"Engie" is currently the first independent power producer and the sixth electricity supplier in Europe. Furthermore, being the third European natural gas seller, "Engie" has the second largest transport network in Europe. In liquefied natural gas (LNG) sector the company ranks the first importer and the second operator of LNG terminals in Europe. "Engie" operates in close to 70 countries on 5 continents, employing around 153 thousand people worldwide with achieved revenues of 74,7 billion euros in 2014.

In 2015, the company got rebranded from "GDF Suez” to "Engie”. According to the company's statement, new name comes as a natural step in their international rebranding process, which unfolds under the slogan "The world is changing and with it, our energy”. Basically, rebranding is considered as a part of an energy three-year transition plan of the company which aims to increase the share of low CO2 activities in the company's EBITDA up to 90% by 2018.

The main steps of "Engie" energy transition were enumerated by the company in its commitment announced before the Paris Climate Conference. It included:

· reducing by 10% the rate of the CO2 emissions per kWh of the company's power generation portfolio worldwide in 2020 compared to 2012;

· refusing to launch new coal power generation projects (unless already legally committed);

· reducing by 40% in 2020 compared to 2008 the energy consumed in its buildings in France and Belgium;

· doubling its renewable generation capacity by 2025 in Europe.

Analyzing the company's activity in renewable energy it is possible to highlight various projects in solar and wind power. According to the company's website, nowadays almost 17% of its overall energy-generating capacity are represented by renewable sources.

In 2013 the company has won the tender on Tarfaya wind farm construction in Morocco. The project not only allowed strengthening French position as a leading economic partner of the Kingdom of Morocco but also after its completion in 2014 has become Africa's largest wind farm, comprising 131 wind turbines spread over 8,9 thousand hectares. The project will generate enough carbon-free electricity for 1.5 million homes. Nevertheless, the French companies are not going to limit themselves with only wind power. According to the interview of Charles Fries, French Ambassador in Rabat: "Our companies are already well represented in the wind power space, now we want to get more involved in the Moroccan solar projects”. Ventures Africa, France shows interest In Moroccan solar energy projects, 2013

In 2015 "Engie" acquired a 95% stake in "Solairedirect" - French company considered to be the pioneer in solar industry in the country. Founded in 2006 the company is engaged in the development, construction, operation, maintenance and investment in utility-scale parks. "Solairedirect" developed 57 farms in 15 countries, generating a total capacity of 486 MW. According to Bloomberg data report, the cost of the deal accounted to 222 million dollars for "Engie”. This acquisition made "Engie" a French leader in solar power and allowed to become a preferred bidder by the South African Department of Energy for the CSP (Concentrated Solar Power) Kathu Solar Park project. This project will require 645 million euros of investments and about 28 months of construction before its first commissioning.

In the nearest future "Engie" is also going to get involved in marine energies. In 2017 the company previews the launch of Raz Blanchard tidal project which will include 4 tidal stations with a total capacity 5,6 MW and will become a great step for France in the country's attempts to increase the share of renewable in total energy production.

Despite the diversity of its "green" energy projects and its rapid development of this business stream "Engie" is often affected by environmental criticism. It is proved by the company's official reports: according to its 2014 Environmental report "Engie" got seven times more environment-related claims in 2014 in comparison to 2013 (478 and 66 correspondingly) "Engie”, Environmental Reporting, 2014 .

For instance, "Engie" is accused in greenwashing. According to a study by Corporate Accountability International, an environmental group, "Engie" and French electricity monopolist "Électricité de France” ("EDF”) collectively own 44 coal-fired power plants worldwide and produce more than 190 megatonnes of CO2 emissions a year which is a rough equivalent to all that produced by Belgium. "The Greenwash Guerillas" activists organization, furthermore, state that due to its 30 coal power plants "Engie" is responsible for CO2 emissions equal to half of France's annual carbon output. Moreover, the company is criticized for lobbying for shale gas, public subsidies for LNG terminals and pipelines, and against a strong public support for renewables - spending 2.5 million euros on EU lobbying in 2014.

The company annually reports on its emissions to Carbon Disclosure Project, which published a Global-500 Climate change report in 2013. In this report "Engie" by its CO2 emissions ranks one of the five largest utilities emitters worldwide (see p.56, Appendix, Graph 4). The company's CO2 emissions grew since 2009 to 2012 with a slight decrease in 2013. However, experts consider that this drop was caused by decline in electricity production in 2013 Mirat J., Emissions de CO2: EDF et GDF Suez améliorent leur facteur carbone, 2014. In other words, it was not affected by transmission to low carbon industries or other environmentally positive activities. In its 2015 integrated report the company stated a little increase of an average rate of CO2 emissions in 2014 in comparison to 2013 (2%) and a goal to decrease this rate by 10% in comparison to 2012.

The company's participation in Paris Climate Conference also caused many disputes among eco-activists and non-government organizations. Many of them indicted "Engie" in using the conference as a greenwashing event and a marketing opportunity for the company. For instance, Pascoe Sabido, researcher and campaigner with Corporate Europe Observatory declared: "We cannot negotiate a climate agreement with those who are responsible for climate change: states must listen to citizens' interests and not the private interests of lobbies and multinationals”.

