 Hello and good morning or good evening and welcome to the United Nations General Assembly science summit. The session on Japan and the session titled valuing value, how any organization can measure stakeholders or values and ethical capitalism. Before I go into the credits for who is organizing these I would like to make an important announcement about this session. First of all this session is in both Japanese and English simultaneous interpretation will be provided in both languages to access this feature. In the bottom of your screen for the meeting controls and click on the icon near the right hand corner that looks like a globe, then click the language that you would like to hear. The original language will still be audible at 20% of the volume with the interpreted language at 80% to hear the interpreted language only click mute original audio audio. This is the session for the meeting. The session is also available in both Japanese and English. If you are using the communication function, please see the meeting controls below the screen. Click on the icon on the right side of the globe and click on the language that you would like to hear. The original language is at 20% volume and the interpreted language is at 80% volume to hear the interpreted language only click mute original audio. So please choose between Japanese and English. Anyway, so. First of all, this session is organized by the Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology with the support from the permanent mission of Japan at the United Nations, and in collaboration with the value research center at Doshish University, and also the ESG Integration Research and Education Center at the Osaka School of International Public Policy, Osaka University. And my name is Haruko Sato at the Osaka School of International Public Policy, I am today's MC and moderator, and it is a great honor for me to be this to be moderating this session, which is comprised of roughly three components. One which starts with Professor Philip Sugai, the first speakers, talking about his value model, which is a rather revolutionary measuring model for sort of how well you do with SDG ESG scoring. And but the others and then to be followed by a fireside chat, and then with both Philip and and with Ambassador and Professor Hoshino Toshia who is also who is from the Osaka School of International Public Policy and also the founder of the ESG Integration Research and Education Center. And, as I promised you that this will be and then we will go. So, excuse me, and then this will be followed by another session with seven speakers will be each speaking from very different perspectives about SDGs and ESG and how we can sort of better address some of the pending problems in tackling, not just climate change, but also for making a better world for all. So these are all sort of global challenges, but I, we will be looking at both from an academic philosophical and perspective. So I promise you to be full of ideas, insights and inspiration, and lots and lots of idealism. So, I think you need to mute, somebody mute, Heather, I think you can hear you. And then after the presentation, we will be having a panel discussion with all the speakers that you previously heard. And I hope that this will be a very meaningful and stimulating discussion for all of you the panelists as well as the audience. We would also try to incorporate as many sort of questions or comments we may you may have from the audience. And so for all the questions or comments, please post on the chat room. But for sake of it, we would appreciate if you would keep just to the chat room and not address individual speakers with individual questions. So that would be very much appreciated. So, um, without further ado, I would like to turn the microphone and the screen to Professor Philip Sugai from the Doge Shabilis Business School, who's the founder of the Value Research Center. Please. Great. Thank you very much Haruko for the great introduction and hello everyone. My name is Philip Sugai and I am the director of the Value Research Center here in Kyoto, Japan. And I'm very, very happy all of you are here today to listen to our session on valuing value, how any organization can measure stakeholder value and ethical capitalism. And so basically, what I'd like to do, just first off is say thank you personally to the organizers at the United Nations General Assembly Science Summit, Permanent Mission of Japan to the United Nations and also to OIST. You know, Institute of Science and Technology and specifically Heather Naisan for all of your fantastic help and for Heather for inviting me and this team to present today. So, and I think we've already covered some of these notes so let me again jump in. Haruko has also covered the agenda with our speakers and I'm really looking forward to the discussions that are going to flow. I'm not going to start from this whole event, but let me start off just by introducing you to a little bit of the work that we've been doing and sort of the foundation of the discussions that I hope we can have going forward. So I've been teaching marketing to global MBA students for more than 20 years about two decades and I've noticed a trend putting me and basically any other professor who's teaching in a business school, specifically marketing at the center of a really major issue. And so you can see from these news clippings that I've recently taken marketing advertising seems to be at the very center of some of the major issues that the world is suffering from, because the way that marketing was in business school and marketing to be successful back then meant that you would sell a lot of different products to a lot of different people. But because of that, we're sort of living with the results of that way of thinking. So, basically, as a professor of marketing in 2022 and hopefully beyond something definitely needs to change. In terms of that perspective, the American Marketing Association since this issue back in 2004 actually, and they actually changed the definition of what marketing is. They've changed it again three short years after to this definition that if you Google right now definition of marketing AMA which is the American Marketing Association, which the name says American but it really is a global association and membership organization for marketing executives researchers around the world. It says that marketing is the activity. It's the set of institutions and processes for creating communicating delivering and exchanging things that have value for customers clients partners and society at large so you can see right at the heart of this definition. This doesn't talk about selling more stuff anymore it talks about creating value. So, these words sound very nice. But the question that I have is well is this in line with the definition of truly what a good companies. And so, in order to get an answer, people typically go back to Milton Friedman and his 1970s article in New York Times magazine, talking about this idea that an executive in a company can be good and only good. They can make as much money as possible, while conforming to the basic rules of society. Right. And so, with that definition. Basically, that puts the executive and the firm that they work for and shareholders who are the owners of the company and getting the results of those profits as the primary responsibility of marketers business people in general, and then all the shareholders become external right their externalities they're beyond our scope and they're they're deep prioritized. So, there actually is a different way though, and there is a more ethical approach approach to capitalism that does have its roots in Asia, and for those of you unfamiliar with the Asian region or Japan itself. You can originally or early on got significant amount of education and insight from Confucian principles, and at the heart of the analytics of Confucius, basically is this idea that this pursuit of profit is not the director and results that we should be aiming at. We can see a couple of quotes here from the analytics where, basically, the idea that profits are not wonderful, especially excessive profits are fairly clear. And this way of thinking had a significant impact on thinking in Japan and in fact, early on or during the period of the samurai here in Japan merchants in the social order of things were very, very low in the social structure. And that led to someone like you should have by gone back in the early 1700s, arguing for this idea of fair profits are okay actually. And this we understand from the analytics and from the teaching there that profits may not be great, but there's a line there's a distinction between fair profit and excessive profit. So based on that actually and sort of almost at the same time ideas out of Shiga prefecture it was called only back then started with the only shown in these only merchants, who had this philosophy of the three goods it's called sample Yoshi so in order for a business to be good. Not only does it have to be good for