Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros15Faire avec, contre et sans le num...Has greenwashing been greenwashed?

Faire avec, contre et sans le numérique irresponsable

Has greenwashing been greenwashed?

Pre-empting criticism in press discourse on digital responsibility
Jeanne Ferrari-Giovangeli et Céline Morin
Traduction de Yarri Kamara
Cet article est une traduction de :
Le greenwashing a-t-il été greenwashé ? [fr]

Résumé

Originating in environmental criticism, the concept of greenwashing has today become an integral part of communication strategies. This article examines this trajectory. Using a mixed-methods analysis of a corpus of press discourse, the authors show how what was initially an accusatory term, became a normative element, diluted in the discourse of corporate social responsibility and digital responsibility.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

Introduction

1Words that are born out of contestation sometimes end up being swallowed by the very systems they intended to upset. This article examines the trajectory of the concept of greenwashing, a term forged by environmental critique to denounce misleading strategies of companies on environmental issues, which today is most often pre-emptively integrated into corporate communication strategies.

2A 2003 article already called attention to this semantic shift. The communications manager of the yellow-pages company PagesJaunes, and later the postal company La Poste, was appointed as head of a newly created department of sustainable development. Questioned on the matter, he pointed out: “It’s not by chance that you find people who come from communications in such positions. You shouldn’t however deduce that it’s all about greenwashing” (Razemon, 2003).

3This statement sheds light on a fundamental dynamic: criticism is pre-empted by its very evocation, with the risk being formulated so as to ward it off. Our hypothesis is that such discourse is structured by a double movement: on the one hand, we have the institutionalisation of sustainable development as a consensual framework; on the other hand, we have pre-emptive handling of contestation, which transforms criticism into a communicational resource.

4Our article thus deals with the greenwashing of greenwashing, that is, the co-optation of what started out as an accusation by corporate or institutional communication. To what extent is the very criticism of greenwashing being subjected to greenwashing: in what ways is greenwashing being pre-empted, repurposed or neutralised by stakeholders in press discourses on digital responsibility? By greenwashing, we mean the set of communication practices aimed at portraying a positive environmental image that is misleading or exaggerates actual actions. That definition serves as the basis for analysing the way in which the term itself is mobilised in discourse: we analyse the various uses of the term by industry, institutions and media, as well as its trajectory as a critical, strategic or defensive concept.

5The digital world constitutes a fertile field of observation to examine the integration or neutralisation of environmental criticism. In its early formulations, greenwashing was addressed above all towards tangible objects (packaging, products, factories or modes of transport, in sectors such as agriculture, construction and tourism) and where environmental impacts were easily perceptible by the general public (Pendse et al., 2023). Digital greenwashing, however, deals with artefacts that are more diffuse, and sometimes intangible. Its materiality is dissimulated in objects with ethereal or abstruse names (cloud, AI, algorithms, interfaces) and its environmental externalities are distributed in forms of non-places (data centres, technical infrastructure or rare earth extraction), such that they often escape immediate comprehension (Flipo et al., 2013). This slow “materialisation” influences discourse (Morton, 2018; Monnin, 2023). The shift in the order of perception encourages a dramatization of pre-empting criticism: “without meaning to greenwash...” becomes a catchphrase of environmental communication. The choice of the digital world as our terrain of inquiry is thus not simply about choosing a sector of greenwashing, but rather about delving into a specific configuration. Because the supposed immateriality of the artefacts, infrastructure and externalities of digital technologies makes it more difficult to formulate criticism, and also reinforces the pre-emptive function of discourse. Press coverage on digital responsibility in this sense constitutes a discursive space that is more conflictual than purely promotional discourse, in so far as it constitutes both an arena in which the concept is strategically deployed and a space within which it is discussed.

6This article analyses a corpus of 392 press articles taken from the Europresse database, published between 2008 and 2025, and identified using the keywords “greenwashing,” “digital,” and “responsibility.” We undertook an analysis of the articles that mixed lexicometric analysis aided by IRaMuTeQ software, with qualitative methods of critical discourse analysis (Fairclough, 1992; Wodak, 2001; Blommaert & Bulcaen, 2000) to develop a typology of the term greenwashing. We start by examining the concept of greenwashing itself, to then explore the discursive universe of the press clippings and propose a critical analysis of greenwashing both as an institutional myth and as the hierarchisation of technicity over environmental practice.

1. From slogan to object of study

7Greenwashing has not always been explicitly called out. The accusation first appeared fleetingly and marginally in critiques of advertising (Athanasiou, 1996), and then later in analysis of self-proclaimed green campaigns in sectors of activity that were environmentally vulnerable (Kärnä et al., 2001). The focus then progressively shifted. Company narratives were cross-examined and the shift of environmental language towards symbolic compliance started to emerge (Laufer, 2003; Ramus & Montiel, 2005). From 2005, the tension became perceptible: Munshi and Kurian show how sustainability discourse became global in the form of standards; d’Almeida sheds light on ways in which sustainable development was taken up by the corporate sector, well beyond actual practices. Green language became an instrument or an argument more than a factual description of practices. Promises swelled (Dahl, 2010), contradictions emerged (Dagenais, 2010) and tensions started formalising (Pierlot, 2010). Krieg-Planque (2010) sees the signs of an attempt at discursive pacification in set phrases such as “sustainable development” or “green growth.” Greenwashing here functions through its capacity to stifle opposition under the appearance of a false consensus.

8In the decade that followed, the typologies became more sophisticated. Little by little, greenwashing infiltrated reputation, visual narration and framing effects (Delmas & Burbano, 2011; Lyon & Maxwell, 2011). Various strategic uses of sustainable development are in effect often conceived as instruments for attaining social acceptability (Libaert, 2015). There are however other more optimistic readings: Poivre-Le Lohé (2021), for example, proposes that one can view such discourse as a “useful fiction,” a narrative device with allows one to give shape to a formless environmental conscience, all while avoiding structural disruption.

9In their conceptualisation of greenwashing, Delmas and Burbano (2011) defined the term as a two-level and multifactorial practice. Two-level because while environmental performance is poor, it is combined with positive communication. Multifactorial because the causes are related to a range of factors: external (various forms of pressure, regulations, consumer demands); individual (optimistic bias, weak visibility, immediate rewards); and organisational (ethical considerations, incentives, corporate inertia). Using a controversy analysis approach, Seele and Gatti (2015) underscore how accusation is a key element in greenwashing: the presence of an accusing party is indispensable to the process. Freitas et al. (2020), for their part, propose a three-tier typology: greenwashing as selective disclosure of information, as decoupling (with symbolic but not concrete action), and as signalling and organisational legitimacy. This typology plays out at both the level of promises (a rhetoric of honesty, transparency and sincerity) and that of execution (for example, on the use of nature in advertising; see Parguel et al., 2015).

  • 1 “OOH Trends 2020: Face aux attaques, les professionnels de la communication extérieure défendent un (...)
  • 2 “Les entreprises dans l’agora,” Stratégies, 25/04/2019.
  • 3 “Green régie,” Marketing, 28/05/2020.

10More widely, in our view these processes constitute an updated illustration of what Boltanski and Chiapello (1999) already described a quarter century ago, as the adaptive capacity of capitalism to integrate criticism, especially criticism linked to progressist ideals (autonomy, creativity and freedom, for example). Companies today use the vocabulary of transparency and environmental consciousness (stewardship, sustainability, biodiversity, etc.) and incorporate it in their discursive strategies, using such language to prove their alignment with social expectations. This reversal of rhetoric is visible in several defensive formulations: “On the environment, we are developing our narrative all while ensuring we avoid greenwashing”1; “this authentic approach is not about greenwashing”2; “our goal was to avoid greenwashing.”3

11 But the effects that greenwashing promises produce are complex. The perception of greenwashing by the general public only makes sense when linked to behavioural intentions (Chen & Chang, 2013) or to trust placed in labels (Testa et al., 2022; Parguel et al., 2015) and the effects largely depend on how the message is framed—moralizing or celebratory—as well as the level of individual responsibility involved (Kim et al., 2019). But above all, when trust is eroded, and consumers start to feel that they are being misled, some react out of a sense of moral betrayal: their loss of trust does not simply limit itself to the company in question, but extends to and undermines their commitment to any form of environmental action (Schmuck et al., 2018). Improper use of a concept can thus set off a domino effect.

2. Mapping the controversy: a reading of press discourse

12Analysis of the discursive universe of our corpus, with the aid of IRaMuTeQ, revealed the coexistence of three categories. The first category (blue) accounted for more than half of the segments (50.7%) and dealt with strategies and governance (companies, CSR, management) reflecting institutional narratives. The second category (32.3%, red) presented quantified and technical discourse on carbon footprints and materiality (emissions, CO2, consumption). The third and last category (16.5%, green) was centred around communication, advertising and companies (media, ads, campaigns), and highlighted the roles of a diverse variety of professions (managers, agencies, advertising firms). The language used in communication (green) acted as a mediator between corporate discourse (blue) and the more scientific and measured discourse on emissions (red), while avoiding the technical vocabulary.

Figure 2

Figure 2

Dendrogram of the descending hierarchical classification (DHC) and its correspondence factor analysis (CFA) performed with IRaMuTeQ.

Authors: Jeanne Ferrari-Giovanangeli and Céline Morin, 2025

13When we plunge more deeply into the body of texts, we see the concept of digital responsibility progressively combining the web of labels, directives and legal reporting obligations, the structuring of the institutional framework and the widening of the range of players involved. Greenwashing became a part of the regulatory lexicon, a central issue in climate contracts and industry-specific charters, and grievances related to environmental claims now came to take a prominent place in litigation. Greenwashing was thus no longer just denounced, but actively combatted with the aid of codes of conduct and the publication of specific “anti-greenwashing” guidelines.

14In 2022, public authorities took up the cause in a highly visible manner: the interministerial “Digital Responsibility” taskforce launched in 2020, published its best practice guidelines; and at the same time, local governments and public agencies stepped up communication about reducing digital environmental footprints. With these institutional advances, the lexicon adopted terms from the legal and administrative realm (guidelines, the Economic and Social Committee, regulations, law). Commitment was also seen from the professional ecosystem of the digital sector: environmental concerns became a central element in attractivity for human resources in the IT sector. Concepts such as IT systems management, employer brand, young graduates and meaning emerged significantly. Social criticism of digital technologies gathered steam, notably from the perspectives of sobriety and degrowth. The concept of digital sobriety was now not just approached from a technical viewpoint, but also through its cultural and behavioural dimensions, indicating a widening of the realm of contention. The era of techno-optimism seemed to have come to an end: now was the time for questioning the meaning and end of digital technologies.

15Regulation emerged to give deeper structure to such questioning. Thus, the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), which was introduced in 2022 and came into effect in 2024, explicitly aimed at “prohibiting misleading claims.”4 This European directive introduced stronger mandatory extra-financial reporting requirements for corporations, illustrating how digital responsibility transitioned from being voluntary towards becoming a regulatory requirement for transparency. At the same time, the effects of the Digital Technologies Environmental Footprint Reduction Act (REEN), passed into law in France in late 2021started to be felt. In return, the language became more professional and technocratic, dominated now by a normative vocabulary. One spoke now of indicators, directives, and compliance, all signs of an institutional handling of the issue.

16In 2025, the last phase emerged, that of full normalisation. Regional and generalist newspapers published long educational pieces detailing what in our digital technology use pollutes and how, accompanied with practical recommendations. Greenwashing now seemed an outdated term, fully assimilated into the discourse on compliance. It was now enlisted to legitimise recourse to regulation (CSRD, REEN, etc.) and the adoption of internal processes (“avoid greenwashing” in environmentally responsible advertising).

3. “Careful of greenwashing!”: a rhetorical refrain?

17The repurposing of a critical lexicon initially associated with environmental alarm cannot be reduced to a mere case of lexical appropriation: it invites a performative reading of discourse, no longer centred on the enunciative intention, but more on the effects produced by the language in the public space. The preceding analysis revealed a structural divide between two lexical poles: a technicised and numerical register (focused on indicators like the carbon footprint and one more linked to practical environmental action (recycling, sorting waste, responsible consumption). This dualism is not about mere coexistence but rather about hierarchisation: technicity trumps over and relegates contestation to background noise.

  • 5 “Pourquoi et comment réduire son empreinte carbone,” L’Écho touristique, 07/02/2022.
  • 6 “Comment développer l’attractivité de la fonction achats?,” Décision-achats.fr, 20/03/2024.
  • 7 “Le ‘Green IT’, réel modèle d’avenir ou symbole du ‛greenwashingʼ?,” La Tribune, 12/05/2022.
  • 8 “Les ‘big tech’ et l’environnement: peuvent mieux faire!,” La Tribune, 17/03/2020.

18In the institutional discourses, greenwashing ceased to be a polemical object, and became one item amongst others in the communicational grammar of corporate social responsibility. It is cited as a potential risk more than as a concrete challenge: in a logic of inoculation (Barthes, 1957), the discursive objectives are dispatched into pre-emptive solutions (“avoiding any greenwashing”5) mixed with a rhetoric of sincerity (“clients want to come to La Poste because we are sincere, we do not greenwash”6), normative concerns (the eco-design of data centres7), and technological prospects (Apple claiming that its data centres are fully powered by renewable energy sources8).

19Enunciation thus found itself subsumed by a rhetoric of image management, in which environmental performance is assessed using standards and labels, but whose legitimacy is rarely questioned. The concept no longer referred to ideological falsification but to a potential failure to be on guard against. The term became dissociated from analysis to become an empty signifier, whose mere enunciation suggests a generic warning, “careful of greenwashing!” without any further argumentation. This phenomenon of deactivation is part of a wider dynamic of the ritualisation of environmental narratives.

20Greenwashing did not disappear from discourse: on the contrary, it became omnipresent, but it changed status. Initially a critical concept, it now became a management object, an indicator among others in the key performance indicators of responsible communication. This shift poses questions about the capacity of discourse to maintain the vitality of conflictuality necessary for democratic life. Born as a subversive concept, greenwashing was progressively stripped of its denunciatory power to become a part of the discursive ordinary. The concept now acts like myths do, in the sense intended by Roland Barthes, and functions precisely by neutralising the history of the signifier, to present the signifier as self-evident.

21This shift can be understood as an expression of a clash between competing frameworks in the Goffman (1974) sense. The critical framework deployed by accusers reads environmental communication as a misleading display, a green facade intended to obscure reality. Conversely, the institutional and strategic framework, which corporations are trying to impose, presents the same communication as rational, sincere and in good faith. The same green ad campaign, depending on the frame of interpretation, could be perceived as either deception, or as a demonstration of environmental commitment. Corporations actively work to stabilise a coherent and credible image of their positioning on the environment, orienting interpretation towards a favourable framing. This involves a meticulous effort of staging: careful discursive choices, avoidance of triumphalism, insertion of figures, expert reports, independent testimonials, structured acknowledgement of the issues at stake.

  • 9 “Mieux diffuser les bonnes pratiques de la sobriété numérique,” IT For Business, 20/11/2020.
  • 10 “Perspective,” Business Immo, 01/11/2023.
  • 11 “Les marques revoient leur copie com,” Marketing, 23/02/2023.

22The text pre-empts its knowledge and orchestrates its interpretative path, in what Eco (1979) calls “interpretative cooperation.” Discourse related to digital responsibility and environmental communication sets up a series of mechanisms intended to produce banalised readings and reduce interpretative ambiguity. Here, doubt no longer falls to the reader: it is taken into account directly by the enunciator themselves, and then immediately resolved. The reader is nudged towards an implicit conclusion. The corporation is fully aware of the challenges and acts by producing texts saturated with determinations, closing off the interpretative field and leaving no room for an independent critical reading. Discourse comes loaded with justifications, evidence and structured commitments borrowed from management newspeak: we are “taking on the challenge to step up our approach,”9 we are creating a “laboratory of ‘disruptive’ innovation,”10 we want to “drastically reduce impact [all while managing to] boost our acquisition strategy.”11

Conclusion

23The shift from accusation to institutionalisation has led to a form of partial depoliticisation of the term greenwashing, now incorporated into the normalised language of so-called responsible communication.

24By playing subtly with framing, corporations have repositioned the debate: what was a case against deception has become a dialogue on transparency and continuous improvement. Such meticulously constructed discourse guides the reader and drowns the accusation in a sea of carefully managed precautions and narratives. Nonetheless, it would be excessive to conclude that the term has been totally emptied of its substance. The concept of greenwashing has been partially tamed by the institutions it targeted, to the point that the original accusation is sometimes repurposed in an argument of virtuous self-regulation. This reversal reflects a wider phenomenon of dilution of criticism in dominant discourse.

