Public companies can play a critical role in the success or failure of sustainability and climate change goals worldwide. Publicly traded companies worldwide account for $93 trillion of market capitalization as of 2022, and corporations listed in the United States account for 43%, or $40.3 trillion. Because of their size in the world economy, in the aggregate U.S. publicly traded corporations are both significant contributors to the causes of climate change and a possible source of solutions. Encouraging transformation within publicly traded corporations is important because it is unlikely that government regulations alone will have the consistency and power to compel company transformations that are needed ("IMF: World Economic Outlook Database", 2022; Eisner, 2004). Focusing on publicly traded companies also enables additional accountability because they have added requirements for transparency and accountability to investors enforced by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) (Robbins & Araujo, 2019).

Within the scope of sustainable transformation, understanding the historical context of the Triple Bottom Line (discussed below) and the integration of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) principles for creating corporate value is essential background. This article navigates through the complexities of sustainable transformations, shedding light on the challenges corporations encounter in achieving their sustainability goals. It explores how technology serves as a key driver for sustainability transformations, using Google as a case study to illustrate how a company that has transformed its systems for sustainability can deliver financial value to shareholders. Additionally, actionable frameworks are highlighted from successful implementations, offering invaluable lessons for other corporations seeking to accelerate their sustainability initiatives. From organizational alignment to leveraging technology effectively, this paper explores diverse dimensions where sustainability efforts can yield tangible benefits and drive long-term value creation.

Sustainable Evolution: History of Triple Bottom Line and Implementation of ESG for Creating Corporate Value

In 1994, a prominent business writer, John Elkington, coined the term Triple Bottom Line (TBL) (2004). He argued that there was more than just a financial bottom line and that companies should be responsible for creating bottom lines for the environmental and social value they either produce or destroy. Regrettably, in 2018, 25 years after its launch, Elkington proposed abandonment of the TBL because it had not sufficiently accelerated systems change transformations in companies that would be needed to improve sustainability for our planetary systems of climate, water resources, oceans, forests, soils, and biodiversity, which all continue to be increasingly threatened (Elkington, 2018).

Elkington contends that while CEOs will move “heaven and earth” to meet their financial bottom lines, they rarely do the same for environmental or social targets. Indeed, there has yet to be transformational follow-through despite some progress and decades of well-intended transformational investments, new financial frameworks, and $120 trillion in assets managed under the United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment signatories (PRI) (Kim & Yoon, 2022). Although the TBL has not led to the systems change Elkington hoped would cause companies to prioritize the environment and society, there is positive momentum. For instance, the Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi) saw more companies in 2022 validating their sustainability targets than in the last seven years combined to reach a defined path to reduce emissions in line with the Paris Agreement goals ("SBTi Monitoring Report", 2022).

Notwithstanding the challenges of systems transformation, there is impetus for corporations to implement sustainability because of the value that sustainability initiatives might create (Henisz et al., 2019). In 2015, more than 2,000 empirical studies were aggregated and analyzed to determine whether ESG programs that address the environmental and social bottom lines drive corporate financial performance (Friede et al., 2015). Across primary studies, there was a 56.7% positive correlation between firm value, ESG implementation, and firm outperformance opportunities, which were higher in North America than in other areas.

McKinsey later identified five ways, or levers, that sustainability creates value for corporations (Henisz et al., 2019), which can serve as a useful framework for later assessing the sustainability performance of Google and Microsoft:

• Top-line growth: More sustainable products and services attract businesses and consumers to the firm, increasing revenues. Customers are increasingly aware of a business’s sustainability practices; in a Boston Consulting Group study, this awareness drove an 80% increase in positive perception and leads to positive actions such as willingness to pay more for products or recommend products and spread positive word of mouth (Mackay & Culley, 2021).

• Cost reductions: Sustainability practices can provide significant cost savings as firms inventory their greenhouse gas emissions; they identify their largest energy intensive activities which drive high costs. Thus, reducing carbon emissions can significantly reduce expenses. In a recent Deloitte survey, nearly 40% of CFOs see sustainability as an opportunity to save costs as carbon reduction efforts reduce energy costs and increase efficiencies (Carravilla et al., 2022).

• Regulatory and legal interventions: Sustainability programs which show good corporate stewardship can garner positive government support and reduce the risk of regulatory pressure. The downside risk of poor sustainability implementations can be significant, especially for industries with significant regulatory oversight such as banking, technology, and telecom. McKinsey estimates that for these sectors, 40-60% of a firm’s EBITDA is at stake from external engagement (Henisz et al., 2019).

• Productivity uplift: Sustainability programs focused on making a positive impact in the world through the action a business takes can provide a sense of purpose to employees, boosting morale and productivity. A study by Hiroshima University found statistically significant evidence that younger generations are more likely to choose a company with clear Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and will sacrifice a higher salary when a company is committed to strong sustainability practices (Yamane & Kaneko, 2021).

• Investment and asset optimization: Sustainability takes a long view of capital investment, ensuring that capital is not locked into short-term projects with environmental risks. By focusing on sustainability, investment returns can be increased by ensuring that capital is invested into projects that carry a higher lifetime value, ensuring the investments remain relevant for the long-term (Henisz et al., 2019). When a firm fails to take this long view, corporations may face a higher cost of capital on their investments. This is because firms that choose not to implement sustainability transformations experience higher volatility rates and encounter more negative events that may impact a corporation's stock price (Henisz & McGlinch, 2019).

Leveraging Technology as a Driver of Sustainability Transformations

A sixth lever to add to McKinsey’s framework is the advancement of technology and operational efficiencies that can be made through sustainability implementations. Technology is a unique and nascent driver of corporate sustainability transformations (Close et al., 2021). Accenture identified this opportunity through research showing that only 7% of businesses have fully leveraged technology in their sustainability transformations (Unkefer, 2022). Capitalizing on the value of technology can enable emissions reductions between 45% to 70% through a variety of technology-infused processes, including artificial intelligence (AI)-based optimizations, improved data analytics, or digital solutions that emphasize the benefits of sustainability to consumers to drive increased demand for a corporation's products or services (Close et al., 2021).

Based on a survey conducted by Ernst & Young, 59% of business enterprises strongly agreed that technology is vital in accelerating sustainability (Loozen, 2023). This positive sentiment towards technology as a driver for sustainability can also help with technology adoption more broadly for a corporation, fostering acceptance of technology that enables sustainability systems change and value-added technologies such as AI, the Internet of Things, blockchain, and digital products and services (Close et al., 2021). The existence of this halo effect of technology and sustainability is supported by another recent survey of corporations, where 48% of companies reported increased revenues through sustainable technology implementations while meeting their sustainability targets (Unkefer, 2022).

Consequences of Sustainability Inaction, Greenwashing, or Lukewarm Implementations

Regardless of which levers a company uses to realize the value of sustainability, it is important to emphasize that weak sustainability implementations can have negative consequences for firms, further widening the gap between the positive value creation of sustainability and the cost of inaction (Henisz et al., 2019). For example, a weak implementation could mean that a company does not attract the best talent, or is subject to increased government scrutiny, or continues to lose out on cost efficiencies.

Alongside poor outcomes for inaction, there is the temptation for a company to try to realize the value of a sustainability transformation without taking real action. Corporations must embark on sustainability transformations in a forthright, earnest way that avoids greenwashing, which are practices and communications that create false, overly optimistic claims about a corporation's sustainability accomplishments (Torelli et al., 2019). The appearance of greenwashing or lukewarm implementation can damage a company’s reputation, leading to a loss of legitimacy, and hindering the achievement of both its environmental and social goals (Torelli et al., 2019). It is not enough for a corporation to talk about sustainability; it must walk the talk by providing appropriate leadership buy-in, vision, financial backing, and operational measures to enact change.

From an investment manager’s standpoint, Michael Cappucci summarizes this in Columbia Business School’s Journal of Applied Corporate Finance where some firms get stuck in “a valley of lower returns”, where a firm spends capital on their sustainability implementation, but only goes half-way (Cappucci, 2018). In this case, a company has spent money but may not be pulling levers in a way that truly transforms their systems in a way that delivers a necessary return. This is not uncommon to all types of transformations, which are explored in the next section.

Sustainable Transformations: Addressing Challenges for Corporate Success

Before considering the value proposition of sustainability and corporate best practices for realizing value, it is essential to highlight the challenges corporations face when enacting any transformational effort, particularly the necessity for a long-term strategy and commitment.

First, research shows that transformations fail two out of three times (Sirkin et al., 2014) and sometimes as high as 70% (Beer & Nohria, 2000). Beyond a high failure rate, change within corporations takes years through successive stages that must build on each other without shortcuts (Kotter, 1995). Even focusing purely on shareholder returns and economic value, "Theory E" transformations that involve economic incentives or restructuring are not sufficient to enact change and typically must be balanced with a "Theory O" change, which emphasizes culture and human capability (Beer & Nohria, 2000). Because of the high failure rate, even if corporations have the financial and economic impetus to transform, large-scale system change is hard work and requires a long-term commitment.

