 Good mornig everyone. Delighted to see a full house here to discuss our topic today Suritage of the Future. It's really very much a hot topic over the last few years and it becomes increasingly so just as we may be coming out of choppy waters as it were. We seem to have new crisis hitting upon us. So, we've got some great speakers to explore this topic with us this morning. So, I'll introduce them first before we go on to the detail of the conversation. Tobias mae'r on my right here chief executive officer DHL group Germany and is also part of the Alliance of CEO Client Leaders in the World Economic Forum. To my left I've got Banda Al-Qaidaev, Minister of Industry and Mineral Resources of Saudi Arabia. Right in front of me, old friend Cathy Wengel, executive vice-president and chief technical operations and risk officer, Johnson and Johnson. We've got a perfect mix here of industry logistics and government to solve the world's problems this morning in the next half an hour, 45 minutes. So a bit of context setting if I may. This initiative is really part of the Global Future Council on Advanced Manufacturing and Value Chains. That council is something I've been co-chairing for the last few years and it's been really exciting times to see how supply chains pivot to the new realities of the world that we find ourselves in. Another initiative that's been taken forward is the Future Proofing of Global Value Chains and that's another great initiative that we would like participants who have joined online and in the room to contribute to the conversation and if you are posting on social media channels do use the hashtag hashwef24 to link to this conversation. So just in order to kick off on our conversation, a little bit of context. We've seen quite a few challenges post COVID. We've seen conflict in the world, in various parts of the world. We've seen supply chain disruptions and right through the last few days we're continuing to see the opportunities new technologies present themselves. The digital technologies, we've seen a lot of conversations about AI and machine learning but also some of the radical production technologies that are changing the economies of scale of where manufacturing takes place. So I think we are in a time where we will be reconfiguring very much the supply chains that we have. So we want to explore how quickly is this happening, is it moving as quickly as we would like, will the changes resolve some of the issues that we're facing now? So I'm going to start off first and foremost on that context. What factors are really steering today's global supply chain strategies and maybe I'll go to you Cathy first to answer that question. Sure, thank you. Again, it's terrific to be here with everyone. I would say the first factor that must steer every supply chain strategy is what your customer needs. So it has to be driven by your business strategy and what is most important to your customers. It's usually never any one thing but in our world of healthcare safety, efficacy quality number one, but the ability to be reliable, so proactive reliability management is another main aspect. People need their medicine when they need them. They need the surgical instrument at the hospital at the right time. So it starts with customer need, proactive resilience. And then I would for all of us, it's what is the digital journey your supply chain is on? How are you building for sustainability? And then most important, what's the ecosystem of partners that you're using? No one organization can manage their entire supply chain. So how do you build that ecosystem, which includes the talent in your own workforce and the partners that you choose? Fantastic. Now, part of looking at the future reconfiguration scenarios as director of research at the Department of Engineering University of Cambridge, I did some of my research and continue to do my research on how supply chains are reconfigured. And Tobias, I believe you did your PhD in the same topic as well. So how does the theory that we've been exploring in our research activities match up with the reality of today's work world and the logistics context in particular? Well, I do think that it does match up to a great degree, particularly when it comes to looking at factor costs for commodities that plays a big role. Energy, for instance, but also the assembly process. Obviously, labour still is an important factor, but I want to echo what Kathy said also on the effects of a cluster of the economies of skill. It is not easy to port certain parts of the value chain because you just want it. If you think about electronics, there are certain capabilities in Asia that are quite unique. There is a whole context of suppliers, very deep value chains, and thereby a good value proposition goes on the cost side, but also on the skill side, which influences innovation speed. So we do see that people obviously have taken the geopolitical concerns at heart and thinking about that. They've also recognized that supply chains are subject to disruptions. The global transport market has gone through a very specific cycle during COVID, which led to a higher transportation cost for some time. So they are thinking what do I need in terms of the lead time for the product, but also obviously the cost for certain components. And the shifts are happening gradually. In electronics, for instance, you see final assembly shifting. There's a China plus one paradigm that many multinational companies have, but you also see that the exports of parts and components in that sector of China are actually increasing in those regions. So it's not that the entire supply chain is moving, but it's a certain part of that supply chain that brings it in that case often closer to the customer. Fantastic. And there's, of course, a geographic context to this, and particularly it plays out differently in alternative sectors. So Bundo, maybe if I can ask you, now how does this play out for particular sectors and particular geographies from your experience? Well, thank you for having me and it's great to be here. I would like as much as I would like to be sophisticated, but I would say the old rule of not putting your eggs in one basket is something we sometimes tend to forget. I believe that the global supply chain dynamics need to be driven by market dynamics and not politics. It's okay to have politics address areas of national interest and national security, and it has to be to the minimum scope. But I think when we look at Saudi Arabia 20 years ago, it is not a place where you can actually use in logistics. You cannot access it. It's very hard. So what we have been doing in creating or allowing Saudi Arabia to be a global competitor for people like DHL to see the country as a place where they can actually use to use as a base. So our vision 2030 aims definitely to diversify our economy and logistics is definitely a great part of it. Manufacturing, mining. We believe that Saudi Arabia offers a great combination of different enablers starting from our natural resources in oil and gas, petrochemicals, but also our geographical location. We believe that the ability to connect with other continents also is great. We created only less than three years ago the future mineral form as an example. It's really amazing to see how the interest in the region and beyond actually to ensure how different countries can collaborate and work together to enhance the overall offering of mining, for example, of minerals for the transition, but for technology. So I think we need to see new areas where there is development, where they are offering actually a competitive way or option rather than trying to do it from a political point of view. Fantastic. So some very practical challenges. I mean, if I switch on to maybe the pace of rewiring and how quickly supply chains are reconfiguring. And we just, in our conversations just to the start of this, we've got new activities on us every day. We've seen some particular challenges through the gold shipping routes through bordring Yemen and so on. So if I may ask from a DHL perspective, how have you sort of taken on that type of challenge? Well, I mean, the Red Sea issue currently is fairly contained, but it might be good to spend a minute on explaining when such an incident becomes a bigger issue. And I think people are more concerned about that after the COVID experience. It's typically not one thing that leads to a shortage of global transportation capacity. And it has actually rarely happened in history. Most 80% of supply chain disruption are a manufacturing issue, not that much a transportation issue. But what we have seen during COVID and why, for instance, the incident where the ever given, we might remember, I think was March 21, where a ship was stuck for six days in the Suez Canal and that led to an exorbitant spike of rates, that was on the context of basically a bullwhip effect that came through COVID. People, consumers being very insecure in the beginning of COVID, not being able to spend on services and suddenly releasing a huge demand swell, particularly when it comes to consumer electronics and other such products, which then needed shipping. And then on the back of that, you had that incident. And I think that's something to monitor. When you have three moderate incidents or one very big one and then a moderate one, then it, when it comes to these exuberant spikes. And there is a bit to worry because we have another issue that is the Panama Canal. The Panama Canal also being an importing shipping route. And that leads then in this system of transport to certain bottlenecks. So what we'll see and what is the real concern is that the lengthening of the shipping route, not going through the Red Sea, but having to go 30, 40% longer journey across the Cape, that that leads to a shortage of containers, for instance, in Asia in a couple of weeks. Because that backflow is currently not happening at the pace people were planning for. So that's something to monitor. Now we are in a situation where global demand overall is still pretty weak. There's a lot of shipping capacity that came into the market. So the background is very different than what we had two, three years ago when we had that ever given incident. But that's the way we discussed this with our customers, how to think about these events. And it's not sufficient to basically say, okay, we have a moderate event of that size that we need to plan for. The sources of disruption, I think we all feel that geopolitical, natural, particularly climate driven, and also other societal issues, we have more sources of disruptions. So it's more likely that two, three, four of these events somehow accumulate. That really leads us on to, you know, you talk about, you know, the Panama Canal and the areas of the Gulf, which are in the Red Sea, the way that you have these bottlenecks. Maybe, Cathy, if I can pose