Want to Lead on Climate? Advance Straight to Policy

Authors

• Laura Ediger

  Former Associate Director, BSR

• Ryan Schuchard

  Former Associate Director, Climate Change, BSR

As negotiators gather in Copenhagen next month to discuss a global climate policy framework, there has never been a better time for companies to influence policy instruments that could dramatically affect the future of climate change.

Business’ management of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is already improving. According to the Carbon Disclosure Project, more than 70 percent of the world’s 500 largest companies are now reporting their GHG emissions, and similar efforts are spreading rapidly, especially in the BRIC countries and throughout Asia.

Meanwhile, global emissions are continuing at a pace to surpass the 2°C threshold of climate change caused by a 350- to 450-parts-per-million concentration level. Even if we enact the most aggressive legislation proposed today, the concentration of GHG emissions would continue to rise rapidly, according to calculations from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s C-ROADS simulator. Meanwhile, there are questions about whether countries such as the United States and China—which together account for nearly 50 percent of global emissions—will be able to garner political support for basic commitments.

Under current regulatory frameworks, there is virtually no economic cost for producing GHG emissions, and it is increasingly clear that reversing the current path of climate change will require policies that put a price on carbon. By stimulating innovation in processes and products that would encourage a low-carbon economy and effectively align economic and environmental interests, this would address the single largest impediment to the significant expansion of fossil fuel alternatives.

Enacting such policies can happen only with the support of the private sector. Hundreds of companies ranging across industries and geographies—from British Telecom to Aspen Skiing Company to Levi Strauss to Shell—now consider climate policy engagement a key part of their efforts. These pioneers are demonstrating that there are many levers for informing and advancing effective climate policy. Here are some examples and ideas to consider:

Direct and indirect engagement: Aspen has helped advance climate policy directly by submitting an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, which led to a ruling that requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate GHG. Direct action—which includes advocacy like this as well as lobbying for specific laws—is the most obvious option for climate policy engagement. There are also important opportunities to engage indirectly, such as by empowering the public to advance policy through education, and giving them more more of a voice with policymakers. Marks & Spencer, for example, is inviting stakeholders to add their views by uploading patches to a virtual “quilt” that will be presented to negotiators at Copenhagen.

Input via multiple policy cycle stages: The previous examples emphasize input into policy formulation, but companies can also affect policy at other stages. For example, Hewlett Packard and Intel are co-leading an initiative of the Electronic Industry Citizenship Coalition to develop a standard industry approach to measuring GHG emissions in supply chains. This effort aims to inform policymakers about how companies can share information at the operations level across borders. This will play a part in framing potential policy options. Once policy has been formulated, companies can engage in implementation in various ways. For example, the EPA offers 30-plus business partnership programs—to which companies such as Dell have subscribed—that offer feedback for further policy development.

Individual and collaborative action: Timberland, Vale, and China Light & Power are making individual appeals for robust climate policy, but they are also working collectively. Timberland, for example, is a member of the Business for Clean Energy Policy (see sidebar for a list of coalitions). Other companies are focused on influencing the direction of existing business groups. PG&E and a host of others, for example, have left the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in protest of that organization’s position on climate legislation.

As these examples illustrate, climate policy engagement means more than simply taking a position; engagement must also include deliberate actions that inform and advance specific outcomes. This is difficult, however, because it is often unclear what the ideal policy outcome is. Indeed, companies and stakeholders are affected differently by different points of legislation.

So what should companies subscribe to? It’s safe to say that we should heed the calls of scientists to stabilize the climate. Business needs stable conditions to enable investment. It is also clear that these two issues are interdependent. Carbon-reducing investments are required for climate stabilization, without which there will continue to be persistent calls for more aggressive policies, which in turn will destabilize market expectations. And so on.

Companies should therefore call for legislation that peaks greenhouse gas emissions in the near term—ideally before 2020—and that includes specific, robust accountability mechanisms. It also means asking for clear and durable rules that create the incentives for companies to invest in low-carbon energy and other GHG-reducing projects now.

Some companies have yet to join the policy debate due to the perception that their first step on climate issues should be to reduce their own emissions. However, engagement on policy can actually be undertaken concurrently, and may even enable more effective and efficient emission reductions.

What follows are five recommendations for engaging in climate policy based on research BSR has conducted for a series of reports on climate policy engagement that will be published in early 2010:

1. Start where you are. For most companies, managing climate policy proactively may seem like a brand new arena. But many of those same companies are already engaged in related activities, such as education and awareness building. Companies have pursued these activities because the public is often unclear that there is such robust scientific consensus about climate change, and public attitudes can have a strong impact on the success of legislation. Take stock of your existing efforts and capabilities, and use those successes to build the case internally for greater commitments.
2. Follow emerging performance indicators related to climate policy. These include the Carbon Disclosure Project’s Investor Questionnaire (see question 28.1) and the Center for Political Accountability, as well as frameworks like Climate Counts. If you see room for improvement, communicate with these groups about the type of policy they should be encouraging.
3. Focus your efforts. Identify your strongest levers for credibly influencing climate policy. The suggestions above provide a framework for considering your options.
4. Pay attention to your company’s process. Policy outcomes are important, but so is the credibility and effectiveness of your company’s internal process. When it comes to managing operational emissions, the outcomes garner the most attention. With climate policy engagement, however, the quality of your approach is a chief success driver, because standards are emergent.
5. Act now—and stay involved. The rules are currently being defined, and policy action is urgently needed to both mitigate climate change and reduce the uncertainty of market conditions. At the same time, key upcoming events—such as the Copenhagen summit and the prospective U.S. Senate vote on emissions regulation—represent beginnings more than ends, because they will start a long process of standards development, international harmonization, and financial and technological innovation. Given the fundamental changes that new climate policy will drive for energy, agriculture, and other markets, companies should develop more robust intelligence functions for anticipating and reacting to opportunities, and treat policy engagement as a continuous process.