Voluntary agreements or binding regulation?

13th August 2012


H2h 0

Related Topics

Related tags

  • EMS ,
  • Management ,
  • Benchmarking ,
  • Natural resources

Author

IEMA

Experts debate the best way to get firms to improve their environmental performance

Bob Gordon
Environment policy adviser at the British Retail Consortium

The way the world does business needs to change. And fast, because we’re living in rapidly changing times. But how are we going to get there at the required pace?

We know that regulation can be effective. Look at the Landfill Tax Directive or the Ecodesign Directive. Both have pushed the market in the right direction over a sustained period of time. There is a place for legislation when the commercial drivers are not sufficiently compelling. But the problem with regulation is that it tends to focus on pulling up the bottom end of the market, which can be a slow process.

What we need is to create the right conditions for a race to the top, to put the right framework in place so that businesses strive to be the best because it is in their interests. And that’s where voluntary approaches have so much to offer.

Voluntary agreements work with the grain of business – ensuring the actions businesses take don’t just meet environmental objectives but also bring commercial gains. Get the voluntary approach right and it can stimulate a seismic shift through innovation because the benefits can be felt throughout a company. Given the right conditions, organisations will radically reduce their environmental impact as well as gain a competitive advantage.

There are good fiscal reasons to adopt more sustainable methods of doing business. We know the near future will bring significant changes to weather patterns and increased risks of disruption, as well as greater fluctuations in price and in the availability of resources.

We need to be sure we’ll be able to continue to supply good-quality products at affordable prices. Retailers and brands that adjust to these risks will be better placed than those that do not. The case for change makes itself, no regulation required.

There are plenty of good examples from the retail sector. The Courtauld Commitment has achieved massive reductions in packaging and food waste, preventing more than a million tonnes of food and packaging waste between 2005 and 2010.

The On-Pack Recycling Label is used by more than a hundred companies on over 60,000 product lines and has driven up recycling rates.

The recently established Product Sustainability Forum is addressing the gargantuan task of pioneering ways to improve the environmental performance of everyday products over their entire life cycle, from manufacture to disposal.

Regulation has its place but, given the pace of change we need to see, incentivising best practice and stimulating innovation are essential. Let the most responsive to change thrive under progressive voluntary initiatives and let the laggards lose ground as they fail to evolve with the times.


Alan Whitehead
MP for Southampton Test and a member of the energy and climate change committee

The problem with arguments that suggest environmental goals can better be reached through voluntary measures than through regulatory requirements is that there are plenty of anecdotes, but little actual evidence that the voluntary approach works.

On the other hand, there is quite a lot of evidence that voluntary measures fail to result in the intended environmental protection. Relying on voluntary measures means businesses that want to do the right thing by taking on additional environmental costs are put at a disadvantage and face undercutting from less responsible competitors.

And because all businesses see the same policy landscape and assume they will be undercut in this manner, there is a slow and inexorable trend against any company being more environmentally responsible than they are required to be: a classic “prisoner’s dilemma”.

These perceptions about disadvantage are simply not borne out by the evidence either. A recent Defra-commissioned report on environmental regulation and competitiveness concluded that when regulations are introduced there may be “a modest productivity penalty in the short term … [but] there is evidence of a countervailing innovation push over the longer term.”

In other words, regulation works by stimulating newer and better practices among companies because, among other things, they are all subject to the same rules. Regulation creates the level playing field necessary to drive innovation.

The case for regulation to reduce impacts on the environment is, at heart, fairly simple. If you want to achieve real shifts in those impacts, regulation will do it; voluntary agreements, by and large, will not.

There is, of course, such a thing as over-regulation, and a necessary check for any proposed legislation is whether the goal of the regulation will be achieved with the minimum cost and complexity.

There is a very real red-tape challenge to be had in continuously reviewing whether there are simpler ways of lowering environmental impacts. Good regulation must focus on fairness – no loopholes, no preferences – giving all concerned an equal chance to succeed. And that also goes for “leakage” – the extent to which, in interconnected markets, regulation needs to be compatible and minimise the shift of activities to a less regulated market.

Bearing in mind these caveats, regulation must remain at the heart of good environmental practice. In the end, it’s a case of whether or not we are serious about environmental objectives, and in many areas of industrial and commercial life, such as air quality, carbon emissions and resource depletion, we cannot afford not to be serious.


Transform articles

Regulator publishes new code to tackle 'greenwashing'

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has published a new 'Green Claims Code' to ensure businesses are not misleading consumers about their environmental credentials.

22nd September 2021

Read more

The Better Business Act would put responsibility to society and the environment on the same footing as responsibility to shareholders, explains Chris Turner

30th July 2021

Read more

In Elliott-Smith v Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the claimant applied for judicial review of the legality of the defendants’ joint decision to create the UK Emissions Trading Scheme (UK ETS) as a substitute for UK participation in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS).

30th July 2021

Read more

Thames Water has been fined £4m after untreated sewage escaped from sewers below London into a park and a river.

30th July 2021

Read more

In R. (on the application of Hudson) v Windsor and Maidenhead RBC, the appellant appealed against a decision to uphold the local authority’s grant of planning permission for the construction of a holiday village at the Legoland Windsor Resort.

28th May 2021

Read more

Are voluntary commitments enough to make the private sector act on waste? David Burrows explores the issues

28th May 2021

Read more

Government announcements on infrastructure reveal a direction of travel but key details are still unknown, says Huw Morris

29th January 2021

Read more

In R (on the application of National Farmers Union) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the claimant applied for judicial review of the Secretary's direction to Natural England concerning badger culling.

11th December 2020

Read more

Bulk carbon offsetting by fossil fuels companies may look appealing, say Quintin Rayer and Pete Walton, but investors should be aware that it cannot solve global warming

11th December 2020

Read more

Media enquires

Looking for an expert to speak at an event or comment on an item in the news?

Find an expert