Rationality, experiences or identity work? : Sensemaking of emotionally tense experiences of organizational sustainability

This is a self-archived version of an original article. This version may differ from the original in pagination and typographic details. Author(s): Title: Year: Version: Copyright: Rights: Rights url: Please cite the original version: CC BY-NC 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ Rationality, experiences or identity work? : Sensemaking of emotionally tense experiences of organizational sustainability © Emerald Publishing Limited Accepted version (Final draft) Sarna, Bhavesh; Onkila, Tiina; Mäkelä, Marileena Sarna, B., Onkila, T., & Mäkelä, M. (2022). Rationality, experiences or identity work? : Sensemaking of emotionally tense experiences of organizational sustainability. Social Responsibility Journal, 18(8), 1692-1707. https://doi.org/10.1108/srj-05-2021-0205 2022 Social Responsibility Journal Rationality, experiences, or identity work? Sensemaking of emotionally tense experiences of organizational sustainability Abstract Purpose – Although emotional tensions related to organizational sustainability have been identified, little is known about how employees aim to resolve such situations. This study aimed to explore how employees use sensemaking to resolve emotionally tense situations concerning organizational sustainability. Design/methodology/approach – We studied a case in which, while employees attached positive emotions to organizational sustainability, external stakeholders viewed it negatively. Specifically, we analysed how employees used sensemaking to resolve such tense experiences, and how this sensemaking eventually influenced their actions. To this end, we interviewed 25 employees at an energy company who had experience participating in its sustainability work. Findings – The analysis revealed three sensemaking mechanisms for resolving emotional tensions related to organizational sustainability caused by discrepancies between external reputation and internal personal experience: rational sensemaking, experiential sensemaking, and identity work. The complexity of sensemaking was reflected in the mixed use of these three mechanisms, as employees constantly moved from one to another. Originality – This study demonstrates employees’ tendency to defend their positive emotions about their organization’s sustainability in tense situations. It further provides insights into related sensemaking processes and shows how they can result in different levels of action. Keywords Employees, Emotions, Organizational sustainability, Sensemaking, Tensions Introduction As sustainability awareness has increased, both cognitive and emotional reactions to sustainability challenges have become increasingly apparent. Particularly climate stress has recently been associated with multiple emotions, such as fear and anger. Thus, sustainability is increasingly framed as an emotional phenomenon. In the organizational context, sustainability is inherently an emotionally laden phenomenon and is often portrayed in emotional terms (Andersson and Bateman, 2000). Research has shown that employees attach both positive and negative emotions to organizational sustainability, depending on the sustainability issue involved (Fineman, 1996; Russell and Ashkanasy, 2007; Wright and Nyberg, 2012; Onkila, 2015). Employees associate self-conscious emotions, such as pride and shame, with sustainability initiatives and their outcomes in the organization (Morales-Raya et al., 2019). Although sustainability has been identified as an emotionally laden phenomenon, research on employees’ emotions regarding sustainability has only recently emerged (e.g., Onkila, 2015; Blomfield et al., 2016). Studies have shown that sustainability in the workplace is emotionally important to employees and that employee participation triggers emotional responses (Rupp et al., 2006; Voronov and Vince, 2012). Emotions may be triggered by certain responses to sustainability events (Harvey et al., 2017) and may contribute to organizational actions towards sustainability (Highhouse et al., 2009). Research has revealed the multiplicity of emotions Page 1 of 22 Social Responsibility Journal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Social Responsibility Journal related to organizational sustainability and their consequences (e.g., Russell and Ashkanasy, 2007; Ditlev-Simonsen, 2015) and the ways in which these emotions influence sustainability actions within organizations (e.g., Carrus et al., 2008). However, while tensions and the attachment of opposite emotions to sustainability have been identified (Wright and Nyberg, 2012; Mitra and Buzzanell, 2017), little is known about the ways in which employees aim to resolve emotionally tense situations and the consequences of such solutions for their engagement in sustainability action. To fill this knowledge gap, we conducted a micro-level study of an energy company whose employees describe emotional tensions related to organizational sustainability between themselves and external stakeholders. Whereas the former attach positive emotions, such as pride, to their employer’s sustainability performance, the latter perceive it negatively, and the company generally has a poor sustainability reputation, of