The Corporate Rainmaker Persona

The Corporate Rainmaker Persona
Mark Meister
Gerhts Endowed Professor and Chair
Department of Communication
North Dakota State University
[email protected]
Introduction
In American folklore, rainmakers are described as charlatans who promised
to “make rain” in drought stricken areas.1 While Native Americans relied on the
mystical powers of medicine men to bring much needed rain, farmers and land
owners during the Dust Bowl years of the 1930s, often employed charlatan
rainmakers who promised rain through seemingly magical, mystical, and technological incantations. Under this auspice, the charlatan rainmaker was ironically regarded with reverence, suspicion, and dependence.2 Contemporary rainmakers are capable of making rain (e.g. money, positive
public opinion and legitimacy) for themselves and their employers.3 Corporations, under the auspice of social responsibility, are concerned with being
good community citizens. Fictionalized in John Grisham’s novel Rainmaker and
John William Corrington’s poem4 of the same title, and championed in several
sales trade books,5 corporate rainmakers arguably provide both the financial
lifeblood and social ethic in many American communities. Given the increased
dependence on corporations for both financial and social benefit, entire corporations (and not the CEO or other corporate leaders) often exhibit rainmaker
characteristics.
Cheney6 identifies the corporation as occupying significant cultural influence because it must address multiple stakeholders. As such, all aspects of
culture (individuals, institutions, laws, racial/ethnic groups, art, popular culture,
etc.) are potential surrogates for the corporation and delineation between
culture and the corporation is mute even when messages are delivered by
individuals directly affiliated with the corporation. Corporations are interestBy Tony Hisgett from Birmingham, UK via Wikimedia Commons
ed in being “good” corporate citizens, and with the explosion of Corporate
Social Responsibility7 efforts, corporations dictate political and governmental initiatives. CSR literature focuses
on economic benefits,8 stakeholder responses,9 and legitimacy.10 This project departs from those traditions to
offer a critical framework for analyzing corporate claims rather than analyzing the outcomes. This essay presents the construct of the Corporate Rainmaker Persona11 as an extension of the broader literature on corporate social responsibility. In doing so, I advance the CRP as a Ciceronian construct that extends the republican
rhetorical style to include corporate claims of social responsibility12 and as a
contribution to rhetorical/critical scholarship on neoliberalism and CSR. I begin
by establishing the relevance of rainmaking and corporations in contemporary
society and extend this discussion by profiling the characteristics of the CRP as
a rhetorical/critical construct. Finally, I point out the implications of the CRP
for society and future rhetorical scholarship.
Rainmaking and Relevant Rhetoric
In what specific ways, is the rainmaker ideal relevant in contemporary corporate rhetoric? First, corporations are highly relevant in contemporary society not only because of their economic influence but also because
they desire and seek out public affinity. Corporations are incredibly relevant for rhetorical examination because
they personify human characteristics, especially those communicative characteristics that bolster positive public
Relevant Rhetoric Vol. 5 2014 The Corporate Rainmaker Persona
1
opinion. Corporations enact a persona that shapes public perceptions. Like the teenager, politician,
parent, and teacher, corporations want to be liked. Like individuals, corporations say and do things
for the purpose of being liked. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court in its landmark ruling, Citizens United
v. FEC, sanctioned that in restricting corporate speech, the “Government has muffled the voices that
best represent the most significant segments of the economy.”13 Likewise, the charlatan rainmaker
character in American folklore, understood that necessity to be liked. Making promises for much
needed rain, for example, provides the charlatan rainmaker with an opportunity to capitalize.
Second, corporations and the rainmaker character both facilitate rhetorical
persona and style. Persona is often associated with the rhetorical actor. The individual enacts a persona for a variety of rhetorical motives, and as Cicero teaches
us, the impressions of a highly stylized persona bolsters decorum, respect, and
legitimacy. Corporations understand that stylistic communication is necessary,
especially in its advertising and public relations initiatives. Stylistic messages
provide the corporation elaborate opportunities for performing its relevance and
significance beyond merely the economic realm. In folklore, the rainmaker character not only tells needy people what they want to hear, but they do so in highly
stylistic ways. Folklore tales of the rainmaker charlatan tell how the rainmaker’s
language was often flamboyant, optimistic, and engaging.
