Determinants of the perceived importance of organisational adaptation to climate change in the Australian energy industry

Abstract

Climate change will pose considerable risk to organisations in the 21st century. However, organisational adaptation to climate change has not yet received much attention in the management literature. Drawing on strategic choice theory, we put forward a model proposing that environmental attitudes and climate change knowledge are antecedents of how important adaptation is perceived to be by organisational decision-makers and that the perceived risk towards climate change acts as a mediator in this relationship. We tested the model with responses from 101 managers in the Australian energy industry. Findings of the study show that both environmental attitudes and climate change knowledge have a significantly positive effect on the perceived importance of climate change adaptation and that this relationship is mediated by risk perception. The study highlights the need to draw climate knowledge to the attention of executives and discusses avenues for future research, including the extension of the findings to other industries and settings.

Keywords

Adaptation climate change climate change knowledge decision-making energy industry environmental attitudes risk

1. Introduction

Climate change is a significant challenge impacting the business environment in the 21st century. The Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2014b) highlights the adverse effects of climate change on ecosystems and society, as well as business and industry, and the need to adapt to avoid future damage and take advantage of possible opportunities. Global climate change has regional manifestations – the regional climate of Australia is changing, and weather extremes are expected to become more frequent and intense over the coming years (CSIRO, 2014; Reisinger et al., 2014). The prospect of more extreme weather events, such as floods, droughts and storms, highlights the need for society, business and industry to take adaptive action (Reisinger et al., 2014), especially in exposed locations and sectors. However, even if stringent climate change mitigation efforts were undertaken immediately, some level of adaptation would still be necessary (Berrang-Ford et al., 2011). Past emissions will inevitably cause future warming, likely surpassing a warming of 2°C. The so-called ‘2°C target’ is the threshold of warming that is considered by many scientists to be the point at which substantial climatic changes will start to occur (e.g. Linnenluecke et al., 2015a, 2015d; Parry et al., 2009), requiring extensive adaptations adapt to geophysical changes such as heat waves or rising sea levels.

While the scientific findings suggest that it is of great importance that organisations include adaptation to climate change in their strategic plans, most research into organisational responses to climate change focuses on the cost of carbon and on mitigation; that is, how greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced (Fan et al., 2014; Grothmann and Patt, 2005). The topic of climate change is starting to gain a larger presence in the management literature and in organisational practice (Ansari et al., 2011; Goodall, 2008), but attention to adaptation as a response option is still limited. Indeed, there is little evidence of organisations taking proactive action towards adapting to climate change (Linnenluecke et al., 2013). More research is needed to help organisations develop proactive, rather than reactive, strategies and adaptation measures to minimise the adverse impacts due to changes in the regional and global climate. As yet, little is understood about how organisational decision-makers engage with the challenge of a changing climate and how they evaluate adaptive actions (Linnenluecke et al., 2013).

In order to advance knowledge of how organisations can effectively adapt to climate change, this study focuses on understanding the factors that determine decision-makers’ perceived need to adapt to climate change. The context for the study is the Australian energy industry. Australia’s mostly thermal energy generation is vulnerable to climate change because of drought-induced water restrictions, and both energy generation and distribution systems are susceptible to shifts in demand patterns, changed climate patterns and the impacts of weather extremes (IPCC, 2014c). As yet, however, few frameworks exist that address the question of which factors influence decision-makers’ perceived importance of adaptive action. Some emerging studies have developed conceptual models of how organisations adapt to the impacts of climate change on organisations (e.g. Winn et al., 2011), yet few contributions focus on analysing decision-making processes or the antecedents to climate change adaptation (e.g. Busch, 2011). This paper seeks to address this gap identified in the literature by exploring personal determinants of how important adaptation is perceived to be by organisational decision-makers.

This article proceeds as follows: first, we review the existing literature on climate change adaptation and then put forward a model proposing that environmental attitudes and climate change knowledge are antecedents to how important managers consider adaptation to climate change to be. Perceived risk towards climate change is proposed as a mediator in this relationship. This model is then tested through a quantitative study of organisational decision-makers in the Australian energy industry. This article offers a discussion of the findings and their implications, focusing on the communication of climate risks to decision-makers to encourage proactive adaptation measures and to minimise adverse impacts on organisations from climate change and related impacts, such as extreme weather. The study highlights the need to draw climate knowledge to the attention of executives and discusses avenues for future research, including the extension of the findings to other industries and settings.

2. Adaptation to climate change

Adaptation to climate change can be defined as ‘adjustments in natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli or their effects, which moderate harm or exploit beneficial opportunities’ (IPCC, 2014a). Extending this definition to an organisational context, corporate adaptation to climate change refers to measures which an organisation can adopt to adjust to those changes in the Earth’s climate that may affect the organisation’s operations (Adger et al., 2005). Winn and Kirchgeorg (2005) argue that a radical shift is imminent in the way in which the environment is considered in strategic decisions. Related to this point, researchers have put forward that proactive adaptation to climate change (as opposed to reactive responses) can be a source of competitive advantage because it increases an organisation’s resilience to ecological disturbances and thus reduces the likelihood that operations will be negatively affected, compared to other organisations which do not take proactive action (Busch, 2011). Thus, investigations of how to encourage proactive organisational adaptation to climate change are an area worth of more attention in the management literature.

2.1. Conceptual foundations for organisational adaptation

Traditionally, organisational adaptation theory has provided insights into how organisations adapt to external environmental changes, yet without a specific focus on adaptation to climate change. Within adaptation theory, the strategic choice perspective is a dominant perspective which focuses on how managerial perceptions of external threats and opportunities lead to action in response to external change (Child, 1972, 1997). The managerial role is seen as a proactive one, leading to the ability to make autonomous choices (Astely and Van de Ven, 1983). Thus, according to the strategic choice perspective, decision-makers of organisations have the ability to influence the strategic direction of their firm. Core elements of this perspective are managerial knowledge and understandings of external changes which influence how situations are perceived (Sharma, 2000). These perceptions, in turn, influence the actions chosen by organisational decision-makers (Weick, 1969).

