In the face of growing climate concerns, major energy companies are being asked not only what they say about climate change but also how their narratives shape what they do. The way a company frames climate change, whether as a social responsibility, a business risk, or an opportunity for growth, is more than semantics; it drives how the company operates, the strategic bets it places, and how it measures success.

Is climate change primarily perceived as (a) a “responsibility” the company must take on to uphold its ‘contract’ with society, (b) a “risk” that threatens profitability, or (c) an “opportunity’ for further growth?¹

A  study¹ conducted a few years ago examined how three major energy companies, Total Energies (France), Suncor Energy (Canada), and Statoil (Norway, now Equinor), frame climate change in their corporate climate strategy disclosures and how these framings influence their operations, strategy, and performance. These companies were among the first in the sector to publish standalone climate strategy reports, signaling a growing trend in corporate climate communication.

The study found that each company adopts a distinct perspective on climate change. TotalEnergies presents it primarily as a matter of social responsibility, positioning itself as “the responsible energy major” and emphasizing its commitment to providing clean, affordable energy in alignment with global climate goals. In contrast, Suncor Energy approaches climate change as a business risk, with a particular focus on transition risks such as carbon pricing and regulatory uncertainty, which informs its more conservative and risk-managed operational and strategic decisions. Equinor, frames climate change as a business opportunity. Its strategy is centered on innovation, investment in renewables, and a deliberate shift toward becoming a broad energy company, viewing the energy transition as a chance to create competitive advantage.

These distinct framings go beyond rhetoric, shaping the companies’ investment priorities, operational choices, and the metrics by which they measure success. They also reflect differing approaches to corporate legitimacy, whether through social accountability, risk management, or strategic transformation in a decarbonizing world.

Table: Examples of Impact on Business Levers

Framing	Operations	Strategy	Performance Metrics
Responsibility	Emissions control, transparency, stakeholder dialogue	Legitimacy, social license, ESG integration	ESG ratings, stakeholder trust, impact disclosures
Risk	Carbon compliance, facility resilience	Risk-adjusted returns, hedging against regulation	Risk exposure, stranded asset avoidance, carbon cost
Opportunity	New energy ventures, innovation	Growth through clean tech, energy diversification	% green revenue, innovation ROI, renewable investments

While all three companies reference elements of responsibility, risk, and opportunity to varying degrees, their dominant framing reveals much about how they are positioning themselves in the energy transition. As climate strategy disclosure becomes more mainstream and closely scrutinized by investors, regulators, and civil society, the coherence between a company’s framing and its actual business transformation will increasingly determine its credibility and success.

1. Dahl, T. and Fløttum, K. (2019) ‘Climate change as a corporate strategy issue: A discourse analysis of three climate reports from the energy sector’, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 24(3), pp. 499–514. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-08-2018-0088.