Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
NARRATIVE TRANSPARENCY
Melea Press (Corresponding author)
School of Management, University of Bath, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK, +44 (0) 1225 386743,
Eric J. Arnould
Department of Marketing and Management, Southern Denmark University, Odense, 5230-C,
DK, [email protected],
Melea Press is a Senior Lecturer of Marketing at the University of Bath. She has taught at the University of Wyoming, Marylhurst University, and the Bainbridge Graduate Institute. She received her PhD in marketing from the Pennsylvania State University in 2007. Between 1994 and 2002 she dedicated herself to printmaking and book arts, and spent time at Peacock Printmakers in Aberdeen, Scotland and Women’s Studio Workshop in Rosendale, NY. Her interest in social science solidified in 1999 when she worked at The Hope Project in the Nizamuddin Basti in New Delhi, India. Her current research focuses on alternative markets, local food issues, transformative consumer research, energy consumption, and sustainability strategies. She has published on marketing and sustainability in books and journals including Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Culture, and the Journal of Public Policy and Marketing.
Eric Arnould is Professor of Consumer Marketing at the University of Bath and Visiting Professor of Marketing at Southern Denmark University. Dr. Arnould earned a doctorate in social anthropology at the University of Arizona in 1982 and worked for 15 years as an applied anthropologist in West Africa. Over the past 20 years, Dr, Arnould has benefited from teaching students at many Universities in the US, Europe and Asia. He has consulted for numerous private firms, governmental agencies, and public-private partnerships in the US and in Africa. His research on sustainability, economic development, services marketing, consumer culture theory, and marketing channels in developing countries appears in many social science and managerial periodicals and books. He is currently involved in research projects focused on corporate ethnography, dry land agricultural commodity marketing, demand side energy management, and conservation agriculture in eastern Africa.
2
NARRATIVE TRANSPARENCY
The audit can become a blunt and divisive ideological weapon in the hands of the unwary or ill-prepared (Brownlie 1996).
Abstract
In this paper we look at how alternative marketing organizations communicate
transparency in a climate of generalized risk and scepticism. We contrast the traditional numeric
approach to transparency, which involves auditing and third-party certifications; with an
alternative approach we call narrative transparency. Central to narrative transparency is an
emphasis on stakeholder dialogue and an invitation to stakeholders to play the role of auditor.
This article illustrates how alternative marketing organizations engage rhetorical tactics central
to a narrative approach to communicate transparency to their stakeholders. These rhetorical
tactics include persona, allegory, consumer sovereignty and enlightenment. Community
supported agriculture programs from across the United States are the context for this study.
Findings enrich discussions about best practices for transparency communications. The central
contribution is identification of a narrative approach to transparency, the rhetorical techniques
such an approach employs, and explanation of why an alternative approach to transparency
reporting emerges.
Keywords
audit society, community supported agriculture, marketing communications, narrative, rhetoric,
transparency
3
Organizations face pressures to increase transparency. While many traditional channels
of marketing communications could accomplish this, all are increasingly contested (Dwyer et al.
1995; Rose 2012; Segars and Kohut 2001; Vogel 1983). Still one of most widespread responses
is to expand reporting and third party auditing. These developments have been driven by Wiki
Leaks revelations, investment bank scandals, and repeated media accounts of corporate
malfeasance (e.g. overseas factory tragedies/scandals) (Lamin and Zaheer 2012). Thus,
companies have increased the number and types of audits and third-party certifications to include
environmental and social criteria (e.g. Global Reporting Initiative 2011; Power 1999; Deumes et
al. 2010) to assert and communicate organizational transparency and accountability. Newer
reporting schemes whether developed by ISO, GRI, Transparency International or B Corporation
generally follow the financial accounting, numeric transparency model. Thus organizations
generally rely on corporate communications strategies enshrined in the now contested, but still
dominant techno-economic paradigm (Kilboune 2004; Prothero, McDonagh & Dobscha 2010),
adopting the retrospective, monologic communications format exemplified by financial audits
(McDonagh 1998; Power 1999). These reports are generally voluntary, provide a common
framework for organizations to fill in with company-specific details (bcorporation.com; GRI
n.d.; Heald 2006; Power 1997), and are judged primarily on rule following and completeness
rather than fidelity to the principles that have inspired the new reporting initiatives. Expanded
auditing perpetuates a “sciencey” regime of truth claiming, but does little to address the evolving
marketing environment strongly marked by Web 2.0 effects (i.e., peer-to-peer information
sharing, dialogical communications expectations), intensified general skepticism, and scrutiny of
established institutions, and heightened institutional risk (Beck 1992; Choi 2011; DIY Week
2011; Edelman Insight 2012; Power, et al. 2009).
4
In this paper we examine transparency communication tactics different from those
employed in the auditing paradigm. Community Supported Agriculture programs (CSAs) from
across the US provide the context for this study. Positioned in the sustainability space as an
alternative to industrial agriculture, CSA is a membership-based agricultural marketing
organization in which farms sell directly to customer-members (Thompson and Coskuner-Balli
2007; Press and Arnould 2011b). We uncover how CSAs use narrative tactics consistent with a
theoretical model of sustainable communications (McDonagh 1998) to achieve goals consistent
with a theoretical model of the benefits of organizational transparency (Cotterrel 1999;
Dingwerth and Eichinger 2010; Ind 2005; Vendelø 1998; von Furstenburg 2001). Access,
disclosure, and invitations to dialogue (McDonagh 1998) and elements of narrative transparency
(Olson 1999) are among the tactics employed. In addition, we discuss some implications for how
marketing organizations may employ narrative transparency to address concerns about
accountability and provide assurances in the current environment of skepticism.
Theoretical Perspectives
Organizational transparency is equated with purposeful information disclosure. In theory,
it has been linked to positive organizational outcomes (Brown, 1995; Cotterrel 1999; Florini,
1999; Kern, 1999; Stirton and Lodge 2001; Stiglitz, 1999), and is thought of as an “antidote to
mismanagement and corruption” (von Furstenburg 2001, 106). Transparency can increase
reputation (Vendelø 1998), and may eventuate in market leadership (Dingwerth and Eichinger
2010).
Numeric Transparency
5
The dominant form of transparency communication is constructed within the paradigm of
financial audits (Brownlie 1996; Bushman and Smith 2003; Power 1997) to provide
accountability, or assurances about organizational activities and claims. Even GRI, ISO, and B
Corporations repeat this audit model, expanding it to include environmental and social indicators
(bcorporation.com; GRI n.d.; Heald 2006; Power 1997). Even when an organization uses an
expanded audit model to communicate transparency, it uses communication techniques and
values associated with the dominant environmental paradigm (DEP; Kilbourne 2004; McDonagh
1998) to communicate values associated with a new paradigm.We refer to this accounting-based
model of transparency communication as numeric transparency.
In this article, we highlight three flaws in numeric transparency that additional audits,
including those that focus on social and environmental impacts, cannot address. First, the
environment for marketing communications is becoming a discursive arena (Goldman and
Papson 2006), however audits represent a one-way mode of marketing communications and do
not live up to expectations built in the Web 2.0 environment. Indeed, some argue that consumers
decreasingly accept the monologic reporting form of communication (Brownlie, Hewer and
Ferguson 2007, 405). Social media, which are inherently dialogical are increasingly relied on as
trustworthy resources, and are redefining expectations of corporate communications (Graham
and Haarstad 2011). Companies are now cautioned not to “simply devise a message and
communicate it to their audiences…[or] put across simply their own agenda…[which] would be
a monologue, not dialogue” (Jones, Temperley and Lima 2009, 930; Edelman Insight 2012;
Lewis 2001). This trend renders numeric transparency precarious; stuck in a paradigm of one-
way communication with stakeholders who want dialogue.
Second, in light of continuous corporate scandals, skepticism and mistrust of corporate
6
capitalism is increasingly evident worldwide (Beck 1992; Choi 2011; de Toqueville 1945; DIY
Week 2011; Iyer and Muncy 2009; Olson 1999); trust in key institutions, particularly business, is
declining (Edelman Insight 2012). In addition, people mistrust the audit process itself, whether
they are being audited (Brownlie 1996) or reading an audit report (Holma and Zamanb 2012).
Even financial analysts, CFOs, and audit committees question audits’ usefulness beyond their
signalling value (Deumes et al. 2010; Sidhu & Roberts. 2008).
Regulated reporting and ever-increasing standards and rules do not mean that
transparency reporting is congruent with ethical, or even good, business practices. The irony of
legal but unethical behaviors was illustrated when Fortis, a major European bank that had just
won a prize for best CSR report, became the first bank after Lehman Brothers to collapse (Fassin
and Buelens 2011, 595). When companies become over-regulated, the focus on compliance may
cause the spirit of the law to vanish (Harvard Law Review, 2003; Fassin and Buelens 2011;
Greenfield 2004), highlighting the hypocrisy embedded in a legalistic approach to compliance
(Bowen and Heath 2005; Fassin and Buelens 2011). The result of “compliance and
standardization intended for external analysts” (Fassin and Buelens 2011, 588) is demonstrated
in the gap between the intention of transparency reporting, stemming from internal ethical
concerns and the creation of reports that are “GRI auditable” (Aucquier and Gond, 2006). The
emphasis on audits and reports means over other communication techniques means a continued
institutional separation between businesses and far away factories and fields, where problems
usually occur (Ballinger 2008; 92).
Third, the information provided in corporate reports, including the language, charts,
graphs and statistics may be too arcane for the average stakeholder to interpret (Gilbert & Rasche
2008). Similarly, labelling studies show that consumers have a poor understanding of
7
environmental and social assurance schemes and labelling formats (Green and Capell 2008;
Hoek, Roling and Holdsworth 2013; Prothero, Peattie and McDonagh 1997), and yet companies
have not changed communication techniques to convey information in a more engaging way
(Heslop 2006; McEachern and Warnaby 2005; Quinn 2010). More fundamentally, a lack of
public understanding about sustainable development (Barnes 2012; McDonagh 1998; Press and
Arnould 2009) calls into question the general utility of sustainability or responsibility reports that
make claims about corporate adherence. Thus, if organizations want to deliver real
understanding, they will have to find different ways to communicate with their stakeholders
(bcorporation.com; Capprioti and Moreno 2007; GRI n.d.; Heald 2006; Power 1997).
Numeric transparency is a manifestation of the dominant social paradigm (DSP; Kilbourne
2004), and does not resolve the issues discussed above. In the context of a concern for
sustainable marketing communication, a compelling narrative that people can identify with is
needed (Kilbourne 2004). In this paper we explore an alternative transparency communication
technique that addresses the issues with numeric transparency highlighted above.
Narrative Transparency
We can infer from the above discussion that marketing organizations need new
communication strategies and tactics to improve transparency (Prothero, Peattie and McDonagh
1997). Organizations already use narrative strategically to induce commitment (Shaw, Brown
and Bomily 1998), promote legitimacy (King and Whetten 2008; Etzion and Ferraro 2010;
Suddaby and Greenwood 2005), and increase reputation (Boyce 1996; Dowling 2006; Vendelø
1998, 129). Olson (1999) has introduced the idea of narrative transparency, which is
fundamentally about making narratives accessible to stakeholders. It uses “textual apparatus that
8
[allow] audiences to project indigenous values, beliefs, rites and rituals into imported media”
(Olson 1999, 5). It draws on “the capability of texts to seem familiar regardless of their origin, to
seem part of one’s own culture, even though they have been crafted elsewhere” (1999, 18). Thus
familiarity, and the ability to identify with communicative content are key elements of narrative
transparency. We suggest below that using narrative transparency, organizations may provide the
access, disclosure and dialogue stakeholders now demand (McDonagh 1998).
Accessibility
Effective narrative is accessible to stakeholders since as previously shown, it is through
narrative that consumers make sense of experience (Shankar, Elliott and Goulding 2001). Among
the elements that contribute to narrative accessibility and participation are myth, persona,
allegory, differentiation and alignment; we briefly review each of these elements. Speaking
directly to the reader, archetypal myths organise understanding across a wide range of
substantive arenas. They provide accessibility by building a narrative familiar to storyteller and
audience (Barthes 1972; Hopkinson and Hogarth-Scott 2001), and invite audiences to use their
own knowledge and imagination to fill in narrative details (Giddens 1989; Olson 1999).
Using persona, the voice of the myth, archetypal anecdotes call on shared cultural stories
to evoke emotional attachment, and help convince an audience they share values and goals with
the mythic persona, conveying a “faith in folk wisdom” (Olson 1999; Stern 1993). Use of
persona often entails first person speech to increase the life-like nature of the voice and increase
the “code of cooperation,” inviting audiences to be persuaded that the message is true. Even if a
“real person” is speaking as him/herself, this remains a “fictive artefact designed to have certain
effects on consumers” (Stern 1993, 18; Delbaere, et al. 2011; Herman 2003).
9
Allegories are didactic tales. Allegory enlists a protagonist and antagonist to highlight
dramatic moral conflict, and draws on mythic themes (Stern 1988), with which readers are
expected to be familiar (Olson 1999). Allegories have long been used in marketing
communications to reinforce market position (Stern 1988; 1990).
Rhetorical tactics can also be used to assert the parameters of the narrative in marketing
communications. Differentiation and alignment tactics identify protagonists and antagonists and
clarify dramatic conflicts. Differentiation and alignment tactics can highlight similarities to
familiar organizational practice, but also point out shortcomings in existing practice and
highlight key differences (Etzion and Ferraro 2010; Creed et al. 2000). Typically, differentiation
and alignment tactics are used in emerging markets to develop positioning by referring
(positively and/or negatively) to dominant discourses (Clegg, Rhodes and Kornberger
2007;Disclosure and Accountability
Unlike the audit model of numeric transparency, narrative transparency addresses
disclosure and accountability interactively. Invitations to consumer enlightenment (self-
knowledge) and sovereignty (judgement) are tactics deployed to achieve this goal (Schwarzkopf
2011). Much like the rhetorical techniques used in destination marketing, CSAs use consumer
enlightenment and sovereignty to evoke “the sense of personal responsibility and accountability
that might be associated with visiting…sacred sites, natural reserves, and world heritage
wilderness areas… In this sense, [the consumers] may also be regarded as environmental
stakeholders” (Walker and Hanson 1998, 628).
Previous research has shown that evoking a self-enlightenment myth is a marketing tactic
useful to enlistcooperation and participation (Kozinets and Handelman 2004; Thompson and
Troester 2002), and produce a sense of personal responsibility as a stakeholder (Walker and
10
Hanson 1998). This tactic induces stakeholders to play an active role in seeking and gaining
assurances through their own observation and interaction with an organization. Enlightenment
stories offer a platform for stakeholders to explore their skepticism and compare what they
discover with marketing claims to judge veracity.
Consumer sovereignty is evoked to emphasize the role of the consumer in shaping
markets and market offerings. This rhetorical tactic asserts that consumers hold integral roles in
the marketplace and in contributing to the general wellbeing (Cohen 2004; de Toqueville 1945;
Schwarzkopf 2011). In the myth of sovereignty, consumers adjudicate the quality of products,
services, and information offered to them.
Encouraging Active Dialogue
Perhaps the biggest shortcoming of numeric transparency is that it employs a monologic
approach to communication, which does not address stakeholder skepticism, and can leave
organizations vulnerable to internal and public criticism (Goldman and Papson 2006). Dialogue
gives organizations an opportunity to help stakeholders make informed decisions, provides a
point of stakeholder influence for the organization (Stirton and Lodge 2001), and creates
organizational value through the development of stakeholder relationships (Waddock 2008, 106).
Moreover in the Web 2.0 context transparent market communication is participative and
mutually beneficial, creating interaction and consensus among stakeholders, which in turn, builds
trust (McDonagh 1998). Sustainable communication scholars recognize that “’meaningfulness is
actively and continually negotiated” rather than just asserted by companies (McDonagh 1998,
609), and as a study by Edelman PR (2012) shows, having a transparent and open business, and
communicating frequently and honestly are among the top ten drivers for rebuilding trust in
11
business. However, although transparency should lead to dialogue (Drew and Nyerges 2004),
creating meaningful stakeholder dialogue is challenging and has associated management costs
(Crane 1998). We follow Stern (1993) in arguing that the rhetorical tactics highlighted above are
also inherently participative if not dialogical. Recognizing archetypes, identifying with persona,
engaging with allegorical dramas, gaining awareness (consumer enlightenment) and exercising
sovereignty are all active modes of engaging in a communicative process.
