Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Strategic Communication for Sustainable Organizations pp 21–59Cite as

Changing Paradigms, Shifting Societal Discourses, and Organizational Responses

  • Chapter

Part of the book series: CSR, Sustainability, Ethics & Governance ((CSEG))

Abstract

This chapter begins with a description of the transformational changes undertaken at the Portland Trail Blazers’ basketball arena campus when messages within their external environment changed to highlight environmental sustainability. Two paradigms generally used to describe the belief systems of people and people groups regarding our relationship with the natural environment are described: the dominant social paradigm and the new ecological paradigm. The societal shift toward the growing importance of the sustainable development Discourse within businesses, cities, and universities is described. Paradigms are differentiated from Discourses and ten environment-related Discourses are identified (i.e., the industrialism Discourse, survivalism, the Promethean response, administrative rationalism, democratic pragmatism, economic rationalism, green politics, green consciousness, ecological modernization, and sustainability). Criticisms of the ecological modernism and sustainability Discourses are reviewed. Communication’s role in reinforcing and challenging paradigms is discussed. The chapter ends by discussing forces which influence how environmentally related issues are framed, contested, and reframed. In addition to paradigms, Discourses, and ideology, theories or theoretical concepts highlighted include discursive closure, critical theory and the neo-Marxian perspective on sustainable development, framing, schemata of interpretation, systematically distorted communication, and social judgment theory. Throughout the chapter, interview data gathered from small businesses, an activist organization (the Natural Resources Defense Council), a nongovernmental organization, South Dakota’s state government, multiple cities (e.g., the City and County of Denver), two sports organizations (the Portland Trail Blazers, Aspen Skiing Company), a university, and two multinational organizations (Tyson Foods, Sam’s Club) is integrated.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • Allen, M. W., Walker, K. L., & Brady, R. (2012). Sustainability discourse within a supply chain relationship: Mapping convergence and divergence. Journal of Business Communication, 49, 210–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersson, L. M., & Bateman, T. S. (2000). Individual environmental initiative: Championing natural environmental issues in U.S. business organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 548–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aras, G., & Crowther, D. (2008). Governance and sustainability: An investigation into the relationship between corporate governance and corporate sustainability. Management Decision, 46, 433–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashcroft, B., Griffiths, G., & Tiffin, H. (1998). Key concepts in post-colonial studies. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackburn, W. R. (2007). The sustainability handbook: The complete management guide to achieving social, economic and environmental responsibility. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bortree, D. S. (2011). The state of environmental communication: A survey of PRSA members. Public Relations Journal, 4, 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brulle, R. J. (2010). From environmental campaigns to advancing the public dialog: Environmental communication for civic engagement. Environmental Communication, 4, 82–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bullis, C., & Ie, F. (1997). Corporate environmentalism. In S. May, G. Cheney, & I. Roper (Eds.), The debate over corporate social responsibility. New York: Oxford University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chess, C. (2001). Organizational theory and the stages of risk communication. Risk Analysis, 21, 179–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, L. T., Morsing, M., & Thyssen, O. (2015). Discursive closure and discursive openings in sustainability. Management Communication Quarterly, 29, 135–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ciletti, D., Lanasa, J., Ramos, D., Luchs, R., & Lou, J. (2010). Sustainability communication in North American Professional Sports Leagues: Insights from web-site self-presentations. International Journal of Sport Communication, 3, 64–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, E. (1976). Environmental orientations: A multidimensional approach to social ecology. Current Anthropology, 17, 49–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colby, M. (1991). Environmental management in development: The evolution of paradigms. Ecological Economics, 3, 193–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, R. (2013). Environmental communication and the public sphere (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crognale, G. (2012). Coca-Cola builds sustainability from the watershed up. http://www.sustainableplant.com/2012/10/coca-cola-builds-sustainability-from-the-watershed-up/?show=all. Accessed 12 Nov 2013.

  • De Soto, H. (2000). The mystery of capital: Why capitalism triumphs in the west and fails everywhere else. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deetz, S. A. (1992). Systematically distorted communication and discursive closure. In S. A. Deetz (Ed.), Democracy in an age of corporate colonization: Developments in communication and the politics of everyday life (pp. 173–198). Albany: SUNY Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, J. M. (2005). Collapse: How societies choose to fail or succeed. New York: Viking.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek, J. S. (2005). The politics of the earth: Environmental discourses (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000). Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 425–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elkington, J. (1999). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business. Gabriola Island: New Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairhurst, G. T., & Putnam, L. (2004). Organizations as discursive constructions. Communication Theory, 14, 5–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fairhurst, G. T., & Putnam, L. L. (2014). Organizational discourse analysis. In L. L. Putnam & D. K. Mumby (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational communication (pp. 271–296). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ganesh, S. (2009). Critical organizational communication. In S. W. Littlejohn & K. A. Foss (Eds.), Encyclopedia of communication theory (Vol. 1, pp. 226–231). Los Angeles: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. London: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant, D., Hardy, C., Oswick, C., & Putnam, L. L. (2004). Introduction: Organizational discourse: Exploring the field. In D. Grant, C. Hardy, C. Oswick, & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational discourse (pp. 1–36). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Handy, C. (1999). The hungry spirit: Beyond capitalism: The quest for purpose in the modern world. New York: Broadway Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannaes, K., Arthur, D., Balagopal, B., Kong, M. T., Reeves, M., Velken, I., et al. (2011). Sustainability: The ‘embracers’ seize advantage. MIT Sloan Management Review and the Boston Consulting Group Research Report. http://sloanreview.mit.edu/reports/sustainability-advantage/. Accessed 20 Dec 2013.

  • Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162, 1243–1248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawken, P. (1994). The ecology of commerce: A declaration of sustainability. New York: HarperCollins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawken, P., Lovins, A., & Lovins, L. H. (2000). Natural capitalism: Creating the next industrial revolution. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henly, A., Hershkowitz, A., & Hoover, D. (2012). Game changer: How the sports industry is saving the environment. NRDC Report R:12-08-A. http://www.nrdc.org/greenbusiness/guides/sports/game-changer.asp. Accessed 20 Dec 2013.

  • Hopkins, R. (2014). Transition network’s annual report 2014. http://www.transitionnetwork.org/news. Accessed 12 Jan 2015.

  • Ihlen, O. (2015). “It is five minutes to midnight and all is quiet”: Corporate rhetoric and sustainability. Management Communication Quarterly, 29, 145–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2013). Climate change 2013: The physical science basis. http://www.climatechange2013.org/report/. Accessed 20 Dec 2013.

  • Jabbour, C. J. C., & Santos, F. C. A. (2006). The evolution of environmental management within organizations: Toward a common taxonomy. Environment Quality Management, 16, 43–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, M. (1999). Sustainable development as a contested concept. In A. Dobson (Ed.), Fairness and futurity: Essays on environmental sustainability and social justice (pp. 21–45). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Korten, D. C. (2001). When corporations rule the world. Bloomfield: Kumarian Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraft, M., & Vig, N. (2000). Environmental policy in Congress: From consensus to gridlock. In N. J. Vig & M. E. Kraft (Eds.), Environmental policy: New directions for the twenty-first century (5th ed., pp. 121–144). Washington, DC: CQ Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, G. (2010). Why it matters how we frame the environment. Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture, 4, 70–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luntz Memorandum to the Bush White House. (2002). A cleaner safer, healthier America. https://www2.bc.edu/~plater/Newpublicsite06/suppmats/02.6.pdf. Accessed 17 May 2014.

  • McCright, A., & Dunlap, R. (2011). The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming, 2001–2010. The Sociological Quarterly, 52, 155–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., & Behrens, W. W. (1972). The limits to growth. New York: Universe Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitra, R., & Buzzanell, P. M. (2015). Introduction: Organizing/communicating sustainably. Management Communication Quarterly, 29, 130–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulla, R. (2013). Ten institutions receive prestigious climate leadership awards. Second nature: Education for sustainability. http://secondnature.org/news/ten-institutions-receive-prestigious-climate-leadership-awards-0. Accessed 23 Oct 2014.

  • National Aeronautics and Space Administration. (2014). Consensus: 97% of climate scientists agree. http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus. Accessed 27 May 2014.

  • Olausson, U. (2011). “We’re the Ones to Blame”: Citizens’ representations of climate change and the role of the media. Environmental Communication, 5, 281–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pirages, D. C., & Ehrlich, P. R. (1974). Ark II: Social response to environmental imperatives. New York: Viking Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polk, E., & Servases, J. (2015). Sustainability and participatory communication: A case study of the Transition Town Amherst, Massachusetts. Management Communication Quarterly, 29, 160–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prasad, P., & Elmes, M. (2005). In the name of the practical: Unearthing hegemony of pragmatics in the discourse of environmental management. Journal of Management Studies, 42, 845–867.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosteck, T., & Frentz, T. S. (2009). Myth and multiple readings in environmental rhetoric: The case of An Inconvenient Truth. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 95, 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salzmann, O., Ionescu-Somers, A., & Steger, U. (2005). The business case for corporate sustainability: Literature review and research options. European Management Journal, 23, 27–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlosberg, D., & Rinfret, S. (2008). Ecological modernization, American style. Environmental Politics, 17, 254–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidheiny, S. (1992). Changing course: A global business perspective on development and the environment. Cambridge: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seiter, J. S. (2009). Social judgment theory. In S. W. Littlejohn & K. A. Foss (Eds.), Encyclopedia of communication theory (Vol. 2, pp. 905–908). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shafer, W. E. (2006). Social paradigms and attitudes toward environmental accountability. Journal of Business Ethics, 65, 121–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinha, P., Schew, W. A., Swant, A., Kowaite, K. J., & Strode, S. A. (2010). Greenhouse gas emissions from U.S. institutions of higher education. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 60, 568–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soros, G. (2000). Open society: Reforming global capitalism. New York: PublicAffairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Springett, D. (2003). Business conceptions of sustainable development: A perspective from critical theory. Business Strategy and the Environment, 12, 71–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. (2015). http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/interstate/brainiacs/environmental.htm. Accessed 28 Jan 2015.

  • United Nations Environmental Programme. (2008). Green jobs: Towards decent work in a sustainable, low-carbon world. www.unep.org. Accessed 20 Dec 2013.

  • van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vig, N. J. (2000). Presidential leadership and the environment. In N. J. Vig & M. E. Kraft (Eds.), Environmental policy: New directions for the twenty-first century (5th ed., pp. 98–120). Washington, DC: CQ Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, K., & Wan, F. (2012). The harm of symbolic actions and green-washing: Corporate actions and communications on environmental performance and their financial implications. Journal of Business Ethics, 109, 227–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wexler, M. N. (2009). Strategic ambiguity in emergent coalitions: The triple bottom line. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 14, 62–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodside, C. (2013). What makes climate communicator George Marshall tick? http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2013/05/what-makes-climate-communicator-george-marshall-tick/. Accessed 18 Nov 2013.

  • Zadek, S. (2001). The civil corporation: The new economy of corporate citizenship. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Communication, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA

    Myria Allen

Authors
  1. Myria Allen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Allen, M. (2016). Changing Paradigms, Shifting Societal Discourses, and Organizational Responses. In: Strategic Communication for Sustainable Organizations. CSR, Sustainability, Ethics & Governance. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18005-2_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation