Abstract
This paper intends to find the predominant factors for corporations to reduce their carbon emissions. In light of an in-depth literature review, various determinants have been assessed and compared according to their importance. Results show that carbon pricing schemes creating revenue which can be redistributed are the most effective governmental measures. Even though there are ways to circumvent these systems, such as moving operations, bribery or using bargaining power to adjust bills in the first place, a large majority of firms were found to adapt to new laws. The most significant reasons in the organisational domain are economic benefits arising mainly thanks to cost savings and risk mitigation of anticipated regulation as well as competition. Moreover, stakeholders play a key role in the decision-making process of firms. Especially market actors with direct influence on a company’s turnover, like consumers and investors, were observed to be able to exert great power on enterprises. By giving an insight into these factors, this paper helps to understand what can possibly spur urgently needed action for climate by corporations.
Table of Content
2.4 Bargaining Power and Corruption
2.5 Pollution Haven Hypothesis
3.1 Business Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility
3.5.2 Influence of Stakeholders
4 Conclusion and Discussion of Results
List of Figures
Cumulative CO2 emissions by world region (relative)
Cumulative CO2 emissions by world region (absolute)
Power-Interest Matrix
List of Abbreviations
CO2 = Carbon Dioxide
CSA = Country-Specific Advantages
CSR = Corporate Social Responsibility
EOP = End-of-Pipe
ETS = Emissions Trading System
FDI = Foreign Direct Investment
FSA = Firm-Specific Advantages
GHG = Greenhouse gas
MNC = Multinational Corporation
MNE = Multinational Enterprise
NGO = Non-Governmental Organisation
TBL = Triple Bottom Line
tCO2 = Tons of Carbon Dioxide
tCO2e = Ton of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
TQEM = Total Quality Environmental Management
1 Introduction
There is a wide consensus in science that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have to be limited. The severe effects of climate change are not only a danger to many plant and animal species but also to us humans. More frequent extreme weather events, rise of sea levels and loss of biodiversity can cause the destruction of people’s livelihoods as well as food shortages and severe economic risks (Elkins, Baker, 2001; Nippa et al., 2021; Bento, Gianfrate, 2020; Tvinnereim, Mehling, 2018). Most countries, thus, have agreed on the goal of net zero emissions until 2050 in order to avoid the worst effects of climate change. Some have already included their target in law or policy documents. Germany, Sweden and Portugal, for instance, have a law for carbon neutrality by 2045; Finland and Austria are examples for countries which have included their goal of net zero emissions by 2035 and 2040 respectively in official policy documents (Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit, 2021).
However, to reach this target, effort by many parties is required. Likewise, policies by governments are necessary in order to encourage individuals as well as business to consume, invest and produce more ecologically. For this reason, many countries have already implemented measures like subsidies for investments for companies and privates into renewable energy production, carbon neutral heating systems and ecological mobility (Nippa et al., 2021; Cadez et al., 2019). Scholars agree that carbon pricing models need to be adopted all around the world in order to reach the target of a maximal rise in global average temperature of 2° Celsius, which was defined in the Paris agreement in 2015 (Bento, Gianfrate, 2020; Cadez et al., 2019; Elkins, Baker, 2001; Tvinnereim, Mehling, 2018). That is why some nations and economic blocks, such as the EU, New Zealand and Canada, have already implemented emissions trading systems and others, like Sweden, Norway and Switzerland, carbon taxes. Many countries are currently discussing the implementation and expansion