The Carbon Trust Standard certificate looks interesting, especially if you’re a genuinely eco-friendly company who’s become sick of the legions of ‘greenwashers’ jumping on the bandwagon.The certicificate will only be awarded to companies that can prove to have measured emissions and reduced their carbon footprint year-on-year.Crucially, offsetting doesn’t count.So no more chartering private jets to commute to your air-conditioned London office where everything is left guzzling power 24/7 then claiming you’re greener than green for bunging a tree farmer in Devon the odd sweetener.Joking aside, offsetting is great as long as it comes in addition to genuine cuts to emissions and too many businesses at present are selling to the green pound without doing so.Find out more here: www.carbontruststandard.com

Smarta found this exclusive preview of the new Moo business cards and couldn't resist sharing.Founded by Richard Moross, Moo's cool small, image-led business cards offered a fresh approach to the most staid of business stationery.Brilliant for promoting your business and networking, they've become a badge of the web 2.0 crowd. The second generation look even better and should appeal to a wider audience.According to the Moo website you can now:- Use up to 50 different images per pack- Choose from a range of templates for the reverse- Upload your logo or image, and select from a new range of fonts and colours- Choose Moo ‘Green’ 100% recycled, 100% recyclable and bio-degradable paperAnd, just as importanly, they're still super value for £10.99 for 50 cards. We'll certainly be ordering ours and are tipping Moo to go on to even greater things.

So Heinz has banned its Deli Mayo TV advert featuring two men sharing a kiss and apologised to the 202 people who complained to the Advertising Standards Committee it was "offensive" , "inappropriate to see two men kissing" and "unsuitable to be seen by children".Nigel Dickie, director of corporate affairs for Heinz UK, said: "It is our policy to listen to consumers. We recognise that some consumers raised concerns over the content of the ad and this prompted our decision to withdraw it.”So now Heinz has appeased the 202 offended by the sight of single sex couples, what will it do to calm the 3.6 million-strong UK gay population it has disowned? Besides, how did Heinz know the 202 were more representative of its 'family' image?Damage limitation or disastrous knee-jerk PR? See what you think:

Closed. Closed. Closed. Closed. Closed. Five independent hair salons within walking distance of each other in London’s Soho locked up for the day by 7pm this evening just as the streets were beginning to fill with their target clientele.Four of the five are also closed on Sundays, the day most people have the least to do. At least two thirds of the surrounding shops shared the same opening hours. A few minutes’ walk to Oxford Street and the big brands were still milking every minute of shoppers’ paradise.Am I missing something here? Can small independent traders really afford to turn away business?I guess it tells you who's running a lifestyle business and working the hours they want and who's running a profit driven business servicing the hours its customers' prefer.Thing is it needn't even mean working longer hours, maybe just smarter hours. For instance, I'd wager all the salons I passed tonight could take more money from 7-9pm than the 10am-12noon they're open for.

You’ve probably already heard about the £4,000 hair salon boss Sarah Desrosiers was this week ordered to pay Bushra Noah for ‘injury to feelings’ when an employment tribunal upheld a claim of indirect discrimination after Desrosiers declined to employ the 19-year-old Muslim on the grounds she intended to wear a headscarf while working.The tribunal rejected a claim of religious discrimination after accepting Desrosiers' defence that she expects all staff to sport hairstyles reflecting the ‘funky, urban’ image of her salon and that she’d also not employed Noah because she lived too far away.The story has prompted a rather predictable ‘political correctness gone mad’ reaction underlined by a rather more sinister eagerness to carry headlines with the word ‘Muslim’ juxtaposed to a hardworking British business person going about their everyday business.Lame journalism hides what’s actually an interesting case. Now, Desrosiers, of course, is perfectly entitled to demand the role involves sporting the coolest cuts. She insists she’d have had the same objection to someone wearing a baseball cap and there’s no evidence whatsoever she intended to upset or discriminate.For a £34,000 legal claim to arise from a 15-minute interview is, frankly, scary.This is where most business titles start ranting about how business owners are being shafted by red tape and how the law’s an ass. Now I’ll bang the business drum louder than anyone, but not when it’s futile. The law is the law and simply calling it an ass doesn’t really help.What’s not been highlighted is whether Desrosiers stipulated the requirement in her job ads or description. If she didn’t, then technically Noah could have been overlooked for a reason that wasn’t relevant to her ability to do the job or applied to other candidates.I’m not suggesting that happened – but it does happen. The law is murky deliberately to ensure tribunal panels get to the bottom of intent in individual cases. While the £4,000 fine is certainly questionable, the panel’s decision to reject Noah’s primary claim is actually a victory, not defeat, for common sense.Employment law can feel like a minefield and Desrosiers is possibly justified in feeling hard done by, but providing you make a clear job description and apply your criteria consistently during recruitment you’ve very little to worry about. Be vague and then change the rules, no matter how innocently, and you’re opening yourself up to trouble.

When I logged onto Facebook this morning I had two invites to join groups outraged at supposed claims the world’s leading social network was set to start charging a monthly subscription fee.As it was so obviously not true I didn’t bother to join the collective rant. Tempting as it was, neither did I join the conspiracy theorists claiming Mark Zuckerberg et al at Facebook had set up the group to test user reaction to the concept.A quick Google to double check confirmed but did get me thinking when I stumbled on an interview with Guy Kawasaki, celebrated marketer, VC, blogger and columnist for the US magazine Entrepreneur. He says if he owned Twitter, where he has a huge following, he’d start charging $30 a month to make it better.Surely we’ve been here before and exhausted the argument? This web 1 rhetoric being applied to web 2.0 experience isn't just archaic it seems almost impossible to make work.Paid for premium email died overnight when Google launched 1GB’s worth for free. Any value add service Facebook, Twitter or any other site attempted to charge for would simply set competitors, or new entries, scrambling to offer the same for free.But then they do say all things are cyclical so perhaps subscription isn't as dead as we thought. Maybe the critical mass of Joe Public has more loyalty (or addiction) to Facebook, and possibly Twitter, than web 2.0 gospel has accounted for?Would you pay to use a social enterprise or access your favourite site? Just as importantly would you consider charging for access/content?

Head on the blog (sic): there won’t be another internet crash. Ever. Sure some of the web 2.0 bandwagon jumpers will crash and burn taking VC dollar into the fire, but that’s no different to any other sector. And besides, internet isn’t a sector anymore, it’s just business.If you need proof, take a look at the study released today by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) that revealed internet advertising is poised to leapfrog TV as the UK’s dominant format.Currently accounting for 15% compared to TV at 19%, online spend will more than double over the next five years to represent 35% of all advertising in the UK.Internet consumption, spend and enterprise is being driven by the ‘net generation’ of those born between 1977 and 1997, claims the study, whose preferred media is the internet. Oblivious to technology they’re driving the digital sectors, absorbing over 20 hours of media a day, compared to their elders who watch just 20 hours of TV a week.With 30% of the UK population under 25 it all adds up to a business boon for advertisers, according to PwC's head of entertainment and media Phil Stokes:“So long as companies are clear and upfront about specific policies and practices, net gen’ers are comfortable sharing private information in exchange for a more relevant and customised entertainment and media experience.“Responding to the net generation is a global phenomenon. In countries such as Brazil, people under the age of 25 comprise 43% of the country’s total population. This figure is as high as 50% in India. Engagement with this digitally minded generation will guarantee growth in the digital market as they enter the workforce, and as income per person increases.”Consequently, the study also predicted greater convergence between entertainment and media companies.The economy might be stagflating but internet spend isn’t. Web 2.0 crash? No chance. Any companies that slip away just won’t be good enough companies and surely that’s perfectly natural?Image: Flickr

Ever embarked on a brainstorming session of 360º blue sky thinking about how effectively, when you drill down into the throat of your organisation with a fine tooth comb, your core values are cascading to your KPI-focussed product evangelists?If only you’d pre-prepared with some forward-planning you might have reaped higher end deliverables. Perhaps you’d better open your door and not let the grass grow too long on this challenge by gathering the dream team for a cradle-to-grave ideas shower?That should solve it. Or not. Please tell us you don’t speak like this? Yuk, yuk, yuk.OK we’ve all got our madeuppy words we use, but is management talk really getting as indecipherable as the BBC’s ‘50 office speak phrases you love to hate’ suggests?If it is and you suspect you’re a culprit, perhaps you should challenge yourself to a game of Boss Speak Bingo to find out if you’re a Brent-like figure your employees snigger about behind your back.Worse still, a boss that can’t communicate what they expect or what as a company you’re trying to achieve.If you want your employees to respect you and be motivated, then FFS KIS:For Fuck Sake, Keep It Simple.Image: Flickr

He flew in US rapper Usher for this girlfriend’s birthday; he’s blinged out a Sikorsky helicopter with a sound system so large it now seats five not nine; and he’s converted a double decker bus into a five-bedroom stop over for champagne fuelled nights on the town in London.Embracing a celebrity lifestyle and lavish boys toys, you can see why the paps are increasingly aiming their lenses at 27-year-old Andrew Michael, who pocketed a cool £46m from the £61.5m sale of his company Fasthosts in May 2006.The Sunday Times ranks him 10th in its under 30s richlist with £70m and Andrew is brilliantly unapologetic. “I’ve always been obsessed by money,” he told newspaper CITYA.M. this morning.Why ‘brilliantly’? Well, why not?Andrew came from came from a humble working class background and was expelled from school. How many young people reach that tipping point and go a different route to the one Andrew pursued when he started Fasthosts from his bedroom in 1998?What better role model or advert for business? Many entrepreneurs modestly play down the millions they make, often seemingly embarrassed by it.At a time when it’s cooler to promote the social or lifestyle benefits to be had from going into business, perhaps we actually need a few more Andrew Michaels, flaunting the rewards of their hard work, to remind us of most entrepreneurs' true motivation: making fat piles of money.Andrew isn't finished yet, either. He's pumped £2.5m of his own money into new company Livedrive, an online file storage service, which he hopes starting trading in August. We reckon he's already working on the launch party!

Congratulations to Lee McQueen, winner of tonight’s The Apprentice final, and well done Sir Alan Sugar for picking him.Statistically it was deserved. He won more tasks than any of the challengers for the £100,000 job and never made the dreaded final three to be dragged back into the boardroom for cross examination.Aside from that, his version of the uniform ‘I want it more than anything’ pledge was the most impassioned. Even the terradactyl impersonations and ‘that’s what I’m talking about’ warcry left you convinced this was a seriously motivated man.Yet a week ago, Lee looked odds on to hear ‘you’re fired’ after committing the cardinal sin of elaborating about his education on his CV. It made him unemployable, according to one of Sir Alan’s senior advisors.As Lee winced with embarrassment, HR managers around the nation tutted in unison about the plague of CV fraud blighting the recruitment industry. By the book, he was a gonna.The fact he stayed kind of tells you the difference between business managers and entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs act on instinct and impact not rulebooks, theory or procedure.As the lowest educated contender Lee’s error was one of insecurity that showed a desire to get the job at all costs more than a desire to deceive.Sir Alan recognised that and you sense he’s gained an employee who’ll repay his second chance with unwavering loyalty and effort. A good appointment? We reckon.Oh and expect the more than capable Claire to land a top job soon; finishing second hasn’t done Ruth Badger any harm.