Motivation, views, and obstacles on climate action and collaboration

‘Invisible and inefficient operation’

‘Positive, hopeful thoughts’

‘I wonder if there is too much unnecessary discussion and committees…’

Companies respond to the survey question on what thoughts the climate collaboration with the city and other local actors raise.

In the questionnaire, the motivation of the companies was first determined by having one closed and one open-ended question on reasons that could motivate the company to develop its practices to be more environmentally friendly. From there, questions followed on how companies rate the different actors based on their importance when planning and implementing collaboration, before providing different claims on collaborative climate action that the respondents needed to rate. Received answers provided a good variety of opinions, clearly showing both the opportunities and the challenges that collaboration can face. However, it should be noted that some limitations can be recognized in how the actors view collaboration compared to how the researcher and the city view it, see sub-chapter 5.2 for more.

Figure 7: How important respondents rate different aspects as motivators to develop or not to develop their practices for more environmentally friendly.

Pressure from other companies Support from other organisations Answer to current requirements Pressure from partners or clients Help the local community Predict future requirements Act as an example Right thing to do Save money Develop the company's image Protect the environment

Really important Quite important Not important Cannot say

46

Companies were asked to rate how important they see different motivating aspects when discussing the motivators to develop the practices more environmental-friendly. Results show (Figure 7) that protecting the environment was seen as the most important motivator. The possibility of sustainable and low-carbon practices to enhance the company’s image or harm the image if practices are not adopted was seen as additionally important. From there, other important motivators included the costs and the knowing of “doing the right thing” and acting as an example. At the low end of Figure 7 are those actions that respondents rate lower as motivators to develop or not to develop their practices for more environmentally friendly. Many companies find predicting the future requirements ‘really important’ and ‘quite important’;

however, answering to the current requirements are seen mostly ‘not important’. This could either indicate the lack of current requirements for small and medium-sized companies, or a lack of knowledge on what is expected from companies and what their responsibilities are in climate action. Pressure from the partners and clients was seen as more important than pressure from other companies. Additionally, a personal goal was mentioned in the open option and this can be seen about doing the right thing and putting the own personal values into the company practices.

Based on the differences in responses when including the size of the companies in the analysis, some minor conclusions can be drawn. The support from other organizations was valued the most within companies under 10 personnel. These small-sized companies most likely will need the support as the company development relies more on other organizations especially when compared to larger companies that may have better options to employ a person for environmental and climate change matters for the company. Companies with a staff between 50-249 felt most strongly about the image, acting as an example, and helping the local community than smaller companies. It can be argued that these companies have the stronger need to have a good image on environmental issues as they are required to be more transparent within their practices due to regulatory reasons. The companies that employ between 10-49 people also felt stronger about the image than smaller companies; furthermore, they had the strongest view on the cost with over 70 percent seeing it as a really important aspect in motivation.

47

In the open question on ‘what reasons do you think can influence the decision to develop or not develop climate action in a company?’, 23 responses were received. From these responses, similarities could be found between respondents; 39 percent of the respondents mentioned costs and economic reasons, 22 percent lack of knowledge, and 17 percent the company image. These findings also support the previous analysis of Figure 6. The image, which was ranked also highest in Figure 6, as mentioned in the open question something that could be helpful when developing sustainable practices, one respondent stating that climate action alone is important for the company’s image.

‘At the moment, money. Large investments … impossible to implement no matter how much you would like and thought that it would make sense.’

The majority of the companies responding to the open question found the cost to be the most important reason not to plan climate action. However, one respondent also indicated that energy projects can be easier to carry out when they bring cost savings additionally (usually in the long-term). This indicates that climate action initiatives could be easier to market when these bring financial benefit. However, large investments, such as the replacement of cars with hybrid and/or electric drives, were mentioned to be difficult to implement due to financial issues, indicating that motivation is not always enough as companies would also need financial support if energy-efficient and sustainable investments were to be realistic.

‘.. when you don’t know all the things/ways that you can affect (the situation).”

Additionally, the issues on understanding the problem, more precisely climate change, and what it means for the company, cause issues. Within the issues on knowledge, respondents mentioned a lack of expertise and knowledge and uncertainties of responsibility. The respondent felt that information is a major aspect influencing the decision on climate action; when the situation is better understood, companies could feel more responsible to develop their actions more climate-friendly. However, some responses indicated the difficulties of understanding the ‘full picture’

of climate change and action, showing that there could be an interest to develop sustainable actions within the company but that currently, the information is too overwhelming. This relates also to the issue of know-how, see example response from above.

48

Many respondents also mentioned the role of different actors. Customers were mentioned concerning what requirements they have for climate work and what state of mind their customers have about the issues. Additionally, one company indicated their interest to develop their practices more sustainably to further help reduce the amount of rubbish coming from customers.

In relevance to other actors, owners and financiers were mentioned in addition to the overall opinions that different actors have on the issue as indifference was seen to hinder the development. One respondent raised the current inadequate production of state incentives, pointing out the need for support from the top. The importance of public awareness was also mentioned.

An important thing to note is that while large companies often have greater obligations to cut back their emissions, smaller companies do not share the same level of requirements or pressure.

Furthermore, smaller companies might not enjoy the same level of possibilities; for example, one respondent stated that anything other than just sorting garbage is difficult because, in a rental apartment, electricity is included in the rent. Small and medium-sized companies might not be able to hire specific people on sustainability issues, which larger companies can do. Busy schedules can be an issue too, especially one-person companies, as companies might not have time to plan climate action when all focus goes on making a profit.

In conclusion, with the question on companies’ motivation to develop their practices, image, finance, knowing of doing the right thing, and knowledge are topics that are both providing chances for developing climate action but also post challenges. Responses were received on the topic of whether companies wanted to preserve the earth or if they see climate change as a very topical issue. One respondent even used the word ‘modernity’ when thinking about reasons to develop the climate practices, indicating the understanding of the need for climate action in the modern world.

To understand better how public-private collaborations are planned and implemented, and how these could be improved, the companies were asked to rate how important they see different actors in the planning and implementation of climate collaboration. This question can also help Imatra city to determine are they valued enough to be the ones planning a collaboration with the companies or should some other collaboration be planned. See Figure 8 for results.

49

Figure 8: How important the respondents see actors as partners in climate collaboration when 1 = not important at all, and 5 = really important.

The result shows that cities are seen as the most important partners in the planning and implementation of climate collaboration, in addition to research institutes. Within the expert groups, an example was given of a group brought together in the national climate program. Most actors were ranked between 3-4 on a scale of 1-5, with only volunteer organizations, and interest and trade unions ranked under 3. It should be noted that even though the city and research institutes were ranked the highest, the variation between the actors was not high. This should be considered when planning collaboration, seeing that companies did not give the city any higher mark, indicating that the city could do more to make public-private collaboration seem more attractive.

In addition to the overall rankings of the different partners in climate collaboration, some notes can be drawn when considering the differences between company sizes. On average, one-person companies were the only ones who marked research institutions, residents, and governing bodies and ministries higher than what the city and other companies were marked. On another note, companies employing people between 10-48 individuals valued the city and research institutes most, with medium 4.3 (total average 3.7) for the city and 4.0 (total average 3.7) for research institutes. Companies employing people between 50-249 people were excluded from this conclusion, as three responses were not seen enough to generalize the results.

1 2 3 4 5

Volunteer organisations Research institutes

Local residents Other companies City Governing bodies and ministries Interest and trade unions Expert groups

50

Figure 9: Respondents' views on ten claims on climate action and collaboration.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Our company has been part of a climate partnership with the City or other actor

It is difficult to know what climate actions are expected from the company Our company aims to develop and support the local community Our company has good connections with the City of Imatra I feel that the City shares the same environmental values with our company Our company has good connections with other local companies Sustainable practices are an important part of our company's operations It is important that networks are built between the City and businesses The companies actions can contribute to mitigate climate change It is important that companies are taken into account in City's climate plans

(e.g Imatra's Climate Program 2020-2030)

Completely agree Somewhat agree Somewhat disagree Completely disagree I do not know

51

The companies were given ten claims and the respondents needed to choose an option best suited based on their opinion by either completely agreeing, somewhat agreeing, somewhat disagreeing, completely disagreeing, or choosing the option of ‘I do not know’. Claims were chosen to determine how companies see their actions and collaboration between different sectors. Furthermore, companies’ values, current connections and actions, and expectations were studied. Results are shown in Figure 9.

The results show that companies mostly agree with these claims. Over 80 percent of the respondents completely or somewhat agreed that sustainable practices are an important part of their company’s operations. This supports the findings of Figure 5, where it was stated that over 60 percent of the respondents currently have some kind of environmental strategy in place or are currently planning one. The City could consider the option of supporting companies' plans for internal policies and strategies during the collaboration e.g., how the set outcomes and measures on collaboration could also be implemented on companies' climate targets and plans.

