[Posted at Huffington here]

It's pretty clear that the business world is facing dramatic change driven by environmental concerns. Over the coming years and decades, we're going to change the entire energy system and find new ways to design, make, ship, sell, and consume things. While it's uncertain if quality of life will suffer (and I hope not), the quantity of resources used will change dramatically - e.g., using a lot less energy, or at least carbon-driven energy, to power our lives.

And this change is becoming a business imperative regardless of whether you buy the climate change argument (and I really don't want to open that can of worms from my last post ). Just looking at the high price of everything from metals to food to fuels, the case for being radically more resource efficient is getting clearer every day. What's also clear is that the world can't currently provide for what will be nine or ten billion people who all want our lifestyle (the government of China has set a goal of moving half its population into the middle class by 2020 - that's 600 million people; if they all use oil at our rate, China alone will need more than the world produces by 2030 or so). At current technologies and modes of production, there isn't enough stuff. So there's a business need and a system overload requirement that we innovate and do more with less.

But don't just take my word for it.

The Wall Street Journal ran a stunning article recently that I've been mulling over for awhile and needed to get my head around. It was titled, "New Limits to Growth Revive Malthusian Fears." The shocking part of this article was the fact that it didn't malign the idea that we may run out of things, which Milton Friedman-esque business people have been laughing at for 200 years (since Thomas Malthus first drew an exponential population chart plotted against a geometric resource growth chart and said we'd all starve). Yes, those doomsayers have been very wrong in critical ways, mainly related to our ability to innovate and substitute out of products when we found new options (like from whale oil to kerosene to oil).

But the Journal was deadly serious, talking about resources like water that we can't substitute our way out of. The related point was that there's really nothing left to substitute to -- we know where pretty much everything is. Two quotes were fascinating: "Record highs in the prices for oil, wheat, copper...are signs of a lasting shift in demand as yet unmatched by supply". The "as yet" is a big qualifier, but it feels a bit like wishful thinking, especially given the second quote from ConocoPhillips CEO James Mulva: "I don't think we are going to see the [oil] supply going over 100 million barrels a day, and the reason is: Where is all that going to come from?" So even the oil CEOs are telling us there's not enough stuff.

So what does this mean for business and how is it connected to the green movement? First, rising prices for nearly everything mean we're entering the big leagues. Whether you call it "green" or "eco-efficiency" doesn't matter; either way, all the efficiency tools we have - such as total quality, lean manufacturing, six sigma - are going to be put to the test. If your company has a knack for cutting out waste and reducing resource use, it will survive and thrive. If you can't reduce your reliance on fossil fuels in your whole value chain - from sourcing to manufacturing to distribution - you may be in trouble.

Second, if you can offer a new "supply" to help bolster that side of the Econ 101 curves, you will have a giant market to satisfy (those billions of consumers). And I'm talking about smart supply growth, not the corn ethanol kind that actually exacerbates all of our problems. I'm talking new low-carbon energy, water saving technologies and processes, good design principles, building efficiency, and on and on.

The mad race for renewable energy technologies and the dramatic shift in car offerings are good examples. The venture capital money flowing to new technologies easily recalls the Internet boom. But is this one a bubble? It might be, but these entrepreneurs are working to satisfy existing multi-trillion dollar energy and resource markets, not trying to create new markets or needs. So money from the biggest, smartest names in Silicon Valley is flowing freely. This is a very good thing. There will be a shakeout, but some winners will win big.

As demand for resources outstrips supply, the Journal worried, what if countries just try to grab what's left in a big resource fight? Companies might go down a biggest is best path as well. But won't the best companies profit much more if they just find a way to need less? And won't the competitors that help their customers use less do extremely well?

As we all know, energy prices have skyrocketed. Organizations of all kinds are trying new ways of doing business to cut costs. Some ideas, like Wal-Mart putting doors on refrigerated cases and cutting energy use 70% in that aisle, are head-slappingly obvious. Even seemingly wacky ideas can seem downright wise once you run the numbers. One of my favorites is the UPS "no left turns" program. To avoid waiting to cross traffic - and thus wasting time, energy, and money -- UPS used GPS data to program new routes that basically go in concentric circles to the right. The company has saved about 28 million miles of driving and 3 million gallons of gas.

But other ideas to cut energy use just seem desperate or short-sighted. I've been thinking a lot about a recent story in Time Magazine last week about what schools are doing to deal with high gas prices. Some districts, particularly in rural areas, are going to four-day weeks. About 1 in 7 school boards nationwide are apparently considering this option. They're also eliminating field trips and extracurricular activities and even laying off teachers. While some schools and communities like the shortened schedule, most research shows that more school hours are generally better (the countries with longer school years seem to produce higher scoring kids).

Cutting school days as a way to get more efficient certainly sounds wacky at first glance. But unlike UPS's solution, this one is also wacky at second glance. Aren't there better ways for us to reduce fuel use and costs? Unless I'm getting the very simple math wrong, improving school bus efficiency by 20% would generate the same fuel savings as cutting a day of school. (Caveat: the schools of course save more energy than just gas when they shut down, but these districts are citing fuel costs specifically as the problem -- and it's not like schools stop being heated or cooled on off days).

There are solutions in the private sector, as companies focus more and more on logistics and improving efficiency (see one report on logistics here). Wal-Mart has enacted a range of efficiency initiatives for its fleet, from cheap "wind skirts" that streamline vehicles to auxiliary power units that reduce idling. (All idling in the US, by some measures, may amount to a shocking five percent of the country's energy use). Xerox put together a logistics streamlining plan that reduced fleet energy use 10%, including "right-sizing" vehicles to fit the load to using metrics and GPS. And office retailer Staples cut fuel use 15% (and saved $1.7 million) just by placing a 55 mph limit on its drivers. The trucks move slower, but stop for gas less frequently. The total delivery time is the same.

These corporate examples demonstrate that ideas are out there to help school districts, but I'm making a larger point about finding innovative solutions. UPS, Staples, Wal-Mart and many others are saving a ton of money through seemingly wacky ideas that turn out to be very wise.

So how do you know which is which? Here are a few signs that an initiative or idea is wacky and wise, not just wacky. The new idea or initiative...

- Seems obvious in retrospect, even if it seems a bit silly at first. "You mean if we slow down the trucks, or put doors on refrigerators, we'll use less energy?!"

- Reduces total footprint, even if that footprint is a strange shape. Sam's Club is selling milk in square cartons. Since they're a new design, they probably cost more to make. But the square shape means they stack a lot better, and without the crates. They pack much tighter, fitting nearly three times as many in every cooler, saving money and energy, and requiring 60% fewer trucks.

- Does not create other significant problems. Cutting school days means many parents have a day of childcare to deal with and pay for, one of those important unintended consequences. "Significant" is the critical word here. Extra daycare is significant. Getting used to pouring out of square milk cartons, which some customers complain about, is not.

- May actually solve other problems. School buses produce tremendous air pollution and health risks as kids sit in diesel fumes. Reducing miles reduces pollution and also shortens the time kids spend on buses (sometimes over an hour for what would be a 10 minute trip directly). And if school districts can raise the capital, larger solutions are available. Navistar, the big truck manufacturer (disclosure: I spoke at an annual meeting of their dealers recently) has launched a hybrid school bus which nearly eliminates the local air pollution problem.

Also keep in mind that wise ideas depend on context. While cutting school days is counterproductive and possibly disastrous for learning, cutting workweeks to four days to save employees on commuting expense can be very smart. In business, we can shift workloads effectively or work at home if need be.

The best innovations always strike you as odd the first time you hear them. Then they get you thinking. Then you wonder how you could've ever lived without them.

This post first appeared at Harvard Business Online.

It's always fun to predict what's going to happen. The risk of being spectacularly wrong is very high, but that's what makes the exercise so entertaining. 'Tis the season for dwelling, quickly, on what we learned last year -- de-leveraging is really painful and when gas prices are high, people want smaller cars -- and for pontificating about what to expect in 2009.

For my predictions, I'll stick to my area of knowledge, the greening of business. Over the past two years "green" has become part of nearly every serious business discussion. But what will happen now in this damaged economy? It would be silly to suggest that the intensity of the focus on green will continue unabated. But we'll see a form of what I'll call "light green" this year.

Some of the green pressure on companies will lessen, but I believe that the underlying forces driving the green wave will continue over the coming years - from volatile commodity prices (which will rise again aggressively after the recession) to a rise in transparency to tougher questions from key stakeholders (such as your business customers, consumers, and employees). Those big picture trends will continue over years, but here now are a few specific predictions for 2009.

"Light Green" will focus primarily on cost reduction...

Going green drives innovation and creates value in four fundamental ways: cost reduction, risk mitigation, revenue growth, and brand value enhancement. But for 2009, the top priority will be the first one, lowering costs (primarily through so-called "eco-efficiency"). Few companies will have the stomach for deep investments in R&D to create new green products.

...but, companies (and banks in particular) will also broaden the definition of "risk"

If we learned one thing in 2008, it's that the business and financial communities are not so great at measuring and accounting for risk. It's in our nature to overestimate some risks and drastically underestimate others (like the possibility that housing prices could actually drop). On climate change, we're realizing that the risk of inaction is too great.

Citigroup, JP Morgan and Morgan Stanley launched the Carbon Principles early in 2008. In short, this agreement committed the companies to look very hard at any coal investments and ask tough questions about how climate change and a cost on carbon would affect the risk profile. And at the end of '08, other financial and insurance giants -- including HSBC, Munich Re, Standard Chartered, and Swiss Re -- created the Climate Principles. These guidelines are admittedly aspirational, but they also increase awareness of the impact of climate change on all aspects of their businesses, including their investment portfolios.

Leading companies (read: Wal-Mart) will continue pressing suppliers.

To be a bit cynical for a moment, greening the supply chain is perhaps the easiest path to take in hard times. After all, you basically push the problem and cost onto others, and if you're as big as Wal-Mart, you get your way. To be less cynical, the companies that have learned to take a value-chain perspective have discovered real value in lower costs and better products. So why go back if you've discovered a better way of doing business? Wal-Mart and others clearly believe that reducing environmental impacts up and down the chain creates value for all. The retail giant convened a historic meeting in Beijing, China in October 2008 (see my first-hand account of the meeting here). Wal-Mart's top execs made it very clear that the green agenda was not going away and, in fact, that it was accelerating. Of course global recessions can put a damper on anyone's plans, but there are few indications the big guns are pulling back on supply chain pressure.

Innovation will become even more important.

This may sound like a contradiction to my "cost reduction will rule" prediction. But innovation is about more than just flashy new products; it's also central to reducing costs in a smart way. But beyond getting lean, 2009 will be a good time to truly rethink business models and ask new heretical questions. Innovation guru Clayton Christensen recently told the Wall Street Journal that the economic downturn "will have an unmitigated positive effect on innovation." Say what? By his counterintuitive logic, tight times "force innovators to not waste nearly so much money."

So use 2009 to seek out green innovation opportunities. Find ways to drastically reduce energy and other resource use both in your own operations and through your products (that is, help customers reduce theirfootprint). Even if investment dollars remain scarce, be ready to run with good ideas when cash frees up. We may look back at the end of 2009 and see that staying green during the recession, at least in mindset, not only drove creativity, but even saved some companies.

Yes, 2009 will be a tough year. But the Green Wave, albeit a bit diminished, will roll on. The smartest companies will continue to pour the foundations for a new form of capitalism - one that takes into account the resource constraints we face. After this recession, when capital is more readily available, green investments will begin in earnest again. Sustainable business will no longer be a side pursuit, but the core focus of successful companies.

This post first appeared at Harvard Business Online.

[My column last week on Harvard Business Online]

In a tight economy, with companies spending much less on IT, the tech giants will take growth wherever they can find it. The Wall Street Journal reported recently that Cisco and HP are in a pitched battle for customers for their high-end teleconferencing systems. According to the report, it's "one of the few technologies that has benefited from the downturn, growing 30% from last year as businesses look to reduce travel expenses."

Cisco, HP, Nortel, and telepresence-focused players like Teleris have developed impressive, beautiful systems that make you feel like you're in the same room with your colleagues. The pitch is that you'll save money — but you'll also reduce your environmental footprint through reduced travel. These companies are cashing in on the business world's pressing need to get lean, while also appealing to the desire to get green. In my new book Green Recovery, I lay out five areas of a business that hold real promise for fast payback: facilities (lighting, heating, cooling), IT, fleet, waste, and telework. While companies are finding savings in all these operational areas, telework may be the most underleveraged of them all.

Just a few companies have made a concerted effort to reduce business travel through a combination of high-end telepresence systems and everyday technologies like WebEx. Most of the big users are, not surprisingly, tech companies that are acting in the spirit of "eat your own dog food." British Telecom calculated that it was saving $330 million per year on avoided travel costs and time saved, and Microsoft pegged its savings at $90 million. Non-tech leaders such as P&G and Deloitte have installed dozens of systems around the world — you need the network effect to kick in and make the investment worth it. They're saving millions every month on reduced travel expense.

It would seem that telework fits service and knowledge-based businesses best, but even companies with mostly hard assets see the value. David Ratcliffe, CEO of electric utility Southern Company, talked to the Journal in early 2009 about ways to cut costs in the downturn. He focused on two items: slashing $200 million from the capital expenditure budget by delaying some work on the physical plant and "more meetings with technology instead."

The business of telework is interesting to me on two levels. First, from the customer's side, even though the upfront investment is not small, it clearly saves a lot of money. Telework also represents a great way to show your most harried and valued employees that you care both about their life balance AND about greening your business.

But second, from the perspective of the suppliers of these technologies, the story has some interesting strategic angles. With their pitch of reducing travel, who are Cisco, HP, and the others truly competing against? The phone? No, they're going after the airlines — and targeting their best, most frequent, business-class customers. Do you think the airlines ever thought they'd be competing with IT companies?

[the rest of the blog is here]

This may be hard for anyone below 40 to fathom, but companies didn't always fire people to save money. IBM was famous for "full-time employment," but then its first layoffs in the early 90s changed the game forever. Over the last 20 years it has become (supposedly) good management practice to slash people costs — remember the famous cutters like "Chainsaw" Al Dunlop? A company's stock price rose whenever it announced cuts.

But as we face a carbon-constrained future with volatile, rising energy and commodity prices, companies will soon realize that they're often "fatter" in energy and resource waste than in human capital.

I wish things were different today than in Dunlop's time, but when this downturn began, companies raced to cut people ahead of the coming decline in sales and profits. It didn't seem to occur to anyone that layoffs would accelerate the recession as fired employees — also known as consumers — had no money to spend. As we enter what seems to be a jobless recovery, it's past time for us to realize that layoffs are not always the right answer.

I can't say with a straight face that saving energy will eliminate the need for all layoffs. If your sales drop by 50 percent, which has happened to some automakers, you can't afford to keep everyone on the payroll. But layoffs can also cost fundamentally sound companies more than they save. On the heels of the early 2000s recession, Bain & Company conducted a study on the true costs of firing people. Their conclusion: if you refill a job within six to eighteen months, you lose money on the deal. The drag on savings, they said, includes "severance packages, temporary declines in productivity or quality, and rehiring and retraining costs that more than offset the short-term wage savings."

More recently, Fortune reporter Geoff Colvin laid out all the costs of layoffs, which, he points out, companies mistakenly equate with only severance costs. Colvin included brand equity costs, leadership costs, Wall Street costs, rehiring costs, and my personal favorite, morale costs.

To stay strong in tight times, to find opportunities to cut costs in smart ways, and to innovate your way to the future, you'll need everyone on board. So undermining morale may not be a great idea right now. You'll also need people with deep knowledge of the business — and mass layoffs ensure that you lose critical perspectives and information. In many cases, there's another way (or two). Some companies, for example, have been paying everyone a bit less rather than resorting to layoffs.

Others are turning to the task of getting lean and getting creative.

[See full post at Harvard Business Online here]

[This post first appeared on a Climate Savers Computing Initiative site. I'll skip the general intro to the greening topic from the original...]

...Five areas of the business are ripe for quick paybacks from green thinking: facilities (heating, cooling and lighting), fleet and distribution, waste, telework, and IT. Let’s look at IT specifically and why companies are still going green.

When industry analyst Gartner Group estimated that information and communications technology was responsible for 2 percent of global carbon emissions — equal to the entire aviation industry — most people outside the IT world (and many inside it) were shocked. At the core of these numbers lies the shocking inefficiency of data centers.

