postmodern approaches to stakeholder relations management...
TRANSCRIPT
Katrine Friis Østergaard Jensen
Julie Rønlev Sørensen
Supervisor: René C. Larsen
Master of Arts in Corporate Communication Language and Communication
School of Business and Social Sciences, Aarhus University
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
Master Thesis | November 2012
Abstract
Purpose and Methodology
The purpose of this thesis is to theoretically evaluate the influence of a postmodern crisis context
on organisations’ communication and stakeholder relations management by combining the
theoretical framework and the results from a comprehensive multi-level discourse analysis on a
case study of Vestas’ communication with stakeholders in a crisis context. This analysis is based
on different communication material from Vestas from the defined crisis period. Subsequently, a
set of communicative recommendations for how Vestas – and other challenged organisations –
can best relate to their stakeholders in a postmodern crisis context, is developed.
As described, the thesis is largely theoretical, but also, via a case study, seeks to elevate the
results from an ideal theoretical assessment to a more pragmatic and business-oriented level. This
will be done by assessing the developed recommendations in relation to existing critiques to the
theoretical framework employed, and, through this, to ultimately evaluate the level to which the
recommendations, and thereby a postmodern consideration in general, can be expected to be
realistically applicable to a business context – and to Vestas in particular. Finally, the thesis seeks
to view the theoretical fields from a broader perspective by providing a reflection on normativity.
The approach to normativity, which Vestas seems to have taken, will be discussed and also
considered in relation to the implications that postmodernism has on the normative foundation of
a large, rather bureaucratic organisation in crisis.
Findings
Exploring the communication material from Vestas through a multi-level discourse analysis in
relation to the theoretical framework reveals that Vestas has employed a prescriptive shareholder
focus, an organisation-centric rhetoric, contextual inconsideration and an insufficient
accommodation to attributed crisis responsibility. Based on theoretical insights, this led to a set of
recommendations for Vestas – and organisations in general – to adopt an emergent stakeholder
focus, to enable stakeholders, to adopt a large consideration of context and, finally, to accept
crisis responsibility.
In order to reach the before-mentioned pragmatic dimension to the thesis, these recommendations
were subsequently assessed in relation to their practical applicability. This showed that the
recommendations – in their theoretical ideal – are largely inapplicable to business contexts.
Therefore, it is pivotal for organisations and managers to acknowledge that a theoretical ideal
must be considered in relation to the given organisation’s individual context and stakeholders,
which will provide important knowledge of stakeholders and the different needs for
communication these are expected to have.
Finally, the normative reflections provided at the end of the thesis show that Vestas, in terms of
decisions, has adopted a normative approach containing elements of utilitarianism. Contrarily, the
analysis of communication material from Vestas reveal that in their communication, a rather
different normative approach has been taken, characterised by a prioritisation of organisational
interests and inconsideration of stakeholder dialogue. On basis of the theoretical framework and
the postmodern context, it is argued that an adoption of Kantian ethics as the foundation for
stakeholder communication in Vestas would, to a larger degree, have emphasised the importance
of showing concern for stakeholders and acknowledging that these have needs for communication
when decisions that affect their welfare are made. However, even though the Kantian approach –
in a postmodern light – represents the ideal normative approach, Vestas’ utilitarian approach to
decisions is still acknowledged because this approach, in Vestas’ given context, ultimately
benefits more stakeholders than a Kantian approach would have. The final point made in terms of
normativity is, then, that a Kantian approach represents the ideal and should be taken in relation
to communication but that, given Vestas’ specific context, a utilitarian approach to decision-
making produces the largest benefit for the largest number of stakeholders.
Value
The value gained from the thesis is reflected in the way its results have provided a more tangible
and pragmatic approach to the consideration of postmodernism. From initially being a largely
theoretical and idealistic concept, this thesis has shown how the underlying ideas of
postmodernism in their ideal shape are largely unrealistic, but that the basic normative premises
fundamental to the concept of postmodernism can be used as an underlying basis for
communicative decisions that include stakeholders to an adequate degree, resembling the
contemporary context.
Key words: Postmodernism, stakeholder relations, corporate communication, crisis
management, normativity, theoretical critique, discourse analysis (textual, contextual and
critical), inclusion, dialogue, Vestas, case study, ideal, pragmatic, emergent strategy
Foreword
Total amount of characters, excl. spaces, Foreword, Table of Contents, Bibliography and Appendix: 247,959 (corresponding to 112.70 standard pages (of 2,200 characters each)). Number of characters of abstract: 4,344 (corresponding to 1.97 standard pages). The thesis has been written in full collaboration between the two authors and the division of sections between the two should therefore only be considered as guiding.
JRS: Julie Rønlev Sørensen
KØJ: Katrine Friis Østergaard Jensen
Table of Contents
1. Introduction (Both authors) ....................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Motivation (Both authors) .................................................................................................... 1
1.1.1. Problem Statement and Research Questions (Both authors) ......................................... 2 1.2. Structure of Thesis (Both authors) ........................................................................................ 3 1.3. Theory of Science: Social Constructionism (Both authors) ................................................. 5 1.4. Theoretical and Methodological Framework (Both authors) ............................................... 7 1.5. Delimitations (Both authors) .............................................................................................. 10
2. Theory (Both authors) ............................................................................................................... 12
2.1. Two Approaches to Strategic Management: Prescriptive and Emergent (JRS) ............. 12 2.2. Postmodernism (Both auhors) ............................................................................................ 13
2.2.1. From Modernism to Postmodernism (Both authors) ................................................... 14 2.2.2. Concepts of Postmodernism (Both authors) ................................................................ 15
2.3. Stakeholder Relations Management (Both authors) ........................................................... 17 2.3.1. Changing Perspectives: from the Shareholder to the Stakeholder Model (KØJ) ..... 17 2.3.2. Categorisation of Stakeholder Theory (JRS) ........................................................... 18
2.3.2.1. Normative Stakeholder Theory (KØJ) .............................................................. 19 2.3.2.1.1. Postmodern Normative Stakeholder Theory (JRS) ................................... 22
2.3.2.2. Instrumental and Descriptive Stakeholder Theory (KØJ) ................................ 23 2.3.2.2.1. Stakeholder Mapping (JRS) ....................................................................... 23 2.3.2.2.2. Stakeholder Salience (KØJ) ....................................................................... 25
2.4. Corporate Communication (JRS) .................................................................................... 26 2.4.1. Public Relations (JRS) ............................................................................................. 27
2.4.1.1. Four Models of Public Relations (JRS) ............................................................ 28 2.4.1.1.1. Postmodern Implications of Two-Way Communication (JRS) ................. 30
2.4.2. Considerations for Communication with Specific Stakeholder Groups (JRS) ........ 31 2.4.2.1. Communicating with Shareholders (JRS) ......................................................... 32 2.4.2.2. Communicating with Employees (JRS) ............................................................ 33
2.5. Crisis Management as a Theoretical Context (KØJ) ....................................................... 34 2.5.1. The Complex Broad Perspective on Crisis Management (KØJ) .............................. 34 2.5.2. Corporate Reputation Management (KØJ) ............................................................... 36
2.5.2.1. Situational Crisis Communication Theory (KØJ) ............................................. 37 2.6. Sum Up on Theoretical Chapter (Both authors) ................................................................. 38 2.7. Research Question 1: Characteristics of Postmodern Approaches to Business (Both authors) .................................................................................................................................... 40
3. Methodology (KØJ) ............................................................................................................... 42
3.1. Qualitative Research Strategy (KØJ) .............................................................................. 43 3.2. Method of Textual Discourse Analysis (KØJ) ................................................................ 44 3.3. Method of Contextual and Critical Discourse Analysis (JRS) ........................................ 46
3.3.1. Discourse as Text, Interaction and Context (JRS) ................................................... 46 3.3.2. Properties of Critical Discourse Analysis (JRS) ...................................................... 48
3.3.2.1. The Micro and Macro Level of Discourse (JRS) .............................................. 49 3.3.2.2. Power (JRS) ...................................................................................................... 49 3.3.2.3. Recontextualisation (JRS) ................................................................................. 50
3.4. Justification of Method (KØJ) ......................................................................................... 50 3.5. Data Selection (KØJ) ....................................................................................................... 51 3.6. Data Research and Evaluation (JRS) .............................................................................. 52 3.7. Normativity and Business Ethics (KØJ) ......................................................................... 54
3.7.1. Business Ethics and Models of Management (KØJ) ................................................ 55 3.7.2. Normativity (KØJ) ................................................................................................... 56 3.7.3. Critiques of Deontology and Utilitarianism (KØJ) .................................................. 57
4. Case and Context for Analysis (JRS) .................................................................................. 59
4.1. Case Organisation Introduction: Vestas (JRS) ................................................................ 59 4.2. Vestas Case Study (KØJ) ................................................................................................ 60
4.2.1. The Importance of Context (Both authors) .................................................................. 60 4.2.2. Contextual Course of Events (KØJ) ......................................................................... 61
5. Analysis (KØJ) ....................................................................................................................... 64
5.1. Stakeholder Analysis (KØJ) ............................................................................................ 64 5.1.1. Stakeholder Mapping (JRS) ..................................................................................... 65
5.1.1.1. Employees (KØJ) .............................................................................................. 66 5.1.1.1.1. Employee Salience (KØJ) .......................................................................... 66
5.1.1.2. Shareholders (JRS) ............................................................................................ 67 5.1.1.2.1. Shareholder Salience (JRS) ........................................................................ 68
5.2. Textual and Contextual Discourse Analysis (KØJ) ........................................................ 68 5.2.1. Material 8-A and 8-B (KØJ) .................................................................................... 70 5.2.2. Material 8-C (KØJ) .................................................................................................. 70 5.2.3. Material 8-D and 8-E (KØJ) ..................................................................................... 71 5.2.4. Material 8-F (KØJ) ................................................................................................... 73 5.2.5. Material 8-G and 8-H (JRS) ..................................................................................... 74
5.2.6. Material 8-I (JRS) .................................................................................................... 76 5.2.7. Material 8-J (KØJ) .................................................................................................... 80 5.2.8. Material 8-K (JRS) ................................................................................................... 81
5.3. Part Conclusion of Textual and Contextual Discourse Analysis (Both authors) ................ 82 5.4. Critical Discourse Analysis (Both authors) ........................................................................ 83 5.5. Research Question 2: Theoretical, Postmodern Recommendations for Vestas’ Communication (Both authors) ................................................................................................. 85
5.5.1. Case Study Finding: Prescriptive Shareholder Focus (Both authors) ......................... 85 5.5.1.1. Recommendation: Emergent Stakeholder Focus (Both authors) .......................... 87
5.5.2. Case Study Finding: Organisation-Centric Rhetoric and Contextual Inconsideration (Both authors) .............................................................................................. 88
5.5.2.1. Recommendation: Stakeholder Enabling and Contextual Consideration (Both authors) ............................................................................................................................ 91
5.5.3. Case Study Finding: Insufficient Accommodation to Attributed Crisis Responsibility (Both authors) ................................................................................................ 93
5.5.3.1. Recommendation: Accept Crisis Responsibility (Both authors) .......................... 95 6. Discussion (JRS) .................................................................................................................... 97
6.1. Research Question 3: Pragmatic Critique and Applicability of Postmodernism to Business Contexts (KØJ) ........................................................................................................ 97
6.1.1. Critique of the Emergent Approach to Strategy (JRS) ............................................. 97 6.1.2. Critique of the Complex Broad Approach to Crisis Management (KØJ) ................ 99 6.1.3. Critique of Postmodern Approaches (KØJ) ............................................................. 99 6.1.4. Critique of Micro Level Two-Way Communication (JRS) ................................... 101
6.2. Research Question 4: Reflections on Ethics and Normativity in Vestas (Both authors) .. 102 6.2.1. Postmodern Normativity (Both authors) ................................................................... 103 6.2.2. Normativity in Vestas’ Communication (Both authors) ............................................ 104 6.2.3. Implications of a Postmodern Approach to Normativity (Both authors) .................. 105
7. Conclusion (Both authors) ...................................................................................................... 110 8. Critique of Method (Both authors) ........................................................................................ 113 9. Bibliography ..................................................................................................................... 114 10. Appendices ...................................................................................................................... 118
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
1
1. Introduction
The following chapter will introduce the master thesis by, firstly, presenting a motivation for
writing the thesis, which leads to the formulation of the problem statement and the research
questions. In addition, the structure of the thesis as well as the scientific background on which it
is based will be outlined. Next, the theoretical and methodological framework is presented,
which explains the approach taken to investigating the problem statement, and finally,
delimitations are addressed.
1.1. Motivation
Many theorists advocate and argue for an acceptance of the concept of postmodernism as a
characteristic of the current point in time. In addition, postmodernism is included in many
different fields such as arts, literature and music and its acknowledgements have, during the last
decades, spread to other fields as well. As a concept, postmodernism can, at its point of departure,
be considered very complex and intangible to define and take into consideration. Despite this fact,
this thesis argues that if postmodernism can generally be considered as a characteristic of the
current point in time, this means that more pragmatic business fields such as corporate
communication and stakeholder relations should also consider this important concept as a
common denominator for the current context.
Based on this, it becomes interesting to research the connections between the comprehensive
theoretical conceptual fields of corporate communication and stakeholder relations in a
postmodern context. In addition, it is interesting to add an inclusion of crisis management to the
work as a further implication of context. This combination can be expected to increase the interest
of the postmodern debate in business and, in particular, in the mentioned theoretical and practical
fields, but more importantly to lead to some evaluation of the actual relevance of postmodernism
for business contexts.
In order to discover how these theories can be applied to realistic crisis contexts, a case study is
conducted of an organisation experiencing a crisis. In this connection, the authors of the thesis
consider the identification of a crisis, which can be regarded as context-dependent, as an important
requirement for the choice of case study. The Danish multinational organisation Vestas has for the
past years experienced a large range of crisis events, which all, ultimately, can be argued to relate
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
2
back to the challenges of the global financial crisis. Based on this fact, it becomes interesting to
research how Vestas has managed its crisis from a communicative and stakeholder relations
management viewpoint, and, accordingly, to evaluate the degree to which a concern for the
postmodern context has been acknowledged. Furthermore, it is anticipated that the work with a
real organisation experiencing an actual problematic crisis situation can enhance the focus on a
more pragmatic outcome of the thesis, as the benchmarking of a comprehensive theoretical
framework to a business case increases the usability and the sense of reality related to such
theoretical thesis construct.
Therefore, the goal of the thesis is, ultimately, to discover whether the ideally theoretical concept
of postmodernism, by its application to a business case study, can be realised at a more pragmatic
level. Also, the thesis seeks to normatively assess whether the concept of postmodernism and its
application to a business context influences the ethical, normative foundations of organisations
and if this, in turn, can be expected to influence the communication and relations with important
stakeholders.
As the thesis at hand is founded on the scientific paradigm of social constructionism, it is
important to acknowledge that the solution provided only constitutes one possible solution, which
can be argued as a product of the subjective influence of the authors of the thesis and their own
context, knowledge and inherent preconditions for conducting such research.
1.1.1. Problem Statement and Research Questions
The problem statement of the thesis is:
This thesis sets out to explore the connections between stakeholder relations management and
corporate communication in a postmodern crisis context.
In order to guide the research to be conducted and ultimately answer the problem statement posed
above, the following research questions have been constructed:
1. From a theoretical viewpoint, what characterises a postmodern approach to organisations’
communication and stakeholder relations management in a complex broad crisis context?
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
3
2. Based on discourse analysis, to what degree has Vestas taken into consideration its
postmodern reality and crisis context and which recommendations can, on basis of this and the
theoretical framework, be given to organisations for managing their stakeholder relations and
communications?
3. Does the assessment of the proposed recommendations’ practical applicability in business
contexts alter when re-evaluated on basis of existent critique of the theories on which the thesis
is based?
4. With point of departure in the analysis, which normative and ethical approach seems to
dominate Vestas’ communication and how is this challenged by postmodernism?
1.2. Structure of Thesis
The thesis has been structured so as to answer the above presented research questions. With this,
the theoretical chapter (Chapter 2) will provide an answer to research question 1, the analysis
(Chapter 5) will provide an answer to research question 2, the first part of the discussion (Chapter
6.1) will provide an answer to research question 3, the second part of the discussion (Chapter 6.2)
will provide an answer to research question 4, and finally, the conclusion will sum up on the
findings from all four research questions by providing an answer to the problem statement. A
more detailed structure of each of the chapters is provided below.
Firstly, the theoretical chapter will go through a presentation and discussion of the theoretical
fields on which the thesis is founded. The first section of the theoretical chapter concerns strategy
and looks at emergent and prescriptive approaches, respectively. The chapter then progresses to a
section on postmodernism and the concepts within this term. From the account of postmodernism,
which will largely be used as a contextual influencer in terms of how contemporary organisations
manage their stakeholder relations management and corporate communication, the theoretical
chapter proceeds to a longer section about one of the thesis’ two main theoretical topics,
stakeholder relations management. In this section, focus is on contemporary approaches to
management of stakeholders as well as levels from which to approach this. Following this, the
second main theoretical field, corporate communication, is then turned to. In this section, the
development of models of public relations is discovered and specific considerations for
communicating with employees and shareholders, respectively, are presented. Lastly, some
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
4
postmodern implications of two-way communication are presented, which draw in some
postmodern aspects that challenge the ideal of two-way symmetrical communication. Finally,
crisis management will be presented as the last theoretical area, which is also largely contextual.
In this section, a contemporary understanding of the field is presented and the implications this has
for corporate reputation management. The final section of the theoretical chapter provides an
answer to research question 1, namely what, from a theoretical viewpoint, characterises a
postmodern approach to organisations’ stakeholder relations and corporate communication in a
complex broad crisis context.
After the theoretical chapter, a chapter on the methodology used to explore the case study at a later
point is presented. This chapter presents the underlying basis of and justification for the qualitative
research strategy employed in the analysis of the communication material from Vestas as well as
the methodological basis for conducting textual, contextual and critical discourse analysis of the
communication material. This methodology of discourse analysis has a rather theoretical character
but is presented in the methodology chapter, and not the theoretical chapter, because it represents
the methodological approach to qualitatively researching and analysing the data. Apart from the
mentioned sections on method of discourse analysis, the methodological chapter also contains a
justification of the methodological approach taken (largely on basis of the scientific stance of
social constructionism) and sections relating to the selection, research and evaluation of data.
Lastly, the chapter includes a section on business ethics and normativity, which is to be applied in
the answer to research question 4.
Before initiating an analysis of whether Vestas, as the organisation chosen for the case study, has
taken its postmodern crisis context into consideration, it is relevant to first present the case
organisation as well as the contextual factors which serve as the foundation for the application of
the case study. This is, hence, the primary function of chapter 4. In addition, this chapter serves
the function of presenting the communication material, which will be analysed.
The thesis then proceeds to the analysis, which is initiated by a stakeholder analysis that maps
Vestas’ general stakeholder environment and then narrows down to focus on employees and
shareholders specifically and what their salience can be assumed to be. This analysis is conducted
by the use of the analytical tools presented in the methodological chapter.
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
5
Having done this, the analysis moves on to the actual discourse analysis in which the
communication material from Vestas will be analysed according to the relevant dimensions of
textual, contextual and critical discourse analysis, respectively. Not all analytical tools from each
of the analytical frameworks are equally relevant for the material at hand, and therefore, their
inclusion differs. After having conducted the actual analysis of the communication material, the
analysis chapter will present an answer to research question 2, namely the recommendations
which, from a purely theoretical viewpoint but based on the analysis, can be given to Vestas for
managing its stakeholder relations management and corporate communication.
After having provided an answer to research question 2, the thesis moves on to the discussion in
which the first section seeks to provide an answer to research question 3 by critically assessing the
recommendations given in the previous chapter.
Because of the largely theoretical and exploratory nature of the thesis as well as the (for a business
context) rather untraditional use of the concept of postmodernism, it is useful to further consider
the recommendations created at the end of the analysis in relation to criticism of the applied
theoretical framework. This will enable an answer to research question 3 and provide the thesis
with a more realistic and pragmatic conclusion, which specifically addresses the expected
challenges that an adherence to a largely theoretical topic like postmodernism have for the
practical applicability of the communicative recommendations.
Finally, the last section serves to provide an answer to research question 4, which will re-evaluate
the relevance of postmodernism in business decisions and communication on a normative level.
With point of departure in the analytical findings, the thesis seeks to reach a more normative than
instrumental level by assessing which normative stance Vestas seems to has worked from. The
basis for such assessment will, as mentioned, take point of departure in the analytical findings, i.e.
the communicative approaches. The findings from this normative assessment will also be seen in
the light of postmodernism in order to understand how this concept may influence or challenge the
normative core of a given organisation.
1.3. Theory of Science: Social Constructionism
The social constructionist paradigm has been chosen as the foundation of this thesis due to its
large applicability and relevance for the field of communication and due to the fact that it is
originated in postmodernism (Burr, 2001), on which the thesis is based. The social constructionist
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
6
paradigm encourages a critical stance towards what we believe to be the “truth” – i.e. how the
world and everything in it is perceived (Burr, 2001). More specifically, social constructionism
“invites us to be critical of the idea that our observations of the world unproblematically yield its
nature to us, to challenge the view that conventional knowledge is based upon objective, unbiased
observation of the world” (ibid:3). This paradigm is relevant since both the thesis at hand as well
as social constructionism revolve around communication. In the social constructionist worldview,
communication as the idea of no “one singular truth” contradicts the traditional ways of
communicating set messages to a specific audience. Instead, communication would require the
communicator to gain a larger understanding of the receivers, since these cannot be expected to
perceive the communicated message in the way intended.
In a social constructionist world, communication is receiver-oriented rather than sender-oriented:
The meaning and understanding of the world – including communication – is not generated by the
sender, but in the social interaction among the participants of a communication process:
“Language and all other forms of representation gain their meaning from the ways in which they
are used within relationships (...) The individual mind (thought, experience) does not thus
originate meaning, create language or discover the nature of the world. Meanings are born of
coordinations among persons – agreements, negotiations, affirmations. (...) This suggests that any
words, phrases or sentences that are perfectly sensible to us now could, under certain conditions
of relationship, be reduced to nonsense” (Gergen, 1999). Hence, from a social constructionist
view, language is what constitutes the world and the relations among people: this is specifically
relevant for this thesis as it sets out to explore how organisations can communicate with its
stakeholders in the best way possible in relation to the challenges of postmodernism – i.e. how
does the world we live in today suit the approaches and strategies to communication and
stakeholder management that organisations adopt? How do the individual realities of the multiple
stakeholders an organisation has require different approaches to communication? Etc.
As can be concluded from the above definition of social constructionism and its influence on
communication and meaning generation, there is a need for organisations to adapt their
communication in order to suit the context, as not doing so could mean that the messages are less
likely to be received and perceived in the intended way by receivers and thereby creating a gap
between the organisation and its stakeholders. Gergen argues that social constructionism
“celebrates reflexitivity”, i.e. “the attempt to place one’s premises into question, to suspend the
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
7
“obvious”, to listen to alternative framings of reality, and to grapple with the comparative
outcomes of multiple standpoints” (ibid:50). This emphasises the relevance of including
stakeholder analysis at a more comprehensive level in organisations, as doing so will enable the
organisation to listen to these “alternative framings”. As will also be presented more thoroughly at
a later point, social constructionism suits the qualitative research approach of discourse analysis
well. The use of detailed textual discourse analysis as well as contextual and critical discourse
analysis is expected to enable a deconstruction of the messages communicated by an organisation
and an exploration of how these, in turn, can be expected to influence stakeholders and their image
of an organisation in crisis, in a way that is in accordance with the social constructionist paradigm.
Finally, it is relevant to comment on the thesis’ choice of the term “social constructionism” over
“social constructivism”. This has been made according to an argument by Gergen, stating that it is
the understanding of “what is real” that differentiates the two: “for constructivists the process of
world construction is psychological; it takes place “in the head”. In contrast, for social
constructionists what we take to be real is an outcome of social relationships” (Gergen, 1999:237)
Hence, the latter definition of “constructionist”, suits the topics of the thesis, including its
acknowledgement of the postmodern reality, as well as the explorative nature of the thesis’
problem statement and research questions presented in section 1.1.1.
1.4. Theoretical and Methodological Framework
The following section serves to establish an overview of the different theoretical fields applied in
the thesis in order to establish each theoretical contribution’s relevance for the thesis at hand and
the problem statement as well as to clarify the connections between the theoretical fields. Also, the
section will prepare the reader for the methodological chapter to come.
Four main theoretical fields will be drawn on in this thesis: postmodernism, crisis management,
corporate communication and stakeholder relations management. Based on their purpose for the
thesis, these four main theoretical fields can be argued to represent two different functions, and
hence, be divided into two main theoretical sub-groups, namely a contextual and a conceptual
framework. As will be further explained in the following, postmodernism and crisis management
theory are positioned within the contextual framework whereas corporate communication and
stakeholder relations management are positioned within the more conceptual framework.
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
8
To start out with a description of the theories within the more contextual framework, namely
postmodernism and crisis management, these are classified as contextual because they, rather than
being specific conceptual theories to be applied in specific analytical connections, represent the
outlook from which the conceptual fields are considered. The theories for the contextual and
conceptual framework, in combination, aid the answer to the problem statement, namely to make
an exploration of the connections between stakeholder relations management and corporate
communication in a postmodern crisis context.
In terms of the first theory positioned within the contextual framework, namely postmodernism,
the definition of this field as well as its move from a modern to a postmodern era, is primarily
based on contributions from Firat and Venkatesh (1995) and Cova (1996). When presenting the
main concepts of postmodernism to be included in the thesis, several other scholars’ contributions
are drawn upon, namely Parker (1992), HIR Editors (2010), Yazdani, Murad, & Abbas (2011),
Macdonnell (2002) and Hazen (1993). The section on postmodernism is substantial for every part
of the thesis since this, along with (and to a large degree in accordance with) the scientific stance
of social constructionism is determinant for the application and understanding of all other
theoretical fields employed as well as for the analysis and recommendations that will be
developed. In this way, the concepts that will be represented in the section on postmodernism
permeate the authors’ view on all other sections in the thesis.
The second theoretical field, which is also considered as being within the contextual framework, is
crisis management. This is considered as being within the contextual framework because it deals
with major contemporary tendencies within the theoretical field of crisis management rather than
dealing with actual communication strategies from the field of crisis communication. In this way,
this section deals to a higher degree with different theoretical propositions for how different
perceptions of and approaches to crisis management are likely to influence the given
organisation’s reputation post crisis than with actual approaches to respond to crises. As one of the
most widely cited scholars within the field of crisis management, Timothy Coombs (2007) serves
as the primary contributor for the definitional and developmental understanding of crises.
However, when the section turns towards the presentation of a contemporary view on crisis; that
they are complex processes rather than static events, this is primarily based on the contributions
from Frandsen and Johansen (2007) and Ulmer (2007). Finally, Coombs’ contributions are drawn
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
9
upon again when the last section of the crisis chapter touches upon corporate reputation
management, and, in particular, Coombs’ SCCT framework.
In contrast to postmodernism and crisis management theories, which, for the purposes of this
thesis, serve as contextual theories that provide guidance for the approach taken to the additional
elements of the thesis, the conceptual theories, namely stakeholder relations management and
corporate communication, provide some more specific tools to be applied in the analysis.
To start out with stakeholder relations management, this constitutes an important part of the
theoretical background of the thesis and is included due to its absolute relevance seen in the light
of the postmodern and social constructionist background of the thesis. In short, this relevance
consists of the fact that one of the most prevailing and continuously accentuated aspects of
postmodernism in a corporate communication context is stakeholder consideration and inclusion.
Hence, postmodernism’s strong focus on stakeholders naturally gives rise to the inclusion of a
section on stakeholder relations management. In this section, focus is first put on the development
within the field and what the contemporary insights into the field advocate. In these sections,
theoretical contributions are provided by Goodpaster (1991), Freeman (1984), Friedman and Miles
(2006) and Donaldson and Preston (1995). Donaldson and Preston also provide the main insights
into the categorisation of stakeholder theory, which divides stakeholder theory into three main
groups: normative, descriptive and instrumental. Within normative theorising, the main
contributors are Kantian ethics as presented by Friedman and Miles (2006), whereas the main
theoretical contribution in the section on postmodern normative theorising is provided by Calton
and Kurland (1995). Finally, within the section on instrumental and descriptive stakeholder theory,
Freeman’s (1984) and Friedman and Miles’ (2006) contributions are used interchangeably. When
the section moves on to a presentation of theoretical suggestions for how organisations can
manage stakeholder salience, a contribution is provided by Mitchell, Agle & Wood (1997).
The other conceptual theoretical field that will be included in the thesis is corporate
communication. This theoretical field is included because it, as was also the case with stakeholder
relations management, proves relevant for the thesis at hand based on the social constructionist
and postmodern stance on which it is based. Just as stakeholder consideration and inclusion were
accentuated as important features from postmodernism (especially in relation to stakeholder
relations management), so are concepts such as dialogue, two-way symmetrical communication
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
10
and contextually adapted rhetoric also key terms from the postmodern worldview – concepts,
which emphasise the importance of a theoretical section on corporate communication. This section
includes a general introduction to the field of corporate communication and its importance, which
primarily draws upon contributions from Cornelissen (2008) and Burr (1995). However,
contributions from Calton and Curland, (1995) and Donaldson and Preston (1995) are also
included. The section then continues to a presentation of public relations and, the development
within this field and what the most contemporary contributions from the field suggest as being
most appropriate. The development of PR has primarily been based on contributions from Grunig
and Hunt (1984 & 1992), and concludes that two-way symmetrical communication is the
contemporary ideal that organisations should pursue in their communication. However, several
scholars within the field of postmodernism pose points of criticism towards two-way symmetrical
communication, which will, hence, follow. This section is primarily based on contributions from
Curtin and Gaither (2005) and Holtzhausen (2009). As the final parts of this chapter, two sections
are presented that revolve around communication specifically with employees and shareholders
since these stakeholder groups, as will be explained at a later point, are of primary focus
throughout the thesis. The section on communication with shareholders is primarily based on
contributions from Ryan & Jacobs (2005), but also draws upon notions from Kelly, Laskin, &
Rosenstein (2010), Brown (1994), Argenti (2006) and Guimard (2008). The section on
communication with employees is based on an ASB cast with Helle Aggerholm (2009).
