Corporate social responsibility, governance, substainable development

Climate change & business sustainability

Climate Change Resource Centre

1. Climate change

The global climate is ever changing. But the changes have become more significant, covering the entire globe, and weather patterns have becoming increasingly ferocious. In the past, the global climate has altered as a result of natural causes. However, over the last century the concentration of GHGs has increased, primarily due to human interference and subsequent over-reliance on fossil fuels. The amount of CO₂ emissions entering the atmosphere has increased by 165 billion metric tonnes since the beginning of the industrial era (IPCC). These emissions are now widely accepted as contributing to climate change.¹

Climate change may be happening much faster than some of the world's best scientists have predicted, with the rate and the mass at which gas emissions are entering the atmosphere being far beyond the predicted levels. This could result in rapid and abrupt climate change rather than the gradual changes previously experienced. It has been reported by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) that climate change is accelerating far beyond the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) forecast in their "Mitigation of Climate Change" report, 2007. For example, the WWF’s "Climate Change" (2008) report identifies how sea ice is disappearing up to 30 years ahead of IPCC predictions and may be gone completely within five years. Professor Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, Vice Chair of the IPCC, endorses the WWF report, stating: "It is clear that climate change is already having a greater impact than most scientists had anticipated, so it's vital that international mitigation and adaptation responses become swifter and more ambitious." In the “Copenhagen Diagnosis” a summary of hundreds of peer-reviewed research papers that have been published since the IPCC's report in 2007 reinforces that apprehension. The scientists state that the melting of Arctic sea ice during 2007-2009 was about 40% greater than the average prediction from IPCC AR4 climate models.²

One projection that is clear in both reports published by the IPCC (2007) and the WWF (2008) is that the Earth’s temperatures could reach inconceivable levels on average leading to unmanageable levels of catastrophic climate change, e.g. a sustained increase of 1-2°C in the near future. To put this into perspective, the world’s average temperature levels have only increased by 0.8°C, since pre-industrial times. The graph below represents the ever increasing global levels of CO₂ emissions and warming compared to pre-industrial times and shows a scenario without a future climate change policy.

Climate change risks:

Extinction risks: Numerous shifts in the behavioural patterns, food chains, and distributions of species which is and will result in one species-level extinction.
Physical risks: Owing to an increase in the number of violent meteorological episodes such as heat waves, floods, storms, sea level rises, droughts. These events can directly damage a business premises, hurt its clients or affect its suppliers.
Regulatory risks: Climate change incites national and international regulation instruments to change current legislation and to impose new rules about environmental management. These put pressure on companies, notably increasing operational costs with regards to lowering their emission of greenhouse gases. By not conforming to these new rules businesses put themselves at risk.
Competitive risk: Companies which ignore consumer concern over climate change risk losing out to companies which have actively responded.

2. Technology change

As recent success stories show, the early movers in climate change businesses such as renewable energy companies see extraordinary opportunities for their financial bottom line, as well as their social, ethical and environmental bottom line.

British Airways’ Climate Change Programme comprises its own voluntary actions, promotion of industry solutions to policy makers and support of research into areas of uncertainty in climate change science and aviation.
Anglian Water has adopted a comprehensive approach to tackling climate change, which recognises the importance of partnerships, behavioural change and communication.

Carbon Offsetting

In addition to cutting down greenhouse gas emissions companies can offset their unavoidable emissions through the practice known as carbon offsetting. This involves investing through the purchase of carbon credits in reforestation projects, renewable energy and energy efficiency. Each carbon credit is the equivalent of one tonne of carbon, replaced through renewable energy use, avoided through energy efficiency or sequestrated through forestry.

Carbon offsetting is a useful method to address climate change because it:

Provides a method of calculating and reducing our CO₂ emissions;
Helps raise awareness of our impact on climate change;
Can lead to a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions specific to an area, when done in a responsible way; and
Provides a mechanism for investment in clean technology where it is most lacking, e.g. developing countries. Responsible offsetting projects, e.g. UN approved, can lead to broader scope low-carbon development which can spread across entire regions, further reducing climate change impact.

There are two market places to purchase carbon credits: the voluntary market and the regulated market. The regulated market consists of the existing regulated trade in carbon credits through the UN and schemes such as the European Union Trading Scheme (EUTS). This arena offers comfort to purchasers in that it is highly regulated. However, from an ethical point of view, purchasers should check the sources of the purchase for issues such as human rights as well as the environmental impact of any project on non-carbon issues such as water pollution. Although the UN and the EUTS have taken great steps to improve these issues customers should still be aware of the general ethical performance of the entity issuing the carbon credit.

The voluntary or unregulated market covers a wide variety of carbon credit types and is unregulated. Credits purchased in this market need to be carefully vetted and customers should seek proof or verification of the projects involved. In this field a lot of effort is being made in order to provide more efficient and reliable services. Initiatives such as the Voluntary Carbon Standard are welcome as is the Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance which is setting accurate standards to evaluate offsetting projects. These types of initiative are shaping the voluntary carbon offset market in the right direction.

HSBC claims its CO₂ emissions are set at zero through an Environmental Efficiency Programme. The aim of this programme is to help reduce pollution and purchase carbon offsets. Francis Sullivan, the company's adviser on the environment, believes there is a pressing need for HSBC to lead the way on climate change and achieve high environmental reduction targets.
Aviva announced its decision to become the first insurer to carbon neutralise its worldwide operations in December 2006. This decision was driven by the Group’s desire to be responsible and minimise its contribution to climate change. Aviva considered all the carbon emissions sources relating to its business such as its energy consumption, waste management, paper usage and travel policy and subsequently developed systems intended to cut emissions. Aviva set a corresponding carbon offsetting selection policy to offset the emissions it isn't able to reduce. Read about Aviva's carbon emission reduction programme.
Climate Change Capital: This investment bank is a specialist in commercial opportunities created by a low carbon economy. It advises and invests in companies which recognise that combating global warming is both a necessity and an economic opportunity. By advising on climate change opportunities, and managing investment in related projects, Climate Change Capital Limited has been involved in the removal of the equivalent to tens of millions tonnes of CO₂ from the atmosphere.

Technologies

Events, including the World Future Energy Summit 2009 in Abu Dhabi are allowing individuals, businesses and governments to discuss the latest solutions to manage their environmental footprint and to share their experiences and knowledge about climate change issues. These are encouraging benchmarking of environmentally friendly practices and new technologies.

At present, the supply and demand of alternative energy is growing considerably. Within the bracket of alternative energy, renewable energy represents a large market share. Renewable energy provides a continuously replenishing steady stream of energy that does not depend on hydrocarbon supplies from unstable regimes. These energy supplies are the nearest thing we have to a non-polluting sustainable energy source that can potentially help combat global climate change and provide a secure future energy supply. The following areas identify the different renewable energy options, business cases and the latest technologies being utilised.

Solar power

Solar power transforms solar energy into energy to provide heat, light, hot water, electricity, and even cooling, for homes, businesses, and industry. It is the process of capturing and harnessing the sun's power in order to turn it into a productive energy source, which could potentially benefit industries, such as transportation and housing. Solar energy is recognised as sustainable and could reduce global carbon emissions through producing minimal or zero waste gas. The technologies used to capture and harness the sun's power include:

Photovoltaic systems;
Solar hot water;
Solar electricity;
Passive solar heating and daylighting.

Wind power

Wind power is the conversion of wind energy into a productive energy source, predominantly generating electricity. This alternative energy supply utilises wind turbine technology (either horizontal or vertical axis), which captures the wind’s kinetic energy and converts it into a usable and sustainable form of energy supply. The wind turbines slow down the speed of the wind with propeller-like blades, in order to turn an electric generator and produce electricity. Wind turbines can be used as stand-alone applications, or they can be connected to a utility power grid or even combined with a photovoltaic (solar cell) system.

Tidal power

The tide moves a huge amount of water twice each day; it is predictable and reliable. This steady stream of energy is converted into electricity or other useful forms of power by using the tidal water-level differences to drive a turbine. This turbine powers a tidal energy generator, which converts the energy. The stronger the tide, either in water level height or tidal current velocities, the greater the potential for tidal energy generation. There are two main types of tidal technology: tidal stream systems and barrages.

Waste-to-energy

Converting waste to energy is a process utilising our currently unsustainably high volumes of waste and converts it into a viable source of energy; this is known as an industrial ecosystem cycle. This process resolves two issues simultaneously: waste management and sustainable energy. This method means that our waste is continuously being recycled and developed into a highly productive energy source. The technology used to generate waste-to-gas includes the following:

Combustion incineration technology: the application of extreme heat for the combustion of waste;
Non-direct combustion technology: produces energy from waste and other fuels without direct combustion. Some businesses are turning waste into a hydrogen rich 'syngas' in order to generate electricity, through applying very high temperatures which releases combustible gas;
Anaerobic digestion (AD): This natural treatment process is similar to composting; bacteria break down organic matter and reduce its bulk or 'mass'. Unlike composting AD is carried out in an oxygen-free environment (known as anaerobic conditions) to allow the presence of bacteria adjusted to these conditions which then multiply and grow, and by so doing achieve the process aims of sanitisation of the feed material and of any liquid discharged; a net positive surplus generation of energy as a biofuel to allow power production from methane gas (biogas) produced by the organisms.

Nuclear power

Nuclear power is the conversion of a controlled nuclear reaction using a plentiful radioactive material (i.e. uranium) into an energy supply. It already generates about 20% of the world's electricity and produces relatively little waste, thus minimising its effect on the environment and overall impact on global climate change. Even though nuclear power has the potential to generate mass energy, it has also received many criticisms for safety and economics, which are as follows:

It is considered very dangerous, e.g. the Chernobyl disaster;
It must be kept safe from earthquakes, flooding, terrorists and everything else;
Nuclear power is reliable, but requires high safety costs to implement;
Waste disposal and storage issues as the radioactive residue has a long half-life.

Biofuels

Biofuels are a source of energy which is produced from the conversion of biological material (living things or from the waste they produce) into a viable energy form, most commonly used to power vehicles and heat homes. The biological materials used to produce biofuels can come in a number forms, including:

Wood, wood chippings and straw;
Pellets or liquids made from wood;
Ethanol, diesel or other liquid fuels made from processing plant material or waste oil;
Biogas (methane) from animals' excrement.

Two of the main forms of biofuels include:

Biodiesel: an alternative fuel similar to conventional or ‘fossil’ diesel. Biodiesel can be produced from straight vegetable oil, animal oil/fats, tallow and waste cooking oil. The process used to convert these oils to biodiesel is called transesterification;
Bioethanol: this is the principal fuel used as a petrol substitute for road transport vehicles, and mainly produced by the sugarcane or maize fermentation process.

3. FUTURE CHANGE

Across the globe there is an increasing number of regulations and rules attempting to decrease our contribution to global climate change and adapt our lifestyles to it. Governments, businesses and communities are under increasing pressure to take action to mitigate their impacts on climate change, whether through small changes to reduce an individual’s carbon footprint or much larger scale investments in clean technology.

Global and regional initiatives

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is an international environmental treaty encouraging the stabilisation of greenhouse gases concentration in the air;
The United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP15) held in Copenhagen in late 2009 is part of an ongoing series of negotiations between global heads of state on climate change and greenhouse gas emission reduction;
United Nations Global Compact (UNGC) - principles 7, 8 and 9 address environmental issues;
The Kyoto treaty was established by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

UK initiatives

Non-Government Organisations

Friends of the Earth: An environmental NGO focused on the environmental impacts and causes of climate change, providing up-to-date information from a variety of sources;
Green Thing: A not-for profit initiative to get as many people as possible to be a little greener in the way they behave. By suggesting the things you can do with exclusive pieces of great entertainment every month, Green Thing will tempt and encourage a community of “green things” across the world to act against climate change;
Climate Change Corp (CCC): CCC provides climate news for business. It looks at strategy, markets, branding, policy, technology, reporting, environment and opinion. It provides a vast source of climate change related issues impacting and being impacted by business;
Stop Climate Chaos Coalition: This coalition includes many of the UK’s leading environmental organisations, international development agencies and other national campaigning bodies. It aims to build public pressure on the UK Government to act at home and abroad to prevent global warming from exceeding the widely-accepted danger threshold of two degrees centigrade. In October 2006 the coalition launched its “I Count” mass public campaign. This has inspired thousands of people to take action against climate change and is the coalition's prime vehicle for engaging the public;
Greenpeace: Greenpeace is an independent global campaigning organisation that acts to change attitudes and behaviour to protect and conserve the environment and to promote peace.

4. The UN Climate Change Conference 2009

The governments, business communities and civil societies of 192 countries came together on 15 December 2009 for the UN Climate Change Conference, also referred to as COP15, in an attempt to reach an agreement on actions to take against climate change. The international talks aimed at drafting a new treaty on climate change to replace the Kyoto Protocol with a more ambitious plan for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. A major debate also played out in Copenhagen was how the costs of cutting emissions should be divided between rich and poor countries.

Under the current situation, the Kyoto Protocol (KP), adopted in 1997 and linked to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), sets targets for emission cuts in greenhouse gases. The role of the Kyoto Protocol is to commit countries to the objectives of the UNFCCC, rather than merely encouraging them to do so. Under the KP, developed nations, who share a bigger responsibility for historical greenhouse gas emissions, shoulder a higher proportion of costs and responsibilities than developing countries.

In short, the KP commits 37 countries to meet set environmental targets through reducing their own emissions or investing abroad to reduce emissions in another country. For instance, they might choose to invest in Brazil and implement a reforestation plan, designed to create carbon sinks to capture the CO₂ in the air. A carbon sink, as defined by the International Emissions Trading Association, is “a reservoir that can absorb or 'sequester' carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and includes forests, soils, peat, permafrost, ocean water and carbonate deposits in the deep ocean.” The creation of carbon sinks is a common method of reducing CO₂ emissions, as is investment in clean and green technology projects.

Against this context, COP15 brought countries, industry sectors, non-governmental organisations and lobbying groups together. All had different expectations of the event. The following helps to explain the major issues faced at COP15, the key players in negotiations and the implications of the outcomes of COP15.

The key issues at COP15

As outlined in Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao’s speech to COP15, “Developed countries account for 80% of the total global carbon dioxide emissions since the Industrial Revolution over 200 years ago.” China and other emerging or poorer nations argue that developed nations with a long industrial history should bear the cost of climate change to a fair extent. In the words of Wen Jiabao, “Developing countries only started industrialisation a few decades ago and many of their people still live in abject poverty today. It is totally unjustified to ask them to undertake emission reduction targets beyond their due obligations and capabilities in disregard of historical responsibilities, per capita emissions and different levels of development.”³

On 8 December 2009, The Guardian leaked the Danish text, a draft of proposals prepared by the Danish host and other rich nations, which did not demonstrate any consultation with poor countries. Pablo Solon, Bolivian ambassador to the UN, comments: "This is completely unacceptable. How can it be that 25 to 30 nations cook up an agreement that excludes the majority of the 190 nations."

The Danish text faced harsh criticism for its proposal that rich developed nations cut fewer emissions, while developing nations should comply with tougher limits on emissions. Lumumba Di-Aping, the Sudanese chairman of the G77, representing 132 developing countries and China, commented on the ‘Danish text’ as follows: "The text robs developing countries of their just and equitable and fair share of the atmospheric space. It tries to treat rich and poor countries as equal. […] This is aimed at producing a new treaty, a new legal initiative that throws away the basis of [differing] obligations between the poorest and most wealthy nations in the world. […] We will not sign an inequitable deal; we will not accept a deal that condemns 80% of the world population to further suffering and injustice." Resentment was clear from of a number of nations that were not consulted.⁴

How can countries aim to meet their objectives?

The Kyoto Protocol encourages countries to meet their targets through national measures, but also through three market-based mechanisms:

Emission Trading allows emission sources to trade emission allowances (permits to pollute to a certain limit) between them. Essentially, each member country of the KP has a maximum limit on emissions (cap), divides it up as emission allowances (authorisations to emit) and distributes them among emission sources. Each source then decides on its own individual strategy; knowing that the cap is the sum of all emission allowances, they decide to either purchase or sell (trade) such allowances from or to other sources, in accordance with the reduction in emissions they can achieve in-house.
The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) allows for certain flexibility for developed countries to meet environmental targets, as it allows them to invest in an emission-reduction project in a developing country that will add up to their national emission cut, although operations do not take place on their territory.
Joint Implementation (JI) allows two countries to join forces in achieving an environmental target, contributing to both their national targets in a cost-effective way, while fostering foreign investment and technology transfer.

Countries and business have also used other mechanisms such as carbon offsetting, and technologies such as solar power, wind power, tidal power, waste-to-energy power, nuclear power and biofuels.

The key players

China

China, as the world’s largest CO₂ emitter, committed to cut its emissions as long as it would not affect its economic development. Criticism arose from the Americans, as President Obama regretted the lack of accountability measures linked to Prime Minister Wen Jiabao's promise of emissions reduction and their rejection of an international entity to check claims in emission cuts. China’s voluntary move does send out a positive message, but the question is: will it be followed by actions? Unfortunately, no supranational entity will be empowered to make sure of it. China also avoided its biggest fear: the KP protocol is still binding and China will conserve the large quantity of tradable credits for reducing emissions it receives.

The USA

On the US side, no new action was committed to, in an effort by President Obama to uphold a relative competitive advantage, notably for the manufacturing states of the Midwest, while facing two major competitors: India and China. In June 2009, the US House of Representatives narrowly passed a climate change bill, committing the US to a 17% cut in emissions by 2020 through an Emission Trading system.

Domestically, the climate change bill was strongly supported by the White House, but faced strong opposition from Republicans and Democrats in conservative and rural areas. In Copenhagen, President Obama presented environmental objectives, which represent a positive evolution since Kyoto, as the US had been the only developed country not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. In order for the Senate to approve his bill, Barack Obama needed to foster the support of senators that feared a loss of competitiveness of their local industries against China and India. President Obama improved his public image because of the way he faced China, and consequently, is likely to gain further support for his own national regulation from senators.

The EU

The EU expected to be asked to cut their emissions further, from 20% to 30%, had key players refused to cut their own emissions or if an ambitious accord had been reached. Neither of those happened and the initial 20% were divided among European nations. Under the European Union Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS), the world’s largest cap-and-trade system, a cap is given for the whole EU. The EU then divides it up between its members, who later create national allocation plans to share their emission allowances between their emission sources at the national level.

Accordingly, at COP15, the EU split such allowances between its members. Reportedly, the UK and others were ready to renegotiate the overall amount of CO₂ the EU is allowed to emit, but this attempt was blocked by countries such as Poland and Germany.

As far as aid to developing nations is concerned, UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown offered a plan for a global climate fund, worth $100bn a year, which was included in the final agreement to facilitate the introduction of clean energy technologies in the developing world, and to protect its population from the negative outcomes of climate change.⁵

Russia

Climate change is not as high a priority for Russia as the massive investments it could receive and as the technology transfer such investments imply. Russia is ready to cut emissions by 15% to 25%. It is worth noting that Russia’s forests represent an important carbon sink, which can contribute to reducing global carbon dioxide, therefore attracting a large amount of foreign investment under the clean development and joint implementation mechanisms of the KP.

Furthermore, Russia could claim notional emissions reductions because of the collapse of its economy in the 1990s. If recognised, it could sell these notional emission reductions for tremendous sums as permits to pollute and endanger real emission cuts.

India

India has a history of resistance to carbon-emission caps and although it declares its intention to cut emissions by 20-25% by 2020, it has been resistant to any legally-binding target-setting. “Whatever action we take domestically to pursue sustainable development, let it be clearly understood that there is no legal obligation on the part of India, under existing international instruments, to take on binding emissions reduction obligations, now or in the post 2012 period,” declares Shyam Saran, the Indian Prime Minister’s Special Envoy on Climate Change. Furthermore, in spite of its national environmental targets, the focus of India remains on its need for development and economic growth, like China; and on encouraging financing and technology transfer from developed countries.⁶

Brazil

The ambitious aim of Brazil, which intends to cut between 36% and 39% by 2020, is commensurate with the size of its main forest: the Amazon. Brazil plans on reducing deforestation in the rainforest and using biofuels and gasoline for fuel-efficient cars and trucks, although it will make sure that its own industrial output does not suffer from it. The Brazilian government declared its intention of making its ambitious emission targets legally binding, in spite of a lack of treaty. "We will fully comply with the targets. It doesn't matter that Copenhagen didn't go as well as we had hoped," said Environment Minister Carlos Minc.⁷

Indonesia

Although there is a debate on how much Indonesia contributes to global emissions, mainly because of deforestation, Indonesia remains a large emitter, whatever the measure. It aims to cut emissions by 26% by 2020. As such, Indonesia encourages technology and funds for forest conservation in order to self-monitor its emissions. Indonesia holds a certain negotiating leverage, because of its ability to create new carbon sinks in its forests.

Africa

Africa, while contributing the least to greenhouse gas emissions,⁸ suffers the most from climate change consequences, whether water shortages, irregular rainfalls, droughts, hunger or rising sea levels threatening entire island states. The continent also faces further challenges on its way to carbon emission reduction because of a lack of money and insufficient access to relevant technology and infrastructures. The governments and private sectors of industrialised nations offered $100bn a year by 2020 to help Africa finance its efforts, although fear exists that existing aid commitments might just be transferred to this fund and the exact nature of private sector participation remains vague.