A different perspective is a deterministic perspective which stipulates that organisations are subject to their external environment and that the managerial role is largely reactive or inactive (Astely and Van de Ven, 1983). A ‘purely’ deterministic view of adaptation has been criticised as it neglects the voluntary power of decision-makers (Child and Rodrigues, 2011) and does not account for adaptation attempts (restructuring, repositioning) that occur in organisations facing adversity (Tushman and Romanelli, 1985). Thus, research has placed a greater emphasis on understanding human agency and strategic choice; in particular, in situations where environmental uncertainty requires an interpretation of risks (and opportunities) that need to be addressed (e.g. Berkhout et al., 2006; Child and Rodrigues, 2011; Risbey et al., 1999). The strategic choice perspective has been proposed as being a promising theory for further sustainability and climate change adaptation research (Starik and Marus, 2000).

Climate change is now presenting a new challenge which was not considered when adaptation theories were originally conceptualised, and limited research exists extending these theories to climate change adaptation. Most studies in the management literature focus on adaptation to other external forces, such as the competitive and market environment (Linnenluecke et al., 2013). The literature that is addressing climate change adaptation has largely been developed and published outside the management and business literature field and is often more focused on societal, rather than organisational adaptations to climate change (see, for example, contributions by Adger et al., 2005; Denton et al., 2014). In the Australian context, the environment, sustainability and climate change are still among the least identified categories of corporate risk and rarely covered as a top priority (Christensen and Kent, 2015).

Adaptation to climate change is only now starting to be included in policy and legislation formulations (Verschuuren, 2013), and there is not yet a strong institutional imperative for most organisations to adapt to climate change. Adaptation frameworks are only starting to emerge (e.g. the EU Adaptation Strategy Package). Consequently, there is no strong legislative or institutional pressure to consider climate change within a firm’s strategic environment. Nonetheless, there is increased recognition, also in organisational practice, of the importance of a firm’s natural environment and the risks posed by climate change (e.g. Arnell and Delaney, 2006; Hahn et al., 2010; Hertin et al., 2003; Sharma, 2000; Surminski, 2013), and it is worth investigating what encourages proactive action and what drives decision-makers to consider climate change when making strategic decisions. Particularly, it appears that a closer consideration of the role of the decision-maker is needed to understand why some firms (even within the same industry) have started to emphasise climate change adaptation, while others are not yet (or less) concerned about impacts and adaptation. This type of investigation will add knowledge to the existing theory of climate change adaptation and also provide practical guidance for decision-makers in terms of how to communicate and approach adaptation to climate change.

2.2. The role of the decision-maker in climate change adaptation

Organisational decision-makers assume an integral role in the organisational adaptation process as they are in charge of formulating strategic plans that influence an organisation’s strategic decisions and behaviour and enable it to respond to changes in the external environment (Lewin et al., 2004). The success of an organisation can therefore – in part – be regarded as a function of the favourable choices made by its decision-makers. However, decision-makers face information, time and other constraints such as uncertainties around future outcomes when making strategic decisions (Simon, 1991), meaning that the decision-making processed is heavily influenced by their perceptions of how future change will affect the organisation and how the organisation should best respond (Weick et al., 2005). The link between managerial perceptions and the choice of corporate strategy has been demonstrated in a number of studies. Sharma (2000), for example, found that managerial perceptions of environmental issues as either opportunities or threats are related to the environmental strategies adopted by Canadian oil and gas organisations.

Prior research has also established a link between organisational inertia and decision-makers’ perceptions of external threats. Tripsas and Gavetti (2000) report on how the imaging company Polaroid, once a market leader, struggled to remain competitive when digital imaging was introduced as the company’s top management was unable to adequately understand the challenge they faced and retained long-held, and previously helpful, beliefs that prevented the company from moving forward, resulting in the loss of their market leader position. The authors argue that organisations which face discontinuities in their environment and must undergo change to thrive will struggle to do so if managerial perceptions and attitudes do not allow this change to occur. Managerial inaction can thereby be the result of inherent preference for the way things have been done so far or a lack of knowledge of the challenges that are being faced (Tripsas and Gavetti, 2000).

Given that strategic responses are in many cases not driven by ‘absolute’ risks but by risk perceptions (Linnenluecke et al., 2015c), it is important to consider decision-makers’ engagement with climate change and how they choose to address this challenge. In the field of climate change research, the role of perception (for example, of risk or adaptive capacity) is already recognised as an important influence on whether adaptation to climate change is pursued (Grothmann and Patt, 2005; Moser and Ekstrom, 2010). Extending these insights to organisational adaptation to climate change, it can be argued that it is essential for decision-makers to understand the challenge that climate change presents and the way in which it can affect the organisation. The considerable amount of uncertainty associated with climate change and its impacts on organisations’ assets and operations highlights the role that risk perception plays in this process. Only decision-makers who are informed about the risks, challenges and opportunities which climate change presents, and who have attitudes that are beneficial in this situation, can adequately consider climate change within their organisation’s strategic environment and make relevant adjustments to operations. If decision-makers are unable to adequately engage with and understand the challenge of climate change, they are likely to take inappropriate actions or no action at all.

It can be discerned why climate change is a difficult topic to address in strategic decisions. Climate change is uncertain and ambiguous; it presents a considerable amount of risk because it is difficult to forecast how climate change will impact an organisation. Human cognition hinders individuals from appreciating the climate change problem for as serious an issue as it in fact is. Climate change is also difficult to proactively incorporate into the strategic environment of an organisation and thus present obstacles to organisational adaptation to climate change (Berkhout et al., 2006; Reilly and Schimmelpfennig, 2000). Organisational decision-makers formulate the strategic plans and processes that enable their firm to respond to changes within its environment; they are an integral part of the adaptation process. Thus, a valuable avenue of research is to further investigate the role that decision-makers play in adaptation to climate change and what causes decision-makers to consider this type of adaptation to be an important strategic choice to make.

