Yes, but the insinuation here is that these firms introduce environmental regulation for altruistic reasons (i.e. not from other government pressure aside from direct regulation, not from pressure from customers or NGO campaigns, not from resource shortages). Business cannot be relied on to freely regulate themselves. Period. I agree that climate change is a threat multiplier, and the military should focus on reducing their own emissions and pressuring the state to rejoin the Paris agreement and adopt incredibly ambitious mitigation targets. A far more interesting study might look at how private players, over the last few decades, have succeeded in watering down environmental regulation through using motivating tactics such as campaign finance, revolving door, etc. - let's call the U.S. what it is, a legalised plutocracy, and let's harness academia to chart a path to ethical markets.
So you mean to say that it is beneficial for researchers to acquaint themselves with the anteceding factors that private players adopt, to enforce stringent policies concerning effective environmental governance, and how the replication of similar tactics enforced by these private players, can also be used as a frame of reference for other policymakers/actors involved to improve their environmental regulation commitments. On another note, I strongly agree with what the professor had to say in this video regarding the consensus that climate change should not be viewed in light as just an *environmental* problem, rather more of a national security threat encompassing different dimensions of human well-being (social-security, economic prowess, strengthening gender equality, etc)
