Limitations in the questionnaire - Evaluation of Companies' Motives, Values, and Views Impact o

Few limitations within the planning process of the questionnaire were identified. First, even though the response rate was relatively good, it might have been negatively affected by a holiday week that was taking place in Finland during the second week of the questionnaire being open.

While sending the reminder email about the questionnaire, some automatic responses were received through which companies informed them about being on a holiday and returning after the questionnaire was already closed. However, there were no options to postpone the questionnaire any longer, and the questionnaire was organized during that time. The first week of the questionnaire was not affected by the holiday.

Even though good analysis can be conducted from the questionnaire responses, it was heavily mitigation-focused. Climate mitigation is a more obvious action compared to adaptation since climate adaptation is not as an urgent issue in Finland as in some other countries that are more affected by climate change. However, the purpose of the questionnaire was the ability to discuss both sides, mitigation, and adaptation, but this failed. Both mitigation and adaptation should have been introduced in the beginning; instead, too much focus for mitigation was given by the introduction and wording of the questions, which affected in an oblivious way of respondents focusing more on climate mitigation. In the long run, adaptation should be discussed with the private sector to find opportunities for collaboration to ensure easy transmission to new adaptation practices as recognized in target 6 of the Climate Programme.

Climate collaboration as a concept was introduced at the beginning of the questionnaire but the different levels of collaboration caused difficulties when analyzing the data. In theory, collaboration is seen as intensive, long-lasting partnerships where different actors are working closely together and have a common goal. The respondents focus on the topic is more on cooperation and participation, than on collaboration, and therefore the questionnaire does not successfully deliver exact responses on what is sought in this study and what the case city is looking for. However, the responses can still be discussed under the concept of “collaboration”

with a notion that the intensity and level of collaboration from the practitioner's point of view should always be set between the collaborating parties.

The questionnaire missed an opportunity on examining climate collaboration in relevance to industries the companies operate in. The respondents' industries were introduced in Figure 4 but due to the small respondent rate, no conclusions can be made from the responses. Much higher participation would be needed to generalize any findings between industries.

55 5.3 Discussion

In sub-chapter 5.1 the results of the questionnaire were introduced. In this section, these findings will be further discussed in the relevance of planning collaborative climate action between public and private sectors. The aim is to provide an overview of how questionnaire results can be used in the planning of local climate action and what should be noted concerning the interest of the private sector to join collaboration with the city. It needs to be noted that the city should act as a neutral leader and facilitator, providing companies a platform for discussion, participation, and collaboration while supporting the methods of a design approach.

When organizing the initial planning meetings for public-private collaboration between the actors, finding the common public value, or advantage needs to be identified. Concerning the common value and set targets for collaboration, some findings from the empirical data can be drawn. First, responses indicate that image and cost-saving are seen as the most important motivators to change a company’s practices to be more carbon-neutral and sustainable.

Additionally, many respondents agreed that “act as an example” is an important motivator when planning climate action, indicating that companies could be interested to collaborate to set an example and enhance their image for customers. In the planning of cross-sector collaboration, these findings are important to note.

Questionnaire results indicate that most respondents share the same environmental values with the city, see that sustainable practices are important in their operations, and see adapting sustainable practices as motivating as it is “the right thing to do”. This indicates that companies mainly respond to internal pressure. When comparing the situation to external pressure, e.g., pressure from other companies, clients, or partners, it was rarely seen as important by the respondents. This finding can be helpful when public-private collaboration is planned as companies’ motivation is driven from the internal motives instead of external ones, which can be considered better for successful, long-lasting collaboration. Transparent and open discussion about actors’ values and interests allows finding a common goal that serves all involved actors.

Alongside, introducing and determining the committed practitioners, such as sponsors and champions, should be identified right from the beginning. Besides recognizing these individuals within the city and companies, other actors that could provide support authority, access to resources, or skills, should be considered too, e.g. from research institutes and governmental

organizations. As shown in Figures 7 and 8, respondents agree with the importance of building networks between actors and see the city as a vital actor in climate collaboration. Additionally, some companies already feel that they have a good connection between the city and other companies, and it is important to notice these bridge-builders to identify ongoing networks and collaborations between public-private and private-private. The support from other organizations was valued the most within companies under 10 personnel and this finding should be noted by the city when planning collaboration.

Many responses in the open questions of the questionnaire indicated the interest and understanding of the importance to involve the public as a whole in the collaboration. However, the small difference in wording between the relevant questions in Figures 6 and 7 somewhat changed respondents' views on the local community. Respondents felt more open with the wording “develop” and “support” than the wording “help” when asked about collaboration with the local community, indicating that collaboration between other actors, especially potential customers and clients, should bring common value. When discussing these findings on common values and the local community’s role, collaboration should be planned in a way that companies do have the chance to improve and overall boost their image in front of the public, e.g. when collaboration is informed on the city website and social media. Additionally, giving companies the information and tools on how they can improve their actions, already offers an opportunity for companies to change their practices more sustainably and this way “offer” improved practices in their services.

