Quarterly Management Communication: The Discourse of The Middle Ground: Citizen Shell Commits To Sustainable Development

Management Communication Quarterly
http://mcq.sagepub.com The Discourse of the Middle Ground: Citizen Shell Commits to Sustainable Development
Sharon M. Livesey Management Communication Quarterly 2002; 15; 313 DOI: 10.1177/0893318902153001 The online version of this article can be found at: http://mcq.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/15/3/313
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for Management Communication Quarterly can be found at: Email Alerts: http://mcq.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://mcq.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations (this article cites 19 articles hosted on the SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms): http://mcq.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/15/3/313#BIBL
Downloaded from http://mcq.sagepub.com at ROYAL ROADS UNIV LIBRARY on June 26, 2007 2002 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
GROUND Livesey / THE DISCOURSE OF THE MIDDLE FEBRUARY 2002 MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY /
In the
discursive struggle over sustainable development, corporate enactments of sustainability signal both resistance and change.
THE DISCOURSE OF THE MIDDLE GROUND

Citizen Shell Commits to Sustainable Development SHARON M. LIVESEY Fordham University
AUTHORS NOTE: The author thanks Ted Zorn and three anonymous reviewers for their insightful and provocative comments. She also appreciates the generous support of Robin Andersen, Molly Shearer, and Neil Talbot. Funding for research on this article was provided by the Fordham University GBA Research Committee. Earlier versions of the article were presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management in Toronto, Canada, in August 2000 and at the 5th biennial conference on Communication and Environment in Flagstaff, Arizona, in July 1999.
Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 15, No. 3, February 2002 313-349 2002 Sage Publications 313
314
MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / FEBRUARY 2002
In this study, Foucauldian theory is used to interpret a corporate social report published by the Royal Dutch/Shell Group to reveal the contours of an emerging corporate discourse of sustainability and the knowledge-power dynamics entailed by social reporting. The report could be read simply as a corporate attempt to reestablish discursive regularity and hegemonic control in the wake of challenges by environmentalists and human rights activists. However, the author interprets it in the context of the larger sociopolitical discursive struggle over environment and social justice and finds that Shells embrace of the concept of sustainable development has transforming effects on the company and on the notion of sustainability itself. This contradictory and ambiguous result is characteristic of discursive struggle, which is where, according to Foucault, power is played out and social change occurs.
his article offers a critical interpretation of the Royal Dutch/ Shell Groups first annual report to society and an expository text by Shells expert consultant, John Elkington, which was incorporated into the report. The Elkington text describes an emergent form of social reporting in which corporate performance is measured against a triple bottom line of economic, social, and environmental values. Shells report, in providing an early example of this emergent form of reporting, tells the paradoxical story of the attempt by one of the worlds largest oil companies to embrace the concept of sustainable development. Employing Foucauldian (1969/1972, 1976/1978, 1988) theory and methods, I analyze the document and the emerging phenomenon of social reporting in the context of the larger sociopolitical struggle over sustainable development of which they are part. My purposes are to reveal the links between discourse and changing social practices of sustainable development while simultaneously uncovering aspects of the power-knowledge dynamics at play in this discursive field. I show how Shell both accommodated and resisted change and, in its commitment to dialogue, proved potentially more radical than its sustainability consultant. Published in April 1998 after a period of crisis, self-reflection, and change, the report, Profits and Principles: Does There Have to
Livesey / THE DISCOURSE OF THE MIDDLE GROUND
315
Be a Choice? (Knight, 1998), produced an account of Shells selfproclaimed transformation (see Lawrence, 1999a, 1999b; Livesey, 2001). This cultural change was designed to help Shell better serve its mission to engage efficiently, responsibly and profitably in the oil, gas, chemicals and other selected businesses and participate in the search for and development of other sources of energy (Knight, 1998, p. 8). Of central importance to Shells transformation was its revision of its general business principles to reflect societys greater interest in human rights and the emergence of the concept of sustainable development (Knight, 1998, p. 5). My article focuses on those elements of Profits and Principles that deal with sustainable development. Specifically, my analysis highlights features of language and practice that demonstrate how Shells and Elkingtons local enactments in the name of sustainable development both responded to and altered the wider discursive order with paradoxical results (Hajer, 1997). The article begins with a review of the literature on sustainability and corporate social reporting, which is followed by an overview of theory and method. Then, I present the results and discussion. I conclude by addressing implications of the study for theory and practice.
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND SOCIAL REPORTING

Sustainable development is a complex notion that seeks to reconcile the goals of economic development and ecological wellbeing. The idea was popularized by a foundational text, the United Nations World Commission for Environment and Development (WCED) (1987) report, Our Common Future (commonly referred to as the Brundtland Report). Subsequently, corporations faced increased pressure to demonstrate the sustainability of their businesses, particularly in Europe (Eccles, Herz, Keegan, & Phillips, 2001; Elkington, 1998). Social reporting has provided one means of addressing this problem. Next, I present a brief review of the literatures on sustainable development and social reporting.
316
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: A CONTESTED TERRAIN Sustainable development constitutes a middle ground between the dominant socioeconomic paradigm, which is based on neoclassical economic principles and goals (see examples cited in Egri & Pinfield, 1996), and ecocentric radical environmentalism (e.g., Devall & Sessions, 1985; Naess, 1989). In Foucauldian terms, sustainable development thus represents a space of dissension and sociopolitical struggle where competing discourses of the economic and environmental paradigms are joined (Hajer, 1997). The Brundtland Report (WCED, 1987) used broad terms to define sustainability. For example, its most commonly referenced passage describes sustainable development as development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (p. 43). Its broad goals served as an umbrella for and forged common bonds among those with widely divergent interests precisely because such broad goals permitted radically different responses to understanding, representing, and solving the problems of the natural environment and social development (Hajer, 1997; Meadowcroft, 2000; Peterson, 1997). As Hajer pointed out, sustainable development offered a storyline that permitted new forms of alliance and action and opened possibilities for rearticulating the historically oppositional relationship between business and environmentalists (see also Hart, 1997; Hoffman, 2000; Westley & Vredenburg, 1991). In addition, the concept of sustainability restructured the modernization1 dependency debate in the traditional development literature by linking solutions to problems of ecological degradation with issues of poverty and social justice (Meadowcroft, 2000; Peterson, 1997). Negotiating a new middle ground between economics and environmentalism allowed for the legitimation and preservation of some elements of the dominant development paradigm while altering others. For instance, sustainable development permitted an anthropocentric and utilitarian view of nature as resource and left room for technological innovation as a cure for the environmental problem. However, it also suggested a need to reformulate the major premises upon which a consumer society and market system
317
had traditionally relied: namely, unlimited growth, increased consumption, unequal distribution of environmental harms and goods, and proprietary control of information (Hoffman, 2000). Nevertheless, The Brundtland Report did not specify what should be preserved and what should be altered (Meadowcroft, 2000, p. 373). Thus, the concept of sustainable development became a source of confusion and precipitated debate, particularly around questions of environmental risk and the equitable distribution of resources. Brooks (as cited in Hajer, 1997), for instance, noted that more than 40 working definitions of sustainable development had been produced within the first 5 years after the Brundtland Report (for a history of the term, see also Meadowcroft, 2000; Peterson, 1997). Particular enactments of sustainabilitysuch as the social report considered hereare both the outcome of and a force in this broader discursive struggle (Levy & Rothenberg, in press).
CORPORATE SOCIAL REPORTING: AN EVOLVING FORM Corporate social reporting has evolved over time. Environmental reporting, as a subset of social reporting, is a relatively developed practice among corporations (Bennett & James, 2000) in which reports often take the form of stand-alone, technical accounts of a companys environmental impacts and remedial efforts. Their contents are guided by environmental laws and voluntary guidelines promulgated by industry associations and international bodies. Recently, however, corporations have been pressured to report in greater detail and on a broader range of their social and environmental impacts related to sustainable development (Eccles et al., 2001; Elkington, 1998; Gray, Owen, & Adams, 1996). The emerging genre of reporting against a triple bottom line of financial, environmental, and social indicators is an experimental form still in its infancy (see Spencer-Cooke & Elkington, 1996; SustainAbility & United Nations Environment Programme, 1994, 1997). A fundamental question remains as to how and by whom standards of measurement might be derived and agreed upon. In this article, for purposes of simplicity, I use the term social report-
318
ing to refer to this new form of integrated reporting of corporate economic, environmental, and social results, as distinguished from other earlier and more generic forms of social reporting. The accounting literature has addressed recent trends in corporate reporting (e.g., Bennett & James, 2000; Gray et al., 1996; Matthews, 1997), but the organizational communication and business communication literatures have dealt only sporadically with earlier and generic forms (e.g., Kuiper, 1988; Lentz & Tschirgi, 1963). As Cheney and Frenette (1993) pointed out, annual reports, corporate speeches, and corporate public discourse (which would include the social report examined here) are important means by which companies influence public discourse and thus deserve scholarly attention. Cheney and Christensen (2001), among others, have also noted the importance of the natural environment and risk management as subjects of corporate identity and issue management. Although there has been research on the effects of governmental discourse on environmental practice (e.g., Patterson & Lee, 1997), most studies of corporate ecodiscourse have focused on firms defensive responses to specific environmental crises (e.g., Farrell & Goodnight, 1981; Ice, 1991; Tyler, 1992) rather than on proactive corporate efforts to shape public understanding of ecological issues (for exceptions, see Brown & Crable, 1973; Livesey, 1999). In the study perhaps most relevant to the present case, Killingsworth and Palmer (1992) found that environmental impact statements published by governments and sometimes by private businesses tended to promote an expert rhetoric that instrumentalized the relationship between people and resources and competed with discourses based on spiritual and moral understandings of nature. My article extends this and other extant work by considering corporate influence on evolving ecodiscourse, by focusing specifically on the topic of sustainable development, and by using a Foucauldian perspective. Thus, my study illuminates the links between discourse and processes of social and institutional change as well as the power-knowledge dynamics at play in the emergent discursive domain of sustainable development.
319
THEORY AND METHOD

A Foucauldian approach distinguishes language as a practice not just of representing the world, but of signifying the world, constituting and constructing the world in meaning (Fairclough, 1992, p. 64). Foucaults (1969/1972) analytic approach was thus designed to reveal the productive nature of discourse, which constitutes both identity and objects of knowledge. Objects of knowledge relevant here include, for example, the market, the environment, and sustainable development. In his later work, Foucault (1976/ 1978; 1979/1995; 1988) contended that knowledge and power were inextricably linked. Truth is linked in a circular relation with systems of power which produce and sustain it, and to effects of power which it induces and which extend it. . . . [a] regime of truth (Foucault, 1984, p. 74). The circular power-knowledge link is critical to understanding the potentially hegemonic character of discourse. Nevertheless, in Foucaults view, meaning is not fixed; rather, it must be constantly reproduced and reconstituted. Contradiction and ambiguity, which emerge as discourses overlap and intersect in a complex and unstable field, allow spaces for resistance and change and for new ways of imagining reality. Hegemonic control is therefore never complete. Discourses of economic rationality can be conceptualized, in these terms, as having suffered a major disruption in the 20th century as discourses of environmentalism gained ground (see Hajer, 1997). Sustainable development represents the emergence of a new, unstable discursive order, which joins the heterogeneous elements of the distinct domains of economics, environmentalism, and social justice (Hoffman, 2000; Peterson, 1997). Foucault assumed that the relationship between texts and contexts and, hence, the power relations embedded within them was not transparent but had to be revealed by reference to the larger discursive orders or formations (e.g., social practices and institutional settings) of which they are part. He did not, however, provide specific methodologies for reading texts. Subsequently, various scholars influenced by Foucault (e.g., Fairclough, 1992; Wetherell & Potter, 1992) have elaborated methods of linking textual analyses
320
with institutional practices and macro sociological perspectives. I have broadly followed these approaches, which address language and other formal properties of texts and text production, consumption, and interpretation. The aim of this theory and methodology is to expose the hegemonic and privileging yet also contradictory and ambivalent aspects of texts to reveal the dynamic and fluid nature of discourse and its role in social change (see Deetz, 1992; Fairclough, 1992).
THE DATA Although the focus of this article is on Shells first social report, Profits and Principles (Knight, 1998), a much larger corpus of data informed my interpretation. I obtained company materials from public sources, including the external affairs office of Shell International, local operating companies, and company Web sites. My data included (a) social reports published by Shell International (Knight, 1998, 1999, 2000), Shell UK (1998) and Shell Canada (1996, 1998); (b) 81 speeches delivered by Shell senior executives between 1996 and 2000; (c) one Shell marketing research report (Wade, 1996); (d) company position papers and briefs on topics of controversy published on Web sites of Shell Nigeria and Shell UK; (e) Shell press releases and media interviews; (f) reports to government; (g) corporate-authored trade journal articles; and (h) features from employee magazines. I also reviewed uncensored public discussion threads published on Shells Web sites related to issues of its environmental and social responsibility. To enrich my understanding of the Shell materials, I read media accounts, nongovernmental organizations(NGO) reports and Web site materials, Shellrelated journal articles, and case studies relevant to my study (most notably, Lawrence, 1999a, 1999b). As context for Elkingtons contribution to the Shell report, I studied the contemporaneous work Cannibals With Forks (Elkington, 1998) and Web site materials (Elkington, 1999), both sources introduced and elaborated Elkingtons rationale for triple-bottom-line reporting, as well as the United Nations Environment Programme benchmarking studies of corporate social reporting authored by Elkington and his consultancy group (Spencer-Cooke & Elkington, 1996; SustainAbility &
321
United Nations Environment Programme, 1994, 1997; see also Elkington, 1987).
CODING AND ANALYTIC METHOD According to Faircloughs (1992) method of discourse analysis, Any discursive event (i.e., any instance of discourse) is seen as being simultaneously a piece of text, an instance of discursive practice, and an instance of social practice (p. 4). This method thus requires attention to three levels of analysis: (a) language; (b) discursive practices related to production, distribution, and interpretation of texts, including certain formal features of texts; and (c) social (macro) discourse practices that provide the context for particular discursive events. These three levels of analysis are mutually implicated: Understanding the substantive content of texts requires locating them within their institutional, social, and historical contexts (including knowledge systems, which they embody), and conversely, understanding macro contexts is informed by the interpretation of texts. To analyze the language of the texts, I coded all of the executive speeches by Shell and the social reports by Shell International (including the Elkington text in the 1998 report) and by Shell operating companies by identifying and categorizing salient themes, metaphors, modes of expression, and argument structures. I paid particular attention to nonconforming instances, variations, and changes over time, as prescribed by Wetherell and Potter (1992). The process was iterative and occurred throughout and following data collection. The second level of analysis required evaluating the formal features of the report, by reference to the larger corpus of Shells texts, to identify characteristics of the emerging corporate discourse and discursive practice. Here, I identified patterns of language, rhetorical schemata, and discursive resources that indicated particular ways of constructing the ecological dilemma and green capitalism that related to the discourse of sustainable development. This level of analysis also included noting specific formal conventions, such as the choice of the corporate reporting genre, the symbolic positioning of the report as dialogue, and the inclusion of Elkingtons
322
independent text. These features shaped the authorial and interpretive stances of the reports rhetor and readers, respectively, and both produced and depended on particular knowledge-power relationships. In terms of the third level of analysis, the Brundtland Report (WCED, 1987) and the conditions under which the discourse of sustainable development emerged constitute the relevant context. Sustainable development provides an example of interdiscursivity (Fairclough, 1992) because it fuses distinct discursive orders of economics, environmentalism, and social ethics, each with its own particular language, cognitive commitments, rules, practices, and institutional structures. The analytic process entailed moving back and forth between levels. For instance, after coding the language, I noted the profits-principles theme central to the 1998 social report echoed the metaphor patterns of head-heart dichotomy previously employed in other Shell documents. Each of these metaphor pairs relates to the competing discourses of economic rationality and moral sentiment that are embedded in the discourse of sustainable development. The method described here enables me to show the dynamic relationship between discourse and social change related to sustainability and to explore the knowledge-power links implicit in dialogue and social reporting, as exemplified by Shell and Elkington.
RESULTS
The following analysis shows how Shell and Elkington restoried the progress myth by adapting the wider discourse of sustainable development and enacting new forms of social practice. I begin with an overview of the sociopolitical and economic pressures affecting Shell in the period leading up to the publication of Profits and Principles (Knight, 1998). This overview provides the macro sociopolitical context and outlines the conflicts Shell faced as activists challenged its traditional practices of economic development. Next, I describe key features of the primary text and point out its discursive positioning both as dialogue and report. Then, I
323
analyze the Elkington text and methodology, which provided a point of departure for Shells report. My interpretation explores the ambivalence inherent in Elkingtons metaphor and methodology of the triple bottom line, which deconstructs the purely economic view of progress and yet glosses over conflicts of interest subsumed under the rubric of sustainable development. I also bring to light the power-knowledge links implicit in the reporting methodologies he advocates. Finally, I examine key themes employed by Shell to show the complexity of this corporations engagement with the notion of sustainable development.
CONTEXT: A NEW ERA FOR SHELL OIL Shell issued its 1998 social report in a context of global debate over sustainable development, widespread criticism of its own activities, and a turbulent and harshly competitive economic environment. The industry confronted fast-changing technologies, mergers and restructuring, dramatic fluctuations in oil prices and 2 profits, and a growing scientific consensus over climate change that foretold an eventual end to the era of oil. Historically, oil had benefited from and indeed was at the heart of the progress myth, but that myth and the image of oil had eroded in the 1960s and 1970s with the rise of environmentalism and consumer rights movements (Cheney & Vibbert, 1987; Crable & Vibbert, 1983; Shrivastava, 1994). High-profile accidents such as the Exxon Valdez spill and the Union Carbide explosion at Bhopal reinforced public perceptions of the risky and ecologically damaging effects of oil and petrochemicals and led to laws that were increasingly restrictive and costly for businesses (see Hart, 1997). At the United Nations Conferences in Rio in 1992 and Kyoto in 1997, international debate intensified over the implications of sustainable development and a fair means of achieving it. Increasingly, as the Shell example demonstrates, multinational corporations were criticized for their policies and practices in the developing world (Eccles et al., 2001; Hoffman, 2000). In 1994, in anticipation of structural and leadership changes, Shell had undertaken a far-reaching and comprehensive internal review to refocus strategy, support organizational learning, increase
324
corporate flexibility, and realign values (Lawrence, 1999b). The exigency of dealing with the harmful effects of its activities on ecologically and socially fragile local environments was driven home by two controversies in 1995 (Knight, 1998; Lawrence, 1999b; Mirvis, 2000). The first involved Greenpeaces opposition to Shells British-government-approved plan to dump the Brent Spar, a huge decommissioned oil buoy, in the North Atlantic (Lawrence, 1999b; Livesey, 2001; Mirvis, 2000). Then, just months after the Spar controversy, Shell was criticized for its failure to intervene forcefully and publicly when the Nigerian military regime of Sani Abacha executed eight environmental activists from the Ogoni tribe. The Ogoni had vociferously opposed Shell, arguing that the tribe had been economically exploited and politically repressed and that the ecological and social effects of oil exploration and production had devastated the Niger Delta (Lawrence, 1999a). Pressure from different institutional quarters, including NGOs, activist shareholders, and Shells own market research, convinced the company of the need to change (Knight, 1998; Lawrence, 1999b). A number of factors significantly constrained Shells options. For at least the next 25 years, because of long lead times and heavy capital investments, it had to depend primarily on the exploration, production, and sale of fossil fuels (Knight, 1998). Moreover, its primary prospect for growth lay in developing countries, whose projected increased use of energy constituted the worst threat in terms of environmental degradation (see Hart, 1997; Walvis, 1998). Despite these constraints, Shell strengthened its environmental management and monitoring programs, developed corporate structures to enhance corporate oversight of Shell companies environmental and social responsibilities, and committed to more open communication about its activities. In March 1997, Shell took a momentous step in revising its general business principles to address sustainability and human rights (Knight, 1998; see also, Lawrence, 1999b). At about the same time, the company withdrew from the United States industry-based Global Climate Coalition, which opposed the Kyoto Protocol (Knickerbocker, 1998; Knight, 1998) and developed a modestly funded new core business in renewable energy (Knight, 1998). In these ways, like British Petroleum, Shell distinguished itself from its major U.S. competitors. For the European-based companies, corporate citizenship
325
would be the new fulcrum of competition (Common Financial Strategies, 1998, p. 100). In late 1997, Shell hired Elkington as a consultant. Known to some as an environmental activist and guru (Eccles et al., 2001, p. 172), Elkington considered his values-led consultancy (Knight, 1998, p. 46) as being part of the sustainable development community, which among other things, was working to develop more comprehensive forms of corporate reporting. While stressing his independence from Shell, Elkington clearly attempted to straddle the environment-development divide. His advocacy of winwin environmentalisman environmentalism good for capitalism, the corporate bottom line, and the environmentand voluntary, market-based solutions to environmental problems made his approach palatable to companies (see Elkington, 1998). As Shells commitment to annual social reporting demonstrates, making its communication more open was a fundamental aspect of its new, more sustainable practice (Herkstrter, 1996a; Knight, 1998). Its high-profile, multiyear communication campaign included roundtables, discussion forums, and a multitude of other activities where top company executives publicly discussed issues of environment, community and social welfare, and human rights. Shell also modified its corporate decision-making processes to increase the participation of a wider range of its stakeholders. In terms of decision making, the company abandoned what it called a decide, announce, defend (DAD) approach and adopted instead a dialogue, decide, deliver (DDD) process (Rothermund, 1998; van der Veer, 1998b). Shell characterized its communication goals in terms of three key words: communication, clarity (about what private enterprises can and cannot do), and credibility (Rothermund, 1997; Watts, 1997). The 1998 social report was a capstone achievement for Shell and set a precedent for other companies.
PRIMARY TEXT In its opening caption, Shell positioned Profits and Principles (Knight, 1998) as both report and dialogue: We want you to know more about how we work. . . . This report is part of a dialogue, and we will continue to seek your views (p. 1). The dialogue aspect of
326
TABLE 1: Organization and Contents of Profits and Principles (Knight, 1998) Section Title Introduction (pp. 2-3) Section Content Describes debate over parameters of corporate responsibility Presents Shells values Explains Shells nine general business principles Provides examples of Shells socially and environmentally responsible practice Outlines dilemmas faced by Shell managers and asks readers to describe what they would do in similar circumstances Outlines six issues facing multinational corporations, alternative responses, and the Shell approach Describes method for operationalizing sustainable development by measuring corporate contributions to society against a triple bottom line Argues that Shell combines reason with passion and profits with principles Chart and text projecting Shells future progress along the road of sustainability Letter from KPMG and Price Waterhouse Accountants, verifying that Shell companies worldwide have adopted revised general principles
Living up to Our Principles (pp. 5-30) Tell Shell reply cards (three-page insert at p. 30) Issues and Dilemmas (pp. 31-45) Contributing to Society John Elkingtons contribution (pp. 46-47) Message From the Chairman, Cor Herkstrter (p. 48) Road map (pp. 49-51) Auditors Report (p. 52)
the report was symbolically represented by three-page tear-out Tell Shell reader reply cards inserted into the middle of the document; the Web version of Profits and Principles (http://www.shell. com/download/2872/) had a similar interactive feedback feature and an uncensored discussion thread presenting stakeholder-Shell dialogue. The documents reporting aspect was reinforced by its ostensible purpose to make Shells policies and operations more transparent by providing evidence to support company claims of principled conduct. The document itself was complexly organized, as outlined in Table 1. The Introduction section established the context and purpose of the report. In presenting company perceptions of the current sociopolitical situation, it characterized the modern era as one of confusion, diminished public trust in institutions, and increased societal debate over the parameters of responsible corporate environmental and social performance. It described Shell as being unprepared for societys changing expectations (p. 2) but indi-
327
cated that the company wanted to learn from its painful experiences, most particularly, Brent Spar and Nigeria. The Introduction section also established Shells central position that as a commercial entity, its
primary responsibility [had] to be economic. . . . But there is also an inseparable responsibility to ensure that our businesses are run in a way that is ethically acceptable to the rest of the world and in line with our own values. (p. 3)
Finally, the Introduction made the companys rhetorical objective explicit: We hope, through this report, and by our future actions, to show that the basic interests of business and society are entirely compatiblethat there does not have to be a choice between profits and principles (p. 3). The two main sections of text, Living up to Our Principles and Issues and Dilemmas, were devoted to accomplishing Shells rhetorical objective by demonstrating how the companys commitment to sustainable development had changed its philosophies and practices. The first section described the concepts and rationales that supported each of Shells general business principles and employed arguments and themes that I analyze below. It also provided examples of where Shell companies were doing the right thing by operating more sustainably. It highlighted, for instance, Shells (a) investment in renewable sources of energy; (b) participation in the Responsible Care Program initiated by the global chemicals industry, including a commitment to be open with the public and to report on performance (p. 11); (c) compliance with environmental laws; (d) dialogue processes with local and international activist groups in the planning stages of a gas project in the ecologically fragile rain forests of Camisea, Peru; and (e) use of corporate scenario planning to assist with the World Business Council for Sustainable Development and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The second main section of text, Issues and Dilemmas, addressed several topics relevant to sustainable development, including: (a) climate change, (b) multinational corporations roles in globalization, (c) industrial legacies (i.e., toxic waste and environmental degradation), and (d) renewable resources. In this section, the
328
report summarized opposing views in debates over these issues and then described Shells approach. In this section too, the report documented aspects of Shells more sustainable practices, such as (a) its promise to accept and exceed Kyoto guidelines on greenhouse gas emissions, (b) its production of low-carbon fuels and energy sources, (c) its collaborations with NGOs and others in efforts to safely dispose of obsolete pesticides in Mauritania and to rehabilitate forests in Gabon, and (d) its investment in renewable energy. Discussion of Shells industrial legacies included a reference to the multistakeholder dialogue process used to resolve the conflict over disposal of the Brent Spar. The Chairmans Message toward the end of the report argued that Shell would show that profits and principles could be reconciled and reiterated, and that these notions are, in fact, compatible. Thus, the chairman, Cor Herkstrter, described Shells embrace of sustainability as an
entirely logical undertaking, as significant for our businesses as any other commercial activity [but also] much more than sober facts and sound figures. It involves the passions and feelings of [Shell] people. . . . held together by a common desire to do their business with integrity. (p. 48)
Here, discourses of business pragmatism and rationalism were fused with discourses of caring and ethics in a rhetorical strategy that reflects the discursive joining of economics and ecology within the discourse of sustainable development. Herkstrters message also employed map and journey metaphors, foreshadowing the road map graphic that followed his letter. The map, together with an accompanying text, described Shells progress and future plans related to sustainable development. It showed that Shells understanding and piloting of sustainability programs, its accounting and reporting practices, and its management systems would gradually integrate economic, environmental, and social factors in its emerging sustainability vision, programs, and management and reporting systems. Shells plans also included continued engagement with internal and external stakeholders and anticipated that the company would move, over the longer term,
