 Welcome to this NHK session. I'm Kenji Kono, the moderator here today. Our topic is stakeholder capitalism in the Asian centuries. I know you have heard a lot about stakeholder capitalism this week in Davos. It has gotten a lot of attention suddenly this year. And we want to discuss how this concept brings to the Asian economy, which is fast-growing economy, and what is needed to help it to take root in the Asian region. And some people say that Asian people have some special affinity to that concept because of, like in the traditional perception, that people and business have to work hand in hand. Now, to discuss these issues, we have excellent panelists here. Let me introduce to my immediate left, Choi Ta-woon. He's the chairman of SK Group, which is the leading conglomerate in South Korea. And Laura Cha, she's the first chairwoman to serve as a chair of HKEX, Hong Kong Exchange, and Clearing's. And Mr. Fumio Kokubu, he is a chairman of Marabeni. This is one of the largest so-go-showsha in Japan, which means that trade and investment are conglomerate. And the company was established more than 160 years ago. And Professor Joe Stiglitz, of course, you can recognize him. He's well-known. He's a Nobel Prize economist and also the professor at Columbia University. And he has written a lot about the issues related to income inequality and also the need to reform this capitalist system. Laura Cha, I'm sure your company is encouraging the others to take the same approach, right? Yes, I think if I could just step back a bit and then compare the shareholder capitalism with the stakeholder capitalism. I think for many decades, we were the focus of the corporate world, whether it's in Asia or the rest. All compared with the profitability, your responsibility of a company is to the shareholders. So you want to maximize your profit. And it's a very linear and bilateral relationship. Whereas when we talk about stakeholder capitalism, which has been involved in the last decade, I would say has become more prominent in the last few years, it is a much more complex relationship between the company and the community. It is multilateral. If we put the company in the center, then the poke that go out, your customer, your, of course, still your shareholder, your customer, your supplier, your employees, and the community at large. So what is the company's responsibility is no longer just to maximize profit. For HKEX as an exchange, we have two roles. One is that we are a market operator and we are a regulator. We can help to promote the benefit or rather the importance of stakeholder capitalism by requiring more disclosure of listed companies on our market. And that, you know, one, number one is to raise the awareness. And secondly, we turned some of the guidelines into rules so that the companies have to pay attention and have to explain what they are doing or why they are doing certain things. In other words, be responsible and be transparent. And then we as a listed company ourselves, we are leading by example as well. So we have our ESG principle. We have our CSR committee that very actively, not only just preach, but we practice what... You're practicing already. Great. Kukubu-san, in the past, Japanese business people have kind of embraced the philosophy of Sampo-yoshi. Do you know anybody you know of Sampo-yoshi? Non-Japanese audience, I explain. That could be translated into like a three-way satisfaction. Good for sellers, good for buyers, and good for the society as a whole. This is one of all traditional thinking in the business world. Now with this, do you think that makes the Japanese, that makes a stakeholder capitalism, is like a natural fit for the Japanese company? Definitely. This is the affinity between the two concepts, I think. Whatever you call it, I mean the three-way satisfaction, I mean. I think that basically in Japan, we have a culture or philosophy which everybody, nation, the states and community and the society and the people at large, must coexist in harmony. I think coexist in harmony is very key, I think. That's why probably the reason why that Japan has less problem we face on the social frustration caused by an unequal distribution of wealth or the widening spread of the income between the firm rich. And also, I would like to say that in Japan there are many, I don't know how many, but many, many Japanese companies which have, say, your own history, over the 100th history, and then probably because of that, I think. So this concept of the philosophy is definitely aligned with the stakeholders and the capitalism, I think. Sounds good. Professor Stiglitz, you've been a very vocal critic of the shareholders' capitalism, which is Korean capitalism. What's the biggest problem with this current shareholder first attitude? Well, I think you see it most dramatically in the United States, and that's why there's a push against it. If you think about the crises the United States is facing, we have a health crisis with life expectancy actually going down with an opioid crisis. We have an inequality crisis, great disparities, deaths of despair, people having no opportunity. We have an environmental crisis globally, but also in the United States, climate change is affecting everybody. And then you see the role that the corporations have played promoting the opioids, even though they knew they were addictive, but telling them they weren't. Childhood diabetes, promoting food that was really bad for them, profits went up. Shareholders were good, but our society was destroyed. The diesel gate where car companies lied about devised ways of deception about how much pollution they were contributing. We all will suffer as a result. So you saw time and time again in, of course, the financial crisis, that shareholder value maximization was coming