A dialectic issue life cycle model and examples Prof Frank Geels SPRU Univ of Sussex sustainable practices workshop 2627 Jan 2012 Structure Introductionmotivation Theoretical framework ID: 264235
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Grand societal challenges and the reorie..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Grand societal challenges and the reorientation of incumbent industries: A dialectic issue life cycle model and examples
Prof. Frank Geels
SPRU, Univ. of Sussex
(sustainable practices workshop, 26-27 Jan. 2012)Slide2
StructureIntroduction/motivation
Theoretical framework
Case study 1
Case study 2
ConclusionsSlide3
1. IntroductionWhy at this workshop?NOT about consumption practices
But it is about:
“problems such as
climate
change”
Issue life cycles (the dynamics of problems)
Political economy
much talk in transitions literature about power and politics, but remains vague (often rather discursive)
“Questions
of the
interaction
between political and regulatory
frameworks”. And
industry/technical innovation, markets and civil
society/discourse.Slide4
Background (innovation studies)New topic
: Grand societal challenges
(climate change, energy security, transport and resource efficiency, food safety, obesity, health and aging)
Linked to
: Systemic transitions + directionality of innovation
(rather than speed and output)
Focal actor
: Industry (population of firms)
Embedded in organizational field
(link to my previous work)Slide5
Organizational fieldSlide6
Research questionsLock-in, inertia, path dependence
How do societal problems emerge and develop?
How do industries respond to societal problems? When do they implement substantial responses (i.e. overcome lock-in)? Slide7
Research strategyDevelop an enriched issue life cycle model
Confront the model with in-depth case studies:
US car industry and:
Local air pollution (1945-1985)
Car safety (1910-2000)
Climate change (1990-2010)Slide8
2. Theoretical frameworkIssue life cycle theory (Business & Society)
Mahon and
Waddock
(1992)Slide9
Tombari (1984)Slide10
Rivoli and Waddock (2010)Slide11
StrengthsIssues/problems have temporalityIssue dynamics are socially enacted
Social construction + power/politics
Multi-dimensional:
Activists/social movements
Public opinion
Political debates
Political decisions (+ implementation)Slide12
WeaknessesToo little conflict/struggle (teleological unfolding)
Too little corporate strategies
Linear sequence
(problem in many phase-models)Slide13
ImprovementsLink to broader industry framework
Add more strategy and struggle/conflict
Flexible with phases: backwards, forwardsSlide14
Triple embeddedness framework of industry Inspired by:
institit
. theory: org. fields
Structuration
theory (‘rules and resources’)
Regulation theory (mode of production, regime of accumulation, mode of regulation)
Scott’s (1993) institutional pillars
Evolutionary theory: adapting to selection pressuresSlide15
Framing, PR and issue management strategiesIgnore, deny, downplay problems
Emphasize uncertainties and contest the science
Emphasize costs and difficulties of solutions
Adjust storylines to increase
(
Benford
and Snow, 2000):
Actor credibility
Empirical fit
Centrality
Experiential commensurability
Macro-cultural resonanceSlide16
Corporate political strategies (Hillman and Hitt, 1999)
1. Information and framing strategy
- industry research institutes to build expertise
- contest the science
- commission research reports
- testify as expert witness in hearings
2. Financial incentives strategy
- make contributions to political parties
- pay fees to politicians for speeches
- offer politicians lucrative jobs at the end of their career
3. Organized pressure strategy
- create fake grassroots organizations (‘astroturf’)
- create industry associations that speak for the industry
- mobilize employees, suppliers, customers to pressure their representatives
4. Direct lobbying strategy
- hire lobbyists to work politicians
- mobilize CEOs to speak with politicians
5. Confrontational strategies
- oppose laws through litigation
- threaten policy makers with plant closures
- refuse to implement or obey policiesSlide17
Economic positioning strategiesPorter: low cost, high performance, niche market
Supply chain management, marketing strategies
Corporate strategy/missionSlide18
Innovation strategiesTension: Radical and incremental innovationExploitation-exploration
(March, 1991)
Ambidextrous organizations
(
Tushman
)
Radical innovation not just about knowledge flows (innovation systems),
But also about beliefs and strategic commitmentSlide19
Rothwell (1992)
Tactical factors
Strategic factors
Effective linkages with external sources of know-how
Top management commitment to, and visible support for, innovation
Effective functional integration; involving all departments in the project from its earliest stages
Long-term corporate strategy in which innovation plays a key role
Careful planning and project control procedures
Long-term commitment to major projects.Slide20
Temporal unfolding of pressures and responses
(ideal-type)Slide21
Phase 1: Problem definition and framing strugglesSlide22
Phase 2: Rising public concerns and defensive industry responsesSlide23
Phase 3: Political debates/struggles and defensive hedgingSlide24
Phase 4: Political regulations and diversificationSlide25
Phase 5: Spillovers to task environment and reorientationSlide26
Different issue cyclesSlide27
3. Longitudinal case study: Air pollution, technical innovation, and the American car industry (1943-1985)
27
Source:
University of Southern California Digital Library and Los Angeles Times photographic archive, UCLA LibrarySlide28
Phase 1: Issue emergence and sensemaking attempts (1943-1953)
Pressures:
Severe smog events in California (1943, 1948)Slide29
Public concerns and protests
Smog protestants at Board of Supervisors, 1947
Source:
University of Southern California Digital Library Slide30
Symbolic policy statements (concern)
Smog committee at District Attorney's Office, 1947
Source:
University of Southern California Digital Library Slide31
Research into causes (sensemaking struggles)Initial blame to stationary sources (oil and waste burning)Haagen-Smit research: car exhausts + smog chemistry
Smoking stack from Mercer Hotel, LA, 1949
Source:
University of Southern California Digital Library Slide32
Car industry responses:UnconcernedRejected automobile as causeSlide33
Phase 2: Policy learning and defensive industry responses (1953-1960)Pressures:
1953 ‘five-day siege of smog’ increased public concern
Activist movement:
Stamp out Smog (1958)
Stamp Out Smog
meets with public officials
Source:
Jacobs and Kelly (2008:192)Slide34
Policy debates and early Federal involvementFederal Air Pollution Control Act (1955) stimulated further studies on the causes and (health) effects of air pollutionFirst National Conference on Air Pollution in 1958Slide35
Car industry responsesIndustry acknowledges the issue (denial impossible)Framing strategies:
Science base uncertain
California is special case
(no federal involvement needed)
Incremental R&D programme by Vehicle Combustion Products Committee (1953)
But also collusion: agree not to competeSlide36
Phase 3: Increasing public concern, early legislation and industry delay (1960-1970)Pressures
Growing scientific understanding of health effects
New framing in
public discourse
Increasing anxiety
Health risk framing of air pollution in the early 1960s
Source:
Washington Star, reprinted in U.S. Department of HEW (1966:3)Slide37
Smog problems spread to other states (New York, Philadelphia) New activist groups:
Clean Air Council (1967) and the Group Against Smog and Pollution (GASP) (1969)
Coalition with medical establishment
Californian legislation:
Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Act (1960)
1963 Clean Air Act (CAA): weak, no standards, but do more researchSlide38
Decreasing legitimacy of car industry:‘anti-trust case of the century’ (1969): conspiracy re. pollution control devicesSecret recall campaigns: 20% of cars recalled for safety defects between 1960 and 1966
Safety issue: Nader (1965)
and regulations (1967)
Public perception: car industry no
regard for public interest.
