Coercive,mimetic and normative: Interdiscursivity in Malaysian CSR reports

Abstract

Malaysian corporations have to disclose corporate social responsibility (CSR), and a typical genre for disclosure is CSR reports. These reports incorporate other discourses which indicate the presence of interdiscursivity. The article examines interdiscursivity in Malaysian CSR reports. It selects the CSR reports of 10 major corporations and pursues an interdiscursive analysis which involves four sequential stages. CSR reports contain discourses of public relations, sustainability, strategic management, compliance and financial accounting. Although the discourses are often multisemiotic, language maintains primacy in content, while image tends to exemplify or simplify content. These discourses constitute an interdiscursive profile, and it has central and auxiliary discourses. The central discourse is public relations discourse, and it promotes corporations helping and not harming society. The auxiliary discourses are sustainability, strategic management, compliance and financial accounting discourses, and these discourses mitigate the promotional focus. Interdiscursivity enables the primarily promotional CSR reports to not seem overtly promotional. The choice of discourses is probably influenced by coercive, mimetic and normative reasons. These discourses enhance the reliability of CSR reports because their disclosure is anchored to various CSR aspects, international or reporting practices and professional domains. Interdiscursivity helps to build stakeholders’ confidence in disclosure and, therefore, in corporations. It joins other functions in CSR reports to convey corporations as agents of positive social change. The article also probes the relationship between interdiscursivity and intertextuality and advances a matrix of intertextual–interdiscursive use.

Keywords

Corporate social responsibility CSR reports disclosure interdiscursive analysis interdiscursive profile interdiscursivity multisemiotic

Introduction

Corporations are the world’s dominant economic institution (Bakan, 2005). Their operations can impact society, and a prominent method to manage the impact is corporate social responsibility (CSR). CSR means corporations improving society through voluntarily investing their resources (Werther and Chandler, 2011), although the definition is contested. CSR has European and North American origins, but it has developed in Malaysia. The country adopts international corporate regimes to remain competitive and to interest (new) investors (Felker, 2015).

CSR is among these regimes, and the government and stock exchange have been instrumental parties for its development for more than a decade. The government provides various CSR-related tax deductions and exemptions, after the Prime Minister reiterated his CSR agenda during consecutive yearly budget speeches. The stock exchange can delist corporations for not disclosing CSR since 2006. It launched a CSR-based index named the FTSE4Good Bursa Malaysia in 2014, a CSR Framework in 2006 and a Sustainability Reporting Guide in 2015. The FTSE4Good Bursa Malaysia mimics the FTSE4Good (United Kingdom) and the Dow Jones Sustainability Index (United States). Its constituents are Malaysian corporations demonstrating exemplary CSR practices. The 2006 CSR Framework fosters CSR for the community, environment, marketplace and workplace. It is replaced by the 2015 Sustainability Reporting Guide which details how CSR should be disclosed (Bursa Malaysia, 2017). Other stakeholders can inspire CSR, notably ACCA Malaysia, Malaysian Accounting Standards Board, customers and employees. Stakeholders recognize the impact of corporations in their lives and encourage CSR engagement and disclosure. Moreover, the CSR Malaysia Awards and Malaysian Social Responsibility Awards (MaSRA) celebrate CSR achievements.

The corporate context in Malaysia provides moral, economic and rational arguments for CSR (Werther and Chandler, 2011). The economic argument remains the strongest because Malaysia practices a capitalist market-driven economy, and it dictates corporations to pursue profit maximization (Sarkar, 1999). Corporations adopt CSR and display institutional isomorphism (Boxenbaum and Jonsson, 2008; DiMaggio and Powell, 1983), meaning the manifestation of similar CSR characteristics. These characteristics entrench CSR because it sustains human and natural resources which are subsequently employed for production. Production generates future profit, and some profit is invested in CSR (Bakan, 2005; Sarkar, 1999). Profitable corporations contribute improved tax income for the government and better stock return for the stock exchange. CSR may generate social legitimacy for corporations (Rajandran, 2016a, 2016b), but it should be seen as part of an endeavor to legitimize capitalism, in that CSR helps to perpetuate the economic status quo (Sarkar, 1999).

CSR disclosure is not a legal requirement in Malaysia, yet corporations cannot distance themselves from disclosure (Ihlen et al., 2011) because it has become another standard indicator of corporate performance (Werther and Chandler, 2011). The majority of these reports are produced in Europe and North America, and research favors European or North American CSR reports (Baughn et al., 2007). However, CSR reports are produced in Asia, and major Malaysian corporations already publish and circulate these reports. CSR reports are considered a genre because there is consensus about their purposes, structures and conventions among academics and practitioners in corporate communication (Dawkins, 2004). These reports are a periodic corporate disclosure document and explain a corporation’s social contribution. The explanation incorporates other discourses which indicate the presence of interdiscursivity. Interdiscursivity is a theoretical concern in discourse studies (Fairclough, 2013; Wodak, 2011) and genre studies (Bhatia, 2004). Although it helps to understand genres such as articles, speeches or reports (Bhatia, 2010; Fairclough, 1995; Wodak, 2001), interdiscursivity is often marginalized in text analysis. Hence, analytical methods for interdiscursivity have not been explicitly stated (Fage-Butler, 2015), and few genres have been analyzed for interdiscursivity.

This article examines the discourses incorporated in Malaysian CSR reports. It is structured in this manner: after reviewing the concept of interdiscursivity and some relevant research on corporate genres, the article pursues an interdiscursive analysis which involves four sequential stages. The analysis reveals the interdiscursive profile of the reports. The profile includes central and auxiliary discourses. These discourses cumulatively enhance the reliability of CSR reports. The article also probes the relationship between interdiscursivity and another similar concept, intertextuality.

