustworthy, then the rhetoric will fail.

Expanding on previous work on ethos strategies in CSR rhetoric (i.e., Ihlen, 2009b), it is

possible to discern at least five broad strategies employed by the top corporations on the Global

Fortune 500 list. First, these companies often claim that they improve the world through their

RHETORIC |16

products or leadership role. A good example comes from Shell: “We are intensifying our drive to

reduce costs and continuing our work on projects and technologies that the world will need

[emphasis added] to address the energy challenge” (Royal Dutch Shell, 2009, p. 4). Corporations

typically explain how their practical knowledge and wisdom (phronesis) have resulted in this

improvement. Logos arguments are used to back up these claims—facts, numbers, and

comparisons—but this type of strategy also often functions as support for a virtue argument

(arête). For example, ExxonMobil stated: “ExxonMobil’s role is to provide energy to sustain and

improve standards of living for people worldwide [emphasis added] while delivering a return to

our shareholders” (ExxonMobil, 2009, p. 1). In fact, the improvement argument was found in

90% of the corporate reports surveyed (N = 26).

A second strategy is for companies to claim that they have cleaned up their own act, that

is, cut their own waste and/or emissions. A Wal-Mart report, for instance, pointed to its

installation of solar panels: “In our 2007 report, we noted that we would be installing solar

projects in up to 22 stores…. Since then, we have successfully completed 20 of those

installations” (Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 2009, p. 37). BP pointed to a specific reduction in carbon

dioxide emissions: “Over the past seven years we have achieved real sustainable reductions of

7.5MteCO2e” (BP p.l.c., 2009, p. 16). Other studies, too, have shown the use of this strategy to be

quite common (Pollach, 2003). Its main function is to demonstrate good ethics and superior

virtue, thereby strengthening arête. Although many corporations acknowledge that they pollute,

they can point to specific examples of how they have improved their act. Every one of the reports

considered by Ihlen (2009b) included the use of this strategy.

A third strategy, which also involves an arête argument, is to point out how third parties

give them praise for their environmental efforts. Chevron, for instance, claimed: “We’re ranked

No. 1 among U.S.-based oil and gas companies, and No. 2 worldwide, in the 2008 Carbon

RHETORIC |17

Disclosure Leadership Index” (Chevron Corporation, 2009, p. 3). ING employed a similar

strategy in its report: “Independent sustainable benchmarks and indices recognise ING’s effort in

the field of Corporate Responsibility by increasing our individual sustainability scores compared

to the previous [year’s]” (ING Groep N.V., 2009, p. 3). All but one of the reports surveyed—that

of Sinopec—contained such arête references.

Closely related to this “others like us” strategy is a fourth strategy, which involves

corporations stating that they have joined the CSR movement. Ihlen (2009b) found this strategy to

take several different forms in the reports he considered. Ninety percent stated that the

corporation followed international standards such as the conventions of the International Labour

Organization (ILO), that they had partnered with such NGOs as the World Wildlife Fund

(WWF), and/or that their CSR efforts had been certified, for instance, to environmental standard

ISO14001 (N = 26). Furthermore, half of the corporations pointed to their membership in such

associations as the World Business Council for Sustainable Development. This strategy then is

also tied to the notion of arête, as it involves companies striving to demonstrate that they are in

good company.

The fifth and final strategy is an attempt to demonstrate goodwill (euonia) by claiming to

care about the audience. Corporate reports adopting this strategy often invite feedback, as the

following examples show. “We welcome your questions, comments and suggestions. To submit

feedback, contact us at: …” (ConocoPhillips, 2009, p. 34), and “Our Sustainability Report is also

an invitation to engage in open and critical dialogue with us. Please address any questions and

comments to …” (Volkswagen AG, 2009, p. 2). Toyota attempted to ingratiate itself in a way that

sounds ironic in the wake of that company’s 2009/2010 scandal: “As a member of our [emphasis

added] global society, Toyota strives to improve the traffic safety environment” (Toyota Motor

Corporation, 2009, p. 64). More than 60% of the reports surveyed (N = 26) used this strategy.

