Content uploaded by Paul Koomson
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Paul Koomson on Jun 02, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY AS HEGEMONIC DISCOURSE
2
Sustainability as a Hegemonic Discourse of Globalization: The Discourse-Historical
Approach as a Critical Issues and Stakeholder Analysis Tool
Sylvester Senyo Ofori-Parku a
1
Paul Koomson a
a School of Journalism and Communication, 1275 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR
97403, USA
1
Corresponding author: soforiparku@gmail.com
CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY AS HEGEMONIC DISCOURSE
3
Abstract
Corporate social responsibility, and its other conceptual variants such as corporate
sustainability, encourages businesses to act on a range of issues outside what the law and
shareholders require. But what are the limits of the concept and its discursive practices in
a globalizing world marked by accentuated asymmetrical power relations between
businesses, and the communities they operate in and serve (especially corporations
working in less powerful global peripheries), and the regulators who are expected to
police them? This study uses the discourse-historical approach (DHA) and corporate
sustainability framework (CSF) to analyze a British independent oil production firm’s
Tullow—communication. It illustrates the utility of the DHA and the CSF for doing
critical stakeholder and issues analysis from corporate communication texts. Second, it
argues that corporate sustainability illustrates the power asymmetry between the global
and local, corporations and community. Specifically, we observe how a petroleum firm
uses sustainability discourse, as a form of hegemonic globalization, to perpetuate
dominant tropes and conceptions about African local communities as homogeneous and
lacking agency, commodifying the lived experiences of the locals in the process while
entrenching the superiority of the firm’s own position as a ‘benevolent dictator.’ We also
illustrate how particular mitigation and intensification discourse techniques are
employed to uphold Tullow as a ‘do-good’ actor. The corporation’s discursive strategies
have a cumulative effect of cementing the power asymmetry that already exists between
the firm as an agent of a dominant center of global power and Ghanaian communities as
less powerful interests in the globalization process. Suggestions for disrupting the
hegemony are provided.
Keywords: Corporate sustainability, Discourse-historical approach, Corporate
sustainability framework, Issues management, Hegemonic globalization, Stakeholders,
Corporate hegemony, CSR, Critical discourse analysis
Rooted in the notion of corporate responsibility and its other conceptual variants
such as corporate social responsibility (CSR), corporate citizenship, and corporate
sustainability (CS), business organizations are increasingly expected to address issues
beyond narrow economic, technical, and legal requirements. Despite the growing embrace
of the concept, some have questioned CS discourse’s material and discursive effects as
potentially reinforcing hegemonic structures and processes (Banerjee, 2008; Frankental,
2001; L’Etang, 1996). Focusing on the West African country, Ghana, this study examines
how Tullow Oil (referred to as Tullow in this article), as a representation of global capital,
discursively constructs its corporate sustainability issues and stakeholders with/for whom
it purports to engage in those actions. The research accomplishes two things. First, it
illustrates the utility of the discourse-historical approach (DHA) (Reisigl, 2017; Reisigl &
Wodak, 2009) and the corporate sustainability framework (CSF) (Ofori-Parku, 2016a) for
CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY AS HEGEMONIC DISCOURSE
4
critical analyses of stakeholder and issues discourses in corporate communication texts.
Second, arguing corporate sustainability practices and reporting can serve as a discourse
of globalization, the study illustrates how the discursive techniques in the firm’s
sustainability discourse manifest the power asymmetry often embedded
2
in corporate
sustainability practice— especially within the context of less privileged, developing
communities.
A brief background on the oil industry in Ghana: Petroleum exploration in the
country dates as far back as 1896, but it was not until 2007 that Tullow, a British oil
exploration company that describes itself as Africa’s leading independent oil company,
made what was then its most significant discovery in the Jubilee Oil Field, 75 miles
offshore Ghana’s West Cape Three Points. Within a record time of three years from
discovery, commercial oil production commenced. Although the fast pace of the oil field
development makes additional cash resources available for the country’s infrastructural
and economic development, it is also a source of worry because of its history of poor
natural resources and environmental management (see Aryee, 2012). Pertinent regulatory
frameworks
3
were not in place before oil production commenced (see Civil Society
Platform on Oil and Gas, 2011; Godson-Amamoo & Arko, 2022). Against this backdrop,
this study examines how a business organization discursively positions its corporate
sustainability practices. The analysis employs the discourse-historical approach (DHA)
(Reisigl & Wodak, 2009) as a critical discourse analysis tool. This research illustrates the
hegemonic dimensions of CS discourse; it problematizes such communication’s
institutionalized, technical bases, offering some recommendations for transformative
corporate responsibility practice.
Theoretical Approach
This study is informed by the corporate sustainability framework (Ofori-Parku,
2016a) and the social constitution of reality and risk approach (Beck, 1992; Fairclough,
1992). In connection with social constructionism, this work draws on critical
organizational communication/public relations research and the communication as
constituting organization (CCO) perspective (Banerjee, 2008; Frankental, 2001; McPhee
& Zaug, 2009; Moloney, 2006; Schoeneborn et al., 2014). Finally, in line with our view
2
As Banerjee (2008, p. 67) asserts, the history of CSR “reflects the history of [asymmetrical] corporate
power.” And in the developing world and vulnerable communities, the power imbalance between firms and
society becomes more pronounced (George, 2014).
3
Examples of such regulations (Godson-Amamoo & Arko, 2022) include: Petroleum (Exploration and
Production) (Health, Safety and Environment) Regulations 2017 (LI 2258); Petroleum (Exploration and
Production) Act 2016 (Act 919); Petroleum Exploration and Production-Data Management Regulation 2017
(LI 2257); Petroleum (Exploration and Production) (Measurement) Regulations 2016 (LI 2246); and
Petroleum (Local Content and Local Participation) Regulations 2013 (LI 2204).
CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY AS HEGEMONIC DISCOURSE
5
of the corporation as an agent of global capital, the study reflects on globalization and
media discourses on African communities.
The Corporate Sustainability Framework
Corporate (social) responsibility, although conceptualized in myriad ways (e.g.,
corporate sustainability and corporate citizenship), broadly refers to the beyond-law
expectations (Carroll, 1999; Dashwood, 2014) of “how managers should handle public
policy and social issues” (Windsor, 2006, p. 93). The concept arises from the belief that
businesses—especially large ones—wield enormous power and therefore have far-
reaching implications for the lives of citizens. The CSF offers a dynamic perspective on
corporate responsibility, especially in international contexts where the inherent power
imbalance between transnational corporations and communities becomes amplified
(Anderson & Cavanagh, 2020; author blinded; Dunning, 2016). The CSF applies the
macro-level concept of sustainable development to an organizational-level corporate
responsibility construct (Dashwood, 2014). Although some scholars view capitalist
exploitation of resources as dialectical to environmental protection (Adams, 2006;
Melkote & Steeves, 2001) the sustainable development concept presumes that
environmental stewardship and economic development should be compatible (Adams,
2006). Thus, “corporate sustainability” in the CSF represents the normative view that
business outcomes ought to have a net positive effect on the natural, social, and economic
environment (Ofori-Parku, 2016a). It represents an “up-take of sustainable development
as a norm informing companies’ CSR policies and practices” (Dashwood, 2014, p. 562).
Thus, the CSF rises (a) in line with the posited power asymmetry between firms
and society and (b) contrary to the notion of voluntariness that characterizes mainstream
dominant approaches to corporate responsibility practice and research (see Carroll, 1999;
Garriga & Melé, 2004; Ofori-Parku, 2016a; Windsor, 2006). It observes that corporate
sustainability actions are obligatory because businesses present both positive and negative
implications for members of the communities in which and for whom they operate (Ofori-
Parku, 2021). Thus, the CSF suggests that corporate responsibility:
… is not merely constituted by individual corporate actions and programs. It is
derived from how corporations balance the hazards and benefits of their processes
and actions along the entire value chain … [It] encapsulates commonplace notions
of CSR as well as [societal] risk mitigation, [communication], and management.
(Ofori-Parku, 2016a)
Also, the CSF lies at the nexus of the stakeholder approach (Freeman, 2010; R. Edward
Freeman et al., 2010) and issues management (Heath, 2002, 2006). The stakeholder
component answers the question: To whom are/should businesses be responsible? The
issues management aspect addresses the question, “For what are/should firms be
responsible? Unlike traditional issues management approaches that include foiling issues
CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY AS HEGEMONIC DISCOURSE
6
that might affect firms, the CSF also directs attention to the view that it is a moral
imperative for firms to curtail those issues that emanate from their processes. This view is
similar to obligatory beneficence or non-maleficence (Ofori-Parku, 2021) in CSR work.
The framework applies to the current study for three reasons. First, the
phenomenon of interest to this study manifests an inherent power imbalance between a
global corporation and a developing country. Second, as seen in the preceding paragraph,
the CSF combines an issues perspective with a broad stakeholder/humanistic perspective
to corporate responsibility. Third, the fossil fuel industry is a driving force for the
economic development of oil-rich nations at the macro level. However, it also poses
enormous risks, including air pollution, oil spills, injuries, and deaths at the meso and
individual levels (see Aryee, 2012; Spence, 2011). For example, in Nigeria, Africa’s
largest oil producer, there are serious concerns about Shell and Chevron’s practices versus
oil-producing communities’ livelihood and ecological conditions (Alabi & Ntukekpo,
2012). In Ghana’s nascent offshore oil industry, fishing communities have been
experiencing and expressing ecological concerns such as unusual growth and
decomposition of sargassum (i.e., floating seaweeds) along the coast, livelihood concerns,
and a surge in the number of dead whales washed ashore (see Ackah-Baidoo, 2013;
Ofori-Parku, 2016b).
Despite the petroleum extraction industry’s social, economic, and environmental
impacts on communities and nations, it often has much to say about its CSR. Considering
the gaps in firms’ adherence to sustainability guidelines (Guenther et al., 2006), this study
also draws on the view that the dynamic communication process constitutes organizations
and their processes (Weick, 1995).
A Constitutive Perspective on Corporate Sustainability Communication
This study is also grounded in the social construction of reality approach. From
this perspective, to constitute means to create. Some scholars have observed how
(corporate) discourse constitutes—transforms or reproduces—corporate and social
practices (Banerjee, 2008; Christensen et al., 2013; McPhee & Zaug, 2009; Putnam &
Nicotera, 2009; Schoeneborn et al., 2014; Weick, 1995). In risk and organizational
communication contexts, Leitch and Motion (2009) explain these dimensions as follows:
Reproduction is the conservative face of discourse, which leads to continuities of
the status quo at all levels of society. The second dimension is that…identities,
relations, and structures may also be transformed through discourse.
Transformation is the creative face of discourse, which leads to the possibility of
change. (p. 562-563)
The constitutive powers of CS discourse can manifest in several areas. For firms,
corporate sustainability is vital because they wield enormous power and because CS
constitutes or creates business success (Porter & Kramer, 2002). Thus, even when
CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY AS HEGEMONIC DISCOURSE
7
businesses consciously incorporate sustainability into their organizational processes, they
hardly stop short of using these changes for public relations, self-promotion, managing
their reputation and relationships, and investor relations purposes. This situation gives rise
to the criticism of corporate responsibility as an exploitative public relations invention,
often used to greenwash a firm’s practices (Frankental, 2001; Ofori-Parku, 2021). We
also see the constitutive power of sustainability discourse in research that shows corporate
sustainability (especially in the extractive industries) simply as corporate attempts to
suppress community resistance and demands (Garvin et al., 2009; Jenkins, 2004). In this
regard, sustainability discourses potentially reproduce structures of corporate domination
of public life and spaces, thereby serving as a tool for engineering consent or hegemonic
control. Another example of corporate hegemony is the discourses of “engagement” and
“participation.” While these discourses have gained ground in public relations and
corporate communication research and practice, there is often a gap between corporate
rhetoric about public participation and how efforts to involve the public actually occur
(Graham, 2004; Satterfield et al., 2013). This gap is usually due to the narrow technical
perspective from which organizations “engage” with stakeholders. It also derives from the
inherently lopsided power relations between community stakeholders and firms (see
author removed), especially global corporations, whose orientation is often that of
development “consultants,” who see local communities as “receivers of consultations”
(Banerjee, 2008, p. 64). In Ghana, mining firms sometimes use community-based CSR
initiatives to address public concerns and expectations to avoid conflicts (Garvin et al.,
2009). Although meeting development expectations is desirable, corporate
responsiveness, when conceived this way, creates, sustains, and reinforces the processes
of globalization via local-international linkages. For global multinationals (MNCs), these
linkages manifest through how they insert themselves and expand “into the governmental
lacuna” in developing countries (Garvin et al., 2009, p. 583). Hence, MNCs have the
potential to address critical community concerns, needs, and public policy issues.
However, corporate responsiveness can become a way to evade or coopt voices of
scrutiny—or even usurp the role of legitimate state institutions of development— while
creating a façade of ethical and responsive corporate behavior (Crane et al., 2013).
Also, an essential element in the social construction of (corporate) reality is from
whose perspective the discourse of truth is being produced (Banerjee, 2008; Reisigl &
Wodak, 2009). In this regard, mainstream sustainability discourse emphasizes scientific
innovation in managing—instead of transforming— practices (Leitch & Motion, 2009).
Such discourse is undemocratic and favors technical as opposed to lay knowledge, placing
experts and expert knowledge in “pole position to define agendas and impose binding
premises a priori on [sustainability] discourse” (Ofori-Parku, 2018, p. 199). In line with
the view that corporations serve the interests of whoever controls them (Dugger, 1989),
whoever controls the meaning of sustainability and risks also controls the rational solution
to the problem at hand (Ofori-Parku, 2018; Slovic, 1999). This argument that a priori
CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY AS HEGEMONIC DISCOURSE
8
definitions and decisions inform the public engagement and sustainability processes is
akin to Foucault’s notion of subjectification applied to corporate practices (see Banerjee,
2008). The subjectivation idea speaks to how business and communication managers act
as constituted subjects whose meanings and realities exist via their sense of relationship
with the firm and related institutions. Thus, even as they may be working to accommodate
the broad interests of local communities, business executives’ practices are often
predefined at higher levels, “governed and organized by organizational and institutional
discourses” (see Banerjee, 2008, p. 58). This process merely circulates existing
knowledge–power structures (Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2009) instead of transforming them.
The foregoing discussion suggests the limits of CS discourse. Thus, discourse
constitutes and shapes the reality— of the organizational issues, processes, and
communities of interest. Since discourse entails power, the discursive “circulation of
power produces a power–knowledge nexus where the effect of power relations on
society” depends on who produces “discourses of truth, through the production of
knowledge” (see Banerjee, 2008, p. 67). Thus, knowledge about and practices
surrounding corporate sustainability emerge from processes related to ideology, interests,
and power (Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2009; Banerjee, 2008). In corporate communication,
this view finds expression in the communication as constituting organization (CCO)
perspective, which posits organizations and their processes as communicatively
constituted (Schoeneborn et al., 2014). Here, corporate communication is reproductive
and potentially transformative of social relations, identities of individuals, organizations,
and social structures (Fairhurst & Putnam, 2004; Putnam & Nicotera, 2009). Related to
this, McPhee and Zaug (2009) identify four elements (i.e., flows) in the CCO process:
membership negotiation (i.e., recruitment and socialization); organizational self-
structuring (i.e., organizational reflexive control and design); activity coordination (i.e.,
how organizations coordinate, connect, and shape work processes); and institutional
positioning (e.g., interaction with stakeholders) through communication. Based on the
view that corporate sustainability is a discourse of globalization (Garvin et al., 2009), and
given this study’s context—Africa, the following section briefly situates the study within
relevant literature on globalization discourses on African communities.
Hegemonic Globalization and Discursive Construction of African Communities
Scholars have long observed that globalization raises concerns about flow, power,
and domination (Mansell & Nordenstreng, 2007; Tomlinson, 2003). For example,
postcolonial theorists view processes of globalization as modern-day equivalents of
colonization (Jackson, 2015; Shome & Hegde, 2002). It is the dimension of globalization
characterized by domination, the exertion of control, and the commodification of places
and people’s daily lives that this research terms hegemonic globalization. The term refers
to “the processes by which dominant groups remain dominant [by exerting control] over
ideological, political, and economic institutions or behaviors [among ‘less powerful’
CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY AS HEGEMONIC DISCOURSE
9
groups]” (Ofori-Parku & Steeves, 2016, p. 251). Hegemony is, thus, ongoing and
engineered through the consent of subaltern groups (Gramsci & Gramsci, 2012). This can
be accomplished by, for example, allowing some—but not 'too much'— alternative
viewpoints without jeopardizing the dominant interests. In global media research,
hegemonic globalization manifests in how external/global forces homogenize or
commodify otherwise complex local cultures (Tomlinson, 2003). It may also show in
asymmetrical power dynamics between global firms or actors and local realities through
processes like erasure, the denial of agency or voice, and hybridity (see Kraidy, 2005;
Parameswaran, 2002). This view of hegemony and consent is akin to the discourse of
sustainability and participation that treats public engagement as means to corporate
ends— e.g., ameliorating public resistance (Banerjee, 2008; Garvin et al., 2009).
Regarding media discourses about African communities, researchers (e.g.,
Hubbard & Mathers, 2004) have observed the salience of erasure (e.g., through a single
story of poverty and victimhood, powerlessness, lack of voice, and colonial superiority) in
how public life and places in sub-Saharan Africa become commodified and homogenized,
thereby taking away people’s agency. However, the hegemonic implications of media
production and flows around the globe do not imply that discourses are monolithic:
multiple meanings can exist in communication texts (Hall, 1980). Also, media production
processes (e.g., using local co-production firms, engaging ordinary people, avoiding
iconic images) can defy conventional representations of underprivileged communities
(Muspratt & Steeves, 2012). Audiences—and in organizational terms, stakeholders— can
assign different meanings (including meanings that subvert the dominant-hegemonic
intent of communication texts), and counternarratives can develop as a result (see Ofori-
Parku & Steeves, 2016). Hall’s (1980) counternarratives, when applied to corporate
discourses, underscores the potential of infusing a multiplicity of voices into corporate
sustainability processes to break the hegemonic mode of CS discourse.
This notion of counternarratives evokes Kevin Moloney’s concept of equalization
and the view that corporate discourse “reflects and generates social competition, not
harmony” (Moloney, 2006, p. 14). Moloney proposes that in public discourse, rather than
being marginalized by power asymmetries, less-privileged voices must have equal access
to communicative resources for effective messaging in the pluralist competition over
values, behaviors, ideas, resource allocation, and reputations in free market societies or
liberal democracies.
The Current Study
To begin with, the history of corporate responsibility “reflects the history of
[asymmetrical] corporate power” (Banerjee, 2008, p. 67). Also, hegemony thrives in the
context of power imbalance. In the developing world (and vulnerable communities), the
power imbalance between global firms and communities becomes even more pronounced
(George, 2014). Hence, this research examined Tullow Oil’s discursive construction of
CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY AS HEGEMONIC DISCOURSE
10
itself as a responsible firm vis-à-vis the communities it works in and serves. We also
illustrate the view that corporate discourse on sustainability creates power and
institutional structures (Fairhurst & Putnam, 2004) and reveals which issues are important
and whose voice counts (Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2009). We address two research
questions:
RQ1: How is Tullow discursively constructing its corporate sustainability (i.e.,
CSR and ecological risks)?
RQ2: Which stakeholders are discursively constructed, and how?
RQ3: Which issues are discursively constructed, and how?
Research Method
The study was accomplished by closely reading and analyzing Tullow’s website
(particularly its environmental impact assessment report, total pages =388), publicly-
available corporate responsibility reports (i.e., 2007–2021, average number of pages =
60.1, total pages =721), and 21 CSR-related press releases. To assess the organization’s
discourse about its environmental risks and ‘responsible’ actions, we analyzed the texts
using critical discourse analysis (CDA). Discourse analysis entails systematically
analyzing texts, identifying patterns, and linking the patterns to the context within which
the text emanates and is used (see Fairclough, 1992; Reisigl, 2017). Critically analyzing
discourse means “unveiling and challenging taken-for-granted assumptions about
language and the social, as well as recognizing discourse as a potentially powerful agent
of change” (Mautner, 2009, p. 124). Because this study deals with corporate
sustainability
4
(itself a site of ideological contests) and corporate communication
involving an MNC within the context of a developing country (a relationship that
manifests inherent power asymmetries), a content analysis could yield some insights. But
this method lacks a central ingredient — power, which the CDA intrinsically provides.
Our study of Tullow’s CS communication had three possible outcomes: the discourse
reproducing dominant notions of corporate responsibility, transforming them, or both
(Fairclough, 1992; Fairhurst & Putnam, 2004).
Specifically, the research applies Reisigl and Wodak’s (2009) discourse-historical
approach (DHA). The DHA, as a critical discourse analysis method, is suitable for
examining multifaceted phenomena that manifest asymmetrical relationships between
actors who belong to different social groups or positions (Reisigl, 2017; Reisigl &
Wodak, 2009). To address the two research questions, we posed five simple questions
(see Table 1) from which emanate five corresponding discursive or linguistic strategies.
5
4
Sustainability as a whole and the role of corporations in sustainability are sites of ideological contest,
which makes it imperative to account for power in any analysis of CS communication.
5
‘Strategy’ refers to a “more or less intentional plan of practices (including discursive practices) adopted to
achieve a particular social, political, psychological, or linguistic goal” (Reisigl & Wodak, 2005, p. 45). It
corresponds with the view that organizational communication is deliberate, planned, and organized towards
a predetermined end (McPhee & Zaug, 2009).
CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY AS HEGEMONIC DISCOURSE
11
The first, referential or nomination strategies, refers to “the most basic strategy” in the
communication and discursive construction of group and issue boundaries (Hart, 2010,
p. 49). These include the social actors, phenomena, objects, and processes named in a
communication text. The results from analyzing Tullow’s referential strategies illustrate
the DHA’s potential as an issues and stakeholders identification tool from communication
texts. Beyond identification, as discussed earlier, language, labels, and names do not
merely describe things; they constitute them. At a rudimentary level, ascertaining what
Tullow is “naming” reveals what and who the organization sees as important.
The second, predication strategies, entails the firm’s ascription of negative and
positive attributes, traits, qualities, and characteristics to the named actors and
phenomena. This analysis demonstrates the DHA’s strength and utility as a tool that helps
us understand what attributes are ascribed to the named issues and stakeholders). Third,
argumentation strategies justify attributions and predications. They are the conclusion
rules that associate an argument with a claim (Reisigl & Wodak, 2009). Four,
perspectivization strategies refer to the point of view from which an argument is made?
These strategies might include persons or groups, places, and times. Our analysis of
perspectivization strategies indicates how the DHA can be used for critical corporate self-
reflexivity and positionality. Fifth, intensification or mitigation strategies qualify or
modify the epistemic status of a proposition by sharpening it or toning it down. This layer
of the analysis (in concert with the fourth) helps us decipher whether Tullow’s CS
discourse is reproducing or transforming hegemonic structures and processes.
Intensification strategies include discursive devices such as modals, tag questions,
hesitations, vague expressions, hyperboles, litotes, indirect speech acts, and verbs of
saying, thinking, and feeling (Reisigl & Wodak, 2009). The results section focuses on
Tullow’s nomination, predication, and perspectivization strategies interlaced with
intensification or mitigation strategies. These findings lead to the discussion section,
where we further examine Tullow’s argumentation and perspectivization strategies’
implications for corporate sustainability practice and communication.
Table 1
DHA Analytical Categories Used to Examine Tullow’s CS Communication
CS Discourse Analysis Tool
CS Discursive
Strategy
Objective
How are persons, social actors,
objects, processes, and issues
linguistically referred to?
Nomination or
referential strategies
Construct subjects, objects,
and phenomena of importance
What characteristics, features,
and qualities are attributed to
the persons, objects, processes,
etc. nominated?
Predication
strategies
Label objects and subjects
favorably or unfavorably
CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY AS HEGEMONIC DISCOURSE
12
Which arguments are
employed in talking about
corporate sustainability and
environmental health risks?
Argumentation
strategies
Justify nominations made and
labels used for the
nominations
Are claims and arguments
intensified or mitigated?
Mitigation and
intensification
strategies
Modifying the epistemic
and/or deontic status of a
proposition
From what point of view are
these nominations,
attributions, and arguments
expressed?
Perspectivization
strategies
Position Tullow’s viewpoint
relative to other broad
perspectives or ideologies (in
this study, science and expert
views)
Note. Adapted from Reisigl and Wodak (2009) and Reisigl (2017). Nomination and predication strategies
correspond to RQ1 (i.e., How Tullow is discursively constructing its corporate sustainability) and RQ2 (i.e.,
Which stakeholders and issues are discursively constructed and how). Based on the identified nomination
and predication strategies, we identify what argumentation and intensification/mitigation strategies are
used. These strategies bridge the two research questions and subsequent discussions about whose
perspective is highlighted in the corporate sustainability text (i.e., perspectivization strategies in the DHA).
Analyses and Results
RQ1: How is Tullow Discursively Constructing its Corporate Sustainability?
From a public relations perspective, the first question addresses the organization’s
self-promotion discourse. We answered this question in two steps, using the discourse-
historical approach (Reisigl & Wodak, 2009). The first step entailed identifying which
self-referential (i.e., nomination) strategies Tullow employed in its CS discourse. In the
second step, we identified the predication strategies (i.e., attributes, features, and
characteristics) Tullow uses to describe its sustainability processes and actions.
Tullow’s Self-Referencing Nomination Strategies
In the first step of addressing RQ1, the firm is named as a collective “We” and
“Tullow” in relation to “our values.” It uses what this study describes as an aspirational
core discursive strategy in its talk about its human rights, biodiversity, and environmental
conservation values. The aspirational core nomination strategy refers to ways in which
Tullow linguistically positions these issues and hence, signals its aspiration to be a
virtuous, responsible, and accountable firm. Its self-referencing nomination
(sustainability) discourse includes discursive techniques that highlight the firm’s
processes, such as exploration activities and environmental and social impact assessment
(ESIA).
CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY AS HEGEMONIC DISCOURSE
13
Tullow’s Self-Referencing Predication Strategies
Nomination strategies are the most basic strategy in the discursive construction
of group and issue boundaries (Hart, 2010). Hence, Tullow’s self-referencing
predication strategies connect the organization to other nomination strategies such as its
values, risks/issues, and corporate processes. In the second step of RQ1, four self-
referencing predication strategies emerged.
“Tullow as a Committed Moral Character” Discursive Strategy. This
discourse category includes various linguistic schemes the firm uses to represent its
being—its ontology of some sort—as one committed to specific principles of corporate
responsibility. Here, the firm ascribes a moral character to itself. The predication
strategies used include positioning itself as an actor that believes in these principles:
social responsibility, “the right thing,” accountability, external assurance, transparency,
community partnerships, and open dialogue. For example, in its talk about how it partners
with local communities, the firm writes that “We would never displace local
communities” and where possible, Tullow “provides employment opportunities for its
“neighbors and does not discriminate” (Tullow, 2007, p. 7). Tullow also prioritizes
providing basic needs such as clean water, helps improve the prospects of children
through education initiatives, and sets up co-operatives for local residents (see e.g.,
Tullow, 2007, 2008, 2011, 2019a, 2020). Concerning ethics, “we work against corruption
including extortion and bribery” (Tullow, 2007, p. 7). It also does a “thorough assessment
of the environmental issues” before undertaking any activity and ensures its overall
decision-making processes align with environmental considerations. Here is a particular
example of Tullow ascribing virtue to itself: “The programmes [we] engage in … support
the communities and protect the environment in which we work” (Tullow, 2007, p. 27).
“Corporate Excellence” Discursive Strategy. The second cluster of Tullow’s
self-referencing predication strategies aligns with the mainstream business case for
sustainability. The organization talks about its “successful performance.” Analogous to
the “Tullow as a committed moral character” discursive strategy, this discourse comprises
corporate performance on profitability or competitiveness and its linkage with other
performance areas such as environmental health and safety (EHS) and sustainability. For
example, “We performed well against key 2007 objectives” (Tullow, 2007, p. 2) and
“achieved” [its] “target of having no significant environmental incidents during the year”
(Tullow, 2009b, p. 6). Tullow’s corporate excellence discursive strategy also shows in,
“Tullow” has seen significant improvement in 2008 with no Lost Time Incidents
Frequency Rate (LTIFRs).
6
That is “72% improvement in the LTIFR, reflecting an
excellent safety performance in 2008” (Tullow, 2008, p. 15).
6
“Any work-related injury or illness, other than a fatal injury, which results in a person being unfit for work
on any day after the day of occurrence of the occupational injury” (Tullow, 2007, p. 34).
CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY AS HEGEMONIC DISCOURSE
14
“Missed Targets and Failures” Discursive Strategy. Tullow does not only
discursively construct its corporate sustainability actions favorably. Using negative
predication devices, the firm also positions itself as an honest and transparent actor. For
example, it subscribes to the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Guideline on
Sustainability Reporting, which requires that organizations present their performance data
in a “balanced” and “reasonable” fashion (see Global Reporting Initiative, 2011). Citing
this requirement, Tullow reports and discusses its shortcomings and missed targets.
Examples of negative predications include: “We did not maintain excellent health and
safety record” and “We experienced High Potential Incidents (HIPOs) in our office
facilities” (Tullow, 2007, pp. 3–7). However, information on these negative predications
is limited in the CS reports and news releases analyzed. In addition to the discourse of
missed targets being only scantily represented in the firm’s sustainability communication,
it is often mitigated by the discourse of aspirations—discussed below.
“Tullow as an Aspirational Organization” Discursive Strategy. Here, the firm
uses various schemes to discursively construct its actions and processes as part of its
aspiration to improve continuously, notwithstanding its successes or failures. As seen in
Tullow’s CS communication, the aspirational discourse is overtly forward-looking,
optimistic, and rooted in what we call the rhetoric of planning. The rhetoric of planning
notion is equivalent to the discourse-historical approach’s verbs of saying and thinking
(Reisigl & Wodak, 2009). For instance, immediately after reporting that Tullow saw an
increase in LTIs and HIPs and fell short of its “planned 2007 social and community
discretionary spend,” it rebuts this language with an aspirational talk:
We have already learned from this performance in these areas and … we have
worked over two million hours since the last LTI, and improvements in CSR
project assessment and implementation should ensure we [subsequently] achieve
100% of our [planned] discretionary spending. (Tullow, 2007, p. 3)
Similar aspirational and mitigative discourse strategies exist in all of Tullow's CS reports;
“We are working to improve the way we engage our full range of stakeholders, and over
the last 12 months, we have begun to develop a more strategic approach to external
stakeholder management” (Tullow, 2010, p. 19).
