Detecon Opinion Paper When Giants Flex Their Muscles: Green Activities of Silicon Valley ICT Industry Leaders

Opinion Paper
When Giants Flex Their Muscles
Green Activities of Silicon Valley

ICT Industry Leaders
2010 / 10
We make ICT strategies work

When Giants Flex Their Muscles – Green Activities of Silicon Valley ICT Industry Leaders
Table of Contents
1 Executive Summary............................................................................................. 4
2 Introduction.......................................................................................................... 6
2.1 Green ICT – Just another Fashion? ............................................................ 6
2.2 Purpose of the Survey – The Scale of Impact ............................................. 7
3 Perception – How do you see…? ...................................................................... 11
4 Approach – How do you address…?................................................................. 17
5 Activities – What do you do…?.......................................................................... 24
5.1 External – Facing Market........................................................................... 24
5.2 Internal – Facing In-House ........................................................................ 27
5.3 Financial – ROI & TCO .............................................................................. 28
6 Conclusion – The Green Hype Split .................................................................. 30
7 The Authors ....................................................................................................... 32
8 The Company .................................................................................................... 33
Opinion Paper 2 Detecon International GmbH

Table of Figures
Figure 1: Take home messages of the green survey ...............................................................4

Figure 2: The 10 survey participants ........................................................................................7
Figure 3: Energy-Efficiency & Sustainability groups of the companies ....................................8
Figure 4: Building blocks of a carrier and its surrounding telco ecosystem..............................9
Figure 5: Addressed topics within the survey ...........................................................................9
Figure 6: Cost savings dominate over environmental considerations ....................................11
Figure 7: Cost savings are the prime driver of green ICT.......................................................12
Figure 8: Even spread of hype & tangibility in the market yet as function of target group .....14
Figure 9: No end-consumer will accept performance drawbacks for being green .................15
Figure 10: Technology is the field where Green ICT will show the largest impact.................17
Figure 11: What are the prime green activity fields within the technology sector ..................19
Figure 12: What are the prime green activity fields within the business sector......................21
Figure 13: To start with internal green changes is the preferred approach............................23
Figure 14: Market-facing activities of the interviewed companies ..........................................24
Figure 15: Responsibilities to push green implementations (along the supply chain)............25
Figure 16: All have expectation for HW manufacturers ..........................................................25
Figure 17: 90% confirm the purchasing power of large enterprises .......................................25
Figure 18: Activities of the interviewed companies facing in-house .......................................27
Figure 20: The hype cycle splits into 2 curves with both having different recovery times......30
Color Code:
Take Home Message “Citation from company”

1 Executive Summary
Carriers around the world are looking for new opportunities to reduce internal costs, grow
revenue through new services and smart solutions, and to create a positive brand image in
the hope that this results in promoting stickiness and lowering churn and at the same time
ensures compliance with regulations, satisfies stakeholders’ expectations, and avoids
bringing the company into the line of public fire. Green Information & Communication
Technology (ICT) – everything around sustainability and energy-efficiency in the
telecommunications space – has the potential to address all the above angles; if it is done
right.
At the moment it is (still) challenging to clearly distinguish between hype and reality in this
field. Therefore it is crucial to initiate the right steps and in the right order as the market is still
in its infancy, seeking new (or alternative) business models and best practice approaches.
Waiting is not an option because otherwise conflicts with upcoming regulations are
guaranteed.
The content of this publication is a reflection on the answers given to a survey by selected
ICT companies. It delivers first-hand insights as to what suppliers, vendors, and partners of
carriers have on their “green mind”. The survey addressed various fields (perception,
approach, activities) of the Green ICT sector and the answers are used to identify green
patterns and trends. Carriers should consider them for the development of their own green
strategies and approaches. When it comes to environmental-friendly actions, imitation is
highly welcome as it serves the greater good.
The sketch (Figure 1) illustrates the key take home messages and attitudes stemming from
the Valley. They are discussed in detail in this publication.
Subtitle Create green synergies by establishing partnerships and alliances.
Don’t try to create positive Innovation, Supply Chain,

No Island
public awareness if it is still Cost Calculations, DC
Activities
messy behind the curtain. It Start with Prime Optimization, Energy-
is essential to put one’s own In-House Activity Efficient Hardware,
house in order first. Greening Fields Software Energy
Management.
Embrace “green”
knowledge sharing Stick to public
Imitation is Walk the promises. Ideal:
along the supply OK
chain and other Talk Under-promise/
carriers. over-deliver.
Independent and 3rd

Carrier Despite
party vendor-vendor governmental
Be Cost pressure and
assessment is
Objective Savings environmental
indispensable to
Rules expectations,
objectively separate
hype from reality. saving costs is
the main driver of
No green.
Enable Fast
Savings could be used for “green Premium
Market “Green” is still partly
product discount” end consumer Fee for
Penetration Technology mistrusted. Majority of
campaigns” or to accept initial Green
is the consumers are not willing to
premium fees from manufacturers Enabler pay a premium to be green.
to support cost-intensive R&D.
New green business & services are enabled by technology, not the other way around.
Figure 1: Take home messages of the green survey

The outcome of this survey will for sure not provide the solution for the “theory of everything”.
However, size indeed matters in this case and the impact scales directly with it. The
participants have double-digit telco market shares within their fields of core business.1 When
put together those companies essentially have a grip on 40% to 90% of the global telco
market. They are the main hardware, software, service and solution providers to the majority
of carriers around the world; they are the giants within their fields. Whatever “green” path
these players choose to walk will be the trail others shall follow. Carriers should therefore
pay close attention.
1
Disclaimer: All logos shown within this document are registered trademarks of the respective companies in the
U.S. and other countries. Logos are the property of their respective owners. The use of logos in this document
does not imply a partnership relationship between Detecon International (including its affiliated and subsidiary
companies) and any other company shown in this document.
This publication is derived from sources believed to be accurate and reliable, but neither its accuracy nor
completeness is guaranteed. The material and information in this publication are provided "as is" and without
warranties of any kind, either expressed or implied. Any opinions and views in this publication reflect the current
judgment of the authors and may change without notice. It is each reader's responsibility to evaluate the
accuracy, completeness and usefulness of any opinions, advice, services or other information provided in this
publication.
The information and opinions contained in this publication constitutes neither a solicitation, nor a
recommendation, nor an offer to buy or sell investment instruments or other services, or to engage in any other
kind of transaction. The information described in this publication is not directed to persons in any jurisdiction
where the provision of such information would run counter to local laws and regulation. Detecon International and
its related, affiliated and subsidiary companies disclaim all warranties, expressed or implied, including, but not
limited to, implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose.

