Olivia: In the last 40 years, CEO pay in the United States has skyrocketed over 1,100 percent. Jackson: Whoa. Okay, that’s a big number. Olivia: It is. Now, guess how much the typical worker's pay has gone up in that same period. Jackson: Oh, this feels like a trick question where the answer is depressing. I don't know, maybe 100 percent? 50 percent? Olivia: Fourteen percent. Jackson: Fourteen. Not one-four-zero. One. Four. That’s… that’s not a gap, that’s a canyon. That feels like a symptom of a system that is fundamentally broken. Olivia: Exactly. And that's the very system that Paul Polman, the former CEO of Unilever, and sustainability expert Andrew Winston are trying to dismantle in their book, Net Positive: How Courageous Companies Thrive by Giving More Than They Take. Jackson: Unilever… I know the name. They make everything from Dove soap to Ben & Jerry's ice cream, right? Olivia: That’s them. And what's incredible is that Polman isn't just some academic preaching from an ivory tower. During his decade as CEO, he delivered a nearly 300 percent return to shareholders while making Unilever a global leader in sustainability. He has actually lived this philosophy. Jackson: Okay, so he's got the credentials. The book has been widely acclaimed, even named a Financial Times Best Business Book of the Year, so it's clearly made waves. But what does 'Net Positive' actually mean? It sounds a bit like corporate jargon. Olivia: It’s a fair question, and it’s much more than jargon. It’s a complete rethinking of the purpose of business. And the best way to understand it is through a story. A real-life corporate thriller, actually.

Jackson: A corporate thriller? Now you have my attention. Olivia: Picture this: It’s February 2017. The CEO of Unilever, Paul Polman, gets a visit from the chairman of Kraft Heinz. It seems like a friendly chat between two giants of the consumer goods world. But it’s not. Kraft Heinz, backed by the notoriously aggressive investment firm 3G Capital, drops a bombshell: a hostile takeover bid for $143 billion. Jackson: Hold on, 3G Capital… they’re the ones with the reputation for buying companies, slashing costs to the bone to squeeze out every last drop of profit, and then moving on, right? They’re basically corporate pirates. Olivia: That’s their playbook, precisely. They’re the masters of what the book calls the "shareholder primacy" model. Their one and only goal is to maximize short-term profit for investors, no matter the cost to employees, the environment, or the long-term health of the company itself. The book mentions they did this to SABMiller, the beverage company, gutting their water and human rights projects in Africa almost overnight. Jackson: So this wasn't just a business deal; it was a clash of civilizations. On one side, you have the 3G model of pure financial engineering. What was on the other side? Olivia: On the other side was Unilever, which under Polman had spent years building a very different model. They called it the Unilever Sustainable Living Plan, or USLP. The goal was, in their words, "profits through purpose." They believed that by focusing on the well-being of all their stakeholders—their employees, their customers, the communities they operated in, and the planet—they would create more sustainable, long-term value. Jackson: But come on, Olivia. At the end of the day, isn't a CEO's job to take the $143 billion for the shareholders? That’s an 18% premium on the stock price. That’s a lot of money to turn down for the sake of ‘purpose.’ Olivia: That is the central question, isn't it? And Polman’s answer was a hard no. He said the deal was dead on arrival because it was a "clash between a long-term, sustainable business model for multiple stakeholders and a business model that is entirely focused on shareholder primacy." He believed 3G’s cost-cutting would destroy Unilever's soul. One union leader quoted in the book put it more bluntly, saying the Kraft Heinz model was "the epitome of what a company should not be" and that it would be "wiped from the face of the earth." Jackson: Strong words. So how did Unilever fight back? They were the smaller company. Olivia: This is where it gets fascinating. Polman and his team didn't just fight them on financial grounds. They mobilized their stakeholders. They got calls from unexpected allies—NGOs, unions, even other investors—who publicly came out against the deal. These groups understood that Unilever’s model wasn't just about being nice; it was about creating reliable, long-term value. The public pressure mounted so intensely that after just nine days, 3G Capital and Kraft Heinz were forced to withdraw their offer. They walked away. Jackson: Wow. So the 'purpose' stuff wasn't just a PR line; it was a genuine defense mechanism. It created a kind of corporate immune system. Olivia: Exactly. And here's the punchline. The book provides the data on what happened next. In the years following the failed takeover, money invested in Unilever yielded four times as much as the same amount invested in Kraft Heinz. By the time the pandemic hit in 2020, Unilever was financially strong enough to support its entire ecosystem of partners and employees, while Kraft Heinz was struggling. It’s the ultimate proof that the Net Positive, stakeholder-focused model isn't just more ethical; it can be vastly more profitable in the long run. Jackson: Okay, that’s a powerful story. It’s not just theory; it’s a battle that was fought and won. So that’s the 'why.' Now I want to understand the 'how.' What are the actual rules for playing this new game?

Olivia: And that brings us to the core framework of the book. Polman and Winston lay out five key principles for a Net Positive company. And the first one is the most important, and perhaps the most challenging: Take ownership of all your impacts and consequences, intended or not. Jackson: What does that mean in practice? Every company has some negative impact, right? That’s just the cost of doing business. Olivia: It is, but the book argues that for too long, companies have "externalized" those costs. They let society, or the environment, or future generations pay the price. A Net Positive company brings those costs back inside. And the best way to understand this is through what I call the 'Oops Files'—real-world examples of companies that failed to own their impact. Jackson: I love this. Give me the first file. Olivia: File number one: Tide Pods. Procter & Gamble designed these colorful, squishy, candy-like laundry detergent pods. They looked delicious. The unintended consequence? Toddlers started eating them, leading to a wave of poisonings. Then it got worse, with teenagers creating the "Tide Pod Challenge" online. Jackson: Oh man, I remember that. So Tide basically invented forbidden candy for toddlers and a dare for teenagers. They didn't mean to, but they were still responsible for the design that led to it. Olivia: Exactly. They didn't own the full, foreseeable impact of their design choice. Here's another one: Wayfair, the online furniture company. In 2019, they sold a large order of mattresses to a government contractor. Good business, right? Jackson: Seems fine so far. Olivia: Until employees and customers discovered the mattresses were being sent to detention camps for migrant children at the US border. Five hundred employees walked out in protest. The brand damage was immense. They didn't ask the simple question: "Where are our products actually going, and what are they being used for?" Jackson: Wow. Okay, I'm seeing the pattern. It's about thinking through the entire lifecycle and all possible uses and misuses of your product. It’s a radical form of responsibility. Olivia: It is. One last quick one: Coca-Cola. For years, they used a chemical called antimony as a catalyst in their plastic bottles. It didn't affect the drink at all. But in many parts of the world, people living on landfills would burn the discarded bottles for fuel, releasing the antimony and causing serious health problems. Coca-Cola hadn't considered the "end-of-life" impact. Jackson: So the first principle is basically a corporate version of the doctor's oath: First, do no harm. But it extends it to: "And if you do cause harm, intended or not, you own it and you fix it." Olivia: You've got it. That's the foundation. The other four principles build on that. Number two is operating for the long-term, which means killing the obsession with quarterly reports that Polman famously did at Unilever. Number three is creating positive returns for all stakeholders, not just shareholders. Jackson: Which leads to number four, I'm guessing? Olivia: Precisely. Driving shareholder value as a result, not a goal. The book uses a great Peter Drucker quote here: "Profit for a company is like oxygen for a person. If you don’t have enough of it, you’re out of the game. But if you think your life is about breathing, you’re really missing something." Jackson: I like that. Profit is necessary for survival, but it's not the purpose of life. And the last principle? Olivia: Partnering to drive systemic change. The idea that no single company, no matter how big, can solve problems like climate change or deforestation alone. You have to work with competitors, governments, and NGOs. This is where you get coalitions like Champions 12.3, where rivals like Nestlé, Kellogg, and Unilever work together to cut food waste. Jackson: Okay, so the principles make sense. Own your impact, think long-term, serve everyone, let profit be the result, and partner up. It sounds great on paper. But the book goes into some even more uncomfortable territory, doesn't it? The stuff companies really don't want to talk about. Olivia: It absolutely does. And that’s where we find the true test of courage. The book calls them the "elephants in the room."

