 Well, welcome everyone to this year's Caixin debate and Caixin is China's most trusted media company on finance and business news. I'm leashing the managing editor of Caixin Global. And our topic today is very exciting, in my view, probably the most exciting topic on this year's Star Wars is called, manufacturing's moonshots are landing. Are we ready for the next wave? Well, how complex and advanced manufacturing has become is often hidden from the mainstream narrative. The stereotype is often it's sturdy, it's massive in scale, and it's relatively creating low income jobs. But it's never that easy and that simple. It's hugely impactful, creating jobs and increasing social equality. For instance, in China's case, it helps lifting almost 1 billion people out of poverty. And it's incredibly complex, a passenger car takes 20,000 parts, a Boeing airplane is probably 46 million parts, and manufacturing requires, and in turn, cultivates a country's innovative power. And these are all the topics our speakers will help us discuss today, together with the moonshots that we're so excited about. And our five speakers on the stage, let me start with the gentleman on my left-hand side, Minister Ashwini Vashnal, Minister of Railways, Communications, Electronics and Information Technology of India, a very wide portfolio, welcome minister. Thank you. And second is George Oliver, Chairman and CEO of Johnson Controls, and also a member of the Alliance of CEO Climate Leaders. And in the middle, the lady is Rivatti Advati, and the CEO of Flex, and also a member of Alliance of CEO Climate Leaders, and Mr. Vimal Kapoor, CEO of Honeywell, and last but not least, Michael Swiss, the Executive Chairman of Oralicum. Oralicum. Oralicum. Yes. All right. Well, a few housekeeping words. This session is live broadcasted with platforms as well as cross-siching platforms in Chinese and English. And the audiences are welcome to share on social media using hashtag with 24. And now we can get started with my most exciting thing. What are the moonshots and what are the technologies that we'll really break through likely to transfer the business and the industry, if I can start with Michael. So you asked me to introduce, first, Oralicum a little bit, we are Swiss-based tech companies, especially in metal science, material science, coding, 3D printing, and then we have another leg, but we don't touch that too much today. That's about machines for textile and non-textile industries to produce the yarns. So when we remember, I think we had a panel a year ago, the moonshots haven't changed, but we have maybe exercised better and we are on the way to exercise better. So it's all about digitalisation in different approaches. So a country like the US, where we are short on workforce, we have even to push more. Same as in Europe. You have in Germany, you have two million open jobs if you don't find the people. So we have to drive productivity by digitalisation, by robotic, new materials. We meanwhile develop materials on AI based so that you can shrink the time from years, maybe two months to figure out new materials and in combination with AM, with an additive manufacturing, where you can do it in a synth based way or in a laser bed production. The case is we can design parts totally different and we talk a while about that and the speed of AM was not that fast as we thought, but there was other reasons for that, but the combination of new materials with robotics, with advanced manufacturing that doesn't tell us the traditional ones, the milling, drilling, forging will disappear. It's only adding an additional element how we can produce and it's all about manufacturing because we need jobs, we need to create wealth and the only modern society who is doing that is an industrial society, much better than anyone else. So we are obliged to go for these moonshots and we have achieved a lot in a very young industry because digitalisation is pretty young. Robotics is older but to make robotics with co-bos and in combination with hybrid systems with people and simple solutions, not always super sophisticated solutions, plus then to use new materials, lighter materials, different ways of designing materials, this will bring us forward to the next level of manufacturing. Thank you. Thank you, Michael. And if I may come to Rivaati, what would be the moonshots that you see that will change our life? So the company I lead flex, Flextronics, we're a contract manufacturing company, we're one of the world's largest contract manufacturing company, make everything from consumer electronic products to medical device products to things for the technology world or the industrial sector. So a varied set of things that we make in 30 different countries, so fairly broad. So I live and breathe the world of manufacturing and supply chain. I would say I find the word moonshot interesting because if you think about the world of manufacturing, a lot has happened in the last two decades, whether you think about global supply chains and manufacturing moving around the world, maybe due to labour arbitrage, maybe due to efficiency or productivity reasons, the whole trend of why we did what we did, maybe it was for reasons of productivity, brings us to the question of did manufacturing actually gain productivity in the last two decades? One could debate that and say, no, really, that didn't really happen. The world of manufacturing today, particularly discreet manufacturing, tends to be fairly small and fairly disparate in terms of how manufacturing and operations actually occur. Most of us think of our operations as large fabs or a lot of robotics and amazing lights out automation, that's not how most of the world operates. So when I think about a moonshot, I'm very excited about AI, which we have to talk about, because there is a hope that it provides an equalization of what manufacturing can be versus what it has been. So for me, the moonshot would be that whether it is large factories that have tremendous capex available or small factories which use a lot of disparate systems can really achieve the same level of efficiency and productivity globally and provide a level playing field across wherever you are in the world. So for me, that would be the key differentiator that I see in the future. And I think something like AI provides the opportunity to head in that direction. Well, both Oliver and Vyma are nodding with your answer. So what is the new era of manufacturing you envision? So John's controls were leader in building solutions, delivering smart, healthy, sustainable building solutions. Our global company, about 100,000 employees located across about 150 markets. So we're very diverse in what we do. The strategy is making sure that we've got the right technology in our product. We've got the right digital application so that as we deploy the product, we can utilize all of the data and ultimately differentiate the type of solutions that we can deliver for our customers. The industry is being disrupted with technology and a lot of the opportunity that we have around decarbonization happens to be in the building. Buildings represent about 40% of the global carbon. And so what we're doing in the building is similar to what we're doing in manufacturing. How do you create a total connected building or how do you create manufacturing with a digital thread right from the engineering model to how you design the manufacturing process to how you do build materials to how you then process through the conversion and then ultimately how you connect to the customer through the lifecycle. And so when you think about that, that does fundamentally change what we do in manufacturing. And I think the moonshot is speed because I think in today's environment where when we look at manufacturing statistics, we would measure in weeks or months with lead times and cycle times where I think tomorrow's environment is going to be hours and days as far as and then the productivity that is gained from that is not only right from applying AI. So the moonshot to speed is data. So companies that can consume all of the data and put the data to work productively and to end is what is ultimately going to create speed. And so I think right from what you do commercially, AI is going to be a big enabler to be able to get more accurate forecasting and then how that then converts through the manufacturing processes. So we're a mixed manufacturer. We have HVAC large equipment with large facilities as well as we have manufacturing of electronic components that go into building management systems. And the differentiation that we have in the market is now the ability to be able to take all of the building systems together to be able to then not only with leadership technology within the product, but then getting that totally connected within the building and creating outcomes and the outcomes that we can create in the built environment now is reducing energy 40, 50 percent, getting much healthier environments with indoor air quality and ultimately then getting a digital experience for the occupant of the building. So that is when we think about a moonshot, it's all about companies that can really embrace and consume data and then put it to work right from the value creation to the customer to how it's actually fulfilled to the customer and through the life cycle. Antrim, do you agree? That's something that you... Yeah, so I'm going to agree to everything said by all the speakers, but I'm going to put a slightly different perspective. So absolutely digital transformation, use of IoT, use of AI, use of connected, that's a moonshot. But also the new technologies which are getting created which are yet to be scaled. So think about large scale semiconductor manufacturing which has to be scaled in many parts of the world. That's not easy. Not much has been done what we want to do in the future, but if you also put in perspective new technologies which have to materialize to solve the problems of the future with some of which Honeywell is working on. So Honeywell is really working on three big macros of aviation, automation and energy transition. I'm excited about moonshot of urban air mobility. We all want flying taxis. Guess what? It will be here soon. That's a moonshot because it's a new platform which doesn't exist. It's a human innovation again coming into action to create something or energy transition requires some new molecules which have to create at a cost position, green hydrogen. For example, how to get a cost position which everybody can afford. That's a moonshot. Creating new sensors by which the world becomes more productive. So the moonshot is not about leveraging the technologies like digital, like AI, but also thinking about how manufacturing is going to be the new tech of the future. Because one thing which I get a little bit personally offended to say you're not a tech company, we solve technical problems which are far more difficult than what is called tech company. It's not easy to fly a plane at 800 kilometers an hour safely and land it. And when it doesn't land, we all know it, but we do it every day. That's a technology. Semiconductor manufacturing is a technology. So those moonshots have to be appreciated and they all have to be scaled in the times to come. So after the sharing, very impressive insights from the private sector, I want to turn to Minister Ashmini. And for all the exciting potentials for the manufacturing, how is that contributing to the health of the country's economy and the well-being of the society that you probably care most about? Multiple ways. I would like to point out three things here. First, of course, there is a lot of technological advancement, digitalization is happening. New investments are happening in how manufacturing should be done. Lots of emphasis on clean energy that goes into manufacturing. From policy perspective, from government's perspective, I would like to add one more point to what all the panelists have said. The value of trust, the value of trust is very, very important, which probably we cannot put in terms of dollars and ROI, but value of trust is very, very important. The countries and societies and companies which develop trust, and that is not a single dimensional thing, that is a multi-dimensional thing, trust in terms of, okay, if you are using clean energy with full conviction, that is trust. If you are making sure that you are going to meet your commitments, that's a normal contractual thing, but going beyond those normal contractual things and getting into uncertain circumstances is still meeting those commitments, that's trust. So trust is going to be a very big factor. The second very big factor which is going to be going forward is how we restructure the supply chains, post all the disruptions that we have seen. And yes, there are ideas about near-shoring, friend-shoring, all kind of stuff is there, but I think what is going to be more important is flexibility in the way we think, flexibility in the way we design our manufacturing processes and lots and lots of ability to rapidly adapt to new challenges. These two things will be very important going forward. So watch out for the value of trust and also continue enhancing the flexibility. Shun, can we just build on the end-to-end supply chain and particularly coming out of the supply chain crisis that we have had recently. If you think about how the world solved for it today, we did it in the very traditional way of adding a lot of inventory, which if you think about it after all these years, when we had a crisis, we solved for it in a very, very traditional way. So the future would also be where if you build flexibility into not just manufacturing, but you're end-to-end planning, which has tremendous complexities when you're building planes or when you're building automation systems, that flexibility so eventually we don't solve these problems in the traditional way in a very capital intensive way that we have solved for in this day and age, I think is going to be very, very important because the next time you have a supply chain crisis, you want to solve it in a more efficient way, in a more capital efficient way so you don't have the issues that you had in the past and hopefully it's done in a quicker time frame, you know, than the two and three years that we've taken to solve the last crisis. So I think flexibility is the key, as the minister pointed out, and doing that end-to-end is a very complex task and I think that's also a significant area still to be solved for. And I would build on the trust factor because when you look at this and statistics in the U.S. from NAMM relative to the amount of R&D that the manufacturing companies spend, it's like 53% of the R&D, it's a big number. Manufacturing companies consume about a third of the energy and then as we think about the disruption that's going to happen from a workforce standpoint, it's going to require a different set of skill sets. And so I think when you think about that, the importance of the manufacturing sector in being able to develop those skill sets to be able to create more sustainable manufacturing facilities. So as we're driving towards net zero, how do you right from the ground up build net zero buildings that ultimately are much more sustainable around water conservation or recirculation or reduced energy demand. And so I think companies in the manufacturing space do have a large responsibility not only to continue the innovation but to really set the stage for how the next generation workforce is developed and ultimately how everything is done sustainable. Is that something you concern about as well that when you move up the advancement of the manufacturing, how do you deal with the workforce? So I think the workforce challenge is underestimated. Aviation is our biggest segment. Our number one problem is people who can make the product. That's our biggest supply chain constraint. I have to deal with my customers because they're unhappy. We're growing volume by 20% on a very large base. They expect us to grow 40%. So the labor part of the problem has to be solved. What excites me to what you mentioned earlier, the AI is a significant solution for skilled labor. It's not replacement, but it's a supplement. And how the AI can be used to make less experienced people more productive is a significant part of the solution. How to make workforce use different tools is a significant part of the solution. And that was underestimated. So when we talk about AI, the immediate attention go to chat GPT and large language models. Not that it doesn't excite me. But if the fix, the focus in context of manufacturing and apply AI in context of workforce, the opportunities are immense because now it becomes a moonshot in context of how manufacturing will be done and also attractive to draw new talent because manufacturing did not draw talent for the last decades and it is not a place to be. But how the manufacturing is evolving, I think it definitely is an opportunity for us to think differently. I would like to build upon the talent point. And I think this is one area where the public and private sector will have to cooperate very actively. I'll give one example. In India, we have a program called Future Skills that we are doing with NASCOM. This is a program where the government and the private sector, both of them are actively collaborating because the skill requirement can change very rapidly. It's no longer that somebody has come out of a school, learn forging or learned machining and continue to live that life. So the world changes very fast these days. So we need to have a very active, very proactive way of looking at skilling and the public and private sector should, at least in India, we think that public and private sector should proactively collaborate on this. And what we get in addition, if you think about manufacturing a little bit in a wider range, not only the factory itself, and as you mentioned, factories will be more flexible, smaller, dislocated to orchestrate that. Coming from, we're talking in 30 years about customer centric. And you have always the, I would say, the rivalry because what a company, technic-wise, can provide and what a customer is looking for. Sometimes it's equal, sometimes it's, they don't even talk each other. With the instruments we have in hand now, we, for example, we're operating 500 coders around the globe in 37 different nations. We are in almost all technologies. So we do airfoil coding on one hand and handbags for Louis Vuitton on the other hand. We do 3D parts for the defense sector as well as for luxury. And with that range and with all the daters, you can talk much better about what is the customer demand? What is the capability requirement on our people? And what is the availability? Because that's different. If I'm looking in US for people for the factory or for the engineering sector, totally different than if I look for people in India or China. I get the other people because engineering has a different social status. The way how we orchestrate that then and how we organize it, it's really from customer, R&D and manufacturing in a triangle and then to use that, what we have meanwhile with all this digitalization, AI, new technologies, new materials to orchestrate it in the right way. And to do that then, this will happen then in more in the verticals. If you're then in the aerospace or in automotive or in general industry applications. And this is the power of manufacturing because this helps us reinventing ourselves all the time again. And as a company like mine, founded in 1876, wouldn't exist anymore if there would not have been over all the generations, over the power to reinvent and not to stand still. And this is our huge opportunity. And by the way, I definitely believe in this what the minister said, French roaring or whatever, I would phrase it. New phrase is always nice. Trust roaring. You go where you have the highest trust that you find capable people, good environmental environment, energy available and affordable, capital available, affordable. So you go where you have the trust that you can stay for a while and not going in and then you have to leave immediately again because of some geopolitical issues. This is an additional dimension which doesn't make our life easier because in the past maybe you had to look what your competition is doing. Now you have to look what the different countries are doing, what they're providing you, what the frame agreements you have. But this is our world. On the other hand, that's why I'm super optimistic. It's a global world of eight billion people with a lot of challenges, but all that needs a lot of technical solutions and we are the ones who can provide that. And in that process, like you just described to unleash the power of manufacturing, what kind of smart policies the government can come out to facilitate that? Minister has given one example from India, probably can share with us more. I think from government perspective, we will be very, we will be successful if we focus a lot on the energy which is going into manufacturing. For example, in our case for manufacturing semiconductors, we have taken a very clear call that all our semiconductor fabs will be consuming absolutely 100% clean energy. We are setting up a 30,000 megawatt solar and wind hybrid plant which will be the largest clean energy plant at one location. The current largest plant is 7,000 megawatts. This will be 30,000 megawatts. So from government perspective, it will be very important to provide that ecosystem, provide that architecture, structure where clean energy can go into manufacturing because that's going to be very important going forward. That's fun. The second is because the technology cycles are changing very fast, the ability of private sector to invest in R&D will be limited compared to the past. So that is where the governments will have to chip in for R&D and that will be win-win for all because that improves efficiency, that adds more jobs and that creates a more sustainable economy. These are the two points I would like to make. Yeah, I would agree with the minister. And we talked earlier today is I think the two biggest areas would be, first is definitely availability of good sustainable power, right? So we were just talking about it before we came in here. We all talk a lot about AI, but the availability of power is going to be the next crisis, right? So wherever we can have good clean power available is good for manufacturing growth. So I think that's a huge enabler if government can support manufacturing for that. And then the second I would say is workforce skilling. If there's a concentrated focus in terms of public-private partnership in terms of workforce skilling, I think that's also a really, really important area because technology is moving fast and changing fast. And that I think is a significant ownership on both parties here to provide the right skills. And I'd say that is also a significant amount of work that we could partner with governments across the world on. So one of the things that we've been working on, heat pumps is a huge business for us and the technology in heat pumps has really significantly advanced over the last few years. And when you look at the way building systems and buildings today that are fossil fuel compared to now replacing that with a heat pump that can do both heating and cooling, you can get three, four, five times the efficiency. And so governments have in the U.S. there's been incentives for expanding not only are we investing more heavily in R&D, but the government's also investing with us in the manufacturing capacity for heat pumps. And then more on the deployment, governments across the globe because as we've been educating governments and the like to get the right policy, the right stimulus and the like to begin to accelerate this transition, there's been a lot of incentives around deploying heat pumps into service whether it be in the residential space or in the commercial space. And so when you do bring the public and private sector together to understand the problem you're solving, how you're gonna solve it and you have shared incentives is ultimately what helps drive acceleration. I'm just gonna add another dimension to this discussion. I think governments of course have to take a lead in policy, but I'm a firm believer there are specifically for energy transition. You have to remember that our predecessor took 100 years to create the current infrastructure. Our generation has to do it in 25. So we have to do things four times faster and therefore four times differently. Technology is big enabler, that companies like Honeywell and JCF, Johnson's Control and this is what we create. And I don't doubt technology enablement being a deterring factor, but the policy gets enabled by social awareness. If people are aware, I always give this example. We all are open to buy EV cars because we think it's our contribution to climate change, but how many of us are aware that we can also pay 30 or 40% more in the plane ticket because that will enable jet fuel to move to sustainable fuel? Are we ready or are we not ready? Are we expecting governments to subsidize or we are going to subsidize? It really boils down to the policy have to go with the consumer education and more so in democratic countries where it's a cycle of process. More consumers are aware, it becomes a point of debate in the social circle and then it drives the policy. And I think we undermine that point to me the reason the adoption of new technologies when energy transition is slower is because social awareness is poor. People believe, for example, carbon capture is bad. That's absolutely a wrong notion. There is no solution available in this planet without that. But why is that problem? Because there's not much awareness and education and that's what we all have to collaborate with the governments and large companies to get that feasibility and then governments policy aligned with that because they're trying to help to move the cause and progression of this. But the issue here is that, and it's a real issue, do politicians in society are open enough to understand the power of technology? What you can do and what you can achieve if you want to? Or are we dogmatic and say this is the solution or this is the result and this is the way you have to go? And we see very often that governments are not giving a frame and say, look, achieve that but take all your tools you have on hand. But they tell us already how we have to do so. So with the coatings we have in jet engines, airlines saving 25 million tons carbon dioxide a year. We can put more in. We can use synthetic fuels. We can even drive with synthetic fuels. We can go in green hydrogen but we have to know that there's a price tag behind it. And if some societies decide to do so and others not, then you will have a disruption because they will not be competitive anymore. And in the end there's as well a race for wealth. So sustainable wealth could be the question, how you get there? And without taking away something from someone because there will be immediately a reaction of defending but adding more. As a minister of Bahrain yesterday said in a GCC meeting was pretty interesting and said whether they ask about competition between the Gulf States. He said there is no competition because the pie grows faster than we can grow. So there is only contributing. I think this is a very interesting view on that. If we are able to create the growth with a combination of demand and needs we have and the opportunities we have technology wise and sometimes we have the solution not fully ready but we have good ideas about it. Then technicians have to have the chance to make it happen. Another politician tells me then this is the solution you have to go, don't go this way. Be much more open as a society and only frame as a society, a competitive frame. This is really what we need and we are far away from the size you are. But without our technologies most of your products wouldn't work. That's a long wish list minister. Starting from the workforce, just improving the workforce capability to improving the government commitment to increasing social awareness and then to create more growth and demand. So how would you respond to all the requests and wish list coming from the private sector? I agree with the point that the governments and the public sector must have a much better understanding of technology, have an open mind because end of the day, both the government and the private sector are basically working for betterment of the society. The objective is aligned, the means must also be aligned and that is one way of developing a good, healthy, sustainable and progressive way of governing a country. And at least in our country, the regime that we have today is very open minded, very open to listening and the results are there in front of us. For example, let's take electronics manufacturing. 10 years ago, practically very small amount of electronics manufacturing used to happen but because we listened to the industry in the last 10 years, we listened to the ideas that came. Today we have 100 plus billion dollar electronics manufacturing industry. Mobile manufacturing in a very short frame of 10 years from 98% import, today we have become 99% self-sufficient and have started exporting. So that's possible, I fully agree that if it's an open mind, healthy debate, listening to ideas, putting that frame and let the private sector have that creativity to find the solutions, I think that's the way to go. Yeah. And come back to the private sector, moonshots are expensive and many times it cannot be achieved by one company alone. So as business leaders, how would you balance the moonshots aspiration and short-term profitability and also how would you collaborate with companies, ecosystem, upper and lower stream? Who would like to take that? I would say that the reinvestment of most manufacturing companies today, especially positioning to be able to capitalize on this new economy, this significant reinvestment whether it be digital technologies, use of data, analytics, AI, because at the end of the day, that is the fuel for growth. And the manufacturing economy, if you look at the US, I believe it's the manufacturing economy, if you say it's a dollar, it creates $3 in the economy. It's a big catalyst of the overall economic growth. And so the reinvestment and getting that right, getting that aligned to customers, getting it aligned to the problems that we're solving, whether it be sustainability, healthy buildings or productivity across other vertical industries, I think there's a significant opportunity to be able to get the productivity, to be able to reinvest, and then be able to then deliver on solving these problems. And I think economically, it does support a higher level of reinvestment. For me, I feel like, I think the return is very obvious and it is there. And the reason I'll say this is because most of manufacturing today, maybe outside of a few very large lights out kind of manufacturing, is built up of maybe 25, 30, 40 different software systems that are gerry-rigged together to run a factory. And the ability to tie all that together in a clean and elegant way, to make faster decisions, whether it is in the quality side, or whether it is in the machine downtime side, or whether it is in people absenteeism and training and how you move all that around. And you overly on top of that, that most of these factories get products from 50, 60, hundreds of suppliers that come in different ways in different capacity. And then you overly on top of that forecast are inherently wrong. So you have so much of this going on in factories that to be able to solve those in small ways and big ways, whether you're using AI to solve for it, or whether you're using just planning products to solve for it in terms of end-to-end supply chain, the returns are absolutely there. So I think that case is very easily made, I'm sure, for most of us. I'm not worried about that at all. I think it's more about implementing that pace of change and being able to keep up with it is gonna be the harder thing. But I think the returns are all, is definitely there. I would tend to agree if it's the technologies you have on hand. So if we take our classical coatings, where we take the next generation, so for example, cutting tools, where lifetime gets 50% up with the next generation of coatings, or high entropy oxides, which we have in the next generation of thermal spray on turbines, where you have 50 degrees higher turbine intake, which means either less fuel or higher performance with a much better erosion when you have sand environment. These are things which will pay back very fast. If I look in a company our size, digitalization, or 3D printing, this is an uphill battle you have to afford. And you can only put one or two of them, and we have chosen that too, because investors sometimes even claim hi, when is the payback and when it comes. But these are future technologies, either you're in or you're out in 10 years, or you have to buy it probably for two or three billion to get a position again. So here you have to decide what you can additionally, besides that what's your core business is, what you can afford which is close to your core business. And that balance we have to play and then for sure we have to explain why we do that. About again, yes. Yes, a quick one, I would add the, you know that this is a phase in which the leadership team of industrial companies have to be spending direct energy on where the R&D dollars are invested. So if I take example of Honeywell, we spend $1.6 billion a year on R&D. So that's a lot of money. The question is what is that money doing? And if, and there's gonna be failure rate for some new technologies and we'd be prepared of say half 50% success rate. And that process has to mature if the leadership team is directly engaged and willing to accept some failure. And I think we as a company have done very good job of drawing them that balance. I'm not giving self credit, but we want to establish as a reference, Honeywell invested in quantum computing, nobody told us to do that. You know, it's a one in, you know, of its type. We invested in urban air mobility, nobody told us to do that. So we have ability to see the trends. Some of the investment we are making which is a big problem planet has to solve is energy storage, flow batteries. We believe that lithium-ion batteries are not suitable for large-term energy storage. Nobody has told us to invest in flow battery and probability of success is 50%. Maybe it won't work. So our ability to take that measured risk and direct the money at the right place is a critical success factor. Otherwise money goes into current products, making them better. And then there's a lot of money but can get spent in a, get consumed without being very, without making meaningful impact to the planet. Fascinating. And before we open up for question, which I would promise you will, here right now, I want to hear a little bit more about the, how people can leverage the Center for Advanced Manufacturing and the supply chains and the web platform. And both of you are involved in this. So probably quickly comment on that. I'd say just simply that the Center for Advanced Manufacturing that WEF runs has tremendous amount of information available. So for example, there's a cybersecurity handbook that's coming out for manufacturing here in 2024. So if you have supply chains or suppliers who are small and don't have a good cybersecurity framework as an example, there's no need to go create it. Go to the Center for Advanced Manufacturing and take it because that's what it's there for. So there are many important areas like this around resiliency, around efficiency, around people that the Center for Advanced Manufacturing is doing very practical work that is meant for manufacturing companies across the world to use. So I'd say go find the resource and shamefully take it because that's what it's there for. And contribute into it. Yeah, that would be great too. Anything to, okay, with that. So any questions from the floor? Yes, the gentleman, please. There is a mic, sorry. Is it on? Yeah. So I'm from Norway. I founded a company named Gelato. Good to be here. Thank you. We've connected with production hubs all around the world through software. My question is, are we not addressing the elephant in the room with Trump, like potentially being re-elected, barriers to China rise? You have sustainability and legislation coming in Europe. And all of those factors coupled with military and war, isn't that the moonshot to be able to reduce the fragility of the global supply chains in this crazy world? So I would start there. Look, as a company, we want geopolitical stability. We want work to be peaceful. We want all countries to have a free trade. And we can do everything in our power to enable that. By being global and operating fairly in every country is our contribution. But it's beyond our means to make, to become a political master and a dry piece between the countries. And I think that's where the global governance has to prevail. And I don't think many of us in this can contribute other than our best efforts because it's beyond our control. But we contribute by creating employment in all countries by providing our best services and products. That's how we provide and role of an active and responsible global citizen. I'd say I'm an optimistic person. We've been through a pandemic. We continue to go through it in some ways. We have been through a supply chain crisis, geopolitical issues. And here we're all still standing with better tools, better technology, better productivity and looking optimistically at a future that the next decade could bring good new exciting change to the areas we're in. So I believe in the power of private enterprise and I believe that it continues to be innovative and very successful in navigating through all these issues that we see. So maybe I'm being foolish thinking that way but in general, I'm optimistic about what the future holds. And probably we will have a multi-polar, hopefully not a bipolar world again. And in a multi-polar world, you have to accept that not each society is working completely according to your own values. You should only give up to be naive and where you have not the highest trust level, you have to have a plan B or something but you cannot ignore societies and you cannot exclude them. That was the move we had a couple of years about from more local instead of global but not giving up global. So the global economy was driving the wealth around this planet the last 30 years and it will drive the wealth the next 30 years. Maybe we have to be a little bit less naive on one hand to political systems and to be a little bit more tolerant and say even if it's not my way how a few thing, we have to have the capability to agree to disagree on how a society is formulating their wish how they work but that doesn't mean that we cannot make business together that we cannot develop technologies further on that we cannot create wealth more because the wealth is the base for education and education is the solution for a lot of our issues. I would agree with the panelists here because I think we all learn with the supply chain disruption really being global and we're all global companies with a global footprint but being local and you see where companies have stepped up take sustainability, driving to net zero. There's a significant amount of capital as we've made those commitments working with governments across the globe in enabling their journey to get to net zero. When we talk about supply chain localizing so that every market that we're competing in we're contributing to the economic growth and economic growth contributes to jobs and it contributes technology. That is what ultimately keeps I think a balance across the geopolitical landscape because corporations have a significant amount of the capital that gets deployed that ultimately supports the global economy. I would like to make a very quick point in a world where geopolitical uncertainties are increasing as the question actually meant. We need, yeah, we really need to have much more robust and much more inclusive multilateral organizations. The organizations which we have today were of a totally different vintage, 70 years, 80 years old. They have outlived their utility, the world has changed, the economy has changed, so many things have changed. So I think from the perspective of the question we need a significantly more inclusive multilateral organizational structure. Well, I think we're running out of time. There's some more hands going up but I'm sure you can approach the speakers after the session but I want to finish on one last question, Vimasa's, we should raise social awareness and through Saising platform a lot of audiences will be watching. So if there's one reason after all the discussion we have today there's one reason people, general audience should pay close attention to the Moonshots in manufacturing, what that will be very quickly. It affects everybody's life, so better be aware of it. Be aware of it because it affects your life. I would say embrace it as well as be cautious. I mean, there's got to be both. There's got to be this aggressive to deploy it at the same time being responsible with how it's deployed. I'd say the same as the minister. It just touches too many people. There are too many people that manufacturing employs to not pay attention to what is happening with it. I think it just affects lives and that's why it's important. And a quick one, Aladeh, there's a solution to the many problems we are facing and manufacturing is going to find those solutions. Solutions and- If you're not in the new technologies, you're out. With that, ladies and gentlemen, please join me in thanking all our panelists for the wonderful discussion.