A Model of Business Response to Climate Change -

An Indian Perspective*

Subhasis Ray
Associate Professor
Xavier Institute of Management
Bhubaneswar
sray@ximb.ac.in

Abstract
The business challenges arising out of climate changes are accelerating at a faster
rate than ever. While global corporations like Wal-Mart have acknowledged and responded
to this challenge through well-articulated climate strategies, the Indian scenario has not
improved over the last three years. The number of companies proactively addressing climate
change has remained static as per the Carbon Disclosure Project. Based on information
provided in their websites, two of India's largest public sectors do not have a clear strategic
response to the threats of climate change. Transition economies like India face the challenge
of developing a green economy that answers the call for a sustainable and inclusive
development without sacrificing the optimal rate of growth. This paper introduces one possible
response model that addresses both risk mitigating measures as well as opportunities for
inclusive development embedded in such measures. The Measure- Assess-Act (MAA) model is
a normative model that provides possible strategic responses to address the challenges of
doing business in the context of climate change. It includes possibilities to align corporate
social responsibility and sustainability with climate change issues. Indian businesses would
do well to develop similar approaches as part of their strategy.
Key words: Climate change, India, Business strategy

Introduction
The business challenges arising out of climate changes are accelerating at a
faster rate than ever. As the eco-political negotiations take place, transition economies
like India face the challenge of developing a green economy that answers the call for a
sustainable and inclusive development without sacrificing the optimal rate of growth.
Regardless of the outcome of international negotiations, it is imperative that businesses
are prepared for more stringent regulations. The nature of such regulations will vary from
one economy to other and different industrial sectors will face differential treatments. In
this context, it is useful to think about a possible response strategy that businesses can
adopt over the long term. This paper introduces one such model that addresses both risk
mitigating measures as well as opportunities for inclusive development embedded in such
measures.

* Received January 9, 2013; Revised August 20, 2013

114 Vilakshan, XIMB Journal Vol.10 (2) ; September 2013

Review of literature
Global business has responded differently to climate change. The North American
reaction was to form coalitions like the Global Climate Coalition or the Climate Council, in
an effort to influence and regulate policies and standards (Kolk, 2008). The European
business reaction was slower and more receptive (Kolk and Levy, 2004). Looking at
possible strategies adopted in other economics to mitigate the effect of climate change it
seems that overall, it was the developed countries that took the lead in scripting a response
to climate change. As the nature of responses became more proactive, conciliatory and
innovative, we saw a large volume of literature in the first part of this century. They
focused on the business logic behind voluntary greenhouse gas reductions (Hoffman,
2005) while many focused on the impact of climate change on individual industries. Kingwell
and Farre (2009) focused on the machinery industry while Mills (2009) discussed climate
change in the context of the insurance industry. Tourism (Scott &Becken, 2010), the US
building sector ( Kyle et al, 2010), US timber market ( Sohngen and Mendelsohn, 1998)
and the aviation industry (Capoccitti, Khare, Mildenberger, 2010) are some of the other
businesses which have been discussed in various studies in the context of climate change.
As this paper focuses on the impact of climate change and business response to it, we
have not covered literature based on the risk perspective of climate change in this section.
However, the social risk of climate change is indeed related to the business risk and
response (Niemeyer, Petts and Hobson, 2005). Uggla (2008), for example, studied strategies
from a risk perspective, looking at the Swedish climate campaign. Both Hoffman and
Woody (2008) and Porter and Reinhardt (2007) recognized addressing climate change as
a fundamental and strategic need. Thus, we can see that climate change has moved
beyond environmental and CSR related aspects.
Another group of management scholars studied response as a theme. There was
recognition of the fact that responses could be strategic in nature, giving companies a
competitive advantage in the long run (Lash and Wellington, 2007). Janssen, Rotmans
and Vrieze (1995) studied response strategies as an optimization problem, though it does
not focus on businesses or corporations. Jeswani, Wehrmeyer and Mulugetta (2008)
studied corporate responses in Pakistan and UK, reporting that responses are rarely
uniform and often dictated by economic, technological, organizational and institutional
drivers and barriers. The study was limited to nine most energy intensive sectors. Mules
(2009) discussed the response of Australian businesses based on the Garnaut Report.
Romer (2009) identified business both as a problem and the solution to climate change
management highlighting the fact that it is the poor who bears maximum brunt of human
induced climate change. Levy and Kolks (2002) study of the oil sector recognized the
increasing awareness of the strategic importance of climate change. Kolk, Levy and
Pinkse, (2008) also noted how voluntary disclosure of carbon foot print is increasing
among multinational companies, in the context of the carbon disclosure project (CDP).
Michelowa, Butzengeiger and Bode (2005) has looked at the industrial responses
to climate change in Germany while Eberlein and Matten (2009) compared responses in
Canada and Germany and discussed their implication for emerging economies. Kolk and
 Ray, A Model of Business Response to Climate Change ...... 115

