Framing Collective Moral Responsibility for Climate Change: A Normative-Empirical Approach

Framing Collective Moral Responsibility for Climate Change: A Normative-Empirical Approach

The urgency of climate change raises challenging questions for energy companies, one of the world’s largest emitters of greenhouse gases (GHGs). How these companies frame, and reframe, their response to climate change holds crucial implications for the radical transformation needed to achieve a just energy transition. Drawing on the literature on framing, organisational hypocrisy, and collective moral responsibility, this article explores the complex relationship between climate change talk and action through a longitudinal qualitative analysis of the top ten European investor-owned energy companies.

Our findings reveal three main categories of energy companies: (i) deflecting, (ii) stagnating, and (iii) evolving. We show key differences in the relationship between framing and action over time for each category, highlighting how deflecting companies have larger and persistent gaps between green talk and concrete action, and how stagnating companies are delaying more radical action despite increased green talk. In contrast, evolving companies exhibit a closer link between talk and action that tends to be realised over time.

Importantly, our analysis reveals how competing approaches to framing the nature of collective moral responsibility help to understand the trajectories of talk and action across the different categories of energy companies. We find that deflecting firms tend to evoke a diffuse collective and frame moral responsibility in a more forward-looking, prospective way, while evolving companies frame their role as an agential collective and acknowledge a backward-looking sense of responsibility for contributing to climate change. This insight extends prior research by highlighting the dynamic interplay between framing, moral responsibility and climate action.

By engaging with theories of collective moral responsibility, our paper contributes to the literature on business ethics and climate change in several ways. We provide a nuanced understanding of the performative nature of collective moral responsibility, revealing how different framings of the collective and the temporal direction of responsibility are associated with varying levels of organisational hypocrisy and climate action. We also contribute to a temporal understanding of collective moral responsibility and organisational hypocrisy, highlighting how shifts in the framing of the collective and the direction of responsibility are critical for substantive climate action over time.

Importantly, our findings hold practical implications, suggesting that for energy companies to genuinely contribute to climate action, they need to engage in a more agential view of the collective and reconsider their own responsibility for contributing to climate change in the past. Rather than deflecting and deferring responsibility to diffuse notions of society, government, and industry, organisations that hope to drive meaningful climate action must take ownership of both the blame for past action and their obligation to find future solutions.

Collective Moral Responsibility

Normative Perspectives

Moral responsibility refers to the blameworthiness or praiseworthiness for a particular situation (Bovens, 1998). While traditional approaches have focused on individual moral responsibility, there has been a growing body of literature on collective moral responsibility. Collectivist perspectives argue that organisations may have a collective responsibility to respond to, or bring about, a particular state of affairs (Mellema, 1997, 2003; Soares, 2003; Tamminga & Hindriks, 2020).

Importantly, moral responsibility can be both backward-looking (reactive) and forward-looking (prospective) in nature (Gilbert, 2006a, 2006b; Sanbhu, 2012; Van de Poel, 2011). Backward-looking moral responsibility involves taking on blame for immoral past actions, while forward-looking moral responsibility refers to a sense of obligation to avoid future immoral actions (Sanbhu, 2012).

Empirical Considerations

To unpack the role of collective moral responsibility in shaping climate action, we draw on the work of Collins (2019), which encourages a more nuanced understanding of the ‘collective’. Collins (2019) differentiates between three forms of collective: diffuse collectives (loosely described groups like ‘society’ or ‘the private sector’), teleological collectives (responsive groups like ‘the energy sector’), and agential collectives (well-defined decision-making groups like a specific company or partnership).

Framing Approaches

Framing refers to the meaning-making processes through which organisations construct and communicate their understanding of issues like climate change (Cornelissen & Werner, 2014). Framing has been widely applied in research on organisational responses to sustainability and climate change (Nyberg & Wright, 2006; Wright & Nyberg, 2017). Importantly, framing shapes not only how organisations understand climate change, but also the types of responses they enact (Slawinski & Bansal, 2015).

Climate Change

Ethical Implications

The urgency of addressing climate change raises serious ethical questions for energy companies, who are among the largest emitters of GHGs. How these companies frame and respond to climate change holds profound implications for the wellbeing of current and future generations.

Environmental Impacts

The energy sector remains one of the world’s largest contributors to climate change, responsible for almost half of global GHG emissions (Ritchie & Roser, 2019; United Nations, 2019). Responding to this crisis requires rapid and transformative action from energy companies to shift away from fossil fuels towards clean energy solutions.

Societal Responses

In response to the climate emergency, the European Union has committed to sourcing 42.5% of its energy from renewable sources by 2030 (Reuters, 2023). This increased ambition places significant pressure on energy companies to radically transform their business models and practices.

Interdisciplinary Approach

Philosophical Foundations

To understand energy companies’ responses to climate change, we draw on the literature on organisational hypocrisy (Brunsson, 2002; Wagner et al., 2009). Organisational hypocrisy refers to the disconnect between an organisation’s talk (symbolic, discursive commitments) and its action (substantive, material changes). This theoretical lens allows us to unpack the potential gap between energy companies’ climate rhetoric and their concrete sustainability efforts.

Empirical Methodology

We conducted a qualitative content analysis of the sustainability reports published by the ten largest European investor-owned energy companies over a ten-year period (2010-2019). This longitudinal approach enabled us to explore the evolution of energy companies’ framing of climate change and their related actions.

Practical Applications

By engaging with theories of collective moral responsibility, our study offers practical insights for energy companies seeking to drive meaningful climate action. We highlight the importance of energy companies adopting an agential view of the collective and acknowledging their backward-looking responsibility for contributing to climate change, rather than deferring blame to diffuse notions of societal responsibility.

Collective Action Challenges

Individual Obligations

The climate crisis requires a coordinated response from all members of society, including energy companies. However, the complexity of the challenge and the perceived diffusion of individual responsibility can hinder effective action.

Institutional Roles

As major emitters and influential institutions, energy companies have a critical role to play in driving the transition to a low-carbon economy. Their framing of climate change and sense of collective responsibility will shape the pace and nature of this transformation.

Global Cooperation

Addressing climate change requires global cooperation and a shared understanding of moral obligations. The way energy companies conceptualise their role and responsibility within this global context will impact the broader societal response to the crisis.

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn