Unlike other dotcommers, at Lifeworth we didnt want to increase unnecessary user traffic to our site, but to create a system that frees you from trawling through lots of sites, and saves your eyes, back, wrist and soul from so much computer time. So we sought to design a system that frees you from your internet device… by pulling everything together, sorting it, and presenting it in ways relevant to your interests. This means we may not have as much traffic as other sites, but we like to think we are a more efficient use of time for our 7000+ monthly visitors.

It’s a philosophy we intend to keep while we develop the service. Nevertheless, we need to ensure that not only do we provide what users want, but what will be useful for those of you wanting to promote a job, event or course, in light of the growing importance of web 2.0. We are still looking into the various mechanisms of integration with Web 2.0. But the first step has been to upgrade our job and event posting service, so you have the option of using the Lifeworth.com portal to reach out through social media as well. Ee now offer a free, basic and premium option.

FREE OPTION: You can reach thousands of CSR, social enterprise and responsible investment professionals for free. We are your best option to reach the busy professional. Job seekers will look at many sites and browse adverts, but the busy professional will not. Our system provides them with one email a week that pulls together and sifts through all jobs and events matching their interests. That makes us a one-stop shop, serving over 5000 subscribers and 7000 unique visitors per month. 25% each from the UK and USA, the rest from around the world.

BASIC OPTION: You can reach out faster and wider, by simply sending us your job or event and we will put it on the homepage, include it in our monthly bulletin to 5000+ subscribers, and it will appear on our syndication partners’ websites, such as CSR International; all for 100 euros.

PREMIUM OPTION: You can make your job or event unmissable, through our new system that connects with Web 2.0. Your job or event can take pole position in the main box on our homepage for a month, be emailed to our 5000+ subscribers immediately, be featured in our monthly bulletin, be featured in a blog news story written by Lifeworth’s CSR specialists, which is then sent to Twitter, relevant Linked In groups, JustMeans and 10 CSR-related email groups to generate wider interest. UNPRI and Virgin Unite made use of this new premium service, and you can view the stories we wrote in connection to opportunities at their organisations (see UNPRI story and Virgin story). For this service, simply send us the information and we will process all this for you, for 350 euros, subject to availability (we currently allow one Premium Service per week, and we need to identify a relevant and interesting story for our users).

You can get started with one of these options at http://www.lifeworth.com/advertise

Meanwhile, at our consulting practice we continue to explore how the advances in web technologies will change the future of corporate responsibility, social enterprise and responsible investment, and integrate that into our advice to clients in the business, NGO and UN sectors.

The Creativity Revolution in responsible business connects directly to the emerging creative economy, where people’s engagement in new communications technology means we move beyond the information/knowledge economy, to one where personal creativity is empowered and expected, so that people become the co-producers of ideas that shape business, culture, politics. This Creativity Revolution in responsible business is featured in this month’s “Journal of Corporate Citizenship”. Despite the rather uncreative sounding title, it’s full of funky ideas. In a special feature on “design thinking”, which we explain below, Professor David Cooperrider says thinking and practice on a firm’s responsibilities is about to change for good. Then, in a column on global responsible business trends that we at Lifeworth research and write each quarter, we explore the creativity revolution in depth.

Some firms like Virgin are beginning to see the potential. As such they are recruiting more people to work “tackle tough social and environmental problems with an entrepreneurial approach” which we have been to help them with. See: http://www.lifeworth.com/node/19286 [deadline June 4th 2010!]. However, a reality check: the creative approach to a businesses role in society is not yet widespread. In my experience most managers, consultants and academics don’t get it and still think social and environmental issues are just a cost, not a creative force. This is reflected in the codified approaches to responsible business, in things like the new ISO 26000, and most ESG (environmental, social and governance) analysis, where innovation does not feature much, if at all.

To help more executives, their advisers and trainers to get with the creative vibe, and understand the barriers to its mainstream adoption, Ian Doyle and I explored social innovation and design thinking in our column for the journal. It also featured in our annual review of 2009. Here follows sections of the column (for a full copy with references download the pdf, and scan to the final section “sustaining innovation”. Or better still, subscribe to the journal and get to read Prof Cooperriders piece as well).