a question to you, as the reconfiguration thinking starts to take place in all manufacturing organisations where 80% of the problems lie, perhaps, what are the design parameters that sort of influence the way your team is looking at this? Well, I would go back to a similar answer that I gave to strategy in the sense of it. It first starts with your customer. So how are you building that supply chain and the capabilities out to be able to meet those needs over the next few years? It's very easy, especially in a company that's been around 138 years almost, you know, to think that we've got all that infrastructure and we can handle anything. Some of the toughest things you do is really rethink about your supply chain design as it relates to the next five years. And those reconfigurations happen really on two levels. They're strategic reconfiguration, which never will go as fast as you would like it to. And depending on the industry you're in, in healthcare, changing, let alone building a new manufacturing plant, but changing suppliers usually requires regulatory approvals in every country that you're supplying. So those things take not only months but sometimes years. So you have to have that ability to create more choices when you have tactical reconfiguration needs, when you have a Red Sea issue, when you have a hurricane or a typhoon. So it's the ability to build in what we call proactive resilience. So an important part of how we look at things now is the total risk portfolio. And we look at that supply chain design not only through the lens of operational efficiency, of cost, of delivery, but what are the risks that we're facing as a supply chain? How do we prioritize those? And how do we either eliminate the risk or mitigate those? And that is a much more complex, as you mentioned, situation than it was 10 years ago. So I really appreciate the minister's comments that things like, in national defense, you need to put up some protections, but it's very easy for those things to start to expand and create challenges in global trade. So one of the most important things we can do is allow the free flow of goods around the world because that allows us all to optimize our supply chains for the best of each customer. So optimizing for the customer, but also then really understand your risk profile. And you have to build your risk response before you need it. You need to build the foundational elements through digital, through partners and who's your ecosystem of partners that you can activate in the event of an issue. And how you orchestrate those to create that really evolving supply chain. So it's more complex than it was, and that complexity seems to be increasing. From a government perspective that integral supply chains and energy, healthcare and food, what sort of government thinking goes on in terms of looking at the new complexities and the new risks everybody's facing? Well, I think you, I mean, two of the sectors you mentioned are quite interesting because when we look at healthcare, that's where we look at our national security. How can we enable the activities, especially manufacturing of vaccines, of pharmaceuticals and equipment, be located with very little intervention from government in terms of certain policies? So we talk with companies to see what they need us to do as a government. What would make Saudi Arabia interesting for Johnson and Johnson and others? So that will allow us at least to create the foundation of how we can beef up the policy to be balanced between the interests of the different players and our national interests. In the energy, we are actually very competitive. So today, when we talk about green energy and the work that we are doing in Saudi, the renewable projects that have come into place, show that we are very competitive in if it comes to renewables. So the last three projects that were announced of solar are around average of 1.6, 1.7 cents per kilowatts. I mean, this is a very interesting country when it comes to the energy price. That's where we see we can bring something to the table with market dynamics, with competitiveness. It is our job now to make sure that the right installations, the right partners come also to the country. How can we ensure that the overall ecosystem is also built in a way that makes sense for everyone? Because it's not only the energy price, but also the logistics, the capabilities of financing, the human capital. So all of that is being actually done today, not only definitely driven by the government, but also working with private sector. So I think these two sectors illustrate how we tackle each one of them. But definitely, I mean, Saudi Arabia overall, most of what we are doing is going to be based on market dynamics and true competitiveness going forward. And do you imagine sort of trade-offs between sort of that short-term, your current business model and your long-term, maybe more green-based energy transition that's taking place? How do you manage that trade-off between that short-term, long-term thinking? Well, I mean, we are incorporating this with the overall plan. We have announced that by 2030 we will have an energy mix of 50%. And we will reach the net zero by 2060. So that evolution is already built in, in the design, in our, in my sector of industry, for example, when we see new investors coming in, we try to ensure that the execution of the project is also taking this into account. How are they going to be able to convert and become green in not only, not only on the long term, but even in the medium term? So all of the large projects that are related to energy or have an effect will be that aspect of the technology, of the energy sources are looked at at the very early stage, working together with the investor to ensure that they have the right evolution. So all turning of energies, also a new complexity coming in on our table. I mean, there's a bit of a paradox here perhaps, Cathy, and maybe to my I second ask this question around, you know, dual sourcing gives you a bit of that resilience, perhaps, but it also increases the complexity that was perhaps the cause of the original issue. So do you see a paradox between that more extended secondary sourcing and the additional complexity that would bring? So maybe in the sense of if you're optimizing only for simplicity and lowest cost, that might drive you to these single source, sole source solutions. If you're trying to optimize the entire profile of how you deliver your supply chain, including reducing risks, including giving yourself agility in the event of so currency fluctuations. Do you have the ability in some cases to shift your sourcing to help optimize costs because of a currency pair that's changed dramatically from your assumption? Do you have the ability to make sure if you are dual sourcing or triple sourcing in some cases because of the criticality of that component or material that you know all the tiers in your supply chain so you don't falsely believe you have three suppliers and find out they all go back to the same mill or the same location? So it's about acknowledging that you cannot in this world of supply chain only optimize for one variable. We all must rationalize our supply base to get the right ecosystem because building trust with partners takes time. And so this is to me where digital, where AI, where all the tools we do allow us to do this in such an advanced way today to do scenario planning, to do network design, to do these what we used to call kind of the make-by trade-offs very differently than we did before. And I think that's what we're also seeing. That needs to be if you have two locations that are basically very close on the underlying factors and you have relationships, you have a cluster of knowledge in both locations then it's easy to split. But if you really, and that's what some governments now are directly or indirectly promoting with this de-risking, saying well we need to build up an entire new industry cluster in our geography, that's much tougher than many people think. And businesses tend to go, not only where you're close to the customer and the cost of the obvious cost, factor cost, production cost are right, but also the complexity and the risk is an important factor, the rule of law infrastructure which is often forgotten and where countries like Saudi Arabia made good progress. The country is much more open, it's easier to operate than 10 years ago. There's a lot of investments in infrastructure that happened. So that is the base that is needed and on top of that it needs to be a move in that value chain that is that the place where you go is somehow conducive else wise the work to do that, to build up your suppliers is just humongous and takes a lot of time and effort which many companies then are not willing to go through or they just don't have the resources. So I think that is something from a governmental point of view that if you have a certain strength, if you have a certain value add in an existing value chain it's much easier to build on that than to attract an entirely new sector. So if I can also add, I mean also we should remember I mean the advancement in manufacturing that has happened in the last 25 years is really offering so many options today. I mean I used to be in the private sector selling equipment and you needed to produce for example one million pieces of something at a certain point in time to be economical. Now it is reduced to very small numbers. I mean look at additive manufacturing, how much is it giving to the table, 3D printing and so on. So this is also allowing for a lot of capabilities that can be actually relocated or spread around different geographical locations and yet be very competitive because of the technological advancement that have happened in manufacturing and as you rightly said AI and other tools are helping. So I hate to think about relocation of capabilities is only driven by politics. It is driven by also market dynamics. It makes a lot of sense. Again a country like Saudi Arabia have made a great progress because of its own policies and spent in infrastructure and so on but also the ability to adopt new technologies to allow for us to be competitive. So we've seen supply chains really become somewhat more complex. So there's a technological complexity coming in which addresses some of the issues as well. There's the geopolitical narrative that's probably as strong as I've seen it having in 40 years now in looking at supply chains. It's probably as intense as it's ever been and it seems to be continuing to do so. And maybe the third area which I'm finding quite challenging is as we go to net zero targets and environmental, social and governance considerations the regulatory complexity is also becoming very significant. A lot of it for the right reasons to make sure our products are properly produced and properly sourced. So maybe I can pivot to the last bit of questions for the immediate panel before we open it up. So I'll have your questions ready everyone. How does the public, private sector work together with institutions, government regulators in navigating our way through this complexity? Maybe if I go to you first about that. How can you help organisations, firms, small, small-sized, larger companies to sort of navigate this really complex landscape? When I was in the private sector I always thought it's better for government to stay out of business but now more than ever I think the role of governments is becoming very, very instrumental in the regulatory framework, the infrastructure both physical and digital and the human capital development and so on. So I will give you an example about our mining when we started as a country to explore mining we realised it's going to be a sector where we need to be collaborating with other countries. We need to talk to the private sector to understand exactly what they do. As you know, mining is an industry where large companies actually operate in different jurisdictions. So we started this and throughout the last four years we have developed more and more to be attentive to the needs of the private sector. So last week we had the future mineral form. We announced new numbers about our mineral resources going from 1.3 trillion to 2.5. It was actually a result of the work that has been done. Partly from the government in the geogelica survey but also a lot of private sector involvement. And the other side is the large mining company said, look, we like what you're doing but the size of concessions you are giving is quite smaller than what we aim for. So we changed the regulation to also allow for this. It is going to be only happening with very close interaction between government, private sector, to ensure that the right enablers are there. We don't overburden the private sector with different regulations. So one of the things that we are actually talking about as a community, which is almost 80 countries were around one table actually, literally, how can we create a framework of what we define a responsible mining, for example? What are the right standards that will allow us to make sure that investments actually flow in the sector, allow the sector to grow, but at the same time ensure ESG, ensure responsibility, ensure giving back to the society? So leveraging new technologies and skills, responsible practices, co-development of standards in the logistics and distribution space twice, how does that play out for your organisation? Well, I mean, we primarily go where our customers go and that is obviously driven by some of the factors that were mentioned. The, I think, important thing is also to, because you asked what can government do, so next to building on existing strength, I would say first do no harm. So put the rules in place, but also think about the detrimental effect of those rules. And I think in Europe what we're currently seeing, particularly on the ESG topic, is a disaster. It's not advancing the course. It's distracting people from the course. It's creating bureaucracy and it's distracting resources to move the needle, particularly on the journey which we all got that we need to become a low carbon, ultimately no carbon economy. So I think that's a bit of a concern that we have. Focus the interventions on clear incentives, tax carbon for instance, we are a fan of taxing carbon, but get to simple rules that are reliable, that investments can be based on, and that do not create additional risk for business because businesses don't like risk. If you invest into an operating facility, you put five years of work into it and a billion dollars, you don't want to have changing regulation on day two when you go live with that facility and that's what people do fear. So I think that is something that particularly in Europe is a concern that regulation gets more and more granular. In other countries I think are doing that better to make sure that we are adjusting to those objectives and the objectives I think are very much shared. So good intentions in regulation but some unintended consequences perhaps. Maybe just before we jump to questions and be ready to pose them audience, I think there's online opportunities too. So but Cathy maybe just to wrap up on this government academia, we're looking at your role in the chief supply chain officers, a community at the WEF and in the advanced manufacturing and supply chain centre. What's that how best to nurture that relationship with government and academia? I'm a huge believer that public-private partnerships including academia make everything clearer and simpler if they're done well because it means we understand each other's goals. Every government is elected by its citizenry is responsible to that country but also has a bigger accountability to help make sure that global commerce and global trade supports their citizens as well. So one area I would add here is standards and harmonisation. How are we building a clear path forward? Standards in particular help us transcend geopolitics at times. It helps give certainty so that's a space. Here at WEF we're very uniquely positioned if just look around this panel of the ability to bring folks together. So how are we working on workforce development around the globe? How are we assuring that capabilities of small and mid-sized manufacturers are able to expand their reach so that ability to work together on these things and most importantly I'd say to learn from each other. If I think about the global lighthouse network, Johnson & Johnson is very proud to be a part of the founding numbers of the advanced manufacturing because we get to learn from each other and that accelerates best practices, it reduces our learning curve and that is truly an academia, government and industry activity. So those are a couple examples. Fantastic. I'm going to now just open it up to everybody in the room. Anybody would like to pose any questions? Please raise their hand. I've got one just behind me. There's one behind you. Yes. Maybe perhaps just quickly introduce yourself and then the question. Name an organisation. Mark Yost MP Switzerland. Thank you very much. Mr Mayer, I was talking about harming the companies through regulations as far as I know the European Union has a new regulation that made companies accountable for the whole supply chain so from the beginning until the end. My question would be is this a harmful regulation? Where are the challenges for DHL or Johnson & Johnson? Well, I think it is a good example of well intended and I think probably nobody here has an issue with the objective of that regulation but it is particularly reporting requirements that are connected to it and also what is reasonable. We I think in Europe have the bit to tendency that government wants to step in but conveys some responsibility on companies where I would say government is responsible. The rule of law and upholding order is the responsibility of that government and it is a bit also I think from a geopolitical view problematic to have these extraterritorial regulations. You are de facto impeding on the sovereignty of regulation of other countries and if all countries try to do that this is an utterly complex world and it will create more also geopolitical issues if one block says our rules apply to everybody else and by the way we didn't consult you on these so that's the concern that I have with that tendency of extraterritorial reach. It is not the objective of this but it's the bureaucracy and I think we need to be mindful of the geopolitical impact of extraterritorial reach if the US and Europe want to describe to the rest of the world how things need to be done there will be in other parts of the world people who don't like to hear that and I think they have a point. They have a point the west is 10% of the world's population is 10% is not 19% so that's my broader concern around these regulations. I just add that that can then lead to then other areas then wanting to now do the same thing and it just becomes this escalation of things that pile on each other versus can we create a global standard for how we report scope 3 can we create a global standard for traceability and everyone accept that then there can be reporting mechanisms that provide a country or a block with information or a company and increases visibility without creating this escalation of complexity and then we wonder why costs go up. And ultimately infizibility right because if you have conflicting standards you know whom do you adhere to how do you stay compliant? And maybe disemphasise this importance of the dialogue between public private and academia to have that conversation before the regulations hit the road. Question from the back. Great discussions but passionate discussions so on that topic Subash Makizha co-founder of GEP a supply chain company. So we are struggling with the standardisation of the scope 3 emissions and every company wants to do it I think they have the right intent but we are truly truly struggling how do we bring all these actors into these common standards any thoughts on how to solve that problem? Well I think it's a big issue thanks for mentioning this because this is a great example what people should be discussing here. I think this is something that accounting firms need to discuss because these are the guys who certify ultimately this as part at least for listed companies increasingly and I think rightfully so on that matter these KPIs move into what needs to be audited but obviously on that one it would be extremely wishful to have a global standard and it will become extremely complex back to the earlier discussion on extraterritorial reach if there are conflicting standards around what is counted and how it is counted sounds easy because we're all talking about ultimately about CO2 molecules and you could argue technically you can count them but we obviously if you get into the details what is to be allocated to which player in the chain and so forth is extremely complex and alignment around that is needed within the private sector but definitely also between governments to have these type of discussions and to move forward I mean the greenhouse gas protocol and the multilateral approach was a very good one but it's on the technicalities of executing that it's moving relatively slow I think if I may add I mean it's just like music to my ears what I am hearing regarding the two questions but it's really again back to how can you know different communities work together I mean the first question with regards to different regulation that you know certain governments with the right intention as you mentioned believe that they can pass something and it's just going to be adopted elsewhere I think it's very important that we these kind of activities actually disrupt more than they actually fix and we need to do less of that try to work with global players today in every industry where we want to actually make sure it's doing the right thing there are great players who can be partners with different governments with different jurisdictions to ensure that once we pass something we actually are doing it after great you know testing and not just put it out there and let the private sector deal with it maybe if I can just pull back the conversation for a quick wrap-up and concluding remarks so before I maybe make my own remarks on what I've heard I'm going to ask each of the panellists one action step for the global multi-stakeholder community and remember we've been talking around how supply chains might be reconfigured through technology and new energy transitions and technological transformations but taking account the geopolitical context taking out the dysregulatory complexity and the importance of doing that in a collaborative way so one action step for the global multi-stakeholder community maybe I can start with you brother it's very hard to choose one but I think it's we need to embrace technology is offering great opportunity for solving for so many of the challenges in supply chain and it needs to be done with market dynamics driven rather than politics build on that in the workforce development workforce of the future how are we working across the those three areas public academia and private companies to really make sure that folks are having access to and gaining the skills that are needed to lead in this digital world no matter what no matter what your your role is this is so important for our future economy surprise so to the broader stakeholders in government I would definitely say the last question seek for alignment on the carbon accounting because that's the the next source of conflict when it comes to global trade and you know we should push for more global trade free yard trade and the the carbon issue has the potential to disrupt this even further we're not on a very good track in the last five years when it comes to trade agreements and the like but that is something that I think is worrying some to further increase the complexity in global supply chains when it comes to to single companies I would say don't expect it to get easier and be prepared to also have to deal with multiple events at the time and at least roughly know what this means for your organisation thank you I'm going to just wrap up what I've heard I think fascinating conversations really about what's been happening at a sort of government level at a policy level some of the alignment issues we're now getting in terms of regulation how supply chains are being reconfigured I mean lots of factors at play technology adopting new technologies it's always tricky do we have the human resources and skills to take that on other challenges which we have perhaps less had time to talk about things like cyber security some of the geopolitical tensions that we touched on quite difficult to predict where they're going to where's the next one going to be so I think one of the sort of concluding thoughts I've had from this conversation has been actually we can't do it on our own whether you're a large company or a small organisation or a tech player whether you're operating in a single region the need to have supply chains at criss-costs geographies it really is driving a collaborative conversation I mean for me it really is a great segue to how to engage with all of us individually in our role at the international Centre for International Manufacturing at the Institute for Manufacturing in Cambridge we very much have been looking at these issues for many years but I really wanted to ask all participants both online and in the room to connect with our centre for advanced manufacturing and supply chains it's a relatively new centre that pulls together all of these thoughts in a collaborative way maybe I can ask Kathy just to say one word about how to perhaps connect with that community in particular and also the other communities you're involved in in the chief supply chain officers forum for example thank you, no no so please you know number one reach out through the community here you can start with the website that can connect you to the various initiatives within that group I think everyone that is engaged you know the tremendous asset of this community is the desire to learn from each other the desire to bring more more folks in so whether it's through the lighthouse program and really working on how manufacturing sites and value chains are moving through that for IR transformation or whether it's we do through the COO and CSCO community there are just many ways to interact and I'd start there and reach out to any of us that are engaged so thank you Jack and I think on that point when I'm going to just thank the minister thanks to Kathy and thanks to Tobias for their fabulous thoughts open thoughts on the conversations so do reach out to both the global council on advanced manufacturing and value chains we've got a theme at the moment on identifying future supply chain scenarios which many of the organisations in the room and here are going to be participating in connect up with our centre for advanced manufacturing and supply chains engage with us through various forums that are available throughout the year so I'd like to thank everybody again for that and I'll close the session here thank you all thank you