The roles of discourse, legitimacy and power in enabling and hindering institutional change towards sustainability

Cette thèse est basée sur trois essais distincts mais interconnectés qui soulignent le rôle important du discours, la légitimité et le pouvoir dans le changement institutionnel vers un développement durable. Dans deux chapitres de ma thèse, j'explore les dynamiques de (de)légitimation du gaz de schiste, en France et en Allemagne. L'exploitation du gaz de schiste par la fracturation hydraulique a déclenché une forte contestation dans ces pays en raison de ses implications socio-économiques, environnementaux et politiques. Le premier essai est une étude de cas comparative des débats publiques sur le de gaz de schiste, qui démontre le rôle important des institutions pour le succès des cadrages mobilisés. Le deuxième essai est une étude de cas portant sur la (de)légitimation des acteurs impliqués dans le débat sur le gaz de schiste français qui propose qu'il y ait une différence fondamentale dans légitimant un problème et légitimant un acteur. Le troisième essai théorique introduit le concept de parentalisme afin de mettre en évidence comment les acteurs contrôlent qui peut participer aux débats. En tout, cette thèse met en lumière comment les débats sur des enjeux sociaux et environnementaux sont influencés par des stratégies discursives en résonance avec le contexte institutionnel et l’identité des acteurs ainsi que par des stratégies de contrôle discursives et non discursives sur qui participe et comment dans la délibération.This dissertation is based on three separate but interconnected essays which underscore the important roles of discourse, legitimacy and power in fueling or hindering institutional change towards sustainability. In two chapters of my thesis I explore the discursive legitimation dynamics in the contested issue field around shale gas, in France and Germany. The exploitation of shale gas via the hydraulic fracturing (or fracking) technique triggered strong contestation in these countries due to its socio-economic, environmental, and political implications which challenge the energy sector on a global scale. The first essay is a comparative case study of the public shale gas debates which surfaces the important role of institutions in influencing the success of certain arguments over others. The second essay is a single case study focusing on the (de)legitimation of the actors involved in the French shale gas debate which proposes that there is a fundamental difference in legitimating an issue and legitimating an actor. The third theoretical essay introduces the concept of parentalism in order to highlight how actors control who may participate in discursive struggles. On a whole this thesis surfaces how ongoing struggles in contested environmental and social issue fields are shaped by the fit of discursive strategies with the institutional context and contestants’ legitimate identities as well as by actors’ discursive and non-discursive controlling strategies of who participates and how in deliberation

Discursive legitimation: an integrative theoretical framework and agenda for future research

In recent years, we have seen a proliferation of research on discursive legitimation, which has shed light on how legitimacy is established through communication. However, this body of work remains fragmented, and there is a need to synthesize and develop a more comprehensive and in-depth theoretical understanding of this vibrant area of research. This article aims to address this need by providing an integrative theoretical framework and outlining an agenda for future research. The framework encompasses five key elements of discursive legitimation: strategies, positions, foundations, temporality, and arenas. Drawing on this framework, we present a research agenda that highlights key topics related to these elements along with theoretical and methodological considerations cutting across them. Our contribution lies in conceptualizing discursive legitimation as a multifaceted and dynamic phenomenon, offering a complementary framework to existing models and paving the way for future studies, and placing discursive strategies—which have been the focus of prior research—in context by highlighting the critical role of key discursive elements in enabling or constraining legitimation processes

Old Wine in New Bottles? Parentalism, Power and its Legitimacy in Business-Society Relations

This article proposes a theoretical re-conceptualization of power dynamics and their legitimation in contemporary business–society relations using the prism and metaphor of parentalism. The paper develops a typology of forms of parentalism along two structuring dimensions: care and control. Specifically, four ideal-types of parentalism are introduced with their associated practices and power-legitimation mechanisms. As we consider current private governance and authority through this analytical framework, we are able to provide a new perspective on the nature of the moral legitimation of power dynamics in contemporary business–society relations. And we weave the threads between this conceptual frame and historical antecedents, suggesting that business ethicists need to revive old debates on paternalism in light of the current pervasive trend of modernized and subtler forms of parentalism. Implications for business ethics and political CSR are discussed

Old Wine in New Bottles? Parentalism, Power and its Legitimacy in Business-Society Relations

This article proposes a theoretical re-conceptualization of power dynamics and their legitimation in contemporary business–society relations using the prism and metaphor of parentalism. The paper develops a typology of forms of parentalism along two structuring dimensions: care and control. Specifically, four ideal-types of parentalism are introduced with their associated practices and power-legitimation mechanisms. As we consider current private governance and authority through this analytical framework, we are able to provide a new perspective on the nature of the moral legitimation of power dynamics in contemporary business–society relations. And we weave the threads between this conceptual frame and historical antecedents, suggesting that business ethicists need to revive old debates on paternalism in light of the current pervasive trend of modernized and subtler forms of parentalism. Implications for business ethics and political CSR are discussed

Contextualizing Corporate Political Responsibilities: Neoliberal CSR in Historical Perspective

This article provides a historical analysis of the political role of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) before it was even called CSR. We describe two ideal types of political responsibilities during the eras of 19th century paternalism in Europe and corporate trusteeship in the US. Our historical contextualization of recent scholarly work on a “political turn” of CSR offers a two-pronged critique: 1. Growing discussions on political CSR start from a problematic foundation that does not hold in historical perspective – the taken-for-granted null hypothesis of a separation between business and state responsibilities. 2. The causal relationship of a political turn of CSR with globalization is misconceived and we show strong forms of political CSR well before our contemporary neoliberal globalization. We suggest that business and political responsibilities are structurally and have always been intimately intertwined and are constantly negotiated and re-negotiated. We propose this as an alternative null hypothesis, one that could frame future theorizing on political CSR. Finally, while we show that globalization is not the cause of political CSR, we suggest that it has nevertheless had a consequential impact, shaping the specificities of the contemporary political role of business. We conclude by drawing implications for future theorizing on (political) CSR and stakeholder democracy

Social movement organizations agency for sustainable organizing

International audienc

Discursive struggles and contested stigma extensions: explaining the gradual stigmatization of the U.S. tobacco industry

Despite extensive research on stigma, we still lack a comprehensive understanding of how industry stigmatization progresses when constantly contested by resourceful incumbents. To shed light on this issue, we focus on the revealing case of the U.S. tobacco industry between 1980 and 2016. Combining structural topic modeling and discourse analysis to explore the extensive media discussions surrounding the industry, we find that stigmatization unfolds through three phases, each characterized by discursive struggles, which result in contested stigma extensions: contested stigma extension by establishing harm (1980-1992), contested stigma extension by assigning responsibility (1993-2010), and contested stigma extension by creating new norms (2011-2016). We develop a process model highlighting three key mechanisms in stigmatization processes: attention, which shifts focus to new issues and discussions; stigma construction work, where the stigmatizers use discursive strategies to establish stigma; and resistance work, where targets use discursive strategies to slow down stigmatization. The interplay of these mechanisms reveals that stigmatization is neither linear nor complete but characterized by partial and contested stigma extensions. While acknowledging the limitations of our case, our study advances research by showing how industry stigmatization persists even when challenged, opening new avenues for future research in related settings

From Big Data to Rich Theory: Integrating Critical Discourse Analysis with Structural Topic Modeling

The data and R code required to run the analysi