Navigator logo

Month: October 2017

Les Luttes Sociales Et Environnementales Sont Un Réel Enjeu Sur Le Plan Des Affaires Et De La Réputation

Posted on by

Acceptabilité sociale, lutte contre les contre les changements climatiques, droit à la défense de l’environnement… Le périmètre des enjeux s’élargit de jour en jour pour bon nombre d’entreprises.

Le mois d’octobre aura été riche en rebondissements sur le plan des mobilisations citoyennes et environnementales. Mis en perspective, une série de victoires et de revirements devraient – à tout le moins – alerter bien des entreprises sur leur manière d’évaluer et de gérer leurs risques sur le plan de la réputation. Acceptabilité sociale, lutte contre les contre les changements climatiques, droit à la défense de l’environnement… le périmètre des enjeux s’élargit de jour en jour pour bon nombre d’entre elles et ce mois d’octobre 2017 en est la parfaite illustration, au Québec comme dans le reste de l’Amérique du Nord.

Des fronts de déstabilisation multiples

Au Québec, la pression du mouvement global divestment se fait sentir de plus en plus et force les acteurs du secteur financier à prendre des mesures concrètes même si, parfois, elles sont frappées du sceau de la pieuse obligation.

C’est le cas par exemple de la Caisse de Dépôt et de Placements du Québec (CDPQ) qui, visée depuis des mois par la campagne « sortons la caisse du carbone » a annoncé la semaine passée qu’elle allait dorénavant greffer la question des changements climatiques au cœur de toutes ses décisions d’investissements.

Le Mouvement des caisses Desjardins avait également senti la soupe chaude et avait décrété en juillet dernier, après de multiples pressions, un moratoire sur les investissements dans les projets d’hydrocarbures (qui a mené à un retrait du projet Trans Mountain).

Une décision qui fait sens lorsqu’on se doit de répondre avec cohérence à la double injonction que sont le respect des objectifs de la COP 21 et celui des communautés qui composent en partie sa clientèle. À un moment donné, le grand écart entre l’affichage d’entreprise socialement responsable (la fameuse RSE) et la réalité des opérations financières devient une faille informationnelle dans laquelle les défenseurs environnementaux ne peuvent que s’engouffrer…

Il n’est d’ailleurs pas étonnant de constater qu’une grande variété d’acteurs aient investi le combat du divestment, puisque celui-ci leur permet de continuer à faire avancer leur cause originelle. C’est sous cet angle, celui des super stakeholders, qu’il faut comprendre la mobilisation mondiale des peuples autochtones sur la question climatique. Cette dernière connaitra un nouveau point d’orgue cette semaine à l’occasion du sommet des Principes de l’Équateur où il sera demandé à près de 90 banques de mettre un terme à tout financement ayant pour conséquence le non-respect ou la dégradation de leur cadre de vie. Entre évidemment dans ledit cadre l’ensemble des projets d’hydrocarbure, mais pas seulement. Il faut noter qu’au total, ce sont 17 banques qui sont désignées comme étant « des cibles prioritaires » sur qui mettre la pression.

Des recours légaux de plus en plus incertains

Nombre de ces pressions se sont traduites ces dernières années par une plus grande radicalisation et sont allées au-delà des simples tactiques de désobéissance civile. Et, fait tout à fait remarquable, les entreprises semblent désormais ne plus pouvoir jouer avec assurance la carte de la poursuite en justice en ayant la conviction que celle-ci sera suffisamment efficace pour protéger leur réputation et leurs opérations.

Produits forestiers Résolu vient d’en faire l’amère expérience dans la guerre qui l’oppose à Greenpeace. Sa poursuite la plus récente, intentée aux États-Unis, vient d’être classée sans suite par la justice californienne, celle-ci ayant considéré que malgré quelques solides munitions détenues par la forestière, “le tribunal n’est pas l’endroit approprié pour résoudre les désaccords scientifiques de ce genre” et que les propos de Greenpeace, qui sont loin d’avoir été innocents et sans effets sur le plan des affaires, ont été tenus dans le périmètre de la liberté d’expression. C’est sans aucun doute un signal que les avocats, dirigeants – et investisseurs – du Dakota Access Pipeline ne manqueront pas de prendre en considération, ces derniers ayant eu recours à la même stratégie juridique que Résolu (procédure RICO) qui, pour nombre d’observateurs avisés, a été une intéressante innovation stratégique.

Mais l’innovation et le darwinisme opérationnel ne sont pas l’apanage des grands bureaux d’avocats, tant s’en faut. Une décision d’une cour du Minnesota vient de le prouver en relâchant, le 11 octobre dernier, 3 activistes poursuivis pour un délit sérieux (avoir stoppé le débit d’un pipeline) sur la base juridique de « l’état de nécessité ». En retenant les arguments de la défense, le juge a reconnu que les activistes n’avaient pas eu d’autre choix que d’enfreindre la loi afin d’empêcher un préjudice à venir encore plus grand : exposer la communauté aux changements climatiques… Décision osée, qui sera probablement portée en appel (tout comme pour Résolu), mais qui illustre parfaitement qu’aujourd’hui, le niveau d’incertitude pour les chefs d’entreprise et leur entourage atteint des sommets.

