The Retreat of Positivistic Corporate Social Responsibility, the Rise of Sensemaking and Reflexive Organization Change, a Rhetoric Analysis: The Case of Volkswagen
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61841/drcqzj38Keywords:
Positivistic CSR, Sensemaking, Reflexing Organization Change, Rhetoric AnalysisAbstract
The world has witnessed corporate scandals of monstrosity magnitude. The Enron Scandal, the Nike Sweatshop scandal and the recent Johnson and Johnson baby talc woes are some dishonours that have reshaped the business world and triggered many to reflect the importance of business ethics. Indeed, supranational and national movements such as the Global Reporting Initiatives have responded to these scandals by imposing stricter corporate reporting to instill greater transparency and responsibility. Ironically, despite unwavering efforts, corporations are still blatantly flouting regulations. The Volkswagen “diesel dupe” crisis is a stark reminder of the inherent weakness of current regulations. Despite Volkswagen’s staunch adherence to those stringent reporting guidelines, they breached ethics to the core, creating a tsunami of vehicle recalls, massive social, political and legal repercussions. Volkswagen perfect smart device is a “creative destruction” that challenged the fundamental usefulness of corporate reporting. Corporate Social Responsibility has evolved tremendously, now taking the form of positivistic reporting patterns. Corporations are measured by their ecological, social and economic performance where they flamboyantly table those data and information to garner stakeholders’ support and legitimacy. However, a pragmatic approach towards corporate social responsibility is self-defeating. It erodes and dilutes a corporation’s ability to make sense, communicate and adapt to their externalities. Instead, corporations boast of their corporate prowess and social performance. Using Volkswagen as a subject, this study exposes the inherent weaknesses of a positivistic corporate reporting approach to social responsibility. A positivistic approach such as this cannot engender a truthful, honest and open posture in business corporations. Instead, this study exemplifies that a meaningful sensemaking corporate social responsibility instill reflexive organization change and moral transpose within corporations. Using a rhetorical study, this paper underlines the rhetorical changes and metaphor in Volkswagen as they experience the crisis to epitomize that reflexive change and moral transpose in them. This study is novel and greatly enhances previous literatures in corporate social responsibility by instilling an appropriate model to underline these momentous changes and moral transformations in Volkswagen.
Downloads
References
1. Hammersley, M., 2018. What is ethnography? Can it survive? Should it?. Ethnography and Education, 13(1), pp.1-17.
2. Bittle, S. and Snider, L., 2013. Examining the Ruggie Report: can voluntary guidelines tame global capitalism?. Critical Criminology, 21(2), pp.177-192.
3. Basu, K. and Palazzo, G., 2008. Corporate social responsibility: A process model of sensemaking. Academy of management review, 33(1), pp.122-136.
4. Carroll, A.B., 1998. The four faces of corporate citizenship. Business and society review, 100(1), pp.1-7.
5. Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F.L. and Rynes, S.L., 2003. Corporate social and financial performance: A meta- analysis. Organization studies, 24(3), pp.403-441.
6. Ramdhony, D. and Oogarah-Hanuman, V., 2012. Improving CSR reporting in Mauritius-accountants' perspectives. World Journal of Social Sciences, 2(4), pp.195-207.
7. MacLean, R. and Rebernak, K., 2007. Closing the credibility gap: The challenges of corporate responsibility reporting. Environmental Quality Management, 16(4), pp.1-6.
8. Ballou, B., Heitger, D. and Landes, C., 2006. The rise of corporate sustainability reporting: A rapidly growing assurance opportunity. Journal of Accountancy, 202(6), pp.65-74.
9. Sims, R.R. and Brinkmann, J., 2003. Business ethics curriculum design: Suggestions and illustrations. Teaching Business Ethics, 7(1), pp.69-86.
10. Safraty, G.A., 2012. Regulating through numbers: A case study of corporate sustainability reporting. Va.
J. Int'l L., 53, p.575.
11. Milne, M.J. and Gray, R., 2013. W (h) ither ecology? The triple bottom line, the global reporting initiative, and corporate sustainability reporting. Journal of business ethics, 118(1), pp.13-29.
12. Vanhamme, J. and Grobben, B., 2009. “Too good to be true!”. The effectiveness of CSR history in countering negative publicity. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(2), p.273.
13. Porter, M.E. and Kramer, M.R., (2006). The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard business review, 84(12), pp.78-92.
14. Elkington, J., 1998. Partnerships from cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st‐century business. Environmental quality management, 8(1), pp.37-51.
15. Palazzo, G. and Scherer, A.G., 2008. Corporate social responsibility, democracy, and the politicization of the corporation. Academy of Management Review, 33(3), pp.773-775.
16. Castelló, I. and Lozano, J.M., 2011. Searching for new forms of legitimacy through corporate responsibility rhetoric. Journal of Business Ethics, 100(1), pp.11-29.
17. Brickson, S.L., 2007. Organizational identity orientation: The genesis of the role of the firm and distinct forms of social value. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), pp.864-888.
