1 23

Mitigation and Adaptation Strategiesfor Global ChangeAn International Journal Devoted toScientific, Engineering, Socio-Economicand Policy Responses to EnvironmentalChange ISSN 1381-2386 Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob ChangeDOI 10.1007/s11027-013-9495-6

The awareness, perception andmotivational analysis of climate changeand business perspectives in Malaysia

Rawshan Ara Begum & Joy JacquelinePereira

1 23

Your article is protected by copyright and all

rights are held exclusively by Springer Science

+Business Media Dordrecht. This e-offprint

is for personal use only and shall not be self-

archived in electronic repositories. If you wish

to self-archive your article, please use the

accepted manuscript version for posting on

your own website. You may further deposit

the accepted manuscript version in any

repository, provided it is only made publicly

available 12 months after official publication

or later and provided acknowledgement is

given to the original source of publication

and a link is inserted to the published article

on Springer's website. The link must be

accompanied by the following text: "The final

publication is available at link.springer.com”.

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

The awareness, perception and motivational analysisof climate change and business perspectives in Malaysia

Rawshan Ara Begum & Joy Jacqueline Pereira

Received: 25 February 2013 /Accepted: 26 July 2013# Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Abstract This article aims to present the current state of corporate managers’ awareness andperception of climate change and to identify important motivational factors for company levelclimate change strategies and actions. The findings demonstrate a high degree of awareness andconcern regarding climate change issues among the corporate managers surveyed in Malaysia.Although a majority of the corporate managers who were surveyed (70 %) perceived thatclimate change would affect their company’s profits, most of them (96%) expressed the opinionthat climate change has no effect on their country’s economy. In addition, a majority of thesemanagers (71 %) believed that their company or business product does not contribute to climatechange. The implications of climate change may vary across the types of corporate and businessenvironments; therefore, businesses should take into account the impacts of climate change;indeed, accounting for these impacts is especially important when businesses make long-terminvestment decisions to take advantage of the available opportunities and deal with theassociated risks. By employing a weighted average and a factor index value (FIV) model,empirical evidence shows that education and awareness, legislation and regulation, and theappropriate technology are the most important motivational factors. In addition, financialincentives, guidelines and training support, and research and development are also found tobe important factors to motivate them to address climate change at their company. Finally, anumber of strategies that derived from the study findings might have implications to thegovernment and businesses for climate change actions.

Keywords Awareness . Perception . Motivational factor . Climate change .

Business . Malaysia

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob ChangeDOI 10.1007/s11027-013-9495-6

R. A. Begum (*)Institute of climate Change (IKP), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600 Bangi,Selangor D.E., Malaysiae-mail: rawshan@ukm.my

J. J. PereiraSoutheast Asia Disaster Prevention Research Institute (SEADPRI), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia,43600 Bangi, Selangor D.E., Malaysiae-mail: joy@ukm.my

Author's personal copy

1 Introduction

Over the years, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in Malaysia have been increasing in tandemwith economic growth and energy consumption (Begum et al. 2009, 2011). Indeed, the grossdomestic product (GDP) of Malaysia showed an upward trend from 2000 to 2007, and theaverage growth rate of the GDP at constant prices from 2000 to 2007 is approximately 5.6%. Interms of per capita growth, the GDP per capita grew from RM 15,169 US$4,681.8 in 2000 toRM 18,633 US$5,751 in 2007. The main contributions to GDP between 2000 and 2007 werefrom the services sector (48–54 %) and the manufacturing sector (30–28 %), which wasfollowed by the mining (10–8 %), agriculture (8–7 %) and construction (4–3 %) sectors(EPU 2010; MNRE 2010). However, the GHG emissions of Malaysia also showed anincreasing trend from 2000 to 2007. According toMalaysia’s Second National CommunicationReport (MNRE 2010), Malaysia had a net drop in emissions in 2000, but emission estimationsshow that Malaysia became a net emitter in 2005; the net emissions for 2005 and 2007 were38.7 Mt carbon dioxide (CO2) eq and 45.9 Mt CO2 eq, respectively. With the prospect of suchincreases in economic growth, energy consumption and GHG emissions, action on climatechange is now a high priority for society. The three major sources of emissions were the energysector (energy industries, transportation, and manufacturing industries and construction), thewaste sector (landfills) and the land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) sector (whichincludes forest and grassland conversion). In this regard, greater use of energy-efficient andrenewable energy technologies or options combined with behavioural changes could substan-tially reduce CO2 emissions from these sectors, where the business sector’s role is crucial.

There is a huge amount of concern regarding socio-economic issues related to climatechange, which include business opportunities and threats, the vulnerability of economies andmarket conditions as well as the co-benefits and risks of climate change mitigation actions(Begum and Pereira 2011). Linnenluecke et al. (2012) emphasised that as a result of climatechange, large-scale, abrupt, and irreversible changes in the Earth’s climate could occur (e.g.Alley et al. 2003; Hulme 2003; IPCC 2007), which could lead to even greater challenges forbusinesses, industries and organisations. Many businesses have already started to recognisethat climate change poses both risks and opportunities, but in most cases, there is a lack ofeffective frameworks in place for understanding and managing these long-term risks andopportunities. The risks from climate change can be significant, and not all companies in thesame sector will be affected to the same degree. Sullivan (2010) suggested that most largeEuropean companies have now developed the management systems and processes necessaryfor them to effectively manage their GHG emissions and the related business risks. Incontrast, it also raised concerns over the potential for litigation if businesses and financialorganisations fail to consider the impacts of climate change (POST 2004). In addition, theStern (2007) review stresses that climate change and weather events can disrupt businessesand indirectly alter market demand and supply. Salinas and Mendieta (2012) showed therelationship between investments and the socio-economy varies among regions of the world.In addition, there has been growing interest among researchers and practitioners concerningthe relationship between corporate carbon strategies and firms’ performance (Lee 2012). Forexample, the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) operates worldwide to collect and distributehigh-quality information that motivates investors, corporations and governments to takeaction to prevent dangerous climate change (CDP 2009). Srivastava and Kakkar (2008)demonstrated motivation for such an effort, which must be quantified to achieve bettermanagement techniques in certain organisations. However, a better understanding of climatechange and its motivational factors would provide a great degree of value to the business orcorporate sectors for developing their strategies and actions in line with global and national

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change

Author's personal copy

climate change policies. Therefore, this study aims to present the current state of corporatemanagers’ awareness and perception of climate change and to identify important motiva-tional factors for company level climate change strategies and actions.

2 Methodology

Data was collected through face to face interviews with senior managers and managementofficers of companies that were members of the Malaysian International Chambers andCommerce Industry (MICCI) and the Federation of Malaysian Manufacturers (FMM). Apurposive random sampling method was used in which respondents were purposely selectedof member companies of MICCI and FMM in Kuala Lumpur and Selangor region as they arerepresenting a huge business in Malaysia. The final survey was conducted from 54 seniormanagers and management officers during the months from July to September in 2008. Thoughthe survey had a limitation of small size of samples but it represents about 6 % of the totalregistered companies. It is worth to note that each of the surveyed respondents represents onecompany and the total number of samples are higher than the minimal number of samples (>30)for a good statistical analysis. Interviews were based on a set of questionnaires that was pre-tested and modified before being used in the survey. The attributes that comprised in the finalquestionnaire were company profile eg. category of company and type of business sector;awareness of climate change issues and its sources; the perception of whether climate changewould affect the company profits and country’s economy or their company or business productscontribute to climate change; and the opinion on factors of importance to motivate theircompany to address climate change issues.

Initially, descriptive statistics such as averages, ranges and percentages were used toanalyse the data obtained. Then, to examine the relative level of importance among thefactors that motivate the respondents to address climate change issues, the study adopted amodified method of weighted average and coefficient of variation models that the authorshad been employed in their previous research on waste minimisation factors (Begum et al.2007). The following weighted average model was used.

