Download Business Responses to Climate Change in Developing Countries: A

Business Responses to Climate Change in Developing
Countries: A Conceptual Framework*
*
This paper is a part of the PhD research at School of Management - Asian
Institute of Technology.
Hoang Duc Binh1, and Do Ba Khang2
1
Economics and Commerce School, Hoa Sen University, Vietnam
2 Economics
Email: [email protected]
Phone: (84) 913 131 517
and Commerce School, Hoa Sen University, Vietnam
Email: [email protected]
Phone: (84) 838 301 877
Abstract
Climate change has been one of the most pressing environmental issues facing
business in the past few decades. While a large number of studies have
examined business responses in developed countries to climate change and the
resulting regulatory constraints, there is a lack of research on how businesses,
both multinational and domestic firms, respond to climate change in
developing countries. This study aims at examining and comparing strategies
adopted by both multinational and domestic firms in developing countries to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GGE). Factors influencing the adoption and
implementation of these strategies in developing countries will also be
investigated. This report is the first part of the research where the conceptual
framework will be developed, based on both a review of the literature on the
various strategies adopted by companies in developed countries, and
qualitative analysis of the GGE data collected by Carbon Disclosure Project.
The result will yield an instrument for empirical study to be conducted in the
next stage of the research to be conducted on the firms operating in developing
countries.
Keywords: climate change; greenhouse gas emissions; business strategy;
environmental management; developing countries.
1
1. Introduction
1.1. Background
Climate change has been one of the most pressing environmental issues facing
business in the past two decade. From the mid of 1990s witnessed an
increasing attention of business to climate change because it is likely to effect
business on both climate change consequences and policies to address it
(Llewellyn, 2007; Kolk and Pinske, 2007). Multinational companies have
developed different strategies over time, from focusing mainly on non-market
(political) activities to market-oriented approach. In recent years, under
pressure of stakeholders, while many MNCs are forced to address climate
change on their annual sustainable reports, others are using climate change as
a competitive advantage or means to enter new markets (Kolk, 2008).
Standpoint of multinational corporations on climate change have gradually
changed from disagreement or opposition to more positive approaches to
climate measures such as preparations to deal with regulations or considering
risks and opportunities of climate change (Kolk, 2008).
With the diversity of the business’s responses to climate change, many
researches have been conducted to examine not only climate change actions of
business on market and non-market (political) strategies (e.g. Levy and
Newell, 2005; Kolk and Pinkse, 2007a; Dunn, 2002; Skjaerseth and Skodvin,
2001; Hoffman, 2005; Cogan, 2006), but also influences on the climate change
policy and regulation development (e.g. Kolk and Levy, 2001, 2004; Levy and
Egen 2003; Dunn, 2002; Levy and Newell, 2000; Pulver, 2002). However, these
studies have the following limitations.
First, there is lack of research about how business, both multinational and
domestic firms, response to climate change in developing countries. Most of
current researches on business responses to climate change have focused on
the large multinational corporations (MNCs) with headquarters only based in
developed countries (Jones and Levy, 2007; Kolk and Pinkse, 2007). Only a few
researches with some emergences have examined responses to climate change
of business in developing countries and influencing factors on these responses
(e.g. Jeswani et al., 2008).
Second, there is lack of research about how multinational corporations respond
to climate change in host and home country. Many of previous studies on the
business responses to climate change have been analyzed from disclosed data
of climate or environment groups such as Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP), the
environmental group Ceres, The Climate Group, the Pew Center on Global
Climate Change, Business Environmental Leadership Council (BELC), and
Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) (e.g. Kolk and Pinkse, 2004, 2005, 2007,
2008; Kolk et al., 2008; Jones and Levy, 2007; Reid and Toffel 2009; Stanny
and Ely, 2008). These are voluntary disclosures of businesses, and MNCs
mainly provide information related countries (normally developed countries)
2
where they have got better sustainable strategies than, though still lack of
disclosure of data in host countries of MNCs, especially in developing
countries.
Furthermore, there are arguments that multinational corporations often have
differently environment and climate policies in different countries (Hamilton
et al., 2003; Schreurs, 2003). So the question is whether multinational
corporations have the same or different responses to climate change in host
countries and in their home country?
1.2. Objective
This research aims to determine how business (both multinational and
domestic firms) responds to climate change in developing countries by
examining strategies adopted to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GGE),
factors influencing the adoption and implementation of these strategies in
developing countries. To achieve this objective, this study will be performed
sequentially in two stages with the specific objectives of each stage are as
follows:


The first stage is a desk research to develop an instrument that helps
identify the various types of activities adopted by companies to reduce
GGE in developing countries and assess the levels of implementation of
these activities.
The second stage is an empirical study, and will be conducted by using
the instrument that have been developed in the first phase to collect
data in a developing country in order to (1) classify the activities into
categories to identify GGE strategies of companies operating in
developing countries; and (2) define the similarities and differences in
implementation of GGE activities among different types of companies
operating in a developing country.
This paper describes the first state of the study.
1.3. Brief of Methods
In order to achieve the objective of the first stage, an initial conceptual
instrument will be developed based on: (1) The existing literature on business
responses to climate change; (2) experiences of developed countries; and (3)
questionnaires of Carbon Disclosure Project1 (CDP) that have been developed
1
Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) is a non-profit organization and was established in 2000 to accelerate the
solution to climate change by providing the relevant information at the center of policy, business and
investment decisions. CDP has the largest database of climate change of major enterprises in the world. In
Carbon Disclosure Project 2011, instigated by 551 institutional investors with assets of US $71 trillion, CDP
sent the more than 6,100 questionnaires to the world’s largest corporations requesting information on GHG
emissions. There were 3,375 corporations in some 60 countries from mostly developed countries and some
from developing countries had answered questionnaires. This data is provided free of charge by CDP for
non-profit purposes of any individual and organizations and can be accessed via CDP’s website at:
https://www.cdproject.net/
3
since 2002. Climate change models or strategies will be first reviewed and then
corresponding activities of each strategy will be clarified and identified. The
instrument will include a set of questions for asking respondents to identify
the extent of implementation for each GGE activities and will then be used to
gather data in an empirical study in Vietnam for the second stage of research.
The development process is illustrated in figure 1.
During literature reviewing process, two aspects of the instrument will be
reflected including the types of classification of climate change strategies and
the level of implementation of these strategies of business. In order to
construct the instrument, all existing models will be accessed and models or
strategies of models that cannot represent for developing countries will be
rejected. Criteria for selecting a model or strategies for the instrument
comprise: (1) Focus on actual climate change strategies that undertaken by
companies; (2) Address to greenhouse gases emission strategies; (3) Up to day
the climate change issues; and (4) Do not inconsistent with commitments and
requirements of the Kyoto Protocol for developing countries on greenhouse
gases emission.
Figure 1: The Instrument Development Process
1.4. Contribution of the study
From literature review most of existing climate change models have been
developed based on data of firms in developed countries. Although there are
4
many strategies in the existing models are suitable for both developed and
developing countries, others are proper for developed countries that does not
occur in the developing countries such as changing expert opinion (a specific
strategy of firms in the U.S. and Australia), acquisition of emission credits
strategy, and policy inputs or lobbying activities in the information strategy
are expected do not occur explicitly in the developing countries. The
instrument will comprise the appropriate activities for both developed and
developing countries that were selected from existing models, and activities
represent only for developing countries. In addition, in the activities and
strategies selected from existing models will be re-described in the context of
developing countries. The instrument can be used to classify and measure
levels of implementation of GGE activities adopted by firms in developing
countries that no one has proposed so far. This is the main theoretical
contribution of this study.
This instrument will become a tool to be able to conduct surveys in other
developing countries, which could help to better understand the responses of
firms in different contexts. In addition, in-depth analysis from data that will
be collected by using this instrument can help to identify climate change
strategies (by using exploratory factor analysis2) and / or determine the extent
of response of businesses in each country (by using cluster analysis 3). This
instrument will be a measurement to assess climate change responses of
business in developing countries at national level and this is the practical
contribution of the first stage of this research.
