Toyota headquarters, Toyota City Japan

Manufacturing companies regularly find themselves on the hot seat as regards their sustainability strategies—few environmentalists think to ask Microsoft, by comparison, if it plans to become a sustainable corporation—and no sector of manufacturing comes under fire more regularly than the automakers.

Not surprisingly, General Motors and Toyota have responded in kind, using their muscle as only the world’s largest corporations can.

Toyota’s solar array in Torrance, California, producing more than half a megawatt of power.

Ambitious programs are the norm rather than the exception. For example, GM now utilizes more landfill gas than any other corporation in the US (earlier post), while Toyota has installed one of the nation’s largest commercial solar arrays—536 kW—on one of its buildings in Torrance, California.

The list of achievements, as one can imagine, is long and admirable: innovative green buildings, aggressive recycling and end-of-vehicle-life schemes, and billions of collective dollars invested in hydrogen fuel-cell research.

Yet despite such measures, and notwithstanding in particular Toyota’s phenomenal success with hybrids, the products of both companies collectively produce more greenhouse gases each year than in the previous year.

General Motors’ fleet fuel economy and corresponding CO2 output.

The greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions achieved by Toyota hybrids, in particular, were no match for increases in overall product GHG production triggered by rising sales, particularly of its light trucks and SUVs. And with its overall fleet fuel economy essentially flat, the only way that General Motors can markedly reduce overall GHG production of its vehicles is to, well, sell less vehicles.

Although both corporations have repeatedly stated their commitment to reducing the greenhouse gas production of their products, both GM and Toyota also oppose regulation of GHG production under California’s greenhouse gas law.

Neither Toyota nor General Motors produces a sustainability report. In its Corporate Responsibility Report, General Motors defines sustainability along the lines of the triple bottom line of economics, environment, and social concerns, occasionally referred to as “people, profit, and planet.”

Toyota’s Environmental Report, as does that of Honda (earlier post), studiously avoids defining sustainability, and that may be a good thing: given that many automakers toss the word around and fashion it to suit their needs, perhaps it is prudent to wait until the term actually means something.

Cover of Toyota environmental report, displaying the logo of The Natural Step.

However, Toyota somewhat perplexingly garnished their 2004 European Environmental Report with the logo of The Natural Step, a NGO that works to implement its science- and systems-based sustainability framework; however, the report made no mention of The Natural Step (TNS) or even of sustainability.

Toyota does, however, take a crack at “sustainable mobility,” borrowing the definition developed by the World Business Council on Sustainable Development (WBCSD), of which Toyota is a member:

The ability to meet the needs of society to move freely, gain access, communicate, trade and establish relationships without sacrificing other essential human or ecological values today or in the future.

Such a definition is somewhat of a riff off the oft-quoted 1987 Bruntland definition of sustainability (development that satisfies the needs of the present generation without endangering the needs of future generations) with added references to mobility. It’s an interesting—albeit vague—starting point, but just how does Toyota intend to achieve the goal, as it were, of sustainable mobility?

The answer to that question, according to Toyota’s 2005 Environmental Report, is that the company “is striving to achieve this objective by addressing the two visions of ‘Zeronize’ and ‘Maximize’ simultaneously.

‘Zeronize’ symbolizes continual efforts to reduce the negative effects of ‘traffic accidents,’ ‘traffic congestion,’ and ‘environmental impact,’ while ‘Maximize’ symbolizes efforts towards the ‘enrichment of the heart’ to the fullest extent through the fun, excitement and comfort that people seek in automobiles.

Keeping perhaps a little bit closer to Earth, a Toyota engineer took the time to outline the problems facing his industry during a recent presentation at an advanced-technology conference. He asked the audience to envision a world in which all forms of transportation were emissions-free. Given the growth of our species, the engineer pointed out, the consumption of natural resources needed to produce and provide personal transportation would still—and likely will—be staggering.

If, for example, seven million Chinese buy cars next year, then we'll need to pave over enough land to make seven million parking spaces.

Toyota engineers are not alone in admitting the overall non-sustainable business as usual approach. Recently, GM’s Tim Vail, who oversees business development for the company’s fuel cell activities, remarked:

It really breaks down to sustainability. Only 12 percent of the world’s population have a vehicle now, but we are seeing a big change in that in other parts of the world, like China.

We are all for people buying more cars, but from an environmental and petroleum perspective, we cannot sustain this level of growth without doing something.

(Picture of Chinese soldier with GM HyWire concept car)

Culture clash: a Chinese soldier eyes GM’s HyWire fuel cell concept car.

Such sentiments are sorely tempered by the news that General Motors became China’s number one automaker last month. China itself is on track to overtake the US as the largest consumer of vehicles in the world by 2020. And what do its citizens want from a personal vehicle?

The top three priorities are fuel economy, fuel economy, fuel economy.

—Raymond Bierzynski, president of GM’s joint-venture design firm in Shanghai

Not one to be caught off guard, Toyota is planning a range of low-cost vehicles aimed at China as well as India and Brazil. Tokuichi Uranishi, who heads Toyota’s operations outside Japan, recently told The Sunday Times of London that the company had initiated a “serious project” toward that goal, possibly sold under a separate brand name.

It appears that China will be needing those seven million parking spaces after all.

Next week: Looking back, looking forward – where do we go from here?