Will Unilever wash clean?

Many in the business world who are driven by the principle of the triple bottom line – people, profit, planet – look to Unilever’s chief executive as a source of inspiration. For Paul Polman to have committed his company to doubling in sales whilst halving its environmental impact by 2020 I imagine needed a fair amount of grit and determination, not just because both goals are very ambitious but because the second one doesn’t chime with many of his investors or indeed resonate with many of his critics.

He’s aiming for Unilever, which has amongst its portfolio Ben and Jerrys, Marmite, Sunsilk and Vaseline, to not just be carbon neutral in its manufacturing but to becoming carbon positive by eliminating fossil fuels from their energy mix, switching to 100% renewable energy and as they state on their website: “we intend to directly support the generation of more renewable energy than we consume, making the surplus available to the markets and communities where we operate.”

But Unilever is no angel of a company in the way it operates. Under Polman’s watch, in 2011, the company had to close the world’s biggest thermometer manufacturer, after Greenpeace exposed how 5.3 million tons of mercury waste was dumped in a south Indian scrapyard, said to be highly toxic.

In 2008 Greenpeace again knocked again at Unilever’s door, this time over its practices in buying palm oil from suppliers in Indonesia, where 2% of its rain forests were being lost every year, a higher rate than any other country largely due to extracting for palm oil. By burning down forests to clear way for palm oil producers to keep up with world demand, Indonesia had become one of the world’s greatest direct creators of greenhouse gas emissions.

There’s an industry-led regulatory body that is supposed to weed out such practices, The Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil, and guess what – Unilever chairs it.

So with a reported 60% of his shareholders, according to the recent Bernstein poll, telling him to just cut costs and build profits on one side and Greenpeace whistle-blowers on the other, Polman must find himself in a quite lonely place.

Yet he continues on his mission.

He’s understood to be weighing up the prospect of changing the company into a B Corporation – a relatively new arrival to Britain but growing stronger in America of a movement of businesses that change their articles to allow them to do more than deliver returns to shareholders but also allow them to use company resource to make social and environmental impacts.

It may be the final straw for his investors who haven’t bothered to go on that journey that embeds purpose into profit.

In a tiny, tiny microcosm of what he’s facing, I experienced something similar a couple of years ago meeting with a string of private equity houses to back me to acquire a couple of successful restaurant brands and grow them. Most of them were keen to buy into the 97 page business plan, the third page of which was titled “Our Values” committing the company to a series of measurable social impacts whilst delivering healthy returns to our backers and I. Our corporate finance advisors tried to push the page to the end of the memorandum and I had to keep putting if back to where I wanted it.

It was clear from meeting after meeting that the investment directors just fleeted over that page and that set alarm signals off in my head – if I signed up with any of them, the first thing I imagined they would call for would be for me to cut that out and just focus on making them (and of course me) as much money as possible as quickly as possible.

I challenged one group who’d come to see me what it was about them that would make me want to make them richer than they already were. They were taken aback by a question no-one had ever posed to them before. “What is about you,” I asked, “what is about your values that would make me want to deliver this plan with you?”

In the end, I decided to carry on getting investment from high net worth individuals who largely and increasingly understand the role they can play in shaping the world not through hit and miss philanthropy but through mission-driven businesses.

Of course we hope Polman succeeds – it would send a fantastic message to us all. In the meantime, small and medium sized businesses can take encouragement from the ever growing band of impact investors. For us, we can increasingly marry shareholder value with our and a shareh

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Television, You Tube and Terrorism


It’s hard to tell how many people Anjem Choudary turned into Jihadists – according to The Guardian it’s 100 but The Telegraph and the Daily Mail claim 500. It’s probably impossible to know for sure but we can breathe a collective sigh of relief that this slippery fellow who used his legal training to dodge arrest for so many years finally came a cropper.

The question being asked now is why is it that a man who was banned from so many mosques given so much TV airtime, especially by the BBC? From those Sunday morning religious programmes to Newsnight, he was a regular using his vile rhetoric to deliberately offend any protagonists, knowing fully well that there were many impressionable, alienated young people watching him who would be engaged with someone who had the balls to go out and talk radical.

