Car manufacturers’ communication regarding Dieselgate

Part 1 of the article “Dieselgate Communication by Car Manufacturers”, written by Viktor Jabs, Prof. Dr. Inge Wulf and Prof. Dr. Guido Pfeifer, appeared in the 01/2026 issue of the journal “ZCG”, and Part 2 appeared in the 03/2026 issue of the journal “ZCG”.

Part 1

Abstract: "The diesel crisis posed a challenge to the automotive industry’s communication strategies and is also reflected in the language of the annual report. This article begins by outlining various crisis communication strategies and examines rhetoric and language as instruments of organisational communication. The focus is on the three main forms: logos, ethos and pathos. In addition, the article discusses linguistic analysis, which can provide insights into thought processes, emotional states, intentions and motivations. This first part of the article concludes with an overview of the current state of research into the communication strategies of car manufacturers during the diesel crisis. The second part of the article will present and critically evaluate the results of the rhetorical-linguistic analysis of the shareholder letters."

Part 2

Abstract: “In the first part of this article, published in ZCG 1/26, crisis communication strategies were outlined, communication was examined as a strategic tool for organisational influence, and the concepts of rhetorical and linguistic analysis were explored. The article concluded with a review of the current state of research. It was found that previous studies have examined communication patterns using various methodological approaches, but that shareholder letters have so far rarely been used as a subject of investigation. This second part of the article analyses the role of language in communication from a rhetorical-linguistic perspective, using the example of shareholder letters from selected car manufacturers for the financial years 2012 to 2021. The results highlight differing communicative responses to the crisis, ranging from more emotional language aimed at credibility on the one hand, to the avoidance of direct engagement with the diesel issue whilst maintaining minimal variation in the use of rhetorical appeals on the other. These differences reflect both the responsibility attributed to each party and the chosen communication strategy.”