Interdiscursivity

The concept of ‘interdiscursivity’ can be traced to Bakhtin (polyphony), Foucault (orders of discourse) and Pêcheux (interdiscourse). It was later adopted by theoretical models in discourse studies (Fairclough, 1995, 2006; Wodak, 2001) and genre studies (Bhatia, 2004, 2010). Interdiscursivity is similar to intertextuality because these concepts permit the incorporation of other references in texts (Wodak and Fairclough, 2010). Yet, intertextuality and interdiscursivity function on different levels of abstraction (Bhatia, 2010; Fairclough, 2013; Wodak, 2001).

The incorporation of two or more discourses, genres or styles introduces interdiscursivity in texts (Bhatia, 2010; Fairclough, 2013; Wodak, 2011). For the purpose of this article, discourse has three meanings: it is a part of social life, the language of a domain (e.g. political, corporate, religious discourse) or a way of construing a perspective (e.g. socialist discourse) (Fairclough, 2013). Discourses are discrete (e.g. corporate discourse) but can intersect (e.g. advertising discourse and marketing discourse) or blend (e.g. corporate environmental discourse) (Fairclough, 1995, 2006). Their presence in texts is realized by semiotic (e.g. language or image) features (Bhatia, 2010), which implies the multisemiotic configuration of discourses (Fairclough, 1995).

Interdiscursivity operates in genres employed in business, education, history, politics and religion. It permits hybridity (Bhatia, 2004; Fairclough, 2006) by mixing ‘old’ or established and ‘new’ or novel semiotic features (Wodak and Fairclough, 2010). The reason for mixing can shift over time, but it achieves the communicative purposes of genre users (Bhatia, 2010). The reason is traced to historical and social change. The change reflects power dynamics, which influences the choice of discourses (Zappettini and Unerman, 2016). Since the choice can prioritize certain domains or perspectives, interdiscursivity may be strongly linked to ideology (Wodak and Fairclough, 2010).

Interdiscursivity in corporate genres

CSR reports are part of the corporate report genre colony. The colony also contains financial, technical and governance reports (Bhatia, 2004). These reports serve broadly similar communicative purposes, where corporate actions, descriptions and reflections are promoted to stakeholders (Bhatia, 2004; Rajandran, 2016a). Promotion has infused corporate reports and can influence how their discourses are conveyed. For instance, these reports emphasize the positive contribution of corporations to stakeholders.

CSR reports have garnered substantial research interest, and the functions of organization, representation, evaluation, interaction and intertextuality have been examined. Research identified how CSR reports organize the frequency and sequence of topics (Rajandran, 2016a), represent corporations causing CSR (Mason and Mason, 2012), evaluate corporations and CSR positively (Bhatia, 2010; Zappettini and Unerman, 2016), and imply corporations and stakeholders interacting directly in friendly conversation (Rajandran, 2018). Research also identified intertextuality, and there are references to documents and individuals/groups (Rajandran, 2016b). Dawkins (2004) and Frankental (2001) recognize public relations discourse in CSR reports, and it induces skepticism of disclosure because the positive contribution reflects a biased selection of content. Dawkins (2004) and Frankental (2001) then list several proposals to generate transparency, which require other discourses, although the discourses are not named.

Research has not examined interdiscursivity in CSR reports, but it did analyze interdiscursivity in earnings requests (Crawford Camiciottoli, 2010), emails (Incelli, 2013), financial reports (Bhatia, 2010; Zappettini and Unerman, 2016), magazine articles (Rajandran, 2014), press releases (Corona, 2011), property purchase reports (Kong, 2006) and strategy policies (Fage-Butler, 2015; Koskela, 2013). These studies operationalized interdiscursivity in Bhatia’s (2004, 2010) or Fairclough’s (1995, 2006) terms, using topics, words/phrases or social actors to identify discourses.

Genres and styles may mix to create hybrids. Earnings requests mix presentational and question-and-answer genres (Crawford Camiciottoli, 2010), and property purchase reports mix advertising and reporting genres (Kong, 2006) to convince stakeholders about a product or service. British and Italian corporate emails mix informational and relational styles, and the mixture reflects cultural practice in Britain and Italy (Incelli, 2013). Other studies explore discourses, perhaps because interdiscursivity is considered to refer to discourses only or discourses are more frequently incorporated than genres or styles.

Press releases about corporate arbitration primarily contain corporate discourse, but also employ legal and management discourses to describe the development of a dispute (Corona, 2011). These discourses collectively create a new interdiscursive space, where arbitration loses confidentiality but gains transparency (Corona, 2011). Strategy policies mix diverse discourses. While Fage-Butler (2015) notes patient centered, public service and strategic management discourses, Koskela (2013) highlights accounting, corporate, economics, legal, marketing and strategic management discourses. These discourses represent several sub-genres (Koskela, 2013). Strategic management discourse is prominent across the sub-genres because its principles inform strategy policies (Fage-Butler, 2015; Koskela, 2013).

Financial reports are interdiscursive, and different sections in these reports may require different discourses (Cutlip et al., 2000). These reports articulate accounting, economics, legal and public relations discourses (Bhatia, 2010). Environmental discourse is also seen but it serves corporate interests through economics and finance discourses (Zappettini and Unerman, 2016). Financial reports are hybrids because the conventions of various discourses are noted (Bhatia, 2010; Zappettini and Unerman, 2016). Business magazine articles display journalistic and public relations discourses, where the promotion in public relations discourse is mitigated by the perceived neutral information in journalistic discourse (Rajandran, 2014). The use of interdiscursivity can enhance the reliability of a genre (Bhatia, 2010; Rajandran, 2014; Zappettini and Unerman, 2016).

Earlier studies did not analyze interdiscursivity in CSR reports. These reports constitute a genre and comprise many sections (e.g. sections about initiative, management, compliance, accounting) but CEO Statements have received most analysis (Rajandran, 2016a). CSR reports should be analyzed in their entirety because different sections may display different discourses (Bhatia, 2004, 2010). Hence, this article examines interdiscursivity in Malaysian CSR reports, and it is guided by these questions: What discourses are incorporated in CSR reports? Why are these discourses incorporated? The examination of interdiscursivity enriches studies of corporate genres, thus empowering academics and practitioners in corporate communication to better understand disclosure.

