Elsevier

Journal of Cleaner Production

Volume 165, 1 November 2017, Pages 382-392
Journal of Cleaner Production

Conceptual model for corporate climate change strategy development: Empirical evidence from the energy sector

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.133Get rights and content

Abstract

This paper proposes a conceptual model for corporate climate change strategy development. It reflects the dynamic influence of climate change risks and stakeholder pressures on carbon management practices adopted and the performance perception of managers. We draw our model on resource dependence theory to explain how managers apply carbon management practices to reduce ecological uncertainty caused by firms’ direct dependence on nature. Using institutional theory, we describe how stakeholders influence firm reactions to climate change. We test a structural equation model and run a cluster analysis of 105 Brazilian energy firms. The results show that companies undertake one of four different strategies ranging from a minimalist approach to the regulation shaper, pressure manager or greenhouse gas emission avoiders. The proposed model contributes to an understanding of the importance of embedding climate change in a business model in emerging markets.

Introduction

Climate change is challenging the sustainability of current production and consumption systems. The impact is global, the problem is long-term, and the harm is substantially irreversible. Companies face major uncertainties about the magnitude and timing of climate change effects and what risks they are likely to have to address (Lash and Wellington, 2007). These uncertainties make it difficult to consider an adequate strategy to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Lee, 2012). In this context, global CO2 emissions are likely to increase.

The main reasons for this inertia by companies involve an unclear regulatory framework; short-termism and uncertainty avoidance behavior at individual, organizational and institutional levels; and a dearth of radical low carbon innovations (Engau and Hoffmann, 2011, Slawinski et al., 2017, Tavoni et al., 2012). Notwithstanding the necessity for firms to take action, there is limited progress in offering insights into firm adaptation mechanism to climate change (Gasbarro and Pinkse, 2016). There is also a gap in frameworks able to assess or consider the implications and consequences of carbon responses (Linnenluecke et al., 2013).

Empirical studies have been carried out to describe corporate climate change options (Weinhofer and Hoffmann, 2010, Sprengel and Busch, 2011, Weinhofer and Bush, 2013, Lee, 2012, Jeswani et al., 2008). Reviews of these models shows a need for more elements or criteria to operationalize them. Other studies have been developed to describe factors influencing corporate climate change strategy, including regulatory framework, societal demand, market positioning and technology availability. However, these studies have provided that some factors seem to be playing a role in driving responses for some firms, but not for others (Gasbarro and Pinkse, 2016, Cadez and Czerny, 2016, Jeswani et al., 2008).

To shed more light on these mixed results, we propose a conceptual model for corporate climate change strategy development to address two questions: (1) Do climate change risks and stakeholder requirements act as driving forces of carbon management practices? and (2) What effect do carbon management practices have on performance perception of managers? We adopt a resource dependence theory (RDT) to explain how climate change risks drive companies to implement carbon management practices and use institutional theory to explain how stakeholders influence firm reactions. If a carbon strategy is properly developed managers will perceive a better performance.

Empirical evidences confirm our structural equation model (SEM) and we make contributions to the carbon strategy literature. First, few studies had simultaneously included climate change risks and stakeholder pressures to impact on carbon management practices and in turn influence on performance perception of managers. And, there is a limited body of knowledge about energy firms in emerging countries and their attitudes towards climate change. Brazil is particularly interesting because about 45% of its total energy supply and 85% of its electricity is produced from renewable sources (Lucena et al., 2009).

Findings are based on survey data from a sample of 105 general managers. Firms were grouped into the four strategic orientations, the same as those established by Sprengel and Busch (2011), and labeled as “minimalist,” “regulation shaper,” “pressure manager” and “greenhouse gas emission avoiders.” Pressure managers and emission avoiders constitute the bulk of the Brazilian energy firms surveyed. Their proactive approaches reflect the Brazilian clean energy matrix. Nevertheless, more recently the country has failed to continue a determinant role in global climate change policy.

The remainder of this article is organized as follows. First, we describe corporate climate change options and interlink the field of analysis with the RDT and institutional theory. Second, we develop hypotheses linking the four elements of our model. Then, we present the methodology and the results. To finish, we discuss the relationships established at SEM model and suggest directions for coping with climate change.

Section snippets

Corporate climate change options

There are several definitions commonly used to express the combination of climate change with the business strategy. Lee (2012) defined corporate climate change strategy as a selection of the scope and level of carbon management activity. Weinhofer and Hoffmann (2010) defined it as a pattern of activities associated with the management of direct and indirect GHG emissions. It can also be seen as a set of goals and plans aimed at reducing GHG emissions and addressing changes in processes,

Data sample

We carefully chose our research context to include the Brazilian energy industry because that sector has a directly or indirectly effect on climate change. The Brazilian energy matrix has a renewable resource base as well as is both dependents on non-renewable and extractive resources. Second, this industry was suitable for an examination because it presents high climate change risks and multiplicity and (often conflicting) stakeholder pressure on strategy (Pereira et al., 2011).

The survey was

Factorial analyses and structural equation model

Table 2 presents the results of the exploratory and confirmatory factorial analysis. It can be seen that all constructs had KMO values higher than 0.8 and correlation matrices significantly different from the identity matrix (p values of Bartlett ’s sphericity test less than 0.001), proving the adequacy of the EFA to these data.

The EFA grouped climate change risks under three factors named as “physical” (Phy), “regulatory” (Reg) and “technological” (Tech) with eigenvalues >1. These factors

Discussion

The development and validation of a SEM made it possible to examine important relationships. Our conceptual model indicates that managers are driven by their perception of the intensity of risks and stakeholder pressures in decisions about what practices should be adopted to deal with GHG emissions. Energy companies surveyed all agree that climate change events are real and natural disasters will occur. Cadez and Czerny (2016) confirm that despite institutional pressures, carbon-intensive firms

Conclusion

This study proposes a conceptual model for corporate climate change strategy development. Empirical results show that most energy companies face considerable ecological uncertainty in addressing climate change issues and resource to be committed. They need to have a clear regulatory framework outlining government expectations on GHG emissions. It is necessary to have sufficient information and technology on changing climate patterns to secure stakeholder mobilization.

Orchestrating the role of

Acknowledgments

The authors express sincere thanks to Prof. Rodrigo Lozano and the three anonymous reviewers for their constructive and detailed comments on earlier drafts of this paper. Grateful for the financial support provided by CNPq - Project # 401131/2010-6.

References (51)

  • A.O. Pereira et al.

    Strategies to promote renewable energy in Brazil

    Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.

    (2011)
  • S. Saeed et al.

    Inside-out and outside-in orientations: a meta-analysis of orientation’s effects on innovation and firm performance

    Ind. Mark. Manag.

    (2015)
  • M.C.S. Abreu

    How to define an environmental policy to improve corporate sustainability in developing countries

    Bus. Strategy Environ.

    (2009)
  • F. Barbi

    Governing climate change in China and Brazil: mitigation strategies

    J. Chin. Polit. Sci.

    (2016)
  • O. Boiral et al.

    Modeling the impacts of corporate commitment on climate change

    Bus. Strategy Environ.

    (2012)
  • F.A.A. Boons

    Creating Ecological Value. An Evolutionary Approach to Business Strategies and the Natural Environment

    (2009)
  • C.F. Böttcher et al.

    Drivers, practices and outcomes of low carbon operations: approaches of German automotive suppliers to cutting carbon emissions

    Bus. Strategy Environ.

    (2015)
  • M.C. Branco et al.

    Factors influencing social responsibility disclosure by Portuguese companies

    J. Bus. Ethics

    (2008)
  • P.J. DiMaggio et al.

    The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields

  • C. Engau et al.

    Corporate response strategies to regulatory uncertainty: evidence from uncertainty about post-kyoto regulations

    Policy Sci.

    (2011)
  • R.E. Freeman

    Strategic Management: a Stakeholder Approach

    (1984)
  • I. Gallego-Álvarez et al.

    Climate change and financial performance in times of crisis

    Bus. Strategy Environ.

    (2014)
  • F. Gasbarro et al.

    Adaptation measures of energy and utility companies to cope with water scarcity induced by climate change

    Bus. Strategy Environ.

    (2016)
  • F. Gasbarro et al.

    Corporate adaptation behaviour to deal with climate change: the influence of firm-specific interpretations of physical climate impacts

    Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag.

    (2016)
  • A.J. Hillman et al.

    Resource dependence theory: a review

    J. Manag.

    (2009)
  • Cited by (17)

    • Substantial response or impression management? Compliance strategies for sustainable development responsibility in family firms

      2022, Technological Forecasting and Social Change
      Citation Excerpt :

      Our study shows that public pressure may increase the likelihood of taking an impression management approach rather than a substantial response approach. Although some studies have shown that stakeholder pressure has a positive effect on the substantial response of companies in terms of sustainability (Abreu et al., 2017; Cadez et al., 2019), our study suggests that the pressuring process from the public has little effect on motivating a substantial response. For family businesses, responding quickly to public awareness is more important in preserving SEW than how to improve their real environmental performance.

    • Examining sustainable business performance determinants in Malaysia upstream petroleum industry

      2021, Journal of Cleaner Production
      Citation Excerpt :

      While sustaining financial position has been a great challenge to the oil and gas industry players (Mitchell et al., 2015), tightening regulations requiring disclosure of non-financial performance encompassing environmental and social compliances has created another stream of challenges to the oil and gas industry (Klevnäs et al., 2015; Nasiritousi and Bäckstrand, 2019). External factors have given tremendous pressure on oil and gas industry players to sustain their annual performance (Abreu et al., 2017, 2021). The quest has become an even greater challenge when this industry has to attain a sustainable business performance to ensure long-term sustainability and also to pay back to the shareholders (Abreu et al., 2021).

    • From “business as usual” to tackling climate change: Exploring factors affecting low-carbon decision-making in the canadian oil and gas sector

      2021, Energy Policy
      Citation Excerpt :

      Cadez et al. (2019) suggest that more significant regulatory uncertainty could have a positive effect on corporate environmental strategies and GHG reduction strategies. Under conditions of uncertainty, firms may not postpone environmental investments until policy-makers reduce environmental uncertainties but rather take early and preventive actions on their own initiative (Abreu et al., 2017). Taking a different perspective than Cadez et al. (2019) and Abreu et al. (2017), regulatory uncertainty and sub-optimal policy decision-making capability could reduce the willingness of market actors (e.g., investors) to finance GHG emission reduction responses.

    • Motivating low-carbon initiatives among suppliers: The role of risk and opportunity perception

      2018, Resources, Conservation and Recycling
      Citation Excerpt :

      Empirical results of recent studies on the relationship between organizational perception of risks and opportunities and action on climate change are relatively ambiguous. Abreu et al. (2017) highlight that companies in the energy sector tend to be more proactive in implementing GHG reduction strategies the greater the level of perceived risks is. Chen and Montes-Sancho (2017) show that the effect of perceived threats on a company’s decision to implement carbon abatement activities depends on the scope of risks.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text