the buyer, and good for the seller. It also has to be good for society. And this way of thinking has actually been at the heart of many Japanese businesses since then. And I'm not sure if you've seen news like this pop up recently. But again and again I'm seeing news articles where they're highlighting the fact that businesses in Japan include some of the oldest ones in the world in fact 56% of the companies that are 200 years old or older in the world are here in Japan, and there's more than 33,000 businesses that are at least at least 100 years old, and this is right from the BBC, a couple years ago. But the idea is, if you've got that social focus if that ethical approach to business of not going after excessive costs of actually trying to find a social good. If that if that's at the core, then it makes sense that these businesses can be sustainable in a longer term or in a different different use of the word that we hear recently or usually right now in that sustainability over the long term makes sense because we're taking care of all of our different stakeholders, as we actually continue over the long term. So very recently 2019, the business roundtable that had defined the purpose of a business based on Milton Friedman's arguments actually changed the definition of what a business is in business for in 2019. We clearly state that the purpose of a business now is to create value or to do good for the firm itself its customers employees, partners society the planet and shareholders so they mentioned these seven stakeholder groups. The first manifesto 2020 Charles Schwab from the World Economic Forum, also arguing for the same exact seven stakeholders. So, the rest of the world is catching up to the 1717 hundreds thinking that got it started in Japan. And so I've published a book recently, talking about seven directions of value so not a whole Yoshi. And it's all great. But I have some of the best students in the world in my classes and executives that I teach also this idea or thinking, usually come up to me and say, Okay, Professor this all sounds great. But how do we actually measure that value that you're talking about right it's a nice word but how do we measure it. And that actually is exactly what Milton Friedman said back in 1970, if you read his article and it's a fantastic article to read. Even in 2022. It says, he said that the discussions of social responsibilities of business are notable for their analytical looseness and lack of rigor. So, basically, he's saying that we can talk about social impact and value and all these things, but they're notorious for not having any rigor behind. So, and that's led me to actually coin a term called value washing. We've all heard this idea of greenwashing where a company will talk about its environmental benefits when maybe or maybe not. They're doing those things that they say. But now when we're in the world of the sustainable development goals, we're looking at all of those different stakeholders that we're seeing coming up with the business round table World Economic Forum. This is when companies are actually talking about value for employees or value for society or value for partners or customers, and actually similar to greenwashing, not backing them up with the actual actions behind them. What I found in the research that I've done is the way to value wash is to avoid giving clear goals for what you say, don't provide any objective measures for these goals, avoid transparency at all costs. Don't use any objective third party feedback loops. And what we're seeing especially in the conversations around sustainability today is that there's so much complexity. It seems as if it's built to be complex so that individual businesses, solo entrepreneurs, small, medium enterprises can't actually participate in sustainability efforts. So if we're going to come up with some solution for these, we need to have that rigor that Milton Friedman was saying was so lacking. And unfortunately what my research is showing that all the discussions around stakeholder capitalism today are actually giving value washing superpowers and it's something that I'm hoping as a professor of marketing and branding and those things to actually help try to change. If we value wash anyone and faces risks from not actually seeing the real impacts that businesses are making so these people who need to see the truth are being robbed of seeing the actual impacts as they're happening. This includes investors, policymakers, company leaders, individual stakeholders themselves, and my feeling is irrespective of where they stand in terms of their beliefs. In terms of their politics, you don't want to be supporting something that actually turns out to be against the things that you are believing with or trying to do. And so I think that goes across, across beliefs across politics. And if we can't see the impacts, we really don't understand the full reality of business operations and the risks associated with that. So my question to start off all of this research was, are there any, are, is there an analytically tight and rigorous set of measurements of multi stakeholder value that can truly measure the value that the am a the business round table in the world forum amongst others talk about, can we measure this value holistically across all stakeholders in a clear and consistent way and avoid value washing entirely when we do so. So first let me just introduce you to a number of my terrible mistakes. The first was back in 2016. I had the bright idea that we could collect all of the academic articles that were written about value measurement, collect all of the formula, and actually figure out a way to merge them together into one macro model for value measurement. And so I had more than 10 MBA students working with me over these three years, we went through hundreds and hundreds if not thousands of academic articles. We narrowed them down to 156 that truly had measurements of value formulas variables that we could understand and ways to analyze. But when we tried to put them together. The statistics didn't work. People were measuring value from different perspectives they were using different formula, they were using different analytics tools. So it just didn't work. And so this first attempt to actually turned out to be an outright failure. So at the time there was a lot of excitement around ESG reporting and rating agencies so my next bright idea was okay let's look at all of these ESG rating services. And let's try to get into how they come up with their ratings. And again, students together with me looked through all or a number of these different ratings agencies, getting into their data. And we got to the point where we thought we could understand but then we hit this black box, this wall that basically, it's a proprietary wall that we couldn't get through that we wanted to know like if a company reduce its plastic emissions by plastic waste by 50%. What would that do to their ultimate score, and we could never get into the details of those proprietary scoring frameworks. So although these are excellent. They're helping more and more companies to actually disclose more and more. For our purposes, they weren't very helpful. And that moved us into though this phase of research that I'll be explaining to you right now and where we've sort of net it out. So, and with the proprietary wall that we banged into what we did find is all of these different frameworks for ESG reporting sustainability reporting, come mostly with a complete and public list of all the disclosure requirements that they're asking companies to make. So we've gone now through three different wave waves of research, we've gone through more than 23 of the world's top ESG and sustainability reporting frameworks. And let me basically explain what we've done. So we started in 2020. Luckily, Doshishi University was very generous with research funding support during the COVID crisis. And so we were able to actually form a team of research assistants and collect 357 impact measurements from these different models or frameworks. And so let me explain what we did. So here's GRI. So GRI is one of these 15 and here's their disclosure 202-1. And it says ratios of standard entry level wage by gender, compared to local minimum wage so that's the disclosure requirement. So the first step was just to test where these seven stakeholders that the business round table world economic forum, and that even I in my book I'm talking about, are they supported in what these ESG and sustainability frameworks are asking for. So this one went into employees and then we did it 356 more times for the other impact measurements. And basically we started with an Excel spreadsheet and it looked like this. But our results from step one showed yes actually these frameworks are talking about these seven stakeholders actually it was six. Shareholders weren't talked about and that at first got me a little nervous until I realized that we've been talking about and understanding how to measure shareholder value for a very long time. So basically that one was covered and all the other six were included in these ESG and sustainable reporting frameworks. So then the next step was we had now categorized those 357 into those seven stakeholder groups. We followed very standard quality of data analysis and we started to group or code the different impact measurements by theme. So we tried to narrow these down within here the employee category you can see on the left. We narrowed these down into groups of themes. So to create employee value what these frameworks are saying is, you need to focus on diversity and equity, fair wages, health welfare and safety, development and training, engagement and satisfaction and human rights. If you're thinking about creating value for nature, you need to be focused on wasted pollution, water, energy, products and services, biodiversity and buildings and land. So we did that again for customers, for partners, for society and firms and again I said shareholders wasn't covered. So we used economic value added as our proxy for shareholder value. And the details of all of these are in white papers that you can download for free from our website, but basically this step to finished with 27 clear themes across these seven stakeholder groups, and then Milton Friedman came back. And his argument was well there's no rigor behind anything that we're talking about. So then we looked at all of these different impact measurements individually that we'd separated into themes to see just how good how rigorous were they, and specifically related to value washing, how good it they were, were they at removing value washing, were their clear goals that they were driving at, could they be objectively measured, were their independent feedback loops that were actually in place and being done. And did they have a scale variable was it not just yes no are there women on your board of directors yes or no, but the percentage of women on your board or the number of women on your board would be a scale variable. So the top scoring impact measurement could get five points if it scored well across all of these. And obviously the lowest scoring impact measurement would get zero points. So again, the Excel spreadsheet started to get really busy and really small so it looked like this but we were able to go through one by one and score each of the 357 impact measurements, and then start to look at each of these themes that we had created and say how rigorous grounded are they in the data that we have. So you can see here it's kind of hard to read but on the left hand side we've got the stakeholder and then the themes that were derived from them. And then micro indicator or the number of impact measurements that aligned on that theme, and then frameworks means how many of those are original 15 frameworks that were actually covered, and then you see those scores from zero to five. And through each and every theme to see how good they were at actually not only measuring value but also reducing or eliminating value washing in the process. And unfortunately in our first round at this, and 100% of the impact measurements, none of the impact measurements scored five points 100% were for below. And actually most were three or below only 5% of impact measurements across these first frameworks that we looked at had four points. So, again, a lot of talk about value and measurement sustainability, but this is why I said earlier that I think stakeholder capitalism has given value washing superpowers because we talk about these things, but the actual rigor that Milton Friedman put out there as a challenge to us to actually measure and deal with social responsibilities that businesses have are still not being met. Even this was in 2020, but even today in 2022. And just to prove that each of these themes was supported across these different frameworks. And then also we looked at the frameworks to see how well they actually covered each of these themes. And then finally what we did is go from the individual themes now that we had proof that they were okay, we went deeper to actually look at goals. So again, the details of this are in our white papers they're all available for free for download from our website, but you can see, maybe here in the nature category. So we have in waste and pollution. And the goals would be carbon neutral, zero non greenhouse gas emissions, zero plastic pollution, 100% waste reclamation recycling, and zero sound and light disturbances. And these each are goal based so there's a clear end goal. So then we can rate how a company is doing across not only this theme, but all 27, because we've got clear end goals in these. And so basically I'll show you now we've transitioned over to a relational database we've gotten rid of Excel. And now here this is in the theme of health welfare and safety for employees. And you can see there are six goals here physical health, retirement provision, family medical leave, employee health care, occupational safety and health coverage and employee mental health and well being. Each of them has a goal. And then you can see down here for example physical health. They're clear KPIs that keep performance indicators that we've gotten from these actual frameworks. And then we have links back to the actual sources. So you can check exactly how GRI 403-4 talks about employee physical health. And if you're actually disclosing based on this framework. You've got the link right there to help you understand how to do that. So in total then we can create this forward looking dashboard across each of these 27 goals and actually 27 themes and goals, we can get a clear score. And we're not looking to score companies to embarrass or show how bad they are but to start off with taking a temperature check, and then building strategy going forward to make positive ongoing change. So this idea of choosing a goal and then aligning everyone along that same path to achieve those goals. So whether it's a huge multinational company or a solo entrepreneur, if everybody is marching to achieve the same goal, then we most likely are going to get there. And then we've gone through two additional waves of research and wave two. We added the Stockholm Resilience Center's planetary boundaries, which were our first five point goals, excellent impact measurements together with SBTI science based targets, plus these others as well. We actually doubled the number of impact measurements in our model, but the model itself states solid. And we've most recently done FRAG, which is out of the European Union with 114 more proposed impact measurements again the model is solid. And we've actually given feedback back to FRAG as to things that they could consider to change. So basically we're now applying this to actual companies. We're looking to build both qualitative and quantitative measurement results of these value impacts. And we've got the Valley Research Center focused on further developing this model, quantitatively and qualitatively proving it, distributed data, distributed ledger technology and AI to actually make it all work and education collaboration and training. So these three white papers are available for free download through our website you can download them now. And we're looking for joint research partners so looking to partner with companies with research organizations with universities with individual researchers around the world to partner with us to actually help us improve and expand this research. We also have a Global Innovation and Value Summit coming on November 18, where we'll be launching a membership organization and our Juku for membership and training and certification. So we hope you'll join us there as well. So I'd like to thank Doshishi University for the funding, all of my great research assistants and all of the speakers who are following me now to sort of talk about value in more detail. And again, Heather and Minai-san from OIST are great translators and for all of you for joining us for the continuation of these discussions. So thank you all for listening to me for so long and I'll turn it back over to you Harakul. Thank you. Thank you, Phillip. So, anyway, so now we have to, I would like to turn to invite Professor Hoshino to the audience. We will do this fireside chat with Phillip and Professor Hoshino. And this is actually a very, very honored and proud to introduce Professor Hoshino, who's also been the ambassador to the permanent mission of Japan to the United Nations between 2017 and 2020. And he was actually for time in charge of SDG issues. And as I said previously, he also founded last year, the ESG, IREC, the Center at the Osaka School of International Public Policy. And the purpose of this fireside chat really is to take full advantage of the two very different perspectives. Both of them, of course, are academics, but Hoshino sensei has experience from public policy as our school actually does international public policy. And Phillip comes from the business school experience with a very passionate pursuit for this value model. So