 Good afternoon, everyone. I'm Sally Bezvy, executive editor of the Washington Post. Before we start, I wanted to say that this session is very much informed by and part of the World Economic Forum's platform for shaping the future of advanced manufacturing and value chains. I also wanted to say for those following along at home or online, please use the hashtag WF22. So it feels like an understatement to say that the pandemic illuminated the importance and challenges of global manufacturing. I think that we all probably were affected by supply chain issues and saw our world sort of grapple with globalization, the pandemic, the conflict most recently. As inconvenient as some of those shortages were for all of us, what is really at stake is the future of how we address these manufacturing challenges going forward, how innovation plays a role, and how we aim for that sustainable, inclusive future. Today's discussion comes at a critical moment as countries are grappling with that. So joining me today are an all-star panel, Blake Moret, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Rockwell Automation Incorporated, Sharon Burrow, the General Secretary of the International Trade Union's Confederation, Frans Van Hooten, who is the Chief Executive Officer and Co-Chair Pace of Royal Phillips, and Amitabh Kant, who's the Chief Executive Officer of the National Institution for Transforming India. Welcome to all of you. So Blake, I thought I would start with you. So what are the main challenges that are facing and the threats, the future of global manufacturing going forward? What should leaders from manufacturing companies be looking for and watching for in the coming months and years? Sure. Well, thank you. You know, over the last year, I'm Co-Chair of the Advanced Manufacturing CEO Group within the WEF, and a few themes have been very recurrent. The first is, of course, resilience. This has different weights for, you know, different industries. For us, it's about semiconductor chip shortages right now, as well as the topic of, I like to call it shoring. It's not necessarily reshoring, but creating geographic resilience in our operations. So resilience, inclusion, and included in that is the talent and the importance of retaining and attracting new talent for the things that we have to do. You know, for us, that's at the very top of our list. It's chip shortages and talent, and everything else is kind of, you know, a distant third. It's also about the increased voice that business leaders are finding with respect to social issues. And then finally, sustainability. And sustainability for us is energy, water, and waste. I don't have to tell you the concerns about energy and being able to have, you know, the best efficiency of our energy sources today, as well as bringing online renewable sources as quickly as possible. We all need water. We need water personally and in our industrial practices, and then waste and the opportunity to play a bigger role in the circular economy. Amitabh, I wanted to ask you what you think that the top strategic priorities for manufacturers to focus on in the next couple months. Given the challenges that Blake is talking about, what do you think are the priorities strategically? So companies and countries are going to add value. They're going to attract investments, only those which go digital and which go green. The challenge in the post-pandemic era will be really to understand that energy is a very small component of energy. Electricity is a very small component of energy. There are hard-to-abate sectors, and these are hard-to-abate sectors where it's not electricity, but it's where green hydrogen will have to be used. So how you transit from electricity, coal to cleaner forms of energy will be a challenge. And increasingly, the floor shop will have to make, produce based on data of what the consumer wants and therefore companies becoming from being just data-rich to data-intelligent will be a very strong component. Friends, I'm wondering with these challenges that we're facing, what are you looking for in the way of private-public partnerships, international cooperation? Does a company like yours need those things? Are those a luxury? I think we need them, but I'd like for the audience perhaps to first unpack a bit the shifts that we're all needing to make. Philips produces high-tech medical equipment, and we found ourselves, of course, during the pandemic in a perfect storm where suddenly the demand was way up for certain acute care equipment, but countries were shut down and transport lines were disrupted and you couldn't deliver, and then you have to scramble. And if you then reflect on what was the path that we were on, obviously it was a path of cost optimization. And if you look now at the world ahead and you think about the various challenges that I've just mentioned and I can add a few to it, so first you want more flexibility. Secondly, we've learned that you need to insulate yourself from these disruptions like pandemic or dependence on global shipping lanes. But you could add on top of that geopolitics where what if suddenly decides that there is a sanction on a certain country, not referring to Russia, but it could happen to the U.S.