Many companies have followed the suggestion of the Environmental Protection Agency to conduct voluntary self-audits of their environmental practices. When company environmental assessment auditors present the results of these compliance audits to management, their proposals for environmental remediation compete with many legitimate alternative proposals for limited company resources. The research reported on here evaluated the impact of three factors on the persuasiveness of environmental remediation memos. Specifically, the present investigation hypothesized that meeting profitability goals, the relative certainty of the costs of solving the environmental violation, and higher fines if the violation is discovered by government regulators would add to the persuasiveness of an environmental memo. Lack of meeting profitability goals, significant uncertainty about the costs of solving the environmental violation, and lower fines would reduce an environmental remediation proposal's persuasiveness. Data analysis confirmed the hypotheses.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anderson, C., & Martin, M. (1995). Why employees speak to coworkers and bosses: Motives, gender, and organization satisfaction. The Journal of Business Communication, 32, 249-266.
2.
Campbell, K. (1990). Explanations in negative messages: More insights from speech act theory. The Journal of Business Communication , 27, 357-375.
3.
Clark, T. (1998). The impact of candid versus legally defensible language in the persuasiveness of environmental self assessments. The Journal of Business Communication, 35, 368-387.
4.
Coffee, Jr., J.C. (1981). No soul to damn: Nobody to kick: An unscandalized inquiry into the problem of corporate punishment. Michigan Law Review, 79, 386-459.
5.
Crawley, A. (1993). Environmental auditing and the Good Samaritan Doctrine. Georgia Law Review, 28, 223-268.
6.
David, C., & Baker, M. (1994). Rereading bad news: Compliance-gaining features in management memos. The Journal of Business Communication , 31, 267-290.
7.
Dean, T. & Brown, R. (1995). Pollution regulation as a barrier to new firm entry: Initial evidence and implications for future research. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 288-303.
8.
Evans, P., & Wurster, T. (1997). Strategy and the new economics of information . Harvard Business Review, 75, 70-83.
9.
Ferris, G., Perrewe, P., Anthony, W., & Gilmore, D. (2000). Political skill at work. Organizational Dynamics, 28, 25-37.
10.
Fiorelli, P., & Rooney, C. (1995). The environmental sentencing guidelines for business organizations: Are there murky waters in their future? Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review, 22, 481-502.
11.
Fisse, B. (1978). Criminal sanctions for corporate illegality. The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 69, 40-58.
12.
Fisse, B. (1985). Sanctions against corporations: The limitations of fines and the enterprise of creating alternatives. In B. Fisse & P. French , (Eds.), Corrigible Corporations and Unruly Law (pp. 137-157). San Antonio: Trinity University Press.
13.
Hogan, E., & Bromberg, L. (1990). The hidden hazards of the environmental audit . The Practical Lawyer, 36, 15-26.
14.
Ice, R. ( 1991). Corporate publics and rhetorical strategies: The case of Union Carbide's Bhopal crisis. Management Communication Quarterly, 4, 341-362.
15.
Karlin, A. (1994). Conducting a legal checkup of an environmental audit program. Los Angeles Lawyer, 17, 15-23, 42-43.
16.
King III, G. (1997). The effects of interpersonal closeness and issue seriousness on blowing the whistle. The Journal of Business Communication, 34, 419-436.
17.
Kris, M.E., & Vannelli, G. (1991). Today's criminal environmental enforcement program: Why you may be vulnerable and why you should guard against prosecution through an environmental audit. Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, 16, 227-251.
18.
Lange, J. (1993). The logic of competing information campaigns: Conflict over old growth and the spotted owl. Communication Monographs, 60, 239-257.
19.
Limaye, M. (1988). Buffers in bad news messages and recipient perceptions . Management Communication Quarterly, 2, 90-101.
20.
Livesey, S. (1999). McDonald's and the Environmental Defense Fund: A case study of a green alliance. The Journal of Business Communication, 36, 5-39.
21.
Livesey, S. (2001). Eco-Identity as discursive struggle: Royal Dutch/Shell, Brent Spar, and Nigeria. The Journal of Business Communication , 38, 58-91.
22.
Maheswaran, S., & Myers-Levy, J. (1990). The influence of message framing and issue involvement. Journal of Marketing Research , 27, 361-67.
23.
Meyerowitz, B., & Chaiken, S. (1987). The effect of message framing on breast self-examination: Attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 500-510.
24.
Moore, M. (1993). Constructing irreconcilable conflict: The function of synecdoche in the spotted owl controversy. Communication Monographs, 60, 258-273.
25.
O'Reilly, J.T. (1994). Environmental audit privileges: The need for legislative recognition. Seton Hall Legislative Journal, 19, 119-156.
26.
Plax, T., Kearney, P., & Sorensen, G. (1990). The strategy selection-construction controversy II: Comparing pre- and experienced teachers' compliance-gaining message constructions . Communication Education, 38, 128-141.
27.
Rao, A., Schmidt, S., & Murray, L. (1995). Upward impression management: Goals, influence strategies and consequences. Human Relations, 48, 147-167.
28.
Ross, D., & Benson J. (1995). Cultural change in ethical redemption. The Journal of Business Communication, 32, 345-362.
29.
Rothman, A., & Salovey, P. (1997). Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: The role of message framing. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 3-19.
30.
Rothman A., Salovey, P., Antone, C., Keough, K., & Martin, D. (1993). The influence of message framing on intentions to perform health behaviors. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 408-433.
31.
Seiter, J. (1995). Surviving turbulent organizational environments: A case examination of a lumber company's internal and external influence attempts . The Journal of Business Communication, 32, 363-382.
32.
Shelby, A. (1998). Communication quality and persuasive effects. The Journal of Business Communication, 35, 387-404.
33.
Shelby, A., & Reinsch, N.L. (1995). Positive emphasis and you-attitude. The Journal of Business Communication, 32, 303-328.
34.
Sitkin, S., & Weingart, L. (1995). Determinants of risky decision-making behavior . Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1573-1593.
35.
Tyler, L. (1992). Ecological disaster and rhetorical response: Exxon's communications in the wake of the Valdez spill. The Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 6, 149-171.
36.
Tyler, L. (1997). Liability means never having to say you're sorry: Corporate guilt, legal constraints, and defensiveness in corporate communication . Management Communication Quarterly, 11, 51-73.
37.
Wilson, S., Cruz, M., Marshall, L., & Rao, A. (1993). An attributional analysis of compliance-gaining interactions. Communication Monographs, 60, 352-372
38.
Zmud, R., & Carlson, J. (1999). Channel expansion theory and the experiential nature of media richness perceptions. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 153-170.