Africa showed itself to be rather united on the issue of climate change, collectively demanding that rich countries cut more emissions than developing nations and providing strong support for the Kyoto protocol. It also supported the idea of the annual $100bn yearly donation to developing nations. It is worth noting that its close relations with China made it a vessel for Chinese arguments most of the time.

Outcome Of Cop15: The Copenhagen Accord

At the end of COP15, the ‘Copenhagen Accord’ was reached with difficulty between 28 countries only, among these Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, the UK, the US and South Africa. It failed to be ratified by the rest of the countries and therefore will not gain an official UN status or be legally binding. However, it represents a further step towards a post-Kyoto treaty.

In essence, the ‘Copenhagen Accord’ says that:

The nations of the world should limit the increase in global temperature to a maximum of two degrees;
Nations should individually or jointly commit to achieve their own environmental objectives;
Substantial finance should be committed to prevent deforestation (15% of overall emissions result from deforestation);
Developed countries should commit to provide an additional $30bn for 2010-2012 to aid developing countries to reduce their emissions (they set an objective of $100bn a year by 2020).

It omits to mention:

A precise peak date for carbon emissions; a precise timeframe;
A deadline for the signature of a legally binding treaty;
A commitment to replace the Kyoto Protocol.⁵

Conclusion

In conclusion, COP15 was unsuccessful in creating a legally binding treaty with accurate targets in emission cuts to be signed in June 2010, but witnessed positive moves from developing and high emitting countries such as China. However, future implications of COP15 will be dependent upon the voluntary actions of nations. Amidst the struggle between superpowers, mainly the US and China, poor countries willingly collaborated with the north to form stronger positions on key issues such as finance.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy already declared his intention of reuniting the 28 signatories of the Copenhagen Accord in spring 2010 to discuss the objective of cutting emissions by 50% by 2050, which was left out of the accord. Furthermore, Bolivian President Evo Morales also expressed his intention of inviting countries that were opposed to the Copenhagen Accord on Earth Day, 22 April 2010 for further discussions.

5. Alternative change

Although estimates of future climate change are uncertain, it is now widely accepted that even minor global warming will impact all of humanity. To reduce and mitigate impacts, targetted and urgent action must be taken by governments, businesses, non-government organisations, communities and individuals.

Businesses must make climate change a strategic priority; the implementation and integration of climate change initiatives, regulations, legally binding policies and rules will be critical and can be regionally specific. Possible actions might include:

Behaviour change

The immediate legacy of COP15 has not taken the form of a legally-binding treaty and, therefore, calls on voluntary action at the state, industry and business level. The change of behaviour observed at Copenhagen, notably on the part of the world’s biggest GHG emitter, China, is encouraging, since many nations agreed to make efforts to achieve sometimes ambitious environmental goals, such as 36-39% emission cuts in Brazil by 2020.

However, one might wonder what actions will be taken considering the non-legally binding nature of the Copenhagen Accord. India notably commented on the lack of legal obligation for it to reduce its emissions and hence, on the freedom of domestic action for sustainable development. If actions are purely voluntary, seemingly forward-thinking nations such as China, which claims to be willing to cut emissions only as far as it does not impair its economic development, could have a significant adverse impact on global emissions tomorrow, although they demonstrate a positive behaviour change today.

Article 13's approach: Behaviour change for climate change

Change working practices to adapt to climate change. Become a forward thinking business. Climate change may offer businesses new opportunities which can be taken advantage of.
Integrate methods of carbon reduction into business practices, including monitoring energy usage, e.g. regularly or automatically turning off electrical appliances when not in use.
Where possible reduce transportation emissions, particularly air transport miles, though an increase in video and internet conferences.
Develop an industrial ecosystem, particularly in manufacturing and development areas. This can ensure that waste material is recycled, e.g. waste-to-energy infrastructure.
Invest in the latest alternative energy solutions and low-carbon technologies.
Integrate climate change coaching days into business strategy. This will help to educate employees on recycling and carbon reduction.
Collaborate and participate with governing bodies within the area of climate change, e.g. Defra in the UK.
Regularly have environmental audits to help manage and identify environmental risks.
Provide benchmarks for improvements and intended benefits.
Lower the amount of paper wastage, as forests are an invaluable carbon sink, e.g. print only when necessary and use both sides of the paper.
Integrate climate change strategies into all areas of business, including the supply chain, working practices, products, services and premises.