Adopting a communication as constitutive of organization (CCO) perspective on ethics and corporate social responsibility (CSR) invites us to create the conditions of a dialogue, discussion, or debate between various stakeholders, who can then try to confront their respective positions on a given issue, and possibly come to a decision regarding how a situation should be evaluated and/or responded to. As shown in this article, getting human stakeholders to voice their concerns about a specific situation is a way not only to rationally confront multiple viewpoints on what should be done about it (à la Habermas) but also to allow elements of this situation to reveal themselves in a discussion. This is why any ethical decision has to experience a form of undecidability and surprisability. When beliefs and opinions can be called into question, it means that participants are ready to become attentive to what a situation might surprisingly call for. Communication is therefore a matter of ventriloquism, as human participants should also be considered the means by which elements of a situation manage to express themselves in a discussion, dictating specific courses of action over others. This concretely means that multiple voices can be heard in such a scene: not only the voices of the human stakeholders who speak to each other but also the voices of facts, principles, future generations, ecosystems, populations that are made to say things through these various turns of talk.
AllenB. J. (2005). Social constructionism. In MayS.MumbyD. K.(Eds.), Engaging organizational communication theory and research: Multiple perspectives (pp. 35-53). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
2.
AndersenN. A. (2003). The undecidability of decisions. In HernesT.BakkenT. (Eds.), Autopoietic organization theory: Drawing on Niklas Luhmann’s social systems perspective (pp. 235-258). Oslo, Norway: Copenhagen Business School Press.
AshforthB. E.GibbsB. W. (1990). The double-edge of organizational legitimation. Organization Science, 1, 177-194.
5.
AustinJ. L. (1962). How to do things with words: William James lectures. Oxford, UK: Clarendon.
6.
AxleyS. R. (1984). Managerial and organizational communication in terms of the conduit metaphor. Academy of Management Review, 9, 428-437.
7.
BanerjeeS. B. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: The good, the bad and the ugly. Critical Sociology, 34, 51-79.
8.
BartesaghiM. (2014). Ventriloquism as a matter for discourse analysis. Language Under Discussion, 2, 50-57.
9.
Benoit-BarnéC. (2009). Reflections on science and technology controversies, material recalcitrance and empty reservoirs that suddenly become full. In JacobsS. (Ed.), Concerning argument: Selected papers from the 15th Biennial conference on argumentation (pp. 70-77). Washington, DC: National Communication Association.
10.
Benoit-BarnéC.CoorenF. (2009). The accomplishment of authority through presentification: How authority is distributed among and negotiated by organizational members. Management Communication Quarterly, 23, 5-31.
11.
BergeronC. D.CoorenF. (2012). The collective framing of crisis management: A ventriloqual analysis of emergency operations centres. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 20, 120-137.
12.
BitzerL. F. (1968). The rhetorical situation. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 1, 1-14.
13.
BrummansB. H. J. M.CoorenF.ChaputM. (2009). Discourse, communication, and organisational ontology. In Bargiela-ChiappiniF. (Ed.), The handbook of business discourse (pp. 53-65). Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press.
14.
BurrellG.MorganG. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis: Elements of the sociology of corporate life. London, England: Routledge.
15.
CastellóI.MorsingM.SchultzF. (2013). Communicative dynamics and the polyphony of corporate social responsibility in the network society. Journal of Business Ethics, 118, 683-694.
16.
ChristensenL. T.CheneyG. (2011). Interrogating the communicative dimensions of corporate social responsibility. In IhlenØ.BartlettJ. L.MayS. (Eds.), The handbook of communication and corporate social responsibility (pp. 491-504). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
17.
ChristensenL. T.MorsingM.ThyssenO. (2011). The polyphony of corporate social responsibility: Deconstructing accountability and transparency in the context of identity and hypocrisy. In CheneyG.MayS.MunshiD. (Eds.), Handbook of communication ethics (pp. 457-474). New York, NY: Routledge.
18.
ChristensenL. T.MorsingM.ThyssenO. (2013). CSR as aspirational talk. Organization, 20, 372-393.
19.
ChristensenL. T.MorsingM.ThyssenO. (2016). Strategic aspirations. In CarrollC. E. (Ed.), SAGE encyclopedia of corporate reputation (pp. 818-821). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20.
ChristensenL. T.MorsingM.ThyssenO. (2017). License to critique: A communication perspective on sustainability standards. Business Ethics Quarterly, 27, 239-262.
21.
CooperJ. (2007). Cognitive dissonance: Fifty years of a classic theory. London, England: Sage.
22.
CoorenF. (2000). The organizing property of communication. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
23.
CoorenF. (2006). The organizational world as a plenum of agencies. In CoorenF.TaylorJ. R.Van EveryE. J. (Eds.), Communication as organizing: Empirical and theoretical explorations in the dynamic of text and conversation (pp. 81-100). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
24.
CoorenF. (2008). The selection of agency as a rhetorical device: Opening up the scene of dialogue through ventriloquism. In WeigandE. (Ed.), Dialogue and rhetoric (pp. 23-37). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
25.
CoorenF. (2010). Action and agency in dialogue: Passion, incarnation, and ventriloquism. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
26.
CoorenF. (2012). Communication theory at the center: Ventriloquism and the communicative constitution of reality. Journal of Communication, 62, 1-20.
CoorenF. (2015). In medias res: Communication, existence and materiality. Communication Research and Practice, 1, 307-321.
29.
CoorenF. (2016). Ethics for dummies: Ventriloquism and responsibility. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 24, 17-30.
30.
CoorenF.BencherkiN.ChaputM.VasquezC. (2015). The communicative constitution of strategy-making: Exploring fleeting moments of strategy. In GolsorkhiD.RouleauL.SeidlD.VaaraE. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of strategy as practice (2nd ed., pp. 365-388). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
31.
CoorenF.BrummansB. H. J. M.CharrierasD. (2008). The coproduction of organizational presence: A study of Médecins Sans Frontières in action. Human Relations, 61, 1339-1370.
32.
CoorenF.MatteF.Benoit-BarnéC.BrummansB. H. (2013). Communication as ventriloquism: A grounded-in-action approach to the study of organizational tensions. Communication Monographs, 80, 255-277.
33.
CoorenF.SandlerS. (2014). Polyphony, ventriloquism, and constitution: In dialogue with Bakhtin. Communication Theory, 24, 225-244.
34.
CornelissenJ. P. (2004). What are we playing at? Theatre, organization, and the use of metaphor. Organization Studies, 25, 705-726.
35.
CornelissenJ. P. (2005). Beyond compare: Metaphor in organization theory. Academy of Management Review, 30, 751-764.
36.
CraneA.GlozerS. (2016). Researching corporate social responsibility communication: Themes, opportunities and challenges. Journal of Management Studies, 53, 1223-1252.
37.
DeetzS. (1992). Democracy in an age of corporate colonization: Developments in communication and the politics of everyday life. New York: State University of New York Press.
38.
DerridaJ. (1992). Force of law. In CornellD.RosenfeldM.CarlsonD. C. (Eds.), Deconstruction and the possibility of justice (pp. 3-67). New York, NY: Routledge.
39.
DerridaJ. (1994). Specters of Marx: The state of the debt, the work of mourning, and the new international. New York, NY: Routledge.
40.
DeweyJ. (1908). What does pragmatism mean by practical?Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods, 5(4), 85-99.
41.
DeweyJ. (1944). Democracy and education. An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York, NY: The Free Press. (Original work published 1916)
42.
FairhurstG. T.PutnamL. L. (2004). Organizations as discursive constructions. Communication Theory, 14, 5-26.
43.
FerrellO. C.Gonzalez-PadronT. L.HultT. M.MaignanI. (2010). From market orientation to stakeholder orientation. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 29, 93-96.
44.
FestingerL. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
45.
GioiaD. A.ChittipeddiK. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 433-448.
46.
GondJ. P.MoonJ. (2011). Corporate social responsibility in retrospect and prospect: Exploring the life-cycle of an essentially contested concept. ICCSR Research Paper Series, 59, 1-40.
47.
GumbrechtH. U. (2004). Production of presence: What meaning cannot convey. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
48.
GutheyE.MorsingM. (2014). CSR and the mediated emergence of strategic ambiguity. Journal of Business Ethics, 120, 555-569.
49.
HabermasJ. (1984). The theory of communicative action: Reason and the rationalization of society (Vol. 1) (McCarthyT., Trans.). Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
50.
HabermasJ. (1987). The theory of communicative action, Volume II: Lifeworld and system: A critique of functionalist reason (McCarthyT., Trans.). Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
51.
HabermasJ. (1990). Moral consciousness and communicative action (LenhardtC.Weber NicholsonS., Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
52.
HudsonN. (2016). Communication and power in the job interview: Using a ventriloqual approach to analyze moral accounts. Text & Talk, 36, 319-340.
53.
JahnJ. L. S. (2016). Adapting safety rules in a high reliability context: How wildland firefighting workgroups ventriloquize safety rules to understand hazards. Management Communication Quarterly, 30, 362-389.
54.
JohansenT. S.NielsenA. E. (2011). Strategic stakeholder dialogues: A discursive perspective on relationship building. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 16, 204-217.
55.
KoschmannM. A. (2012). The communicative constitution of collective identity in interorganizational collaboration. Management Communication Quarterly, 27, 61-89.
56.
KuhnT.BurkN. R. (2014). A (dis) organizing perspective on communicative constitution. Language and Communication at Work: Discourse, Narrativity, and Organizing, 4, 149-174.