RHETORIC |18

The effectiveness of these five strategies is open to question, and in this sense evaluation

remains an empirical question. From a theoretical viewpoint, however, it can be said that

corporations would come across as more believable if they explicitly recognized, and discussed,

some of the problems and dilemmas they face in their CSR work and if they provided more

evidence of true stakeholder dialogue. Still, as noted in the discussion of the rhetorical situation

of multinational corporations, it may be that there is no urgent practical need for them to do so,

given the opportunities that also exist in that situation. Nonetheless, it is clear that corporations

must make some attempts at being perceived as trustworthy, and rhetorical theory contributes to

our understanding of how they go about it.

Conclusion and Further Research

CSR can be seen as a strategy to improve a corporation’s reputation and strengthen its

legitimacy, both of which are vital to business success. A certain collective discourse has grown

around CSR, and rhetoric is useful for those who wish to chart this terrain. Rhetorical theory

helps us to understand how and why corporations communicate about CSR in the way they do.

The view taken in this chapter is that rhetoric is epistemic, that it is not possible to separate

rhetoric and reality, as the former is an integral part of the social construction of the latter. The

rhetorical tradition offers theories and concepts that help to explicate this construction process,

arguably the most important contribution it makes and one that could enrich management

research. At the same time, however, the rhetorical tradition also has much to offer practitioners,

be they involved in management, public relations, organizational communication, or marketing,

as all are in the business of persuasion in one form or another. Rhetoric shows how corporations

can, for instance, strengthen legitimacy by employing a range of ethos strategies.

Rhetoric also helps to explain how corporations attempt to manage issues and deflect

criticism by appealing to shared values while sidestepping systemic problems and paradoxes.

RHETORIC |19

Whatever kind of environmental record a corporation has, it is still likely to subscribe to the same

type of rhetoric and ideals as its competitors (Feller, 2004). Although rhetoric shows how all

corporations need to embrace CSR, it also shows how the type of engagement, and the need for

engagement, differs among them. As we have seen, major corporations are often so embedded in

the economic and social structure that they are given a certain amount of leeway. This leeway

apparently sometimes extends to the top managers of corporations, as exemplified by the head of

Korean carmaker Hyundai recently having his three-year prison sentence for embezzlement

suspended because “an appeals court decided that he was too valuable to the Korean economy to

be incarcerated” (Taylor III, 2010, p. 69). Another example is Goldman Sachs climbing up the

2010 list (from No. 15 to No. 8) of the companies that U.S. business people admire most

(Bernasek, 2010) despite being at the center of the financial crisis and having been made a public

scapegoat. As an investment bank, the company is not as vulnerable to negative public opinion as

are banks that need to attract non-investors.

As noted, rhetoric can also be said to offer up an ethical ideal by inviting dialogue and the

construction of common ground (McMillian, 2007), although this would require a move away

from the one-way, self-absorbed, and celebratory rhetoric that currently predominates

(McMillian, 2007; Morsing & Schultz, 2006). Put another way, CSR should be made to work for

citizens, not corporations (Banerjee, 2008). A basic challenge is making this happen within the

confines of capitalist economic rationality.

Three main avenues for further research are suggested: additional explorations of the

rhetorical situation, more in-depth analysis of types of appeals, and the role played by visuals in

CSR rhetoric.

First, the general and specific factors that exist in rhetorical situations require further

exploration. For instance, under what circumstances and to what extent are corporations