In sum, organizations face pressures to increase transparency. They have responded with
expanded internal and external reporting and third party auditing, in hopes that these measures
produce positive consequences. While expanded auditing perpetuates a “sciencey” regime of
truth claiming, it does little to address the intensified general skepticism associated with a
prevailing climate of institutional risk (Power et al. 2009) or the demands to build better
understanding through dialogue in a Web 2.0 environment (Philips and Halliday 2008). In this
paper we expand on what other authors have stated, “that there should be more to accounting
than ‘counting’” (Roslender and Wilson 2008, 872). We explore narrative transparency as a
response to increased demands for intimate knowledge of organizations and as an alternative
means to communicate transparency and provide assurance of “truth.” Using this construct
allows us look into how “accounts,” that is, “a story, a representation, a visualization” are used as
tactics for transparency communications (Roslender and Wilson 2008, 872). We expand Olson’s
(1999) concept of narrative transparency, examining it in the context of marketing
communications in CSAs. After a discussion of method, this article examines how CSAs engage
rhetorical tactics to communicate transparency to their stakeholders.
The Context
12
Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) websites provide the context for data
collection. CSA comprise a population of 12,500 independent operations in a decentralized,
share-based marketing system through which participating stakeholders obtain shares of farm-
grown produce; for history, see Thompson and Coskuner-Balli (2007). In the typical CSA
structure people join as members and prepay for their respective season of produce; members
pick up their produce or “share” once a week at various pre-arranged locations.
The core value proposition of the CSA is guaranteed delivery of fresh, locally-grown,
locally-known produce. According to a report conducted by the Leopold Center for Sustainable
Agriculture, “at its best, CSA offers members: a seasonal supply of fresh, reasonably-priced
produce (often grown using organic methods); a direct relationship with the farmer growing their
food; an opportunity to learn about agriculture and local ecosystems; and a community-building
connection with farmers, neighbors and landscapes.” (Tegtmeier and Duffy 2005, p.5).
CSA has been referred to as a solution to consumer anxiety over risks associated with
food and the food system (Beck 1992; Rampton and Stauber 2001; Thompson 2005) because the
model is built on trust in local, personal and knowable sources of food and food related
information (Rampton and Stauber 2001). CSAs position themselves in opposition to mainstream
agriculture, using narrative to highlight problematic issues associated with “big ag”: commitment
to agro-chemical techniques of production, attempts to vertically integrate and monopolize
agricultural systems, patenting of genetic materials, aggressive legal persecution of non-
compliant farmers, and the like.i
In a survey of MidWestern CSA farmers, the overwhelming reason farmers gave for
starting their CSAs were ecological and socially-based, followed by economic reasons. When
13
asked what value they pass on to consumers, they first state high quality healthy food, followed
by the knowledge that their food was produced in an environmentally safe way (Tegtmeier and
Duffy 2005). Also, CSA literature claims that CSA participating farmers have chosen their
profession for value-based reasons, (i.e. “to do something meaningful in the world,” or “make
[their] own way”), and many have left ordinary employment to pursue farming (Lass et al. 2003).
Method
We collected data for this study from CSA websites. Our justification is two-fold. First,
in today’s Web 2.0 environment, researchers argue that “the way a company behaves on-line and
is perceived by its wider audience is far more important than overt philanthropy, donations to
charities, flashy websites or even annual CSR reports printed on recycled paper” (Jones,
Temperley & Lima 2009, 928). As small operations, apart from face-to-face contact and
newsletters, websites are the primary formal channel through which CSAs communicate with
their stakeholders. Thus websites are even more central to CSA communication than perhaps
they are to larger market actors. Moreover, websites exist for CSAs in all 50 states of the USA,
although this was not true when our research began. These websites were found on a national
database for CSAs (Wilson College, n.d.). This database allowed us to sample systematically
CSAs across the considerable regional cultural diversity represented in the United States
(Arbesman 2012; Elazar 1984; Garreau 1981; Lieske 1993, 2010). Second, assessment of
corporate communications through websites is well established in research examining corporate
initiatives that respond to public demands for greater corporate citizenship, transparency, and
responsibility (Capriotti & Moreno 2007; Gomez & Chalmeta 2011). Like other researchers our
approach has been to examine the structure and content of these websites. As our aim was not to
14
undertake an analysis of online community, use of netnographic methods (Hamilton & Hewer
2010; Healy and Beverland 2013; Kozinets 2002) was deemed inappropriate.
A database was created that included 50 CSA websites. The individual websites were
chosen in the following manner. The national database has a search feature that allows the
viewer to search for CSAs by state. A search for CSAs in each state was conducted in
alphabetical order (i.e. starting with Alabama and ending with Wyoming). For each state, the list
of CSAs was retrieved, and one website was randomly chosen for analysis. Where only one CSA
existed in a state, it was sampled. In the case of multiple CSAs, in the first instance the first CSA
encountered was sampled. The next time multiple CSAs were listed for a state, the second CSA
was chosen. Subsequently, the third CSA was chosen, then the fourth, and back to the first,
second, and so on.
Two CSAs were added to this sample, because of their importance to the CSA
movement. This is consistent with the strategy of purposive sampling. Purposive sampling is
employed to identify critical cases which exemplify, dramatize, or render salient key dimensions
of interest (Paton, 1980). Thus, we included Indian Line Farm in Massachusetts, because it was
the original CSA in the United States and serves as an exemplar. And we included Angelic
Organics in Illinois, because with over 1000 members, it was the first large-scale CSA.
It should be noted that CSAs are low-technology operations, and thus many CSAs listed
in the database do not have websites. However, because most of the non-website CSAs included
statements in the national database that express sentiments similar to those expressed on CSAs
websites, the existence or nonexistence of a website does not indicate a difference in rhetoric
among CSAs.
15
CSA web sites varied in number of pages and amount of information provided on each
page. The simplest web sites contained a single page offering basic information about the CSA
and contact information. The most complex contained many linked pages and included
photographs of the farm and farmer, lists of products offered, detailed information about the
CSA and the farmers, statements about why farm values are important, newsletters, weblogs,
recipes, announcements of events, and links to complementary enterprises.
Principle analysis of CSA websites was conducted between June 2006 and May 2009,
and thus, reflects the strategic orientation of CSAs at this time. The data were assessed using
thematic analysis (Boyatzis, 1998; Taylor & Bogdan, 1984). This means that the texts drawn
from the websites were first subjected to an emic level of thematic analysis followed by more
systematic clustering and data reduction to develop mid-level etic categories (Spiggle 1994). We
employed two forms of triangulation in order to improve the trustworthiness of interpretations.
First, we triangulated across research sites rather than employing a case study approach to ensure
the results were not parochial. Second, two researchers were involved, one with prior interest and
experience with the research context and the second who had theoretical expertise but no
empirical expertise. Triangulation across researchers helps to re-establish distance between
researchers and contexts and provides a cross-check of interpretations (Lofland & Lofland, 1984;
Wallendorf & Belk 1989).
Findings
Our findings illustrate how CSA websites use narrative transparency tactics. Our data
illustrate how accessibility is achieved through myth, allegory, and differentiation and alignment
tactics. In addition, we show how disclosure and accountability are built through appeals to
enlightenment and consumer sovereignty. Finally, we highlight how these tactics build active
16
modes of engaging in the communicative process and thus contribute to an active dialogue.
Accessibility
Accessibility is achieved through the use of myth, allegory, and differentiation and
alignment. Allegory facilitates understanding marketing communications. CSA websites are
isomorphic in portraying the allegory of good vs. evil. That is, the CSA plays the role of the hero
(protagonist) in the battle against the evil opposition (antagonist = industrial agriculture).
Positive statements on CSA websites are positioned against a backdrop of what CSAs do not do
(e.g. farming with faith vs. farming with force; stewards of the land vs. producers; focus on
natural systems vs. applying chemicals; awestruck and humble vs. Arrogant and controlling;
fresh, local and seasonal vs. travelled across the world). This tactic clarifies and repeats stated
values and paints a simple (if novel) portrait of who is good and who is evil, making it easier for
stakeholders to understand the parameters of their engagement. For example:
It is time for a change. In the existing agricultural system- known as- "conventional farming", the population has seen tremendous increases in productivity, and therefore has come to expect abundant, cheap food. This food can travel thousands of miles before it reaches your lips and is often bland in its taste, as it has been bred for shelf life. Conventional farming methods often include: large-scale farms; single crops grown season after season; large capital investments; uniform high-yield hybrid crops; extensive use of pesticides and fertilizers; confined, concentrated livestock systems. The costs of this type of farming come in the form of: ground water contamination from agricultural chemicals; topsoil depletion; destruction of riparian zones therefore decreasing wildlife habitat and increasing erosion; and the decline of the small, family farm. (JMD Farm, VA, emphasis added)
Through the use of allegory, CSAs clarify the alignment with and differentiation from industrial
agriculture as they assert their knowledge about sustainable agriculture by explicitly emphasizing
problematic practices common in industrial agriculture (“conventional farming”). In addition,
they build credibility for CSA farmers’ knowledge of sustainable agriculture and their position as
good stewards of the land with whom stakeholders are invited to identify.
17
In another quotation, American pastoralism, the archetypal myth of Eden shepherded and
improved by the sturdy yeoman farmer (Press and Arnould 2011a) is used to invite the reader to
feel like a participant in maintaining the family farm, improving the environment, and
contributing to fair treatment of workers, all implicitly morally good projects:
Selling our farm products locally also gives small farmers like us a chance to grow life-sustaining food in a manner that is healthy for our soil and surroundings. We aim to better our soils, maintain habitat for wildlife on our farm, and treat our workers fairly. We choose crops that suit our climate, promote healthy plants to prevent major pest damage, and cultivate a variety of crops to provide habitat for beneficial insects. We also rotate our crops to balance soil nutrients and plant cover crops to minimize nutrient loss and maximize nitrogen & organic matter in the soil. Our reward is a rich, living soil that produces a bountiful crop of vegetables. By choosing to buy produce from us, you are supporting the tradition of working with the soil and the environment so that the land will be better in years to come. You also make the choice to support our farm instead of buying from distributors, big business, and factory farms, where workers and environment may be set aside in the name of profit (Boistfort Valley Farm, WA, emphasis added).
Readers are reminded that they choose to support the sustainable farming method presided over
by the yeoman farmer persona, and thus are participants in the CSA’s good deeds. The relentless
comparison to industrial agriculture across CSA websites also invites stakeholders to assert their
consumer sovereignty as they reflect on their choice to be part of the CSA.
Accessibility tactics also appear to communicate details of actions in real time, rather
than summarizing facts and figures retrospectively as in the auditing model. Consider the
following excerpt:
This past week gave us two frosts. The first frost was patchy and light. We lost a little basil, a third of our tomato plants, and most of the leaf canopy of the winter squash. This last bit of frost damage was the most serious, since there was another heavier frost following right away. The winter squash are protected by their canopy, which acts like a big quilt. Without this quilt we were either going to have to harvest all of the squash and get it into the hoop house or just lose a portion of our harvest. We decided to harvest all 3 quarter acre plots in one day. We were racing against the sun starting just before 7 am. A few members showed up throughout the day to help us get done in one day what is usually a 3 day project. When the second frost came on Friday night we were very happy to have all the squash in. We lost the rest of the basil, all of the tomatoes, all of the
18
peppers, the cucumbers, the summer squash, the melons, and even the green beans that were under row cover. So we won’t have any more hot peppers for those of you who wanted to try to make a little hot sauce. We also won’t be able to get any green beans for those of you who still have green bean preserving shares. We will be contacting you with some options as to how to handle this (August Earth CSA, MN).
The CSA takes an archetypal myth (i.e., that of Noah racing against the elements to
preserve natural diversity) to communicate about what could be considered a major disaster for a
business and uses it as an opportunity to share their humanistic struggles as stewards of an
unpredictable natural environment. This example of narrative transparency reveals the sad results
of the familiar dramatic tension here between man, i.e., the CSA farmers, “a few members,” and
the disappointed member cooks whose plans for hot sauce will be dashed vs. wild nature, here
represented by a precocious, but not entirely unexpected, early Minnesota frost. In American
popular culture, struggles with wild nature are represented as fortifying and restoring the soul
even as such encounters teach the value of humility, as expressed here in the flat fatalistic
recounting of what was lost (basil, tomatoes, squash and so on; Fehn 2005; Glover 1990; Nash
1967; Schullery 1978). The report about lost tomatoes, basil and peppers is brief and the focus is
on process. This story invites identification by offering details of the event, explaining in plain
language how squash are “protected by their canopy” and what happens when the canopy is
destroyed. It also presents the choices the farmers had (harvest or lose the squash) and their
decision (harvest), and it shows how they were able to complete the three-day task in one day,
with the help of CSA members. Finally, this report does not include numeric accounts (how
many tomato and basil plants died; how many members came to help; what is the economic
loss), rather the focus is a story of community engagement and support (Prothero, McDonagh &
Dobscha 2010). This report also demonstrates how CSA members act as auditors; the customer
was invited, and some came, to see the frost damage, participate in helping avert a larger
19
disaster, and join a dialogue about the farm, weather, and harvest. In this way the CSA seeks to
demonstrate the truth of its claims both about the frost damage and the actions they took to save
the squash. CSA members are invited to participate in the outcomes of the farm harvest, both
directly (those who helped harvest) and vicariously for those who read about the incident online
(Hartmann, Wiertz and Arnould 2013). Thus, this quotation brings us to tactics of disclosure and
accountability.
Disclosure and accountability
Disclosure and accountability are built through appeals to enlightenment, and evocations
of consumer sovereignty. CSAs encourage consumers to exercise their rights to experience and
judge the veracity of their claims. Thus, the theme of enlightenment encapsulates the elevated
self-knowledge gained through work on the land. It runs through many CSA websites and is
evident in several excerpts from our data. It takes two interrelated forms; the first speaks to the
farmers’ enlightenment, that is, the fruit of their experience. For example:
We seek to maintain an inquisitive nature and work diligently to increase our knowledge with respect to our farm, the products we raise and the methods we use. It is important to us that we share our learning with others, in the hope that more persons will support sustainable methods in all that they do. (Genuine Faux Farm, IA) The small farm is more than just a dream. It can be a reality, and your vision and decisions in life must have a focus towards that purpose. Our family has been on that path for over fourteen years. We are mainly self-taught, having the single focus and obsession that we could one day have the independent family farm. Now that we are achieving that goal, we would like to share with others our (not always simple) homesteading lifestyle... It is rich and rewarding; to work as a family, but the steps can be a long and bumpy journey... (Home Sweet Farm, TX).
Thus CSA farmers are positioned as focused, diligent, and unwavering in their own quest for
enlightenment. We recall that stakeholders have been invited to identify with the farmers through
20
tactics mentioned above. In the second form, CSAs invite their members as well as interested
members of the public to follow on the “steps” of the “journey” toward their own enlightenment:
We encourage everyone to visit the farm and get to know where your produce is grown…. Visit the farm for community events, pick-your-own flowers, or just to enjoy the scenery! (Holcomb Farm, CT)
To provide members with a healthy, sustainable connection to the farm where their food is grown. Whether by harvesting pick-your-own crops or volunteering for a special project, members can re-establish a responsible, healthy connection to the land (Watershed Farm, NJ).
Offering stakeholders an opportunity to be part of the dialogue, experience, and farm family
encourages self-knowledge as a form of accountability.
Closely related to enlightenment is the tactic of consumer sovereignty. CSA websites,
and indeed the CSA business model in which member participation in the CSA is central,
regularly evoke the idea of sovereignty through the do-it-yourself/see-for-yourself ethos they
support.
… It is a good idea to look for the organic seal when you are buying at a store because you don't know where it has been and the seal affords some measure of accountability, but the best method is to be able to see for yourself how your food is grown, buying from a local farmer you know and trust. At Cane Creek Farm, you can see our sustainable, natural process in action, and you can taste the difference in our fruits and vegetables. We grow everything at Cane Creek Farm without the use of chemical pesticides and fertilizers (Cane Creek Farm, GA). We encourage everyone to visit the farm and inquire more about our crop rotations, tillage methods, fertility and pest control. While the farm is not perfectly sustainable, this struggle inspires us to continue improving our farm (Clagett Farm, MD). The opportunity to witness agriculture in action is a rarity nowadays. To experience where our food is grown rather than to watch it arrive at supermarkets is the point of our farm tours. Our farmers are happy to work with you to design a farm tour that fits into your group's focus, whether it be watersheds, livestock, vegetable production, health or holistic management (Cure Organic Farm, CO). Please join us! Here is a sample of the many ways you can get involved: Work on the Farm, Facilitate Field Trips, Join the Board of Directors, Join an Advisory Committee,
21
Help Out with Special Events, Get Involved in School Gardens, Assist with Building Projects (Calypso Farm, AK).
