The business case for working with your toughest critics | Bob Langert | TED

譯者: Lilian Chiu 審譯者: SF Huang

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,

它肯定改變了我，改變了我的公司，

and it started a revelatory journey

它開啟了一段競爭對手

about how adversaries can be your best allies.

可能會是你最佳盟友的領悟之旅。

You know, back in the late '80s,

在八〇年代末期，

this Big Mac clamshell was the symbol of a garbage crisis.

這個大麥克的掀蓋式餐盒 是垃圾危機的象徵。

People were really angry.

那時人們都很生氣。

For example, thousands of students,

比如，數以千計的學生，

young students around the globe were sending letters, blaming McDonald's,

世界各地的年輕學生來信指責麥當勞，

because we were using millions of these at that time.

因為當時我們使用了 數百萬個這樣的盒子。

Now, no one at McDonald's knew anything about environmentally friendly packaging,

麥當勞裡沒有任何人 懂得何謂環境友善的包裝，

including me.

連我也不懂。

The last 10 years,

過去十年，我負責 管理物流和卡車司機。

I was in charge of logistics and truck drivers.

Then out of nowhere, my boss comes to me

我老闆突然來找我，說：「嘿，

and says, "Hey, we want you to save this clamshell for the company

我們希望你能為公司 拯救這個掀蓋式餐盒事件，

and lead the effort to reduce waste within McDonald's."

並負責麥當勞內部垃圾的縮減。」

I looked at him and I asked him,

我看著他，問他：

"What is polystyrene?"

「保麗龍是什麼？」

But it all sounded intriguing to me

但，在我聽來這些都很有趣，

because it brought me back to my roots.

因為它能帶我回到我的初心。

You see, I grew up in the late '60s, early '70s,

我生長的六〇年代末、七〇年代初，

in a time of huge social upheaval in the United States.

是美國社會正經歷大動盪的時期。

And I was really in tune with the protests, the sit-ins,

而我真的還蠻投入抗議、靜坐、

the anti-Vietnam sentiment,

反越戰的情緒，

and I really felt there was a need to question authority.

且我真覺得需要去質疑權威。

But as I went into university,

但當我上了大學，

I realized that I'm not going to make a living doing this.

我了解到我不能靠這些維生。

And that whole movement had subsided,

隨著整個運動熱度的消退，

and my activist spirit went dormant.

我的激進主義精神也進入了休眠期。

And I needed to make a living,

我需要謀生，所以開始接觸商界。

so I got involved in the business world.

So, now these students against pollution,

現在，這些反對污染的學生，

who were sending those protest letters to McDonald's,

寄送那些抗議信給麥當勞的學生們，

they reminded me of myself 20 years ago.

他們讓我想到二十年前的我。

They're questioning authority.

他們在質疑權威。

But now, I'm the man.

但現在，我是那個被質疑的對象。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

I'm the corporate suit.

我是那唯利是圖的商人。

I'm the one representing authority.

我代表著當權者。

And this new thing was emerging

當時還有樣新興的東西， 叫做企業社會責任，

called corporate social responsibility,

later corporate sustainability,

後來叫企業的永續發展，

and now I had a chance to make a difference.

現在，我有機會改變現況。

So the beginning of this journey

所以，這趟旅程

started when McDonald's agreed to a partnership

始於麥當勞同意

要和環境保衛基金（EDF）合作。

with the Environmental Defense Fund.

They were an NGO

它是個非政府組織，

that was founded with the principle of "sue the bastards."

創立的終旨是「告那些渾蛋」。

So I'm thinking,

所以，我在想，

what are they thinking about me and my team?

他們對我和我的團隊有什麼看法？

When I first met Richard Denison,

當我初次和 EDF 的資深科學家

he's the senior scientist for EDF,

理查‧丹尼森見面時，

I was very apprehensive.

我非常擔心。

I thought he's a tree-hugger,

我以為他是名極端環保人士，

and I'm thinking he thinks all I care about is the money.

我想他應該認為我只在乎錢。

So we wanted the EDF team to give us real-world solutions.

我們希望 EDF 團隊 能提供我們實際的解決方案。

So we did the logical thing.

所以我們做了件合乎邏輯的事。

We had them flip burgers in our restaurants.

