On December 4, 2017, Patagonia launched its “The President Stole Your Land” initiative on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram. In so doing, the longtime corporate social responsibility (CSR) leader entered social media in a deliberately inflammatory and political manner. This initiative defies the principles of CSR often touted in the literature and provides for an intriguing case study. We engage in a close textual reading of initiative materials and identify discursive traces to gain insight into the paradoxical workings of CSR in the context of a hypermediated environment. Through analysis of how Patagonia harnesses wide-ranging and contradictory public input, we identify a strategy of communicating CSR to stakeholders with disparate interests. By exploring the intersection of organizational communication, rhetorical studies, and media theory, this article examines the discursive strategies afforded and precluded by wild public networks. We offer three wild public provocations as new discursive tactics for CSR practitioners.
BenklerY. (2006). The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
5.
BenklerY.FarisR.RobertsH. (2018). Network propaganda: Manipulation, disinformation, and radicalization in American politics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
6.
BlackE. (1980). A note on theory and practice in rhetorical criticism. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 44, 331-336.
7.
BrunnerE. (2017). Wild public networks and affective movements in China: Environmental activism, social media, and protest in Maoming. Journal of Communication, 67, 665-677.
8.
BullisC.IeF. (2007). Corporate environmentalism. In MayS.CheneyG.RoperJ. (Eds.), The debate over corporate social responsibility (pp. 321-335). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
9.
CastellsM. (2012). Networks of outrage and hope: Social movements in the Internet age. Malden, MA: Polity Press.
CheneyG.RoperJ.MayS. (2007). Overview. In MayS.CheneyG.RoperJ. (Eds.), The debate over corporate social responsibility (pp. 3-14). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
12.
ChristensenL. T.MorsingM.ThyssenO. (2013). CSR as aspirational talk. Organization, 20, 372-393.
13.
DawsonV. R. (2018). Fans, friends, advocates, ambassadors, and haters: Social media communities and the communicative constitution of organizational identity. Social Media + Society, 4, 1-11.
14.
DeleuzeG.GuattariF. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
15.
DelicathJ. W.DeLucaK. M. (2003). Image events, the public sphere, and argumentative practice: The case of radical environmental groups. Argumentation, 17, 315-333.
16.
DuS.BhattacharyaC. B.SenS. (2010). Maximizing business returns to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): The role of CSR communication. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12, 8-19.
17.
FlemingP.RobertsJ.GarstenC. (2013). In search of corporate social responsibility: Introduction to special issue. Organization, 20, 337-348.
18.
FriedmanM. (2007). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. In ZimmerliW. C.HolzingerM.RichterK. (Eds.), Corporate ethics and corporate governance (pp. 173-178). Berlin, Germany: Springer. (Original work published 1970)
19.
FuchsC. (2017). Donald Trump: A critical theory-perspective on authoritarian capitalism. tripleC: Communication, Capitalism & Critique, 15, 1-72.
20.
GreggM.SeigworthG. J. (Eds.). (2010). The affect theory reader. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
21.
KuhnT.AshcraftK. L.CoorenF. (2017). The work of communication: Relational perspectives on working, organizing, and contemporary capitalism. New York, NY: Routledge.
22.
LenssenG. (2007). Foreword. In MayS.CheneyG.RoperJ. (Eds.), The debate over corporate social responsibility (pp. v-vi). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
23.
LlewellynJ. (2007). Regulation: Government, business, and the self in the United States. In MayS.CheneyG.RoperJ. (Eds.), The debate over corporate social responsibility (pp. 177-189). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
24.
LovinkG. (2011). Networks without a cause: A critique of social media. Malden, MA: Polity Press.
MassumiB. (1995). The autonomy of affect. Cultural Critique, 31, 83-109.
28.
PavaM. L.KrauszJ. (1996). The association between corporate social-responsibility and financial performance: The paradox of social cost. Journal of Business Ethics, 15, 321-357.
PutnamL. L.FairhurstG. T.BanghartS. (2016). Contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes in organizations: A constitutive approach. Academy of Management Annals, 10, 65-171.
31.
RimH.SongD. (2016). “How negative becomes less negative”: Understanding the effects of comment valance and response sidedness in social media. Journal of Communication, 66, 475-495.
WongJ. Y.DhaneshG. S. (2017). Communication Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in the luxury industry: Managing CSR-luxury paradox online through acceptance strategies of coexistence and convergence. Management Communication Quarterly, 31, 88-112.
