[posted here in Huffington Post]

I wrote a few weeks ago about Virgin Airline’s biofuel test flight. While it was a bit of a publicity stunt, it was also a good thing – we need experimentation to find ways to reduce carbon emissions in all industries. But another news item HuffPo linked to this week brought my attention back to the airline industry. Apparently, the EU is saying that US airlines will need to pay for carbon emissions, or risk losing flight slots in and out of Europe.

For me, this story is about risk, which is a big part of the equation in green business strategy. Reducing risk is a solid strategy for creating value in your business, and in the green realm, it used to be mainly about avoiding regulations. Or about avoiding brand-killing incidents like the discovery of something dangerous in your products (see Mattel last year with lead in its toys). But green-related risk is getting much broader and more challenging to manage. The EU’s position, for example, creates market access risk for airlines that don’t play the game and either manage or pay for their carbon sins.

But many industries face bigger risks from the changing attitudes of consumers and other stakeholders. To stick with airlines for the moment…just a few years ago, nobody knew what a carbon footprint was, and now we hear statistics all the time about the footprint of everything we do, especially travel. There’s even data on how much airlines contribute to total global emissions (2-3%). So the pressure is rising. Customers may develop a distaste for flying in general given its high environmental toll. As I mentioned in my last post, business customers now have another option to help their companies reduce travel emissions and keep their green promises: high-quality teleconferencing.

This customer-driven risk may not threaten airlines too badly, but customer tastes and public perceptions are fickle and in other areas they can turn against a industry or product quickly. Take the somewhat strange trip of attitudes toward bottled water, which has turned south in the last year. Is bottled water a smart use of resources? Of course not; tap water is pretty good so why wrap it in plastic? But is an extra bottle here and there the worst environmental offender in our lives? Not likely, especially compared to what we drive to the store to get the bottles in the first place. I don’t know if bottled water sales are slowing – it may be too early to tell – but the focus hasn’t been easy for companies like Coke, Pepsi, and Nestle.

Fast Company ran an excellent analysis of the pros and cons of the bottled water business. The article concluded with one important insight: "Bottled water is not a sin, but it is a choice." We can’t always see it coming, but consumers and business customers will make choices that avoid products with perceived environmental problems. When business customers make a new ‘choice’ it can move much faster than customer attitudes – just watch what’s happening to plastic bags, with bans in place in some retail environments…and now cities and countries around the world are eliminating the bags as well.

So on top of customer choice, businesses face new risks through market forces and government mandates that make the EU carbon tax look quaint. Most people don’t realize that the last energy bill passed by the U.S. Congress basically banned regular, incandescent light bulbs. In the coverage of that bill, the press focused mainly on the rise in automobile fuel efficiency standards (to a 35 mpg average by 2020, which seems to me like a no-brainer). But the real story was the light bulbs.

The bill set new standards for energy efficiency that regular bulbs won’t be able to meet (hello, compact fluorescents). It’s really an astonishing law when you think about it – we’re banning something that isn’t inherently unsafe. I can’t think of another example like that. And to add to it, we’re replacing current bulbs with products that are less save in your home – CFL’s have mercury in them. Don’t get me wrong: the tradeoff is worth it for now – as a society we’d rather deal with a pile of mercury bulbs that we’re not sure what to do with than climate change. Of course this kind of mandate creates opportunity for anyone who can innovate and avoid the problems associated with either kind of bulb. LED lights anyone?

If you make incandescent bulbs, or plastic shopping bags, you’re facing the death of your business. I bet some manufacturers wish they had something as “easy” to deal with as an EU carbon tax. This kind of risk – a market being redefined out from under you – is a bit scary. The risk is complete irrelevance. But companies that don’t keep an eye on all these forces, from shifts in customer attitudes to wide-reaching laws and mandates, will disappear. The smart ones will innovate and profit in a newly defined market.

Sometimes I think the Wall Street Journal editors are phoning it in. In a piece titled, "The Environmental Motor Company: Making Detroit a subsidiary of the Sierra Club," the Journal complained about those horrible Democrats in Congress that want to tie the $25 billion in loans to Detroit to "green retooling." I guess pushing U.S. automakers to make cars that get much higher gas mileage, and thus will sell better, is a bad idea.

