I’ve already made my argument that ”sustainability” and “green” are obsolete terms, and over the last year there appears to be growing mainstream momentum (it originated out of the systems design community) around the term “resilience” as a possible successor. One voice on the subject is Dennis L. Meadows, author of The Limits of Growth. In a recent interview with Pictures of the Future, Meadows made the following argument:

In my opinion [sustainable development] is an oxymoron, a term with nonsense meaning. To many people,"development” seems to imply that we can simply keep going as we have for the last 100 years, depleting resources on a large scale and polluting heavily. And adding some kind of “sustainability” makes the detrimental effects of our model of development go away. I am more interested in the term “resilience”. This concept is about how to structure a company or a city or a country so that it can continue to function quite well even in the face of major shocks. Implementing policies that give you resilience tends to make the system more sustainable.

Meadows went on to equate the coming environmental crisis with the current financial crisis, saying that he expects to see similar systemic problems. He said behavioral change is the most important factor in preventing these problems, combined with the tools of technology to realize those changes.

Like the financial crisis, climate change or energy scarcity are not going to proceed in a nice orderly, uniform way. Sometime in the foreseeable future there will be discontinuities, which will put us in a mode of crisis… to prepare ourselves the most important thing is to increase our time horizon.

The leading proponent of the resilience concept has been Jamais Cascio, an “ethical futurist” based in the San Francisco area, who points out the two reasons why resilience is gaining traction: 1. the future is inherently uncertain and 2. failures happen, so the OS of humanity needs to be flexible and self-aware enough to identify failures early and adapt accordingly. He adds that resilience implies two characteristics needed to do that: strength and flexibility.

One reason why the idea of resilience resonates with those of us 
engaged in foresight work is that, as troubling as it may be to 
contemplate, the current massive economic downturn is likely to be 
neither the only nor the biggest crisis we face over the next few 
decades. The need to shift quickly away from fossil fuels (for both 
environmental and supply reasons) may be as big a shock as today's 
"econalypse," and could easily be compounded by accelerating problems caused by global warming.

A number of organizations exist to explore the possibilities for resilience as a new social meme, including the Center for Resilience at Ohio State University. Others have emerged in South America and Europe

Companies are always happy to be included in “best of” media lists for energy and cleantech. And many of them, in my opinion, are deservedly included. But I’m just one opinion. The media supposedly represents a more informed opinion. So I was curious how these lists are compiled.  Is the selection process scientific? Do the lists reflect common wisdom or is it totally random? Is there a herd mentality? Or maybe it’s based on relationships? I decided to see if there is any rhyme or reason to the various selection methodologies and the results. After all, there are hundreds of innovative cleantech companies out there doing thousands of amazing things. Fast Company, the Wall Street Journal, Greentech Media, Businessweek/Bloomberg and other media groups have all come forth with lists. I should say up front that I am friends with many of the people who compiled these lists, and I’m even a sometimes contributor to Greentech Media. You might think that as the head of the cleantech practice at a large communications firm that I would want to shy away from razzing them. But then you wouldn’t know me very well. So first things first: here’s a list of selection criteria for several of the lists, starting with the funniest and ending with the driest.

• Greentech Media: Methodology:  We spread the names of 500 VC-funded firms on the Greentech Media dance floor and cut the head off of a chicken. Wherever the chicken landed – that was a winner. We stopped when we ran out of chickens.
• Bloomberg / Businessweek: Our criteria: These picks are starting to gain traction with real, innovative products and services for sale, they are not yet publicly listed, they are not yet household names, and all have bona fide venture capital backing and other high-profile investors.
• Fast Company: Apparently there isn’t a methodology (at least not one that I could find). But some of the language in the issue gives a vague hint at what’s important: “surprising and extraordinary efforts” and “each company… illustrates the power and potential of innovative ideas and creative execution”.
• Wall Street Journal: A team from research firm Dow Jones VentureSource (owned by Dow Jones & Company, publisher of the Journal) calculated the rankings, applying a set of financial criteria to some 350 U.S.-based venture-backed businesses in clean technology valued at less than $1 billion. Companies that make everything from fuel cell technologies to carbon-management software were analyzed according to four financial criteria: the track records of success for both a company's founders and management; track records for the investors on its board; the amount of capital raised in the last three years; and the percentage change in a company's valuation in the 12 months ended Nov. 30. Dow Jones reporters and editors who cover the venture capital industry also provided their perspective and expertise beyond the numbers.

 A few conclusions:

• There is a wide divergence in opinion. When you cross-reference the four lists, only Silver Spring Networks appears on all lists. Only two companies appear on three of the lists: eMeter (a client of my company Weber Shandwick) and Solyndra. A corollary is that definitions of cleantech vary (and are not clearly defined by the media in question). For example companies like Recycle Bank (which were named) are great companies, but are they strictly tech products or services?
• There appears to be a common assumption that success in raising money from VCs and the “caliber” of those VCs equates to successful business. Tell that to the nine out of 10 VC-backed companies that fail.
• There is an element of the subjective to all lists (aka “expertise beyond the numbers”), which means that personal relationships with the “deciders” matter.
• “Innovation” appears to be a common factor in selection as well, but none of the media define what the term means, further contributing to the subjectivity of it all.
• The Wall Street Journal has the most rigorous process. What’s interesting though is that many of the people I know in cleantech (investors, entrepreneurs, etc) scratch their head at some of companies chosen by WSJ.

Final thought: in a world where consumers of media are also increasingly content producers, why aren’t media tapping into the collective wisdom of the cleantech/energy crowd to help identify the true leaders, as well as vote on them? Recognition by peers is much more valuable to a business than recognition by media.

The State of Green Business (SoGB) report for 2010 has been released, and as always it dedicates a section to marketing. The basic take-away from this year’s installment was not surprising. Number one, that there is a “great chasm of ignorance” on the part of US consumers around green terminology. And number two, that marketing green to consumers has to be built around this simple truth: they “want products that aren’t just greener, but better – that offer some kind of personal benefit, whether they’re cheaper to buy or own, have enhanced features or higher performance, are more convenient, less wasteful, healthier for their families, or simply cool”.

In other words: people are self-interested.

The full section is excerpted below:

It stands to reason that during a recession — with high unemployment, job insecurity and a dramatic upswing in foreclosures and bankruptcies — shoppers would stick to basics: tried-and-true, affordable products. If so, that would be bad news for most green products, with their unfamiliar brands and often premium prices.

But you wouldn’t know that from reading the polls. A succession of market research surveys during 2009 seemed gushingly optimistic about consumers’ willingness to embrace green shopping. Example: Four out of five people said they were still buying green products and services, even in the midst of the recession, according to a study by Opinion Research Corp. Another found that shoppers from São Paolo to Shanghai were ready to shell out more cash for eco-friendly products, even as the recession ate into their buying power. Indeed, a handful of surveys even claimed that consumers were willing to pay more for green products.

What in the name of Al Gore is going on?

It’s a complicated question, to be sure. Consumers, say the experts, are continuing to make green choices, but they’re being pickier than ever about doing so. As a result, green marketing, always a challenging proposition, has become all the more challenging.

One thing seems clear: Premium pricing for green is a non-starter for most shoppers. That’s expected when people are pinching pennies, euros and yen. And consumers’ willingness to make green choices seems more likely when there’s a personal benefit in addition to a planetary one. As such, there’s a growing appetite for products that can cut utility bills, like energy-efficient appliances and light bulbs.

Even still, there remains a great chasm of ignorance — “radical transparency” notwithstanding — that’s keeping consumers dazed and confused when they shop, and more than likely is tamping down interest in green purchases.

For example, one study found that while most consumers view “energy efficiency,” “smart energy” and “energy conservation” as positive concepts, few fully understand what those and other energy-related terms actually mean. Another survey found more Americans buying energy-efficient light bulbs, but the majority remain in the dark about the federally mandated phaseout of incandescent bulbs that starts in two years.

And then there’s the Snackwells Effect, named after the Nabisco cookies that are marketed as diet foods, being lower in fat or sugar than regular cookies. Studies found that people offset those low-cal benefits simply by eating more of the cookies — after all, they’re “healthier,” right? Similarly, studies have found that people lose 5 percent to 12 percent of the expected energy savings from efficient light bulbs because they leave them on longer, and 10 percent to 30 percent of the savings of efficient furnaces because they raise the thermostat. After all, they’re more efficient, right?

All of this has made green marketing far more perplexing than most marketers bargained for, requiring more complex and nuanced messages and value propositions. In reality, the proposition is probably rather simple: Consumers want products that aren’t just greener, but better — that offer some kind of personal benefit, whether they’re cheaper to buy or own, have enhanced features or higher performance, are more convenient, less wasteful, healthier for their families, or simply cool.

That message was driven home by analysts at GfK Roper, which for years has conducted regular “Green Gauge” consumer surveys. “What’s interesting is that when you look at and compare some of the attitudes and behaviors in the U.S. to other developed markets, the U.S. is actually more like a developing market in terms of the way they think and behave green,” Tim Kenyon, GfK Roper senior market analyst, told GreenBiz.com. “In a developing economy, there’s much more of a personal self-interest involved in making green purchasing choices, and less emphasis on the greater good,” similar to what Roper was seeing in the U.S.

