How do companies persuade with their sustainability reports?
A rhetorical discourse analysis in the chemical industry
Luigia Alexandra D’Aloè
200350420 | S3784037
l.a.d’aloe’2@newcastle.ac.uk | l.a.daloe@student.rug.nl
Dual Award Dissertation
MSc. Advanced International Business Management and Marketing
Newcastle University | University of Groningen
Newcastle University Business School | Faculty of Economics and Business
Supervisors
Dr. I. Munro (Newcastle University) Dr. M.M. Wilhelm (University of Groningen)
Abstract
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ... 3
2. Literature Review ... 5
2.1. Sustainability disclosure and corporate narratives ... 5
2.2. Rhetorical discourse analysis ... 8
3. Methodology ... 11
3.1. Sample selection ... 11
3.2. Rhetorical Analysis and Interpretation ... 12
4. Findings ... 14
4.1. Sustainability at Firmenich, Syngenta and Mitsubishi ... 14
4.1.1. Firmenich ... 14
4.1.2. Syngenta ... 15
4.1.3. Mitsubishi Chemical Corporation ... 17
4.1.4. Themes identified ... 18
5. Companies use of rhetoric ... 20
5.1. Firmenich ... 20
5.1.1 Ethos, in combination with logos ... 20
5.1.2. Pathos ... 23
5.2. Syngenta ... 26
5.2.1. Ethos, in combination with logos ... 26
5.2.2. Pathos ... 28
5.3. Mitsubishi Chemical Corporation ... 30
5.3.1. Prevalence of logos, with ethos and pathos ... 30
6. Cross-case analysis ... 34
7. Discussion ... 38
8. Limitations ... 42
1. Introduction
Over the past forty years, there has been a surge in companies voluntarily reporting on activities that go beyond purely financial information. More precisely, in their communication to stakeholders, companies have now included issues concerning their wider business environment such as the social and environmental impacts, responsibilities and mitigation activities they undertake (Bateman, Blanco, Sheffi, 2017; Blowfield and Murray, 2019). These efforts are in line with mounting concerns involving the negative impact that business has on the environment and society in terms of climate change and inequality, which is threatening the survival of current and future generations. (Blowfield and Murray, 2019). To address these issues, companies, NGOs and international organizations have been working together to define areas in which business can contribute to a sustainable development, which is defined as ‘development that meets the needs of the current generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (Brundtland, 1987: 24). For instance, the United Nation (2015) has issued the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, proposing seventeen integrated goals for the year 2030, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and businesses, together with governments and civil societies, have been explicitly addressed to commit to these goals and to collaborate towards a safe, just and sustainable future (United Nations, 2015).
To communicate their contribution to sustainability and the SDGs, the traditional annual reports have now been complemented with other communication media such as websites, sustainability reports and social media. In the case of sustainability reports, these are not prepared exclusively by adopting traditional accounting methods as numerical figures and calculations, but also through narratives and visuals that companies use to convince readers (Hossain, 2017). In this respect, as observed by Itanen (2011), the choice of vocabulary, metaphors, and images have a strong influence on the receivers, as the language used to communicate sustainable activities shapes the interpretations that readers will draw on the nature of these activities (Tengblad and Ohlsson 2010).
2017) as the ways in which companies communicate also influences the discourse around sustainability and what readers are convinced of. Yet, only a few authors have followed this direction and have begun analyzing how companies construct their messages and which persuasive strategies (or rhetoric) they use in their communication with stakeholders. However, these studies consider either environmental OR social issues exclusively - hence they do not consider sustainability as a whole (Itanen, 2011, Reyes, 2013) - or remain focused on narrow or specific issues, such as Hossain, Ahmad, and Siraij (2017) who investigate poverty-related narratives exclusively, or Devin (2014) who focuses on how rhetorical strategies are related to institutional pressures.
Here is where this study is situated, as it aims to identify how chemical companies use persuasion in their sustainability reports. Three companies are selected to investigate how they employ rhetorical appeals to persuade readers and gain trust regarding their sustainability discourses. By doing so, this study will enrich the scarce literature on the rhetorical strategies of companies and contribute to studies investigating how companies communicate about sustainable issues. Since so far, the communication of companies with respect to sustainability has usually been examined by focusing on narrow issues or through ultimately resorting to quantitative techniques (Tregidga, Milne and Lehman, 2012), this study adopts a qualitative approach that considers the concept of sustainability as a whole, hence providing a complete view of how company use rhetoric to frame sustainability.
Additionally, this study offers an essential contribution to the corporate communication literature by showing how specific persuasive strategies may be more effective than others in conveying a particular image and facilitating the communication of the message that the company constructs. Ultimately, this study concludes that adopting some strategies while avoiding others contributes to making the company’s reports more convincing. These findings can also help companies improve their reports to more effectively persuade their stakeholders and avoid using strategies that may produce unwanted results.
2. Literature Review
2.1. Sustainability disclosure and corporate narratives
As mentioned in the introduction, there exist several studies analyzing companies reports or other corporate communication channels to investigate their narratives, with a focus on (1) why companies disclose their sustainability and/or on (2) what they disclose.
To the first group belongs a series of studies investigating the role of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) communication, hence what motivates companies to disclose social and environmental information. For instance, Du et al. (2010) have found that companies disclose their sustainable practices and commitment to build corporate image and to strengthen stakeholder–company relationships. More comprehensively, Ali, Frynas and Mahmood (2017) reviewed 76 empirical research articles to identify the factors that motivate companies to disclose their sustainability practices and found that both firm characteristic as well as the external environment influence the disclosure. In specific, among firm characteristic the body of research suggests that size, profitability, industry sector and corporate governance mechanisms influence disclosure, while external factors such the social, political and cultural environment also play a role. Additionally, Bateman et al. (2017) mention shareholder pressure, competition, risk mitigation and multi-stakeholders public agreements as determinants. Multi-stakeholders public agreements are referred to as the social, economic and environmental commitment by a firm through the engagement of public, private and nongovernmental organizations’ concerns, in which companies are committing to measure, disclose and ultimately make progress on defined issues (Bateman et al., 2017). The WBCSD is a type of multi-stakeholders public agreement, as its member firms are committed to work toward a sustainable future by partnering with the UN and other organizations to reach the SDGs.
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) framework, considered the leading framework for sustainability reporting (Avrampou et al., 2019; Jones, Hillier, and Comfort, 2016), enabling companies to track their economic, social and environmental performance (Triple Bottom Line) over time. Through the GRI framework, these studies have assessed the level of non-financial information disclosed in companies’ reports particularly within industries or countries. For instance, Nobanee and Ellili (2016) have found an overall low level of sustainability disclosure within the banking sector in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), which resonate with the findings of Avrampou et al., (2019) who have found a low level of disclosure concerning the SDGs among European banks. At the country level, Tsalis et al. (2020) have found a low level of disclosure concerning sustainability among Greek companies.
