Master’s Thesis

March 2005

An Exploratory Survey of70 DK-sited Corporations’

Use of English

Associate Professor: Karen M. Lauridsen

Author: Esben Slot Sørensen

Our Corporate Language is English English

Faculty of Language &Business Communication

A B S T R A C T

English as corporate language is a concept used by corporations carrying out activities in a global

market or endeavouring to do so.

The objectives of this thesis is 1) to verify why an increasing number of corporations of non-Anglo

origin introduce English as corporate language and 2) to advance, if possible, a definition of the

concept English as corporate language.

Neither theory, previous research nor practice sets forth practicable guidelines, frames of reference

or definitions of corporate language for which reason exploratory empiricism is applied. Thus, the

thesis is, to some extent, based on analysis of results obtained from questionnaires completed by

seventy DK sited corporations. This is set off against a theoretical framework relating to the field of

corporate communication with a discussion of aspects of a corporation’s communication, the par-

ties involved in communication, frames for performing communication, parameters that affect com-

munication, incentives for and aspects to be aware of when implementing a foreign language as a

corporation’s superordinate language.

The survey shows that there is no collective perception of the concept, its scope, and how various

aspects of corporate language interact. Moreover, only a very few corporations have a language

policy outlining its frames of reference and it remains somewhat unclear why they have introduced

English as corporate language. Clearly, this makes attempts to document its efficiency illusory.

Thus, a much generalised definition of the concept at its present stage performed throughout cor-

porate Denmark would be:

English is the preferred language when board and executive meetings are

attended by non-Danish speakers and when oral communication is carried

out between HQ and subsidiaries.

This definition emphasises oral communication, because the survey tends to confirm the author of

this thesis’ own definition; that corporate language is primarily an oral, or multi-tiered, strategic/tac-

tical communication tool. As for written documentation, though claimed to be within the sphere of

corporate language by the majority of respondents, this type of communication is still carried out

the traditional way, i.e. most documents are translated into and from English and are generated,

translated and/or proofread by linguists. Used to a wide extent parallelly with local language this

suggests that English in written communication to a large degree is used as a transit language –

i.e. a conversion linkage between various parallel local languages within an organisation. Thus,

English documents are used as converters of communication, not as permanent bearers of

communication.

Master’s Thesis

March 2005

An Exploratory Survey of70 DK-sited Corporations’

Use of English

Associate Professor: Karen M. Lauridsen

Author: Esben Slot Sørensen

Our Corporate Language is

Faculty of Language &Business Communication

English English

P R E F A C E Having one official language […] eliminates the need for costly and time-consuming translation in both written and oral commu-nication, saves money on training and technology, and mini-mizes cycle time and awkwardness of interaction.

Fredric M. Jablin & Linda L. Putnam The New Handbook of Organizational Communication

– Advances in Theory, Research, and Methods For an organisation to be said to truly have English as its corpo-rate language you must be able to take for granted that you can address everybody throughout the organisation in English – written and spoken.

Terkel Skårup, Ph.D.-Research Student (on practical implications of implementing English as a corporation’s working language),

CBS, Copenhagen Business School English as corporate language is needed when a [Danish] cor-poration has non-Danish employees and investors in decision-making positions, locally and abroad, or if communication with distributors and partners is a crucial part of its operations.

Dr. Per V. Jenster, Professor & Assoc. Dean, Dept. of Int’l Economics and Management,

CBS, Copenhagen Business School When the corporate language is changed into English it is to signal that it is an international corporation capable of carrying out global activities.

Thorsten Arnold, Managing Director, ITN LinguaMaster

I find the issue irrelevant. I see no promblem in a corporation with English as corporate language not having a firm definition of the concept.

Jørgen Abildgaard, Senior Consultant, Partner and Country Manager, ECON Center for Economic Analysis

Corporate language is the designation of a corporation’s work language, especially that of large corporations with a high de-gree of external communication.

Pia Jarvad, Researcher Dansk Sprognævn (the Danish Language Council)

In: Det danske sprogs status i 1990’erne

This is a language issue combined with management commit-ment to ensure that a language if adopted corporately is taught fully and supportively throughout an organisation. I cannot see, however, how there would ever be a standard for corporate English or the need for it.

Ray Griffen Technical Support Manager

British Standards - BSI Management Systems

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S

1INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………………………... 01 1.1 Problem/Research Aim……………………………………………………………. 02 1.2 Delimitation…………………………………………………………………………. 03 1.3 Methodology………………………………………………………………………… 04

1.4 Theory……………………………………………………………………………….. 04 1.5 Criticism of Theory…………………………………………………………………. 05 1.6 English as Corporate Language – Author’s Definition…………………………. 05

2 COMMUNICATION…………………………………………………………………………………... 09

2.1 Vertical Communication……………………………………………………………. 11 2.2 Horizontal Communication………………………………………………………… 12 2.3 External and Internal Communication……………………………………………. 13 2.3.1 External Communication………………………………………… 14 2.3.2. Internal Communication………………………………………… 16 2.3.3 Identity Communication………………………………………….. 16 2.3.4 Functional Communication……………………………………… 16 2.3.5 Social Communication…………………………………………… 17 2.4 Stakeholders………………………………………………………………………… 17 2.4.1 Employees………………………………………………………… 19 2.4.2 Customers………………………………………………………… 21 2.4.3 Opinion Leaders………………………………………………….. 22 2.4.4. Public Authorities………………………………………………… 22 2.4.5 Financial Relations……………………………………………….. 23 2.4.6 Industry……………………………………………………………. 24 2.4.7 Local Community…………………………………………………. 25 2.5 International Standardisation……………………………………………………… 25 2.6 Intranet………………………………………………………………………………. 29

2.7 Management Communication…………………………………………………….. 32 2.7.1 Internal Dissemination of Profile and Values………………….. 34 2.8 Diversity Management……………………………………………………………... 36

2.9 International Board and Executive Management……………………………….. 38 2.9.1 International Organisation……………………………………….. 38 2.9.2. Multinational Organisation……………………………………… 38 2.9.3 Global Organisation………………………………………………. 39 2.9.4 Danish Statutory Requirements………………………………… 40

3 EXPLORATORY SURVEY…………………………………………………………………………. 45 3.1 Research Methods…….……………….……………..……………..…………….. 45

3.2 Data Collection………………………………………………………………….….. 46 3.3 Data Analysis Procedure………………………………………………………….. 47 3.4 Uncertainty Factors – Validity……………………………………………………... 48 3.5 Pouplation…………………………………………………………………………… 49 3.6 Respondents’ Profile………………………………………………………………. 50 3.7 Limitation of Survey Method………………………………………………………. 51 3.8 Discussion of Results……………………………………………………………… 51

4 CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………………………………….. 68 4.1 Future work…………………………………………………………………………. 70 5 REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………………………….. 72 Appendices

1 INTRODUCTION

Everywhere in society we experience an increased focus on values. Due to consumers’ intensified

awareness of environmental issues, ethics, political correctness and social responsibility they will,

to a high degree, take a stand by means of a conscious purchasing behaviour. Companies are not

only evaluated on the contact to their end-users, all their contacts to the surrounding world are sub-

ject to persistent supervision. The prevailing code for political correctness and its impact on market

conditions have become factors better not ignored by corporations. Thus, it may often prove vital to

an organisation to have a strategy for its external communication.

A corporation is no longer evaluated on its products’ utility value alone, but, to a higher degree, al-

so on its profile. The way in which it chooses to communicate with and act in the surrounding world

- the logic of message – is thus given greater importance to the corporation’s earnings potential

compared to previously, when a unilateral industrial logic was predominant. This is a logical conse-

quence of the transition from industrial society to communication society in which buzz words such

as storytelling, corporate branding, image building and lately also corporate language are seen as

essential elements of a corporation’s survival.

In Danish business papers and magazines a corporation’s use of English as corporate language is

generally accepted as an unquestionable indication of its global format. Along with this increased

focus on communication as a critical competitive parameter follows inherently an increased focus

on language. Given the globalisation and the internet and the market structural changes these fac-

tors have caused, a logical consequence might have been a linguistic decentralisation, a revival of

linguistic diversity as many multinational enterprises would tend to consider the entire world their

domestic market. However, throughout the international business community excessive attention

focuses on a single language – English as a new lingua franca, “hard currency” cultural capital in

the form of a world language.

Our corporate language is English is a phrase often found in Danish company profile brochures,

websites and job postings. Or rather: Vores koncernsprog er engelsk (in Danish), which on the

face of it appears to be a linguistic paradox. And undoubtedly, consistent and precise communica-

tion has become a must for corporations with global operations. It is no longer enough to have

strategy statements concerning management, marketing, quality assessment, investments, compe-

titors, etc. An internationally oriented company should likewise consider whether a common corpo-

rate language would be a measure to enhance the entire organisation’s efficiency and whether its

implementation is at all feasible. Still, substance should always take priority over form. Adhering to

a concept, which is intended to express seriousness and innovation in pursuit of corporate better-

1

ment, risks turning into mere verbosity if this concept is not truly embedded in the corporation’s cul-

ture and reflected in its overall communication.

Globalisation has brought about an increased focus on the ethnic diversity that obviously pervades

a global market. A concept such as diversity management, a managerial principle that sees the

business rationale and potential in diversity, seeks to gear the corporation to not only handle, but

even more so to exploit diversity, e.g. by aiming at an international composition of board and exec-

utive management. To such corporations the corporate language is not only a measure to enhance

efficiency; it is an imperative necessity for the overall operation and management of the corpora-

tion.

Small language areas such as Denmark have had to adapt to nations abroad for centuries in order

to carry out cross-border trade. This goes for language, culture and trade customs alike. Still, this

does not imply, other things being equal, an imperative necessity to perform in-house routines in

English. It is thus interesting to find out why an increasing number of corporations have changed

their view on communication or become aware of its importance.

1.1 Problem/Research Aim

Against the above background the purpose of this thesis is to identify and discuss two principal

issues:

Why do an increasing number of corporations of non-Anglo origin introduce English as their corporate language?

and

Is it possible to establish a definition of what it is non-Anglo corporations adhere to when they proclaim: Our corporate language is English?

These main questions will be elaborated within a theoretical framework by discussing a series of

supplementary questions through different approaches: Is it possible to set forth criteria that verify

direct vs. indirect, or primary vs. secondary, motives for a non-Anglo corporation to introduce Eng-

lish as corporate language? What are the frames of reference for the corporate language? What is

the organisational scope of the corporate language? What are the linguistic implications for the cor-

poration’s employees? Does it affect the corporation’s general language use? and Which proces-

ses are subject to the corporate language?

2

1.2 Delimitation

This thesis aims at discussing the use of English as corporate language (hereinafter referred to as

CL) in corporations with HQ in one country and subsidiaries in other countries. Whether HQ is

based in Denmark or abroad is irrelevant as a selection criteria, but will be distinguished between

when discussing the results of the exploratory survey1.

The aim of this thesis is not to offer linguistic and stylistic analyses of specific corporations’ busi-

ness correspondence and other documents and the generation hereof in order to pinpoint action

areas for increased focus on employees’ English proficiency. Nor is it to verify/falsify domain loss

of local language caused by an increased use of English.

Geographically, an organisation with multiple foreign subsidiaries is very widespread, representing

a widely ramified cultural diversity. Intercultural communication in relation to the use of a superordi-

nate CL may thus be both relevant and interesting inasmuch as it could be assumed that a CL

might have an equalising effect on cultural differences as it does not take cultural characteristics in-

to account. An exhaustive discussion of such matters, however, would be too extensive for this

thesis for which reason a chapter on intercultural communication is not included.

Another approach could be a focus on the impairment of English caused by non-Anglo corpora-

tion’s extensive use of English as CL. 40 dialects/local variations of native spoken English are offi-

cially registered, Rooney (1999). Add to this the jumble of foreign accents and intonation perform-

ed by millions of non-native speakers of business English balanced against only 400 m native

speakers of English2. However, this was deemed peripheral to the aim of this thesis. Nor was a

distinction between UK and US English used as CL found relevant for the research aim of this the-

sis.

As I consider the concept of CL to be a strategic decision3 rather than a mere widespread use of

English throughout an organisation, a number of business types have not been included in the ex-

ploratory survey, e.g. large importers, exporters and shipping lines assuming that in such types of

corporations English is primarily used at operational level (purchasing, sales, marketing, and legal

departments). Even though there may be a high frequency of English usage, a distinct need for a

CL is not present.

1 See chapter 3 EXPLORATORY SURVEY, p. 452 Asian Business, Hong Kong vol. 37/issue#9 Sep 2001, Lingua Franca remains English, p. 6, Far East Trade Press Ltd. 3 See chapter 1.6 English as Corporate Language - Author's Definition, p. 5

3

1.3 Methodology

During my initial research for this thesis I soon realised that the concept of CL and its implications

in many ways are unexplored fields.

No prior research has been done in order to verify the specific research aim described in this thesis

for which reason I have applied exploratory empiricism. Thus, the thesis is, to some extent, based

on analysis of results obtained from questionnaires completed by seventy DK sited corporations.

This is set off against a theoretical framework relating to the field of corporate communication as

described below.

1.4 Theory

The theoretical approach of my thesis describes aspects of an organisation’s communication that

are likely to be affected by the corporation’s use of English, as well as communication frames for

the daily use of the CL.

The broad perspective of this thesis is reflected in the wide selection of literature and references.

While the overall concept of CL clearly relates to the superordinate field of corporate communica-

tion, subordinate aspects such as internal comm., external comm. and management comm. must

be approached applying different theories. One theory simply does not provide a sufficient frame-

work for an in-depth analysis of CL and its implications.

My research aim is to disclose the implications of using English as CL by means of interdisciplinary

research. For this purpose I find the below theoretical approach relevant and appropriate.

The chapters on communication theory, internal/external and vertical/horizontal communication,

pp. 9-17, I have based on two theoretical approaches: Stohl (1996) and Frandsen (1995 + 1997)

as they in detail distinguish between communication structures of traditional, static, organisations

on the one hand and dynamic/democratic organisations on the other.

I briefly apply Grenness (1999), Petersen (2002) and Cheney & Christensen (2001) for additional

approaches.

The chapters on management communication and organisational typology, pp. 33-44, I have

based on two theoretical approaches: Johnsen (2000) and Stohl (2001). My choice of this theoreti-

4

cal framework is induced by two factors: Firstly, both theorists apply useful categories of manage-

ment communication systems and discuss each system’s practicability and limitations. Secondly,

the theories are complementary. They expound the same communication processes, but take indi-

vidual approaches and do so on different levels of abstraction. Johnsen takes a management orga-

nisational approach and his categories are very abstract and broad. Oppositely, Stohl takes a com-

munication theoretical approach and establishes readily comprehensible associations with real-life

corporations by way of cases from specified companies. Together, the two offer a broad and know-

ledgeable understanding of management communication.

Throughout the theoretical part I refer to scientific works of related research, Nickerson (2000) and

Marschan-Piekkari (1996).

I have based the framework for the exploratory survey, pp. 45-51, on Creswell (2003) as he

provides a framework and a process as well as compositional approaches for the design of

qualitative research methods. Also Andersen (1990) has been applied as he describes the

structure of exploratory method of survey in detail.

1.5 Criticism of Theory

No theory or textbook, neither within communication nor within management organisation, deal

with CL in detail. The quotations in the preface are gathered from individuals who in their works or

otherwise have expressed views and ideas on CL. They contribute with a diverging variety of per-

ceptions of CL. An idealised and highly illusory notion of the capabilities of a CL is presented in the

first quotation: “Having one official language […] eliminates the need for costly and time-consuming

translation in both written and oral communication, saves money on training and technology, and

minimizes cycle time and awkwardness of interaction”4. It is very tempting to exalt the CL to a tool

capable of reducing the complexity of a global corporation’s communication – however, this thesis

shows that any such simplification is not imminent and that further research is needed.

4 Jablin, Fredric M., Putnam, Linda L. et al The New Handbook of Organizational Communication – Advances in

Theory, Research, and Methods, Sage Publications, Inc., 2001, p. 353. This quotation is referred to as an abstract of a contribution from another work: – Altman, J. Overcoming Babel: the Role of the Conference Interpreter in the Communication Process, Kölmel, R. and Payne, J. (eds.), 1989, pp. 73-86. As I considered this statement rather visionary I contacted the author quoted for this, Janet Altman, for an elaboration of her take on CL. She claimed, however, that this wording could never be interpreted from her original contribution to the work in question. Thus, I have chosen to refer to the editors in chief, Jablin & Putnam, as authors of this quotation.

5

1.6 English as Corporate Language – Author’s Definition

Before the organisational framework of a CL can be analysed, it is necessary to identify certain as-

pects of a CL. As no text book or organisational theory chart the scope of CL, I have outlined my

own definition of CL. Whether the findings in the survey and general enlightenment acquired by

dealing with the subject have given rise to a revision of this definition will be described in chapter

3.8 Discussion of Results, p. 66.

The phrase CL indicates that this is an all-pervading language used throughout a corporation on all

organisational levels. However, in real life this is far from the case.

Implementing a CL is a strategic decision and should be regarded as a means to prepare an orga-

nisation for further measures towards a global structure. It is important to have an explicit vision of

what to achieve by implementing a CL and a mission statement outlining how to achieve this. A vi-

sion without a mission is an impracticable notion.

Ideally, a CL is an administrative managerial tool, or mechanism, deriving from the need for an in-

ternational board of directors and chief executive management of a global corporation to be able to

run operations. Firstly, an international board would need a common linguistic basis simply in order

to be able to make strategic decisions. Secondly, information on strategic decisions and tactical ac-

tion must be shared and perceived unproblematically throughout the organisation without being bi-

ased or delayed by translation. Thirdly, CL must be seen as an equaliser of linguistic power imbal-

ances between offices of different nationalities. Especially, merged organisations will benefit from a

superordinate CL in the integration of two formerly separate units. A CL must be a facilitator of

communication, not a barrier. Implementing English as CL will, however, bring about significant hu-

man resource repercussions which must be anticipated and dealt with.

A number of in-house communicative routines, oral and written, must be carried out primarily in

English. Linguistic alignment of written communication should only apply to a series of value-gene-

rative document types (HQ and subsidiary board and executive meeting minutes, cross-organisa-

tional R&D communication, internal reports, etc.) facilitating the chief executive management’s su-

pervision of and ability to coordinate and adjust initiatives throughout the organisation.

Material produced by HQ and subsidiaries in English and local languages (manuals, sales material,

PR, advertising, websites, etc.) is regarded as fixed operating costs alongside other operating

costs and remains unaffected by the overall CL. There is no dichotomy between corporate and lo-

cal languages - local language is used parallelly where deemed appropriate or where the use of

6

English would appear awkward or feigned, e.g. a discussion or e-mail correspondence between

colleagues of Danish origin. A monolingual organisation is not practicable, nor desirable. Depriving

people of the possibility to communicate in their mother tongue is likely only to entail a negative at-

titude towards the organisation.

The use of English pervades the daily communicative routines at strategic and tactical levels, but

besides this it has no or little relevance to and effect on the rest of the organisation. However, in or-

der to facilitate HQ’s ability to react fast on initiatives and findings shared between subsidiaries

(e.g. operational level communication between R&D employees) or to be at the forefront of local e-

vents that may have the potential of evolving into a widespread rumour throughout the industry, it

makes sense to align all such inter-unit communication into one single common language.

This implies, that not only must strategic and tactical levels at HQ be proficient in English, so must

the executive levels of all subsidiaries as well as employees throughout the organisation with an

occupational commitment to inter-unit sharing of information. Arguably, canteen staff, janitors, sala-

ry office clerks, warehouse trainees, etc. will on occasion have to associate with foreign employees

unfamiliar with Danish/local language, but at this level a reduced command of English will be suffi-

cient. Inherently, there is no need to impose high level English proficiency on all staff throughout

the organisation, unless e.g. occupationally obliged to operate computerised machinery with Eng-

lish software.

Presumably, at tactical, and certainly at strategic, level, executives’ awareness of when to use

English and local language respectively would be self-evident. Given their occupational position

they are the ones setting forth the mission and visions of the corporation, thus creating the frame-

work for achieving fulfilment of objectives. Thus, no rules defining the practices of the CL need be

laid down. Employees’ ability to act in accordance with an unwritten sense of best practice is worth

much more than a set of complex rules and regulations. To use a term from psychology: the con-

cept must be internalised – i.e. values and norms of a group, or organisation, is adapted as one’s

own. That said, even though the initiative and need for implementing English as CL is largely a

management issue, the keystone of a successful implementation is to keep all employees well-

informed. No employee should ever have doubts about the corporation’s profile, which values it is

run by, which objectives the management seeks to achieve and what is expected from each indi-

vidual employee in respect to using English. Therefore, it is advisable to define the organisational

scope of CL in a general language policy.

CL must not be confused with language policy. Whereas a language policy stipulates detailed spe-

cifications on a corporation’s linguistic image in dealing with its stakeholders, e.g. customers, the

7

press, etc. and sets forth regulations for everything ranging from level of formality in business cor-

respondence to translation routines and proofreading, a CL merely sets forth a common ground for

internal communication within the organisation. Its practicability and scope may very well be speci-

fied in a language policy, but the fundamental difference is that CL is introduced out of imperative

necessity, not as the result of a marketing strategy, a decision on enhancement of terminology

consistency or anything else. Such arguments may be both sound and well-founded, but neverthe-

less, not issues relating to CL.

8

2 COMMUNICATION

For a discussion on a CL’s scope to become relevant, it is fundamental to first outline the premises

on which it is to function. As communication obviously is the frame of reference, initially, various

aspects of communication theory will be outlined in this chapter.

It is not possible to advance a clear-cut definition of communication. Different theories are based

on various aspects of the communication process: language, perception, interaction between

sender and receiver, distinction between the specific conveyance of a message as opposed to the

entire process, communication channel, intent or implications of the communication. However, in

contemporary communication theory consensus on two basic views seems to pervade: communi-

cation as a) conveyance of a message from a sender to a receiver and b) communication as

interaction between people, Smith (2000a).

Based on these two basic views, this chapter deals with framework of reference for communication

in a corporation with a superordinate CL. It deals with how relations are established and how com-

munication is organised in order to meet the requirements of sender as well as receiver.

Communication perceived as conveyance of a message from a sender to a receiver is character-

ised as unified, or linear, communication. The purpose of this kind of communication is to provide

the receiver with information to respond to or act according to. Focus is exclusively on whether or

not the communication succeeds – i.e. whether or not the receiver acts accordingly. This form of

communication is characterised by having a directive function. Communication perceived as inter-

action between people is referred to as a complex, or multi-tiered, process. More aspects apply to

this perception than mere conveyance of a message. Here, identity and ranking between sender

and receiver are established, sustained, or changed. Whereas the sole focal point of unified com-

munication is the very communication situation, multi-tiered communication is based on preceding

actions and situations. Thus, it reflects an ongoing, dynamic process where sender and receiver

alike generate experiences, evaluate and make strategic decisions during the communication proc-

ess.

Frandsen (1995) emphasises that both views are applicable on any given example of communica-

tion. This perception, however, is contestable as it is evident that unified communication is primari-

ly to be found in written or visual communication media, whereas multi-tiered communication must

be seen primarily as applicable to oral media.

9

Whether perceived as unified or multi-tiered, the process of communication always comprises a

series of elements which can be used for analysis. A prevailing perception of the process is the

classic communication model which is seen in a variety of versions incorporating more or less as-

pects. Common features are a situation (context) in which a sender produces a message and

transforms this message under the influence of codes (languages, signs, signals, body language,

images) by way of a medium under the influence of noise to a receiver who perceives the mes-

sage, relates it to a frame of reference, makes a number of inferences and forms an assessment of

the message – consciously or unconsciously –and acts accordingly. Graphically, the process can

be illustrated as in fig. 1 below

Code

Context/culture

Medium

PRODUCTION RECEPTION

Message

Genre

Sender

Receiver

Reference

Fig. 1. Author’s own model after Smith (2000a) and Frandsen (1997)

Typically, analysis of communication entails listing parameters which are assumed to affect com-

munication and the way in which these parameters do so. Grenness (1999) defines four main cate-

gories of functional factors:

Properties of message, such as form, contents, quantity, time, relevance to the receiver, intensity,

clarity, accessibility, direction, embeddedness, representativeness, and reliability.

Properties of communicators, such as prior experience, knowledge and expectations, stance and

values, bias, expertise, empathic insight, organisational role, status and position, mutual trust, per-

sonal power, ability to be attentive, personal ambitions, and conflicts.

10

Organisational properties, such as hierarchical structure, distribution of power, internal rules,

norms, working environment, culture, IT, information networks, group processes (peer pressure,

conformity, and unity), distribution of work, specific work tasks, management, and incentive struc-

ture.

Contextual parameters, such as surrounding national culture, language, historical background, leg-

islation and other factors of a regulatory nature.

A corporation’s common CL overlaps several of these categories. For some categories the connec-

tion between CL and the functional factor is merely peripheral or implicit. For others, the connec-

tion and relevance is explicit inasmuch as sender’s and receiver’s ability to perceive and express

themselves in the CL is paramount to the success of communication.

The following chapters outline various aspects of an organisation’s communication.

2.1 Vertical Communication

Vertical communication can be divided into two types: a) Communication between management

and staff on different organisational levels within the same unit and b) communication between

chief executive management at HQ and subsidiaries.

The traditional hierarchical pyramid structure is defined by Stohl (1996) as the most commonly ap-

plied network pattern, not only in business life, but in all social contexts. This structure consists of a

set of paradigmatic vertical communication chains describing fixed communication patterns with

one powerful individual occupying a hierarchical peak and gradually less powerful individuals on

successive wider and wider horizontal lower levels. Each hierarchical position either delimits or

authorises how, what, when, where and with whom each individual can and must communicate.

The purpose of such hierarchies is to control and provide a fixed framework for communication,

thus making the behaviour of the organisation predictable based on the presumption that the more

routinely and regular the communication, the less the risk of surprises, confusion and chaos. Stohl

points out that proportionate to the effect of the degree to which the vertical communication pre-

dicts and controls the organisation’s behaviour, the organisation’s ability to innovate and react flexi-

bly decreases along with a noticeable limitation of its ability to adjust to a rapidly evolving external

environment. Chains of command and communication pursuant to this type of organisational hie-

11

rarchy are analogue to Johnson’s (2000) definition of autocratic management communication in

which it is the executive’s task to plan, organise, direct, and control performance of work5.

2.2 Horizontal Communication

Stohl (1996) defines horizontal communication as the collective and interactive circuit of exchange

and decoding of information between horizontally equally ranked units of the same organisation.

She expands the concept to include vertical communication between HQ and subsidiaries and ca-

tegorises it into inter-unit communication outlining communication flows and communication pur-

poses.

In recent years, traditionally pyramidal hierarchical multinational corporations, operating top-down

through subsidiaries in a wide range of countries with many different languages and cultural ori-

gins, have become aware of the synergy potential to be gained from increased horizontal commu-

nication by way of exchange of experiences across the organisation. It generates an invaluable

knowledge base which otherwise in top-down organisations with rigid divisions easily risks being

tied up as isolated competencies throughout the organisation. Thus, increasingly more corpora-

tions choose to reorganise their activities from traditional pyramidal hierarchies into participating

networks, an organisational form with no clear boundaries, but rather gradations of affiliation be-

tween entities, as this is a configuration offering a much better breeding ground for horizontal com-

munication.

Horizontal communication involves exchanging, or as Stohl rephrases it: sharing ”when I give it to

you, we both have it” 6, technical data, knowledge and experiences between an organisation’s em-

ployees, but could also be informal information such as gossip and rumours. This kind of socialisa-

tion has a tonic effect on the building of a common corporate culture which cannot be achieved

through a mainly vertically structured network. Thus, contemporary global corporations no longer

perceive their individual subsidiaries as autonomous units, but as interdependent supplementary

participants in an entity where information, goods, employees, finances, etc. are exchanged abun-

dantly. Altogether, they represent the global organisation, Charles & Marschan-Piekkari (2002).

Participation in small groups, or work teams, becomes the new way of structuring modern organi-

sations, indicating an increased focus on teamwork and group interactions – i.e. total quality man-

agement. Conferring and networking, rather than command and control, become the incentive for

getting things done, Stohl (1996).

5 See chapter 2.7 Management Communication, p. 32 6 Stohl, Cynthia: Organizational Communication – Connectedness in Action, p. 135, Sage Publications, 1996

12

In this type of network structure, evidently, not only executives, but employees throughout the or-

ganisation – need to communicate horizontally, and it makes perfectly good sense that it is done

by means of a common language. If the mere success of communication were the sole focal point,

obviously, alternative languages would be as good as the superordinate language (provided that

all parties of the communication are comfortable with the use of that language). However, in order

to facilitate HQ’s ability to react fast on initiatives and findings shared between subsidiaries, it

makes sense to align all such communication into one single common language – at least for writ-

ten communication and written reports or minutes taken from oral communication.

2.3 External and Internal Communication

The chart below showing a corporation’s internal and external communication channels is not ex-

haustive. The purpose of the chart is solely to provide an overview of communication circuits7

where a policy as to which language to apply is necessary.

INTERNAL COMMUNICATION EXTERNAL COMMUNICATION

Central (mass communication): Website Company profile brochures In-house newsletters and magazines Customer newsletters and magazines Intranet Press releases Board meetings Product specifications/manuals Chief executive meetings Technical documentation Employee manuals Investor information (hereunder interim Safety regulations and annual reports, accounts, road shows, Working environment instructions stock exchange announcements) Reports Environmental reports and ethical accounts Job/information/profiling advertisements Local (interpersonal communication): b-2-b and b-2-c advertisements PR Memos Sponsorships

Minutes Business correspondence (letter/fax/e-mail)

Job interviews, employment contracts Correspondence with public authorities Division meetings (letter/fax/e-mail) Seminars Contracts/agreements Performance reviews, coaching

Reports In addition: Direct/verbal communication (press confe-

rences, supplier and customer visits, tele- Phone and web cam conferences, Meetings, tradefair attendance, etc.)

External and internal communications no longer constitute separate fields in practice. A vast numb-

er of organisations have come to realise that convincing an external range of stakeholders about

7 Situations, in which the corporation acts either as sender or receiver, Frandsen (1995).

13

their deeds, what the organisation is, stands for or wants to be is impracticable if their internal

stakeholders do not accept the message, Cheney & Christensen (2001).