These excerpts from CSA websites located right across the country encourage consumers
to be skeptical as they contrast with the industrial food system- impersonal, exclusive, secretive,
obsessed with intellectual property protections (e.g. Monsanto), and perhaps most tellingly with
certification! CSA implicitly contrast the false sovereignty and false choice provided by the
industrial food system with its endless varieties of products, each containing a host of mysterious
ingredients, with the authentic sovereignty provided by participation (“join us”), engagement
with process (“witness,” “see for yourself”), offering dialogue through invited feedback and
improvement (“learning from this struggle”). CSAs ask stakeholders to judge CSA products and
practices in comparison to those of industrial agriculture.
Encouraging active dialogue
Finally, we highlight how these tactics are used together to illustrate active modes of
engaging in the communicative process. Thus, in this section we offer excerpts that illustrate
how multiple rhetorical tactics work together to convey transparency and encourage dialogue:
We strive to be good stewards of the land by maintaining and enhancing soil, water and air quality through sustainable farming practices. We encourage and support a small farm ecosystem of diverse plants, birds and pollinators. Our crops are grown without synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides or genetically modified organisms. We use compost, cover crops, mulching and crop rotation to encourage healthy soil and plants and to build long-term fertility. We believe a healthy body is inseparable from a healthy soil. In order to be a healthy economically viable farm, it is important to have both a diversity of crops, and a diversity of markets. Our goal is to always provide the highest quality product to all our customers. Through the CSA experience we hope to encourage a sense of place by reconnecting people with the land that sustains them. We also strive to provide opportunities for farm members to connect with other members of our community through monthly potlucks, a children’s garden, work opportunities, and a fall farm festival. (Blooming Glen Farm, Perkasie, PA)
22
This quotation contains several statements that foreground the CSA’s values and beliefs
(e.g., “good stewards of the land;” “a healthy body is inseparable from healthy soil”), which
again place the CSA as the allegorical protagonist in a marketplace drama (Giesler 2008) that has
a clear, if here unnamed antagonist (industrial agriculture). Persona (e.g., “We strive…”) is used
simultaneously to invoke the aura of the American farm family and to educate stakeholders about
what it means to be good stewards of the land, referencing American ideals of taming wild
nature and working with (rather than against) it (Press and Arnould 2011a), with the mother earth
archetype hovering behind the text. But equally importantly the text details the farming practices
that demonstrate how the CSA behaves according to its stated values and beliefs (e.g., “we
encourage and support a[n]…ecosystem;” “we use compost…to build long-term fertility”). The
CSA also evokes consumer sovereignty (Schwarzkopf 2011), inviting consumers to judge the
quality of the product, and to inspect the veracity of the CSA’s claims as they connect with the
farm (“the land that sustains them”). Through the combination allegory and persona, which
promote familiarity and connection to the story, with enlightenment and consumer sovereignty,
which encourage active participation in accountability, the CSA builds a platform for dialogue
with many stages and starting places. The invitation to dialogue is not direct, i.e., come dialogue
with us, but is instead implied in the multiple references to connection with the land, “sense of
place,” through “reconnecting” with people, and with invitations to dine and work collectively .
By highlighting shared values (community, health, no synthetic fertilizers, no GMOs), by
offering actions as proofs of these values, and opportunities to participate customers are invited
to build a dialogic sense of engagement with CSA.
23
The following excerpt is more direct. Its rhetorical structure is similar to that above. It
evokes belief (“a great deal of faith”), actions, (“We plant and transplant, weed and water, and
hope” “produce arrives at market”), and evocations of consumer sovereignty (direct connection
with our customers”).
The longer I farm, the more I realize that farming is a magical experience. It requires a great deal of faith in the soil, in the seasons, in the seeds, and in ourselves. We plant and transplant, weed and water, and hope for the best. We are not so much producers as caretakers. The weather does what it wants, the plants respond accordingly, the equipment either agrees with us or it doesn't, and we do what we can to make everything go smoothly. It is an awesome and humbling experience. ...Our produce arrives at market very fresh and in season, which maximizes flavor and nutritional quality. We also enjoy a direct connection with our customers, allowing us an ongoing dialogue about our produce and our farm... (Boistfort Valley Farm, WA)
In this quotation, like that above the CSA not only highlights specific values and the
practices, but also identifies a role for participants in this experience that of stewards and
caretakers that demonstrate those values. As in other excerpts transparency is communicated
narrative through familiar themes rather than through scientific jargon (e.g. about soil chemistry)
or numbers (e.g. how many pounds of seeds; weed with what implement) associated with the
techtopian model of industrial agriculture (Kozinets 2008) and the audit (Power 1999). Finallly,
dialogue is encouraged here directly; stakeholders are invited to join a dialogue with these
producers, where they can learn more. Foregrounding ongoing dialogue and inviting stakeholder
participation offer assurance, the ostensible purpose of all transparency accounting.
Discussion
Summary
24
Previous research in marketing has shown that narrative has been useful strategically in
developing service offerings, producing advertisements, segmentation and positioning, and in
understanding consumer behaviour (e.g., Cayla and Arnould 2013; Hopkinson & Hogarth-Scott
2001; Shankar et al. 2001). We suggest that narrative can also be used to address issues in
transparency communication that cannot be addressed using tactics developed in the dominant
environmental paradigm (Kilbourne 2004)..
CSAs’ persistent rhetorical differentiation from supermarkets and the industrial
agricultural system in general, and their alignment with pastoralist and wilderness mythologies
challenge norms embedded at the most general level in the dominant environmental paradigm
(Kilbourne 2004; Prothero, McDonagh & Dobscha 2010), in the specific context of industrial
agriculture, and in the audit model of reporting.
These rhetorical tactics also align with normative prescriptions for producing sustainable
communications. CSAs, embrace conflict and critique through information disclosure, access to
and participation in organizational policies, processes and structures (e.g. reporting on the daily
workings of the farm: produce growth updates; the weather; personal reflections), which allow
for open-ended dialogue (McDonagh 1988, 599). Through these means, organizations build trust
and consensus around a more sustainable approach to agriculture and reinforce their standing as
an intrinsically valuable part of the natural environment (Walker and Hanson 1998, 635).
Accessibility is achieved through use of myth, allegory, persona, differentiation and
alignment. These tactics invite consumers to participate (Hartmann et al. 2013) in the CSA and
engage in on-going dialogue by highlighting shared values. Disclosure and accountability are
built through the rhetorical tactics of appeals to consumer enlightenment (self-knowledge) and
evocations of consumer sovereignty. These tactics build credibility by reporting specific
25
activities (e.g. weeding by hand; composting; watching the crops). CSAs demonstrate
accountability by inviting the consumer to “see for [them]selves” and act as judge and auditor.
Finally, narrative indicators provide real time illustrations of CSAs’ attention to the principles of
sustainable agriculture; they are process (not outcomes) focused, as in traditional auditing. That
is, CSAs do not report how much manure was spread on the farm, or how much lettuce was
harvested. Rather, their reporting is tied to the experience of being in that place, on that farm,
part of that CSA. The food CSA harvest becomes more a token of the experience, the
relationships, the land preservation (Walker and Hanson 1998) and the productive process
overall than a measure of productive efficiency as in an auditing frame.
Implications
Originally, narrative transparency (Olson 1999) referred to the capacity of a narrative to
be understood across different cultures; a goal that was achieved by referencing archetypal
themes, stories, characters and relationships. As we have adapted it here, the techniques used in
transparency communication reference archetypal themes and thus are easily understood, unlike
formal reports that may contain complex diagrams, tables and insider industrial jargon
(McDonagh 1998; Prothero, McDonagh & Dobscha 2010). Communicating in a language that
connects to local heritage has implications for many businesses. For example, Monsanto has not
sold its story of agriculture in France because French farmers and consumers have not allowed
GMOs (BBCNews 2013). This is partially because the local agricultural narrative is about
heritage (terroir), tradition (artisanship, e.g., fait à la main) and the past (e.g., fait à l’ancien),
rather than a techno-scientific future. It may be beneficial to organizations to seek deep
understanding of local culture and how the underlying narrative of the organization could fit in
26
with that. Monsanto’s narrative is not transparent in this context.
The narrative tactics CSA website employ are consistent with recommendations
transparency advocates offer to foster stakeholder involvement (Stirton and Lodge 2001;
Tapscott and Ticoll 2003). That is, CSA websites offer useful, actionable information in a
simple, accessible, familiar form and invite stakeholders to participate, dialogue, and provide
feedback. But, to do so they make use of archetypal personae, allegories and myths.
