 Good morning ladies and gentlemen, can I start the next session please? First of all, welcome, it's the last day of Davos. We're going to try to make this a sparkly and rapid fire session and hopefully also invite questions and discussion preferably with the audience, so hereby as you pick up thoughts, have questions, have comments. Feel free to interject them. If not, I'm sure this panel is capable of continue to talk. First of all, let me introduce the people that are around me. Ladies first still, if you don't mind, to the left of me, Inga Bale, the CEO of Lloyds of London as it's always a welcome to her left is Minister Pradhan with two very interesting portfolios as he explained to me, energy and skills and entrepreneurship in India and particularly the last one. I think it's very relevant for this discussion. To his opposite is our good friend Tarek who's a regular visitor of this forum, heading in particularly in the Middle East a logistics, can I still call it a startup? I think I can. And otherwise you can correct me later on. And to the right of me, Gilbert Riel is the CEO of Gleitner in Germany. Startup too? Not really. Not really. 110 years ago. I think that's old enough isn't it. So welcome. The topic of today and let me briefly set the scene and then I will ask the panelists to inject that is called from linear to exponential value change that that's a bit of corporate speak. So let me try to translate that and put it in perspective if you if you if you don't if you don't mind. Now first of all, it starts from technology as this whole week in Davos has been dominated by by technology. The impact of technology is not what it always has been. It has become truly revolutionary and it has truly impacted every industry and every part of society and human beings and even our biology. It's really pervasive towards our revolutionary. Those are words that I think are proper to use in this case. And what has happened a few years ago or let's say 10 years ago when you talked about the technologies that were that were talking about AI and the Internet. The impact was typically still involving consumer, the end consumer. It was a consumption element and it typically involved startups and we all know the companies that have brought them to bear the the Facebooks of of the world. What has now happened over the last years and that the impact is really I think still only hardly understood. It has moved to the heart of the company I've called the Internet is beginning to affect value chains, companies, how companies produce, where they produce it. Countries are becoming increasingly impacted by that. So the technological revolution from a consumer product from a gadget if you could call that often involving startups affects now the heart of the company and this beginning to affect established companies in every in every industry. The technologies that we're talking about is a wide range. Yes, everyone this week talks about AI, about artificial intelligence, which is a very, very large one and the impact is is progressing dramatically fast. But it's certainly not the only one. Robotics is increasing dramatically over the next two years. Robotics is forecasted to double with an impact that we only are beginning to to imagine IOT 3D printing is beginning to allow that that production does not have to take place at one central large plant anymore, but can be can be localized with everything involved there. Wearables, blockchain, a massive impact, I can go on and on and on. The importance is all these technologies take place more or less at the same time and have a converging effect. The reason that we talk about the force industrial revolution. It's running very fast and it's not allowing any country and any individual and any company to sit still and to plan for it. It is largely it's difficult to plan for this and it's partly why why we talk about it this week. And therefore you need to think about it in a different way. Now it's changing value chains value chains. So you first have to design a product. Then you need to buy the components of it. You need to manufacture it. You need to distribute it and if I need to sell it to the final consumer. Typically, I'm generalizing. Typically, we're linear in the sense that we're largely vertically integrated within a company. Most companies vertically integrated these functions because it allowed for scale. For those of you that want to read up to the theory, there was a great British actually economist, Ronald Coase in 1937 already, who wrote that the size of a company of an enterprise is determined by the transaction cost. And by the way, he got a Nobel Prize in the late 90s of that. And there was a good reason for it because the internet has the big impact of the internet is that it lowers transaction costs and it increases transparency. And that's precisely what's happening to value chains. Value chains are breaking up like Lego blocks almost and can be rearranged with dramatically improved transparency and dramatically improved connectivity. Different scale is beginning to emerge. For those of you that were able to read last week's Economist, it started to talk about the increasing scale of Facebook, of Amazon, and companies like that. And increasingly, some governments, some people are beginning to challenge that where the truth is that we will see but new scale elements are beginning to emerge. So instead of a linear value chain, we have more value networks or exponential value chains if you want to call that. That is what's taking place with platform economics, with AI on top of that, etc, etc. Now, is it good or bad? As always in life, I suppose it's a bit of both. It's first of all, largely a good thing. Consumer value is dramatically improving. You can now order something and often get it delivered at the same time. Years ago, it was impossible. We regularly all offer on our phones to Google where we are so we can find the way and we think that's a good trade off. So consumer value has dramatically improved and that's what's driving a lot of this. And I think we've only been still at the start of that. I think there's a lot more to come going forward. It allows startups to come from nowhere and to really grow. It allows innovation. It allows new countries to develop. So it's largely a good thing. But they're clearly also derailers and warning signs, including this article in The Economist about new monopolies that we need to be careful about. Cyber security is obviously a danger if everything is connected