I've prepared two questions, but I will stop for this fireside chat so that we can hear from sort of the two perspectives one from perhaps the public policy side. The other side from the more sort of the business economic activity side. So my first question is, is this really so since the Millennium Development Goals and the rounds of climate change talks that the world has been having since the 1990s. I think the contribution of non state actors, particularly of say NGOs, as well as multinational corporations in the private sector have become indispensable that there's that we can't really achieve anything without their help. And in many cases, I think they're very critical because since the Cold War, one thing is dramatically changed, which is the global spread of capitalism, so that you have everybody getting wealthier everybody engaged in pretty much the same economic system that is driven by what this Western liberal capitalist capitalism. But it and but this, because it's important because it all drives growth. And. But since then, we've had the SDGs game after 2015. And the ESGs, which is a reflection of including these private sector really seeks to hold now the private sector, and their economic activities more accountable to this realm of what is becoming a global public concern, as well as a public policy issue of international coordination. So I would like to ask both of you, in your views, what are the current challenges and how could they be overcome and I know it's very general but I thought we should start from here to move on. So perhaps I could ask Professor Hoshino first. Thank you, Haruko for your warm introduction and I enjoy actually this fire side chat format without necessarily a fire place behind us that I was already fascinated by the opening presentation by Philip on that value model. He rigorously put together talking about the relationship between public policy and the private company or the role. What kind of challenges we have. I think that the one of the challenges I think I'm thinking is to combine how we effectively combine you know public sector effort and the private sector effort. You know, both efforts are necessary. And the complementary, supposed to be complementary, but in often cases they collide to each other. For instance, though, you are we are trying to move the world towards the sustainable future, but you know there's a public sector. For instance, if I can name the one country for instance Russia started war, you know this is not the time to, you know, engaging war we all have to work together to create a sustainable future where we can, you know, graduate from the carbon oriented, you know, society towards the net zero goal society, but you know the politics, when it was the politics and security involved you know this kind of direction was totally, you know, get stuck or even go backward. At the same time, of course, the businesses need to be changed. That is exactly what Phillips talked about I think, you know, from the one sort of capitalism towards the more, you know, more inclusive and multi stakeholder oriented capitalism. Yes, that kind of. Yes. So what we need now is a transformation towards the better future where the public sector and business sector all work together. This is actually amazing for me to say this, because I started my career as an academic as a state centric person, talking about international politics, working on, you know, international security, which is more about the conflicts among the nations, which is actually actually the reality in a world, but after experiencing three years at the ambassador of Japan to the United Nations, particularly working on socio economic issues, one thing I am amazed was the involvement and also the contribution of the non state actors that exactly what Haruko talked about, the civil society on one side and also the private business organizations, they are the sources of innovation and now we are in the middle of this science summit, you know, the science comes from those, you know, private ingenuity. And I was one time very honored to play a role of the co chair of the what we call STI forum science technology and innovation forum for sustainable development, where the member states of the United Nations all get together, together with the representatives from the private sector and science community, all talked about how we best use the new, you know, knowledge and innovation to accelerate the SDGs. So, I, this was a very eye opening experience for me that, well, the SDG is set by the at the United Nations General Assembly summit by the representative of the all 193 countries, member states, and this is the role that the United Nations only the United Nations can do is to make a consensus goal. But how who will implement this for the state, of course, has a responsibility to do that, but everybody has to participate in it, and then that the private sector has a very significant role. So, I'm now excited to work on this project. That is a part of the reason why I established this ESG integration research and education center, which is for me to work closely with the business sector, or the private companies and how they have how best we integrate environmental factor, and the society factor, and the governance factors to move the world towards the better direction. So, and I'm very honored to be one of the partners to value research center of that Philip organized. So, in that, so my challenge is that also that the expectation is how we can combine, you know, the effort from the private sector, and also the public sector towards the same goal, which is the sustainable future. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Philip. Yeah, what is what what what's from your perspective will be the first. I just want to say thank you to Hoshino sensei for being here and participating, as well as enabling me to actually be working with the ESG Eric center and all the all the work that you and how to go are both doing. And so, and I couldn't agree with you more actually. So the this idea of, I had shown one slide in my presentation about this net force calculation, right, and so it's a it's a calculation from physics but basically, it says that if you've got, if you want to have the impact. If you have one vector one one force going in a slightly different direction, you minimize the overall result. So if you can align all of the energy along the similar line, you get the highest end result. So I think what we've got right now is still, again, in looking at all of these different frameworks, all of these different models. There's such a complexity. So there's, and there's, there seems to be, and sort of each one of these organizations has its own view on what may be correct or what is right maybe one's more focused on the policy side one's more focused on an environmental side and instead of taking a step back and looking at the picture, how can we collaborate amongst all of ourselves in these best possible ways, we sort of get caught up in sort of the this very small sort of micro view of the situation. And I think especially the United Nations and Hoshino sensei with that view from 193 different countries and sort of seeing things at a global scale. I mean, this really is the issues that are facing us are facing humanity at this point. And it's not something that we can do just some actors or some players. And so I think again, one of the themes. And maybe it's because I'm teaching younger students so much now but this idea of a game versus disclosure, a challenge versus disclosure, and disclosure is something right when when we were growing up or when folks younger than than us were growing up or are growing up and disclosing stuff right like having to report on stuff is always a negative right and you build that relationship of I have to do this. And instead of that, how can we switch this around so we're collaborating together, right and we're forward looking together. And once we've got those goals set. I think we can align public policy, I think we can align business, I think we can align everyday people like, like all of us here to really just do the things that are necessary to get us out of the mess that we see people a generation or a couple generations before us, or more started. So I think again this collaborative view, not focusing on complexity but simplicity, and trying to figure out that future path forward that we can all go together that that's the key challenge for us. Thank you very God I wanted to go one step further. Yes, I think we are thinking about the same thing we want to make change, but the people are not so much, you know, excited about or sometimes they are reluctant. Even negative about the change, while we see the world is definitely needs to change. And you look at this. I honestly speaking and many of you may also feel that the sense kind of sentiment that global warming is that real or is that scientific or something that kind of skepticism one side. And also there is always a discussion of we are at the crossroads and we are in the water shed the moment and every time we hear that kind of thing and all once again another watershed moment or another crossroads. No, this is really the watershed moment. And we have to be very serious about but many people who are too much accustomed to this kind of, you know, discussion. So, even the talk of sustainability becomes so common that makes us feel nothing serious that is a kind of the challenge we have to go over it. So that I do not want to learn the world too much. So I sometimes feel that the healthy sense of urgency or healthy sense of crisis is something we need to generate. And at the same time, when we need to make a significant change, we need to go past the critical mass, right? If we are successfully go over that critical mass, not mathematics but critical mass, we can, you know, change the world like cascade or to the, you know, snowball rolling. But if we are making minor changes, that doesn't happen. So the role all of us here listening to this discussion should combine our consciousness and energy to move things forward to achieve, you know, the critical mass or before the world go close to so called tipping points, which is to move towards the unsustainable, you know, disastrous future. So this discussion of Anthropocene kind of idea is so important from my perspective and I think many of us here share the same kind of sentiment. Thank you. Thank you. I think this, this is probably a discussion in itself, but I'd like to move to the second question, which actually moves also I think it will act as a segue to the presentations that will follow, which it is I'm actually talking that takes on from what was mentioned about Russia and the consensus building that only the United Nations can do. But at the same time, yes, this is a tip. We are we are in a tipping point also where the international system might not be sustainable. I think this is, you know, China in the United States agreed to cooperate on climate issues. And yet, because of Russia. Now that sort of pragmatic cooperation is also seem to be sort of sidelined for the moment. So we are really in a serious situation I very much agree. But so, but I think this China and you know the talk about sort of Russia too. I think we also need to look at the other sort of phenomenon that is happening the bifurcation of international politics, but look at from this capitalist points of view. So we have this neoliberal capitalism, which I think is has been under sort of a critical gaze for for some time, particularly with the rise of SDGs, and with this excessive focus on growth at all costs. Here I would like to bring to the the main thrust of this session, which is that the capitalism is not really all the same everywhere. And I think, even amongst the major powers, the G seven or the G 20 different social and cultural and historical strategies, do mark very important differences in how companies behave, they make strategies, or economic policies are generated. For here I would like to bring I think Japan is is now a sort of sometimes overlooked, but a very good example of this slightly different type of capitalism, slightly different type of economic sort of philosophy. From the 70s to the 80s Japan was studied by the still the Cold War sort of Western world as a sui generis were exceptional or not Western, even though it was very successful. But I do think that Japan's economic success, and it's still sort of durability. I'm surely has some enduring value, and perhaps a universal relevance, which you know, it's universal values are not just a liberal Western things. I think that Japan also has some universal sort of relevance as well as some maybe that deserves some reappraisal in today's context. I would like Hoshino Seisei and Philip to sort of remark about what that might be what might what relevance Japan might be and what can Japan's experience 150 years of modern capitalism, bring to the current international effort to achieve sustainable growth, or ethical capitalism, because this I think is an important segue to the presentations that will follow. So, Hoshino Seisei, would you like to go first. I don't know if I'm right person to answer the question as a political scientist by training, but the capitalism is a very interesting idea based on ideology on one side and the human nature on the other side. And neoliberal capitalism is so dominant being, you know, in one originated maybe from the United States and some but has some universal impact. But yes, I agree with you that there are many, there should be many application or the implementation of capitalism. And, and even in the ideological side I tempted to promote the idea or notion of ESG capitalism instead of the neoliberal or anything. For instance, the way I say this with capitalism based on ESG naturally drive the, you know, our economic activities towards the environment and society and also that the good governance. So that I think is a kind of hope. But even this ESG capitalism can take many forms I think in many societies and many countries and how then Japan can implement it. Yes, as Philip kindly and already, you know, effectively introduced that we have a tradition. So there should be some unique part of, you know, ESG capitalism, Japan version in one way or the other. And, and one and I'm very impressed with that the longer standing, you know, Japanese companies, which has been successful. But one, one caution or one, one, how should I say, one thing I'm a bit concerned about is the complacency, you know, the problem of complacency. If the company is so successful in the long run, they consider there should be no need to change because they have been successful for the past 100 years. But as I told you, we are in a crossroads in a really changed to the, the better. So the success truly successful company must have changed in that, you know, while maintaining certain continuity. So that balance of change on one side and the continuity on the other side. I think the Japanese companies are now in the very critical moment to be tested, whether they can be successful toward the future. If they are complacent about the way we have, they have been doing, we are, there's no, you know, proof that the same recipe can achieve this major problem of sustainability goals that we are going to pursue. That is my immediate answer to your question. Thank you. Thank you. So, Philip. And now you know what to do. You have been to the sessions that's getting. I, I think this is a perfect segue into the panel session actually so because some of the people who are waiting to speak next are actually much, much deeper experts and can probably answer that question much better. And again, I think that Japan does have some very interesting things to teach the world and also obviously share as well as this entire Asia region. So maybe I can turn it back over to you how to go and then I think the answers to my question are going to the way that I would answer is probably going to come from our next speakers. Okay, all right. And if they miss anything I'll wrap up at the end. Okay. Okay, thank you. Thank you very much for the notion as I say so now I'd like to turn to the third session, which is, we'll have some expert speakers on different topics. There will be addressing both that sort of philosophical economic, and also from a policy side of what this value model could is basically support it. Sorry. Sorry, he's trying to achieve. So I'm without further ado, I would like to introduce Professor Masato Yamazaki, who is he is also he's the that the board member of the value research center as well as Professor Meredith economics at the Aquinas College, Michigan USA. He would speak about the more of the philosophical approach to Japanese ethical capitalism. So, please. Yep, thank you very much. I have prepared some of the philosophical and then a spiritual kind of aspect of Japanese capitalism, which is called in more moral values for the ethical capitalism that I like to present today. Let me begin with my kind of thought about this ethical capitalism without moral sentiments, ie, the moral values by Adam Smith market economy collapses. In fact, it has been collapsed. We learned that selfish individualism and exploitative liberalism bring chaos to our community for survival of human civilization. It is extremely essential to reestablish a solid foundation of moral values. For that reason, it is was paying attention to the well established and long lasting moral values in Japan. Now, we cannot talk about the moral values in Japan. Without recognizing. From 1787 to 1856, who influenced so many brilliant business leaders in Japan, such as Shibusawa H. Miki Motoko Chi, doko to Shio Matsushita Kono Sken, Inamori Kazoo, etc. Ninomiya Sontoku was an important agrarian reformer and economic thinker of the late Edo period, which is 1603 to 1868. He grew up a peasant household, and he educated himself and overcame and trenched class divisions to become a distinguished agricultural administrator, financial innovator and economic