As for the research of the group's emissions reports, "Observatoire des multinationals” published a report where the organization estimated carbon emissions data transparency of the main corporate sponsors of the Conference Observatoire des multinationals, COP 21: Can transnational companies save the climate?, 2015. According to their report, "Engie" has medium-level emissions transparency (not enough to meet the criteria for the ideal profile) and failed accounting of emissions across the value chain. They also accused "Engie" in current investments up to 6-7 billion euros a year in oil and gas exploration (up to 70% of the 74 billion euros firm's energy output comes from natural gas and coal).

Like "Total”, "Engie" won a "Pinocchio Award" 2015 in "Greenwashing” nomination. Apart from statements listed above the organizers of the award also accused the company in overestimating its renewables share in energy portfolio. If the large hydro electrical dams making harm to the environment are excluded from 17% share declared by the company, renewables will account for only 4% of "Engie" energy production. Thus, even projects declared as "green" by the company, for instance, large dams in the Amazon, in reality have huge negative impacts on the environment.

According to a recent study by Oxford University, Engie also runs the most inefficient fleet of coal power plants in the world (after two small Indian companies), with the highest negative impacts in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution and water resources depletion Caldecott B., Dericks G., Mitchell J., Stranded assets and subcritical coal: the risk to companies and investors, 2015. The "Pinocchio award" organizers emphasized the fact that despite the company's announcement to partially phase-out from its coal business (e. g. not to launch new coal projects), "Engie" is not going to close existing plants but intends to sell its assets in Asia and Australia.

Future projects of "Engie" also faced opposition by various international NGOs during the Paris Climate Conference. For instance, "Rivers without boundaries” environmental organization together with "Greenpeace Russia” have prepared an appeal "Save the Lake Baikal” and presented it on the Paris Summit.

Their announcement states that the hydropower project Egiin Gol in Mongolia previewed by "Engie" and going to be realized in Selenga River Delta will have huge negative influence on the Lake Baikal, the World Heritage site holding 20% of the world's unfrozen freshwater resources. Pretending to "curb the carbon emission” through realization of similar projects, the company therefore continues to ruin the environment. The project is going to be financed by the World Bank which in April 2016 recognized the necessity to publicly discuss the potential environmental risks of the other hydropower project in Selenga River by Chinese energy company "Gezhouba” which might in future lead to the discussion of the project by "Engie" as well.

To sum it all up, the company's activity in climate change and renewables area is mostly affected by regulation and reputation risks. Yet, a more consistent approach and the serious business reorganization is still required from "Engie" to move to new energies.

2.3 "Areva" case study

France's nuclear industry can be divided into three groups. The first group includes companies involved in the exploration and production of radioactive minerals. The key role in this field is played by "Areva Nuclear Cycle (NC)", former "Cogema” - "Compagnie generate des matieres nucleaires”. Nowadays it is present in more than 30 companies, employing around 19 000 people worldwide. The uranium reserves of "Areva NC” are located in Niger, Australia, Canada and Kazakhstan.

The second group of companies is engaged in the production of enriched uranium and the reprocessing of radioactive materials. The interests of the society "Eurodif" dominate in this sector. It also operates uranium enrichment plant established at the Tricastin Nuclear Power Center in southeastern France.

The third part is actually composed of nuclear power plants, the construction of which is the prerogative of the French company "Areva" - multinational group specializing not only in nuclear but also in renewable energy. Both above mentioned companies "Areva NC” and "Euroduf" are the subsidiaries of "Areva”, thus, it is present in each industrial activity linked to nuclear energy: mining, chemistry, enrichment, reprocessing, engineering, etc.

According to the World Nuclear Association "Areva" is the world's largest nuclear company. Founded in 2001 by the merger of "Framatome" (now "Areva NP”), "Cogema” (now "Areva NC”) and "Technicatome” (now "Areva TA”) nowadays the group is present in 43 countries while its workforce totals about 42 thousand employees (67% of them are in France). French public government-funded research organization "CEA" ("Commissariat à l'énergie atomique et aux énergies alternatives” - "Atomic Energy and Alternative Energies Commission”) is the principal "Areva" shareholder owning 68,88% of the group. Together with "CEA" shares, the French State controls 87% of the organization.

By 2014 "Areva" has built around 100 nuclear reactors in France, Germany, Switzerland and China. Furthermore, it provides various services to 57% of all world reactors. International projects of the group usually presume large-scale construction processes or other services. In 2007 "Areva" has signed at that time the largest nuclear energy contract with China on construction of two new generation EPRs (European Pressurized Reactors) in Guangdong province.

However, the 2014 financial results of the company were not positive: the financial loss increased ten times than that of 2013, which substantially exceeded "Areva" market capitalization.

In March 2015 "Areva" presented its plan on increase the company's competitiveness which is mainly focused on deep reorganization and merger with "Electicité de France” ("EDF”) - the largest French electricity provider and "Areva" major client. The first steps in this direction have already been done: in January 2016 the price of the majority stake (at least 51%) of "Areva NP” (the company's reactor unit) was finalized and the transaction is going to be completed in 2017 World Nuclear News, Areva looks to finalize reactor business sale, 2016.

The leading French energy company "Electicité de France” was founded in 1946 as a result of the nationalization of around 1,700 smaller energy producers. The concern benefited from monopoly in electricity generation till 1999 when "EDF" was forced by a European Directive to open up 20% of its business to competitors. Nowadays "EDF" has 93% share in the generating power market and ranks the first in Europe in electricity production. Being presented in 26 countries the company employs approximately 160 thousand people around the globe and supplies around 38 million end users with electricity. In 2005 "EDF" was partially privatized, though 85% ownership was still retained by the French Government. From 40 to 50% of "EDF" trade turnover accounts for non-French activities, which means that the group is distinctly visible in the world market and participates in international projects.

Among the activities of "Areva" in renewable energy it is possible to highlight four major segments: offshore wind, bioenergy, concentrated solar power and energy storage. These four streams are integrated in "Areva Renewable Energies Business Group”.

In wind power, "Areva" is acting through 50/50 joint venture called "Adwen" which was created in 2015 partnership with Gamesa, a Spanish manufacturing company principally involved in the fabrication of wind turbines and the construction of wind farms. The joint-venture is responsible for the design, manufacturing, installation, commissioning and services of offshore wind turbines and nowadays it has several projects in France and Germany. Before "Adwen" "Areva" was conducting several wind power projects itself: the company installed 126 wind turbines by the end of 2014.

"Areva Solar" designs, manufactures, installs and operates solar steam generators for customers around the world. According to the official website, this stream of renewable energy was created in the company's portfolio to help "Areva" customers to reduce their emissions profile providing a sustainable renewable energy solution. "Areva Solar" has operations and offices in the western United States, Australia, India, South Africa, Saudi Arabia and France and in total accounts for 300 MWe of CSP (Concentrated Solar Power) facilities in operation, under construction or in an advanced stage of development.

As for the bioenergy segment of "Areva Renewables”, in total 95 biomass power plants were built in 38 years by "Areva" representing an installed base of 2.5 GW which makes the company the market leader in this area. It has various projects in Europe (mainly in France), Brazil and Asia and its operations cover the design, construction, installation and commissioning of carbon-neutral biomass power plants.

Finally, the group is engaged in energy storage projects. It designs, manufactures and industrializes turnkey energy storage solutions and products to generate electricity with fuel cells and produce hydrogen by electrolysis.

As it was noted above, the company's financial results were not positive in in the last years. Over the past four years the cumulative loss of "Areva" reached 8 billion euros which is an equivalent to its annual turnover, and a debt load accounted for 6 billion euros. According to financial experts, the company will not survive the year in its current form. Schneider M., Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (US): The experts on nuclear power and climate change, 2015

Such financial results are connected primarily with diminishing trend of tenders won by the organization as well as several unprofitable construction projects. One of such project is presented by ERP (Evolutionary Power Reaction) construction in Finland, which started 10 years ago and had to be generating carbon-free electricity by 2009. Furthermore, this project was announced by the company as a part of its greenhouse gas abatement strategy. Now, the plant is rescheduled to produce power in late 2018.

Despite the complications construction "Areva" used ERP projects as an example to prove that the nuclear energy as a low-carbon source of energy should necessarily be a part of the solution to meet the challenge of increasing energy demand while tackling climate change. Moreover, in the company's commitment for the Paris Conference, "Areva" announced that the group's aim is to provide access to cleaner, safer and more economical energy to as many people as possible. To achieve this goal, "Areva" is going to reduce by 80% its energy consumption and by 50% its CO2 emissions in 2020 compared to 2004.

However, perceiving nuclear energy as an answer to combatting climate change is not supported by numerous environmental groups, ecologists and activists. They claim that nuclear energy cannot be a low-carbon alternative of fossil fuels, because in case of accident it is much more dangerous and harmful for the environment. Furthermore, ERPs referred by "Areva”, are also considered by many analysts as a nuclear problem, rather than a climate change and energy solution. No EPR has been fully constructed and commissioned for operation anywhere in the world yet. The main problems connected with ERP are related with poor quality control and safety issues. Although there are four EPRs in different stages of construction, two of them are already facing serious problems. "Areva" sold the first EPR to Finland and plant construction started in 2005. Several construction and design problems have not only delayed the start-up of this plant to the second half of 2013, but also raised costs up to 50%. Thus, ERP-projects are often named as the main reason of several years of the group's negative financial results.

Despite these drawbacks "Areva" intends to enlarge its ERP projects in the world. The most recent example probably considers Indian Jaitapur nuclear power plant. In January 2016, French president Francois Hollande and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi signed a memorandum of understanding to cooperate on the construction of the Jaitapur plant. They have agreed to speed up the discussions in 2016 so that to start implementation of the project in early 2017. Jaitapur is going to become the biggest nuclear power station in the world which will be spread over 968 hectares of land and would wipe out five villages. However, as experts from Greenpeace state, Jaitapur is not only built on the coastline (high-risk earthquake area) but also has a design with apparent weaknesses that make it vulnerable to the same problems that caused the Fukushima accident Greenpeace, Jaitapur nuclear project in India: the next Fukushima?, 2011 .

