ESG COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES IN THE ENERGY SECTOR:ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF ENGAGING INFLUENCERS AND SOCIAL ACTORS. A SOCIOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVE

Monika Żak; Adam Sojka

doi:10.46763/

Autor/innen

Monika Żak
Adam Sojka

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.46763/

Schlagwörter:

ESG, SLO, CSR, communication, renewable energy sources

Abstract

The global energy transition requires not only technological progress but
also a profound shift in how energy companies communicate their
environmental and societal impacts. As Environmental, Social, and
Governance (ESG) criteria become an industry standard, the methods of
communicating these strategies are evolving. This article analyzes the
effectiveness of various communication models used by energy
companies, with a particular focus on the growing trend of utilizing
influencers and social actors to support ESG initiatives. The study is
qualitative and examines the advantages and disadvantages of this
approach, using several illustrative examples. Building on the
„researcher-manager” perspective, the author explores how energy
companies can balance traditional reporting with modern actor-based
communication. The findings suggest that while influencers can be
powerful catalysts for social change, their role must be rooted in
transparency and aligned with the company’s actual social performance.

Downloads

Download-Daten sind nocht nicht verfügbar.

Literaturhinweise

Beck, U., (2004). Społeczeństwo ryzyka. W drodze do innej nowoczesności.

Warszawa, Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar. Transl. Risikogesellschaft - Auf

dem Weg in eine andere Moderne, (1986)

Bourdieu P., (1986). The forms of capital. In: The handbook of theory and research

for the sociology of education. Ed. J.G. Richardson. New York, Greenwood

Press.

Boutilier, R. G., & Thomson, I. (2011). Modelling and measuring the social license

to operate: Fruits of a dialogue between theory and practice. Brisbane:

International Mine Management Conference.

Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the

moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34(4),

39–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/0007-6813(91)90005-G

Castello, L. (2010). Rethinking the meaning of place: conceiving place in

architecture-urbanism. Ashgate

Chen Y, Luo X, Xu M, Xia B, Ke Y, Skitmore M, Liu Y. (2025). Conceptualizing the

state of the art of social license to operate: a visualization-based word frequency

analysis. Environ Sci Policy. 171:104163.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104163

Cialdini, R. B. (2001). Influence: Science and practice (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn &

Bacon.

Coppens, T., Dooren, V., Thijssen, W.P. ( (2018). Public opposition and the

neighborhood effect: How social interaction explains protest against a large

infrastructure project, Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 633-640.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.08.045

Dahlsrud, A. (2008). How corporate social responsibility is defined: an analysis of 37

definitions. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Mgmt, 15: 1-

13. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.132

De Roeck, F. (2019). Governmentality and the climate-development nexus: The case

of the EU. Global Climate Change Alliance, Global Environmental Change,

Volume 55, pp. 160-167, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.02.006

Directive (EU) 2022/2464 amending Regulation (EU) No 537/2014, Directive

2004/109/EC, Directive 2006/43/EC and Directive 2013/34/EU, as regards

corporate sustainability reporting (Corporate Sustainability Reporting

Directive)

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies

for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine.

Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday.

Habermas, J. (1984). The Theory of Communicative Action. Boston: Beacon Press.

Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H. (1953). Communication and persuasion:

Psychological studies of opinion change. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Knudsen, J. K., Wold, L. C., Aas, O., Haug, J. J. K., Batel, S., Devine-Wright, P., …

& Jacobsen, G. B. (2015). Local perceptions of opportunities for engagement

and procedural justice in electricity transmission grid projects in Norway and

the UK. Land Use Policy, 48, 299–308.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.04.031

Moffat, K., & Zhang, A. (2014). The paths to social licence to operate: An integrative

model explaining community acceptance of mining. Resources Policy, 39, 63–

70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2014.01.001

Orłowska, J. Suchacka, M. Trembaczowski, Ł. Ulewicz, R. (2024). Social Aspects of

Establishing Energy Cooperatives. Energies 17, 5709.

https://doi.org/10.3390/en17225709

Pope, J. P., & Wall, H. (2025). Is the goal intrinsic or extrinsic? Examining selfdetermination theory researchers' and the general publics' perceptions of

exercise goals. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science / Revue canadienne

des sciences du comportement, 57(3), 239–248.

https://doi.org/10.1037/cbs0000411

Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. ( (2011). Creating Shared Value. Harvard Business

Review, 89(1/2), 62–77. https://hbr.org/2011/01/the-big-idea-creating-sharedvalue

Seamon, D. (2012). Place, place identity, and phenomenology: a triadic interpretation

based on J. G. Bennett’s systematics. In H. Casakin & F. Bernando (Eds.), The

role of place identity in the perception, understanding, and design of built

environments (pp. 3–21). Bentham Books.

https://doi.org/10.2174/978160805413811201010003

Skorek, M. (2025). Członkowie ochotniczej straży pożarnej w procesach zmian

społecznych (na przykładzie OSP w Gostyni). In: Wybrane aspekty