57.
LatourB. (2000). When things strike back: A possible contribution of ‘science studies’ to the social sciences. British Journal of Sociology, 51, 107-123.
58.
LatourB. (2004). Politics of nature: How to bring the sciences into democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
59.
LeeperR. V. (1996). Moral objectivity, Jurgen Habermas’s discourse ethics, and public relations. Public Relations Review, 22, 133-150.
60.
LorinoP. (2014). From speech acts to act speeches: Collective activity, a discursive process speaking the language of habits. In CoorenF.VaaraE.LangleyA.TsoukasH. (Eds.), Language and communication at work: Discourse, narrativity, and organizing (pp. 95-124). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
61.
LorinoP. (2015). Learning as transforming collective activity through dialogical inquiries. In FilliettazL.BillettS. (Eds.), Francophone perspectives of learning through work: Conceptions, traditions and practices (pp. 145-168). New York, NY: Springer.
62.
LorinoP. (2018). Pragmatism and organization studies. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
63.
LuhmannN. (1995). Social systems. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
64.
McPheeR. D.ZaugP. (2000). The communicative constitution of organization: A framework for explanation. Electronic Journal of Communication / La Revue Electronique de Communication, 10, 1-16.
65.
MeisenbachR. J. (2006). Habermas’s discourse ethics and principle of universalization as a moral framework for organizational communication. Management Communication Quarterly, 20, 39-62.
66.
MisakC. (2013). The American pragmatists. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
67.
MorganG. (2006). Images of organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
68.
MorsingM.SchultzM. (2006). Corporate social responsibility communication: Stakeholder information, response and involvement strategies. Business Ethics: A European Review, 15, 323-338.
69.
O’RiordonL.FairbrassJ. (2008). Corporate social responsibility (CSR): Models and theories in stakeholder dialogue. Journal of Business Ethics, 83, 745-758.
70.
PeirceC. S. (1877, November). The fixation of belief. Popular Science Monthly, 12, 1-15.
71.
PeirceC. S. (1991). Peirce on signs: Writings on semiotic. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
72.
PetersJ. D. (1999). Speaking into the air: A history of the idea of communication. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
73.
PutnamL.PacanowskyM. E. (1983). Communication and organizations, an interpretive approach (Vol. 65). Thousand Osks, CA: Sage.
74.
ReynoldsM.YuthasK. (2008). Moral discourse and corporate social responsibility reporting. Journal of Business Ethics, 78, 47-64.
75.
RobertsJ. (2003). The manufacture of corporate social responsibility: Constructing corporate sensibility. Organization, 10, 249-265.
76.
SchererA. G.PalazzoG. (2007). Toward a political conception of corporate responsibility: Business and society seen from a Habermasian perspective. Academy of Management Review, 32, 1096-1120.
77.
SchoenebornD. (2011). Organization as communication: A Luhmannian perspective. Management Communication Quarterly, 25, 663-689.
78.
SchoenebornD.BlaschkeS.CoorenF.McPheeR. D.SeidlD.TaylorJ. R. (2014). The three schools of CCO thinking: Interactive dialogue and systematic comparison. Management Communication Quarterly, 28, 285-316.
79.
SchoenebornD.TrittinH. (2013). Transcending transmission: Towards a constitutive perspective on CSR communication. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 18, 193-211.
80.
SenS.BhattacharayaC. B.KorschunD. (2006). The role of corporate social responsibility in strengthening multiple stakeholder relationships: A field experiment. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34, 158-166.
81.
ShannonC. E.WeaverW. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
82.
SillinceJ. A. A. (2007). Organizational context and the discursive construction of organizing. Management Communication Quarterly, 20, 363-394.
83.
StohlC.StohlM. (2011). Secret agencies: The communicative constitution of a clandestine organization. Organization Studies, 32, 1197-1215.
84.
TaylorJ. R.Van EveryE. J. (2000). The emergent organization: Communication as site and surface. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
85.
TaylorJ. R.Van EveryE. J. (2011). The situated organization: Case studies in the pragmatics of communication. New York, NY: Routledge.
86.
TaylorJ. R.Van EveryE. J. (2014). When organization fails: Why authority matters. New York, NY: Routledge.
TrittinH.SchoenebornD. (2017). Diversity as polyphony: Reconceptualizing diversity management from a communication-centered perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 144, 305-322.
89.
VelasquezM. (2003). Debunking corporate moral responsibility. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13, 531-562.
90.
von FoersterH. (1995). Ethics and second-order cybernetics. In Understanding understanding: Essays on cybernetics and cognition (pp. 287-304). New York, NY: Springer.
91.
WeickK. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing. New York, NY: Random House.
92.
WrightA. (2016). Organizational routines as embodied performatives: A communication as constitutive of organization perspective. Organization, 23, 147-163.
