This Article Order Full text via Infotrieve References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Clark, T. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

The Impact of Candid Versus Legally Defensible Language on the Persuasiveness of Environmental Self-Assessments

Xavier University, Cincinnati, OH

Environmentally prudent companies face a dilemma. On the one hand, only through well-designed and implemented self-critical assessments of their operations can they determine if environmental remediation is needed. On the other hand, reporting violations of local, state, or federal standards, as the law requires, may set off a chain of business interruptions, costly litigation, and negative publicity.

Some lawyers believe that environmental assessments written in vague language that does not admit fault are less persuasive than assessments using negative language to candidly describe violations, the threats of potential government penalties, and the necessity of immediate action.

Quantitative and qualitative tests asked a convenience sample of managers to rank four requests for company funds: three control proposals and an environ mental proposal, written either in candid or vague "legally defensible " lan guage. Managers were more likely to recommend that environmental remediation proposals receive priority for funding when they read proposals written in candid language than when they read proposals written in legally defensible language. Threats and a negative tone are highly persuasive in environmental compliance reports.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?