A not-so new term is emerging again as an efficient driver of external change. The concept of  intrapreneurship was first introduced in 1976 by a writer for the Economist who described future dynamic corporations as ones who would have internal competitive mechanisms.  By 1986, John Naisbett was defining this as a method for identifying new markets and opportunities and Steve Jobs cited the development of the MacIntosh as an intrapreneurial venture.

Fast forward to our issues of today and social intrepreneurship stands to reason as a critical driver of real impact by taking an inside-out approach.   As Josh Cleveland points out on nuPOLIS about the research he conducted for Making Your Impact at Work, the opportunity to create impact is tremendous.  “Social intrapreneurs have access to the social, intellectual, and financial capital of existing firms that can be leveraged in the pursuit of their social endeavor”, he writes.

Oftentimes social entrepreneurship requires a cultural shift which requires leadership and education.  Social intrapreneurs have the credibility to drive this change which inherently  influences thousands of touchpoints as it travels through the channels of interdepartmental and partner implementation.  Not only do social intrereneurs become ambassadors of change but they create lasting (sustainable) opportunities by opening up the dialogue for the intellectual and operational development of change.

Social entrepreneurship is getting all the buzz these days but social intrapreneurship might just be the stealth agent that advances our global progress on innovating social change.

This is pretty cool.  IDEO and the Gates Foundation put their heads together and came up with a toolkit to help communities problem solve.  Using what IDEO calls “human centered” tools, this “how to” guide works acts like a consulting team in a box.  Only better.  It acknowledges the challenges of developing ideas when the meeting of minds requires the crossing of a language bridge.  The toolkit is free – downloadable in .pdfs.  And its been tested, in its early development phases  with IDE in Cambodia and Ethiopia, with Heifer International in Kenya and in its current format by Vision Spring in India among others.   The beauty of an open source format though is that development and testing is never done.  Feedback from designers using the four-part toolkit around the world is coming in and IDEO has plans to incorporate the input to enhance the next round.

Do people get much more creative than this?  Talk about making a statement.  For more subversive gardening ideas check out http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/07/guerilla-gardening-nano-scale.php.

On June 3, 2009, the day before their official graduation, 400 Harvard MBA’s took an unofficial oath to “serve the greater good”, “act with the utmost integrity” and guard against “decisions and behavior that advance my own narrow ambitions, but harm the enterprise and the societies it serves.”

Is a values-driven agenda re-entering the workplace?

In 2001, Enron kicked off a two-year run on financial fraud (WorldCom, Adelphia, Tyco, Global Crossing, etc.) which gave a good jolt to business and consumer confidence.  Accenture’s brand took a beating but other than that we seemed to return fairly quickly to ‘business as usual’.

That is until 8 years later, a financial crisis of epic proportions in conjunction with global climate change tied to a lack of responsible business oversight has even business students re-committing themselves to just what it means to be doing good business.

It may seem idealistic or even naïve for students to be taking this unsanctioned oath yet holding the business education community accountable may have greater implications for business management.  A set of shared values is one that helps define a profession.  As business students enter one of the worst hiring environments in decades, ethical decision-making is driving them to demand new approaches to shareholder value and 21st century company leadership.

Day 3 – I’ve been convinced.  We, the sustainability industry, are growing up.  It’s not pretty and we don’t know what our collectively and future-defined selves will be, but we’re definitely in it for the rest of our adult lives.  We’re not going away.  But there’s a few things that we need to think about as we approach adulthood:

1) Stop being so defensive.  No industry was born perfect.   Every new sector had to go through the growing pains of discovering what they stood for and what they didn’t stand for.  Sustainability is no different.  So accept imperfection and keep charging forward.  We will never be pure -  let’s own that and figure out how to make it work for us.

2) Embrace our humanity, but let’s be a little more ruthless.  We’re beginning to uncover mainstream acceptance for the financial rationale of doing good.  We love the warmth of what we’re doing but if others need to hear facts – let’s stick to them to progress the industry.  We like rainbows and unicorns but fairy tales have ceased to dominate Wall Street.

3) One size does not fit all.  If sustainability is the umbrella industry (think  “high tech” 20 years ago), then maybe we need to actively promote the many paths to sustainability that people, products and businesses can choose.  As fair trade, sustainably made, clean energy and other sustainable endeavors mature, evangelizing each unique practice will be made easier and the desire to analyze and compare the value of each over the other will fall away.

4) Re-invent our messaging.  Flip the framework.  As marketers we are failing miserably in moving the adoption curve.  Granted the message is as only strong as the product but we must work more closely to strategically effect education and behavior change.

This year’s conference may be coming up a bit shorter on the oxytocin front but it is clear that the energy and enthusiasm is still in full supply.

Day 2 of the Sustainable Brands conference down in Monterey and there is relatively little new news.  Well, at least no new revelational news.   I don’t know if this is a bad thing or just the status of an industry going through natural growing pains, but I am disappointed by the lack of provocative discussions (perhaps its the format?).  We are still trying to figure out how to simplify the consumer message of what is inherently an incredibly complex thing and still acting as if transparency and accountability were new concepts (Enron  anyone?).

Perhaps what I’m reacting to is our inability to recognize that we are stuck and that we need to flip our perspectives, re-frame the questions and acknowledge that what we haven’t figured out is a serious barrier to adoption.  Aren’t we supposed to be ingenious, inspired innovators down at this conference?   Admittedly,  we come to this conference for the comfort and inspiration that comes from working with others of like-mindedness.  But perhaps we are guilty of being lazy, expecting each other to do the heavy brain work instead of basquing in our vacuum of do-gooder intent.  But thus far we haven’t admitted to ourselves that we’re stuck and there has been no frank “panel discussions” that confront us on this issue.

It is not all terribly mediocre.  There have been a few interesting conversations and themes in the conference which does mean that some progress is getting made.    There were a few, just a few, who touched on the field of legal and financial mechanisms as a means of regulatory approaches to governing market-based solutions – thank you Jay Coen Gilbert of B Lab and Hazel Henderson, author of Ethical Markets. And the theme of low impact via local consumption (CSA’s) and local investment (Slow Money) came up as more evolved mechanisms for engagement.

I guess the good news is that despite the fact that 52% of all “green” special issue magazines sell less than their standard counterparts, there are no indicators, as presented by Chris Coulter of Globescan,  that  we are reverting back to pre-sustainability mindsets.  In fact, perhaps despite our marketing attempts, there is very strong evidence that sustainable operating practices are in fact driving brand equity which means the market is responding, if only subtly.

But the blush of romance feels like its dwindling and perhaps this emerging trend is hitting its difficult teen years.  Like the .com era did.   Which is not bad news it just means that we’re in the throes of the reality of hard work which never feels very sexy or warm.

Adapt or die. Never has this statement been more true. Consumer brands are dealing with an overnight change in attitudes and values that is unprecedented in modern consumerism. From travel to jeans to soap to museums – no product or service or experience will survive this tumultuous period without re-examining their value proposition and the role they play in their consumer’s life.

Between the economic crisis lead by Wall Street and AIG, the environmental crisis and now adding insult to injury – the AIG bonus payout – consumers are retreating and rethinking every single dollar that leaves their pocket and who it will go to. In fact, the Edelman Trust Barometer reports that U.S. consumer confidence is even lower than it was after the dot.com bust and the Enron scandal. Things aren’t much better internationally, 62% of respondents across 20 countries included in this same survey report less trust in business than a year ago.

The result is that the brand relationship with consumers is about to get very interesting. Current brand equity will still play a critical role in consumer decisions but each and every brand needs to get out there and understand what their new consumer needs are a.s.a.p. There are a plethora of marketing reports coming out on issues of sustainability, moderation behaviors and other factors that will play a role in future consumerism. These reports are valuable but are simply the backdrop for independent research that should be done to understand these trend drivers first hand as they relate to a company’s brand. This shift doesn’t mean that brands need to lose or even change their core brand assets. They simply need to look for new ways to relate and to re-look at how their products communicate with their current audiences and their new behaviors.

For example, the New York Times reported last week that museums across the country are now opening their doors to entirely new audience segments via discounted special events that build on their core offerings. In San Francisco, the Academy of Sciences has debuted Nightlife – a weekly evening event incorporating DJ’s and special science activities that brings together a much different crowd than the kids, parents, tourists and science geeks the Academy usually attracts. Not only are they finding new hours to open their doors but they are attracting new audiences that have traditionally dismissed this type of cultural institution en masse.