Of course the BBC will also want to give airtime to someone who says they want to turn Buckingham Palace into a mosque, Britain to sharia law. It makes for good telly – much more than someone going on and saying I’m happy/proud to be part of the British social fabric and don’t see how my religion should be a hindrance in that process. It makes for even better telly if he is in a studio arguing with moderate Muslims in a kind of “look at this lot bickering – what are we to make of all this?” way.

Taking the likes of Choudary off social media as the police had been campaigning for isn’t helpful – after all, it was a You Tube post that finally got him behind bars. Counter extremism groups have sensibly argued that his types had all the time in the world to constantly re-invent their guises which meant so much extra energy chasing newly formed outfits and followings rather than get to grips with the problem itself.

But is a public service broadcaster performing its role responsibly by giving his views such massive airtime, especially as they were doing it to boost viewing figures? They will have known his views were wholly unrepresentative yet continued to give impressionable/alienated youngsters an alternative view which created a narrative in which they could envision having some false sense of power.

So whether it was 100 or 500 or more people he radicalised, BBC executives should be sitting at their desks today not wondering who next on their nutter rollerdex they need to start calling in, but what role they played in that process.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The paradox of bins


Did you know there are only 46 public rubbish bins in the entire City of London but there are 975 cigarette bins in the same area? So apart from empty fag packets, what else do we have to dispose in such small numbers that 46 bins for the estimated 300,000 people who work there suffices? Previously you would see everyone walking with a newspaper which would need a home before getting into the office but no-one buys those any more. Then you would see everyone clutching a bottle of water or a coffee but we don’t do that anymore because now we all have our smart phone in one hand and tapping stuff into it with a finger from the other.

I travel through the City every morning to get to Roast and can only surmise that there aren’t reports of people being run over due to the fact they were staring at their screens rather than looking where they were going is because traffic moves at such a slow pace as to cause any harm should such collisions to occur.

And because eager City workers are eating al desko while their bosses, bless them, go to smart restaurants for breakfast and lunch there’s no need for public disposal of food cartons, which is all the more staggering when you find out that the Moorgate branch of Marks and Spencer alone sells 3.5 million sandwiches a year. Don’t ask me how I know these things but it’s true.

Domestic consumption and disposal is a different story. As someone who lives on his own, I’m amazed by how many black plastic bags I take to the communal bins each week. It’s not just me – there are only nine flats in my building but the wheelie bin is full by the time I leave in the morning and we have a daily collection.

Yes the people we buy food from could all reduce the amount of packaging that they wrap our stuff with. But let’s not transpose the problem onto others when we ourselves are the guilty party.  In Britain we throw away 150 million tonnes of food every year. That’s obscene. We really need to talk rubbish.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

What Michael Gove did right

Whilst he wasn’t much cop as Education Secretary and I quite like the fact that he wasn’t much of a plotter because he was better as a doer, Michael Gove leaves big shoes to fill in the Ministry of Justice.

I’m sure his predecessor in that role Chris Grayling had many admirable qualities and great ideas; he just never really shared with us what they were, instead charging defendants court fees and banning books for prisoners. Gove undid all of that and people involved in the criminal justice system let out a collective groan when he went all Brexit and leadership as he was on course to be the best Justice Secretary we had ever seen.

He was all for training prisoners to get into work on release, making prisons themselves more habitable and better placed to provide the skills and training inmates received so they wouldn’t come back. He encouraged businesses to look at prisons as training grounds for their next workforce.

Whilst all of this makes sense and sounds utterly normal and what someone in that position should always do, the sad fact is that no-one in that role previously had, which must be linked to the ridiculous re-offending rates we have.

His replacement Liz Truss will soon find out that prison governors are a big problem – so many just don’t care what happens to inmates on release. They see their role as one of containment rather than one of empowerment and if the same ones keep coming back it makes no difference to them.

There was a brilliant headmaster appointed to a massively failing school in west London a few years ago who turned it around by asking every pupil on their first day: “Right – which university are we going to be preparing you for?” which led to a huge rise in the school’s academic performance. Mrs Truss could do worse than call in all her governors and get them to adapt that practice and be assessed in a league (everyone likes leagues) by their performance in asking every new inmate they receive this: “Right, what job are we going to prepare you for on release?”

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Social messes and wicked problems

I was having lunch yesterday with Adam Leach, head of the charity Y Care International, which has helped me come to the conclusion that businesses held the trump cards in solving the world’s problems more than the third sector. He introduced me to the notion of “wicked problems” which if I have understood correctly (by which I mean I hope the Wikipedia explanation is correct) are ones that are so complex that there is no single way of solving them.  They’re everywhere around us, from Brexit to The Labour Party.

Tackling poverty was though the basis of this discussion and of course if there had been a proven model over centuries of charities and their philanthropist backers would have been able to bottle it and pass it on. There’s a book by Paul Polman called “The Business Solution to Poverty” which talks about how if western businesses viewed what they call “the bottom billions” as their next target market they would be able to capitalise on new ways to drive their bottom lines.

There’s something slightly distasteful about looking at how to make money out of the world’s poorest people as the start point in the accumulation of future sources of our wealth rather than theirs, which takes this discussion into the realms of “super wicked problems”. It’s slightly bizarre to see that people have written books and papers creating and defining these terms but it’s best we don’t let that effort go to waste and instead see how we can use them to provide more focussed  thinking to better guide our well intentioned desires and concerns.

Complex problems are also defined as “social messes” as we become gripped by our inability to tackle them due to the huge obstacles in doing so. But I wonder if a better clue lies in the term itself. If society (us) has created these messes, then we should be able to trace our steps back to see how they can be un-done. I feel a new piece of social meddling coming along. Thank you Adam – though I don’t think you will be thankful back to some of the conclusions I imagine will come to.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

What’s in a restaurant name?

Restaurants tend to bring out the inner snob in many people. The one that’s been most talked about since Chiltern Firehouse began to obsess us is Richard Caring’s Sexy Fish. Apparently he spent £15 million setting it up not just on the huge art pieces, but also on a promotional film featuring Rita Ora dressed as a mermaid.

It’s not though the décor that we talk about, or the service which The Ivy and The Caprice, two of his other restaurants, are rightly celebrated for. It’s certainly not the food – food really isn’t the point of these places.

It’s the diners in there that gets everyone talking.

Virtually on a daily basis I hear from friends and associates how ghastly their fellow diners were when they visited. Whenever I go to a new restaurant, I like to get there before my friends arrive so I can take it all in, un-interrupted. I take in the design, the layout (I’ll have, like most of you, already looked at the menu on the website and decided what I’m eating), the people working there – after 15 years in this game there’s invariably someone you have employed there and it’s a massive memory test to remember them all.

And then I study the people. Do I recognise any of them, can I guess what they do, are they all of a certain type and do all these elements combine to make a cohesive set? The Ivy and its previous owners who went on do The Wolseley effortlessly manage this feeling that you are entering a club of which you are either a member and embraced or a viewer who is politely tolerated.

As everyone keeps telling me and as I indeed I ashamedly admit to having also observed, the people dining at Sexy Fish were indeed ghastly – a mixture of high heels Essex and the shabbiest of the Mayfair overseas dodgy money crowd who know how to buy a “get noticed” table.  How this got to happen is quite simple to explain – it’s the name. Anything that has to call itself sexy isn’t going to be that any more than the Tasty Fried Chicken shops I see around are going to live up to that promise. And anyone who hasn’t got the sense to work that out will want to go there – and let everyone know they’ve been.

The discerning London diner has worked that out about Sexy Fish, gone once and decided in future to shop elsewhere. But said diner also finds it perfectly legitimate to go a step further to become a snob and talk of what New Yorkers call the Bridge and Tunnel crowd and which here might be called the TOWIE Factor. So whilst we would never mock the poor, we quite easily fling mud at the taste-challenged newly rich.

