46
Second, during the reading of the media content generated by the systematic search in Me-diearkivet, additional relevant material was identified. This included, for example, refer-ences to company press releases, letters to shareholders, radio reports, television clips, oth-er forms of intoth-erviews with company representatives and also news articles published prior to and after the period covered by the systematic search. We decided to locate and include this material in the analysis for two main reasons. The first of these was that it would make our sample less dependent on the search words used in the systematic search (search words always involve a risk that relevant data will be excluded); the second was that the sample would be broadened to include other forms of text than the news articles that had been identified in Mediearkivet. In total, approximately 200 texts have been included in the analysis. The sample is far from exhaustive with regard to published articles or other forms of texts that include statements made by the companies in defence of their businesses.
Nonetheless, the texts that have been analysed constitute a robust documentation of state-ments made by the two companies following the allegations of criminal activities.
The analysis has been conducted in two stages. In the first, the companies’ defence strate-gies and their framing have been analysed on the basis of Cohen’s theoretical framework with a focus on the “appeal to higher loyalties”. We asked how the companies have de-fended themselves against allegations of criminal activity. How are language, key concepts and categories used to frame the companies’ statements? In the second stage of the analysis, the corporate framings have been located in a social context, with the point of departure being that the way issues are framed is grounded in social structures.
47
public culture” (Cohen 1996). As has been emphasised by Scott and Lyman (1968), certain types of accounts are expected, routinized and accepted in certain contexts where someone has to explain the gap between actions and expectations. In this sense, the accounts used by the Swedish corporations are situated within a broader social and cultural context and within a public discourse on businesses and their prerequisites. The discourses includes the public understanding of Sweden and its corporations as providing social justice and hu-man rights (see Mulinari and Räthzel 2009). To be able to understand the accounts used by the corporations and the frames in which they are embedded, the analysis draws on post-colonial theory and the image of the Nordic countries as being particularly “good” in rela-tion to the rest of the world (Mulinari et al. 2009; Palmberg 2009).
Framing a higher good as responsible capitalism
The accounts used by the representatives of the two Swedish transnational corporations may, to use Cohen’s (2009) terminology, be interpreted as forms of interpretative denial. The CEO of TeliaSonera respond to the accusations by stating, “I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: TeliaSonera has not bribed anyone” (TeliaSonera, press conference 2012-10-17) and the chairman of the Board of Lundin Petroleum commented on the accusations by stating that “…there has not been any proof, there is no substance at all” (Radio interview with Ian Lundin 2012-03-21). In some sense, these and similar accounts by the corporations could have been interpreted as constituting examples of literal denial since the accusations of crime are denied. However, the events themselves are not denied, neither the business deal in Uzbekistan nor the oil explorations conducted at the time of the conflict in Sudan. In-stead, what is taking place, in Cohen’s terms, is a denial of responsibility. In the case of Teli-aSonera, the company denies that the transactions could be perceived as a bribe and also denies any connection with the dictator in Uzbekistan. In the case of Lundin Petroleum, the company denies that its presence in the region had any negative effect on the conflict in Sudan (and instead claims that it had a positive effect, as will be discussed below). In addi-tion, Lundin Petroleum use what Cohen (2009) would describe as a denial of knowledge in relation to crimes against humanity in Sudan. The company does, to a varying extent, acknowledge that international crimes were taking place in Sudan at the time, although it does not necessarily frame the incidents as crimes. However, the following statement, in which the chairman of the Board of Lundin Petroleum comments on the report by ECOS (2010), could be interpreted as a form of denial of knowledge: “...I have definitely not seen any of the mass expulsions that are being talked about. I wonder whether those who have written the report have really been there and seen how things are.” (DN 20120321).
In the case of Lund Petroleum, the very clear denials of the corporation’s involvement in the alleged crimes are persistent over the time period studied. When it comes to TeliaSon-era, a change in the accounts that are used becomes visible following the replacement of the CEO and certain members of the board of directors. Thereafter, the new representatives start to distance the company from its former leaders, framing the responsibility as lying
48
with a small number of managers who no longer work for the company. The new chairman of the board of TeliaSonera describes these former mangers in the following way: “Even if people have been thinking of the company’s best interests, our assessment is that poor judgement has been shown in relation to acquisitions made in a number of markets in Eur-asia” (Dagens Industri 20131130). The statement can be interpreted as constituting a form of denial of responsibility by creating a scapegoat, and in this way trying to create the op-portunity for a fresh start for TeliaSonera as a company.
The crimes the companies are accused of are closely related to their presence in the regions in question, and this fact is not deniable. Journalists and human rights organisations por-tray the crimes, particularly those related to corruption in Uzbekistan, but also to some tend Lundin Petroleum’s involvement in crimes against humanity as a result of its oil ex-ploitation in Sudan, as being a more or less inevitable result of doing business in these countries. Thus the representatives of the corporations also have to defend why they are doing business in these regions. In Cohens terms, interpretative denial is expressed simulta-neously with implicatory denial, which can involve the justification of an event by referring to a higher good (Cohen 1996; Cohen 2009). However, when Cohen refers to appeals to high-er loyalties he is refhigh-erring to an ideology that rejects univhigh-ersal human rights standards (Cohen 1996). In contrast, as will be shown here, the Swedish corporations justify their ac-tions by using human rights as an appeal to a higher good. Representatives of both compa-nies express that they are proud of their company and of what they have managed to achieve for people in the regions in which they operate. This form of righteousness is ex-pressed in the following statement, in which a representative of Lundin Petroleum de-scribes the company as a responsible actor:
“I am convinced that these countries need investors, such as Lundin Petroleum, that are responsible and that invest in a way that is sustainable over the long term. The only chance for these countries to resolve the problems they face is through economic growth.” (SvD 2014-02-24)
In another statement, Lundin Petroleum describe their operations in Sudan as a “force for good” that “contribute[d] to the improvement of the lives of the people of Sudan” (Lundin Petroleum 2015). While similar accounts, referring to the societal benefits of the operations of the businesses, recur in the statements from the two companies, the emphasis on profit and shareholder value is not as apparent. Instead of highlighting profit maximisation, the Swedish companies highlight their social responsibility as a means of gaining credibility.
However, in the texts that are primarily addressed to shareholders, profit-making can be discerned as constituting the core value of the operations in question. For example, Ian H.
Lundin states in an Open Letter to Lundin Petroleum’s Shareholders, on March 2, 2010: “At all times our objective in Africa has been to find oil and gas in the most sound and efficient manner but always being responsible from a social and environmental perspective.” This self-presentation can be interpreted within a frame of responsible capitalism, the idea of
pur-49
suing both profit and social good in a competitive free market in a globalised economy. In a similar manner, TeliaSonera’s aim to maximise profits is framed as part of a primary mis-sion to do good:
“The operations [in Central Asia] have made a powerful contribution to the group’s growth and profitability, and foreign investments in infrastructure have played an important part in the mod-ernisation of these countries following the collapse of the Soviet Union.” (Press release 2013-02-01).
TeliaSonera’s business in Central Asia is highlighted as contributing to the development of democracy and human rights. When questions are asked about whether TeliaSonera should withdraw from these “risky markets” in Central Asia, the human rights aspects are under-lined:
“Leaving countries is a difficult issue that can also have consequences for human rights in the coun-try in question. Looking at the situation as it is just now at TeliaSonera, we believe that the best thing we can do appears to be to stay in the countries where we have a presence.” (TT 2013-06-04) Instead of withdrawing, the company will do more good by strengthening its presence in Central Asia. The accounts used here by the corporations, which frame their businesses as responsible corporations, may function as a way of avoiding moral censure. The corpora-tions try to frame themselves as being engaged in “good corporate citizenship” (see Shamir 2011). This is expressed distinctly by the communications manager of Lundin Petroleum in a newspaper interview: “We have tried to strive to be good citizens” (DN 2011-01-07). By their use of this framing, the corporations aim to transform the accusations of crime into an opportunity to describe the companies as being responsible and providing opportunities for development in the countries in which they operate. In this sense, the defence mecha-nisms employed by Swedish corporations constitute part of a global public discourse on businesses, the conditions for business activity and corporate responsibility. Another aspect of this that will be further discussed below is that of how the appeal to a higher good might be interpreted within a post-colonial discourse.
Post-colonial tendencies – contributing to development, democracy and peace
Post-colonial theory has, among other things, demonstrated how the language of colonial-ism still shapes western ideas about other parts of the word, as well as providing criticcolonial-ism of the assumption that countries of the global North can “solve development ´problems´”
(McEwan 2009). The notion of “exporting civilisations” from the global North to the global South has been an important part of colonialism (McEwan 2009; Mulinari et al. 2009). In the same tradition and self-image, the Swedish corporations try to frame their exploitation of foreign markets as a civilising mission. Consider the statement of the former foreign minis-ter of Sweden, who was a member of the board of Lundin Petroleum for a time:
50
“I believe that when you have a presence, when they (the regimes) have western eyes on them, whether it’s aid workers, companies or something else, then you’re helping the people in these areas.