2 Introduction
A core attribute of something being “en vogue” is that it tends to come and go. When at
times trendy products, services and attitudes get into the minds and imaginations of
consumers, they get onto the rollercoaster and run through the product life cycle until they
reach their natural end. For the last 2 years “green” appeared to be on a similar ride.
Is “being green” just a fashion? Another “wave” that will roll up to the beach, break a few
small sand-castles and then recede quietly? Or will it last longer and show tangible
sustainability? Trends often fall in the former category – a wave that is quickly rising and
then falling again.
2.1 Green ICT – Just another Fashion?
2009 was when “Green” entered the collective imagination of consumers and governments.
It was a record year for “green” investments2. Every day brought new announcements, new
promises and new ideas. Discussions on greenhouse emissions and green technologies
were collectively spurred by nervous investors looking for the next stock market darling to
arrive, governments interested in new opportunities for job creation and consumers
interested in reducing their environmental footprint. In the year 2009 everyone was suddenly
involved and interested in both sides – green bucks and green trees.
This compelling mixture of demands and expectations triggered the urgency on part of
businesses to act. For one, it became clear that reducing expenses was crucial and could
potentially be the difference between bankruptcy and survival. In addition it started to
become clear that the public had generally accepted the idea of man-made global warming
and that companies would need to be viewed as “green” in order to be considered socially
acceptable (much like changes in public perception of pollution control, labor policies and
equal opportunities for women in the decades past). As a logical consequence, the public
and the government began drawing their attention to big industry players by judging and
observing their initiatives to drive a better (greener) future. Expectations and pressure from
and on the industry were put on a fast-track and (unfortunately) “green” was pulled into the
marketing machinery. The term “green” got exploited, deformed and abused to the very
limits. Suddenly everyone and everything was green, just in different shades.
Over the course of 2010 it has become rather quiet around the green bubble. Or so it seems.
In reality, activities have actually moved on to a different (higher) level. A lot simply has been
pushed out of the public radar and is taking place in-house. It is the result of lessons that
many companies had to learn in a rather painful way. Fingers were burned by having pushed
“green” marketing campaigns a bit too far. Due to misconception, over-hype, big promises
and small results, the term “green” is still viewed with suspicion by many consumers and
regulatory agencies. Companies have now realized that it is better to under-promise, then
over-deliver and do so without too much publicity.
2
Green Transition Scoreboard: Findings on Investments since 2007, July 2010

The above history is what makes “Green”

different. It is touching the very fundamentals of
With its ability to drive down costs
consumer attitudes and wallets. Albeit being “en
in favor of the environment
vogue” at the moment, green is not just another
“Green” is for carriers a necessity,
wave. It is a necessity, not a luxury. It is neither
not a luxury.
a product nor a service (although it will contain
both). Green is here to stay.
2.2 Purpose of the Survey – The Scale of Impact
The purpose of this publication is to separate the reality from the hype in terms of green
activities. It aims to understand how leading players from Silicon Valley are dealing with and
working on energy efficiency and sustainability.
The survey is custom-tailored for the telecommunications industry and in particular for
carriers. The questions asked are addressing various fields of the Green ICT sector. The
survey identifies patterns and trends amongst the participants. These are useful for carriers
to consider for the development of their own green endeavors and optimizations as well as
for Corporate Social Responsibility strategy.
The survey has been conducted with only a few companies (in total 10, see Figure 2). Yet
these participants all have global market shares in the double-digit range within their fields of
core business. When put together they “control” 40% to 90% of the market. They are the
main hardware, software, service and solution providers to the majority of carriers around the
world. These companies are the giants within their fields. Size indeed matters and the impact
scales directly with it.
Figure 2: The 10 survey participants

Every individual can no doubt contribute to a sustainable future. However, if action points for
solutions and changes have to be put onto a fast track, then the scale of impact matters. As
mentioned before, this naturally draws the attention to the large industry players rather than
end-consumers. A single move of a large enterprise may be of equal impact as to having
numerous end-consumers decide, act and move simultaneously. Consider the following
hypothetical scenario: A software update designed to increase the efficiency of power
consumption, is remotely pushed onto end-consumer laptops and PCs. About 1.5 billion
PC’s are worldwide in use3. Assuming that just 30% of these are configured to accept
automatic updates, the effect of such an automated remote push would be the equivalent of
a scenario where 500 million end-consumers proactively search the Internet for energy-
saving tools, install and then start using such a tool all in the same night. Which scenario is
more likely?
As for the interviews themselves, they were all conducted with VP’s, Directors and Principles
of these companies. Their titles might differ as might the names of their groups (Figure 3).
Regardless, all of the interviewees were directly involved with energy efficiency &
sustainability related topics within their respective companies. For a topic such as Green ICT
which is still in its burgeoning state and suffers from a lack of best practices & maturity,
talking to specialized group/division heads is important in order to gather both vision and
detail.
Green
Energy Energy
Business
Efficient Efficiency
Operations
Solutions Group
& Strategy
Climate Green
Environmental Corporate Business &
&
Sustainability Sustainability Technology
Energy
Group Group Development
Strategy
Power Energy
Eco- Strategies & &
Environmental Sustainable Environment
Engineering Technologies Group
Figure 3: Energy-Efficiency & Sustainability groups of the companies
Participants were chosen to avoid developing a “tunnel view”, e.g. only focusing on the top
10 network component manufacturers (or any other sector). From a carriers’ perspective this
would only be a slice of the ecosystem surrounding it. A carrier can be seen as multi-layered
structure. Each of these layers serves a specific purpose and is being provided or supported
by specific industry sectors.4 The goal of the survey is to cover as many relevant layers as
possible and to gain insights along their own supply chain (Figure 4).
3
George Shiffler, Gartner Research: PC Installed Base, Worldwide, April 2008
4
We neglect for a moment that there is a trend in the telco industry to either expand vertically or to acquire
companies to enter new business fields (inorganic growth). The figure above should be seen as traditional. In
reality, the individual pieces of the puzzle would not have sharp boundaries and rather show a strong overlap.
However, results of the survey remain unimpaired.

Telco Ecosystem Carrier Building Blocks

Internet Service Network Hardware
Providers Manufacturers
Hardware
Software
Services
Core Customers
End-User Device Enterprise Solution Aggregation

Manufacturers Providers
Access
Figure 4: Building blocks of a carrier and its surrounding telco ecosystem
Within this report the interviewee’s responses have been sorted to fit areas of Green ICT
which are relevant to (Figure 5):
 Perception & Definition
 Approaches
 Impacts on business & technology
 Internal activities (in-house) The survey is custom-tailored for the
 External activities (market-facing) telecommunications industry, in
particular for carriers.
 Financial impacts
Perception of Green ICT?
Approach to Green ICT?
Financial impacts
of Green ICT? Survey Technology &
Business impacts
of Green ICT?
Internal & External Green

activities?
Figure 5: Addressed topics within the survey

Of particular interest are the approaches. As discussed in detail in a previous publication5,

carriers are facing pressure from several directions. They must hit the “sweet spot” in order
to serve the “green expectations” of different players such as regulatory agencies,
customers, shareholders, and competitors. At the same time the green endeavor should not
ruin the company. It is about finding the right balance, especially when it comes to the
timelines of in-house versus external activities.
The reader should note that activities and initiatives around “Green” are still in transition.
They are shifting from an optimization-driven approach of IT systems & hardware such as
datacenters, facilities, computers, and network systems (aka Green ICT 1.0) to beyond the
walls of the company. The so-called Green ICT 2.0 is aiming for a birds-eye view
perspective, going for the holistic picture with all its collateral impacts. Prime attention is
therefore being drawn to, for instance, carbon management, embodied energy, green cities,
smart homes, and green supply chain management.
The participants of the green survey are the giants within the telecommunications
industry. Their responses and the deducted patterns & trends are to be considered by
carriers for the development of their own green endeavors and optimizations.
5
Dr. E. Dulkeith; R. Mukherjee (Detecon): OpEx and CO2 – Killing Two Birds with One Green Stone. Strategic
Considerations for incorporating Sustainability & Energy Efficiency in Access Networks, April 2010

3 Perception – How do you see…?
How an enterprise or individual perceives “green” has a large impact on their expectations,
behavior, priorities, roadmaps, initiatives, etc. In the framework of this survey the term
“perception” is used as an umbrella term covering awareness, perspective, definition,
attitude, opinion, and conception. It determines how reality is seen and approached.
When asked about their definition of Green ICT, most players answered that neither purely
economical nor ecological definitions apply and that it was a blend of both.
“Nowadays, short-term ROI are prime directive as capital has become very
important and budget spending has been shortened. The global economic situation
has shifted priorities from “environment comes first” to “reducing costs comes first”. ROI
has reached new levels of importance. Just recently, “green” was mainly correlated to
power savings via AC, UPS and regulator improvements. The timeline was less urgent.”
100% of the companies see “Green”

“Main focus is on economical aspects as
defined as a blend of both green
they are easier to scope (OPEX). From
“bucks” and green “trees” (Figure 6).
certain angles there is no clear borderline. How
The majority agrees (70%) that
to measure costs of environmental damage?
although the environment is, without a
How to accurately measure costs of sick
doubt, very important, the “financial
employees as a result of environmental
health survival” of the company is of
pollution?”
higher relevance and greater priority.
10
70%
30%
0 0
Economical Ecological Both Economical more important

Ecological more important
Figure 6: Cost savings dominate over environmental considerations
In fact it is almost impossible to clearly

separate economical & ecological “From a business perspective economical
benefits. They are just too interde- aspects will always be of greater relevance.
pendent. They directly impact state & health of a
company”

Moreover, the economic/ecological cost-benefit ratio

strongly varies with what one looks at. There is no
general rule applicable to all. For instance, the amount of Green (ICT)
efforts and investments as well as the ROI for =
restructuring a datacenter or to introduce paper cups are Green (Trees + Bucks)
not at all comparable. It is a case-by-case assessment
and decision. The ideal situation is always to kill two
birds with one “green stone”.
When asked about the relative importance of different drivers for Green ICT most players
answered that cost savings dominate. 8 out of 10 companies stated that reducing costs is
the most important driver for green (Driver 1 in Figure 7)6. This is in agreement with the
previous question. However, adding potential governmental regulations as an additional
consideration permits more insight into the drivers for the individual companies in light of
their core businesses.
Driver 1 Driver 2 Driver 3
Those companies within the driver 1 pillar 0%

which have not ranked cost as the prime 20%
driver are either pursuing to become
leaders in the new green “niche” market
50%
(Environment is prime driver) or
potentially exhibit stronger cultural &
geographical European heritages which 80% 40%
could be the reason for a per se stronger
emphasis on environmental aspects.
Europe is known to have always drawn
its focus more on sustainability than cost
savings7.
50%
The second most important drivers (2) 40%
are equally environmental friendliness 10%
and legal compliance as both received
50% of votes each8. Given the back- 10%
ground of the companies interviewed
(Figure 4) this distribution is reasonable.
Those with core business around Cost Savings
hardware manufacturing are mostly
concerned by upcoming regulations and, Environmentally Friendly
accordingly, have primarily placed legal
compliance as the second most Legal Compliance
important driver (2).
Figure 7: Cost savings are the prime driver of green ICT
6
As will be seen later this implies that green in-house initiatives for cost-saving should come first (= reducing
Opex) because any tapping into the external “product line” in general requires first, significant R&D investments
(= increased expenses) and, second, is time consuming.
7
REN21 Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century: Global Trends in Green Energy in 2009 and
Global Status Report 2010, July 2010
8
Each interviewee (10 in total) was allowed to provide one complete set of ranks (First, Second, Third). Hence, the
total yields 300% as shown in Figure Figure 7).

The concern (and consequently the ranking) is justified as hardware is a “measurable box”
with detailed technical specifications. A piece of hardware can easily be put to a pass/fail
test, its carbon emissions can be easily determined and calculated and it can be subjected
to enforced boundary conditions for energy-efficiency 9.
“From a vendor perspective our goal is to maintain leadership in green technologies.

It is less a question of complying with upcoming regulations but rather participating in
creating the right set of smart regulations. We actively shape & participate in defining
US & International governmental regulations.”
On the other hand there are significant

challenges in determining the “Cost savings is the “carrot”, compliance
environmental impact of software or web with regulations is most often rather the
services. Similar to the hardware “stick”. Low-hanging fruits such as
manufacturers and in accordance with approaches that enjoy greater chances of
their core business, all “soft companies” approval within a company are always driven
have chosen environmental friendliness by short ROI and good cost-savings”
to be at second position.
The third most important driver (3) is

again equally split between environ-
“Environmental considerations are position 3
mental friendliness and compliance with
as they are very hard to quantify.”
40% of votes each. The reader shall
note that a clear difference between
driver 2 and driver 3 cannot be
concluded. Given the small sample “Prime directive is to comply with
number of interviewees (10, yet with governmental regulations, international
substantial power of impact, see standards, and in best case scenario to
Chapter 2.2) the results of 40% and exceed them significantly.”
50% are too similar.
“While some countries are leading & driving environmental friendly considerations for
ICT (e.g. Australia, UK, US, Germany) in far more countries new regulations are
emerging. From this point of view, being compliant with emerging regulations has
higher priority than being green.”
9
One example is the ISO 50001 (International Standards Organization) which is planned to be published in about
a year from now (ISO 50001 on Energy Management Systems: Approved as Draft International Standard,
http://www.ansi.org/news_publications, June 2010). The US Department of Energy has been one of the primary
motivators. In light of the current popularity (and true need) for energy efficiency the development of 50001 was
shortened to 3 years (instead of regular 5 years). 50001 will become the new standard for energy management. It
will be issued to complement ISO 9001 (quality management) and ISO 14001 (environmental management).

It can be concluded however that cost savings is clearly perceived as the major driver while
compliance with regulations and acting in a sustainable and environmentally friendly manner
both share the second place.
When setting green priorities carriers should assess the scope & nature of their assets.
Even though cost savings are prime directive the degree of regulatory impact can vary
significantly. VNO’s and ISP’s with only moderate hardware assets can be less
concerned about legal compliance whereas local incumbents should be alerted.
When asked as to how they perceive the market in terms of hype versus tangible benefits of
Green ICT the replies were rather evenly distributed between “equal”, “more hype”, and
“more tangible” with 40%, 30%, and 30% of the votes respectively (Figure 8).
This spread should not hide the fact that all participants agree that a green hype factor exists
in ICT and this factor is significantly greater than in other industry sectors. As the last two
years have shown, the market has been green-washed and numerous companies have tried
to exaggerate their position when trying to paint themselves in various shades of green.
However, the trend is slowly shifting from “equal” towards “more tangible”.
Also, during the conversations with the

interviewees it was mentioned that hype triggers
confusion. The current situation where no More hype
standards, benchmarks, and references are 30%
Equal
readily available to establish the basis for an 40%
objective assessment and comparison makes it
challenging to demonstrate green tangibility.
“Clearly, the market is confused. There is 30%

lots of green washing and also not all “green”
More tangible
comparisons are actually fair. What is
missing is a 3rd party objective
evaluation.”
Figure 8: Even spread of hype & tangibility in
the market yet as function of target group
This confusion sometimes causes sales and

marketing to make (almost) arbitrary green “Vendors often offer hype;
statements, smearing out the different shades of technology companies are in
green, because they did not know any better general more tangible and "down-
(and partly getting away with it). to-earth" because their claims for
energy-efficiency are measurable.”

“From a technological perspective one should always perform a direct side-by-side

vendor comparison of products. This helps to better identify real tangible benefits.”
Another point worth emphasizing is that several companies responded to the hype question
by breaking it into different target groups. In consensus, “more hype” is seen in conjunction
with end-consumers while the business space is associated with “more tangible benefits”.
“Lots of clients for services and The green market still suffers from a lack of
business solutions are clearly tangibility. Facts and hard numbers are the only
aware of the necessity of way to objectively distinguish between hype and
efficiency benefits yet it is not reality. Although slowly emerging, there are no
clear and still challenging to global standards, benchmarks and references yet
determine how large the “green” to create an objective assessment and
benefits are. This is the biggest comparison. This is still up to the company.
challenge: How to measure it?”
When asked about their opinion on how the customer/end-consumer perceives “Green” and
whether a positive perception by the end consumer may show positive impacts on revenue,
most players replied in the negative.
Most interviewees felt that consumers are not willing to accept reduced performance (saving
energy) in order to contribute to an environmental friendly behavior (0%, Figure 9). 90% of
all companies agree upon that the consumer looks at the carrier and expects green new
products without any sacrifices in performance at all. As will be discussed later, the end-
consumers are seen as the second strongest group to push green changes (Figure 15).
0 2
Sensitized & expects green ecological Sensitized & expects green ecological Frustrated & confused by exaggerated
advances advances green-washing attempts throughout all
market segments
Ignoring green aspects as

Willing to accept performance Not willing to accept performance purchase criteria as he/she cannot
drawbacks for being green drawbacks for being green distinguish between hype and reality
Figure 9: No end-consumer will accept performance drawbacks for being green

20% see the situation as being even

worse. Consumers have identified false “An example of saturated customers has
sales messages and have become been the Apple commercials about “green”
skeptical. Yet they cannot distinguish laptops. Sales went down. Apple returned
between hype and reality, and hence, to the original campaign communicating
will not implement green aspects into high-end products to an exclusive group”
their purchase criteria at all10.
In general, green is not seen as a “feature” where consumers are willing to pay a significant
premium fee. The private end-consumer does not and cannot think in ROI terms, and hence
exhibit only limited willingness to pay a premium for the moment (if at all and even then only
a minor one). This is very different for companies. Considerations of special agreements
along the supply chain could be taken into consideration and could potentially be used to
compensate & balance each other e.g. costs for R&D in product advances from the
manufacturer’s side against OPEX reductions in the carrier network. This should be
communicated to manufacturers and carriers.
Silicon Valley players feel that end-consumers will not accept any premium-fee or
performance drop for the sake of being green. Carriers have to bear this in mind.
100% of companies agree that end-consumer have the final word. They decide if a
green product & service will shine or flop.
10
The reason for having a total of 110% in Figure 9 is the result of one company differentiating its answers by
geographical region stating that customers in Asia are leading edge with communication technology, hence, have
high standards and do not accept any performance drawback at all (answer “not willing”).
On the other hand, other regions may never have really cared (answer “ignorant”) simply because the majority of
energy has always been green, for instance from wind, water, solar, and geothermal sources. From an
environmental perspective any high power consumption has never really been an issue.

4 Approach – How do you address…?
The perception of a company on market and target groups is essential. But equally
important is the approach adopted to address the situation. This chapter deals with
questions around the green approaches of the Silicon Valley players.
When asked about which business segment will Green ICT have a larger impact on more
than twice as many companies (70% versus 30%) responded that it will be the technology
that drives Green ICT.
It means that the majority of interviewees see

new technologies as being the enabler for
new services and only then impacting
business. As an example, while a business Technology 70%
concept & case for “teleportation” might be
available, without technology to realize this
idea, it will never have any impact. It should
be noted that the answers shown in Figure
Figure 10 show no correlation to the core Business 30%
business of the companies. The responses
from “soft” and “hard” companies are equally
distributed throughout the 100%.
Figure 10: Technology is the field where
Green ICT will show the largest impact
“Technology is the “New business

enabling/driving approaches/ Technology enables new
innovation force for solutions must be business and services. The
new services and enabled by larger impact, at least for the
with this carries a technology first; years to come, will be in the
large impact on hence, the impact technology sector.
Green ICT” commences in
technology”

When asked to name specific sectors within the technology segment where green activities
are expected to make an impact again three answers dominated the responses11:
 Energy Management on Software Level with 7 out of 10. Energy efficient
hardware is only effective as long as it is being intelligently managed. This is
not essential for a single “box”, but for a nationwide (or global) carrier network
intelligent management via smart software that orchestrates all components in
a harmonic way is a key vision for any telecommunications operator. This is not
only true for carriers but also true for any company with large numbers of
employees (which implies at least an extensive internal network and many
desktops and laptops).
 Data Center Optimization with 6 out of 10. As DC’s are not exclusive to
carriers the optimization is seen as a key activity field. It should be noted
though that here there is a fundamental difference to carriers. While the
majority of participants certainly have their own data centers to manage,
operate, and maintain, none of them owns a nationwide telecommunications
network. As explained in a recent Detecon publication12, it is the network itself
(combined hardware and software in the access, aggregation, and core) that is
the main contributor to a carrier’s energy bill.
 Energy-Efficient Hardware with 5 out of 10. Advancements in hardware are
the fundamental ingredients for any sustainability & energy-efficiency
approach. Having the “same” hardware offering the “same” performance and
yet consuming only a fraction of the power the previous model consumed is the
perennial goal. Without improved power consumption at the hardware level,
intelligent software can barely make a difference without impairing the
performance. One clear path the industry is walking and intensively pushing is
the development of silicon photonics13 and next-generation multi-core
processors14.
11
R&D was not added as an option. Any advancement in technology commences with R&D, hence, it is taken for
granted to be an essential part of most technology activities. For instance, without R&D neither advanced
technology can be designed nor software developed. However, several companies still commented RD and
mentioned that R&D is a key ingredient and activity field within technology.
12
Dr. E. Dulkeith; R. Mukherjee (Detecon): OpEx and CO2 – Killing Two Birds with One Green Stone. Strategic
Considerations for incorporating Sustainability & Energy Efficiency in Access Networks, April 2010
13
Dr. E. Dulkeith; Dr. K. Grunert; S. van-der Merwe (Detecon): Photonic Packet Switching and the Evolution of
Optical Networks, November 2008
14
Dr. E. Dulkeith; Dr. Dominik Schmidt (Detecon/Intel): Convergence on a Chip: Potential Opportunities for Telco
Industry, August 2007

Carrier Networks Alternative Energy

Energy Audit Sources
Energy Substitution Products
Management on 10% & Services
Software Level 10%
Operational
70% 10%
Strategies
20% ”In general, the aim is
Network
Storage
to stay at the leading
20% Systems edge of
environmental friendly
compliance standards
20% Recyclable & sustainability
Materials
certificates. One has
to go beyond the
60% “Energy-Star.”
Data Center 30%
Optimization Sustainability
Certificates
50%
Energy Efficient
Hardware
Figure 11: What are the prime green activity fields within the technology sector
Figure 11 shows that more than 60% of all responses (on average) regarding key activity
fields in technology are assigned to the above three categories15. At the low end of the
ranking, alternative energy, carrier network energy audits and substitution products can be
found (all 10%). A few further notes/comments are given for clarification:
 Alternative Energy: 10% of all

companies actively checked ”In the long run the implementation of
“alternative energy”. However, 30% alternative energy sources will have a
are commenting in addition on this strong impact yet they are currently in a
topic. It is common sense that such too early stage to be a key activity field
approaches will have major impact, of today.”
yet are still in an early stage.
Furthermore, they require large
“Another emerging activity is “dynamic
investments and are therefore not
pricing” of energy; the purchase is
seen as key activity fields of today.
similar to the stock market. The better you
Also, most likely this is more seen
know your systems and can predict power
as the responsibility of energy
peaks, the easier it will become to go for
providers to come up with solutions.
cheap power shopping.
15
Similar to previous questions, each participant was allowed to give 3 answers. This yields a total of 3x10
responses which was set equal to 300% as a total. This means that the sum of, for instance, DC (60%),
Hardware (50%) and Software (70%) equals 180%/300% = 60% of all answers.

 Network Energy Audits: Auditing the network of

carriers, conducting gap analysis and providing vendor ”Next-Gen Energy
efficiency-matrix is ranked low (10%). Similar to the Efficiency: It is a
data centers argument, none of the participants are holistic & systematic
carriers; hence none own extended network approach to optimize
infrastructures. The participants are positioned along cross-layer device-
the supply chain of carriers. Independent studies communication in
together with dedicated conference sessions stressed networks. It spans over
that a large number of carriers may know on a high access, transport &
level where the energy is consumed in their network, core; addressing
yet lack any details and in particular approaches how hardware, software, and
to address such hot spots16,17. From a carrier’s subsystem levels.”
perspective there is a genuine need to resolve this
issue. Vendors and manufacturers can act as useful
sources of information when it comes to the
hardware/software assessment.
”The emerging generation of optical communications technology based on

silicon photonics will have major impact on telecommunications.”
 Holistic & Unified: 50% of

all comments by companies ”Outsourcing Services, ”Instrumentation is
refer to terms such as Energy Management needed for
“holistic”, “unified”, “big and in particular common
picture”, “beyond” empha- consolidated & measurement &
sizing that a “patchwork-like unified communication control of
approach” will have a rather including control of IT network
limited positive green impact. & facilities will technology and
become very beyond; covering
important.” even facility
equipment.”
The supply chain of a carrier focuses on optimization of software & hardware.

To create synergy and achieve the most in the shortest time possible, carriers
should aim for a strong overlap between their own green activities with those of
vendors and manufactures of network components and end-consumer devices.
In order to match product life cycle with green savings, detailed roadmaps (down to
the module/chip level) and knowledge needs to be exchanged.
16
Warren Wilson, Sustainability Management: An Opportunity for CIO’s, Jan 2010
17
Green Telecom East Conference: Transitioning to Environmentally Responsible Networks, New York City, June
2009

When asked to name specific sectors within the business segment where green activities
are expected to make an impact three answers dominated the responses (Figure 12):
 R&D/Innovation with 8 out of 10. There is a common agreement that

“increased efficiency” starts at the very source i.e. Research & Development. It
is not a simple “switch to be flipped”; it has to be developed from scratch and
usually comes with high investments. The majority of carriers do not participate
in this field. It is primarily in the hands of manufacturers.
 Costs/ROI with 8 out of 10. How does one get their investment back? This is
a valid question for everyone, not only vendors and manufacturers but also for
carriers. However, it is in particular relevant and challenging for manufacturers
as they usually carry the up-front R&D costs. As discussed before with the
perception of end-consumers (not seeing “green” as a feature willing to pay a
premium for), a similar attitude is surrounding carriers. A later question will
address the expectations along the supply chain.
 Procurement Design & Purchase Criteria with 6 out of 10. This activity is
commonly seen as “how to shop green” - regardless of whether it is for discrete
components (like processors), end-consumer products & services, software, or
network elements, etc…Procurement Design and defining purchase criteria
addressing sustainability is the first step in "greening the supply chain".
Note that above answers (60% - 80%) have been chosen up to 2 - 8 times more often than
any alternative (10% - 30%), showing a clear preference of the Silicon Valley players18.
“Assess embodied energy; the strict Product Sales

control of generated carbon emission Approaches ”Partner with suppliers
PR
on a component level of products along 10% for alternative energy”
20% Best
the entire supply chain including Practice
manufacturing line.” Development
80%
30%
R&D / Innovation
Organizational
20%
” Innovation on the business Restructuring
level is crucial”
60%
Procurement Design, 80%
Purchase Criteria
ROI and Cost
Calculations
Figure 12: What are the prime green activity fields within the business sector
18
Each participant was allowed to give 3 answers. This yields a total of 3x10 responses which was set equal to
300% as a total.

Looking at the very end of the rankings, the fields of activities which are not seen as being
key are PR and product sales approaches. 80 - 90 % of all participants did not vote for them.
As explained in the introduction of this document, the Silicon Valley community has become
cautious and rather prefers to “walk the talk”, then announce achievement instead of
communicating future “yet to be realized” plans and goals.
Optimize supply chain and define green purchase criteria (code of conduct).
Analyze and balance cost factors for going green.
When asked about organizational approaches such as milestones and timelines

implemented by their organizations 100% of all interviewees responded that:
 Their company has already started sustainability approaches for various
reasons (driven by competition, environmental responsibility, market shift to
mobile, recycling regulations, customer push driven, etc.) before the green
hype started – for at least 5 years.
 Their company has established a core team (Figure 3) with 10 to 20 members
supported by 100s to 1000s of volunteers within the company (scales with the
overall size of the company).
 Their company is trying to distinguish between short and long term goals. 90%
have milestones and timelines established and these are a part of their CSR
reports (Corporate Social Responsibility).
“Removing plastic cups and reducing “Our overall in-house energy

print-outs is without doubt honorable, consumption relates to only 1%
helpful, expected and positive from a compared to the 99% energy
marketing and branding perspective, but consumption triggered by our products
the real ”green” impact is still limited.” at client’s sites.”

Lastly when asked about whether any particular approach might be the most promising to
address Green ICT most interviewees responded that internal changes offered the brightest
immediate prospects.
Eight of ten companies (80%) agreed that one has to

draw their attention first to internal changes (Figure 13).
The other 20% stated that one should work in parallel, 20%
internally (in-house) and externally (facing the market).
“First do it and then talk “The market has

about it. Not the other way been green-
round.” washed a lot. It 80%
is advisable to
start with in-
“Approaches for the external house CO2 Mostly Internal Changes
market have to follow internal footprint Both Internal & External Changes
changes.” reductions first.” Figure 13: To start with internal green
changes is the preferred approach
This confirms what has

been mentioned in the
Introduction and also the “Both apply in terms of education but not regarding
end-consumer perception marketing initiatives. One should only commence
as shown in Figure Figure marketing campaigns once you are “clean & compliant"
9. Inde-pendent of B2B or from an in-house perspective.”
B2C, customers still have a
bitter after-taste of the
previous 2 years. Too many
“Walk the talk” before commencing market-oriented
companies exaggerated
campaigns & announcements. Don’t try to create positive
their green efforts in order
public awareness if it is still messy behind the curtain.
to win over environmentally-
Prime attention should be around in-house initiatives.
concerned target groups.