…What is innovation? According to BusinessDictionary.com, innovation is the “process by which an idea or invention is translated into a good or service for which people will pay. To be called an innovation, an idea must be replicable at an economical cost and must satisfy a specific need. Innovation involves deliberate application of information, imagination, and initiative in deriving greater or different value from resources, and encompasses all processes by which new ideas are generated and converted into useful products.”1 It is in essence a systematic and systemic approach that directs acts of invention towards a shared purpose, this purpose being of public benefit in the case of social, sustainable or responsible innovation.2

[There are some...] deep-seated impediments to sustainable innovation from within businesses themselves [which] were explored in a Boston Consulting Group (BCG) publication in October 2009 entitled ‘The Business of Sustainability.’ The report detailed the results of a global survey of over 1,500 corporate executives and managers which sought to better understand the business implications of sustainability.3 One of the conclusions of the report was that although 92 % of businesses were trying to address sustainability issues, most companies struggled on execution demonstrating a lack of coherence between the desire to act and the ability to implement bold action. The report detailed that one of the major obstacles was the difficulty in modelling a business case for sustainability due to three major factors:

- forecasting and planning beyond the one-to-five year time horizon typical of most investment frameworks;
- gauging the system-wide effects of sustainability investments and;
- planning amid high uncertainty.

Whilst these three points illustrate the ambiguity that businesses face, they also demonstrate the typical decision making mechanisms that businesses use in determining future direction. Expanding upon the third point in particular, the report stipulated that,

‘Strategic planning, as traditionally practiced [sic], is deductive – companies draw on a series of standard gauges to predict where the market is heading and then design and execute strategies on the basis of those calculations. But sustainability drivers are anything but predictable, potentially requiring companies to adopt entirely new concepts and frameworks.’4

In criticising deductive logic, where theories arrived at through past experience are used to predict what will happen in future, BCG were giving voice to other forms of knowledge in a domain traditionally dominated by economics, as illustrated by a range of strategy management journals. Economics is a discipline that is highly reductionist and determinist, meaning that to provide insight into society, it reduces complex interactions into a few key variables (reductionism), and then seeks correlations between the variables as a means of identifying cause and effect (determinism). As such, economics has its limits in revealing insight into complex realities. Beyond economics, many of the tools used to describe major trends in society that inform the fields in which companies focus their innovation, depend on quantitative data, including analysis of the subjective opinions and experiences of individuals through surveys. The reliance on what can be inscribed and aggregated, not only enables some useful macroscopic views of trends, but also means there is a temporal and physical distance between the analyst and the realities studied. The data shows how things used to be, not how they could be, and does not provide insight into the complexity of people’s lived experiences. It is as if by looking for the ‘helicopter view’ of a situation, one has to travel away from the phenomena to look back at it through a telescope. What is lost from this approach is not only an understanding of complex consumer needs and wants, but also the potential for a conversation with consumers about what they might want, and how their expressed behaviours might not actually be how they would wish to behave if they had other choices. For instance, the reason that people spend two hours in traffic everyday might be an observed preference, as it is their behaviour, but it is not necessarily their desired preference.

A key lesson here is that in order to become better at strategy, businesses need to get closer to consumers, which is further discussed below. But the main focus of BCG was on the restrictive effects of business executives requiring “proof” of a business plan, where what constitutes proof is narrowly defined, before making a decision to invest in innovation. This was also the focus in Fast Company magazine in November 2009. In an interview on innovation in business with Mr. Roger Martin, Dean of the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto, he explains that

‘Most companies try to be innovative, but the enemy of innovation is the mandate to “prove it.” You cannot prove a new idea in advance…’5

The alternative he suggests requires ‘design thinking.’ A simple definition of design thinking is any process that applies the methods of industrial designers to problems beyond the scope of how a product should look. [Design is a concept that goes beyond the creation of products and is concerned with exploring the role of design in sustaining, developing, and integrating human ideas into broader ecological and cultural environments.] ‘Design thinking’ is a user-based approach that observes people in order to create practical solutions in product design and for social problems. It focuses on the nature of the problem itself. Put this way, such a methodology means that products are created in sync with consumer needs rather than creating a product and pushing it into the market place. Mr. Martin suggests that design thinking is a conduit between the intuition of new ideas and the more structured approaches of analysis that

‘…enables the organization to balance exploration and exploitation, invention of business and administration of business, originality and mastery.’6

This suggests that by thinking like a designer, organisations may be freed up from the burden of proof so that the best solution can be explored rather than the illusion of what can be proven.

A November 2009 special report in Business Week Online highlighted how design thinking is impacting business.7 The article illustrated how companies such as Proctor and Gamble (P&G), GE Healthcare and Philips Lighting use design thinking to solve their problems. At P&G, the number of design facilitators has grown from 100 to 175 since 2008 in an attempt to embed such methodologies throughout the organisation, and judging by their enormous growth between 2000 and 2008 when revenue doubled from $40 billion to $83 billion, it isn’t surprising that their performance is being heralded as a triumph of design thinking.8 GE Healthcare has also adopted design thinking and according to a 2003 report by the Danish Design Center, increased design activity such as design-related employee training boosted the company’s revenue on average by 40% more than other companies over a five-year period.9

These earnings may convince companies that ‘design thinking’ is central to the future of innovation, but what might it imply for the social and environmental performance of business, including the challenge of scaling innovation as rapidly as described above? There are two areas of potential benefit. First, as ‘design thinking’ challenges dominant views of what constitutes proven knowledge in strategic planning, and allows for more complexity and uncertainty in decision making, so investments in innovation may gain more attention. This is because, as BCG noted,

“Decisions regarding sustainability have to be made against a backdrop of high uncertainty. Myriad factors muddy the waters because their timing and magnitude of impact are unknown. Such factors include government legislation, demands by customers and employees, and geopolitical events.”10

Second, ‘design thinking’ could encourage businesses to respond to the needs of consumers, rather than seeking ways of marketing existing things to them. This is closely connected to developing a functional perspective on what consumers do, and why they do it. With this view, a car is no longer just a car, but a means of fulfilling a range of functions to the consumer, such as mobility, status, and fun. With that perspective and recognition of growing resource constraints, changing values and technologies, designers could explore how to serve those needs in different ways. Thus needs for mobility, status and fun could be provided separately, or more sustainable transport solutions infused with characteristics that meet the non-mobility functions of existing cars. Making bicycles cool, for instance, or providing more ticket classes and benefits in public transportation. The importance of taking a consumer need perspective, or ‘functional approach’, and seeking to meet that within resource constraints, was identified by UN Environment Programme as a key sustainability policy paradigm for governments in 2001 and explored in these pages in 2006.11

The shift in mindset in design thinking is from regarding a product as simply a physical thing to regarding it as part of a set of relationships that fulfil various purposes for different people, and so those relationships are as important as the thing in itself. In marketing, this view is often discussed in terms of focusing more on the experience of the consumer. There are also strong resonances here with systems thinking, which emphasises that everything is a set of relationships.

The use of design thinking in business innovation has the potential for encouraging more sustainable design, but it depends on what criteria the observation of users occurs, the choice of their needs to be explored, and the intention of the company. In the case of P&G, when designing cosmetic products for instance, do their designers question their users about the wider consequences of the products, or the reasons why consumers have particular ‘needs’ and tastes? In light of the Environmental Working Group’s cosmetic safety database which details hundreds of P&G products containing potentially harmful toxic chemicals, perhaps user observation needs to be coupled with user education as to avoid certain environmental and social issues.12 Design may be used to support innovation and the bottom line, but there is also the risk that the broader ecological boundaries are deliberately circumvented to the detriment of others. So despite the enormous potential of design thinking as highlighted by the examples of P&G and GE, until environmental and social issues become part of the purpose of the organisation, new products may not necessarily be more sustainable.