A restaurant name then can not only bring out the most socially undesirable among us but as my very own description shows, it can also bring out the most socially unacceptable ways of viewing people.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Fat cats and diet books


Firstly, an explanation for recent blog silence. Along with a couple of new ventures you’ll soon be hearing about, I have been writing a short book which will be out this October if the publishers like what I’ve sent over. If you don’t see another post from me for a while it means they have sent it back to be re-written.

Now: Jay Rayner, The Observer restaurant critic. He’s one of the few critics I like, even though he didn’t like The Cinnamon Club or Roast. It’s taken me over a decade to accept it, but his observations on them were valid at the time and helped us get better.  In an article today he takes a swipe against healthy eating, or rather the advocates of healthy eating. He says the diet books of today differ from previous generations of what he considers flawed thinking (Atkins etc) in that the practitioners today claim a moral high ground.

“There is an implication in these titles, written by young people with glossy hair and clear eyes who look like they think their farts smell only of peaches and peppermint, that if you don’t follow their plans you will not merely be fat. You will be bad. You will be a flawed person who through, lack of insight and moral fibre, has failed to reach their full potential in the way the authors have,” he says.

Indeed there are a lot of people bearing that description around at the moment and lest we forget, there are lot of people around at the moment bearing the following description: over-weight, lethargic folk wobbling from pubs to fried chicken shops clogging up their arteries today and clogging up our hospital wards tomorrow. They won’t just be fat. They will be dead at an early age.

I know which I’d rather be and have bought myself a Nutribullet.

“Food does not have a moral aspect. Only the people eating it do,” he goes on. At the risk of gaining a third lashing from him for our next venture, I disagree. The people producing our food have a moral aspect – not just in the shape of organic or sustainable farmers, but also for those who clearly have no moral aspect, purely a code of greed. GM crop producers through to the people highlighted in the film “Cowspiracy” who protect the massive fortunes they make in destroying the planet through their cattle production disrupt Jay’s suggestion because most people don’t have a moral aspect to their food decisions.

Instead, our decisions are largely based on convenience, price and in families, what keeps the kids quiet.

The exploration of healthy eating and the provenance of our ingredients is largely still a middle class affair enthusiastically conducted in farmers markets in smart suburbs. Where I would agree with Jay is that these new food fashionistas are largely conversing with people like them. I’d like to see them come with me to the school in Tower Hamlets we’ve been working with at Roast for a while to not only get school meals have even a semblance of nutritional value but also to get kids interested in cooking healthy meals.

These bourgeois slaps ignore a much bigger fight on our hands.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Thanks for sparing us, Wetherspoons

Today is a day to rejoice. Of course for our mothers, but also because Wetherspoons pubs are to stop serving Sunday roasts. The newspapers have been full of frenzy that this supposed barometer of the man or woman on the street’s habits indicates the death of another great British institution.

Do we really now just want chicken fried and eaten out of a box rather than roasted on a tray and our beef shredded into a burger rather than carved and served with a Yorkshire pudding? I can assure you the answer isn’t a simple Yes, just because fast food outlets flourish. Every week for the last decade, I’m pleased to report, our Sunday lunch bookings at Roast have grown, so much so that we now start lunch at 11.30 and finish at 6.30 so as not to disappoint the 300+ diners who kindly choose us for their family day.

One of the reasons for creating our Borough Market restaurant was that back then, most people could only get British food in pubs. I was going to say dodgy pubs but it would have been superfluous as in those days, that’s what pubs by and large were. If you write back and name a pub that has always served good food, you will have proved my point by highlighting an exception to the rule. I imagined that with high quality ingredients taken on by professional chefs and managers and served in a beautiful building, we could wash the face of British food.

Food critics thought I was crazy, but that just tells you about food critics because from 120 seats we now serve around 2800 of you lovely folk a week.

I mention this not to be boastful but to point out to Messrs Wetherspoons and Co that if their food offerings were less motivated by price and their perception of profit and more with valuing their customers by sourcing better quality produce, they might not be in the position they now find themselves. They’re not just ditching their Sunday roasts; they now have also started putting loads of their pubs up for sale.

