Running head: RHETORICAL ANALYSIS 1

Rhetorical Analysis: “Why Should We Care about Marriage Equality?:

Corporate Political Advocacy as a Part of Corporate Responsibility

Paola A. Ornelas

University of Texas at El Paso

RHETORICAL ANALYSIS 2

Introduction

Experts in business ethics, Florian Wettstein and Dorothea Baur, in their article “Why

Should We Care about Marriage Equality? Political Advocacy as a Part of Corporate

Responsibility” (2016), talk about the importance of corporate involvement in political and

social issues to really make a positive impact in the society as a whole. Wettstein and Baur’s

purpose is to persuade companies to get involved in Corporate Political Advocacy, using the

controversial acceptance of gay marriage to portrait the impact of this social involvement of

corporations to make a positive change in the social mindset. The present paper will analyze

the rhetorical situation, as well as the three rhetorical appeals used by the authors to convey

their stance to the audience.

Wettstein and Baur claim that Corporate Political Advocacy goes beyond the

corporate world, by involving social responsibility. In order to achieve their claim, the

authors divide their paper in three sections. The first section defends the claim, by defining

Corporate Political Advocacy and differentiating it from other forms of corporate

involvement. The second part of the paper, allows the audience to get a better conceptual

grasp of the concept of Corporate Political Advocacy, by including it in the context of

corporate political activity (CPA) and corporate CSR. Finally, the third part of the paper has

the purpose to enclose all the concepts mentioned above, by introducing the importance of

Corporate Political Advocacy as a form of social responsibility more than a corporate

activity.

Discussion

Audience

Through the use of specialized language, Wettstein and Baur aimed this article for

people within the business world. The intended audience for this article are college

colleagues of the authors, experts in business ethics, as well as experts in other branches of
RHETORICAL ANALYSIS 3

business. In addition to the selected audience, this article has the goal to reach powerful and

influential enterprises. The specialized language used by the authors include legal initiatives

such as Proposition 8 (p. 203) and The Defense of Marriage Act (p. 200), conceptual

framework of CPA (p. 204) and CSR (p. 205). In addition to this, the authors mention other

business-related scholarly articles (p. 204) within the article. The use of specialized language

works as a filter to reach only the desired audience mentioned above.

Purpose

In order to achieve the main purpose of this article, Wettstein and Baur strategized the

division of the article in order to guide the reader though the information provided. The

authors start by defining the concept of corporate political advocacy and distinguishing it

from other forms of corporate political involvement (p. 200). Second, it explains the

relationship between corporate political advocacy and corporate responsibility, by exposing

the elements they have in common, and how both concepts belong to a whole (p. 206). Third,

Wettstein and Baur acknowledge the weak points in their persuasive process and refute

possible counterarguments (p. 208). Even though this article lacks the direct statement of

arguments that defend the stance of the authors, it accomplishes the main purpose.

Logos

Wettstein and Baur developed logos throughout the analyzed article in a defined and

consistent way. The authors back up their arguments by making reference to statistical data

related to their topic, such as “In 2013, a total of 278 companies filed an amicus brief to the

Supreme Court expressing their opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act (p. 200).

Business-related articles are mentioned within the article, such as the “Domain Maintenance

as an Objective of Business Political Activity” by B. Baysinger, professor at the University of

Kansas. Wettstien and Baur also make reference to legal initiatives such as Proposition 8 (p.

203), as well as the stances of well-known companies in regards to these initiatives.

RHETORICAL ANALYSIS 4

“Google’s statement,” says Wettstein and Baur, “represents a case of corporate political

advocacy as we define it.” (p. 203). By using including big companies such as Google, the

authors exercise the use of logos. In addition to the resources mentioned above, Wettstein and

Baur, use statements made by experts, such as John G. Taft, CEO of RBC Wealth

Management, who states that “now, every corporation is going to make a decision about what

their values are” (p. 207). The use of logos is effective, since the arguments follow a logical

process that allows the audience to reach to a conclusion of the article.

Pathos

In this scholarly article, the rhetorical appeal of pathos is not used. This is a common

thin among these type or articles. The authors decide to focus on the remaining two rhetorical

appeals, which are logos, related to the rationality and logic behind the structure of the

arguments, and ethos, related to the credibility of the source. Since the audience of the article

are companies, and experts in business ethics, the involvement of emotions is not necessary

in order for the authors to accomplish the purpose of the paper. The use of pathos in this

article is not effective, because the authors preferred to use their credibility (ethos) to appeal

to the logic of the audience (logos).

Ethos

The use of ethos by Wettstein and Baur, helps them give credibility to the arguments

and information contained in this article. The article is part of the Journal of Business Ethics,

which is published by the University of St. Gallen (University of St. Gallen, 2017). This

proves the academic credentials for the authors and the article itself. The credentials of the

authors are not stated within the article; however, these credentials are available through the

University of St. Gallen’s website. Florian Websttein holds a M.A. in management/

economics and a doctorate in business ethics from the University of St. Gallen, he has been a

professor in MIT, York University, Opus College of Business, University of St. Thomas and
RHETORICAL ANALYSIS 5

University of St Gallen. Dorothea Baur, is the founder and owner of Bar Consulting AG, she

has a PhD on NGO-business partnerships at the University of St. Gallen. She taught in

ESADE Barcelona and Nottingham University Business School (University of St. Gallen,

2017). These credentials verify that the authors are experts in the subject. Their use of ethos

is effective, ensuring the credibility of the article. An effective credibility is the best weapon

to persuade. It is easier for the audience to show empathy to the stance of an author in regards

to a subject if the author is telling the truth.

Overall Analysis

After giving background information and defining the key terms for the purpose of

the article, the authors dedicate a few paragraphs to acknowledge the counterarguments that

could discredit their stance, and one by one they refute them. As a transition to the

counterarguments in the article, the authors state, “we have collected some reactions and

questions from discussions among ourselves and with colleagues in order to address them in

paper. Doing so should clarify…” (p. 208), each counterargument is explained and refuted.

The authors refute these arguments by making evident the lack of relation to the subject or

diminishing the importance of the counterargument in relation to the whole picture of

corporate political advocacy. The tone of the article remains consistent throughout the article

and the authors are not biased.

Conclusion

The authors achieve the main purpose of the article, by using rhetorical appeals to

persuade companies to get involved in Corporate Political Advocacy. The appeals used in this

article are logos and ethos. The use of statistics, in-text quotation, and books written by

experts in the subject gives credibility to the authors and the article itself. The logical process

that the arguments follow in order to lead the audience to a conclusion in favor of the

author’s stance, proves the effective use of logos. By acknowledging and refuting the
RHETORICAL ANALYSIS 6

counterarguments in regards to the topic, the authors are able to persuade the audience in a

more effective way. By the strategies mentioned above, this article accomplishes their

purpose by the use of persuasion.

RHETORICAL ANALYSIS 7

References

Wettstein, F., & Baur, D. (2016). 'Why should we care about marriage equality?': Political

advocacy as a part of corporate responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 138(2), 199-

213. doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2631-3

University of St. Gallen. (n.d.). Retrieved October 5, 2017, from University of St. Gallen.

Interact website: https://www.unisg.ch/