The impact of candid versus legally defensible language on the persuasiveness of environmental self-assessments

Abstract

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 environmental proposal, written either in candid or vague "legally defensible" language. 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. © 1999 by the Association for Business Communication.