Climate change engagement as the ‘right thing to do’

The rational discourse maintains that businesses should engage with climate change for strategic reasons: for one, climate change causes drastic changes in the operational environment and secondly, climate change activities are profitable, win-win opportunities. The rational discourse dominates in the workshop and interview data as well as in the society at large. However, this discourse was complemented and questioned, and even criticised, by a discourse emphasising other than monetary and scientific facts and values. I have named this discourse as the moral discourse. The moral discourse was constructed in the interview data while the workshop data mostly relied on the rational constructions. The moral discourse is presented through three themes: climate change engagement as the ‘right thing to do’, climate change engagement and personal values, and critique of the market economy.

108

The first theme of the moral discourse, ‘climate change engagement as the ‘right thing to do’’, presents climate change engagement as necessary and important in business organisations. Climate change is constructed as a major societal issue that businesses organisations need to be informed about and activele engaged with.

This construction presents that business organisations taking responsibility for climate change action are respectable and have a good morale.

[…] we definitely strive to be such a respectable business that takes into account a number of issues, like that. (I3)

[…] me ehdottomasti pyritään olemaan semmonen kunnollinen yritys, joka ottaa huomioon paljon asioita, niin. (I3)

I won’t say environmental demands, because our stakeholders for instance have not demanded it very actively, so that is not like the main reason it has not been demanded of us. But like… we just see that it is the kind of an issue that we now need to be aware of. (I8)

Mä en sano ympäristöpaineet, koska meidän niiku esimerkiksi sidosryhmät ei oo vaatinu sitä kovinkaan aktiivisesti, et se ei oo niiku se pääsyy, et ulkopuolelta olis vaadittu. Mut et semmonen niikun… et koetaan, et kyl se vaan on semmonen asia mistä nyt pitää olla tietoinen. (I8)

The quotes illustrate how climate change engagement is regarded as something of intrinsic value, as something that requires no other, in particular instrumental, reasons for engagement. The latter quote contrasts someone demanding the company to protect the environment with the company’s willingness to do so, thus emphasising the internal origin of the aim to do right.

In this construction, responsibility of businesses is constructed in relation to what the society expects of business organisations, or of what is perceived as the society’s expectation. The aim of climate change engagement is to fulfil the (perceived) societal expectations, to act the way a respectable and responsible business does. In the end, this rather vague construction leaves it up to the business professionals to define what a respectable and responsible organisation considers or does, as there are no set guidelines – only what is perceived as expected behaviour.

This theme emphasises ‘taking climate change into account’ and ‘awareness’ as something that a responsible organisation does. Again, this vague construction gives business professionals ample room to consider the extent of the activities they wish to engage with. The morale of a business organisation is here not judged

109

by the scope of the activities but on whether the organisation is willing to engage with climate change to begin with.

The moral discourse brings forward a willingness to engage with climate change for intrinsic reasons even when there is no certainty that the activities have any effect at all. This is in apparent contrast to the rational discourse emphasising climate change engagement in terms of activities because climate change engagement is obligatory (threat) and profitable (win-win). In the rational discourse, rational activities are viewed as straightforward and efficient. The following quote illustrates how the moral discourse constructs willingness to engage as the most important thing and as the obligation of business:

So in that way, even if we hit zero [emissions], unfortunately that would not save Finland, but I think that perhaps the most important thing is to be involved in the national aims for cutting down emissions and in that way, how should I put it… to do one’s bit there, to do one’s share, whether it is big or small and in our case it is probably something in between. (I8)

Et sillä tavalla, vaikka me päästäis nollaan, niin se ei valitettavasti niiku Suomee pelastais, mutta että mun mielestä se on ehkä tärkeintä olla mukana just niissä niiku kansallisissa päästövähennystavoitteissa ja sillä tavalla, niikun miten mä nyt sanoisin… kantaa oma korsi kekoon siinä kohtaa, että hoitaa sen oman osuutensa, oli se sit iso tai pieni ja meillä se on varmaan niiku siltä väliltä. (I8)

This construction utilises ethical or moral reasons for climate change engagement, such as deontological ethics. Deontology is an ethical position that emphasises the obligation to act in a moral way (Micewski & Troy, 2007). The consequences of action are not in focus here, rather this construction emphasises taking action because it is ‘the right thing to do’. Being a responsible organisation is here constructed as an obligation of businesses: businesses have an obligation to take certain roles and responsibilities, to fulfil certain duties in the society.

While the rational discourse utilised the change discourse focusing on threat and opportunity to present reasons for climate change engagement, the moral discourse constructs responsibility as a reason for climate change activities. All in all, this theme highlights the intrinsic value of climate change engagement and climate change activities are discussed in a positive way (see also Onkila, 2009).

Responsibility as a ‘reason’ for sustainability activities has also been discussed by Laine (2005) who noted that companies construct contributing to sustainable development as a responsible action, as something that companies ought to do.

Tregidga et al. (2013) have remarked that the obligation to engage with

110

sustainability issues is driven by moral and ethical rationale, even though these references to moral and ethical reasons are less dominant than statements referring to economic rationale.

Tregidga et al. (2013) have discussed how sustainable development is constructed as necessary and important in business organisations. The authors present that this construction is based on rationalism: sustainable development is constructed as necessary and important to sustain the organisation, its continued operations, and its reputation. Necessity is emphasised in particular by presenting organisations as dependent on the natural environment and because sustainability is demanded by the society. These findings are partly confirmed in my study as the rational discourse in particular places significant importance on continued business success. The dependence on natural resources is also acknowledged in the rational discourse as climate change engagement is presented as necessary because natural resources, i.e. energy, will become more scarce and expensive in the future. This brings another dimension to what Tregidga et al. (2013) have discussed as they presented that organisations are dependent on the natural environment and therefore must sustain the environment in order to survive. Sustaining of the environment in order to survive is not brought up in the rational discourse, even though the dependence on natural resources is to some extent acknowledged.

The moral discourse adds another dimension to constructing climate change engagement as important: climate protection is constructed as important because it has intrinsic value. Next, this is further elaborated by explicating the theme ‘climate change engagement and personal values’.