As for the carbon dioxide emissions the company produces, "Areva" is on the track to its long-term goals. In its "Reference Document” "Areva”, Reference document, 2015 the company stated a 66% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, a 89% reduction in energy consumption as well as a 91% reduction in water consumption and a 48% reduction in unrecycled waste in 2014 in comparison with its 2004 indicators. However, in 2015 the company exceeded its 2014 CO2 emissions by three thousands of metric tons of CO2 (reaching 70 thousands in 2014).

Nuclear energy greenhouse gases emissions are in reality much lower than those of coal and fossil fuels as natural gas (see p.57, Appendix, Graph 5). Nevertheless it cannot be the solution to climate change problem. The disruptions like the ones in Fukushima or Chernobyl released enormous amounts of radiation into the surrounding communities, forcing hundreds of thousands of people to evacuate. Furthermore, many researchers state that current CO2 emissions by nuclear energy do not take into account Uranium ores processing. It means that in the future the more poor ores will have to be processed due to the limited Uranium reserves. Thus, between the years 2050 (if additional nuclear power stations are built) and 2075 (no additional nuclear reactors) the CO2 emissions of electricity from atomic energy might become even higher than electricity produced by a gas burning plant. Storm van Leeuwen J. W., Nuclear power, energy security and CO2 emission, 2012

Due to that issue, "Areva" won a Pinocchio Award in 2008. The organizers of the award criticized the company for its slogan "Our energies are the energies of the future, the future without CO2" proving that nuclear energy will emit more carbon dioxide than gas burning method. In 2013, "Areva" again became a winner in the same "greenwashing” nomination for "abusive and misleading communication campaigns when compared to their actual activities'. This statement mainly regarded the company's project "Urêka" - an amusement park and a museum of Uranium opened by "Areva" in Limousin region, where the uranium mine was situated and nuclear waste is disposed. The museum glorified the French nuclear history and technological progress, however, it did not demonstrate the impacts of nuclear industry on environment and people's health. In 2008, the company also won "Pinocchio Award" for Uranium-containing waste liquid spills at Tricastin nuclear site.

One more issue in nuclear energy criticized by ecologists and activists regards the question of nuclear waste disposal. The problem of nuclear waste is still not solved from the engineering side. The only existing solution presumes nuclear waste disposal underground. However, the following situation with the waste must be observed and monitored for several hundred years and no guarantees can be made that this monitoring will "work”.

"Areva" was transporting nuclear waste from 2006 to 2010 to Russia. According to Greenpeace experts, during these years "Areva" transported 32 thousands of tons of nuclear waste for recycling to Russia but only three of them were then returned back to France. In 2010 the activists even blocked the train with nuclear waste from France not letting it go to Russia. The same year "Areva" stopped the exportation of Uranium to Russia "because of controversies caused by commercial conditions”.

One more topical issue for the French nuclear industry is connected Fessenheim - the oldest nuclear power plant in France.commissioned in 1977 (the same year as Fukushima) and operated by "EDF" the plant, which is build in a dangerous seismic zone in Haut-Rhin region, accounted for several incidents and accidents since 2004.

In 2010 French Nuclear Safety Authority "ASN" ("Autorité de sûreté nucléaire”) conducted 800 inspections on existing nuclear plants and 12 of them were held at Fessenheim nuclear plant. According to the results of the inspections, it was decided to extend by 10 years the period of the first reactor operations. According to "ASN" it was concluded that the oldest operating nuclear power plant in France will be suitable for use for 10 years, if all the regulations are carried out properly.

After the Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011 France experienced huge anti-nuclear protests demanding reactors to be closed. Demands were focused in Fessenheim. Finally, the acting president of the country promised to close the station by 2016, however, no specific actions were undertaken yet. In 2014, Greenpeace activists used a truck to break through security barriers and enter the Fessenheim nuclear in eastern France. They hung antinuclear banners and proved poor safety on the plant. "ASN" in turn, claimed that the plant's security had not been compromised.

In March 2016 the French Minister of Energy Segolene Royal announced that the closing process will start this year. She added, that currently the plant employs 2000 people so the site could eventually be converted for renewable energy Nicholson N., Fessenheim will be closed well this year, 2016. The plant closure as well as negative financial results by "Areva" for the recent years allow some experts to assume the decline of the nuclear energy role for France Bouguereau, Areva chute, Fessenheim ferme: notre système nucléaire est un boulet. Tournons la page, 2015.

To conclude, it is necessary to mention that although nuclear energy has always been positioned as a low-carbon power source, in case of a disaster the consequences can be much worse than those caused by burning fossil fuels. Furthermore, "Areva" example clearly demonstrates, that modern nuclear power plants cannot yet be built on time and on budget which in accordance with safety risks and nuclear waste problems may derive other countries energy transformation policies in favor of renewables.

3. Climate change adaptation strategies for international energy companies

As it was proved in two previous chapters of theoretical and analytical research energy companies are trying to mitigate various types of risks to minimize climate change influence on their business activity. They implement various PR & marketing strategies and purchase renewable energy subsidiaries, publish sustainability reports and transmission policies. At the same time, they still conduct business-as-usual model, which provokes a lot of criticism from environmental organizations and activists. They stay the world's main contributors to CO2 emissions and fossil fuels like oil and gas and nuclear energy remain the core parts of their business models.

In other words, the current business model of energy sector companies requires real transformation to adapt to climate change and become the solution of the problem. However, they face certain impediments for such transformation, which will be revealed in the following subchapter.

3.1 Impediments to transformation for energy sector companies

Probably the most crucial obstacle for the companies is connected with costs.

Adapting to climate change brings costs, although over time these costs will be dwarfed by the cost of loss and damages. The companies should invest in renewable energies, refuse to launch CO2 intensive projects and to use their current reserves of fossil fuels. According to Mark Carney, the governor of the Bank of England, fossil fuel companies cannot burn all their reserves if we expect to keep below the 2 degree threshold, as it is presumed by the Paris Climate Agreement. Some researchers state that around two-thirds of known fossil fuel reserves to be left in the ground, which raises the prospect of `stranded assets' as investors revalue resource stocks that can never be realized. Carbon Tracker Initiative, Unburnable Carbon: Are the World's Financial Markets Carrying a Carbon Bubble, 2012.

IPCC estimates the cost of adapting to an approximately 2°C warmer world by 2050 at 70-100 billion dollars a year. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Adaptation Gap Report found that previous cost assessments were likely to be an underestimate, and estimated costs are likely to be twice that, 150-300 billion dollars a year through 2030, and potentially triple or quadruple that amount beyond 2050.

The second major barrier for adaptation and transformation lies in current commitments of energy companies. Nowadays "green" energies power generation capabilities of the major international energy companies are not sufficient to meet the existing commitments. Apart from climate change mitigation they should provide the security of energy supply which is impossible without current facilities and infrastructure for fossil fuels.

On the other side, the negative consequences of climate change may also lead to potential disruption in energy supply which clearly illustrates the physical risk described in the first chapter.

The third challenge which energy companies face in climate change issue is closely related to the problem perception.

The climate change is perceived as a range of risks that can be minimized by specific actions. But the fact is that long-term risk of climate change is usually not recognized by the businesses so it does not lead to drastic changes in business model and to the transformation.

Many companies and investors see no reason to take long-term climate risks into consideration in short-term investment planning. Adaptation is perceived as a number of specific short-term actions (reactions to occurring various types of risks) whereas deep transformation represents distant benefits. Many adaptation measures require investment now, but the benefits may not be realized until 20 or 30 years out. Thus, for many businesses, especially in energy industry, short-term costs and impacts on cash flows may be more important considerations than long-term benefits. Businesses do not always understand that the adverse impacts of climate change can intensify over time, and the costs to cope with them can increase if no effective adaptation action is taken. Adaptation action usually pays off and estimations show that up to 65% of the increase in the projected losses due to climate change could be averted cost-effectively through adaptation investment. This can be illustrated by the interview of a financial services company CEO who noted: "The long-term risk of climate change activities impacting on business is far greater than any risk from an emissions trading scheme. But that's not the sort of thing that fits into your normal three-year strategic planning project cycle. ” Engel, Enkvist, and Henderson, How companies can adapt to climate change, 2015

3.2 Climate change adaptation strategies for international energy companies

The fundamental part of this strategy is to stop perceiving climate change as a range of risks. Climate change should be grasped as an opportunity to transform and to completely rebuild the business. In other words, adaptation must take place not as a number of reactions to physical or reputational risk but as a deep transformation which includes the transition to "green" energies generation and to reducing CO2 emissions.

One of the major components of such adaptation strategy should be presented by large investments in renewables. As all three cases of analytical research proved, energy enterprises from oil and gas and nuclear sectors takeover "green" energies (substantially solar or wind) power companies and plan further development of these subsidiaries with further infusions. However, the share of "green" energies non-current assets should account for more than existing 5% of the company's total non-current assets to demonstrate the company's serious intentions for transformation. As we see in all three companies analyzed in the previous chapter this share does not exceed 5% in the most optimistic cases.

Investing in renewables has several benefits for the energy sector companies:

· Obviously, as it was mentioned above, energy companies nowadays do not possess enough "green" power generation capabilities to satisfy the existing commitments. So, it becomes impossible for them to switch instantly from fossil fuels to environmentally-friendly energy sources - there is no chance to transform rapidly the whole business. Only enlarging investments in renewable energies subsidiaries the companies will manage to build up these capabilities and to prepare the business for transformation.

This process has already started. The best illustration for this statement would be the rapid growth in the world's solar photovoltaic systems capacities (see p.57, Appendix, Graph 6). Moreover, one of the Bloomberg reports shows that solar and wind will increase their combined share of global generation capacity to 16% from 3% by 2030. The key driver will be utility-scale solar power plants, as well as the vast adoption of rooftop solar arrays in emerging markets lacking modern grid infrastructure. In places like Latin America and India, the lack of infrastructure will actually make rooftop solar a cheaper option for electricity generation.

· Investing in renewables requires costs, however, nowadays these costs have dramatically fallen. Due to the increasing demand and R&D developments in this industry, 2015 accounted for one of the lowest prices for solar panels since 1977 (see p.58, Appendix, Graph 7). The same trend is gradually happening with wind energy. In Europe onshore wind is already the cheapest source of new electricity generation, By 2030, according to energy experts, both onshore wind and utility-scale photovoltaic power plants are going to outcompete not only new fossil plants but also existing thermal plants that have high running costs (see p.58, Appendix, Graph 8). A recent energy cost analysis by investment firm Lazard confirms, that the cost of energy from utility-scale solar and wind farms has become widely competitive with electricity produced from conventional fuels like coal, natural gas, and nuclear, even without subsidies in some markets - with the cost of utility-scale solar falling 80% and wind energy falling 60% in the last five years. The Paris Climate Agreement might also has a positive effect on it, because the more governments move to price carbon, factoring climate change into the cost of fossil fuels, the more competitive clean energy will be.

· Investments in "green" energies will allow energy companies not only to gain market share on this market but also to prepare an "airbag” for the future when the existing reserves of oil and gas are dwindled or become stranded assets.

· Enlarged investments will definitely have a positive effect on the company's reputation because they will become a strong argument against the environmental NGOs and activists critics. However, these investments should demonstrate the company's aspiration to real reorientation and not become one more constituent of the company's greenwashing activity.

Besides, the companies should refuse to launch new C02-intensive projects. As the case studies demonstrated, the first business decisions in this directions are already made, for instance "Engie" stated a refusal to launch new coal power generation projects (unless already legally committed). Additionally, the companies should integrate renewable energies into existing and future energy systems. In some regions, renewable energy electricity systems could become the dominant future energy supply, especially if heating and transport demands are also to be met by electricity.

Furthermore, the energy sector enterprises should renounce new hydrocarbon projects in the Arctic. According to the Greenpeace experts Greenpeace, Arctic offshore hydrocarbon exploration: investment risks, 2011, only the existing projects aimed at oil and gas Arctic exploration by Russian companies account for 30 million tons of ÑÎ2 equivalent annually, which has a huge impact on accelerating climate change consequences. In addition, Arctic hydrocarbon projects will involve environmental (oil spills due to the ruptures of pipelines, biodiversity impact), financial and operational risks for the companies.

Finally, the companies should minimize all the activities that can be interpreted as greenwashing. For instance, the focus on natural gas as "the cleanest fossil fuel” and all the marketing and PR strategies based on this assumption may be criticized by environmental activists and "green" organization for risks that this fossil fuel has. Furthermore, even "non-traditional" energy projects, for example, hydropower should be carefully assessed for their environmental risks. "Engie" Selenga river hydropower project illustrates such an issue: despite its "natural origin” this project will harm the ecosystems of Selenga river and the lake Baikal.

To sum up, there must be consistency in the business activity of the company: even huge investment in renewables and ambitious transition goals might be called greenwashing if, for instance, the parallel Arctic oil exploration is carried out.

climate change energy company

Conclusion

In the course of the research the peculiarities of climate change effects on international energy companies' activities were revealed.

The first chapter of the thesis included the theoretical analysis of the interrelation between international energy companies and climate change issue. It comprised the research of the experts' publications on the topic of climate change risks and allowed to examine how the companies adapt to climate change addressing it as a risk as well as distinguished specific reaction and strategies the companies use to minimize each type of risk induced by climate change. The second subchapter is devoted to climate change institutional and governmental policies and their effect on energy companies activities. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Kyoto Protocol and Paris Climate Change Agreement were reviewed in the relation to international energy companies. Furthermore, the European Union climate change policies and French energy policy major directions were examined in particularly, as they directly address the companies analyzed in the second chapter of the research.

The analytical part can be divided into three case studies each devoted to one international French energy company. Each case study analyzed the company's reactions to climate change risks using qualitative and quantitative analyses. The former incorporated the following parts:

· The company's profile;

· Research on sustainability and energy transition policies & reports: main projects and initiatives of the company in renewables;

· Other environmentally-friendly initiatives (for instance, refusing to launch new coal power generation projects);

· Critics from environmental NGOs and activists.

The latter included the analyses of CO2 emissions dynamics and investments in renewable energies by each company according to the companies' financial reports.

All three cases educed that French energy companies have environmental projects aimed at renewable energies. They also welcomed the Paris Agreement and made own commitments to combat climate change. At the same time, the share of renewables in total companies activities might achieve 5% as a maximum from their core business (oil, gas, nuclear energy). Furthermore, an inconsistent approach in environmental and climate change strategies of the companies was revealed which was proved by critics from environmental NGOs, ecologists, experts and activists.

