Categoría: Intervención del profesional de Trabajo Social en el área de la salud

Kolk & Pinkse (2011, p. 8) and Porter & Reinhardt (2007) note that organisational responses to climate change are shaped by how they perceive its impact on their core business, while Kolk & Pinkse (2005) argue that responses depend on whether they see opportunities or risks. Put another way, although organisations may not necessarily use terms used in the scientific and management

58

For discussions of the terms “direct” and “indirect”, when used to describe physical impacts of climate change on assets or organisations, or when used to refer to organisational responses to such impacts, see Hertin et al. (2003), Berkhout et al. (2006), and Berkhout (2012).

literature like “vulnerable” or “resilient” when they think about climate change, their perception of this issue depends on whether they perceive themselves as either. Furthermore, if organisations are to take climate change seriously – including those concerned with sport such as MASS organisations – they still need to persuade themselves that it is indeed real and that its principle causation is human in origin. In Australia in recent years, public opinion on the causes – or even existence of – climate change is divided (Leviston, Leitch, Greenhill, Leonard, & Walker, 2011) despite the wealth of scientific opinion confirming both. As a result, it cannot be automatically assumed that all

organisations – including MASS ones – agree with the scientific consensus. For this study, it was left as an open question until data could be collected to address it. Another salient point is that even if an organisation accepts that climate change is real and overwhelmingly human in causation, it needs to satisfy itself that it is directly or indirectly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change before a strategic response to it is warranted. Tellingly, most cases (nine of twelve, or seventy-five per cent)59 thought their stadia were resilient even if points of vulnerability such as their playing surfaces to extreme heat and lower rainfall, were reported. This perception of their situation in relation to climate change was critical to explaining their lack of specific response(s) and the absence of specific climate change strategy.

For example, one finding outlined in Chapter Five of this thesis is that, “climate change is discussed by some MASS organisations and not by others.” Only seven of the twelve MASS cases (A, B, C, E, F, J & L) or fifty-eight per cent, discussed it as management issue for their stadia. For the remaining five cases (D, G, H, I & K) or forty-two per cent, it had not been specifically discussed by

management. In either situation, there was no formal corporate view of the phenomena reported by any cases. In those cases where climate change had not been explicitly discussed, it was explained that it had been either assumed to be a general environmental issue, or that no one had raised it as an issue for discussion. This suggests that climate change is a priority for barely half of the study population, and is consistent with another finding of this study, that it is second-order issue for most MASS cases. While climate change was reported as an important issue by some cases, given the strong operational focus of all MASS organisations and the imperative for minimising operating costs, it was a relatively lower priority. Whilst it was seen as a “legitimate” (B1, p. 2) and “significant” (A1, p. 1) concern, it was perceived as, “not up there with the big issues” (H1, p. 5), “probably not at the forefront of everything” (A1, p. 1), and not the, “number one” priority (B1, p. 2). Given also the overriding objectives of these organisations to provide entertainment experiences to corporate partners and thousands of spectators and members, perhaps this is reasonable. To achieve their fundamental purpose, MASS organisations must concentrate on their core business, and so environmental issues are not their top priority.

59

For details, see Table 8 in Chapter Five.

That climate change is discussed by some organisations within an industrial sector and not others is a finding not made elsewhere in management literature and so represents one of the contributions of this study. Ihlen (2009) examined corporations that do or do not “discuss” climate change however, even this work does not distinguish between those that do – from those that don’t – within a single industry. Nevertheless, that some organisations discuss it while others don’t is consistent with Kolk & Pinkse’s (2011, p. 8) argument that, “it is not always the case that climate change is necessarily an issue of strategic importance.” If an organisation perceives climate change to be strategically important, they have a reason to discuss it. Furthermore, that climate change is discussed by some sport organisations – and not others – is a finding not found anywhere in sport management literature either, and as such, represents another contribution of this study.

