Multinational corporations are not merely the problem in environmental concerns, but could also be part of the solution. The oil industry and climate change provide the clearest example of how the two are linked; what is less well known is how the industry is responding to these concerns. This book presents a detailed study of the climate strategies of ExxonMobil, Shell and Statoil. Using an analytical approach, the chapters explain variations at three decision-making levels: within the companies themselves, in the national home-bases of the companies and at an international level. The analysis generates policy-relevant knowledge about whether and how corporate resistance to a viable climate policy can be overcome. The analytical approach developed by this book is also applicable to other areas of environmental degradation where multinational corporations play a central role.
This introductory chapter discusses the theme of this volume, which is about the possible role of multinational corporations, particularly those in the oil industry, in addressing climate change. This volume focuses on ExxonMobil, Shell and Statoil, which adopted different corporate climate strategies. This chapter suggests that the analysis of these three oil companies can provide better understanding driving forces behind corporate climate strategy choice and the influence of political context in the companies' home-base countries.
This chapter outlines the analytical framework of the empirical analysis of the climate change strategies of ExxonMobil, Shell and Statoil. It investigates the factors that determine the strategies chosen by the oil industry to meet climate-change challenges and evaluates the impact of three main factors on the companies' choices. These factors include company-specific features, the political context of corporate activity at the domestic level, and the international institutional context in which multinational companies operate.
This chapter evaluates and compares the strategies adopted by ExxonMobil, the Shell Group and Statoil on the climate change issue. It focuses on a key set of four indicators which include the companies' acknowledgement of the prospective problem of a human-induced climate change, their position with regard to the Kyoto Protocol, and self-imposed targets and measures to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from their own operations. This chapter highlights the differences among the companies and analyses their general environmental policy.
This chapter explores the explanatory power of the approach this book has labelled the Corporate Actor (CA) model in accounting for the differences in the climate change strategies adopted by the oil companies in this study. It explains that the CA model suggests that differences in the companies' climate strategy choice are explained by differences in the companies themselves. This chapter analyses three company-specific factors that may have an impact on strategy choice in relation to an issue such as climate change. These include the environmental risk associated with current and future corporate operations, the company's capacity for organisational learning, and the environmental reputation of the company.
This chapter analyses the accuracy of the Domestic Politics (DP) model in accounting for the differences in climate change strategies adopted by the oil companies in this study. It explains that the DP model highlights the extent of social demand for environmental quality, the type of climate policy supplied by the government, and the way in which political institutions link supply and demand, that is, the relationship between state and industry. This chapter analyses the relevant conditions in the Netherlands, Norway, and the U.S., the home-base countries for Shell, Statoil and ExxonMobil, respectively.
This chapter evaluates the effectiveness of the International Regime (IR) model in accounting for the differences in the climate change strategies adopted by the oil companies in this study. It explains that this model is concerned with corporate alliances across states and how such alliances relate to international regimes over time. This chapter examines the extent to which the international climate regime can explain the strategies chosen by the oil industry focusing on three causal pathways: knowledge, pressure and opportunities.
This chapter sums up the key findings of this study which has been on the factors that may explain the changes and differences in corporate climate strategies adopted by major oil companies: ExxonMobil, the Shell Group and Statoil. It explains that Shell has chosen a proactive strategy, ExxonMobil a reactive one, while the climate strategy adopted by Statoil can be placed in between as intermediate. The analysis reveals that the domestic political context of the companies' home-base countries is more important for explaining differences in corporate climate strategy than are company-specific factors. This chapter also concludes that the analytical framework developed in this study may be applicable also for analysing other issue areas in which large corporations play an important role.