The framing of climate change discourse by Statoil

Open access


This article involves a qualitative framing analysis of climate change discourse by Statoil, a Norwegian-based energy corporation, which is considered to be a major actor in the Norwegian fossil fuels market. The corpus of the present framing analysis consists of Statoil’s annual sustainability reports from 2001 until 2015 available online at the official Statoil website The framing analysis is based upon the methodological approach to framing described by Dahl (2015). The specific research aim of the present investigation is twofold: i) to identify Statoil’s framing of climate change discourse and ii) to compare how the framing changed diachronically from the time of the first sustainability report published in 2001 until the 2015 Sustainability Report. The results of the framing analysis indicate that Statoil’s climate change discourse in 2001-2015 is framed by a number of qualitatively different frames that are unequally distributed in diachrony, e.g. “Anthropogenic Cause”, “Battle”, “Corporate Responsibility”, “Emissions Reduction” etc. These frames are further presented and discussed in the article.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Benford R. D. and Snow D. A. 2000. Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology vol. 26 no.1 pp. 611-639.

  • Benn S. Dunphy D. and Griffiths A. 2014. Organizational change for corporate sustainability. London/NY: Routledge.

  • Benjamin D. Han-Hui P. and Budescu D. 2016. Climate change versus global warming: Who is susceptible to the framing of climate change? Environment and Behavior vol. 49 no. 7 pp. 745-770.

  • Berbes-Blazques M. C. et al. 2017. Understanding climate change and resilience: assessing strengths and opportunities for adaptation in the Global South. Climatic Change vol. 141 no. 2 pp. 227-241.

  • Chong D. and Druckman J. N. 2007. A theory of framing and opinion formation in competitive elite environments. Journal of Communication vol. 57 no. 1 pp. 99-118.

  • Cook J. et al. 2013. Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. Environmental Research Letters vol. 8 no. 2 pp. 1-8.

  • Cornelissen J. P. Holt R. and Zundel M. 2011. The role of analogy and metaphor in the framing and legitimization of strategic change. Organization Studies vol. 32 no. 12 pp. 1701–1716.

  • Cranmer G. A. Bowman N. D. and Goldman Z. W. 2017. A preliminary study of racialized brawn and brain framing effects. Communication Research Reports vol. 34 no. 1 pp. 78-83.

  • Curran G. 2017. Social licence corporate social responsibility and coal seam gas: framing the new political dynamics of contestation. Energy Policy vol.101 pp. 427-435.

  • Dahl T. 2017. Verbal and visual framing activity in climate change discourse. The role of language in the climate change debate 13 pp. 29-46.

  • Dahl T. 2015. Contested science in the media: Linguistic traces of news writers’ framing activity. Written Communication vol. 32 no. 1 pp. 39-65.

  • De Vries G. Terwell B.W. and Ellemers N. 2015. Perceptions of manipulation and judgements of illegitimacy: Pitfalls in the use of emphasis framing when communicating about CO2 capture and storage. Environmental Communication vol. 10 no. 2 pp. 206-226.

  • Doyle J. 2007. Picturing the clima(c)tic: Greenpeace and the representational politics of climate change communication. Science and Culture vol. 16 no. 2 pp.129-150.

  • Entman R. M. 1993. Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication vol. 43 no. 4 pp. 51-58.

  • Fløttum K. and Gjerstad Ø. 2017. Narratives in climate change discourse. WIREs Climate Change vol. 8 pp. 1-15.

  • Garcia M.M. 2011. Perception is truth: How US newspapers framed the ‘Go Green’ conflict between BP and Greenpeace. Public Relations Review vol. 37 pp. 57-59.

  • Gebara M. F. et al. 2017. Framing REDD+ in the Brazilian national media: how discourses evolved amid global negotiation uncertainties. Climate Change vol. 1 pp. 1-14.

  • Goffman E. 1974. Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Harvard University Press.

  • Gonenc H. and Scholtens B. 2017. Environmental and financial performance of fossil fuel firms: a closer inspection of their interaction. Ecological Economics vol. 132 pp. 307-328.

  • Graham C. 2017. The future is not what it used to be: oil and gas strategies for a carbon-conscious world. The APPEA Journal vol. 57 no. 2 pp. 459-461.

  • Hurlstone M. J. et al. 2017. Cooperation studies of catastrophe avoidance: implications for climate negotiations. Climatic Change vol.140 pp. 119–133.

  • Jaspal R. and Nerlich B. 2014. When climate science became climate politics: British media representations of climate change in 1988. Public Understanding of Science vol. 23 no. 2 pp. 122-141.

  • Kapranov O. forthcoming. Shell’s image of climate change and its representations in the British financial press. In W. Giordano (ed.). Discourse communication and the enterprise: Where Business meets language. Cambridge Scholar Publishing.

  • Kapranov O. 2017. Conceptual metaphors associated with climate change in corporate reports in the fossil fuels market. Two perspectives from the United States and Australia. In: K. Fløttum (ed.) The role of language in the climate change debate. London/NY: Taylor & Francis pp. 102-122.

  • Kapranov O. 2017a. British Petroleum’s corporate discourse involving climate change before and after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill: A cognitive linguistic account. Selected Papers on Theoretical and Applied Linguistics vol. 22 pp. 211-223

  • Kapranov O. 2016. Corpus analysis of discourse markers in corporate reports involving climate change. EPiC Series in Language and Linguistics vol.1 pp. 216-227.

