Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The function of international business frameworks for governing companies’ climate change-related actions toward the 2050 goals

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

At the 22nd Conference of the Parties in 2016, the roles of non-state actors in global climate change were emphasized with a particular focus on international frameworks for corporate activities. Frameworks are intended to serve as international governance to help regulate corporate actions. However, companies’ climate-related activities are voluntary and produce several issues. The current research addresses the following questions: How do international business frameworks work for governing and enforcing the practical implementation of corporate activities? In the future, what functions are expected to work for business sectors ensuring the 2050 goals? This study examines the function of international business frameworks from different perspectives according to socio-environmental challenges, enforcement measures, organizers, and embedded problems. First, the development process of the motivation of corporate activities is examined, from Corporate Social Responsibility to the long-term vision. Second, we conduct a thorough review of the public and private regimes and identify three key components of private regimes to achieve effective, legitimate, and compliant functions: participation, accountability, and norms. These three components are not ensured by one regime, but by different types of international frameworks: industry associations, international organizations, and third parties. This study illustrates how these three types of frameworks work with the key components for enforcement. Furthermore, with increasing expectations for corporate actions, companies are creating their own visions and principles to attain the 2050 global goal. This paper demonstrates that the function of international frameworks is expected to strengthen in terms of supporting and governing a company’s actions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abbott, K. T., & Hale, T. (2014). Orchestrating global solution networks: A guide for organizational entrepreneurs. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 9(1–2), 195–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrade, J. C. S., & Puppin de Oliveira, J. A. (2015). The role of the private sector in global climate and energy governance. Journal of Business Ethics, 130, 375–387.

    Google Scholar 

  • Azar, O. H. (2011). Business strategy and the social norm of tipping. Journal of Economic Psychology, 32, 515–525.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beisheim, M., & Liese, A. (2014). Transnational partnerships effectively providing for sustainable development?. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biermann, F., Chan, S., Mert, A., & Pattberg, P. (2012). The overall effects of partnerships for sustainable development: More smoke than fire? In P. H. Pattberg, et al. (Eds.), Public private partnerships for sustainable development. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biermann, F., Pattberg, P., van Asselt, H., & Zelli, F. (2009). The fragmentation of global governance architectures: A framework for analysis. Global Environmental Politics, 4, 14–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blowfield, M. (2005). Corporate social responsibility: The failing discipline and why it matters for international relations. International Relation, 19, 173–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bodansky, D. (2010). The art and craft of international environmental law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bodansky, D., & Dringer, E. (2010). The evolution of multilateral regimes: Implications for climate change. Arlington, VA: Pew Center on Global Climate Change.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boiral, O., Heras-Saizarbitoria, I., & Brotherton, M. (2019). Assessing and improving the quality of sustainability reports: The auditors’ perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 155, 703–721.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, H. S., de Jong, M., & Levy, D. L. (2009). Building institutions based on information disclosure: Lessons from GRI’s sustainably reporting. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17(6), 571–580.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bull, B., & McNeill, D. (2007). Development issues in global governance, public-private partnerships and market multilateralism. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • CDP. (2017). Climate change 2017: Toyota Motor Corporation. Retrieved April 22, 2019, from https://www.WSA.net/en/formatted_responses/pages?locale=en&organization_name=Toyota+Motor+Corporation&organization_number=19290&program=Investor&project_year=2017&redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdp.net%2Fsites%2F2017%2F90%2F19290%2FClimate+Change+2017%2FPages%2FDisclosureView.aspx.

  • CDP. (2018). CDP Climate Change Report 2017. Retrieved April 12, 2019, from https://6fefcbb86e61af1b2fc4-c70d8ead6ced550b4d987d7c03fcdd1d.ssl.cf3.rackcdn.com/cms/reports/documents/000/002/762/original/Japan-edition-climate-change-report-2017.pdf?1511285921.

  • CDP. (2019). CDP-accredited provider. Retrieved December 12, 2019, from https://www.cdp.net/en/info/accredited-solutions-providers/all-accredited-service-providers.

  • Chan, G., Stavins, R., & Ji, Z. (2018). International climate change policy. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 10(9), 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chayes, A., & Chayes, A. H. (1995). The new Sovereignty: Compliance with international regulatory agreements. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darnall, N., & Carmin, J. (2005). Greener and cleaner? Policy Science, 38(2), 71–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delmas, M., & Keller, A. (2005). Free riding in voluntary environmental programs. Policy Science, 38(2), 91–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Depoers, F., Jeanjean, T., & Jerome, T. (2016). Voluntary disclosure of greenhouse gas emissions: Contrasting the carbon disclosure project and corporate reports. Journal of Business Ethics, 123, 445–461.