In the light of this perspective, the most intriguing question is not what distinguishes the various

kinds of communication practices from one another, but rather how these efforts are integrated to

obtain a consistent level of communication to a corporation’s wide range of stakeholders.

Communication, external and internal, falls under what could be described as a corporation’s “in-

trinsic conditions”. Such intrinsic conditions are based on the culture, the values and, not least, the

competences within the corporation. They are the result of the corporation’s managerial and orga-

nisational development throughout the years and determine the outcome of the strategic work.

Jointly, such conditions may be characterised as the corporation’s “soft” competitive powers, i.e. is-

sues with a non-market effect (if by “hard” is understood issues which can be measured and de-

fined through operating ratios, i.e. issues with a direct market effect).

Communication is not only a matter of what is communicated, to whom etc., but to a wide extent

also how the message is communicated (language, correct/adequate usage, etc.). Thus, corpora-

tions with international or global activities ought to reflect strategically on whether they might bene-

fit from the use of a coordinating superordinate language on strategic and tactical levels in order to

increase efficiency of communication and whether such an implementation is at all feasible. Thus,

a language policy, along with a communication strategy, may range among the top priority strategic

operations of an international corporation of the communication age. Consequently, the implica-

tions of a CL become equally important to the strategic management of a modern organisation.

2.3.1 External Communication

A corporation’s external communication comprises the forms of communication where either

sender or receiver is situated outside the corporation, e.g. stakeholders such as customers,

suppliers, journalists, etc.

”it is through ”personal” encounters with a corporation, e.g. telephone conversations or direct mail-

ing, that stakeholders are the most critical towards the way in which a corporation communicates. It

is common knowledge that advertisements are targeted at a broad segment and stakeholders form

their expectations accordingly. Differently, when people receive personally addressed letters,

maybe a reply to a personal inquiry, they become far more sensitive and have much higher ex-

pectations to the communication form and the “tone” of the letter or conversation. Typically, it is not

professional communications employees taking care of such “personal” communication, but admi-

14

nistrative employees or servicing staff. They represent a far more important side of the corporate

profile than annual reports and glossy profiling brochures do”8.

Thus, a corporation’s communication department needs to recognise that one thing is making an

effort to raise the quality of the communication products and channels it is in direct charge of. Mak-

ing sure that the entire corporation’s communication is aligned to the same level and is somewhat

consistent is a completely different thing, yet equally important. Therefore, to a corporation with

global operations it is no longer enough to have strategy statements concerning management,

marketing, quality assessment, investments, competitors, etc. Consistent and precise communica-

tion – internal and external – is also a critical parameter. And it is no longer an isolated operation

that “the guys in communication” are handling; in modern corporations it has advanced to an issue

dealt with on strategic level.

Ideally, the communication manager is part of the executive management. One very decisive in-

centive for this is that in order to achieve optimum and reliable communication, it must be imple-

mented from the very initiation of a project. According to Petersen (2002), this is a significant and

essential clash with traditional decision-making and work processes in which communication never

constituted more than the final point on the agenda. She advocates that communication should be

assigned a much more active and visible position in management as well as individual projects.

This entails that communication is considered part of the very decision-making. Another impetus

for the communication manager to be part of the executive management is that s/he thus gets an

insight into the strategic considerations and the exhaustive transactions of business prior to a given

decision. This gives the communication manager a better understanding of central aspects which

s/he has to deal with during the subsequent communication process. In other words; the communi-

cation concept must play a far more leading role in the strategic operations of a corporation than

before.

Over the last 10-15 years the traditional role of office clerks has been decentralised. Especially the

introduction of e-mailing has delegated the responsibility for business correspondence to employ-

ees with no educational background qualifying them to perform such tasks. Consequently, corpora-

tions may face a lowering of the linguistic level risking a discrepancy between self-image and

ethos. Self-image being how a corporation perceives itself and how it wants others to perceive it,

and ethos being the way in which the corporation is perceived by its stakeholders and by the public

in general, Petersen (2002). If a corporation sees itself as being serious, quality-minded, etc. this

self-image may conflict with the true image reflected in the language used by its employees.

8 Petersen (2002) p. 7

15

2.3.2 Internal Communication

A corporation’s internal communication comprises the forms of communication where sender and

receiver are situated in the same organisation. This broad term subdivides into several categories

of which three are relevant to the use of CL: identity, functional and social communication.

2.3.3 Identity Communication

Also referred to as attitude communication - defines and communicates corporate culture. It is a

team building factor conveying the corporation’s attitude in an effort to comply with changing norms

and standards of social responsibility, environment friendliness, defence of human rights, etc.,

Holme & Graae (1999). At first glance such terms seem to be marketing issues, and thus external

communication, rather than internal communication. However, it has been recognised that employ-

ees seek to identify themselves with their workplace’s attitude communication for which reason it

has been adopted as an effective internal team building tool, often referred to as auto communica-

tion. Likewise, traditional external disciplines such as marketing, advertising and PR seem to be

driven by an undisputed quest for visibility in a crowded market, but are also targeted at an internal

audience reassuring employees that they are still part of the corporate landscape, that their actions

are legitimate, and their business ventures are sound, Cheney & Christensen (2001). Everybody

perform better if they are aware of the goals the corporation is heading for and what to do to get

there. Thus, in the process of auto communication, the external world becomes a reference point

rather than a receiver, a “mirror” rather than an audience, Cheney & Christensen (2000).

2.3.4 Functional Communication

Could also be called operational communication or communication logistics – the kind of communi-

cation that keeps the engines running so to speak. This is communication concerning the daily rou-

tines; who needs to know what, and when. Information on when meetings are held, time schedules

for work shifts, lunch breaks, canteen opening hours, listing of sales representatives’ routes as well

as information on board and management decisions on mergers, new acquisitions, recruiting and

dismissal of employees, etc.

Evidently, if this kind of communication is not functioning, it may cause critical situations of ineffi-

ciency.

16

Functional communication is not exclusively internal communication. Increasingly more corpora-

tions choose to allow external stakeholders access to such internal information through their intra-

net, also referred to as extranet9.

2.3.5 Social Communication

This is communication targeted directly at the individual employee’s comfort and well-being. Its

function is to maintain and improve employees’ job-satisfaction by celebrating promotions, anniver-

saries, birthdays, retirements, etc. Aside from its obvious internal intent social communication too

serves an external purpose; by posting celebration of anniversaries in newspapers and trade mag-

azines the corporation sends a positive message to its external stakeholders: “we care about our

employees”.

“One famous example was the company where the internal communications programme to the

staff emphasised being “right first time”, a process driven approach. Meanwhile the external com-

munication to the consumer was all about innovation. If you are going to innovate, then you have

to take risks which means that you will not get everything right first time. So, here was this schizo-

phrenic organization with a credibility gap between its external and internal communication”10.

Indeed, the boundaries between external and internal communication are blurred. As it appears, in-

ternal communication is an equally critical parameter to corporate image as is external communica-

tion.

2.4 Stakeholders

This chapter describes a corporation’s external and internal stakeholders. It is rendered probable

that using English exclusively in a non-Anglo corporation’s communication with all its stakeholders

would not be expedient. An account is given of the applicability of the CL in respect to external and

internal stakeholders where the use of English ranges from highly advisable to downright unlawful.

Inherently, a corporation’s communication with its stakeholders, often referred to as stakeholder

relations, is of great, if not overriding, importance to its ability to act in accordance with external

conditions and circumstances from time to time. The stakeholder relations aspect is about binding

people together. In order to succeed, the communication must be valuable to the individual stake-

holder – in other words, it is about conveying, storing, retrieving, reproducing and receiving rele-

vant and sufficient information, knowledge, instructions, messages, etc. 9 See chapter 2.6 Intranet, p. 29 10 Davies (2003) p. 44

17

Various stakeholders make up a corporation’s communication sphere. Stakeholders are those

groups or individuals who affect and/or are affected by the corporation and its activities, Wivel

(2001). These are distinctive individuals and organisations who in one way or another take an in-

terest in the corporation. The corporation is dependent on these stakeholders as their interest in

the corporation contributes to defining the conditions under which the corporation has to work.

Thus, they are all target groups of the corporation’s enterprises whether the corporation sees them

as options or threats. Consequently, all of these target groups must be taken into account in the

corporation’s communication.

Each stakeholder, or constituency, has its individual purpose of being a stakeholder. E.g. share-

holders make other requirements than customers and employees do not make the same require-

ments as political decision-makers. Therefore, the overall communication challenge is to create

and retain interaction and common understanding between the corporation and its various stake-

holders who should not be categorised too peremptorily as they tend to overlap. E.g. external

stakeholders such as journalists also read in-house newsletters and magazines which are primarily

targeted at internal stakeholders, i.e. employees. But employees are not exclusively internal stake-

holders; they may be members of a trade association or a political party and are thus also part of

the corporation’s external stakeholders. Demarcation lines are indistinct for which reason commu-

nication activities cannot be diversified by sending different messages to the press and the employ-

ees respectively.

Thus, an organisation’s way of responding to its stakeholders’ claims and expectations is of utmost

importance. Authenticity of communication is a keystone in order to attract and retain attractive

customers, partners, and not least competent employees. Basically, all relations are based on trust

and confidence in that the corporation is going to be value generative, Petersen (2002).

Ideally, a corporation’s stakeholder relations are based on a superordinate strategic approach. It is

not advisable to delegate responsibility for such relations to individual departments – marketing, le-

gal, purchasing, public relations, human resource, etc. – without interaction with the executive

management, as each individual department may handle its relations to its surroundings differently.

Whether or not a corporation has a separate communication department seems to be indicative of

its approach to stakeholder relations. This will be elaborated on in chapter 3.8 Discussion of Re-

sults, p. 51.

18

Fig. 2 below shows the stakeholder groups with which a corporation has to interact.

CORPORATION

Employees

Financial Relations

Public

Authorities

Local

Community

Industry

Customers

Opinion Leaders

Fig. 2. Stakeholder groups. Own model freely adapted from Dowling (2001) and Wivel (2001).

Arrows indicate that communication flows both ways between the corporation and its stakeholders.

However, this is not the full picture as communication takes place in all directions throughout the

system indicating that the various stakeholders exchange information with each other about the

corporation. Thus, individual stakeholders form their own opinion about the corporation – which

may not necessarily be the one presented by the corporation itself in glossy company profile bro-

chures and annual reports. Below is a brief description of the seven categories of stakeholders.

2.4.1 Employees

Existing employees make up the internal part of the corporation’s stakeholders. Inherently, poten-

tial future employees are in the external sphere. Employees are a paramount resource inasmuch

as a corporation’s survival is based entirely on its ability to attract and retain a qualified workforce.

And not only must employees with the right qualifications be recruited, also team spirit and ability

to match the corporate culture are important. This goes for employees at all organisational levels.

Human relations create a strong word-of-mouth effect which is communicated from employees to

internal and external relations. E.g. in-house employees soon pick up organisational changes, cri-

19

ses, etc. whether or not such information is conveyed from the management. In essence, if such

information is communicated from the management, there is a much better chance that the ru-

mours spreading are in accordance with the actual facts. Once in the open, globalisation and the

technological development have made information sharing easy whether or not the corporation

wishes to share it. The corporation’s image is created in the public under all circumstances, but

there is a good chance of influencing that image.

Such influence can be exerted with a carefully prepared strategy for the corporation’s communica-

tion and language usage, thus ensuring that employees’ communication is in accordance with the

corporation’s mission and vision. This strategy should be consistently communicated throughout all

levels of the organisation.

Ideally, a company sees its employees as its ambassadors in the outside world, as it is in their dai-

ly communication with the external stakeholders that the true profile of the corporation is reflected.

This communication must ensure that the employees are knowledgeable about the organisation’s

actions and motives - both in order to enhance job satisfaction as well as to make the employees

good ambassadors in the outside world. Contented employees have a positive impact on other

stakeholders.

A corporation’s communication with its employees may appear as an obvious subject to a wide-

spread use of English. A clear-cut signal could be sent to the employees: You are employed in an

international organisation and you better shape up your English if you want to advance your

career”. To potential employees the signal is: “You are welcome here and you do not have to

speak Danish. We are an international organisation”.

It is of course important to attract skilled manpower in an international market. However, the lan-

guage used for employee communication must be considered carefully. Whether the corporation

chooses to communicate with its employees in local language or English may constitute a major

issue in respect to dissemination of corporate identity11.

Therefore, attention should be paid to a series of social aspects in connection with employees’ use

of their mother tongue. German sociologist, Niklas Luhmann (2000), perceives the world in terms

of numerous closed systems, each with individual linguistic codes: Lawyers speak legal language,

IT people speak computer language, doctors speak medical language, etc. Within each system

there is a common, at times refined, code that facilitates communication of complex issues. Such

11 See chapter 2.7.1 Internal Dissemination of Profile and Values, p. 34

20

linguistic codes, or in-house slang, are very efficient to the involved parties and should not be

scaled down or converted. These linguistic codes, culturally embedded in the mother tongue, have

built-in social elements that strengthen the corporation. Evidently, mandatory use of English in oral

internal (in-house) communication is not advisable.

Typically, IT and pharmaceutical companies have many international employees in their R&D de-

partments and as a result a lot of formal and informal oral communication takes place in English.

English and semi-English words are likely to be embedded in their linguistic codes for which rea-

son reports, working papers, documentation, etc. could be generated directly in English, facilitating

subsequent processes.

There will, however, always remain a more or less marginalised segment of this stakeholder group

with insufficient English proficiency due to age, educational background, inabilities (e.g. if the cor-

poration employs mentally challenged staff from a wish to fulfil social responsibility), etc. Thus, sev-

eral groups of employees risk to stand isolated not pulling together with the department or the team

they are part of.

2.4.2 Customers

Inherently, customers are a corporation’s reason for existing. Therefore, a corporation’s customer

relations are of vital importance to its future existence. Existing customers know the corporation,

or at least its products (thus, information they receive and convey on the corporation is based on

self-experience), while potential customers must be “stolen” from competitors or have their interest

fuelled (they have no experience with the corporation for which reason they will not be able to

evaluate information given to them on the same basis), and these two groups must therefore be

approached differently. Obviously, there is also a difference in approach between b-2-b and b-2-c

communication, however, in both cases the corporation seeks to create preferences for its

products or services.

Through its communication with this stakeholder group the corporation is able to signal consistent

use of English. It can choose to conduct all communication with its customers exclusively in Eng-

lish. This goes for business correspondence, product specifications, advertising, etc. However, na-

tional safety regulations may stipulate that processing methods and operation of machinery require

user guides and operation manuals in local languages. Whether a Danish corporation will address

its Danish customers in English in its business correspondence is rather unlikely. This, however,

does not preclude English product specifications, support websites, advertising, etc. as such mass

communication is not regarded personal in the same way business correspondence is. It may in

21

fact prove to be quite cost-saving to only supply such information in one single language. Still, mat-

ters of translation logistics have nothing to do with CL. Customers, national or international, hardly

constitute a fundamental criterion for introducing English as CL.

2.4.3 Opinion Leaders

This stakeholder group covers a wide range of individuals and organisations with widely different

backgrounds and interests in the corporation, i.e. journalists, media, the local population, NGO’s,

environmental activists, experts, etc. Each of these groups forms their own image of the corpora-

tion which is passed on to their stakeholders. In this way news, good and bad, is quickly reflected

in opinion making in areas in which the corporation is not usually directly involved, areas which

may somehow affect the general image of the corporation. Therefore, the corporation must seek to

create positive relations with such groups by communicating in a concise and targeted way. Ideal-

ly, the growth oriented corporation uses Public Relations, not only to seek to create and retain a

positive image through an extensive contact to mass media, but also in order to train the market to

demand its products, establish contacts to authorities and legislators, prevent crises from arising

and damage control once arisen.

2.4.4 Public Authorities

Political decision-makers and public authorities such as the EU, national parliament, local councils,

trade unions, working environment inspections, environmental authorities, etc. comprise a stake-

holder group which in the everyday running of business may appear a bit remote, yet this group

possesses great influence on a corporation’s operations through legislation, district planning, etc.

Communication in English with this stakeholder group would, at best, be perceived as highly inap-

propriate, at worst, downright unlawful. However, the Danish Financial Statements Act represents

an exemption. It prescribes:

S 138(4): Annual reports and any other documents to be submitted to the

Agency [the Danish Commerce and Companies Agency] in accordance

with this Act must be drafted in Danish, cf. however section 157

S 157 The Danish Commerce and Companies Agency may decide that

certain documents are to be exempt from the requirement that documents

must be drafted in Danish. Furthermore, following an evaluation of whether

publication is capable of achieving its purpose, the Agency may grant spe-

cific exemptions from the requirement that documents must be drafted in

22

Danish, making it a condition that the enterprise submits certified

translations of documents at a later time if the Agency finds it necessary.

Other legal aspects are discussed in chapter 2.9 International Board of Directors and Executive

Management, p. 38.

2.4.5 Financial Relations

This stakeholder group comprises the corporation’s existing and potential financial relations, i.e. its

facilities for gaining capital and credits. This group includes stock exchanges, shareholders, bank-

ers, institutional investors, broker dealers, investment funds, insurance companies, mortgage

banks, and other financial partners, Vestergaard (1992). Thus, these stakeholders have an overrid-

ing influence on the corporation’s liberty of action and growth capability. Financial relations are of-

ten based on mutual trust and knowledge about each other for which reason communication with

this group is also of great importance.

International stock exchanges often require that listed companies comply with the principles of cor-

porate governance, a concept initially introduced by the London Stock Exchange in 1992 (the Cad-

bury Report) to meet a demand from major shareholders and institutional investors for transparen-

cy in the decision-making and internal auditing processes of listed companies. If companies and

shareholders are to take a longer-term view of investment and returns, then they need accurate in-

formation about operating practices and the long, as well as short, term impacts of their activities.

Corporate governance is a step taken to disclose aspects such as management structure and prin-

ciples, administration of capital resources, internal financial auditing, etc. which will typically not ap-

pear in traditional accounts and annual reports.

The reason for this demand for transparency is that Anglo businesses are operated by a one-tier

management system. A board of mixed non-executive directors and executive directors comprises

the top management of a typical Plc. or Ltd company. Therefore, the above independent supervi-

sion measure was introduced in order to secure the owners, the shareholders, against the board of

directors acting contrary to their interests.

A forthcoming international stock exchange introduction would then seem an eligible incentive for

introducing English as CL in order to comply with international standards of corporate governance.

Not so, however, in Denmark/continental Europe where Plc. and Ltd. companies are typically op-

erated by a two-tier management system: A board of directors comprised of non-executive direc-

tors and an executive management comprised of executive managers. Besides comprising the or-

23

ganisation’s strategic level, the board of directors function as an internal supervisory organ. Over-

lap of members of both tiers is seen as a hindrance to creation of value, e.g. a board of directors

should not be precluded from shutting down or selling off unprofitable parts of the corporation due

to individual board members’ occupational stake in carrying on the business. So a similar need for

transparency is simply not present in corporate Denmark, at least not for corporations not listed on

an international stock exchange.

Some international stock exchanges have language recommendations in their exchange rules/list-

ing requirements. In order to create a broad dissemination of information and to make it easier for

international investors to read the information, companies are advised to provide an English ver-

sion of their website whereas press releases and financial reports must be in English.

Therefore, communication in English with a great deal of this stakeholder group is not only directly

applicable, it is also highly relevant. As most multinational and global corporations are listed on in-

ternational stock exchanges, it would be futile to also make financial information available in other

languages but English. For benchmarking purposes it is advisable that all relevant information on

the corporation, its administration of capital resources, internal financial auditing, etc. is available in

English with a standardised use of international financial reporting terminology, as the absence of

an international shareholder portfolio may have the effect that foreigners are not being appointed

board members. A step which is imperative for an organisation’s survival in the global market12.

However, as described under Public Authorities above, local statutory requirements may stipulate

that certain information, e.g. financial reporting, must be submitted to the authorities in local lan-

guage.

2.4.6 Industry

The industry consists of competitors, trade associations, suppliers, agents and other intermediaries

in the distributive system. The volume and character of communication with this stakeholder group

vary, primarily due to the corporation’s relations with its competitors. On the one hand it must see

to that it cooperates smoothly with its suppliers and distributors in order to maintain an adequate

level of reliability and quality. On the other hand it is also important for a corporation to take its

competitors into consideration in order to disseminate correct and unambiguous information. Mis-

conception and fabrication caused by lack of communication may lead to unnecessary instability in

the market. Generally, competitors are seen as opponents, but occasionally it may be expedient to

take concerted action, e.g. by means of industrial or trade associations. Best practice as concern-

ing language use must be applied.

12 See chapter 2.9 International Board and Executive Management, p. 38

24

2.4.7 Local Community

Slightly out of category is the corporation’s local community, i.e. all in its immediate environment

who may be affected by its activities, e.g. pollution or heavy traffic. Neighbours who feel ignored or

treated unkindly may involve the press which would be a potential threat to the general image of

the corporation.

Any company whose activities affect its local community and who wants to act in accordance with

norms of common sense better establish a constructive dialogue with the members of the local

community. In order to not fuel an image of arrogance, inherently, such dialogue must be in local

language.

Summarising, it is evident that numerous contacts in a corporation’s environment must be taken

care of and kept up in order for the corporation to obtain the best possible image, thus securing its

existence. And clearly, this does not just apply to issues directly relating to visibility in the market

and other marketing issues.

The decisive factor is whether the audience addressed in a given communication situation is an in-

ternational group (press conference, road show, newsletter, inter-unit staff meeting, general meet-

ing, etc.) subject to mass communication or it is an individual whose linguistic preference is clearly

not English. The monolingual organisation is hardly practicable – neither concerning internal nor

external communication.

2.5 International Standardisation

Measure: the act or process of ascertaining the extent, dimensions, quantity etc. of something, especially by comparison with a standard.

Webster’s dictionary

Invariably, the use of the concept CL has the potential of constituting a communication schism in-

asmuch as it is a linguistic abstraction lacking unique substance. The problem arises when

sender’s perception of this abstract concept is equated with the receiver’s ditto. Whether the

sender is a corporation and the receiver a customer or the sender is a corporation’s HQ and the re-

ceiver a subsidiary, it is impracticable to assume that an abstract term such as CL brings about the

same tangible notion and experience in sender and receiver if there are no conventions or prede-

termined standards defining the concept. Precise and comprehensible communication is based on

the condition that concrete mental notions are defined within the same conceptual framework.

25

It has often been argued that English as CL is implemented for the purpose of improved efficiency,

consistent communication, global market adaptability, etc. Thus, a reasonable assumption would

be that a standard for the implementation and quality management of a superordinate CL through-

out an organisation might be applicable. However, no such international standard exists. Against

this background it gives food for thought that an increasing number of corporations in recent years

have introduced English as CL. Thus, they have, apparently uncritically, adhered to a concept, the

organisational extent or scope of which is not directly definable or delimitable in any precise way,

but in practically all other business areas the same corporations feel an urge to systematise rou-

tines, procedures, work tasks, fields of responsibility, etc.

International standards have been known to the business community for almost a century. Stan-

dardisation of quality management, production, management systems, etc. has prevailed in order

to align various processes to market standards. Likewise, annual reports are typically presented in

compliance with International Accounting Standards (IAS).

“When the large majority of products or services in a particular business or industry sector conform

to International Standards, a state of industry-wide standardisation can be said to exist. This is a-

chieved through consensus agreements between national delegations representing all the eco-

nomic stakeholders concerned - suppliers, users, government regulators and other interest groups,

such as consumers. They agree on specifications and criteria to be applied consistently in the clas-

sification of materials, in the manufacture and supply of products, in testing and analysis, in termi-

nology and in the provision of services. In this way, International Standards provide a reference

framework, or a common technological language, between suppliers and their customers which

facilitates trade and the transfer of technology”13. E.g. the shape and size of credit, phone and de-

bit cards are the result of an ISO14 certification. Likewise, standards exist within all business areas

ranging from transportation and mathematics to computer interface formats and lexicography –

thoroughly defined in the 13,000+ international standards registered under ISO.

The primary objectives of standardisation, or certification, are improved efficiency, cost reduction,

measurability and thus comparability. Secondly, corporations holding an international certification

obtain a benchmarking effect. In other words, they become measurable by internationally approved

standards facilitating stakeholders’ ability to assess individual corporations by a series of specific

13 http://www.iso.ch/iso/en/aboutiso/introduction/index.html#four13 ISO stands for International Organization for Standardization and is the world’s largest provider of internationally approved standards

26

and well-defined criteria – e.g. when contemplating investment. This implies an obvious marketing

value, and it seems logic that the same objectives would apply to CL.

No documentation, however, exists on whether CL is used successfully as a marketing tool, but as

the survey results in chapter 3.8 show, marketing related aspects such as market adaptability, cus-

tomers, etc. are to a wide extent referred to as incentive for implementing English as CL.

A quality management system should encompass the processes, resources and behaviour which

the chief executive management establishes and manages in order to reach the organisation’s ob-

jectives. Management must decide which competences are required to reach these objectives for

which reason various processes must be identified, implemented, monitored, and evaluated.

Among other things, certification of an organisation’s quality management system offers:

• increased focus on management’s tasks

• improved monitoring of all internal processes

• fixed fields of responsibility and competences for all employees

• increased focus on qualifying education of employees

• resources set free for attending other tasks due to fixed frames of processes

• improved efficiency due to common, targeted and managed action plans

• establishment of expedient internal communication

Undeniably, the above list fuels the idea that standardisation seems not only applicable and useful,

but almost mandatory to the successful implementation of CL.

Communication research has shown that middle management in a large number of Danish corpo-

rations would like systematisation of even basic communication tasks, Petersen (2002). E.g. many

line managers would appreciate written instructions defining when information should be conveyed

through the in-house newsletter, the suggested quantity of written information to hand out to the

staff, etc. It may of course be objected that it is precisely the line manager’s task to be aware of the

level of information needed in any given department or work team under him/her. It may even be

insinuated that the fact that even basic communication tasks cause managerial uncertainty in

terms of choice of communication form and channel indicates that this is a management problem

rather than a communication problem. In other words, if middle management is so out of touch with

staff’s general information requirements that they cannot decide what, how and how much to com-

municate, then how will they ever be in a position to communicate information in English from the

chief executive management, let alone estimate and anticipate staff’s ability to perceive and act in

27

accordance with such English information? This may suggest a need to give higher priority to com-

munication competences when recruiting and/or promoting managers.

Generally, improvement of quality is achieved through ongoing acquisition of knowhow as well as

application of and understanding relevant knowledge within a value based culture – not through

prevalence of standards, rules, and regulations. If employees do not comprehend and share a

common set of values, enforcing rules and regulations is not an effective way of achieving the or-

ganisation’s objectives. Standards are mere reflections of and encouragement to best practice at

the time they are produced and should be used as guidelines and methods of measurement only.

When used to press a performance increase through, they only seem to increase bureaucracy,

Larsen (2004).

Petersen (2002) calls for an explicit definition and distribution of responsibility of a corporation’s in-

ternal communication. Such a definition might tend towards a standardisation, a sort of quality

management of a corporation’s communication. Thus, communication becomes further integrated

into decision-making as quality management involves the chief executive management. It becomes

integrated into the implementation stages as well as other aspects of business administration. Con-

sequently, communication will then also become subject to internal evaluation and incentive pro-

grams.

If a standard for communication in general, and CL in particular, is to be incorporated, first, it must

be determined whether a procedure for the actual implementation of English as an organisation’s

preferred work language is the interesting aspect, or it is the ability to assess the value of certain

processes. Once this has been determined, it must also be verified who such a standardisation is

interesting or relevant for – the corporation, its stakeholders, or both? Petersen (2002) distin-

guishes between two aspects: The normative background and the explicit guidelines. First, an

overall account of the corporation’s general view on communication is required by way of a norma-

tive approach – what does the individual company consider good communication, a listing of fields

of responsibility, level of priority given to each communication channel, etc. Second, explicitness is

crucial to quality management – and later measuring – of a corporation’s communication. Again,

the intent of communication is to be verified. This goes for the corporation’s communicational ap-

proach to its stakeholders as well as the specific use of communication channels and communica-

tion products.

It is doubtful whether this approach is directly applicable on processes and routines handling CL,

but at least it sets forth a basis for an approximation to an actual standardisation of CL.

28

As described above, corporations have various work processes and management systems certified

according to international standards from a desire to establish precise and consistent guidelines for

the performance of the respective processes. And the very desire for consistency is the denotation

embedded in the term standard. It is, however, imperative to distinguish such processes from the

concept quality assurance. It is easy to introduce a consistent work process compliant to a stan-

dard which may in fact be very poor. E.g. if communication standards are to be established, the

overall task would be to make sure that all employees know exactly how to handle customer inquir-

ies. One, not very expedient, standard could be to ignore all non-English inquiries. This would be a

standard, though certainly not an indication of high quality. A standard is a fixed procedure which

all employees must endeavour to live up (or down) to. The value of the standard (in this case the

service level of customer communication) is secondary in relation to an ISO certification.

Delimiting and defining the organisational domain and scope of CL might be facilitated by use of an

international standard. In principle there is no reason why a series of criteria for the implementation

of CL cannot be set forth pursuant to, e.g. ISO9001:2000 Quality Management Systems. Still, no

such standard has been proposed.

2.6 Intranet

This chapter describes various aspects of an intranet portal – the only communication channel

which is granted an independent chapter in this thesis. Its multi-applicability as an internal commu-

nication tool makes it by far the most interesting media in relation to CL, as it is an interactive net-

work, a means of cross-organisational inter-unit communication that requires communication in a

common language – should it work as intended. The intranet has been identified as a critical step

towards the development of a “one firm” culture, Mehlsen (1998).

An intranet portal is a web-based network similar to that of the internet, facilitating electronic com-

munication and knowledge sharing within an organisation. Technical specifications and usability

aspects of this relatively new IT tool will not be discussed in this thesis, although issues such as

choice of server, browser, programming language, software, databases, document types, etc. often

draw immediate attention. Indeed relevant issues, though irrelevant to the actual generation of val-

ue for the organisation. A value generation which mainly consists in a portal’s applicability as a fa-

cilitator of internal relations across the organisation.

