Social Learning for Anticipatory Adaptation to Climate Change: Evidence From a Community of Practice

Anticipatory Adaptation to Climate Change

There are several definitions of adaptation to climate change. Most are drawn from the intention to respond to climate change within a spatial or institutional context, or in terms of temporal scale, which is particularly relevant to our study. Hence, adaptation may occur at three moments: (a) after a climate stimulus, known as reactive, ex-post or responsive; (b) concurrent (during) or; (c) before the occurrence of a climate stimulus, known as anticipatory, ex-ante or proactive adaptation, because it is planned and occurs before the existence of a climate stimulus (Smit, Burton, Klein, & Wandel, 2000).

Anticipatory adaptation, therefore, relates to the intention to avoid or reduce the potential harmful impacts of climate change, or to benefit from the opportunities brought by it (Smit et al., 2000). Anticipation assumes action before the fact occurred, involving planning and foresight. Yet adaptation to climate change is, obviously, a continuous process (Fankhauser, Smith, & Tol, 1999). In recent years, the importance of organizational adaptation to climate change has grown substantially. Major disruptions in organizational environments caused by natural disasters have increased intensity, requiring companies to adapt (Busch, 2011). However, AACC represents a major challenge for an organization because the level of uncertainty is higher than average and cognition is limited (Lebel et al., 2010).

Exposure to risks and capacity to deal with climate change vary widely among organizations. Although adaptations in sectors such as insurance and reinsurance and health care have already been developed (Adger, Arnell, & Tompkins, 2005), literature on the topic is still scarce. According to Berkhout (2012), several questions remain unanswered: How does organizational adaptation to climate change occur? What factors encourage or inhibit organizational adaptation to climate change? What evidence is there of organizational adaptation to climate change? Overall, different levels of climate vulnerability and adaptive capacity call for research capable of explaining why and how organizations respond to climate change differently (Berkhout, 2012).

Individual agents face limitations when it comes to adapting, but adaptive capacity can be enhanced by collective action (Adger, 2010; Serrao-Neumann, Di Giulio, Ferreira, & Choy, 2013). Collective action involves networks and flows of information between individuals and groups that are crucial for decision making and the development of social capital (Adger, 2010). Adaptive capacity involves the ability of multiple stakeholders to learn and adapt within socioecological systems (Serrao-Neumann et al., 2013).

Although climate change is a global problem, there is no institutional framework with the ability to develop, implement, and maintain the actions necessary to match the spatial and temporal scope of the problem (Lazarus, 2009). Thus, social learning may represent a potential approach for dealing with the social complexity involved in AACC. Indeed, learning is the most important feature of complex social systems because it: (a) connects the diverse and heterogeneous social agents; (b) helps address common and diverse agendas by expanding the qualities of each agent and identifying complementarities; (c) provides a common object for social agents to interact with and highlights the gaps and possible solutions for bridging the gaps, and (d) shapes the boundaries of action and opens up multiple modes of interaction (Antonacopoulou & Chiva, 2007). For this reason, a special type of learning is essential for AACC.

Social Learning for AACC

Natural resource management literature has identified the importance of social learning for the issue of adapting to climate change (e.g., Armitage et al., 2011; Collins & Ison, 2009; Johannessen & Hahn, 2013). Social learning can lead to the generation of new knowledge, the acquisition of technical and social skills and the development of trustworthy relationships, which may be conducive to more sustainable societies (Muro & Jeffrey, 2008). Facilitation is another central attribute of social learning (Muro & Jeffrey, 2008; Steyaert & Jiggins, 2007) for a number of reasons. It is essential at the start of a working group because individuals often “do not understand each other very well and interact with each other on the basis of stereotypes and prejudices [ . . . ] and individual benefits are the main driving force for people to participate.” Besides, individuals have different mental frames, interests, and experiences, so facilitation, through specific methods and activities, encourages individuals to participate, share opinions and experiences, and helps them understand the value behind taking part in a collective learning effort. Facilitation also helps individuals identify and evaluate the potential alternatives and foresee their respective consequences and outcomes (Groot & Maarleveld, 2000).

One could question, however, whether all social interactions result in social learning. If that were the case, the very notion of social learning would be redundant and useless. Hence, it is necessary, first, to acknowledge that social interactions do not produce social learning per se because the development of useful problem-oriented knowledge requires adequate interactions among actors (Luks & Siebenhüner, 2007); that is, the development of conditions to link experiences, reflection, and experimentation between individuals and groups. Second, for social learning to be considered as such, besides occurring through social interactions and processes between the actors in a social network, it is necessary to demonstrate that (a) change occurred in the understanding of the individuals involved in the process—either via new information, beliefs, or attitude and (b) change goes beyond individuals and spreads within wider social units or CoP (Reed et al., 2010).

