Cover not available

In:Persuasion in Specialized Discourse: A multidisciplinary perspective
Edited by Chiara Degano, Dora Renna and Francesca Santulli
[Argumentation in Context 22] 2024
► pp. 111–133

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

Chapter 5
Legitimation in contested industries

The role of argumentation

 | University of Milan “La Statale”
Published online: 25 October 2024
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.22.05cat
Abstract
In order to be permitted to carry out their operations, companies need to be perceived as legitimate. Legitimacy is awarded as a result of a deliberation process whereby the members of a society come to agree that a company’s operations can be considered beneficial (or at least not harmful) both in principle and in practice. For companies operating in contested industries, such as mining and agri-biotechnologies, gaining, and maintaining, a ‘social licence’ to operate can be problematic, and requires extensive engagement in discursively mediated legitimation practices of an argumentative nature. This chapter seeks to identify the prototypical argumentative patterns deployed in these industries in the service of corporate legitimation, concluding that they rely on varieties of pragmatic argumentation based on strong sustainability-framed objects of agreement to which are applied inferential processes ultimately resting on the locus from final/​instrumental cause.
Article outline
  • 0.Introduction
  • 1.Contested industries and legitimacy
  • 2.Materials and methodological approach
    • 2.1Institutional constraints and prototypical argumentative patterns
    • 2.2The Argumentum Model of Topics: Linking inferential schemes to context
  • 3. Constructing legitimacy in principle and in practice
    • 3.1In-principle legitimacy
    • 3.2From in-principle to pragmatic legitimacy
  • 4. Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
References (23)
References
Amossy, R. (2009a). The New Rhetoric’s Inheritance. Argumentation and Discourse Analysis. Argumentation 23(2), 313–324. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009b). Argumentation in discourse: A socio-discursive approach to arguments. Informal logic, 29(3), 252–267. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bitektine, A. (2011). Toward a theory of social judgments of organizations: The case of legitimacy, reputation, and status, Academy of Management Review, 36(1), 151–179. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cooney, J. (2017). Reflections on the 20th anniversary of the term ‘social licence’. Journal of Energy & Natural Resources Law 35(2), 197–200. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
European Union, (2019). Special Eurobarometer “Food safety in the EU”. [URL]
Gunningham, N., Kagan, R. A., & Thornton, D. (2004). Social license and environmental protection: Why businesses go beyond compliance. Law and Social Enquiry, 29(2), 307–341. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ihnen Jory, C. (2016). Pragmatic argumentation in the law-making process. In D. Mohammed, & M. Lewiński (Eds.), Argumentation and reasoned action: Proceedings of the 1st European Conference on Argumentation, Lisbon 2015, Volume II (pp. 519–538). College Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Joyce, S. A. & Thomson, I. (1999). Earning a Social License. Mining Journal, 332(8535), 441–443.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2000). Earning a Social Licence to Operate: Social Acceptability and Resource Development in Latin America. CIM Bulletin, 93(1037), 49–53.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Palazzo, G. & Scherer, A. G. (2006). Corporate legitimacy as deliberation: A communicative framework. Journal of Business Ethics 66(1), 71–88. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Transl. by Wilkinson, J., & P. Weaver. Notre Dame: Univ. of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rigotti, E. (2006). Relevance of Context-bound loci to Topical Potential in the Argumentation Stage. Argumentation 20, 519–540. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rigotti, E., & Greco, S. (2006). Topics: The Argument Generator, Argumentum eLearning Module, [URL].Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rigotti, E., & Greco Morasso, S. (2010). Comparing the argumentum-model of topics with other contemporary approaches to argument schemes: The procedural and the material components. Argumentation 24(4), 489–512. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rigotti, E., & Greco, S. (2019). Inference in Argumentation. A Topics-Based Approach to Argument Schemes. Springer Verlag. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rigotti, E., & Palmieri, R. (2010). Analyzing and evaluating complex argumentation in an economic-financial context. In Reed, C., & C. W. Tindale (Eds.), Dialectics, dialogue and argumentation. An examination of Douglas Walton’s theories of reasoning (pp. 85–99). College Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schiopoiu Burlea, A., & Popa, I. (2013). Legitimacy Theory. In Idowu, S. O. et al.. (Eds), Encyclopedia of Corporate Social Responsibility (pp. 1579–1585). Springer Verlag. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Suchman, M. C. 1995. Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches. Academy of Management Review 20(3): 571–610. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H. 2016. Identifying Argumentative Patterns: A Vital Step in the Development of Pragma-Dialectics. Argumentation 30: 1–23. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2017. Argumentative patterns viewed from a pragma-dialectical perspective. In Van Eemeren, F. H. (ed.), Prototypical Argumentative Patterns. Exploring the relationship between argumentative discourse and institutional context. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 7–28. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H. and Grootendorst, R. 2003. A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H. and Houtlosser, P. 2005, Strategic Manoeuvring, In M. Dascal, F. H. van Eemeren, E. Rigotti, S. Stati and A. Rocci (Eds.), Argumentation in Dialogic Interaction. Studies in Communication Sciences, pp. 1–20, special issue, Lugano.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue