Joutsenvirta, Vaara - Legitimacy Struggles and Political CSR PDF

571958
research-article2015
OSS0010.1177/0170840615571958Organization StudiesJoutsenvirta and Vaara
Article
Legitimacy Struggles and Political

Corporate Social Responsibility
in International Settings: A
Comparative Discursive Analysis
of a Contested Investment in
Latin America
Organization Studies
2015, Vol. 36(6) 741777
The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0170840615571958
www.egosnet.org/os
Maria Joutsenvirta
Aalto University School of Business, Finland
Eero Vaara
Aalto University School of Business, Finland

EMLYON Business School, France
Lancaster University, UK
Abstract
This paper examines the discursive legitimation of controversial investment projects to provide a better
understanding of the ways in which corporate social responsibility is constructed in international settings.
On the basis of a discursive analysis of an intense dispute between Finnish, Uruguayan and Argentinean
actors over a pulp mill project in Uruguay, we develop a framework that elucidates four legitimating
discourses: technocratic, societal, national-political, and global-capitalist. With this framework, our analysis
helps to better understand how CSR involves discourse-ideological struggles, how CSR is embedded in
international relations, and how CSR is mediatized in contemporary globalizing society. By so doing, our
analysis contributes to critical studies of CSR as well as research on legitimation more generally.
Keywords
corporate social responsibility, discourse, international relations, legitimacy, legitimation, power
We have seen an increasing interest in the political role of MNCs in general (Barley, 2010; Hillman
& Hitt, 1999; Matten & Crane, 2005) and political CSR in particular (Levy, 2008; Patriotta, Gond,
& Schultz, 2011; Scherer & Palazzo, 2007; Scherer, Palazzo, & Seidl, 2013). These studies have
Corresponding author:
Maria Joutsenvirta, PhD, Department of Management Studies, Aalto University School of Business, P.O. Box 21230,
FIN-00076 AALTO, Finland.
Email: maria.joutsenvirta@gmail.com
Downloaded from oss.sagepub.com at Nottingham Trent University on June 29, 2016
742
Organization Studies 36(6)
helped us to move from an idea of CSR as a tool to CSR as a real-life phenomenon that involves
interests, identities and political processes. Some of this work has linked CSR with globalization,
for instance by underscoring the power of MNCs vis-a-vis nation-states (Crane, Matten, & Moon,
2008; Scherer, Palazzo, & Baumann, 2006). However, relatively little attention has been focused
on the national and international embeddedness of CSR (Aguilera, Rupp, Williams, & Ganapathi,
2007; Brammer, Jackson, & Matten, 2012; Matten & Moon, 2008). Thus, we lack understanding
of some of the essential underpinnings of CSR in projects involving different national interests,
identities and viewpoints. In particular, there is a paucity of knowledge about how the responsibilities of MNCs and other actors are constructed in different national settings.
To partially bridge this research gap, this paper focuses on the discursive legitimation of a
contested corporate investment in international settings. Accordingly, we link legitimacy to the
relationships of the countries involved as well as to the challenges of globalization (Palazzo &
Scherer, 2006). As a step in this direction, we draw from critical discursive analysis (Fairclough,
2003; Lefsrud & Meyer, 2012; Vaara & Tienari, 2008). This allows us to conceptualize legitimacy
as a multifaceted discursive and ideological struggle and to examine the ways in which these
discourses are mobilized in international settings.
Our empirical analysis focuses on a revelatory case: a contested pulp mill project in Fray Bentos,
Uruguay, close to the border with Argentina. Drawing on extensive media coverage from Finnish,
Uruguayan and Argentinean media and other supporting evidence, we analysed the discursive
strategies used by different actors to legitimate or de-legitimate the project. We identified four
discourses that were used for legitimation or de-legitimation: technocratic, societal, national-political
and global-capitalist. These discourses provide a framework that increases understanding of the
multifaceted nature of legitimacy and responsibility in contested international projects. With this
framework, our analysis helps to better understand three key aspects of political CSR: how CSR
involves discourse-ideological struggles, how CSR is embedded in international relations, and how
CSR is mediatized in contemporary globalizing society.
In all, our analysis contributes to research on political CSR by providing a framework that
elucidates the interdiscursive construction of corporate social responsibility in contested international projects. In particular, it highlights the ideological underpinnings of political CSR in
international settings. Our analysis also increases understanding of the crucial role of the media
in legitimacy struggles and its implications for political CSR. Finally, this analysis also adds to
research on legitimation more generally by underscoring its linkage with international relations
and globalization.
Political Approaches to CSR

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has been defined in various ways, but it is generally
understood as the obligations, motivations and activities of companies in relation to society and
the environment; these responsibilities extend beyond mere profit-making or narrow economic,
technical or legal requirements (Aguilera etal., 2007; Matten & Moon, 2008; McWilliams &
Siegel, 2001; McWilliams, Siegel, & Wright, 2006). In recent years, we have witnessed growing
interest in the political turn of CSR (Matten & Crane, 2005; Scherer & Palazzo, 2007, 2011),
which is closely related to corporate citizenship (Crane etal., 2008; Edward & Willmott, 2008;
Matten, Crane, & Chapple, 2003; Scherer & Palazzo, 2008), corporate political activity (Doh,
Lawton, & Rajwani, 2012; Hillman, Keim, & Schuler, 2004; Lawton, McGuire, & Rajwani,
2013; McWilliams, Van Fleet, & Cory, 2002), and other notions focusing on the political actions
and responsibilities of corporations.
743
Joutsenvirta and Vaara
Globalization has increased the need to take distance from a predominant business-centred
(Margolis & Walsh, 2003; Orlitzky, 2008; Orlitzky, Schmidt, & Rynes, 2003) view of CSR
(Devinney, 2009; Levy, 2008; Scherer & Palazzo, 2007, 2011; Waddock, 2008). In particular, the
decreasing power of nation-states (Beck, 2000) and the corresponding transformation of the power,
roles, and responsibilities of MNCs (Levy, 2008; Scherer etal., 2006) have added to the need to
examine corporate social and environmental responsibilities from a wider sociopolitical perspective.
As a consequence, the change in the division of labour between the political and economic spheres
and the corresponding increase in the political role and responsibilities of corporations in a global
society have become the subject of a lively debate (Matten & Crane, 2005; Palazzo & Scherer,
2006; Scherer & Palazzo, 2007, 2011; Scherer, Palazzo, & Matten, 2009). This discussion has
emphasized MNCs complex environment, which consists of contradictory legal and societal
demands from a wide range of institutional and cultural environments (Kostova, Roth, & Dacin,
2008; Kostova & Zaheer, 1999). It has been argued that simple adaptation to a particular set of
social demands will not result in social acceptance for MNCs, but rather in a mismatch with other
societal expectations (Palazzo & Scherer, 2006; Scherer & Palazzo, 2007; Scherer etal., 2013). For
instance, Scherer and Palazzo (2011) have identified five global dynamics that have affected
corporate political responsibility: a move from national to global governance; a shift from hard to
soft law; a movement from liability to social connectedness; a change from cognitive and pragmatic
to moral legitimacy; and a shift from liberal to deliberative democracy.
The political CSR literature has emphasized the crucial role of legitimacy. Palazzo and Scherer
proposed a fundamental shift from an output and power oriented approach to an input related and
discursive concept of legitimacy (Palazzo & Scherer, 2006, p.71) where legitimacy is socially
and argumentatively constructed by means of considering reasons to justify certain actions, practices, or institutions and is thus present in discourses between the corporation and its relevant
publics (Scherer & Palazzo, 2011, p.916). Accordingly, we can place the idea of corporate
acceptance in the communicative network of public debate and view legitimacy as a result of
communication where the societal limits on business are continuously defined and redefined.
Political CSR has also been linked with institutional analyses within a wider field of social
networks, national institutions and political rules (Aguilera etal., 2007; Brammer etal., 2012;
Campbell, 2007; Doh etal., 2012; Hoffman, 1999; Levy, 2008). This has allowed for a better
understanding of the diversity and the dynamics of CSR in a global society (Brammer etal., 2012,
p.7). Applications of institutional theory have advanced cross-country and cross-region analyses
and increased understanding of, for example, mechanisms by which institutional arrangements
within countries shape CSR motivations and practices (Kang & Moon, 2012; Koos, 2012; Matten
& Moon, 2008; Witt & Redding, 2012), civil society orientations in different institutional environments (Doh & Guay, 2006; Koos, 2012), inter-organizational negotiation around CSR issues and
standards (Helfen & Sydow, 2013), and the transfer of socially irresponsible practices from MNC
headquarters to overseas subsidiaries (Surroca, Trib, & Zahra, 2013). Institutional analyses have
also increased understanding of the link between CSR and neoliberalism (Kang & Moon, 2012;
Kinderman, 2012; Levy, 2008) as well as of questionable MNC practices in developing country
environments (Escobar & Vredenburg, 2011; Muthuri & Gilbert, 2010). Critical cultural investigations have in turn advanced our understanding of the legitimacy challenges that arise from the
ability of MNCs to exploit the absence of weak state regulation and rely on western values and
norms (Banerjee, 2008; Brammer etal., 2012; Muthuri & Gilbert, 2010).
The way in which the activities of companies in relation to society and the environment are
evaluated may differ considerably depending on the national context of the companies, politicians
and other actors. Nevertheless, relatively little attention has been focused on how the rights and
744
responsibilities of MNCs and other actors are constructed in different national and geopolitical
settings and how these constructions are linked to national interests and international relations. In
particular, we know little of the historical and ideological forces that are reproduced in international CSR struggles. To advance understanding of these crucial aspects of CSR, we will next focus
attention on discursive legitimation in international settings.
A Discursive Perspective on Legitimation

Our starting point is that a central part of legitimation takes place through rhetoric (Patriotta etal.,
2011; Suddaby & Greenwood, 2005), frames (Meyer & Hllerer, 2010), narratives (Golant &
Sillince, 2007) and discourse (Vaara & Tienari, 2008). In particular, we suggest that drawing from
critical discourse analysis (CDA) helps us to better understand the sociopolitical and ideological
aspects of legitimacy. According to this view, discourse not only reflects but also reproduces
social reality in such a way that certain outcomes are realized rather than others (Fairclough,
2003; Phillips & Hardy, 2002). In CDA, senses of legitimacy are created in relation to discourses
(Fairclough, 2003; van Dijk, 1998). Specific discourses warrant voice to particular actors and
concerns in legitimation and silence others (Deetz & Mumby, 1990; Fairclough & Wodak, 1997;
van Dijk, 1998; van Leeuwen, 2008). Essential to CDA is a focus on the textual practices and
strategies through which legitimation is carried out (Fairclough, 2003; Vaara, 2014). These legitimation strategies are specific, but not always intentional or conscious ways of using discursive
resources to establish legitimacy or de-legitimacy. From this perspective, legitimation can be seen
as a discursive process creating senses of legitimacy or illegitimacy in texts and social contexts.
That is, certain things come to be portrayed as positive, beneficial, ethical, understandable, necessary
or otherwise acceptable in the texts in question (Rojo & van Dijk, 1997). In contrast, other things
are constructed as negative, harmful, intolerable or, for example, morally reprehensible.
A critical discursive perspective allows one to link legitimation with ideology (van Dijk, 1998;
van Leeuwen & Wodak, 1999), power relations (Rojo & van Dijk, 1997) and historical (Wodak, de
Cillia, Reisigl, & Liebhart, 1999) context. This kind of critical analysis should take into consideration international relations, that is, the international context in which MNCs operate. In particular,
it seems that in the debates around controversial projects, MNC actions are frequently linked with
globalization and neoliberal ideas, i.e. ideas that promote market economy, business and financial
deregulation and corporate rights (Fairclough, 2006). At the same time, nationalism provides
another important set of discourses (Wodak etal., 1999) to make sense of and frame corporate
actions in local contexts. Thus, legitimation around controversial globalization projects entails
complex interdiscursive dynamics where specific discourses and ideologies provide alternative
ways to legitimate or de-legitimate particular actions.
Legitimation processes may also be linked to international relations. On the one hand, some of
the relationships between specific nations and consequently between corporations that are identified with these nations have developed historically and reflect postcolonial phenomena
(Prasad, 2003; Vaara, Tienari, Piekkari, & Sntti, 2005). On the other hand, MNCs are culturally
and historically western creations that tend to primarily serve western interests (Frenkel, 2008) to
the extent that one can speak about neocolonialism (Banerjee, 2003; Banerjee & Linstead, 2001;
Riad & Vaara, 2011). From this perspective, complex investment projects carried out by MNCs
may involve contested issues that are made sense of and framed in very different ways depending
on the national and geopolitical context.
Legitimation takes place in multiple arenas involving powerful opposing and supporting actors
(Lefsrud & Meyer, 2012; Patriotta etal., 2011). However, relatively little attention has so far been
focused on the national interests, identities and relations which become visible and effective in
745
public legitimation strategies in an international environment. In particular, there is a relative paucity

of knowledge of the underlying sociopolitical and ideological processes. In a rare exception, Meyer
and Hllerer (2010) highlighted how the ways of framing shareholder value in Austrian public
discourse were related to the local cultural and sociopolitical context and the ideological underpinnings. In particular, this analysis shows how the positions of the various actors influenced the
different types of frames they used in order to legitimate or de-legitimate shareholder value. In
another study, Khan, Munir and Willmott (2007) identified dangers that conventional conceptualizations of power and legitimacy can produce. Their study demonstrated the use of hegemonic
power to inform and resolve the child labour problem by means that focused eyes away from
negative consequences of an institutional reform process seen as positive.
Thus, from a CDA perspective, media texts are a key to legitimation in the sense that in their
definition of the public agenda they synthesize various aspects of the discursive and ideological
struggles (Fairclough, 1995a; van Dijk, 1990; Hall, 1982) including battles over hegemony in
modern societies (van Bommel & Spicer, 2011). The media both reflect and reproduce commonly
held views and assumptions (Fairclough, 1995b; van Dijk, 1990). Media texts also play a central
role in the way specific actions are defined, contested and resolved in particular contexts, such
as various national environments (Fairclough, 1995b). Moreover, the media tend to reproduce
specific subject positions (see, e.g., Hardy & Phillips, 1999), i.e. structures of rights, responsibilities
and power relations for the focal actors, and such reproduction is crucial for an understanding of
the discursive construction of social responsibility in particular contexts.
This leads us to formulate our research questions as follows: How are discursive legitimation
struggles over controversial MNC operations related to national contexts and international relations? How are the rights and responsibilities of the MNCs and other actors constructed in these
legitimacy struggles?
Research Design and Methodology

The Fray Bentos case
Our analysis focuses on a contested Finnish foreign direct investment (FDI) in Fray Bentos,
Uruguay, near the border with Argentina (see also Joutsenvirta & Vaara, 2009). A world-class pulp
mill project caused a diplomatic dispute between the two Latin American countries as well as
Finland. This project serves as a revelatory case as it involved complex multi-actor negotiations,
intensive media debates and struggles over legitimacy for an extended period of time. Furthermore,
it allows us to examine the embeddedness of CSR in international relations in a setting that illuminates both struggles between neighbouring countries and those between more and less developed
ones. The latter are crucial in understanding corporate responsibility and legitimacy challenges in
the global playing field (Blowfield & Frynas, 2005; Khan etal., 2007; Kolk, 2005; Levy,2005).
Due to the interlinked history of Argentina and Uruguay and to Argentinas relative size,
Argentina has had significant political and economic influence in its smaller neighbouring country.
The negative impacts of Argentinas 19992002 economic meltdown spilled over into Uruguays
economy, leading to greater inequality and poverty. A subsequent leftist Uruguayan government
made moves to strengthen Uruguays domestic economy through industrial development and
foreign direct investments (FDI). In February 2005, the Finnish forest industry company MetsBotnia (henceforth Botnia) received permission to build a gigantic eucalyptus pulp mill worth
nearly one billion euros in Fray Bentos, on the banks of the Uruguay River, which forms the
boundary between Uruguay and Argentina. It was the biggest-ever private sector industrial investment by Finnish companies abroad and the largest industrial investment in Uruguays history.
746
Botnias project raised a large-scale local resistance movement in Argentina, especially in the
town of Gualeguaych on the opposite side of the Uruguay River. The project became a hot topic
on both the national and international level when Argentinas President, Nstor Kirchner, allowed
the local movement in Gualeguaych to continue blocking the roads and bridges between the
neighbouring countries, claiming that the pulp mill would pollute the river, pose a hazard to health
and endanger the areas tourism and other local businesses. An intense and widely mediatized
diplomatic dispute between Uruguay and Argentina followed. Uruguays President, Tabar
Vzquez, compared Argentinas unwillingness to open the bridges with the United States embargo
on Cuba. Economic globalization and western imperialist business manoeuvres were blamed for
destroying not just the local environment but also the relationship between the two Latin American
brothers. While Finnish government representatives emphasized that Finland as a state was not
a party to the conflict, which was caused by a private investment, Argentina saw Finland as
directly involved. The role of global civil society organizations (e.g. Greenpeace) and international agencies (e.g. World Bank and EU) were also visible in the dispute (Kosonen, 2008;
Pakkasvirta,2008).
The most intense period of this struggle, during 20052006, involved three phases: escalation
of the diplomatic dispute; pressure on the MNC and its home country; and the formalization of
the dispute. Table1 summarizes the main events and central actors in these three phases. In 2007,
the Uruguayan government gave final approval for Botnias mill, which soon produced its first
load of pulp.
Data collection and analysis

Our analysis is based on a critical discursive analysis of the legitimacy struggles around the Fray
Bentos project. For this purpose, we gathered extensive data around this case including media
material, press releases and other communication material, and numerous plans, documents and
studies about the case. Our research task was to conduct a comparative discursive analysis of
national public legitimacy struggles around the contested investment project. Therefore, our
primary data consist of the media texts of the leading newspapers in the three countries in question during 20052006: Helsingin Sanomat (Finland), La Repblica (Uruguay) and La Nacin
(Argentina). All three newspapers are leading outlets of public discussion in their respective
countries, and thus arguably both shape public opinion and reflect commonly held views, including those of economic and political decision-makers. They can thus be regarded as primary sites
of the legitimacy struggles. It is important to acknowledge the editorial stances of these three
news outlets. Helsingin Sanomat was originally aligned with a liberal and nationalist political
party, but since the 1930s it has been politically independent. It is Finlands biggest daily newspaper and has a very significant place in Finnish society and politics. La Repblica is Uruguays
leading leftist daily newspaper that competes with, for example, El Pas, a conservative and
nationalist newspaper owned by a powerful media conglomerate. We chose La Repblica
because it played a central role in this case, and due to its leftist orientation was less likely than
other local newspapers to support corporate investment projects without critical reflection. La
Nacin is Argentinas leading conservative newspaper. It supports economic liberalism and
competes primarily with the centrist Clarin. We chose La Nacin because it provided wide
coverage of the legitimacy struggle and due to its conservative orientation was less likely than
the other local newspapers to resist the investment project without taking into consideration the
arguments of the other side. Thus, our sample is limited, but likely to provide a comprehensive
view of the arguments made both by protagonists and antagonists in each country.
747

Table 1. Main events and key actors in the three phases of the Fray Bentos conflict in 20052006.
Phases
Escalation of dispute between

Uruguay and Argentina
Critical phase: pressure on

Botnia and its home country
Formalization of dispute
Mar 2005Feb 2006
Mar 2006May 2006
Jun 2006Dec 2006
Main events
First Argentine mass

protests against the Fray
Bentos project; local
governor of Entre Rios,
Jorge Busti, supports the
protests
Preparation for the
construction of the mill
starts
Dispute between Uruguay
and Argentina starts
Uruguayan chancellor
accuses Argentina of
violating Mercosur
regulations on freedom of
circulation of goods
Argentina appeals to the
World Bank (WB) to
freeze the funding for the
Fray Bentos project
Argentina requests
suspension of
construction and
threatens to make the
matter a legal conflict
Uruguay backtracks from
the bilateral negotiations
Protests at the Finnish
Embassy and road blocks
by activists
CEDHA files a complaint
regarding IFC project
compliance with social
and ecological norms
IFCs impact study
(12/2005) states that the
technical requirements of
the mill are in order and
it will not have a serious
environmental impact
Greenpeace demonstrates
and asks Uruguay to
request suspension of the
construction works
Road blocks
by Argentinean
demonstrators became
scheduled and long-term
Chilean trucks carrying
materials for the project
are detained by the blocks
Botnia begins local
recruiting for the project
President Kirchner
publicly asks President
Vzquez to suspend the
project for 90 days
The presidents agree
to ask the companies
and activists to suspend
construction and road
blocks
Vzquez receives harsh
criticism from the
political opposition
and backtracks, stating
that Uruguay will not
negotiate under pressure
Uruguayan mass
demonstration in Fray
Bentos to support the
mill and to defend the
sovereignty of Uruguay
Gualeguaych
Environmental Assembly
lifts the road blockade
after 1.5 months
Greenpeace
demonstrates in front of
Botnias mill
Botnia first announces it
will suspend the works
for 90 days but later
revises it for only 10 days
Meeting of presidents
is cancelled and
resumes the blockade
Uruguay-Argentina
relationship becomes
very tense; they take the
conflict to The Hague (ICJ)
The Dutch ING Bank
decides not to give a loan
to the project
Argentina calls for
intervention by the
Finnish government,
which rejects the
possibility of intervening
in the affairs of a private
company; Finlands
Minister of Trade and
Development cancels her
visit to Argentina
EU gives its full support
to Botnia
ICJ rejects Argentinas

request for an injunction to
stop construction of the mill
demonstrations restart
Botnia appoints a special
communication and PR team
around the Fray Bentos
project
The projects civil
construction works are
finalized; erection and
installation continue
Uruguay had taken the case
to the Mercosur Tribunal
that rules that Argentina
had acted on good faith
and rejects monetary
sanctions but notes the
blockades had caused
undeniable inconveniences
to both countries trade
The Spanish company Ence
cancels Fray Bentos mill
saying there cannot be two
mills there
Workers at Botnias
construction site start a
strike demanding equal pay
and a ban on bringing in
more workers from abroad
WB states that Botnias
mill will comply with IFCs
and MIGAs environmental
and social standards and
will generate significant
economic benefits for
Uruguay
Argentine activists and
minister challenge the
technical reports
IFC and MIGA approve a
loan for Botnias project
Kirchner states that IFC/
MIGA approval was a
victory for international
interests
Blockades and
demonstrations continue
(Continued)
748
Table 1.(Continued)
Phases
Escalation of dispute between

Critical phase: pressure on

Botnia and its home country
Formalization of dispute
Mar 2005Feb 2006
Mar 2006May 2006
Jun 2006Dec 2006
Argentina accuses
Uruguay of violating
the bilateral Treaty
of Uruguay River and
announces taking the
issue to the Hague (ICJ)
WB postpones the
decision to finance the
Fray Bentos project
because of the bi-national
dispute
Botnia starts to publicly
defend its Fray Bentos
project in Argentina
(Civil activists incl.
residents and neighbors of
Gualeguaych) and local
governor Busti
Local and national
governments of Uruguay
and Argentina
NGOs: especially
Argentinean CEDHA
(Center for Human Rights
and Environment) and
Greenpeace
IFC International
Finance Corporation of
the World Bank
WB states that the

impact study and review
by the IFC had been
incomplete
Botnia agrees with the
IFC on further impact
studies
Botnia invites
Argentinean journalists
to Finland to learn about
Finnish pulp mills and
environmental politics
Key actors
Presidents Tabar
Vzquez (UR) and Nstor
Kirchner (AR)
Directors of Botnia
The Finnish government
Civil activist groups of
Argentina and Uruguay
NGOs: esp. CEDHA and
Greenpeace
IFC, the World Bank
National and local
politicians of Uruguay and
Argentina
National governments of
International Court of
Justice (ICJ)
Mercosur
The World Bank, IFC
& MIGA (Multilateral
Investment Guarantee
Agency)
Workers union SUNCA
We used electronic archives, and our initial searches resulted in more than 600 articles on
Botnias conflict in Uruguay during 20052007. We soon realized that the most fruitful period for
our analysis was the most intensive phase of the conflict during 20052006. This period covered
discussions for the months before, during, and after the critical phase of MarchMay 2006
(see Table1). By the end of the summer of 2006, the conflict had started to lose its news value,
especially in Finland, and the discussion became considerably less rich in terms of the quality and
quantity of the arguments used. It is reasonable to assume that this period was the most fruitful for
our analysis because it raised a variety of competing arguments and fuelled the ideological debate
(Meyer & Hllerer, 2010). Many of the articles collected reported only hard news facts or focused
on issues not pertaining to the contest itself. We carefully selected texts that contained implicit or
explicit arguments for or against the contested project. Altogether 159 articles, divided later into
909 data segments, were eventually included. This number of argumentatively rich texts can be
seen as more than adequate for critical discursive analysis.
The articles were read and analysed in their original languages, that is, in Finnish and Spanish.
The main findings and selective examples were then translated into English for the purposes of this
paper. Table2 provides a summary of the media material.
In addition, we collected other available data. We focused on communications material: the
relevant press releases of Botnia, Greenpeace and other central actors and official or unofficial
749

Table 2. Primary data.
Newspaper
Number of articles
Number of data segments
Helsingin Sanomat (Finland)

