IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/tpr/glenvp/v7y2007i3p42-62.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Oil Companies and Climate Change: Inconsistencies between Strategy Formulation and Implementation?

Author

Listed:
  • Ingvild Andreassen Sæverud
  • Jon Birger Skjærseth

Abstract

This article examines major oil companies in terms of climate strategies and their implementation. More specifıcally, it takes a critical look at Shell, BP, and ExxonMobil, and the relationship between rhetoric and action regarding investments in climate-friendly activities. Empirical evidence indicates a generally high degree of consistency between what these companies say and what they do, but interesting differences are also found: ExxonMobil has done somewhat more than its climate strategy formulations would suggest; Shell has done somewhat less; whereas BP's activities are mainly in line with its statements. Factors at three levels contribute to explaining these differences: (1) the company level, 2) the political framework conditions in the various regions where the companies operate, 3) international climate cooperation. The fındings and explanations, although restricted to the three oil companies with regard to climate change, provide insight into the relationship between corporate strategies and implementation more generally. They offer understanding and analytical categories for assessing how well and why such multinational entities put into practice stated objectives. (c) 2007 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Suggested Citation

  • Ingvild Andreassen Sæverud & Jon Birger Skjærseth, 2007. "Oil Companies and Climate Change: Inconsistencies between Strategy Formulation and Implementation?," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 7(3), pages 42-62, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:tpr:glenvp:v:7:y:2007:i:3:p:42-62
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1162/glep.2007.7.3.42
    File Function: link to full text
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:tpr:glenvp:v:7:y:2007:i:3:p:42-62. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kelly McDougall (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://direct.mit.edu/journals .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.