Most organisations claim that people are their primary resource. And as an organisation’s competi-

tiveness is very dependent on its employees’ knowledge, the way it exploits this knowledge be-

comes a critical knowledge management challenge. However, expertise and knowhow are likely to

29

be spread geographically and on several organisational levels for which reason it is of utmost im-

portance that employees are constantly aware of their individual competences’ specific role and

position in relation to the overall operations of the corporation.

As mentioned above, an intranet portal is a multi-faceted tool which holds much potential for in-

creasing internal communication and optimising work processes as it gathers practically all availa-

ble tools, information and applications (process descriptions, presentations, brochures, forms, tele-

phone directories, e-learning, e-mailing, software, data bases, dictionaries, etc.) in one online net-

work. Evidently, this is a resource saving arrangement as employees only have to look for informa-

tion in one place.

The traditional way of organising and carrying out such internal information and communication

tasks is by means of mass media as a lever. Communication channels such as in-house newslet-

ters, magazines and intranet play an important part in a corporation’s endeavours to attain a high

level of information among its employees, and consequently, efficient internal communication.

Therefore, a lot of resources are spent in communication departments on in-house magazine

publishing and intranet maintenance. Some corporations, however, use their intranet portal merely

as an electronic notice board for posting functional and social communication15. To a wide extent

this way of using the intranet resembles that of a physical notice board, which to large organisa-

tions is very time and resource saving as it facilitates coordination of communication which would

typically include posting of information to geographically fragmented units separated in time and

space. However, although static information such as news, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses,

work schedules, birthdays, anniversaries, etc. are easily and efficiently distributed and updated

through the intranet, it is not just a centrally operated virtual notice board for posting one-way com-

munication. Its potential reaches far further than this; it is also an interactive media for knowledge

sharing. E.g. each employee might have his/her individual profile listing not only telephone exten-

sion number and e-mail address, but also competences, organisational position, work tasks, fields

of responsibility, level of expertise, etc. Once a search routine has been firmly embedded in policy

and practice, employees become aware that better and more specialised knowledge may exist

elsewhere in the organisation (clearly, there is no point in re-inventing the wheel). This way, em-

ployees throughout the organisation easily get in touch with each other simply by setting the re-

quired search criteria, e.g. a specific level of expertise within a certain function, or by entering fo-

rums grouped by topic, similar to e.g. news groups or computer support forums known from the in-

ternet. This way of using the intranet implies that in addition to the obvious resource saving effect,

the intranet also facilitates knowledge management and organisational development.

15 See chapter 2.3.2 Internal Communication, p. 16

30

Ideally, an intranet portal functions as a naturally integrated base of all computer supported func-

tions in order to make knowledge and competences accessible and sharable, tailor-made to indi-

vidual users throughout the organisation. This increases job performance and reduces time con-

sumption. Sharing common methods, references to previous projects, contributions to specific task

oriented solutions, discussions with and assistance from specialists in other units are just some of

the tasks that can be managed and coordinated favourably through the intranet.

However, according to Møller (2002), dialogue and organisational development through intranet re-

quire a highly advanced state of digital maturity, a state which does not pervade in today’s corpo-

rate Denmark. It must, however, be borne in mind than an intranet portal is a supplement to tradi-

tional communication procedures - in itself it is nothing but an idle tool. And clearly, it can never re-

place a manager’s experienced, instinctive sense of who needs to know what, when and why inas-

much as it cannot be expected that all employees are equally eager to stay updated or understand

fully all information conveyed through this channel, let alone know how to operate this tool. If this

absence of digital maturity implies a general sense of alienation towards the media and if, as

Møller suggests, Danish corporations at large are not yet geared to use the intranet as more than a

virtual notice board, expecting employees to communicate in an overall CL seems only to add to

the alienation they may feel towards this tool in the first place. The problem with tools is that they

are often utilised very differently, do not work properly in the hands of unskilled users, and are

stored away if they do not function as intended. Obviously, not all employees need to use all of its

features equally frequent, but it is advisable to align all employees’ approach to this media as a

firmly embedded part of daily communication and work processes and not just something to take a

peep at if time allows. This requires an ongoing intense digital learning process and in order for this

learning process to attain a high success rate, navigation in local language might be a good start.

This would get a wide range of employees familiar with the media and consequently get the organi-

sation a step closer to knowledge management. And the intranet provides the very frames for such

learning: it is increasingly being used for e-learning.

Local language, however, should only be used as a transitional instigator, not as a permanent na-

vigation language, otherwise knowledge risks being tied up as isolated isles of information16. Meta-

phorically, the virtual forums of an intranet are the bridges linking these isles. However, as the sur-

vey results in chapter 3.8 show, many organisations run their intranet portals in corporate and local

languages respectively. The survey does not elaborate on whether they have various parallelly

running portals or one overall portal allowing for multiple language use. However, as one of the

16 As described in chapter 2.2 Horizontal Communication, p. 12

31

main functions of the intranet is to serve as a lever of cross-organisational communication, it is not

advisable to run parallel forums in corporate vs. local language. This way corporations risk that

knowledge and expertise is not shared freely between international units. If an expert discussion

on a highly specialised topic is going on in e.g. Danish, units abroad may never get to know about

this contribution to the organisation’s accumulated knowledge pool. Thus, parallel discussions may

take place in other languages, discussions about problems that may already have been solved

once by other employees. This is where a policy for the use of intranet must be applied. Behind an

efficient portal is a policy as to how to ensure and facilitate knowledge sharing across the organisa-

tion.

With the increased amount of information posted and applications accessible through the intranet,

it soon becomes relevant to make decisions not only on how much information to include, but also

on who should be able to access what information, who should be authorised to update and revise

information, moderate discussions in various forums, etc. Knowledgeable screening, or censorship,

in order to process and refine communication becomes a criterion for successful elimination of in-

formation overload which would otherwise lead to inefficiency. English proficiency becomes an un-

questionable necessity.

Some corporations also offer external units access to their intranet. This extention is called extra-

net and gives selected customers, suppliers and mobile employees real-time access to the data

and applications uploaded on the intranet via the world wide web. Such facilities require careful at-

tention to data security and must include access through a firewall, but it is an efficient means of

communication raising the standards of both internal and external communication.

2.7 Management Communication

This chapter outlines how two pervading management principles are geared to handle English as

CL.

Contrary to previous chapters, which in general terms have outlined various communication issues

without specific indication of organisational level, this chapter focuses on the top levels of an orga-

nisation – the strategic and tactical levels. Two pervading management principles’ readiness to

handle English as CL is discussed determining which of the two is best geared for global internal

communication.

Johnsen (2000) reflects on the concepts communication and management communication on the

assumption that communication is relations between people, and management communication is

32

relations between people, one or several of whom wish to practise leadership. Management com-

munication can be broken down in two: a) The communication between a corporation’s managers

and employees and b) the intercommunication between managers – i.e. vertical as well as horizon-

tal communication. A third distinction might be HQ’s chief executive management’s relations to

subsidiary managements.

There is no single definition of management, however, Johnsen (2000) outlines the fundamental

features of a manager’s role as that of a creator of targeted, problem solving and language estab-

lishing interaction between people. S/he must distribute work, define specialisation and coordinate

activities and actions. This is a socio-psychological process facilitating peoples’ interaction in order

to achieve common objectives.

Traditionally, according to Johnsen (2000), two fundamental principles pervade in the relation be-

tween a corporation’s managers and employees. One being the old school autocracy, or oligarchy,

under which the manager manages and distributes work. Employees are seen as the manager’s

tools, and the manager’s primary tasks are to plan, organise, direct and control their performance.

Management communication under this classic management system is characterised by mere ex-

change of information rather than actual communication. The manager gives information on work

procedures and subsequently receives information on results achieved from the work carried out.

Its diametrical opposite is democracy which is still a rather modern management practice. Under

this management principle employees are seen as colleagues who, in cooperation with the manag-

er, endeavour to reach common objectives. The manager’s role is that of a chairman, or a coach,

who facilitates interpersonal dialogue, concerting a common position on how to reach various

goals, thus establishing insight and mutual obligations. Petersen (2002) also adheres to this con-

ception. Moreover, she claims that a manager’s paramount task is to communicate. However, in a

survey she demonstrates that almost half of the contributing managers feel that communication is

only part of their job, and even a part that takes too much time away from the essential managerial

tasks which are still considered to be of an operational nature. Thus, the self-image shared by a

substantial part of corporate Denmark’s managers is still that of the old school autocracy where the

manager manages, distributes and controls work.

A distinction between the above two management principles is not per se determinative of whether

or not a corporation will be able to fully benefit from English as CL. However, a psychological ele-

ment is involved; Larsen (2002) clarifies that the means to provide an incentive for employees to

reach common goals is the creation of an environment in which their requirements are respected,

their performance is rewarded and their contribution appreciated. Ideally, a manager forms a whole

33

of the corporation’s mission and vision – a state where all members of an organisation are aware

of its reason for existing and its objectives17. If the managerial chain of command is very autocratic,

it might have an impact on the overall communication throughout the organisation which is then

very likely to also reflect this practice.

As described above, the essence of management is communication, and as the autocratic man-

agement principle is characterised by exchange of information rather than actual communication,

exchange of information in English under this system requires a high level of English proficiency at

all organisational levels to make sure that all instructions are perceived and followed as intended. It

is rarely sufficient to just order people to do something and then expect that everybody heard and

understood the message. Ensuring that orders are comprehended takes diligent efforts. Evidently,

this task does not become any easier if conveyed in a foreign language.

Oppositely, other things being equal, the democratic system, where dialogue is a central element,

seems better geared to handle communication in a foreign language as communication break-

downs are likely to be detected when they occur and not at a subsequent performance evaluation.

Communication practices are deeply embedded in the corporate culture: If there is no tradition of

interpersonal respect, support and assistance, communication breakdowns are likely to occur more

frequently.

2.7.1 Internal Dissemination of Profile and Values

Besides directly task related internal communication, functional communication, managers are also

responsible for conveying a corporation’s profile and set of values as stipulated by the chief execu-

tive management, also referred to as identity communication18. This type of communication

ensures that all employees share the same fundamental attitude towards the corporation and that

all activities within the organisation are based on a common, firmly embedded set of values. In

other words, it is the manager’s task to infuse team spirit. A well-functioning information flow

strengthens this team spirit, thus facilitating managerial tasks in general.

By formulating a superordinate communication strategy, the chief executive management contrib-

utes to an overall communication performance in compliance with the corporation’s objectives. The

famous Brundtland Commission motto of the 1992 environment conference in Rio de Janeiro “think

globally – act locally” can be applied analogously here because this issue is indeed about convey-

17 See chapter 2.7.1 Internal Dissemination of Profile and Values, p. 34 18 As described in chapter 2.3.2 Internal communication, p. 16

34

ing a global corporation’s mission, vision and values to all its local employees ranging from manag-

ers and administrative employees to operational and canteen staff. This is important because a

corporation’s employees are its ambassadors in the outside world – both in their private spheres as

well as in their daily professional communication with the company’s stakeholders. And this is

where the true profile of the corporation is reflected.

Danish and international researches show that employees want to have important messages from

their immediate superiors. Of course the chief executive management plays an important part,

however, their main task is to “paint the big picture” – the vision – and the superordinate guidelines

for the direction in which the corporation is heading and how they anticipate getting there. There-

fore, middle management plays a huge role as "interpreters" and agents of change, Petersen

(2002).

Their contribution to internal communication must ensure that the employees are updated on the

organisations’ ongoing actions and reasons for these actions, both in order to pave the way for job

satisfaction as well as to make the employees good ambassadors of the corporation. Satisfied em-

ployees have a positive impact on an organisation’s stakeholders.

In a non-Anglo corporation where all communication is in English, the chief executive management

risks appearing remote and hard to identify with and its intentions may not even reach staff on the

floor in the warehouse or accounts department. The situation deteriorates even further if insuffi-

cient communication to a vast majority of an organisation’s members accumulates into a general

feeling of downright powerlessness – “technocracy’s sublimity vs. the man on the shop floor” –

similar to the alienation many people feel towards the European Union – a body that in fact spends

huge sums on localising everything into local member state languages. If a corporation ends up in

this situation, it may find itself without a network maintaining organisational loyalty and unifying its

team spirit. Employees meet the corporation’s set of values with indifference – thus, the communi-

cation has had the directly opposite effect. Clearly, this kind of employee attitude does not create

goodwill in the local community, a corporation’s immediate environment, which it is part of. Even

more so, if the corporation has subsidiaries in countries that are not traditionally known as constitu-

tional states where oppression, corruption, ethnic conflicts, weak economy, etc. pervade. In such

places foreign companies face an increased risk of being associated with abuse of power and in-

fringement of personal rights and as a consequence hereof future investment openings may be un-

certain19. Or, less dramatic, in countries where the mere presence of a foreign corporation may be

seen as a cultural threat (e.g. France), the use of English is likely to be regarded as anything but a

19 ECON Senter for Økonomisk Analyse AS, Norge, Corporate Social Responsibility, http://www.econ.no/oslo/econ.nsf/d5449b38104c1b8cc1256b3d003b402e/797507b6982ac72841256bae0034f27c!OpenDocument

35

unifying factor. As a matter of curiosity, no French corporations with English as CL were found for

the exploratory survey on page 45.

Therefore, a monolingual corporation would have to give careful attention to the way in which it

plans to structure its organisation-wide internal communication. Obviously, it may choose to only

recruit employees with a command of English so profound that the CL is not an issue at all. The

question then is; will there be a catchment area big enough for the corporation to be able to recruit

enough qualified employees locally? The corporation might also choose to translate part of its in-

ternal communication into local languages. If so, linguistic parallelism between CL and local lan-

guage pervades. Alternatively, diversity management may become relevant as the corporation will

then be forced to recruit people with the right qualifications regardless of nationality.

2.8 Diversity Management

”No matter who you are

no matter where you are

you’re welcome here

….Long live diversity”20

From being a politically correct mid-80s hippie song, today these lines might as well constitute the

preface to a modern corporation’s executive headhunting and employee recruitment policy.

Diversity is a broad term and can be measured by various parameters, e.g. ethnicity, gender, age,

education, social class, cultural background, political conviction, degree of fitness for work, etc.

And even between seemingly identical individuals diversity still pervades as personal and psycho-

logical aspects like childhood, upbringing, values, mentality, etc. have a huge impact on the way in

which individuals feel, think and behave in a social context.

This chapter outlines ethnic diversity as a potential for gaining a global advance, not the socio-

political and labour market aspects which corporations have to deal with as a result of an increas-

ingly demographic diversity in society at large.

Ethnic diversity in an organisation’s strategic and tactical levels is not only advisable, it is an imper-

ative necessity for a corporation wishing to continue its operations in a global market21. Diversity

management, however, is a phenomenon only beginning to gain a foothold in corporate Denmark.

20 Author’s own translation of the chorus of Danish pop group Gnags’ song ”Danmark” off the album ”Plads til begejstring”, Genlyd, 1986 21 See chapter 2.9 International Board and Executive Management, p. 38

36

Often corporations seek to eliminate diversity and standardise their workforce rather than to exploit

its differences. Traditionally, focus has been on the negative effects of diversity, e.g. friction, colle-

gial difficulties and diminished efficiency. This is a paradox inasmuch as diversity offers a synergy

potential beyond what has so far been recognised by most corporations in Denmark.

International competition and globalisation of markets and production force organisations to put fo-

cus on cross-border cooperation and unity rather than cultural and ethnic differences of employ-

ees22. While the vast majority of corporations still take on a defensive approach seeking to mini-

mise ethnic diversity, a few progressive innovators have set the agenda for tomorrow’s organisa-

tional structure. Research has shown a clear interrelationship between a corporation’s degree of

diversity and its business success. Corporations with a high degree of ethnic diversity among their

employees simply perform better than corporations where standardisation and conformity are the

norm, Jacobs (2001). This may be based on a great variety of reasons. One would be the obvious

fact that with no consideration for linguistic or cultural conformity, a corporation has access to a

much wider talent base. Another would be that people from different cultures have different ways of

approaching problem solving which results in improved integrity and a more coherent decision-

making.

However, focus on ethnic diversity in this context is not as much a focus on actual ethnicity as it is

a focus on the different inputs deriving from having different business cultures, bases of experience

and management traditions involved in an organisation’s strategic and tactical decision-making.

The main objective is to exploit the synergy potential gained from not making decisions on one sin-

gle cultural background. Moreover, this may also be a source to improvement of a corporation’s

rating in the international share market as an international board and chief executive management

will signal to investors worldwide that this is a corporation with a proactive attitude towards the glo-

bal market.

Notoriously, different attitudes and approaches lead to innovation and resourcefulness. And clearly

so, because when confronted with different ways of seeing things, decision-makers, and employ-

ees at large, are offered a new perspective which will open their eyes to alternative approaches

and thus release idle resources. To get the full benefit from diversity, evidently, decision-makers’

linguistic level must not in any way restrict or reduce decisions for which reason English proficiency

is a priority better not ignored when recruiting ethnically diverse board members and executives.

22 See description of participating networks in chapter 2.1 Vertical and horizontal Communication, p. 12

37

2.9 International Board of Directors and Executive Management

Appointing foreigners to the strategic and tactical levels of an organisation is a crucial step towards

adaptation to a global market and must consequently be seen as the number one incentive for im-

plementing English as CL. Organisational typology is essential here because it is the self-image

embedded in the structure of an organisation which determines how easy or difficult the transition

becomes.

Stohl (2001) outlines three organisational types of corporations undertaking cross-border activities:

International, multinational, and global. She demonstrates a distinctive difference in self-image de-

pending on organisational type.

2.9.1 International Organisation

Identity is embedded in two or more countries with distinct cultural features: workforce, manage-

ment, customers, suppliers, etc. represent different national interests.

Regiocentric orientation towards subsidiaries: An entire region, e.g. Europe, is the basis for author-

ity, recruitment, and staffing development. Interdependent across regions.

Organisational structure: Joint hierarchy with international units integrating activities. Teamwork

within subsidiaries but not inter-unit/horizontally.

Management philosophy is based on cultural synergy: two cultures work together to try to develop

a third culture.

2.9.2 Multinational Organisation

Identity is deeply embedded in its national origin which is seen as a self-contained quality. It oper-

ates out of many countries and is characterised by a multilateral workforce, executive manage-

ment, and clientele. The entire organisation is based on one single national frame of reference.

Polycentric orientation towards subsidiaries: Key subsidiary positions are held by expatriates, all

centrally governed from HQ. Communication is exclusively vertical between HQ and individual sub-

sidiaries.

38

Organisational structure: Centralised decision-making through a rigid hierarchical pyramidal struc-

ture with subsidiaries implementing HQ’s strategies. Knowledge is developed and maintained at

HQ level.

Management is typically dominated by the HQ culture, but cultural differences are recognised and

somewhat accepted.

2.9.3 Global Organisation

Identity is global and not subject to national preferences or borders. Employees’ organisational po-

sition takes priority over national origin. No single nationality dominates the organisation.

Geocentric orientation towards subsidiaries: A delegative style of leadership assigns tactical tasks

to interdependent, specialised units. All units supply differentiated contributions to be integrated

worldwide throughout the organisation. The best people are assigned for all the key positions

throughout the organisation, whatever their nationality or whatever the geographical location of the

post to be filled. Development and knowledge sharing are global – so are flexibility and learning ca-

pability. Widespread prevalence of inter-unit horizontal communication.

Organisational structure: Decentralised decision-making, joint responsibility. Heterarchical struc-

ture resembling a network or fishnet. Authority is determined by knowledge and function and HQ

and subsidiaries see themselves as part of a global organic entity.

Management is driven by cultural integration. The global organisation recognises diversity of cul-

tures and business conditions.

The distinction between the latter two, multinational and global organisations, is completely ana-

logue to Johnsens (2000) contrast between autocratic and democratic management structure23. It

is thus likely to infer that the management structure of multinationals is mainly autocratic with a

deep organisational taxonomy, while globals are characterised by a democratic management

structure where management is performed within a shallow organisational taxonomy.

Some of the world’s most advanced global organisations seek to minimise relations to their nation-

al origin. Such corporations define their domestic market globally and do not only seek to adapt to

the ethnic diversity in the global market, they also want to reflect this diversity in their organisation.

Thus, they seek to exploit the synergy potential that lies in not having a dominating nationality, nei- 23 As outlined in chapter 2.7 Management Communication, p. 32

39

ther in the chief executive management nor in the demographic distribution of shareholders. This is

believed to yield creativity and innovation – competencies, which are crucial to an organisation’s

survival. Still, no organisations qualify 100% for this definition, but some are close, e.g. the Swiss-

Swedish ABB with an 8-member board consisting of 4 different nationalities and an 8-member

chief executive management consisting of 5 different nationalities. 10 years ago another European

global giant, Royal Dutch/Shell, had 38 nationalities represented at their London headquarters,

trusting that an organisation better not base its operations on one single cultural background24. Evi-

dently, in this case English as CL is a mere spin-off from a complex organisational structure.

2.9.4 Danish Statutory Requirements

Besides the synergy potential to be gained from diversity, another fundamental incentive for ap-

pointing international members to the board and executive management is the legitimacy that can

be achieved amongst foreign investors when a corporation is demonstrating global management

structure25. There is a difference between Anglo and Continental European management structure:

While Anglo corporations are run by a one-tier management system, most large and medium sized

Continental European corporations are run by a two-tier management system26.

If one or more foreigners are appointed to the board of a Danish corporation it would be reason-

able to assume that board meetings are held in English. Consequences of an international chief

executive management are the implications for the employees who will then have to “work” in Eng-

lish and the executive management’s strategies for coping with problems that may arise from using

English. Would a manager be equally competent performing his/her managerial tasks in English?

Or maybe better? Moreover, reconfiguration of social capital may be a consequence as the use of

a foreign language may lead to linguistic power imbalances if e.g. an employee fluent in English

has to assist his/her superiors in linguistic issues. Especially in an autocratic organisation this

might be a frustrating issue to manage. All such considerations, however, are of a managerial na-

ture – issues which may be relevant to discuss in a future thesis.

A recent survey expounds the internationalisation readiness of board members of Denmark’s thirty

largest noted companies in the industry & service sector27. According to the survey, two board-wise

parameters are critical to whether or not a corporation will be able to survive in the global market:

1) an international structure and 2) competencies within e-business. Inherently, the first is relevant

to this thesis. 24 The discreet charm of the multicultural multinational, Economist vol. 332 issue 7874 30/07/94, p. 57 25 Chr. Strate, Nicolai et al: Globale markeder – globale ledere, Ledelse i Dag #40, autumn 2000, p. 305 26 As described in chapter 2.4.5 Financial Relations, p. 23 27 Virksomhederne hader fornyelse, Berlingske Tidendes Nyhedsmagasin, nr. 8, 03.04.00, p. 38. Survey is carried out by the Berlingske Tidendes Nyhedsmagasin in 2000.

40

The survey shows that the boards of old, illustrious Danish corporations seem to be stuck in the

20th century’s industrial society. Such boards are still characterised by high gloss Brazilian rose-

wood tables, Royal Copenhagen porcelain and old men whose directorships are typically induced

by tradition rather than by competencies. Several board members are appointed for historical rea-

sons and they are often allowed to continue until they retire in their late 60s or early 70s. Neither

foreigners nor people from the new economy (economy based on the generation of knowledge and

information, e.g. IT and consultancy firms) are present in their boardrooms, and board meetings

are held in Danish.

Thus, conservative and obsolete board tradition seems to be the biggest barrier to appointing for-

eigners and holding board meetings in English. However, other factors might also affect the deci-

sion on board language: A critical issue might be the compulsory employee representatives with

little or no English proficiency at an advanced level. There may be a real risk that such board mem-

bers’ limited linguistic capacities might cause that 1) they will not get a full grasp of what is being

discussed and decided on the board, 2) their opportunities for proactive participation in board

meetings are limited and 3) they will be unable to convey adequately the board minutes to their col-

leagues. However, generalisation of employee representatives’ English proficiency is not the aim of

this thesis.

The survey substantiates that consideration for Danish legislation on employee representatives

seems to take a dominant role in corporate Denmark’s choice of board language. Therefore, it is

necessary to dig into Danish legislation on the matter to verify where this restriction of corporations’

ability to appoint the best qualified heads for their board regardless of nationality is stipulated.

Neither the Danish Public Companies Act28 nor the Danish Private Companies Act29 sets forth

provisions stipulating that the board must operate in Danish. However, the Danish Public

Companies Act section 178 (5) and (6) specify that the Danish Minister of Trade and Industry shall

stipulate rules relating to:

5) in which way employees of companies where members of the board of directors have been elected in pursuance of the third clause of section 49 (2) are to be notified of company matters;

28 The sections of the Danish Public Companies Act (lov om aktieselskaber) (SS 49, 177, 178) on employee representatives 29 As section 22 (6) of the Danish Private Companies Act on employee representatives stipulates: “ The provisions of

sections 177 and 178 of the Public Companies Act with the requisite adjustments shall apply to private companies” – this note shall too refer to (SS 49, 177, 178) of the Danish Public Companies Act

41

6) in which way employees of groups of companies where members of the board of directors have been elected in pursuance of section 49 (3) are to be notified of matters relating to the group;

According to the Danish Commerce and Companies Agency (Erhvervs- og Selskabsstyrelsen), a

governmental body that administers the above acts, the Danish Public Companies Act does not in

any direct way dictate board language, whereas notice on application for registration stipulates that

applications and documentation to be submitted to the Agency must be drafted in Danish.

The Danish Commerce and Companies Agency emphasises that if a board’s working language

precludes an employee representative from participating proactively in the board’s activities, the

Agency deems this a circumvention of the act’s provisions on employee representation, pointing

out that the final decision of the matter lies with the court30.

Thus, no specific purview or provision restricts Danish boards from appointing the best qualified

heads regardless of the fact that the working language as a consequence hereof may have to shift

into English, or another language for that matter. Typically, employee representatives have no spe-

cialised knowledge of financial transactions, flotation, mergers and other strategic subjects on a

board’s agenda. But clearly, consideration for employee representatives’ limited knowledge of

complex issues cannot, and do not, prevent a board from dealing with these aspects of business

operations.

It is thus more likely the boards’ reluctance to innovate or a general prevalence of linguistic mod-

esty and immaturity rather than actual consideration for employee representatives that constitute

the greater barrier to appointment of foreign board members and a consequent implementation of

English as the board’s working language. After all, such anticipated comprehension problems are

relatively easily eliminated by setting forth a set of linguistic criteria for eligibility for future employee

representatives. Present employee representatives could be offered English training should their

proficiency be inappropriate for proactive participation in the board’s activities. Alternatively, an in-

terpreter could be deployed.

“In Denmark we are so good at English that English proficiency is no longer regarded a self-

contained competence”31 the Confederation of Danish Industries claims. This statement is only a

qualified truth inasmuch as business and linguistic surveys have reached a somewhat different re-

30 Jahn, Helle - Senior clerk – Danish Commerce and Companies Agency (Erhvervs- og Selskabsstyrelsen) in an e-

mail reply 12/12/02 31 Jensen, Bjarne Lundager, head of research, Confederation of Danish Industries (Dansk Industri) at Symposium

2002: “Erhvervsliv, Sprogpolitik og Konkurrenceevne” – Danish Society for Language for Special Purposes and Professional Communication, at Copenhagen Business School 02/10/02 - Quotation is author’s translation.

42

sult. Critical articles in the business press substantiate this, e.g. “Danish chief executives…are ar-

rogant and bad at English”32 and Generally, Danish chief executives are good at English, but they

lack competence when it comes to specialised and high level English”33

In a qualitative analysis of board practices in Denmark’s top 50 noted companies based on market

value34, the above tendency seems only to be confirmed. Although as many as 41% of the corpo-

rations have non-Danish board members, only 25.6% of the boards use English exclusively as

working language. This probably indicates that most of the foreign board members are Scandinavi-

ans and that such board members are compelled to participate in Danish-language board meet-

ings. The survey does not disclose how many of the corporations use English as CL. Generally,

Danish corporations seem reluctant towards entering into international networks. Often, the chief

executive management is not proficient in English and board members were appointed before Eng-

lish proficiency became a requirement, Ebbensgaard (2000).

In a survey on a large Nordic bank merger, Søderberg (2003) indicates that executives feel inse-

cure when meetings are held in English. They do not feel sufficiently proficient in English to master

its nuances. They are reluctant to put forward criticism as they are afraid their criticism may be per-

ceived as being biased or maybe even intimidating. This reluctance may result in failure to discuss

problems at a stage when they are still manageable. In another survey, on Danish electronics firms

having undergone foreign acquisition, Søderberg (1998) lists examples of Danish executives at-

tending preliminary meetings prior to management meetings with the foreign CEO in order to bal-

ance viewpoints and coordinate detailed formulations which would reportedly be too difficult to han-

dle spontaneously in English. So if English is introduced for the purpose of enhancing efficiency,

paradoxically, the very opposite has been achieved inasmuch as the Danish executives spend

extra time on preliminary meetings due to linguistic insecurity.

Having had English as CL for more than 25 years, Finnish elevator manufacturer Kone still faces

difficulties in its inter-unit communication i.e. between subsidiaries. Through an increased focus on

language as a strategic issue with English proficiency taking on greater significance in their recruit-

ment policy, senior managers have become proficient in English and the focus on language has

now moved down the organisation, Marschan-Piekkari, Rebecca et al (1999). “More difficult to deal

with is the individual who finds it hard to learn a second language despite trying. These individuals

may be very capable in other ways but cannot speak the standard language easily or well enough.

32 Økonomisk Ugebrev # 37 - 13 November 2000 p. 9 - Quotation is author’s translation. 33 Kronenberg, Kasper Alt for meget turistengelsk i erhvervslivet, Børsen, 16/02/01 p. 6 - Quotation is author’s

translation. 34 Erhardtsen, Birgitte et al Danmarks bedste bestyrelse, Berlingske Tidendes Nyhedsmagasin # 22, 13/08/01, p. 36

– Quotation is author’s translation.

43

The question of whether their career progression will be affected is not an easy one to make.”35

Summarising this chapter, board and chief executive management culture in Denmark still appears

to be very bound by tradition. Appointing foreigners to strategic and tactical levels is not very wide-

spread even though internationalisation experts state that this is a must for survival in the global

market. In this respect corporate Denmark’s readiness for globalisation seems to vary depending

on who is assessing it. The industry says “yes” while the business press and communication re-

searchers say “not quite”.