La Repblica (Uruguay)
La Nacin (Argentina)
Total
58
42
59
159
301
300
308
909
commentaries of other relevant stakeholders. We also gathered available plans and documents
from the companies and other actors. In addition, we collected studies and analyses about this case.
Altogether, this data amounted to more than 100 documents dealing with the important events,
decisions and various aspects of the disputes. This material helped to place the media discussions
in their broader context, to construct a timeline of the events and to identify the main actors and the
critical phases of the conflict.
We followed an abductive research strategy (Locke, Golden-Biddle, & Feldman, 2008; van
Maanen, Srensen, & Mitchell, 2007). Accordingly, we developed our theoretical ideas alongside
increasingly accurate mapping of the case. In a preliminary phase of the analysis, based on all
available material, we constructed our researchers narrative of the key events and issues (Langley,
1999) (see Table1).
We then focused on the legitimation arguments of the protagonists, antagonists and other actors
in the media texts. We identified all data segments that we saw as containing an implicit or explicit
justification for or against Botnias project. The length of a data segment, which served as our unit
of analysis, varied from one sentence to several paragraphs. We followed an iterative method of
moving between theory, categories and data. Earlier CSR studies have emphasized the differences
between instrumental and moral motives, or between techno-economic interests and ethical principles,
behind corporate social responsibilities (e.g. Aguilera etal., 2007; Carroll, 1979; McWilliams
etal., 2006). This has a close link to the most apparent aspects of discursive legitimation of contested corporate activities more generally, i.e. rationalistic rhetoric and moral arguments (Suddaby
& Greenwood, 2005; Vaara & Tienari, 2008; Joutsenvirta, 2011). A key idea in our cross-national
comparative analysis was to look beyond these instrumental and ethical categories and see how
meaning-making around CSR connects to different cultural and geopolitical environments as well
as to the changing division of labour between states, corporations and social movements in a global
society (Crane & Matten, 2005; Matten & Crane, 2005; Scherer & Palazzo, 2007; Scherer etal.,
2009). Therefore, after several iterations, we concentrated on the content (focus of discussion)
rather than the form (how an argument is made) of discursive legitimation.
In this analysis, we focused on the most frequently used legitimation arguments and developed
our categories accordingly; this was no simple task considering the richness of the data. We
initially identified ten types of legitimation arguments: local economic, techno-scientific, humanistic, environmental, civil society-centred, state-centred, nationalistic, legal-procedural, nationalcapitalistic and market-centred. After several iterations, we grouped these arguments under four
main legitimating discourses: technocratic, societal, national-political and global-capitalist. A key
idea was to be able to highlight both differences in the arguments related to the benefits and concerns of the project and the ways in which the positions of the actors in terms of their responsibility
were constructed in these discourses. Technocratic legitimation focused on the economic and technical aspects that were closely related to the investment project itself. In this discourse, for example,
the role of the MNC was seen as limited to those of the immediate effects of the investment project
and the mill in operations. Societal legitimation concentrated on the wider societal considerations,
including the social as well as the environmental. Here the perspective was wider and the
750
Table 3. Percentage of data segments used for legitimation (+) or de-legitimation () purposes.
National media
(+)
()
Helsingin Sanomat (Finland)

La Repblica (Uruguay)
La Nacin (Argentina)
301
300
308
59%
80%
33%
41%
20%
67%
Table 4. Percentage frequency of legitimating discourses used for legitimation (+) or de-legitimation ()
purposes.
Legitimating discourses
Finland
Uruguay
Argentina
n=301
n=300
n=308
(+)
()
(+)
()
(+)
()
Technocratic
Societal
National-political
Global-capitalist
15.0 %
6.6 %
21.9 %
15.6 %
1.3 %
15.3 %
21.3 %
3.0 %
16.7 %
3.0 %
39.0 %
21.7 %
7.1 %
2.3 %
13.3 %
10.4 %
5.5 %
13.0 %
33.4 %
14.9 %
7.3 %
10.3 %
2.0 %
Note. Bold indicates high frequency (at least 10%).
responsibility of the MNC as well as that of other actors was much broader than in the technocratic
discourse. National-political legitimation in turn framed this issue as a political question involving
international relations between the countries involved. Here the MNC could also be seen as a
political actor. Finally, the global-capitalist discourse focused on the global scene, its rules of the
game and the implications for foreign capital investment in Uruguay and Argentina. Here the role
of the MNC and other actors was viewed from the perspective of a financial investor.
We coded the data material accordingly. Additionally, an experienced research assistant performed an independent analysis of 29 randomly selected texts. This inter-rater reliability check
provided confidence in terms of the robustness of the coding and also helped to validate our
coding scheme. The numerous discussions around the codes and their subtle manifestations
made us avoid closing our analysis prematurely. This was a crucial phase since our aim was to
look beyond conventional categories and connect the legitimation arguments to different cultural
and geopolitical environments. After clarifying some issues and improving our coding scheme,
this check resulted in over 90% agreement in terms of the legitimating discourses.
In the next stage, we focused on the differences in the media coverage in these three countries. Table3 provides a summary of the data segments used for legitimation or de-legitimation
purposes in different countries. In Finland, the media coverage was predominantly positive:
59% of the data segments were legitimating and 41% de-legitimating in nature. Interestingly,
the Uruguayan media coverage was even more dominated by legitimating arguments (80%)
compared with de-legitimating ones (20%). This means that Botnias project received more
positive treatment in the Uruguayan debate than in the Finnish media. In Argentina, the media
coverage was, as expected, clearly dominated by negative arguments (67% de-legitimating vs.
33% legitimating). Table4 provides a summary of the frequency of the legitimating discourses.
This analysis allowed us to relate specific discourses to the particular cultural and political setting as well as to the international relations between the countries.
751
We then proceeded further with the qualitative analysis and interrogated country-specific
legitimation arguments and subject positions in relation to the four main legitimating discourses.
We focused special attention on the distinctive ways in which the protagonists and antagonists
legitimated or de-legitimated the project in different national contexts and how they simultaneously
reconstructed subject positions for MNCs, nation-states and nongovernmental organizations
(NGOs)/civil activists (see Tables 5, 6, 7 and8).
This kind of analysis is methodologically challenging, and caution should be exercised when
interpreting our findings. First, distinguishing different discourses and arguments rests on interpretations, and at times texts are ambiguous and allow for multiple interpretations. However,
the purpose of this analysis has been to develop new theoretical understanding and analytical
generalizations, and not to make accurate claims regarding the relative frequency of different
strategies. Moreover, the inter-rater reliability check showed that the categories are relatively
robust. Second, this kind of analysis involves challenges related to translation. In comparing
findings and translating media texts for this paper, meanings were unavoidably lost. Also, specific
rhetorical arguments or metaphors may be language-specific and not fully understandable when
translated. However, although we conducted detailed linguistic analysis, our objective was not
to focus on the language per se but to map out more general dynamics in legitimation in different
national environments, as reported in the following section.
A Cross-national Comparison of the Legitimacy Struggles

Our analysis provides a framework for understanding discursive legitimation and construction of
roles and responsibilities in the case of controversial MNC activities in an international setting. It
identifies technocratic, societal, national-political and global-capitalist discourses and demonstrates how the same discourse and its ideological underpinnings can be used for legitimation or
de-legitimation purposes depending on the national context.
Technocratic discourse
Technocratic legitimation focused on the local economic and technical aspects of the project.
Technocratic arguments were particularly salient at the beginning of the dispute in the Finnish and
Uruguayan media where Botnias scientific and technical merits were seen to advance development and to create value. Thus, technocratic legitimation emphasized the enormous technological,
economic and employment benefits for Finland, Uruguay and the Botnia Corporation. Overall, the
technocratic discourse built on, and resonated with, a widely spread belief in progress through
technological and material development. It constructed progressive values as beneficial and
empowered actors with technical and professional expertise to effect positive change. Table5
provides examples of the typical technocratic arguments used as well as the ways in which subject
positions were constructed in the three national contexts.
In the Finnish media, technocratic arguments were used often for legitimation purposes (15%
of all the data segments). The Finnish protagonists repeatedly referred to the enormous economic
advantages gained by the size, the modernity and the location of the pulp mill as well as the
Finnish expertise in these issues. The world-class technology would ensure that the possible sideeffects were under control and that the end result would be positive in all respects. Accordingly,
technocratic arguments pictured the MNC in a very positive light in a sense of expertise and
techno-optimism. Botnias actions were seen as central to the creation of wealth and other benefits
not only for the corporation itself and its home country Finland but also for the less developed
country of Uruguay. As for the nation-states, Finnish arguments portrayed them as co-promoters
Activists
Uruguayan activists: job
thirsty & techno-confident
We dont care about pollution
and bad smells as long as we get
jobs, is a common opinion in Fray
Bentos people want permanent
jobs. I trust science and technology.
(22 May 2005)
Argentinean activists:
misinformed
Nobody has read it [the
environmental study] in
Argentina, the general public does
not have any knowledge about this
industry. (11 Aug 2005)
Greenpeace & CEDHA:
irrational ideologists
This is Greenpeaces dogmatic
stance towards chlorine-free
bleaching instead of accepting
scientific facts. (18 Jan 2006)
He does not want to comment
on Cedhas accusations it
spreads information that is total
nonsense. (22 Nov 2006)
State actor
FI/UR: promoter of
development and technology
Uruguays minister of economy
says the plant is one of the
five cleanest in the world
Most Uruguayan people support
Botnias project; it is hoped that
it will improve the economy of this
small country. (22 Nov 2006)
AR: opinionated and
political
Estrada [Director of the
Environmental Department of
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
of Argentina] has loud statements
and bouncing opinions Erkki Varis
smirks. (24 Aug 2005)
MNC
Engine of growth
and wealth-creation
Uruguayans support
almost unanimously
Botnia and Ence
because they bring jobs
to the poor country. The
forest industry and
forest economy can
become as significant
a source of livelihood in
Uruguay as livestock
rearing. (11 Aug 2005)
Technological
expert
[CEO of Botnia] Erkki
Varis, thinks that the
demands are political
not based on scientific
or technical facts.
According to him, the
work continues as
planned. (11 Aug 2005)
Concerns
Questioning of
the benefits
The projects,
altogether
worth 1.7 billion
dollars, are the
biggest industrial
investments in
Uruguayan history,
but Argentina and
environmental groups
have shown their
concern. (12 Mar
2006)
Benefits
Economic benefits
The project is
the biggest foreign
investment in Finlands
economic history the
mills CEO, Ronald
Beare, explains to
politicians, NGOs,
authorities how
Uruguay will also live
from forests in the
future. (22 May 2005)
Modern
technology and
expertise
[Finnish minister
of trade and
development]
Lehtomki said in
the press conference
in Montevideo that
Mets-Botnias pulp
mill constructed in
Fray Bentos will use the
most modern and best
technology available. (21
Apr 2006)
FINLAND
Positions
Arguments
Table 5. Technocratic discourse.
752
URUGUAY
Economic benefits
The major argument
is that the mill will
produce important
sources of employment,
generate investment for
the country improve
peoples quality of life
The country would
be making a major
leap. (29 Jan 2006)
Modern
technology and
expertise
Head of the electrical
department of the
Finnish company Botnia,
told radio Mitre that
his company builds
the best technology
to offer guarantees
to Argentines and
Uruguayans. (21 Feb
2006)
Benefits
Arguments
Table 5.(Continued)
Concerns
Engine of growth
and wealth-creation
An almost natural
correlation between the
age of splendor of Fray
Bentos and the current
Finnish undertaking
were emphasized by
managersa sense of
continuity between
the two largest private
economic projects in the
countrys history. (26 Aug
2005)
Technological
top expert and
European standard
abider
It is the latest technology
Botnia is a Finnish
company, one of the
most modern. They will
use the same technology
that they apply in Europe.
(31 Mar 2006)
MNC
Positions
FI/UR: promoter of
development
He [a Uruguayan municipal
official] predicted a massive
generation of employment. a
reality that matters to the whole
country, a hope for the
industrial projects Finland,
Sweden, Norway and the USA
have their own pulp plants.
I [another Uruguayan municipal
official] want these plants to
generate wealth. (29 Jan 2006)
State actor
(Continued)
misinformed
Varis [the CEO of Botnia]:
We have had great difficulties
to have our message understood
in Argentinait has been very
difficult to transmit information in
the press, above all in the region
of Entre Rios We understand
very well that the people of the
region are worried because they
have heard a lot of incorrect and
far-fetched information over this
issue. (20 Apr 2006)
Greenpeace: biased
Varis: Yes, I know the
Greenpeace campaign There
are very strong opinions from
those who think that producing
totally chlorine free pulp (TCF)
is the best process, but that is
not the reality Greenpeace
says that we have at our disposal
closed cycle processes, but that is
not true. (20 Apr 2006)
Activists

