Climate risk assessments and science-based targets: A review of emerging private sector climate action tools
Corresponding Author
Jayme Walenta
Department of Geography and Environment, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas
Correspondence
Jayme Walenta, Department of Geography and Environment, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712.
Email: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Jayme Walenta
Department of Geography and Environment, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas
Correspondence
Jayme Walenta, Department of Geography and Environment, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712.
Email: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
With the retreat of the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement, the campaign to enroll corporations and other private sector actors into the climate governing arena has accelerated. The tools used by such actors in addressing climate change are similarly expanding. While carbon footprints and carbon offsets have been previously underscored as the chief climate action tools to date, climate risk assessments and science-based targets have been proposed as new quantitative tools to mobilize corporate action against climate change. This article presents a review of these two tools, arguing for more comprehensive and sustained scholarly investigation into each. Following overviews on the early developments of each tool, related academic research is considered in an effort to point toward future research priorities. These priorities emphasize generating empirical data around each tool's origins, diffusion, and impacts (social, economic, and environmental) so that more robust academic debates might occur on the role of science-based targets and climate risk assessments in advancing effective polycentric climate governance.
This article is categorized under:
- Social Status of Climate Change Knowledge > Knowledge and Practice
- Policy and Governance > Private Governance of Climate Change
Graphical Abstract
Corporate climate action tools.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The author has declared no conflicts of interest for this article.
FURTHER READING
- Lenhart, J., Weber, C., & Taylor, K. (2018, March 22). Cities, climate science and collaborations to achieve a 1.5°C global warming target. WWF Blog. Retrieved from https://medium.com/@WWF/cities-climate-science-and-collaborations-to-achieve-a-1-5-c-global-warming-target-549ef990c713
REFERENCES
- Aden, N. (2018). Necessary but not sufficient: the role of energy efficiency in industrial sector low-carbon transformation. Energy Efficiency, 11, 1083–1101.
- Andrade, J., & Puppim de Oliveira, J. (2015). The role of the private sector in global climate and energy governance. Journal of Business Ethics, 130, 375–387.
- Ascui, F. (2014). A review of carbon accounting in the social and environmental accounting literature: What can it contribute to the debate? Social and Environmental Accountability Journal, 34(1), 6–28.
10.1080/0969160X.2013.870487 Google Scholar
- Bates, J. (2017). Big data, open data and the climate risk market. In B. Brevini & G. Murdock (Eds.), Carbon capitalism and communication. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
10.1007/978-3-319-57876-7_7 Google Scholar
- Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London, England: Sage.
- Beck, U. (1999). World risk society. Cambridge, England: Policy Press.
- Becque, R., & Stewart, E. (2014, November 11). Making sense of science to calculate carbon reduction targets. GreenBiz. Retrieved from https://www.greenbiz.com/article/make-sense-science-calculate-corporate-carbon-reduction-targets
- Beggington, J., Schneider, T., Stevenson, L., & Fox, A. (in press). Fossil fuel reserves and resources reporting and unburnable carbon: Investigating conflicting accounts. Critical Perspectives on Accounting. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2019.04.004
- Beymer-Farris, B., & Bassett, T. (2012). The REDD menace: Resurgent protection in Tanzaniea's mangrove forests. Global Environmental Change, 22, 332–341.
- Bohm, S., Misoczky, M., & Moog, S. (2012). Greening capitalism? A Marxist critique of carbon markets. Organization Studies, 33(11), 1617–1638.
- Botzem, S., & Dobusch, L. (2012). Standardization cycles: A process perspective on the formation and diffusion of transnational standards. Organization Studies, 33(5/6), 737–762.
- Brander, M., Gillenwater, M., & Ascui, F. (2018). Creative accounting: A critical perspective on the market-based method for reporting purchased electricity (scope 2) emissions. Energy Policy, 112, 29–33.
- Bulkeley, H. (2001). Governing climate change: The politics of risk society. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 26(4), 430–447.
- Bulkeley, H., Andonova, L., Betsil, M., Compagnon, D., Hale, T., Hoffman, M., … Vandeveer, S. D. (2014). Transnational climate change governance. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
- A. Bumpus, J. Tansey, B. L. P. Henriquez, & C. Okereke (Eds.). (2014). Carbon governance, climate change and business transformation. London, England: Routledge.
10.4324/9780203375327 Google Scholar
- Bumpus, A., & Liverman, D. (2008). Accumulation by decarbonization and the governance of carbon offsets. Economic Geography, 84(2), 127–155.
- CC & CSO. (2013). Assessing corporate emissions performance through the lens of climate science. Retrieved from http://www.sustainableorganizations.org/Climate_Counts_2013_CarbonStudy.pdf
- Christophers, B. (2018). Risk capital: Urban political ecology and entanglements of financial and environmental risk in Washington, D.C. Environment & Planning E: Nature and Space, 1(1), 144–164.
10.1177/2514848618770369 Google Scholar
- Cole, D. H. (2015). Advantages of a polycentric approach to climate change policy. Nature Climate Change, 5, 114–118.
- Cummins, C., & Aden, N. (2014). Connecting corporate emission targets with climate. Retrieved from http://www.wri.org/blog/2014/05/connecting-corporate-emissions-targets-climate-science
- Dorsch, M., & Flachsland, C. (2017). A polycentric approach to global climate governance. Global Environmental Politics, 17(2), 45–64.
- Falkner, R. (2016). The Paris agreement and the new logic of international climate politics. International Affairs, 92(5), 1107–1125.
- Faria, P., & Labutong, N. (2015, March). A review of climate science based GHG target setting methodologies for companies. CDP White Paper.
- Faria, P., & Labutong, N. (2019). A description of four science-based corporate GHG target-setting methods. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-03-2017-0031
- Fazey, I., Moug, P., Allen, S., Beckmann, K., Blackwood, D., Bonaventura, M., … Wolstenholme, R. (2018). Transformation in a changing climate: A research agenda. Climate and Development, 10(3), 197–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2017.1301864
- Giesekam, J., Tingley, D. D., & Cotton, I. (2018). Aligning carbon targets for construction with (inter)national climate change mitigation commitments. Energy & Buildings, 165, 106–117.
- Gorgen, M., Jacob, A., Nerlinger, M., Riordan, R., Rohleder, M., & Wilkens, M. (2018). Carbon risk. Social science research network. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2930897
- Hale, J. (2018). Measuring transition risk in fund portfolios: The Morningstar portfolio carbon risk score. White Paper prepared for Morningstar. Retrieved from https://www.morningstar.com/lp/measuring-transition-risk?cid=RED_RES0002
- Hamilton, T. (2013). Beyond market signals: Negotiating marketplace politics and corporate responsibilities. Economic Geography, 89(3), 285–307.
- Heede, R. (2014). Tracing anthropogenic carbon dioxide and methane emissions to fossil fuel and cement producers, 1854–2010. Climate Change, 122(1–2), 229–241.
- Hunt, E., Levin, S., & McCarthy, T. (2017, June 2). Paris climate agreement: World reacts as Trump pulls out of global accord—As it happened. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/live/2017/jun/01/donald-trump-paris-climate-agreement-live-news
- IPCC. (2013). The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, England and New York, NY: University Press. Retrieved from http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf
- IPCC. (2014). Mitigation of climate change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, England and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from http://report.mitigation2014.org/spm/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-for-policymakers.pdf
- IPCC. (2018). Special report on global warming of 1.5°C. Retrieved from https://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf
- Jänicke, R. (2012). Dynamic governance of clean-energy markets: How technical innovation could accelerate climate policies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 22(1), 50–59.
- Johnson, L. (2010). Climate change and the risk industry: The multiplication of fear and value. In P. Robbins, M. Watt, & R. Peet (Eds.), Global political ecology. London, England and New York, NY: Routledge.
- Jordan, A., & Huitema, D. (2014). Innovations in climate policy: Invention, diffusion and evaluation. Environmental Politics, 23(5), 715–734.
- Khalamayzer, A. (2018, January 9). Why voluntary climate risk disclosure is going mainstream. Green Biz. Retrieved from https://www.greenbiz.com/article/why-voluntary-climate-risk-disclosure-going-mainstream
- Knox-Hayes, J. (2010). Constructing carbon market spacetime: Climate change and the onset of neo-modernity. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 100(4), 953–962.
- Knox-Hayes, J. (2016). The cultures of markets: The political economy of climate governance. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198718451.001.0001 Google Scholar
- Knox-Hayes, J., & Levy, D. (2011). The politics of carbon disclosure as climate governance. Strategic Organization, 9(1), 91–99.
- Kolk, A. (2004). A decade of sustainability reporting: Developments and significance. International Journal of Environment and Sustainable Development, 3(1), 51–64.
10.1504/IJESD.2004.004688 Google Scholar
- Kolk, A., Levy, D., & Pinkse, J. (2008). Corporate responses in an emerging climate regime: The institutionalization and commensuration of carbon disclosure. European Accounting Review, 17(4), 719–745.
- Kollmuss, A., Zink, H., & Polycap, C. (2008). Making sense of the voluntary carbon market: A comparison of carbon offset standards. Berlin, Germany: WWF.
- Krabbe, O., Linthorst, G., Blok, K., Grijns-Graus, W., van Vurren, D. P., Hone, N., … Pineda, A. (2015). Aligning corporate greenhouse-gas emissions targets with climate goals. Nature Climate Change, 5, 1057–1060.
- Lansing, D. (2010). Carbon's calculatory spaces: The emergence of carbon offsets in Costa Rica. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 28(4), 710–725.
- Lash, J., & Wellington, F. (2007, March). Competitive advantage on a warming planet. Harvard Business Review.
- Lash, S., Szerszynski, B., & Wynne, B. (1996). Risk, environment & modernity: Towards a new ecology. London, England: Sage.
- Levy, D. L., & Spicer, A. (2013). Contested imaginaries and the cultural political economy of climate change. Organization, 20(5), 659–678.
- Lippert, I. (2013). Enacting environments: An ethnography of the digitalization and naturalization of emissions (PhD dissertation in sociology). University of Ausburg, Ausburg, Germany.
- Lipschutz, R., & Rowe, J. (2005). Globalization, governmentality, and global politics: Regulation for the rest of us? New York, NY: Routledge.
- Lovell, H. (2015). The making of low carbon economies. London, England: Routledge.
- MacKenzie, D. (2009). Making things the same: Gases, emission rights and the politics of carbon markets. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34(3–4), 440–455.
- Marland, G., Kowalczyk, T., & Cherry, T. (2015). “‘Green fluff”? The role of corporate sustainability initiatives in effective climate policy. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 19(6), 934–936.
- McAfee, K. (2012). The contradictory logic of global ecosystem services markets. Development and Change, 43(1), 105–131.
- Morseletto, P., Biermann, F., & Pattberg, P. (2017). Governing by targets: Reduction ad unum and evolution of the two-degree climate target. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 17(7), 655–676.
- Newell, P., & Paterson, M. (2010). Climate capitalism: Global warming and the transformation of the global economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10.1017/CBO9780511761850 Google Scholar
- Newell, P., Pattberg, P., & Schroeder, H. (2012). Multi-actor governance and the environment. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 37, 365–387.
- Nisbet, M. (2014). Disruptive ideas: Public intellectuals and their arguments for action on climate change. WIREs Climate Change, 5(4), 809–823.
- Nyberg, D., & Wright, C. (2016). Performative and political: Corporate constructions of climate change risk. Organization, 23(5), 617–638.
- Oels, A. (2013). Rendering climate change governable by risk: From profitability to contingency. Geoforum, 45, 17–29.
- Okereke, C. (2016). Business. In K. Backstrand & E. Lovbrand (Eds.), Research handbook on climate governance (pp. 127–133). Cheltenham, England: Elgar Press.
- Ormond, J. (2015). New regimes of responsibilization: Practicing product carbon footprinting in the new economy. Economic Geography, 91(4), 428–448.
- Ostrom, E. (2009). A polycentric approach for coping with climate change. World Bank. Working Paper 5095.
- Paterson, M., & Stripple, J. (2010). My space: Governing individuals' carbon emissions. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 28(2), 341–362.
- Prudham, S. (2009). Pimping climate change: Richard Branson, global warming and the performance of green capitalism. Environment and Planning A, 41, 1594–1613.
- Randers, J. (2012). Greenhouse gas emissions per unit of value added (“GEVA”): A corporate guide to voluntary climate action. Energy Policy, 48(2012), 46–55.
- Rockstrom, J., Gaffney, O., Rogelj, J., Meinshausen, M., Nakicenovic, N., & Schellnhuber, H. J. (2017). A roadmap for rapid decarbonization. Science, 355(6331), 1269–1271.
- Sandor, R. L., Bettelheim, E. C., & Swingland, I. R. (2002). An overview of a free-market approach to climate change and conservation. In I. R. Swingland (Ed.), Capturing carbon and conserving biodiversity: The market approach (pp. 56–69). London, England: Earthscan.
- Sapinski, J. P. (2016). Constructing climate capitalism: Corporate power and the global climate policy-planning network. Global Networks, 16(1), 89–111.
- SBTi. (2014). Mind the science, mind the gap: Stakeholder consultation workshop feedback. Retrieved from https://sciencebasedtargets.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Goal_Setting_Workshop_Summary_for_Website.pdf
- SBTi. (2017, July 19). Science-based target setting manual. Version 3.0. Retrieved from https://sciencebasedtargets.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/SBT-Manual-Draft.pdf
- SBTi. (2019, April). SBTi call to action guidelines. Version 1.5. Retrieved from https://sciencebasedtargets.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/C2A-guidelines.pdf
- Stewart, E., & Deodhar, A. (2009). A corporate finance approach to climate stabilizing targets (C-FACT). Autodesk White Paper. Retrieved from https://sciencebasedtargets.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/greenhouse_gas_white_paper000.pdf
- J. Stripple, & H. Bulkeley (Eds.). (2014). Governing the climate: New approaches to rationality, power, and politics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
- Subramanian, P. (2018, June 14). Responsible investing: The impact of carbon risk on your portfolio. The Edge Markets. Retrieved from http://www.theedgemarkets.com/article/responsible-investing-impact-carbon-risk-your-portfolio
- Trancik, J. E., Chang, M. T., Karapataki, C., & Stokes, L. C. (2014). Effectiveness of a segmental approach to climate policy. Environment Science & Policy, 48, 27–35.
- Trexler, M., & Schendler, A. (2015). Science-based carbon targets for the corporate world: The ultimate sustainability commitment, or a costly distraction. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 19(6), 931–933.
- Tuppen, C. (2008). Climate stabilization intensity targets: A new approach to setting corporate climate change targets. British Telecom White Paper. Retrieved from https://www.btplc.com/Purposefulbusiness/Energyandenvironment/Our31methodology/CSI_Methodology.pdf
- UNFCCC. (1992). The United Nations framework convention on climate change. 1992 FCCC/INFORMAL/84 GE.05-62220 (E) 200705.
- Volcovici, V. (2017, June 5). Bloomberg delivers U.S. pledge to continue Paris climate goals to UN. Reuters. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-climate-paris-idUSKBN18W2DQ
- Walenta, J. (2018). The limits to private sector climate change action: The geographies of corporate climate governance. Economic Geography, 94(5), 461–484.
- World Resource Institute and World Business Council for Sustainable Development. (2004). Greenhouse gas protocol: Corporate standard ( Revised ed.). Washington, DC: World Resource Institute and World Business Council for Sustainable Development.