Learning can result from social interactions through information, transmission, or deliberation generated from the exchange of ideas and arguments, potentially influencing individuals to make decisions that may benefit the wider society. For example, the concept of social learning has frequently been associated with proenvironmental behavior, which can relate to energy saving, recycling, and using sustainable modes of travel. Another example is found in citizenship learning literature, in which some authors argue that good citizenship is not learned from a formal curriculum but through active involvement within society (Reed et al., 2010). Also, multistakeholder dialogue, which can be defined as “events at which different stakeholders openly engage in facilitated, informed, deliberations” (Huntjens et al., 2012, p. 73), has been promoted as a mean of reaching sustainability goals, possibly (even if intuitively) for its potential to generate social learning processes.

Empirical research has shown that the institutional design process that supports adaptation at different levels is an important element of adapting to climate change (Newig & Fritsch, 2009). However, research into the capacity of institutions to adapt to climate change and how this capacity is enhanced remains scarce (Huntjens et al., 2012). To identify how collective action determines the adaptive capacity of individual organizations, Adger (2010), for instance, calls for the development of case studies. In this respect, our research aims to fill this gap by developing a case about a specific CoP, aiming to analyze the process of social learning for AACC occurring among its members. As suggested by Antonacopoulou and Chiva (2007, p. 287), the social perspective of learning is interested in explaining the learning that emerges from the interactions of social actors and exploring its context, “focusing on the group and community.”

The analysis of the potential of a CoP for fostering social learning is relevant since, as argued by Tompkins and Eakin (2012), little attention has been paid to understanding the providers and beneficiaries of adaptation and their motivations in the corporate world. More specifically, there is an “underexplored arena of climate change adaptation in which individual managers of private capital are taking private actions that, in turn, create adaptation benefits for a broader community” (Tompkins & Eakin, 2012, p. 3). Lebel et al. (2010) also suggest the need for research into adaptation strategies related to the natural environment, which individuals and organizations develop in order to benefit from social learning. Furthermore, the authors raise some challenges in the process of benefiting from social learning, such as diversity of stakeholder interests, levels of shared understanding, and scale of coordination.

Community-based activities, therefore, have the potential to help individuals engage successfully in learning about adapting to climate change by way of social mechanisms (Phuong, Biesbroek, & Wals, 2017). This happens because the CoP offers the possibility of comparing “one’s own ideas, views, values and perspectives with those of others” (Wals, 2010, p. 385) and temporarily adopting the perspectives of others. By subjecting oneself to plural and heterogeneous perspectives, chances of coming up with creative solutions increase (Wals, 2010).

Communities of Practice

Traditional learning theories usually depict learning as a result of direct experience, which is largely determined by the rewarding or punishing consequences of an action. However, learning may also be the result of vicarious experiences, by observing other actors’ behaviors and associated consequences. Accordingly, one does not need to undergo an empirical experience to learn through trial and error, which prevents us from enduring the dangerous and/or costly consequences of improper behavior. People can solve problems theoretically, foreseeing the consequences of alternative actions, which may lead to insightful behavior without the need to go through the real experience (Bandura, 1977).

In line with the perspective that learning is not restricted to the individual experience, theorists have used the concept of CoP to address learning that occurs through execution and participation in the daily routine of activities shared with colleagues. Continuous interaction with colleagues who perform related, similar or the same activities, improve the ways of doing what should be done (Wenger, 1998). Such an approach was used in the early works of CoP in organizational studies—particularly in the topics of knowledge management and organizational learning—referring to routine office work (Cox, 2005), such as Orr’s (1996) ethnographic studies of photocopier repairmen.

The approach to CoP has changed overtime. Currently, it tends to focus on the value of the community as a management tool, as well as on its innovation and problem-solving potential. The present purpose is more on learning and sharing of knowledge than on “getting the job done” (Cox, 2005). In such a perspective, CoP is conceptualized, for instance, as “groups of professionals who share practices, communicate frequently through informal channels, and develop a set of interdependent identities that relate to the work and cultural understandings of their group” (Bridwell-Mitchell, 2016, p. 166). In particular, regarding problematizing, Wenger et al. (2002, p. 4) consider CoP as: “groups of people who share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing basis.” Such CoP are informal and voluntary and might be constituted by people who act within or across functional areas, or from different organizations (Wenger et al., 2002). For example, the CEOs who founded the Business Roundtable meet regularly to discuss, among other things, relationships between business and public policies (Wenger & Snyder, 2000).

The need to solve practical dilemmas is particularly evident in contexts in which existing practices have been problematized as competing with the institutional status quo. In such cases, CoP play a vital role in organizational change, as individual practitioners do not solve dilemmas on their own but rely on their CoP to do so (Bridwell-Mitchell, 2016).

As a complex social problem, adaptation to climate change in the organizational context challenges existing practices. Organizations can develop social learning and benefit from interorganizational communities that seek to better deal with the risks and opportunities that climate change offers. Wenger (2000) goes as far as arguing that the success of organizations depends on their ability to design themselves as social learning systems, as well as participate in broader social learning systems involving industries, regions, or consortiums. In these learning systems, organizations may assess the knowledge they need by way of new talents, ideas, technological developments, best practices, and learning partners developed within CoP.

Assessing Social Learning in Communities of Practice

At this point, one may wonder: How can the social learning emerging from CoP be assessed? Wenger, Trayner, and de Laat (2011) addressed the problem by using a framework that encompasses five cycles of social learning. According to the authors, the learning created benefits not only for members directly involved in a CoP—in other words, the employees who attend the CoP meetings—but also the entire organization by way of interaction processes. In this sense, by addressing multiple levels (individual, group, and organizational), their framework of social learning cycles encompasses a holistic perspective, embracing the inherent social complexity of organizational learning (Antonacopoulou & Chiva, 2007), and contributing to the call for a more general theory (Crossan, Lane, & White, 1999; Crossan, Maurer, & White, 2011).

In this perspective, social learning can be generated in the following cycles: (a) immediate social learning, (b) potential social learning, (c) applied social learning, (d) realized social learning, and (e) reframing social learning. The five cycles model can be adapted for the specific perspective of social learning—even if CoP create value that goes beyond learning (value for consumers, or embedded in a product, for instance).

The first cycle of social learning is immediate social learning, which considers community activities and interactions. This includes, for example, helping a member with a problem during a meeting, providing a tip, or telling a story about an experience. However, the learning created in a community is not always immediately realized. The value of created knowledge capital lies in its potential to be realized later, representing Cycle 2 (potential social learning). Such knowledge capital can be, for instance, the sense of companionship and inspiration to face up to challenges. Cycle 3 refers to applied social learning, which means adapting and applying the knowledge capital to a specific situation. For instance, exploiting synergy between business units, changing a procedure or implementing an idea. Cycle 4 (realized social learning) refers to improvements in performance or, at least, to reflections on the effects of knowledge capital on performance. Finally, Cycle 5 (reframing social learning) is achieved when social learning leads to a reconsideration of strategies, goals, and values.

Despite the expectation of sequential and temporal social learning through the cycles, we should not assume that there is a hierarchy of importance or simple causal chain. Producing and applying knowledge are tightly intertwined and often indistinguishable. Moreover, members may not consider their participation in a community as being successful only if they reach the final cycle. Members and their respective stakeholders may have different interests. For example, a member may be interested in Cycle 3, while their manager may be more interested in Cycle 4 (Wenger et al., 2011).

The Adaptation Initiative as a Community of Practice

In our study, we used the criterion of purposeful sampling to identify the Adaptation Initiative as the CoP to be studied. Due to its uniqueness the case was information-rich, which allowed us to have in-depth understanding of the phenomenon (Patton, 2002). The Adaptation Initiative was chosen because it presents all the elements that characterize a CoP as proposed by Wenger (2000), as described in Table 1. This is also the only initiative that promotes adaptation strategies among organizations in Brazil.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Elements of the Adaptation Initiative as a Community of Practice.

Element	Characteristics of a generic Community of Practice	The Adaptation Initiative as a Community of Practice
Events	Promotion of formal or informal meetings	Bimonthly workshops and informal calls between companies and Adaptation Initiative facilitators
Leadership	Existence of a “community facilitator” who helps the community develop and takes care of day-to-day work	Adaptation Initiative facilitators act as “community coordinators”
Connectivity	Communication between people by way of different kinds of media, thus promoting relationships between people who need help and people who can offer help	Communication is by telephone, e-mail, videoconferences, and face-to-face meetings
Membership	Existence of critical mass but limited size to generate interest, while preventing a loss of identity and focus	The Business for Climate Platform had 32 member companies, of which 9 were actively involved in the Adaptation Initiative
Learning projects	Establishment of a clear focus on a learning agenda, involving carrying out literature research, building a generic design, creating a connection with a university among others	The Adaptation Initiative was launched as a learning project, besides a couple of other learning projects, such as the use of pilots
Artifacts	Documents, stories, tools, websites, among others	Based on external research and the experience of companies, the Adaptation Initiative developed guidelines and tools to help companies build adaptation strategies for AACC

Note. AACC = Anticipatory Adaptation to Climate Change.

Source. Adapted from Wenger (2000).

Among its main activities, the Adaptation Initiative included a group of nine company representatives who met voluntarily and periodically to discuss the development of AACC plans, share experiences, and create tools for adaptation to climate change. The Adaptation Initiative met every 2 months, when companies had the opportunity to share experiences about the work being done with regard to AACC strategies, using the Adaptation Framework as the main artifact. The tool was initially drafted by the facilitators of the initiative, who helped the members follow a logical plan. They incorporated the feedback of the CoP members to progressively improve the framework, since there were both a concern and commitment to base the development of the framework on organizational practice. Hence, facilitators acted as brokers, introducing and exchanging elements of practice between companies and external sources (Wenger, 2000).

The issue of AACC was emergent and challenging also for the facilitators, and the resulting framework emerged only after 2 years of CoP interactions. The framework was based on three essential steps: (a) Diagnosis: Mapping out the risks and opportunities and setting the most plausible climate scenario for company’s activities and geographical region; (b) Planning: Mapping out the adaptation options, setting the adaptation plan, partnerships and resources; and (c) Implementation: Putting the adaptation plan into practice and assessing its results. These steps were not imposed by the facilitators but served as a path to guide both the facilitators and the companies. According to Wenger (2000, p. 236), artifacts, such as the framework for AACC, “support connections between different practices” and maximize learning by giving “something to interact about” (Wenger, 2000, p. 233).

During the bimonthly events, companies also interacted with technical experts, who brought new methodologies (e.g., ecosystem-based adaptation) and information (e.g., possible sources of climate data), as well as with representatives of government and NGOs. Eventually, the CoP was organized around group activities with the aim of engaging professionals from different companies in problem solving. Together, they sought solutions to overcome the challenges of putting AACC actions into practice.

Cooperation also occurred through informal meetings among members, when specific topics and difficulties were addressed. Overall, such interactions satisfied all three dimensions necessary for characterizing a CoP (Wenger, 1998, 2000): (a) there is a sense of mutual enterprise among members, as the initiative has a clear and explicit objective; (b) interactions and activities promote mutual engagement and trust; and (c) the initiative has developed a shared repertoire of resources (i.e., tools, language, routine, stories, etc.), which members have access to and are able to employ.

Data Collection

Grasping the process of social learning within each company led us to use both real-time and retrospective data (Langley, 1999). We collected retrospective data in order to understand the approach of member companies regarding adaptation to climate change before participating in the Adaptation Initiative. Real-time data were collected to understand how companies dealt with adaptation and what changed after participation in the Adaptation Initiative. Additionally, as explored in detail later in the article, studying companies with different learning cycles also helped us comprehend the phenomenon better (Wenger et al., 2011).

Data gathering for the case study extended from February to December 2015. We collected primary data using semistructured interviews and participant observation. We carried out semistructured interviews with 17 individuals, of whom 14 were managers of the Adaptation Initiative member companies (indicated as “Participants”), and 3 facilitators from the community of practice (indicated as “Facilitators”). Table 2 describes the member companies participating in the CoP, the sectors they operate in, the number of employees, year of foundation, the length of their participation in the CoP, and the interviewees’ coding.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Profile of the Community of Practice.

Company representative (interviewees codes)	Information about the represented company
	Identification	Sector	Number of employees	Year established	Adaptation Initiative member since
P1 and P2	Company A	Agriculture	1,001-5,000	1977	June/2014
P3 and P4	Company B	Personal goods	5,001-10,000	1977	June/2013
P5	Company C	Chemical	5,001-10,000	2002	June/2013
P6, P7, and P8	Company D	Transportation/services	10,001-15,000	1999	June/2013
P9	Company E	Utilities: Electricity	5,001-10,000	1954	June/2013
P10	Company F	Industrial metals and mining	10,001-15,000	1946	June/2013
P11 and P12	Company G	Financial services	10,001-15,000	1945	June/2013
P13	Company H	Forestry and paper	5,001-10,000	1924	June/2013
P14	Company I	Financial services	1,001-5,000	1995	May/2015

Source. Developed by the authors.

Besides interviewing all the key actors of the CoP, we adopted participant observation as an additional technique for the collection of primary data. There were 17 hours of participant observation via four workshops, three individual meetings, and one lecture. During the workshops, we interacted actively with the company representatives in smaller discussion groups, in which solutions for their companies’ adaptation plans were discussed. We also participated in the discussions in the group formed by all company representatives, facilitators, and sometimes, technical experts, as well as representatives of government and nongovernmental organizations. Individual meetings with company representatives and facilitators occurred by telephone, with the aim of following-up on the progress (planning and implementation) of each company.

Additionally, we collected secondary data documents and tools produced by the Business for Climate Platform, with contributions from the companies, as well as documents produced by individual companies, such as the adaptation plans they prepared. During the interviews, participant observation, and collection of secondary data, we sought to reveal the process of social learning in that CoP. Figure 1 summarizes the main events throughout the duration of the Adaptation Initiative, as well as the kind of data used to cover them.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Chronology of events and data collection.

We triangulated both sources of data and methods of data collection based on the recommendations of Eisenhardt (1989) and Yin (2003). We dedicated special attention to triangulate the perceptions of the Business for Climate Platform facilitators with those of company representatives. Facilitators had a more systemic view because they had either been tracking and supporting each individual company, or overseeing and coordinating the interaction between all participants. In contrast, company representatives had a more specialized view due to their exclusive access to organizational data, processes, and strategies.

Data Analysis

We implemented the recommendations of Yin (2003) of guiding and narrowing down our analysis for the development of case studies. We used conceptual lenses and initial propositions to deal with the task of prioritizing what matters from the mass of data gathered (Miles & Huberman, 1994). In order to verify possible peculiarities related to social learning for such kinds of problems, we first searched for evidence of the need for social learning for AACC. Then, we analyzed the evidence of the social learning emerging from the CoP: (a) whether the social interactions promoted learning; (b) whether, and how actors changed their understanding about climate change adaptation, and (c) whether this change went beyond individuals and spread within wider social units. Finally, we analyzed the importance of social learning for identifying solutions for the AACC problem.