Functioning markets depend on stakeholders’ ability to assess the quality of an
organization (King and Whetten 2008, 200); this is the ostensible purpose of auditing. But
techniques of narrative transparency enact rather than assert credibility (Vendelø 1998, 128;
Phillips and Halliday 2008). This is accomplished through improvisational dialogic exchange
where values and goals are backed up with reports of actions and invitations consistent with the
tropes of consumer enlightenment. We have illustrated that narrative transparency also invokes
evaluative schemas through the tactics discussed above, amassing symbolic resources that may
be more or less effectively deployed by an organization (Megicks et al. 2012). While moving
from a unidirectional information flow to a dialogic approach to communication means
relinquishing control of branding and messaging, in the Web 2.0 era, corporate control of
messaging is already gone, there is only the veneer of control (Jones, Temperley and Lima
2009). Starting a stakeholder dialogue contributes to transparency, openness and public
engagement (Weber 2007). Further, narrative transparency may facilities identification formation
by providing formal and informal conduits for sensegiving and sensemaking activities (Arsel and
Bean 2013; Press and Arnould 2011b).
Following Olson’s work on narrative transparency, we assert that narrative transparency
is not restricted to alternative or emerging market forms like CSA. Our results find resonance in
27
recent work in online communications in that reveals the importance of consistent performance
of persona and use of resonant “cultural stories” in crafting persuasive communications
(Kozinets, et al. 2010, 86). Other companies have adopted elements of a narrative approach to
accountability. Everlane, a small direct-sales, staple clothing company is a case in point. On their
home page, they exhort: “Know your factories. Know your costs. Always ask why.” The text that
follows, as well as the “about us” page evokes what they call “Radical Transparency”
(https://www.everlane.com/about). That is, they encourage customers to interact with the
company and act as auditors by asking questions. In addition, they clearly state their values and
offer information about their founder and factories including seemingly candid photographs and
journalistic explanations to show they act in accordance with these values. By doing this, they
adopt techniques similar to those of CSAs of turning the factory rather than the farm into a
destination, in an effort to create interested participants out of their customers (Walker and
Hanson 1998).
By contrast, many corporations fail in their attempts to disclose information to their
customers. For example, while Papa John’s advertises “better ingredients, better pizza,” the
company does not provide ingredient lists and is not forthcoming with information. This
secretive approach to market communications provokes the sceptical reactions now typical of an
environment marked by the climate of pervasive social risk and Web 2.0. For example:
“...maybe they go the extra mile to make a high-quality pizza…although the fact that Papa John's garlic sauce…is made with a slew of additives…does not inspire confidence…By not disclosing what's in its food, Papa John's is revealing that it doesn't think too much of its customers. It is either asking customers for blind trust or assuming people are too stupid and complacent to ask questions” (Warner 2013).
Understanding principles of narrative transparency may provide a framework for companies to
determine what they could/should disclose and what they are not prepared to disclose. It is
28
possible that a narrative framework could help organizations separate marketing trickery from
authentic disclosure.
Narrative transparency offers an approach to accountability that could be useful to
organizations that are trying to position themselves in the sustainability space, and thus must
address concerns about the environment and social equity. Chipotle Mexican Grill is a corporate
example of such a firm that demonstrates how rhetorical devices, or expressions of narrative
transparency, are currently used to provide assurance (Suddaby and Greenwood 2005). Multiple
web pages use photographs and videos, as well as rhetorical tactics of narrative transparency to
illustrate what they mean by “food with integrity.” For example,
Many pigs are raised on factory farms and don't have a great life. They are penned in concrete and steel and given large amounts of antibiotics to fend off the diseases this type of confinement breeds…these farms aren't good for anyone. Luckily, there is a better way…There are ranchers whose pigs are raised outside or in deeply bedded pens, are never given antibiotics and are fed a vegetarian diet… (http://www.chipotle.com/en-us/fwi/videos/videos.aspx?v=3).
In addition, the main page of Chipotle’s website has a prominent link to “talk to us” and when
clicked, FAQs range from “what was that song?” to “how is Chipotle impacting pesticide
usage?”, indicating that serious and trivial questions are both important, and providing a platform
for dialogue. Similarly, KOR is a small company whose mission is to “perfect the reusable
[water] bottle” and spread the word about “sustainable hydration”
(http://www.korwater.com/mission). KOR uses the rhetorical devices we discuss to paint a
compelling and inviting picture of the company.
In addition, narrative transparency could offers an approach to accountability for
organizations, like utilities, quasi-monopolies, and public services, that find themselves
compelled either by regulatory or market functions to adopt a sustainability priorities. Many of
29
these organizations operate in a space where customers have a limited view of what they do;
further applied research on narrative transparency could help resolve this issue.
However, many large companies seem to approach these narrative communications as
secondary to the auditable report. This suggests the potential for future research to investigate
how narrative transparency might be employed to greater strategic effect particularly by firms
that have suffered a past rupture in public trust, e.g., Nike’s sweat shop scandal that continues to
resonate with the public and sceptical researchers alike (Ballinger 2008). This would take
research beyond exhortations to tell well-crafted stories (Dowling 2006), but to tell stories that
evoke particular meanings as CSA stories do.
Transparency communications creates a delicate marketing dilemma as companies are
pressured to disclose practices in the global context of discredited authority (Edelman Insights
2012; Thompson 2005) and skepticism about the ways that operational risks are assessed and
communicated (Beck 1992). Narrative transparency provides communication tools for
accountability that have not been offered through third-party verification, certification and
numeric metrics. The rhetorical devices discussed above may provide an alternate route to
transparency of more general value (Lamin and Zaheer 2012). Futur research could explore how
these rhetorical practices could be formalized (Pentland 2000), and these seemingly
improvisational actions developed into more choreographed communicative tactics.
Limitations
We raise two limitations of our study. First is the absence of consumer data. Because the
focus of this paper is on a strategic marketing communications issue, we only use organizational
data. Recent papers (Coskuner-Balli and Thompson 2007; Press and Arnould 2011a; 2011b)
30
provide indirect evidence for the effectiveness of CSA tactics in producing customer
identification. Second is the reliance on a single alternative marketing organization to advance
our arguments. While we made and in-depth assessment and we sampled this sector
systematically and broadly, we still relied on a single organizational form to develop our
arguments. Future research exploring alternative ways of communicating transparency and
garnering legitimacy would do well to draw systematically on on-going scholarship on the use of
narrative and rhetorical devices in organizational behaviour and marketing communications,
respectively.
References
Arbesman, S. (2012). The invisible borders that define American culture. The Atlantic, April 26, 2012, http://www.theatlanticcities.com/arts-and-lifestyle/2012/04/invisible-borders-define-american-culture/1839/. Accessed on July 11, 2013.
Arsel, Z. & Bean, J. (2013). ‘Taste regimes and market-mediated practice’. Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (February), 899-917.
Ballinger, J. (2008). ‘No sweat? Corporate social responsibility and the dilemma of anti-sweatshop activism’. New Labor Forum, 17 (Summer), 91–98.
Barnes, K. (2012). ‘Susta-what?’ Shelton Group. Knoxville, TN: Accessible at http://sheltongrp.com/susta-what/. Downloaded July 17, 2012.
Barthes, R. (1972), Mythologies. (A. Lavers, Trans.) New York: Hill and Wang.
BBC (2012). World have your say (WHYS) 60: Your questions to Mike Daisey. BBC World Service, (February 23). http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00ntwb4
BBCNews (2013). Monsanto drops GM crop plan in EU, BBCNews. 18 July 2013. Available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23356054; Downloaded 21 July 2013.
Beck, U. (1990). On the way toward an industrial society of risk? International Journal of Political Economy, 20, 51-69.
Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage.
31
Beck, U. (2006). Living in the world risk society. Economy & Society, 35, 329-345.
Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. London: Sage.
Boyce, M. E. (1996). Organizational story and storytelling: A critical review. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 9, 5-26.
Brown, A. (1995). Organizational culture. London: Pitman.
Brownlie, D. (1996). Marketing audits and auditing: diagnosis through intervention. Journal of Marketing Management, 12, 99-112.
Brownlie, D., Hewer, P. & Ferguson, P. (2007). Theory into practice: meditations on cultures of accountability and interdisciplinarity in marketing research. Journal of Marketing Management, 23:5-6, 395-409
Bushman, R. M., & Smith, A. S. (2003). Transparency, financial accounting, information and corporate governance. Federal Reserve Bank of New York Economic Policy Review, 9(1), 65-87.
C. Barnes & Co. (2013a). United States Public Relations Agencies Industry Capital & Expenses Report. 2013. C Barnes & Co.
C. Barnes & Co. (2013b). Worldwide Public Relations Agencies Industry Report. 2013, C Barnes & Co.
Cayla, J. & Arnould, E. (2013). Ethnographic Stories for Market Learning. Journal of Marketing. 77 (July), 1-16.
Chipotle (n.d.), “We Treat Them Like Meat,” [available at: http://www.chipotle.com/en-US/fwi/animals/animals.aspx].
Choi, S.-H. (2011). Anti-consumption becomes a trend. SERI Quarterly, 4 (July), 117-120.
Clegg, S. R., Rhodes, C. & Kornberger, M. (2007). Desperately seeking legitimacy: Organizational identity and emerging industries. Organization Studies 28, 495–513.
Cohen, L. (2004). A consumers' republic: The politics of mass consumption in postwar America. New York: First Vintage Books.
Cotterrel, R. (1999). Transparency, mass media, ideology and community. Cultural Values, 3, 414-426.
Crane, A. (1998). Exploring Green Alliances. Journal of Marketing Management, 14 (6), 559-579.
32
Creed, W. E. D., Langstraat, J. A. & Scully, M. A. (2000). A picture of the frame: Frame analysis as technique and as politics. Organizational Research Methods 5, 34–55.
De Tocqueville, A. (1945) Democracy in America. Vol 1. New York: Vintage.
Deephouse, David (1999), “To be different, or to be the same? It’s a question (and theory) of strategic balance,” Strategic Management Journal, 20 (2), 147 – 166.
Delbaere, M., McQuarrie, E. F. & Phillips, B. J. (2011). Personification in advertising. Journal of Advertising, 40, 121-130.
Deumes, R., Meuwissen, R., Peek, E., Schelleman, C., & Vanstraelen, A. (2010). The value of audit. Maastricht Accounting, Auditing and Information Management Research Center (MARC) Maastricht University. Research project commissioned by the Standards Working Group / Global Public Policy Committee (March).
DiMaggio, P. J. & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147-60.
Dingwerth, K. & Eichinger, M. (2010). Tamed transparency: How information disclosure under the Global Reporting Initiative fails to empower. Global Environmental Politics, 10, 74-96.
DIY Week. (2012). Consumers doubt big firms' green motives, Kingfisher survey shows. DIY Week. 10/19/2012, p5.
Dowling, G. (2006). Communicating corporate reputation through stories. California Management Review, 49, 82-100.
Drew, C. H., & Nyerges, T. L. (2004). Transparency of environmental decision making: A case study of soil cleanup inside the Hanford 100 area. Journal of Risk Research, 7, 33-71.
Edelman Insights (2012). Edelman Trust Barometer: Global Deck. New York and Chicago: Edelman PR. Accessed at http://www.slideshare.net/EdelmanInsights/2012-edelman-trust-barometer-global-deck Downloaded July 17, 2013.
Elazar, D. J. (1984). American federalism. 3rd ed. New York: Harper& Row.
Etzion, D. & Ferraro, F. (2010). The role of analogy in the institutionalization of sustainability reporting. Organization Science, 21, 1092-1107.
Fehn, B. (2005). Theodore Roosevelt and American masculinity. OAH Magazine of History, 19, 52-59.
33
Florini, A.M. (1999). Does the invisible hand need a transparent glove? The politics of transparency. Annual World Bank Conference on Development Economics (1–40). Washington, DC: World Bank.
Garreau, J. (1981). The nine nations of North America. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Giddens, Anthony (1989). Sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Giesler, M. (2008). Conflict and compromise: Drama in marketplace evolution. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 739-753.
Gilbert, D. & Rasche, A. (2008). Opportunities and problems of standardized ethics initiatives – a stakeholder theory perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 82, 755-773.
Global Reporting Initiative (2011). Sustainability reporting guidelines (version 3.1). http://www.globalreporting.org/ReportingFramework/ReportingFrameworkDownloads/]
Glover, J. M. (1990). Romance, recreation, and wilderness: Influences on the life and work of Bob Marshall. Environmental History Review, 14, 22-39.
Goldman, R. & Papson, S. (2006). Capital’s brandscapes. Journal of Consumer Culture, 6(3): 327–353.
Graham, M. and Haarstad, H. (2011). Transparency and development: Ethical consumption through web 2.0 and the internet of things. Information Technologies & International Development, 7 (Spring), 1-18.
Grant, A. & Dacin, P.A. (2013). The yin and yang of co-creation. Consumer Culture Theory Conference, Tucson, AZ.
Grant, D. (2004). The Sage handbook of organizational discourse. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Green, Heather and Kerry Capell (2008), “Carbon Confusion,” BusinessWeek, March 17, 2008, 52-55.
Hamilton, K. & Hewer, P. (2010). Tribal mattering spaces: Social-networking sites, celebrity affiliations, and tribal innovations. Journal of Marketing Management, 26 (3-4), 271-289.
Hartmann, Benjamin, J., Caroline Wiertz and Eric J. Arnould (2013), “Exploring Moments of Consumptive Participation in Online Community,” Jönköping: Department of Marketing and Logistics/ Media Management and Transformation Centre at Jönköping International Business School, Jönköping University.
Heald, D. (2006). Varieties of transparency. In Hood, C. & Heald, D. (Eds.), Transparency: The key to better governance. (25-43), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
34
Healy, M.J. & Beverland, M.B. (2013). Unleashing the animal within: Exploring consumers’ zoomorphic identity motives. Journal of Marketing Management, 29 (1-2), 225-248.
Herman, R. (2003). An Exercise in Early Modern Branding. Journal of Marketing Management. 19 (September), 709-727.
Heslop L. A. (2006). If we label it, will they care? The effect of GM-ingredient labelling on consumer responses. Journal of Consumer Policy, 29, 203–228.
Hoek, Janet, Nicole Roling and David Holdsworth (2013), “Ethical Claims and Labelling: An Analysis of Consumers’ Beliefs and Choice Behaviors,” Journal of Marketing Management, 29 (7-8), 772-792.
Holma, C. & Zamanb, M. (2012). Regulating audit quality: Restoring trust and legitimacy. Accounting Forum, 36, 51–61.
Hopkinson, G. C. & Hogarth-Scott, S. (2001). “What happened was..." Broadening the Agenda for Storied Research. Journal of Marketing Management, 17 (February), 27-47.
Ind, N. (2005). Beyond Branding: How the new values of transparency and integrity are changing the world of brands, London: Kogan Page.
Iyer, R. and. Muncy, J. A. (2009). Purpose and object of anti-consumption. Journal of Business Research, 62 (February),160–168
Jones, B., Temperley, J. & Lima, A. (2009). Corporate reputation in the era of Web 2.0: the case of Primark. Journal of Marketing Management, 25 (November), 927-939
Kern, M. (1999). Is openness working? A progress report, Seattle, WA: Hanford Openness Workshops. http://www.hanford.gov/boards/openness
Kilbourne, W. E. (2004). Sustainable Communication and the Dominant Social Paradigm: Can They Be Integrated? Marketing Theory 4 (3), 187–208.
King, B. & Whetten, D. A. (2008). Rethinking the relationship between reputation and legitimacy: A social actor conceptualization. Corporate Reputation Review, 11, 192-207.
KOR (n.d.) “Our Story,” [available at http://www.korwater.com/story].
Kozinets, R.V. (2002). The field behind the screen: Using netnography for marketing research in online communities. Journal of Marketing Research, 39 (February), 61-72.
Kozinets, R. V. (2008). Technology/ideology: How ideological fields influence consumers' technology narratives. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 865-881.
35
Kozinets, R. V., de Valck, K. Wojnicki, A. C. & Wilner, S. J. S. (2010). Networked narratives: understanding word-of-mouth marketing in online communities. Journal of Marketing, 74 (March), 71-89.
Kozinets, R. V. & Handelman, J. M. (2004). Adversaries of consumption: Consumer movements, activism, and ideology. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 691-704.
Lamin, A. & Zaheer, S. (2012). Wall Street vs. Main Street: Firm strategies for defending legitimacy and their impact on different stakeholders. Organization Science, 23, 47–66.
