The standard objection to restructuring the food system is that it will cost too much. Paul Polman, who spent ten years trying to grow one of the world’s largest consumer goods companies while reducing its environmental footprint, has a counterargument: the food industry is not too expensive to fix; it is too expensive not to, because a higher price is already being paid.
Polman outlined his argument at KDD’s WEF-affiliated dinner debate this January: ‘You pay in healthcare, you pay in lost work, you pay in volatility of prices, as we’ve seen with cocoa and chocolate, and you pay in disruption to your value chain.’
Change, in any context, has to be driven from the top and requires executives to accept responsibility for the full impact of their business. ‘Most companies still think they can outsource their value chain and, by doing so, outsource their responsibility,’ observed Polman, adding, ‘It just doesn’t work anymore. If you break it, you own it.’
If you don’t take that responsibility, you shouldn’t be in the industry
For food businesses, owning this responsibility means confronting deforestation, the conditions of smallholder farmers, degraded land, food waste, and a system that simultaneously leaves millions hungry while fuelling a global metabolic health crisis. Polman’s view is unequivocal. ‘If you don’t take that responsibility, you shouldn’t be in the industry.’
Unilever made a decision most corporations instinctively avoid – to concede it had been part of the problem. It was bold, but paid off; engagement and trust metrics rose internally and externally, the latter reflected in a rise in job applications.
That trust, once built, makes it possible to find common ground and partners to work with, which Polman deems crucial to driving significant change. As he put it, ‘You can initiate change awareness. You can create the coalitions, ultimately, and get the governments to do the right things, but a company itself has only so much power.’
The first step on the path to collective action is to identify any parties who have a stake in preserving the status quo. ‘Find out where the pain points are. Who are the ones with a vested interest in not changing?’ said Polman. By establishing where those interests lie, he added, ‘you can also see your allies.’
Polman pointed to the drug industry as an example: ‘The pharma companies like to treat diseases. They’re not healthcare companies. They’re disease treatment companies. So are they with you, or are they against you?’ Similarly, when offered simple and affordable solutions, he notes that consumers who care about their health have the potential to become ‘your biggest allies’.
Companies should not view responsibility for change in the food industry simply as a cost. It also carries clear commercial upside. Polman’s point is that those businesses prepared to tackle the food system’s challenges first could be rewarded with the biggest opportunities.
Seizing these opportunities means setting targets grounded in science. Whilst Polman accepts that food firm bosses may find that an unpalatable prospect, he notes that ‘If you don’t feel uncomfortable, you’re probably not driving change in the first place.’
Which side do you want to be on? Do you want to be obsolete?
Polman told Davos how shareholder pressure to deliver in the short term is a constant presence in the mind of a modern CEO, revealing that when Unilever launched its Sustainable Living Plan, he didn’t sleep for a while.
To overcome their risk-related aversion to change, Polman proposes that industry leaders frame the future in binary terms and ask themselves, ‘Which side do you want to be on? Do you want to be obsolete? Or do you want to position yourself in this incredible market that is waiting for you?’
Paul Polman was a panellist at KDD’s WEF-affiliated debate ‘Breaking Bad: Where Food Meets Health’ at the Waldhuus Hotel, Davos, on 23 January 2026
