Cover not available

Article published In: Australian Review of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 40:3 (2017) ► pp.247–279

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

Discursive strategies in corporate image building of Monsanto

 | Dokuz Eylul University
Published online: 7 May 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.16047.koc
Abstract
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, D. (2014, June 26). Why Monsanto always wins? Fortune. Retrieved from [URL]). By means of triangulating the Socio-Cognitive Approach (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 logo with link to Google Scholar), Legitimation Theory (Van Leeuwen, T. (2007). Legitimation in discourse and communication. Discourse and Communication, 11, 91–112. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar) 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.
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
References (63)
References
Alexander, R. J. (2009). Framing discourse on the environment: A critical discourse approach. New York/ London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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. (2006). Using Corpora in Discourse Analysis. London/ New York: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Berger, P. L. (1966). Invitation to Sociology. Harmondswoth, England: Penguin.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Breeze, R. (2012). Legitimation in corporate discourse: Oil corporations after Deepwater Horizon. Discourse & Society, 23(3), 3–18. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Corporate Discourse. London: Bloomsbury Discourse.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing political discourse: Theory and practice. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1999). Profit over people: Neoliberalism and global order. New York: Seven Stories Press.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Deegan, C., Rankin, M., & Voght, P. (2000). Firms’ disclosure reactions to major social incidents: Australian evidence. Accounting Forum, 24(1), 101–130. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dowling, J., & Pfeffer, J. (1975). Organizational legitimacy: Social values and organizational behaviour. Pacific Sociological Review, 18(1), 122–136. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The Psychology of Attitudes. Orlando: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eggins, S. (2004). An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fennell, D. (2009). Marketing science: The Corporate faces of genetic engineering. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 33(1), 5–26. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maeseele, P. (2015). Risk conflicts, critical discourse analysis and media discourses on GM crops and food. Journalism, 16(2), 278–297. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
McArthur, T. (1981). Longman Lexicon of Contemporary English. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rosenberg, S. W. (1988). Reason, Ideology and Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Sethi, S. P. (1978, Fall), Advocacy advertising – the American experience. California Management Review, 58–64.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sperber, D. (2001). An evolutionary perspective on testimony and argumentation. Retrieved from [URL].
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Dijk, T. A. (1991). Racism and the press; critical studies in racism and migration. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). Discourse and Manipulation. Discourse & Society, 17(3). 359–383. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). Discourse and Power. New York: Palgrave Macmillan Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Leeuwen, T. (2007). Legitimation in discourse and communication. Discourse and Communication, 11, 91–112. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Leeuween, T. (2008). Discourse and Practice. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wetherell, M., & Potter, J. (1992) Mapping the language of racism: Discourse and the legitimation of exploitation. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue