Issue Arena Analysis: The Siemens - Adani coal

mine case

April 2021

Author:
Christina Voukelatou (424680)

Education: Master International Communication (MA)

School: Hanze University of Applied Sciences
Location: Groningen, The Netherlands

Words: 3010
Table of Contents

List of Figures…………………………………………………....…………………………………………78
List of Tables………………………………………………………………………………….....................78

1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………......79
1.1. Case Description……………………………………………………………………………………..79

2. Analysis………………………………………………………………………………………………….80
2.1 Issue Map……………………………………………………………………………………………..80
2.2. Actors in the Debate………………………………………………………………………………....82
2.2.1 Stakeholders Map………………………………………………………………………….…….83
2.3 Places of Interaction………………………………………………………………………………....84
2.3.1 Meltwater Analysis………………………………………………………………………………85
2.3.2 Active actors in the debate……………………………………………………………………....86
2.4 Course of the debate………………………………………………………………………………...88
2.4.1 Meltwater Analysis…………………………………………………………………………….....88
2.4.2. Google Trends Analysis…………………………………………………………………………. 91
2.5 Conclusions…………………………………………………………………………………….......... 91

3. Analysis of the communication response strategy……………………………………………………...91

3.1 Siemens Response: A timeline…………………………………………………………………...... 92
3.2. Siemens Response: An Evaluation………………………………………………………………....93

4. Recommendations……………………………………. ………………………………………………..93

5. Conclusions……………………………………………………………………………………………...95

6. References……………………………………………………………………………………………....96
List of Figures

Figure 1. Visualization of the issue map.

Figure 2. The visualization of the stakeholders map.
Figure 3: Media exposure on Social Media and Online News from 1st December 2019- 1st December
2020 .
Figure 4. Top sources on Social Media from 1st December 2019- 1st December 2020.
Figure 5.Top locations for online news and social media from 1st December 2019- 1st December 2020.
Figure 6. Sentiment analysis for online News and Social Media from 1st December 2019- 1st December
2020.
Figure 7. Key Insights from the analysis of Places of Interaction.
Figure 8. Top Actors ranked according to the amount of content shared on twitter from 1st December
2019- 1st December 2020.
Figure 9. Top posters by reach on Social Media from 1st December 2019- 1st December 2020. Source:
Meltwater, 2020.
Figure 10. Tweet from the environmental activist, Greta Thunberg.
Figure 11. Tweet from the environmental activist Luisa Neubauer.
Figure 12. Top actors of the online debate
Figure 13. Sentiment Analysis of the issue on Social Media and Online from 1st December 2019- 1st
December 2020.
Figure 14. Sentiment analysis online news from 1st December 2019- 1st December 2020.
Figure 15. Sentiment analysis Social Media from 1st December 2019- 1st December 2020.
Figure 17. Visualization of the Course of the debate.
Figure 18. Interest over time on the online debate of Siemens - Adani from December 1st 2019 - April 1
2021.
Figure 19. Two tweets of Joe Kaeser regarding the issue.
Figure 20. The timeline of Siemens responses.

List of Tables

Table 1: Actors and their roles and perspectives on the Siemens - Adani iCarmichael coal project.
Table 2. Strategy categorization for Siemens’ responses.
Table 3. Strategy categorization and proposed actions for first goal.
Table 4. Strategy categorization and proposed action for second goal.
1 Introduction

This paper explores the online debate of a recent organizational crisis, where multiple actors interacted
and communicated, expressing different and conflicting interests and views. The crisis examined, affected
Siemens and emerged at the end of 2019 when the German company signed a contract with the Indian
company Adani. Siemens then agreed to provide the rail-signalling infrastructure for Australia's new coal
mine. Adani's latest project, the Carmichael coal mine, was estimated to produce 10 million tonnes of
thermal coal per year (Bravus Mining & Resources, n.d). At the same time, the issue of global warming
was emerging in the public sphere of Australia after the country faced a catastrophic bushfire crisis.

After announcing the deal with Adani, the German engineering company sparked a backlash from
climate campaigners, urging the company to withdraw from the contract and calling it to stay in line with
its commitment to achieving a zero-carbon footprint by 2030 (Siemens, n.d.). Environmental groups
heavily criticized the contract, claiming that it will threaten the coral habitat of Australia's Great Barrier
Reef's and the indigenous land and add to the problem of global warming.

Protests from climate activists and environmental groups broke out in several cities of Germany and
Australia. The climate activists Greta Thunberg and Luisa Neubauer supported the movement. At the
same time, the indigenous communities of Australia Wangan and Jagalingou claimed the project was
approved without their consent, and investors raised their concerns over the reputational damage that
this deal may bring to the company (Miller, 2020).

The present analysis aims to provide an overview of this debated issue, showing how the crisis evolved
over time, and providing insights into the sentiments expressed on social media and online news, the
most active actors, the places of interaction and the peak moments of the online debate. In addition, the
paper analyzes and assesses the communication response strategy used by Siemens during the crisis.
Lastly, communication solutions are proposed, intending to minimize the company's potential reputation
damage and financial damage and reassure the key stakeholders that it is still keeping its commitment to
tackling climate change.

1.1 Case Description

The Siemens - Adani mining project in Australia triggered a heated debate at the end of 2019 and the
beginning of 2020. Germany's Siemens AG announced on 10 December 2019 that it signed the contract
to supply signalling systems for a rail link between the Adani Carmichael coal mine in Queensland's
Galilee Basin and Adani's Abbot Point Port, near the Great Barrier Reef.

Some months ago, in June 2019, the Australian Government gave final approval to the coal mine
construction after nearly nine years of planning, protests, and endless political debate (Adani Gets Final
Environmental Approval for Carmichael Mine, 2019).

The German company's decision came after the "Black Summer" of Australia, a catastrophic bushfire
crisis that cost many lives, burned over 1.5 crore acres of land, killed a lot of animals, and destroyed
thousands of homes in the country. Australia is also one of the world's largest carbon emitters per
capita because of its reliance on coal-fired power plants (Ritchie & Roser, 2020). Environmentalists say
that coal's continued use will lead to higher greenhouse emissions and more catastrophes as the "Black
Summer" one (Coal Stokes Aussie Bushfire Rage, 2020).

Siemens' decision to sign the contract with the Indian company has been targeted by environmental
activists and organizations. Siemens responded to the activists' call by firstly announcing that it will
review the contract and later on by stating that it will not pull out of the deal because "While I do have a
lot of empathy for environmental matters, I do need to balance different interests of different
stakeholders." (Joe Kaeser on Adani Carmichael project, 2020). The response enraged the protesters,
blaming the company for "Greenwashing".

2 Analysis

The current chapter discusses the Siemens - Adani issue's key findings by using the Issue Arena Theory
(Vos, 2017) and a combined analysis of secondary research news and social media monitoring. Firstly,
issue arena theory is utilized to get an in-depth look into the debate.Moreover, by collecting desk
research and secondary data, an issue map is created, aiming to explore the elements and the aspects of
the Siemens - Adani coalmine project issue. In addition, The Meltwater tool is used to analyze the social
media posts and online news articles relevant to the examined topic and to identify the overall sentiment
and the peak moments. Lastly, the Google Trends tool is used to explore how the online interest in the
issue evolved over time.

2.1 Issue map

The Siemens coalmine crisis developed over a long period of time and shows how
multiple interests join the online debate.

In order to understand the context and the characteristics of the issue, an issue map with five categories
was created (Figure 1). The issue map is based on desk research and explores what are the political,
social, economical, environmental, legal and institutional aspects of the Siemens - Adani coal mine
project issue.
Figure 1. Visualization of the issue map.
2.2 Actors in Debate

Online interaction on issues is co-created by various actors with different interests and points of views
(Vos et. al, 2014). The characteristics of each actor differ, as well as the place where the topics are being
discussed (Vos, 2017). The table 1 contains the actors of the debate and their perspectives or roles in it,
aiming to provide an more in depth understanding of the different groups of interest involved in the
issue.

Actor Role/Perspective in the Debate

Siemens Siemens decided to provide infrastructure for the Carmichael

coal project despite the negative reactions.