everywhere. You really need to think that through what the dangers are. Jobs is a big topic, certainly, this week and I think rightly so. So that is the reason that we're talking about it here. That's why it's a topic of other votes. And that's what I would like to explore with all of you in the audience. And with this panel. So first of all, I would like to start with technology, if that's okay. What do you see are the biggest impacts? What are the most impactful technologies in your industry that you see around? Tara, could I start with you on this? For me, it's an easy one. I think digitization is going to fundamentally change the way supply chains work. And the reason I picked digitization is because there's so little of it around. If you look at the way trade works today, a lot of it is manual, whether it's in the private sector sphere or in the sphere of governments. There's too many processes that are offline. And I think that's the first order of benefit. And to the extent that we can improve the level of technology in that area, I think we'll dramatically reduce transaction costs. And we'll enable the SME segments around the world, which is going to be really important to getting a favorable political dialogue around these new technologies. Yeah, Inga, to the left. What is impactful for Lloyds of London and for your customers, by the way? Yeah, so Lloyds of London, definitely not a startup. 329 years old this year, and we do lots of complex insurance. So our customer base are businesses, fundamentally. And of course, their business models are being transformed with technology. That means our products have to transform to fit them. But for our own business model, the technology is changing dramatically. We have an incredibly manual process that is all paper-based. We have a trading environment that's very physical, with 4,000 people coming together in one big trading room and doing business with paper. And that's got to stop. So we've got a massive modernization program digitizing all of that. But the important thing is, then, the AI you can apply when it gets digital. So suddenly, the experts, the technicians, the technical experts who have been sitting there, and a lot of what they do is in their brain, and as they're assessing risks, pricing it, we're going to start using computers to do that. And even though it's highly complex, the computer won't forget. So once the computer has looked at thousands and thousands and thousands of risks, it will remember every single factor. It'll know what's good, what's bad, and what to look out for. So we will start using artificial intelligence much more in that sphere. But the next thing we're looking at is using blockchain technology, and that's for the transparency thing you mentioned earlier about. This will lead to much more transparency, and that's got to be good for the customer. Right now, a customer, if something goes wrong, they need money. They need to be paid. They've hurt. They've had something's hurt. Something's been lost. Something's been damaged. They have no idea where that is in a process. So using blockchain technology, we're hoping, is then going to have one place for everyone to look at. They've submitted some documents, some claims, something to us, and that everybody can track it through the process. So that's going to be our next big investment, and that's happening this year. Minister, in the US, in many ways, still a developing country, it's a very large company. And if you look at the typical rankings that we always see every year, in terms of technology, it's not at the level of the Koreas and Japan, but it's rapidly changing. What do you see as the technologies that will have the biggest impact on growth in India and also on the way society develops? See, we're a developing country. Rightly, you have mentioned, we're a developing country. Our challenges are multi-dimensional. We have to adapt technology very fast. We have to implement and percolate the technology for convenience in the society in a big way. If I can say two statistics in India, we are very fast-adapting new technology and our base is increasing. Ours is a 1.3 billion country. Out of that, now my mobile number is, mobile connection is more than a billion. 30%, 35% of that mobile network is now connected with internet. Internet is fast-emerging. Enter India is now connected with 4G. We're using 5G in a pilot basis. And now, very soon, we'll be converting it up to 5G. We have a unique identity number of near total of the population. Recently, in one of the welfare scheme, Prime Minister Modi initiated one scheme, we have to open, we have to bank the unbankable. In the short span of one and a half year, we could open more than 300 million new bank accounts. We could only achieve using this technology route. This is our experience. This is our practice of linear to exponential growth. In every aspect, India is a aspiring country. India is a country of young population. In the short span, in the first, second, third industrial revolution, we could not match. But as you said, industrial revolution 4.0 is not going to make anybody sit idle. So India doesn't want to miss the bus also. Using technology, adopting technology for financial growth, for developmental project, for health care, for education, the ministry I am in charge skilling, we are using this method of technology adoption and make it scalable and have a positive impact in the short span. This is our practice. Thank you very much. Gilbert, finally you. Kulitnar. Yeah, concerning technologies, so maybe not platforms yet, but technologies, I would say artificial intelligence and machine learning has definitely the biggest impact currently because it just impacts also all the technologies you mentioned. It impacts robotics, 3D printing. This is all based on artificial intelligence and machine learning. And the impact of corporates will be very significant. So we expect within our company that more than 50% of, for instance, of the repetitive work will fall apart with artificial intelligence. So we already implemented, for instance, artificial intelligence for IT administration. So we don't need any IT administrators more. And this goes through the corporate and also then in terms of predictions, predictive sales and all this. So this is all based on artificial intelligence and also platforms to a significant part. And also when we're talking about the big ones, the most important basic technologies, in my point of view, artificial intelligence, machine learning, going forward, it could be blockchain, but not for everything, I think. So here, also in Davos, blockchain is, I would say, the buzzword of, and what I learned, so it's good to come to Davos. What I learned here is that blockchain really doesn't work for everything. So we, for instance, and we may come back later to this, we have initiated a platform for the steel and metals industry and we're thinking also about a blockchain technology for this platform, but if this is the right technology, we don't know yet. At least we have a better understanding about what it is now. Because I think one of the things about blockchain is that when we were talking about it a year ago, we didn't quite, we didn't really understand it, did we? And I think at least we're moving on because a lot of these technologies, they are difficult to understand and we need to, particularly if they're going to interact with our customers, our customers have got to understand. When you have data which has to be changed, for instance, then blockchain doesn't make sense. So it doesn't work for everything and I have the feeling here now that everyone wants to move to blockchain, but this will also not work properly. But the biggest one for you is AI and AI is developing now. It's not something over five or ten years. That's a clear message I have this week too, would you agree? Yeah, I would agree. Unfortunately, primarily in the U.S. and in China, so also our AI technology comes in this case from the U.S. and but, yeah. Can we briefly pick up on that and particularly I would like to ask the minister the question. It is clear that all these technologies are highly unequally divided. Let's put it that way. I think something like 70% of all robots are in five countries and it's the usual suspects. It's Germany, South Korea, Japan, U.S. and all the rest of the technologies highly unequally divided. So not only within the society, but also between countries. Mr. Edemar, I must concern you. How do you bridge that, you think? You see, it was, if I equate with one example, few years back, with basic mobile phone as a rare commodity in Indian society, in Indian economy, when the base of pyramid will increase, the pyramid will be strong. The base of the pyramid will be strong. Then the challenge of adaptability of technology also reduce, also it will be cost-effective. Few years back, the cost, we have to pay for per unit cost in mobile. That was the primary reason mobile became the starter symbol, it's a commodity of elite. Now, when I'm talking about one billion mobile users are there in India, that means enter societies, sizable section of societies adopting technology because it is creating convenience, it is creating value, it is creating, it has its economic impact. Yes, today, I vegetated Microsoft's hologram virtual classrooms, it's very interesting. Today it is costly, today it is costly, it has to be cost, has to reduce. It can be scalable and basic nature of the society to adopt new things in the shorter span. Now the developed country has to, if it is economic proposition for them also, if they want to have a bigger market, they have to create a business model, how it can go to developing countries, how it can be cost-effective, how it can be regional language-based. Then only artificial intelligence will be much more useful for me if it will convert to my language. So these are the challenges, some of the major challenges in front of this industry. I want to jump a bit on upsides, downsides, and derailers and winners and losers, and not just because that's provocative, but I think it's important to understand that. Tarek, you're a startup, you're a challenger, you compete with many established players. Can you elaborate a bit on that? Well, we're a startup that's in 100 countries, and so I think it's important to preserve the culture of a startup even when you start growing. And I think when we look at this paradigm, it's clear that there's a $2.4 billion, a trillion dollar, I would say benefit from these technologies when you measure in terms of social impact and economic impact. Those are coming in two areas. One is in the area of the environment. And I think it's important that we recognize the fact that 50% of trucks are basically coming back on empty legs. And there's technologies that are out there now that we're investing in that are improving this situation dramatically. So one of the, I think big, the other benefit are the SMEs. And I think we need to talk about how we make sure this benefit is going in equal way to the SMEs. And one of the ways we got into trouble with the WTO in the past is that most people believed that the WTO was about big business. And when you see that nine out of the 10 new jobs in the emerging markets are coming from the SME segment and 95% of all businesses are in the SME segment, we need to do what the SME segment really needs. And that means to make the trade much more efficient and easier to conduct. What are the ways to lose this in your industry? Yeah, so we are a steel and metals distributor. So we're buying principle steel from the big steel producers and then we're distributing this to all kinds of steel users, small craftsmen from small craftsmen to automotive. So what will happen in our industry, and this will happen probably also in more or less all industries, we will have this kind of platforms going forward. And but what these platforms are doing, these platforms are moving themselves between the producer and the customer. And they are not moving it. So the producer loses, if you like, the customer, but not only the customer, it also takes a significant share of the margin. And this, by the way, and what are you doing now as an incumbent when you know this is gonna happen going forward? We started with digitalization four years ago. So we were setting up our own hub in Berlin and we have meanwhile, there are 85 digital natives and we produced a lot of so far proprietary platforms. But finally, it has to be an open platform. Finally, this works only when also competitors can join the platform. And this is the reason why we launch now a separate venture, which we will finance, by the way, by with a networking capital and where Kruppner will end up in a minority position so that we cannot dominate this company because when we would dominate this, we would not lose, we would not make sure that competitors come in on the platform. And but this is then also finally disruptive to our own business because this will then cannibalize our own