Journal of Business Ethics

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3874-6

ORIGINAL PAPER

Understanding Communication of Sustainability Reporting:

Application of Symbolic Convergence Theory (SCT)
Mohammed Hossain1 · Md. Tarikul Islam3 · Mahmood Ahmed Momin2 · Shamsun Nahar1 · Md. Samsul Alam1

Received: 29 May 2017 / Accepted: 3 April 2018

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to investigate the nature of rhetoric and rhetorical strategies that are implicit in the standalone
sustainability reporting of the top 24 companies of the Fortune 500 Global. We adopt Bormann’s (Q J Speech 58(4):396–407,
1972) SCT framework to study the rhetorical situation and how corporate sustainability reporting (CSR) messages can be
communicated to the audience (public). The SCT concepts in the sustainability reporting’s communication are subject to
different types of legitimacy strategies that are used by corporations as a validity and legitimacy claim in the reports. A con-
tent analysis has been conducted and structural coding schemes have been developed based on the literature. The schemes
are applied to the SCT model which recognizes the symbolic convergent processes of fantasy among communicators in
a Society. The study reveals that most of the sample companies communicate fantasy type and rhetorical vision in their
corporate sustainability reporting. However, the disclosure or messages are different across locations and other taxonomies
of the SCT framework. This study contributes to the current CSR literature about how symbolic or fantasy understandings
can be interpreted by the users. It also discusses the persuasion styles that are adopted by the companies for communication
purposes. This study is the theoretical extension of the SCT. Researchers may be interested in further investigating other
online communication paths, such as human rights reports and director’s reports.

Keywords  Corporate social responsibility · Sustainability reporting · Symbolic convergence theory · Rhetoric

Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the nature of rhet-

oric and rhetorical strategies that are implicit in the stan-
dalone sustainability reporting of the top 24 companies of
* Mohammed Hossain the Fortune 500 Global. A majority of the existing research
mohammed.hossain@griffith.edu.au on corporate social responsibility (hereafter, CSR) have been
Md. Tarikul Islam conducted within management and organizational theoreti-
mislam@soharuni.edu.om cal frameworks, such as accountability, legitimacy, stake-
Mahmood Ahmed Momin holder management, impression management and political
mahmood.momin@aut.ac.nz economy (Gray et al. 1996; Lewis 2003; Matten and Moon
Shamsun Nahar 2008; Brønn and Vidaver-Cohen 2009; O’Connor and Shu-
s.nahar@griffith.edu.au mate 2010; Du et al. 2010). Comparatively less attention
Md. Samsul Alam has been directed in the social accounting and management
mdsamsul.alam@griffithuni.edu.au literature towards understanding CSR using communication
theory or perspective (Ihlen et al. 2011; Merkl-Davies et al.
1
Griffith Business School, Nathan, QLD 4111, Australia 2017). Indeed, with the exception of few papers (Tregidga
2
Department of Accounting, Auckland University and Milne 2006; Spence 2007, 2009; Spence and Thomson
of Technology, 55 Wellesley Street East, Auckland Central, 2009; Laine 2009, 2010; Mäkelä and Laine 2011; Nyberg
New Zealand
and Wright 2012) in management and accounting journals,
3
Present Address: Faculty of Business, Sohar University, works on CSR communication have been widely published
Sohar, Sultanate of Oman

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 M. Hossain et al.

in other fields, such as public relations, corporate communi- Literature on rhetoric and CSR is meagre in management
cation, organizational communication, marketing communi- and social accounting (Dey 2007; Böhling et al. 2017). In
cation and communication management. See, for example, addition, CSR rhetoric in the business ethics and manage-
Ihlen et al. (2011) and May and Zorn (2003). Ihlen et al. ment journals that frequently publish CSR studies—such
(2011) argued that the communication theory explanation as the Journal of Business Ethics and Business Strategy
of CSR is important from social constructionist and prag- and the Environment—typically use the term ‘rhetoric’ as a
matic perspectives in order to understand how the meaning synonym for empty words in contrast to ‘reality’, which is
of CSR is socially constructed, shared and implemented in different from what communication theorists prescribed on
organizations in one hand, and how CSR communication rhetorical tradition (e.g. Preuss 2005). Despite the fact that
creates rhetorical vision and persuades others to retain the rhetoric and persuasion are well rooted in communication
self-interest of the business. Rhetorical vision and persua- theories (Golob and Podnar 2014; Davison 2014) and CSR
sion are considered important mechanisms for construct- communication becomes fundamental to the organization’s
ing and reconstructing social facts (Finnemore 1996; Payne experience, the way that CSR communication produces a
2001). More broadly, persuasion is ‘the process by which rhetorical vision, by constructing a collective meaning of
agent action becomes social structure, ideas become norms, CSR, employs persuasion strategies in the text. The attempt
and the subjective becomes the intersubjective’ (Finnemore to maintain legitimacy is not well studied in social account-
and Sikkink 1998; Klotz 1999). Scholars like Cox (2012) in ing literature.
the communication theory field also argue that environmen- To fill the gap, this paper aims to explore the nature of
tal communication has two basic functions: first a ‘pragmatic rhetoric and rhetorical strategies that are implicit in sustain-
function in which we educate, alert, mobilize, and persuade ability reporting that is produced by global corporations,
others’ and second, a ‘constitutive imaging and imagining mostly drawing on the communication theory perspective.
of the future function, in which language and other symbols We explore the way that top 24 global corporations listed in
themselves help to shape our perceptions about reality and the Fortune 500 create rhetorical visions, persuade audiences
the nature of environmental problems’ (p. 36). More broadly, (e.g. stakeholders) through textual persuasive linguistic style
organizational communication scholars have long regarded (e.g. Ethos, Pathos, Logos) and use rhetorical strategies to
communication as the process of coordinating actions as legitimize their position. Rhetoric offers a useful framework
well as creating and maintaining organization through lan- for this study. Billig (1987) argues that rhetoric is an essen-
guage (Putnam and Nicotera 2009; Weick 1979; Putnam tial means to understand issues and make it understandable
and Pacanowsky 1983; Crossan et al. 1999; Taylor and Van (Alvesson 1993). It focuses on the persuasive features of
Every 2000; Crane and Glozer 2016; Trittin and Schoene- language and justifications made and can be studied as rhe-
born 2017). Organizations, therefore, emerge in communica- torical strategies (Billig 1987; Cheney et al. 2004; Watson
tion (Ihlen et al. 2011; Taylor and Van Every 2000). Taking 1995). By studying the rhetorical strategies that managers
a communication perspective, we argue that CSR commu- use in sustainability reporting, it adds to the understand-
nication is an arena where social standards and expectations ing of how managers create different rhetorical visions and
for corporate social responsibility are constantly articulated, persuade stakeholders in regard to their CSR. Cheney et al.
persuaded, negotiated and developed. Spence (2007) argues (2004) argued that ‘organisations use rhetoric retrospectively
that the language used by companies through their corpo- to respond to the rhetorical situations or proactively to frame
rate communications can be viewed as both constitutive, or anticipate future rhetorical situations’ (p. 87). In addition,
by ‘providing conceptual guidance for actions [and] policy Brennan and Merkl-Davies (2014) mentioned that ‘Rhetoric
prescriptions’ and hegemonic, through the cultivation of serves to resolve both overt and covert conflicts between two
‘ideological consent’ which serves dominant groups within parties and to avoid conflict in the first place’ (p. 607). They
Society (Spence 2007, p. 857). Cross (1991) also points out added that ‘Rhetorical approaches emphasize the strategic
that, ‘Persuasion, the ability to win over an audience and or political nature of corporate narrative reporting and com-
inspire action is, after all, the underlying goal of most corpo- munication’ (p. 607). In this study, we use rhetoric more
rate correspondence, whether it’s trying to create an image, than the strategies of persuasion, by taking the wider view
keep goodwill …’ (p. 3). Therefore, sustainability reporting that it is a means of human understanding and a process
is decidedly persuasive. If the corporation cannot persuade for constructing social reality (Putnam 2004; Watson 1995).
their constituencies to read their reporting and respond to Managers are considered to be ‘rhetors’ that produce and
them appropriately (i.e. whether working faithfully for the assign meaning in their language use (Billig 1987). This
corporation, or believing it is a contributing member of a includes what managers communicate, how they attempt
community or Society), then the efforts of communicators to persuade and for what purposes. Such an exploration
(i.e. corporates) have been wasted (Stallworth Williams is underpinned by a multiple theory perspective. We have
2008). drawn upon symbolic convergence theory’s (hereafter, SCT),

13
Understanding Communication of Sustainability Reporting: Application of Symbolic Convergence…

Aristotle’s (1991) explanation of persuasion and Suchman’s their ethos, pathos and logos to persuade the consumers or
(1995) explanations of three types of legitimacy strategies interested stakeholders (Higgins and Robyn 2012). In addi-
including: pragmatic, moral, and cognitive. tion, CSR on the internet becomes a popular form of CSR
SCT is a general communication theory developed by communication in recent years (e.g. Rodríguez Bolívar
Bormann (1972) that explains the communicative force 2009; Rolland and O’Keefe Bazzoni 2009; Morhardt 2010;
of fantasy affecting human action (Shields 2000). It has Coombs and Holladay 2013; Manetti and Bellucci 2016;
its roots in the school of new rhetoric that emerged in the Kiliç 2016; Pinto and Picoto 2016).
1960s. It assumes no distinction between rhetoric and reality Our paper makes three important contributions to the lit-
based on a social constructionist perspective (Billig 1987; erature on CSR and communication.
Perelman 1982; Potter 1996). Unlike these studies, we do First, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first study
not aim to reveal social reality, but rather to focus on how to investigate the link between rhetorical and SCT. The find-
people construct versions of social reality in social interac- ings of this study have important implications for academic
tion (Burr 1995). This is in contrast to any other previous research as the study fills a gap in the literature by investigat-
CSR studies in which the communication of CSR is seen to ing the link between CSR rhetorical and SCT.
be separated from what is actually being done (Bullis 1997). Second, we explored the CSR’s rhetoric and also persua-
Aristotle’s (1991) explanation of three types of persuasion sion in a different platform/framework in order to understand
style in textual communication, such as logos (appealing to CSR communication in a new dimension.
logic), ethos (appealing to authority), and pathos (appealing Third, we examine the legitimacy channel to explore
to emotion) are very relevant in understanding the rhetorical rhetoric vision and persuasion styles used by the compa-
strategies and legitimacy types that global companies pur- nies which might provide a seed for further investigation for
sue. Aristotle (1991) proposed that the ethos style of per- scholars in other communication avenues.
suasion draws on influencing the audience’s perceptions The paper is structured as follows: ‘CSR and Rhetoric
by appealing to their ethics. With this style, rhetors present Literature Review’ section presents the literature review on
them as an ethical-self with justifications. Logos refers to CSR and rhetoric; ‘Symbolic Convergence Theory (SCT),
logical argumentation through language to make an appeal Rhetorical Vision, Persuasion and Legitimacy: A Theoreti-
based on logic. Rhetors try to justify themselves or issues as cal Framework’ section includes the theoretical framework
logical. Pathos-style persuasion appeals to the emotions of of the paper; ‘Methodology’ section shows the research
the audience, and emotional justifications are made to con- method; ‘Results, Findings and Discussions’ section pro-
venient audiences (Aristotle 1991; Cheney et al. 2004). We vides results, findings, and discussion and ‘Conclusion and
argue that these three theoretical perspectives are compli- Future Research’ section concludes the paper by reporting
mentary in understanding the nature and strategies of CSR the limitations of the study and providing recommendations
in sustainability reporting. To achieve the aim of the study, for future research.
the following three research questions are set forth.

RQ1: What types of rhetoric visions are implied in sus- CSR and Rhetoric Literature Review
tainability reporting of the global top 24 companies?
RQ2: What persuasion style(s) were used by the global Communicating CSR is an increasingly important corporate
top 24 companies in their sustainability reports? focus (Arvidsson 2009; Ihlen 2008). This is partly due to
RQ3: To what extent do the rhetoric vision and persua- the fact that different stakeholders are continuing to expect
sion styles together support the legitimacy? more disclosure on companies CSR performance and actions
than ever before. The content of these communications is,
We select corporate sustainability reporting (CSR) as an therefore, important for both stakeholders and managers (Du
organization that manifests sustainability discourse by com- et al. 2010; Johansen and Nielsen 2011). In this regard, it is
prising a set of interrelated texts and brings an object or idea essential that managers are making appropriate rhetorical
into being through producing rhetorical visions (Phillips and choices. This is not only because it helps to persuade audi-
Hardy 2002; Chalaby 1996; Taylor and van Every 2000). ences by words, but also because it structures social relations
Corporate sustainability reporting incorporates significant in a broader sense (Kennedy 1991; Berg 2004).
‘citizenship reports’ (Hartman et al. 2007) and improves It was Llewellyn (1990) who first published his in-
accountability (Gray et al. 1996). It also encompasses ethi- depth research on CSR rhetoric. By looking at the Ball
cal responsibility (Carroll 1979) to Society and discretion- Corporation and the pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly,
ary responsibilities (Griffin and Mahon 1997) to the entire he argued for two types of rhetoric that present companies
community. Therefore, sustainability reporting can be seen as ‘true believers’, with CSR issues presented in black and
as an appropriate document for companies to communicate white terms and church types of rhetoric which are more