753
ARGENTINA
Technical
expertise
World Bank Study:
First support to
Uruguay for the
construction of the
paper plants; There will
be another technical
report in March
[Title] Supported
by a preliminary
technical study, the
International Finance
Corporation of the
World Bank estimated
yesterday that the
construction of two
pulp plants in Uruguay
respects the technical
requirements. (20 Dec
2005)
Benefits
Arguments
Table 5.(Continued)
Biased
information and
lack of technical
cooperation
Report by two
[Title]. One of the
technicians that is
elaborating on the
Argentine report
over the possible
environmental
impact of the paper
plants admitted
that an accord was
not reached with
Uruguay, so there
will not be a single
study from the binational committee
Regrettably, we
will have to draw
up two reports
because Uruguay did
not pass on data.
(27 Jan 2006)
Concerns
Technologically
imperfect and
suspicious informant
[Journalist]: What is
the information that
Argentina demands?
[Botnia]: I do not know.
[Journalist]: Is it true
that Botnia refused to
give certain information
because it involved
secrets? [Botnia]: No,
it is not true. (27 Apr
2006)
MNC
Positions
UR/FI: biased and

opinionated
Advisors of the president are
preparing materials regarding use
of the latest generation technology
that, in the opinion of the Uruguayan
authorities, ensures that there will
not be pollution. (17 Feb 2006)
State actor
Greenpeace: expert
After reading a report from
Greenpeace, I have concluded that
the two countries should form a
commission that would establish
production norms for these two
paper plants. (22 Jan 2006)
CEDHA: critical of World
Bank studies
CEDHA questioned yesterday the
International Financial Corporation
for publishing the rough draft of the
study regarding the Uruguayan
paper plants. already
controversial conclusions come
to light. (10 Oct 2006)
Activists
754
755
of economic development and modern technology transfer. It was interesting how technocratic
arguments could picture Argentina as an opinionated and political actor whose illegitimate politics
could be detrimental to positive economic and technological development. Uruguayan activists
were portrayed in the Finnish discussion as people who desperately seek jobs provided by companies and who trust the modern science and technology used by them. Argentinean activists, on
the other hand, were seen as misinformed and beyond the reach of corporate communication. Not
only the local activist organization CEDHA, but also the global environmental organization
Greenpeace could in turn be seen as irrational ideologists, whose criticism against corporate
activities was based on invalid knowledge.
The strong belief in technological and material progress also characterized the Uruguayan discussion where this discourse was used for legitimation purposes (17%). The journalists, together with
numerous local and national-political decision-makers, emphasized the enormous financial,
employment and technological benefits for the local economy and the tremendous impact of the
project on the countrys future development. Echoing the Finnish debate, Uruguayan protagonists
constructed Finnish (and European) expertise in the forest business and technology as the modernizer
of Uruguay and Latin America. Interestingly, the Uruguayan protagonists did not treat modern
science and technology as self-evident measures of objectivity as did their Finnish counterparts.
However, this discourse did produce great trust in western science, technology and standards as the
Uruguayan protagonists fought against Argentineans concerns and demands. It was interesting how
the Uruguayan media gave the MNC, Botnia, an even more positive position than the Finnish media.
The company was pictured as an actor who could help the poor country of Uruguay to become an
advanced country like Finland. Not only the local and national politicians but also Finnish actors
praised the benefits that Botnias project would bring to a country that was seen to resemble Finland.
Interestingly, Botnias ability to produce economic growth and wealth as well as to offer advanced technology and high standards provided very positive subject positions for the MNC in the Latin American
context. These engine of growth and wealth-creation and techno-expert constructions were even
more accentuated in the Uruguayan context than in the Finnish debate. The nation-states of Uruguay
and Finland received in the Uruguayan media very similar positions to those in the Finnish discussion.
They were pictured as actors who promote their countrys development and support Botnias project
that creates wealth and jobs for people. Many of the negative subject positions constructed for activists
by the Finnish protagonists and media also characterized the Uruguayan discussion.
In the Argentinean media, technocratic discourse was used for both legitimation (7%) and delegitimation (6%) purposes. Unlike their Finnish and Uruguayan counterparts, the Argentinean
media did not focus on the potential economic and other benefits of the project. However, references to scientific knowledge and technical expertise were often made, and this was done in a
much more critical manner than in the other two countries; technical studies were questioned and
information was often seen as biased. Argentinean media challenged the MNCs technological
proficiency and its reliability as a provider of information. The Uruguayan and Finnish nationstates were also pictured as biased and opinionated actors who trusted only some experts and not
others. Instead, the activists resisting the building of the plant were often framed as experts capable
of criticizing the technical studies. Interestingly, it was only in the Argentinean media where NGOs
gained significant visibility as experts in ecological matters, an issue that is increasingly discussed
in the CSR literature.
Societal discourse
Societal discourse concentrated on wider social and environmental wellbeing issues. In all three
national media, it was used primarily to de-legitimate the project (15% in Finland, 7% in Uruguay,
756
13% in Argentina). While the Latin American debate emphasized the humanistic and ecological
values, the Finnish societal discourse was dominated by a factual and objective tone (Table6).
The Finnish de-legitimation centered on the persistent environmental, social and citizen concerns
raised by Botnias actions in the two Latin American countries. In contrast to the corresponding
Latin American constructions (see below), these concerns were reported through objective and
unbiased facts rather than with ethical judgement, not to mention compassionate concern. For
example, the journalists repeatedly pictured the citizen reactions as based on unrealistic beliefs
and ideas. It was striking how the Finnish media avoided the negative moral constructions for
MNCs. Botnia was instead depicted as a target of citizen frustration and suspicion, and journalists
put the blame on cultural differences and misunderstandings rather than on morally questionable
corporate behaviour. Overall, the Finnish arguments pictured Botnia as an ethically well-advanced
company that follows international ethical standards, a CSR tool used increasingly by MNCs to
deal with ecological and social problems. This construction drew from popular western understandings of an ethically responsible corporation and it provided a way to defer wider responsibility and blame others for eventual problems. The nation-state constructions were not frequent
in the Finnish discussion. The Uruguayan and Argentinean governments were pictured simply as
parties of a bi-national environmental conflict. For activists, the Finnish discussion produced
colourful, but unflattering, subject positions: the local activists and Greenpeace were portrayed as
driven by emotion and acting on dubious, sensationalist grounds. The tens of thousands of
Argentinean demonstrators were also seen as distrustful citizens, who are culturally accustomed
to bad business practices.
The Uruguayan discussion, in turn, used societal arguments to emphasize justice and fairness
between different actors rather than ecological concerns. The rights of Uruguayan workers gained
particular attention. However, our intertextual analysis revealed that it was also common for the
Uruguayan media to reproduce both ecological and social concerns of Argentinean demonstrators.
Unlike the Finnish media, the Uruguayan discussion put the MNCs moral responsibility in the
center. Botnia was constructed as a rich exploiter of the local environment or local people. These
characterizations originated often from Argentinean citizens who were given voice in the Uruguayan
media. The negative MNC construction was strengthened by Uruguayan activist concerns that
focused especially on unfair labor conditions, an important CSR issue for contemporary MNCs. The
roles of the nation-states were discussed in colourful terms. The Uruguayan debate portrayed,
through the mouths of Argentinean activists, both Uruguayan and Finnish states as irresponsible
actors while Argentina could be praised for caring for people and nature. Activists, in turn, were
pictured as victims of injustice and caretakers of Latin American nature, people and workers rights.
The Argentinean societal de-legitimation focused on the enormous human and ecological
degradation that would be caused by the plant and frequently linked these adverse effects with
the sufferings of the local environment, communities and businesses. As in Uruguay, societal
arguments centered on the MNCs (the Finnish Botnia and the Spanish ENCE) contribution to the
environmental and social harms and their actions were frequently framed in a dubious and unethical light. Botnia was pictured as a rich and inhumane exploiter of the local natural environment and
blamed for its lack of responsibility for the well-being of local citizens. The Argentinean nationstate and politicians were portrayed positively as defenders of citizens concerns and human rights,
while Uruguayan counterparts were treated harshly as violators of human rights and the Latin
American environment. As for activists, the Argentinean media pictured them often as victims of
injustice and ecological degradation. Voice was given not only to Argentinean activists but also to
the local governor Jorge Busti, from the opposite side of the Uruguay River on the banks of which
Botnias mill was being constructed. According to Uruguayan surveys, over 80% of Uruguays
population supported Botnias project throughout the conflict (Kosonen, 2008). However, and
FINLAND
Social and
environmental
benefits
The seedlings are
planted in wasteland
so that the clone forests
do not disturb other
livelihoods. In Brazil
and Indonesia, forest
companies have been
blamed for raping rain
forests, but in Uruguay
there is no such fear.
The plantations have
been granted the
FSC standard that
is supported by
environmental activists.
(27 May 2005)
Benefits
Arguments
Table 6. Societal discourse.
Persistent
environmental
concerns
People in
Gualeguaych are
convinced about
the immeasurable
natural
catastrophe [that
will be] caused by
the pulp plans. (27
Feb 2006)
Concerns
Abider of universal
ethical standards
Yes, we do use the EFC
[Elemental Chlorine
Free] method as do 80
percent of the pulp plants
in the world. (18 Jan
2006)
Target of
unfounded criticism
Protestors are
convinced that Botnia
has been thrown
out of Finland because
of its pollution. They
think it is all based on a
European conspiracy. (13
Mar 2006)
MNC
Positions
UR/AR: ecologically
disagreeing
The presidents Nstor
Kirchner and Tabar
Vzquez announced on
Saturday that during
the suspension of the
construction work
they will clarify the
environmental impacts of
the plants. In Argentina,
people are against the
construction of the pulp
mills for environmental
reasons. (14 Mar 2006)
State actor
(Continued)
Greenpeace:
sensationalists
[The head of Botnias
project] Piilonen thinks
this is a typical Greenpeace
demonstration that aims to
get publicity. Naturally
a few days demonstration
has no effect on the
schedule. (18 Jan 2006)
distrustful and blinded
by bad local business
There is a lot of suspicion
about killing the river
[title] We dont want
death for the Uruguay
River. People are so
used to corruption that
they believe it in effect to
be also used by Finnish
companies. (8 Dec 2005)
Activists

757
Benefits
Justice in the
process
Likewise he signaled
that the workers have the
liberty to decide if they
accept the proposition
of their employer
there will be a
Fray Bentos workers
assembly of SUNCA
with the objective of
transmitting Botnias
announcement about
the continuity of the
work. (3 Apr 2006)
URUGUAY
Arguments
Table 6.(Continued)
Unfair
treatment of
people and
nature
It is necessary to
bring intentions
closer, explained
Lozano [the
bishop of
Gualeguaychu],
in the search
for justice and
reasonable
alternatives.
Nevertheless, the
bishop labeled
the protest
against the pulp
processors as a
just cause. (13
Feb 2006)
Concerns
Exploiter
The leader of the
demonstrators,
Gustavo Rivollier,
answered: The people
of Gualeguaychu
do not want those
plants because we are
convinced that they are
going to contaminate.
They are taking them
out of the rich world to
bring them here. (21 Jan
2006)
MNC
Positions
UR/FI: irresponsible
All the contamination
is the governments
responsibility, especially
that of Uruguay,
which must stop this
construction work. (21
Jan 2006)
AR: caretaker of
people and nature
We are preserving
a community
[Gualeguaych]
We represent those
interests. The
environment but
also the way the rural,
the urban fabric, the
economy and tourism
are affected. (31 Mar
2006)
State actor
Argentinean
activists: victims
of injustice and
caretakers of Latin
Americans
The assembly members
accused the Uruguayans
of trying to assassinate the
people of Entre Rios.
We are brothers, but we
ask for deliberation from
the authorities so that
they remain accountable.
both of our peoples are
having to suffer the grave
consequences. (21 Jan
2006)
Worker union:
caretaker of worker
rights
The conflict was aggravated
after the firm announced
that a thousand foreign
workers might be coming
to work at the plant.
The workers syndicates
began to mobilize.
SUNCA demands that for
every foreigner there be one
Uruguayan hired. (21 Sep
2006)
Activists
758
Benefits
Local well-being
interests
Merchants from the
Uruguayan city of Fray
Bentos marched today to
the Argentine consulate
in that city to demand
lifting of the road block
that the people of
Gualeguaychu maintain
and to request economic
compensation for the
losses occasioned by the
protests. (7 Apr 2006)
ARGENTINA
Arguments
Table 6.(Continued)
Human and
ecological
degradation
The governor
Jorge Busti,
alleged that the
plants will affect
the health of
the communities
and the tourism
industry, which
is one of the
principal sources
of income on
the Argentine
riverbank. (20
Dec 2005)
Concerns
Rich and inhuman
exploiter
Convinced that these
undertakings constitute
a strong threat not
only for the economy
of the area based
fundamentally on
agriculture and tourism
but also for the health
of the inhabitants, the
neighbors decided to
group themselves into
the Environmental
Assembly of
Gualeguaychu. The
plainly visible tears of the
old timers who were
present caused little
surprise. (28 Sep 2005)
MNC
Positions
UR: violator of
human rights and
the Latin American
environment
Governor Busti
accused the Uruguayan
government of
violating human rights
with the magnitude
of the environmental
consequences he
defended the decision
in defense of the life
of the people. (17 Feb
2006)
AR: caretaker of
citizens
The President
understands. He told
us you are supported.
He understands that
we have to defend the
people of Entre Rios, said
governor Busti. (28 Oct
2005)
State actor
Argentinean
activists: victims
of injustice and
ecological degradation
We are resisting the
construction of these
death plants. (27 Jan 2006)
Argentinean and
Uruguayan activists
and local governor:
protector of the
territory
Many Uruguayans
dont want the plants in
our small territory. The
countries from the
North implemented
the reforestation in
the temperate fringe
of the south. We feel
great frustration, what
we believed was a
progressive government
acts like the others. (20
Feb 2006)
Activists

