上世紀(jì)70年代，也就是我加入BP石油公司十年之后，BP當(dāng)時(shí)還只有北海和阿拉斯加這兩個(gè)主要的業(yè)務(wù)點(diǎn)。等我2007年卸任BP的CEO時(shí)，公司的業(yè)務(wù)已經(jīng)擴(kuò)展到了全世界，包括一些制度不健全、政府管理薄弱的地區(qū)，以及一些缺乏尊重人權(quán)的傳統(tǒng)的地區(qū)，和一些人們對(duì)西方公司懷著深深的不信任感的地區(qū)。

舉個(gè)例子，為了出口印尼的天然氣，BP公司曾經(jīng)想在印尼的巴布亞省建立一個(gè)天然氣液化廠，但當(dāng)?shù)貐s存在著民族沖突和分離主義勢(shì)力，西方的礦業(yè)公司還在當(dāng)?shù)亓粝铝似茐沫h(huán)境的不光彩記錄。在當(dāng)時(shí)看來，BP幾乎無法讓當(dāng)?shù)厝藢?duì)它產(chǎn)生足夠的信任，讓它去開發(fā)該項(xiàng)目。

BP的應(yīng)對(duì)之策，是建立了一個(gè)專門傾聽社會(huì)訴求的獨(dú)立的顧問委員會(huì)，對(duì)BP在當(dāng)?shù)氐纳虡I(yè)活動(dòng)進(jìn)行調(diào)查，并將調(diào)查結(jié)果完全公開，并且公司保證不對(duì)委員會(huì)的工作進(jìn)行干預(yù)。該委員會(huì)由備受尊敬的美國(guó)前參議員喬治?米歇爾牽頭，擁有獨(dú)立資源來行使職權(quán)。這是一個(gè)與當(dāng)?shù)厣鐣?huì)互動(dòng)的創(chuàng)新舉措，最終贏得了當(dāng)?shù)厝嗣竦男湃?，使BP得以成功地建起那座天然氣液化廠。

印尼的這個(gè)例子聽起來似乎有點(diǎn)極端，但是商人如何獲得社會(huì)的信任，卻是兩千多年以來全球經(jīng)商者都無法逃避的一個(gè)問題。在重農(nóng)抑商的古代中國(guó)，商人往往被視為危險(xiǎn)和不道德的人物。20世紀(jì)初期的幾任美國(guó)總統(tǒng)還在忙著打破掠奪式資本家為了私人利益而設(shè)置的重重壟斷壁壘。直到今天，全世界也只有一半人相信商人也能做好事。

盡管商業(yè)促進(jìn)了人類發(fā)展的進(jìn)程，為人類的飽暖和啟蒙起了突出作用，但它依然不時(shí)會(huì)引起人們的憤怒和懷疑。如今，當(dāng)人們被問到他們認(rèn)為商業(yè)領(lǐng)袖的經(jīng)商動(dòng)機(jī)是什么，他們依然會(huì)回答“貪欲”、“個(gè)人雄心”和“增長(zhǎng)目標(biāo)”之類的答案，而不認(rèn)為商人經(jīng)商是為了改變?nèi)藗兊纳?、改善人類的生存條件。

但對(duì)于石油和天然氣行業(yè)來說，這個(gè)行業(yè)比起其他行業(yè)更需要與社會(huì)保持融洽的關(guān)系，因此這就帶來了一個(gè)嚴(yán)肅的問題。如果人們認(rèn)為，這家公司存在的目的就是為了賺錢，那么,這家公司的所作所為就會(huì)被視為是一場(chǎng)零和游戲，也就是說，如果公司得利了，人們必然認(rèn)為社會(huì)因此遭受了損失。于是，這家公司就很難取得運(yùn)營(yíng)執(zhí)照。

隨著國(guó)際油價(jià)跌至十年來最低水平，石油天然氣行業(yè)出現(xiàn)了高達(dá)幾十萬人的裁員大潮，很多油氣公司可能暫時(shí)顧及不到社會(huì)信任的問題了。但麥肯錫的一項(xiàng)調(diào)查顯示，如果油氣公司與社會(huì)的關(guān)系出了問題，那么，油氣公司平均30%的價(jià)值都會(huì)遭到風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。各大油氣公司的CEO也明白這個(gè)問題的嚴(yán)重性。該調(diào)查顯示，這些CEO們將30%的時(shí)間都花在了社會(huì)公關(guān)上。問題是，目前只有不到30%的企業(yè)領(lǐng)袖認(rèn)為他們的社會(huì)公關(guān)是成功的。另有研究表明，如果油氣企業(yè)能夠保持與社會(huì)的良好關(guān)系，那么，在十年時(shí)間內(nèi)，他們的收益至少能超過其競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手20%以上。