RHETORIC |20

constrained by the situation in which they find themselves? Under what circumstances and to

what extent can they exploit the possibilities in that situation? Some of the elements of such

analysis have been pointed out in this chapter, but more context-sensitive analyses focusing on

particular corporations would be of value. Such analyses can localize the pressing problems in a

particular historical, political, and cultural context, and consider a particular corporation’s

audience in greater depth. Such an exploration would also invite analysis of how corporations

construct an implied auditor or a second persona (Black, 1999). Going one step further, it is

possible to conduct analysis of a corporation’s media coverage (see Chapter 21 on media

relations) or to carry out focus group or qualitative interviews with stakeholder groups to assess

the potency of the CSR rhetoric in a particular culture, or both. Certain stakeholder groups in

some cultures may be more willing to accept grandiose declarations about CSR. Research

indicates that there are cultural differences in the persuasiveness of different types of evidence,

even within North European countries (Hornikx & Hoeken, 2007). Given the global arena in

which most large corporations operate, research adopting a rhetorical approach should also

include insights from non-Western rhetorical traditions (Kennedy, 1998) and emphasize the

cultural context (e.g., Whelan, 2007).

In-depth investigations of the rhetorical situation could also focus on particular industries

or sectors and the challenges and opportunities therein (see Chapter 15 on sectors). As already

discussed, the different nature of different industries means they also come in for different

accusations and levels of criticism. Whereas oil companies are primarily accused of polluting and

operating in countries with democratic deficits, financial companies are more often accused of

poor corporate governance. Add to this the importance of the corporate home base: in the oil

industry, for instance, this has been recognized as the most important factor in explaining the

different climate strategies of European- and U.S.-based corporations such as Shell and

RHETORIC |21

ExxonMobil (Skjærseth & Skodvin, 2001).

Second, although it remains necessary to probe the corporate use of ethos strategies

further, not least to see how they fit in different cultural contexts, thorough analysis of the logical

appeals in CSR rhetoric also remains lacking. Corporations often provide examples of their work

with particular issues. Many of the nonfinancial reports discussed in this chapter contain short

vignettes or small case studies to support the overarching claim that “this corporation behaves

responsibly.” Critics of CSR typically exploit the prime weakness of this type of inductive

argument, namely, that examples cannot function logically as generalizations. Critics point out

that “feel good” cases and anecdotes do not amount to sufficient evidence and that they divert

attention from corporations’ larger impact (Cerin, 2002; Fougère & Solitander, 2009).

In rhetoric, deductive reasoning, through the use of enthymemes, holds a special position,

as it engages the audience to a greater extent by typically requiring it to supply a missing premise

(Aristotle, trans. 1991). Enthymemes build on the values, beliefs, and knowledge that the rhetor

and audience hold in common (Herrick, 2001). Although research on corporate value advocacy

exists, broader analysis of enthymemic CSR rhetoric is called for. Drawing hypotheses from the

literature, it may be expected that corporations build their enthymemes within a capitalist logic in

which the market and the positive economic function of corporations are taken for granted.

A rhetor needs to understand the psychology of the audience to make proper use of

emotional appeals. Vivid descriptions and the honorific and pejorative use of words are typical

attempts to employ pathos (Crowley & Hawhee, 1999). Drawing on the notion of the rhetorical

situation, it may be argued that some situations call for the use of pathos. Conversely, others may

call for the avoidance of pathos and instead require heavier reliance on logos to build ethos. It

may be hypothesized that corporations will attempt to avoid using too much pathos in the texts of

their CSR reports or on their web pages, perhaps by relying more on visual rhetoric.

RHETORIC |22

Accordingly, my third and final suggested research direction is to investigate the use of

visual rhetoric in CSR. Although it is difficult to separate visual and verbal rhetoric, scholars

have pointed out that visual rhetoric has the power to excel on at least three accounts—attention,

evidentia, and co-creation (Helmers & Hill, 2004; Kjeldsen, 2002). Visual rhetoric may be a

brilliant way of gaining people’s attention, which, incidentally, is also the first task of the rhetor.

Another important function of visual rhetoric is to make an issue or point come alive before the

eyes of the audience. Pictures may function as mediated evidentia and create presence, realism,

simultaneousness, and rhetorical condensation—an explosion of meaning, rather than the step-

by-step interpretation of verbal rhetoric (Kjeldsen, 2002). Finally, visuals may also function

rhetorically to invite certain interpretations, that is, the audience may draw a line between the

picture and its context. Visual rhetoric can engage the audience, and it functions a bit like the

enthymeme by postulating consensus. Chevron is an oil company, but the first page of its 2008

nonfinancial report features a photograph of a lush, green landscape in Nigeria, depicting what is

presumed to be a teacher and three children studying a pineapple (Chevron Corporation, 2009).