AISi ¼X

4j¼1XjNij=N

where AISi is the average importance score of factor i and Xj is the importance grade, whichcan assume Grades I–IV. Grade I indicates not important at all and Grade IV indicates themost important, and hence, the middle Grades II–III indicate important and less important tomotivate the companies. Furthermore, Nij is the number of respondents who give the factor ithe grade Xj and N is the total number of respondents.

To calculate AISi, the four grade scales for X need to be converted into numerical scales,and thus, Grade IV is given a value of 4, Grade III is given a value of 3, etc.; these numbersare chosen for the sake of simplicity. To rank the importance among all the factors, thecombined value of the weighted average and coefficient of variation has to be taken intoaccount. The coefficient of variation is measured by the model of the factors’ index value(FIV), as shown below:

FIV i ¼ AISi þ AISi=δi

where FIVi is the coefficient of variation of factor i, AISi is the average importance score offactor i and δi is the standard deviation of the importance score for factor i. The standard

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change

Author's personal copy

deviation, δi shows how much variation exists from the mean. Furthermore, a simple t-test isused to examine whether the sample mean of motivational factors is different from thepopulation value by dividing mean with standard deviation with the degrees of freedom N–1. After calculating the FIV, the study showed the ranks of importance between the factors(RFIV). The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software was used for dataanalysis.

3 Results and discussion

3.1 The respondents’ profile

The survey respondents reflect a wide range of corporate types and business sectors, and mostof them are from multi-national companies (41 %). The others are from small and mediumenterprises (26 %), large corporations (24 %) and government-linked companies (9 %). Withrespect to the types of business sectors, a majority of the respondents (41 %) representmanufacturing sectors such as the electrical and electronics industry, food processing andbeverages, rubber processing and products, and wood and plastic products; in addition, servicesectors such as hotels and resorts, environmental management or pollution control, andrecycling and recovery consist of 24 % of the respondents. A further 13 % of the respondentsrepresent the oil and gas industry, and the remaining 10 % are from other sectors, such asbanking, finance and insurance. The subsequent sections discuss the survey findings oncorporate managers’ view of climate change, their level of awareness and perception and themotivational factors that are needed to address climate change issues in businesses.

3.2 The awareness and perception of climate change

From the survey, it is clear that all of the respondents are generally aware of climate changeissues, i.e., all of them knew or have heard about any of the following terms related to climatechange: ‘climate change’, ‘global warming’ ‘greenhouse effect’ and ‘rising sea level’. In thesurvey, the respondents were asked how they became aware of climate change issues, and wefound that the most two common sources of awareness are newspapers (87 %) and television(82 %). The other common sources include seminars, conferences and workshops (69 %), theinternet (65 %), the respondents’ own company (56 %), and the radio (33 %); these sourceswere followed by industry associations (22 %) and other sources.

However, respondents to the survey were asked to state their opinions about the issues ofclimate change, business and the economy, as mentioned in Table 1. We found that 71 % of therespondents believed that their company or business products do not contribute to climatechange, and a similar percentage of respondents (70 %) believed that climate change will affecttheir company’s profits. In the context of climate change and its effect on the country’seconomy, most of the respondents (96 %) stated that climate change will have no effect on

Table 1 The perception of climate change, business and the economy

Issues of perception Yes (%) No (%) No opinion (%)

Company or business product contributes to climate change 20 71 9

Climate change will affect the profits of your company 15 70 15

Climate change will affect the country’s economy 2 96 2

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change

Author's personal copy

their country’s economy. This expression might be due to the lack of a clear understanding ofthe impacts of climate change or the view that Malaysia has not encountered a severe threat dueto climate change and natural disasters, though Malaysia has experienced frequent floods.

3.3 Empirical evidence on the level of importance among motivational factors

In the survey, respondents were asked what factors would motivate them to actively address theissue of climate change at their companies other than business profit. Here, we call motivationalfactors those factors that can incite corporate managers to undertake actions to address climatechange issues at their company. The business community and companymanagers often feel thateconomic gain or profit is the only way to communicate the need for climate-related action totheir employees. For instance, Okereke (2007) found in their survey that nearly 100 % of thefinancial times stock exchange (FTSE) companies (the 100 companies listed on the LondonStock Exchange with the highest market capitalisation) that reported climate-change actions ontheir websites make a link between profit and carbon management. Therefore, this surveyexcluded the profit factor as one of the motivational factors because it will always be a factor forbusiness and provide the greatest motivation for them to address climate change issues, andespecially, to reduce their carbon emissions. The survey presents six major factors that can beconsidered as motivational factors to address climate change issues at the corporate level from awide range of literatures (Okereke 2007; Hoffman 2006; Kohler et al. 2006; Kolk and Pinkse2004; Nieuwenhuis et al. 2004; Skjaerseth and Skodvin 2003; Kohler 2003), which discussedin this section. These factors might have a different level of importance to motivate therespondents at the company level. For each factor, the respondents were asked to give theiropinion of its importance as a motivational factor by selecting one of four grades, namely,Grades I–IV. Grade I indicates not important at all and Grade IV indicates the most important,and hence, the middle Grades II–III indicate important and less important.

The survey results are summarised in Table 2, which presents the number and percentageof respondents who gave a specific grade for each factor. For the factor of education andawareness building, 74 % of the respondents indicated that education and awarenessbuilding is the most important factor to motivate them, thus, the importance of Grade IVis given; furthermore, 24 % of the respondents considered this factor to be an importantmotivator; thus, the importance of Grade III was given by them. In addition, only 2 % of therespondents considered the importance of Grades II as less important and none of themindicated Grade I, which means ‘not important at all’, for the educational factor’s ability to

Table 2 The survey response: the levels of importance among motivational factors

Factors Mostimportant

Important Lessimportant

Not important atall

Totalresponse

No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

Education and awareness building 40 74 13 24 1 2 – – 54 100

Legislation and regulation 34 63 19 35 1 2 – – 54 100

Financial incentives 23 43 26 48 5 9 – – 54 100

Guidelines and training support 22 40 28 52 2 4 2 4 54 100

Appropriate technology 31 57 19 35 4 8 – – 54 100

Research and development 25 46 20 37 7 13 2 4 54 100

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change

Author's personal copy

motivate them. The respondents followed the same procedure to give the importance gradefor the rest of the factors, which are presented in Table 2.

It is remarkable that each of the four factors of education and awareness building,legislation and regulation, financial incentives, and appropriate technology showed impor-tance as motivational factors because not one respondent rated these factors as ‘not impor-tant at all’. It should also mention that only 4 % of our respondents rated the factors ofguidelines and training support and research and development as ‘not important at all’ tomotivate them.

Table 3 summarises the estimated results of the weighted averages and the factor-index-value (FIV) model. The average importance score (AIS) shows the relative levels of importancegiven by our 54 respondents to each motivational factor. The highest AIS is 3.72 for the factorof education and awareness building, which indicates that education and awareness building isthe most important factor that motivates our respondents to address climate change issues.However, the lowest AIS is 3.26 for the factor of research and development, which is thereforethe least important factor in the view of our respondents. The rest of the AIS values of themotivational factors are between 3.61 and 3.30, which shows that the importance level is neitherthe most important (Grade IV) nor important (Grade III) among the motivational factors.

