To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Chapter 4 develops a framework for understanding how multinational corporations (MNCs) manage climate risks. It identifies five distinct strategies: accepting the risk as a cost of doing business, adapting through proactive investments or compliance measures, transferring risk to other actors, diversifying operations geographically, and avoiding risk by limiting exposure to vulnerable regions. After outlining the logic and trade-offs of each approach, the chapter investigates whether firms systematically avoid the countries that are most exposed to climate threats. Using cross-national data on foreign direct investment, the analysis explores variation across sectors and dimensions of climate vulnerability, such as ecosystem, infrastructure, and water-related risks. The findings demonstrate that MNCs avoid climate-vulnerable countries, while also showing that firms’ risk management strategies vary by sector and climate risk type.
To assess, from a systems perspective, how climate vulnerability and socio-economic and political differences at the municipal and state levels explain food insecurity in Mexico.
Design:
Using a cross-sectional design with official secondary data, we estimated three-level multinomial hierarchical linear models.
Setting:
The study setting is Mexico’s states and municipalities in 2014.
Participants:
Heads of households in a representative sample of the general population.
Results:
At the municipal level, vulnerability to climate disasters and a poverty index were significant predictors of food insecurity after adjusting for household-level variables. At the state level, gross domestic product and the number of nutrition programmes helped explain different levels of food insecurity but change in political party did not. Predictors varied in strength and significance according to the level of food insecurity.
Conclusions:
Findings evidence that, beyond food assistance programmes and household characteristics, multiple variables operating at different levels – like climate vulnerability and poverty – contribute to explain the degree of food insecurity. Food security governance is a well-suited multisectoral approach to address the complex challenge of hunger and access to a nutritious diet.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.