These conceptual lenses guided the coding of data from the interviews, field notes, and documents. In particular, we employed a computer-aided textual analysis tool (ATLAS. ti) for the coding process, since it allowed for a more systematic and comprehensive analysis (Gephart, 2004). We coded all the interviews, field notes, and documents using a thematic analysis template (King, 2004), which is recommended for situations in which a research question had been previously formulated (Braun & Clarke, 2006).

Thus, in the first stage, as initial (a priori) codes, we set up the main issues asked during the interview and contained in the interview script, following a deductive approach. However, we also allowed new (empirical) codes to emerge inductively from the empirical evidence (Miles & Huberman, 1994), proceeding with an iterative process of previously coded data. As a result, apart from the deductive themes based on the literature on CoP, we identified new themes, such as challenges and perceptions of adaptation to climate change at the organizational level.

Promoting Reflections and Connections

Social learning is expected to occur through social interaction and processes between actors in a social network. However, social learning requires a clear change in the understanding of a specific subject (it refers to understanding about AACC—Circle A of the shared repertoires in Figure 2) by the individuals involved in the process via new information, beliefs, or attitudes (Reed et al., 2010).

Interacting with other company representatives and discussing adaptation, by itself, is very insightful, but company members stated that participating in the CoP changed their understanding of the meaning of adaptation. As a novel issue, which is very different from the traditional organizational repertoire, AACC requires that organizational members develop new connections between the issue and its impacts on organizations. Participating in the CoP allows organizational members to engage in reflection about the risks and opportunities of the issue for their own organization.

In the words of Participant P5: “before my participation in the working group, adaptation was no more than a set of letters for me.” In some cases, the CoP’s contribution goes further, promoting the first contact with the concept: “Everything I learned (about adaptation) I learned through the working group [ . . . ] (before) we just worked (within the company) with reduction and mitigation (of emissions). So, we extended our vision to include adaptation” (P1). Overall, in the 2 years of the CoP, the issue was matured and absorbed by the members. The view of adaptation changed, not only for the participants but also for the three people who worked as facilitators in the group, as Facilitator (F3) stated the following:

In the beginning, we started treating adaptation as “the great subject” and suddenly we realized that [ . . . ] adapting actually had to be inserted into other subjects [ . . . ] And, I think it became evident during the process. So, the perspective on the issue changed, not only for them but for us as well.

After gradually changing their understanding of AACC, CoP members reflect on how to link their acquired knowledge to the organizational context; this is a condition to inspire and empower.

Inspiring and Empowering

Participation in the CoP helps inspire and empower members to carry on with AACC actions in the organization by using shared experiences and insights from the shared repertoire (Circle B in Figure 2). After all, motivating organizational action to adapting to climate change is challenging. Sometimes, a sense of despair and loneliness might overwhelm the professionals interested in bringing adaptation into the strategic agenda, or even to the concern of companies. By participating in a CoP, however, successful and unsuccessful actions can be seen as inspiring the members, rather than as a hurdle to be overcome. P9 revealed that sometimes he felt more comfortable knowing that other CoP members were facing the same difficulties when developing the adaptation plans in their respective companies:

[during the meetings] we explained what we were doing and, as we had a question we could keep asking, which I though was very nice since—how can I say—you could expose whatever you thought, your doubts, the difficulties of another company, which you’re also going through.

Being inspired by other CoP members is especially pertinent for those who are just starting with AACC in their companies. Participant P14, who was a member of the initiative for less than 1 year, previously worked only with the emissions inventory (so, not in AACC). For P14, adaptation was not yet an issue because the core business of the company (finance) did not depend (directly) on natural resources. However, P14 stated that “Every meeting I take notes of insights about what to do, or small actions to put into practice. Of course, putting it into practice is another step, but it really inspired me.”

Indeed, according to Facilitator F2, by participating in the CoP, companies benefit by getting inspired and empowered through the exchange of experiences:

[ . . . ] Participants sometimes realize that their challenges are the same as other participants. They identify what others are or are not doing. They think: “that company hired a consultancy company, and that added value to their (adaptation) plan; we might think of doing the same.” In short, the exchange of experiences is very valuable.

By participating in the CoP, company representatives felt more qualified to talk about adaptation with diverse publics, as well as to conduct adaptation plans inside their own organizations. For instance, the commitment to openly share the progress of the pilot projects with the group encouraged participants to move forward with their plans. As Participant P3 states the following:

For example, in the next meeting we’re going to talk about a given subject, so it’s important that everyone in the group is aligned on the same step. I had this commitment to move forward with the pilot. We could have left out the pilot if we didn’t have this monitoring, because we have other priorities on a daily basis.

When AACC was in its early stages of development within a company, there was no budget for such an issue, and access to specific and complex knowledge was feasible only by participating in the CoP. Therefore, access to technical expertise and computer capacity, which are fundamental for downscaling macro-climatic projections (Orsato et al., 2017), was facilitated by the CoP, as stated by P5:

You can do nothing without INPE (National Institute for Space Research [www.inpe.br]), in terms of future weather forecasts. [ . . . ] In order to reach resilience, the solution must be pursued jointly. We have to move forward together (P5).

