1887
Volume 40, Issue 3
  • ISSN 0155-0640
  • E-ISSN: 1833-7139
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

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, 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.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/aral.16047.koc
2018-05-07
2019-09-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Alexander, R. J.
    (2009) Framing discourse on the environment: A critical discourse approach. New York/ London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. (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]
  3. American Cancer Society
    American Cancer Society (2015) Known and probable human carcinogens Introduction. Retrieved fromwww.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/generalinformationaboutcarcinogens/known-and-probable-human-carcinogens.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Anderson, A.
    (1997) Media, Culture and the Environment. London: UCL Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Archer, D. , Wilson, A. , & Rayson, P.
    (2002) Introduction to the USAS category system: Benedict project report. Retrieved fromucrel.lancs.ac.uk/usas/usas%20guide.pdf.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Baertlein, L.
    (2014, June 12) U.S food makers sue to stop Vermont’s GMO labeling law. Reuters. Retrieved fromwww.reuters.com/article/vermont-gmo-idUSL2N0OT20620140612.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 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: 10.1075/jlp.4.2.04bak
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.4.2.04bak [Google Scholar]
  8. Baker, P.
    (2006) Using Corpora in Discourse Analysis. London/ New York: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 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, 19, 273–306. doi: 10.1177/0957926508088962
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926508088962 [Google Scholar]
  10. 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, 108, 101–120. doi: 10.1007/s10551‑011‑1065‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1065-9 [Google Scholar]
  11. 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, 28, 3–15.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Berger, P. L.
    (1966) Invitation to Sociology. Harmondswoth, England: Penguin.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 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]
  14. Breeze, R.
    (2012) Legitimation in corporate discourse: Oil corporations after Deepwater Horizon. Discourse & Society, 23(3), 3–18. doi: 10.1177/0957926511431511
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926511431511 [Google Scholar]
  15. (2013) Corporate Discourse. London: Bloomsbury Discourse.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 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: 10.1108/09513570310492308
    https://doi.org/10.1108/09513570310492308 [Google Scholar]
  17. Chilton, P.
    (2004) Analysing political discourse: Theory and practice. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Chomsky, N.
    (1999) Profit over people: Neoliberalism and global order. New York: Seven Stories Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Chow, L.
    (2016, May 16) Nebraska farmers sue Monsanto alleging roundup gave them cancer. Eco Watch. Retrieved fromwww.ecowatch.com/nebraska-farmers-sue-monsanto-alleging-roundup-gave-them-cancer-1891131269.html.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 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, 15, 5–29. doi: 10.1177/0963662506058756
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662506058756 [Google Scholar]
  21. Deegan, C. , Rankin, M. , & Voght, P.
    (2000) Firms’ disclosure reactions to major social incidents: Australian evidence. Accounting Forum, 24(1), 101–130. doi: 10.1111/1467‑6303.00031
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6303.00031 [Google Scholar]
  22. Dowling, J. , & Pfeffer, J.
    (1975) Organizational legitimacy: Social values and organizational behaviour. Pacific Sociological Review, 18(1), 122–136. doi: 10.2307/1388226
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1388226 [Google Scholar]
  23. 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: 10.1075/pbns.98.01dus
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.98.01dus [Google Scholar]
  24. Eagly, A. H. , & Chaiken, S.
    (1993) The Psychology of Attitudes. Orlando: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Eggins, S.
    (2004) An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Fairclough, N.
    (1995) Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Fennell, D.
    (2009) Marketing science: The Corporate faces of genetic engineering. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 33(1), 5–26. doi: 10.1177/0196859908325144
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0196859908325144 [Google Scholar]
  28. 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]
  29. Fuoli, M.
    (2012) Assessing social responsibility: A quantitative analysis of appraisal in BP’s and IKEA’s social reports. Discourse & Communication, 6, 55–81. doi: 10.1177/1750481311427788
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481311427788 [Google Scholar]
  30. 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, 36, 5–38. doi: 10.1177/0075424207311247
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424207311247 [Google Scholar]
  31. Hanzai, E.
    (2014, June 20) The Complete History of Monsanto, “The World’s Most Evil Corporation”. Waking Times. Retrieved fromwww.wakingtimes.com/2014/06/20/complete-history-monsanto-worlds-evil-corporation/
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Hauck, D.
    (2014, January 15) Supreme court hands Monsanto victory over farmers on GMO seed patents, ability to sue. Retrieved fromhttps://www.rt.com/usa/monsanto-patents-sue-farmers-547/
  33. International Agency for Research on Cancer
    International Agency for Research on Cancer (2015) Evaluation of five organophosphate insecticides and herbicides. IARC Monographs, 112. Retrieved fromhttps://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/MonographVolume112.pdf.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Lau, R. & Sears, D. O.
