Many said the launch of Vista would be make or break for Microsoft, and after announcing record third quarter figures it seems Bill Gates and his cronies have come up trumps again.

Microsoft’s revenue for the quarter ending March 2007 was $14.40bn – a huge 32% increase over the same period last year - and with the company’s net profits also rising from $2.98bn to $4.93bn, it seems despite the reservations surrounding upgrades and potential software conflictions, Vista, and the simultaneously launched MS Office 2007, are doing exactly what Microsoft hoped they would.

The constantly delayed launch of the new operating system, Microsoft’s first since Windows XP was introduced in 2002, had caused many analysts to question whether Vista was worth the wait.

However, although the recent figures suggest those fears have been allayed, many will rightly claim the success of the operating system was as inevitable as the rising sun given from January 30 nearly every new Windows computer will have come with Vista either preloaded, or with the promise of a free upgrade.

Scratch beneath the surface of Microsoft’s Q3 profits though, and the picture becomes a little less clear. According to reports between $1bn and $1.7bn in Vista sales had been deferred to the firm’s third-quarter in order to take into account the discounted upgrades given to PC buyers. Bill Gates has also warned that fourth quarter profits would be hit by deferred marketing expenses.

All-in-all a mixed bag for the software giant, but with these figures having gone a long way to putting Vista and Microsoft Office 2007 firmly on the technological map, the 10,000 staff who worked long and hard to get the product off the ground will be sleeping a little more soundly.

Sustainability, sustainability, sustainability – these are the three biggest issues that procurement will face over the next ten to fifteen years. If we haven’t solved the problem by then, it will be too late. My sense is that all the other issues that procurement continues to face will lurk in the background vying for position, but sustainability will take centre stage in the immediate future.

Why am I so certain? Well, we have had the Stern report and we have also seen the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report - both of which provide plenty of detail about what is going to happen to our planet and why. They have effectively drawn a line in the sand and laid down the gauntlet in terms of what we need to do. The media has picked up on this and we are now seeing a huge groundswell of interest. Not a day goes by without some aspect of sustainability appearing in the news. And if you read Stern, you will realise why – this is not the next big fad, it is about our future economic and social viability across the globe.

So what is sustainability all about? The simple answer is that by virtue of our day-to-day activities as humans, we are generating greenhouse gases that are causing the planet to get hotter – check out the following link at the New York Times for evidence of this:'The Warming of Greenland'. These gases are generated by the linear manufacturing and consumption lifecycles that we have adopted to drive our economies. These are supported by equally linear support and logistics networks. In these linear lifecycles, raw materials are the inputs, they undergo some kind of process to turn them into products and services, we then consume them and either bury the waste products or emit them into the atmosphere - it is the waste part of the equation that is causing the problem.

The goal is to become greenhouse gas neutral – i.e. the enterprise has no net impact on the environment in terms of the gases that it emits. There are basically three ways enterprises can achieve this – elimination, substitution, or carbon offsetting. First, the enterprise can eliminate its greenhouse gases by stopping their production; second, it can adopt processes and technologies that improve the types of gases it emits, shifting to a mix that is less harmful to the environment; third, it can continue to emit harmful greenhouse gases but offset them by investing in external projects that neutralise the effect of these gases. Offsetting has had some bad press recently as it can be argued that it is in effect a licence to emit; nonetheless, it is better than doing nothing. And, given that there are lots of very cheap options out there to offset your emissions, you can currently get a very big bang for your buck – see http://www.climatecare.org/ for further details.

To solve the problem long-term, however, we need to shift to closed-loop manufacturing and support lifecycles, which would increase the volume of waste products used as inputs into the manufacturing process, including the emitted greenhouse gases. To do this, enterprises will need to leverage all the internal expertise that they have at their disposal, which will inevitably include suppliers – hence procurement’s involvement. Moreover, the enterprise will need to police its own greenhouse gas footprint, driven in turn by its suppliers – I would argue that again, procurement is well-positioned to support this; the function should have the data, be able to manage relationships with the suppliers and have the analytical capability to root out any issues.