which the firm’s employees are aware. Specifically, we analysed how employees use sensemaking to resolve such tense experiences and how this sensemaking eventually influences their actions. We aimed to answer the following research question: How do employees use sensemaking to resolve emotionally tense situations concerning organizational sustainability? We interviewed 25 employees who had experience participating in the employer’s sustainability work. This study contributes to the literature by identifying various sensemaking mechanisms for resolving emotional tensions caused by discrepancies between external reputation and personal experience. Our results provide insights into the complexity of such sensemaking, as indicated by the mixed use of its various types. The study also contributes to the literature on emotions related to organizational sustainability by showing how such sensemaking influences employees’ sustainability actions. The rest of this paper is structured as follows. We first review the literature on the meanings of emotions related to sustainability within organizations. We then introduce our sensemaking approach and particularly its emotional features. Subsequently, we describe our data collection and analysis. Next, we report our findings. Finally, we conclude by discussing our findings and comparing them with the literature. Emotions related to organizational sustainability Sustainability in organizations is a multidimensional topic with multiple interpretations. We define organizational sustainability according to Dahlsrud’s (2008) analysis, which includes an organization’s environmental impacts, the relationships between business and society, financial aspects, and interactions with stakeholders. Furthermore, following Dahlsrud (2008), we consider sustainability actions voluntary rather than required by law. Emotions in organizations are a complex phenomenon. They appear to be essentially social, emerging within social collectives (Rafaeli and Worline, 2001). Organizational-level outcomes and decision-making are essentially affected by employees’ emotions (Huy, 2011; Lebel, 2017; Rothman and Melwani, 2017). Due to its complexity, the concept of emotions is difficult to define, and there is no single, accurate definition (Scarantino, 2012). Based on earlier definitions, we define emotions as physical states associated with neurophysiological changes Page 2 of 22 Social Responsibility Journal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Social Responsibility Journal related to thoughts, behavioural responses, and a degree of pleasure or displeasure (Ekman and Davidson, 1994; Damasio, 1998; Cabanac, 2002). Research has shown that organizational sustainability is associated with both positive and negative emotions. Employees’ perceptions of organizational sustainability trigger not only behavioural and attitudinal responses but also emotional responses (Rupp et al., 2006). Emotional responses range from utterly positive emotions, such as pride, joy, and satisfaction, to negative emotions, such as fear, shame, cynicism, and irritation (Russell and Ashkanasy, 2007; Onkila, 2015), and vary depending on employee perceptions and experiences of organizational sustainability (Mäkelä et al., 2018). Multiple studies have shown that positive experiences of organizational sustainability, especially feelings of pride, are an important source of employees’ affective commitment to the employer (e.g., Ditlev-Simonsen, 2015). Such feelings of pride arise especially as a result of actions and policies aimed at improving sustainability performance and responsibility towards stakeholders (McNamara et al., 2017; El Akremi et al., 2018), sustainability initiatives and accomplishments (Potoski and Callery, 2018), and a climate promoting sustainability within an organization (Rodell et al., 2017). However, studies have also highlighted the complexity of the relationships between employees’ perceptions and experiences of sustainability and their pride and affective commitment. Such relationships are influenced by multiple mediating factors, such as leadership styles (Allen et al., 2017), job satisfaction, and employees’ attitudes (Rahman et al., 2016). Prior research has further shown that emotions towards organizational sustainability eventually influence how sustainability is spoken of and how organizational members take sustainability actions. Fineman (1996) showed that managers use emotion-related arguments to justify their attitudes towards an organization’s actions (or lack thereof) to go green. Wright and Nyberg (2012) demonstrated that societal emotions impact organizational discourses on climate change. Besides the way in which sustainability is spoken of, emotions also influence concrete actions. Positive emotions, such as pride, may offer solid ground for organizational sustainability, while negative emotions, such as shame, may hinder sustainability improvements (Mäkelä et al., 2018). Sekerka and Stimel (2012) proposed a model for environmental sustainability decision-making and showed that negative emotions may hinder and positive emotions may promote sustainability action. On the other hand, an eagerness to avoid negative emotions, such as shame, may also increase employees’ desire to engage in sustainability action (Carrus et al., 2008). Furthermore, emotions attached to sustainability influence corporate decision-making. Muller et al. (2014) showed that organizational members’ collective empathy is a basis for managerial decision-making and organizational approaches to corporate philanthropy. Moreover, emotions influence sustainability actions in wider contexts. Fontana et al. (2021) studied negative emotions (fear and anger) in apparel supply chains in Bangladesh and Pakistan after the Rana Plaza incident, the collapse of garment factory. The authors found that the incident resulted in market and social tensions caused by buyers’, workers’, and societies’ demand for more attention to labourers’ working conditions. These tensions led to different sustainability actions in the two countries. In one country, limited action was taken because the economic burden of sustainability initiatives and the Page 3 of 22 Social Responsibility Journal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Social Responsibility Journal likelihood of unrest among employees were considered too high, while in another country, sustainability was considered to offer competitive advantages in the markets. Recent research has demonstrated that sustainability-related emotional outcomes are not static but give rise to tensions and require negotiations (Mitra and Buzzanell, 2017). When such tense situations arise, organizations employ strategies to manage them (Daddi et al., 2019). Such strategies may involve reconciling conflicting goals, making decisions, or balancing competing aims (Van der Byl and Slawinski, 2015). While this tendency to solve tensions on the organizational level has been shown, the strategies for solving emotionally laden tensions on the individual level are still poorly understood. It remains unknown how employees react to and aim to resolve emotionally tense situations and what this implies for their actions for sustainability. This understanding is crucial, since emotional experiences of organizational sustainability can powerfully explain how employees act (or do not act) for sustainability. Sensemaking approaches to emotional tensions Emotionally tense experiences trigger sensemaking. Sensemaking is usually thought to be triggered by actions or circumstances whose meaning is unclear or of which one has conflicting expectations (Maguire et al., 2011). With sensemaking, people give meaning to experiences (Weick, 1995). Weick (1993, 1995) introduced the concept of sensemaking to organizational studies to explore how organizations cope with uncertain or ambiguous situations. Sensemaking refers to the way in which members of an organization continuously construct intersubjective realities through communication and interaction (Weick, 1995). It is triggered when an event causes an individual to challenge a previous understanding under new circumstances and gives rise to a new, ambiguous phenomenon (Maguire et al., 2011). For example, emotionally tense views on organizational sustainability are seen as triggering a process in which many agents act and react to each other (Nijhof and Jeurissen, 2006), which may cause confusion (Dahlsrud, 2008; Ziek, 2009) and high equivocality (Weick, 1995). Such situations in organizations lack clarity and consistency and lead to a search for meaning because of too much or too equivocal information (van der Heijden et al., 2010). Emotions are an essential part of sensemaking processes at both the individual and collective levels (Maitlis and Christianson, 2014). They play a critical role in triggering sensemaking (Maitlis and Christanson, 2014) and in individuals’ participation in it (Schmidt and Weiner, 1988). Steigenberger (2015) suggested that emotions are both an input and an outcome of sensemaking processes and shape the content and motivational accounts of sensemaking. Both positive and negative emotions serve as stimuli for sensemaking processes (Weick, 1993, 1995; Maitlis and Sonenshein, 2010). Sensemaking may take on multiple forms. For example, narratives help employees take account of their own experiences, which are selected, organized, and interwoven to answer questions about their individual actions (Riessman, 1993). Identity work is another form of sensemaking (Weick, 1993). Sensemaking can also influence how individuals act in conflicting and tense situations (Maitlis, 2005). Page 4 of 22 Social Responsibility Journal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Social Responsibility Journal Materials and methods Research context This was a case study of a northern European energy company. This company employs thousands of people, and its operations encompass the generation, distribution, and sale of electricity and heat, along with related expert services. It is a public company owned by its stockholders. This firm provides an interesting research context for two main reasons. One reason is its relatively bad public reputation. The other reason is its strong focus on developing organizational sustainability. The company’s bad reputation has frequently been discussed through various channels. For years, it has received low scores in corporate reputation surveys conducted in the country in which it is based. Its poor reputation is also evident in the official ratings of ESPI Rating, which conducts market analyses in the UK, the Netherlands, the Nordic countries, and the Baltic countries. The company’s ratings are well below the industry average. One year, it was even voted in the top five most hated companies in its country. This bad reputation extends to external stakeholders’ perceptions of its sustainability approach. On the other hand, the company has a broad background in and a strong demand for sustainability. The sustainability work in the company is directed by a sustainability director, who answers to the board of directors. A member of the board handles sustainability issues, which are embedded in its corporate strategy. The company has published environmental and sustainability reports for a long time and is nationally recognized for its sustainability reporting. It participates in multiple sustainability projects, and some of its employees are active members of various sustainability networks. The company is also listed in several sustainability indexes (e.g., the Dow Jones Sustainability World Index and the Carbon Disclosure Leadership Index). Nevertheless, it continues to face evolving sustainability requirements due to the significant environmental impacts of the energy industry. Research material This study focused on how employees of the case company make sense of emotionally tense experiences related to organizational sustainability. We adopted the constructionist and interpretative research approach (Eriksson and Kovalainen, 2008; Weick, 1995), which characterizes sensemaking studies (e.g., van der Heijden et al., 2010). The research material consisted of qualitative, in-depth interviews with employees. All interviews focused on the meaning of sustainability in the organization and encompassed four themes: a description of the interviewee’s job, views on sustainability in the company, internal sustainability management and communication, and external sustainability management and communication. All topics were openly discussed from the viewpoint of the employees’ daily work. A total of 25 people were interviewed. The interviews lasted from 19 to 65 minutes. The interview data are summarized in Table I in the Appendix. The interviewees were selected in cooperation with company representatives. The researchers established selection criteria according to which company representatives named individuals for the interviews. To ensure Page 5 of 22 Social Responsibility Journal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Social Responsibility Journal that the interviewees understood the firm’s sustainability approach, the focus was on employees with knowledge and experience of sustainability in the company. The interviews included individuals from two levels of the organizational hierarchy: nine managers (e.g., the heads of finance, human resources, and communications) and 16 experts (e.g., environmental engineers, environmental health and safety managers, and business development managers). Our selection criteria excluded shop floor employees from the interviews. Interview data analysis We adopted Gioia et al.’s (2013) four-stage data analysis to move from data to theoretical interpretations and used Atlas.ti for the analysis. Although here we describe it as a series of chronological stages, the analysis moved back and forth between the stages and the literature and was thus an iterative process. The stages are detailed below and described in Figure 1. Figure 1 Emotionally tense experience in the data Based on Gioia et al. (2013), the first stage encompassed the development of detailed descriptions. First, we identified parts of the interviews related to the interviewees’ emotionally tense experiences. We then analysed each part separately, based on how sustainability was approached and connected to emotions. Next, we compared these parts and compiled a list of first-order concepts. We were thus able to identify differences in how tension was described and how interviewees reacted to it, as well as differences in terminology and intensity, sources of interaction, and actions for sustainability. In the second stage, we compared the coded sections for each first-order concept, especially the ways in which emotions were related to emotionally tense experiences. We identified differences in the descriptions of emotions, the sensemaking mechanisms employed to resolve tensions, the sources from which views of negative sustainability perceptions were derived, the intensity of the terminology used to describe tensions, and engagement in sustainability while making sense of tensions. Based on this, we identified second-order concepts to summarize the above mentioned differences. It was apparent in the empirical data that expressions of pride and satisfaction were especially related to the resolution of tense experiences. In the third stage, we integrated the previous two stages of the analysis with the theory of sensemaking to identify sensemaking mechanisms described in the literature. We first noted that the empirical findings pointed to three emotionally laden categories: defending pride, maintaining pride, and settling with satisfaction. This helped us identify how sensemaking was used in the three categories and included going back and forth between the empirical data and sensemaking literature. In this phase, we explored the characteristics of each category based on the second-order concepts, emotional aspects, the level of tension, and indications of employee action. We continued going back and forth between our empirical data, key themes, and the literature. Thus, we identified three sensemaking mechanisms for resolving and explaining the emotionally tense experiences: rational sensemaking, experiential sensemaking, and identity work. Page 6 of 22Social Responsibility Journal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Social Responsibility Journal Sensemaking for resolving emotional tensions related to organizational sustainability Emotional tensions related to organizational sustainability trigger sensemaking. In the studied case, the interviewees highlighted the importance of sustainability in their organization and used positive, emotionally laden expressions signifying pride and satisfaction. All interviewees were aware of the firm’s poor sustainability reputation and employed multiple types of sensemaking, such as rationality and counterarguments, narratives, and identity work, to refute these perceptions. Notably, almost all interviewees employed all three types of sensemaking— rational sensemaking, experiential sensemaking, and identity work—while discussing sustainability, constantly moving from one type to another. Resolution through rational sensemaking Rational sensemaking was used to question negative external perceptions and thus resolve emotionally ambivalent experiences. This allowed the interviewees to defend their pride in organizational sustainability. They deployed rational arguments, including facts and figures, and stressed the firm’s sustainability achievements. This suggests deliberate and cognitive reasoning. Rational sensemaking was triggered when employees experienced a pronounced mismatch between their feelings of pride and external stakeholders’ negative perceptions. The interviewees expressed the need to communicate more extensively on sustainability and spread “reliable”, “black-and-white information” (Interview 16). They suggested that resolving the mismatch required honest external communication that could allay external suspicions. The following interview extract exemplifies how the interviewees resolved the tension by stressing facts, figures, and achievements, thus defending their pride: Then, of course, the important thing above all is that it’s the kind of company you can be proud of. It is said that the relationship with the media in particular has been difficult, and it’s not often that you see anything positive written about [name of the company] in the press. It’s certainly something like with this sustainability issue, that it’s done in such a way that, regardless of what is written about it with a negative tone, you know the good that we do, and it’s through those examples that we can still be proud of our employer. (Interview 7) Rational sensemaking was employed particularly in cases in which the experienced tension was particularly high. This was reflected in the use of extreme terms and expressions when contrasting self-experienced pride with the hostility of external stakeholders. An interviewee even suggested that external stakeholders considered the company evil (Interview 8). According to the interviewees, this external negativity was mainly based on two sources: general perceptions of the “bad public image of the company” and more concrete media discussions and face-to-face conversations. The following extract exemplifies how such intensity was constructed using emotionally charged expressions, such as “bad guy,” “cheating,” “disliking,” and “lying”: When talking about social responsibility, we are seen as a sort of bad guy … we’re not particularly liked. We’re not attractive, and even when we do good, the first thought is that we’re up to something—that we’re still cheating. (Interview 8) Rational sensemaking also had implications for employees’ actions towards sustainability, increasing their engagement in sustainability, as well as their awareness of the need for Page 7 of 22 Social Responsibility Journal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Social Responsibility Journal changes. The interviewees described concrete actions that needed to be taken to improve the company’s negative image. They suggested that the company needed to be more proactive in addressing any complaints, improving its social and economic sustainability performance, and engaging with stakeholders in face-to-face meetings to present specific facts and figures. However, many interviewees stated that although this was already being done, external stakeholders were not responsive to their communication. The following interview extract exemplifies how such change agency was expressed: So, it might be worth focusing on what we have. And of course, there needs to be a focus on developing new things and not just be in the position of being blamed. In other words, important things also include this world of reality [sustainable development work] and communicating the good in it. In my opinion, there could be more of that. (Interview 4) Resolution through experiential sensemaking Experiential sensemaking was used to shift attention from external