Adani Group Adani claimed that more than 2,000 people were directly
employed and more than 9,000 indirect jobs have also been
created with the construction of the coal mine.

Adani also claimed that it has followed all the legal protocols
needed to construct the mine.

Climate/environmental activists Activists such as Greta Thunberg and Luisa Neubauer became
and protesters the voices of the campaign against the project. Activists
pressured Siemens to quit the contract by protesting and by
using Social Media to spread the message.

Environmental NGOs and Criticize Siemens for this act included: Friday for
organizations future, Greenpace, Galilee Blockade, Australian
Conservation Foundation.

Social Media The social media allowed different groups of actors to express
their opinion about the issue online.

Local and Global Media Covering the news and the development of the issue. Global
Media such as the DW and the Financial Times, criticized
Siemens decision to continue with the contract. Local Media of
Australia also condemned the decision of the German Company.

Indigenous communities: Wangan The indigenous communities Wangan and Jagalingou stand
and Jagalingou against the construction of the coalmine and have pressured
Siemens to stop working with Adani.

“Wangan and Jagalingou people are the Traditional Owners of

the land in Queensland’s Galilee Basin. Corporate conglomerate,
Adani, wants to use our ancestral lands for their Carmichael coal
mine” (Wangan and Jagalingou Council, n.d.).
 Siemens investors and shareholders Investors also questioned Siemen’s decision to continue the
contract with Adani. Winfried Mathes from Deka, which holds
almost 9m Siemens shares on behalf of German savings banks,
said the “incomprehensible” decision was “threatening to cause
massive damage” to the company’s image. (Miller, 2020).

Siemens CEO The CEO of Siemens acted as the voice of the organization, by
announcing the company’s decision to continue with the
contract, meeting with activists and overall attempting to
inform the stakeholders and .

One of his contradicting statements was that - the

company“should have been wiser about this project
beforehand” (Joe Kaeser on Adani Carmichael project, 2020).

Queensland Government The Government of Queensland supported and approved the

project.

Opposition Parties in Australia The green party of Australia stood against the deal. The Senator
Di Natale wrote a letter to Siemens CEO Joe Kaeser, urging him
to walk away from a "carbon bomb that the world cannot
afford" (Robertson, 2019).

Other Engineering companies May participate in the online debate by criticizing or supporting
Siemens.
Table 1: Actors and their roles and perspectives on the Siemens - Adani Carmichael coal project.

2.2.1 Stakeholders Map

To classify and get a deeper understanding of the stakeholders of the issue a categorization of directly
involved, indirectly involved and remotely involved stakeholders is used.The figure 2 visualizes how
different stakeholders are related to the issue of and shows to what degree they can create, enhance,
combat or be influenced by the issue.
 Figure 2. The visualization of the stakeholders map.

2.3 Places of Interaction

To understand the course of a particular issue debate, next to the actors involved, the places of
interaction also need attention (Vos et al., 2014), since it is suggested that, nowadays, next to news
media also the social media have an important role in the agenda setting of issues (Merilainen & Vos,
2011).

The issue of the Siemens-Adani coal mine project has taken place online on news, social media platforms
and online platforms and petitions platforms, such as the Site StopAdani.com and offline on various
protests from environmental activists in Australia and Germany.
 Figure 7. Key Insights from the analysis of Places of Interaction.

2.3.1 Meltwater Analysis

To get a better understanding of the online places of interaction, the tool Meltwater was used. More
specifically, a query on Meltwater was made by inputting “Siemens”, “Adani”, and “coal mine” within the
period December 1st 2019-to December 1st 2020. The specific timeframe was chosen since it covers the
day that the Siemens- Adani deal came to light and various important developments, such as the protests
that followed.

As the figure 3 shows, the online debate of the Siemens-Adani coalmine project mainly occurred on
social media. Social media, in particular, have been known to facilitate the spread of issues. (Vos, 2017),
since stakeholders can express their opinion publicly and cause a diffusion of possibly unexpected topics,
such as negative electronic word-of-mouth messages (Jansen & Chowdhury, 2011). Moreover, as seen in
figure 4, Twitter was the medium mostly used by the actors.
Figure 3: Media exposure on Social Media and Online News from 1st December 2019- 1st December 2020. Source: Meltwater,
2020..

