Саrbоn Тах Аnd ERF Сlimаtе Сhаngе Imрасt Оn Unilever Company


The Australians government in 2012 moved to pass a bill to regulate the amount of greenhouse gasses each company in the country releases into the continent’s atmosphere. The country has a vision of reducing the carbon gas emission to the atmosphere by 5 percent by 2020 instead of increasing its greenhouse gasses emission. Australia is devoted to living in an environmentally friendly country, where the corporations do not take charge of polluting the environment, to this extent (Petruzzi & Spies, 2014, pg. 70). Therefore, the country holds a vital position in its bids of reducing the greenhouse effect, about collectively reducing this effect by all the countries in the planet. This paper analyses the Unilever Company in Australia bids in reducing their carbon and greenhouse gas emission to the atmosphere, while similarly exploring the Australian carbon tax obligations and the far the company has gone in reducing its greenhouse effect gasses to the atmosphere.

Overview of Unilever Company – Australia

According to Kreiser et al. (2015, pg. 12), Unilever Australia is a food and other products company, engaging widely in a manufacture and sale of food and wellbeing products in the country. The company is involved in an intensified production of several food products such as ice cream, olive oils, meals, snacks, home care products and fabric conditioners among others. All these manufacturing involves a lot of industrial action, which interim emits the carbon and greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. Unilever is however involved in its greenhouse gas emission control, with several measures put in place to reduce the carbon emissions (Kreiser et al., 2015, pg. 12).

As Stoianoff et al. (2016, pg. 34) assert, on its website, the Unilever company regularly updates and informs the Australian leaders to indulge more in ensuring the reinforcement of the carbon tax laws, while among more rules to manage the Australian environmental issues. The company encourages the government to take aggressive steps in ensuring that the government reinforces the climate change rules. The company significantly supports the great actions that have incentives to the food industry to reduce the carbon emissions, while personally trading schemes that play a fundamental role in reducing this (Stoianoff et al., 2016, pg. 34).

Predicted Climatic Impacts of the Unilever Carbon Emission

As Gascó (2012, pg. 64) chronicles, the among the many effects of climate change, the most immediate impacts of the climate change on the Unilever company is the extreme weather conditions, which may discourage the operations and the performance of the enterprise. Extreme weather condition on the Unilever Company may include too high temperatures or too low temperatures. Too high temperatures may jeopardize the performance of Unilever Company in several ways including the conditioning of its manufacture, threatening the company.

According to Gascó (2012, pg. 64), flooding due to heavy rainfall is yet another climatic change effect that can have different implications for the Unilever Australia company. Flooding can highly cause water contamination, and in most cases where there is flooding, there is a lack of safe water to drink and use in another home and industrial activities. The company in this scenario of flooding may require clean water to use in its industrial manufacture of the food products it highly depends on for its business. Water contamination due to flooding can highly deter the company from achieving its production and even sell output, majorly brought by flooding an effect of climate change (Gascó, 2012, pg. 64).

The Impacts of Carbon Tax Policing In Australia

As Humphreys (2007, pg. 55) asserts, the Australian carbon tax policing was passed between the year 2012 and 2014. The rationale for the carbon taxation involves the government imposing the levy on the Australian corporates and companies engages in any carbon emission to the environment. The original plan of the Australian carbon taxation was fixed till the year 2015. The fixed pricing of the carbon tax involve the 23 dollars for a ton released of carbon dioxide in the environment by these companies. The period of tax fixed pricing end at 2025 when the policy then took a new direction. The taxation of carbon emission took a new scheme, where the 23 dollars per ton of the gas rose by 23 per cent every year businesses were then liable to pay in taxes if they were emitting more than 2twenty five thousand tons of carbon dioxide per year (Humphreys, 2007, pg. 55). This carbon taxation similarly includes the certain types of gasses.

Anbumozhi et al. (2016, pg. 112) chronicles that the emission reduction finds (ERF) is a requirement of the government to buy the carbon emissions. The government seeks to use the ERF policy to reduce the gas emissions in the environment. The government is then committed to reducing the emissions by purchasing them so as to meet the 2020 target. The ERF has a crediting regulator, with a purchasing done on the audit of the lowest cost reductions. The ERF similarly targets safeguarding the emissions by establishing a baseline of the greenhouse effect gasses emissions.

According to Ministerrådet (2007, pg. 97), the key impact of the carbon tax law to Australia is the reduction of the carbon emissions by the key manufacturing, industrial as well as other commercial sectors. The carbon taxation is not well in the course to realizing the 2020 vision, but there has been a tremendous improvement in the Australian carbon emissions by the industrial sector. Unilever Company is one of the companies which is highly involved in regulating its carbon emissions. The company is greatly doing its best in avoiding high carbon emissions to the environment (Ministerrådet, 2007, pg. 97). Its management is taking part in helping the government set the example of carbon tax policy imposition and reduction of the carbon emission.

