The mid to late Victorian era was the last time we saw as significant to change.

維多利亞時代的中後期是我們最後一次看到的重大改變。

Indeed, it's one of the reasons many of the brands that we know and trust in love today.

的確，這也是今天很多我們熟知和信賴的品牌愛上的原因之一。

Retail brands Consumer brands were founded in that era.

零售品牌 消費品牌是在那個時代成立的。

Urbanizing population, detached from the ability to buy goods directly from producers, needed brands.

城市化的人口，脫離了直接從生產者那裡購買商品的能力，需要品牌。

Trustworthy intermediaries to help them trust the food Sainsbury's founded less than a mile from here.

值得信賴的中介機構，幫助他們信任Sainsbury's創立的食品，離這裡不到一英里。

They put their name over the door.

他們把自己的名字放在門上。

They said quality perfect prices lower on their business was born off milk adulteration scandals where milk has been adulterated with arsenic and was literally killing people.

他們說，品質完美價格更低他們的業務是源於牛奶摻假醜聞，牛奶已經摻雜了砷，是真正的殺人。

So I think it is a profound as that.

所以我覺得它是一個深刻的如。

I'm not sure that there is much evidence that corporate behaviors got materially worse in the last 5, 10 15 years.

我不確定是否有很多證據表明，在過去的5年、10年、15年裡，企業行為有了實質性的惡化。

These things tend to be progressive over time, but I think our ability to see it to spot it toe, hold it to account toe, have conversations about it as consumers are greater than it's ever be.

這些事情往往會隨著時間的推移而逐步發展，但我認為我們看到它發現它的腳趾，追究它的責任，作為消費者對它進行對話的能力比以往任何時候都要強。

Um, I think that there have Bean a number of very high profile instances where businesses have wrapped themselves in clothes, which turned out not to be true.

嗯，我想，有嵛，嶼嶼一些很高調的例子，企業用衣服把自己包裝起來，結果發現並不是這樣。

And if you think about the current debate about three users of our data, it's very focused on the big international, largely American tech companies.

而如果你想一想，目前關於我們數據的三個用戶的爭論，非常集中在國際大公司，主要是美國的科技公司。

But this is true, more widely of corporations using data.

但這是事實，更廣泛的企業使用數據。

People thought the deal when they handed over their data if they realized that, indeed is what they were doing was very different from what they're now discovering the deal to bay.

人們認為，當他們交出數據時，如果他們意識到，確實是他們正在做的事情與他們現在發現的交易很不一樣灣。

That's very untrustworthy.

這是非常不可信的。

Behavior on the part of the corporations that acquired that data is being acquired under false pretenses, I would argue, and is being used against not with and for the consumer.

我認為，獲取這些數據的企業的行為，是在虛假的情況下獲取的，是在針對不與消費者，也不針對消費者。

So I prefer to think as the challenge, being corporations, having to work with the consent and support of the society and the communities that they serve on.

所以我更願意把它看成是挑戰，作為企業，必須在社會和所服務的社區的同意和支持下工作。

That's much more about trust than it is about fairness, although of course, behaving fairly undoubtedly leads to trust.

這與其說是公平，不如說是信任，當然，行為公平無疑會帶來信任。

But the nature of competitive business will always leave to unfair outcomes for some people.

但商業競爭的本質總是會給一些人留下不公平的結果。

When a corporation makes a decision to make a number of people redundant, that will feel incredibly unfair to the individuals involved.

當一個企業做出裁員的決定時，會讓人覺得非常不公平。

Yet for the survival of the corporation, the wider group of people that work within it on the communities that that corporation serves, it might be the fairest decision.

然而，為了公司的生存，為了在公司內工作的更廣泛的群體，為了公司所服務的社區，這可能是最公平的決定。

Even though many of people impacted by it won't feel that it was fair.

儘管很多受其影響的人不會覺得這很公平。

And that's why I find the word sometimes quite unhelpful in arriving at the right decision.

這也是為什麼我覺得這個詞有時候對得出正確的決定很沒有幫助的原因。

But I think that the changes profound, and I think that this conversation is incredibly important on.

但我認為，這些變化是深刻的，我認為這次對話是非常重要的，對。

I don't recognize the idea that corporations exists to maximize profit.

我不承認公司存在的目的是為了利潤最大化的想法。

I think that in the long run, if you do that, you will not maximize profit you because you will lose the ability to act either through the general consent of consumers or through legislation.