Figure 4. Top sources on Social Media from 1st December 2019- 1st December 2020. Source: Meltwater, 2020.

Furthermore, the top locations that the topic was discussed online are Australia and Germany (figure 5),
while the negative sentiment over the debate both on social media and on online news surpass the
positive (figure 6). Lastly, the figure 7 presents the key insights of the place’s interaction analysis, the role
of the social media and online news on the debate and the topics covered.

Figure 5.Top locations for online news and social media from 1st December 2019- 1st December 2020. Source: Meltwater, 2020.
Figure 6. Sentiment analysis for online News and Social Media from 1st December 2019- 1st December 2020. Source: Meltwater,
2020.

2.3.2 Active actors in the debate

A multitude of accounts on Twitter and Facebook, representing a diversity of interests, including, for
example, news media, activists and editors of local News media, co-created a voluminous multi-actor
discourse on the Siemens - Adani coal mine issue.

The six most active external accounts for this topic are listed in Figure 8, ranked according to the amount
of content shared on Twitter during the research period. In the first place is the Swedish climate activist
Greta Thunberg.

Figure 8. Top Actors ranked according to the amount of content shared on twitter from 1st December 2019- 1st December 2020.
Source: Meltwater, 2020.

Furthermore, after analyzing the posts with the highest reach on Facebook and Twitter (figure 9 ) during
the research period, more active actors are found. More particularly, among the top posts by reach on
Twitter were published by News Media, such as the Guardian, while among the top social posts by reach
on Facebook were published by the Guardian Australia and Reuters News.
Figure 9. Top posters by reach on Social Media from 1st December 2019- 1st December 2020. Source: Meltwater, 2020.

In addition, after delving into the posts with the highest engagement, the Swedish activist Greta
Thunberg post comes in the first place. Thunberg used her Twitter account to speak publicly against the
Adani coal mine project in Australia. By usi ng the hashtag #StopAdani, she urged Siemens to reconsider
the deal with the Indian company. The German climate activist Luisa Neubauer, the climate activist Nick
Heubeck, and the Guardian Australian editor Lenore Taylor follow Greta Thunberg in the list with the
highest engagement posts.

Figure 10 & 11. Tweets from the environmental activists. Source: Twitter, 2020.
 Figure 12. Top actors of the online debate.

2.4 Course of the debate

To analyze the development of the online debate and to monitor how the crisis evolved over time, two
tools were used: Meltwater and Google Trends. Firstly, the Meltwater tool used to identify the crisis's
sentiment on Social Media and Online news. Secondly, the Google trends tool was used to explain how
the online interest of the issue evolved over time.

2.4.1 Meltwater Analysis

By inputting on Meltwater “Siemens”, “Adani” and “coal mine” within the period December 1st 2019-to
December 1st 2020, the peak moments of negative sentiment on both social media and online news are
identified, and the events that cause the negative sentiment are analyzed (Figure 13).

Figure 13. Sentiment Analysis of the issue on Social Media and Online from 1st December 2019- 1st December 2020. Source:
Meltwater, 2020.

As seen in figure 14, there are three significant peak moments of the negative sentiment on online news.
Figure 14. Sentiment analysis online news from 1st December 2019- 1st December 2020. Source: Meltwater, 2020.

The first one was on January 10 2020, when climate activists held protests outside Siemens offices across
Germany and the Australian Embassy in Berlin, urging Siemens to back out of the coal mine project of
Adani. The CEO of Siemens held a meeting with representatives of the environmentalist group "Fridays
for Future'' and announced that the company would review the contact with Adani.

The second negative peak moment came three days later, on January 13, when Siemens announced with
an official statement of the CEO of the company, Joe Kaeser, that they had reviewed the contact with
Adani and decided to continue with it.