That said, P&G is starting to apply sustainability criteria to some of their products. Called ‘Sustainable Innovation Products’ or SIPs, P&G has a goal to deliver $50 billion in cumulative sales of products with improved environmental impact by 2012. SIPs must have an overall use reduction of 10% in the areas of transportation, energy, water or materials, or have replaced non-renewable materials with renewable ones.13

Design thinking is not a panacea for social and environmental effectiveness of corporations, and should not be understood as a new function within business, but just one way of practising a more connected and holistic way of doing business. A Harvard Business Publishing article in October 2009 suggested that the success of design thinking is as much about embracing different points of view as it is design methodologies.14 Although Mr. Peter Holtz, the author of the article, founded his company which is dedicated to experience design, he suggests that the effectiveness of design thinking is that it embraces many different experiences and disciplines. He affirms that,

‘What we must understand is that in this savagely complex world, we need to bring as broad a diversity of viewpoints and perspectives to bear on whatever challenges we have in front of us. While it’s wise to question the supremacy of “business thinking,” shifting the focus only to “design thinking” will mean you’re missing out on countless possibilities.’

His comments supported an article in Fast Company earlier in the year that commented on the role of Claudia Kotchka, P&G’s first ever VP for design strategy.15 The author, Dev Patnaik, CEO and founder of Jump Associates, a firm that helps companies create new businesses and reinvent existing ones was quick to point out that Ms. Kotchka was an accountant by training and spent most of her professional life in marketing and thus had no design experience when she started the role. He insists that what design thinking ultimately embodies is the

‘…conscious blending of different fields of thought to discover and develop opportunities that were previously unseen by the status quo.’

So whilst Ms. Kotchka immersed herself in design thinking, it was combining it with her other experiences that made her such a powerful example of design. As Mr. Patnaik concluded,

‘To walk away concluding that design thinking is what makes P&G great would be like going to the movies and concluding that Indiana Jones is a great hero because he always wears a hat.’

It should be of no surprise that corporations using design thinking are now employing people from the social sciences such as sociologists, anthropologists, ethnologists and the like because they can open up thinking through entirely different points of view. The key here is the need to transcend organisational silos and the single lenses that come from specialisation in marketing, finance, human resources, strategic planning, operations, and so on. The new popularity of design thinking, like systems thinking, reflects how organisations are trying various ways to overcome silos. Having teams of experts from different specialisations is one way that organisations try to overcome these silos, but they are rarely more than the sum of their parts. Instead, if managers develop a competence for trans-disciplinarity or trans-functionality, they can draw upon the expertise in different specialisations, while rejecting certain knowledge claims from those disciplines that they can spot as the result of unhelpful assumptions or preoccupations. Key to this is understanding a knowledge claim in its full context: to distinguish between what it reveals and what is simply a projection of its method, theory, and assumptions. Two of the best underlying factors in developing trans-functional competence are critical discourse analysis, and the philosophy of science, as they enable people to de-construct the truth claims they hear.

Furthermore, the organisational silos are there for a reason – they have helped incumbent organisations to control their activities, and regulate any potentially disruptive changes. As a means to shore-up success, corporations have created organisational structures to maintain their financial commitments. As many large organisations are either financed by debt or equity, there are requirements to ensure that debt is paid back on a predetermined schedule or that shareholders are paid a return and so it is understandable that companies have ordered their organisations to meet these demands.16 According to Mr Roger Martin, the consequences of such arrangements for organisational functions are many, and of note for CR professionals. One, organisations will only take the risks associated with exploring new ideas when there is a clear potential for a significantly enhanced financial return; investments in new approaches that would deliver similar returns to existing practices are not favoured. Two, due to the outflow of money, there are limited resources which can be dedicated to innovation thus, ironically, working against their own long-term interest. Three, as a result, meeting the budget is the first measure of operational success as opposed to, for example, better environmental performance. And four, because the nature of the work environment demands reliability for financial purposes, work itself is secondary to the business of making and selling, often demoting people to machine-like tasks and blocking creative potential.17 A corollary to the last point is that work then becomes a measure of time. The consequence is that performance is measured according to quantity and time rather than quality and objectives, potentially leaving the problem to be addressed unsolved in the interest of rapid turn-around.18

It is not just a top down process that enforces silos in organisations. Rather, to be effective in addressing challenges in ways that integrate insights from various organisational functions one must be highly intelligent and enthusiastic about the organisation’s purpose. If one is tired at work, or not deeply interested in the goal of the organisation, then learning the ropes of a particular discipline, and being satisfied one is a trained practitioner in that discipline, is a natural option. The same is true of management schools, where academics have the added pressure of the expert expectation, so that choosing to put boundaries around one’s expertise is an easier way of life.