Pinkse (2004) have discussed market strategies for climate change. Their finding, based
on data from multinational organizations of primarily developed countries, provides a
typology of climate strategies including innovation or compensation. Business response to
externalities like climate change is similar to reactions to environmental pollution and
corporate social responsibility and can be situated in a continuum, from defensive to
proactive.
However, there is limited research on how businesses should look and approach
the issue of response. The contribution of this paper is to present a normative model
outlining possible steps that businesses can take based on their emission intensity and
relative competitive position. The paper builds on existing response typologies, provides a
more detailed response model and adds an important component that is relevant in the
context of developing economies and their adaptive capacity i.e. integrating regional
development and corporate social responsibility with climate change. In doing so, it tries
to answer the following research questions:
How should business respond to the challenges posed by climate change?
What is the situation in India which is forecasted to be one of the largest emitters
of green house gases by 2015 (IEA, 2007b) ?
Response model
The Stern Review (2006) analyzed the economic impact of climate change and
concluded that mitigation and adaptation actions have to be taken at the earliest. Otherwise,
many of the effects of climate change cannot be reversed. Not taking any action is no
longer a viable strategic options for businesses, as Fussel (2009) points out in the context
of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Thus business response is mandatory in todays
context. The response could be driven by policy (reactive) or self-formulated (proactive).
As Matten (2009) points out, there are a whole range of responses to climate change
ranging from lobbying to efficiency improvement measures as well as new product
innovation and participation in emission trading scheme.
In this paper, we consider businesses to be aware of the climate threat, self-
regulated and formulating an action plan. This paper proposes a measure- assess-act
(MAA) response model, having three broad components i) Measure Carbon Footprint, ii)
Assess vulnerability and opportunity and iii) Act on the opportunities (See Exhibit 1 for
the model). It argues that there may be two broad types of responses. The first type is
intuitive based on organizational vision and the current leadership. The second type is
more measured, professional and strategic in nature. Organizations can respond either or
both way depending on their risk perception and changing regulations. The three
components are described in details below.
Measure carbon footprint
Corporations need to first measure their own emissions. However, rather than
just measuring their own emission, we suggest corporations measure their footprint across
116 Vilakshan, XIMB Journal Vol.10 (2) ; September 2013

supply chains and regions of production, operations and consumption, e.g. oil companies
should study the usage of fossil fuel by their customers as well as their suppliers and
downstream industries to measure the full impact of their operations. A supply chain or a
value chain perspective provides a better risk mitigation strategy particularly if such chains
extend to India, China or other poorer countries with weak regulatory norms. In many
cases one company dominates a particular regions, e.g. Tata Steels operations in
Jamshedpur, India, influences all activities in the integrated township of Jamshedpur. Hence,
the companys operations and response to climate change in turn has a big social, economic
and political impact. Being the economic hub of the state of Jharkhand, the companys
action has implications for regional policies and actions and a regional perspective could
be helpful for the company to mitigate future risks like increased taxes on energy or
waste disposal.
Measurement however, will require selection of the right technique and all
measurement related issues like tool selection, validity and reliability need to be considered.
Almost hundred years back, French tyre manufacturer Michelin started publishing a guide
to high end cuisine in order to encourage French motorists to try them out and in the
process encourage consumers to drive more. Today, the Michelin rating is a globally
respected one, creating a new revenue stream for the company. Like the Michelin guide
in high end cuisine industry, pioneers in this area can use their measurement expertise as
a source of expert power and also earn revenue through consulting in future. To our
knowledge, most companies in India, for example, are yet to define the scope of
measurement. The measurement results could be divided into two parts- i) emissions that
the company is directly responsible for and ii) indirect role due to supplier operations and
consumption.
Assess Impact
The second step after measurement is to assess the impact of such emissions in
relation to the sector as well as the companys leadership position. The assessment could
have two components- i) assessing vulnerability and ii) opportunity. The assessment has
to be done from a risk-opportunity perspective. Vulnerability can be qualitatively grouped
into two types: low vulnerability areas can be addressed by controlling carbon intensive
operations. Companies need to take short term operational measures to tackle this. This
can happen for industries where emissions are relatively insignificant part of their operations.
For industries with high vulnerability, e.g. transportation companies, strategic measures
are called for. Here, vulnerable areas could be areas with high emission (e.g. power plant
operations) or above average usage of natural resources (e.g. in the case of a mining
company). Coca Colas bottling plant near Chennai, an area with acute drinking water
shortage, is an example where the company may be vulnerable to opposition from the
community, NGOs and the government, creating operational risk for the companys division
that deals with bottled water.
Act on the opportunities
For vulnerable functions and operations, corporations have three choices reduce,
reuse, innovate (R-R-I). The first obvious choice will be to reduce emissions through
 Ray, A Model of Business Response to Climate Change ...... 117

awareness, communication and imposition of incentive/penalty. Proven cost reduction

methods will be useful here. The second approach is re-use: re-engineering waste as well
as existing products and services. It is possible that reduction and reengineering have
their limits and corporations may find it more advantageous to consider creating new
markets (for existing products) or new products (for existing and emerging markets). For
multinational companies, untapped markets could even be used for phasing out obsolete
technologies and piloting sustainable solutions. Such disruptive innovations (Christensen,
1997) will be particularly critical for large companies with high vulnerability. Once a
corporation has mapped its vulnerabilities, it may also identify opportunities, as mentioned
above. It is possible for a company in the green(er) wind power business like Suzlon or
financial services (like banking or insurance) to see more of opportunities in the climate
change scenario viz. more sustainable power as well as the demand for weather insurance.
Vulnerabilities may not be significant for such companies.
Indirect impacts

Corporations do not act in isolation. In a developing country context, their social

and environmental performances are facing increased scrutiny from all stakeholders.
Large corporations are deemed to be both the problem and solution behind climate change.
The corporate responses, therefore has to be an integrated one- seen in the context of the
society, environment and region of operation. Immediate corporate response should cover
direct stakeholders like suppliers and customers. For suppliers, adopting business codes,
supplier audit and ranking them based on their climate performance would be the starting
steps. Even for industry leaders, this could be difficult. Herman Miller, a USA based multi
national and one of the most sustainability oriented company in the furniture industry
faced resistance from its own suppliers in its effort to categorize products based on their
recyclability. However, as we mentioned earlier, companies that can do this successfully,
set the benchmark and create future revenue streams. For customers, companies need to
take responsibility for the way products are used, stored and disposed off. Lessons from
the automotive battery industry show that it is possible to develop awareness about the
harmful effects of products. Termed, extended product responsibility (EPR) in industrial
ecology parlance, such stances help companies build a position of leadership with respect
to climate change.

This aspect of the role and responsibility of the organization should shape the
corporate response to climate change. It has to go beyond traditional corporate social
responsibility. CSR projects and programmes should be dovetailed with the climate strategy
of the company. CSR and climate change cannot be delinked, particularly for transition
economies like India. Indias new policy guidelines, making CSR mandatory, gives an
opportunity to pilot many innovations. Such linkage needs to be worked out in consultation
with leading NGOs and regional, state and national governments. In the context of India
this could mean integrated planning for the district, done jointly by corporations, NGOs
and district government. Such a holistic plan is a win-win response to climate change. For
118 Vilakshan, XIMB Journal Vol.10 (2) ; September 2013

the government, it can complement the national action plan on climate change (NAPCC)
at the grass root level; for the NGOs, it will provide opportunities to work long term in
their field of expertise and for the corporations a holistic response will ensure that their
pioneering initiatives give them long term competitive advantage. In the example of Coke,
cited earlier, partnership with Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) is providing the company
tools for more sustainable water management.

Finally, the MAA model implies that irrespective of the size and scope, climate
change is an opportunity for businesses to re-invent and reposition themselves to
stakeholders.

The Indian context

India has shifted from its earlier position of negating the role of developing countries
in climate change to one of more pro-active steps in announcing voluntary emission
reduction targets, in line with its growing role in the global economic order. The shift has
been slow. In line with the government stance, initial business response was dismissive
(Das, 2012). Economic liberalization of the 1990s saw changes in some of the top Indian
companies including the Tata group, ITC in the private sector and ONGC and NTPC in
the public sector in the form of sustainable development policies. In the last decade,
Indias dual role as a victim of climate change as well as a major polluter created certain
momentum in the industry. The Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) is a voluntary initiative
to understand the climate change readiness of select Indian corporations. This is part of
an international initiative for voluntary corporate disclosure of carbon footprint. The
information provided in the CDP Report 20121shows that Indian corporations response
to climate change is at par with their counterparts in China and Brazil. However, given
the low base of respondents (200) and the size of the Indian economy, the results do not
reflect the absolute nature of climate oriented corporate strategies. Indian businesses
score highly on their perception of climate change and related communications. 95 % of
the respondents perceive climate change as a risk (CDP, 2012). However, only 37% of
the Indian respondents had an emission reduction target, indicating a lack of response
strategy. Only 34 of the 200 companies responded publicly with their emission data,
signifying a gap in rhetoric and action. Table 1 below shows the response rate of Indian
companies to the CDP call for public disclosure of carbon emissions. This is further
reinforced by Indian businesses when they ranked business opportunity as the sixth
important reason for taking climate friendly steps. Reputation, customer request and media
attention were the top three ( Enkvist and Vanthournout, 2007). However, CDP reports
suggest that the perception of climate change among Indian businesses is shifting from
one of risk to that of opportunity. The reports reinforce the need for Indian companies to

1
See https://www.cdproject.net/CDPResults/CDP-India-200-Climate-Change-Report-2012.pdf
accesed on 20-8-2013 for more details.
 Ray, A Model of Business Response to Climate Change ...... 119

Table 1: Corporate Response to Carbon Disclosure Project 2012

2012 2011 2010
Responding publicly to CDP 34 31 31
Responding privately to CDP 9 15 16
Total responses 53 57 51
(Note: The total is more than the sum of individual responses as some companies refer to the
disclosure of the parent organization and do not report individually)

adopt a more strategic and systematic response to climate change like the one suggested
in this paper. The M-A-A model provides an actionable tool for managers to measure
their carbon emission, assess possible options and act on them.
Issues and challenges
Adaptation of this model will require, first, corporate knowledge and understanding
about the real threats of climate change. We do not see many such initiatives beyond the
environmental management departments of organizations. For the purpose of this study,
we did a website based research on the proposed climate related stances of two large
public sector organizations which should find the climate issue pressing and critical: Indian
Oil Corporation and Coal India Limited. The formal, online communications from the two
companies do not show any structured response to issues of climate change.
Indian Oil is a company with a high carbon foot print. Yet, its environmental
measures are silent about actual emissions or a broad based strategy to tackle climate
change beyond reporting the lowering of emissions at its refineries.2 Though the company
talks about bio fuel and greener fuels the focus of the communication is clearly on mitigation
of pollution at refineries. A long term climate strategy document is missing from its
communication on sustainability, environment and CSR even as Indian Oil is conscious
of its carbon footprints and constantly endeavours to make all its major events/
workshops/seminars/conferences carbon neutral. 3
Coal India is the worlds largest coal producing company. Mining activities have
a large carbon footprint and pollution is a major source of concern. Yet, the sustainability
report of Coal India 2012-134 does not have articulation on climate change strategy.
Mitigation measures are limited to afforestation, rain water harvesting, awareness training
and energy conservation. The report also does not provide any relative performance data
both within the company as well as in relation to peers. These two large Indian public
sectors are exemplars of corporate performance on the climate front. They underscore
the need to have a strategic model for managing climate risks and opportunities at the
corporate level.