The third peak moment came on February 5, when Siemens came under increased pressure from climate
change protesters and its own shareholders in the Munich arena, where the German engineering
company held its annual general meeting. Protests were held outside the building of Siemens, and
shareholders also expressed concern about the contract's impact and its potential damage to Siemens'
reputation.

As seen in figure 15, the peak moments of negative sentiments on social media is on the 13th of January,
when Siemens announced that it would back up the contract with Adani. Posts, mainly on Twitter,
criticized the decision of the company and called for more massive protests.

Figure 15. Sentiment analysis Social Media from 1st December 2019- 1st December 2020. Source: Meltwater, 2020.

The Figure 16 shows the total number of people who see the content that related this topic in each social
media platform during the examined period. It can be seen that the social reach peak on Twitter and
Facebook aligns with the negative sentiment peak on the 13th of January.
Figure 16. Social Reach from 1st December 2019- 1st December 2020. Source: Meltwater, 2020.

Figure 17. Visualization of the Course of the debate.

2.4.2. Google Trends Analysis

Due to the limitations of Meltwater, that a search can only be executed within a timeframe of one year,
the Google Trend tool was used to identify the peak moments from the beginning of the crisis on
December 1st 2019, until April 1st 2021.

By inputting the keywords “Siemens” and Adani over the timeframe of December 1st 2019 to April 1st
2021, it can be seen that the period that the terms were searched more on Google is between 12-18 of
January (Figure 18), when the company announced its decision to continue with the contact and protests
escalated, condemning its decision. The analysis of Google Trends aligns with the sentiment analysis
presented above.

Figure 18. Interest over time on the online debate of Siemens - Adani from December 1st 2019 - April 1 2021. Source: Google
Trends.

2.5 Conclusions

The analysis showed that the online debate mainly occurred on Twitter. At the same time, the top active
actors were climate activists such as Greta Thunberg and online News Media such as The Guardian and
Guardian Australia. Moreover, the analysis of the course of the debate identified that the negative
sentiment over the issue surpassed the positive one. Lastly, looking at the development of the issue with
the help of the Meltwater Tool and the Google Trends Tool, it became evident that the online debate
peaked in January and December and wore down the following months.

3 Analysis of the communication response strategy

To assess the communication response strategy of Siemens, firstly, the Siemens CEO's responses are
presented and analyzed and later on, communication actions are proposed.

Crisis response strategies are used to repair the reputation, to reduce negative affect and to prevent
negative behavioral intentions (Coombs, 2007) and Siemens strived to do so after being "under attack"
for the contact with Adani.
3.1 The responses of Siemens: A timeline

Siemens responded to the backlash of the contact with Adani through its CEO, Joe Keaser. The CEO of
the company, used his twitter account on two cases, informing stakeholders about the company’s
decisions, published an official statement of the website of the company and talked to the press. The
figure 20 shows the timeline and the content of Siemens responses to the crisis.

Figure 19. Two tweets of Joe Kaeser regarding the issue. Source: Twitter, 2020.

Figure 20. The timeline of Siemens responses.

3.2 The responses of Siemens: An evaluation

Wilson and Patterson (1987) have argued that organizations should identify one key spokesperson to
ensure that the organization speaks with one voice. In the case of Siemens, the company's CEO acted as
the voice of the organization, informing, engaging and meeting with key stakeholders such as the
environmental activist Luisa Neubauer.

Using Dier's (2007) taxonomy of crisis response tactics, Siemens and the company's CEO used a
combination of Ingratiation, compassion, Volunteering, and corrective action strategies.

Strategy Category Strategy Statement/Actions by Siemens

Framing the Organization Ingratiation “Five years ago, Siemens was the first global industrial
company of significant size to commit to being carbon neutral
by 2030” (Joe Kaeser on Adani Carmichael project, 2020)

“In fiscal 2019, our solutions enabled our customers around

the world to decrease their CO2 emissions by more than 637
million metric tons”. (Joe Kaeser on Adani Carmichael project,
2020)

Accommodative Compassion “The messages I’ve received from Australian people have
moved me personally, when they described that their homes
and their country is burning and suffering from these terrible
fires”(Joe Kaeser on Adani Carmichael project, 2020).