The Triple Bottom Line approach has also been used in studies investigating the quality of corporate communication, as the aim of this body of research is to assess if reports are consistent with communicating the economic, environmental and social dimensions of sustainability (Ching, Gerab and Toste, 2013). Besides, quantity and quality are usually assessed together, as these studies are typically carried out through content analysis and through multidimensional constructs or scoring schemes (Ching et al., 2013; Kim and Lyon, 2015; Tsalis, et al. 2020). To this current belong studies investigating the practice of “greenwashing”, where companies exaggerate their environmental accomplishments through their information disclosure strategies (Nobanee and Ellili, 2016).
Thus, previous research focused on ‘what’ is disclosed on a particular issue or on sustainability in general, as authors have tried to develop methods to assess the degree and the quality of disclosure of companies’ reports. However, as noted by Tregidga et al. (2012) in this stream of research issues are often addressed using quantitative surrogates. Furthermore, corporate narrative researchers have highlighted “the need for going one step ahead”, that is, rather than focusing only on ‘what’ companies disclose, future research should also explore ‘how’ particular issues are disclosed (Hossain, 2017:3). This is because language is not simply used to inform but also to criticize, entertain or to persuade an audience, hence companies drafting reports do so with the intention to disclose information but also to persuade the audience to accept the view that they are constructing (Itanen, 2011).
profitability and competitiveness of firms; the second portraying companies as caring entities embedded in their society that embrace responsibilities beyond business as usual; the third depicting companies sharing responsibilities with other social actors through partnerships and collaboration. Similarly, Higgins and Walker (2012) found that companies frame sustainability as “business-friendly” or as a “journey”. Moreover, few authors have examined different corporate communication channels to gain insight on how companies communicate with respect to sustainability. Through a semiotic analysis Yusoff & Lehman (2009) found that the tones, orientations, and patterns of environmental disclosures of Australian and Malaysian companies reveal the use of environmental information as a strategic mechanism towards enhancing good corporate reputation. Similarly, to identify the similarities and differences in CSR communication among Fortune 500 companies, O’Connor and Schumate (2010) analyzed their CEO rationale statement and found that these companies mimic each other in their CSR communication, relying on strategically ambiguous language and using the pronoun “we” to emphasize the connection among stakeholders with potentially conflicting interests. At the industry level, O’Connor and Gronewold (2013) adopted a dual perspective on competitive advantage and institutional logics in the analysis of the environmental performance sections in the CSR reports of petroleum refining companies. They found use of competitive advantage language to depict their CSR as superior to their competitors, while institutional language is used to describe regulations, industry standards and the type of initiative or partnership. In the mining industry instead, Onn and Woodley (2014) found through discourse analysis that the industry is prevalently focused in communicating how the sustainability agenda can co-exist with traditional profitability. With a narrower focus, Reyes (2014) investigates the report of Ford and General Motors to analyze how they frame their environmental performance and how they define sustainability, showing how the language of sustainable development is used to promote “Business as Usual” while convincing stakeholders that that is the ‘true’ way to achieve sustainability.
focuses on appeals (logos, pathos, ethos), rhetorical topoi (as puns and proverbs), tropes and figures (metaphor, metonymy etc.) that are present in texts (Andrus, 2012) and how they influence the way the audience thinks, feels or acts (Higgins and Walker, 2012). This is particularly relevant since, as observed by Tengblad and Ohlsson (2010), the language that corporations adopt when disclosing their socially responsible activities inevitably shapes the interpretations of the readers, as the choice of vocabulary, metaphors, and images have a strong influence on what the receiver may perceive. Moreover, since reports are prepared with the intent of influencing the recipients and their behavior, they inevitably make use of persuasive appeals such as logos, ethos and pathos (Higgins and Walker, 2012). Besides, as companies report are drafted to present a company in a positive light, gaining insight into how companies do so may guide future research to assess not only what strategies are more successful and for what purpose, but also what strategies may be self-defeating.
2.2. Rhetorical discourse analysis
understanding of corporations use language to negotiate their relationship with stakeholders and society (O’Connor and Ihlen, 2018) and how persuasive arguments facilitate the acceptance or reception of certain discourses (Higgins and Walker, 2012).
As observed by Hossain (2017) studies that rely on Aristotle’s framework to identify the persuasive strategies used by companies in their sustainability reports are largely absent in the corporate narrative research, although, as acknowledged by Tregidga et al. (2012: 224), interpretive and qualitative approaches to studying organizational reporting and communication are by no means new. Nevertheless, despite the growing literature, research in this field is still lacking (especially when compared to its quantitative counterparts) and, where it has been undertaken, it tends to be focused on a small number of areas, as mentioned in the introduction. Furthermore, the studies previously mentioned analyze only small portions of texts, such as CEO letters or the sustainability section in the annual report, hence their picture may not be complete.
To the best of the researcher’s knowledge, Higgins and Walker (2012) alone adopt a more comprehensive approach, showing how appeals to ethos, logos, and pathos help convey the metaphors of journey, balance and ‘triple bottom line’ in three New Zealand companies belonging to three different sectors. Nonetheless, the scope of the research is to identify how rhetorical appeals “activate ‘middle ground’ discourses of business and sustainability that preserve the social relations and structures of contemporary capitalism”, and not specifically to investigate how companies use rhetorical strategies (Higgins and Walker, 2012). Hence this is where this study takes place, aiming at identifying the rhetorical strategies adopted by chemical companies to disclose sustainability-related issues, including the SDGs. The research question that follows is therefore: “How do companies make use of rhetoric in their sustainability report and to convey what message?”. Consequently, while previous research focused only on why or what companies disclose about sustainability, this research also focuses on how companies communicate on sustainable issues, allowing to gain insights into how companies frame sustainability and how rhetorical strategies facilitate the communication of the company’s view, through persuasion.
communication of some messages may fail and other succeed and why the reports of some companies may sound more “convincing” than others.
Furthermore, O’Connor and Gronewold (2013) and O’Connor and Ihlen (2018) have pointed out the necessity of analyzing the sustainability language of companies in different industries to begin the process of cross-industry comparison. Hence, this paper sets out to do so, by providing insights into how chemical companies communicate about sustainable issues. Besides, as research on rhetorical strategies is still lacking or is narrowly focused, by adopting a holistic approach to sustainability that does not focus on either environmental or social issues, this study allows to gain a more comprehensive picture of how companies disclose sustainability-related issues. This is particularly relevant since the issue of “sustainable development” is holistic in nature, as social and environmental issues are intertwined, hence both must be considered when investigating companies’ commitment toward a sustainable future. Furthermore, the SDGs themselves are integrated with each other, hence, social and environmental issues should be considered as a whole and not individually as previous research has done.
