Article published In:
Journal of Argumentation in ContextVol. 6:2 (2017) ► pp.137–166
Strategic maneuvering with presentational choices in Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) reports
In the framework of the extended pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) reporting is approached in this study as a particular communicative activity type, which can be reconstructed as part of a critical discussion. CSR reports excerpts are viewed in the analysis as parts of a virtual critical discussion in which a company acts as a protagonist maneuvering strategically to defend the standpoint according to which the business is operated ethically, and to convince the audience about what is mentioned in the standpoint. The reconstructed standpoint of a CSR report, We are doing business responsibly, may be regarded as stereotypical, since it corresponds to the institutional point of this regulated type of communicative activity. In the first part of the study, a brief overview is given of the CSR reporting activity, then the concept of strategic maneuvering is presented, under its three aspects (topical potential, audience demand, and presentational techniques), as well as the notion of communicative activity type, with a highlight on the role of the (macro-)context and of institutional preconditions in analytical studies on argumentation. The analysis in the latter part of the study concerns presentational techniques used by the protagonist in the confrontation and in the argumentation stages in CSR reporting, in order to reconcile rhetorical and dialectical aims by maneuvering strategically. The coordinatively and the subordinatively compound structure of argumentation, the symptomatic argument scheme, as well as reformulations of the standpoint, use of emotionally endowed words, concentration of the arguments in the form of nominal sentences acting as headings are among the most important presentational devices constitutive of argumentative moves aimed at convincing the audience that the company acts ethically, but also at promoting a positive image of its business responsibility, which appears to be the ground for winning the discussion.
Keywords: argumentative move, communicative activity type, CSR report, presentational choices, strategic maneuvering
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.CSR communication and CSR reporting
- 3.Strategic maneuvering in the CSR report communicative activity type
- 3.1Topical choices in CSR reporting
- 3.2Adaptation to audience demands and expectations in CSR reporting
- 3.3Presentational choices, devices, or techniques in CSR reporting
- 4.Strategically maneuvering with presentational choices in CSR reporting
- 4.1Reasonableness and effectiveness in the confrontation stage of the critical discussion
- 4.2Reasonableness and effectiveness in the argumentation stage of the critical discussion
- 4.2.1Argumentation structure
- 4.2.2Linguistic devices in the argumentation stage
- 4.2.3Argument schemes
- 5.Final remarks
- Notes
-
References
This article is currently available as a sample article.
References (24)
Brennan, Niamh M., Doris M. Merkl-Davies, & Annika Beelitz. (2001). Green Paper. Promoting a European Framework for Corporate Social Responsibility. Presented by the Commission of the European Communities, July 18th, 2001. Brussels. [PEFCSR]
. (2013). “Dialogism in Corporate Social Responsibility Communications: Conceptualising Verbal Interaction between Organisations and their Audiences.” Journal of Business Ethics 115 (4), 665–679. 
Brennan, Niamh M., & Doris M. Merkl-Davies. (2014). “Rhetoric and Argument in Social and Environmental Reporting: the Dirty Laundry Case”. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 27 (4), 602–633.
Dahlsrud, Alexander. (2008) (first version online 2006). “How Corporate Social Responsibility is Defined: an Analysis of 37 Definitions.” Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 151, 1–13.
Eisenberg, Eric M. (2006). Strategic Ambiguities: Essays on Communication, Organization, and Identity. Thousand Oaks / London / New Delhi: Sage.
Elsbach, Kimberly D. (1994). “Managing Organizational Legitimacy in the California Cattle Industry: The Construction and Effectiveness of Verbal Accounts.” Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 39 (1) (Mar.), 57–88.
Garssen, Bart. (2001). “Argument schemes.” In Crucial Concepts in Argumentation Theory, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren, 81–99. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Gâţă, Anca. (2015). “The strategic function of argumentative moves in Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) reports.” In Scrutinizing Argumentation in Practice [Argumentation in Context 9], ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren, & Bart Garssen, 297–312. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Itänen, Miia-Emilia. (2011). CSR Discourse in Corporate Reports – Exploring the Socially Constructed Nature of Corporate Social Responsibility. Master‘s Thesis, International Business, School of Economics, Aalto University.
Michelon, Giovanna, Silvia Pilonato, & Federica Ricceri. (2015). “CSR reporting practices and the quality of disclosure: An empirical analysis.” Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 331 (December), 59–78.
Palmieri, Rudi. (2014). Corporate argumentation in takeover bids. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Perelman, Chaïm, & Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1958 (1969). The New Rhetoric. A treatise on argumentation, translation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
Tench, Ralph, William Sun, & Brian Jones (eds). (2014). Communicating Corporate Social Responsibility: Perspectives and Practice, “Critical Studies on Corporate Responsibility, Governance and Sustainability” Series, Vol. 61. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.
van Eemeren, Frans H. (2010). Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse. Extending the Pragma-dialectical Theory of Argumentation. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
(2013a). “Fallacies as derailments of argumentative discourse: Acceptance based on understanding and critical assessment.” Journal of Pragmatics 591, 141–152.
(2013b). “In What Sense Do Modern Argumentation Theories Relate to Aristotle? The Case of Pragma-Dialectics.” Argumentation 271, 49–70.
van Eemeren, Frans H., & Rob Grootendorst. (1984). Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions. A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Berlin: de Gruyter.
. (1992). Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies. A Pragma-dialectical Perspective. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
. (2004). A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
van Eemeren, Frans H., Rob Grootendorst, Sally Jackson & Scott Jacobs. (1993). Reconstructing Argumentative Discourse. Tuscaloosa/London: The University of Alabama Press.
van Eemeren, Frans H., Peter Houtlosser & A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans. (2007). Dialectical profiles and indicators of argument moves. In H. V. Hansen et al. (Eds.), Dissensus and the Search for Common Ground, CD-ROM (pp. 1–17). Windsor, ON: OSSA.
van Eemeren, Frans H., & Peter Houtlosser. (2002). “Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse: Maintaining a delicate balance.” In Dialectic and Rhetoric: The warp and woof of argumentation analysis, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren, & Peter Houtlosser, 131–159. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
. (2009). “Strategic Maneuvering. Examining Argumentation in Context.” In Examining Argumentation in Context, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren, 1–22.
van Rees, M. Agnes, & Eddo Rigotti. (2011). “The analysis of the strategic function of presentational techniques.” In Keeping in touch with Pragma-Dialectics. In honor of Frans H. van Eemeren, ed. by Eveline T. Feteris, Bart Garssen, & A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, 207–220. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.