Global Grand Challenge: Climate Change
International Business Topic: Corporate Social Responsibility
Introduction
Climate change has become a daunting global paradox. This challenge is driving potential threats that are compelling organisations to bring about major changes in global operations. Climate change is a different issue compared to conventional market vulnerability, as it requires well-coordinated and stakeholder action to drive long-term sustainability. This comprehensive report connects climate change with corporate social responsibility (CSR) to understand the considerations of MNEs in evading the negative environmental impact in the global business environment. This descriptive analysis streamlines CSR from different perspectives, transition from explicit to implicit move, and shared value creation to comprehend the macro and micro influences. The purpose of this study is to understand how global business issues are interrelated with business actions in many ways.
Macro-Level Impression: Climate Change Redesigning the Institutional Scenery of CSR
Climate change has become one of the integral factors influencing the international business ecosystem. In this contemporary business era, climate change is not just a discretionary initiative, as it has emerged as a strategic obligation for business. Conventionally, businesses used to ignore or choose ecological issues, but this has now changed the institutional logic that influences global business (Leonidou et al., 2024). From the viewpoint of CSR, businesses are now becoming assertive in contributing to ecological stewardship. This section streamlines the four important macro-level influences where climate change is changing CSR, especially from the lens of institutional and ethical frameworks.
Institutional Impediment and Normative Compression
Institutional fragmentation is a critical influence due to climate change in the modern business era. CSR’s institutional outlook unveils that there are codified and unwritten standards direct businesses. Climate change has been the source of contradictions between guidelines, standards, and prospects in many countries. For instance, multinational corporations usually face varying rules and standards related to emissions (Pinkse and Kolk, 2012). For example, when operating in Europe, it must adhere to the stringent rules related to pollution and emission restrictions. When operating in the Third World or poor countries, these businesses depict proactive transparency to show their environmental influence on the global entities, especially the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (Tumewang, Ntim and Haque, 2025)."
It seems like an ethical insistence. MNEs operate with the pattern of following the stringent regulations in some countries. However, they usually take advantage of the flexible regulations in some other countries. It questions the credibility of the so-called CSR approach at the global level (Mukherjee, 2016). For example, Shell, one of the largest petroleum firms in the world, has experienced immense criticism due to its net-zero promises while operating in Europe. Problems and criticism occur when it sustains carbon-heavy operations in poor countries. Of course, these kinds of firms are taking advantage of the weaker and less commanding regulations (Rockström and Whiteman, 2021). Alternatively, there have been social licenses to operate from the international stakeholders that compel the MNEs to be consistent when adopting or applying ecological standards. The main intention behind this pressure is to keep the CSR above mandatory compliance and set the foundation for the true essence of the responsible global business operations (Roh et al., 2025).
Explicit to Implicit CSR in Regulatory Commands
The concept of explicit and implicit CSR has been in the limelight for some years in the international business ecosystem. Explicit CSR refers to the assertiveness of the organisations to embrace the social and ecological obligations with the intention to improve the brand image and drive the competitive advantage in hyper competitive global marketplace. Implicit CSR refers to the ordinary requirement by regulations or institutions to contribute to the environment. However, the rapid climate change is making the business implicit, and of course, cost advantage is one of the primary reasons behind this move (Kobrossy, Karaszewski and AlChami, 2022).
The role of governments at the global level has become critical. Governments are optimising carbon valuation framework, cap and trade systems, and statutory climate reporting mandates. For example, the EU’s “Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism” is in the loop. In this context, organisations that import high-impact commodities into the EU will be paying extra costs for that pollution, as it is perfectly placed as a tax if these goods are produced in the EU. Thus, the probability of a legally imposed cost on the business has become high, as CSR is no longer optional (Dechezlepretre and Haramboure, 2025).
Geopolitics of Green Technologies and Techno-Nationalism
Climate change is also becoming the source of new threats for multinational corporations, which refers to “Techno-Nationalism”. It refers to the pattern of acquiring modern technologies to get strategic advantages and meet the new and evolving requirements of national security. Countries are rapidly investing in green technologies, such as electric vehicle production, photovoltaic systems, and wind energy solutions, to emerge as strong rivals at the global level (Khan, 2023). Two big countries, such as the United States and China, are in intense competition regarding renewable energy technologies. For instance, the US's Inflation Reduction Act enables significant fiscal interventions for clean energy items, along with stringent regulations to favour manufacturing (Evans et al., 2025). China, on the other hand, is dominating in the global production of solar panels and lithium batteries, indicating the advantage related to the green transition. Concerning this global pattern, climate change technologies are becoming lobbied, as firms usually must navigate the trade limitations, strategic trade controls, and national development blueprints (U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2025).
Stakeholder Legality and Warrant to Operate
Climate has become the perfect source of boosting stakeholder legitimacy. CSR has not become a mandate to sustain the business in the international business setting. There is a strong influence of global institutions, investors, employees, and NGOs that influence the operations of MNEs. Several institutional investors intend to go against companies (the board of directors) that failed to maintain the climate risk evaluation. It indicates the good stakeholder activism that compels companies to have board members with excellent expertise in ecological issues (Awa, Etim and Ogbonda, 2024).
Micro-Level Influences: Managerial Autonomy and Ethical Intricacy
The impact of macro-level factors is big, but micro-level aspects are also becoming influential in multiple ways. These aspects are influencing people in and out of the organisation. Internally, managers are facing the paradoxes of meeting the business targets and contributing to a positive environmental effect. This section comes up with some micro-level influences as far as new challenges are created, but as far as climate change is concerned.
Managerial Suppleness and Risk Consciousness
Climate change has become a major problem for businesses. Floods, bushfires, heatwaves, and storms usually damage infrastructure and lead to business closures for a while, and the loss is devastating. The responsibility of the leaders and managers becomes critical as they need to adopt a proactive risk posture and evaluation frameworks along with some effective emergency plans. The most important thing is to consistently evaluate climate vulnerabilities to make the business more resilient in emergency situations (Vo, Nguyen and Phan, 2024). For example, in 2011, Thailand stumbled due to massive floods, which hit the supply for Japanese car manufacturers. Thus, they intended to find alternative suppliers to evade the consequences of these massive disruptions. In the contemporary era, these climate events have become normal due to climate change patterns, and managers are making their businesses more resilient to protect the end-to end value chain (Haraguchi and Lall, 2015).
Ethical Decision Making: Local Profits vs Global Pledges
Managers are facing an intense paradox of meeting the business profitability target and adhering to climate-related commitments. Globalisation has been the source of ethical dilemmas, as managers need to steer divergent stakeholder interests. For example, an organisation operating in a developing country where the demand for low-cost products in the consumer market is high. The firm’s leadership starts to implement the carbon reduction approaches. It is a major challenge for the manager because they can see the lucrative business operations of rivals that do not prioritise green business considerations. Hence, if they focus on cleaner and greener business, the profitability compared to the rival will be lower. So, a balanced approach is always needed to sustain both advantages and the profitability of the business for better business survival (Overesch and Willkomm, 2025).
Expatriate Management and Duty of Care
Climate change also influences the international staffing approaches. The organisation intends to have expatriates in the countries where climate change is dominating. These expatriates must rethink the duty of care liabilities. For example, adhering to the host country's ecological regulations and crisis is important, which validates the green expatriation policies. For example, a mining company in Chile can experience acute water vulnerability when operating in a desert area. So, the expatriates and their families must adopt the living standards in such a region where social escalation for water rights is dominant. Conversely, when operating in the Asian region, expatriates must be aware of the intense flooding and extreme weather conditions. Thus, expatriates must learn climate change adaptation planning techniques from their organisation, which indicates the extension of the implicit CSR to the protection of people from the climate (Raj, 2025).
Building Local Community Resilience
Eventually, individual managers must avail themselves of the opportunity to contribute to social welfare. In the modern business setting, companies are recognising their new role in society. For example, they believe in building resilience at the community level as a good business consideration instead of social aid or charity. Climate change proposals in these regions are a perfect way to protect these communities from climate-related weaknesses. For example, Unilever’s people adhere to the sustainable living plan while operating in different regions. The best example is that they collaborate with the local farmers to set the foundation for anti-drought approaches. Thus, climate change is influencing the mindset of companies and managers to protect the community and make a difference. From the perspective of the business, good brand image, excessive trust, and broader social good are justified (Kusuma and Khairunisa, 2021).
Strategic Implications: Shared Value Creation as a Bridging Mechanism
The detailed discussion of both macro and micro-level influences has indicated a certain paradox. Climate change has been influential because it creates institutional pressure on multinational companies and ethical tensions for managers. In this context, an effective strategic model is required to connect these levels and change climate obligations. It is all about getting away from the conventional climate burden to the real business opportunity. The concept “creating shared value has validated such notion. Apparently, CSV contradicts the ordinary CSR, as CSR is not a cost or a burden for the business. It sees CSR as a perfect opportunity that can set the foundation for a competitive advantage. This competitive advantage is to be gained and sustained by meeting social problems, especially through business intentions. In this context, climate has not been a threat, as it is the perfect path for innovative measures and new opportunities in the dynamically changing and evolving business ecosystem (D'Souza et al., 2024).
For example, Ørsted, one of the prominent Danish organisations in the energy industry, has transformed itself from a coal utility to a global leader in wind energy (Srivastava, 2021). Interestingly, the business validated SVC by not considering its transition as a donation. It was a solid strategic move to integrate with global climate control and institutional density, which put the business on a new growth horizon. In the context of this excellent example, the role of the international managers is becoming more critical. Shared value creation is the best pathway to evade the ethical paradox. The most important thing is to recognise and select the climate initiatives that dismantle the gap between profitability and CSR commitments. A solid balance is to be maintained to move forward in this context (D'Souza et al., 2024).
Recommendations for International Managers
Climate change is not a threat now, as it has become the way to transform and develop new growth patterns in the global business environment. Managers are operating in this new era with great awareness, but they must move forward with decisive action. Therefore, the analysis has led to some key recommendations for both managers and the organisation. The brief illustration is as follows.
Managerial Awareness
While operating in different countries or regions, managers must understand that the impact of climate events or change can be different. For instance, when operating in poor or vulnerable countries, communities can experience harsh consequences. The most important thing for the managers is to understand this inequality to prevent local resistance and harm. Cultural sensitivity should be the new norm for the manager when implementing climate action. Sometimes, leaders make climate actions or strategies that may contradict the local realities. So, improvisation is the best element for the managers to create the best balance (Miska, Szőcs and Schiffinger, 2018).
Managers should also understand that stakeholders perceive climate action as a baseline commitment instead of a differentiator. Stakeholders, including investors, employees, and customers, strive for real actions instead of some marketing tactics to build a reputation. So, preventing greenwashing is the best move for managers to keep the true essence of climate action (Brammer, 2021).
Managerial Considerations
Managers must be strategic to some extent. First, there is a need to make the science-based carbon targets into performance metrics. The most important thing is to make climate actions and objectives connected with promotions and bonuses. Eventually, CSR will become the top priority instead of just an ineffective promise. Of course, it also eliminates the gap between profitability and global commitment (Rugman and Verbeke, 2004).
At the individual level, organisations must strive for green leadership proficiencies. They must invest in management, pertaining to apprehend the climate science, local helplessness, and ethical decision making while facing the dilemma of profitability targets and long-term sustainability commitments. So, a resilient manager can become a solid strength of business, especially in climate emergencies.
From the perspective of the managers, a multi-stakeholder conversation is needed at the local or operating level. Inclusion of NGOs, communities, and government personnel is important to share knowledge and derive new possibilities to beat climate change. As a result, managers will be in the position to develop tailored or locally adhered strategies to foster trust and augment business performance. It is the best example of shared value creation, as climate responsibility is not a burden, as it is the best way to gain and sustain a competitive edge (Sebhatu and Enquist, 2022)
Conclusion
Climate change has been a big challenge for global businesses, which has reshaped the CSR approach and patterns. This detailed study navigated macro-level influences, such as CSR as an institutional necessity, regulatory complications, implicit and explicit CSR, and stakeholder legitimacy. Regarding the micro level, the focus is to be shifted to managerial resilience, ethical actions, and community engagement. The role of the MNEs has become important and complicated. Corporations, while operating at the global level, navigate resources, technological expertise, and global exposure to enable deep progress towards effective climate action. Still, some opposing forces are in the loop to weaken the contributions. MNEs are not alone in resolving the climate change problem, as it is the best time to take a position to evade dissections and incorporate some innovative measures to make the business both lucrative and more responsible, and eventually, shareholder value creation is to be justified.
References
Awa, H. O., Etim, W. and Ogbonda, E. H. (2024). Stakeholders, stakeholder theory and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, 9(1). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40991-024-00094-y.
Brammer, S. (2021). Defining and deterring corporate social irresponsibility: embracing the institutional complexity of international business. Multinational Business Review, 29(3), pp. 301-320. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/MBR-02-2021-0011.
Dechezlepretre, A. and Haramboure, A. (2025). EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism: What is it, how does it work and what are the effects?. Available at:
https://www.oecd.org/en/blogs/2025/03/eu-carbon-border-adjustment-mechanism-what-is-it-how-does-it-work-and-what-are-the-effects.html[Accessed 1 March 2026].
D'Souza, C. M. et al. (2024). CSR investments and innovation – Aligning and creating shared value. Journal of Cleaner Production, 481(1), p. 144189. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.144189.
Evans, X. et al. (2025). The US Inflation Reduction Act: Is it a Green Deal?. Available at:
https://www.sciencespo.fr/chair-sustainable-development/news/the-us-inflation-reduction-act-is-it-a-green-deal/. [Accessed 1 March 2026].
Haraguchi, M. and Lall, U. (2015). Flood risks and impacts: A case study of Thailand’s floods in 2011 and research questions for supply chain decision making. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 14(3), pp. 256-272. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2014.09.005.
Khan, R. (2023). The impact of a new techno-nationalism era on eco-economic decoupling. Resources Policy, 82(1), p. 103452. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.103452.
Kobrossy, S., Karaszewski, R. and AlChami, R. (2022). The Institutionalization of Implicit and Explicit CSR in a Developing Country Context: The Case of Lebanon. Administrative Sciences, 12(4), p. 142. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci12040142.
Kusuma, N. and Khairunisa, M. (2021). How Unilever Transforms Its Business with Unilever Sustainable Living Plan. Available at:
https://greennetwork.asia/gna-knowledge-hub/how-unilever-transforms-its-business-with-unilever-sustainable-living-plan/[Accessed 1 March 2026].
Leonidou, L. C. et al. (2024). An Enquiry into MNEs’ CSR Practices: Literature Assessment, Managerial Implications, and Academic Perspectives. Management International Review, 64(1), p. 759–809. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11575-024-00551-7.
Miska, C., Szőcs, I. andSchiffinger, M. (2018). Culture’s effects on corporate sustainability practices: A multi-domain and multi-level view. Journal of World Business, 35(2), pp. 263-279. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2017.12.001.
Mukherjee, K. (2016). CSR approaches of MNEs in developing countries. Journal of Global Responsibility, 7(2), p. 247–257. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/JGR-05-2014-0020.
Overesch, M. and Willkomm, S. (2025). The relation between corporate social responsibility and profit shifting of multinational enterprises. International Tax and Public Finance, 32(1), p. 466–500. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10797-024-09850-z.
Pinkse, J. and Kolk, A. (2012). MNES and climate change : exploring institutional failures and embeddedness. Journal of International Business Studies, 43(3), pp. 332-341. Available at: https: https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2011.56.
Raj, P., (2025). CSR-Driven Expatriation – Enhancing Global Social Impact Through Strategic Expatriate Roles. International Journal of Progressive Research in Engineering Management and Science, 5(2), p. 1231. Available at: https: https://doi.org/10.58257/IJPREMS38738.
Rockström, J. and Whiteman, G. (2021). Shell’s net zero plan will be judged on science, not spin. Available at:
https://www.climatechangenews.com/2021/05/18/shells-net-zero-plan-will-judged-science-not-spin/ [Accessed 1 March 2026].
Roh, T., Xiao, S., Park, B. and Ghauri, P. (2025). Stakeholder pressure, democracy levels, and multinational enterprise corporate social responsibility: Stakeholder and institutional theories. Journal of Business Research, 1(1), p. 200:115619. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2025.115619.
Rugman, A. M. and Verbeke, A. (2004). A perspective on regional and global strategies of multinational enterprises. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(1), p. 3–18. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400073.
Sebhatu, S. P. and Enquist, B., (2022). Values and Multi-stakeholder Dialog for Business Transformation in Light of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Journal of Business Ethics, 180(1), p. 1059–1074. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05195-x
Srivastava, S. (2021). From Dong to Orsted: A leading utility's green energy transition. Available at:
https://ieefa.org/resources/dong-orsted-leading-utilitys-green-energy-transition-0 [Accessed 1 March 2026].
Tumewang, Y. K., Ntim, C. G. and Haque, F. (2025). Task Force on Climate‐Related Financial Disclosures: A Systematic Literature Review and Future Research Agenda. Business Strategy and the Environment, 34(8), pp. 10033-10058. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.70112.
U.S. Energy Information Administration, (2025). China dominates global trade of battery minerals.[Online] U.S. Energy Information AdministrationAvailable at:
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=65305#. [Accessed 1 March 2026].Vo, H., Nguyen, T.
and Phan, H. V. (2024). Building a sustainable future: The role of corporate social responsibility in climate policy uncertainty management. Finance Research Letters, 60(1), p. 104831. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2023.104831.
+447462439809