The themes of ‘collaborative action’ and the convergence of ‘public-private responsibilities’ ran throughout the speaker’s presentations as well as the need for more accessible and robust business environments informed by the fullest range of stakeholder views.

What also emerged from the discussion — and what is already clear to those of us working closely in the CSR field (see AccountAbility’s work as an example) — is HOW to move toward a more sustainable, progressive business model while remaining competitive and selling the case to others within the organisation.  In other words, long-term goals/benefits might be important but not at the expense of meeting quarterly shareholder profit lines.

In this, I see two fundamental tensions: 1) the disconnect between the need for collaboration and the business instinct toward competition, and 2) the constant struggle to keep up with a business context whose historical externalities are being blasted open wide by information and communication technologies (ICTs) and the threat of climate change (in terms of both public demand and more robust science).

Knowing HOW to sequence your entree into the ’sustainability’ discussion and WHO you should be working with is no easy task.  When you couple these twin challenges with the business need to provide consistent communications to its customers and other stakeholders, and the full challenge (and opportunity) presents itself.

These are the questions that we at Glasshouse like to help our clients answer.

Starting with the brutal recognition that western quality of life has stopped improving, Simonetta built an emotionally-charged narrative around our human search for a simpler, more authentic, more humane lifestyle and the absence of meaningfulness in our consumption-driven world.

She argues for an anti-technological and anti-consumption approach and rails against Masstige as the very antithesis of this approach. I couldn’t agree more, and will make essentially the same case, with less emotion, at this month’s International Apparel Federation Global Conference, introducing the concept of ‘Simplux’ brands.

Inverting Masstige will not only be more humanly rewarding, and more ethical, but also will chime well with both recessionary and more sustainability-sensitive times. Branding for the ‘Freegan’ perhaps?

The battleground for such industry marketing is not the emotive communication of promises, but the continual realignment of mutual expectations.

The risk for many trust-reliant brands (biofuels, fair trade, carbon neutral…) is that they will become ‘bubble brands’, selling dreams and benefits, without the brand assurance programmes to support them.

Enabling these sort of cross-industry branding initiatives is rapidly becoming our specialism here at Glasshouse. Our friends in the global cotton industry are already showing the way in thinking through these brand integrity questions and looking to provide proofs of socio-environmental impact, and equitable economics, transparently to end-users.

Of course, introducing information transparency into supply-chains will be a big help in these transparent marketing efforts, but building stakeholder-accountability into brand strategy is arguably a more critical challenge. Brand integrity demands so much more than audit programmes.

Just as ‘customer co-creation’ is the logical extension of relationship marketing, enabled by the social web, so the cultivation of ‘mutual assurance networks’ will become the next logical relationship model for building industry-wide value…dependent upon suites of distributed decision-flow tools that we have barely begun to explore…

PS. On another note, it’s always nice when friends hook up together…but even nicer when they do so unprompted. Working in remote locations and the spam-ridden nature of email – not to mention being free! – makes Skype the natural communications choice for diffused NGOs and Charities, not least the team at Organic Exchange…

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.

Today he notes:

“Caroline Hoy, I learnt that all new-born Chinese citizens are registered as either ‘rural’ or ‘urban’. Only by staying within their registered locality – country or town – can they enjoy state provision and benefits.

So what happens when millions of workers – anywhere between 140 and 200 million, according to current estimates – abandon their rural birthplaces and head for the towns in search of work? How can the towns themselves cope with such a massive influx? And perhaps more importantly, what are the implications for social stability, for the future economic development of the country, of having millions of people without basic rights to education, housing and medicine, camping outside most of your major cities?

Is this mass internal migration a recipe for future trouble and strife, or an almost inevitable consequence of the industrialisation of a predominantly rural nation: an economic fact of life?”

Since I can’t listen I don’t know what he’s conclude. Personally, I’d speculate that the rural populations might well use the threat of unrest as a lever to demand government investment into sustainable economic models for rural agriculture…

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.

Although perhaps not as immediate of a return as traditional media channels, “branded utility” gives savvy brand managers the potential to create longer-term allegiances with consumers and bring a fresh perspective that is long overdue.