The Triple Bottom Line Blog

Another fine post by Joel Makower at his blog Two Steps Forward--this one dealing with the complexities of greeen construction.

You've probably encountered the sound-bite version of the story, which was based on a survey conducted by the World Business Council on Sustainable Development. The sound-bite, which was widely picked up in the mainstream media, said that real estate executives and developers wildly overestimate the costs involved in sustainable construction--and greatly underestimate the benefits.

Interesting and significant in itself. But give Makower credit for digging deeper and uncovering the less-noticed story, which lies in the fact that the chief obstacles to green building lie not in high costs or even in misperceptions by developers but rather in the complex decision-making systems involved in construction planning.

These systems disperse responsibility and create perverse incentives, as individual players in the building game find it easier (and sometimes more profitable) to take traditional paths-of-least-resistance rather than trying new technologies that could save energy, reduce pollutants, and otherwise benefit the environment. Makower quotes Bill Sisson, Director of Sustainability at United Technologies: "It's sad, but in many cases you find the marble in the lobby gets higher preference to a new higher-performing chiller or mechanical system because of who makes the decision, and which one is valued more."

Joel's entire piece is, as usual, well worth reading, especially if you're involved in construction decisions. But it indirectly raises a broader point that applies to anyone pursuing sustainability strategies. Whether you're focusing on environmental issues, community relations, workers' rights, or the entire range of sustainability challenges, you'll almost certainly find yourself interacting with several company departments as well as people and organizations outside your company.

And that means that developing and implementing sustainability strategies will be more challenging than you think--more challenging, certainly, than simply vowing to "do the right thing" or even to "incorporate sustainability concerns into every decision." It also means examining your internal and external systems to understand how choices typically get made. Who makes each decision? What is the context in which decisions are considered? How are options framed? Whose input is routinely considered? How is the "rightness" or "wrongness" of a decision judged, both before and after the fact? Are managers penalized for long-term thinking and rewarded for short-term thinking?

The answers to questions like these will help you figure out whether and how you need to redesign your decision-making processes. That can be a thorny, complicated, and politically-sensitive challenge in itself. But it's also essential. Because unless you get your decision-making systems right, all the good intentions in the world won't carry you very far.

Labels: Green Buildings and Construction, Joel Makower, Management and Organization, WBCSD

One troubling question for today’s global managers is: How far out into the supply chain, and across what range of issues, do our responsibilities extend?

The answer: Further than you might think.

Nike was one of the first companies to realize, after repeated lashings by the media, that it did not hold the power to define its own responsibilities. Activists were turning public opinion against the company, and sooner or later Nike had to respond. That response was perhaps later rather than sooner, both for activists and for the company’s own reputation, but it happened in time for the company to survive – and even to turn the issue in its favor by striving for best-practices in this area.

But while the anti-Nike campaigns relied on boycotts and protests to push for corporate action beyond what was legally required, more recently human rights activists have found a legal basis for their demands. The Alien Tort Claims Act of 1789, originally intended as an anti-piracy measure (the old-fashioned kind of piracy, on the high seas), allows non-citizens to seek legal recourse in the US for violations of international law. Yes, that’s right: anyone, anywhere, can use the US court system to uphold the tenets of international law – tenets often based on norms and precedents, rather than deliberate legislation.

This Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) remained largely forgotten until the 1980s, but since then it has been used against Chevron, Chiquita, Coca-Cola, Exxon-Mobil, Firestone, Shell, Wal-Mart, and others.

Earlier this month, Drummond coal company won the first Alien Tort Claims case to reach a verdict; the company was ruled non-complicit in the killing of three union leaders of a Colombian mine. According to SocialFunds.com writer Bill Baue, however, the key take-away is not the verdict itself; it’s the fact that the case was taken seriously enough to reach a verdict. In other words, it was not dismissed, and the discovered facts rather than the legal basis gave Drummond its recent sigh of relief. Besides, there are appeals in progress.

And as Baue points out, tobacco legislation was defeated time and time again before it finally became a multi-billion-dollar liability for the corporations involved.

Chiquita is an interesting example, as some activists believe the company to be demonstrating best-practices in its transparency – openly admitting it paid “protection” money to different terrorist groups in Colombia. The company has since paid its fines and withdrawn from the country, but the pressure is not off. Less-friendly activists feel that the company’s actions are insufficient, and accuse it further of selling weapons to the terrorist groups involved. On the bright side, what Chiquita did was arguably to protect its workers; other companies stand accused of having their own workers killed.