2
http://www.iocl.com/Aboutus/Environment.aspx accessed on 20 August, 2013.
3
http://www.iocl.com/Aboutus/sustainability.aspx accessed on 20 August, 2013.
4
http://www.coalindia.in/Documents/Sustainability_report_2012_-_13_final_14082013.pdf
accessed on 20 August, 2013.
120 Vilakshan, XIMB Journal Vol.10 (2) ; September 2013

Climate change concern needs to reflect in the strategic vision of the company
and translate to action plan for future. For successful adoption of this model, need for
managing climate knowledge, creating flexible and adaptive operational mechanisms and
alignment with the business strategy remains essential. One of the key challenges will be
the mode and structure of communications. For internal stakeholders, climate knowledge
needs to be managed formally and the lessons distributed across functions.
Limitations and scope for future research
A universal model for business response to climate change is difficult to design
and adopt. As we have seen earlier, responses vary across countries as well as among
different industries. Such models need to be geography and sector neutral. Knowing that
different sectors have different levels of carbon footprints, resultant strategies will be
adopted at different speeds. Emergent market mechanisms like carbon trading can skew
activities to one direction at the cost of the other. Thus models like the MAA can be found
to be generic in nature. However, we think that the MAA model has extended the broad
response typologies present in the current literature and provided a more tactical and
actionable tool for managers, applicable to companies that need to develop a climate
change action plan, now. It requires sufficient fine tuning and customization before adoption.
The model is not useful for companies who consider themselves to be too small or distant
for the climate threat to take any action. However, it may still provide a process roadmap
for functional managers in such companies.
The proposed MAA model has to be validated with inputs from more companies
to see whether any other response actions are possible. More research is needed to
understand and formulate business responses in the transition economies as they have to
balance between economic ambitions and sustainable development. Companies in the
developing economies will also be hardest hit by climate change, both due to higher poverty
levels and lower adaptive capacity. Unlike their counterparts in developed economies,
Indian companies, for example, do not have the luxury of a defensive approach. High
growth targets will lead to higher emission in the business as usual mode. They could
gain by innovating greener solutions and take advantage of the learning curve. An integrated
response to climate change would call for policy cohesion aligned with national
developmental goals, regional priority areas and platforms that facilitate stakeholder
consultations. At a more micro level, knowledge and capacity building among managers
will require more effort and investment.
Conclusion
For companies in the developing countries, responding to climate change is a
slow but sure event to come. While choosing to respond to the merging regulations and
threats from climate change, managers need to assess their organizations vulnerability
and competence in relation to those of their industry. Responses could range from simple
cost reduction measures for energy efficiency to innovating new products and processes
and creating new markets. Carbon footprints need to be measured not only for the company
 Ray, A Model of Business Response to Climate Change ...... 121

concerned but also across its value chain and among its stakeholders. Pioneering companies
can find this as an opportunity to influence policy regulations, creating new markets and
building a stronger brand while being responsible for creating a green planet and economy.
References
Agarwal, Anil and Narain, Sunita (1991) Global WarmingIn an Unequal World: A case of
environmental colonialism, Centre for Science and Environment, New Delhi.

Capoccitti, Sam; Khare, A. and Mildenberger, Udo.(2010).Aviation Industry - Mitigating

ClimateChange Impacts through Technology and Policy. Journal of Technology Management
& Innovation, 2010, Vol. 5 Issue 2, p66-75

CDP (2010) Carbon Disclosure Project- India200 Report, British High Commission New Delhi,
CII- Centre for Excellence in Sustainable Development and World Wide Fund for Nature, India,
New Delhi

Christensen, C. M. (1997) The Innovators Dilemma: When New technologies Cause Great Firms
to Fail ( Boston: Harvard Business School Press)

Cogan, Douglas G. (2006) Corporate Governance and Climate Change: Making the connection,
Ceres, Boston, MA.

Das, Tarun (2012) Climate Change and the Private Sector in Dubash K. Navroz (ed) Handbook of
Climate Change in India. Oxford University Press.

Eberlein, Burkard and Matten, Dirk (2009), Business responses to climate change regulation in
Canada and germany: Lessons for MNCs from Emerging Economies, Journal of Business
Ethics, 86: 241-255.

Enkvist, P. A. and Vanthournout, H. (2007) How companies Think About Climate Change,
McKinsey & Company.

Fussel, H. (2009), An updated assessment of the risks climate change based on research published
since the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Climate Change, Vol. 97, No. 3-4, pp. 469-482.

Habbitts, S. and Gilbert, S. ( 2007) Reporting the Business Implications of Climate Change in
Sustainability Reports (Amsterdam: GRI/KPMG).

Hoffman, A. J. (1999) Institutional evolution and change: environmentalism and the U.S. chemical
industry, Academy of Management Journal, 42(4), pp. 351371.

Hoffman, A.J. and J.G. Woody (2008), Climate Change; Whats your business strategy? Harvard
Business School Press, Boston, MA.

Hoffman, Andrew J. (2005) ClimateChange Strategy: TheBusiness LogicBehindVoluntary

Greenhouse Gas Reductions.California Management Review, Spring 2005, Vol. 47 Issue 3,
p21-46.
122 Vilakshan, XIMB Journal Vol.10 (2) ; September 2013

International Energy Agency (IEA) (2007), World Energy Outlook 2007: China and India Insights
(International Energy Agency, Paris).

Janssen, Marco; Rotmans, Jan and Vrieze, Koos.(1995)ClimateChange: Optimization of Response

Strategies.International Transactions in Operational Research, Jan, Vol. 2 Issue 1, p1,

Jeswani, Harish Kumar; Wehrmeyer, Walter and Mulugetta, Yacob.(2008) How warm is the corporate
response to climatechange? Evidence from Pakistan and the UK.Business Strategy & the
Environment (John Wiley & Sons, Inc), Vol. 17 Issue 1, p46-60,

Kingwell, Ross and Farr, Imma.(2009) Climatechange impacts on investment in crop sowing
machinery.Australian Journal of Agricultural & Resource Economics, April 2009, Vol. 53
Issue 2, p265-284

Kolk, A. (2001) Multinational enterprises and international climate policy, in: B. Arts, M. Noorman
and B. Reinalda (Eds) Non-State Actors in International Relations, pp. 211225
(Aldershot:Ashgate).

Kolk, A. and Levy, D. (2004) Multinationals and global climate change. Issues for the automotive
and oil industries, in: S. Lundan (Ed.) Multinationals, Environment and Global Competition,
pp. 171193 (Oxford: Elsevier).

Kolk, A. and Pinkse, J. (2005) Business responses to climate change: identifying emergent strategies,
California Management Review, 47(3), pp. 620.

Kolk, A. and Pinkse, J. (2008) A perspective on multinational enterprises and climate change.
Learning from an inconvenient truth? Journal of International Business Studies, doi: 10.1057/
jibs.2008.61.

Kolk.,A., Levy, D and Pinkse J. (2008) Corporate responses in an emerging Climate regime: the
institutionalization and commensuration of carbon disclosure. European Accounting review,
Vol. 17, No. 4, 719-745.

Kolk, A. and, Pinkse, J. (2004) Market Strategies for Climate Change European Management
Journal, Volume 22, Issue 3, June 2004, Pages 304-314

Kyle, Page; Clarke, Leon; Rong, Fang and Smith, Steven J. (20100 Climate Policy and the Long-
Term Evolution of the U.S. Buildings Sector. Energy Journal, 2010, Vol. 31 Issue 2, p145-172,

Lash, J. and Wellington, F. (2007) Competitive advantage on a warming planet, Harvard Business
Review, 85(3), pp. 95102

Levy, D. L. and Kolk, A. (2002) Strategic responses to global climate change: conflicting pressures
on multinationals in the oil industry, Business and Politics, 4(3), pp. 275300.

Lutken, S.E. and Michaelowa, A. (2008) Corporate Strategies and the Clean Development
Mechanism, Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, Cheltenham, UK.
 Ray, A Model of Business Response to Climate Change ...... 123

McKinsey and Company (2009) Environmental and energy sustainability: An approach for India,
McKinsey & Company.

Michelowa, A., S. Butzengeiger and S. Bode: 2005, Governmental and Industrial Responses to
Climate Change: The Case of Germany, in K. Begg, F. van der Woerd and D. L. Levy (eds.), The
Business of Climate Change: Corporate Responses to Kyoto, Greenleaf, Sheffield, pp. 104- 130.

Mills, Evan.A. (2009) Global Review of Insurance Industry Responses to Climate Change. Geneva
Papers on Risk & Insurance - Issues & Practice, July 2009, Vol. 34 Issue 3, p323-359.

Mules, Rachel (2009). Kick Starting Action On Climate Change Business response to the Garnaut
Report and Beyond, BusiDate, May, Vol. 17 Issue 2, p2-5, 4p,

Niemeyer, Simon; Petts, Judith and Hobson, Kersty(2005) Rapid Climate Change and Society:
Assessing Responses and Thresholds. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, Dec2005,

Perkins, R. (2007) Globalizing Corporate Environmentalism ? Convergence and heterogeneity in Indian

industry, Studies in Comparative International Development, vol. 42, no. 3 / 4 pp. 279 -309.

Pinkse, J. and Kolk, A. (2009) International Business and Global Climate Change (London: Routledge).

Porter, M.E. and F.L. Reinhardt (2007), A strategic approach to climate, Harvard BusinessReview
85, 26.

Pulver, Simone ( 2012) Corporate Response to Climate Change in India in Dubash K. Navroz (ed)
Handbook of Climate Change in India. Oxford University Press.

Romar, Edward. (2009)Snapshots of the Future: Darfur, Katrina, and Maple Sugar (ClimateChange,
the Less Well-Off and Business Ethics). Journal of Business Ethics, Feb. Supplement 1, Vol. 85,
p121-132

Scott, Daniel and Becken, Susanne.(2010)Adapting to climate change and climate policy: progress,
problems and potentials. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, April, Vol. 18 Issue 3, p283-295,

Sohngen, Brent and Mendelsohn, R. (1998)Valuing the Impact of Large-Scale Ecological Change in
a Market: The Effect of ClimateChange.... American Economic Review, Sep98, Vol. 88 Issue 4,
p686, 25p;

TERI (2005) CDM Implementation in India: The National Strategy Study, TERI (The Energy and
Resources Institute), New Delhi.

Tucker, M. (1997) Climate Change and the Insurance Industry: The cost of increased risk and the
impetus for action, Ecological Economics, vol.22, pp 85-96.

Uggla, Ylva. (2008)Strategies to Create Risk Awareness and Legitimacy: the Swedish climate
campaign. By: Uggla, Ylva. Journal of Risk Research, Sep, Vol. 11 Issue 6, p719-734, 16p
124 Vilakshan, XIMB Journal Vol.10 (2) ; September 2013

THE MEASURE-ASSESS-ACT (MAA) RESPONSE MODEL

EXHIBIT 1
Copyright of Vilakshan: The XIMB Journal of Management is the property of Vilakshan: The
XIMB Journal of Management and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites
or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However,
users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.