The business case for working with your toughest critics Bob Langert

Who remembers this
infamous Styrofoam container?

(Applause)

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.

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.

(Laughter)

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

(Applause)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

(Laughter)

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Thank you.

(Applause)

谁还记得这个
臭名昭著的聚苯乙烯泡沫塑料容器?

(掌声)

嗯,它确实改变了我,
它改变了我的公司

,它开启了一段

关于对手
如何成为你最好的盟友的启示之旅。

你知道,在 80 年代后期,

这个巨无霸翻盖
是垃圾危机的象征。

人们真的很生气。

例如,全球数以千计的学生和

年轻学生都在
寄信指责麦当劳,

因为当时我们使用了
数百万这样的信件。

现在,麦当劳里没有人
对环保包装一无所知,

包括我在内。

过去 10 年,

我负责物流
和卡车司机。

然后不知从何而来,我的老板来找

我说,“嘿,我们希望你
为公司保存这个翻盖,

并领导麦当劳内部减少浪费的努力
。”

我看着他,问他:

“什么是聚苯乙烯?”

但这一切对我来说听起来很有趣,

因为它让我回到了我的根源。

你看,我是
在 60 年代末、70 年代初长大的

,当时美国正处于巨大的社会动荡时期

我真的
与抗议、静坐

、反越南情绪保持一致

,我真的觉得有
必要质疑权威。

但是当我进入大学时,

我意识到我
不会靠这样做谋生。

整个运动都平息了

,我的激进主义精神进入了休眠状态。

我需要谋生,

所以我涉足商业世界。

所以,现在这些反对污染的学生,

向麦当劳发送抗议信

,让我想起了20年前的自己。

他们在质疑权威。

但现在,我是男人。

(笑声)

我是公司的西装。

我是代表权威的人。

这种新事物正在兴起,

称为企业社会责任,

后来称为企业可持续性

,现在我有机会
做出改变。

因此,

当麦当劳同意
与环境保护基金建立合作伙伴关系时,这一旅程就开始了

他们是一个

以“起诉混蛋”为原则成立的非政府组织。

所以我在想,

他们
对我和我的团队有什么看法?

当我第一次见到理查德丹尼森时,

他是 EDF 的资深科学家,

我非常担心。

我以为他是个爱树的人

,我想他
认为我关心的只是钱。

因此,我们希望 EDF
团队为我们提供现实世界的解决方案。

所以我们做了合乎逻辑的事情。

我们让他们
在我们的餐厅里翻转汉堡。

所以你必须想象一下理查德

,顺便说一下,他是物理学博士

,他在那里,他正试图
给四分之一磅的人穿衣服

,你应该有
两滴番茄酱,一个芥末,

三个泡菜 和一个洋葱,
继续下一个,

你必须这么快。

你知道吗?
他一整天都做不好。

他很沮丧。

我印象非常深刻,

因为他
试图了解我们的业务。

现在,EDF 团队

认为可重复使用
是我们业务的圣杯。

我和我的团队认为,可重复使用?