Research has also investigated why corporations make near-term decisions that have detrimental consequences for their long-term success, defined as "short-termism" (Marginson & McAulay, 2007). The cause of short-termism is the subject of ample research and due to many factors; however, it is generally the result of poor corporate decision-making caused by stock market pressures (Aspara et al., 2014). Some of these causes include speculative short-term traders, media reporting on short-term information, short-term stock movement due to quarterly earnings reports, and personal compensation of managers based considerably on current stock market valuations (Aspara et al., 2014). The World Economic Forum issued a report in 2019 that emphasized misalignment of the duties of corporate directors and the often-varied ownership objectives of disparate shareholders. These diverging interests can drive short-termism (Robbins & Araujo, 2019). Critical to overcoming short-termism is improving the way returns on investment are calculated by taking a long-term view and ensuring financial models are using accurate assumptions. One researcher highlights the use of improved discounted cash flow models for sustainability projects that account for the value of less costly operations when infrastructure is built sustainably, as an example (Henisz, 2016). The existence of best practices exemplifies how successful transformations have embraced a long-term perspective on sustainability projects, effectively implementing change.

Using Google as a Case Study to Leverage Sustainability for Value Realization

Taking the challenges of transformations into account together with findings demonstrating the value of sustainability for corporations, prior research can be amplified by highlighting how this value has been realized in practice within Google, using the frameworks discussed above to identify best practices across technology implementations, profit generation, private-public partnerships, regulatory flexibility, lifetime cost reductions, and employee sentiment. Additionally, below is an analysis of ways that Google has overcome some challenges in implementing sustainability as can be discerned from Google's 2022 CDP Climate Change Response plan ("Alphabet 2022 CDP Climate Change Response", 2022).

According to a McKinsey survey, corporate sustainability value creators build a sharp focus on sustainability strategy with focused priorities and goals ("How companies capture the value of sustainability: survey findings", 2021). First, to address short-termism, Google has defined a long-term climate strategy out to the year 2100 (Marginson & McAulay, 2007; "Alphabet 2022 CDP Climate Change Response," 2022). This nearly 100-year view informs how the corporation evaluates the net present value of renewable energy contracts for the long-term to assess carbon intensity and be more economical for the company ("Alphabet 2022 CDP Climate Change Response", 2022). In addition, Google has done this through its organizational design around sustainability ("Alphabet 2022 CDP Climate Change Response", 2022). Google has its chief sustainability officer (CSO) report directly to its chief financial officer (CFO), placing sustainability within the firm's financial management. It has also created a management Sustainability Board of senior executives to focus on scaling sustainability initiatives. Google also requires that its CFO sign-off on Google's annual climate change report, a responsibility the CFO cannot delegate. Lastly, Google has scheduled regular reviews of its sustainability activities by its board’s Audit and Compliance Committee. The combination of these efforts has resulted in sustainability successes.

Google estimates a positive revenue impact of $257.6 million through its sustainability efforts due to reputational gain and increased usage of its products ("Alphabet 2022 CDP Climate Change Response", 2022). Additionally, while Google does not report in detail its cost savings due to its sustainability efforts, Google has reported significant improvements in its energy efficiency in its data centers over the last 15 years, and its industry outperformance likely resulted in significant cost savings over the industry average (Holzle, 2023; Bizo et al., 2021), enhancing its bottom line. It is also essential for sustainability as existing data centers use 2% of the United States’ total electricity usage and will continue to grow as cloud usage increases ("Data Centers", 2023). In a 2021 study, the industry's power usage effectiveness (PUE) in data centers has stalled at 1.57 (Bizo et al., 2021), which is a proxy for power consumed by a data center facility (Bizo et al., 2021).

In contrast, Google now has a PUE score of 1.10, and it measures its PUE score more aggressively by including all data centers, not just the newest ones. Google also includes all sources of overhead in its PUE metric (Efficiency-Data Centers-Google, n.d.) This efficiency has made Google's data centers twice as energy efficient as an average data center, using six times less energy overhead for its I.T. equipment (Holzle, 2020). Google has achieved this industry outperformance through technology innovation (Evans & Gao, 2016). In 2016, Google was able to reduce energy usage in its data centers by 40% using its DeepMind AI product and applied machine learning to historical data center information like temperature, power utilization, and server speeds to find the best action to take to manage their PUE score (Evans & Gao, 2016). This capability demonstrates how technology has had a helpful impact on both Google's sustainability ambitions and its product success using DeepMind AI (Unkefer, 2022).

