Business

Business tries to do what Rio did not

That corporations emerged from last week’s summit looking more far-sighted than governments signals the depth of frustration with the paralysed UN system, says Isabel Hilton.
English

A chorus of disappointment greeted the close of the Rio+20 conference last week. The Brazilian hosts, perhaps concerned to avoid a repetition of the dramas that attended the final hours of the COP15 climate meeting in Copenhagen, had lowered their ambitions for the summit to the point that they seemed unprepared to fight for anything that any country objected to. The result was a document heavy on words and almost devoid of any prospect of action.

Delegates who had endured long flights and difficult conditions to be there might well ask what was achieved in the biggest UN conference of all time, beyond a substantial contribution to the planet’s carbon emissions. 

One remarkable sign of the general frustration was that business, not widely regarded as leaders in sustainability, emerged from Rio looking more far-sighted and progressive than governments. Business frustration with the UN process had already surfaced at a meeting at Copenhagen University earlier this month, when John Kornerup Bang, chief climate adviser at the global shipping company AP Moller Maersk, predicted correctly that Rio’s problem would be the failure of governments to agree. It would be up to companies, he said, to take the initiative.

Multinational corporations are beginning to respond. For many years, business leaders have appealed to governments to lay down clear regulations. Without them, they said, business found it difficult to reduce emissions and energy use and become more sustainable. Now, a growing number of companies are taking unilateral action. In one surprising example, Microsoft announced that from July 1 it will start to tax itself on its own carbon emissions. Microsoft’s main global offices and data centres will pay a tax for every tonne of carbon they produce; the tax will be used to buy carbon dioxide credits, which the company claims will make Microsoft carbon neutral.

Other companies are well into their own sustainability plans: the British retailer Marks and Spencer, for example, has just celebrated the fifth anniversary of Plan A, the company’s effort to integrate sustainability into all aspects of its operations.

Marks and Spencer set itself 100 commitments in 2007, grouping them under five broad objectives that included becoming carbon neutral and sending no waste to landfill. A further 80 commitments were added in 2010 as they declared their ambition to be the world’s most sustainable major retailer by 2015. Progress is closely monitored and externally audited, and counts towards employee bonuses.

Over the first five years, according to the company’s report, the plan generated £185 million (US$288 million) for the company. The company also reports that it has achieved 138 of the 180 commitments, with a further 30 on plan, six behind plan and six not achieved. The giant retailer has become carbon neutral and sends no waste to landfill and recent further initiatives include asking customers to donate used clothing to be recycled or re-used when they come to shop: so far, 21 million customers have participated.

In its supply chain, the company has achieved a 50% reduction in the water used to grow its cotton and an 80% drop in pesticide use. It has also raised more than £100 million (US$156 million) for charity.

Initiatives like this are a growing trend for global businesses frustrated with the inability of the UN system to act. While multilateral negotiations have been increasingly afflicted with paralysis, almost 7,000 major companies have signed up for the UN Global Compact, which encourages companies voluntarily to make progress in human rights, anti-corruption and the environment. Those who participate argue that their reputations and their operations are at risk in a future of resource and energy constraints, and that the businesses best equipped to survive changing conditions in the future will be those that have prepared for and adapted to those conditions. 

It is unrealistic to expect that business will achieve all that is required for global sustainability. But if governments cannot even agree to stop the overfishing catastrophe that is overtaking the world’s oceans, or to end the US$600 billion in global fossil-fuel subsidies, condemned in 2009 by the G-20, the contribution that business can make looks increasingly significant. 

Isabel Hilton is editor of chinadialogue.

Homepage image by youthpolicy.org

Cookies Settings

Dialogue Earth uses cookies to provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser. It allows us to recognise you when you return to Dialogue Earth and helps us to understand which sections of the website you find useful.

Required Cookies

Required Cookies should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.

Dialogue Earth - Dialogue Earth is an independent organisation dedicated to promoting a common understanding of the world's urgent environmental challenges. Read our privacy policy.

Cloudflare - Cloudflare is a service used for the purposes of increasing the security and performance of web sites and services. Read Cloudflare's privacy policy and terms of service.

Functional Cookies

Dialogue Earth uses several functional cookies to collect anonymous information such as the number of site visitors and the most popular pages. Keeping these cookies enabled helps us to improve our website.

Google Analytics - The Google Analytics cookies are used to gather anonymous information about how you use our websites. We use this information to improve our sites and report on the reach of our content. Read Google's privacy policy and terms of service.

Advertising Cookies

This website uses the following additional cookies:

Google Inc. - Google operates Google Ads, Display & Video 360, and Google Ad Manager. These services allow advertisers to plan, execute and analyze marketing programs with greater ease and efficiency, while enabling publishers to maximize their returns from online advertising. Note that you may see cookies placed by Google for advertising, including the opt out cookie, under the Google.com or DoubleClick.net domains.

Twitter - Twitter is a real-time information network that connects you to the latest stories, ideas, opinions and news about what you find interesting. Simply find the accounts you find compelling and follow the conversations.

Facebook Inc. - Facebook is an online social networking service. China Dialogue aims to help guide our readers to content that they are interested in, so they can continue to read more of what they enjoy. If you are a social media user, then we are able to do this through a pixel provided by Facebook, which allows Facebook to place cookies on your web browser. For example, when a Facebook user returns to Facebook from our site, Facebook can identify them as part of a group of China Dialogue readers, and deliver them marketing messages from us, i.e. more of our content on biodiversity. Data that can be obtained through this is limited to the URL of the pages that have been visited and the limited information a browser might pass on, such as its IP address. In addition to the cookie controls that we mentioned above, if you are a Facebook user you can opt out by following this link.

Linkedin - LinkedIn is a business- and employment-oriented social networking service that operates via websites and mobile apps.