13
 M. Hossain et al.

nuanced, but build on the business case of CSR. Looking bounded CSR is very limited (Bostdorff and Vibbert 1994;
at the issue of climate change, Livesey (2002) showed how Bostdorff 1992). Bostdorff (1992) showed how rhetoric is
ExxonMobil shifted its focus from the consequences of used to demonstrate the moral and ethical purpose, as well
global warming to the consequences of government policy, as how corporations have embraced a highly valued social
turning the market into a god-term, replacing precaution role. Llewellyn (1990) also argued that CSR rhetoric has
with prudence, scapegoating government, most scientists, a theological root.
and environmentalists, while portraying itself as the sav- However, relatively few studies have investigated the
iour of a certain lifestyle (Ihlen 2009). Comparing the role of rhetoric in accounting (Arrington and Schweiker
Llewellyn (1990) study with Livesey (2002), it showed 1992; Warnock 1992; Hooper and Pratt 1995; McCloskey
how rhetoric had been used to create and recreate the capi- 1998; Brennan and Gray 2000; Aerts 1994, 2001; Young
talistic structure through justifications. In another study, 2003; Clatworthy and Jones 2006). While Arrington and
Livesey and Graham (2007) also showed how Shell has Schweiker (1992) showed how rhetoric plays a role in
adopted CSR discourse and sustainable development rhet- accounting research ideas being argued by peers, War-
oric that underpins the capitalist economy. Ihlen (2009) nock (1992) has considered the role that rhetoric plays in
demonstrated that the climate rhetoric of the world’s 30 accounting standards (Young 2003; Masocha and Weetman
largest companies can be categorized by four main themes. 2007). Hooper and Pratt (1995) have considered rhetoric an
First, the scenario theme states that the environmental situ- ideological articulation by European directors and showed
ation is characterized as grave. This appeals to pathos as how it created discourse among Maori shareholders and the
described by Aristotle. Second, the actor theme states that directors. This is done in a New Zealand case company. In
the corporation claims to act in line with the scientific con- another case, Brennan and Gray (2000) analyses rhetoric and
sensus in addressing emissions which can be described as argument in profit forecasts and take-over documents, defin-
Logos described by Aristotle. Third, the relational theme ing rhetoric as the art of persuasion. They found that consid-
states that the corporation admits to take measures to erable effort was made to persuade relevant parties. Other
reduce its own emissions. Finally, the circumstances theme research has analysed the textual languages for exploring
states that the climate challenge is considered as it pro- the device of metaphor in creating rhetoric (Amernic 1996).
vides a business opportunity (Ihlen 2009). Other research In line with accounting research, discourse studies spe-
by Onkila (2009) identified three rhetorical forms that cor- cific to CSR in rhetoric tradition has particularly focused on
porations employ to justify their environmental legitimacy. exploring the device of metaphor and took the critical analy-
First, he identified the rhetoric of dominance, by focus- sis of case studies (Tregidga and Milne 2006; Masocha and
ing on how corporations present themselves as dominant Weetman 2007; Spence 2007; Laine 2010; Tregidga et al.
by providing an image of an environmentally responsible 2014). For example, Spence (2007) argues that CSR com-
actor. Second, he identified the rhetoric of subordination, munication can be constitutive in the sense that it provides
by focusing on how the corporation has limited influ- guidance for actions and it is also hegemonic in that it cre-
ence over other powerful external forces that determine ates ‘ideological consent’ to serve dominant groups within
environmental actions. Finally, he examined the rhetoric Society (Spence 2007). In this sense, CSR rhetoric is seen
of joint action, and mentions how the corporation make to produce and reproduce capitalistic social relations. For
coalitions and works for a common goal (Onkila 2009). example, Banerjee (2008) suggests that sustainable develop-
However, further studies showed that the ethos, logos, ment discourse has ‘domination effects’ (p. 168) that ensures
pathos and or any legitimacy strategies do not necessar- ‘economic rationality’ over ‘ecological rationality’ (p. 174).
ily focus on the real issues, but rather they are focused on Milne et al. (2006) came to the same view by exploring
the success of communication of CSR (Ihlen et al. 2009; the metaphor used in corporate communication related to
Wæraas and Ihlen 2009). Taking the public relation per- sustainability issues. They found that the use of ‘journey
spective, Heath (2001) argued that companies relying on metaphor’ on one hand implies organizational transition
successful CSR communication are not necessarily bad with the lack of reference to the destination of the journey
(also see, Heath and Ryan 1989). Adopting the Quintilian undermines any discussion from corporations in regards to
rhetor idea, he argued that modern organizations need to ‘desirable future states of living, and neatly sidesteps any
be good organizations that communicate well through an debate about, or need to radically change course’ (Milne
interactive dialogical process (Heath 2001). The route to et al. 2006, p. 825). They conclude that the rhetoric linguis-
the latter is through public relations practice that builds on tic strategy serves to ‘further reinforce business as usual’
an interactive dialogical process (also see, Heath 1993). (Milne et al. 2006, p. 801). In a recent study, Tregidga et al.
Compare to communication and rhetoric, CSR studies that (2013) also suggest a similar view.
focus on persuasion strategies, legitimacy and public rela- In summary, rhetorical scholars and social accounting
tion perspectives and rhetoric used to identify morality scholars have not engaged extensively with the rhetoric in

13
Understanding Communication of Sustainability Reporting: Application of Symbolic Convergence…

CSR communication. Although the studies above highlight that together form a ‘symbolic drama or a coherent interpre-
the potential role of rhetoric in CSR, most of them have done tation of reality’ (Foss 1989, p. 292). The fantasy theme is
the critical research using case study and qualitative meth- the basic unit of communication for symbolic convergence,
ods. In addition, despite providing important insights, these which refers to a dramatizing message that may manifest
papers are limited to metaphor analysis rather than a formal itself in various forms such as humour, wordplay, analogy,
analysis of languages using some of the rhetoric theories anecdote, allegory, fable, or narrative about real or fictitious
such as SCT. It can be argued that CSR rhetoric can have a people (Bormann 1985a). It is expressed in a single phrase,
moral, legitimacy or public relation root in a narrow sense, sentence, or an entire paragraph in a written text (Bormann
and creating organization and social relations in a broader 1980; Bormann et al. 2001). One example of a ‘fantasy
social constructionist sense. So far, however, only a few theme’ would be ‘the Government doesn’t care about the
studies are dedicated to a rhetorical perspective that mainly mentally ill’ (Hopkins 2011). When fantasy themes combine
focuses on case studies. Therefore, a quantitative study that with a setting, characters, and actions, together they provide
considers global corporations from a different country con- a credible interpretation of reality and a rhetorical vision is
text, would be an important methodological improvement constructed. Fantasy consists of three taxonomies known
to explore how corporations build such rhetoric, take dif- as fantasy type, symbolic cue, and saga. A fantasy type is
ferent rhetorical strategies and constitute different types of a fantasy theme which is repeated within a singular vision
legitimacy in general. More importantly, the use of multiple and across diverse rhetorical visions. Fantasy types provide
theoretical lenses would provide a much deeper understand- known reference points to understand and create meaning
ing of CSR and rhetoric. out of future phenomena (Hopkins 2011). For example,
the 9/11 atrocities and subsequent Al Qaida proclamations
help categorize and make sense out of travel restrictions,
Symbolic Convergence Theory increased airport security and any future terrorist activity
(SCT), Rhetorical Vision, Persuasion (Hopkins 2011). A fantasy type also appears to be a short-
and Legitimacy: A Theoretical Framework hand label for a more complete fantasy theme that depicts
the major plotline of some rhetorical vision in which large
Building on the socio-psychological and rhetorical (human- groups of people participate. For example, shorthand phrases
istic) traditions of communication, Bormann (1972) devel- like ‘fetching good out of evil’, ‘the proof is in the pudding’,
oped symbolic convergence theory (SCT) (Park et al. 2016). ‘the dawn of a new day’, and ‘might makes right’, may all be
This theory affirms that communities are formed and main- thought of as examples of fantasy themes that may appear
tained by the stories they share (Estava 2012). The theory as plotlines in a diversity of rhetorical visions and are thus
also suggests that humans are storytellers and share drama- deserving of the concept label ‘fantasy type’ (Shields and
tization of an event. They make sense out of complexities by Preston 1985). A symbolic cue may be a code word, phrase,
creating a script or narrative to account for what happened slogan, and even a nonverbal sign or gesture. A symbolic cue
(Sovacool and Ramana 2015). People share the symbolic serves to trigger previously shared fantasies and emotions,
facts called fantasies, cues, and types with each other (Park similar to the symbolic cue ‘publish or perish’ for profes-
et al. 2016; Shields 2000). They reiterate and reconfigure, sors (Cragan and Shields 1992, p. 201). Sometimes, group
repeat and embellish, and take the themes as their own. members develop a symbolic cue, which can be regarded
Commonly, the shared symbolic facts then coalesce into a as ‘code word, phrase, slogan, or even a nonverbal sign or
larger, composite drama, called a rhetorical vision which gesture’ (Cragan and Shields 1995, p. 200). The saga is the
represents the consciousness of its adherents, collectively oft-repeated story that surrounds a community or organiza-
known as a rhetorical community (Bormann 1972). A group tion. It might be the story of the company’s founders and
of researchers use a SCT theoretical and analytical frame- the uphill struggles in their journey of business. It might
work to study how rhetorical vision is created by rhetors be the heroic actions of individuals in devastating natural
through three technical concepts: basic (fantasy theme), events such as floods or bushfires (Hopkins 2011). The saga,
structural (rhetorical vision) and dynamic (master ana- a symbolic cue and fantasy type create a fantasy theme and
logue) (Bormann 19721; Cragan and Shields 1992, 1995; a rhetorical vision is created in the communication through
Bormann et al. 2001; Hopkins 2011; Gyimóthy 2013; Park linking fantasy themes (Foss 1989).
et al. 2016). A rhetorical vision lies at the structural level and is a
A rhetorical vision is created in the communication by composite drama in which large groups of people participate
linking fantasy themes to a setting, characters, and actions (Shields and Preston 1985). Bormann (1972) expanded the
concepts of setting, characters and actions by introducing
four taxonomies: (a) dramatis personae (the actors or play-
1
  For further reading, see Bormann (1980, 1982, 1983, 1985a, b). ers in a story), (b) a plotline (what occurred), (c) a scene

13
 M. Hossain et al.

(descriptive details) and (d) a sanctioning agent (someone SCT framework. However, the primary attention has been
or something with authority, such as an agreed upon sense given to the master analogue that motivates each vision,
of morality) (Zanin et al. 2016). The dramatis personae are and its place in the social movement’s life-cycle. The
the characters that are given life within the drama (rhetorical author analysed articles, speeches, posters, flyers, videos,
vision). Managers can be seen as either villains or heroes (or and promotional materials identified a tripartite distinc-
both) in the organizational set-up, so they can be the drama- tion in the images presented. The study reveals that the
tis personae (Hopkins 2011; Ruebottom 2013). A plotline is ‘Knights of Columbus’ faces image problems concern-
the action within the rhetorical vision (Endres 1994; Zanin ing the Columbus quincentennial (p. 306) and a fantasy
et al. 2016). An example of a plotline is ‘business as usual’ theme exploration of their public relations response found
(Zanin et al. 2016). A scene implies the setting, the place three rhetorical visions. Shields (2000) study explicated
where the action occurs and the place where the actors or the SCT’s ability on how special communication theories
personae act out their roles (Shields and Preston 1985). The emerged as the product of rhetorical visions that contain
sanctioning agent is the source that justifies the acceptance norms, conventions, and customs for standard participa-
and promulgation of a rhetorical vision. It may be a higher tion in a specific communication style. The findings sug-
authority—God, the High Court, or Parliament. It can also gest that the concept of rhetorical vision helps to explain
be a code of conduct or honour system, such as an organi- the creation, rise, and potential for demise of a specific
zation’s code of ethics (Cragan and Shields 1992, p. 202). style. Stone (2002) used SCT to discern and segment
All these are combined together to form a rhetorical vision. motives for enrolling in professional master’s degree pro-
Dynamic concept is formed at the final stage of SCT anal- grammes in the USA and identified different fantasy types
yses. It is deep structure called ‘Master analogue’ within that were involved in student decisions to enrol. Palenchar
which the rhetorical vision is embedded (Bormann et al. and Heath (2002) undertook a study to define the messages
1997). Cragan and Shields (1981) identify three master ana- that exist in two communities of risk (e.g. high concen-
logues, which they refer to as ‘warring dramas’ grounded in tration of chemical facilities) by using the principles of
the consciousness of communities: a pragmatic rhetorical fantasy theme analysis and symbolic convergence theory.
vision, a social rhetorical vision, and a righteous rhetorical The researchers investigated using document review, inter-
vision (see also Bormann et al. 1997; Cragan and Shields views, focus groups, and a telephone survey. Analysis indi-
1995; Park et  al. 2016; Zanin et  al. 2016). In this case, cated that persons who adhere to different perspectives
‘pragmatic’ include the concerns of expediency, effective- or opinions (measured as rhetorical visions) experience
ness, efficiency, maximal return on investment; ‘social’ are different amounts of uncertainty, control, and support or
the concerns of friendship, trust, caring, familial links and opposition for the industries that create the risks. Duffy
responsibilities; and ‘righteous’ involve the concerns of right (2003) used it to show how hate groups perceive minority
and wrong, moral and immoral, just and unjust (Cragan and groups in online chat rooms. Drumheller (2005) employed
Shields 1992). These ‘Master analogues’ are equally appli- the theory to investigate how teenagers express religious
cable to understand the final version of rhetorical visions dogma fortune. Park et al.’s (2016) quantitative study ana-
within the sustainability reporting. lysed corporate websites, particularly the ‘About Us’ web
Previous academic researchers, with the exception of pages of Fortune 500 corporations based on SCT. The
Park et al. (2016), have explored SCT theory in different findings revealed (with the help of content analysis) that
fields of study such as literature, arts and communication, economic corporate management is the dominant rhetori-
social and even in medical science. Kartikawangi’s (2017) cal vision. The fantasy, in the context of SCT, of being
study evaluates the corporate social responsibility policies a superior company is emphasized by the 500 examined
of multinational corporations in Indonesia under the SCT corporations. This symbolic reality is constructed using
Theory. The study use SCT analyses in a communication corresponding structural tools of web content, such as
content to discover joint meanings that arise in specific dramatis personae, plot line, and scene. In addition, the
communications. Cragan and Shields (1977) utilized fan- rhetorical vision and fantasy themes created by the web-
tasy theme analysis to reveal how foreign policy experts sites turned out to be contingent on business classifications
viewed Russia as a villain on the international stage dur- (retailer/distributor, manufacturers, and financial/informa-
ing the Cold War. In another study, Cragan and Shields tional/recreational services). Their study also identified
(1992) demonstrated the use of fantasy theme analysis in companies with other types of fantasy themes (such as
corporate strategic planning through an SCT. The study admirable, futuristic, and competent/stable) and rhetorical
by Endres (1994) is related to the analysis of ‘Knights of visions (such as socially responsible corporate manage-
Columbus’. The researcher addresses the dramatic struc- ment). Further to contribute to the current literature our
tural components of three distinct rhetorical visions iden- study extends Park et al. (2016) by focusing on sustain-
tified in the ‘Knights of Columbus’ discourse within the ability report a voluminous communication compare to