negativity to internal, emotionally positive experiences. This also allowed organizational members to maintain their pride. Experiential sensemaking was predominantly based on narratives contrasting the interviewees’ positive emotional experiences with external stakeholders’ negative attitudes. Narratives focused on daily and practical descriptions of change processes within the firm and organization-wide sustainability integration, which was described as a notable achievement. Sustainability was stressed as an organization-wide approach. The narratives mostly highlighted two aspects. First, they described how well sustainability practices were internally distributed. Second, they emphasized how strategically important, and thus prioritized, they were in the firm. They narrated situations and changes indicating that sustainability was important and meaningful throughout the company. These stories included multiple practical examples: all the projects reflected the principles of sustainable development; the company held active internal sustainable development days, during which good practices were spread; the company had a broad background in sustainability; there was a high level of cooperation for sustainability within the company; and, overall, a lot of work had been done on sustainability. The belief in a well-distributed sustainability approach among all organizational members was a common theme in the narratives. The interviewees also stressed that sustainability was a strategically important differentiating factor for the company. The following interview extract exemplifies this type of sensemaking: I’ve been positively surprised since the moment I came to work here that it [sustainability] really is our mission and our strategy, and also here in this division. It’s part of the purpose of our operations, and it is in an important position. … It started with environmental thinking and then gradually spread, and there are still areas that it hasn’t quite reached, but it’s expanding to social and financial aspects, and it really is in upper management, in the strategy—at least in our division. (Interview 6) Experiential sensemaking was employed particularly in cases in which tensions were experienced as rather moderate. In these cases, the terms and descriptions used when referring to external stakeholders’ negative perceptions were not as extreme as when rational sensemaking was employed. The interviewees still maintained that external stakeholders were suspicious of the company but did not use descriptions of hostility. Instead, when speaking of Page 8 of 22 Social Responsibility Journal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Social Responsibility Journal Damasio, A.R. (1998), “Emotion in the perspective of an integrated nervous system”, Brain Research Reviews, Vol. 26 No. 2-3, pp. 83-86, doi: 10.1016/S0165-0173(97)00064-7. Ditlev-Simonsen, C. (2015), “The relationship between Norwegian and Swedish employees’ perception of corporate social responsibility and affective commitment”, Business and Society, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 229-253, doi: 10.1177/0007650312439534. Ekman, P.E. and Davidson, R.J. (1994), Series in affective science. The nature of emotion: Fundamental questions, Oxford University Press, New York, NY. El Akremi, A., Gond, J.P., Swaen, V., De Roeck, K. and Igalens, J. (2018), “How do employees perceive corporate responsibility? Development and validation of a multidimensional corporate stakeholder responsibility scale”, Journal of Management, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 619657, doi: 10.1177/0149206315569311. Eriksson, P. and Kovalainen, A. (2008), Qualitative Methods in Business Research, SAGE Publications, London. Fan, G.H. and Zietsma, C. (2017), “Constructing a shared governance logic: the role of emotions in enabling dually embedded agency”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 60 No. 6, pp. 2321-2351, doi: 10.5465/amj.2015.0402. Fineman, S. (1996), “Emotions and organizing”, Clegg, S.R., Hardy, C. and Nord, W.R. (Eds.), Handbook of Organization Studies, SAGE Publications, London, pp. 543-564. Fontana, E., Atif, M. and Gull, A.A. (2021), “Corporate social responsibility decisions in apparel supply chains: the role of negative emotions in Bangladesh and Pakistan”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, doi: 10.1002/csr.2139. Gioia, D.A., Corley, K.G. and Hamilton, A.L. (2013), “Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: notes on the Gioia methodology”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 15-31, doi: 10.1177/1094428112452151. Harvey, P., Martinko, M.J. and Borkowski, N. (2017), “Justifying deviant behavior: the role of attributions and moral emotions”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 141 No. 4, pp. 779-795, doi: 10.1007/s10551-016-3046-5. Highhouse, S., Brooks, M.E. and Gregarus, G. (2009), “An organizational impression management perspective on the formation of corporate reputations”, Journal of Management, Vol. 35 No. 6, pp. 1481-1493, doi: 10.1177/0149206309348788. Huy, Q.N. (2011), “How middle managers’ group‐focus emotions and social identities influence strategy implementation”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 32 No. 13, pp. 13871410, doi: 