Firms are facing strong pressure to align their strategies with global societal challenges (climate change, natural resource use, food, poverty, etc.) as a way to demonstrate their corporate social responsibility (CSR). CSR initiatives typically would be initiated at a small scale and then be expected to induce a change in mindset within business-as-usual activities. However, this so-called shared value approach has frequently encountered multiple barriers. This paper investigates a case in which, on paper, the green lights were everywhere: the company’s Access to Energy program combines CSR characteristics relevant to both climate change and bottom-of-the-pyramid (BOP) issues that are well in line with the core strategy of the firm. Yet after more than 10 years of existence, the program remains in a stalemate status. The responsibilities for access-to-energy activities are torn between having protected status within the Sustainable Development department and having to meet unachievable profit objectives set by Operations divisions. We identify three barriers: the firm’s complex organizational matrix, which complicated the internal diffusion of the program; the lack of incentives at all levels of organization to promote effective program evolution; and the difficulty in demonstrating a clear profitability case for the program. Lessons are drawn from this case on how to release these organizational brakes. The results provide new and interesting insights to explain the limited success of CSR activities as business opportunities. While most previous analysis focused on external barriers, only scarce literature exists on organizational barriers, even though the latter appear to be insidious.
Hydrogen valleys, which integrate renewable energy sources, hydrogen infrastructure, and end-use applications, play a crucial role in decarbonizing industrial energy hubs. However, the large-scale deployment of hydrogen is constrained by limited renewable electricity availability and high technology costs. A key insight from our analysis is that the merit order of hydrogen end-uses is dynamic, evolving...
Cet article propose une analyse comparative d’un fonds solidaire « 90-10 » recherchant principalement la performance financière (fonds « A ») et d’un fonds solidaire spécialisé (fonds « B »), privilégiant la création d’impacts positifs sans performance financière. Ces fonds combinent les notions d’impact et de solidarité de manière hybride : communication d’une part, pratiques de financement et de sélection d’autre...
Participez à l’événement “Le rôle de la finance solidaire et de la finance à impact dans le financement de la transition : enjeux et limites“...
International conference Monday 19th of May The low-carbon transition requires both the emergence of new technologies and the large-scale deployment of existing...