    Google Scholar 

  • Derkx, B., & Glasbergen, P. (2014). Elaborating global private meta-governance: An inventory in the realm of voluntary sustainability standards. Global Environmental Change, 27, 41–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dragomir, V. D. (2012). The disclosure of industrial greenhouse gas emissions: A critical assessment of corporate sustainability reports. Journal of Cleaner Production, 29–30, 222–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Druckrey, F. (1998). How to make business ethics operational: Responsible care—An example of successful self-regulation? Journal of Business Ethics, 17(9/10), 979–985.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flohr, A., Rieth, L., Schwindenhammer, S., & Wolf, K. (2010). The role of business in global governance (p. 160). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fujiwara, N. (2007). The Asia-Pacific partnership on clean development and climate: What it is and what it is not. CEPS Policy Brief (pp. 1–12). Retrieved April 12, 2019, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255726843_t.

  • GHG Protocol. (2019). About us. Retrieved April 12, 2019, from http://ghgprotocol.org/about-us.

  • Green, J. F. (2014). Rethinking private authority. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • GRI. (2019). Sustainability reporting in the European Union. Retrieved April 12, 2019, from https://www.globalreporting.org/information/policy/Pages/EUpolicy.aspx.

  • Harrould-Kolieb, E. R., & Hoegh-Guldberg, O. (2019). A governing framework for international ocean acidification policy. Marine Policy, 102, 10–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haufler, C. A. (1999). Self-regulation and business norms: Political risks, political activation. In A. C. Cutfler, et al. (Eds.), Private authority and international affairs. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horan, D. (2019). A new approach to partnerships for SDG transformations. Sustainability, 11(4947), 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hori, S. (2019). Development and the environment: Society, business, and social consensus. In S. Hori, et al. (Eds.), International development and the environment (pp. 3–16). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huck, S., Kubler, D., & Weibull, J. (2012). Social norms and economic incentives in firms. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 83, 173–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • ICCA. (2018). Reporting and strengthening our performance. Retrieved March 4, 2019, from https://www.icca-chem.org/responsible-care/.

  • ICCA. (2019). Responsible care® the quest for performance excellence. Retrieved March 4, 2019, from https://www.icca-chem.org/responsible-care/.

  • IEG. (2007). Sourcebook for evaluating global and regional partnership programs. Washington, DC: World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • ISEAL Alliance and Accountability. (2011). Scaling up strategy: A strategy for scaling up the impacts of voluntary standards. London: ISEAL Alliance Erlbaum Associates Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • JISF. (2018). JISF long-term vision for climate change mitigation. Retrieved April 12, 2019, from http://www.jisf.or.jp/en/activity/climate/documents/JISFLong-termvisionforclimatechangemitigation.pdf.

  • Kalfagianni, A. (2013). Addressing the global sustainability challenge: The potential and pitfalls of private governance from the perspective of human capabilities. Journal of Business Ethics, 122(2), 307–320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalfagianni, A., & Pattberg, P. (2013). Global fisheries governance beyond the State: Unraveling the effectiveness of the Marine Stewardship Council. Journal of Environmental Studies and Science, 3(2), 184–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kell, G., & Levin, D. (2003). The global compact network: An historic experiment in learning and action. Business Society Review, 108(2), 151–181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keohane, R. O., & Nye, J. (1977). Power and interdependence: World politics in transition. Boston: Little, Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitzmueller, M., & Shimshack, J. (2012). Economic perspectives on corporate social responsibility. Journal of Economic Literature, 50(1), 51–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klingebiel, S., & Paulo, S. (2015). Orchestration: An instrument for implementing the sustainable development goals. German Development Institute Briefing Paper 14/2015.

  • Krasner, S. D. (1983). Structural caused and regime consequences: Regime as intervening variables. In S. D. Krasner (Ed.), International regimes (pp. 1–22). Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mert, A., & Chan, S. (2012). The politics of partnership for sustainable development. In P. H. Pattberg, et al. (Eds.), Public private partnerships for sustainable development. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mueckenberger, U., & Jastram, S. (2010). Transnational norm-building networks and the legitimacy of corporate social responsibility standards. Journal of Business Ethics, 97, 223–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2018). Chair statement at 85th session. Steel Committee, OECD. Retrieved March 4, 2019, from http://www.oecd.org/sti/ind/85-oecd-steel-chair-statement.htm.