Alors, que retenir de ce mois d’octobre très chargé sur le plan des luttes sociales et environnementales? 4 points devraient désormais être pris en considération de manières permanentes par les entreprises:

– De manière générale, on assiste à un élargissement du périmètre des risques d’enjeux et de réputation;

– Le phénomène des super stakeholders engendre une multiplication des angles d’attaques et décuple la force de frappe disponible contre les entreprises cibles;

– La justice est de plus en plus sensible aux enjeux environnementaux et la voie des poursuites juridiques pour adresser un enjeu risque d’être un choix de moins en moins pertinent (si tant est qu’il l’ait déjà été);

– Le cumul des victoires environnementalistes ne peut que renforcer leur détermination et, la nature ayant horreur du vide, il est fort probable que l’abandon de projets comme Énergie Est, pour ne citer que celui-là au Québec, mette au centre de la cible d’autres projets jusqu’alors passés sous le radar. On prend les paris?

How Charismatic Singh Is A Threat To Trudeau

Posted on by

Singh’s ability to garner the kind of attention that has been paid mainly to the Liberal party constitutes a real threat to prospects for another Liberal majority government.

No doubt the federal Liberals followed the results of the New Democratic Party’s leadership contest with great trepidation.

 Jagmeet Singh’s election is a monumental breakthrough for Canada’s community of visible minorities. But Singh represents a formidable new presence on Canada’s political stage for even more reasons.Singh has that certain “je ne sais quoi” that political operatives search for. He’s emotive and evocative. He’s a comfortable and accomplished communicator, one of the few politicians who can explain ideas in ways that generate interest and support.

Plus, he’s just a downright interesting person, one who sometimes rode his bike to work at Queen’s Park and who practises martial arts during his off hours.

Perhaps even more importantly, Singh has a natural political intuition that has allowed him to navigate several daunting political hurdles in his young career.

Sound familiar?

Singh has many of the same attributes that vaulted Justin Trudeau from leader of the third party into the country’s most important political position in just one election.

It’s easy to underestimate the threat. Trudeau‘s qualities were also initially derided. Being emotive was mocked as being weak. Evocative was portrayed as shallow. Opponents were condescending in criticizing Trudeau‘s comfort with communicating with Canadians.

The critics were wrong – at least about what Canadians were looking for in October 2015.

The same criticisms that were levelled at Trudeau have been levelled at Singh. While it hasn’t begun at a high volume, the groundwork is being laid. Media reports have already contained rumblings about Singh’s lack of experience, lack of familiarity with federal files and lack of interest in learning more.

Meanwhile, less noticed in the two years since the Liberals formed the government has been the stability of the Conservative party. Its fundraising has remained remarkably strong. Polling consistently shows the party with support of 30 to 33 per cent of Canadians, essentially the same level of support it garnered on election day in 2015.

This means that a third of Canadian voters have not budged from the Conservative Party even during its nadir, suggesting there is little room for the Liberals to grow on the right.

By contrast, support for the New Democrats has stagnated since their loss on election day. The party has since struggled to gain attention and to remain united.

The Liberals are keenly aware of the limits of growth on their right wing and equally aware of the opportunities on the left.

That opportunity has driven a decision to take a bold, activist stance on a variety of issues, including Indigenous rights and the environment.

Without a leader, and with Trudeau‘s government encroaching on its territory, the NDP has been pushed to the margins of the debate.

Trudeau has a remarkable effect on the national press gallery. It’s hard to imagine reporters would have written stories about Stephen Harper‘s socks or Paul Martin‘s affinity for Star Wars.

The prime minister has an amazing ability to drive media coverage and control the narrative, and the NDP has suffered for it.

It is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Without political relevance, the party drifted downward in the polls. Without support in the polls, the party became less politically relevant. The Liberals gobbled up left-leaning supporters.

Enter Jagmeet Singh.

Singh has a similar effect on the media as Trudeau. His is an engaging speaker and can control the narrative. He is the game-changer the NDP needed.

The media coverage of Singh during the leadership contest dwarfed that of his competitors, and the coverage following his election was some of the most positive the NDP has received since Thomas Mulcair‘s surge early in the last election campaign.

Singh’s ability to garner the kind of attention that has been paid mainly to the Liberal party constitutes a real threat to prospects for another Liberal majority government.

But New Democrats should also be wary.

Ottawa is not Queen’s Park and many a politician has stumbled in their transition from politics in a provincial capital to the House of Commons.

That said, Singh has a legitimate shot at taking back for the New Democrats the supporters who drifted toward Trudeau.

Liberal political strategists trying to stake the party in the centre face a scary prospect: a party with dedicated supporters on the right and a resurgent party on the left.

