 Good afternoon. Welcome. My name is Olivier Schwab. I'm Managing Director at the Forum. Today's session, Family Business Relic or Role Model. We know that a large amount of the world's assets are in the hands of family businesses who, by definition, have to take a long-term view so that they can keep their enterprises fit to pass them on to the next generation. So what kind of special model of stakeholder capitalism can we learn from family businesses? What are some of the challenges which they face? This is what we are about to explore. Linda Gratton is going to lead the session. Linda, please. Thank you. Thank you very much. I wanted to start actually by asking how many people in the room are from a family business? Hands up. Yeah, I thought we were probably talking to the choir here. That's wonderful. I'm Linda Gratton. I'm a professor at the London Business School. My research is in multinationals, not specifically in family firms. But a couple of years ago, I began to become involved in family firms through the WEF. And what I began to see is that it is an extraordinary model, an extraordinary model both in terms of intergenerational succession, in terms of the way one thinks about the future, and indeed in some ways of balancing the values that a family business creates with the values that society needs. So this session today is a wonderful opportunity for us to hear both from those in family businesses, and indeed in the case of Stan, from a CEO who's managing what was a large family business, just what that means, and also what corporations can learn from that. So may I first of all introduce our panel to you? I'm going to actually start with, and then I'm going to ask each person to say something, but let me introduce the panel first, and then I'll come back and we'll do that differently. First of all, may I introduce Stanley Bergman, who's the Chairman of the Board and CEO of the Henry Shine organization in the US. And Stan's here because occasionally in the history of family firms, professional managers come in, and Stan is such a person. He actually took the organization from family ownership into public ownership, and he perhaps will say a little bit about that in a moment. But let me secondly introduce Camila Hagen-Sawley, who is a member of the board of the Connicka family farm of Norway, and in fact is also a young global leader. So welcome to this panel. And finally, let me introduce Andre Hoffman, who as well as running what looks like an amazing wine business by the way, for those of you, I thought I'd say it before he does. Also is the Vice Chairman of Roche. So we have an amazing group in terms of the panel. I wanted actually to start with Camila, and I wanted you to say something about how do you see a family firm, particularly in terms of intergenerational succession? How does that work in your view? Thank you so much for the introduction. I want to start with a quote from one of my favorite poets. You might call him a slam poet. His name is Mike Tyson. Everybody's got a plan until they are punched in the face. And investing with a long-term perspective makes it a little bit more difficult to be punched by short-term corrections. And one of the strengths of family businesses is the investing with a long-term perspective. I would say that historically also family businesses have been in many ways taken on a kind of stakeholder capitalism. Because to be able to develop and sustain a company for the next generation, which perhaps has been the biggest purpose of a family company, you have to also invest in the society around you. You have to invest in your employees. You have to invest in teams. You have to invest in your family and the communities. And of course you have to invest in the future. So being the next generation and the second generation of a family company, I am of course a product of my generation. And what we see today is that you cannot create... You have to create value in a way that also is positive for society, for people and planet. And I want to say, as we heard Professor Colin Meyer earlier today, the purpose of a company is to produce solutions to problems of people and planets and in the process to produce profits. Thank you so much, Queen. I guess right from the beginning of this panel, we've already identified three issues which I think we're going to come back to. One is how is it that family firms have this extraordinary capacity to invest in the long term? Is there anything that other types of companies could learn from that? Secondly, working across stakeholders is a really important part of many family firms. And thirdly, as each generation steps up, the challenges they face are unique to their time in the world. And are they therefore more able perhaps in other organisational forms to be able to understand those issues? So Camilla, thank you so much for that wonderful beginning. Stan, everybody here is a professional manager and a professional leader of course, but that's specifically your role. Would you like to comment on how you see family firms and also perhaps how they change over time? Sure. So my company, Henry Shine, is today a Fortune 500 company, started 88 years ago. 29 years ago, and this is all public information, finally through the SEC, there was a family dispute, three wings of the family. So a couple of the family members said, sell the business. And we came up with an alternative proposal, which is let's take the company public, give management a five year chance to do that. If it doesn't work, we'll sell the business. If it works, the family members can liquidate their shares as they will. So we've been public for 25 years. One set of the family have kept every single share. One set got out 20 years ago, and one set is a hybrid. So in my view, whether it's public or private, I don't think it really matters. What matters is the values. And if a company has good values, it doesn't really matter. And so we at Henry Shine believe in our five constituents that make up what we call the Henry Shine Mosaic of Success. On the one side, there are people that either manufacture products for us in our own firm, or we buy them from other people. We want our people that provide us with products to really be successful through us. On the other side is our million and a half dentists and physicians that we service around the world. We want to help them operate a more efficient practice so they can provide great clinical care. In the middle is our team, and we are committed to team values extraordinary. And you can read about it. There's a Harvard case study on that. Trust me, for the moment we don't have much time. We are really committed to the team. And the other side, the fourth is our investors. And we have been clear since our IPO that our investors are important. They're entitled to a good rate of return, but the company does not exist for the investors. They're one of the five most important constituents of the company. And the fifth constituency is society. We work with all the professions that we service. We're involved in the communities and the professional associations. We're involved in the communities we're in, but we're also involved in communities around the world that we may not even have a financial interest. And our focus is access to care, access to oral care, dental care, and medical care. So I would submit that it doesn't really matter. What counts is, at the end of the day, the results. And I believe that if you only focus on the short term, you have problems. And if you focus only on the long term, you also have problems. So I think even in a private company you have to balance those two. Sorry, can I just ask you a very straightforward question before we move on to Andre? You called them, when Henry Shine started the company, were those his values? So his values, but we expressed them 25 years ago in a formal mission. And it's not a mission that's just hung up. It's actually practiced. And 19 years ago, we've codified our social responsibility by founding what's called Henry Shine Cares, which is active, very active in healthcare. An emergency response. Thank you so much. Again, some really fantastic issues, I think, which we'll want to explore. One is the question about disputes. Family firms have disputes. Every sort of organizational structure has disputes. How do you work through those? Secondly, the question of values. And I ask that question because I think it's a really interesting question. Where do values come from? And part of what makes a family firm, if it's successful, often to do with the values that were created by the founding members and how those values have both been created over time, but also how does each generation reinterpret them? Community, your point, really. How do you, as your generation, reinterpret those values? Andre, you have been very much involved within the World Economic Forum in terms of how families within the Weff family firms work together. What's your view about what makes a family firm unique? And would you agree with Stan's view that, actually, it really doesn't matter what the ownership structure is. What matters is values, but then also results? Well, hello, everybody. There's lots of questions in the last one. I will try to sort of take them in term. First of all, when I read the title of the session, you know, are family business a relic or a model? I think we could say both. I mean, there are a little bit of a leftover of the previous times, but they are also behaving in ways which deserve attention, and perhaps we can spend some time spending about this. When I was, first of all, a couple of words about the company. We are going, next year, we're going to be 125 years old. My generation and some of them with us today is the fourth generation. We've recently, and that's been published a month ago, transferred some of our shares to the fifth generation, so we really are involved in this process of succession, but we are quoted in the stock exchange. We are a hybrid mechanism. We have a quotation on the Swiss stock exchange, and the two types of securities are listed on the stock exchange. One is a dividend certificate, one is a voting right. So with 9% of the paper published, sorry, with only 9% of the totality of the capital quoted on the stock exchange, we have the majority of the vote. And that gives us this rather complex structure where we are publicly quoted and we are under the scrutiny of the markets and you have thousands of analysts who look at our numbers every second. And then you have a stable majority, which is a family owned and continues to discuss. When we have a conversation, when we have a governance issue, we apply what I call the pyramidal model or triangular model. You have a conversation between the management represented by the CEO who is a member of our board. You have the board which is constituted from international business people and scientists represented by the chair and the owner. And the three of them together have a dialogue which allows us to react quickly and which allows us to think long-term. And maybe, again, we can come back to that. So my family very kindly elected me as being the family representative, which means I'm the vice chairman of the board and we have this dialogue in that context. So why do I tell you that? I tell you that because there is a combination there of stability and agility, which is very important. So when I came of age and went to a business school, not the London Business School, but another very good school called INSEAD. And if some people want some details about INSEAD, come and see me after. It's a wonderful school. I was told quite clearly, this was in 1990. I was told quite clearly, look, stop it. This is not right. Step aside. The family control is an obsolete notion. What you really need to do is to increase shareholder value. And the only way to do that is to employ some MBAs, preferably trade at INSEAD, who will increase shareholder value, who will just focus the whole management to make the share more expensive. And now we get into this logic which I think is failing us, and that's where I think family businesses are modeled, is that you don't run companies just for short-term profit maximization. If you want to be successful, you think a little bit further than the next decision. The only criteria that you use is the one that's going to give you the most cash the most quickly, you're not going to be able to run this company for very long. It doesn't matter if you're an MBA from INSEAD, because you're going to retire four years later anyway. And if possible, at the share price at the maximum, which means that your options are going to give you lots of money. But if you happen to be an owner, if you happen to think about these shares are going to go to the next generation, you think a little bit more before taking this sort of decision. And I think in that respect, family businesses are modeled. Now we could also open this conversation to what does it mean to create value? How do we measure value? How do we in the long term decide what success looks like for a company? In a pharmaceutical business with cycles of at least 15 years from the discovery of the molecule to the end of the marketing process, it's quite difficult to think in quarterly sales sort of volume. It just doesn't work, just doesn't equate. So other companies have the same promise, but we solve it differently. Maybe I'd stop there for a minute. Can I ask you a very specific question about that? I mean, when we talk, many of the family firms that are part of, the family businesses that are part of the WEF, have been there for many generations, two or three generations. When we look at companies being built now, so for example we look at California, and we look at the tech companies that are being built now, it doesn't look to me as if any of those are necessarily going to be family businesses. Why is that? Why do you think that Google or Amazon or Microsoft are not family businesses, Andre? First of all, I'm not at all sure that's true, because the founders, even when they go away, leave themselves the right to decide. That for me would be quite a characteristic of family business. But do you think that actually when your companies were built, it was a time when building a family business was part of how an entrepreneur would have seen their legacy? Camille, I mean, how do you see that? Yes, maybe you have a point there. I do believe that this is also an aspect of the era that we live in. And looking back where, for example, in our situation where my father actually built the company and started his first grocery store together with his father, and the company being built on family values. In that perspective, of course, that is something that they carried on to the next generation. And growing up today in a more professional setting where we did not create the companies in the same way, that might create a different aspect of this. How many people here are building a business now which they think they will hand on to their next generation? I don't mean those of you who have inherited a business. I mean those of you who are building it as an entrepreneur. Is anybody here building a business that they think they're going to hand on to the next generation? A couple of people are. See, that's sort of an interesting... Can I just give another point on that? I do believe, and I think also with the companies that you mentioned in America, the structure is different and the family of the one creating them they will be exposed to foundations or some other kind of wealth. What we really inherit is a responsibility. It's a responsibility to create value for the whole of society and to make sure that your company or the values of the companies are sustainable and are continuing living. Can I just... I don't think any entrepreneur sets up a company just to be able to sell it. Selling it is a rapture. It's a painful exercise. You do have to go to the stock exchange at some stage because you need liquidity, but it's not the intention. The purpose of the company is not to make money only. The purpose is to serve the community and you will do it better if you stay in control. Does that also mean that you would pass it on to your family? Well, the succession issue is a different issue. This is something you organise for. This is something you plan for. But the startup who starts a business by saying this is going to be 20 million in a year, it's going to be 150 million, it's going to be 200 million and let's sell it and let's start something else again. Frankly, I think that's very painful. I don't know many people who do that because they want to. They might have to. I think we have to bifurcate the world a bit. The tax regime in the United States doesn't really allow for family businesses. In Europe, in Germany, I don't know, in Scandinavia, but you have in Switzerland, you have companies in Germany, 200 years of family companies. The US, because of the state taxes, it's very difficult. So you can, the founder can give a lot of shares to the foundation, but then you also have to seed the control. If you don't seed the control, it is very, very complex. So I think that's one of the reasons why in the US it is very hard to move to the second generation. It's possible, but very difficult. I wanted to come back to an issue that we started to talk about, which was intergenerational, particularly in terms of values. I mean, Stan, yours is an interesting company because you said earlier it doesn't really matter what the ownership structure is, but at the same time, your values are the values of your founder. How is it that over time you've kept those values burning I was going to say something, but I'm glad you asked that question. In my view, values have to remain constant, but the culture has to change. I always tell our team, when I joined the company in 1980, I put in the first fax machine, the culture today has to be very different, but the values can remain constant. So the culture has to change, and by the way, the biggest change is when I joined the company almost 40 years ago, you didn't have to make decisions that quickly. You have to make them very quickly now. And so you have to have a DNA that is subscribed to the values because everyone in the company needs to understand those values as they make those quick decisions. It's very different to the past where a few people at the top couldn't make decisions. You just can't do that anymore. We have almost 20,000 employees, and it's very difficult for any group of two, three, four people to just make decisions. So you're going to have the values, the culture has to be updated, and the values have to be deeply ingrained in the team to make those decisions. Camille, when you started in the business, how did you know what the values were, and how do you now live by those values? I believe it's being in the second generation probably in a unique situation, and I know that my children will not be in the same situation. You grew up with these values so close to you, and on that topic of the culture, I find it really interesting, and it's growing up so close with the entrepreneur. You get the founder's spirit, and the entrepreneurial spirit is such a big part of the company, and that is something we value highly and want to continue. And we see that when we act with this combination of the entrepreneurial and very much active ownership in combination with what you heard today, the scrutiny of the market. That's when we actually see results, but how to make sure that that value stays put is, I don't have an answer to that. Well, you have the answer, because entrepreneurs have good values, because you wouldn't be able to work with a team unless you had those good values. So the key is, how do you allow for those values to succeed? And in our company, we have a concept of entrepreneurship, which is entrepreneurship in a big company. It is complex because we have something like 320 E&Ls. It is very difficult, because you want to jump in, sometimes you want to say, do this, do that, but you really take the business and you split it up. And then those people that own those businesses have to subscribe to what an entrepreneur subscribes to, which is basically good values, otherwise you won't succeed when you start a company. Andre, you're fourth generation. So the DNA, I suppose, each generation, from the founder, from that entrepreneur, that entrepreneurial spirit, how does that sustain over such a long period of time, or what then becomes the basis of the values? I think Stan's point was very important. Values are intemperal. They can survive for a long term. You need to re-adapt them, you probably need to reinterpret them, but that shouldn't change very much. We've done an exercise in the third generation, did that already before the fourth generation took over, in a sort of parallel process. What does the family think and do, and what does the company think and do, and how can we plan this in parallel? So the company has now defined its values. We've captured them, written them down, free things, courage, integrity, passion. We want to serve the patient. The patient is in the middle. We're a patient-centric company. We're not there to just maximize short-term profit, as I said before. We want to be surrounded by people who have these free values and who are driving the business along this axis. That's the reason they gave us. You cannot control 92,000. If you don't think with the same way in the same shape, then there is a danger of things going in the wrong direction. So Stan, when you look at just finishing this issue of values, which I think is one of the most important points that's come out in the conversation up to now, you said before it doesn't really matter what the ownership structure is. Is there anything that you see family firms doing with regard to the creation and supporting of values over time that maybe a different sort of organization could learn from? Or is there something specific about a family firm that is able to create values in a way that's different from a group of professional leaders? Actually, I don't. You don't think so? Because I believe values are values. And there's this whole talk now of stakeholders. I bet you, if you go to the history of successful companies, they've always subscribed to the notion of stakeholder values. We call them the five constituents that make up the Mosaic and the Henry Schein success. You have to subscribe. If you're only interested in making money, you will not last. If you're only interested in your customers, you're just not going to make money. If you are only interested in society, well, we're not an NGO. So I think, by the way, the difference between the two is in a public company, you have to have a board that subscribes to an environment of purpose. If your board doesn't subscribe to purpose, you will not succeed. Families don't need a board to subscribe to purpose. They know themselves if they were committed to purpose. But I think that point is particularly important. You do not run a company for shareholders. We do not own these businesses. These businesses serve the community. They serve the community with a sense of purpose, with a good clear definition of what they want to achieve. You do not go into business just to make money. You go into business because you want to achieve something, because you want to have an impact. And we don't say that often enough. As a representative of the shareholder owning our family company, I can tell you, we do not run this company for our profit. We run it because we want it to be successful and to continue to be one of the leading pharmaceutical innovation companies in the plan. André, in your world, you even have a higher obligation because in a certain part of healthcare where you're saving lives. Absolutely. You have products, and I've seen it with actually, we know a friend of ours, a life-saving product. Absolutely. You save somebody that we know because you are a trial of a product. But your mission is even higher than an average company. We don't want to be too specific. The mission of a corporation is what it is in its context. But the point I'm trying to make is that you don't serve yourself by doing this. You serve the community, the stakeholder with whom you interact. Can I bring the voice of a CEO into this? And I want to bring the voice of Paul Pullman, who I don't think is in the audience, but let's imagine for a moment I'm Paul Pullman. I don't have a badge anymore, but that's another point. He doesn't have one of these. This is what happens to you, by the way. But actually, one of the things that I found fascinating about Paul, and when I teach at London Business School, Paul has come in in various ways, and he comes into in Seattle, so he's been a great CEO when he ran Unilever about purpose. And I think all of us would agree that Pullman was a CEO of a publicly quoted company who talked about purpose. However, when the share price at Unilever began to totter, and when the venture capital companies came in to buy Unilever, the fact that he was purposefully led, I don't think helped him that much. And I just want to say, Andre, is the reason that you're able about purpose because of your ownership structure? I mean, this is a little bit outside of the debate of Rolex, our whole model, but for me, it is absolutely clear that Paul was able to see the predators off because he reacted quickly into... I mean, the bid was taken out six hours after having been put on the table. It caused him a... But he had to change the whole structure of Unilever. The sort of point I'm saying is, and maybe I don't understand what you feel about this, is that the ownership structure of a company really changes the way you're thinking about markets. And Paul would have been constantly looking at his share price. That would have been the first thing he did every single morning. And I think, as a CEO, you're under enormous pressures from the markets in terms of how the market is seeing your company at any point in time, which would argue, by the way, for family ownership. I'm going to make myself unpopular, because this is a very antiquated way to looking at how your own business is. I don't think that just looking at the share price is something which is a guidance for the way you run the business. It might be a guidance for your retirement package, but not for much more than that. I agree with that. The bottom line is, whether you're a public company or you're a private company, you have to make strong business, hard business decisions. And we have a restructuring periodically. We just went through one. And it's heartbreaking, because we have to terminate certain people. But I would submit, if you're a family business, and you don't do that, you will not be a family business for long, because you'll go out of business. And so you have to... It's identical principles. Yes, maybe one quarter or two, if you're a family business, you'd make one decision slightly different. But you know what? If you have credibility with the public markets, you go to the public markets and say, this quarter, this is the problem. That next quarter, I want to invest in this particular project. And you know what? If you have credibility, you'll write it through. Maybe there'll be some short-term play, but it could be one or two or three percent. But you want to destroy the company. At the end of the day, you've got to produce. It doesn't matter if you're public or private. Camila, when you think about your own role as a second generation, how do you think about this point that both Stan and Andrea have made? Which is you have to actually run the company incredibly well. It doesn't really matter what the ownership structure is. I mean, Stan's... Your point was, at the end, you have to make hard business decisions. How do you think about that? No, and I totally agree that that is an incredibly important part of it. And so when it comes to ownership, then, it's also about choosing the right people. You do want the best people to run your company that you know can make those decisions. But I still mean that to be able to stay relevant tomorrow, to stay relevant to society, relevant to the consumers, you need to create value in a way that not only maximises value to the shareholders, but the society in total. We quoted Mike Tyson before. Maybe I don't really know who said that, but there's a very important statement. You cannot be green. You cannot be looking after the world if you're in the red. And the company that loses money just loses its credibility. So, yes, you do manage it for profit. Of course you do. But profit is not the driver. It's not the only reason you do it. Positive cash flows in every endeavour, by the way, it's not only a question of business. Whatever subject you do, if you don't have a positive cash flow, you're running something that's unsustainable and that's something we should not encourage. Even if you're an NGO, you still have to run like a business. Otherwise, you're not going to be around. Absolutely. So we've talked quite a bit about how family businesses have a great deal to say to the world about how you think about purpose and how you think about values. We've also touched on the second area that people really are interested when they think about family businesses, which is, how do you think about the long term? And I wonder, what are the mechanisms that you use to think about the long term that corporations could learn from? You're asking me? Yeah. Stan, do you want to start? So we have an interesting subcommittee of our board. It's not required by law or statute, and we have a strategic advisory committee. And it's interesting. This committee consists of three, or meets with three constituents. There are five independent directors that are completely independent as defined. There are managers that participate and then we've picked five, and actually periodically we go to even further, younger managers who are likely to be the top managers in 15 years. They have a stake in this thing that I don't have. So the three come together and they work on projects together thinking about, I want them to think about the future 15 years from now. But you know what happens is they come up with ideas and you say, wow, we can't wait 15 years for that. So it's a hybrid of directors, current senior managers, and future managers, senior managers. And so I think you've got to have a mechanism like that where you really test yourself on whether you have the right strategies. The view of getting there may be different for both of you, but you need to have people from outside and inside talking together about the future. André, do you want to? You know, last year 21 million people took our drugs. You know, we didn't cure them all, but you cured a certain amount. And I think it's extremely important to create this constituency around you. But what it is all about is not this opposition between the privately-owned purposeful company and the stock exchange. We are humanity. We work together. Humans work together. And patients will get the drugs from where they need to get them, according to the situation. So you cannot be just like the fat in the stock. You have to be part of it, and you have to be included in it. And so talking internally, talking externally, ensuring that you are partnering, you've probably noticed that I'm wearing the Sustainable Development Goals badge, SDG 17. We will change the world only if we partner. And we believe in that, you know, of course you have intellectual properties issue, but that doesn't need to be in the way you can manage around them. But I completely agree with you. It's about dialogue. So it's about bringing different stakeholder views in who can talk about the future. It's about working together in terms of partnerships that are thinking about the future. Camilla, how does your company think about the future? Yeah, I do believe that it's, for example, it's not longer a matter of investing in sustainability or growth. Sustainability is growth. And our largest asset is a consumer goods company, and we are exposed to consumers. And of course, this is where we see the most growth. And as mentioned before, we cannot create value without being profitable, and we believe that sustainability is profitable in the future. So we have actually, just recently, last week, we launched our new Strategy on Sustainability in Kanika, our family investment company. We're implementing the SDGs as a part of our strategy, and the companies will present results alongside their financial results. And this is because, of course, we want to stay relevant and we want to be profitable tomorrow. Yeah. It's the time of the day when I'd like to open up for conversations and questions. Can I open up to any questions or observations that you have? Yes. Do you want to say who you are as well? That would be helpful. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah. Mexico. We have a retail chain in Mexico. I wanted to relate a little bit of what you've been speaking to. What would you think? Do you think about family members in the executive team? Do you think this attributes, positive attributes, translate also there? Of course, they being prepared comparably. Or what have your families done about this? That's a very complicated question, actually, isn't it? Shall we hear a few more questions? As you wish. Stan, do you want to say something? Because you've seen both, presumably. Well, I haven't seen as much family members, but I've seen members of our very senior team have their children in the business. I think it's a good idea. But for the children's sake, it's important that they are viewed as capable. And so, you've got to be careful who they report to. Because if it is viewed, that they are only doing what they're doing because of their relationship to another executive for their own self-esteem, it's terrible. But we have had great success stories of senior management having their children in the business, reporting to a different part of the business, creating their own credibility. I fear that if you don't allow people to create their own credibility, it's bad for their self-esteem. How do you feel about that? No, it's a good point. And I believe that also being the second generation, it has been, in our case, more natural to be more of a present part of the company. I personally have been doing both, both working outside of the company and also on the inside. And I really value both. I value the experience I got outside of the company and I value also very highly the experience I have received on the inside. When that being said, we have external management and work with being active owners. But to be able to be as good as owners as we can be is extremely valuable to know how the business operates and what are the key factors of success for the company. Do you understand anything about that? Well, two things. Since the death of my grandfather, there's been nobody active in the management of the company and so we recruited external managers so that there were non-family members and we've done very well with that. The second is just a question of statistics. We have 92,000 employees. We have 12 shareholders. The fact that one of the 12 is good enough for the 92,000, it's unlikely. And creating protected markets like this is not a good idea. I would encourage people to find the right person for the job. David, do you have any views about that? I don't know. There's a way of promoting it, of course, or not promoting it. I don't know what. But also there could be some positive attributes, long-term thinking, as an executive that are also positive, as we are talking about the shareholding now, but there could be less agent, principal dilemma, longer-term thinking. But our positive attributes, not only MBA thinking, but also longer-term thinking in the committees inside the company, et cetera. For me, it's really a question of ownership versus management. Without wanting to be rude to people who run companies, management is a more technical thing. It's something where you really express your values, where you really sort of... the board oversees the company, the owners oversee the ownership, and I think that's a very strong statement. I'm saying that because I can see that today we are confronted, that that's the theme of Davos this year, we are confronted with externalities which are much bigger than they've ever been. So we are saying to our children, take over the company, but we cannot at all guarantee you that the company will still exist in terms of change in the environment, into the setup of society as a whole. So the idea... Keeping company relevant into the new world, talking about sustainability and sustainability values, strikes me as being a much more worthwhile job for the owner than it is for the management. Management delivery of targets is important. You need to find the right people, as we said before. But the defense of the essence of the company, creating its model that is in relevance with the surroundings, especially when its surroundings are changing so quickly, as they are now, that's the task for owners. It's quite interesting looking at family businesses, because any business, part of what makes it successful is the way that it manages its succession practices. And that's even more important, I think, in a family firm. It's interesting when you see family firms together, talking, quite a lot of the conversation is about this. It's about succession, it's about ownership. It's about if you have a large family, which member of those families should play a role. And these are very crucial questions, really. As important as who is, you know, in Shell or BP, who is going to be the next CEO. These are fundamentally important questions to the long-term success of the company. We have, I think, time for one more question. Good evening and thank you very much. My name is Ben Dal Khurayev. I come from Saudi Arabia from family business. That's 65 years old, third generation. But at the same time, I'm also the new minister of industry and mining in Saudi, just four months now. So I think one of the things we should learn, and I was hoping, I think we discussed part of it in the beginning, is how to learn from family business the long-term view. In both industry sector and mining, unless you have a long-term view, it would be very hard to sustain a business. And I see that one of the very important values of family business is the long-term view. And the rationale behind that is people are looking at, as we are all talking about, the values, how we want to create, what we are trying to achieve as a purpose, but also we are caring about other generations to benefit and not just making the investment in our lifetime to... Probably today, when we think about it, I mean, when we think about the stakeholder value versus the shareholders, it's the design of the system that unfortunately doesn't accommodate the shareholder value. Today, our capital markets, wherever you go, just focus on the quarter, on the yearly annual, on the share price. That's the dilemma, and we need to change that. And that's precisely what we need to change. That's one of the reasons why we come to Davos to make the world a better place. Exactly. That's why we chose the theme of this year, because that needs to change because it's driving us into the world. But I'm just conscious of our time. We're running into two minutes. I'm just finishing. I mean, I had to think twice whether to attend this or not because I'm no longer presenting family business, but now I come to think about it. If government also officials think about it, they will be able to do the change to really get the best out of the family business and adapt it in the corporate world. Thank you so much. I just want to wrap up now, and I wanted just to say a couple of points, which I think are just sort of fascinating. And thank you so much to all of our panelists. It seems to me that fundamentally what we've talked about today is values and we've talked about, as you say, thinking about the long-term. And Stan, the point that you made, which I thought was, you know, you've seen both. And I think what you're telling us is the practices of how you develop values and keep those values going. And the practices of how you build long-term thinking are practices that every leader, every leader, independent of their ownership structure, should be considering. And in a way, we've been joined by two family members, and thank you so much for that, who have shown how their families do it. But I think for us, the overall view, which is a great view, is all of us can do this. It's about good leadership.