Jackson: Let's talk about these elephants. This feels like the final boss level of being a Net Positive company. What's the biggest, ugliest elephant in the room? Olivia: There are a few, but let's start with taxes. The book argues that for decades, companies have been in a race to the bottom, treating tax as a cost to be minimized at all costs. And it gives some staggering examples. Jackson: Hit me with the data. Olivia: Over an eight-year period, Amazon generated nearly a trillion dollars in revenue—$960 billion, to be exact. On that, they paid just $3.4 billion in taxes. In some of those years, they paid zero. Jackson: Zero. On billions in profit. That’s just… wild. But isn't that the classic argument? That it's a company's "fiduciary duty" to its shareholders to minimize its tax burden as much as legally possible? Olivia: The book directly attacks that idea. It reframes it completely. Polman argues that the real fiduciary duty is to ensure the company pays an appropriate level of tax to avoid the massive reputational risk and operational risk that comes from operating in underfunded, unstable societies. He says we should think of taxes not as a cost, but as an investment in the infrastructure, education, and legal systems that allow a business to thrive in the first place. Jackson: That’s a powerful reframe. You’re not just paying the government; you’re paying for the stable society that is your customer base and your workforce. Olivia: Exactly. The second elephant is just as big: executive compensation. We started the show with that 1,100 percent increase in CEO pay. The book points out that in 1965, the average CEO made 21 times more than their average worker. By 2019, it was 320 times more. Jackson: And this isn't just about fairness; the book argues it has real-world consequences, right? Olivia: It does. It points to the story of Boeing. Between 2013 and 2018, the company spent $43 billion on stock buybacks to boost the share price and, by extension, executive bonuses. In that same period, they spent less than half that on R&D. The result? They took shortcuts on design and safety, leading to the two tragic crashes of the 737 Max. It's a brutal example of how chasing short-term stock price can have devastating human costs. Jackson: So what’s the Net Positive solution? Just cap CEO pay? Olivia: It's more about creating a culture of fairness and shared prosperity. The book gives the example of CareCentrix, a healthcare company that froze the pay of its top twenty executives. With just that money, they were able to raise the wages of five hundred of their lowest-paid employees from the federal minimum to $16.50 an hour. It’s about rebalancing the scales. Jackson: So it's about confronting these systemic issues—tax, pay, political influence, human rights in the supply chain—head-on, even when it's uncomfortable. Olivia: That's the essence of it. A company can't claim to be Net Positive if it's lobbying against climate action through its trade associations, or turning a blind eye to forced labor in its supply chain, or using shell companies to avoid taxes. Addressing these elephants is what separates true leadership from performative CSR.

Jackson: You know, as we've been talking, a clear arc has emerged. It feels like becoming Net Positive is a journey through three distinct stages. Olivia: I think you're right. How do you see it? Jackson: Well, it starts with a philosophical battle, a moment of truth like the one Unilever faced with Kraft Heinz. You have to decide what kind of company you want to be. Are you here to extract value, or to create it? Olivia: That's the foundational choice. The 'why.' Jackson: Exactly. Then, once you've made that choice, it becomes an operational challenge. You need a blueprint, which is where the five principles come in. You have to build the systems to own your impact, think long-term, and partner effectively. That's the 'how.' Olivia: And the final stage? Jackson: The final stage is the test of moral courage. It’s not enough to have a good philosophy and a good plan. You have to be willing to face those elephants in the room—the uncomfortable, systemic truths about tax, pay, and power that hold the old model in place. That’s the 'what else.' It's the part that requires real guts. Olivia: That’s a perfect synthesis. It’s a journey from vision to execution to courage. And it all comes back to one simple, but profound, question that the book poses. Jackson: What's that? Olivia: It asks every leader, and really every one of us, to consider: "Is the world better off because your business is in it?" Jackson: Wow. That's a heavy question. It's not just for CEOs of multinational corporations. It’s a question we can ask about our own work, our own teams, our own contributions. What would our answer be? Olivia: A perfect place to leave it for today. We’d love to hear your thoughts on this. Can a company truly be 'Net Positive'? Is this the future of capitalism, or just a utopian dream? Find us on our social channels and let's discuss. Jackson: We look forward to hearing from you. Olivia: This is Aibrary, signing off.