10.1002/smj.961. Page 15 of 22 Social Responsibility Journal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Social Responsibility Journal Lebel, R.D. (2017), “Moving beyond fight and flight: a contingent model of how the emotional regulation of anger and fear sparks proactivity”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 190-206, doi: 10.5465/amr.2014.0368. Maguire, R., Maguire, P. and Keane, M.T. (2011), “Making sense of surprise: an investigation of the factors influencing surprise judgments”, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 176-186, doi: 10.1037/a0021609. Maitlis, S. (2005), “The social processes of organizational sensemaking”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 21-49, doi: 10.5465/amj.2005.15993111. Maitlis, S. and Christianson, M. (2014), “Sensemaking in organizations: taking stock and moving forward”, The Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 57-125, doi: 10.5465/19416520.2014.873177. Maitlis, S. and Sonenshein, S. (2010), “Sensemaking in crisis and change: inspiration and insights from Weick (1988)”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 551-580, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00908.x. Mäkelä, M., Apostol, O. and Heikkilä, K. (2018), “Pride and fear: emotions in sustainability”, Escobar-Pérez, B. and del Mar Miras-Rodríguez, M. (Eds.), Corporate Social Responsibility: Challenges in Diversity, Accountability and Sustainability (Management Science - Theory and Applications), Nova Science Publishers, New York, NY, pp. 121-147. McNamara, T.K., Carapinha, R., Pitt‐Catsouphes, M., Valcour, M. and Lobel, S. (2017), “Corporate social responsibility and employee outcomes: the role of country context”, Business Ethics: A European Review, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 413-427, doi: 10.1111/beer.12163. Mitra, R. and Buzzanell, P.M. (2017), “Communicative tensions of meaningful work: the case of sustainability practitioners”, Human Relations, Vol. 70 No. 5, pp. 594-616, doi: 10.1177/0018726716663288. Molecke, G.S. (2014), “Overload and emotion in sensemaking: a two-phase, intuitive-thenrational sensemaking model”, Academy of Management Proceedings, Vol. 2014 No. 1, 17461, doi: 10.5465/ambpp.2014.17461abstract. Morales-Raya, M., Martín-Tapia, I. and Ortiz-de-Mandojana, N. (2019), “To be or to seem: the role of environmental practices in corporate environmental reputation”, Organization & Environment, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 309-330, doi: 10.1177/1086026617753154. Muller, A.R., Pfarrer, M.D. and Little, L.M. (2014), “A theory of collective empathy in corporate philanthropy decisions”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 1-21, doi: 10.5465/amr.2012.0031. Page 16 of 22 Social Responsibility Journal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Social Responsibility Journal Nijhof, A. and Jeurissen, R. (2006), “A sensemaking perspective on corporate social responsibility: introduction to the special issue”, Business Ethics: A European Review, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 316-322, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8608.2006.00455.x. Onkila, T. (2015), “Pride or embarrassment? Employees’ emotions and corporate social responsibility”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 222-236, doi: 10.1002/csr.1340. Parry, J., (2003), “Making sense of executive sensemaking: a phenomenological case study with methodological criticism”, Journal of Health Organization and Management, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 240-263, doi: 10.1108/14777260310494771. Potoski, M. and Callery, P.J. (2018), “Peer communication improves environmental employee engagement programs: evidence from a quasi-experimental field study”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 172, pp. 1486-1500, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.252. Rafaeli, A. and Worline, M. (2001), “Individual emotion in work organizations”, Social Science Information, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 95-123, doi: 10.1177/053901801040001006. Rahman, S., Haski-Leventhal, D. and Pournader, M. (2016), “The effect of employee CSR attitudes on job satisfaction and organizational commitment: evidence from the Bangladeshi banking industry”, Social Responsibility Journal, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 228-246, doi: 10.1108/SRJ-10-2014-0139. Riessman, C. K. (1993), Narrative Analysis, SAGE Publications, Newbury Park, CA. Rodell, J.B., Booth, J.E., Lynch, J.W. and Zipay, K.P. (2017), “Corporate volunteering climate: mobilizing employee passion for societal causes and inspiring future charitable action”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 60 No. 5, pp. 1662-1681, doi: 10.5465/amj.2015.0726. Rothausen, T.J., Henderson, K.E., Arnold, J.K. and Malshe, A. (2017), “Should I stay or should I go? Identity and well-being in sensemaking about retention and turnover”, Journal of Management, Vol. 43 No. 7, pp. 2357-2385, doi: 10.1177/0149206315569312. Rothman, N.B. and Melwani, S. (2017), “Feeling mixed, ambivalent, and in flux: the social functions of emotional complexity for leaders”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 259-282, doi: 10.5465/amr.2014.0355. Rupp, D.E., Ganapathi, J., Aguilera, R.V. and Williams, C.A. (2006), “Employee reactions to corporate social responsibility: an organizational justice framework”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 537-543, doi: 10.1002/job.380. Russell, S.V. and Ashkanasy, N.M. (2007), “Feeling the heat of global warming: emotion as an antecedent of pro-environmental behavior”, 21st Annual Meeting of the Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management (ANZAM), Vol. 21, pp. 1-15. Page 17 of 22 Social Responsibility Journal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Social Responsibility Journal Scarantino, A. (2012), “How to define emotions scientifically”, Emotion Review, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 358-368, doi: 10.1177/1754073912445810. Schmidt, G. and Weiner, B. (1988), “An attribution-affect-action theory of behavior: replications of judgments of help-giving”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 610-621, doi: 10.1177/0146167288143021. Sekerka, L.E. and Stimel, D. (2012), “Environmental sustainability decision‐making: clearing a path to change”, Journal of Public Affairs, Vol. 12 No 3, pp. 195-205, doi: 10.1002/pa.1433. Steigenberger, N. (2015), “Emotions in sensemaking: a change management perspective”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 432-451, doi: 10.1108/JOCM-05-2014-0095. Van der Byl, C.A. and Slawinski, N. (2015), “Embracing tensions in corporate sustainability: a review of research from win-wins and trade-offs to paradoxes and beyond”, Organization & Environment, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 54-79, doi: 10.1177/1086026615575047. Van der Heijden, A., Driessen, P.P. and Cramer, J.M. (2010), “Making sense of corporate social responsibility: exploring organizational processes and strategies”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 18 No. 18, pp. 1787-1796, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.07.024. Voronov, M. and Vince, R. (2012). “Integrating emotions into the analysis of institutional work”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 58-81, doi: 10.5465/amr.2010.0247. Weick, K.E. (1993), “The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: the Mann Gulch disaster”. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 628-652, doi: 10.2307/2393339. Weick, K.E. (1995), Sensemaking in Organizations. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Wright, C. and Nyberg, D. (2012), “Working with passion: emotionology, corporate environmentalism and climate change”, Human Relations, Vol. 65 No. 12, pp. 1561-1587, doi: 10.1177/0018726712457698. Ziek, P. (2009), “Making sense of CSR communication”, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 137-145, doi: 10.1002/csr.183. Page 18 of 22 Social Responsibility Journal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Social Responsibility Journal Appendix Table I Interview data Page 19 of 22 Social Responsibility Journal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Social Responsibility Journal Figure 1 359x150mm (96 x 96 DPI) Page 20 of 22Social Responsibility Journal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Social Responsibility Journal Table I Sensemaking types for resolving emotional tensions related to organizational sustainability Sensemaking type Emotional elements Sensemaking devices Implications for action Rational sensemaking Maintaining pride Questioning using counterarguments Active action for change Experiential sensemaking Defending pride Using narratives to shift attention from external negativity to internal positivity Collective action, no need for further changes Identity work Settling with satisfaction Identity work Limited action Page 21 of 22 Social Responsibility Journal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Social Responsibility Journal Table I Interview data Number Title (gender) Interview type Interview length 1 Sustainability manager (female) Video 41 2 Environmental engineer (female) Telephone 20 3 Environmental manager (female) Video 44 4 Environmental manager (male) In-person 46 5 Environmental health and safety manager (female) In-person 36 6 Manager (certain geographical areas) (female) In-person 55 7 Communication director (female) In-person 46 8 Head of financial issues (male) In-person 43 9 Head of external communications (male) In-person 49 10 Environmental manager (male) In-person 65 11 Environmental health and safety manager (female) In-person 46 12 Human resources director (female) In-person 19 13 Purchasing manager (female) In-person 26 14 Environmental expert (male) In-person 20 15 Sustainability coordinator (female) In-person 39 16 Financial manager (male) In-person 23 17 Communications and sustainability manager (female) Video 46 18 Environmental health and safety manager (male) Video 35 19 Legal counsel (male) In-person 37 20 Production manager (female) In-person 62 21 Business development manager (female) Telephone 36 22 Environmental health, safety, and quality engineer (female) In-person 33 23 Occupational health physician (female) In-person 25 24 Financial coordinator (female) In-person 25 25 Business development manager (male) Telephone 45 Page 22 of 22Social Responsibility Journal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60