You like Hollywood? So you're probably much into the James Bond Series. Great Fleming, good enough Harry Saltzman (well, the film Producer). Let me tell you about the best part of the recent series. And one in particular: in Quantum of Solace there is an ecological organization called Greene Planet. Great, you'd say, just another one. But! As it becomes clear as the minutes pass, this 'green' charity organization is just a way to wash some money for its establisher. And a way to cover some dirty fuel deals. Nice one. What does that mean?

Do companies and organizations like this one just want some indulgence?

I've always wondered why biggest companies in the world give so much money for charity and sustainable projects. Do they want to tell you: "We're better than others, "cause we love our planet!" or they just want to bribe your trust in order not to see all the bad stuff happening...

They say: Our Corporate Social Responsibility is taking care of the community, we're really concerned about environment, we want our children to live in a cleaner and greener world. And on

the next month the company reveals the plans of building a new factory.

So that's the common case. Companies boast with green CSR programmes but they are just another commercial trick. Some of the major leading businesses keep saying: we're spending less paper, we're using renewable energy, our vehicles produce less CO2.

Take Starbucks. In their CSR Report for 2007 they say the company have bought renewable energy certificates (RECs) for 69,482 tons of carbon dioxide which should be equal to removing 15,042 cars from the road for one year. Starbucks' sustainability program is due to refinance coffee producers in poorest countries such as Ethiopia, Brazil, Rwanda, Costa Rica, etc. But it is believed that although the company supports them, Starbucks still keeps pushing them to lower the prices and to reduce their income from producing the precious beans. Now Starbucks is number 10 in Newsweek's Green Rankings 2009 with leading positions in Media, Travel, Leisure sectors. (Excuse me, which one of these is connected with coffee and light breakfasts?).

The Starbucks example isn't aiming to create a negative impact on the company (as if it could...) but only to show a view on one of the world's 'green' leaders. Which means to me that if you ha

ve the billions you could be a green leader. Do you think so?

P.S. The Newsweek Green Rankings 2009 are also green – the print copy costs $1445.00 but if you order just an e-version, you'd be charged $1295.00. How green. How... commercial.