以我的經(jīng)驗(yàn)來看，很多企業(yè)的高管之所以沒有與社會(huì)建立卓有成效的關(guān)系，往往是由于他們采取的互動(dòng)模式早已過時(shí)了。在過去20年間，企業(yè)界普遍依靠企業(yè)社會(huì)責(zé)任（CSR）項(xiàng)目作為處理外部關(guān)系的主要機(jī)制。但這些CSR項(xiàng)目通常都與企業(yè)的核心商業(yè)行為脫節(jié)了。在我們采訪英國(guó)最大的一家銀行的董事會(huì)主席霍華德?截維斯時(shí)，他向我表示，多數(shù)企業(yè)只是“在周五的下午花半個(gè)小時(shí)關(guān)注一下CSR?！?/p>

作為幫助企業(yè)解決社會(huì)信任問題的工具，一個(gè)與企業(yè)核心業(yè)務(wù)脫節(jié)的CSR項(xiàng)目，是完全不適合當(dāng)今的商業(yè)環(huán)境的。科技的進(jìn)步已經(jīng)使如今的商業(yè)活動(dòng)變得更加透明，迫使企業(yè)的一言一行都要講究誠(chéng)信。隨著行業(yè)開始使用大數(shù)據(jù)來追蹤石油的供需，石油市場(chǎng)的透明度也達(dá)到了前所未有的水平?；ヂ?lián)網(wǎng)和社交媒體的廣泛普及，也使得公眾能夠進(jìn)一步地仔細(xì)審視企業(yè)的行事方式。想要獲得社會(huì)的信任，企業(yè)絕不能僅僅把社會(huì)關(guān)注的問題“外包”給一個(gè)部門來解決。

因此，企業(yè)需要用一種新的與社會(huì)互動(dòng)的方式來代替CSR。企業(yè)從上到下，從董事會(huì)到最基層，都需要將社會(huì)聯(lián)系的問題正式納入運(yùn)營(yíng)和戰(zhàn)略中。

這意味著企業(yè)除了追求財(cái)務(wù)效益，還要對(duì)各種外部關(guān)系的價(jià)值有清晰的理解，同時(shí)需要明確地定義它對(duì)社會(huì)的貢獻(xiàn)。企業(yè)需要運(yùn)用流程和經(jīng)理人的運(yùn)營(yíng)知識(shí)，幫助企業(yè)解決遇到的各種社會(huì)和環(huán)境問題。最重要的是，企業(yè)需要根據(jù)社會(huì)的需要，而不是根據(jù)他們自己的需要，來積極地進(jìn)行參與社會(huì)事務(wù)。

積極參與社會(huì)事務(wù)，并不意味著錯(cuò)誤就可以被完全避免。早在BP發(fā)生墨西哥灣原油泄露事故（2010年）之前的幾年，由于公司文化的改變，導(dǎo)致BP在美國(guó)已經(jīng)沒有多少朋友了。這可能是因?yàn)锽P的“良心儲(chǔ)備”沒有那么滿了。在墨西哥灣原油泄露事件發(fā)生后，BP承擔(dān)了事故責(zé)任，并且為后續(xù)的清污工作投入了大量資金。這表明它的“良心儲(chǔ)備”畢竟還沒有完全干涸。如果BP沒有用這種方法與社會(huì)互動(dòng)，它幾乎是不可能生存到今天的。

積極參與社會(huì)事務(wù)的需求也會(huì)促使油氣公司主動(dòng)參與解決氣候變化威脅。如果他們不能做到這一點(diǎn)，他們的自身業(yè)務(wù)就將面臨現(xiàn)實(shí)威脅。而那些成功地為解決氣候變化威脅做出貢獻(xiàn)的企業(yè)則會(huì)獲得豐厚的回報(bào)。

1997年，我在斯坦福大學(xué)（Stanford University）做了一次演講，指出化石燃料排放與氣候變化之間的聯(lián)系不容繼續(xù)忽視。在接下來的四年里，我?guī)ьI(lǐng)BP采取了一系列行動(dòng)，并且成功地聯(lián)合若干NGO組織共同參與節(jié)能減排。由此我們獲得了尊重，并且在制定新規(guī)則的過程中擁有了一定的發(fā)言權(quán)。這說明我們的顧客也認(rèn)同我們正在計(jì)劃變革，而不是覺得我們只是想保持現(xiàn)狀。這也說明我們?cè)跔?zhēng)奪面向未來的青年人才上已經(jīng)贏得了先手。

十多年前，BP與印尼當(dāng)?shù)厣鐣?huì)進(jìn)行互動(dòng)的那種方式可能只在極端情況下才需要。而如今的商業(yè)環(huán)境，以及CSR的失敗，都表明這種積極參與社會(huì)事務(wù)的方式，已經(jīng)成為全球企業(yè)贏得社會(huì)信任的唯一途徑。（財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)）

本文作者約翰?布朗尼是 L1能源公司的執(zhí)行總裁，曾任BP石油CEO。他曾與羅賓?納托爾、湯米?斯塔登共同著有《CONNECT: How Companies Succeed by Engaging Radically with Society》一書。

譯者：樸成奎

In the 1970s, a decade after I had joined the company, BP had just two main operations, in the North Sea and in Alaska. By the time I stepped down as CEO in 2007, the company was operating across the globe including in regions that lacked strong institutions and governance, had no tradition of respecting human rights, and in which people strongly distrusted Western companies.