This is possibly because sport organisations have only once before been a unit of analysis for climate change issues in sport; in Chard & Mallen’s (2013) study of renewable energy initiatives at Canadian major sport stadiums. Outside of this study, for the very small body of research literature that

specifically examines the relationship between climate change and sport, the units of analysis were aquatic and leisure organisations (McDonald et al., 2011; McDonald et al., 2014); stakeholder groups (Otto & Heath, 2010); the location of motorsport (Tranter & Lowes, 2009); and climate data, climate change projections and economic expenditure (Moen & Fredman, 2007). This finding is consistent with Schmidt’s (2006, p. A290) observation of the International Olympic Committee that when it comes to the criteria for choosing Olympic cities, while environmental sustainability is important, it is not a “deal breaker.” As this study is only the second where sport organisations have been the unit of analysis in relation to climate change, there are opportunities for other sport management researchers to follow this path.

However, all twelve MASS cases did have a basic grasp of climate change. Most were able to

articulate that global climate, often referred to as “weather”, was warming and that the principal cause of this was greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions produced by human activities. Eleven of the twelve MASS cases – and nineteen of the twenty interviewees – accepted the main claims of the science of climate change. That is, that the global climate was warming, and that this warming was principally caused by GHG emissions associated with human activities. Whilst climate change is not their area of expertise, and so represents one of the areas of uncertainty that emerged from the interview data, most MASS organisations were nevertheless able to identify elements of climate change such as changing weather patterns (cases A, B, C, E, G, J & K), extreme weather events (cases A, C, I & J), the role of humans in climate change (C, E, F, H, I, K & L), and the role of GHG emissions in trapping heat (cases E, F, G & J).

This basic understanding of climate change, although somewhat limited and tentative, is still

consistent with the scientific consensus on climate change discussed in Chapter Two of this thesis. As such, it represents a basic scientific literacy on the part of these MASS organisations, and could be the basis for developing operational – or even dynamic capabilities – for adapting to climate change. That is, understanding why an organisation might act on climate change is a precursor to action – and the effectiveness of such action. Understanding the basics of climate change is arguably one of the foundations for management in the early decades of the 21st century in the context of the widely- recognised long-term transition toward the decarbonisation of economies (Bruckner et al., 2007; Bruckner et al., 2010; Edenhofer, Carraro, & Hourcade, 2012; J. A. Glaser, 2007; Goldmark & Von Weizsäcker, 2007; Luderer et al., 2010; Luderer et al., 2012; Luderer et al., 2009; Shinnar & Citro, 2008; Steckel, Jakob, Marschinski, & Luderer, 2011; Weinhofer & Hoffmann, 2010) that is occurring – and is likely to be the norm60. Carbon management (Hoffman, 2007a, 2010; VEPA, 2011), carbon taxes, emissions trading schemes, the polluter-pays principle, and climate change-related legislation such as the NGER Act are likely to be ongoing matters for managers in Australia – including those in MASS organisations. Looking beyond the data, as advocated by Cepeda & Martin (2005, p. 860), the importance of climate change capabilities suggests that inclusion of resource factors in CF1 based on the RBV/RBT literature was correct, although CF1 lacks specific mention of capabilities. It also suggests that RBV/RBT offers an insight into how and why MASS organisations respond to climate change.

However, another finding of this study – that MASS organisations consistently perceive climate change as an issue of cost – highlights a weakness in CF1. Whilst CF1 anticipated that the “physical impacts” of a hotter, drier climate associated with climate change may pose “legislative and

regulatory issues” and “market changes” for MASS organisations, it failed to anticipate just how much climate change was perceived as a cost issue. All MASS cases (100 per cent) investigated for this study reported climate change as a cost issue. For these organisations, they have nothing to sell in relation to climate change: they don’t have any climate change-related products or services for their customers from which they can earn revenue. As a consequence, to perceive climate change in cost- only terms makes perfect sense. While CF1 anticipated that there might be some positive “financial implications of climate change”, such as increased opportunities for “green” sponsorships –

something that was present only in Case F’s partnership with an energy supplier – it does not adequately articulate the cost side of this issue as perceived by MASS organisations. Nor does CF1 explain how the three key climate change issues – water, energy and waste management – were seen

