The verdict of the boardroom on the Government's emissions trading scheme is a big thumbs-down.
An emphatic 853 per cent of respondents say the Government has not got its policy settings on climate change right. Only seven per cent think it has.
Nearly three-quarters believe the Government will miscalculate the liabilities involved.
Half say they are not supportive of the emissions trading scheme (ETS), while 29 per cent are supportive.
Just over half - 54 per cent - think a "safety valve" for carbon prices should be built into the scheme.
The draft Australian scheme has a price cap, though Canberra has yet to name a price. Critics of that approach argue that you can cap volumes or cap prices but not both, and that a price cap would turn the scheme into an administratively costly carbon tax.
Some respondents explicitly favour a carbon tax - set low - instead of a trading scheme.
Several express the view that New Zealand should not be "leading the world".
That perception overlooks a little place called Europe, which has had an ETS for nearly four years and which is on track to meet its Kyoto target, where New Zealand will overshoot its target by around 25 per cent.
The world-leading idea may refer to plans to include agricultural emissions in the scheme - though not until 2013 and very largely offset by free allocations of credits then. To include agriculture, in the words of one respondent, is "dumb".
Another highlights the social and economic costs if heavy industries like steel, pulp and paper, cement and aluminium are forced to close.
But a third points to the risks to the national "clean, green" brand of being a laggard in this area, and suggests that the best response to threats to pull out of the country by a large industrial emitters would be to call their bluff and "give others cheap energy if they walk".
A majority - 56 per cent - of respondents oppose the target of deriving 90 per cent of electricity from renewable sources.
Several cited the paramount importance of reliability or security of supply, others the potential cost.
"Energy is a key cost to our internationally exposed businesses and such a target may result in New Zealand businesses facing high energy costs compared to our competitors," said Fonterra chief executive Andrew Ferrier.
"Non-renewable energy, for example coal, will be exported in any event, making the target irrelevant, other than to cut our own throats."
His company had adopted energy efficient technologies resulting in electricity savings equivalent to a third of what a city the size of Hamilton consumes.
A majority, 51 per cent, believed climate change policies would deliver economic opportunities to their own businesses.
These include trading carbon credits and assisting customers to adjust to a carbon-constrained world.