The link to oil drilling is not very apparent. A rhetorical study of the imagery employed in CSR

communication could assess the function, and implied associations, of this type of

communication.

A final remark concerns the aforementioned tension in the literature. It is possible to

conduct analysis of CSR rhetoric with an applied, as well as a critical, goal. In one corner, you

find those who see CSR as beyond rescue—it is merely a tool for corporate domination—and, in

the other, you find those who see CSR as the necessary path to a more humane form of

capitalism. Rhetorical theory serves those in both corners.

RHETORIC |23

References

Allianz SE. (2009). Managing risks, creating solutions: Sustainable Development Summary

Report 2009. Munich, Germany: Allianz SE.

Andersen, Ø. (1995). I retorikkens hage [In the garden of rhetoric]. Oslo, Norway:

Universitetsforlaget.

ArcelorMittal. (2009). How will we achieve safe sustainable steel? Corporate Responsibility

Report 2008. Luxembourg: ArcelorMittal.

Aristotle. (trans. 1991). On rhetoric: A theory of civic discourse (G. A. Kennedy, Trans.). New

York: Oxford University Press.

AT&T Inc. (2009). AT&T citizenship and sustainability report 2008: Connecting for a

sustainable future. Dallas, TX: AT&T Inc.

Bakan, J. (2004). The corporation: The pathological pursuit of profit and power. London:

Constable.

Banerjee, S. B. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: The good, the bad and the ugly. Critical

Sociology, 34(1), 51-79.

Baumlin, J. S. (2001). Ethos. In T. O. Sloane (Ed.), Encylopedia of rhetoric (pp. 263-277).

Oxford University Press: New York.

Bernasek, A. (2010). Who does business trust? Fortune Magazine, 161, 72-76.

Bitzer, L. F. (1968). The rhetorical situation. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 1(1), 1-14.

Black, E. (1965/1978). Rhetorical criticism: A study in method. Madison, WI: University of

Wisconsin Press.

Black, E. (1999). The second persona. In J. L. Lucaites, C. M. Condit & S. Caudill (Eds.),

Contemporary rhetorical theory: A reader (pp. 331-340). New York: Guilford Press.

BNP Paribas. (2009). Report on Environmental and Social Responsibility 2008. Paris, France:

RHETORIC |24

BNP Paribas.

Bostdorff, D. M. (1992). "The decision is yours" campaign: Planned Parenthood’s character-istic

argument of moral virtue. In E. L. Toth & R. L. Heath (Eds.), Rhetorical and critical

approaches to public relations (pp. 301-314). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bostdorff, D. M., & Vibbert, S. L. (1994). Values advocacy: Enhancing organizational images,

deflecting public criticism, and grounding future arguments. Public Relations Review,

20(2), 141-158.

BP p.l.c. (2009). Sustainability Review 2008. London, UK: BP p.l.c.

Burke, K. (1950/1969). A rhetoric of motives. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Burke, K. (1966). Language as symbolic action: Essays on life, literature, and method. Berkeley,

CA: University of California Press.

Carrefour SA. (2009). At the heart of life: 2008 sustainability report. Levallois-Perret, France:

Carrefour SA.

Cerin, P. (2002). Communication in corporate environmental reports. Corporate Social

Responsibility and Environmental Management, 9, 46-66.

Cheney, G., & Christensen, L. T. (2001). Public relations as contested terrain: A critical response.

In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public relations (pp. 167-182). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Chevron Corporation. (2009). Developing Partnerships: 2008 Corporate Responsibility Report.

San Ramon, CA: Chevron Corporation.

China National Petroleum Corporation. (2009). Corporate Social Responsibility Report 2008.

Beijing, China: China National Petroleum Corporation.

Christian Aid. (2004). Behind the mask: The real face of corporate social responsibility. London:

Christian Aid.