RQ2: Which Issues are Discursively Constructed, and How?
Since a firm’s corporate sustainability practice and communication do not operate
in a vacuum but in relation to specific issues (and stakeholders) as the CSF posits (Ofori-
Parku, 2016a), Q2 discusses the predication strategies that Tullow uses to discursively
construct different relevant social phenomena (i.e., “issues” and “risks” in the CSF
terminology).
CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY AS HEGEMONIC DISCOURSE
15
Tullow’s Issues-Referencing Predication Strategies
Here, we illustrate the utility of the DHA as a systematic issues-analysis and
management tool. Based on our analysis of Tullow’s CS communication texts, the issues
discussed include biodiversity, greenhouse gases (GHGs), global climate change, safe and
clean water, sustainable development, goals/objectives/targets, oil spill, malaria, and
business growth/success.
“Environmental Conservation/Biodiversity” Predication Strategy. Tullow
discursively framed this issue as a challenge to overcome through deliberate planning —
i.e., manifesting rhetoric of planning— and implementing robust environmental
management systems (see Tullow, 2007, 2008, 2011, 2012, 2020, 2021). This discursive
strategy is not surprising but interesting, given that petroleum exploration is inherently
hazardous to the ecosystem that is antithetical to conservation. Hence, Tullow’s strategy
exposes the inherent dialectic in its CS discourse. We observe three overlapping discourse
categories: (a) an admission that petroleum operations potentially impact sensitive
ecosystems, (b) biodiversity as a phenomenon Tullow deeply cares about, and (c)
biodiversity as a challenge Tullow is trying to achieve.
The first category of predication strategies on biodiversity entails an implicit
admission of a direct causal link between oil exploration and ecological damage. Yet, the
firm positions biodiversity as having a “complex” connection with its petroleum
exploration and production activities. The firm employs a rhetoric of ‘responsibility’ and
‘duty’ here. Exemplars include: “Ensuring that our duty of care is fulfilled in disposing of
our waste and by-products” and “[It is] our responsibility to minimize and mitigate our
impact on biodiversity and to strive to fully understand the complex relationships as part
of the ESIA process prior to operations” (Tullow, 2007, pp. 13, 15).
The second category includes talk about how much environmental conservation is
a “core part” of the firm’s ESIA and EHS policy— e.g., “Tullow is committed to
protecting the biodiversity of the regions in which we operate, and we strive to minimise
negative impacts on biodiversity” (Tullow, 2021, p. 33, see also 2021, p. 8). Third,
Tullow’s sustainability talk discursively positions biodiversity as something it is
addressing in a “systematic way.” The firm, for example, links biodiversity and its
corporate environmental processes, such as its adherence to ISO 14001 framework (see
e.g., Tullow, 2007, 2011, 2012, 2020, 2021). Overall, the biodiversity predication strategy
manifests two elements— the first is descriptive, and the second is assumptive. In the first
instance, the discursive construction of biodiversity indicates the extent to which
corporate environmental decisions are business decisions—this is not surprising. The firm
says its programs do not “only support the communities and protect the environment in
which they work, but also give Tullow a competitive advantage and the ability to develop
a political and community profile that supports [its] business objectives” (Tullow, 2015,
pp. 27 –28).
CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY AS HEGEMONIC DISCOURSE
16
However, as seen in the statements “We are meeting the challenge of
environmental conservation and biodiversity” (Tullow, 2007, p. 1) and “Protecting
biodiversity is a major environmental concern for Tullow due to the scale and location of
our operations” (Tullow, 2009b, p. 25), these discursive strategies appear to be premised
on the (problematic) assumption that the business goals of a petroleum exploration
corporation and the goal of maintaining a pristine natural environment are
commensurable. Our argument here is supported by Tullow’s assertion that “Being a
responsible operator enables us to play our part in achieving sustainable economic
development, strong environmental stewardship and a positive social contribution in our
host countries” (Tullow, 2012, p. 1). In line with our earlier analysis, the discourse on
biodiversity is primarily aspirational. Here, by employing declarative— e.g., “We strive
to fully understand” and “we are developing clear measures for biodiversity” (Tullow,
2007, p. 13, 2008, p. 10, respectively) or normative statements (e.g., “It is our
responsibility to minimise and mitigate our impact on biodiversity” (Tullow, 2007, p. 13)
— about biodiversity, Tullow signals its virtuousness.
“Climate Change” Predication Strategy. Generally, Tullow’s CS discourse
frames “greenhouse gases” in relation to climate change. GHGs such as CO2 and CH4 are
referred to as ‘objects’ Tullow emits due to its exploration and production activities. They
are also “one possible reason for unusual weather changes” (Tullow, 2008, p. 9) — a
rather instructive, subtle predication strategy that uses a linguistic mitigation device (i.e.,
“one possible”) to diminish the complicity of GHGs in climate change despite the
compelling evidence (see Cook et al., 2016). Tullow frames climate change in three ways:
the nature of the phenomenon, the firm’s relationship with the phenomenon (as a
“potential” contributor to the problem and part of the solution), and the broader
implications of the phenomenon. In the first category, climate change is a “complex”
concept (Tullow, 2007, p. 15). In a few instances, Tullow talks about its complicity in
climate change via CO2 and CH4 emissions. For example, “Data has been collated for the
first time, offering a greater understanding of our contribution to emissions of greenhouse
gases (GHGs)” (Tullow, 2007, p. 4). However, the discourse on the subject focuses
mainly on how Tullow (2009b) is actively taking “complex steps to reduce its potential
contribution” (p. 15, emphasis added). Tullow tends to casts the connection between
climate change and outcomes such as weather extremes in probabilistic and futuristic
terms: “a phenomenon scientists have predicted could lead to weather extremes” (Tullow,
2007, p. 9).
“Sustainable Development” Predication Strategy. Tullow’s CS communication
presents sustainable development (like all the other issues) as a challenge and priority the
CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY AS HEGEMONIC DISCOURSE
17
firm is committed to addressing, notably
7
in developing countries where access to basic
needs is considerably missing. As seen in several of its CS reports (e.g., 2007, 2008,
2014), the organization discursively constructs sustainable development as a phenomenon
with a “greater potential” to affect businesses. Its management is positioned as “an even
more critical and integral aspect of businesses” (see Tullow, 2014, p. 9). As is further
evidenced in Tullow’s assertion, “We believe working together, profitably and
responsibly, helps build a more sustainable business and society; doing well and doing
good are key business enablers” (Tullow, 2009b, p. 9), the discourse on sustainable
development reflects a mainstream win-win, efficiency-oriented, environmental
management approach to sustainability. Besides managing it, Tullow discursively
constructs sustainable development as a phenomenon that could lead to profitable
business and environmental outcomes if addressed. Exemplars of this predication strategy
include: “sustainability reporting encourages organizations to measure, track, and
improve their performance on specific issues,” and “reporting on sustainability
management and performance leads to improved outcomes” (see Tullow, 2010, p. 9). This
discourse underscores the constitutive powers of CS communication. However, Tullow
does not acknowledge the limitations of the industry-oriented basis of this view of
corporate sustainability.
RQ3: Which Stakeholders are Discursively Constructed, and How?
As was done for RQ2, we addressed this research question by (a) first identifying
the stakeholders Tullow named (i.e., referential strategies) and (b) the predications it
assigned to those stakeholders.
Tullow’s Stakeholders-Referencing Nomination Strategies
Regarding the first step, our organizing principle for analyzing Tullow’s
stakeholders uses a framework that ranges from micro-level (i.e., individual stakeholders),
to meso-level (i.e., organizational and institutional stakeholders) and then macro-level
stakeholders (i.e., systems-level stakeholders). Micro-level stakeholders include
traditional chiefs (what some may refer to as tribal chiefs) and elders, employees,
executives, local government chief executives, and an amorphous “neighbor” and
“shareholders.” Meso-level stakeholders include local and international organizations
(Deloitte & Touche, local government, and charity/non-profit organizations) as well as
legitimizing institutional stakeholders and frameworks such as “the scientific
community,” Global Reporting Initiative, the International Association of Oil and Gas
Producers (IOGP), ISO 14001, and the UN Global Compact. Macro-level stakeholders
include the amorphous “developing or poor countries,” Africa, Ghana, and Jomoro
7
Tullow’s exploration, development, and production assets are mostly in developing countries like Ghana,
Cte d’Ivoire, Kenya, Mauritania, Equatorial Guinea, Uganda, Namibia, Argentina, Guyana, Peru, Jamaica,
and Suriname (see Tullow, 2019b).
CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY AS HEGEMONIC DISCOURSE
18
District— one of the districts adjoining Ghana’s offshore oil region. Next, we address the
question: What is the nature of the discourse surrounding Tullow’s named stakeholders?
This question addresses stakeholder-referencing predication strategies.
Tullow’s Stakeholders-Referencing Predication Strategies
Besides ascribing attributes to its values and processes, the firm also assigns
attributes to its individual versus macro level, global versus local, and institutional versus
non-institutional level stakeholders. The different stakeholders are discursively
constituted as collaborators, beneficiaries, resources, interlocutors, or legitimizing agents.
Here are examples of predication strategies the firm uses to characterize its stakeholders
(macro, meso, and individual in that order) in its CS discourse.
“Developing Countries Homogenizing” Discursive Strategy. Generally, the
discourse surrounding developing countries, Africa, and the Jomoro District is
homogenizing and manifests erasure. These stakeholders are positioned as poor weaklings
needing help or resource-rich enclaves ready to be exploited. Developing countries “lack
access to basic needs;” they lack infrastructure and waste disposal routes (making it
challenging for Tullow to meet its duty of properly disposing of industrial waste); their
children are “being helped” by Tullow, and they benefit from Tullow’s priority programs
that maintain or supplement clean water supplies. Here’s an illustrative quote about local
communities vis-à-vis Tullow’s work:
One of the key elements of Tullow’s approach to CSR is to facilitate basic health,
hygiene and water needs of communities wherever possible and, following the
success of Tullow’s initiatives to provide clean, safe drinking water to local
communities in Uganda and Pakistan, a similar project was undertaken in the
western region of Ghana. (Tullow, 2007, p. 28)
This discourse also argues that it is within such a challenging context that Tullow is
assiduously developing appropriate EHS and sustainability programs to drive
improvements. See, for example, Tullow’s (2007, p. 15) sustainability report:
Ensuring that our duty of care is fulfilled in disposing of our waste and by-
products is one of the biggest challenges we face in developing countries,
primarily due to a lack of infrastructure and feasible disposal routes. As part of an
ongoing programme [sic], we are investigating ways of working with local
community facilities to ensure that our waste by-products are handled in a
responsible manner through to final disposal.