philosopher. Ninomiya also developed his own system of economic ethics. Motoku, which was to have a profound influence on later generations. The Motoku philosophy, stress behavior consistent with a sense of gratitude toward one's family, one's ancestors, the larger community, and the earth. And it's set forth basic principles of conduct. She say, or honesty and sincerity. And then kindle or diligence. And then kindle or budgeting within one's means and, and, and it's sweet, sweet, but people nowadays might term giving back. The economic activities aimed at the accumulation of wealth could benefit society as a whole if anchor by such ventures as restraints and altruism. Such concept laid the ethical and spiritual foundations for modern Japanese capitalism, performing much the same no role that the Max Weber of 1864 to 1920 attributed to the Protestants ethic when tracing the development of Western capitalism. Ninomiya's philosophy of hotoku inspired some of the most iconic and pivotal figures in economic history of modern Japan. His spiritual heirs include industrious Shibusawa H from 1840 to 1931. The father of the Japanese capitalism. The enter Knorr Yasuda Zenjirou from 1838 to 1921 to help Japan's modern banking system and inventor and industrialist Toyota Sakichi from 1867 to 1930, who established Toyota. Legendary Matsushita Konosuke from 1894 to 1989, a founder of Panasonic. Inamori Kazuo from 1932 to 2022, the founder of Kyosera. I now want to share a pair of walls of the law of trough water by Ninomiya. All human beings are born in a state like an empty trough. That is at first without property ability or anything else. Nature and many people fill the trough with water. Only people who realize the appreciation of the water want to give it to others. And they want someone to be happy. So they try to push the water toward the other person. And happiness is something that will come back to you again. Even if you give it to others that you no longer need it. And the water will never leave you. But if you think that water is your own. You take it for granted. That you be filled with water. You feel you never have enough. And then try to break in more and more. And happiness will run away. In other words, if you try to be altruistic or leader. No longer will the other person be have prized. But the happiness will also come back to you with great results for yourself. Shibusawa Aichi actually showed us by many excellent examples of this parable. As a public interest priority company. Among 500 companies he established in his lifetime. More values refer to a set of principles that guide an individual on how to evaluate right versus wrong. People generally apply more that values to justify decisions. Intentions and actions. And also define the person or character of a person. An individual with high moral values. Typically displays characteristics of integrity. Courage. Respect. Fairness. Honesty. And compassion. The basic foundation of the individual character is developed during the child early years. And then partly shaped by the virtue values. And then beliefs of the parents. Educators and peer interactions. Also play an important role in moral value formation. We strongly emphasize the value research center. We also have a very important mission to teach individual moral values. To align businesses in the world with the principle of ethical capitalism as Shibusawa Aichi taught us. I appreciate the opportunity that I can discuss about this particular model of values. But maybe later, if I have any questions, I happy to respond to the questions. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you very much. So now I'd like to turn to this Yoshiya Sugai. She will be talking about a slightly more particular spirit of Japanese martial arts. As is one of the very important philosophical underpinnings of Japanese sort of business and corporate culture. So Yoshiya san, are you ready? In Japan, there is a unique culture of Doutoku. Sado, Kado, Shodo, and Judo. In this Doutoku, there are three meanings of Doutoku. One of the two cultures of Doutoku is the word, Kii, Tai, Chi, Toku, and Bishin. Kii is Yaru-Kii. Tai is a strong body of health. Chi is the ability to recognize the essence of the body. Toku is Doutoku. Bishin is the heart that can do anything. And the ultimate goal of Doutoku is to reflect the society and to lead the peace. I will talk about the teaching of Doutoku and the teaching of power. My Aikido teacher, Kinefuchi Tooru, was the teacher of Mochizuki Minoru. The teacher of Mochizuki Minoru was the teacher of Judo, Kanojigoro, and the teacher of Aikido, Ueshiba Morihei. He was the first to open Aikido in France. He was awarded a cultural certificate in Paris. The teacher of Mochizuki Minoru was the teacher of Jita Kyoe, the teacher of the Aikido. And his students were leaders, and their disciples and the leaders of the Buddhist community, and they were the leaders of the Buddhist community. It is the key for fullING of power. It is the key for fullING of power, and it is the key for fullING of power, and it is the key for the achievement of the teacher of Jita Kyoe. It is not only about yourself, but also about the good and what kind of cooperation you are going to do. It is also about the good and what kind of cooperation you are going to do for society and for the world. The good and what kind of cooperation you are going to do is going to be done by 10 people. It depends on the culture and the environment. Even if it is good for yourself, it may not be good for society. As one of the good and what kind of decision-making standards, it is legal, but it depends on the country. Also, people think that their own thoughts and actions are correct. It is also a normal thing to think about. Then, what kind of good and what kind of decision-making standards are you going to do? That is the best thing that the scientists know the most. To have a question. Ms.Midori Mochizuki said, If you have to make progress, you have to do it. And for that progress, you should always have a question. Now, you have to have a question and listen to a lot of people's stories. You can get a more effective result by repeating it over and over again with new eyes and thoughts. If you believe that it is good, you should repeat it over and over again with new eyes and thoughts. It depends on the topic, and the pride will be hurt, so it is not good. But you need to have the courage to be the leader. If you don't, you can't go to the actual church. Now, Ms.Midori Mochizuki said, In the harsh situation of wars and storms in the past, she believed in the idea of the church that was full of power and power, and she said the truth. At that time, Ms.Midori Mochizuki said, To increase the culture of Mongolians by teaching Buddhism, to build their own country, and to build their own country, she taught the religion and religion in the middle school of Mongolia. She also built a 200-meter bridge in the capital of Koga, for the sake of the friendship between Japan and Mongolia. She also built a 200-meter bridge in the capital of Mongolia. At that time, the government did not have a meeting with the government, and even though she had a big meeting, she had a meeting with the Japanese ambassador who was in Mongolia at that time, and had a meeting with the local farmers. Later, in 1987, Ms.Midori Mochizuki said, The country was expanded by 3 times. She said, She said, She said, She said, She said, She said, She says, 当时たくさんの人が戦いにより利益を得ようと必死になっている中 持続先生のように国境や心情、人手を問わず みんなが反映するようにと一生懸命能力を良いことに活用していた人がいたという そういう事実を皆さんに知っていただきたいんです Recently, I heard that even in Africa, there are things that are similar to Jitakyoe. Also on TV, even when we were in war, one of the leaders of the Germans was working hard to save the lives of 900 people. I think there is such a soul in the world. If we have more thoughts about Jitakyoe for all these forces, we won't need weapons or anything else. The real peace will be created in the world. Unfortunately, even now, in any place in the world, war, business, or individual relations are happening. Therefore, the future of us and the Earth is giving us a lot of damage. We must not look only at ourselves, our own people, or our own history. We must not be a race to win by ourselves. We must all work together to create great science, science, and technology, to create a race for all natural environment and human rights. This may be a dream, but in reality, it is up to us whether to do it or not. In order for the future to be peaceful and peaceful in the world, we must all work together to create the best and best cooperation between the two of us. We must all work together to create the best cooperation. Thank you very much. Thank you, Yoshio-san. Very powerful message. Now I'd like to turn to Jin Montesano, who will be actually talking about Lixl. This will be one case where... Sorry, I'm just seeing some hands. Oh, okay. Sorry. If you're ready, please go ahead. Sure. I'm going to share the screen from my side. Thank you very much for the opportunity to present. My name is Jin Montesano. I work for a company called Lixl. It's a very interesting and unique company, but to me, perhaps I'm biased. The most important thing I want to say is that Lixl has been transforming from being a very domestic, low-growth Japanese company, to a very proud and purpose-driven global company. We are today listed on the Tokyo Stock Exchange, and our story is quite unique in the sense that I like to say that we're a 100-year-old startup, and I'll talk a little bit about why. So the title of my topic is Transforming with Purpose. Lixl's purpose is actually very clear. 