Will Climate Change End Growth for Nike and Coca-Cola?

Increased incidence of droughts is only one consequence of climate change. Source: Wikimedia Commons

Soda. Tennis shoes. Climate change?

Consumer products may not trip the climate change alarm bells quite the same as coal power plants, but they, too, are part of the equation. Some of the world's leading companies, such as The Coca-Cola Company (NYSE: KO  ) and Nike (NYSE: NKE  ) , are gradually realizing that embracing the controversial topic -- rather than fighting or ignoring it -- might be the best business strategy. That may surprise climate change deniers. In the last 10 years both Coca-Cola and Nike have encountered disruptions to their supply chains caused by volatile and unpredictable weather, more frequent floods, and increasingly intense droughts. That has stressed supplies of water, cotton, and labor (among other raw materials) and shifted the economics for each company's operations.

While Coca-Cola and Nike are taking action on climate change now, investors have to consider if their efforts will be enough to eliminate risks to their top and bottom lines. Floods and droughts will by no means force either behemoth into bankruptcy (we'll have bigger problems to worry about if that happens), but environmental conditions could eat away at growth opportunities. That's a scary possibility when you consider that the two are generally recognized as safe havens for investors. Have you thought about how a changing climate changes your approach to investing?

A changing climate forces changing business practices
It has become a highly polarized and politicized topic, but climate change is just as accepted as gravity in the scientific community. According to the United States Geological Survey, it threatens 1 billion of the Earth's inhabitants by the end of this century through rising sea levels alone. Don't think you can escape by moving away from waterways, either. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration maintains data on all $1 billion weather disasters in the United States dating back to 1980, which shows that such events have occurred more frequently in recent years. Take a look at the seven billion-dollar disasters that took place in 2013:

Global emissions continue to rise each year, but that's not to say that progress in lowering greenhouse gas emissions isn't being made at home or abroad. The United States is switching vast amounts of power generation from coal to natural gas (although the coal mined in America is burned elsewhere) and captures over 12% of its electricity needs from renewable sources. Meanwhile, the global rate of increase in carbon dioxide was just 1.4% in 2012, which marks a pullback from historical rates. Even smog-ridden China took a significant step forward by sporting an annual increase of only 3%, which compares quite favorably to double-digit gains witnessed in the last decade.

The slowing pace of emissions increases is an encouraging sign, but despite the progress, emissions -- and atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide --are still rising. That underlying fact inches the world closer to the tipping point of environmental disaster each year. As the world takes steps to reduce the risks of climate change by boosting energy efficiency, increasing the use of renewable energy, and enacting sustainable practices, the risks posed by climate change move in the same direction; slowly eating away at the world's gains. It's a footrace that requires the world to get faster and faster each and every year.

Source: FoolEditorial//flickr

In a way, the progress in emissions growth is analogous to the responses of individual companies and industries to climate change. The impact of money spent to insulate supply chains today -- switching to synthetic fibers instead of cotton or further increasing the efficiency of water recycling processes, for instance -- will be diluted by the challenges faced 10 years from now. It isn't something that will be shoved away with a fixed amount of investment. The diversity of supply chains and distribution networks is unlikely to help much, either. While Nike operates over 700 factories in nearly 50 countries and Coke products are available in over 200 countries, most raw materials involved are traded as global commodities. So a poor sugarcane harvest in Brazil or cotton harvest in China could affect sales on opposite sides of the globe.

Will climate change end growth for Nike or Coca-Cola? It's tough to say if it will "end" growth, but it is certainly an obstacle. Consider that the beverage giant is already facing increased pressure from its operations in India. Local groups and governments have voiced major concerns about depleted groundwater levels -- sometimes retreating by more than 100% -- in areas near bottling plants. The company will need to address water shortage concerns if it wants to balance growth with sustainability and make the most of its planned $5 billion investment in the country. Otherwise, investors may have to swallow substantial write-offs caused in part by climate change. 

How does it affect you?
While the chances are low that Coca-Cola or Nike will face a significant pinch in the top or bottom line from climate change in any given year, both face increasing risks and volatility each year. The companies may be racing to insulate their supply chains where possible, but worsening weather and environmental conditions continue to chip away at any risk reduction measures. It would only take one unprecedented global drought or 1,000-year flood to cause significant pain for investors and have dramatic consequences for an annual period. Consumers shouldn't be surprised to see increased prices as companies try to hedge risks to their businesses. 