759
760
interestingly, the Argentinean media gave voice not only to the Argentinean demonstrators but also
to those Uruguayans who opposed Botnias project. Activists, together with governor Busti, were
praised for their courage in protecting Latin American territory.
National-political discourse
The dominant legitimating discourse in all three national contexts was national-political that
framed the investment project as a political question involving international relations between the
countries involved. National political interests were juxtaposed and the international relations were
especially visible. In the two Latin American countries, the nation-states and especially the local
politicians were at the centre of national-political legitimation struggles (Table7).
In the Finnish media, national-political discourse was used equally for legitimation (22%) and
de-legitimation (21%) purposes. The national-political discourse extended application of the values
of objectivity and rule-obedience beyond technological and moral matters to include politics as
well. The Finnish discussion emphasized the legality of Botnias actions as well as rationality and
good judgement in the difficult diplomatic situation. Argentinean politics was repeatedly pictured
as illegitimate products of personal political game-playing instead of rational and substantive
issues-based politics. The critical arguments of activists and Argentinean politicians were framed
in the Finnish debate as illegitimate side issues or driven by strange political motives as something obscuring an objective evaluation of the project and its consequences. National-political
arguments constructed the MNC in terms of its compliance or non-compliance with laws and regulations. When we consider the national-political MNC constructions in the Latin American context
(see below), it was striking how the Finnish debate avoided viewing Botnia as an agent with a
political role and responsibility. On the contrary, the Finnish protagonists often relied on the conventional and taken-for-granted division of labor between companies, politicians, and NGOs (see
Scherer & Palazzo, 2007, 2011), emphasizing the role and duty of MNCs to follow the laws passed
by politicians. The subordinate corporate role was sometimes even accentuated by a moral tone:
the Finnish debate could construct Botnia as a helpless victim in the middle of a complex web of
domestic and foreign South American politics. This position was in total contradiction to some of
the Latin American MNC constructions (a powerful, guilty and irresponsible party). It seemed that
the Finnish protagonists liked to place the company in a powerless and passive role that enabled it
to wash its hands of the whole political dispute. As for the subject positions constructed for the
nation-states, the Finnish press focused most attention on the political games in South America,
often explicitly criticizing Argentinas illegitimate political motives and suppressive politics
against Uruguay. It seemed to serve Finnish interests to portray Uruguay as a victim of Argentinean
brutal aggression. The Finnish state, in contrast, was pictured as an impartial actor who is incapable
of influencing Botnias actions. The interests of Finland and the MNC were often aligned in these
discussions. The activists, for their part, were constructed as political actors. Argentinean activists
were constructed as an ally or even a significant tool in South American politics while Uruguayan
counter-demonstrators were pictured positively as brave fighters for sovereignty.
In the Uruguayan media, the national-political discourse was used clearly more for legitimation
(39%) than de-legitimation (10%). These arguments demonstrated how, for Uruguay, the project
became a question of national identity and pride. The conflict was repeatedly framed as involving
important national interests even national sovereignty. What was important was the interference
by Argentina, the former colonial ruler of Uruguay. In fact, the discussions often reflected a critical
view of Argentinean politics and politicians. However, especially during the critical phase of the
dispute (see Table1), the attitude and role of the MNC became a central issue for national-political
legitimation but also for de-legitimation purposes. Indeed, during this stage Uruguays very positive
tools of national
politics
The mayor thinks that
part of the resistance
has been fixed by
Argentineans. the
dissatisfaction of the
neighbors originates from
envy because Argentineans
would have liked the plant
to be in their own country
on the other side of the
river. (22 May 2005)
Uruguayan
activists: fighters for
sovereignty
Yes to the pulp mills!
Yes to industry! Yes to
progress! was the core of
the message, when 6000
Uruguayans marched for
the Finnish Mets-Botnia.
Go to demonstrate in
the Falkland islands! The
Falkland islands belong
to Argentina, the pulp
belongs to Uruguay
we want to show that we
defend what is ours. (18
Mar 2006)
FI: impartial
Lehtomki [Finnish
minister of trade and
development] made it
clear that Botnias actions
cannot be controlled by the
government. Botnia is a
private enterprise and it is
not our job to tell it what to
do. (27 Apr 2006)
UR: victim of
suppression
[The president of
Uruguay] Vzquez
compared the cuts
to the US commercial
blockade on Cuba.
Uruguay suffers a brutal
aggression at the hands of
the Argentineans. (20 Mar
2006)
AR: infused by
political motives
He is an Argentinean
nationalist [The
president of Argentina]
Kirchner is a Peronist. (29
Apr 2006)
Law and rule
abider
The construction
work cannot be
stopped by legal
means because
licenses are in order.
. . . Piilonen [the
head of Botnias
project] is now
waiting for an
official statement by
Uruguay. (13 Mar
2006)
Victim of
political game
playing
According to
[EU Trade
Commissioner]
Peter Mandelson,
Botnia is an
innocent victim in
the conflict. It is
unreasonable for a
European company
to be caught in the
middle. (21 Apr
2006)
Potential breaches of
bi-national contracts
Raul Estrada [Director of the
Environmental Department
of the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of Argentina]
hinted that if necessary
Argentina will take the
dispute to the Hague.
Estrada justified Argentinas
viewpoint by referring to
the contract that obliges
the neighboring countries
to negotiate in situations
where construction works
at the Uruguay River impact
the environment of the
other country. Uruguay
has not acted according to its
obligation. (24 Aug 2005)
Substantive issuesbased politics

The head of Botnias
project, Timo Piilonen,
considers Argentinean
politics strange. Each issue
has to be made some kind
of a show, Piilonen says.
Obstructions seem to fit
the logics of the local internal
politics. (4 Mar 2006)
Legality of activities
According to [the CEO of
Botnia] Varis, Argentina
has not enough ingredients
to take the issue to the
international court of justice.
That is intimidation
between two countries. All
licenses are in order. (24 Aug
2005)
Finland
(Continued)
Activists
State actor
MNC
Concerns
Benefits
Positions
Arguments
Table 7. National-political discourse.

761
Activists
Greenpeace:
militants
A truck had its driving
cabin burnt with a
Molotov cocktail
(thrown by activists).
Greenpeace militants
chaining themselves to
trucks and the invasion
of Uruguayan territory by
Greenpeace. (25 Jan 2006)
Uruguayan
activists: defenders of
sovereignty
There will be a
demonstration in
defense of sovereignty. (16
Mar 2006)
influential blackmailers
The suspension of the
construction resulted
from the blackmail of the
demonstrators. the
demonstrators are part of
the negotiations and the
country will suffer. (28
Mar 2006)
State actor
UR: defender of
sovereignty
I [a top official of the Rio
Negro province] came to
tell you as an Uruguayan
that the project is
being carried out in
Uruguay. (21 Jan 2006)
AR: imperialist
The hypocrisy of
Argentine politics is also
denounced by Engineer
Jose Crotto, .With coarse
ignorance, immature
demagoguery and arrogant
paternalism it confronts
a brother country and
friend with alarming
consequences. (31 Mar
2006)
MNC
Actor that
influences state
politics
The decision [of
Botnia] was
considered the key
that would open the
way to negotiations
between Uruguay
and Argentina
the importance
attributed to the
position that would
be adopted by
Botnia in order to
unblock the conflict.
(27 Mar 2006)
Actor that
should follow the
local rules and
policies
The chancellor said
that Botnia never
communicated to
them the decision
Mujica let slip a
veiled warning to
Botnia in stating: I
would not have a firm
in bad relations with
the government as no
firm can work against
the government. (1
Apr 2006)
Concerns
National interests
Nothing else will be asked
[from Botnia] except
that they reconsider and
understand that when
international conflicts of this
dimension exist, more than
just commercial interests must
be considered. (5 Apr 2006)
Benefits
National interests
Tabare Vazquez [the
president of Uruguay]
said his obligation is to
defend the interests of the
Uruguayan people and that
this should not have to
be contradictory to the
well-being of relations with
Argentina. (22 May 2006)
Uruguay
Positions
Arguments
Table 7.(Continued)
762
Activists
Greenpeace: a
significant political
actor
Greenpeace questioned
today the decision of
Argentina to take
this matter before the
International Court of
The Hague. The final
solution can only be
reached through politics
maintained the NGO.
(27 Jan 2006)
critical of state power
This muddies the whole
panorama, but [the
activist] stressed that
since the announcement
of the truce distrust has
reigned. We at all times
distrust the capacity that
Tabare [the president of
Uruguay] has to stop the
construction. (13 Mar
2006)
State actor
UR/AR: political
game players
The head of the
Uruguayan cabinet told
us that this was part of
the damned heritage.
The accord was already
finalized before they came
into government. They
have a complex because
they are the main leftist
government. (22 Jan 2006)
FI: responsible party
President Kirchner
placed responsibility on
the Finnish government.
Finland is also a party
and it remains quiet while
it should collaborate in
finding a solution. In the
interior of the Botnia
plant, with Finnish capital,
will operate a producer of
chloride dioxide which
is 60% the property of
the Finnish state. (20 Apr
2006)
MNC
Actor that
influences state
politics
The Uruguayan
leaders spoke
using the mouth
of the paper plant
businessmen.
It is awful that
the politicians
let themselves be
influenced. (31 Oct
2005)
Misuser of
power and guilty
party
They [Botnia] did
not communicate
any of that to me;
I want to believe
that if the company
takes such a decision
it should tell the
government, said
the [Uruguayan]
secretary of the
Presidency. (31 Mar
2006)
Concerns
National interests
As the President says, this
is a problem that affects the
interests of the nation. (15
Feb 2006)
Benefits
National interests
Vazquez [the president
of Uruguay] stated that
he would not continue
under pressure and added:
Uruguay does not have an
obligation to obtain permission
from Argentina to authorize
an investment. (10 Jun
2006)
Argentina
Positions
Arguments
Table 7.(Continued)

763
764
treatment of Botnia became ambiguous and an important subject of national politics. The MNC
characterizations within the national-political discourse were similar in the Uruguayan and
Argentinean media. In fact, it was striking how the Latin American characterizations produced
contradictory political roles for the MNC in relation to the state actors. On the one hand, Botnia
was portrayed in the Latin American context as a powerful political actor that influences state
politics and is driven by its own interests and those of its home country. On the other hand, the
MNC was seen as a guilty party to the intense diplomatic dispute between two neighbour countries
and an actor that should follow the will and policies of the states. An interesting national difference
was, however, that whereas the Argentinean media pictured Botnia as a potential manipulator of
politicians and abuser of its power (see below), the Uruguayan news outlet, despite its leftist orientation, used softer characterizations: Botnia was criticized for its politically unwise actions that
created bad relations between the company and the national government. This construction positioned the MNC as a subordinate of state actors in a more diplomatic way, which served Uruguayan
interests in the difficult position between its brother-countrys opposition and Botnias demands.
The nation-states and especially the local politicians were at the centre of the Uruguayan nationalpolitical discourse. Uruguay was seen as a defender of national interests and sovereignty, whereas
Argentina was portrayed as its paternalistic arch-rival. It was interesting how the Uruguayan leftist
press pictured Argentinean activists and Greenpeace working against the project in a very critical
light. The vocabulary of military discourse was put to good use, and Greenpeace was pictured as a
group of militants acting against the national (Uruguayan) interests. Argentinean demonstrators
were depicted as malcontented blackmailers and influential (but illegitimate) political actors.
Uruguayan counter-demonstrators who organized themselves to support Botnias project were
pictured positively as defenders of the local economy and sovereignty.
In the Argentinean context, national-political arguments were used primarily for de-legitimation
(33%) and less for legitimation (13%). Notably, the central themes were more or less identical to
those in Uruguay, but the dynamics of the discussion were opposite. De-legitimation often drew
from nationalistic arguments emphasizing the right of Argentina to protect its citizens, territory and
national rights. This included sharp criticism of Botnia, the Uruguayan state and other protagonists.
Nevertheless, legitimating arguments were also relatively frequent, since these explained the
brother-countrys actions and viewpoints. Importantly, both Botnia and Finland were seen as having
a major political role in the dispute, especially during the critical phase. Indeed, it was striking how
Botnia had a visible and important role in the Latin American national-political struggles. In the
Argentinean de-legitimation arguments, the unwillingness of the company and its home country to
halt the construction work for a period of 90 days was seen as a major obstacle to resolution of the
conflict. Thus, national-political arguments portrayed the MNC as an influential political actor
driven by its own interests and those of its home country. The MNCs were also pictured as actors
that can misuse their power and manipulate politicians to advance corporate interests. But even
more central was the nation-state relationship, especially that between Argentina and Uruguay.
Both countries could be seen as fiercely defending their self-interests, which were often equated
with the promotion of (Uruguay) or resistance to (Argentina) the pulp mill. Unlike in the other
country contexts, the Finnish state was also constructed in the Argentinean media as a key political
actor and, thus, responsible for the actions of its companies. Interestingly, Greenpeace and other
activists were also pictured as relatively significant political agents who were sometimes critical of
the capacity of politicians to secure national interests.
Global-capitalist discourse
Finally, the global-capitalist discourse focused on the global economic and financial scene, its rules
of the game and the implications for foreign capital investment in Uruguay and Argentina. Thus, it
765
framed the contested issue as one of dealing with investment in the global financial economy. This
discourse was somewhat more common in the Uruguayan media than in the other two countries.
While the Finnish global-capitalist discourse emphasized the interests and perspective of the MNC,
the Latin American discussion was more nation-oriented (Table8).
The Finnish debate used the global-capitalist discourse primarily for legitimation (16% vs. 3%
for de-legitimation). These arguments focused, in particular, on Botnias economic rights and
financial capability to pursue investments. When Botnia was at the beginning of the project evaluating the potential price of political risk in Uruguay, the company foresaw the possibility of some
sort of political risk, but mainly regarding government regulation policies (Kosonen, 2008). The
Finnish global-capitalist arguments assessed Botnias financial benefits and risks involved in the
dispute and mostly saw the risks as minor. International economic rules and agencies were constructed as legitimate judges to decide the rights and responsibilities of corporations in the global
economy. They were seen to provide not only adequate objectivity but also an important safety net
for foreign investment in contests that involved major national interests. It was not until Argentina
took the conflict to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) at The Hague that Botnia publicly
admitted that the political risk of the investment had been realized. This was despite the fact that at
that point the intense diplomatic dispute between Uruguay and Argentina had been going on for
many months. However, a few months later the threat of a significant delay in the project became
much more severe. At that point, Botnias directors tried to avoid giving alarming statements and
consequently a contradictory message of the materialization of the political risk was given by the
CEO who claimed that no political risk had been realized. The Finnish global-capitalist discourse
portrayed the MNC, Botnia, as economically successful and financially capable in relation to
the Fray Bentos project. Its future success was tied to the project and the corresponding privileges
such as reductions in import duties. Botnia was pictured as a competent investor that acknowledged its economic rights. Moreover, the company was portrayed positively, at times even in an
ethically oriented manner, as an actor that respects and is protected by international economic rules
and agencies. The nation-states were then evaluated on the basis of whether they supported Botnias
project and economic globalization more generally. Thus, in the Finnish global-capitalist legitimation,
Latin American countries were seen in relation to the MNC both as targets of private investment
and tied by global economic rules. Argentina was also pictured as economically unwise because
of its opposition whereas Uruguay was portrayed as a fighter for economic sovereignty.
In Uruguay, global-capitalistic arguments were used for legitimation purposes even more
predominantly (22% legitimating vs. 2% de-legitimating) than the national-political ones.
Instead of emphasizing national pride and the bi-national political struggle (national-political
discourse), global-capitalist arguments were based on neoliberal economic premises and evaluated
the project from the perspective of countries ability to attract foreign investment. The central
focus was on the advantages and disadvantages of foreign investment in Uruguay. Comparisons
were also made between Uruguay and Argentina in this respect. The centrality of this theme was
noticeable in many ways. The Uruguayan global-capitalist legitimation often portrayed MNCs
as powerful investors with specific rights. However, intertextual analysis revealed that in the
Uruguayan media these rights were sometimes subjected to harsh criticism by referring to the
sweatshop allegations in the Argentinean media. Interestingly, some Uruguayan subject positions
for the nation-states offered a perfect match for the corresponding Finnish constructions. The
Uruguayan press pictured the nation-states as beneficiaries of the MNC investment, and their
actions were scrutinized accordingly. Unlike in the national-political arguments, nation-states
were sometimes portrayed uncritically as powerless vis-a-vis foreign investors, even in this leftist
news medium; Finland was highlighted as a critical source of future investments.
In contrast to the Uruguayan and Finnish discussions, a major part of the Argentinean debate
about the economic rights and responsibilities of corporations was critical (15% de-legitimating vs.
FINLAND
Adhesion to global
economic logic and rules
Piilonen [the head of Botnias
project] does not believe that
Mets-Botnia would have to
suspend its construction work
during The Hague process. It
would seem strange The
project costs almost one
billion Euros. We have kept to
the schedule. (25 Feb 2006)
Safety of investments
Usually western investors shun
leftist countries, but CEO
Varis thinks that Uruguay is a
politically stable country. (8 Mar
2005)
Benefits
Arguments
Table 8. Global-capitalist discourse.
Interruptions of
international financing
The dispute harms the
financing of Mets-Botnias
project in Uruguay. The
World Bank was supposed to
finance part of the plant but
the dispute has postponed
decision making on the
financing. (9 Feb 2006)
Concerns
Economic beneficiary
The plant will be built in
a free trade zone, which
means that it does not have
to pay high import duties
on its machinery. (8 Mar
2005)
Protected by global
economic authorities
The World Bank will sell
Mets-Botnia an insurance
against a political risk.
The guarantees and the
insurance against political
risk from the World Bank
will decrease the financial
expenses of the pulp mill.
(24 Dec 2005)
MNC
Positions
UR: fighter for