Third, corporations and the rainmaker character are relevant because both
engage the rhetorical constructs of persona and style as a way to be liked and
also to shape economic and social dependence. Corporations inculcate both
resource and cultural dependence by combining liberalism with nationalist tendencies (between large enterprise and development activities
of the state).14 As local, state, and federal governments relinquish administrative and
legal control to private corporations, the result is continuous hegemonic acquiescence
and increased social polarization. Governmental (de) regulation and private corporate
intervention exhibits neoliberal disparities in wealth and income, yet arguably because
of CSR initiatives, these disparities are most often legitimized, naturalized and made
to appear inevitable. In light of the broad, and albeit abbreviated, ways rainmaking and
corporations are relevant I further outline the relevancy of the CRP and its emergence
in corporate claims of social responsibility.
CSR, Persona, and Cicero’s Republican Style
CSR has emerged in recent years as both an academic construct and a business paradigm.15 Corporations
engage in socially responsible behaviors in response to societal demands, the desires of influential stakeholders,
and the ability of such activities to increase competitiveness and stock value.16 CSR messages allow a corporation to communicate its relevance to the economic, social, and cultural desires of a society17 and may help to
silence critics and give voice to the positive attributes of a corporation.18 CSR claims demonstrate a careful fit
within larger social and cultural values that sustain current business practices and existing individual consumptive
lifestyles.19 Persona is a rhetorical device that reflects the aspirations and cultural visions of both actors and audiences20 and refers to a “character type bearing some significant relationship to a context in which a rhetoric attempts
Relevant Rhetoric Vol. 5 2014 The Corporate Rainmaker Persona
2
to affect, and an audience attempts make judgments…”.21 Corporations arguably enact a persona that
stylistically establishes a “consciousness that organizes, controls, and directs what…is manifested.”22 The
views presented in corporate messages do not represent those of the individual executives (e.g., CEOs). Rather the messages are attributable to the organization as a whole. As such, the corporate persona
becomes part of a larger cultural discourse with no perceived authority, standards,
or ethics thus making it ripe for organizational claims that cannot be easily refuted. For Roman statesman and orator Cicero, the perfect orator had to be conversant with
many subjects possessing broad cultural knowledge to invent arguments that identified
with a variety of audiences. Cicero’s notion of probabilia, notes Barilli, “has an intrinsic
historicity or temporal dimension: what is probable, and can be ‘followed’ today, may not
be so tomorrow, or vice versa, as situations change.”23 The rhetorical construction of
probability, in the Ciceronian vein, is highly stylistic fusing theory and practice, style and
wisdom, decorum and science into a rhetorical persona that is eloquent and credible. But
most of all, Cicero’s rhetoric embodies persona, decorum, and audience identification as
persuasive principles.24
Corporations act as contemporary republican actors and uphold the precepts of the
republican style by facilitating a persona that appreciates rhetoric (attention to presentation and discernment of character, equation of polity with public talk, the rule of decorum,
and the cultivation of liberal education).25 Civic virtue and decorum are central tenants
of the republican political style. A decorous speaker follows closely the rules of public
address upheld by society. Hariman notes: “This model includes
By Visconti - Iconograph rom. pl. 12 N. 1 (Abb. 428) (Publisher K.
