Kliimamuutus on fakt niisamuti kui sellega tegelemise näilisus. OK, see väide on ehk liiga tugev, sest viitab justkui must-valgele võimalusele. Kliimamuutusega tegeletakse küll nii globaalsel kui individuaalsel tasandil, kuid minuni jõudvad igapäevapraktikad ei jäta suurt ruumi kahtlusteks, et mitmetes organisatsioonides ja paljudele inimestele on tegemist ikka pigem võõra ja kauge murega, millega ei ole kiiret. Piisab, kui veidi vaadata mõne kaasaegse ja uuendusmeelsena reklaamiva ettevõtte igapäevapraktikaid, ja loorid langevad. Sestap siinviidatud vabalevis olev tekst oma koha leidiski.
Climate change is a formidable societal challenge that requires urgent attention (Chandy et al., 2019; Voegtlin, Scherer, Stahl, Hawn, & Siegel, 2018; Wittneben, Okereke, Banerjee, & Levy, 2012).
Kõik on osalised:
Hence, i dividuals, governments, civil societies, and organizations must prevent further climate change and even reverse its course or face disastrous consequences.
In other words, organizational solutions to climate change must undergird corporate strategies to succeed. Moreover, since strategy (i) is the preserve of those in formal positions (De Certeau, 1998), (ii) is about competitive advantages (Porter, 1996), and (iii) involves planning and cooperation with other stakeholders (Freedman, 2013), strategic solutions to climate change must become an embedded concern of corporate leadership, in the quest for competitive advantage(s), and for developing stakeholder partnerships.
A social dilemma is a phenomenon “in which the members of a social group face choices in which selfish, individualistic, or uncooperative decisions, though seeming more rational by virtue of short-term benefits to separate players, produce undesirable long-term consequences for the group as a whole” (Shultz & Holbrook, 1999, p. 218).
Pugeda ei ole kusagile:
However, as Hardin (1968) pointed out in his seminal article on “The Tragedy of the Commons,” selfish and individualistic exploitation of common resources for short-term benefits is the most pressing social dilemma in this world. Hardin (1968) identified two key characteristics of common resources: (1) owned and consumed by a large number of people and (2) are available to all to utilize, even non-purchasers (Peck, Kirk, Luangrath, & Shu, 2020).
Therefore, to advance our understanding of the climate change social dilemma and generate actionable strategies for its resolution, this paper systematically reviews, synthesizes, and integrates the existing body of knowledge on theory and practice concerning social dilemmas.
Kliimamuutused kui sotsiaalne dilemma organisatsioonidele:
Therefore, drawing from Rashidi-Sabet and Madhavaram (2021), we conceptualize the climate change social dilemma for firms – as the behavioral predicament of firms whether to act in favor of short-term positive profit gains ignoring the long-term negative impacts of climate change on society or to intrinsically value the societal interest of preventing climate change and environmental damage through their business strategies and actions.
Viide korporatiivse strateegia määratlemisele:
Therefore, climate change solutions must become the central thrust of corporate strategy, even if it negatively impacts their short-term or long-term profitability.
First, we conceptualize the climate change social dilemma effect as the behavioral tendency of organizations to favor short-term positive consequences overlooking long-term negative impacts of climate change for society and provide an integrative taxonomy of solutions for the climate change social dilemma from a strategy perspective by grouping the solutions into four major categories of communication, regulation, group-structuring, and firm reorientation solutions.
Rashidi-Sabet, S., Madhavaram, S., & Parvatiyar, A. (2022). Strategic solutions for the climate change social dilemma: An integrative taxonomy, a systematic review, and research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 146, 619-635.