Just bide your time and start investing in new trucks — any new model that comes off the assembly line. You’ll get there.

New trucks will be much greener than those your company operates today, according to a global survey of fleet operations from IBM, the Global Truck 2020 Study, Transcending Turbulence.

Slowly upgrading with new vehicles will help you cut fuel costs and reduce air pollution because of the steady advance of technologies that will methodically make transportation more eco-friendly.

Truck makers are increasingly investing in fancy new hybrid technologies to make their vehicles more fuel efficient, run on alternative fuels and incorporate new technologies to make vehicles run cleaner. Trucking execs told IBM that the top drivers of change are:

• technology — 71% of those surveyed by IBM said technology will be the most important external factor forcing change, such as remote diagnostic services to troubleshoot maintenance problems while trucks are in operation
• globalization — 54% predicted more investment in product standardization and supply chain management to squeeze out greenhouse gas emissions from suppliers’ products and services, and
• sustainability — 48% predicted environmental and fuel efficiency standards will be the main drivers.

If you know you’ll be shopping for trucks, you may want to attend the Green Truck Summit in Atlanta in March.

But buying new trucks isn’t the only way to improve your fleet’s environmental performance. Training employees on green driving techniques is a low-cost, quick way to save money.

Now there’s another new study that confirms the trend.

This time around, we discover that 74% of corporate real estate execs now recognize the business case for sustainability, and they say they’re willing to pay a premium to upgrade the eco-friendliness of their buildings.

This thanks to the 2009 CoreNet Global and Jones Lang LaSalle sustainability survey. Only 53% said they’d pay for these upgrades in last year’s survey.

The study can be very helpful for those that may need some ammunition to get the green-is-good-for-business message out and pry the Luddites out of their “I don’t want to change” horse-and-buggy belief system.

The execs are not hiding in some ivory tower. They recognize that selling sustainability or efficiency upgrades is still hard to do. They’re also recognizing that to go green also means they have to create an economic case for the upgrade.

Many surveyed said they’re not willing to go overboard in paying a premium for energy efficiency, but they’d cough up 1% to 5% more to lease green working spaces. The big change is that this year, 77% said they’d pay extra for green efficiencies compared to 42% last year.

Also of note: These corporate planners are comfortable with the “sustainability” concept. The survey reveals that 89% of real estate execs said they consider sustainability whenever making decisions about office space.

A: Don’t report any environmental information, and especially don’t report greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions like carbon dioxide (CO2).

That’s how hundreds of companies ended up at the bottom of a new Green Rankings survey published by Newsweek magazine.

The key to getting top honors:

1. Create environmental metrics, like measuring pollution created, waste generated and GHG emissions released
2. Adopt programs to reverse these events, and
3. Report your progress.

That’s the approach adopted by hundreds of companies that scored well in the Green Rankings analysis. The top five companies are:

1. Hewlett-Packard for its strong programs to reduce GHG emissions
2. Dell for its commitment to rely on renewable energy
3. Johnson & Johnson for its commitment to climate change programs
4. Intel Corporation for its reliance on renewable energy purchases, and
5. IBM for its longstanding commitment to train employees on environmental awareness.

Newsweek spent a year studying the greeniness of the nation’s 500 largest companies and found that companies that set environmental goals — such as reducing their carbon footprint — and publicized the company’s progress in reaching these goals also scored better financially and ranked better than their peers.

The Newsweek story is here.

The magazine created its Green Rankings without the support or feedback of the companies. To do this, Newsweek used a program created by Trucost and NSF International to rate corporate green performances. The methodology is described here.

Many utilities are prominently at the bottom of the list, due to their release of GHGs when they burn coal to create electricity.

One utility, Duke Energy scored 490th in the Newsweek ranking. But this was calculated before Duke switched sides in the global warming debate. It now supports a cap-and-trade law to reduce GHG emissions. The energy company’s statement is here. It will be curious to see how Duke scores in next year’s rankings.

The bottom five are:

1. Consol Energy, basic materials
2. ConAgra Foods, food and beverage
3. Allegheny Energy, utility
4. NRG Energy, utility, and
5. Peabody Energy.

All of the listings are here.

Q: What’s the fastest way to give your company a black eye in today’s green-sensitive world?

A: Don’t report any environmental information, and especially don’t report greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions like carbon dioxide (CO2).

That’s how hundreds of companies ended up at the bottom of a new Green Rankings survey published by Newsweek magazine.

The key to getting top honors:

1. Create environmental metrics, like measuring pollution created, waste generated and GHG emissions released
2. Adopt programs to reverse these events, and
3. Report your progress.

