Jason Gissing, co-founder and chief financial officer, Ocado

The intention was to try and create something that was exciting for consumers, to try and fill a need that consumers had. We figured that people didn't really like going grocery shopping for a weekly family shop. Now, it has been a happy coincidence that we've chosen a business model and a way of doing that which is actually a lot greener than running a chain of supermarkets or shops. So I find myself in a position where I've got my own personal values and beliefs, and in fact those of my partners, which is that we should try and be responsible, that we should try and run a business in a socially responsible way, and we've actually stumbled across a model which does that fantastically in the sector that we've chosen.

There's clearly a paradox or a...it's a dilemma of sorts. So, of course we want the world to be a greener place, just on a personal level, and when I say that I mean that if people were to adopt the business model that we have, then there would be a lot less environmental pollution in this country and in other developed markets. However, as you rightly say, we have a significant competitive advantage doing it this way. You know, whatever my personal feelings about wanting to protect the USP or the so-called USP it will, over time, be copied. I'm convinced that in 30 of 40 years time, when I'm old and grey, there will be Ocado lookalikes in the US, and in South Korea, and in Japan, and in China, and in developed markets across the world.

I think actually it's less about innovation, it's just about what retailers do versus what an online specialist retailer like us does. The fact of the matter is that the supermarkets that we compete with have these big shops, they have these big stores with chillers and refrigerants, lights and heating to make it a nice environment for people to go and shop in – we don't have any of that. And all we're doing is building a warehouse, filling it with product, and then putting it into vans that take up to 40 families’ shopping in one trip and deliver it to their homes. So there's a very very different dynamic.

Consumers are wary of businesses that stand up and say I'm a green company, I care about the environment, I'm passionate about what I do, I want to minimise the impact. And I think it's become a...every single large business has jumped on this green bandwagon, and I think consumers are right to be cynical, because actually, I think a lot of it is complete rubbish. There might be a handful of individuals in these companies that care about the environment or the effect, but by and large the businesses are in the business of making money, they don't really care about the costs and consequences of that. I think fundamentally though, the second thing, I think fundamentally what's changed is that there has become an acceptance among the business and scientific elite that global warming is happening, that the world is changing, and that people need to do something about what's happening outside, outside of their little world, their little box, otherwise grandchildren aren't going to have a place to inherit. And I think because consumers are increasingly interested in it, companies are reacting to it to make sure they've got a way of engaging consumers in something that they're now showing an interest in.

I think if I look across businesses historically there are a handful of businesses that actually set out their stall and said, you know what, this is all about doing things in the way that we consider to be right, whether it was something like Body Shop, there have been businesses in the past that have tried to align personal social responsibility, personal social views on the environment with the business and the corporate side of what they've done. And they've been very successful. I think that cynically a lot of people have jumped on that bandwagon, and I guess people can say to us, well you know Ocado, you're no different. But I think that what we've tried to do as a business, as founders of the business, as people that started this business from scratch, is to say look, historically we've tried to grow what is a very difficult business in a very very competitive market by hiding behind our partnership with Waitrose. We have a great partnership, we sell fantastic product from them, and they've actually got their own set of CSR stuff that they do which is fantastic and I think that they're leaders in that field. But historically for business reasons we've hidden somewhat behind our relationship with Waitrose. For a lot of people, for a long time we were just part of the John Lewis family of businesses, they didn't know who we were or what we did. What we've tried to do more recently in the last 12 months or so is say look, we're an independent business, we're very proud of our association with Waitrose, but we think that we do things in a slightly different way from everyone else in our market, in fact everyone else in the world and so we’ve stood up and said as individuals here are things that we care about passionately. And so as a consequence we end up doing things like this, where we talk about our own views, we talk about the fact that we really care, in an attempt to address some of the natural cynicism that that consumers will have, where they'll just say ‘Oh well, it's just another company talking about the environment, we don't really care, it's boring’.