35 Marschan-Piekkari, Rebecca et al: Adopting a common language at Kone Elevators, Human Resource

Management International Digest, vol. 7, # 6, Nov/Dec 1999, p. 21

44

3 EXPLORATORY SURVEY

The previous chapters have outlined various aspects of an organisation’s communication, the par-

ties involved in communication, frames for performing communication, parameters that affect com-

munication and incentives for implementing English as CL. All of which comprise the main frame of

reference for the scope of an organisation’s performance of or readiness for using English as CL.

In order to verify this scope in practice, a survey was carried out.

In this chapter the research method employed in the survey will be outlined including a description

of how the empirical study was carried out and a discussion of the results.

3.1 Research Methods

Basically, when deciding on a method surveying a specified topic, two research methods prevail:

empirical and exploratory methods. An empirical research method is typically applied in hypothesis

verifying or falsifying research, often also referred to as quantitative research, Andersen (1990). A

quantitative method seeks to answer questions by studying objective facts in pursuit of universal

regularity expressed in quantitative terms and under strict experimental control. However, the

scope of quantitative research is limited to strictly verifiable facts. If the research topic includes

people’s individual perception of phenomena or events or if little or no knowledge of the topic sur-

veyed exists – as is the case in this thesis – another research method is needed. It may be prob-

lematic finding reasonable hypotheses and in such cases one method is to carry out a generalised

survey in the subject area in order to learn as much about it as possible. Exploratory, or qualitative,

research serves this purpose as it seeks to get a holistic insight into a given phenomenon and its

connectedness to other phenomena.

The advantage of a quantitative method is that it allows statistical generalisation – if a sample size

is viable, it is mathematically safe to draw conclusions on the extent of the topic surveyed and the

validity of the survey results. This is not achieved when applying a qualitative method. Qualitative

research is largely based on inductive and iterative reasoning and is fundamentally interpretive,

meaning that the researcher makes a personal interpretation of the data collected, Creswell

(2003). Here analytic generalisation and universal validity of the survey result are subject to critical

evaluation. Moreover, it may be difficult to precisely determine causal relations between the varia-

bles included in the survey, i.e. between external effects and the respondents’ individual psychic

processes. Thus, introspection, a keystone in the generation of opinion data, is not an infallible tool

for measuring state of facts. Still, the qualitative method is very eligible for surveys of complex psy-

chological phenomena where a linear causal relation between dependent and independent varia-

45

bles is not apparent – in other words: “when you want to survey “something”, without fully knowing

what this “something” is, without being able to determine the substantial aspects hereof and with-

out concisely being able to bring about a conceptual definition of it” 36. Clearly, an applicable ap-

proach for a survey on CL.

3.2 Data Collection

Thirty-one questions + follow-up questions were presented in a standardised questionnaire with a

majority of fixed reply categories which the respondents have checked from a number of listed al-

ternatives (multiple choice), primarily yes/no and indication of ratio, rank and rate, so that time for

completion of the questionnaire was reduced to a minimum. But there were also some open-ended

questions, where the respondents were offered an opportunity to formulate their answers freely,

and as extensively as they wanted.

Some of the questions from the questionnaire for corporations with Danish HQ were not included in

their original wording in the questionnaire for Danish subsidiaries of foreign corporations, especially

Anglo corporations, as such questions would be irrelevant. Thus, some of the questions have been

localised to reflect the perspective of a foreign corporation. E.g. Q7 When did the corporation de-

cide to make English its CL? is modified to: Q7 When did the corporation decide to explicitly make

English its CL (assuming English has been the implicit CL from day one)? It could be anticipated

that a respondent in a Danish subsidiary of a US corporation would not be able to appoint a spe-

cific date of the introduction of English as CL nor be able to adequately verify motives for making

English the corporation’s official CL. Oppositely, leaving out such questions in the questionnaire for

the Anglo corporations would be biased and highly unscientific. Moreover, it would deprive those

respondents with an actual insight into these matters of the opportunity to share this information.

To many companies based in English-speaking countries language diversity or language standard-

isation through a common CL is likely to be an “invisible problem”.

The survey was carried out electronically, i.e. by e-mail, for three reasons: 1) The geographic di-

versity of company locations made it impossible to carry out the survey by face-to-face interviews,

2) the researcher’s budget did not allow phone interviews and 3) a lot of the questions asked in the

questionnaire require information retrieval from internal reports/company archives, which would be

far too time-consuming for a face-to-face interview.

36 Andersen, Ib: Valg af organisationssociologiske metoder – et kombinationsperspektiv, Samfundslitteratur, 1990, p. 245. Quotation is author’s translation.

46

The survey was carried out in two phases. In November 2003 a pilot version of the questionnaire

was forwarded to 9 contributors. This was done in order to see if any questions were unclear. The

answers given in these questionnaires prepared the ground for rephrasing questions and adding

additional questions. The second phase of the survey was carried out in May/June 2004.

In order to obtain an overall response rate of 100%, all contributors were contacted by phone prior

to the survey in order to 1) determine what language was used as CL so that the correct question-

naire could be forwarded and 2) address the questionnaire to the employee best qualified for the

completion. No random questionnaires were forwarded. However, even though 120 corporations

consented to fill in the questionnaire and despite several reminders, only 70 respondents actually

returned the questionnaire resulting in an overall response rate of 58.3%. Clearly, the survey would

have been even more substantial, had all 120 corporations returned the questionnaire, especially

since the fifty respondents that for some reason chose to ignore their initial consent and author’s

subsequent reminders represent such large corporations as Nokia, IBM, Rockwool, Nestlé, Shell,

Coca Cola and others. Still, the returned questionnaires count significant international players, e.g.

Microsoft, McDonald’s, Carlsberg, A.P. Møller/Mærsk, Nike, etc. so the representation of global

icons should be sufficient.

3.3 Data Analysis Procedure

For most of the replies, the percentage ratio and mean values are quantified, analysed and com-

pared. Also, cross-tabulations are conducted between selected variables that are deemed relevant

to the analysis of the findings. The open-ended replies are compared, and, where relevant,

grouped in order to establish a tendency. The findings of the questionnaire survey are presented

graphically in Appendix 2. In chapter 3.8 Discussion of Results below the questions are discussed

step by step with references listed like this: e.g. Q12 indicates a reference to question 12. Where

nothing else is mentioned, percentage rates are referred to in mean values. When specific rates

are needed, these are referred to in this order: A: subsidiaries of Anglo corporations, DK: DK

headquartered corporations and NA: subsidiaries of non-Anglo corporations.

Not all respondents have answered all questions for which reason individual response rates are in-

dicated in the graphic illustration in Appendix 2. Subordinately, such individual response rates are

issue sensitive. At times it is interesting to look at the distribution of 100% between various options.

E.g. a question such as Q4 a) Does the corporation have a communication department? breaks the

respondents down in two groups: “yes” and “no”. Clearly, respondents cannot check both options.

The response rate of the follow-up questions is calculated on basis of the respective sizes of these

two sub-groups, not on the overall number of respondents.

47

Oppositely, at other times more than one option are likely to be checked and the total percentage

rate thus exceeds 100%, e.g. Q18 a) In which languages are the below documents generated?, be-

cause these rates are calculated on basis of the total number of respondents replying to this ques-

tion, not on the basis of a distribution of checks between listed options.

3.4 Uncertainty Factors - Validity

A questionnaire of this nature inevitably results in inaccuracy. For two reasons: A psychological ef-

fect and measurement disingenuousness. Psychology first: A recent Danish TV documentary on

problems verifying the effects of spiritual healing offers a fairly analogue illustration: If a person,

who has just spent 400 D.kr. (approx. €50) on a healing séance, is asked whether or not s/he feels

cured, s/he is prone to an affirmative reply inasmuch as s/he would feel stupid having just spent

this kind of money on a dubious treatment. A kind of placebo effect gives her/him a felt improve-

ment as s/he truly wants to believe in the healing effect from the treatment.

The possibility that this behaviour to some extent could be analogue to that of the respondents of

this survey cannot be excluded. They probably feel they complete the questionnaire in defence of

their workplace’s decisions. So along the lines of the above psychological phenomenon the im-

provements from English as CL may be felt as much as they are bona fide.

As for the measurement disingenuousness: In order to carry out correct, scientific measurements,

complex validity rules must be observed. I.e. numerals would have to be assigned to things with

reference to a determinative, non-degenerate rule. Determinative means that the same numerals

must be assigned to the same things under the same conditions. Non-degenerate means that dif-

ferent things, or the same things under different conditions, would be assigned different numerals,

Petersen (2000b). In other words; the process of measuring the true effects of English as CL must

be done by ascertaining the extent, dimension, quantity, value, etc. of something by comparison to

a standard. As no such standard exists and since no similar survey has ever been carried out be-

fore, no comparisons can be made. Also, it is difficult to differentiate between various factors that

affect communication and behaviour, i.e. if it is national, corporate or organisational culture and

practices or individual characteristics that have an impact in a certain situation. The intention of this

survey, however, is not to present a scientifically bulletproof result – merely to outline a tendency.

48

3.5 Population

Seventy DK-sited companies were chosen at random. Partly, a range of large well-known corpora-

tions, partly, a selection of minor corporations to balance the representation of the big ones. Numb-

er of employees range from less than one hundred to several hundred thousands. Only criterion for

participation: HQ in one country and subsidiaries in other countries.

Four archetypes were identified prior to the design of the survey comprising the target population:

A: Danish subsidiaries of Anglo corporations (21 contributors)

B: Corporations with Danish HQ (31 contributors)

C: Danish subsidiaries of non-Anglo corporations (16 contributors)

D: Global (Anglo) corporations with no CL (2 contributors)

The reason for the four-tier distinction is that these corporations’ reason for using and way of han-

dling English as CL, assuming there is one, are presumably fundamentally different. Inherently, the

common CL of an Anglo corporation is English. The use of English is likely to not even be a matter

of discussion within the organisation and certainly not a problem that the chief executive manage-

ment has ever had to make a decision on. This is just the way it is. Probably, no internal regulation

of the language usage in the subsidiaries has ever been an issue to the HQ. Nevertheless, subsidi-

aries’ communication with HQ must inevitably be in English so the crux of the matter is whether the

subsidiaries have felt compelled to implement regulation for their own use of English as CL. This

category makes no distinction between original subsidiaries of Anglo corporations and original

Danish HQ that have been transformed into subsidiaries as a consequence of a merger or acquisi-

tion.

Oppositely, non-Anglo corporations using English as CL have inevitably had to give it thorough

consideration before introducing a foreign language as their main language. It must be assumed

that the CL of a DK-sited corporation is perceived differently depending on hierarchical position in

the organisation, i.e. whether the Danish location is HQ or a subsidiary of a foreign non-Anglo cor-

poration. Thus, it sub-divides into two distinctions: Categories B and C.

Finally, it is also relevant to look at corporations that have intentionally abstained from introducing

a common CL and kept local language as the predominant language: Category D. It may prove

fruitful to balance results from this group against arguments in favour of introducing English as CL.

As a number of the questions included in the questionnaires for the first three categories are irrele-

vant to a corporation without a CL, the questionnaire used for respondents under this category was

49

modified. This contrastive group consists of contributions from only two corporations for which rea-

son the results of these findings are not included in the graphic illustration, but are solely used as

additional comments to the discussion of results. However, as the contributors under this category

are two of the world’s by far most widespread brands (McDonald’s and Microsoft), their practices

are definitely worth paying attention to. If these icons of globalisation do not consider a superordi-

nate language necessary, nor an advantage, for the overall communication of the organisation,

then it adds a whole new perspective to the reason for using English as CL. If this perspective

were not included in this thesis, it would end up being biased and thus incomplete.

A list of all contributing corporations is attached as Appendix 1. An Excel spreadsheet featuring the

entire calculation is attached on CD-rom, Appendix 3, along with all completed questionnaires

received from respondents. These may come in handy when specific references to information not

appearing from the graphic illustration in Appendix 2 are made37.

A distinction between business types has not been made. However, cross-tabulation of selected

answers by similar types of businesses regardless category affiliation is applied where deemed re-

levant.

3.6 Respondents’ Profile

It is important to bear in mind the respondents’ knowledge and involvement level when inducing

the value of the various variables. A negative approach to the result of this survey would be that it

does not say anything about the participating corporations; it only reveals the level of knowledge

possessed by the individual respondents. In order to get high knowledge and involvement levels,

however, respondents were found among communication managers or linguistic employees in key

communication positions. Such employees are presumably versed in their corporation’s communi-

cation strategies for which reason there is no reason to question the authenticity of the result.

Obviously, corporations do not want to display aspects that in any way can be interpreted as negli-

gence, inconsistency or malpractice. Inherently, it is impossible to verify whether the respondents

have answered the questions in good faith and in accordance with actual state of affairs, or if they

have given the answers that they believed would place their corporation in a favourable light.

37 See chapter 3.8 Discussion of Results, p. 51

50

3.7 Limitation of Survey Method

As outlined above, this survey method is likely to be a limitation for eliciting self-critical responses.

Organisations are rarely likely to offer up information that may be seen as reflecting badly on them.

Moreover, as opposed to a face-to-face interview, the survey method excludes the researcher’s

possibility to monitor that respondents do not, based on new information available, change an-

swers already given. Thus, the option of follow-ups such as “in question X you stated A, how does

this correlate with your answer to question XX?” is precluded because this would disclose the re-

searcher’s intention with the question. An intended inference which is best kept undisclosed as it

could affect the outcome of some of the answers. This aspect has influenced the phrasing of a

number of follow-up questions, e.g. Q18 c) Please check the below document types generated in

English by non-linguists without assistance/interference from linguistic employees at any time. If the

respondent checks ”Business Correspondence”, a facile conclusion would be that, apparently, the

corporation does not regard the employees’ business correspondence as a crucial parameter to its

identity, or ethos. However, such an inference is unfair if the respondent is not offered an option to

substantiate his/her selection. Therefore, a follow-up question must be value-neutral avoiding it to

affect the answer. A specific definition of the topic would not be achieved by phrasing a follow-up

like this: ”Is it important for the company’s image that the document types not checked are flaw-

less?”. Such a phrasing would implicitly indicate that the document types checked are irrelevant.

Obviously, the answer to why business correspondence has been checked would be that it would

be too time and resource consuming to proofread all outgoing correspondence. Proofreading

would become a bottleneck to communication. Another reasonable answer would be that they trust

all employees do their utmost to not send out faulty emails, letters, and faxes. Possibly, what would

happen if this follow-up question were listed is that the respondents who did initially check one or

more document types would scroll back up and de-select them, because nobody wants to have

anybody believe that it does not matter that part of the company’s communication is defective.

Further elaboration to follow under each question where deemed necessary.

3.8 Discussion of Results

Below is a step-by-step discussion of results. Some, however, are taken out of the chronological

order as they group with other questions. Some are also referred to in several contexts. The inter-

esting findings need discussion - others merely serve as statistical background results and will not

be discussed in detail. A detailed graphic presentation of the results is attached as Appendix 2. On

crucial points, the results will be balanced against the contrastive D group.

51

Q1 a) Please state type of organisation: 47.4% is an expected high rate of globals. This opens a dis-

cussion of the concept of “global”. Clearly, it would be legitimate to take on a market perspective. If

a corporation is represented around the globe or if its products are available worldwide, it can be

characterised as being global. Another way of seeing “global”, however, would be from the investor

perspective: is the corporation open for global investments? Related to Q1 b) Is the corporation list-

ed on an international stock exchange?, an aspect which would certainly be a valid incentive for a-

ligning financial information and other information relevant to investors in English38, an average of

55.1% answered in the affirmative whereas only 34.5% of DK are listed on an international stock

exchange. Cross-tabulated with Q1 a) only 44.4% of the DK, who see themselves as global are ac-

tually listed on an international stock exchange whereas the rates for A and NA are 75% and

87.5% respectively.

Contrastive group D: One of the corporations sees itself as multinational while the other sees itself

as global. Both are listed on an international stock exchange.

Q2 a) What is the composition of the board in terms of nationality? and Q3 a) What is the composi-

tion of the executive management in terms of nationality? These two elements comprise one of the

fundamental aspects of CL (corporate language) as they are a strong indication of whether a cor-

poration is really serious about their global intentions39. Whereas approx. 25% foreigners (neither

Danes nor Scandinavians) are members of A and NA boards, only 5% foreigners are members of

DK boards. The same tendency applies to executive managements – here the distribution is: A:

10.3%, DK: 6.0%, NA: 13.2%. These are remarkably low rates considering that in average 39.5%

of the corporations use international executive search firms when recruiting executives. This might

indicate that even though international recruitment measures are taken, selection criteria still in-

clude Danish proficiency, which obviously eliminates a wide range of foreign candidates. Again,

this points in the direction of a multinational structure with identity deeply embedded in national ori-

gin40 rather than a global structure.

Contrastive group D: one has foreigners both on the board and in the executive management,

while the other corporation did not complete the question.

Q4 a) Does the corporation have a communication department? This question says something about

a corporation’s view on stakeholder relations. If it does not have a separate communication depart-

ment, but delegates its communication to individual departments conducting the daily communica-

38 see chapter 2.4.5 Financial Relations, p. 23 39 see chapter 2.9 International Board of Directors and Executive Management, p. 38 40 cf. Stohl’s definition in chapter 2.9 International Board of Directors and Executive Management, p. 38

52

tion, it could imply that there is no holistic consistency in the overall communication, and, conse-

quently, probably no communication strategy to pave the way for uniformity of individual depart-

ments’ communication. Half of the corporations have separate communication departments, DK

even 63.3%. If the answers from those without a separate communication department are cross-

tabulated with their answers given under Q29 Which of the below strategies/policies have been for-

mulated in writing?, as anticipated, the majority of these corporations (60%) do not have a commu-

nication strategy, DK even 72.7%. If they believe that a common CL is going to solve communica-

tion alignment problems, maybe they are starting in the wrong place. If communication, and the re-

sponsibility for it, has been spread out to a wide range of departments, a CL will not align the over-

all communication, as there will be no coordinated dissemination of values pervading the corpora-

tion’s communication. In order to ensure this coordination, a corporation should not only have a

separate communication department, ideally, the communication manager would also be part of

the executive management41. Q4 c) Is the communication manager a member of the executive man-

agement? indicates to how great an extent a corporation has incorporated communication issues in

its strategic and tactical decision-making. DK seem to disagree because out of those who do have

a separate communication department only 11.1% has a communication manager as part of the

executive management whereas the rates for A and NA are 75% and 77.8% respectively.

Contrastive group D: Both corporations have separate communication departments and their com-

munication managers are members of the executive management.

Q5 Are there any HQ expatriates in key subsidiary positions? The relatively high yes-rate (45.8%)

could be interpreted as if corporations at large are run under the principles of the multinational or-

ganisation structure42 which forms a contrast to Q1 a) where 47.4% claim to be global organisa-

tions. However, the reason could also be that expatriates function as language intermediaries in

order to facilitate communication between HQ and subsidiaries in countries that are not traditionally

well versed in English, Marschan-Piekkari (2001). Therefore, a follow-up question is needed to ver-

ify which considerations expatriations are based on: Q6 Why do you use/not use expatriates? An

average of only 2.8% stating that expatriates function as language intermediaries clearly indicates

that the latter is not the case. 38.4% state that expatriates are used to implement procedures and

processes in order to ensure compliance and co-ordination. This might point in the direction of a

multinational tendency. As it appears from Appendix 2 far more DK corporations use expatriates

than A and NA.

41 see chapter 2.3 External and Internal Communication, p. 13 42 cf. Stohl’s definition in chapter 2.9 International Board of Directors and Executive Management, p. 38

53

7 Does documentation exist on when the corporation decided to make English its CL? As mentioned

above respondents from Danish subsidiaries of foreign companies may not have enough inside

knowledge about HQ’s history or may not be able to retrieve information on a specific year or date

of commencement. However, there is no significant difference between corporations with Danish

HQ and Danish subsidiaries of foreign corporations: 71.1% state that no such documentation ex-

ists.

Q8 Which processes/actions went ahead of introducing English as CL? This, indeed, is very intrigu-

ing. Presumably, not many changes in business procedures are made without thorough planning,

calculations, cost-benefit analysis and subsequent follow-ups and evaluation. Yet, as many as

78.8% have no record of steps taken prior to introducing English as CL. Clearly, no changes are

made without prior needs analysis, so the reason for the respondents’ low level of insightfulness

may reflect that the transition from local language to a superordinate language is not present in the

minds of the respondents. Q7 + Q8 may indicate that there is no hard-and-fast boundary for the in-

troduction of English as CL. It appears to be a gradual adaptation that has “infiltrated” communica-

tion over a long span of time making the decision on designating English as the official CL a mere

technicality rather than a huge change.

Q9 By whom was the decision to introduce English as CL made? The highest score, which is 57.8%

stating that either the board or the executive management made this decision, indicates that such

decisions are made at strategic and tactical levels. This, however, makes the validity of the results

from Q7 + Q8 even more questionable, because typically resolution minutes are taken at board

and executive management meetings. So, even though actual routines for communication in Eng-

lish have been defined over time without official approval from the executive management and with

no overall coordination, still, the official decision must have been made on a specific date which is

most likely to be found in minute books or records.

Q10 Is it stated anywhere in writing (annual reports, company profile brochures, website, etc.) that

English is the CL of the organisation? The only ”true” media for publication of this kind of informa-

tion would be job postings and employee manuals as it is obviously essential that both potential

and existing employees at a certain organisational level know that they are expected to communi-

cate in English. Published in any other media the information becomes part of marketing. Never-

theless, 72.2% claim that this kind of information is not stated anywhere at all. Evidently, this is

hard to believe and it only takes a few searches on internet job databases to verify that this is in

fact not true. To a wide extent, DK sited corporations do include information on CL in job postings.

An explanation for the high rate stating the opposite could be that the respondents did not think of

54

job postings and employee manuals or that they have felt an implicit accusation of using CL as a

marketing tool, a fact they might see as a less legitimate reason.

The follow-up questions, Q10 b) + Q10 c) why is it/is it not important for the outside world to know?

have somewhat poor response rates for which reason it is not safe to determine anything based on

these. It is interesting, though, that only two respondents replied “for recruiting purposes” when

asked to elaborate on reasons for publishing information on their CL.

Q11 What are the main reasons for having English as CL? The dispersion of checks under this ques-

tion is somewhat evened out due to the vast variety of options. No single option has gained a signi-

ficant concentration of checks, which strongly indicates that a common position on CL is not imme-

diately impending. The highest concentration of checks are on the “wrong” arguments, though.

When options 1, 2 and 10 get the highest concentration of checks (30.4%) it is a strong indication

that the corporations regard CL a marketing and/or external communication tool. And undoubtedly,

a vast number of corporations are, to some extent, convinced that the use of English as CL is im-

pelled by a need to communicate in an increasing number of markets. Ostensibly, a CL is perceiv-

ed as an external communication matter, or merely, as indicated above, a marketing tool. Such

factors, however, do not render probable an absolute necessity to impose the use of English on

the entire organisation. Doing so in all communicative situations, including at operational level, not-

withstanding that the use of local language would be a better solution, is acting against sound busi-

ness acumen and the principles of best practice. Similarly, option 3 (11.2%), which suggests mi-

metic behaviour, i.e. the corporations want to imitate market leading organisations, would be a val-

id motivation, yet not a circumstance which qualifies as a weighty incentive to introduce a substan-

tial change in the corporation’s communication practices. Worst case scenario, this in fact holds

the potential for a corporate identity schism: If a CL is introduced merely to imitate the big ones,

then top management may face difficulties integrating this new aspect of the corporate culture

throughout the organisation. Because if they have failed to take into consideration the scope of a

CL, how will they ever succeed in making employees understand the reason for introducing it and

act accordingly? If a series of new values are going to be more than shallow management rhetoric,

consequently, middle management plays a huge role as interpreters and agents of change,

Petersen (2002).

Obviously, intentional changes are desirable, unintended effects, on the contrary, are negative.

Culture, in general, serves multiple functions, e.g. as identity provider, complexity reducer, guid-

ance tool, motivator and inspirator. Ideally, these are the properties that organisations seek to con-

vert into their culture – the corporate culture. When employees identify themselves with an organi-

55

sation, they are attracted to its culture and values rather than to the pay check. The corporate cul-

ture provides a mental framework that stimulates its employees’ self-esteem, social relations, etc.,

Nielsen (2000). If the linguistic appearance of this framework is changed top-down throughout the

organisation, it may no longer agree with its employees’ perception of the corporation’s culture as

an identity provider. Consequently, they feel alienated and their commitment to the corporation

vanishes.

Options 4-6 + 9, however, seem to fall in line with an organisation’s transition to becoming global

with a pro-active position on financial relations and horizontal and inter-unit communication. It

could be argued that investors are external stakeholders, thus making this argumentation self-

contradictory. However, once investors buy shares they become the owners of a corporation and

are converted into internal stakeholders. These “true” motives, however, only count for 23.7%. The

remaining options are, if not downright wrong, then at least dubious. Moreover, they got the majori-

ty of checks.

Q12 In which way do you perceive English as CL? A ”true vs. false” ratio would be the best way to

analyse the result of this question. True being “true” checks of options 2 and 4, false being “true”

checks of options 1 and 3 while option 5 is somewhat tricky. The “false scale of the balance” clear-

ly indicates that there is something about the concept of CL which the respondents have not fully

understood. Obviously, all employees at all levels cannot and should not be expected to speak

high level English in all communicative situations. Nevertheless, 26% claim that the entire organi-

sation must communicate exclusively in English and half of the respondents (49.9%) claim that all

employees must be proficient in high level English. The “true scale of the balance” counts 39.2%

who claim that the CL has no effect on their general language use and 55.3% who believe that the

CL contributes to the corporation’s internal image and identity.

Option 5 is tricky because to some extent CL does contribute to the corporation’s external image

and identity. However, the wide acceptance of this statement (78.7%) held together with Q11 sug-

gests a disproportionate focus on CL as a primarily external communication tool. Evidently, a CL

will in one way or another affect a corporation’s image and identity because if the question were

phrased “have any of your stakeholders ever discovered that you use English as CL”, probably no

one would answer “no”. Yet, it is merely a side effect – not the objective.

This tendency is further substantiated in Q13 What are the primary functions of a CL? Accumulating

the arguments in favour of external communication/marketing (2 set guidelines for external com-

munication, 4 to build an image of an international player in the global market, 5 to comply with in-

ternational accounting standards, 6 to comply with corporate governance standards) these count

56

for as much as 45.9% whereas the “correct” arguments (1 set guidelines for internal communica-

tion, 10 to ensure a consistent working environment for an international board, executive manage-

ment and ownership) only count for 20.6%

13% assign high priority to generation of product specifications etc. Hence, we are still in the trans-

lation sphere, not in the communication sphere. There is every probability that English will eventu-

ally become a transit language for all documents from which other language versions will be gene-

rated. Still, this is a matter of translation logistics, not a matter of CL. Clearly, agglomeration eco-

nomics is a valid argument for centralised generation of all sorts of documentation – well, for all

sorts of routines for that matter. This should always, however, be balanced against a subsequent

increased need for translation back into a wide range of local languages. Ideally, different lan-

guage versions of all types of documentation should be restricted to a need-to-know basis. How-

ever, similar to Q11, a remarkable dispersion of priority given to practically all options is a strong

indication that no single function ranks as the paramount reason for having English as CL.

Q14 and Q16 are constructed in order to identify the organisational scope of CL - how deep down

in the organisational taxonomy is English preferred over local language? A significant concentra-

tion (72.2%) in Q14 An organisation can truly claim to have English as its CL when: points at a gen-

eral English proficiency requirement throughout the organisation on all levels. As already com-

mented on under Q12 it seems highly unlikely that the corporations actually believe this to be true.

Therefore, it might be interesting to make a distinction between organisational levels which is pre-

sented in Q16 How often do the below activities occur in English? Generally, A have very good

“always”-scores in their internal communication: Board meetings: 68.4%, management meetings:

26.3%, in-house staff meetings at HQ: 89.5%, inter-unit meetings with subsidiaries: 83.3% result-

ing in an average of 66.9%. DK and NA have distinctly lower scores: 35.6% and 35.7% in average.

Q15, Q22, Q26 and Q28 offer a verification of the frames of reference for CL. Q15 a) A policy for

the CL, its implications and scope is: Ideally, strict regulations of a dynamic field such as communi-

cation need not be laid down43. This, however, is not the same as to say that that there should be

no contingency measures for alleviation of linguistic problems. If CL and its scope are not defined

and no teams of linguistic employees are assigned to facilitating the daily use of a foreign lan-

guage, there is a risk that the good intentions of best practice44 might turn into sheer laissez-faire

and the overall value of seeking to align communication is reduced remarkably. 31.9% consent that

such a policy is crucial, nevertheless, in Q22 Does the corporation have a language policy for coping

43 See chapter 1.6 English as Corporate Language – Author’s Definition, p. 5 44 As described in chapter 1.6 English as Corporate Language – Author’s Definition, p. 5 and chapter 2.5 International Standardisation, p. 25

57

with problems that may arise from using English? only 7.1% state that they actually do have a poli-

cy for coping with such problems.

But while such procedures may not have been put down in writing, to some extent DK seem to

make up for this by deploying employees, often referred to as language ambassadors, whose job it

is to alleviate linguistic problems. In Q26 Is a specific department or person(s) responsible for the

development and implementation of the CL throughout the organisation? 26.7% of DK replied in the

affirmative while only 5.3% A and no NA apply this facilitating function. A positive inference to be

drawn from the latter two might be that CL is considered a dynamic organism living its own life

amongst employees who are perfectly capable of managing when and how to handle its use. An-

other, less positive, inference to be drawn could be that an overall guidance of the daily practice of

CL is non-existent. Indisputably, this indeed makes it hard for the employees to figure out just what

the concept of CL actually comprises.

And the outlook is none too bright as to the intentions to define CL, because even though 66.7% in Q28 a) Has the corporation implemented international standards (ISO9001:2000 etc.) for quality man-

agement/assessment, production, HR, logistics, management in general, etc.? state that they have

already implemented one or more international standards, only 33.1% would consider implement-

ing an international standard for CL, were such a standard available, while 42.7% refused to even

consider this. The survey does not suggest an isolated explanation to this reluctance. Reasons

listed include such diverse statements as: “Language is not important”, “it would have no effect”

and “it would be too time consuming”. More likely, however, an overall reason might be that up-

grading, or certifying, part of a corporation’s administrative routines to benchmarking level is quite

costly. Obviously, such heavy costs must be recovered over time by the improvement of perfor-

mance or through an advanced market position resulting from such standardisations. And inas-

much as language and communication are not direct economic parameters, the board and top

management might find it risky to venture into standardisation of such issues.

Q17 and Q18 verify the distinction between the use of English and Danish in unified and multi-

tiered communication - the ratio between the corporations’ use of oral and written English. Oral be-

ing primarily multi-tiered communication, written, primarily unified45.

The communication pattern in Q16 seems to be invalidated in Q17 What is the ratio between Danish

and English usage in the corporation’s oral communication? which is largely the same issue only

approached differently. Here, the vast concentration of A and NA checks for all organisational

45 See chapter 2 COMMUNICATION, p. 9

58

levels and practically all stakeholder communication are on a 75/25 and a 100/0 split between

Danish and English. DK checks are generally up one level with a concentration of checks on a

50/50 and a 75/25 split between Danish and English.

Q18 a) In which languages are the below documents generated? The strongest inference to be read

from Q18 is that the monolingual organisation is a non-existent paradigm. It clearly shows that

practically all documents are generated in local language parallelly to CL. This again indicates that

corporations at large do not use English as an overruling language, but more likely as a transit lan-

guage, or conversion linkage between various parallel local languages. Danish documents are

used internally and for Danish stakeholders while English documents are largely distributed to sub-

sidiaries. Obviously, English documents generated at a Danish HQ are also used directly for inter-

national press and investors through websites, but this is irrelevant in this context. Once arrived at

the subsidiaries, the English documents are translated into the respective local languages, a pro-

cess which fuels the supposition of a transit language; English documents are used as converters

of communication, not as permanent bearers of communication. Thus, the communication struc-

ture has been changed from having written documentation for stakeholders in various language

areas generated at source by language specialists into primarily having language specialists trans-

lating into and from just one language, i.e. English. Thus, paradoxically, the opposite of the intend-

ed has been achieved: Cost of translation has been doubled, dissemination of communication has

become laborious and has been delayed. Moreover, an element of misinterpretation has been add-

ed as there is a risk of altering the sense of a text each time it is translated.

One of the main functions of an intranet is to serve as a lever of cross-organisational communica-

tion46. If organisations run parallel forums in corporate vs. local language on their intranet portal

they may risk that knowledge and expertise is not shared freely between international units. Para-

doxically, it might also be assumed, that corporations who only publish documents in CL at times

experience inefficiency in their functional communication47. E.g. A have a somewhat even distribu-

tion between Danish and English checks of option 5: intranet. This does not, however, imply, that

half of the corporations exclusively publish English documents while the other half exclusively pub-

lishes Danish. Six corporations publish both English and Danish documents on their intranet while

seven exclusively Danish. This may imply that the intranet of the latter seven functions as top-

down one-way communication from the Anglo headquarters parallel with a local language intranet

for their subsidiaries. The questionnaire does not reveal this, but it implies that these subsidiaries

have read-only access to the English pages of their intranet.

46 chapter 2.6 Intranet, p. 29 47 see chapter 2.3.2 Internal Communication, p. 16

59

Most of the document types listed in Q18 a) are optional concerning language. However, docu-

ments such as employment contracts, employee manuals and safety regulations are subject to

rules of Danish Employment Law for which reason such documents must be available in Danish. It

thus gives food for thought that some corporations do not provide such documents in Danish. E.g.

23.8% of A only offer English safety regulations and working environment instructions and 16.1%

DK exclusively publish their employment manuals in English. If an American employment contract

is offered to employees in a Danish subsidiary, this clearly conflicts with Danish labour market re-

gulations, culture and tradition as this document is based on American conditions. Nevertheless,

9.5% of A only use English employment contracts.

The crux of the matter, however, is that no matter which languages such document types are avail-

able in, it still has nothing to do with CL. In other words, they are not a parameter to verify whether

or not a corporation uses English as CL inasmuch as linguistic products at large must be perceived

as elements of profiling, PR and advertising and thus constitute operating costs alongside any oth-

er fixed costs48. The intriguing issue is to verify who generates these documents. Ideally, only doc-

ument types supporting author’s definition of CL49 (intranet, reports, minutes, and business corre-

spondence) should be generated directly in English by non-linguists. Therefore, Q18 c) Please

check the below document types generated and published in English by non-linguists without assis-

tance/interference from linguistic employees at any time is very central to the verification of what CL

is not. It clearly reveals that the traditional bilingual business procedure to a wide extent still pre-

vails in respect of written documentation/communication. The vast majority of marketing related

documentation is still handled by linguists, so it is reasonably safe to infer that CL does not imply

that all employees at large contribute to all types of documentation in English. That said, critically

high rates of English documentation generated directly by non-linguists apply to some document

types. While DK let no one but linguists generate company profile brochures, almost 25% of A and

NA entrust non-linguists with this task. Same pattern goes for accounts and annual reports: A:

42.9%, DK: 5.3%, and NA: 33.3% as well as other document types.

Maybe specialised knowledge about the subject field takes priority over linguistic skills. If this is the

case, these corporations must take into consideration that this could imply an increased risk of mis-

takes due to such employees’ limited formulating capacity. They may not be aware of the signifi-

cance of wording and other linguistic issues which, worst case, may be critical to the corporation’s

overall image.

48 See chapter 1.6 English as Corporate Language – Author’s Definition, p. 5 49 See chapter 1.6 English as Corporate Language – Author’s Definition, p. 5

60

Q18 d) Why are the document types not selected generated by linguistic employees? Clearly, the in-

tention with this question was to have the respondents emphasise that linguistic correctness is

more important to certain types of documents than to other. However, as the average response

rate to this question was far below 50% (39.1%) it is pointless to infer anything from such replies.

Therefore, this question was intentionally deleted and does not appear in the graphic illustration.

Q19 What is the corporation’s experience with using English as CL? As the average response rate

to this question was even lower than that of Q18 d) (31.8%) this question was also intentionally de-

leted from the graphic illustration.

However, the vast majority of written external (marketing) documentation, unified communication,

remains the task of linguists, which, again, is a strong indication that CL is primarily a multi-tiered

process50, inasmuch as written documentation, in general, must be flawless while oral communica-

tion should obviously be presentable, yet is not to the same extent seen as a profiling or marketing

tool. This leads to a detailed focus on the importance of correctness of specific communication

media: Q20 How crucial are correctness and accuracy of English used in the below situations? Not

surprisingly, most claim that correctness of written external documentation is very crucial while oral

communication, internal and external, is regarded less or not crucial.

The contrastive group D seems more focused on correctness of English in all communication situa-

tions.

It is also relevant to look at the implications CL may bring about for management and employees

alike. Q21 a) Do documents generated in English by subsidiaries cause any comprehension prob-

lems to HQ? + Q21 b) and Q21 c) reveal remarkably few misunderstandings in vertical and hori-

zontal communication. Linked with Q24 a)-d) Have members of the board/executive management/line

management/employees at large ever expressed a sense of alienation or intimidation in relation to

the use of English? an apparent picture begins to emerge of an executive level of corporate Den-

mark that to no appreciable extent feels intimidated by the use of English. It is not surprising that

most corporations are reluctant towards exposing negative sides of their business practices.

Therefore, the psychological factor, the defence mechanism, described above51 may have a signifi-

cant impact on the results of these questions, because they form a glaring contrast to language re-

search projects on comprehension problems where large multinationals experience difficulties on a

regular basis even after many years’ use of English as CL52.

50 chapter 2 COMMUNICATION, p. 9 51 See chapter 3 EXPLORATORY SURVEY, p. 45 52 See chapter 2.9 International Board of Directors and Executive Management, p. 38

61

The highest concentration of comprehension problems is amongst employees at large – i.e. organi-

sational levels that, ideally, are not supposed to be affected by a CL. The fact that such problems

seem to occur more frequently further down the organisational hierarchy obviously might indicate

that less educated employees or staff with non-academic learning more easily feel intimidated by

using English. However, as the “don’t know”-rates increase even more distinctively down the orga-

nisational hierarchy, it might also indicate an unconnected organisational structure in the sense

that the respondents of the survey, who almost all belong to staff functions on top organisational

levels, may have no or little insight (or interest) into whether or not employees at large feel alien-

ated towards the corporation’s use of English.

Q21 d) How are comprehension problems dealt with? A corporation can gain a synergy poten-

tial by way of exchanging experiences across the organisation53. Apparently, neither DK nor NA

deal with linguistic problems on an organisation-wide basis and only 6.7% of A register linguistic

problems centrally. Nor are linguists deployed on a general basis to help solve such problems.

Comprehension problems are almost solely dealt with internally between divisions and subsidiaries

experiencing problems (73.9%), which suggests that an expertise/routine in solving repeated oc-

currences is not generated centrally in the organisation. Thus, several subsidiaries may have to

solve identical problems over and over again due to lack of a central steering group or an intranet

trouble shooting facility54. It may of course be argued that Danish, Spanish, or Chinese approaches

to English may require differentiated solutions for which reason such issues do not need central at-

tention. However, if several subsidiaries experience identical problems repeatedly in their commu-

nication with one particular subsidiary, clearly, a superordinate intervention might save a lot of un-

coordinated individual attempts to solve the problem.

Q23 a) What is done to retain and attract staff proficient in English? This question represents a

somewhat faulty wording. An option was listed in which the respondents were requested to check

“A high level of English proficiency is required in job postings” followed by two options: “This level

a) is tested and/or b) must be documented at job interviews”. The wording is defective though, as it

offers no alternative answers such as “An average level of English proficiency is required in job

postings” and “No specific level of English proficiency is required in job postings”. Thus, it is impos-

sible to verify whether those respondents who did not answer this question did so because they do

not require a high level of English proficiency in job postings or simply because they omitted this

question for other reasons. Nevertheless, a high response rate affirming that a high level of English

proficiency is indeed required in job postings (70.5%) indicates that the faulty wording of this ques-

tion does not constitute a major concern.

53 See chapter 2.2 Horizontal Communication, p. 12 54 See chapter 2.6 Intranet, 29

62

In Q23 c) What would be a typical phrase in an executive job posting? 38.6% state “You are highly

proficient in English”. It must be assumed, that chief executives in general do not occupy them-

selves with generation of documents in English, or any other language for that matter. So execu-

tives’ English proficiency must be focused on oral proficiency in order to understand, express and

convey strategic visions and decisions.

Personality is obviously a paramount parameter when recruiting employees to team up with the ex-

isting staff. In order to fit potential employees into the corporate culture, personality tests are widely

used throughout corporate Denmark. Of those corporations using personality tests (75.5%), 55.2%

state in Q23 f) Do you use personality tests? that they conduct such tests in Danish when recruiting

executives. For DKs the rate is even 72.7%. It is likely to assume, that an intangible subtlety such

as personality is best described and perceived in one’s mother tongue. This is very understandable

– yet, it reveals that even though the vast majority of the contributing corporations see themselves

as global, they are in fact still firmly embedded in their national origin.

Q25 Does lack of English proficiency affect an employee’s career opportunity? A somewhat even

40.7% no vs. 48.8% yes split indicates that this is a precarious question, so elaboration is needed.

If yes, in what way might it affect his/her career? 66.2% state that it would hinder promotion, while

13.2% state that such employees are not offered positions abroad.

Most intriguingly, in 23 h) What is done to upgrade/maintain employees’ English proficiency? 26.4%

do not provide any learning resources for improvement of employees’ English proficiency. They are

expected to upgrade proficiency in their spare time should they need to.

The answers to Q27 a) If the corporation has an ethnically diverse staff mix it is because: and Q27 b)

If the corporation has an ethnically homogeneous staff mix it is because: show a distinction between

the corporation’s intention to pursue ethnic diversity vs. the fear of communication breakdown and

misunderstandings originating in cultural differences. Basically, these questions elucidate the ex-

tent to which the corporation is focused on ethnic staff diversity and issues relating thereto. Obvi-

ously, an exhaustive value judgment on the corporations’ diversity policy cannot be inferred from

just one question – however, it does plot an indication of the corporations’ position on ethnic diver-

sity perceived as a strength rather than a problem.

63

87.8% of the corporations with an ethnically diverse staff mix state that they recruit the best quali-

fied heads for all positions regardless of nationality which indicates a geocentric approach55. Obvi-

ously, this option is serving the answer on a silver plate as no one would like to indicate that they

do not recruit the best qualified heads. Thus, it would be implying that other issues influence the re-

cruitment policy – a signal which is not politically correct. Intriguingly, 59.3% of the corporations

with an ethnically homogeneous staff mix also state that they recruit the best qualified heads for all

positions regardless of nationality.

Q29 Which of the below strategies have been formulated in writing?: As anticipated, almost all cor-

porations (93.1%) have a marketing strategy. Slightly fewer, though still the vast majority (74.7%),

are aware of the importance of a communication strategy. However, when it comes to a language

policy, which could be characterised as the instruction manual on how to communicate, only 13.1%

seem to regard this as important. DK rank somewhat higher than average with 25.9%. This only

seems to support the idea of CL as primarily multi-tiered communication inasmuch as a language

policy is mostly targeted at employees generating written documentation – i.e. unified communica-

tion.

Q30 The corporation’s identity in the outside world is built by: Schultz & Hatch (2000) outline two

fundamental identity categories: corporate identity dealing with a corporation’s presentation of who

it is and what it stands for in relation to external stakeholders, and organisational identity defining

the corporation’s identity as perceived by its internal stakeholders. Petersen (2002) makes no such

distinction between corporate and organisational identity. Instead, she breaks corporate identity

down in three: a) self-image, how the corporation perceives itself and how it wants others to per-

ceive it, b) identity, the true identity of the corporation and c) ethos, the way in which the corpora-

tion is perceived by its stakeholders and by the public in general.

In this survey, it is difficult to make a distinction between b) and c). Moreover, respondents’ replies

are, inherently, an expression of what the corporations believe are the essential parameters – not

necessarily the indisputable truth. Clearly, a number of the listed options under Q30 can be catego-

rised under a), and not surprisingly the top three parameters which the respondents believe are the

primary identity-makers are in fact PR products created by the corporations for that specific pur-

pose. Website/company profile brochures, advertising/marketing and press releases total as much

as 33.0% which seemingly, makes marketing/branding at large the agreed #1 identity maker.

55 See chapter 2.9 International Board of Directors and Executive Management, p. 38

64

However, controlled, or guided, image creation only partly succeeds via profiling brochures and

statements of intent through missions and visions. As described earlier56, employees’ relations to

stakeholders are far more important to the corporate profile than annual reports and glossy profil-

ing brochures. Nevertheless, employees’ relations to stakeholders (incl. business correspondence)

and their personal relations outside the corporation only account for 21.5%. Ideally though, em-

ployees would have to be the outranking parameter and the logic of it all is quite commonplace:

The management motto Walk the talk, indicating that a corporation should practice what it preach-

es, is directly readable from its employees’ daily relations to the corporation’s stakeholders. If there

is a discrepancy between what a corporation says it stands for and what its stakeholders experi-

ence in their daily interaction with the employees, then authenticity of the corporation’s identity may

be damaged, Petersen (2000a). This is verified in option 8 where 11.6% assign great importance

to positive/negative publicity. And clearly so, because at the end of the day publicity at large, i.e.

press coverage which is not generated or “planted” by the corporation itself, is of course a result of

its business actions and general deeds in its surroundings catalyzed by the way in which its em-

ployees communicate with its stakeholders. Corporations may not consider this kind of press cov-

erage self-generated, nevertheless, it is – although far from self-controlled. This kind of publicity is

categorisable under c) “ethos”. Added to the above 21.5%, employees’ and the corporation’s indi-

rect influence on its image and identity total 33.1%.

While claimed to be primarily a profiling tool in Q11 and to contribute to the corporation’s external

image and identity in Q12, in Q30 CL only gets 5.9% of the total votes as a profile builder.

Finally, 14.7% assign importance to the product as the primary identity builder. They may be stuck

in an old industrial perception of the market. The product may of course be the number one identity

builder for many industrial products with unique patented properties, but to many big brands (in-

cluding some of the brands represented in this survey), the product’s properties are of inferior im-

portance. Production techniques, access to raw materials, distribution, etc. belong to the “old eco-

nomy”. E.g. Nokia, the mobile phone conglomerate, has never carried out any production of mobile

phones themselves. Similarly with Sony/Ericsson – sometimes the two competitors even have their

mobile phones manufactured at the same production facility in the Far East, Mollerup (2002c). An

extreme example illustrating that what is the real identity creating parameters in a knowledge soci-

ety is not the product, but rather the organisation and the knowledge, creativity, and innovation

contained in it. A strong product is no longer enough; in most cases, a corporation also needs to

convey a profile that reflects an attitude. In other words: End users’ preferences for particular

brands are triggered by something else than the core function of a product.

56 See chapter 2.3 External and Internal Communication, p. 13

65

Q31 Linguistic configuration of the corporation’s IT equipment: This is a good indicator of just how

well, or rather how firmly, English is implemented in the corporation and to which degree the man-

agement wishes its employees to comply with the use of CL. The high rating assigned to the use of

English software, 76.3%, may simply be an indication of lack of Danish versions of specialised ap-

plications whereas English configured hardware is a much more intentional step towards a general

use of English. If only English keyboards are supplied for a corporation’s computers, this is a

strong incentive for the staff not to write in Danish/local language. This situation applies to 43.8%.

In Danish we have letters (æ, ø, å) which are characteristic of the Danish language. However, of

those respondents who claim that they exclusively use English hardware, 87.8% somehow manag-

ed to use Danish characters when completing the questionnaire or in their email correspondence

with the author of this thesis. Therefore, either their replies under Q31 are not correct or the em-

ployees find ways to omit the monolingual intent of the management.

Summarising the results; prior to the survey, it might have been reasonable to assume that Anglo

corporations would be clear-cut on the practices of CL due to their English corporate culture while

Danish HQ’ed and non-Anglo corporations might be inclined to more hesitantly attempt to generate

consistency. Oppositely, it could also have been assumed, that the very fact that non-Anglos and

DK HQ’ed corporations have always had to adapt to markets abroad would have forced them to a

pro-active approach to the structuring and systematising of the use of a common CL. On most

counts, however, nothing seems to substantiate neither of these theories in any significant way.

Moreover, since the corporations under category D are largely using English to the same extent

and at the same organisational levels as those under categories A, B and C, the difference be-

tween having and not having a CL must be entirely theoretical. In order to carry out activities in a

global market, a number of internal communication routines are compelled to be linguistically

aligned. This is a fact beyond doubt. Thus, the theoretical difference between corporations adher-

ing to a CL and those who do not would then have to be detectable through a much more struc-

tured and targeted approach to the use of English in categories A-C. This, however, also seems to

remain unauthenticated.

This discussion of results has not given rise to a revision of the definition of CL in chapter 1.657, a

definition that sets forth a number of criteria for the “true” deployment, or exercise, of CL. The

“ideal” completion of the questionnaire would include affirmative checks in focal points/central

57 chapter 1.6 English as Corporate Language – Author’s Definition, page 5

66

questions such as: a global corporation (listed on an international stock exchange), foreigners on

the board + executive management, a separate communication department with a communication

manager who is a member of the executive management, a number of in-house strategic and tacti-

cal communicative routines, oral and written, carried out primarily in English while the general lan-

guage use remains unaffected by the CL, no rules defining the practices of CL, however a commu-

nication strategy and a language policy outlining the organisational scope of CL.

Balancing the results of the exploratory survey against this definition, only a single one of the cor-

porations meets all of these organisational requirements. A few are missing one or two of the listed

key elements, while the vast majority is short of several of these. More interestingly, measured a-

gainst the above benchmark the two corporations without English as CL under category D actually

have a higher score than many of the corporations with English as CL. Therefore, whether or not a

corporation is officially adhering to English as CL, this is no indicator of the scope nor the extent of

its English usage.

67

4 CONCLUSION

The objectives of this thesis were 1) to verify why an increasing number of corporations of non-

Anglo origin introduce English as corporate language and 2) to advance, if possible, a definition of

the concept English as corporate language.

English as CL is a concept used by corporations carrying out activities in a global market or en-

deavouring to do so. However, unclarity as to why they do so and what the overall scope of CL is

still prevails. This thesis has offered a discussion of a number of aspects to be aware of when im-

plementing a foreign language as a corporation’s superordinate language.

A consensus seems to prevail amongst Danish business journalists that a benchmark for the anal-

ysis of a corporation’s gearedness for globalisation is whether or not it uses English as CL. Be-

sides being a volatile simplification this is also a qualified truth inasmuch as the definition in chap-

ter 1.6 renders probable that English as CL is not an objective as such, but merely an inevitable

necessity spun off from other, more crucial, aspects of a corporation’s process of change towards

globalisation. These aspects include an international board of directors, chief executive manage-

ment, and ownership. Thus, a CL does not constitute an unambiguous indicator of a corporation’s

degree of or preparedness for globalisation, far from. Oppositely, it cannot be concluded that a cor-

poration without a superordinate CL is not geared for globalisation.

Neither theory, previous research nor practice sets forth practicable guidelines, frames of reference

or definitions of CL so one of the means to meet the objectives of this thesis was to determine the

organisational scope of the concept by discussing a wide range of theoretical aspects of a corpora-

tion’s communication, the parties involved in communication, frames for performing communica-

tion, parameters that affect communication and incentives for implementing English as CL. These

aspects formed the basis of an exploratory survey of seventy DK-sited corporations’ use of Eng-

lish. Corporations with Danish HQ, Anglo HQ, and non-Anglo HQ.

In recent years the synergy potential of incorporating communication in a global corporation’s stra-

tegic decision-making processes has become increasingly apparent. If CL is to be perceived as

part of a contemporary organisation’s fundamental communication structure, its scope and implica-

tions must, to some degree, be measurable. To date there is very limited recorded experience in

the field which is likely to be attributable to the fact that there is no collective perception of the con-

cept, its scope, and how various aspects of CL interact. Moreover, only a very few corporations

have a language policy outlining its frames of reference. Clearly, this makes attempts to document

its efficiency illusory.

68

The absence of a collective perception of the concept indicates that corporate Denmark’s approach

to CL is based on the principles of best practice. However, if the scope of CL is not devised and

there are no teams of linguistic employees specially assigned for facilitating the daily use of a for-

eign language, there is a risk that the good intentions of best practice might turn into sheer laissez-

faire, thus remarkably reducing the overall value that could otherwise be gained from aligning com-

munication by means of a superordinate language.

Global corporations benefit the most from a CL as the international composition of their organisa-

tional structure and use of cross-organisational participating networks not only provide the perfect

frames of reference; a superordinate language is an imperative necessity for these organisations’

strategic and tactical levels to be able to carry out their activities. Evidently, such motives would be

categorised as primary. Even though they claim to be global, the vast majority of contributors to

this survey show far more signs of being international or multinational rather than global for which

reason a number of self-evident arguments and incentives for using a superordinate language are

not immediately apparent. Motives, which could be labelled as secondary.

However, making value judgments on a corporation’s reasons, primary and secondary, for intro-

ducing English as CL is bound to be subject to extreme precaution. Because a branding/profiling

value or sheer imitation of market leaders may be as legitimate a reason as any other – be it spin-

off from structural changes or alignment of managerial and cross-organisational communication.

That said, it is hard to verify exactly what purpose a CL serves in a corporation that does not have

foreigners represented on the board nor in the executive management, is not listed on an interna-

tional stock exchange and does not have a separate communication department let alone a com-

munication strategy or language policy outlining the organisational scope and frames of reference

of CL. Moreover, if a CL is introduced as a corporate branding tool or merely due to mimetic be-

haviour, form clearly takes priority over substance which obviously erodes the executive manage-

ment’s ability to convey a reliable incentive for introducing English as CL in the first place. If a set

of new values is going to be more than shallow management rhetoric, it must come with an instruc-

tion manual, i.e. a CL cannot be successfully implemented without at least devising its organisa-

tional scope and frames of reference.

69

Thus, a much generalised definition of the intangible concept “English as corporate language” at its

present stage performed throughout corporate Denmark would be:

English is the preferred language when board and executive meetings are

attended by non-Danish speakers and when oral communication is carried

out between HQ and subsidiaries.

This definition emphasises oral communication, because the survey shows a tendency that CL is

primarily an oral, or multi-tiered, strategic/tactical communication tool. As for written documenta-

tion, though claimed to be within the sphere of CL by the majority of respondents, this type of com-

munication is still carried out the traditional way, i.e. most documents are translated into and from

English and are generated, translated and/or proofread by linguists. Used to a wide extent parallel-

ly with local language this suggests that English in written communication to a large extent is used

as a transit language – i.e. a conversion linkage between various parallel local languages within an

organisation. Thus, English documents are used as converters of communication, not as perma-

nent bearers of communication. This falls in line with the definition in chapter 1.6 which states that

CL does not affect a corporation’s generation of linguistic products – inherently, generation of Eng-

lish documents is a fixed operating cost just as is German, French, Spanish, etc. documents. An-

other point of the introductory definition which is verified by the survey is that CL is not a transition

to a monolingual organisation.

As no distinct differences between corporations with Danish HQ and Danish subsidiaries of foreign

corporations appear from the survey, an additional aspect of the survey was to balance the results

from corporations with English as CL against a contrastive group of global corporations without a

CL in order to verify if such corporations’ use of English with regards to areas of application differs

from that of those with a CL. A decisive factor might be a proactive policy as to deployment of lan-

guage ambassadors, language policy, etc. facilitating the use of a foreign language in those corpo-

rations adhering to an official use of English as CL. However, it also appears from the survey that

this is not the case. In other words; nothing measurable seems to distinguish a corporation with

English as CL from one without. At large, all corporations practice the use of English according to

the principles of best practice, not according to a fixed set of guidelines.

CL as a concept is still in a transitional phase, not yet implemented as a fully fledged alignment tool

of management communication. A clear cut definition of the concept is needed and more research

in this field is necessary.

70

4.1 Future Research

Although it must be assumed that CL’s present state of intangibility is merely a transitional phase,

two relevante research topics remain open: 1) An evident necessity to further define and systemati-

se the use of English as CL, along with its organisational scope and frames of reference and 2)

setting forth a basis for an approximation to an actual standardisation of CL.

A third crucial field of interest would be the long-term effects which a fully embedded and much

more systematised use of English might have on corporate identity. Are characteristic features em-

anating from a corporation’s national origin going to be overruled or ousted by its adaptation to a

global status – not market-wise which is already at an advanced state, but more specifically organi-

sation-wise and ownership-wise?

It might be anticipated that the more global the structure of an organisation becomes, the more

likely is this to affect its choice of communication partners. Clearly, national marketing tasks should

always be carried out locally by the corporation’s individual subsidiaries for optimal targeting, but

will the corporate branding undergo a supranational alignment?

Presumably, a Danish communication partner would be inclined to generate “Danish” profiles and

have them translated into English. In this way, the core expression of communication will remain

Danish although the wording would be English. Thus, the cultural origin is preserved although the

language is different. Oppositely, if Danish headquartered corporations prefer international commu-

nication conglomerates over Danish agencies, is this likely to affect the way in which the corpora-

tion is profiled and presented? Is the corporation’s original (true) identity likely to disappear and if

so, is this good or bad in a global market?

