當(dāng)新冠疫情剛出現(xiàn)的時(shí)候,作為全球最大連鎖院線的老板,AMC影院的CEO兼總裁亞當(dāng)?阿倫并未感到特別緊張。不過隨著疫情蔓延到世界各地,阿倫和他的團(tuán)隊(duì)開始密集與各地的衛(wèi)生官員會面,先是米蘭,然后是西班牙,再然后是該公司幾乎所有有運(yùn)營業(yè)務(wù)的地方。要談的重點(diǎn),就是該公司的1000多家影院應(yīng)該怎么辦。
然而局面的變化速度簡直可以用眼花繚亂來形容。光是3月中旬那幾天,政策就幾乎一日一變。首先是AMC宣布了限流政策,將每場的上座率減半。后來美國有一位官員接受了一檔周日早間節(jié)目的采訪,根據(jù)他的倡議,AMC開始將單場觀影人數(shù)限制在50人以下。最后到了3月16日,AMC干脆將影院完全關(guān)閉。
阿倫坦承,對于企業(yè)如何開展疫情防控,他和AMC的其他高管都是外行。“我們內(nèi)部沒有這方面的專家。我們希望在目前的情況下,能做出最好、最明智的決策。”
當(dāng)然,面對疫情,AMC并不是唯一一家束手無策、在重大公共衛(wèi)生事件面前不知道何去何從的公司。這與公司的高管團(tuán)隊(duì)中缺少公共衛(wèi)生專家不無關(guān)系。全球疫情已經(jīng)爆發(fā)好幾個(gè)月了,不論是肉類加工廠,還是郵輪公司或?qū)嶓w零售企業(yè),大家都面臨著相同的問題——如何在疫情時(shí)期安全地做生意?現(xiàn)在公司能不能重新開業(yè)?什么時(shí)候才可以重新開業(yè)?開業(yè)了以后,怎樣才能確保員工和顧客的健康?
阿倫指出:“美國企業(yè)面臨的最大的問題,就是如何撐到疫情結(jié)束。”他希望該公司在美國的影院能在本月底重新開放。(AMC此前曾經(jīng)警告稱,它有可能撐不到疫情結(jié)束。)“美國每家大公司的CEO都要把公共健康問題當(dāng)成公司的頭等要務(wù)。”
從目前看來,這場疫情短期內(nèi)不會那容易結(jié)束(很多其他公共衛(wèi)生問題也是一樣)。很多商界和公共衛(wèi)生界人士都表示,這兩個(gè)井水不犯河水的領(lǐng)域是時(shí)候進(jìn)行資源整合了。比如哈佛公共衛(wèi)生學(xué)院的院長米歇爾?威廉姆斯表示,以后的世界,企業(yè)可能要定期將公共衛(wèi)生問題納入商業(yè)計(jì)劃。企業(yè)界里甚至有可能出現(xiàn)一個(gè)全新的職務(wù)——首席公共衛(wèi)生官,來專門負(fù)責(zé)企業(yè)與公共衛(wèi)生有關(guān)的事務(wù)。
威廉姆斯說:“CEO們已經(jīng)意識到了公共衛(wèi)生的重要性。”他發(fā)現(xiàn),近幾個(gè)月來,商業(yè)界對公共衛(wèi)生知識的渴求達(dá)到了前所未有的程度。“CEO們都急著了解如何開發(fā)可靠的模型,把金融以外的那些以前他們從未考慮過的參數(shù)納入進(jìn)去。“
上個(gè)月,威廉姆斯主持了一系列以“當(dāng)公共衛(wèi)生意味著商業(yè)”為主題的在線研討會。她還計(jì)劃今年秋天專門為企業(yè)高管推出一套課程,幫助他們了解公共衛(wèi)生領(lǐng)域的基礎(chǔ)知識,以及如何將它們應(yīng)用在商業(yè)中。
咨詢機(jī)構(gòu)光輝國際(Korn Ferry)也注意到,一些公司有意在領(lǐng)導(dǎo)團(tuán)隊(duì)中引入懂公共衛(wèi)生的高管。
