DOCSLIB.ORG

Offshoring Pollution While Offshoring Production?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Offshoring Pollution While Offshoring Production? Strategic Management Journal Strat. Mgmt. J., 38: 2310–2329 (2017) Published online EarlyView 3 May 2017 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/smj.2656 Received 27 October 2015; Final revision received 6 March 2017 Offshoring Pollution while Offshoring Production? Xiaoyang Li1 and Yue M. Zhou2* 1 Shanghai Advanced Institute of Finance, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China 2 Department of Strategy, Stephen M. Ross School of Business, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan Research summary: We examine the role of firm strategy in the global effort to combat pollution. We find that U.S. plants release less toxic emissions when their parent firm imports morefrom low-wage countries (LWCs). Consistent with the Pollution Haven Hypothesis, goods imported by U.S. firms from LWCs are in more pollution-intensive industries. U.S. plants shift production to less pollution-intensive industries, produce less waste, and spend less on pollution abatement when their parent imports more from LWCs. The negative impact of LWC imports on emissions is stronger for U.S. plants located in counties with greater institutional pressure for environmental performance, but weaker for more-capable U.S. plants and firms. These results highlight the role of local institutions and firm capability in explaining firms’ offshoring and environmental strategies. Managerial summary: Using confidential trade, production, and pollution data of more than 8,000 firms and 18,000 plants from the U.S. Census Bureau for years 1992–2009, we find that U.S.plants release less toxic emissions when their parent firm imports more from low-wage countries (LWCs). In addition, goods imported by U.S. firms from LWCs are in more pollution-intensive industries. U.S. plants shift production to less pollution-intensive industries, produce less waste, and spend less on pollution abatement when their parent imports more from LWCs. However, not all U.S. firms choose to “offshore pollution.” U.S. plants located in counties with greater institutional pressure for environmental performance offshore more, but more-capable U.S. plants and firms offshore less. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Introduction Conference voted to adopt a joint agreement to curb global warming (NPR, 2015). India and France The global effort to combat pollution has gained launched a global alliance to mobilize investments tremendous momentum in recent years. The United from rich countries to develop solar power around States and China, the two largest emitters of green- the world, especially in sun-rich but cash-poor trop- house gas, issued a joint announcement in 2014 ical countries (The Financial Times, 2015). Partici- to strengthen bilateral cooperation, including joint pation in these global initiatives is not always wel- technological initiatives, research efforts, and eco- comed at home, however. Only recently have politi- nomic policies, to tackle climate change (The White cians, the media, and large businesses in the United House, 2014). One hundred ninety-six countries States started to openly accept climate change and attending the 2015 United Nations Climate Change global warming concerns. Other critics are con- tent with the empirical evidence that strict environ- Keywords: environmental strategy; pollution haven; mental regulations and informal institutional pres- offshoring; institutional arbitrage; corporate social sure in the United States have already significantly responsibility improved its environment (Chay & Greenstone, *Correspondence to: Yue M. Zhou, Stephen M. Ross School of 2003; Levinson, 2009; J. Shapiro & Walker, 2014). Business, University of Michigan, 701 Tappan St., R4446, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1234. E-mail: [email protected] Significant portions of Americans still think their Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Offshoring Pollution while Offshoring Production? 2311 government should not take responsibility for other To test these ideas, we linked firm-level imports countries’ environmental problems. and plant-level production statistics maintained by We examine these critical views by focusing on the U.S. Census Bureau (Census) to plant-level the role of firm strategy in the global fight against toxics emissions information from the Envi- pollution. We first propose based on the Pollution ronmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Toxics Haven Hypothesis (hereafter PHH) that the United Release Inventory (TRI) database. We found that States’ strict regulations and institutional pressure domestic plants pollute less on American soil as for environmental performance might come at the their parent firm imports more from LWCs: When expense of the environment in other countries due to a plant’s parent firm increases its share of imports U.S. firms’ offshoring strategy. According to PHH, from LWCs by 10 percentage points, the plant’s “liberalized trade in goods will lead to the relocation toxic emissions on American soil fall by 4–6%. of pollution intensive production from high income We then explored a few micro-mechanisms and and stringent environmental regulation countries to uncovered evidence consistent with the PHH and low income and lax environmental regulation coun- a “pollution-offshoring” strategy. In particular, tries” (Taylor, 2005). For example, a recent study we found that goods imported by U.S. firms from in China using atmospheric modeling found that LWCs are in more pollution-intensive industries 17–36% of four major anthropogenic air pollu- than goods imported from the rest