Simulating Conditions

In the case of AACC, in which knowledge is not yet consolidated and there is much to be developed, all company representatives and facilitators emphasized that they learn by observing those around them (Davis & Luthans, 1980). Companies faced some of the same challenges, such as engaging employees, building climate scenarios, or mapping potential risks and opportunities for operations. At the same time, participants declared a lack of previous experience in dealing with such a cutting-edge and complex issue and were unable to find information about it.

Sharing the same challenges and acting to address them contributed to reinforcing their identity as a CoP. They develop intellectual, social, and behavioral competences through simulated conditions that promote a guided track to “skill perfectionism” that reduces fear of making mistakes. During the bimonthly workshops, participants present part of their adaptation plans for AACC and receive feedback before implementation. P3 recalls an occasion when she was struggling to build Company B’s adaptation plan and got stuck in the process of monetizing the risks and opportunities for Company B. By listening and discussing with other members which were facing the same sort of problems, P3 made up a possible solution:

Sometimes we had troubles and doubts that we had the opportunity to share with others, and we realized that they were facing the same problems, or even had already figured out how to tackle them [ . . . ]. I specifically remember a situation regarding a financial assessment I had to do: “What would be the cost of doing nothing, which is the cost of facing the impacts [of climate change] without having a plan [ . . . ]?” So, during a meeting, I don’t remember if it was someone from Company D, I don’t know who it was . . . anyway, that person told us [ . . . ] his company has considered an interval between X and 2X and told us how to quantify it. [ . . . ] By doing that, they found a way of simplifying it and I realized that it wasn’t necessary to have a very specific figure but rather an interval.

Simulated conditions may promote learning through the application of competencies and knowledge acquired in situations likely to produce successful results. This learning is pursued in the CoP by developing adaptation plans with reduced scopes (e.g., involving only a business unit or department), rather than a broad plan that embraces the whole company. In the specific language of the CoP, these experimental plans with reduced scope were called “pilot projects,” which are considered to be learning projects (Circle C of the shared repertoire in Figure 2). For instance, of Company B’s pilot project focused on an adaptation plan for its retail stores, considering the year 2050 as a base; Company F’s pilot project focused on just one plant, while Company H involved only the operations area. In short, simulated conditions might contribute toward raising the perceived efficiency of acquired competences and knowledge. As Bandura (1988) discusses, by observing others in their same position in other companies (i.e., having responsibilities for conducting or promoting AACC actions), company representatives raise their own expectation of outcomes.

Using Common Artifacts to Mediate Learning

All company members emphasized the importance of tools and guidelines in aiding the implementation of organizational strategies for AACC. These common artifacts (Circle D of the shared repertoire in Figure 2), built gradually and conjointly by the Adaptation Initiative, mediated learning. They were used as a set of general rules and strategies for dealing with the multiple circumstances and scenarios faced by company members. By having access and jointly developing these artifacts, CoP members also developed assuring capabilities for acting on the complex issue of AACC. In fact, much of the discussion among companies was guided by the experience of using the tool and the proposed guidelines. The following statement exemplifies the importance of the tool:

I have several criticisms about the way of conducting activities and interactions. However, if there is one thing that was very important, it was the method. [ . . . ] The tool, in fact, is a guide for the job; it is an important guide for anyone in this area (sustainability). (P6)

[ . . . ] We knew we had an action to be taken accordingly—to adapt to climate change—but we didn’t know “how,” so we saw that it was positive to participate (in the CoP) because it provides a rule, a path. (P9)

These outcomes are congruent with the findings of Benn, Edwards, and Angus-Leppan (2013), who identified the centrality of artifacts in triggering and facilitating learning about sustainability in CoPs. Gradually, the coconstruction and adaptation of the tools and guidelines also proved valuable for the CoP, as flexible artifacts motivated the refreshing of old ideas, stimulated new ones, and generated new practices. Indeed, the development of learning artifacts contributed toward building the meaning of adaptation and engaging organizational actors.

Engaging Colleagues and Top Management

The first and foremost evidence we found in our research was recognition that AACC required cooperation, confirming the views of Reed et al. (2010) and Storbjörk (2010). Interviewees emphasized the need to involve both internal and external stakeholders. Internal stakeholders are critical for screening the opportunities and risks and, afterward, putting actions relative to AACC into practice. As mentioned by Participant P10, companies depend on several internal departments for understanding the possible effects of climate change:

When the time to start developing (the adaptation plan) arrives, you realize that the [necessary] information is not held by a single person but dispersed among many. It’s a network: you ask [for information from] one person and this person asks five or six other people.

The challenge of engaging other colleagues and top management involves reaching a common understanding on the need to adapt to climate change and is mentioned as a problematic issue in organizational learning literature (Crossan et al., 1999). Accordingly, participants in the CoP need to develop their own cognitive maps based on the interaction with others and, after that, need to be able to communicate it through words and, more important, connect words to actions (Crossan et al., 1999; Haugh & Talwar, 2010). However, as literature and practice suggest, climate change has a long time span, with consequences being revealed in a distant future, defying the organizational propensity to focus on short-term issues (Slawinski & Bansal, 2012).