RHETORIC |25

Cicero. (trans. 2001). On the ideal orator (J. M. May & J. Wisse, Trans.). New York: Oxford

University Press.

Cloud, D. L. (2007). Corporate social responsibility as oxymoron: Universalization and

exploitation at Boeing. In S. K. May, G. Cheney & J. Roper (Eds.), The debate over

corporate social responsibility (pp. 219-231). New York: Oxford University Press.

Commission of the European Communities. (2001). Green paper: Promoting a European

framework for corporate social responsibility. Brussels.

Conley, T. M. (1990/1994). Rhetoric in the European tradition. Chicago: The University of

Chicago Press.

ConocoPhillips. (2009). 2008 sustainable development review: Sustainable strategy, global

opportunities. Houston, TX: ConocoPhillips.

Crable, R. E., & Vibbert, S. L. (1983). Mobil's epideictic advocacy: “Observations” of

Prometheus-bound. Communication Monographs, 50(4), 380 - 394.

Crowley, S., & Hawhee, D. (1999). Ancient rhetorics for contemporary students (2 ed.).

Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Daimler AG. (2009). 360 Degrees - Magazine on Sustainability 2009. Stuttgart, Germany:

Daimler AG.

Dexia SA. (2009). Sustainable development report 2008. Brussels, Belgium: Dexia SA.

E.ON AG. (2009). CR Reporting 2008. Düsseldorf, Germany: E.ON AG.

Edelman. (2009). Annual Edelman trust barometer. New York: Edelman.

Edgecliffe-Johnson, A. (2008, May 26). Scepticism grows over claims on ethics. Financial

Times. Retrieved from http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/80b7075a-2b6b-11dd-a7fc-

000077b07658.html March 22, 2010

Eni S.p.A. (2009). Sustainability Report 2008. Rome, Italy: Eni S.p.A.

RHETORIC |26

Environics International Ltd. (2000). The Millennium Poll on corporate social responsibility.

Toronto, Canada.

ExxonMobil. (2009). 2008 Corporate Citizenship Report. Irving, TX: Exxon Mobil

Farrell, T. B. (1999). Knowledge, consensus, and rhetorical theory. In J. L. Lucaites, C. M.

Condit & S. Caudill (Eds.), Contemporary rhetorical theory: A reader (pp. 140-152).

New York: Guilford Press.

Feller, W. V. (2004). Blue skies, green industry: Corporate environmental reports as utopian

narratives. Environmental Communication Yearbook, 1, 57-76.

Fogarty, D. S. J. (1959). Roots for a new rhetoric. New York: Bureau of publications, Teachers

College, Columbia University.

Ford Motor Company. (2009). 2008/9 Blueprint for Sustainability: Our Future Works. Dearborn,

MI: Ford Motor Company.

Fougère, M., & Solitander, N. (2009). Against corporate responsibility: Critical reflections on

thinking, practice, content and consequences. Corporate Social Responsibility and

Environmental Management, 16(4), 217-227.

Fredriksson, M. (2008). Företags ansvar: Marknadens retorik: En analys av företags strategiska

kommunikation [Corporate responsibility marketplace rhetoric: A study of corporate

communications] [Ph.D. dissertation]. Göteborg: Göteborgs Universitetet.

Garret, M., & Xiao, X. (1993). The rhetorical situation revisited. Rhetoric Society Quarterly,

23(2), 30-40.

Gazprom. (2009). Environmental report 2008. Moscow, Russia: Gazprom.

General Electric Company. (2009). 2008 Citizenship Report: Resetting Responsibilities. Fairfield,

CT: General Electric Company.

Heath, R. L. (1980). Corporate advocacy: An application of speech communication perspectives

RHETORIC |27

and skills-and more. Communication Education, 29, 370-377.

Heath, R. L. (1993). Toward a paradigm for the study and practice of public relations: A

rhetorical approach to zones of meaning and organizational prerogative. Public Relations

Review, 19(2), 141-155.