Violations don’t occur there.” (SVT 2007-04-17)
In this quote, the former foreign minister refers to “western eyes” as constituting a protec-tion against abuses and violaprotec-tions of human rights. This form of framing not only denies the brutal experiences of colonialism, but also constructs an image of what is “western” as being something more civilised (than the “non-western”) (see McEwan 2009). Other repre-sentatives of Lundin Petroleum legitimise the oil industry by stating that there is a need for this industry. In the following example, one of the board of directors of Lundin Petroleum also expresses an understanding of “western” corporations as being better than “non-western” corporations, in this case Chinese companies:
“If the oil industry were only to do business with democracies, you’d be cycling to work. Imagine being without oil from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Iran or Venezuela. In the case of Sudan, I believe we have helped the country to achieve stability. Our reasoning was that if we aren’t there, someone else will be. Is it better that it’s the Chinese? I don’t believe you can allow these countries to end up in the hands of ruthless people – and the Chinese are ruthless.” (Veckans Affärer - News clip 2011-10-27)
Another form of account that is significant is the framing of the companies as “helpers” that enable social progress and improve people’s lives in the areas where they operate. In a de-bate article authored by the Lundin brothers, they defend the business by referring to how they have helped the Sudanese people:
“The wealth that has been created as a result of the Lundin group’s oil and mining projects has been of benefit to countless men, women and children and will continue to give them the chance of a better life. … In areas that are subject to extreme poverty, economic development has to be initiated with the help of foreign investments in infrastructure and the development of natural resources.”
(Dagens Nyheter 2012-03-18)
The exploration for oil is here described as a mission to provide help. The corporation is framing their operations in Sudan and other “developing countries” in a narrative in which economic development is synonymous with foreign investment: “You have to help these countries develop their natural resources, because natural resources are a catalyst for eco-nomic development.” (Interview, Ian Lundin, Aktiespararna – Stora analysdagen 2012).
The company goes even further by framing the business as contributing to peace in Sudan.
In an open letter to the shareholders, Lundin Petroleum states:
“The Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) signed between the Government of Sudan and the Southern Sudanese representatives in 2005 validated our view that oil could be used to achieve a
51
sustainable peace.” (Open Letter to Lundin Petroleum’s Shareholders, June 8th 2010)
The contribution of oil companies to the peace in Sudan is more directly expressed in a ra-dio interview with the chairman of the Board of Lundin Petroleum: “You cannot ignore the fact that peace only came after the production of oil had started. So I think that the produc-tion of oil in Sudan had an influence on the peace agreement that was signed in 2005” (Ra-dio interview with Ian Lundin 2012-03-21).
In a similar manner, statements by TeliaSonera frame the business as providing economic development and democracy: “Telecommunications are enormously important to both economic development and democratisation” (Dagens industri 20130605). In an earlier interview for the same newspaper, the newly elected chairman of the board of TeliaSonera refers to the UN millennium goals of decreasing poverty as a means of situating the busi-ness in a frame in which telecommunications is portrayed as providing economic develop-ment (Dagens Industri 2013-04-04).
While Lundin Petroleum frames its business activities as contributing to the peace agree-ment in Sudan, TeliaSonera’s business in Uzbekistan is framed against the backdrop of the Arab Spring:
“Five years ago we invested in a licence to provide telecom services in Uzbekistan. Why did we do so? First and foremost in order to create growth and value for our shareholders, but that was not the only reason. We at TeliaSonera would argue that telecommunications are a power for good. Every-one who has followed the far-reaching developments witnessed during the Arab Spring will under-stand what we mean. It is an irrefutable fact that modern telecommunications play an important role when a country starts along this long journey towards democracy.” (TeliaSonera, press confer-ence 2012-10-17).
The accounts presented here can be interpreted as attempts to bolster and defend the legit-imisation of the corporation and its public image. The corporations frame their exploitation of foreign markets as a civilising mission. These framings constitute part of a larger public discourse on businesses in which foreign investment is assumed to contribute to develop-ment, democracy and peace in “developing countries”. As will be discussed below, these post-colonial tendencies are also related to assumptions about the nature of the Nordic countries and to conceptions of “Nordic values”.
Emphasising “Nordic values”
The Nordic countries have been associated with development aid, international coopera-tion and peace building rather than colonialism and imperialism (Mulinari et al. 2009).
