Shared publicly  - 
Who do you think is the sustainable business leader of the year?
The top four nominations for the Guardian Sustainable Business Leader of the Year 2012 have been announced and it is now up to a public vote to choose who will win…
Scott (RocketWolf)'s profile photoPaul Kundu's profile photoJason Mill's profile photoVicky Smith's profile photo
"sustainable business leader", yes, good idea, in so many ways. 
Some really interesting profiles!
Hopefully not VIrgin. Ass kissing a special interest group (tree huggers) doesn't fit into the successful business model of Virgin or you RIchard. In fact I never pictured you as an ass kisser.

I think it commendable that Virgin does what it can (to an extent) not to pollute but I have never seen a need to compete over it at the behest of a special interest group for an award that a yuppy was tasked to come up with.

Virgin has earned its awards and great achievement based on the merits of hard work and taking the challenges no one else would. Smart thinking, working smarter not harder, and a vision to achieve and succeed is the kind of mindset Richard has built his company on. That's all that needs to be said.
rupert murdock. not only for business but for the balls to speak up & out
What about K.R. Sridhar of Bloom Energy. He is making sustainability possible.
Sir Alan Sugar for me, he's managed to recycle the same tired TV program for the last few years to promote himself.
Whats the chance of a small business leader getting the nod? Nope, thought now...likely to be a celeb type.
I think a lot of the time you have to be known for it! what the hell happened to just getting on with things and if you got a thankyou or a well done that made you happy?!!!!!
"Sustainability" is and overused word.
Sustainable means someone who can keep a company viable, solvent, & stay in business.
Not sure that's sufficient +Vicky Smith and in the case of this award, sustainability appears to be about environmental and social issues. In general, consuming finite resources, despite possibly being necessary, is not sustainable forever and growth in the face of finite resources is not sustainable forever. So we are left with rewarding people or companies who appear to do less harm than others, which is not a bad thing to reward, but may still not be sustainable in the long run. Are there any companies that are working towards reducing consumption of resources to a level that is actually below the rate that they are replaced by our natural environment? +Planetary Resources might be an example because they are seeking to expand our sources of raw materials beyond what's available on Earth... but that's a long way away from viability.
The head of Apple. The Ipad has been a revelation.
Jason > It was not necessary for you to bring me up in your comment about sustaining natural environment. I do believe in saving our Natural Evironment, yes I am one of those tree huggers. As far as Planetary Resourses, sure they can go on about that all they want but it is not going to happen in any near future. We know there are Corporations that are destroying our Planet. They have so much wealth that it appears nothing can be done, especially when they are in other Countries. I was just giving a small comment, whoop I didn't put in that these companies should not pollute. Also you talk about natural resourses. The U.S. Marines are doing war games with the Philipino's who say they have claim over a South China Island that is rich with oil. The Communist Chinese Gov. and their allies claim it for themselves. I just don't understand why our military would get involved with something that has to do with gaining an Island for the Oil Companies. Oh! must I forget that is why Bush Jr. & Cheney attacked Iraq.
Vicki, I was commenting specifically about your post so that's why I mentioned you. My point was only that your list of sustainability attributes, while necessary for a company to sustain itself, are not a sufficient definition for the purpose of this award which is related to environmental sustainability. I applaud you for being a "tree hugger". But how does society promote and achieve an overall total reduction in consumption of raw materials, food, water, etc. in the face of a growing population when the very economic models of most, if not all, nations and companies is based on continued growth, year after year, forever?
Jason, I do get it. But it won't be long before population growth will not be an issue and I will not expound on that statement. Figure it out by yourself!
Add a comment...