我認為，從長遠來看，如果你這樣做，你將不會實現利潤最大化你，因為你將失去通過消費者的普遍同意或通過立法採取行動的能力。

We've seen MAWR corporate legislation in the last 10 to 15 years than in the previous 150 years now, if that doesn't tell you that the Legislature and politicians have kind of worked out the only people held in lower esteem than there business people, so picking on business people is not a bad thing to do if you're a politician and held in pretty low esteem is a starting point to my sense is that if you if you run a of your CEO of a company like you were saying spirits, then you are involved on almost explicitly in recognizing that there is a balance to be struck between the demands of investors to maximize profit but also your loyalty thio your customers your loyalty to your workers, loyalty to the communities that you serve.

我們已經看到MAWR公司立法在過去的10到15年比以前的150年現在，如果這不告訴你，立法機構和政治家們已經種工作了唯一的人舉行在較低的尊重比有業務人員，所以挑剔的業務人員不是一件壞事，如果你是一個政治家和舉行在相當低的尊重是一個出發點，我的感覺是，如果你如果你運行一個你的CEO的公司像你說的精神。那麼你就幾乎是明確地參與到認識到，有一個平衡，在投資者的要求，以最大限度地提高利潤，但也有你的忠誠度，你的客戶，你的忠誠度，你的工人，忠誠於你所服務的社區。

I guess my question is that if you are merely an investor, you don't have that loyalty your focuses upon the return on the money invested Andi, that's the tension that that's true.

我想我的問題是，如果你僅僅是一個投資者，你沒有這種忠誠度，你的重點是投資的回報率，安迪，這就是緊張，這是真的。

But in a public company, investors combined sell the shares at almost no friction cost on.

但在上市公司中，投資者合計賣出股票幾乎沒有摩擦成本，在。

Of course, they come by themselves to a position toe, have a view, whether it be through asking for a seat on the board or ultimately buying more than 50% of the company and therefore controlling and directing it.

固然，他們己己己到來己己己的位置趾，擁有觀點，無論是經度過要尋求在董事會中佔據壹席之地，還是終極收買進公司50%以上的股權，從而控制和指帶公司。

Clearly when you have a dispersed shareholder base, as we did in ST, which 120 or 30,000 shoulders are you gonna have every view you could possibly have in the room, but that's where it comes back to communication on demonstrating the decisions that you're taking are in the round for the well being of the corporation, for we announced our sponsorship of the Paralympics.

顯然，當你有一個分散的股東基礎，就像我們在ST，這12或30,000肩是你要去有每一個觀點，你可能有在房間裡，但這是它回到溝通上證明你正在採取的決定是在輪為公司的福祉，因為我們宣佈我們的贊助殘奧會。

Heralded, uh, I think, largely with hindsight is a neck sectional piece of corporate responsibility in 2000 and nine for at least a year, if not longer.

預示著，呃，我想，很大程度上事後看來，是2000年和九至少一年，甚至更長的時間，企業責任的頸部節片。

The only question I was ever asked by Shelters is why I was wasting the company's money on a flight of fancy.

雪萊特公司唯一問過我的問題是，為什麼要把公司的錢浪費在飛行上。

And the answer was because you don't understand our business, the colleagues that work in it and the customers that we serve in the communities of which were part of the things that our customers are worried about.

而答案是因為你不瞭解我們的業務，不瞭解在其中工作的同事，不瞭解我們在其中服務的社區的客戶，這些都是我們客戶所擔心的部分事情。

If you think being involved in sponsoring about him but is a bad idea, you just don't.

如果你認為參與贊助關於他但是是個壞主意，你就不要。

And where is the leadership of this organization of doing?

而這個做事的組織的上司在哪裡？

And we profoundly believe it's the right thing for the business to be doing now.

而且我們深刻地認為，這是企業現在要做的正確的事情。

Eventually, that view changed, but it changed largely only when evidence was available on.

最終，這種觀點發生了改變，但這種改變主要是在有了證據後才改變的。

That's why, in the end, it can't be you think about algorithms.

所以說，到最後，不能是你想算法。

I couldn't disagree more because ultimately, the decisions today that have the biggest delta for corporations mawr than has ever been true are those that have taken where the numbers can't take it for you.

我不能更多的不同意，因為最終，今天的決定，有最大的三角洲的企業毛比以往任何時候都是真實的，是那些已經採取的地方數字不能為你採取它。

Because if you only take the decisions that numbers take for you, then ultimately you must lose.

因為如果你只接受數字替你做的決定，那麼最終你一定會輸。

You have to be prepared to take decisions that have a point of view.

你要準備好做有觀點的決定。

That's why purpose is important because that's the definition of your point of view.

所以目的很重要，因為那是你觀點的定義。

That's why values are important because they are, if you like, the sign posts in that decision making the ground on which you intend to tread and also the ground on which you will not tread.

這就是為什麼價值觀很重要的原因，因為如果你願意的話，它們就是那個決策的標誌柱，是你打算踩的土地，也是你不會踩的土地。