A. Baumeister) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
appreciation of verbal technique, a norm of consensus, the embodiment of civic virtue, and a doctrine of civility that exemplifies the difficulties of facing
contemporary liberalism.”26 For Cicero, this often meant forced politeness, even to the
point of self-efficacy. The republican actor creates a reputation grounded in civic virtue,
as demonstrated with rhetorical skill and timely action. Once the reputation of the actor
is created the actor strives to act in accordance with that reputation. The republican
stylist gains legitimacy through moral character. The challenge for the republican orator is to translate the language of individualism into the language of civic morality. Hariman states, “The republican stylist today,
as always, has to speak in a manner that can constitute the republican conceptions of
speaker, audience, polity, and politics, and now has to do so for an audience who begin
as liberal individualists.”27 The speaker has to overcome the audiences’ prior political
status, their desire for autonomy, and their wish for liberty, which has most likely developed independently of public address. The republican orator can be thwarted by the
cultural variability of today’s society. The diversity of society today makes it increasingly difficult to reach consensus because of the divergent interests, needs, and goals of
publics. The premises of the republican actor are present in contemporary CSR discourse. Arguably, the construct of the Corporate Rainmaker Persona is the modern day embodiment of Cicero by corporation. To provide insight into this question, I present the basic
tenets of the Corporate Rainmaker Persona.
Relevant Rhetoric Vol. 5 2014 The Corporate Rainmaker Persona
3
Driving the Rain: Decorum, Reputation, and Civic Duty
The CRP is embodied by three broadly conceived characteristics of republican discourse. First, the CRP initiates a CSR discourse that predicates decorum. Second, the CRP constructs a reputation based on the neoliberal
CSR initiatives that delegitimize governmental regulations. Third, the CRP promotes its civic duties and obligations through its public relations initiatives.
The CRP relies on decorum to provide an aesthetic worth and intrinsic merit to its discourse not only to
deflect attention away from economic stagnation but to establish coherence and solidarity within the corporation that enables confidence in soon-to-be-profits. Leff points out that this “aesthetic” value of persona allows
actors to view decorum as “a flexible principle that coordinates particular discourses as they simultaneously build
internal coherence, refer to a context of facts and circumstances, and stretch outward to alter perception of
that context.”28 Sustainability is a prominent theme in CRS discourse.29 The CRP potentially aligns the corporation with
sustainability because the concept of sustainability embodies—in corporate terms—partnerships, networks,
and alliances with other profit-driven entities and governments. Similar to Cicero’s premise in reaching consensus, one must be concerned not only with one’s own interests but also respecting the interests of others.
Following the norm of consensus, CRP relies on public discussion to determine policy. Agribusiness corporate
giant Cargill’s30 CSR illustrates the decorum-consensus association. Cargill’s respectful CSR
message states four initiatives: “Conducting business with integrity. Operating responsible
supply chains. Working to feed the world. Enriching our communities.” The first initiative
relates to business standards (“we obey the law, we conduct our business with integrity,
and we are committed to being a responsible global citizen”). The second initiative to supply
chains (that “respects people and human rights; produces safe and wholesome food; treats
animals humanely…including protecting the land and conserving scarce resources”), the third
to nutrition and world hunger (“developing more nutritious foods and collaborating with partners…to find long-term solutions to hunger”). Cargill’s fourth initiative is
community engagement (“build vibrant and stable communities…access to
education and provide training and schooling…”). Separately, the messages in Cargill’s initiatives
are respectful in tone and purpose, but when considered as a complete CSR program operating
equally with its corporate mission (“Cargill is committed to operating responsibly as we pursue
our goal to be the global leader in nourishing people.”), Cargill’s tone and purpose is somewhat
“priestly.”31 Messages that emphasize responsibility, obligation, commitment, enrichment, integrity, and
nourishment, seemingly reflect a priestly voice that is extensive, authoritative, and proactive. Cargill’s CSR engages a voice whereby consensus has no alternative; it is seemingly an ethical
obligation of Cargill’s and other corporations committed to global citizenship. The CRP reflects a
corporate-priestly voice whose authority is seemingly earned from consumers who are dependent
on corporations, like Cargill. Like the rainmaker from American folklore, Cargill’s CRP’s discourse
is commanding and convincing, seemingly able to influence consumers that respect and consensus are as equally important as revenue and profit.
The second characteristic of the CRP is reputation. This characteristic of the CRP is important for identification with its stakeholders. The CRP knows and understands the significance it
Relevant Rhetoric Vol. 5 2014 The Corporate Rainmaker Persona
4
has on internal and external stakeholders, including consumers. Therefore,
the corporation’s respectful messages also promise consumers a “good
life.” The belief that corporations promise consumers a “good life” is vital
for creating positive consumer public opinion and dependency. As Meister
and Japp note, the “good life” is often a rhetorical construction instituted
by corporations and governments for purposes of deflecting criticism away
from inconsistencies.32 Therefore, a corporation’s reputation is often based
on how clearly it associates its products and services with the promise of a
“good life.”
By Peretz Partensky from San Francisco, USA (Life’s Good Uploaded by russavia) via Wikimedia Commons
Identifying its products as a means to a “good life” is clearly apparent in the Ford Motor Company’s corporate discourse on sustainability. Ford’s 2013 “Blueprint for Sustainability” introduced its corporate initiatives by
expanding the definition of sustainability to not only include environmental and social/cultural themes (reducing
greenhouse gas emissions and human rights), but also as vital to its corporate survival. “We now use the term
more broadly to describe our sustainability strategy…reflecting the fact that our important sustainability issues
are part of a complex system that interconnects our products, plants, people and communities in which
we operate.”33 Herein, Ford’s CRP does not request limited consumption by consumers, but points
out that continued consumption (and corporate profits) is necessary for facilitating a “good
life.” As evidenced by the “Blueprint for Sustainability” campaign, consumers are asked to
believe that the discourse of Ford’s CRP produces the necessary products and services so
consumers can continue to consume without changing consumption. The third characteristic of the CRP is the promotion of civic etiquette. IKEA, a global retail leader in home
furnishings and design, promotes its good corporate behavior in its 2013 sustainability report “People & Planet
Positive: IKEA Group Sustainability Strategy for 2020.”34 The report outlines initiatives that emphasize the
politeness and tact of the IKEA CRP. For IKEA, civic etiquette is a long-term business strategy that responds specifically to rapid global population increases and
dangerous global climate change. IKEA’s CRP strategy reminds consumers that
facing such challenges requires committed group work and that “a more sustainable life at home” requires that it
“...address the higher price of raw materials and energy, while driving down emissions and maintaining our ow prices, we need to transform our business (emphasis original). We can no longer use 20th century approaches to meet 21st
century demands…we need transformational change…embracing the new, being
bold, innovative and committed to taking action…that, together, will have transformational impact.”35 By Yero (Own work) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
The idea that sustainability requires collective action (corporations working directly to make internal business
changes that will shape consumer sustainable practices) is further bolstered by IKEA’s CRP whose tone and
content emphasizes
“...strong values; togetherness and enthusiasm; desire for renewal; cost-consciousness; accepting responsibility; humbleness and willpower; simplicity; leadership by example; daring to be different and striving to meet
Relevant Rhetoric Vol. 5 2014 The Corporate Rainmaker Persona
5
reality. Our culture and values shape the way we do business and create a powerful desire
to do the right thing. We always do our best to maintain the highest ethical standards and to
be a good partner in society.”36 The strategy of linking sustainability and civic virtue with collective and engaged initiatives
demonstrates how IKEA’s CRP inspires and enables “millions of customers to live a sustainable
life at home.”37 Etiquette seemingly matters at IKEA. So much so, that IKEA’s CRP cites the
United Nations (UN) Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, “as our base…our belief
that our actions should always have the best interests of the child in mind.”
My presentation thus far exemplifies how the CRP is grounded in CSR discourse (sustainability) and how it helps rhetorically depicts a positive organizational image for bolstering rhetorical profit,
through decorum, reputation, and etiquette. CRP and CSR discourse not only deflects public criticism and scrutiny of corporations, but inevitably, facilitates a vision of sustainability and a manifestation of consciousness, that
is subverted for purposes of generating profits.