of the world, tants (sulfur dioxide, nitric oxide, carbon monox- and U.S. plants shift their production to less ide, and black carbon) emitted in that country are pollution-intensive industries, produce less waste, associated with the production of goods for export, and spend less on pollution abatement when their and that about 21% of export-related emissions are parent firm imports more from LWCs. Taken attributable to goods destined for the United States together, our evidence suggests that a signifi- cant number of U.S. firms are offshoring more (Lin et al., 2014). Unfortunately, most prior research pollution-intensive production to LWCs. on PHH has relied on aggregate country-, state-, or Despite its potential benefit, an institutional industry-level information (Antweiler, Copeland, & arbitrage strategy brings about multinational Taylor, 2001; Grossman & Krueger, 1995; Hanna, coordination costs and regulatory risks. Therefore, 2010; Levinson, 2009, 2010), which partly explains we investigate two sources of heterogeneity that some contradictory results in this research. To our would affect firms’ pollution-offshoring strategy. knowledge, very few papers (e.g., Dowell, Hart, & The first source of heterogeneity is the local institu- Yeung, 2000) have studied the issue at the level tion. Drawing insights from the social activism and of the firm, where production-pollution decisions environmental justice literature (Hiatt, Grandy, & are made. Lee, 2016; King, 2008; Mohai, Pellow, & Roberts, Do firms lower their emissions in developed and 2009), we conjecture that American firms will highly regulated countries by offshoring production engage in more pollution offshoring if their plants to poor and less regulated countries? Theoretically, are located in counties where the local institutions firms can arbitrage between varying institutional can exert greater pressure on environmental per- demands. For example, firms can redesign their formance, such as counties with a more informed supply chain, shifting their domestic production (educated) population, a higher voter turnout to cleaner segments and importing from poor or in presidential elections, or a stronger presence low-wage countries (LWCs) products that are more of environmental nongovernment organizations polluting to produce, thereby achieving compliance (NGOs) like the Sierra Club. The second source and avoidance at the same time. LWCs have com- of heterogeneity is firm capability. Drawing from parative advantage in labor costs, therefore they the stakeholder and slack-resource arguments in should attract more labor-intensive industries rather the corporate social responsibility (CSR) liter- than the more polluting capital-intensive indus- ature (Berchicci, Dowell, & King, 2012; Chin, tries (Cole & Elliott, 2005). However, the lax Hambrick, & Treviño, 2013; Dowell et al., 2000; environmental standards and poor environmental Waddock & Graves, 1997), we hypothesize that regulatory quality in LWCs might influence firms’ more-capable firms will enjoy greater compliance offshoring strategy to be based on environmental benefits and lower compliance costs; they will rather than pure labor-cost considerations (Esty & therefore have greater incentive to comply with Porter, 2002). strict environmental requirements in the United Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Strat. Mgmt. J., 38: 2310–2329 (2017) DOI: 10.1002/smj 2312 X. Li and Y. M. Zhou States and engage in less pollution offshoring. Our other hand, institutions can be developed indepen- empirical results support these conjectures. dent of efficiency and diffused through coercive, This paper makes a few contributions to the mimetic, and normative processes (DiMaggio & study of environmental strategy. It provides the Powell, 1983; Meyer & Rowan, 1977). Institutions first micro-level empirical evidence, based onthe vary not only by their strength and benefits/costs most comprehensive sample of U.S. manufactur- to organizations, but also by time and space.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Biodiversity Plan
    Biodiversity plan December 2019 Introduction Biodiversity Biodiversity is the variety of life on earth, encompassing vast varieties of plants and animals. We are an essential part of the biodiversity of our planet and play a key role in enhancing the prosperity of its species and habitats. Conversely, our environment has an important influence on us, and is critical for our survival. Biodiversity provides us with food, fuel, fibres, medicines, whilst also helping to improve the quality of our water, the air we breathe and the land we live on. Biodiversity helps to regulate air quality, climate, flooding, erosion and pollination. Biodiversity is also a key element of our culture, providing a better living environment with benefits to health and wellbeing, and for many people it is simply something to enjoy. Companies House understands that whatever the size of your site, and wherever the site is located, there are always opportunities to enhance biodiversity in keeping with surroundings. Section 6 Biodiversity and Ecosystem Resilience duty to the Environment (Wales) Act 2016 The Environment (Wales) Act was introduced in March 2016, which is a statutory duty that Companies House must comply with. Part 1 of the Act sets out Wales’ approach to planning and managing natural resources at a national, regional and local level. Section 6 of Part 1 places a duty on Companies House to: • Maintain and enhance biodiversity so far as it is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions; and • Promote the resilience of ecosystems. To assist in implementing the duty, Companies House is required to publish a plan on how it intends to comply with the above and to report on progress.