The methodological approach that will be taken in order to apply the theoretical framework
presented above to the case study is, as will also be elaborated on in chapter 3, textual, contextual
and critical discourse analysis. These methodological approaches are deemed appropriate for
answering the problem statement because qualitative assessments of communicative events are
primary for the exploration of the connections between stakeholder relations management and
corporate communication in a postmodern crisis context and on basis of a social constructionist
scientific foundation. The specific relevance and application of each methodological approach will
be further explained in chapter 3.
1.5. Delimitations
Throughout the thesis, different delimitations exist both in relation to theory, method and analysis;
e.g. delimitations in relation to selection of stakeholder groups, methodological approaches to
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
11
research as well as analytical evaluations. However, these delimitations will not be further
explained in this section since each delimitation will be addressed in the respective sections.
However, an overall delimitation that pervades throughout the thesis, and which is closely related
to social constructionism as the thesis’ scientific paradigm, consists of the fact that the theoretical
nature of the thesis entails a subjective research approach to e.g. selection of theories,
understanding of their correlation, as well as the interpretation of analytical findings. Hence, it is
emphasised that any results reached or conclusions drawn throughout the thesis are a result of the
authors’ subjective understanding and context.
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
12
2. Theory
The theoretical chapter, which follows, will present four main theoretical fields that have been
selected because they, in combination, are deemed appropriate for answering the problem
statement, namely to explore the connections between stakeholder relations management and
corporate communication in a postmodern crisis context.
As mentioned in the theoretical framework (cf. section 1.4), the functions of postmodernism and
crisis management as theoretical fields are mainly contextual, whereas corporate communication
and stakeholder relations management serve mainly as conceptual contributions to the analysis.
However, in spite of this, the structure of the theoretical chapter presents firstly postmodernism,
then stakeholder relations management, then corporate communication and, finally, crisis
management; with this, postmodernism represents a broad foundation for the more specific and
conceptual fields of stakeholder relations management and corporate communication, and finally,
crisis management broadens the view again and provides a second contextual framework to
consider the matter from.
2.1. Two Approaches to Strategic Management: Prescriptive and Emergent
The following section will, albeit rather briefly, introduce the emergent and the prescriptive
approaches to strategic management and the implications that each of the approaches poses to
organisations. This section on strategic management is not included so as to provide an actual
theory for the analysis but rather serves to illuminate the lens through which strategic management
will be considered in this thesis.
According to Richard Lynch (2009), a main contributor within the field of strategic management,
the prescriptive approach is characterised as a strategy where the objective(s) and steps for
achieving these are defined in advance. Hence, this strategic process assumes largely that
organisations can see ahead often for several years, which is in fact also the main disadvantage
with the prescriptive approach: it largely ignores innovation and puts the organisation in a
challenging position if the environment is turbulent or if unforeseen matters occur (ibid.). On the
contrary, within the emergent approach the final objective(s) is unclear, and hence, this approach
advocates more flexible strategising that can quickly adapt to environmental changes or
unforeseen occurrences. However, this is also the disadvantage of the emergent approach: almost
all organisations need to set some objectives, and for many stakeholders, the clearer the objectives
are, the easier it is for them to pursue them (and thereby for the organisation to reach goals and
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
13
thereby growth) (ibid.). Hence, according to Lynch, organisations should strive for strategic
planning that take on both prescriptive and emergent processes, which, ideally, would provide
ground for a situation in which all stakeholders have clear objectives to pursue and know how to
do so, while at the same time devoting resources to the development of new ideas, innovation, and
proper actions to take in times of turbulence.
As will become evident throughout the thesis, the emergent and prescriptive approaches described
within strategic management are representative for other business areas, only under a variety of
‘labels’; within crisis management, the processes range from the narrow perspective, representing
a more prescriptive approach in which crises are considered as single events, to the complex broad
perspective, representing the more emergent approach in which crises are considered processes.
Within stakeholder theory, the more prescriptive approach to management is defined as the neo-
classical theory, which centres on profits via planning (i.e. a more prescriptive approach) versus
the socio-economic theory, which, by focusing more on the process (and its participants) rather
than the end result, represents the more emergent approach. Similarly to the above-presented
examples, parallels can be drawn from strategic management to most fields of organisational
theories.
Common for all, regardless of how they term the different approaches, is that the vast majority of
contemporary scholars and practitioners advocate the emergent approach over the prescriptive
approach on an ideal level, but also acknowledge that in reality, a combination of the two
approaches proves more realisable, profitable and sustainable.
Hence, with these insights, the purpose of this section is to establish the fact that throughout the
entire thesis, the emergent approach is considered ideal because of the postmodern society to
which organisations must respond, however, it is also acknowledged that prescriptive strategising
is necessary to some degree.
2.2. Postmodernism
The following section of the theoretical chapter serves to provide an overview of postmodernism
as a paradigm, which will be used throughout the thesis as a method of reflection and a main
contextual theoretical field. The presentation of the different aspects of postmodernism in this
section has not been structured according to the relative importance or the general acceptance of
each aspect within the postmodern research society, but rather, according to their relevance for the
thesis at hand. Furthermore, it should be noted that even though “(Post)modernity refers to a time
period” and “(post)modernism refers to the cultural conditions associated with (post)modernity”
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
14
(Firat & Venkatesh, 1995:240), the two terms will, for the sake of simplicity, be used
interchangeably for the remaining part of this chapter and thesis in general.
To define postmodernism would, according to scholars within the field, contradict the very
foundation of the concept itself. However, there is a widespread agreement on certain topics that
can be argued as central to the postmodernist way of thinking, e.g. the rejection of metanarratives
and the rejection of a single logic to history (HIR Editors, 2010). In an attempt to provide a more
clear explanation of the topic, Firat & Venkatesh argue that “postmodernism has emerged not only
as a critique of modernism and its foundational domination over established constructs in
consumer culture, but, in its own right, it also has emerged as a new philosophical and cultural
movement (1995:239). With this, postmodernism is not only “some points of view” but is,
according to Firat and Venkatesh in fact a holistic field of thought. Cova further argues that
“Fragmentation, indeterminacy and intense distrust of all universal or totalizing discourses are
the hallmark of postmodernist thought” (1996:16). As will become evident throughout the thesis,
these concepts are primary for postmodernism’s influence on businesses. A final contribution by
Parker, which seems especially relevant for the communication thesis at hand is relevant to
include as he states that: “(…) we are advised to stop attempting to ‘systematize’, ‘define’ or
impose a logic on events and instead to recognize the limitations of all our projects. The role of
language in constituting ‘reality’ is therefore central, and all our attempts to discover ‘truth’
should be seen for what they are – forms of discourse” (1992:3). Parker’s emphasis on language
and how this constructs reality is appropriate for the purposes of this thesis and hence, his
understanding is acknowledged throughout the thesis.
2.2.1. From Modernism to Postmodernism
In order to better understand postmodernism, it is useful to view it in relation to modernism, which
is the paradigm preceding it (Cova, 1996). Firat and Venkatesh have put up six points of critique
towards modernism with related arguments for how postmodernism comes to terms with these
points of critique, some of which will be presented in the following. Firstly, Firat and Venkatesh
present the fact that whereas modernism was guided, to a large degree, by science, rationalism and
technology, postmodernists point out that ”what we see around us are not just the product of
science and technology, but the processes of cultural presence that include aesthetics, language,
discourses and practices” (1995:240). The point of criticism towards modernism, then, consists of
the fact that it is unable to grasp the complexity of the reality and of social beings. The
postmodern quest becomes to liberate the consumer from this, according to Firat and Venkatesh,
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
15
too rational scheme (ibid:240). Firat and Venkatesh also emphasise the fact that modernism tended
to reduce the world into (too) simple categorizations, such as subject/object, male/female,
producer/consumer, signified/signifier, and so on (ibid:240). Such dichotomies are, in the
postmodern philosophy, unsuccessful, based on the fact that according to postmodernism, the
world can never be this ’black and white’ (ibid:242). Firat and Venkatesh also stress the fact that
in modernism, consumption was focused on the end product, which is criticised by the postmodern
line of thought, arguing that consumption is a process of value producing activity rather than one,
static point of consumption (ibid.). With this it becomes evident that the modernist idea of one
single reality is rejected by postmodernists, just like postmodernism “rejects epistemological
assumptions, refutes methodological conventions, resists knowledge claims, and overall contrasts
the modernist idea of one single reality” (Cova, 1996:16).
2.2.2. Concepts of Postmodernism
The next section of this chapter seeks to identify some of the main characteristics and concepts of
postmodernism. One of the most central aspects of postmodernism consists of the fact that the
individual is perceived on its own rather than as a small part of a larger whole, with collective
ideals of how to live (Cova, 1996). This change in perception has also entailed an actual
empowerment of the individual: “(...) it has been said that we have now entered the time of the
ordinary individual, an age in which anyone can – and must – take personal action so as to
produce and show one’s own existence, one’s own difference” (ibid.:18). Individualisation is
closely related to the concept of fragmentation, which deals with the ways in which individuals
understand reality. In relation to this, no one reality is more correct or appropriate for a given
context than another; “fragmentation means literally, the breaking up into parts and erasing of the
whole, single reality into multiple realities, all claiming legitimacy, and all decoupling any link to
the presumed whole” (Firat & Venkatesh, 1995:253). Since communication is a central part of the
thesis, it is relevant to connect this to the concept of fragmentation; in this respect, fragmentation
implies that any subject to which one communicates has its own reality and own claims, and
hence, no one communicative event’s legitimacy can be anticipated.
Discourse is another relevant aspect to focus on in relation to this section on postmodernism
because of its close connection to communication, which is a central topic of this thesis. As was
the case with the preceding notions, when it comes to discourse and communication, there are also
clear differences in the modern and postmodern viewpoints; “the discourse of modernity rests on
the transcendent criteria such as ‘progress’ and ‘reason’. Postmodern discourse on the other
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
16
hand, analyzes social life in terms of paradox and indeterminacy and rejects all metanarratives
and overarching guiding principles, religion, science, objectivity, rationality and the notion of
truth” (Yazdani, Murad, & Abbas, 2011:249). Furthermore, according to Yazdani et al.,
“postmodern discourse (…) rejects the human agent as the center of rational control and
understanding” (ibid.:252). This emphasises the link between postmodernism and social
constructionism as it stresses the fact that communication is largely contextual and objective rather
than a subjective narrative. This viewpoint is supported by Macdonnell, arguing that “discourses
differ with the kind of institutions and social practices in which they took shape, and with the
positions of those who speak and those whom they address” (Macdonnell in Holtzhausen,
2002:253). With this, the postmodern understanding of discourse becomes evident, establishing
that any communicative event or discourse depends on the context in which it is produced and
consumed and, hence, the interpretation of it differs accordingly. When Hazen states that
“postmodern existence calls us to listen to one another in all our multiplicity and uniqueness”
(Hazen, 1993:15), this stresses the importance of organisations and managers as producers of
discourse to acknowledge that – due to the fact that a high degree of multiplicity and uniqueness
exist among their various stakeholders – the different stakeholder groups’ interpretation of
organisational discourse is, likewise, likely to be diverse. This postmodern understanding of
discourse is closely related to the thesis’ social constructionist foundation, which, as mentioned in
section 1.3, implies a receiver-oriented approach to communication.
As was pointed out in the beginning of this section, postmodernism is acknowledged as
constituting the contemporary reality and hence, it will be used throughout the thesis as a method
of reflection. Based on this argument, organisations’ success can, to a large degree, be assumed to
depend on their ability to acknowledge and manage the implications that this paradigm upholds,
and therefore, the concepts of postmodernism will, continuously throughout the thesis, serve as
tools of evaluation for whether the current reality has been considered or not.
This thesis adopts the basic principles of postmodernism and the challenges it poses to many
aspects of corporate communication in the current context. However, criticism has also been
raised towards postmodernism, some of which is presented in the following, which question the
practical applicability of postmodernism in organisational settings. A major point of critique
towards postmodernism is its rejection of truth because it, as Parker states, “is a dangerous, and
potentially disabling set of ideas for critical organization theorists to adopt. This is because I
believe that any emancipatory project is not well served by giving up entirely on notions of ‘truth’
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
17
and ‘progress’ (1995:553). What Parker argues is the fact that with the rejection of truth, the
possibility of taking any stance in relation to organisational challenges, becomes impossible; “a
key problem raised by postmodernists is the impossibility of having certain knowledge about ‘the
other’ (person, organization, culture, society) (...) then there is no guarantee of the certainty of
anything at all” (ibid.:554). Hence, in spite of the thesis being guided by postmodern principles, it
is recognised than in its absolute state, the paradigm holds some utopian thoughts that are not
directly applicable to business contexts.
2.3. Stakeholder Relations Management
In the following section a comprehensive insight into the field of stakeholder relations will be
provided. The field of stakeholder relations serves as one of the main themes of this thesis and is
essential to the purpose of making a theoretical exploration of stakeholder communication in a
postmodern crisis context. Several theorists argue for the relevance of stakeholder relations as an
important part of business management. Goodpaster, for instance, suggests that ethically
responsible management is management that includes careful attention not only to stockholders
but to stakeholders generally in the decision-making process (1991). This current perception – that
there are other parties having a stake in the decision-making of organisations than those holding
equity positions – was coined by Freeman in his most widely cited definition of a stakeholder;
“any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization’s
objectives” (Freeman, 1984:46). Basically, this perception lays the ground for the way this thesis
will approach the field of stakeholder relations, and therefore an elaboration of this wide
acknowledgement of multiple stakeholders will initiate this part of the theoretical chapter.
2.3.1. Changing Perspectives: from the Shareholder to the Stakeholder Model
According to Cornelissen, the now widespread adoption of the stakeholder perspective in business
marks a move away from a neo-classical economic theory of organisations to a socio-economic
theoretical understanding. The neo-classical economic theory suggests that “the purpose of
organisations is to make profits in their accountability to themselves and shareholders, and that
only by doing so can business contribute to wealth for itself and society at large” (Cornelissen,
2011:40). The socio-economic theory suggests, in contrast, that “the notion of accountability in
fact extends to other groups besides shareholders who are considered to be important for the
continuity of the organisation and the welfare of society” (ibid.). Freeman also acknowledges this
change, arguing that “internal and external change has meant that the model of the organization
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
18
as a mere resource-conversion entity is no longer appropriate” (Friedman & Miles, 2006:25). As
Cornelissen and Freeman emphasise with this change, focus has moved from shareholders only to
multiple stakeholders.
Donaldson and Preston highlight the distinction between the shareholder model and the
stakeholder model by contrasting figure 11 and 22. As they note in figure 1, “investors, employees,
and suppliers are depicted as contributing inputs, which the "black box" of the firm transforms
into outputs for the benefit of customers” (Donaldson & Preston, 1995:67-68). In opposition to
figure 1, they present the more contemporary figure 2, in which “the arrows between the firm and
its stakeholder constituents run in both directions. All stakeholder relationships are depicted in
the same size and shape and are equidistant from the "black box" of the firm in the centre”
(Donaldson & Preston, 1995:68). With this, figure 2 presents a model in which no stakeholder
interests are benefited over others (ibid.).
The development represented by these two models corresponds with Freeman and Cornelissen’s
notions that focus has moved from organisation-centric and shareholder oriented management
models to more stakeholder-inclusive management models. This increased focus on stakeholders
can be argued to represent a general progress towards encompassing a contextual consideration,
which, as mentioned in section 1.3, coheres well with the scientific stance of this thesis, namely
social constructionism.
2.3.2. Categorisation of Stakeholder Theory
Three types of stakeholder theory are critical to Donaldson and Preston’s analysis: Descriptive,
instrumental and normative. Firstly, Stakeholder theory is descriptive/empirical in that “it reflects
and explains past, present, and future states of corporations and their stakeholders” (Donaldson
& Preston, 1995:71). With this, the descriptive aspect has the purpose of exploring the current
state of affairs within a given organisation. Secondly, instrumental stakeholder theories represent
ways of using stakeholder management to achieve organisational objectives such as profitability
and growth. As Donaldson and Preston also argue, instrumental stakeholder theory “clearly
implies that corporate managers must induce constructive contributions from their stakeholders to
accomplish their own desired results (e.g., perpetuation of the organization, profitability, stability,
growth)” (ibid.:72). This more pragmatic and action-oriented approach says, in effect: "If you
1 Appendix 1 2 Appendix 2
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
19
want to achieve (avoid) X, Y, or Z, then adopt (don't adopt) principles and practices A, B, or C"
(ibid.). Thirdly, besides being descriptive and instrumental, stakeholder theory is fundamentally
normative, which “is used to interpret the function of the organisation, including the identification
of moral or philosophical guidelines for the operation and management of corporations”
(Donaldson & Preston, 1995:71). With this, the normative theory revolves around specific ethical
guidelines a given organisation should operate upon. More specifically, it is based on the premise:
”Do (don't do) this because it is the right (wrong) thing to do” (ibid.:72). These three aspects of
stakeholder theory interrelate as depicted in figure 33.
Donaldson and Preston argue that the three aspects are embedded within each other with the
normative aspects as the core, the instrumental aspect ‘in the middle’ and with the descriptive
aspect as the outer layer (ibid.). They further argue that the “recognition of these ultimate moral
values and obligations gives stakeholder management its fundamental normative base”
(Donaldson & Preston, 1995:74), which implies that the normative (and ethical) base influences
the instrumental and descriptive aspects. Finally, they argue that “the normative thesis is the
strongest, being the only one able to provide epistemological justification for the stakeholder
theory. This does not lead to rejection of instrumental and descriptive variants, but to the
recommendation that these three theses be regarded as nested within each other” (Donaldson and
Preston in Friedman & Miles, 2006:30).
Due to the fact that the normative aspect constitutes the core (and thereby lays the ground for the
two other aspects),
The following sections will elaborate on different theoretical contributions from the normative,
and descriptive aspects, respectively. The instrumental level, which concerns the more tactical and
practical dimensions of organisations’ stakeholder relations has – not because it is not relevant, but
due to limitations in scope – been omitted.
2.3.2.1. Normative Stakeholder Theory
Within normative stakeholder theorising there are many different contributors who advocate
different views upon the subject, with different implications for organisations. This section will
3 Appendix 3
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
20
counterpose selected viewpoints with the intention of illustrating the importance of considering
which ethical foundation a given organisation bases its operations and strategies on. For this
purpose, a limited number of normative theoretical contributions will be presented in the
following, which have been carefully chosen due to their relevance for this specific thesis.
The first normative group of theories that will be presented are based on Kantian ethics. Kant
argued that ”it is the intention or motive behind the act rather than the consequences that make
actions good: one should make the right decision for the right reason. If corporate managers
support a charity only because they believe it will bring cheap advertising or enhance corporate
reputation, it cheapens the act and cannot be thought of as moral” (Friedman & Miles, 2006:46).
Basically, this advocates that organisations should adopt an approach to business, which is
genuine and sincere both in terms of its goals and how to achieve these. Only by doing so can
organisations, according to Kant, be considered ethical. In relation to this, Kant identifies two
approaches to ethical behaviour: ”hypothetical imperatives that take the form ’if you want to do y,
do x’, and categorical imperatives, which are the duties that are required” (Friedman & Miles,
2006:46). One of these duties is to ”always treat people as ends and not means” (ibid.).
Numerous normative theories build on Kantian ethics, among some of the most widely cited are
Evan and Freeman. In the Kantian spirit, they argue that ”the true purpose of the organisation is
to pursue the interests of the stakeholders” (Friedman & Miles, 2006:47). Evan and Freeman
suggest that the purpose of a given organisation has to be altered to focus on serving stakeholder
interests. On basis of this, they have developed two stakeholder management principles:
P1: Principle of Corporate Legitimacy; The corporation should be managed for the benefit of its
stakeholders. The rights of stakeholders must be ensured, and, further, they must participate, in
some sense, in decisions that substantially affect their welfare.
P2: The Stakeholder Fiduciary Principle; Management bears a fiduciary relationship to
stakeholders and to the corporation as an abstract entity. They must act in the interests of the
stakeholders as their agent in the interest of the corporation to ensure the survival of the firm,
safe-guarding the long-term stakes of each group (ibid.:48).
These two principles provide a more contemporary guide to ethical decision-making in
organisations that focus not only on shareholders but on the full range of stakeholders and the
importance of their participation.
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
21
Also theorising from a Kantian point of departure, Bowie proposes seven principles for a Kantian
approach to business. Along the same lines as Evan and Freeman, he advocates that stakeholders’
interests should be considered in any corporate decision, and that stakeholders should participate
in decision-making. Of specific relevance is his fourth principle, that “when stakeholder group
interests conflict, decisions should not be made solely on the grounds of there being a greater
number of stakeholders in one group than in another” (Friedman & Miles, 2006:49).
It should be noted that Evan, Freeman and Bowie – because of their foundation on Kantian ethics
– have been heavily criticised due to the fact that they are categorised as first kind normative
theories, and hence, are ”unrealizable in the foreseeable future, requiring widespread societal
changes” (ibid.:42).
Bowie’s fourth principle stands in stark contrast to the utilitarian ”common good” principle, which
Argandoña applies as a foundation for stakeholder theory. With common good stakeholder theory,
Argandoña proposes that “company obligations to contribute to the common good extend from the
common good of the company itself to that of the local community, the country and all human
kind” (Friedman & Miles, 2006:63). In other words, Argandoña suggests that organisations are
obliged to operate and make decisions that provide the largest amount of good to the largest
amount of people. Adding to Argandoña’s common good stakeholder theory, Wallace proposes
that “a true common good is universal, not singular or collective, and is distributive in character,
being communicable to many without becoming anyone’s private good. (…) Each person
participates in the whole common good, not merely in a part of it, nor can any one person possess
it wholly” (Wallace (1977) in Valesquez (1992) in Argandoña (1998) in Friedman & Miles,
2006:62). This statement illustrates that according to the common good stakeholder theory, an
organisation is ethical if it succeeds in benefiting the majority of stakeholders.
Along the same lines as criticism was raised towards Evan, Freeman and Bowie due to their
categorisation as first kind, highly unrealisable and idealised theories, the same is the case with
Argandoña’s common good stakeholder theory: in benefitting the majority, a consequence is that
some will often have to be sacrificed. Hence, Argandoña’s statement, that “to the extent that the
company develops its common good, all will have a share in it (although in different ways and in
different proportions)” (1998 in Friedman & Miles, 2006:64), becomes problematic: when
benefitting the most, some will (almost with no exception) have to be sacrificed along the way.
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
22
Hence, the dilemma proposed by juxtaposing the Kantian normative ethics and the utilitarian
normative ethics is that within organisations, regardless of which ethical stand they operate by, it
is (normatively) impossible to actually satisfy the needs of every single stakeholder group. This
discussion of normativity in stakeholder relations will be elaborated on further in the answer to
research question 4.
2.3.2.1.1. Postmodern Normative Stakeholder Theory
Postmodern normative stakeholder theories are less prescriptive than the theories based on
Kantian and utilitarian ethics mentioned above. The most essential difference consists of the fact
that whereas Kantian and utilitarian ethics are universalist in nature, postmodern ethics are
particularist in nature (ibid.). In relation to stakeholder management, this implies that the
postmodern approach encourages organisations to contemplate each stakeholder group in isolation
– and to take into consideration their unique contexts, ”rather than the establishment of ethical
codes for universal timeless, placeless application” (Friedman & Miles, 2006:69). Based on this
point of departure, Friedman and Miles suggest deconstruction as a method of analysis, which is
closely related to the particularist nature of postmodernism: instead of perceiving the ’world’ as
one uniform whole, deconstruction advocates an approach whereby the ’whole’ is broken down
into individual parts, which require individual and contextually defined approaches. As Friedman
and Miles note, this relates to the concept of fragmentation; ”lack of a ’right’ way to think and act
is associated with (…) a shift of attention towards micro relations and individual identities”
(Ibid.:69).
Several contributions exist within postmodern stakeholder relations management theory and
normative ethics. Calton and Kurland’s contribution builds upon the general concept of
decentralisation, moving focus from top-down, organisation centred management, to a
decentralised approach where stakeholders actively participate; ”postmodern theory of
’stakeholder enabling’ decentres organisational discourse by replacing privileged managerial
monologues with multilateral stakeholder dialogues” (Calton and Kurland 1995 in Friedman &
Miles, 2006:70). As this quote emphasises, this decentralisation fosters dialogue with stakeholders
over internal managerial monologue. With this, ”they refer to ’managing’ as a situation where the
organisation exercises control over its stakeholders within an institutionalised hierarchy, whereas
the word ’enabling’ refers to a process whereby stakeholders, together with agents, jointly
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
23
exercise control over shared concerns” (ibid.). Their replacement of the word managing with the
word enabling serves a postmodern purpose in that it acknowledges the individual realities and
contexts of multiple stakeholders and gives each of them a voice – thus enabling multiple-
stakeholder discourses (ibid.). When stakeholders are given this voice, they are able to influence
organisation discourse (ibid.).
2.3.2.2. Instrumental and Descriptive Stakeholder Theory
As mentioned in section 2.3.2, the normative aspects should serve as a foundation for all
stakeholder management. Once this ethical core has been established, the instrumental and
descriptive stakeholder aspects can be considered. In opposition to the normative aspect,
instrumental and descriptive theories present the more tangible approaches to stakeholder
management, some of which will be discussed in the following, however, as previously explained,
with focus on the descriptive ones. As was the case with the normative theory section, those
theories have been sought out that best suit the purpose of this thesis. However, instrumental
theories have not been included due to the fact that this thesis strives to discuss stakeholder
relations management on the more normative and ideal level, i.e. in terms of the business model
applied rather than the practical dimension of organisations’ stakeholder relations management.
Due to the fact that, according to Donaldson and Preston (1995), the three aspects should be
nested within each other implying that the instrumental and descriptive dimensions are based on
the normative one, the necessity of focusing on either the normative or more practical dimensions
of stakeholder theory due to limitations in scope it is, hence, obviously more interesting to focus
on the normative dimensions since this is the foundation.
2.3.2.2.1. Stakeholder Mapping
The purpose of the following section relies on the fact that to be able to include the stakeholders as
suggested by e.g. Calton and Kurland, an organisation needs to first identify who these
stakeholders are. This is supported by Freeman, who states that ”any framework which seeks to
enhance an organization’s stakeholder management capabilities must begin with an application of
the basic definition. Who are those groups and individuals who can affect and are affected by the
achievements of an organization’s purpose?” (Freeman, 1984:54). To identify who the
stakeholders are requires stakeholder mapping, to which there are many different approaches.
These can be divided into contributions that seek to identify stakeholder groups and their salience,
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
24
and contributions that are helpful as tools for developing strategies for stakeholder relations in a
given organisation.
The theories that seek to identify and evaluate stakeholders that will be presented in this section
include Freeman’s stakeholder mapping, Clarkson’s categorisation of stakeholders and Mitchell,
Agle and Wood’s stakeholder salience model.
Freeman’s stakeholder mapping framework is useful for identifying the specific stakeholders of a
given organisation or even specific situations, operations etc. (Friedman & Miles, 2006). He
presents the following eight questions for guidance:
1) Who are our current and potential stakeholders?
2) What are their interests/rights?
3) How does each stakeholder affect us (challenges and opportunities)?
4) How do we affect each stakeholder?
5) What assumption does our current strategy make about each important stakeholder?
6) What are the current ’environmental variables’ that affect us and our stakeholders?
7) How do we measure each of these variables and their impact on us and our stakeholders?
8) How do we keep score with our stakeholders? (Ibid.:84)
Having considered Freeman’s framework for stakeholder mapping will ideally provide a
descriptive overview of the stakeholders. With this, it is relevant to contemplate the different
stakeholders’ functions and salience. One approach, which is helpful for doing so, is to classify the
stakeholders in terms of whether they are primary or secondary and contractual or community.
According to Clarkson, primary stakeholders are those on who the future survival of the
organisation depends, more specifically those who are essential for financial transaction.
Secondary stakeholders are those who affect or are affected by the organisation, but in a non-
financial way (Cornelissen, 2011). Another way of viewing stakes is whether they have a formal
contract with the organisation or not, distinguished as contractual vs. community stakeholders.
Clarkson defines contractual stakeholders as those who have some form of legal relationship with
the organisation, whereas community stakeholders do not (Clarkson, 1992 in Cornelissen, 2011).
This classification of stakeholders, although theoretically useful in some respects and widely used
in practice, can be regarded as somewhat narrow and prescriptive. What these approaches suggest
is that primary stakeholders as a general rule have more instrumental and contractual stakes,
whereas secondary stakeholders have more normative stakes. However, in accordance with social
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
25
constructionism, one cannot generalise different groups of stakeholder on such basic premises.
With this, it is acknowledged that primary stakeholders can also have normative stakes and
secondary stakeholders can also have instrumental stakes.
2.3.2.2.2. Stakeholder Salience
A final contribution for descriptive stakeholder mapping, which will be presented here, is
Mitchell, Agle and Wood’s theory of stakeholder identification and salience (Mitchell, Agle, &
Wood, 1997). This model differs from the previous ones because it not only identifies the
different stakeholders, but also evaluates the salience of each. The model has three main attributes,
which can be assigned to stakeholders: power, legitimacy and urgency. Power refers to the degree
to which a stakeholder “can gain access to coercive, utilitarian, or normative means, to impose its
will in the relationship” (ibid. 865). Legitimacy refers to “a generalised perception or assumption
that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed
systems of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions” (Suchman, 1995 in Mitchell, Agle and Wood,
1997). Mitchell, Agle and Wood consider urgency as being based on two attributes: 1) time
sensitivity and 2) criticality, referring to “the degree to which stakeholder claims call for
immediate attention” (ibid.:867). Based on these three attributes, eight different types of
stakeholders are identified. This divides the stakeholders into three groups of salience: latent,
expectant and highly salient (ibid.:874). The latent stakeholders possess only one of the three
attributes, making them dormant, discretionary or demanding stakeholders (ibid. 874). The
expectant stakeholders possess two of the three attributes and are classified as dominant,
dangerous and dependent. The highly salient stakeholders are classified as definitive stakeholders
possessing power, legitimacy and urgency. Finally, the eighth category of stakeholders, non-
stakeholders, are those who possess none of the three attributes, and hence, have no salience.
As is evident, this model provides a useful tool for prioritising stakeholders in terms of how
salient they are to the organisation, which enables the organisation to prioritise which of its
stakeholders to focus on in different situations. In line with postmodernism, all stakeholders are,
with use of this model, considered individually and based on their unique contexts and stance in
relation to the organisation. The usefulness of this model in a postmodern relation is further
emphasised because this model acknowledges that the three attributes are transitory, and hence, a
given stakeholder group’s salience can change according to context (ibid.). For organisations, this
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
26
emphasises how the salience of a specific stakeholder group, and hence the prioritisation of these,
can change over time.
2.4. Corporate Communication
As was evidenced in section 2.3.1, the general approach to stakeholder relations has developed
from the shareholder model to the stakeholder model (Donaldson & Preston, 1995). This implies
that focus has moved from organisation-centric and shareholder oriented management, to
stakeholder management models that, to a much larger degree, include all stakeholders. With this
development, some of the most essential keywords describing contemporary stakeholder relations
management can be said to be contextual consideration, focus on the importance of all
stakeholders and not just shareholders, as well as strong moral and ethical grounds on which to
build an organisation’s stakeholder relations. Furthermore, the postmodern approach to
stakeholder relations advocates a ‘stakeholder enabling’ approach, which fosters dialogue with
stakeholders over internal managerial monologue, giving each stakeholder a voice (Calton and
Kurland 1995 in Friedman & Miles, 2006).
Given the purpose of this thesis; to explore the relations between corporate communication,
stakeholder relations management and postmodernism in order to develop recommendations for
how Vestas is most likely to successfully handle its crises, it is given that communication plays an
essential role. The importance of the role of communication is further enhanced with the social
constructionist stance of the thesis, since the accepted ways of understanding the world within
social constructionism is that it is not a product of objective observation, but of the social
processes and interactions between an organisation and its stakeholders (Burr, 1995:3). Similarly,
postmodernism (on which social constructionism in based, cf. section 1.3) also emphasises the
role of language, power relations and motivations4 within communicative events, which further
enhances the relevance of a strong focus on communication throughout the thesis. Hence, this
following section serves to present the development within the field of communication as well as
the most essential communicative aspects to consider in the attempt to evaluate the communicative
processes and decisions in Vestas following its crises.
This following section will, firstly, present the major developments within the schools of thoughts
in the field of (corporate) communication in a rather broad way, and then narrow down the focus
4 Appendix 4
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
27
to revolve around the public relations discipline, since it is from this corporate function crisis
management springs. Finally, the section will provide some insights into the postmodern view on
two-way communication.
One of the most widely acknowledged scholars in the field of corporate communication, Joep
Cornelissen, defines it as “a management function that offers a framework for the effective
coordination of all internal and external communication with the overall purpose of establishing
and maintaining favourable reputations with stakeholder groups upon which the organisation is
dependent.” The emphasis on an organisation’s stakeholders as being a key influence on an
organisations future is even further emphasised when Cornelissen notes that “in today’s society
the future of any company critically depends on how it is viewed by key stakeholders such as
shareholders and investors, customers and consumers, employees, and members of the community
in which the company operates” (Cornelissen 2008:3). This also emphases that the organisation’s
reputation is in fact dependent on the way in which it is perceived by key stakeholders. With this,
as stated by Cornelissen, protecting the organisation’s reputation is critical and one of the most
important strategic objectives of corporate communication, and hence, the objective of building,
maintaining and protecting the organisation’s reputation is a core task of corporate communication
professionals (Cornelissen 2008:3). This is supported by Dowling and Moran, arguing that
considerable support in the academic community exists for the idea that “organisations with
better reputations outperform their rivals” (Dowling and Moran 2012:25).
Managing relationships with stakeholders so as to establish and maintain a good reputation is,
however, only one function of corporate communication. Other essential functions that are
categorised as being functions of corporate communication are e.g. an organisation’s mission,
vision, corporate objective and goals, strategies, corporate image, and an integrative approach to
unifying all of these elements to a coherent corporate identity and corporate brand. However, for
the purposes of this thesis, focus will mainly be on essential aspects of corporate communication
in a stakeholder, and hence, corporate reputation perspective.
2.4.1. Public Relations
The major development within the field public relations (from now on referred to as PR) will be
presented in the following since this is an important function of communication during crisis. It is
widely acknowledged that “risk issues and crisis management in public relations is a must for the
modern-day public relations practitioner” (Regester & Larkin 2008:xiv). From a historical
standpoint, “’damage control’, managing public opinion, mainly through mass media, set off the
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
28
public relations industry” (Ewen 1996 in Falkheimer & Heide 2006:181), and Falkheimer and
Heide claim that “it is still a fact that public relations show its main value when organizations
face risks, uncertainty or suffers from crises” (ibid.).
2.4.1.1. Four Models of Public Relations
The most referred to description – or perception – of the evolution of public relations was
provided by Grunig and Hunt in their book Managing Public Relations from 1984. Spanning over
an approximately 130 year long timeline, the authors describe four models that characterise the
evolution of the approaches taken in PR. On top of this evolutionary period, i.e. as their most
current acknowledgement, they place the two-way symmetrical model, which, hence, presents
what they consider the contemporary ideal approach to PR (Grunig & Hunt, 1984). To better be
able to evaluate the characteristics of the two-way symmetrical model, an insight into the three
models that, according to Grunig and Hunt, characterise the preceding evolution, will briefly be
introduced.
The first (and earliest) model is called the press agentry model, the second is called the public
information model, and the third is called the two-way asymmetrical. The common denominator
for these three models – which all precede the (according to Grunig and Hunt) ideal two-way
symmetrical model – is that they are all asymmetrical, attempting to change the behaviour of
publics without changing the behaviour of the organisation (Grunig 1992:39). This lack of
contextual consideration distances these three models from the scientific stance taken in this
thesis, since the acknowledgement of contextual influence and importance is one of the most
essential premises of social constructionism (cf. section 1.3). Under the earliest of the four models,
the press agentry model, PR strives for publicity in the media in almost any way possible, with the
main goal of getting their client on the media agenda in an, often, manipulative and untruthful
way. Research and ethics were of little importance, as was any contextual factors (Grunig
1992:39), (Grunig 2001:12). Within the next model, the public information model, journalism was
more objective, but the framing of the information about the organisation was still favouring the
organisation (Grunig 1992:39). In this way, truth and accuracy was prioritised, but often public
relations professionals did in fact little more than distribute information, and communication was
still one-way. With the third model, the two-way asymmetrical model, the organisation uses
research, and thereby contextual understanding, to develop the messages that are most likely to
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
29
persuade the public to behave as the organisation wants (Grunig 1992:39). Hence, PR practitioners
to a higher degree than was the case with the two previous models, have a consideration for the
receivers’/consumers’ context, and acknowledge that this is an important fact in terms of effective
and engaging communication. However, even though this model is two-way, it is still
asymmetrical and unbalanced with its very persuasive nature.
Returning to the fourth, and according to Grunig and Hunt, ideal model of PR called two-way
symmetrical model, this framework is characterised by the fact that an organisation uses research,
contextual understanding and dialogue to manage conflict, which improves understanding and
builds relationships with publics. Hence, this model is truly two-way in its nature because both the
organisation and the public can be persuaded, and may, consequently, change behaviour (Grunig
1992:39). Rather than being a persuader, the public relations practitioner is a mediator, and listens
to the concerns of all stakeholders – both those with instrumental and those with normative claims.
With this, the two-way symmetrical model emphasised balanced and dialogic communication
between organisations and publics (ibid.). In their original work on the four models, Managing
Public Relations (1984), Grunig and Hunt speculated that a contingency theory would explain
when and why organisations practise these models, arguing that each of the different models could
be effective depending on the structure of the organisation and the nature of its environment. This
approach was, however, abandoned by the authors a few years later, accepting instead that using
the two-way symmetrical and two-way asymmetrical models would be more likely to increase
organisational success (Grunig 2001:12). The essence of the symmetrical model is that “the
organisation and a public must be willing to accommodate the interests of the other” (Grunig
2001:15).
As is evident from the description of the evolution of PR provided above (as described by Grunig
and Hunt), the ideal PR practice has moved from a conception of the ideal communication as
being of a one-way, propagandist, asymmetrical nature, with the aim of persuading key (and most
often instrumental) stakeholders, to a conception, in which communication is two-way, symmetric,
ethical, and contextually conformed. All stakeholders are deemed important and dialogue is highly
accentuated. As Gower describes it, these four models reflect a linear and progressive approach to
history in which the practice of PR becomes increasingly more professional and ethical (Gower
2006). The perception of two-way symmetrical communication as the ideal is not only
acknowledged by Grunig and Hunt but is widely acknowledged and commonly considered to be
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
30
the model for excellent and ethical PR (Roper 2012:69). In this relation, it is relevant, however, to
mention the fact that Grunig views the two-way symmetrical model from two perspectives; a
normative, i.e. explaining how public relations should be practised, and a positive perspective,
reflecting how public relations can be practised (Grunig 2001:13). With this, Grunig conforms to
the realisation that in some cases, the two-way symmetrical model is, although desirable, too ideal.
2.4.1.1.1. Postmodern Implications of Two-Way Communication
In spite of the fact that Grunig, with this partial reconceptualization of the matter, argues that the
positive and normative challenges with the original two-way symmetrical model have been come
to terms with, considerable criticism still exists, particularly posed by postmodern scholars. One
such example is Karla Gower, who conforms to the acknowledgement of the two-way
symmetrical model of PR, but also emphasises the fact that because public relations today, as a
practice, is fluid and complex, “we need to bring into our literature new theories from other
disciplines to enhance our conceptual understanding of the field and explore more fully the
implications of postmodern theories for the practice of public relations” (Gower 2006:177). One
of the implications that postmodernists highlight towards the two-way symmetrical model is that
based on the fact that postmodernism builds on the notion of an information society in which
information is power (Curtin & Gaither, 2005 in Gower 2006:179), symmetry ignores power
disparities assuming that the organisation and the public have equal power, i.e. equal skills and
resources to represent themselves in public discourse (Curtin and Gaither, 2005 in Gower
2006:177). In this way, postmodernism dismisses the idea that an organisation and its publics are
likely to have equal power, and hence, cannot obtain actual symmetrical communication. Besides
the implication of power inequalities, another postmodern critique of symmetrical communication
relates to the acknowledgement of the fact that many organisations still have a rather modern,
bureaucratic leadership and management style, while at the same time being expected to satisfy
the needs and wants of fragmented, postmodern publics. Holtzhausen has formulated this dilemma
as follows; “public relations practitioners seeking to implement symmetrical communication
practices face many constraints in today’s organizations. Many of their efforts result in balancing
acts between management practices based on modernist principles of command and control and
the postmodern expectations of those people who constitute the organization’s multicultural,
multiethnic, and gendered internal and external publics” (Holtzhausen, 2009:93). What is in fact
suggested with this is that many organisations are simply not yet as ‘postmodernist’ internally as
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
31
the publics they serve, which poses severe challenges to the concept and implementation of two-
way symmetrical communication (ibid.). What Holtzhausen further suggests is that a postmodern
understanding and outlook can in fact be helpful in explaining managers and practitioners of
public relations why their efforts with two-way symmetrical communication might not always
have the most desirable outcomes (Holtzhausen, Postmodern Values in Public Relations, 2009),
and with this, it is argued that “without the postmodern focus on diversity, public relations will not
be able to meet this challenge” (Holtzhausen, 2009:96-97). Hence, due to the fact that, as also
stated by Holtzhausen, two-way symmetrical communication was originally implemented as a so-
called organisational metanarrative on a macro-level, it often failed to equip people to deal with
symmetry on the micro level, i.e. in the actual implementation. Therefore, as Holtzhausen argues,
“a postmodern approach will be to address symmetry not at the macrolevel but to address it in
particular situations by focusing on what is right and just in those situations” (Holtzhausen,
2009:97).
The criticism set aside, it is interesting to contemplate Grunig and Hunt’s account of the
development of PR (as well their acknowledgement of the two-way symmetrical model as being
the contemporary approach) in relation to the previous notions on corporate communication.
Interrelating the emphasis on stakeholder importance that was identified in these latter mentioned
sections with Grunig and Hunt’s assertion of the two-way model as the most contemporary
approach to communication, suggests a very involving and stakeholder focused approach to
managing corporate communications. Hence, the two-way symmetrical model has close ties to the
assertions from section 2.3 on stakeholder relations. As was mentioned in the section on
postmodern stakeholder theory, dialogue with stakeholders is preferred over managerial
monologue (as is also the case with the two-way symmetrical model), and Calton and Curland’s
notions were introduced in this section, emphasising that stakeholder enabling is preferred over
managing and the importance of acknowledging the individual stakeholders’ contexts and realities
– again, much in line with the considerations within the two-way symmetrical model (Calton,
1995 in Friedman and Miles, 2006:70).
2.4.2. Considerations for Communication with Specific Stakeholder Groups
The following two subsections will present some insights into specific aspects to consider when
communicating with shareholders (investors) and employees, respectively. The reason for why
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
32
communication with these two specific stakeholder groups is outlined will be presented at a later
point in the analysis.
2.4.2.1. Communicating with Shareholders
Scholars within the field of investor relations (from now on referred to as IR) are broadly divided
into two camps: those who view IR predominantly from a financial point of view, and those who
view it as a function of corporate communications/public relations (Kelly, Laskin, & Rosenstein,
2010). This thesis acknowledges the latter point of view, and hence, some insights into the
considerations from this ‘camp’ will be discussed in the following. Brown defines IR as “a
strategic corporate management activity, combining the disciplines of finance and
communication, which provides present and potential investors with an accurate portrayal of a
company’s performance and prospects” (Brown, 1994:44 in Rao & Sivakumar, 1996:29). From
this definition, the word provides is essential, as this emphasises the importance of meeting the
stakeholders’ needs, which, when it comes to shareholders, increasingly includes transparency and
information about all corporate actions, because this is to a larger and larger degree demanded by
shareholders.
Ryan and Jacobs, two main contributors within contemporary IR theory, also position themselves
within the second camp, and, hence, consider IR as a function of corporate communication, and
more specifically, public relations, arguing that “the underlying premise of the capital markets is
to connect those who have money with those who need money. However, this match must be made
in a mutually beneficial manner” (Ryan & Jacobs, 2005:3). Hence, acknowledging that IR
essentially, and naturally, concerns financial matters, a prerequisite for this is a beneficial situation
for both the buy-side (the shareholders) and the sell side (the organisation) and that this depends,
largely, on appropriate communication. This is important for organisations to consider because
shareholders increasingly have interest in not only the bottom line or the stocks of a given
organisation, but in all the organisation’s actions; shareholders, like many other stakeholders, have
become aware of the fact that organisations’ value and future increasingly depend on the entirety
of the organisation. As stated by Argenti, ”beyond the strictly financial terms, investors will
consider how you are faring in everything from employee relations to your company’s reputation
in its local community (Argenti, 2006:161) (…) companies today need to go ‘beyond the numbers’
(...) investor relations professionals therefore need to link communications to a company’s
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
33
strategy and ‘vision’ as frequently as possible” (Ibid.:157). A key to successful IR is, with this, an
integrative approach in which IR is incorporated into and aligned with the organisation’s general
and communication strategy, and that the story that the organisation tells its shareholders is in fact
anchored in the identity of the organisation, its normative stance and strategy. The importance of
this is stressed by Guimard, stating that “if two issuers have comparable financial results, the
quality of their investor relations can be a differentiating factor and a real competitive advantage,
which will be reflected in their valuation” (Guimard, 2008:2).
These basic insights to IR will be reconsidered in relation to Vestas in the analysis in order to
enable a discussion of the degree to which Vestas has in fact aligned its ethical stance, strategy
and communication to its investors’ interests.
2.4.2.2. Communicating with Employees
When forced into layoffs, appropriate communication with employees is pivotal for the
organisation’s continuation. This is also stressed by Helle Aggerholm who has researched ‘The
importance of communication in relation to rounds of layoffs’. In an ASB Cast5, Aggerholm
points to the fact that during layoffs, managers often concentrate on communicating with
employees being laid off, whereas those who remain are often prioritised to a smaller degree
(ibid.). What she points out as being of greatest importance in relation to communication to the
remaining employees is for the managers (and hence, the organisation) “to appear honest and
trustworthy, and to create a dialogue with employees” (ibid.) and in relation to this, Aggerholm
works with a concept she terms “the empathetic general”. This, on the one side, calls for the
manager(s) in question to take the lead and inform the remaining employees with clear plans and
strategies for how they are going to move forward, but also, on the other side, to show genuine
concern for the remaining employees via dialogue and concern for what the remaining employees’
needs are (and how these might change) (ibid.). With this, Aggerholm argues that when managers’
communication after layoffs goes wrong, this is often characterised by them employing one-way
communication that often revolves around the reason behind the layoffs. However, as she notes,
the remaining employees are in fact ever so often rather aware and understanding of the actual
reasons for the layoff, may it be financial, logistical, etc. Therefore, managers should, instead,
appear physically in the organisation, enabling two-way communication, and communicate more
about how to actually move forward than the reason behind the layoff.
5 Appendix 5
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
34
2.5. Crisis Management as a Theoretical Context
This thesis has set out to explore the relations between corporate communication and stakeholder
relations management in a postmodernism crisis context, which constitutes the second contextual
framework for the thesis. The section contains a contemporary view on crisis management and the
importance of acknowledging this in relation to corporate reputation management.
Before discovering the crisis management field further, it is necessary to first define what a crisis
is. Timothy Coombs, who is one of the most recognised theorists within crisis management,
identifies a crisis as “the perceptions of an unpredictable event that threatens important
expectancies of stakeholders and can seriously impact an organization’s performance and
generate negative outcomes” (Coombs, 2007:2). An important aspect of this definition, and what
makes it suitable for this thesis, is its focus on crises as something perceptual, meaning that not
only the obvious natural disasters or industrial accidents are considered crises, but rather anything
that stakeholders perceive to be crises. This definition requires management to critically relate to
the outcomes of all actions, procedures and decisions in order to understand if or how these can
potentially be perceived by certain stakeholders as contributing to a crisis. Coombs further
identifies a crisis as something unpredictable, yet not necessarily as something unexpected (2007).
This means that all organisations have been, currently are or will be in a crisis at some point in the
future. Furthermore, as one outcome of crises, stakeholders’ expectations can potentially be
violated, hence threatening the organisation’s reputation in addition to the more or less obvious
financial losses, environmental damages etc. that crises cause (ibid). This receiver-oriented
understanding of crisis is relevant for the thesis because it attempts to include a postmodern
concern in the work with existing theories. Therefore, this understanding serves as the foundation
for crisis as a context in the case analysis and recommendations to come in later chapters.
2.5.1. The Complex Broad Perspective on Crisis Management
According to Finn Frandsen & Winni Johansen (in Merkelsen, 2007), crisis management has
changed from an initially narrow perspective to a simple broad and finally to a current complex
broad perspective. This development is significant as it highlights the importance for
organisations to “keep up” with regards to the way they relate to their crisis management and
communication and not rely on old, outdated plans of action and premade response strategies.
Therefore, this thesis will only present the complex broad perspective as a foundation for
understanding crises. This is due to the fact that the stage models etc. of crisis management, which
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
35
dominated the simple perspectives (ibid.), are largely prescriptive and hence unsuitable for the
postmodern context, as was explained in section 2.1 on strategy.
The described changes in the communication environment and the world in general have lead to
the third perspective of crisis management termed the complex broad perspective by Frandsen &
Johansen (Merkelsen, 2007). It is this perspective, which serves as the foundation for the
consideration of crisis as a context in which postmodern principles and concepts affect the
approaches to stakeholder relations and communication. As the following will show, this is
relevant because it suits the postmodern reality well.
A differentiating point in the development from the simple broad to the complex broad perspective
is a radical change in the perception of a crisis: a crisis is no longer perceived as an easily
identifiable process of limited scope, time and place, but rather as something intangible with
boundaries that are not easily identifiable (Frandsen & Johansen, 2007). Most important in this
regard is the fact that crises are perceived as social constructions (ibid). As described in the
definition by Coombs that initiated this chapter, crises are perceptual (2007), meaning that they
will not end just because managers think they solved their problems, unless all relevant
stakeholders also perceive it this way. The understanding of crises as social constructions
corresponds well with the social constructionist nature of this thesis: Just as meaning generation
happens in the social interaction among participants of communication, so does the identification
of a crisis and the subsequent demands for management to act upon it happen in the social context
and in interactions with stakeholders. In addition to the recognition of a more emergent approach
than the established stage models and in strong correlation to the perception of crisis as a social
construction, Frandsen & Johansen (Merkelsen, 2007) argue for adopting a view on crisis that
includes an acknowledgement and consideration of the potential double crisis, which is described
as “a crisis where the original crisis is superposed by a ‘communication crisis’ because the
organisation fails to manage the communication processes contributing to the handling of the
original crisis” (Johansen & Frandsen, 2007 quoted in Merkelsen, 2007:306). This quote
emphasises the need to consider a crisis in relation to the context in which it is taking place. In a
world of a large and diverse media attention, viral online communication flows and critical
stakeholders, it is important to choose a crisis management approach which is suitable for the
organisation and the context – with everything and everyone that this implies – especially
appropriate communication.
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
36
Crisis management theorists in the complex broad perspective identify the fact that organisations
in crisis cannot expect to be in full control of a crisis situation and plan their way out of it. Rather,
they need to be aware of the empowerment of stakeholders that has taken place and to include
these in their crisis management. A theorist who embraces this aspect of stakeholder
communication as an essential part of crisis management is Robert Ulmer (2007). Ulmer
advocates this inclusion through guidelines such as “effective crisis communication involves
listening to your stakeholders” (2007:47), “develop strong positive primary and secondary
stakeholder relationships” (ibid), clearly indicating that the previous effort on planning for crises
is not adequate. The new turn in crisis management theory that Ulmer represents also seems to
have a changed focus on the nature of the stakeholder – rather than perceiving the stakeholder as a
passive receiver of crisis communication messages, Ulmer discusses the relevance of not overly
assuring stakeholders just to fulfil the requirement of a fast public response to a crisis and to try to
minimise the escalation of a given crisis (Ulmer, 2007). He thereby reveals a strategy that focuses
more on the content and the significance of each individual crisis and the communication needs of
different stakeholders, than previous prescriptive strategies had.
2.5.2. Corporate Reputation Management
The way in which an organisation manages and communicates during crisis inevitably has
implications for the given organisation’s reputation and hence, the following section outlines some
contributions relating to this concept. Many approaches have been suggested to how to manage
corporate reputations, some of which are rather specific and related to the organisation’s day-to-
day activities, and others, which are more focused on the overall and general conduct of business
in the given organisation. The common denominator among all suggestions is the agreement that a
good reputation depends on a favourable view upon the organisation by the stakeholders. Many
theories on reputation management relate to situations in which organisations face crises, issues or
other occurrences threatening the organisation’s reputation. One main contribution in this regard is
Coombs’ Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT) (Coombs, 2007 and ASB Cast
20096).
6 Appendix 6
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
37
2.5.2.1. Situational Crisis Communication Theory
As explained by Coombs himself in an ASB Cast7, the main idea of the SCCT framework is that
the more responsibility the stakeholders assign the organisation for the crisis, the more the
organisation has to respond in kind and accept responsibility (ibid.). Depending on whether the
stakeholders believe the crisis is caused by factors external to the organisation(‘s control), or
whether the stakeholders believe that the organisation is largely responsible for the crisis
influences how much responsibility the stakeholders attribute the organisation for the crisis.
Furthermore, Coombs divides crisis types into three broad categories; namely whether the
stakeholders regard the organisation as a victim of the crisis, the crisis as being accidental or the
crisis as having been preventable (ibid.). Obviously, the preventable crisis category is the most
difficult one to manage because this category entails the largest attribution of responsibility for the
crisis by the stakeholders. In this relation, Coombs presents various suggestions for how
organisations should act according to the level of responsibility attributed. The more responsibility
the stakeholders attribute the organisation for the crisis, the more the organisation should
accommodate the stakeholders, take responsibility and help the stakeholders understand the
situation and what the organisation does to prevent it from happening again8.
The degree to which the organisation succeeds in considering these factors is, according to SCCT,
closely related to the reputational damage caused by the crisis and the communicative handling of
the crisis – and with this, stakeholders are considered the main influencers of an organisation’s
reputation (Coombs:2007). According to Coombs, organisations that fail to manage their
communication in crisis often worsen their own situation.9
The idea of increasing the focus on stakeholders in times of crisis is closely connected to the social
constructionist paradigm on which this thesis is founded. It acknowledges communication as a
receiver-oriented practice, where meaning and interpretation is generated in the social interaction
among participants of communication and not solely as intended by the sender (Burr, 2001). The
use of a stakeholder-focus in crisis can further be argued to be postmodernist in the way it focuses
on the world as fragmented and in which it is not possible to connect with all stakeholders in one
specific way. These arguments will serve as the foundation for how the “crisis context” (referred
to in the problem statement and research questions in section 1.1.1) should be defined and
7 Ibid. 8 Ibid. 9 Ibid.
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
38
understood for the purpose of conducting an explorative analysis, which, in combination with
theory, will provide a set of recommendations for organisations on how to successfully relate to
stakeholders through communication in the current postmodern reality.
2.6. Sum Up on Theoretical Chapter
The following section will briefly sum up on main points from the various theoretical fields in
terms of what is advocated within each of them. The critiques of each field will, however, not be
summarised in this section as they will be returned to (and summarised) at a later point in the
thesis.
The theoretical section took its outset in a brief overview of two dominant approaches within
strategic management; the prescriptive and the emergent approach. This was included to point to
the fact that on an ideal level, this thesis acknowledges the emergent approach because this seems
to be the best fit to both the scientific stance of the thesis – social constructionism – and the
postmodern reality, which the thesis also acknowledges. This so-called “fit” consists of the fact
that emergent approaches, to a higher degree than prescriptive, are able to adapt to turbulent
environments and individual circumstances and contexts, and hence, are more likely to consider
each individual stakeholder rather than employing one, overarching, long-term strategy to
business. And as we have learned now, this is exactly what postmodern scholars call for in,
according to them, contemporary management.
The theoretical section then proceeded to an introduction of postmodernism, the considerations
and insights on which the remaining thesis relies. In this section it was established that the
acknowledgement of the prevalence of the postmodern era as in this thesis has several
implications, the most important being that there are no definite truths, and that, hence, any
individual or group of individuals’ truth is a result of their given situation and context. This means
that metanarratives are largely rejected and replaced by individualised and fragmented interactions
and interrelations between – in this case – organisations and their stakeholders.
This was followed by an introduction to the field of stakeholder relations management.
Contemporary stakeholder theory advocates, in line with postmodernism and the emergent
approach to strategic management, that organisations should employ a stakeholder model instead
of a shareholder model approach to stakeholder relations, implying that the success of a given
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
39
organisation depends largely on its ability to enable two-way communication with all stakeholder
groups, considering all stakeholders’ interests, rather than focusing solely on instrumental and
financial relationships; it advocates a move away from organisation-centric and shareholder
oriented management to more stakeholder-inclusive management models. Three types of
stakeholder theory were outlined: normative, instrumental and descriptive. From the discussion of
the normative aspect it was evidenced that organisations are likely to produce different outcomes
and to benefit certain stakeholders over others depending on which normative, or ethical, stance an
organisation takes in its stakeholder relations. Two main normative routes were presented: the
Kantian, which very basically argues that no one can be treated as means to an end, and the
utilitarian stakeholder theory, which basically argues that the more stakeholders who benefit from
a given action, the more ethical the action is. Depending on which normative ground an
organisation (consciously or unconsciously) acts on, its approach to instrumental and descriptive
stakeholder management will change.
Next, the description of the development within corporate communication and PR emphasised the
two-way symmetrical approach to communication as the most widely accepted contemporary
communication model in organisational settings. Among other things, two-way communication
implies increased focus on stakeholders and their needs, which, in some respects, cohere well with
the line of thought in postmodernism.
Honesty and reliability are also keywords for the final two subheadings of the theoretical section
on corporate communication, which concern communication specifically to shareholders and
remaining employees after layoffs. The relevance of these aspects appears in the analysis.
Shareholder communication (investor relations theory) theory essentially sheds light on the fact
that increasingly, shareholders are not satisfied with information solely about the financial side of
the organisation since it is more and more widely accepted that all other organisational actions and
aspects are also of high importance to the general success of the organisation. Managing investor
relations, hence, entails transparency and comprehensive insight to all business operations – in an
honest way, to refer back to corporate reputation management. Finally, insights into
communication with employees after layoffs suggested that firstly, it is important to not only
communicate with those employees that are being laid off (which is often a tendency), but to also
communicate with the remaining employees. Secondly, the communication with the remaining
employees should, ideally, be characterised by both showing future directions, but also, and
importantly, to communicate empathy and show genuine concern for the remaining employees.
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
40
In the final theoretical section concerning crisis management it became evident that the complex
broad perspective representing the most contemporary approach (and which also coheres quite
well with the postmodern line of thought) has several implications for organisations in crisis:
crises are processes and not static events, making them highly complex and dynamic matters that
require carefully tailored and individualised responses – in other words, a crisis seen from the
complex broad perspective entails very emergent and dynamic communication and management
as well as an increased focus on stakeholders (and their interests, contexts, needs, etc.). Central to
the function of crisis management is corporate reputation. As was evidenced in the section on
corporate reputation (management), this depends, among other things, on the fact that the given
organisation makes sure that its reputation emerges from the (ethical) core of the business;
succeeding in this, it is argued that the corporate reputation will be a reflection of honesty and
reliability.
2.7. Research Question 1: Characteristics of Postmodern Approaches to Business
The following section will provide an answer to research question 1, namely what, from a
theoretical viewpoint, characterises a postmodern approach to organisations’ communication and
stakeholder relations management in a complex broad crisis context.
As has become evident throughout the theoretical assessment, contemporary contributions within
the fields of corporate communication, stakeholder relations management, crisis management as
well as strategic management all share numerous common features with the main concepts of
postmodernism (and social constructionism).
In this way, general characteristics that assert themselves throughout these academic disciplines in
their most contemporary state are the upholding of emergent rather than prescriptive approaches;
for strategising, this suggests a move away from long-term objective setting to an increased focus
on dynamic occurrences in the more immediate context. It also advocates a high degree of
contextual vigilance – it is pivotal to scan the environment for changes that might influence
organisational operations, and, perhaps more importantly, it is vital to pay attention to
stakeholders, their salience and any changes that might take place in the stakeholder environment.
In this connection, the acknowledgement of crises as complex broad and dynamic processes, and
the fact that crises are social constructions based on stakeholders’ perceptions, encourages
organisations to continuously adapt to the level of crisis responsibility attributed to them for the
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
41
crisis (and how this might change). Communicatively, this is facilitated through two-way
symmetrical communication, stakeholder dialogue and stakeholder inclusion.
The theories presented in the past chapter will be applied in relation to the development of
recommendations in the answer to research question 2 (after the analysis). These
recommendations (and their combination of theories seen in the light of postmodernism) are
expected to further aid an explanation of the correlations between the theoretical areas and how
they are linked.
In addition, the theoretical critiques of certain theories, which were also presented in this chapter,
will be returned to later in order to explore whether or not they hinder the practical applicability of
the postmodern approach to stakeholder communication (research question 3).
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
42
3. Methodology
As was mentioned in section 1.1.1, this thesis sets out to investigate how organisations
communicate with their stakeholders in a crisis context challenged by postmodernism. Since this
thesis is mainly theoretical, the case study, which will be included, serves to exemplify how the
theoretical framework discussed may take shape in practice. This also means that it is, firstly,
essential to emphasise that the following methodological account has the purpose of explaining the
relation between the problem statement and research questions, research methods, the scientific
stance and the way in which results and conclusions generated through this combination should be
interpreted and evaluated. This section begins with an introduction to qualitative research and its
relevance for the thesis. Secondly, discourse analysis at multiple levels, which is the chosen
method for analysing the Vestas case study, will be presented. The section on discourse analysis is
divided into a section on textual discourse analysis and a section on contextual and critical
discourse analysis. Finally, a section on selection of data, the justification of this and an evaluation
of the research method will be included.
Within discourse analysis, there are numerous methodological approaches. For this thesis, two
main contributions will be applied. For the textual analysis, Halliday’s Register Analysis proves
useful as it reveals the functions and phenomena of each individual communication text and will
therefore be applied at the textual level. For the contextual analysis, Fairclough will be applied, as
his theories of contextual and critical discourse analysis provide essential insights into contextual
analysis. In relation to the focus on postmodernism and social constructionism, discourse analysis
is further useful as it enables us to analyse a dominant voice within an organisation in order to
further understand how this domination excludes the voices of others and the consideration of
multiple viewpoints in the process: “If we hear or read only loud, articulate, respectable, or
directive voices, we confine our possibilities, limit our range, zero in on only one goal, forfeit
chances for individual and collective development” (Hazen, 1993:16).
Based on these methodological considerations it is expected that the case will provide an
exemplification of how an organisation in crisis has communicated with its stakeholders and
whether the communicative choices made by Vestas are in fact suitable for its given context and
stakeholders.
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
43
3.1. Qualitative Research Strategy
This thesis employs a qualitative research strategy. This choice is based on the social
constructionist foundation on which the thesis is founded and because it suits the field of
communication and public relations well (Daymon & Holloway, 2004). Qualitative research is
based on the interpretive worldview, which means that it focuses “on the constructed nature of
social reality as seen by those involved in it” (Daymon & Holloway, 2004:14). In opposition
stands quantitative research, which is based on the realist worldview in which a quantifiable,
objective assessment of a given situation is sought and in which the results are considered
independently of the people involved (ibid.). Unlike the quantifiable nature of quantitative
research and its appertaining focus on numbers as the units of research, qualitative research
focuses on words as the objects of analysis and on the contexts in which these are explored (ibid.).
This role of context as the focus of research and the increasing interest on the particularistic rather
than the universal further emphasises the relevance of qualitative research for this thesis. Based on
this fact, the link to social constructionism can also be said to be strong – an argument supported
by Lindlof, who states that: “For too long in the history of communication scholarship, we have
focused on what messages refer to, or the effects they have, without examining what messages are
or how their articulation creates social realities for speakers and audiences.” (1995:22, quoted in
Daymon & Holloway, 2004).
In addition, and adding to the argument for adopting this approach to research, qualitative research
is processual, which means that it “rarely provides static portraits of phenomena. Instead it aims
to capture processes that take place over time” (Daymon & Holloway, 2004:12). This suits the
thesis well, as the problem statement and research questions seeks to provide an exploration of
how postmodernism can affect the communication of an organisation in a crisis context. The use
of Vestas as an example of an organisation, which has been in a long, ongoing crisis further
underlines the processual view of the thesis and, hence, the relevance of a qualitative approach to
research.
Daymon & Holloway argue that an appropriate fit between research approach and research
questions is important when choosing and carrying out a research project (ibid.). As this thesis has
adopted a qualitative research approach, the problem statement and research questions should
therefore be able to include aspects such as “how something occurs, how it functions in its context
and what it means for participants” (ibid.:15). As the following sections will show, discourse
analysis as a qualitative research tool will aid the process of answering the stated research
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
44
questions by investigating areas similar to those presented by Daymon & Holloway. The main
focus is on understanding the receivers’ end of the communication process, which, as mentioned
above, is at the context-focused centre of qualitative research. Discourse analysis is defined as a
qualitative approach to research, which “is concerned with the cultural and political context in
which discourse occurs, and the way that language is used and organized in order to construct
different versions of events and activities” (ibid.:140). It examines the structure as well as the
content of language, the contexts that surround it and in which context it is used (ibid.). Overall,
the discourse approach to research matches the qualitative strategy and social constructionist
scientific stance well and can, hence, be expected to provide some insight into the areas up for
analysis.
3.2. Method of Textual Discourse Analysis
As mentioned in the beginning of this section, discourse analysis as a research method has been
divided into two; textual and contextual discourse analysis. In the following, textual discourse
analysis will be presented as a relevant research tool.
Within the field of discourse analysis there are multiple definitions of what text in fact is;
Fairclough, drawing on Halliday, defines text both as spoken and written language (Leitch &
Palmer, 2010). Philips and Hardy take a more inclusive approach, arguing that text also involves
other elements such as spoken words, pictures, symbols etc.; elements, which Fairclough also
acknowledges in his later work (ibid.). Based on this, Leitch and Palmer’s broad view on text, that
it is ”potentially anything that is created by humans to communicate meaning” (Leitch & Palmer,
2010:1196), also entails a set of different methodological considerations depending on choice of
text to be analysed (ibid.). This thesis acknowledges this broad definition, however, the discourse
analysis to be conducted will only include two textual elements; written text and spoken language
(transcribed into text).
Whenever a discursive practice takes place it is relevant to explore the systemic, functional and
social characteristics of the given event in order to evaluate the degree to which the discourse is
suitable for the given circumstances and context. Systems refer to the actual selections and
combinations of linguistic functions, while function refers to the chosen linguistic functions and
discursive elements’ representation of the world and how it constructs social relationships and take
into consideration the contexts of the discursive event (Fairclough, 1989). Finally, the social
characteristics of a discursive event are a result of both the system of linguistic resources and the
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
45
functions they perform, and, as explained by Stillar, these social phenomena are “social in terms
of their origins, contexts and effects: in origins because our linguistic meaning-making systems
have evolved in relation to and have been shaped by socially situated discoursal practice over
time (they have not sprung into existence as full-fledged resources out of nothing), in contexts
because the meaning potentials of a linguistic system are realized in concrete instances of text in
which the scope of its linguistic functions is bound by real social conditions (meaning is a function
in context), and in effects because the functions of text in context always have social
consequences” (Stillar, 1998:15).
This clarification of the elements of discourse analysis suggests close ties to social
constructionism, which serves as the scientific theoretical stance of this thesis, by the fact that
social phenomena are seen to be co-created and context specific. The same is the case for the
interpretation of the discourse; meaning making is determined by context and with this, discourse
needs to be seen in a wider connection. Furthermore, discourse analysis is also closely linked to
postmodernism, which also emphasises the importance of acknowledging the fragmented and
individual recipients of given discourses.
As was explained in the beginning of this section, the primary framework, which will be applied
on the textual level of discourse analysis, is Halliday’s Register Analysis. Halliday’s framework
focuses on the choices made in the production of discursive events, and in this relation, Halliday
comments that ”text represents choice. A text is ‘what is meant’, selected from the total set of
options that constitute what can be meant. In other words, text can be defined as actualized
meaning potential” (Halliday, 1978:109). What this comment from Halliday implies is that
whenever we engage with text, we use the register that makes the text as cohesive and
situationally relevant as possible, based on numerous factors; the given circumstances, context(s),
social activity at hand, socially recognized and situationally relevant linguistic forms, the social
roles involved, the medium through which it will be communicated etc. (Stillar, 1998:15-16). And,
according to Stillar, these choices are made both so as to ”create internal cohesion (so the text
’hangs together’ as a whole) and to create coherent connections with its context” (ibid.:16) and
that ”patterns of cohesion and coherence in a text are greatly conditioned by its particular mode
(written or spoken) and the range of material and semiotic resources of the mode (e.g.
handwritten or typed, face-to-face or over the telephone, in person or delayed by voicemail, and
so on)” (ibid.:17). Just as choice(s) of mode can contribute to cohesiveness and persuasiveness,
choosing the wrong (multi)modality may result in the opposite.
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
46
The actual register analysis can be divided into three parameters – field, tenor and mode: “field
refers to the institutional setting in which a piece of language occurs (…) Tenor refers to the
relationship between participants (…) and mode refers to the channel of communication adopted”
(Halliday, 1978:33). Field is also referred to as the ideational function, tenor is also referred to as
the interpersonal function; and mode is also referred to as the textual function (Stillar, 1998:20-21
& 52-53). Commenting on these three elements, and their effective combination, Halliday notes
that ”there is not a great deal one can predict about the language that will be used if one knows
only the field of discourse or only the tenor or the mode. But if we know all three we can predict
quite a lot: and, of course, the more detailed the information we have, the more linguistic features
of the text we shall be able to predict” (Halliday, 1978:223).
Field, tenor and mode each include a number of detailed components for analysis of discourses,
which all relate to the actual textual functions. Each of these features and their functions will, in
order to avoid repetition, not be introduced theoretically in this methodology section but will,
instead, be directly introduced when applied in the analysis.
3.3. Method of Contextual and Critical Discourse Analysis
Having outlined the overall framework to be applied in the textual analysis, this section will
introduce the methodological framework of contextual and critical discourse analysis (CDA) with
Fairclough’s contributions as main framework, however, also drawing upon other scholars’
contributions.
Before introducing the actual properties of critical discourse analysis, it is essential to first present
Fairclough’s notions on what discourses in fact consist of. Fairclough argues that social conditions
determine properties of discourse, and that both the production and interpretation of text are
cognitive processes that are socially shaped. With this, he establishes his point of view; that the
way in which people interpret discourses/texts, depends on which social (and thereby discursive)
conventions they are assumed to hold (Fairclough, 1989:19).
3.3.1. Discourse as Text, Interaction and Context
Having briefly introduced Fairclough’s overall view on discourse and what it consists of, the
following section will explain how Fairclough’s thoughts in relation to discourses and reference to
language as a form of social practice are threefold.
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
47
Firstly, language is a part of society (and hence, not external to it). With this, Fairclough notes that
”linguistic phenomena are social phenomena of a special sort, and social phenomena are (in
part) linguistic phenomena” (Fairclough, 1989:23). What this means is that whenever people
engage with discourse, e.g. through speaking, reading or listening, this is determined by their
social context and likewise, the process has effects on the social context.
The second implication that Fairclough mentions in relation to language as a social practice is that
language is a social process. Fairclough differentiates discourse from text referring to the fact that
text is quite simply what is written or spoken (and then transcribed) in a given discourse, whereas
the term discourse refers to the entire process of social interaction of which text is only a part
(Fairclough, 1989:24). In addition to the text, this process includes, according to Fairclough, ”the
process of production, of which the text is a product, and the process of interpretation, for which
the text is a resource. Text analysis is correspondingly only a part of discourse analysis, which
also includes analysis of productive and interpretative processes” (Fairclough, 1989:24). What
Fairclough suggests with this is that any discursive event is multifaceted and involves many
different processes, both in the production and in the interpretation, which cannot be defined nor
planned, but which, on the other hand, are context specific and determined by the social standards,
ethics and norms of the given parties involved.
The third and final implication pointed out by Fairclough is the fact that language is a socially
conditioned process. With this, Fairclough argues that language as a social practice ”is
conditioned by other, non-linguistic parts of society. The MR10 that people draw upon to produce
and interpret texts are cognitive in the sense that they have social origins – they are socially
generated (...)” (Ibid.:24). Fairclough emphasises with this that discourses should not be
addressed in isolation, but rather the production and interpretation of discourses are part of a larger
social context with three levels: ”The level of the social situation, or the immediate social
environment in which the discourse occurs; the level of the social institution which constitutes a
wider matrix for the discourse; and the level of the society as a whole” (Fairclough, 1989:25), as
illustrated in his model “Discourse as text, interaction and context”11
The relations described between the three stages of discourse can be juxtaposed to three levels of
10 “MR” refers to members’ resources, which are the individual resources that people employ when interpreting discourses, which are socially determined, and hence, depends on each person’s given context (Fairclough, 1989). 11 Appendix 7
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
48
discourse analysis. At the first stage is description, which is a matter of identifying the formal
features of the text (Fairclough, 1989). At this level, text analysis such as the previously discussed
register analysis, can be applied. At the second level, interpretation takes place (ibid.). This level
deals with how a given a text activates given members’ resources on basis of certain cues that are
part of the text. Finally, explanation relates to the connection between interaction and social
context (ibid.) for which there are no formal procedures or objective approaches to determine the
situation. Rather, it is a matter of subjective evaluation of the trajectory social and contextual
events in which the discourse takes place, the result of which, naturally, depends on the analyst’s
own context. In relation to this it is relevant to emphasize again the fact, as stated in section 3.6,
that in the analysis of the circumstances surrounding Vestas, it is acknowledged that the
qualitative and analytic results derived from this are a consequence of given contexts and social
practices and hence, might have had a different outcome had they been analysed under different
circumstances by different individuals.
3.3.2. Properties of Critical Discourse Analysis
The main purpose of conducting a critical discourse analysis (CDA) in spirit of the Faircloughian
and social constructionist epistemology is to analyse text in context rather than as isolated objects.
This is largely agreed upon by Leitch & Palmer, who argue that CDA focuses “on the ways in
which knowledge, subjects, and power relations are produced, reproduced, and transformed
within discourse” (Leitch & Palmer, 2010:1195). Clearly, context is of great importance in a
critical discourse analysis – a concept, which has been touched upon by many scholars. Stillar, for
example, argues that it ”has been used to refer to (…) the situational, nonlinguistic, context of
which a text is a part” (Stillar, 1998:52). What Stillar refers to here is that context is of
importance both on the textual and on the wider situational level. This is agreed upon by
Smagorinsky & Smith, who state that “Context is (…) viewed as a relationship among people and
their settings, which typically include multiple sets of overlapping goals, values, discourses, tools,
and other artefacts of social life (Smagorinsky & Smith, 2012:285). In this way, context depends
on the configurations, which surround it; the people, settings etc. make up a given context and
hence contexts vary accordingly.
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
49
3.3.2.1. The Micro and Macro Level of Discourse
As a parallel to Fairclough’s model, Van Dijk describes CDA as consisting of a micro and a macro
level, with ‘a gap’ positioned in between these two, and his description helps clarifying the
reasoning behind conducting a CDA for the purposes of this thesis; the micro level, he argues,
consists of the use of verbal interaction and language, discourse and communication in general,
whereas the macro level refers to dominance, inequality and power between the participants of a
given discourse. CDA, Van Dijk argues, then has to “theoretically bridge the well-known 'gap'
between micro and macro approaches, which is of course a distinction that is a sociological
construct in its own right (…) In everyday interaction and experience the macro and micro level
(and intermediary 'meso-levels') form one, unified whole” (Van Dijk, 2003:354). In other words,
an assessment of the micro and macro levels of a given discursive event enables an evaluation of
the degree to which consistency exists between the two (which, as noted by Van Dijk, is desirable)
(ibid.).
3.3.2.2. Power
Another important element of critical discourse analysis is the notion of power, which is also
closely related to the above-mentioned micro and macro levels of discourse due to the fact that
any inconsistencies between these levels are likely to be connected to issues of power between the
participants in the discourse. According to Wodak, power is an essential concept to touch upon
when conducting a CDA, since, “describing discourse as social practice implies a dialectical
relationship between a particular discursive event and the situation(s), institutions(s) and social
structure(s) which frame it: The discursive event is shaped by them, but it also shapes them (…) it
constitutes situations, objects of knowledge, and the social identities and relationships between
people and groups of people. (…) It gives rise to important issues of power and (…) can help
produce and reproduce unequal power relations” (Wodak, 2004:198). As this quote evidences,
Wodak’s notion closely relate to Van Dijk’s notions because the issue of power is characterised as
one that exists between the different levels (or participants) of a given resource. Finally, as noted
by Van Dijk, the issue of power is a central concept in CDA because “groups have (more or less)
power if they are able to (more or less) control the acts and minds of (members of) other groups”
(Van Dijk, 2003:354-355).
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
50
3.3.2.3. Recontextualisation
Once the different elements of CDA, as described above, have been considered, one is in a
position to conduct a so-called recontextualisation. The notion of recontextualisation (which, in its
simplicity, is to place something in a different context) to a high degree captures the essence of
this CDA because, as explained by Wodak, ”multiple genres and multiple spaces are studied, and
intertextual and interdiscursive relationships are investigated. Recontextualization is the most
important process in connecting these genres as well as topics and arguments (…). In our
postmodern societies, we are dealing with hybrid and innovative genres, as well as with new
notions (…); for example, ’fragmented’ identities have replaced the notion of ’holistic identities’
(Wodak, 2004). With this, what Wodak essentially argues is that recontextualisation enables an
assessment of, firstly, whether the encoder and decoder of a given discourse are ”on the same
page”, and secondly, what any potential incongruence might consist of. The ideal situation is one
in which a recontextualisation of a given discourse, i.e. considering it from the viewpoint of all
receivers involved in the discourse, indicates that the encoded message is likely to be received and
accepted by each group of receivers as the sender intended. Conversely, if the receivers’ contexts
have not been considered sufficiently, a recontextualisation is likely to reveal the gap(s). With this,
recontextualisation, ideally, comes to terms with the before mentioned ’gap’ between the potential
inconsistencies between the micro and macro levels of discourse. The concept of
recontextualisation is closely linked to the scientific foundation of the thesis, as the focus on
including and understanding multiple viewpoints and of analysing the influence of contextual
factors on the communication process, can be considered very similar to the basic idea of the
social constructionist paradigm.
3.4. Justification of Method
As mentioned, this thesis employs two main approaches for analysis; textual and contextual
discourse analysis.
For the textual analysis 11 texts will be analysed, consisting of written texts and one spoken text
that has been transcribed, respectively12. The choice of analysing a limited number of texts related
to the situation at Vestas is, as Van Dijk argues, justified because “a complete analysis of all texts
associated with a particular change process or discursive struggle may, however, be impossible
because of the sheer size of such a corpus” (Van Dijk in Leitch & Palmer, 2010:1196). Although
12 Appendix 8 (Material 8-A to 8-K)
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
51
the 11 texts to be analysed represent only a fragment of the total amount of communication
material available about the case study, the in-depth analysis is still rather comprehensive and
thorough. In relation to this, Philips and Hardy argue that in textual analysis, ”fewer texts may be
analysed in greater detail but the smaller the corpus, the more difficult it may be to justify the
broader significance of the analysis” (Phillips and Hardy, 2002, p. 72 in Leitch & Palmer,
2010:1196), which emphasizes the fact as a researcher it is desirable to obtain a balance between
the number of texts to be analysed that, on the one hand, allows in-depth analysis by not being too
comprehensive but also, on the other hand, is comprehensive enough to provide representative
results – in this case to explore the degree to which Vestas has taken the contemporary
postmodern reality into consideration in its communication with its stakeholders. In other words,
as Leitch and Palmer express; “the selection of texts is, then, a critical component of any method
associated with CDA because it provides the underlying justification for the validity and
significance of the insights offered by the analysis” (Leitch & Palmer, 2010:1196).
3.5. Data Selection
Having outlined the research strategy and methodology, which will be employed in the present
thesis, this section will provide an overview of the data to be analysed and the selected criteria this
data has been chosen on basis of.
The case study of Vestas is included in the analysis of this thesis in order to investigate how
Vestas, as a large organisation in crisis (and with a wide variety of stakeholders) has handled its
situation on basis of its communication and its stakeholder relations management and in the light
of a postmodern perspective. In order to investigate this research question, a qualitative textual,
contextual and critical discourse analysis will, as explained previously in this section, be
conducted.
Because of the fact that the purpose of the analysis is to illuminate the way in which Vestas has
handled its situation, the selected data primarily illuminates the matter from Vestas’ point of view.
This is not because the stakeholders’ opinions and viewpoints are neither irrelevant nor
insignificant. But instead of evaluating the stakeholders’ point of view based on statements, their
point of view will be considered on basis of stakeholder theory and the outline of Vestas’ context
as outlined in appendix 8.
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
52
The data to be analysed has been chosen based on Vestas’ context and the different factors of
importance to Vestas’ crisis situation, as will be outlined in chapter 4. In this way, for every major
episode that has occurred in Vestas’ context, which, in the authors’ opinion, has changed its
situation, data has been selected representing Vestas’ communication at the given point in time in
order to enable a comparative analysis. The materials that have been chosen from each of the
given episodes are mainly press releases, announcements in relation to financial reports, etc. It is
acknowledged that this implies that the data is rather biased, since no secondary filter (such as the
media) has had any influence on the framing. This, however, is a deliberate choice, since the
purpose is to investigate Vestas’ response and its own communicative, rhetorical and discursive
choices (and not how the media frames it). As the outline of Vestas’ will clarify, Vestas’ current
crisis situation is a result of numerous episodes. However, it can be argued that their current crisis
situation is largely an outcome of the global financial crisis. An overview of the material can be
found in appendix 8. From each of these materials from Vestas, only selected relevant sections
will be subject to discourse analysis.
3.6. Data Research and Evaluation
As has already been explained, no interviews, focus groups or the like have been conducted for
this analysis. Instead, the empirical element consists of a case study of Vestas. When talking about
empirical data, and the degree to which it has quality, the terms validity, reliability and
generalisability are inevitable. However, the requirements towards these concepts are very
different and with this, the given methodology for a given research depends largely on the
scientific stance taken by those who produce the research.
As mentioned previously, only qualitative research methods are employed in this thesis. In this
relation, it is essential to emphasise the fact that the case study of Vestas will serve not so as to
document, but rather, to exemplify. The choice of including Vestas as a case study, hence, has the
purpose of qualitatively investigating the theoretical foundations included in this thesis in order to
enable a discussion of whether or not the theoretical insights do in fact have implications for
organisations – with Vestas as an example – and if so, what these consist of. Vestas’ material will
be analysed on word level and in terms of its contextual surroundings in an interpretative manner
that serves not to generate empirically reliable and valid results, but, on the other hand, merely
serves as exemplifications for the theoretical findings.
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
53
As was elaborated upon previously in this section, qualitative research may take many forms, and
may be conducted with numerous diverse research methods, e.g. interviews, focus groups,
discourse analysis of texts and documents, etc. (Bryman, 2001). Due to the fact that only a small
sample size of data will be included in the analysis of this thesis, one might question the quality of
the research in relation to the terms validity, reliability, and generalizability. As explained by
Caroline Stenbacka, the above mentioned concepts have grown into being generally accepted as
having to be obtained, or solved, for someone to claim their research to be ‘proper’ (Stenbacka,
2001). However, as she further notes, and as will be explained in the following, this is not
necessarily the case for qualitative research projects. The first concept that Stenbacka addresses is
that of validity. Validity is, as she notes, a question of “whether the intended object of
measurement actually is measured” (Stenbacka, 2001:551). As she further elaborates, this
statement in itself excludes the relevance of validity in relation to qualitative research, since the
objective of qualitative research, quite simply, is not to measure anything – in opposition to
quantitative research (ibid.). This is also true for the thesis at hand; even though Vestas is drawn
upon as a case study, it is not claimed that the results derived are scientifically valid due to the
limited amount of data being analysed. However, from a qualitative and social constructionist
point of view, even though the research is not valid in terms of scientific measurement, the results
are still highly useful for the purposes of this thesis, namely to exemplify the points made through
the theoretical framework via interpretative methods. Stenbacka also addresses the concept of
reliability, which she defines as “a measurement method’s ability to produce the same result over
and over again” (Stenbacka, 2001:552). As was also the case with validity, Stenbacka argues that
the term reliability has no relevance in relation to qualitative research, because repetitive
correctness presupposes a method of measurement, which, again, is not desirable in qualitative
research. On reliability in qualitative research, and how this is extremely difficult to obtain,
LeCompte and Goetz further note that ”this is a difficult criterion to meet in qualitative research,
since (…) it is impossible to ’freeze’ a social setting and the circumstances of an initial study to
make it replicable (…)” (LeCompte and Goetz 1982 in Bryman, 2001:271).
Since the present thesis is very much a study that revolves around the conditions of Vestas’ social
settings and context, LeCompte and Goetz’ notion as stated above asserts itself to a high degree.
With this, it is emphasised that based on the nature of the thesis as employing qualitative research
methods, it is neither claimed nor desired to produce reliable results. It is, again, emphasised that
the purpose to a much larger degree revolves around enabling a discussion of the theoretical
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
54
framework presented than to produce empirically approved results. Finally, Stenbacka discusses
the term generalisability in relation to qualitative research, which concerns ”whether the resulting
conclusions are general for a population” (Stenbacka, 2001:552) or not. Due to the qualitative
research method’s often small and inductive sample size, criticism is often raised to qualitative
research in relation to generalisability, claiming that e.g. a case study cannot provide results that
can be applied to any general understandings. As was the case with the concepts of validity and
reliability, the concept of generalisability is discussed here to emphasise that, due to the
qualitative nature of the analysis and the very small sample size of data, it is in no way claimed
that the results derived in this thesis are generalisable. This means that any results presented or
conclusions drawn throughout the thesis are not considered valid on generalisable terms, per se.
They are, however, still considered as valuable insights on a qualitative basis, since they have
been derived through highly textually and contextually systematic, interpretative and careful
research, which, by social constructionism, is considered valuable in terms of understanding the
given situation and how results are generated.
To sum up, this section on validity, reliability and generalisability was included in order to
highlight some relevant matters in relation to the judgement of the quality of the research of the
thesis. It is argued that due to the qualitative nature of the thesis, the purpose is not to produce
results and conclusions that can be replicated or directly applied on general terms, and hence, this
is not what the thesis claims to do. Rather, the purpose is to qualitatively and interpretatively
investigate how one organisation acts in that organisation’s given context, simply in order to
foster a more intriguing and interesting discussion of the theoretical framework.
However, criticism of qualitative research also exists. It can be criticised for being too subjective
in relation to the role of the researcher and the interpretation made on basis of this person’s own
bias etc. (Daymon & Holloway, 2004). Likewise, qualitative research is difficult to replicate and
can be subject to generalisation (ibid.) and to transfer to other topics of research, as the approaches
to research are strongly linked to the specific research topic at hand. In spite of these criticisms,
qualitative research is still the most suitable for the problem areas of this thesis.
3.7. Normativity and Business Ethics
The last discussion section of this thesis, section 6.2, will attempt to normatively reflect on the
findings from the analysis and the theoretical recommendations made for Vestas. Because the
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
55
main theoretical areas for this thesis are corporate communication and stakeholder relations, the
mentioned chapter will be made in order to understand how the communication and stakeholder
relations management approach taken by Vestas (as will be discovered through the analysis) can
be seen in the light of different ethical theories. In order to be able to do so, it is necessary to first
present the different ethical theories and normative concepts to understand the field and the
implications of ethics in business, which will be done in the following methodological section.
3.7.1. Business Ethics and Models of Management
Business ethics constitute an area of management, which is highly relevant for the way business is
conducted. All operations, rules and corporate policies need to be based on some shared
acceptance and understanding of what is right and wrong. This is relevant in order to ensure that
the business acts in ways that are responsible and harmless to stakeholders. Weiss provides the
following description of the role of business ethics: “Business ethics deals with what is “right and
wrong” in business decisions, behaviour and policies. Business ethics provides principles and
guidelines that assist in making informed choices to balance economic interests and social
responsibilities” (Weiss, 1994:23).
In relation to ethics, the above described importance of acting in ways that are ethically correct
and inclusive of all stakeholders, can be summed up by what Weiss calls a stakeholder approach to
business ethics (1994); “underlying the stakeholder approach is the ethical imperative that
businesses are mandated in their fiduciary relationships to their stockholders and shareholders to
act in the best interests and for the benefit of their customers, employees, suppliers and
stockholders and to respect and fulfil these stakeholders’ rights” (Evans & Freeman 1988, quoted
in Weiss, 1994:29).