60

Two examples neatly illustrate this point. First, since 2007, the Council of the European Union (CotEU) has been committed to

decarbonising the European economy by reducing GHG emissions by sixty to eighty per cent by the year 2050 (CotEU, 2007; Weinhofer & Hoffmann, 2010). Second, a recent national survey concluded that, ‘nearly three quarters’ of senior Australian business executives believed that carbon pricing would survive in Australia even if the Federal Opposition is elected to government at the 2013 election with its pledge to repeal the current carbon pricing legislation. See Morton (2012, p. 4), ‘Carbon pricing spurs business on’.

as sites for increasing costs but also as opportunities for lowering those costs. That CF1 did not foresee this suggests that further examination of the extant literature is warranted to see what it might offer for a second iteration of the conceptual framework – a CF2.

Media reportage of climate change was a significant influence on how MASS cases formed their understanding of the issue was another important finding of this study. In terms of Daft & Weick’s (1984) original three-stage sensemaking model, they scan/collect data about climate change mainly from the media. That the media is a strong factor in determining how people understand climate change, even in different cultures, is now well established (Cordon, 2010; Leiserowitz, Maibach, Roser-Renouf, Feinberg, & Howe, 2012; Leiserowitz & Thaker, 2012). Although recent work points out that public perceptions of climate change cannot be separated from social factors (Leiserowitz, 2006, 2007; Marx et al., 2007) and individual psychology (Kahan, 2012; Kahan et al., 2011; Maibach, Roser-Renouf, & Leiserowitz, 2008), the media is still critical in shaping how we understand it.

For example, von Storch & Krauss (2005) argue that while national culture is a key influence on how people perceive climate change, media interpretations are also important with “frameworks(s) of vulnerability” used in both Germany and the United States. The role of media interpretations of climate change in how the building industry makes sense of it is also known (Hertin et al., 2003, pp. 281-282). The media’s role in influencing corporate responses to environmental issues more generally – beyond just climate change – is however well established (Bansal, 2005, p. 203). Indeed, a range of empirical studies have demonstrated the media’s pivotal influence on such responses (Bansal & Clelland, 2004; Bansal & Roth, 2000; Bowen, 2000; Henriques & Sadorsky, 1996) which underlines the importance of this factor. That the media turned out to be such a strong factor in how MASS organisations made sense of climate change represents another weakness in the initial conceptual framework. CF1 anticipated that sensemaking would be an internal factor in determining how MASS organisations perceived climate change however, it did not identify the media as a key influence in this process. This is further justification for modifying CF1 to create a second iteration – a CF2.

Most MASS organisations expressed their understanding of climate change around three key issues: water, energy and waste. This is a key finding of this study and the first in sport management research. Whilst to some degree these organisations were still waiting for the full implications of climate change to become clearer, these three issues were clear and consistent themes in the data. This combination of issues have not been reported in the sport management literature before, although water issues have been raised before in relation to sport in Western Australia (WADSR, 2007), and outside sport in the electricity industry (Haigh & Griffiths, 2012) and the housing and water sectors (Berkhout et al., 2006). The consistent linking by MASS organisations of water, energy and waste issues to climate change is likely influenced by media portrayals of climate change. Extreme weather

events such as drought are frequently portrayed in the media in Australia as a climate change problem61. Lower rainfall is evident in such portrayals, but is then reinforced by government requirements for large organisations to use water efficiently and incentives to install water

management infrastructure such as water harvesting, water storage, and water recycling. Equally, the carbon-intensive nature of electrical energy production in Australia is frequently reported by the media62 and government as the underlying motivation for climate change policies such as the carbon tax and ETS, and renewable energy targets. It is not surprising therefore that MASS organisations report energy as a climate change issue. Lastly, the data showed that most MASS cases understood the link between solid waste that accrues at their stadia, its disposal, and landfill waste GHG emissions. GHG emissions from landfill feature much less in media portrayals of climate change in Australia and probably are not as easy to attribute to this influence. However, the relationship between waste, landfill and GHG’s is a topic raised by waste contractors, the Venue Managers Association, and industry publications that also influenced how MASS organisations perceive climate change. The latter suggests that stakeholder theory may offer some insights into how they do this and tends to confirm that it was appropriate to include stakeholder factors in CF1.

