Responses to climate change: exploring organisational learning across internationally networked organisations for development

Abstract

Drawing from the organisational learning and governance literature, this paper assesses four internationally networked governmental and non‐governmental organisations in the UK addressing climate change. We analyse how those concerned understand the climate change crisis, what mechanisms are put in place to address information flows, and what evidence there is of learning through sharing information between the organisational headquarters and their regional offices. The most striking finding is the evidence of learning that largely depends on ad‐hoc informal processes and shadow networks.

Keywords:

• organisations
• climate change
• resilience
• development

Introduction

The ‘surprises’ that climate change has in store for human societies are unprecedented, and the effects are potentially irreversible (Schneider 2003). Scientists predict with 90% certainty that climate change is already happening (Rosenzweig et al. 2007). Some suggest that societies should be planning for a 4°C global temperature rise with disastrous effects (Anderson and Bows 2008). Extreme weather‐related events along with other aspects of climate change are expected to impact people in the developing world disproportionately (IPCC 2007). Some of the challenges arise from the rate and magnitude of change in climate, the possibility of non‐linear change and long time horizons (Barnett 2001; Dessai and van de Sluijs 2007).

A social–ecological systems resilience lens offers an opportunity to rethink mega‐scale challenges, surprises and means to adapt to climate change (Adger 2000; Lemos et al. 2007; Nelson, Adger, and Brown 2007; Boyd et al. 2008; Miller et al. 2010). Resilience defined by Holling (1973, 17) in relation to an ecological system is ‘the persistence of relationships within a system and [a] measure of the ability of these systems to absorb change of state variables, driving variables and parameters, and still persist’. Drawing on Holling’s (1973) definition, Folke (2006) highlights as one component of resilience the ability of a system to learn and bounce back renewed and outlines efforts to apply resilience notions to social systems, governance and learning in the context of natural resources management (see also Plummer 2010). In particular, resilience thinking could frame more robust approaches in three areas of environmental management: (1) dealing with complexity, feedbacks and non‐linear development; (2) developing decision‐making tools for uncertain risk; and (3) improving mechanisms to navigate social–ecological systems using multi‐scale adaptive governance (Folke et al. 2005). Given the relevance of these approaches in the face of a major and complex perturbation such as climate change, applying resilience thinking to climate change may prove fruitful (Adger 2000; Smit and Wandel 2006; Boyd et al. 2008).

Organisations, including non‐governmental organisations (NGOs) and government agencies, that have a mandate to deliver aid and cultivate relations with governments in the developing world are increasingly challenged to step up to the climate change challenge (Boyd and Juhola 2009), yet they often lack the frameworks and tools needed to address climate change risks and uncertainties. Resilience thinking would suggest that such organisations will need to be ‘adaptive’ and ‘dynamic’ and prepared to deal with surprises in the context of limited or no information and in places where poverty reduction is already hampered by climate variability, weak governance and lack of markets (Boyd et al. 2008). The function of organisations in delivering ‘climate‐friendly development’ is poorly understood, with many organisations relying on traditional capacity‐building approaches (e.g., training modules, information transfer) that may not be appropriate for new challenges. Approaches consistent with resilience thinking call for capacity‐building processes that address information sharing, assess the changing needs of multiple users of information and consider the multi‐scale dimensions of adaptive governance. Failure to incorporate reflexive learning in the process could manifest itself in misguided policy positions and an inability to assess the changing science of climate change, with serious consequences for practitioners and funding, and missed opportunities for sharing lessons for addressing climate change impacts.

In this paper, we use interviews with key informants to explore how four international development and aid organisations from government and the non‐profit sector use frameworks, tools, and forms of learning suggested by a resilience perspective to grapple with difficult challenges that climate change poses. We begin by providing a brief overview of the literature on climate change, organisational learning, reflexivity, and shadow networks. Next, we present the interview methods and results and draw on the resilience, learning, and governance literatures to reflect on what this work contributes to our understanding of the linkage between resilience and learning. We conclude by outlining the implications of these findings for improving our understanding of adaptive responses to climate change.

Conceptual overview

Climate change crisis and organisational learning

Following Pelling et al. (2008), we define organisations as collectives that direct, maintain and negotiate the rules of institutions, that is ‘the rules and norms of society’ (869). The success and preparedness of an organisation depends on its ability to design itself as a learning system within a broader learning context, including under crisis (Wenger 2000; Wang 2008). A crisis can result from a breakdown in collective understandings of the world (Turner 1976), in role structure (Weick 1993) or in faith in leaders and cultural norms (Habermas 1975; O’Connor 1987). Climate change can be considered a crisis for all three reasons; however, the climate crisis is distinct in that climate change also entails a host of biophysical changes, including biodiversity loss, floods, rising sea level and health issues.

Wang (2008) suggests that organisational culture is one determinant of the way an organisation responds to a crisis. In the case of climate change, organisational culture may mean that decision‐makers situate climate change in a classic hazard risk and vulnerability framework where the probability of the crisis occurring is weighed and the precautionary principle is the base line. Alternatively, an organisation might choose to be experimental and focus on double‐loop learning (i.e., a shift in thinking beyond business‐as‐usual; Argyris and Schön 1978; see also Löf 2010; Lundholm and Plummer 2010). By focusing only on risk and precaution, the organisation may inhibit the process of discovery by which knowledge and resources are mobilised towards diverse and flexible strategies.

Recent work has shown how organisations from across the world are responding to climate change (Berkhout, Hertin, and Gann 2006; Vogel et al. 2007; Pelling et al. 2008). Tompkins et al. (2005) have described 300 examples of adaptation across a variety of public and private organisations in the UK, and Thomas et al. (2007) and Osbahr et al. (2008) have described similar examples in Africa.

Continuity and reflexive learning

In order to avoid mistakes from the past, reflexive learning and reflexivity are emerging as relevant concepts to development and climate change. Reflexive learning is a concept used in the study of development (Pieterse 2001) and evolved in response to decades of failed development projects and programmes in which development organisations failed consistently to reflect adequately on what they have learned from the processes of delivering aid to the poor (Mosse 2005). In this context, we use reflexive learning in the sense of ‘collective feedback loops that generate and inform collective action …’ (Pieterse 2001, 163). The concept of reflexivity has also been examined in a variety of policy and organisational contexts, in particular as it relates to risk, governance, pluralism and polycentrism, communication theory, and adaptive management (e.g., Beck 1992; Mclain and Lee 1996; Maarleveld and Dangbégnon 1999; Leeuwis 2004; Voss, Bauknecht, and Kemp 2006). Pieterse (2001) notes that reflexivity is part of a process of change in collective awareness, often itself an outcome of a breakdown in collective sense‐making, resulting in new norms, ideologies and institutions. Reflexivity could be considered similar to the process of multiple‐loop learning (Argyris and Schön 1978) in that it pays attention to change.

This definition of reflexivity is appropriate for a study of organisations which must adapt in order to continue to be effective in the face of global climate change. Reflexive learning among organisations is central to understanding resilience to climate change in that there are many future unknowns that require openness, critical thinking (Krasny, Lundholm, and Plummer 2010) and understanding change.

Scaling up learning from shadow networks

Shadow networks are simultaneous and spontaneous networks among organisations, which are formed through self‐organisation and aid the evolution of organisations (Stacey 1996). Further, Shaw’s (1997) definition of shadow networks suggests that they are the ‘messy’ processes of interaction between the ‘legitimate’ formal and the informal systems, where most organisational development takes place (Shaw 1997, 235). Gant, Ichniowski, and Shaw (2002) show that a change in traditional work patterns in an organisation requires support from both formal and informal networks, in addition to the consideration of the pattern of interaction among employees. In the context of natural resources management and ecological systems, Olsson et al. (2006) illustrate that shadow networks are a critical factor in the transformation of threatened ecological systems into better managed ones because of their ‘willingness to experiment and generate alternative solutions to emerging problems’ (Olsson et al. 2006, 12). The interplay between shadow networks and formal institutions is key to how much freedom exists to innovate, and relates to deeper questions of trust, responsibility and quality control of innovations that come from the shadow system (Pelling et al. 2008).