1.5. Outline of paper
This paper will be presented with a four-section structure as following. In the
first section, this paper will review previous climate change models in order to
provide inputs for developing the instrument of this research. The second
section will then develop the conceptual instrument to identify various types of
activity and assess the levels of implementation of these activities of
companies operating in developing countries. At the end of this section an
initial conceptual instrument will be presented in order to gather data in an
empirical study in the second stage of the study.
2. Literature Review
Purpose of this section is to review previous climate change models in order to
provide inputs for developing the instrument of this research. Two types of
model of environmental and climate change strategy, namely continuum and
typology will be indicated to illustrate a background of development of these
models. Then two subsections will discuss the development of strategic climate
change models so far. The first subsection will review typology models of
2
Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) is a statistical technique to group activities/attributes to become new
composite variables (factors) with a minimum loss information (Hair et al., 2006).
3
Cluster analysis technique will group companies with unidirectional attributions into different
organizational categories or specified clusters for the climate change strategy and will be conducted by using
the rescaled factor scores of climate change activities resulting from factor analysis (Hair et al., 2006)
5
climate change strategies of business to clarify appropriate climate change
strategies, and the second subsection will discuss continuum models or the
implementation levels of climate change strategies of business to develop a
suitable set of levels for the instrument. While discussing the typology models,
the market strategy on climate change will be discussed first and then the
political strategy will be followed4. These reviews or discussions will provide a
theoretical foundation to develop the instrument in the section 3.
2.1. Types of environmental and climate change strategy model
Researches in classification of environmental strategy of business are diverse,
with over fifty models have been developed (cf. Kolk and Mauser, 2002). From
their research, Kolk and Mauser (2002) classified these models into two main
categories, called continuum and typology. The scope of these models are
varied, and depended on the aim of the authors, including the levels of
responses to environmental issues, the states and levels of environmental
management, the environmental strategies and policies. Most of models
comprise between three to five stages (in case of continuum models) or
positions (in case of typology models) and the name of these stages or positions
vary from generic concepts such as “reactive”, “defensive”, “accommodative”
and “proactive” (RDAP-scale, Clarkson, 1995) to more specific categories of
environmental strategies such as “pollution control”, “pollution prevention”,
“product stewardship” and “sustainable development” (Hart, 1995).
Continuum model is based on the notion that firms should make the transition
to the final stage because it benefits mitigation of firm impact on the natural
environment (Wehrmeyer, 1999). In the other words, continuums describe the
development of environmental management through time, based on the
underlying assumption that firms go through a number of stages. This
approach has been widely used to describe the relationship between
environmental issues and business policy and strategy (Jeswani et al., 2008)
and have been using in international standards in environmental management
such as ISO14000, BS7750, GRI, and Greenhouse Gas Protocol. Although the
continuum has advantage that providing rules for classifying, however, this
model also has disadvantage that the states are mutually exclusive (Doty and
Glick, 1994).
Typology model, in contract, emphasizes the competitive implications of
distinctive responses to environmental issues. This model simply classifies
position of company by their close similarity to a pattern, using an originated
theoretical set of correlated principles (Doty and Glick, 1994). Most typologies
are conceptualized as a matrix in which environmental strategies are
compared along two dimensions (Pinkse, 2006). While this model is quite
4
‘The market environment includes those interactions between the firm and other parties that are
intermediated by markets or private agreements. The non-market environment includes those interactions that
are intermediated by the public, stakeholders, government, the media and public institutions. A market
strategy is a concerted pattern of actions taken in the market environment to create value by improving
economic performance (…). A non-market strategy is a concerted pattern of actions taken in the nonmarket
environment to create value by improving its overall performance (…) (Baron, 1995: 47).’
6
flexible and has been used quite widely in other academic fields, its application
in the context of environmental management has been more difficult (Hass,
1996).
Global climate change, however, is an emerging environmental issue that
businesses have responded in recent years and researches to classify climate
change strategies of the business just have been conducted (e.g. Levy and
Kolk, 2002; Kolk and Pinkse, 2004; Kolk and Pinkse, 2005; Jeswani et al.,
2008). These classifications characterized and organized climate change
strategy of business into either a typology such as those of Levy and Kolk
(2002), and Kolk and Pinkse (2004) or a continuum such as those of Jeswani et
al., (2008) and Kolk and Pinkse (2005). And all of these classifications have
been developed based on previous continuum or typology models of
environmental strategy (see Levy and Kolk, 2002; Kolk and Pinkse, 2004; Kolk
and Pinkse, 2005; Jeswani et al., 2008). Because climate change is an attracted
environmental issue (Kolk and Pinske, 2007), literature in responses to
environmental issue is a good starting point to examine responses of business
to climate change (Pinske, 2006, pp. 21).
2.2. Typology models of climate change strategy
A typology of climate change classifies position of firm in climate change to
their close similarity to a pattern. It groups climate change activities in to
categories (strategies) and conceptualize as a matrix. Climate change typology
therefore provides an instrument to classify climate change strategies of firms.
Following will discus three existing typologies that have been developed for
business responses to climate change so far. Table 1 (cf. appendix) summarizes
these models with emphasizing on type of climate change strategy, data and
its limitation.

Market strategies
The early typology model regarding business responses to climate change is
developed by Levy and Kolk (2002) (see figure 2), in which they suggested four
types of climate change strategies of the US and European oil multinational
corporations: resistant, compliant, avoidant and proactive. Figure 2 is a two
dimensional matrix that describes the different climate change strategies of
large oil multinational corporation in the Europe and the US. The first
dimension relates to the cooperation of companies, determining whether
companies support for mandatory emission controls and investment in
reducing greenhouse gas emissions or not. The second dimension identifies
assertiveness of the companies, through their public expression of supports or
oppositions to the regulations. The figure 3.1 illustrates that the climate
changes strategies of the companies change over time and shows a certain
degree of convergence to compliance. This typology, however, focus only on the
publicity strategies in climate change of companies rather than actual climate
change strategies that undertaken by companies. As the aim of this study is to
identify actual GGE strategies that business in developing countries has used,
this typology is inappropriate to apply for conducting.
7
Figure 2: Business responses to climate change by oil multinational
corporations
Source: Levy and Kolk (2002)
With the view that there was a significant amount of market activities and
commitment of resources for reducing emissions of business, based on a data of
111 multinational corporations in the Financial Times Global 500 list, Carbon
Disclosure Project 2002, Kolk and Pinkse (2004) formulated market strategic
options for climate change of business by a typology as figure 3. The typology
of market strategies for climate change has two dimensions of business
strategy: the aim (strategic intents) and the organization (the degree of
cooperation). The firms can reach their climate strategy objectives at three
degrees that do at individual company level (internal), through their own
supply chain (vertical) or together with other companies (competitors or
companies in different sectors - horizontal). The aim of firms differs and
comprises two types: innovation and compensation. For innovation selection,
firms can choose among three strategies that process improvement, product
development or new product/market combinations. For compensation selection,
there are also three strategic options comprise internal targets, control and
trading (Internal transfer of emission reductions); supply chain targets, control
and trading (supply-chain measures); or external market mechanisms
(acquisition of emission credits).
Companies choose their strategic options in climate change in the context of
global diversity policy (Grubb et al., 1999) and based on aim of their climate
change strategies (Kolk and Pinkse, 2004). The typology shows that companies
can choose innovation that executing their own activities or compensation.
Regarding innovation, companies can reduce energy, use higher energy
efficiency, and measure to reduce greenhouse gases emissions by developing
and implementing new energy-efficient technologies (process improvement
strategies). Companies can also either focus on product development strategies
by reducing emission of current products and/or developing new energyefficient products or on new product/market combinations strategies through
entering new markets by strategic alliance and other forms of cooperation with
other companies.
8
Figure 3: Strategic Options for Climate Change
Organization
Internal (company)
Vertical (supply chain)
Horizontal (beyond the supply
chain)
Main aim
Innovation
Compensation
Process improvement
(1)
Product Development
(3)
New Product/Market
Combinations (5)
Internal transfer of
emission reductions (2)
Supply-Chain Measures
(4)
Acquisition of Emission
Credits (6)
Source: Kolk and Pinkse (2004)
Unlike innovation, compensation strategy focuses on using emission reduction
or low-emission technologies created by others. Companies can select internal
transfer of emission reductions strategies by transferring intensive-emission
activities to locations where pressure to reduce emission are not yet stringent.
Companies may use supply-chain measures strategies that replacing inputs
with lower emissions (for example, purchasing electricity from renewable
energy sources) or transferring high-emission activities to partners by
subcontracting (for example, subcontracting transportation). Finally,
companies can archive reductions by using acquisition of emission credits
strategies. By applying these strategies, companies interact with other to
reduce emission either by buying emission credits or by other forms of offsets,
through mechanisms such as Joint Implementation or Clean Development
Mechanism.
Although Kolk and Pinkse (2004)’s model provides a set of market strategies of
companies responding to climate change, it may not fully sufficient to use to
measure responses of firms in developing countries. That model was developed
based on CDP2002 data of FT500 list. As the nature of the FT500, this is the
list of 500 largest multinational corporations in Financial Times ranking so it
can fully confirm that this model is representative of multinational
corporations in developed countries rather than those in developing countries.
This research, therefore, will be based on these strategies to develop the
instrument and then be adjusted and verified based on an empirical survey
that will be conducted in a developing countries. Moreover, in order to select
all six strategies of Kolk and Pinkse (2004), the last strategy, acquisition of
emission credits should be aware of both in terms of the sellers (for example,
local companies) or buyer (for example, subsidiaries of multinational
corporations) and renames as emission credit trading.

Non-market strategies
For the business’s political strategy (non-market strategies) on climate change,
although many studies have focused on the type of business involved, the
9
impact of industry on corporate’s political strategy (Levy and Egan, 2003;
Pulver, 2002; Kolk, 2001), and political standpoint of business in different
regions (Levy and Rothenberg, 2001; Kolk and Levy, 2001, 2004; Levy and
Kolk, 2002; Le Menestrel et al., 2002), there is few research identify and
classify types of political strategies of business (Kolk and Pinkse, 2007). In the
wider of business’s political strategy, Hilman and Hitt (1999) proposed a model
with three strategies: information strategy, financial incentive strategy and
constituency building strategy. For information strategy, companies seek to
impact public policy by providing policy makers specific information about
their views. The tactics used in this strategy includes lobbying, report the
results of surveys and research, providing technical reports and use the thinktank to provide research reports to policy makers. Instead of providing
information, a financial incentive strategy uses financial incentives to
persuade policy makers to support the company's position. Companies those
choose the financial incentive strategy often contribute finance to a political
party or a particular policy maker. Finally, while the strategic information and
financial incentive strategy impact directly policy makers through the
providing information or financial contributions, constituency-building
strategy influence policy makers by acquiring support of individual voters.
Companies can use the media, public relations to persuade voters to support
their activities, with the aim then the voters will express their political opinion
to policy maker (Hilman and Hitt, 1999).
Based on the model of Hilman and Hitt (1999), Kolk and Pinkse (2007) have
tested in the context of climate change (using raw data of Carbon Disclosure
Project 2004), with 117 firms of the 500 largest multinationals worldwide (The
Financial Times Global 500 - FT500 list) and found that both financial
incentive strategy and constituency building strategy are not common in the
case of climate change, while some activities of information strategy is strongly
preferred by companies such as market-based polices and voluntary
initiatives. Kolk and Pinkse (2007) then proposed three types of political
strategies of multinational corporations, including: information strategy,
changing expert opinion strategy and self-regulation strategy. With an
information strategy in climate change contest, companies try to influence
policy makers to build policy types that they preferred. The well-known
activities include involving with governments to build and launch emissions
trading schemes, or lobbying their governments. Influence of expert opinion
strategy stand on argument that firms from the U.S. and Australia have found
the existence of political uncertainty on the impact of climate change in their
home countries, therefore these companies attempt to influence the opinions of
experts and political activists through their research activities or support
researches on the effects of climate change to business and society. Companies
from the U.S. and Australia consequently dominate this strategy. Selfregulation strategy is the most widely chosen by multinational corporations
and implemented through the establishment of voluntary targets to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions and measures to achieve them. There are wide
ranges of activities of self-regulation from voluntary membership of business
group to participating in international organizations such as IETA or UN’s
10
Global Compact or working at firms themselves to set voluntary targets to
reduce the emissions (Kolk and Pinkse, 2007).
Models of Hilman and Hitt (1999) and Kolk and Pinkse (2007) still have its
limitations and could be not fully sufficient for this study. Changing expert
opinion strategy is the specific strategy of firms from the U.S. and Australia
(Kolk and Pinkse, 2007), and firms in developing countries therefore might not
adopt it. Moreover, unlike developed countries, the Kyoto Protocol does not
bind emissions targets for developing countries, so there is not too much
pressure for the establishment of emissions trading schemes, and the
emissions policy greenhouse gases are also not too strict at these countries.
Therefore, activities such as policy inputs or lobbying in the information
strategy is expected do not occur explicitly in the developing countries. Other
activities of firms such as educating the public about climate change or
informing to shareholders about their efforts to meet the guidelines of the
Kyoto Protocol may be the main activities in the information strategy of firms
in developing countries. And obviously, without pressures of regulations, selfregulation strategy is expected to be the most widely implemented by firms in
developed countries.
In summary, there are eight climate change strategies have been refined from
the literature, including six market strategies (entitled process improvement,
product development, new product/market combinations, internal transfer of
emission reductions, supply-chain measures and emission credit trading) and
two non-market strategy (entitled information strategy and self-regulation
strategy). These strategies will be selected to add to the instrument and will be
tested experimentally in a developing country in the next stage of the study.
The next section will discuss previous continuum models to identify
appropriate classification of implementation levels of GGE strategies of firms
in developing countries.
2.3. Continuum models of climate change strategy
Continuum models describe the development of environmental management
over the time, relied on the underlying notion that firms across a number of
stages in their development. A continuum model in climate change thus
illustrates the levels of implementation of firms regarding to their adopted
climate change strategies.
Studies on environmental management has noted a significant number of
continuums describe the stages that companies go through or levels of
response of companies to environment (e.g. Buysse and Verbeke, 2003;
Clarkson, 1995; Hunt and Auster, 1990; Roome, 1992; Hart, 1995;
Shrivastava, 1995). A few recent researches on classification the levels of
business responses to climate change have been conducted based on previous
environmental continuums (see Kolk and Pinkse, 2005; Jeswani et al., 2008).
In particular, the most notable are three models of Kolk (2000), Kolk and
Pinkse (2005) and Jeswani et al. (2008). Table 2 (cf. appendix) recaps three
existing models with highlighting on levels of implementation, data and its
limitation.
11
The early continuum model regarding business responses to climate change
had been developed by Kolk (2000) to classify the levels of climate change
strategies of multinational corporations since the mid-1990s. With a view that
is very difficult to distinguish two last categories, "accommodative" and
"proactive", in the context of climate change in the SDAP model of Clarkson
(1995), Kolk (2000) have proposed a three-stage continuum model namely
"defensive", "opportunistic/hesitant" and "offensive". Multinationals choose the
defensive strategy express opposition to the global climate change agreements
and stress the financial burden to reduce emissions and argue that the
scientific evidence on global warming is not convincing. In the
opportunistic/hesitant strategy, companies show not necessary to do proactive
and not need to take risks but have prepared for themselves regulations and
market changes to meet requirements if necessary. Finally, companies follow
the offensive strategy express their responsibility on environmental issues and
actively offer market opportunities and increase their image within
stakeholders.
The highlight of this model is inclusive of the elements of environmental
management, comprises the perception of environmental influence and its
scientific evidence (Roome, 1992), the risks’ involvement (Rondinelli and
Vastag, 1996) and market opportunities formed through the implementation of
environmental protection activities (Steger, 1993). This model had its value in
the period that the issue of climate change had emerged. Many companies had
vigorously pursued through defensive strategic by lobbying against regulations
measure emissions. When the climate change issue has converted more
mature, strategic choices of companies have become more diverse; this model
consequently has been no longer appropriate to cover climate change
strategies of business.
Within six strategic options in Kolk and Pinkse’s model (cf. figure 3.2),
companies can also pursue some options concurrently. From cluster analysis of
139 multinational corporations in the Financial Times Global 500 list, Carbon
Disclosure Project2002 (CDP 2002), Kolk and Pinkse (2005) proposed six
groups of companies with different characteristics: cautious planners (31%,
have low score in all of six strategic options, preparing for action and not much
activity); emergent planners (36%, established a process to develop a
comprehensive climate strategy in coming years, focused internally in internal
transfer of emission reductions strategy in box 2); internal explorers (14%,
having strong internal focus, combining targets and improvements into
manufacturing process, involving boxes 1, 2, 4 and 6); vertical explorers (10%,
focusing on emissions reductions within the supply chain through product
development and supply chain measures, box 3 and 4); horizontal explorers
(5%, exploring in markets outside industry and cooperating with partners by
development new product and/or market combination, box 5); emissions
traders (4%, engaging in emissions trading markets by buying or selling
emission credits, box 2 and 6).
Jeswani et al. (2008) categorized companies to four groups as indifferent,
beginner, emerging and active. Companies those are classified as indifferent
are apathetic or concentered with issues and regulations regarding
12
environment. Management is not aware of environmental issues and impacts
of climate change. These companies do not have environmental management
systems as well as environmental certification. The initial activities related to
climate change, such as measurement, monitoring and inventory of emissions
has not been prepared. Beginners are companies that have begum some
operations regarding environmental management but they are just in the
early stage. These companies tend to focus on increasing energy efficiency
through environmental projects with low investment and high return. The
third groups, emerging, include companies with more diverse activities than
beginner but are not yet demonstrated the commitment of an active company.
Although not the pioneer organizations, these companies are aware of their
energy efficiency and the impacts of climate change to business and society,
but their operations have still limited and not met requirements. The
companies operate a variety of activities related to reducing greenhouse gas
emissions and prepare inventory of greenhouse gases, setting emission
reduction targets, preparing response policy. They also collaborate with other
organizations to sign agreements reducing emissions and participating in
emissions trading. The ‘active’ companies actively carry out activities related
to environmental management with a complete environmental management
system integrated with their other business strategies. These companies
perform a variety of activities from changing production processes, improving
existing products or develop new products for consuming energy efficiently, to
using renewable energy sources. With respect to greenhouse gases emissions,
the ‘active’ companies have not only prepare inventories, measured and
planned to mitigate emissions, but also actively involved with outside
stakeholders to participate in the voluntary programs to study the impacts and
engaged in emission markets (Jeswani et al., 2008).
The classifications of Kolk and Pinkse (2005) and Jeswani et al. (2008) have
significant differences in the nature of the business. Kolk and Pinkse (2005)
focused on the Financial Times Global 500 list of CDP 2002 to classify the
levels of response to climate change of business. In fact, the companies had
replied to the request for information of the Carbon Disclosure Project and
voluntarily provided requested information relating to their climate change
activities. Lowest level in the model of Kolk and Pinkse (2005) therefore is
'cautious planners’ that the companies are prepared to act but not much
activity. In contrast, the classification of Jeswani et al. (2008) was developed
based on random companies with different degrees from ‘indifferent’ to the
‘active’. The classification of Jeswani et al. (2008)’s model, hence, can be used
to refer to classifying the levels of business responses regarding climate
change in developing countries.
3. Model Development
3.1. Rationales and purposes for development
13
Recent researches indicate that responses of firms to climate change in
developed countries, both multinational corporations and local companies, may
be different between countries and different from those developing countries
(Kolk and Pinkse, 2004). Climate change strategies of firms, therefore, will be
different between developed and developing countries. This suggests that a
model of GGE strategies that developed from firms in developed countries will
be not fully present for those in developing countries. In fact, from literature
review, the existing models are not fully represented for GGE strategies of
firms in developing countries in some ways.
First of all, while the model of Kolk (2000) is no longer appropriate to cover
climate change strategies of firms, some of others include strategies that don’t
happen in developing countries such as changing expert opinion strategy, and
establishment of emissions trading schemes strategy in the model of Kolk and
Pinske (2007), and acquisition of emission credits in the model of Kolk and
Pinkse (2004). Additionally, model of Levy and Kolk (2002) focuses only on
publicity strategies rather than actual climate change strategies that
undertaken by companies. Moreover, five per six models have been developed
based on data of developed countries and three of them used voluntary
disclosures of MNCs in Carbon Disclosure Project. Data of these models were
not covered firms in developing countries and these models have not been
tested in context of developing countries. However, some of other strategies of
these models can happen in businesses in developing countries.
The main purpose for developing the instrument is help to identify various
types of activity and assess the levels of implementation of these activities of
companies operating in developing countries. The instrument comprises GGE
activities can applied in developing countries that selected from existing
models and will reject activities that can only happen in developed countries or
in some specific countries. For activities can be applied for both developed and
developing countries, its will be re-described in developing countries context.
3.2. Justification of elements of the new framework
The instrument will be developed relied on the existing models regarding to
business responses to climate change and questionnaires of Carbon Disclosure
Project (CDP) that have developed since 2002. Together with the clarifying
strategies, climate change activities of these strategies will be indicated. These
activities will be then compared with activities in the CDP’s questionnaires in
order to determine its suitability.
The CDP questionnaire was first used in 2002 and has been updated over the
years to meet growing demands for climate change information. Up to 2012,
CDP has developed ten questionnaires. Because of constant changes and
updates, the CDP questionnaires might not be a proper instrument to measure
the climate change activities of business. These changes and updates over the
years, however, have led to climate change activities in each questionnaire
were updated. Therefore these questionnaires are suitable to use as a
benchmark for this step. Based on the defined strategies and its activities on
14
climate change, a questionnaire will proposed to measure the climate change
activities of businesses in developing countries.
To formulate the instrument, all existing models regarding to business
responses to climate change have been reviewed and summarized in table 2
and 3 (cf. appendix). The result this step is gathered eight appropriate GGE
strategies, and one classification model for classifying levels of
implementation. The eight GGE strategies include six market strategies
(named process improvement, product development, new product/market
combinations, internal transfer of emission reductions, supply-chain measures
and emission credit trading) and two non-market strategies (information
strategy and self-regulation strategy). And the classification is Jeswani et al.
(2008)’s model with four levels of implementation namely indifferent,
beginner, emerging and active. Descriptions of these strategies and levels are
illustrated in table 3 (in the appendix).
Based on descriptions of the eight strategies and (as presented in table 3),
climate change activities corresponding to each strategy are also identified and
then examined whether these activities appear in the CDP’s questionnaires or
not. Table 4 (cf. appendix) describes emergence of these climate change
activities in the CDP’s questionnaires. All of nine CDP’s questionnaires were
assessed carefully and if there is at least one activity or a strategies’
characteristic the conclusion is “yes”, otherwise is “no”. In fact, although there
are four strategies did not appear in CDP1 (2002) (the first year CDP sent
information request to companies), and there is also one strategy that is not
mentioned in CDP’s questionnaires in 2005, 2006 and 2007; from 2008 to 2011
all of eight strategies are mentioned in the questionnaires.
Considering the frequency, while “Information Strategy” is the highest
frequency that did not appear in questionnaires in three years (2002, 2005 and
2007), “Internal Transfer of Emission Reductions” did not appear in the CDP
2002 and CDP 2006, and two other strategies, “Process improvement” and
“New Product / Market Combinations” was not mentioned in 2002; all of four
remaining strategies comprise “Self-Regulation strategy”, “Product
Development”, “Supply-Chain Measures” and “Emission Credits Trading” were
mentioned in all CDP’s questionnaires. These give us a proof that the eight
strategies and its activities on climate change was mentioned in the
questionnaires that CDP has done for years by firms. Consequently, these
strategies and its activities perfectly suited to develop the instrument.