Whilst water, energy and waste were clearly perceived as issues, MASS organisations were largely uncertain about longer-term national energy and climate change policy. Legislation for carbon pricing including an ETS were not familiar. Even the NGER Act, the law most likely to apply to MASS as big energy users, was familiar to only two cases (A & E). This uncertainty about climate change is consistent with some management literature: Okereke (2007) identified corporate uncertainty about the “marketplace”, Kolk & Pinkse (2005) identified corporate uncertainty about the “competitive effects” of the Kyoto Protocol and future “regulatory measures”, while uncertainty in assessing climate change evidence is another issue (Berkhout et al., 2006; B. Levitt & March, 1988). climate change “policy uncertainty” is also reported as an issue for business (Dunn, 2002; Heal & Kriström, 2002; Okereke, 2007), while Dunn (2002) claims that uncertainties over renewable energy

technologies and emissions markets have deterred investment in both. In terms of Daft & Weick’s (1984) sensemaking model, most were unaware of climate change policy or legislation because they had not scanned (collected data) for them, and so they had not interpreted or learned (acted on) them. For CF1 however, overall it was useful for offering some insights into how MASS organisations understood climate change and should be retained for CF2.

61

A good example of this is Jones, D. (2008). ‘Our hot, dry future’, TheAge. Fairfax Newspapers, p. 11.

62

Major Australian newspapers are a good example of this. The Australian Financial Review, the Australian and the Age have all frequently reported the implications of the Australian Government’s carbon pricing policy for the electrical energy industry since it was announced on Sunday July 10th, 2011. For example, the Australian Financial Review’s report of Monday July 11th, 2011 (Chinnery, 2011, p. 16) – ‘Fund to assist orderly buyouts’ – among many others, illustrates how carbon-intensive electricity generation businesses are affected by carbon pricing.

Theme 2: Climate change issues for MASS organisations

A conundrum inherent in nearly all of the interview data, and implied by its absence of documents, is that while nearly all of the cases – and regardless of the theoretical category – reported climate change issues pertaining to water, waste and energy (and some reported it to be a high priority), very few of them could provide any documents that verified they had actually done much thinking about climate change. Only Case B could provide a document (Sustainability Assessment, June 2010) that referred to climate change at all (GHG emissions), and even it referred to these as part of broader

sustainability issues such as water and waste. Only two cases (A & E) said they reported to the Commonwealth Government under the NGER Act – legislation that is specific to climate change – , and none had a specific climate change plan. No references to climate change, or climate change- related issues such as carbon pricing, were found in the annual reports of these cases either. It was therefore almost entirely impossible to triangulate the claims made in the interviews with documents. As a consequence, after some time analysing the data I found myself asking, “Are they really thinking about climate change?” If they were, most did not appear to be doing so systematically.

Nevertheless, water, waste and energy are the primary climate change issues for MASS organisations. Beginning with water, it was clear that these organisations were heavily water-dependent and that they were concerned about lower rainfall associated with climate change. It was also clear that the increasing costs of purchasing water from water suppliers was creating a financial incentive for them to reduce their water use and costs. A minority also reported being concerned about “negative public perceptions” associated from being large water users during a time of significant water restrictions. While climate change-related water issues are identified in a small number of non-sport management literature (Linnenluecke & Griffiths, 2010a; Winn et al., 2011), this is new to sport literature. Another concern highlighted by this study is one of an organisational perspective of climate change. As discussed in Chapter Two of this thesis, an interesting feature of the small body of sport literature that discusses sport and climate change is that most of it illustrates the value of Porter & Kramer’s (2006) and Porter & Reinhardt’s (2007) inside-out and outside-in perspectives of organisations. That is, unlike sport-environment literature that consistently discusses the negative impacts of sporting activities (the “inside”) on the natural environment (the “outside”) – what can be called an inside-out view – sport and climate change literature tends to see sport and sport organisations from the opposite perspective of outside-in. In other words, this literature unconsciously shares a view of sport that emphasises the impact of climate change on sport, and tends to highlight potential vulnerabilities of