Of all the energy going into a modern server farm, IBM estimates, less than 4 percent actually processes something—you know, what the room was built for. The other 96 percent of electrons are lost at three stages: (1) cooling the room itself, (2) cooling the stacks or “blades” of servers, and (3) keeping idle machines humming. Most of this energy is wasted and costs real money. In recent years, the share of a data center’s variable cost going to energy has grown fast. What was once a tiny part of the budget is now 40 or 50 percent of the operating cost. Over the life of a server, you can easily spend twice as much on electricity as on the capital cost of the server itself.

In response, the competition has been fierce to tackle those three stages of the problem and find ways to slash the energy budget. First, look at the design of the data center itself. One of my favorite “head-slapper” strategies in all of the greening movement is the use of outside air economization — that is, effectively opening the door and letting hot air out rather than cooling it — which Intel estimates can save $3 million in a 10 mega-watt data center.

Second, companies are looking at the server hardware. They’re shutting down orphaned systems — Sun discovered during its “Bring Out Your Dead” day that 4,100 of its servers were unused, but plugged in sucking energy. But sometimes, as the Wall Street Journal suggested earlier this year, “the smartest thing to do is invest in new, more efficient systems.” One company, Fair Isaac Corporation, bought new, more efficient servers and cut the total number in its data processing center in half. This requires some capital expenditure, but the paybacks can be fast.

Third, software companies are vying to help handle server loads and increase the average 20 percent utilization rate (meaning, 4 of 5 servers are basically idle, waiting for peak loads). The buzzword is virtualization, or using software to create pseudoservers that run in parallel on the same physical server and use all that idle processing power.

For companies using all of these tactics, such as Microsoft, newer datacenters can use 50 percent less energy than ones built just a few years ago. And that’s just the large IT systems. Many organizations are now utilizing software to control all the PCs sitting on desks, putting them to sleep overnight and often saving millions. None of this pressure to cut back on IT energy and cost is going away. Forrester reported in January 2009 that 60 percent of IT managers are using green criteria in their procurement decisions and that even in tight times more managers are accelerating green IT efforts than slowing them down.

But what’s the most powerful thing you can do to reduce IT energy use? Every time I speak to tech companies or sustainability execs, I hear one theme over and over: The people who create the energy use don’t have a clue how much it’s costing. The prescription: Add the power bill to the CIO’s budget.

Contrary to the popular misconception that going green is expensive, in a very large range of cases, environmental initiatives don't raise costs, they lower them — and fast. In operational areas such as facilities (heating, cooling, lighting), fleet, IT, and waste, leading companies continue to find large savings in shockingly simple actions, such as changing lighting or using outside air to cool a data center.

But even for the most head-slappingly obvious changes with super-fast paybacks, companies still need to find the capital to buy the new bulbs, optimize the HVAC system, or add auxiliary power units (APUs) to trucks. And even if one sees these initiatives as investments, not costs (which is the right way to look at it), there will still be competition for dollars. During a recession — heck, at any time — it's normal to struggle to get funds for even worthy projects. So what to do?

A few leading companies have hit on one incredibly simple solution to this problem — set aside funds for green priorities. I don't mean coming up with a new pool of money; just assign a percentage of the existing capital expenditure budget to green priorities.

In 2008, to find hidden gems of savings, DuPont set aside 1% of capital expenditures solely for energy-saving ideas. With $50MM of spending, the company found $50MM of savings per year — a one-year payback that keeps on giving. All projects still met the corporate hurdle rate, so there was no special dispensation besides making the money available for worthy initiatives managers had overlooked. Building products maker Owens Corning goes even further, dedicating 10% of capex to energy projects. This is a tool nearly anyone can use. Set aside the funds for green and you'll unleash a wave of creativity and short paybacks.

So if there are so many quick, high-ROI projects sitting around, why aren't companies jumping on them? Two big reasons. First, energy efficiency just hasn't seemed sexy. Dawn Rittenhouse, DuPont's director of sustainable development, told me, "If business units can invest in growth or energy efficiency projects, it's more glamorous to go after growth." But in tight times, saving money starts to feel a lot more exciting, doesn't it?

The second reason is the classic problem of the urgent versus the important. Most capital expenditures go to fix things that are already broken. But as Frank O'Brien-Bernini, Owens Corning's chief sustainability officer, puts it, "It's really about redefining what 'broken' means." Think about it: a process that wastes energy may not feel broken with oil at $40, or even $80, a barrel. But it may look like a money-eating disaster at $200 a barrel. In essence, when it comes to energy and resource efficiency, all companies are broken.

