By Peter Brooks

In at least three of the cases we have studied so far (Maersk, Groom, Wal-Mart) efficiency was the one thing everyone seemed to agree on.  Investments in greater resource efficiency (energy, water, space) that cost less than future benefits are no-brainers; a company can save money while also preserving precious, finite resources (to say nothing of the safety, regulatory, aesthetic, and morale benefits of finding and fixing inefficiencies) and that is unequivocally a good thing.

Unfortunately there is a dark side to efficiency: it can be more destructive to the environment and speed the withdrawal and consumption of natural resources than if the investment were never made.  In the late 19^th century, an English economist, William Jevons, made the startling discovery that technological improvements that increased the efficiency of coal-burning, led to an increased consumption of coal.  To put it another way, greater efficiency was used…