In their heyday, Wetherspoons may have had their finger on the pulse of their target market but with their offloading of sites they increasingly look like a brand that has sadly lost its way.

The nation has been spared. For that, as well as mothers, we have much to be grateful for today.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Marmite effect of Brick Lane

There’s a mosque on Brick Lane that was once a Huguenot church, then a synagogue and took its current form when the area became home to Bangladeshis in the 1970s and more recently Somalians. I imagine in its next incarnation it might become a tech start up incubator hub with a street food pop-up café serving artisanal breads with Peruvian/Ghanian fusion food and bespoke matcha tea cocktails ironically served in reclaimed jam jars.

Until such time, which some will see as inevitable in how the capital’s cultural landscape continues to morph itself and which others will claim is the driving out of an already dispossessed community, Brick Lane needs to make a concerted attempt to justify its existence as Banglatown.

Public empathy still appears to be for it to remain as our curry mile. The media goes into a frenzy when a Pret opens there and yesterday I shared the Londonist’s raising of an eyebrow when the Standard claimed the arrival of a Premier Inn there was further proof of gentrification driving out the locals. I would think the opposite – it is most certainly will be a boost to the restaurants in the area as it brings more custom.

The market will of course decide whether Brick Lane changes with the times and Shoreditch takes it over or whether it can raise its game and survive. And the market works on the principle of offering a product in a manner and at a price that customers want in sufficient numbers to justify their existence. And there’s the challenge; the restaurants on that road are largely now more known for their touts than their tandooris. The new generation of restaurateurs in the area could do with broadening their appeal to make their businesses sustainable.

You can’t put a preservation order on the area. I’ve offered my help to make those businesses revive their former glory and make the environment as appealing as it used to be 20 years ago and like all  good selfless offers, mine is selfish too; it’s been ages since I’ve heard anyone say “Shall we go for a Brickie?” and I’d like to bring that refrain back to the London vocabulary.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

A queuing convert

I have been transformed with all the zealotry that only a recent convert can possess from a curmudgeon to a queue-er. I have always moaned about this trend for restaurants not to accept reservations as being more suited to them than their customers. Why would I want to stand in a line when I should be able to go online and reserve a table at the time of my choosing?

Then yesterday a friend who repeatedly told me we had to go to Hoppers in Soho and would even stand in the queue with her boys ahead of me arriving so as to bag a table to minimise my pain broke my thoughts. There was no way I was going to let her do that so I got there at 11.45 (they open at 12) on a wet and sleepy Saturday morning only to find there were already about 30 eager people waiting for the doors to open.

Yet as I stood there a curious sensation struck me. It was rather exciting to stand and chat with strangers about the prospects of getting a table, asking had they been before, with passers by asking us what we were doing. It made me think there may be a new sensory experience we have overlooked in our conventional criteria for appreciating food – alongside the technical tick boxes of sweet, savoury, salt, bitter and the newly discovered umami (which, Iike in the episode of Friends, I imagined was a type of sushi). Smell, look, atmosphere also greatly enhance one’s dining pleasures.

But anticipation is now another for me.

Anticipation is a form of excitement and excitement triggers adrenalin. Is it going to be as good as everyone says? Will we get a table when they open? Why am I straddling an umbrella and a phone tweeting about me queuing? The doors opened and the adrenalin rush began – it looked like the couple in front of us were going to get the last table. They were waiting for two more friends, they told the greeter, who replied that whole parties had be present to get a table. I don’t know who makes up these rules but I love this one as we then got in. This sense of achievement by default made me want to enjoy the food even more.

And of course the food was delicious – everyone agrees on that, perhaps enhanced because of rather than despite the queue.

Ninety minutes later we left and saw the couple we gazumped now joined by their friends – cold and wet, but also happy and about to get happier with a table. When Jean Paul Sartre created the notion of “bad faith” he would have been hard pushed to find a better example of that with me until yesterday.

Now I want to look for a line of people, join them and ask: “Right – what are we queueing for?”

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment