Cover not available
Article published In:
Australian Review of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 40:3 (2017) ► pp.247–279

Discursive strategies in corporate image building of Monsanto

| Dokuz Eylul University

Since the public’s awareness and interest in the usage of biotechnology in agriculture has increased drastically, this study seeks to discover the macro and micro discursive strategies in corporate image building by Monsanto, which is not only the leader but also happens to be the most criticized company of the agribusiness market (Mitchell, 2014). By means of triangulating the Socio-Cognitive Approach (van Dijk, 1995), Legitimation Theory (van Leeuwen, 2007) and Corpus Linguistic techniques, discourse topics, group schemata and legitimation strategies were investigated to understand how Monsanto presents its self-image through the sustainability reports of 2014 and 2015. It is seen that Monsanto’s self-presentation is heavily built upon scientific expertise, authority figures, dynamism and altruism with the claim of providing safe and affordable food for everyone. One of the most striking findings is the agribusiness giant’s frequent use of the negative mental imagery associated with climate change and population growth to justify the need for its genetically engineered products for a sustainable world.

Keywords: sustainability reports, corporate image, Socio-Cognitive Approach, Legitimation Theory, corpus linguistics
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Literature Review
  • Methodology
    • Theoretical Framework
      • Socio-Cognitive Approach
      • Legitimation theory
    • Analytical framework
    • Data
  • Analysis
    • Analysis of macrostructures
    • Analysis of microstructures
      • Membership criteria
      • Typical activities
      • Overall aims
      • Norms and values
      • Position
      • Resources
    • Legitimation Strategies
  • Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 7 May 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.16047.koc
References

