None of the cases reported being significantly influenced by their ownership structure or
organisational purpose as to how or why they were impacted by – or responded to – climate change. Therefore, in relation to impacts of climate change on the stadia, there was no discernible difference between MASS organisations based on whether they were: (1) publically-owned, not-for-profit (Category 1); (2) privately-owned, not-for-profit (Category 2), or; (3) privately-owned, for-profit (Category 3) entities. Whilst the study population is spread across continental Australia, and are therefore located in climatically different areas, no data indicates that public or private ownership – whether for-profit or not – made any difference to impacts. For example, water was identified by all twelve MASS cases (100 per cent) as a climate change issue and regardless of ownership type or purpose. There was a similar pattern with the lower rainfall issue associated with climate change reported by all theoretical categories although with slightly different incidence. Four out of the five (eighty per cent) “publically-owned, not-for-profit” (Category 1) cases reported lower rainfall; three out of the four (seventy-five per cent) “privately-owned, not-for-profit” (Category 2) did the same, while one out of the three (33.3 per cent) “privately-owned, for-profit” (Category 3), did so too. Similarly, energy was reported as a climate issue by all twelve MASS cases (100 per cent).
Furthermore, the mainly indirect nature of GHG emissions was reported by all cases, whilst all cases reported understanding the link between energy use and indirect GHG emissions. For waste as a climate issue, all five Category 1 cases (100 per cent), three of the four Category 2 cases (seventy-five per cent), and two of the three (sixty-six per cent) of the Category 3 cases recognised the link between their solid waste and indirect GHG emissions from landfill. In short, climate impacts such as lower rainfall, energy conservation, and GHG emissions from waste occurred regardless of the ownership type or purpose of MASS organisations.
Nor was it obvious that MASS organisations behaved significantly in radically different ways in response to climate change within the three categories. For example, whilst four out of five (eighty per cent) of Category 1 cases reported government as a key influence on how and why they responded to climate issues, so too did cases in Category 2 (two out of four/fifty per cent) and Category 3 (two out of three/ sixty-six per cent). Similarly, water harvesting and storage as a response to lower rainfall and/or government water efficiency regulation was reported in all three categories: four out of five (eighty per cent) in Category 1, two out of four (fifty per cent) in Category 2, and all three (100 per
cent) in Category 3. Furthermore, mitigation of GHG emissions through energy conservation was reported in all three categories: four out of five (eighty per cent) for Category 1, three out of four (seventy-five per cent) for Category 2, and all three cases (100 per cent) for Category 3.
That MASS organisations were impacted by climate change in the same way regardless of their ownership type or purpose – that is, no matter what their theoretical Category – and also responded to climate change regardless of their ownership type/theoretical category is a critically important finding of this study. It is important because it means that any theory proposed later in this thesis is
generalisable to the entire study population of MASS organisations rather than being limited to one or two categories.
Documents
While all of the twelve MASS cases reported climate change as an issue, and seven of the twelve MASS cases reported discussion of climate change as a management issue, this was rarely
corroborated by internal documents. Of the sixty-three public and private documents examined for this study, only one specifically links climate change to a major Australian sport stadium. Public documents examined include Annual Reports dating back to 2005, “Fact Sheets”, and organisational websites. Confidential documents that were made available and examined include: a “Sustainability Assessment”, a stadium “Energy Review”, and a presentation on energy monitoring (Case B); a “Corporate Plan”; an “Asset Management Strategy Plan”, a “Sustainability Plan”, “NABERS” water & energy rating reports (Case D), and; a facility “Master Plan” (Case E). No MASS organisations reported having specific climate change strategy for their stadia. Of the documents examined, few explicitly linked climate change to their stadia either. Of all the cases considered, Case B was able to offer the most confirmation of its specific efforts to address climate change (three documents). Only three documents referred explicitly to climate change, and of these, only one explicitly referred to climate change and a stadium. A summary of these results is presented in Table 22 below.
Table 22: MASS documents that directly refer to climate change REFERENCES TO CLIMATE
CHANGE
INCIDENCE ACROSS THE THREE THEORETICAL CATEGORIES
DOCUMENTS (N = 3/63) Category 1 - Publically-owned, not-for-profit Category 2 - Privately-owned, not-for-profit Category 3 - Privately-owned, for-profit INTERNAL-only, confidential documents of MASS organisations that directly refer to climate change (n = 2) Case B Case B (2007 Climate change Adaptation Strategy). 53 Case B (2010 consultant”s Sustainability Assessment). EXTERNALLY-available documents of MASS organisations that directly refer to climate change (n = 1)
Case H Case H (2007/08 Annual Report, p. 18). TOTALS 0 2 0 3 TOTAL DOCUMENTS EXAMINED 63
The only document explicitly referring to climate change and a stadium was a consultant’s report about the environmental sustainability of one AFL football match played at Case B’s stadium in 2010. As a “sustainability audit”, and “benchmark for future games”, it cited Case B’s recognition of:
the value in embedding sustainability practices into their events, working towards reducing their environmental impacts, and raising community awareness of issues such as climate change, waste management and water use (p. 3).
The report quantified total GHG emissions related to the event, and per attendee, and also provided recommendations for reducing GHG emissions and water use. The second document – the annual report of one theoretical Category 2 case (i.e. a privately-owned, not-for-profit sport governing body) – referred to climate change, but not in relation to their stadium; it was actually about their local sport competition:
[Case H]54 continued to review the governance structure of ... in ... as well as focusing heavily on the impact of climate change on playing and practice facilities. A “water management” forum was held in September and as a result, water management audits were conducted each month at Grade club grounds. This valuable information was provided to Grade clubs and their local councils (Case H 2007/08 Annual Report, p. 18). The third document, provided by Case B, was titled the “Climate Change Adaptation Strategy.” Whilst this document highlighted the vulnerability of water-dependent outdoor grass playing surfaces – such as those used at MASS – to lower rainfall, higher temperatures and increased evaporation associated with climate change, these were clearly linked to community facilities for Australian Rules football managed by local government, rather than the major stadium of Case B.
53
This is the only document to explicitly refer to both climate change and a major Australian sport stadium.
54
Identifiers of this case have been removed to preserve its anonymity.
However, there were some indirect references to climate change among the documents. The 2009/10 Sustainability Plan of Case D referred obliquely to climate change in its “Executive Summary” (p. ES-1) with its target for saving carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions over a three-year period of 630 tonnes
CO2 equivalent (CO2-e). Case D’s “2010 NABERS55 Energy Ratings Report”56 also hinted at the
organisation’s genuine efforts to address GHG emissions, although without direct reference to climate change. Another indirect reference to climate change was found in Case F’s “2007 Year in Review” where, in the context of a report about the introduction of mobile lighting rigs for the purpose of aiding the growth of grass on the stadium playing surface:
[Stadium of Case F]57 intends to forge an association with a supplier of green energy. Research has indicated that the use of lighting rigs will lead to only a marginal increase in energy use (p. 15).
Implicit in the reference to “green energy” is recognition that due to the high carbon-intensity of electricity generation in Australia (GEM, 2011), consumption of electrical energy results in GHG emissions. One external document – an advertisement from the Sustainable Energy Association of Australia (SEA) about Case B’s installation of an energy monitoring system at its stadium – referred obliquely to climate change by highlighting the system’s capacity to reduce energy consumption and GHG emissions: In it, Case B’s Director of Facilities and Planning, was quoted as saying:
It will also stimulate ideas and ways for all venue occupiers to explore further savings in energy usage and greenhouse emissions (p. 13).
A summary of these results is presented in Table 23 below.
55
The National Australian Built Environment Rating System (NABERS) is an energy performance rating system for existing buildings that is coordinated by ‘the New South Wales Office of Environment and Heritage (NSWOEH), on behalf of Commonwealth, state and territory governments’. NSWOEH. (2012). NABERS. Retrieved from: http://www.nabers.gov.au/public/WebPages/Home.aspx
56
The reader should note that Case D volunteered to participate in the NABERS program. It uses NABERS data for, ‘internal benchmarks for sustainability performance’ (Case D, 2010 NABERS Energy Rating Report, p. 1).
57Identifiers of this case have been removed to preserve its anonymity.
Table 23: Documents that refer indirectly to MASS organisations and climate change EXTERNALLY-AVAILABLE DOCUMENTS THAT INDIRECTLY REFER TO CLIMATE CHANGE DOCUMENTS
INCIDENCE ACROSS THE THREE THEORETICAL CATEGORIES Category 1 - Publically-owned, not-for-profit Category 2 - Privately-owned, not-for-profit Category 3 - Privately-owned, for-profit Case B (reference to energy monitoring systems and GHG emissions reduction) (n = 1)
Case B (advertisement from Sustainable Energy Association of Australia – SEA)
Case B
Case D (target for saving CO2 emissions) (n = 1) Case D (2009/10 Sustainability Plan) Case D Case D (efforts to address GHG emissions) (n = 1)
Case D (2010 NABERS Energy
Rating Report) Case D
Case F (section of annual report about mobile lighting rigs) (n = 1)
Case F (2007 Year in Review) Case F
TOTAL 4 2 1 1
TOTAL DOCUMENTS
EXAMINED 63 4
Overall, the almost complete absence of discussion of climate change in the official documents of MASS organisations is consistent with interview data that identifies climate change as a second-order issue, and is inconsistent with interview data that identifies climate change as a high priority.
Conclusion
In this chapter, the results of the study are reported in two ways: first, for each of the twelve individual MASS organisation cases that were derived from within-case analysis, and; second, in a thematic fashion derived from cross-case analysis. These results are aimed to address the three research questions: (1) “What, if any, issues are posed by climate change for major Australian sport stadia and the organisations that manage them?”; (2) “How are the organisations that manage major Australian sport stadia responding to climate change?”; and; (3) “Why are the organisations that manage major Australian sport stadia responding to climate change in the way they do?” Six major themes were evident from the data. These were: (1) how the MASS organisations perceived (made sense of) climate change; (2) issues for each organisation arising from climate change; (3) how and why the organisations responded to climate change; (4) the role of individual manager agency in explaining how and why MASS organisations respond to climate change; (5) influences on MASS cases responses to climate change, and; (6) barriers to responding effectively to climate change. Given the very similar nature of the stadia and the operational imperatives of their organisations, these MASS organisations are faced with broadly the same issues pertaining to climate change, with water, energy and waste issues being the most pressing among them.
However, these issues are interlinked with a range of factors that together explain how and why these organisations are affected by, and respond to, climate change. These factors include GHG mitigation, lower rainfall, energy conservation, the extensive influence of corporate social responsibility as a management ethos, the influence of key stakeholders – especially government – internal and external pressures to be environmentally sustainable, the enabling and limiting capacity of organisational resources, and the capacity of senior staff to act as agents of change. As a result, these factors will be discussed in the next chapter.
This thesis now turns to Section D, a synthesis of the study, comprising Chapters Six and Seven. Chapter Six presents a critical discussion of the results and findings presented here in Chapter Five. In the next chapter, the results and findings are linked to the main themes that emerged from the
Chapter Six:
Discussion of results, and theory development
“There is some very good news about the climate problem: we do not need to worryabout how the climate science turns out or whether this is a real problem or not...because we ought to do the same things about it anyway just to save money...”
Amory Lovins (1997)
Introduction
In the previous chapter, the results and key findings of this study were presented. This chapter marks the beginning of the fourth and final section of this thesis, Section D, which is a synthesis of the study. This chapter has two purposes. The first is to respond to the research questions of this study by discussing the results and findings that emerged from the data and offering an interpretation of these. In doing so, this chapter will place this study in its theoretical context by evaluating the results in light of existing theory. The second purpose of this chapter is to build on these interpretations and discuss the development of theory from the cases reported in Chapter Five of this thesis.
The findings are discussed according to seven major themes that thread their way through this thesis, and thus provide a framework for organising and interpreting the results of each case. These themes are: (1) how major Australian sport stadia (MASS) organisations perceive (make sense of) climate change; (2) climate change issues for MASS organisations; (3) minority issues; (4) how and why MASS organisations respond to climate change; (5) influences on response to climate change by MASS cases; (6) the role of individual managers in explaining how and why MASS organisations respond to climate change, and; (7) barriers to responding effectively to climate change. Each major thematic area has a number of key sub-themes which are also discussed in light of existing knowledge and theory. Also, the reader should note that formal conclusions will not be presented in this chapter, and will instead be reserved for Chapter Seven of this thesis - the conclusion. However, before discussing the results, the next section will first offer a brief recap of the accompanying theory development process.
Theory development from the results of this study
As indicated in Chapter Four of this thesis, this study uses Cepeda & Martin’s (2005) iterative model for developing theory from case studies. This model has three steps including: (1) developing an a priori conceptual framework; (2) a four-stage research cycle consisting of planning, data collection, data analysis, and critical analysis (reflection), and; (3) literature-based scrutiny of the developed theory. The aim of this process for this study is to develop theory that explains how and why
organisations that manage MASS respond to climate change. Cepeda & Martin’s model is illustrated in Figure 6 below.