Analyzing all the responses received to the questionnaire in relevance to themes around actors and the literature review on actors’ roles in collaboration, some conclusions can be drawn on how the respondents view different actors, what they would expect their role to be, and what should be noted by the city when planning collaboration. In table 4 below, these actors are presented by indicating their expected role and importance in collaboration, and stating what motivates the private sector to collaborate with specific actors. These findings are helpful when Imatra plans cross-sector collaboration with the private sector. The importance of the actors is based on Figure 8 and on calculations on how often actors were mentioned by respondents: e.g, the public sector had been mentioned several times by different respondents but expert groups, who are seen as an important actor in Figure 8, were not mentioned in the open-ended questions.

Table 4: Actors ranked based on their expected roles in climate collaboration from the viewpoint of the private sector.

Actor Importance (Expected) role Reasoning notes

The City High Leader Unfamiliarity with the group (need for a clear role if included to collaboration)

In cross-sector collaboration, the benefits for the public sector, such as greater efficiency, reduced spending, and better compliance to regulations and requirements, are identified.

However, concerning public-private collaboration, challenges can still be seen in efficiency and equity. (Klein, 134, Andrews and Entwistle, 679) Knowledge and technology sharing are important aspects that the city should offer for the companies when moving forward with the collaboration. Issues on efficiency and equity can be avoided by ensuring all companies have access to information and information sharing is made easy between the collaborating parties.

Respondents view predicting the future requirements as more important than answering the current requirements which can support the argumentation that companies either lack the knowledge on what is expected from them currently or there are no clear requirements for small and medium-sized companies. Additionally, financial support for companies’ carbon-neutral projects should be considered; is the city doing enough to support companies’ options, or could more be done by introducing new initiatives for collaboration and partnerships at either local,

regional, or national level, to help Imatra meet their carbon-neutral target by 2030? Furthermore, how the knowledge and technology, e.g., green technology, are shared between the sectors?

Climate collaboration in cities can create additional funding for initiatives that supports climate mitigation within the sectors. (Betsill and Bulkeley 2003, 181)

According to Scheyvens et al (2016, 372 and 380), the private sector brings innovations, and the provision of specific skill sets and resources to the table when collaborating with the public sector. These skill-sets should be valued between actors and thus, the need for the public sector to recognize the strength of companies is important. However, the responsibility issue follows.

A few respondents to the questionnaire stated that they are uncertain of their responsibility concerning climate action and what is expected from them. Klein et al (2017, 1055, and 2018, 134) studied responsibility shifting from state actors to non-state actors, which can affect companies’ motivation to plan climate action. Even though these are lesser concerns in a city-sized as Imatra, the need for the city to recognize the companies own uncertainties about climate change and their responsibilities on climate action is needed to ensure successful and ongoing collaboration where responsibilities are shared but only when and where the private sector is prepared with their knowledge and skills, to respond to it.

Besides recognizing actors' own and shared values, characteristics, and strengths, the collaboration approach should focus on communication and systems where decided outcomes will be met by the design of interactive processes and structures. Here, the importance of determining the levels of power and interest of the actors needs to be done and supporting tools used from the prelude of collaboration. Engagement methods are needed when building successful collaborative climate action and movement from first-cost decisions to life cycle methods will support achieving the set outcomes. Ongoing learning should be built into the design, with the goals and performance indicators targeting continuing collaboration even after small targets are met to ensure actors' interest for long-term collaboration.

The future projects on engaging companies should include informative sessions where interested parties have the chance to partner with the city and build networks with other companies and actors, too. Therefore, the need to determine the level of collaboration by the city’s half is important. Building collaboration networks between the public and private sectors and partnerships, which differ from collaboration where wider cross-sector partnerships are built or

where participation from the public as a whole, is incorporated in the collaboration process.

Defining the actors in collaboration can be determined by using different tools, such as stakeholder analysis and mapping, to define actors' impacts and roles in collaborative climate action. Introducing collaborative cross-sector climate action requires commitment from all the participating actors but the city’s role as a neutral leader in the following projects evolving from the collaboration is needed to be recognized.

Continuing public-private collaboration could be ensured by including the collaboration into local policies, such as in the Climate Programme, and offering actors accessible options for networking. Even though the city of Imatra has stated in their Strategy Implementation Programme that the city is offering support services for companies and entrepreneurs in the promotion of sustainable practices, and collaboration and partnerships are also mentioned in the Climate Programme, but both strategies have lacked the impact on drawing a large number of companies to collaboration. The movement from discussions and strategies to concrete actions to building partnerships between public and private sectors requires attention on communication and collaboration. Additional challenges follow from ensuring the continued support and funding for climate collaboration projects and initiatives from the government and other organizations.

