Author:
Feeney Melanie,Ormiston Jarrod,Gijselaers Wim,Martens Pim,Grohnert Therese
Abstract
AbstractResponding to climate change and avoiding irreversible climate tipping points requires radical and drastic action by 2030. This urgency raises serious questions for energy companies, one of the world’s largest emitters of greenhouse gases (GHGs), in terms of how they frame, and reframe, their response to climate change. Despite the majority of energy companies releasing ambitious statements declaring net zero carbon ambitions, this ‘talk’ has not been matched with sufficient urgency or substantive climate action. To unpack the disconnect between talk and action, this paper draws on the literature on framing, organisational hypocrisy, and collective moral responsibility. We conduct a longitudinal qualitative content analysis of the framing of climate change used by the ten largest European investor-owned energy companies and the actions they have taken to shift their business practices. Our findings reveal three main categories of energy companies: (i) deflecting, (ii) stagnating, and (iii) evolving. We show key differences in the relationship between framing and action over time for each category, revealing how deflecting companies have larger and persistent gaps between green talk and concrete action and how stagnating companies are delaying action despite increased green talk, while evolving companies exhibit a closer link between talk and action that tends to be realised over time. Our analysis reveals how competing approaches to framing collective moral responsibility help understand the trajectories of talk and action across the different categories of energy companies. This research makes several contributions to the literature on organisational hypocrisy and collective moral responsibility in the context of climate change. Our analysis highlights the complex relationship between collective moral responsibility, organisational hypocrisy and climate action, revealing how different collective framings—diffuse, teleological, or agential—can both enable and offset substantive climate action. The study also enriches our understanding of the performative nature of collective moral responsibility by examining its temporal dimensions and showing how an agential, backward-looking focus is associated with more meaningful climate action.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference101 articles.
1. Ambrose, J. (2020). BP sets net zero carbon target for 2050. Retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/feb/12/bp-sets-net-zero-carbon-target-for-2050
2. Ashforth, B. E., & Gibbs, B. W. (1990). The double-edge of organizational legitimation. Organization Science, 1(2), 177–194.
3. Banerjee, S. B. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: The good, the bad and the ugly. Critical Sociology, 34(1), 51–79.
4. Banerjee, S. B. (2012). A climate for change? Critical reflections on the Durban United Nations climate change conference. Organization Studies, 33(12), 1761–1786.
5. Barth, C., & Bijsmans, P. (2018). The Maastricht Treaty and public debates about European integration: The emergence of a European public sphere? The Maastricht Treaty and public debates about European. Journal of Contemporary European Studies, 2804, 1–17.