Lily Hsueh, "Corporations at Climate Crossroads: Multilevel Governance, Public Policy, and Global Climate Action" (MIT Press, 2025)

Summary

---

Podcast Summary: New Books Network – Lily Hsueh, Corporations at Climate Crossroads: Multilevel Governance, Public Policy, and Global Climate Action (MIT Press, 2025)

Release Date: October 17, 2025
Host: Michael Simpson
Guest: Lily Hsueh (Associate Professor, Economics & Public Policy, Arizona State University)

---

Overview

In this episode, host Michael Simpson discusses Lily Hsueh’s new book, Corporations at Climate Crossroads, which examines the evolving responsibilities, pressures, and roles that corporations face in global climate governance. Hsueh explains how multilevel governance shapes corporate environmental behavior, the changing landscape of climate disclosure, the agency of managers, and the interplay between global, national, and subnational policies on climate action. The conversation highlights practical, empirical insights and considers both structural and human factors influencing corporate responses to the climate crisis.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

Genesis of the Book and Personal Motivation

[03:40–06:25]

• Lily Hsueh shares that her upbringing in Silicon Valley exposed her early to corporate environmentalism, especially on issues like toxic waste and groundwater contamination, and the interplay of markets, regulation, NGOs, and public awareness.
• Her professional journey, from junior economist at the Federal Reserve to public policy academia, reflects her desire to bridge economics and politics in understanding corporate environmental behavior.

“It was beyond just economic forces and market forces … it was about economics, market forces, and also about politics and regulation and global governance.”
— Lily Hsueh [04:46]

---

Defining Corporate Environmentalism and Self-Regulation

[06:25–07:32]

• Hsueh frames corporate responsibility and sustainability as firms’ proactive actions—such as adopting emissions targets, internal carbon pricing, renewable energy investments, and community initiatives—not just compliance.
• These actions signal a broader concept of “corporate self-regulation” in advancing climate mitigation.

“I’m really talking about proactive actions and activities that firms are taking… companies may on their own proactively adopt a quantitative emissions target or setting an internal price on carbon.”
— Lily Hsueh [06:41]

---

The Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) and Scope of Emissions

[07:32–09:36]

• CDP (formerly Carbon Disclosure Project) is a voluntary reporting system for corporate climate performance, supported by investors representing about $90 trillion in assets.
• Hsueh explains “scopes” of emissions:
  • Scope 1: Direct, owned/controlled sources (e.g. company vehicles).
  • Scope 2: Indirect, from purchases like electricity.
  • Scope 3: Supply chain and downstream indirect emissions.

---

Voluntary Ratings: Strengths & Shortcomings

[09:36–12:05]

• CDP uses a letter-grade system to assess disclosure efforts, not actual environmental performance.
• Hsueh distinguishes between “sustainability outputs” (reporting, transparency) and “outcomes” (actual emissions reductions).
• CDP’s primary value: preparing companies for increasingly mandatory disclosure requirements, especially as nations enact their own climate reporting standards.

“This grading however does not equate to environmental performance… [it] is about sustainability outputs rather than outcomes.”
— Lily Hsueh [10:26]

---

Who Uses Ratings & Why They Matter

[12:05–13:19]

• Institutional investors are a chief audience, focusing on long-term climate risk as it affects company value and retirement assets.
• CDP disclosures are critical for “market impacts” that may emerge over decades.

---

Regulation vs. Innovation: The Role of Policy

[13:19–15:39]

• Regulations internalize environmental and social costs but also drive innovation by forcing companies to adapt and evolve.
• Hsueh argues that corporations respond both to “private politics” (activist/consumer demands) and “public politics” (laws/regulation), often acting in anticipation of both.
• Managerial agency emerges as a powerful driver of corporate change alongside institutional structures.

“Companies will preempt regulation and activists’ demands and act … what I bring to bear [in the book] is not just regulation, but managerial agency.”
— Lily Hsueh [14:10]

---

Managerial Agency: Structure Meets Agency

[15:39–18:18]

• Managers are key to shaping a corporation’s climate trajectory.
• Hsueh identifies three core managerial tasks:
  1. Attracting climate-conscious employees.
  2. Forming internal coalitions, including boards and executive-level leadership.
  3. Shaping vision, identity, and incentives to align firm behavior with sustainability goals.