Implications and Conclusion
Environmental ethicist Max Oelschlaeger refers to the sustainability
buzzword as “primarily an apologetic for the continued wholesale exploitation of the earth and Third World peoples by multinational corporations
and developed nations.”38 The CRP presented in this essay explores how
it is possible for corporations to rhetorically direct human consciousness toward a commodified object/service while simultaneously presenting a corporate image that is respectful, reputable, and polite. Yet, the
CRP described here does little to curtail the continued exploitation of the
natural resources needed by a growing population absorbed with living a
version of the “good life” promised by seemingly respectful, upright, and
civil corporations. Left to the CRP, our
consumptive behaviors are always shaped and reproduced by corporate dependence. Growing corporate dependence, arguably the main purpose of the CRP, is
problematic for many reasons. The two implications most troubling, in my opinion, is how the CRP may be contributing to the end of environmentalism and the
death of citizenship.
Because corporations facilitate “good life” manifestations (thereby catering
to human and corporate desires) Tokar suggests that an environmental backlash
is taking shape. Tokar points out that three related phenomena--the absorption of the mainstream environmental movement by the political status quo, the emergence of corporate environmentalism, and the proliferation of
“ecological” products in the marketplace--have helped fuel the perception of a declining popular commitment to
environmental protection.39 This is particularly true given Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus’ essay, 2004
“The Death of Environmentalism” and 2007 book Break Through: From the Death of Environmentalism to the
Politics of Possibility.40 The authors conclude that the politics of environmentalism that led to clean water, less
smog, and significant reductions of acid rain, are not keeping up with the present imperatives associated with
global warming. The campaign and special interest led environmental politics of the 1970s, 1980, and 1990s
needs to change, argue Shellenberger and Nordhaus, “to replace their doomsday discourse with an imaginaRelevant Rhetoric Vol. 5 2014 The Corporate Rainmaker Persona
6
tive, aspirational, and future-oriented one.”41 CRP rhetoric promising environmental
“engagement” and civic duty creates a puesdo-environmental ethic that absconds
citizens of their responsibilities and obligations because “the corporations are taking
care of it.” As such, a “sustainable” future relies upon how we see through the CRP
rhetoric. As Peterson states in her critique of sustainable development discourse,
“It is quite possible for perfectly sustainable systems to perpetuate gross inequalities.”42 As civic environmental initiatives fade and corporate dependency grows, individual citizens are seemingly content to let corporations dictate industry-friendly
“democratic” principles. Citizenship is a political concept extended to individuals
participating in the democratic process for societal betterment. For corporations,
citizenship has a different connotation. The term “corporate citizenship,” for example, potentially highlights the decline of liberal citizenship, where the pivotal actor
is typically the state and governmental institutions, bound by the protection of civil, social, and political rights.43 Like the charlatan rainmaker depicted in folklore that used charm, decorum, and reputation in promising rain for
a price, the contemporary CRP “pitch” is not without consequences. Most significantly, CRP discourse facilitates
further corporate dependence whereby human rights, obligations, environmental consciousness, and democratic
practices are perceived as corporate and consumer-based initiatives rather than citizen activities. livingstingy.blogstpot.com
Relevant Rhetoric Vol. 5 2014 The Corporate Rainmaker Persona
7
End Notes
D’Alto, “The Rainmakers.” D’Alto traces the history of rainmaking in the United States and how the rainmaker became an icon in popular culture. Specifically, the article discusses the traditional practices of influencing the
weather, especially the rainmaking techniques of Charles Mallory Hatfield. Often called “The Wizard of Weather,” Hatfield and his brother Paul were famous during the turn of the 20th century for erecting rain derricks: homemade square-sided wooden trestles that were the “secret” to producing rain in drought stricken areas. In 1915, San Diego hired the Hatfield’s to end the southern California drought. Using their weather-making techniques, the city of San Diego received 38 inches of rain in a 14-day period causing mass flooding. Significantly, dramatist N. Richard Nash immortalized the story of Charles Hatfield and countless other would be “cloud kings” in his play, simply titled, “The Rainmaker.” Later, screen legend Burt Lancaster portrayed the title role in a film version. In 1999, film star Woody Harrelson reprised the role in a limited engagement on the Broadway stage. Accordingly, the “moral” of Nash’s play and film version is that “rainmaking” is not really about precipitation, but about belief—a morality play about the power, and the danger, of where we choose to place our trust.