6 RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Policy recommendation: Climate Collaboration Plan

A Climate Collaboration Plan was produced to support the further actions that the city of Imatra plans for climate collaboration. See the recommendation plan in appendix 3 for the Finnish version. The plan has been produced based on the findings of the literature review, questionnaire, and stakeholder analysis. The plan is produced in a way that it can be used by other same-sized municipalities as the questionnaire results can be somewhat generalized to support similar collaborative carbon-neutrality programs in other municipalities. Therefore, the results support other municipalities' plans for public-private collaboration with medium and small-sized companies, especially in similar municipalities like Imatra. Altogether, it is important to incorporate collaboration in the municipalities' functions and a collaboration plan can be used to support the planning of a specific project, e.g., climate collaboration.

The Climate Collaboration Plan for Imatra includes the abstract of the thesis, aspects, and actions to promote collaboration, stakeholder analysis with a proposed stakeholder map and collaboration model. In the sections of ‘the aspects and actions to promote collaboration’, seven main actions were established. In addition to the research findings, the material from available literature and guides (CDP Worldwide 2019, IUCN Project Guidelines and Standards 2016 &

Lawson, Maher and Peace 2017, viii) were adapted to determine actions to promote collaboration in the case of Imatra. These actions are the following, with further information and specific recommendations for actions discussed below:

1. Climate collaboration is a continuation of the existing programs and partnerships.

2. City leads the climate collaborations.

3. Companies respond to data and material.

4. Jointly set goals to motivate actors.

5. Sharing knowledge and skills enables continuous learning and development.

6. Innovative financing promotes collaboration.

7. Implementation and monitoring are noted right from the beginning.

Climate collaboration is a continuation of the existing programs and partnerships. The city will benefit when using the existing expertise within their operations and from current external

partners. The city is already interacting in many ways with companies and these existing networks should be recognized and used to build the foundation for collaboration on the existing programs and partnerships. Recommendations for action include that the city should involve a climate action planner in the planning and implementation of climate collaboration, and continuity in the collaboration must be ensured in the event of possible personnel changes.

Existing networks need to be noted when planning collaboration, and the possible involvement of other actors, and companies’ existing networks with those actors, should be taken into account. The city and companies use existing communication channels with the city continuing to utilize networks and partnerships in future projects and programs. Furthermore, the city recognizes the different levels of commitment and interest within the companies.

The city leads the climate collaborations, and the companies respond to city leadership. It must be shown that climate collaboration is a priority for the city and the community. Imatra needs to show that climate action is worthwhile at the local level, with the image aspect being a strong motivator for the companies. Recommendations for action require that the city must take the leading role in climate collaboration and that city officials should leverage interdepartmental relationships and current relationships with companies to enhance actor’s engagement for collaboration. Additionally, climate action will be built on an ongoing basis and a process plan will be set up for this. For the participating companies, this indicates the appreciation the city has for them in the partnerships.

Companies respond to data and material. It is important that all actors work on the same data, understand the local effects of climate change, and know how to set effective actions to reduce their GHGs and climate impacts. What is not measured cannot be controlled, which is why the city is taking steps to collect and communicate climate data to actors in ways that promote collaboration. Recommendations for action includes exploration of options to find partners with research institutes, expert groups, and administrations in the development of local climate action and climate forecasts, and communicating climate action and climate collaboration in an inspiring and motivating way that could encourage companies to participate in the planning and implementation of local climate actions.

Jointly set goals to motivate actors. So far, small and private companies have had a low level of participation in climate action planning in Imatra. What needs to be noted when initiating

climate projects in each industry’s priorities in climate action planning. Imatran Yrittäjät or other associations can be good for attracting small companies to join climate collaboration and they can offer other resources for companies for them to better understand their climate values and targets. Recommendations for actions include that the city, together with companies, create a unified operating model that also allows flexibility for better coordination throughout the community. Together, the city explores and sets climate targets, and engages companies differently, also allowing different levels of commitment due to companies’ different resources and risks. The city should hold meetings or small target group gatherings from individual sectors to ensure that different perspectives are represented.

Sharing knowledge and skills enables continuous learning and development. As determined with the questionnaire, some companies have shortcomings in identifying climate action and this lack of information can act as a barrier to climate collaboration. Two-way sharing of knowledge and skills, as well as leveraging strengths, will help achieve the set goals.

Recommendations for action see that companies are supported by the city in measuring climate emissions, setting internal targets, and planning climate action. The city should support and enable networks between expert actors and companies. Currently, companies can lack the expertise and have uncertainties in liability which is why support is needed from those actors, who have the information and understanding of climate change and its meaning.

Innovative financing promotes collaboration. Some collaboration projects can be incorporated into existing urban planning at no additional cost, but the city should continue to invest in sustainable procurement in the future that could further promote collaboration. Companies' interest increases for collaboration once they see that the city is committed to finding innovative ways to implement and finance the potential investments. Recommendations for action note that

In document Evaluation of Companies' Motives, Values, and Views Impact on Collaborative Cross-sector Climate Action: Case Study Imatra (sivua 60-0)