business. And the question now is what happens going forward when it works, when platforms are successful and platforms are only successful. Finally, I would say when the platform is dominating. Yeah, then they also the value will move from the physical business in this case, probably to this platform company. Yeah, and I want to come back on that later, by the way. Indeed, in theory, the most successful business model is a monopoly. In the end, everything is stopped. That's where it often tends to move to. But I want to come back on that because that's indeed a very typical. I first want to continue on winners and losers and the arrears. Inga, you're in the trust business, I think. And you mentioned cybersecurity. And that brings it back to trust. Can you elaborate on that? Yeah, so because of everything being connected and a lot of things now being stored in the cloud, one of the big things we're concerned about is something happening to that and disrupting that. And Lloyds is the largest insurer of cyber insurance and many businesses, although predominantly in North America at the moment, are buying insurance against cyber attacks. Now, the thing that we've just done a piece of research, actually, which looks at how dependent a lot of businesses are on these cloud providers. And we've done an analysis in just in the US alone, if one of the top three cloud providers fails, they are hacked, something happens, and their services down for three to six days, which is perfectly feasible, that would affect 12.4 million businesses in the US alone and could give rise to $15 billion of economic loss. That's one cloud provider. And that just goes to show how when people think of their suppliers and you're talking about a monopoly, I would dread to think that there would be a cloud provider monopoly because already there's a high, high concentration in very few cloud providers. And that's what technology is doing. It's bringing new risks that we never used to have in our supply chains before. So you still insure against those risks? We do. And there have been some more high-profile cyber attacks and the cyber insurance demand is expected to grow exponentially because as it spreads out across the world and particularly regulation, which has a big influence on this, creeps out around the world, we're expecting to see a three-fold increase just in the next two to three years. Yeah, so you would argue for more regulation on that point? I think there needs to be some regulation around cyber and the internet in total. I think that it's going, no one's really taking ownership for it and every business, so our business is highly regulated, banking insurance, highly regulated, but because we've got technology happening all around it, the regulators look on and they don't know, well, I don't really regulate that piece, but it has a big influence on the customer. How do we get our arms around this? Who is going to be regulating this web that we all rely on? So I think something needs to be done about that. Minister Zephyk, yes? You want to pick it up? Yeah, only by the way. So the winner, you asked about the winner. Yeah, the winner is the platform orchestrator, platform provider. This is the winner and we have seen this in B2C and we probably will see this also in B2B. Yeah, yeah. Minister, have you started to look at regulatory aspects on this or is that? I would like to answer the part one and then you come to regulatory one. Winner is society, winner is system. There is no loser, there are challenges. Here lies the role of regulator. This is a new area. Startups are coming up with new solution, innovative solution. They're scaling up in the old days. We never thought this can be scalable in such a big way. Way, my friend as I told, now this company is working in 100 countries. There are 100 domestic laws that are involving the same product. So there must be some interest regulation. There must be some, and this is a distrust related issue. There must be some non-interfering regulation, self-guided regulation has to be there because this is breaking all the boundaries, all the boundaries and their typical issues are there in a different part of globe. There must be some framework, some protocol, some self-guided protocol has to be there. Yeah, yeah, sorry, yeah. Just going back to the SMEs, I think one of the really challenging issues for them is that the trading environment is still complex. If you are an SME and you're shipping and you're looking at international trade, the customs rules and regulations are something that are not transparent to you. And so we can either sit around and wait for governments to fix those and digitize their own supply chains and we're working on a number of projects where they are, or you can use technology to take that complexity and simplify for the SME. It's one of the ways that we are responding to this. So you can take that complexity and put it in a transparent platform for SMEs and basically allow them to get more of a dividend from this trade and this potential. And I think one of, again, the big risks and we talk about whether we're gonna be creating more monopolies or where the value is going to, is if we don't look at those sorts of initiatives, then the value is gonna be concentrated in larger companies. And I don't think we can afford that this time around. The reason that we're going down this path is we need to make this an inclusive opportunity for everyone. And the way to do that is by bringing the SMEs along. And I think it's a really important message and that's one of the things that could derail the success of the future of these technologies. Yeah. Gilbert, you come from the country which is the champion of the Meadal Stonters, it's called so now nicely, maybe not SMEs, but maybe MEs or whatever you wanna call that. How is that in Germany? That's a big debate, isn't it? The spread of technology and whether what made Germany, the German economy great over the last day, I guess in many ways, whether all are participating with that. Can you comment on that? Yeah, the problem going forward is of course when these platforms finally dominate the market, then it's of course difficult for all these mid-sized companies to catch up. Exactly. They already have difficulties to catch up with the digitalization anyhow, but when they are then finally connected to all kinds of platforms, and when the value is really, or the margin is then moving to the platform, then they're getting difficulties. And these platforms finally have to be big. So have to be big. And every platform tries, to dominate the market. So we have seen this in B2C, and we will see this also in B2B. For instance, in our industry, it wouldn't make sense to have five platforms. And then also the convenience for the customers, no more there. The convenience there when there's one access, when there's one interface to one platform. So this could be challenging going forward for these companies. Minister, can you comment on that? Monopolies and platforms in India, are you afraid of that? Is that too early? No, we're not afraid of that. We feel the more company, and those who are already there, because recently India is debating on one issue. That's also now is in front of judiciary. When we develop the unique identity number, even UID, is it data? How do we use that? Some companies are using, payment banks are using that. Some consumer derivatives companies are using that. When they're using all these data, sometime some overlapping, some exits are there. Some kind of little bit monopolies are there, but society, finally, that product is available in different platforms also. That creates an internal competition. I don't see any, because technology is not a single window affair. It's a multi-dimensional, it's a multi-window. If I'm not satisfied with this product or this platform, I may, I may, that because fair competitions are emerging, new startups coming up with a higher version, so I don't see what, with our experience, I don't see monopoly will be a challenge, but regulation has to be there. Yeah. But regulation often comes too late. There's a problem because the technology is changing so fast, and when it was regulation, that's too late anyhow. That's the dynamic. So that's what I say. This is self-derived regulation has to be there. Some code of conduct has to be there. It's a very dynamic. But the only thing with that is that if there's existing regulation that limits using it, and one example we have, I mean, that's the concern. We're the largest insurer of shipping around the world, and of course, autonomous ships are basically there, they're ready, they can go, but ports can't take them because of the regulation around controlling port areas. So they can't take it into their own hands, or the shipping sector can't, because they physically won't be able to take their ships in, they won't be allowed to because of the existing regulation, and it's slowing down progress. Yeah. Can we think here, blockchain can be our use? Can we put some of the transparent information in the blockchain so people will interact, people will know, there will be self-accounting, self-certificates will be there. Yes, here can't, we should not use regulation. We should use code of conduct. Some self-declared code of conduct should be there. It should not be restrictive. Then any regulation, any restriction is detrimental for technology. Yes, so your point is regulation is always has a certain time lack by definition, so use codes or use other means to basically have something in the short term. Yes, you're laughing, I think. No, I just think at the moment it seems to be holding certain areas back, that's all, because there is existing regulation. If it's something brand new that doesn't have regulation, of course it's moving ahead quickly, but existing old industries, I think, are being held back. I know you can cite one example, it's in brand new. Recently, seaplane came to India. Till now, we don't have any idea of seaplane. We don't have any regulation. How do we do that? So no, no, no. Usually, how do a government behave? No, we don't have written information, written documentation, there is no. It should not be. Technology is the, technology will be, who is the sufferer? Sufferer is the poorest of the poor, greater society. He should not be devoured from the technology development of industrial revolution 4.0. This community has to find out some way. What are they? I mean, there are students, so I just want to say, so in insurance, and we're very global, there are some countries that demand a paper insurance policy. You go to China, they've got millions and millions of consumers buying insurance on their mobile device, and yet some countries, because they're established, insist on paper, and that's where it can, that's where it slows down progress for some parts of the world. So I think this is where there's a little bit of a disconnect. If you were to, we did a survey of SMEs. 86% say that technology levels the playing field for them. So they perceive technology as being an enabler for the business, and the statistics show that 100% of technology enabled SMEs actually export. So I think the biggest problem that we have is that when we talk about regulation, the regulations that we have are actually impeding the development, and if you look at Europe, for example, the laws about the protection of data, et cetera, it's no accident that the majority of the successful companies are coming out of the US and China because they don't have those same restrictions. So we have to look at the, we have to look at minimizing regulations and look at, talk about empowering these technologies because the future, whether we like it or not, you're not gonna be able to regulate away the developments taking place. It's just inevitable, it's happening. We need to be part of the future enabled. I have a quick look around. I want to make sure that we recognize the audience. Are there any people in the audience that have a question to the panel? If not, I continue. There's a question right behind me. Please go ahead. Maybe we can have a mic. You can say who you are and where you're from, please. I'm Arun Sharma. I'm a member in the Adani Group Board in Australia, and I'm also a Deputy Vice-Chancellor of Research at Queensland University of Technology. Your question about blockchain, it's not suitable if you change your data very frequently, but it is suitable if you care about the history of the change, who made change when. That's very important. Anyway, the question I'm talking about is, we are focusing on AI robotics and everything. And you did mention 3D printing. In some ways, for the discussion we are having among the value chain, if 3D printing technology really takes off, and if you look at companies like HP Inc, who are betting the farm on manufacturing, basically moving to 3D printing. So in a way you can look at manufacturers as the ultimate middlemen. And so the consequence of value chain, 3D printer manufacturers, they will make money, but