我們讓他們到我們的餐廳裡煎漢堡肉。

So you have to imagine Richard,

各位想像理查這位物理學博士，

who, by the way, is a PhD in physics,

and there he is, he's trying to dress a quarter-pounder,

試著處理四盎司的牛肉堡，

and you're supposed to have two squirts of ketchup, one mustard,

接著要擠兩次蕃茄醬、一次芥末醬、

three pickles and an onion, go on to the next one,

放上三片酸黃瓜、一片洋蔥， 一個接著一個，動作要快。

you've got to be so fast.

And you know what? He couldn't get it right all day long.

你們猜怎樣？

一整天下來他沒做對過一次。

And he was frustrated.

他好挫折。

And I was so impressed,

而我印象深刻，

because he was trying to understand our business.

因為他在試著了解我們的事業。

Now, the EDF team,

EDF 的團隊認為

they thought reusables were the holy grail for our business.

可重覆使用的東西，會是 我們事業體要努力追尋的目標。

Me and my team thought, reusables?

我和我的團隊心想， 可重覆使用的東西？

Too much space, they'd make a mess,

太佔空間，會搞得一團亂， 會拖慢我們的速度。

they would slow us down.

But we didn't reject the idea.

但我們沒有排斥這個想法。

We went to the restaurant they chose outside DC, we went to the back room.

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。

The dishwasher wasn't working properly,

洗碗機的運作異常，

it's spitting out dirty dishes.

洗出來的盤子還是髒的。

The kitchen area is dirty and grimy.

廚房區域很骯髒汙穢。

And compared to their experience at McDonald's

和他們在麥當勞所看到 清潔又整齊的廚房相比，

that's clean and organized,

they could see the stark difference.

他們能夠看出明顯的差別。

We also sat in a restaurant at McDonald's, all day long,

我們也坐在一間 麥當勞餐廳裡一整天，

and watched the customers eating in.

觀察內用的客人。

Their behavior.

他們的行為。

Ends up that many customers left with the food,

結果發現許多客人會帶著食物離開，

they left with the beverage.

會帶著飲料離開。

And EDF came to their own conclusion

EDF 自己下了結論，

that reusables wouldn't work for us.

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.

但，他們還是有很多可行的點子。

And we never would have thought of them by ourselves,

若沒有 EDF 團隊，我們自己 不可能想到那些點子。

without the EDF team.

My favorite was switching from the white carry-out bag

我最喜歡的點子是把白色的外帶袋子

to the brown bag.

換成褐色紙袋。

We had been using the white bag.

我們一直在用白色袋子。

It's virgin material,

它是原始材料，

it's made from chlorine bleaching chemicals,

它是用氯漂的化學方式來漂白的，

and they said, use an unbleached bag,

他們說，要使用未漂白的袋子，

no chemicals.

沒有化學物質的。

It's made from recycled content,

它是用回收物品做的，

mostly recycled shipping corrugated boxes.

大部分都是回收的運輸瓦楞紙盒。

Ends up that the bag is stronger, the fiber is stronger,

結果發現褐色袋子更耐用， 它的纖維更強韌，

it didn't cost us more money.

我們的成本也沒增加。

It was win-win.

這是雙贏的局面。

Another idea they had

他們還有另一個點子，

was that we could reduce our napkin by one inch.

我們可以把餐巾紙縮小一英吋。

And make it from recycled office paper.

並用辦公室所回收的紙來製造。

I'm thinking, one inch, no big deal.

我心想，一英吋沒什麼大不了的。

We did it, it reduced waste by three million pounds a year.

我們做了，結果每年減少了 三百萬磅的廢棄物。

Sixteen thousand trees saved.

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,

很酷的是，我們 換掉了亮白色的餐紙，

because the recycled content became gray and speckled.

因為用回收材質會變成灰色且有斑點。

And we made that look, you know,

我們把餐巾紙的外觀做成

in tune, in vogue with customers.

符合客人的喜好。

So, I came to really enjoy

所以，我漸漸開始真的很享受

the time working with the EDF team.

和 EDF 團隊合作的時光。

We had many dinners, late-night discussions,

我們多次共進晚餐且討論 到深夜，我們一起去球賽。

we went to a ball game together.

We became friends.

我們變成了朋友。

And that's when I learned a life lesson.

那時，我學到了人生的一課。

That these NGO crusaders,

這些非政府組織的改革鬥士，

they're really no different than me.

他們和我沒什麼不同。

They care, they have passion,

他們在乎，他們有熱忱，

we're just not different.

我們沒有不同。

So, we had a six-month partnership

我們合作了六個月，

that ended up producing a 42-point waste reduction action plan.

最後規劃出四十二點的 廢棄物減量行動計畫。

To reduce, reuse, recycle.

做減量、重覆使用、回收。

We measured it during the decade of the '90s,

我們在九〇年代的那十年 做測量，十年多的時間，

and over 10 years we reduced 300 million pounds of waste.

我們減少了三億磅的廢棄物。

Now, if you're wondering about that polystyrene clamshell,

如果各位很納悶掀蓋式 保麗龍盒後來怎麼了，

yeah, we ditched it.

是的，我們摒棄它了。

And luckily, I still had a job.

幸運的是，我沒丟了工作。

And this partnership was so successful

而這段合作關係相當成功，

that we went on to recycle the idea to work with critics.

讓我們繼續秉持著這個 和批評者合作的想法。

Collaborate with them on solutions that could work

和他們合作一起找出對社會和對企業

for society and for business.

皆可行的解決方案。

But could this idea of collaborating

但，這種合作的點子

work with the most contrarian folks?

遇到最反骨的那群人也行得通嗎？

And on issues that are, you know, not within our direct control.

而且，合作的議題還是 我們無法直接控制的議題。

Like animal rights.

比如動物權利。

Now, animal rights,

關於動物權利，顯然他們 不希望動物的肉被當成食材。

obviously they don't want animals used for meat.

McDonald's, probably the biggest purchaser of meat

麥當勞可能是餐飲服務產業中 最大的肉品購買者。

in the food service industry.

So there's a natural conflict there.

所以，這點先天上就存在著矛盾。

But I thought it would be best

但我認為，最好的做法

to go visit and learn from the most vociferous and vigilant critics

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。

we had at that time,

which were Henry Spira, head of Animal Rights International,

包括國際動物權的 領導者亨利‧史皮拉，

and Peter Singer,

還有彼得‧辛格，

who wrote the book "Animal Liberation,"

他是《動物解放》的作者，

which is considered the modern treatise about animal rights.

該書被認為是動物權利的現代論著。

You know, I read Peter's book to prepare,

我讀了彼得的書來預作準備，

I tried to get into his mindset,

我試著了解他的心態，

and I have to admit, it was tough,

我必須要承認，那很難， 我沒打算變成素食者，

I'm not becoming a vegan,

my company wasn't going that way.

我的公司也沒要走那個方向。

But I really thought we could learn a lot.

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.

所以我在紐約市 安排了一場早餐會面。

And I remember sitting down, getting ready,

我還記得，我坐下來做好準備，

and I decided I'm not going to order my favorite,

我決定我不要點我最愛的食物，

which is you know, bacon and sausage and eggs.

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.

我還是吃酥皮點心就好。

But I have to admit,

但我得承認，我預期 會有一場敵對的討論。

I was waiting for the adversarial discussion to happen.

And it never did.

但完全不是如此。

Henry and Peter were just gracious,

亨利和彼得很親切，

they were caring, they were smart, they asked good questions.

他們有愛心、很聰明， 提出很好的問題。

I told them about how working on animal welfare

我告訴他們，麥當勞 很難致力於動物福利，

is very tough for McDonald's

because our direct suppliers, they only make meat patties.

因為我們的直接供應商 只是負責做肉餅的。

The animals are three or four steps removed from our influence.

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。

And they were very empathetic.

他們非常有同理心。

And while we were so directly opposed

雖然我們各自的組織在使命上

in terms of the missions of our organizations,

是非常直接對立的，

I felt that I had learned a lot.

我仍然覺得我學了很多。

And best of all, they gave me a terrific recommendation.

最棒的是，他們給了我 一個很棒的建議。

And that is, they said,

那就是，他們說：

"You should work with Dr. Temple Grandin."

「你們應該和泰普‧葛蘭汀博士合作。」

Now, I didn't know her at the time.

那時我沒聽過這個名字。

But I tell you,

但讓我告訴各位，不論那時或現在，

she's the most renowned expert, then and now, on animal behavior.

她都是最知名的動物行為專家。

And she knows how animals move and how they should react in facilities.

她知道動物的一舉一動， 及牠們在建物設施中的反應。

So I end up meeting her,

我最後去見了她，

and she's the very best type of critic,

她是最棒的那種評論家，

in a sense that she just loves the animals,

因為她就只是愛動物， 只想要保護牠們，

wants to protect them,

但她也了解肉品業的現實狀況。

but she also understands the reality of the meat business.

And I'll always remember,

我永遠不會忘記， 我一生中都沒去過屠宰場，

I had never been to a slaughterhouse in my life,

and so I go with her for my first trip.

所以我和她去了第一次。

I didn't know what to expect.

我不知道會看到什麼。

And we find that the animal handlers have electric prods in their hands,

我們發現，

處理動物的人手中都會有電擊棒，

and are basically zapping almost every animal in the facility.

基本上是用來電擊制服 那場內的每一隻動物。

We're both appalled, she's jumping up and down,

我們兩人都很震驚， 她甚至跳上跳下，

you'd have to know her,

要知道她，她說： 「不能這樣，這樣是不對的，

she's saying, "This can't be, this isn't right,

we could use flags, we could use plastic bags,

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。」

we could redesign the corrals for natural behavior."

Well I set up Temple with our suppliers

我安排泰普和我們的供應商見面，

to set up standards and guidelines.

以設立標準和指導方針。

And ways to measure her ideas of implementing animal welfare.

及衡量她的動物福利點子 是否有效的方法。

We did this for the next two to five years.

這是我們接下來二到五年的工作。

And it all got integrated, it all got enforced.

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

By the way, two of McDonald's suppliers lost business

because they didn't meet our standards.

因為沒有達到我們的標準 而丟了我們的生意。

And best of all,

最棒的是，所有這些標準 最後被擴大到整個產業。

all these standards ended up scaling to the entire industry.

And no more zapping of those animals.

那些動物不會再遭到電擊。

Now, what about issues that we're blamed for elsewhere?

那麼，我們在別處被責怪的議題呢？

Like deforestation.

比如砍伐森林。

You know, on that issue, I always thought,

關於那個議題，我一直認為，

policy makers and government, that's their role.

那是政策制訂者和政府要做的事。

Never thought it would end up in my lap.

從來沒有想過這個議題會到我手上。

But I remember in early April 2006,

但我記得，在 2006 年四月初，

I opened up my Blackberry,

我打開我的黑莓機，

and I'm reading about Greenpeace campaigners

讀到一些資訊，內容是 關於綠色和平的倡導者

showing up in the UK by the dozens,

成群出現在英國，

dressed as chickens,

每個人穿扮成一隻雞的模樣，

having breakfast at McDonald's

到麥當勞去吃早餐，

and chaining themselves to the chairs and tables.

然後把自己鏈在椅子和桌子上。

So they got a lot of attention,

他們贏得了廣大的注意，

including mine.

包括我的關注。

And I was wondering if the report that they had just released,

我想了解他們剛發布的那份報告，

it was called "Eating Up the Amazon."

標題叫做「吃光亞馬遜」。

And by the way, soy is a key ingredient for chicken feed,

順道一提，雞飼料的主要成份是黃豆，

and that's the connection to McDonald's.

那就是麥當勞被捲入的原因。

So I called my trusted friends at the World Wildlife Fund,

我打電話給世界自然 基金會中所信賴的朋友，

I called Conservation International,

我打給保護國際，

and I soon learned that the Greenpeace report was accurate.

我很快就得知，

綠色和平的報告是正確的。

So I gathered internal support,

所以，我獲得了內部的支持後，

and I'll always remember, next day, after that campaign,

我永遠不會忘記， 隔天，在那活動之後，

I called them up,

我打電話給他們， 說：「我們認同你們。」

and I said, "We agree with you."

And I said, "How about working together?"

我說：「一起合作如何？」

So three days later,

三天後，

miraculously, four people from McDonald's,

奇蹟發生了，四個麥當勞的人 和四個綠色和平的人

four people from Greenpeace,

we're meeting in the London Heathrow airport.

在倫敦希斯洛機場會面。

And I have to say, the first hour was shaky,

我必須要說，頭一個小時很緊張。

it wasn't a whole lot of trust in the room.