“They are carriers of identity and reputation … able to assess what are the complementary capabilities inside the firms … both acting as rational representatives and as vision setters.”
— Lily Hsueh [17:20]

---

Consumers as Disruptors

[19:45–21:16]

• Consumers play a dual role as employees and as purchasers, able to drive companies toward sustainable practices by choosing what to buy and where to work.
• Market power, when harnessed, can pressure companies to prioritize sustainability.

“Consumers also have that market power and especially if it can be harnessed for sustainability purposes.”
— Lily Hsueh [20:52]

---

Corporate Response to Global Climate Policy (Paris Accords, US Policy Reversals)

[21:16–24:17]

• After the US exit from the Paris Accords in 2017, many corporate leaders publicly supported the agreement due to:
  • Ongoing, profitable investments in clean tech.
  • The importance of global cooperation for future business.
  • Reputational gains associated with climate leadership.
• Some companies (e.g., Ford, ExxonMobil) have demonstrated “greenwashing”—public declarations not always matched by operational or advocacy choices, especially relating to regulatory rollbacks.
• Nonetheless, Hsueh notes a trend toward increased clean tech investment and continued multilevel regulatory pressures.

“It is good publicity and reputational publicity to come out in support of the Paris Agreement.”
— Lily Hsueh [22:43]

“Oil and gas companies… continued to invest in new oil and gas developments, yet they are also committing to net zero emissions goals.”
— Lily Hsueh [24:22]

---

Globalization: Asset or Hindrance for Corporate Climate Action?

[27:11–28:48]

• Transnational corporations are responsible for the majority (about 70%) of industrial emissions; their participation is essential.
• The solution must be both global (given the reach and supply chains) and local (responsive to policy diversity and innovation at subnational levels).

---

Multilevel Governance: Global, National, Subnational Action

[28:48–30:39]

• Effective climate action requires coordination between local, state, federal, and global institutions.
• When national-level policy lags, states (e.g., California) and municipalities can drive progress, serving as “policy laboratories.”

---

Global North/South Dynamics and Supply Chain Responsibility

[30:39–33:43]

• Corporate mitigation activities differ between the Global North and Global South due to regulatory disparities.
• Global corporations have increasing opportunities—and responsibilities—to drive sustainable land use and emission reductions across international supply chains, particularly by partnering with local suppliers and emphasizing climate equity.

“…it is even more important that global businesses… are exercising their corporate citizenship and authority…”
— Lily Hsueh [31:37]

---

Role of Global Institutions (World Bank, IMF, WTO)

[33:43–34:51]

• These organizations are actively involved, but more coordinated action, especially around carbon pricing and trading mechanisms, is needed to facilitate a global shift toward Paris Agreement targets.

---

The Global Sustainable Business and Climate Action Database

[34:51–36:26]

• Hsueh has developed a proprietary database encompassing firm, market, sector, and country-level climate action metrics.
• Tracks financials, emissions disclosures, internal carbon pricing, ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) metrics, managerial structure, and participation in global governance initiatives.
• Useful for both research and policy analysis.

---

Notable Quotes

• “These [ratings] are about sustainability outputs rather than outcomes.” — Lily Hsueh [10:26]
• “They [managers] are carriers of identity and reputation…” — Lily Hsueh [17:20]
• “Consumers also have that market power and especially if it can be harnessed for sustainability purposes.” — Lily Hsueh [20:52]
• “Several things are going on in today’s world. Oil and gas companies… will continue as business as usual, as well as continue to commit to net zero emission goals in their operations chiefly. So scope three is still a question mark. And invest in clean tech.” — Lily Hsueh [26:09]
• “It is even more important, if you will, that global businesses who operate globally… are exercising their corporate citizenship and authority.” — Lily Hsueh [31:37]

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Introduction & Motivation: 03:31–06:25
• Defining Corporate Environmentalism: 06:25–07:32
• CDP & Emissions Scopes: 07:32–09:36
• Strengths/Shortfalls of CDP: 09:36–12:05
• Investors & Rating Utility: 12:05–13:19
• Regulation, Innovation & Agency: 13:19–15:39
• Managerial Agency Explained: 15:39–18:18
• Consumers as Disruptors: 19:45–21:16
• Corporate Response to Policy: 21:16–24:17
• Greenwashing & Political Headwinds: 24:17–27:11
• Globalization & Supply Chains: 27:11–28:48
• Local vs. Global Solutions: 28:48–30:39
• Global North/South, Supply Chains: 30:39–33:43
• Role of Global Institutions: 33:43–34:51
• The GSBCAD Database: 34:51–36:26

---

Summary Takeaway

Corporations at Climate Crossroads frames corporate climate action as a deeply complex, multilevel process shaped by an interlocking web of markets, policies, management choices, and societal expectations. Lily Hsueh’s work highlights the critical importance of structural pressures and human agency—especially managerial leadership—in shaping effective, authentic corporate responses to the climate crisis. She calls for greater transparency, accountability, and collaboration across public and private sectors, reinforced by robust data and informed by both global coordination and local initiative.