they will be competition. So everyone is trying to manufacture things locally. The value then shifts to the designers whose design is being used, and you can use blockchain to put a digital signature every time the 3D printer prints, and the value shifts to the designer. But the value also shifts to the countries that produce resources. If they have the wherewithal to reduce their power cost so that you can make powders and ship it, and shipping powders is a lot cheaper than shipping finished goods or raw materials. The consequence for insurance companies is that container shipping will go down and bulk shipping will go up. And this is a profound shift over the last two centuries. Manufacturing has become this day, and we have been thinking about disintermediation in the digital world. The physical manufacturing world might be completely changed, and that might be even more profound for value chains than we think about. That is a fantastic provocative question. Thank you very much. By the way, if for those of you that know companies like Maersk, they would confirm that already. And the reason is the world where a lot of manufacturing is done, for instance, in China, and for instance, based on low labor cost, is rapidly, rapidly, rapidly shifting. Tarek, can you pick up that question? Are we, how rapidly are we moving to a world where production will be more reshort, reshort, near-short, much more local, much more small, completely changing what you produce and particularly what you distribute in between? Yeah, we're there already. I mean, if you look at the way that container traffic has been stagnant in the last few years, I think one of the big drivers of that is some of these assets taking place. So I think Maersk knows that, we know that. But I do think, going forward, when you look at technologies like blockchain, we have to think really carefully about why the problem exists in the first place. So if one of the benefits of blockchain is transparency, well, there's many aspects of competition between countries, the way customs organizations work that don't necessarily want that transparency of information between organizations. So we have to really look fundamentally at why the problem exists before we can start looking at technologies. A good example of where blockchain could be helpful is in the area of payments. So if you were to try to transfer money into Africa, oftentimes the cost can be up to 12% of the transfer. But there are services out there that use blockchain to do that same transaction for 2%. So that's a real enabling way to enable trade, to enable money transfer. That blockchain, you're not speculating where you're speculating for half an hour, but you're not really speculating in the way that a lot of us are starting to think about blockchain, but that could be a real enabler for SMEs, especially in the emerging markets. I think it will work. Yes, go ahead, please. To pick up on the aspect about the manufacturing impact, of course, it's also gonna have a huge impact on services. A lot of people offshore, they had call centers and humans, of course, in other countries providing that advice. That's all going to chatbots and robo-advisors now. And so that's gonna have a huge impact on some of those countries as well, just not just the physical manufacturing, but also this service community. There's a question there right behind you. Yes, a question. I would like to build on what was just said. Because I'm from Dassau system, we provide platforms for almost all airplane manufacturers. Everything you flew is designed simulated with our software. I want to comment on what Boeing announced six months ago because I think it's a very profound story. They have announced that they will digitally control all suppliers and to end on their digital IP. That way they buy will change and they are going to move from supply to value to value network. The consequences are significant because basically what is going to happen is they are going to use the platform to control spare parts, services. So the platform can be good for companies. And more than that, they are going to trade in the supply by comparing the cost internally with what can be printed by someone else real time. And they will be able to track the cost on produce as close as possible where the spare parts are needed. So I believe that it's much more than digitalization supply chain. It's really the digital asset becoming the value and therefore being produced wherever it has to be produced because this is changing all the ecosystem. And if I may add, and heavily impacting the competitive dynamics as well. It is at a point where the robotization, for example, is at such a level that a plan can be built in the countries of the world without losing any IP. Because the robot does the job and it's difficult to understand how the robots work. Yeah, and on the, we've done analysis on the intangible nature of assets these days. And if you look at the S&P 500, few decades ago, it was made up of fundamentally sort of 85% tangible assets, 15% intangible. That's completely reversed now. 85% of the S&P 500 assets are intangible. In other words, data, something we can't get our hands on. There are many questions. Who's first? Did you keep track? Okay. Go ahead. I guess along the same line of thought, my question is about the title of this session, you know, exponential supply chains. I would like to get your views on the word chains. Because I think, in fact, we're more talking about networks, webs, complete change of players and so on. So your view on that one. Gilbert, you want to take that? Are we moving from chains to networks? Yeah, of course, to networks. So a platform is orchestrating a network and not a chain. So in our case, for instance, producers, distributors, service centers, customers, they're all connected in the platform. So it's clearly not a chain anymore. And I think that's going to mean everything's much more flexible and modular. So you can take things out much more easily without breaking a chain in the old way. Well, I used the example of Lego blocks a little bit because in a search for an analogy where, well, we often go back to our childhood, maybe we should, and it can be reconfigured constantly with both advantages and disadvantages, particularly competitively, I would argue. Thank you for that. Next question. My name is Andreas Richig. I'm with the German media company responsible for legal and compliance. I have a professional interest in regulation and I love this