Lass, D., Stevenson, G.W., Hendrickson, J. & Ruhf, K. (2003). CSA Across the Nation: Findings from the 1999 CSA Farm Survey. Madison: Center for Integrated Agricultural Systems.
Lewis, S. (2001). Measuring Corporate Reputation. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 6 (1), 31-35.
Lieske, J. (1993). Regional subcultures of the United States. The Journal of Politics, 55 (November), 888-913.
Lieske, J. (2010). The changing regional subcultures of the American States and the utility of a new cultural measure. Political Research Quarterly, 63 (September), 538-552.
Lofland, J., & Lofland, L. (1984). Analysing social settings: A guide to qualitative observation and analysis. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
McDonagh, P. (1998). Towards a theory of sustainable communication in risk society: relating issues of sustainability to marketing communications. Journal of Marketing Management, 25 (7/8), 811-824.
Megicks, P., Memery, J., & Angell, R. J. (2012). Understanding local food shopping: Unpacking the ethical dimension. Journal of Marketing Management, 28:3-4, 264-289.
McEachern, M. and Warnaby, G.G. (2005). Improving customer orientation within the fresh meat supply chain: a focus on assurance schemes. Journal of Marketing Management, 21:1-2, 89-115.
Nash, R. F. (1967). Wilderness and the American mind. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Olson, S. R. (1999). Hollywood Planet: Global Media and the Competitive Advantage of Narrative Transparency. New York and London: Routledge.
Paton, M. Q. (1980). Qualitative evaluation methods. London: Sage.
Pentland, B. T. (2000). Will auditors take over the world? Program, technique and the verification of everything. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 25, 307-312.
36
Phillips, P. & Halliday, S. V. (2008). Marketing/accounting synergy: a discussion of its potential and evidence in e-business planning, Journal of Marketing Management, 24:7-8, 751-770.
Power, M. (1997). From risk society to audit society. Soziale systeme, 3 ,3-21.
Power, M. (1999). The audit society: Rituals of verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Power, M., Scheytt, T., Soin, K. & Sahlin, K. (2009). Reputational risk as a logic of organizing in late modernity. Organization Studies, 30, 301-324.
Press, M. & Arnould, E. J. (2011a). Legitimating community supported agriculture through American pastoralist ideology. Journal of Consumer Culture, 11, 168-194.
Press, M. & Arnould, E. J. (2011b). How does organizational identification form? A consumer behavior perspective,” Journal of Consumer Research, 38, 650-666.
Prothero, A., P. McDonagh & Dobscha, S. (2010), “Is green the new black? Reflections on a green commodity discourse,” Journal of Macromarketing, 30 (2), 147-159.
Prothero, A., Peattie, K. & McDonagh, P. (1997). Communicating greener strategies: a study of on-pack communication. Business Strategy and the Environment 6 (2), 74-82.
Quinn, B. (2010). Keeping Green Claims Accurate. Pollution Engineering, 42 (January), 15.
Rampton, S. & Stauber, J. (2001). Trust Us, We're Experts! How Industry Manipulates and Gambles with Your Future. New York: Tarcher/Putnam.
Roslender, R. & Wilson, R. M. S. (2008). The marketing / accounting synergy: a final word but certainly not the last word. Journal of Marketing Management, 24 (7-8), 865-876.
Schullery, P. (1978). A partnership in conservation: Roosevelt & Yellowstone. Montana: The Magazine of Western History, 28, 2-15.
Schwarzkopf, S. (2011). The consumer as “voter,” judge,” and “jury”: Historical origins and political consequences of a marketing myth. Journal of Macromarketing, 31, 8-18.
Segars, A.H. and Kohut, G.F. (2001). Strategic communication through the world wide web: An empirical model of effectiveness in the CEO’s letter to shareholders. Journal of Management Studies, 38 (June), 535-556.
Shankar, A.; Elliott, R. & Goulding, C. (2001). Understanding Consumption: Contributions from a Narrative Perspective. Journal of Marketing Management, 17 (April), 429-453.
Shaw, G., Brown, R., & Bromiley, P. (1998). Strategic stories: How 3M is rewriting business planning. Harvard Business Review, May–June, 41–50.
37
Sidhu, B. K. & Roberts, J. H. (2008). The marketing accounting interface - lessons and limitations. Journal of Marketing Management, 24 (September), 669-686.
Spiggle, S. (1994). Analysis and interpretation of qualitative data in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (December), 491-503.
Stern, B. B. (1988). Medieval Allegory: Roots of Advertising Strategy for the Mass Market. Journal of Marketing, 52 (July), 84-94.
Stern, B. B. (1990). Other-speak: Classical allegory and contemporary advertising. Journal of Advertising, 19, 19-26.
Stern, B. B. (1993). The firm, the author, and the persona: A literary model of the source of advertising. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 15, 15-24.
Stiglitz, J. E. (1999). On liberty, the right to know, and public discourse: the role of transparency in public life. Oxford Amnesty Lecture, 27 January, Oxford: The World Bank.
Stirton, L. & Lodge, M. (2001). Transparency mechanisms: Building publicness into public services. Journal of Law and Society, 28, 471-489.
Suddaby, R. & Greenwood, R. (2005). Rhetorical strategies of legitimacy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 35–67.
Tapscott, D. & Ticoll, D. (2003). The naked corporation: How the age of transparency will revolutionize business. New York: Free Press.
Taylor, S. J., & Bogdan, R. (1984). Introduction to qualitative research methods: The search for meanings. New York, NY: John Wiley.
Tegtmeier, E. & Duffy, M. (2005). Ecolabel Value Assessment Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) in the Midwest United States: A Regional Characterization. Ames, IA: Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture.
Thompson, C. J. (2005). Consumer risk perceptions in a community of reflexive doubt. Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (September), 235-48.
Thompson, C. J. & Coskuner-Balli, G. (2007). Countervailing market responses to corporate co-optation and the ideological recruitment of consumption communities. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 135-52.
Thompson, C. J. & Troester, M. (2002). Consumer value systems in the age of postmodern fragmentation: The case of the natural health microculture. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 550-557.
38
Vendelø, M. T. (1998). Narrating corporate reputation. International Studies of Management & Organization, 28, 120-138.
Vogel, D. (1983). Trends in shareholder activism: 1970-1982. California Management Review. 25 (Spring), 68-87.
Von Furstenburg, G. M. (2001). Hopes and delusions of transparency. North American Journal of Economics and Finance, 12, 105-120.
Waddock, S. (2008). Building a new institutional infrastructure for corporate responsibility. Academy of Management Perspectives, 22, 88–108.
Walker, R. H. & Hanson, D. J. (1998). Green marketing and green places: a taxonomy for the destination marketer. Journal of Marketing Management, 14 (6), 623-639.
Wallendorf, M. & Belk, R.W. (1989). Assessing trustworthiness in naturalistic consumer research. In Hirschman, E.C. (Ed.), Interpretive Consumer Research, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
Warner, Melanie (2013), “What Papa John's Doesn't Want You to Know About Its Food,” August 13, [available at http://health.usnews.com/health-news/blogs/eat-run/2013/08/13/what-papa-johns-doesnt-want-you-to-know-about-their-food]. Weber, L. (2007). Marketing on the social web: How digital customer communities build your business. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
i In discussing agriculture giants Cargill and ADM, Goldman and Papson (2006) point out both
companies branding strategies show them as “dynamic, yet environmentally friendly” (Goldman
and Papson 2006, 334) and cultivate a union of universal humanism and technotopia (Kozinets
2008), which can lead to salvation narratives such as the “[h]armony and bounty [that] coexist in
corporate images of agriculture where individual farmers stand beside fields of healthy crops
thanks to advances in biotechnology, aerospace, and computing” (Goldman and Papson 2006,
349). Howeve, the ethical scandals and litigation surrounding these firms are well-documented.
Generally “big ag” offers ample illustrations of actions that conflict with stated values. Both
Cargill and ADM websites have extensive web pages on corporate responsibility
39
(http://www.cargill.com/corporate-responsibility/index.jsp; http://www.adm.com/en-
US/responsibility/2011CR/Pages/default.aspx), however finding a means of contact is difficult.
When we called ADM to ask for the most recent Corporate Responsibility (CR) report, three
receptionists said they did not know what CR was and offered to transfer us to the IT department
to report a missing web page. This anecdote well illustrates organizations not demonstrating
actions that back up stated values.