Thus, shadow networks play an important role in learning across multiple layers in networks, an important component of adaptive governance (Folke et al. 2005). Adaptive governance theories, as well as thinking about resilient social–ecological systems, aim to enhance understanding of how organisations diffuse learning from the periphery to the centre through the relationship between shadow networks and formal systems (Folke et al. 2005).

Davies (2005) claims that some NGOs are self‐organising and decentralising networks. He quotes the case of the NGO network, Oxfam, which is centralised yet self‐organising when it needs to be, perhaps indicating that this and similar organisations are well placed to adopt or are already engaged in practising alternative models of learning. Davies (2004) suggests that the sheer scale of many organisations, however, brings complexity that can be an impediment to feedback between different parts of the organisation.

Methods and case study descriptions

In this study, we sought to apply concepts about learning and shadow networks by analysing how four organisations capture informal learning and experience gleaned by members of their network, that is, staff who are ‘on the ground’ in remote locations. In particular, we hoped to gain a better understanding of organisational responses to climate change through posing questions about organisations and processes across scales of decision‐making. The four organisations encompassed government departments and NGOs that deliver to beneficiaries or cultivate relationships with governments in developing countries including the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), Department for International Development (DFID), Oxfam GB, and Practical Action. Each of these organisations is networked across hundreds of offices in different countries. In this study, we focused on the experts at the strategic (central) level as this is where the responsibility for decisions about programme design, funding and organisational policy lies.

The idea for the study came out of a discussion that took place between the lead author of this paper and a group of international development and humanitarian organisations at the 2008 Workshop on Resilience – A Concept of Socio‐Economic Crisis Prevention, sponsored by the Austrian Ministry for European and International Affairs in Vienna. At this meeting, leaders of international development organisations posed a question: How well are our organisations applying learning principles consistent with writings on social–ecological systems in responding to climate change? Also emerging from discussions at the Vienna meeting were questions about whether resilience as an approach to understanding adaptation and development has any added value (e.g., Lemos et al. 2007; Osbahr, Boyd, and Ericksen 2007; Boyd et al. 2008; Miller, Klocker‐Larsen, and Thomalla 2008). The specific questions adopted for exploration in this study were: how do the four organisations make sense of the climate change crisis? what mechanisms have they put in place to address information flows? and what evidence there is of learning among different parts of the organisation?

Initial data were collected by reviewing climate strategy documents and websites for each of the case studies. In order to gain in‐depth information on how the organisations respond to climate change, we contacted gatekeepers across the four organisations and carried out 10‐key informant, semi‐structured qualitative interviews in the respective climate change environment programmes and one focus group interview with Practical Action. The interviews were conducted between October 2008 and April 2009, each lasting up to 1.5 hours. All interviews started with an open‐ended question calling for a narrative of how climate change was understood by the organisation (see Table 1). Additional topics examined included (1) sources and culture of information exchange, (2) formal mechanisms of learning about climate change, (3) informal mechanisms of learning about climate change, and (4) feedback about climate change between the field offices and headquarters.

Table 1. The interview guide.

Organisational learning on climate change	Typical questions
Framing: Organisational objectives and how these map onto actions which address climate change	What are the development objectives of the organisation?How does the organisation view climate change?What are the organisational priorities on climate change?
Knowledge and resource capacity: Sources and exchange of information for organisational learning	What are the main sources of climate information?What knowledge transfer is there across the country office staff?How is the information exchanged between the regions and headquarters?What are the constraints?
Formal learning about climate change: Opportunities for learning	What are the formal tools available?How are they used?What are the limits?
Informal learning about climate change: Opportunities for learning	What are the informal learning mechanisms?How does learning occur through informal networks?What are the limits?
Opportunity for continuity and reflexivity:Network development for information sharing on climate change	How do you sustain learning?Who is buffering?How do you measure process of learning?What are the limits to continuity?

All interviews were conducted in confidence, and the names of interviewees were withheld by mutual agreement. The interviews were transcribed and analysed independently by the authors. Evidence of five responses to climate change that are essential to these organisations emerged from the interviews after open and then selective coding. Analysis of the in‐depth interviews involved familiarisation with the research material through an iterative process of key informant interviews, subsequent sense‐making of the data through submersion, and follow‐up checks for factual errors in the data (Kvale 1996).

Study organisations

Practical Action

Practical Action has been working on poverty reduction, people‐centred technologies, health and livelihood since its foundation in 1966 by the economist and philosopher E.F. Schumacher. The focus of its approach is sharing knowledge, influencing others and demonstrating results. Practical Action has projects worldwide in agricultural and pastoral support, small‐scale manufacturing, transport, urban livelihood, and shelter and energy, and its consultancy and educational work reach approximately 664,000 people. Its development and climate objectives are to reduce vulnerability and enhance livelihoods of poor communities. Practical Action has operations in 100 countries worldwide and has 6–10 climate change staff at its UK headquarters.

Oxfam GB

In 1942, an Oxford Committee for Famine Relief was started to help Greek civilian war victims, and, in 1948, the committee opened one of the world’s first charity shops in Oxford. By 1995, Oxfam International had formed what has since grown to a network of 14 organisations. Oxfam GB is an NGO operating in 60 countries worldwide. It frames understanding of climate change as an issue of justice and equity and has a poverty‐reduction focus. From 6 to 10 climate change staff covering both adaptation and disaster risk reduction work at Oxfam GB headquarters in Oxford, England.

Department for International Development

The 1929 Colonial Development Act established continuity as one of the essential components in the responsibilities of the UK government for the development of its colonies, leading to the establishment of a series of government departments, currently represented by the DFID. DFID is headed by a Secretary of State for International Development with cabinet rank who is formally responsible to the Parliament. DFID is structured into specialist divisions, strategies and programmes, and units and departments; it works in over 100 countries worldwide across a variety of crosscutting social development and environmental sectors that include agriculture, forests, water and sanitation, health, and disaster risk reduction. The DFID mandate for climate is to reduce risk and harness opportunities for low carbon development. It has 40 staff working on climate change and environment, six to eight staff working on adaptation, and many more in other sectors such as agriculture, water and livelihoods, who are engaging with climate change issues.

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

The FCO is charged with the conduct of the UK’s diplomatic relations and business links, setting policy goals for threats to the UK such as counter terrorism, and the security of British nationals overseas in a network of 260 embassies, high commissions and diplomatic positions. The FCO sees climate change as a threat but also as an opportunity to enhance low carbon futures. It has 30 climate change staff in its Climate Change and Energy Groups.

Results and discussion

The concept of adaptive governance in the social–ecological resilience literature combines processes of learning‐by‐doing and multi‐loop learning across knowledge systems and levels of decision‐making in efforts to build adaptive capacity (Folke et al. 2005; Schultz and Lundholm 2010). In contrast to the focus on values, attitudes and behaviours in much of the environmental education literature, the social–ecological resilience literature focuses on learning that improves the direct management of natural resources by stakeholders including organisations. In this study of organisations engaged in climate change, five general findings about organisational learning emerged:

• All of the organisations are reframing development under climate futures both as a threat and an opportunity.

• The organisations generally rely on similar sources of information, but the culture of information exchange varies across organisations.

• All of the organisations are engaged in the delivery of formal learning to their regions and offices.

• Informal learning and shadow networks play a significant role in how the organisations learn about climate change.

• In these organisations, continuity in learning about climate change requires leaders, hybrid knowledge (e.g., specialist knowledge with strategic experience) and opportunity for reflection.

Reframing development under climate change

Findings show that the four organisations are making normative changes to their organisational objectives in the light of climate change. These changes are consistent with the notion of reflexivity as a process of change in ideologies and norms (Pieterse 2001), which is critical in addressing a changing global climate.

Practical Action, in particular, sees linkages between climate change, adaptation, disaster risk reduction, resilience and complexity, and is struggling with how to bridge these concepts into practice. It has advanced its reflection further than the other organisations in this study by, for instance, considering the need to redesign planning frameworks to be more flexible. It has employed personnel to ‘think 100% of their time’ about the challenges of climate change, resilience and uncertainty, and to distil information from other sources that would be useful to the organisation. Oxfam, in contrast, illustrates a narrative on climate change that is closely related to its traditional mandate to tackle justice and ethical issues.

Department for International Development’s thinking on climate change has shifted in a gradual way, and this is in part reflected in its White Paper, Eliminating World Poverty: Building Our Common Future (DFID 2009). In this document, ‘climate change’ is mentioned over 100 times and ‘resilience’ is mentioned 10 times, which represents much greater attention to these issues compared to a previous White Paper (DFID 2006). DFID is increasingly engaged in a broad narrative on climate resilience, which includes actions and research on opportunities for eliminating poverty and developing low carbon opportunities. It aims to incorporate the issue of climate change into its operations, with a focus on economic resilience. To address this, DFID has engaged a full‐time staff member to work on ongoing adaptation discussions about the shape and implications of climate resilient development for its programme and approaches.

The FCO’s climate change narrative reflects its preoccupation with global security and economic development but also sees climate change as an opportunity to make the transition to low carbon development. In the words of one FCO informant:

Yes, climate change is a threat but also an opportunity … [If] we get climate change right, it will be a really important model for how entities interact in an interdependent world. If we get climate change right, we have the capacity globally, all countries in the world, to identify and implement shared solutions to shared problems. (JC, FCO, 2 April 2009)

However, the FCO has done the least to address how climate change will affect its own operations.

Sources and mechanisms of information exchange

All four organisations primarily source information from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change science reports. In addition, the NGOs obtain ad‐hoc examples of climate change adaptation from projects in the field and their engagement with local people, and the government departments receive a range of feedback from the field, in particular, from country offices, embassies, and local offices. However, there are bottlenecks in information feedback due to time constraints that those in the field often face in their daily tasks. All of the organisations struggle to show how they incorporate scientific uncertainty into their planning strategies.

The organisations vary in their approach to information exchange. The most distinct and interesting organisations in this regard are Practical Action and the FCO (the youngest and the oldest organisations of the four). In terms of information exchange between countries and regions, Practical Action (the youngest) discovered in 2008 that people prefer face‐to‐face meetings to emails. Staff also noticed that having a clear project and a committed leader who put effort into facilitating processes fostered communication between country partners. It was also pointed out that information is often lost. In the words of one key informant:

Often people don’t think that they have a fascinating example and do not realise it until an informal conversation occurs, [so] often an example is lost because you are not realising that other people in the organisation could use that kind of information. (AS, Practical Action, 17 February 2009)

In contrast, the FCO has a long history of capturing and responding to multiple sources of information. The exchange between outposts and London is based on a long relationship of trust, and there is clearly a valuable history and tradition of information exchange. The remaining two organisations encountered greater challenges with learning from the regions and country offices.

Formal learning tools and mechanisms

We found that all the organisations studied are engaged in dynamic learning processes around climate change, whether through formal structures or informal networks. Findings show that the organisations mostly frame climate change and climate change adaptation via formal science discourses. However, despite the huge complexity of climate change, the organisations have a relatively low operational capacity of staff working on climate change directly. In other words, small groups of people are engaged intensively in raising the profile of climate change inside and outside the organisation.

All organisations have formal processes to support the development of new roles and strategies or are formally considering how to develop such processes in the light of climate change. There is also evidence of capacity building to prepare the organisation internally for responding to climate change via programmes on climate and environment. For example, in DFID training programmes, in‐house senior climate champions have been posted in the field, and in the FCO, the delivery of information on climate security occurs across its geographical divisions. The ad‐hoc approach to learning about climate adopted by Oxfam was viewed as a shortcoming, and thought about how to formalise the process of ‘getting learning back’ was beginning. The FCO has a website that provides information on its climate‐related activities, and it also runs several projects and campaigns related to climate change.

Informal learning and shadow systems

We found evidence that shadow systems such as those described by Shaw (1997), consisting of information generation and informal exchanges among regional offices, operate alongside the formal organisational structures. These shadow systems help to prepare for climate change with information or new approaches to learning and show evidence of self‐organisation in terms of informal and adaptive networks. For example, according to FCO’s Special Representative: ‘The FCO considers that it is building adaptive capacity across its network. The delivery of information on climate change is done both systematically and in an ad hoc manner …’ (JA, FCO, 2 April 2009).

Practical Action, Oxfam and DFID all share similar network structures (headquarters in the UK with global nodes) and deliver information on climate change through their programmes or project leaders. The FCO, in contrast, has its headquarters and geographical divisions in London, and messages on climate change are delivered through political leaders.

Across the organisations, there is variation in approaches to conceptualising and reflection, based on the organisation’s formal and shadow structures (see Table 2). Learning from the various networks and bringing that learning back into core organisational strategies vary among the organisations. For example, the FCO seems to be particularly good at filtering and exchanging information with its embassies for security purposes. In contrast, at Oxfam, although it is recognised that a certain level of self‐organisation is a positive thing and country ownership of projects is crucial, maintenance of focus and recovery of lessons learned from the different countries prove challenging. These results are consistent with Griffin, Shaw, and Stacey’s (1999) comments about the paradox of ‘managing’ self‐organisation in that self‐organising and shadow networks are not something that can be managed for greater gain by an organisation. Another new approach that DFID is establishing is a climate and development knowledge network consisting of southern and northern research institutions to provide policy advice and knowledge and help developing countries to decide how best to adapt and what measures are best suited to build resilience to climate change (DFID 2009, 57).

Table 2. Summary evidence of learning as an opportunity for resilience across the organisations.

Resilience features	Indicators of resilience	Practical action	Oxfam	Department for International Development	Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Framing of organisational objectives on climate change and development	Objectives and aims	Addresses vulnerability, adaptation, and resilience of marginal communities to the impacts of climate change	Addresses vulnerability, climate justice in developing countries to the impacts of climate change	Supports international efforts to address climate change risks and to help develop opportunities for low carbon growth	Supports international efforts to address climate change risks and opportunities for low carbon growth, stability and security of nations
Knowledge and resource capacity	Sources of information and culture of information exchange	IPCCAd‐hoc examples from the fieldMostly framing climate change adaptation with formal scienceNumber of staff 6–10, time and resources devoted on climate change	IPCCDesire to engage with local knowledge6–10 staff working on climate change	IPCCSome ad‐hoc feedback from country offices40 staff working on climate change and environment, 6–8 staff on adaptation to climate change	IPCC, Stern ReviewEmbassies, local offices30 staff working on climate change inClimate Change and Energy Groups
Self‐organisation	Scale of operation/resources allocated across networks	100 projects worldwideVaries from country to country/region to region	Operating in over 60 countriesCapitalises on country offices, country networks	Large operation50–75% funds allocated to country offices	Mega operation network of 233 international postingsSeveral campaigns on climate change
Learning	Tools and mechanisms for formal and informal learning	WorkshopsClimate change networksConference	WorkshopsInformation sheetsConferences	DFID training programmesInformation sheetsClimate change champions	Delivery of climate information across divisionsSecurity campaign website
Buffering/safety net	Mechanisms of continuity and reflexivity (measuring process)	Annual review reportLog framesInformal spaces in the corridor conversationsStaff charged with linking concepts and programmes	Annual reviewNational climate change reportsNational networksLinking programmes	Out posted 12 climate championsInformal networksStaff charged with linking concepts and programmes Climate Change Knowledge Network	FCO Annual ReviewIn‐house climate units, Special Representative