3. Methodology
To answer to the research question: “How do companies make use of rhetoric in their sustainability report and to convey what message?” this works relies on rhetorical discourse analysis.
3.1. Sample selection
The companies were selected from the WBCSD, since its members explicitly committed to adopt business approaches that would accelerate the transition to a sustainable future, aligning their operations to the SDGs. Hence, in their reports, they ought to communicate this commitment. The WBCS comprises 195 companies belonging to 25 sectors, including food and beverages, healthcare products, energy, chemicals and automotive. To conduct the analysis, the chemical sector was chosen for multiple reasons.
Firstly, as reported by Jose and Lee (2007), there is a direct relationship between the type of industry in which a company operates and environmental reporting. Particularly, companies that operate in environmentally sensitive industries such as automobile, metals and other manufacturing, chemicals, forest and paper products are more inclined to publish CSR reports. Secondly, virtually every other business, products and services are dependent on the chemical industry in today’s world, hence it has a prominent role in the current economy (WBCSD, 2018). Thirdly, due to their environmental impact, companies in the chemical sector are expected to manage their operational footprint more effectively and to leverage experience and innovation ‘to unlock new business opportunities that are aligned with the SDGs’ (WBCSD, 2018: 9). Furthermore, with respect to rhetoric, several authors have pointed out that even within a highly constrained operating environment, rhetorical appeals can be used in a creative way to influence discourses (Lucaites, Condit and Caudill, 1999, Ihlen, 2011; Jasinski, 2001).
(Mapurung, Correia and Holanda, 2015). However, MNEs may show different tendencies, due to the diversity among the many institutional environments that they are exposed to and the unique sets of arrangements that each unit faces (Kostova, Roth and Dacin, 2008). As such, the ways in which MNEs report on sustainability may vary significantly also within the same industry or the same country, offering interesting insights into how these companies frame their sustainability commitment and disclose their activities. Consistently, the analysis was restricted to the three MNEs, keeping the sample small to allow for greater detail in the analysis of the language used in reports. This is consistent with the methodology used by other researchers (Devin, 2014; Itanen, 2011; Higgins and Walker, 2012; Reyes, 2013), as insights can be gained already from a rather small set of data when studying the language in texts. The three selected companies for this study are Firmenich SA (CH), Syngenta AG (CH) and Mitsubishi Chemical (JPN). The reports analyzed cover the timeframe from 2017 to 2019, since the SDGs were introduced in 2016 hence companies were expected to commence disclosing their progress on the goals the following year.
3.2. Rhetorical Analysis and Interpretation
As Aristotle himself did not specify particular procedures for the analysis of persuasive communication, this study follows Devin (2014) and Hossain et al. (2017), who adopted Aristotle’s rhetoric framework as used by Higgins and Walker (2012). Table 3.1 summarizes the different appeal (logos, pathos and ethos) and the examples of persuasive techniques present in texts referring to a specific appeal. The first appeal (logos) stresses reasoning and logic and it is manifested through claims, argumentation, warrants and justifications, but also data such as numerical or graphs. The second strategy (pathos) appeals to the reader’s emotions and is carried out through metaphors, use of emotive language or through first person narratives (Devin, 2014). Other techniques such as self-promotion, deference, expertise, self-criticism or consistency are used instead to appeal to credibility (ethos), to enhance the trustworthiness of the speaker and emphasize its commitment (Higgins and Walker, 2012).
two phases were combined to identify how the rhetorical appeals worked to influence the reader to accept the particular discourse of sustainable development that the company constructed.
Finally, a cross-case analysis was performed to highlight similarities and differences among the companies’ persuasive strategies, and to assess what strategies appear to be more successful in enhancing the company’s commitment, helping the report sound more convincing and the company appear trustworthy.
4. Findings
This section is divided into three parts. The first section introduces the three case companies and analyzes how each company frames sustainability, identifying their approach to sustainable development as well as potential incongruences or inconsistencies within the report of each company. The main findings are summarized in a table at the end of each company’s section. This analysis shows that these companies approach to sustainability could be classified along four main themes, which have been named as follows: sustainability function; sustainability framing; attitude to sustainability; and approach to regulations. These are discussed more in detail in paragraph 4.1.4. The second section is more focused on rhetorical appeals, as it illustrates the way in which each company makes use of persuasion. Finally, the third section presents the result of the cross-case analysis, in which the main findings arising from comparing how these companies use rhetoric are discussed.
4.1. Sustainability at Firmenich, Syngenta and Mitsubishi 4.1.1. Firmenich
Firmenich is a family-owned company founded in 1985 in Switzerland. It is the world’s largest privately-owned fragrance and flavor house and it operates in more than fifty countries worldwide. Its reports emphasize that, as a business-to-business company, their focus is on helping “customer achieve their goals and satisfy consumer’s demand for more sustainable products” (Firmenich, 2019: 12). Over time, the company has broadened its definition of stakeholders to include communities and the planet, although when issues are discussed more in detail, the primary focus on satisfying customers remains evident. For example, in 2019 the company claims that the new fragrances they developed “meet all the many claims expected from conscious consumers, such as 100% natural, natural origin, biodegradable, fragrance made with recognizable and known origin of ingredients" (Firmenich, 2019: 48). However, in this case, what is emphasized are not the benefit for communities and the planet but rather the how the company meets customers’ preferences.
sustainability is good for business, which resonates with the “business case” for sustainability. By contrast, the reports of 2018 and 2019 carefully avoid delivering the image of sustainability as linked to the company’s profitability, but rather stress the idea that Firmenich has the potential to significantly contribute to a sustainable future through its expertise. In these reports, Firmenich emphasizes its potential to add value to society and the environment and contribute to the SDGs thanks to its responsible sourcing, production and sale of sustainable products. Nonetheless, these are still permeated by the idea that Firmenich must engage in sustainability if it wants to “protect its reputation as a global leader” in its industry (Firmenich, 2019: 20). Hence, although profitability is not explicitly mentioned, these reports still convey a view of sustainability as instrumental to the company’s success.
Furthermore, in Firmenich’s reports, the discourse on sustainable development is conveyed as to convince readers of the company’s long commitment to sustainability, a “Journey” that started “122 years ago, [and] has achieved tangible change for the long-term interests of employees, local communities, customers, and the environment.” (Firmenich, 2017: 9). This idea of journey is persistent throughout the years, and it is recurrently emphasized, especially in the 2019 report.
Finally, it appears that Firmenich wants to persuade readers that the company does not simply follow the legal requirements when it comes to sustainability, but instead takes further actions: “Our health and safety (H&S) management system goes beyond local and international regulatory requirements and includes employees and partners” (Firmenich, 2019: 79).
4.1.2. Syngenta
“sharing”, in the sense that the company gives out its know-how and share its expertise to contribute to sustainability.
Furthermore, Syngenta emphasizes that engaging in sustainable practices helps to form partnerships and attract customers and talents, hence makes sense for business, and is necessary for the long-term sustainability of its business. In this way, Syngenta presents sustainability as a prerequisite for its business continuity, while emphasizing that this has its benefits not only for the firm but also for stakeholders and society at large. This win-win approach is emphasized especially in the 2019 report, where Syngenta expresses its confidence in accelerating “the delivery of innovations that have a positive, lasting impact on farming, the food value chain and nature” and goes on by saying that “that’s good for our business – and good for our planet." (Syngenta, 2019: 9). Similarly, when introducing its definition of sustainable agriculture, Syngenta expresses how an agriculture that benefits farmers, society and nature today and in the future “makes sense for the environment and our business” (Syngenta, 2019: 8). Through these words, it appears that Syngenta wants to reassure the reader that investing in sustainability is not only good per se, but also profitable for the firm – which is what matters for Syngenta’s survival.
Moreover, investments in sustainability are stressed for their long-term horizon as opposed to short term profitability when Syngenta introduces its “Good Growth Plan”, defining six commitments in areas where improvement is necessary, according to the firm, to secure the future of agriculture and the planet’s ecosystems. This “Good Growth Plan” is framed as a journey in which the company has learned “some very important lessons that will now shape the next evolution of the plan” (Syngenta, 2019: 21); hence this journey toward sustainability will continue through the next “Good Growth Plan” that will be announced in the 2020 report.
4.1.3. Mitsubishi Chemical Corporation
Mitsubishi Chemical Corporation (MCC) is the largest chemical corporation in Japan formed in 2017 by the fusion of Mitsubishi Chemical, Plastics and Rayon. Among its values, the company enlists sustainability, health and comfort, and striving for the well-being of people, society and planet Earth. These values are embedded in the concept of KAITEKI, coined by the Mitsubishi Chemical Holdings Corporation (MCHC) Group, as KAITEKI refers to “the sustainable well-being of people, society and our planet Earth” (Mitsubishi, 2019: 4).
Following KAITEKI, the company aims to contribute broadly to environmental and social sustainability through its business. In the reports, this concept and that of sustainability in general are often associated with words such as “road” “path” or “way”, to emphasize the commitment to a goal. Examples are the following expressions: “the road toward that goal”; “the path from the starting point to the goal”; “one step at a time”; “step by step” “our focus will keep us from losing our way no matter how the path we walk changes” (Mitsubishi, 2018, 2019: 3). Interestingly, MCC affirms that its starting point - providing solutions through chemistry-based products and services, while contributing to environmental and social sustainability through its business – is also its ultimate goal.
Moreover, MCC is confident in defining itself as a “good corporate citizen” that works to meet the demands and expectations of society and communities (Mitsubishi, 2018: 75) or as a company that conducts “corporate citizenship activities” to create an inclusive society, protecting the global environment and fostering the development of the next generation (Mitsubishi, 2018: 83) although it does not provide concrete evidence for this claim but merely expresses its commitment. Besides, while MCC makes considerable effort to frame its view of sustainability as society-centered, from the company’s language it still permeates the idea that sustainability is profitable for the firm, and for this reason it must be pursued. For instance, MCC says that “by providing solutions to issues related to people, society and the Earth” the company is accelerating the growth of its businesses. Hence a firm-focus is still present, despite the company’s attempt to shift the attention to the benefits for society.
labor, with the intent of delivering the idea that the company is doing something extraordinary. However, although presented as such, these policies are not going beyond what is required by law.
4.1.4. Themes identified
From this analysis it emerges that all three companies are keen to inform readers of the role that sustainability plays for the firm and how it creates (monetary) value for their business, although Firmenich makes some attempt to shift the focus from the firm to the benefits that its involvement in sustainability has for society (Theme 1).
Furthermore, all companies frame sustainability as a sort of “journey” or “path” that they have embarked on (Theme 2), and this is consistent with the findings of Higgins & Walker (2012) although this journey has a slightly different meaning for each company. For instance, Firmenich sees sustainability as a journey towards improvement, although a clear aim is not specified. Syngenta also does not specify its goal, and it only refers to “a journey” that leads to sustainability, while MCC considers KAITEKI (its philosophy of contributing broadly to environmental and social sustainability through its business) the goal as well as the starting point. Nevertheless, it is Firmenich that adopts this metaphor more frequently, emphasizing the length of the journey and how the company has been committed to sustainability all along the way.
Moreover, all companies try to communicate their role in contributing to a sustainable future, as a “corporate citizen” or by caring for society and the planet (Theme 3). However, while the other two companies are more inclined to solely express their contribution to sustainability, Firmenich puts a great effort into emphasizing how it can “lead” or “guide” the industry and society toward a sustainable future. Furthermore, Syngenta stresses on helping communities or caring for people and the environment, and Firmenich as well, albeit in fewer occasions. Mitsubishi too mentions care through its definition of responsible care, although the emphasis here is on the voluntary nature of the company’s commitment rather than on the act of helping or caring.
Theme 1: Function Theme 2: Framing Theme 3: Attitude Theme 4: Regulations Firmenich Instrumental to
Firmenich’s success; Business case for sustainability “Sustainability as a journey towards improvement and learning” Leading role in adding value to society through its business & its expertise; “taking care of our planet”
“Going beyond local and international regulatory requirements”
Syngenta Attracts customers, partnerships and talents; is required for long-term business sustainability; “Good for business and good for the planet”
“Syngenta is on a journey toward sustainability”; long-term as opposed to short term profitability “Helping farmers to sustainably feed the world”; Caring and Sharing
“Going beyond regulatory compliance”
Mitsubishi
(MCC) Sustainability as business growth’s accelerator; create new highly profitable businesses KAITEKI as road/path of sustainability “Good corporate citizen”; Responsible Care; emphasis on voluntariness Not mentioning regulations
5. Companies use of rhetoric 5.1. Firmenich
5.1.1 Ethos, in combination with logos
Due to the nature of the report to inform stakeholders of the company’s action, Firmenich certainly relies on logos in the form of claims, argumentations, examples and data when communicating about sustainability. For instance, the company appeals to logos to justify its focus on a handful of SDGs: “Although we value all SDGs, we focus on those that are most relevant to our business and fundamentals” (Firmenich, 2019: 12). The company thus appeals to reasoning, to convince the audience that its choice is sound and consistent with the company’s operations. In this way, the appeal to logos is instrumental to enhance the company’s credibility, which refers to ethos. Consequently, the consistency between the company’s strategy and the SDGs is often emphasized. For example: “Our ambitious strategy actively supports the following goals: decent work and economic growth (SDG 8), and peace, justice and strong institutions (SDG 16)” (Firmenich, 2017: 11).
