We analyse managerial discourse in corporate communication ('CEO-speak') during a six month period following a legitimacy-threatening event in the form of an incident in a German nuclear power plant. As discourses express specific stances expressed by a group of people who share particular beliefs and values, they constitute an important means of restoring organisational legitimacy when social rules and norms have been violated. Using an analytical framework based on legitimacy as a process of reciprocal sense-making and consisting of three levels of analysis which capture the relationship between text and context, we investigate the discourse used by CEOs in their initial and subsequent accounts of the incident. We find that CEOs aim to negotiate a resolution between their initial account and organisational audiences' incongruent interpretations of the event by adopting an ad hoc normative attitude to stakeholders. This manifests itself in the strategic use of the discourse of stakeholder engagement as a means of signalling change, yet maintaining the status quo. It suggests that CEOs strategically use discourse to manufacture organisational audiences' consent regarding the continued operation of the nuclear power plant affected by the incident. Our findings contribute to the critical corporate communication literature which regards corporate narrative reporting as a means of consolidating the private interests of corporations, rather than increasing transparency and accountability.

We conceptualise CSR communication as a process of reciprocal influence between organisations and their audiences. We use an illustrative case study in the form of a conflict between firms and a powerful stakeholder which is played out in a series of 20 press releases over a two-month period to develop a framework of analysis based on insights from linguistics. It focuses on three aspects of dialogism, namely (i) turn-taking (co-operating in a conversation by responding to the other party), (ii) inter-party moves (the nature and type of interaction action characterising a turn i.e., denial, apology, excuse), and (iii) intertextuality (the intensity and quality of verbal interaction between the parties). We address the question:What is the nature and type of verbal interactions between the parties? First we examine (a) whether the parties verbally interact and then (b) whether the parties listen to each other.We find evidence of dialogism suggesting that CSR communication is an interactive process which has to be understood as a function of the power relations between a firm and a specific stakeholder. Also, we find evidence of intertextuality in the press releases by the six firms which engage in verbal interaction with the stakeholder. We interpret this as linguistic evidence of isomorphic processes relating to CSR practices resulting from the pressure exerted by a powerful stakeholder. The lack of response by ten firms that fail to issue press releases suggests a strategy of 'watch-and-wait' with respect to the outcome of the conflict.

A growing number of studies use a dichotomous variable indicating the presence of a standalone CSR report to capture impacts of CSR disclosure.  Our concern is that, without considering differences in the information provided, such an approach could lead to incorrect inferences regarding those impacts.  Accordingly, we extend prior research by examining whether, similar to differences in environmental disclosure, the mere presence of a standalone CSR report mitigates negative market reactions at times of regulatory cost exposure. We focus on the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi disaster and a sample of international utilities with nuclear power generation.  Controlling for other factors related to social and regulatory cost exposures, we find only the environmental disclosures appear to reduce negative market effects.  We thus argue that, in exploring the impacts of CSR disclosure, researchers need to carefully consider, beyond just the presence of a CSR report, differences in the extent of information being provided.

Peer reviewed versionCyswllt i'r cyhoeddiad / Link to publication Dyfyniad o'r fersiwn a gyhoeddwyd / Citation for published version (APA): Beelitz, A., & Merkl-Davies, D. (2019). Discursive framing in private and public communication by pro-nuclear corporate, political and regulatory actors following the Fukushima disaster.1 Discursive framing in private and public communication by pro-nuclear corporate, political and regulatory actors following the Fukushima disaster Purpose -The study examines a case of companies cooperating with the State to prevent a public controversy over nuclear power following the Fukushima disaster and achieve mutually beneficial policy outcomes. It analyses the private and public communication of pro-nuclear corporate, political and regulatory actors.Design/methodology/approach -Drawing on political economy theory, the study examines how actors mobilised power by accessing an existing social network to agree a joint public communication strategy in order to ensure public support for the continuation of nuclear power generation in the UK. It traces discursive frames from their inception in private communication to their reproduction in public communication and their dissemination via the media.Findings -The study provides evidence of pro-nuclear actors cooperating behind the scenes to achieve consistent public pro-nuclear messaging. It finds evidence of four discursive frames:(1) avoiding knee-jerk reactions, (2) lessons learned, (3) safety, and (4) nuclear renaissance.In combination, they guide audiences' evaluation of the consequences of the Fukushima disaster for the UK in favour of continuing the commercial use of nuclear energy.Originality/value -The private e-mail exchange between pro-nuclear actors presents a unique opportunity to examine the mobilisation of less visible forms of power in the form of agenda setting (manipulation) and discursive framing (domination) in order to influence policy outcomes and shape public opinion on nuclear energy. This is problematic because it constitutes a lack of transparency and accountability on part of the State with respect to policy outcomes and restricts the civic space by curtailing the articulation of alternative interests and voices.3 areas in Alaska with their 'frontstage' discourse on environmental protection. In contrast, we examine the 'backstage' corporate political activities in the form of accessing existing pronuclear networks for agenda-setting purposes with the aim of agreeing a joint 'frontstage' public communication strategy on the Fukushima disaster. By tracing discursive frames from their inception in private communication (e-mails) to their reproduction in public communication (corporate, political and regulatory news releases and documents) and their dissemination via the media (newspaper articles), we provide linguistic evidence that pronuclear corporate, political, and regulatory actors cooperated behind the scenes to achieve consistent public pro-nuclear messaging in order to ensure continued public support for the co...

No abstract