Abstract
With growing global environmental and social challenges, corporations increasingly face stakeholder demands to legitimize their actions. To demonstrate that they comply with social norms and retain legitimacy, companies communicate about their corporate responsibility (CR) initiatives and programs. In this context, it is common to articulate visions rather than reflect the organization’s actual behavior, a phenomenon described as aspirational talk.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Christensen et al. (2021) explain the effect of the different levels using the example of the introduction of a sustainability policy. In this context, publicly announcing a corporate sustainability policy, “is an act in itself that differentiates it from merely thinking about it”, therefore, a speech act performing at the locutionary level (Christensen et al., 2021, p. 4). The publicity of the announcement also adds emphasis to the communicated intention at the illocutionary level. On the third level, the perlocutionary level, there might happen a result or a consequence, hence a further action. This is, however, depending on how it is comprehended and accepted by the audience, “including the communicator itself” (Christensen et al., 2021, p. 4). These three levels of speech acts are not altogether separable and there can be instances of overlap.
- 2.
Luhmann’s approach focuses on how organizations change or develop by organizing communication processes around decisions. In this way, decisions encourage further choices, creating a constant flow of communication and moving the organization toward new goals and practices (Schoeneborn, 2013). The flow of decision communication creates a chain reaction, even if the decisions are not fully implemented. This perspective is also reflected in Luhmann’s system theory, in which communication serves as a means of replication for social systems (Luhmann, 1995).
- 3.
See Ashcraft et al. (2009) and Schoeneborn & Vásquez (2017) for comprehensive overviews of the different CCO straits, their development, main theses, and critiques.
- 4.
Theories of auto-communication have been explored within corporate and organizational communication (Christensen & Christensen, 2022).
- 5.
It has to be noted that Penttilä (2020) is not merely focusing on “repetition”, but also on fine-tuning aspirational claims.
- 6.
This idea is drawn from how CCO-research approaches the ontological question “What is an organization?”. As has been noted by Schoeneborn & Vásquez (2017, p. 10), “organizational phenomena (are understood) as ‘processual entities’ that gain a perpetuated existence through communication events.”
- 7.
These conditions can include self-defense in the threat of bodily harm, illegality or external conditions which simply do not allow the promisor to keep its promise. For example, a pandemic makes it impossible to keep the promised delivery time due to supply shortages. It is then crucial to communicate the causes for not kee** the promise. Also, some promises are not expected to be kept, due to their insignificance. For example, not calling someone back, if it was promised. Still, if this kind of behavior becomes the norm, the promisee might no longer be willing to cooperate or cooperation costs will increase.
- 8.
The underlying aphorism “How can I tell what I think till I see what I say?” was originally coined by Forster (2002, p. 71) and was used by Weick (1995) to summarize the essence of sensemaking in an organizational context.
- 9.
This is consistent with Scherer & Palazzo (2007) who suggest a small steps approach to achieve continuous improvement and change in an institutional setting.
- 10.
Within the study, Haack et al., 2012 refer to the process of stimulating CR practice to “moral entrapment, which entails kee** promises and engenders cree** commitment, particularly when an organization is subject to public scrutiny (…)” Haack et al., 2012, p. 835.
- 11.
It must be noted that these expectations can also be illegitimate, meaning, they cannot be explained by socially accepted standards, rules, and regulations (see 3.2 for a detailed discussion).
- 12.
See a current literature review on greenwashing definitions de Freitas Netto et al., (2020).
- 13.
It should be noted that this is not a communication perspective that is compatible with the speech act perspective presented earlier.
- 14.
This aspect has also been highlighted in non-academic writing. The newspaper Le Monde reported on an incident that happened in Tangier, Morocco in February 2021. Due to increasing expectations and pressure to adopt CR certificates by international brands, local factories invested heavily to comply with the international certifications (Kadiri, 2021). As a result, and to keep up with Asian competitors, smaller factories were opened literally under the ground. A factory owner stated that “the brands exert so much pressure on prices that it is impossible to compete without the underground production” (Kadiri, 2021, p. 22, own translation). In February, a fire in one of the cellar factories killed 28 people that had been working under inhumane conditions. But this was not an isolated case. As reported in the article, already in 2018, 50,000 accidents causing 756 deaths had been registered (Kadiri, 2021).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Schwimmer, M. (2024). Understanding Aspirational Talk. In: Inspire Responsibly. Schriftenreihe der HHL Leipzig Graduate School of Management. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-44239-2_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-44239-2_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden
Print ISBN: 978-3-658-44238-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-658-44239-2
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)