上世紀70年代，也就是我加入BP石油公司十年之后，BP當時還只有北海和阿拉斯加這兩個主要的業務點。等我2007年卸任BP的CEO時，公司的業務已經擴展到了全世界，包括一些制度不健全、政府管理薄弱的地區，以及一些缺乏尊重人權的傳統的地區，和一些人們對西方公司懷著深深的不信任感的地區。

舉個例子，為了出口印尼的天然氣，BP公司曾經想在印尼的巴布亞省建立一個天然氣液化廠，但當地卻存在著民族沖突和分離主義勢力，西方的礦業公司還在當地留下了破壞環境的不光彩記錄。在當時看來，BP幾乎無法讓當地人對它產生足夠的信任，讓它去開發該項目。

BP的應對之策，是建立了一個專門傾聽社會訴求的獨立的顧問委員會，對BP在當地的商業活動進行調查，并將調查結果完全公開，并且公司保證不對委員會的工作進行干預。該委員會由備受尊敬的美國前參議員喬治?米歇爾牽頭，擁有獨立資源來行使職權。這是一個與當地社會互動的創新舉措，最終贏得了當地人民的信任，使BP得以成功地建起那座天然氣液化廠。

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

盡管商業促進了人類發展的進程，為人類的飽暖和啟蒙起了突出作用，但它依然不時會引起人們的憤怒和懷疑。如今，當人們被問到他們認為商業領袖的經商動機是什么，他們依然會回答“貪欲”、“個人雄心”和“增長目標”之類的答案，而不認為商人經商是為了改變人們的生活、改善人類的生存條件。

但對于石油和天然氣行業來說，這個行業比起其他行業更需要與社會保持融洽的關系，因此這就帶來了一個嚴肅的問題。如果人們認為，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被視為是一場零和游戲，也就是說，如果公司得利了，人們必然認為社會因此遭受了損失。于是，這家公司就很難取得運營執照。

隨著國際油價跌至十年來最低水平，石油天然氣行業出現了高達幾十萬人的裁員大潮，很多油氣公司可能暫時顧及不到社會信任的問題了。但麥肯錫的一項調查顯示，如果油氣公司與社會的關系出了問題，那么，油氣公司平均30%的價值都會遭到風險。各大油氣公司的CEO也明白這個問題的嚴重性。該調查顯示，這些CEO們將30%的時間都花在了社會公關上。問題是，目前只有不到30%的企業領袖認為他們的社會公關是成功的。另有研究表明，如果油氣企業能夠保持與社會的良好關系，那么，在十年時間內，他們的收益至少能超過其競爭對手20%以上。

以我的經驗來看，很多企業的高管之所以沒有與社會建立卓有成效的關系，往往是由于他們采取的互動模式早已過時了。在過去20年間，企業界普遍依靠企業社會責任（CSR）項目作為處理外部關系的主要機制。但這些CSR項目通常都與企業的核心商業行為脫節了。在我們采訪英國最大的一家銀行的董事會主席霍華德?截維斯時，他向我表示，多數企業只是“在周五的下午花半個小時關注一下CSR。”

作為幫助企業解決社會信任問題的工具，一個與企業核心業務脫節的CSR項目，是完全不適合當今的商業環境的。科技的進步已經使如今的商業活動變得更加透明，迫使企業的一言一行都要講究誠信。隨著行業開始使用大數據來追蹤石油的供需，石油市場的透明度也達到了前所未有的水平。互聯網和社交媒體的廣泛普及，也使得公眾能夠進一步地仔細審視企業的行事方式。想要獲得社會的信任，企業絕不能僅僅把社會關注的問題“外包”給一個部門來解決。

因此，企業需要用一種新的與社會互動的方式來代替CSR。企業從上到下，從董事會到最基層，都需要將社會聯系的問題正式納入運營和戰略中。

這意味著企業除了追求財務效益，還要對各種外部關系的價值有清晰的理解，同時需要明確地定義它對社會的貢獻。企業需要運用流程和經理人的運營知識，幫助企業解決遇到的各種社會和環境問題。最重要的是，企業需要根據社會的需要，而不是根據他們自己的需要，來積極地進行參與社會事務。

積極參與社會事務，并不意味著錯誤就可以被完全避免。早在BP發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，導致BP在美國已經沒有多少朋友了。這可能是因為BP的“良心儲備”沒有那么滿了。在墨西哥灣原油泄露事件發生后，BP承擔了事故責任，并且為后續的清污工作投入了大量資金。這表明它的“良心儲備”畢竟還沒有完全干涸。如果BP沒有用這種方法與社會互動，它幾乎是不可能生存到今天的。

積極參與社會事務的需求也會促使油氣公司主動參與解決氣候變化威脅。如果他們不能做到這一點，他們的自身業務就將面臨現實威脅。而那些成功地為解決氣候變化威脅做出貢獻的企業則會獲得豐厚的回報。

1997年，我在斯坦福大學（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系不容繼續忽視。在接下來的四年里，我帶領BP采取了一系列行動，并且成功地聯合若干NGO組織共同參與節能減排。由此我們獲得了尊重，并且在制定新規則的過程中擁有了一定的發言權。這說明我們的顧客也認同我們正在計劃變革，而不是覺得我們只是想保持現狀。這也說明我們在爭奪面向未來的青年人才上已經贏得了先手。

十多年前，BP與印尼當地社會進行互動的那種方式可能只在極端情況下才需要。而如今的商業環境，以及CSR的失敗，都表明這種積極參與社會事務的方式，已經成為全球企業贏得社會信任的唯一途徑。（財富中文網）

本文作者約翰?布朗尼是 L1能源公司的執行總裁，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).