One such company, Coca Cola, has been stubbornly (and foolishly) refusing to recognize the campaign against it. The company is the target of the “Killer Coke” campaign which was recently sweeping college campuses. Its alleged crime: failing to speak out when Colombian paramilitaries began killing its workers. A Coke spokeswoman says, "We were not complicit in what happened, so it wouldn't make sense for us to pay reparations. "But according to one of its accusers, Edgar Paez, Coke had another kind of complicity: "If the company had condemned the first death, there probably wouldn't have been any more." Managers take note: lawsuits and activist campaigns can be based on just on your company’s actions, but also on inaction.

An earlier example of high-profile corporate inaction is Shell Oil; a 1999 Harvard Business School case study examines whether the company should have acted to protect indigenous-rights leader and respected author Ken Saro-Wiwa, whose death sentence was eventually carried out despite international protest. Shell never took a stance on the issue, claiming it did not want to be involved in foreign politics – but at the same time, some argue that the Nigerian government suppressed activist campaigns in order to maintain a business environment attractive to Shell, and that failing to speak out made the company complicit.

In my own experience, managers dealing with supply-chain issues want to believe that they have all the answers, or can determine them pretty quickly. But these examples show otherwise. They show that:

• Your company can face not only reputational challenges and boycotts, but also legal challenges, based on human rights violations overseas.
  
• These challenges do not necessarily distinguish between your own workers and those of your suppliers – and may even extend to activists engaged in campaigns against your company.
  
• Your company can be accused not only of wrongful actions, but also of wrongful inactions – and of complicity.
  
• New campaigns spring up quickly, and what could never have been on your radar screen last year might make front-page headlines this year.

Remember: don’t learn the hard way. Keep your antennae out, and be aware of any accusations against your company. Think broadly of how blame might be interpreted, and engage early with your accusers. Listen to them, and show yourself open to finding the right solution. Statements and settlements will be less costly, and their goodwill will go further, if you make them early and proactively.

And always remember, just because you think you’re taking care of your supply chain doesn’t mean other important stakeholders agree – and doesn’t mean the press and the public will agree. Keep trying to do the right thing as you interpret it, but also keep your ears open, and be ready to react quickly even to issues you think are bunk. Human rights issues are growing in visibility and in scope, and it would be a shame to tarnish your reputation over them.

NOTE: In this post we originally misspelled the name of the country of Colombia as "Columbia," like the university. Thanks to reader Shoshana Grossman-Crist for showing us the error of our ways.

Labels: Bill Baue, Chiquita, Coca-Cola, Drummond, Human Rights and Child Labor, Nike, Shell Oil, Supply Chain

When I'm asked, during a speech or an interview, to name some companies that are leading or lagging on sustainability, I invariably start talking about global corporations--companies like DuPont, General Electric, Unilever, Citibank, or PepsiCo who are racing to get to the top of the Dow Jones Sustainability Index, or companies like Exxon who appear either to not get it or to not care.

I often forget to mention small business, which is a serious mistake. Small business is the engine that drives economic growth, creates jobs, and provides many people with their initial view of how companies operate. Unless sustainability takes hold in businesses of three, twenty, or one hundred employees, it will not take hold at all.

If you help to run a small business, you need to be thinking about sustainability issues--and especially if one of the following five descriptions applies to you:

1. You provide goods or services to a large business. More and more large companies are “greening their supply chains” by making environmental and/or social performance a condition of sale. Wal-Mart, for example, has just imposed packaging reduction requirements on its 60,000 suppliers, many of whom are small businesses. McDonald’s has a strict supplier code of conduct that encompasses everything from the treatment of animals to the use of pesticides to child labor. You should look at some of the codes and requirements now being applied by big companies to the small firms they do business with; similar requirements may be coming your way in the near future.

2. You can benefit by being seen as part of your local economy. Many consumers are now making a conscious effort to “buy local” as a way of supporting the communities in which they reside. Locally-grown produce has long been considered fresher and of higher quality than food shipped in from parts unknown. Now concern over climate change is making people more aware of the environmental consequences of shipping food and bottled water long distances. Lots of people are shopping at local, independent stores rather than chain outlets because they feel there is more accountability. As a small business manager, you can look for ways to participate in--and benefit from--the buy-local movement.

