Evaluating the climate SWOT as a tool for defining climate strategies for business

Pesonen, Hanna-Leena; Horn, Susanna

doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.10.013

Cited by 34 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This rationale implies that firms engage in a range of carbon abatement investments in a complementary manner despite the fact that alternative strategies to pursue the same goal are bound to have different expected returns (Petkova et al, 2013;Wakabayashi, 2013). A contrasting view argues that firms do not face uniform climate change related risks and opportunities (Pesonen and Horn, 2014;Subramaniam et al, 2015) hence they are likely to use distinct sets of carbon practices (Delmas and Toffel, 2008). In addition, since firms do not operate with unlimited resources, they are likely to engage in those carbon reduction investments where expected return is highest (Maxwell and Decker, 2006;Petkova et al, 2013).…”

Section: Research Propositionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Climate change mitigation strategies in carbon-intensive firms

Čadež

Czerny

2016

Journal of Cleaner Production

160

111

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Research Propositionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Climate change mitigation strategies in carbon-intensive firms

Čadež

Czerny

2016

Journal of Cleaner Production

160

111

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…According to the theory of contingency, if a company diversifies its operations, it does not guarantee greater effectiveness in its performance (Sousa and Voss, 2008;Drazin and van de Ven, 1985;Volberda et al, 2012;Horisch, 2013). Beta, Theta and Gamma, showed greater contingency management of climate risks, but only Beta and Theta may be considered internally well-structured according to the literature (Renukappa et al, 2013;Lee, 2012a;Pesonen and Horn, 2014).…”

Section: P3amentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Effective managers must consider the following issues: managing risk (Weinhofer and Busch, 2013), an assessment of capabilities and trade-offs (Pinkse and Kolk, 2010), the establishment of policies and objectives for the reduction of CO 2 (Lee, 2012a), the definition of strategic actions (Pesonen and Horn, 2014), opting for either reduction, compensation or searching for zero emissions (Weinhofer and Hoffmann, 2010), a potential search for external partners to carry out the actions of low-carbon management (Kolk and Pinkse, 2004), a study on the benefits from projects developed by a company (Bocken et al, 2012) and, finally, the weighting of issues of climate change in organisational routines (Boiral, 2006). Therefore, a question that guides this article is: How do the perceptions of contingencies resulting from climate change at the supply chain level lead to an eventual restructuring of procedures for organisational low-carbon management?…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contingency theory, climate change, and low-carbon operations management

Furlan

Jabbour

Kannan

et al. 2017

SCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded: (2017) , For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. Purpose -Drawing on the theory of contingency, the aim of this work is to understand how supply chain-related contingencies, arising from climate change, are related to changes in the organisational structure of firms. Further, the authors explore how this relationship influences the perception of sustainability managers on the adoption of low-carbon operations management practices and their related benefits. Design/methodology/approach -To achieve this goal, this research uses NVivo software to gather evidence from interviews conducted with ten high-level managers in sustainability and related areas from seven leading companies located in Brazil. Findings -The authors present four primary results: a proposal of an original framework to understand the relationship between contingency theory, changes in organisational structure to embrace low-carbon management, adoption of low-carbon operations practices and benefits from this process; the discovery that an adequate low-carbon management structure is vital to improve the organisations' perceptions of potential benefits from a low-carbon strategy; low-carbon management initiatives tend to emerge from an organisation's existing environmental management systems; and controlling and monitoring climate contingencies at the supply chain level should be permanent and systematic. Originality/value -Based on the knowledge of the authors, to date, this work is the first piece of research that deals with the complexity of putting together contingency theory, climate-change contingencies at the supply chain level, organisational structure for low-carbon management and low-carbon operations management practices and benefits. This research also highlights evidence from an emerging economy and registers future research propositions.

show abstract

“…Herrmann & Guenther, ; Lee, ; Sakhel, ; Weinhofer & Hoffmann, ), and examining corporate responses as a result of stakeholder pressure (e.g. Cadez, Czerny, & Letmathe, ; Pesonen & Horn, ; Pinkse & Busch, ; Sprengel & Busch, ). A few studies analyze the development of organizational capabilities and the role of stakeholders in the context of the low‐carbon economy (Baranova & Meadows, , Heikkinen, , Kolk & Pinkse, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The interplay between stakeholders, resources and capabilities in climate change strategy: converting barriers into cooperation

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article investigates how organizations deal with drivers and barriers to the adoption of low‐carbon operational (LCO) practices and, accordingly, we propose a framework for relationships with stakeholders to guide organizations in orchestrating stakeholders, resources and capabilities to meet the challenges and opportunities arising from climate change. Data was collected through interviews with experts working within companies participating in the Carbon Disclosure Program and the Brazilian GHG Protocol Program. Our findings show that the level of willingness of stakeholders influences how companies select mechanisms to deal with drivers and barriers to LCO practices. Our results, qualified by stakeholder relationships theory and the natural resource‐based view, introduce an analytical approach called ‘mechanisms of responses’ to understand how organizations deal with drivers and barriers in the context of climate change in order to guide companies to adopt LCO practices, strengthen co‐operation with stakeholders and develop the required organizational capabilities.

show abstract

Evaluating the climate SWOT as a tool for defining climate strategies for business

Cited by 34 publications

References 36 publications

Climate change mitigation strategies in carbon-intensive firms

Climate change mitigation strategies in carbon-intensive firms

Contingency theory, climate change, and low-carbon operations management

The interplay between stakeholders, resources and capabilities in climate change strategy: converting barriers into cooperation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About