Words like "sustainability," "environment,""stewardship," and "organic" have become infused into how we think and talk about business today.From shipping, to packaging, to manufacturing, to waste management, to raw materials sourcing, to carbon footprint, these and other words are prominent in communication campaigns that companies use to attract the attention of environmentally conscious customers and investors. Whether we're citizens, or customers, or employees, or employers, the broad stakeholder model with its "triple bottom line" of people, profit and planet has become an increasingly common way of thinking about what organization performance and success mean. But it hasn't always been this way.Rewind the clock some years to Renew America, a Washington, DC$-$based not$-$for$-$profit institute serving as an environmental information repository and with the mission of "renewing America's community spirit through environmental success." One of Renew America's resources was a products catalogue called Seventh Generation that focused on renewable, recyclable, and other environmentally oriented products. Seeking to get out of the catalogue sales business, Renew American sold the Seventh Generation Catalogue to Alan Newman, a serial entrepreneur who had co$-$founded Gardner's Supply Company. He was joined at the now Vermont$-$based SeventhCaneration Catalams hu Toffrey Tallender in $1080$ After publication of a New York Times article about the company in that year, the Seventh Generation's sales of environmentally conscious products took off dramatically. Newman left Seventh Generation in $1992$ to start Magic Hat Brewing Company, andHollender took Seventh Generation public in $1992.$There was no guarantee that a "green" company could be successful by conventional business standards.Most for$-$profit businesses are talked about in terms of revenue benchmarks, profits, and stock prices.The focus at Seventh Generation has always been on helping to improve and protect the environment$-$ emphasizing, for example, wildlite habitat loss, solid waste landfills, resource conservation, and fresh water. Generating profits was not one of its strong suits. But when Seventh Generation went public in an IPO, it was able to raise significantpublic capital.The Vermont$-$based seller of eco$-$friendly cleaning supplies, paper products, and personal care products continued to stay true to its founding principles, the company expanded its offerings of eco$-$friendly cleaning supplies, paper products, and personal care products, and maintained its focus on natural, recycled, and renewable materials. All were distributed to natural food stores, supermarkets, mass merchants, and online retailers. Growing from its humble beginnings, by$2010,$ Seventh Generation was selling hundreds of millions of dollars of its branded products.The company balances this environmental commercial focus with regular, high$-$profile, public engagements in the political sphere, launching timely, controversial political ads, sending open letters to politicians to help shape pre$-$election conversations, taking active stands against politicians seen as being not focused on the environment, and advocating for racial and environmental justice.The sustained environmentally focused and ecologically proactive campaign run by Seventh Generation, coupled with growing sales and brand leadership, led to tremendous brand recognition.The company became an attractive target for larger consumer products companies seeking to solidify and enhance their own pro$-$environmental position in their respective markets. It was no surprise to industry watchers when in $2016,$ Unilever, the global London$-$based eco$-$conscious consumer goods company, purchased the "purpose$-$driven brand" for $$700$ million dollars.A key element in the deal between Seventh Generation and Unilever was a clause in the purchase agreement "that insured Unilever would maintain and protect Seventh Generation's core mission and purpose." The merger with Unilever offered Seventh Generation access to capital and markets for continued expansion. It offered Unilever not only gains to the financial bottom line, but also an opportunity to show a commitment to the triple bottom line. Many wondered how this deal between the giant and established firm and the smaller but trendy environmentally$-$friendly one would work out.Could Seventh Generation's mission survive in the new corporate umbrella? Was the acquisition just a way for Unilever to greenwash its public image?Question$-$We seem to be at a point where the environmental consciousness of everyday consumers is turning more positive. But a political question still gets attention. Should the "market" determine how products get made and manufactured, or should "regulations" set boundaries on the actions that business take? Is it reasonable to expect that consumers, en masse, will vote with their wallets in support of "clean" companies? On the regulatory side what might have the most the actions that business take? Is it reasonable to expect that consumers, will vote with their wallets in support of "clean" companies? On the regulatory side, what might have the most bang for the buck in terms of preventing negative environmental impacts?