Simply put, climate change can no longer be viewed a rallying cry to save the world's coral reefs and polar bears, or just as a tax on current generations to save future, unborn humans. The changing business strategies of Coca-Cola and Nike are encouraging signs that viewing the threat of climate change through an economic lens will provide the extra motivation needed by business and political leaders to enact tougher standards for energy efficiency, industrial emissions, and environmental stewardship. That's good news -- the clock is ticking.

Don't let climate change ruin your retirement

Blue chips such as Coca-Cola and Nike may face increased risks from climate change, but each has encountered a fair share of obstacles in their operational lifetimes. That's what has made them such great investments in the first place. It also reminds us that while investors tend to be impatient with the market, the best investment strategy is to buy shares in solid businesses and keep them for the long term. In the special free report "3 Stocks That Will Help You Retire Rich," The Motley Fool shares investment ideas and strategies that could help you build wealth for years to come. Click here to grab your free copy today.


Read/Post Comments (6) | Recommend This Article (1)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On February 09, 2014, at 6:32 PM, stanhope59 wrote:

    This is a horrible piece of crap article. It confuses climate changes with man-made global warming. Certainly businesses need to be aware of changing climate conditions, but to link this automatically with emissions and talk about "deniers" is to take a side in the debate without any justification. To talk about the study showing an increase in storms that have over $1B in effect without mentioning that this is due primarily to the increased value of coastal land and not mention the numerous studies that show there is no increase in intensity or frequency of such storms is to obfuscate for ideological reasons. I personally could never take financial advice from someone presenting such a biased and unjustified argument.

  • Report this Comment On February 09, 2014, at 10:37 PM, TMFBlacknGold wrote:

    @stanhope59

    "To talk about the study showing an increase in storms that have over $1B in effect without mentioning that this is due primarily to the increased value of coastal land... "

    The results aren't solely based on coastal storms/areas and are adjusted for inflation. Sure, property values have increased but even that alone wouldn't explain the trend of increasing frequency of storms over the years.

    I think it's quite clear that humans are having an effect on the atmosphere; dumping enormous amounts of CO2 and methane that took millions of years to create and store into the atmosphere in a few hundred years. That's pretty powerful and simple to understand. Of course there are numerous positive feedback systems within the biosphere, but that doesn't mean industrial activity is not at least partly to blame.

    Maxxwell

  • Report this Comment On February 09, 2014, at 11:05 PM, stupaer3 wrote:

    I am 74 years old and have been witnessing weather disasters for at least 67 years (that I can remember), droughts (West Texas), hurricanes (TX Gulf Coast), torrential rains (floods, Houston & So. TX), very cold winters, tornadoes (Wichita Falls, TX, N. Houston) all during this span of time as far back as I can remember and much worse and more frequent when I was younger, especially hurricanes. So how is it now when natural disasters happen, which are not as bad as in the past and are only more expensive because of an increase in population and accompanying infra-structure, is it caused by inferred man generated CO2 emissions??

    CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has increased approximately 200 parts/million since 1797 and that nano-scale amount is causing the earth to warm!! Preposterous!

    WE are at the tipping point, what bs! Why are we continuing to allow these kind of unfounded lies to be published. Are there not any factual standards that have to be met?

  • Report this Comment On February 10, 2014, at 1:23 AM, tigerade wrote:
  • Report this Comment On February 10, 2014, at 4:49 AM, DickHamilton wrote:

    stupider3 - if earth's CO2 level were reduced to 250ppm (what it actually was in about 1800), so about 150ppm less than now, and then reduced a further 150ppm to 100ppm, everything on earth would die of the cold. So why is it preposterous that this 'nano-scale' increase (how can something doubling be called a nanoscale change?) can cause warming? It certainly would cause cooling if the CO2 concentration fell by half.

    Yes, I had very cold winters too in my youth, and my dad colder winters still. Bet you're not having a very cold winter now. I'm not - here in eastern Scotland (far north of you) the temperature has not dropped below freezing (actually, not yet below 4C/39F) this winter so far.

    You live in a country that covers less than 2% of the Earth's surface. I'd bet you don't travel widely or even know from experience what's happening in all of your country - so how are you able to judge what is happening to the climate world-wide?

  • Report this Comment On February 10, 2014, at 8:43 AM, floydhowardjr wrote:

    We need to put an emissions tax on any intestinal flatulence based on the decibel level of the escaping gasses! Monitoring stations could be created that would contain high amp microphones that would pinpoint any abrupt animal discharges of methane gas. NSA could oversee the technical operations and Homeland Defense could then arrest the miscreants and round up the animals. Studies have shown that most of the methane flatulence comes from Washington DC! We need to tax the government first until they cannot print anymore money and then every living thing that breaks wind.

Add your comment.

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 2831279, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 9/15/2014 12:15:34 AM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...


Advertisement