The “Better city, better life” official theme of the Shanghai World Fair was an excellent choice. It encapsulated all that needs to be addressed nowadays: sustainability, globalisation, urbanisation, fairness between the poor and the rich. The right questions were asked. However, the states and corporations present at the expo showed how unconvincing their answers were. Their self-interest and reliance on established industries lead them to the most desperate and risible rhetoric, see my previous posts for some examples.

The solution to all our problems is technology according to the participants of the Expo. Yet, and as far as I know, none of the big pavilions had an absolute zero impact on the environment. Instead, a splash of energetically very demanding presentations explained to the audience that some symbolic features of the buildings were sustainable, a non-sense.

Throughout my visit, oil companies, car manufacturers, heavy industries told me that their technology will bring soon a solution to the challenges that the world is facing. And the only role of the national pavilions was to repeat the absurd solutions that their biggest industries had to sell. How lower a national self-esteem could be?

The best place to experience these contradictions was in the area of the Expo devoted to industries. There, I was being told that I will have a better life thanks to bigger boats, more oil and concept GM cars; Answers that were totally inadequate and only increased my feeling of insecurity. To be fair, there were some good intentions and ideas at the Expo, and technology is surely part of the solution. But they were squeezed in an absurd vision serving national and supranational short-term interests.

In his book, Jay Winter explained how the Paris World Fair of 1937 was a desperate invocation of the illuminations of technology to prevent another war. Reality was not long to impose itself. Let’s hope that history will give us more time to resolve our incapacity to face limited resources on earth.

France had its ‘ville sensuelle’ pavilion. I know very well the story, it is always the same. You start with some poetic images, a self-proclaimed superior quality of life based on I don’t know what basis. You add some technological expertise and savoir-faire, and you end selling Louis Vuitton. It always works, Chinese people love it!

There is the theme of the vertical garden too. But except some nice 3D simulations of what a city could look like with more gardens, I haven’t heard of any big projects from France in that direction. In the meantime, they promote their cars in the pavilion.

The Japan pavilion had probably the most ridiculous story of all. You start with the glorious tradition of art in Japan. Then you are being told the story of a bird in extinction that was reintroduced in Japan thanks to cooperation between Japan and China. The happy end of the story is that you could take magnificent pictures of that bird with your Canon. You are then presented absolutely no-sense i-real cars by Toyota, and a robot of course, the trademark of Japan technology. The visit ends up with a poetic show featuring live traditional singers, very professional voices indeed. This would have been respectable if they didn’t start singing in again these ridiculous Toyota cars.

I liked the values displayed by the Netherlands pavilion, whether or not they truly represent the country. The many colours, the big spaces opened to the public, the many different houses all symbolized diversity, openness and difference. They still show things to buy in the houses, but you also have some nice contemporary art (ok, art is also ultimately for sale, even if it is not here), and at least I didn’t see a contradiction in the discourse.

The Canada pavilion had a more artistic atmosphere with its carefully curated videos and multimedia installations. You could see the promotion of Bombardier’s trains and other products but it didn’t contradict the overall message of the pavilion.

Denmark pavilion had at its centre the Little Mermaid. I remember when I saw it for the first time in Copenhagen. I was so impressed; it was very simply placed, even lost on the shore, but still beautiful. Now, the mermaid is trapped in a white prison, in the middle of the crowd.

The USA pavilion was very different from the other pavilions. I would say it was even refreshing. It is the only pavilion that I have visited where the president welcomes the visitors in video. This is rather appropriate for a national pavilion. It also shows videos of Americans saying hello in Chinese with more or less aptitude, which is not surprisingly very well received by the Chinese audience. It was the pavilion that promoted the more explicitly dialogue and (corporate) opportunities in the process of shaping a better city, better life. However, all this is pure PR campaign, a very well thought one indeed. The visit ends with a dubious American dream fairytale and an impressive list of well known American brands.

Africa seems from a westerner point of view so far from the Chinese mentality. But here they are, negotiating the price of their products, either not bothered by the Chinese crowd asking for their stamps, or cheerful, depending on their mood. This poster from the Malawi pavilion is one of the cheapest one I have seen in the all Expo, but it says basically the same thing than in any other pavilion.

• An economy of contribution is an economy where actors contribute without having necessary a measurable counterpart (e.g. money, product). This model is radically different from an economy of exchange and must be taken into account when the externalities underlying an industry become central to its process. In this context, the function of companies is to capture positive externalities.
• An organisation is at the cornerstone of three axes:
  • Patrimony: the former ‘inner’ single reference for a company: legitimacy, expertise, employees…
  • Employability: capacity to inscribe its products and usages in shared values. Employability is related to economical theories of ecosystems in which an organisation is seen as a part of a system, either parasitic or in symbiosis.
  • Interactivity: capacity to adapt to the needs of individuals and communities who will in return support the activities of the organisation. With the rise of social media, brands want to be seen more and more as Customer to Customer ‘CtoC’, like if they were initiated by customers and driven by them.

I collaborated with him to prepare the photographs and Polaroids, you can find the details here.

I hope it conveys the message and the exciting mission of the Philosophy and Management association.

-  -  -  -

Pain-free animals could take suffering out of farming, NewScientist

-  -  -  -

Our daily bread documentary.

Welcome to the world of industrial food production and high-tech farming!

-  -  -  -

Is this post about art, innovation, governance or philosophy? I let you decide…

The Paris freedom fest will take a libertarian view at themes such as “Business cycle theories: capitalism versus interventionism” [Olga Peniaz], “The ethics and economics of tax heavens” [Guillaume Vuillemey], “Towards a New Theory of the State; what comes after welfare” [James Panton]. The Philo and Management 2009 – 2010 seminars seem more neutral and will investigate “What will be the management of the post-capitalistic society?” through questions such as “Competition: only motor for efficiency and wealth?”, “Is democracy in a business environment possible?” (speakers including Pierre Gurdjian, Pierre Dardot and Isabelle Ferreras).

