The Virgin Atlantic flight on February 24, 2008 was anything but routine. Powered by biofuel derived from Amazonian nuts, the Virgin Atlantic jumbo jet flew from London to Amsterdam without any hitches. The story, covered by Reuters, did not get much press in the US, although it did generate some discussion in Europe and elsewhere. The flight certainly proves that fuel substitution can be done, at least in some circumstances, and it was great PR for Virgin Atlantic, reinforcing its brand image as innovative, hip, and caring.

Once you get past the notion of the flight as proof of concept, you have to wonder whether biofuel is a sustainable option for airlines. It seems unlikely.

Richard Branson himself said “…it was unlikely the nut of the wild growing babassu palm would play a key role as airlines turn to renewable fuel sources to cut the industry’s greenhouse gas emissions.” He prefers algae or other alternatives that do not compete with staple food sources. The environmental lobby group, Friends of the Environment, called biofuels a distraction and that related carbon savings are easily offset by increased travel.

So, Virgin Atlantic, bold move. Now what?

If you want your clothes to signal that you care about social or environmental concerns, you won’t find it too hard to find a fashionable, eco-friendly brand. Green, guilt-free jeans, coats, shoes, t-shirts, sweaters abound.

But if you are looking for underwear or lingerie, something that only a few people may see - and that’s your business not mine, that’s a different story. It is easy to be green on the outside, but not so easy on the inside.

That’s why Ode Magazine’s recent story and video on a Sri Lankan company’s efforts to improve working conditions while remaining competitive in the competitive lingerie manufacturing environment caught my attention. The article profiles a single company, MAS, but the entire Sri Lankan garment industry wants to differentiate themselves from China, Bangladesh, India and other national competitors. (And who wants to run in a race to the bottom?) The whole industry strives to operate based on socially responsible practices that create garments without guilt. The GAP, Nike, and Victoria’s Secret all buy Sri Lankan products.

Gives the tag-line, Made in Sri Lanka, a whole new meaning.

Doing good might not guarantee you do well, but at least you don’t do poorly. At least, that seems to be the conclusion of an Economist Intelligence Unit survey of C-suite professionals about corporate responsibility.

The EIU survey director summarized the findings in a recent Business Week article.

Do-gooder companies that were surveyed saw profits rise 16% last year and enjoyed price growth of 45%. Companies that rated their own sustainability practices poorly registered only 7% profit growth and 12% price growth. While not necessarily proving that it pays to be good, says Gareth Lofthouse, the EIU director who supervised the survey, “it scotches the idea of skeptics who say that if you adopt corporate social responsibility practices you will become uncompetitive.”

It may not be easy to disentangle what causes what. A company could do well because it has a sound corporate responsibility program, because it is is managed well enough to have funds to invest in any sort of corporate responsibility programs, or something entirely unrelated. Never mind. At least these findings chip away at the old excuse that focusing on corporate responsibility detracts from the rest of the business.

I have no financial or material interest in any of the organizations mentioned above (although I do subscribe to the Economist.)