David L. Levy

A Neo-Gramscian Approach to Corporate Political Strategy: Conflict and Accommodation in the Climate Change Negotiations*

A neo-Gramscian theoretical framework for corporate political strategy is developed drawing from Gramscis analysis of the relations among capital, social forces, and the state, and from more contemporary theories. Gramscis political theory recognizes the centrality of organizations and strategy, directs attention to the organizational, economic, and ideological pillars of power, while illuminating the processes of coalition building, conflict, and accommodation that drive social change. This approach addresses the structure-agency relationship and endogenous dynamics in a way that could enrich institutional theory. The framework suggests a strategic concept of power, which provides space for contestation by subordinate groups in complex dynamic social systems. We apply the framework to analyse the international negotiations to control emissions of greenhouse gases, focusing on the responses of firms in the US and European oil and automobile industries. The neo-Gramscian framework explains some specific features of corporate responses to challenges to their hegemonic position and points to the importance of political struggles within civil society. The analysis suggests that the conventional demarcation between market and non-market strategies is untenable, given the embeddedness of markets in contested social and political structures and the political character of strategies directed toward defending and enhancing markets, technologies, corporate autonomy and legitimacy. Copyright Blackwell Publishers Ltd 2003.

Winds of Change: Corporate Strategy, Climate Change and Oil Multinationals

Behind pessimistic expectations regarding the future of an international climate treaty, substantial changes can be observed in company positions. Multinationals in the oil and car industries are increasingly moving toward support for the Kyoto Protocol, and take measures to address climate change. This article analyses developments in the oil industry over the past few years, observing considerable shifts in corporate climate strategies. It compares British Petroleum, Royal Dutch Shell, Texaco and ExxonMobil, of which currently only the latter strongly opposes a climate treaty. BP and Shell have moved decisively toward supporting emission reductions and investing in renewable energy, while Texaco has begun to move in a similar direction. Divergent behaviour can be explained in terms of company-specific factors, particularly corporate histories of profitability and location, market assessments, degrees of centralization and the presence of climate scientists. Ongoing stakeholder pressures, which focus on first-mover BP, are evaluated.

Strategic Responses to Global Climate Change: Conflicting Pressures on Multinationals in the Oil Industry

MNCs are increasingly facing global environmental issues demanding coordinated market and non-market strategic responses. The home country institutional context and individual company histories can create divergent pressures on strategy for MNCs based in different countries; however, the location of MNCs in global industries and their participation in global issues arenas create issue-level fields within which strategic convergence might also be expected. This paper analyzes the responses of oil MNCs to climate change and finds that local context influenced initial corporate reactions, but that convergent pressures predominate as the issue matures.

Environmental Management as Political Sustainability

Grounded in critical theory and the Gramscian concept of hegemony, this article argues that environmental management (EM) can be understood as an accommodation to growing public awareness of environmental problems that potentially threatens dominant hegemonic coalitions. On the material level, EM is a set of practices that ameliorates the more egregious environmental consequences of industrialproduction; on the ideological and symbolic level, EM constructs products and companies as green and legitimizes the primacy of corporate managements role in addressing environmental problemrs. EM is thus seen to be more about political than environmental sustainability.

Business Strategy and International Environmental Governance: Toward a Neo-Gramscian Synthesis

This paper develops a political economy approach to explaining the role of business in international environmental governance. The framework bridges micro and macro-levels of analysis and combines theories of International Relations with perspectives from management and organization. The uneven and fragmented nature of international governance is viewed as the outcome of a process of bargaining, compromise, and alliance formation among a range of state and non-state actors. Negotiated regimes are constitutive of the broader structures of global governance, but are also constrained and shaped by these wider configurations of power. We apply Gramscian concepts to understand processes of contestation and accommodation, and to locate corporate political strategy within the wider system of states, civil society, and international institutions. The Gramscian approach suggests the dominant yet contingent position of business, and points to a strategic concept of power that highlights the dynamic and somewhat indeterminate path of regime evolution.

Bargains old and new: multinational corporations in global governance

This paper outlines an approach for understanding the role of multinational corporations (MNCs) in global governance. We develop a typology of regime types with two dimensions, the goal of the regime, which can be market enabling or regulatory, and the location of authority, which can be national, regional, or international, with public and private elements. MNCs tend to support the creation of market enabling regimes at the international level, and prefer to keep social or environmental regulation under national or private authority. However, these are only generalizations and MNCs develop preferences based on their relative influence in various arenas, the costs of political participation, and competitive considerations. We argue that institutions of global governance represent the outcome of a series of negotiations among corporations, states, and non-state actors. The preferences and power of MNCs vary across issues and sectors, and from one negotiating forum to another, accounting for the uneven and fragmented nature of the resulting system. Our approach differs from the traditional FDI bargaining framework in that it recognizes the multi-party nature of negotiations and multiple sources of power. Moreover, the complexity and dynamic nature of the process results in a somewhat indeterminate process.

Business and International Environmental Treaties: Ozone Depletion and Climate Change

The study of business interests adds an important dimension to our understanding of the development of international environmental agreements. The contrasting role of business interests in the cases of ozone depletion and climate change is critical to explaining why climate change is a much more difficult issue for the international community to tackle. In the case of ozone depletion, industry concentration and the technological factors provided incentives for industry leaders to invest in alternative products and processes. By contrast, fossil fuel substitutes present a long-term strategic threat to the major sectors that produce and use these fuels. Where relatively few actors were involved in ozone depletion, it will be much more difficult to craft an agreement that is acceptable to the broad range of industries affected by climate change. However, business does have substantial influence over the timing and shape of international environmental agreements, even when there is considerable disunity within the business ranks.