This view, which has also been described in the section about stakeholder relations (cf. section
2.3), contradicts Friedman’s view that organisations only have obligations to the owners of the
organisation, the shareholders. This thesis argues, based on its social constructionist foundation,
that the stakeholder view is most appropriate for discussing topics such as communication. This is
supported by the use of postmodernism and its focus on inclusion of stakeholders. However, the
thesis acknowledges at the same time that opposing views exist. It is very much a matter of
finding the best way to assess what responsibilities an organisation must live up to in relation to
stakeholders. Clearly, the number of different opinions regarding this topic are the same as the
number of managers, decision-makers, and, importantly, contexts: “The question that has received
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
56
the most attention in business ethics is: what, if any, are corporations’ extra-legal responsibilities
to parties or entities besides their owners (namely, shareholders), such as their employees, the
environment, or the communities in which they operate?” (Moriarty, 2008:957). However, based
on the above, it is safe to presume that the choice of ethical foundation is closely related to the
organisation’s view on stakeholders. If an organisation has adopted a shareholder model, the use
of instrumental ethics (Friedman & Miles, 2006) focusing on maximisation of profits is likely to
prevail, “According to shareholder theory, most closely associated with Friedman, and embodied
in U.S. corporate law, managers’ sole responsibility is ‘to conduct the business in accordance
with [the owners’] desires, which generally will be to make as much money as possible while
conforming to the basic rules of the society’ (8). Managers should promote others’ interests, but
only to the extent that doing so promotes owners’ interests” (Moriarty, 2008:958). Contrarily,
organisations adopting a stakeholder model will be inclined to operate according to non-
instrumental ethics (ibid.) in which focus is on more normative and ethically correct behaviours;
“According to stakeholder theory, most closely associated with Freeman, firms should be
managed in the interests of all stakeholder groups, including shareholders, employees, consumers,
suppliers, the local community, and perhaps other groups. Understood as an alternative to
shareholder theory, stakeholder theory says that managers should sometimes take actions that
benefit non-shareholder stakeholders, even if different actions would have benefited shareholders
more” (Moriarty, 2008:959).
This development of two different models is largely due to the fact that organisations today
constitute many more functions than the strictly financial ones. Rather than just considering the
financial context in which an organisation operates, managers are also increasingly forced to take
the “combined economic, political, environmental and moral dimensions of interactions between
a corporation and its stakeholders” (Weiss, 1994:28) into consideration, which thereby also
influences the way in which business is conducted.
3.7.2. Normativity
Normativity can basically be defined as the theories representing the “right way” of acting and
behaving. In this sense, it calls for organisations to act in a way that is morally right and which can
be argued to be the correct way based on morality and ethics; “the (normative (editor’s note))
theory is used to interpret the function of the corporation, including the identification of moral or
philosophical guidelines for the operation and management of corporations” (Donaldson &
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
57
Preston, 1995:71). As also described in the theoretical chapter on stakeholder relations, two
normative ethical theories dominate.
According to deontological and Kantian ethical theorists, business decisions, which position
people as means to an end, can never be justified; rather, people should be perceived as ends in
themselves (Friedman & Miles, 2006). For the purpose of exemplification, it is relevant to relate
this philosophical notion to a business example: if, for instance, an organisation has to tear down a
large residential area against the will of local residents and in order to make room for a new
factory, this action cannot be justified as the residents of the area will then be perceived as means
to an end. Contrarily, according to a utilitarian approach to ethics, decisions that benefit the
majority of stakeholders can be justified (ibid.); hence, if we adapt the business example above,
the decision to make a group of local residents leave their homes for the purpose of building a
factory on the site can be justified if the building of the factory benefits more people than it harms:
e.g. employees who get jobs, people who benefit from the products it produces etc. The above
examples show rather clearly how the decisions of which actions and business operations are right
or wrong can be determined based on a given ethical foundation and also how the decisions are
expected to affect stakeholders. It should be clear by now that any decisions that affect
stakeholders need to be evaluated according to these perspectives in order to determine the correct
conduct.
3.7.3. Critiques of Deontology and Utilitarianism
In relation to the two identified main normative theories for ethical decision-making, criticisms
obviously also exist. The Kantian deontology, which is a universalist and non-consequentialist
theory, is, by some critics, considered as largely unrealistic because it lacks practical application to
real life situations – this criticism is based on the fact that it is highly unlikely that decisions can
always be said to benefit everyone (Weiss, 1994). Although the ideally moral thing to do would be
to never use others as means to an end – like Kant suggests – this seems unrealistic. If one is to
actually operate according to a Kantian worldview, it would be difficult to make decisions and
perform actual actions because it would be argued that some stakeholder would always be affected
in some way and to some extent by the actions or decisions in question. Likewise, it could be
considered difficult to make informed decisions in conflicts of mutual stakeholder interests, as this
would also conflict with Kant’s principle of “satisfying” everyone – or at least not “sacrificing”
one group or individual in order to do so. Although Kant’s theory in the extremes can be argued to
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
58
be unrealistic, an adaptation of the principles and thereby a more realistic application of the
deontological ethical foundation, can, according to Wells, be made (1994). In this sense, it is a
matter of using the basic premises of Kant as guiding principles for ethical decision-making: this
can, for instance, be done by identifying the different needs of different stakeholders, by
evaluating how certain decisions affect their lives or by asking if the policy or decision at hand is
likely to be accepted by these etc. (Wells, 1994).
As mentioned, utilitarianism opposes deontological ethics, hence making it a consequentialist
theory (ibid.) because it focuses solely on the outcomes rather than the processes that lie before
decisions. However, just like some problems exist in relation to Kantian ethics, so do some
problems with the utilitarian approach prevail. If the “greatest good for the greatest number of
people” (Wells, 1994:66) is the ultimate ethical goal on which decisions should be assessed, then
certain evaluations of situations need to be made in order to ensure that decisions live up to this
ultimate goal. But who determines what a “good” is? And how should “goods” such as social,
health or safety benefits be evaluated in comparison to economic benefits? (Wells, 1994). In order
to be able to apply this theory, it is – like with Kant’s theory – useful to include certain aspects of
it in the decision-making process rather than relying 100% on a specific theory. Wells argues that
utilitarian considerations can be made by defining the costs and benefits of actions, including the
non-monetary benefits, e.g. by asking which obligations exist to which stakeholders based on a
given action (1994).
As it should be clear by now, there are problems of justification no matter which ethical
foundation an organisation chooses. This is partly due to the theories’ monochrome nature and
“either-or” reasoning. As Wells also suggests, it seems most rational and practically realisable to
be aware of both sides of the ethical parameter when making informed decisions that affect the
lives of stakeholders and in business conduct situations in general (ibid.).
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
59
4. Case and Context for Analysis
The following section serves to, firstly, provide an introduction to Vestas as the organisation
chosen for the case study. Secondly, after introducing Vestas in more factual terms, an outline will
be provided, which explains Vestas’ context throughout the period from which material for the
analysis is selected with emphasis on the events of major importance for the crisis context, which
Vestas is argued to be in.
4.1. Case Organisation Introduction: Vestas
Vestas Wind Systems A/S is the world’s largest manufacturer of megawatt wind turbines with a
12.8% market share in 201213. The organisation was founded in Denmark and has been producing
wind turbines for more than 30 years. Vestas’ current strategy of “Wind. It means the world to us”
represents the organisation’s goal of having 10% of the world’s electricity powered by wind
energy in 2020 with wind energy playing a role as equally large as oil and gas14. Vestas has grown
largely in size and today employs 21,767 people worldwide15. The organisation wants to be the
best at research and development and to sustain the market position as “the leading brand in
renewable energy”16 and to grow continuously and globally. The prerequisites for growing, are,
according to Vestas in place: wind is financially competitive as the prices of fossil fuels are
expected to rise, it is predictable because wind is always available, it is independent because it is
“generated and controlled locally”17, it is faster to build wind farms than e.g. nuclear power
plants and it is clean because it does not emit CO218. Vestas’ vision is “Wind, Oil and Gas” and
“expresses the ambition of making wind an energy source on a par with fossil fuels”19. Vestas’
mission is “Failure is not an option” – this mission relates to production processes and
organisational commitment to quality and minimisation of loss20. Internally, Vestas’
organisational culture is symbolised in the “The Willpower”, which represents the employees’
ability and commitment to sustain Vestas as the industry leader21. Vestas’ communication strategy
is made to ensure that Vestas’ communication is “timely (relevant in terms of time), adequate
(correct, relevant, clear and not misleading), simultaneously disseminated (equal treatment of all 13 Appendix 9 14 Appendix 10 15 Appendix 11 16 Appendix 12 17 Ibid. 18 Ibid. 19 Appendix 13 20 Appendix 14 21 Appendix 15
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
60
stakeholders) open and easily accessible.”22 Vestas will be used as the thesis case study in order
to explore the connections between stakeholder relations management and corporate
communication in a postmodern crisis context.
4.2. Vestas Case Study
Due to the fact that a major focus in the analysis is an investigation of whether Vestas has taken its
context into consideration in its communication and stakeholder relations management throughout
the period of crisis, the following two sections will outline what characterises Vestas’ context
during this period.
4.2.1. The Importance of Context
This thesis argues that it, in relation to the Vestas case study, is relevant to focus on context at two
levels: the more immediate context, i.e. the actual events taking place in Vestas, and the more
general situational context, i.e. larger societal events that are external to Vestas. As will become
evident, these are mutually exclusive and interdependent. The following section will therefore
outline the major contextual events that have influenced Vestas’ situation. This proves useful
throughout the thesis because, as will become evident, contextual consideration remains a main
theme. In addition, social constructionism, which this thesis has as its scientific foundation,
highlights the importance of contextual consideration. The importance of considering context
when evaluating discursive events is also substantiated by Fairclough who states that ”(…) in
seeing language as discourse and as social practice, one is committing oneself not just to
analysing text, nor just to analysing processes of production and interpretation, but to analysing
the relationship between texts, processes, and their social conditions, both the immediate
conditions of the situational context and the more remote conditions of institutional and social
structures” (Fairclough, 1989:26). What Fairclough says here is that when analysing any
discursive event, one needs to consider it not in isolation but in relation to the context in which the
discourse occurs. As mentioned above, this is also very much in line with the postmodern
scientific stance.
In spite of the fact that chronologically ordered narratives contradict postmodernism, the following
presentation of Vestas’ contexts deems necessary in order to facilitate an analysis.
22 Appendix 16
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
61
4.2.2. Contextual Course of Events
The first event within the immediate context, which has had major importance for Vestas’
situation, is the appointment of Ditlev Engel (from now on referred to as Engel) as CEO of Vestas
in 2005. Engel begins by introducing the vision “The Will to Win”, stating that “Winners have a
plan, losers have an explanation”23. This vision had the purpose of increasing earnings on wind
turbines, as the organisation had experienced financial instability since its merge with NEG Micon
in 2004. Engel streamlines the organisation by firing top management leaving only himself as
CEO and Henrik Nørremark as CFO24.
Engel’s positive line of thought continues as the market for wind turbines begins to blossom and
he introduces the slogan “No. 1 in Modern Energy” in 2007, setting high expectations for 2008
(source: Vestas Annual Report 2007:22). In 2008, Vestas’ revenue peaks with an annual surplus of
DKK 3.8 billion which meant that the main goal of “The Will to Win” had been met. In the 2008
annual report, annual industry growth is expected to be 20% until 202025. As a consequence of the
increased financial expectations and investments, the organisation more than doubles its number
of employees: from 10,000 in 2006 to more than twice as many two years later in 2008. This
corresponds to fourteen new employees every day in 2007 and 200826. This large increase in
employees was a consequence of another Engel vision, “People before Megawatt” – a vision that
argues that an organisation should have the resources necessary for achieving a certain goal in
place before being able to do so27.
Alongside Engel’s great visions for 2008, the world experiences the beginning of a global
financial crisis, which is the factor in Vestas’ general context of most importance to the
organisation’s development and current situation in 2012. The financial crisis is symbolically
initiated with the collapse of the American investment bank Lehman Brothers, immediately
moderating expectations and visions worldwide causing financial instability and concerns for the
future. An example of the effects of the financial crisis on Vestas is that the share price has
decreased from DKK 692 in September 2008 to a price of only DKK 39 in May, 201228. In
addition, the market value has decreased from 130 billion DKK four years ago to only 7.7 billion
23 Appendix 17 24 Ibid. 25 Ibid. 26 Appendix 18 27 Ibid. 28 Appendix 19
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
62
DKK29. The biggest implication of the financial crisis in relation to the organisation itself is the
layoff of employees, which has taken place several times during the past years.
Returning to Vestas’ more immediate context, the financial crisis clearly was not given much
attention and in 2009, the plans for growth continued unchanged – even despite a decrease in sales
and profits. An example of the continued organisational growth (and Engel’s ambitions
accordingly) is the opening of two new Vestas factories in Colorado, USA.30
Two major contextual events would turn out to be of major importance to the viability of the
Colorado factories. Firstly, the fact that new technology had made it easier and cheaper to extract
natural gas, lowering the demand for wind energy and the desirability for wind power as energy
source31. Secondly, the uncertainty of whether or not the American Government would extend the
so-called Production Tax Credit (PTC) for renewable energy further decreased the demand for
wind energy in USA32.
In February 2009, Vestas states that they prefer to avoid layoffs in order to signal that they are not
in a crisis (in spite of the global financial crisis) 33. However, as a consequence of decreasing sales,
Vestas is forced to lay off 1,900 employees of whom 1,275 were Danish employees in April
200934. After the layoffs in 2009, Engel concludes that “because of the financial crisis, 2009 will
not turn out as originally planned, but the remaining months of the year will still provide rich
opportunities for our colleagues to show what the organization is capable of.”35. With this, Vestas
introduces the new Triple15 strategy, designed to reach a revenue of 15 billion Euros in 2015 and
to increase the EBITDA margin to 15%. The Triple15 strategy thereby makes Vestas the only
organisation in the industry with a positive vision for the future36.
In 2010, expectations are further lowered and an additional 2,900 employees are laid off. This was
partly due to the fact that only half of the envisioned turbines were produced and sold. The rapid
growth that the organisation had gone through years before had cost the organisation DKK fifteen 29 Appendix 20 30 Appendix 8 (Material 8-C) 31 Appendix 17 32 Appendix 21 33 Appendix 22 34 Ibid. 35 Appendix 17 36 Appendix 18
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
63
billion more than it earned and, furthermore, no good results were produced in 2010 and 2011. As
a consequence the Triple15 plan is abandoned in November 2011.
At the beginning of 2012, further layoffs of 2,300 employees are announced. This layoff included
large parts of the top management, leaving Engel as the autocratic leader on Vestas’ way into an
uphill 2012 and with the corporate mission of “Failure is not an option” continuingly present on
the corporate web site37.
As the above overview of Vestas’ recent history evidences, and as previously mentioned, the
events that take place in the general, societal context of Vestas are closely linked to the events
taking place in Vestas’ immediate context.
Having outlined Vestas’ context it is interesting to explore the communication from Vestas from
this period of time.
37 Appendix 14
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
64
5. Analysis
The overall purpose of the following analysis is to investigate the second research question – the
degree to which Vestas has taken into account the current postmodern reality and crisis context in
which it operates and, on basis of this, to develop a set of recommendations for Vestas’
management of communication and stakeholders.
The analysis is divided into three main parts: firstly, a stakeholder analysis will be conducted. This
aims to investigate Vestas’ stakeholder environment and more specifically, the salience and
contexts of Vestas’ employees and shareholders. This stakeholder analysis is a key prerequisite for
investigating the degree to which principles of postmodern communication, such as inclusion and
consideration of stakeholders, has been considered.
Secondly, in order to actually determine how Vestas has communicated externally throughout the
crisis, a discourse analysis of 11 pieces of communication material from and about Vestas from
this period will be assessed.
Finally, the last part of the analysis will evaluate the results from the stakeholder analysis and the
discourse analysis in order to develop recommendations for ideal postmodern stakeholder
communication and stakeholder relations management in a crisis context based on theory.
5.1. Stakeholder Analysis
As was clarified in the theoretical section on stakeholder theory, this can be divided into three
levels: normative, instrumental and descriptive. In the following stakeholder analysis, only the
descriptive level will be assessed, leaving the normative assessment for the discussion in the
answer to research question 4. The following stakeholder analysis will therefore include
stakeholder-mapping, selection of stakeholder groups of specific focus for the thesis at hand, an
analysis of their salience throughout the period in which Vestas’ crisis has taken place and,
consequently, how these stakeholders can be assumed to be communicated with most
appropriately based on the stakeholder analysis.
From this point onwards, the thesis adopts a view on stakeholders as being inherently postmodern.
This implies that whenever assumptions about stakeholders and their contexts (and to some degree
needs, interests and claims) are required, reference will be made to theoretical knowledge on
postmodernism (cf. section 2.2).
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
65
5.1.1. Stakeholder Mapping
As Freeman, who is also quoted in the theoretical section on stakeholder relations, notes,
stakeholder mapping is necessary because ”any framework which seeks to enhance an
organization’s stakeholder management capabilities must begin with an application of the basic
definition. Who are those groups and individuals who can affect and are affected by the
achievements of an organization’s purpose?” (Freeman, 1984:54).
In order to identify Vestas’ stakeholders, reference can be made to the corporate website, on which
Vestas defines its main stakeholder groups as being customers, shareholders, employees,
politicians, suppliers and sub-suppliers, non-governmental organisations and the media prioritised
in this order.38
As suggested by Friedman and Miles (cf. section 2.3.2), once the given organisation’s
stakeholders have been identified, it is useful to assess each of the given stakeholder groups since
each has different claims. The questions that should be asked are what each stakeholder group’s
interests and rights are, how each stakeholder group affects the organisation (challenges and
opportunities), how the organisation affects them, what the current ‘environmental variables’ that
affect the stakeholders and the organisation are and how to measure these variables and their
impact (Friedman and Miles, 2006).
Taken the above presented stakeholder map as point of departure, a brief description of each of
these stakeholder groups has been made, which can be found in appendix 27.
For the sake of simplicity, however, the remaining analysis will narrow down to focus on only two
of Vestas’ main stakeholder groups, namely employees and shareholders. The choice to focus on
these two stakeholder groups is closely related to Coombs’ argument, as mentioned in section 2.5,
that crises are perceptual, which implies that organisations are in crisis if stakeholders perceive
them to be so. Due the fact that Vestas’ crises have a largely financial foundation, the
consequences can be argued as being most significant for employees and shareholders, and
therefore, these two groups of stakeholders are likely to most profoundly consider Vestas as being
in a crisis. Furthermore, as will become evident throughout the analysis and the discussion, these
two stakeholder groups are interesting to take into consideration because their claims to Vestas
are, in nature, rather different, and hence, nurture Vestas’ normative dilemma throughout the
38 Appendix 23
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
66
crises. As is evident from the information on Vestas’ website39, Vestas has prioritised its
stakeholders ranking customers first, shareholders second and employees third. The reasoning for
omitting customers from the analysis at hand, despite their high rank, relates to the focus area of
the thesis in which shareholders and employees have been chosen as representatives of the
shareholder/stakeholder model debate as well as both groups have a large role in the current
critical situation of the organisation and can, hence, be considered primary stakeholders.
Before entering the normative discussion, the employees and stakeholders will, respectively, be
examined more carefully in terms of their position as stakeholders to Vestas. In relation to the
analysis of stakeholders, it is important to emphasise that the authors of the thesis acknowledge
that the assessment of stakeholders is rather subjective and, hence, to some degree, based on
assumptions.
5.1.1.1. Employees
According to Clarkson, employees can be categorised as primary stakeholders when the
organisation depends on them for its survival (in Cornelissen, 2011). Obviously this is the case at
Vestas as no wind turbines would be developed, produced or sold without the employees as an
important resource. Furthermore, the employees are contractual, as they hold a formal relationship
to Vestas. Each and every one of the employees is hired on basis of a formal contract of
employment. Although a very narrow and prescriptive approach to categorising stakeholders, it is
still useful to understand their importance. With these formal categorisations of employees in
place, it is then relevant to assess the salience and how this changes through the duration of the
crisis.
5.1.1.1.1. Employee Salience
In relation to employee salience, a distinction can be made between the role of employees in
financially good times and, likewise, in financially challenging times. When the economy of
Vestas was blooming, employees were hired around the clock and unemployment was
subsequently low, employees held a relatively high level of power that enabled them e.g. to go on
strike if they were unhappy, to enforce their claims on management as a large group and to leave if
39 Ibid.
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
67
a more fruitful job offer appeared. Likewise does their status as contractual stakeholders provide
them with a high level of legitimacy, altogether making them dominant stakeholders.
When Vestas experienced financial difficulties and were forced to lay off large groups of
employees, the salience of the remaining employees can be assumed to also have changed. In such
situations, employees hold little or no power, but sustain a high level of legitimacy as well as an
even higher level of urgency than “before” the crisis, making them dependent stakeholders. This is
due to the fact that their skills, performance and motivation are extremely urgent to Vestas since
they will often have to perform several jobs and tasks at once. However, their power is low, as
they are in redundancy because the demand for their jobs is high and their replacement relatively
easier than in financially sound times.
In other words, the employees remain salient both before and after the financial crisis and the
layoffs, however, the contextual changes that have taken place can be assumed to have decreased
the employees’ power and increased their urgency. The fact that their power decreases and their
urgency increases can be expected to influence them in such a way that they become more
emotionally and socially fragile in regards to their position and role as a Vestas stakeholder group.
5.1.1.2. Shareholders
Shareholders can, like employees, be categorised as primary stakeholders because Vestas depends
on them for its survival (Clarkson in Cornelissen, 2011). Having 92.1%40 of its shares owned by
shareholders, Vestas obviously depends on their continuous affiliation with the organisation. Due
to the fact that shareholders’ relationship to organisations are contractual because the ownership of
shares comes with certain rights in relation to the strategy and future of the organisation,
shareholders are also very likely to be sensitive to any signs of crisis; hence, it is critical if the
shareholders believe that the given organisation is in a crisis because this is likely to influence
their decision to buy or sell shares.
In relation to communication with shareholders, section 2.4.2.1 showed that it can be expected that
these stakeholders, due to their financial interest in a given organisation, have demands for
transparent and relevant communication, that include many different aspects of organisations apart
from only financial interests. With the shareholders’ position as primary and contractual 40 Appendix 24
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
68
stakeholders in place, the following will consider the shareholders’ salience and how this can be
assumed to have changed throughout the course of events.
5.1.1.2.1. Shareholder Salience
Just like it was the case with employees, in relation to the crisis context, shareholders’ salience
changes when Vestas’ context moves from being financially stable to financially challenging.
Before the financial crisis, when the share price was increasing, the interest in the Vestas share
was accordingly high, and hence, the likelihood of shareholders utilising their power is low. In
terms of shareholders’ urgency, this can be considered high because they require the organisation
to act in a timely manner with regards to issues that affect the value of their shares. Finally,
shareholders’ legitimacy is rather low because the likelihood that they will enforce their legitimate
claims during financially stable times is low. Altogether, shareholders are characterised as
demanding pre-crisis. In relation to the economic context and financial crisis as an overall catalyst,
shareholders play a crucial role as they have a personal, financial stake in Vestas. The decisions of
management directly influence shareholders and because their personal funds are at risk, based on
these decisions, shareholders constitute a highly salient stakeholder group.
However, their salience can be expected to change when Vestas’ context changes alongside the
development of the financial crisis. Firstly, the shareholders’ power and demands upon
management increases significantly when share prices decrease in value. Secondly, their urgency
is likely to increase because the strength of their claims increases instantly with the development
of the crisis posing great demands to management to act immediately. Finally, shareholders’
legitimacy is also likely to increase with the emergence of the crisis, because they are more likely
to enforce their claims towards Vestas when their shares are losing value. Altogether, this change
in shareholder salience makes them definitive as the development of the crisis furthers their
criticality as stakeholders. In other words, every action and decision made by the Vestas
management matters in terms of sustaining their shareholders in spite of decreasing share value.
5.2. Textual and Contextual Discourse Analysis
The following section lays the ground for an answer to research question 2, namely to investigate
the degree to which Vestas has taken into consideration its postmodern reality and crisis context
through a discourse analysis and, subsequently, to develop recommendations for organisations to
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
69
manage their stakeholder relations and communication in the mentioned context. With this, the
following section is a textual and contextual discourse analysis of 11 pieces of communication
material from and about Vestas. As previously mentioned, each of this material is to be found in
appendix 8, marked 8-A to 8-K. Each analysis will employ select contributions from Halliday’s
field, tenor and mode, as described in section 3.2. Unless other sources are stated, all terms and
concepts relating to Halliday’s register analysis are from Stillar’s work “Analyzing Everyday
Texts: Discourse, Rhetoric, and Social Perspectives” (Stillar, 1998).
Immediately after each textual analysis, a contextual analysis will be made for the specific
communication material. In these sections, the material will be considered in relation to Vestas’
immediate and general contexts, which were outlined in chapter 4. As previously mentioned, the
importance of considering the context is emphasised both on basis of the social constructionist
stance of this thesis, by the postmodern light in which it is viewed, and on basis of the theoretical
insights provided by Fairclough, stating that ”(…) in seeing language as discourse and as social
practice, one is committing oneself not just to analysing text, nor just to analysing processes of
production and interpretation, but to analysing the relationship between texts, processes, and
their social conditions, both the immediate conditions of the situational context and the more
remote conditions of institutional and social structures” (Fairclough, 1989:26). Each contextual
analysis will evaluate the degree to which findings from the textual analysis conducted cohere
with Vestas’ contexts and the changes that have taken place in this. Smagorinsky and Smith’s
statement, that “Context is (…) viewed as a relationship among people and their settings, which
typically include multiple sets of overlapping goals, values, discourses, tools, and other artefacts
of social life (Smagorinsky & Smith, 2012:285) emphasises the relevance of this section – or
rather leads to its purpose, namely to enable a discussion of whether Vestas’ actions and responses
cohere with its general context as well as its stakeholders in terms of postmodernism. Ultimately,
this will facilitate a discussion of normativity and ethics, and whether or not this has been
considered and handled in an optimal way by Vestas.
When the textual and contextual discourse analyses have been conducted, a section, which seeks
to relate the findings from the mentioned analyses to relevant dimensions of critical discourse
analysis, will be made. This is done in order to further understand the level to which Vestas
succeeds at including and acknowledging its postmodern context.
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
70
5.2.1. Material 8-A and 8-B
The first and the second press releases, which have been selected for the analysis, are from March
4 and August 25 2005, respectively and will only be contextually analysed. These press releases
are primarily included because they mark an important turning point in relation to the subsequent
development within Vestas. The changes are represented by the Vestas acquisition of NEG Micon.
Shortly after, Engel is appointed CEO – this is important to the analysis in general since Engel,
firstly, represents some major strategic and visionary changes within Vestas, and, secondly,
because – as evidenced in the contextual outline in chapter 4 – of Engel’s powerful role as CEO.
As a result of the acquisition, approximately 1000 positions are cut due to naturally occurring
duplicated functions. With this, Engel marks himself as a strategic, rational CEO focused on costs
and efficiency.
These two press releases will not be analysed any further, since they are included merely to mark
the initiation of the period chosen for this analysis.
5.2.2. Material 8-C
Material 8-C is a press release from August 2008 and is an announcement of Vestas building two
new factories in Colorado, USA. We begin the textual discourse analysis with Halliday’s field – or
the ideational function, i.e. what is actually “talked about” in a text (Halliday, 1978). The initial
step of this function is to determine the process types and participant roles. In the press release, the
paragraphs up for analysis are the ones beginning with “I am delighted...” and “We are extremely
pleased...” on page 1 and “Vestas’ increased manufacturing...” on page 2. In the first and second
mentioned paragraph subjects are personal pronouns such as “I”, “We” and “Our” leaving no
doubt that the sender is Vestas. The direct objects of the paragraphs indicates a certain positive
tone with words such as “delighted”, “look forward to”, “confident”, “maintain good
relationships”, “pleased”, “grateful” etc. These direct objects all relate to the fact that Vestas is
building two new factories indicating pure optimism about the future. In the third paragraph, the
same positive tone continues with subjects such as “Vestas”, “Us” and “Wind power”, which are
connected to resultative action process types (i.e. verbs (Halliday, 1978)) such as “enable” and
mental cognitive process types such as “believe”. The same positive tone is descriptive of the
direct objects of this last paragraph. Direct objects such as “serve”, “extend PTC”, “take action”
and “energy demand” are all contributing to an active and forward looking sentence structure and
subsequent tone.
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
71
In terms of concept taxonomies, a very general observation can be made in relation to the use of
pronouns. As such, it can be argued that the way in which pronouns such as “I”, “we”, “our” are
used continuously throughout the majority of the analysed material is an example of meronymy,
as the pronouns employed constitute the parts that create the whole, which, then, is Vestas. Had
the so-called parts (i.e. pronouns) been other actors, such as the stakeholders, they would then
represent the parts that constitute the whole (Paltridge, 2006). In other words, the extensive use of
pronouns related to Vestas emphasises the focus on the organisation itself rather than on its
stakeholders.
Finally, in relation to mode, one way of engaging the reader and of framing the text is the thematic
structure, “The thematic progression in a text – what themes are, how they stay the same, how
they change, and so on, over the course of a text – is a part of how it creates cohesion but is also a
way in which it sets an agenda by focusing our attention on certain things rather than others”
(Stillar, 1998:17). In this way, themes are determinant for the way in which information is
structured in a text and how cohesive it is. The thematic structure of a discursive event is
important because it plays an essential role in terms of the framing of and hence, setting the
agenda for a given discourse. In the press release, the use of personal pronouns and “Vestas” as
subject create a strong theme with Vestas as main participant.
In relation to context at the time, the press release is from August 15 2008 and concerns the
building of two new factories in Colorado, USA. In Vestas’ immediate context, this press release
clearly represents a peak in the market for wind energy, and in Vestas in particular. However, at
the same time as the building of the factories starts, high uncertainty exists as to whether the
American subsidy scheme, the Production Tax Credit (PTC) will be continued or not, which is
vital for the demand for wind energy in USA and thereby the success of the Colorado factories.
On top of this, the prices for natural gas in USA are decreasing, which, like the PTC, is crucial for
the demand for wind energy.
5.2.3. Material 8-D and 8-E
Since material 8-D and 8-E are similar interim financial reports from April 2009 and October
2010, respectively, they will be textually analysed simultaneously in the following. The main
focus of this part of the analysis will be on the sections of the reports that deal with the financial
crisis and its appertaining issues, and the way Vestas communicates about this through the reports.
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
72
In relation to the ideational resources it is particularly interesting to look at the participant roles
used – i.e. the subjects – when talking about risks for the future. Subjects such as “banks”, “credit
crisis” and “low prices on fossil fuels” etc. dominate the text when this concerns risks and
financial crisis etc. In contrast, when “Vestas” is used as subject, the content is more positive and
concerns how Vestas has dealt with the crisis, how it will improve certain operations in relation to
the crisis etc., e.g. “Vestas initiated a sharp improvement in prices and contractual conditions...”
and “Vestas has focused on improving its ability to identify, control and price risks at all project
stages...”. This, however, is what can be expected considering the fact that Vestas is the sender of
the reports.
The next sections of relevance for the analysis of ideational resources are the sections called
“Outlook for 2009”. This section has the purpose of evaluating the near future for Vestas seen
from the organisation’s own perspective. In the outlook, a rather descriptive and optimistic
language is employed with a predominantly instrumental/financial focus. This comes to show, for
example, in the sentence from the 2009 report “Vestas expects that significant contracts will be
signed during the coming months”. As is evident, “Vestas” is used as subject, “expect” as process
type and “significant contracts will be signed” as direct object. Constituting the first paragraph of
the outlook for 2009, this sentence lays the ground for a positive attitude towards the year.
Both financial interim reports include a section called “The Willpower”. These sections are
completely identical in both reports. The choice of words is interesting as the subject in the
paragraph is either “Vestas” or “the Willpower”. “Willpower” refers to the employees, however,
it is striking that, in spite of this, Vestas and the sculpture called “the Willpower” remain the
subjects throughout the sections. In connection to “Vestas” as the subject are direct objects
concerning the employees, which, hence, make them objects of the sentences rather than active
participants, e.g. “the solid foundation of the sculpture reflects the reliability, common sense and
trustworthiness that are the cornerstone of all Vestas’ activities” and furthermore, the following
sentence is added in 2010, “Vestas’ Code of Conduct is to ensure that all employees and other
persons acting on behalf of Vestas know what correct Vestas behaviour is”. The first of these two
sentences establishes “reliability, common sense and trustworthiness” as important qualities in
Vestas. In the second example, once again, the employees are not subjects, but rather the objects
of the sentence.
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
73
Focus is now turned to the context surrounding material 8-D and 8-E. For the purpose of
simplicity, the thesis will work from the fact that the financial crisis was initiated with the collapse
of the investment bank Lehmann Brothers in November 2008 (see also chapter 4 on case and
context). This means, in relation to context, that both reports are published after this symbolic
initiation of the global financial crisis, one of them six months after and the other almost two years
later than this.
In relation to the first report from April 2009, this presents solely positive first quarter financial
figures in relation to e.g. number of turbine shipments, 58% increase in revenue and 70% increase
in profit after tax etc. Although the facts surrounding the publication of the interim financial report
– among other things – include the layoff of 1,900 employees, this essential fact is presented as a
minor remark on the same level as all other financial and operational facts of the report.
At this point in 2010, where negative numbers are also largely published, the financial crisis is no
longer a new “contextual phenomenon”, which organisations can divert relating to and it can
therefore be expected that certain stakeholders demand a more concise and solution-oriented
approach by the Vestas management. It can be considered noteworthy that the discourse does not
change in accordance with the implications of the financial crisis on Vestas, which also comes to
show in the large number of identical sections the two reports contain. In addition, material 8-E
even includes the statement: “the credit crisis is starting to wear off”.
5.2.4. Material 8-F
This material is the transcription of an interview with Engel made by Vestas, and published to
Youtube.com on the day of the disclosure of the 2010 third quarter financial interim report
(analysed above). In the interview, Engel accounts for the reasons behind an announced layoff of
3,000 employees and is also asked to comment on Vestas’ general situation in the market. Few
comments are relevant to make in relation to the textual analysis of this material; Engel’s answer
to the interviewer’s question of whether or not Vestas is in a crisis is: “Financially, Vestas is
definitely not in a crisis, but it is of course a very tough day for Vestas to say goodbye to so many
and very good and dedicated people. So, seen from a personal perspective, it is a very crisis day,
but financially; no, Vestas is not in a crisis.” In relation to field, i.e. what the text is about, the fact
that Engel’s statement begins and ends with a negation of Vestas being in a crisis and that the
statements concerning the layoff of employees are positioned in between these two negations,
makes the statement an example of the taxonomy type meronymy. This affects the overall
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
74
impression the reader holds of what the text is actually about. In this sense, the negation of Vestas
as not being in a crisis is emphasised rather than the managerial display of empathy.
In relation to tenor and the interpersonal resources employed in the text, the sentence “it is a very
crisis day” can be argued to be downplay of the situation; as opposed to labelling the situation an
actual “crisis”, Engel uses the formulation “it is a very crisis day”, and with this, he suggests that
the scope of the crisis confines itself to one day (which is obviously not the case).
The context for Vestas when material 8-F is published is one of extreme financial difficulties.
Despite this fact, Engel denies, in the interview, that Vestas is in a financial crisis. In the light of
the fact that 3,000 employees have just been laid off, it can be assumed that Engel’s denial of
crisis is likely to be perceived by some stakeholders, e.g. the employees, as rather untimely and
incongruent with the context.
5.2.5. Material 8-G and 8-H
Material 8-G and 8-H constitute part 1 and 2 of the same “Q&A” session with Vestas CEO Engel
from Financial Times, December 2010, in which he answers questions from the Financial Times’
readers. The questions concern everything from the layoff decisions made in October 2010 to
more global and political challenges facing the organisation and the market for wind energy in
general.
A textual analysis reveals that generally, Engel uses the participant role “we” as subject for his
argumentative language. This can be argued to remove the focus from him to the entire Vestas
organisation, thereby also placing responsibility on the larger group, rather than him as a person.
In relation to the textual resources applied (mode), one can comment on the rhetorical means used
by Engel. As described above, it can be argued that Engel uses an argumentation to
chronologically explain the progression of the Vestas situation in order to answer the question
posed. However, if one relates the numerous questions that the inquirer poses to the answer given
by Engel, it seems as if the answer is more an excuse which diverts addressing what is actually
asked – e.g. part questions such as “what kind of pressure do you think you would be under to
resign...?” etc. Rather than answering the question asked, Engel talks about the current state of the
market and its challenges etc., thereby making these the main themes of his answer – rather than
those topics, which were actually addressed. This way the financial crisis, the market conditions
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
75
and similar topics, which are “out of Vestas’ hands”, become the main themes of the textual
interaction between questioner and answerer.
To turn to the context of material 8-G and 8-H, the point in time the Q&A session took place, the
forces of the financial crisis continue to increase and in 2010, only half of the envisioned wind
turbines are produced and sold, and Vestas’ capacity is much larger than the demand. Hence, in
2010 alone, Vestas’ immediate context is subject to a decrease in market value of 27 billion
Danish Kroner, corresponding to a decrease in stock price of 200 million Danish Kroner for each
trading day.41 As a consequence of this, 3,000 employees are laid off on October 26, 2010,
primarily in Denmark.42 On basis of this insight into the context in which Vestas is operating at
the time this interview with Engel in the Financial Times takes places, several of his replies are
remarkable.
When asked whether or not he expects a drop in market soon or not, Engel’s answer seems to
sidestep the actual issue; he replies “not at all”43, and then continues on to talk about how Vestas,
with factories and research facilities in numerous countries all over the world, is the only wind
turbine manufacturer with a truly global setup. Subsequently, he addresses the changes that have
taken place just over a month before the interview took place (the layoff of 3,000 employees),
stating that “we are making these adjustments ourselves before someone forces us to do so.”44
Both of these statements are questionable; the fact that he completely dismisses a potential drop in
the market seems to contradict Vestas’ contextual development throughout 2009 and 2010, which
has just led to the layoff of 3,000 employees. In the light of this, Engel’s statement, which strongly
indicates that Vestas’ decisions have been taken under the organisation’s complete control and
without any external forces pushing it is likely to be considered a rather unreliable effort to protect
its image.
The last thing worth noting from the second part of the interview with Engel is the way in which
he responds to the critique being raised towards him by Tom Plinston, who is an analyst from
Matrix. Plinston asks Engel to comment on a statement that Engel himself made in a presentation
from Q3, namely that; “from a financial point of view it was wrong the decision not to reduce
41 Appendix 25 42 Appendix 26 43 Appendix 8 (Material 8-G, p. 2) 44 Ibid.
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
76
capacity in early 2010, but from a management point of view it was the right decision”. What
Plinston emphasises as points of criticism in regards to Engel’s argument of having prioritised the
employees over economy is 1) how shareholder return is prioritised, and 2) how Engel estimates
the pressure he would be under to resign given the fact that shares, at this point, are 50% down. To
this, part of Engel’s reply is that “we have, so to speak, been holding our breath for a very, very
long time in this region – and not by accident. We felt confident that a recovery was underway
here, and we wanted to be ready to avoid any loss of momentum”. This reply is rather confusing,
since it does not in any way address the actual question raised, but rather evades the criticism
raised towards him by talking about something completely different. This was also evidenced in
the textual analysis, which pointed towards the fact that Engel uses “we” instead of “I” as subject
when answering in spite of the fact that the question in fact regarded him personally, and that the
process types used are processes of sensing, which “softens” the rather serious matter it in fact is.
Engel’s reply in this last section of the interview in December 2010, i.e. shortly after the layoff of
3,000 employees, is rather representative for the discourse generally employed by Engel
throughout the interview, consisting of several general characteristics; firstly, that Engel simply
evades the actual subject of many of the questions asked, providing answers that either only
briefly touches upon the matter or completely evades it. Secondly, that when he does touch upon
critical matters, he avoids using himself as subject (most likely in an attempt to disclaim
responsibility), and thirdly, that he, to a very large degree, seem to completely dismiss both the
actual context surrounding him, but also statements that he, himself, or Vestas, has made
previously. With this, there are many examples of how he denies facts such as lower demand,
heavy competition and bad timing and decision making from Vestas. Hence, this interview
contributes, to a large degree, to an impression of Engel as consciously denying the truth, and even
contradicting previous statements made by himself or his organisation. He thereby, as was also
emphasised in the textual analysis, constructs a thematic structure that projects responsibility on
the market rather than themselves, and which downplays the severity of the impact of the financial
crisis on Vestas.
5.2.6. Material 8-I
Material 8-I is a news release from Vestas, released on November 9, 2011, i.e. just under a year
after the interviews with Engel in Financial Times.
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
77
To start out with a textual analysis of this news release, the Field, i.e. what the text is actually
about, is interesting to examine already in the subheading of the news release, which says “Vestas
announces a change of the organisation to further strengthen its customer focus and will reduce
costs to counter the difficult market conditions”. “Vestas” is subject, i.e. main participant in the
sentence, followed by the process type announce, which can be characterised as a mental verb of
the sub-class verbalisation, implying that it constructs value by attributing purpose to the sentence
and reasons for speaking – in this case on behalf of Vestas, since this is the subject. The first direct
object of the sentence, “a change of the organisation to further strengthen its customer focus…”
has a positive connotation since a change that strengthens an organisation is desirable for all
stakeholders of a given organisation. However, the interesting thing to notice is that in the second
half of the sentence, which says “and will reduce costs to counter the difficult market conditions”,
the subject (which is in fact Vestas) is simply – and cleverly – omitted, with the effect that Vestas
is then distanced from the more negative messages.
The fact that Vestas with the headline attempts to shed a rather positive light on the situation is
rather peculiar in the light of what is communicated in the actual body of the text. The first section
of the text body of the news release is interesting to break up into three parts:
1) “At 11:00 am today, Ditlev Engel, President and CEO, will inform Vestas’
employees about the company’s future focus areas.
2) In the short term, these focus areas will be marked by difficult market conditions
and uncertainty,
3) but in the longer term Vestas will remain strongly positioned as the only true global
supplier of turnkey wind power systems solutions.”
As was the case with the subheading, this section is also most interesting to examine in relation to
field, i.e. what the text is in fact about. The subject of the first sentence is “Ditlev Engel, President
and CEO”, followed by the process types (main verb and auxiliary verb) “will inform”, which are
then followed by the direct object “the company’s future focus areas”. The fact that the subject
includes both Engel as well as his formal titles in Vestas connotes authority and formality, which,
then is transferred to the process types “will” and “inform”, as well as the direct object that the
process types lead to. The whole sentence construction and the words used, then, is rather
authoritative, increasing the credibility of the positively toned direct object; “the company’s future
focus areas”.
The second sentence of the paragraph has the “focus areas”, which constitute the direct object in
the previous sentence, as subject (or main participant) with the process types “will be marked” and
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
78
the direct object being “difficult market conditions and uncertainty”. With this, the message is
suddenly negative because it is now communicated that the focus areas are in fact connected to the
fact that Vestas is currently in a not so good position. In this connection it is worth noting that
Vestas or Engel are not used as subjects – as was the case with the much more positively
accentuated previous sentence.
In terms of the field of the third and final sentence of this first section of the news release, this has
“Vestas” as subject, “will remain” as process types and “strongly positioned as the only true
global supplier of turnkey wind power systems solutions” as direct object. The combination of
process types and their affiliated direct object has a positive connotation, since the communicated
message is that Vestas will continue to be strong and competitive. It is worth to note that in this
third sentence, “Vestas” is used as a subject.
With the examination of the three sections through Halliday’s field, a pattern comes to show;
namely that the first and third sentences, which have “Ditlev Engel, President and CEO” and
“Vestas” as subjects, respectively, are communicating very positively about Vestas, whereas the
second sentence, which has the “focus areas” (which is in fact what the text is really about) as
subject, is communicating the negative message – namely that Vestas’ situation is in fact rather
critical. This can be said to be an example of meronymy, since the actual core message of the news
release – that future focus areas are in fact closely connected to a very critical situation – is
camouflaged by being enclosed in much more positive sentences, which have Vestas or Engel as
subjects. Furthermore, it was discovered that when communicating good news, Vestas want
themselves as subject, but when communicating bad news, they use passive tense or other subjects
than themselves.
The second page of the news release includes almost exclusively statements from Engel himself.
In relation to the mode of the news release it is written, which means that it is one-way
communication. However, as was also the case with the previous textual materials analysed, there
are a number of discursive and rhetorical devices that one can make use of in one-way
communication in order to increase the “participatory” feeling in the reader, e.g. interrogatives
(giving the reader the incentive to answer the question, hence including him/her in the
communication), and modal verbs, since these are used to assign the reader some form of
obligation, admission, etc. However, neither of these devices to encourage a more dialogic text
function have been employed by Engel in his statements. All sentences have the subject positioned
before the participant role, hence all sentences are declarative, once again portraying Engel as the
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
79
autocratic leader. In relation to the mode of the text, and as has also been seen multiple times in
the previously examined case material, Engel succeeds in arranging the themes in the text in a way
so that the bad news are “wrapped in” good news – positive sentences simply surround the
negative ones, so that whatever puts Vestas in a bad light is assigned less emphasis than those
sentences that shed a more positive light on Vestas.
For example, the section that starts with “We will inform our employees…” explains how the new
organisation will be more customer-focused and scalable to make it more efficient – a formulation
that sheds a positive light on Vestas and the coming changes. After that comes a paragraph starting
with “Unfortunately, this will lead to redundancies across Vestas in 2012…” – a section, in which
the negative news is presented. Note how “we” was the subject for the aforementioned positive
sentence, and how Vestas is used as a direct object instead of subject in the above mentioned
negative sentence – creating a grammatical connotation that Vestas is the object, and not subject,
of the bad news, i.e. as if it is not the organisation’s fault. Finally, the section, which starts with
“The agenda for wind and sustainable energy is more important than ever before…” refers to the
benefits of wind energy, and how it is a better investment than other energy sources, and with this,
Vestas – or Engel – succeeds in telling the bad news but by putting them in between more positive
sentences, with the outcome that the bad news become less emphasised. By creating this thematic
structure, Engel sets the agenda by focusing the reader’s attention on positive themes both before
and after presenting the negative themes. In this way, even though the news release in fact serves
to present negative news – the layoff of a number of employees – the rhetoric employed leaves the
reader with a rather positive final general impression, at first glance.
Focus will now be put on the context in which the press release (material 8-I) is released. As the
graph from Euroinvestor45 illustrates, Vestas’ share has, since the interview in the Financial Times
on December 3, 2010 (material 8-G and 8-H), depreciated in value from 161.80 Danish Kroner to
80 Danish Kroner, a decrease in value of approximately 50%,46 i.e. depicting an increasing impact
of the financial crisis. Vestas is now in a situation with too much capacity for too low a demand,
while Engel continues to reject the severity of the situation – arguing that it was just a period the
organisation had to go through.
45 Appendix 19 46 Ibid.
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
80
5.2.7. Material 8-J
In relation to textual analysis, it is interesting to note that the news release constituting material 8-J
has several shorter sentence constructions of interest to an analysis of field (i.e. the ideational
resources of the text). Initiating the analysis of the press release’s headline, interesting words are
the process types “increases” and “reduces”. These should be seen in relation to the message and
purpose of the press release, which is an announcement of layoffs of 2,335 employees. By using
the mentioned process types, the subject “Vestas” and the direct objects “customer focus” and
"costs”, Vestas, once again, uses a headline for its press release which, by the sole use of the these
words, does not mention anything about what the press release is actually about. Contrarily, this
use of rhetoric shows Vestas as the subject – as an organisation in control of the situation, since
the words used are strong action verbs which can be directly linked to the organisation as sender.
Further down the text of the press release, sentences such as “the changes will support an
increased focus on customers”, “make production more efficient” and “reduce the group’s fixed
costs” are examples of the use of powerful process types, which are linked to “Vestas” as subject
and which diverts the attention from what the release is in fact about.
In relation to tenor, the use of attitudinal lexis is also relevant to conduct analysis of. In the
paragraph beginning with “I can certainly understand...” one could argue that the choice of words
employed is determinant for the way Vestas wishes to affect stakeholders’ perception of the
matter. In this paragraph it is once again positive discourse, which dominates the CEO comment
and argument; by ending an explanation of the necessity of layoffs with a list of positive qualities
of Vestas, the sender attempts to leave the impression among the readers that “on the bottom line”,
everything is good: adjectives such as “global”, “high”, “best” and “stronger” help to support
this impression and the image of Vestas. Although not an adjective, it can still be argued that the
inclusion of certain other words emphasise the position of the speaker, Vestas. In the same
paragraph the use of the word “situation” as opposed to e.g. “crisis” seems a deliberate choice to
avoid any crisis terminology and can, hence, also be perceived as a contributing factor to Vestas’
attempt to influence stakeholders’ image. In relation to the textual resources – mode, the above
analysis shows a rhetoric, which seeks to establish a framing focusing on the positive future of
Vestas as a main theme and thereby excludes the employees and the layoffs, even though these are
in fact main themes.
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
81
In relation to the contextual considerations for material 8-J, this will follow the textual analysis of
material 8-K as they are released on the same date and will be considered simultaneously.
5.2.8. Material 8-K
This news release is, like the previous one, from January 12 2012. The headline of the press
release is “Vestas strengthens the organisation to expand global leadership within products and
services”. The textual analysis will start out with the field of the sentence. As has been seen
continuously throughout the examination of the analysed material, “Vestas” stands as subject for a
positive sentence; the process type of the headline, “strengthens”, is a very positively toned word,
and followed by the direct object of “expanding global leadership within products and services”,
one gets a positive initial impression of the news release from reading the headline.
This pattern continues throughout the entire first page of the press release, with numerous
examples of how Vestas, Engel or a personal pronoun (e.g. “we”, “our”) is subject for the more
positive sentences, e.g.; “Vestas centralises its production units and a number of administrative
functions will be merged to improve efficiency and exploit economies of scale globally and thus
lower costs”, “President and CEO Ditlev Engel is pleased that Vestas enters 2012 with the
strongest order backlog ever…” and “we strengthen Vestas’ ability to develop customers’
businesses in an increasingly high-tech driven wind energy industry”. Looking further into the
field of these sentences, it becomes evident that the selected process types and direct objects,
combined with Vestas as subject, puts Vestas in a positive light.
Conversely, the only negative section in the news release, which reads “Today, the organisational
changes of Vestas has been disclosed in a company announcement (no. 3/2012), and Vestas’
employees have subsequently been informed of which areas and functions in the Group will have
to reduce the staff” is interesting as it is seen here that when it comes to writing the actual
sentence about the fact that layoffs will take place in Vestas, they write which areas and functions
in the Group will have to reduce the staff, i.e. avoiding both Engel and Vestas as subject.
To turn the context of material 8-J and 8-K, these materials represent the most recent examples
chosen for analysis. The two press releases are sent out on the same day, January 12 2012, and
both concern the layoff of 2,335 employees and hence, a reorganisation in Vestas. In relation to
the general context, the global financial crisis is still a word on everybody’s lips, the American
market is further challenged and expectations here lowered, e.g. because the production tax credit
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
82
(PTC), in favour of wind energy, is not yet extended. Evidently, this situation has also affected
Vestas.
In many ways, these contextual considerations contradict the findings from the textual analysis. If
the messages of the press releases can be perceived as mainly concerned with crisis, so should the
language and rhetorical means used be more specific and direct than it is the case – as the textual
analysis showed, the use of e.g. subjects and process types enables a rhetoric of an organisation in
control of the situation and which is still acting as a strong player in the market.
5.3. Part Conclusion of Textual and Contextual Discourse Analysis
To sum up on the textual analysis made in this section, a list of most important findings can be
made.
In general, the sentences, which have Vestas as subject, employ optimistic language and positive
future outlooks, whereas the sentences that regard the consequences of the crisis and difficult
decisions are dominated by substitute subjects that divert the attention from Vestas. The same can
be said about the verbs, or process types, which in many instances are strong, active and
resultative verbs when used in relation to Vestas. The qualitative discourse attempts to affect the
reputation of Vestas among stakeholders by seeking to avoid crisis discourse and emphasise good
stories about the organisation, its financial situation and role in the ongoing difficulties the
organisation experiences.
Often throughout the textual analysis it has been found that employees are mentioned as the
objects of sentences, positioning them as what is talked about rather than those talked to,
suggesting a shareholder rather than stakeholder approach to communication. Engel, as the CEO
and Vestas spokesperson quoted in most cases, is a rhetorician who communicates in a way that
places emphasis on his main financial messages and who presents his arguments rationally in a
way that favours the organisation. In this sense, he seems very aware of who he perceives to be his
most important audiences.
Turning to a sum up on the contextual analysis, a list of most important findings can, as was also
the case with the textual analysis, be identified; in the vast majority of the material investigated,
little attention seems to have been paid by Vestas to what actually occurs in its context. With this,
the financial crisis is not only ignored to a large degree, but along with a larger and larger impact
of the crisis, Vestas’ predictions of the future are in several instances being communicated even
more profoundly and positively, increasing the gap between the messages Vestas sends out and
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
83
what in fact occurs in its context. This is reflected in several ways; e.g. by the retainment of
ambitious strategies and objectives which, in hindsight, were abandoned rather late considering
the contextual development, and by the fact that with an increasingly negative impact of the crisis
throughout the period of time from which material has been analysed, Vestas increasingly avoids
crisis terminology. This communicative avoidance of talking about the reality of the financial
crisis is essentially what leads to a situation of so-called double crisis, which will be elaborated on
in section 5.5. A very general observation is that Vestas employs inappropriate communication
considering its context; of course, organisations need to be forward-looking and positive during
times of difficulties – however, communication deviating from the reality and context to the extent
that Vestas’ does is likely to position Vestas as less credible and, hence, worsen its image.
It should be emphasized again that none of the conclusions drawn so far relate to the actual
decisions made by Vestas, but, instead, relate to the rhetorical and discursive means by which
Vestas communicates about these decisions and its situation seen in relation to context. And from
this perspective, the contextual analysis revealed that severe inconsistencies exist between what is
communicated, what is happening in the context, and how the stakeholders perceive the situation.
The inconsistency between these different levels of discourse will be investigated further in the
following section through a critical discourse analysis.
5.4. Critical Discourse Analysis
As mentioned before the textual and contextual discourse analysis was made, the following
section seeks to relate the findings from the analyses to relevant dimensions of critical discourse
analysis. This is done in order to further investigate whether Vestas has succeeded in
acknowledging the postmodern context and the stakeholders, who in this thesis – by default – are
defined as being postmodern with everything that this implies.
According to Fairclough’s notions, (cf. section 3.3.1), the process of production and interpretation
of discourses (which consist of text, interaction and context) is largely dependent on the contexts
and Members’ Resources (also referred to as MR) of the senders and receivers of that given
discourse. The MR of the receivers consist, in this case, of postmodern traits, which shape a
stakeholder context that thereby require much attention from Vestas as the communicator.
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
84
As Van Dijk’s notions in section 3.3.2 emphasised, a main purpose of CDA is to assess whether
incongruences exist between the micro and macro level of discourse. In the analyses, it comes to
show in several different instances that Vestas employs communicative tactics and rhetoric, which
contradict the postmodern reality of its stakeholders. This contextual inconsideration is evidenced
by the use of managerial monologue, organisation centric discourse, the setting up of
metanarratives etc. Furthermore, the emphasis on certain organisational topics of communication
as opposed to those that are of primary concern to stakeholders, can, together with the way
essential messages are largely disguised in less important messages, be said to strengthen the
argument that gaps between the micro and macro level of discourse is evident in Vestas’ case. In
this way, it seems unrealistic that postmodern stakeholders like Vestas’ will automatically accept
the organisation-centric approach to prioritisation of message content employed by Vestas. With
this, a recontextualisation evidences that Vestas and its stakeholders are far from being on the
same page. This, in turn, leads to the assumption that the control that Vestas seems to try to
exercise in the shape of managerial monologue as opposed to stakeholder dialogue is likely to be
rejected by the stakeholders, who, due to their postmodern nature and MR, are likely to reject the
nature of such communication and thereby also to reject the general messages of such.
Based on this, the examples also have effect on the way power relations are depicted throughout
the material analysed. According to Van Dijk, organisations can be said to have more power if
they are assumed to be able to control the minds of their stakeholders. Considering this in relation
to the recontextualisation conducted above, it is considered unlikely that Vestas is in fact able to
control its stakeholders due to the considerable incongruences between the micro and macro levels
of discourse. Rather, the way in which Vestas attempts to demonstrate power is likely to have the
opposite effect: through the use of rhetoric emphasising a categorisation of “us” and “them” (and
thereby the differences between Vestas and its stakeholders, and based on the fact that such
rhetoric is inconsiderate of postmodern attributes, Vestas’ exertion of power is unlikely to win the
acceptance of the postmodern stakeholders.
With this, the critical discourse analysis sheds light on how issues such as power and differences
in members’ resources increases the gap between the micro level of the discursive event (the
communication from Vestas) and the macro level (the context consisting of postmodern
stakeholders). Hence, a recontextualisation of the discursive event emphasises the importance of
considering, understanding and including contexts in communication.
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
85
This relates to the social constructionist stance of the thesis by the fact that communication does
not happen in a vacuum but, rather, that discourses depend on the contexts of those that produce it
and of those who interpret it.
5.5. Research Question 2: Theoretical, Postmodern Recommendations for Vestas’ Communication
As became evident in the assessment of research question 1, the theoretical insights into the
implications of a postmodern, complex crisis context pose several demands to an organisation’s
communication and stakeholder relations management. Having now analysed the 11 press releases
from Vestas, the following section serves to provide an answer to research question 2, namely –
based on the discourse analysis conducted in section 5.2 – to evaluate the degree to which Vestas
has taken into consideration its postmodern reality and crisis context and which recommendations
that, on basis of this and the theoretical framework, can be given to organisations for managing
their stakeholder relations and communications.
In this way, the knowledge acquired from the theoretical section and the insights gained from
analysing the communication material from Vestas will be used in the following section to devise
a set of recommendations that provide suggestions for how Vestas could have communicated more
appropriately given its context marked by postmodernism and crisis.
In order to do this, the following section will discuss the main findings from the textual and
contextual discourse analyses in relation to a select extract of the most prevalent theoretical
concepts emphasised.
The recommendations that will be presented in the following adhere strictly to the theories
presented in chapter 2 – later, in research question 3, the recommendations will be re-evaluated in
the light of existing critique of these theories. Since each recommendation has been developed on
basis on certain findings, the structure for the following section is that previous to each
recommendation, the findings that lay the ground for the given recommendation are presented.
5.5.1. Case Study Finding: Prescriptive Shareholder Focus
The first recommendation regards the very foundation for the strategic approach to business an
organisation adopts, which, ideally, serves as the point of departure – and thereby has influence on
– all business operations and decisions. As was emphasised in section 2.1, two approaches to
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
86
strategy are presented; the prescriptive and the emergent. The prescriptive approach to business is
often one where objective(s) and steps for achieving these are defined in advance, including
processes that assume that businesses can see ahead for several years, and, furthermore, lack an
ability to adapt to turbulent contexts and circumstantial changes. The emergent approach is,
contrarily, often an approach in which the final objective(s) is unclear, and hence, this approach
advocates more flexible strategising that can quickly adapt to environmental changes or
unforeseen occurrences. Contemplating the findings from the analysis in relation to these facts is
interesting; it seems like Vestas’ objectives and steps for achieving its objectives have, largely,
been defined in advance and are not altered according to contextual changes. This comes to show
in several instances; firstly, in material 8-C, in which the rhetoric employed regarding the building
of two new factories in USA is very positive and presents very optimistic objectives with the
factories; in the light of what actually characterises Vestas at this point in time, namely that the
future of the factories is in fact highly uncertain, this rhetoric points towards a rather prescriptive
approach. The contextual factors that threaten the success of the Colorado factories are, with this,
not given any real consideration, and instead, a bright future is predicted. Furthermore, the
prescriptive nature of Vestas’ communication comes to show in its rhetoric in relation to its
strategies – examples of this were found in the analysis of material 8-D, in which Vestas presents
a section called “the outlook for 2009”, which, relatively prescriptively, sets the future direction
and goals for financial results for the organisation with a rather instrumental focus. The fact that
Vestas puts such emphasis on instrumental and financial results and goals is, considering its
context, likely to be rather problematic in the light of theoretical suggestions; as was mentioned in
section 2.4.2.1, shareholders, who in nature have a financial interest in organisations, are
increasingly demanding information about all corporate actions and not just the financial results.