3. Model

Existing models not only suggest a connection between risk perception and action but also highlight the importance of environmental attitudes and environmental knowledge as fundamental inputs into the decision-making process (e.g. Linnenluecke et al., 2015c; Tikir and Lehmann, 2010). The theory of planned behaviour suggests that attitudes towards a behaviour (and the social norms attached to it) influence an individual’s intentions towards this behaviour which subsequently affects their actions (e.g. Ajzen, 1991, 1985). The theory of planned behaviour has been integrated within a risk perception framework (e.g. Gifford, 2011; Tikir and Lehmann, 2010) to explain individuals’ actions towards climate and show the relevance that attitudes and risk perceptions have in responding to climate change. In addition, prior research has established a relationship between executives’ engagement with climate science, the perception of climate risks and resulting vulnerabilities and the decision-making outcome to adapt (Linnenluecke et al., 2015c). Findings show that executives who report greater engagement with climate science (i.e. greater knowledge of climate change) express a greater concern about their companies’ vulnerability and the need for adaptation action. Taken together, these studies suggest that prior knowledge and attitudes influence decision-makers’ perceptions of climate change, which in turn influences the way they address this challenge. The following sections further outline the different variables and the overall hypothesis for testing. The main model tested in this article is summarised in Figure 1 (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Mediation model.

3.1. Environmental attitudes

Prior research has found positive correlations between environmental attitudes and behavioural intentions, for example, actions on environmental issues such as pollution (Kraus, 1995; O’Connor et al., 1999). Environmental attitudes also feature prominently in climate change–related research, mostly in relation to pro-environmental behaviour and mitigative actions (e.g. Stern et al., 1995). Therefore, it is interesting to consider the relationship between environmental attitudes and intention to adapt to climate change. It is possible that a relationship between environmental attitudes and behaviour also exists when adaptation to climate change is under investigation. In this study, environmental attitudes are defined as biospheric attitudes, which refer to the extent to which somebody considers the planet to be a fragile place in which humans must acknowledge that there are limits to how much the space can be altered and controlled (Stern et al., 1995).

This study hypothesises that environmental attitudes are an antecedent to climate change adaptation, mediated through perceived risk towards climate change. Environmental attitudes play an important role in the general perceptions of risks related to the natural environment (Dunlap and Scarce, 1991). Those who are more environmentally minded and consider the planet to be a fragile place that has to be treated with respect are likely to perceive higher risks in regards to how climate change will affect this space and thereby their own well-being. Perceived risk acts as a motivator to take action (Grothmann and Patt, 2005). Perceived risk towards climate change is conceptualised as the opinion that climate change will cause harm to oneself or to one’s society, be it as a result of extreme weather events or changing geographical characteristics (O’Connor et al., 1999).

3.2. Climate change knowledge

Knowledge is a precondition to voluntary action (e.g. McKenzie-Mohr et al., 1995; Mobley et al., 2010), and decision-makers’ ability to incorporate climate change–related knowledge into strategic decisions is an important part of climate change adaptation (Busch, 2011). Indeed, several studies have found a link between knowledge of climate change impacts and the extent to which adaptation is incorporated into a firm’s strategic environment (Arnell and Delaney, 2006). A lack of knowledge about climate change is a considerable barrier that prevents engagement with climate change (Lorenzoni et al., 2007). Previous studies have documented that businesses operating in vulnerable sectors such as mining are lacking knowledge of climate change impacts and the potential benefits of adaptation (Ford et al., 2011). In addition, research has shown that there are numerous misconceptions about the causes, consequences and impacts of climate change (e.g. Moxnes and Saysel, 2008; Reynolds et al., 2010; Sterman and Booth Sweeny, 2007), possibly limiting meaningful action on climate change.

However, findings also suggest climate change knowledge does not directly translate into action on climate change, but is first translated into risk and threat perceptions (Floyd et al., 2000). Knowledge about climate change has been found to be positively related to perceived risk in regards to climate change and behavioural intentions. O’Connor et al. (1999), for instance, propose that a positive relationship exists between individuals’ knowledge about climate change and the perceived importance of climate change adaptation and that this relationship is mediated by perceived risk. Similarly, Linnenluecke et al. (2015c) found that how vulnerable executives perceive their company to be to the impacts of climate change is an important mediator between their knowledge of climate change and perceived adaptation needs. Knowledge about climate change and its impacts are likely to be an integral part of the process of adaptation and whether such actions are considered to be necessary. In this study, climate change knowledge is defined as the extent to which an individual is aware of the causes, physical manifestations and consequences of climate change (Tobler et al., 2012).

Taking together existing research on environmental attitudes and climate change knowledge, we propose the following hypothesis:

H1. Individuals who exhibit greater pro-environmental attitudes and who possess greater climate change knowledge perceive adaptation to climate change to be more important. This relationship is mediated by their perceived risk towards climate change.

4. Research design and methodology

Data were collected from Australian energy companies. Only companies involved in the generation and distribution of energy were targeted because climate change is most likely to affect the generators and distributors in this industry. This is because climate change and extreme weather events can damage infrastructure integral to this industry (Reisinger et al., 2014). Preliminary preparation of the study commenced in August 2014 and data collection was completed in March 2015. This survey approach was deemed appropriate because it allows for the targeting of widely dispersed individuals and the gathering of data that is broad and representative of the study’s target population. In total, 331 emails containing a survey link were distributed, of which 101 were returned, resulting in a response rate of 30.5%. Responses were checked to ensure that there was no statistical difference between early and late responders, which was not the case. The survey consisted of five sections outlined in the following. Prior to distribution, the survey was pre-tested to ensure that all of the questions were unambiguous, clearly worded and understood as intended.

4.1. Measurements of variables

Perceived importance of adaptive action. We adopted a scale by Linnenluecke et al. (2015c) to assess the perceived importance of adaptive action. For the purposes of this study, the scale was amended to make the survey items more applicable to Australian energy companies. Energy industry experts and industry reports were consulted to modify the adaptation scale to the energy industry setting. The original scale consisted of 16 items. The adapted scale resulted in 12 items. Each of these items was measured using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from ‘Not important at all’ to ‘Very important’.

