Essay Energy Policy - Final

8/2/2019 Essay Energy Policy - Final

1/26

Going Carbon Neutral - What is motivating the service

sector and what are the implications for energy policy?

Hanoch Ilsar

Assessed essay forEnergy Policy Option Dr. Nick EyreMSc. Environmental Change and Management, ECIOxford UniversityMarch 21, 2008

Word count: 4033


2/26

Index:Index:

I - Introduction ........................................................................................................................3

II - Why voluntarily going Carbon Neutral? ........................................................................5

1. Theoretical background: beyond compliance, environmental proactivity, CSR, and

political economy ......................................................................................................52. Business rationale for GHG reduction ......................................................................72.1 Operational improvement and energy efficiency: ....................................................72.2 Anticipating and influencing climate change regulations ........................................82.3 Accessing new sources of capital ..............................................................................82.4 Improving risk management ......................................................................................92.5 Elevating corporate reputation ...................................................................................92.6 Identifying new market opportunities ......................................................................102.7 Enhancing human resource management and employee morale ............................102.8 Altruism ? .................................................................................................................10

Going Carbon Neutral issues, dilemmas & controversies .............................................12

3. Defining boundaries for inventory, reporting and reduction responsibility ............134. Calculating carbon footprint .....................................................................................145. Reducing organizations emissions to become carbon neutral ................................146. The contested role of Carbon Offsetting: .................................................................15

III - What might be the implications for energy policy? ......................................................18

1. Caution first Can the voluntarism of the private sector be trusted? ...................182. Support its innovation after all! ............................................................................193. Should the government respond? .............................................................................20

IV - Conclusions ....................................................................................................................21

Appendices:Appendices:Appendix A Who is going Carbon Neutral?..............................................................................26

Appendix B The Carbon NeutralConcept........................................................................ ......28

Appendix C - Schematic frameworks to manage companys commitment to reduce GHGemission towards carbon neutrality...............................................................................................29

Appendix D prevailing standards...............................................................................................33

Tables and FiguresTables and Figures::

Table 1: Compiled business examples to reduce GHG emissions (source: Waage andStewart 2006).........................................................................................................................15

Table 2: Associated sources of controversies and uncertainties in the Carbon Neutralconcept 17

Figure 1: scenarios for corporate strategic response to new institutional constraints (Pinkseand Kolk 2007).........................................................................................................................7

Figure 2: Setting operational boundaries: the GHG protocol three scopes for companysdirect and indirect emissions (NZBCSD 2002).....................................................................14

2


3/26

Figure 3: BSRs three pronged approach to Corporate Climate Strategy (Waage andStewart 2006).........................................................................................................................14

I -I - IntroductionIntroduction

Global warming has finally drawn the attention of the private sector. Last June, Google

Inc., the Web searcher leader, had pledged that it would go Carbon Neutralby the end of

2007 (Gardner 2007), following HSBC (Wright 2006) and quiet a few others (BSR 2007,

see Appendix A for a list). Sixty percent of global executives regard climate change as

strategically important (McKinsey & Company 2008). Last year, over three quarters of the

FT500 companies reported a GHG emission reduction programme, compared to less than

half in the previous year (Innovest 2007). Yet, very few, it appears, are translating these

views into concrete action (Kolk and Hoffmann 2007). According to The Carbon Trust,

only fraction (1%) of UK firms have measured their carbon output, a key first step in any

carbon reduction strategy (BusinessGreen 2007).

Carbon Neutral(or Climate Neutraland other synonyms) is a highly contested concept

(see Appendix B), especially in regard to defining its boundaries, timeframe and stages

(Keay-Bright 2007). In Simplified terms, and for the purpose of this paper, a carbon

neutralorganisation is one which is in the process of effectively reducing its net emissions

to zero. Many enterprises which challenge the traditional civil societyprivate sector

dichotomy are emerging, advocating carbon neutrality services. Many of these voluntary

schemes are originated from and aimed at the service sector. Admittedly, the service sector

has minimal direct emissions. Less likely to become subject to regulation, the service

sector is nevertheless a crucial constituent in the new carbon economy (Gorina 2007),

having a significant impact on upstream and downstream activities (Putt del pino et al.

3


4/26

2006). Thus, it is interesting to witness how these businesses are proactively leading what

the media has already termed the carbon neutrality hip (Revkin 2007).

Business has become a key part in the fabric of global climate change governance (Levy

2005). Currently though, there is no research evidence as for why businesses are

voluntarily adopting carbon neutrality (EAC 2007). Yet, innovative business strategy to

address climate change might have the potential to trigger a shift towards low-carbon

economy, thus it is significant to energy policy.

Energy policy is traditionally concerned with the government role within the energy

system, and its multiple objectives are: economic efficiency; environmental protection;

fuel-poverty reduction; and energy security (PIU 2002). Since some 80% of all GHGs are

directly the result of energy use, energy policy is the prominent government tool to tackle

the challenge of climate change. There are potentially two market failures associated with

carbon neutrality in the service sector which can be addressed by energy policy: 1)

information failure in which lack of transparency and standardization might result in

market confusion and under-performance; 2) seizing the full potential of businesss

innovation towards a low carbon economy.

This paper attempts to shed light on why businesses are voluntarily going carbon neutral

and what might be the implications for energy policy. The business motivations, explored

in section two, are underpinned by various theoretical perspectives: business management,

Corporate Social Responsibility, legal policy, and environmental governance. In section

three, I overview some prevailing frameworks which provide guidance for businesses

towards carbon neutrality. This endeavour reveals many uncertainties which call for the

attention of policy makers. Better understanding the business motivations, strategies,

4


5/26

practices and uncertainties that are involved in carbon neutrality is crucial for energy

policy. Drawing from transition and innovation theory I address, in section four, some of

the reasons for the governments facilitating support and the need for standardizations. I

conclude by suggesting further research into this emerging trend.

II -II - Why voluntarily going Why voluntarily going Carbon NeutralCarbon Neutral??

Voluntarily engaging in reducing GHG emissions seems contradictory to business logic.

The traditional business logic suggests that the competitive marketplace will not allow

significant voluntary action (Kleiner 2007). Since the benefits are shared with the public at

large, it can even conceived as a reverse tragedy of the common. Nevertheless, a clear

business case can be made in the context of business strategy to address climate change,

which can prove useful to energy policy.

1.1. Theoretical background: beyond compliance, environmental proactivity, CSR,Theoretical background: beyond compliance, environmental proactivity, CSR,

and political economyand political economy

Understanding why businesses choose to go beyond compliance and engage in voluntary

environmental initiatives is a source of prolific academic writing. Generally, it is suggested

that companies environmental voluntary practices are shaped by the interplay between

their social license to operate, regulatory framework and economic constraints

(Gunnigham et al. 2003, 2004). Simultaneously, internal factors - sometimes refer to as

ecological responsiveness (Bansal and Roth 2000) - influence how managers interpret these

external conditions and act upon them. These factors include: managerial incentives,

organizational culture and identity, self-monitoring (or propensity to engage with

5


6/26

outsiders), and personal commitment and affiliations (Howard-Grenville et al. 2008). In

addition, environmentally proactive company is believed to be paid off in terms of social

reputation, customer preferences and generation of organizational capabilities (Benito and

Benito 2006, Aragon-Correa and Rubio-lopez 2007).

Embedded within this framework is the idea of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). It

covers three dimensions of corporate action (the triple bottom lines): its economic

performance, social accountability and environmental management. Currently contested for

its value creation, it is nonetheless argued that CSR will become a prominent component of

corporate competitive advantage (Wilenius 2005). Neutralizing GHG emissions is a

powerful proactive way to show stakeholders (e.g., customers, shareholders, community,

NGOs) that a company is taking responsibility for emissions and addressing climate change

(ICF 2007).

Examining the political economy of climate change governance can deepen the

understanding of business voluntarism. Currently, it is argued, companies perceive the

varying institutional forms of the carbon regime as fragmented, fungible and weak.

Moreover, they also sustain this fragmented governance regime, both through their political

advocacy, and through the legitimacy conferred by their voluntary initiatives (Pinkse and

Kolk 2007, Jones and Levy 2007). Company might choose to respond to this fragmented

policy regime in four ways: as conformist, evader, entrepreneur or as arbitrageur (Figure

1). These choices varied according to anticipated institutional constraints and opportunities

for influencing the institution. Nonetheless, companies are currently placing greater

emphasis on management processes, policy influence, and market image than on major

6


7/26

investments in low-emission technologies. Similarly, they engage in building capacity for

emissions trading infrastructure over actual emissions reductions (Jones and Levy 2007).

Figure 1: scenarios for corporate strategic response to newinstitutional constraints (Pinkse and Kolk 2007)

In this context, climate change is becoming a strategic issue for companies. It represents a

market transition with great financial, regulatory and CSR opportunities vis a vis grave

implications.

2.2. Business rationale for GHG reductionBusiness rationale for GHG reduction

Business strategy towards GHG reduction is context dependant. Following Hoffman

(2005), the following paragraphs suggest eight clustered categories to encompass how

companies have presently sought strategic benefits from voluntary GHG reduction:

2.1 Operational improvement and energy efficiency:

Tracking GHG sources of emissions can reveal inefficiencies in the supply chain,

distribution and use of resources. Uncovering such inefficiencies is financially good

business, especially when energy prices are going up (Putt del pino et al. 2006).

Implementing energy efficiency and conservation measures can reduce energy

consumption and costs. Examples are numerous (Hoffman 2006).

7


8/26

2.2 Anticipating and influencing climate change regulations

More than 80% of global executives expect climate change regulation within five years,

mostly in form of technical rules and standards. Five in ten anticipate either a carbon cap-

and-trade system or carbon tax (McKinsey & Company 2008). Currently though,

regulatory risks are highly uncertain (Innovest 2007).

By voluntarily measuring and assigning costs to carbon emissions, a company can prepare

for a future carbon-constrained economy in which GHG emissions are regulated, taxed

and/or traded. Moreover, a proactive strategy that seeks to influence policies and future

regulations can benefit companys particular climate change positioning. Those that are

most prepared in advance can lobby the government to adopt certain GHG requirements,

methods and protocols which they are already familiar with. BP and Shell, for example,

had already gained an advisory role in the development of UK and EU emission trading

schemes respectively (Hoffman 2005).

2.3 Accessing new sources of capital

Both the voluntary and the compliance carbon markets are growing rapidly.The World

Bank estimated the value of carbon trading at almost $30 billion in 2006,

three times greater than the previous year (World Bank 2007).

Considerable profits are likely to be made from trading in carbon

reductions, which have already gained the title accumulation by

decarbonisation (Bumpus and Liverman, forthcoming). Benefits were obtained,

for example, by European companies who were given generous permits to

emit CO2 in the EU-ETS and were able to sell any excess over required

reductions.

8


9/26

Furthermore, governments are introducing financial incentives to reduce GHGs, which

represent an availability of capital to be appropriated (Hoffman 2005).

2.4 Improving risk management

Climate change poses new risks on companies whose exposure differs within sectors,

locations and operations. In addition to a company's carbon constraint profile (Busch and

Hoffmann 2007), these risks are associated with the following: costs of climate-related

natural consequences; supply chain risks (for retailers); legal liability risk; brand risk

(Carbon Trust 2005); and regulatory/market changes risks (Lash and Wellington 2007).

Some industries are more vulnerable than others to the physical impacts of climate change.

Insurance, financial, tourism and real estate companies are prone to losses due to such

impacts, especially in vulnerable areas (Putt del pino et al. 2006, Busch and Hoffmann

2007, Lash and Wellington 2007).

Investors are particularly interested in the climate-related risk positioning of companies.

The Carbon Disclosure Project, for example, on behalf of 315 institutional investors

representing $41 trillion in assets, is tracking the 500 global largest publicly traded

companies to gain investor-relevant information on their responses to climate change,

focusing on commercial risks and opportunities (Innovest 2007).

2.5 Elevating corporate reputation

There are opportunities in improving reputation through voluntary GHG initiatives, when

these are communicated to the relevant constituencies (Wright 2006). The Carbon Trust

forecasts that climate change could become a mainstream consumer issue by 2010

(Carbon Trust 2005). The Mckinsey Global Survey revealed that corporate reputation

9


10/26

(54%), customer preferences (35%) and media attention (34%) are influencing companies

the most to take climate change into considerations (Mckinsey & Company 2008).

2.6 Identifying new market opportunities

Opportunities that stem from new markets for low carbon products and services are

prevailing. These opportunities can diversify companies portfolio of products/services and

reach wider constituencies. First movers in the area of carbon neutrality are likely to gain

an edge over business-as-usual competitors (ICF 2007). Such opportunities range from

energy efficient mortgage, to preferential insurance rate for efficient vehicles (TCG 2007).

Banks are offering new carbon management services and investment products, and adding

carbon offsetting features to their suite of retail products (Gorina 2007).

Engaging in carbon measuring implies remaining alert to changes in consumer preferences,

media attention, community concerns, and regulatory and policy trends (Hoffman 2005).

Staying attuned to this dynamic market is crucial for businesss competitiveness.

2.7 Enhancing human resource management and employee morale

Companies are engaging their workers as partners in identifying and carrying out strategies

to reduce their GHG emissions. It can motivate employees and drive innovation within

companies, becoming an opportunity to increase workplace productivity as well as enhance

good employee recruitment and retention efforts (Hoffman 2005).

2.8 Altruism ?

Finally, in the case of non-residential green power, at least, it has been demonstrated that

also altruism is taking an important role in customers motivations (Wiser et al. 2001).

To conclude this section, we should bear in mind that:

10


11/26

[Companies] are searching for ways to be prepared for the long term,

should GHG emission reduction become mandatory, while at the same

time attempting to reap near-term economic and strategic benefits should

that future not emerged or be delayed (Hoffman 2005).

But there is more to it. To gain competitive advantage, businesses need to do better in

reducing exposure to climate-related risks and in finding business opportunities within

those risks (Lash and Wellington 2007). In such a vibrant atmosphere, there is a strong case

to suggest that at least some of the carbon neutral initiatives are a demonstration of real

business leadership in face of market transition and governance uncertainties. For such

companies, Carbon Neutral is not only an ecological or ethical imperative. It is also an

indicator of an organizations health, innovation and social responsibility (Boiral 2006).

11


12/26

GoingGoing Carbon NeutralCarbon Neutral issues, dilemmas & controversies issues, dilemmas & controversies

Drawing from experience and best practice of large corporations, few organizations (non

profit, governmental and for-profit) have developed a comprehensive business manual to

address such carbon neutralstrategy. These how to manuals differ in their approach and

emphasis which can probably be explained by the providers concerns, interests and

constituencies (Climate Neutral Network 2003, Hoffman 2006, Putt del pino et al. 2006,

Carbon Trust 2006, Waage and Stewart 2006, TCNC 2007, ICF 2007, Lash and Wellington

2007). SeeAppendix Cfor some chosen schematic examples.

Nevertheless, an emergent framework for carbon management towards carbon neutrality

can be distinguished and delineated. The constituents of such a framework include:

Preliminary planning and boundaries setting;

Designing and developing GHG inventory;

Calculating carbon footprint;

Evaluating opportunities/risks for carbon reductions;

Setting goals and targets;

Implementing carbon reduction program for direct and indirect

emission;

Engaging in carbon offsetting; and

Reporting.

Since a full description of these components is outside the scope of this paper, thefollowing is focused on the main contested issues that call for energy policy attention and

presumably intervention.

12


13/26

3.3. Defining boundaries for inventory, reporting and reduction responsibilityDefining boundaries for inventory, reporting and reduction responsibility

Setting boundaries is a clearly important if perplexing and contested question. What does

carbon neutrality apply to (e.g. organization, product, service, operation)? What are the

respective methodologies, data-sets and perspectives? (TCNC 2007) What is the scope of

emissions to be calculated and neutralized? What is the extent to which both upstream and

downstream emissions are covered? (TCG 2007) What are the emissions, which are under

full control of the organization and how to engage with indirect sources of emissions?

(Carbon Trust 2006) How to account for emissions from joint ventures, subsidiaries,

outsourcing and other partially owned entities and operations? (Sundin and Ranganathan2002)

The GHG Protocol is offering some answers to these questions (WRI/WBCSD 2004).