Beyond products, Google has issued $5.75 billion in sustainability bonds, which uses net proceeds on environmental and social projects across eight categories, including energy efficiency, clean energy, and green buildings (Porat, 2022). Additionally, its engagement in clean energy purchases seeks to standardize how clean energy negotiations are completed through power purchase agreements (PPA). It has reduced the time spent negotiating and executing agreements by 80% (Corio & Calderon, 2023).

Sustainability also creates value for a corporation through improved public-private relationships (Henisz et al., 2019). Google has demonstrated success in creating partnerships with its Environmental Insights Explorer (EIE) program ("Google 2023 Environmental Report", 2023), with data sharing available to over 40,000 cities and regions worldwide ("Google 2023 Environmental Report", 2023; "Working Together With Partners", n.d.). Google also leverages its sellable products in multiple ways that benefit sustainability. While there is no published research that shows how these partnerships have benefitted Google's overall business, user engagement with Google's digital products and monetization leads to value for Google (Birch et al., 2021). Google has emphasized its Google Maps product as a means to manage traffic patterns for cities, AI solutions to manage flood forecasting, and Google Cloud for public sector agencies to manage climate risks ("Working Together With Partners", n.d.; Mitchel & Amalfi, 2022). In 2024, Google announced its partnership with the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). Google will take data from EDF’s recently launched methane detecting satellite and leverage its AI technology and Google Earth product to map the world’s largest methane leaks, which are a significant cause of global warming today.

Correlated with private-public partnerships, sustainability value is created by improved regulatory dealings or mitigation of adverse regulatory requirements (Henisz et al., 2019). Google has partnered with the U.S. government to adopt a 24/7 carbon-free energy (CFE) target as part of its federal sustainability plan, which sets a goal to run 24/7 CFE on every power grid it operates on by 2030 (Holzle, 2022). It also actively assesses its brand for reputational benefit or harm. As of 2022, Google estimates a 0.1% change in its brand value (equal to $257.6 million) could occur due to how the brand is perceived for its positive or negative sustainability efforts ("Alphabet 2022 CDP Climate Change Response", 2022). While Google acknowledges that it does not know how future regulatory regimes could impact its business, it does claim to have met and exceeded its regulatory obligations, in part through its sustainability efforts ("Alphabet 2022 CDP Climate Change Response", 2022).

Additionally, as discussed in a McKinsey survey, corporations which have realized value typically report that sustainability "aligns with our goals, mission, and values", and Google has done this by placing sustainability at the center of its mission, backed by a corporate structure that enables it to take positive sustainability action ("How companies capture the value of sustainability: survey findings", 2021; "Alphabet 2022 CDP Climate Change Response", 2022).

The focus on achieving corporate value through sustainability should not overshadow the significance of the positive environmental and social impacts possible though these systems transformations. For example, Google was an early leader in reaching carbon neutrality in 2007. In 2017, it matched its energy use with 100 percent renewable energy resources, and it has set a series of ambitious goals, including operating on 24/7 carbon-free energy in all data centers and campuses by 2030 (Holzle, 2007; Holzle, 2016; Holzle, 2022). It also sets ambitious targets, tracks them, and publishes progress reports on a timely basis, including reducing Scope 1, 2, and 3 absolute emissions by 50% before 2030 ("Google 2023 Environmental Report", 2023).

Implementing Sustainability Best Practices

To understand the depth of Google’s transformation, it is useful to compare it with a peer company. As another leader in the technology industry, Microsoft serves as a suitable point of comparison for evaluating sustainability implementations and transformations. Like Google, Microsoft is also a leader in data center power utilization, publishes similar annual reports, and provides a relevant contrast to Google's approach within a comparable industry with similar sustainability claims (Vardhman, 2023; "Alphabet 2022 Environmental Sustainability Report", 2022; "Microsoft Environmental Sustainability Report", 2022). Both companies are working towards ambitious goals to have their operations run by carbon-free energy by 2030. Each company is approaching long-term emissions differently, however, with Google focusing on net-zero emissions by 2030, while Microsoft focuses on being carbon-negative by 2030 through carbon offtake agreements and investments in companies that can extract carbon from the environment ("Google 2023 Environmental Report", 2023; "Microsoft 2022 Environmental Sustainability Report", 2022).

