It’s interesting to see how the early environmental movement is being used as a straw man in this story; while at the same time the strategies being referenced are straight from Rocky Mountain Institute circa 1978.

I’m interested in advancing the understanding of the business case. We agree about Cleantech. We probably agree about the political efficacy of the Cleantech industry distancing from perceptions tied to early environmentalism. The engineers and techs I know in the Cleantech biz are certainly happy to do something good, but they’re not unpaid activists. They might hug trees… Don’t ask don’t tell.

One of the stronger “business case for sustainability” arguments is related to increased short term access to capital. Many cleantech businesses have more leverage in negotiating for capital because they can pitch their plan to (A) traditional VC’s, and (B) social minded investors. SRI funds have grown very fast in the past decade. Is this potential advantage helping cleantech CFO’s structure more attractive deals than their conventional energy sector counterparts? If so, I wonder to what extent? In a cleantech capital market like we have now, is it a material advantage?

Thanks again for hosting a good discussion.

Jeff Osborne

But who are Nick’s clients? Venture capitalists. I agree whole heartedly that end users of these clean technologies, and the entrepreneurs making them, adhere to that triple bottom line philosophy. And yes, some of the VCs are more than happy to wave the social responsibility flag, but having been to a number of venture capital conferences, I think I can say with confidence that for a large portion of the VC community it is, purely, about money. But you’re right — cleantech, greentech, sustainable tech, environmental tech, whatever you want to call it, it’s there and being developed toward a more positive environmental end. I think what Nick’s just saying is that to raise money for that technology, it can’t stand on that environmental record alone. You need a business case, and without one you truly do follow the path of dot-com wreckage. I think Nick’s just trying to prevent the “cleantech space” from overexposure and overhype.

So yes, this is positioning cleantech away from the environmental movement, because the early environmental movement — I’m clearly generalizing here, so apologies in advance — believes business should adopt these technologies and practices out of the goodness of their heart, or that government should force business to act certain ways. Cleantech is about creating a business case so businesses will move in that direction voluntarily — because it makes good business sense. This is not to say that the environmental movement doesn’t support this approach, as I know many environmentalists and groups who see the importance of getting companies to voluntarily embrace clean technologies as part of the larger solution.

As for economic drivers: rising oil and energy costs, rising public concern over global warning, state or regional competiveness, peak oil concerns, favourable government policy, etc…

Hope that helps.

Sustainable business objectives usually try to hit the triple bottom line of economic viability, social responsibility, and environmental impact. Almost by definition, this is what cleantech is (why else use the word?) Ultimately cleantech is about business, not money, and that is where it will succeed or fail.