ABOUT ANDY HOFFMAN:
Andrew (Andy) Hoffman is the Holcim (US) Professor of Sustainable Enterprise at the University of Michigan; a position that holds joint appointments in the Stephen M. Ross School of Business and the School for Environment & Sustainability. Professor Hoffman's research uses organizational behavior models and theories to understand the cultural and institutional aspects of environmental issues for organizations.
He has published over 100 articles/book chapters, as well as 19 books, which have been translated into six languages. In this work, he focuses on the processes by which environmental issues both emerge and evolve as social, political and managerial issues, including: the evolving nature of field level pressures related to environmental issues; the corporate responses that have emerged as a result of those pressures, particularly around the issue of climate change; the interconnected networks among non-governmental organizations and corporations and how those networks influence change processes within cultural and institutional systems; the social and psychological barriers to these change processes; and the underlying cultural values that are engaged when these barriers are overcome. He also writes about the role of academic scholars in public and political discourse.
Among his list of honors, he has been awarded the UN PRME Teaching Award (2024), Victor L. Bernard Teaching Award (2023), RRBM Best Book Award (2022), ONE Teaching Award (2020), Responsible Research in Management Award (2019), Distinguished Faculty Award for the Organizations & Natural Environment Division of the Academy of Management (2018), Aspen Institute Ideas Worth Teaching Award (2018), Aspen Institute Faculty Pioneer Award (2016), American Chemical Society National Award (2016), Strategic Organization Best Essay Award (2016), Organization & Environment Best Paper Award (2014), Maggie Award (2013), JMI Breaking the Frame Award (2012), Connecticut Book Award (2011), Aldo Leopold Fellowship (2011), Aspen Environmental Fellowship (2011 and 2009), Manos Page Prize (2009), Aspen Institute Rising Star Award (2003), Rachel Carson Book Prize (2001) and Klegerman Award (1995).
His work has been covered in numerous media outlets, including the New York Times, Scientific American, Time, the Wall Street Journal, National Geographic, Atlantic and National Public Radio. He has served on numerous research committees for the National Academies of Science, the Johnson Foundation, the Climate Group, the China Council for International Cooperation on Environment and Development and the Environmental Defense Fund.
Prior to academics, Andy worked for the US Environmental Protection Agency (Region 1), Metcalf & Eddy Environmental Consultants, T&T Construction & Design and the Amoco Corporation. Andy serves on advisory boards for ecoAmerica, the Michigan League of Conservation Voters, the Wildlife Habitat Council, the Center for Environmental Innovation and the Stanford Social Innovation Review.
ABOUT LISA WOZNIAK:
Lisa’s career spans over two decades of environmental and conservation advocacy in the political arena. She is a nationally- recognized expert in non-profit growth and management and a leader in Great Lakes protections. Lisa is a three-time graduate from the University of Michigan, with a bachelor's degree and two ensuing master's degrees in social work and Education.
Lisa serves a co-host and content partner in 89.1 WEMU's '1st Friday Focus on the Environment.'
RESOURCES:
Michigan League of Conservation Voters
TRANSCRIPTION:
David Fair: This is 89.1 WEMU, and I'm David Fair with a question for you. Were you familiar with the term "endangerment finding" before? Are you familiar now? It's vitally important in addressing the climate crisis. Welcome to the March edition of WEMUs First Friday focus on the environment. The endangerment finding is a key Obama-era scientific ruling that underpins all federal actions on curbing planet warming gasses. It became the legal bedrock of federal efforts to rein in emissions, particularly in vehicles. The federal administration has revoked the endangerment finding, and the White House called the reversal the largest deregulation in American history. They claim it'll make cars cheaper and bring down costs for automakers by $2,400 per vehicle. My partner on First Fridays is CEO and President of the Michigan League of Conservation Voters. And, Lisa Wozniak. I can't imagine you expected this.