18. Bundy, J., Pfarrer, M.D., Short, C.E. and Coombs, W.T., 2017. Crises and crisis management: Integration, interpretation, and research development. Journal of Management, 43(6), pp.1661-1692.
19. Suchman, M.C., 1995. Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of management review, 20(3), pp.571-610.
20. Hannan, M.T. and Carroll, G.R., 1992. Dynamics of organizational populations: Density, legitimation, and competition. Oxford University Press.
21. Tan, S.T., Ho, C.J., How, L.C., Karuppiah, N. and Chua, W., (2018). A Theorisation on the Impact of Responsive Corporate Social Responsibility on the Moral Disposition Change and Reputation of Business Organisations. J. Mgmt. & Sustainability, 8, p.105
22. Gersick, C.J., 1991. Revolutionary change theories: A multilevel exploration of the punctuated equilibrium paradigm. Academy of management review, 16(1), pp.10-36.
23. Boje, D.M., Haley, U.C. and Saylors, R., 2016. Antenarratives of organizational change: The microstoria of Burger King’s storytelling in space, time and strategic context. human relations, 69(2), pp.391-418.
24. Van de Ven, A.H. and Poole, M.S., 1995. Explaining development and change in organizations. Academy of management review, 20(3), pp.510-540.
25. Higgins, C., (2010). Is a responsive business also a responsible business. Journal of business systems, governance and ethics, 5(3), pp.23-32.
26. Cavico, D.F.J. and Mujtaba, B.G., 2016. Volkswagen emissions scandal: a global case study of legal, ethical, and practical consequences and recommendations for sustainable management. Global Journal of Research in Business & Management Vol, 4(2).
27. Freeman, R.E., (2004). The stakeholder approach revisited. Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts-und Unternehmensethik, 5(3), pp.228-254.
28. Frederick, W.C., (1978). From CSR1 to CSR2: The maturing of business-and-society thought. Business & Society, 33(2), pp.150-164.
29. Yin, R.K., 2011. Applications of case study research. sage.
30. Volkswagen Annual Report (2013) available at https://www.volkswagenag.com/en/InvestorRelations/news-and-publications/Annual_Reports.html (last downloaded on 15th September 2019)
31. Volkswagen Annual Report (2014) available at https://www.volkswagenag.com/en/InvestorRelations/news-and-publications/Annual_Reports.html (last downloaded on 15th September 2019)
32. Rhodes, C., 2016. Democratic business ethics: Volkswagen’s emissions scandal and the disruption of corporate sovereignty. Organization Studies, 37(10), pp.1501-1518.
33. Volkswagen emissions scandal: mass lawsuit opens in Germany (The Guardian, 2019), available at https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/sep/30/volkswagen-emissions-scandal-mass-lawsuit-opens-in- germany (last downloaded on 16th September, 2019)
34. Ewing, J., 2015. Volkswagen says 11 million cars worldwide are affected in diesel deception. The New York Times, 22.
35. Jung, J.C. and Sharon, E., 2019. The Volkswagen emissions scandal and its aftermath. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 38(4), pp.6-15.
36. Paicu, C.E. and Frâncu, L.G., 2016. Communication and PR in crisis situations. Theoretical and Applied Economics, 22(3 (608), Autumn), pp.361-370.
37. Browne, J., Nuttall, R. and Stadlen, T., 2016. Connect: How companies succeed by engaging radically with society. Random House.
38. Siano, A., Vollero, A., Conte, F. and Amabile, S., 2017. “More than words”: Expanding the taxonomy of greenwashing after the Volkswagen scandal. Journal of Business Research, 71, pp.27-37.
39. Järvinen, H.M., 2017. Ethics as a skill of a software engineer? European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI), pp.856-862.
40. McNamara, A., Smith, J. and Murphy-Hill, E., 2018, October. Does ACM’s code of ethics change ethical decision making in software development? In Proceedings of the 2018 26th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering (pp. 729-733).
41. Garfinkel, H., 1967. What is ethnomethodology? Studies in ethnomethodology.
42. Weick, K.E., 1995. Sensemaking in organizations (Vol. 3). Sage.
43. Maitlis, S. and Christianson, M., 2014. Sensemaking in organizations: Taking stock and moving forward. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), pp.57-125.
44. Smerek, R.E., 2009. Sensemaking and Sensegiving: Leadership Processes of New College Presidents (Doctoral dissertation).
45. Jordan, M.E., Lanham, H.J., Crabtree, B.F., Nutting, P.A., Miller, W.L., Stange, K.C. and McDaniel, R.R., 2009. The role of conversation in health care interventions: enabling sensemaking and learning. Implementation Science, 4(1), p.15.
46. Christensen, L.T. and Cornelissen, J.P., 2011. Corporate and organizational communication in conversation. Management Communication Quarterly, 25(3), pp.383-414.
47. Rosenberg, M., Confessore, N. and Cadwalladr, C., 2018. How Trump consultants exploited the Facebook data of millions. The New York Times, 17, p.2018.
48. Maitlis, S. and Lawrence, T.B., 2007. Triggers and enablers of sensegiving in organizations. Academy of management Journal, 50(1), pp.57-84.
49. Mir, A., Mir, R. and Mosca, J.B., 2002. The new age employee: An exploration of changing employee- organization relations. Public Personnel Management, 31(2), pp.187-200.
50. Van Maanen, J., 1988. Tales of the field: On writing ethnography. Chicago guides to writing, editing.
51. Cook, S.N. and Yanow, D., 2011. Culture and organizational learning. Journal of Management Inquiry, 20(4), pp.362-379.
52. Maitlis, S. and Sonenshein, S., 2010. Sensemaking in crisis and change: Inspiration and insights from Weick (1988). Journal of management studies, 47(3), pp.551-580.
53. Shell Inc. Annual Report 1998 available at https://www.shell.com/sustainability/sustainability-reporting- and-performance-data/sustainability-
reports/previous/_jcr_content/par/expandablelist/expandablesection_332888471.stream/1519790990923/8c7cf7e 17abcd9772af39994b88ed37a5a86e216/shell-sustainability-report-1998-1997.pdf (last downloaded 10th January 2017).
54. Shaw, W.H. and Barry, V., 2015. Moral issues in business. Cengage Learning.
55. Burgelman, R.A. and Grove, A.S., 1996. Strategic dissonance. California management review, 38(2), pp.8-28.
56. Verwey, P.S., Crystal, A. and Bloom, E., 2002. Chaos and crisis: The Swiss Bank case study.
57. Rutgers, M.R., 1998. Paradigm lost: Crisis as identity of the study of public administration. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 64(4), pp.553-564.
58. Murphy, P. and Dunn, P., 2012. Senior leadership in times of crisis. Noetic Group Pty Limited.
59. Smith, D. and Elliott, D., 2007. Exploring the barriers to learning from crisis: Organizational learning and crisis. Management Learning, 38(5), pp.519-538.
60. Carmeli, A. and Schaubroeck, J., 2008. Organisational crisis-preparedness: The importance of learning from failures. Long range planning, 41(2), pp.177-196.
61. Goldkuhl, G., 2012. Pragmatism vs interpretivism in qualitative information systems research. European journal of information systems, 21(2), pp.135-146.
62. Trauth, E.M., 2001. The choice of qualitative methods in IS research. In Qualitative research in IS: Issues and trends (pp. 1-19). IGI Global.
63. Scotland, J., 2012. Exploring the philosophical underpinnings of research: Relating ontology and epistemology to the methodology and methods of the scientific, interpretive, and critical research paradigms. English language teaching, 5(9), pp.9-16.
64. Myers, M.D., 1995. Dialectical hermeneutics: a theoretical framework for the implementation of information systems. Information systems journal, 5(1), pp.51-70.
65. Williamson, K., 2006. Research in constructivist frameworks using ethnographic techniques. Library trends, 55(1), pp.83-101.
66. Grint, K. and Case, P., 1998. The violent rhetoric of re‐engineering: management consultancy on the offensive. Journal of Management Studies, 35(5), pp.557-577.
67. Finstad, N., 1998. The rhetoric of organizational change. Human Relations, 51(6), pp.717-739.
68. Abrahamson, E. and Amir, E., 1996. The information content of the president's letter to shareholders. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 23(8), pp.1157-1182.
69. Weick, K.E., Sutcliffe, K.M. and Obstfeld, D., 2005. Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization science, 16(4), pp.409-421.
70. Hedberg, B. L. T. (1981). ‘How organizations learn and unlearn.’ In P. C. Nystrom and W. H. Starbuck (eds.), Handbook of Organizational Design, Vol. 1. New York: Oxford University Press, 3-27
71. Easterby-Smith, M., Golden-Biddle, K. and Locke, K., 1991. Working with pluralism: Determining quality in qualitative research.
72. Clarke, V., Braun, V. and Hayfield, N., 2015. Thematic analysis. Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods, pp.222-248.
73. Kohut, G.F. and Segars, A.H., 1992. The president's letter to stockholders: An examination of corporate communication strategy. The Journal of Business Communication (1973), 29(1), pp.7-21.
74. Hooghiemstra, R., 2010. Letters to the shareholders: A content analysis comparison of letters written by CEOs in the United States and Japan. The international journal of accounting, 45(3), pp.275-300.
75. Bettman, J.R. and Weitz, B.A., 1983. Attributions in the board room: Causal reasoning in corporate annual reports. Administrative science quarterly, pp.165-183.
76. Smith, M. and Taffler, R.J., 2000. The chairman’s statement‐A content analysis of discretionary narrative disclosures. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal.
77. Carley, K., 1993. Coding choices for textual analysis: A comparison of content analysis and map analysis. Sociological methodology, pp.75-126.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
- The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Notices:
You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation .
No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.