Finally, the last chapter of the research concluded that current reactions of energy companies are motivated by climate change risks mitigations. Thus, it was devoted to the major impediments for the deep transformation of energy sector companies and suggested the adaptation strategy which would minimize the organizations' critics and allowed to transform the businesses to new realities. Thus, the main barriers for adaptation were divided into:

· Costs which are required for adaptation;

· Commitments which means that energy companies nowadays possess insufficient "green" energies power generation capabilities to fulfil the existing commitments;

· Business-as-usual model caused by perceiving climate change as a risk, usually long-term one.

The solution to these impediments is presented in the second subchapter which summarizes the climate change adaptation strategy for energy sector companies. This strategy is based on increasing investments into renewable energies and their integration to current activities with a consistent approach. The main benefits of the renewable energy investments were analyzed and the forecast in future development of the renewables industry was provided. Furthermore, the strategy suggests to change the perceiving of climate change from a range of risks described in the first chapter to the transformation opportunity.

To summarize the research it is possible to assume that in the nearest future we will observe the deep transformation of global energy industry. The increasing share of solar and wind power, the consequences of the Paris Agreement, the societal growing awareness of climate change problems - these and many other factors will push the energy corporations to change and to transform. These changes might be even unprofitable for companies in short-term period because they require refusals to many CO2-intensive projects and investments in renewable energies development. However, this transformation will allow the companies to survive in the long-run and will probably give us an opportunity to live in a more sustainable world.

References

1. Anderegg R. L., Prall J. W., Harold J., Expert credibility in climate change - Stanford, Stanford University, 2010

2. "Areva”, Annual results for 2015/"Areva" official website, 2016

3. "Areva”, Bioenergy: creating natural value / "Areva" official website, 2014

4. "Areva”, Rapport Annuel / "Areva" official website, 2014

5. "Areva”, Reference document / "Areva" official website, 2015

6. "Areva”, Renewable Energies / "Areva" official website, 2014

7. "Areva”, Responsible development on Areva's mining activities /"Areva" official website, 2014

8. Beder L., BP: Beyond Petroleum? // Battling Big Business: Countering greenwash, infiltration and other forms of corporate bullying / Ed. By Lubbers E, Green Books - Devon, UK, 2002, pp.26-32.

9. Bloomberg, Areva SA Report / Bloomberg publications, 2015

10. Bloomberg, "Engie SA Report” / Bloomberg publications, 2015

11. Bloomberg New Energy Finance, New energy outlook, / Bloomberg publications, 2015

12. Bloomberg, Total SA Report / Bloomberg publications, 2015

13. Bouguereau M., Areva chute, Fessenheim ferme: notre système nucléaire est un boulet. Tournons la page / publication sur L”OBS, 2015

14. BP, Statistical Review of World Energy, / BP - London, 2015

15. Borenstein S., What 95% certainty of warming means to scientists / The Associated Press, 2013

16. Nordhaus T., Shellenberger M., How to make nuclear cheap / Breakthrough Institute - Oakland, 2014

17. Caldecott B., Dericks G., Mitchell J., Stranded assets and subcritical coal: the risk to companies and investors / Oxford University Press, Smith School of enterprise and the environment - University of Oxford, Oxford, 2015

18. Carbon Disclosure Project, Carbon Action: which sectors are ahead of the curve? / CDP official website, 2015

19. Dickinson P., Simpson P., Global Climate Change Report / Carbon Disclosure Project - London, 2015

20. Dickinson P., Simpson P., The 3% solution: driving profits through carbon reduction / Carbon Disclosure Project, 2013

21. Dickinson P., Simpson P., Why companies need emissions reduction targets / Carbon Disclosure Project, 2014

22. Carbon Tracker Initiative, Oil and gas majors: fact sheets / Carbon Tracker Initiative publications, 2014

23. Carbon Tracker Initiative, Unburnable Carbon: Are the World's Financial Markets Carrying a Carbon Bubble? / Carbon Tracker Initiative publications, 2012

24. Frey B., The business case for responsible corporate adaptation // Caring for climate / UN Global Impact, 2015

25. Chazan G., Total warns against oil drilling in Arctic / Financial times news from September 25, 2012

26. Corporate Accountability International, Fuelling the fire: the big polluters bankrolling COP21/Corporate accountability International publications - Boston, 2015

27. "Engie”, Resultats annuels 2015/"Engie" official website, 2016

28. "Engie”, Environmental reporting / "Engie" official website, 2014

29. "Engie”, Rapport d'activite et etats financiers cosolides annuels / "Engie" official website, 2015

30. Hohne N., Gilbert A., Hagemann M., The next step in Europe's climate action: setting targets for 2030/Ecofys, 2013

31. Engel H., Enkvist P. A., Henderson K., How companies can adapt to climate change / McKinsey, 2015

32. European Commission, Adapting infrastructure to climate change / European Commission publications - Brussels, 2013

33. European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council / European Commission publications - Brussels, 2014

34. French Business Climate Pledge / COP21 - Paris, 2015

35. Gallagher L., Political Economy of the Paris Agreement / E3G, European Commission, 2015

36. Gandel S., "Here's What World Leaders Think Is the Greatest Risk for 2016” / Fortune publications, 2016

37. Gigounas G., Gunst A., Webb S., The UNFCCC Paris agreement: impressions from the negotiating table for the energy sector - and 10 key points about what comes next / DLA Piper, 2015