Having spoken to the two organisers, I have no doubt about their genuine approach and their commitment to achieve something new. Is it a broader movement? Is it time for some serious reflection?

Entretien avec Pierre Dardot et Christian Laval 1 (video in French):

Many Smithsonian museums are on the National Mall, so many I was a little lost and overwhelmed during my visit in 2003.

If you are interested in strategic thinking, look at the lecture of Nina Simon at the Smithsonian. It is a long video but I think it encompasses many important subjects: how to use tools such as twitter to make an ethnographic study of your audience, what are the best practices to define the mission statement of your organisation, how to interact with your visitors and provide something really valuable for them. Even though the subject is museums, I believe that most of the presentation can be applied to any type of organization. The speaker attempts to provide clear recommendations to the Smithsonian auditorium but I feel looking at the Q&A section that it may take a while before anything happens in such a big institution. This should not stop the rest of us adopting her recommendations. You can find much more on her blog: http://museumtwo.blogspot.com/2009/05/everyones-smithsonian-video-slides-and.html

Any other good speech related to the museums strategies to engage their visitors?

• “Crowdsourcing is the act of taking a job traditionally performed by a designated agent (usually an employee) and outsourcing it to an undefined, generally large group of people in the form of an open call.”

Somehow dubious video from the creator of the name ‘crowdsourcing’

• “Corporate Social Responsibility is a form of corporate self-regulation integrated into a business model. Essentially, CSR is the deliberate inclusion of public interest into corporate decision-making, and the honouring of a triple bottom line: People, Planet, Profit.”

CSR could be the way for big corporations to find a soul again after the economical black hole of the last months, and the revelation of their poor records on ethics.

• Corporate social responsibility is vital for business survival
• The Oxymoron of ‘Business Ethics’ Proves Its Worth
• Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): Simply Good Business?

Crowdsourcing relies on the principle that good business happens when the customer is listened. In fact, so much listened that he takes an active part in the company’s activity.

• Travel company invites clients on planning trips
• Is Crowdsourcing a Fad or a Foundational Element?

My argument is that those two trends go in two opposite directions on ethics. CSR is based on the assumption that corporations play a leading role in ethics, that they are the motor of new ethical practices. A corporate has a social responsibility which might be linked or not to the priorities of its customers. It is the responsibility of the management to drive an ethical business, not of the customers.

On the other hand, crowdsourcing could be seen as the last step to empty corporations of their substance. A corporation should be focused on its customers, so much focused it could maybe not have any other goals, any vision than to satisfy the needs of the market. The ethics of a corporation would then strictly be the ethics of its customers, nothing more, nothing less.

How much are those two trends concealable? Who should be responsible for business ethics, the customers or the management?

the BBC

I just launched my new project, “curated matter” and defined its mission, vision and core values. I had the idea in March 2008 but it took months of passive reflection to come up with its final definition. The good thing about defining the mission of a venture beforehand is that you can then  easily understand what the goals and priorities are.

What interests me in defining a mission is that the final statement looks the same whatever the size of your project, or its nature. A mission statement should be as simple for a multibillion company than for a non-profit association of 5 people. This apparent simplicity is what makes the intellectual work so interesting. Here are some examples: the BBC, Coca-Cola, Starbucks coffee, HP. You can read more missions on WikiAnswers. It is not easy information to find though. I think it should be on the website of every organization, and I mean not a customer friendly version, the real missions.

The mission of curated matter sounds maybe a little too exoteric  and is not that clear, compare to the BBC for example. But I wanted something playful and exciting for the imagination.

To show how much a mission statement is important, here are some thoughts about the one of the BBC. I went to their tour last week, and even if it was at the end more for kids, it put me in the mood.

The BBC mission is “to enrich people’s lives with programmes and services that inform, educate and entertain.” No mention is made on which of the three aspects is more important: inform, educate or entertain. This leads to the recurrent debate on how much BBC should entertain. After all, private broadcasters do already entertain people. It remains that you can clearly see that the BBC portfolio strictly follows this mission: inform, educate and entertain.

The vision of the BBC is “to be the most creative organisation in the world.”. It seems to me a strange vision. Is it really what people want above all from the BBC? And is the BBC best placed to be the most creative, with its duty to inform and educate? Obviously,  that creativity is arguably important to inform and educate. And that the BBC without creativity is dead. But I’m still wondering what this vision actually means in terms of ambition and actions. I think this is eluding the central question of what is the most important to broadcast. Nobody could however deny that the BBC is genuinely trying to achieve this vision, with frequent new programs, some very ambitious in terms of creativity.

Then, the BBC values are listed. I just have one remark for the fun. It states “Trust is the foundation of the BBC: we are independent, impartial and honest” and that “Audiences are at the heart of everything we do.”. But putting audiences at the center, is that not a form of dependence? Some facts or programs might not please an audience but still be genuinely important. It is the dilemma between encouraging people to watch a program and remain impartial on what is shown, even if boring or disturbing. Again, the BBC’s values don’t provide any answers. Imagine for example what would happen if the second value was “Getting audiences knowledgeable and providing them with the most refined entertainment is at the heart of everything we do”.

I should say that most of those remarks are addressed in the Public Purposes of the BBC Trust. I would however question why they are not at the same level of importance than the BBC overall mission.

Any mission statements you would like to share? What are your thoughts on the mission, vision and values of the BBC?