Both Google and Microsoft have historically sought similar sustainability goals, however Google has reached these goals faster than Microsoft:

• Google reached carbon neutrality in 2007 through operational efficiencies, renewable energy investments, and carbon offsets (Holzle, 2007). About five years later, Microsoft made a similar commitment to be carbon neutral across all its direct operations by 2013 (Turner, 2012).

• Google reached 100% renewable energy purchases for its data centers in 2017, whereas Microsoft hopes to be at 100% by 2025 (Holzle, 2016; Joppa, 2021).

• Both companies publish PUE scores for their data centers, and Google's PUE score is 1.10 across all data centers, whereas Microsoft published a PUE score of 1.12 across only its newest data center (Holzle, 2020; Walsh, 2022).

The salient points derived from the comparison of these firms highlights certain best practices, which are summarized in Figure 1:

Taking a Long View

As noted above regarding the McKinsey sustainability framework, companies should ensure their investments and assets are optimized for long-term sustainability. Google did this successfully by taking a long view of investments with its long-term defined out to 2100 ("Alphabet CDP Climate Change Response", 2022). This long-term view is vital as a corporate leader to ensure that corporate finance accurately captures long-term value in projects and is critical for avoiding short-termism and sacrificing long-term value for short-term bad bets (Robbins & Araujo, 2019).

Similarly, Microsoft defines a long-term view for projects but takes them out only to 2050 instead of 2100 ("Microsoft CDP Climate Change Response", 2022). While no analysis has been published on the impact of having a differing timespan of project long views, and while both companies have a commendable multi-decade long view, this difference in long views could potentially contribute to a difference in the valuation of investments in sustainability. This could be an opportunity for other companies who do not have a long-term perspective similar to either company. Future research could determine how the length of a company's long-term view correlates to how aggressively corporations invest in sustainability transformations. This research could lead all companies to consider how long-term project assessments should be conducted to deliver the most effective results. For example, retrofitting older data centers with green technology may incur higher upfront expenses. If financial models do not adequately account for efficiency savings over a long period, the return on investment may not appear as optimal as a corporation that models out ongoing savings for a longer duration.

Getting Closer to the Money

Google's internal governance is a financial best practice that other U.S. corporations could emulate. By having the CSO report to the CFO, with an annual sustainability report sign-off by the CFO, this approach drives accountability and the authority needed to successfully implement sustainability projects ("Alphabet 2022 CDP Climate Change Response", 2022). In contrast, Microsoft has reported that it places its sustainability team in a separate organization from its financial team. While further research needs to be conducted to measure the difference in the effectiveness of organizational structures, any corporation should assess if its sustainability organization is positioned to have access to the financial capital and leadership influence needed to make investments and ensure core C-suite leaders, such as the Chief Financial Officer, are invested in and supportive of the work.

Also, companies should adequately fund the systems-level change needed to realize the value that sustainability creates. While it does not publish the specific capital and expense cost to transform its operation, Google has invested in its infrastructure to realize PUE scores of 1.10 across all data centers ("Alphabet 2022 CDP Climate Change Response", 2022) and has been a leader in Power Purchase Agreements (PPA) to reach 100% renewable energy earlier than its competitors (Holzle, 2016; "Alphabet 2022 CDP Climate Change Response", 2022). Microsoft has had similar internal success however it has not fully transitioned to renewable energies powering its data centers, with higher overall PUE scores than Google.

Companies benefit from investments in sustainability innovation, and both companies have made significant investments, with Google’s $5.75 billion green bond investment and Microsoft’s $1 billion Climate Innovation Fund ("Climate Innovation Fund", 2023). The amount of funding may vary by industry and the size of a corporation. However, the best practice that any corporation could take away is to assess the level of investment needed within its specific industry to implement systems change for its specific domain and then prioritize it within corporate financial models and leadership teams.

Achieving Organizational Alignment

Organizationally, companies should ensure that cross-functional executive leadership is empowered and engaged in supporting sustainability transformation within the corporation. Nearly 70% of corporate transformations fail due to a lack of support and long-term engagement (Kotter, 1995; Beer & Nohria, 2000). Google overcame this common engagement barrier by creating an executive-level Sustainability Board with senior leadership engagement from all impacted parts of its business ("Alphabet 2022 CDP Climate Change Response, 2022). Google also keeps the sustainability transformation topical by engaging with the corporation’s board of directors and audit committee on sustainability at fixed intervals, which research shows is imperative to maintain continued transformation progress ("How companies capture the value of sustainability: survey findings", 2021; "Alphabet 2022 CDP Climate Change Response", 2022). Microsoft also created a similar structure with an "Environmental, Social, and Public Policy Committee" that meets three times a year ("Microsoft 2022 CDP Climate Change Response", 2022). This committee is not as prescriptive as Google’s Sustainability Board, which identifies a deeper breadth of stakeholders from across the company to participate. The best practice for other corporations is to build a group of senior leader stakeholders from all impacted business units with a vested interest in making sustainability successful.

Additionally, senior leader pay should be tied to sustainability commitments. Google accomplished this with explicit bonus targets for sustainability ("Alphabet 2022 CDP Climate Change Response", 2022). Microsoft did this in some areas but was not as explicit, nesting sustainability bonuses inside a "customers and stakeholders' category" incentive ("Microsoft 2022 CDP Climate Change Response", 2022). Tying leadership pay to sustainability performance also prevents internal company greenwashing, where leaders may talk about sustainability while not taking decisive action toward reaching transformative goals.

Implementing Technology and Deriving Value

As discussed, corporations may leverage technology to create a halo effect that delivers value for sustainability and other corporate programs (Close et al., 2021). As a best practice, corporate leaders should assess where the corporation has technologies that could be leveraged to drive efficiency. Google has successfully executed this principle by leveraging its own DeepMind AI for data center efficiencies and as an AI product (Unkefer, 2022). Microsoft also mentions AI technology supporting its data center operation rooms to monitor infrastructure (We Live in the Cloud, n.d.). Implementing these types of technology can create cost savings, positive marketing for a company's products, and drive revenue opportunities. Both Google and Microsoft did this successfully, with Google leveraging its existing products, Google Maps and Google Cloud, to generate social good and increase the utilization of its products by cities and governments ("Working Together With Partners", n.d.). Microsoft does this by marketing its Azure cloud solution to other companies to reduce carbon footprints ("Azure Sustainability – Sustainable Technologies | Microsoft Azure, n.d.) from the data center to the cloud with Azure, 2023").

From a cost-saving perspective, Google keeps its return on investment from renewable energy contracts confidential. However, due to the business decision to continue investing in renewable energy contracts and maintaining industry-leading efficiency scores in data centers, it is expected to have delivered value ("Alphabet 2022 CDP Climate Change Response", 2022). Additionally, as mentioned, Google estimated in 2022 that a 0.1% lift in brand sentiment due to its sustainability efforts will drive a $257.6 million lift in value and that it could lead to increased customer adoption of its essential products like Google Maps and Google Transit, along with creating business-to-business relationships and partnerships with government entities ("Alphabet 2022 CDP Climate Change Response", 2022). Microsoft also seeks to differentiate itself by marketing its offerings to other businesses, which can become more sustainable and drive positive value through brand differentiation. It estimates in 2022 that this could also contribute between 0.1% to 3% increase in value, creating a lift between $16.8 million and $5 billion ("Microsoft 2022 CDP Climate Change Response", 2022).

Conclusion

Notwithstanding that the focus of this paper is on the technology industry, many of these best practices could be leveraged by corporate leaders in any sector. Ensuring access to funding for sustainability through organizational design, consistent engagement with senior leaders and boards, compensation tied to sustainability performance, and innovative and cutting-edge uses of technology to reduce carbon intensity are actions that can be leveraged across sectors. This best practice analysis is an exciting area of further research because while much research has discussed the theory of corporate impacts on sustainability, less is said about precisely how a minority of companies have been successful with their systems transformations. Future research could continue to identify specific best practices across industries to go beyond the theory of sustainability as a value driver and instead be used by practitioners to introduce systemic advances in new industries and corporations rapidly. So, while Elkington's TBL framework has not led to the acceleration of corporate systems change as he had hoped, mining for these best practices can help overcome transformation failures and serve as a step towards building a plan that finds a win/win outcome for sustainability and companies.

References are attached.

About the Author:

Greg Pilz is pursuing a Master of Liberal Arts in Extension Studies graduate degree in the field of Sustainability at Harvard University. He is an accomplished strategic operations leader with experience in the development and deployment of advanced technology in the telecommunications and renewable energy industries. Greg was responsible for the national rollout of fiber optic networks across the U.S. and led the Strategic Program Office for one of the largest telecommunications companies in North America.