economic sovereignty
[The Director of Uruguays
Ministry of Finance] thinks
that the plant will
export its production to
developed nations and not
to Brazil or Argentina. This
reduces our dependence
on the whims of our neighbor
countries. (30 May 2005)
AR: insensitive to the
market economy
Dont they understand
the market economy in
Argentina? (30 Apr 2006)
State actor
766
Benefits
Blessings of international
investments
Uruguay must try to attract
to its territory all the
investment that it can and the
undertakings of these pulp
firms are amongst the most
important the country will
have. We must produce
paper and we must do so with
the necessary controls. We
must open ourselves to a life as
an independent and sovereign
country and that is not under
discussion. (29 Jan 2006)
URUGUAY
Arguments
Table 8.(Continued)
Curses of foreign
investments
We will not allow foreign
investment, which
undoubtedly we need to
generate employment,
if they compromise the
biodiversity and the quality
of life of our citizens.(21 Feb
2006)
Concerns
Important investor
Regarding impact of
potential investors we
must think long term. (27
Apr 2006)
Global economic
opportunist
70% of the machinery is
of Finnish origin imported
into Uruguay free of tax to
be used by cheap labor. (20
Apr 2006)
MNC
Positions
(Continued)
UR/AR: beneficiary of
MNC investments
Neither the cuts nor the
threats of turning to
international tribunals
will halt the investments
on Uruguayan soil. La
Repblica learned the
reasons why the European
firm decided to choose
Uruguay. (16 Apr 2006)
Powerless in stopping
the project
[President Vazquez] told
him in the meeting: Nestor,
I cant order the suspension
of a private construction
project and my country has
signed an investment treaty
with Finland. (22 May 2006)
FI: source of future
investment
The Finnish minister
indicated that her country
is keen on increasing the
interchange with Uruguay
Finland has an interest
in the investment of more
Finnish capital in Uruguay.
(26 Apr 2006)
State actor

767
Benefits
Blessings of international
investments
Igorra [Uruguayan housing
and environment minister]
advanced to La Nacin that
whatever negotiation with
the Argentine government
would be based on three basis
premises: the first is that the
construction of the plants will
not be stopped because that
would signify a lot of cost and it
would be stopping a multimillion
dollar investment. (3 Feb 2006)
ARGENTINA
Arguments
Table 8.(Continued)
Curses of foreign
investments
Busti admitted that they
[The Hague processes] are
long proceedings, but what
it provokes is nervousness in
the investors of the plant. He
explained that if within two
years the Court dictates
that there is pollution, the
financial responsibilities of
the companies and investors
would be very large. And he
ventured: This is an event
that is going to provoke an
analysis in the World Bank
directorate. (26 Jan 2006)
Concerns
Powerful investor
backed by their home
countries
The companies have more
say than the president of
the Republic and the
Congress . They take
more sovereign decisions.
(19 Jun 2006)
We have financing
mechanisms for all
companies that wish to
internationalize. That is
normal and logical. [Finnish
minister of trade and
development] (26 Apr
2006)
MNC
Positions
UR/AR: fighters for

foreign investments
It is an economic war
maybe they are afraid
that Uruguay will take off
economically. (11 Oct
2005)
UR/AR: powerless to
stop the project
It is not the Uruguayan
government that can tell
investors of this character
to stop because then
nobody else would ever
invest here. (2 Mar 2006)
State actor
768
769
10% legitimating). Interestingly, it was only in Argentina that the basis of neoliberal argumentation
was challenged directly. Compared with the debate in Uruguay, the arguments dealing with the
ability of Latin American countries to attract foreign investments were more ambiguous. On the
one hand, the conservative Argentinean news outlet emphasized the negative effects that Argentinas
tenacious opposition managed to cause to the investors in the plants. Indeed, the power of investors
and financers was posited against Botnia by claiming them to be dubious and nervous about the
companys Latin American project. On the other hand, Argentinean discussion saw foreign investment as a necessary route to economic development for the countries. It was interesting how the
Argentinean discussion could portray the MNC as a powerful player with more voice in the conflict
than the (Uruguayan) state actors. Finally, the global-capitalist discourse depicted the nation-states
as fighters for foreign investments. Legitimating arguments were presented by this conservative
Argentinean medium to explain why the project could not be stopped, and pictured states as unable
to confront foreign investment.
Discussion: Discursive and Ideological Dimensions of International

Political CSR
With this framework, our analysis helps to better understand three key issues in political CSR: how
CSR involves discourse-ideological struggles, how CSR is embedded in international relations,
and how CSR is mediatized in contemporary globalizing society.
CSR as discourse-ideological struggle

Our analysis unravels essential aspects of the discursive-ideological struggles around CSR. We
identified four legitimating discourses in the media debates: technocratic, societal, nationalpolitical and global-capitalist discourses. While our case has some unique features, we maintain
that such discourses may also be found in other contexts, even though their specific nature and
relations may vary from one case to another. Thus, we maintain that our study provides a theoretically grounded and empirically validated framework that helps to unravel the multifaceted
political and ideological nature of political CSR in concrete international settings. By so doing,
it helps to add to research on political CSR in global society (Detomasi, 2008; Khan etal., 2007;
Levy, 2008; Matten & Crane, 2005; Scherer & Palazzo, 2007, 2011; Scherer etal.,2013).
These discourses are ideologically laden, and they reflect and reproduce different and competing
ideological assumptions. The technocratic discourse focuses on technological and local economic
issues and privileges such knowledge. This discourse can be seen to reflect modern capitalist
ideology that emphasizes progress and does not question the capitalist world order or the role of
MNCs as engines of progress. The societal discourse provides a broader view that emphasizes
social and environmental aspects and reflects humanism and environmentalism as ideological
assumptions that are distinctively different from those of technocratic discourses. While these two
discourses and ideologies are relatively well known in research on political CSR, the nationalpolitical discourse has received less attention. Nevertheless, as our analysis vividly shows, this
discourse and the nationalist ideology that it reflects play a central role in legitimacy struggles in the
international context. Furthermore, the global-capitalist discourse provides yet another discourseideological facet that is central to fully understanding the discursive-ideological struggles around
CSR in international settings. In this discourse, the value of MNC-driven globalization is particularly
pronounced, and it, among other things, challenges the conventional role of nation-states in international and global settings.
770
More specifically, these discourses create different kinds of subject positions for the MNC and
other actors involved. Thus, this analysis shows how the very issue of responsibility can be constructed in alternative and competing ways in terms of the subject positions of the focal actors. This
was particularly salient for Botnia as the MNC; a comparison of the subject positions across the
four discourses and the three countries vividly illustrates how Botnia could be portrayed as the villain or the victim and how its agency and power vis-a-vis the nation-states or global financial
markets were emphasized or de-emphasized. Thus, our analysis helps to better understand how
exactly conceptions of corporate social responsibility are interdiscursively produced in legitimacy
struggles. This positioning is partly a result of intentional argumentation on the part of the various
stakeholders, but it should be emphasized that the media in particular tends to reproduce widely
held assumptions, which is a topic that we will elaborate on below.
CSR as embedded in international relations

Our analysis also shows how the legitimacy struggles involve international relations and how CSR
can be seen as embedded in such relations. This is vividly illustrated when comparing the media
coverage in the three countries and examining the prevalence and nature of the four discourses and
the voice given to the protagonists and the antagonists. This embeddedness is especially visible in
the national-political discourses, where national political interests were juxtaposed. In these discourses, the tensions between Argentina and Uruguay and their representatives may be linked to
their past, which involves a postcolonial relationship (Prasad, 2003). For example, the Argentinean
media frequently portrayed decision-makers in Uruguay as less knowledgeable and themselves as
more up-to-date in terms of technical, environmental and other issues. In turn, the Uruguayan press
included a great number of intertextual references to the Argentinean press and characteristically
lamented Argentinean resistance and big brother attitude. Such attitudes and manifestations are
common in international relations and must be taken seriously in political CSR (Banerjee &
Linstead, 2001; Blowfield & Frynas, 2005; Frynas, 2005). Interestingly, the Finnish discussion
used Uruguayan postcolonial sentiments to deflect Argentinean opposition. Neocolonialism was
most obvious in the developed vs. developing world juxtaposition, in which Finland at times
emerged as the neocolonial power. Indeed, many Argentineans have seen the fast-growing agribusiness, especially the planned foreign pulp investments, as old colonialist style aggression
(Pakkasvirta, 2008; Teubal, 2004). In the global-capitalist discourses, in turn, the national concerns
were within the framework of investor capitalism where nations are seen as competing for investment by MNCs; such competition involves globally defined responsibilities for the nations themselves. This discourse may in itself be seen as reflecting a new kind of global world order where
the rights and responsibilities of investors are at the nexus of debate. Thus, this analysis helps to
unravel complex national, international and global aspects of CSR (Brammer etal., 2012; Levy,
2008; Lucea & Doh, 2012; Prakash & Griffin, 2012; Scherer & Palazzo, 2011; Wittneben, Okereke,
Banerjee, & Levy, 2012). This includes sensitivity to the countries historical roots, the global
North/South division, and the ongoing development of global governance and democracy.
Mediatization as a key part of political CSR