13
Understanding Communication of Sustainability Reporting: Application of Symbolic Convergence…

‘About Us’ web page. We also provided deeper analysis examine the validity and legitimacy of a claim during a pub-
by focusing on rhetorical strategies and legitimacy types lic controversy. Their findings suggest that the outcome of
that organizations are adopting. conflicts on social and environmental issues is dependent on
the particular attributes of the stakeholders involved. It also
Aristotle’s Persuasion and Rhetorical Strategies comprises the stakeholder’s ability to harness the power and
legitimacy of other key stakeholders.
While Bormann (1972) proposed formation of rhetori-
cal vision, rhetorical strategies often used in the language Legitimacy Explanation and Rhetorical Strategies
for persuasion have been developed by rhetorical scholars
based on Aristotle’s persuasion strategies (Burke 1969, Suchman’s (1995) study articulated the diverse literature
1982; Nichols 1987; Self 1979; Braet 1992; Garver 1994; on organizational legitimacy, highlighting similarities and
Abizadeh 2002; Robinson 2006). Aristotle (1991) proposes disparities among the leading strategic and institutional
three possible methods for constructing a persuasive claim: approaches (Neilsen and Rao 1987; Ashforth and Gibbs
logos (logical study), ethos (sociology study), and pathos 1990; Mezias 1990). Suchman (1995) identified three forms
(psychological study). They are derived from the three fac- of legitimacy: one is pragmatic which is based on audience
tors that are apparent in any form of the speech: (a) present- self-interest; a second is moral which is based on norma-
ing the view that the speaker is a ‘trustworthy’ character; tive approval, and the third is cognitive which is based on
(b) creating a logical argument or reasoning through the comprehensibility and taken-for-grantedness. Pragmatic
text; and (c) putting the audience in a certain frame and legitimacy rests on the self-interested calculations of an
enabling the speaker, text, or a combination of the two to organization’s most immediate audiences (Suchman 1995).
arouse the audience’s emotions (Burke 1969, 1982; Nich- Therefore, audiences (i.e. direct exchanges between organi-
ols 1987; Self 1979; Braet 1992; Garver 1994; Abizadeh zation and audience) are likely to become constituencies,
2002; Robinson 2006). In other words, logos, pathos, and scrutinizing organizational behaviour to determine the prac-
ethos provide evidence on rhetorical strategies by reflect- tical consequences of any given line of activity (Wood 1991;
ing on arguments implicit in a communication (Burke 1982; Suchman 1995). Moral legitimacy refers to legitimacy that is
Nichols 1987; Self 1979; Abizadeh 2002; Robinson 2006; positive normative and based on an evaluation of whether an
Higgins and Robyn 2012; Devin and Lane 2014). Based on activity of an organization is moral or ethical (Parsons 1960;
our research objectives, in particular the nature of persua- Aldrich and Fiol 1994; Suchman 1995; Díez-Martín et al.
sion, we have adopted the SCT framework to capture the 2013). The final kind of legitimacy, cognitive legitimacy,
rhetoric vision and Aristotle’s persuasion strategies (Ethos, refers to legitimacy at the level of taken-for-grantedness
Logos and Pathos) to reflect on rhetorical strategies used in rather than the level of evaluation (Suchman 1995).
sustainability communication (see also, Higgins and Robyn By focusing on CSR rhetoric visions (e.g. pragmatic rhe-
2012). We then link these rhetorical strategies to the legiti- torical vision, social rhetorical vision, and righteous rhetori-
macy types that companies are seeking. Following Suchman cal vision), rhetoric strategies (e.g. ethos, pathos, lagos) we
(1995), we address legitimacy types with moral, cognitive, study how managers use sustainability reporting in order
and pragmatic legitimacy (Marais 2012; Devin and Lane to gain legitimacy. Specifically, we focus on how manag-
2014). Higgins and Robyn (2012) demonstrate how persua- ers develop their company’s moral, cognitive and pragmatic
sive strategies activate the ‘middle ground’ discourses of legitimacy (Suchman 1995) by building links between CSR
responsible and sustainable business constructed in three rhetorical strategies and legitimacy types based on Marais’s
social/environmental reports in New Zealand companies. By study (2012). Marais (2012) suggests that moral legitimacy
focusing on Aristotle’s rhetorical ‘proofs’: ethos (credibil- will be assumed by managers and reflected in corporate
ity), logos (reason), and pathos (emotion), they argue that communication through justifications that organizations
persuasive strategies facilitate the social effects of discourse make by focusing on values, ethics or principles (see also,
by making business-centred understandings of social respon- Reynolds and Yuthas 2008). In such a case, the ‘Pathos’
sibility and sustainability appear reasonable and trustworthy. rhetorical style is common. Marais (2012, p. 229) states that
Brennan and Merkl-Davies (2014) focuses on the interac- ‘Humanism, benevolence, diversity and openness to others
tive element in social and environmental reporting during are good examples of this type of value. When CEOs use this
a legitimacy threat in the form of a controversy between CSR rhetorical category, they try to improve their company’s
business organizations and stakeholders over environmental moral legitimacy by mobilizing emotional arguments and by
performance. They adopt Aristotle’s triangular framework creating a shared positive vision of its mission. In this case,
of the rhetorical situation to examine how the writer, the the use of a “pathos” rhetorical style is very common’. To
audience, and the purpose of communication interact in the develop cognitive legitimacy, managers may provide exam-
choice of rhetorical strategies used to persuade others. They ples of actions implemented by the company in order to give

13
 M. Hossain et al.

Fig. 1  Symbolic convergence theory (SCT). Source: Build on Cragan and Shields (1992), Hopkins (2011), Higgins and Robyn (2012), Marais
(2012), Devin and Lane (2014), Zanin et al. (2016), Park et al. (2016) and our theoretical framework discussion

stakeholders tangible proof of its true CSR commitment. is useful to develop corporate pragmatic legitimacy and a
In this regard, using the ‘Ethos’ rhetoric style of CSR is “logos” rhetorical style is required’.
relevant to provide an impression of a normative obliga- We, therefore, set up our framework based on a multiple
tion relative to CSR. Marais (2012, p. 229) states ‘Norma- theory framework based on SCT, Persuasion and Legiti-
tive CSR engagement seeks to enhance corporate cognitive macy explanations. As shown in Fig. 1, in a corporate
legitimacy. It helps to build corporate acceptability by mak- setting, it is significant to understand what kind of a com-
ing claims about the willingness to follow widely accepted posite drama can capture large audiences in a symbolic
CSR norms/standards. In this case, CEOs search to create reality and what fantasy themes are repeated to structure
trust among partners. They do not use rational arguments but a rhetorical vision that creates a type of ‘Master analogue’
simply make statements regarding CSR that are expected of in the form of pragmatic rhetorical vision, a social rhetori-
them; for example, the expression of broad principles about cal vision, and/or a righteous rhetorical vision. Second,
sustainability. An “Ethos” rhetorical style is coherent with the rhetorical strategies are identified through Aristotle’s
this objective’. Finally, pragmatic legitimacy can be demon- persuasion styles of Lagos, pathos and ethos and examine
strated by an organization based on fact that powerful stake- how these strategies are related to maintaining three dif-
holders have their own interest in the organization. They will ferent types of legitimacies: pragmatic, moral and cogni-
only grant legitimacy, if their interest been served by the tive. Maignan and Ferrell (2001) argued that an important
organization. In such a case, managers will communicate aspect of CSR is to base an organization’s legitimacy as
business outcomes that really satisfy stakeholders such as a function of its contributions to Society through philan-
an improved company reputation, the attraction of talented thropic and ethical practices (Park et al. 2016). In this way,
employees, enhanced product quality, increased innovation, our multiple theory framework contributes to the social
cost reductions, etc. (Marais 2012). We expect ‘Logos’ based accounting literature in three key theories.
rhetorical strategies in CSRC in this case. Marais (2012, p.
229) states ‘Instrumental CSR engagement helps CEOs to
convince stakeholders that CSR will lead to benefits for the
company. They use rational arguments and examples of posi-
tive outcomes of CSR commitment. This rhetorical category

13
Understanding Communication of Sustainability Reporting: Application of Symbolic Convergence…

Table 1  Description of the sample. Source: http://beta.fortu​ne.com/ (rhetorical themes) and Dynamic themes (master analogue)
globa​l500 embedded in the textual material. According to Neumann
Sample size Sample characteristics (2003, p. 219) ‘content analysis is a technique for gather-
ing and analysing the content of text. The content refers to
Industrial categorization Geographical
categoriza- words, meanings, pictures, symbols, ideas, themes, or any
tion message that can be communicated’. It involves codifying
qualitative and quantitative information into pre-defined
Initial sample 30 Petroleum 6 American 10
categories to derive patterns in the presentation and report-
No sustainability 6 Automobiles 5 Asian 8
report ing of information (Guthrie et al. 2004; Unerman 2000).
Technology 2 European 6
The first two authors independently carried out content
Financial 2
analysis task. We have consulted the studies of sustain-
Telecommunications 2
ability such as Roberts (1992), Carroll (1998), Deegan
Electronics 2
et al. (2002), Gray et al. (1995) and Coombs and Holladay
Others 5
(2013) in order to understand theme for coding of sustain-
Final sample 24 Total 24 24
ability reporting.
We also used a schemata techniques prescribed by Shields
and Preston (1985, p. 102) to show how basic (e.g. fantasy
Methodology themes, symbolic cue), structural elements (e.g. dramatis
personae, plotline, scene, sanctioning agents) and dynamic
Sample themes (Righteous master analogue, social master analogue,
pragmatic master analogue.) altogether produce a schemata
The sample selection procedure is reported in Table 1. to suggests rhetorical visions, and persuasion strategies.
The sample consists of top 30 companies in terms of rev- According to Shields and Preston (1985) ‘Most good critical
enue among the Fortune Global 500 companies around the methods provide a clear schemata for analysing rhetorical
world. The sample consists of various categories of indus- material. In the case of fantasy theme analysis, the sche-
tries such as: petroleum (6), automobiles (5), technology mata is used to describe, interpret, and evaluate the rhe-
(2), financial (2), telecommunication (2), electronics (2), torical materials (persuasive postures, specific movements,
and Others including retail, power, energy, health care, campaigns, speeches, and conversations) that comprise the
Motor Vehicles and Parts (5). We exclude 6 companies due symbolic reality of groups of people, be they small groups,
to unavailability of sustainability reporting.2 Therefore, organizational work units, political parties, or other rhetori-
the total samples reached to 24 companies. The data for cal communities’ (p. 102). We also used excerpts from the
our analysis comes from 11 different countries (e.g. China, text to indicate examples. The schemata we have followed
France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Netherland, Switzerland, are shown in the following Fig. 2.
South Korea, Taiwan, UK, and USA) and is well active in
CSR including sustainability reporting. A breakdown of
industry classification according to geographical location Coding Measurement
has been also provided in ‘Appendix’.
A coding and measurement schema to code symbolic cues,
Method and Coding Procedure dramatis personae (characters), plotline (action), scene (set-
ting), and sanctioning agents, Righteous master analogue,
We analysed sustainability reporting for selected com- social master analogue, pragmatic master analogue we used
panies to explore rhetoric visions of the fantasy themes from which the overall fantasy theme and rhetoric visions
within the reports. The texts were analysed through content could be determined. We mainly adopted the coding method
analysis to explore the basic themes, structural elements of Park et al. (2016) for rhetorical vision and Cragan and
Shields (1995) for coding Master analogue. The coding is
also based on dominancy of the above righteous statements
2 in the sustainability reporting. We have determined the
  The terms ‘sustainability’, ‘environmental, social, and governance’
(ESG), and ‘corporate social responsibility’ (CSR) have been used dominancy in the percentage (NVivo) of associate theme
interchangeably in the past to describe a firm’s voluntary actions to in each analogue. The following section provides the meth-
manage its environmental and social impact and increase its positive odological aspects of the coding measurement on each of
contribution to Society (Khan et  al. 2016). Therefore, we consid- the taxonomies.
ered different names like corporate citizenship report or environment
responsibility report as the sustainability report under the study and
focus on 2015 report.

13
 M. Hossain et al.

and Shields 1995). It is, therefore, not reported. A detailed

coding and measurement abstract is provided in Table 2.

Rhetorical Vision Under Structural Theme

There are four components under the dramatic structure in

the rhetorical vision. We identified the rhetorical and discur-
sive devices that sustainability reporting uses to communi-
cate to the audience. The possible characters/actors/mod-
els/theme for each component within the rhetorical vision
was identified by the first four authors independently, after
reading five different sustainability reports. In this phase of
the analysis, the full set of sustainability reporting was ana-
lysed line-by-line to develop a working schema. Categories
were then modified and refined based on subsequent review
Fig. 2  Creation of rhetorical vision and dynamic themes from the text
among the authors (Goetz and LeCompte 1984). We also
considered sensitizing concepts (Blumer 1954; den Hoonard
and Will 1997) used in the coding process. It is consistent
with Carroll’s (1991) pyramid of CSR. Social researchers
Fantasy Type Under the Basic Theme (Fantasy now tend to view sensitizing concepts as interpretive devices
Theme) and as starting points for a qualitative study (Glaser 1978;
Padgett 2004; Patton 2002). Charmaz (2003) has referred to
In order to identify the fantasy type, we have recognized sensitizing concepts as ‘those background ideas that inform
the four fantasy types including ‘Best in class’, ‘Leader’, the overall research problem’ (p. 259). CSR is a ‘sensitiz-
‘Follower’, and ‘Starter’ which were used by other authors ing concept’ (Jonker 2005): a term that draws attention to
(Chen et al. 2015; Dong and Xu 2016). We have identi- a complex range of issues and elements that are all related
fied four key areas on which disclosures are addressed in to the position and function of the business enterprise in
the sustainability reporting as suggested by GRI stand- contemporary Society (p. 20). To ensure accuracy, reliability
ard 2016. GRI is an independent international organiza- and validity of the coding has also been tested statistically
tion that has pioneered sustainability reporting beginning which is reported in the validity and reliability paragraph
in 1997 (GRI 2016). We have followed the GRI theme under ‘Methodology’ section. The first component is the
because, ‘The GRI standards create a common language dramatis personae who are the actors on the vision’s stage.
for organizations and stakeholders, with which the eco- Within organizations, for example, ‘Dramatis Personae’
nomic, environmental, and social impacts of organizations refers to the cast of characters report in sustainability report-
can be communicated and understood’ (GRI 2016, p. 6). ing. In this study, we have assumed that ‘dramatis personae’
In this regard, we have covered four areas of disclosure are the characters or models which appear in the reporting.
including corporate reporting practice, sustainability This may be behind employees, environment, Society, and
development, good governance and employability and phi- the technology. Therefore, we have coded accordingly and
lanthropy. Each area is coded 1, if the company disclosed ensure that each company only receives one personae. The
narrative forms. Bormann (1980) argued that the fantasy second one is ‘Plot line’ which is the action or behaviour
theme can be expressed in a single phrase, sentence or an embedded in the rhetorical vision (Park et al. 2016). The
entire paragraph in a written text and also fantasy them responses of satisfied customers and key stakeholders are
itself consist of fantasy type, including symbolic cue and coded as customer satisfaction. Actions that show reduc-
saga. Therefore, if companies disclosed all four areas in tion in energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions
the report, a maximum score of 4 was awarded and, there- are coded as energy efficiency. In the study, actions illus-
fore, assigned that particular company to the ‘Best in class’ trating that the corporations are reaching their objectives
fantasy type. Those companies which received scores of 3, by the spirit of groups are regarded as team work. On the
2 and 1, have been assigned to ‘Leader’, followed by ‘Fol- other hand, actions that are advocating green living for envi-
lower’ and ‘starter’ fantasy type, respectively. However, ronmental protection are coded as Green world. ‘Scene’ is
in terms of symbolic cue (for example, slogan) and saga understood as places or backgrounds where the dramatis per-
(for example, story), we did not find or identify sufficient sonae and plot line take place. In this case, we found three
themes in sustainability reporting, as guided by (Cragan scenes including the corporation itself, environment, and

13
Understanding Communication of Sustainability Reporting: Application of Symbolic Convergence…

Society. Visual images are considered since they contribute

Best in class Leader Follower Starter

to the rhetorical structure of a message (Gamson and Mod-

1
igliani 1989). In the coding process, we adopt the method
of Park et al. (2016). In these scenarios, ‘corporation’ is
2 coded when pictures of the actual corporation appear. When
a scene presented the natural setting of mountains, ocean,
Points achieved/coded

soil and clouds, we coded it as ‘environment’. When corpo-

rations presented pictures of their social activities in schools,
3

charitable institutions and scientific and technology innova-

tion, it was coded as ‘Society’ (Park et al. 2016). The last
component is the ‘sanctioning agent’ which is ‘the justifica-
tion or the representing agent of the rhetorical vision’ (Park
4

et al. 2016, p. 720). We identified five sanctioning agents,

1
Points allocated

including employee, customer, community, general public

1

and globalization. Employee agent is the description of the

corporation’s key elements that lead to the success story.
1

Customer agent is the description of the sustainable business

1

strategy based on customers’ priorities. Community agent

Table 2  Coding and measurement procedure of the fantasy type. Source: GRI (2016), Chen et al. (2015) and Dong and Xu (2016)

rial topics such as economic, environmental and social (water,

GRI standards; GRI content index; External assurance; IPIECA
Three dimensions: economic, environmental and social, disclo-
sures about an organization’s management approach on mate-

describes the corporation as ethical and giving back to the

Operations with local community engagement, impact assess-
industry or other associations, and national or international
Corporate governance guidelines, ownership and legal form,
board independence, information on employees and other

community. General public agent is the description of a cor-

workers, union activities, information on memberships of

advocacy organizations, grievance mechanisms customer

ments, and development programmes including negative

employment), climate change, greenhouse gas emission

poration which is creating jobs globally. Finally, globalizing

agent is the description of the corporation being world class
and internationally recognized. In the above phrase, sensitiz-
ing concepts (den Hoonard and Will 1997) were used. All of
those descriptions are coded against the dominance of the
above agents for each company. The dominance has been
calculated on the basis of identified key words that occurred
(in terms of times) in each taxonomy in the sustainability
reporting with the help of NVivo. For example, in dramatis
privacy, diversity, ethics

personae, if the ‘employee’ occurred the highest percentage,

then that particular company has been coded as ‘employee’.
We have coded the other taxonomies in a similar way. We
Descriptions

then counted the total number of companies against every

impacts

SCT taxonomy and made a number of cross-tabulations

based on fantasy type (Table 6), rhetorical vision (Table 7)
and geographical location (Table 9), respectively. Table 3
Sustainability/sustainability development The effect an organi-

provides the coding and measurement for the rhetorical

Good Governance and employability The disclosure of corpo-
zation has on the economy, the environment, and/or Society,
which in turn can indicate its contribution (positive or nega-

strategy and the Company’s social, community and sustain-

Reporting practice These disclosures give an overview of the
process that an organization has followed to define the con-

rate governance and its related matters best practice for the

Philanthropy The disclosure on company’s charitable giving

vision under the structural theme.

Aristotle’s Persuasion and Rhetorical Strategies

Once we set up the types of legitimacy involved in the rhe-

torical coding, our next step is to determine the Aristotle’s
persuasion and rhetorical strategies in the sustainability
tive) to sustainable development

reporting and then link to the types of legitimated. In this

tent of its sustainability report

case, the genre analysis theory (Bazerman 1994b; Bhatia

Key theme/characteristics

1993; Levina and Orlikowski 2009; Mason and Mason 2012)

guided our coding parsing of the data. Genres theory are
ability initiatives

‘socially recognized types of communicative actions that

are habitually enacted by members of a community to realize
company

particular social purposes’ (Levina and Orlikowski 2009, p.

542). We analysed the macrostructure of each sustainabil-
ity report by coding the type of discourse move (Bazerman

13


Table 3  Coding and measurement for rhetorical vision. Source: Park et al. (2016), den Hoonard and Will (1997) and Goetz and Lecompte (1984)
Dramatic structure

13
Theme Descriptions/justifications Dominances/occurred Coded

1 Dramatis personae Actor(s)—the characters that appear in the The unit of analysis is the CSR report which Highest percentage of characters/actors Employees
message is considered an accountability representa- appear in the report Environment
tion of corporations to the diverse set of Society
stakeholders. Therefore, for dramatis perso- Technology
nae, all of the actors having a stake with the
activities of corporations are considered. We
found, for example, employees, environ-
ment, society, and technology as actors
2 Plotline Action or behaviour embedded in the rhetori- Response of satisfied customers and key Highest percentage of characters appear in Customer satisfaction
cal vision stakeholders are coded as customer satisfac- the report Energy efficiency
tion. Actions that show reduction in energy Team work
consumption and greenhouse gas emissions Green world
are coded as energy efficiency. Actions
illustrating the corporations reaching their
objectives by spirit of groups are regarded as
team work. On the other hand, actions that
are advocating green living for environmen-
tal protection is coded as green world
3 Scene It refers to the place or background where To code this, three different categories were Highest percentage of characters appear in Corporation itself
dramatis personae develops the plotline used: the corporation itself, environment, the report in the form of visual images as Environment
(Park et al. 2016) and society. ‘Corporation’ is coded when defined in description area Society
pictures of actual corporations appear.
When scenes presented the natural setting of
mountains, ocean, soil and clouds, we coded
them as ‘environment’. When corporations
presented pictures of their social activities
in schools, charitable institutions, scientific
and technology innovation, we coded them
as ‘Society’
4 Sanctioning agent It is about the justification of the rhetorical To code this, five categories were used in this Highest percentage of characters appear in Employee agent
vision study. Employee agent is used if the corpo- the report Customer agent
ration works extensively with its employees. Community agent
Consumer agent shows the corporations’ General public agent
efforts on the behalf of consumers. To Globalization agent
refer to the corporate efforts in the com-
munity level, the community agent code is
used. General public agent emphasizes the
corporations’ efforts on a wider level which
is beyond community. Finally, globaliza-
tion agent is used to show the corporations’
efforts at the international level crossing
national boundaries
M. Hossain et al.
Understanding Communication of Sustainability Reporting: Application of Symbolic Convergence…

1989; Bhatia 1993, 2004; Swales and Rogers 1995). Moves Validity and Reliability
(Swales 1990) are structural elements that deliver the con-
tent of the genre and are classified by type of rhetorical func- To examine the construct validity of our coding procedure,
tion or theme (Bhatia 1993). Across reporting genres, the we selected a random sample among the six sustainability
three common moves such as logos, Ethos and pathos are reports. The two authors independently coded of the corre-
identified as persuasion. Our analysis of the data for these sponding reports. The coders have discussed all the doubts
three moves are specific to the genre. This classification and ambiguity and then allocated the relevant score of the
method establishes the type, rate, and frequency of each sustainability content of the report. After coding, one of the
rhetorical move in order to discover the companies’ rhetori- authors tested the reliability and validity by using Scott’s Pi,
cal preferences and hierarchical sequencing (i.e. priorities) Cohen’s Kappa and Krippendorff’s alpha techniques. It pro-
when reporting on their environmental commitments, goals, duced the following results: Percentage agreement = 0.918,
and ideology and discharge of legitimacy. For example, in Scott’s Pi = 0.892, Cohen’s Kappa = 0.892 and Krippen-
the following paragraph in the Walmart (2015) sustainability dorff’s Alpha = 0.893. All of these results are within the
report, they used this type of move (i.e. Ethos) to establish acceptable range (Scott 1955; Cohen 1960; Krippendorff
its support for the global agenda to the environment as trust- 1980; Hayes and Krippendorff 2007).
worthy in the corporate sustainability reporting:
Walmart has grown into the world’s largest retailer. We
have stores in 10,000 communities, employing more
Results, Findings and Discussions
than 2.2 million associates and thousands of suppliers
In order to investigate our RQ 1, we have prepared Table 6
who, in turn, employ millions of people. Because of
for thematic discussion of the rhetoric of the sample com-
our heritage, we seek to use our scale and capabilities
panies implied in the sustainability reporting within the
to help others—not only customers and other Walmart
SCT framework. Table 6 represents the disclosure status
stakeholders, but also Society at large (p. 2).
of the companies under fantasy theme against other SCT
Therefore, the above statement/theme satisfies the Ethos concepts, such as rhetorical, dramatic and master analogue.
and cognitive legitimacy definitions (see more in ‘Symbolic It can be observed from Table 6 that the most frequent rhe-
Convergence Theory (SCT), Rhetorical Vision, Persuasion torical strategies under the ‘Best in class’ fantasy type is
and Legitimacy: A Theoretical Framework’ section), so the logos (66%, n = 4) followed by Ethos (16.7%, n = 1) and
we coded ‘Ethos’ and ‘cognitive legitimacy’ for each com- then pathos (16.7%, n = 1). However, in the ‘Leader’ fantasy
pany. By combining these three types of genres, a corporate type, rhetorical strategies of Ethos (45%, n = 5) appeared
sustainability report informs audience/stakeholders of the most frequently followed by logos (36.4%, n = 4), and pathos
company’s actions and efforts to protect the environment (18.2%, n = 2). On the other hand, fantasy types of ‘Fol-
and promotes an image of good environmental stewardship lower’ and ‘Stater’, rhetorical strategies of the Ethos, logos
(Mason and Mason 2012). Table 4 provides examples of the and pathos appeared least in all of the other fantasy types
coding process of Aristotle’s persuasion and rhetorical strat- (range 25–33.33%, n = 1). Moreover, out of 24 companies,
egies of some selected companies with examples of original the highest numbers of companies i.e. 11 falls under the
text excerpt. ‘Leader’ fantasy type. This indicates that company’s rhetoric
and persuasion depend on the company’s involvement in
Master Analogue Under Dynamic Theme CSR management, GRI or global standard and CSR per-
formance. With regard to dramatis personae, all four fan-
Under Master analogue category, there are three master ana- tasy types involve almost all types of dramatis personae in
logues i.e. righteous, social and pragmatic master analogue the sustainability reporting with the exception of ‘Society’
coded according to Cragan and Shields (1995). According to under Best in class and starter fantasy type; ‘technology’
Park et al. (2016) this is the most dominant rhetorical vision under Leader and starter fantasy type. On the other hand,
embedded in the text. The evaluative terms of SCT (group a total of nine companies (38%), a dramatis personae of
consciousness, rhetorical vision reality link, and fantasy ‘Environment’ plays in all four types of fantasy followed
theme artistry) were beyond the scope of this study so were by ‘Employee’ (n = 7, 29%); and ‘Society’ (n = 6, 25%). A
not considered (Park et al. 2016). Table 5 provides examples dramatis personae of ‘Technology’ (n = 2, 8%) is seen least
of the coding process of Master Analogue (MA) of some in all of the fantasy types. In terms of plot line, ‘Energy
selected companies with examples of original text excerpt. efficiency’ (50.0%, n = 3) appears most frequently in the
‘Best in class’ and ‘Follower’ fantasy types, followed by
customer satisfaction (36.4%, n = 4) in the ‘Leader’ fantasy
type. However, the plot lines for ‘Customer satisfaction’ and

13


13
Table 4  Coding for Aristotle’s persuasion and rhetorical strategies. Source: Sustainability reports of Walmart (2015), Verizon (2015) and CVS Health (2015); reproduced with permission from
Marais (2012), Suchman (1995) and Swales (1990)
Aristotle’s persuasion Argumentation process Associated themes/language used Coded Original text excerpt Types of legitimacy
and rhetorical strate-
gies
Moves (Swales 1990)

Ethos Projecting the speaker as trustworthy Global agenda, expression of CSR, Ethos Walmart has grown into the world’s largest Cognitive legitimacy
delivered on global environmental, social, institutionalized structure, acceptability, retailer. We have stores in 10,000 commu-
employee, society and technology principles, defence, expertise, consistency, nities, employing more than 2.2 million
inclination to succeed associates and thousands of suppliers
who, in turn, employ millions of people.
Because of our heritage, we seek to use
our scale and capabilities to help others—
not only customers and other Walmart
stakeholders, but also Society at large
(Walmart, p. 2)
Logos Logos—showing the probability of what Enhancing reputation, motivation, talent Logos We added 13 underserved middle schools to Pragmatic legitimacy
is said by using a logical and rational attraction, value creation, innovation, the VILS programme in 2015, providing
argument claims, justifications, data, evidence/ nearly 9000 students and teachers with
example, argumentation a tablet and 2 years of Internet access
(Verizon, p. 13)
Pathos Pathos—considering the emotions of the Use of emotive language, first person narra- Pathos I see so many opportunities for our CSR Moral legitimacy
audience in order to induce them to make tive, Use of metaphors strategy to play a bigger and more signifi-
the desired judgement cant role in supporting our business, while
delivering more value to our communities
and stakeholders (CVS Health, p. 5)
M. Hossain et al.
 Table 5  Coding for master analogue (MA). Source: Sustainability reports of ABC (2015), Verizon (2015) and Shell (2015)
Meanings Associated themes/language used Dominances/occurred Original text excerpt Coded

Righteous MA ‘Stresses the correct way of Responsibility, economic, ethics, Highest percentage of associated ABC firstly persisted in fulfill- Corporation as Responsibility is
doing things with its concerns society, social contribution themes appear in the report ing economic responsibility, described as ethical and giving
about right and wrong, proper believing that serving ‘San- back to the community. Others
and improper, superior and nong’ and poverty alleviation included any other types of
inferior, moral and immoral as the core and the most basic sanctioning agents
and just and unjust’ (Cragan responsibility. We undertake
and Shields 1995, p. 42) the responsibility in economic
transformation, customer
service, supporting the frontier
and other aspects. With our net
profit and tax payment steadily
growing, social contribution
value per share has increased
year after year. Secondly,
we have complied with the
social responsibility standard
guidelines and ethics at home
and abroad, improved our
social responsibility system,
enhanced our social responsi-
bility information disclosure,
and integrated the philosophy
of ‘Giving Priority to Respon-
sibility and Benefiting All the
People; Taking Responsibility,
and Promoting Prosperity in
Our Society’ into our opera-
tional and management reform.
Understanding Communication of Sustainability Reporting: Application of Symbolic Convergence…

(ABC Ltd. p. 4)
Social MA ‘Emphasizes primary human Community, culture, network, Highest percentage of associated We create an engaging employee Social MA is community, culture,
relation as it keys on friend- customer, caring themes appear in the report experience in which our work network, customer, caring
ship, trust, caring, comrade- makes a difference. Our culture
ship, compatibility, family encourages employees to
ties, brother hood, sisterhood innovate and thrive on chal-
and humaneness’ (Cragan and lenges, build the world’s most
Shields 1995, p. 42) awesome networks, and deliver
personal technology solutions
that makes life better. Our
commitment to one another and
our customers starts with the
Verizon Credo, an aspirational
foundation for who we are and
how we work (Verizon, p. 59)

13
 M. Hossain et al.

‘Energy efficiency’ occupy the highest number (n = 7, 29%).

profitable, and leader in its field.

In addition, no companies (n = 0) are seen in the plot line for

Focusing in managing Risk,

Pragmatic agent describes as ‘Green world’ under the ‘Best in class’ fantasy type followed
by ‘Team work’ under ‘Follower’ and ‘Energy efficiency’
under ‘Starter’ fantasy type. With regards to scene, Society
appeared mostly under ‘Leader’ (n = 9, 81.8%) fantasy type,
followed by ‘Best in class’ (n = 3, 50%), ‘Starter’ (n = 2,
Environment 66.7%) and ‘Follower’ (n = 1, 25%). In terms of sanctioning
Efficacy
Threats,

agent, globalization agent is found most under fantasy type

Coded

Cost

‘Leader’ (n = 5, 45.5%), followed by ‘Best in class’ (n = 3,

50%), and ‘Starter’ (n = 1, 33.3%). The distribution in rela-
Shell has long taken into account

to the viability and profitability

the robustness of our portfolio

the potential risks and threats

tion to master analogues fantasy type, pragmatic master

of major projects to ensure

analogue (n = 3, 50%) appeared most in the ‘Best in class’,

and then righteous (n = 6, 54.5%) in ‘Leader’, social master
Original text excerpt

analogue (n = 3, 75%) and (n = 3, 66.7%) in ‘Follower’ and

‘Starter’, respectively.
(Shell, p. 17)

We report our findings in Table 7 to investigate the sec-

ond Q2 (i.e. what persuasion styles were used) of our study.
Table 7 represents the distribution of the rhetorical strate-
gies against the other concepts of SCT. Therefore, we called
Table 7 cross-tabulation of rhetorical strategies and basic
Highest percentage of associated

and structural concepts of SCT. It is seen in Table 7 that the

themes appear in the report

rhetorical strategies of 11 companies is in ‘Logos’ followed

by ‘Ethos’ (n = 8) and ‘Pathos’ (n = 5). In terms of fantasy
Associated themes/language used Dominances/occurred

type, ‘Leader’ occupies highest number (n = 5, 62.5%) in

the Aristotle’s rhetorical strategies of ‘Ethos’ followed by
‘Pathos’ (n = 2, 40%) and ‘Logos’ (n = 4, 36.4%). However,
under the ‘Best in class’ fantasy type, ‘Logo’ (n = 4, 36.4%)
appears in most followed by ‘Pathos’ (n = 1, 20%) and
‘Ethos’ (12.5%). For dramatis personae, the presence of rhe-
torical strategies is absent (0%) only in ‘Ethos’ under ‘tech-
nology’ as dramatis personae. However, the highest num-
ber of companies (n = 9, 38%) address dramatis personae
as ‘environment’ followed by ‘employees’ (n = 7, 29%) and
‘Society’ (n = 6, 25%). With regards to plot line, the most
frequently appearing in the rhetorical strategies of ‘Ethos’
Environment

is Green world (n = 3, 37.5%), while energy efficiency is

Efficacy
Threats,

the most prominent plot line for companies with ‘Logos’

Risk,

Cost

(n = 4, 36.4%) and ‘Pathos’ (n = 2, 40%) rhetorical strategies.

In terms of scene, rhetorical strategies of ‘Ethos’ is Soci-
efficiency, parsimony, simplic-
‘Accentuates expediency, utility,

ity, practicality, cost effective-

to get the job done’ (Prentice

ety (n = 6, 75%), followed by rhetorical vision of ‘Pathos’

ness, and whatever it takes

(n = 3, 60%) and ‘Logos’ (n = 6, 54.5%). However, rhetorical

strategies of ‘Pathos’ does not use corporate-related scenes
(corporation itself). In terms of sanctioning agent, customer
agent is absent in the rhetorical strategies of ‘Ethos’, and
‘Pathos’. On the other hand, general public agent is absent in
Meanings

the rhetorical strategies of ‘Pathos’. However, globalization

2006)

(n = 4, 50%) is a highly dominant aspect for the rhetorical

Table 5  (continued)

strategies of ‘Ethos’. Finally, for master analogues, righteous

master analogues (n = 4, 50%) is found most frequently in
the rhetorical strategies of ‘Ethos’, followed by pragmatic
Pragmatic

master analogues (n = 5, 45.5%). However, both social

13
Understanding Communication of Sustainability Reporting: Application of Symbolic Convergence…

Table 6  Cross-tabulation of Taxonomies Fantasy type

fantasy type and the basic and
structural terms of SCT. Source: Best in class Leader Follower Starter Total
authors’ calculation
Rhetorical strategies
 Ethos 1 (16.7%) 5 (45.5%) 1 (25.0%) 1 (33.3%) 8 (33%)
 Logos 4 (66.7%) 4 (36.4%) 2 (50.0%) 1 (33.3%) 11 (46%)
 Pathos 1 (16.7%) 2 (18.2%) 1 (25.0%) 1 (33.3%) 5 (21%)
 Total 6 (100%) 11 (100%) 4 (100%) 3 (100%) 24 (100%)
Dramatis personae
 Employees 2 (33.3%) 3 (27.3%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (66.7%) 7 (29%)
 Environment 3 (50.0%) 4 (36.4%) 1 (25.0%) 1 (33.3%) 9 (38%)
 Society 0 (0.0%) 4 (36.4%) 2 (50.0%) 0 (0.0%) 6 (25%)
 Technology 1 (4.2%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (25.0%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (8%)
 Total 6 (100%) 11 (100%) 4 (100%) 3 (100%) 24 (100%)
Plot line
 Customer satisfaction 1 (16.7%) 4 (36.4%) 1 (25.0%) 1 (33.3%) 7 (29%)
 Energy efficiency 3 (50.0%) 2 (18.2%) 2 (50.0%) 0 (0.0%) 7 (29%)
 Team work 2 (33.3%) 2 (18.2%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (33.3%) 5 (21%)
 Green world 0 (0.0%) 3 (27.3%) 1 (25.0%) 1 (33.3%) 5 (21%)
 Total 6 (100%) 11 (100%) 4 (100%) 3 (100%) 24 (100%)
Scene
 Corporation itself 2 (33.3%) 1 (9.1%) 1 (25.0%) 1 (33.3%) 5 (21%)
 Environment 1 (16.7%) 1 (9.1%) 2 (50.0%) 0 (0.0%) 4 (17%)
 Society 3 (50.0%) 9 (81.8%) 1 (25.0%) 2 (66.7%) 15 (62%)
 Total 6 (100%) 11 (100%) 4 (100%) 3 (100%) 24 (100%)
Sanctioning agent
 Employee agent 0 (0.0%) 1 (9.1%) 2 (50.0%) 0 (0.0%) 3 (12%)
 Customer agent 1 (16.7%) 1 (9.1%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (33.3%) 3 (12%)
 Community agent 2 (33.3%) 2 (18.2%) 1 (25.0%) 1 (33.3%) 6 (25%)
 General public agent 0 (0.0%) 2 (18.2%) 1 (25.0%) 0 (0.0%) 3 (12%)
 Globalization agent 3 (50.0%) 5 (45.5%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (33.3%) 9 (39%)
 Total 6 (100%) 11 (100%) 4 (100%) 3 (100%) 24 (100%)
Master analogues
 Righteous 1 (16.7%) 6 (54.5%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 7 (29%)
 Social 2 (33.3%) 2 (18.2%) 3 (75.0%) 2 (66.7%) 9 (38%)
 Pragmatic 3 (50.0%) 3 (27.3%) 1 (25.0%) 1 (33.3%) 8 (33%)
 Total 6 (100%) 11 (100%) 4 (100%) 3 (100%) 24 (100%)

master analogues and pragmatic master analogues (n = 2, Table 9 that companies located in the European region
40%) receive an equal score in the rhetorical strategies of (n = 5, 83.3%) are highest under the ‘Best in class’ fantasy
‘Pathos’. type followed by Asian (n = 1, 12.5%). On the other hand,
To further explore our RQ3, we have prepared Table 8, companies located in the Asian region (n = 6, 75%) fill the
which shows the number of companies that disclose the fantasy type ‘Leader’ followed by companies located in
amount (%) of Aristotle’s persuasion and rhetorical strate- the American region (n = 5, 50.0%). In terms of ‘Follower
gies. Table 8 shows that there are 11 companies (46%) in fantasy type, only two companies (20%) are located in the
‘Logos’ followed by ‘Ethos’ (n = 11, 3%) and ‘Pathos’ (n = 5, American region, whereas no companies are located in
21%). So, it is seen in Table 8 that 11 companies discharge the fantasy type ‘Starter’ in the Asian or European region.
‘Pragmatic legitimacy’ followed by ‘Cognitive’ (n = 8) and However, ten companies from USA, eight companies
‘Moral’ (n = 5) in the sustainability reporting. from the Asian region and six companies from the Euro-
We also explore how the geographical locations of the pean region participated in all SCT practices. In terms
companies are distributed based on the concept of SCT, of rhetorical vision of ‘Ethos’, both Asian (n = 4, 50%)
which is reported in Table 9. It can be observed from and American companies (n = 4, 40%) occupy the highest

13
 M. Hossain et al.

Table 7  Cross-tabulation of rhetorical strategies and basic and struc- Table 9  Cross-tabulation of geographical classification and basic and
tural terms of SCT. Source: authors’ calculation structural terms of SCT. Source: authors’ calculation
Taxonomies Rhetorical Strategies Taxonomies Geographical Classification
Ethos Logos Pathos Total Asian European American Total

