Dunstan Allison-Hope
Founding Partner
When I first entered the field of just and sustainable business in the mid-1990s, I was quickly drawn to the idea that more progress could be made by engaging with companies that have severe adverse impacts, rather than avoiding them altogether. I was motivated by the notion that advocates—whether in investment, civil society, or simply individuals like me making career choices—should not be afraid to work for the very companies whose practices we want to change.
I was in my early 20s, full of the optimism that comes with limited experience. I was also clearly shaped by the optimistic political context of the time: Tony Blair was telling us that “things can only get better”; Bill Clinton believed in “a place called Hope”; and the first episode of The West Wing was about to air. However, given what we now know, does this belief in what we might call the “insider strategy” hold up to scrutiny today—or as Sarah Palin might have put it a few years later: how’s that hopey-changey stuff working out?
The easy part of the answer is that my view is much more nuanced now. I recognize that insider and outsider strategies are more powerful when combined, that decisions about whether to work for or against a company can vary by the situation, and that different people will have varying levels of comfort with each approach. However, I think this belief has stood the test of time, and that debates today focus on how to engage with companies most effectively, rather than whether to do so at all.
Two factors seem especially important when reflecting on this question: the direct impact that can be achieved by working for or with a company, and the insights those following the “insider strategy” can gain into how systemic change can be achieved.
In terms of the first factor, for example, the recent TrustCon conference brought together more than 1,000 people working in trust and safety, policy, and human rights roles at technology companies to share strategies and tactics for improving company decisions, operations, and impacts. They do not win every time (far from it), but these are the people who propose alternative design choices, write improved content policies, and develop risk mitigation approaches. It is easy to notice the things technology companies get wrong when operating in conflict-affected areas or providing services to children—and believe me, I know they get a lot wrong—but also, it is easy to overlook the hard work that gets many other things right.
However, I find the second factor even more compelling: By being close to product development, content policy processes, and in-market decision-making, people in these roles can identify risks, develop practical solutions, and craft well-informed approaches to responsible business. If we want to understand what truly drives change, it is important to pay attention to those close to the action, who can warn of upcoming issues and help us understand the incentives and forces that may be pushing in the opposite direction. Some of the most important insights into how to create systems-level change will come from those working inside the system.
This second factor also ties to a key shortcoming of my original optimism—that while turning “bad companies” into “good companies” is a necessary part of just and sustainable business, it is far from sufficient. Too often, there are simply too many other companies willing to step in and fill the void.
Examples abound, such as an energy company that buys dirty assets from another energy company, or a spyware company that sells products other companies are unwilling to sell. If I advise an investor to remove a fossil-fuel-intensive asset from its portfolio, the climate benefits are null if another investor holds the same asset instead. If I work with a B2B technology company on sales due diligence and the proposed deal is declined, the impact of that work comes to nothing for the people and communities affected if another company simply steps in and makes the sale. Rather than naively hoping for a “race to the top,” more system-wide approaches are needed, such as government policies, regulations, and incentives that support structural change.
And here is the rub. Clearly, government policies should be shaped by desired outcomes and by engagement with the people and communities most affected and with the most at stake; however, they should also be informed by insights gained from spending time close to business decision-making. While I understand the skepticism that can accompany a move from company to policymaker or regulator, I have come to believe that more rotation across sectors is needed, not less.
I am often asked for my opinion on the biggest technology companies, not just by those in the field but also by my doctor, dentist, and optician. I have developed a standard answer that I believe is true. While acknowledging that the company operates within a broader system of incentives, I emphasize that some of the most impressive work I have seen on sustainability or human rights is carried out by the same companies that have also made some of the worst decisions I have seen. This is hardly a coincidence, because those close to the action have the insights and lessons learned to do better next time; indeed, they are sometimes hired for exactly this reason. I have no doubt that the influence of those pursuing the “insider strategy” is highly constrained by both systemic incentives and the work of those higher up the chain—but we need more insiders with influence, not fewer, and they need the resources and support to meet the challenge.