With this, shareholders – like many other stakeholders – have become aware of the fact that
organisations’ success depends on the success of the entirety of the given organisation and not just
the bottom line. Organisations need transparency in their communication to meet this demand by
employing a stakeholder model to business rather than a shareholder model. As has been pointed
out continuously, Vestas’ context in the period of time from which the communication material
has been selected is highly marked by contextual changes that have severe human consequences in
terms of layoffs. This, on basis of investor relations theory (cf. section 2.4.2.1), is something
which the shareholders are likely to also have an interest in being informed about – not only in
terms of financial results, but also in terms of human normative initiatives.
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
87
Furthermore, the very general observation that is seen throughout the analysis – that the financial
crisis is downplayed and that positive outlooks for the future remain regardless of layoffs,
increasing severity of the financial crisis etc. – is an expression of a prescriptive approach, since
contextual changes and turbulent environments are not taken into consideration. As was evidenced
in the analysis, the contextual situation changes radically throughout the time period from which
material has been selected; this change is primarily caused by the advent and increasing severity of
the financial crisis. As was also evidenced in the analysis, a major problem with Vestas’
communication throughout the period of crisis is that the organisation’s rhetoric does not alter
according to these changes; with this, the same textual features that were identified in the
beginning of the period of crisis (for example, very positive outlooks for the future and use of
Vestas and Engel when presenting positive news) can be found in the communication material
from the end of the period (e.g. in material 8-K from 2012 in which Vestas, again, is used as
subject in positive connections and a generally optimistic outlook for the future is made). In the
same way, the fact that statements such as “Failure is not an option” (introduced in 2005) are still
in force is, in the light of the contextual development from 2005 until now, largely contradictory.
In times of crisis, when finances are bad, employees are laid off and orders are low, and the CEO
is subsequently under large criticism for his handling of the situation, it seems communicatively
inappropriate to not adjust such statements – as if the organisation is unaware of anything taking
place outside the organisational “hub”. This is a clear contextual change, which needs to be made,
as – at this point in time – it would be wise to keep a low profile with regards to the “winning”
terminology. It is very much a matter of communicatively “practicing what is preached” and at
this point in time, with the identified financial difficulties, it seems difficult to catch sight of
Vestas on the list of organisations with great results. With this, the overall observation is, then,
that very few changes are identified in the communication from Vestas in spite of radical changes
in its context – which emphasises the claim that Vestas is not sufficiently emergent.
5.5.1.1. Recommendation: Emergent Stakeholder Focus
On basis of this, it is recommended that Vestas should take a more emergent approach to
strategising, which then, obviously, should also be reflected in its communication. Setting up
long-term strategic goals of instrumental nature in a context characterised by a high level of
turbulence, which has severe consequences for employees, shareholders and all other stakeholders,
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
88
can be regarded as highly inappropriate. In relation to emergent communication, transparency is a
key word; for example, as was emphasised in the theoretical section on communication with
shareholders, they increasingly want to be informed about all sides of the organisation – not only
the financial results. Likewise, employees want to be informed about the financial prospects as
well as current social initiatives taken by the organisation. The rhetoric employed should, then, to
a larger degree concern current issues of both normative and instrumental nature and not only
long-term financial/strategic prospects, as was continuously the case with the material analysed.
This is closely connected to the postmodern emphasis on inclusion of context, as a rhetoric that
relates to the issues that are important to stakeholders will also have to be based on a thorough
understanding of contexts. As previously learned, different stakeholders are likely to have
different truths which poses a great challenge to organisations as the inclusion of multiple
truths/contexts is difficult within the same communication. In Vestas’ case, examples of two
different truths are employees and shareholders. This requires Vestas to incorporate both the long-
term instrumental goals for the organisation as well as the current normative considerations of
stakeholders.
In this way, the recommendation of an emergent approach to business would, ideally, entail that
Vestas should adapt to contextual changes by acknowledging, and thereby also addressing, issues
of non-financial or non-instrumental character in its communication, because this is a big part of
its current context.
5.5.2. Case Study Finding: Organisation-Centric Rhetoric and Contextual Inconsideration
The next section will, on basis of the theoretical background for the thesis, present
recommendations for Vestas regarding the postmodern implications for organisations’
communication and stakeholder relations.
As was evidenced in the theoretical sections on postmodernism, corporate communication and
communication with employees and shareholders during crises, respectively, suggest that
organisations should take the stakeholders and their contexts into consideration in the
communication. It is important to emphasise again that in this thesis, stakeholders (and their
contexts) are defined as being postmodern and therefore, it is on this foundation that the following
recommendations are based. In relation to this postmodern reality, emphasis is put on two-way
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
89
symmetrical communication that enables stakeholder dialogue and, hence, avoids managerial
monologue. Closely related to this is the concept of fragmentation, which suggests an erasing of
whole, single realities into multiple realities, all claiming legitimacy – requiring much attention to
each of the different stakeholder groups since the individual reality of each stakeholder group
should be considered. In this way, postmodern corporate communication advocates a rejection of
metanarratives, meaning that what is true for one entity is not necessarily true for another.
Therefore, it is essential to avoid categorisations, or dichotomies, that claim legitimacy over issues
that may be true for some groups of stakeholders more so than for others. Common for all of these
considerations is the fact that succeeding in any of them depends largely on the organisation’s
ability to scan, understand and identify the characteristics of their context and, on this basis, adapt
their communication accordingly. Furthermore, it was stressed that communication with
employees necessitates an approach that focuses on dialogue and two-way communication rather
than solely focusing on the reasons for the crisis. In this relation, Aggerholm advocates the term
“the empathetic general”, which emphasises the importance for managers to be both honest and
transparent in terms of empathy and in terms of future direction.
In relation to this, and on basis of what has occurred in Vestas’ context throughout the period
investigated, the analysis of Vestas’ press releases uncovers numerous problematic aspects.
As can for example be seen in material 8-C, 8-D, 8-E, 8-I and 8-K, Vestas continuously avoid
using themselves as subjects whenever issues regarding the crisis are mentioned, and, vice versa,
make extensive use of themselves (and especially Engel) as subject whenever presenting positive
visions for the future. This is for example the case in a sentence from material 8-I; “In the short
term, these focus areas will be marked by difficult market conditions, but in the longer term Vestas
will remain strongly positioned as the only true global supplier of turnkey wind power system
solutions.” In this sentence, “focus areas” is used as subject when communicating about the
difficult market conditions (i.e. a negative message) and Vestas is used when communicating the
positive message – that they will stay strongly positioned, etc. Another example from the same
material is the heading, which says “Vestas announces a change of the organisation to further
strengthen its customer focus and will reduce costs to counter the difficult market conditions”. In
this sentence, Vestas is once again used as subject in the first part of the sentence where the
positive message is presented, whereas the subject is simply omitted in the second part of the
sentence, which concerns the negative market forecasts.
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
90
Furthermore, as was seen in the analysis of material 8-D and 8-E, Vestas pays little attention to the
layoffs that have just taken place, which further underlines the lack of responsibility taken by
Vestas at the given point in time. In addition, the analysis of the communication material revealed
that Vestas seems to set up several metanarratives through its communication; this occurs
repeatedly with Engel speaking on behalf of certain stakeholder groups instead of, as suggested by
postmodern communication, enabling the stakeholders’ voices and their contexts. An example of
this was found in the analysis of material 8-I in which Engel states that “we have satisfied
customers”; hence employing a distinct one-way communication, setting up a metanarrative, or a
given truth, on behalf of a very important stakeholder group, namely customers. Another strong
metanarrative set up by Vestas is “The Willpower” (as described in material 8-D and 8-E), which
is a concept that concerns the employees. Considering Vestas’ context at the given time the press
release was issued – namely on a day with announcement of layoffs – this use of metanarratives
can be considered untimely. As the textual analysis showed, despite this fact, Vestas is the subject
of most sentences concerning “The Willpower”, while employees are objects. Likewise, material
8-J witnesses of a metanarrative type discourse concerning employees, which comes to show
through sentences such as “extraordinarily dedicated, loyal and proud of working at Vestas” used
when describing employees. With this, Vestas simply constructs a truth – i.e. sets up a
metanarrative – that has consequences for one of its key stakeholders, namely its employees. The
use of metanarratives also comes to show with the way in which Vestas communicates the
forthcoming changes to its employees through this press release; writing that “Vestas will inform
its employees about the company’s future focus areas” and “we will inform our employees that we
will present and implement a whole new Vestas organisation…”, Vestas leaves an impression of a
high level of formality as a result of very authoritative and commanding modal and main verbs. In
these instances, the metanarrative consists of the fact that Vestas simply constructs a truth that has
consequences for one of its key stakeholders, namely its employees (again in a manner, which is
one-way and inconsiderate of the receiver). Considering the context surrounding Vestas at the
time material 8-J was sent out, the fact that they state so bluntly that they have satisfied customers
seems rather precipitated and conflicts with the postmodern thought of avoiding metanarratives, of
always including the stakeholders in the discourse and of fostering two-way communication.
The same is the case when Vestas communicates the way in which the upcoming changes will
affect its employees, which makes them sound as orders. This contradicts most of what is
suggested by both contemporary and postmodern communication and discourse theory. Hence, by
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
91
establishing these rather strong metanarrative discursive accounts, Vestas’ customers and
employees are very unlikely to experience unity and dialogue when reading this press release,
especially considering the context at the given time. From the analysis of material 8-J it seems that
generally, Vestas (rather desperately) attempts to assure that everything is under the organisation’s
control, leaving little room for communication about the current state of affairs.
Seen from a rhetorical point of view, this use of metanarratives contributes to communication
characterised to a higher degree by managerial monologue than stakeholder dialogue. The
impression of the communication being marked by monologue to a higher degree than dialogue is
further accentuated by the thematic structures constructed by the fact that basically only
declaratives and no interrogatives are used in the communication, as was for example the case in
material 8-I. The organisation centric discourse is further exemplified by the way in which Vestas’
rhetoric positions Vestas and its stakeholders as belonging to different categories with the use of
“us” and “them” instead of including the stakeholders in the “us” rhetoric, which would have
created a feeling of connection and identification with Vestas among stakeholders. This is for
instance seen in material 8-C, in which the use of personal pronouns emphasises the distinction
between “them” and “us” categorisations. This creates an undesired use of meronymy, which, with
the use of Vestas as pronouns, means that Vestas constitute the parts that then create the whole –
and, as emphasised previously, this establishment of unilateral wholes are disregarded strongly by
postmodernism. Finally, the way in which Vestas/Engel repeatedly “wrap” bad news in good news
as was e.g. seen in material 8-F and 8-I is a rhetorically smart way to downplay emphasis of
negative character but which, in the light of postmodernism, is also a way of evading the reality of
the organisation’s context. This type of rhetoric establishes a framing in which Vestas sets the
agenda and the stakeholders become secondary, which contradicts both postmodern conceptual
suggestions as well as Aggerholm’s advice, which specifically addresses managers’ role in the
communication with employees after layoffs.
5.5.2.1. Recommendation: Stakeholder Enabling and Contextual Consideration
Based on the above discussion of the findings from the material analysed and what is advocated
theoretically, several recommendations can be presented for how Vestas could have
communicated more appropriately with its stakeholders: a first main point consists of the fact that
because its stakeholders can be assumed to attribute a high level of responsibility to Vestas for the
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
92
crisis, Vestas has no choice but to accommodate this in its communication. Furthermore, as was
argued in section 5.1.1 about stakeholder analysis, the salience of both employees and
shareholders is assumed to increase along with the development of the crises, with employees
becoming more emotionally and socially fragile and shareholders becoming more demanding.
This fact adds to the necessity for Vestas to consider these in the communication. With this,
contextual awareness and inclusion in the communication in general can also be emphasised as a
recommendation; as has been evidenced, not only has the context not been taken into
consideration, but the way in which Vestas, and in particular, Engel, set up strong metanarratives
with positive outlooks for the future in fact contradicts what is happening in the context. It is
recommended that Vestas, according to principles of postmodern communication, takes
responsibility for and puts focus on the current situation and what this situation consists of rather
than focusing extensively on future goals.
Furthermore, it is pivotal for Vestas to make use of rhetorical devices that advance a perception of
the communication as being two-way rather than one way; this can be done by the use of several
communicative devices, e.g. avoiding representing Engel as an autocratic leader speaking on
behalf of his stakeholders with declarative sentences and, instead, incorporating the voices of the
organisation’s stakeholders and making use of interrogative sentences as well and, thereby,
appearing as an empathetic general as suggested by Aggerholm. This would be likely to promote
the organisation in a unified way rather than as an organisation consisting of “us” (the
management) and “them” (the stakeholders) – a categorisation, which, according to
postmodernism, should be avoided.
As mentioned in section 3.3.2.2, inequalities in the level of power held by an organisation and its
stakeholders, respectively, are an obstacle to two-way communication, and in the same line,
symmetrical two-way communication can be hard to practice due to the fact that often,
organisations are more bureaucratic than the publics they serve (Curtin & Gaither 2005 in Gower
2006). Hence, two-way communication should, according to postmodern principles, be practised
on a micro level (very focused on each stakeholder) rather than on a macro level. This is important
for Vestas to consider because, as evidenced throughout the entire analysis, Vestas’ adoption of a
rather prescriptive and one-way approach to business as well as its use of managerial monologue
instead of stakeholder dialogue strongly points toward Vestas as still being a rather bureaucratic
organisation. Therefore, it is recommended that Vestas practices its two-way communication with
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
93
stakeholders on a micro level adapted to the specific context and crisis situation that Vestas is
currently in.
On that note, a major challenge for Vestas, which is a recommendation for them, is to contemplate
carefully whether what they, and Engel in particular, consider as being “the truth” is likely to be
perceived in the same way by its stakeholders. The analysis of the material showed clear
indications of there being only one truth for Vestas; namely the belief in a positive future. This in
itself is of course not a bad thing; if the organisation does not believe in the future, why should the
stakeholders? However, as has been evidenced theoretically, multiple stakeholders means multiple
realities; and as was assumed in section 5.1.1, as well as with the recontextualisation conducted in
section 5.4, Vestas’ employees and shareholders (who are in focus in this thesis) are likely to
perceive the situation as being marked by a high degree of uncertainty for the future, and hence,
this is their “reality”. With the fact that the communication analysed represents a different truth
from Vestas’ viewpoint, a recommendation is therefore for Vestas to address existing issues in its
stakeholders’ perception of the reality and not only from its own. With this, the positive outlook is
not to be abandoned but Vestas needs to also face the reality and address the issues that prevail in
its (stakeholders’) context.
5.5.3. Case Study Finding: Insufficient Accommodation to Attributed Crisis Responsibility
A first step Vestas should take in order to improve its situation is to acknowledge the fact that they
are in fact in a crisis – or, as mentioned, even in a context of several crises. Hence, the first
recommendation, which will follow, revolves around the suggestions provided by Coombs with
his SCCT theory. As explained in section 2.5.2.1, Coombs’ SCCT framework, and the complex-
broad approach to crisis management in general, witness that crises are largely perceptual and
thereby difficult to manage in terms of communication. More precisely, the SCCT theory suggests
that an organisation should take responsibility for a crisis on basis of the degree to which its
stakeholders attribute responsibility to the organisation for the crisis. As was discussed in section
5.1.1, Vestas’ stakeholders are likely to attribute a rather high level of responsibility to Vestas for
the crisis (which, as the crises develop, only grows larger, which will be discussed in the
following), and hence, Vestas’ communication should, according to theory, reflect a rather high
acceptance of responsibility. If this basic notion in crisis management – the actual perception of its
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
94
scope – is neglected, it provides a difficult starting point for the communication in relation to the
crisis.
Considering this in relation to the findings from the analysis it becomes evident that several
weaknesses exist in Vestas’ communication. The fact that Vestas (and Engel in particular)
employs the same rhetoric throughout the entire period of crisis, and keep communicating
positively about the future in spite of the fact that its context changes for the worse, implies not
only contextual inconsideration but also a failure in accommodating the level of responsibility
attributed by the stakeholders, which, accordingly, increases as well. The creation of this overall
organisation-centric discourse, which lacks consideration of the receivers, is supported by the use
of attitudinal lexis (as exemplified in material 8-C and 8-J) in which the choice of words evades
the actual content of the release and revolves around positive rhetoric in spite of communicating
about layoffs, hence avoiding crisis terminology. The downplay of the severity of the crisis is also
seen in material 8-F in which Engel states that “seen from a personal perspective, it is a very
crisis day, but financially; no, Vestas is not in a crisis” – i.e. Engel suggests that the scope of the
crisis confines itself to one day. Considering the context, this statement deviates strongly from
how “the rest of the world” perceives the reality, and how, more specifically, Vestas’ stakeholders
are likely to perceive Vestas’ situation (and thereby their demand for action), namely that the
financial crisis is in fact affecting Vestas to a large degree. Likewise, the tendency of avoiding
crisis related discourse is seen when Engel, or Vestas, diverts the readers’ attention from the actual
subject of the release (e.g. layoffs) as was seen in material 8-J, and instead focuses on rhetoric,
which stresses opportunities and ambitions rather than the realities of current situation. In addition
to this, the evasion of responsibility also comes to show on a personal level; the fact that Engel
uses “we” as a pronoun when asked about the responsibility for the crisis moves focus from him
as being responsible, to Vestas, and in this way, the entire organisation – instead of him alone – is
held accountable for the situation. In addition, when asked about his responsibility for the situation
he starts talking about the poor market conditions – this creates a general thematic structure that
suggests that the negative situation is something, which is “out of Vestas’ hands”. This leaves the
reader with an impression of Vestas – and Engel – as denying responsibility to a large degree,
which, in the light of SCCT, is rather inappropriate since Vestas is in fact attributed a rather high
level of responsibility.
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
95
The examples of how Vestas and Engel deny responsibility can also be considered as contributing
to a clear case of double crisis. This is evident by the way the crisis is neglected and not clearly
communicated about. In addition, the double crisis is worsened by Engel and Vestas’ failure to
accept responsibility and thereby failure to include a consideration of the contexts of stakeholders,
who can be expected to largely assign such responsibility to Vestas. As was emphasised in section
2.5.1, double crises are likely to arise in situations where the given organisation in crisis fails to
accommodate the existence of the crisis from the beginning (and, of course, on an ongoing basis).
In other words, double crises are largely caused by an organisation’s failure to communicatively
manage and handle them. Based on the analysis, Vestas can, with this, be expected to be in a
double crisis: not only does Vestas evade communication specifically about the crisis and taking
crisis responsibility when it initially started – the organisation proceeds in the same reactive
pattern for every crisis-related occurrence. This means that, according to Coombs’ classification of
crisis types as mentioned in section 2.5.2.1, Vestas’ continuous neglect of the reoccurring crisis
events contributes to stakeholders being likely to perceive the crisis as being largely preventable.
In this way, according to these categorisations, it can be assumed that the employees and
shareholders have moved from perceiving Vestas as victim of the financial crisis affecting many
organisations globally to perceiving Vestas’ crisis as being preventable to some degree.
Hence, according to theory, they worsen the organisation’s situation continuously by
communicatively failing to accommodate to its context, which, as Coombs’ notions suggest, is
likely to negatively affect Vestas’ corporate reputation.
5.5.3.1. Recommendation: Accept Crisis Responsibility
The third recommendation, to take crisis responsibility, is to a large degree based on the first two
recommendations, which suggested for Vestas to take a more emergent approach to strategy, and,
in turn, engage in dialogues with stakeholders to a higher degree; in this way, a prescriptive
approach to business, and thereby too little focus on context and stakeholders, is likely to refrain
Vestas from acknowledging the level of crisis responsibility attributed to them for the crisis.
Based on the fact that severe communicative deficiencies have appeared by comparing the
theoretical assumptions from the field of crisis management with the results from the analysis of
the communication material from Vestas, several recommendations can be established that revolve
around Vestas’ handling of its crisis context: first of all, it is pivotal for Vestas to gain insight into
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
96
the degree to which its stakeholders attribute responsibility to them for the crisis – and this should
be done continuously, as stakeholders’ salience and attributed level of responsibility is likely to be
dynamic. Secondly, having acknowledged that quite a high level of responsibility is in fact
attributed to them for the crisis, Vestas should address this in its communication; instead of
evading issues that relate to the crisis, Vestas should talk about them. Instead of avoiding using
themselves as subjects whenever crisis-related issues are mentioned, Vestas should emphasise
themselves in sentences related to crisis issues because this would demonstrate that the
organisation not only take responsibility of the crisis, but is also in control of it. Vice versa,
evading any connections between Vestas as subjects and the crisis as direct object, as is the case in
the communication analysed, is likely to be perceived by the stakeholders as something the
organisation does because it is not in control of the situation. Hence, in relation to its crisis
context, a recommendation is for Vestas to take responsibility for the crisis, to adapt its
communication accordingly and thereby, on basis of the notions from SCCT, diminish the damage
done to the corporate reputation.
In the past chapter, a textual and contextual analysis laid the ground for an evaluation of research
question 2, the answer to which provided a set of recommendations for how Vestas, according to
theory, can adopt a more postmodern approach to communication and stakeholder relations
management. As was mentioned previously, these recommendations were developed strictly on
basis of theoretical aspects and without considering the critiques presented to the various
theoretical fields in chapter 2. These theoretical recommendations lead the thesis to the next step
of critically assessing them in relation to critiques and the hindrances for practical applicability
that these present.
In the first part of the next chapter, a discussion of research question 3 will be provided, which
will critically assess the theoretical recommendations provided above.
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
97
6. Discussion
The discussion, which will be presented in the following chapter, comprises two main parts,
namely an assessment of research question 3 and research question 4, respectively. The first part
evaluates the previous findings from a critical perspective whereas the second part embarks on a
discussion of normativity and business ethics in relation to the thesis at hand.
6.1. Research Question 3: Pragmatic Critique and Applicability of Postmodernism to Business Contexts
The next step is now to assess the proposed recommendations in relation to the existing theoretical
critiques in order to evaluate their practical applicability in actual business contexts. This will be
done by returning to the critiques presented in the theoretical chapter and to relate these to the
main theoretical topics of the recommendations made for Vestas in section 5.5. On basis of this,
the evaluation of the postmodern viewpoint adopted in this thesis in relation to existing critiques
will elevate the discussion from an ideal to a more pragmatic level.
6.1.1. Critique of the Emergent Approach to Strategy
As was stated in recommendation no. 1 in section 5.5.1.1, a main recommendation for Vestas –
based on the theoretical framework as well as the analysis of Vestas’ communication – is for
Vestas to take a more emergent approach to business than what is currently the case. This
recommendation was established on basis of the fact that from a postmodern view, the emergent
approach is more appropriate for organisations to employ because this approach, with few clearly
defined objectives and strategies for the future, allows for a much higher degree of adaption to
changes in the environment. With the turbulent development of Vestas’ environment that has
taken place throughout the period of analysis, it was with this recommendation deduced that an
emergent approach to strategising would have improved Vestas’ response because this would have
allowed for urgent decisions taking into account the changes occurring in its context as well as the
stakeholders’ salience (and how this changes). This recommendation also included an emphasis on
transparency in Vestas’ communication by including information on both normative and
instrumental matters in order to ensure the highest degree of consideration for all the different
truths Vestas’ stakeholder (group)s are likely to hold.
However, points of criticism also do exist towards the emergent approach, on which the
recommendation for Vestas presented in section 5.5 will be re-evaluated in the following.
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
98
As was touched upon in section 2.1, even though the emergent approach is the ideal (especially
from a postmodern point of view), it is in the vast majority of organisational settings highly
unrealisable to practice in its purest shape. In this way it is acknowledged that in reality,
organisations do need to set some objectives and execute some level of strategising (and hence,
adopt some degree of prescriptive strategising). With this, the authors of this thesis emphasise the
acknowledgement of the difficulty and long time perspective in changing the approach to an
organisation’s strategy from prescriptive to emergent. Hence, it is recognised that the
recommendation for Vestas to take a more emergent approach to business by detecting and
reacting upon the changes that occur in its (stakeholder) environment is easier said than done for
an international organisation like Vestas. As some analysts of Vestas’ situation also mention47,
Vestas can, metaphorically, be compared to a super tanker because the reaction time from a
decision is made until its effect appear are often long-term, just like it takes time for a super tanker
to react and actually change direction when the steering is changed.
With this, the recommendation of adopting an emergent approach in its purest form is altered
when considered in the light of exiting critique towards it, and therefore, a combination of an
emergent and a prescriptive approach to business must, in this light, be considered more realisable.
Having reached this insight, it is advised for the emergent element of Vestas’ approach to be
implemented especially in the communication. The reason for this is evidenced by returning to the
metaphor of Vestas being a super tanker; even though decisions themselves, such as steering in
another direction, might take time to effectuate, it would still be possible for the captain to
communicate to the crew that the decision has been made, and why. Applying this metaphor to
Vestas’ situation, it is argued that it would, in the same way as with the super tanker, be possible
for Vestas to incorporate both emergent and prescriptive approaches to business by setting
objectives and making decisions for the long-term but still communicating to its stakeholders in an
emergent, timely and dynamic matter. Hence, the recommendation of an emergent approach
prevails to a larger degree in relation to Vestas’ communication than to the decisions themselves
made by Vestas. This supports what has been emphasised several times at this point in the thesis,
namely that it is not the managerial actions that are questioned, but rather the communicative
approaches relating to these actions.
47 Appendix 17
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
99
6.1.2. Critique of the Complex Broad Approach to Crisis Management
As was argued for in recommendation no. 3, it is – on basis of the complex broad approach to
crisis management – recommended for Vestas to accommodate the level of responsibility
attributed to them for the crisis by its stakeholders to a larger degree than what the analysis of the
communication material from Vestas evidenced was in fact the case. With this, and closely
connected to the discussion of an emergent or prescriptive approach to business, it was
recommended for Vestas to manage its crisis with a much more contextually adapted approach by
communicatively addressing the issues that are on its (stakeholders’) agenda in relation to the
crisis. Because the approach suggested for Vestas to take in terms of handling its crisis is so
closely connected to the principles of the emergent approach to strategising, the same points of
critique also uphold. In this way, even though the emergent approach to crisis is highly
recommended for Vestas, entailing immediate adaptation to and consideration for contextual
changes, it is also recognised and acknowledged that in reality, some degree of prescriptiveness is
necessary in crisis management; when in crisis, organisations do need some level of planning and
objective-setting, and especially for large, international organisations like Vestas with many
stakeholder groups, it is inevitable to avoid some degree of planning and scheduling.
6.1.3. Critique of Postmodern Approaches
As the overall contextual influence for the topics of this thesis has been defined as postmodernism
and as the recommendations presented in section 5.5 all contain some element or application of
this term, it is also extremely relevant to consider and discuss the critiques of the term in relation
to the practical applicability of postmodern thoughts to business contexts. This is supported by the
fact that this thesis is essentially concerning business topics and can therefore, ultimately, be
expected to seek a realistic approach to the inclusion of certain theories and concepts.
The idea of postmodernism as pervading all the recommendations (and thereby emphasising its
dominant role as a theoretical light the entire thesis can be seen in) comes to show especially
through recommendation 2, but also 1 and 3. Therefore, the main problems with the postmodernist
thoughts presented in this discussion also accounts for the other two recommendations and the
elements of postmodernism that these recommendations contain.
Postmodernism was included in the theoretical recommendations in several different ways; first of
all in the second recommendation of including stakeholders in a multilateral dialogue as opposed
to a managerial monologue. In relation to this is the concept of fragmentation, which entails that
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
100
organisations to a large degree must include all stakeholders’ realities, as each of these is equally
important and legitimate.
Focusing on including multiple stakeholder realities and thereby rejecting any one truth is, by
Parker, criticised as being unviable, arguing that it then becomes impossible to make any business
decisions at all. It can be considered as a contributing factor to unproductive conduct to not have
any specific stance as this will make business decisions of any kind largely unfeasible. This means
that if an organisation like Vestas is to adopt postmodernism in its purest sense and thereby
engage in multilateral dialogue with all stakeholders, this will impact the likelihood of completing
actual business objectives and goals. This is due to the fact that if the focus of management is to
understand and include all stakeholders, thereby spending a large amount of resources trying to do
so, it can, in turn, be expected that very few actual conclusions are drawn and goals reached,
thereby making the idea of including all stakeholder realities and satisfying everyone an
impossible base to build business decisions on.
A second implication for the application of postmodern principles relates to what was evidenced
in the analysis i.e. that Vestas can be considered a rather bureaucratic organisation. As also
mentioned in section 5.5.2.1, organisations that are more bureaucratic than the stakeholders they
serve are likely to have large difficulties in adhering to both the multiple realities of its
postmodern stakeholders (who they first have to thoroughly research in order to understand the
realities of) and at the same time to pursue strategies and business goals. This conflict of interests
– business versus stakeholders – is also a representation of the shareholder/stakeholder debate
discussed throughout this thesis, as the adherence to a “no truth” and a complete inclusion of
stakeholders can be expected to be made at the expense of financial and corporate interests.
