This article about ‘green explosives‘ caught my eye. The author takes a sideways look at the issue noting that:

If you’re worried about the environment but still need to blow people up, a new class of nitrogen-based bomb materials is for you. Popular explosives like TNT and HMX react to form nitrogen oxides when detonated, the major culprits behind smog and acid rain. This is a big no-no if you’re the type of warmonger who drives a hybrid tank, obviously, so weapons experts at the University of Munich devised an alternatives that are cleaner, more stable, and even more powerful than those other explosives.

Apparently an alternative use would be as rocket fuel.  While struggling to find any meaningful justification for the invention of ever more powerful exploseives, it makes me think about another set of vague connections. Alfred Nobel was both an inventor of dynamite who ended up giving his fortune away in a supreme act of philanthropy. There is a certain paradox in those events. On the one hand we have the invention of something meant for industry that has become much more closely associated with destruction. On the other, a enduring gift that retains its prestige to this day.

Could we by any chance make the same connections between Bill Gates and his mastery in beating out competition, in the process having his company dubbed ‘evil’ yet bequething his wealth to a philanthropic foundation that will no doubt benefit for years to come?

In the last 10 days I’ve been either in Boston or Orlando at events sponsored by SAP. At both events, representatives from a number of NGOs were present in part because sustainability is high on SAP’s business and product agenda. While I am aware of Web 2.0 style projects at some NGO’s those more closely aligned to business have had little exposure to these technologies. It always seems to be the way but by the time the NGO attendees reached Orlando, it seems they had been well and truly bitten by the Web 2.0 bug.

In one post on the OpenAccountability wiki (invitation required but open to those genuinely interested in sustainability in IT) developed by Redmonk and Greenmonk, Steve Rochlin, head of AccountAbility North America said:

I’m just returning from the high of a stimulating, provocative, challenging and altogether mind-expanding dialogue at SAPPHIRE Orlando.

Graham Baxter of International Business Leaders’ Forum, in comments to Steve’s breathless post added:

So we have established that there are at least two categories of application for web 2.0 in the corporate responsibility space. The first, is perhaps the easiest to understand - as a new tool to drive responsible business behaviour. The new Guardian post (thanks Derek) shows the potantial of this enabling a whole new group of people (community) to get active. It begs, again, the question of legitimacy of the community. But I understand that that isn’t really the point - its a group with a voice which is sometimes loud - so companies had better work out how to listen and respond.

For me though, as I said in the discussion the really interesting part is where web 2.0 can enable new and innovative ideas and create new opportunities for entrepreneurs to pick up and run with which in turn address the pressing and seemingly overwhelming challenges we face. Are there solid examples of this happening yet?

I can understand why NGO’s and other campaigning organizations get excited at the potential for these technologies. However, they need to understand that business needs convincing that sustainability has a bottom line value otherwise they simply won’t play. In this context, while they may think Web 2.0 technology gives them a bigger foghorn, that doesn’t necessarily translate into corporate actions. My sense from the Boston meeting is that NGOs see partnership as the way forward in helping business define those profitable measures that contribute to a more sustainable future. But again, NGOs will only get invited to the table if they can offer concrete help and don’t try throwing their campaigning weight around. It’s a delicate balance and one that’s not easy to achieve. How for example do campaigning NGOs sit down with polluters in an atmosphere of trust? Or how might NGO’s advise business in responding to the recent report from The Independent that asserts:

More than seven in 10 voters insist that they would not be willing to pay higher taxes in order to fund projects to combat climate change, according to a new poll.

These and other significant challenges have to be met as part of the framework around which business is encouraged to adopt sustainable policies and actions.

It is perhaps paradoxical that the technologies we now have - especially wikis and community building solutions - can serve both sides of the sustainability debate and both together. The OpenAccountability wiki is one step in what I think is the right direction where business managers in technology companies, tasked with sustainability issues, can ‘meet’ and thrash out the issues in a safe environment. That’s a debate I hope to jump into in Berlin, where we have the second round of SAPPHIRE, SAP’s set of global customer conferences.

As an aside, Max Gladwell has an excellent post covering 10 ways to change the world through social media. While I’m not a fan of the term ’social’ in the business context, Max provides a solid rundown of tools that can be usefully applied towards developing awareness and action.