Concerning “Africa” as a macro-level stakeholder, Tullow employs a
predominantly homogenizing discourse that represents the continent as a place that,
despite its natural resources, lacks basic necessities and depends on the firm’s generosity.
CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY AS HEGEMONIC DISCOURSE
19
This single story of “lack” is interesting, given that Africa is culturally, geographically,
and economically diverse, with 54 countries. As Woods (2018) observes, African
countries dominate numerous lists of “top 10 fastest growing economies,” although
poverty remains a concern. Thus, Africa’s story goes beyond scarcity and lack. For
instance, Tullow’s discourse about Africa reflects in the organization’s portrayal of the
continent as a place where the prevalence of HIV/AIDS is “well documented” (e.g.,
Tullow, 2007, p. 17), and a place where “people do not have access to energy” (Tullow,
2021, p. 27), etc. Also, Tullow characterizes Africa as benefitting from 69 percent of the
firm’s “discretionary corporate responsibility budget” in 2007 (Tullow, 2007, p. 24), 77%
in 2008 (see Tullow, 2008), and accounts for a disproportionately high percentage (i.e.,
50%) of Tullow’s workforce (Tullow, 2014). In addition to this homogenizing discourse,
that slaps broad negative tropes onto Africa, the continent (specifically, West and North
Africa) is also described as Tullow’s “largest core area” (e.g., Tullow, 2007, 2008, 2015).
As Tullow explicitly admits in several of its CS reports, “driven by exceptional
exploration success in Ghana,” the African region “transformed the [Tullow] Group” (see
Tullow, 2007, p. 5). On face value, this “largest core area” predication strategy appears
favorable. But viewed within the context of how global MNCs have historically exploited
Africa and the natural resource-rich developing world (Aryee, 2012), the “largest core”
discourse underscores Africa’s historical representation as a colony of some sort or a
place full of natural resources waiting to be exploited (see Ofori-Parku & Steeves, 2016).
Interestingly, the organization refers to the oil resources it exploits (Tullow, 2009b, 2021)
in Africa as Tullow’s reserves—rather than the countries’ (or community’s) resources.
Thus, similarly, Africa is framed as generating “over 50% of Tullow’s production and
represents over 80% of our reserves and resources” (Tullow, 2007, p. 26), which
represented between 58 and 73% of Tullow’s £692 million revenue (see e.g., Tullow,
2007, 2008, 2011). From Tullow’s discourse, “The [oil exploration and production]
project will result in a number of positive impacts that will benefit the government and
people of Ghana” (Tullow, 2009a, p. 10.1). It is worth noting that Tullow is not
mentioned here as a beneficiary of its Ghana project. Overall, this predication strategy
affirms and perpetuates the colonial and dependency syndrome and a rudimentary
division of labor between the global North as the owners of capital and Africa as suppliers
of raw materials. Analogous to this predication strategy, the firm discursively constructs
developing countries, Africa, Ghana, and the Jomoro District (local government) only in
relation to resources: as a recipient of water wells and a provider of oil and natural gas
resources. Thus, as the above results illustrate, Africa/local areas are projected as needing
the bare basics, even in the abundance of economically valuable (natural) resources,
waiting to be exploited in exchange for the basics.
“(Global) Regulatory Institutions as Credible Character Witnesses”
Discursive Strategy. Tullow discursively frames global regulatory frameworks and
CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY AS HEGEMONIC DISCOURSE
20
institutions (e.g., IOGP, ISO 14001, UN Global Compact, and GRI) in ways that confer
credibility and legitimacy on Tullow’s sustainability practices. For instance, the firm touts
the IOGP as an institution to which it subscribes and shares its best practices (see Tullow,
2007, 2008, 2010). It also brandishes its use of the GRI’s definitions and principles as a
guide in its sustainability reporting: “We use the IPIECA
8
oil and gas industry guidance
on voluntary sustainability reporting as a guide for our reporting. We use the Global
Reporting Initiative’s G4 reporting framework as a benchmark” (Tullow, 2014, p. i).
Likewise, the firm positions itself as a responsible business by citing its commitment to
third-party ‘vetting’ processes like Deloitte & Touche’s independent assurance program.
For example, Tullow repeatedly quotes Deloitte & Touche’s assurance statement in its CS
reports (Tullow, 2007, 2008, 2009b, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, p. 73) thus:
We performed the engagement in accordance with Deloitte’s independence
policies, which cover all of the requirements of the International Federation of
Accountants (IFAC) Code of Ethics and in some areas are more restrictive. We
confirm to Tullow Group Services Limited that we have maintained our
independence and objectivity…
Similarly, Tullow discursively constructs ISO 14001 throughout its CS reports as
a global standard that “provides Tullow with a systematic approach [for] assessing the
environment in which it operates” (e.g., Tullow, 2007, p. 13). For instance, it explains that
its “Ghana operations are certified to ISO 14001 Environmental Management System,
ensuring that the systems and processes which we apply to our key operating asset are
consistently maintained” (Tullow, 2020, p. 14). In addition, this discursive strategy states
that the firm’s long-term objective is to align its operations with the10 principles of the
UN Global Compact” (Tullow, 2008, 2009b, 2010, 2011, 2012). In all, our analysis
indicates that Tullow’s CS discourse uses global institutional stakeholders to linguistically
constitute and legitimize its environmental management processes as robust—and the
credible global regulatory institutions and frameworks are its witnesses.
“Government of Ghana Lacks Adequate Regulatory Standards” Discursive
Strategy. Government is constructed as a stakeholder that is increasingly viewing
corporate responsibility as an imperative. In line with this, laws and regulations in
countries of operation—in this case, Ghana— are framed as lower standards, which
Tullow does not only adhere to but exceeds. For example, “As a minimum standard, we
aim to comply with the regulatory parameters in the countries where we operate or, where
the local legislation is less developed, we set appropriate standards to work to” (see
Tullow, 2007, p. 12, 2008, 2009b, 2010, 2012, 2020). To Tullow, complying with local
legislation implies “behaving responsibly,” which helps the firm maintain its “excellent
8
International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association
CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY AS HEGEMONIC DISCOURSE
21
reputation and enables [them] to foster and build trust with [their] stakeholders” (Tullow,
2008, p. 3). Beyond this framing, the absence of such regulations is linguistically
positioned as constituting little challenge to Tullow, given its subscription to international
best practices: “We … apply and foster responsible standards where local requirements
[and legislations] are inadequate or non-existent” (e.g., Tullow, 2007, p. 12, 2010, p. 4).
“Local Community as Partner and Beneficiary” Discursive Strategy. Like its
use of other local (versus international) stakeholders-referencing predication strategies,
Tullow sometimes positions “local community” as a partner—e.g., “we were working
closely with local communities and using our skills and resources to address some of the
challenges these communities faced daily” (Tullow, 2007, p. 2), and “Part of our
responsibility is to try and create coalitions of interests making people aware of the
opportunities and challenges and building a common vision of the outcomes we all aspire
to” (Tullow, 2013, para. 4). However, the firm mainly characterizes “local community” as
a beneficiary of the firm’s corporate sustainability programs. Its discursive positioning of
the “local community” as a beneficiary is, for example, seen in this quote:
We spent $2.6 million on over 70 projects, designed to address the priorities of our
local stakeholders as well as to align with our overall business objectives [...]
This year, we will continue to support community projects, and in addition, we are
focusing on identifying projects in areas that are critical for the success of the
industry in new oil countries” (Tullow, 2010, pp. 28, 32 emphasis added).
As seen in the areas emphasized in the above quote, inherent in the “local
community as beneficiary” discourse is the traditional means–ends, win-win orientation
to corporate sustainability. Overall, the supposed benefits to the “local community”
(which are implicitly a means to Tullow’s business objectives) include providing basic
health and hygiene services, safe drinking water, educational infrastructure, learning
materials, scholarships, and employment for local residents (see Tullow, 2007, 2008,
2009b, 2010, 2011, 2014, 2015). Tullow’s discourse on its local-level stakeholders’
concerns about offshore oil production risks holds that, “We commissioned a global
reputation survey in 2011 to gain strategic insights on the company’s key external
reputation drivers and to benchmark our reputation against other oil and gas companies
working in the same areas” (see Tullow, 2011, p. 18). This discourse has the ability to
characterize local residents’ concerns as mere perceptions, with corporate reputational
risks, that Tullow can fix through “effective communication” and “more extensive
grassroots stakeholder engagement programmes and more targeted social investment”
(Tullow, 2011, p. 19).
Also, community concerns about ecological and livelihood implications (see
Ackah-Baidoo, 2013; Ofori-Parku, 2018) are linguistically discounted as “low risk,” with
CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY AS HEGEMONIC DISCOURSE
22
“minor impact,” and lacking evidence. In its impact assessment, for instance, the
organization argues that:
… any development will have effects on the biophysical and socioeconomic
environment. The impact assessment did not identify any issue of major
significance that could not be mitigated, such that the … project was not
acceptable from an environmental and social perspective. (Tullow, 2009a, p. 10.1)
To counter community concerns, the firm discursively constructs the “local community”
as a stakeholder that benefits from Tullow’s transparency and practice of balancing
ecological impact with meeting business goals, as the quotes below demonstrate:
“We are very committed to communicating with all stakeholders. Our policy is to
be open, transparent, uniform and timely.” (Tullow, 2008, p. 25)
“Our goal … is to balance full consideration of our impacts on the surrounding
community and environment whilst meeting our business goals.” (Tullow, 2007,
p. 12)
Hence, the relationship between Tullow and the “local community” is asymmetrical, with
the firm as the core, powerful actor in this partnership. It “builds links with the local
community,” “helps,” “uplifts,” “supports,” and “provides employment for” local
communities.