discussion here because it shows there is a complaint on existing regulation, saying it's slowing down and it's no longer adequate. It's preventing innovations taking out speed. And on the other hand, everybody agrees that if, let's say, if a big brother meets big data, we need regulation and we have a monopolistic situation in many areas of our business. When we talk to the European Commission, they are, I would say, they capture what should be regulated in the business-to-consumer world. What they have a huge difficulty in understanding how regulation should look like in the business-to-business world. And you mentioned, for example, in your industry, now you're focusing on the points of failure because the concentration is so high in the cloud business. What is the kind of regulation in these business-to-business areas which should be adapted? And I wonder who is making these proposals? Politicians are not able to. They are in their perception years behind and because, so the question, how could we organize a process of coming up with the right proposals for the right regulation? And one final remark, if I talk to US executives, they say, don't wait for the US. They will be the last to come up with regulation proposals. So the Western internet and the Western style of dealing with artificial intelligence has to be regulated in Brussels. So that's a great question. Thank you for that. And we'll go to the next one in a sec. I need to defend the regulator here for a sec. The technology is developing so rapidly, even young startups are grappling and are fighting with following that and let alone established companies and let alone regulators and people in government. So it is extraordinary hard. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try, of course, which I think is what your argument is. Tariq, you want to comment on that? This is a great question because if you look at how these trade agreements are done and who is negotiating them, they tend to be older trade-oriented professionals and there's nowhere in that dialogue where you have guys that are experts in blockchain or in the new emerging technology. So we need those discussions with the regulators to involve these younger emerging technologies and there's no place for them to actually do that in the way that we've set up international trade. So I think one of the ways that we get around, we want to regulate, but we don't want to impede, the one of the ways we do that is by engaging the right experts in those discussions and they're not the same experts of the past. It was very interesting this week, Macron was arguing to make the institutions better, if I can paraphrase it like that. So that's one way of doing it, upgrade the regulators. The other ones is I've heard from some of my American friends that have more or less given up and they look for different ways of doing that. Not quite sure what it is though, but there's a next question there. Hi, I'm a business school professor so I've got some different points of view. Yeah, I'll be very quick. We need regulation when markets fail. At least that's the theory I subscribe to, not everybody subscribes to it. And so I'm not sure yet that we know that the markets have already failed and we're already asking for regulation. So it'd be nice to first point out where have the markets failed? So for example, your situation where you cannot take an autonomous ship into port is a good example of a market failure and now we need to figure out how can we overcome this market failure? Regulation may not be the only way, certainly what's looking at it, but other solutions to market failure is something that I would like to suggest. The second thing I'd like to pick up on is your introduction to the value chain. You kind of stopped at sales. I'd like to go to service and customer service of course, which I'm sure is in a rodent on your part. And then returns. So I have not yet come across HP making a 3D disintegrator. So those empty trucks are going to have to bring back stuff that needs to go back for recycling. Talking about recycling and renewal, there's now technology that takes old roads and reuses them in place. So you don't cart the old material away someplace and process them and bring it back. You process it on site. And if you look at the renewal that has to occur now in the war-torn areas, all of that concrete and steel can be processed on site. You don't have to take it away anywhere and bring it back. So there's another area in which I think the value chains will change. And as soon as Apple fixes my phone, I can tell you my next point, which I have forgotten obviously. I'm sure we can arrange that for Apple, too. I'm sorry. Okay. The last point I wanted to mention was we haven't talked about skills development. The minister is in charge of skills and I'm sure with the exponential growth of the use of new technology, skills on both the part of the user, as well as the producers have to grow exponentially. That's a great question. Can I ask the minister to comment on skills given that it's a huge part of your portfolio? There's a good suggestion. As I said, in India, what I'm practicing, if I cite that example, in India, our working population is 500 million. We have to upskill them, re-skill them. Otherwise, they'll be useless. How do you do that? Who are my product? Who are my commodity? Here, I have to use this technology route to virtual classrooms, digital information, and upscaling, re-skilling, and with a scale. I have only answered through this technology's energy. That's a question here. Yes, hello. I'm Tim Mowen, chief executive of the Global Reporting Initiative. Actually, in a previous role, I worked in a supply chain for Apple, so maybe I can help my colleague with his phone. But some of my question actually goes to that. Now, we're talking about digital technology leading to the fourth industrial revolution, but we're still dealing with a lot of the problems of the third and maybe even the second industrial revolution. We have forced labor at huge and growing rates. We have child labor. We have entire villages in Bangladesh that are now under water. So how can we use this digital technology to create a race to the top, to really address some of these lingering issues? That is a great question, and if you don't mind, during this week, there have been several sessions on a web initiative called The Future of Production, which is really where, and it started last year, by the way, and my company, AT Carney, has been lucky enough