拉迪卡?帕潘德里歐是該公司的一名高級客戶合伙人,專注于旅游、酒店和休閑娛樂行業(yè)。她表示,她的客戶企業(yè)在門店層面(比如各個(gè)酒店和賭場),一般都有專人負(fù)責(zé)健康和安全事務(wù)。不過在公司高層,卻沒有人會對此類問題進(jìn)行通盤的戰(zhàn)略思考。因此,很多大企業(yè)在面對新冠肺炎疫情時(shí),都只能“疲于奔命”地被動應(yīng)對。
“這樣的流程是不存在的,也沒有一個(gè)人在推動這樣的過程。”帕潘德里歐指出。在疫情應(yīng)對上,有的公司選擇讓人力資源部門負(fù)主責(zé),有的則由各部門的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)組成工作組,還有一些企業(yè)則與約翰斯?霍普金斯大學(xué)等衛(wèi)生機(jī)構(gòu)建立了合作關(guān)系。
帕潘德里歐和她的同事們早在疫情初期,就組織起了幾個(gè)專門的工作組,研究開發(fā)企業(yè)首席衛(wèi)生安全官的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)工作流程。光輝國際的另一名高級客戶合伙人明迪?凱利指出,企業(yè)首席衛(wèi)生安全官的職責(zé),是要降低疫情蔓延的風(fēng)險(xiǎn),提高企業(yè)整體的健康和安全水平。帕潘德里歐說:“就算企業(yè)復(fù)工復(fù)產(chǎn),一切重新恢復(fù)正軌,這個(gè)角色也不會消失。”
馬里蘭大學(xué)巴爾的摩分校的歷史學(xué)副教授克里斯蒂?福特?查賓指出,這樣的角色在商業(yè)史上并非完全沒有先例。在19世紀(jì)末20世紀(jì)初的時(shí)候,第二次工業(yè)革命開展得如火如荼,一些美國企業(yè)設(shè)立了“工業(yè)醫(yī)療”部門,負(fù)責(zé)預(yù)防生產(chǎn)事故和傳染病的傳播。這個(gè)時(shí)期也正是細(xì)菌理論剛剛深入人心的時(shí)候。企業(yè)之所以開始重視工人的健康,一方面自然是為了保障自身經(jīng)營,另一方面也是為了對抗工會的力量,避免出現(xiàn)負(fù)面宣傳,以及監(jiān)管部門的要求。查賓表示,現(xiàn)在的企業(yè)也有同樣的動機(jī)去采取更強(qiáng)有力的公共衛(wèi)生措施,以避免負(fù)面公關(guān)和訴訟。
查賓指出,隨著美國經(jīng)濟(jì)向白領(lǐng)化和服務(wù)型經(jīng)濟(jì)轉(zhuǎn)型,加之全美公共衛(wèi)生狀況的改善,“工業(yè)醫(yī)療”這個(gè)名詞也消失在了歷史中。雖然一些企業(yè)仍然保留了健康和衛(wèi)生部門,但它們在企業(yè)中顯得無足輕重,而且往往只關(guān)注美國職業(yè)安全與健康管理局(OSHA)的規(guī)定。
當(dāng)前,美國企業(yè)不僅面臨著疫情的威脅,還要面對系統(tǒng)性的種族主義,以及由此帶來的健康問題和社會失序問題。哈佛公共衛(wèi)生學(xué)院的院長威廉姆斯認(rèn)為,很多企業(yè)需要首席公共衛(wèi)生官這樣一個(gè)重要的角色。“公共衛(wèi)生工作的重點(diǎn),是維持、改善和保護(hù)人們的健康和福祉。但現(xiàn)在,我們的勞動者正處在困境之中。”
她表示:“我們開始把基本勞動者視為經(jīng)濟(jì)和社會引擎的真正推動力,這意味著我們要在人口健康層面上更加關(guān)注勞動者的健康和福祉。”她認(rèn)為,企業(yè)有了這樣的定位,就會更清楚地認(rèn)識到,種族主義和結(jié)構(gòu)性的不平等對企業(yè)來說是一種負(fù)擔(dān),會讓企業(yè)付出代價(jià)。而首席公共衛(wèi)生官則要以一種更嚴(yán)格、更科學(xué),最終也更公正的方法來解決這些問題。
她說:“我認(rèn)為,首席公共衛(wèi)生官會帶來一個(gè)以社會因素看公共衛(wèi)生的視角。他們會對健康和社會公平等因素進(jìn)行建模和分析,從而幫助企業(yè)在制定薪酬等方面進(jìn)行決策。”
當(dāng)然,在疫情期間,首席公共衛(wèi)生官還會在復(fù)工復(fù)產(chǎn)上幫助企業(yè)做出更加科學(xué)的決策。這就是為什么AMC公司的CEO阿倫從疫情早期階段就來找威廉姆斯尋求幫助。威廉姆斯將他介紹給了哈佛公共衛(wèi)生學(xué)院的喬伊?艾倫。艾倫也是《健康建筑:室內(nèi)空間如何促進(jìn)績效和生產(chǎn)力》(Healthy Buildings: How Indoor Spaces Drive Performance and Productivity)一書的作者之一。艾倫與哈佛公共衛(wèi)生學(xué)院的部分教職工和畢業(yè)生已經(jīng)開始為AMC公司提供空氣凈化、靜電噴霧和加強(qiáng)清潔工作等方面的咨詢了。
“要想讓人們?nèi)ル娪霸海ㄒ坏姆椒ㄊ亲屗麄兿嘈庞霸旱慕?jīng)營者能夠確保影院的安全和衛(wèi)生。早在4月時(shí),我們就清楚地意識到,我們要找到全球最好的專家為我們提供建議。”阿倫說道。(財(cái)富中文網(wǎng))
譯者:Feb
當(dāng)新冠疫情剛出現(xiàn)的時(shí)候,作為全球最大連鎖院線的老板,AMC影院的CEO兼總裁亞當(dāng)?阿倫并未感到特別緊張。不過隨著疫情蔓延到世界各地,阿倫和他的團(tuán)隊(duì)開始密集與各地的衛(wèi)生官員會面,先是米蘭,然后是西班牙,再然后是該公司幾乎所有有運(yùn)營業(yè)務(wù)的地方。要談的重點(diǎn),就是該公司的1000多家影院應(yīng)該怎么辦。
然而局面的變化速度簡直可以用眼花繚亂來形容。光是3月中旬那幾天,政策就幾乎一日一變。首先是AMC宣布了限流政策,將每場的上座率減半。后來美國有一位官員接受了一檔周日早間節(jié)目的采訪,根據(jù)他的倡議,AMC開始將單場觀影人數(shù)限制在50人以下。最后到了3月16日,AMC干脆將影院完全關(guān)閉。
阿倫坦承,對于企業(yè)如何開展疫情防控,他和AMC的其他高管都是外行。“我們內(nèi)部沒有這方面的專家。我們希望在目前的情況下,能做出最好、最明智的決策。”
當(dāng)然,面對疫情,AMC并不是唯一一家束手無策、在重大公共衛(wèi)生事件面前不知道何去何從的公司。這與公司的高管團(tuán)隊(duì)中缺少公共衛(wèi)生專家不無關(guān)系。全球疫情已經(jīng)爆發(fā)好幾個(gè)月了,不論是肉類加工廠,還是郵輪公司或?qū)嶓w零售企業(yè),大家都面臨著相同的問題——如何在疫情時(shí)期安全地做生意?現(xiàn)在公司能不能重新開業(yè)?什么時(shí)候才可以重新開業(yè)?開業(yè)了以后,怎樣才能確保員工和顧客的健康?
