By Maximilian van Oordt, Former Research Analyst at London Politica
Among the key global trends a seasoned businessman is no doubt familiar with is the transition to more environmentally responsible forms of doing business. Such a shift has taken many popularised names, including ‘going carbon neutral’, ‘going green’, and the protagonist of this particular article: ‘going Net Zero’. As cautious analysts will likely remark, the promising simplicity of such slim slogans often disguise far less rousing realities which are themselves marked by corporate lethargy and rhetorical hoop-jumping. A bemused Financial Times commented on the reduced impact of the plans boasting the ‘Net Zero’ label, reporting that such sweeping objectives would likely only deliver a 40% reduction of absolute emissions at best, with the companies under scrutiny thereby failing to make it even to the halfway mark. In fact, look almost anywhere within the analytical community and the general reaction to these slogans, and to the claims of transformation that they inherently represent, is hardly enthusiastic.
The appearance of making environmentally friendly reforms, however, remains highly important to the general public, who wield their verdicts both as consumers and as voters. Data from PwC shatters any doubts as to the closeness of this issue to the public heart: 76% of consumers claimed they would discontinue relations with companies that treat the environment poorly, while 86% of employees would prioritise working for companies that share the values they do. Combined, the FT and PwC assessments paint a clear picture of the value behind ‘Net Zero’: Despite, in theory, having relatively clear objectives, the term, in practice, does not guarantee anything close to such success. Nevertheless, while the full aims may not materialise, ‘Net Zero’ remains the rhetorical protagonist for environmental change and, consequently, continues to hold tremendous potential as a tool for industrial reform.
Fundamentally, beyond the mechanics of its implementation, ‘Net Zero’ functions as a rallying cry which derives its influence from the aggressiveness of its ambition. By demanding no less than the total reduction or reabsorption of greenhouse gases, the ‘Net Zero’ concept intensifies the failures and shortcomings of polluters, thereby – in theory – raising the pressure on stakeholders to reform in favour of environmentalists’ demands. Such bold demands are a common tactic for lobbying or negotiating but their effectiveness relies heavily on reading one’s audience. The extent of ‘Net Zero’s efficacy, therefore, is entirely dependent on the polluter one wishes to convince and on the transformational tactics one wishes to employ.
For bottom-up approaches to change, increased zeal is often recommendable. Mass protests or rapid private funding become more likely when the perception of urgency is heightened. Top-down approaches, by contrast, often become obstructed when demands are perceived as too great. Here, the boldness of one’s demands frequently either inflames bullish behaviour by proponents or leads to a general perception of obstinance and bullishness – neither of which provide fertile ground for negotiation. What constitutes an overly bold demand is a question which must be answered by conducting due diligence on one’s audience and sprinkling such research with a pinch of common sense. Companies with particularly activist shareholders or customer bases are generally more vulnerable to the implicit threat of reputational damage linked to failing to cooperate with ‘Net Zero’. Here, a cautious increase in ambition is more likely to raise the payoff. Theoretically, ‘Net Zero’ could, in the most advantageous scenarios, be framed as the bare minimum, yet the shift from theory to practice would pivot around one’s ability to adequately identify such scenarios.
Lobbyists dealing with an environmentally hostile government, however, would be better served by highlighting practical advantages inherent in specific ‘Net Zero’-oriented policies and linking these to government objectives. Audience hostility in this case reduces the threat of poor press, thereby constricting the major avenue proponents have through which to apply pressure. After all, an organisation should not be expected to take heed of issues that do not immediately appear relevant to its stakeholders. Here then, the goal would be to clarify such relevance in accordance with the group’s objectives which, importantly, is almost always possible. The sheer breadth, depth, and complexity of globalised supply chains or, in the case of governments, of international relations, provides ample potential for leverage.
Take Jair Bolsonaro’s Brazil: Over the course of his polemical mandate, the President has become a globally recognised figurehead of an often-reactionary resistance to industrial and climate reform. Yet, despite his initial unequivocal disinterest, Bolsonaro and his administration have increasingly attempted to convince global partners of their ‘Net Zero’ ambitions and credentials. The President himself brought forward the country’s ‘Net Zero’ calendar by a full decade, while promising to invest more into environmental law enforcement over the coming years. Much of this is seen as a reaction to increasing diplomatic pressure from the United States and the European Union, themselves responding to popular displeasure at home over environmental calamities abroad. Even with the most hostile audiences, therefore, ‘Net Zero’ remains a powerful call to arms.
The Brazilian example, however, is relevant for a second vital reason: it is one of the most pronounced cases of rhetorical greenwashing and insincerity. The recent announcements have some of the least inspiring practical implications for Brazilian industrial and environmental reform. Nevertheless, the separation between literal and practical aims for ‘Net Zero’ agendas is, counter-intuitively, one of the slogan’s most important strengths. The readership is reminded here of ‘Net Zero’s value, which comes from its use as a hammer of public opinion as opposed to any maximalist expectation of total transformation. With the unmistakably hostile attitude of the Bolsonaro administration towards climate goals, the ‘Net Zero’ push – backed by the societies and diplomatic corps of proponent states – was successful in that it extracted a series of improbable commitments, albeit minor, from an extremely challenging audience.
With the overwhelming number of stakeholders present in an enterprise as global as climate reform, the ability to appreciate even the smallest of victories is crucial. Understandably, the urgency inherent in time-sensitive and ambitious campaigns such as ‘Net Zero’ leads – by design – to increased dissatisfaction with partial solutions. Nevertheless, proponents should not lose sight of the purpose and utility of their zeal. Climate health remains the priority and compromise is by no means a weakness. Above all else, therefore, ‘Net Zero’ should be recognised as a powerful tool, rather than a maximalist necessity, for positive change.
Contributor to The London Financial
We combine research produced by students and early professionals into a single website, breaking down the barriers to entry individuals face in a number of industries.
Contributor opinions are their own and do not necessarily reflect the stance of the LF.