Fantasy type Fantasy type

 Best in class 1 (12.5%) 4 (36.4%) 1 (20.0%) 6 (25%)  Best in class 1 (12.5%) 5 (83.3%) 0 (0.0%) 6 (25%)
 Leader 5 (62.5%) 4 (36.4%) 2 (40.0%) 11 (46%)  Leader 6 (75.0%) 0 (0.0%) 5 (50.0%) 11 (46%)
 Follower 1 (12.5%) 2 (18.2%) 1 (20.0%) 4 (17%)  Follower 1 (12.5%) 1 (16.7%) 2 (20.0%) 4 (17%)
 Starter 1 (12.5%) 1 (9.1%) 1 (20.0%) 3 (12%)  Starter 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 3 (30.0%) 3 (12%)
 Total 8 (100%) 11 (100%) 5 (100%) 24 (100%)  Total 8 (100%) 6 (100%) 10 (100%) 24 (100%)
Dramatis personae Rhetorical strategies
 Employees 2 (25.0%) 4 (36.4%) 1 (20.0%) 7 (29%)  Ethos 4 (50.0%) 0 (0.0%) 4 (40.0%) 8 (33%)
 Environment 3 (33.3%) 4 (36.4%) 2 (40.0%) 9 (38%)  Logos 3 (37.5%) 4 (66.7%) 4 (40.0%) 11 (46%)
 Society 3 (37.5%) 2 (18.2%) 1 (20.0%) 6 (25%)  Pathos 1 (12.5%) 2 (33.3%) 2 (20.0%) 5 (21%)
 Technology 0 (0.0%) 1 (9.1%) 1 (20.0%) 2 (8%)  Total 8 (100%) 6 (100%) 10 (100%) 24 (100%)
 Total 8 (100%) 11 (100%) 5 (100%) 24 (100%) Dramatis personae
Plot line  Employees 2 (25.0%) 1 (16.7%) 4 (40.0%) 7 (29%)
 Customer satisfac- 2 (25.0%) 3 (27.3%) 2 (40.0%) 7 (29%)  Environment 2 (25.0%) 4 (66.7%) 3 (30.0%) 9 (38%)
tion  Society 3 (37.5%) 0 (0.0%) 3 (30.0%) 6 (25%)
 Energy efficiency 1 (12.5%) 4 (36.4%) 2 (40.0%) 7 (29%)  Technology 1 (12.5%) 1 (16.7%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (8%)
 Team work 2 (25.0%) 2 (18.2%) 1 (20.0%) 5 (21%)  Total 8 (100%) 6 (100%) 10 (100%) 24 (100%)
 Green world 3 (37.5%) 2 (18.2%) 0 (0.0%) 5 (21%) Plot line
 Total 8 (100%) 11 (100%) 5 (100%) 24 (100%)  Customer satisfac- 1 (12.5%) 1 (16.7%) 5 (50.0%) 7 (29%)
Scene tion
 Corporation itself 1 (12.5%) 4 (36.4%) 0 (0.0%) 5 (21%)  Energy efficiency 1 (12.5%) 4 (66.7%) 2 (20.0%) 7 (29%)
 Environment 1 (12.5%) 1 (9.1%) 2 (40.0%) 4 (17%)  Team work 2 (25.0%) 1 (16.7%) 2 (20.0%) 5 (21%)
 Society 6 (75.0%) 6 (54.5%) 3 (60.0%) 15 (62%)  Green world 4 (50.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (10.0%) 5 (21%)
 Total 8 (100%) 11 (100%) 5 (100%) 24 (100%)  Total 8 (100%) 6 (100%) 10 (100%) 24 (100%)
Sanctioning agent Scene
 Employee agent 2 (25.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (20.0%) 3 (12%)  Corporation itself 1 (12.5%) 2 (33.3%) 2 (20.0%) 5 (21%)
 Customer agent 0 (0.0%) 3 (27.3%) 0 (0.0%) 3 (12%)  Environment 0 (0.0%) 2 (33.3%) 2 (20.0%) 4 (17%)
 Community agent 1 (12.5%) 3 (27.3%) 2 (40.0%) 6 (25%)  Society 7 (87.5%) 2 (33.3%) 6 (60.0%) 15 (62%)
 General public 1 (12.5%) 2 (18.2%) 0 (0.0%) 3 (12%)  Total 8 (100%) 6 (100%) 10 (100%) 24 (100%)
agent Sanctioning agent
 Globalization agent 4 (50.0%) 3 (27.3%) 2 (40.0%) 9 (39%)  Employee agent 1 (12.5%) 1 (16.7%) 1 (10.0%) 3 (12%)
 Total 8 (100%) 11 (100%) 5 (100%) 24 (100%)  Customer agent 0 (0.0%) 1 (16.7%) 2 (20.0%) 3 (12%)
Master analogues  Community agent 2 (25.0%) 2 (33.3%) 2 (20.0%) 6 (25%)
 Righteous 4 (50.0%) 2 (18.2%) 1 (20.0%) 7 (29%)  General public 1 (12.5%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (20.0%) 3 (12%)
 Social 3 (37.5%) 4 (36.4%) 2 (40.0%) 9 (38%) agent
 Pragmatic 1 (12.5%) 5 (45.5%) 2 (40.0%) 8 (33%)  Globalization agent 4 (50.0%) 2 (33.3%) 3 (30.0%) 9 (39%)
 Total 8 (100%) 11 (100%) 5 (100%) 24 (100%)  Total 8 (100%) 6 (100%) 10 (100%) 24 (100%)
Master analogues
 Righteous 4 (50.0%) 1 (16.7%) 2 (20.0%) 7 (29%)
 Social 2 (25.0%) 2 (33.3%) 5 (50.0%) 9 (38%)
 Pragmatic 2 (25.0%) 3 (50.0%) 3 (30.0%) 8 (33%)
Table 8  Breakdown of Aristotle’s persuasion and rhetorical strategies  Total 8 (100%) 6 (100%) 10 (100%) 24 (100%)
and the legitimacy link. Source: from Tables 6 and 7
Aristotle’s persuasion and rhetorical strategies
Ethos Logos Pathos Total number in these regions. However, four companies from
European region (66.7%) and the American region (40%)
No of company 8 (33%) 11 (46%) 5 (21%) 24 (100%)
reported demonstrating the rhetorical vision of ‘Logos’
Legitimacy type Cognitive Pragmatic Moral
followed by three companies from Asian region (37.5%).

13
Understanding Communication of Sustainability Reporting: Application of Symbolic Convergence…

In contrast, two companies from the European and Ameri- master analogue in their corporate sustainability reporting.
can regions reported demonstrating the rhetorical vision However, the method of communication under SCT was
of ‘Pathos’ followed by one company (12.5%) from the found to be different with each component and, therefore,
Asian region. Dramatic personae also show differences we developed three cross-tabulation tables (Tables 6, 7, 9)
according to the companies’ location. It is reported in for one component against the other SCT taxonomies. In
Table  9 that dramatis personae encompasses all three terms of research question one, we found that ‘Logos’ is
geographical locations, except ‘Society’ in Europe and the predominant among the sample companies. Out of 24
‘technology’ in the American district. However, most dra- companies, 11 companies (46%) adopt ‘Logos’ rhetorical
matic personae ‘environment’ is presented in the Euro- vision (Table 6). This vision is equally popular with both
pean region (n = 4, 66.7%) followed by ‘employees’ in American and European companies (Table 9). Therefore,
the American region (n = 4, 40%). In terms of plot line, it can be assumed that companies are likely to discharge
‘Green world’ occupies four companies in the Asian pragmatic legitimacy by disclosing logical and rational argu-
region (50%) followed by ‘energy efficiency’ for four ments. They aim to enhance reputation and create corpo-
companies (66.7%) in the European region and ‘customer rate values in sustainability reporting. On the other hand,
satisfaction’ in the American region. In terms of scene, American companies also equally adopt the ‘Ethos’ rhetori-
seven Asian companies (87.5%) reported to validate cal vision similar to Asian companies (Table 9). However,
the ‘Society’ as scene followed by six companies from there is a contrast between American and European com-
the American region (60%) and two from the European panies in terms of ‘Ethos’. It can be observed that no Euro-
region. However, ‘environment’ scene is absent in the pean company communicates any ‘Ethos’ in their reporting
Asian region. In the case of sanctioning agent, ‘globalisa- (Table 9). However, both American and Asian companies
tion agent’ is seen in most of the companies located in the adopt the ‘Ethos’ rhetorical strategies predominantly in their
Asian region (n = 4, 50%) followed by American (n = 3, sustainability reports and are likely to discharge cognitive
30%) and European region (n = 2, 33.3%). However, no legitimacy by accepting CSR norm/standards. In this way,
Asian company has shown sanctioning agent ‘customer they aim to enhance reputation and create corporate account-
agent’. Also, no European company has shown sanction- ability. In all of the three regions, ‘Pathos’ is present in the
ing agent ‘general public agent’. Finally, master analogues reporting (n = 5), so we can assume that companies use emo-
are also different, depending on the companies’ location. tional languages or metaphors as communication to moral
For example, four Asian companies (50%) present mas- legitimacy. It is also noted that the distributions of ‘Ethos’,
ter analogues of ‘righteous’ followed by three European ‘Logos’ and ‘Pathos’ are found in all of the fantasy type cat-
companies (50%) in master analogues of ‘pragmatic’ and egories, but ‘Logos’ occupied the highest percentage (46%,
two American companies present master analogues of n = 11). Consequently, we can assume that the majority of
‘social’. However, the distribution of number of compa- companies are keen to discharge pragmatic legitimacy by
nies by geographical location and all-encompassing mas- disclosing logical and rational arguments in their sustain-
ter analogues are satisfactory. ability reporting to communicate their participation in the
global social and environmental issues.
With regard to persuasion styles in the sustainability
Conclusion and Future Research reporting (research question 2) within the framework of
SCT, the study reveals that most of the companies have
There is considerable focus on a company’s sustainability. different actors or moderators of the taxonomies of SCT
Therefore, it is important how the corporation addresses components. Under fantasy types, 11 companies fall in the
the issues and communicates their sustainability through ‘Leader’ category followed by six in ‘Best in class’ cat-
sustainability reports (Sörensson and Jansson 2016). In egory. This indicates that companies address CSR impor-
this case, the audiences of stakeholders use the sustain- tance by creating a CSR management system, adopting any
ability reports to formulate a decision by the CEO/BOD global standards and performing CSR in respect to social,
(Young 2016). Researchers argue that sustainability report- economic and environmental issues. It is also revealed that
ing is used to satisfy stakeholders and shows accountabil- nine companies use ‘environment’ as dramatic personae fol-
ity and legitimacy. It is also a way of communicating with lowed by ‘employees’ (n = 7) and Society (n = 6). Given the
the stakeholders (Sweeney and Coughlan 2008; Sörensson prominence of CSR and sustainability, companies use these
and Jansson 2016). The findings presented here shows how three personae ‘environment’, ‘employee’ and ‘Society’, but
a company’s communication goes through rhetoric and only two companies report ‘technology’ as personae in the
persuasion that is being used in their sustainability reports. vision stage. It implies that companies have used different
The study reveals that most of the sample companies actors as persuasion in their sustainability reporting. In the
communicate fantasy type, rhetoric vision, dramatic and plot line, both ‘customer satisfaction’ and ‘energy efficiency’

13
 M. Hossain et al.

taxonomies appeared highest in total number of companies Compliance with Ethical Standards 
(n = 14) which acknowledges companies’ agenda and action
and aligns with the components of CSR. Interestingly in the Ethical Approval  This article does not contain any studies with human
scene, ‘Society’ role is played predominantly by the maxi- participants performed by any of the authors.
mum companies (n = 15). Therefore, it is understood that
companies are active and willing to show their social activi-
ties at schools, charitable institutions, and technology inno- Appendix: Breakdown of Industry
vation. From the outcomes of ‘sanctioning agent’, we can Classification as per Geographical Location
see that ‘Globalising agent’ is working as justification and
representing agent of the rhetorical vision by the maximum
number of companies (n = 9) under the sample. It indicates
that most of the companies are world class and internation- Petro- Auto- Tech- Finan- Tel- Elec- Oth- Total
ally recognized in terms of their nature of business. We have leum mobiles nol- cial ecom- tron- ersa
ogy muni- ics
also found that master analogues of the corporate sustain- cations
ability reporting embedded across all the fantasy types. It is
seen that social master analogue (n = 9) is dominant among Amer- 1 0 1 1 1 1 5 10
ican
all categories of fantasy type. It means that companies are
Asian 2 1 1 1 0 1 2 8
communicating by emphasizing primarily human relations
Euro- 2 1 0 1 0 1 1 6
such as trust, caring, family ties and humaneness. On the
pean
other hand, pragmatic master analogues (50%) appear most
5 2 2 3 1 3 8 24
in the ‘Best in class’ fantasy type. This indicates that com-
panies are concerned about heightened expediency, utility, a
 Others include retail, power, pharmaceuticals, motor and food and
efficiency and cost effectiveness. While righteous master heath industry
analogue is dominant in the ‘Leader’ fantasy type, we may
assume that companies communicate their emphases in the
correct way by considering what is right and wrong, moral References
and immoral, etc., is.
From the above discussions, we conclude that SCT has Abizadeh, A. (2002). The passions of the wise: “Phronêsis”, rhetoric,
a capacity as a theoretical and analytical framework for and Aristotle’s passionate practical deliberation. The Review of
Metaphysics, 56, 267–296.
exploring corporate messages disclosed in the online corpo-
Aerts, W. (1994). On the use of accounting logic as an explanatory cat-
rate sustainability reporting. We explored the sustainability egory in narrative accounting disclosures. Accounting, Organiza-
reporting’s rhetoric and persuasion used by the companies tions and Society, 19(4–5), 337–353.
in a different platform/frame work which might be interest- Aerts, W. (2001). Inertia in the attributional content of annual account-
ing narratives. European Accounting Review, 10(1), 3–32.
ing to academic scholars in order to understand the CSR
Aldrich, H. E., & Fiol, C. M. (1994). Fools rush in? The institutional
communication theme in a new dimension. In short, we con- context of industry creation. Academy of Management Review,
tribute by exploring reporting communication in the lens of 19(4), 645–670.
SCT and provide a seed for further research in other similar Alvesson, M. (1993). Organizations as rhetoric: Knowledge-intensive
firms and the struggle with ambiguity. Journal of Management
avenues.
Studies, 30(6), 997–1015.
Amernic, J. H. (1996). The rhetoric versus the reality, or is the real-
Limitations of the Study and Future Research ity “mere” rhetoric? a case study of public accounting firms’
responses to a company’s invitation for alternative opinions
on an accounting matter. Critical Perspectives on Accounting,
There are some limitations to this research. Firstly, the study 7(1), 57–75.
considers SCT as a research framework. However, we do Aristotle. (1991). The art of rhetoric. New York, NY: Penguin Books.
not consider symbolic clue and saga since coders did not Arrington, C. E., & Schweiker, W. (1992). The rhetoric and ration-
find or identify sufficient themes in sustainability reporting. ality of accounting research. Accounting, Organizations and
Society, 17(6), 511–533.
Secondly, we focused on overall sustainability reporting. It Arvidsson, S. (2009). Non-financial information and the annual
can be interpreted in different ways, including generalizing report. Working paper, Department of Business Administra-
the communication style of the sample companies. Further tion, Lund University, Lund.
research can be done in the rhetoric of other parts of corpo- Ashforth, B. E., & Gibbs, B. W. (1990). The double-edge of organi-
zational legitimation. Organization Science, 1(2), 177–194.
rate web pages like the human rights report and director’s Banerjee, S. B. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: The good,
report. the bad and the ugly. Critical Sociology, 34(1), 51–79.
Bazerman, C. (1989). Shaping written knowledge. Madison, WI: Uni-
versity of Wisconsin Press.