Methodology

The study selected the 2016 CSR reports of 10 corporations in Malaysia. These corporations are among the top 100 by market capitalization and represent diverse industries (Table 1). They have also consistently produced CSR reports for several years and should have experience in the use of discourses. Their CSR reports are published in English and are available in electronic or print formats. The reports in Table 1 are purposively limited because a qualitative and interpretive study of interdiscursivity was pursued, following Bhatia (2010), Corona (2011), Fage-Butler (2015), Koskela (2013) and Zappettini and Unerman (2016).

Table 1.

CSR reports.

Corporation	Industry^a
Axiata	Telecommunications
Bursa Malaysia	Financial services
CIMB	Conglomerate (primarily banks)
Digi	Telecommunications
Genting	Travel and leisure
Maxis	Telecommunications
Media Prima	Media
Nestlé Malaysia	Food and beverage
UMW	Conglomerate (primarily oil and gas)
YTL	Conglomerate (primarily utilities)

CSR: corporate social responsibility.

Industry Classification Benchmark (2012).

The article pursued an interdiscursive analysis that involved four sequential stages. It is a systematic way to identify discourses and may mitigate arbitrary decisions (Fairclough, 1995). The analysis combines academic and practitioner insights because it is informed by both researchers and specialist informants.

The first stage was to detect the discourses. A discourse should be indicated by features in a text (Fairclough, 1995). For language, a discourse is indicated by topics, words/phrases or social actors. A topic has statements converging around it (e.g. sustainability, compliance) (Fage-Butler, 2015; Fairclough, 2006). Words/phrases can be adjectives, adverbs, nouns or verbs. Social actors investigate how entities taking part in events are construed (van Leeuwen, 2008). Among the categories of social actors are Activation/Passivation (entities are a dynamic force in events or are undergoing events), Genericization/Specification (entities are generic or specific) and Appraisement (entities are positively or negatively valued). For image, a discourse is indicated by charts or pictures which, visualize a topic (e.g. organization chart for management). Two researchers perused the CSR reports and categorized the discourses. Interdiscursive analysis is always subjective (Koskela, 2013), and the researchers had to mostly rely on explicit references to topics, words/phrases or social actors in language, and charts or pictures in image to categorize discourses. These discourses were reviewed together before an initial inventory of discourses was produced.

The second stage was to verify the discourses. The researchers consulted specialist informants in the manner proposed by Bhatia (2010) and Crawford Camiciottoli (2010). Among the 10 corporations contacted, two corporations responded and two representatives consented to be interviewed. The representatives were termed Informant 1 and Informant 2 for confidentiality purposes. They helped to reorganize the initial inventory of discourses and elucidated the functions of every discourse. Although the researchers had information about CSR reports, specialist informants had disciplinary experience. Their combined theoretical and practical knowledge provided a reasonable basis to categorize discourses.

The third stage was to name the discourses. Because there is no definitive list of discourses to draw on (Fairclough, 1995), the researchers utilized their general knowledge, established or favored terminology in CSR literature, or asked the specialist informants. The naming convention prioritized comprehension and consistency (X discourse or discourse of X).

The fourth stage was to consider the function of the discourses because interdiscursivity is purposive (Bhatia, 2010; Wodak and Fairclough, 2010). The researchers proposed an interdiscursive profile (Koskela, 2013) which has central and auxiliary discourses. They also surveyed CSR literature and asked specialist informants about the context. The corporate context, meaning the configuration of history, culture, economy and politics that impact corporations, can influence CSR disclosure (Rajandran, 2018; Rajandran and Fauziah, 2014). Corporations share a corporate context and therefore encounter similar social expectations (Boxenbaum and Jonsson, 2008), such as for CSR. These expectations provide coercive (regulatory), mimetic (peer/industry) and normative (professional) reasons for disclosure (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983) and can explain the choice of discourses.

Analysis

Malaysian CSR reports manifest the discourses of public relations, sustainability, strategic management, compliance and financial accounting. The discourses are multisemiotic (Fairclough, 1995) and are often articulated using language and image. However, language maintains primacy in content, while image tends to exemplify or simplify content.

Public relations discourse permeates CSR reports. It creates and maintains relationships between corporations and stakeholders (Cutlip et al., 2000). The relationship involves two social actors, and the CSR provider (corporation) serves the CSR receiver (stakeholder) in most topics (Rajandran and Fauziah, 2014). Extract 1 has topics regarding Digi’s service (‘We are a mobile telecommunications company …’, ‘We serve over 12.3 million customers …’), history (‘With over 20 years of operations …’, ‘We are part of global telecommunications provider …’) and aspiration (‘Our ambition …’). The language of the topics portrays active corporations, genericized corporate involvement and positive evaluation. Pronouns (‘We’, ‘Our’) give agency to Digi. The service, history or aspiration would not exist had Digi not invested its resources. The topics are comprehensive because several noun phrases indicate generic corporate involvement. For example, ‘digital products and services’ imply variety, although the actual availability may not be varied. The topics receive positive evaluation through adjectives (underlined). They indicate Digi’s desirable qualities because its practices bring advantages to stakeholders.

Extract 1:

We are a mobile telecommunications company providing mobile voice, internet and digital services. With over 20 years of operations, we have built a strong legacy of product and services innovation.

Our ambition now is to become our customers’ favourite partner in their digital lives providing relevant, personalised and engaging digital products and services that will further enable all Malaysians’ digital lifestyles. We will achieve this through developing digital products and services that are loved by customers, delivered over an efficient, consistent and responsive network, supported by a winning team, and working in a transparent and responsible manner.

We serve over 12.3 million customers across Malaysia, offering a wide portfolio of market-leading, mobile connectivity and data services. Delivered on Malaysia’s widest 4G LTE network, we reach 85% population coverage across 275 cities and towns nationwide.

We are part of global telecommunications provider Telenor Group, recognised as a leader in driving progressive and responsible business practices.