Heath, R. L. (2001). A rhetorical enactment rationale for public relations: The good organization

communicating well. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public relations (pp. 31-50).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Heath, R. L. (2007). Management through advocacy: Reflection rather than domination. In E. L.

Toth (Ed.), The future of excellence in public relations and communication management:

Challenges for the next generation (pp. 41-65). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Heath, R. L., & Ryan, M. (1989). Public relations' role in defining corporate social responsibility.

Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 4(1), 21-38.

Helmers, M., & Hill, C. A. (2004). Introduction. In C. A. Hill & M. Helmers (Eds.), Defining

visual rhetorics (pp. 1-24). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Herrick, J. A. (2001). The history and theory of rhetoric: An introduction (2 ed.). London: Allyn

and Bacon.

Hoover, J. D. (1997). Corporate advocacy: A powerful persuasive strategy. In J. D. Hoover (Ed.),

Corporate advocacy: Rhetoric in the information age (pp. 3-16). Westport, CT:

Greenwood.

Hornikx, J., & Hoeken, H. (2007). Cultural differences in the persuasiveness of evidence types

and evidence quality. Communication Monographs, 74(4), 443-463.

HSBC Holdings plc. (2009). Sustainability Report 2008. London, UK: HSBC Holdings plc.

Ihlen, Ø. (2009a). Business and climate change: The climate response of the world’s 30 largest

corporations. Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture, 3(2),

RHETORIC |28

244-262.

Ihlen, Ø. (2009b). Good environmental citizens? The green rhetoric of corporate social

responsibility. In R. L. Heath, E. L. Toth & D. Waymer (Eds.), Rhetorical and critical

approaches to public relations II (pp. 360-374). New York: Routledge.

ING Groep N.V. (2009). Corporate responsibility report 2008: Taking responsibility in turbulent

times. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: ING Groep N.V.

International Energy Agency. (2008). World energy outlook 2008. Paris.

Isocrates. (trans. 2000). Isocrates I (D. C. Mirhady & Y. L. Too, Trans.). Austin, TX: University

of Texas Press.

Jasinski, J. (2001). Rhetorical situation. In T. O. Sloane (Ed.), Encyclopedia of rhetoric (pp. 694-

697). New York: Oxford University Press.

Kennedy, G. A. (1998). Comparative rhetoric: An historical and cross-cultural introduction.

New York: Oxford University Press.

Kennedy, G. A. (1999). Classical rhetoric & its Christian & secular tradition: From ancient to

modern times. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.

Kinneavy, J. L., & Warshauer, S. C. (1994). From Aristotle to Madison Avenue: Ethos and the

ethics of argument. In J. S. Baumlin & T. F. Baumlin (Eds.), Ethos: New essays in

rhetorical and critical theory (pp. 171-190). Dallas, TX: Southern Methodist University

Press.

Kjeldsen, J. E. (2002). Visuel retorik [Visual rhetoric] [PhD dissertation]. Bergen, Norway:

Department of Media Research, University of Bergen.

Klein, N. (2000). No logo. London: Flamingo.

KPMG. (2008). KPMG International survey of corporate responsibility reporting 2008.

Amsterdam.

RHETORIC |29

Kuhn, T., & Deetz, S. (2008). Critical theory and corporate social responsibility: Can/should we

get beyond cynical reasoning? In A. Crane, A. McWilliams, D. Matten, J. Moon & D. S.

Siegel (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility (pp. 173-196). New

York: Oxford University Press.

Lipson, C. S., & Binkley, R. A. (Eds.). (2009). Ancient non-greek rhetorics. West Lafayette, IN:

Parlor Press.

Livesey, S. M. (2002). Global warming wars: Rhetorical and discourse analytic approaches to

ExxonMobil's corporate public discourse. Journal of Business Communication, 39(1),

117-148.

Livesey, S. M., & Graham, J. (2007). Greening of corporations? Eco-talk and the emerging social

imaginary. In S. K. May, G. Cheney & J. Roper (Eds.), The debate over corporate social

responsibility (pp. 336-350). New York: Oxford University Press.