-China relationship. So the landscape that you need to design your manufacturing strategy for has just become a whole lot more complex. And then I realize, of course, the first response is, okay, let's regionalize and near-sure final assembly. But that would be an understatement of the complexity that we are facing because in healthcare you have low volume, high value, unique components, magnets that operate at superconductivity and very low temperatures. How many factories can you have in the world? So whereas I am definitely seeing a world with more near-suring final assembly, I think we need the public-private partnership for the realization that there is also mutual interdependence and that will not go away. It will take a long time. Whether that's semiconductor foundries that are in Taiwan, I know somebody wants to build them in Europe. Well, that'll take another 10 years. So the interdependence on core components, raw materials, they exist. And the second lesson from the pandemic was that countries started to hoard for themselves. Well, if you do that, you will not get anything because of the interdependence. So the public-private partnership, what we need is to really understand these interdependencies. And the European politicians like Macron, he talks about sovereign autonomy, but open, not closed. And that has to do with this interdependence on core materials, core components that you cannot have in every region of the world. I think there is a lack of understanding of how complex our global supply chain really is. And I would desire that from that public-private partnership we at least become transparent and what we can do and what we cannot do, because it is so easy to say, oh, let's all bring it back to the US or to Europe. It doesn't work like that. Just on a personal note, I think we found that our readers were completely surprised by how the global supply chain really works. They read stories about it with some astonishment, but they also clearly, it was new to them. They did not really understand how it worked. And it was fascinating to see that sort of play out as people became sort of more and more aware of what was actually going on globally. So, Sharon, talking about interdependencies, one of the most important interdependencies in manufacturing, obviously, is the role of workers and their need for training, their need for empowerment in terms of really being able to get that modern manufacturing sector. Can you talk to us a little bit about what you think the disruptions of the last few years or two years mean for that? Well, I think that governments were surprised, actually, not just your readers, about the vulnerability of supply chains. And we spent, in the first months of the pandemic, in orderable time with companies and governments trying to unblock supply chains to get products through because safety measures are important, but actually the safety wasn't with the worker. It was often simply a bulk set of rules. And you talked about not having, you know, equipment. Personal productive, protective equipment for workers in terms of health and safety was just missing in action in many, many workplaces. And workplaces in that context are both vulnerable places for workers, but they're also places where you can guarantee some security of product and production for the community if you get it right, so all the meathouse scandals and so on could have been avoided. But I think Brett got it right about the breadth of the issues that we face and resilience and inclusion being amongst them. But I would add, as has been said, the geographical model of manufacturing. Because if you look at our quest, you know, traditionally, when we did the statistics about six years ago, 94% of the world's manufacturing workers were actually a hidden workforce in supply chains. CEOs had no idea who they were. That was the complexity of tiered layers of contracting. For many workers in the developing economies, they were low paid, sometimes dehumanising, exploitative jobs. But that has to change for moral reasons and mandated due diligence will shift the landscape of responsibility as we see, hopefully, a UN treaty, but also a EU-mandated due diligence that's already in France and Germany and so on. You already have, for forced labour and child labour, the US custom laws and a number of other bits and pieces of law around the world. But the model has to think, well, what will the technology offer in 10 years? Yes, shoring. And I like that word because it isn't reshoring if you get it right. It's actually how you produce in the... How you operate globally, but producing for the domestic markets or the regional markets, not simply south to north in terms of production that's, you know, from the poorer countries right through to the profit take in the richer countries. We also saw terrible, terrible collapse of some supply chains because companies weren't ordering. And in fact, we saw contract law broken because some companies didn't even honour the contract law, the contracts that they had provided. So that meant for workers, they were simply without income from day one or day two or whatever it was. Governments came to the fore for some of that. But then we discovered that often workers weren't registered. They were formal workers. They weren't informal workers. They weren't registered, so we couldn't find them to pay them the money. So, you know, we really do need to think, what's the model? And I totally agree that if you're going to map anything in supply chains, think 10 years ahead, perhaps not that far, and then map the raw materials you need and what's the global mix of shipping lanes because sustainability demands I mean, frankly, I don't think if you're in manufacturing, you have a choice but to look to domestic shared production and I just say one word, we can never again have vaccine nationalism of the ugly sort we've seen. We have to figure out models that put people and the protection of the world's people, you know, at the heart of our thinking. I mean, yes, Franz, please. I mean, the ten-year-out kind of vision. So supply chain will have to be more balanced geographically. It cannot only be in China, for sure. We'll have to do dual sourcing so that we are not designed into a single chip maker. But all that redundancy that you want to have will cost money. The question is, are people prepared to pay for that? I don't think so. Which means then we will have to find efficiency. That coupled with potentially shortage of labor as we are experiencing it right now, I think we'll see an acceleration of robotics, additive manufacturing, to optimize, let's say, both