The climate change has been a long-standing issue not only for the environmentalists but also for global authorities and governments, as well as major global corporations. The negotiations on the protection of the environment, reduction of harmful emissions and dealing with greenhouse have been conducted numerous times over the past decades; however, the previous talks were held with varying degrees of success. Often, high hopes before talks were later turning into vast disappointment at the failure to reach an agreement on key topics. However, the latest climate conference in Paris, held on 5 th of December, 2015, might become a proof that an agreement can, in fact, be achieved. The draft of the agreement, as posted on the official website of the UN organization, emphasizes the need to reduce global carbon emissions and limit the global warming, as the negotiators from 195 countries, agreed to sign the document ( Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action, Draft Paris Outcome , p. 1-48). Greg Botelho (2015), the CNN reporter claims that this step, although inconclusive, maybe a significant achievement in multinational efforts for keeping climate changes at bay (para. 1). While the outcomes of these negotiations may look promising, the so-called issue of the corporations “going green” is still an acute topic, and this problem still awaits its solution. On one level, various corporations, who are willing to maintain their reputation are already acting responsibly, struggling to decrease the environmental impact and enhance their performance in compliance with the ecological regulations. Still, besides the existence of their counterparts, the companies, which deny or even challenge the negative influence on the environment caused by their activities (Revkin 2009, para. 1-20), another type of business behaviour has been developed recently. The researcher Sharon Beder (2002) mentions them in her article on environmentalism and corporate reputations: “A company that is undertaking environmental measures in order to distract attention from more socially damaging aspects of its operations is clearly not embarking on the road to social responsibility, but rather engaging in a form of greenwashing” (p. 70). While the first type of irresponsibility can be explained, for example, by inefficient company politics on accountability, or by being misinformed about the environmental impact, the other type of corporations may, in fact, pose a greater danger because of their actual malpractice that does not lead to long-term environmental sustainability. In a key concept overview, “Managing in the Multicultural World of Energy” published by the University of Liverpool (2015), an approach for resolving the trouble with energy efficiency and reduction of emissions for various types of supply chains is proposed (p. 10), however, it remains a great press of work for the environmental protection organizations and ecologists to adopt such strategies and propose individual solutions to all companies willing to participate in the environmental movement. While the lack of substantial penalties for violation of environmental regulations encourages the corporations not to take seriously even s