Livesey, S. M., & Kearins, K. (2002). Transparent and caring corporations? A study of

sustainability reports by the Body Shop and Royal Dutch/Shell. Organization &

Environment, 15(3), 233-258.

Llewellyn, J. T. (1990). The rhetoric of corporate citizenship. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,

University of Texas at Austin.

Lucaites, J. L., Condit, C. M., & Caudill, S. (1999). What can a "rhetoric" be? In J. L. Lucaites,

C. M. Condit & S. Caudill (Eds.), Contemporary rhetorical theory: A reader (pp. 19-24).

New York: Guilford Press.

McMillian, J. J. (2007). Why corporate social responsibility: Why now? How? In S. K. May, G.

Cheney & J. Roper (Eds.), The debate over corporate social responsibility (pp. 15-29).

New York: Oxford University Press.

Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification

RHETORIC |30

and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of

Management Review, 22(4), 853-886.

Morsing, M., & Schultz, M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility communication: Stakeholder

information, response and involvement strategies. Business Ethics: A European Review,

15(4), 323-338.

Morsing, M., Schultz, M., & Nielsen, K. U. (2008). The 'Catch 22' of communicating CSR:

Findings from a Danish study. Journal of Marketing Communications, 14(2), 97-111.

Onkila, T. (2009). Corporate argumentation for acceptability: Reflections of environmental

values and stakeholder relations in corporate environmental statements. Journal of

Business Ethics, 87(2), 285-298.

Paystrup, P. (1995). Plastics as planet-saving "natural resource:" Advertising to recycle an

industry’s reality. In W. N. Elwood (Ed.), Public relations inquiry as rhetorical criticism:

Case studies of corporate discourse and social influence (pp. 85-116). Westport, CT:

Praeger.

Paystrup, P. (1996). Plastics as a "natural resource:" Perspective by incongruity for an industry in

crisis. In J. G. Cantrill & C. L. Oravec (Eds.), The symbolic earth: Discourse and our

creation of the environment (pp. 176-197). Lexington, KY: The University Press of

Kentucky.

Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969/1971). The new rhetoric: A treatise on

argumentation (J. Wilkinson & P. Weaver, Trans.). London: University of Notre Dame.

Pollach, I. (2003). Communicating corporate ethics on the world wide web. Business & Society,

42(2), 277-287.

Preuss, L. (2005). Rhetoric and reality of corporate greening: A view from the supply chain

management function. Business Strategy and the Environment, 14(2), 123-139.

RHETORIC |31

Quintilian. (trans. 1920/1996). Institutio oratoria: Books I-XII (H. E. Butler, Trans.). Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.

Royal Dutch Shell. (2009). Responsible energy:The Shell sustainability report 2008. The Hague,

The Netherlands: Royal Dutch Shell.

Saiia, D. H., & Cyphert, D. (2003). The public discourse of the corporate citizen. Corporate

Reputation Review, 6(1), 47-57.

Scott, R. L. (1999). On viewing rhetoric as epistemic. In J. L. Lucaites, C. M. Condit & S.

Caudill (Eds.), Contemporary rhetorical theory: A reader (pp. 131-139). New York:

Guilford Press.

Siemens AG. (2009). Sustainability report 2008. Munich, Germany: Siemens AG.

Sinopec Corp. (2009). 2008 Sustainable Development Report. Beijing, China: Sinopec Corp.

Skjærseth, J. B., & Skodvin, T. (2001). Climate change and the oil industry: Common problems,

different strategies. Global Environmental Politics, 1(4), 43-64.

Smith, C. R. (2004). Ethos dwells pervasively: A hermeneutic reading of Aristotle on credibility.

In M. J. Hyde (Ed.), The ethos of rhetoric (pp. 1-19). Columbia, SC: University of South

Carolina.

Snider, J., Hill, R. P., & Martin, D. (2003). Corporate social responsibility in the 21st Century: A

view from the world's most sucessfull firms. Journal of Business Ethics, 48, 175-187.