Logos is also used to argument the important contribution that Firmenich makes to the SDGs to persuade the reader of the leading role that the firm has: “We have role to play in transforming the food system by making dietary shifts a reality while supporting a healthy planet through sustainable use of ecosystems (SDG 15)” (Firmenich, 2019: 12) or “In a spirit of partnership, we are committed to create a new generation of leaders inspired by the SDGs” (Firmenich, 2019: 12).
Besides, Firmenich appeals to logos also through warrants and justification, mostly to inform the reader that some targets have not been met. For instance, in 2019 it warrants that the “Progress against SDG61 is not on track" (Firmenich, 2019: 52). Furthermore, while in previous years the progress on the goals was more often assessed through claims or warrants alone, hence no strong evidence was provided, the report of 2019 shows a greater extent of logos in the form of data, which contributes to reinforcing the credibility of the company’s claims, thus appealing to ethos. Furthermore, when discussing about water conservation, Firmenich warrants that it will meet the 2020 target with a two-year delay. These warrants are usually accompanied by a claim that emphasizes the company’s commitment despite the shortcomings or by the promise to succeed in the future, which is an appeal to ethos. For instance, the previous warrant is followed by this sentence “this will not prevent us from setting ambitious future targets next year, and communicating on all targets until they are achieved"
(Firmenich, 2019: 64). In this way, the appeal to ethos persuades readers that the company will maintain its promise in the future and will set even more stringent targets.
This combination of logos and ethos is persistent throughout the reports of Firmenich and it is used to achieve different outcomes that are functional in increasing the company credibility and trustworthiness in the eyes of the reader. For instance, claims and evidences (appeal to logos) are often used to show consistency (appeal to ethos), to convince the readers about the continuous commitment of the company to sustainability. An example is the following claim: “We have been committed to protecting biodiversity since 2008, partnering with international organizations including the Union for Ethical BioTrade (UEBT). We have
continuously strengthened our commitments and further embedded them in our operations”
(Firmenich, 2019: 69). A further example is provided in Table 5.1.
Secondly, logos is commonly associated to self-promotion, in that Firmenich makes claims or uses evidence of the company’s activities to promote itself or its initiatives. This is shown in this abstract: “In 2015, in alignment with our goal to reduce our emissions and ahead of the Montreal Protocol, we decided to eliminate the use of ozone-depleting refrigerant gases at our manufacturing sites by 2020, even though it represented a very small percentage of our emissions" (Firmenich, 2019: 62). Here the company’s communicative intent is to put itself in a positive light by stressing on the fact that it committed to eliminate the use of ozone-depleting refrigerant gases, despite this represented a very small percentage of its emissions. Hence, Firmenich is saying is that its sustainability dedication does not stop at areas in which the company has the greatest impact, but it is directed also toward activities that do not constitute a significant treat to a sustainable future.
the reader is certainly persuaded to believe that the company is strongly committed to sustainability due to the appeal to self-promotion in applying the “strictest” standards available.
A further appeal to self-promotion is carried out through the choice of words such as ‘pioneering’, ‘world-class’, ‘first/leader in the industry’, as the company intention is to highlight its excellence, setting itself apart from other companies in the industry. An example is the following: “In FY16, we were the first in our industry to join the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) Supply Chain program to support our suppliers’ climate and water disclosure through CDP” (Firmenich, 2017: 14). Other examples can also be found in Table 5.1 (page 25). Self-promotion is also used in combination with the inclination or promise to succeed, as it works to convince the readers of the company’s commitment, portraying Firmenich as a leader in sustainability. This combination is often found with claims about the future, the company’s vision or mission. For example: "Looking towards the future, our vision is to be the most responsible family-owned company, actively tackling today’s climate urgency, as well as conscious consumers’ expectations for healthy, ethical and traceable products" (Firmenich, 2019: 8). Here and in the other examples showed in Table 5.1, the appeal to ethos is functional to persuade readers of the leading role that the company can have in the field of sustainability.
Moreover, Firmenich makes extensive use of ethos to promote its excellence by leveraging its expertise, which is somewhat validated by awards or testimonies from third parties. The appeal to qualifications and external judgments helps in persuading the reader to see the company as trustworthy, which facilitates the acceptability of the message that Firmenich plays a prominent role in leading toward a sustainable future as it is strongly committed to sustainability (Theme 3). This combination of logos and ethos is probably the most efficient in persuading readers of Firmenich’s credibility, as the third party’s validation contributes to reinforce the idea of the company being trustworthy. An examples of how the company’s qualifications are emphasized in its claims is the following: "Our Naturals Center of Excellence in Grasse has been recognized for its continuous efforts towards biodiversity, having been audited against the Ethical BioTrade Standard managed by the Union for Ethical Biotrade" (Firmenich, 2018: 45). This appeal to third-party judgments or qualifications (such as awards) is intertwined with self-promotion, as the company often resort to these expedients in order to emphasize its success.
(Firmenich, 2019: 89). Here the company is promoting its consistency as well as its expertise by emphasizing its “long history” and its “outstanding” quality. Nonetheless, when claiming that it exceeds customers’ requirements and expectations it does not provide validation in term of qualifications or awards, nor it shows data that can substantiate this claim.
5.1.2. Pathos
While in 2018 Firmenich relied significantly on pathos through extensive use of narrative speech or emotive language, the testimony of employees or other individuals external to the firm is absent in 2019. In 2017 and 2018 the use of the first-person narrative is employed to achieve multiple results that pertains to ethos appeals: highlight the company’s commitment, promote the company’ success and its initiatives, stress on its expertise and/or promote the company’s workplace. Therefore, the appeal to pathos through the first-person narrative is in fact used by Firmenich as an instrument to enhance its credibility, hence as an appeal to ethos.
Furthermore, narrative speech from Firmenich’s partners is also used as an appeal to self-promotion, with the intent of persuading the reader to see the company as being trustworthy in its commitment to sustainability. For example, the Chief Innovation Officer of EDGE (the leading global assessment methodology and business certification standard for gender equality) promotes the company’s great commitment to gender equality by saying that “Firmenich has put a stake in the ground, taking a leadership role in the industry, by going after 100% gender equality in their workplace” (Firmenich, 2018: 16). In this case, the claim made in 2018 is a promise to succeed which was validated by the obtainment of the EDGE certification (Economic Dividends for Gender Equality) in 2019.
