Who remembers this infamous Styrofoam container?
誰記得這種惡名昭彰的保麗龍容器?
(Applause)
(掌聲)
Well, it sure changed me, it changed my company, and it started a revelatory journey about how adversaries can be your best allies. You know, back in the late '80s, this Big Mac clamshell was the symbol of a garbage crisis. People were really angry. For example, thousands of students, young students around the globe were sending letters, blaming McDonald's, because we were using millions of these at that time. Now, no one at McDonald's knew anything about environmentally friendly packaging, including me. The last 10 years, I was in charge of logistics and truck drivers. Then out of nowhere, my boss comes to me and says, "Hey, we want you to save this clamshell for the company and lead the effort to reduce waste within McDonald's." I looked at him and I asked him, "What is polystyrene?" But it all sounded intriguing to me because it brought me back to my roots.
它肯定改變了我,改變了我的公司, 它開啟了一段競爭對手 可能會是你最佳盟友的領悟之旅。 在八〇年代末期, 這個大麥克的掀蓋式餐盒 是垃圾危機的象徵。 那時人們都很生氣。 比如,數以千計的學生, 世界各地的年輕學生來信指責麥當勞, 因為當時我們使用了 數百萬個這樣的盒子。 麥當勞裡沒有任何人 懂得何謂環境友善的包裝, 連我也不懂。 過去十年,我負責 管理物流和卡車司機。 我老闆突然來找我,說:「嘿, 我們希望你能為公司 拯救這個掀蓋式餐盒事件, 並負責麥當勞內部垃圾的縮減。」 我看著他,問他: 「保麗龍是什麼?」 但,在我聽來這些都很有趣, 因為它能帶我回到我的初心。
You see, I grew up in the late '60s, early '70s, in a time of huge social upheaval in the United States. And I was really in tune with the protests, the sit-ins, the anti-Vietnam sentiment, and I really felt there was a need to question authority. But as I went into university, I realized that I'm not going to make a living doing this. And that whole movement had subsided, and my activist spirit went dormant. And I needed to make a living, so I got involved in the business world. So, now these students against pollution, who were sending those protest letters to McDonald's, they reminded me of myself 20 years ago. They're questioning authority. But now, I'm the man.
我生長的六〇年代末、七〇年代初, 是美國社會正經歷大動盪的時期。 而我真的還蠻投入抗議、靜坐、 反越戰的情緒, 且我真覺得需要去質疑權威。 但當我上了大學, 我了解到我不能靠這些維生。 隨著整個運動熱度的消退, 我的激進主義精神也進入了休眠期。 我需要謀生,所以開始接觸商界。 現在,這些反對污染的學生, 寄送那些抗議信給麥當勞的學生們, 他們讓我想到二十年前的我。 他們在質疑權威。 但現在,我是那個被質疑的對象。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
I'm the corporate suit. I'm the one representing authority. And this new thing was emerging called corporate social responsibility, later corporate sustainability, and now I had a chance to make a difference. So the beginning of this journey started when McDonald's agreed to a partnership with the Environmental Defense Fund. They were an NGO that was founded with the principle of "sue the bastards." So I'm thinking, what are they thinking about me and my team?
我是那唯利是圖的商人。 我代表著當權者。 當時還有樣新興的東西, 叫做企業社會責任, 後來叫企業的永續發展, 現在,我有機會改變現況。 所以,這趟旅程 始於麥當勞同意 要和環境保衛基金(EDF)合作。 它是個非政府組織, 創立的終旨是「告那些渾蛋」。 所以,我在想, 他們對我和我的團隊有什麼看法?
When I first met Richard Denison, he's the senior scientist for EDF, I was very apprehensive. I thought he's a tree-hugger, and I'm thinking he thinks all I care about is the money. So we wanted the EDF team to give us real-world solutions. So we did the logical thing. We had them flip burgers in our restaurants. So you have to imagine Richard, who, by the way, is a PhD in physics, and there he is, he's trying to dress a quarter-pounder, and you're supposed to have two squirts of ketchup, one mustard, three pickles and an onion, go on to the next one, you've got to be so fast. And you know what? He couldn't get it right all day long. And he was frustrated. And I was so impressed, because he was trying to understand our business.
當我初次和 EDF 的資深科學家 理查‧丹尼森見面時, 我非常擔心。 我以為他是名極端環保人士, 我想他應該認為我只在乎錢。 我們希望 EDF 團隊 能提供我們實際的解決方案。 所以我們做了件合乎邏輯的事。 我們讓他們到我們的餐廳裡煎漢堡肉。 各位想像理查這位物理學博士, 試著處理四盎司的牛肉堡, 接著要擠兩次蕃茄醬、一次芥末醬、 放上三片酸黃瓜、一片洋蔥, 一個接著一個,動作要快。 你們猜怎樣? 一整天下來他沒做對過一次。 他好挫折。 而我印象深刻, 因為他在試著了解我們的事業。
Now, the EDF team, they thought reusables were the holy grail for our business. Me and my team thought, reusables? Too much space, they'd make a mess, they would slow us down. But we didn't reject the idea. We went to the restaurant they chose outside DC, we went to the back room. The dishwasher wasn't working properly, it's spitting out dirty dishes. The kitchen area is dirty and grimy. And compared to their experience at McDonald's that's clean and organized, they could see the stark difference. We also sat in a restaurant at McDonald's, all day long, and watched the customers eating in. Their behavior. Ends up that many customers left with the food, they left with the beverage. And EDF came to their own conclusion that reusables wouldn't work for us.
EDF 的團隊認為 可重覆使用的東西,會是 我們事業體要努力追尋的目標。 我和我的團隊心想, 可重覆使用的東西? 太佔空間,會搞得一團亂, 會拖慢我們的速度。 但我們沒有排斥這個想法。 他們選了一間在華盛頓特區外的 餐廳,我們到它後面的廚房。 洗碗機的運作異常, 洗出來的盤子還是髒的。 廚房區域很骯髒汙穢。 和他們在麥當勞所看到 清潔又整齊的廚房相比, 他們能夠看出明顯的差別。 我們也坐在一間 麥當勞餐廳裡一整天, 觀察內用的客人。 他們的行為。 結果發現許多客人會帶著食物離開, 會帶著飲料離開。 EDF 自己下了結論, 認為可重覆使用的東西並不適合我們。
But they did have a lot of ideas that did work. And we never would have thought of them by ourselves, without the EDF team. My favorite was switching from the white carry-out bag to the brown bag. We had been using the white bag. It's virgin material, it's made from chlorine bleaching chemicals, and they said, use an unbleached bag, no chemicals. It's made from recycled content, mostly recycled shipping corrugated boxes. Ends up that the bag is stronger, the fiber is stronger, it didn't cost us more money. It was win-win.
但,他們還是有很多可行的點子。 若沒有 EDF 團隊,我們自己 不可能想到那些點子。 我最喜歡的點子是把白色的外帶袋子 換成褐色紙袋。 我們一直在用白色袋子。 它是原始材料, 它是用氯漂的化學方式來漂白的, 他們說,要使用未漂白的袋子, 沒有化學物質的。 它是用回收物品做的, 大部分都是回收的運輸瓦楞紙盒。 結果發現褐色袋子更耐用, 它的纖維更強韌, 我們的成本也沒增加。 這是雙贏的局面。
Another idea they had was that we could reduce our napkin by one inch. And make it from recycled office paper. I'm thinking, one inch, no big deal. We did it, it reduced waste by three million pounds a year. Sixteen thousand trees saved.
他們還有另一個點子, 我們可以把餐巾紙縮小一英吋。 並用辦公室所回收的紙來製造。 我心想,一英吋沒什麼大不了的。 我們做了,結果每年減少了 三百萬磅的廢棄物。 因此拯救了一萬六千棵樹木。
(Applause)
(掌聲)
What was really cool is we changed that bright white napkin, because the recycled content became gray and speckled. And we made that look, you know, in tune, in vogue with customers. So, I came to really enjoy the time working with the EDF team. We had many dinners, late-night discussions, we went to a ball game together. We became friends.
很酷的是,我們 換掉了亮白色的餐紙, 因為用回收材質會變成灰色且有斑點。 我們把餐巾紙的外觀做成 符合客人的喜好。 所以,我漸漸開始真的很享受 和 EDF 團隊合作的時光。 我們多次共進晚餐且討論 到深夜,我們一起去球賽。 我們變成了朋友。
And that's when I learned a life lesson. That these NGO crusaders, they're really no different than me. They care, they have passion, we're just not different. So, we had a six-month partnership that ended up producing a 42-point waste reduction action plan. To reduce, reuse, recycle. We measured it during the decade of the '90s, and over 10 years we reduced 300 million pounds of waste. Now, if you're wondering about that polystyrene clamshell, yeah, we ditched it. And luckily, I still had a job.
那時,我學到了人生的一課。 這些非政府組織的改革鬥士, 他們和我沒什麼不同。 他們在乎,他們有熱忱, 我們沒有不同。 我們合作了六個月, 最後規劃出四十二點的 廢棄物減量行動計畫。 做減量、重覆使用、回收。 我們在九〇年代的那十年 做測量,十年多的時間, 我們減少了三億磅的廢棄物。 如果各位很納悶掀蓋式 保麗龍盒後來怎麼了, 是的,我們摒棄它了。 幸運的是,我沒丟了工作。
And this partnership was so successful that we went on to recycle the idea to work with critics. Collaborate with them on solutions that could work for society and for business. But could this idea of collaborating work with the most contrarian folks? And on issues that are, you know, not within our direct control. Like animal rights.
而這段合作關係相當成功, 讓我們繼續秉持著這個 和批評者合作的想法。 和他們合作一起找出對社會和對企業 皆可行的解決方案。 但,這種合作的點子 遇到最反骨的那群人也行得通嗎? 而且,合作的議題還是 我們無法直接控制的議題。 比如動物權利。
Now, animal rights, obviously they don't want animals used for meat. McDonald's, probably the biggest purchaser of meat in the food service industry. So there's a natural conflict there. But I thought it would be best to go visit and learn from the most vociferous and vigilant critics we had at that time, which were Henry Spira, head of Animal Rights International, and Peter Singer, who wrote the book "Animal Liberation," which is considered the modern treatise about animal rights. You know, I read Peter's book to prepare, I tried to get into his mindset, and I have to admit, it was tough, I'm not becoming a vegan, my company wasn't going that way. But I really thought we could learn a lot.
關於動物權利,顯然他們 不希望動物的肉被當成食材。 麥當勞可能是餐飲服務產業中 最大的肉品購買者。 所以,這點先天上就存在著矛盾。 但我認為,最好的做法 是去造訪那時最敢發聲、 警戒心最高的批評者,並向他們學習。 包括國際動物權的 領導者亨利‧史皮拉, 還有彼得‧辛格, 他是《動物解放》的作者, 該書被認為是動物權利的現代論著。 我讀了彼得的書來預作準備, 我試著了解他的心態, 我必須要承認,那很難, 我沒打算變成素食者, 我的公司也沒要走那個方向。 但我真心認為我們可以學到很多。
And so I set up a breakfast meeting in New York City. And I remember sitting down, getting ready, and I decided I'm not going to order my favorite, which is you know, bacon and sausage and eggs.
所以我在紐約市 安排了一場早餐會面。 我還記得,我坐下來做好準備, 我決定我不要點我最愛的食物, 因為我最愛的是培根、香腸、蛋。
(Laughter)
(笑聲)
And I'm just going to stick to the pastries. But I have to admit, I was waiting for the adversarial discussion to happen. And it never did. Henry and Peter were just gracious, they were caring, they were smart, they asked good questions. I told them about how working on animal welfare is very tough for McDonald's because our direct suppliers, they only make meat patties. The animals are three or four steps removed from our influence. And they were very empathetic. And while we were so directly opposed in terms of the missions of our organizations, I felt that I had learned a lot.
我還是吃酥皮點心就好。 但我得承認,我預期 會有一場敵對的討論。 但完全不是如此。 亨利和彼得很親切, 他們有愛心、很聰明, 提出很好的問題。 我告訴他們,麥當勞 很難致力於動物福利, 因為我們的直接供應商 只是負責做肉餅的。 就供應鏈的角度來看,我們對於 實質改善動物福利的影響鞭長莫及。 他們非常有同理心。 雖然我們各自的組織在使命上 是非常直接對立的, 我仍然覺得我學了很多。
And best of all, they gave me a terrific recommendation. And that is, they said, "You should work with Dr. Temple Grandin." Now, I didn't know her at the time. But I tell you, she's the most renowned expert, then and now, on animal behavior. And she knows how animals move and how they should react in facilities. So I end up meeting her, and she's the very best type of critic, in a sense that she just loves the animals, wants to protect them, but she also understands the reality of the meat business. And I'll always remember, I had never been to a slaughterhouse in my life, and so I go with her for my first trip. I didn't know what to expect. And we find that the animal handlers have electric prods in their hands, and are basically zapping almost every animal in the facility. We're both appalled, she's jumping up and down, you'd have to know her, she's saying, "This can't be, this isn't right, we could use flags, we could use plastic bags, we could redesign the corrals for natural behavior."
最棒的是,他們給了我 一個很棒的建議。 那就是,他們說: 「你們應該和泰普‧葛蘭汀博士合作。」 那時我沒聽過這個名字。 但讓我告訴各位,不論那時或現在, 她都是最知名的動物行為專家。 她知道動物的一舉一動, 及牠們在建物設施中的反應。 我最後去見了她, 她是最棒的那種評論家, 因為她就只是愛動物, 只想要保護牠們, 但她也了解肉品業的現實狀況。 我永遠不會忘記, 我一生中都沒去過屠宰場, 所以我和她去了第一次。 我不知道會看到什麼。 我們發現, 處理動物的人手中都會有電擊棒, 基本上是用來電擊制服 那場內的每一隻動物。 我們兩人都很震驚, 她甚至跳上跳下, 要知道她,她說: 「不能這樣,這樣是不對的, 我們可以用旗子、塑膠袋, 我們可因應動物的自然行為 來重新設計適合的畜欄。」
Well I set up Temple with our suppliers to set up standards and guidelines. And ways to measure her ideas of implementing animal welfare. We did this for the next two to five years. And it all got integrated, it all got enforced. By the way, two of McDonald's suppliers lost business because they didn't meet our standards. And best of all, all these standards ended up scaling to the entire industry. And no more zapping of those animals.
我安排泰普和我們的供應商見面, 以設立標準和指導方針。 及衡量她的動物福利點子 是否有效的方法。 這是我們接下來二到五年的工作。 後來全都整合起來,也都執行了。 順道一提,麥當勞的兩間供應商 因為沒有達到我們的標準 而丟了我們的生意。 最棒的是,所有這些標準 最後被擴大到整個產業。 那些動物不會再遭到電擊。
Now, what about issues that we're blamed for elsewhere? Like deforestation. You know, on that issue, I always thought, policy makers and government, that's their role. Never thought it would end up in my lap. But I remember in early April 2006, I opened up my Blackberry, and I'm reading about Greenpeace campaigners showing up in the UK by the dozens, dressed as chickens, having breakfast at McDonald's and chaining themselves to the chairs and tables. So they got a lot of attention, including mine. And I was wondering if the report that they had just released, it was called "Eating Up the Amazon." And by the way, soy is a key ingredient for chicken feed, and that's the connection to McDonald's.
那麼,我們在別處被責怪的議題呢? 比如砍伐森林。 關於那個議題,我一直認為, 那是政策制訂者和政府要做的事。 從來沒有想過這個議題會到我手上。 但我記得,在 2006 年四月初, 我打開我的黑莓機, 讀到一些資訊,內容是 關於綠色和平的倡導者 成群出現在英國, 每個人穿扮成一隻雞的模樣, 到麥當勞去吃早餐, 然後把自己鏈在椅子和桌子上。 他們贏得了廣大的注意, 包括我的關注。 我想了解他們剛發布的那份報告, 標題叫做「吃光亞馬遜」。 順道一提,雞飼料的主要成份是黃豆, 那就是麥當勞被捲入的原因。
So I called my trusted friends at the World Wildlife Fund, I called Conservation International, and I soon learned that the Greenpeace report was accurate. So I gathered internal support, and I'll always remember, next day, after that campaign, I called them up, and I said, "We agree with you." And I said, "How about working together?" So three days later, miraculously, four people from McDonald's, four people from Greenpeace, we're meeting in the London Heathrow airport. And I have to say, the first hour was shaky, it wasn't a whole lot of trust in the room. But it seemed like everything came together, because each of us wanted to save the Amazon. And during our discussions, you couldn't really tell, I don't think, who was from Greenpeace and who was from McDonald's.
我打電話給世界自然 基金會中所信賴的朋友, 我打給保護國際, 我很快就得知, 綠色和平的報告是正確的。 所以,我獲得了內部的支持後, 我永遠不會忘記, 隔天,在那活動之後, 我打電話給他們, 說:「我們認同你們。」 我說:「一起合作如何?」 三天後, 奇蹟發生了,四個麥當勞的人 和四個綠色和平的人 在倫敦希斯洛機場會面。 我必須要說,頭一個小時很緊張。 因為對彼此沒有太多的信賴感。 但,似乎一切漸漸成形, 因為我們每個人都想要拯救亞馬遜。 在我們的討論中, 會無法辨別出,我認為無法, 誰是綠色和平的人、誰是麥當勞的人。
So one of the best things we did is we traveled with them for nine days on a trip through the Amazon, on the Greenpeace airplane, on the Greenpeace boat. And I'll always remember, imagine traveling hundreds of miles west of Manaus, the capital city of the Amazon. And it's so pristine beauty, there's no man-made structures, there's no roads, not one wire, not one house. You would travel east of Manaus and you would see the blatant rainforest destruction. So this very unlikely collaboration produced outstanding results. By working together, we recruited over a dozen other retailers and suppliers for the same cause. And by the way, within three months, a moratorium on these clear-cutting practices was announced by the industry. And Greenpeace themselves declared it as a spectacular drop in deforestation and it's been in effect ever since.
我們所做的其中一件最棒的事 就是我們和他們一起走訪亞馬遜九天, 搭乘綠色和平的飛機, 坐綠色和平的船。 我永遠不會忘記, 想像一下,從亞馬遜的首都瑪瑙斯 向西行數百英里。 那裡的美是原始之美, 沒有人造的建物,沒有道路、 沒有電線、沒有房子。 如果你從瑪瑙斯向東行, 你會看見雨林被明顯損毀。 所以,這次不太可能的合作 產生了很出色的結果。 透過合作, 我們招募了十多個 其他零售商和供應商, 為同一目標努力。 順道一提,三個月內, 業界就宣佈暫停這些砍伐作業。 綠色和平自己本身也宣佈 砍伐森林有明顯減少, 且此後便一直都有效果。
Now, you think these types of collaborations that I've described would be commonplace today. But they're not. When organizations are battered, the common response is to deny and push back, put out some sort of lame statement and no progress is made at all. I say the alternative is really powerful. I mean, it's not going to fix every problem, and there's more to do for sure, but this idea of working with critics and trying to do more good for society that actually is good for business, believe me, it's possible. But it starts with the idea that you need to assume the best intentions of your critics. Just like you have the best intentions. And then secondly, you need to look past a lot of these tactics. I admit, I did not like a lot of the tactics used on my company. But instead, focus on what the truth is, what's the right thing to do, what's the science, what's the facts. And lastly, you know, I would say, give the critics the keys. Show them the back room. Bring them there, don't hide the details, because if you want allies and support, you need to be open and transparent.
各位可能認為我剛才 描述的這幾種合作類型, 現今應該是司空見慣的事。 但並不是。 當組織被打擊時, 共同的反應都是否認和反彈, 丟出某種很站不住腳的聲明, 完全沒有改善、進步。 我說,這個替代方案真的很強大。 它並不能解決所有的問題, 且肯定還有更多要做的, 但,和批評者合作並試著 為社會做更多好事的這個點子, 其實對企業是有好處的, 相信我,這是有可能的。 但,從開始就要抱持一個想法: 你必須要假設攻擊你的 批評者都是出於好意。 就像你也都是出於好意一樣。 接著,第二, 你的目光得放遠, 不要被那些策略給影響。 我承認不喜歡許多 他們用來對付我公司的策略。 但換個方式,專注於真相、 該做的事、科學,和事實。 最後,我要說, 把鑰匙交給批評者。 讓他們看看後面的實際運作情形。 帶他們進去,不要隱瞞細節, 因為如果你想要有盟友和支持, 你就得要開放和透明。
Now, whether you're a corporate suit, whether you're a tree-hugger, I say the next time you're criticized, reach out, listen, learn. You'll become better, your organization will become better, and you might make some good friends along the way.
不論你是唯利是圖的商人, 或者極端的環保人士, 下次你被批評的時候, 向外伸出手、傾聽、學習。 你會變得更好,你的組織會變得更好, 過程中你可能還會交到好朋友。
Thank you.
謝謝。
(Applause)
(掌聲)