阿倫指出:“美國企業(yè)面臨的最大的問題,就是如何撐到疫情結(jié)束。”他希望該公司在美國的影院能在本月底重新開放。(AMC此前曾經(jīng)警告稱,它有可能撐不到疫情結(jié)束。)“美國每家大公司的CEO都要把公共健康問題當(dāng)成公司的頭等要務(wù)。”
從目前看來,這場疫情短期內(nèi)不會那容易結(jié)束(很多其他公共衛(wèi)生問題也是一樣)。很多商界和公共衛(wèi)生界人士都表示,這兩個(gè)井水不犯河水的領(lǐng)域是時(shí)候進(jìn)行資源整合了。比如哈佛公共衛(wèi)生學(xué)院的院長米歇爾?威廉姆斯表示,以后的世界,企業(yè)可能要定期將公共衛(wèi)生問題納入商業(yè)計(jì)劃。企業(yè)界里甚至有可能出現(xiàn)一個(gè)全新的職務(wù)——首席公共衛(wèi)生官,來專門負(fù)責(zé)企業(yè)與公共衛(wèi)生有關(guān)的事務(wù)。
威廉姆斯說:“CEO們已經(jīng)意識到了公共衛(wèi)生的重要性。”他發(fā)現(xiàn),近幾個(gè)月來,商業(yè)界對公共衛(wèi)生知識的渴求達(dá)到了前所未有的程度。“CEO們都急著了解如何開發(fā)可靠的模型,把金融以外的那些以前他們從未考慮過的參數(shù)納入進(jìn)去。“
上個(gè)月,威廉姆斯主持了一系列以“當(dāng)公共衛(wèi)生意味著商業(yè)”為主題的在線研討會。她還計(jì)劃今年秋天專門為企業(yè)高管推出一套課程,幫助他們了解公共衛(wèi)生領(lǐng)域的基礎(chǔ)知識,以及如何將它們應(yīng)用在商業(yè)中。
咨詢機(jī)構(gòu)光輝國際(Korn Ferry)也注意到,一些公司有意在領(lǐng)導(dǎo)團(tuán)隊(duì)中引入懂公共衛(wèi)生的高管。
拉迪卡?帕潘德里歐是該公司的一名高級客戶合伙人,專注于旅游、酒店和休閑娛樂行業(yè)。她表示,她的客戶企業(yè)在門店層面(比如各個(gè)酒店和賭場),一般都有專人負(fù)責(zé)健康和安全事務(wù)。不過在公司高層,卻沒有人會對此類問題進(jìn)行通盤的戰(zhàn)略思考。因此,很多大企業(yè)在面對新冠肺炎疫情時(shí),都只能“疲于奔命”地被動應(yīng)對。
“這樣的流程是不存在的,也沒有一個(gè)人在推動這樣的過程。”帕潘德里歐指出。在疫情應(yīng)對上,有的公司選擇讓人力資源部門負(fù)主責(zé),有的則由各部門的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)組成工作組,還有一些企業(yè)則與約翰斯?霍普金斯大學(xué)等衛(wèi)生機(jī)構(gòu)建立了合作關(guān)系。
帕潘德里歐和她的同事們早在疫情初期,就組織起了幾個(gè)專門的工作組,研究開發(fā)企業(yè)首席衛(wèi)生安全官的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)工作流程。光輝國際的另一名高級客戶合伙人明迪?凱利指出,企業(yè)首席衛(wèi)生安全官的職責(zé),是要降低疫情蔓延的風(fēng)險(xiǎn),提高企業(yè)整體的健康和安全水平。帕潘德里歐說:“就算企業(yè)復(fù)工復(fù)產(chǎn),一切重新恢復(fù)正軌,這個(gè)角色也不會消失。”
馬里蘭大學(xué)巴爾的摩分校的歷史學(xué)副教授克里斯蒂?福特?查賓指出,這樣的角色在商業(yè)史上并非完全沒有先例。在19世紀(jì)末20世紀(jì)初的時(shí)候,第二次工業(yè)革命開展得如火如荼,一些美國企業(yè)設(shè)立了“工業(yè)醫(yī)療”部門,負(fù)責(zé)預(yù)防生產(chǎn)事故和傳染病的傳播。這個(gè)時(shí)期也正是細(xì)菌理論剛剛深入人心的時(shí)候。企業(yè)之所以開始重視工人的健康,一方面自然是為了保障自身經(jīng)營,另一方面也是為了對抗工會的力量,避免出現(xiàn)負(fù)面宣傳,以及監(jiān)管部門的要求。查賓表示,現(xiàn)在的企業(yè)也有同樣的動機(jī)去采取更強(qiáng)有力的公共衛(wèi)生措施,以避免負(fù)面公關(guān)和訴訟。
查賓指出,隨著美國經(jīng)濟(jì)向白領(lǐng)化和服務(wù)型經(jīng)濟(jì)轉(zhuǎn)型,加之全美公共衛(wèi)生狀況的改善,“工業(yè)醫(yī)療”這個(gè)名詞也消失在了歷史中。雖然一些企業(yè)仍然保留了健康和衛(wèi)生部門,但它們在企業(yè)中顯得無足輕重,而且往往只關(guān)注美國職業(yè)安全與健康管理局(OSHA)的規(guī)定。
當(dāng)前,美國企業(yè)不僅面臨著疫情的威脅,還要面對系統(tǒng)性的種族主義,以及由此帶來的健康問題和社會失序問題。哈佛公共衛(wèi)生學(xué)院的院長威廉姆斯認(rèn)為,很多企業(yè)需要首席公共衛(wèi)生官這樣一個(gè)重要的角色。“公共衛(wèi)生工作的重點(diǎn),是維持、改善和保護(hù)人們的健康和福祉。但現(xiàn)在,我們的勞動者正處在困境之中。”
她表示:“我們開始把基本勞動者視為經(jīng)濟(jì)和社會引擎的真正推動力,這意味著我們要在人口健康層面上更加關(guān)注勞動者的健康和福祉。”她認(rèn)為,企業(yè)有了這樣的定位,就會更清楚地認(rèn)識到,種族主義和結(jié)構(gòu)性的不平等對企業(yè)來說是一種負(fù)擔(dān),會讓企業(yè)付出代價(jià)。而首席公共衛(wèi)生官則要以一種更嚴(yán)格、更科學(xué),最終也更公正的方法來解決這些問題。