Risks and Opportunities in a C Constant World or Carbon Tax Policy

As León (2008, pg. 123) ascertains, the key liability of the carbon taxation policy in Australia is the economic recess by the companies involved. This policy is highly encouraging companies to reduce their carbon emissions, this reducing g their manufacturing and commercial activity. The companies may then result to more expensive, means of production, which may increase the process of their products, in the case of Unilever Company. An increase of its cost of production will see an inflation of many commodities in the market since the company is involved in many food and welfare associated commodities in the market (León, 2008, pg. 123). The move will them see the economy deteriorated by the increased pricing of products.

León (2008, pg. 123) asserts that the key opportunity associated with the carbon tax policy is the ability to create more jobs to cater for the cost of production. More people can get absorbed in the manufacturing secrto4, to take charge of what many types of machinery could have done, in a bid to reduce the carbon emission involved when the companies indulge in machinery related activities. The carbon tax policy may then create many opportunities for the companies to indulge in, specifically when it comes to production. Alternative sources of production may be used relatively creating employment to the local Australia youths who are unemployed.

Adaptation Strategies to the Carbon Tax Policy.

As Dolman et al., (2008, pg. 69) chronicles, the key adaptation strategy for the companies to adopt about the strict Australia’s carbon tax policy is reducing the carbon emission by seeking alternative sources of energy in place of the fossil fuel. The usage of renewable sources or energy is one of the major improvements done of late, which many companies may indulge in, to help in their production, manufacturing and more commercial activities. One of the forms of renewable sources of energy is the hydroelectric energy and solar energy. Google and Apple companies are the leading companies in the world to make huge developments in solar energy. Any other company should take this challenge if indulging in a greener and clean energy production to counter the expensive carbon emission costs (Dolman et al., 2008, pg. 69).


The following key recommendations are helpful to Unilever, or any other company seeking to reduce its carbon emissions while cost cutting on the carbon taxation policy;

i. The result to a green form of energy production, such as the solar energy and hydroelectric energy can be helpful encountering the costly and environmentally damaging fossil fuels form of energy

ii. Employment of more persons to reduce the cost of production, by usage of a lot of fossil fuels, which has limits as per by law, and help improve the economy of the country.

iii. Increase the opportunities for the cost effectiveness, in reducing the carbon gas emission, particularly in the larger markets.

iv. Inverting of the liquidity from an immensely larger market with more trading, which will, in turn, reduce the volatility in the linked markets


Australia is one of the few countries sin the world to have implemented the carbon taxation laws. The law ensures the country is in a position to control the amount of greenhouse gasses emitted to its atmosphere. Greenhouse gasses are the leading causes of global warming, and Australia has done miles of efforts in ensuring its environment become the critical victim of global warming, by implementing this policy. Companies in the country such as a case Unilever used in this essay can control or result to other cheaper and greener sources of energy in a bid of reducing the carbon emissions. The carbon tax risks of not being implemented include the devastating effects of the global warming, which have adverse effects on the climate.


Anbumozhi, V., Kalirajan, K., Kimura, F. & Yao, X. (2016). Investing in low-carbon energy systems: implications for regional economic cooperation. Singapore: Springer. Page 112

Dolman, A., Freibauer, A. & Valentini, R. (2008). The continental-scale greenhouse gas balance of Europe. New York: Springer. Page 69

Gascó, M. (2012). Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on eGovernment, Barcelona, 14-15 June 2012. Reading: Academic Publishing International. Page 64

Holland, B. (2014). Allocating the earth: a distributional framework for protecting capabilities in environmental law and policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Page 71

Humphreys, J. (2007). Exploring a carbon tax for Australia. St Leonards, N.S.W: Centre for Independent Studies. Page 55

Kreiser, L., Andersen, M., Olsen, B., Speck, S., Milne, J. & Ashiabor, H. (2015). Carbon pricing: design, experiences, and issues. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. Page 12

León, E. (2008). Global warming: looking beyond Kyoto. New Haven, Conn. Washington, D.C: Center for the Study of Globalization, Yale University Brookings Institution Press. Page 123

Ministerrådet, N. (2007). Potent Greenhouse Gases — Ways of Reducing Consumption and Emission of HFCs, PFCs and SF6. Copenhagen: Nordiska ministerrådets förlag. Page 97

Petruzzi, R. & Spies, K. (2014). Tax policy challenges in the 21st century. Wien: Linde. Page 70

Stoianoff, N., Kreiser, L., Butcher, B., Milne, J. & Ashiabor, H. (2016). Green fiscal reform for a sustainable future reform, innovation and renewable energy. Cheltenham, Gloucestershire: Edward Elgar Publishing. Page 34