25So, has greenwashing been greenwashed? Our initial question has a nuanced answer. Yes, to the extent that accusation has been transformed into institutional myth; this metamorphosis, however, is neither absolute nor definitive, as long as a critical vigilance capable of reactivating the dissenting substance of the term subsists. Indeed, this is precisely where the challenge for signifiers born of contestation lies: outlive taming by sowing ambiguity there were things are too quickly presented as self-evident, or accept symbolic extinction and leave room for new terms to revitalise critical dissent?

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Allard-Huver, F. (2021). “Ce que les SIC font aux controverses environnementales, ce que les controverses environnementales font aux SIC,” Revue française des sciences de l’information et de la communication, 21. https://doi.org/10.4000/rfsic.10215

Athanasiou, T. (1996). “The age of greenwashing,” Capitalism Nature Socialism, 7(1).

Barthes, R. (1957). Mythologies. Seuil.

Blommaert, J., Bulcaen, C. (2000). Critical discourse analysis. Annual review of Anthropology, 29(1).

Boltanski, L., Chiapello, E. (1999). Le nouvel esprit du capitalisme. Gallimard.

Chen, Y.-S., Chang, C.-H. (2013). “Greenwash and green trust: The mediation effects of green consumer confusion and green perceived risk,” Journal of Business Ethics, 114(3), 489-500. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1360-0

Dagenais, M. (2010). “Le développement durable ou le vertige de l’éternité,” Revue internationale de communication sociale et publique, 3.

Dahl, R. (2010). “Greenwashing: Do you know what you’re buying?,” Environmental Health Perspectives, 118(6). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2898878/

D’Almeida, N. (2005). “Communication et environnement. Le développement durable à l’épreuve du public,” Hermès. La Revue, 41.

Freitas Netto (de), S.V., Sobral, M.F.F., Ribeiro, A.R.B., Soares, G.R.L. (2020). “Concepts and forms of greenwashing: A systematic review,” Environmental Sciences Europe32(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-020-0300-3

Delmas, M.A., Burbano, V.C. (2011). “The drivers of greenwashing,” California Management Review, 54(1). https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2011.54.1.64

Eco, U. (1979). Lector in fabula. Grasset.

Fairclough, N. (1992). “Discourse and text: Linguistic and intertextual analysis within discourse analysis,” Discourse & society3(2).

Flipo, F. (2020). L’impératif de la sobriété numérique. L’enjeu des modes de vie. Matériologiques.

Gatti, L., Seele, P., Rademacher, L. (2019). “Grey zone in—greenwash out: A review of greenwashing research and implications for the voluntary-mandatory transition of CSR,” International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40991-019-0044-9

Goffman, E. (1974). Les cadres de l’expérience. Minuit.

Kärnä, J., Juslin, H., Ahonen, V., Hansen, E. (2001). “Green advertising: Greenwash or a true reflection of marketing strategies?,” Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management8(1). https://www.jstor.org/stable/greemanainte.33.59

Kim, M., Kim, M., Han, J. (2019). “How green advertising works: Attitude and emotional pathway to green purchase behavior,” Journal of Business Research, 96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.11.016

Krieg-Planque, A. (2009). La notion de formule en analyse du discours. Cadre théorique et méthodologique. Presses universitaires de Franche-Comté.

Laufer, W.S. (2003). Social accountability and corporate greenwashing. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(3). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022962719299

Lyon, T.P., Maxwell, J.W. (2011). “Greenwash: Corporate environmental disclosure under threat of audit,” Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 20(1). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9134.2010.00282.x

Matthes, J., Wonneberger, A., Schmuck, D. (2014). “Consumers' green involvement and the persuasive effects of emotional versus functional ads,” Journal of Business Research, 67(9), 1885-1893. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.11.054

Monnin, A. (2023). Politiser le renoncement. Divergences.

