Framing Collective Moral Responsibility for Climate Change: A Longitudinal Frame Analysis of Energy Company Climate Reporting

IF 5.9 1区 哲学 Q1 BUSINESS
Melanie Feeney, Jarrod Ormiston, Wim Gijselaers, Pim Martens, Therese Grohnert
{"title":"Framing Collective Moral Responsibility for Climate Change: A Longitudinal Frame Analysis of Energy Company Climate Reporting","authors":"Melanie Feeney, Jarrod Ormiston, Wim Gijselaers, Pim Martens, Therese Grohnert","doi":"10.1007/s10551-024-05801-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Responding 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":15279,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Business Ethics","volume":"44 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Business Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-024-05801-0","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Responding 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.

Abstract Image

框定气候变化的集体道德责任:能源公司气候报告的纵向框架分析
应对气候变化和避免不可逆转的气候临界点需要在 2030 年前采取激进和严厉的行动。能源公司是世界上最大的温室气体(GHGs)排放者之一,这种紧迫性对能源公司提出了严峻的问题,即如何制定和重构应对气候变化的措施。尽管大多数能源公司都发表了雄心勃勃的声明,宣称要实现净零碳目标,但这种 "空谈 "并没有得到足够的紧迫感或实质性气候行动的配合。为了揭示言论与行动之间的脱节,本文借鉴了有关框架、组织虚伪性和集体道德责任的文献。我们对欧洲最大的十家投资者拥有的能源公司所使用的气候变化框架以及他们为改变商业行为所采取的行动进行了纵向定性内容分析。我们的研究结果揭示了三大类能源公司:(i) 偏离;(ii) 停滞;(iii) 演进。我们显示了每一类公司的框架与行动之间的主要差异,揭示了 "偏移型 "公司在绿色言论与具体行动之间如何存在更大且持续的差距,以及 "停滞型 "公司如何在绿色言论增加的情况下推迟行动,而 "演进型 "公司则在言论与行动之间表现出更紧密的联系,而且这种联系往往会随着时间的推移而实现。我们的分析揭示了在构建集体道德责任方面相互竞争的方法如何帮助理解不同类别能源公司的言论和行动轨迹。本研究为气候变化背景下的组织虚伪性和集体道德责任文献做出了多项贡献。我们的分析强调了集体道德责任、组织虚伪性和气候行动之间的复杂关系,揭示了不同的集体框架--模糊的、目的论的或行动论的--如何既能促成又能抵消实质性的气候行动。这项研究还通过考察集体道德责任的时间维度,丰富了我们对集体道德责任的表演性质的理解,并展示了行动性的、向后看的关注点如何与更有意义的气候行动相关联。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
12.80
自引率
9.80%
发文量
265
期刊介绍: The Journal of Business Ethics publishes only original articles from a wide variety of methodological and disciplinary perspectives concerning ethical issues related to business that bring something new or unique to the discourse in their field. Since its initiation in 1980, the editors have encouraged the broadest possible scope. The term `business'' is understood in a wide sense to include all systems involved in the exchange of goods and services, while `ethics'' is circumscribed as all human action aimed at securing a good life. Systems of production, consumption, marketing, advertising, social and economic accounting, labour relations, public relations and organisational behaviour are analysed from a moral viewpoint. The style and level of dialogue involve all who are interested in business ethics - the business community, universities, government agencies and consumer groups. Speculative philosophy as well as reports of empirical research are welcomed. In order to promote a dialogue between the various interested groups as much as possible, papers are presented in a style relatively free of specialist jargon.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信