The key features of questionnaires are standardized questions and comparability (Axinn and Pearce 2006, 4), and therefore it was important to ensure comparability is possible and hypotheses can be drawn by focusing on the wording of the questions to ensure consistency.
The questionnaire was kept short to keep it in an easy-to-read format and ensure that enough responses were received for the analysis. Fowler (2009, 87) determined that good questions on questionnaires and surveys can answer two criteria: questions are reliable, meaning that they provide consistent measures in comparable situations, and they are valid, meaning that answers correspond to what they are intended to measure. To ensure the validity of the questionnaire, four measures were undertaken. Bourke, Kirby, and Doran (2016, 34-36) introduce these measures as content validity, face validity (appearance and layout of the questionnaire), criterion validity (effectiveness), and construct validity (questions constructed in a way that they reflect relationship). Regarding the reliability of the questionnaire, questionnaire testing should be used to ensure a reliable and valid instrument.
Validity was ensured by ensuring that the questions are measuring what they are supposed to, they represent the content of the research questions and questionnaire, and that they gather needed information for the research before publishing the questionnaire. The research objectives and questionnaire questions were discussed with the supervising teacher and contact person from Imatra, to ensure the finalized questions serve the research purpose. Additionally, the questionnaire was pre-tested with two companies before publishing it; this ensured the reliability of the questionnaire and ensured that the questions are transparent and easily understood by all.
38 4.4 Evaluating the analysis: questionnaire
The questionnaire was organized according to three categories: information of the company, companies’ current climate action, and companies’ views on collaborative climate action.
Therefore, it was natural to utilize the same categories for formalizing the themes of the analysis.
In most of the cases, the coded variables were easy to present in figure formats in case of closed-ended questions. Additionally, including or excluding the “I don’t know/cannot say” option allowed to determine in the coding phase if the option should be left in the analysis, e.g., in cases where it could indicate issues on the question. The first category did not cause challenges, but issues arose when it was time to utilize companies’ views to data format.
Some questions, even though presentable in figures, stayed in a difficult form to present, therefore causing issues determining should they be analyzed only in the written format or presented in figures. A decision was made that all presentable figures are included in the analysis; even though they do require further explanation, these figures still provide an overview of the topic. The open-ended questions in the questionnaire had to be utilized differently from closed-ended ones. Here, new themes were used according to the responses, and these were presented in tables. Bryman (2015, 584) defined themes as categories that are identified by the researcher through their data, providing the basis for a theoretical understanding that can furthermore make a theoretical contribution to the literature. Themes are mostly delivered from transcripts of field notes, but thematic analysis served its purpose in this case.
The most difficult task remained in organizing the data. Even though the questions were kept in a small number, open-ended questions required analyzing time to reflect how they serve the research questions in addition to the practical part of the research, the case study. The companies motives, attitudes, and values toward collaborative climate action varied. Direct quotations from the open questions allowed more in-depth information on the companies’ views, often clearly stating their interest in collaboration. Municipality analysis was applied to serve the aim of the thesis, to build a better understanding of cross-sector collaboration in climate-related issues.
Even though some of the results from the questionnaire can be generalized, the questionnaire cannot be seen extensive enough to enable a deeper level of analysis of companies' motives.
However, results can be seen as supporting material for further research, and therefore the questionnaire supports a wider literature review on cross-sector collaboration.
39
5 PUBLIC-PRIVATE CLIMATE ACTION IN CASE IMATRA
In this chapter, the 38 responses received from the questionnaire will be analyzed and a conclusion will be drawn. The aim is to discuss how companies’ current climate plans and actions, in addition to their views on collaborative climate action should be considered when planning public-private collaboration and partnerships. After the analysis, few limitations concerning the questionnaire are noted before moving into the discussion part of the analysis.
5.1 Data analysis and findings of the questionnaire
5.1.1 Profiles of the respondents
The questionnaire collected a total of 38 responses during the 10 days and all respondents agreed that their responses can be used in the research. The questionnaire had been opened a total of 105 times and the questionnaire had been started 66 times. The results indicate that 57% of those who had started the questionnaire, also finished it. Those who did not finish the questionnaire could have many differing reasons for this, such as sudden lack of time, low interest in the topic, or irrelevant or difficult questions concerning their operations. Due to the anonymity of the questionnaire, there was no option to save those answers that had already been started, therefore these responses were lost. When comparing the responses to the initial number of companies that the questionnaire was sent to (445), the total response rate was 8.5%.
The first part of the survey included questions about the company’s size and industry. From the respondents, there was a relatively good variety between the sizes of the companies; 29 percent of the companies were one-person companies, 45 percent had personnel from 2 to 9 people, 18 percent employed people between 10-49, and 8 percent employed between 50-249 people.
According to Yrittäjät (2021), these are all considered small or medium-sized companies in Finland. Receiving responses from all the size classes that were determined in the survey ensures that different views are more easily noted when analyzing the results as company size can have an impact on how climate action is viewed in the company or how the companies see their responsibility or possibilities in climate mitigation and adaptation.
40
Figure 4: The division of respondents between industry by percentage.
Additionally, there was a good variety of industries within the companies, as shown in Figure 4. Variety of responses ensures that different aspects of companies’ activities are noted, e.g., companies renting their office space might not have as many options with carbon neutrality as those companies owning their spaces. The majority of responses were received from companies in wholesale and retail and other service activities. Furthermore, from the viewpoint of the researcher, it was good to notice that even though some answers were received from energy and waste management fields, the survey managed to also reach companies that are not as clearly involved in climate change issues. This was one of the main aims of the case study, to reach those who might have an interest in collaboration but might not be first in mind when planning public-private collaboration. In addition to the industries stated in the figure above, the following industries did not receive any responses in the questionnaire: repair of motor vehicles and wheels, finance and insurance, and administration and support services.
5.1.2 Companies’ current climate actions and plans
To help determine companies’ motivation, views, and values on collaborative climate action, companies’ current actions on climate change were first ascertained. It was also studied if companies have any environmental plans and if these plans include areas of climate action and carbon neutrality. These responses will provide valuable information about whether companies
Agriculture, forestry and fisheries (3%)
41
have been interested in climate action beforehand and what actions they have already taken in planning and implementing climate actions.
Figure 5: The percentage of companies that consider the environmental impacts in their actions in areas of waste, transportation and movement, and procurement.
The respondents were asked to select the areas in which the company currently is striving to consider the environment and were given the option to discuss more these functions. As shown in Figure 5, all companies are considering at least one of the functions' impacts when planning their operations. 89 percent of the companies consider the environmental impacts of waste that they are producing, mainly by recycling and sorting it. Some companies aim to reduce the amount of waste they produce. Responses were also given on producer responsibility, carbon neutrality and compensation, and waste monitoring.
Both transportation and procurement received 58 percent of the votes. Within the transportation and movement categories, different ways for companies to consider the environmental impact are: implementing the travel itinerary logically e.g. by planning the driving route; being partly electric or having plans for electric cars; having requirements for centralized functions on vehicles; including travel on carbon footprint calculations; reducing the visits by using other means (e.g. dimensions from the photo); making short trips on foot or by bike if possible;
supporting modern transport equipment; and offering electric bicycles for the employees. In procurement, companies’ current actions focused on supporting sustainable consumption and environmentally friendly products, e.g., through organic, eco, and local production. Examples
0 20 40 60 80 100
None above / cannot say Other Procurement / purchases Transportation and
movement Waste
42
were also given on making some of the sales bottles from collected marine plastics and using natural raw materials. Furthermore, standards and long-lasting products and equipment were mentioned, alongside investing in climate-friendly vehicles and replacing the oil boiler with an air or water heat pump in the future.
Additionally, seven responses were given on the “other” section of the question. These actions included energy production, efficiency and saving, sustainable forestry, geothermal heat, and own product design, manufacturing, and packaging alongside considering supply chain and life cycle in these operations. These results show that companies are invested in supportive environmental and climate actions but bring challenges in determining the level of commitment and how the interest to effect e.g., on energy reduction decision can be made in smaller businesses or businesses that are not specialized in a field relevant to energy or sustainability.
Figure 6: The percentage of companies who have environmental strategies in place.
As shown in Figure 6, almost half of the respondents do have environmental or climate strategies in place. In this research, strategy refers to any plans, systems, calculations, etc. that the company has which are used to reduce the company’s environmental impact and climate emissions. Results indicate that most likely over one-third of the companies would additionally need some type of support in the planning and implementation of companies’ objectives in relevance to climate change, especially companies with personnel under 10 people. Two respondents from one-person companies in the service sector chose the option “cannot say”, which can indicate their lack of knowledge of what environmental strategy would mean in their
0 10 20 30 40 50
Cannot say Company does not have a strategy Company has plans to implement a strategy Company has some kind of strategy in place
1 2-9 10-49 50-249 Size of the company
43
operations. On average, the bigger the company, the more likely it will have some type of strategy in place; however, a difference can be seen between one-person companies and companies employing people between 2-9. With one-person companies, 46 percent of respondents already have some kind of strategy in place, but this number is only 23 percent with companies sized 2-9. Strategies could be easier to implement when operations are smaller, and this way one-person companies can determine their impacts more easily compared to larger companies who most likely have to consider larger areas of production and services.
A total of 18 responses were received on the open question on what kind of climate goals does the company's possible environmental strategy include. The question included sub-questions on the company's potential environmental strategy, more specifically does it include climate goals such as carbon neutrality, and are these targets measurable, e.g., through a carbon footprint. This question was used to determine companies’ plans for climate change and climate actions. From the 18 respondents, only two are currently calculating the company’s carbon footprint and one stated that they are underway on planning the calculations for the carbon footprint of their operations. One of these currently calculating companies informed about their positive carbon footprints, which are due to the forest growth. Six respondents do not have measurable climate targets within their operations, but these two respondents stated that: (a) the procurement is largely driven by the availability, and (b) there are plans for solar power on the hall roof as well as gas and/or electric cars. A total of 12 companies agreed on having climate targets in their strategy.
Common themes within the categories of energy, procurement, waste, and transportation and movement, were found from the two open questions which investigated the actions companies take to consider the environmental impact of their actions, and what aspects are currently included in the possible environmental strategy. In Table 3 below, these actions are further categorized into sub-themes. In this case, companies’ responses focused a lot on energy and waste, where most diversity could be seen within the sub-themes. The highest number of practical examples were given on categories of energy, and transportation and movement.
Recycling and waste minimization were often mentioned concerning waste but otherwise, only a few respondents mentioned other actions that they consider. For those companies without environmental strategies and those who had only a few mentions for current climate actions:
44
most likely, there are many more options for the companies to consider the environment in their practices, but uncertainties on what climate actions they could implement in their operations and what they should include in relevance to climate policies might weaken the motivation. Small and medium-sized companies have different requirements and expectations to act sustainably than large companies, but similarly, they could implement actions and policies to enhance sustainability and carbon neutrality within the operations to furthermore improve their actions and image.
Table 3: Collected themes from the actions that companies take for energy reduction and sustainability, derived from the open-question responses.
Theme Sub-theme Initial codes
Energy Energy reduction Energy efficiency Carbon neutrality
Heating system (e.g. natural gas, from an oil boiler to air/water heat pump)
Production Making new products from recycled materials
Policies Compensation
Producer responsibility Transportation and
movement
Driving Traffic conversion from fossil to electricity Gas hybrid and electric hybrid cars
Minimizing driving
Modern transport equipment Other options Cycling or walking
Company’s electric bicycles
45
5.1.3 Motivation, views, and obstacles on climate action and collaboration
‘Invisible and inefficient operation’
‘Positive, hopeful thoughts’
‘I wonder if there is too much unnecessary discussion and committees…’
Companies respond to the survey question on what thoughts the climate collaboration with the city and other local actors raise.
In the questionnaire, the motivation of the companies was first determined by having one closed and one open-ended question on reasons that could motivate the company to develop its practices to be more environmentally friendly. From there, questions followed on how companies rate the different actors based on their importance when planning and implementing collaboration, before providing different claims on collaborative climate action that the respondents needed to rate. Received answers provided a good variety of opinions, clearly showing both the opportunities and the challenges that collaboration can face. However, it should be noted that some limitations can be recognized in how the actors view collaboration compared to how the researcher and the city view it, see sub-chapter 5.2 for more.
Figure 7: How important respondents rate different aspects as motivators to develop or not to develop their practices for more environmentally friendly.
Pressure from other companies Support from other organisations Answer to current requirements Pressure from partners or clients Help the local community Predict future requirements Act as an example Right thing to do Save money Develop the company's image Protect the environment
Really important Quite important Not important Cannot say
46
Companies were asked to rate how important they see different motivating aspects when discussing the motivators to develop the practices more environmental-friendly. Results show (Figure 7) that protecting the environment was seen as the most important motivator. The possibility of sustainable and low-carbon practices to enhance the company’s image or harm the image if practices are not adopted was seen as additionally important. From there, other important motivators included the costs and the knowing of “doing the right thing” and acting as an example. At the low end of Figure 7 are those actions that respondents rate lower as motivators to develop or not to develop their practices for more environmentally friendly. Many companies find predicting the future requirements ‘really important’ and ‘quite important’;
however, answering to the current requirements are seen mostly ‘not important’. This could either indicate the lack of current requirements for small and medium-sized companies, or a lack of knowledge on what is expected from companies and what their responsibilities are in climate action. Pressure from the partners and clients was seen as more important than pressure from other companies. Additionally, a personal goal was mentioned in the open option and this can be seen about doing the right thing and putting the own personal values into the company practices.
Based on the differences in responses when including the size of the companies in the analysis, some minor conclusions can be drawn. The support from other organizations was valued the most within companies under 10 personnel. These small-sized companies most likely will need the support as the company development relies more on other organizations especially when compared to larger companies that may have better options to employ a person for environmental and climate change matters for the company. Companies with a staff between 50-249 felt most strongly about the image, acting as an example, and helping the local community than smaller companies. It can be argued that these companies have the stronger need to have a good image on environmental issues as they are required to be more transparent within their practices due to regulatory reasons. The companies that employ between 10-49 people also felt stronger about the image than smaller companies; furthermore, they had the strongest view on the cost with over 70 percent seeing it as a really important aspect in motivation.
47
In the open question on ‘what reasons do you think can influence the decision to develop or not develop climate action in a company?’, 23 responses were received. From these responses, similarities could be found between respondents; 39 percent of the respondents mentioned costs and economic reasons, 22 percent lack of knowledge, and 17 percent the company image. These
In the open question on ‘what reasons do you think can influence the decision to develop or not develop climate action in a company?’, 23 responses were received. From these responses, similarities could be found between respondents; 39 percent of the respondents mentioned costs and economic reasons, 22 percent lack of knowledge, and 17 percent the company image. These