    [Show full text]
  • Climate Change Under NEPA: Avoiding Cursory Consideration of Greenhouse Gases
    University of Florida Levin College of Law UF Law Scholarship Repository UF Law Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship 2010 Climate Change Under NEPA: Avoiding Cursory Consideration of Greenhouse Gases Amy L. Stein University of Florida Levin College of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/facultypub Part of the Environmental Law Commons Recommended Citation Amy L. Stein, Climate Change Under NEPA: Avoiding Cursory Consideration of Greenhouse Gases, 81 U. Colo. L. Rev. 473 (2010), available at http://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/facultypub/503 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at UF Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in UF Law Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of UF Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CLIMATE CHANGE UNDER NEPA: AVOIDING CURSORY CONSIDERATION OF GREENHOUSE GASES AMY L. STEIN* Neither the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA') nor its implementing regulations require consideration of climate change in NEPA documentation. Yet an ever- growing body of NEPA case law related to climate change is making it increasingly difficult for a federal agency to avoid discussing the impacts of those emissions under NEPA in its Environmental Impact Statements ("EISs'). Although consideration of climate change in NEPA docu- ments sounds right in theory, within the current legal framework, the NEPA documents provide only lip service to the goals of NEPA without any meaningful consideration of climate change. An empirical evaluation of two years of se- lected EISs demonstrates that the degree of "consideration" is far from meaningful, an outcome that fails to reflect the purposes behind NEPA.
    [Show full text]
  • Commitment to Sustainability Management
    Appendix Commitment to Sustainability Management Commitment to Sustainability Management The Ten Principles of the UN Global Compact In 2007, SK innovation joined the UNGC, the global sustainability management initiative. Since then, the company has supported the ten principles in four major sectors, including human rights, labor, environment and anti-corruption, and strictly complied with these principles by preparing a relevant system such as the policy on safety, health and environment(SHE) and es- tablishing a code of ethics. Classification Policies and activities by SK innovation Businesses should support and respect the protection of Principle 1 internationally proclaimed human rights. Make sure that they are not complicit in human rights Human Principle 2 Based on the philosophy of “human-centered management,” SK innovation strives abuses. Rights to commit no violation of human rights in business activities. We also recruit Businesses should uphold the freedom of association employees in a fair and reasonable manner and guarantee equal opportunities Principle 3 and the effective recognition of the right to collective by considering employees’ qualifications and person-job fit. Furthermore, the bargaining. company acknowledges the freedom of association and collective bargaining rights Principle 4 The elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labor. and has regular communications to proactively collect and improve any grievance from employees. Principle 5 The effective abolition of child labour. Labour The elimination of discrimination in respect of Principle 6 employment and occupation. Businesses should support a precautionary approach to Principle 7 SK innovation selects environmental management as its core task and establishes environmental challenges. and complies with its independent environmental standard, which has higher Undertake initiatives to promote greater environmental standards than government requirements.
    [Show full text]
  • BACKGROUND STUDY TOWARDS BIODIVERSITY PROOFING of the EU BUDGET Final Report 07.0307/2011/605689/ETU/B2 21St December 2012
    BACKGROUND STUDY TOWARDS BIODIVERSITY PROOFING OF THE EU BUDGET Final Report 07.0307/2011/605689/ETU/B2 21st December 2012 by The Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) In collaboration with Transport and Environmental Policy Research Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) London office: 15 Queen Anne’s Gate London SW1H 9BU, UK United Kingdom Brussels Office: Quai au Foin, 55 Hooikaai 55 1000 Brussels Belgium Contact person: Graham Tucker 15 Queen Anne’s Gate London SW1H 9BU, UK United Kingdom Email: [email protected] The Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) is an independent, not for profit institute dedicated to advancing an environmentally sustainable Europe through policy analysis, development and dissemination. Based in London and Brussels, the Institute’s main focus of research is on the development, implementation and evaluation of EU policies of environmental significance, including agriculture, biodiversity, climate and energy, fisheries, industrial policy, regional development, transport, waste and water. See www.ieep.e for further details Authorship The recommended citation for this report is: IEEP, GHK and TEPR (2012) Background Study Towards Biodiversity Proofing of the EU Budget. Report to the European Commission. Institute for European Environmental Policy, London. Authors in alphabetical order: IEEP: Catherine Bowyer, Jane Desbarats, Sonja Gantioler, Peter Herp, Marianne Kettunen, Keti Medarova-Bergstrom, Stephanie Newman, Jana Poláková, Graham Tucker and Axel Volkery. Transport and Environmental Policy Research: Ian Skinner GHK: Matt Rayment Disclaimer The authors have full responsibility for the content of this report, and the conclusions, recommendations and opinions presented in this report reflect those of the consultants, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the Commission.
    [Show full text]
  • Exploring Opportunities for Promoting Synergies Between Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation in Forest Carbon Initiatives
    Article Exploring Opportunities for Promoting Synergies between Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation in Forest Carbon Initiatives Eugene L. Chia 1,*,†, Kalame Fobissie 2 and Markku Kanninen 2 Received: 25 August 2015; Accepted: 1 December 2015; Published: 15 January 2016 Academic Editor: Mark E. Harmon 1 C/o CIFOR P.O. Box 2008, Messa, Yaoundé 237, Cameroon 2 Viikki Tropical Resources Institute, Department of Forest Sciences, University of Helsinki, Latokartanonkaari 7, P.O. Box 27, Helsinki 00014, Finland; fobissie.kalame@helsinki.fi (K.F.); markku.kanninen@helsinki.fi (M.K.) * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +237-678-057-925; Fax: +237-222-227-450 † Independent Consultant. Abstract: There is growing interest in designing and implementing climate change mitigation and adaptation (M + A) in synergy in the forest and land use sectors. However, there is limited knowledge on how the planning and promotion of synergies between M + A can be operationalized in the current efforts to mitigate climate change through forest carbon. This paper contributes to fill this knowledge gap by exploring ways of planning and promoting M + A synergy outcomes in forest carbon initiatives. It examines eight guidelines that are widely used in designing and implementing forest carbon initiatives. Four guiding principles with a number of criteria that are relevant for planning synergy outcomes in forest carbon activities are proposed. The guidelines for developing forest carbon initiatives need to demonstrate that (1) the health of forest ecosystems is maintained or enhanced; (2) the adaptive capacity of forest-dependent communities is ensured; (3) carbon and adaptation benefits are monitored and verified; and (4) adaptation outcomes are anticipated and planned in forest carbon initiatives.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Issues Associated with New Reactors
    COMBINED LICENSE AND EARLY SITE PERMIT COL/ESP-ISG-026 Environmental Issues Associated with New Reactors Interim Staff Guidance August 20132014 (For Use and CommentFinal) ML14092A402ML12326A742 – August 20134 Interim Staff Guidance on Environmental Issues Associated with New Reactors COL/ESP-ISG-026 Issuance Status For Use and CommentFinal Purpose The purpose of this Interim Staff Guidance (ISG) is to clarify the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) guidance and application of NUREG-1555, “Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants,” (NRC 2000) regarding the assessment of construction impacts, greenhouse gas and climate change, socioeconomics, environmental justice, need for power, alternatives, cumulative impacts, and cultural/historical resources as part of the preparation of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) for early site permit (ESP) and combined license (COL) applications. Background The existing NRC environmental guidance to the staff, is NUREG-1555, “Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants: Environmental Standard Review Plan” (NRC 2000), including the 2007 draft revisions to selected sections of NUREG-1555. While preparing the environmental impact statements (EISs) for the first group of combined license (COL) applications, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) staff identified a number of issues that necessitated changes to staff guidance. As a result, the Director of the Division of Site and Environmental Reviews issued a memorandum dated March 4, 2011, to the staff providing guidance on how to analyze these issues in the EISs (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML110380369 (NRC 2011). The staff is incorporating this guidance into an Interim Staff Guidance (ISG) until NUREG-1555 is updated.