I think that, you know, businesses are in the business of making money, fundamentally. Some of them cynically view the environment as an opportunity to make more money in what they do, but there are businesses that will make a lot of money by focusing entirely on the environment and doing stuff which is really important, whether it's recycling, whether it's looking at renewable energy, whatever the field is that they're looking at. And then separately you've got the government, which I think has a very important role, which is social responsibility, social regulation. It's not really business's role to be doing that, it's government's role to provide a framework and then business to go into that framework and try and maximise whatever profit they can, addressing the things that the government has outlined as important. Because ultimately the government is elected on its policies. The people are telling the politicians what they want, and what they think is important. So I think there are distinctions there between what's morally right, what's right for a business, what's right for a government to legislate on, but they are different shades of grey, so I think they are distinct.

I think that ultimately when consumers are faced with, whether it's a credit crunch or just poorer economic conditions, they have to make some very very difficult decisions about household budgets. I would be saddened greatly if that meant that they didn't care about the environmental impact, not the immediate environmental impact but the long-term and the effective environmental impact of some of the decisions that they make. Clearly for economic policy, business policy and environmental policy to be aligned in any way, there has to be an opportunity for businesses to profit from doing stuff that's greener, that's more responsible, and to be able to pass on those benefits to consumers. It would be a great shame if everyone just threw up their hands in the general public and said ‘you know what, I can't afford to pay an extra 5p for x product, whatever it is, I don't really care that it means that the world is going to be more polluted or whatever the eventual cost is, I'm just going to take it because I can't afford to pay more’. There will be a degree of that. But I think you have to be sanguine and just say, ‘look, if there are things that get sacrificed, they clearly weren't being done very well in the first place, let's try and work within the framework that we have’. And that's I think again going back to a government responsibility, to look at some of this stuff and say we have to make sure that there are proper incentives in place to focus people on the most important things. Now, it's beyond the remits of talking about retail in general, but actually, as an example, there's a very strong case that we should stop worrying about plastic bags and we should start focusing on where our electricity generation comes from in this country, and we should have a nuclear debate rather than worrying about whether a retailer is charging 5p or 10p for a plastic bag. Now it's clearly very important, what happens around plastic bags per se, but there are degrees and there are lots and lots of things, which have a far greater impact and get pushed up that political chain that don't get debated in the way that, I think that this country might take a leaf out of other countries’ book.

One of the things that I've learnt from reading, from exposure to my in-laws who are environmentalists is that individuals can all make a difference, so everyone can make a difference. And the notion that, you know, it doesn't really matter whether I have this plastic bag, or that plastic bag, or have this excess packaging or not, the fact that I make a decision is not going to make that much of a difference to the world at large: I believe fundamentally that's wrong. Because if everyone were to take that view, then you'd have wholesale apathy and nothing would happen. There is an argument that, as I've said, my belief is that there's a degree of social regulation that is government responsibility and it can be imposed top down. But I do believe that debates like the plastic bag debate, that was originally I think ignited by another publication, I think that's an important debate because it means that they show individuals that they can individually make a difference.

There are certain things that the government I believe should do, whether it's around the subsidies of farming, whether it's around the source of our electricity in this country – whether it's fossil fuel powered, nuclear powered, renewable energy – waste disposal: there are all sorts of things that I believe the government could look at. But there are, I think that politicians are sometimes scared because some of these things are treated as taboo or unpopular to address them, in a way that might jeopardise their polls, their poll ratings, their next election, their local elections whatever it is, and unfortunately, if we sit on our hands and we focus on the wrong things, we're going to find that in 30 or 40 years time when we look at the environment that we live in, we've passed the tipping point, there is no turning back, and anything that we do at that point is too late. So there are some fundamental things that I think should be addressed sooner rather than later.

Acting in isolation, yes it's noble and I do believe that countries should act unilaterally on things to set an example and to set a standard. But actually there are lots of other issues, broader issues where – whether it's the Brazil, Russia, India, China emerging economies and what they feel they should do and how they feel they should be regulated or not regulated; whether it's the United States and their oil lobby and all of the other stuff that they can and can't do, their refusal to acknowledge Kyoto agreements and whatever – you can look at this in many many different ways. I'm optimistic in the UK, whether I'm optimistic more broadly on a global level, I'm not entirely sure because there are emerging economies and they are looking at the developed countries of the west and saying, ‘look, you had unfettered growth over a long period of time and no-one came to you and said you can't do this, you can't do that, you can't do it in this way or that way, so why should we, today, listen to you?’ And there have to be some very very large and difficult decisions that will require people to make meaningful sacrifices and I think longer term that's going to be very very hard.