BP was the ªrst of these companies to change from a reactive to a proactive climate strategy formulation. In 1996, it withdrew from the oppositional Global Climate Coalition (GCC), which was characterized as the most powerful lobby organization in climate policy.28 BP then accepted the climate change problem as diagnosed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and gave its support to the Kyoto Protocol. In 1998 BP’s strategy formu- lation developed further in a proactive direction when the company adopted GHG emission reduction targets aimed at reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 10 percent (relative to 1990 levels) by 2010.29 In 2002, a new target of no in- crease in net emissions by 2012 compared to 2001 levels was set, regardless of any organic growth in the company’s businesses.30 Throughout the period stud- ied (1998–2005) BP’s climate strategy formulation has remained proactive, and the company’s statements with regard to the scientiªc basis for the concern about human-induced climate changed have developed in accordance with IPCC assessments about the connection between anthropogenic GHG emis- sions and global climate change. In its 2004 Sustainability Report BP acknowl- edges climate change as “one of the greatest challenges in the 21st century” and states that “as a major supplier of energy, BP believes it has a responsibility to take a lead in ªnding and implementing solutions to climate change.”31 In its 2000 environmental report BP also refers to the importance of internationally agreed solutions to mitigate climate change, especially the market mechanisms included in the Kyoto Protocol.
9 July -- UPDATE -- I've just been invited to turn this into an op-ed piece for the next issue of IABC's CW Bulletin. Your comments will help improve the final version!
Two weeks ago, while floating around Amsterdam on a sightseeing tour during the Orange Business Live 2010 conference*, I had the opportunity to ask the CIO of a major oil...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document