Discussion and Conclusion
This study addresses one overarching question: How is a petroleum firm (Tullow)
that operates in a developing country discursively constructing its corporate sustainability
actions (RQ1), stakeholders (RQ2), and issues (RQ3)? Related to this, we assess whether
the organization’s discourse reproduces existing hegemonic structures of corporate power
or transforms them (see Fairclough, 1992; Fairhurst & Putnam, 2004; Leitch & Motion,
2009). To address this question, we used Reisigl and Wodak’s (2009) discourse-historical
approach and corporate sustainability framework to analyze Tullow’s sustainability
communication texts. We argue that these two frameworks align with issues and
stakeholder management in public relations and organizational communication. The
research observes how Tullow, as an MNC, discursively positions (Fairhurst & Putnam,
2004) itself as socially responsible while positioning other relevant stakeholders as
partners, recipients of its beneficence, or credible external referees.
Tullow’s sustainability discourse is paradoxical, considering that fossil fuels are
complicit in climate change. As our analysis indicates, Tullow’s discourse is rooted in a
“shared prosperity” doctrine. It “believes [that] working together, profitably and
responsibly, helps build a more sustainable business and society; doing well and doing
good are key business enablers” (Tullow, 2009b, p. 6). The implicit assumption that
CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY AS HEGEMONIC DISCOURSE
23
private interest is commensurate with community interests overlooks the often
antitheticality of corporate profits and societal interests (see Ofori-Parku, 2021). The
study yields three main insights.
Corporate Sustainability Discourse and Stakeholders
First, the key stakeholders Tullow highlights in its communication texts include
local communities, Africa as a continent, developing countries, non-profits, and other
civil society organizations, employees, government and regulatory institutions,
shareholders, Deloitte & Touche, traditional chiefs (what some may call tribal chiefs),
local government authorities (i.e., district assemblies), and the International Association
of Oil and Gas Producers. Underprivileged stakeholder groups such as Africa, developing
countries, Ghana, and communities are discursively constructed unfavorably as lacking
basic necessities of life that Tullow is trying to provide for them. Stated differently,
Tullow uses stigmatization strategies (Kasperson et al., 2003) to discursively construct
this group of stakeholders. This discursive strategy underlies Tullow’s overall
argumentation strategy (Reisigl & Wodak, 2009): the marginalized, local stakeholders’
needs justify the firm inserting itself into the governmental lacuna. As Garvin et al. (2009)
assert about CSR and globalization, unlike its discourse about relatively privileged
institutional stakeholders (e.g., IOGP, GRI, UN Global Compact, and Deloitte & Touche),
Tullow’s discursive construction of underprivileged stakeholders in the global South
reinforces the firm’s position as a legitimate global agent of power.
Besides, the discursive construction of these stakeholders is marked by latent—
and sometimes manifest—indications of asymmetry in how information and basic needs
are engaged and transmitted. This observation reflects what Graham (2004) calls a narrow
perspective of participation, engagement, and community development. Contrasted with
other research findings about Tullow’s largely favorable rhetoric about its public
engagement processes (Ofori-Parku, 2016b, 2018), this result supports Graham’s view
that there is often a gap between corporate rhetoric about public participation and the
actual efforts they make to involve the public.
On the other hand, institutional stakeholders such as the GRI, Deloitte & Touche,
UN Global Compact, and the International Association of Oil and Gas Producers are
discursively positioned more favorably in ways that lend legitimacy to Tullow’s activities.
The firm’s discursive positioning of institutional stakeholders speaks to its
perspectivization strategy— from what viewpoint Tullow is making a case for its place as
a sustainable and ethical business (Reisigl, 2017). For example, the GRI Sustainability
Reporting Guideline and Deloitte & Touche’s independent assurance program are
standards Tullow adheres to or strives to meet. Thus, intuitional stakeholders’
frameworks and guidelines serve as ‘capital’ from which Tullow draws credibility to
legitimize its sustainability practices. The differential framing of institutional versus
marginalized stakeholders aligns with institutional positioning in McPhee and Zaug’s
CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY AS HEGEMONIC DISCOURSE
24
(2009) four-process CCO model. This element postulates that the constitutive power of
communication is seen in how an organization positions itself in relation to other
stakeholders. Thus, through its discursive construction of some stakeholders as weak,
needy, and being helped and others as offering standards of best practices, Tullow
negotiates, creates, and legitimizes its identity as an organization responsive to
stakeholder needs, standards, and expectations.
We make two observations: First, like other studies (e.g., McPhail, 2009;
Tomlinson, 2003), this analysis of Tullow’s CS discourse illustrates the power asymmetry
between the global (represented by global capital, corporate enterprises, and
institutionalized knowledge and practices) and the local (represented in this study by
local/underprivileged communities, developing nations, and informal knowledge).
Second, Tullow’s CS discourse about its activities in Ghana and on the African continent
is comparable to the prevailing global media discourses about African communities.
Thus, as our analysis demonstrates, similar hegemonic processes in the literature on
media globalization (see Hubbard & Mathers, 2004; Kraidy, 2005; Parameswaran, 2002)
also manifest in Tullow’s sustainability discourse about the Ghanaian community in
which it operates. In summary, the firm’s CS discourse affirms the commonplace
conception of African communities as poor and lacking agency. It manifests the
commodification of place, the environment, and pseudo-lives of residents (see Ofori-
Parku & Steeves, 2016). Also, it evidences erasure and imposition of a single story of
poverty, powerlessness, and lack of voice vis-à-vis the superiority of the imperial enforcer
as a benevolent dictator, institutionalized knowledge, and legitimizing institutions.
Intensification, Minimization, and Perspectivization Strategies in CS Discourse
Overall, Tullow discursively positions itself, its corporate processes, and outcomes
in (mostly) favorable terms. Even when it discusses missed targets and poor performances
in areas such as EHS, the firm discursively constructs these issues in aspirational terms,
using the rhetoric of planning that focuses on what it is doing or will be doing to meet its
“own high standards, equal to industry best practice” (Tullow, 2008, p. 9). Thus, Tullow’s
CS communication employs “aspirational talk” (Christensen et al., 2013) as a
minimization and intensification strategy (Reisigl & Wodak, 2009). It intensifies its
corporate sustainability actions and minimizes the negative consequences of its processes.
For instance, despite the scientific consensus regarding the direct causal link between
fossil fuels and climate change (Cook et al., 2016), Tullow uses minimization devices
such as “working to understand” (Tullow, 2008, p. 13) its contribution to climate change
and characterizing the link between its oil production activities and climate change as
“complex” (Tullow, 2007, p. 15).
A key attribute of discourse analysis lies in its linking of texts to the context from
which they emanate and are used (Mautner, 2009). In the Ghanaian context, local
residents have been vocal about ecological and livelihood risks associated with offshore
CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY AS HEGEMONIC DISCOURSE
25
oil activities (Ackah-Baidoo, 2013; Ofori-Parku, 2018). As the CSF proposes, corporate
sustainability is obligatory because businesses present both positive and negative
implications for members of the communities in which and for whom they operate (Ofori-
Parku, 2016a). Regarding its perspectivization strategies on sustainability, we argue that
Tullow’s discourse heavily privileges an industry-defined, mainstream, and innovation-
focused view of sustainability. This view does not consider how individuals socially
experience societal risks resulting from corporate processes. We observe that despite the
residents’ concerns about ecological risks, much of the firm’s CS communication
overlooks non-technical perspectives and public concerns based on the lived experiences
of local communities (see Ackah-Baidoo, 2013; Ofori-Parku, 2016b; Satterfield et al.,
2013). Thus, Tullow’s perspectivization approach places industry standards, experts, and
expert knowledge in “pole position to define agendas and impose binding premises a
priori on [sustainability] discourse” (Ofori-Parku, 2018, p. 199).
This practice runs afoul the call in corporate environmental management to
embrace culture and other intangibles (see Graham, 2004; Satterfield et al., 2013) and for
risk management to adopt a more expansive view of risk analysis (Ofori-Parku, 2018).
Although concerns about offshore oil production such as whale deaths, the growth and
decomposition of floating seaweeds, and health problems (see Ackah-Baidoo, 2013) may
be considered as lacking scientific evidence (see Ackah-Baidoo, 2013), this idea of
'insufficient evidence' exposes the inherently non-democratic, institution-biased approach
to understanding societal risks (Beck, 1992). Tullow believes there is insufficient
evidence to support local people’s concerns about significant social and ecological threats
beyond measures such as technical estimates like Lost Time Injuries (LTIs) and CO2
emissions that need to be lowered. But the psychological discomfort and uncertainty that
local residents experience due to the oil activities are no less real than objective hazards
such as LTIs (Ofori-Parku, 2016b, 2018).
Here, the discourse of institutionalized science (seen in the lack of scientific
evidence argumentation strategy) reproduces dominant notions of what it means to be
sustainable and which concerns are worthy of attention. It exposes the fallacy in the
thought that in a profit-focused business environment, an apolitical, objective,
transcendental science will lead to truth that will naturally result in desirable corporate
actions. Our argument is rooted in the view that the discursive “circulation of power
produces a power–knowledge nexus where the effect of power relations on society”
depends on who produces “discourses of truth [e.g., about what it means to be
sustainable], through the production of knowledge [e.g., about what the risks and benefits
of Tullow’s activities are]” (Banerjee, 2008, p. 67). This suggests the need for Tullow to
acknowledge and bridge the two knowledge fields or perspectives—technical (i.e., expert)
versus lived experiences (i.e., popular). If it occurs, this bridging could inure the benefit
of the business and local communities concerned (see Moloney, 2006; Moloney &
McGrath, 2020). Despite the technical bias and lack of reflexivity inherent in Tullow’s
CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY AS HEGEMONIC DISCOURSE
26
CS communication, as argued elsewhere (Christensen et al., 2013), the resultant
communication has the potential to constitute desirable corporate actions and outcomes.
Addressing community concerns does not necessarily equate to social responsibility
(Crane et al., 2013). But being responsive to non-technical concerns of local communities
is necessary for obtaining the social license to operate (see also Hurst et al., 2020),
building community partnerships, and enhancing the ability of CS discourse to constitute
sustainable corporate behavior successfully. For the constitutive powers of discourse to be
realized beyond ameliorating community resistance (Garvin et al., 2009), which is a form
of hegemonic corporate practice, it is essential for Tullow to embrace a more expansive
definition of risks and sustainability that acknowledges that risk and responsibility are
socially defined and experienced (Beck, 1992). Employing a constructionist view of risks
and benefits is necessary for the firm’s discursive construction of sustainability to
transform hegemonic structures/notions of the concept rather than reproducing them (see
Fairclough, 1992). This argument is founded on the view that whoever controls the
definition of sustainability controls the rational solution to the problem at hand (Slovic,
1999). In other words, the constitutive powers of discourse manifest in “discursive
struggles between discourse actors,” for example, between corporate actors and non-
expert stakeholders (Leitch & Motion, 2009, p. 563). Hence, (a) granting local
communities and residents greater control over the definition of the risks associated with
Tullow's offshore oil production and what constitutes corporate sustainability, and (b)
factoring in non-technical observations and concerns informed by the lived experiences of
local residents (see Ofori-Parku, 2016b, 2018; Satterfield et al., 2013), could enhance the
potential of CS discourses to produce more desirable corporate behavior and change. The
above proposition is grounded in Fairclough’s (1992) two dimensions of the constitutive
view of discourse: communication as reproductive and transformative.