太多的空间,他们会弄得一团糟,

他们会减慢我们的速度。

但我们并没有拒绝这个想法。

我们去了他们
在华盛顿以外选择的餐厅,我们去了后面的房间。

洗碗机工作不正常

,吐出脏盘子。

厨房区域又脏又脏。

与他们

干净有序的麦当劳的经历相比,

他们可以看到明显的不同。

我们还整天坐在麦当劳的一家餐厅里

,看着顾客进餐。

他们的行为。

结果很多顾客
带着食物离开了,

他们带着饮料离开了。

EDF 得出了他们自己的结论

,即可重复使用对我们不起作用。

但他们
确实有很多行之有效的想法。

如果没有 EDF 团队
,我们自己也不会想到它们

我最喜欢的是
从白色的手提包

换成棕色的包。

我们一直在使用白色袋子。

它是原始材料

,由氯
漂白化学品制成

,他们说,使用未漂白的袋子,

没有化学品。

它是由回收的内容制成的,

主要是回收的运输瓦楞纸箱。

结果是袋子更坚固
,纤维更坚固,

它并没有花我们更多的钱。

这是双赢的。

他们的另一个

想法是我们可以将
餐巾纸减少一英寸。

并用回收的办公纸制成。

我在想,一英寸,没什么大不了的。

我们做到了,它
每年减少了 300 万英镑的浪费。

一万六千棵树得救了。

(掌声

)真正酷的
是我们换了那张亮白色的餐巾纸,

因为回收的内容
变成了灰色和斑点。

我们使这种外观,你知道,

与客户保持一致,流行。

因此,我开始真正享受

与 EDF 团队合作的时光。

我们共进晚餐,
深夜讨论

,一起去看球赛。

我们成为了朋友。

就在那时,我学到了人生的教训。

这些非政府组织的斗士,

他们真的和我没有什么不同。

他们关心,他们有激情,

我们只是没有什么不同。

因此,我们建立了为期 6 个月的合作伙伴关系

,最终制定了 42 点
减少废物行动计划。

减少、再利用、回收。

我们在
90 年代的十年中对其进行了测量,

10 多年来我们减少了
3 亿磅的废物。

现在,如果你想
知道那个聚苯乙烯翻盖,

是的,我们放弃了它。

幸运的是,我还有一份工作。

这种伙伴关系非常成功

,以至于我们继续回收
这个想法与评论家合作。

与他们
合作,制定

对社会和企业有用的解决方案。

但这种

与最逆向的人合作的想法能奏效吗?

您知道,
在我们无法直接控制的问题上。

就像动物权利一样。

现在,动物权利,

显然他们不希望将
动物用作肉类。

麦当劳,可能

是食品服务行业最大的肉类采购商。

所以那里有一个自然的冲突。

但我认为最好

去拜访一下我们
当时最喧嚣和最警惕的批评者

他们是
国际动物权利组织的负责人

亨利斯皮拉

和写了《动物解放》一书的彼得辛格。

被认为是
关于动物权利的现代论文。

你知道,我读彼得的书是为了准备,

我试图进入他的心态

,我不得不承认,这很艰难,

我不会成为素食主义者,

我的公司也不会那样做。

但我真的认为我们可以学到很多东西。

所以我在纽约市安排了一次早餐会

我记得坐下来
准备

,我决定
不点我最喜欢的

,你知道的,培根
、香肠和鸡蛋。

(笑声)

我只会坚持
吃糕点。

但我不得不承认,

我一直在等待对抗性
讨论的发生。

它从来没有。

亨利和彼得很亲切,

他们很关心人,他们很聪明,
他们提出了很好的问题。

我告诉
他们,麦当劳在动物福利方面的工作

非常艰难,

因为我们的直接供应商
只生产肉饼。

动物
远离我们的影响三四步。

他们非常善解人意。

虽然我们在组织的使命方面遭到如此直接的反对

,但

我觉得我学到了很多东西。

最重要的是,他们给了我
一个很棒的建议。

也就是说,他们说,

“你应该和坦普尔格兰丁博士一起工作。”

现在,我当时并不认识她。

但我告诉你

,她是
当时和现在最著名的动物行为专家。

她知道动物如何移动
以及它们在设施中应该如何反应。

所以我最终遇到了她

,她是最好的批评家,

从某种意义上说,
她只是爱动物,

想保护它们,

但她也了解
肉类行业的现实。

我会永远记得,

我这辈子从来没有去过屠宰场

,所以我第一次和她一起去。

我不知道会发生什么。

我们发现动物
管理员手里拿着

电棒,基本上是
在对设施中的几乎所有动物进行电击。

我们都吓坏了,
她跳来跳去,

你必须认识她,

她说,“这不可能,
这是不对的,

我们可以使用旗帜,
我们可以使用塑料袋,

我们可以重新设计
自然行为的畜栏。”

好吧,我与我们的供应商建立了 Temple

来制定标准和指导方针。

以及衡量她
实施动物福利的想法的方法。

在接下来的
两到五年里,我们这样做了。

这一切都得到了整合
,都得到了执行。

顺便说一句,麦当劳的两家
供应商

因为不符合我们的标准而失去了生意。

最重要的是,

所有这些标准最终都扩展
到了整个行业。

并且不再对那些动物进行电击。

现在
,我们在其他地方受到指责的问题呢?

就像砍伐森林一样。

你知道,在这个问题上,我一直认为,

政策制定者和政府,
这是他们的角色。

从没想过它会落在我的腿上。

但我记得在 2006 年 4 月上旬,

我打开了我的黑莓手机

,我正在阅读有关
绿色和平组织的活动

者数十人出现在英国的消息,他们

打扮成鸡,

在麦当劳吃早餐,

并把自己
拴在桌椅上。

所以他们得到了很多关注,

包括我的。

我想
知道他们刚刚发布的报告

是否叫做“吃掉亚马逊”。

顺便说一句,大豆
是鸡饲料的关键成分,

这与麦当劳有关。

于是我给
世界野生动物基金会信任的朋友打了电话,

我给保护国际打了电话

,我很快就
知道绿色和平组织的报告是准确的。

所以我收集了内部支持

,我会永远记得,
第二天,在那次竞选之后,

我打电话给他们

,我说,“我们同意你的看法。”

我说,“一起工作怎么样?”

所以三天后,

奇迹般地,来自麦当劳的

四个人,来自绿色和平组织的四个人,

我们在
伦敦希思罗机场会面。

我不得不说
,第一个小时很不稳定

,房间里没有太多
的信任。

但似乎
一切都走到了一起,

因为我们每个人
都想拯救亚马逊。

在我们的讨论中

,我不认为,你无法真正分辨出

谁来自绿色和平组织
,谁来自麦当劳。

所以我们做的最好的事情之一

就是我们和他们一起旅行了 9 天
,穿越了亚马逊,

乘坐绿色和平组织的飞机,
乘坐绿色和平组织的船。

我会永远记得,

想象一下在亚马逊
首府马瑙斯以西数百英里的地方旅行

它是如此原始的美丽,

没有人造结构,
没有道路,

没有一根电线,没有一所房子。

您将前往马瑙斯以东

,您会看到公然的
热带雨林破坏。

因此,这种不太可能的合作
产生了出色的结果。

通过合作,

我们为同一事业招募了十多家
其他零售商和供应商

顺便说一句,在三个月内,

业界宣布暂停这些
明确的

做法。

绿色和平组织自己宣布这
是森林砍伐的惊人下降,

并且从那以后一直有效。

现在,您
认为我所描述的这些类型的合作

在今天会很普遍。

但他们不是。

当组织受到打击时

,普遍的反应
是否认和反击,

发表一些蹩脚的声明

,一点进展都没有。

我说替代方案真的很强大。

我的意思是,它不会解决
所有问题,

而且肯定还有更多工作要做,

但这种与批评家合作

并努力为社会做更多

实际上对商业有益的想法,

相信我,这是可能的。

但它始于

你需要假设
批评者的最佳意图的想法。

就像你有最好的意图一样。

其次,

你需要
回顾很多这些策略。

我承认,我不喜欢

我公司使用的很多策略。

但相反,要关注真相是什么,

什么是正确的做法,

什么是科学,什么是事实。

最后,你知道,我想说,

给批评者钥匙。

给他们看后面的房间。

把他们带到那里,不要隐藏细节,

因为如果你想要盟友和支持,

你需要公开和透明。

现在,无论你是企业服,

还是爱护树木的人,

我都会说,下次当你受到批评时,请

伸出援手,倾听,学习。

你会变得更好,
你的组织会变得更好,

并且一路上你可能会结交
一些好朋友。

谢谢你。

(掌声)