Mechanism of continuity in learning across multiple layers

The strategic placement of individuals with the appropriate knowledge seems to be important to the way these organisations maintain continuity in learning about climate change. The FCO has people in place who have good understanding of the climate change issue and can source the right information when necessary, and its leadership has consciously taken the step to ‘stop and think’ about the implications of climate change. Its special representative has been singled out as a driver of change, that is a subject expert while also being a strategic actor, who has helped to push things forward on climate change preparedness. In DFID and Practical Action, individuals have also been employed to navigate the bigger picture questions and to integrate knowledge on adaptation, resilience and risk across projects and programmes. Oxfam and DFID have started to link their disaster risk reduction/emergency crisis teams and their adaptation and development teams.

DFID launched a call for a climate change knowledge network in 2009. The effectiveness of this knowledge network as a way of building capacity in the long term is likely to depend on the extent to which the network engages with the existing organisational structures. In all of the organisations, key individuals continue to champion the climate change issue at multiple levels (at country level and in international negotiations). In this regard, these examples illustrate the importance of leadership, knowledge and scale as part of a strategy to build continuity in response to climate change. This coincides with Olsson et al.’s (2006) work on transformation and the role of leadership, vision and organisation to achieve change.

Challenges to continuity and learning

In this study, we have explored how four networked organisations are responding to the climate change crisis. All organisations have a clear conceptual framing of climate change and are aware of the need to plan for the unexpected, but operational delivery remains a challenge. Some of the organisations are not yet able to show how they will incorporate scientific uncertainty into their planning strategies or by what means they will scale up climate‐related information from the extensive shadow systems in the field for central strategy. The efforts at organisational preparedness for climate change could go much further in all cases; the speed of change is largely limited by organisational cultures and constraints of delivering to multiple agendas.

There remain further practical challenges in responding to climate change, including budget and time constraints. For example, DFID has a budget at least three times that of the FCO (Meyer 2009, 14), yet it has an almost equivalent number of staff working on climate change and environment. Smaller organisations also fear that without increased financial security, learning and action are likely to be undermined. Time is identified as another constraint. For example, Oxfam and DFID are trying to formalise their networks, through one‐to‐one communication by email and by information exchange between headquarters and the field. However, many staff in the field do not have time to carry out their ‘reflexive learning’ communications due to high workload (South Africa DFID Office, pers. comm.).

In moving forward, these organisations might consider the extensive experience and tools that have been developed in environmental education systems and practice. In particular, environmental education practices may shed light on how to reach beyond organisational staff to organisational clients and stakeholders and the wider public.

Conclusions

In this study, we set out to examine empirically the questions posed by development organisations: How well are our organisations applying learning principles consistent with writings on social–ecological systems in responding to climate change? We used an organisational learning lens to examine learning and reflexivity in the context of four networked organisations that work in development.

The study suggests mechanisms by which organisational learning is taking place as part of organisational response to climate change. In particular, the study shows the evidence of learning as reflected in new frameworks and strategies for addressing climate change, formal and informal information exchange, and changes in leadership. The challenge for these organisations will be to capture systematically their advances in addressing climate change while not losing sight of the importance of informal learning that may foster innovation.

A resilience lens can guide organisations in generating reflexivity about their learning practices and about how best to respond better to climate change and shocks. The growing commitment and adaptability of development organisations in tackling climate change is an important first step in addressing this critical issue.

Notes on contributors

Emily Boyd is a Lecturer in Environment and Development at the University of Leeds and an associate researcher at the Stockholm Resilience Centre and at the Smith School of Enterprise and Environment, Oxford University, UK.

Henny Osbahr is a Lecturer in International Development at the University of Reading and a Research Associate with the Walker Institute for Climate System Research.

Acknowledgements

Gratitude is extended to the Leverhulme Trust and the Environmental Change Institute at the Oxford University for providing financial and institutional support throughout the duration of the study. Special thanks are given to John Boyd, Gia Kjellén and four anonymous reviewers for their comments on the manuscript. We also wish to thank the guest editors for helpful comments. Any outstanding errors remain the sole responsibility of the authors.