    [Show full text]
  • Green Dragon Environmental Standard ® © Groundwork Wales, 2018
    Green Dragon Environmental Standard ® © Groundwork Wales, 2018 Document Reference: 9.33 Green Dragon Environmental Standard 2016 Version No: 7 Page 1 of 38 Authorised by: Jake Griffiths Date of Issue: 16/07/2018 Green Dragon Environmental Standard ® © Groundwork Wales, 2018 CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION & GENERAL REQUIREMENTS ........................................................................... 3 KEY PRINCIPLES .......................................................................................................................... 5 LEVEL 1 - COMMITMENT TO ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT .............................................. 7 LEVEL 2 - UNDERSTANDING ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES ......................................... 12 LEVEL 3 - MANAGING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ................................................................. 15 LEVEL 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME ................................................... 21 LEVEL 5 - CONTINUAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT ...................................................... 25 APPENDIX 1: LINKS WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS .......................................... 29 © Groundwork Wales 2016 All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system without prior permission from Groundwork Wales. Green Dragon Environmental Standard® Safon Amgylcheddol Y Ddraig Werdd® ® ® The ‘Green Dragon Environmental Standard’ name
    [Show full text]
  • Sustainable Development As a Framework for National Governance
    Case Western Reserve Law Review Volume 49 Issue 1 Article 3 1998 Sustainable Development as a Framework for National Governance John C. Dernbach Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation John C. Dernbach, Sustainable Development as a Framework for National Governance, 49 Case W. Rsrv. L. Rev. 1 (1998) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev/vol49/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Journals at Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Case Western Reserve Law Review by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. CASE WESTERN RESERVE LAW REVIEW VOLUME49 FALL1998 NUMBER 1 ARTICLES SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AS A FRAMEWORK FOR NATIONAL GOVERNANCE John C. Dernbacht INTRODUCTION ............................................................................ 3 I. SUSTAINABILrrY AND NATIONAL GOVERNANCE ...................... 8 A. Old Model: Development .................................................. 9 B. Failure: Environmental Degradation and Poverty ........... 14 C. New Model: Sustainable Development ............................ 17 1. Stockholm and After .................................................... 17 2. Rio and After ................................................................ 21 D. Purposes of Sustainable Development ............................ 24 1. Environmental and Development
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Report 2019
    Environmental Report 2019 —Toward the Toyota Environmental Challenge 2050— Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 2019 Editorial Policy Contents Overview Highlights Environmental Challenges Six Challenges Toyota Earth Charter Environmental Data Message from the Head of the Company Sixth Toyota Environmental Action Plan Environmental Management Third Party Assurance Report Editorial Policy Contents Overview of Toyota Motor Corporation Highlights Message from the Head of the Company Environmental Report 2019 —Toward the Toyota Environmental Challenge 2050— Editorial Policy Annual Report https://global.toyota/en/ir/library/annual/ Toyota Motor Corporation considers environmental issues to be one of its management priorities. Since 1998, we have published an Securities Reports (Japanese text only) annual Environmental Report to explain our environmental initiatives. https://global.toyota/jp/ir/library/securities-report/ Sustainability Data Book 2019 From FY2017, the content of the report is presented in conformance https://global.toyota/en/sustainability/report/sdb/ with the six challenges defined under our long-term initiative, the U.S. SEC Filings https://global.toyota/en/ir/library/sec/ Toyota Environmental Challenge 2050. The Environmental Report is a specialized publication excerpted Environmental Report 2019 Financial Results –Toward the Toyota Environmental Challenge 2050– from the Sustainability Data Book. It covers only our environmental https://global.toyota/en/ir/financial-results/ https://global.toyota/en/sustainability/report/er/ initiatives. For information on Toyota’s CSR management and initiatives, please refer to our Sustainability Data Book 2019. Corporate Governance Reports https://global.toyota/en/ir/library/corporate-governance/ We have also published the Annual Report, in which Toyota shares with our stakeholders the ways in which Toyota’s business is contributing to the sustainable development of society and the Earth ◦ The Toyota website also provides information on corporate initiatives not included in the above reports.