It should be self-evident that all of this will require a c-change in the way enterprises create value for society – new technologies will be needed and investment decisions will have to be based on greenhouse gas footprints as well as strict economic return. This problem extends all the way back into the supply chain – stopping only at the point when the raw materials are extracted out of the ground.

Consequently, the procurement function needs to reinvent itself - there will be far greater emphasis on collaboration and innovation with suppliers to develop solutions to the problems that organisations are beginning to face. This new challenge will rapidly consume scarce bandwidth within the procurement function, and, if it hasn’t already happened, procurement must adopt solutions that will increase efficiency and performance, such as outsourcing category management for non–strategic categories, or order processing.

This isn’t a competition so there is no prize. It’s a ‘must do’.

Kudos will go to those corporations and their procurement functions, which fix the greenhouse gas issue first. Investors will become increasingly discriminating in terms of the companies they invest in and inevitably, greenhouse gas emissions will be a differentiating factor. Maybe one day we will see the world’s first greenhouse gas neutral trading exchange, where all listed companies are greenhouse gas neutral.

So how important is this? It boils down to whether we want to address the issue or not. Even if the scientists are wrong, we can’t afford to ignore it. If you have time one Sunday evening, check out some of the 36 million hits that a search on Google generates for sustainability and decide for yourself.

Sometimes it seems as though you can do nothing right. Just ask one of the UK’s biggest supermarkets, Sainsbury’s, who last week launched a new range of limited edition reusable shopping bags, designed by top fashionista Anya Hindmarch.

The bags were so highly sought after that at some stores people even began queuing to get their hands on one at 3am, but instead of attracting headlines concerning the company’s quest to reduce the huge numbers of plastic bags thrown away by the Great British public each year (a total currently running at a barely conceivable 10bn), the press coverage has instead focused on whether the bags were ethically produced in China.

Sainsbury’s, like those who failed to get their hands on the ‘I’m not a plastic bag’ in the first instance, responded aggressively to the mounting criticism by saying they were “…. outraged by the allegations regarding the Anya Hindmarch 'I'm not a plastic bag'.

A company statement read: “Sainsbury's never claimed the bag was Fairtrade or organic. The point of the bag it can be re-used, thereby saving millions of plastic bags from being used in future years.”

The controversy surrounding the production of the bags, which Sainsbury’s also said were carbon off-set with retiring carbon credits, rumbles on, however, despite the project receiving widespread support from environmentalists.

The £5 bag – which is snip compared to Hyndmarch’s other creations which can cost up to and over £1000 – was produced in collaboration with a non-profit campaign group, We Are What We Do. And even if the health of the planet was not at the forefront of the minds of those people who queued to get their hands on one of 2007’s ‘must-have’ items, a leading marketing figure believes they have achieved their aim.

“So what if people buy it because it’s a fashion statement,” Chris Arnold, creative partner at ethical marketing company Feel, told BBC online. “If the person who uses the bag is shallow and driven by fashion, it still helps the planet because they haven’t used a plastic one.”

Following the recent purge on the ‘throwaway culture’ surrounding plastic bags, all the bags now provided to customers in Sainsbury’s supermarkets are made from recycled material and are designed to be used again and again.

Although sadly, when I myself visited the supermarket the day after the £5 Hyndmarsh giveaway, the number of people magically producing plastic bags from their pockets at the check-outs appeared to be minimal, suggesting that Sainsbury’s, and the humble plastic bag still have a way to travel.

We have had a tremendous response to our call for entries for the first European Leaders in Procurement Awards 2007 and we are very pleased to announce the shortlist.

Some of the best known companies from around Europe have put forward individuals, teams and achievements for consideration by our panel of expert judges. The enthusiasm shown by our readers means the awards ceremony in London this month promises to live up to its title – Procurement Excellence in the Spotlight.

