Sustainability. Efficiency. As Americans we are becoming increasingly exposed to these two terms on a fairly regular basis. Whether it’s at the corporate level with companies continuing to push for sustainable publicity (maybe in the form of a Sustainability Policy) or on the consumer level when buying products (many of them being touted as the latest, greatest “green” solutions “guaranteed to provide you with increased efficiency in your home, car, office, etc.”), sustainability and efficiency seem to be popping up everywhere. And, regardless of whether you’re directly involved with sustainability &/or efficiency or have had limited contact with the notions, there often tends to be a sense of ambiguity in the marketplace for the exact meanings that the terms truly embody.

For example, fairly frequently, it seems, the words are used “hand-in-hand.” Are they, in fact, interchangeable? As is often the case with many terms within the English language, both terms can take on a number of different connotations that can vary depending on their intended use. Sometimes, depending on the given perspective, the words act as synonyms, sharing almost identical definitions. Two consistent similarities that are often present when defining sustainability and efficiency are economics and energy use. But, despite the apparent “one-in-the-same” nature of some explanations for the expressions, they are often viewed (or, practiced) as two very different phenomena. For a better understanding, let’s begin by attempting to analyze the two separate from one another.

Most Americans have an idea of what efficiency is. Traditionally defined, efficiency is the quality or property of being efficient; the degree to which this quality is exercised; the ratio of the effective or useful output to the total input in any system; or the ratio of the energy delivered by a machine to the energy supplied for its operation. Essentially, to be efficient means to create the maximum desired product with the minimum amount of input. OK. There’s nothing new here. Efficiency is action without unnecessary waste. So, what exactly is sustainability? At the corporate level, many companies claim to incorporate sustainable efforts into their business practices. But, what does it mean to be sustainable? Sustainable is an adjective used by many without a concrete, worldwide definition. It is commonly used to describe anything that “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (United Nations General Assembly 1987). More recently in 2005, the UN has agreed to add that something deemed to be sustainable must also contribute to the “Triple Bottom Line” of People, Planet, and Profit. In order to consider these contributions to the “Triple Bottom Line” to be a success, or sustainable, there are various metrics that must be measured. Concerning “People”, success is determined as a measure of how business practices and decisions affect employees, stakeholders, and the general public. “Planet” similarly refers to effects on nature and the environment, and “Profit” is the standard financial measure of an organization’s success. That seems simple enough. Just please everybody without harming Mother Nature (there’s something about a scorned woman…) and without being gluttonous (except when talking dollars and cents [in which case… be greedy!]). Let’s get right on it…

But, in all honesty, sustainability seems to mean making carefully examined decisions based on the analysis of all possible expected future (immediate and distant) consequences that would be experienced by all included parties that might be effected by the choices made (i.e. effects on the business’ bottom-line [or financial security], effects to the employees, effects to the communities, effects to the Earth, etc.). So, does sustainability always incorporate efficiency? The easy answer is usually. But, in what respect (and to what degree) does efficiency come into play in the sustainability equation? Does energy-efficiency or economic-efficiency play a larger role in sustainability? Roughly 10 years ago, corporations woke to the realization that energy is expensive. Prior to that, energy was a tool, worth any cost, to power economic growth. Then, the sustainability movement showed companies how they could save money. But, sustainability currently consists of 99 percent cost savings and 1 percent environmental savings (and that 1 percent is really only PR value or employee “buy-in”). And a recent focus on energy efficiency has distracted our industry from the original goal – an impact on the environment. Why is this?

For starters, there is a significant problem hindering the validity recognized by sustainability reporting efforts. Without prior research to establish baselines for comparison, how can we measure sustainable progress? And, what are we to measure? As it stands right now, there is extensive apprehension concerning the level of disclosure and the inconsistency of information provided in corporate sustainability reports. A large part of this trepidation is due to the fact that “the practice of sustainability reporting remains in its early stages and does not yet possess a common language or metrics, tools that are very much needed for progress to accelerate.” Also, misdirection of “blame” exists as current reporting often entails details concerning businesses energy-efficient upgrades and carbon accounting. But, what benefits to the environment do these energy efficient upgrades and carbon accounting measures truly provide in the grand scheme of sustainability?

The answer is that if not approached in a sustainable fashion, energy efficiency does nothing for the environment. In fact, it could even be worse for the environment than doing nothing at all. Increased efficiency equals increased profitability. Increased profitability leads to growth. And, growth leads to the use of more energy.

Now, don’t get me wrong… growth is great. But if it isn’t sustainable growth, then what have we accomplished?

And, although carbon accounting appears to be an admirable initiative, buildings (and the equipment inside) are responsible for precisely 0 percent of the world’s carbon emissions. The emissions associated enter the air from the coal fired power plant the computers draw energy from that creates the emissions. Until we address this single issue of energy input, we are failing to mitigate any adverse environmental effects by addressing energy output.

Also, sustainability addresses the issue of ensuring sustenance for future generations, but there is more to life then energy-use and air-pollution. In order for Sustainability Reporting to be considered valid it must take into consideration consumption of raw-materials, potable water usage, land and water pollution (waste diversion practices/rates), and all other aspects concerning the environment in relation to sustainability.

So, regardless of the desired definition utilized, one important aspect that is often considered to be associated with both descriptions but is often ignored in their practice is the inclusion of the environment and the effects that our actions may have on it. A misunderstanding of the difference between sustainability versus energy efficiency is preventing practitioners from reaching their goals of helping the environment.

Ultimately, what is sustainability in the corporate world if it is not just energy efficiency? The ideal sustainable business creates outputs and inputs that are interchangeable. A perfectly sustainable business would have zero waste and would require zero input outside of growth. Simply put, it is the “Cradle to Cradle” design. However, before this is possible a true companywide commitment to change must take place from the top down. As change takes place and dedication to sustainable decision making occurs, this invested approach to sustainability will mean extended periods of growth and endurance without forgoing efficiency. And, consequently, that sustainable-focus is necessary for a successful, stable, organization-wide energy efficiency program. So, when using our definition of sustainability within a business philosophy, it’s easy to say that you would not make a business decision today that would sacrifice the business tomorrow (unless of course you run Enron). And, it is also apparent that in order to truly embody the idea of sustainability and/or efficiency, consideration must be given to both.

To embrace environmentally sustainable development, it is not important that you become a tree-hugging hippie, nor is it vital to adopt a “principles before profits” mentality. But it is important to accept the serious impact of the environment on your business. Long-term sustainable growth is important to building a successful company. By not taking this extra step from efficiency to sustainability, we as sustainability practitioners are actually failing the movement and the planet. And we’re wasting precious time. With the right focus and attitude, there is a much bigger potential of generating consistent returns from these sustainable initiatives through committing a company’s most precious resource, the time of its people. Ultimately, without action there are no reactions (except for the negative consequences we are continually faced with because of our complacency with our current practices). But, it takes vision first. As summed up by Stephen Schmidheiny, a leading business and non-profit activist in sustainable development, “when viewed within the context of sustainable development, environmental concerns become not just a cost of doing business, but a potent source of competitive advantage. Enterprises that embrace the the concept can effectively realize the advantages; more efficient processes, improvements in productivity, lower costs of compliance and new strategic market opportunities. Such businesses may expect to reap advantages over the competitors who lack vision. Companies that fail to change can expect to become obsolete. ”

Sustainability. Efficiency. The Environment. Success. The answer lies within…