Advertisement

Climatic Change

, Volume 131, Issue 2, pp 321–333 | Cite as

Executives’ engagement with climate science and perceived need for business adaptation to climate change

  • Martina K. LinnenlueckeEmail author
  • Andrew Griffiths
  • Peter J. Mumby
Article

Abstract

The business community has been frequently criticized for its lack of engagement with climate change, not just in terms of mitigation but increasingly also in terms of adaptation. One reason why executives may not take more decisive action on adaptation is the type of information they rely on for decision-making purposes. From this perspective, executives who engage more with scientific information sources for decision-making purposes would be likely to have a more comprehensive understanding of climate change, and would consequently be more concerned about their company’s vulnerability and adaptation needs. So far, however, there is limited evidence showing that executives’ lack of engagement with scientific information influences their perception that climate change is a serious issue. In this paper, we use survey data collected from 125 executives across the top 500 companies on the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX-500) to examine the links between how executives obtain information on climate change and their perceived need for adaptation action. Findings show that executives who report greater engagement with scientific information express greater concern about their company’s vulnerability, which also translates into a greater perceived need for adaptation action. Making scientific information accessible to executives is therefore important for communicating climate science to a business audience.

Keywords

Climate Change Climate Change Impact Adaptation Action Great Engagement Industry Competitiveness 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the anonymous reveiwers as well as Len Coote, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg and participants at the European Climate Change Adaptation Conference (ECCA) for comments on earlier versions of the manuscript.

References

  1. Acclimatise (2013) Climate change calling: BT CEO says climate change is a risk to UK. Available at: http://www.acclimatise.uk.com/index.php?id=3&blog=521
  2. Astley WG, van de Ven AH (1983) Central perspectives and debates in organization theory. Admin Sci Quart 28:245–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baron RM, Kenny DA (1986) The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol 51:1173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bentler PM (1990) Comparative fit indixes in structural models. Psychol Bull 107:238–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bentler PM, Bonett DG (1980) Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychol Bull 88:588–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Busch T (2011) Organizational adaptation to disruptions in the natural environment: the case of climate change. Scand J Manag 27:389–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Byrne B (2010) Structural equation modeling with AMOS: basic concepts, applications, and pro- gramming, 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum, MahwahGoogle Scholar
  8. Child J (1972) Organizational structure, environment and performance: the role of strategic choice. Sociology 6:1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Courtney H, Kirkland J, Viguerie P (1997) Strategy under uncertainty. Harvard Bus Rev 75:67–79Google Scholar
  10. Ferguson G, Mathur S, Shah B (2005) Evolving from information to insight. MIT Sloan Manag Rev 46:51–58Google Scholar
  11. Gardner J, Parsons R, Paxton G (2010) Adaptation benchmarking survey: Initial report. CSIRO Climate Adaptation National Research FlagshipGoogle Scholar
  12. Ge M, Helfert M (2013) Impact of information quality on supply chain decisions. J Comput Inform Syst 53:59–67Google Scholar
  13. Goodall AH (2008) Why have the leading journals in management (and other social sciences) failed to respond to climate change? J Manag Inq 17:408–420Google Scholar
  14. Hahn T, Kolk A, Winn M (2010) A new future for business? rethinking management theory and business strategy. Bus Soc 49:385–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hamilton LC (2011) Education, politics and opinions about climate change evidence for interaction effects. Clim Chang 104:231–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hoffmann VH, Sprengel DC, Ziegler A, Kolb M, Abegg B (2009) Determinants of corporate adaptation to climate change in winter tourism: an econometric analysis. Global Environ Chang 19:256–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hrebiniak LG, Joyce WF (1985) Organizational adaptation: strategic choice and environmental determinism. Admin Sci Quart 30:336–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hu L, Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model 6:1–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Huber GP (1991) Organizational learning: the contributing processes and the literatures. Org Sci 2:88–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. IPCC (2012) Managing the risks of extreme events and disaster to advance climate change adaptation: special report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  21. Jones CA, Levy DL (2007) North American business strategies towards climate change. Eur Manag J 25:428–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kates RW, Travis WR, Wilbanks TJ (2012) Transformational adaptation when incremental adaptations to climate change are insufficient. Proc Natl Acad Sci 109:7156–7161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kline RB (2011) Principles and practice of structural equation modeling, 3rd edn. Guilford Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Lewin AY, Weigelt CB, Emery JD (2004) Adaptation and selection in strategy and change: perspectives on strategic change in organizations. In: Poole MS, Van de Ven AH (eds) Handbook of organizational change and innovation. Oxford University Press, London, pp 108–159Google Scholar
  25. Linnenluecke MK, Griffiths A, Winn MI (2013) Firm and industry adaptation to climate change: a review of climate adaptation studies in the business and management field. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Chang 4:397–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Moss RH, Meehl GA, Lemos MC, Smith JB, Arnold JR, Arnott JC, Behar D, Brasseur GP, Broomell SB, Busalacchi AJ, Dessai S, Ebi KL, Edmonds JA, Furlow J, Goddard L, Hartmann HC, Hurrell JW, Katzenberger JW, Liverman DM, Mote PW, Moser SC, Kumar A, Pulwarty RS, Seyller EA, Turner BL II, Washington WM, Wilbanks TJ (2013) Hell and high water: practice-relevant adaptation science. Science 342:696–698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. O'Reilly CA (1982) Variations in decision makers’ use of information sources: the impact of quality and accessibility of information. Acad Manag J 25:756–771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pablo AL, Sitkin SB, Jemison DB (1996) Acquisition decision-making processes: the central role of risk. J Manag 22:723–746Google Scholar
  29. Patenaude G (2011) Climate change diffusion: while the world tips, business schools lag. Global Environ Chang 21:259–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Peterson S (2006) Uncertainty and economic analysis of climate change: a survey of approaches and findings. Environ Model Asses 11:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pidgeon N, Fischhoff B (2011) The role of social and decision sciences in communicating uncertain climate risks. Nat Clim Chang 1:35–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee J-Y, Podsakoff NP (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol 88:879–903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Porter ME, Reinhardt FL (2007) A strategic approach to climate. Harvard Bus Rev 85:22–26Google Scholar
  34. Preacher, KJ, Leonardelli, GJ (2015). Calculation for the Sobel test: An interactive calculation tool for Mediation tests. Available at: http://quantpsy.org/sobel/sobel.htm
  35. Priest SH (2014) Climate change: a communication challenge for the 21st century. Sci Commun 36:267–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Raghunathan S (1999) Impact of information quality and decision-maker quality on decision quality: a theoretical model and simulation analysis. Decis Support Syst 26:275–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sharma S (2000) Managerial interpretations and organizational context as predictors of corporate choice of environmental strategy. Acad Manag J 43:681–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Simon HA (1991) Bounded rationality and organizational learning. Organ Sci 2:125–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Surminski S (2013) Private-sector adaptation to climate risk. Nat Clim Chang 3:943–945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. The Climate Institute (2013) Climate of the nation 2013: Australian attitues on climate change. The Climate Institute, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  41. Thomas JB, Clark SM, Gioia DA (1993) Strategic sensemaking and organizational performance: linkages among scanning, interpretation, action, and outcomes. Acad Manag J 36:239–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ungson GR, Braunstein DN, Hall PD (1981) Managerial information processing: a research review. Admin Sci Quart 26:116–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Verschuuren J (ed) (2013) Research handbook on climate adaptation law, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK; Northhampton, USGoogle Scholar
  44. Weick KE, Sutcliffe KM, Obstfeld D (2005) Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organ Sci 16:409–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wilbanks TJ, Romero Lankao P, Bao M, Berkhout F, Cairncross S, Ceron J-P, Kapshe M, Muir-Wood R, Zapata-Marti R (2007) Industry, settlement and society. In: Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, van der Linden PJ, Hanson CE (eds) Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 357–390Google Scholar
  46. Wilson D, McKiernan P (2011) Global mimicry: putting strategic choice back on the business school agenda. Brit J Manag 22:457–469Google Scholar
  47. Winn MI, Kirchgeorg M, Griffiths A, Linnenluecke MK, Gunther E (2011) Impacts from climate change on organizations: a conceptual foundation. Bus Strateg Environ 20:157–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martina K. Linnenluecke
    • 1
    Email author
  • Andrew Griffiths
    • 1
  • Peter J. Mumby
    • 2
  1. 1.UQ Business SchoolThe University of QueenslandQueenslandAustralia
  2. 2.Marine Spatial Ecology Lab, School of Biological SciencesThe University of QueenslandQueenslandAustralia

Personalised recommendations