Two Levels of Fragmentation

Thus far, this chapter has depicted how the overall inconsistent framing of the concepts sustainability and CE reflected their inherent theoretical ambiguity, yet allowed for a certain degree of order; it became evident that our findings are not completely irregular and sporadic.

While we were able to group certain elements in the so fragmented perceptions of our interviewees into empirical themes, other inconsistencies in our interviewees’ talk and subsequent observations cannot be included into those configurations. Particularly, we commonly witnessed two levels of fragmentation: (1) externally across all interviewees and their perceptions and understandings, and (2) internally within the talk of individuals.

4.6.1 Fragmentation Across Our Interviewees

As illuminated by the various themes, our study uncovers high levels of dissonance.

Particularly, this dissonance became noticeable from our interviewees’ contrasting perceptions and understandings regarding the concepts of sustainability and CE. In essence, different

individuals perceived sustainability and CE differently than their fellow Big Company workers, leading to a fragmentation across our interviews. These inconsistencies and differences occurred across the outlined empirical themes in terms of how individuals defined sustainability and CE, how they translated those perceptions into their daily work, and how they viewed Big Company’s organizational context. Interestingly, while this fragmentation most obviously occurred in the way individuals understood the term sustainability, the majority of interviewees conveyed awareness and a reflective acceptance of this external fragmentation and that the term is understood and used differently by different people across the organization:

“It is very complicated because we have all different views” (Anna).

“Depending on whom you talk to, of course, they going to have different views on it”

(Laura).

“Definitely, there are different understandings and there are different views” (Jessica).

Contrarily, while the term CE noticeably also is plagued by complexity and different perceptions, acceptance of these varying perceptions became less evident; rather, people voiced frustration regarding the lack of unified understanding around what it means to be a corporate entrepreneur and their importance in organizations. This is briefly shown by the following:

“I know in what way I would like to go to solve [a problem], but then I have to explain my ideas to groups of people or management and convince them. […] It can be very frustrating” (Fabienne).

At last, these fragmentations suggest that both concepts lack a unified meaning, equal appreciation of their implications and cohesion in use. Ultimately, as different employees related to the varying notions of the concepts in contrasting ways, the concepts may also be translated and applied differently in one’s daily work, leading to varying behavior and unpredictable results for the organization as a whole. One employee concluded the controversies created by such complexity and dissonance for an organization like Big Company, where sustainability and CE are part of the strategy and values, and where particularly the term sustainability is widely used:

“It’s always about balancing different interests, and of course, then you have clashes”

(Jessica).

4.6.2 Fragmentation Within Our Interviewees

Fragmented views also became apparent within individuals themselves and their talk about sustainability and CE. We observed this internal fragmentation of individuals presenting varying views throughout their interview across the majority of our interviews – although to variable degrees. Interviewees who demonstrated clearly defined views on sustainability and/or CE displayed this internal dissonance the most. Often, these interviewees initially presented fairly strong definitions of the concept(s), but then adopted a mix of elements from our empirical themes and displayed inconsistent perceptions, definitions or examples compared to their previous, clearly-defined stance. Typically, the responses of our interview partners showed internal fragmentation when they were framing sustainability and/or CE against diverse situations and contexts, or when separating between their personal context (e.g.

how they personally understand the term sustainability) and an organizational context (e.g.

how they understand sustainability in relation to Big Company and their daily work). On the basis of Anna’s interview, we will outline prominent examples of this internal fragmentation in the following.

Initially, when directly asked to give a definition of sustainability, Anna showed little uncertainty by adopting a view that, according to our previous themes, we would categorized under the enthusiasm theme, as she emphasized the three pillars of sustainability:

“The mission of sustainability [consists] of economic, social and environmental pillars and using today’s resources and developing the world today without compromising the future. That’s my view of sustainability.”

However, as the interview progressed, Anna did not continue to relate sustainability to the full three pillars again, but rather replied to indirectly sustainability-related inquiries by focusing on single aspects of sustainability. For instance, at times the social aspect was referred to and at other times the environmental aspect:

“We want to deliver energy to people in a sustainable way. […] it is about helping people to live a climate-friendly life.”

“I mean if you work all the way back to society and making sure that everyone who is working with the sourcing and all the material we use, that all this is done in a sustainable way as well. And then it is more a social factor, I guess.”

This behavior of highlighting only one aspect of sustainability may stem from the urge to create a sense of security, clarity and simplicity in regards to the complex, far-reaching and ambiguous concept sustainability.

Further, Anna repetitively demonstrated changes of perspective, as exemplified by the following: when we posed a question about the company’s attitude in regards to sustainable energy production, she replied by stating “for me this means [...]”, thus providing her personal view on the issue; vice versa, she referred to the company’s strategy and standpoint (and seemingly gave a corporate answer) when being asked about her personal view on the same topic:

“It is not hidden that we reduced our CO2 emission from I think like 113 tons to 50 tons, or something like that. That was something that was discussed whether it was a wise decision […] But in the end of the day, it was in line with our [ideals].”

Not only does this switching of perspectives indicate the difficulty and complexity in defining sustainability – or in this instance, defining sustainable energy production – it also suggests that her personal perceptions of sustainability potentially differ from the corporate understanding. Further, this dissonance may even hint towards a potential identity struggle between her personal and corporate role and values, again highlighting the intricacy of sustainability in practice and organizational contexts.

To conclude, these brief snippets from Anna’s interview serve as exemplary case for the overall difficulty we observed in our participants in pinning down sustainability into an easily definable term. The often loose nature in which our interviewees talked about sustainability depending on the context illustrates how its inherent ambiguity influences people’s perceptions and understandings and underlines the intricacy and fragmentation of the concept.

While Anna’s interview radiated around sustainability, other interviewees exemplified similar fragmented views towards CE.