Whilst corporate responsibility (CR) professionals are presenting sustainability as a source of business opportunity, little is said about those dominant structural aspects of business that are implicitly opposed to innovation. In the case of business, the requirement to ‘guarantee’ profitability means that businesses depend on mechanisms and processes that have demonstrated reliability in working toward this goal.19 But in the face of climate change, financial crises and continual uncertainty, this raises the question of whether the organisational mechanisms that support profit making are as much hampering as stimulating innovation on challenges such as climate change. For professionals working in CR examining deep-seated impediments to sustainable innovation is important.

Stakeholder dialogue is an area of corporate responsibility where design thinking could have a direct application. Concerns over the effectiveness of stakeholder dialogues in aligning the interests of business and their stakeholders raise the question of why there is little innovation when there is a veritable abundance of differing viewpoints at the table.20 This would suggest that there are tools necessary from a process point of view to create a shared sense of problem, to explore the best solutions and then channel these ideas through to the implementation phase. In light of the diversity parallel with design thinking, perhaps the missing element in innovation through stakeholder dialogue is design facilitation, an admittedly ambitious project. For whilst the design facilitator may be able to unite the stakeholders present to solve a problem, the trickle down effect might be a little less effective if the organisational structures behind them are naturally resistant to innovation. Consequently, the greatest challenge facing the CR movement may not be providing creative ideas for businesses but helping organisations to break free of paradigms that they’ve established in attempts to sure up profitably and returns for shareholders. If business is to unleash its sustainability creativity, the CR movement will need to not only promote more design thinking, but also transform existing organisational structures that have been designed to resist change. This is where public policy could play a role with a few interventions at the root of the problem, such as obliging corporations to retain a certain percentage of profits to be used for innovation to address a public need.
–
Some executives do get some of these ideas already, including some in the fields we specialise in in at Lifeworth Consulting. One of these is the traditionally stuffy luxury sector: they have a margin and mandate to innovate… and some recognise that, and work with us or have joined the Authentic Luxury Network we established (http://www.authenticluxury.net). The other area we work on is the non profit and governmental sectors’ strategies on business and finance. Not known for innovation either, some execs get it too.. including some who I worked with at WWF-UK a few years back to conceive of what has become The Finance Innovation Lab, to structure a dialogue about what a fair and sustainable financial systems might look like and how we might create pathways for people in all professions to play a role in those systems’ realisation (http://www.thefinancelab.org).

So will design thinking save us? Not in itself, but its growing popularity creates a space for more creative energy, more holistic thinking and systemic approaches applied to real action. As such it could save us from being such an ‘age of stupid’.

Cheers, Jem Bendell (sections from the JCC co-written with Lifeworth Consulting’s Ian Doyle).

Ps: Thanks to Ian Doyle and Bernise Ang for pushing me last year to explore design thinking more fully!

“Sustainable Fashion. The future of Luxury “

June 3, 2010, at midday.

Registration required: http://events.constantcontact.com/register/event?oeidk=a07e2ohoocub7bd368f

Why listen to Jem? http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/26/style/26iht-luxury08-bendell.18173199.html

What else do we do on this? http://www.lifeworth.com/consult

Want to read about the topic? http://www.deeperluxury.com

Want to work on this topic? http://www.authenticluxury.net

If you would like a seminar on this topic for your own organisation, email connect[at]lifeworth.com to arrange a time to discuss.

See Jem in a CNBC documentary on this topic:

Click here to view the embedded video.

More info on these CSR Thursday lunchtime talks is at www.corporateresponsibility.ch

Is a jobs boom in this profession now likely?

It appears so, with the UNPRI looking to recruit a new team of senior managers for its London office. (If you are thinking of applying, see the video of your potential boss, below).

A new profession is emerging in the responsible investment space. How skilled and principled this profession is will determine the actual impacts of this movement on the people working or living near the businesses invested in.

Data from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_assets_under_management

http://www.risk.net/structured-products/news/1649080/responsible-investing-steps-ususd20-trillion-united-nations

Click here to view the embedded video.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Read more about the UNPRI or see more videos from their participants at http://www.youtube.com/user/UNPRItube

The Finance Lab is the result of a project initiated in 2007 by Jen Morgan at WWF-UK and Lifeworth’s director Jem Bendell. Senior Lifeworth Associate Cheryl Hicks is convening the online dialogue, and Lifeworth Associate Matthew Slater is cohosting the discussions in the Lab on Money Systems.

Capitalism in Question

Entitled “Capitalism in Question”, the annual review describes how politicians and even business leaders are calling for more critical assessment of what kind of economic system we need for a fair and sustainable future. The review from Lifeworth Consulting summarises over a dozen books that have been published in the last weeks that debate the relative merits of capitalism and what form of economic governance is needed post-crisis, and in a new era of economic power. “The majority of these new books seek to do something that previously seemed neither necessary or interesting − to defend capitalism,” says John Stuart of Greenleaf Publishing, which supports the review.

Bendell explains that defensiveness wont help. Referring to the “Restoring Trust” report overseen by Allianz, Barclays Capital, Blackstone, and Carlyle Group, among others, he said “seeking to defend one’s immediate interests, as the banks writing the recent World Economic Forum report clearly did, is not how we are going to discover together the next step in our economic evolution. Fearful people in incumbent institutions may waste our time with diversionary drivel, but real exploration of the core issues is unavoidable. The question now is who should participate and how.”

Co-author of the review, Lifeworth Consulting’s Ian Doyle, explained that “much of the corporate social responsibility, or CSR agenda, has been predicated on a belief that government is constrained by global finance and can, or should, only intervene in markets to a limited extent. The giving of huge amounts of money to private banks may suggest that global finance is still dominant, but it also shows that sometimes when called on to act, most governments will intervene in markets in dramatic ways. So it’s not unreasonable for people to look to their governments to now shape responsible business practice more than before. And that is what we are seeing.”

The review is a call for people to become more involved in exploring how to evolve economic systems to promote fair and sustainable societies, says Bendell. “We are calling for this kind of engagement because after doing nine years of quarterly responsible business trends analysis for the Journal of Corporate Citizenship, we have concluded that there is a nascent social movement for the transformation of business and finance. Behind the jargon of corporate social responsibility, corporate accountability, environmental management, social enterprise, and responsible finance, are people like you and me who want to change the way business does business and the way money makes money. As such we need to think through what we are aiming for, longer term, and how we can work in concert. We all need to look up from our projects and shape the unfolding programme of economic transformation.”

To contribute to the debate, Lifeworth offers a framework for democratising capitalism. As Bendell, who is also Lifeworth’s director explains, “It’s simply that we need more governance of capital by people who are directly affected by its ownership and control. From that one concept flow many implications for tax, currencies, stocks, and all social and environmental regulations. This democratisation of capitalism could be the ultimate goal of the corporate responsibility movement, and the seeds of this approach are already to be found in the ideas and practices of many people working on corporate responsibility today.”

A discussion of economic systems can seem distant from the day-to-day preoccupations of most executives and the academics who seek to educate them, but as Bendell suggests, “making such connections will be important if the corporate responsibility movement is to have a substantial and lasting effect on commerce and society.” In ‘Capitalism in Question’ some initial guidance is given for how business leaders and educators can play a socially progressive role at this time. Specific multi-stakeholder initiatives are recommended.

The review of trends in corporate responsibility during 2009 includes analysis of government stimulus packages, responsible tax management, responsible mining, responsible cosmetics and beauty businesses, as well as particular trends in Asian and Francophone countries. It also explores the potential of ‘design thinking’ for sustainable business innovation, and provides in-depth analysis of the implications of the Copenhagen climate summit.

“Deep changes will be required in economic governance if we are to achieve a sustainable society… Capitalism will change, there is no doubt, and it must change so that it delivers both private wealth and public good” explains Professor Malcolm McIntosh of the Asia Pacific Centre for Sustainable Enterprise. “As we enter a period of potential reconfiguration of economic governance, leaders of organisations will need to better understand the issues, actors and dynamics to be successful. Part of Griffith Business School in Australia, Professor McIntosh’s centre supported the free release of this review to promote creative thinking at a time of critical global challenges and because “the lead author Jem Bendell, is an important commentator on the world stage.”

Dr Bendell says there are important implications for management education. “In Griffith’s new “Graduate Certificate for Sustainable Enterprise” we help our students to navigate increasingly complex social and political contexts so they can find ways to prosper by being part of the solution.”

‘Capitalism in Question: The Lifeworth Annual Review of 2009′ is available in pdf for free download at http://www.lifeworth.com/capitalisminquestion.pdf

Lifeworth’s responsible enterprise trends analysis during 2010 can be obtained by subscribing to the ‘Journal of Corporate Citizenship’. New subscribers to the journal before March 31^st 2010 receive all 2009 copies for free. Visit http://www.greenleaf-publishing.com

Information on Griffith’s research centre and graduate certificate is available at http://www.asiapacificsustainableenterprise.com/

For media enquiries about ‘Capitalism in Question’ contact Jem Bendell via connect [at] lifeworth.com or +44(0)2071936102

It lists almost 100 organisations and who they are collaborating with in Geneva.

To download your free copy as pdf file, visit www.lifeworth.com/CSRGenevaDirectory2010.pdf (or right click and save the target file to your harddrive).

Lifeworth’s Dr Jem Bendell is a co-founder of CSR Geneva. Founded in 2006, CSR Geneva is a social network for Geneva-based people interested in corporate responsibility, accountability, sustainability, social enterprise, & responsible finance. We share information on relevant events, reports, jobs & opinions, & gather for seasonal social events & ad hoc dinners when ‘global gurus’ are in town. In Geneva there are a variety of inter-governmental, corporate, financial & nongovernmental organisations working on these topics. We are building on the global town’s role as a crossroads for people from different cultures and professions so they can learn from each other. Participation is free to anyone interested in what Geneva-based organisations are doing on this agenda. CSR Geneva is informal & not affiliated with any organisation. To get involved, join the mailing list by visiting our website, http://www.csrgeneva.org or by sending a blank email to csrgeneva-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

If you want to participate more fully by sharing info on what you do, and start discussing ideas and projects, join our linked in group, which is accessible from our csrgeneva.org homepage. We rely on members of the network to help us organise the social events and talks, so if you have an idea, please get in touch by emailing: jb at lifeworth.com

In 2008 Lifeworth’s director Dr Jem Bendell had just finished giving a little talk on a cat walk, at an eco fashion show in Hong Kong run by EcoChic Fashions. Earlier that year, by Lac Leman, Louise Barber of the UNOG had told him that 2009 was to be the international year of natural fibres (yes, really, it was), and 2010 the international year of biodiversity. So, he thought, why not hold an eco fashion show at the UN, to promote these ideas, and encourage industry engagement. And, of course, have the fun of seeing a cat walk in the middle of the UN.

Its been a while in the pipeline but its now upon us, thanks to Eduardo Escobedo at UNCTAD, and Christina Dean at Green2Greener, and their dedicated colleagues… And.. you can attend! If you register. See below.

Redefining Sustainability in the International Agenda: Inspiring Greater Engagement in Biodiversity Issues

January 20–21, 2010

Room XIX – Palais des Nations, UN

Geneva, Switzerland

UNCTAD and Green2greener invite you  to come and join the more than 500 prominent figures from government, international organizations, and industry as they meet in Geneva on 20-21 January to call for action against the rapid loss of the world’s biodiversity.

This timely seminar will provide a collaborative platform to discuss the need to redefine sustainability. Through the viewpoint of the fashion and luxury industries, participants will gain a unique insight into the role that governments, businesses, and consumers can play in supporting biodiversity conservation and the sustainable use of natural resources.

Through interactive panel discussions and in-depth case studies, the 1.5 day seminar will cover issues such as

·         Redefining Sustainability: Why Biodiversity and Why Now?

·         How to Implement a Successful Sustainability Strategy

·         Educating and Engaging Consumers in Biodiversity Issues

·         The Rise of the Ethical Consumer and Eco-Fashion in the Mass Market

·         Luxury Brands as Sustainable Role Models

·         Environmental Traceability, Accountability and Certification

·         The Role of the Creative Industries in Developing Economies

·         The Role of Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships

·         Paving the road towards the CBD COP 10 and the revision of the International Biodiversity Targets.

Confirmed participants include representatives from business, international organizations, government, media and NGOs such as:

·            Ahmed Djoghlaf, Executive Secretary, Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)

·            Willen Wijnstekers, Secretary-General, Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES)

·            Dermot Rowan, Managing Director, Orla Kiely

·            Burak Cakmak, Director CSR, Gucci Group

·            Giulia Di Tommaso, Director of Legal Policy and International Relations, Unilever

·            Jean-Fraçois Fournon, Global Creative Director, Saatchi & Saatchi Simko

·            Hans Steisslinger, Head R&D Natural Cosmetics, Weleda Group AG

·            Peter Ingwersen, Founder, Noir

·            Tamsin Blanchard, Style Director, The Telegraph Magazine

·            Sarah Ratty, Founder and CEO, Ciel

·            Alphadi, President & Founder, Festival International de la Mode Africaine

·            Jean-Luc Ansel, Director General, Cosmetic Valley

·            Isabel Berz, Director Fashion School, Istituto Europea di Design Madrid

·            Kate Dillon, Model and M.P.A. in international development

·            Tamsin LeJeune, Founder, Ethical Fashion Forum

·            Erin O’Conner, Model

·            Summer Rayne Oaks, Model and Sustainability Strategist, SRO

and many others….

This must-attend event has been co-organised by United Nations Conference on Trade and Development and Hong Kong charity Green2greener as part of the 2010 International Year of Biodiversity.

All activities will take place in Room XIX in the Palais des Nations (E-Building, third floor).

Pre-registration for the seminar is essential.

For further information, please contact Eduardo Escobedo at +41 22 917 5607 or by email eduardo.escobedo@unctad.org or visit www.unctad.org

Lifeworth is exploring future such TV projects to promote awareness of responsible enterprise.

CNBC on Eco Luxury

<object width=”560″ height=”340″><param name=”movie” value=”http://www.youtube.com/v/WIx3_22A4Io&hl=en_GB&fs=1&”></param><param name=”allowFullScreen” value=”true”></param><param name=”allowscriptaccess” value=”always”></param><embed src=”http://www.youtube.com/v/WIx3_22A4Io&hl=en_GB&fs=1&” type=”application/x-shockwave-flash” allowscriptaccess=”always” allowfullscreen=”true” width=”560″ height=”340″></embed></object>

There are a three ways to navigate the site. First, you can select from the main menu. From here you can see an outline of “what” we do, including the services of strategy, creativity, communications, liaison and education:. In addition is takes you to information on the work programmes we have, including Authentic Luxury, Enterprise Trends and Engaging Change. Clicking on “with” will show you who we have been working with. If you want to see the 18 of us who are associated with Lifeworth Consulting, click on “who”. If you want to know the approach we take and the principles underlying our work, click on “how”. If you click on “Insight” you can access our latest “publications”, read our latest “news and views” or even watch us in “videos”.

Another way to navigate the site is to click on the tags in the *Jump To* box on the right hand column. The tags in this box will keep changing as the content evolves over time. A third way to delve into what we do is to click on news items, such as those in the *Where We Are* box, and then from there you can click on the category of the news item, to view related content.

We hope this will provide a way for you to get the information you need. If you like what we do, then click “connect” in the main menu to find out how to engage us, or sign up to our quarterly updates.

The site is driven by wordpress software. It again demonstrates the potential of open source software, after our new responsible enterprise careers portal, which is based on Drupal software. In the digital age, owning code is like owning the rights to using a pen and paper. I think it is in keeping with our transformative approach that we are now part of this open source movement.

Thanks to Sam Baja for working on the site for us, and thank you for visiting.

Dr. Jem Bendell
Founder/Director of Lifeworth and Lifeworth Consulting