Nice defensiveness: A barrier to sustainable finance culture

As Australia experiences increasing costs due to human-induced climate change, calls for business to walk to the green talk increase (Al Hawaj & Buallay, 2022; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2022). As the “de facto custodians of society’s resources,” the finance industry has a significant role to play in balancing the economic, environmental, and social elements of corporate sustainability (sustainability) considerations in society (Herbohn, Gao, & Clarkson, 2019, p. 155). Multiple approaches have been used to understand and address why finance has been a laggard in embedding sustainability. These approaches include: a Royal commission into misconduct in the banking, superannuation and financial services industry (Commission), parliamentary inquiries, increased sustainability reporting, finance oaths, and media shaming (Banking and Finance Oath, 2012; Ferguson, 2017; Hayne, 2019b; Murray, 2014). Still, finance organisations and the directors who oversee their performance are said to be painfully slow at driving sustainable change (World Benchmark Alliance, 2025). When faced with compelling evidence during the Commission hearings, finance directors employed defensive mechanisms such as denial, blame, projection, and rationalisation (Argyris, 2010; Burns, 2019). This research approaches the issues of sustainability in finance from a different perspective: culture. While investigations have stated problematic culture in finance as a driver of undesirable behaviour, there has been minimal research into finance directors’ roles in embedding a sustainable culture throughout their organisations (Laker, Broadbent, & Samuel, 2018; Murray, 2014). More specifically, what role does directors’ defensive behaviour play when an organisation espouses they are embedding sustainable practice?