Therefore, in order to engage colleagues and top management, CoP participants tried to reduce the complexity of the theme so as to keep it “on the radar.” They did so by integrating the concerns and issues of other departments into the tool and giving information in small but frequent amounts. Finally, they “translated” and transferred the potential impacts of climate change to short-term tasks.

Participants mentioned that the CoP workshops fostered the involvement of colleagues and departments by offering opportunities to access the experiences and strategies of other members from the shared repertoire (Circle B of the shared repertoire in Figure 2). According to P3, the sustainability department managed to engage personnel because other areas did not have enough knowledge about adaptation to climate change. Although the presentations were very basic, colleagues started considering the issue.

The efforts to communicate and engage colleagues and top management to the right extent were mediated by the underlying complexity of the adaptation issue. These efforts included the development of climatic scenario/models and long-term adaptation options that fit the specific profile of the company. So, it was important to bring the issue “down to earth,” emphasizing the impacts that adaptation may cause on the routine and performance of the person, preferably in the short run. P6 describes a situation in which she was struggling to engage colleagues in order to gather information to build the adaptation plan of Company D, while her colleagues were skeptical:

One of the main questions that colleagues asked me at the time [when required to provide information in order to build the adaptation plan] was: “but you’re working with a very long-term scenario. In this term, we’ll not have permission to explore our services anymore [making reference to a public service for which the company has a temporary concession], then I’ll not need to worry anymore about those impacts.” So, this is the reality we face. [ . . . ]. These very long-term worries do not generate a feeling of safety but a lot of uncertainty. (P6)

Information about adaptation also seems to be better assimilated in small doses, as P10 stated: “[ . . . ] You have to know how to be succinct when you’re talking to people [about adaptation within the organization]; succinct and straight to the point to get the information you want.” Assimilation works better also when it’s communicated in a recurrent and smooth fashion (i.e., without excessive technicalities), as stated by P5: “We have to keep repeating. Perhaps in a year from now, speaking in a smooth fashion [ . . . ], because, depending on the level of knowledge of some people, we can’t provide very technical training.”

The interest in deepening learning about AACC by colleagues and top management also involves power. After all, “learning processes do not happen in a vacuum but take place in a landscape of interests and differential power positions and relations” (Easterby-Smith, Crossan, & Nicolini, 2000, p. 793). This is why the meaning of performing AACC has to make sense for the collectivity of the organization. Indeed, P9 mentioned that he uses the examples of colleagues from the CoP who are successfully implementing adaptation plans in their organizations to help “sell the issue” within his organization—again, using shared experiences and strategies from the shared repertoire. P9 specifically alluded to a concrete situation in Company D, which shared the results of the studies it conducted demonstrating the financial losses caused by adverse weather conditions.

When developing the adaptation plans, members of CoP discuss and accept insights, ideas, and suggestions from other departments, such as operations, finance, and risk management. After all, these departments are directly affected and, therefore, interested in seeking potential solutions for coping with climate change. For instance, P13 involved the R&D and forest engineering departments (of Company H) because they were developing new varieties of species more resistant to adverse climatic conditions. P9 (from Company E), succeeded in creating a committee formed by the engineering, energy planning, and operations areas for studying and proposing AACC actions.

Implementing or Adjusting Tools, Systems, and Processes

Institutionalization is the apex of the social learning process. When learning becomes consolidated, it is not restricted to a single person or group but incorporated into organizational practices. People come and go but the learning remains; it becomes “institutionalized” within the organization. In the case of AACC, companies that implemented new tools (or adjusted existing ones), systems, and processes could be considered as having “institutionalized learning.”

According to Facilitator F3, the inclusion of weather risks into the risk management portfolio of companies was the main evidence of institutionalized learning—from implementing tools, systems, and processes. Indeed, three companies presented evidence of adapting or applying new tools, systems, or processes resulting from their participation in the community. Participant P6 stated that, due to the studies within the CoP—shared experiences and strategies (Circle B in Figure 2)—the company revisited its climate policy and incorporated a new guideline for adaptation. According to P8 (from the same company), company staff were initially more compliance oriented. In the revisited version, however, planning and integration with stakeholders were the main concerns. Another example was provided by P5: “Everything has changed, as we are building a procedure (risk and opportunities management). This procedure will be linked to the operations and business risks. Our adaptation plan will be a living plan.”

According to the CoP members, some companies implemented changes in their design processes (Company D) and included adaptation in decision-making processes (Company C), in the definition of new points of sales and services (Company B), and in energy transmission line operations (Company E). For other companies, however, at the time, we developed the case study, changes at the organizational level could not yet be seen. Some participants reported that the actions were still limited to the pilot project (P1) or the sustainability area (P6). Actually, P8 raises a central question for the average firm: “What is the company priority with regard to environmental issues? Compliance. This [adaptation to climate change] is not compliance yet.” Such findings are in line with previous research showing that learning around sustainability issues is often not followed by organizational changes in routines, processes, and systems (Benn et al., 2013). Some participants seem to recognize that climate change presents challenges and opportunities that require anticipatory strategies. As individuals, they are limited when it comes to promoting organizational changes. The barrier, commonly acknowledged by the CoP, was the introduction of the topic as a priority issue inside their organizations. As expressed by P6:

As a very abstract issue (climate change), we see different interpretations within the company. So even though we join these groups to bring the issue inside the organization and show its importance, it’s very difficult [ . . . ] because there’s still some prejudice (with regard to the issue).