( Digi, 2016 )

Pictures, in some ways, can exemplify public relations discourse (Cutlip et al., 2000). Extract 2 utilizes facial expression (raised eyebrows, wide eyes, smile) and body language (raised head and hand) to depict satisfied stakeholders. The picture displays an ideal reaction because CSR is presumed to be advantageous, as said by Informant 1. Although public relations discourse in Extracts 1 and 2 spans different claims (aspiration, history, satisfaction, service), it is centered on the corporation–stakeholder relationship. Corporations can simultaneously develop their products or services and improve the lives of stakeholders. CSR has not hindered but rather inspired their operations. Public relations discourse is integral to Chairman or CEO Statements (Bhatia, 2010), but it is also seen in other sections of CSR reports, such as ‘About Digi’ or ‘Sustainability Framework’ sections. These sections explain the benefits of operations or CSR and reiterate the CSR provider–receiver relationship.

Extract 2:

( Digi, 2016 )

Another incorporated discourse is sustainability discourse, and it describes how CSR initiatives are performed. The discourse is characterized by consecutive topics of problem–solution–result (Rajandran, 2016a). For Informant 1, the topics create a ‘story’ about an initiative, where a problem motivates a solution and the solution can produce results. While a ‘problem’ means an environmental/social matter, a ‘solution’ is an activity performed to solve a problem and a ‘result’ is the benefit(s) produced by the activity.

Extract 3 does not name a problem, but the solution implies the problem of ‘nutrition information and advice’. Nestlé Malaysia would not have made a ‘commitment’ if the problem did not exist. The corporation acquires agency through the noun phrases ‘Our commitment’ and ‘Nestlé Nutritional Compas’ (NNC), and it performs actions through specific noun phrases (bolded). The solution has adjectives (underlined) and verbs (italicized) to indicate the positive value of the NNC. The impact of the NNC is beneficial, which reflects positively on the NNC.

The result shows improvements, which are often recorded using numbers. Extract 3 has a table and a picture. The percentage in the table quantifies the result and makes it measurable, as said by Informant 1. The calorie details in the picture makes the result tangible, as said by Informants 1 and 2. The percentage and calorie details imply positive evaluation, and other words/phrases are not required. The table and picture are evidence for the efficacy of the solution. Sustainability discourse is clustered in sections about the initiatives (Zappettini and Unerman, 2016). The sections are about the community, environment, marketplace and workplace because these stakeholders are listed in the Malaysian CSR Framework.

Extract 3:

[SOLUTION]

Our commitment: Deliver nutrition information and advice on all our labels.

The Nestlé Nutritional Compass (‘NNC’) is a tool developed to help consumers make informed decisions on food and beverage choices and improve their understanding of good eating habits. It provides clear information about ingredients and ideal portion sizes of our products. The NNC is displayed on all of our products. The NNC includes a breakdown of the products’ nutritional composition, tips for a healthy eating and active lifestyles, and contact details for more information.

The product packaging also includes the Guideline Daily Amounts (‘GDA’), in Malaysia known as Front of Pack (‘FOP’) Labelling in line with local requirements. These information on labels inform consumers about the amount of calories, sugars, total fat, saturated fat and salt in a serving and most importantly, how this compares to the recommended average daily intakes. [RESULT] In 2016, 99% of our products sold displayed this information.

Our progress:

Description	2014	2015	2016
a. Products displaying with Nestlé Nutritional Compass (% of sales)	100	100	100*
b. Products with Guideline Daily Amount labelling (% of sales)	98	98	99
c. Products with nutritional claim on Front of Pack Labelling (% of sales)	59	65	67

( Nestlé Malaysia, 2016 )

CSR reports contain strategic management discourse through which corporations analyze, formulate or implement strategies to create or maintain competitive advantage (Dess et al., 2012). The language specifies and activates social actors in a management position but genericizes their activities. Noun phrases (‘Board of Directors’ in Extract 4, ‘YTL Group Sustainability Committee’ and ‘Managing Director’ in Extract 5) specify the social actors. They gain agency to formulate and implement CSR because verbs (italicized) activate their management function. The function receives positive evaluation through adjectives (underlined), and the social actors are involved in beneficial activities. These activities are generic, as seen in the noun phrases ‘corporate governance’ or ‘the Group’s objectives’ in Extract 4 and ‘sustainable practices’ or ‘various stakeholder engagement activities’ in Extract 5. Since these activities designate broad and vague concepts, corporations can perform various initiatives and claim to achieve their CSR objectives.

Extract 4:

The Board of Directors of Media Prima Berhad is committed towards achieving excellence in corporate governance and acknowledges that the prime responsibility for good corporate governance lies with the Board. The Board is fully committed to ensuring that the highest standards of corporate governance are practised throughout Media Prima and its subsidiaries as a fundamental part of discharging its responsibilities to create, protect and enhance shareholders’ value and the performance of the Group.

The Board believes that good corporate governance is fundamental in achieving the Group’s objectives. In order to ensure that the best interests of shareholders and other stakeholders are effectively served, the Board continues to play an active role in improving governance practices and monitors the development in corporate governance within the Group.

( Media Prima, 2016 )

Extract 5:

Sustainability is driven within our corporate structure through the YTL Group Sustainability Committee (YTL GSC). Led by the Managing Director, the YTL GSC was established to facilitate the embedding of sustainable practices in our organisation. The YTL GSC comprises representatives from the Group’s Sustainability Division and Senior Management from all of the Group’s Business Units. The YTL GSC is responsible for overseeing and ensuring strategic sustainability and setting high-level direction and focus. Sustainability issues are managed and communicated at all levels of the Group through various stakeholder engagement activities.

We constantly review our approach to ensure that key sustainability challenges impacting our stakeholders, businesses and society at large are addressed across our value chain. We are dedicated to our Group’s core values – honesty, hard work, moral responsibility, togetherness and vitality, and remain focused on our sustainability framework as indicated below.

