Question: Business has a paradoxical relationship to climate change. On the one hand, businesses are prime contributors to greenhouse gas emissions.
12 Apr 2023,2:46 PM
Business has a paradoxical relationship to climate change. On the one hand, businesses are prime contributors to greenhouse gas emissions. On the other hand, the entrepreneurial and innovative character of business activity can offer vital solutions for climate change mitigation and adaptation. Critically evaluate ONE approach to tackling climate change discussed in this module with reference to the above outlined paradox.
References：
1.Hulme, M. (Ed.). (2019). Contemporary Climate Change Debates: A Student Primer. Routledge. http://lib.exeter.ac.uk/record=b4178564~S6
2.Baron (1995) The non-market strategy system. Sloan Management Review. https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/the-nonmarket-strategy-system/
3.Baron, D. P. (1995). Integrated strategy: Market and nonmarket components. California management review, 37(2), 47-65.
4.Cairney, Paul. 2018. “Three Habits of Successful Policy Entrepreneurs.” Policy and Politics 46(2): 1–16.
5.Hillman, A., & Hitt, M. (1999). Corporate Political Strategy Formulation: A Model of Approach, Participation, and Strategy Decisions. The Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 825-842. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/259357
6.Holburn, Guy L. F., and Richard G. Vanden Bergh. 2014. “Integrated Market and Nonmarket Strategies: Political Campaign Contributions around Merger and Acquisition Events in the Energy Sector.” Strategic Management Journal 35(3): 450–60.
7.Liedong, Tahiru Azaaviele, Abby Ghobadian, Tazeeb Rajwani, and Nicholas O’Regan. 2014. “Toward a View of Complementarity: Trust and Policy Influence Effects of Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Political Activity.” Group & Organization Management 40(3): 405–27.
8.Lord (2000) Corporate Political Strategy and Legislative Decision Making: The Impact of Corporate Legislative Influence Activities. Business & society, Vol. 39 No. 1, March 2000 76-93
9.Lux, Sean, T. Russell Crook, and Terry Leap. 2012. “Corporate Political Activity: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.” Business Horizons 55(3): 307–12.
10.Porter, M (1979) How competitive forces shape strategy. Harvard Business Review
11.Ridge, Jason W, and Aaron D Hill. 2017. “Beyond Lobbying Expenditures : How Lobbying Breadth and Political Connectedness Affect Firm Outcomes.” 60(3): 1138–63.
12.Anable, J., 2005. ‘Complacent Car Addicts’ or ‘Aspiring Environmentalists’? Identifying travel behaviour segments using attitude theory, Transport Policy, 12, 65-78.
13.Andreasen, A. R., 2006. Social Marketing in the 21st Century. London: Sage.
14.Barr, S., 2008. Environment and Society: sustainability, policy and the citizen. Aldershot: Ashgate.
15.Barr, S., 2011. Climate forums: virtual discourses o climate change and the sustainable lifestyle, Area, 43, 14-22.
16.Barr, S. 2018. Personal mobility and climate change. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 9(5) https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.542
17.Barr, S., Gilg,. A. W. and Shaw, G., 2011. Citizens, Consumers and Sustainability: (re)framing environmental practice in an age of climate change. Global Environmental Change, 21, 1224-1233.
18.Barr, S. and Prillwitz, J., 2011. Green Travellers? Exploring the spatial context of sustainable mobility styles. Applied Geography, 32, 798-809.
19.Barr, S., & Prillwitz, J., 2014. A smarter choice? Exploring the behaviour change agenda for environmentally sustainable mobility. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 32, 1-19.
20.Becken, S., 2007. Tourists’ Perception of International Air Travel’s Impact on the Global Climate and Potential Climate Change Policies, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15, 351-368.
21.Clarke, J., Newman, J., Smith, N., Vidler, E., Westmarland, L., 2007. Creating Citizen-Consumers; Changing Publics and Changing Public Services. London: Sage.
22.Crompton, T. and Thogersen, J., 2009. Simple and Painless? The limitations of spillover in environmental campaigning. London: WWF UK.
23.Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), 2008. Framework for Environmental Behaviours. London: DEFRA.
24.Frame, B. and Newton, B., 2007. Promoting sustainability through social marketing: examples from New Zealand, International Journal of Consumer Studies, 31, 571-581.
25.Gossling, S. and Peeters, P., 2007. ‘It Does Not Harm the Environment!’ An Analysis of Industry Discourses on Tourism, Air Travel and the Environment, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15, 402-417.
26.Higham, J. E., Cohen, S. A., & Cavaliere, C. T. (2014). Climate change, discretionary air travel, and the “Flyers’ Dilemma”. Journal of Travel Research, 53(4), 462-475.
27.House of Lords Science and Technology Committee, 2011. Behaviour Change Report. London, The Stationary Office. HL Paper 179.
28.Jackson, T., 2005. Motivating Sustainable Consumption: a review of evidence on consumer behaviour and behavioural change, London: Sustainable Development Research Network.
29.Kunstler, J. H. (2005) The Long Emergency (Simon and Schuster, New York).
30.Lorenzoni, I. and Pidgeon, N., 2006. Public views on climate change: European and USA perspectives, Climatic Change, 77 (1-2), 73–95.
31.Lorenzoni, I., Nicholson-Cole, S. and Whitmarsh, L., 2007. Barriers perceived to engaging with climate change among the UK and their policy implications, Global Environmental Change, 17, 445-459.
32.Marsden, G., Mullen, C., Bache, I., Bartle, I., & Flinders, M. (2014). Carbon reduction and travel behaviour: Discourses, disputes and contradictions in governance. Transport Policy, 35, 71-78.
33.McKenzie-Mohr, D., 2000. New Ways to Promote Proenvironmental Behavior: Promoting Sustainable Behavior: An Introduction to Community-Based Social Marketing, Journal of Social Issues, 56, 543-554.
34.Peattie, K. and Peattie, S., 2009. Social marketing: a pathway to consumption reduction? Journal of Business Research, 62, 260-268.
35.Pykett, J., Jones, R., & Whitehead, M. (Eds.). (2016). Psychological governance and public policy: Governing the mind, brain and behaviour (Taylor & Francis, Abingdon).
36.Shove, E., 2010. Beyond the ABC: climate change policy and theories of social change. Environment and planning A, 42, 1273- 1285.
37.Spaargaren, G. and Mol, A. P. J., 2008. Greening global consumption: Redefining politics and authority, Global Environmental Change, 18, 350-359.
38.Stoll-Kleemann, S., O’Riordan, T., Jaeger, C.C., 2001. The psychology of denial concerning climate mitigation measures: evidence from Swiss focus groups, Global Environmental Change, 11, 107–117.
39.Thaler, R. H. and Sunsten, C. R., 2008. Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness. New Haven, CT, Yale University Press.
40.Verbeek, D. and Mommaas, H., 2008. Transitions to Sustainable Tourism Mobility: The Social Practices Approach. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 16, 629-644.
41.Ginanjar, W. R., & Mubarrok, A. Z. (2020). Civil society and global governance: The indirect participation of extinction rebellion in global governance on climate change. Journal of Contemporary Governance and Public Policy, 1(1), 41-52
42.MacKay, B., & Munro, I. (2012). Information warfare and new organizational landscapes: An inquiry into the ExxonMobil–Greenpeace dispute over climate change. Organization Studies, 33(11), 1507-1536.
43.Nässén, N., & Rambaree, K. (2021). Greta Thunberg and the generation of moral authority: A systematic literature review on the characteristics of Thunberg’s leadership. Sustainability, 13(20), 11326.
44.Skoglund, A., & Böhm, S. (2022). Climate Activism: How Communities Take Renewable Energy Actions Across Business and Society. Cambridge University Press
Expert answer
The threat of climate change is one of the most pressing issues facing humanity in the twenty-first century. The scientific consensus is clear that human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, are the primary cause of global warming and associated climate change. The private sector has a critical role to play in addressing this challenge, given its contribution to greenhouse gas emissions and its capacity for innovation and investment. However, the relationship between business and climate change is paradoxical, as businesses are both part of the problem and part of the solution. This paper critically evaluates the approach of carbon pricing to tackling climate change in light of this paradox.
Carbon Pricing
Carbon pricing is a market-based approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It involves putting a price on carbon emissions, either through a tax or a cap-and-trade system, to incentivize businesses and individuals to reduce their emissions. The idea behind carbon pricing is to create a financial incentive for businesses and individuals to invest in low-carbon technologies and practices and to discourage high-carbon activities.
On the one hand, carbon pricing has the potential to be an effective tool for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. By putting a price on carbon, businesses and individuals are encouraged to reduce their emissions in order to save money. This can drive investment in low-carbon technologies and practices and lead to a shift away from fossil fuels towards renewable energy sources. A recent study by the International Monetary Fund found that carbon pricing could reduce global carbon dioxide emissions by 23% by 2030 and generate significant economic benefits, including increased GDP and job creation (IMF, 2019).
On the other hand, the implementation of carbon pricing is complex and can lead to unintended consequences. One concern is that carbon pricing may disproportionately affect low-income households and vulnerable communities. A carbon tax, for example, would increase the cost of energy and goods that are carbon-intensive, such as gasoline and heating oil. This could lead to higher energy bills for low-income households and make it harder for them to afford basic necessities. In addition, industries that are heavily reliant on fossil fuels, such as the oil and gas industry, may resist carbon pricing and lobby against it, which could slow down its implementation and effectiveness.
The Paradox of Carbon Pricing
The paradox of carbon pricing is that it is both an important tool for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and a potential source of harm for vulnerable communities. On the one hand, carbon pricing can create a financial incentive for businesses and individuals to invest in low-carbon technologies and practices. This can drive innovation and investment in renewable energy sources and lead to significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. On the other hand, carbon pricing can disproportionately affect low-income households and vulnerable communities, who may not have the resources to invest in low-carbon technologies or adapt to the higher cost of energy and goods.
In order to address this paradox, it is important to design carbon pricing policies that take into account the social and economic impacts of the policy. For example, revenue from a carbon tax could be used to fund social programs that benefit low-income households and vulnerable communities. In addition, exemptions and rebates could be provided to certain industries and households to mitigate the impact of the carbon pricing policy. These measures would help to ensure that the burden of reducing greenhouse gas emissions is shared equitably across society.
Another way to address the paradox of carbon pricing is to combine it with other policy measures that address the social and economic impacts of the policy. For example, policies that promote energy efficiency and renewable energy can reduce the overall demand for energy and make it easier for households and businesses to transition to low-carbon technologies. In addition, policies that promote social equity, such as affordable housing and public transportation, can help to reduce the impact of higher energy costs on low-income households.
Conclusion
The paradoxical relationship between business and climate change means that the approach to tackling climate change must be carefully evaluated to ensure that it addresses the challenge effectively while minimizing harm to vulnerable communities. Carbon pricing is an important tool for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but it must be implemented in a way that takes into account the social and economic impacts of the policy.
In conclusion, the paradoxical relationship between business and climate change presents a significant challenge to addressing this global issue. On the one hand, businesses are a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, but on the other hand, they have the capacity for innovation and investment that can contribute to solutions for climate change mitigation and adaptation. Carbon pricing is one approach to tackling climate change that has the potential to be effective in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but it must be implemented in a way that takes into account the social and economic impacts of the policy. This requires careful design and implementation to ensure that the burden of reducing greenhouse gas emissions is shared equitably across society. Other policy measures, such as promoting energy efficiency and social equity, can complement carbon pricing to address the paradoxical relationship between business and climate change and promote a more sustainable and equitable future for all.
Stuck Looking For A Model Original Answer To This Or Any Other
Question?
Our skilled experts only need your instructions and deadline to help you produce an original and flawless paper.
Place Order Now
Customer ID: 100351