---

Transcript

[Lily Shay]

When did making plans get this complicated? It's time to streamline with WhatsApp, the secure messaging app that brings the whole group together. Use polls to settle dinner plans, send event invites and pin messages so no one forgets mom 60th and never miss a meme or milestone. All protected with end to end encryption. It's time for WhatsApp message privately with everyone.

[Podcast Host]

Learn [e-mail] this episode is brought to you by Indeed. When your computer breaks, you don't wait for it to magically start working again. You fix the problem. So why wait to hire the people your company desperately needs? Use Indeed's sponsored jobs to hire top talent fast and even better, you only pay for results. There's no need to wait. Speed up your hiring with a $75 sponsored job credit@ Indeed.com podcast terms and conditions apply.

[Sponsor Voice]

This episode is brought to you by State Farm Listening to this podcast Smart move Being financially savvy Smart move. Another smart move having State Farm help you create a competitive price when you choose to bundle home and auto bundling. Just another way to save with a personal price plan. Like a good neighbor, State Farm is there. Prices are based on rating plans that vary by state. Coverage options are selected by the customer. Availability, amount of discounts and saving savings and eligibility vary by state.

[Podcast Host]

Welcome to the New Books Network.

[Michael Simpson]

Welcome to our listeners. My name is Michael Simpson and I have the great pleasure of welcoming Lily Shay to talk about her just published book Corporations at a Climate Multi Level Governance, Public Policy and Global Climate Action. Trained as an economist and a Public policy Scholar, Lily is an Associate professor in Economics and Public Policy in the School of Public affairs at Arizona State University. Her research bridges the fields of economics, public policy and management. So to investigate how the environment and the global commons are managed and the ways in which behaviors of firms and organizations or are shaped by multiple forces from markets to government policies. Now during her tenure at asu, she has been a two time recipient of the Distinguished Teaching Award as well as receiving the professor of Impact Award. Her work has been featured in major news outlets including the Financial Times, Fortune magazine and PBS NewsHour and recently she was awarded an American Fellowship by the American association of University Women. She earned her PhD in Public Policy and Management from the University of Washington and before this just published book. Lily has been asked to contribute a chapter to a number of other publications and she has over 20 peer reviewed articles in such areas as private and public interactions and global climate Change, rights based management and Ocean and Marine resources sustainability and state and Local governments and participatory governance and social equity. Welcome, Lily.

[Lily Shay]

Thank you so much. It is my pleasure to be here today.

[Interviewer]

That's great. I'm glad you could take the time. So to start with, can you share with our listeners why you wanted to write this book?

[Lily Shay]

Sure. I personally grew up in the San Francisco Bay area in the Silicon Valley. And since I was young I've witnessed environmental corporate or corporate environmentalism by corporations, by companies worldwide, companies in the tech sector and beyond. And I noticed that there is this really kind of fascinating interaction between what's happening nationally, globally, and with firms themselves. And I see market forces, but at the same time I'm seeing how regulation and global pressures also are driving corporate behavior. And at that time it wasn't about climate change, it was actually about toxics. And companies like Fairchild Semiconductors, intel and others were engaged in conversations both with regulators, but also with activists and NGOs, and also as citizens are more aware of what was happening in groundwater contamination or in what was happening even within the personal computers, all the various parts that eventually could become part of the toxic waste, toxic waste, you know, collections or whatever that then gets shipped all the way to Africa even. And so, you know, I witness all those various dynamics. I was beyond just economic forces and market forces. And so that was actually one of the reasons that motivated me to return to graduate school. I worked as an economist, a junior economist at the Federal Reserve bank for many years. And I returned to graduate school at the the Evans School of Public Policy and Governance at the University of Washington, where I wanted to understand more kind of broadly about the policy process and about how economics and politics interact. So I guess this is a very long answer to say those were the various kind of signposts along the way. And we're now here at this crossroads on climate change. And global businesses are certainly a big part of that conversation about climate change, climate policy and governance. And again, it's about economics, it's about market forces, and it's also about politics and regulation and global governance.

[Interviewer]

Now, corporate responsibility and sustainability is a meta framework that permeates your writing here. Without getting into the details of the metrics of measurement, can you encapsulate what this means in the context of your book?

[Lily Shay]

Yes. So when I talk about corporate environmentalism or corporate self regulation with respect to environment or climate, I'm really talking about proactive actions and activities that firms are taking. And sometimes it could be investments in renewables, renewable energy, it could be a corporate social responsibility activities when it comes to climate Mitigation companies may on their own proactively adopt a quantitative emissions target or setting an internal price on carbon. They could be engaged in all sorts of activities on environmental cleanups and community activities at the local level. Or it could be corporation wide, as I said, setting an emissions target or a price on carbon.

[Interviewer]

Now I found you stated that 2/3 of the S&P 500 companies have chosen to report their greenhouse emissions to the CDP. For listeners, can you explain what the CDP rating is?

[Lily Shay]

Yes, sure. So on behalf of nearly 8,000 investors and with a kind of market capitalization of like $90 trillion, the Carbon Disclosure Project or and now the CDP annually surveys global businesses and as you mentioned S&P 500 there could be global 500s and even a little smaller medium sized firms on governance strategy, risk management, the extent to which companies are adopting emissions targets and also their entity wide carbon emissions operational emissions, which are called scope one scope two emissions. And sometimes firms themselves will report their scope three or supply chain emissions.

[Interviewer]

Can I stop you there for a second? Could you define scope one, two and three quickly?

[Lily Shay]

Yes. So scope one emissions are direct carbon emissions that occur from sources controlled or owned by the corporations, by the organization itself. And so it could be emissions associated with driving cars, emissions, furnaces, boilers. And then scope 2 emissions is also operational emissions, but it's more indirect. It comes with the purchases of electricity or heat or cooling. And scope three on the other hand are indirect emissions associated with companies upstream activities. So a company's purchase of greenhouse gas intensive inputs, for example, or even downstream the emissions associated with their company's products, for example. So those are kind of scope one, scope two, scope three emissions.

[Interviewer]

So it sounds like this rating is based on a voluntary reporting system by corporations. What do you see as the strengths and shortfalls of such a rating approach?

[Lily Shay]

Yeah, that's a really good question. So let me talk about the shortfalls first. So CDP does grade firms on low to high levels of climate disclosures. In fact, it gives companies letter grades from a letter grade of D, for example, which means basic carbon transparency if a company responds to its annual survey. And companies can get a grade C for showing initial awareness of business impacts on the environment or ecosystems. It can get a grade B for management or taking action based on the assessments in terms of carbon management. And it could even get an A for leadership doing beyond the assessments and management and setting an internal carbon price or third party audits of its scope 1 scope 2 emissions. That said, this grading however does not equate to environmental performance. So it is just, it's basically, it's about sustainability outputs rather than performance or outcomes. And so in my book, I in fact will make this differentiation that we're, you know, see the world of voluntary carbon disclosure is about sustainability outputs rather than outcomes. So that's in my mind some of the drawbacks. That being said, one of the benefits of a disclosure system like the CDP regulation or mandatory carbon disclosures, 10 to 20 years ago, CDP was only basically the only thing in town. And so companies worldwide have been able to use the CDP and as a vehicle, as a way to prepare for mandatory disclosure rules, which in recent years have they become, you know, it become much more prevalent, including mandatory climate disclosure rules in California, the uk, European Union, New Zealand, even cities like Hong Kong.

[Interviewer]

Okay. Besides the regulators sort of looking at this, who else want to see these ratings?

[Lily Shay]

So institutional investors notably would like to see these ratings. They are the, the ones are, they're, they look long term, they're, you know, they're, they're helping to help, helping retirees, for example, to retire for, to, to have comfortable lives into the future. And so they're looking at performances of in the next fiscal year, but long term. And so they want to see that companies are preparing for the future for climate change. We are increasingly seeing these wildfires and extreme events and institutional investors would like to make sure that companies account for these risks. So these are climate risks, right, that will sometime down the road, five years down the road, 10, 20, 30 years down the road, have these market impacts. And so yes, carbon disclosures are important for that reason.

[Interviewer]

So let me switch gears a little bit. You talk about cost of operation for corporations and that those costs increase with stricter regulations. But regulations are a primary way the government can intervene to internalize environmental, health and social costs that corporations avoid with the impact of their operations and use of their products. On the other hand, these increased costs do drive innovation to mitigate the imposed externality costs. So to increase corporate profits. So do you feel that government intrusion, the free market system in this way should be increased?

[Lily Shay]

So what I will say is that corporations take into account both private politics, which is activist demands, consumer demands, as well as public politics, or costs related to regulatory compliance, and both regulations in the books as well as regulations to come. And so, and so it is within this kind of framework, this existing framework. While I'm in many ways agnostic of exactly how these various pressures come together, what we do know in research and in my research is that these various costs will drive corporate behavior and companies will preempt regulation and companies will preempt activists demands and act. And they have done so with respect to climate change. And in my book, what I bring to bear, not just regulation and what may be coming through pressures of global norms, but managerial agency. And I'm happy to speak a little bit about that if, if that's.

[Interviewer]

Yeah, I did note that of all the dynamics, you felt that managers and management were a key driver for change. So.

[Michael Simpson]

Yes.

[Lily Shay]

Yeah. So I think what's unique about my book is that I'm bringing together both structure and agency. So structure being the regulatory institutions and even global norms and global institutions along with managerial agency or the fact that what's happening inside the firm with carbon managerial structures and organizational structures along with the role of managers. And in my book, what I say is that managers and what I theorize but also show is that managers perform three tasks. They attract climate neutral, climate conscious employees. Especially in this day and age, we are seeing a lot of, a lot of young people and these are the employees who would like to work for corporations from intel to Chevron to come to world across sectors who are increasingly interested in climate change and the impacts of climate change on their lives and on the ecosystems and society. And so managers, especially at the executive level, have this ability to form these governing coalitions comprised of employees, internal stakeholders across ranks, including the board of directors and the chief officers within companies. And what they do is they facilitate incentives and coordinate and shape narratives and they do so in setting visions. They're carriers of identity and reputation and confer benefits to workers beyond what, you know, wages. And they're able to assess what are the complementary capabilities inside the firms and where companies then could then in this way account for these costs that are coming from regulation and from global governance. And so this is in this way, they are both acting as rational representatives of firms, helping to reduce costs in a profit maximizing mode with profit maximizing motives. But at the same time, they set vision and are carriers of identity and reputation.

[Interviewer]

Okay.

[Podcast Host]

Upgrade your laundry routine with a durable and reliable Maytag laundry pair at Lowe's. Like the new Maytag wash and dryer with performance enhanced stain fighting power designed to cut through serious dirt and grime. And what's great is this laundry pair is in stock and ready for delivery when you need it the most. Don't miss out. Shop Maytag in store or online today at Lowe's. My marathon isn't about time.

[Interviewer]

It's about my 26 friends with intellectual disabilities.

[Podcast Host]

I'm dedicating each mile to.

[Interviewer]

I'M Joseph.

[Podcast Host]

I'm running my first bank of America Chicago Marathon for Special Olympics Illinois to.

[Interviewer]

Help give my friends a place to shine.

[Lily Shay]

Join bank of America in supporting Joseph's cause. Give if you can@b of a.com supportjoseph what would you like the power to do? Bank of America references to charitable organizations is not an endorsement by bank of America Corporation.

[Podcast Host]

You know the words that dominate our news cycle?

[Lily Shay]

Private equity keeps inventing.

[Podcast Host]

But do you truly understand how they impact your world and your wallet? In a world that skims the what, understand the why. Because context changes everything. Subscribe to Learn [e-mail] the global benchmark for business news.

[Interviewer]

Now it sounds like he's managing the management Managers are disruptors in economic parlance. Disruptors. Disruptors impact the supply and demand dynamic that challenge the way existing industry markets and businesses models operate. And so you're providing an example here. But let me ask can the consumer effectively disrupt the corporate behavior model, sort of foment a paradigm shift to a more positive, sustainable economy?

[Lily Shay]

Oh, very much so, certainly. And consumers are the employees that I was just talking about. They are the ones, they are the, you know, these consumers who are purchasing all sorts of products and services are prospective employees that companies will then recruit, right, for their firms. They're the ones who are choosing whether to buy, you know, sustainably grown coffee or, you know, products from Adidas, for example, where shoes are made from ocean plastics or or not sustainable materials. And so yes, consumers also have that market power and especially if the market powers are able to be harnessed for sustainability purposes.