American consumers, it seems, may have more in common with their counterparts in Chad, Chile and China than one might ever have imagined.

I had the pleasure of hearing Ray Anderson, CEO of Interface, at the recent Clean-tech Investor Summit. It’s always nice to get re-invigorated by a person who not only inspires through his efforts to create a better world, but who is also a great communicator. Ray is certainly both. After the event, friend Joel Makower and I were wondering out loud if there were any CEOs out there besides Ray who brought with them the same level of inspired thinking and concrete action in the realm of sustainability and cleantech. They are no doubt out there. I have some of my own thoughts, but I want your suggestions. I’m not looking for consultants (I’ve got nothing against them, being one myself). So to be clear: I’m looking for men and women who are on the frontlines of running big business who 1. are pushing the envelope when it comes to innovating through sustainability and 2. who are charismatic conveyors of how they are doing it. I think Bill Gates (albeit no longer a CEO), took himself out the running with his insulation is stupid rant this past week.

Feel free to comment here or make a suggestion on Twitter to @mrcleantech

Thanks.

Based on the rash of predictions for cleantech in 2010 from investors, consultants and media (see the full list at the end of this post), I’ve pulled together a “trend of trends” list below that attempts to synthesis the broader, over-arching themes. As always, I’m amazed that water isn’t on the top of every list, every year, although there are some positive signs on that front. So here are the 12 things that filtered to the top:

• Energy efficiency will have a big year, with buildings and information and communications technology (ICT) front and center (nice to see the “wow” factor over technologies like solar being tempered by the realization that there are a lot of cheaper ways to meet immediate goals for reducing emissions)
• Private investment will revive (with one prediction for a record-breaking year), but fears persist that the pending end of stimulus dollars will cast a long shadow over the market
• Differentiation – i.e. marketing – will increase in importance as we move from a technology-heavy phase to a commercialization-focused phase (something I’ve called attention to in the past).
• Consolidation and industry shake-out will accelerate, as will increased involvement of major corporates. Many VC-backed firms need an exit (especially in smart grid, solar and biofuels), so expect a few IPOs, but mostly M&A or failure as scale becomes more important and winners and losers emerge. And as the market grows and the issues being addressed become more complex, big multinationals with vested interests will try to play a larger role
• Smarter transportation – especially electrified – continues to gain traction, while next generation liquid fuels (cellulosic in particular) takes baby steps
• It’s more than energy, stupid. Land, water, rare earth metals, etc take more mind share as understanding grows  that the issues we face go beyond energy and carbon
• Importance of carbon measurement and management will increase, but folks seems pretty skeptical that even if climate legislation/treaties get enacted that they will be aggressive enough (some expect sector specific carbon regulation – i.e. aviation and shipping – instead of economy-wide measure  
• Distributed solutions continue to erode the power of centralized systems (in energy generation, building, transportation, etc)
• Some technologies expected to garner attention: Waste to energy, waste biomass, power storage, geothermal, aquaculture, ultracapacitors, desalinization, building materials, large-scale solar
• There is a lot of expectation around advancements and interest in upgrading the electric grid; although there was a warning to expect at least one major failure of a smart grid rollout (not to mention that people have been predicting an intelligent grid for many years)
• Standards gain a higher profile – whether building codes, water or carbon labeling, unified standards for the smart grid, etc, creating a clear marked playing field grows in importance, including communicating the rules to consumers as needed
• International competition to be the cleantech leader intensifies (again this is something I’ve written about in the past, so not really news in my opinion)

If you want to read for yourself, the various predictions I’ve pulled from are here: Energy stocks to watch from Seeking Alpha; Overall industry outlook from the Cleantech Group; Clean energy predictions from Deloitte; Two different VC perspectives, one from Lightspeed Venture Partners  and the other from Rob Day at Black Coral;  5 biggest hurdles from Earth2Tech; IT and corporate green from Greenmonk’s Tom Raftery; Green building trends from Earth2Tech;  Top 10 promises from cleantech companies from Cleantech Group; Smart grid from Earth2Tech.

Technologies and services that reduce natural resource consumption and emissions are the future of global growth, as well as the pathway to climate stabilization. In China alone, expectations are for a $1 trillion annual "cleantech" market by 2013.

We are now entering a transition phase in cleantech, with focus shifting from technology to market commercialization. The winning technologies will win in large part because of marketing and communications. In the case of cleantech, it's not enough as a marketer to be a good practitioner of marketing.