2019: 11). Hence emotive language such as “living our purpose for more positive impact” is used to persuade the audience in accepting the idea that, in fact, the SDG represent an opportunity for Firmenich. By emphasizing the “positive impact” which represents Firmenich’s purpose and on the “inclusive business models”, the audience is given the idea that this is not only beneficial for the firm but also for others (Theme 1). However, the claim does not specify what it is meant by “positive impact” nor who these “others” may be.
Finally, a further appeal to pathos in Firmenich’s reports pertains to the use of metaphors. Metaphors are usually indicative of emotional appeal, however, Firmenich uses them to achieve purposes related to ethos appeals. The metaphor of journey, for instance, is used several times with respect to the sustainability commitment of Firmenich and it is used both to trigger emotions as well as to enhance credibility, which facilitates the acceptability of its framing of sustainability (Theme 2). For instance, in 2018 the company refers to sustainability through the metaphor of journey, adopting emotive language: “the idea that sustainability is a journey towards improvement and learning is at the heart of everything we
do as we seek to add value to society and the environment” (Firmenich, 2018: 13). Here the
company emphasizes the importance of sustainability for Firmenich, stressing on its commitment and its potential to add value (through its products), but it is through the emotional appeal that the acceptability of this message is made possible, since the reader is persuaded that Firmenich has sustainability at its heart.
Finally, the metaphor of journey is further used to express consistency, since the idea of journey evokes that of a long itinerary, where Firmenich has been consistent in its commitment to a sustainable future. This is shown in the following words “Since our creation in 1895, Firmenich has always been more than a company, we are a family with a unique legacy of responsible business. Ever since we signed the first International Chamber of Commerce Business Charter for Sustainable Development in 1991, we have been on a journey of continuous improvement to lead real change in sustainable business." (Firmenich, 2019: 8). Here the company appeals to emotions through the metaphor of journey as well as to credibility, by pointing out its adherence to the Business Charter for Sustainable Development back in 1991, emphasizing its “continuous improvement” – hence its consistency – to lead in the field of sustainability.
Appeal Type Function Example
Logos Claims and arguments
Construct self-promotion; inform of past and future actions; explain rationale behind actions
See ethos below (consistency, self-promotion, promise to succeed)
Warrant/just ification
Discuss targets “As we progress on these targets, we may also refine their phrasing and timelines to achieve greater transparency” (2017: 60)
Ethos Consistency Emphasize continuous commitment
“As a proud signatory of the UN Global Compact since 2008, our actions will continue to be guided by its 10 Principles and the SDGs, embedded in our growth strategy" (2019: 8);
Self-promotion
Highlight the company’s prominent role, its excellence or early adoption
“Today, we are one of only eight companies worldwide and the only player in our industry to be globally certified as a gender equal employer” (2019: 7);
Expertise Increase trustworthiness “Our Naturals Center of Excellence in Grasse has been recognized for its continuous efforts towards
biodiversity, having been audited against the Ethical BioTrade Standard managed by the Union for Ethical Biotrade" (2018: 45) Consistency + self-promotion Increase trustworthiness by showing continuity
“We have been leading real change since we made our first public environmental commitment to sustainable business, three decades ago” (2019: 58)
Expertise + self-promotion
Enhance credibility; praise the company’s commitment
“During fiscal year 2019, we received accolades that reaffirmed our status as an environmental leader and our engagement to help protect the planet”(2019: 57)
Self-promotion + promise to succeed
Stress on the company’s commitment
“Firmenich is firmly committed to leading the industry in sustainability” (2017: 19);
Pathos Metaphors Express consistency and increase credibility = used as ethos appeal
“Ever since we signed the first International Chamber of Commerce Business Charter for Sustainable
Emotive language
Refer to employees; emphasize diversity
“Firmenich builds upon the diversity, talent and thriving energy of its employees, to generate positive impact on people and nature." (2019:0).
First-person narrative
Enhance credibility, promote success or expertise
“We successfully completed all REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals) registration phases with over 500 ingredients registered, as a result of the enormous efforts of our
industry-leading team of experts. A key outcome of this process
is how we are aligned with our customers and suppliers to pursue relentlessly all aspects related to human health and the environment, and we will keep pushing for more breakthroughs in these areas” (2018: 48).
Table 5.1: Rhetorical appeals of Firmenich
5.2. Syngenta
5.2.1. Ethos, in combination with logos
Syngenta makes use of logos to inform readers of its sustainable practices as well as to emphasize the importance of obtaining the trust of its stakeholders. It claims that it aims to “earn recognition as a trustworthy and collaborative partner” or that earning the trust of stakeholders “by doing the right things is fundamental to achieving our goals” (Syngenta, 2019: 40). Warrants and justifications, typical appeals to logos, are also used with respect to a particular outcome or activity. For instance, in 2017 Syngenta says that training in Brazil was slowed by restructuring of the business, or that “a 59% increase in the figure for halogenated volatile organic compounds was due to better measurement rather than increased activity” (Syngenta, 2017: 42).
support the SDGs as part of our contribution to leaving a better planet for future generations” (Syngenta, 2019:34). In this way, the company is promoting its commitment to the SDGs, as well as highlighting consistency, as all its operations are taken into account when considering the SDGs. Furthermore, in communicating its contribution, it claims that “Syngenta is actively contributing to many of the SDGs, and we recognize a responsibility to maintain a culture of continuous improvement against them!” (Syngenta, 2018: 18). Nevertheless, it is quite difficult to track the company’s progress on the SDGs since these are not mentioned or analyzed individually. On the contrary, singular SDGs are not directly addressed in-text, but only showed on the side through icons that represent the goal number. In this way, the company discusses general initiatives in its paragraph, without explicitly making connections to the SDGs. Besides, claims about its activities are often vague, as in this case: “we increased numbers in Bangladesh and had a good response to campaigns targeted to engage more farmers in India” (Syngenta, 2017: 26). Here nor anywhere in the text it is specified what does it mean to have increased numbers or by how much, nor it is explained what the company considers to be a “good response”.
Appeals to self-promotion are also evident from the fact that Syngenta wants to give readers the idea that it is proactively going beyond regulatory requirements to be sustainable (Theme 4). It explicitly says both in 2018 and in 2019 that it maintains the “highest standards” across its entire business, “going beyond regulatory compliance”. Nevertheless, in many sections this idea of proactivity or doing something extra is eclipsed by the same company’s words, as they reveal that Syngenta is merely reacting to problem or following global standards rather than going one step further and anticipating issues. For instance, when addressing Fair Trade issues, it explicitly states that it “sought accreditation in response to growing demand in the value chain for Fairtrade products" (Syngenta, 2019: 30). Similarly, concerning workers exploitation, from the reports it emerges that Syngenta is not proactively taking appropriate action but rather intervening only “when we encounter such cases” (Syngenta, 2018: 33).
practices to its supply chain have been highlighted since 2017 and it is repeatedly addressed in the reports, Syngenta fails to provide concrete evidence of this commitment to show that its supply chain is also complying to its high standards. Nonetheless, the appeal to self-promotion is effective in giving readers the idea that Syngenta is doing something extraordinary and is actively involving its supply chain to contribute to sustainability.
