Previous research examining Big Oil’s engagement with climate politics has largely explained support or advocacy for carbon regulation as an opportunistic effort to offset the risk of more costly reforms. The first perspective sees an accommodative and risk-oriented political strategy (Grumbach 2015), whereas the second finds a more opportunistic search for regulatory benefits and competitive advantages that may strengthen and expand a firm’s or sector’s market share, often at the expense of rivals (Kennard 2020 Vormedal and Skjærseth 2019). Another view posits that corporations often pursue narrow, economic ends through social and environmental regulation, leading to capture or a strange-bedfellow alignment of private- and public-good objectives (Oye and Maxwell 1995 Yandle and Smith 2014). The prevailing view assumes that business economic interests are at odds with public-interest policies and that corporate support for moderate regulation reflects a strategic camouflage of actual opposition, aimed at offsetting the threat of more radical alternatives (Broockman 2012 Hacker and Pierson 2002). Studies of corporate political power disagree on whether support for public-interest reform by previous business opponents mirrors some form of strategic accommodation or, alternatively, an economic self-interest in such regulation. Our findings underscore the importance of studying the competitive rivalry that underpins evolving industry demands for climate policy and regulation. The article finds that policy, technology, and energy market changes have paved the way for a shift toward natural gas and that a moderate carbon price, by triggering coal-to-gas switching, supports the realization of a gray transition in which “Big Gas” can expand its market share at the expense of coal and become a major bridge fuel next to renewables. In contrast, this article argues that Big Oil’s growing stake in natural gas expansion is its economic motive for supporting favorably designed carbon pricing. Previous research on Big Oil’s strategies in climate politics has largely converged on the first view, arguing that global majors feign support for moderate carbon pricing largely to prevent the adoption of more drastic and costly policies. may, but is not obliged to, monitor submissions.There is a long and continuing debate in the literature on corporate political power about whether businesses that advocate public-interest regulation do so for strategic political reasons or because they anticipate economic gains. Forum members who post content deemed unsuitable by may have their access revoked at any time, without warning. Using our forum as a platform for the marketing and solicitation of products or services is also prohibited. Unsuitable post content includes, but is not limited to, Professional-level assessment questions and answers, profanity, insults, racism or sexually explicit content. may, at its discretion, remove any post that it deems unsuitable for these forums. does not endorse user-submitted content or the content of links to any third-party websites. All user-submitted content on our Forums may be subject to deletion if it is found to be in violation of our Terms of Use. For privacy concerns, we cannot allow you to post email addresses. Please note that the first and last name from your member profile will be displayed next to any topic or comment you post on the forums. impediment identified) During Retrospective discuss this, identify the problem and come up with modifications to behavior that could improve the situation.īy posting on our forums you are agreeing to our Terms of Use. If the team is consistently failing to deliver the value that they forecast to deliver in Sprints then you have an indicator that something might be interfering (i.e. That transparency and respect is the best metric for "tracking" this activity. It covers the Development Team honoring the Product Owner's decisions but being completely transparent on how those decisions impact the decisions that the Development Team made about the contents and goal of their Sprint. In your example and in the original question, I feel this boils down to respecting the Product Owner to be making the correct decisions on what work will allow the Development Team to deliver the most value. But remember that the primary measure of success in Scrum is to determine whether the Scrum Team is consistently delivering value. If it is something I feel is justified within the Framework I will work with them to identify a mechanism for it. If someone other than me wants information of this kind, I usually ask them for the specific reason they want it. I use this information to guide my coaching of the team. Everything I track I use for my own ability to identify trends, activities that impact the team's cohesion and potential to produce, whether negatively or positively. I have things that I track but never share with anyone.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |