How well corporate social responsibility fits with a company’s need to generate profits and deliver a return to shareholders is a topic of heated debate. The Economist tackled this issue a few years ago and came to the conclusion that corporations ought to stick to making money, in part because they don’t do a good job of “doing good.” I don’t believe the answer to this question is so neat. Of course, corporations need to focus on profits, and we shouldn’t pretend that a multinational can operate like UNICEF. But in the context of a looming scarcity of energy resources and damaging climate change, corporations have an obligation to both shareholders and the planet to incorporate a true concern for sustainability into their business plans.

An example of a company that seems to be embracing this mantra is Sir Richard Branson’s Virgin companies. Branson recently unveiled a $3 billion plan for Virgin to invest in technologies to substantially reduce the company’s carbon outputs. The transportation industry has been particularly impacted by the surge in oil prices and its viability is threatened by shocks in the supply and cost of oil. Finding ways to dramatically reduce the Virgin’s energy consumption makes sense from a business perspective. And if other airlines follow suit (because it’s in their interests as well), the difference in worldwide energy consumption could be noticeable.

While not as sexy as Branson’s global warming initiative, how a company influences the daily commutes of its workers can have a profound impact on both energy consumption and the health of our communities. Most of us possess a fair amount of control over where we live, shop and play, but few of us are in a position to dictate the location of our jobs. If we are going to attempt some form of commute without the car, we need some help from our employers. At the very minimum, we could use a decent locker room with a shower. In the Seattle area, a long list of companies has been recognized for doing a lot more than providing a place to shower. Commuter Challenge works with various government agencies to provide incentives and guidance to employers seeking to reduce the number of car commutes. Given the length of the list of companies, my guess is that the Seattle area is approaching a tipping point where most companies will feel a strong need to be on the list, if only to avoid appearing miserly.

Encouraging employees to leave their cars at home is worthy of recognition, but company location decisions should be the holy grail of this effort. Employers have been given a free pass for too long for choosing office and factory locations that wreak havoc on local traffic and create miserable commutes for their workers. Simply locating near an exit ramp on the highway is not enough. A commitment to reducing fossil fuel consumption means that the goals of reducing commute times and allowing for alternative transportation options must be part of any criteria for choosing a site. A company that flees the city for an edge community can’t have it both ways, because such a move tells us everything we need to know about that company’s commitment to sustainability. In Portland, the departure of Columbia Sportswear from the city represents a bellwether moment for people on both sides of the debate. Over five years ago, the company moved from its outdated facility on the banks of the Willamette River in Portland to a new suburban facility in a neighboring country, despite internal analysis which demonstrated that a location downtown would make the most sense for its workforce. While company officials contend that bureaucratic stonewalling by city planners led to the company’s departure, to the casual observer, such an about-face by a long time corporate citizen suggests that the company’s commitment to the city was barely skin deep. Companies like Columbia want all of us to believe that they were bowled over by the obsequiousness of their new hosts. We’re smart enough to know better; these companies end up moving where they intended to all along.

The irony is that smart location decisions do improve a company’s bottom line, and the bias associated with a longing for the bucolic office park keeps companies from realizing these benefits. Moving to that gleaming new greenfield facility may seem like the right decision at the time, but when the nagging absenteeism and high turnover kick in, the pastoral landscape outside the windows will be needed to calm the seething discontent. A while back, I had a conversation with the senior executive at my old office and asked him where he thought most of his employees lived. He had no clue and, when pressed, assumed that many lived near the affluent community where our office was located. The truth, of course, was that most commuted absurd distances from more affordable communities. I believe the decision makers at most large employers have a similar myopia about their employees’ commutes and the costs associated with this massive disconnect.

One company’s distaste for managing the complexities of reclaiming fallow urban land simply leaves moneymaking opportunities for another, more enterprising company. I have written about the need for development in the area surrounding the proposed baseball stadium in Washington, D.C. The area comprises various nondescript neighborhoods running along the river in Southeast and Southwest Washington and includes the federally-owned Navy Yard. Forest City Enterprises, a public real estate company that specializes in redeveloping inner city neighborhoods, is the largest landowner in these neighborhoods and, as such, will dictate much of what happens in the area’s redevelopment. I predict the company will experience a massive windfall as a result of its commitment to this area. Critics may attack the scale and targeted audience for Forest City’s projects, but these are the tradeoffs in attracting private investment to a long-neglected area. No one should confuse Forest City with a charity; the company knows there is money to be made in Anacostia. And ultimately, that’s the way it should be.