Lisa Wozniak: Well, David, I actually wish that were true. But unfortunately, I did expect this because the administration has put a target on everything and anything connected to addressing the climate crisis. And that's one of the reasons for our conversation today: to further explore the real and potential ramifications of the decision to reverse this incredibly important ruling. Our guest this month is Andy Hoffman. And Andy is the Holcim Professor of Sustainable Enterprise at the University of Michigan. Because this is a joint appointment between the School for Environment and Sustainability and the Stephen M. Ross School of Business, he is very well-positioned to discuss the broad implications of reversing this endangerment finding. So, Andy, thank you so much for taking the time today!
Andy Hoffman: It's my pleasure!
David Fair: Why was the endangerment, Andy, finding so important for federal climate policy?
Andy Hoffman: Well, I mean, it gave the government the right to treat carbon dioxide as a pollutant and, therefore, set regulations to control it, and it has tremendous importance for certain industries: the auto sector, the energy sector. The future of those areas of the economy depend on adapting to an evolving future, I mean, certainly in mobility. We can reduce the standards on auto emissions, but the rest of the world is going electric. And even the CEO of Ford has said that Ford could become much more of a regional player than a global player, and we should all be concerned about that.
David Fair: They're not required to follow this direction from the EPA. They can take this upon themselves and move electric anyway, right?
Andy Hoffman: Yes, they can. But. for example, the subsidy for buying electric vehicles helps support the market in this country for people to buy them, and that's what these companies need is to work in tandem, work in cooperation, with the government to develop the next generation of technologies. And right now, that is not happening, and I don't think this is good for the domestic auto sector.
Lisa Wozniak: Do you have a couple of other tangible examples of the endangerment finding's benefit or frankly the reversal? What other sectors are going to be impacted by this?
Andy Hoffman: Well, I mean, certainly the energy sector, not just the endangerment finding, but the apparent open hostility that the Trump Administration has to renewable energy in trying to block wind permits. This is, again, the future technology. Coal is not the future of technology. I can understand him wanting to support coal workers who are being put out of work as coal-fired power plants shut down. But the next generation of technology is not coal. And if we're going to compete, again, on the global scene, we need to develop these technologies here. And instead, countries like China have worked very closely between government and business to develop a very vibrant solar sector, and we're going to be buying the solar arrays from themm and we shouldn't be doing that. We should develop the technologies ourselves.
David Fair: This is 89.1 WEMU's First Friday Focus on the Environment. Our guest this month is Andy Hoffman. He is Holcim Professor of Sustainable Enterprise at the University of Michigan. My content partner is President of the Michigan League of Conservation Voters, Lisa Wozniak.
Lisa Wozniak: So, Andy, what does reversal of the endangerment finding say about the role of science in environmental policymaking in this country?
Andy Hoffman: Well, I mean, certainly, we're in a strange period where people are suspicious of science. Certainly, the COVID crisis and the extent to which people are forced to get vaccines and caused a lot of people to really resent science-driven policy, the idea that we're not going to use science to set policy on what is an existential threat. I mean, climate change does threaten our place on Earth. There's something we should add to this conversation, and that is insurance. So, you can say that climate change is not happening--the greatest hoax on Earth. You don't trust scientists, but do you trust the insurance sector? Insurance companies are looking and saying, "Look." The number and severity of extreme weather events is going up. Our payouts are going up. Not only that, they're uncertain. They go up and down. That's what makes insurance companies very uncomfortable. They can't predict it. The past is no longer prologue. And so, how do we price our instruments? And so, what you're seeing is insurance companies raising the rates, lowering their deductibles, sometimes pulling out of markets, creating exclusions. And this is driven by climate change. It's driven by increasing cost of construction, building more assets in harm's way. These all sort of create the perfect storm for a risk crisis, which is what we are starting to develop in this country. If anyone's watching their property insurance, it's becoming much more expensive to get, certainly in places like Florida, where some insurance companies have pulled out. The state insurance option has had to step in. And when the government steps in and when the private sector pulls out, it's almost guaranteed to lose money. And how long will the taxpayers support that? And what's really interesting about this to me, it's not caused by the big sensational events, like the wildfires and the hurricanes and things we see. It's actually something called secondary perils. It's the normal everyday events that have now become abnormally extreme. So, we've always had rain events, but now we have atmospheric rivers that can cause massive deluges of water that cause flash flooding problems. We have heat events that buckle metal roofs or make airport runways too soft to land on or buckle highways. We have hailstorm events. And that, to me, is a vivid example of the extent to which the environment is changing around us. And so, you don't believe in scientists? What about insurance?
Lisa Wozniak: Andy, supporters of this repeal argue that it's going to reduce costs for consumers and industry. Given what you've just shared with us, is this in line with what you see in your work at the Business School? Does the business world really want to cut all regulations that are meant to protect this planet?
Andy Hoffman: It's a very short-term solution. Maybe they'll make some money in the short- term by selling cars that don't have the same emission standards, but for the long-term, this isn't good for the sector, and we should be thinking more long- term. I can't believe that. And then GM and Ford and Stellantis, they're not fully pulling out of the electric market, but they took massive write-downs to write off assets that were devoted to batteries and to electric drive trains. And so, that's a cost. That's a loss. The stocks didn't take a major hit for it, but it does represent a withdrawal from where the rest of the world is going. And this is what your concern is, particularly in the Southeast Michigan area.
David Fair: It's part of your job to look to the longer term, and as you do, they always say follow the money. The academic world is a big part of determining how we adapt to this changing climate in concert with industry and with government and looking at it from a global perspective. Do you anticipate further withdrawal of research funding and climate issues and our ability to move forward with adaptation?
Andy Hoffman: Well, certainly, there's a reduction in research money from the federal government. States are stepping in. Foundations are still supporting money. But there is a chilling of research in these areas, which, again, is not in our best interests. Where is the world going? Where is the market going? We should be part of that. And it does raise interesting questions about the ideology we have in this country is that the government should totally stay out of the market, let the market do this thing. Yet, how do you do that when you're competing against China, Inc. or South Korea, Inc. or Germany, Inc.? These countries have worked with their industries to make them competitive on the global scene. And I just don't think a policy of "let the market work it out" when you are dealing with a global market environment that very much has government involvement. How do they compete? How does GM and Ford compete without cooperation, without collaboration with the federal government? I don't know.
Lisa Wozniak: So, where do we go from here? What avenues might states and cities, or the private sector, pursue in response to this repeal?
Andy Hoffman: Well, certainly, as David said, the auto companies, I don't think they'll fully pull out of this sector. You started to see some overtures towards partnerships with Chinese companies, which is quite interesting. I read something that really surprised me, that the CEO of Ford is really fascinated with Chinese electrics and actually had one delivered for his private use. So, they're not clueless on what's going on, but are we going to require collaboration with other competitors in order to stay in the market? Again, where's American ingenuity? Where's American innovation? That's what we need to really should try and focus on. And while the endangerment finding was one way, there are others as well. And so, I'm not totally giving up, but I don't think this is helpful. I'd like to see insurance companies are collaborating more with government to set building standards, to set zoning requirements. Should you be able to build in environments that are going to be hit with hurricanes? Coastal property, things like that in Florida. What are the building standards to absorb stormblow. How does insurance companies work with government to make sure that the payouts aren't going up that that we can build in a way that it manages the risk that insurance companies are facing?
David Fair: Well, Andy, I thank you so much for the time, the perspective, and your insights!
Andy Hoffman: It was my pleasure! This is a very important topic, not just environmentally, but economically. And that's the angle I take on this. So, you can say climate change isn't real, but insurance companies are going to beg to differ.
David Fair: That is Andy Hoffman. He is Holcim Professor of Sustainable Enterprise at the University of Michigan because that is a joint appointment to the School for Environmental Sustainability and the Stephen M. Ross School of Business. Lisa Wozniak is CEO and President of the Michigan League of Conservation Voters and joins us for First Friday Focus on the Environment on the first Friday of every month. And we'll see you Friday, April 3rd!
Lisa Wozniak: See you next month, David!
David Fair: I'm David Fair, and this is your community NPR station, 89.1 WEMU Ypsilanti.
Non-commercial, fact based reporting is made possible by your financial support. Make your donation to WEMU today to keep your community NPR station thriving.
Like 89.1 WEMU on Facebook and follow us on X (Twitter)
Contact WEMU News at 734.487.3363 or email us at studio@wemu.org