5 Activities – What do you do…?
This chapter covers all questions related to the specific activities. This is the logical
progression after having assessed the definition of sustainability & energy-efficiency (given
one’s own core business) and accordingly determined the approach.
5.1 External – Facing Market
External activities are initiatives that are meant to address the market - either from a
customer-facing perspective or in the opposite direction along the supply chain. Figure 14
gives an overview of activities of all participants.
CSR Reports
Audit and
Community
Compliance
Involvement
Eco Incentives
Carbon
Impacts? Footprint Code of Conduct Impacts?
Efforts? Calculations Efforts?
Green P&S
Roadblocks? Roadblocks?
Paperless Billing Ranking
Partnerships & Alliances
Dynamic Energy
Web Energy Pricing
POP Virtualization
Calculator
Telephony Soft Network
Biodegradable Community
Clients Energy
packaging Opportunities
Management
Internet Portal CustomerAlternative Market external Application
Development Home
Education energy activities, products & Tools Device Automation
Carbon Consulting & Intelligence services Energy Management
Corporate Vehicles Virtualization Services &
Public Transportation Utilization Enhancement
Suggestions Product Facility Control
Efficiency Assurance
Smart Processors Silicon Behavioral Changes
Multi-Mode Nanophotonics
Operation Routers Liquid
Impacts? Impacts? Software Changes
Manufacturing Green Cooling
Efforts? Efforts?
Optimization Ethernet Tele
Roadblocks? Roadblocks?
Multi-thread server Presence Hardware Changes
systems DC Consolidation
Supply Chain Greening
Knowledge Sharing
Innovative product
designs
Figure 14: Market-facing activities of the interviewed companies
The activities are grouped into 4 categories - changes in behavior (e.g. CSR, awareness
creation, code of conducts, community, etc…), in software (e.g. shift of services from
hardware to software, energy management tools, etc…), in hardware (new technologies,
expanding business, upgrades, replacements, comparison sheets, etc...), and sharing of
knowledge (insights, “how-to”, customer education, support of clients beyond the own good,
etc..). It should be noted that none of the above can be directly compared to each other in
terms of impact, efforts, or potential roadblocks and hurdles. As we will see later in the
financial section, each activity has to be assessed individually.

When asked as to whose main responsibility in the market should it be to push and/or force
Green ICT implementation the answers received were mixed.
There are two primary activities in the green space, to actively push/request green changes
or actively realize those changes. Figure 15 gives an overview. The responses are sorted by
their role within the supply chain. Also, the results are normalized to “Carrier/ISP” to facilitate
comparison.
SUPPLY CHAIN Impose
1.5 (All)
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.0 1.0
Manufacturer Telco Vendor Carrier/ISP End User Government
Carriers Fulfill
Manufacturers & Vendors Face Governments & End Users
Important Enabling
Pressure from Large Carriers Pressuring Carriers to Act
Role
Figure 15: Responsibilities to push green implementations (along the supply chain)
Top ranked with the highest responsibility is the

government with its power to enact nationwide
”End users can push, the
regulations and standards. Equally important is the
Government can force”
ability to impose penalties & fines in case of disregard.
The government as the prime entity for green
responsibility was chosen 3 times more often than
carriers.
Second highest ranking was for end users with a factor

of 2.5 beyond the carrier. Given they are located at the ”2/3 of RfP have energy
very end of the supply chain19 the end users are seen as related requests (REQ)
the group with largest responsibility & ability to "push" and questions (RFI) and
and create action in the market. Referring to Chapter 3 quickly growing in scope.
(Perception), the end users have the “final word”. It is Governments are
simply a case of supply & demand. In case a product is pushing this
not appealing enough – pricewise or from an development.”
environmental perspective – he/she is not going to
purchase it.
19
The government occupies a rather umbrella-like “big brother” function across the supply chain.

Third position is occupied by the network component and device manufacturers; they are
still voted twice as often as carriers and vendors.
10 Contrary to end-consumers the manufacturers are at the
opposite end of the supply chain - the point of “product &
component creation”. The responsibility of manufacturers
to create green pressure is not top-ranked and
understandably so. It is the responsibility of others.
0 Manufacturers are not creating the pressure. They are the
ones under pressure. And this pressure is increasing.
Yes No Each survey participant confirms this expectation (100%,
Expectations f or HW Manuf acturers see Figure 16). This puts a large burden onto this industry
Figure 16: All have expectation sector. Developing new technology in the shortest time
for HW manufacturers possible, with better performance and decreased power
consumption is a highly challenging endeavor.
”Manufacturers do not Carriers occupy the last position. They are the group with
create pressure; they the lowest responsibility (telco vendors included). At first
are under pressure.” sight this appears surprising. However, there is a twofold
mission for greening the supply chain20.
First, a carrier is only the middleman for 3rd party end

consumer products to be embedded in their portfolio. In The carriers’ role is
light of high order volumes, there may be some (but still manifold: Enabler,
limited) negotiation power over the manufacturer. Would a Mediator, and Pusher.
global cell phone manufacturer initiate a costly change of
plant and assembly for a single carrier who presents, e.g.
only 5% of all globally sold phones of that specific model? 9
This green carrier is eventually just another sales channel
(one of many). The push has to come from the group who
eventually buys the phone - the end users. They have
decision making power to purchase (or not) outside the
carriers’ portfolio. The role of the carrier is to mediate and 0
communicate such user demands & trends to YES NO
manufacturers. In this sense, the carrier fulfils an important Green Impact of Purchasing
enabler function. Power of Large Enterprises
Figure 17: 90% confirm the

purchasing power of large
enterprises
20
Close to the ranking of carriers are the companies which have voted that “all” have responsibility to force/push
green ICT implementation. This answer is not taken into account for the individual elements of the supply chain.
If so, then 90% of all Silicon Valley players would have voted for the government to be the prime pusher/forcer
of green ICT implementations (before normalization).