Moreover, to further promote its business and the company as a whole, Syngenta appeals to the promise to succeed through claims such as “we will be the most collaborative and trusted team in agriculture, providing leading seeds and crop protection innovations to enhance the prosperity of farmers, wherever they are." (Syngenta, 2018: 0) or with respect to enhancing biodiversity in farms “We’ve hit our 2020 target three years early – and we’ll go on investing to benefit an even wider area" (Syngenta, 2017: 22). In both claims, the company is making promises (to be the most collaborative and trusted team in agriculture and to deliver biodiversity benefits to a wider area) with the intention of flaunting its commitment to sustainability.
A similar praising is made possible through the appeal of expertise, which is functional to deliver the idea that Syngenta is “sharing” its experience and expertise to lead in sustainability (Theme 3) as showed here: “The Syngenta’s Beijing Innovation Center (SBIC) is at the forefront of biotechnology adoption in the country and is leading our global genome editing program. The center is also driving important collaborations with Chinese institutes and provided us with an opportunity to share our experience” (Syngenta, 2017: 17; 2018: 27). Besides, appeals to qualifications such as external awards or accreditation are also used by Syngenta to exalt its commitment, as showed in Table 5.2.
In general, Syngenta efficiently combines different appeals to ethos to advance its view of sustainability and to highlight its commitment that extends beyond the company’s operations to include its supply chain. However, the absence of strong evidence and the reference to vague claims may ultimately bring the reader to question these claims.
5.2.2. Pathos
although being conveyed through pathos, appeals to the company’s commitment and credibility, hence to ethos.
Narrative speech is increasingly employed over the years as a self-promoting mechanism, as the company reports the words of individuals that have worked for or with the company to praise Syngenta’s commitment and its actions. An example is the quote from Michael Doane, global managing director for sustainable food and water at The Nature Conservancy: “Syngenta’s commitments to innovate for nature are encouraging and groundbreaking.” (Syngenta, 2019: 9). This expedient is not only used as self-promotion, but also to convey the promise to succeed, as shown in Table 5.2.
Finally, Syngenta frames sustainability as a “journey” (Theme 2) in few instances, thus using a proper example of pathos: metaphors. These reference appeals to the reader’s emotion, as when the company thanks “all those who have accompanied us along this journey to date” (Syngenta, 2019: 22).
Table 5.2 below presents an overview of the appeals used by Syngenta with examples.
Appeal Type Function Example
Logos Claims/argumentation Stress the importance of trust “We aim to earn recognition as a trustworthy and collaborative partner” (2018: 36)
Warrant/justification Warrant about activities and their progress
“Commercialization of our genome-edited portfolio will depend on how regulators view genome-editing technologies; this varies around the world." (2018: 17)
Ethos Self-promotion Praise sustainability commitment “Although we surpassed our 2020 target in 2017, we continue investing in both new and existing biodiversity initiatives.” (2019: 26)
Expertise (qualifications)
Increase credibility “Our new-generation fungicide for downy mildew in grapes, won the 2018 Agrow Award for Best Formulation Innovation" (2018: 9) Self-promotion +
Expertise
Praise its excellence and highlight its role in sharing its expertise
“The Syngenta’s Beijing Innovation Center is at the forefront of
Promise to succeed Position itself as a leader in the industry and emphasize commitment
“I have a great confidence that we can make a lasting contribution [to sustainable development]” (2017:2)
Pathos Emotive language Communicate that the company “cares” and that it is leading toward a sustainable future
“Syngenta plays a vital role in enabling the food chain to feed the world safely and take care of our planet” (2017:10)
As self-promotion “We will continue to work with others and invest our resources to make agriculture ever more sustainable.” (2017: 9) Narrative speech Highlight commitment and praise
the company’s actions
“Thanks to Syngenta’s commitment, different communities all around the world are able to get first-hand knowledge on safe and sustainable farming practices.” (2019: 21) As promise to succeed “We are passionate about helping
farmers around the world, and we will continue to work with others and invest our resources to make agriculture ever more sustainable.” (2017: 9)
Table 5.2: Rhetorical appeals of Syngenta 5.3. Mitsubishi Chemical Corporation
5.3.1. Prevalence of logos, with ethos and pathos
Mitsubishi Chemical Corporation (MCC) prevalently uses logos in its report. Through claims and logical arguments, it presents the companies activities and through statistics and graphs, it communicates its results. It makes explicit mention to trust by claiming that the foundation of its corporate activities is “society’s trust and confidence in us” or when it says that it must earn the trust of its stakeholders to advance its philosophy of KAITEKI (Theme 2). It also appeals to argumentation to persuade readers that investments in sustainability are necessary to create new highly profitable businesses (Theme 1), and at the end of its reports it highlights how by “providing solutions to issues related to people, society and the earth” the company is accelerating the growth of its business (Mitsubishi, 2019: 88) (Theme 1).
(Polybutylene succinate) it helps to achieve sustainable production, part of one of the SDGs, while contributing greatly to labor saving in agriculture or that by providing such products, “we aim to enrich lifestyles while contributing to sustainable production, part of one of the SDGs" (Mitsubishi, 2018: 10). However, these claims remain vague and the company does not specify how it contributes to achieve the SDGs. Similarly, it does not report on the progress through clear targets, but rather through claims that appears as self-promotion: “We also aim for even higher biodegradability to better realize sustainable consumption and production patterns, one of the SDGs" (Mitsubishi, 2018; 10; 2019: 14). In this way, by not specifying any value that can help assessing whether this “even higher biodegradability” has been met, the company is not really reporting progress but merely promoting its intention to do “even better”.
When it appeals to ethos, it does so to make promises about the company’s future, to admit mistakes and short comings or to praise the company’s actions. The promise to succeed, for example, is here associated with consistency to highlight that the company’s goal of contributing to the well-being of society remains unchanged: “Our focus on the unchanging goal of realizing KAITEKI will keep us from losing our way, no matter how the path we walk changes." (Mitsubishi, 2018: 3). Additionally, appealing to the promise to succeed, it highlights its involvement as a good corporate citizen (Theme 3), by saying that “MCC promises to provide solutions to environmental and social issues through its businesses and to work toward the sustainable development of society and the planet" (Mitsubishi, 2019: 3).
By contrast, self-criticism is used to admit the company’s shortcomings, as highlighted in the following excerpt: “We have made company-wide efforts to prevent falls, including improving facilities, revising work practices and implementing various forms of training, but these initiatives have not reduced the number of injuries caused by falls." (Mitsubishi, 2017: 52; 2018: 62). Here the company recognizes that, despite its initiatives, there is still room for improvements, hence it increases its trustworthiness by showing self-criticism.
