th
ou
ght (^) le
ad
er
143
But I responded that we don’t need a new law to be attacked by NGOs. That
happens anyway. And our current laws are also problematic for companies, but in
a more hidden way. For example, after the December 1999 Erika tanker spill,
which occurred in international waters off Brittany and thus had not broken any
French laws, a judge fined the French oil company Total anyway, on the grounds
that the company had breached its own internal rule. Under current rules, if there
is no established law or precedent, judges can keep looking [for grounds to con-
vict]. If we could craft an appropriate law around environmental responsibility, it
would protect the companies as much as anyone. It was very difficult for me to
get that message across at first.
S+B: How would this framework play out in real life? If the drive for profit is so
ingrained, and a company follows a purpose with more social and environmen-
tal responsibility — and you’ve done this, I know, with Michelin — what happens
if there is a down quarter or two and investors put pressure on the company?
SENARD: That depends on the investors and the rules that each company applies
to itself. If your shareholders are large institutions with a stake in the social and
environmental impact of the company, then they will be quite interested in all
the means of securing the future. Of course, profit must be a very large part of
the investment mind-set. But it can be
well complemented by the rest of your
declared purpose. This is the only way
to go beyond a quarter-to-quarter deci-
sion structure.
The current investment atmo-
sphere is more often than not charac-
terized by volatility in the markets, and that thwarts their rationale and logic. We
need to move away from that kind of frenzied trading climate. If we are in a
framework of sustainable capitalism, then people can make long-term invest-
“If we are in a framework
of sustainable capitalism,
then people can make
long-term investments.”