[Interviewer]

So I need to ask you in June 2017, when Trump pulled out of the Paris Accords, a number of corporate leaders were critical of this decision, including Intel, Tesla, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Walmart, General Electric and Ford, to name a few. And even ExxonMobil CEO Darren woods indicated support for the Paris Agreement, suggesting that the company believed in the need for global cooperation on climate change. So what do you think are the reasons that these corporations took this position against the Trump decision?

[Lily Shay]

Well, what we know is that since 2016, so since right around the time of the Paris agreement, investments in clean energy have outpaced the fossil fuels investments globally. And this trend has only hastened to nearly twice as much in 2025. What this means is that companies from intel to Apple to Exxon Mobil have been actively engaged in climate tech investments. And so it's actually good business and to be engaged in climate related investments and activities. And so it is actually not surprising to me, regardless whether Some of these firms are in fact aligned with respect to their targets and commitments and outcomes, in fact aligned with Paris Agreement or not. It is also good publicity and reputation, reputational publicity to come out in support of the Paris Agreement.

[Interviewer]

Okay, so I can ask you this follow up, and I wasn't setting you up, but in Trump's 2020 administration they rolled back the corporate average fuel economy or CAFE standards, which was originally aimed for an automobile MPG average of around 55 miles per gallon by 2025 and by freezing the standards at, at 2020 levels at 37 mpg. And it's no surprise that the alliance for Automotive Innovation in the National Automobile Dealers association, who represent the largest automobile manufacturers, which include Ford, as well as the American Petroleum institute, which represents ExxonMobil among others, had a quite vocal applause in Trump's decision. With this reality, one may have to assume that Ford and Exxon Mobil were only greenwashing their support for the Paris Accord. So what are your reflections about this?

[Lily Shay]

Well, so what I would say to that is that several things are going on in today's world. Oil and gas companies and greenhouse gas emissions intensive companies continued, will continue to invest in new oil and gas developments, continue to invest in fossil fuels, yet they are also committing to net zero emissions goals for their operations. ExxonMobil is not quite ready to commit to scope three, but certainly they have even stringent or relatively stringent scope one, scope two emission targets, and all of them are investing in climate, climate tech. So in some ways they are doing all of these things in response to what's happened to today's political headwinds. I think what will happen is that their pace of commitments to net zero, their investments in clean tech, they may potentially slow, but the trends and the pathway are there and will continue. That's today's reality. My book is about the multi level pressures that corporations are experiencing. And the regulatory pressures can come from subnational pressures like California for example. California within the last couple weeks have strengthened its climate climate policies and Both Ford and ExxonMobil and many global businesses operate in California. It's the fourth largest economy in the world. EU, perhaps with a little bit of a delay, will continue its climate policies. And we know this summer the International Court of Justice issued advisory opinion. So it's global norms, it's not going to have the same bite and teeth as regulatory initiatives or the regulatory process. But it is part of that multilevel pressures that companies are also looking at because that's regulations, potential regulations to come. And so so to get back to it, Ford, ExxonMobil and their peers will continue to do many things, continue as business as usual, as well as continue to commit to net zero emission goals in their operations chiefly. So scope three is still a question mark. And invest in cleantech.

[Interviewer]

Okay, well, thank you. Now, the period after World War II laid the groundwork for the first era of globalization. The US emerged from the war a dominant global economic power, primarily due to the fact that its competitors and their associated infrastructure in Europe and Asia were devastated by the conflict. And with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the establishment of the World Trade Organization and the rapid, rapid growth of the Internet in the 90s, US corporations, many of which you highlight as case studies in your book, exponentially expanded their global supply chains. So in this era of globalization, is it an asset or a hindrance to achieving the needed carbon emissions reductions for or from corporations?

[Lily Shay]

It is crucial and necessary because global businesses represent about 70% of of annual industrial emissions and about 100 producers of fossil fuels are responsible. So yes, the role of global businesses are very important and necessary.

[Interviewer]

So they have the power because of their position and their percentage of control of wealth. But can the solution be across a global environment or does it need to be local and maybe scaled up?