In a world of ever increasing sophistication and specialization, in-depth knowledge of key drivers is essential to success. That means a deep understanding of underlying technology, cultural perceptions, policy, and consumer and enterprise behavior.

Moreover, there is interconnectedness in cleantech that does not exist in other areas of the economy, which requires maintaining unusually high levels of visibility into multiple vertical industries. Here are six keys to success:

1. Think systems. One of the unique things about cleantech is that you can't effectively talk about what you're doing in a silo. It is all inter-related. If you do power storage, it relates to renewable energy and smart grid. If you do water, it's connected to energy. If you do biofuels, it impacts food, water and energy. Your point of view must be developed accordingly.

2. Market the solution, not the problem. There is enough fatigue out there already about the environmental problems we face. Be a face for the solution.

3. Be specific. Talking about "green jobs" or "renewable energy" is no longer enough and audiences are growing more skeptical about "greenwashing." Talk about "wind energy jobs" or "solar power." The more detail you provide, the more believable you become.

4. Drive sales by focusing on your customers' strategic priority. While it may be tempting to lead with the environmental benefits of your product or service, our research shows that compliance and cost/ROI take precedence. Take time to research your customers and understand their primary motivations. You can adapt your message (and channels of communication) accordingly and be far more impactful.

5. Be a policy wonk. Perhaps more than any other space, cleantech requires that you have your finger on the pulse of policy. Whether you are in clean energy, water, smart grid, biofuels or transportation – national and international policy will play a major role. Ignore engagement with policy-makers at your peril.

6. Go digital. Communications have moved online. Social media is the new currency. Find compelling content that can mobilize online communities and get traction for your brand. Ad spend and press releases are becoming less and less effective as the role of online search takes stories directly to individuals at the touch of a button. It can be very cost effective, too.

This first appeared in MediaPost's Marketing: green newsletter

New research from KRC Research commissioned by my company Weber Shandwick was released today and shows that poor communication from suppliers is impeding the growth of the cleantech market. The research, pulled from interviews with 400 senior purchasing decision-makers in the UK, Germany, Span and France, revealed that although 8 of 10 organizations in Europe have specific cleantech purchasing policies, two thirds indicate that cleantech companies are failing to get their message across – 29 percent said they currently receive no information at all from cleantech companies, 26 percent said information was insufficient, and 11 percent said that if they were receiving information that it was too complicated. Demand is there (60 percent of European organizations are placing the same level of importance on green procurement as they did before the economic downtown), but half of those interviewed perceive cost to be a barrier to making cleantech investments. The research also shows some interesting differences between the various markets. Take a look at the full report, and if you’re interested in learning more, let me know.

It is time to rethink the language we use to describe efforts to improve our relationship with the environment. Below are the four reasons I believe we have entered a Post-Green, Post-Sustainability Era, and need a new meme:

• Red or Black Only: A price on carbon – whether in the US through ACES or internationally through COP15 – means that the discussion by businesses about “going green” becomes no longer exceptional (“hey, look what we did”), it becomes merely a requirement. Sustainability moves from the realm of marketing to the realm of bean counting and execution. Compliance to a regulatory framework for emissions means carbon is either a business asset or a liability, both of which impact the bottom line. Result: “Green” is folded into what business has historically been about – finishing the year in the Red or in the Black (and hedging against future shifts in the new currency of carbon). Similarly, strict compliance guidelines such as RoHS and WEEE also mean that making products more recyclable or less toxic is also taken out of the realm of marketing.
• SustaINABILITY: Going into Copenhagen, the international discussion will officially shift from mitigating climate change to adapting to it. Species extinction, ocean acidification, the addition of 2.5 billion more people globally in the next 40 years are all clear signals of this shift. This trend represents a necessary shift in language. In the new world of adaptation, “green” and “sustainability” will be revealed for what they are: constructs that imply that by “going green” or touting “sustainable practices”, we are somehow going to end up with a world as we knew it. The fact, however, is that the only thing that will be sustained going forward is our penchant for being unsustainable. We are already in a world of adaptation, so talk of going green and sustaining is obsolete. Instead, what we’re looking at is “maybe, if we’re really lucky, we’ll be able to achieve some level of ecological health that resembles what used to be”. But who wants to hear that message? So people will still sell green, and unfortunately others will continue to believe it exists.
• “Y” Green is Yellowing: There is also a generational shift. This blurb from Matt Bai in a recent NYTimes piece sums it up nicely: “In a sense, the gay rights movement of an earlier era was so successful in changing social attitudes that the movement itself can now seem obsolete, in the same way that younger Americans who have grown up with the premise of environmentalism in their daily lives consider Greenpeace to be a kind of hippie anachronism.” Point taken.
• Green Splatter: As writers like Joe Romm and Felicity Barringer have recently pointed out, “green” and “renewable” have a troubling elasticity to them, which has stripped the terms of any real meaning. Similarly, Dr. Andrew Dent has pointed out that “green” is not quantifiable because the data set is not quantified. Moving forward, specificity of language will be required to give meaning to action, so expect to see references to specific attributes such as recyclability, non-toxicity, low VOC, etc. Besides specificity, transparency and authenticity around product claims are about to be thrust upon businesses, which will push people away from empty platitudes. In the US, the Federal Trade Commission is reviewing its guidelines for green marketing claims with the goal of developing metrics that can be quantified. It should be noted here, however, that even this is far from full-proof, since the issue will ultimately be enforcement. The USGBC’s LEED rating system is proof of that, having recently come under fire for fostering “LEED-washing” – instances in which buildings claim and are often awarded LEED status, but don’t actually deliver the results.

