What can corporate climate action learn from feminism?

Companies are major contributors to global greenhouse gas emissions, and by extension, key actors in successfully decarbonising our economies and communities. In this context, much focus has been on measuring and reducing a company’s direct and indirect emissions – usually, this work falls to carbon accountants, engineers and business management consultants. Although it may not be the first link company leaders make when they think of corporate climate action, our research published this month in the journal Geoforum, and a growing body of work suggests that companies can learn a lot from feminist theory in implementing effective and fair decarbonisation plans. In this blog, we explain why. 

Feminism might make you think about equal representation of women and minority groups in companies’ decision making bodies, or equal pay, or access to parental leave. While these are all important practices, feminism can lend valuable principles to managing and adapting to climate change. There are a growing number of calls for companies to develop holistic strategies that places emissions targets as one part of their activities. As companies increasingly set decarbonisation plans, they also face calls to take responsibility for the wider climate and social impacts of their operations and transitions. The focus to date on emissions alone has meant that other factors such as labour, community relations, and nature-climate-human intersections go unseen and unmanaged. 

Feminist theory can expand the view of what and who ‘counts’ in sustainability practice and at the same time also make companies more resilient to changing environments and socio-economic forces. Focusing on resilience by taking a beyond-carbon view to net zero can make decarbonisation plans more effective by enhancing worker and community support for transition plans, decreasing risks from natural hazards to operations, and strengthening the capability of workforces and supply chains to adapt to changing economic and climatic conditions. 

Four questions that every company can ask to take a wider-than-carbon view in their decarbonisation plan emerged out of this research:

Reducing emissions at the lowest possible cost is often core to corporate climate strategies. However, companies should also take care to consider who benefits and is left behind by decarbonisation decisions and climate change more widely? 

Decarbonising value chains and operations will not affect everyone equally. Some may benefit through upskilling, retraining or healthier workplaces, while others may face job losses or displacement as technologies change or operations relocate. Feminist theory encourages companies to acknowledge and address these trade-offs rather than overlook them.

Climate change also impacts people differently – from exposure to floods, fires and droughts, to heat exposure or disease risks, different demographics experience varying exposure levels and associated risks. For companies, understanding how the livelihoods and health of their workforces are impacted by climate hazards can give both an indication of risks to workforce productivity and operations, as well as help employers fulfil the social contract to their employees to support their holistic wellbeing in a changing climate. Companies should consider what support or mitigation can be provided to lessen workforce exposure and increase resilience to climate risk whether at work or in their communities. 

Knowledge politics is central to feminism, and understanding different demographic impacts requires engagement with a broader set of stakeholders than just internal sustainability executives or hired consultants. Firms can include frontline workers, trade unions, Indigenous communities, local residents, and suppliers in climate planning. Ensuring that a diversity of voices have informed your climate strategy not only makes sense in terms of helping ensure changes are acceptable to them, but also to avoid any unseen or unexpected impacts that might impact its effectiveness and your operations. 

Many feminist approaches favour participatory and collaborative governance. For corporate climate action this may involve: participatory climate risk assessments,

employee-led sustainability initiatives, community advisory panels, or co-designing adaptation projects with affected stakeholders. 

 Instead of viewing climate action solely through competition and financial returns, thinking about long-term relationships and stewardship is critical in reducing risks to the legitimacy, feasibility and effectiveness of climate plans.  Instead of asking only, "How does climate affect shareholder value?", also ask "How do our decisions affect people, ecosystems, and future generations?". This broadens climate responsibility beyond compliance.

Doing ‘good’ decarbonisation planning takes a lot of human and organisational resources. Team capacity has been reported to limit decarbonisation planning and reporting efforts. The people- and nature-centred approach that feminist thinking prioritises requires highly skilled teams that can balance engagement needs with company priorities. These teams take time to develop, and need to be given time to work iteratively with stakeholders within and beyond the organisation. Consider how you can build these skills among colleagues, and what capacity you might need to sustain this work for more than one-off interactions with the people and places who stand to be impacted most by your plans.  

Net zero is not simply a technical challenge, it is also a social one embedded in our natural environments. Companies that embrace feminist insights into power, participation and stewardship will be better equipped to deliver climate strategies that reduce emissions while strengthening the people, communities and ecosystems that make long-term business success possible.