329
from dialogue and continuous consultation with external stakeholders to increased cooperation and stakeholder alliances. The report concluded with the Auditors Letter from KPMG and Price Waterhouse. In the following sections, I analyze key metaphors and themes of Elkingtons and Shells texts, respectively, to explore how they amalgamated the discourse of business economics with the values and practice embedded in the discourse of sustainability.
ELKINGTONS TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE: A METAPHOR AND METHODOLOGY The triple bottom line operated as both metaphor and methodology to internalize social and environmental costs ignored by the traditional economic business model. The central premise of Elkingtons argument was that companies exist to create wealth, so the most direct contribution they can make to sustainable development is to create long-term value on an economically, socially and environmentally sustainable basis. A key 21st century challenge . . . will be sustainable value creation (Knight, 1998, p. 46). This premise required that companies continuously meet societys needs for goods and services without destroying natural and social capital (p. 47). In Elkingtons view, effective management of a given companys sustainability performance, however, rested on the ability to measure that performance. To measure sustainable development, accounting had to be reconceptualized and new methods developed to include metrics for the economic, environmental, and social value added (Knight, 1998). Elkington alluded to huge debates about who sets the standards and how . . . particular outcomes are valued (Knight, 1998, p. 47) but did not elaborate except to say that his own company (SustainAbility), Arthur D. Little, Inc., and Shell would be working together to evolve a better picture of total net value added by Shell (p. 47). A critical examination of Elkingtons language as just exemplified demonstrates certain contradictory effects. On one hand, it brought values of environment and social welfare into business discourses, introducing language such as social value added, envi-
330
ronmental value added, and natural and social capital. Wealth creation, the fundamental objective of the economic paradigm, was transformed into sustainable value creation. This approach denaturalized the conventions of traditional economics by making thinkable alternatives to the economic version of the metanarrative of progress (Killingsworth & Palmer, 1992, p. 130). Its vision of integrating economic, environmental, and social impacts offered the potential, at least, of equally weighting these three elements. By implication, it exposed the socially constructed nature of supposedly neutral notions, such as efficiency and the bottom line of profit (Hopwood & Miller, 1994; McCloskey, 1998; Poovey, 1998). Furthermore, the emergence of the new genre of social and environmental reporting itself created normative pressures for corporate disclosure of environmental and social performance data. On the other hand, the triple bottom line also imported discursive conventions of accountancy and business into environmental and social domains. By implication, this metaphor and methodology constructed sustainable development as a measurable outcome to be objectively determined (cf. Peterson, 1997) and privileged the role of experts such as Elkington himself. It deemphasized and devalued the messier, less predictable, and political aspects of the social processes necessary to address fundamentally noncomparable values embedded in the notion of sustainable development (Mayhew, 1998; Peterson, 1997). By fitting complex problems of ecology and social justice to business discourses, the triple bottom line left unchallenged certain fundamental values of economic and management models, such as consumerism, growth, and efficiency. Shell refused to adopt Elkingtons language of the triple bottom line (J. Elkington, personal communication, March 23, 2000; M. Wade, Shell, personal communication, January 26, 2001). Nevertheless, Profits and Principles (Knight, 1998) represented the companys commitment to offer a more transparent view of its operations by moving toward integrated reporting as well as its commitment to embrace other management systems that were intended to improve sustainable practice. An important function of this early report was to set forth Shells corporate philosophy, that is, its construction of the meaning of sustainable development in terms of a commercial enterprise, as I next describe.
331
SHELLS DISCOURSE OF SUSTAINABILITY Profits and Principles (Knight, 1998) provided no explicit definition of the term sustainable development, per se, but characterized Shells social license to operate as resting on three pillars and described its corporate responsibilities in terms of the three components of financial, environmental, and social performance. In Shells emerging discourse, these three components were integrated through a complex argumentative structure that exhibited the contradictory features of sustainability discourse. As I demonstrate, Shells emphasis on the free-market system and the necessity of profit, its generally negative view of regulation, and its construction of business as apolitical showed the companys adherence to certain takenfor-granted assumptions of traditional economics. On the other hand, even here, the report demonstrated where the old, purely economic paradigm of progress could not hold. Furthermore, in recognizing the need for balanced judgments that would take into account environmental and social welfare, Shell committed itself to stakeholder dialogue. This moved the company toward more explicit engagement in processes that were necessarily political. The primacy of profit and the market. Shells worldview was most starkly expressed in a speech by Shells incoming chairman, Mark Moody-Stuart (1999), who analogized economic laws to the natural laws of gravity, as follows:
Now, I wouldnt go so far as to contend that economic laws are as solid and fixed as physical laws. . . . [However,] I believe that, like physical laws they are universal and thusall other things being equalessentially neutral. That is, the apple will drop no matter whose hand releases it. (para. 14)
For firms, economic law meant that wealth generation, meeting customer needs, providing an acceptable return to investors, and contributing to overall economic development were their primary responsibilities (Knight, 1998, p. 3; see also Herkstrter, 1996b, 1996c). By guaranteeing competitive success, profits constituted the sine qua non of the corporate entity: Profits are essential to sustain a private business: Without profits to re-invest, a business ceases
332
to exist and contributes nothing (Knight, 1998, p. 9). Consistent with this understanding of economic law, Shell privileged the economic dimension of the three pillars of sustainable development. Shells vision of sustainability was thus grounded in discourses of economics that constructed the market as a totalizing ethos and an irresistible disciplinary force. From this perspective, Shell saw itself not as an agent of, but rather as subject to, marketplace exigencies (see Deetz, 1992). The compatibility of profits and principles. Although espousing the view that profit was paramount, Shell nonetheless contended that profits and principles were compatible based on four main arguments. First, wealth production and economic development themselves provided social value. Within this perspective, profits were rationalized on grounds that they guaranteed efficiency, customer value, and proper resource allocation and investment decision making. Second, profits were shown to be consistent with other principles because they provided the very base for corporate environmental care and other sorts of social responsibility: Without profits, no private company can sustain principles (Knight, 1998, p. 18). Third, from the commercial perspective, principles were shown to be consistent with profit because they served a utilitarian purpose by supporting the corporate social license to operate: Without principles no company deserves profit (p. 19). Finally, principles helped the bottom line by providing a competitive edge in the long term (p. 28). Consistent with these arguments, the report emphasized the social contribution of corporate wealth-producing activities: products and services, direct and indirect employment, training, investment in research and development, and tax revenues. More broadly, Shell defended the free-market ideology, contending that free markets, consumer choice and fair competition all contribute to a more free society (Knight, 1998, p. 28). Repeating this theme in the context of globalization, the report argued that private enterprise is beneficial and it works best when there is competition in markets. This provides strong incentives to innovate and adopt best practice, which ultimately leads to higher living standards (p. 37). In Shells view, history had shown that prosperity [ultimately] . . . brings demands for higher social and environmental standards (p. 37).
333
In trying to integrate principles with profit, the report provided certain glimpses of where the law of profit was less than fixed and could not be privileged. For instance, it noted that Shells investment decisions are not exclusively economic in nature but also take into account social and environmental considerations (Knight, 1998, p. 18). Even more remarkably, in discussing Shells duties to its shareholders, the report emphasized that Shell promised only acceptable returns rather than the maximum returns conventional under classic economic theory. Nevertheless, in making these concessions, Shell did not give up its claims to the firstness demanded by a competitive system (Cheney & Frenette, 1993). The company reported in the same section of text that by most measures, it had remained a leader in total profit among its competitors (Knight, 1998, p. 9). As these examples suggest, the company had begun to deconstruct the natural law of profit to accommodate societys expectations of environmental care and social justice but within fairly narrow constraints of a competitive market paradigm. Voluntarism versus regulation. Traditional economic discourse holds that the market should operate with a minimum of interference from government. Drawing on this discourse, the Shell report showed the company to be generally hostile to regulation, although not consistently so. Shells position on climate change represented a prime example where the company supported sensible regulation, namely, that consisting of highly flexible market-based mechanisms achieved through dialogue with relevant interest groups (Knight, 1998). Mandatory uniform standards, on the other hand, presented particular problems for multinational corporations, especially as applied to operations in developing countries. In discussing its global operations, for instance, Shell argued against global mandates, adopting the conventional corporate view that universal standards hindered development by reducing competitive advantages of developing economies and creating barriers to trade. In language drawing from the free-trade debate, Shell claimed that mandatory standards constituted cultural imperialism and were generally the work of campaigners [acting] on behalf of others who might, or might not, appreciate their help (Knight, 1998, p. 37).