That’s the approach adopted by hundreds of companies that scored well in the Green Rankings analysis. The top five companies are:

1. Hewlett-Packard for its strong programs to reduce GHG emissions
2. Dell for its commitment to rely on renewable energy
3. Johnson & Johnson for its commitment to climate change programs
4. Intel Corporation for its reliance on renewable energy purchases, and
5. IBM for its longstanding commitment to train employees on environmental awareness.

Newsweek spent a year studying the greeniness of the nation’s 500 largest companies and found that companies that set environmental goals — such as reducing their carbon footprint — and publicized the company’s progress in reaching these goals also scored better financially and ranked better than their peers.

The Newsweek story is here.

The magazine created its Green Rankings without the support or feedback of the companies. To do this, Newsweek used a program created by Trucost and NSF International to rate corporate green performances. The methodology is described here.

Many utilities are prominently at the bottom of the list, due to their release of GHGs when they burn coal to create electricity.

One utility, Duke Energy scored 490th in the Newsweek ranking. But this was calculated before Duke switched sides in the global warming debate. It now supports a cap-and-trade law to reduce GHG emissions. The energy company’s statement is here. It will be curious to see how Duke scores in next year’s rankings.

The bottom five are:

1. Consol Energy, basic materials
2. ConAgra Foods, food and beverage
3. Allegheny Energy, utility
4. NRG Energy, utility, and
5. Peabody Energy.

All of the listings are here.

And, while many are introducing green versions of their traditional products and services, this only nibbles at the edges of the sustainability goal.

So says the granddaddy of business machinery and computers, IBM. The company’s got its own green angle, as a consultant to promote eco-friendly business practices under the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) banner. IBM’s convinced that adopting CSR promotes long-term success and profitability, and it just completed its second global survey to prove the point.

CSR is not philanthropy or viewing regulatory compliance as a cost of doing business. It’s adopting environmental, social and economic policies that protect the planet, treat workers fairly, and still reward owners and shareholders.

But to evolve to this level of operation, companies need information, and they need to learn how to process information so they can polish their green images and product lines. The big roadblocks to implementing complete CSR programs are that companies fail to:

• collect and analyze all the right information about sustainability
• aggregate the data often enough so they have an up-to-date picture of market and regulatory realities
• collect enough CSR data from their supply chain partners. With inadequate data, companies are missing major opportunities to reduce inconsistencies, inefficiencies, waste and liabilities, and
• fully listen to and understand the concerns of key stakeholders — particularly their customers — who normally provide new ideas for market opportunities.

For example, IBM’s survey reveals that only 19% of companies collect carbon dioxide (CO2) emission data on a weekly or daily basis. Instead, they collect it monthly or quarterly. This meets regulatory requirements, but it misses out on the real green benefit offered with better data management — opportunities to improve energy efficiencies and reduce power consumption.

IBM’s survey is here.

IBM’s business consulting service department also promotes itself as a Green IT expert, helping clients improve energy efficiencies with their computer operations. Click here for IBM’s Green IT web page.

Going green is proving to be harder than most companies want to admit.

And, while many are introducing green versions of their traditional products and services, this only nibbles at the edges of the sustainability goal.

So says the granddaddy of business machinery and computers, IBM. The company’s got its own green angle, as a consultant to promote eco-friendly business practices under the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) banner. IBM’s convinced that adopting CSR promotes long-term success and profitability, and it just completed its second global survey to prove the point.

CSR is not philanthropy or viewing regulatory compliance as a cost of doing business. It’s adopting environmental, social and economic policies that protect the planet, treat workers fairly, and still reward owners and shareholders.

But to evolve to this level of operation, companies need information, and they need to learn how to process information so they can polish their green images and product lines. The big roadblocks to implementing complete CSR programs are that companies fail to:

• collect and analyze all the right information about sustainability
• aggregate the data often enough so they have an up-to-date picture of market and regulatory realities
• collect enough CSR data from their supply chain partners. With inadequate data, companies are missing major opportunities to reduce inconsistencies, inefficiencies, waste and liabilities, and
• fully listen to and understand the concerns of key stakeholders — particularly their customers — who normally provide new ideas for market opportunities.

For example, IBM’s survey reveals that only 19% of companies collect carbon dioxide (CO2) emission data on a weekly or daily basis. Instead, they collect it monthly or quarterly. This meets regulatory requirements, but it misses out on the real green benefit offered with better data management — opportunities to improve energy efficiencies and reduce power consumption.

IBM’s survey is here.

IBM’s business consulting service department also promotes itself as a Green IT expert, helping clients improve energy efficiencies with their computer operations. Click here for IBM’s Green IT web page.

Green is great and can be a deal maker, but the first priority is, of course, function. Does the packaging protect the product? If not, then the green aspects of your package are lost on the customer.

Don’t discount the value of greenness. Green is a tie-breaker between two products of relatively equal values. But don’t rely on “green” too much.

That’s the cautionary tale from Scott Young, president of Perception Research Services, a packaging consulting firm that specializes in understanding how end users react to packaging systems.

For starters, don’t call your packaging or product “sustainable.” If it’s indeed green, call it “green” or “environmentally friendly” or maybe “eco-something.”

Reason: Fewer than 20% of consumers understand what “sustainability” means, according to research conducted by Perception in the U.S., Germany, the U.K. and China.

Nearly 50% of 500 people interviewed confused sustainability with durability. One defined “sustainable” as a package that will stay around forever because it’s not biodegradable.  Those interviewed also revealed mass confusion as to the relative “green” merits of recycling glass, plastic or metal.

Young’s research is published in Design Management Review. His article is here.

Most companies leave way too much green on the table. But there’s good news in a new analysis of Green IT practices: Becoming more efficient does not require new equipment.

Instead, IT departments can cut costs and go green at the same time by focusing on accountability and productivity. The best green saving opportunities are to be found at companies with less than 500 employees.

The common problem: Many companies only focus on one aspect of improving a computer department’s eco-friendliness, say by buying equipment with high energy efficiency ratings.

But to maximize profitability, Redemtech Research reports that IT departments can contribute to their company’s bottom line by adopting a holistic approach towards sustainable computing, one that:

• extends lifecycles of desktop and laptop computers
• increases energy efficiency
• raises utilization and reuse rates, and
• emphasizes responsible recycling.

Redemtech’s Sustainable Computing Assessment reveals that companies can save more money by using products longer instead of replacing them. For example, the Redemtech’s analysis recommends extending the lifecyle of desktop computers. A three-year life generates savings of $325 for every $1,000 of original cost while keeping them four years generates nearly $500 in savings.

To improve a company’s IT sustainability quotient, Redemtech’s research survey recommends:

1. establish baselines to quantify sustainability targets
2. create specific policies for achieving each sustainability goal
3. extend desktop and laptop computer lifecycles
4. optimize utilization to reduce reliance on idle technology, and
5. make people accountable for achieving each goal.

To review the report, click here.

Most of the answer boils down to awareness and education.

That’s the upshot of a new report by the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) and the consulting firm Deloitte that offers invaluable insights into what it takes to make a sale of a green product or service.

The biggest problem for marketing, sales and design teams boils down to customer awareness.  GMA/Deloitte found that although 47% of shoppers surveyed look for and found green products, only 22% actually purchased the product. Reason: Buyers weren’t convinced that the product would deliver on the green or sustainability promise.

The report also notes that although 63% of buyers looked for an eco-friendly product or service, only 47% found them.

Once product marketers get over these and other hurdles detailed in the GMA/Deloitte study, then they can regroup to find a way to fire up their green sales results. Payoff: Green buyers tend to be more loyal customers and less price sensitive.

A summary of the report is here. To download the full GMA report, Finding the Green in Today’s Shoppers: Sustainability Trends and New Shopper Insights, click here.

Most of this consumer analysis also applies to companies selling business-to-business, especially if you want to sell products and services to federal agencies. The General Services Administration has mandated that federal purchasing agencies buy environmentally preferred products whenever possible.

For more detail on selling green products to the government, click here.

What’s the biggest benefit for a company to adopt sustainable or environmentally friendly business practices? Mostly it’s all about making money.

European companies that have adopted long-term sustainable programs are posting stronger bottom lines. According to a survey by market researchers Atos Origin, companies that adopt green strategies earn 2% higher profit margins than their competitors. Click here for the survey report.

Most companies told Atos that they intend to stay with their environmental friendly themes despite today’s tough economic climate. Reason: 70% said they expect better balance sheets thanks to sustainable business practices.

For example, 70% of the executives interviewed by Atos said they were particularly interested green IT strategies to reduce utility bills.  The Atos survey also found that of companies surveyed:

• 46% plan to adopt environmental projects that will cut operating expenses
• 25% are now proactive in adopting environmental strategies, and
• 5% have cross-functional teams to investigate sustainability opportunities.

Meanwhile, more encouraging news for those marketing green products and services.

Troubled economic times do encourage many companies to start thinking green, according to those attending a recent Green IT Forum conference sponsored by IDC in New York City.  Cutting costs, primarily by improving energy efficiency, was the prime reason why 68% of attendees were at the green IT conference.

Yet there are challenges head for marketers as 78% of attendees admitted that their organizations have no budget yet for adopting green IT technologies or sustainable business practices.

Click here for this report.