3. You see a way to increase your profits by helping to solve environmental or social problems. Many companies whose business mission is to help solve environmental or social problems are booming. In my home state of Massachusetts, the clean-tech sector, composed primarily of small businesses, is growing at a strong clip, from solar power to biotech. Small companies like Waltham, MA-based Recycline are making successful businesses out of helping consumers and society reduce waste.

4. You see a way to reduce your costs by being more environmentally or socially conscious. Of course, small busineses, like large ones, can save money and help the planet by reducing waste and by saving water or energy, especially with the cost of fuel and waste disposal rising in many places. And because your business is relatively small and simple (compared to a global giant like GE), identifying and implementing opportunities to "green" your processes is likely to be easier for you than for a Fortune 500 company.

5. You see a way to build your business by linking it to a social or environmental cause. Many consumers like to do business with companies that share their values and are putting their money where their mouth is by supporting causes they believe in. There are all kinds of examples, involving businesses both large and small--for example, The Dancing Deer Bakery in Boston's Roxbury district donates a percentage of profits to local environmental and social causes, especially to helping the homeless.

Small businesses have many built-in advantages in the pursuit of sustainability. There are far fewer internal barriers (read: bureaucracy) to creating triple bottom line initiatives and tracking their progress in a small organization, and spreading the word among managers and employees is also easier when workers are numbered in the teens rather than the thousands.

Finding the time and the resources to get going may be the biggest challenge, but if you start by identifying a solid business case--that is, a clear and compelling argument for the profit-boosting potential of an environmental or social project--the resources can usually be found.

Labels: Dancing Deer, McDonalds, Recycline, Small Business, Supply Chain, Wal-Mart

Here is a not-to-be-missed cover story from the current issue of Fast Company magazine--a profile of Adam Werbach, the former president of the Sierra Club who is now working as a sustainability consultant for one of the world's most powerful (and notorious) companies: Wal-Mart.

Writer Danielle Sacks does a great job of vividly depicting the personal sides of this story--the mixed motivations behind the controversial career move by the complex Werbach; the emotional price he is paying in terms of broken friendships and even veiled threats from former environmentalist friends; and the struggles Werbach is living through as he strives to introduce meaningful change to a huge organization that employs one percent of the American workforce.

She also captures well the important issues raised by the Werbach/Wal-Mart partnership: Is a company famed for its ultra-low prices really serious about getting customers to pay more for green products? Will employees struggling under Wal-Mart's famously tight-fisted labor practices take the company's new commitment to ethical management to heart? How will the "personal sustainability projects" Werbach's team is introducing at individual stores translate in corporate-wide change--or will it?

If you're at all interested in the real-world pressures and conflicts involved in bringing the sustainability movement mainstream--and no business in America defines mainstream like Wal-Mart--you don't want to miss this story.

Labels: Adam Werbach, Danielle Sacks, Management and Organization, Wal-Mart

Some housekeeping notes:

Just did a quick update on our blogroll. We've deleted a couple of sites that appear to have gone dormant. Also added a new one, My Green Element, which casts a wide net in tracking interesting developments from around the world regarding the interface between business and the environment--well worth a visit.

On another front, we've been following some official corporate blogs that focus on sustainability issues--specifically, topics related to environmental and social responsibility. We'll be reporting on corporate blogs we consider interesting and revealing (even if unintentionally so), and are considering adding a blogroll section to list them.

Among the companies whose sustainability blogs we've so far discovered are Intel, GE, HP, Johnson & Johnson, and McDonalds. If you're familiar with others, whether good or bad, please let us know, either in the comment section or by sending us an email via the link at upper right.

One last point, regarding commenting on this blog. It is easy to do and does not require any special registration. If you happen to have a Blogger or Google account, you can log in using that name and password, but it's not necessary. Others can click on the "Other" button and comment to their heart's content, giving as much or as little identifying data as they choose.

Of course we reserve the right to moderate comments and may do so if trolling or spamming rear their ugly heads, but so far there have been no problems. Let's face it, we in the sustainability community are a bunch of sweethearts!

Labels: Communications and Marketing, Germany, HP, intellectual property, Johnson and Johnson, McDonalds

I asked Andy about what topics we ought to be writing about more on this blog, and in response he sent me this email:

I always get questions on the lecture circuit about how companies in this country [i.e. the United States] can afford to be more sustainable or more responsible when they have to compete with low-cost goods and services provided by China and the rest of the developing world.

The first point I make is to refer to one of your initial posts about how globalization means that China and the others can't get away with bad practices for long if they are planning to export to us.

The second point I make is that the chickens are coming home to roost, even faster than I would have expected. Last week, for example, there was an article in The Times about how American toy manufactures are having a resurgence because of the China toy recalls. You might want to link to the piece . . . just don't quote the whole bloody thing.

(Andy thinks I have a habit of quoting too much from the stories I link to. In deference to him I'll link to the Times story, but I won't quote a single word. Read the whole thing if you like. Seems as if retailers and consumers are happy enough to pay higher prices for toys when the cheaper alternative products are coated in poisonous paint . . .)

But speaking of chickens coming home to roost, it seems as if an entire blog about sustainability could be written using nothing but stories from China. Almost two months ago, Andy himself wrote this post about the risks of being a corporate sponsor of next year's Beijing Olympics. Between Darfur, child labor, censorship, and capital punishment--not to mention rampant pollution, product piracy, and, now, shoddy manufacturing practices--it seems as if being linked with China is an increasingly dangerous corporate strategy.

At the same time, there's no doubt that China is a rising world power than no global corporation can afford to ignore. What to do?

Today I encountered this good column about the issue from consultant David Wolf. I'll quote him--sparingly enough for Andy's taste, I hope:

Several things set the Olympics apart. The Olympics is global. It covers a wide range of sports. It is a pinnacle event, meaning that in most of the sports involved you can reach no higher than Olympic champion. It occurs every four years.

But there is one more thing that, in the mind of sponsors, sets the Olympics on a higher plane than even the Superbowl, The World Series, or the World Cup. It is the unspoken conviction that the Olympics is somehow the last form of pure athletic endeavour, and that supporting the Olympics is somehow a good thing, in and of itself.

But any company (and I guarantee you, there will be a few in the coming months) that attempts to frame their support of the Olympics as some form of corporate social responsibility should be publicly ridiculed. Olympic sponsorship is a marketing exercise, pure and simple, and should be universally acknowledged as such.

It's an excellent point. Wolf goes on to stress that any company associated with the 2008 games needs to make sure it has in place a robust sustainability program focused specifically on its China practices. The best possible response to protestors who want to attack your corporation for its sponsorship of the Beijing games is to be able to point to your policies that are bringing concrete assistance to Chinese workers, children, human rights activists, and other worthy beneficiaries. Without such a response, protestations about your good intentions as a partner of China and a supporter of the Games will ring hollow.

One last point: Although many of us assume that the "commercialization" and "politicization" of the Olympic Games--along with the attendant controversies--are recent phenomena, that's simply not true. Corporate sponsorship has been a feature of the modern Olympics since their founding in 1896. And as for controversy--well, one of the sponsors of the infamous 1936 Berlin Olympics was none other than Coca-Cola.

How's that for a corporate affiliation--to be linked forever in history with the likes of Hitler, Goebbels, and Leni Riefenstahl? It might take a brand as powerful as Coke's to shrug off that kind of publicity.

So if you're a corporate manager trying to figure out how to position your company in today's interconnected, globalized world, don't feel too sorry for yourself. The problems you're wrestling with may be thornier than ever, but they're scarcely brand new . . . if that's any comfort.

Labels: China, Coca-Cola, Communications and Marketing, David Wolf, Olympics

Check out this article by Barbara Krumsiek, CEO of the Calvert Group, writing about the future of socially responsible investing. Titled "In the Year 2022" (wasn't that the name of a chart-topping tune by the one-hit wonders Zager and Evans? Oh, not exactly . . .), Krumsiek's article takes an interesting generational perspective. By 2022, she notes, the average Baby Boomer will be 70 years old. (Hard to believe, since most of us still think we are around nineteen.) That means that the torch of business leadership will have been passed to a new set of managers with a fresh perspective:

Labels: Barbara Krumsiek, Calvert Group, Finance and Investment

Over at Treehugger, another website that is worth a regular visit (and which we hear tell is the most-visited sustainability site in the blogosphere), we read a Chicago Tribune story about an ongoing environmental controversy roiling the Windy City. At its heart is a plan by BP to increase dumping of ammonia and suspended solids into Lake Michigan as part of a big refinery expansion program.

Now Mayor Daley, the regional office of EPA, and a collection of activists have pressured/shamed BP into backing away from its plan and sitting down at the negotiating table to work out an alternative, hopefully using new technologies that reduce the pollutants more effectively.

Perhaps the most interesting--and certainly the most telling--quotation from the article is this one:

"The environment is a prominent part of BP's advertising," said Sadhu Johnston, Daley's deputy chief of staff for environmental initiatives. "We're sure they can make it a prominent part of their actions too."

Notice what is happening here: The press and the political powers-that-be are holding BP to a higher environmental standard precisely because of the company's past public professions of commitment to environmental stewardship. If the current debate involved, say, ExxonMobil, neither the mayor's chief of staff nor the Chicago Tribune could use the company's own words against them--because Exxon has never tried to promote itself as a "green" energy company. An accusation of hypocrisy, which could hit home against BP, would seem irrelevant when aimed at another company.

On the one hand, this might seem unfair, as if BP is being "punished" for its reputation as a relative "good guy" in the universe of Big Oil. But from a broader perspective, being held accountable for its environmental promises is probably a good thing for BP--provided they were sincere about those promises in the first place. What BP is now doing (admittedly under pressure) is the essence of stakeholder engagement: meeting with all the relevant, concerned parties to develop a program that will meet everyone's long-term needs, including those of BP and its stockholders.

Running ads like BP's declaring yourself the "beyond petroleum" company dedicated to eco-friendly energy solutions is a little like standing up at a holiday party and announcing your intention to go on a diet and lose forty pounds in front of all your family and friends. You'd better not say it unless you really mean it. Because if you don't mean it, you're going to feel mighty foolish a week later when your sister or your best friend catches you scarfing down a pint of Ben & Jerry's.

ADDENDUM: If you're interested in more detail on the BP/Lake Michigan saga, here is a good story from the online Columbia Journalism Review summarizing both the unfolding controversy and the well-crafted coverage it has received from the city's two main newspapers.

Labels: BP, Chicago, ExxonMobil, Role of Government, Waste, Water

If your company is among those that have begun monitoring and reporting information about your sustainability efforts, good and bad, for the benefit of your stakeholders and the general public, congratulations. And if you take the job seriously enough to have adapted the guidelines established by the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), congratulations again. You're among the corporate vanguard that are leading the way on making sustainability a routine and important part of the business conversation.

Now it's time to take the next step: Talking just as honestly and realistically about the risks, threats, and problems you face on the sustainability front as you do about the opportunities you are embracing.

This article from the World Business Council for Sustainable Development highlights a recent study of 50 sample GRI reports from companies around the world. The study found that most companies shy away from addressing or even mentioning the downside of today's leading sustainability issues. For example:

The report finds that 90% of surveyed reports include climate change. However, only 20% of the studies reports mention any risks to their businesses from climate change. This lack of information on risks is in spite of evidence from a number of sources, including the UK government's Stern Report on the Economics of Climate Change, that say that climate change has serious ramifications for the world's economy,

Carbon emissions trading and credits, the report concludes, are the most focused on as new businesses opportunities created by climate change. Other opportunities from climate change vary widely from sector to sector, and include hybrid cars to energy efficient detergents.

The risk that was mentioned in the reports most often is the increase of energy costs, with about 20% of sustainability reports mentioning rising energy bills. Very few companies mentioned the risk of increased legal action, such as the risk of class-action lawsuits with regard to climate change.

It's understandable that corporations should want to emphasize the positive aspects of their sustainability efforts. Putting a happy face on the news, whatever it may be, is a common feature of corporate culture. (We know some companies where the word "problem" is practically forbidden; there are only "opportunities.") And particularly today, in the early days of the sustainability reporting movement, sustainability officers may be under pressure to accentuate the positive (i.e., the new businesses and new profits to be built around sustainability) rather than the negative, in order to justify the value of the sustainability concept.

Nonetheless, it's obvious that, in business as in life, there are practically no positives without corresponding negatives. And that certainly applies to sustainability. Take global warming as an example. Can you imagine a food company that isn't thinking about how climate change may affect their supply chain in the coming decades? A real estate developer that isn't looking at the effects of coastal flooding? A home supply company that isn't examining how water shortages and heat waves will impact house and garden designs? And that's not even to mention more obvious examples, from energy companies to utilities to transportation companies, all of which will be under enormous pressure to redesign their businesses as the cost of carbon emissions continues to climb.