Needs to be forced by law
Ralph Nader’s
Unsafe at any speed
Source:
Scanned cover of the bookSlide39
Car industry responses
Framing strategies:
‘regulation is not needed’ (Voluntary’ installation of devices in 1960)
Solutions are expensive
(mocked in newspapers)
Cartoon mocking the reluctance of the car industry to install control devices
Source:
Washington Post, reprinted in U.S. Department of HEW (1966:53)Slide40
Incremental innovation strategiesPCV valvesevaporation-control systems (ECS)transmission controlled spark (TCS)thermovacuum switches (TVS)
air injected reactor (AIR)
Radical innovation strategies
Suppliers (chemical industry) offer catalytic converters
Industry rejects, but starts R&DSlide41
Phase 4: Tough legislation and resisted implementation (1970-1977)PressuresPeak in public attentionSlide42
Air pollution resonates with broader cultural trend of environmentalism (Earth Day, 1970)
Earth Day One (April 22
nd
, 1970)
Source:
Getty imagesSlide43
Increasing frustration with car industryPolitical jockeying Muskie and Nixon Result in tough Clean Air Act (1970)
Figure 7: Number of air pollution control bills introducedSlide44
Car industry responsesFraming strategies
CAA is threat to US economy (imposes costs)
Emphasise trade-offs with fuel efficiency (1973)
Political strategies
Lobby senators to kill the bill
Complain directly to President
Litigation tactics to fight CAA implementationSlide45
Innovation strategiesContinue incremental innovationBut also improve catalysts Innovation race (patents)Slide46
GM breaks industry front and installs catalytic converters (1975)Advertising
GM’s 1975 add of catalytic converters
Source:
Google News ArchivesSlide47
Phase 5: Industry fightback, implementation delays, and institutionalization (1977-1985)
Pressures
Decline in public attention
Postponement of 1977 standards
Other issues: oil crises, economic problems (late 1970s), unemployment
Policy makers more interested in saving car industry than air pollution
New anti-regulation discourse (causing economic problems)
Reagan (1981) attempts regulatory rollbackSlide48
Car industry responsesEconomic problems (weak demand + Japanese competition)Slide49
Economic problems embolden industry: refusal to comply with 1978 standardsIndustry supports anti-regulation discourseAsk policymakers for supportInnovation strategiesSlowing down patent race
But install three-way catalyst (1981), which reconfigured the engineSlide50
Pattern matchingRelatively good match with first three phases
Deviations in fourth and fifth phase, due to:
Decreasing pressure from public opinion
Limited spillovers from the issue to consumer demand
Rise of competing issues
Strong resistance from the powerful car industry
50Slide51
4. Case study 2: Safety (1900-2000)Main dynamic
Until 1960s: 3E-framing dominant (Engineering, Education, Enforcement)
Car design was kept off agenda
Alternative framing in 1950s: crash engineering and medical establishment
Clash between professional communities (not driven by ‘the public’)
Nader (1965) + public outrage + policy learning
National Highway Traffic Safety Act (1966)
Followed by resistance and implementation struggles
(seatbelt vs. airbag controversy)Slide52
Difference with case 1
Public attention continuous rise
spillover
to consumer preferences in late 1980s
Slide53
Relative importance of decision criteria for car purchase
‘Safety did not sell’ in 1950s and 1960s, but does in 1990s
Market demand stimulates major industry effort
Slide54
Automobile safety patents (based on USPTO)
Lesson
: Industry fights regulation to delay issue progression
But when issue spills over to markets, industry can accelerate and mobilize resources Slide55
5. Concluding commentsIndustries tend to postpone substantial solutions to ‘issues’
External pressures important: public opinion, activists, politics, markets
Pressure around issues develops gradually and dialectically (conflict)
Issues go up and down
What about climate change?Slide56
Decreasing public attentionSlide57Slide58
Volatile and low carbon priceSlide59
Kyoto successor postponed (limited political pressure)contesting the science (UEA ‘climate gate’)Debates (
Newsnight
) on costs of green energy
Maybe the climate change issue moves back to earlier phase
Need to analyze pressures and responses
(third case next year?)