You are here

Paul Polman - The Bottom Line and Peace in Ukraine

With an article for Huffington Post, Unilever's CEO, Paul Polman wrote in October last year of 'Where the Moral Compass Meets the Bottom Line saying:this of new business models:

"When people talk about new forms of capitalism, this is what I have in mind: companies that show, in all transparency, that they are contributing to society, now and for many generations to come. Not taking from it.

It is nothing less than a new business model. One that focuses on the long term. One that sees business as part of society, not separate from it. One where companies seek to address the big social and environmental issues that threaten social stability. One where the needs of citizens and communities carry the same weight as the demands of shareholders."

The New Bottom LIne was my article for MixMarket,which described the work of such a business , including the most recent activity on a 'Marshall Plan; for Ukraine. It described how business could be applied for social benefit on a nationa scale

"An inherent assumption about capitalism is that profit is defined only in terms of monetary gain. This assumption is virtually unquestioned in most of the world. However, it is not a valid assumption. Business enterprise, capitalism, must be measured in terms of monetary profit. That rule is not arguable. A business enterprise must make monetary profit, or it will merely cease to exist. That is an absolute requirement. But it does not follow that this must necessarily be the final bottom line and the sole aim of the enterprise. How this profit is used is another question. It is commonly assumed that profit will enrich enterprise owners and investors, which in turn gives them incentive to participate financially in the enterprise to start with.

That, however, is not the only possible outcome for use of profits. Profits can be directly applied to help resolve a broad range of social problems: poverty relief, improving childcare, seeding scientific research for nationwide economic advancement, improving communications infrastructure and accessibility, for examples – the target objectives of this particular project plan. The same financial discipline required of any conventional for-profit business can be applied to projects with the primary aim of improving socioeconomic conditions. Profitability provides money needed to be self-sustaining for the purpose of achieving social and economic objectives such as benefit of a nation’s poorest, neediest people. In which case, the enterprise is a social enterprise."

As we say in the About page of this site:

"Our social purpose is poverty relief and childcare reform in the former Soviet Union.  Core framework is straightforward: to build bridges of friendship based on common ground for the common good in the former Soviet bloc.  We firmly believe that this "soft power" approach to international relations is inevitably the only solid ground for establishing and building understanding, good will and peace.  We have therefore pursued that strategy from the beginning of P-CED.  In this regard we consider that Peace is our Business. "

The primary focus of the 'Marshall Plan' was childcare reform. It said this about social instability:

"We see a staggering array of social problems arising directly from poverty, including but not limited to tens of thousands of children in orphanages or other state care; crime; disrespect for civil government because government cannot be felt or seen as civil for anyone left to suffer in poverty; young people prostituting themselves on the street; drug abuse to alleviate the aches and pains of the suffering that arises from poverty and misery; HIV/AIDS spreading like a plague amidst prostitution, unprotected sex, and drug abuse; more children being born into this mix and ending up in state care at further cost to the state; criminals coming from poverty backgrounds, ending up as bandits, returning to communities after prison, with few options except further criminal activity. These are all part and parcel of the vicious negative cycle of poverty, and this threatens to destroy Ukraine, if Ukraine is defined in terms of people rather than mere geographic boundaries. Overall, population is steadily declining; families have not sufficient confidence in tomorrow to reproduce more than 1.2 children on average per couple."

The instabilty in Crimea had been our focus in 2003, where our development proposal for the repatriated Tatars had said   

"Just as the US now heavily uses smart bombs in warfare, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the equivalent is needed in aid efforts. It is not enough to spend, say, US$ 7 million dollars for five Tomahawk cruise missiles and then spend a fraction of that amount in building a peaceful community which does not merit targeting by missiles. Yet, that is what we have in this case.

It is not safe to say that the Crimea situation will not also get out of hand. There is, in fact, no reason to think such a thing, except that we might prefer to. It is much wiser to invest money now and prevent conflicts from escalating, as well as encourage and embrace peaceful and democratic efforts which, so far, hold sway."

When Sir Richard Branson spoke at Davos in 2009, calling on business to focus more on social problems, I introduced our work to Branson's Virgin Unite charity, offering to lead the way in Ukraine. According to CEO Jean Oelwang, they are matchmaking between social and business sectors.

“People from business have to have humility and realise they are getting as much as they are giving, while the social sector must realise that businesses involvement can add benefit to what they are doing. It’s all about listening.”

Tell me about it.

BITC and others we introduced our work to are partners with USAID alongside some of Ukraine's leading oligarchs 

Another of these was Erste Bank, a social business partner of Muhammad Yunus, with whom we'd shared the 'Marshall Plan' proposal in response to a social business ideas competition..  

Last week Paul Polman was one of the signatories to a letter from Sir Richard, pledging to introduce the right business leaders to bring peace to Ukraine 

"We will do our best to ensure that your voice is heard by political leaders"

In February 2008, direct contact was made with the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations: The letter concluded:

"Thank you for your time and attention to this. I and others will look forward to hearing from you. I hope we continue to realize ever more fully that outside the box and inside the box have only a box in the way. We outside the box know quite a bit of what’s going on, many times in exquisite detail, perhaps in ways that those inside the box can’t quite as easily access if at all. We are grossly underfunded in favor of missiles, bombs, and ordnance, which is about 100% backwards. Now, with even the US Pentagon stating that they’ve learned their lesson in Iraq and realize (so says top US general in Iraq ten days or so ago) that winning hearts and minds is the best option, I and others shall continue to think positive and look for aid budgets and funding spigots to be opened much more for people and NGOs in silos, foxholes and trenches, insisting on better than ordnance, and who understand things and how to fix them. We can do that. We can even do it cost-effectively and with far better efficiency than the ordnance route. Welcome to our brave new world. Except it’s not so new: learn to love and respect each other first, especially the weakest, most defenseless, most voiceless among us, then figure out the rest. There aren’t other more important things to do first. This message has been around for at least two thousand years. How difficult is it for us to understand?"

As Marilyn Ferguson said "We can't do a surgical bombing to remove misunderstanding