However, post-colonial theorists from the Nordic countries argue for an understanding of the Nordic countries as being part of the "colonial complicity" by defending the value
sys-52
tem linked to the Enlightenment ideals (Mulinari et al. 2009). In the examples above, in which the corporations frame their businesses as contributing to, or even providing, devel-opment, democracy and peace in the countries in which they operate, the corporations use well-known discourses that underline Swedish or Nordic generosity, helpfulness and de-cency. Framing the company as a friendly corporation (which is understood as being the opposite of exploitative) is very much in line with the image of the Nordic countries as rep-resenting “the good helper” (see Palmberg 2009).
While telling the story of how TeliaSonera has made sure “that one-third of the population of Uzbekistan uses TeliaSonera’s network to surf and read and to be able to hear about what is happening in the world”, the CEO of the time expresses how proud he is of the
“Nordic company with the values we have” (SR 2012-09-20).
By framing the corporations as having certain Swedish and Nordic values, the Swedish transnational corporations Lundin Petroleum and TeliaSonera try to associate themselves with an understanding of the constructed image of the Nordic countries as exceptional and exemplary in relation to the rest of the world (see Palmberg 2009). The separation between
“Swedish culture” and the culture of the countries in which the corporations operate is vis-ible both in the questions that are asked by several journalists and in the answers and statements given by representatives of the corporations. The understanding of the Nordic countries as “good” and “advanced” also contains an embedded understanding of the
“other”, either in the form of the Sudanese or Uzbek people being in need of the businesses’
help or in the definition of Chinese corporations as ruthless exploiters.
The emphasis placed on Nordic values is more obvious in the case of TeliaSonera than in that of Lundin Petroleum. This is hardly surprising since TeliaSonera, along with Volvo, has historically been “placed at the core of Swedish nationhood” (see Mulinari and Räthzel 2009).
In contrast, Lundin Petroleum appears to struggle with its “Nordic identity”. Newspapers have referred to the company’s handling of the accusations of crime as being ‘unswedish’.
One journalist used the following description of how the company chairman had attempted to silence one of his critics during the company’s annual general meeting: “the annual gen-eral meeting clearly shows that Ian Lundin does not have the ability to behave like a nor-mal listed Swedish company’s chairman”. The perceived unswedishness can also be under-stood in relation to how Lundin Petroleum dealt with the accusations. While TeliaSonera made extensive use of press releases intended for the public to respond to the allegations, Lundin Petroleum announced its response to the allegations primarily in communications directed to its shareholders. While the CEO of TeliaSonera stressed the importance of an independent investigation, Lundin Petroleum communicated a clear rejection of the ap-pointment an independent investigation. The fact that the Chairman of the Board, Ian Lundin, prefers to conduct interviews in English rather than Swedish further enhances this difference between the two companies. In a seminar organised by the Swedish
Sharehold-53
ers' Association, the chairman of the board of Lundin Petroleum was asked: “How do you handle the balancing act of being a “Swedish”, or at least being listed on the Swedish stock exchange, ethically responsible company, and working in countries that in no way apply the same basic values?” Here, the interviewer used virtual quotation marks formed in the air with his fingers when calling the company “Swedish”. To this question, the chairman of Lundin Petroleum chose to give a long exposition on how economic development is related to foreign investment and to ignore the fact that the interviewer had called the Swedishness of the company into question. Perhaps, in the absence of a strong “Nordic identity”, Lundin Petroleum frames the company as a family-owned business. The two Lundin brothers tell the story of the company by emphasising family values and frame themselves and their father, the founder of the company, as “good guys”.
“Depicting we who work at the Lundin group as opportunistic, dictator-hugging businessmen is to display a complete lack of understanding for Adolf Lundin and the values he stood for – and for the values that we continue to stand for today. The accusations that among others Aftonbladet and cer-tain internationally active voluntary organisations have directed at Adolf Lundin and the members of the family, and at the men and women who work at companies within the Lundin group, are quite simply groundless, unfair and in some cases even absurd.” (Dagens Nyheter 2012-03-18)
Here, the corporation uses a family narrative to distance the company from the image of a transnational corporation exploiting natural resources in the global south.
We would suggest that the accounts used by the two Swedish corporations may tell us something about the relevant public discourse on the basis of the understanding of ac-counts presented by Cohen (2009) and Scott and Lyman (1968). The acac-counts employed by the corporations may be viewed as being acceptable within the broader public culture.
However, to our understanding, Lundin Petroleum had a harder time finding acceptance for their strong denial of responsibility. They did not adapt to the public demands for transparency and independent investigation to the same extent as TeliaSonera.