Environmental attitudes. Environmental attitudes were measured on Dunlap et al.’s (2000) New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) scale. This scale measures the attitudes and beliefs someone holds towards nature and its relationship with humanity and is based upon the original New Environmental Paradigm scale developed by Dunlap and Van Liere (1978). The NEP scale has been proven to contain high internal reliability and construct validity and to accurately measure an individual’s pro-environmental orientation (Dunlap et al., 2000). The NEP scale consists of 15 items for each of which respondents are asked to indicate how much they agree with the statement on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from ‘Strongly disagree’ to ‘Strongly agree’. For the analysis, items 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 and 14 were reverse-coded to result in a higher score for more environmentally minded respondents.

Climate change knowledge. The measure of climate change knowledge was adopted from Tobler et al. (2012). Their scale measures a respondent’s knowledge about climate change’s physical aspects, causes and consequences. It consists of correct and incorrect statements which respondents are asked to indicate as either true or false. For the purposes of this study, the scale was shortened by eliminating questions which were not relevant to the Australian context as the original scale was developed for the Swiss public. Additionally, items which were deemed irrelevant to the purposes of this study and the energy industry context were also eliminated. The resulting scale included items that were deemed appropriate due to their broad coverage of climate change–related aspects. The adapted scale resulted in 17 questions, 8 of which were correct statements and 9 of which were incorrect statements. All the items were of varying difficulty and were equally split between the three different domains of climate change.

Perceived risk towards climate change. A 7-item scale was used to assess a respondent’s perceived risk towards climate change. This scale was adopted from the work of Van der Linden (2014) who drew on the scales developed by O’Connor et al. (1999) and Leiserowitz (2006). Each item in Van der Linden’s (2014) scale asks respondents to indicate how much they agree with a proposed statement on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from ‘Strongly disagree’ to ‘Strongly agree’. The scale covers both spatial and temporal risk dimensions. It has been shown to have good construct validity (Van der Linden, 2014).

Control variables. In addition to the constructs identified in the conceptual model, basic demographic details were also collected. These variables included the respondent’s age, gender, education, their company size, their position within the company, as well as whether their company is involved in energy generation, distribution or both.

5. Data analysis and results

A total of 101 surveys were returned. Of the respondents, 88.1% were male, which is representative of skewed gender diversity in the Australian energy industry (AWRA, 2012); 31.7% of participants were employed in organisations involved in energy generation, 35.6% in energy distribution organisations and 32.7% in organisations involved in both activities. This is a close-to-equal split between the three categories, thus the sample equally represents the three energy industry activities relevant to this study. None of the cases were missing any information; hence, all 101 cases were retained for further analysis. Tables 1 and 2 summarise the descriptive statistics, and Table 3 shows the correlation matrix. All scales returned satisfactory alphas of 0.82 for the environmental attitudes scale, 0.93 for the perceived risk scale and 0.84 for the adaptation scale. All of these are above the generally accepted criterion, as stipulated in the relevant literature (Lance, 2006; Nunnally, 1978). The alpha for the climate change knowledge scale was 0.57 which is low, but similar to alphas for other knowledge-assessing scales (e.g. Levine and Strube, 2012).

Table 1.

Summary of descriptive statistics for key constructs.

Variables	Mean	SE	α
ATTITUDE	3.49	0.52	0.82
KNOWLEDGE	13.59	2.21	0.57
RISK	3.68	0.81	0.93
ADAPT	3.67	0.56	0.84

SE: standard error.

Table 2.

Summary of descriptive statistics of control variables.

Control variables	Descriptive	Statistics (n = 101), %
AGE (years)	18–25 26–35 36–45 46–55 Above 55	1.0 16.8 29.7 36.6 15.8
GENDER	Male Female	88.1 11.9
LEVEL	Operational Middle management Top management	14.9 66.3 18.8
FIRM_SIZE	1–49 employees 50–999 1000–4999 5000 or more	1.0 27.7 58.4 12.9
EDUCATION	Year 12 certificate Diploma Bachelor Masters PhD	1.0 7.9 46.5 37.6 6.9
ORG_TYPE	Generation Distribution Both	31.7 35.6 32.7

Table 3.

Correlation matrix of the variables.

	ATTITUDE	KNOWLEDGE	RISK	ADAPT	AGE	GENDER	LEVEL	FIRM_SIZE
KNOWLEDGE	0.309**
RISK	0.718**	0.442**
ADAPT	0.522**	0.184	0.597**
AGE	−0.158	−0.081	−0.291**	−0.132
GENDER	0.069	−0.127	0.152	0.171	−.0341**
LEVEL	−0.207*	−0.003	−0.158	−0.223*	0.349**	−0.025
FIRM_SIZE	0.167	0.015	0.106	0.128	−0.181	0.048	−0.221*
EDUCATION	−0.128	0.174	−0.004	−0.098	0.055	−0.079	0.162	0.001

Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).

Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).

5.1. Path analysis

To test the model proposed in this study (see Figure 1), we carried out a path analysis in SPSS AMOS (version 21), using a maximum likelihood (ML) estimation method. Five control variables were included in the analysis: age (AGE), gender (GENDER), management level of the respondent (LEVEL), total number of employees within the organisation (FIRM_SIZE) and education (EDUCATION). Each of these with paths to RISK and ADAPT to ensure that any effects found were not due to the influence of these variables. All of the following reported results are thus net of the influence of these five variables. The main variables included in the analysis were coded in such a way that higher values indicate greater levels of that particular variable (e.g. greater perceived risk towards climate change).

The goodness-of-fit measures obtained from the analysis of the data fell within the recommended ranges for good model fit, as proposed in the relevant literature (Bentler and Bonett, 1980; Byrne, 2010; Hu and Bentler, 1999). The goodness-of-fit measures for this study were Chi-square/df = 21.457/17 = 1.26, p = 0.207, comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.974, goodness-of-fit index (GFI) = 0.951 and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.051. We conducted further analysis to check for common method variance (Podsakoff et al., 2003) and performed a common latent factor analysis using SPSS AMOS. The test results provided confidence that common method variance did not have a significant impact; however, the results of this study should be interpreted keeping in mind that they are based on data from a self-report survey instrument (Appendix 1).

5.2. Results of path analysis

The results of the analysis are summarised in Figure 1 and Table 4. Environmental attitudes had a significant positive relationship with perceived risk (b = 0.969, p < 0.001), climate change knowledge had a significant positive relationship with perceived risk (b = 0.088, p < 0.001) and perceived risk had a significant positive relationship with the perceived importance of adaptive action (b = 0.359, p < 0.001). It is to be noted that the unstandardised coefficients (b) are reported which are interpreted as the observed change in the outcome variable if the relevant predictor variable increases by one unit.

Table 4.

Model coefficients.

Antecedent	Consequent
	RISK				ADAPT
	Coefficient	SE	CR	p	Coefficient	SE	CR	p
ATTITUDE	0.969	0.103	9.431	<0.001	0.154	0.121	1.271	0.204
KNOWLEDGE	0.088	0.025	3.552	<0.001	−0.014	0.022	−0.623	0.534
RISK	–	–	–	–	0.359	0.086	4.192	<0.001
AGE	−0.127	0.058	−2.165	0.030	0.076	0.051	1.491	0.136
GENDER	0.228	0.166	1.373	0.170	0.196	0.144	1.367	0.172
LEVEL	0.019	0.093	0.204	0.838	−0.137	0.080	−1.716	0.086
FIRM_SIZE	−0.040	0.078	−0.511	0.609	0.034	0.067	0.502	0.616
EDUCATION	0.050	0.067	0.749	0.454	−0.032	0.057	−0.562	0.574
	R² = 0.606				R² = 0.394

SE: standard error; CR: critical ratio.

The findings support a mediation argument and support the hypothesis that individuals with higher environmental attitudes and greater climate change knowledge perceive adaptation to climate change to be of greater importance and that this relationship is mediated by the level of the individual’s perceived risk towards climate change. Together, environmental attitudes, climate change knowledge and perceived risk towards climate change explain 39.4% of variance in the perceived importance of adaptation to climate change (R² = 0.394). We acknowledge that it is possible that other variables not included in the model, such as commitment towards corporate sustainability, could have additional influences on a number of variables in the model. Future research can built upon the model in this research through experiential settings, for example, by studying changes in the perceived importance of adaptation to climate change in response to the release of major news reports on climate change.

6. Discussion and implications

Managerial perceptions of an organisation’s environment and the options available for action are an integral part of organisational adaptation. To date, however, there has been little research investigating the role that personal determinants play in climate change adaptation. This study has addressed this research gap by investigating the relationship between environmental attitudes and climate change knowledge, resulting risk perceptions and the perceived importance of climate change adaptation. Climate change will be a considerable challenge for businesses in the 21st century. Confirming that the two predictor variables do influence decision-makers’ perceived need to adapt to climate change contributes to a better understanding of how to engage with this challenge. It provides information about how businesses can approach adaptation to increase proactive action, thus improving their resilience to a changing climate and reducing the amount of retrospective adaptation required in response to adverse climate effects. The following sections closely examine each of the individual paths.

6.1. Environmental attitudes and climate change adaptation

Past research on environmental attitudes and climate change has largely focused on mitigating climate change (e.g. Stern et al., 1995). Prior research has found positive correlations between environmental attitudes and behavioural intentions (e.g. O’Connor et al., 1999), and these results have provided grounds for hypothesising that environmental attitudes are also related to adaptation to climate change. This study found that environmental attitudes have a positive effect on perceived risk (b = 0.969, p < 0.001), which in turn had a positive effect on the perceived importance of adaptive action (b = 0.359, p < 0.001). Thus, the more environmentally minded an individual, the higher the risk they perceive resulting from climate change, which subsequently increases the individual’s perceived importance of adaptation. Environmental attitudes did not have a significant direct effect on the perceived importance of adaptation, but they did have a significant indirect effect through perceived risk. Thus, the findings support past research into this relationship and also contribute to the literature as environmental attitudes have previously not been tested in relation to climate change adaptation.

A closer consideration of the scale used to measure environmental attitudes in this study, the NEP scale, also provides insights into this relationship. This scale measures the attitudes and beliefs someone holds towards nature and its relationship with humanity; specifically, the extent to which an individual perceives humans to be able to control the environment. An individual with a low rating on this scale tends to perceive humans to be in control and to be able to change the environment to their needs. An individual with a high rating on this scale acknowledges both the limited capacity of humans to control the environment and the limits which the planet places on human intervention. Thus, a high rating suggests that an individual perceives themselves to be subject to forces outside of their control, subsequently increasing their risk perception towards such forces, of which climate change is one. These perceptions on part of the individual increase the extent to which they consider adaptation to be important as adaptation will reduce risks perceived in regards to climate change, such as increasing an organisation’s resilience to adverse climate impacts.

Encouraging pro-environmental attitudes is likely to increase the perceived importance and support of adaptive measures in organisations. Greater pro-environmental awareness increases the perceived risk towards climate change and the impacts it can have on the planet, and, as an extension, on the operations of organisations. The literature argues that education is a key element in determining environmental attitudes (Leszczynska, 2010). Therefore, one option for increasing environmental awareness and consciousness in organisations is educating employees about the ways in which organisations negatively impact the environment and how, in turn, the environment can negatively impact organisations (Winn and Kirchgeorg, 2005). Such education programmes should also address beliefs relating to the environment as these are important predictors of environmental attitudes (Pooley and O’Connor, 2000). For example, increasing an individual’s awareness that they are a part of nature, and thereby reducing the extent to which they feel separate from nature, increases that individual’s environmental concern (Schultz, 2000). Such actions could address misconceptions and negative attitudes about climate change. In addition, educational programmes are also relevant to the finding that climate change knowledge affects how important individuals perceive adaptation to climate change to be.

