The study, titled “A Bourdieusian perspective on internal activism and professional careers,” examined climate activism among employees of a large multinational professional services firm, most of them management consultants. Drawing on 58 in-depth interviews with professionals involved in internal climate activist groups, the researchers traced how different forms of workplace environmentalism are perceived, absorbed or quietly ignored by organizational reward systems. Their findings carry uncomfortable implications for any company that claims to welcome employee voice on sustainability while maintaining traditional performance metrics.

The theoretical backbone of the work is the sociology of Pierre Bourdieu, whose concepts of capital, field and habitus allow researchers to analyze how individuals accumulate and exchange forms of value within professional settings. In this framework, climate activism can be understood as an investment of personal resources—time, reputational risk, emotional energy—in the hope of acquiring symbolic or professional capital. The study shows that such investments pay off only when they can be converted into forms of capital that the organization already recognizes: revenue generation, client relationships, reputational enhancement and strategic positioning.

The researchers identified three distinct patterns of activism among the professionals they interviewed. The first group used climate engagement deliberately as a vehicle for career progression. These employees built sustainability expertise, developed environmental credentials that could be deployed directly in client work, and increased their visibility within the firm. They were the most likely to receive formal recognition from senior leadership, and they used their green expertise to support client bids and win new business. In Bourdieusian terms, they successfully converted environmental commitment into economic and symbolic capital.

The second group, which tended to include more senior professionals, pursued a structural strategy. Rather than treating activism as a personal credential, they worked to institutionalize climate action—creating formal sustainability roles, establishing internal networks, and cultivating executive sponsorship for environmental initiatives. One participant described the tactical labor involved: “It’s really a process to think about who would be a good executive sponsor for this particular solution, where in the firm can I go and find money, where can I find the right people.” These employees proved especially effective at framing climate issues in the language of organizational priorities—innovation, talent attraction and future business opportunities. By translating environmental concerns into strategic vocabulary, they embedded climate action more deeply within the firm’s formal architecture.

The third group diverged sharply from the first two. These employees were motivated primarily by environmental and societal purpose rather than by career calculation. Paradoxically, they were also the least likely to be rewarded. Many kept their activism deliberately separate from their formal working lives, undertaking climate-related activities during evenings and weekends. Some avoided discussing their involvement with managers altogether, fearing that visible environmental commitment would be read as a distraction from billable client work. One participant described the experience as “an underground struggle.” What should have been an encouraged expression of corporate values instead became a concealed, unpaid, and professionally risky pursuit.

This asymmetry in recognition, the researchers argue, is not accidental but structural. Organizations have created new opportunities for sustainability-focused careers—chief sustainability officers, ESG consultants, decarbonization leads—yet the underlying systems that determine what actually gets rewarded have changed far less than the surrounding rhetoric might suggest. Performance reviews, promotion criteria and client-facing metrics continue to privilege work that can be traced to revenue, reputation or strategic advantage. Activism that fits those categories is readily absorbed into existing organizational systems, effectively domesticated by them. Activism that challenges established practices—questioning client portfolios, confronting carbon-intensive business models, demanding transformation rather than incremental improvement—struggles to find institutional support.

Dr Stefanie Gustafsson, of the University of Bath’s School of Management, summarized the core finding: “Many organisations encourage employees to speak up about climate and sustainability issues. But our research shows that not all forms of activism are valued equally. Employees are most likely to be recognised in career terms when their activism can be linked to business priorities, while more purpose-led activism often receives little reward despite requiring significant personal commitment.” The phrasing is careful but pointed: encouragement without corresponding reward mechanisms risks becoming a form of institutional hypocrisy, where environmental rhetoric is celebrated while environmental conviction is penalized.

Dr Katharina Hug, from Leuphana University of Lüneburg, offered a similar diagnosis with a constructive prescription. “Our findings suggest that organisations have created new opportunities for sustainability-focused careers, but the underlying systems that determine what gets rewarded have changed less than many people might assume,” she said. “If organisations want employees to contribute to meaningful environmental change, they may need to rethink how performance, recognition and career progression are evaluated.” In other words, the problem lies not with employees’ motivations but with the incentive architecture that filters which motivations are permitted to flourish.

The broader implication of the study concerns the pace and depth of corporate climate action. The researchers suggest that the way organizations reward activism may help explain why workplace sustainability efforts so often yield incremental improvements—recycling programs, carbon reporting, efficiency gains—rather than transformative change. Systems absorb what they can metabolize; they resist what threatens their core logic. When only commercially aligned environmentalism is rewarded, the firm effectively selects for tame sustainability and against the very challenges that structural decarbonization requires. Purpose-led employees, meanwhile, burn out, disengage, or exit, taking their conviction and expertise with them.

Yet the researchers are careful not to paint workplace activism as futile. Their analysis concludes that internal activist groups can provide an important space for employees to develop sustainability expertise, build supportive communities of like-minded colleagues, and reflect on how they want their careers to contribute to society. These communities function as sites of learning and identity formation even when they fail to shift corporate strategy. For many professionals, particularly younger generations entering the workforce with strong environmental values, such spaces may influence where they choose to work and how long they stay.

The practical message for organizations is therefore twofold. First, if firms genuinely want employee-led environmental change, they must widen the evaluative lens: recognizing purpose-driven contribution in performance assessments, protecting employees who raise inconvenient questions, and valuing activism that challenges rather than merely complements the business model. Second, employees themselves may need to be strategic about how they frame and position their environmental work—understanding, as the successful activists in this study did, that organizational systems respond to the language of priorities they already understand. The tension between authenticity and strategy is real, and this research makes clear that it is currently resolved, in most large professional firms, in favor of commerce.

For a world racing against climate deadlines, the study is a sobering reminder that cultural endorsement of sustainability is not the same as structural reward for it. Until recognition systems catch up with stated values, purpose will continue to pay—just not in the currency that careers are built on.