Let's put it this way: None of us would want to invest in a company that is so short-sighted that it is not exploring the risks posed by global climate change. So why shouldn't companies discuss those risks--and the steps they are taking to cope with them--in their sustainability reports? To do so will only enhance their credibility.

Honest, realistic risk assessment may be the next big frontier in the world of sustainability reporting. You should be thinking about it now, as you begin planning for next year's report.

Labels: Greenwashing, GRI, Reporting and Transparency, WBCSD

Check out this must-read article by Joe Keefe, president and CEO of Pax World, one of the best-known firms in the world of socially responsible investing. Keefe's theme is the coming transition from socially responsible investing to sustainable investing. The difference, as he explains, is more than just semantic. In comparison to SRI, sustainable investing:

• Is defined positively and proactively rather than negatively and defensively;
• Pursues strong financial results through the managerial benefits of sustainability, rather than merely asserting "you don't have to sacrifice performance";
• Focuses on identifying the best-run companies in the world, rather than on weeding out "bad" companies (such as tobacco marketers or arms dealers); and
• Takes an unabashedly progressive political and social stance, rather than trying to maintain a values-neutral posture.

Most important, Keefe believes the new sustainability orientation has the potential to appeal to a far broader market base than SRI has reached. Therefore he forecasts a remarkable growth spurt for the business in years to come. Agree or not, it's a well-thought-out article by an important industry leader, one that's likely to fuel much discussion in the weeks and months ahead.

Labels: Finance and Investment, Joe Keefe, Pax World

If you're not already visiting Joel Makower's blog on a regular basis, you should be. Joel is one of the most consistently interesting commentators on the environmental and sustainability front--and an excellent writer, to boot.

His last post is a great example. It tackles the much-debated question of whether sustainability has achieved a "tipping point" in the public consciousness. To Joel's credit, his answer is an honest, cautious "Not yet." (It's tempting for all of us who have been working in the field for years to want to cheer-lead rather than analyze issues like this objectively.) But then Joel goes on to make an even more important point--namely, that reaching a tipping point in terms of public relations or poll responses is, in a sense, irrelevant to the longer arc of how business practices are evolving:

The quality movement of yore represents a good analogy. During the late 1980s and early 1990s, "total quality management," popularized by American statistician W. Edwards Deming, was the rage. There were books, magazines, conferences, and untold experts making the rounds, preaching the gospel of kaizen, quality circles, and other business practices. Inevitably, it ran its course.

But when TQM faded from the limelight and the business media turned its collective gaze elsewhere, quality didn't go away; companies didn't revert to their old, inefficient ways. Quality became part of the fabric, eventually showing up in the form of six sigma, lean manufacturing, just-in-time inventory, and other business processes and strategies.

So, too, with the greening of business. Yes, some green products and companies will, inevitably, fail or lose favor. But the hardcore (and largely unsexy) stuff--energy efficiency, waste reduction, pollution prevention, supply-chain management, environmental reporting, etc.--will be around in one form or another for decades. So will the innovations, which are increasingly coming into the marketplace: green chemistry, biobased materials, nature-inspired design, cradle-to-cradle products, and all the rest. They're not going away once the green fever cools down.

Joel is right. Fads come and go, and there's little doubt that sooner or later the intense media spotlight attracted by Hollywood stars, Oscar-winning documentaries, and best-selling books will shift away from the environment to other important topics. But the underlying issues that the sustainability movement is grappling with are too important and too closely bound up with companies' bottom line to disappear altogether.

A decade from now, we may not still be reading magazine stories listing "Today's Top Ten Green Businesses"; we may not be seeing major corporations building entire marketing campaigns around their environmental innovations. Instead, environmental issues--along with social and economic issues--will have been incorporated into the fabric of everyday business, just as product quality, customer service, and efficiency have been today.

We'll still read about great sustainability programs--but they will be discussed in roundups of "Today's Greatest Companies," rather than being relegated to an environmental sideshow.

The embedding of sustainability into the structure of business processes will be the real measure of success for leaders of this movement--not feature articles in Fortune or stories on Entertainment Tonight.

Labels: Joel Makower, Management and Organization, Personal Musings