The Journal also makes the ludicrous statement that the real problem for Detroit has been those awful fleet fuel-efficiency standards (the CAFE rules) "that force the companies to make cars domestically that are unprofitable." To add to the absurdity... the same day, in the same op-ed section, GM's CEO Rick Wagoner explains "why GM deserves support" and talks about the super-fuel-efficient cars GM will make with the loan. So even GM is saying it needs to make different cars.

We're seeing an amazing act of willful ignorance here. The knee-jerk response in some circles seems to be that these poor companies were just burdened by bad regulations (not to mention big bad labor). This crazy idea comes on top of the general fiction -- which Wagoner is pitching -- that Detroit is reeling because of the credit crunch and the economic downturn. But the proof on this one is in the data.

The U.S. automakers were having very serious problems months before the financial meltdown.

Let's look at May '08 sales in the United States, when high energy prices forced Detroit's hand. While the Fall has been the real Armageddon for U.S. auto sales, the spring year-over-year comparisons told a scary story. The overall car market was down 11%. But Ford was down 16%, Chrysler down 25% and GM down 28% (which in retrospect looks pretty good compared to GM's nauseating 45% drop year-over-year in October). But how did the other guys do in May? Toyota was also down after making some mistakes and trying to sell some big vehicles also, but only dropped 4%. Nissan was up 8% and Honda sales were up an astonishing 16%. Let's repeat that: Honda sold more cars this spring than the year before. If you look at total sales through October, the difference between U.S. and Japanese performance isn't quite as bad (only Suburu is up for the year). But the companies that sell smaller, more energy-efficient cars are doing ok.

My favorite media moment on this topic came on one of the 24-hour news stations yesterday. While covering the Congressional hearings with auto CEOs, one story explained that U.S. automakers spend an extra $1500 on each car (vs. competitors) to pay for pension and health care obligations. To be sure, these costs don't help Detroit. But the news anchor went on to say something like, "so Detroit is struggling because of that $1500...and the fact that it's known for making low-quality cars." Oh, just that little problem of making bad products.

The business guru Jim Collins, in his fantastic book Good to Great, focused on the importance of "Facing the Brutal Facts." Pretending that evil regulations are the primary cause of Detroit's fall does not help our automakers. Acknowledging that they were making the wrong cars at the wrong time is at least admitting we have a problem (in whatever 12 or 200 steps Detroit needs to heal).

The predicament that Detroit has found itself in is an American business tragedy. Let's not make it worse by lying to ourselves.

This post first appeared on Huffington Post.

[Post #2 of 3 on Wal-Mart's activity in the last couple of months. This appeared at Harvard Business Online and then on BusinessWeek online]

In the last month, what event had the greatest potential for changing business as usual forever? If you said the passage of the climate change bill in the U.S. House of Representatives, it would be hard to argue with you. But I'm going to make the case for another event as the most influential (or at least a very close second): the Wal-Mart Sustainability Summit held in Sao Paolo, Brazil.

Following the model of the historic meeting Wal-Mart held for its Chinese suppliers last year, the President of Wal-Mart Brazil, Héctor Núñez, decided to hold a similar event for his suppliers. (Full disclosure: I was hired to give a keynote about the greening of business for larger context setting, but I have no consulting relationship with Wal-Mart).

Speakers at the event included the Brazilian Minister of the Environment and the director of Greenpeace Brazil, an organization that just a few weeks ago produced a damning report titled "Slaughtering the Amazon" that points the finger at the cattle industry as the primary cause of deforestation (growing soy is another leading cause). I had an interesting talk with Hector about his conversations with the aggressive NGO. He commented that "when you talk to Greenpeace, it's hard to argue with what they're saying."

But, I thought, arguing with the environmentalist perspective is exactly what business leaders normally do. But the world is changing—fast. In fact, Hector's speech at the summit, with its soaring rhetoric about global environmental damage, made him sound more like a Greenpeace activist than a hard-nosed manager.

At the Summit, Wal-Mart announced significant goals and mandates to tackle some of the thorniest environmental and social problems in the world. Wal-Mart Brazil will now, in essence, ensure that its supply chain uses...

• No companies that employ slave labor; "forced" labor (read, slavery) is a rampant problem in developing countries.

• No soybeans sourced from illegally deforested areas; 20% of the world's carbon emissions (and 70% of Brazil's emissions) come from burning down trees.

• No beef sourced from any newly cleared Amazonian land; globally, deforestation emits more carbon than all vehicles. Brazil and Indonesia are at the heart of this enormous challenge.

[For the rest of this column, please see BusinessWeek]

Yesterday was a sad anniversary -- it's been 25 years since the Bhopal disaster raised the specter of chemicals and toxics as a deadly serious environmental issue. In the late 60s and 70s, rivers catching on fire and dense, opaque air above cities forced our attention on solving the pressing, tactical issues of air and water pollution.

But perhaps no environmental disaster grabbed people's attention quite like the gas leak at a Union Carbide plant in Bhopal, India on December 3, 1984. Estimates vary, but at least half a million people were exposed to toxins and thousands died within a few days. Birth defects and other serious lingering effects still plague the population in the region, affecting hundreds of thousands of people. (See the Bhopal Medical Appeal for more info).

This one event drove awareness and contributed mightily to the momentum building to reduce human exposure to toxicity. It was the beginning of a quarter century of action. One of the first real industry-driven initiatives in any sector, Responsible Care, grew out of the tragedy. A few years later, the U.S. created the Toxics Release Inventory which mandates transparency on a range of industries. The measurement and disclosure of toxic pollution by facility has forced a lot of soul-searching and kicked off long-standing sustainability efforts at companies like DuPont (which discovered it was the #1 polluter in the first TRI reports).

The movement has evolved a great deal in recent years as part of the larger green wave that's swept business, especially the powerful trends of supply chain greening and transparency in all we do. Wal-Mart, never one to pass up a chance to increase pressure on suppliers on sustainability issues, quietly introduced a new tool, GreenWERCS, to assess products on its shelves on chemical composition. Companies like SC Johnson, Nike, and HP have made significant efforts, some for years, to reduce toxicity.

High-profile stories of lead in toys, toxic drywall, and melamine in milk products (all tied to Chinese supply chain practices), as well as concerns about chemicals like BPA leaching from baby bottles here, have also raised awareness dramatically. As the world contemplates vast policy action on climate, it's worth noting that government pressure has continued to rise on toxics, with a large number of powerful laws around the world. Regulations in EU over the last decade, such as RoHS and REACH, have changed the game dramatically (shifting responsibility to prove safety from government to business). The U.S. has gotten into the act in recent years as well, with bans on phthalates in toys, the controversial and stringent Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, which targets toys in particular, and regional actions like California's new regs. Companies cannot avoid questions about what's in everything and how their products might affect human health.

But what's really interesting is how the approaches companies take to handling toxics have been shifting over years from end of pipe solutions to pollution prevention to a new movement under the banner of "green chemistry." Rather than demonizing chemicals and chemistry -- when they continue to play a critical role in meeting human needs -- this new approach seeks a third way.

The leaders are starting to design chemicals and products in new ways to reduce toxicity. Do this right, the thinking goes, and avoid tons of regulation, liability, and health problems altogether. There's enormous upside potential for the companies that can innovate and find ways to create the same material or chemical properties that we need with much lower risk to humans and the environment. So this is not all about regulations and risk-reduction - it's about getting smart about your own products, and it's about profit.

With all the extensive, and justified, coverage of climate change and the Copenhagen Summit, it's easy to forget that there are other serious environmental issues out there. This anniversary today certainly reminded me. From water to biodiversity to waste, a range of other problems continue evolve and create pressing challenges, for society and for business. Of course most of these, especially water, have deep connections to climate change, so it's right that we make that a priority issue.

But the issue of toxicity and chemicals is one that lies somewhat separate from the climate discussion. While it gets lost in the shuffle sometimes, the pressure on companies to deal with it just keeps rising and rising. It's worth, today, remembering why.

[Originally posted on Huffington Post]

[If this was forwarded to you and you'd like to sign up for Andrew's blog via email, click here]

Reality 1: Last year, the Toyota Prius was the bestselling car in Japan. On the back of innovations like the hybrid gas-electric engine, Toyota also became the largest car seller in the world by volume. Toyota is clearly the best, most forward-thinking auto company.

Reality 2: During the same period, a number of Toyota models developed (or exposed) a serious quality problem that has caused deaths and led to one of the largest recalls in product history. In its delayed response, Toyota has not won any prizes for openness and customer care. Furthermore its line of trucks took a huge hit when the auto industry collapsed. Toyota is clearly the worst, most slow-moving auto company.

F. Scott Fitzgerald once said that it takes "a first-rate intelligence...to hold two opposing ideas in the mind...and still retain the ability to function." But how can Toyota still be one of the best companies in the world and still make horrendous life-threatening mistakes?

In the green/sustainable business realm, this dichotomy is actually not so unusual. Wal-Mart is arguably the most important company in the greening realm, with its aggressive actions to reduce its own — and all its suppliers' — environmental impacts. But, according to a large segment of the population, it's also a force for thoughtless consumption and low-price-above-all. A consumer survey last year proved the point: Wal-Mart topped the list of most sustainable companies, and sat atop the list of the least sustainable as well.

Toyota itself has for years been prompting head-scratching about how green it really is. At the same time that the Prius was rising in popularity and winning the company accolades for a good chunk of the 2000s, Toyota was also embracing a big vehicle strategy and focusing sales efforts on its giant Tundra truck. Most pundits agree that Toyota's quality and revenue problems stem from trying to grow too fast — partially by putting a big push behind the Tundra. By pursuing truck sales, Toyota grew, but it also found itself in the same whirlpool of anti-big vehicle sentiment when oil prices peaked in 2008.

But it's not just that Toyota grew too fast. Comparing figures from the first eight months of 2008 vs. the previous year, it's clear that Detroit was already hemorrhaging sales before the economic collapse because they had missed the green wave. Meanwhile, Detroit's Japanese competitors, with their more energy-efficient, greener product portfolios, were selling more vehicles year over year. Toyota's results were right in the middle because it was trying to be all things. It was trying to be smart — to maintain two opposing strategies at once.

This kind of integrative thinking is a skill all modern leaders will need (see an interesting piece on this opposing-views idea and President Obama). Holding opposing views can lead to innovative ideas, and we desperately need radical innovation, or what I call "heretical" innovation, to solve our environmental ills.

For example, we can't forget that when Toyota asked why cars couldn't have solid power, good midsize interior space, nice design, and get better gas mileage, it was on to one of the most important innovations of our time — even if today the Prius is getting caught up in the quality concerns as well. As has been already argued, we shouldn't use the Toyota saga as a warning against innovative thinking. Instead we should look more closely at where their strategy worked, and where it failed.

What matters is holding the right kind of opposing views, because not all of them are safe or sustainable. As the wise Mr. Miyagi once told Daniel-san, "Walk on road, hm? Walk left side, safe. Walk right side, safe. Walk middle, sooner or later get squish just like grape." Pursuing leadership in lean manufacturing and design while at the same time trying to grow at all costs has badly damaged Toyota.

Sustainable growth, the kind that isn't going to get squished, is found by using the kind of integrative thinking that allows us to provide goods and services that are the same or better and also to use drastically less stuff: that's heretical, and involves the right kind of opposing views to try and hold in your mind. But where Toyota got in trouble with integrative thinking was when it combined sustainable growth in one part of its portfolio with uncontrolled, unsustainable growth in another, exposing it to the very risk its Prius strategy sought to mitigate.

No matter how green your company is elsewhere, that kind of unthinking growth is not a worthy or, it turns out, a profitable pursuit.

[This post appeared first on HBR]