Finally, lack of time for dedicating to the projects and limited financial resources for investing in the AACC issue were raised as constraints to be included in the corporate strategic agenda. P2, for instance, mentioned the difficulty encountered for gathering data on climatic conditions and projections, which are sufficiently specific to the reality of the Company (A), acknowledging the competition for salience with sustainability issues:

Because it’s something very technical, it doesn’t relate to our daily reality. If we get texts and information about the issue and adapt them to our business, that’s OK. However, if we have to get optimistic or pessimistic [climate] scenarios and mix everything, you need to have lot of time to go deeper into the issue, and in the day-to-day reality of the company, you simply don’t have it. In this case [AACC], it’s something more like a study than something that can be applied in the business. (P2)

Learning Cycles and Levels of Engagement

Overall, implementation constraints might curb the development of learning associated with AACC and cause companies to reach different stages of learning (Crossan et al., 1999). Indeed, our research uncovered evidence that companies accessed different cycles of social learning. Table 3 summarizes the learning cycles of each company, its status within the CoP and the main actions taken for moving toward AACC (Figure 2, presented earlier, also depicts the learning cycles within the AACC social learning processes). As expected, it seems to exist an association between the time a company is engaged in the CoP and its degree of learning—represented by the learning cycle. For instance, Company C—the only one to reach a reframing learning cycle—was one of the first members of the CoP. On the other hand, Company I, which had just started its participation in the CoP by the time the data were collected, accessed only an immediate learning cycle. Companies tend to move through cycles as their time in the group increases (from the first contact with the CoP to a deep engagement with the subject), as their involvement with more significant AACC actions are pursued (from the initial understanding of the subject to the engagement of top management), and as the scope of engagement becomes broader (from individual to organizational).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3.

Learning Cycles and Levels of Engagement.

Company	Actions toward AACC	Learning cycles	Level of engagement
A	Engagement of colleagues from the same department; engagement of colleagues from operational departments; identification of risks and opportunities; planning to develop climate scenarios	Potential	Group
B	Engagement of colleagues from the same department; engagement of colleagues from operational departments; identification of risks and opportunities; planning to develop climate scenarios; planning to engage top management after evaluation of results	Applied	Organizational
C	Engagement of colleagues from the same and other departments; identification of risks and opportunities; planning to develop climate scenarios; planning to engage top management after evaluation of results	Reframing	Organizational
D	Engagement of colleagues from the same department; engagement of colleagues from other departments; identification of risks and opportunities; planning to engage top management after evaluation of results	Applied	Organizational
E	Engagement of colleagues from the same department; engagement of colleagues from operational departments; planning to develop climate scenarios; identification of risks and opportunities	Applied	Organizational
F	Engagement of colleagues from the same department; engagement of colleagues from operational departments; identification of risks and opportunities; planning to engage top management after evaluation of results	Applied	Organizational
G	Discussion of the theme with other departments; adaptation of some internal instruments	Applied	Organizational
H	Engagement of colleagues from the same department; engagement of colleagues from other departments; identification of risks and opportunities	Applied	Organizational
I	Planning to discuss the topic; planning to include the topic in a future strategy agenda	Immediate	Individual

Note. AACC = Anticipatory Adaptation to Climate Change.

Source. Based on authors’ data.

Some companies had their first contact with the topic of climate adaptation when joining the CoP; others started planning and acting to adapt after the workshops. Overall, apart from Company I, at the time of our study, all companies were taking actions to achieve AACC, covering the spectrum of possible learning cycles—from immediate to reframing (Wenger et al., 2011). Companies were mapping out potential impacts, prioritizing risks and opportunities, and identifying appropriate adaptation actions to be implemented and monitored. In practical terms, adaptation involves a mixture of strategies such as: building climate resilience and increasing risk tolerance.

Each company uses a different combination of strategies according to their risk aversion, values, and adaptive capacity, as well as their possibility for exploring opportunities. Such conditions characterize a specific learning cycle. Companies B and F, for instance, characterize the “applied” learning cycle, which was predominant in the CoP (see Table 3). Company B was developing an adaptation plan for its sales points and service centers that were located in areas vulnerable to floods, because these factors may interfere in the quality of the operations. Thus, the plan has the purpose of reducing the negative impacts and identifying opportunities related to the frequency and intensity of rainfall. Also, future climate scenarios within the time horizon of 2050 were used to define the location of sales points and service centers. The adaptation plan for Company F is another example of an applied learning cycle. By assessing risks and developing an adaptation strategy for a scenario of increasing public demand for water supply, the company seeks to secure its source of water at sustainable levels of consumption. The development of an organizational adaptation strategy aims, therefore, to manage impacts related to water resources, minimize risk, and maximize opportunities. The scope of the evaluation is limited to one plant and considers the time horizon of 2050.