她說:“我認(rèn)為,首席公共衛(wèi)生官會帶來一個(gè)以社會因素看公共衛(wèi)生的視角。他們會對健康和社會公平等因素進(jìn)行建模和分析,從而幫助企業(yè)在制定薪酬等方面進(jìn)行決策。”
當(dāng)然,在疫情期間,首席公共衛(wèi)生官還會在復(fù)工復(fù)產(chǎn)上幫助企業(yè)做出更加科學(xué)的決策。這就是為什么AMC公司的CEO阿倫從疫情早期階段就來找威廉姆斯尋求幫助。威廉姆斯將他介紹給了哈佛公共衛(wèi)生學(xué)院的喬伊?艾倫。艾倫也是《健康建筑:室內(nèi)空間如何促進(jìn)績效和生產(chǎn)力》(Healthy Buildings: How Indoor Spaces Drive Performance and Productivity)一書的作者之一。艾倫與哈佛公共衛(wèi)生學(xué)院的部分教職工和畢業(yè)生已經(jīng)開始為AMC公司提供空氣凈化、靜電噴霧和加強(qiáng)清潔工作等方面的咨詢了。
“要想讓人們?nèi)ル娪霸海ㄒ坏姆椒ㄊ亲屗麄兿嘈庞霸旱慕?jīng)營者能夠確保影院的安全和衛(wèi)生。早在4月時(shí),我們就清楚地意識到,我們要找到全球最好的專家為我們提供建議。”阿倫說道。(財(cái)富中文網(wǎng))
譯者:Feb
Adam Aron, CEO and president of AMC Theatres, the world’s largest chain of movie cinemas, remembers the early days of the pandemic as a blur. As the novel coronavirus spread around the world, he and his team scrambled to talk with health officials—first in Milan, then in Spain, then pretty much everywhere else the company operated, trying to sort out what to do with its 1,000 or so theaters in the middle of a fast-unfolding global health crisis.
The picture and the pace at which it was changing were dizzying. Over the course of a few days in mid-March, AMC announced plans to fill its theaters to only half capacity; then—prompted by an official’s remark on a Sunday morning talk show—AMC limited screenings to groups of 50 or fewer; and finally, on March 16, it closed its cinemas altogether.
We had no experts on retainer internally,” says Aron, who admits when it came to understanding epidemiology and infection control and how to factor it into business, he and AMC’s senior execs were amateurs. “We were trying to make the best and smartest decisions we could under the circumstances.”
Of course, AMC was hardly the only company caught off guard and confronted with big business decisions—and little public health expertise in the C-suite to help make them—when the coronavirus hit. Even months into the global health crisis, companies, from meat processors to cruise lines to brick-and-mortar retail, continue to struggle with questions around doing business safely in a time of COVID-19—how and when to reopen, and, in the process, ensure their workforces and customers remain healthy.
“The single biggest issue facing businesses in the United States is how do we manage our way through the coronavirus crisis,” says Aron, who is hoping his company will begin reopening theaters in the U.S. later this month. (AMC has previously warned it may not survive the pandemic.) “The CEO of every major company in the country is going to have to make public health the single top vision of the company.”
