Conditions for climate change engagement

The limits of the rational discourse

The discourses determine and restrict how climate change engagement is perceived creating conditions for climate change engagement. These conditions identify the consequences of the discourses and their functions, i.e. the discursively constructed

‘limits’ for climate change engagement in business organisations.

The findings show that the traditional business language and the rational discourse dominate the climate change engagement discourses. The rational discourse maintains traditional business values and vocabulary, focusing on such issues as efficiency, profitability and objectivity. The question remains, to what extent this vocabulary submits to the notions required by climate change engagement.

According to the findings of this study, the rational discourse dominates especially in social situations where different actors meet to discuss a new issue with the intention of ‘making business out of it’. The traditional business language seems to be an appropriate choice in order to present oneself as a credible actor, with objective, acceptable information. This is not surprising and has been

134

previously noted by Springett (2003) and Onkila (2009), among others. The economised, business language of costs and effectiveness dominates society, providing a familiar lexicon to discuss climate change engagement and to motivate others to engage with it, as well.

The paradox of ‘what is possible within the rational discourse’ is apparent in the win-win construction. The win-win construction focuses on the ‘double goal’ of climate change engagement, suggesting that profitability and climate change mitigation can be achieved simultaneously. Thus, the tension between profitability and responsibility is reconciled in the win-win construction. However, the win-win construction maintains the primacy of profitability and other traditional business aims: climate change engagement is possible and appropriate in-so-far as it does not contradict these aims. This leads to the question of whether and when climate change mitigation requires more than mere energy efficiency, as proposed by the win-win view.

In addition, the focus on environmental aspects and activities maintains the traditional categorisation and separation of business, nature and society. It is quite natural to use this language to discuss climate change, because environmental issues have already been paid attention to for decades in Finland. Czarniawska (2008, p. 33) has discussed how the production of meaning is always retroactive:

“making sense of future events is a projection of past interpretative templates onto the future, with a hope that they will hold”. In addition, the public discussions in Finland focus more on the environmental aspects and impacts of climate change–

as those have so far been evident in Finland. Previous research has presented that companies adjust their language based on what is required by society at any given time (Tregidga, 2007); thus, as national and international institutions currently focus on energy efficiency and mitigation (IEA, 2012; IPCC, 2007), business organisations also adapt this language. In turn, as powerful actors in society, business organisations have the resources and credibilities to affect societal discussions. Yet, the current focus on energy efficiency seems to be in the interests of both business organisations and governments.

The challenge is to create and to enable the development of new ideas and concepts by using a traditional vocabulary. Specifically, the challenge is using this language and the traditional categorisations to discuss climate change engagement, for climate change inseparably intertwines business, the natural environment, and society. Hence, engaging with climate change might require new conceptions and the breaking away from existing categories.

135

One such conception is related to change. Climate change predictions suggest that radical changes in our conceptions of business and the workings of society are required in order to mitigate climate change and, more importantly, to transfer to a low-carbon society (Wright et al., 2013). This is a major challenge for the rational discourse maintaining that climate change can be mitigated by improving energy efficiency, i.e. by primarily focusing on incremental changes to business practices and conceptions. It is potentially concerning that doing one’s best in terms of energy efficiency creates an image of making a change and a contribution, while it may distract attention from required systemic changes.

The rational discourse places radical change as ‘outside’ of business, presenting it as something based on hard-core environmentalism and thus as disconnected to business aims. Radical change, or not surviving, is not a part of traditional ‘success’

business language, because radical change would imply that there is something that the business cannot control. Managing, on the other hand, is a part of traditional business language and thus a key concern of the rational discourse. Creating and maintaining a distinction between radical changes and business operations are potentially concerning: how can we achieve what is required if it is not talked about or even presented as ‘impossible’?

A language of climate change engagement should enable the consideration and understanding of the complexities of climate change and the required radical and systemic changes. This would allow business organisations and other actors in society to move towards a low-carbon society. As long as companies and society are not prepared to make radical and systemic changes and do not acknowledge them, they remain vulnerable and ill-equipped to face the radical, abrupt changes that are predicted to come as a result of climatic changes. In order to manage climate change, these things should be taken into consideration and prepared for:

one condition for preparation is acknowledging them in language use and looking for new vocabularies that allow the exploration and understanding of the upcoming changes.

(Over)simplifying climate change engagement

While the rational discourse constructs a manageable view of climate change and thus promotes climate change action, this view potentially oversimplifies climate change engagement. The economic–technical aspect put forward by the rational discourse is only one dimension of climate change: in addition, there are the

136

ethical, value, and philosophical dimensions that do not subject themselves to economic terms (Hulme, 2009).

The rational construction of climate change and climate change engagement in monetary and scientific terms silences or ignores the non-scientific dimensions of climate change. Latour (2004) has argued that scientific and monetary facts dominate discussions that should be framed in ethical terms, resulting in non-scientific facts being brushed aside as ‘mere’ values. This construction dominates the rational constitution of climate change engagement, as discussed in the

‘objective and factual information’ theme of the rational discourse where acceptable and ‘true’ information is constructed in contrast to beliefs and myths as distorted information. Acceptable information is defined as information that is based on facts and can be measured or otherwise verified.

In the rational discourse, climate change engagement and environmental issues are constructed as objective. This construction suggests that there is a truth that can be obtained by rigorous processes. Onkila (2009) identified that environmental management has been perceived as a subjective and controversial issue and that a common basis for acceptability is acknowledged as something that might not be defined. This did not show in the discourses; rather, energy efficiency is perceived as something through which a common basis for acceptability can be defined. This is potentially alarming, for it may lead to ‘tunnel vision’: the search for the one best way may result in overlooking alternative possibilities that could be utilised alongside other approaches. On the other hand, opening the issue for different interpretations might open a Pandora’s Box of uncertainty and questions that might never be answered.

Latour (2004) has noted that the scientific construction of information could be completed with intuitive information provided by non-experts especially before scientific information is released. This, however, is acknowledged in the rational discourse, where experience-based information is constructed as acceptable and reliable information.

Thus, in order to account for the complex and multi-dimensional nature of climate change and for its impacts on individuals, business organisations, and societies should engage in discussions that consider multiple aspects of climate change engagement. The findings of this study present one way of doing so.

137 The limits of the moral discourse

While the moral discourse complements the rational discourse and brings forth some aspects that the rational discourse does not acknowledge, certain limitations concerning the moral discourse can also be identified.

The moral discourse recognises and presents a critique to the market economy, yet this theme was mostly a marginal one in the climate change engagement discourse. The theme ‘critique to the market economy’ presents that traditional economic values such as profit maximisations are unsustainable goals from society’s point of view. In addition, discontent with the current system was brought up. However, the dilemma of ever increasing consumption versus sustainability aims is largely missing in this theme and the moral discourse. The omission of this issue has been identified as a general tendency in organisational environmental discourse (Kallio, 2004) and this legacy seems to be still maintained.

The overall ability of business to produce solutions to is not forcibly questioned, nor is the more controversial view that business can provide solutions by increasing business activity. It is rather interesting that the moral discourse does not question the view presenting businesses as change agents. The rational

‘businesses as change agents’ theme underlines that business organisations have the ability to effectively engage with climate change. Thus, while the moral discourse questions some aspects of the rational discourse, it seems not to provide an alternative to the more fundamental questions and issues that become constructed in the rational discourse.

Providing an alternative is by no means an easy task. The challenge for the moral, or any other discourse, is how to question the dominant paradigm without altogether rejecting it and thus, potentially, debarring itself from the discussions. In other words, should the moral discourse reject the profit oriented business aims, it might not have a standing in the business world any more. One possibility to overcome this dilemma would be the creation new language, vocabulary and discourse that surpasses the separation of business and ethics, i.e. the separation fallacy (Freeman, 1994; Harris & Freeman, 2008). Pragmatism (Wicks & Freeman, 1998; Freeman et al., 2010, pp. 70–79) has been presented to provide a way to consider the moral dimensions of organising. Innate to pragmatism is a desire to serve human purposes and to search for novel and innovative approaches and alternative and more liberating vocabularies (Wicks & Freeman, 1998). Thus, the pragmatist alternative would be useful when the aim is to understand and

138

conceptualise organisations and organising as having a moral dimension and to create a language that would allow such considerations. In addition, the researchers engaging with such projects are required to stay sensitive to identifying taken-for-granted conceptions and reflect carefully on their assumptions and the research process.

Consequences for sustainability and climate change

The rational discourse sets boundaries for climate change engagement in financial terms. However, climate change and sustainability discussions are concerned with the carrying capacity of the Earth, i.e. the limits of the environment. The rational discourse maintains that the main prerequisites for climate change engagement are economic focus and safeguarding profitability and those cannot be compromised.

Consequently, this implies that other aspects can be compromised when juxtaposed with business aims. This is potentially concerning from the sustainability and climate protection points of view.

Springett (2003) has noted that the discourse of sustainable development is potentially contradictory and that the actors engaging with the issue are struggling to make sense of the contradictions. She has discussed that they are likely “unable to break free from the primacy of business goals” (Springett, 2003, p. 82).

Therefore, the intention of business professionals might not have been to choose

‘weak’ sustainability over ‘strong’ sustainability. As Springett has further noted,

“The lack of clarity about the core themes of the concept has resulted in a reliance on ‘management’ concepts and language… unwittingly or not” (2003, p. 82).

Clearly, the limits of the natural environment are not fully accounted for in the rational discourse. They are discussed as a motivation for engaging with climate change and thus acknowledged in the discourse as a starting point, i.e. ‘why this is important’. However, when discussing climate change engagement activities, the limits of the natural environment, or the needs of the society, are not reflected upon, rather the activities are evaluated based on how attractive they are as business opportunities.

Thus, the discourse posits that business activity and on a more general level, economic growth are not only compatible with but required for climate change mitigation. It is interesting that the link between progress, growth and climate change is presented in a positive light. Likewise, it is interesting that business activity is not generally questioned, despite the acknowledgement that business organisations have been a contributing part of climate change. This is not

139

surprising in a techno-centric country such as Finland. However, in the moral discourse, this construction was identified as potentially concerning. My concern is that this suppresses the discussion of the negative impacts of economic growth, or the incompatibility of economic growth and climate change mitigation.