6.2. Climate change knowledge and adaptation

Previous studies have shown that knowledge is a precondition to voluntary action (McKenzie-Mohr et al., 1995; Mobley et al., 2010) and is positively related to perceived risk towards climate change (O’Connor et al., 1999). Findings from our study indicate that the more decision-makers know about the causes, physical manifestations and consequences of climate change, the more concerned they are about the potential effect of climate change on the planet and on their own well-being, which is reflected in their increased perceived risk towards climate change. This is an interesting finding, one which can also have substantial practical implications. This study found a significant relationship between knowledge and perceived risk. Individuals perceive greater risk towards climate change when they are more informed about what causes climate change and how it will affect the planet and human systems. Thus, increasing an individual’s knowledge about climate change will indirectly lead them to perceive adaptation to be more important.

Overall, these findings show the important role that knowledge plays in organisational activities. The greater the knowledge, the more aware decision-makers are about the way in which certain environmental changes affect organisational operations, which in turn increases their awareness of the importance to proactively adapt to such challenges, rather than retrospectively taking action once negative impacts are felt. A possible reason for this relationship is that uncertainty due to lack of knowledge prevents action from being taken in regards to climate change as does the potential untrustworthiness of information sources (Lorenzoni et al., 2007). It is difficult for decision-makers to address climate change if they know little about the causes, manifestations and impacts. Difficulties thus arise in devising and implementing adaptation measures. Similar problems occur when information sources are not seen as trustworthy such as mass media, for example. These considerations highlights the importance that education and trustworthy information sources play in allowing decision-makers to address and respond to climate change effectively on behalf of their organisation.

Organisational education campaigns addressing climate change are likely to have a positive impact not only on environmental attitudes but also on the extent to which an organisation is able to address climate change. Other authors have already made the case for corporate education to encourage corporate social responsibility and sustainability practices (e.g. Eboli and Mancini, 2012; Tseng et al., 2010). The findings of this study support those claims. Corporate education on climate change–related topics will encourage proactive action by increasing awareness of the possible impacts of climate change on organisational operations and highlighting the benefits that can be derived from taking proactive adaptation measures. Climate change is just one of several external challenges which need to be addressed in an organisation’s strategic decisions, so it is important that decision-makers are knowledgeable about this challenge so they can take adequate steps to address it and not neglect this area as that is likely to lead to adverse long-term consequences.

7. Conclusion and avenues for future research

This study has addressed the lack of research into how organisations engage with climate change adaptation and what encourages proactive action. More work needs to be done in this stream of research to ensure that businesses will be able to cope with a changing climate over the coming years and not suffer in the long term (see Linnenluecke et al., 2016). There are a number of avenues for future research. One possible extension of the line of enquiry presented in this article is to deepen research on climate impacts on the energy industry and to better understand adaptation options and constraints. Climate change creates significant risk factors for this sector which result not only from the physical impacts of climate change but also from resource constraints (for example, limits to fossil fuel extraction), changing technological landscapes (for example, a greater uptake of renewable energy) and changed social expectations (Linnenluecke et al., 2015b). Future work can, for example, explore how decision-makers in the energy sector are responding to these challenges and whether and how companies factor in adaptation decisions in their reporting and strategic decision-making practices (in addition to existing environmental and social reporting practices).

Another possible avenue for further research is to investigate to what extent findings hold true for other sectors given the energy industry is facing some unique factors, for example, significant investments into large-scale infrastructure (sunk costs) and resulting risks to assets and limits to adaptation. In addition, future research can examine to what extent the perceived importance of climate change adaptation is related to actual adaptation taking place. A longitudinal study on how the perceived importance of adaptation translates to what the relative organisations have gone on to do in this regard would provide further support and additional useful insights into the relationships found in this study. Policy-makers’ perceived importance of adaptation of the energy industry and resulting policy measures also presents an interesting avenue for future research. These types of investigations are timely and important because the threat climate change poses is predicted to increase over coming years.

Future research can also explore how the communication of climate science can help better prepare decision-makers and organisations for future climate change. It will be important to communicate climate change information in a way that is accessible to (and useful for) a business audience (Patenaude, 2011). Knowledge that is relevant to the organisation is more useful to decision-makers; for example, it can be made relevant to the business community by setting out the concrete linkages between adverse climate events and the effects these can have on an organisation’s performance. Making climate change information readily available through trusted sources and quality coverage will help decision-makers gain knowledge (Nisbet, 2009). Decision-makers need to have access to climate change publications that are directly relevant to their particular industry and that provide information which can be trusted. Access to such publications will help business leaders make climate-related decisions and increase the extent to which climate change is considered in their strategic decisions.

Furthermore, future research can focus on the role of climate education should as part of management education in business schools. Business schools have been criticised for failing to incorporate topics related to climate change into their curricula (Patenaude, 2011). Business schools play an important role in shaping future corporate decision-makers and are thus able to have a large impact on how organisations are run in the future. In the implementation of such measures, it should be considered that the challenge of climate change needs cross-disciplinary approaches (e.g. Härtel and Pearman, 2010; Patenaude, 2011) which break down boundaries between different disciplines, such as the sciences and management. A holistic view of the problem of climate change is needed to adequately understand the threat it poses and be able to devise effective responses – a cross-disciplinary approach would facilitate such a holistic view (Härtel and Pearman, 2010). Business schools with cross-disciplinary approaches will better prepare our future decision-makers for the climate-related challenges they are likely to face in their professional lives and enhance their ability to make advantageous strategic decisions, such as those concerning climate change adaptation.

In addition, future research can also refine the measurement scales for the constructs in this study. The scale used to measure climate change knowledge in this study was originally designed to assess the knowledge of the general public. Future research could develop more sophisticated measures to assess how informed employees in a particular industry or organisation are about the causes and consequences of climate change and how this translates into knowledge about climate change relevant to their industry. Future research could also establish specifically what type of knowledge encourages adaptive measures. The scale used in this study broadly covered the causes, physical manifestations and consequences of climate change. There is likely to be a limit at which point additional information about climate change, such as very scientific aspects of it, ceases to influence how important adaptation is perceived to be. It would be beneficial to establish these types of boundary conditions so that climate change education can effectively target the areas which are most likely to result in the desired outcome.