( YTL, 2016 )

Strategic management discourse is commonly seen in charts. Concepts are represented through an icon (e.g. television, radio) in Extract 6 or a symbol (e.g. leaves signify the environment, linked points signify the community) in Extract 7. The representation simplifies the complexity of subsidiaries in Media Prima and focus areas in YTL. It relates the parts to the whole and becomes an overview of operations (Extract 6) or CSR (Extract 7). Strategic management discourse is present in early sections (e.g. ‘Corporate Structure’ in Media Prima, ‘Our Approach to Sustainability’ in YTL). Their early presence shows the management structures of corporations; content in later sections should be read as the implementation of their decisions.

Extract 6:

( Media Prima, 2016 )

Extract 7:

( YTL, 2016 )

Another incorporated discourse is compliance discourse. It has topics regarding the purpose of CSR reports, the disclosure standard and the verification of disclosure, as in Extract 8. The purpose evaluates disclosure positively through verbs (italicized). Disclosure becomes a beneficial activity, and it justifies the preparation of CSR reports. These reports fulfill a standard, namely the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), as Informant 2 stated. The prepositional phrase ‘in accordance with’ in Extract 8 or synonymous nouns (e.g. compliance) and verbs (e.g. to comply with) introduce which section in the reports fulfills a GRI criterion. The verification utilizes nouns (‘assurance’ in Extract 8) or verbs (e.g. is assured by) to indicate that other social actors (‘PricewaterhouseCoopers’ in Extract 8) have verified disclosure. Compliance discourse is observed in early sections (e.g. ‘About this Report’ in Nestlé Malaysia), and it establishes the objectives of disclosure. Two final sections also employ compliance discourse to describe the standard (e.g. ‘GRI G4 Content Index’ in Nestlé Malaysia and the verification (e.g. ‘Assurance Report’ in Nestlé Malaysia). An expert organization prepares these two sections and confirms the credibility of information in previous sections (Rajandran, 2016b).

Extract 8:

This Nestlé in Society Report (‘Report’) is published with the aim of promoting transparent reporting and communication to our shareholders and all stakeholders. The report includes detailed information on issues material to us, as well as on the societal and environmental impacts of our business. This edition of the Nestlé in Society Report is our 11th stand-alone annual sustainability report, showcasing our dedication to Creating Shared Value and meeting our commitments whilst delivering on our promise of ‘GOOD FOOD, GOOD LIFE’.

REPORTING FRAMEWORK

This Report is prepared in accordance with the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) G4 - Comprehensive Option. Following the GRI guidelines, we address material issues or those that reflect significant economic, environmental and social impacts, and those issues that substantively influence the assessments of our stakeholders. The reporting framework has been prepared in accordance with Amendments to Bursa Malaysia Securities Berhad Main Market Listing Requirements relating to Sustainability Statement in Annual Reports.

INDEPENDENT ASSURANCE

This Report is subject to a limited independent assurance by PricewaterhouseCoopers, to ensure accuracy, reliability and objectivity of the reported information and the report covers the issues material to the business. In order to view the scope of work and observations, see the full assurance statement at the back of this report.

( Nestlé Malaysia, 2016 )

The final incorporated discourse is financial accounting discourse. It gathers and manages financial information to help corporations make various decisions (Deegan, 2014) about operations (Extract 9) or CSR (Extract 10). The language activates corporations, and they (e.g. ‘UMW Group’) gain agency in economic situations. The situations are genericized (e.g. ‘the challenging economic and operating environment’) because only a synopsis is provided. It always mentions a monetary amount but the mention of money alone cannot constitute financial accounting discourse. Instead, the monetary amount required for operations or CSR and finance-related words/phrases should appear together. The combination of words/phrases about profit/loss (e.g. ‘full-year revenue’ in Extract 9) or transactions (e.g. ‘Donations payable’ in Extract 10) and monetary amount (e.g. ‘RM10958.5 million’ in Extract 9, ‘RM4,722,778’ in Extract 10) conveys financial accounting discourse.

Financial accounting discourse is not easily deciphered (Deegan, 2014), and large amounts of money imply corporations spending a lot on CSR, as Informant 2 stated. The amount does seem like a sizable cost, but this cost should be compared with other costs and revenue. The comparison reveals the relative importance of CSR in corporations (Rajandran, 2016a). Financial accounting discourse is seen in early sections (e.g. ‘Our Performance’ in UMW) or later sections (e.g. ‘Financial Statements’ in CIMB). It is not detailed and verified as there is no legal requirement to report financial information in Malaysian CSR reports.

Extract 9:

UMW Group recorded a full-year revenue of RM10958.5 million in 2016, a decrease of 24.1% over the previous year due to the challenging economic and operating environment. The Group’s overall financial performance was adversely impacted by the losses in the oil and gas segment due to the industry downturn. Nonetheless, UMW’s other non-oil and gas businesses – Automotive, Equipment and Manufacturing & Engineering – remained profitable throughout 2016. Excluding the impairment of assets and provision for financial guarantee contracts, the Group posted a profit before tax of RM109 million in 2016. The lower profit recorded was contributed by the operating losses of the Oil & Gas listed and non-listed businesses. After taking into account the impairments and provisions, the Group registered a pre-tax loss of RM2130.2 million for 2016 as compared to a pre-tax profit of RM 269.7 million in 2015.

( UMW, 2016 )

Extract 10:

7. PAYABLES AND ACCRUALS

	2016RM	2015RM
Donations payable	4,722,778	2,053,694
Accrued expenses	39,412	104,784
Interest income received in advance	11,477	14,981
Amounts due to a related company	63,563	10,231
	4,837,230	2,183,690

The balance with a related party at financial year ended 2016 was carried out in the course of ordinary Foundation transactions and are unsecured, interest free and repayable on demand.

( CIMB, 2016 )

Extracts 1–10 may imply that one section utilizes one discourse. One section can use one discourse (e.g. compliance discourse in ‘Assurance Report’) if the information is focused on one domain or perspective. Other sections may use more than one discourse. Chairman and CEO Statements epitomize the use of multiple discourses in one section, where public relations, sustainability and strategic management discourses are observed (Bhatia, 2010). The Chairman and CEO provide an overview (Rajandran and Fauziah, 2014) and require multiple discourses to explain various CSR aspects. Sections about the initiatives also employ multiple discourses, and Extract 11 demonstrates public relations and sustainability discourses in the section about the environment. Public relations discourse activates Maxis (‘Our’, ‘we’) and evaluates it positively through adjectives (underlined) and verbs (italicized). It establishes a claim about Maxis helping the environment, and the claim is proven by sustainability discourse. The topics of solution and result are noted. Maxis acquires agency in the solution (‘We’, ‘our’) and result (‘Maxis’). It becomes responsible for ‘various energy efficiency solutions’ and shows the savings of ‘1.3 MWh or RM1.5 million’ using numbers.

Extract 11:

[PUBLIC RELATIONS DISCOURSE]

Our environmentally friendly initiatives are centred on improving the energy efficiency of our network facilities as well as reducing and managing our carbon emissions. This year, we looked into managing our waste more efficiently and amplified our efforts to enhance green awareness among our employees.

[SUSTAINABILITY DISCOURSE]

Network modernisation and IT transformation

[SOLUTION] We have improved our energy usage over the years by adopting various energy efficiency solutions at our BTS and Technical Operations Centres (TOC), which include the changing of 2G radio to compact 2G and 3G radio, converting our BTS cabins to outdoor cabinets, installing free cooling systems, energy efficient air conditioners and LED lighting. We also install high capacity solar panels and chargers to harvest more energy for equipment and battery at some of our remote BTS. [RESULT] In 2016, Maxis saved about 1.3MWh or RM1.5 million in network electricity costs through improved energy efficiency and performance management initiatives.

( Maxis, 2016 )

Discussion

Malaysian CSR reports incorporate public relations, sustainability, strategic management, compliance and financial accounting discourses. These reports share discourses but the semiotic features of a discourse are different. CSR reports avoid repetition because a plethora of semiotic features can articulate a discourse. The discourses constitute the interdiscursive profile of Malaysian CSR reports, and it is visualized in Figure 1. The profile lists the discourses employed in texts, and it can be maintained or modified, which permits stability or diversity in a genre’s discourses.

Figure 1.

Interdiscursive profile of Malaysian CSR reports.

Earlier studies imply the equal contribution or importance of every discourse (Corona, 2011; Fage-Butler, 2015; Koskela, 2013; Zappettini and Unerman, 2016), but the profile has central and auxiliary discourses. A central discourse is Fairclough’s (2006) nodal discourse, and other discourses converge around it. A central discourse permeates a genre and is observed in most sections. Its absence can disrupt meaning because a genre may not be able to articulate content in line with its purposes, structures or conventions. An auxiliary discourse may reinforce, sustain or mitigate a central discourse. A central discourse in a Genre A may become an auxiliary discourse in Genre B. For instance, legal discourse is a central discourse in contracts but an auxiliary discourse in financial reports (Bhatia, 2010). From Figure 1, the central discourse is public relations discourse and the auxiliary discourses are sustainability, strategic management, compliance and financial accounting discourses.

The central discourse is public relations discourse because it permeates corporate reports and is observed in most sections (Bhatia, 2004; Dawkins, 2004; Frankental, 2001). Public relations in corporations is by definition promotional (Cutlip et al., 2000), and public relations discourse unsurprisingly promotes corporations and their CSR. If only public relations discourse is employed, it implies self-praise and CSR reports then seem biased, as Informants 1 and 2 opined. The auxiliary discourses are introduced to mitigate the promotional focus in the central discourse by displaying evidence (sustainability discourse), organization (strategic management discourse), fiscal monitoring (financial accounting discourse) and non-fiscal monitoring (compliance discourse). For Informants 1 and 2, the auxiliary discourses can minimize complaints of bias by substantiating the claims in the central discourse. Although promotion is argued to infuse the auxiliary discourses, they retain a perceived impartiality, while the central discourse is recognized as promotional (Cutlip et al., 2000). The central and auxiliary discourses complement one another, and, consequently, CSR reports do not seem overtly promotional.

Malaysian CSR reports share an interdiscursive profile because their corporate context is shared. The context reveals institutional isomorphism (Boxenbaum and Jonsson, 2008) which makes corporations adopt similar CSR characteristics. The choice of discourses is probably influenced by a mix of coercive, mimetic and normative reasons (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). First, coercive reasons may stimulate interdiscursivity. The government and stock exchange regulate the legal and ethical demands for disclosure. CSR reports explain various CSR aspects, and the explanation requires the discourses of diverse domains (public relations, sustainability, strategic management, compliance, financial accounting). These discourses can persuade the government, stock exchange and other stakeholders about a corporation’s CSR performance. These parties cannot always verify CSR engagement, and they have to consider disclosure to be reliable. Hence, they do not need to scrutinize actual CSR. The government will continue CSR-related tax deductions and exemptions, and the stock exchange will continue to list corporations. Other stakeholders may also trust corporations and be interested in their products or services.

Second, mimetic reasons can influence the choice of discourses. European and North American CSR reports have been produced for more than two decades (Ihlen et al., 2011), while Malaysian CSR reports began to be consistently produced in the last decade. The foreign reports come from developed countries, and their use of discourses may inspire local reports in other countries. Malaysian CSR reports may model international practices to become comparable to other CSR reports or to gain recognition. Moreover, CSR reports are newer members of the corporate report genre colony (Bhatia, 2004). Older members (e.g. financial/technical/governance reports) incorporate public relations, strategic management, compliance and financial accounting discourses. These reports set a precedence, and it is perpetuated by (conscious or unconscious) exposure and training. They perpetuate a repertoire of discourses to be expected in CSR reports. The expectation conventionalizes certain discourses, and corporations reproduce these discourses in their reports. These reports model the reporting practices of other corporate reports to adhere to generic conventions.