State Grid Corporation of China. (2009). 2008 Corporate Social Responsibility Report of State

Grid Corporation of China. Beijing, China: State Grid Corporation of China.

Taylor III, A. (2010). Hyundai Smokes the Competition Fortune Magazine, 161, 62-71.

Total S.A. (2009). Environment and Society 2008: Our Corporate Social Responsibilities.

Courbevole, France: Total S.A.

Toyota Motor Corporation. (2009). Sustainability report 2009. Toyota City, Japan: Toyota Motor

RHETORIC |32

Corporation.

Union of Concerned Scientists. (2007). Smoke, mirrors & hot air: How ExxonMobil uses Big

Tobacco's tactics to manufacture uncertainty about climate change. Cambridge, MA:

Union of Concerned Scientists.

Vatz, R. E. (1973). The myth of the rhetorical situation. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 6(3), 154-161.

Vogel, D. (2005). The market for virtue: The potential and limits of corporate social

responsibility. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Volkswagen AG. (2009). Driving ideas: Sustainability report 2009/2010. Wolfsburg, Germany:

Volkswagen AG.

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (2009). 2009 Global Sustainability Report: Now More Than Ever.

Bentonville, AR: Wal-Mart Stores Inc.

Wheeler, D., Fabig, H., & Boele, R. (2002). Paradoxes and dilemmas for stakeholder responsive

firms in the extractive sector: Lessons from the case of Shell and Ogoni. Journal of

Business Ethics, 39(3), 297-318.

Whelan, G. (2007). Corporate social responsibility in Asia: A Confucian context. In S. K. May,

G. Cheney & J. Roper (Eds.), The debate over corporate social responsibility (pp. 105-

118). New York: Oxford University Press.

Wæraas, A., & Ihlen, Ø. (2009). “Green” legitimation: The construction of an environmental

ethos. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 17(2), 84-102.

RHETORIC |33

Appendices

Appendix 1

The list toppers on the Fortune Global 500 list in 2009 were (1) Royal Dutch Shell, (2)

Exxon Mobil, (3) Wal-Mart Stores, (4) BP, (5) Chevron, (6) Total, (7) ConocoPhillips, (8) ING

Group, (9) Sinopec, (10) Toyota Motor, (11) Japan Post Holdings, (12) General Electric, (13)

China National Petroleum, (14) Volkswagen, (15) State Grid, (16) Dexia Group, (17) ENI, (18)

General Motors, (19) Ford Motor, (20) Allianz, (21) HSBC Holdings, (22) Gazprom, (23)

Daimler, (24) BNP Paribas, (25) Carrefour, (26) E.ON, (27) PDVSA, (28) ArcelorMittal, (29)

AT&T, and (30) Siemens. Retrieved from

(http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2009/, January 5, 2010).

Appendix 2

Twenty-seven of the top 30 corporations issued nonfinancial reports in 2009 (Allianz SE,

2009; ArcelorMittal, 2009; AT&T Inc., 2009; BNP Paribas, 2009; BP p.l.c., 2009; Carrefour SA,

2009; Chevron Corporation, 2009; China National Petroleum Corporation, 2009; ConocoPhillips,

2009; Daimler AG, 2009; Dexia SA, 2009; E.ON AG, 2009; Eni S.p.A, 2009; ExxonMobil,

2009; Ford Motor Company, 2009; Gazprom, 2009; General Electric Company, 2009; HSBC

Holdings plc, 2009; ING Groep N.V., 2009; Royal Dutch Shell, 2009; Siemens AG, 2009;

Sinopec Corp., 2009; State Grid Corporation of China, 2009; Total S.A., 2009; Toyota Motor

Corporation, 2009; Volkswagen AG, 2009; Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 2009). Three of the top 30—

General Motors, Japan Post Holding, and the Venezuelan oil company PDVS—did not have a

stand-alone CSR report available on their websites, although they did address social and

environmental issues there. It was not possible to obtain a report from the China National

Petroleum Company, and thus the total number of reports surveyed for this chapter was 26.