In Papua, Indonesia, for example, where BP was seeking to construct a liquefaction plant to enable gas exports, the company was working against a backdrop of ethnic conflict, secessionist demands and a history of environmental damage caused by Western mining companies. It seemed it would be almost impossible to gain the degree of trust necessary to develop the project.

BP’s response was to establish an independent advisory panel that would hear community concerns, examine BP’s activities and report its findings publicly and fully, and without interference from the company. BP saw the reports at the same time as other stakeholders. The well-respected former U.S. Senator George Mitchell of Maine chaired the panel, which was given its own independent resources. It was an innovative approach to engaging with society that eventually won people’s trust and helped generate the credibility BP needed to construct the plant successfully.

That experience in Indonesia sounds extreme, but the challenge of securing society’s trust is one that business has faced across the world for more than two thousand years. In ancient China, merchants were regarded as dangerous and immoral. At the beginning of the 20th Century, US presidents were busy breaking up the monopolies that the robber barons had constructed for private gain. And today, barely half the world trusts business to do the right thing.

In spite of its centrality to human progress, feeding, enriching warming and delighting us, it seems that business continues to provoke anger and suspicion. When people are asked what they think motivates business leaders today they talk about ‘greed,’ ‘personal ambition’ and ‘growth targets’, rather than the desire to transform people’s lives or improve the human condition.

For oil and gas companies, which rely on positive relationships with society more than in most other industries, this poses a serious problem. When people believe that a company exists only to make itself rich, the company’s actions are viewed as a zero-sum game where a win for the company means a loss for society. It makes it very difficult to secure a license to operate.

As oil prices have fallen to their lowest level for more than a decade, and as the industry cuts hundreds of thousands of jobs, concerns about the lack of trust in business might seem to be of secondary importance. Yet research by McKinsey shows that on average, 30% of a company’s value is at stake when it comes to its relationships with society. CEOs seem to understand this: the same surveys show that they spend 30% of their time addressing this issue. The problem is that less than 30% of these same business leaders feel that they are successfully engaging with society. Other studies have shown that if they could get it right, then their company could generate returns that are at least 20% higher than its competitors over the course of a decade.

In my experience, executives are often failing to build a productive relationship with society because the old models of engagement are dead. Over the past 20 years, companies have relied on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) as the primary mechanism for handling external relationships, but these CSR programmes are usually detached from a company’s core commercial activity. When we interviewed Howard Davies, Chairman of one of the UK’s largest banks, he told me that CSR is something that companies focus on “for half an hour on a Friday afternoon.”

As a tool for helping business overcome centuries of cyclical distrust, a detached CSR programme is wholly inadequate in today’s business environment. Technology is making business activity more transparent, forcing companies to be authentic in both what they say and do. The use of big data to track supply and demand offers unprecedented visibility of developments in the oil market. Increased Internet access and the growing prevalence of social media are also allowing a far higher degree of public scrutiny of the way in which companies behave. In order to gain society’s trust, companies cannot simply outsource society’s concerns to a department.

In place of CSR, business needs a new approach to the way in which it connects with society. From the boardroom to the shop floor, companies need to incorporate societal connection formally into their operations and strategy.

That will mean having a clear understanding of the value of different external relationships and ensuring the company defines clearly its contribution to society, beyond its financial benefit. Companies need to apply the process and operational expertise of commercial managers to help the company tackle social and environmental issues. And most importantly, companies need to engage radically, on society’s terms rather than their own.

Radical engagement does not mean that mistakes can be completely avoided. In the years before my old company’s oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, cultural changes had already left the company without many American friends. It is possible that BP’s reservoir of goodwill was not as full as it might have been. BP responded by taking responsibility and committing funds to the clean-up operations. It meant that the reservoir was not completely drained. If they had failed to engage in this way, it would have been almost impossible for the company to survive.

The need for radical engagement should also lead oil and gas companies to address the threat posed by climate change head-on. If they fail to do so, they will face an existential threat to their business. Those which succeed will be rewarded.

In 1997, at Stanford, I made a speech acknowledging that the link between fossil fuel emissions and climate change could no longer be ignored. I committed BP to taking action and in the four years that followed we successfully engaged NGOs in our efforts to reduce carbon emissions. We won respect, along with a seat at the negotiating table when new rules were being written. It meant that our customers could see us planning for change, rather than seeking to preserve the status quo. And it meant we had the upper hand in the market for talented young people with a vision for the future.

More than a decade ago, BP’s solution to connecting with local people in Indonesia might have seemed necessary only in extreme situation. Today’s business environment and the failure of CSR suggests this sort of radical approach to engagement is the only way companies around the world can win society’s trust.

Lord John Browne is Executive Chairman of L1 Energy, former CEO of BP and co-author with Robin Nuttall and Tommy Stadlen of CONNECT: How Companies Succeed by Engaging Radically with Society (PublicAffairs; March 8, 2016).