因為對彼此沒有太多的信賴感。

But it seemed like everything came together,

但，似乎一切漸漸成形，

because each of us wanted to save the Amazon.

因為我們每個人都想要拯救亞馬遜。

And during our discussions,

在我們的討論中，

you couldn't really tell, I don't think,

會無法辨別出，我認為無法，

who was from Greenpeace and who was from McDonald's.

誰是綠色和平的人、誰是麥當勞的人。

So one of the best things we did

我們所做的其中一件最棒的事

is we traveled with them for nine days on a trip through the Amazon,

就是我們和他們一起走訪亞馬遜九天，

on the Greenpeace airplane, on the Greenpeace boat.

搭乘綠色和平的飛機， 坐綠色和平的船。

And I'll always remember,

我永遠不會忘記，

imagine traveling hundreds of miles west of Manaus,

想像一下，從亞馬遜的首都瑪瑙斯

the capital city of the Amazon.

向西行數百英里。

And it's so pristine beauty,

那裡的美是原始之美，

there's no man-made structures, there's no roads,

沒有人造的建物，沒有道路、

not one wire, not one house.

沒有電線、沒有房子。

You would travel east of Manaus

如果你從瑪瑙斯向東行，

and you would see the blatant rainforest destruction.

你會看見雨林被明顯損毀。

So this very unlikely collaboration produced outstanding results.

所以，這次不太可能的合作

產生了很出色的結果。

By working together,

透過合作，

we recruited over a dozen other retailers and suppliers

我們招募了十多個 其他零售商和供應商，

for the same cause.

為同一目標努力。

And by the way, within three months,

順道一提，三個月內，

a moratorium on these clear-cutting practices

業界就宣佈暫停這些砍伐作業。

was announced by the industry.

And Greenpeace themselves declared it as a spectacular drop in deforestation

綠色和平自己本身也宣佈 砍伐森林有明顯減少，

and it's been in effect ever since.

且此後便一直都有效果。

Now, you think these types of collaborations that I've described

各位可能認為我剛才 描述的這幾種合作類型，

would be commonplace today.

現今應該是司空見慣的事。

But they're not.

但並不是。

When organizations are battered,

當組織被打擊時，

the common response is to deny and push back,

共同的反應都是否認和反彈，

put out some sort of lame statement

丟出某種很站不住腳的聲明，

and no progress is made at all.

完全沒有改善、進步。

I say the alternative is really powerful.

我說，這個替代方案真的很強大。

I mean, it's not going to fix every problem,

它並不能解決所有的問題，

and there's more to do for sure,

且肯定還有更多要做的，

but this idea of working with critics

但，和批評者合作並試著

and trying to do more good for society

為社會做更多好事的這個點子，

that actually is good for business,

其實對企業是有好處的，

believe me, it's possible.

相信我，這是有可能的。

But it starts with the idea

但，從開始就要抱持一個想法：

that you need to assume the best intentions of your critics.

你必須要假設攻擊你的 批評者都是出於好意。

Just like you have the best intentions.

就像你也都是出於好意一樣。

And then secondly,

接著，第二，

you need to look past a lot of these tactics.

你的目光得放遠， 不要被那些策略給影響。

I admit, I did not like a lot of the tactics

我承認不喜歡許多 他們用來對付我公司的策略。

used on my company.

But instead, focus on what the truth is,

但換個方式，專注於真相、

what's the right thing to do,

該做的事、科學，和事實。

what's the science, what's the facts.

And lastly, you know, I would say,

最後，我要說，

give the critics the keys.

把鑰匙交給批評者。

Show them the back room.

讓他們看看後面的實際運作情形。

Bring them there, don't hide the details,

帶他們進去，不要隱瞞細節，

because if you want allies and support,

因為如果你想要有盟友和支持，

you need to be open and transparent.

你就得要開放和透明。

Now, whether you're a corporate suit,

不論你是唯利是圖的商人， 或者極端的環保人士，

whether you're a tree-hugger,

I say the next time you're criticized,

下次你被批評的時候，

reach out, listen, learn.

向外伸出手、傾聽、學習。

You'll become better, your organization will become better,

你會變得更好，你的組織會變得更好，

and you might make some good friends along the way.

過程中你可能還會交到好朋友。

Thank you.

謝謝。

(Applause)

（掌聲）