There’s a great piece in the current Harvard Business School Alumni bulletin called “Two Kinds of Green.” It’s a case study of Burt’s Bees, a great brand that started as a niche brand with a social responsibility focus, and was eventually bought by Clorox (for $913 million in 2007. Green, indeed…)

A highlight:

“Burt’s ambitious goal is to be a “zero waste, zero carbon company, operating on 100 percent renewable energy in LEED certified buildings” by 2020.

The case vividly documents some of the measures taken by Burt’s to meet that goal, such as a redesign of the packaging for its lip balm (a change, suggested by factory floor workers, that cut energy per unit of lip balm produced by 40 percent); “Dumpster dives” that bring employees face-to-face with the trash they throw away; and reimbursement for employees who buy and ride their bike to work at least sixty times a year. Replogle admits that such tactics, while effective, are the “low hanging fruit” in meeting sustainability goals.

“Going those last few yards to become 100 percent waste-free costs much more than the earlier steps,” agrees HBS’s <Professor Christopher> Marquis. “The marginal economic benefit can be very small, while still representing a significant cost to the company. But at some firms, like Burt’s, it is also important to the companies’ mission and culture.”

We think it’s great to see a publication like this making the distinction between sustainability practices that deliver a positive ROI, and those that don’t. In the end the latter may make sense for some companies, and not for others. The former are what we specialize in, though, and seem to us to make sense for all companies.

Would more focus on “both kinds of green” benefit everyone? Or does it leave too much sustainability upside on the table?

We welcome your thoughts below.