71

5 REFERENCES

PRIMARY LITERATURE Andersen, Ib et al, Valg af organisationssociologiske metoder, Samfundslitteratur, 1990 Cheney, George & Christensen, Lars Thøger: Organizational Identity – Linkages Between Internal and External Communication, in: Jablin, Fredric M. & Putnam, Linda L. The New Handbook of Organizational Communication – Advances in Theory, Research, and Methods, Sage Publications, Inc., 2001 Cheney, George & Christensen, Lars Thøger: Self-Absorption and Self-Seduction in the Corporate Identity Game, in: Schultz, Majken & Hatch, Mary Jo & Larsen, Mogens Holten: The Expressive Organization – Linking Identity, Reputation, and the Corporate Brand, Oxford University Press, 2000 Creswell, John W.: Research Design – Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, Sage Publications, 2003 Dowling, Grahame: Creating Corporate Reputations – Identity, Image, and Performance, Oxford University Press, 2001 Frandsen, Finn et al: International Markedskommunikation, Systime, 1997 Frandsen, Finn et al: Erhvervssprog Kommunikation Samfund, Systime, 1995 Grenness, Carl Erik: Kommunikation i organisationer, Klim, 1999 Johnsen, Erik: Ledelseskommunikation, in: Petersen, Helle og Lund, Anne Katrine Den kommunikerende organisation, Samfundslitteratur, 2000a Larsen, Mogens: ISO9001 og SKODA, in: Torreck, Pia Praktisk Ledelse 2, Børsen Ledelseshåndbøger, Børsen Forum, 2004 Marschan-Piekkari, Rebecca: New structural forms and inter-unit communication in multinationals: the case of Kone elevators, Acta Universitatis Oeconomicae Helsingiensis, 1996 Nickerson, Catherine: Playing the corporate language game, Rodopi, 2000 Petersen, Helle: Kvalitet i den kommunikerende organisation, in: Hildebrandt, Steen og Bukh, Per Nicolaj Økonomistyring, Børsen Ledelseshåndbøger, Børsen Forum, 2002 Stohl, Cynthia: Globalizing Organizational Communication in: Jablin, Fredric M. & Putnam, Linda L. The New Handbook of Organizational Communication – Advances in Theory, Research, and Methods, Sage Publications, Inc., 2001 Stohl, Cynthia: Organizational Communication – Connectedness in Action, Sage Publications, 1996

72

SECONDARY LITERATURE Brask, Jørgen: Bestyrelseshåndbogen (ch. 11.7.1 Virksomhedens ”bløde” strategiske handlingsparametre), Børsen Ledelseshåndbøger, Børsen Forum, 2001 Davies, Gary: Corporate Reputation and Competitiveness, Routledge, 2003 Dilenschneider, Robert L.: The Corporate Communications Bible, New Millennium Press, 2000 Grønning, Anette: Sprogstrategi som en del af en organisationskultur, c.l.m.speciale HHS, 1999 Jacobs, Benedikte et al: Mangfoldighed som virksomhedsstrategi – På vej mod den inkluderende organisation, Gyldendalske Boghandel Nordisk Forlag, 2001 Jensen, Linda Kirkebæk: Sprogpolitik i Danmark, c.l.m.speciale HHÅ, 2001 Holme, Helle & Graae, Janina: Klar besked – håndbog for informationsmedarbejdere, Samfundslitteratur, 1999 Mehlsen, Palle T. ch. 10.1 Intranet – Intern videndistribution in: Internethåndbogen, Børsen Ledelseshåndbøger, Børsen Forum, 1998 Larsen, Mogens: Ledelsesprincipperne – ISO9001:2000, ISO Consult, 2002 Lorentsen, Birgit: Nye tendenser i dansk virksomhedskommunikation – engelsk som koncernsprog, c.l.m.speciale HHÅ, 2001 Luhmann, Niklas: Sociale systemer – grundrids til en almen teori, Hans Reitzels Forlag, 2000 Meibom, Frederikke ch. 6.3 Sprogudvikling på Internettet in: Internethåndbogen, Børsen Ledelseshåndbøger, Børsen Forum, 1998 Mousten, Birthe: Communication models and their use, internt undervisningsmateriale HHÅ, 2002 Møller, Mads Richard Behind the Firewall – danske erfaringer med intranet og virksomheds-portaler, Børsens Forlag, 2002 Nielsen, Mie Femø: Under lup i offentligheden – Introduktion til public relations, Samfundslitteratur, 2000 Petersen, Verner C.: Common chairs and chimerical measures, CREDO/Dept. of Organization and Management, 2000b Rooney, Dr. Kathy Encarta – World English Dictionary, Bloomsbury, 1999 Sampson, Helen & Zhao, Minghua: Multilingual crews: communication and the operation of ships, World Englishes vol. 22 #1 2003, pp. 31-43 Schultz, Majken & Hatch, Mary Jo: Scaling the Tower of Babel: Relational Differences between Identity, Image, and Culture in Organizations, in: Schultz, Majken & Hatch, Mary Jo & Larsen, Mogens Holten: The Expressive Organization – Linking Identity, Reputation, and the Corporate Brand, Oxford University Press, 2000 Smith, Paul et al: Strategic Marketing Communications – new ways to build and integrate communications, Kogan Page, 2000a

73

Smith, P.R.: Marketing Communications – an integrated approach, Kogan Page, 2000b Søderberg, Anne-Marie & Vaara, Eero: Merging across Borders. People, Cultures and Politics. Copenhagen Business School Press, Copenhagen, 2003 Søderberg, Anne-Marie: Acquisitions in Denmark: Cultural and Communicative Dimensions in: Gertsen, M.;Søderberg, A.-M. & Torp, J.E. (Eds.): Cultural Dimensions of International Mergers and Acquisitions, Walther de Gruyter, Berlin & New York 1998, pp. 167 – 196 Vestergaard, Monica Klepp: Integreret markedskommunikation, c.m.speciale HHÅ, 1992 Wivel, Teddy & Sperling, Joachim: Den bevidste virksomhed – Stakeholderrapportering, Børsens Forlag, 2001 Articles: Albrecht, Jacob: Det 21. århundrede handler om storytelling, Dagen, 22.10.02, p. 12 Bang, Bjarne: Akademi-kultur skal løfte Chr. Hansen, Børsen, 12.12.97, pp. 6-7 Davidsen-Nielsen, Niels: Kan vi overleve engelsk i Norden?, Jyllands-Posten, 13.03.02, p. 11 Ebbensgaard, Ida: Danske bestyrelser alt for nationale, Børsen, 24.11.00, pp. 12-13 Erhardtsen, Birgitte et al Danmarks bedste bestyrelse, Berlingske Tidendes Nyhedsmagasin # 22, 13.08.01, p. 36 Erhardtsen, Birgitte Virksomhederne hader fornyelse, Berlingske Tidendes Nyhedsmagasin # 8, 03.04.00, p. 38 Hayet, Marie: New concepts in corporate language training, The Journal of Language for Hoffmann, Merete Wagner: Engelsk som arbejdssprog, Kommunikatøren #5 08.10.03, Dansk Kommunikationsforening Houmann, Anne Louise: Do you speak English?, Børsen 25.08.00, p. 14 International Business, vol. 11, # 1, 2000, pp. 57-81 Jeppesen, Lone Schrøder: Engelsk vinder frem som arbejdssprog, Sprog & Erhverv # 5, 2001, p. 13 Jeppesen, Lone Schrøder: Standarder – kærkommen gave eller unødigt onde, Sprog & Erhverv # 10, 2002, pp. 10-11 Johnson, J David et al: Internal and external communication, boundary spanning, and innovation adoption: An over-time comparison of three explanations of internal and external innovation, The Journal of Business Communication, vol. 37, #3, July 2000, pp. 238-263 Kronenberg, Kasper: Alt for meget turistengelsk i erhvervslivet, Børsen 16.02.01 Marschan-Piekkari, Rebecca & Charles, Mirjaliisa: Language training for enhanced horizontal communication: A challenge for MNCs, Business Communication Quarterly, vol. 65, #2, June 2002, pp. 9-29 Marschan-Piekkari, Rebecca ,Welch, Denice E., Welch, Lawrence S.: The Persistent Impact of Language on Global Operations, Prometheus, vol. 19, #3, 2001, pp. 193-209 Marschan-Piekkari, Rebecca et al: Adopting a common language at Kone Elevators, Human Resource Management International Digest, vol. 7, # 6, nov/dec 1999, pp. 20-24 Marschan-Piekkari, Rebecca ,Welch, Denice E., Welch, Lawrence S.: Adopting a common corporate language: IHRM implications, The international Journal of Human Resource Management 10: 3 June 1999, pp. 377-390 Marschan-Piekkari, Rebecca ,Welch, Denice E., Welch, Lawrence S.: Language: The Forgotten Factor in Multinational Management, European Management Journal vol. 15 # 5 1997, pp. 591-598 Mollerup, Jacob Fremtidsbarometret: Det lysner for erhvervslivet – men ser sort ud for samfundet, Berlingske Tidendes Nyhedsmagasin # 21, 17.06.02a, p. 30 Mollerup, Jacob Globalisering haves - omstillingsevne søges, Berlingske Tidendes Nyhedsmagasin # 21, 17.06.02b, p. 36

74

Mollerup, Jacob Vi er slet ikke globale – endnu, Berlingske Tidendes Nyhedsmagasin # 2, 21.01.02c, p. 18 Nickerson, Catherine: Corporate Culture and the Use of Written English Within British Subsidiaries in the Netherlands, English for Specific Purposes, vol. 17, # 3, 1998, pp. 281-294 Petersen, Verner C.: Mål uden værdier, Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten 11.12.02, Erhvervsmagasinet p. 2 Phillipson, Robert: English is taking over in Europe, The Guardian, 18.04.01, p. 18 Skaarup, Jens Peter Farvel til dansk, Berlingske Tidendes Nyhedsmagasin #19, 28.05.01, p. 66 Skaarup, Jens Peter et al Sådan tænker den nye chefgeneration, Berlingske Tidendes Nyhedsmagasin # 20, 11.06.01, p. 66 Stewart, Thomas A.: A Way to Measure Worldwide Success GOING GLOBAL, PART II, Fortune Magazine, vol. 139, # 5, 15.03.99 p. 196 Stokholm, Frank et al Virksomhederne vokser fra Danmark, Berlingske Tidendes Nyhedsmagasin # 19, 28.05.01, p. 14 Strate, Nicolai Chr. et al: Globale markeder – globale ledere?, Ledelse i Dag # 40, 2000, pp. 304-312 Tagliabue, John: In Europe, Going Global Means, Alas, English, The New York Times, 19.05.02, p. 15 Tyler, Christian: Mother of all tongues - usage of English as a second language, The Financial Times, 04.04.98, p. 1 EsF kræver ansættelsesforhold på dansk, Sprog & Erhverv # 5 June 2003, p. 9 Institutionelle investorer er næste mål for aktivt ejerskab, Økonomisk Ugebrev, # 12, 25.03.02, p. Lingua Franca remains English, Asian Business - Hong Kong, vol. 37, # 9, sep. 2001, p. 6 Managing inpatriates: Building global core competency, Journal of World Business, 1997, vol. 32, issue#1, pp. 35-52 The discreet charm of the multicultural multinational, Economist 30.07.94, vol. 332, p. 57 Virksomheder afviser sprogproblemer, Ingeniøren, 30.03.01, p. 9 Reports: Cadbury, Sir Adrian: Corporate Governance: A Framework of Implementation, the World Bank/OECD, 20 September 1999 Grinsted, Annelise Foreign Language Analysis in Industrial Regions of Europe, Det Erhvervssproglige Forskningsinstitut, HHS, 1992 Danish Parent Company Management Analysis, DAISY, vol. 5, #8, November 2001 US Subsidiary Management Analysis, DAISY, vol. 4, #9, November 2000 Global Markets – Global Talent, Oxford Research A/S, 20 September 1999 Sprogstrategi & Sprogpolitik, Erhvervssprogligt Forbund, 1998 Danske virksomheders behov for sproglig og kulturel viden, Center for Sprogteknologi, February 2001 Miscellaneous sources (websites, interviews, e-mail correspondence): ISO http://www.iso.ch/iso/en/aboutiso/introduction/index.html#fourThe World Bank Group www.worldbank.org/html/fpd/privatesector/cg/preface.htmBergsøe4 Communication consultancy agency, http://www.bergsoe4.dk/ Abildgaard, Jørgen Senior consultant, partner and country manager – ECON Center for

Economic Analysis, jorgen.abildgaard@econdenmark.dkAllstrin, Johan Issuer surveillance, OMHEX – HEX Integrated Markets/

Stockholmsbörsen, johan.allstrin@stockholmsborsen.seBrask, Jørgen Senior partner, Aston Lisberg A/S, JBK@astongroup.comChristiansen, Erik M. Lead auditor/senior engineer - Det Norske Veritas,

Erik.M.Christiansen@dnv.com

75

Griffen, Ray Technical Support Manager, British Standards, BSI Management Systems, Ray.Griffen@bsi-global.com

Jahn, Helle Senior clerk - Erhvervs- og Selskabsstyrelsen (Danish Commerce and Companies Agency), HJ@eogs.dk

Dr. Jenster, Per V. Professor & Assoc. Dean, Dept. of Int’l Economics and Management – Handelshøjskolen i København (Copenhagen Business School), pj.int@cbs.dkHammerich, Kai G. Managing director – Russel Reynolds Associates – Executive Search,

khammerich@russellreynolds.comKürstein, Suzanne D. L. Managing director – Danish-American Business Forum,

kurstein@dabf.dkLarsen, Mogens Lead Auditor/managing director, ISO Consult,

iso-consult@iso-consult.DKLingens, Peter Deutsche Börse Group Info-Service, info@deutsche-boerse.comDr. Nickerson, Catherine Business Communication Studies Dept., University of Nijmengen,

Holland, ncubed@planet.nlNielsen, Jacob Intranet Portal Usability and Design - Intranet Portals: A Tool Metaphor

for Corporate Information, 2003 http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20030331.htmlDr. Piekkari, Rebecca Department of Management and Organisation - Hanken Swedish School

of Economics and Business Administration, rebecca.piekkari@hanken.fiPoulsen, Jakob Kaule Information & Marketing, Københavns Fondsbørs A/S, JP@cse.dkSager, Marianna R&D manager – Gurre Gruppen, MS@gurre.dkSkårup, Terkel Ph.D. research student - Handelshøjskolen i København (Copenhagen Business School), terkel@skarup.dk Questionnaire respondents: Bentzen, Sonja // HR manager, Xerox A/S, sonja.bentzen@xerox.comBitsch, Lena Selander // PR manager, DaimlerChrysler, lena.selander@daimlerchrysler.comBojesen, Martin // translator, martin.bojesen@flsmidth.comBreum-Christensen, Kim // managing director/HR director, Texas Instruments Denmark A/S, kbc@ti.comBuch, Marianne // corporate secretary, Brüel & Kjær Sound & Vibration A/S, mlbuch@bksv.comBurckhardt, Tina // office coordinator, The Boston Consulting Group, burckhardt.tina@bcg.comDahl, Hethy // HR & administration assistant, adidas Danmark A/S, hethy.dahl@adidas.dkDaugbjerg, Ole // communications & reputation manager, Danfoss A/S, omd@danfoss.comDavidsen, Marianne // executive secretary, Burmeister & Wain Scandinavian Contractor A/S, med@bwsc.dkDedes, Susanne Rosendahl // communications coordinator, McDonald’s, susanne.rosendahl-dedes@dk.mcd.comFredensborg, Kit // country communications manager, Unisys A/S, kit.fredensborg@unisys.comFrøstrup, Lena // secretary, NEG-Micon, lfr@neg-micon.dkGillström, Johnny // general manager assistant, Massive Belysning A/S, johnny.gillstrom@massive.dkHaladyn, Jan // managing director, KONE A/S, jan.haladyn@kone.comHelweg-Larsen, Sara // PR manager, Microsoft, sarahl@microsoft.comHenningsen, Rikke // communications assistant, GlaxoSmithKline Pharma, rbh8778@gsk.comHenriksen, Jonna // executive assistant, CP Kelco, jonna.henriksen@cpkelco.comHøgh, Vibeke // secretary to the management, Scanvaegt International A/S, vh@scanvaegt.dkIsaksen, Tine // executive secretary, IC Companys, ti@iccompanys.comJensen, Hans Henrik // PR & marketing manager, Aalborg Industries, hj@aalborg-industries.comJørgensen, Peter Lohfert // HR manager, SimCorp, peter.l.joergensen@simcorp.comJørgensen, Tomas // internal communications manager, Carlsberg Breweries A/S, tomas.jorgensen@carlsberg.comKirkeskov, Henrik // PR manager, Hewlett-Packard, henrik.kirkeskov@hp.comLee, Kristina // head of corporate communications and management secretary, Sonion, kl@sonion.comLinnebjerg, Birte Marie // marketing & general office manager, HOH Water Technology A/S, bml@hoh.dkLohse, Edith // HR manager, FMC, edith_lohse@fmc.comLundsgaard, Dorthe // personal assistant to CEO, Lyngsoe Systems A/S, dol@lyngsoesystems.com

76

Lydig, Anette // local communication & PR supporter, adidas Danmark, anette.lydig@adidas.dkMeineche, Lene // senior HR manager, Cadbury EMEA A/S (region in Cadbury Schweppes), lene.meineche@csplc.comMilwertz, Jette // secretary to the management, Intertec A/S, jmi@intertec.dkNaundrup, Mariann // management assistant, BPB Gyproc, mariann.naundrup@gyproc.comNielsen, Bodil Uhre // administrative assistant, Babcock & Wilcox Vølund, bun@Volund.dkNielsen, Karin B. // translator, Velux A/S, karin.b.nielsen@velux.comNielsen, Susanne // corporate communication assistant, A.P. Møller – Mærsk A/S, cphinfo@maersk.comNikolajsen, Mette // communication officer, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, mette.nikolajsen@ferring.comOlsson, Kasper // assistant communication manager, BMW Danmark A/S, kasper.olsson@bmw.dkPedersen, Jan Weber // financial & logistics manager, Kverneland Group Kerteminde A/S, jan.weber.pedersen@kvernelandgroup.comPedersen, Renate // HR assistant, TAC A/S, renate.pedersen@tac.comPræstrud, Dorte // receptionist, Nike Denmark ApS, dorte.praestrud@nike.comRamsing, Eva // management assistant, Alpharma ApS, eva.ramsing@alpharma.dkRasmussen, Betina Melgaard // technical writer and translator, Stibo Graphic, beme@stibo.comRasmussen, Jane // marketing coordinator, GEA Liquid Processing Scandinavia A/S, jr@gea-liquid.dkRasmussen, Jannik // HR consultant, Philips, jannik.rasmussen@get2net.dkRasmussen, Mette // translator, Novo Nordisk A/S, mer@novonordisk.comRegeur, Anna // general manager Nordic, Berlitz Language Services Scandinavia A/S, anna.regeur@berlitz.dkReinwaldt, Lisbeth // information officer, Scandinavian Airlines System – SAS Group, lisbeth.reinwaldt@sas.dkReul, Bernd // director of marketing, Scientific Atlanta, bernd.reul@sciatl.comSandmann, Helle // PR & information manager, Cryptomathic, helle.sandmann@cryptomathic.comSchack, Margrethe // corporate communications, Egmont International Holding, shack@egmont.comScheller, Hanne // administrative manager, International Business Systems Danmark A/S, hvs@ibs.dkSchroll, Anders // media relations manager, Lundbeck, asch@lundbeck.comSchultz, Thomas // direct marketing manager, SAS Institute A/S, sdktms@sdk.sas.comSenderovitz, Heidi // communications coordinator, NetTest A/S, heidi.senderovitz@nettest.comSengeløv, Ulla // HR consultant, GN ReSound, ullsen@gnresound.dkSkarsteen, Marianne // team leader/editor, Nordea, marianne.skarsteen@nordea.comSkibsted, Kim // communications manager, JYSK, kns@jysk.comSkovsby, Henrik // director of finance, RedGreen A/S, hes@redgreen.dkSparre, Dorthe // secretary, NEG-Micon, dos@neg-micon.dk Stub, Niels // financial controller, Haugen Gruppen A/S Danmark, niels.stub@haugen.gruppen.dkStærmose, Henrik // vice president, hummel, hsa@hummel.dkSvendsen, Marie // student assistant, CSC, msvendsen@csc.comSørensen, Jette // HR consultant, Dyrup, js@dyrup.dk Thanning, Britt // executive secretary, Junckers Industrier A/S, bt@junckers.dkThuneby, Per // HR manager, NCR Danmark A/S, per.thuneby@ncr.comTroensegaard, Jens Jacob // HR director, York Denmark, jejtroensegaard@yorkref.comUlsig, Kirsten // marketing & communications coordinator, Systematic Software Engineering A/S, ku@systematic.dkVilladsen, Hanne // office manager, William Cook Europe, h.villadsen@cook-wce.comVoetmann, Martin Brix // assistant branch manager, MSC Scandinavia Holding, mbv@aar.medship.dkvon Wowern, Hanne // senior corporate translator, Danisco, hanne.von.wowern@danisco.comWesth, Else-Marie // corporate communications general manager, Canon Danmark A/S, emw@canon.dkWodschow, Lars // communications + PR manager, Chr. Hansen A/S, lars.wodschow@dk.chr-hansen.comZachariasson, Astrid // market communication project manager, Foss, az@foss.dk

77

Subsid-iaries

EmployeesMainactivities

Name ofcorporation

HQDK WW

Sports and fashion garment, apparel,equipment

adidas-Salomon AGadidas Danmark A/S D 115 38 15,686

Car manufacturer - BMW, RollsRoyce,Mini)

BMW AGBMW Denmark A/S D 32 13 104,342

Language learningBerlitz Language Serv-ices Scandinavia A/S US 60 60 9,000

Equipment to convert household wasteand bio-fuels into thermal energy

Babcock & Wilcox VølundApS US 5 402 10,700

Container shipping, oil and gas activities,shipyards, tankers, air transport

A.P. Møller - Mærsk A/SDK N/A N/A 60,000

PharmaceuticalsAlpharma, Inc.Alpharma ApS US 45 320 4,800

Strategy and general managementconsulting

The Boston ConsultingGroup US 37 24 2,600

Consumer electronics and office productsCanon, Inc.Canon Danmark A/S J 40 420 102,500

Stimorol, V6, Dandy chewing gumCadbury Schweppes Plc.Cadbury EMEA A/S UK 60 100 55,000

Designing, building and operating dieselpower plants

Burmeister & Wain Scan-dinavian Contractor A/S J 9 252 479

Analyzer systems for measurement ofsound and vibration

Brüel & Kjær Sound &Vibration A/S DK 20 540 1,019

Fast-track lightweight building systems,insulation, ceiling tiles + related products

BPB Plc.BPB Gyproc A/S UK 50 150 12,500

Beers and soft drinksCarlsberg Breweries A/SDK 150 2,800 31,500

Car manufacturer - Mercedes-Benz,Chrysler, Jeep, Dodge, Mitsubishi, etc.

DaimlerChrysler AGDaimlerChrysler Danmark A/S D N/A 500 386,200

IT outsourcing, systems integration andconsulting

Computer ScienceCorporation (CSC) US 80 2,600 90,000

IT security solutionsCryptomathic A/SDK 4 50 80

Texturizing and stabilizing ingredients tofood processors

CP KelcoUS 15 400 1,700

Natural ingredient solutions for food,pharmaceuticals, etc.

Chr. Hansen A/SDK 30 750 2,600

Radiator thermostats, floor heatingcontrols, motorized valves, etc.

Danfoss A/SDK 100+ 6,000 18,000

Cement production technologyF.L.Smidth A/SDK 17 805 2,134

BiopharmaceuticalsFerring Holding SAFerring Pharmaceuticals A/S CH 40 550 2,400

Entertainment; film and TV productions,magazines, electronic games

Egmont InternationalHolding A/S DK 100 1,700 3,500

Paint and exterior wood treatmentproducts

Dyrup A/SDK 10 450 1,200

Food + feed ingredients, sweeteners andsugar

Danisco A/SDK 40 1,200 8,000

Chemicals for agriculture, specialty andindustry

FMC CorporationFMC A/S US 34 71 5,300

Food, tea, seasoningHaugen-Gruppen Den-mark A/S UK 100 58 12,000

Hearing instrumentsGN ReSound A/SDK 20 625 4,400

PharmaceuticalsGlaxoSmithKline PlcGlaxoSmithKline Pharma A/S UK 76 150 100,000

Process integration services and liquidprocessing solutions

GEA AG - GEA Liquid Pro-cessing Scandinavia A/S D 50 110 15,000

Analytical solutions for quality control offoods, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, etc.

Foss Analytical A/SDK 16 400 1,200

Sports and fashion garment, apparel,equipment

hummel InternationalSport and Leisure A/S DK 3 50 300

Equipment for water treatmentHOH Water Technology A/SBWT AG A 154 140 3,000

Consumer IT and office productsHewlett-Packard CompanyHewlett-Packard ApS US 160 650 145,000

APPENDIX 1

1

Subsid-iaries

EmployeesMainactivities

Name ofcorporation

HQDK WW

Clothing company manufacturing brandssuch as InWear, Matinique, Part Two, etc.

IC Companys A/SDK 18 400 2,300

Elevators, escalators, automatic doorsKONE OyjKONE A/S FIN 180 230 22,500

Retail chain within articles for bathrooms,bedrooms, furniture, etc.

JYSK A/SDK 7 1,500 5,500

Hardwood flooring, worktops, and surfacetreatment

Junckers Industrier A/SDK 7 575 1,200

Engineering, large scale constructions,fiberglass, etc.

Intertec A/SDK 8 50 150

Supply chain management solutions fordistribution, financials, bus. intelligence

International BusinessSystems AB S 30 110 2,500

Producer and distributor of agriculturaland viticultural implements

Kverneland GroupKverneland Group A/S N 40 225 3,500

SoftwareMicrosoft CorporationMicrosoft Danmark US 250 1,100 60,000

Food service retailerMcDonald’s CorporationMcDonald’s Danmark A/S US 119 4,000 400,000

Domestic lightingMassiveMassive Belysning A/S B 25 30 2,500

Software for logistics, monitoring andautomation processes

Lyngsoe Systems A/SDK 2 120 135

PharmaceuticalsH. Lundbeck A/SDK 50 2,000 5,300

ShippingMSC S.A.MSC Scandinavia Holding A/S CH 15 43 350

Retail, corporate and institutional banking,asset management, life.

Nordea Bank Danmark A/SDK 2 8,500 30,000

Sports and fashion garment, apparel,equipment

NikeNike Denmark ApS US N/A 30 23,000

Test, measurement and OSS solutions fortelecommunications

NetTest A/SDK 7 180 480

Manufacturing, commissioning, monitor-ing, and servicing wind turbines

NEG-Micon A/S now mergedwith Vestas Wind Systems A/S DK 25 832 2,650

Hardware and software solutions formoney transactions

NCR CorporationNCR Danmark A/S US N/A 112 29,000

BiopharmaceuticalsNovo Nordisk A/SDK 69 11,100 18,000

Systems for handling, processing andpackaging of food products

Scanvaegt InternationalA/S DK 24 450 700

Airline operations, hotel businessScandinavian AirlinesSystems - SAS Group S N/A 8,000 30,000

Analytics softwareSAS Institute Inc.SAS Institute A/S US 56 250 9,259

ClothingRedGreen A/SDK 4 150 225

Electronics for healthcare, lifestyle, andtechnology

Philips Electronics N.V.Philips Danmark A/S NL 100 210 170,000

Broadband technologyScientific-Atlanta, Inc.Scientific-Atlanta Arcodan A/S US 10 80 6,500

Software for energy management,environmental control, etc.

TAC ABTAC A/S S 70 180 2,000

Complex and critical IT solutions forinformation and communications systems

Systematic SoftwareEngineering A/S DK 2 310 350

Solutions for print and electronicpublishing, content management, etc.

Stibo A/SDK 5 914 1,114

Hearing instruments, mobile terminals,medical devices

Sonion A/SDK 5 300 2,300

Integrated investment and treasurymanagement systems

SimCorp A/SDK 12 290 550

Roof windows and skylightsVelux A/SDK 40+ N/A N/A

IT services and solutionsUnisys CorporationUnisys A/S US 100 110 36,000

Digital signal processing and analogtechnologies

Texas Instruments Inc.Texas Instruments Denmark A/S US N/A 148 35,500

APPENDIX 1

2

Subsid-iaries

EmployeesMainactivities

Name ofcorporation

HQDK WW

Minimally invasive medical device technologyfor diagnostic and therapeutic procedures

Cook Group Inc.William Cook Europe ApS US 4 580 5,000

Equipment for heating, process steam,power production, and cleaning purposes

Aalborg Industries A/SDK 14 400 1,400

Industrial and marine refrigeration systems,control systems, equipment and services

York Int’l CorporationYork Denmark US N/A 2,500 25,000

Printing and publishing systems, printers,copiers, fax machines

Xerox CorporationXerox A/S US 164 240 63,000

APPENDIX 1

3

Percentage Graphic illustrationNumber68 respondents1 a) Type of organisation

GlobalMultinationalInternational 16

39

57.2%10.7%32.1%

DK-headquartered corporations (response rate: 90.3%)

GlobalMultinationalInternational 3

58

18.8%31.2%50.0%

Danish subsidiaries of non-Anglo corporations (response rate: 100%)

GlobalMultinationalInternational 7

112

35.0%5.0%

60.0%

Danish subsidiaries of Anglo corporations (response rate: 95.2%)

Danish subsidiaries of non-Anglo corporations (response rate: 100%)

NoYes 10 62.5%

37.5%6

DK-headquartered corporations (response rate: 93.5%)

NoYes 10 34.5%

65.5%19

1 b) Is the corporation listed on an international stock exchange?Danish subsidiaries of Anglo corporations (response rate: 90.5%)

NoYes 13 68.4%

31.6%6

Non-ScandinaviansScandinaviansDanes 52

823

62.7%9.6%

27.7%

Danish subsidiaries of Anglo corporations (response rate: 90.5%)

Non-ScandinaviansScandinaviansDanes 207

3913

79.9%15.1%5.0%

DK-headquartered corporations (response rate: 100%)

Non-ScandinaviansScandinaviansDanes 56

2024

56.0%20.0%24.0%

Danish subsidiaries of non-Anglo corporations (response rate: 100%)

APPENDIX 2

1

2 a) Composition of board in terms of nationality

2 b) Are international executive search firms consulted when recruiting board members?Danish subsidiaries of Anglo corporations (response rate: 81.0%)

NoYes 3 17.6%

82.4%14DK-headquartered corporations (response rate: 71.0%)

NoYes 8 36.4%

63.6%14Danish subsidiaries of non-Anglo corporations (response rate: 81.3%)

NoYes 0 0%

100%14

Percentage Graphic illustrationNumber68 respondents

Non-ScandinaviansScandinaviansDanes 61

510

80.3%

13.2%

Danish subsidiaries of non-Anglo corporations (response rate: 100%)

6.6%

86.5%7.5%6.0%

115108Non-Scandinavians

ScandinaviansDanesDK-headquartered corporations (response rate: 96.8%)

84.5%5.2%

10.3%

98612

3 a) Composition of executive management in terms of nationality

Non-ScandinaviansScandinaviansDanesDanish subsidiaries of Anglo corporations (response rate: 100%)

APPENDIX 2

2

3 b) Are international executive search firms consulted when recruiting executives?Danish subsidiaries of Anglo corporations (response rate: 81.0%)

NoYes 3 17.6%

82.4%14DK-headquartered corporations (response rate: 77.4%)

NoYes 15 62.5%

37.5%9Danish subsidiaries of non-Anglo corporations (response rate: 81.3%)

NoYes 5 38.5%

61.5%84 a) Does the corporation have a communication department?Danish subsidiaries of Anglo corporations (response rate: 100%)

NoYes 7 33.3%

66.7%14DK-headquartered corporations (response rate: 100%)

NoYes 19 63.3%

36.7%11Danish subsidiaries of non-Anglo corporations (response rate: 100%)

NoYes 8 53.3%

46.7%74 b) If no, under which department does communication matters belong?

Other (finance, investor relations, various)HR 3

018.8%

0%

MarketingHQExecutive management 8

23

50.0%12.5%18.8%

Danish subsidiaries of Anglo corporations (response rate: 100%)

Other (finance, investor relations, various)HR 2

314.3%21.4%

MarketingHQExecutive management 4

05

28.6%0%

35.7%

DK-headquartered corporations (response rate: 100%)

Percentage Graphic illustrationNumber68 respondents

4 b) If no, under which department does communication matters belong? (cont.)