2
D’Alto, “The Rainmakers,” p. 27. The folklore of rainmaking includes how “percussionists” sought to “tear the clouds” via explosions and how “vortexers” attempted to produce allegedly favorable flows.
3
Rainmakers are described in the following articles as capable fundraisers, exceptional executives, popular college presidents, motivated salesperson, and persuasive lawyer. See respectively: Eliza Newlin Carney. “The
New Rainmakers.” National Journal 38 (Oct. 28, 2006): 18-27. Jenny Anderson. “Can a Rainmaker be Morgan Stanley’s Peacemaker?” New York Times 154 (July 1, 2005): C7. N.A. “College Presidents as Rainmak
ers.” Chronicle of Higher Education 51 (Nov. 11, 2004): B2. O’Connor, Joanne. “New York-based Rainmaker Touted as Next Senior Partner at Shearman.” Lawyer 19 (May 30, 2005): 5.
4
John William Corrington. “The Rainmaker.” Legal Studies Forum 27 (2003): 541-542. The poem reads: There is no such thing as a job well done. The rule is, I must leave as soon as it’s’ begun. I live deserts. In my wake green explodes like the dream of a winter tree. A women in Tulsa, late one night, came to shake my thirst. We drank. Lips wet and shimmering, she said she had dreamed me long ago, a weather cock turning wind
less above a crumbling barn. She asked why? I could not say whether she asked about the deluge or that wooden contrivance that serves me for what I do not need. Dressing quickly, feeling my vitru go, the motel pipes beginning to play, awaiting my lie: Because it isn’t there, I said, leaving her money I had got for bringing what was not. What they do not know is that the rain seeks me. It is my tempest that they see. I have
been fragments of an ancient thing wedded together again, and love or the sight of green, the touch of mist would melt me like the Witch of the West upon whose breast I fed Last Spring When I was dead. And when I dream in a dry bed, rutted with dusty sweat, I see my brother on his way beneath our Father’s eyes, to set about the lethal thing he does so well: Perhaps an Iowa field in July, full of prayers and striving, ending as you would surmise in a flash flood.
5
For examples of books that promote rainmaking skills for generating profits, consult: Ford Harding. Creating Rainmakers: The Manager’s Guide to Training Professionals to Attract New Clients (New York, John Wiley & Sons: 2006). Jeffery J. Fox. Secrets of Great Rainmakers: The Keys to Success and Wealth. (New York, Hyperion: 2006).
6
George Cheney. Rhetoric in Organizational Society: Managing Multiple Identities (Columbia, University of South Carolina Press, 1991).
7
Referred to as CSR for the remainder of the essay.
8
A. Henriques. “CSR, Sustainability, and the Triple Bottom Line.” In A. Henriques and J. Richardson (Eds). The Triple Bottom Line: Does It All Add Up? (London, Earthscan: 2005) 26-33.
9
M.E. Porter and M.R. Kramer. “Strategy & Society: The Link Between Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility.” Harvard Business Review 84 (2006): 78-92.
10
J. Dowling and J. Pfeffer. “Organizational Legitimacy: Social Values and Organizational Behavior.” Pacific Sociological Review 18 (1975): 123-137. J.D. Patterson and M. Watkins-Allen. “Accounting for Actions: How Stake
holders Respond to the Strategic Communication of Environmental Activist Organizations.” Journal of Applied Communication Research 25 (1997): 293-316.
11
Referred to as CRP for the remainder of the essay.
