Now that’s a little harsh, but Ben Elgin’s Business Week cover story, “Little Green Lies”, uncovered a wealth of interesting information that led to a number of erroneous conclusions resulting from a lack of context and the highly selective use of information.
The article should have been titled, “What’s wrong with CO2 Offsets?”, a much more appropriate title than the insinuation that the story covers the broader landscape of “green business”. Had that been the exclusive focus I would have found much to agree with him on.
While stories of “green washing” abound, and it’s essential to take companies who exaggerate their claims to task, stories are stories and are not a replacement for analysis based on objective measurement. Auden Schendler of the Aspen Skiing Co. has a cynical and sad story to tell, but it’s only his story.
If I wanted to show the lack of progress business has made toward sustainability I would focus on the coal industry, pesticide manufacturers, the airline industry, the US auto industry and – well perhaps the ski industry.
If I wanted to show the progress business has made toward sustainability I would focus on consumer products companies like 3M, SC Johnson and Timberland, industrial manufacturers like Interface Carpet, and energy companies like Duke.
Either way, I would be selecting facts to support my point of view. Neither orientation would be accurate or very helpful to business leaders.
Getting down to a few specifics –
Elgin makes a good point when he notes that “General Electric (GE ) says it is spending nearly all of its multimillion-dollar corporate advertising budget on “Ecomagination,” even though they make up only 8% of the conglomerate’s sales.” But GE, not a favorite of mine since their nuclear power plants never make it into the EcoImagination advertising, will look at a decade or more when evaluating it’s “green” capital investment strategy.
Elgin also postulates that, ”Companies continue to assess most green initiatives with the same return-on-investment analysis they would use with any other capital project.” True, but why shouldn’t they?
And that “while some environmental advances pay for themselves in time, returns often aren’t as swift or large as competing uses of corporate cash.” A claim that has no statistical basis at all.
The fact that FedEx (FDX ) didn’t fulfill it’s 2003 commitment to begin deploying clean-burning hybrid trucks at a rate of 3,000 a year is unfortunate. But what about UPS? No mention of their progress and success.
Amory Lovins – a hero of mine – is given short shift all around. If Elgin really wants to understand how effective Lovins is at designing cost effective “green” business strategies, talk to the transportation fleet managers at Walmart, or any number of his other clients.
Most of the examples of Aspen Skiing’s unwillingness to invest in Schendler’s “eco-efficiency” proposals are, in my opinion, the result of either stupid shortsighted management, an undercapitalized business or a business that is in such bad shape that survival is its number one priority.
Does business want to look more “green” than it is – of course? Should we criticize those who exaggerate, sure? But — and this is essential, we must also celebrate the success stories of those companies who are providing leadership for the rest of the business community — trolling through the garbage to find trash doesn’t tell us anything other than if you look in a trashcan you’re likely to find garbage.