Cover not available

Article In: Journal of Language and Politics: Online-First Articles

Self-positioning as sustainable agents in the fashion industry

An argumentative and linguistic analysis

ORCiD logo with link | Università della Svizzera italiana
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
Abstract
Accounting for sustainable action in fashion companies’ institutional communication can represent an argumentative challenge because of a possible Grundkonflikt between sustainable action and the company’s core business. This conflict concerns ethos-related principles of Benevolence and Competence, that may be at the basis of possibly contrasting needs of different stakeholders.
In this paper, four fashion brands serve as a case study to explore this argumentative scenario, namely whether and how fashion companies handle a possible conflict between sustainable and core business when justifying their action in the Sustainability sections of their Italian institutional websites. With this aim, the paper proposes a two-fold methodological framework comprising both the argumentative and the linguistic level, focussing on endoxa, patterns of concession and counterargument, and agentivity.
Results show both individual and common behaviors in argumentatively handling the conflict, demonstrating how a multi-layer analytical framework can capture relevant ethos-building strategies in the polylogue surrounding fashion sustainability.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background and previous research
  • 3.Research question and rationale
  • 4.Materials and analytical framework
  • 5.Results
    • 5.1Primark
    • 5.2H&M
    • 5.3Sumissura
    • 5.4Patagonia
  • 6.Discussion
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • Author queries
  • References
References (39)
References
Bhatia, Vijay Kumar. 1993. Analysing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Connor, Ulla, and Thomas A. Upton, eds. 2007. Discourse on the Move: Using corpus analysis to describe discourse structure. John Benjamins Publishing Company. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Caffi, Claudia. 2013. “Mitigation”. In Pragmatics of speech actions, edited by In M. Sbisà and Ken Turner. Walter De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Catenaccio, Paola, and Degano, Chiara. 2011. “Corporate Social Responsibility as a key to the representation of corporate identity: The case of Novartis.” In Identity in the Professions: legal, corporate and institutional citizenship, edited by P. Evangelisti Allori and Vijay K. Bhatia. Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Catenaccio, Paola. 2012. “A Genre-Theory Approach to the Website: Some Preliminary Considerations.” In Evolving Genres in Web-mediated Communication, edited by S. Campagna, G. Garzone, C. Ilie and Elizabeth Rowley-Jolivet. Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2020. “Ethics and Legitimacy in the Discourse of Agri-biotechnology”. Anglistica AION 23, (1): 203–225. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coppola, Claudia. 2024. “Codifica dell’“impatto” sul piano linguistico e dell’argomentazione: una case history del sito web istituzionale dell’istituto bancario Intesa Sanpaolo”. PhD diss., Università degli Studi Roma Tre/La Sapienza.
Coppola, Claudia, and Andrea Rocci. 2025. “A polyphonic framework for capturing counterargument and concession patterns in large online polylogues.” Paper presented at the European Conference on Argumentation, 26 September 2025, Warsaw, Poland.
Coppola, Claudia, and Laura Mori. 2023. “Indessicalità ed espressione dell’agentività per la costruzione del Sé nel discorso politico-istituzionale italiano in contesto internazionale”. Rassegna Italiana di Linguistica Applicata 1: 109–132.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coppola, Claudia, and Sara Greco. 2024. “Argumentation and agency for building ethos in an Italian bank’s institutional website”. In Proceedings of the Tenth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, edited by R. Boogaart, B. Garssen, H. Jansen, M. van Leeuwen, R. Pilgram and Alex Reuneker. Sic Sat.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Duranti, A. 2004. “Agency in Language”. In A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology, edited by Id. Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fernandez-Gonzalez, Raquel, Guillen, Felix P., Ionescu, Razvan G. V., and Alina Gabriela Brezoi. 2024. “Investigating the Phenomenon of “Greenlash” in Europe. Are the EU’s Green Policies Moving too Fast for its Citizens?.” In EIRP Proceedings 19 (1). EBSCO Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Flyvholm Jørgensen, Poul E., and Maria Isaksson. 2008. “Building credibility in international banking and financial markets: A study of how corporate reputations are managed through image advertising.” Corporate Communications: An International Journal 13 (4): 365–379. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fuoli, Matteo, and Christopher Hart. 2018. “Trust-building strategies in corporate discourse: An experimental study”. Discourse & Society 29 (5): 514–552. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Garzone, Giuliana. 2007. “Genres, Multimodality and the World-Wide Web: Theoretical Issues.” In Multimodality in Corporate Communication. Web Genres and Discursive Identity, edited by G. Garzone, P. Catenaccio & Gina Poncini. Franco Angeli.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Greco, Sara, and Barbara De Cock. 2021. “Argumentative misalignments in the controversy surrounding fashion sustainability”. Journal of Pragmatics 174: 55–67. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Greco, Sara, Mercuri, Chiara, De Cock, Barbara, and Rebecca Schär. 2023. “Arguing through best practice: The role of argumentation from example in activists’ social media posts on sustainable fashion.” Discourse Studies 25 (4): 530–548. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koszowy, Marcin, Oswald, Steve, Budzynska, Katarzyna, Konat, Barbara, and Pascal Gygax. 2022. “A Pragmatic Account of Rephrase in Argumentation: Linguistic and Cognitive Evidence.” Informal Logic 42 (1): 47–8. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Izutsu, Mitsuko Narita. 2008. “Contrast, concessive, and corrective: Toward a comprehensive study of opposition relations.” Journal of Pragmatics 40 (4): 646–675. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lewinski, Marcin, and Mark A. Aakhus. 2023. Argumentation in complex communication: Managing disagreement in a polylogue. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lombardi Vallauri, Edoardo, Baranzini, Laura, Cimmino, Doriana, Cominetti, Federica, Coppola, Claudia and Giorgia Mannaioli. 2020. “Implicit argumentation and persuasion: a measuring model.” Journal of Argumentation in Context 9 (1): 95–123. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mercuri, Chiara. 2023. “Characterization frames constructing endoxa in activists’ discourse about the public controversy surrounding fashion sustainability.” Topoi 42 (2): 635–650. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2025. “Constructing the meaning of cultural keywords through argumentation: the case of ‘sustainable’in fashion”. Journal of Corpora and Discourse Studies 8: 159–184. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Moeschler, Jacques, and Nina De Spengler. 1982. “La concession ou la refutation interdite.” Cahiers de Linguistique Francaise 4: 7–36. Academia.edu.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Musi, Elena. 2017. “How did you change my view? A corpus-based study of concessions’ argumentative role.” Discourse Studies 20 (2): 270–288. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nair, Lakshmi B., Gibbert, Michael, and Bareerah Hafeez Hoorani. 2023. Combining case study designs for theory building: A new sourcebook for rigorous social science researchers. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nølke, Henning, Fløttum, Kjersti, and Coco Norén. 2004. Scapoline: La théorie Scandinave de la polyphonie linguistique. Éditions Kimé.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Palmieri, Rudi. 2014. Corporate Argumentation in Takeover Bids. John Benjamins Publishing Company. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Palmieri, Rudi, and Sabrina Mazzali-Lurati. 2016. “Multiple audiences as text stakeholders: A conceptual framework for analyzing complex rhetorical situations.” Argumentation 30: 467–499. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Patterson, J. James. 2023. “Backlash to Climate Policy”. Global Environmental Politics 23 (1): 68–90. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Peldszus, Andreas, and Manfred Stede. 2013. “From argument diagrams to argumentation mining in texts.” International Journal of Cognitive Informatics and Natural Intelligence 7 (1): 1–31. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pierre, Emeline. 2026. “Backgrounding Agency in EU institution Instruments: a Linguistic and Argumentative Perspective.” Argumentation and Advocacy: 1–22. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rigotti, Eddo, and Sara Greco. 2019. Inference in Argumentation: A Topics-Based Approach to Argument Schemes. Springer International Publishing. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rocci, Andrea. 2021. “Diagramming Counterarguments: At the Interface Between Discourse Structure and Argumentation Structure.” In The Language of Argumentation, edited by R. Boogaart, H. Jansen and Marteen van Leeuwen. Springer International Publishing. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rocco, Goranka. 2014. “Nachhaltigkeitsberichte Aus Textologischer Sicht Diachronischer Und Intersprachlicher Vergleich Der Textsortenmerkmale.” Fachsprache 36 (3–4): 128–153. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Swales, John. 2004. Research Genres: Explorations and Applications. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tao, Yingnian, and Mark Ryan. 2025. “Greenlash in the media.” Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 12, (1): 1–15. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Eemeren, Frans H., and Robert Grootendorst. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 jbe-platform.quadraat-sans-bold jbe-platform.quadraat-sans-bold-dark jbe-platform.quadraat-sans-bold-light jbe-platform.quadraat-sans-bold prag Twitter_Logo_Blue