Green may be the latest shade of Apple, but green isn’t gold for MBAs, a new study finds. Speaking of Apple, after my recent (and virginal) trip to San Francisco, I could definitely see how San Fran had been leading the way to sustainability, but it’s nice to know New York is getting credit too.

On a triple bottom lined note, academics have named a new approach to sustainable business called S²AVE (Shareholder and Social Added Value with Environmental Restoration, emphasizing the importance of incorporating a triple bottom line into a company’s strategy, rather than tangential activities. And for those concerned with their own personal triple bottom lines, there are more socially responsible investment (SRI) mutual funds and products than ever.

Drawing on cause marketing tactics, MSN launched a new portal WhatOnEarthIsGoingOn, tapping into MSN’s existing user base to create an online community where members can learn about and act upon social issues, and receive targeted information from “like-minded brands.” While some cause marketing effort is directed at helping consumers connect to brands, another social marketing site has been created to help consumers evaluate marketer’s eco-friendly claims.

Social entrepreneurship, as a concept, existed far earlier than the phrase’s introduction to the lexicon, a few decades ago. The term has drawn a great deal of attention in recent years. The fact Muhammad Yunus won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006 for his social entrepreneurial efforts with the Grameen Bank, speaks volumes about the movement. [Note: if you’re interested in seeing Muhammad Yunus, he will be promoting his most recent book, Creating a World Without Poverty: Social Business and the Future of Capitalism, in New York. Check out my calendar for details.]

With such attention, a number of events and panels have surfaced on the topic. Having attended several over the past year, I’m amazed the gatherings always begin with the simple question, “what is social entrepreneurship” or “what is a social entrepreneur”? A discussion soon follows, with more divergent interpretations than I would have expected. In determining to piece together my own definition for this series, I looked to what five of the leading social entrepreneurship funders and incubators had to say on the topic. Being a visual person, I decided to chart out some of characteristics and compare.

As you can see, their explicit definitions don’t completely match up across the board. Despite this, I would bet that Ashoka, Echoing Green, Social Fusion, and the Schwab and Skoll Foundations probably would recognize a true social entrepreneur when they see one.

To cobble a comprehensive definition based on the above, I would say social entrepreneurs are individuals whose passionate but pragmatic vision for a better world, allow them to identify problems obstructing such a reality and to recognize marketplace failures and opportunities to address the persistent social ills. Innovative and resourceful risk-takers, social entrepreneurs devise, measure, and disseminate innovative and sustainable solutions. To achieve large-scale change, they mobilize agents from all sectors and give a voice to the marginalized, working collaboratively toward a mission-driven bottom line that creates social value.

A simple working definition I often use in conversations is “social entrepreneurs are innovative problem-solvers who (typically) take a sustainable and business-minded approach to solving persistent social issues.”

Do you have your own definition?

What particularly stood out to me was the breakdown of the three fundamental approaches socially responsible investment managers use to “invest in a more sustainable and humane society.” I began to think beyond the socially responsible investing of financial capital, and thought about applying these strategies to evaluating investments in human capital. More to the point, I thought these same strategies might be useful to anyone interested in a more socially responsible career.

With that in mind, I’ve listed the approaches and how they could be applied in a career context.

Screening is the practice of filtering possible investments through evaluation of a company’s compatibility with criteria used by a specific fund. Some funds focus on environmental issues and others on labor conditions, while many use a wider scope and require a general history of corporate social responsibility. It is still the job of the manager to achieve desired returns while managing risk, but some promising investments will surely be omitted if they can’t meet the relevant standards.

When making a next step along your career path, you (hopefully) already do a bit of “screening.” For many it’s a matter of evaluating location, salary, benefits, vacation days and work-life balance, among factors. If you’re interested having a career with a triple bottom line, then once salary and the above are considered, you may want to decide to don a socially responsible, green collar career.

Shareholder advocacy takes a proactive line of attack to responsible investing. In contradiction to screening strategies, those practicing shareholder activism often invest in unethical companies, hoping to bring about positive change through shareholder resolutions. This process can raise awareness of specific issues and create dialogue with management that otherwise would be nonexistent.

Maybe you’re already invested in your office, enjoying your role and your colleagues, but the fact your company isn’t working toward a triple bottom line disheartens and maybe even upsets you. If you’re up for a challenge, creating changes toward sustainability for your company can have an even greater impact than finding a job with an existing and exemplary blended value organization. Applying a “shareholder advocacy” approach moves beyond preaching to the choir to spreading the sustainability gospel to those most difficult to reach. With professional relationships already in place, you have greater potential to influence your company, particularly if you can back up your green-colored views with data that preserves or improves the financial bottom line.

Community investing is an effort to direct capital into neighborhoods often overlooked by traditional financial services. This approach focuses on issues such as affordable housing, small business creation and development of community facilities. For individual investors, holding cash with financial institutions dedicated to community development—such as credit unions, local savings and loans and development loan funds—can provide competitive returns while helping support economic growth in areas shunned by capitalism. For institutional investors, participation could come in the form of venture capital funding or ownership of real estate, such as low income housing.

I’ll take some liberty in applying this last strategy. I interpret SRI “community investing” in the career context as starting up your own enterprise where, as a social entrepreneur, you take an innovative approach to solving social and environmental problems. These new and untested ideas often face trouble getting support from traditional philanthropies. With such social ventures or venture philanthropy, you intend to make a return that makes a difference, yielding greater results than more conservative philanthropic efforts.

The strategies of screening, shareholder advocacy, and community investing are representative of different types of workers, which I would classify as green collar workers, sustainability change agents, and social entrepreneurs, respectively. Don’t get caught up in the “green” versus “sustainability” versus “social” terminology–for simplicity within this post, I view all as working toward a triple bottom line. The real distinction among the three is the decision to change a job, a company, or an industry (and community).

Out of curiosity, what kind of a worker are you or do you aim to be: green collar worker, sustainability change agent, or social entrepreneur?

I don’t think this project will garner the same kind of success as YouTube’s “You Choose ‘08″ has for the U.S. presidential election process, but I am interested in tracking it nonetheless. Unfortunately, no video posts are up yet, so I’ll be checking in throughout the voting time frame (January 1-21) and thereafter for the Davos attendees’ viewpoints. Will I be seeing your answer up there?

My 2008 Triple Bottom Line: Improve my financial situation, using eco-savvy and socially conscious strategies.

• Go beyond, or change entirely, my job duties so I can increase my income and influence my company to work toward a triple bottom line.
• Limit restaurant, take-out, and grocery food decisions to options that reduce my overall carbon footprint and are socially responsible.
• Improve my home environment, by encouraging my roommates to switch to cleaner energy alternatives, reducing my junk mail intake, and making more sustainable (and overall fewer) purchases.

So, any thoughts on what you might do? There’s a good chance you might not be reading this on New Year’s Eve, but don’t fret! You can create some intentions right now that will take you throughout the rest of the year.

My role so far, as part of the Donor/Membership Development Sub-committee, has been to begin planning the organization’s launch party (which actually we have divided into a “soft” and “hard” launch). With a background in advertising, I naturally engaged in a critical discussion on branding with two guidance board members.

In discussing what we wanted to convey through a logo and tagline, it became apparent we would need to choose something short and accessible since the group’s name isn’t exactly that. The irony is NYC-VPF embodies democratic philanthropy, and is probably one of the most accessible philanthropic vehicles out there.

In NYC-VPF, anyone can become a member for $365 a year; members are able to vote on grant recipients; and grantees receive support to undertake innovative approaches to solving persistent social problems. While the level to join is low and the concept is exciting and relate-able for most, the language “venture philanthropy” can be a bit alienating for those not familiar.

When we broke NYC-VPF down into its most basic essence, we determined it was about “small money, big change.” The “small money” contrasts with notions of “big money” and “old money,” characterizing traditional philanthropic entities such as foundations. The “big change” refers to the impact of a large community pooling individual “small money” and professional skills to support results-oriented social entrepreneurial problem-solving. We think it works; what do you think?