The next two years may be more interesting than political observers had bet on.

Jaime Watt is the executive chairman of Navigator Ltd. and a Conservative strategist.

Speaking Truth to Pirates

Posted on by

Sharing Something Online Doesn’t Mean I Would Pay For It

Two weeks ago the world got to read a European Union report on online piracy and copyright material from 2015. The report was 304 pages long and cost about USD$428,000. Its authors likely thought it would never see the light of day. Except, Julia Reda, a member of the European Parliament from the German Pirate Party, got her hands on a copy and shared its contents on social media. The report’s bombshell conclusion? “In general, the results do not show robust statistical evidence of displacement of sales by online copyright infringements”.

The report does qualify this statement, however, by saying it “does not necessarily mean that piracy has no effect [on sales] but only that the statistical analysis does not prove with sufficient reliability that there is an effect.” Specifically, the study found some limited effects on sales numbers for “blockbuster films.” 

Intuitively, online piracy — the act of taking something without paying for it — means less money for whoever is selling that which is pirated. However, this is not the only lens through which to look at this issue. 

There are two notable aspects of the report:

  1. Why the study could not quantify online piracy’s effect on artists’ bank accounts
  2. The importance its findings hold for content producers.

First the data.

It is impossible to compare the world before and after illegal downloading. The popularization of online piracy is a watershed, fundamentally changing the relationship between patrons buying art and artists creating it.

We cannot compare a purchase made in a world where piracy exists with the same purchase in a world before mainstream piracy.  There is no way to use totals from one era to extrapolate behavior in another. The numbers cannot prove with sufficient reliability the impact piracy has on sales. Which explains why the study was inconclusive.  

The study looks at the entirety of art being consumed and assumes everybody downloading content illegally would have paid for that material if not for online piracy. Colloquially, when we speak about shows that are not worth watching, we say they are “not worth the download.” It’s an expression that illustrates how my generation’s cultural industries have been shaped by piracy. Piracy breaks the connection between paying for art and experiencing it. This is acute in the age of social media, when fandom is celebrated like never before and when we can measure how many people are talking about a particular piece of art. But today, an artist who creates trending content is not necessarily compensated for making it to the charts. 

Art is an experience. The act of sharing that experience provides a way to measure its value. You pay for access. It is impossible to separate how people pay for art with how they talk about it, which means it’s impossible to look at online piracy without considering social media. Illegal downloading makes it possible to share the experience or talk about it without paying for access, while the explosion of social media conversations reveal the extent to which a piece of art captures attention. It is perfectly reasonable for artists and publishers to see significant engagement with their content on social media and wonder if those people ever paid to experience their art.  The answer is, almost certainly, no.

Illegal downloading lets people who would not otherwise pay for art still experience it. The study confirmed that this group of people represents an entirely separate audience from those that pay the full price for the same piece of art. In fact, there are cases where online piracy actually raises overall revenue by exposing more people to content and creating merchandising or licensing opportunities that would not have been available without free access to that original content.  

This is not to suggest that the combined rise of illegal downloading and social media did not fundamentally change how people buy and sell content. Though it makes intuitive sense to blame declines in publishers’ and creators’ revenues on online piracy, this study—while flawed—suggests that there are other factors. An obvious one is competition. File-sharing technology removes barriers to publishing and lets more artists reach more people than ever before. Consumers have more choice, so it stands to reason that established players would see some losses in a more crowded market.

So what are creators to do? How can they succeed in a world where some pay for content and others don’t? Maybe it doesn’t matter. The payers and non-payers collectively contribute to the online discussion, helping others discover the creative work.

Of course, it is natural for creators to consider the increased number of people accessing their work when taking into account lost revenue. The study suggests that these people are really a bonus audience, existing in addition to the core fans who will consistently pay for content. This turns online piracy into an opportunity for content producers. Rather than stealing customers, online pirates remove barriers to access. The net outcome is a larger pool of people familiar with the work, which means a larger pool of people who are potentially interested in tie-in products. It also means a larger pool of people generating more exposure through the simple act of talking about it online and offline. This is most obvious in situations where individuals who have downloaded an album pay to see the performer live in concert. 

More people engaging with your work is always a positive. Illegal downloading is not going away. While it may be hard to accept, “free” movies, music, and books should be looked at as loss-leaders instead of the core product. With online piracy removing the connection between accessing and discussing art, the burden is on publishers to distinguish between core fans who pay for art and those who download it illegally. Publishers need to convert pirates into payers through merchandise, licensing, and other revenue streams. 

This is not to say that piracy is right. But, we live in a world where online piracy is the reality, and we need to deal with that world as it exists. Campaigning against piracy risks alienating an entire generation and will likely shrink secondary audiences rather than turning them into additional revenue streams.

As fans, it is important to support our favourite creators by paying for work we enjoy. It is equally important for creators to recognize that—more and more—being a fan of someone’s work does not always mean being a paying customer.