38. Greenpeace, Arctic offshore hydrocarbon exploration: investment risks / Greenpeace Russia, 2011

39. Teske S., Energy [R] evolution. A sustainable world energy outlook / Greenpeace International - Amsterdam, 2015

40. Greenpeace, Jaitapur nuclear project in India: the next Fukushima? / Greenpeace International - Amsterdam, 2010

41. Heede R., Tracing anthropogenic CO2 and methane emissions to fossil fuel and cement producers 1854 - 2010/Climatic Change, vol.122 (1), 2014, pp.229-441

42. Hamilton K, The oil industry and climate change / Climate Change Campaign, Greenpeace International - Amsterdam, 1998

43. Van den Hove S., Le Menestrel M., Bettignies H. C., The oil industry and climate change: strategies and ethical dilemmas / MEDIAN - Spain, 2002, pp 7-9

44. IEA, Energy and Climate Change, World Energy Outlook Special Report / OECD, International Energy Agency - Paris, 2015

45. IEA, Making the energy sector more resilient to climate change / OECD, International Energy Agency - Paris, 2015

46. IEA, Tracking Clean Energy Progress, / OECD, International Energy Agency - Paris, 2015

47. InfluenceMap, Big Oil and the obstruction of Climate Regulations, / InfluenceMap publications, 2015, pp.7-8

48. International Chamber of Commerce, A business perspective on international; climate change policy, / ICC - Paris, 2014

49. International Renewable Energy Agency, Roadmap for a renewable energy future / IRENA - Abu Dhabi, 2016

50. IPCC, Climate Change: Implications for the energy sector / University of Cambridge, Cambridge Institute for Sustainable Leadership - Cambridge, 2013

51. IPCC, Renewable energy sources and climate change mitigation: summary for policy makers and technical summary / University of Cambridge, Cambridge Institute for Sustainable Leadership - Cambridge, 2012

52. Jermier J.M., Forbes L.C., Benn S., Orsato R.J., The new corporate environmentalism and green politics // Handbook of organization studies / Ed. by Clegg S.R., Hardy C, Lawrence T.B., SAGE - London, 2006, pp, 618-650

53. Lazard, Levelized cost of energy analysis - version 8.0/Selected Lazard Power, Energy & Infrastructure Credentials, 2014

54. Peyronnet C., Le coup d'envoi est donné pour la loi de transition énergétique / publication sur LeMonde de 30 juillet, 2014

55. Lowe P., Three challenges for European energy policies / World Energy Council Conference, 2016

56. Maclean W., BP Goes Greener with 'Beyond Petroleum' Rebrand / Planet Ark, 2000

57. Mirat J., Emissions de CO2: EDF et GDF Suez améliorent leur facteur carbone, publication sur "L'energeek” de 28 janvier, 2014

58. Cosse E., Fessenheim will be closed well this year / Archy World News Nuclear, 2016

59. NOAA, Climate Change: Global Temperature / NOAA publications, 2015

60. Obesrvatoire des multinationals, COP21: Can transnational companies save the climate? - UK, 2015

61. Oil and Gas Climate Initiative, Joint Collaborative Declaration, 2015

62. OPEC, Annual Statistical Bulletin / OPEC publications - Austria, 2014

63. REN21, Renewables 2015: global status report / REN21 c/o UNEP France, 2015

64. Renewable energy center, France will allocate 10 billion for renewable energy projects, REC news, 2014

65. Rohweder L., Climate change - a business challenge / A business challenge, Helia Discussion - Haaga, 2008, p.2

66. Sandbag, Joint Implementation and the EU Emissions Trading System, / Sandbag official website, 2010

67. Sandbag, The carbon rich list: the companies profiting from emissions trading scheme / Sandbag official website, 2010

68. Schneider M., The experts on nuclear power and climate change / Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (US), 2015

69. Schneider M., Responsibility for private sector adaptation to climate change / Ecology and Society 19 (2): 8, 2014

70. Stern, Review on the Economics of Climate Change / HM Treasury - UK, 2006

71. Storm van Leeuwen J. W., Nuclear power, energy security and CO2 emission // Ceedata consultancy / Commissioned by the World Information Service on Energy (WISE) Amsterdam - The Netherlands, 2012

72. "Sunpower”, Annual Report / "Sunpower” official website, 2014

73. "Total”, A new energy future with solar energy / "Total" official website, 2013

74. "Total”, At a glance: the year in figures and pictures / "Total" official website, 2014

75. "Total”, Biomass meeting the biotechnology challenge / "Total" official website, 2014

76. "Total”, Results and outlook / "Total" official website, 2016

77. "Total”, Sustainable growth report / "Total" official website, 2014

78. The United Nations, Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change / The United Nations, 1998

79. The United Nations, The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change / The United Nations, 1992

80. The United Nations, The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change / The United Nations, 1992

81. The United Nations, Climate Change Secretariat, Summary of GHG Emissions for France / The United Nations, 2012

82. Oluwaseun O., France shows interest In Moroccan solar energy projects / Ventures Africa, 2013