12
I argue that the Corporate Citizen Report (CCR) is one of the primary means by which CSR is communicated. For information on the significance of CCRs, see: N.A. “Rolling Off More Presses: Reports on ‘Social Responsi
bility’—The 2000 Some Reports are Efforts to Provide More Disclosure and to Communication with Important Stakeholders.” The Christian Science Monitor (December 4, 2006): 25.
13
Randall P. Bezanson. “No Middle Ground? Reflections on the Citizen’s United Decision.” Iowa Law Review. 96 (2010). 649.
14
Kathryn C. Lavelle. “The Business of Governments: Nationalism in the Context of Sovereign Wealth Funds and State-Owned Enterprises.” Journal of International Affairs 62 (2008): 131-147.
15
J.D. Hoover. “Corporate Advocacy: A Powerful Persuasive Strategy.” In J.D. Hoover (Ed.), Corporate Advocacy: Rhetoric in the Information Age. (1997). Westport, CT: Quorum. S. Sen and C.B. Bhattacharya. “Does Do
ing Good Always Lead to Doing Better? Consumer Reactions to Corporate Social Responsibility.” Journal of Marketing Research, 38 (2001): 225-243.
16
For a discussion justifying CSR activities, please see: B.W. Altman. “Corporate Community Relations in the 1990s: A Study in Transformation.” Business and Society 37 (1998): 221-227. M.J. Barone, A.D. Miyazaki, and K.A. Taylor. “The Influence of Cause-Related Marketing on Consumer Choice: Does One Good Turn Deserve Another?” Journal of Academy of Marketing Science 28 (2000): 248-262. I. Maignan, O.C. Ferrell, and G.T. Hult. “Corporate Citizenship: Cultural Antecedents and Business Benefits.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 27 (1999): 455-469. R. Marchand. Creating the Corporate Soul: The Rise of Public Rela
tions and Corporate Imagery in American Big Business. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998). T.S. Mescon and D.J. Tillson. “Corporate Philanthropy: A Strategic Approach to the Bottom Line.” California Management Review 29 (1987): 49-61.
17
S.P. Sethi. Advocacy Advertising and Large Corporations. (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1977).
18
M.P. Gardner and P. Shuman. “Sponsorships and Small Business.” Journal of Small Business Management 26 (1988): 44-52.
19
Neil Carter and Meg Huby. “Ecological Citizenship and Ethical Investment.” Environmental Politics 14 (2005): 255-272. Roel Stootweg. “Biodiversity Assessment Framework: Making Biodiversity Part of Corporate Social Responsibility.” Impact Assessment & Project Appraisal 23 (2005): 37-46. Marc Gunther. “Tree Huggers, Soy Lovers, and Profits.” Fortune 147 (2003): 98-104. L. Michaelis. “The Role of Business in Sustainable Consumption.” Journal of Cleaner Production 11 (2003): 15-22. Daniel Chudnovsky and Andres Lopez. “Diffusion of Environmentally Friendly Technologies by Multinational Corporations in Developing Countries.”
International Journal of Technology Management & Sustainable Development 2 (2003): 5-18. Paul Hawken, Herman Daly, John Holmberg, and Karl-Henrik Robert. “A Compass for Sustainable Development.” Interna
tional Journal for Sustainable Development & World Ecology 4 (1997): 79. .
20
B.L. Ware and Wil A. Linkugel. “The Rhetorcal Persona: Marcus Garvey as Black Moses. Communication Monographs, 49 (1982): 50-62. Ware and Linkugel’s significance on persona is warranted based on their insistence that there is a difference between the actor’s personal ethos and ethos associated with a particular mask, or persona, but not on the basis that one (personal ethos) is more real or authentic than the other. Both per
sonal ethos and persona are constructed rhetorically via language and action, yet persona is often characterized distinctly from personal ethos because it emerges within a culture complicated with rhetorical efforts by multiple actors (competitors), whereas personal ethos is more the result of individual decisions.
21
Ware and Linkugel, “The Rhetorical Persona,” 50.
22
James Jasinski. Sourcebook on Rhetoric: Key Concepts in Contemporary Rhetorical Studies. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2001), 429.
23
Renato Barilli. Rhetoric: Theory and History of Literature, Volume 63. (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1989), 28.
1
Relevant Rhetoric Vol. 5 2014 The Corporate Rainmaker Persona
8
Interestingly, Cicero’s “principle” of “If you wish to persuade me, you must think my thoughts, feel my feelings, and speak my words” is used in teaching students how to write effective and persuasive business proposals. Ac
cording to author Tom Sant, Cicero’s advice for writing “winning” corporate proposals is to consider three factors of the audience: its personality type, its level of expertise, and its role in the decision making process. See: Tom Sant. Persuasive Business Proposals: Writing to Win More Customers, Clients, and Contracts. (New York: AMACOM, 2004): 55-71.
25
Hariman, Political Style, 96.
26
Hariman, Political Style,4
27
Hariman, Political Style, 134.
28
Michael Leff. “Decorum and the Rhetorical Interpretation: The Latin Humanistic Tradition and Contemporary Critical Theory.” Vichiana 1 (1990): 107-126.
29
Marcel van Marrewijk. “Concepts and Definitions of CSR and Corporate Sustainability: Between Agency and Communion,” in Concepts and Definitions of CSR and Corporate Sustainability: Between Agency and Communion, eds. Alex C. Michalos and Deborah C. Poff (The Netherlands: Springer, 2013), 641-655.
30
As cited in Cargill’s 2013 CSR Report, “Responsibility Across Many Dimensions,” accessed December 4, 2013, http://www.cargill.com/cargill-corporate-responsibility-report-2013/
31
Thomas M. Lessl. “The Priestly Voice.” Quarterly Journal of Speech, 75 (1989): 183-197.
32
Meister and Japp. “Sustainable Development and the Global Economy.”
33
As cited in Ford’s 2012-13 Corporate Sustainability Report, “Our Blueprint for Sustainability,” accessed December 8, 2013, http://corporate.ford.com/microsites/sustainability-report-2012-13/blueprint
34
As cited in IKEA’s 2013 sustainability report, “People & Planet Positive: IKEA Group Sustainability Strategy for 2020,” accessed December 10, 2013, http://www.ikea.com/ms/en_US/pdf/reports-downloads/peopleandplanet
positive.pdf
35
IKEA, “People & Planet Positive,” p. 3.
36
IKEA, “People & Planet Positive,” p. 6.
37
IKEA, “People & Planet Positive,” p. 8.
38
Max Oelschlaeger. Postmodern Environmental Ethics. (Albany, NY: State University
of New York Press, 1995): 7.
39
Brian Tokar. Earth for Sale: Reclaiming Ecology in the Age of Corporate Greenwash. (Boston: South End Press, 1997): 61-68.
40
In 2004, Shellenberger and Nordhaus’ essay received front-page coverage in the New York Times, The Economist, and Salon. In 2011, the authors revisited the essay in a speech at Yale University entitled “The Long Death of Environmentalism” in which they argue recent environmental efforts to address climate change and build a green economy have crashed. A copy of the 2004 essay is available at: http://www.thebreakthrough.org/
images/Death_of_Environmentalism.pdf. A transcript of the 2011 speech is available at: http://thebreakthrough.org/archive/the_long_death_of_environmenta
41
Reponses to Shellenberger and Nordhaus’ essay and book received support and criticism. Of note, is Robert Brulle and J. Craig Jenkins’ critique “Spinning Our Way to Sustainability?” in which they state, “the fundamental problem with [Shellenberger and Nordhaus’] proposal is its lack of democracy” (85).
42
Peterson, Sharing the Earth, 26.
43
Dirk Matten, Andrew Crane, and Wendy Chapple. “Behind the Mask: Revealing the True Face of Corporate Citizenship.” Journal of Business Ethics 45 (2003): 109-120.
24
Relevant Rhetoric Vol. 5 2014 The Corporate Rainmaker Persona
9