We have only just begun the task of reconciling the facets of climate-change impact on companies. The war on carbon will settle into some kind of endurable armistice. We will deal with the vestiges of Corporate Greening 1.0, which focused on comprehensive environmental clean-up and management, and still involves the settlement of old cases and legacies. We will get used to Corporate Greening 2.0, where companies must focus on carbon constraint and its impact on the company's economic as well as social accountability. Adaptation and innovation will be spawned and we will collaborate for common progress, if not survival. But C-suite management dynamics — executive planning and expectations with regard to climate change and sustainability strategies — will need to be continually reconciled with current and coming sociopolitical events.

If corporate public relations is, as I believe it is, the binding element in the management process of creating stakeholders in the company's success, the chief communications officer faces many differences needing reconciliation. Management actions planned and announced are not always executed. Trust and reputation are imperiled when company stakeholders expect more than is delivered. Media observe events and, depending on the outlet's bias, call them differently. Some green groups attack a company's position while others ally with it. Advocacy campaigns like Al Gore's $300 million Alliance for Climate Protection campaign will stir the waters for years. One investor's sweet spot is not the same as another's. And government, God bless it, often seems the most divided: ready to rise to the defense of economic contributors on the one hand, handicapping them on the other; flailing with sticks while offering carrots; and most egregiously, policy makers putting laws on the books that are endlessly interpreted as the resulting sea of regulations pours onto business, often leading to questions about the intent of Congress that can be worked through the legal system all the way to the Supreme Court. The last-mentioned anomaly provided the huge test of whether in fact carbon dioxide emissions are a pollutant to be regulated — the ruling back to the EPA was yes, it is — and that has led to the matter (apt never to be fully reconciled) of state versus federal rights to impose environmental and energy regulations.

The thread winding through all of these is the need for salience in business decision making. Thinking forward, companies must aim to be discovered to have done the right things both to protect their business plans (adjusted for climate-change economics) and to respond strategically to government and social realities.

Corporate sustainability is the new testing ground of the critical deal the company has with those who agree to support its business mission, its social accountability and its political engagement. In this context, communications clarity is essential. This will derive only from a strategic, well managed, open and timely information flow within the company and between the company and its stakeholders. In the era of Corporate Greening 2.0, CCOs will find ample opportunity to add value to the deal.

— E. Bruce Harrison
     Washington, DC