Elke Schuessler from Leuphana University, Lüneburg has recently published this review of our book Organising Responses to Climate Change: The Politics of Mitigation, Adaptation in the journal Organization Studies. It contains some interesting reflections on our analysis and the implications for future management and organization research and is reproduced in full below.

One of today’s defining questions is why, despite decades of awareness about the looming climate crisis and the increasing occurrence of catastrophes, we still lack impactful policies to avert the direst consequences. This question is even more puzzling as climate disasters like floods or wildfires are now also regularly affecting industrialized nations that once believed themselves immune, despite their overarching responsibility for emitting the greenhouse gases that have caused global warming. Climate activists, indigenous communities and young generations that have long warned about the consequences of failing to limit greenhouse gas emissions during the international climate negotiations have taken to the streets and engage in increasingly visible forms of protest in the light of policy inaction. Policy-makers in many countries, in turn, focus on suppressing these protests or on raiding and arresting protesters.

In their recent book, Nyberg, Wright and Bowden assess the causes and consequences of this grim situation. They argue that a “ruling order of economic and political activity” is maintained by “global corporations, state-owned enterprises, allied governments and political parties, along with the supporting institutional apparatus of think tanks, consultancies and media whose power and finances depend on a perpetuation of economic growth at all costs” (p. 4). In short: defending a particular lifestyle revolving around economic growth and fossil-fuel intensive consumption is given higher priority than preventing planetary collapse.

The authors start by describing the glimpses of hope for a turnaround toward a more sustainable economic system and more committed policy action when the “Paris Agreement” was concluded at the United Nations climate negotiations in 2015, and in the early days of the the Covid-19 pandemic when the vulnerability of the globalized economy was laid bare. However, these hopes were quickly disappointed as governments failed to live up to their emissions reductions pledges and health concerns were swiftly overruled by the desire to return to “business as usual” as quickly as possible.

The book explains this impasse situation using the concept of hegemony. Hegemony refers to “a practice of linking together contingent demands and identities into more universal projects” (Laclau & Mouffe, 1985, p. 118, cited on pp. 25–26). It involves making specific social demands appear universal by constructing them as objective or natural (p. 26). In the case of the climate crisis, this hegemony is constructed by “a coalition of actors with aligned interests supporting carbon-dependent economic growth” (p. 23), particularly the fossil fuel industry and fossil-fuel-dependent industries that have lobbied for political support and funded conservative think tanks. “The global economy remains addicted to continued economic growth and ever-increasing carbon emissions”, argue Nyberg et al. (p. 13).

Consequently, the construction of what is alternately referred to as a “corporate hegemony”, “hegemony of global capitalism” or “fossil fuel hegemony” involves attacking and denying the fundamentals of climate science and the forging of a “collective will” (Gramsci, 1971, p. 125; cited on p. 23) that perceives emissions regulation as harmful to the economy and society. These efforts have resulted in an increasingly polarized public opinion. Policy makers, reliant on economic stability and growth for votes and funding, acknowledge the need to act and commit to action. However, the proposed solutions typically revolve around market mechanisms, technological innovation, and the idea of a “win-win” situation for businesses – “magical thinking”, as Nyberg et al. call it, referring to overwhelming evidence provided by climate scientists.

After establishing the book’s central framework of the “politics of climate change” by introducing the concepts of hegemony and counter-hegemony (Part I), the book is structured in three additional parts dedicated to the politics of climate mitigation (Part II), climate adaptation (Part III), and climate suffering (Part IV). Each part consists of two chapters that delve into various corporate and policy initiatives.

These initiatives, the authors argue, serve two purposes: to create a sense of equivalence between disparate political demands and interests, thereby garnering support for the existing economic system, and to construct a sense of difference from those seeking to regulate or change this system. This construction of difference is crucial for stabilizing the hegemonic order that in itself is fragile, because it rests on uniting diverse actors and potentially conflicting interests (Laclau & Mouffe, 1985).

One example for the construction of difference is the presentation of fossil-fuel-based energy as “normal”, while renewables are portrayed as “alternative,” making them seem utopian, unrealistic, or unfeasible. The politics of constructing equivalence involves the promotion of concepts such as “resilience” or “net zero,” which superficially address climate concerns to appeal to those concerned, but prioritize maintaining business as usual (Chapter 5). The politics of constructing difference also includes viewing those already experiencing the impacts of climate change as a distant spectacle (Chapter 7).

This distance is maintained through practices like fundraising and aid, which uphold the existing hegemony. A similar dynamic can be observed in international climate negotiations, where impassioned appeals by island nations or young generations have become ritualistic displays, serving as brief interludes before the resumption of the usual negotiations and lobbying (Islam, Rüling, & Schüßler, 2019).

The book concludes by setting out a path for more climate-friendly politics centered around decarbonization, degrowth and democracy. According to the authors, achieving these goals requires the formation of a robust counter-hegemony that unites a diverse range of interests and social groups in their advocacy for an economic model that acknowledges planetary boundaries and prioritizes justice. Drawing on Gramsci, the authors sketch out three future scenarios.

The first scenario involves the continuation of a transformation agenda that constructs an equivalence between green growth and individual consumption. The second scenario represents an authoritarian path that aggressively defends the status quo by constructing difference, e.g. in the form of national populism. The third scenario sketches out a schism path, wherein alternative movements gain strength to prevent not only ecological but also societal collapse – a likely consequence of the first two scenarios (IPCC: Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability). Currently, these different scenarios veer for dominance in parallel. Whereas from a hegemony perspective scission is required to break the fossil fuel hegemony, the relationships between the different scenarios also deserve attention, e.g. by paying closer attention to dynamics of institutional and regime change (e.g. Wittneben, Okereke, Banerjee, & Levy, 2012).

Overall, the book is a “tour de force” through decades of climate politics, understood as a variety as economic and societal (counter-)hegemonic projects and not just as international climate policy-making. It is filled with rich information about the fundamentals of climate science, which is particularly valuable for management scholars that often still lack a good understanding of the ecological basis and consequences of global capitalism. This level of detail and interdisciplinary ambition is undoubtedly a strength of the book.

However, it also comes at a price. There were instances when I felt somewhat overwhelmed by the density of information regarding climate science mixed with details on a multitude of (counter-)hegemonic projects, both corporate and activist, taking place in various locations around the world at different points in time. Furthermore, while the book effectively presents and explores “the politics of mitigation, adaptation, and suffering” as indicated by its title, I found it somewhat challenging to discern a distinct “organizing” perspective – beyond, of course, the focus on the key role played by fossil fuel companies and their allies.

In thinking further about what this perspective could be when it comes to “organizing responses to climate change”, I particularly thought about the role of organization scholars in (counter-)hegemonic projects. While it is important for us to conduct research on the various themes addressed in the book, we also need to consider our responsibilities as members of business schools and educators of future leaders. How can we contribute to strengthening democratic institutions, supporting social movements, empowering climate activists, and changing business practices? Can we ourselves break free from the market logic prevalent in business schools, which often renders us complicit members of the existing hegemonic bloc? How can we contribute to normalize what is often framed as “alternative” or even “utopian” as the new business as usual? How can we support climate scientists and science in discursive struggles through our social theoretical insights (see e.g. Bowden, Gond, Nyberg, & Wright, 2021; Porter, Kuhn, & Nerlich, 2018)?

If we accept scenarios one and two as the more likely pathways into an increasingly disrupted future, we can read Nyberg et al.’s book as a compelling call for action for each one of us to reflect on our roles in and contributions to the politics of climate change (Delmestri, 2023).

References

Bowden, Vanessa, Gond, Jean-Pascal, Nyberg, Daniel, & Wright, Christopher (2021). Turning Back the Rising Sea: Theory performativity in the shift from climate science to popular authority. Organization Studies, 42, 1909–1931.

Delmestri, Giuseppe (2023). Are we all activists? Organization Studies, 44, 159–162.

Gramsci, Antonio (1971). The modern prince. Selections from the prison notebooks. New York: International Publishers.

Islam, Gazi, Rüling, Charles-Clemens, & Schüßler, Elke (2019). Rituals of critique and institutional maintenance at the United Nations Climate Change Summits. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 65, 23–40.

Laclau, Ernesto, & Mouffe, Chantal (1985). Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a radical democratic politics. London: Verso.

Porter, Amanda J., Kuhn, Timothy R., & Nerlich, Brigitte (2018). Organizing authority in the climate change debate: IPCC controversies and the management of dialectical tensions. Organization Studies, 39, 873–898.

Wittneben, Bettina B., Okereke, Chukwumerije, Banerjee, Subhabrata B., & Levy, David L. (2012). Climate change and the emergence of new organizational landscapes. Organization Studies, 33, 1431–1450.