In line with the transformative dimension of discourse (see Leitch & Motion,
2009), corporate sustainability talk has the potential to create improvements (Christensen
et al., 2013). However, it is evident that Tullow’s communication reproduces prevailing
notions of environmental health risks associated with offshore oil production and
homogenizing discourses about African communities (Banerjee, 2008; Hubbard &
Mathers, 2004; Kraidy, 2005; Parameswaran, 2002). Concerning the second (i.e.,
transformation) dimension of discourse, we argue that (assuming that the fossil fuel
industry can be sustainable), Tullow’s sustainability communication could transform its
corporate processes and outcomes, provided its discourse is not constituted lopsidedly
from within (based on institutionalized sustainability guidelines). Hence, guidelines such
as the GRI and routine corporate-industry standards, while useful, are only a starting point
for creating sustainable corporate processes and practices. Stated differently, the
transformative power of corporate discourse is only likely to the extent that
counternarratives are incorporated (Hall, 1980; Moloney, 2006; Ofori-Parku & Steeves,
2016). Let us situate this discussion within McPhee and Zaug’s (2009) elements of
CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY AS HEGEMONIC DISCOURSE
27
communication as constituting organization model: a broader orientation on stakeholders,
issues, and ecological risks makes non-institutional stakeholders and their concerns more
accessible to organizations (i.e., enhances their recruitment and socialization and vice
versa). Such orientation also enhances organizations’ ability to exercise greater reflexive
control and activity coordination (i.e., via communication, true engagement, and the
redesign
9
of systems and processes to become truly sustainable). All these would further
firms’ institutional positioning with stakeholders, especially at the local community level.
A Method for Analyzing Corporate Sustainability Communication
The third contribution of this study is in methodology and conceptual
development. The analysis demonstrates that CDA in general and the DHA in particular
lend themselves as tools for analyzing corporate sustainability. This study illustrates the
utility of the DHA and CSF for issues and stakeholder analyses. Table 2 shows how each
subcategory of the DHA tool aligns with particular components of the CSF.
Table 2
Linking the Corporate Sustainability Framework and the Discourse-Historical Approach
CSF Framework
Component
Discourse Analysis Tool
Discursive
Strategy
Stakeholder Approach
(Groups and individuals who can
affect or are affected by the firm)
How are persons and social actors
referenced or nominated?
Nomination or
Referential Strategies
What characteristics, features, and
attributes are ascribed to the nominated
social actors?
Predication Strategies
Issues Management
Approach
(Developments the firm is
reasonably expected to exert
influence on)
How are issues and social phenomena
linguistically referenced?
Nomination or
Referential Strategies
What characteristics, features, and
attributes are ascribed to the nominated
issues and social phenomena?
Predication Strategies
Sustainable Development
(Openness to multiplicity of
stakeholder interests, issues, and
viewpoints)
Which arguments are employed in talking
about corporate sustainability and
environmental health risks?
Argumentation
Strategies
From what viewpoints are the
nominations, attributions, and arguments
expressed?
Perspectivization
9
The complicity of fossil fuels in climate change exposes the contradiction of oil and gas firms talking
about their “sustainability.”
CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY AS HEGEMONIC DISCOURSE
28
For example, “How are issues, social phenomena, and objects nominated and discursively
constructed?” aligns with the “issues identification/management” component of the CSF.
Similarly, “How are social actors nominated and discursively constructed?” in the DHA is
linked to the “stakeholder identification/analysis/management” component of the CSF.
And the issue of power (and responsibility), which is inherent in discourse analysis, aligns
with the normative basis of the CSF.
Conclusion
Two key conclusions can be drawn: First, descriptively, CS communication, as
seen in the Tullow case, represents a collection, construction, storage, and sharing of
information with interested parties — mainly investors but also regulators and civil
society groups. It is the discursive construction of how corporate values, actions,
processes, and culture interact with issues such as organizational effectiveness and/or
efficiency, environmental health and safety, sustainability, and stakeholder concerns and
interests. Second, and perhaps more importantly, in line with the assumption that
communication constitutes action, corporate sustainability talk represents an attempt to
shape corporate issues, behaviors, and institutional practices (Christensen et al., 2013;
Fairhurst & Putnam, 2004). Beyond the positive constitutive powers of Tullow’s
corporate sustainability talk, it also represents an attempt to constitute stakeholder views
and possibly actions— ameliorating community resistance and demands. While discourse
has transformative powers (Fairclough, 1992), Tullow’s CS discourse appears to be
reproducing hegemonic knowledge–power structures and practices (see Alvesson &
Sköldberg, 2009; Banerjee, 2008). Thus, the firm, through its sustainability
communication, discursively constructs itself as an organization that is committed to: (a)
ethical corporate behavior; (b) community engagement, dialogue, and public
participation; (c) community development; (d) environmental health and safety best
practices; and (e) ensuring business effectiveness and efficiency by maintaining
competitive advantage. An important issue that deserves mention is whether these
discursive constructions and attributions of virtue merely legitimize Tullow’s position or
they can constitute Tullow into a responsible and accountable business.
CS communications, whether deemed superficial or authentic, have the potential
to stimulate improvements in corporate systems, processes, and actions (Christensen et
al., 2013). But we argue that the transformation that could result from corporate
sustainability talk is unlikely to be expansive if it hinges on and reiterates mainstream,
hegemonic corporate structures and practices. Organizations stand to gain from
communicative equalization (see Moloney, 2006) and the power of counternarratives in
disposing of hegemonic codes (Hall, 1980; Ofori-Parku & Steeves, 2016). As noted
earlier, being responsive to marginalized communities’ non-technical concerns is essential
for obtaining and retaining the social license to operate (see also Hurst et al., 2020),
creating community alliances, and successfully transforming CS rhetoric into sustainable
CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY AS HEGEMONIC DISCOURSE
29
business behavior. Thus, the more non-technical and marginalized stakeholders are
injected into the CS discourse, the more transformative as opposed to reproductive the
resulting organizational changes.
References
Ackah-Baidoo, A. (2013). Fishing in troubled waters: Oil production, seaweed and
community-level grievances in the Western Region of Ghana. Community
Development Journal, 48(3), 406–420. https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bst022
Adams, W. M. (2006). The future of sustainability: Re-thinking environment and
development in the twenty-first century. A Report of the IUCN Renowned
Thinkers Meeting, 29-31 January 2006.
https://policycommons.net/artifacts/1369044/the-future-of-sustainability/1983216/
Alabi, O. F., & Ntukekpo, S. S. (2012). Oil companies and corporate social responsibility
in Nigeria: An empirical assessment of Chevron’s community development
projects in the Niger Delta. British Journal of Arts and Social Sciences, 4(2), 361–
374.
Alvesson, M., & Sköldberg, K. (2009). Reflexive methodology: New vistas for qualitative
research (2nd ed). SAGE.
Anderson, S., & Cavanagh, J. (2020). The Rise of Corporate Global Power. Institute for
Policy Studies. https://ips-dc.org/top_200_the_rise_of_corporate_global_power/
Aryee, B. N. A. (2012). Contribution of the minerals and mining sector to national
development: Ghana’s experiment. Great Insights, 1(5). https://ecdpm.org/great-
insights/extractive-sector-for-development/contribution-minerals-mining-sector-
national-development-ghanas-experiment/
Banerjee, S. B. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: The good, the dad and the ugly.
Critical Sociology, 34(1), 51–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920507084623
Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. Sage Publications.
Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional
construct. Business & Society, 38(3), 268–295.
https://doi.org/10.1177/000765039903800303
Christensen, L. T., Morsing, M., & Thyssen, O. (2013). CSR as aspirational talk.
Organization, 20(3), 372–393. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508413478310
Civil Society Platform on Oil and Gas. (2011). Ghana’s oil boom: A readiness report
card. https://s3.amazonaws.com/oxfam-us/www/static/oa3/files/ghana-oil-
readiness-report-card.pdf
Cook, J., Oreskes, N., Doran, P. T., Anderegg, W. R. L., Verheggen, B., Maibach, E. W.,
Carlton, J. S., Lewandowsky, S., Skuce, A. G., Green, S. A., Nuccitelli, D.,
Jacobs, P., Richardson, M., Winkler, B., Painting, R., & Rice, K. (2016).
Consensus on consensus: A synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused
global warming. Environmental Research Letters, 11(4), 048002.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
Crane, A., McWilliams, A., Matten, D., Moon, J., & Siegel, D. (Eds.). (2013). The Oxford
handbook of corporate social responsibility (Reprint). Oxford Univ. Press.
Dashwood, H. S. (2014). Sustainable development and industry self-regulation:
Developments in the global mining sector. Business & Society, 53(4), 551–582.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650313475997
CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY AS HEGEMONIC DISCOURSE
30
Dugger, W. M. (1989). Corporate hegemony. Greenwood Press.
Dunning, J. H. (2016). The globalization of business: The challenge of the 1990s.
Routledge.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Polity.
Fairhurst, G. T., & Putnam, L. (2004). Organizations as discursive constructions.
Communication Theory, 14(1), 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-
2885.2004.tb00301.x
Frankental, P. (2001). Corporate social responsibility – a PR invention? Corporate
Communications: An International Journal, 6(1), 18–23.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13563280110381170
Freeman, R. E. (2010). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge
university press.
Garriga, E., & Melé, D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the
territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53(1–2), 51–71.
Garvin, T., McGee, T. K., Smoyer-Tomic, K. E., & Aubynn, E. A. (2009). Community–
company relations in gold mining in Ghana. Journal of Environmental
Management, 90(1), 571–586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.12.014
George, S. (2014). State of corporations: The rise of illegitimate power and the threat to
democracy. Amsterdam: Transnational Institute.
https://www.tni.org/files/download/state_of_corporation_chapter.pdf
Global Reporting Initiative. (2011). Sustainability reporting guidelines. GRI.
https://www.mas-business.com/docs/G3.1-Guidelines-Incl-Technical-Protocol.pdf
Godson-Amamoo, N. S., & Arko, A. L. (2022, November 1). The oil and gas law
review—The law reviews. https://thelawreviews.co.uk/title/the-oil-and-gas-law-
review/ghana
Graham, A. C. (2004). A social communication perspective toward public participation:
The case of the Cispus Adaptive Management Area. In S. P. Depoe, J. W.
Delicath, & M.-F. A. Elsenbeer (Eds.), Communication and public participation in
environmental decision making (pp. 35–58). SUNY Press.
Gramsci, A., & Gramsci, A. (2012). Selections from the prison notebooks of Antonio
Gramsci (Repr.). Lawrence & Wishart.
Guenther, E., Hoppe, H., & Poser, C. (2006). Environmental corporate social
responsibility of firms in the mining and oil and gas industries: Current status quo
of reporting following GRI guidelines. Greener Management International, 53, 6–
25.
Hall, S. (1980). Encoding/decoding. In S. Hall (Ed.), Culture, Media and Language:
Working Papers in Cultural Studies. (pp. 128–138). Routledge.
Hart, C. (2010). Critical discourse analysis and cognitive science: New perspectives on
immigration discourse. Palgrave Macmillan.
Heath, R. L. (2002). Issues management: Its past, present and future. Journal of Public
Affairs, 2(4), 209–214. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.114
Heath, R. L. (2006). A rhetorical theory approach to issues management. In C. H. Botan
& V. Hazelton (Eds.), Public relations theory (2nd ed., pp. 63–99). Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY AS HEGEMONIC DISCOURSE
31
Hubbard, L., & Mathers, K. (2004). Surviving American empire in Africa: The
anthropology of reality television. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 7(4),
441–459. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367877904047863
Hurst, B., Johnston, K. A., & Lane, A. B. (2020). Engaging for a social licence to operate
(SLO). Public Relations Review, 46(4), 101931.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2020.101931
Jackson, T. (2015). Management Studies from Africa: A Cross-cultural Critique. Africa
Journal of Management, 1(1), 78–88.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23322373.2015.994425
Jenkins, H. (2004). Corporate social responsibility and the mining industry: Conflicts and
constructs. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,
11(1), 23–34. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.50
Kraidy, M. (2005). Hybridity, or the Cultural Logic of Globalization. Temple University
Press. https://doi.org/10.26530/OAPEN_626979
Leitch, S., & Motion, J. (2009). Risk Communication and Biotechnology: A Discourse
Perspective. In R. L. Heath & H. D. O’Hair (Eds.), Handbook of risk and crisis
communication (pp. 560–575). Routledge.
L’Etang, J. (1996). Corporate responsibility and public relations ethics. In J. L’Etang &
M. Pieczka (Eds.), Critical perspectives in public relations (pp. 82–105).
Routledge.
Mansell, R., & Nordenstreng, K. (2007). Great Media and Communication Debates:
WSIS and the MacBride Report. Information Technologies and International
Development, 3(4), 15–36. https://doi.org/10.1162/itid.2007.3.4.15
Mautner, G. (2009). Checks and balances: How corpus linguistics can contribute to CDA.
In R. Wodak & Michael Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp.
123–143). SAGE.
McPhail, T. L. (Ed.). (2009). Development communication: Reframing the role of the
media. Wiley-Blackwell.
McPhee, R. D., & Zaug, P. (2009). The communicative constitution of organizations: A
framework for explanation. In L. L. Putnam & A. M. Nicotera (Eds.), Building
theories of organization: The constitutive role of communication (pp. 21–48).
Routledge.
Melkote, S. R., & Steeves, H. L. (2001). Communication for development in the third
world: Theory and practice for empowerment (2nd ed). Sage Publications.
Moloney, K. (2006). Rethinking public relations: PR propaganda and democracy (2nd
ed). Routledge.
Moloney, K., & McGrath, C. (2020). Rethinking public relations: Persuasion, democracy,
and society (Third edition). Routledge, an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group.
Muspratt, M., & Steeves, H. L. (2012). Rejecting Erasure Tropes of Africa: The Amazing
Race Episodes in Ghana Counter Postcolonial Critiques: Rejecting Erasure Tropes
of Africa. Communication, Culture & Critique, 5(4), 533–540.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-9137.2012.01143.x
Ofori-Parku, S. S. (2016a). Corporate Sustainability Framework as a Conception of CSR:
Conceptual Explication. Global Communication and Social Change Division.
International Communication Association (ICA) Conference, Fukuoka, Japan,
Fukuoka, Japan.
CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY AS HEGEMONIC DISCOURSE
32
Ofori-Parku, S. S. (2016b). “Whale deaths” are unnatural: A local NGO’s framing of
offshore oil production risks in Ghana. Science Communication, 38(6), 746–775.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547016677832
Ofori-Parku, S. S. (2018). Tacit knowledge and risk perceptions: Tullow Oil and lay
publics in Ghana’s offshore oil region. Public Understanding of Science, 27(2),
197–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662516685488
Ofori-Parku, S. S. (2021). When public and business interests collide: An integrated
approach to the altruism-instrumentalism tension and corporate social
responsibility theory. Journal of Media Ethics, 36(1), 2–19.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23736992.2020.1857254
Ofori-Parku, S. S., & Steeves, H. L. (2016). Discovery channel’s Jungle Gold in Ghana:
Hegemonic globalization sparks resistance and policy action. Media, Culture &
Society, 38(2), 248–264. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443715613636
Parameswaran, R. (2002). Local culture in global media: Excavating colonial and material
discourses in national geographic. Communication Theory, 12(3), 287–315.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2002.tb00271.x
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2002). The competitive advantage of corporate
philanthropy. Harvard Business Review, 80(12), 56–68, 133.
Putnam, L., & Nicotera, A. M. (Eds.). (2009). Building theories of organization: The
constitutive role of communication. Routledge.
R. Edward Freeman, Jeffrey S. Harrison, Andrew C. Wicks, Bidhan Parmar, & Simon de
Colle. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Cambridge University
Press.
Reisigl, M. (2017). The discourse-historical approach (DHA). In J. Flowerdew & J. E.
Richardson (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse Studies (pp.
44–59). Routledge.
Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (2005). Discourse and discrimination: Rhetorics of racism and
antisemitism. Routledge.
Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (2009). The discourse-historical approach (DHA). In R. Wodak
& Michael Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 87–121).
SAGE.
Satterfield, T., Gregory, R., Klain, S., Roberts, M., & Chan, K. M. (2013). Culture,
intangibles and metrics in environmental management. Journal of Environmental
Management, 117, 103–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.11.033
Schoeneborn, D., Blaschke, S., Cooren, F., McPhee, R. D., Seidl, D., & Taylor, J. R.
(2014). The Three Schools of CCO Thinking: Interactive Dialogue and Systematic
Comparison. Management Communication Quarterly, 28(2), 285–316.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318914527000
Shome, R., & Hegde, R. S. (2002). Postcolonial Approaches to Communication: Charting
the Terrain, Engaging the Intersections. Communication Theory, 12(3), 249–270.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2002.tb00269.x
Slovic, P. (1999). Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: Surveying the risk-
assessment battlefield. Risk Analysis, 19(4), 689–701.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007041821623
Spence, D. B. (2011). Corporate social responsibility in the oil and gas industry: The
importance of reputational risk. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 86(1), 59–85.
CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY AS HEGEMONIC DISCOURSE
33
Tomlinson, J. (2003). The discourse of cultural imperialism. In D. McQuail (Ed.),
McQuail’s reader in mass communication theory (pp. 223–230). Sage
Publications.
Tullow. (2007). Tullow Oil Plc 2007 corporate social responsibility report.
Tullow. (2008). Tullow Oil Plc 2008 corporate social responsibility report.
Tullow. (2009a). Ghana Jubilee Field Phase 1 development: Environmental impact
assessment. Tullow Oil.
Tullow. (2009b). Tullow Oil Plc 2009 corporate social responsibility report. 65.
Tullow. (2010). Tullow Oil Plc 2010 corporate social responsibility report.
https://www.tullowoil.com/application/files/5315/7960/2107/2010-tullow-cr-
report.pdf
Tullow. (2011). Tullow Oil Plc 2011/12 corporate social responsibility report.
https://www.tullowoil.com/application/files/3015/7960/2116/2011-tullow-cr-
report.pdf
Tullow. (2012). Tullow Oil Plc 2012 corporate social responsibility report.
https://www.tullowoil.com/application/files/1915/7960/2224/2012-tullow-cr-
report.pdf
Tullow. (2013). Tullow Oil Plc 2013 corporate social responsibility report.
Tullow. (2014). Tullow Oil Plc 2014 corporate social responsibility report.
https://www.tullowoil.com/application/files/2815/7960/2355/tullow-oil-2014-
annual-report-and-accounts.pdf
Tullow. (2015). Tullow Oil Plc 2015 corporate social responsibility report.
https://www.tullowoil.com/application/files/6515/7960/2507/tullow-oil-2015-
corporate-responsibility-report.pdf
Tullow. (2019a). Tullow Oil plc 2019 corporate social responsibility report.
https://www.tullowoil.com/application/files/2815/8583/7805/Tullow_Oil_plc_Sus
tainability_Report_2019.pdf
Tullow. (2019b). Tullow Oil Plc company profile.
https://www.tullowoil.com/application/files/2215/7960/2828/company-profile-
august-2019v2.pdf
Tullow. (2020). Tullow Oil Plc 2020 corporate social responsibility report.
https://www.tullowoil.com/application/files/4316/1708/4091/SustainabilityReport
2020_Tullow_Oil_plc.pdf
Tullow. (2021). Tullow Oil plc 2021 sustainability report.
https://www.tullowoil.com/application/files/6016/4811/4973/Tullow_Sustainabilit
y_report_interactive.pdf
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Sage Publications.
Windsor, D. (2006). Corporate Social Responsibility: Three Key Approaches. Journal of
Management Studies, 43(1), 93–114. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
6486.2006.00584.x
Woods, J. (2018). How Much Do you (Really) Know about Africa? Heifer International.
https://www.heifer.org/blog/shining-a-light-on-africa.html