Finally, our analysis underscores the role of the media as a central arena for legitimacy struggles
and thus the mediatization of political CSR. Our case can be seen as an extreme one due to its
prolonged nature and wide coverage in international and national media, whereas in other cases the
role of media might be less obvious. Nevertheless, it is important to emphasize the role of the
771
media not only as a site of concrete struggle, but as an institutional arena where generally held
conceptions of CSR are being negotiated, often reproduced, but at times also transformed.
In these legitimacy struggles, stakeholders have vested interests at play. This is not a trivial
matter as the focal actors, starting from the MNC itself, seek to limit their responsibility and portray others as accountable for the problems often entailed by controversial projects such as our
case. Our analysis shows how this discursive strategizing may take place and demonstrates how
specific discourses provide different kinds of resources for legitimation, de-legitimation and relegitimation. This study also provides a number of examples of how the protagonists and the
antagonists use a variety of legitimation strategies to further their interests. However, it is also
important to emphasize the role of the media and the journalists in these struggles. While our
analysis has not focused on the journalists practices per se, it is clear that they can exercise major
influence in terms of legitimation in general and definition of corporate social responsibility in
particular; for example, by mobilizing specific discourses and giving voice to particular actors
and arguments and not others. Nevertheless, one should not over-emphasize the agency of any
particular actors in these struggles. Discourses, their ideological assumptions and the subject
positions constructed also tend to be reproduced in ways that easily pass unnoticed. Furthermore,
the media tends to reproduce what its audiences want to hear, which may involve both specific
national sentiments and generally held conceptions of what globalization should mean. In fact,
this is the key aspect of the social construction of corporate social responsibility that our discursive framework helps to better understand.
Conclusion
Research on corporate social responsibility (CSR) has recently focused attention on the political
role and responsibilities of MNCs in a global society (Matten & Crane, 2005; Scherer & Palazzo,
2007, 2011). A key question of this political turn in CSR is how to maintain social justice and
democracy in an under-regulated global environment where the economic and political spheres
overlap and where the division of labour between MNCs, nation-states and civil society is ambiguous and unstable. Although the various challenges related to justice and democracy have been
examined theoretically (Banerjee, 2010; Mkinen & Kourula, 2012; Scherer & Palazzo, 2007;
Zyglidopoulos & Fleming, 2011), empirical analyses highlighting the international dimensions of
political CSR have been scarce. This is at least partly due to a lack of conceptual frameworks that
would help to untangle alternative and competing discourses that define the roles and responsibilities of MNCs and other actors. Our analysis contributes to this stream of research by providing a
framework that elucidates the discursive construction of corporate social responsibility in contested investment projects. In particular, it highlights the interdiscursive construction of CSR in
and through technocratic, societal, national-political and global-capitalist discourses.
In particular, our analysis helps to advance understanding of the ideological underpinnings of
political CSR in international settings. Studies of political CSR have emphasized issues of power
and control (Scherer & Palazzo, 2007, 2011; Scherer etal., 2009; Banerjee, 2010) and those related
to justice and political ideologies (Mkinen & Kourula, 2012). Our study underscores that we cannot advance these issues properly without understanding the role of discourses in the justification
and reproduction of specific conceptions of rights and responsibilities. By emphasizing the role of
interdiscursive legitimation, we have sought to situate the ideological analysis of political CSR
within the dynamic but contested context of the global market economy. Our analysis in particular
highlights the ways in which technocratic, societal, national-political and global-capitalist discourses provide alternative and competing ideological bases for the social construction of CSR. In
772
particular, our study underscores the crucial role of national-political and global-capitalist
discourses and ideologies that easily pass unnoticed in conventional analysis. By so doing, our
analysis provides new impetus for questioning the strict separation between political and economic
domains (Mahoney, McGahan, & Pitelis, 2009; Misangyi, Weaver, & Elms, 2008; Sundaram &
Inkpen, 2004) in our global society.
In addition, our analysis increases understanding of the crucial role of the media in legitimacy
struggles and their implications for CSR. Recent research on controversial corporate activities has
examined public sensemaking and deliberation (Palazzo & Scherer, 2006; Patriotta etal., 2011)
that take place in and through the media. However, this discussion has not focused attention on the
ways in which the discussions are nationally embedded, but still deal with international relations.
These elements are, nevertheless, of the utmost importance if we want to understand how exactly
the legitimation of controversial MNC activities takes place in a complex transnational context
where the form and meaning of CSR remain highly contested (Brammer etal., 2012, p.3). As a
step in this direction, our analysis elucidates the discursive construction of legitimacy and corporate
social responsibility in the media and how the media coverage may differ depending on the national
context. In this analysis, it is crucial to underline the linkage of legitimating discourses and subject
positions assigned to various actors because it is these subject positions that define the very responsibilities of MNCs and other actors.
Our analysis may also help to advance studies of organizational legitimacy more broadly. With
few exceptions (Lefsrud & Meyer, 2012; Meyer & Hllerer, 2010; Meyer, Hllerer, Jancsary, &
van Leeuwen, 2013; Vaara, 2014; Vaara & Tienari, 2008; Vaara, Tienari, & Laurila, 2006; ), this
research has focused little attention on national-political or ideological issues. While the exact
nature of legitimacy struggles is likely to vary greatly from context to context and case to case, it
is important to recognize the central role of national-political arguments in international settings.
As our case shows, this is especially so in settings characterized by post- and neocolonial relationships. Furthermore, these arguments can and often should be juxtaposed with global-capitalist
discourses that seem to be increasingly central in discussions in international contexts. As our case
demonstrates, all these arguments can be used in a variety of ways for legitimation, de-legitimation
or re-legitimation purposes. In all, it is important to pay attention to the ideological aspects of
legitimation that are easily ignored in more conventional analyses.
The boundary conditions and limitations of this analysis should be taken seriously. The Fray
Bentos case is a special case and has unique features that may not be found in other settings.
However, we believe that analogous features also characterize other controversial cases and
that our interdiscursive framework may be applicable in other contexts, too. This is the case even
though the prevalence and nature of any particular discourses may vary from one context to another.
In any case, there is a need to explore the dynamics of legitimation and responsibility in various
national, international and globalizing contexts. Such analyses could in particular help to contrast
western understandings of CSR with alternative conceptions and worldviews. Our analysis has
been limited to specific media, one newspaper per country, and its findings must therefore not be
generalized to represent the whole national media. Future research could dig deeper into the differences within and across national and international media in this and other cases. Although we have
uncovered various legitimation strategies and facets of legitimation that may easily be overlooked,
it is obvious that there is more to be discovered and elaborated on in future research. It would
be interesting and important to examine the dynamics of legitimation, de-legitimation and relegitimation in more detail. Since the media have a central legitimating role, it would be important to
analyse in more detail the impact and the role of ideological orientations of different media. In addition,
the micro-level linguistic processes and functions warrant more attention in future research. Finally,
future studies could go further in the analysis of the power and powerlessness of MNCs engaged in
controversial projects involving webs of organizational and international relationships.
773
It is important to be aware of the inherent problems associated with controversial MNC undertakings. Global economic and corporate moral legitimacy crises emphasize this necessity even
further. In particular, there is a need to focus scholarly attention on the ways in which the discussions around these cases reproduce and at times challenge widely held national and neoliberal
assumptions, including prevailing (western) ideals about corporate social responsibility. Thus,
our study concludes that there is an increasing need to critique, historicize and denaturalize these
ideals with frameworks like ours. So it is important to examine political CSR in various kinds of
international settings to develop a better understanding of the dynamics involved, and this should
include historically marginalized country contexts and work settings (Frenkel & Shenhav, 2006;
Goodstein & Velamuri, 2009; Srinivas, 2013). At the same time, future versions of CSR which
include transnational institutions and international accountability standards set up to advance the
CSR agenda (Brammer etal., 2012; Gilbert, Rasche, & Waddock, 2011; Rasche & Kell, 2010;
Slager, Gond, & Moon, 2012; Waddock, 2008) will have to be less ethnocentric and need to
incorporate new kinds of responsibility issues and ideas originating from outside western societies.
A critical discursive perspective can help in this endeavour, especially by acknowledging the
diversity of social actors and vested interests, the underlying ideological assumptions, and the
ways in which legitimation, de-legitimation and re-legitimation are played out.
In conclusion, we hope that our study helps to place CSR in context. Instead of viewing CSR
from an instrumental perspective or detached from its socio-political context, our analysis elucidates the ways in which CSR is constructed in and around controversial international investment
projects. In addition to the theoretical value of this kind of analysis, we wish to highlight its
practical implications. In essence, our analysis underscores the fact that the very understandings
of CSR are embedded in international political dynamics. Thus, managing CSR is a tall order
that requires context-specific sensitivity and constant negotiations with various stakeholders that
may hold fundamentally different ideas about CSR sometimes in multiple arenas with different
expectations and rules of the game.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the Foundation for Economic Education, the Jenny and Antti Wihuri Foundation, the
Academy of Finland, the Marcus Wallenberg Foundation and the Paulo Foundation for their financial support
for this research.
We are very grateful to Tina Karme and Christoffer Slotte for their assistance in the data gathering and analysis.
We thank Senior Editor David Arellano-Gault and three anonymous reviewers for their insightful and helpful
comments. Special thanks to the convenors and participants of three working groups of the European Group for
Organizational Studies (EGOS) conferences in Vienna (2007), Barcelona (2009) and Lisbon (2010) for their
valuable comments. We thank David Miller and Houston McCord for their help with the English language.
References
Aguilera, R. V., Rupp, D. E., Williams, C. A., & Ganapathi, J. (2007). Putting the S back in corporate social
responsibility: A multilevel theory of social change in organizations. Academy of Management Review,
32, 836863.
Banerjee, S. B. (2003). Who sustains whose development? Sustainable development and the reinvention of
nature. Organization Studies, 24, 143180.
Banerjee, S. B. (2008). Necrocapitalism. Organization Studies, 29, 15411563.
Banerjee, S. B. (2010). Governing the global corporation: A critical perspective. Business Ethics Quarterly,
20, 265274.
Banerjee, S. B., & Linstead, S. (2001). Globalization, multiculturalism and other fictions: Colonialism for the
new millennium? Organization, 8, 683722.
Barley, S. R. (2010). Building an institutional field to corral a government: A case to set an agenda for organization studies. Organization Studies, 31, 777805.
774
Beck, U. (2000). What is globalization? Cambridge: Polity Press.

