For businesses, going green brings in greenbacks

Jan 30, 2012 by David L. Chandler

Nearly a third of companies now say that the adoption of sustainable practices has added to their profitability, according to a new MIT study — and manufacturing firms are in the vanguard.

Two-thirds of more than 2,800 companies surveyed by MIT Sloan Management Review say they have made sustainability a permanent agenda topic within their companies, up from 55 percent a year ago. And most respondents — based in 113 countries, and spanning a wide variety of sizes and industries — now see sustainability as “necessary to be competitive” in today’s economy. The study was conducted with the help of the Boston Consulting Group.

“The purpose of the report was to get a high-level view of how organizations are thinking about sustainability, and what they are doing about it,” says David Kiron, executive editor of MIT Sloan Management Review and a co-author of the report. “The attention and investment we see indicate the here-to-stay nature of sustainability for organizations everywhere.”

Manufacturing companies seem to be leading the way in this new approach: The survey found a particularly strong commitment to sustainability among “resource-intensive” producers of consumer products, commodities, chemicals and automobiles, as well as in energy-related companies. Respondents said product development was enhanced by a focus on sustainability, with 25 percent of companies citing “improved innovation in products and services” as among the top benefits they derived through sustainability.

help cut energy and commodity prices by reducing waste, and in some cases have transformed companies from pariahs to paragons in the eyes of environmentally aware groups.

For example, paper-products manufacturer Kimberly-Clark has moved from criticism over its cutting of old-growth forests to a top Dow Jones Sustainability World Index ranking among makers of personal products, thanks to a concerted company-wide effort to make sustainability a priority. In addition to curbing former unsustainable practices, Kimberly-Clark now aims to reach 25 percent of sales by 2015 from “environmentally innovative products” — such as a new kind of toilet paper without a cardboard tube at the center.

In this study, Kiron says, sustainability encompassed not just reductions in energy use and emissions, but also more efficient use of water and natural resources; recycling of materials and careful attention to the full life-cycle impact of products, including their ultimate disposal; and attention to human rights in the treatment of employees and suppliers.

Kiron cites Starbucks’ focus on improving the sustainability of its coffee cups — of which the chain uses billions every year. To find innovative ways of reducing the waste associated with disposable cups, the company has convened conferences at MIT in an effort to come up with more environmentally friendly approaches. “There isn’t a hard line for them between environmental and social issues,” Kiron says. “It’s all part of being socially responsible.”

The study makes clear that the more deeply ingrained sustainability is within a company’s organizational structure, the more likely it is that these practices add to the company’s bottom line. For example, companies that say they have profited from their sustainability initiatives are 50 percent more likely to have a CEO strongly committed to the programs, are twice as likely to have a separate reporting process for sustainability, and are more than twice as likely to have a chief sustainability officer.

Sometimes, internal efforts to improve sustainability can lead to new product offerings. For example, UPS improved efficiency by designing the shipping industry’s most comprehensive tracking system. That made it possible to determine the exact carbon-emissions impact of each of the millions of parcels transported every day; the company now offers customers the option of paying a bit extra for a “carbon neutral” delivery, providing carbon offsets based on the actual path and types of vehicles by which a parcel travels to its destination. The service adds about a nickel to the shipping cost per parcel.

Another example of product innovation comes from automaker BMW, which set up a sustainability team that quickly attracted some of the company’s leading engineers. They ended up designing what they say is the world’s first electric car designed for mass production from the ground up. While it may be years before the new division — dubbed “Project i” — actually contributes to the company’s profits, BMW sees it as laying the groundwork for a leadership role in new automotive technology.

Sustainability turns out to have benefits for a company’s relations with its own employees as well, the study found. “In terms of retention and recruitment, having sustainability present on your agenda really has some cachet,” Kiron says, making it easier to attract and keep some of the most talented people.

Robert Eccles, a professor of management practice at Harvard Business School who was not involved in this study, says the MIT study “is one that executives in companies in every industry all over the world should read, and it identifies many of the key issues that need to be addressed.”

Eccles also says the report’s findings are congruent with those of research he has conducted with colleagues at Harvard and at London School.

“The research I am doing with a number of collaborators strongly supports the findings of this survey,” he says. “We get similar results in contrasting 90 ‘high sustainability’ companies with a matched set of 90 ‘low sustainability’ ones. The high sustainability companies also have distinctly better financial performance over an 18-year period of time.”

But Eccles adds that in order to benefit corporate performance, sustainability must be paired with innovation. “Without innovation, simply committing to improve sustainability performance will likely detract from financial performance,” he notes.

Eccles cautions that challenges remain in interpreting these findings: While savings in energy, water and resource use provide obvious benefits, he says, “these are easier to demonstrate and quantify than reputational and brand benefits.” He adds, “While the article rightly notes that mainstream investors are becoming interested in , this is not yet a trend and the markets still have their traditional short-term view.”

Explore further: Marcellus drilling boom may have led to too many hotel rooms

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Just because it's green doesn't make it mean

Apr 22, 2011

Unlike the spinach smoothie my boot camp instructor tries to get me to drink, just because something is green doesn’t necessarily make it a bad thing. Case in point - Algae.

Green chemistry: Getting nickel back

Jul 07, 2011

In Southeast Asia, palm oil is used both as an ingredient for cooking and a raw material for biodiesel production. To stabilize the oil against decomposition, it has to be hydrogenated in the presence of a ...

Promoting corporate sustainability on the web

Nov 08, 2011

Almost three-quarters of Standard & Poor's top 500 US companies mentioned one or more sustainability programs on their websites. A new study shows that the largest companies are doing so in order to attract and maintain a ...

Recommended for you

Marcellus drilling boom may have led to too many hotel rooms

Sep 18, 2014

Drilling in Pennsylvania's Marcellus Shale region led to a rapid increase in both the number of hotels and hotel industry jobs, but Penn State researchers report that the faltering occupancy rate may signal that there are ...

Entrepreneurs aren't overconfident gamblers

Sep 17, 2014

Leaving one's job to become an entrepreneur is inarguably risky. But it may not be the fear of risk that makes entrepreneurs more determined to succeed. A new study finds entrepreneurs are also concerned about what they might ...

User comments : 3

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

jscroft
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 30, 2012
Yah the only way this works is if you count the massive tax subsidies that show up on the positive side of the balance sheet but are an economic cost to everybody else.
Shelgeyr
3 / 5 (2) Jan 30, 2012
...going green brings in greenbacks

..."freshly printed, worthless" greenbacks.

...now see sustainability as necessary to be competitive in todays economy.

I.e., an added cost necessary to be allowed to compete in a politically correct, regulated market.

While it may be years before the new division dubbed Project i actually contributes to the companys profits...

See? All "feel good" or "protection racket" muck.

...companies that say they have profited from their sustainability initiatives...

...just managed to remain profitable while saddled with sustainability initiatives...

The study makes clear that the more deeply ingrained sustainability is within a companys organizational structure, the more likely it is that these practices add to the companys bottom line.

False! The more "deeply ingrained" they are the more difficult it is to account for their contribution to the bottom line, or the extent they're detrimental to it.
33Nick
1 / 5 (1) Jan 31, 2012
When you come to think about it, we've subsidized the use of coal, petroleum, hydrogen, ethanol, cotton, etc. What's the difference here? At least, it's a cleaner way to do business. I'd rather governments spend my money with intelligent environmental subsidies than wars, pollution and short sight bottom lines.