  • Kapranov O. 2015. Do international corporations speak in one voice on the issue of global climate change: The case of British Petroleum and The Royal Dutch Shell Group. In C. Cem and K. Papaja eds. Global perspectives on social sciences and humanities. Theory and practice Warsaw: LiF.

  • Koteyko N. Thelwall M. and Nerlich B. 2010. From carbon markets to carbon morality: Creative compounds as framing devices in online discourses on climate change mitigation. Science Communication vol. 32 no. 1 pp. 25-54.

  • Kropp C. and Türk J. 2017. Bringing climate change down to earth: Climate change governance from the bottom up. In: A. Esguerra et al. eds. Sustainability politics and limited statehood. Palgrave Macmillan Cham. pp.179-210.

  • Lakoff G. 2006. The contemporary theory of metaphor. In D. Geeraerts ed. Cognitive linguistics: Basic readings. Amsterdam: Walter de Gruyter pp. 185-237.

  • Levin I. P. Schneider S. L. and Gaeth G. J. 1998. All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes vol.76 no. 2 pp. 149-188.

  • Livesey S. M. 2002. Global warming wars: Rhetorical and discourse analytic approaches to Exxonmobil’s corporate public discourse. Journal of Business Communication vol. 39 pp. 117-146.

  • Lopez Maestre M.D. 2000. The business of cognitive stylistics: A survey of conceptual metaphors in business English. Atlantis vol. 22 no. 1 pp. 47-69.

  • Lyon T. P. and Montgomery W. 2015. The means and end of greenwash. Organization and Environment vol. 28 no. 2 pp. 223-249.

  • Marhsall G. 2007. Carbon detox: Your step-by-step guide to getting real about climate change. Hachette UK.

  • Matejek S. and Gössling T. 2014. Beyond legitimacy: A case study of BP’s ‘green lashing’. Journal of Business Ethics vol. 120 no. 4 pp. 571-584.

  • Matthes J. and Kohring M. 2008. The content analysis of media frames: Toward improving reliability and validity. Journal of Communication vol. 58 no. 2 pp. 258−279.

  • Myers T. A. et al. 2012. A public health frame arouses hopeful emotions about climate change. A Letter. Climatic Change vol. 113 pp. 1105–1112.

  • Nerlich B. and Jaspal R. 2013. UK media representations of carbon capture and storage: actors frames and metaphors. Metaphor and the Social World vol. 3 no.1 pp.35-53.

  • Nilsen T. 2017. Innovation from the inside out: Contrasting fossil and renewable energy pathways at Statoil. Energy Research & Social Science vol. 28 pp. 50-57.

  • Nisbet M. C. 2009. Communicating climate change: Why frames matter for public engagement. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development vol. 51 no. 2 pp.12-23.

  • Scanlan S. J. 2017. Framing fracking: scale-shifting and greenwashing risk in the oil and gas industry. Local Environment vol. 22 no.11 pp. 1311-1337.

  • Schmid-Petri H. and Arlt D. 2016. Constructing an illusion of scientific uncertainty? Framing climate change in German and British print media. Communications vol. 41 no.3 pp.265–289.

  • Shehata A. and Hopmann D. N. 2012. Framing climate change. Journalism Studies vol. 13 no. 2 pp. 175-192.

  • Spence A. and Pidgeon N. 2010. Framing and communicating climate change: The effects of distance and outcome. Global Environmental Change vol. 20 pp.656-667.

  • Starbird K. et al. 2015. Social media public participation and the 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal vol. 21 no. 3 pp. 605-630.

  • Statoil 2001. Sustainability Report. [Accessed 1 February 2017]. Available at:

  • Statoil 2002. Sustainability Report. [Accessed 1 February 2017]. Available at:

  • Statoil 2003. Sustainability Report. [Accessed 1 February 2017]. Available at:

  • Statoil 2004. Sustainability Report. [Accessed 1 February 2017]. Available at:

  • Statoil 2005. Sustainability Report. [Accessed 1 February 2017]. Available at:

  • Statoil 2006. Sustainability Report. [Accessed 1 February 2017]. Available at:

  • Statoil 2007. Sustainability Report. [Accessed 1 February 2017]. Available at:

  • Statoil 2008. Sustainability Report. [Accessed 1 February 2017]. Available at:

  • Statoil 2009. Sustainability Report. [Accessed 1 February 2017]. Available at:

  • Statoil 2010. Sustainability Report. [Accessed 1 February 2017]. Available at:

  • Statoil 2011. Sustainability Report. [Accessed 1 February 2017]. Available at:

  • Statoil 2012. Sustainability Report. [Accessed 1 February 2017]. Available at:

  • Statoil 2013. Sustainability Report. [Accessed 1 February 2017]. Available at:

  • Statoil 2014. Sustainability Report. [Accessed 1 February 2017].Available at:

  • Statoil 2015. Sustainability Report. [Accessed 1 February 2017]. Available at:

  • Swain K. A. 2017. Mass Media Roles in Climate Change Mitigation. In W.-Y. Chen et al. (eds.) Handbook of Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation (pp.169-208) DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-14409-2_6.

  • Trenberth K. E. 2012. Framing the way to relate climate extremes to climate change. Climatic Change vol. 115 pp. 283-290.

  • Tynkkynen N. 2010. A great ecological power in global climate policy? Framing climate change as a policy problem in Russian public discussion. Environmental Politics vol. 19 no. 2 pp. 179-195.


Journal information
Impact Factor

CiteScore 2018: 0.25

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.144
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.447

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 816 615 19
PDF Downloads 543 401 11