Other (finance, investor relations, various)HR 1

111.1%11.1%

MarketingHQExecutive management 6

01

66.7%0%

11.1%

Danish subsidiaries of non-Anglo corporations (response rate: 100%)

4 c) If yes, is the communication manager a member of the executive management?Danish subsidiaries of Anglo corporations (response rate: 100%)

NoYes 6 75.0%

25.0%2DK-headquartered corporations (response rate: 96.8%)

NoYes 2 11.1%

88.9%16Danish subsidiaries of non-Anglo corporations (response rate: 100%)

NoYes 7 77.8%

22.2%25 Are there any HQ expatriates in key subsidiary positions?Danish subsidiaries of Anglo corporations (response rate: 95.2%)

NoYes 5 25.0%

75.0%15DK-headquartered corporations (response rate: 96.8%)

NoYes 23 76.7%

23.3%7Danish subsidiaries of non-Anglo corporations (response rate: 87.5%)

NoYes 5 35.7%

64.3%96 a) Why does the corporation use expatriates?

HQ need to maintain control and monitordecisions throughout the organisation

Other 0 0%

1 12.5%

Career advancement for HQ executives 4 50.0%Expatriates function as language intermediaries 0 0%

Expatriates implement procedures and processesto ensure compliance and co-ordination 3 37.5%

Danish subsidiaries of Anglo corporations (response rate: 100%)

Don’t know 0 0%

HQ need to maintain control and monitordecisions throughout the organisation

Other 3 8.3%

7 19.4%

Career advancement for HQ executives 6 16.7%Expatriates function as language intermediaries 3 8.3%

Expatriates implement procedures and processesto ensure compliance and co-ordination 16 44.4%

DK-headquartered corporations (response rate: 93.5%)

Don’t know 1 2.8%

3

APPENDIX 2

Percentage Graphic illustrationNumber68 respondents

6 a) Why does the corporation use expatriates? (cont.)

HQ need to maintain control and monitordecisions throughout the organisation

Don’t know 0 0%

1 16.7%

Career advancement for HQ executives 2 33.3%Expatriates function as language intermediaries 0 0%

Expatriates implement procedures and processesto ensure compliance and co-ordination 2 33.3%

Danish subsidiaries of non-Anglo corporations (response rate: 93.8%)

Other 1 16.7%

Don’t know 5 35.7%

6 b) Why does the corporation not use expatriates?

We want the company culture to reflect the localculture rather than the parent country culture 5 35.7%

Other 2 14.3%

We want to avoid communication problems be-tween expatriates and local employees 2 14.3%

Danish subsidiaries of Anglo corporations (response rate: 90.5%)

We want the company culture to reflect the localculture rather than the parent country culture 4 66.7%

Other 0 0%

We want to avoid communication problems be-tween expatriates and local employees 1 16.7%

DK-headquartered corporations (response rate: 100%)

Don’t know 1 16.7%

We want the company culture to reflect the localculture rather than the parent country culture 3 50.0%

Other 0 0%

We want to avoid communication problems be-tween expatriates and local employees 0 0%

Danish subsidiaries of non-Anglo corporations (response rate: 81.3%)

Don’t know 3 50.0%7 Does documentation exist on when the corporation decided to make English its corporate language?Danish subsidiaries of Anglo corporations (response rate: 81.0%)

NoYes 4 23.5%

76.5%13DK-headquartered corporations (response rate: 100%)

NoYes 8 25.8%

74.2%23Danish subsidiaries of non-Anglo corporations (response rate: 100%)

NoYes 6 37.5%

62.5%10

APPENDIX 2

4

Percentage Graphic illustrationNumber68 respondents

Other

8 Which processes/actions went ahead of introducing English as corporate language?Danish subsidiaries of Anglo corporations (response rate: 76.2%)

Identification of problems caused by lack of linguis-tic consistency 0 0%

3 17.6%No documentation exists 13 76.5%

Appointment of international work group 1 25.0%Appointment of communications consultancy 0 0%Analysis of internal and external communication 0 0%

DK-headquartered corporations (response rate: 87.1%)

Identification of problems caused by lack of linguis-tic consistency 2 7.4%

Other 1 3.7%No documentation exists 20 74.1%

Appointment of international work group 2 7.4%Appointment of communications consultancy 0 0%Analysis of internal and external communication 2 7.4%

Danish subsidiaries of non-Anglo corporations (response rate: 43.8%)

Identification of problems caused by lack of linguis-tic consistency 0 0%

Other 0 0%No documentation exists 6 85.7%

Appointment of international work group 0 0%Appointment of communications consultancy 0 0%Analysis of internal and external communication 1 14.3%

Danish subsidiaries of Anglo corporations (response rate: 66.7%)The board 2 14.3%The executive management 4 28.6%The communication manager/officer 1 7.1%The general meeting 0 0%Other 1 7.1%

9 By whom was the decision to introduce English as corporate language made?

Don’t know 6 42.9%DK-headquartered corporations (response rate: 93.5%)The board 2 6.9%The executive management 20 69.0%The communication manager/officer 0 0%The general meeting 0 0%Other 0 0%Don’t know 7 24.1%Danish subsidiaries of non-Anglo corporations (response rate: 68.8%)The board 4 36.4%The executive management 2 18.2%The communication manager/officer 0 0%The general meeting 0 0%Other 0 0%Don’t know 5 45.5%

5

APPENDIX 2

Other

Percentage Graphic illustrationNumber68 respondents

10 b) If yes, why is it important for the outside world to know?

10 c) If no, why is it not important for the outside world to know?

10 a) Is it stated anywhere in writing (annual reports, company profile brochures, website, etc.) that English is the corporate language of the organisation?Danish subsidiaries of Anglo corporations (response rate: 85.7%)

NoYes 5 27.8%

72.2%13DK-headquartered corporations (response rate: 93.5%)

NoYes 5 17.2%

82.8%24Danish subsidiaries of non-Anglo corporations (response rate: 81.3%)

NoYes 5 38.5%

61.5%8

Danish subsidiaries of Anglo corporations (response rate: 40.0%)For recruiting purposes 1 50.0%For marketing purposes 0 0%To be able to communicate 1 50.0%Part of general corporate information 0 0%For legal reasons 0 0%DK-headquartered corporations (response rate: 80.0%)For recruiting purposes 0 0%For marketing purposes 0 0%To be able to communicate 2 50.0%Part of general corporate information 1 25.0%For legal reasons 1 25.0%Danish subsidiaries of non-Anglo corporations (response rate: 60.0%)For recruiting purposes 1 33.3%For marketing purposes 2 66.7%To be able to communicate 0 0%Part of general corporate information 0 0%For legal reasons 0 0%

Danish subsidiaries of Anglo corporations (response rate: 38.5%)No outside contact 1 20.0%Local language for local markets 2 40.0%It is evident 2 40.0%It is not important 0 0%It is for internal use only 0 0%DK-headquartered corporations (response rate: 45.8%)No outside contact 0 0%Local language for local markets 1 9.1%It is evident 8 72.7%It is not important 1 9.1%It is for internal use only 1 9.1%Danish subsidiaries of non-Anglo corporations (response rate: 12.5%)No outside contact 0 0%Local language for local markets 0 0%It is evident 0 0%It is not important 1 100.0%It is for internal use only 0 0%

APPENDIX 2

6

Percentage Graphic illustrationNumber68 respondents

To equalise linguistic power imbalances 0 0%

Non-Danish customers 7 9.2%

Danish subsidiaries of Anglo corporations (response rate: 81.0%)

To minimise time-consuming translation 5 6.6%

An increasingly global market makes it an inevita-ble necessity 11 14.5%

It is commonly used within our trade/industry 8 10.5%Non-Danish investors 3 3.9%Non-Danish board members 7 9.2%Non-Danish executives 4 5.3%Non-Danish operational staff members 2 2.6%An international merger/acquisition 6 7.9%Alignment of all internal communication 6 7.9%Alignment of all external communication 4 5.3%

To ensure a consistent corporate culture through-out the organisation 4 5.3%

To ensure HQ’s control and co-ordination viabilityon decision-making throughout the organisation 3 3.9%

To ensure consistent use of terminology throughoutthe organisation 6 7.9%

11 What are the main reasons for having English as corporate language?

To equalise linguistic power imbalances 2 1.4%

Non-Danish customers 19 13.1%

DK-headquartered corporations (response rate: 100%)

To minimise time-consuming translation 7 4.8%

An increasingly global market makes it an inevita-ble necessity 22 15.2%

It is commonly used within our trade/industry 14 9.7%Non-Danish investors 5 3.4%Non-Danish board members 5 3.4%Non-Danish executives 6 4.1%Non-Danish operational staff members 14 9.7%An international merger/acquisition 3 2.1%Alignment of all internal communication 12 8.3%Alignment of all external communication 8 5.5%

To ensure a consistent corporate culture through-out the organisation 13 9.0%

To ensure HQ’s control and co-ordination viabilityon decision-making throughout the organisation 4 2.8%

To ensure consistent use of terminology throughoutthe organisation 11 7.6%

Non-Danish customers 5 7.5%

Danish subsidiaries of Anglo corporations (response rate: 87.5%)An increasingly global market makes it an inevita-ble necessity 10 14.9%

It is commonly used within our trade/industry 9 13.4%Non-Danish investors 5 7.5%Non-Danish board members 5 7.5%Non-Danish executives 2 3.0%

APPENDIX 2

7

Percentage Graphic illustrationNumber68 respondents11 What are the main reasons for having English as corporate language? (cont.)

12 In which way do you perceive English as corporate language?

To equalise linguistic power imbalances 1To minimise time-consuming translation 6

Non-Danish operational staff members 2An international merger/acquisition 6Alignment of all internal communication 5Alignment of all external communication 4

To ensure a consistent corporate culture through-out the organisation 2

To ensure HQ’s control and co-ordination viabilityon decision-making throughout the organisation 2

To ensure consistent use of terminology through-out the organisation 3

3.0%9.0%7.5%6.0%

1.5%9.0%

3.0%

3.0%

4.5%

Danish subsidiaries of Anglo corporations (response rate: 66.7%)

0 0%9 69.2%4 30.8%True

Don’t know

It implies that the entire organisa-tion communicates exclusively inEnglish

Untrue

0 0%6 46.2%7 53.8%True

Don’t know

It has no effect on our generallanguage use (correspondence, PRmaterial, documentation, etc.)

Untrue

0 0%5 38.5%8 61.5%True

Don’t know

It implies that all employees of thecorporation are proficient in highlevel English

Untrue

2 15.4%1 7.7%10 76.9%True

Don’t know

It contributes to the corporation’sexternal image and identity Untrue

2 16.7%4 33.3%6 50.0%True

Don’t know

It contributes to the corporation’sinternal image and identity Untrue

DK-headquartered corporations (response rate: 93.5%)

2 6.9%23 79.3%4 13.8%True

Don’t know

It implies that the entire organisa-tion communicates exclusively inEnglish

Untrue

4 13.8%20 69.0%5 17.2%True

Don’t know

It has no effect on our generallanguage use (correspondence, PRmaterial, documentation, etc.)

Untrue

2 6.9%13 44.8%14 48.3%True

Don’t know

It implies that all employees of thecorporation are proficient in highlevel English

Untrue

0 0%6 20.7%23 79.3%True

Don’t know

It contributes to the corporation’sexternal image and identity Untrue

1 3.4%6 20.7%22 75.9%True

Don’t know

It contributes to the corporation’sinternal image and identity Untrue

8

APPENDIX 2

Percentage Graphic illustrationNumber68 respondents12 In which way do you perceive English as corporate language? (cont.)

13 What are the primary functions of a corporate language?

Danish subsidiaries of non-Anglo corporations (response rate: 93.8%)

0 0%10 66.7%5 33.3%True

Don’t know

It implies that the entire organisa-tion communicates exclusively inEnglish

Untrue

2 13.3%6 40.0%7 46.7%True

Don’t know

It has no effect on our generallanguage use (correspondence, PRmaterial, documentation, etc.)

Untrue

2 13.3%7 46.7%6 40.0%True

Don’t know

It implies that all employees of thecorporation are proficient in highlevel English

Untrue

2 13.3%1 6.7%12 80.0%True

Don’t know

It contributes to the corporation’sexternal image and identity Untrue

2 13.3%7 46.7%6 40.0%True

Don’t know

It contributes to the corporation’sinternal image and identity Untrue

To optimise generation of product specifications,documentation and manuals 156 15.2%

To build an image of an international player in theglobal market 152 14.8%

To comply with corporate governance standards 40 3.9%To comply with international accounting standards 86 8.4%

To signal to the employees that they must beproficient in English 77 7.5%

To signal to potential recruits that they must beproficient in English 78 7.6%

To set guidelines for internal communication 123 12.0%To set guidelines for external communication 149 14.5%

DK-headquartered corporations (response rate: 58.1%)

To optimise generation of product specifications,documentation and manuals 69 10.1%

To build an image of an international player in theglobal market 88 12.9%

To signal to potential recruits that they do no haveto speak Danish to apply for a job 50 7.3%

To ensure a consistent working environment for anint’l board and ownership/shareholder portfolio 84 12.3%

To comply with corporate governance standards 62 9.1%To comply with international accounting standards 73 10.7%

To signal to the employees that they must beproficient in English 62 9.1%

To signal to potential recruits that they must beproficient in English 57 8.3%

To set guidelines for internal communication 64 9.4%To set guidelines for external communication 75 11.0%

Danish subsidiaries of Anglo corporations (response rate: 57.1%)

APPENDIX 2

9

Percentage Graphic illustrationNumber68 respondents

10

APPENDIX 2

13 What are the primary functions of a corporate language? (cont.)To signal to potential recruits that they do no haveto speak Danish to apply for a job 66 6.4%

To ensure a consistent working environment for anint’l board and ownership/shareholder portfolio 101 9.8%

To optimise generation of product specifications,documentation and manuals 46 13.7%

To build an image of an international player in theglobal market 41 12.2%

To signal to potential recruits that they do no haveto speak Danish to apply for a job 14 4.2%

To ensure a consistent working environment for anint’l board and ownership/shareholder portfolio 35 10.4%

To comply with corporate governance standards 37 11.0%To comply with international accounting standards 43 12.8%

To signal to the employees that they must beproficient in English 17 5.1%

To signal to potential recruits that they must beproficient in English 20 6.0%

To set guidelines for internal communication 27 8.1%To set guidelines for external communication 55 16.4%

Danish subsidiaries of non-Anglo corporations (response rate: 37.5%)

14 An organisation can truly claim to have English as its corporate language when:

Management and key administrative staff areproficient in English 3 17.6%

All employees can be addressed in English 13 76.5%

Its board members are proficient in English 0 0%The organisation has qualified linguists to interpretand translate crucial documents 1 5.9%

Danish subsidiaries of Anglo corporations (response rate: 81.0%)

Management and key administrative staff areproficient in English 9 33.3%

All employees can be addressed in English 18 66.7%

Its board members are proficient in English 0 0%The organisation has qualified linguists to interpretand translate crucial documents 0 0%

DK-headquartered corporations (response rate: 87.1%)

Management and key administrative staff areproficient in English 3 20.0%

All employees can be addressed in English 11 73.3%

Its board members are proficient in English 0 0%The organisation has qualified linguists to interpretand translate crucial documents 1 6.7%

Danish subsidiaries of Anglo corporations (response rate: 93.8%)

Percentage Graphic illustrationNumber68 respondents15 a) A policy for the corporate language, its implications and scope is:

15 b) Staff’s English proficiency is:

16 How often do the below activities occur in English?

Don’t knowNot crucial 5 26.3%

10.5%2

Less crucialCrucial 6 31.6%

31.6%6

Danish subsidiaries of Anglo corporations (response rate: 90.5%)

Don’t knowNot crucial 3 9.7%

6.5%2

Less crucialCrucial 14 45.2%

38.7%12

DK-headquartered corporations (response rate: 100%)

Don’t knowNot crucial 5 31.3%

6.3%1

Less crucialCrucial 3 18.8%

43.8%7

Danish subsidiaries of non-Anglo corporations (response rate: 100%)

Low priorityHigh priority 18 94.7%

5.3%1

Danish subsidiaries of Anglo corporations (response rate: 90.5%)

Low priorityHigh priority 26 89.7%

10.3%3

DK-headquartered corporations (response rate: 93.5%)

Low priorityHigh priority 10 66.7%

33.3%5

Danish subsidiaries of non-Anglo corporations (response rate: 93.8%)

Danish subsidiaries of Anglo corporations (response rate: 90.5%)

1 5.3%3 15.8%Rarely

Never

1 5.3%1 5.3%13 68.4%Always

50/50Often

Board meetings

3 15.8%8 42.1%Rarely

Never

1 5.3%2 10.5%5 26.3%Always

50/50Often

Management meetings

0 0%1 5.3%Rarely

Never

1 5.3%0 0%17 89.5%Always

50/50Often

In-house staff meetings at HQ

0 0%1 5.6%Rarely

Never

1 5.6%1 5.6%15 83.3%Always

50/50Often

Inter-unit meetings withsubsidiaries

APPENDIX 2

11

Percentage Graphic illustrationNumber68 respondents16 How often do the below activities occur in English? (cont.)

2 11.8%5 29.4%Rarely

Never

5 29.4%1 5.9%4 23.5%Always

50/50Often

General meetings

3 21.4%5 35.7%Rarely

Never

1 7.1%1 7.1%4 28.6%Always

50/50Often

Road shows

1 5.9%7 41.2%Rarely

Never

6 35.3%3 17.6%0 0%Always

50/50Often

Job interviews

6 40.0%6 40.0%Rarely

Never

2 13.3%0 0%1 6.7%Always

50/50Often

Press conferences

DK-headquartered corporations (response rate: 93.5%)

12 42.9%5 17.9%Rarely

Never

1 3.6%2 7.1%8 28.6%Always

50/50Often

Board meetings

1 3.4%8 27.6%Rarely

Never

4 13.8%8 27.6%8 27.6%Always

50/50Often

Management meetings

8 27.6%11 37.9%Rarely

Never

1 3.4%7 24.1%2 6.9%Always

50/50Often

In-house staff meetings at HQ

0 0%0 0%Rarely

Never

0 0%6 20.7%23 79.3%Always

50/50Often

Inter-unit meetings withsubsidiaries

2 6.9%17 58.6%Rarely

Never

5 17.2%5 17.2%0 0%Always

50/50Often

Job interviews

12

APPENDIX 2

Percentage Graphic illustrationNumber68 respondents16 How often do the below activities occur in English? (cont.)

7 24.1%8 27.6%Rarely

Never

4 13.8%7 24.1%3 10.3%Always

50/50Often

General meetings

3 10.3%12 41.4%Rarely

Never

2 6.9%10 34.5%2 6.9%Always

50/50Often

Press conferences

0 0%2 7.1%Rarely

Never

2 7.1%17 60.7%7 25.0%Always

50/50Often

Road shows

Danish subsidiaries of non-Anglo corporations (response rate: 100%)

4 25.0%2 12.5%Rarely

Never

1 6.3%0 0%9 56.3%Always

50/50Often

Board meetings

7 43.8%4 25.0%Rarely

Never

0 0%2 12.5%3 18.8%Always

50/50Often

Management meetings

1 6.3%1 6.3%Rarely

Never

0 0%4 25.0%10 62.5%Always

50/50Often

In-house staff meetings at HQ

2 12.5%1 6.3%Rarely

Never

2 12.5%3 18.8%8 50.0%Always

50/50Often

Inter-unit meetings withsubsidiaries

5 31.3%8 50.0%Rarely

Never

2 12.5%0 0%1 6.3%Always

50/50Often

Job interviews

5 31.3%7 43.8%Rarely

Never

0 0%1 6.3%3 18.8%Always

50/50Often

General meetings

APPENDIX 2

13

Percentage Graphic illustrationNumber68 respondents16 How often do the below activities occur in English? (cont.)

17 Ratio between Danish and English used in the corporation’s oral communication:Danish subsidiaries of Anglo corporations (response rate: 90.5%)

Always

2 15.4%6 46.2%Rarely

Never

0 0%4 30.8%1 7.7%

50/50Often

Press conferences

Top and middlemanagement

4 21.1%10 52.6%0 0%4 21.1%1 5.3%

Middle and linemanagement

9 47.4%6 31.6%2 10.5%2 10.5%0 0%

Line managementand staff

9 47.4%8 42.1%0 0%2 10.5%0 0%

Inter-staff

11 61.1%4 22.2%1 5.6%2 11.1%0 0%

4 33.3%5 41.7%Rarely

Never

0 0%1 8.3%2 16.7%Always

50/50Often

Road shows

Customers

7 36.8%4 21.1%1 5.3%4 21.1%3 15.8%

Financial institutions

10 55.6%5 27.8%0 0%2 11.1%1 5.6%

Suppliers

7 38.9%2 11.1%4 22.2%5 27.8%0 0%

14

APPENDIX 2

Percentage Graphic illustrationNumber68 respondents17 Ratio between Danish and English used in the corporation’s oral communication (cont.)

DK-headquartered corporations (response rate: 80.6%)

Representatives ofthe press

9 52.9%5 29.4%0 0%2 11.8%1 5.9%

Public authorities

11 64.7%5 29.4%0 0%1 5.9%0 0%

Top and middlemanagement

1 4.0%9 36.0%11 44.0%4 16.0%0 0%

Line managementand staff

3 12.0%11 44.0%11 44.0%0 0%0 0%

Customers

2 9.5%3 14.3%6 28.6%9 42.9%1 4.8%

Financial institutions

3 14.3%6 28.6%5 23.8%7 33.3%0 0%

Immediate environment(neighbours)

12 66.7%6 33.3%0 0%0 0%0 0%

Middle and linemanagement

4 16.0%10 40.0%9 36.0%2 8.0%0 0%

Inter-staff

3 12.0%13 52.0%6 24.0%3 12.0%0 0%

APPENDIX 2

15

Percentage Graphic illustrationNumber68 respondents17 Ratio between Danish and English used in the corporation’s oral communication (cont.)

Suppliers

1 5.0%6 30.0%8 40.0%4 20.0%1 5.0%

Danish subsidiaries of non-Anglo corporations (response rate: 100%)

Top and middlemanagement

8 50.0%3 18.8%2 12.5%1 6.3%2 12.5%

Line managementand staff

11 68.8%3 18.8%2 12.5%0 0%0 0%

Customers

9 56.3%4 25.0%1 6.3%1 6.3%1 6.3%

Representatives ofthe press

2 9.5%10 47.6%6 28.6%3 14.3%0 0%

Public authorities

4 19.0%10 47.6%5 23.8%2 9.5%0 0%

Immediate environment(neighbours)

8 44.4%33.3%11.1%

2 11.1%0 0%

62

Middle and linemanagement

9 56.3%5 31.3%2 12.5%0 0%0 0%

Inter-staff

10 66.7%2 13.3%2 13.3%0 0%1 6.7%

16

APPENDIX 2

Percentage Graphic illustrationNumber68 respondents17 Ratio between Danish and English used in the corporation’s oral communication (cont.)

18 a) In which languages are the below documents generated?Danish subsidiaries of Anglo corporations (response rate: 100%)

Financial institutions

9 56.3%6 37.5%0 0%1 6.3%0 0%

Suppliers

6 40.0%3 20.0%2 13.3%4 26.7%0 0%

Representatives ofthe press

7 53.8%4 30.8%2 15.4%0 0%0 0%

Public authorities

12 75.0%4 25.0%0 0%0 0%0 0%

Immediate environment(neighbours)

12 80.0%13.3%

6.7%0 0%0 0%

12

0 0%13 61.9%14 66.7%Danish

OtherIntranet English

2 9.5%14 66.7%11 52.4%Danish

OtherWebsite English

1 4.8%19 90.5%12 57.1%Danish

OtherReports English

0 0%15 71.4%14 66.7%Danish

OtherMinutes English

3 14.3%17 81.0%14 66.7%Danish

OtherCompany profile brochures English

4 19.0%19 90.5%14 66.7%Danish

OtherBusiness correspondence English

1 4.8%8 38.1%16 76.2%Danish

OtherPress releases English

APPENDIX 2

17

Percentage Graphic illustrationNumber68 respondents18 a) In which languages are the below documents generated? (cont.)

DK-headquartered corporations (response rate: 100%)

0 0%17 81.0%14 66.7%Danish

OtherAccounts / annual reports English

2 9.5%10 47.6%14 66.7%Danish

OtherPR and advertising material English

2 9.5%16 76.2%12 57.1%Danish

OtherProduct specifications/manuals English

2 9.5%13 61.9%13 61.9%Danish

OtherCustomer/supplier agreements English

1 4.8%11 52.4%19 90.5%Danish

OtherEmployment contracts English

1 4.8%11 52.4%19 90.5%Danish

OtherIn-house newsletters/magazines English

2 9.5%10 47.6%17 81.0%Danish

OtherEmployee manuals English

1 4.8%10 47.6%16 76.2%Danish

Other

Safety regulations and workingenvironment instructions English

8 25.8%26 83.9%21 67.7%Danish

OtherIntranet English

9 29.0%31 100%14 45.2%Danish

OtherWebsite English

7 22.6%31 100%22 71.0%Danish

OtherReports English

8 25.8%31 100%25 80.6%Danish

OtherMinutes English

14 45.2%29 93.5%16 51.6%Danish

OtherCompany profile brochures English

16 51.6%31 100%21 67.7%Danish

OtherBusiness correspondence English

12 38.7%31 100%28 90.3%Danish

OtherPress releases English

5 16.1%28 90.3%27 87.1%Danish

OtherAccounts / annual reports English

18

APPENDIX 2

Percentage Graphic illustrationNumber68 respondents18 a) In which languages are the below documents generated? (cont.)

Danish subsidiaries of non-Anglo corporations (response rate: 100%)

16 51.6%30 96.8%24 77.4%Danish

OtherPR and advertising material English

16 51.6%30 96.8%18 58.1%Danish

OtherProduct specifications/manuals English

9 29.0%31 100%18 58.1%Danish

OtherCustomer/supplier agreements English

13 41.9%27 87.1%31 100%Danish

OtherEmployment contracts English

12 38.7%27 87.1%23 74.2%Danish

OtherIn-house newsletters/magazines English

10 32.3%27 87.1%26 83.9%Danish

OtherEmployee manuals English

9 29.0%26 83.9%29 93.5%Danish

Other

Safety regulations and workingenvironment instructions English

1 6.3%7 43.8%10 62.5%Danish

OtherIntranet English

2 12.5%8 50.0%11 68.8%Danish

OtherWebsite English

1 6.3%12 75.0%12 75.0%Danish

OtherReports English

1 6.3%9 56.3%14 87.5%Danish

OtherMinutes English

2 12.5%10 62.5%10 62.5%Danish

OtherCompany profile brochures English

4 25.0%11 68.8%13 81.3%Danish

OtherBusiness correspondence English

2 12.5%8 50.0%11 68.8%Danish

OtherPress releases English

2 12.5%12 75.0%10 62.5%Danish

OtherAccounts / annual reports English

4 25.0%10 62.5%14 87.5%Danish

OtherPR and advertising material English

APPENDIX 2

19

Percentage Graphic illustrationNumber68 respondents18 a) In which languages are the below documents generated? (cont.)

6 37.5%13 81.3%11 68.8%Danish

OtherProduct specifications/manuals English

2 12.5%5 31.3%15 93.8%Danish

OtherEmployment contracts English

2 12.5%2 12.5%14 87.5%Danish

OtherIn-house newsletters/magazines English

2 12.5%8 50.0%13 81.3%Danish

OtherCustomer/supplier agreements English

18 b) Are English documents under 18 a) generated directly in English?Danish subsidiaries of Anglo corporations (response rate: 95.2%)

Danish subsidiaries of non-Anglo corporations (response rate: 75.0%)

DK-headquartered corporations (response rate: 61.3%)

NoYes 10 83.3%

16.7%2

NoYes 16 84.2%

15.8%3

NoYes 17 77.3%

22.7%5

18 c) Which documents are generated directed in English by non-linguists without assistance or interference from linguistic employees at any time?Danish subsidiaries of Anglo corporations (response rate: 66.7%)

1 6.3%4 25.0%15 93.8%Danish

OtherEmployee manuals English

1 6.3%4 25.0%15 93.8%Danish

Other

Safety regulations and workingenvironment instructions English

Intranet 7 50.0%Website 3 21.4%Reports 10 71.4%

Employee manuals 3 21.4%

Minutes 11 78.6%

In-house newsletters/magazines 6 42.9%

Company profile brochures 3 21.4%Business correspondence 9 64.3%Press releases 1 7.1%Accounts / annual reports 6 42.9%PR and advertising material 1 7.1%Product specifications/manuals 2 14.3%Customer/supplier agreements 4 28.6%Employment contracts 3 21.4%

Safety regulations and working environmentinstructions 2 14.3%

20

APPENDIX 2

Percentage Graphic illustrationNumber68 respondents18 c) Which documents are generated directed in English by non-linguists without assistance or interference from linguistic employees at any time? (cont.)DK-headquartered corporations (response rate: 61.3%)

Danish subsidiaries of non-Anglo corporations (response rate: 75.0%)

18 d) ***Intentionally deleted***19 ***Intentionally deleted***20 How crucial are correctness and accuracy of English used in the below situations?Danish subsidiaries of Anglo corporations (response rate: 85.7%)

Intranet 9 47.4%Website 5 26.3%Reports 12 63.2%

Employee manuals 11 57.9%

Minutes 16 84.2%

In-house newsletters/magazines 7 36.8%

Company profile brochures 0 0%Business correspondence 12 63.2%Press releases 0 0%Accounts / annual reports 1 5.3%PR and advertising material 3 15.8%Product specifications/manuals 3 15.8%Customer/supplier agreements 6 31.6%Employment contracts 5 26.3%

Safety regulations and working environmentinstructions 9 47.4%

Intranet 6 50.0%Website 3 25.0%Reports 12 100%

Employee manuals 4 33.3%

Minutes 9 75.0%

In-house newsletters/magazines 3 25.0%

Company profile brochures 3 25.0%Business correspondence 8 66.7%Press releases 2 16.7%Accounts / annual reports 4 33.3%PR and advertising material 3 25.0%Product specifications/manuals 3 25.0%Customer/supplier agreements 5 41.7%Employment contracts 4 33.3%

Safety regulations and working environmentinstructions 3 25.0%

Technical documentation andproduct specification

0 0%16 94.1%Very crucial

Less crucial1 5.9%Not crucial0 0%Don’t know

Agreements and contracts 0 0%18 100%Very crucial

Less crucial0 0%Not crucial0 0%Don’t know

APPENDIX 2

21

Percentage Graphic illustrationNumber68 respondents20 How crucial are correctness and accuracy of English used in the below situations? (cont.)