  • Pattberg, P. (2007). Private institutions and global governance: The new politics of environmental sustainability. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pattberg, P., Biermann, F., Chan, S., & Mert, A. (2012). Introduction: Partnerships for sustainable development. In P. H. Patterberg, et al. (Eds.), Public-private partnerships for sustainable development. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perez-Batres, L. A., Miller, V. V., & Pisani, M. J. (2011). Institutionalizing sustainability: An empirical study of corporate registration and commitment to the United Nations global compact guidelines. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19(8), 843–851.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, T. (1999). Hegemony and the private international authority. In A. C. Cutler, et al. (Eds.), Private authority and international affairs, p 381. New York: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E., & Reinhardt, F. L. (2007). Grist: A strategic approach to climate. Harvard Business Review, 85(10), 22–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Post, J. E., Lawrence, A. T., & Weber, J. (2002). Business and society: Corporate strategy, public policy, ethics. New York City, NY: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raubenheimer, K., McIlgorm, A., & Oral, N. (2018). Towards an improved international framework to govern the life cycle of plastics. Review of European, Comparative and International Environmental Law, 27, 210–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reid, E. M., & Toffel, M. W. (2009). Responding to public and private policies: Corporate disclosure of climate change strategies. Strategic Management Journal, 30(11), 1157–1178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rinicke, W. H., & Deng, F. M. (2000). Critical choices: The United Nations Networks and future of Global Governance. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruggie, J. G. (2002). The theory and practice of learning networks: Corporate social responsibility and the global compact. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 5(Spring), 27–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • SBT. (2019). What is a science-based target? Retrieved March 4, 2019, from https://sciencebasedtargets.org/what-is-a-science-based-target/.

  • Sethi, S., & Schepers, D. H. (2013). United Nations global compact: The promise-performance gap. Journal of Business Ethics, 122, 193–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, R., & Gouldson, A. (2012). Does voluntary carbon reporting meet investors’ needs? Journal of Cleaner Production, 36, 60–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • TCFD. (2017a). Final report: recommendations of the task force on climate-related financial disclosures. Retrieved April 12, 2019, from https://www.fsb-tcfd.org/publications/final-recommendations-report/.

  • TCFD. (2017b). Technical supplement: The use of scenario analysis in disclosure of climate-related risks and opportunity. Retrieved April 12, 2019, from https://www.fsb-tcfd.org/publications/final-technical-supplement/.

  • TCFD. (2018). 2018 Status report. Retrieved April 12, 2019, from http://www.fsb.org/wp-content/uploads/P260918.pdf.

  • Tladi, D. (2019). An institutional framework for addressing marine genetic resources under the proposed treaty for marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 19(4–5), 485–495.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Heijden, J. (2012). Voluntary environmental governance arrangements. Environmental Politics, 21(3), 486–509.

    Google Scholar 

  • Victor, D. G. (2007). Fragmented carbon markets and reluctant nations: Implications for the design of effective architectures. In J. Aldy, et al. (Eds.), Architectures for agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vigneau, L., Humphreys, M., & Moon, J. (2015). How do firms comply with international sustainability standards? Processes and consequences of adopting the global reporting initiative. Journal of Business Ethics, 131, 469–489.

    Google Scholar 

  • WSA. (2019a). Our goals. Retrieved March 4, 2019, from https://www.worldsteel.org/about-us/who-we-are.html.

  • WSA. (2019b). Benchmarking system. Retrieved December 12, 2019, from https://www.worldsteel.org/steel-by-topic/technology/worldsteel-benchmarking-systems.html.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to express our gratitude to Toru Iwama and Yasuko Kameyama for their very helpful comments and suggestions on an earlier version of this paper. We would also like to acknowledge the useful suggestions from Hiroyuki Tezuka, Yoshiaki Ichikawa, Mitsuaki Komoto, Masato Yoshizawa, Shingo Takeda, Yuri Murakami, Tomoaki Watanabe, Masahiro Sugiyama, and Toshihiko Goto. We are grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments that helped improve this paper, and would also like to thank the editorial assistance from Editage. This study is supported by the Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research: KAKENHI (17H01939) under the auspices of Japan Society of the Promotion of Science.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Central Research Institute, Fukuoka University, 8-19-1 Nanakuma Jonan-ku, Fukuoka City, Fukuoka, 814-0180, Japan

    Shiro Hori

  2. Graduate School of Law, Fukuoka University, 8-19-1 Nanakuma Jonan-ku, Fukuoka City, Fukuoka, 814-0180, Japan

    Sachi Syugyo

Authors
  1. Shiro Hori
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sachi Syugyo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shiro Hori.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hori, S., Syugyo, S. The function of international business frameworks for governing companies’ climate change-related actions toward the 2050 goals. Int Environ Agreements 20, 541–557 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-020-09475-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-020-09475-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation