Advertisement

Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 143, Issue 2, pp 261–276 | Cite as

Threat Interpretation and Innovation in the Context of Climate Change: An Ethical Perspective

  • Aoife Brophy HaneyEmail author
Article

Abstract

The ability of managers to identify and interpret challenges in the external environment is one of the micro-foundations of dynamic capabilities. The underlying literature on strategic issue interpretation suggests that interpreting environmental challenges as opportunities rather than threats is more likely to lead to proactive and innovative responses, but there are also potentially positive effects of threat interpretation, for instance high levels of commitment and risk-seeking behaviour. In this paper, I use the context of climate change to explore the link between threat interpretation and innovation in more detail. I use exploratory cluster analysis and illustrative case studies to develop a set of propositions to explain when threat interpretation can in fact encourage innovation. I identify two ethical mechanisms that positively mediate the relationship between threat interpretation and innovation: enlarged concept of responsibility to society and moral legitimacy. The paper contributes to the literature by identifying the importance of ethics in linking managerial interpretation to innovation, particularly in the context of global environmental and social challenges.

Keywords

Innovation Environmental strategy Managerial interpretation Dynamic capabilities 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Michael Pollitt and the entire Energy Policy Research Group at the University of Cambridge for their support in developing this research. The author is also grateful for construtive feedback from Volker Hoffmann and the SusTec team, as well as the anonymous reviewers, on previous versions of the article.

References

  1. Adner, R., & Helfat, C. E. (2003). Corporate effects and dynamic managerial capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 1011–1025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aragón-Correa, J. A., & Sharma, S. (2003). A contingent resource-based view of proactive corporate environmental strategy. Academy of Management Review, 28(1), 71–88.Google Scholar
  3. Ashforth, B. E., Rogers, K. M., Pratt, M. G., & Pradies, C. (2014). Ambivalence in organizations: A multilevel approach ambivalence in organizations : A multilevel approach. Organization Science, 25(5), 1453–1478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benner, M. J., & Tripsas, M. (2012). The influence of prior industry affiliation on framing in nascent industries: the evolution of digital cameras. Strategic Management Journal, 33(3), 277–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buysse, K., & Verbeke, A. (2003). Proactive environmental strategies: A stakeholder management perspective. Strategic Management Journal, 24(5), 453–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chatterji, A. K., & Toffel, M. W. (2010). How firms respond to being rated. Strategic Management Journal, 31(9), 917–945.Google Scholar
  7. Chattopadhyay, P., Glick, W. H., & Huber, G. P. (2001). Organizational actions in response to threats and opportunities. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 937–955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cornelissen, J. P., & Werner, M. D. (2014). Putting framing in perspective: A review of framing and frame analaysis across the management and organizational literature. The Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 1–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Daft, R. L., & Weick, K. E. (1984). Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 284–295.Google Scholar
  10. Delmas, M. A., & Toffel, M. W. (2008). Organizational responses to environmental demands: opening the black box. Strategic Management Journal, 29(10), 1027–1055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Duriau, V. J., Reger, R. K., & Pfarrer, M. D. (2007). A content analysis of the content analysis literature in organization studies: Research themes, data sources, and methodological refinements. Organizational Research Methods, 10(1), 5–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dutton, J. E., & Jackson, S. E. (1987). Categorizing strategic issues: Links to organizational action, 12(1), 76–90.Google Scholar
  13. Eggers, J. P., & Kaplan, S. (2013). Cognition and capabilities: A multi-level perspective. The Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 295–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Everitt, B., Landau, S., Leese, M., & Stahl, D. (2011). Cluster analysis (5th ed.). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  15. Fong, C. T. (2006). The effects of emotional ambivalence on creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 49(5), 1016–1030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Furrer, B., Hamprecht, J., & Hoffmann, V. H. (2012). Much ado about nothing? How banks respond to climate change. Business & Society, 51(1), 62–88.Google Scholar
  17. George, E., Chattopadhyay, P., Sitkin, S. B., & Barden, J. (2006). Cognitive underpinnings of institutional persistence and change: A framing perspective. Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 347–365.Google Scholar
  18. Gilbert, C. G. (2006). Change in the presence of residual fit: Can competing frames coexist? Organization Science, 17(1), 150–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. The American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hart, S. L. (1995). A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 986–1014.Google Scholar
  21. Helfat, C. E., & Peteraf, M. A. (2003). The dynamic resource-based view: Capability lifecycles. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 997–1010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Helfat, C. E., & Peteraf, M. A. (2014). Managerial cognitive capabilities and the microfoundations of dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal,. doi: 10.1002/smj.2247.Google Scholar
  23. Jackson, S. E., & Dutton, J. E. (1988). Discerning threats and opportunities. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33(3), 370–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kaplan, S. (2008). Framing contests: Strategy making under uncertainty. Organization Science, 19(5), 729–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lavie, D. (2006). Capability reconfiguration: An analysis of incumbent responses to technological change. Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 153–174.Google Scholar
  27. Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2003). Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 268–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  29. Okereke, C., Wittneben, B., & Bowen, F. (2012). Climate change: Challenging business, transforming politics. Business & Society, 51(1), 7–30.Google Scholar
  30. Pennebaker, J. W., Chung, C. K., Ireland, M., Gonzales, A., & Booth, R. J. (2007). The development and psychometric properties of LIWC2007. Austin, TX: LIWC.net.Google Scholar
  31. Philippe, D., & Durand, R. (2011). The impact of norm-conforming behaviors on firm reputation. Strategic Management Journal, 32(9), 969–993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Plambeck, N., & Weber, K. (2009). CEO ambivalence and responses to strategic issues. Organization Science, 20(6), 993–1010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 34(3), 375–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G., & Tushman, M. L. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organization Science, 20(4), 685–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Reid, E. M., & Toffel, M. W. (2009). Responding to public and private politics: Corporate disclosure of climate change strategies. Strategic Management Journal, 30(11), 1157–1178.Google Scholar
  36. Saldana, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (1st ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  37. Santana, V., Vaccaro, A., & Wood, D. J. (2009). Ethics and the networked business. Journal of Business Ethics, 90(4), 661–681.Google Scholar
  38. Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. (2011). The new political role of business in a globalized world: A review of a new perspective on csr and its implications for the firm, governance, and democracy. Journal of Management Studies, 48(4), 899–931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sharma, S. (2000). Managerial interpretations and organizational context as predictors of corporate choice of environmental strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 681–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sharma, S., & Vredenburg, H. (1998). Proactive corporate environmental strategy and the development of competitively valuable organizational capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 19(8), 729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.Google Scholar
  42. Starik, M., & Marcus, A. A. (2000). Introduction to the special research forum on the management of organizations in the natural environment: A field emerging from multiple paths, with many challenges ahead. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 539–547.Google Scholar
  43. Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Thomas, J. B., Clark, S. M., & Gioia, D. A. (1993). Strategic sensemaking and organizational performance: linkages among scanning, interpretation, action, and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 36(2), 239–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tripsas, M., & Gavetti, G. (2000). Capabilities, cognition and inertia: Evidence from digital imaging. Strategic Management Journal, 21(10–11), 1147–1161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Trucost. (2011). Trucost methodology overview: Measuring company environmental impacts. Retrieved from http://www.trucost.com. Accessed 15 May 2013.
  48. Young, I. M. (2008). Responsibility and global justice: A social connection model. In A. G. Scherer & G. Palazzo (Eds.), Handbook of research on global corporate citizenship (pp. 137–165). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Group for Sustainability and Technology, Department of Management, Technology and EconomicsETH ZurichZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations