IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v5y2013i6p2457-2479d26223.html

A Methodology for Mapping Meanings in Text-Based Sustainability Communication

Author

Listed:
  • Mark Brown

    (BI Norwegian Business School, Nydalsveien 37, 0484 Oslo, Norway)

Abstract

In moving society towards more sustainable forms of consumption and production, social learning must play an important role. Making the assumption that it occurs as a consequence of changes in understanding, this article presents a methodology for mapping meanings in sustainability communication texts. The methodology uses techniques from corpus linguistics and framing theory. Two large databases of text were constructed by copying material down from the websites of two different groups of social actors: (i) environmental NGOs and (ii) British green business, and saving it as .txt files. The findings on individual words show that the NGOs and business use them very differently. Focusing on words expressing concern for the natural environment, it is proposed that the two actors also conceptualize their concern differently. Green business’s cognitive system of concern has two well-developed frames; good intentions and risk management. However, three frames—concern for the natural environment, perception of the damage, and responsibility, are light on detail. In contrast, within the NGOs’ system of concern, the frames of concern for the natural environment, perception of the damage and responsibility, contain words making detailed representations.

Suggested Citation

  • Mark Brown, 2013. "A Methodology for Mapping Meanings in Text-Based Sustainability Communication," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(6), pages 1-23, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:5:y:2013:i:6:p:2457-2479:d:26223
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/5/6/2457/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/5/6/2457/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Meg Holden, 2010. "The Rhetoric of Sustainability: Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 2(2), pages 1-15, February.
    2. Kean Birch & Les Levidow & Theo Papaioannou, 2010. "Sustainable Capital ? The Neoliberalization of Nature and Knowledge in the European “Knowledge-based Bio-economy”," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 2(9), pages 1-21, September.
    3. Delyse Springett, 2003. "Business conceptions of sustainable development: a perspective from critical theory," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 12(2), pages 71-86, March.
    4. Jacqueline Cramer, 2005. "Company learning about corporate social responsibility," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(4), pages 255-266, July.
    5. Mariëtte van Huijstee & Pieter Glasbergen, 2008. "The practice of stakeholder dialogue between multinationals and NGOs," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(5), pages 298-310, September.
    6. Don Clifton, 2012. "Sustainable Business: Are We Heading in the Right Direction?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(4), pages 1-18, April.
    7. Rita Turner, 2010. "Discourses of Consumption in US-American Culture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 2(7), pages 1-23, July.
    8. Sarah Skerratt, 2010. "Hot Spots and Not Spots: Addressing Infrastructure and Service Provision through Combined Approaches in Rural Scotland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 2(6), pages 1-23, June.
    9. Linda O’Riordan & Jenny Fairbrass, 2008. "Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): Models and Theories in Stakeholder Dialogue," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 83(4), pages 745-758, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Eugenia Țigan & Radu Lucian Blaga & Florin-Lucian Isac & Monica Lungu & Ioana Anda Milin & Florin Tripa & Simona Gavrilaș, 2022. "Analysis of Sustainable Communication Patterns during the Telework Period in Western Romanian Corporations," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-19, August.
    2. Syndhia Mathé & Hélène Rey-Valette, 2015. "Local Knowledge of Pond Fish-Farming Ecosystem Services: Management Implications of Stakeholders’ Perceptions in Three Different Contexts (Brazil, France and Indonesia)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(6), pages 1-23, June.
    3. Mark Brown, 2015. "Managing Nature–Business as Usual: Resource Extraction Companies and Their Representations of Natural Landscapes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(12), pages 1-23, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Isabel-María García-Sánchez & Cristina Aibar-Guzmán & Carmen Serrano-Valdecillos & Beatriz Aibar-Guzmán, 2022. "Analysis of the Dialogue with Stakeholders by the IBEX 35 Companies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-26, February.
    2. Kristian Alm & Mark Brown, 2021. "John Rawls’ Concept of the Reasonable: A Study of Stakeholder Action and Reaction Between British Petroleum and the Victims of the Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 172(4), pages 621-637, September.
    3. Marc A. Rosen, 2013. "Engineering and Sustainability: Attitudes and Actions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(1), pages 1-15, January.
    4. Laura Maria Ferri & Matteo Pedrini & Marco Minciullo, 2022. "Corporate social responsibility and stakeholder dialogue under institutional voids: decoupling the role of corporate motives, ethics, and resources," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 26(1), pages 159-188, March.
    5. Daewook Kim & Myung-Il Choi, 2013. "A Comparison of Young Publics’ Evaluations of Corporate Social Responsibility Practices of Multinational Corporations in the United States and South Korea," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 113(1), pages 105-118, March.
    6. Ziegele, Daniel & Kurtze, Hannah & Zerfaß, Ansgar, 2021. "From reality to virtuality. Moving stakeholder dialogues from face-to-face to online formats," Communication Insights 12, Academic Society for Management & Communication – An initiative of the Günter Thiele Foundation, Leipzig.
    7. Zubović, Jovan & Jeločnik, Marko & Subić, Jonel, 2015. "Can Human Resources Induce Sustainability In Business? Modeling, Testing And Correlating Hr Index And Company’S Business Results," Economics of Agriculture, Institute of Agricultural Economics, vol. 62(2), pages 1-22, June.
    8. Paul Ofei-Manu & Satoshi Shimano, 2012. "In Transition towards Sustainability: Bridging the Business and Education Sectors of Regional Centre of Expertise Greater Sendai Using Education for Sustainable Development-Based Social Learning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(7), pages 1-26, July.
    9. Cavicchia, Rebecca, 2023. "Housing accessibility in densifying cities: Entangled housing and land use policy limitations and insights from Oslo," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    10. Ruhet Genç & Eda Aylin Genç, 2017. "Promotion of Social Inclusion through New Steps in Tourism," Acta Universitatis Danubius. OEconomica, Danubius University of Galati, issue 13(3), pages 194-201, JUNE.
    11. Tom Thomas & Eric Lamm, 2012. "Legitimacy and Organizational Sustainability," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 110(2), pages 191-203, October.
    12. Higgins, Colin & Walker, Robyn, 2012. "Ethos, logos, pathos: Strategies of persuasion in social/environmental reports," Accounting forum, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 194-208.
    13. Marius Banke & Stephanie Lenger & Christiane Pott, 2022. "ESG Ratings in the Corporate Reporting of DAX40 Companies in Germany: Effects on Market Participants," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-21, August.
    14. Mariëtte van Huijstee & Pieter Glasbergen, 2008. "The practice of stakeholder dialogue between multinationals and NGOs," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(5), pages 298-310, September.
    15. Befort, N., 2020. "Going beyond definitions to understand tensions within the bioeconomy: The contribution of sociotechnical regimes to contested fields," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    16. Yanica P. Dimitrova, 2020. "Corporate Social Responsibility and Innovation – the Meaningful Connection," Economic Studies journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 4, pages 89-108.
    17. Pablo Gomez‐Carrasco & Giovanna Michelon, 2017. "The Power of Stakeholders' Voice: The Effects of Social Media Activism on Stock Markets," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(6), pages 855-872, September.
    18. Petia Koleva & Amel Ben Rhouma, 2019. "Corporate Social Responsibility learning in a highly turbulent national context : some evidence from the post-2011 Tunisia," Post-Print hal-02615858, HAL.
    19. Anna Heikkinen & Johanna Kujala & Hanna Lehtimäki, 2013. "Managing Stakeholder Dialogue: The Case of Botnia in Uruguay," South Asian Journal of Business and Management Cases, , vol. 2(1), pages 25-37, June.
    20. Rosa Maria Dangelico & Pierpaolo Pontrandolfo, 2015. "Being ‘Green and Competitive’: The Impact of Environmental Actions and Collaborations on Firm Performance," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(6), pages 413-430, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:5:y:2013:i:6:p:2457-2479:d:26223. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.