Furthermore, through carefully reviewing the CDP’s questionnaires, questions
corresponding to the activities are collected to develop questions of the
instrument. The questions of the instrument are then grouped into related
strategies.
3.3. The instrument
Table 5 (cf. appendix) illustrates the questions were developed based on the
above principles and it serves the instrument for identifying the various types
activities adopted by companies to reduce GGE in developing countries and
15
help to measure the levels of implementation of these strategies. The
instrument comprises thirty GGE activities (thirty questions) in eight
strategies. In order to reduce the impact on respondents as well as to be not
bound to the strategies, name of strategies are translated to name of activities’
groups and when conducting empirical study, its will be removed from the
questionnaire.
The instrument then will be used to ask respondents to identify the extent of
implementation for each GGE activities on a five-point scale with 1 = "don't
have any plan", 2 = "have a/some plan(s) but not yet implemented", 3 = "are
beginning to implement", 4 = "ongoing implementation but not yet evaluated",
5 = "has implemented and evaluated results".
4. Conclusion
This instrument is first introduced to help explore business response to
climate change in developing countries. The instrument then will be applied to
an empirical study. Adjustments if any will help to complete the instrument
and can be applied in other developing countries.
Right after this stage, based on literature review we will develop hypotheses
and then conduct the empirical research in Vietnam5. Drawing on primary
data from the survey, this study will be conducted through the statistical
approach. Survey design, analysis methods and data collection procedure will
be also developed before carrying out data collection. The questionnaire and
the measurements are used to determine the appropriate statistical analysis
techniques to analyze the survey results later. A pilot testing then is
conducted to verify the questionnaire and concepts before the data collection
happen. Finally, the analysis phase of the research will be conducted to testing
hypotheses.
5
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has divided countries into broad
groups: developed countries (also known as Annex I) and developing countries (non-Annex I). In this
classification, Vietnam belongs to group of developing countries and is selected as case to gather empirical
data for this study. Although Vietnam along cannot represent all developing countries, this country could be
seen as indicative of their UNFCCC group as sharing key characteristics with other countries in the same
group. Vietnam itself is a developing country with GDP growth on average 7.02% in 5 years from 2006 to
2010 (GSO, 2010) and present a full range of business sectors. Firms those operating in Vietnam are quite
diverse and are divided into three categories of ownership to meet the needs of the information collected in
this study: state-owner, private and FDI companies.
16
Appendix
Table 1: Brief Summary of Climate Change Strategy Classification Literature:
The Climate Change Strategies
Table 2: Brief Summary of Climate Change Strategy Classification Literature:
The Levels of Implementation
Table 3: Description of Strategies
Table 4: Comparison Strategies and Its Activities with CDP's Questionnaire
Table 5: The Instrument for Measuring Climate Change Strategies of Firms in
Developing Countries
17
Table 1: Brief Summary of Climate Change Strategy Classification Literature: The Climate Change Strategies
Type of
Classification
Typology
Type of Climate
Change Strategy
Market strategy
Climate Change
Strategies
Resistant; Compliant;
Avoidant; and proactive
Kolk and
Pinkse
(2004)
Typology
Market strategy
Kolk and
Pinkse
(2007)
Typology
Nonmarket/political
strategy
Source
Levy and
Kolk
(2002)
Data
Countries
Limitations
Multinationals in oil
industry: BP, Exxon,
Shell and Texaco
Europe and
US
Focus only on the publicity strategies in
climate change of companies rather than
actual climate change strategies that
undertaken by companies
Process improvement,
Internal transfer of emission
reductions; Product
Development; SupplyChain Measures; New
Product/Market
Combinations; Acquisition
of Emission Credits
CDP data: the 2002
Financial Times
Global list, 136
companies
Developed
countries
Based on CDP2002 data of FT500 list
so it can fully confirm that this model is
representative of multinational
corporations in developed countries
rather businesses in developing
countries.
Information strategy;
Changing expert opinion
strategy and; Selfregulation strategy
Financial Times
Global 500 list,
Carbon Disclosure
Project 2007, 117
firms
Developed
countries
Changing expert opinion strategy is the
specific strategy of firms from the U.S.
and Australia (Kolk and Pinkse, 2007);
the establishment of emissions trading
schemes, and the emissions policy
greenhouse gases are not too strict at
developing countries
18
Table 2: Brief Summary of Climate Change Strategy Classification Literature: The Levels of Implementation
Type of
Classification
Continuum
Type of Climate Levels of
Change Strategy Implementation
NA
Defensive;
Opportunistic/Hesitant
and; Offensive
Kolk and
Pinkse
(2005)
Continuum
NA
Jeswani et
al. (2008)
Continuum
NA
Source
Kolk
(2000)
Data
Countries
Limitations
Case study
Developed
countries
When the climate change issue has
converted more mature, strategic
choices of companies have become
more diverse, this model consequently
has been no longer appropriate to cover
climate change strategies of business
Cautious planners;
Emergent planners;
Internal explorers;
Vertical explorers;
Horizontal explorers;
Emissions traders
Financial Times Global
500 list, Carbon
Disclosure Project 2002,
136 companies
Developed
countries
The companies had replied to the
request for information of the Carbon
Disclosure Project and voluntarily
provided requested information
relating to their climate change
activities. Lowest level in the model
of Kolk and Pinkse (2005) therefore is
'cautious planners’ that the companies
are prepared to act but not much
activity.
Indifferent; Beginner;
Emerging, and; Active
Questionnaires were sent
by mail, 180 companies
responded (72/450 from
Pakistan and 108/1028
from the UK) in nine
major sectors, i.e. cement,
chemical, pulp & paper,
food & drink, automotive,
power stations, oil & gas
installations, steel and
textile.
UK and
Pakistan
Have not yet considered type of
emergent climate change strategies to
reduce GGE that business has adopted
as well as explore country of origin
effect, and home-host country effect
on selection GGE strategies of
business in developing countries
19
Table 3: Description of Strategies
Non-market strategies (political strategies)
Strategies
Hilman
& Hitt
(1999)
Financial incentive
strategy
x
Constituency
building strategy
x
Information strategy
x
Levy &
Kolk
(2002)
Kolk &
Pinkse
(2004)
Kolk &
Pinkse
(2007)
Description
A financial incentive strategy uses financial incentives
to persuade policy makers to support the company's
position. Companies those choose the financial
incentive strategy often contribute finance to a
political party or a particular policy maker.
Constituency-building strategy influence policy
makers by acquiring support of individual voters.
Companies can use the media, public relations to
persuade voters to support their activities, with the aim
then the voters will express their political opinion to
policy maker
x
For information strategy, companies seek to impact
public policy by providing policy makers specific
information about their views. The tactics used in this
strategy includes lobbying, report the results of
surveys and research, providing technical reports and
use the think-tank to provide research reports to policy
makers (Hilman and Hitt, 1999). With an information
strategy in climate change contest, companies try to
influence policy makers to build policies that they
preferred. The well-known activities include involving
with governments to build and launch emissions
trading schemes, or lobbying their governments (Kolk
and Pinkse, 2007); educating the public about climate
change or informing to shareholders about their efforts
to meet the guidelines of the Kyoto Protocol.
Be selected to
the
instrument?
Why/why not?
No
Climate change is a volunteer
activity and polices of emissions
greenhouse gases are not too strict at
developing countries. Therefor these
strategies are expected do not occur
explicitly in these countries
No
Activities of firms such as educating
the public about climate change or
informing to shareholders about their
efforts to meet the guidelines of the
Kyoto Protocol may be the main
activities in the information strategy
of firms in developing countries
Yes
(To be continued in the next page)
20
Table 3: Description of Strategies (cont.)
Market strategies
Non-market strategies (political strategies)
Strategies
Hilman
& Hitt
(1999)
Levy
&
Kolk
(2002)
Changing expert
opinion strategy
Self-regulation
strategy
Resistant
x
Proactive
x
Compliant
x
Avoidant
x
Kolk
&
Pinkse
(2004)
Kolk
&
Pinkse
(2007)
Description
x
Changing expert opinion strategy stand on argument
that firms (from the U.S. and Australia) have found the
existence of political uncertainty on the impact of
climate change in their home countries, therefore these
companies attempt to influence the opinions of experts
and political activists through their research activities or
support researches on the effects of climate change to
business and society.
x
Self-regulation strategy is implemented through the
establishment of voluntary targets to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions and measures to achieve them. There are
wide ranges of activities of self-regulation from
voluntary membership of business group to
participating in international organizations such as
IETA or UN’s Global Compact or working at firms
themselves to set voluntary targets to reduce the
emissions.
Companies with resistant strategy are uncooperative but
assertive. These companies opposed and for mandatory
emissions controls and investment in renewable energy
technologies
Companies with proactive strategy are cooperative and
assertive. These companies they pioneer in climate
change mitigation activities support for mandatory
emissions controls and investment in renewable energy
technologies.
Companies with compliant is cooperative but
unassertive.
Companies with avoidant are unassertive and
uncooperative.
Be selected to
the
instrument?
No
Why/why not?
This is the specific strategy of
firms in the U.S. and Australia to
influence the opinions of experts
and political activists because their
home countries have the existence
of political uncertainty on the
impact of climate change
Without pressures of regulations,
self-regulation strategy is expected
to be the most widely implemented
by firms in developed countries.
Yes
No
No
This model had its value in the
period that the issue of climate
change had emerged. When the
climate change issue has converted
more mature, strategic choices of
companies have become more
diverse; this model consequently
has been no longer appropriate to
cover climate change strategies of
business.
No
No
(To be continued in the next page)
21
Table 3: Description of Strategies (cont.)
Strategies
Process
improvement
Internal transfer of
emission
reductions
Market strategies
Product
Development
Supply-Chain
Measures
New Product/
Market
Combinations
(Acquisition of
Emission Credits)
Emission Credits
Trading
Hilman
& Hitt
(1999)
Levy &
Kolk
(2002)
Kolk &
Pinkse
(2004)
x
x
x
x
x
x
Kolk &
Pinkse
(2007)
Description
In process improvement strategy, companies can
reduce energy, use higher energy efficiency, and
measure to reduce greenhouse gases emissions by
developing and implementing new energyefficient technologies.
Companies can select internal transfer of emission
reductions strategies by transferring intensiveemission activities to locations where pressure to
reduce emission are not yet stringent.
Pursuing product development strategy,
companies can reduce emission of current
products and/or developing new energy-efficient
products.
Companies may use supply-chain measure
strategies that replacing inputs with lower
emissions (e.g. purchasing electricity from
renewable energy sources) or transferring highemission activities to partners by subcontracting
(e.g. subcontracting transportation).
Companies those choose new product/market
combinations strategy can archive the emission
target by entering new markets though strategic
alliance and other forms of cooperation with other
companies.
Companies can archive reductions by using
acquisition of emission credits strategies. By
applying these strategies, companies interact with
other to reduce emission either by buying emission
credits or by other forms of offsets, through
mechanisms such as Joint Implementation or
Clean Development Mechanism.
Be selected to
the
instrument?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Why/why not?
Major strategy for business both
developed and developing
countries
MNC transfers intensive-emission
activities to developing countries
Major strategy for business both
developed and developing
countries
Developing countries are chains in
supply-chain of MNC
Yes
Yes
Yes but need to
be adjusted as
"Emission
Credits
Trading"
Major strategy for business both
developed and developing
countries
In context of developing countries,
domestic companies can choose
this strategy as a sellers those will
receive investment from
multinationals and multinationals
will be the buyers those want to
archive the target credits.
22
Table 4: Comparison Strategies and Its Activities with CDP's Questionnaire
Strategies
Information strategy
Self-regulation strategy
Process improvement
Internal transfer of
emission reductions
Product Development
Supply-Chain Measures
New Product/Market
Combinations
(Acquisition of
Emission Credits)
Emission credits trading
Typical Activities
Policy input; lobby practices; educating the public on
climate change
Membership of international climate change institution
(such as UN's Global Compact or IETA); Voluntary
participation in business groups initiated by NGOs, trade
associations, government (agencies), or companies;
Setting voluntary targets to reduce emissions or measures
to archive them.
Reducing energy, using higher energy efficiency, and
measuring to reduce greenhouse gases emissions by
developing and implementing new energy-efficient
technologies
Transferring intensive-emission activities to locations
where pressure to reduce emission are not yet stringent
Reducing emission of current products and/or developing
new energy-efficient products
Replacing inputs with lower emissions (purchasing energy
from renewable energy sources) or transferring highemission activities to partners by subcontracting
(subcontracting transportation).
Entering new markets by strategic alliance and other
forms of cooperation with other companies.
Interacting with other to reduce emission by
buying/selling emission credits or other forms of offsets,
through mechanisms such as Joint Implementation or
Clean Development Mechanism
CDP1
2002
CDP2
2003
CDP3
2005
CDP4
2006
CDP5
2007
CDP6
2008
CDP7
2009
CDP8
2010
CDP9
2011
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Note:
"No" means CDP's questionnaire did not mention activity or activities of respective strategy
"Yes" means CDP's questionnaire mentioned activity or activities of respective strategy
23
Table 5: The Instrument for Measuring Climate Change Strategies of Firms in
Developing Countries
Information related
1. Engaging with policy makers to encourage further action on
mitigation and/or adaptation.
2. Engaging with policy makers on possible responses to climate
change including taxation, regulation and carbon trading.
3. Launching education and awareness programs for consumers to
reduce impacts from products.
4. Publishing information about your company’s response to climate
change/GHG emissions via reports such as the company’s Annual
Report or Corporate Social Responsibility report.
Self-regulation
5. Membership of international climate change institution (such as
UN's Global Compact or IETA)
6. Participation in climate change business groups initiated by NGOs,
trade associations, government (agencies), or companies
7. Having an emissions and/or energy reduction target(s) that was
active (ongoing or reached completion)
8. Measuring the emission associated with the use of the products and
services produced by your company
9. Measuring the emission associated with the disposal of the
products and services produced by your company
10. Measuring the emission of your products generated along the
supply chain
Process related
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
17. Transferring intensive-emission activities to locations (across
borders) where pressures to reduce emission are not yet stringent.
1
2
3
4
5
18. Transferring emission credits among business units.
1
2
3
4
5
19. Integrating targets for emissions into investment decisions for
new projects.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
11. Investment in low-carbon or renewable energy
12. Reducing energy by developing and implementing new energyefficient equipment
13. Reducing energy by change in process technology or process
modifications
14. Getting any certificates, e.g. Renewable Energy Certificates,
associated with zero or low carbon electricity
15. Changing in behavior of employees designed to reduce
greenhouse gases emissions (e.g. double-sided printing, reduction in
travelling, recycling waste)
16. Evaluating new projects and their alternative on the basis of the
net increase of GHG emissions
Internal transfer of emission
Product related
20. Reducing emission of current products by change in product
specifications
24
Product related (cont.)
21. Reducing emission of current products by change in specification
of input materials
1
2
3
4
5
22. Developing new energy-efficient products
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Supply-Chain Measures
23. Establishing technology and research alliance with other
companies in your supply-chain system
24. Make agreement with other companies in your supply-chain
system to use waste as a gas
25. Replacing inputs with lower emissions (e.g. purchasing energy
from renewable energy sources)
26. Transferring high-emission activities to partners by
subcontracting (e.g. subcontracting transportation).
New Product/Market Combinations
27. Entering new markets by strategic alliance and other forms of
cooperation with other companies to develop low-carbon emission
products (e.g. the cooperation between oil and automobile companies
on fuel cells)
28. Trading or a broker in the upcoming emission markets where
companies buy/sell or arrange the sale of emission credits between
companies.
Emission credits trading
29. Buying emission credits or other forms of offsets, through
mechanisms such as Joint Implementation/Clean Development
Mechanism (JI/CDM) or EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS)
30. Selling emission credits or other forms of offsets, through
mechanisms such as Joint Implementation/Clean Development
Mechanism (JI/CDM) or EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS)
25
References
Andresen, S., and Agrawala, S. 2002. Leaders, pushers and laggards in the
marking of the climate regime. Global Environmental Change, 12: 41-51.
Andronova, N., et all. 2007. “The concept of climate sensitivity: history and
development”. In Michael E. Schlesinger, Et all. Eds. Human-Induced
Climate Change An Interdisciplinary Assessment: 5-17, Cambridge
University Press, New York.
Ans
Kolk, Jonatan Pinkse, (2007a) "Towards strategic stakeholder
management? Integrating perspectives on sustainability challenges such
as corporate responses to climate change", Corporate Governance, Vol. 7
Iss: 4, pp.370 - 378
Baron, D.P. (1995) Integrated strategy: market and nonmarket components.
California Management Review 37(2), 47–65.
Baumert, K.A., Herzog, T. and Pershing, J. (2005), Navigating the Numbers
Greenhouse Gas Data and International Climate Policy, World Resources
Institute,
USA.
http://www.wri.org/climate/pubs_description.cfm?pid=4093
[15
July
2011].
Bodansky, D. 2001. The History of the Global Climate Regime. I: Luterbacher,
U. & Sprinz, D. (red.): International Relations and Global Climate
Change (s. 23-40). MIT Press.
Boehmer-Christiansen, Sonja A. 1996. The International Research Enterprise
and Global Environmental Change. In The Environment and
International Relations, edited byJohn Vogler and Mark F. Imber.
London: Routledge.
Bonardi, J.-P., & Keim, G. D. (2005). Corporate political strategies for widely
salient issues. Academy of Management Review, 30(3), 555-576.
Brewer, T. L. (2005). Climate change in the US government budget–Funding
for technology and other programmes, and implications for EU-US
relations. Brussels: CEPS.
Buchner, B. 2005. The Dynamics of the Climate Negotiations: a Focus on the
Developments and Outcomes from The Hague to Delhi. In M. Bothe and
E. Rehbinder, eds., Climate Change Policy, Eleven International
Publishing: The Netherlands, p. 19-43.
Busby, J., & Ochs, A. (2004). From Mars and Venus down to earth:
Understanding the transatlantic climate divides. In D. Michel (Ed.),
Climate policy for the 21st century: Meeting the long-term challenge of
global warming (pp. 35-76). Washington, DC: Center for Transatlantic
Relations.
26
Buysse, K. and A. Verbeke (2003). "Proactive environmental strategies: a
stakeholder management perspective." Strategic Management Journal
24(5): 453-470.
Carpenter, C. 2001. Business Green groups and the Media: The Role of NonGovernmental Organizations in the Climate Debate. International Affairs
(Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944- ) 77(2): 313-328.
Christiansen, A. C., & Wettestad, J. (2003). The EU as a frontrunner on
greenhouse gas emissions trading: how did it happen and will the EU
succeed? Climate Policy, 3(1), 3-18.
Clarkson M. B. E., ‘A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating
corporate
social
performance’. Academy
of
Management
Review, 20 (1995), pp. 92–117
Cogan, D. G.: 2006, Corporate Governance and Climate Change: Making the
Connection (Ceres, Boston).
Dlugolecki, A. and M. Keykhah (2002). "Climate change and the insurance
sector: Its role in adaptation and mitigation." Greener Management
International(39): 83-98.
Doty D, Glick W. 1994. Typologies as a unique form of theory building: toward
improved understanding and modeling. Academy of Management Review
19: 230–251.
Dunn S. 2002. Down to business on climate change: an overview of corporate
strategies. Greener Management International 39: 27–41.
Eberlein, B. and B. Doern: 2009, ‘German and Canadian Multi-Level Energy
Regulatory Governance’, in B. Eberlein and B. Doern (eds.), Governing
the Energy Challenge: Canada and Germany in a Multilevel Regional
and Global Context (University of Toronto Press, Toronto), pp. 3–37.
Fisher, Dana R. 2004. National Governance and the Global Climate Change
Regime. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers
Florida R. 1996. Lean and green: the move to environmentally conscious
manufacturing. California Management Review 39: 80–105.
General Statistics Office, SSO, 2010. Accounts and State Budget. In Statistical
yearbook
of
Vietnam.
http://www.gso.gov.vn/Modules/Doc_Download.aspx?DocID=14406
[10
October 2011]
Grubb M, Vrolijk C, Brack D. 1999. The Kyoto Protocol – a Guide and
Assessment. Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA)–Earthscan:
London.
Hamilton, K., Brewer, T.L., Aiba, T., Sugiyama, T. and Drexhage, J. (2003)
Corporate Engagement in US, Canada, the EU and Japan and the
Influence of Domestic and International Policy. RIIA, London.
Hardy, John T. 2003. “Climate Change: Causes, Effects, and Solutions”, John
Wiley & Sons: Chishester.
27
Hart, S. (1995). A natural resource-based view of the firm. Academy of
Management Review, 20(4), 986-1014.
Hass J. 1996. Environmental (‘green’) management typologies: an evaluation,
operationalization and empirical development. Business Strategy and the
Environment 5: 59–68.
Hillman, A. J., & Hitt, M. A. (1999). Corporate political strategy formulation:
A model of approach, participation, and strategy decisions. Academy of
Management Review, 24(4), 825-842.
Hoffman AJ. 1999. Institutional evolution and change: environmentalism and
the U.S. chemical industry. Academy of Management Journal 42: 351–
371.
Hoffman AJ. 2001. Linking organizational and field-level analyses – the
diffusion of corporate environmental practice. Organization and
Environment 14: 133–156.
Hoffman, A. J., 2002, Examining the Rhetoric: The Strategic Implications of
Climate Change Policy, Corporate Environmental Strategy, Vol. 9, No. 4.
(December 2002), pp. 329-337.
Hoffman, A. J.: 2005, ‘Climate Change Strategy: The Business Logic behind
Voluntary Greenhouse Gas Reductions’, California Management Review
47 (3), 21–46
Hoffman, A., 2004, ‘Climate change strategy: the business logic behind
voluntary greenhouse gas reductions’, Ross School of Business Paper No.
905, available at SSRN http://ssrn.com/abstract.902357.
Hoffman, A., 2007, Carbon Strategies: How Leading Companies Are Reducing
Their Climate Change Footprint, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan
Press.
Hoffman, A.J., 2006, Getting Ahead of the Curve: Corporate Strategies that
Address Climate Change. Prepared for the Pew Centre on Global Climate
Change.
Hunt, C. B. & Auster, E. R. 1990. Proactive environmental management:
Avoiding the toxic trap. Sloan Management Review, Winter: 7-18.
Ikwue and Skea, 1994 T Ikwue and J Skea, Business and the genesis of the
European Community carbon tax proposal. Business Strategy and the
Environment, 3 (1994), pp. 3–10.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2008. IPCC: mandate
and why the IPCC was created. Available at: http://www.ipcc.ch/
about/index.htm.
International Energy Agency (IEA): 2007, World Energy Outlook 2007: China
and India insights (International Energy Agency, Paris).
IPCC, 2007. Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of climate change. In: Metz, B.,
Davidson, O.R., Bosch, P.R., Dave, R., Meyer, L.A. (Eds.), Contribution of
Working Group III to the fourth assessment report of the IPCC.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York.
28
Jeswani, H. K., W. Wehrmeyer, et al. (2008). "How warm is the corporate
response to climate change? Evidence from Pakistan and the UK."
Business Strategy and the Environment 17(1): 46-60.
Jones, Ch. A. and D. L. Levy: 2007, ‘North American Business Strategies
Towards Climate Change’, European Management Journal 25 (6), 428–
440.
Kaya, O., 2008, Companies Responses to Climate Change: The Case of Turkey,
European Journal of Social Sciences 7(2).
Kolk A (2001) Multinational enterprises and international climate policy. In:
Arts B, Noorman M, Reinalda B (eds) Non-state actors in international
relations. Ashgate Publishing, Aldershot, pp 211-22
Kolk A., Levy D.L., 2001. Winds of change: corporate strategy, climate change
and oil multinationals. European Management Journal 19 (5), pp. 501509.
Kolk A., Pinkse J. 2004. Market Strategies for Climate Change. European
Management Journal 22(3):304-314.
Kolk A., Pinkse J. 2005. Business responses to climate change: Identifying
emergent strategies. California Management Review 47(3): 6-20.
Kolk A., Pinkse J. 2007b. Multinationals' political activities on climate change.
Business and Society 46(2): 201-228.
Kolk, A. (2008). Developments in corporate responses to climate change within
the past decade Economics and Management of Climate Change. B.
Hansjurgens and R. Antes, Springer New York: 221-230.
Kolk, A. and Levy, D. (2001) Winds of change: corporate strategy, climate
change and oil multinationals. European Management Journal 19(5),
501–509.
Kolk, A. and Levy, D. (2004) Multinationals and global climate change: issues
for the automotive and oil industries. In Multinationals, Environment
and Global Competition, ed. S. Lundan, pp. 171–193. Elsevier, Oxford.
Kolk, A. and Pinkse, J. (2004), ‘‘Market strategies for climate change’’,
European Management Journal, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 304-14.
Labatt, S. and White, R. R.. 2007. “Carbon finance: the financial implications
of climate change”. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey.
Le Menestrel, M., S. van den Hove and H.-C. de Bettignies: 2002, ‘Processes
and Consequences in Business Ethical Dilemmas: The Oil Industry and
Climate Change’, Journal of Business Ethics 41 (3), 251–266.
Levy and Rothenberg, 2002 D.L. Levy and S. Rothenberg, Heterogeneity and
change in environmental strategy: Technological and political responses
to climate change in the automobile industry, A.J. Hoffman, M.J.
Ventresca, Editors , Organizations, Policy and the Natural Environment:
Institutional and Strategic Perspectives, Stanford University Press,
Stanford (2002), pp. 173–193.
29
Levy D, Egan D. 2003. A neo-gramscian approach to corporate political
strategy: conflict and accommodation in the climate change negotiations.
Journal of Management Studies 40(4): 803–830.
Levy D.L., Kolk A. 2002. Strategic responses to global climate change:
Conflicting pressures on multinationals in the oil industry. Business and
Politics 4(3): pp. 275¬300.
Levy D.L., Newell P.J., 2005. The Business of Global Environmental
Governance, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Levy, D.L. (2005) Business and the evolution of the climate regime. In The
Business of Global Environmental Gover nance, (eds) P.J. Newell and
D.L. Levy. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Levy, D.L., and P. Newell (2000) ‘Oceans Apart? Business Responses to Global
Environmental Issues in Europe and the United States’, Environment
42.9 (November 2000): 8-20.
Levy, David L. and Ans Kolk (2002) “Strategic Responses to Global Climate
Change: Conflicting Pressures on Multinationals in the Oil
Industry” Business and Politics. Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 275-300
Levy, David L., and Peter J. Newell, eds. 2005. The Business of Global
Environmental Governance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Margolis, J.D. and Walsh, J.P. 2003: Misery loves companies: Rethinking
social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly 48, 268–
305.
Markussen, P., & Svendsen, G. T. (2005). Industry lobbying and the political
economy of GHG trade in the European Union. Energy Policy, 33, 245255.
Martens, P., D. McEvoy and C. Chang (2009) ‘The Climate Change Challenge:
Linking Vulnerability, Adaptation, and Mitigation’, Current Opinion in
Environmental Sustainability 1:1-5.
Martinez, L. H. 2005. Post Industrial Revolution Human Activity And Climate
Change: Why The United States Must Implement Mandatory Limits On
Industrial Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Journal Of Land Use 20, pp. 407426.
Mayer, D. O. (2000). "Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Social Responsibility
of Automakers." Business and Society Review 105(3): 347-360.
McRight A. M., Dunlap R. E., 2003, Defeating Kyoto: The conservative
movement's impact on U.S. climate change policy. Social Problems, 50:
348–373
Okereke, C., 2007, An Exploration of Motivations, Drivers and Barriers to
Carbon Management-The UK FTSE 100, European Management
Journal.
Paterson, M., 1992, Global Warming, C Thomas, Editor, The Environment in
International Relations, The Royal Institute of International Affairs,
London.
30
Pew Center: 2007, Climate Change mitigation Measures in the People’s
Republic of China, International Brief 1, April 2007 (Pew Center on
Global Climate Change, Arlington, VA).
Pinkse J. 2007. Corporate intentions to participate in emission trading .
Business Strategy and the Environment 16, pp.12-25.
Pinkse J., Kolk A. 2007. Multinational corporations and emissions trading:
strategic responses to new institutional constraints. European
Management Journal 25(6): pp. 441-452.
Pinkse, J. (2006). Business Responses to Global Climate Change. Veenendaal:
Universal Press.
Price, L., Phylipsen, G.J.M., and Worrell, E., 2000a. Energy Use and Carbon
Dioxide Emissions in the Steel Sector in Key Developing Countries:
Preliminary Sector Analysis, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
Price, L., Phylipsen, G.J.M., Sinton, J., and Worrell, E., 2000b. Energy Use
and Carbon Dioxide Emissions in the Cement Sector in Key Developing
Countries: Preliminary Sector Analysis, Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory.
Pulver S. 2002. Organising business – industry NGOs in the climate debates.
Greener Management International 39: 55–67.
Roome, N. (1992) Developing environmental management strategies. Business
Strategy and the Environment 1(1), 11–24.
Rowlands, I., 1995, The Politics of Global Atmospheric Change, Manchester:
Manchester University Press.
Schreurs, M.A. (2002), Environmental Politics in Japan, Germany, and the
United States, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Schreurs, M.A. (2003) Divergent paths — environmental policy in Germany,
the United States and Japan. Environment 45(8), 8–17.
Shrivastava P. 1995. The role of corporations in achieving ecological
sustainability. Academy of Management Review 20(4): 936-960.
Skjærseth J, Skodvin T. 2001. Climate change and the oil industry: common
problems, different strategies. Global Environmental Politics 1: 43–64.
Stanny E, Ely K. 2008. Corporate environmental disclosures about the effects
of climate change. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental
Management 15: 338–348.
Stern, N., 2009, Action and ambition for a global deal in Copenhagen. Centre
for Climate Change Economics and Policy Grantham Research Institute
for Climate Change and the Environment, in collaboration with the
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
http://www.unep.org/pdf/climatechange/actionandambitionforglobaldealin
copenhagen.pdf [1 August 2011]
UNCFCCC, 2011. UNCFCCC’s website
http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php [20 May 2010]
31
UNFCCC , United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 1992.
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf [10 May 2010]
UNFCCC, 1998, Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf [12
June 2010]
United Nations Environment Programme, UNEP, 2010.
http://www.unep.org/pdf/UNEP_CC_STRATEGY_web.pdf [1 December,
2010]
US Agency for International Development (USAID), 1990. Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and the Developing Countries: Strategic Options and the
USAID Response; a report to Congress, US Agency for International
Development, Washington, D.C.
Wehrmeyer W. 1999. Reviewing corporate environmental strategy: patterns,
positions and predicaments for an uncertain future. In Greener
Marketing: a Global Perspective on Greening Marketing Practice,
Charter M, Polonsky MJ (eds). Greenleaf: Sheffield; 41–57.
Whalley, J. and S. Walsh: 2008, Bringing the Copenhagen Global Climate
Change to Conclusions, CESifo Working Paper No. 2458, November 2008.
http://www.cesifo-group.de/portal/pls/portal/docs/1/1186672.PDF [2 Dec
2010].
World Resources Institute (WRI), 1997. Are Developing Countries Already
Doing as Much as Industrialized Countries to Slow Climate Change?,
World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C.
32