334
Allowing that in some circumstances special standards governing private and public enterprise may be helpful to consumers, workers, and the public (Knight, 1998, p. 37), the report said that where regulation was required, appropriate authorities (i.e., locally elected or representative social agents) should decide the balance between competing interests of business and social welfare. Ultimately, corporate principles would come into play to function as a safety net [against] abuse or inadequate exercise of such authority (p. 37). In the report and elsewhere, Shell appealed to Principle 11 of the Rio Declaration of 1992, which legitimated different or, from a critical perspective, double standards in areas such as environment and labor practices. The report also noted Shells support of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, a measure opposed by environmental groups and labor advocates on the grounds that it would override existing regulatory protections (Barlow & Clarke, 1998). Although Profits and Principles (Knight, 1998) demonstrated Shells relatively progressive stance on climate change, the historical evolution and cultural imperialism arguments advanced by Shell to support lower standards in emerging economies exemplified the entrenchment of the development progress myth. Shells justification assumed Western industrial models and historicalstage notions of development that serve the economic interests of multinationals and ignore the mandates of environmental justice and social equity (see Hoffman, 2000) in the Brundtland Report (WCED, 1987). The poverty, suffering, and environmental degradation suffered by the Ogoni, whose oil deposits supported the habits of first-world consumption and contributed significantly to corporate wealth (Lawrence, 1999b), stood as an embarrassing example and intractable problem for Shell. On the other hand, Shells dialogue with NGOs and local groups in the planning stages of its project in Camisea (where Shell was not mired in its own history) represented the possibility of alternative practice (Eccles et al., 2001). Business as an (a)political actor. In Shells view, incompetent, weak, and uncaring (Knight, 1998) government had produced paradoxical demands from the public for corporations to play a bigger role in society. As a result, companies such as Shell were under
335
pressure to assume responsibilities that Shell considered to be within the domain of government (Knight, 1998; see also Herkstrter, 1996a, 1996b, 1996c; Wade, 1996). Companies were being asked, for example, to (a) shoulder burdens of community development (e.g., to provide roads and infrastructure in developing countries), (b) second-guess governmental public policy and decision making (e.g., to question environmental and labor standards where government policies were too lax), and (c) criticize government regimes that violated civil rights. To clarify the proper function of business, the report distinguished between those roles that Shell considered to be legitimate and those considered to be outside its commercial domain. Legitimate roles for Shell included (a) producing products, services, and shareholder returns; (b) supporting the communities in which it operated; and (c) participating in dialogue with government over policy issues (Knight, 1998; see also van der Veer, 1998a). On the other hand, political party activism, campaigning, and providing community services where government failed to do so were functions outside the commercial sphere (Knight, 1998). Ironically, however, the report showed that such boundary distinctions could not be strictly maintained. For instance, while explicitly rejecting a role for Shell as government stand-in . . . and nanny (p. 26), the report also noted that Shell had provided public services (hospitals, schools, and roads) in certain poor countries where government did not. These views were based on accepted premises in much business discourse that discredit government (see Boyer & Drache, 1996) while simultaneously privileging corporations and attempting to remove them from the sociopolitical discursive space. However, the shifts in societal expectations seem less the paradox that Shell described and more the logical outcome of public awareness that corporations increasingly affect social and individual well-being (see Beck, 1992; Giddens, 1990). Shell emphasized the limits and apolitical nature of its power. This emphasis was consistent with corporate self-representations as neutral actors within an economic and ostensibly rational system (see Deetz, 1992). Such a stance helps to protect against unwanted public scrutiny, which would threaten proprietary control of information, resource allocation, and other decision making considered necessary to efficient, competitive systems (Cheney & Vibbert, 1987). Yet, Shells arguments
336
ignore the corporate role in shaping opinion, especially public relations and advertising materials that impugn government competence and create narratives of consumption that discount environmental and societal consequences (Heath, 1994). A good example of the latter is Shells appeal to the personal freedom and social mobility offered by nonpublic transport. Ultimately, Shells distinctions attempted to disguise the political effects of corporate ideology and power. Irrespective of Shells instinct to construct itself as neutral and apolitical within the discourse and social practice of the dominant paradigm, the character of sustainable decision making forced it to engage politically, as I show in the next section. The need for balance. At multiple points in the report, Shell argued that sustainable development required a balanced approach to business decision making. Sometimes balance was portrayed in the report in terms of cost-benefit analyses. For example, corporate decisions to reduce emissions or clean up toxic waste had to be balanced against the higher prices or tax subsidies that would result. Trade-offs were also represented in terms of the firms competing stakeholder responsibilities. For instance, Shell noted, Companies must strike the balance between providing the financial returns that shareholders rightly expect and investing money in the social fabric of the countries and communities in which they operate (Knight, 1998, p. 1). The Brent Spar and Nigeria incidents, however, had shown the company that cost-benefit decisions were not neutral in their effects and that sticking to the letter of the law is not enough (p. 40). Social acceptance of corporate decisions required communication and negotiation. Thus, openness and dialogue with an unconventionally wide range of stakeholders became lynchpins in the philosophy and practice of sustainable development represented in the report. Open communication and dialogue. Under the Communication Principle (Knight, 1998, pp. 29-30), the report described Shells commitment to be more transparent, to listen more, and to get more involved in debate and dialogue. Here, dialogue referred both to conventional corporate communication behaviors, such as participating in the development of government policy frameworks, and to more innovative communication behaviors. The report, along
337
with Shells Web site, symbolically embodied Shells new posture. Other new practices to foster sustainability included better information gathering inside Shell, greater commitment to respond quickly and cooperatively to outside requests for information, provision for uncensored discussion forums on Shell Web sites, and most notably, dialogue processes as exemplified in the cases of Brent Spar and Camisea. Shells willingness to dialogue, even with NGO critics who were traditionally considered hostile and thus left out of the corporate communication loop, suggested its greater tolerance of alternative viewpoints. Its new discursive practices constituted the most potentially radical elements of its transformation. Nevertheless, the report also revealed tensions between the openness required by the public interest and the secrecy, efficiency, and control required under competitive and proprietary systems. For example, in its Communication Principle, Shell limited its commitment to provide full relevant information [to] legitimately interested parties, subject to any overriding considerations of business confidentiality and cost (Knight, 1998, p. 29). Furthermore, its dialogue did not prove universally successful. In the Nigerian Delta, for example, the history of colonialism and relations between Shell and the Ogoni have made it difficult to move beyond impasse (Wheeler, Fabig, & Boele, 2000). How dialogue is implemented will, of course, be crucial to the potential impact that stakeholder views may have on Shell (Mayhew, 1998). Genuine dialogue implies the leveling of power asymmetries (Deetz, 1992; Fairclough, 1992) and provides a forum where questions of interests and representation are constantly negotiated (Cheney & Christensen, 2001, p. 260). Through their capacity to control the selection of participants, forums, and processes of communication, firms often avert the risks of dialogue, such as its costs in time and resources and its threat to managerial control. Corporate enactments of dialogue thus can take the form of relatively closed universes of thought organized around the interests, expectations, and enactments of the organizations themselves (Cheney & Christensen, 2001, p. 260). Then, like other forms of corporate talk, dialogue substitutes for action and becomes a bulwark against, instead of a force for, change (Crane, 1995; Newton & Harte, 1997). This position can be overstated,
338
however, because discourse has heterogeneous and unexpected results. By exposing managers to new learning and alternate viewpoints, the accidental effects of talk have been shown to foster corporate greening (Roome, 1999; Sexton, Marcus, Easter, & Burkhardt, 1999). Many questions remain concerning what Shell means by its commitments and how the power relations they necessarily entail will play out. I address the implications of these questions as well as issues associated with the emergent form of social reporting represented in this case in the discussion that follows.
DISCUSSION
As my study has shown, a large part of Shells purpose and a central function of reporting as envisioned by Elkington was to reestablish discursive regularity. That is, the goal was to reinstate an acceptable set of rules for how controversy over environment and social justice should be defined, discussed, and addressed in the wake of pressures for environmental and social reform. In this respect, emerging corporate ecodiscourse and reporting practices illustrated by this case reflect a corporate desire for hegemonic control. Discursive struggle, however, does not necessarily produce a simple or consistent result. Even as transformed through the commercial lens into forms of win-win environmentalism, the discourse of sustainable development deconstructed narrowly economic views of social progress and produced changes in Shells practice, such as its endorsement of Kyoto and its commitment to dialogue. In this respect, the new corporate discourse of sustainability and the practice of social reporting represent a concession to advocates of sustainable development and provide potential for ongoing transformation in the corporate world. To begin with, I shall address the conservative effects of social reporting and Shells embrace of sustainable development. First, as my analysis has indicated, Shells expression of its sustainability commitment and its integration of the concept into its business lexicon demonstrated strong residual effects of the dominant discourse of economic development. Like discourses of win-win environ-
339
mentalism, this approach failed to challenge in any fundamental way the taken-for-granted truths about the nature of markets, competition, and economic actors (Fineman, 2001; Hoffman, 2000). For the most part, Shell continued to advocate for the free-market system, downplaying in particular its inability to account for social justice and environmental quality. Thus, for instance, the company continued to embrace a Western stage model of development in emerging economies, promising improved social and environmental standards as a trickle-down effect of commercial-wealth generation. This was despite contrary evidence that its own experiences in the Nigerian Delta could provide. Similarly, in its environmental reforms, Shell fell short of reconstructing the interface between the firm and its natural habitats (see Clark & Jennings, 1997; Fineman, 2001; Hoffman, 2000). Here, Shell adopted the anthropocentric view of nature embedded in the Brundtland Report (WCED, 1987) itself, constituting nature as social resource, albeit a resource that had to be more efficiently exploited and more carefully conserved. Notwithstanding Shells claims that it recognized an ethical responsibility to contribute to saving the planet, except for its small, symbolic investment in renewable energy sources and its commitment to exceed Kyoto 3 guidelines on emissions reduction, its new environmental practice consisted mostly of measures of eco-efficiency. From the commercial perspective then, the ecological crisis represented not a constraint on, but an advantage in, a competitive system. At the level of practice, social reporting against a triple bottom line also portends certain conservative effects. Reporting is advocated by its supporters on the basis that it promises greater transparency respecting the social and environmental impacts of corporate activities. The promise, however, is somewhat illusory. Social reports are strategically constructed; they are designed to represent the corporation in particular ways (Deetz, 1992). Like financial reports, because of their aura of objectivity, they risk making invisible the rhetorical character of numbers and the biases embedded within management systems themselves (Hopwood & Miller, 1994; Poovey, 1998). Can reports ever make an organization as large and complex as Shell transparent, even to itself? Moreover, social reporting illustrates the knowledge-power link, to which Foucault (1984) alludes. From a Foucauldian per-
340
spective, Shells inclusion of Elkingtons text in its social report can be seen to serve as more than a simple rhetorical appeal to authority; it constitutes Elkington as expert and produces his authority. At the same time, it produces legitimacy and authority for Shells own effort. Through discursive alliance, the company moves from outside the pale into an emerging network of actors in the sustainable development community. Shell thus becomes an exemplary case of progress, cited frequently in the literature of this sustainable development community (e.g., Eccles et al., 2001; Elkington, 1998; Hoffman, 2000; Mirvis, 2000). As standards and management systems for measuring sustainability emerge, discourses of environmental engineers, scientists, accountants, consultants, and other technologists of modern society (see Fairclough, 1992) will likely be institutionalized. Thus, in normalizing sustainability practice, social reporting will contribute to privileging expert knowledge while marginalizing other forms of knowledge. How, for example, will social reporting and environmental management systems incorporate political voices of environmentalists such as Greenpeace and the lay knowledge and nonexpert claims of indigenous and local community groups who directly suffer the social and environmental impacts of corporate decisions? Moreover, what will happen in the case of conflict between universal standards, which are an end goal of reporting, and local norms? In these respects, social reporting reinforces a view of sustainable development as an outcome that can and should be determined and measured in scientific terms, rather than by ethical or political traditions (Peterson, 1997, p. 22). Thus, it puts at risk those aspects of sustainable development that call for the decentralization and democratization of decision making and require continuing negotiation specific to local contexts and situations. The negative and antidemocratic effects of this kind of discursive closure have already been demonstrated by previous research on environmental impact statements (e.g., Killingsworth & Palmer, 1992). In Shells case, the Ogoni issue in Nigeria represents a salient example of this problem (Livesey, 2001). It might be easy to stop with this critical view of Shell and social reporting. However, this would ignore the positive benefits of social reporting and the changes that have occurred through Shells
341
embrace of sustainable development. Let us start with social reporting. Such data allow stakeholders to call corporate actors to account. Experience with legislatively mandated reporting (e.g., the Toxic Release Inventory required under U.S. Superfund legislation), for example, has shown that data gathering and sharing both provide companies themselves with information that they need in order to change and make corporate practice more visible to the outside world (Karkkainen, 2001). To the degree that voluntary social reporting is able to set precedents and thresholds for corporate reporting, it can contribute to the variety of mechanisms that push firms to adopt more systematic practice and diminish their proprietary hold on information (Nash & Ehrenfeld, 1996). Turning next to the example of Shell itself, ironically, its emerging practice of sustainability speaks in many respects more radically than its words. Its support of Kyoto principles, for example, fractured the industrys united front on global warming and thus provided an opening for activists to pressure Shells U.S. competitors (Herrick, 2001). Most important, its social reporting went hand in hand with the potentially much more radical practice of dialogue. The Tell Shell cards, the interactive Shell Web site, and the uncensored discussion threads illustrate this point by representing symbolically, if superficially, the companys commitment to open communication and exchange. Its stakeholder dialogues in Camisea and Brent Spar represent more significant examples of transformation in Shells practice. The Camisea example is particularly striking because, in that case, Shell implemented dialogue with local groups in the planning stages of its gas exploration project in the Peruvian Amazon. That is, the company was not simply reacting to local controversy but used dialogue to develop a better decision process by learning about local understandings and needs (Eccles et al., 2001). Although many issues of substance and process remain to be resolved, environmental groups involved in Camisea dialogues have praised the positive example set by Shells threshold efforts (European Working Group on Amazonia, 1998). Even in the case of Brent Spar, where dialogue was reactively engaged following controversy with activist groups, Shells decision to recycle the buoy as a quay showed a corporate decision process that responded to outside views. Furthermore, these high-profile examples set pre-
342
cedents by which to promote change in other companies as well as across Shells own group of companies. In summary, as my study has shown, Shell both resisted and showed promise of change in enacting a discourse of sustainable development. More broadly, the dynamics of sustainability politics illustrated here reveal the complex relationship between discourse and practice and highlight the contradictory nature of social change. Although corporate ecodiscourse reflects a desire for hegemonic control and facilitates, in some respects, the privatization of public space (Sproule, 1989, p. 264), it does not necessarily produce a simple or consistent result (Deetz, 1992). To the contrary, the ontological effects of corporate sustainability talk are not unidirectional or entirely within the control of corporations. Sustainable development, then, must be seen as a space of dissension where contrary influences and impulses exist side by side, both inside and outside the organization. As Shells example suggests, corporate enactments of sustainability should therefore not be conceptualized and evaluated in terms of a steady or one-way progression toward an ideal endpoint, even if it is acknowledged that the endpoint has to be continually reimagined with the production of new knowledge (see Roome, 1999). A grand narrative of Shells transformation, by the company or its critics, is as much out of the question for this firm as it is for history itself (Foucault, 1969/ 1972; Lyotard, 1997). Rather, corporations and the people within them are actors on a ground where factions and groups with competing interests story their own versions of reality and build coalitions with those who share overlapping interests (see Hajer, 1997). In this conception of the always contradictory and therefore always provisional aspects of discourse, the Foucauldian approach adopted in this study shows not nihilism, as some would argue, but positive space for resistance and change (see in particular Foucault, 1988).
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE AND RESEARCH