at the expense of our society as a whole. And so it's clear that there has to be a change. And so that's why my book, People Power and Profits, I've argued for another kind of capitalism, a progressive capitalism, a kind of recognizing the role of all the stakeholders and just wanted to flesh it out. It includes your employees, it includes your customers, includes the community in which you operate, and includes our planet. And if you don't include all of these, it won't be sustainable. Right. That's interesting. You mentioned quite a lot of crises in what the cooperation, some cooperation, did something terrible. But now let me focus on then how cooperation can work to make the stakeholder much better. And I'm sure you mentioned that you've been working on that. Can you tell us more about what you're doing in your company? Yes. The first step is the measurement, the ESG value we're talking about, to improve that ESG value. We have to measure and also the method of accounting. So I studied at 2014. So I'm forming some of our social enterprise partners. And each partner has their focus on certain social value. So we made some task force for accounting assistant. So consult each 200 different social enterprise. So we get to know how to measure that each value. Then with those knowledges, we dare to challenge it double bottom line accounting. And 2018, we did it. And we announced that double bottom line approach. That means including about every dollar of our operating profit, we generate about 53 cents of social value. So in a whole. So 16 different subsidiaries announced that the public how much the social value is the ESG value to generate in 2018. And the reason I'm doing this is one thing is we have to know that our state gold, not as a group, but as an individual. So current digital technology can happen without that much that transaction cost. So you have to get to know who the stakeholders and what they really want. And secondly, not for the actually the measurement itself is not for the accuracy, but for the improvement. And year by year improvement is much more important things. And if you think about our current accounting systems and 100 years ago, so it doesn't have that much accuracy compared to these days. Third is we're using that this measurement of the ESG value as the monetary terms. Well, you can actually measure that differently. But trying to execute this value. So I might need to understand the cost and the benefit. So the only way is it turned out to be that we have to using the dollar terms. So right now a company can actually calculate that if you're putting the resources and which way then actually how much total value, financial value and ESG value. So we can actually calculate that way. So our behavior is changing, not just make the money for, but also we are really careful that the stakeholder benefits. What's the reaction of your shareholders? Shareholders. Well, as I told you that we changed the article of incorporation. So basically they agree upon. And time to time we actually check again and again. And we explain. And mostly the long term investment, investors, they love. I guess I don't quite understand that the short term investors and they might not like it. But even they only focus on the shareholder, the share price. So as long as we keep the share price. So I don't have any compliment from the shareholders. And we also invest, yes, shareholder is one of the important stakeholders. So we keep communicating with them and we try to reflect that there are the desires and needs. Sounds good. Kokuba-san, what's your situation at Maribor? Well, the ESG or SDGs are core, I would say, the principle on our management strategy. And so we have been doing the many things on not only on the business, the space, but on the social space as well. Like social space, I mean we have Maribeni Foundation, which has more than 40 years of history, really focused on the welfare. And other than that, we have many things proactively touching on that space as well. And on the business side, I'll tell you one example that two years ago, we addressed a statement that we will not touch a new one, coal burning, the power generation projects anymore. That was two years ago. And also we declared that we will divest at least 50% of the current asset by the year of the 2030. Although the power business is one of the core business for us, but so we did it. I think what we would like to do is to run the company, operate the company, and well, the balanced, the managed approach taken into consideration all these stakeholders, not only focusing on short-term profit in the interest of the shareholders and short-term investors. Of course, this strategy is not appreciated by everybody, and especially the people like short-term investors or activists. But I believe that for us by doing that, definitely we can raise or increase the corporate value on a long-term basis. Professor Stiglitz, what should take on their effort on the corporation side? You remember that the US business roundtable, which is the group of business people in the state, they pledge that they're going to reform the way and change the shareholder first orthodoxy. And do you think that the corporation can do it? I mean, this is still a rhetorical thing, and it's not genuine. Well, I think they can do it. And we've had some examples here of showing how you may have to change your articles of incorporation. You have to change your mindsets. I think one of the things that was important, you have to have systems of accountability. It's not just saying to the CEO, do whatever you want. You have the nice thing about the financial returns is you have a system of accountability, but that's why it was important what SK did, is to have a way of checking that the company is actually doing what it says it's doing in environment and social in all these areas. I would say that right now in the United States, it's partly rhetorical. Rhetorical? I think if they say it often enough, maybe they'll believe it, and maybe that will affect their behavior. But I'd say two or three things that are absolutely essential if they're going to use the expression if they're going to walk the talk. The first thing is the first element of corporate responsibility is paying your taxes. And if you're not contributing to your society by paying your fair share of taxes, you're not corporate responsible. And we have some companies that have gotten a lot of attention, like Apple, paying 0.2% of their profits, or it was a 0.02. I can't remember. But in Ireland, as a way of escaping their social responsibility, no matter what the CEO says, you have to ask, are they sincere? The second element is paying a livable wage. If you pay your worker the minimum wage, or even twice the minimum wage, they can't live. It's well below a livable wage. And that, of course, is maxed on the other side about what fraction of the corporate revenue goes to the top management and to the CEO. And this is an area where I think there is a difference between the Asian values and what we've had in the United States. One of the numbers that people look at is what is the ratio of, say, a CEO pay to the typical worker or the median worker. And the kind of numbers you hear is that in Japan, it's like 10 to 1. And in Europe, it's 30 to 1. And in the United States, it's somewhere between 300 to 1 to 1,000 to 1. And it's not because American CEOs are that much more productive. They may be very good, but I think you probably think that you're pretty good. They're not 10 times better or 30 times better than you. We are not that bad. We are not that bad. So it's agreed. So if we start seeing a movement towards limiting CEO pay, paying their taxes, raising the wages at the bottom to a basic livable wage, then I will really say they're on track. Ms. Chau, do we have the same problem of the high paying for the CEO in Asia? Well, I think it's their pockets. And it differs in different industry. But my own view is that it's very hard to put a ratio for the government or regulator to say that it has to be X to X. I think that's more a social and investor community that will create that pressure. My view about government's role is that definitely, like Joe said, there are certain things that the government can do in the sphere of stakeholder capitalism. The government can set minimum standards. Minimum wage is one, but the company should pay living wage and not just the minimum wage. The government set the minimum. And the other area that comes to mind, emission control, waste disposal, waste treatment, water treatment, all these that are good for the community, the companies cannot do it on their own. And so the government's role in stakeholder capitalism is to provide certain minimum, or I wouldn't say minimum, certain standards, certain requirements that companies have to comply. And that goes towards the good for the welfare of the community. And then the government, with these, then the companies are expected, certainly, to follow. And as a regulator and as the exchange, we have the responsibility also to ensure that these are followed, the requirements are followed. Therefore, we want to have enhanced corporate governance, enhanced disclosure that the company have to explain, not only on the social side, but let's say on the diversity side. Women on board, women in senior management is a big issue. And what our company is doing, inclusivity, it's not just the women, but different culture. So stakeholder capitalism goes beyond just the profit-making. I think the community as a whole each has a role to play. And of course, with the company in the center, without losing the objective of making money, we can't expect companies to not make a profit, but we have to take into all of these into account. I see. Well, the government role, we're going to talk about it later, just in discussion. But Ms. Chad, I want to ask you, because your companies here are already working on the stakeholder capitalism, but not many, I mean, other Asian companies or Asian nations, they haven't done yet. So I wonder how you can help them to implement it? I think, you know, if we talk about Asian economy, the one historical and cultural characteristic is that we have many family-owned businesses and some of them are state-owned businesses. So you have one dominant shareholder. In the last 20-some years, different jurisdiction has tried to enhance the corporate governance requirements so that the shareholders are treated equally and fairly. So I think the fairness treatment, fair treatment is one way. And then now we are pushing the envelope further, not only just the corporate governments, but the corporate responsibility beyond just making a profit. And I think in Asia, I do not believe that there is any difference in attitude. Companies are catching up. The younger generations in Asia, whether it's an investor generation or the consumer generation, have this universal desire. I don't see the difference between what is required, what should be required of Asian company in the West. Perhaps, you know, we started a little late, but I see the equal momentum, like SK Group, they are already doing a lot. So we need to make it much more urgent as an agenda item and to push it further down. What about the issue of like a corruption or nepotism, or, you know, the basic thing that you see in Asian? That's not limited to Asian companies. I think the Nespotism, Croninism, these are issues that corporate governments try to address. The governance code and transparency, accountability, at the end of the day, is the investors that will hold these responsible. And, of course, government's role is to, you know, it's kind of ironic, but the government has a role in stamping out the corruption as well by bringing in very strong measures of anti-corruption. Certainly, in the financial sector, we have seen the any money laundering and corruption prevention has come in a very big way. And that is from government and regulators' demand. So I would see that gradually spill over to other industries as well. I see. The Kokubu sign, is there any advice that you can make to Western business people, except for this high income? Well, I mean, probably I emphasize a good aspect of the Japanese business, maybe too much, but I think I have to, before that, I have to accept that the, if you're looking at the Japanese companies from the perspective of the global standard, I think it's, in average, except a few, are still behind. I think in terms of the productivity, especially on the service sector, or management efficiency, and the biggest challenge we face now is that how we can glob or capture the growth, I mean, on the robust growth. And so what we have to do is that, keep working on the, catching on the global standard while we maintain our good DNA. So that's the balance we have to take. And while the same thing, I would like to see the same thing happen to the Western business world. I see. Mr. Chehab, are you, any advice that you can make for Western business people? Advice, I don't think that I have a position to advise anybody. But what I'm trying to do is we need more tests if we really want to have that to stay called the capitalism. So well, we have to define who's the real stakeholder and what really they want and actually the bottom line. So based on that, so even the CEO is evaluating not just at the money only, but also how much actually they make the ESG value. Once we're doing that, actually, while we had the much more, the fair value to all the CEOs and the other companies, they generated some value as a whole. So that's the... Okay. Can I ask just one thing? Was described how they managed to change the US government in the United States in the United States' articles of incorporation. What are the problems in the United States has been the legal framework. And that beginning about 40 years or so ago, Milton Friedman pushed this idea that the only purpose of the firm was to maximize shareholder value and that got incorporated in the legal framework in the United States. It's very clear it was not based on economic science. I had already explained in some articles I had written that shareholder value maximization did not lead to societal well-being. But it was an ideological perspective, particularly of the right and they pushed it and it's in the legal framework in the United States. So you have endowments, pension funds, having a legal obligation to maximize shareholder value and that's interpreted typically as short-term value. And the result of that is you get the short-termism, you get ignoring the social consequences, the environmental consequences. So I think one of the important lessons is that you have to create a legal framework that encourages innovation in the way companies operate and at least give them the chance to be socially responsible. And in fact, I would go further and make it more of an obligation for them to look at all the stakeholders. I see. Probably this is the right time to talk about more on the government role as you mentioned. Mr. Professor Stiglitz, how far do you think governments should go to solve this issue? Well, I think they have a very important role to play and Laura pointed this out before. You know, the corporations can go a long way but you have competitions between different companies and unfortunately you're going to have some companies that may not behave well. You know, like we've been having, actually two years ago in Davos, I was panel with one of the soft drink companies that talked about how they wanted not to do something about the childhood diabetes problem that the sugar-rich drinks were doing. But their competitors were making more money by having these soft drinks that children love. So you have to have a regulatory framework that says, you know, you can't try to get children addicted to these foods that lead to childhood diabetes. So you have to have a legal framework that says there are certain things you can't do that are so destructive to society. So I think that's absolutely essential. We talked about having a minimum wage and I think the minimum wage has to be much higher but then the corporations have to have the flexibility in different communities the cost of living is different. So their mindset should be what is a livable blue age? You know, if they start thinking about their workers and say in the United States the minimum wage is $7.25. You know, that's $15,000. You can't pay your rent for that in New York City. So if the employer started saying, could I live and support a family at $15,000 a year? The answer is obviously you're in deep poverty. And as a corporation, do I want my workers in that kind of poverty working full time? The answer is not if you're a responsible employer. So you think the government should be more involved in maker framework? It has to be more involved because the nature of the market is there is a certain element of competition and unfortunately if you don't have the right legal framework there will be a race to the bottom and that's what we've been seeing in lots of aspects of American capitalism. What's your response to his argument? Well, I think it's kind of just matter of how you distribute the wealth, I think. Well, I don't know, to me the government has to build the framework on two things. I think one of those is to make a rule to ensure the fair market. To prevent like the economy of rentier market, I would say. And the next thing is probably to build the framework on the wealth distribution. And in that aspect I think I would say that the Japanese government is doing pretty good and maybe too good. So I think it's a two major thing. I'll come up with the... Mr. Jay, what do you think the government should take lead or the corporation should take lead? Well, I don't mind. Well, I actually agree upon the professor. Yeah, government has to do with some legal framework. Based on that, well, the corporate has to do their own best. That's how it works. But I suggest that one other thing, actually, usually government pushing that a lot of the penalty system. But in order to boosting that ESG value, so change of corporate behavior as an incentive system is, well, sometimes much more effective. So what I was trying to do is I already told you that 220 different social enterprise partners to measure that ESG value. But there is one other pilot test. Actually, with those measurement and annually we checked the value each one social enterprise generated, the social value, then actually SK, my company forming the fund to the matching with the ESG value actually as a kind of incentive, positive incentive. Right now it's about 25% of the social value they generate and we matching as a cash. So we give them the cash. So it's a kind of pilot test. We wanted to collect the data and how actually this incentive system changes their behavior and society. And I think it's too early to talk about, it's only the five years. We've been doing this five years but we collected some data but it's not enough to this incentive system. It really works for everybody. I don't know yet. So it's a limited pilot test. But once we had enough data, then actually we could suggest that not only just the negative things and there's a positive incentive system, they boost that we can actually make the state called capitalism. So you don't need the help of the government in that sense? No, actually when we finish this incentive system, it really works and we're going to actually propose to government where the society has to adopt that there were these systems. So that's another government role I guess. But right now as the government always said, they cannot actually make these kind of tests. So actually corporate did our own roles and as a kind of CSR activity. Interesting. Professor, what do you think is this a corporation that should take lead or a government should take lead for the stakeholder? They both have to be working together. I don't think you can say priority. The government sets the framework, the actual actions are going to occur at the level of the corporation. And you want the corporations to go beyond the minimum. I think they ought to be striving. And I think when we think about it, we want to think about both the negative and the positive saying that you should do no harm. You shouldn't engage in exploitation. Your profits shouldn't be taking advantage of the vulnerable. Shouldn't be using extremes of market power to hurt other people. So that's do no harm kind of thing. And a lot of the profits in the United States came out of exploitation. The rentier economy and that doesn't make for a vibrant economy. And then on the positive side, I think there is an obligation of corporations to think about how do they create a better society, better, you know, treat the environment well. That's a positive. But also promote other social values like diversity. You know, the government can set the framework. And it may have to be stronger in some societies than others. You know, 40% of the women of the board should be women. You know, you shouldn't have to regulate it, but we look at where we are and you say, well, we need a little bit of a push. And eventually we won't have to do it because they'll discover that it actually adds to the board. But right now, I think there's a need of a little government push in these areas. But I would say that probably like an extreme form of government involvement is probably like a state capitalism that you will see in China, for example. And Mr. Cha, you know a lot about the Chinese economic system. Do you think that state capitalism can work like the state holder capitalism can do? I mean, like a similar role in for society? I think it's a, this is, when we talk about state capitalism and when we think about state-owned enterprises and using China as an example, it actually has a very interesting journey. 20 years ago, when the state-owned enterprises came to list in Hong Kong and what do we do? We look at the state enterprises, it is a mini community in itself. The company, not only if it is a steel company, a petrochemical or whatever, they has the production, but they also take care of its employees from cradle to grave. They have childcare, they have hospital, they have schools and they have elderly care. They have the entire work. And that is the state-owned enterprise. And in the process of listing, we said, those are not your core responsibility. Your responsibility, the company's core objective is to produce steel or whatever is your business. And so you should divest all of those into another entity or it should not be the core part. And so you see the state-owned enterprise, the state capitalism, if one could call it, is taking care of your entire community. It's not just the employee, but the family and so on. Then we said, well, you know, those are taking away your attention. You should focus on making profit and making sure that you are an efficient enterprise. So they divest away from that. At the same time, after they might divest all of that, they list as a listed company and we look at them and then these are state-owned enterprises. So the majority of these companies