With no quick or easy end to the pandemic (nor a host of other public health problems) in sight, figures from both the business and public health worlds say it’s time to bridge the gulf that has traditionally separated the two sectors. Some, including Michelle Williams, dean of the Harvard School of Public Health, envision a world where public health considerations are regularly integrated into business plans and where maybe even a new brand of executive, a chief public health officer, has a seat at the table.
“CEOs are now recognizing the primacy of public health,” says Williams, who has noticed an unprecedented thirst for knowledge from the business community in recent months. “CEOs are clamoring. They’re clamoring for an understanding of how do you develop reliable models that include inputs that they’ve not thought about beyond financial parameters?”
As a jumping-off point, she hosted a series of online symposiums called “When Public Health Means Business” last month and plans to launch curriculum this fall for business executives to help them understand the foundations of public health and how to apply them in business.
Korn Ferry, the global organizational consulting firm, has also noticed interest from companies in adding health expertise to their leadership teams.
“Health concerns are top of mind for the executives I work with,” says Radhika Papandreou, a senior client partner who specializes in the travel, hospitality, and leisure sectors. She notes that the companies she works with have typically had health and safety officers at the property level—say, at an individual hotel or a casino—rather than a high-level executive thinking strategically about such issues across the company. As a result, large companies tended to have “a very patchwork” response to the threat of COVID-19.
“There wasn’t a process,” says Papandreou, who notes some businesses leaned upon HR officers or formed working groups of leaders across the company to respond to the pandemic; others tried to form partnerships with health institutions like Johns Hopkins. “There hasn’t been one person driving the process.”
She and her colleagues, early into the pandemic, began holding focus groups to develop a prototype for a corporate chief health and safety officer, a role that would involve mitigating risk of disease spread and promoting health and safety more generally across the organization, says Mindy Kairey, a senior client partner at the firm. “It’s not a role that is going away as we go back to work and things become more normal,” says Papandreou.
Such a role would not be totally unprecedented in corporate history, says Christy Ford Chapin, an associate professor of history at the University of Maryland Baltimore County. Around the turn of the 20th century, as the second Industrial Revolution ramped up and the progressive era began, American corporations developed “industrial medicine” departments aimed at preventing accidents and stopping the spread of infectious disease. This period coincided with spreading awareness of germ theory, Chapin explains. While business wanted to keep employees healthy for the sake of their operations, they also were looking to counter union power, negative publicity, and calls for regulation, says Chapin, who suspects today’s corporations will be similarly motivated to develop more robust public health efforts to avoid bad PR and lawsuits.
Industrial medicine went away with the transition to a more white-collar, service-oriented economy as well as improving public health conditions nationwide. While occupational health and safety departments still exist, they’re “just not as big a deal” and often focused on compliance with OSHA regulations, Chapin says.
At a moment when companies are grappling with a pandemic, as well as systemic racism and resulting health and social disparities, Harvard’s Williams imagines a broad and important role like chief public health officer: “Public health is about preserving, promoting, and protecting health and wellness of a population. And the workforce right now is under siege.
“We start to think about essential workers as really primary drivers for our economic and societal engines, and this is going to mean I think a sharper focus on health and wellness of workers at a level of population health,” she says. With such an orientation, she expects businesses will more clearly understand racism and structural inequality as burdensome and costly to business, and that a chief public health officer would bring a more rigorous, scientific, and ultimately just approach to addressing those issues.
“I think the chief public health officer brings a lens of assessing the social determinants of health," she says. "They bring modeling and appreciation and understanding of health and social justice to the table where these can inform practices like wage determination.”
They would also, of course, help companies make more science-based decisions about reopening in the midst of uncertainty around the ongoing global pandemic. That’s why Aron, the CEO of AMC, sought out Williams’s counsel in the early stages of the pandemic. She referred him to Joe Allen, a Harvard School of Public Health faculty member and the coauthor of Healthy Buildings: How Indoor Spaces Drive Performance and Productivity, who with current and former faculty and graduates, has been advising AMC on issues like air filtration, electrostatic sprayers and intensified cleaning protocols.
“The only way people are going to go to movie theaters is if people trust theater operators to run their theaters safely and cleanly. It became quite obvious to us in April that we were going to have to seek out the best experts on the planet to advise us what to do,” says Aron.