DK-headquartered corporations (response rate: 90.3%)

Accounts and annual reports 3 17.6%13 76.5%Very crucial

Less crucial1 5.9%Not crucial0 0%Don’t know

Company profile brochures andadvertising material

2 11.1%15 83.3%Very crucial

Less crucial1 5.6%Not crucial0 0%Don’t know

Written horizontal communication 9 50.0%7 38.9%Very crucial

Less crucial2 11.1%Not crucial0 0%Don’t know

Oral horizontal communication 11 61.1%4 22.2%Very crucial

Less crucial3 16.7%Not crucial0 0%Don’t know

Written vertical communication 8 44.4%9 50.0%Very crucial

Less crucial1 5.6%Not crucial0 0%Don’t know

Oral vertical communication 10 55.6%6 33.3%Very crucial

Less crucial2 11.1%Not crucial0 0%Don’t know

Written external communication 1 5.9%15 88.2%Very crucial

Less crucial1 5.9%Not crucial0 0%Don’t know

Oral external communication 6 35.3%10 58.8%Very crucial

Less crucial1 5.9%Not crucial0 0%Don’t know

Technical documentation andproduct specification

1 3.7%26 96.3%Very crucial

Less crucial0 0%Not crucial0 0%Don’t know

Agreements and contracts 1 3.6%27 96.4%Very crucial

Less crucial0 0%Not crucial0 0%Don’t know

Accounts and annual reports 0 0%27 96.4%Very crucial

Less crucial0 0%Not crucial1 3.6%Don’t know

Company profile brochures andadvertising material

0 0%28 100%Very crucial

Less crucial0 0%Not crucial0 0%Don’t know

22

APPENDIX 2

Percentage Graphic illustrationNumber68 respondents20 How crucial are correctness and accuracy of English used in the below situations? (cont.)

Danish subsidiaries of non-Anglo corporations (response rate: 85.7%)

Written horizontal communication 16 59.3%10 37.0%Very crucial

Less crucial0 0%Not crucial1 3.7%Don’t know

Oral horizontal communication 20 74.1%5 18.5%Very crucial

Less crucial2 7.4%Not crucial0 0%Don’t know

Written vertical communication 13 48.1%14 51.9%Very crucial

Less crucial0 0%Not crucial0 0%Don’t know

Oral vertical communication 17 63.0%8 29.6%Very crucial

Less crucial2 7.4%Not crucial0 0%Don’t know

Written external communication 4 14.3%24 85.7%Very crucial

Less crucial0 0%Not crucial0 0%Don’t know

Oral external communication 13 50.0%13 50.0%Very crucial

Less crucial0 0%Not crucial0 0%Don’t know

Technical documentation andproduct specification

0 0%16 94.1%Very crucial

Less crucial1 5.9%Not crucial0 0%Don’t know

Agreements and contracts 0 0%18 100%Very crucial

Less crucial0 0%Not crucial0 0%Don’t know

Accounts and annual reports 3 17.6%13 76.5%Very crucial

Less crucial1 5.9%Not crucial0 0%Don’t know

Company profile brochures andadvertising material

2 11.1%15 83.3%Very crucial

Less crucial1 5.6%Not crucial0 0%Don’t know

Written horizontal communication 9 50.0%7 38.9%Very crucial

Less crucial2 11.1%Not crucial0 0%Don’t know

Oral horizontal communication 11 61.1%4 22.2%Very crucial

Less crucial3 16.7%Not crucial0 0%Don’t know

APPENDIX 2

23

Percentage Graphic illustrationNumber68 respondents20 How crucial are correctness and accuracy of English used in the below situations? (cont.)

21 a) Do documents generated in English by subsidiaries cause any comprehension problems to HQ?

21 b) Do documents generated in English by HQ cause any comprehension problems to subsidiaries?

Written vertical communication 8 44.4%9 50.0%Very crucial

Less crucial1 5.6%Not crucial0 0%Don’t know

Oral vertical communication 10 55.6%6 33.3%Very crucial

Less crucial2 11.1%Not crucial0 0%Don’t know

Written external communication 1 5.9%15 88.2%Very crucial

Less crucial1 5.9%Not crucial0 0%Don’t know

Oral external communication 6 35.3%10 58.8%Very crucial

Less crucial1 5.9%Not crucial0 0%Don’t know

Danish subsidiaries of Anglo corporations (response rate: 100%)Never 12 57.1%Rarely 9 42.9%

Occasionally 0 0%Often 0 0%Don’t know 0 0%DK-headquartered corporations (response rate: 90.3%)Never 10.7%Rarely 46.4%Occasionally 11 39.3%Often 0 0%Don’t know 1 3.6%

313

Danish subsidiaries of non-Anglo corporations (response rate: 100%)Never 6 40.0%Rarely 8 53.3%Occasionally 0 0%Often 0 0%Don’t know 1 6.7%

Danish subsidiaries of Anglo corporations (response rate: 100%)Never 8 40.0%Rarely 9 45.0%Occasionally 2 10.0%Often 1 5.0%Don’t know 0 0%

24

APPENDIX 2

Percentage Graphic illustrationNumber68 respondents21 b) Do documents generated in English by HQ cause any comprehension problems to subsidiaries? (cont.)

21 c) Do documents generated in English by a subsidiary cause any comprehension problems to other subsidiaries?

21 d) How are comprehension problems dealt with?

DK-headquartered corporations (response rate: 90.3%)Never 7.1%Rarely 53.6%Occasionally 10 35.7%Often 0 0%Don’t know 1 3.6%

215

Danish subsidiaries of non-Anglo corporations (response rate: 100%)Never 3 20.0%Rarely 6 40.0%Occasionally 5 33.3%Often 0 0%Don’t know 1 6.7%

Danish subsidiaries of Anglo corporations (response rate: 100%)Never 8 38.1%Rarely 8 38.1%Occasionally 3 14.3%Often 1 4.8%Don’t know 1 4.8%DK-headquartered corporations (response rate: 90.3%)Never 6.7%Rarely 36.7%Occasionally 12 40.0%Often 0 0%Don’t know 2 6.7%

211

Danish subsidiaries of non-Anglo corporations (response rate: 100%)Never 2 13.3%Rarely 8 53.3%Occasionally 3 20.0%Often 0 0%Don’t know 2 13.3%

Danish subsidiaries of Anglo corporations (response rate: 71.4%)Internally between the divisions/subsidiaries thatexperience the problems 12 80.0%

Such problems must be reported to HQ who registerall such occurrences 1 6.7%

If problems occur repeatedly, a linguist speciallytrained in dealing with such problems is deployed 0 0%

Don’t know 2 13.3%Other 0 0%

APPENDIX 2

25

Percentage Graphic illustrationNumber68 respondents21 d) How are comprehension problems dealt with? (cont.)

22 Does the corporation have a language policy for coping with problems that might arise from using English?Danish subsidiaries of Anglo corporations (response rate: 100%)

Danish subsidiaries of non-Anglo corporations (response rate: 100%)

DK-headquartered corporations (response rate: 93.5%)

23 a) What is done to retain and attract staff proficient in English?

DK-headquartered corporations (response rate: 77.4%)Internally between the divisions/subsidiaries thatexperience the problems 22 84.6%

Such problems must be reported to HQ who registerall such occurrences 0 0%

If problems occur repeatedly, a linguist speciallytrained in dealing with such problems is deployed 4 15.4%

Don’t know 0 0%Other 0 0%Danish subsidiaries of non-Anglo corporations (response rate: 87.5%)Internally between the divisions/subsidiaries thatexperience the problems 8 57.1%

Such problems must be reported to HQ who registerall such occurrences 0 0%

If problems occur repeatedly, a linguist speciallytrained in dealing with such problems is deployed 0 0%

Don’t know 5 35.7%Other 1 7.1%

Don’t know 4 19.0%YesNo 16 76.2%

4.8%1

Don’t know 0 0%YesNo 26 89.7%

10.3%3

Don’t know 5 31.3%YesNo 10 62.5%

6.3%1

A high level of English proficiency is required injob postings 17 81.0%

Danish subsidiaries of Anglo corporations (response rate: 81.0%)

12 70.6%2 11.8%Tested

At job interviews this level must beDocumented

A high level of English proficiency is required injob postings 25 80.6%

DK-headquartered corporations (response rate: 80.6%)

14 56.0%5 20.0%Tested

At job interviews this level must beDocumented

A high level of English proficiency is required injob postings 8 50.0%

Danish subsidiaries of non-Anglo corporations (response rate: 50%)

3 37.5%3 37.5%Tested

At job interviews this level must beDocumented

APPENDIX 2

26

Percentage Graphic illustrationNumber68 respondents23 b) ***Intentionally deleted***23 c) What would be a typical phrase in an executive job posting?

23 d) What would be a typical phrase in a job posting recruiting administrative employees?

23 e) What would be a typical phrase in a job posting recruiting operational staff?

You are able to communicate in EnglishYou speak and write English at negotiating levelYou are highly proficient in English 6

86

30.0%40.0%30.0%

Danish subsidiaries of Anglo corporations (response rate: 95.2%)

You are able to communicate in EnglishYou speak and write English at negotiating levelYou are highly proficient in English 3

156

12.5%62.5%25.0%

DK-headquartered corporations (response rate: 83.9%)

You are able to communicate in EnglishYou speak and write English at negotiating levelYou are highly proficient in English 2

412

11.1%22.2%66.7%

Danish subsidiaries of Anglo corporations (response rate: 95.2%)

23 f)(i) Do you use personality tests?

DK-headquartered corporations (response rate: 77.4%)

YesNo 5 20.8%

79.2%19

Danish subsidiaries of Anglo corporations (response rate: 85.7%)

YesNo 5 27.8%

77.8%14

You are able to communicate in EnglishYou speak and write English at negotiating levelYou are highly proficient in English 11

92

50.0%40.9%

9.1%

Danish subsidiaries of Anglo corporations (response rate: 95.2%)

You are able to communicate in EnglishYou speak and write English at negotiating levelYou are highly proficient in English 9

161

34.6%61.5%3.8%

DK-headquartered corporations (response rate: 83.9%)

You are able to communicate in EnglishYou speak and write English at negotiating levelYou are highly proficient in English 5

101

31.3%62.5%

6.3%

Danish subsidiaries of non-Anglo corporations (response rate: 100%)

You are able to communicate in EnglishYou speak and write English at negotiating levelYou are highly proficient in English 1

69

6.3%37.5%56.3%

Danish subsidiaries of non-Anglo corporations (response rate: 100%)

You are able to communicate in EnglishYou speak and write English at negotiating levelYou are highly proficient in English 1

1015

3.8%38.5%57.7%

DK-headquartered corporations (response rate: 83.9%)

You are able to communicate in EnglishYou speak and write English at negotiating levelYou are highly proficient in English 1

311

6.7%20.0%73.3%

Danish subsidiaries of non-Anglo corporations (response rate: 100%)

27

APPENDIX 2

Percentage Graphic illustrationNumber68 respondents23 f)(i) Do you use personality tests? (cont.)Danish subsidiaries of non-Anglo corporations (response rate: 100%)

YesNo 5 31.3%

68.8%1123 f)(ii) If yes, in which languages are such tests conducted when recruiting:

Danish subsidiaries of non-Anglo corporations (response rate: 93.8%)

5 33.3%6 40.0%Danish

ExecutivesEnglish

2 13.3%7 46.7%Danish

Employees in generalEnglish

Danish subsidiaries of Anglo corporations (response rate: 94.4%)

4 23.5%9 52.9%Danish

ExecutivesEnglish

2 11.8%11 64.7%Danish

Employees in generalEnglish

DK-headquartered corporations (response rate: 91.7%)

12 54.5%16 72.7%Danish

ExecutivesEnglish

11 50.0%16 72.7%Danish

Employees in generalEnglish

23 g) If conducted in Danish, why?

It is optional for the applicantTests are made locally in local language 4 44.1%

11.1%1

Comprehension of detailsA high level English is not required for everyone 2 22.2%

22.2%2

DK-headquartered corporations (response rate: 52.9%)

23 h)(i) Is language training offered to upgrade/maintain employees’ English proficiency?Danish subsidiaries of Anglo corporations (response rate: 81.0%)

No, we trust employees upgrade their Englishproficiency in their sparetime should they need to 5 29.4%

8 47.1%10 58.8%Basic skills

Yes, training is offered inSpecialised

DK-headquartered corporations (response rate: 83.9%)

No, we trust employees upgrade their Englishproficiency in their sparetime should they need to 5 19.2%

9 34.6%20 76.9%Basic skills

Yes, training is offered inSpecialised

It is optional for the applicantTests are made locally in local language 3 37.5%

0%0

Comprehension of detailsA high level English is not required for everyone 2 25.0%

37.5%3

Danish subsidiaries of Anglo corporations (response rate: 66.7%)

It is optional for the applicantTests are made locally in local language 2 100%

0%0

Comprehension of detailsA high level English is not required for everyone 0 0%

0%0

Danish subsidiaries of non-Anglo corporations (response rate: 25.0%)

APPENDIX 2

28

Percentage Graphic illustrationNumber68 respondents

Danish subsidiaries of non-Anglo corporations (response rate: 81.3%)

No, we trust employees upgrade their Englishproficiency in their sparetime should they need to 4 30.8%

5 38.5%6 46.2%Basic skills

Yes, training is offered inSpecialised

23 h)(i) Is language training offered to upgrade/maintain employees’ English proficiency? (cont.)

23 h)(ii) If yes, at which organisational levels is training offered?

All employeesLine management 3 12.0%

64.0%16

Middle managementTop management 4 16.0%

16.0%4

DK-headquartered corporations (response rate: 95.2%)

24 a) Have members of the board ever expressed a sense of alienation or intimidation in relation to the use of English?

24 b) Have members of the executive management ever expressed a sense of alienation or intimidation in relation to the use of English?

All employeesLine management 1 6.3%

68.8%11

Middle managementTop management 1 6.3%

6.3%1

Danish subsidiaries of Anglo corporations (response rate: 94.1%)

All employeesLine management 0 0%

66.7%8

Middle managementTop management 1 8.3%

8.3%1

Danish subsidiaries of non-Anglo corporations (response rate: 92.3%)

Don’t knowYes, it occurs regularly 1 5.0%

25.0%5

Yes, at first, but no longerNo, never 13 65.0%

5.0%1

Danish subsidiaries of Anglo corporations (response rate: 95.2%)

Don’t knowYes, it occurs regularly 1 4.0%

24.0%6

Yes, at first, but no longerNo, never 14 56.0%

16.0%4

DK-headquartered corporations (response rate: 83.9%)

Don’t knowYes, it occurs regularly 0 0%

31.3%5

Yes, at first, but no longerNo, never 10 62.5%

6.3%1

Danish subsidiaries of non-Anglo corporations (response rate: 100%)

Don’t knowYes, it occurs regularly 1 5.3%

15.8%3

Yes, at first, but no longerNo, never 14 73.7%

5.3%1

Danish subsidiaries of Anglo corporations (response rate: 95.2%)

29

APPENDIX 2

Percentage Graphic illustrationNumber68 respondents24 b) Have members of the executive management ever expressed a sense of alienation or intimidation in relation to the use of English? (cont.)

24 c) Have members of the line management ever expressed a sense of alienation or intimi- dation in relation to the use of English?

Don’t knowYes, it occurs regularly 2 12.5%

25.0%4

Yes, at first, but no longerNo, never 6 37.5%

25.0%4

Danish subsidiaries of non-Anglo corporations (response rate: 100%)

24 d) Have employees at large ever expressed a sense of alienation or intimidation in relation to the use of English?

Don’t knowYes, it occurs regularly 5 25.0%

20.0%4

Yes, at first, but no longerNo, never 8 40.0%

15.0%3

Danish subsidiaries of Anglo corporations (response rate: 95.2%)

Don’t knowYes, it occurs regularly 7 29.2%

25.0%6

Yes, at first, but no longerNo, never 6 25.0%

20.8%5

DK-headquartered corporations (response rate: 83.9%)

Don’t knowYes, it occurs regularly 4 25.0%

31.3%5

Yes, at first, but no longerNo, never 4 25.0%

18.8%3

Danish subsidiaries of non-Anglo corporations (response rate: 100%)

Don’t knowYes, it occurs regularly 0 0%

23.1%6

Yes, at first, but no longerNo, never 19 73.1%

3.8%1

DK-headquartered corporations (response rate: 83.9%)

Don’t knowYes, it occurs regularly 1 6.3%

18.8%3

Yes, at first, but no longerNo, never 10 62.5%

12.5%2

Danish subsidiaries of non-Anglo corporations (response rate: 100%)

Don’t knowYes, it occurs regularly 2 11.1%

16.7%3

Yes, at first, but no longerNo, never 13 72.2%

0%0

Danish subsidiaries of Anglo corporations (response rate: 95.2%)

Don’t knowYes, it occurs regularly 0 0%

28.0%7

Yes, at first, but no longerNo, never 14 56.0%

16.0%4

DK-headquartered corporations (response rate: 83.9%)

APPENDIX 2

30

Percentage Graphic illustrationNumber68 respondents25 a) Does lack of English proficiency affect an employee’s career opportunities?

DK-headquartered corporations (response rate: 93.5%)

Yes, it is important that our employees communi-cate and work unproblematically in English 13 44.8%

No, we focus on our employees’ technical/specialcompetences, not his/her linguistic skills 12 41.4%

Don’t know 4 13.8%Danish subsidiaries of Anglo corporations (response rate: 100%)

Yes, it is important that our employees communi-cate and work unproblematically in English 7 43.8%

No, we focus on our employees’ technical/specialcompetences, not his/her linguistic skills 7 43.8%

Don’t know 2 12.5%25 b) If yes, in what way might his/her career be affected?

DismissalDepends on job position 1 14.3%

14.3%1

No career abroadHindrance to career/promotion 3 42.9%

28.6%2

Danish subsidiaries of Anglo corporations (response rate: 45.5%)

26 a) Is a specific department or person(s) responsible for the development and implemen- tation of corporate language throughout the organisation?

DK-headquartered corporations (response rate: 96.8%)

YesNo 22 73.3%

26.7%8

Danish subsidiaries of Anglo corporations (response rate: 90.5%)

Yes, it is important that our employees communi-cate and work unproblematically in English 11 57.9%

No, we focus on our employees’ technical/specialcompetences, not his/her linguistic skills 7 36.8%

Don’t know 1 5.3%

DismissalDepends on job position 3 33.3%

0%0

No career abroadHindrance to career/promotion 5 55.6%

11.1%1

DK-headquartered corporations (response rate: 69.2%)

DismissalDepends on job position 0 0%

0%0

No career abroadHindrance to career/promotion 1 100%

0%0

Danish subsidiaries of non-Anglo corporations (response rate: 14.3%)

Danish subsidiaries of Anglo corporations (response rate: 90.5%)

YesNo 18 94.7%

5.3%1

Danish subsidiaries of non-Anglo corporations (response rate: 100%)

YesNo 16 100%

0%0

31

APPENDIX 2

Percentage Graphic illustrationNumber68 respondents26 b) If yes, which department/occupational function?Danish subsidiaries of Anglo corporations (response rate: 100%)

Danish subsidiaries of non-Anglo corporations

*)

**)

***)

DK-headquartered corporations (response rate: 100%)HR 2 20.0%Marketing 1 10.0%Management secretary 1 10.0%Information/documentation 1 10.0%Communications 3 30.0%Lang. policy steering group/lang. ambassadors 2 20.0%

27 a) If the corporation has an ethnically diverse staff mix it is because:

**) A total of 8 respondents checked “yes” in 26 a) while 10 replies are checked in the follow-up question. This is caused by two respondents checking two options.***) No respondents checked “yes” in 26 a) for which reason there is no graphic presentation of the result under 26 b)

*) The single respondent who checked “yes” in 26 a) assigned this task to the office manager

It reduces internal communication breakdowns andmisunderstandings 0 0%

It gives the organisation better odds in the globalmarket 2 22.2%

We recruit the best qualified heads for all positions,regardless of nationality 7 77.8%

It encourages staff to use more frequently Englishas the preferred means of communication 3 33.3%

We seek to reflect society at large which ourcorporation is part of 5 55.6%

Danish subsidiaries of Anglo corporations (response rate: See 27 b))

It is enrichment to the daily communication 3 33.3%

It reduces internal communication breakdowns andmisunderstandings 0 0%

It gives the organisation better odds in the globalmarket 1 7.7%

We recruit the best qualified heads for all positions,regardless of nationality 13 100%

It encourages staff to use more frequently Englishas the preferred means of communication 2 15.4%

We seek to reflect society at large which ourcorporation is part of 1 7.7%

DK-headquartered corporations (response rate: See 27 b))

It is enrichment to the daily communication 2 15.4%

It reduces internal communication breakdowns andmisunderstandings 0 0%

It gives the organisation better odds in the globalmarket 3 42.9%

We recruit the best qualified heads for all positions,regardless of nationality 6 85.7%

It encourages staff to use more frequently Englishas the preferred means of communication 0 0%

We seek to reflect society at large which ourcorporation is part of 3 42.9%

Danish subsidiaries of non-Anglo corporations (response rate: See 27 b))

It is enrichment to the daily communication 2 28.6%

APPENDIX 2

32

Percentage Graphic illustrationNumber68 respondents27 b) If the corporation has an ethnically homogeneous staff mix it is because: *)

Danish subsidiaries of Anglo corporations (response rate: 71.4%)

It gives the organisation better odds in the globalmarket 0 0%

It reduces internal communication breakdowns andmisunderstandings 0 0%

Tradition + habit 0 0%

It is entirely incidental - not the result of an inten-tional recruitment policy 5 83.3%

DK-headquartered corporations (response rate: 77.4%)

It gives the organisation better odds in the globalmarket 0 0%

It reduces internal communication breakdowns andmisunderstandings 1 9.1%

We recruit the best qualified heads for all positions,regardless of nationality 5 83.3%

We recruit the best qualified heads for all positions,regardless of nationality 2 40.0%

Tradition + habit 1 9.1%

It is entirely incidental - not the result of an inten-tional recruitment policy 9 81.8%

Danish subsidiaries of non-Anglo corporations (response rate: 75.0%)

It gives the organisation better odds in the globalmarket 1 20.0%

It reduces internal communication breakdowns andmisunderstandings 0 0%

We recruit the best qualified heads for all positions,regardless of nationality 6 54.5%

*) The reason why the response rates for 27 a) + b) are only shown under 27 b) is that these two questions break the respondents down into two groups. Thus, the overall response rate must be calculated from the total replies to both questions.

27 c) i) In this respect, please state in which way you perceive staff homogeneity:Tradition + habit 0 0%

It is entirely incidental - not the result of an inten-tional recruitment policy 5 100%

Danish subsidiaries of Anglo corporations (response rate: 66.7%)

A factor that weakens employee unity, teamworkand efficiency 2 15.4%

A factor that strengthens employee unity, teamworkand efficiency 2 15.4%

Don’t know 3 23.1%A non-multiethnic staff mix 6 46.2%

DK-headquartered corporations (response rate: 45.2%)

A factor that weakens employee unity, teamworkand efficiency 2 14.3%

A factor that strengthens employee unity, teamworkand efficiency 8 57.1%

Don’t know 0 0%A non-multiethnic staff mix 4 28.6%

33

APPENDIX 2

Percentage Graphic illustrationNumber68 respondents

27 c) ii) In this respect, please state in which way you perceive staff diversity:

28 a) Has the corporation implemented international standards (e.g. ISO9001) for quality management/assessment, production, HR, logistics, management in general, etc.?

Danish subsidiaries of Anglo corporations (response rate: 76.2%)

NoYes 6 37.5%

37.5%6Don’t know 4 25.0%

Danish subsidiaries of Anglo corporations (response rate: 61.9%)

A factor that weakens employee unity, teamworkand efficiency 0 0%

A factor that strengthens employee unity, teamworkand efficiency 6 46.2%

Don’t know 2 15.4%A multiethnic staff mix 5 38.5%

DK-headquartered corporations (response rate: 58.1%)

A factor that weakens employee unity, teamworkand efficiency 1 5.3%

A factor that strengthens employee unity, teamworkand efficiency 8 42.1%

Don’t know 0 0%A multiethnic staff mix 10 52.6%

Danish subsidiaries of non-Anglo corporations (response rate: 68.8%)

A factor that weakens employee unity, teamworkand efficiency 0 0%

A factor that strengthens employee unity, teamworkand efficiency 2 16.7%

Don’t know 2 16.7%A multiethnic staff mix 8 66.7%

Danish subsidiaries of Anglo corporations (response rate: 95.2%)

NoYes 14 70.0%

25.0%5Don’t know 1 5.0%DK-headquartered corporations (response rate: 96.8%)

NoYes 24 80.0%

20.0%6Don’t know 0 0%Danish subsidiaries of non-Anglo corporations (response rate: 100%)

NoYes 8 50.0%

50.0%8Don’t know 0 0%

27 c) i) In this respect, please state in which way you perceive staff homogeneity: (cont.)Danish subsidiaries of non-Anglo corporations (response rate: 68.8%)

A factor that weakens employee unity, teamwork andefficiency 0 0%

A factor that strengthens employee unity, teamworkand efficiency 4 36.4%

Don’t knowA non-multiethnic staff mix 4 36.4%

3 27.3%

28 b) If an international standard for corporate language were available, would the corpora- tion then implement it?

34

APPENDIX 2

Percentage Graphic illustrationNumber68 respondents

28 b) i) If yes in 28 b), why?

Danish subsidiaries of Anglo corporations (response rate: 0%)28 b) ii) If no in 28 b), why?

Danish subsidiaries of Anglo corporations (response rate: 33.3%)Competitive advantage 0 0%Important driver for unifying the culture 1 50.0%To comply with international rules 1 50.0%To continue to operate in an international market 0 0%To increase focus on linguistic quality 0 0%DK-headquartered corporations (response rate: 83.3%)Competitive advantage 1 20.0%Important driver for unifying the culture 0 0%To comply with international rules 0 0%To continue to operate in an international market 1 20.0%To increase focus on linguistic quality 3 60.0%

Danish subsidiaries of Anglo corporations (response rate: 83.3%)No difference/effect 3 60.0%Not necessary 2 40.0%Too time consuming 0 0%Language is not important 0 0%Not ready for such a step 0 0%DK-headquartered corporations (response rate: 54.5%)No difference/effect 3 50.0%Not necessary 0 0%Too time consuming 1 16.7%Language is not important 1 16.7%Not ready for such a step 1 16.7%Danish subsidiaries of non-Anglo corporations (response rate: 66.7%)No difference/effect 2 40.0%Not necessary 1 20.0%Too time consuming 1 20.0%Language is not important 1 20.0%Not ready for such a step 0 0%

Language policy 1 6.3%Communication strategy 12 75.0%Marketing strategy 15 93.8%Danish subsidiaries of Anglo corporations (response rate: 100%)

28 b) If an international standard for corporate language were available, would the corpora- tion then implement it? (cont.)

Danish subsidiaries of non-Anglo corporations (response rate: 87.5%)

NoYes 5 35.7%

42.9%6Don’t know 3 21.4%

DK-headquartered corporations (response rate: 74.2%)

NoYes 6 26.1%

47.8%11Don’t know 6 26.1%

29 Which of the below strategies have been formulated in writing?

APPENDIX 2

35

Percentage Graphic illustrationNumber68 respondents

30 The corporation’s identity in the outside world is built by:

29 Which of the below strategies have been formulated in writing? (cont.)

Danish subsidiaries of Anglo corporations (response rate: 66.7%)Product/s 116 12.2%Website/company profile brochures 96 10.1%Corporate language 70 7.3%Advertising/marketing 110 11.5%Business correspondence (faxes, emails, letters) 68 7.1%Annual reports and accounts 90 9.4%Press releases 100 10.5%Positive/negative publicity 106 11.1%Holistic communication strategy 64 6.7%Employees’ relations to stakeholders 61 6.4%Employees’ personal relations outside the corp. 73 7.7%DK-headquartered corporations (response rate: 74.2%)Product/s 219 14.9%Website/company profile brochures 176 11.9%Corporate language 92 6.2%Advertising/marketing 192 13.0%Business correspondence (faxes, emails, letters) 143 9.7%Annual reports and accounts 119 8.1%Press releases 147 10.0%Positive/negative publicity 167 11.3%Holistic communication strategy 63 4.3%Employees’ relations to stakeholders 49 3.3%Employees’ personal relations outside the corp. 107 7.3%Danish subsidiaries of non-Anglo corporations (response rate: 68.8%)Product/s 116 16.9%Website/company profile brochures 75 10.9%Corporate language 29 4.2%Advertising/marketing 85 12.4%Business correspondence (faxes, emails, letters) 38 5.5%Annual reports and accounts 45 6.6%Press releases 60 8.7%Positive/negative publicity 85 12.4%Holistic communication strategy 61 8.9%Employees’ relations to stakeholders 39 5.7%Employees’ personal relations outside the corp. 53 7.7%

Language policy 7 25.9%Communication strategy 19 70.4%Marketing strategy 25 92.6%DK-headquartered corporations (response rate: 100%)

Language policy 1 7.1%Communication strategy 11 78.6%Marketing strategy 13 92.9%Danish subsidiaries of non-Anglo corporations (response rate: 100%)

36

APPENDIX 2

Percentage Graphic illustrationNumber68 respondents31 What is the linguistic configuration of the corporation’s IT equipment?

0 0%5 31.3%11 68.8%Danish

BothHardware (keyboard) English

1 6.3%11 68.8%4 25.0%Danish

BothSoftware English

Danish subsidiaries of non-Anglo corporations (response rate: 100%)

7 23.3%15 50.0%8 26.7%Danish

BothHardware (keyboard) English

6 20.0%24 80.0%0 0%Danish

BothSoftware English

DK-headquartered corporations (response rate: 96.8%)

1 5.0%10 50.0%11 55.0%Danish

BothHardware (keyboard) English

2 10.0%16 80.0%2 10.0%Danish

BothSoftware English

Danish subsidiaries of Anglo corporations (response rate: 95.2%)

37

APPENDIX 2