Of course reserving some funds could meet resistance. One of my clients pointed out that their capex budget is not one pool, but really a bunch of sub-budgets for different groups. A green set-aside would have to draw money from somebody's hard-fought budget. But DuPont only allocated 1% to great effect. So it doesn't necessarily take a giant land grab to make this operational and cultural shift happen.

So when people say you don't have the money to invest in green, show them that you do. The reality is that unless you're in liquidation, you have a capex budget, even if it shrank this year. You're spending money on things all the time; it's simply an issue of where you place your bets.

Take a piece of what you're already spending, point it in the right direction, and you will find enormous green savings to help survive these (still) hard times — and invest in the future.

[This post first appeared on Andrew's blog on Harvard Business Online]

If you put an energy meter inside a home and show people total usage in real time, a miraculous thing happens: they use about 10 percent less energy. The simple act of placing data in front of people changes their behavior. Data makes people smarter and inspires them to make small changes to save money and energy. You can use this powerful tool in business not only to cut costs, but to drive innovation and revenues.

Some are calling this phenomenon the "Prius effect," referring to how people respond when they see real-time fuel-efficiency data while driving the popular Toyota hybrid. As the described it, the Prius effect "can change driving in startling ways, making drivers conscious of their driving habits, then adjusting them to compete for better mileage." Similarly, making footprint data more accessible to those managers that can do something about it can create real value. As they say, you can't manage what you don't measure. It's amazing how often I hear that phrase — and how often people need to hear it. Tech leaders will tell you that one of the best possible solutions to the rapid increase in energy use and cost in data centers is simple: Add the power bill to the CIO's budget!

You can put your green data to use in five ways that will help your bottom line:

1. Saving money — a lot of it. As we've seen, if you give your operational people information on resource use, they will be inspired to find ways to cut back.

2. Driving internal competition. Share footprint data broadly and transparently and you'll see how badly people like to win. When PepsiCo Chicago ran a floor-by-floor energy reduction competition, the results were staggering. In one three-month period, electricity use dropped 17% (and paper use 22%). Energy use on the winning floor plummeted 31%. Factory heads at a number of companies have told me that they'd rather miss their financial targets than their green or energy goals — it's just too embarrassing to be at the bottom of the list.

3. Answering your customers' pressing questions. Wal-Mart, along with many other companies, is asking suppliers and vendors very tough questions about their environmental and social impacts. Those that can gather their data and tell the best story will get the most shelf space and mind space (see my previous post on Wal-Mart's eco-ratings for more on this point).

4. Prioritizing initiatives. Resources remain very tight — you don't want to spend money on the wrong things. With all the pressure to go green, it's easy to get lost in the weeds and pursue avenues that may not yield the most benefit. When companies really look at their full value-chain impacts, they're very often surprised at the results. Green leader Stonyfield Farm discovered that 95% of the ecological damage from its packaging occurred during production and distribution. So the company has made light-weighting (which is what it sounds like) the top priority — use less stuff and the footprint goes down. Stonyfield has made the deliberate choice to not use a recyclable, yet heavier, plastic; this counterintuitive and seemingly non-green choice makes the most environmental and fiscal sense given the real data.

5. Finding new market openings and focusing innovation. Procter & Gamble went through a similar lifecycle exercise and made a similar discovery about its laundry products. The vast majority of energy use was not in sourcing, production, or distribution, but in the use of the detergent in homes. And the majority of that was not the washing machine turning, but heating the water. This insight led to Tide Coldwater, a reformulated product to help customers wash in cool water, using less energy and saving money. Coldwater is one of P&G's seven original "sustainable innovation products" that generated $2 billion in sales in the first year.

Operating your business without environmental and social metrics leaves part of your management "dashboard" blank. How well can you run your company without complete information? But don't worry — you're not that far behind if you don't have a perfect handle on your value-chain footprint, or even your direct impacts. It's getting easier and easier to gather this data, and you can accomplish a great deal with even "back of the envelope" calculations (more on this in my next post).

For a slightly longer take on this topic, see also my recent e-letter, or the full discussion in my new book Green Recovery

[This blog was originally posted on Harvard Business Online]