Organisations will have to adapt to climate change. Our climate will continue to warm due to past emissions even if strict mitigation measures are introduced now and all carbon emissions are halted (Parry et al., 2009). To address climate change adequately, decision-makers need to adequately understand climate change and the threat it poses. This study is a first step in understanding the role of the decision-maker in climate adaptation. Our findings indicate that opportunities exist for engaging decision-makers in climate adaptation, and we hope that this article presents a first step for future research and new practices in this area.

Footnotes

Appendix 1

Final transcript accepted 6 September 2016 by Baljit Sidhu (Editor in Chief).

Funding

M.L. would like to acknowledge funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC) (Grant Number DP160103425).

References

Adger

Arnell

Tompkins

(2005) Successful adaptation to climate change across scales. Global Environmental Change 15: 77–86.

Ajzen

(1985) From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In: Kuhl

Beckmann

(eds) Action Control: From Cognition to Behavior. Berlin: Springer, pp. 11–39.

Ajzen

(1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50: 179–211.

Ansari

Gray

Wijen

(2011) Fiddling while the ice melts? How organisational scholars can take a more active role in the climate change debate. Strategic Organization 9: 70–76.

Arnell

Delaney

(2006) Adapting to climate change: Public water supply in England and Wales. Climatic Change 78: 227–255.

Astely

Van de Ven

(1983) Central perspectives and debates in organisation theory. Administrative Science Quarterly 28: 245–273.

AWRA (2012) Gender Diversity in the Australian Resource Industry. Australia: AMMA Resource Industry Employer Group. Available at: http://www.amma.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/AWRA_Baseline_Report_January_2013_FA.pdf

Bentler

Bonett

(1980) Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin 88: 588–606.

Berkhout

Hertin

Gann

(2006) Learning to adapt: Organisational adaptation to climate change impacts. Climatic Change 78: 135–156.

10.

Berrang-Ford

Ford

Paterson

(2011) Are we adapting to climate change? Global Environmental Change 21: 25–33.

11.

Busch

(2011) Organisational adaptation to disruptions in the natural environment: The case of climate change. Scandinavian Journal of Management 27: 389–404.

12.

Byrne

(2010) Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

13.

Child

(1972) Organisational structure, environment and performance: The role of strategic choice. Sociology 6: 1–22.

14.

Child

(1997) Strategic choice in the analysis of action, structure, organisation and the environment: Retrospect and prospect. Organization Studies 18: 43–76.

15.

Child

Rodrigues

(2011) How organisations engage with external complexity: A political action perspective. Organization Studies 32: 803–824.

16.

Christensen

Kent

(2015) The decision to outsource risk management services. Accounting and Finance. Epub ahead of print 23 April. DOI: 10.1111/acfi.12119.

17.

CSIRO (2014) State of the Climate 2014. State of the Climate. CSIRO. Available at: http://www.csiro.au/en/Research/OandA/Areas/Assessing-our-climate/State-of-the-Climate/2014-SoC-Report

18.

Denton

Wilbanks

Abeysinghe

. (2014) Climate-Resilient pathways: Adaptation, mitigation, and sustainable development. In: IPCC (ed.) Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability: Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Available at: http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/report/

19.

Dunlap

Scarce

(1991) Poll trends: Environmental problems and protection. Public Opinion Quarterly 55: 651–672.

20.

Dunlap

Van Liere

(1978) The ‘new environmental paradigm’: A proposed measuring instrument and preliminary results. The Journal of Environmental Education 9: 10–19.

21.

Dunlap

Liere

Mertig

. (2000) Measuring endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues 56: 425–442.

22.

Eboli

Mancini

(2012) Corporate education for sustainability. International Journal of Environment and Sustainable Development 11: 339–354.

23.

Fan

Roca

Akimov

(2014) Estimation and performance evaluation of optimal hedge ratios in the carbon market of the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme. Australian Journal of Management 39: 73–91.

24.

Floyd

Prentice-Dunn

Rogers

(2000) A meta-analysis of research on protection motivation theory. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 30: 407–429.

25.

Ford

Pearce

Prno

. (2011) Canary in a coal mine: Perceptions of climate change risks and response options among Canadian mine operations. Climatic Change 109(3–4): 399–415.

26.

Gifford

(2011) The dragons of inaction: Psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. American Psychologist 66: 290–302.

27.

Goodall

(2008) Why have the leading journals in management (and other social sciences) failed to respond to climate change? Journal of Management Inquiry 17: 408–420.

28.

Grothmann

Patt

(2005) Adaptive capacity and human cognition: The process of individual adaptation to climate change. Global Environmental Change 15: 199–213.

29.

Hahn

Kolk

Winn

(2010) A new future for business? Rethinking management theory and business strategy. Business & Society 49: 385–401.

30.

Härtel

CEJ

Pearman

(2010) Understanding and responding to the climate change issue: Towards a whole-of-science research agenda. Journal of Management and Organization 16: 16–47.

31.

Hertin

Berkhout

Gann

. (2003) Climate change and the UK house building sector: Perceptions, impacts and adaptive capacity. Building Research & Information 31(3–4): 278–290.

32.

Bentler

(1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling 6: 1–55.

33.

IPCC (2014a) Annex XX: Glossary. In: Agard

Schipper

ELF

Birkman

. (eds) Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part B: Regional Aspects – Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1757–1776.

34.

IPCC (2014b) Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects – Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (ed Field

Barros

Dokken

.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

35.

IPCC (2014c) Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part B: Regional Aspects – Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (ed Field

Barros

Dokken

.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

36.

Kraus

(1995) Attitudes and the prediction of behavior: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 21: 58–75.

37.

Lance

(2006) The sources of four commonly reported cutoff criteria: What did they really say? Organizational Research Methods 9: 202–220.

38.

Leiserowitz

(2006) Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: The role of affect, imagery, and values. Climatic Change 77: 45–72.

39.

Leszczynska

(2010) Manager’s attitude toward environment. Industrial Management & Data Systems 110: 1234–1250.

40.

Levine

Strube

(2012) Environmental attitudes, knowledge, intentions and behaviors among college students. The Journal of Social Psychology 152: 308–326.

41.

Lewin

Weigelt

Emery

(2004) Adaptation and selection in strategy and change: Perspectives on strategic change in organisations. In: Poole

Van de Ven

(eds) Handbook of Organisational Change and Innovation. London: Oxford University Press, pp. 108–159.

