Cover not available
Part of
Contextualizing Pragma-Dialectics
Edited by Frans H. van Eemeren and Peng Wu
[Argumentation in Context 12] 2017
► pp. 309–334

Chapter 17
Strategic maneuvering with presentational choices in Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) reports

Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.CSR communication CSR reporting
  • 3.Strategic maneuvering in the CSR report communicative activity type
    • 3.1Topical choices in CSR reporting
    • 3.2Adaptation to audience demands and expectations in CSR reporting
    • 3.3Presentational choices, devices, or techniques in CSR reporting
  • 4.Strategic maneuvering with presentational choices in CSR reporting
    • 4.1Reasonableness and effectiveness in the confrontation stage of the critical discussion
    • 4.2 Reasonableness and effectiveness in the argumentation stage of the critical discussion
      • 4.2.1Argumentation structure
      • 4.2.2Linguistic devices in the argumentation stage
      • 4.2.3 Argument schemes
  • 5.Final remarks
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 12 December 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.12.17gat
References (29)
References
*** (2001). Green Paper. Promoting a European Framework for Corporate Social Responsibility. Presented by the Commission of the European Communities, July 18, 2001. Brussels. [PEFCSR]Google Scholar
Brennan, N. M., Merkl-Davies, D. M., & Beelitz, A. (2013). Dialogism in Corporate Social Responsibility Communications: Conceptualising Verbal Interaction between Organisations and their Audiences. Journal of Business Ethics, 115 (4) (pp. 665–679). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brennan, N. M., & Merkl-Davies, D. M. (2014). Rhetoric and Argument in Social and Environmental Reporting: the Dirty Laundry Case′. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 27 (4) (pp. 602–633). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Conrad, Ch. (2011). Organizational Rhetoric. Strategies of Resistance and Domination. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Dahlsrud, Al. (2008, first version online 2006). How Corporate Social Responsibility is Defined: an Analysis of 37 Definitions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15: 1–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ditlev-Simonsen, C. D., & Wenstøp, S. (2011). Companies’ Ethical Commitment – An Analysis of the Rhetoric in CSR Reports. Issues in Social and Environmental Accounting, Vol. 5, No. 1/2, December: 65–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eisenberg, E. M. (2006). Strategic Ambiguities: Essays on Communication, Organization, and Identity. Thousand Oaks / London / New Delhi: Sage.Google Scholar
Elsbach, K. D. (1994). Managing Organizational Legitimacy in the California Cattle Industry: The Construction and Effectiveness of Verbal Accounts. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 39, No. 1 (Mar.) (pp. 57–88). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garssen, B. (2001). Argument schemes. In F. H. van Eemeren (ed.), Crucial Concepts in Argumentation Theory. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press (pp. 81–99).Google Scholar
Gâţă, A. (2015). The strategic function of argumentative moves in Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) reports. In F. H. van Eemeren and B. Garssen (Eds.), Scrutinizing Argumentation in Practice [Argumentation in Context 9]. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company (pp. 297–312). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Itänen, M.-E. (2011). CSR Discourse in Corporate Reports – Exploring the Socially Constructed Nature of Corporate Social Responsibility. Master‘s Thesis, International Business, School of Economics, Aalto University.Google Scholar
Michelon, G., Pilonato, S., & Ricceri, F. (2015). CSR reporting practices and the quality of disclosure: An empirical analysis. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 33 (December) (pp. 59–78). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perelman, Ch., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1958/1969). The New Rhetoric. A treatise on argumentation (translation). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Tench, R., Sun W., & Jones, B. (eds). (2014). Communicating Corporate Social Responsibility: Perspectives and Practice. “Critical Studies on Corporate Responsibility, Governance and Sustainability” Series, Vol. 6. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H. (ed.) (2009). Examining Argumentation in Context: Fifteen Studies on Strategic Maneuvering. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse. Extending the Pragma-dialectical Theory of Argumentation. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013a). Fallacies as derailments of argumentative discourse: Acceptance based on understanding and critical assessment. Journal of Pragmatics, 59 (pp. 141–152). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013b). In What Sense Do Modern Argumentation Theories Relate to Aristotle? The Case of Pragma-Dialectics. Argumentation, 27 (pp. 49–70). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., & Garssen, B. (eds.) (2012). Exploring Argumentative Contexts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Exploiting the room for strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Dealing with audience demand in the European Parliament. In F. H. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (Eds.), Exploring Argumentative Contexts (pp. 43–58). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(eds.) (2012). Topical Themes in Argumentation Theory. Twenty Exploratory Studies, Argumentation Library, Volume 22. Dordrecht / Heidelberg / London /New York: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Some Highlights in Recent Theorizing: An Introduction. In F. H. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (Eds.), Topical Themes in Argumentation Theory (pp. 1–14). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., & Meuffels, B. (2012). The Extended Pragma-Dialectical Argumentation van Theory Empirically Interpreted. In F. H. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (Eds.), Topical Themes in Argumentation Theory (pp. 323–343). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R., (1984). Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions. A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies. A Pragma-dialectical Perspective. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (2002). Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse: Maintaining a delicat balance. In F. H. van Eemeren and P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Dialectic and Rhetoric: The warp and woof of argumentation analysis. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic (pp. 131–159). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). Strategic Maneuvering. Examining Argumentation in Context. In F. H. van Eemeren (ed.), Examining Argumentation in Context (pp. 1–22). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Rees, M. A., & Rigotti, E. (2011). The analysis of the strategic function of presentational techniques. In E. T. Feteris, B. Garssen, A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Keeping in touch with Pragma-Dialectics. In honor of Frans H. van Eemeren. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company (pp. 207–220). DOI logoGoogle Scholar