Figure 2 is demonstrating different scopes of emissions. This protocol is one of the most

recommended and commonly used formats for accounting and reporting GHG emissions

(e.g. Carbon Trust 2006, UN EMG 2007, Innovest 2007, TCNC 2007). Nevertheless, offset

providers may have developed their own proprietary standards and there is still no

internationally accepted procedure for assessing and reporting GHG emissions and

emissions reductions (TCG 2007, Carbon Trust 2006). Some discrepancies and gaps are

salient when comparing the aforementioned guides.

13


14/26

Figure 2: Setting operational boundaries: the GHG protocol three scopes for companys direct and indirectemissions (NZBCSD 2002)

4.4. Calculating carbon footprintCalculating carbon footprint

Several calculation tools for GHG emission are prevailing. There is still debate concerning

some of the science behind calculating carbon emissions, e.g. from aviation. Apparently,

different tools varying in their emission assessment (POST 2007), which brought DEFRA

to release a standard emission calculator on its website.

5.5. Reducing organizations emissions to become carbon neutralReducing organizations emissions to become carbon neutral

Figure 3: BSRs three pronged approach toCorporate Climate Strategy (Waage and Stewart 2006)

There are numerous ways to reducing GHG emissions. Generally speaking, a three-

pronged approach include: improving efficiency of energy use, procurement of green

14


15/26

energy and offsetting the remaining emissions. There is also a real gain to be made through

integrated strategic planning and synergies throughout all aspects of the business (Waage

and Stewart 2006). Some examples of business practices are presented in Table 1.

Table 1: Compiled business examples to reduce GHG emissions (source: Waageand Stewart 2006)

6.6. The contested role of Carbon Offsetting:The contested role of Carbon Offsetting:

Based on the principle that GHG emissions reduction achieved elsewhere has the same

positive effect as a reduction made locally, a company can effectively neutralize its global

warming impact by purchasing carbon offsets (ICF 2007), though it is more palatable when

considered a last resort (Keay-Bright 2007). It is further argued that the voluntary carbon

market can complement the regulated market, compensating for its deficiencies, and

hedging policy risks through institutional diversity (Hepburn 2007). Carbon offset market

helps in establishing price for carbon, speeds investments in low carbon technologies, and

15


16/26

can raise awareness to individual and organizational carbon footprint (TCNC 2007).

Further, it can support diversity of project types that are effectively excluded from the

CDM such as small projects, those that bring additional sustainable development benefits

and those that are based in under-represented countries as in Africa (EAC 2007).

Nevertheless, offsets have been extensively criticized by NGOs (Smith 2007) and the

media (Revkin 2007, Harvey 2007), and advised to be considered cautiously (Carbon Trust

2006, POST 2007). The quality and credibility of the offset are a recurrent theme of

concern. To address these, questions of verification, additionality, leakages,

impermanency, and double counting must be addressed (Carbon Trust 2006).

Yet, the main concern is that the availability of offsetting options may well hinder

behavioural change to a low carbon economy. While reducing a tonne of carbon, wherever

the source might be, have the same atmospheric impact, different reductions have varying

long-term impacts in terms of technological innovation, market transformation, and

infrastructural transition (WWF 2008).

16


17/26

Table 2: Associated sources of controversies and uncertainties in the Carbon Neutralconcept

To sum up this section, it is important to concede that the concept ofcarbon neutralmight

be a source of confusion and perplexities (see Table 2 for a summery). Public confusion

might deter the bulk of mainstream organizations from voluntarily taking any action before

standards and regulations are established, subsequently raising the question of government

intervention.

17


18/26

III -III - What might be the implications for energy policy?What might be the implications for energy policy?

Carbon Neutrality, a voluntary initiative by the service sector, does not simply fall into a

classical market failure which justify governments intervention in energy systems (PIU

2002). Given its innovative and leadership potential coupled with the involved

uncertainties, I would suggest that policy makers should approach the carbon neutral

business from a supportive if cautious stance.

1.1. Caution first Can the voluntarismCaution first Can the voluntarismofofthe private sector be trusted?the private sector be trusted?

Adopting carbon neutrality by the service sector, well beyond current policies, may be

seen as a panacea to policy makers worried about mitigating climate change. If these

pioneers drag the current economy towards de-carbonization, the government would be left

out of job. Nonetheless, such a bright scenario is probably far from realization.

Past evidence demonstrates that policy makers can not rely on the voluntary programs,

pledges or even agreements made by the private sector. Studies have shown that participant

firms in voluntary programs - especially those with no performance based standards, no

independent certification, and no sanctions - showed no better environmental performance

than non-participants (Rivera and DeLeon 2008, Darnall and Sides 2008). In the case of

ISO 14001, for example, an ambiguous effect on environmental performance was apparent

- counter to the managerial rhetoric (Boiral 2007). A notorious example for not trusting

voluntary pledges is the agreement between the European Commission and the EuropeanCar Manufacture Association (ACEA), signed in 1998. The motor industry has currently

failed to meet its voluntary target for reducing CO2 emissions (FOE 2007).

18


19/26

Furthermore, these high media-profile carbon neutral initiatives are posing three-folded

danger in face of policy makers: (1) an entrenched public misconception that the private

sector is on the right track to achieving carbon neutrality might blunt the climate change

message which sense of urgency is crucial; (2) carbon neutralclaims without long-term

structural change might undermine the scope of the challenge (its easy, my bank is doing

it!); (3) the much-needed strong international regime is enervated by the private sector

compelling advocacy for voluntary measures over regulations (Jones and Levy 2007).

Consequently, public support for what is really needed might be at stake. Further, policy

makers might miss the train and become laggards. When trying to bring on new policiesor enforce new standards policy makers might not only face stronger objections from a

wide coalition of NGOs and private sector, but also be committed to already prevailing

practices and measures of these actors, e.g. Defras Code of Best Practice(DEFRA 2008,

WWF 2008).

2.2. SupportSupport its innovation its innovation afterafterall!all!

Notwithstanding these caveats, it can be argued that high-profile initiatives in a high-stakes

competitive market generate a vibrant atmosphere of climate change transition and

innovation. Can carbon neutrality be effectively seen as an innovation?

Innovation has a major rule in enabling the transition needed to tackle the climate change

challenge of decarbonizing the economy (Foxton 2003, Stern 2006, Shackley and Green

2007). It is broadly defined as a successful exploitation of new ideas, and is understood as

an interactive process engaging network of actors, in which new products, new processes

and new forms of organization are brought into economic use (Mytelka 2000, Beerepoot

19


20/26

2007). Central to innovation policy is the facilitation of rapid diffusion of these new ideas

into the larger market place (Stern 2006, Egmond et al. 2006).

The carbon neutral companies are demonstrating leadership in a new environment.

Although differ in their profile to technological innovators or early market adopters, mainly

in size and risk aversion (Egmond et al. 2006) they do feature some of the early adopters

qualities. Further, they are in a position to explore novel perception and ideas within their

large organizations. Carbon management on the way to neutralize business emissions is a

novel idea which involves many new practices. Leading the way, they have an important

role to play in a time of a much-desired transition.

3.3. SShould the governmenthould the governmentrespondrespond??

Policy makers can diminish many of the aforementioned concerns by enhancing

standardization in the market, while seizing the opportunity to support and facilitate the

market momentum.

Conceiving the carbon neutrality trend akin to innovation policy may reason for the

government to consider incentives and support scheme for such activities. Furthermore,

since transition cannot be steered by a central actor and there is probably no blue-print for

innovation policy (Foxton 2003, Shackley and Green 2007), the role of the government is

to facilitate and challenge the innovation network through knowledge transfer, stimulating

communication, and demonstrations challenge (Egmond et al. 2006).

Standards, on the other hand, can help bring on the mainstream market actors. Standards

have many advantages that are directly link to the business of carbon neutrality (See

Appendix D for carbon neutral relevant standards). Standardization contributes to increase

20


21/26

clarity and confidence of the companies wanting to make a voluntary commitment to

reduce their climate impact (TCG 2007, Hepburn 2007). Recent EC communication

suggested that it has an important role in support of innovation (EU CEC 2008) and it is a

prerequisite to any governmental incentive scheme. Standardisation helps in developing

disclosure rules for carbon reporting. It also ensures compatibility with the legal framework

(e.g. corporate managers legal liability). Even in the case of CSR, stringent regulations

were suggested not only for stakeholders certainty sake but for increased shareholders

value as well (Unerman and ODwyer 2007). Finally, it serves to protect less informed

consumers from making undesirable choices and can help in climate change education(DEFRA 2008).

IV -IV - ConclusionsConclusions

It is probably too early to tell what are the full implications of the service sectors proactive

Carbon Neutralenterprises.

Yet, two points need to be made clear. First, the potential impact of these initiatives on low

carbon economy can not be dismissed. Therefore, a supportive yet cautious attitude need be

adopted by policy makers, rather than wait-and-see. Second, a consensus definition of

what carbon neutralmeans plus respective standards should be developed to allow for

audit and verification to bring legitimacy to this claim (EAC 2007). I have argued thatenergy policy should support, facilitate and challenge these enterprises while

simultaneously improving the rigour of credible standards to ensure broad market

diffusion.

21


22/26

Further research is important to gain better comprehension of the carbon neutrality

business and respective implications for energy policy. It can address the following

questions: What is the effect of offsetting initiatives on business carbon abatement

performance? What are the motivations and reasons for businesses going carbon neutral?

What is the market impact of leading firms achieving carbon neutrality? And, what

policies can be developed to facilitate and challenge this positive trend towards low carbon

business environment?

References:

Aragon-Correa, J. A. and Rubio-Lopez, E. A. (2007) Proactive Corporate EnvironmentalStrategies: Myths and Misunderstandings.Long Range Planning40, 357-381

Bansal, P. and Roth, K. (2000) Why Companies Go Green: A Model of EcologicalResponsiveness.Academy of Management Journal43(4), 717-736

Beerepoot, M. and Beerepoot N. (2007) Government regulation as an impetus forinnovation: Evidence from energy performance regulation in the Dutch residentialbuilding sector.Energy Policy 35, 4812-4825

Benito, J. G. and Benito, . G. (2006) A Review of Determinant Factors of EnvironmentalProactivity.Business Strategy and the Environment15, 87102

BSR (2007) Whos Going Carbon Neutral? Business for Social Responsibility.http://www.bsr.org/insight/reports.cfm (Access date: 10/02/2008)

Boiral, O. (2006) Global Warming: Should Companies Adopt a Proactive Strategy?LongRange Planning39, 315-330

Boiral, O. (2007) Corporate Greening Through ISO 14001: A Rational Myth?Organization Science 18(1), 127-146

Bumpus A. and Liverman D.M. Accumulation by decarbonisation and the governance of

carbon offsets.Economic Geography, (Forthcoming).http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/~dliverma/CV/Bumpus%20and%20Liverman%20Econ%20Geog%202007.pdf(Access date: 20/2/08)

Busch, T. and Hoffmann, V.H. (2007) Emerging carbon constraints for corporate riskmanagement.Ecological Economics 62(3-4), 518-528

22
http://www.bsr.org/insight/reports.cfmhttp://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/~dliverma/CV/Bumpus%20and%20Liverman%20Econ%20Geog%202007.pdfhttp://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/~dliverma/CV/Bumpus%20and%20Liverman%20Econ%20Geog%202007.pdfhttp://www.bsr.org/insight/reports.cfmhttp://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/~dliverma/CV/Bumpus%20and%20Liverman%20Econ%20Geog%202007.pdfhttp://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/~dliverma/CV/Bumpus%20and%20Liverman%20Econ%20Geog%202007.pdf


23/26

BusinessGreen (2007)Just one in a hundred firms measure their carbon footprint. ITWeek, Dec. 10, 2007 (online).http://www.itweek.co.uk/business-green/news/2205364/hundred-firms-measure-carbon (Access date: 11/3/08)

Carbon Trust (2005)Brand Value at Risk from Climate Change. The Carbon Trust.http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/Publications/publicationdetail.htm?productid=ct-2004-

10 (Access date: 11/03/2008)Carbon Trust (2006) The Carbon Trust three stage approach to developing a robust

offsetting strategy.http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/publications/publicationdetail?productid=CTC621 (Access date: 11/03/2008)

Climate Neutral Network (2003) Climate Neutral Network Enterprise Protocol. Retrievedfrom: http://climateneutralnetwork.org/protocols.php (Access date: 14/3/08)

EU CEC (2008) Towards an increased contribution from standardisation to innovation inEurope. Commission of the European Communities. COM(2008) 133, 11.3.2008.http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/standards_policy/standardisation_innovation/doc/com_2008_133_en.pdf (Access date: 14/3/08)

Darnall, N. and Sides S. (2008) Assessing the Performance of Voluntary EnvironmentalPrograms: Does Certification Matter?The Policy Studies Journal36(1), 95-117

DEFRA (2007) Summary of responses to the consultation on establishing a Code of BestPractice for selling offsetting to consumers.

DEFRA (2008)Draft Code of Best Practice for Carbon Offset Providers, Accreditationrequirements and procedures. Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs.http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climatechange/uk/carbonoffset/codeofpractice.htm(Access date: 17/3/08)

EAC (2007) The Voluntary Carbon Offset Market. Environmental Audit Committee, House

of Commons HC 331Egmond, C., Jonkers, R. and Kok, G. (2006) One size fit all? Policy instruments should fit

the segments of target groups.Energy Policy 34, 3464-3474

FOE (2007)EU targets for greener cars too weak.http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/eu_targets_for_greener_car_07022007.html (Access date: 17/3/08)

Foxton, T.J. (2003) Inducing innovation for a low-carbon future: drivers, barriers andpolicies. The Carbon Trust.

Gardner T. (2007) Google aims to go carbon-neutral by end 2007.Reuters (online)

http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSN1947335520070619 (Accessdate: 13/3/08)

Gorina, N. (2007) Banks warm to the climate issue.Environmental Finance, Nov. 2007,22-24.

Gunningham, N., Robert, K., and Dorothy T. (2003) Shades of Green: Business,Regulation, and Environment. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press.

23
http://www.itweek.co.uk/business-green/news/2205364/hundred-firms-measure-carbon%0Dhttp://www.itweek.co.uk/business-green/news/2205364/hundred-firms-measure-carbon%0Dhttp://www.itweek.co.uk/business-green/news/2205364/hundred-firms-measure-carbon%0Dhttp://www.itweek.co.uk/business-green/news/2205364/hundred-firms-measure-carbon%0Dhttp://www.carbontrust.co.uk/Publications/publicationdetail.htm?productid=ct-2004-10http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/Publications/publicationdetail.htm?productid=ct-2004-10http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/publications/publicationdetail?productid=CTC621http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/publications/publicationdetail?productid=CTC621http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/publications/publicationdetail?productid=CTC621http://climateneutralnetwork.org/protocols.phphttp://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/standards_policy/standardisation_innovation/doc/com_2008_133_en.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/standards_policy/standardisation_innovation/doc/com_2008_133_en.pdfhttp://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climatechange/uk/carbonoffset/codeofpractice.htmhttp://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climatechange/uk/carbonoffset/codeofpractice.htmhttp://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climatechange/uk/carbonoffset/codeofpractice.htmhttp://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/eu_targets_for_greener_car_07022007.htmlhttp://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/eu_targets_for_greener_car_07022007.htmlhttp://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSN1947335520070619http://www.itweek.co.uk/business-green/news/2205364/hundred-firms-measure-carbon%0Dhttp://www.itweek.co.uk/business-green/news/2205364/hundred-firms-measure-carbon%0Dhttp://www.carbontrust.co.uk/Publications/publicationdetail.htm?productid=ct-2004-10http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/Publications/publicationdetail.htm?productid=ct-2004-10http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/publications/publicationdetail?productid=CTC621http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/publications/publicationdetail?productid=CTC621http://climateneutralnetwork.org/protocols.phphttp://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/standards_policy/standardisation_innovation/doc/com_2008_133_en.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/standards_policy/standardisation_innovation/doc/com_2008_133_en.pdfhttp://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climatechange/uk/carbonoffset/codeofpractice.htmhttp://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climatechange/uk/carbonoffset/codeofpractice.htmhttp://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/eu_targets_for_greener_car_07022007.htmlhttp://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/eu_targets_for_greener_car_07022007.htmlhttp://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSN1947335520070619


24/26

Gunningham N., Kagan R., and Thornton D. (2004) Social License and EnvironmentalProtection: Why Businesses go Beyond Compliance.Law & Social Inquiry 29, 307341

Harvey, F. (2007) Beware the carbon offsetting cowboys.Financial Times (online)http://search.ft.com/ftArticle?

queryText=harvey+cowboys&y=0&aje=false&x=9&id=070425011430&ct=0 (Access date: 8/2/08)

Hepburn, C.(2007)Response to Defra consultation on voluntary carbon offsets.http://www.economics.ox.ac.uk/members/cameron.hepburn/research.html (Accessdate: 18/3/08)

Hoffman, A. J., (2005) Climate Change Strategy: The Business Logic Behind VoluntaryGreenhouse Gas Reduction. California Management Review 47(3), 21-46

Hoffman, A. J. (2006) Getting Ahead of the Curve: Corporate Strategies that AddressClimate Change (Pew Center on Global Climate Change, 2006).http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/PEW_CorpStrategies.pdf(Access date:11/3/08)

Howard-Grenville J., Nash J., and Coglianese C. (2008) Constructing the License toOperate: Internal Factors and Their Influence on Corporate Environmental Decision.Law & Policy 30(1), 73-107

ICF International (2007) Carbon Neutrality. www.icfi.com/markets/climate-change/doc_files/carbon-neutrality.pdf (Access date: 14/3/08)

Innovest (2007) Carbon Disclosure Project - Report 2007 Global FT500:on behalf of 315investors with assets of $41 trillion. http://cdproject.net/cdp5reports.asp (Access date:08/02/08)

Jones, C. A., and Levy, D. L. (2007) North American Business Strategies Towards ClimateChange.European Management Journal25(6),428-440

Keay-Bright, S. (2007) Carbon Neutrality and Carbon Offsets - workshop report. The UKEnergy Research Centre and the Sustainable Development Commission

Kleiner, K. (2007) The corporate race to cut carbon. Nature reports: climate change 3, 40-43 (online). http://www.nature.com/climate/2007/0708/pdf/climate.2007.31.pdf(Access date: 11/3/08)

Kolk, A. and Hoffmann V. (2007) Business, Climate Change and Emission Trading:Taking Stock and Looking Ahead.European Management Journal25(6), 411-414

Lash, J. and Wellington, F. (2007) Competitive Advantage on a Warming Planet. HarvardBusiness Review 85(3), 94-102

Levy, D.L. (2005) Business and the evolution of the climate regime. In Newell, P.J. andLevy, D.L. (eds.) The Business of Global Environmental Governance. MIT Press,Cambridge, Mass.

24
http://search.ft.com/ftArticle?queryText=harvey+cowboys&y=0&aje=false&x=9&id=070425011430&ct=0http://search.ft.com/ftArticle?queryText=harvey+cowboys&y=0&aje=false&x=9&id=070425011430&ct=0http://www.economics.ox.ac.uk/members/cameron.hepburn/research.htmlhttp://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/PEW_CorpStrategies.pdfhttp://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/PEW_CorpStrategies.pdfhttp://www.icfi.com/markets/climate-change/doc_files/carbon-neutrality.pdfhttp://www.icfi.com/markets/climate-change/doc_files/carbon-neutrality.pdfhttp://cdproject.net/cdp5reports.asphttp://www.nature.com/climate/2007/0708/pdf/climate.2007.31.pdfhttp://search.ft.com/ftArticle?queryText=harvey+cowboys&y=0&aje=false&x=9&id=070425011430&ct=0http://search.ft.com/ftArticle?queryText=harvey+cowboys&y=0&aje=false&x=9&id=070425011430&ct=0http://www.economics.ox.ac.uk/members/cameron.hepburn/research.htmlhttp://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/PEW_CorpStrategies.pdfhttp://www.icfi.com/markets/climate-change/doc_files/carbon-neutrality.pdfhttp://www.icfi.com/markets/climate-change/doc_files/carbon-neutrality.pdfhttp://cdproject.net/cdp5reports.asphttp://www.nature.com/climate/2007/0708/pdf/climate.2007.31.pdf


25/26

McKinsey & Company. (2008) How Companies Think About Climate Change: AMcKinsey Global Survey. The McKinsey Quarterly (online).http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/home.aspx (Access date: 18/02/08)

Mytelka, L.K. (2000) Local Systems of Innovation in a Globalized World Economy.Industry and Innovation 7(1), 1532

NZBCSD (2002) The challenges of greenhouse gas emissions, The why and how ofaccounting and reporting for GHG emissions. New Zealand Business Council forSustainable Development.http://www.nzbcsd.org.nz/climatechange/ (Access date:16/3/08)

Pinkse, J. and Kolk, A. (2007) Multinational Corporations and Emissions Trading:Strategic Responses to New Institutional Constraints.European ManagementJournal25(6) 441-452

PIU (2002) The Energy Review. Performance and Innovation Unit.

Putt del pino, S., Levinson, R. and Larsen, J. (2006)Hot Climate, Cool Commerce: A

service sector guide to greenhouse gas managementWorld Resources Institute:Washington, DC.

Revkin, A. C. (2007) Carbon-Neutral Is Hip, but Is It Green? The New York Times (online).http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/29/weekinreview/29revkin.html?ex=1335499200&en=9ca404dd40c271d4&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss (Access date: 08/02/08)

Rivera, J.E. and DeLeon P. (2008) Voluntary Environmental Programs: Are Carrotswithout Sticks Enough? The Policy Studies Journal36(1), 61-63

Shackley, S. and Greem, K. (2007) A conceptual framework for exploring transitions todecarbonised energy systems in the United Kingdom.Energy 32, 221-236

Sheehan, E. and Strandberg C. (2007) Steps to Going Carbon Neutral: Measure Reduceand Offset. Strandberg Consulting (online).http://www.corostrandberg.com/pdfs/Going%20Carbon%20Neutral%20Primer.pdf(Access date: 11/03/08)

Smith, K. (2007) The Carbon Neutral Myth: Offset Indulgences for Your Climate Sins.Carbon Trade Watch.http://www.carbontradewatch.org/pubs/carbon_neutral_myth.pdf (Access date:11/03/2008)

Stern, N. (2006) The Economics of Climate Change. (Part IV, chapters 16-17) CambridgeUniversity Press. http://www.hm-

treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm (Access date: 20/2/08)

Sundin, H. and Ranganathan, J. (2002) Managing Business Greenhouse Gas Emissions:The Greenhouse Gas Protocol A Strategic and Operational Tool. CorporateEnvironmental Strategy, 9(2), 137-144

25
http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/home.aspxhttp://www.nzbcsd.org.nz/climatechange/http://www.nzbcsd.org.nz/climatechange/http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/29/weekinreview/29revkin.html?ex=1335499200&en=9ca404dd40c271d4&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rsshttp://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/29/weekinreview/29revkin.html?ex=1335499200&en=9ca404dd40c271d4&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rsshttp://www.corostrandberg.com/pdfs/Going%20Carbon%20Neutral%20Primer.pdfhttp://www.carbontradewatch.org/pubs/carbon_neutral_myth.pdfhttp://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfmhttp://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfmhttp://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfmhttp://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/home.aspxhttp://www.nzbcsd.org.nz/climatechange/http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/29/weekinreview/29revkin.html?ex=1335499200&en=9ca404dd40c271d4&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rsshttp://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/29/weekinreview/29revkin.html?ex=1335499200&en=9ca404dd40c271d4&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rsshttp://www.corostrandberg.com/pdfs/Going%20Carbon%20Neutral%20Primer.pdfhttp://www.carbontradewatch.org/pubs/carbon_neutral_myth.pdfhttp://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfmhttp://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfmhttp://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm


26/26

TCG (2007) Carbon Down, Profits Up. 3rd edition. The Climate Grouphttp://theclimategroup.org/assets/resources/cdpu_newedition.pdf(Access date:11/3/08)

TCNC (2007) The CarbonNeutral Protocol: a Framework for Effective Action on ClimateChange. The CarbonNeutral Company,

http://www.carbonneutral.com/uploadedfiles/CarbonNeutral%20Protocol%202007%20(v1.2-14Dec07).pdf (Access date: 11/03/08)

UN EMG (2007) Towards A Climate Neutral UN, Progress Report to the High-LevelCommittee on Programmes, 20-21 Sep. 2007. UN Environmental ManagementGroup.

Unerman, J. and ODwyer B. (2007) The business case for regulation of corporate socialresponsibility and accountability.Accounting Forum 31, 332-353

Waage, S. and Stewart, E. (2006)A Three-Pronged Approach to Corporate ClimateStrategy. Business for Social Responsibility. http://www.bsr.org/insight/reports.cfm(Access date: 10/02/2008)

Wilenius, M. (2005) Towards the age of corporate responsibility? Emerging challenges forthe business world.Futures 37, 133150

Wiser, R.H., Fowlie, M. and Holt, E.A. (2001) Public goods and private interests:understanding non-residential demand for green power.Energy Policy 29, 1085-1097

World Bank (2007) State and Trends in the Carbon Market 2007. Washington DC: WorldBank.

WRI/WBCSD (2004) The Greenhouse Gas Protocol, A Corporate Accounting andReporting Standard. World Resource Institute and World Business Council forSustainable Development.http://www.ghgprotocol.org/standards/publications

(Access date: 14/03/08)Wright, C. (2006) Carbon Neutrality Draws Praise, Raises Expectations for HSBC.

EcosystemMarkteplace (Online).http://ecosystemmarketplace.com/pages/article.news.php?component_id=4473&component_version_id=6546&language_id=12 (Access date:08/02/2008)

WWF 2008Making Sense of the Voluntary Carbon Market: A Comparison of CarbonOffset Standards. Anja, K., Zink, H. and Polycarp, C. (Stockholm EnvironmentInstitute and Tricorona)
http://theclimategroup.org/assets/resources/cdpu_newedition.pdfhttp://theclimategroup.org/assets/resources/cdpu_newedition.pdfhttp://www.carbonneutral.com/uploadedfiles/CarbonNeutral%20Protocol%202007%20(v1.2-14Dec07).pdfhttp://www.carbonneutral.com/uploadedfiles/CarbonNeutral%20Protocol%202007%20(v1.2-14Dec07).pdfhttp://www.bsr.org/insight/reports.cfmhttp://www.ghgprotocol.org/standards/publicationshttp://www.ghgprotocol.org/standards/publicationshttp://ecosystemmarketplace.com/pages/article.news.php?component_id=4473&component_version_id=6546&language_id=12http://ecosystemmarketplace.com/pages/article.news.php?component_id=4473&component_version_id=6546&language_id=12http://theclimategroup.org/assets/resources/cdpu_newedition.pdfhttp://www.carbonneutral.com/uploadedfiles/CarbonNeutral%20Protocol%202007%20(v1.2-14Dec07).pdfhttp://www.carbonneutral.com/uploadedfiles/CarbonNeutral%20Protocol%202007%20(v1.2-14Dec07).pdfhttp://www.bsr.org/insight/reports.cfmhttp://www.ghgprotocol.org/standards/publicationshttp://ecosystemmarketplace.com/pages/article.news.php?component_id=4473&component_version_id=6546&language_id=12http://ecosystemmarketplace.com/pages/article.news.php?component_id=4473&component_version_id=6546&language_id=12

Essay Energy Policy - Final

Documents

Transcript of Essay Energy Policy - Final