References

Alexander, R. J.
(2009) Framing discourse on the environment: A critical discourse approach. New York/ London: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2013) Shaping and misrepresenting public perceptions of ecological catastrophes: The BP Gulf oil spill. Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis across Disciplines, 7(1), 1–18.Google Scholar
American Cancer Society
(2015) Known and probable human carcinogens Introduction. Retrieved from [URL].
Anderson, A.
(1997) Media, Culture and the Environment. London: UCL Press.Google Scholar
Archer, D., Wilson, A., & Rayson, P.
(2002) Introduction to the USAS category system: Benedict project report. Retrieved from [URL].
Baertlein, L.
(2014, June 12) U.S food makers sue to stop Vermont’s GMO labeling law. Reuters. Retrieved from [URL].
Baker, P., & McEnery, T.
(2005) A corpus-based approach to discourses of refugees and asylum seekers in UN and newspaper texts. Language and Politics, 4(2), 197–226. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, P.
(2006) Using Corpora in Discourse Analysis. London/ New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Baker, P., Gabrieletos, C., KhosraviNik, M., Krzyzanowski, M., McEnery, T. & Wodak, R.
(2008) A useful methodological synergy? Combining critical discourse analysis and corpus linguistics to examine discourses of refugees and asylum seekers in the UK press. Discourse & Society, 191, 273–306. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beelitz, A., & Merkl-Davies, D. M.
(2012) Using discourse to restore organisational legitimacy: ‘CEO-speak’ after an incident in a German nuclear power plant. Business Ethics, 1081, 101–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benbrook, C. M.
(2016) Trends in glyphosate herbicide use in the United States and globally. Envrionmental Sciences Europe Bridging Science and Regulation at the Regional and European Level, 281, 3–15.Google Scholar
Berger, P. L.
(1966) Invitation to Sociology. Harmondswoth, England: Penguin.Google Scholar
Berger, P. L. & Luckmann, T.
(1966) The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
Breeze, R.
(2012) Legitimation in corporate discourse: Oil corporations after Deepwater Horizon. Discourse & Society, 23(3), 3–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013) Corporate Discourse. London: Bloomsbury Discourse.Google Scholar
Campbell, D., Craven, B., & Shrives, P.
(2003) Voluntary social reporting in three FTSE sectors: A comment on perception and legitimacy. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 16(4), 558–581. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chilton, P.
(2004) Analysing political discourse: Theory and practice. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N.
(1999) Profit over people: Neoliberalism and global order. New York: Seven Stories Press.Google Scholar
Chow, L.
(2016, May 16) Nebraska farmers sue Monsanto alleging roundup gave them cancer. Eco Watch. Retrieved from [URL].
Cook, G., Robbins, P. T., & Pieri, E.
(2006) Words of mass destruction: British newspaper coverage of the genetically modified food debate: Expert and non-expert reaction. Public Understanding of Science, 151, 5–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deegan, C., Rankin, M., & Voght, P.
(2000) Firms’ disclosure reactions to major social incidents: Australian evidence. Accounting Forum, 24(1), 101–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dowling, J., & Pfeffer, J.
(1975) Organizational legitimacy: Social values and organizational behaviour. Pacific Sociological Review, 18(1), 122–136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duszak, A.
(2002) Us and others: An introduction. In A. Duszak (Ed.), Us and others: Social identities across languages, discourses and cultures (pp. 1–28). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S.
(1993) The Psychology of Attitudes. Orlando: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Eggins, S.
(2004) An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Fairclough, N.
(1995) Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Fennell, D.
(2009) Marketing science: The Corporate faces of genetic engineering. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 33(1), 5–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frandsen, F., & W. Johansen
(2010) Corporate crisis communication across cultures. In A. Trosborg (Ed.), Pragmatics Across Languages and Cultures (pp. 543–569). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fuoli, M.
(2012) Assessing social responsibility: A quantitative analysis of appraisal in BP’s and IKEA’s social reports. Discourse & Communication, 61, 55–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gabrieletos, C., & Baker, P.
(2008) Fleeing, sneaking, flooding: A corpus analysis of discursive constructions of refugees and asylum seekers in the UK press, 1996–2005. Journal of English Linguistics, 361, 5–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hanzai, E.
(2014, June 20) The Complete History of Monsanto, “The World’s Most Evil Corporation”. Waking Times. Retrieved from [URL]
Hauck, D.
(2014, January 15) Supreme court hands Monsanto victory over farmers on GMO seed patents, ability to sue. Retrieved from [URL]
International Agency for Research on Cancer
(2015) Evaluation of five organophosphate insecticides and herbicides. IARC Monographs, 1121. Retrieved from [URL].
Lau, R. & Sears, D. O.
(Eds.) (1986) Political cognition: The 19th Carnegie Mellon symposium on cognition. Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Lindblom, C. K.
(1994) The implications of organizational legitimacy for corporate social performance and disclosure. New York: Critical Perspectives on Accounting Conference.Google Scholar
Kreibig, S. D., Gendolla, G. H. E., & Scherer, K. R.
(2010) Psychophysiological effects of emotional responding to goal attainment. Biological Psychology, 841, 474–487. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maeseele, P.
(2015) Risk conflicts, critical discourse analysis and media discourses on GM crops and food. Journalism, 16(2), 278–297. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malavasi, D.
(2011) ‘Doing well by doing good’: A comparative analysis of Nokia’s and Ericsson’s corporate social responsibility reports. Linguistic Insights, 1341, 193–212.Google Scholar
Martín- Rojo, L. & van Dijk, T.
(1997) ‘There was a problem and it was solved’: Legitimating the expulsion of illegal immigrants in Spanish parliament. Discourse & Society, 8(4), 563–606.Google Scholar
McArthur, T.
(1981) Longman Lexicon of Contemporary English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Mitchell, D.
(2014, June 26) Why Monsanto always wins? Fortune. Retrieved from [URL]
Parsons, T.
(1956) Suggestions for a sociological approach to the theory of organizations-I. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1(1), 63–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pollach, I.
(2005) Corporate self-presentation on the WWW: Strategies for enhancing usability, credibility and utility. Corporate Communications An International Journal, 10(4), 285–301. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prentice, S.
(2010) Using automated semantic tagging in critical discourse analysis: A case study on Scottish independence from a Scottish nationalist perspective. Discourse & Society, 211, 405–437. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rayson, P.
(2009) Wmatrix: a web-based corpus processing environment [Computer software]. Computing Department, Lancaster University. Retrieved from [URL]
Reich, R.
(1998) The new meaning of corporate social responsibility. California Management Review, 40(2), 8–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, S. W.
(1988) Reason, Ideology and Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, M., & Kottosova, I.
(2015, Sept. 22) Volkswagen scandal widens. CNN Money. Retrieved from [URL]
Scott, M.
(2012) WordSmith Tools Version 6 [Lexical Analysis Software].Google Scholar
Sethi, S. P.
(1978, Fall), Advocacy advertising – the American experience. California Management Review, 58–64.Google Scholar
Shinkle, G. A., & Spencer, J. W.
(2012) The social construction of global corporate citizenship: Sustainability reports of automotive corporations. Journal of World Business, 471, 123–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D.
(2001) An evolutionary perspective on testimony and argumentation. Retrieved from [URL]. DOI logo
Stark, H.
(2016, May 26) GMOs and The March Against Monsanto. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from [URL]
Suchman, M. C.
(1995) Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Dijk, T. A.
(1991) Racism and the press; critical studies in racism and migration. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
van Dijk, T. A.
(1995) Ideological discourse analysis. In E. Ventola & A. Solin (Eds.). New Courant: Special Issues Interdisciplinary approaches to discourse analysis (pp. 135–161) Helsinki: English Department of University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
(2006) Discourse and Manipulation. Discourse & Society, 17(3). 359–383. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008) Discourse and Power. New York: Palgrave Macmillan DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Leeuwen, T.
(2007) Legitimation in discourse and communication. Discourse and Communication, 11, 91–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Leeuween, T.
(2008) Discourse and Practice. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weaver, C. K., & Motion, J.
(2002) Sabotage and subterfuge: Public relations, democracy and genetic engineering in New Zealand. Media, Culture & Society, 241, 325–343. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wetherell, M., & Potter, J.
(1992) Mapping the language of racism: Discourse and the legitimation of exploitation. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
Wodak, R.
(2001) The discourse-historical approach. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 63–94). London: Sage.Google Scholar