Deploying a grounded theory approach, this case study examines 9 years of a nonrenewable energy company’s responses to a voluntary environmental disclosure questionnaire to discover how industrial discourse about climate change is used by industry writers. Through using the rhetorical strategies of emotions, affect, and mythic narrative within theory, balancing norm, and dominion frames, the company communicates climate change does not impact their secure economic future due to their proactive approach toward regulatory compliance with technological innovation and attentive internal and external policy oversight.
Almeida de FariaJ.AndradeJ. C. S.GomesS. M. S. (2018).
The determinants mostly disclosed by companies that are members of the carbon disclosure project. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change,
23(7), 995–1018.
2.
Burke, K. (1974). The philosophy of literary form: Studies in symbolic action. University of California Press.
3.
Caragee, K., & Roefs, W. (2004). The neglect of power in recent framing research. Journal of Communication, 54(2), 214–233.
CloudD. (2018). Reality bites: Rhetoric and the circulation of truth claims in U.S. political culture.
The Ohio State University Press.
6.
CoppolaN. (1997).
Rhetorical analysis of stakeholders in environmental communication: A model. Technical Communication Quarterly,
6(1), 9–24.
7.
Corbett, J., & Durfee, J. (2004). Testing public uncertainty of science. Science Communication, 26(2), 129–151.
8.
DaytonD. (2002).
Evaluating environmental impact statements as communicative action. Journal of Business and Technical Communication,
16(4), 355–405.
9.
Deluca, K. (1999). Image politics: The new rhetoric of environmental activism. The Guilford Press.
10.
DepoersF.JeanjeanT.JeromeT. (2016).
Voluntary disclosure of greenhouse gas emissions: Contrasting the carbon disclosure project and the corporate report. Journal of Business Ethics,
134, 445–461.
Entman, R. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58.
15.
Gamson, W., & Modigliani, A. (1987). The Changing Culture of Affirmative Action, R.D. Braungart (Ed.), Research in Political Sociology, 3, 137–177.
16.
GarwoodK. (2013).
Metonym and plain language. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication,
43(2), 165–180.
17.
Goffman, E. (1986). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Northeastern University Press.
18.
HooverS.FafatasS. (2018).
Political environment and voluntary disclosure in the U.S.: Evidence from the carbon disclosure project. Journal of Public Affairs,
18(4), 1–12.
JaworskaS. (2018).
Change but no climate change: Discourses of climate change in corporate social responsibility reporting in the oil industry. International Journal of Business Communication,
55(2), 194–219.
21.
JonesN.McDavidJ.DerthickK.DowellR.SpyradakisJ. (2012).
Plain language in environmental policy documents: An assessment of reader comprehension and perceptions. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication,
42(4), 331–371.
22.
Katz, S. (1992). The ethic of expediency: Classical rhetoric, technology, and the holocaust. College English, 54(3), 255–275.
23.
KillingsworthJ.PalmerJ. (1992). Ecospeak: Rhetoric and environmental politics in America.
Southern Illinois University Press.
24.
KillingsworthJ.SteffansD. (1989).
Effectiveness in the environmental impact statement: A study in public rhetoric. Written Communication,
6(2), 155–180.
25.
Kuypers, J. (2010). Framing Analysis from a Rhetorical Perspective. From Doing News Framing: Empirical and Theoretical Perspectives (pp. 286–311). Routledge.
26.
Lakoff, G. (2004). Don’t think like an elephant: Know your values and framed the debate. Chelsea Green Publishing.
27.
MasonM.MasonR. (2012).
Communicating a green corporate perspective: Ideological persuasion in the corporate environmental report. Journal of Business and Technical Communication,
26(4), 479–506.
28.
MillerC. (1979).
A humanistic rationale for technical writing. College English,
40(6), 610–617.
Patterson, R., & Lee, R. (1997). The environmental rhetoric of “balance”: A case study of regulatory discourse and the colonization of the public. Technical Communication Quarterly, 6(1), 25–40.
32.
Pezzullo, P. (2007). Toxic Tourism: Rhetorics of Pollution, Travel, and Environmental Justice. The University of Alabama Press.
33.
RademaekersJ.Johnson-SheehanR. (2014).
Framing and re-framing environmental science: Explaining climate change to the public. Journal of Technical Writing & Communication,
44(1), 3–21.
34.
RossD. (2008).
Dam visuals: The changing visual argument of the Glen Canyon Dam. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication,
38(1), 75–94.
35.
RossD. (2018).
Environmental impact communication: Cape wind EIS, 2001-2015. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication,
48(2), 479–506.
36.
RudeC. (1997).
Environmental policy making and the report genre. Technical Communication Quarterly,
6(1), 77–90.
SlackJ. D.MillerD. J.DoakJ. (1993).
The technical communicator as author: Meaning, power, authority. Journal of Business and Technical Communication,
7(1), 12–36.