13
Understanding Communication of Sustainability Reporting: Application of Symbolic Convergence…

Bazerman, C. (1994a). Constructing experience. Carbondale: South- Burke, K. (1969). A rhetoric of motives (Vol. 111). Oakland: University
ern Illinois University Press. of California Press.
Bazerman, C. (1994b). Systems of genres and the enactment of social Burke, R. J. (1982). Politics as rhetoric. Ethics, 93(1), 45–55.
intentions. In Genre and the new rhetoric (pp. 79–101). Burr, V. (1995). An introduction to social constructionism. London:
Berg, B. (2004). Qualitative research methods for the social science. Routledge.
Toronto: Allyn and Bacon. Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of cor-
Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analysing genre: Language use in professional porate performance. Academy of Management Review, 4(4),
settings. London: Longman. 497–505.
Bhatia, V. K. (2004). Worlds of written discourse: A genre-based Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility:
view. London: Continuum. Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders.
Billig, M. (1987). Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to Business Horizons, 34(4), 39–48.
social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Carroll, A. B. (1998). The four faces of corporate citizenship. Business
Blumer, H. (1954). What is wrong with social theory? American and Society Review, 100(1), 1–7.
Sociological Review, 18, 3–10. Chalaby, J. (1996). Beyond the prison-house of language: Discourse as
Böhling, K., Murguía, D. I., & Godfrid, J. (2017). Sustainability a sociological concept. The British Journal of Sociology, 47(4),
reporting in the mining sector: Exploring its symbolic nature. 684–698.
Business & Society, 25(1), 271–313. Charmaz, K. (2003). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist
Bormann, E. G. (1972). Fantasy and rhetorical vision: The rhetori- methods. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies
cal criticism of social reality. Quarterly Journal of Speech, for qualitative inquiry (2nd ed., pp. 249–291). Thousand Oaks,
58(4), 396–407. CA: Sage.
Bormann, E. G. (1980). Communication theory. New York: Holt, Chen, J., Huang, Q., Peng, H., & Zhong, H. (2015). Research report
Rhinehart and Winston. on corporate social responsibility of China. Berlin: Springer.
Bormann, E. G. (1982). I. Fantasy and rhetorical vision: Ten years Cheney, G., Christensen, L. T., Conrad, C., & Lair, D. J. (2004). Corpo-
later. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 68(3), 288–305. rate rhetoric as organizational discourse. In The Sage handbook
Bormann, E. G. (1983). Symbolic convergence: Organizational com- of organizational discourse (pp. 79–103).
munication and culture. In L. L. Putnam & M. E. Pacanowsky Clatworthy, M. A., & Jones, M. J. (2006). Differential patterns of tex-
(Eds.), Communication and organizations: An interpretive tual characteristics and company performance in the chairman’s
approach (pp. 99–122). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. statement. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 19(4),
Bormann, E. G. (1985a). Symbolic convergence theory: A com- 493–511.
munication formulation. Journal of Communication, 35(4), Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Edu-
128–138. cational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37–46.
Bormann, E. G. (1985b). The force of fantasy: Restoring the America Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2013). The pseudo-panopticon: The
dream. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. illusion created by CSR-related transparency and the internet.
Bormann, E. G., Cragan, J. F., & Shields, D. C. (2001). Three dec- Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 18(2),
ades of developing, grounding, and using symbolic convergence 212–227.
theory (SCT). Annals of the International Communication Asso- Cox, R. (2012). Environmental communication and the public sphere.
ciation, 25(1), 271–313. London: Sage publications.
Bormann, E. G., Knutson, R. L., & Musolf, K. (1997). Why do people Cragan, J. F., & Shields, D. C. (1977). Foreign policy communication
share fantasies? An empirical investigation of a basic tenet of the dramas: How mediated rhetoric played in Peoria in campaign’76.
symbolic convergence communication theory. Communication Quarterly Journal of Speech, 63(3), 274–289.
Studies, 48(3), 254–276. Cragan, J. F., & Shields, D. C. (1981). Applied communication
Bostdorff, D. M. (1992). “The decision is yours” campaign: Planned research: A dramatistic approach. Prospect Heights, IL: Wave-
parenthood’s characteristic argument of moral virtue. In E. L. land Press.
Toth & R. L. Heath (Eds.), Rhetorical and critical approaches Cragan, J. F., & Shields, D. C. (1992). The use of symbolic conver-
to public relations (pp. 301–314). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence gence theory in corporate strategic planning: A case study. Jour-
Erlbaum. nal of Applied Communication Research, 20(2), 199–218.
Bostdorff, D., & Vibbert, S. L. (1994). Values advocacy: Enhancing Cragan, J. F., & Shields, D. C. (1995). Symbolic theories in applied
organizational images, deflecting public criticism, and grounding communication research: Bormann, Burke, and Fisher. Cresskill,
future arguments. Public Relations Review, 20, 141–158. NJ: Hampton Press.
Braet, A. C. (1992). Ethos, pathos and logos in Aristotle’s Rhetoric: A Crane, A., & Glozer, S. (2016). Researching corporate social respon-
re-examination. Argumentation, 6(3), 307–320. sibility communication: Themes, opportunities and challenges.
Brennan, N., & Gray, S. J. (2000). Rhetoric and argument in financial Journal of Management Studies, 53(7), 1223–1252.
reporting. The Association of Chartered Certified Accountants. Cross, M. (1991). Aristotle and business writing: Why we need to
ACCA Occasional Research Papers; No. 31. http://www2.accag​ teach persuasion. The Bulletin of the Association for Business
lobal.​ com/pubs/genera​ l/activi​ ties/​ resear​ ch/resear​ ch_archiv​ e/orp- Communication, 54(1), 3–6.
031-001.pdf. Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., & White, R. E. (1999). An organizational
Brennan, M. N., & Merkl-Davies, D. M. (2014). Rhetoric and argument learning framework: From intuition to institution. Academy of
in social and environmental reporting: The Dirty Laundry case. Management Review, 24(3), 522–537.
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 27(4), 602–633. CVS Health. (2015). Sustainability report. https​://cvshe​alth.com/socia​
Brønn, P. S., & Vidaver-Cohen, D. (2009). Corporate motives for social l-respon​ sibil​ ity/corpor​ ate-social​ -respon​ sibil​ ity/annual​ -corpor​ ate-
initiative: Legitimacy, sustainability, or the bottom line? Journal socia​l-respo​nsibi​lity-repor​ts.
of Business Ethics, 87, 91–109. Davison, J. (2014). Visual rhetoric and the case of intellectual capital.
Bullis, C. (1997). Business communication and the natural environ- Accounting, Organizations and Society, 39(1), 20–37.
ment: Using traditional and contemporary perspectives to under- Deegan, C., Rankin, M., & Tobin, J. (2002). An examination of the
stand the connections. The Journal of Business Communication corporate social and environmental disclosures of BHP from
(1973), 34(4), 455–477.

13
 M. Hossain et al.

1983–1997: A test of legitimacy theory. Accounting, Auditing Gray, R., Owen, D., & Adams, C. (1996). Accounting and accountabil-
& Accountability Journal, 15(3), 312–343. ity: Changes and challenges in corporate social and environmen-
den Hoonard, Van, & Will, C. (1997). Working with sensitizing con- tal reporting. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
cepts: Analytical field research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Griffin, J. J., & Mahon, J. F. (1997). The corporate social performance
Publications. and corporate financial performance debate: Twenty-five years
Devin, B. L., & Lane, A. B. (2014). Communicating engagement in of incomparable research. Business and Society, 36(1), 5–31.
corporate social responsibility: A meta-level construal of engage- Guthrie, J., Petty, R., Yongvanich, K., & Ricceri, F. (2004). Using
ment. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(5), 436–454. content analysis as a research method to inquire into intellectual
Dey, C. (2007). Social accounting at Traidcraft plc: A struggle for the capital reporting. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 5(2), 282–293.
meaning of fair trade. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Gyimóthy, S. (2013). Symbolic convergence and tourism social media.
Journal, 20(3), 423–445. In A. M. Munar, S. Gyimóthy, & L. Cai (Eds.), Tourism social
Díez-Martín, F., Prado-Roman, C., & Blanco-González, A. (2013). media: Transformations in identity, community and culture (pp.
Beyond legitimacy: Legitimacy types and organizational success. 55–71). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Management Decision, 51(10), 1954–1969. Hartman, L. P., Rubin, R. S., & Dhanda, K. K. (2007). The commu-
Dong, S., & Xu, L. (2016). The impact of explicit CSR regulation: Evi- nication of corporate social responsibility: United States and
dence from China’s mining firms. Journal of Applied Accounting European Union multinational corporations. Journal of Business
Research, 17(2), 237–258. Ethics, 74(4), 373–389.
Drumheller, K. (2005). Millennial dogma: A fantasy theme analysis Hayes, A. F., & Krippendorff, K. (2007). Answering the call for a
of the millennial generation’s uses and gratifications of reli- standard reliability measure for coding data. Communication
gious content media. Journal of Communication & Religion, Methods and Measures, 1(1), 77–89.
28, 47–70. Heath, R. L. (1993). A rhetorical approach to zones of meaning and
Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2010). Maximizing business organizational prerogatives. Public Relations Review, 19(2),
returns to corporate social responsibility (CSR): The role of CSR 141–155.
communication. International Journal of Management Reviews, Heath, R. L. (2001). Chapter 2: A rhetorical enactment rationale for
12(1), 8–19. public relations: The good organization communicating well. In
Duffy, M. E. (2003). Web of hate: A fantasy theme analysis of the rhe- R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public relations (pp. 31–50).
torical vision of hate groups online. Journal of Communication Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Inquiry, 27(3), 291–312. Heath, R. L., & Ryan, M. (1989). Public relations’ role in defining
Endres, T. G. (1994). Co-existing master analogues in symbolic con- corporate social responsibility. Journal of Mass Media Ethics,
vergence theory: The Knights of Columbus quincentennial cam- 4(1), 21–38.
paign. Communication Studies, 45(3–4), 294–308. Higgins, C., & Robyn, W. (2012). Ethos, logos, pathos: Strategies of
Estava, D. J. (2012). Lope de Aguirre, the tyrant, and the prince: Con- persuasion in social/environmental reports. Accounting Forum,
vergence and divergence in postcolonial collective memory. 36(3), 194–208.
Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 5(4), Hooper, K., & Pratt, M. (1995). Discourse and rhetoric: The case of
291–308. the New Zealand Native Land Company. Accounting, Auditing
Finnemore, M. (1996). Norms, culture, and world politics: Insights & Accountability Journal, 8(1), 10–37.
from sociology’s institutionalism. International Organization, Hopkins, L. (2011). Symbolic convergence theory. Retrieved October
50(2), 325–347. 14, 2014 from http://www.leeho​pkins​.net/2011/05/31/symbo​lic-
Finnemore, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). International norm dynamics and conve​rgenc​e-theor​y/.
political change. International Organization, 52(4), 887–917. Ihlen, Ø. (2008). Mapping the environment for corporate social respon-
Foss, S. K. (1989). Generic criticism. In S. K. Foss (Ed.), Rhetori- sibility: Stakeholders, publics and the public sphere. Corporate
cal criticism: Exploration and practice. Prospect Heights, IL: Communications: An International Journal, 13(2), 135–146.
Waveland. Ihlen, Ø. (2009). Business and climate change: The climate response of
Gamson, W. A., & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media discourse and public the world’s 30 largest corporations. Environmental Communica-
opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American tion, 3(2), 244–262.
Journal of Sociology, 95(1), 1–37. Ihlen, Ø. (2011). Rhetoric and corporate social responsibility. In J. Bar-
Garver, E. (1994). Aristotle’s rhetoric: An art of character. Chicago: tlett, O. Ihlen, & S. May (Eds.), Handbook of communication and
University of Chicago Press. corporate social responsibility (pp. 147–166). Hoboken: Wiley.
Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the meth- Ihlen, Ø., Bartlett, J., & May, S. (Eds.). (2011). The handbook of com-
odology of grounded theory. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. munication and corporate social responsibility. Hoboken: Wiley.
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). (2016). Consolidated set of GRI Ihlen, Ø., Van Ruler, B., & Fredriksson, M. (Eds.). (2009). Public
sustainability reporting standards 2016. Accessed 7 December relations and social theory: Key figures and concepts. Abington:
https​://www.globa​lrepo​rting​.org/stand​ards/gri-stand​ards-downl​ Routledge.
oad-cente​r/. Johansen, T. S., & Nielsen, A. E. (2011). Strategic stakeholder dia-
Goetz, J., & LeCompte, M. (1984). Ethnography and qualitative logues: A discursive perspective on relationship building. Corpo-
designs in educational research. San Diego, CA: Academic rate Communications: An International Journal, 16(3), 204–217.
Press. Jonker, J. (2005). CSR Wonderland: Navigating between movement,
Golob, U., & Podnar, K. (2014). Critical points of CSR-related stake- community and organisation. The Journal of Corporate Citizen-
holder dialogue in practice. Business Ethics: A European Review, ship, 20, 19–22.
23(3), 248–257. Kartikawangi, D. (2017). Symbolic convergence of local wisdom in
Gray, R., Kouhy, R., & Lavers, S. (1995). Corporate social and envi- cross–cultural collaborative social responsibility: Indonesian
ronmental reporting: A review of the literature and a longitudinal case. Public Relations Review, 43(1), 35–45.
study of UK disclosure. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Kennedy, G. A. (1991). Aristotle on rhetoric: A theory of civic dis-
Journal, 8(2), 47–77. course. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

13
Understanding Communication of Sustainability Reporting: Application of Symbolic Convergence…

Khan, M., Serafeim, G., & Yoon, A. (2016). Corporate sustainability: Mezias, S. J. (1990). An institutional model of organizational prac-
First evidence on materiality. The Accounting Review, 91(6), tice: Financial reporting at the Fortune 200. Administrative
1697–1724. Science Quarterly, 35, 431–457.
Kiliç, M. (2016). Online corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclo- Milne, M. J., Kearins, K., & Walton, S. (2006). Creating adventures
sure in the banking industry: Evidence from Turkey. Interna- in wonderland: The journey metaphor and environmental sus-
tional Journal of Bank Marketing, 34(4), 550–569. tainability. Organization, 13(6), 801–839.
Klotz, A. (1999). Norms in international relations: The struggle Morhardt, J. E. (2010). Corporate social responsibility and sustain-
against apartheid. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. ability reporting on the internet. Business Strategy and the
Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content analysis (Vol. 7, pp. 1–84). Beverly Environment, 19(7), 436–452.
Hills: Sage Publications. Neilsen, E. H., & Rao, M. H. (1987). The strategy-legitimacy nexus:
Laine, M. (2009). Ensuring legitimacy through rhetorical changes? A A thick description. Academy of Management Review, 12(3),
longitudinal interpretation of the environmental disclosures of 523–533.
a leading Finnish chemical company. Accounting, Auditing & Neumann, W. (2003). Social research methods: Qualitative and
Accountability Journal, 22(7), 1029–1054. quantitative approaches. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Laine, M. (2010). Towards sustaining the status quo: Business talk Nichols, M. P. (1987). Aristotle’s defense of rhetoric. The Journal
of sustainability in Finnish corporate disclosures 1987–2005. of Politics, 49(3), 657–677.
European Accounting Review, 19(2), 247–274. Nyberg, D., & Wright, C. (2012). Justifying business responses to
Levina, N., & Orlikowski, W. J. (2009). Understanding shifting power climate change: Discursive strategies of similarity and differ-
relations within and across organizations: A critical genre analy- ence. Environment and Planning A, 44(8), 1819–1835.
sis. Academy of Management Journal, 52(4), 672–703. O’Connor, A., & Shumate, M. (2010). An economic industry and
Lewis, S. (2003). Reputation and corporate responsibility. Journal of institutional level of analysis of corporate social responsibil-
Communication Management, 7(4), 356–366. ity communication. Management Communication Quarterly,
Livesey, S. M. (2002). The discourse of the middle ground: Citizen 24(4), 529–551.
Shell commits to sustainable development. Management Com- Onkila, T. J. (2009). Corporate argumentation for acceptability:
munication Quarterly, 15(3), 313–349. Reflections of environmental values and stakeholder relations
Livesey, S. M., & Graham, J. (2007). Greening of corporations? Eco- in corporate environmental statements. Journal of Business
talk and the emerging social imaginary. In S. K. May, G. Cheney, Ethics, 87(2), 285–298.
& J. Roper (Eds.), The debate over corporate social responsibil- Padgett, D. K. (2004). Coming of age: Theoretical thinking, social
ity (pp. 336–350). New York: Oxford University Press. responsibility, and a global perspective on qualitative research.
Llewellyn, J. (1990). The rhetoric of corporate legitimation: Public In D. K. Padgett (Ed.), The qualitative research experience
relations and philanthropy as social responsibility. Austin, TX: (pp. 297–315). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thompson Learning.
The University of Texas at Austin. Palenchar, M. J., & Heath, R. L. (2002). Another part of the risk com-
Maignan, I., & Ferrell, O. C. (2001). Corporate citizenship as a mar- munication model: Analysis of communication processes and
keting instrument—Concepts, evidence and research directions. message content. Journal of Public Relations Research, 14(2),
European Journal of Marketing, 35(3/4), 457–484. 127–158.
Mäkelä, H., & Laine, M. (2011). A CEO with many messages: Com- Park, J., Lee, H., & Hong, H. (2016). The Analysis of Self-Presentation
paring the ideological representations provided by different of Fortune 500 Corporations in Corporate Web Sites. Business
corporate reports. Accounting Forum, 35(4), 217–231. and Society, 55(5), 706–737.
Manetti, G., & Bellucci, M. (2016). The use of social media for Parsons, T. (1960). Structure and process in modern societies. Glencoe,
engaging stakeholders in sustainability reporting. Accounting, IL: Free Press.
Auditing & Accountability Journal, 29(6), 985–1011. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd
Marais, M. (2012). CEO rhetorical strategies for corporate social ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
responsibility (CSR). Society and Business Review, 7(3), Payne, R. A. (2001). Persuasion, frames and norm construction. Euro-
223–243. pean Journal of International Relations, 7(1), 37–61.
Masocha, W., & Weetman, P. (2007). Rhetoric in standard setting: Perelman, C. (1982). The realm of rhetoric. Notre Dame: The Univer-
The case of the going-concern audit. Accounting, Auditing & sity of Notre dame Press.
Accountability Journal, 20(1), 74–100. Phillips, N., & Hardy, C. (2002). Discourse analysis: Investigating
Mason, M., & Mason, R. D. (2012). Communicating a green corpo- processes of social construction. Sage University papers series
rate perspective: Ideological persuasion in the corporate envi- on qualitative research methods (Vol. 50). Thousand Oaks, CA:
ronmental report. Journal of Business and Technical Commu- Sage.
nication, 26(4), 479–506. Pinto, I., & Picoto, W. N. (2016). Configurational analysis of firms’
Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). “Implicit” and “explicit” CSR: A performance: Understanding the role of Internet financial report-
conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of cor- ing. Journal of Business Research, 69(11), 5360–5365.
porate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, Potter, J. (1996). Representing reality: Discourse, rhetoric and social
33(2), 404–424. construction. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
May, S. K., & Zorn, T. E. (2003). Forum introduction. Management Prentice, S. J. (2006). A symbolic convergence theory approach to
Communication Quarterly, 16(4), 595–598. graduate recruiting. Master of Arts thesis, Texas Tech Univer-
McCloskey, D. N. (1998). The rhetoric of economics. USA: Univer- sity, USA.
sity of Wisconsin Press. Preuss, L. (2005). Rhetoric and reality of corporate greening: A view
Merkl-Davies, D. M., Merkl-Davies, D. M., Brennan, N. M., & from the supply chain management function. Business Strategy
Brennan, N. M. (2017). A theoretical framework of external and the Environment, 14(2), 123–139.
accounting communication: Research perspectives, traditions, Putnam, L. (2004). Dialectical and rhetorical tropes in negotiations.
and theories. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Organization Studies, 25, 35–53.
30(2), 433–469. Putnam, L. L., & Nicotera, A. M. (Eds.). (2009). Building theories of
organization: The constitutive role of communication. London:
Routledge.

13
 M. Hossain et al.

Putnam, L., & Pacanowsky, M. E. (1983). Communication and organ- Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and
izations, an interpretive approach (Vol. 65). Thousand Oaks: research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sage Publications Inc. Swales, J. M., & Rogers, P. S. (1995). Discourse and the projec-
Reynolds, M., & Yuthas, K. (2008). Moral discourse and corporate tion of corporate culture: The mission statement. Discourse &
social responsibility reporting. Journal of Business Ethics, Society, 6(2), 223–242.
78(1–2), 47–64. Sweeney, L., & Coughlan, J. (2008). Do different industries report
Roberts, R. W. (1992). Determinants of corporate social responsibility corporate social responsibility differently? An investigation
disclosure: An application of stakeholder theory. Accounting, through the lens of stakeholder theory. Journal of Marketing
Organizations and Society, 17(6), 595–612. Communications, 14(2), 113–124.
Robinson, D. N. (2006). Rhetoric and character in Aristotle. The Taylor, J. R., & Van Every, E. J. (2000). The emergent organization.
Review of Metaphysics, 60, 3–15. Communication as its site and surface. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Rodríguez Bolívar, M. P. (2009). Evaluating corporate environmental Erlbaum Associates.
reporting on the internet: The utility and resource industries in Tregidga, H., & Milne, M. J. (2006). From sustainable management
Spain. Business and Society, 48(2), 179–205. to sustainable development: A longitudinal analysis of a lead-
Rolland, D., & O’Keefe Bazzoni, J. (2009). Greening corporate iden- ing New Zealand environmental reporter. Business Strategy
tity: CSR online corporate identity reporting. Corporate Com- and the Environment, 15(4), 219–241.
munications: An International Journal, 14(3), 249–263. Tregidga, H., Kearins, K., & Milne, M. (2013). The politics of know-
Ruebottom, T. (2013). The microstructures of rhetorical strategy in ing “organizational sustainable development”. Organization &
social entrepreneurship: Building legitimacy through heroes and Environment, 26(1), 102–129.
villains. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(1), 98–116. Tregidga, H., Milne, M., & Kearins, K. (2014). (Re) presenting ‘sus-
Scott, W. A. (1955). Reliability of content analysis: The case of nomi- tainable organizations’. Accounting, Organizations and Society,
nal scale coding. Public Opinion Quarterly, 19, 321–325. 39(6), 477–494.
Self, L. S. (1979). Rhetoric and phronesis: The Aristotelian ideal. Phi- Trittin, H., & Schoeneborn, D. (2017). Diversity as polyphony:
losophy & Rhetoric, 12, 130–145. Reconceptualizing diversity Management from a communica-
Shell. (2015). Sustainability report. https:​ //report​ s.shell.​ com/sustai​ nabi​ tion-centered perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 144(2),
lity-repor​t/2015/. 305–322.
Shields, D. C. (2000). Symbolic convergence and special communi- Unerman, J. (2000). Methodological issues-Reflections on quantifica-
cation theories: Sensing and examining dis/enchantment with tion in corporate social reporting content analysis. Accounting,
the theoretical robustness of critical auto ethnography. Com- Auditing & Accountability Journal, 13(5), 667–681.
munications Monographs, 67(4), 392–421. Verizon. (2015). Corporate responsibility supplement. http://www.
Shields, D. C., & Preston, C. T. (1985). Fantasy theme analysis in veriz​o n.com/about​/ sites​/ defau​l t/files​/ annua​l /veriz​o n-annua​
competitive rhetorical criticism. National Forensic Journal, l-2015/downl​oads/2015_Veriz​on_Corpo​rate_Respo​nsibi​lity_
3(2), 102–115. Suppl​ement​.pdf.
Sörensson, A., & Jansson, A. M. (2016). Sustainability reporting Wæraas, A., & Ihlen, Ø. (2009). Green legitimation: The construction
among Swedish tourism service providers: Information dif- of an environmental ethos. International Journal of Organiza-
ferences between them. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the tional Analysis, 17(2), 84–102.
Environment, 201, 103–113. Walmart. (2015). Global responsibility report. https​://cdn.corpo​rate.
Sovacool, B. K., & Ramana, M. V. (2015). Back to the future: Small walma​r t.com/c0/24/2383f​0674d​27823​dcf70​83e6f​bc6/2015-
modular reactors, nuclear fantasies, and symbolic convergence. globa​l-respo​nsibi​lity-repor​t.pdf.
Science, Technology and Human Values, 40(1), 96–125. Warnock, K. (1992). Structure and argument in accounting standards.
Spence, L. J. (2007). CSR and small business in a European policy Accounting and Business Research, 22(86), 179–188.
context: The five “C” s of CSR and small business research Watson, T. J. (1995). Rhetoric, discourse and argument in organiza-
agenda 2007. Business and Society Review, 112(4), 533–552. tional sense making: A reflexive tale. Organization Studies, 16,
Spence, C. (2009). Social accounting’s emancipatory potential: 805–821.
A Gramscian critique. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Weick, K. E. (1979). Cognitive processes in organizations. Research
20(2), 205–227. in Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 41–74.
Spence, C., & Thomson, I. (2009). Resonance tropes in corporate Wood, D. J. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy
philanthropy discourse. Business Ethics: A European Review, of Management Review, 16(4), 691–718.
18(4), 372–388. Young, J. J. (2003). Constructing, persuading and silencing: The rheto-
Stallworth Williams, L. (2008). The mission statement: A corporate ric of accounting standards. Accounting, Organizations and Soci-
reporting tool with a past, present, and future. The Journal of ety, 28(6), 621–638.
Business Communication (1973), 45(2), 94–119. Young, R. O. (2016). Persuasive communication: How audiences
Stone, J. F. (2002). Using symbolic convergence theory to discern decide. London: Routledge.
and segment motives for enrolling in professional master’s Zanin, A. C., Hoelscher, C. S., & Kramer, M. W. (2016). Extending
degree programs. Communication Quarterly, 50(2), 227–243. Symbolic Convergence Theory: A Shared Identity Perspective
Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and insti- of a Team’s Culture. Small Group Research, 47(4), 438–472.
tutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3),
571–610.

13
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.