[Lily Shay]

It should be both actually, especially now with kind of national political headwinds, not, you know, in the US and elsewhere. It's important that sub nationally, especially in a Fed, in a federal system like the US that all hands on deck if you will. And, and it's good business as well to do so. So I would say that at the local level there are ways that companies and localities could continue efforts as well as at the state level and federal level. Of course, I think ultimately at the national level there has to be coordination, right? There has to be federal governments like the US setting a baseline, setting a standard for states to even surpass the states, our laboratories, the policy laboratories. So it does require all these various institutions across levels. But when the federal level is currently on pause, there's so much more that the states and local governments can do. And we've seen an example of that with California most recent climate legislation that yeah, in my mind really represent a pragmatic approach where it's about climate protection, energy reliability and affordability.

[Interviewer]

Well, since I've been working over 30 years in the economics of the labor of disenfranchised poor populations in the Global South, I'm just interested if you can share your perspective about the efforts of the corporations in the developing south being different from those in the OECD countries, in the Global north in addressing mitigation of their greenhouse gas emissions.

[Lily Shay]

Yeah. So what I have found in my book is that there is really this interplay between global governance pressures and regulatory institutions and pressures. And in the Global south where regulations are in fact not as, not as stringent as Global north or regulations in OECD countries, it is even more important, if you will, that global businesses who operate kind of globally are global citizens, that they are exercising their corporate citizenship and authority. And, and notably now that we're even more concerned, we're at this moment in the global economy and as well as climate policy and governance, where we're more and more concerned about scope 3 or supply chain emissions, that there is a lot more effort whereby global, global corporations have an opportunity to work with Global south farmers, with coffee growers, with essentially the entire supply chain in terms of ways that these large corporations are able to make sure that land use changes and deforestation outcomes are. There's just so much more that I think the role that businesses can play where the global pressures, whether it's coming through regulation or with consumer demands, that's happening by these large global buyers, for example, by Walmart, where Walmart, for example, have these sustainability programs with their various tiers of suppliers and many of them in the developing world, that it in fact is translated to what's happening on the ground and do so in a way that is not just protecting the environment, but also is in a, you know, where it takes into account climate justice and climate equity as well.

[Interviewer]

So have you seen any real progress by the World bank or the International Monetary Fund or the World Trade Organization or any other overarching economic world organization to facilitate the global economic shift to help meet the Paris Accord goal of limiting global warming to well below 2 degrees centigrade above pre industrial levels.

[Lily Shay]

Yeah. So I think it takes effort by all of these organizations, these world kind of world trade trade organizations, as well as imf. And I think there's more that could be done. I think that notably I think especially when it comes to carbon pricing, for example, that there could be more of an effort to, to help stitch together a potential kind of, you know, not just regional but global markets for carbon trading.

[Interviewer]

Now, your research supports the points you raised in this book and concurrently allowed you to develop what you named as the Global Sustainable Business and Climate Action Database. Can you please tell our listeners what this is and how it can be used?

[Lily Shay]

Yes, I'm sorry. So in my research and as part of my research I designed a global sustainable business and climate action database. These are essentially I follow the Global 500 and S&P 500 companies Climate Mitigation and performance. And I have collected through proprietary as well as public databases and combined them all into one firm level, market level, sector level and country and global level data. So at the firm level I have information about companies financial data, their carbon disclosure, the extent to which companies are setting an internal price on carbon, their scope 1 scope 2 emissions, emissions intensity so their operational emissions denominated by revenue or by the size of their employees. For example, I have information about companies esg environmental, social and governance metrics, whether they have installed a manager at the executive level, in fact at different levels and the extent to which they are participants in global governance institutions.

[Michael Simpson]

The book is Corporations at Climate Crossroads, Multi Level Governance, Public Policy and Global Climate Action, published by MIT Press. Thank you, Lily.

[Lily Shay]

It is my pleasure. Thank you so much. Michael.

[Podcast Host]

Limu and Doug. Here we have the Limu Emu in.

[Lily Shay]

Its natural habitat helping people customize their car insurance and save hundreds with limited Liberty Mutual.

[Interviewer]

Fascinating. It's accompanied by his natural ally, Doug Limu.

[Podcast Host]

Is that guy with the binoculars watching us? Cut the camera. They see us. Only pay for what you [e-mail] Liberty.

[Interviewer]

Liberty Liberty Liberty Savings.

[Lily Shay]

Very underwritten by Liberty Mutual Insurance company and affiliates excludes Massachusetts.