Blowfield, M., & Frynas, J. G. (2005). Setting new agendas: Critical perspectives on corporate social responsibility in the developing world. International Affairs, 81, 499513.
Brammer, S., Jackson, G., & Matten, D. (2012). Corporate social responsibility and institutional theory: New
perspectives on private governance. Socio-Economic Review, 10, 328.
Campbell, J. L. (2007).Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory
of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32, 946967.
Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of
Management Review, 4, 497505.
Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2005). Corporate citizenship: Missing the point or missing the boat? A response to
van Oosterhout. Academy of Management Review, 30, 681684.
Crane, A., Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). Corporations and citizenship. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Deetz, S., & Mumby, D. K. (1990). Power, discourse and the workplace: Reclaiming the critical tradition.
Communication Yearbook, 13, 1847.
Detomasi, D. A. (2008). The political roots of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 82,
807819.
Devinney, T. M. (2009). Is the socially responsible corporation a myth? The good, the bad, and the ugly of
corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Perspectives, 23, 4456.
Doh, J. P., & Guay, T. R. (2006). Corporate social responsibility, public policy, and NGO activism in Europe
and the United States: An institutional-stakeholder perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 43,
4773.
Doh, J., Lawton, T., & Rajwani, T. (2012). Advancing nonmarket strategy research: Institutional perspectives
in a changing world. Academy of Management Perspectives, 26, 2239.
Edward, P., & Willmott, H. (2008). Corporate citizenship: Rise or demise of a myth? Academy of Management
Review, 33, 771773.
Escobar, L. F., & Vredenburg, H. (2011). Multinational oil companies and the adoption of sustainable development: A resource-based and institutional theory interpretation of adoption heterogeneity. Journal of
Business Ethics, 98, 3965.
Fairclough, N. (1995a).Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London, UK: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (1995b). Media discourse. London, UK: Edward Arnold.
Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. London, UK: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (2006). Language and globalization. London, UK: Routledge.
Fairclough, N., & Wodak, R. (1997). Critical discourse analysis. In T. Van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as social
interaction (pp. 258284). London, UK: SAGE Publications.
Frenkel, M. (2008). The multinational corporation as a third space: Rethinking international management
discourse on knowledge transfer through Homi Bhabha. Academy of Management Review, 33, 924942.
Frenkel, M., & Shenhav, Y. (2006). From binarism back to hybridity: A postcolonial reading of management
and management studies. Organization Studies, 27, 855876.
Frynas, J. G. (2005). The false developmental promise of corporate social responsibility: Evidence from multinational oil companies. International Affairs, 81, 581598.
Gilbert, D. U., Rasche, A., & Waddock, S. (2011). Accountability in a global economy: The emergence of
international accountability standards. Business Ethics Quarterly, 21, 2344.
Golant, B. D., & Sillince, J. A. A. (2007). The constitution of organizational legitimacy: A narrative perspective. Organization Studies, 28, 11491167.
Goodstein, J. D., & Velamuri, S. R. (2009). States, power, legitimacy, and maintaining institutional control: The battle for private sector telecommunication services in Zimbabwe. Organization Studies, 30,
489508.
Hall, S. (1982). The rediscovery of ideology: Return of repressed in media studies. In M. Gurevitch, T.
Bennett, J. Curran & J. Woollacott (Eds), Culture, society and the media (pp. 5690). London, UK:
Methuen.
Hardy, C., & Phillips, N. (1999). No joking matter: Discursive struggle in the Canadian refugee system.
Organization Studies, 20, 124.
775
Helfen, M., & Sydow, J. (2013). Negotiation as institutional work: The case of labour standards and international framework agreements. Organization Studies, 34, 10731098.
Hillman, A., & Hitt, M. (1999). Corporate political strategy formulation: A model of approach, participation,
and strategy decisions. Academy of Management Review, 24, 825842.
Hillman, A. J., Keim, G. D., & Schuler, D. (2004). Corporate political activity: A review and research agenda.
Journal of Management, 30, 837857.
Hoffman, A. J. (1999). Institutional evolution and change: Environmentalism and the US chemical industry.
Academy of Management Journal, 42, 351371.
Joutsenvirta, M. (2011). Setting boundaries for corporate social responsibility: Firm-NGO relationship as
discursive legitimation struggle. Journal of Business Ethics, 102, 5775.
Joutsenvirta, M., & Vaara, E. (2009). Discursive (de)legitimation of a contested Finnish greenfield investment project in Latin America. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 25, 8596.
Kang, N., & Moon, J. (2012). Institutional complementarity between corporate governance and corporate social responsibility: A comparative institutional analysis of three capitalisms. Socio-Economic
Review, 10, 85108.
Khan, F. R., Munir, K. A., & Willmott, H. (2007). A dark side of institutional entrepreneurship: Soccer balls,
child labour and postcolonial impoverishment. Organization Studies, 28, 10551077.
Kinderman, D. (2012). Free us up so we can be responsible! The co-evolution of corporate social responsibility and neo-liberalism in the UK, 19772010. Socio-Economic Review, 10, 2957.
Kolk, A. (2005). Corporate social responsibility in the coffee sector: The dynamics of MNC responses and
code development. European Management Journal, 23, 228236.
Koos, S. (2012). The institutional embeddedness of social responsibility: A multilevel analysis of smaller
firms civic engagement in Western Europe. Socio-Economic Review, 10, 135162.
Kosonen, G. (2008). Pulp and friction: Engaging with stakeholders. Masters Thesis of the Faculty of
International Business. Helsinki: Publications of the Helsinki School of Economics.
Kostova, T., & Zaheer, S. (1999). Organizational legitimacy under conditions of complexity: The case of the
multinational enterprise. Academy of Management Review, 24, 6481.
Kostova, T., Roth, K., & Dacin, T. (2008).Institutional theory in the study of multinational corporations: A
critique and new directions. Academy of Management Review, 33, 9941006.
Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review, 24, 691710.
Lawton, T., McGuire, S., & Rajwani, T. (2013). Corporate political activity: A literature review and research
agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15, 86105.
Lefsrud, L. M., & Meyer, R. E. (2012). Science or science fiction? Professionals discursive construction of
climate change. Organization Studies, 33, 14771506.
Levy, D. L. (2005). Offshoring in the new global political economy. Journal of Management Studies, 42, 685693.
Levy, D. L. (2008). Political contestation in global production networks. Academy of Management Review,
33, 943963.
Locke, K., Golden-Biddle, K., & Feldman, M. S. (2008). Making doubt generative: Rethinking the role of
doubt in the research process. Organization Science, 19, 907918.
Lucea, R., & Doh, J. (2012). International strategy for the nonmarket context: Stakeholders, issues, networks,
and geography. Business and Politics, 14, 130.
Mahoney, J. T., McGahan, A. M., & Pitelis, C. N. (2009). The interpedendence of private and public interests.
Organization Science, 20, 10341052.
Mkinen, J., & Kourula, A. (2012). Pluralism in political corporate social responsibility. Business Ethics
Quarterly, 22, 649678.
Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2003). Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 268305.
Matten, D., & Crane, A. (2005). Corporate citizenship: Toward an extended theoretical conceptualization.
Academy of Management Review, 30, 166179.
Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). Implicit and explicit CSR: A conceptual framework for a comparative
understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 33, 404424.
Matten, D., Crane, A., & Chapple, W. (2003). Behind the mask: Revealing the true face of corporate citizenship. Journal of Business Ethics, 45, 109120.
776
McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective.
Academy of Management Review, 26, 117127.
McWilliams, A., Siegel, D., & Wright, P. (2006). Review article: Guest editors introduction corporate social
responsibility: Strategic implications. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 118.
McWilliams, A., Van Fleet, D., & Cory, K. (2002). Raising rivals costs through political strategy: An extension of resource-based theory. Journal of Management Studies, 39, 707723.
Meyer, R. E., & Hllerer, M. A. (2010). Meaning structures in a contested issue field: A topographic map of
shareholder value in Austria. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 12411262.
Meyer, R. E., Hllerer, M. A., Jancsary, D., & Van Leeuwen, T. (2013). The visual dimension in organizing,
organization, and organization research. Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 487553.
Misangyi, V. F., Weaver, G. R., & Elms, H. (2008). Ending corruption: The interplay among institutional logics, resources, and institutional entrepreneurs. Academy of Management Review, 33, 750770.
Muthuri, J. N., & Gilbert, V. (2010). An institutional analysis of corporate social responsibility in Kenya.
Journal of Business Ethics, 98, 467483.
Orlitzky, M. (2008). Corporate social performance and financial performance: A research synthesis. In A.
Crane, A. McWilliams, D. Matten, J. Moon & D. Siegel (Eds), The Oxford handbook of corporate social
responsibility. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A metaanalysis. Organization Studies, 24, 403441.
Pakkasvirta, J. (2008). From pulp to fiction? Fray Bentos pulp investment conflict through the Finnish Media.
Cooperation and Conflict: Journal of the Nordic International Studies Association, 43, 421446.
Palazzo, G., & Scherer, A. G. (2006).Corporate legitimacy as deliberation: A communicative framework.
Journal of Business Ethics, 66, 7188.
Patriotta, G., Gond, J.-P., & Schultz, F. (2011). Maintaining legitimacy: Controversies, orders of worth, and
public justifications. Journal of Management Studies, 48, 18041836.
Phillips, N., & Hardy, C. (2002). Discourse analysis: Investigating processes of social construction. Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Prakash, A., & Griffin, J. (2012). Corporate responsibility, multinational corporations, and nation states: An
introduction. Business and Politics, 14, 110.
Prasad, A. (Ed.) (2003). Postcolonial theory and organizational analysis: A critical engagement. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Rasche, A., & Kell, G. (2010). The United Nations Global Compact: Achievements, trends and challenges.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Riad, S., & Vaara, E. (2011). Varieties of metonymy in media accounts of mergers and acquisitions. Journal
of Management Studies, 48, 737771.
Rojo, L. M., & Van Dijk, T. (1997). There was a problem, and it was solved!: Legitimating the expulsion of
illegal migrants in Spanish parliamentary discourse. Discourse & Society, 8, 523566.
Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. (2007). Toward a political conception of corporate responsibility: Business and
society seen from a Habermasian perspective. Academy of Management Review, 32, 10961120.
Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. (Eds.) (2008). Handbook of research on global corporate citizenship.
Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. (2011). The new political role of business in a globalized world: A review of
a new perspective on CSR and its implications for the firm, governance, and democracy. Journal of
Management Studies, 48, 899931.
Scherer, A. G., Palazzo, G., & Baumann, D. (2006). Global rules and private actors: Toward a new role of the
transnational corporation in global governance. Business Ethics Quarterly, 16, 505532.
Scherer, A. G., Palazzo, G., & Matten, D. (2009). Introduction to the special issue: Globalization as a challenge for business responsibilities. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19, 327347.
Scherer, A. G., Palazzo, G., & Seidl, D. (2013). Managing legitimacy in complex and heterogeneous environments: Sustainable development in a globalized world. Journal of Management Studies, 50, 259284.
Slager, R., Gond, J-P., & Moon, J. (2012). Standardization as institutional work: The regulatory power of a
responsible investment standard. Organization Studies, 33, 763790.
777
Srinivas, N. (2013). Could a subaltern manage? Identity work and habitus in a colonial workplace.
Suddaby, R., & Greenwood, R. (2005). Rhetorical strategies of legitimacy. Administrative Science Quarterly,
50, 3567.
Sundaram, A. K., & Inkpen, A. C. (2004). The corporate objective revisited. Organization Science, 15,
350363.
Surroca, J., Trib, J. A., & Zahra, S. A. (2013). Stakeholder pressure on MNEs and the transfer of socially
irresponsible practices to subsidiaries. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 549572.
Teubal, M. (2004). Rise and collapse of neo-liberalism in Argentina: The role of economic groups. Journal of
Developing Societies, 20(34), 173188.
Vaara, E. (2014). Struggles over legitimacy in the Eurozone crisis: Discursive legitimation strategies and their
ideological underpinnings. Discourse & Society, 119.
Vaara, E., & Tienari, J. (2008). A discursive perspective on legitimation strategies in MNCs. Academy of
Management Review, 33, 985993.
Vaara, E., Tienari, J., & Laurila, J. (2006). Pulp and paper fiction: On the discursive legitimation of global
industrial restructuring. Organization Studies, 27, 789810.
Vaara, E., Tienari, J., Piekkari, R., & Sntti, R. (2005). Language and the circuits of power in a merging multinational corporation. Journal of Management Studies, 16, 333347.
Van Bommel, K., & Spicer, A. (2011). Hail the snail: Hegemonic struggles in the slow food movement.
Van Dijk, T. (1990). News as discourse. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Ideology: A multidisciplinary analysis. London, UK: SAGE Publications.
Van Leeuwen, T.J. (2008). Discourse and practice: New tools for critical discourse analysis. Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
Van Leeuwen, T., & Wodak, R. (1999). Legitimizing immigration control: A discourse-historical analysis.
Discourse Studies, 1, 83118.
Van Maanen, J., Srensen, J., & Mitchell, T. R. (2007). The interplay between theory and method. Academy
of Management Review, 32, 11451154.
Waddock, S. (2008). Building a new institutional infrastructure for corporate responsibility. Academy of
Management Perspectives, 22, 87108.
Witt, M. A., & Redding, G. (2012). The spirits of corporate social responsibility: Senior executive perceptions
of the role of the firm in society in Germany, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea and the United States.
Socio-Economic Review, 10, 109134.
Wittneben, B. B. F., Okereke, C., Banerjee, S. B., & Levy, D. L. (2012). Climate change and the emergence
of new organizational landscapes. Organization Studies, 33, 14311450.
Wodak, R., De Cillia, R., Reisigl, M., & Liebhart, K. (1999). The discursive construction of national identity.
Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.
Zyglidopoulos, S., & Fleming, P. (2011). Corporate accountability and the politics of visibility in late modernity. Organization, 18, 691706.
Author biographies
Maria Joutsenvirta, PhD, is Research Fellow at Aalto University School of Business (Finland) where she is a
member of the Sustainability in Business (SuB) research group. Her research interests include corporate
responsibility in a global society, business-NGO relations, sustainability in the media, and de-growth/
post-growth thinking. In particular she has applied discursive approaches and methods.
Eero Vaara is a Professor of Organization and Management at Aalto University School of Business, a
Permanent Visiting Professor at EMLYON Business School, France, and a Distinguished Visiting Scholar at
Lancaster University, UK. His research interests focus on organizational, strategic and institutional change,
strategic practices and processes, multinational corporations and globalization, management history, management education, and methodological issues in organization and management research. In particular he has
worked on discursive and narrative approaches.

Joutsenvirta, Vaara - Legitimacy Struggles and Political CSR PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Joutsenvirta, Vaara - Legitimacy Struggles and Political CSR PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

571958

OSS0010.1177/0170840615571958Organization StudiesJoutsenvirta and Vaara

Legitimacy Struggles and Political

Aalto University School of Business, Finland

Aalto University School of Business, Finland

Organization Studies 36(6)

Political Approaches to CSR

Downloaded from oss.sagepub.com at Nottingham Trent University on June 29, 2016

Joutsenvirta and Vaara

Downloaded from oss.sagepub.com at Nottingham Trent University on June 29, 2016

Organization Studies 36(6)

A Discursive Perspective on Legitimation

Joutsenvirta and Vaara

public legitimation strategies in an international environment. In particular, there is a relative paucity

Research Design and Methodology

Organization Studies 36(6)

Data collection and analysis

Downloaded from oss.sagepub.com at Nottingham Trent University on June 29, 2016

Joutsenvirta and Vaara

Escalation of dispute between

Critical phase: pressure on

Mar 2005Feb 2006

Mar 2006May 2006

Jun 2006Dec 2006

First Argentine mass

ICJ rejects Argentinas

Organization Studies 36(6)

Escalation of dispute between

Critical phase: pressure on

Mar 2005Feb 2006

Mar 2006May 2006

Jun 2006Dec 2006

WB states that the

Joutsenvirta and Vaara

Number of data segments

Helsingin Sanomat (Finland)

Organization Studies 36(6)

Helsingin Sanomat (Finland)

Note. Bold indicates high frequency (at least 10%).

Downloaded from oss.sagepub.com at Nottingham Trent University on June 29, 2016

Joutsenvirta and Vaara

A Cross-national Comparison of the Legitimacy Struggles

Downloaded from oss.sagepub.com at Nottingham Trent University on June 29, 2016

Table 5. Technocratic discourse.

Downloaded from oss.sagepub.com at Nottingham Trent University on June 29, 2016

Downloaded from oss.sagepub.com at Nottingham Trent University on June 29, 2016

Joutsenvirta and Vaara

UR/FI: biased and

Downloaded from oss.sagepub.com at Nottingham Trent University on June 29, 2016

Joutsenvirta and Vaara

Organization Studies 36(6)

Table 6. Societal discourse.

Downloaded from oss.sagepub.com at Nottingham Trent University on June 29, 2016

Joutsenvirta and Vaara

Downloaded from oss.sagepub.com at Nottingham Trent University on June 29, 2016

Joutsenvirta and Vaara

Downloaded from oss.sagepub.com at Nottingham Trent University on June 29, 2016

Organization Studies 36(6)

Downloaded from oss.sagepub.com at Nottingham Trent University on June 29, 2016

Substantive issuesbased politics

Table 7. National-political discourse.

Joutsenvirta and Vaara

Downloaded from oss.sagepub.com at Nottingham Trent University on June 29, 2016

First Argentine mass

ICJ rejects Argentinas

WB states that the