shareholder is the state. But from the state's point of view, the government's point of view, who is representing the state? So they appoint the directors. So the directors feel that they are responsible to the management, data management. The board of directors are appointed by the state, by different ministry. But the state, then the sense of the government feel that no one actually is representing them, their interests. So it's a very interesting journey that we have seen in China. But more broadly, when we talk about state capitalism, it's the state that given certain incentive and subsidies to companies to enable them to compete in a market where they have added advantage. And I think that is becoming less and less acceptable in society today. State-owned enterprises, at least those are listed in Hong Kong, are treated like any other listed companies and they have to disclose the same kind of their income and their various expenditure in the same way. So gradually the state-owned enterprises, at least those that are listed, are behaving more and more like a commercial enterprise. So that we've seen from Hong Kong's perspective, we've seen that journey. But state capitalism has worked in one phase of the development as a stakeholder. As a stakeholder, you can say that they have a role to play. And I think there is a divergence of interest is whether the state is the employer or the company that wants to maximize the profit. So I think in each case, I would say by and large, the state-owned enterprises are behaving certainly more commercially like the other companies. Professor Stiglitz, what do you take on state capitalism? Well, I think the journey that was just described is a very interesting one because in some way they began much more like stakeholder firms. They worried about their workers and then they were told, don't worry about your workers so much, focus on profits. Of course the profits go to the government and that could be used to advance other social objectives. But in fact, and I think the point was an important one, the governance of these institutions is not really done by the state, for society as a whole. And that's one of the reasons why we, in the West there's a lot of emphasis on decentralization and a market economy because you get more voices into how this operates. So to me, the big issue in some ways is this issue of governance, accountability, decentralization, a level playing field, and this is particularly important, allowing new enterprises to come in. And it's a decentralization not only of economic power but also of political power. And the reason in the United States 150 years ago we began the antitrust laws about concentration of economic power to break it up was to create a more dynamic competitive economy. And in the case of China, they were moving in that direction. There was a lot new private enterprises coming in. And when there's private competing with the public, I think you can get that, we call it dynamic ecology with the right legal framework. And now some of the worry is that the space for the private sector may be diminished and the playing field is less level than it used to be. And that's a problem. So if we, as one kind of institution competing with other kinds of institutions, that's fine, just like we have cooperatives that are an important institution in our society. Our universities are not, for the most part, profit-making. We can have a diversity of institutional arrangements. I think that's fine. So when you stifle the ability of new enterprises to come in, that's when I get worried. I see. Ms. Chau, what's your reaction to his worry? I would agree with Joe. I think the state, if it is using its power to crowd out the space for the private enterprise, then it goes back to the antitrust cases in the United States where the companies, not the government, the companies get to be too big, the monopoly, and then it has an unfair sphere of influence on the market as a whole. And on democracy. And I think in general, I think competition is good. We've seen cases after cases where an industry where there's not enough competition, it's the ones who suffer, the ones who suffer are the consumers. So when we talk about capitalism, it really, whether it's stakeholder or shareholder, we have to identify who are the people that are being affected. So in the shareholder capitalism, we only think about the shareholder, the investor. But in the stakeholder, there are so many different elements. And if the government is using its power and influence to really suffocate some part of the business, then I think when it comes back that the stakeholder capitalism is not working, it becomes dominated by a certain sector. Dr. Sugri, you mentioned that democracy. Democracy is important for the stakeholder capitalism, not the state capitalism. Well, that goes to, you might say, my broader sense of values. And, you know, we begin, the discussion is what is the objective of the economy? And are we supposed to serve the economy? Is the economy supposed to serve us? What are our, what do we care about? And we care about obviously material goods, but we care about a lot of other things. We care about our environment. We care about allowing people to flourish as individuals. And part of one of the important things that people care about is voice, that they are being heard, and they're heard within the corporation, but also within our society. And that's what democracy is about. And so we have to keep, I think, this broader perspective of what are we trying to achieve. And it's not just maximizing GDP. It's maximizing well-being in a very broad sense. And that's really, we want to measure that at the level of the society. And that's what we want to measure that at the level of the corporation. And that's the