efficiency and availability on a regional basis. Because if you can produce something through additive manufacturing, like spare parts and so on, then you are no longer dependent on shipping lanes and or having huge capacity build up. So it can be made more resilient in that way. But do we think, like you answer this question, and maybe Amitabh too, do we really think that regionalization of supply chains will actually happen? Because as we said, most of these, most of how the world was pre-pandemic was based on costs, based on efficiency. There were reasons that people went to the suppliers they did. You know, it is going to be more expensive. But certain elements of redundancy and resilience that didn't attract funding, that didn't rise to that level, are going to be there. They're going to be above the line after what we've gone through in the last few years. So we commissioned an automated line in our Milwaukee facility. We hadn't had manufacturing in Milwaukee for 20 years. And we brought it back. And with the right interaction of skilled labor and automation, we're proving that we can produce, you know, economically competitive products in a high-cost location. And I wanted to do that to be able to demonstrate that, but also to give us an element of redundancy with our other plant that makes these products in Poland. And so creating pairs, Twinsburg, Ohio and Singapore is another one for some of our high-value products. I think we are going to see some of that. It's going to be more expensive. We're not going to be able to have dual source or multi-source for everything we do. But there's going to be much more redundancy because I can tell you, I don't ever want to find myself in this situation again, regardless of what the next crisis is. But there's a balance to the cost, surely. I hear this, but I hear it from a developer a developed economy perspective. Because for a company operating in a developed economy or a group of developed... sorry, developing economies, or a group of... Or a single developing economy depends on their size and the market, then you are still going to be able, if companies are serious, to use the technology to pay decent wages to skill workers and balance out the global environments just a different way of thinking about globalization. And when you actually itemise out the costs, you'll find per item it's actually not that much more. What we've got to be able to do, though, is...and Ukraine, you know, the Russian invasion of Ukraine is showing us this... Again, if we don't have some level of distribution, then right now you're going to have famines around the world that we haven't seen for decades. You know, India put an export ban on wheat. It's understandable. But we've really got to think about distribution of all sorts of production in a different way. And the oligopsies around, if not monopoly power, around those productions has to be redistributed in some way. Much of this innovation can often be short-circuited by crises as they emerge. I think we always see that. I mean, Tob, I am interested in the regional supply chain and resilience question from you, though, also. So I'm absolutely sure that global supply chains are going to be totally reconfigured. Geopolitics will ensure that the post-pandemic era, the Russia-Ukraine war, has demonstrated that you fight war with other means, and therefore global supply chains will get massively redistributed. The important thing is that for other countries to become centres of manufacturing, they'll have to become highly competitive. They'll have to improve their logistics in a very big way, bring in size and scale. And secondly, there's a huge shortage of skills. There's a massive shortage of skills across the world in product developers, in artificial intelligence, engineers, and machine learning scientists, and a whole range of new emerging areas of growth which is going to make the world far more productive. One thing is very clear that the post-world era is going to be used to technologically leapfrog in many ways. And across a whole range of areas, whether it's advanced chemistry cell, whether it's electronic manufacturing, whether it's mobile manufacturing, you'll see a huge amount of technology level-jumping. But this will require a huge amount of skilling in alternative destinations. That would really mean that education systems will need to be reconfigured entirely. The existing institutes of technology will have to completely restructure themselves for the emerging world of tomorrow. And therefore, it's very important to understand that many companies and many countries which are wanting to grow and expand need to look at what are going to be the emerging technologies of the world in the next four to five years. You can't penetrate the world with existing technologies. China's already captured size and scale in that. Whatever you produce in that, you'll never be able to match the cost competitiveness in that. So you'll have to look at completely new areas of technology, whichever area you look at, and those areas you require to build completely new skills of tomorrow where the world will be in the next four to five years. That is absolutely fascinating. That's a nice vision, but I don't believe in a complete lack of globalization. I mean, you can make something in two or three places in the world, but not everywhere. There will be a lot of innovation coming, acknowledged. But even then, there will be a level of interdependence in the world that will not go away. But as we all need to adopt these new technologies and have more software-defined systems, the capabilities of manufacturing and supply chain are being brought on a higher level. So you could say in the coming years we have a renewed appreciation of the operations leader because we need all these strategies that take new manufacturing techniques into account, the whole dual sourcing, multiple locations. Therefore, the job of the chief of operations has just become a whole lot more complex. And innovation, which historically was for R&D, now innovation is for operations as well. So it's fascinating, so good for everybody here. That's part of the operations. So I'm all for globalization. I'm a great believer in global value chains. I'm a great believer that there are backward-forward linkages, but geopolitics will ensure that there will be alternative destinations. I agree with that. I think you will just see it might be hubs. You could be right. It's smaller or a larger number of hubs, but it's inconceivable that we can continue the current model of globalization at scale. At scale. And we need to scale up production, but also inclusion, as you said. And I just want to explode the jobs myth a little. Like, I know you're scrambling for skilled workers right now, but I started life as an educator, and I genuinely think skills is something we can resolve, because the workers are there. It's really about whether they've got jobs. So let's look at the labour market. Three billion people give or take. 60% of them are working informally. They have incredible skills. They survive day to day. But their jobs are not formalised. Variety of reasons for that won't go into it. 40%. A third of them are actually insecure or precarious work. They have no loyalty to employers particularly, because they're on short-term contracts. Some of them don't even have regular hours. You know, there's a crazy thing in the UK called, you know, a... what do you call it? Ours? Zero hours. Zero hours contract. Thank you very much. And, you know, why would a worker choose that job over this job? So we need... And we've got 575 million jobs short of full employment in the world. If we want to reach goal eight of the Sustainability Development Goals by 2030, I can show you where the jobs will come from. Invest in care. Totally underfunded in the world. COVID showed us that. And we're just now on the verge of further health shocks. You know, the transition for climate. There are jobs in renewable energy. It's not about an energy industry. That will be there. It's really about what sort of energy. But there are jobs in that. And, of course, in infrastructure where there's a huge deficit. That's without looking at anything else. And you're all producing for a variety of those industries. So there is a bit of a myth around there's no workers out there. We're going to go in a minute to questions from the audience, but I wanted to ask Blake one more question, because this question of skills and education is obviously directly relevant to the concept of public-private partnerships in a place like the United States. Do you feel the support from the education system, from the public sector in the U.S. that you need for the innovation of manufacturing? I think there's an intent, but we have to move faster. And a little bit to your point. You know, we've been constrained by certain ideas of what level of educational attainment is required to fill certain jobs. And the idea of moving to an outcome-based set of education, quicker-hitting programs I think is really important. I'll give you one example to illustrate that. We started a program in 2017 to take returning veterans in the U.S. with a technical MOS, military occupational specialty, to be able to teach them in 12 weeks technician-level skills. And not for our own plants, but for our customers' plants, because there was a perceived shortage. We've had an amazing uptake of that. These people have skills, both hard and soft skills. They know how to work in groups. You know, they're committed to the work, and we've seen them make huge differences in the organizations they've gone to. Most of them have a high school degree and not more. And I think that's something that, particularly in manufacturing, being able to provide more on and off ramps to recognize life is different, particularly in these times, be able to pick them up on their journey and give them a boost. I think we need to see more of that. Really interesting. Okay, we would like to take any questions from anyone in the room. If you do have a question, please stand up. And we will bring a microphone to you. Also very happy to keep asking questions up here. We don't have any in the room. All right, we'll move on then. So, Franz, I would be interested in that same question for you. Skilled workers, workforce, are you finding what you need? Are you having to retrain people? Is that different than it used to be? We are still finding what we need. We are also paying what it takes, and we put people on permanent contracts, because we are in a high-tech industry, met-tech, highly regulated, and that also means that all your people in operations need to fully comply by the regulations, and that's non-negotiable. And there is an attraction of the purpose of Philips to join a health technology company. So, we are in a lucky situation, in fact, that people like to do something that is purposeful and contributes to a better world. But I know that that doesn't apply to all the other manufacturers. And we also struggled, because, for example, in the U.S., close to one of our factories, Amazon put up their warehouse, and it became a war for talent in that little neighborhood. Yeah, we also feel it. I completely believe in the notion of lifelong learning, and it's something that, I think, will also make you more attractive as an employer. And for sure, with all the innovation that is coming down the pike, we'll have to, all the time, upgrade capabilities. So, let's move just for a moment to some of the... Oh, actually, we do have a question from the audience. Let's bring the microphone. Great, thank you. Hi, Lorenzo Simonelli with Baker Hughes. Thanks a lot for the discussion. I'd like your thoughts on how we actually go towards the circular economy. You're discussing a lot about commodity usage, the aspect of supply chains around the world, producing, producing. When do we get into the recycling of what we've actually produced and actually seeing that be the value chain circular? I'm the co-chair of the platform to accelerate circular economy, which was set up between the VEV and the WRI. And it's a platform where a lot of companies are sharing best practices. If you realize that the world is only 8% circular at the moment and that by doubling circularity, we can actually reduce 40% of greenhouse gases and aid biodiversity, then this should be a no-brainer. However, the level of circularity in the world has been stagnant now for several years. At Philips, we are close to 20% circularity in our supply chain. We offer medical equipment to customers, and then we have programs to extend the life but also to take back the programs to refurbish. And if you cannot refurbish, then to reuse the raw materials and parts because certain parts can have twice or three times the life as others. All of this requires actually to design it in from the get-go in your design phase, in your R&D efforts. Because you cannot just do it as an afterthought. If it is an afterthought, the only thing you can do is not bring it to the landfill, which is still useful to do, but that is not what circularity is about. So having a design where you understand all the valuable materials as a material passport for every product that you produce, so that when you take it back, you already have a plan to recuperate the value of that. So that is what we have been doing, but we need many more companies to come on the learning curve. We are taking our suppliers with us. It links back to education and not only for manufacturing workers, but also for R&D workers. Because what R&D workers were used to do 10 years ago, that's not circular. So it's a very important endeavor that Phillips has fully embraced. Yeah, it's the concept of design it so you don't have to throw it away or at least for a very long time in terms of remanufacturing. Packaging is a huge part of that as well. You think about how in a certain time, packaging and beautiful packaging was seen as a marketing tool. And I absolutely cringe when I get things sent to the office that are tons of paper and big boxes and so on, that I didn't ask for. But even for the things that people are asking for, I think there's a huge opportunity there. But the answer is as soon as possible. Yes. I mean, you know, France is right that we've dropped the ball on it, even though we all talk about circular economy. There are laws now in countries like France and other places. But unless you actually have a commitment or indeed the compliance angle of if you don't actually recycle, reuse whatever it is and I'm with you. But you know, also here you need public-private partnership. Yeah. With all the talk, it's very hard to bring across borders used materials. And many government procurements like hospitals, they require new and they will judge on the initial cost and not on the total cost of ownership. So procurement practices and laws have to change. India doesn't allow import of used medical equipment. Maybe you can change that. So, you know, on circular economy cannot be mandated. If you mandate it, it leads to a lot of lack of ease of doing business processes. It has to be an inherent part of your development process. It has to be a part of your R&D. It has to be a part of your business model. And it's absolutely, unless and until you, as it was said, it's not a part of your design process. It will be very difficult to achieve circular economy. And therefore extended producers responsibility and the backward forward linkages with your suppliers becomes a very critical part of it. And essentially it's the private sector which will have to play a very key role with government just being a plain facilitator. And I've seen circular economy being pushed in several parts of the world through rules, regulation, mandates which have actually killed businesses. And therefore it's very, very important that a lot of these initiatives comes from the private sector themselves on how to bring in all this use of. And on the government side, I think a lot of outdated rules, regulation procedures have to be done away with. And one of the key things towards is very important. One of the things which is being made is about government procurement. If the government procurement moves away from lowest cost into some kind of a quality come cost basis where quality is based on circular economy, the government will then push for procurement which is based on circular economy. And what else is standing in the way? I mean, what are the incentives that are needed? What are the things that are holding it back? You talked about different standards in different countries, not a lack or a lack of cohesive incentives and regulations. What do you all see as the, you mentioned a few fronts, but what else is holding it back? Look, I'm optimistic because last year at COP26, vast amount of companies committed to a science-based one-and-a-half-degree targets. Now, how are they going to do it? That's the question, right? So sourcing the right energy, step one. But adopting circularity can reduce greenhouse gas and CO2 by 40% if we just double it. So I would predict that at COP27, the realization comes, okay, how are we going to realize our climate commitment? And then the insight that circularity is a means to an end, right? Now it has, it brings a solution in climate change and saving biodiversity. So I'm optimistic that finally we will go beyond the 8% and for anybody who is interested in learning more about the action agendas of the acceleration of circular economy, you can go to the PACE website because there it's all spelled out for textiles, for electronics, capital equipment, plastics on how to get on the learning curve. And it creates jobs. And it creates jobs. I think that's an important point you mentioned at the end is the industry specificity because where the biggest opportunities are, very dramatically, industry to industry. So there needs to be an umbrella framework, but the specific industries, think about the industries that make products themselves that reduce the energy usage, for instance, and the ability to weave that in, I think is important. Do we have any other questions from the audience? Yes, sir. Stand up please, thank you. Hi, I'm Safi Boveja with Hewlett Packard. My question is about mental health in the workforce. That my LinkedIn feed is now 75% stories about burnout. And I view rates of depression, suicidality at an all-time high. I think that is approaching crisis levels. What are your organizations doing to address this? I hear a lot of discussion about rescaling and retraining and I'm like, oh my God, these people just came out of a pandemic. They're stressed out, they're not doing well. So that's really, I would be eager to get more about that. If I may. Yes, absolutely. We just had our employee engagement survey and discussion and well-being for the first time hit the leaderboard. It's always been a discussion, but for all of us at all levels, we thought that we were going to get some respite, right? And we didn't at all. And so I think certainly there's things that we can do at a central level. We can make sure that we're adding all of the standard ways for being able to provide help and avenues for help in whichever way an employee might choose to engage. I continue to believe that the role of the direct line manager in recognizing that is a fundamental part of his or her job and a criteria for advancement in the organization to be attuned to those things and particularly now in a hybrid work environment, it's just such a critical piece of it. Every bit is important and probably more important than the specific functional expertise that that manager has acquired over the years. So I think that's a big part of it. And are you training for that or how are you giving those mid-level managers that skill set? We are. We're providing, we have every week a forum for people managers to engage in terms of best practices at a central level. And we get 700, 800 people in an organization that has a total of 24,000 people participating in that culture workshops in which we talk about these things 100% of the employees going through it and setting the expectation in terms of what a manager needs to know as they become a manager that this is a fundamental part of their job. So we're doing those things, but nothing takes the place of looking at the person's skills and gauging their commitment to those things before they go into that job. That's very interesting. I recognize the problem. I do see it higher in office workers than in manufacturing workers because part of the benefit of the manufacturing worker is that you're part of a social fabric, your team, and with a much closer connection between the line manager and the team. In office workers where people have been working prolonged period, remote, understanding, you know, how a human being is, really is, that has gotten lost, which is why it is so important to, at least in a hybrid fashion, get people back to the workplace to reconnect the social connections and, of course, take some of the worries away around employment. And here's perhaps a difference between, yeah, some companies, I mean, we have never resorted to laying people off because we have a temporary dip. And I think that kind of anxiety needs to be avoided. Of course, if we dive into return to office issues, we'll be here all day. All right, so let's wrap up with just a bit of a lightning round. What is the single most important thing that each of you thinks we're all interested in sustainable, inclusive, innovative future of manufacturing? If you were going to say one thing, it can be public-private, it can be individual companies, it can be this framework, what would accelerate the changes that are needed? Shall we start from that end and move this way? Sure. It's an easy one for me. You've got to commit to making the investment in talent now and in the future to create an environment where every employee not only can do their best work, but they actually want to do their best work under these conditions. Sharon? I actually think it's examined the model, really have a look at the model of production with all the attendant human issues. But, you know, is it sustainable on all fronts? People, planet, you know, just the demand, the geopolitics, so examine the model and think about the supply chains and what they look like now, five years, ten years, but don't shy away from understanding that some of today's practice will be redundant very quickly. OK. Given that many answers are available but not deployed, my one summary is better design for resilience of the manufacturing future. I spoke about improving the role of the operations leader so that this becomes a much more conscious choice on where to invest and how to innovate a manufacturing for a resilient future. OK. You know, in India we've seen about 100 unicorns in the last three and a half years. The level of disruption they've brought in across sectors is unparalleled in terms of technology, in terms of scale, in terms of going green, in terms of digitization and they are posing a huge challenge to established companies and therefore my view is that disruption is going to change the way the world is going to digitize the way the world is going to go green. OK. All right. Well, I want to thank all four of these panelists for this really in-depth conversation. Obviously, the challenges facing our world in the manufacturing sector change every day and are in no way slowing down. It doesn't seem. And so we wanted to also thank both our in-person audience and those following along online. And I believe that this will be available for viewing afterward. So thanks to everyone and have a good have a good evening and the rest of this.