Magnus FredrikssonDepartment of Journalism, Media and Communication

University of Gothenburgmagnus.fredriksson@jmg.gu.se

Eva-Karin OlssonDepartment of Communication and Media

Lund Universityeva-karin.olsson@kom.lu.se

Corporate Environmental Communication:Political or Economical Discourse?

Starting points• Environmental communication as a strive forlegitimacy

• Risk society and the dissolution of borders• Environmental communication as politicaldiscourse

• Political discourse a discourse with a highdegree of informativity

The questioning of knowledge monopoly• Risks as a structural factor in organizing sociallife. Second modernity characterized bycomplexity and uncertainty

• Dissolution of boundaries between thepublic/private sphere

• Blurring of responsibility• Reflexivity as coping mechanism• Informativity provider of pre-conditions forreflexivity

Market discourse• : guided by the principles of self-interest endorsing adiscourse of promotion. The discourse that is expectto have the greatest effect

Political discourse• Guided by the public interest and a discourseof reasoning. Meet the individual’s need forinformation and her ability to makeindependent decisions about a the issue.

• In other words political discourse in this sensecould be described as a discourse covering anissue from a number of different perspectivesfulfilling high expectations on informativity.

Informativity• Frequency• Range• Context

Earlier findings• Market perspective with a pessimistic outlook• Corporations as reactive in real damagingissues

• Underlines the need for a broader societalperspective

Aim• What is the character of corporations’environmental discourse, is it market orpolitical driven?

Metohodology and selection• 20 corporations listed on the Stockholm stockexchange (large cap)

• Content analysis• Annual reports

Measurement of informativity (I)• what actions have the company taken withinthe environmental field? (What);

• how is the company conducting itsenvironmental work? (How);

• what tools is the company using in itsenvironmental work? (Tools);

• when did (or will) the company perform itsenvironmental work? (When);

• where has (or will) the company undertaken itsenvironmental work (Where)

Measurement of informativity (II)• what are the results of the environmentalwork? (Result)

• what causes can help explain the outcome?(Cause);

• Why is the company engaged in environmentalwork? (Why);

Measurement of informativity (III)• who is responsible for the company’senvironmental work? (Responsible);

• what goals does the company have with itsenvironmental work (Goals);

• who does the company perceive as itsstakeholders in environmental issues(Stakeholders);

• what are the preconditions for the company’senvironmental work (Background).

Paragraphs Answers Env./CSR (%)

ABB 230 371 38Assa Abloy 41 70 26Astra Zeneca 44 99 11Atlas Copco 46 106 34Boliden 139 293 41Ericsson 81 181 26Handelsbanken 14 31 21H&M 19 38 50Investor - - -Nordea 1 2 0Sandvik 63 124 36SCA 140 295 40Scania 43 64 42SEB 1 2 5Skanska 23 59 41SKF 67 174 42Swedbank 12 37 60Tele2 2 0 0TeliaSonera 6 18 50Volvo 66 125 44

Mean 52 104 31

Frequency Range Context Informativity

ABB 1.61 .45 .19 .75Assa Abloy 1.71 .36 .09 .72Astra Zeneca 2.25 .51 .34 1.03Atlas Copco 2.30 .46 .15 .97Boliden 2.11 .47 .18 .92Ericsson 2.23 .45 .23 .97Handelsbanken 2.21 .35 .26 .94H&M 2.00 .32 .29 .87Investor 0 0 0 0Nordea 2.00 0 0 .67Sandvik 1.97 .42 .13 .84SCA 2.11 .52 .27 .97Scania 1.49 .45 .20 .71SEB 2.00 0 .50 .83Skanska 2.57 .46 .22 1.08SKF 2.60 .38 .16 1.05Swedbank 3.08 .35 .27 1.23Tele2 0 0 0 0TeliaSonera 3.00 .44 .28 1.24Volvo 1.89 .51 .22 .87

Mean 2.00 .35 .20 .83

Conclusions• The provided information differs substantiallyin informativity

• Dominated by a market driven discourse withfew examples of political discourse

• Portrays a quasi responsibility discourse, thatis a market driven portraying an image ofresponsibility and transparency