Shortlisted entries – featured below – demonstrate the base ELP has developed throughout Europe in less than two years, and represent several European countries and many different sectors.

The Future Leader Award

• Christopher Bormann - Head of sourcing, FinanzIT, Germany
• Caroline Booth - Group procurement relationship manager, Lloyds TSB, UK
• Lucy Haighway - Procurement lead for the BT Group transformation programme, Chorus, UK
  

The ELP Award for Procurement Excellence

• Marks & Spencer
• RWE
• SAP
• BAE Systems
  

The ELP Award for People Development

• France Telecom
• Vattenfall AG
• BP
• Volvo
  

The ELP Award for Innovation

• GlaxoSmithKline
• HP
• Vodafone
• DaimlerChrysler

The ELP Award for Corporate Responsibility

• BT
• Severn Trent Water
• Vodafone

In a quest to stay ahead of the competition when it comes to being ‘green’, Richard Branson has revealed Virgin are planning to fly the first biofuel-powered commercial aircraft.

The make-up of such a fuel is, as yet, unclear given ethanol – which is increasingly being seen in the automotive industry as the fossil fuel of the future – freezes at 15,000 feet. But with Air Travel reported to be one of the fastest growing sources of greenhouse gas emissions, the ever-savvy Sir Richard looks to have pulled off another PR coup.

The Virgin boss appears to have launched something of a one man battle against global warming, with this latest announcement coming hot-on-the-heals of his commitment to pledge all the profits from Virgin Atlantic and Virgin Trains over the next ten years – an estimated $3bn.

Virgin Atlantic recently confirmed they have placed the biggest single European order of Boeing’s new eco-friendly and fuel-efficient Dreamliner. According to Boeing, the planes burn 27% less fuel per passenger than the A340-300 that currently heads the Virgin Atlantic fleet.

They have ordered 15 of the aircraft to date, as well as taking out options and purchase rights on a further 20.

"We must rapidly wean ourselves off our dependence on coal and fossil fuels," he told the Clinton Global Initiative back in September. It appears Mr Branson has wasted no time in backing up these words with action.

No company has trumpeted the benefits of offshoring as enthusiastically as Aviva, but the company’s future plans are beginning to look unclear following the resignation of Patrick Snowball, the head of the company’s UK business, and the man responsible for Aviva’s pledge to shift over 7,800 job overseas by the end of this year.

When Aviva’s plans were unveiled in September 2006, Snowball told reporters: “We only have three costs – people, technology and buildings. As you use more technology, you need fewer people and buildings.”

He referred to those who opposed their labour expansion in India as ‘luddites’ in a BBC interview, but since the plans were announced Snowball’s ambitions have been beset by problems.

As reported by ELP earlier this year, Norwich Union, who are part of the Aviva Group, moved 150 call centre jobs back to the UK following complaints from customers and despite the company’s claim these were merely a “tweaking exercise”, Snowball’s departure has further clouded the waters.

Snowball resigned after turning down another senior management job under incoming chief executive Andrew Moss – a man he had gone head-to-head with for the top position.

Unsurprisingly his departure hasn’t been mourned by the trade unions that bitterly opposes Aviva's plans. Andy Case, the national Amicus officer for Aviva said: “We believe that Patrick Snowball has been over-zealous with job cuts and has over-sold the benefits of offshoring.

“We hope his successor will renew positive employee engagement and review their offshoring strategy.''

They, and countless Aviva employees, are now waiting to see how likely this is.

McDonalds may have been feeling the pinch after becoming public enemy number one in the midst of soaring obesity rates across the world, but reports of the supposed demise of the US fast food chain appear to have been grossly under weight.

Ronald McDonald and friends recently announced, thanks to the consolidation of their business in the Caribbean and Latin America, that the company had turned in a healthy 22% rise in profits in the first three months of 2007.

The company, who earlier this month topped a consumer poll on Corporate Social Responsibility in the US, is aiming to slash the number of restaurants it owns and plans to franchise upto 1,600 outlets in South and Central America as well as the Caribbean, in a move the company hopes will net them $700m.

McDonald's net profit was a meaty $762m between January and March, an increase of over $130m over the equivalent period in 2006. Longer opening hours in the US - still the company's biggest market - and increased sales across Europe have been credited for the profits boost. Quite what the Health Food Lobby makes of these latest statistics remains to be seen but for now McDonalds are too busy counting their money to care - it's little wonder Ronald is smiling so broadly. 

America’s Wall Street and Mumbai’s Nariman Point may be miles apart in terms of location, but India’s financial capital is in danger of being overrun by some of the world’s biggest investment banks.

Unlike Wall Street’s invasion in the mid-90s, which ended abruptly following a slowdown in business and increased legislation, this particular conquest shows no sign of abating.

Accountancy firm Grant Thornton recently claimed that $39 billion worth of deals had been completed in India in the first quarter of 2007, with Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Credit Suisse and Meryll Lynch just four of the big names that have benefited from the move to Mumbai.

However, in a competitive marketplace where the margins on equity deals are, according to one of ABN Amro’s leading figures in the country, Romesh Sobi, “very very thin”, none are expecting an easy ride.

The rush to do business in a city that is the home of Bollywood cinema has sent salaries soaring, and with fund managers still thin on the ground, the problem of recruitment and talent retention is likely to continue.

However, whilst Goldman Sachs chief executive in India, L. Brooks Entwhistle, admitted in a recent interview with the New York Times that the real way to make money in this part of the world at the present time is to “advise, finance and invest”, many are content to build their businesses until the large deals begin to come along.

How long this will be is hard to say, but in the meantime there will no shortage of companies casting covetous glances in Mumbai’s direction.

The next five years could see a fundamental shift in the way supply chains are managed, that's according to the ELI Broad School of Management at Michigan State University.

Whilst today’s supply chain concerns revolve around avoiding disruptions, on-time delivery and leadership, the study suggests the next five years could see a dramatic change of priorities.

Their findings come after a series of interviews with leading figures at global companies such as BP, Kellogg’s and Harley Davidson and an exhaustive supply chain audit of US-based automotive supplier Delphi.

Speaking at a Supply Chain Management Conference and Exposition at Steelcase University, Steven Melnyk, MSU professor of operations and supply chain management, said the research had found in the future the supply chain is “not going to be about buying things” but will be about "managing relationships".

Fast forward to 2012, the study claims the biggest headaches facing procurement executives are likely to issues around areas such as intellectual property protection, process development, managing supplier relationships, trust, talent retention and raw material costs. 

With this shift away from cost driven priorities Melnyk said he believed any failure to embrace and invest in innovation could have potentially disastrous consequences, refering to the success of renowned innovators such as Toyota and Apple to back-up his point.

"Innovation is going to be the next battlefield," he said. Don't say you haven't been warned.

Wal Mart, like its competitors Tesco and Carrefour, may be making huge strides in Asia but the actions of the US giant within its own borders are beginning to raise some eyebrows.

Certain sections of the US press, most notably the New York Times, have recently reported the world's largest retailer has spent a proportion of last year's $11bn profits spying on its critics and, most disturbingly, its own employees. According to the NY Times, a Wal-Mart employee recently admitted to recording a conversation between a reporter with the newspaper - Michael Barbaro - and company officials.

Not stopping there, the employee responsible, Bruce Gabbard, then told the Wall Street Journal the department he worked for spied on critics of the company. Unsurprisingly Wal Mart issued a swift apology and used their considerable clout to prevent Mr Gabbard from giving any further gems to the hungry Big Apple press corps.

What this means for a company whose share price has recently plummeted nearly $20 since the current chairman of the company, H.Lee Scott Jnr, took over from David Glass in January 2000, remains to be seen. But whilst the company continues to grow its base in Asia and beyond, it seems the leader of the retail revolution needs to work fast to convince the US public and shareholders that their hard-earned squeaky-clean image is still deserved.