This is the final article in a seven-part series examining the changing dynamics of the oil and energy industry: Introduction | BP | Exxon | Chevron | Shell | Total | Statoil

Statoil is certainly not among the "Seven Sisters," nor is it even an IOC. However, I will end this series on how international oil companies are coping with the oil price crisis by zooming in on an interesting "hybrid."

Norwegian Statoil is in many ways a cross between the private supermajors that once dominated the global oil industry and the rising tide of national oil companies (NOCs) that have come to prominence since the 1970s. With such a distinctive role in both Norway's economy and its society, how is Statoil adapting?

At the heart of Norway's economy and society

Established in 1972 by the Norwegian parliament (Storting) to exploit the oil reserves on the Norwegian continental shelf, Statoil has come to dominate not just the Norwegian economy but also society.

The oil revenues from Statoil's operations have helped Norwegians to achieve a GDP per capita of over $100,000 in 2013. It employs 23,000 people — no small number in a country of 5 million (the equivalent of a company with almost 1.5 million employees in the U.S., making it the Walmart of Norway) — and is a dominant purchaser of goods and services. The company lies at the heart of the "Norwegian model" of state capitalism.

However, ordinary Norwegians are also proud of the company, its social-democratic culture of good corporate governance and its contribution to the intergenerational welfare through the $900 billion Norway Pension Fund.

IOC or an NOC?

Since the 1970s, the state has loosened its grip on Statoil, floating it on the New York stock market in 2001, and has gradually exposed it to greater competition from outsiders. But the Norwegian government remains a 67 percent shareholder, with the remainder owned mainly by U.S.-based investment banks. Statoil has observer status to OPEC, the oil cartel and prominent "club" of NOCs, but prefers to keep a distance from the in-fighting.

Since the 1980s, the company has maintained a healthy distance from the state — regulatory and commercial activities are kept separate, and Statoil is no longer necessarily favored for new projects.

Statoil is also subject to pressures over human rights and climate change issues similar to those on IOCs. The company has gained a unique reputation, in line with Norway's notoriously "green" cultural values, as a rare good global citizen among NOCs and IOCs alike.

But the company is also easily distinguished from its IOC competitors, not least when it comes to executive pay cultures. Former CEO Helge Lund was regularly challenged by egalitarian-minded Norwegians over his $2.4 million pay packet. However, when he was lured over to head Britain's BG Group in 2015, he was offered more than $40 million in his first year.

The 'good global citizen'

Despite a reputation as the "good guy" of the global oil industry, Statoil is in a sticky position over its environmental agenda. Critics have highlighted the cognitive dissonance often notable in Statoil's position.

The company acknowledges the intense threat of climate change, while simultaneously expanding oil and gas production, and even allegedly joining other oil majors in betting against the success of global climate change policies that aim to keep changes under the 2 degrees watermark.

Statoil stuck its neck out in support of legally binding transparency requirements and enthusiastically embraced last year's climate deal in Paris. But executives have been equally quick to remind those who get too enthusiastic about the pro-renewables direction that "we are good at what we do, but we're not good at everything."

As North Sea fields matured under Lund's leadership, management was forced to look further afield to more environmentally sensitive projects such as the Canadian oil sands and the Arctic, drawing the ire of environmental campaigners. But recent investments in German and British wind farms attest to an ongoing interest in renewables with perhaps more sincerity than that of other majors.

Despite an unusually strong ethical record and brand, Statoil is vulnerable to accusations that it does not always practice what it preaches.

Dealing with falling revenues

When typically low-key carpenter's son Eldar Saetre was promoted from CFO to replace Lund as CEO in October 2014, he was immediately followed into the post by plummeting prices.

Saetre strikes those who describe him as remarkably "normal" when compared to larger-than-life oil men such as the late Christophe De Margerie of Total, or Exxon's Lee Raymond. But as a man who knows the company inside out after 35 years, he has been quick to pragmatically assess portfolios and set in motion a series of cost cuts that will see Statoil's workforce reduce by 20 percent over three years.

The company has also embarked on an efficiency drive that seeks to drive down project break-even prices in line with the new price environemnt. The new capital spending plan puts aside only $13 billion for 2016, down from $14.7 billion in 2015, and discounted from the $16.5 billion originally envisaged for the year.

Q1 results for 2016 showed revenues three times lower than the same period last year, but the results — while hardly impressive — showed the fruits of some of the cost-cutting efforts. Statoil continues to pay out a dividend, despite the worsening operating environment, a politically contentious move.

Between two worlds

Statoil is stuck between two worlds — that of the bureaucratic, protected, state-owned oil firm and the more dynamic, but less socially embedded world of IOCs.

Some Norwegians have begun to murmur questions over the sustainability and wisdom of the much-admired "Nordic model" amid sluggish growth and productivity. As that model is reassessed, Statoil will have to change with it, as its traditional financial base dries up.