Second, and very differently to reselling 3rd party products,

is the power of carriers’ when dealing with telco network ”Carriers are the
equipment vendors. Here, carriers turn into the “end-users” ultimate bottom line
and they can flex their own muscles. 90% of all survey as they are they are
participants agree that this is a tool carriers can use to purchasing the
create pressure on equipment and component equipment.”
manufacturers (Figure 17). One difference remains bet-
ween “real” end users and carriers: The carrier can think in
terms of ROI and hence, can get its investment back.
Given the benefits of having ROI as a tool, green carriers should consider special
arrangements with manufacturers of telco equipment to find a middle ground of the
tremendously high R&D costs.
5.2 Internal – Facing In-House
Asking for green in-house activities and campaigns resulted in a very wide range of answers.
Here, no break-down is possible as a function of participants’ the core businesses. Too
much overlap exists between the answers of too many companies. However, the same
grouping into behavioral, software, hardware, and knowledge sharing can be applied.
Figure Figure 18 provides an overview. Each of the individual activities comes along with a
different degree of effort, impact and hurdles. Carriers are welcome to imitate and to
complement their own in-house initiatives. No doubt, all participants are open to share their
insights, tips, and tricks beneficial for environmental and financial among each other and to
carriers. Synergies are the way to go.
TelePresence Increase Recycling

Alternative Energy
Hardware Sleep Utility Demand Use Energy Efficient

Shared Offices Response Lighting
Modes
Intranet portal for Green Reduce Paper / Plates
Web Energy Calculator Virtualization
tips & tricks & Cups
Community Green Purchase

Solar Panels Green building guidelines
Involvement Criteria for Device
Green Supply Chains Utility Measurements Green Corporate Tele-working

Vehicles
Eco-Factor in
Employee Bonus Smart Metering Reduce printing
Synchronized Soft Clients for VoIP

vacation Phones
Thermal
Sustainability Division Management
Intelligent Green
Software
Behavioral Changes
Software Changes
Impacts? Roadblocks?
Company Hardware Changes
in-house activities &
campaigns Efforts?
Knowledge Sharing
Figure 18: Activities of the interviewed companies facing in-house

A few activities are overlapping with the market-oriented activities as they can be applied to
both fields and are simultaneously beneficial to employees as well as customers. Prominent
examples with a 100% spread throughout all interviewed companies are for instance:
 Virtualization
“Demand Response Energy Curtailment:
 Energy Management Software
Electricity providers call out for power
 TelePresence
reduction during peak demand. As an
 Awareness Creation incentive, discount on electricity are offered.”
 Waste & Illumination Management
“Flexible workspace philosophy (“Open Work”): Employees can work from home. This
increases satisfaction, balances families, increases productivity, and saves expenses for
facilities. Teleworking and shared offices approaches are popular. About 40% of all
employees do not have an office”.
5.3 Financial – ROI & TCO
Occupying a hybrid position between market-facing activities and

internal decision making, green financials are described in this “There is no need
separate chapter. At a glance, there is no common denominator, for premium fee,
no guideline and no best practice. Answers from participants enough low
were diverse, with the argument that financial evaluations are hanging fruits are
very much a case-by-case decision instead of applying one strict available = quick
threshold and formula. wins.”
When asked if they were willing to accept an

increased CapEx (i.e. spending a premium on “This really depends on the
hardware, software, or services) answers were product/components and its product
equally split (20% voting) between “Yes, life cycle. There is no fixed
between 10-30%” and “No”. The majority (60%) rule/number. Sometimes a new
gave alternative answers, ranging from focusing technology can be as much as twice
preferably on TCO to 5% (hardware) and 10% expensive, yet offers an extremely low
(services), to skipping the questions (citing OPEX.”
confidentiality).

Questions regarding how much savings in OpEx are anticipated when implementing Green
technology revealed the similar results: no clear pattern with an equal number of companies
anticipating around 10% and 20% in OpEx savings. Again 60% of respondents gave
alternative answers (Figure 19).
10%
20% “Milestones to improve energy-efficiency of
our products should be set to at least 30-40%.
Indirect improvements (e.g. using 3rd party
60% 20%
Other 20% next-gen processors) can already trigger 20%
by itself. Otherwise the own company has no
own green contribution…However, it comes
Figure 19: No clear pattern and rule of
along with major investments.”
thumb for expected savings in OpEx
The range of products, components, and technology is too diverse to give a simple rule of
thumb. One cannot lump them together by using the same approach. For instance, a power
management tool for 1000s of desktops may carry relatively little CapEx, has negligible
OpEx, but can add up to significant savings in a short time. This must be treated differently
to a multi-million dollar upgrade of a data center. As a consequence, the answer for the ROI
of a green product/service/component varies between 6 months and 5 years.
Although difficult to quantify by means of a hard number, all companies have significantly
increased their efforts and resources for energy-efficiency and sustainability compared to
the previous years.
Carriers should not apply a cookie-cutter approach when it comes to cost

calculations.
The impact of a green purchase has to be assessed in an individual yet holistic
way, and also taking into account potential penalties in case non-compliance
with governmental thresholds.

6 Conclusion – The Green Hype Split
In light of the answers received in this survey and the green activities of companies (that
appear to be of rather discreet nature – see Chapter 2.1), the current market situation for
energy efficiency & sustainability can be described in two ways: the green hype is over and
yet the recovery to a realistic situation will take place on split timelines: in-house (internal)
facing initiatives and activities and market/product facing activities and announcements.
To better visualize the green market and its progression in time the hype cycle is used as
template21. However, certain adjustments are necessary. In case of green, and as shown in
Figure 20 the hype cycle splits up into 2 different recovery slopes.
Past Years: Back in 2008 the emerging green hype was successfully wrapping the market
into a green cloak triggering and causing a severe loss of transparency. The attempts by
companies - in all industry sectors - to improve their image through positive green branding
was pushed too hard, stretched too far and was blown out of proportion. An automobile with
a gas mileage of 14 MPG (bad) now improved to 20 (still bad) was acclaimed by marketing
as ergonomic & green. Plastic wrapping degrading in only 100 years (instead of 500) was
now environmental friendly. Also the T.I.M.E (telecommunication, IT, media, and
entertainment) markets participated (at least partially). A significant number of market
players were happily riding the green wave, believing to have found a new angle for selling
their products – a new USP (Unique Selling Point).
But the chase to win & retain customers by addressing their environmental soft spot went out
of control. The situation escalated and the peak of exaggeration was reached sometime
back at the beginning of 2009.
2008 2009 2010
Peak of Exaggeration Stability

Recovery In-House (internal)
Dull
&
Blunt Stability
TODAY
Spread
supported
Visibility
by Hype
Market (external)
Dull Recovery
&
Outbreak Blunt
Spark
Fast Onset of Onset of Established

Contagion Immunity Normalization Business
short -term mid-term long-term
Time
Figure 20: The hype cycle splits into 2 curves with both having different recovery times
21
http://www.gartner.com/it/products/research/methodologies/research_hype.jsp

Shortly after this the green bubble imploded. At that time it was challenging for customers
and consumers to tell the differences between the marginal shades of green. Exaggeration
used by marketing triggered an industry-wide loss of credibility and pushed consumers into a
blunt and dull state. They entered the next stage: Immunity.
The hype cycle has now split into two curves (Figure 20). The lower one describes external-
facing green initiatives including marketing announcements and campaigns. The upper curve
represents all green in-house (internal) related activities including community involvement.
The reason for the split and in particular for the low position of the “market curve” is because
of the lessons-learned companies from various industry sectors have experienced. They
received bad publicity by having launched deceptive advertising or publicly announced
environmental-friendly actions (and not living up to them); essentially overpromising and then
under-delivering. Consequently, market-facing green campaigns now have only a limited
positive impact on branding; simply as a result of green-washing and the fact that too many
companies tried too hard. Naturally, the most promising spots to look for improvements were
through in-house operations on both the business and the technology level.
Today & Tomorrow: Quiet is the new loud. As mentioned in the introduction, it has become
less noisy around energy-efficiency & sustainability in ICT. But this silence does not reflect a
decline in green activities but rather shows that companies have redrawn their focus to in-
house initiatives. Given the disillusioning hype which affected customers, shareholders, and
even raised the interest of regularity authorities, today’s prime directive is to “put one’s own
house in order first” before going on stage and claiming to be green. Too many (sensitized)
different interest groups are observing and monitoring the companies far too closely.
As a consequence, in-house facing initiatives are recovering fast and will soon reach a
normal and stable reality. This will happen presumably in 1-2 years from now (which
coincides with estimated timelines for carbon emission related laws & penalties).
The recovery of the market-facing hype curve will take longer. As a matter of fact, it is
strongly related to the timelines for R&D of new technologies, and consequently the timelines
for large investments. As this does not happen overnight, any significant breakthroughs (e.g.
decline of power consumption of 20-30% while maintaining the same performance) are
estimated to take place in the next 2-4 years. High levels of activity on the product and
service level are indeed present, but behind closed doors and with few (if any)
announcements. As mentioned earlier, sustainability and environmental-friendliness is not a
switch that can be flipped. It does not work for cars and neither does it work for end-
consumer devices and telco equipment.
Sustainability and Energy Efficiency is not a trend that will vanish anytime soon. It is an
emerging industry sector.