In relation to stakeholder management, a complete conformity to postmodernism is also unrealistic
as the idea of stakeholder dialogue can be said to build on the principles of management according
to the stakeholder model. Thereby, the idea of stakeholder enabling as an alternative to traditional
one-way stakeholder communication is closely related to postmodernism and, based on the
arguments of the practical inapplicability of postmodernism presented above, thereby also largely
unrealistic in its strictest theoretical sense. Like the general critique of postmodernism above
suggests, a risk of engaging in multilateral dialogue with stakeholders – and thereby a complete
adoption of the stakeholder model – is to do so at the expense of corporate interests. Furthermore,
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
101
focusing on and engaging with every single stakeholder in every single business context is simply
not possible seen from a realistic point of view.
6.1.4. Critique of Micro Level Two-Way Communication
Likewise, the concepts of corporate communication are closely related to the concepts of
postmodernism adopted in the recommendations and thereby also the critiques of postmodernism.
In this way, the recommendation suggested in section 5.5.2.1 of engaging in stakeholder
communication on a micro level as a postmodern alternative to traditional two-way
communication can also be criticised. This is due to the fact that practising micro level two-way
communication, especially in complex situations of double crises as Vestas’, only increases the
level of difficulty in its application, and hence, in relation to this, the critique of postmodernism in
general, which has been presented, also counts in this relation: namely that such a high focus on
every individual stakeholder, in a realistic context, is likely to be rather utopian and again – at the
expense of some more financial, organisational interests. The complication of a double crisis
context for applying this micro level communication is supported by the assumption that
organisations in crisis will often find it difficult to allocate the necessary resources for
communicating specifically with many different stakeholders about a given, specific micro level
crisis context. Also, with the crisis in mind, it can be regarded as a delicate situation in relation to
what is communicated and by whom. Thereby, the recommended micro level communication
must take place in a way that ensures that consistent and honest messages are communicated
across the organisation. This can, from a managerial point of view and in the specific case of
Vestas, be difficult to “control”, especially in situations where employees whose colleagues may
have been laid off, have to perform this communication e.g. with external stakeholders.
On basis of this critical assessment of the recommendations it has become evident that what was
identified as the theoretical ideal is in many respects unrealistic on a pragmatic and realistic level.
In this light, the theoretical ideals of highly emergent and dynamic approaches to business should
be pursued normatively, whereas it is recognised that descriptively and instrumentally, some
degree of prescriptive procedures and objective setting is required.
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
102
6.2. Research Question 4: Reflections on Ethics and Normativity in Vestas
This thesis began with a theoretical basis of corporate communication and stakeholder relations in
a postmodern crisis context. A case study of Vestas was made to shed light on whether or not the
organisation, as an example of a large organisation operating in a postmodern crisis context, has
taken this specific context into consideration in its communication with stakeholders. This
subsequently led to the development of theoretical recommendations for managing stakeholder
relations and corporate communication in a postmodern crisis context, which were later
theoretically and critically assessed in terms of practical applicability and relevance for actual
business contexts.
The following section seeks to view the results of the thesis in a broader ethical perspective. This
will be done by considering the analytical findings of how Vestas communicated with its
stakeholders in relation to different normative theories, in order to finally conclude which ethical
stance the organisation seems to have predominantly operated on.
As has previously been described in section 2.3.2, normativity is at the core of stakeholder
relations implying that ideally, an organisation’s normative and ethical considerations provide a
strong basis for its actions, operations etc. on the descriptive and instrumental level. With this, it is
asserted that if the normative core can be expected to be reflected in the descriptive and
instrumental dimensions at Vestas, then an analysis of (parts of) the descriptive and instrumental
dimensions can, in turn, also be used as a point of departure for an assessment of Vestas’
normative core. In this relation, it is, however, important to emphasise that it is acknowledged that
an evaluation of Vestas’ normativity based on an analysis of only 11 press releases only represents
a fragment of a much bigger picture. However, it is still useful because the discussion of
normativity in Vestas is included not so as to establish and document a complete assessment of
what Vestas’ normative core in its totality consists of, but is included to shed further light on and
exemplify how one organisation in a context of crisis has handled its stakeholder relations
communicatively.
The normative ethical stance taken by Vestas is in this thesis based on the textual and contextual
discourse analysis of selected communication material from Vestas, representing the descriptive
and (to some degree) instrumental levels of its stakeholder relations. The findings from this
analysis will, in the following, be discussed in relation to theoretical findings in order to reach an
assessment of which ethical ground Vestas can be assumed to have acted upon, based on its
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
103
descriptive and instrumental approach. Some of the issues that will be addressed are, then: which
ethical world does Vestas appear to operate in and why do they do as they do? On basis of the
framing and discourse employed in the material analysed, how is this contributing to the
establishment of a normative basis at Vestas?
Before assessing which ethical stance it seems like Vestas has operated according to, it is, firstly,
relevant to take a closer look at postmodern ethics, as this represents the ideal level that Vestas
should operate on in relation to ethics based on the overall postmodern contextual
acknowledgement that this thesis has taken. This will later be critically reflected on in relation to
more pragmatic considerations.
6.2.1. Postmodern Normativity
Since this thesis operates on a postmodern basis, the principles from this field constitute the ideal
in relation to stakeholder communication in a crisis context. In this way, ethical communication,
which resembles the postmodern communication practices presented in the answer to research
question 2 (the theoretical recommendations), can be argued to be closely associated with a
Kantian approach to ethics because of the many parallels that can be drawn between the two
perspectives’ view on stakeholders with the overall common denominator being inclusion and
consideration of stakeholder interests and contexts. In this way, the postmodern principles of
fragmentation, rejection of metanarratives, stakeholder enabling and dialogue closely relate to the
Kantian “Principle of Corporate Legitimacy” and “The Stakeholder Fiduciary Principle” put
forth by Evan & Freeman (cf. section 2.3.2.1), which advocate that stakeholders must be included
in corporate decisions that affect them and that the organisation should always act in the interests
of its stakeholders. Furthermore, Cova’s notion that the postmodern individual is to be perceived
on its own rather than as a small part of a larger group (cf. section 2.2.2) indicates a strong link to
Kantian ethics by valuing individual needs higher than collective needs.
In addition, the Kantian approach to business ethics (and thereby normativity and ethically correct
conduct) and the postmodern outlook both adhere to the stakeholder model, as both involve equal
inclusion of all stakeholder interests (contrary to the shareholder model which primarily focuses
on an organisation’s financial stakeholders). Furthermore, this argument is supported by the
thesis’ social constructionist scientific foundation, as this advocates the inclusion of multiple
realities and thereby avoids preference of one reality over another as well as the concept of
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
104
fragmentation, also presented earlier (“fragmentation means literally, the breaking up into parts
and erasing of the whole, single reality into multiple realities, all claiming legitimacy, and all
decoupling any link to the presumed whole” (Firat & Venkatesh, 1995:253)).
In this way, it is established that organisations acknowledging the challenges that a contemporary
postmodern context poses to the conduct of business and the stakeholder environment should
strive for context-specific, comprehensive communication that involves many different aspects of
the stakeholders’ realities – i.e. communication that resemble the Kantian principles.
Ultimately, and on a completely ideal level, ”what postmodernism has to offer business is not
rules, but questions that raise issues of responsibility” (Gustafson, 2000:645). This quote supports
Coombs’ suggestion of assessing the level of responsibility attributed to an organisation in crisis
and implies a focus on stakeholders which, again, can be argued to support the Kantian approach
of being considerate of all stakeholders.
6.2.2. Normativity in Vestas’ Communication
As described in the methodology section on normativity and business ethics, the two primary
ethical normative theories chosen for this reflection are Kantian deontology and consequentialist
utilitarianism. Before initiating an assessment of Vestas’ ethical stance, it is useful to once again
remember that it is primarily Vestas’ communication and not the specific managerial decisions
from the period of crisis that will serve as the foundation for such.
If the results of the analysis of Vestas’ communication material are viewed through a Kantian lens,
certain problems appear; communication based on this ethical tradition could be expected to
witness an approach, which includes all stakeholder groups by not leaving anyone out and by
focusing on the needs and benefits of everyone. As was evidenced in the discussion of the analysis
in research question 2, Vestas has, by the employment of metanarratives, establishment of
managerial monologue, a clear use of an organisation-centric discourse with focus on the
organisation itself, its future, position in the market, financial situation and “well-being” etc., not
succeeded in (communicatively) taking into consideration the different realities represented by its
different stakeholder groups.
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
105
This evidences of a use of instrumental ethics, and from a normative perspective it can be argued
to be a consideration and prioritisation of a certain group of financial stakeholders (more
specifically the shareholders) who have a personal financial stake in the organisation. The
consideration of this specific stakeholder group and the use of instrumental ethics, as described in
section 2.3.1, characterises organisations governed according to the shareholder model. The choice
of favouring some stakeholders over others rather than trying to satisfy all stakeholders’ needs for
communication in times of crisis comes to show through a clear priority of financial content rather
than e.g. empathy for employees. The fact that Vestas’ communication attempts to promote
organisational interests rather than those of multiple stakeholders and to accommodate the
shareholders’ instrumental claims contradicts the Kantian approach to normativity, which was
argued in section 6.2.1 to be ideally postmodern. The contradiction consists of the fact that
whereas the postmodern Kantian approach favours behaviours that consider both instrumental and
normative claims of all stakeholders (i.e. a stakeholder approach), Vestas’ approach primarily
seems to optimise the benefits of the strictly instrumental and financial stakeholders (i.e. a
shareholder approach). What this indicates is that Vestas has acted, and subsequently
communicated, in a way that is morally problematic seen from the thesis’ theoretically ideal
postmodern (and thereby ideal Kantian) point of view.
6.2.3. Implications of a Postmodern Approach to Normativity
By returning, for a moment, to the previous critique of postmodernism (as argued in the answer to
research question 3), namely that it, in its purest sense, is largely utopian, this critique can – due to
the many parallels that can be identified between them – also be related to the ideal Kantian
approach to business normativity. As mentioned in section 2.3. on stakeholder relations, normative
theories of the first kind (like the Kantian approach) can be argued to be highly unrealisable due to
their idealistic level. Taking this into consideration, the ideal postmodern – and Kantian –
approach to ethics is not necessarily the most appropriate or desired one on a more realistic or
pragmatic level. This is due to the fact that it seems unlikely that business decisions can be made,
and subsequently communicated, in a way that does not sacrifice any stakeholder or group of
stakeholders at all. Relating this to the Vestas case emphasises the improbability for a complete
stakeholder-inclusive approach to be realised pragmatically; in this way, a purely Kantian – and
postmodern – ethical approach would have prompted for Vestas to not sacrifice any stakeholders
or stakeholder groups at any time, which would, then, have precluded Vestas to lay off any
employees, eventually leading the organisation to seize to exist; if no employees had been laid off,
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
106
the financial resources are likely to have been too few for the organisation’s continuation. As this
scenario exemplifies, the ideal of not sacrificing any stakeholder groups at any point in time is
more desirable on an ideal level than in reality – if Vestas had not laid off any employees, a likely
outcome would have been that the organisation would be unable to continue operations and
thereby close, which would, obviously, harm even more stakeholders.
In addition, as mentioned in section 2.4.1.1.1, an organisation can only be as postmodern as its
own structure allows, i.e. bureaucratic organisations are more challenged in the implementation of
postmodern stakeholder relations management and communication than non-bureaucratic
organisations. This means that, due to the fact that a rather high level of bureaucracy has been
identified in Vestas in section 5.2, the impossibility for Vestas of adhering to a Kantian approach
to business ethics in its totality is emphasised. This example stresses how criticism of
postmodernism also counts for ethical and normative decision-making by the difficulty of its
applicability in its purest form in terms of practical matters.
In this way, the approach taken by Vestas in terms of decision-making, which can be argued as
containing elements of utilitarianism, is in fact rather appropriate given the context, organisation
and crisis at hand, since the chances of Vestas “surviving” the financial crisis are larger if a
smaller group of stakeholders is sacrificed in favour of the majority, thereby activating the basic
principle of utilitarianism. In this sense, this thesis argues that such utilitarian approach thereby
becomes more morally correct than a Kantian approach, which, from this perspective – ultimately
– saves no one. However, Even though the utilitarian approach by “sacrificing” some for the
benefit of the majority is acknowledged on a decision-making level, the findings from the analysis
of Vestas’ communication and the recommendations developed emphasise that it is still highly
relevant to include all stakeholders – even the sacrificed – in the communication, as these also
have needs for communication in order to understand and optimally accept their changed realities.
The fact that the utilitarian approach to Vestas’ decision-making is acknowledged, in spite of the
fact that the Kantian approach is deemed more postmodern, is justified because, as Green
expresses it, ”those who work in business ethics, I believe, must doubt the validity of any one of
these theories as a unitary account of and solution to the problems of economic life” (Green,
1993:223). What Green essentially suggests with this is that it is both ethical – and postmodern –
to abandon the desire to address ethical issues or problematic matters according to the
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
107
metanarratives of any one tradition (such as the shareholder or the stakeholder model), and with
this, Green notes that ”in short, business ethics is postmodern because its very enterprise rejects
the view that any single economic or social theory can address or eliminate the ongoing ethical
problems of organizational and economic life” (Green, 1993:223). Hence, according to Green’s
statements, the act of determining that postmodernism relates more closely to Kantian ethics and
the stakeholder model than other approaches to ethics and normativity, in itself, opposes the
postmodern principles of avoiding metanarratives.
On basis of this, Vestas’ utilitarian and partly shareholder-focused approach to decision-making is
accepted as being the best choice considering Vestas’ context at the time.
In relation to its communication, however, the matter changes: here, as it has been evidenced,
Vestas abandons the utilitarian approach and instead employs an approach, which seems to have
the organisation’s own interest at the centre and which is dominated by a representation of its own
interests. In relation to the decisions, the sacrifice of some employees was justified on basis of the
fact that it served a greater common good; namely the survival of the organisation. However, it is
hard to identify any common good in their communicative choices – the only good this seems to
serve is Vestas own, and to some degree its shareholders’. As was stressed in section 6.1.1, it is
argued that postmodern and Kantian principles are more easily incorporated communicatively than
instrumentally, and with this, it is argued that the Kantian and postmodern principles that deem
too ideal and utopian in relation to decisions themselves are in fact realisable communicatively.
Hence, from an ethical and normative viewpoint, it is argued that Vestas should take a Kantian
approach and include all of its stakeholders and their interests and needs in the communication.
At this point, three different normative aspects have been detected; the utilitarian approach has
been adopted in relation to Vestas’ decisions, a more organisation-centric (and thereby
inconsiderate of stakeholders) approach has been employed in the communication and finally,
based on the theoretical framework, the Kantian approach represents the ideal normative approach
for organisations to take.
Even though the Kantian approach represents the ideal, Vestas’ more utilitarian approach to
decision-making is acknowledged since it is deemed more favourable that the organisation
survives to the benefit of the majority instead of being forced to close to the harm of everyone.
However, even though the utilitarian approach is deemed morally acceptable in relation to the
decisions made by Vestas – to layoff some of its employees – it is argued that the Kantian ethical
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
108
approach, which seems too ideal on a practical decision-making level, is in fact applicable in
relation to communication. So, in terms of decision-making, the more utilitarian approach is
acknowledged, whereas a more Kantian approach is recommended in Vestas’ communication.
However, assessing the communication from Vestas in the light of normativity, it appears that
none of the above presented approaches have been adhered to in Vestas’ communication; instead,
as previously mentioned, this is characterised by non-inclusive rhetoric, sub-optimisation of
Vestas’ own interests and with little consideration for any stakeholders and context and with
emphasis on organisational interests.
At this point it is relevant to once again reconsider Donaldson and Preston’s statement: "If you
want to achieve (avoid) X, Y, or Z, then adopt (don't adopt) principles and practices A, B, or C"
(Donaldson & Preston, 1995:71) in relation to Vestas. Essentially, what this thesis concludes is
that if Vestas wants to obtain their stakeholders’ trust, Vestas needs to include them maximally in
the communication, but only to the degree that makes most sense for the common good in their
decisions. Vice versa, if Vestas wants to avoid stakeholder dissatisfaction, reputational damage
and a loss of trust from the stakeholders, they should avoid using the organisation-centric
discourse as was seen throughout all communication material analysed.
As presented at the initiation of this chapter, normativity and the specific stance an organisation
adopts in relation to this should, according to theory, serve as the foundation for all decisions and
operations within a given organisation. This contradicts the quote by Green, who argues that
adherence to one single stance would be to counter the basic principle of postmodernism, which,
instead, argues that the ethical approach taken by a given organisation should be chosen on basis
of that organisation’s specific context and stakeholders rather than being a foregone conclusion.
Based on these two opposing arguments, this thesis argues that despite the fact that the utilitarian
approach taken by Vestas for ethical decision-making is acknowledged, it is still highly relevant
and necessary to also acknowledge the fact that the stakeholders who were sacrificed based on this
utilitarian normative rationale still need to be considered in the communication by management –
communication that justifies this decision and explains the consequences for the employees in
question due to the fact that the stakeholders’ salience is argued to change throughout the course
of crisis events (cf. section 2.3.2.2.2). Through this combination of utilitarianism as the normative
core in decision-making and a more postmodern and Kantian approach to communication, the
suggestion for an ideal two-fold normative approach for crisis management in a business context
is made. It should, however, be emphasised that this thesis, due to its social constructionist
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
109
foundation, does not attempt to present the only acceptable solution, but rather to present one of
many that can be considered appropriate.
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
110
7. Conclusion
In the quest to answer the overall problem statement, namely an exploration of the connections
between stakeholder relations management and corporate communication in a postmodern crisis
context, this thesis has adopted an approach that, firstly, assesses the issue theoretically, secondly
through a qualitative empirical case study, thirdly from a critical viewpoint and finally from an
ethical and normative perspective.
The exploration of the first research question evidences that theoretically, the relation between the
communication theories and stakeholder relations theories generates a conclusion marked by a
move away from organisation-centred strategising, communication and stakeholder relations
towards a stakeholder inclusive, two-way communicative scenario, able to adapt quickly to
changes in the environment – and to stakeholders’ contexts and how these might change. In this
way, a postmodern complex crisis context requires for communication and stakeholder
management to be extraordinarily context aware and to dynamically and emergently adapt to
changes in the context – especially changes in stakeholders’ contexts. With the move in
stakeholder relations management theory away from the shareholder model of management
towards the stakeholder model of management, the connection between the field of corporate
communication and stakeholder relations management is largely characterised by the common
denominator of the emergent approach to business, and with this, the connection between
corporate communication and stakeholder relations management from a contemporary and
postmodern view is mutually characterised by stakeholder inclusion, dialogue and consideration.
In the exploration of research question 2, these theoretical insights are contemplated in relation to
a textual, contextual and critical discourse analysis of selected pieces of communication from
Vestas throughout its period of crisis. This reveals not only an unsuccessful inclusion and
consideration of postmodern principles and concepts in the organisation’s stakeholder relations
management and communication, but also indicates that Vestas’ communication remains
rhetorically unaltered in spite of the reoccurrence of crisis events and thereby changing context.
Theoretically, this contextual inconsideration and lack of dynamic and emergent communicative
reflections suggest that Vestas’ communicative handling of the crises is inappropriate and does not
accommodate the level of crisis responsibility attributed to them for the crisis. On basis of this,
recommendations are proposed for Vestas to take a much more stakeholder-oriented and inclusive
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
111
approach in order to minimise the differences between the micro and macro level of Vestas’
communication and context, respectively, as identified in the critical discourse analysis.
The exploration of research question 3 sheds light on the points of critique that exist towards
business methods and approaches that employ postmodern principles in their totality. The two-
way communication approach is criticised by postmodernism for setting up objectives that are
unrealistic, pointing out that micro level communication with all stakeholders is often at the
expense of organisational interests and that often, organisations themselves are too bureaucratic
for the postmodern stakeholders they serve. Hence, this critical assessment of the theoretical
recommendations suggests that what is normatively ideal is not necessarily neither realisable nor
desirable and points towards the fact that pragmatically, complete stakeholder inclusion and
consistent two-way symmetrical communication are, although desirable, too idealistic.
At this point in the thesis, the theoretical recapitulation in research question 1, the
recommendations developed on basis of this in relation to the analysis of the communication
material from Vestas in research question 2 and the points of critique raised in relation to the
recommendations in research question 3, in combination, produce the observation that from a
theoretical and ideal point of view, a postmodern approach to communication and stakeholder
relations management is recommended for organisations; an approach, which Vestas fails at
accommodating. However, reassessing the theories through a critical lens sheds light on the fact
that postmodernism is largely utopian to realise in its purest form because of its resource
demanding nature, which makes it practically challenging. Furthermore, its implementation is,
hence, often at the expense of organisations’ operational and financial interests.
Lastly, in the exploration of research question 4, the research is elevated to a normative and ethical
level, which reveals that the Kantian normative route representing the recommended postmodern
normative ideal (based on the theoretical findings) proved partly undesirable when connected to an
actual business case through the findings from the analysis. As evidenced, the Kantian approach is
deemed feasible and desirable on a communicative level because it acknowledges the importance
of communicating with all stakeholders in a contextually considerate manner. However, in terms
of decision-making, a more utilitarian approach is justified because it, given Vestas’ individual
context, is considered more ethically desirable to save the organisation and the majority of
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
112
stakeholders – sacrificing few stakeholders – than not sacrificing any stakeholders at the expense
of all stakeholders as well as the organisation’s survival.
Ultimately, this thesis has shown that in order to provide a tangible and pragmatic approach to
stakeholder relations management and corporate communication in a postmodern crisis context, it
is useful to acknowledge the underlying premises of postmodernism but to employ these in a way
that makes sense and is realistic in relation to the context and the business rationale of the given
organisation. If this combination of an ideal philosophical term and more pragmatic areas of
business is successfully achieved, this can, based on the thesis’ theoretical, empirical, critical and
normative findings, be expected to increase the relationships with different stakeholders and, in
turn, also the reputation of the organisation.
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
113
8. Critique of Method
Due to the fact that the process of writing a master thesis is iterative, the authors of the thesis have
continuously throughout the thesis writing process acquired new knowledge and insight.
Therefore, the authors are now in a position that allows for re-evaluation of the theoretical,
methodological and analytical approaches taken, which, inevitably, sheds light on alternative
routes available for answering the problem statement.
On basis of the scientific stance of social constructionism and the acknowledgement of
postmodernism, one such route could, with advantage for the thesis at hand, have combined the
authors’ own qualitative observations via the discourse analysis in the case study with other
qualitative research methods, such as e.g. in-depth interviews with the selected stakeholders in
focus. This would have expanded the research from being based on theoretical insights and the
authors’ subjective observations to also include the point of view of some of the case study’s
central players – the stakeholders – thereby enhancing the thesis’ adherence to social
constructionism’s claim that communication does not happen in a vacuum. Furthermore, this
would have enabled an interesting and more comparative approach to research by combining the
discourse analysis with in-depth interviews, thereby investigating the perceptions the stakeholders
have of the communication material.
In addition, even though the communication material selected for analysis represents different
points in the defined period of crisis, the 11 pieces of communication material are still only a
fragment of the total amount of communication for the period. Ideally, a much more
comprehensive inclusion of both internal and external communication material from Vestas from
the crisis period could have led to an equally more representative and comprehensive analysis.
However, as mentioned in section 3.5 on data selection, such an approach is highly unrealisable in
a thesis of this scope.
Lastly, a more comprehensive approach to analysis could have been employed by making use of
multimodal discourse analysis, which addresses how the use of not only text but also e.g. images
and sounds influence rhetorical representation. Hence, this would have provided a more
comprehensive analysis.
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
114
9. Bibliography Books:
Argenti, P. (2006). Investor Relations. In P. Argenti, Corporate Communication (s. 157-181). McGraw-Hill.
Bryman, A. (2001). Chapter 13: The nature of qualitative research. In Social Research Methods (pp. 263-288). Oxford University Press. Burr, V. (2001). What is social constructionism? In An Introduction to Social Constructionism. Routledge. Coombs, T. W. (2007). Ongoing Crisis Communication - Planning, Managing and Responding (Second ed.). Sage Publications. Cornelissen, J. (2008). Corporate Communication - A guide to theory and practice (2nd ed.). Sage. Cornelissen, J. (2011). Corporate Communication: a guide to theory and practice (3rd ed.). London: Sage.
Daymon, C., & Holloway, I. (2004). Qualitative Research Methods in Public Relations and Marketing Communications . London: Routledge. Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and Power, Pearson Education, Language in Social Life Series, 2nd edition. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston: Pitman. Friedman, A. L., & Miles, S. (2006). Stakeholders: theory and practice. Oxford University Press. Gergen, K. J. (1999). An Invitation to Social Construction. SAGE Publications. Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing Public Relations. Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Grunig, J. E. (1992): Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. New Jersey, USA. Grunig, J. E. (2001). Two-way symmetrical public relations: Past, present and future. In R. L. Heath(Ed.), Handbook of Public Relations (pp. 11–30). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. p. 26 Guimard, A. (2008). Competing for Capital. In A. Guimard, Investor Relations: Principles and International Best Practices of Financial Communications (s. 1-21). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Lynch, R. (2009). Strategic Management (5 ed.), FT Prentice Hall.
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
115
Merkelsen. (2007). Håndbog i Strategisk Public Relations. Paltridge, Brian (2006): Discourse Analysis, Continuum International Publishing Group, London. Chapter 6, p. 136 Regester, Michael & Larking, Judy (2008): Risk Issues and Crisis Management in Public Relations: A Casebook of Best Practice. Kogan page/Chartered Institute of Public Relations, Fourth Edition. Ryan, T. M., & Jacobs, C. A. (2005). Using Investor Relations to Maximise Equity Valuation. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Stillar, G. F. (1998). Analyzing Everyday Texts: Discourse, Rhetoric, and Social Perspectives. USA: Sage. Ulmer, R. (2007). Effective Crisis Communication. California: Sage Publications. Van Dijk, T. A. (2003). Critical Discourse Analysis. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton, The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Blackwell Publishing. Weiss, J. W. (1994). Business Ethics - A Managerial, Stakeholder Approach. Bentham, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Articles:
Cova, B. (1996, November/December). The postmodern explained to managers: implications for marketing. Business Horizon , pp. 15-23. Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995, January). The stakeholder theory of the corporation - concepts, evidence and implications. The Academy of Management Review , Vol. 20 (1), pp. 65-91. Dowling, G. and Moran, P. (2012): Corporate Reputations: Built in or Bolted on? In: California Management Review, vol. 54, no. 2 Falkheimer, Jesper & Heide, Mats (2006): Multicultural Crisis Communication: Towards a Social Constructionist Perspective. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis management, 14 (4), p. 180-189
Firat, A. F., & Venkatesh, A. (1995). Liberatory Postmodernism and the Reenchantment of Consumption. . Journal of Consumer Research, , 22 (3). Frandsen, F., & Johansen, W. (2007). Crisis Communication and the Rhetorical Arena - A Multi-Vocal Approach. Conference paper for International Communication Association, 2007 Annual Meeting. Goodpaster, K. E. (1991). Business Ethics and Stakeholder Analysis. Business Ethics Quarterly, 1 (1), pp. 53-73.
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
116
Gower, K. K. (2006): Public Relations Research at the Crossroads, Department of Advertising and Public Relations University of Alabama, Journal of Public Relations Research, 18(2), 177–190, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Green, R. M. (1993, July). Business Ethics as a Postmodern Phenomenon. Business Ethics Quarterly , 3 (3), pp. 219-225. Gustafson, A. (2000, July). Making Sense of Postmodern Business Ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly , 10 (3), pp. 645-658.
Halliday, M. (1978). Language as Social Semiotic - the Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold.Hazen, M. A. (1993). Towards Polyphonic Organization. Journal of Organizational Change Management (5). Holtzhausen, D. R. (2009, November 19). Postmodern Values in Public Relations. Journal of Public Relations Research , 12 (1), pp. 93-114. HIR Editors (2010, Winter). Daring to deconstruct: The Rise of Postmodernism in Theory. Harvard International Review - Big ideas for the next decade. Holtzhausen, D. R. (2002). Towards a postmodern research agenda for public relations. Public Relations Review (28). Kelly, K. S., Laskin, A. V., & Rosenstein, G. A. (2010). Investor Relations: Two-Way Symmetrical Practice. Journal of Public Relations Research, 22 (2), s. 182-208. Leitch, S., & Palmer, I. (September 2010). Analysing Texts in Context: Current Practices and New Protocols for Critical Discourse Analysis in Organization Studies. Journal of Management Studies , 47 (6). Mitchell, R., Agle, B., & Wood, D. (1997). Towards a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts". Academy of Management Review.
Moriarty, J. (2008). Business Ethics: An Overview. Philosophy Compass (5). Parker, M. (1992). Post-Modern Organizations or Postmodern Organization Theory? Organization Studies , 13 (1), pp. 1-17. Rao, H., & Sivakumar, K. (1996). Institutional sources of boundary-spanning structures: the establishment of investor relations departments in the Fortune 500 industrials. Organizational Science. Roper, Juliet (2012): Symmetrical Communication: Excellent Public Relations or a Strategy for Hegemony? Department of Management Communication University of Waikato. Journal of Public Relations Research, 17(1), 69–86. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Postmodern Approaches to Stakeholder Relations Management and Corporate Communication: An Investigation of Pragmatic Feasibility
117
Smagorinsky, P., & Smith, M. W. (2012). Considering Context. (JSTOR, Red.) Research in the Teaching of English, 35 (3), s. 285-289. Stenbacka, C. (2001). Qualitative research requires quality concepts of its own. Management Decision , 39 (7), pp. 551-556. Wodak, R. (2004). Critical Discourse Analysis. In C. Seale, G. Gobo, J. F. Gubrium, & D. Silverman, Qualitative Research Practice (pp. 197-215). Sage. Yazdani, N., Murad, H. S., & Abbas, R. Z. (2011, June). From Modernity to Postmodernity: A Historical Discourse on Western Civilization. International Journal of Business and Social Science (11). Web sources: See references made directly to the respective appendices.