    [Show full text]
  • Climate Contract Playbook Edition 3
    Climate Contract Playbook Edition 3 September 2020 [www.chancerylaneproject.org] 2 Hogan Lovells Climate Contract Playbook Edition 3 3 Contents Introduction 5 The Journey Updated 7 Legal Philanthropy 8 Disclaimer 9 Precedent Clauses 10 Commercial Contracts: General [Hanley’s Clause] Climate Change Aligned Heads of Terms 11 [Kaia’s Clause] Climate Purposed NDA Terms 13 Commercial Contracts: Supply Agreements [Agatha’s Clause] Termination for Greener Supplier 17 [Annie’s Clause] Carbon Termination (short form) 20 [Teddy’s Clause] Environmental Threshold Obligations 22 [Jessica’s Clause] Carbon Performance Clauses 24 [Owen’s Clause] Net Zero Supply Chain Cascade 29 [Zoë and Bea’s Clause] Green Supply Agreement Clauses 33 [Iris’ Clause] Climate Risk Sharing Provisions 37 [Alex’s Clause] Circular Economy product design obligation NEW 42 [Zain’s Clause] Carbon Change Rights NEW 48 [Alice’s Clause] Reduction of CO2 from Single Use Plastic NEW 51 [Austen’s Clause] Sustainability Clauses in Supply Chain Contracts NEW 55 [Maria’s Scorecard] Supply chain emissions scorecard NEW 61 Corporate: General [Arlo’s Clause] Paris Compliant Company Objects 67 [Chloe’s Clause] Environmental Business Charter 69 [Darcy’s Minutes] Climate Change Aligned Board Minutes 71 Corporate: Investment / M&A [Frank’s Clause] Green Investment Obligations 74 [Bella’s Clause] Climate Equity Ratchet 77 [Lauren’s Clause] Green Shareholders Agreement] 82 [Lola & Harry’s DDQ] Climate and Net Zero Due Diligence 89 [Nozomi’s Clause] Net Zero Convertible Loan Note 95 [Zack’s Clause]
    [Show full text]
  • Global Green Standards
    Global Green Standards ISO 14000 and Sustainable Development INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR SU S TA I NA B L E DE V E L O P M E N T IN S T I T U T IN T E R NAT I O NA L D U DÉ V E L O P P E M E N T DU R A B L E Global Green Standards: ISO 14000 and Sustainable Development INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR SU S TA I NA B L E DE V E L O P M E N T IN S T I T U T IN T E R NAT I O NA L D U DÉ V E L O P P E M E N T DU R A B L E G L O B A L G R E E N S T A N D A R D S : Copyright © The International Institute for Sustainable Development 1996 All rights reserved Printed in Canada Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data Main entry under title: Global green standards: ISO 14000 and sustainable development Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 1-895536-05-7 1. ISO 14000 Series Standards. 2. Environmental protection - Standards. 3. Sustainable development. I. International Institute for Sustainable Development. TS155.7.G46 1996 658.4'08 C96-920166-4 This publication is printed on recycled paper. International Institute for Sustainable Development 161 Portage Avenue East - 6th Floor Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 0Y4 Core support for IISD’s research activities is provided by the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), Environment Canada, and the Government of Manitoba.
    [Show full text]
  • Analysing the Nexus of Sustainable Development and Climate Change: an Overview
    COM/ENV/EPOC/DCD/DAC(2002)2/FINAL ENVIRONMENT DIRECTORATE DEVELOPMENT CO-OPERATION DIRECTORATE Working Party on Global and Structural Policies Working Party on Development Co-operation and Environment ANALYSING THE NEXUS OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND CLIMATE CHANGE: AN OVERVIEW by Mohan Munasinghe Munasinghe Institute for Development (MIND), Sri Lanka COM/ENV/EPOC/DCD/DAC(2002)2/FINAL Copyright OECD, 2003 Application for permission to reproduce or translate all or part of this material should be addressed to the Head of Publications Service, OECD, 2 rue André Pascal, 75775 Paris, Cedex 16, France. 2 COM/ENV/EPOC/DCD/DAC(2002)2/FINAL FOREWORD This document is an output from the OECD Development and Climate Change project, an activity being jointly overseen by the (Environment Policy Committee) Working Party on Global and Structural Policies (WPGSP), and the DAC (Development Assistance Committee) Working Party on Development Co-operation and Environment (WPENV). The overall objective of the project is to provide guidance on how to mainstream responses to climate change within economic development planning and assistance policies, with natural resource management as an overarching theme. Insights from the project will be shared with the development assistance community in OECD countries, and national and regional planners in developing countries. The paper served as a basis for discussions in an initial OECD expert meeting, held in March 2002, aimed at constructing a framework for future OECD work on development and climate change. It therefore outlines key concepts, relevant principles, and tools for analysis that could support OECD work on this theme. Partly drawing on this report, a subsequent Concept Paper (Agrawala and Berg 2002) outlined a more specific framework for launching and structuring case studies that are now being carried out under the project.
    [Show full text]