    (Eds.) (1986) Political cognition: The 19th Carnegie Mellon symposium on cognition. Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Lindblom, C. K.
    (1994) The implications of organizational legitimacy for corporate social performance and disclosure. New York: Critical Perspectives on Accounting Conference.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Kreibig, S. D. , Gendolla, G. H. E. , & Scherer, K. R.
    (2010) Psychophysiological effects of emotional responding to goal attainment. Biological Psychology, 84, 474–487. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2009.11.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2009.11.004 [Google Scholar]
  37. Maeseele, P.
    (2015) Risk conflicts, critical discourse analysis and media discourses on GM crops and food. Journalism, 16(2), 278–297. doi: 10.1177/1464884913511568
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884913511568 [Google Scholar]
  38. Malavasi, D.
    (2011) ‘Doing well by doing good’: A comparative analysis of Nokia’s and Ericsson’s corporate social responsibility reports. Linguistic Insights, 134, 193–212.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 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]
  40. McArthur, T.
    (1981) Longman Lexicon of Contemporary English. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Mitchell, D.
    (2014, June 26) Why Monsanto always wins?Fortune. Retrieved fromfortune.com/2014/06/26/monsanto-gmo-crops/
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Parsons, T.
    (1956) Suggestions for a sociological approach to the theory of organizations-I. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1(1), 63–85. doi: 10.2307/2390840
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2390840 [Google Scholar]
  43. 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: 10.1108/13563280510630098
    https://doi.org/10.1108/13563280510630098 [Google Scholar]
  44. Prentice, S.
    (2010) Using automated semantic tagging in critical discourse analysis: A case study on Scottish independence from a Scottish nationalist perspective. Discourse & Society, 21, 405–437. doi: 10.1177/0957926510366198
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926510366198 [Google Scholar]
  45. Rayson, P.
    (2009) Wmatrix: a web-based corpus processing environment [Computer software]. Computing Department, Lancaster University. Retrieved fromucrel.lancs.ac.uk/wmatrix/
  46. Reich, R.
    (1998) The new meaning of corporate social responsibility. California Management Review, 40(2), 8–17. doi: 10.2307/41165930
    https://doi.org/10.2307/41165930 [Google Scholar]
  47. Rosenberg, S. W.
    (1988) Reason, Ideology and Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Thompson, M. , & Kottosova, I.
    (2015, Sept. 22) Volkswagen scandal widens. CNN Money. Retrieved frommoney.cnn.com/2015/09/22/news/vw-recall-diesel/
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Scott, M.
    (2012) WordSmith Tools Version 6 [Lexical Analysis Software].
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Sethi, S. P.
    (1978, Fall), Advocacy advertising – the American experience. California Management Review, 58–64.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Shinkle, G. A. , & Spencer, J. W.
    (2012) The social construction of global corporate citizenship: Sustainability reports of automotive corporations. Journal of World Business, 47, 123–133. doi: 10.1016/j.jwb.2011.02.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2011.02.003 [Google Scholar]
  52. Sperber, D.
    (2001) An evolutionary perspective on testimony and argumentation. Retrieved fromsperber.club.fr/index.htm.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Stark, H.
    (2016, May 26) GMOs and The March Against Monsanto. The Huffington Post. Retrieved fromwww.huffingtonpost.com/harold-stark/gmos-and-the-march-agains_b_10137492.html
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Suchman, M. C.
    (1995) Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Van Dijk, T. A.
    (1991) Racism and the press; critical studies in racism and migration. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. 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]
  57. (2006) Discourse and Manipulation. Discourse & Society, 17(3). 359–383. doi: 10.1177/0957926506060250
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926506060250 [Google Scholar]
  58. (2008) Discourse and Power. New York: Palgrave Macmillan10.1007/978‑1‑137‑07299‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-07299-3 [Google Scholar]
  59. Van Leeuwen, T.
    (2007) Legitimation in discourse and communication. Discourse and Communication, 1, 91–112. doi: 10.1177/1750481307071986
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481307071986 [Google Scholar]
  60. van Leeuween, T.
    (2008) Discourse and Practice. New York: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195323306.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195323306.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  61. Weaver, C. K. , & Motion, J.
    (2002) Sabotage and subterfuge: Public relations, democracy and genetic engineering in New Zealand. Media, Culture & Society, 24, 325–343. doi: 10.1177/016344370202400303
    https://doi.org/10.1177/016344370202400303 [Google Scholar]
  62. Wetherell, M. , & Potter, J.
    (1992) Mapping the language of racism: Discourse and the legitimation of exploitation. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. 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]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/aral.16047.koc
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/aral.16047.koc
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error