to be one of the partners in that, where we started to look at what is these impact on production systems, where, what is being made, and all the consequences of that. And by the way, to the point, the human skills and human resources were one of the biggest topics around. But this year, there has been work, and I would recommend that you all read that, on readiness of countries. And it was actually quite startling, perhaps not surprising if you think it through, but still startling if you look at that. We looked at 100 countries, so that's only half of the total countries there is, and the vast majority, two-thirds, were way behind, and were not even close. And indeed, to come to your point, we're still largely agricultural economies and dealing with many different aspects. And at the other end of the spectrum, you have the Koreas and the Japan and the Germanies and the United States that are beginning to move into monopolies of platforms and these types of issues. So the distance between the two has been extending. And one of the questions that comes up, what do you do at the country level? What do governments do? To basically stimulate that, to leap ahead, to leapfrog, to perhaps not wade through the various stages of the development going forward. You wanna pick that up? I am in charge of clean cooking failed to our country. When we took charge, we found there are a lot of ghost connections out there in the LPG. Through digitalization, through deduplication, using technology, we could block some of the ghost consumers. And secondly, in India, we subsidized the cooking fail, LPG. Now what we decide, we'll sell it in the market price and we'll pass on the subsidy to his bank account. Recently, India is presiding over the biggest ever DBT mechanism, network, in our country, in the world. Using digitalization, using technology, we can govern, you can speed up the governance. We can find out, you can map the problem. With a fixed time in 2018, we have a plan to connect 40 million households with electrification. How can we do that? Unless until we use technology, we use digital network, we cannot do that. Exactly, now some of the perennial issues, some of the legacy issues of industrial revolution, one, two, one, three, we have to address using this kind of innovative methodology. And maybe even this kind of countries have better opportunity to catch up like a startup because they don't have this path, they don't have all this regulation, but only, of course, with technology. I would say there's two sides to this coin. I think SMEs are asymmetrically impacted by regulation. On the other hand, the engines of growth are SMEs, so nine out of 10 new jobs are coming from SMEs. So it's really, to me, obvious that we need to deregulate and reduce the amount of complexity and to get the benefit and the trade benefit and the dividend of this growth going forward. So all that we really need to do is reduce the barriers, reduce the complexity, and the SMEs will take care of themselves. There'll be a natural beneficiary of this growth. And it's the countries that have the most complexity that are actually diminishing the returns from growth in the greatest way. So it's a pretty straightforward answer. Let's reduce the barriers, and everyone's gonna enjoy this next 10 years of growth. So we have room for one more question, and then we're gonna wrap it up. I just wanna pick up on Minister Pratam's thing about that we can't regulate everything right away. And there has to be a code of conduct. But how do you make code of conduct appear quickly enough? And one of the mechanisms to have code of conduct is actually to have a ranking of social responsibility in a particular domain. We know the pharmaceutical industry, the access scheme actually has worked. When you start producing a list of pharmaceutical companies which are actually providing medicinal access, suddenly there is improvement in that. So what governments can do is encourage civil society to come up with rankings of social responsibility where that actually happens. Now coming to the regulation thing, I actually also am worried about too much regulation too early. We had a discussion yesterday about agile governance in the fourth industrial revolution, and right now people are talking about big tech being tobacco. And most of the focus actually is not yet on robotics, it actually is on the big platform companies with two-sided markets that use our data to make huge profits. Now obviously European Commission has looked at privacy and use of data, but I think what we need to do is let the market decide and come up with mechanisms where we can monetize our data. There are technologies now emerging that actually allows that if a company uses my data to generate revenue, then I should get a micro payment of the revenue. And if they don't use it, then I don't get a micro payment, and that will force other market-oriented mechanism to address it. So finding the right balance in regulation is going to be extremely important. Market has solutions, so is social responsibility. And I think we should do everything to encourage it. I think there's work ahead in terms of regulations. I wanna wrap things up with the panelists. So is it a good thing or is it a bad thing? What is your greatest hope? What is your greatest worry? You wanna, who wants to go first? Can I ask you a question? I think it's a good thing, it has to be a good thing. We've got to keep moving on. My biggest hope is that we'll get a better balance across the world in terms of this wealth because you talked about trust. I think we've got a huge distrust from a lot of the people of big business. And if it can bring more leveling of that, then I think it's something to be hopeful for. Yeah, I agree. So also my point of view, it's no doubt about positive. Negative is, I think, that governments are too slow. And they have to move from debates to execution. And this is what I'm clearly missing, especially also in Europe. There's no debate here. 86% of small businesses say technology is an enabler. And I think we should, we need to just keep it at that. It's inevitable. We can't escape. It must come, it's a good thing. I would like to hear by thank everyone. Thank first of all the panelists and thank everyone in the audience that have been so active in this debate. There's clearly work ahead. I think that's all our conclusion. There's a lot still unknown, but we're positive on the road ahead. Can I summarize the discussion this way? Thank you very much. Thank you.