7 The Authors
Dr. Eric Dulkeith is member of the Strategy & Innovation Group in Detecon’s Silicon Valley
office in San Francisco, California and is the core topic leader of Green ICT. The main focus
of his activities is on innovation management and business development of converging
technologies and markets. Before joining Detecon, he worked at IBM Watson Research
Center in New York on future optical on-chip communication architectures. He was awarded
the degree of Ph.D. in Physics from the University of Munich (LMU) for his work on
nanosensor technology. He is the author of numerous publications and has given more than
30 written/oral contributions for international technology magazines, conferences, and
workshops.
Eric Dulkeith can be reached at Eric.Dulkeith@detecon.com
Rajat Mukherjee is member of the Strategy & Innovation Group in Detecon’s Silicon Valley
office in San Francisco, California. He is also a member of the Mobile Internet Center of
Excellence at Detecon International GmbH. He was awarded a Bachelors degree in
Electrical Engineering (Honors) by McGill University in Montreal, Canada and a Masters
degree in Management Science and Engineering by Stanford University in Palo Alto, USA.
His prior work in the telecommunications industry has focused on next generation access
and convergence technologies. He is the co-author of numerous patents pending with the
US Patent and Trademark Office on various aspects of ICT technology. His current work at
Detecon is on best practices in products and services launch management and on
innovation strategies for future telecommunications networks.
Rajat Mukherjee can be reached at Rajat.Mukherjee@detecon.com

8 The Company
We make ICT strategies work
Detecon is a consulting company which unites classic management consulting with a high
level of technology expertise.
Our company's history is proof of this: Detecon International is the product of the merger of
the management and IT consulting company Diebold, founded in 1954, and the
telecommunications consultancy Detecon, founded in 1977. Our services focus on
consulting and implementation solutions which are derived from the use of information and
communications technology (ICT). All around the globe, clients from virtually all industries
profit from our holistic know-how in questions of strategy and organizational design and in
the use of state-of-the-art technologies.
Detecon’s know-how bundles the knowledge from the successful conclusion of management
and ICT projects in more than 160 countries. We are represented globally by subsidiaries,
affiliates, and project offices. Detecon is a subsidiary of T-Systems International, the
business customer brand of Deutsche Telekom. In our capacity as consultants, we are able
to benefit from the infrastructure of a global player spanning our planet.
Know-how and hands-on expertise
The rapid development of information and telecommunications technologies has an

increasingly significant influence on the strategies of companies as well as on the processes
within an organization. The subsequent complex adaptations affect business models and
corporate structures, not only technological applications.
Our services for ICT management encompass classic strategy and organization consulting
as well as the planning and implementation of highly complex, technological ICT
architectures and applications. We are independent of manufacturers and obligated solely to
our client's success.
Detecon International GmbH

Oberkasselerstr. 2
53227 Bonn
Telefon: +49 228 700 0
E-Mail: info@detecon.com
Internet: www.detecon.com
Detecon Inc., Strategy & Innovation

128 Spear Street
San Francisco, CA 94105, USA
Phone: +1 415 904 7900
E-Mail: info-usa@detecon.com
Internet: www.deteconusa.com

Detecon Opinion Paper When Giants Flex Their Muscles: Green Activities of Silicon Valley ICT Industry Leaders

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Detecon Opinion Paper When Giants Flex Their Muscles: Green Activities of Silicon Valley ICT Industry Leaders

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Opinion Paper

When Giants Flex Their Muscles

Green Activities of Silicon Valley

We make ICT strategies work

Opinion Paper 2 Detecon International GmbH

Figure 1: Take home messages of the green survey ...............................................................4

Take Home Message “Citation from company”

Opinion Paper 3 Detecon International GmbH

Subtitle Create green synergies by establishing partnerships and alliances.

Don’t try to create positive Innovation, Supply Chain,

Independent and 3rd

Figure 1: Take home messages of the green survey

Opinion Paper 4 Detecon International GmbH

Opinion Paper 5 Detecon International GmbH

2.1 Green ICT – Just another Fashion?

Opinion Paper 6 Detecon International GmbH

The above history is what makes “Green”

2.2 Purpose of the Survey – The Scale of Impact

Figure 2: The 10 survey participants

Opinion Paper 7 Detecon International GmbH

Figure 3: Energy-Efficiency & Sustainability groups of the companies

Opinion Paper 8 Detecon International GmbH

Telco Ecosystem Carrier Building Blocks

End-User Device Enterprise Solution Aggregation

Figure 4: Building blocks of a carrier and its surrounding telco ecosystem

Perception of Green ICT?

Approach to Green ICT?

Internal & External Green

Figure 5: Addressed topics within the survey

Opinion Paper 9 Detecon International GmbH

Of particular interest are the approaches. As discussed in detail in a previous publication5,

Opinion Paper 10 Detecon International GmbH

3 Perception – How do you see…?

100% of the companies see “Green”

Economical Ecological Both Economical more important

Figure 6: Cost savings dominate over environmental considerations

In fact it is almost impossible to clearly

Opinion Paper 11 Detecon International GmbH

Moreover, the economic/ecological cost-benefit ratio

Those companies within the driver 1 pillar 0%

Opinion Paper 12 Detecon International GmbH

“From a vendor perspective our goal is to maintain leadership in green technologies.

On the other hand there are significant

The third most important driver (3) is

Opinion Paper 13 Detecon International GmbH

Also, during the conversations with the

“Clearly, the market is confused. There is 30%

This confusion sometimes causes sales and

Opinion Paper 14 Detecon International GmbH

“From a technological perspective one should always perform a direct side-by-side

Ignoring green aspects as

Figure 9: No end-consumer will accept performance drawbacks for being green

Opinion Paper 15 Detecon International GmbH

20% see the situation as being even

Opinion Paper 16 Detecon International GmbH

4 Approach – How do you address…?

It means that the majority of interviewees see

“Technology is the “New business

Opinion Paper 17 Detecon International GmbH

Opinion Paper 18 Detecon International GmbH

Carrier Networks Alternative Energy

 Alternative Energy: 10% of all

Opinion Paper 19 Detecon International GmbH

 Network Energy Audits: Auditing the network of