Morton, T., Bury, L. (2018). “Hyperobjets,” Multitudes, 72(3). https://doi.org/10.3917/mult.072.0109

Munshi, D., Kurian, P. (2005). “Imperializing spin cycles: A postcolonial look at public relations, greenwashing, and the separation of publics,” Public Relations Review, 31(4). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2005.08.010

Parguel, B., Benoit-Moreau, F., Russell, C.A. (2015). Can evoking nature in advertising mislead consumers? The power of ‘executional greenwashing’,” International Journal of Advertising, 34(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2014.996116

Pierlot, J.-M. (2010). “Greenwashing ou communication éco-responsable? Les enjeux environnementaux des relations entre entreprises et ONG”. In A. Catellani, T. Libaert et J.-M. Pierlot (eds.), Contredire l’entreprise. Presses universitaires de Louvain. https://books.openedition.org/pucl/1170

Poivre-Le Lohé, Y. (2016). “Le greenwashing: phénomène organisationnel ordinaire, conséquences globales extraordinaires.” Dans T. Libaert (eds.), La communication environnementale (p. 215-218). CNRS Éditions. https://doi.org/10.4000/books.editionscnrs.20937

Razemon, O. (2003). “La Poste, développement tous azimuts,” Environnement et stratégie, 69.

Ramus, C.A., Montiel, I. (2005). “When are corporate environmental policies a form of greenwashing?,” Business & Society, 44(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650305278120

Schmuck, D., Matthes, J., Naderer, B. (2018). “Misleading consumers with green advertising? An affect—reason—involvement account of greenwashing effects in environmental advertising,” Journal of Advertising, 47(2). https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2018.1452652

Testa, F., Boiral, O., Iraldo, F. (2018). “Internalization of environmental practices and institutional complexity : Can stakeholders pressures encourage greenwashing ?” Journal of Business Ethics, 147(2), 287-307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2960-2

Wodak, R. (2001). The discourse-historical approach. Methods of critical discourse analysis1. Sage.

Haut de page

Notes

1 “OOH Trends 2020: Face aux attaques, les professionnels de la communication extérieure défendent un média ‘populaire’ et au service de la relance économique,” La Correspondance de la publicité, 23/11/2020.

2 “Les entreprises dans l’agora,” Stratégies, 25/04/2019.

3 “Green régie,” Marketing, 28/05/2020.

4 See the directive: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2022/2464/oj

5 “Pourquoi et comment réduire son empreinte carbone,” L’Écho touristique, 07/02/2022.

6 “Comment développer l’attractivité de la fonction achats?,” Décision-achats.fr, 20/03/2024.

7 “Le ‘Green IT’, réel modèle d’avenir ou symbole du ‛greenwashingʼ?,” La Tribune, 12/05/2022.

8 “Les ‘big tech’ et l’environnement: peuvent mieux faire!,” La Tribune, 17/03/2020.

9 “Mieux diffuser les bonnes pratiques de la sobriété numérique,” IT For Business, 20/11/2020.

10 “Perspective,” Business Immo, 01/11/2023.

11 “Les marques revoient leur copie com,” Marketing, 23/02/2023.

Haut de page

Table des illustrations

Titre Figure 1
URL http://journals.openedition.org/hybrid/docannexe/image/6857/img-1.png
Fichier image/png, 80k
Titre Figure 2
Légende Dendrogram of the descending hierarchical classification (DHC) and its correspondence factor analysis (CFA) performed with IRaMuTeQ.
Crédits Authors: Jeanne Ferrari-Giovanangeli and Céline Morin, 2025
URL http://journals.openedition.org/hybrid/docannexe/image/6857/img-2.png
Fichier image/png, 157k
Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

Jeanne Ferrari-Giovangeli et Céline Morin, « Has greenwashing been greenwashed?  »Hybrid [En ligne], 15 | 2026, mis en ligne le 15 avril 2026, consulté le 17 mai 2026. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/hybrid/6857 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/162ze

Haut de page

Auteurs

Jeanne Ferrari-Giovangeli

Jeanne Ferrari-Giovangeli is a lecturer in information and communication science at Paris Nanterre University and a member of the Dicen research team.

Céline Morin

Céline Morin is a lecturer in information and communication science at Paris Nanterre University and a member of the Dicen research team.

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

CC-BY-SA-4.0

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY-SA 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont susceptibles d’être soumis à des autorisations d’usage spécifiques.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search