kind of ESG kind of thing that good corporations are trying to do. Now, let me focus in the future. And there are growing concerns that the artificial intelligence, AI and robotics are going to replace human workers. And I wonder what stakeholder capitalism has achieved in this destructive era of change. Mr. Chay. Yes, people's worry about technological changes and these technologies will evolve too fast. It affected a lot of our society and the peoples. But actually the problem is the directions. The directionless AI is a really danger. Because, well, we only focus on the money. But if we put in the other directions, like equal the value between the ESG and also the financial value, then actually the AI has the right direction and they actually protected some, yeah, the environmental values and social value and governance also. So it's a kind of tools. Yeah, there is some hammers and what are you going to use these hammers for? So that's my perception. So using AI, so one example is actually one of our subsidiaries is making the AI speakers. And usually they're good for listening to the music and those things. But as long as we put it in the social value in it, then people think a little bit differently. So careful to the elderly. So the elder people don't have actually the whole day. They actually talk to anybody. Then this AI speaker is monitoring his health and the security because if he not speak to the speakers in a certain time, then it's a kind of alarm. And then it's a normal situation and the elderly people speak actually to the speakers. Whatever they want. Sometimes this speaker is not perfect and will answer back to wrong things. But I don't understand what he's saying. But anyhow, the elderly people talk to. That actually prevented some Alzheimer's. So I bring that to some of the ventures. How actually measuring the target and the normal target and the different target to using the AI speaker to prevent the Alzheimer's. So actually when you make some direction to the right way, it could actually help and create jobs. So it's a matter of how you're using your tools. That's my perception. That's interesting. Do you have any way to... The social revolution led by the AI or the new technology industrialization I think will become more capital intensive as well as probably technology intensive. And I'm afraid, like you said, I'm sure that this is not really the positive on employment. And then this is the biggest challenge we face, I think, from the very near future, I think. And my concern is that for our case, I think at least maybe 10% job will be replaced by the AI or the new technology. And so the question is, the challenge is, do you think you can create a new business model to generate the opportunity for the employment, I think? That's a challenge, I think. Do you have anything to add? Well, I think the disruption caused by technology could be, you know, in a good way, like the SK Group has done, there are methods and new products that have been created for the welfare of the society. But for the corporation itself, in terms of practicing the stakeholder capitalism, a responsible employer should be reskilling and upskilling its staff. Why the company tried to use technology to upgrade its own processes, its own operation, which make it more efficient and more, you know, really catch up with the time, the staff that might be displaced should be retooled, reskilled and upskilled. I think those are the way to make that you're being a responsible employer to your employees who are one of your stakeholders. But at the same time, it also creates stability in the workforce. At the end of the day, I think it's good for the company and good for the community. Can I just add? You know, I think the focus should be on using these new tools for well-being and recognizing the challenges they pose. So I think I agree absolutely that you have to play a role in helping people facilitate the transition to these new economies, providing them with some element of security because there will be job loss, no matter how hard you do, or at least job transition. The other side is, again, back to the do no harm because the AI gives you opportunity for exploitation, of discriminatory pricing, invasions of privacy. There are lots of new negative opportunities that the new instruments. And I think stakeholder capitalism says, don't do that. Let's focus on improving the well-being of our society. Yeah, you're keeping that. We're running out of time, so we'd like to wrap up this. I'd like to ask each of you to choose a keyword, one keyword that describes your vision for stakeholder capitalism. Will you give me 30 seconds for each, Mr. Choi? Yes, keyword is measurement. Yeah, unless you measure, you cannot manage it. So, well, it's a joke, and we need some actions. Otherwise, as a native, no action, talk only. So, without measurement, and I don't think that, well, we don't have any first steps to stakeholder capitalism. So, well, we have to know who the stakeholder is and what really they want and how to measure the value improvement with those things. And I think that we can make the real change. Thank you. Mr. Choi? I would say responsible, be a responsible employer, be a responsible community leader, be a responsible participant in society. I mean, that goes to being responsible to various aspects of the stakeholder capitalism. Great. Well, the word I come up with is still the animal spirit. Animal spirit. Yeah. And encourage and respect the animal spirit. But on the same time, control the animal spirit for common good. Interesting. So, I can't get up one word, but I'll get four words. Inclusive, sustainable, accountable, and progressive. Right. This is the right time to wrap up this meeting. Thank you very much. It was a great discussion. Thank you.