Concerning the current collaboration and networking, respondents feel that they have slightly better connections with other local companies than what they have with the city. This indicates that while the city should be the one initiating the collaboration and previous networks and partnerships between the city and individual companies should be used, the current private-private sector networks are important in spreading information and inspiring cross-sector collaboration. Additionally, finding bridge-builders within companies helps to reach a variety of companies. Less than 15 percent of the respondents stated that their business has already been part of climate collaboration with the city or other actors, indicating that cross-sector climate collaboration is still relatively rare within the city of Imatra.

Companies agreed on the importance of taking the private sector into account when the city is planning climate actions, in this case, Climate Programme, and see that private sector actions can contribute to climate change mitigation. The contribution that the companies make for climate change mitigation and adaptation could be made clearer through the network building and collaboration since the lack of knowledge and how-to were noted as issues when asked about companies’ current actions for climate change. Additionally, over 60 percent completely or somewhat agreed that it is difficult to know what climate actions are expected from the companies. By building collaboration between the city and companies, opportunities arise for

52

knowledge and technology sharing, and chances for the city to support companies with their planning and implementation of climate action.

A few other points from the results can be drawn. Most of the companies agreed on sharing the same environmental values with the city, indicating a good starting point for an opportunity for companies to collaborate more intensely with the city as they share similar beliefs. However, almost 20 percent of respondents still felt that they do not know if they are sharing the same values. This can indicate either that company is unsure of its values or the city’s values are unclear for them; altogether, this raises a question could the city indicate or even advertise its values for the public and other actors? By being vocal of own values, discussion raises and more chances can arise for cross-sector climate collaboration. When considering the values, the focus should be raised also on the claim “our company aims to develop and support local public”.

Over one-fourth of the respondents completely or somewhat disagreed with the claim. Even though most of the companies agreed that their operations do support the development of the local area, these results can indicate that some of the respondents have not put much thought into how their actions could benefit the local public.

At the end of the questionnaire, respondents were given an option to discuss their views on what ideas climate collaboration with the city and other local actors evoke. A total of 13 responses were received, from which four respondents indicated directly that they see collaboration as positive, additionally presenting a desire to be involved in the collaboration and expressing hopeful thoughts. Other four respondents expressed their interest in collaboration, furthermore, pointing out aspects of collaboration which they would see good and useful to implement: these included a change of mindset on a general level, not just businesses, and including residents into collaboration with the city and companies. See one of these responses below.

‘Climate co-operation would be fruitful if a lot of local business and residents were involved. It is important to get people and businesses to think about how to do it in a sustainable way.’

Individual respondents also indicated the interest to have the city as an independent leader in climate collaboration, additionally, one respondent indicated that the city should use more companies’ services, e.g., in situations where companies already have the climate technology in place in a specific field. All in all, the responses that showed interest in collaboration and saw

53

the opportunities collaboration could bring, focused specifically on including also public in the collaboration and looking at the climate change issues as a whole, and then again, provide solutions at whole to achieve better results. One respondent stated:

‘It would be great if Imatra appeared in the future as a more climate-conscious city.’

Even though more positive responses were received in the open-ended question, some respondents saw the current climate action as inefficient. However, one of these respondents saw possibilities for better climate action, e.g., through the city investing more in renewable energy and supporting companies and the public with free electric car charging stations. Another respondent wondered if there is too much unnecessary discussion and committees on collaborative climate action, clearly indicating one obstacle that climate collaboration face: as a topic, climate change has been widely discussed at both international and national level, but actions are rarely seen or if there are any. Hence, the public might have uncertainties about what these decisions mean for them. Capstick and Pidgeon (2014, 389) define this as response skepticism, where doubts are focused on the efficiency of actions taken to address climate change. Furthermore, one respondent stated that climate action is an ‘invisible and inefficient operation’ which again can indicate the dissatisfaction for actions taken by governmental organizations but also personal skepticism on climate change.

Additionally, two respondents did not have an opinion on collaborative climate action with one respondent stating that ‘there have not been concrete openings on the issue’. These responses indicating negative or neutral views on climate action and collaboration are important to take into consideration when planning collaborative climate action. Especially in the beginning of the collaboration, actors interested in the issue are more important to involve in the planning of collaboration to build a strong public-private network, but in the ensuring of meeting the climate targets and building ongoing collaboration, also those companies who have mixed views on climate change and climate action, should be engaged in the process.