The Rich List: Bye bye billions

I love a good list and one of the best is the annual billionaire fest published by the Sunday Times. Despite being consumed by jealously after reading about the sort of fortunes most of us will never get anywhere near to achieving, The Rich List is a must for many - me included.

This year however, reading about massive bank accounts does seem somewhat vulgar given the economic
mess we're all in; particularly when that mess was caused by those who earn millions. Despite that though, the list does certainly reflect the times we're all in.

The main headline of 2009 isn't, like other years, how much money business tycoons, millionaire footballers and reality TV moguls have made; it's about how much they've lost. Proving that even the super-rich aren't immune from the recession, some £150bn left the premium bank accounts of the UK's richest individuals during the past 12 months with only three of the top 100 seeing their wealth increase.

The biggest loser (and I bet it's a long time since he's been called that!) was Lakshmi Mittal who saw an humungous £16.9bn wiped off his fortune. The steel company boss is now worth a measely £10.8bn. Other losses were £4.7bn for Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich, £500m for retail tycoon Sir Philip Green and £200m for Phones4U founder John Caudwell.

In the showbiz world, Sir Paul McCartney's wealth dipped the most - dropping by £60m to £440m - while Elton John lost a quarter of his fortune and Cliff Richard's total dropped from £50m to £40m.

So what does this year's list tell us?

One could say that when you're worth in excess of £10bn like Mr Mittal, a 61% drop is of little consequence. Perhaps so although times certainly have changed. The fallout of the crunch is that mega-wealth is now viewed by many as vulgar and nowhere as aspirational as it once was.

But isn't making money, despite what some may say, the ultimate aim of all business owners? Of course it is. However, in my view, the difference now is the way people approach wealth generation.

Writing in the Telegraph, George Pitcher related how a millionaire friend, who got out of the City before the crash, told him: "To die still owning any of this money would be a terrible thing, wouldn't it?" leading to George proclaiming: "Giving it away could be the new making it."

Reading the philantrophic figures in this year's Rich List, George could well be right. Despite the 37.5% decrease in the wealth of the leading 1,000 people during the past year, the money put into charities by the UK's top 100 philantrophists rose by £216m.

But it's not all about business people making money and then giving the odd cheque to a good cause; for an
increasing number, it flows through all their business processes.

A friend of mine recently set up a baby products business. Yes, there are lots of them around but what's different is that from the start she wanted the company to be ethical. Not just in its products but also in its ethos - renewable energy powered web hosting to recycled packaging and a commitment to donate a proportion of her profits to environmental causes.

And she's not alone.

Social enterprise has been around for many years - look at the Big Issue - but the failure of our traditional economic systems is boosting interest in such an approach to making money.

I was recently at the Skoll World Forum, organised by the foundation run by former eBay president Jeff Skoll, where almost 1,000 people from 60 countries gathered in Oxford to discuss social approaches to business. And far from being tree hugging do-gooders, there were social entrepreneurs present who run businesses which turn over millions but at the same time make a difference to local, regional and even international communities.

I'm sure thousands of people bought a copy of the Sunday Times just because of the Rich List; I was one of them. I'm sure I'll do the same next year but by then there could well be dotted throughout it entrepreneurs who don't just focus on boosting their own coffers but also care about the world around them.