Climate change is no longer a distant threat. Its catastrophic effects are already occurring, unavoidable, and in many cases irreversible. While most research attention has been directed toward mitigation efforts—reducing greenhouse gas emissions—the reality is that organizations also need to identify ways of adapting to present and future climatic conditions. In our recent editorial published in the Journal of Management Studies, we argue that climate change adaptation (CCA) deserves equal attention as mitigation and suggest how management research can inform organizations seeking to develop adaptation strategies. 

Why care? 

Climate change adaptation is defined as harm-moderation or an “adjustment in natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli or their effects.”¹ We studied how and why management scholarship can work toward an approach to climate change that integrates mitigation and adaptation. 

Climate emergency is already here. As UN Climate Change Executive Secretary Patricia Espinosa stated, “mitigation is not enough… We must get ready, be ready.” Businesses and industries must reorganize how they manage their workforce, produce goods and services, and construct infrastructure to become more resilient to climate-related disasters. 

The neglect of adaptation in management research has left us with a critical gap in understanding. While mitigation will remain vital, a warming climate is a reality organizations face. Adapting to climate change is something most—if not all—organizations cannot avoid if they intend to remain viable. As UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres noted, adaptation must be seen as the other “half of the climate equation.” 

Who should care? 

1. Business leaders: Organizations need strategies that integrate both mitigation and adaptation. Leaders must understand how these approaches can either reinforce each other positively or create negative trade-offs. 

2. Management researchers: The field needs to develop frameworks specifically for climate change adaptation rather than forcing climate change adaptation into existing theories of organizational adaptation. 

3. Policy makers: There’s a need for evidence-based practices that can help in the effective management of climate change adaptation processes across public and private sectors. 

4. Communities: Climate change adaptation must be thoughtfully implemented so as to avoid perpetuating inequalities, particularly as the Global South faces disproportionate climate impacts while having fewer adaptation resources. 

But don’t we already study climate change adaptation by a different name? 

There are critical differences between traditional organizational adaptation (how organizations respond to market forces, technological changes, etc.) and climate change adaptation specifically. We found that existing theories of organizational adaptation are inadequate for guiding climate change adaptation because climate change presents unique challenges: 

1. Focus: Traditional adaptation is inward-looking, focusing on changing internal processes to respond to external market forces. In contrast, climate change adaptation must be outward-looking, focusing on interactions with the natural environment and involving multiple stakeholders. 

2. Drivers: Traditional adaptation responds to a misfit between internal activities and competitive pressures. Climate change adaptation, however, addresses the loss of access to ecological goods and services due to disruptions in natural processes. 

3. Objectives: While traditional adaptation aims to improve efficiency and competitiveness, climate change adaptation focuses on reducing vulnerability to climate change effects to create greater resilience. 

4. Limits: Traditional adaptation assumes constraints are within the organization’s control. Climate change adaptation faces external, often unavoidable physical and ecological boundaries beyond an organization’s control. 

5. Risks and feedback loops: Unlike traditional adaptation, poor strategies for climate change adaptation can increase an organization’s vulnerability, contributing to greenhouse gas emissions that worsen the underlying problem. 

Along the same lines, climate change adaptation is distinct from crisis management. While crisis management typically responds to sudden, unexpected events to restore normal functioning, climate change adaptation involves long-term changes to adapt to new climate realities. 

What are the actionable takeaways? 

We propose three key avenues that management researchers can explore, and for organizations to consider as they move forward: 

1. Integrate adaptation and mitigation strategies: Organizations should explore how these approaches can reinforce each other rather than viewing them as separate or competing priorities. For example, ski resorts adapting their business models due to decreasing snowfall might simultaneously become more open to reducing their supply chain emissions. 

2. Develop proactive adaptation capabilities: Organizations should build adaptive capacity before climate disasters strike, looking beyond past experiences to anticipate future conditions. This requires understanding adaptation as a configuration of both local and global approaches. 

3. Recognize both risks and opportunities: Climate change adaptation presents challenges but also opportunities for innovation. Organizations can develop new business models and circular economy approaches that reduce vulnerability while creating value. 

Who should read the editorial and why? 

• Business executives and sustainability officers seeking frameworks to develop integrated climate strategies that address both mitigation and adaptation. 

• Academic researchers interested in developing new theoretical approaches that can better explain and guide organizational responses to climate change. 

• Policy makers and NGOs working at the intersection of business and climate policy who need evidence-based approaches to encourage effective adaptation. 

• Business students who want to understand how climate change will fundamentally reshape management practices and organizational strategies in coming decades. 

Climate change adaptation is no longer optional—it’s a necessity for organizational survival. The time has come for management scholarship and practice to give adaptation the same level of attention that has been directed toward mitigation. Only by addressing both halves of the climate equation can we develop truly effective responses to the greatest challenge of the 21st century.