Global Climate Changes And Its Effect On Our Business

Their objective to consider environmental issues are met by introducing their positive waste programme which helps to facilitate the donation of tonnes of surplus food to Fare Share from their suppliers, a reduction of own brand packaging and a reduction of operational carbon emissions and water. They have also improved their farm reporting and benchmarking to support the identification of key areas for greenhouse gas savings. By Sainsbury’s applying these practices, it has helped them to reduce their carbon footprint and in turn helped them to reduce their operational

In order to be sustainable over the long term, Woolworths has made sure that their success doesn’t come at the expense of the society, economy and environment as they are a part of it (ICAA, 2011). They believe it not only involves responsibility to understand and manage their impacts, but also gives them an opportunity to achieve lasting and beneficial change that extends beyond their operations (ICAA, 2011).

Many firms are learning that being environmentally friendly and sustainable has numerous benefits. (O.C Ferrell, Fraedrich, Ferrell, 2015). This could enable them to increase goodwill from various stakeholders and also save money in the long term. This will mean that they are being more efficient and less wasteful of resources, which will enable them to be more competitive by satisfying stakeholders. The CEO of

The issue of carbon emissions is an important one not only from an environmental perspective but also an economic one. While reducing carbon emissions is an important one for the health of human beings as well as that of the environment, the larger question is what type of policy strategy is best for both reducing such emissions which might have an impact on efforts to mitigate the effects of pollution on climate change. While ther are options to consider which does not rely on economics-- technological or output standards achieved by command and control regulations--they are often fraught with political resistance by industry because they do not allow industry to make any choices or play a role in solving the problem of

Carbon taxing coal-based products, in a revenue-neutral way, will help discourage overuse of fossil fuels. The United States needs to reduce carbon emissions in order to avoid the costs that pollution and climate change inflict on the general economy and individuals. Carbon, unlike other commodities exchanged and consumed in the free market, bears unique costs to the general economy that its market price does not encompass. The pollution we create when we consume carbon contaminates our air, raises temperatures, and makes severe weather events more frequent. A carbon tax is an economic mechanism that forces actors in a free market to come face-to-face with the social cost of

As we have seen an increase in awareness around sustainability and climate change, with the help of Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth documentary in 2006, we see organizations moving towards mitigating the effects of climate change in various ways (Al Gore, n.d). As this corporate social responsibility has become more prevalent, organizations are now pushing their green agenda by publishing sustainability reports, doing mass marketing and implementing sustainable business practices to portray the image that they too are working towards protecting the earth’s natural environment all the while focusing on their underlying goal of selling their products and

According to the case, the carbon-tax and a cap-and-trade system are the best economic tool to employ to reduce emissions. As we know, taxes are the most important expense for a company or firm, if they would emit much more carbon dioxide and other gases, they need to pay more taxes on using carbon recourses. It is stated (Bubna-Litic & Chalifour 2012) that ‘One of the defining features of carbon taxes is that they generate a relatively clear and predictable stream of revenue’. The revenue can be used in many different ways and a key issue is how

To a regular person, the global concern about ‘going green’ might appear as a result of speculation from nervous politicians and alarmed citizens. But the reality is totally different. In recent years, businesses have gained much knowledge about the impact of their activities on environment and in turns their customers. Businesses are successively venturing to earn greater revenues. In this process, they are trying out every best possibility to entice their contributors- from customers to investors. Regardless to say, stakeholders these days are more socially responsible than ever. So to keep up to their expectations, businesses are also trying to expand or limit their activities to save the environment- from doing relentless research on lowering waste to lean management and even trying out various eco-friendly activities. Despite of all these, the ultimate question remains unanswered if it is financially beneficial to adapt those initiatives that is going to serve the

They looked at two scenarios, inaction, where business’ continue finding and using carbon as they see fit, and action, where business’ use a low-carbon energy mix. They found that not only would the investment cost of the action scenario be no more than inaction, but it would even cost a bit less- 190.2 trillion dollars for action and 192 trillion dollars for inaction. This is before even considering the amount of money saved by the effects of the action scenario itself. The report found that, “the difference in climate damage costs between low (1.5°C) warming and high (4.5°C) warming scenarios could be as high as $50 trillion” (Business Insider). The effect of such a large economic company reporting this data is the perfect example of how using economics for the sake of reversing global warming can be really beneficial. The argument often used by economists is that becoming more sustainable would hurt the economy, but the data in this report proves just the opposite, and how terrible it would be if we did nothing. For the sake of investment in industry’s like coal and gas, this information is often denied. But this is not anywhere near the first time industry’s have had to adapt due to uncontrollable events. This report emphasizes the importance of recognizing

I agree that climate change will influence the operational environment, but it affects the Department of State and USAID more than Department of Defense in the next ten years. Assistance to humanitarian operations may increase and the instability created by environmental changes to include conflicts over food and water directly affects the potential for conflicts to reach military intervention.

According to PWC, climate change damage physical and financial assets, increase frequency and urgency of humanitarian assistance, increase volatility in food prices; political or policy reactions affecting availability of food supplies, and increase demand for UK Government services by overseas territories and citizens abroad.

When looking at the corporate businesses and the undoing of the human habitat; the United Nations has sanctioned many organizations to track climate change such as the UNEP, the World Meteorological Organization and the IPCC. Since the mid-eighties, these agencies have monitored the changes, yet have failed to convey the significance. Studies done by these agencies have concluded that the last fifty years are attributable to human activities and big corporations which lead to the changing in the compositions of the atmosphere throughout the 21st century (Saltori). These activities that are mentioned are those by means of businesses that grew into national conglomerates. Concurrent with business growth, the greenhouse gas emissions have grown seventy percent from 1970 to 2004 (Lehner). Recent studies have shown that 122 corporations produce eighty percent of greenhouse gases (IPCC). The climate is going to drastically change the world forever, but at whose expense? What exactly does the political eminence of these companies have

Sustainability has become a great topic of interest in many arenas. Particularly, leading organizations are recognizing sustainability needs to be an essential aspect of their long term strategies. With this recognition, better business practices are being sought by investors as well as sustainability is becoming a driving force for better efficiencies and innovation. Two organizations, Wal-Mart and Starbucks, have both took on sustainability as long term initiatives to address their customer needs and affect how their suppliers operate.

While it may not be entirely possible to reverse the harmful effects of global warming on the Earth, scientists and economists agree that there is the possibility to slow the trend. Human activity has shown to be a root contributor to the rise in greenhouse gas emission, and, as a solution, the amount of gases must be lowered significantly. This means that there must be limits on the amount of emissions a firm or industry can produce. To do so, there must be an incentive to promote change in the industry, for lowering the amount of emissions would require a firm to alter the factors of production that are already established. While

Intro: This report will aim to define responsible business, in relation to the vast range of topics such as Corporate social Responsibility/Corporate Citizenship, sustainability, whilst comparing these through academia and their different meanings relating to Responsible Business. Furthermore, this report will also aim to critically analyse climate change and its effect in relation to making Business more responsible as well as the drawbacks/opportunities this holds for business. Finally, this report will exploit the relation between government and Business; identify possible barriers for businesses through government via academic views and evidential impacts on businesses and how government supports business to create a more sustainable world, through incentives such as the climate change Act 2008.