“I do want to convey my deepest sympathy and condolences

to the ones, who have lost relatives and friends or their
homes, livelihoods or were injured by the terrible bushfires in
Australia”(Joe Kaeser on Adani Carmichael project, 2020).

Corrective Action Announcing on Twitter that Siemens will establish an

effective Sustainability Board to better manage
environmental care in the future.

Volunteering Calling the activist Luisa Neubauer to be part of the

supervisory board.
Table 2. Strategy categorization for Siemens’ responses.

The CEO of Siemens's response appeared contradicting because he supported Siemens decision to
continue the contact, but on the other hand, claimed "had it been his own company; he may have "acted
differently". Environmental groups and activists criticized the response, escalated the protests against
the company and accused it of being hypocritical.

The failure of his response strategy can also be recognised by the surge of negative perceptions over
Social Media and online news Media the following day after his statement was published.

4 Recommendations

To propose recommended actions, one first has to identify the type of crisis. Using Diers’ (2007) typology,
the crisis of Siemens is identified as a combination of “challenge” and “shifting political attitudes”.
Challenge because the issue started emerging when disappointed stakeholders, such as climate activists,
claimed that the company did wrong. In addition, as climate change and global warming is discussed in
the public sphere, stakeholders expect from the companies to be CSR oriented and strive for
sustainability (Morsing & Schultz, 2008). As the political change products, services, company ideals,
become less desirable to stakeholders (Diers, 2007).

Using a second broader typology by Dutta & Pullig (2011), the crisis can also be characterized as a value
related one since it does not directly involve the product but involves social or ethical issues surrounding
the values espoused by the brand.

The recommended actions for Siemens is a combination of crisis response strategies, as defined by Dier's
(2007) taxonomy. They aim to convince investors and shareholders of the company’s trustworthiness
and reassure the stakeholders that it is still keeping its commitment to tackling climate change. It is also
recommended that Siemens continue using Joe Kaeser as its voice, keeping a consistent strategy and
representation.

Goal 1: Reassure stakeholders that Siemens is committed to become carbon neutral by 2030.

Reassuring stakeholders such as the activists and the environmental organizations is vital for preventing
future crises emerging from protests, boycotts and “Greenwashing” accusations against the company
and repairing its reputation as a sustainable company.

Strategy Category Recommended Strategy Recommended Actions

Communication of the mission of the company with

Routine Communication Communication of Mission/ press releases, and tweets coming from the company
Vision and the CEO.

Framing the Ingratiation Interviews of the CEO to Australian and German

Organization Channels, emphasizing on Siemens’ past actions to
tackle the environmental crisis.

Excellence/ Renewal
Dialogic Since the crisis occurred mostly on twitter (chapter),
a dialogue strategy is recommended for Siemens
aiming to regain the trust of the stakeholders, such as
the environmental activists. It has been suggested
that two-way communication is critical on the web
and that, for example,
companies that are active online receive fewer
negative mentions in Tweets but only if they engage
in real dialogue (Wigley & Lewis, 2012).

Table 3. Strategy categorization and proposed actions for first goal.

Goal 2: Convince investors and shareholders of Siemens’ trustworthiness

Siemens should strive to keep its reputation as a trustworthy business partner intact, aiming to avoid
economic damage coming from investors withdrawals. To do so, Siemens should emphasize on the legal
obligations that lead it to continue with the contract, aiming to enhance the image of a company that
respects the law and honours its deals. Moreover, it is recommended that the company focus on
minimizing its role in the construction of the coal mine.

Strategy Category Recommended Strategy Recommended Actions

Anti-social or Defensive Minimization Minimizing the role of Siemens on the construction

of the coal mine. Siemens could state that its role in
the construction is minimal, and is not directly
affecting negatively the environment. Siemens is not
the one constructing the coal mine.

Defensive Compliance Emphasis with press release and tweets that the
company is obliged to continue with the contact of
Adani and that it is vital for the company to be
consistent as a business partner.

Table 4. Strategy categorization and proposed action for second goal.

5 Conclusion

To conclude, the incident affected Siemens' reputation as a sustainable and environmental oriented
company, since protests and complaints emerged online and offline, but not to a large degree since the
online debate on Social Media and Online News gradually wore off. As the issue arena analysis indicated,
the top active actors are climate activists, such as Greta Thunberg and Online News Sites, such as the
Guardian. Moreover, the course of the debate analysis identified that the online debate's peak moments
took place in January-February 2020, while the place of interaction analysis showed that the online
debate mainly occurred on Twitter. In addition, the company's communication response strategy was
analyzed and assessed as unsuccessful since it enraged even more activists and created concerns to the
investors of the company. Considering the stakeholders, the analysis and the evaluation of the
communication response strategy of Siemens, communication actions were proposed to the company.
The solutions provide directions to overcome the challenge and regain critical stakeholders' trust.
6 References:

Adani gets final environmental approval for Carmichael mine. (2019, June 13). ABC NEWS.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-13/adani-carmichael-coal-mine-approved-water-management-ga
lilee/11203208

Bravus Mining & Resources. (n.d.). Carmichael mine. Carmichael Mine | Bravus Mining & Resources.
Retrieved April 1st, 2021 from https://www.bravus.com.au/carmichael-mine/

Coal stokes Aussie bushfire rage. (2020, January 10). DW.

https://www.dw.com/en/coal-stokes-aussie-bushfire-rage/a-51951993

Coombs T. (2007). Protecting organization reputations during a crisis: the development and application
of situational crisis communication theory. Corporate Reputation Review, 10(3), 163–176.
https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.crr.1550049

Diers, A. (2007), “Assembling a jigsaw puzzle: proposing the strategic model of organizational crisis
communication”, paper presented at the Annual Conference of International Communication
Association, San Francisco, CA.

Dutta, S., & Pullig, C. (2011). Effectiveness of corporate responses to brand crises: the role of crisis type
and response strategies. Journal of Business Research, 64(12), 1281–1287.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.01.013

Jansen, B. J., & Chowdhury, A. (2011). Business engagement on twitter: a path analysis. Electronic
Markets, 21(3), 161–175.

Joe Kaeser on Adani Carmichael project. (2020, January 12). Retrieved from
https://press.siemens.com/global/en/news/joe-kaeser-adani-carmichael-project

Meriläinen N., & Vos, M. (2011). Human rights organizations and online agenda setting. Corporate
Communications: An International Journal, 16(4), 293–310.

Miller, J. (2020, February 5). Investors criticise Siemens over Adani contract. Financial Times.

https://www.ft.com/content/fd52ccd4-4807-11ea-aeb3-955839e06441

Morsing, M., & Schultz, M. (2008). Corporate social responsibility communication: stakeholder

information, response and involvement strategies. Business Ethics A European Review , 2-17.

Ritchie, H., Roser, M. (2020). CO₂ and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Retrieved from:

https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions'
Robertson, J. (2019, December 11). Greens leader warns Siemens of 'reputational damage' from Adani
deal. ABC News.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-11/greens-di-natale-warns-siemens-over-adani-deal/11789684.

Rooks, T. (2019, July 24). The complicated life of an opinionated Siemens' CEO: DW: 24.07.2019. DW.COM.
https://www.dw.com/en/the-complicated-life-of-an-opinionated-siemens-ceo/a-49726732.

Siemens. (n.d.). Carbon-neutral operations. Siemens.com Global Website. Retrieved April 1 2021 from
https://new.siemens.com/global/en/company/sustainability/carbonneutral.html.

Vos, M. (2017). Communication in Turbulent Times: Exploring Issue Arenas and Crisis Communication To

Enhance Organisational Resilience. Finland: Jyväskylä University.

Vos, M., Luoma-aho, V. L., & Schoemaker, H. (2014). Setting the agenda for research on issue arenas.

Corporate Communications, 19(2), 200–215. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-08-2012-0055

Wangan and Jagalingou Council. (n.d.). Stop Adani destroying our land and culture.
https://wanganjagalingou.com.au/our-fight/.

Wilson, S. and Patterson, B. (1987), “When the news hits the fan”, Business Marketing, Vol. 72 No. 11, pp.
92-4.