Resonance Tropes in Corporate Philanthropy Discourse

IF 4.8 Q1 Economics, Econometrics and Finance Business Ethics-A European Review Pub Date : 2009-10-01 DOI:10.1111/j.1467-8608.2009.01570.x
Crawford Spence
{"title":"Resonance Tropes in Corporate Philanthropy Discourse","authors":"Crawford Spence","doi":"10.1111/j.1467-8608.2009.01570.x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper explores corporate charitable giving disclosures in order to question the extent to which corporations can claim that their philanthropy activities are charitable at all. Exploration of these issues is carried out by means of a tropological analysis that focuses on the different linguistic tropes within the philanthropy disclosures of 52 companies, namely metaphor and synecdoche. The results reveal a number of complex and contradictory things. Primarily, the master metaphor of ‘altruism’ projected by the corporate disclosures is ideologically at odds with the more business case-oriented discourse that shapes the disclosures. This contradiction is put into starker contrast by the existence of a root metaphor, whereby the recipients of corporate philanthropy are presented as the ‘deserving poor’. Synecdochal devices are present within the corporate disclosures, whereby employee initiatives that are independent of corporate strategies are used to confer attributes onto the disclosures that bolster the master metaphor of ‘altruism’. As such, corporate philanthropy is presented by the paper as a structurally incoherent discourse and yet one that has implications for both extracting greater value from various societal groups and in defining, on behalf of civil society, what is a worthy cause.","PeriodicalId":47954,"journal":{"name":"Business Ethics-A European Review","volume":"288 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2009-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"32","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Business Ethics-A European Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8608.2009.01570.x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 32

Abstract

This paper explores corporate charitable giving disclosures in order to question the extent to which corporations can claim that their philanthropy activities are charitable at all. Exploration of these issues is carried out by means of a tropological analysis that focuses on the different linguistic tropes within the philanthropy disclosures of 52 companies, namely metaphor and synecdoche. The results reveal a number of complex and contradictory things. Primarily, the master metaphor of ‘altruism’ projected by the corporate disclosures is ideologically at odds with the more business case-oriented discourse that shapes the disclosures. This contradiction is put into starker contrast by the existence of a root metaphor, whereby the recipients of corporate philanthropy are presented as the ‘deserving poor’. Synecdochal devices are present within the corporate disclosures, whereby employee initiatives that are independent of corporate strategies are used to confer attributes onto the disclosures that bolster the master metaphor of ‘altruism’. As such, corporate philanthropy is presented by the paper as a structurally incoherent discourse and yet one that has implications for both extracting greater value from various societal groups and in defining, on behalf of civil society, what is a worthy cause.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
企业慈善话语中的共鸣修辞
本文探讨了企业慈善捐赠的披露,以质疑企业在多大程度上可以声称他们的慈善活动是慈善的。通过对52家公司慈善披露中的不同语言修辞,即隐喻和提喻的修辞分析,对这些问题进行了探索。结果揭示了一些复杂而矛盾的事情。首先,公司信息披露所投射的“利他主义”的主要隐喻在意识形态上与塑造信息披露的更以商业案例为导向的话语不一致。这种矛盾与一个根本隐喻的存在形成了鲜明的对比,即企业慈善事业的接受者被呈现为“应得的穷人”。提喻装置存在于公司披露中,即独立于公司战略的员工主动性被用来赋予披露的属性,从而支持“利他主义”的主要隐喻。因此,本文将企业慈善作为一种结构上不连贯的话语提出,但它对从各种社会群体中提取更大的价值以及代表公民社会定义什么是有价值的事业都有影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: -To offer rigorous and informed analysis of ethical issues and perspectives relevant to organizations and their relationships with society -To promote scholarly research and advance knowledge in relation to business ethics and corporate social responsibility and social entrepreneurship by providing cutting edge theoretical and empirical analysis of salient issues and developments -To be responsive to changing concerns and emerging issues in the business ethics and business and society sphere, and to seek to reflect these in the balance of contributions -To be the publication outlet of choice for all types of original research relating to business ethics and business-society relationships. Original articles are welcomed. Each issue will normally contain several major articles, and there will be an occasional FOCUS section which will contain articles on an issue of particular importance and topicality. Other regular features will include editorial interviews, book reviews, comments and responses to published articles, research notes and case studies. Business Ethics: A European Review is well established as an academic research journal which is at the same time readable, user-friendly and authoritative. It publishes both fully refereed scholarly papers and special contributions such as speeches and reviews. The range of contributions reflects the variety and scope of ethical issues faced by business and other organisations world-wide, and at the same time seeks to address the interests and concerns of the journals readership.
期刊最新文献
Does voluntary environmental, social, and governance disclosure impact initial public offer withdrawal risk? Communicating CSR relationships in COVID-19: The evolution of cross-sector communication networks on social media How can sustainable business models distribute value more equitably in global value chains? Introducing “value chain profit sharing” as an emerging alternative to fair trade, direct trade, or solidarity trade An examination of the 2012–2022 empirical ethical decision-making literature: A quinary review The consequences of dishonesty—A mediation-moderation praxis of greenwashing, tourists' green trust, and word-of-mouth: The role of connectedness to nature
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1