Third, normative reasons can influence the choice of discourses. CSR is a relatively new domain in Malaysia (Rajandran and Fauziah, 2014). It is termed a public relations exercise, and the use of public relations discourse in CSR reports often provokes skepticism (Dawkins, 2004; Frankental, 2001). CSR lacks prestige and may not be considered a reliable professional domain. CSR reports cannot solely use public relations discourse and hence incorporate the discourses of sustainability, strategic management, compliance and financial accounting because these discourses come from established and respected domains. The domains of management, compliance and accounting have a long presence in corporations (Bhatia, 2004) and their discourses, which have been utilized to verify operations, are now utilized to verify CSR. The domain of sustainability is new to corporations but its discourse represents corporations having environmental/social concerns (Zappettini and Unerman, 2016). The presence of these domains in CSR reports provides prestige to CSR and bolsters its perception as a professional domain.

The coercive, mimetic and normative reasons cumulatively enhance the reliability of CSR reports because their disclosure is anchored to various CSR aspects, international or reporting practices and professional domains. Interdiscursivity is ideological and helps to build stakeholders’ confidence in disclosure and therefore in corporations. Interdiscursivity joins other functions (organization, representation, evaluation, interaction, intertextuality) to convey corporations as agents of positive social change. These functions are utilized to articulate the corporate perspective. It improves the social legitimacy of corporations by explaining their contribution to stakeholders. The perspective endorses profit maximization because corporations should continue their production to generate profit sand profit is invested in CSR (Bakan, 2005). CSR is a practice through which environmental/social improvement is linked to corporate employment of human and natural resources. CSR may not cause fundamental change to capitalism, and it becomes another corporate practice to legitimize the ‘license to operate’ (Sarkar, 1999).

This article has examined interdiscursivity, but other studies examine another similar concept: intertextuality. Although intertextuality and interdiscursivity have overlaps (Fairclough, 1995), they are not equivalent, as noted by Bhatia (2010), Koskela (2013) and Wodak and Fairclough (2010). A text may display a combination of intertextuality and interdiscursivity. Table 2 forwards a matrix of intertextual–interdiscursive use, which has four combinations. In Combination 1, a text has intertextual and interdiscursive references (e.g. CSR reports (Rajandran, 2016b, this article), earnings requests (Crawford Camiciottoli, 2010). Next, in Combination 2, a text has intertextuality but does not have interdiscursivity. In Combination 3, a text does not have intertextuality but has interdiscursivity (e.g. strategy policies (Fage-Butler, 2015)). Finally, in Combination 4, a text does not have intertextual and interdiscursive references. From Table 2, intertextuality and interdiscursivity are distinct concepts and are not interchangeable. Analysis should not conflate the two concepts and should delineate their functions in texts (Koskela, 2013). For instance, CSR reports are intertextual and interdiscursive. Intertextuality enhances credibility because selected texts are cited to monitor and justify CSR engagement and disclosure (Rajandran, 2016b). Interdiscursivity enhances reliability because selected discourses are utilized to evoke various CSR aspects, international or reporting practices and professional domains.

Table 2.

Matrix of intertextual–interdiscursive use.

No.	Intertextuality	Interdiscursivity
1.	✓	✓
2.	✓	✘
3.	✘	✓
4.	✘	✘

Conclusion

This article has examined interdiscursivity in Malaysian CSR reports. Contrary to Bhatia’s (2010) observation, interdiscursivity is conventionalized because CSR reports often incorporate other discourses. Interdiscursivity is also standardized because these reports incorporate similar discourses. Hence, the interdiscursive profiles of CSR reports are shared because the corporate context exerts ‘pressure’ to incorporate conventionalized and standardized discourses. The profile has central and auxiliary discourses, and the central discourse is public relations discourse, while the auxiliary discourses are sustainability, strategic management, compliance and financial accounting discourses. These discourses enhance the reliability of CSR reports because their disclosure is anchored to various CSR aspects, international or reporting practices and professional domains. Interdiscursivity joins other functions in CSR reports, which are utilized to articulate the corporate perspective. The cumulative contribution of organization, representation, evaluation, interaction, intertextuality and interdiscursivity in CSR reports conveys meaning about corporations helping stakeholders through CSR. The article also probed the relationship between interdiscursivity and intertextuality and proposed a matrix of intertextual–interdiscursive use.

As interdiscursivity is observed in corporate genres (Crawford Camiciottoli, 2010; Fage-Butler, 2015; Koskela, 2013; Zappettini and Unerman, 2016), academics and practitioners in corporate communication need interdisciplinary exposure and training to understand it. Academics in corporate communication can teach the interdiscursive profile, and students can learn to write multiple discourses. Practitioners of corporate communication can validate the interdiscursive profile and maintain or modify the discourses. This involves expanding existing discourses (e.g. sustainability discourse can acknowledge failures) or introducing new discourses (e.g. economics discourse can review spending). Therefore, academics and practitioners can improve their discursive competence or a systematic way to decipher and deploy semiotic features (Bhatia, 2010). Discursive competence can improve CSR reports but disclosure may not reflect engagement. Stakeholders should verify that disclosure is backed by (adequate) engagement.

The article reinforces the importance of interdiscursivity in discourse studies and genre studies (Bhatia, 2010; Wodak and Fairclough, 2010). Future research could invite more researchers and specialist informants to refine the categorization of discourses. It could integrate ethnographic methods and explore how writers select discourses (Kong, 2006) or how writers and readers interpret discourses (Rajandran, 2016b). Future research can also study CSR reports from other years, countries, languages and industries because CSR reports are a global phenomenon (Baughn et al., 2007). Research can ascertain which discourses are central and auxiliary and can maintain or modify the interdiscursive profile. The profile may change in time and space, and research can track changes and posit the reasons for the changes (Rajandran, 2018). The diachronic and synchronic variables provide an overview of interdiscursivity in CSR reports. Besides CSR reports, it would be beneficial to study interdiscursivity in other corporate genres and to construct a typology of discourses. Research on interdiscursivity complements research on organization, representation, evaluation, interaction and intertextuality, in that the study of these functions can provide a comprehensive perspective of communication in corporate genres.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The author thanks the reviewer and the Editor (Professor van Dijk) for their constructive feedback.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Author biography

Kumaran Rajandran is a Senior Lecturer at Universiti Sains Malaysia. His research involves the multimodal study of corporate, historical, political and religious discourses using Systemic Functional Theory and Conceptual Metaphor Theory.