The shift in semantics has started. Bill McKibben, the author of the “Death of Nature” and recently back from a trip to Australia, said at a recent event in Seattle that ministers Down Under are considering no longer using the term “drought”. The reason: drought implies that there is a beginning and an end to a water shortage, when the reality is that water shortages (in Australia and increasingly in other locations) are now endemic. The Economist hosted an interesting debate recently in which Stanford professor David Victor argued that sustainable development is “intellectually bankrupt and should be abandoned”, in part because “its meaning has become fuzzier”. The person arguing for sustainability’s relevance, Peter Courtland Agre of Johns Hopkins Malaria Research Institute, believes we can achieve sustainability because he is optimistic people will discover activism and change their behavior. Unfortunately, work by psychotherapist Linda Buzzell and others undermines this Pollyanna belief by pointing out that people as a species “don't seem to be very good at understanding enormous, complex challenges like the ones we're presently facing, let alone processing our emotional responses to these threats and moving into action.” I agree, and as I’ve explained in earlier posts, this is why my work focuses on technologies that can provide a buffer between consumption and natural resources without behavioral change.    

I’m sure people will continue to use green and sustainable as an easy shorthand for things that are less harmful on the environment. But that will become disingenuous, if it hasn’t already. So what will take their place? The younger set have started searching for something more meaningful, although I’m not sure the term “Freen” does more than add another cool-sounding, but largely meaningless term to the existing lexicon of self-indulgence. Others have lobbied for using a nomenclature built on the notion of “blue”. Ultimately, none of these terms pass the smell  test. “Low carbon” is good, but carbon is simply one piece of the problem and solution, so it is insufficient. “Resource-sensitive” and “low-impact development” start to get at the issue, but are kludgy. “Beyond compliance” is too narrow. Whatever the answer, the reality is that the words we use to define our struggle for survival are badly in need of an update. If you have thoughts on the matter, post a comment or send me something pithy on Twitter @mrcleantech

(This post originally appeared on Triple Pundit)

Because of my work with PetroAlgae, SkyFuel, EarthTronics and other cleantech companies, it has become clear to me that the degree of success achieved by “new energy” technologies (wind, solar, biofuels, electric vehicles, etc) will in large part be the result of their ability to integrate into and leverage the existing, “mature energy” infrastructure. Whether it’s plug-in, drop-in, co-fire, bolt-on or some other term, it is these types of technology – which DO NOT require significant retooling of refineries, transmission, storage, etc – that will have the best chance to scale, and thereby win in the long-term. Exxon’s recent announcement to invest $600 million in algae is a good indicator of this trend. Similar to the discussion of gigaton scale in my last post, cleantech companies need to be thinking about this issue when developing their positioning and go-to-market strategy.

The Cleantech Law & Business Review has officially launched with the release of its first quarterly issue. The goal of the Review is to accelerate cleantech commercialization by addressing a current deficiency in the sector: the absence of a forum that has the ability to look holistically, and through expert eyes, at the opportunities and challenges of cleantech.  

The journal will be peer reviewed (the first such publication in cleantech) and solicit contributions from business, academic, policy and legal experts to address the most topical and strategic issues facing cleantech commercialization today. 

“We want people to start thinking more laterally, not in silos… because a one dimensional approach is a non-starter,” says managing editor Bill Pentland. “Understanding the problems is something that will determine the success of the solutions, and that requires a systems approach.”   

Existing cleantech publications are doing a good job of reporting on specific solutions. The Review hopes to take all of the pieces and fit them together. The publication will be supported by sponsorship and subscriptions. The inaugural issues was built around the theme of carbon offsets. Other issues this year will focus on water, renewable energy and climate change.