The big idea: Globalisation moves goods, people and waste around the planet — and with them come environmental impacts: shipping and transport emissions, carbon footprints, transboundary pollution and the costs of globalised agribusiness. This micro asks the next question: can those impacts be managed, and are they actually getting smaller?
The hope is decoupling — growing the economy while cutting the environmental damage per unit of output. It is pursued through cleaner technology, the circular economy, international agreements and corporate responsibility (ESG and net-zero pledges).
But every strategy has a catch, so almost every exam question here is a judgement: how far is management really working, and do the environmental costs of growth outweigh the social gains it brings?
The key terms you must be able to use
- Decoupling — breaking the link between economic growth and environmental harm, so output rises while damage per unit falls (relative) or total damage actually falls (absolute).
- Circular economy — designing products to be reused, repaired, remanufactured and recycled so materials flow in loops instead of becoming waste.
- ESG — the environmental, social and governance standards firms and investors use to measure and report responsible behaviour.
- Net-zero — a pledge to balance the greenhouse gases a firm or country emits against the amount it removes, reaching zero net emissions by a target date.
- Technological fix — solving an environmental problem with new technology (clean energy, efficiency, carbon capture) rather than by changing behaviour or growth.
- Environmental Kuznets curve idea — the contested claim that pollution first rises then falls as a country gets richer and can afford to clean up.
- Rebound effect — when efficiency gains are cancelled out because cheaper, cleaner products are simply used more.
| Strategy | How it manages the impact | Example (original wording) |
|---|---|---|
| Clean and efficient technology | Replaces dirty energy and cuts energy/materials per unit of output | Renewable power, electric shipping trials, low-energy LED lighting |
| Circular economy | Keeps materials in use, cutting raw extraction and waste | Electronics take-back and remanufacturing schemes; bottle deposit-return |
| International agreements | Set shared, binding targets so no country gains by polluting | A global climate accord with national emission pledges; an ozone-protection treaty |
| Corporate responsibility (ESG / net-zero) | Firms audit and cut their own supply-chain emissions and waste | A retailer's net-zero supply-chain pledge; ESG reporting to investors |
| Reshoring and local sourcing | Shortens supply chains, cutting transport emissions | A firm bringing manufacturing back nearer its main market |
| Civil-society pressure | Campaigns push firms and states to clean up | Consumer boycotts and shareholder activism on plastics and emissions |
Management is contested, not settled: Every strategy here is double-edged, and that is exactly what the essays test. Clean tech creates e-waste; efficiency triggers the rebound effect; reshoring can just offshore the pollution somewhere else; net-zero pledges can be greenwashing. A top answer names a strategy and its limit, then judges the balance.
Four main strands are used to manage globalisation's environmental impacts: cleaner technology and efficiency, the circular economy, international agreements, and corporate responsibility. You should be able to analyse how these strategies work, naming real treaties, firms and schemes — and to recognise the limit built into each one.
Think of them at different scales: technology and the circular economy act at the firm and product scale; agreements act at the international scale; corporate ESG sits in between, driven by both regulation and consumer pressure.
Technology and efficiency
- Clean energy — switching factories, transport and shipping to renewables and electrification cuts the carbon in every traded good.
- Efficiency gains — using less energy and fewer materials per unit (lighter packaging, low-energy processes) lowers the footprint of production.
- Carbon capture and monitoring — capturing emissions at source and using satellites/sensors to track illegal pollution flows.
- Limit: the rebound effect — cheaper, cleaner goods can be used more — and clean tech itself creates e-waste and demands scarce minerals.
Circular economy and reshoring
- Circular economy — designing products to be reused, repaired, remanufactured and recycled keeps materials in loops and cuts raw extraction.
- Take-back and deposit-return schemes pull old electronics, bottles and packaging back into the supply chain instead of landfill.
- Reshoring / local sourcing — shortening supply chains cuts the transport emissions embedded in long global journeys.
- Limit: recycling is energy-hungry and incomplete, and reshoring can simply move pollution to the new host, not remove it.
International agreements and corporate responsibility: International agreements set shared targets so that no country profits by polluting while others clean up. A global climate accord with national emission pledges, an ozone-protection treaty phasing out harmful chemicals, and conventions controlling hazardous-waste exports all knit states into collective action.
Corporate responsibility works through ESG reporting (firms measuring and disclosing their environmental performance to investors), net-zero pledges on supply-chain emissions, and sector agreements on sourcing and safety. The catch: agreements can be non-binding or unenforced, and corporate pledges can slide into greenwashing with no real cut in impact.
How this is tested — the structured part: Although Paper 3 questions on this micro are dominated by 16-mark evaluations, a structured part asks you to analyse or examine the strategies themselves. It is marked on a /12 markband and rewards named examples (real treaties, firms and schemes), clear use of place and scale, and developed links from each strategy to the impact it manages — and its limit.
IB-style questionAnalyse[12 marks]
Analyse the main strategies used to manage the environmental impacts of globalisation.
Model answer plan
See the mark-by-mark plan — for / against / judgement, with marking guidance — in study mode.
| Actor / agreement | What it does | Strength vs limit |
|---|---|---|
| A global climate accord (national emission pledges) | Each state sets and reports its own emission-reduction target; peer pressure and review tighten them over time. | Near-universal membership, but pledges are largely voluntary and uneven in ambition. |
| An ozone-protection treaty | Phased out the chemicals destroying the ozone layer through binding, scheduled cuts. | A genuine success with measurable recovery — but the problem was narrower than carbon. |
| A hazardous-waste export convention | Restricts shipping toxic and electronic waste from richer to poorer countries. | Curbs the worst dumping, yet illegal e-waste flows still slip through. |
| A global retailer's net-zero supply-chain pledge | Commits the firm and its suppliers to balance emissions to net zero by a target year, audited via ESG reporting. | Drives real supplier change where audited; risks greenwashing where targets are distant and unchecked. |
| An electronics maker's take-back scheme | Collects and remanufactures old devices, feeding a circular flow of materials. | Cuts raw mining and e-waste, but recovery rates stay low and recycling uses energy. |
Know your predicted grade
Take timed mock exams and get detailed feedback on every answer. See exactly where you're losing marks.
Try Mock Exams Free7-day free trial • No card required
Lessening — or just moving?: The strategies sound powerful, but the hard question is whether globalisation's environmental impacts are genuinely shrinking. The evidence cuts both ways.
For lessening: energy and carbon per unit of output are falling in many economies (relative decoupling), clean tech is spreading, and civil-society pressure plus reshoring are cleaning up some supply chains.
Against lessening: total, absolute consumption keeps rising as billions more people join the global middle class; the rebound effect eats efficiency gains; and richer countries often offshore their dirty industries rather than remove the pollution — so the global footprint barely moves. Judging which side wins is the heart of this micro.
Evidence the impacts ARE being managed
- Relative decoupling — many economies now produce more output for less energy and carbon per unit.
- Clean-tech diffusion — renewables, electrification and efficient processes are spreading through global supply chains.
- Successful treaties — the ozone treaty shows binding international action can reverse a global problem.
- Civil society and reshoring — boycotts, ESG pressure and shorter supply chains have cleaned up specific flows.
Evidence the impacts are NOT really lessening
- Rising absolute consumption — total material and energy use keeps climbing as global demand grows, even where per-unit impact falls.
- The rebound effect — cheaper, more efficient goods get used more, cancelling out the saving.
- Offshoring, not removal — rich countries export their dirty production, so emissions move on the map rather than disappear.
- Irreversible feedbacks — some climate and biodiversity damage cannot be undone once tipping points pass, whatever future tech arrives.
The carbon-footprint accounting trap: A wealthy country can report falling territorial emissions while its consumption footprint holds steady — because the goods its citizens buy are now made (and polluted for) abroad. So a national figure can look like success while the global total is unchanged. This is why the strongest essays judge the net global footprint, not just one country's own books.
How this is tested — the discursive structured part: A /12 markband part can ask you to examine or discuss how far the impacts are easing. It rewards weighing the evidence both ways — relative decoupling and clean tech against absolute consumption, rebound and offshoring — with named examples, before reaching a grounded view.
IB-style questionExamine[12 marks]
Examine the evidence that the environmental impacts of globalisation are becoming smaller.
Model answer plan
See the mark-by-mark plan — for / against / judgement, with marking guidance — in study mode.
How this is tested — the [16] essay: Every Paper 3 question on this micro ends in a 16-mark evaluative essay, marked on a /16 markband. The commands are To what extent, Discuss or Evaluate — they demand a genuine, two-sided argument, not a list of strategies.
The top band needs four things: a structured argument (management working vs failing), named contemporary case studies (real treaties, firms, countries), a real counter-argument, and an explicit judgement. Synoptic links lift you into the top band — tie clean-tech and ESG (Unit 4 TNCs) and the social gains of growth (Unit 5 human development) to the environmental costs here in Unit 6.
Framing the argument — managed vs merely moved: The headline asks whether globalisation's environmental impacts are now being successfully managed. Frame it as a balance:
FOR (yes, being managed): relative decoupling, spreading clean technology, the circular economy, working international agreements (the ozone treaty), and corporate net-zero/ESG plus civil-society pressure.
AGAINST (no, not really): rising absolute consumption, the rebound effect, offshoring that just moves pollution, greenwashing, and irreversible feedbacks that no future technology can reverse.
Your judgement should weigh the environmental costs of continued growth against its social gains — and say how far, for whom, and at what scale management is succeeding.
IB-style questionTo what extent[16 marks]
Evaluate the view that the environmental impacts of globalisation are now being successfully managed.
Model answer plan
See the mark-by-mark plan — for / against / judgement, with marking guidance — in study mode.
Judge the net global footprint, not one country: Weak essays celebrate a single country's falling emissions. Strong essays ask whether the global footprint fell or just moved — and weigh the environmental cost against the social gain of growth. Saying management slows the rise but does not yet reverse it, and works best where countries can afford it is the kind of qualified judgement the top band wants.