Discursive Legitimation of a Contested Actor Over Time: The Multinational Corporation as a Historical Case (1964–2012)

Abstract

In this study, we explicitly engage with the historical dimension of discursive legitimation to understand how a sense of legitimacy is maintained for a controversial actor over a long period of time. Analyzing articles in The Economist that address opposition against multinational corporations during the current wave of globalization, we identify and situate the different multinational corporation-related controversies and discursive legitimation strategies in their specific historical context. Our historical interpretation suggests three phases, each representing the discursive creation of particular actor images that either legitimize multinational corporations or de-legitimize its opponents. From our findings, we propose that, over time, the nature of discursive legitimation changes and introduce ‘discursive antagonism’ and ‘discursive co-optation’ as two different forms of legitimation. We further reflect on our present understanding of multinational corporations, reinterpreting their current political role as a historical product of the legitimacy process over time.

Historical evolution of entrepreneurial development in the global South: The case of Ghana, 1957–2010

“…Ghanaian press such as The Statesman, Graphic, Ghanaian Times and Ghanaian News to further illuminate our understanding of the different controversies and issues which occurred over the period (see Luyckx and Janssens 2016;Rowlinson, Hassard and Decker 2014). The archival approach has been found by past studies to be very effective in uncovering past events (Luyckx and Janssens 2016;Gokhberg and Sokolov 2016;Welch 2000).…”

Corporate diplomacy and political CSR: Similarities, differences and theoretical implications

“…For that reason, PCSR is defined as a form of "global governance in which private actors extend their activities from the economic realm to the political" (Acosta & Perezt, 2017, p. 1). By engaging in PCSR, companies take political responsibilities that were previously reserved for governments (Joutsenvirta & Vaara, 2015;Luyckx & Janssens, 2016).…”

“…Taking this view, PCSR is outlined as a response to regulatory gaps and institutional pressure (Luyckx & Janssens, 2016;Scherer, Rasche, Palazzo, andSpicer, 2016, Stoll, 2015).Some scholars highlight the role of communication and refer to PCSR as ethical strategic communication (Lock et al, 2016;White et al, 2011). By communicating PCSR, companies aim to demonstrate their compliance with norms and values that "are defined by stakeholders' expectations regarding responsibilities of organizations" in order to gain legitimacy (Lock et al, 2016, p. 91).…”

“…Moreover, institutional theory is applied to PCSR to explain how PCSR is used as a discursive legitimation theory (Joutsenvirta & Vaara, 2015;Luyckx & Janssens, 2016). According to Luyckx and Janssens (2016), who examined the historical development of legitimation strategies of corporations, PCSR emerged as a legitimation strategy in recent years, through which companies aim at becoming institutionalized.…”

“…Both CD and PCSR can be described as a corporate activity with a political impact. Here, the term "political" is understood in a broader sense and includes environmental and social issues such as education, health, sustainability, security or labor issues (Bures, 2015;Luyckx & Janssens, 2016;Scherer et al, 2016). The literature on both CD and PCSR points out that companies engage in decision-making processes in order to build relationships and gain legitimacy (Shirodkar et al, 2016;Steger, 2003;Westermann-Behaylo et al, 2015).…”