To Frack or Not to Frack? The Interaction of Justification and Power in a Sustainability Controversy

TL;DR: In this article, the authors analyze how stakeholders from government, civil society, and industry mobilized modes of justification and forms of power with the aim to influence the moral legitimacy of the fracking technology during a controversy surrounding shale gas exploration.

Abstract: How could a de facto moratorium on shale gas exploration emerge in Quebec despite the broad adoption of fracking in North American jurisdictions, support from the provincial government and a favourable power position initially enjoyed by the oil and gas industry? This paper analyses this turn of events by studying how stakeholders from government, civil society, and industry mobilized modes of justification and forms of power with the aim to influence the moral legitimacy of the fracking technology during a controversy surrounding shale gas exploration. Combining Boltanski and Thevenot's economies of worth theory with Lukes’ concept of power, we analytically induced the justification of power mechanisms whereby uses of power become justified or ‘escape’ justification, and the power of justification mechanisms by which justifications alter subsequent power dynamics. We finally explain how these mechanisms contribute to explaining the controversy's ultimate outcome, and advance current debates on political corporate social responsibility.

Summary

Introduction

• From the multifaceted range of leisure activities available nowadays, wine tourism continues to draw the attention of numerous academics- and wine enthusiasts- worldwide.
• In a similar vein, research among Oregon winery managers (Marlowe, et al., 2016) ascertains that success in the cellar door environment is fundamentally dependent upon training on product knowledge.
• Thus, the objectives of the study are multi-fold.

Literature Review

• In the increasingly competitive wine market (Pomarici et al., 2017), for wineries, incorporating talented individuals who through their knowledge and expertise can contribute to product and service delivery is fundamental.
• Originally presented by Deci and Ryan (1985), SDT highlights two key types of motivation: intrinsic and extrinsic; these two types are “based on the different reasons or goals that give rise to an action” (Ryan and Deci, 2000, p. 55).
• Training transfer appears to be perceived differently by employer and employee, with management interpreting it as part of the organisational environment, while for staff, “transfer reflects their motivation for training” (Gil et al., 2016, p. 65).
• Research focusing on the winery experience further suggests the importance for wineries’ management and their staff to display such extrinsic motivation, especially by ‘engaging in action’ (Gagné and Deci, 2005) to address visitors’ needs and wants.
• This finding implies that wineries might be more reliant on the existing knowledge, skills, and expertise of newly recruited staff and their preparedness ‘to hit the ground running.’.

Methodology

• This study examines the characteristics needed to succeed in the provision of wine tourism experiences based upon the perceptions of winery professionals (owners/managers).
• The potential links between those characteristics and different types of motivation validates the consideration of SDT as the chosen framework.

Method justification

• The knowledge and expertise of the participating winery owners/managers are strongly aligned with the purposive sampling method selected in this research.
• Indeed, purposive/purposeful sampling entails the strategic selection of information-rich cases; based upon their substance and nature, the cases will help illuminate the questions being investigated (Patton, 2015).
• Previous evidence of the use of purposeful sampling in wine tourism research (e.g., Canovi and Pucciarelli, 2019) further supports its selection in this research.
• Associated with the purposive/purposeful method, an inductive approach to data collection and analysis is also chosen.
• The development of Figure 1 demonstrates an overall alignment with notions of the inductive approach.

Choice of study site

• Within the focus of the research, the investigation of information-rich cases (Patton, 2015) from the perspective of individuals operating in emerging economies was deemed as particularly important.
• This perspective would similarly produce useful practical insights.
• Two of the selected regions, Casablanca and Mendoza are part of the selected group of Great Participant recruitment and data collection During September 2018, 74 wineries located in the three regions were contacted through electronic correspondence.
• The interview protocol first entailed gathering descriptive-demographic information about participants and their firms.

Data saturation

• According to Morse (2004), theoretical saturation is a phase during qualitative data analysis, where researchers continue to sample and analyse data.
• During this process, linkages and concepts forming the theory are verified, and no need for additional data is recognized (Morse, 2004).
• No particular number of participants was identified as a clear threshold to ascertain a saturation point of the data collected.
• Instead, premises brought a key indicator of sample adequacy.
• Thus, appropriateness of the data was noticed by the end of the 32nd interview.

Data transcription and analysis

• The data were translated from Spanish into English by a member of the research team, who is bilingual (English-Spanish), where the translated and transcribed data were then crosschecked by the authors to ensure accuracy and consistency.
• Qualitative content analysis was undertaken; this method entails analysis of textual data, whose informational content is relevant, to gain understanding of a phenomenon (Forman and Damschroder, 2007).
• NVivo version 12 was utilised as the data management tool.
• In the following sections, participants will be identified through abbreviations (see Table 1).

Attitudinal aspects

• As discussed in the SDT literature (Gagné and Deci, 2005; Ryan and Deci, 2000), intrinsic motivation is highlighted in actions that typically match individuals’ interest and enjoyment.
• This comment echoes notions and findings of previous research (Charters et al., 2009), which highlights the significance of having passionate individuals at the winery, who display strong interest and keenness to engage visitors.
• Determination, empathy, a strong personality, behaving professionally, and being responsible on the job were also highly regarded.
• These aspects are associated with individuals’ genuine interest, and can be supporting elements when they pursue enjoyment; hence, they are strongly related to intrinsic motivation.
• At the same time, an argument is or excel on the job.

Knowledge-related aspects

• The importance of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation became apparent in responses highlighting the value of knowledge-based aspects.
• SJ10’s comment illustrates the links between passion, learning, and benefitting the winery: “I love my work and I pay close attention to the instructions I receive and try to learn in the short courses I take.”.
• Previous knowledge can also be influential in enthusiasts’ selection of wineries to visit, which is significant for wineries and marketers (Alant and Bruwer, 2010).
• The following comments further emphasise the importance of communicating knowledge to visitors: C5: …be aware of all aspects encompassing sensorial experiences….
• Additional comments highlight the different ways in which knowledge could be essential to new entrants to the wine tourism environment, including communicating in foreign languages to transmit sensations and knowledge of wines, winery and region to visitors (C5, M3, M4, SJ5).

Adaptation-related aspects

• A third emerging dimension, which underlines the vital need to have the preparedness to adapt to internal and external changes as well as dynamic processes again suggests strong links with both types of motivation.
• In fact, adaptation can be related to or interpreted as vital pre-conditions, or even demands, to abide by professional standards and expectations.
• The comments identified increasing demands that at the same time provided opportunities for wine tourism professionals to apply and enhance their skills and talent: C2: M13: …there is a lot of movement, and the authors are growing a lot… the knowledge of their visitors is improving.
• Hence, adjusting the speech or ‘script’ during the winery visitation can also demonstrate a certain level of hospitableness (Charters et al., 2009), and arguably a valuable trait, in discerning the visitor’s psyche.

Strategy-related aspects

• M7’s observations are partly linked to research by Carlsen and Boksberger (2015), where the authors suggest various forms of enhancing the winery experience, namely, through knowledge, skills and ability, all of which can enrich visitors’ perceived value.
• In various cases (e.g., C3, C4, M9, M10, SJ8) participants had worked outside the wine industry, yet all of them identified the usefulness of such experiences in unrelated roles.
• This work was quite useful, for instance, in gaining communication skills.
• Previous work experience illustrates the mutually inclusive nature of both types of motivation (Ryan and Deci, 2000).

Discussion

• Research by Reay and Whetten (2011) draws from the work of Dubin (1978) and Whetten (1989) to discuss insightful notions concerning the foundation of theory building.
• Fundamentally, a strong theory should illuminate a phenomenon of interest (Reay and Whetten, 2011).
• In the present study, the findings revealed relationships between the five dimensions and the two motivational types (intrinsic, extrinsic).
• Similarly, they are of instrumental value, for instance, as an avenue to reach higher vocational goals or even promotion at work.

Conclusions

• This study makes several contributions to the wine tourism and hospitality literature.
• Second, it has focused upon wine regions of emerging economics, which have also been under-studied.
• As recently demonstrated by D’Annunzio-Green and Ramdhony (2019 in the area of talent management, and mirroring the present research, SDT was revealed as an insightful conceptual lens.
• The mutual inclusiveness of these types of motivation, which are reflected through the main aspects found in this research suggests the significance of nurturing, developing, and further advancing those behavioural traits and skills.

