Q What made this book so difficult to write?
AIn all my other books, I had to explain a phenomenon, talk about it, and give examples. In this book, I felt I
had to tread a fine line between what makes sense from
a sustainability/global warming point of view and what
makes sense from the corporate point of view. I kept going
back and forth.
I believe there must be a reasonable cost-benefit balance between what companies are expected to do and
what their role in life is—and I’m not talking about profit
versus planet. The punch line of the book is that it’s not
profit versus planet or people versus planet. It’s really people versus
people: people who are interested
in environmental sustainability
and social responsibility, and people who are interested in jobs and
being able to afford stuff.
My point is that everybody is
right. There is no right and wrong.
That’s where I diverge from the
people who hold sustainability as
a moral imperative. I’m not buying that. For me, it’s a question
of what makes sense, what are
the costs, what are the dislocation
costs, when does it make sense,
where does it not make sense,
what are companies doing, and
what are companies not doing.
That’s where I’m coming from.
That’s why it was a little more difficult to write. You won’t believe
how many versions of the book
I went through. It’s well over 20.
And I’m still not satisfied.
QWhen does it make sense for companies to invest in sustainability initiatives?
AIt makes sense for companies to do something, wheth- er or not they believe [in climate change], for three
reasons. One is to cut costs, especially in terms of energy.
That’s the first thing everyone does. Change the light
bulbs. Put speed meters on trucks. Buy better insulation.
This is all fine. There’s no reason not to do it.
The second reason is, it doesn’t matter what you believe,
if your customers believe that sustainability is important,
you have to do something. Otherwise, you will be a target
for Greenpeace and the media. You may lose sales and lose
market value. So there is an element of risk management.
You have to do a certain minimum so as not to be the guy
who’s being attacked.
The third reason is hedging. The world may be changing. Whether you believe [in climate change] or not, there
are enough younger people who do and as they enter their
spending years, the market may change. So you may want
to hedge for that. There are examples of companies that
hedge. Clorox started Green Works [a line of eco-friendly
cleaning products] as a sideline business. It’s small; at $40
million, it’s not a big deal for an $8 billion company like
Clorox. But it allows the parent
company to better understand the
[eco-friendly product] marketplace, the chemistry, and who the
suppliers are in this space.
QWhat are some examples of when companies should not
embrace sustainability?
A When the cost of dislocation of people and jobs is too high.
Look, everybody does the easy
things like changing light bulbs,
putting some solar panels on
the roof, and buying some wind
power when possible. It doesn’t
cost much, and sometimes it
reduces costs. Fine.
But doing things that are really
sustainable requires investment
and carries higher costs. The
question is, does it make sense?
Sometimes it does, sometimes it
does not. What I am calling for is
a clear-eyed analysis of the cost of doing business. There
are some companies that are committed to the cause, such
as Seventh Generation, Dr. Bronner’s, and Patagonia.
They are founded by environmentalists and are selling to
environmentalists. And they are doing fine, but they are
small. It’s hard to be Procter & Gamble or Unilever and
do the same things these small companies do. It’s just too
costly.
Most companies are actually doing this [cost analysis];
most companies do not embark on sustainability projects
that don’t clear their [financial] hurdles. Their corporate
marketing brochures may tout all the savings in terms of
carbon and water and waste, but by and large, it’s margin-