A further appeal to self-promotion is embedded in the company’s definition of “responsible care”, defined as “voluntary activities undertaken by companies that handle chemical substances to protect the environment, health and safety across all related process”. (Mitsubishi, 2018: 32). Through these words, while emphasizing its commitment to the sustainable well-being of people, society and the planet throughout its reports, it does not miss the opportunity to promote the company’s attitude, by highlighting the voluntary nature of its great commitment.
Finally, when the company appeals to self-promotion to praise its workplace policies, it does so by failing to mention laws and regulations the company must abide to and thus by persuading readers that MCC is doing something “extra” when it comes to setting standards. However, when it says that “we also accept job applicant with disabilities” (Mitsubishi, 2017: 57) it does so as to emphasize how this is something out of the ordinary, while the law in Japan mandates that at least 2% of the employees of a company are people with disabilities. Similarly, it appeals to self-promotion when it says that “MCC forbids child labor” or “we not hire individuals younger than 18” without mentioning that it is forbidden by law, since it portrays these practices as being extraordinary, while all the company is doing is merely complying to the law (Theme 4).
Concerning pathos, MCC does sometimes appeals to the reader’s emotions using emotive language, either to communicate the feeling of urgency that concerns sustainability or to convey the idea that the company is a good corporate citizen (Theme 3). Both are illustrated in Table 5.3 below.
Besides, an appeal to pathos is also embedded in metaphors that evokes the idea that the company is “on the road” toward realizing KAITEKI, its starting point but also its goal (as mentioned in section 4.3). This, however, may create confusion when trying to assess if this goal has been met, since these claims are vague, and no clear or measurable goal has been set. Nevertheless, it claims that “step by step” through its initiatives, it is “helping to solve plastic waste issues” (Mitsubishi, 2019: 3).
An overview of the rhetorical appeals discussed in this section is presented in Table 5.3.
Appeal Type Function Example
Convince about the profitability of sustainable practices
“Byproviding solutions to issues related to people, society and the earth we’re accelerating the growth of our business” (Mitsubishi, 2019: 88)
Ethos Promise to succeed Express confidence in achieving KAITEKI
"I am confident that we can get closer to our goal — realizing KAITEKI—one step at a time!” (2018: 3)
Self-criticism Admit its mistakes and shortcomings
“There is no future in merely carrying on as we have” (2018: 3)
Self-promotion (with or without expertise)
Highlight commitment and praise its excellence
"Talking a leadership within the Alliance to End Plastic waste, we are supporting the establishment of waste collection systems in Asia and advancing
waterfront clean-up activities" (2019: 3)
Pathos Emotive language Communicate urgency/importance of sustainability
“Unless we take action, there will be no future” (2018: 2)
Depict itself as good corporate citizen
“MCC strives to deepen its
understanding of the culture and customs of the communities and countries where it operates and to contribute to society through its businesses. As a good corporate citizen, [it] works to meet the demands and expectations of society and communities and realize KAITEKI." (2018: 75)
6. Cross-case analysis
The rhetorical analysis offers some interesting insight into how the three companies use rhetorical strategies in their sustainability reports. First, all companies frame sustainability as “business friendly” (Theme 1), corroborating the findings of Higgins and Walkers (2012). They do so by appealing to logos, through argumentation and claims, as to convey an idea of “rationality” when asserting that what is good for the business is also good for the planet and vice versa.
Moreover, they all make use of self-promotion to express their role or contribution to sustainability (Theme 3). For instance, through self-promotion, Firmenich repeatedly communicates how it can lead the industry toward a sustainable future, adding value through society by delivering innovative and sustainable products, while Syngenta praises its ability to help farmers “to sustainably feed the world”. Similarly, MCC promotes itself as a good corporate citizen engaged in the creation of an inclusive society, while protecting the environment and fostering the development of future generations. However, while Firmenich and Syngenta appeal to expertise (qualifications or third-party judgements) to reinforce these claims, MCC is more likely to emphasize how its sustainable activities are of a voluntary nature, with the intent of reinforcing self-promotion. Yet, the strategy adopted by MCC may produce an unwanted result, that is, to depict the company as “arrogant” or “pretentious”. In fact, in Firmenich and Syngenta communication the reader is persuaded to accept the role that the two companies play, despite the self-promoting tones, due to the appeal to expertise from third parties which makes the claims appear trustworthy. By contrast, in the reports of the MCC this third-party validation is missing, hence the reader is not presented with some sort of evidence for the company’s claims. Moreover, the emphasis on voluntariness may be disapproved by those readers who actually expect companies to act ethical and be responsible. Firmenich and Syngenta instead embrace this consideration and do not mention the voluntary nature of CSR at all.
the company but rather guided to deem the company as trustworthy due to the appeal to expertise, which pertains to ethos. This is consistent with the fact that ethos appeals are functional to enhance the credibility of the firm, as discussed in section 2.2.
Third, although all companies appeal to logos in terms of claims, warrants and justification when communicating progress on certain targets, Syngenta and Mitsubishi often fail to provide evidence to what it is reported. For instance, as mentioned in section 4.2.1, when discussing its progress in sustainable farming, Syngenta uses claims and self-promotion saying that it “increased numbers in Bangladesh and had a good response to campaigns targeted to engage more farmers in India” (Syngenta, 2017: 26). However, although the appeal to self-promotion may convince readers that the company has positively impacted local communities in Bangladesh and India, the vagueness of the claims (“increased number”, “good response”) may bring the reader to question the authenticity of these claims or whether they have impacted a significant amount of people. Similarly, among the initiatives to support the development of female employees, MCC claims both in 2017 and in 2018 that it will “implement workstyle reforms and develop workplace culture” (Mitsubishi 2017: 55; 2018: 67). Yet there is no mention of what workstyle reforms are being implemented to support female employees, nor it is specified what kind of “workplace culture” MCC wants to develop, nor which steps it is taking to accomplish this objective.
By contrast, Firmenich shows attempts of substantiating its claims or warrants by appealing to logos, such as data or evidences, particularly in the report of 2019. As a result, when Firmenich is saying that it will meet the Montreal Protocol ahead of time (see 4.1.1) the reader is persuaded to believe to these self-promoting claims, due to the fact that the company provides statistical evidence of the positive reduction of other emissions that the company realized over the past 2 years (80% reduction). Hence the reader is not presented with vague claims that may call into question the truthfulness of the company’s action, as in the case of the reports of Syngenta and Mitsubishi, and therefore, the appeal of Firmenich to logos not only through claims but also through evidence and data ensures that its initiatives appear trustworthy.