References

Bakan

(2005) The Corporation. New York: Free Press.

Baughn

Bodie

McIntosh

(2007) Corporate social and environmental responsibility in Asian countries and other geographical regions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 14(4): 189–205.

Bhatia

(2004) Worlds of Written Discourse. London: Continuum.

Bhatia

(2010) Interdiscursivity in professional communication. Discourse and Communication 21(1): 32–50.

Boxenbaum

Jonsson

(2008) Isomorphism, diffusion and decoupling. In: Greenwood

Oliver

Suddaby

et al . (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism. London: SAGE, pp. 78–98.

Bursa Malaysia (2017) Report. Available at: http://www.bursamalaysia.com/market/sustainability/sustainabilityreporting/sustainability-reporting-guide-and-toolkits/ (accessed 22 December 2017).

CIMB (2016) Citizenship Report 2016. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: CIMB Group Holdings Berhad.

Corona

(2011) Confidentiality at risk: The interdiscursive construction of international commercial arbitration. Discourse and Communication 5(4): 355–374.

Crawford Camiciottoli

(2010) Earnings calls: Exploring an emerging financial reporting genre. Discourse and Communication 4(4): 343–359.

10.

Cutlip

Center

Broom

(2000) Effective Public Relations, 8th edn. London: Prentice Hall.

11.

Dawkins

(2004) Corporate responsibility: The communication challenge. Journal of Communication Management 9(2): 108–119.

12.

Deegan

(2014) Financial Accounting Theory, 4th edn. North Ryde, NSW, Australia: McGraw-Hill Education.

13.

Dess

Lumpkin

Eisner

et al . (2012) Strategic Management, 6th edn. New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin.

14.

Digi (2016) Sustainability Report 2016. Shah Alam, Malaysia: DiGi.Com Berhad.

15.

DiMaggio

Powell

(1983) The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review 48(2): 147–160.

16.

Fage-Butler

(2015) Investigating interdiscursivity in hospital strategic plans using Foucauldian discourse analysis. Hermes 54: 35–47.

17.

Fairclough

(1995) Media Discourse. London: Hodder Arnold.

18.

Fairclough

(2006) Language and Globalization. Oxon: Routledge.

19.

Fairclough

(2013) Critical discourse analysis and critical policy studies. Critical Policy Studies 7(2): 177–197.

20.

Felker

(2015) Malaysia’s development strategies. In: Weiss

(ed) Routledge Handbook of Contemporary Malaysia. London: Routledge, pp. 133–147.

21.

Frankental

(2001) Corporate social responsibility: A PR invention? Corporate Communications: An International Journal 6(1): 18–23.

22.

Ihlen

Bartlett

May

(2011) Conclusions and take away points. In: Ihlen

Bartlett

May

(eds) The Handbook of Communication and Corporate Social Responsibility. Malden: Wiley Blackwell, pp. 550–571.

23.

Incelli

(2013) Managing discourse in intercultural business email interactions: A case study of a British and Italian business transaction. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 34(6): 515–532.

24.

Industry Classification Benchmark (2012) Industry structure and definitions. Available at: http://www.ftse.com/products/downloads/ICBStructure-Eng.pdf (accessed 22 December 2017).

25.

Kong

(2006) Property transaction report: News, advertisement or a new genre? Discourse Studies 8(6): 771–796.

26.

Koskela

(2013) Same, same, but different: Intertextual and interdiscursive features of communication strategy texts. Discourse and Communication 7(4): 389–407.

27.

Mason

(2012) Communicating a green corporate perspective: Ideological persuasion in the corporate environmental report. Journal of Business and Technical Communication 26(4): 479–506.

28.

Maxis (2016) Sustainability Report 2015/2016. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Maxis Berhad.

29.

Media Prima (2016) Sustainability Report 2016. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Media Prima Berhad.

30.

Nestlé Malaysia (2016) Nestlé in Society Report 2016. Petaling Jaya, Malaysia: Nestlé Berhad.

31.

Rajandran

(2014) The discursive representation of companies in Malaysian business magazines. Pertanika Journal of Social Science and Humanities 22(2): 489–505.

32.

Rajandran

(2016a) Corporate involvement brings environmental improvement: The language of disclosure in Malaysian CSR reports. Social Responsibility Journal 12(1): 130–146.

33.

Rajandran

(2016b) Incorporating other texts: Intertextuality in Malaysian CSR reports. Ibérica 32: 87–104.

34.

Rajandran

(2018) Multisemiotic interaction: The CEO and stakeholders in Malaysian CEO Statements. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 23: 2.

35.

Rajandran

Fauziah

(2014) Disclosing compliant and responsible corporations: CSR performance in Malaysian CEO Statements. Gema Online Journal of Language Studies 14(3): 143–157.

36.

Sarkar

(1999) Eco-Socialism or Eco-Capitalism? London: Zed Books.

37.

UMW (2016) Sustainability Report 2016. Shah Alam, Malaysia: UMW Holdings Berhad.

38.

van Leeuwen

(2008) Discourse and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

39.

Werther

Chandler

(2011) Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

40.

Wodak

(2001) The discourse-historical approach. In: Wodak

Meyer

(eds) Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: SAGE, pp. 63–94.

41.

Wodak

(2011) Complex texts: Analyzing, understanding, explaining and interpreting meanings. Discourse Studies 13(5): 623–633.

42.

Wodak

Fairclough

(2010) Recontextualizing European higher education policies: The cases of Austria and Romania. Critical Discourse Studies 7(1): 19–40.

43.

YTL (2016) Sustainability Report 2016. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: YTL Corporation Berhad.

44.

Zappettini

Unerman

(2016) ‘Mixing’ and ‘bending’: The recontextualization of discourses of sustainability in integrated reporting. Discourse and Communication 10(5): 521–542.