by Marc Karell, P.E., CEM.

The majority of the corporate sector has not jumped onto the bandwagon to go “green,” despite the evidence that doing so has many direct positive financial benefits. A major reason, I believe, is that the decision makers (CEOs, CFOs, etc.) are older and do not have a comfort level about sustainability. They did not learn about it in their MBA or other programs.

That’s changing as nearly every MBA program now offers courses on sustainability in business. Decision makers tend to not want to risk possible negative impacts on a company’s bottom line and/or reputation. So they sit and wait to see how others have done with their programs. Below are some concerns corporate executives have expressed, and potential ways for you, the Environmental or Sustainability Manager or Engineer/Scientist, to overcome them.

There is much published proof about the significant reductions in expenses achieved by reducing one’s energy usage, a major part of a green program, money that goes directly into corporate profits. While CFOs acknowledge this, these types of efforts are generally not recognized by the press. While a newspaper often publishes articles showing how profits or sales of a company rose or dropped significantly, when was the last time an article was published about how Company X announced that it had decreased energy usage or expenses by Y percent? Lesson: Determine ways for you to positively reinforce the energy use and expense reductions for the decision makers of your company.

Public perception also plays a role in corporate thinking. In a 2010 study by Harris Interactive, only 16 percent of American consumers said they believe most or all businesses are committed to "going green," and there is high suspicion of company claims of success. This attitude perhaps resulted in another result of the poll: 71 percent of executives surveyed stated that they were hesitant to invest in a green program because of “consumers' unwillingness to pay a premium for green products or services.” While consumers tell pollsters they are concerned about the environment and are willing to pay more for a “greener” product, results at the store level say otherwise.

Therefore, “green” is really a secondary concern to shoppers behind performance and convenience of product usage. Lesson: Make sure that “green” products retain all of the advantages of conventional ones and that this appears on its label and literature.

There is also these days a general distrust of companies and their marketing claims, and that extends to “green” claims. This may cause companies to hold back on communicating real sustainability achievements for fear of a backlash. Lesson: Be transparent and complete in your communications; make sure there are “takeaways” (i.e., the proper metrics, such as GHG emissions were reduced by X tons or percent); communicate by all avenues possible (social media) to different audiences; give credit to others; do not overstate the impacts of your efforts. Monitor and record feedback to such claims (i.e., comments of a Web-based article) to determine the reaction of your stakeholders.

Marc Karell has more than 25 years of experience in all areas of sustainability, energy, air quality, and climate change, working on environmental audits, emission inventories, testing, and technical and strategic air compliance and climate change projects for diverse industries across the U.S. He has worked in industry, government, and consulting, and has a professional engineer’s license from the state of New York and is a Certified Energy Manager with the Association of Energy Engineers.