Global Compact International Yearbook 2013
44
on aviation emissions through the International Civil Aviation
Organization (ICAO) is within reach this year, but it will require
progressive businesses to support it. Without an adequate ICAO
agreement, the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) will be
weakened – and woe to the businesses that continue their
negative campaigns against aviation in the EU ETS. Studies have
shown Europe’s frequent flyers are educated and concerned
about climate change. It would not take much for this group
to switch allegiances from a dinosaur airline acting against
effective regulation to reduce emissions to an airline that is
helping to build a green, low-carbon future.
Other ways to provide certainty to businesses are through
market standards. The United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change (UNFCCC) could roll out environmentally
rigorous standards for market mechanisms across the world.
The UNFCCC could monitor, manage, and approve which
instruments could be used in a compliance market in order
to ensure the system maintains environmental integrity.
Businesses should encourage governments to be proactive
here. After all, corporate social responsibility is much easier
with effective standard-setting by governments in place. No
one wants to be caught with meaningless credits, especially
when factoring in the damage that can be done to corporate
reputations from such a situation.
No one knows better than businesses that money makes the
world go around. International climate negotiations are no
different. It is clear that developing countries will need to
undertake much more adaptation and mitigation than they
can afford – much, much more. For example, the World
Bank estimates that over the next 20 years, reducing emis-
sions in developing countries could cost $240 - $600 billion
a year, while adapting to climate impacts could cost $10 - $90
billion a year. Furthermore, the International Energy Agency
calculates that an additional $430 billion – or 0.5 percent of
global GDP – will need to be spent on energy infrastructure
annually by 2020. Clearly, there are opportunities for businesses
in these markets. But first, governments need to deliver the
$100 billion in public money they promised in Copenhagen.
Once the public funds are delivered, the amounts of private
finance that will be necessary in developing countries can be
leveraged. To unlock these opportunities, businesses should
advocate – at the UNFCCC, the G20, and at home – for gov-
ernments to deliver on this promise. Furthermore, businesses
should work collaboratively with NGOs and governments to
ensure that both public and private funds are deployed ef-
fectively – for the climate and for poor people.
Another area in which positive action could open new mar-
kets in developing countries is the international negotiations
surrounding intellectual property rights (IPR). Even though
least-developed countries are not expected to have to con-
form with the World Trade Organization’s regime on IPR
(
Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property
Rights – TRIPS), many developing countries with slightly
higher income levels could be priced out of the climate
technology market, especially for adaptation technologies. To
Progressive corporations
must speak loudly and call for
climate action.
“ ”