This study has practical implications insofar as it highlights the essentially political nature of discourse and its recursive relation-
343
ship to action. First, as I have indicated, local practices of sustainability as well as the broader phenomenon of social reporting examined here have the potential to shape the wider discursive domain and cement power-knowledge links that privilege some interests and marginalize others. Although some would dismiss social reports such as Shells as mere PR, the emerging genre should not be ignored. If corporate social reporting against a triple bottom line is to become an institutionalized practice of sustainable development, businesses and their consultants should not be the only stakeholders who participate in shaping it. Second, I have suggested both the far-reaching potential and related risks for business involved in stakeholder dialogue. Although a notion currently in vogue among both corporations and NGOs, genuine practice of stakeholder dialogue represents a radical challenge. Setting ground rules for dialogue, especially what will and will not be said behind closed doors, will determine whether dialogue as enacted between corporations and external stakeholders represents a step toward more participatory and democratic practice or yet another tool in the trend to delegate matters of environmental concern to a cadre of professional experts. Last, words have effects, as communication scholars and public relations experts well know and as my study has demonstrated. My analysis has shown that Shells words, highlighted here, embodied commitments to actions, at least some of which are tangible and radical. To characterize Shells social report as mere PR denies that such progress has been made. Practically, then, encouraging discursive practices such as social reporting has the potential to transform business. Researchers words also have constitutive effects. Further critical studies of corporate sustainability discourse may not only help to prevent big talk from substituting for small action (Harr, Brockmeier, & Mhlhusler, 1999) but can also document where significant change, even if small and incremental, has occurred.
NOTES
1. Traditionally, the modernization view envisioned economic growth on the model of Western European capitalism, whereas the dependency view critiqued
344
the exploitative character of foreign capital, which extracted resources from developing nations at low cost and thus kept the latter in a state of permanent dependency (Peterson, 1997). 2. In February 1999, Shell reported its worst ever financial results in terms of overall profitability (Knight, 1999). 3. The eco-efficiency achieved through emission reductions provides important motivation for BPAmoco and Shells position on Kyoto (C. Bartels, personal communication, August 17, 2001).
REFERENCES
Barlow, M., & Clarke, T. (1998). MAI: The multilateral agreement on investment and the threat to American freedom. New York: Stoddart. Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage Ltd. Bennett, M., & James, P. (Eds.). (2000). The green bottom line: Environmental accounting for management: Current practice and future trends. Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf. Boyer, R., & Drache, D. (1996). States against markets: The limits of globalization. Boston: Routledge Kegan Paul. Brown, W. R., & Crable, R. E. (1973). Industry, mass magazines, and the ecology issue. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 59, 259-272. Cheney, G., & Christensen, L. T. (2001). Identity at issue: Linkages between internal and external organizational communication. In F. M. Jablin & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), New handbook of organizational communication (pp. 231-269). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Cheney, G., & Frenette, G. (1993). Persuasion and organizations: Values, logics, and accounts in contemporary discourse. In C. Conrad (Ed.), The ethical nexus (pp. 49-73). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Cheney, G., & Vibbert, S. L. (1987). Corporate discourse: Public relations and issue management. In F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts, & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 165-194). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Clark, V., & Jennings, P. D. (1997). Talking about the natural environment: A means for deinstitutionalization? American Behavioral Scientist, 40, 454-464. Common financial strategies found among the top 10 oil and gas firms. (1998). Oil & Gas Journal, 96(16), 27-33. Crable, R. E., & Vibbert, S. L. (1983). Mobils epideictic advocacy: Observations of Prometheus bound. Communication Monographs, 50, 380-394. Crane, A. (1995). Rhetoric and reality in the greening of organisational culture. Greener Management International: The Journal of Corporate Environmental Strategy and Practice, 12, 49-62. Deetz, S. (1992). Democracy in an age of corporate colonization. Albany: State University of New York Press.
345
Devall, B., & Sessions, G. (1985). Deep ecology. Salt Lake City, UT: Peregrine Smith Books. Eccles, R. G., Herz, R. H., Keegan, E. M., & Phillips, D.M.H. (2001). The ValueReporting revolution: Moving beyond the earnings game. New York: John Wiley. Egri, C., & Pinfield, L. (1996). Organizations and the biosphere: Ecologies and environments. In S. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies (pp. 459-483). London: Sage Ltd. Elkington, J. (with Tom Burke). (1987). The green capitalists: Industrys search for environmental excellence. London: Victor Golanz. Elkington, J. (1998). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business. Gabriola Island, Canada: New Society. Elkington, J. (1999). The triple bottom line in action. Available from http://www. shell.com/values/content/0,1240, 1042-1175,00.html European Working Group on Amazonia. (1998, June 26). Report of the Camisea decision workshop. Available from http://www.amazonia.net/Articles/47.htm Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge, MA: Polity. Farrell, T. B., & Goodnight, G. T. (1981). Accidental rhetoric: The root metaphors of Three Mile Island. Communication Monographs, 48, 271-300. Fineman, S. (2001). Fashioning the environment. Organization, 8, 17-31. Foucault, M. (1972). The archeology of knowledge (A. M. Sheridan Smith, Trans.). New York: Pantheon Books. (Originally published 1969) Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality (Vol. 1). (R. Hurley, Trans.). New York: Pantheon. (Original work published 1976) Foucault, M. (1984). The Foucault reader (P. Rabinow, Ed.). New York: Pantheon. Foucault, M. (1988). Politics, philosophy, culture: Interviews and other writings, 1977-1984: Michel Foucault (L. D. Kritzman, Ed.; A. Sheridan, Trans.). Boston: Routledge Kegan Paul. Foucault, M. (1995). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (2nd ed.). (A. Sheridan, Trans.). New York: Vintage Books. (Original work published 1979) Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Gray, R., Owen, D., & Adams, C. (1996). Accounting and accountability: Changes and challenges in corporate social and environmental reporting. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hajer, M. A. (1997). The politics of environmental discourse: Ecological modernization and the policy process. Oxford, UK: Clarendon. Harr, R., Brockmeier, J., Mhlhusler, P. (1999). Greenspeak: A study of environmental discourse. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hart, S. (1997). Beyond greening: Strategies for a sustainable world. Harvard Business Review, 75, 66-76. Heath, R. L. (1994). Management of corporate communication: From interpersonal contacts to external affairs. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
346
Herkstrter, C. (1996a). Dealing with contradictory expectationsThe dilemmas facing multinationals. Available from http://www.shell.com/library/ speech/ 01,525,2324,00.html Herkstrter, C. (1996b). Toward global standards. Available from http://www. shell.com/library/speech/01,525,2328,00.html Herkstrter, C. (1996c). Challenge and change: Making a contribution in historic times. Available from http://www.shell.com/library/speech/01,525,2322,00. html Herrick, T. (2001, August 29). CEOs controversial views lead to tough summer for Exxon Mobil. Wall Street Journal, pp. B1, B6. Hoffman, A. J. (2000). Integrating environmental and social issues into corporate practice. Environment, 42(5), 22-34. Hopwood, A. G., & Miller, P. (Eds.). (1994). Accounting as social and institutional practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Ice, R. (1991). Corporate publics and rhetorical strategies: The case of Union Carbides Bhopal crisis. Management Communication Quarterly, 4, 341-362. Karkkainen, B. C. (2001). Information as environmental regulation: TRI and performance benchmarking, precursor to a new paradigm? Georgetown Law Journal, 89, 257-370. Killingsworth, M. J., & Palmer, J. S. (1992). Ecospeak: Rhetoric and environmental politics in America. Carbondale: University of Southern Illinois Press. Knickerbocker, B. (1998, October 6). Autos, big oil get earth-friendly: Bottom line is green. Christian Science Monitor, p. 3. Knight, P. (1998). Profits and principlesDoes there have to be a choice? London: Shell International. Knight, P. (1999). People, planet & profits: An act of commitment. London: Shell International. Knight, P. (2000). How do we stand? People, planet & profits: The Shell report 2000. London: Shell International. Kuiper, S. (1988). Gender representation in corporate annual reports and perceptions of corporate climate. The Journal of Business Communication, 29, 7-21. Lawrence, A. (1999a). Shell oil in Nigeria. Available from http://www.i-case. com/cases/shell/docs/ Lawrence, A. (1999b). The transformation of Shell, 1994contents.htm Lentz, A., & Tschirgi, H. (1963). The ethical content of annual reports. The Journal of Business, 36, 387-393. Levy, D. L., & Rothenberg, S. (in press). Heterogeneity and change in environmental strategy: Technological and political responses to climate change in the automobile industry. In A. Hoffman & M. Ventresca (Eds.), Organizations, policy and the natural environment: Institutional and strategic perspectives. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Livesey, S. (1999). McDonalds and the Environmental Defense Fund: A case study of a green alliance. The Journal of Business Communication, 36, 5-39. Livesey, S. M. (2001). Eco-identity as discursive struggle: Royal Dutch/Shell, Brent Spar, and Nigeria. The Journal of Business Communication, 38, 58-91.
347
Lyotard, J. F. (1997). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge (G. Bennington & B. Massumi, Trans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. (Original work published 1979) Matthews, M. R. (1997). Twenty-five years of social and environmental accounting research. Is there a silver jubilee to celebrate? Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 10, 481-531. Mayhew, N. (1998, August 10). Trouble with the triple bottom line. Financial Times, p. 10. McCloskey, D. N. (1998). The rhetoric of economics (2nd ed.). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Meadowcroft, J. (2000). Sustainable development: A new(ish) idea for a new century? Political Studies, 48, 370-387. Mirvis, P. H. (2000). Transformation at Shell: Commerce and citizenship. Business and Society Review, 105, 63-84. Moody-Stuart, M. (1999, July 12). The values of sustainable business in the next century [St. Pauls Cathedral speech]. Available from http://www.shell.com/ library/speech/0,1525,3983,00.html Naess, A. (1989). Ecology, community and lifestyle: Outline of an ecosophy (D. Rothenberg, Trans.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Nash, J., & Ehrenfeld, J. (1996). Code green. Environment, 38, 15-30. Newton, T., & Harte, G. (1997). Green business: Technicist kitsch? Journal of Management Studies, 34, 75-98. Patterson, R., & Lee, R. (1997). The environmental rhetoric of balance: A case study of regulatory discourse and the colonization of the public. Technical Communication Quarterly, 6, 25-40. Peterson, T. R. (1997). Sharing the earth: The rhetoric of sustainable development. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press. Poovey, M. (1998). A history of the modern fact: Problems of knowledge in the sciences of wealth and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Roome, N. (1999). Integrating environmental concerns into corporate decisions. In K. Sexton, A. A. Marcus, K. W. Easter, & T. D. Burkhardt (Eds.), Better environmental decisions: Strategies for governments, businesses, and communities (pp. 267-288). Washington, DC: Island. Rothermund, H. (1997, May 20). Matching green words with clear actions. Available from http://www.shell.co.uk/news/speech/spe_greenword.htm Rothermund, H. (1998, April 23). Dialogue, decide, deliver. Available from http:// www.shell.co.uk/news/speech/spe_dialogue.htm Sexton, K., Marcus, A. A., Easter, K. W., & Burkhardt, T. D. (Eds.). (1999). Better environmental decisions: Strategies for governments, businesses, and communities. Washington, DC: Island. Shell Canada Limited. (1996). Progress toward sustainable development: 1996 sustainable development report. Calgary, Canada: Author. Shell Canada Limited. (1998). Progress toward sustainable development: 1998 sustainable development report. Calgary, Canada: Author. Shell UK Limited. (1998, May). Report to society. London: Author.
348
Shrivastava, P. (1994). Castrated environment: Greening organizational studies. Organization Studies, 15, 705-726. Spencer-Cooke, A., & Elkington, J. (1996). The benchmark survey: The second international progress report on company environmental reporting. London: Sustainability and the United Nations Environment Programme. Sproule, J. M. (1989). Organizational rhetoric and the public sphere. Communication Studies, 40, 258-265. SustainAbility & United Nations Environment Programme. (1994). Company environmental reporting: A measure of the progress of business and industry towards sustainable development (1st ed.) (United Nations Environment Programme Technical Report No. 24). Paris: United Nations Environment Programme. SustainAbility & United Nations Environment Programme. (1997). Engaging stakeholders: The 1997 benchmark survey: The third international progress report on company environmental reporting. London: SustainAbility Ltd. Tyler, L. (1992). Ecological disaster and rhetorical response: Exxons communications in the wake of the Valdez spill. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 6, 149-171. van der Veer, J. (1998a). The greenhouse challenge: Dialogues, decisions and delivery. [Speech at the International Energy Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, Interlaken, Switzerland]. Available from http:// www.shell.com/library/speech/1,5833,00.html van der Veer, J. (1998b). Inzicht door doorzicht [Insight through openness]. Available from http://www.shell.com/library/speech/9,1525,3360,00.html Wade, B. N. (1996, November). Societys changing expectations: Executive report. London: Shell International. Walvis, R. (1998). Market choices: The commercial impulse for sustainable development. [Speech at the Aspen Energy & Environmental Roundtable]. Available from http://www.shell.com/library/speech/1,5833,00.html Watts, P. (1997). Taking action to earn trustHealth, safety and the environment. Available from www.shell.com/library/speech/01525,2304,00.html Westley, F., & Vredenburg, H. (1991). Strategic bridging: The collaboration between environmentalists and business in the marketing of green products. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27(1), 65-90. Wetherell, M., & Potter, J. (1992). Mapping the language of racism: Discourse and legitimation of exploitation. New York: Columbia University Press. Wheeler, D., Fabig, H., & Boele, R. (2000, August). Paradoxes and dilemmas for stakeholder responsive firms in the extractive sector: Lessons from the case of Shell and the Ogoni. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Toronto, Canada. World Commission for Environment and Development (WCED). (1987). Our common future [The Brundtland Report]. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
349
Sharon M. Livesey (J.D., Northeastern University) is an associate professor of communication at Fordham University Graduate School of Business in New York. Her research interests include organizational eco-identity, gender, and research methods. She is particularly interested in how language contributes to the greening of organizations and to public understanding of sustainable development.

Quarterly Management Communication: The Discourse of The Middle Ground: Citizen Shell Commits To Sustainable Development

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Quarterly Management Communication: The Discourse of The Middle Ground: Citizen Shell Commits To Sustainable Development

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Management Communication Quarterly

THE DISCOURSE OF THE MIDDLE GROUND

MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / FEBRUARY 2002

Livesey / THE DISCOURSE OF THE MIDDLE GROUND

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND SOCIAL REPORTING

MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / FEBRUARY 2002

Livesey / THE DISCOURSE OF THE MIDDLE GROUND

MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / FEBRUARY 2002

Livesey / THE DISCOURSE OF THE MIDDLE GROUND

THEORY AND METHOD

MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / FEBRUARY 2002

Livesey / THE DISCOURSE OF THE MIDDLE GROUND

MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / FEBRUARY 2002

Livesey / THE DISCOURSE OF THE MIDDLE GROUND

MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / FEBRUARY 2002

Livesey / THE DISCOURSE OF THE MIDDLE GROUND

MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / FEBRUARY 2002

Livesey / THE DISCOURSE OF THE MIDDLE GROUND

MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / FEBRUARY 2002

Livesey / THE DISCOURSE OF THE MIDDLE GROUND

MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / FEBRUARY 2002

Livesey / THE DISCOURSE OF THE MIDDLE GROUND

MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / FEBRUARY 2002

Livesey / THE DISCOURSE OF THE MIDDLE GROUND

MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / FEBRUARY 2002

Livesey / THE DISCOURSE OF THE MIDDLE GROUND

MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / FEBRUARY 2002

Livesey / THE DISCOURSE OF THE MIDDLE GROUND

MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / FEBRUARY 2002

Livesey / THE DISCOURSE OF THE MIDDLE GROUND

MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / FEBRUARY 2002

Livesey / THE DISCOURSE OF THE MIDDLE GROUND

MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / FEBRUARY 2002

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE AND RESEARCH

Livesey / THE DISCOURSE OF THE MIDDLE GROUND

MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / FEBRUARY 2002

Livesey / THE DISCOURSE OF THE MIDDLE GROUND

MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / FEBRUARY 2002

Livesey / THE DISCOURSE OF THE MIDDLE GROUND

MANAGEMENT COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY / FEBRUARY 2002

Livesey / THE DISCOURSE OF THE MIDDLE GROUND

Anda mungkin juga menyukai