Corporate sustainability confronts organizations with interdependent economic, social, and environmental concerns (Elkington 1998). While these three dimensions must be considered together in order to contribute to sustainable development (Gladwin et al. 1995), firms tend to discriminate against social and environmental concerns in favor of financial returns (McWilliams and Siegel 2000). Seeking to overcome this dilemma, scholars increasingly draw from paradox theory that considers organizations inherently conflictual sites and emphasizes that tensions, if properly harnessed, “can be powerful to enable peak performance” (Smith and Lewis 2011, p. 395). Applied to corporate sustainability, scholars argue that instead of ignoring tensions between economic, social, and environmental dimensions, firms should accept and embrace often contradictory demands simultaneously (Berger et al. 2007; Gao and Bansal 2013; Hahn et al. 2014, 2017). By foregoing temptation to ignore sustainability tensions, managers can confront complexity directly, thereby potentially transcending the otherwise stifling trichotomy of economic, social, and environmental dimensions (Hahn et al. 2015). This is commonly referred to as a “paradox approach” or “integrative view” on corporate sustainability (for overview see Van der Byl and Slawinski 2015).I know some fear that the environmental issues threaten the whole future of the industry, […] such fear can be paralysing and ultimately will be self-defeating because nothing will threaten the future of the industry more than ignoring realityJohn Browne (1998c), former CEO of BP, speech at the World Energy Congress, Houston (TX)
Organizational Paradox and Corporate Sustainability
Organizational Mythmaking
Context
Data and Analytic Strategy
Audience | Speech | Count | Text | Count |
---|---|---|---|---|
Oil and gas industry | Industry conferences and events (e.g., Oil and Money Conference; Voser 2010b) | 61 | Specialist industry press (e.g., Hayward in The Oil Daily 2009) | 2 |
Policy and government | Think tanks and research centers (e.g., Brookings Institute; Browne 2005a) Government event (e.g., The Communist Party of China; Voser 2012c) | 25 | ||
Business | Business events and leadership fora (e.g., Hayward at Business Leaders’ Summit; in Fildes 2007) | 24 | Business press (e.g., Interview with Wall Street Journal; Hayward in Chazan 2009) Contributions in business press (e.g., article written for FT; Browne 2002c) | 24 |
University | Business school (e.g., London Business School; Hayward 2010a) University center or initiative (e.g., Oxford Energy Seminar, Oxford University; Dudley 2013c) | 15 | ||
General stakeholder | CEO letter in sustainability report (e.g., van der Veer 2008a) | 51 | ||
Public | Media contributions and interviews in general press (e.g., Interview with Telegraph; de Margerie in Mason 2010) | 26 | ||
Total | 125 | 103 |
Findings
Myth | Defense | Function | Illustrative quotes |
---|---|---|---|
Techno-fix | Regression | Disregard tensions | “I believe behavior and technology can do that for us, and we need to be in a position of demonstrating that there are answers to this tradeoff which make it possible for people to have a good lifestyle without damaging the environment.” (Browne in Minnesota Public Radio 2002) “In 100 years, there should be more renewables. Is it good? If we can make progress. One of the concerns is a cost. Today we all know the most economical fuel is oil” (de Margerie in Mason 2010) |
Promethean oil man | Fantasy | Divert tensions | “We are responding to the challenge of sustainable development and to the expectations and needs of people. Sustainable solutions support sustainable businesses, and I’m convinced that’s good for the economic, environmental and social progress of our planet-and for us” (van der Veer 1999) “Behind these big numbers you find a story of human progress. Reliable and affordable sources of energy can help to improve many things, from living standards to life expectancy” (Dudley 2012a) |
Climate partnership | Projecting | Displace tensions | “Governments specify their energy mix through royalties, taxation levels and permitting requirements. […] Once the government decides, our responsibility is to be one of the lowest CO2 operators for this source of energy” (van der Veer 2006b) “By working in partnership with resource-rich countries we aim to create wealth for them too by providing the energy for the basic things of life, such as heat, light and mobility. I believe that is a noble cause.” (Hayward 2007a) |
The Techno-Fix Myth
Defense Mechanism 1: Regression
Promethean Oil Man Myth
The emptiness in the term “energy” in this case symbolically transcends the trade-off between living standards and environmental protection. In other words, as Browne (2004a) notes, unavoidable trade-offs are displaced by the principal task of securing “energy.” What exactly “energy” constitutes is somewhat irrelevant; what is important is only that it is secured. Another commonly used ideograph is “responsibility,” often employed in reference to a higher purpose, as illustrated in Thierry Desmarest’s (2002) CEO letter: “Corporate spirit and a sense of responsibility are closely linked.” Interestingly, the promethean oil man myth is especially prevalent in the CEO’s letter in sustainability reports (see Fig. 1), which may allude to the particularly emotional rhetorical appeal (pathos) in sustainability reports as compared to traditional annual reports (e.g., Castelló and Lozano 2011).Can we transcend what appears to be a harsh and unacceptable tradeoff between the goal of improving living standards – and on the other hand the equally imperative goal of protecting the natural environment which sustains human life? Energy is at the heart of that tradeoff.
Defense Mechanism 2: Fantasy
This implicitly pits “dashing the hopes of the billion and a half people” against preserving the natural environment, making it seem somehow unethical to discredit the industry. The Promethean oil man myth thus operates on the fantasy of supermajors as poverty eradicators, deflecting attention from the issue at hand: climate change.Global energy demand is going to remain strong, because developing countries lag far behind industrialized nations. How can you justify dashing the hopes of the billion and a half people in the world who don’t have electricity, or crushing the aspirations of people who want to own a car in China or India, where there’s only one car per 50 or 100 inhabitants, compared with one for every two people in the West?
Climate Partnerships Myth
Governments are therefore imagined as necessary to the commercial viability of investing in a low-carbon future, which usually takes the forms of either providing subsidies for energy efficient technology investments, or developing carbon trading platforms such as the EU emissions trading system (EU-ETS). In a speech to the Singapore Energy Summit, Voser (2011b) asserted: “Government has an important role in setting the rules, in spurring investment in new technologies that may not see a payoff for many years. Rather than choose winners and losers, government should set the end goals, then provide appropriate incentives that let the market determine the most effective solutions.” This shifts the onus of responsibility from the supermajors to governments; after all, as Shell’s van der Veer commented in a Guardian interview, “Governments need business to help […] but it is not Shell who can solve the CO2 problem in the world” (in Macalister 2007).We need partnerships that marry the commercial expertise of the private sector. We need partnerships that remain impartial, and that don’t fall under the influence of one interest group. And we need partnerships that make a tangible impact on the policymaking process
Defense Mechanism 3: Projecting
Discursive Effects of Avoiding Tension Through Mythmaking
In this instance, during a speech at the Brookings Institution, BP’s John Browne refers to the climate “challenge” as similar to a situation that Churchill, at the time serving as First Lord of the British Admiralty, faced when he proposed that the British naval fleet switch from domestic coal to BP’s oil. This draws attention not to innovative practices that could combat climate change, but to past successes and similar challenges faced by patriarchal, historical figures.That’s the challenge. So what are we doing? First, we’re investing in the next generation of oil and gas resources around the world. Winston Churchill once said that security in oil came from a diversity of supply. That was right in 1915—when, incidentally, he was a shareholder in BP on behalf of the government, some 50 percent—and it is right right now (Browne 2005a)