Today the rivalry has escalated to Apple asking consumers to question the overall trustworthiness of the Microsoft brand.

Consumer trust is a very touchy subject. But it’s also a hugely important thing for any corporation to have. From the consumer’s point of view, when one corporation tells them not to trust another corporation, often red flags will go up.

Some may view this new advertising campaign as Apple attempting to manipulate the opinions and trust of its worldwide user base to its advantage.

Both Apple and Microsoft should tread carefully in this new area of competition. Putting consumer trust on the line is a big wager, with the potential losses great.

Glasshouse Partnership’s client, Premier Rugby, form one of the conference’s case studies and will offer an analysis of how professional sports clubs and businesses can collaborate on corporate community programs. Ben Breeze of Bristol Rugby will discuss a three-part initiative which seeks to use the medium of sport as a platform to engage with at-risk youth to address anti-social behaviour, anger management and youth offending.

See www.bitc.org.uk/investinginfuture or read the flyer.

conference-flyer

It’s too much to think that the review has been catalysed by Team GB getting one over on the Australian team at Beijing (though one wouldn’t blame Gerry Sutcliffe for making the connection).  It’s more likely just another example of Australia’s commitment to pursue excellence in all matters sporting…including melding the social and sporting agendas which is currently the focus for debate over here.

What’s been interesting is how the political and media agenda, especially in the capital where the Evening Standard have just launched a ‘Sporting Legacy’ campaign, is beginning to dig hard at the key questions: how do we make this investment work for grass roots sports? How do we ensure the investment actually grows sports participation? In this context it will be fascinating to see how Kate Hoey and Boris Johnson change policy and investments as we move towards 2012 and how sports policy does or does not become an area for political differentiation.

The Summit brought together many leading international businesses (and business leaders) from up and down the UK in a day designed to generate new ideas and bring about fresh commitments to bring about an environmentally sustainable society, even asking for personal pledges for action. The energy and enthusiasm were palpable. But will it go anywhere? As Prince Charles said, it has to: ‘Business as usual’ just isn’t an option. It was interesting to see, then, that last week the Financial Times dedicated three days to questioning the efficiency of carbon markets and the effectiveness of carbon markets versus carbon taxation (if you have a view: go to and vote on LRQA’s poll on the subject) and publishing ‘exposes’ on carbon cons (in particular the vaguaries of non verified off setting schemes). If the mechanism of the ‘carbon market’ doesn’t work and consumers grow confused and cynical about carbon claims, the two wheels driving carbon change fall off. Markets (especially fledgling ones) grow best when there is trust and transparency between buyers and sellers. Consumers buy from brands that really do ‘what they say on the tin’. It’s clear there’s a real need for clearer standards and better assurance. The voluntary market, in particular, needs to embrace indepedent verification. Without it, pledges made at Summit’s could well end up being pointless.

While they talked specifically about human resource management, their message paralleled the changes going on in the CSR environment. The HR market is shifting from the idea of ‘employer of choice’ to ‘employee of choice.’ Martin and Reddington argue that the idea of a uniform set of ‘best practices’ is a corporate illusion since all companies ultimately must adjust their offerings according to the context in which they work. This means that suitablly trained, talented employees drive high performance, and this in turn makes them satisfied and happy at work (not, as is often heard, happy work environments driving high performance).

Their HR message relates to the concept that our client and partner AccountAbility has been suggesting in its Materiality Report and its Responsible Competitiveness Report. These reports suggest that organisations need to understand the material concerns which affect their long-term sustainability socially, environmentally, and economically.

Both groups’ work signal that CSR initiatives will continue to become more embedded in organisations’ core offerings and more closely related to the material issues which affect their future performance and value, instead of as clumsy appendages tacked on to their other products and services.

The core consumer insight was that Ariel’s ability to provide a ‘brilliant wash’ at 30°C would help consumers save money and at the same time help reduce their carbon footprint. The campaign which was launched in conjunction with the Energy Savings Trust is still being evaluated to see if it really has had a long term impact on consumer behaviour as initial results suggest consumers in several EU markets are ‘turning down the dial’.

The campaign strikes us as a brilliant piece of P&G marketing… data driven insight, clear analysis of a rational (money saving) and emotional (help the environment) consumer benefit and then a cleverly endorsed, well executed integrated marketing and communications campaign.

Interestingly, the product promise (a great wash at a low temperature) has been the same for years and wasn’t really changed, just emphasized in a different way. Even more, the possible guilt of using the product (after all, how ‘green’ are the chemicals in washing powder?) has been replaced by a gentle, reassuring sense of greenness.

Earlier, on the same stage, Gareth Hughes, Climate Change Capital, painted a picture where the capital markets are going when it comes to environmental factors — those interested in a quick view should read Peter’s blog over at BusinessAssurance.com.

High-level officials in the central government are known for being hyper-aware of the personal legacy which their administration will leave. For Deng Xiaoping, it was launching economic reforms and opening to the west; for Jiang Zemin, it was single-mindedly driving these economic reforms at almost any cost. The current fourth-generation leaders, President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen, the legacy which already appears to be surfacing is one seeking a more sustainable, environmentally-compatible form of economic growth. Urban-rural inequality in China is one of the world’s worst, and the countryside has seen little of the economic benefit which coastal cities have (Some say they are even worse off as basic education and health care provision have withered away after market reforms).

Because local officials are largely responsible for overseeing their own local development, they are incentivised simply to produce high levels of economic growth (which equates to more taxes for their area, more bribes, and quicker personal promotions up the party ranks). Because non-financial metrics have not been incorporated into these incentive structures nor have they been sufficiently institutionalised in the rule of law, environmental and social factors have largely been ignored.

All things considered, the government has closed ranks well in order to cover up these oversights up to now. (When I was living in Beijing in the summer of 2001, they famously shut down all the factories before the Olympic Committee visit and spray painted the grass green to reduce the feeling of pollution in the capital.)

Nonetheless, as the Chinese economy deepens and the demands for supply chain transparency increase around the world, Chinese leaders and businesses will face pressing challenges in incorporating sustainability metrics into the country’s future path of growth.