Figure 6: Cepeda & Martin’s (2005, p. 861) model for building theory from case studies
As suggested in Chapter Four of this thesis, Figure 6 above illustrates an iterative process of,
“continuous interplay between the research cycle and conceptual framework” (p. 873). Each phase of the research cycle refines the initial conceptual framework until saturation – the point at which incremental learning is minimal because the researcher observes phenomena that has been seen before, or as Corbin & Strauss (2008, p. 145) suggest, the point at which “all the concepts are well defined and explained”, is achieved. This discussion now continues with a brief reflection on step one of Cepeda & Martin’s (2005) method – developing the a priori conceptual framework.
The a priori conceptual framework
The a priori conceptual framework (CF) – herein referred to as CF1 – represented my initial
understanding of the research problem, and was based on my assumptions and understandings of how climate change might affect MASS organisations that were developed through reviewing relevant literature. Consistent with Cepeda & Martin’s method, the conceptual framework was reviewed at the end of each research cycle in order to incorporate insights gained from that cycle and as such, was an evolving construct. CF1 had three parts: Part One assumed that five categories of potential climate change issues were external to MASS organisations; Part Two of CF1 envisaged six potential internal factors, and; Part Three envisaged four potential organisational responses to climate change. CF1 is illustrated in Figure 7 below.
Figure 7: The researcher’s initial conceptual framework (CF1) for the study: A climate change impact-response framework for MASS organisations
Part One of CF1 assumed that five categories of potential climate change issues were external to MASS organisations. The five categories of issues (physical impacts, legislative & regulatory issues, market changes, financial implications and attitudes of external stakeholders) emerged from the review of literature. These issues appeared to be reasonable choices for inclusion in CF1. Part Two of CF1 represents six potential internal factors that were envisaged as being reasonable possibilities for MASS organisations. Again, these factors were informed by my review of literature. Part Three of CF1 represents four potential responses to climate change by MASS organisations. As such, it represents the strategic match of both the internal factors contemplated in Part One of CF1, and the external factors contemplated in Part Two. As with Parts One and Three, these potential
organisational responses were informed by my review of literature, and were therefore considered to be reasonable possibilities to include.
The four stage research cycle
Having developed CF1, the next stage of theory development was the four-stage research cycle consisting of: (1) planning; (2) data collection; (3) data analysis, and; (4) critical analysis (reflection).
PART ONE - CLIMATE CHANGE ISSUES (external factors):
- PHYSICAL IMPACTS (hotter, drier climate & harder playing surface) - LEGISLATIVE & REGULATORY ISSUES (NGER Act? Carbon tax or ETS?) - MARKET CHANGES (increased supplier costs? Competitive advantage gained/lost?)
- FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS of climate chnge (costs? Benefits? Opportunities?) - Attitudes of EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS (Governing Bodies? Clubs / Teams? Commercial partners? Governments? Non-government Organisations [NGOs])
PART TWO - MASS ORGANISATIONS (internal factors): - ENERGY (big users, carbon intensive)
- RESOURCES (human, financial, physical) - VULNERABLE or RESILIENT to climate change?
- Climate change SENSEMAKING? (How? Influenced by who?) - Influence of INTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS? (Staff? Board members?)
- Influence of CORP. SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY (CSR) on organisational behaviour?
PART THREE - ORGANISATIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE RESPONSES (strategic match of external & internal factors):
- STRATEGY responses?
- GHG MITIGATION? (direct or indirect polluters? More energy efficient?) - Climate change ADAPTATION? (adapted to hotter, drier climate?) - DO NOTHING (business as usual)?
The research cycle was integral to the theory development process. As stages one to three (i.e. planning, data collection, and data analysis) of the research cycle have already been discussed in Chapter Four of this thesis, this section will concentrate on stage four – critical analysis (reflection).
As indicated in Figure 6, the critical analysis (reflection) part of the process itself involved three parts: (1) reviewing/evaluating; (2) looking beyond, and; (3) changing the conceptual framework. As
advocated by Cepeda & Martin (2005, p. 861), critical to this was asking key questions of the data and my interpretation of it. These questions were: (a) “What do these findings mean?”; (b) “What are the alternative explanations of such findings?”; (c) “What disconfirming evidence is there for these explanations?”, and; (d) “How may these findings relate to outcomes from previous research cycles?”