one can credibly argue that the data is unclear or the message confused. For those in any doubt, check out the latest UN-sponsored Emissions Gap report, highlighting the gap between carbon emissions reduction commitments made by countries and what needs to be achieved. And for those with a weak constitution, handle with caution the blistering report by McKinsey, Resource Revolution , that concludes that resource productivity increases will deliver only 30% of what is needed to meet the needs of the 3 billion middle class folks who will be busy consuming in 2030. The time has long passed where one can credibly argue that the data is unclear or the message confused. National competitiveness is yet another veil behind which to hide for corporate incumbents benefiting from the status quo. "Why should 'we' make the change if the price is lost competitiveness, growth and jobs," they argue, referring to countries whose tax regimes and labour markets they are, in quick-step, abandoning. Yet the World Economic Forum 's latest version of its leading-edge, national competitiveness index removes this tacky veil. With a re-engineered section providing a sustainability-adjusted competitiveness index of nations , it highlights above all the vulnerability of countries undervaluing the competitiveness costs of failing to manage environmental externalities and social inequality. Countries including China, India and the US each drop by more than 10 places in the ranking for their focus on sustainability. Chief executives with business models in mind or practice that can profit from inclusive, environmentally bounded