It’s this type of re-invention and exploratory relationship building that needs to take place across the spectrum. Simply speaking to green or pricing trends via advertising or promotion will ultimately miss the opportunity to play an important and trusted role throughout the upcoming years of significant value and lifestyle restructuring.

Rarely do I write about politics – that’s not what this space is for.  But I feel compelled to write and – ask for feedback  – on last Thursday night’s Daily Show.  Jon Stewart is pretty much my idol.  He’s one of those “who would you invite to dinner if you could” guys.  Even when he gets totally over-the-top angry (as he certainly did in the months leading up to the election), he’s a provocative truth-telling genius.

But I sat in total disbelief as Jim Cramer sat there and let himself (his brand) be totally annihilated last Thursday.  How, why would Jim do this?  He’s a media celebrity – they don’t set themselves up for feature length (as comedy sketches go) spectacles of mockery.

The only explanation that I’ve been able to come up with is that this was a PR strategy employed by CNBC to pave a path for restoring their own reputation.  “Encouraging” Jim to go on last week’s media tour and concluding it with the “showdown” on The Daily Show had to be the result of some serious backroom talks.

Which kinda bums me out….wouldn’t Jon have told us if this was how/why Thursday night’s show came to be?

You can see the full unedited 21 minute version of the interview on the Daily Show web site and also read some of the discussion around the event on the Huffington Post.

It’s small. It’s grassroots, but this is how you build good-will AND a brand name.  Think Red Bull.

The Snuggie Pub Crawl Team is promoting the AC-Orphanage in Arusha, Tanzania on FaceBook but one wonders if there might be an opportunity to increase their fund-raising impact if FB and Global Giving (an online giving portal) were synced up.

Regardless, this is an awesome idea….and even though its not THAT cold here in Northern California, dressing up in anything has all the markings of an event made for SF.   Snuggie Bay-to-Breakers team, anyone?  Oh, and you can email the Snuggie team at the email above to request an event in your own city.

Hat tip to David at Marketing + Good for this one.

In a swath of green fury, there is a whole new market emerging which most consumers have heard of but for the most part, have no clue if it will ever become relevant to their daily lives.   To some degree none of us know what role our march toward a carbon neutral economy will play in our not-too-distant future yet there are signals locally and globally that the carbon market may ultimately play a significant role in our daily choices.  The question is  – who will guide us in the adoption of practices that will truly help us understand this market.

To a certain degree, it is probably too early to ask this question.  The early days of the mobile phone industry were governed by industry wide regulation, distribution and demand.  Demand drove consumers to purchase despite mass confusion over cost protocol and brand authorities didn’t emerge until the market had stabilized and penetrated the most sought after consumer – the teen.  It took us over a decade to begin to feel like we understood how to evaluate “Rollover minutes” against “Nights and Weekends Free” against “myFaves” (although one could argue we still don’t know why we’re locked into two year contracts).

So, it’s likely that we are ten even twenty years before we truly begin to understand what the outcomes of all the debate in Washington and abroad is about as it relates to understanding our role in neutralizing the carbon in our atmosphere.  This is an operational challenge that will be driven by regulation not demand.   Yet there seems to be market activity that signals this evasive concept-commodity could and actually is being productized at a mass consumer level.

Many airlines now offer individuals the opportunity to purchase carbon offsets at the point of their ticket purchase and online calculators such as Terrapass provide individuals and businesses the opportunity to purchase carbon credits to offset their output.  Termed “offsets” these credits are the product of a  financial mechanism created to regulate carbon output and including organizations naturally protecting sequestered carbon.  Most of us have begun to hear the term “offset” but will readily admit we have no idea what it really means, let alone starting to dig deeper to know what “standard” the carbon has been verified against to determine its true value.

The interesting question is,  who will emerge to be the (brand) authority in this new market?  What business and in what tier of the consumer eco-system will emerge to establish credibility and drive the standard to which we will make our assessments? And what industry can we look to previously that might shed some light on where this new market might be going?