<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: How Newsweek&#8217;s Green Rankings Could Be More Effective</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.triplepundit.com/2009/09/how-newsweeks-green-rankings-could-be-more-effective/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.triplepundit.com/2009/09/how-newsweeks-green-rankings-could-be-more-effective/</link>
	<description>Business, Better. Since 2005</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 21 Mar 2010 23:49:35 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Gregg LaBar</title>
		<link>http://www.triplepundit.com/2009/09/how-newsweeks-green-rankings-could-be-more-effective/comment-page-1/#comment-18009</link>
		<dc:creator>Gregg LaBar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Oct 2009 15:09:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.triplepundit.com/?p=14706#comment-18009</guid>
		<description>You offer four very good suggestions.  The most provocative thought is #3 - giving more credit for environmental impact, less for green policies and none for reputation. 

My background is communications and even I was surprised that reputation was part of the Newsweek rankings. Perhaps it was necessary because of the term &quot;green,&quot; which has more of a perceptions connotation than &quot;sustainable.&quot;

Some companies seemed to have a much better reputation than deserved based on their environmental impact or green policies. However, some good performers seemed to have done very little work on their reputation. 

So, even if they made the top 500, many companies may have received a wake-up call from the Newsweek list.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You offer four very good suggestions.  The most provocative thought is #3 &#8211; giving more credit for environmental impact, less for green policies and none for reputation. </p>
<p>My background is communications and even I was surprised that reputation was part of the Newsweek rankings. Perhaps it was necessary because of the term &#8220;green,&#8221; which has more of a perceptions connotation than &#8220;sustainable.&#8221;</p>
<p>Some companies seemed to have a much better reputation than deserved based on their environmental impact or green policies. However, some good performers seemed to have done very little work on their reputation. </p>
<p>So, even if they made the top 500, many companies may have received a wake-up call from the Newsweek list.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sam Hummel</title>
		<link>http://www.triplepundit.com/2009/09/how-newsweeks-green-rankings-could-be-more-effective/comment-page-1/#comment-17958</link>
		<dc:creator>Sam Hummel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Oct 2009 15:29:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.triplepundit.com/?p=14706#comment-17958</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t think that Julian&#039;s suggestions run counter to your point that rankings establish new forms of value or integrate practices.  In fact, it appears that he agrees on that point and there for is concerned that while we are creating rankings that establish new forms of value and incentives for integrating practices that we not set the goal posts in relativistic and ultimately arbitrary places.  Instead, as Julian suggests, the goal posts should be set in relation to the end goal of operating a truly sustainable business.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t think that Julian&#8217;s suggestions run counter to your point that rankings establish new forms of value or integrate practices.  In fact, it appears that he agrees on that point and there for is concerned that while we are creating rankings that establish new forms of value and incentives for integrating practices that we not set the goal posts in relativistic and ultimately arbitrary places.  Instead, as Julian suggests, the goal posts should be set in relation to the end goal of operating a truly sustainable business.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: William J. Broderick</title>
		<link>http://www.triplepundit.com/2009/09/how-newsweeks-green-rankings-could-be-more-effective/comment-page-1/#comment-17766</link>
		<dc:creator>William J. Broderick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Oct 2009 17:54:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.triplepundit.com/?p=14706#comment-17766</guid>
		<description>Agree with your suggestions re: industry focus.  With an industry focus, the relaative scoring within a given industry has much nore meaning.  The sustainability challneges facing Nike are dramitically different than those facing Progress Energy, which differ from Wal-Mart&#039;s.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Agree with your suggestions re: industry focus.  With an industry focus, the relaative scoring within a given industry has much nore meaning.  The sustainability challneges facing Nike are dramitically different than those facing Progress Energy, which differ from Wal-Mart&#8217;s.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Shannon Arvizu</title>
		<link>http://www.triplepundit.com/2009/09/how-newsweeks-green-rankings-could-be-more-effective/comment-page-1/#comment-17615</link>
		<dc:creator>Shannon Arvizu</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Sep 2009 14:07:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.triplepundit.com/?p=14706#comment-17615</guid>
		<description>These are excellent suggestions...but we should also keep in mind that rankings have multiple purposes. The actual &quot;results&quot; are not even the most valuable aspect of rankings. Rankings serve to establish new forms of value and practices within organizations. While it may be true that some of these companies may not meet the highest &quot;green&quot; criteria, Newsweek rankings help to integrate practices that organizations may not have considered before. Rankings also help to legitimize these practices - which, in the case of the U.S., are completely voluntary.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>These are excellent suggestions&#8230;but we should also keep in mind that rankings have multiple purposes. The actual &#8220;results&#8221; are not even the most valuable aspect of rankings. Rankings serve to establish new forms of value and practices within organizations. While it may be true that some of these companies may not meet the highest &#8220;green&#8221; criteria, Newsweek rankings help to integrate practices that organizations may not have considered before. Rankings also help to legitimize these practices &#8211; which, in the case of the U.S., are completely voluntary.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