Figures

FIGURE 1. Temporal indicators of the controversy*

TABLE III. Illustrations of coding of the four facets of power from Lukes (2005)

TABLE I. Illustrations of the coding of ‘common worlds’

TABLE IV. Mechanisms linking power and justification

Full text

City, University of London Institutional Repository
Citation: Gond, J-P., Cruz, L. B., Raufflet, E. and Charron, M. (2016). To Frack or Not to
Frack? The Interaction of Justification and Power in a Sustainability Controversy. Journal Of
Management Studies, 53(3), pp. 330-363. doi: 10.1111/joms.12166
This is the accepted version of the paper.
This version of the publication may differ from the final published
version.
Permanent repository link: https://openaccess.city.ac.uk/id/eprint/15557/
Link to published version: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/joms.12166
Copyright: City Research Online aims to make research outputs of City,
University of London available to a wider audience. Copyright and Moral
Rights remain with the author(s) and/or copyright holders. URLs from
City Research Online may be freely distributed and linked to.
Reuse: Copies of full items can be used for personal research or study,
educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or
charge. Provided that the authors, title and full bibliographic details are
credited, a hyperlink and/or URL is given for the original metadata page
and the content is not changed in any way.
City Research Online: http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/ publications@city.ac.uk
City Research Online

1
TO FRACK OR NOT TO FRACK? THE INTERACTION OF JUSTIFICATION AND
POWER IN A SUSTAINABILITY CONTROVERSY
Jean-Pascal GOND
City University London, Cass Business School
106 Bunhill Row, EC1Y 8TZ
London, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7040 0980
Fax: +44 (0) 7040 8328
jean-pascal.gond.1@city.ac.uk
Luciano BARIN-CRUZ
HEC Montréal
3000 chemin de la Côte-Sainte-Catherine
Montréal, QC H3T 2A7
Phone: +1 514.340.1350
Fax: +1 514.340.5635
luciano.barin-cruz@hec.ca
Emmanuel RAUFFLET
HEC Montréal
3000 chemin de la Côte-Sainte-Catherine
Montréal, QC H3T 2A7
Phone: +1 514 340-6196
Fax: +1 514.340.5635
emmanuel.raufflet@hec.ca
Mathieu CHARRON
Laval University, Faculty of Law
Pavillon Charles-De Koninck, Bureau 2407
1030, avenue des Sciences-Humaines
Québec City, Québec G1V 0A6
Phone: 418 656-2131 (ext. 6134)
mathieu.charron.2@ulaval.ca
ACKOWLEDGEMENTS
We thank the JMS Special Issue Editors, in particular Andreas Rasche and Guido Palazzo, our
JMS general editor, and three anonymous reviewers for their valuable insight and guidance.
Earlier drafts of this paper benefitted of useful comments from Damon Golsorkhi and other
participants of the ‘Rethinking Organizations’ workshop held at Grenoble School of Management

2
(February 2014) as well as from informal discussions with the participants of the iShare seminar
organized at Cass Business School in April 2015.

3
TO FRACK OR NOT TO FRACK? THE INTERACTION OF JUSTIFICATION AND
POWER IN A SUSTAINABILITY CONTROVERSY
Abstract
How could a de facto moratorium on shale gas exploration emerge in Québec despite the broad
adoption of fracking in North American jurisdictions, support from the provincial government
and a favorable power position initially enjoyed by the oil and gas industry? This paper analyzes
this turn of events by studying how stakeholders from government, civil society, and industry
mobilized modes of justification and forms of power with the aim to influence the moral
legitimacy of the fracking technology during a controversy surrounding shale gas exploration.
Combining Boltanski and Thévenot’s economies of worth theory with Lukes’ concept of power,
we analytically induced the justification of power mechanisms whereby uses of power become
justified or ‘escape’ justification, and the power of justification mechanisms by which
justifications alter subsequent power dynamics. We finally explain how these mechanisms
contribute to explaining the controversy’s ultimate outcome, and advance current debates on
political corporate social responsibility.
Key-words: corporate social responsibility, fracking, justification, moral legitimacy, power,
shale gas

4
INTRODUCTION
Political CSR (PCSR) approaches inspired by Habermasian, stakeholder, and institutional
theories have highlighted the central role of ‘moral legitimacy’ in the processes by which
stakeholder groups intervene in sustainability controversies to influence their outcomes (Frynas
and Stephens, 2014; Scherer and Palazzo, 2011). Building on Habermas’ concepts of
communication and deliberative democracy (Palazzo and Scherer, 2006; Scherer, Palazzo and
Seidl, 2013), these approaches suggest that multiple stakeholder groups attempt to shape the
moral legitimacy or illegitimacy of sustainability issues to establish a normative consensus
(Bauer and Palazzo, 2011; Mena and Palazzo, 2012). However, this research has done little to
explain how stakeholder groups compete in shaping the moral legitimacy or illegitimacy of
sustainability issues in institutional arenas.
Another group of scholars suggest that stakeholder groups intervene in sustainability
controversies mainly through coercion or manipulation to advance their agendas and shape the
institutions in which the discussions take place to promote their own interests (Banerjee, 2010;
Fleming and Jones, 2013). These critics tend to describe the Habermasian PCSR perspective as
‘naïve’ if not ‘utopian’ (Fleming and Jones, 2013, pp. 45-46, 85-86) because of its limited
appreciation of the differential powers attached to the stakeholders involved in these negotiation
processes; they insist on the need to better theorize and account for the role of power when
studying sustainability (Banerjee, 2010). However, the work of these critics rarely considers that
efforts of stakeholders to influence moral legitimacy may in turn shape power dynamics.
This paper seeks to address these limitations by considering the dynamics of both power and
justification to analyze how stakeholders interact in a sustainability controversy; we aim to
explain how the relationships between power and justification influence the controversy’s
ultimate outcome. Theoretically, we combine Boltanski and Thévenot’s (2006 [1991]) economies

Frequently asked questions

Q1. What are the contributions in this paper?

This paper analyzes this turn of events by studying how stakeholders from government, civil society, and industry mobilized modes of justification and forms of power with the aim to influence the moral legitimacy of the fracking technology during a controversy surrounding shale gas exploration. The authors finally explain how these mechanisms contribute to explaining the controversy ’ s ultimate outcome, and advance current debates on political corporate social responsibility. 

Q2. What was the main argument of the civil society groups against shale gas?

Civil society organizations also argued against the idea that shale gas is a ‘greener’ source of energy, maintaining that its exploitation might have unintended environmental consequences, such as water and soil contamination from the chemicals involved in the process. 

Q3. How many wells were inspected by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Wildlife?

After intense pressure from civil society organizations, by January 2011, leaks had been found in 19 of the 31 shale gas wells inspected by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Wildlife. 

Q4. What order of worth did the government use to stress the economic benefits of shale gas?

The government, while trying to align itself with those calling for more information and affirming that the BAPE recommendations would be followed, also continued to mobilize the market, civic, domestic and green orders of worth to stress the economic benefits of shale gas. 

Q5. What order of worth did the government and opposition parties use to argue that further environmental problems might follow?

In addition, civil society and opposition parties persisted in using the green and the civicorders of worth, arguing that further environmental problems might follow from shale gas exploration. 

Q6. What did the civil society organizations use to justify their positions on a moratorium?

Civil society organizations and the oil and gas industry association both relied on the civicorder of worth to justify their opposing positions on a moratorium. 

Q7. What did the industry do to avoid lengthy public hearings?

The industry negotiated directly with locals to start drilling as soon as possible, engaging in coercion through control over legal and economic resources with the aim to postpone or avoid lengthy public hearings. 

Q8. How many scholars helped the government use reliable information about fracking?

The ‘scientific collective’ reached over 100 scholars from different universities who helped representatives of civil society groups use reliable information about fracking on the ground for manipulation through agenda setting in BAPE hearings across the province; they could thus influence the debate.