42.

Linnenluecke

Birt

Griffiths

(2015a) The role of accounting in supporting adaptation to climate change. Accounting and Finance 55: 607–625.

43.

Linnenluecke

Birt

Lyon

. (2015b) Planetary boundaries: Implications for asset impairment. Accounting and Finance 55: 911–929.

44.

Linnenluecke

Chen

Ling

. (2016) Emerging trends in Asia-Pacific finance research: A review of recent influential publications and a research agenda. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal 36: 66–76.

45.

Linnenluecke

Griffiths

Mumby

(2015c) Executive’s engagement with climate science and perceived need for business adaptation to climate change. Climatic Change 131: 321–333.

46.

Linnenluecke

Griffiths

Winn

(2013) Firm and industry adaptation to climate change: A review of climate adaptation studies in the business and management field. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 4: 397–416.

47.

Linnenluecke

Meath

Rekker

. (2015d) Divestment from fossil fuel companies: Confluence between policy and strategic viewpoints. Australian Journal of Management 40: 478–487.

48.

Lorenzoni

Nicholson-Cole

Whitmarsh

(2007) Barriers perceived to engaging with climate change among the UK public and their policy implications. Global Environmental Change 17: 445–459.

49.

McKenzie-Mohr

Nemiroff

Beers

. (1995) Determinants of responsible environmental behaviour. Journal of Social Issues 51: 139–156.

50.

Mobley

Vagias

DeWard

(2010) Exploring additional determinants of environmentally responsible behaviour: The influence of environmental literature and environmental attitudes. Environment and Behavior 42: 420–447.

51.

Moser

Ekstrom

(2010) A framework to diagnose barriers to climate change adaptation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107: 22026–22031.

52.

Moxnes

Saysel

(2008) Misperceptions of global climate change: Information policies. Climatic Change 93: 15–37.

53.

Nisbet

(2009) Communicating climate change: Why frames matter for public engagement. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 51: 12–23.

54.

Nunnally

(1978) Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

55.

O’Connor

Bord

Fisher

(1999) Risk perceptions, general environmental beliefs, and willingness to address climate change. Risk Analysis 19: 461–471.

56.

Parry

Lowe

Hanson

(2009) Overshoot, adapt and recover. Nature 458: 1102–1103.

57.

Patenaude

(2011) Climate change diffusion: While the world tips, business schools lag. Global Environmental Change 21: 259–271.

58.

Podsakoff

MacKenzie

Lee

. (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88: 879–903.

59.

Pooley

O’Connor

(2000) Environmental education and attitudes: Emotions and beliefs are what is needed. Environment and Behavior 32: 711–723.

60.

Reilly

Schimmelpfennig

(2000) Irreversibility, uncertainty, and learning: Portraits of adaptation to long-term climate change. Climatic Change 45: 253–278.

61.

Reisinger

Kitching

Chiew

. (2014) Australasia. In: Barros

Field

Dokken

. (eds) Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability – Australiasian Summary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1371–1438.

62.

Reynolds

Bostrom

Read

. (2010) Now what do people know about global climate change? Survey studies of educated laypeople. Risk Analysis 30: 1520–1538.

63.

Risbey

Kandlikar

Dowlatabadi

(1999) Scale, context, and decision making in agricultural adaptation to climate variability and change. Climatic Change 4: 137–165.

64.

Schultz

(2000) Empathizing with nature: The effects of perspective taking on concern for environmental issues. Journal of Social Issues 56: 391–406.

65.

Sharma

(2000) Managerial interpretations and organisational context as predictors of corporate choice of environmental strategy. Academy of Management Journal 43: 681–697.

66.

Simon

(1991) Bounded rationality and organizational learning. Organization Science 2: 125–134.

67.

Starik

Marus

(2000) Introduction to the Special Research Forum on the management of organisations in the natural environment: A field emerging from multiple paths, with many challenges ahead. Academy of Management Journal 43: 539–546.

68.

Sterman

Booth Sweeny

(2007) Understanding public complacency about climate change: Adults’ mental models of climate change violate conservation of matter. Climatic Change 80: 213–238.

69.

Stern

Dietz

Guagnano

(1995) The New Ecological Paradigm in social-psychological context. Environment and Behavior 27: 723–743.

70.

Surminski

(2013) Private-sector adaptation to climate risk. Nature Climate Change 3: 943–945.

71.

Tikir

Lehmann

(2010) Climate change, theory of planned behavior and values: A structural equation model with mediation analysis. Climatic Change 104: 389–402.

72.

Tobler

Visschers

VHM

Siegrist

(2012) Consumers’ knowledge about climate change. Climatic Change 114: 189–209.

73.

Tripsas

Gavetti

(2000) Capabilities, cognition and inertia: Evidence from digital imaging. Strategic Management Journal 21: 1147–1162.

74.

Tseng

Y-CJ

W-H

. (2010) Exploring corporate social responsibility education: The small and medium-sized enterprise viewpoint. Management Decision 48: 1514–1528.

75.

Tushman

Romanelli

(1985) Organisational evolution: A metamorphosis model of convergence and reorientation. Research in Organizational Behavior 7: 171–222.

76.

Van der Linden

(2014) On the relationship between personal experience, affect and risk perception: The case of climate change. European Journal of Social Psychology 44: 430–440.

77.

Verschuuren

(2013) Research Handbook on Climate Change Adaptation Law. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

78.

Weick

(1969) The Social Psychology of Organizing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

79.

Weick

Sutcliffe

Obstfeld

(2005) Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science 16: 409–421.

80.

Winn

Kirchgeorg

(2005) The siesta is over: A rude awakening from sustainability myopia. In: Sharma

Aragon-Correa

(eds) Corporate Environmental Strategy and Competitive Advantage. Cheltenham; North Hampton, MA: Edward Elgar, pp. 232–258.

81.

Winn

Kirchgeorg

Griffiths

. (2011) Impacts from climate change on organisations: A conceptual foundation. Business Strategy and the Environment 20: 157–173.