To rank a clear and relative importance level, this study calculated the ranking profile ofthe importance of the motivational factors by using a combined value of the weightedaverage and the coefficient of variation. Although a weighted average measure such asour AIS can be used to rank all of the factors, the commonly recognised weakness of usingthis measure is that it does not consider the degree of variation between individual responses.In fact, a smaller variation between individual responses can give better quality to theweighted average values. Therefore, when two factors carry the same or very close averagevalues, the factor that carries a smaller variation should be given a higher rank. The typicaltechnique that is used to mitigate this weakness of ranking attributes by the weightedaverage values is to apply a measure called the coefficient of variation, which can beobtained by dividing the weighted average by the standard deviation. That is why thiscalculation considers both the weighted average and the statistical analysis such as coeffi-cient of variation to effectively assess the ranking attributes or factors. The coefficients ofvariation are measured by the model of factor index value (FIV). In addition, the observed tvalue is greater than the critical t value (compares with the table of critical t values with

Table 3 The calculations of the parameter values of the motivational factors for RFIV

Factors Average importantscore, AIS

Standarddeviation, δ

tvalue

Factors indexvalue, FIV

Rank of factors indexvalue, RFIV

Education andawareness building

3.72 0.49 7.592a 11.31 1

Legislation andregulation

3.61 0.53 6.811a 10.42 2

Financial incentives 3.33 0.64 5.203a 8.53 4

Guidelines andtraining support

3.30 0.72 4.583a 7.88 5

Appropriatetechnology

3.5 0.64 5.468a 9.0 3

Research anddevelopment

3.26 0.83 3.927a 7.19 6

a Indicates statistically significant with the probability of exceeding the critical value at 0.001

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change

Author's personal copy

degree of freedom 53), rejects the hypothesis that is the sample mean of motivational factorsis different from the population value. The t-test shows that the sample we have obtained isnot that unusual.

Table 3 also shows the results of FIV and the ranks of the motivational factors’ relativeimportance (RFIV), which are based on the FIV values. Whereas the highest FIV is 11.31 forthe motivational factor of education and awareness building, the lowest FIV is 7.19, whichcorresponds to the motivational factor of research and development. Ultimately, the ranks ofthe relative importance between motivational factors did not change much between themeasures of AIS and FIV, but it is useful to consider the ranks established by both measures,which provide an effective indication of the relative importance between all six factors interms of motivating the respondents to address climate change issues in their respectivecompanies. The results of the ranking profile showed empirical evidence of the relativeimportance of motivational factors and found that the following three factors are perceivedto be the most important: education and awareness building, legislation and regulation, andappropriate technology; these factors principally motivate the senior managers and manage-ment officers of the companies. However, the other three factors are also important, and theyare as follows: financial incentives, guidelines and training support, and research anddevelopment.

The study findings are also supported by other study findings. In fact, a researchconducted by the CDP into how its climate change information is being used by globalinstitutional investors such as pension funds, carbon risk and potential legislation orregulation were cited as primary motivating factors for using climate change data (CDP2009). In contrast, a removal of the fossil fuel subsidy could also be an incentive to increasethe use of green energy technologies (Zhang 2008), and imposing a tax on fossil fuel useincorporates the negative environmental externalities and could be used to pay the socialcost. Indeed, it also motivates consumers to use alternative energy, which results in areduction of the carbon emissions. In addition, green energy subsidies reduce productionand consumption costs, and therefore, these subsidies could be used as a form of motivationfor businesses to invest in alternative and green energy production and allow poor people toconsume that energy. For instance, a global survey by Regus (2010) found that 75 % ofcompanies worldwide have declared that government tax incentives are required to acceler-ate green investments.

4 Conclusion

These findings demonstrate both awareness and a high degree of concern regarding climatechange issues among the corporate managers surveyed in Malaysia. The main source ofawareness regarding climate change issues is the mass media, particularly newspapers andtelevision. Other important sources are technical meetings, such as seminars, conferences andworkshops; the internet; the respondents’ own company; and industry associations. A majorityof the corporate managers perceived that climate change would affect their company’s profits,and most of them expressed the opinion that climate change has ‘no effect’ on their country’seconomy. In addition, a majority of the respondents believed that their company or businessproduct does not contribute to climate change. The implications of climate change may varyacross the types of corporations and businesses; for example, some businesses, individualcompanies and sectors may face increasing threats, others may be less affected and somemay even derive opportunities and benefits from climate change (Begum and Pereira 2011;Okereke 2007). Therefore, businesses should take climate change impacts into account, and

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change

Author's personal copy

doing so is especially important when they make long-term investment decisions to takeadvantage of opportunities and mitigate the associated risks.

The results also provide empirical evidence on the level and ranking of importance ofmotivational factors other than business profit. Whereas the factor of education and awarenessbuilding was found to be the most important motivational factor, research and development wasfound to be the least important factor that motivates corporate managers to address climatechange at their company. The results also revealed that education and awareness building,legislation and regulation, and appropriate technology are the most important motivationalfactors. Nevertheless, financial incentives, guidelines and training support, and research anddevelopment are still important factors to motivate managers to address climate change at theircompanies. The study findings derived a number of strategies that might have implications tothe government and businesses for climate change actions as mentioned below:

& Company should held a series of educational and awareness raising initiatives to makethe connection between climate change and business strategies and actions.

& Legislation and regulatory framework and structures would stimulate investment inrenewable and cleaner energy and the value of the carbon markets.

& Involving businesses through market-based instruments such as green incentives couldbe a viable option to promote alternative energy and sustainability practices.

& Guidelines for climate change information and actions as well as appropriate training supportwould be useful for individual and institutional capacity building in order to facilitate nationaland global initiatives to mitigate the emissions and adapt to climate change.

& Having associated risks due to climate change, development of new technologies andapplication of clean technology could create new market opportunities and motivationfor businesses in response to climate change.

& Business sector should give attention on research and development (R&D) for the basisof decision and allocation of investment needed for tackling climate change mitigationand adaptation.

& Overall, climate change should integrate into existing business processes such asstrategic planning, business continuity and risk management.

The importance of these motivational factors and strategies is crucial to meeting Malaysia’svoluntary commitment to a 40 % reduction in the GHG emissions intensity of GDP relative toits 2005 values by 2020, which was announced at the United Nations Framework Conventionon Climate Change 15th Conference of the Parties, Copenhagen, Denmark (Green TechMalaysia 2010; MNRE 2010). However, the study findings could help businesses to betterunderstand climate change, and businesses may also perceive opportunities to innovativelyaddress climate change. In addition, the results may be useful to policy makers and decisionmakers in formulating and implementing national climate change action plans in Malaysia.Though the findings are not representative of the Malaysian business sector as a whole, thisarticle provides insight into the awareness, perception andmotivations for businesses to addressclimate change; these motivations could be built onto existing corporate social responsibilityand sustainability practices. Lastly, there is an urgent need for further research on corporateresponses and the strategic approaches that are necessary to build business resilience across theentire value chain in relation to climate change in Malaysia.

Acknowledgments This study was supported by the research grants of Exploratory Research Grant Scheme(ERGS): ERGS/1/2011/SS/UKM/02/29 and University Grant: OUP-2012-113. The authors are grateful to theMalaysian International Chambers and Commerce Industry and Federation of Malaysia Manufacturers fortheir assistance during data collection. Respondents of the survey are also acknowledged for their cooperation.

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change

Author's personal copy

A very earlier version of this article had been presented in the Global Accounting, Finance & EconomicsConference, 20–21 February 2012, Rydges Hotel, Melbourne, Australia.

References

Alley RB, Marotzke J, Nordhaus WD, Overpeck JT, Peteet DM, Pielke RA, Pierrehumbert RT, Rhines PB,Stocker TF, Talley LD, Wallace JM (2003) Abrupt climate change. Science 299(5615):2005–2010

Begum RA, Pereira JJ (2011) Corporate perceptions of climate change in Malaysia. Afr J Bus Manag5(11):4299–4305

Begum RA, Siwar C, Pereira JJ, Jaafar AH (2007) Implementation of waste management and minimisation inthe construction industry of Malaysia. Resour Conserv Recycl 51(1):190–202

Begum RA, Pereira JJ, Jaafar AH, Al-amin AQ (2009) Ecological footprint calculations for Malaysia: anempirical assessment. Resour Conserv Recycl 51(1):190–202

Begum RA, Abedin RDZRZ, Periera JJ (2011) Initiatives and market mechanisms for climate change inMalaysia. J Environ Sci Technol 4(1):31–40

CDP (2009) Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP). https://www.cdproject.net/en-US/WhatWeDo/Pages/overview.aspx

EPU (2010) Malaysia: gross domestic product. Economic planning unit website: http://www.epu.gov.my(viewed June 2010). Cited in MNRE. 2010. Malaysia’s Second National Communication (NC2). Ministryof Natural Resources and Environment (MNRE). Submitted to the United Nations Framework Conven-tion on Climate Change. http://nc2.nre.gov.my/

GreenTech Malaysia (2010) Official website of the Malaysian Green Technology Corporation. http://www.ptm.org.my/ (5 October 2010)

Hoffman AJ (2006) Getting ahead of the curve: corporate strategies that address climate change. Prepared forthe Pew Centre on Global Climate Change. Cited in Okereke, C. 2007. An exploration of motivations,drivers and barriers to carbon management: The UK FTSE 100. Eur Manag J 25(6):475–486

Hulme M (2003) Abrupt climate change: can society cope? Philos Trans R Soc A Math Phys Eng Sci361(1810):2001–2019

IPCC (2007) In: Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, van der Linden PJ, Hanson CE (eds) Climate change2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth AssessmentReport of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p976

Kohler J (2003) Long run technical change in an energyenvironment- economy (E3) model for an IA system:a model of Kondratiev Waves. Integr Assess 4(2):126–133

Kohler JM, Grubb D, Popp, Edenhofer O (2006) The transition to endogenous technical change in climate-economy models: a technical overview to the Innovation Modeling Comparison Project. Energ J SpecIssue Endogenous Technol Chang Econ Atmos Stabilization 17–55

Kolk A, Pinkse J (2004) Market strategies for climate change. Eur Manag J 22(3):304–314Lee S-Y (2012) Corporate carbon strategies in responding to climate change. Bus Strateg Environ 21:33–48.

doi:10.1002/bse.711Linnenluecke MK, Griffiths A, Winn M (2012) Extreme weather events and the critical importance of

anticipatory adaptation and organizational resilience in responding to impacts. Bus Strateg Environ21:17–32. doi:10.1002/bse.708

MNRE (2010) Malaysia’s Second National Communication (NC2). Ministry of Natural Resources AndEnvironment (MNRE). Submitted to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.http://nc2.nre.gov.my/

Nieuwenhuis P, Vergragt PJ, Wells P (2004) Technological change and regulation in the car industry. GreenerManagement International (GMI) (Autumn), 5–11

Okereke C (2007) An exploration of motivations, drivers and barriers to carbon management: the UK FTSE100. Eur Manag J 25(6):475–486

POST (2004) Climate change and business. postnote January 2004 Number 213. London: ParliamentaryOffice of Science and Technology (POST). http://www.parliament.uk/post

Regus (2010) Green shoots only? The pace of green business investment and what needs to be done toaccelerate it. http://www.regus.presscentre.com/Resource-Library/Green-Shoots-Only-1bf.aspx. accessed11 November 2011

Salinas CX, Mendieta J (2012) Mitigation and adaptation investments for desertification and climate change:an assessment of the socioeconomic return. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang. doi:10.1007/s11027-012-9380-8

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change

Author's personal copy

Skjaerseth J, Skodvin T (2003) Climate change and oil industry: common problems varying strategies.Manchester University Press, Manchester

Srivastava SK, Kakkar DN (2008) Estimation of motivation using entropy. J Bus Econ Manag 9(1):53–56.doi:10.3846/1611-1699.2008.9.53-56

Stern N (2007) Stern review: economics of climate change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeSullivan R (2010) An assessment of the climate change policies and performance of large European

companies. Clim Pol 10(1):38–50. doi:10.3763/cpol.2008.0591Zhang ZX (2008) Asian energy and environmental policy: promoting growth while preserving the environment.

Energy Pol 36(3):905–924

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change

Author's personal copy