65,000 employees across 150 countries we operate under one key idea, and that is that at Lixl our purpose is to make better homes a reality for everyone everywhere. As you can see here, Lixl has a very unique history. We are a company that's built on a very long history of excellence. We were created in 2011 when five long-standing Japanese companies, Enax, Tostem, Shinnekei, Toex, and Sunwave, decided to unite their futures as they could see the low-growth and declining population and aging population of Japan, and said we must build a company together using our vast resources and our know-how and create a future for the next generation. Together, these five companies created Lixl, and they decided not to use one of their own names for the new company and chose a new name. And Lixl actually is an invented word, and the LI and the IL is basically the meaning is the intersection between life and living, and that is how Lixl was born. Then Lixl went on to acquire additional global entities like American Standard, Tostem, and Enax. In short, Lixl is actually a global pioneer and leader in what we call water and housing technology, and our innovation dates back to the 19th century, as some of you might have heard of some of these very famous brands. A billion people, just to show you the scale of our company and our reach, a billion people get up every morning and use our products every day to get their children to school, get themselves to work. We are in a vast number of categories, from construction methods to tile to solar systems and, of course, Enax bathrooms, toilets, bath systems, kitchen systems, gardens, doors, floors, interiors, sunroofs, carports. We basically can build an entire home with Lixl products. We're not necessarily in construction, but we actually work in adjacency with construction and we like to call ourselves a slow-moving consumer goods company. One of the really cool things about Lixl is that because we had come together in a relatively recent time, 10 years ago, when I first joined the company, we seemed to be lost as to what was our reason for existing. And I really was very lucky to arrive at a time when we were going to ask this very important question of ourselves, having merged five Japanese-leading companies and then acquired a few more globally, the German Groa and the American Standard in the U.S. We really needed to take a step back and ask this question. And at the end of the day, we decided that Lixl must create value by finding a path that allows us to serve our stakeholders and societies in a meaningful way. Many Japanese companies or even global companies don't have that luxury. They might have come successfully along the way and perhaps today they're wondering how to pivot or how to actually respond to the challenges of sustainability and how to change your organization. We had the imperative, it was an existential imperative to really step back and reflect on that. And this value creation model that I show you here today really shows you that, and this is actually extracted from our integrated report, which is the annual report we make to investors and stakeholders every year. And we very clearly say that how we create value starts, number one, with our purpose. That drives us to determine and define the resources that we rely on. And as you can see here, and I won't go into great depth because I don't have that much time, but you can see here that we outline the seven critical resources that Lixl relies on. And then those resources are used in such a way that allows us to create value. And we describe that at the center of the way that we create value is our people. So we very much believe that our people are our most important value activation centers. How we leverage our people is through these key points that I've raised here, strong governance, clear strategic goals, a modern work environment that's flexible and so forth. When we create value leveraging Lixl's people, we know we have achieved a sustainable path for long-term growth and performance when we have actually achieved the outcomes we've set for these critical stakeholders. And here you can see that our stakeholders really start with employees and then our consumers and customers, business partners, societies and shareholders. Only then do we believe we've actually achieved the right path for sustainable growth and then we reiterate that by going back to thinking about our purpose. Under each of these tiles, there's much more data and much more information, but today I've just simply showed you on a page and we can go into more detail if you like, because it's all in our integrated report. One of the most critical pillars of how we activate our purpose is really to think about our key strategies. As one company, we can't do everything. So we looked at our know-how and our expertise and what are we really good at as a company? Because if a company is very good at something, it's making profit doing that thing. And we decided to take what we thought were our strengths and then overlap that with what we thought were society's needs. Because we did not believe that the best way to build a strong and integrated purpose that is activated in society and in our company and supporting the company to do well was something that we created on the side. You know, some kind of CSR activity or some philanthropy thing that we just kind of did on the side because we wanted to be a good company. We didn't want to do that. So we decided to really explore and understand what are we actually really good at? And we found, for example, that we're very serious otaku when it comes to moving water in and out of homes, whether it's through your toilet or your bath system or your shower set or your faucet taps. So sanitation and hygiene became a really powerful calling card for our purpose. Employees were very moved and activated. When I began this journey, I found so many people within the organizations globally in Japan and in different parts of the world that were working on unique innovations for sanitation and hygiene challenges in the world. So as you can see here, we have three critical pillars. Again, I won't go into all of them, but I will touch a little bit more on sanitation and hygiene. As all of you know, this is a critical global challenge. We're sending out people to Mars, but the fact of the matter is one in five people on this planet live without a basic toilet. That's 1.7 billion people. 2.3 billion people have no hand washing facilities at home and actually hand hygiene is the first line of defense against COVID. 494 million people today still practice open defecation. And while you think about the inconvenience of that, you also have to extend yourself to how that can actually pollute rivers and fields and communities, which actually hurt the ability for children to have healthy lives and to be even able to reach the age of one or age of five. As we know, the death due to diarrhoea disease is on a daily basis. That number is very high. So Lixell decided that it would take its know-how and its passion around sanitation and hygiene innovations and issues and put a target out there. And we decided that through our own innovations and our own investments and efforts, we will aim to improve the livelihood of 100 million people through Safe Sanitation and Hygiene Solutions by 2025. We set out this ambitious target and commitment and we explained it to the world. Now, just to pause there for a second, even though we're focused on SDG6, you can see that when you impact global sanitation and hygiene, you actually have many interdependencies with the other UN SDGs. For example, girls become smarter when there is a toilet at school. We're finding that under UNICEF data, girls drop out of school when they enter menstruation period. Because there's no toilet in their rural schools, they don't go to school for that week and they continue to fall behind, eventually dropping out of school. So education can be improved. That goes to gender equality. We know for a fact that it helps to improve the situation of some 100 children under the age of five dying on a daily basis due to diarrheal diseases, for example. So I just wanted to explain here very briefly how global sanitation and hygiene focus actually supports other SDG targets that we are trying to support. How are we doing that? Well, I want to introduce you to a social business we created called Sato. Sato stands for Safe Toilet. And the reason why we use the term Safe Toilet is because the UN's definition of a Safe Toilet is when the human's contact with waste or fecal matter is separated firmly. So if there's a hole in the ground, that is not considered a Safe Toilet. We invented something called the Sato Toilet. And my CEO, Kinyo Sato, likes to say that we make the $5,000 kind of toilet, but the $5 toilet is actually the one he's more proud of. And this toilet is actually very easy to install, saves up to 80% water compared to flush toilets because you basically use a little bit of water, a cup full to flush. And there's a very unique low-flow engineering counterweight that allows the water to flush down into a septic tank or a cesspit depending on where we're putting the Sato Toilet. We also, during COVID, invented something called the Sato Tap, which is an affordable hand-washing solution, off-grid as well just like the Sato Pan, which can be used in the home or in shared use in communities. And this actually won time's best inventions of 2020 because we were able to launch that and with our partner UNICEF get it out to the markets knowing that hand hygiene was the first line of defense against COVID and many people did not have access to good, safe hand hygiene. Now, how does the Sato Social Business work? We actually leverage local and global partnerships to bring the most value to community. We make, sell, and use locally. We work with local manufacturing partners. We manage the product distribution in the market in which we want to distribute and sell, and we also maintain it locally. But if you think about it, because there was no such supply of a safe toilet at the base of the pyramid, we had to also create that ecosystem. We had to create the sustainable market, which meant we had to work with NGOs and different international organizations to build skills training and outreach. We actually created entrepreneurs who would then be taught how to create the toilet itself and so that they could become installers at the base of the pyramid. And so not only did we have to do the skills training and outreach and go village by village to gain understanding about how the toilet would work and create the value, we also did a lot of promotion and awareness building of why it's valuable for you to own a toilet in your home. UNICEF became a very important partner to us and really ended up helping us to accelerate the entry of our products into market. Today, improving access to sanitation around the world is a reality. As of today, we've already shipped over 6.5 million units to 45 countries. And that, under the UN calculation of five people per unit household, 35 million people have received improved access to basic sanitation and hygiene. But we haven't stopped there because that's really short of 100 million. So as you can see, oh, this is all about the Satotap and here's our inventor. Actually, Daigo Ishiyama is our inventor. He lives in New Jersey and he used to work. He was part of American Standard, not Lixl. And when we acquired American Standard, he's Japanese. We found him working on these products, these ingenious, what we call low tech products that can really serve the base of the pyramid. And we actually built a business around the Satotap because we did not want to treat it like philanthropy. You know, in the private sector, I guess I'm the only private sector speaker so I can say that it's really important for us to feel that a business model can be built so that any profits can be reinvested in the model. If it's philanthropy or if it's donation, at some point, people are going to take a decision that we don't have the money this year so that program has to be cut. So we felt very firmly that if we believe that there's value in this product, that there is innovation and there's a consumer base because whether you live on a dollar a day or $100 a day, we need to respect the consumer because the consumer is making consumable decisions for her and her household and her family. And so we decided we have to make a product that has value to her. She understands why she wants it or needs it and is willing to pay for it. We, of course, have to make it affordable so access is not a problem. But we believe very strongly in creating a P&L and a business model behind it. So Satot is a social business which has two critical factors for success. Financial factor, which is the break-even and the impact factor, which is 100 million people by 2025. And as you can see here, we were actually the first company for UNICEF to sign on to a global shared-value partnership. And actually, I'm very proud of the fact that the first company UNICEF ever signed on to their innovative new global shared-value partnership agreements was a Japanese company because, in fact, they told us they were in talks with many other famous Western American companies, but we were the first. And together, we are continuing to expand our partnership into even deeper markets today. And then last but not least, this is really how we bring it all back together. We actually then help the company itself to further raise funds for the activities of Satot and for UNICEF through calls-related marketing. Like, for example, the GORE brand recently contributed 1.2 million euros by raising that money through its Energy for Life campaign to support the partnership. That made our partners in Europe so excited, our employees so excited to be working on this and making an impact on the program. And we believe this is how we can further generate. When programs are connected back into the business and there's accountability for the program, not separate and run as if it's just some CSR program, it can actually be much more sustainable and deliver the kind of impact that one is seeking. So thank you very much. And I'll stop there. Thank you. Thank you, Janice. This is really exciting. Actually, I didn't know about the Satot toilet. I have to. Okay. So now I'd like to turn to Trista Bridges, who I think will also expand on this very happy situation. We have a win-win business. Great. Thank you. Go ahead. Thank you. Hi everyone. I think I'm going to share some slides now for a moment. And it's very interesting hearing Jen's perspective and some of the things she was saying, which I'm going to actually talk about a little bit in my presentation today if I can figure out how to move my. Yes, we go. Okay. So my name is Trista Bridges. I am co-founder of a organization called Read the Air. We work with companies of off sizes to help them become more sustainable. And we talk quite a bit about this topic and in Japan, and we've been doing this for a few years now. And the thing that's very exciting is that in Japan, this topic has really moved up to the agenda of many businesses in quite a spectacular way. And so I'm very, very excited to talk about this topic and also very excited about a lot of the change of progress we're seeing in Japan around us. And what I wanted to start with is the SDGs as we see here. And I want to talk first a little bit about why the SDGs were a game changer in many ways for the world and also for businesses. And so I think it's important to start with a reminder that the SDGs actually were not created for companies. They were created for countries. And what that means is many of the frameworks and tools that we use to assess progress are not actually translated to a business-type model. There's been some work since to be able to do that. But I think it's quite interesting about how companies became so interested in the SDGs as really a guide for them thinking about how to kind of expand beyond the traditional model of how we assess value for businesses because that's what the SDGs are ultimately trying to help us do as well. So what are some of the advantages? At first of all, they gave us a common framework for what sustainability is. I think this is a really important thing to underline. Because when people think about sustainability, they tend to focus on the E part of sustainability when they hear that word. And that means everything related to climate, which is obviously incredibly important. But when we look at the SDGs, we see these 17 things on this slide that are extraordinarily important for us to have a functioning world, really, if you think about it in that way, and a world that has longevity and that is sustainable. The second thing is it really encouraged engagement from countries and stakeholders that were not otherwise engaged previously. So what we often see with these types of initiatives and these types of efforts are that certain countries really get behind them and support them, countries do so. But I think this time we saw that regardless of a country's size, that they really saw the value in this model and how it applies to them in some way, shape, or form. Certainly, there are certain countries that are much more engaged. Japan is a type of country that's extremely engaged in the SDGs and really uses them as a way to kind of think about these different topics. But it's important to kind of note that many, previously many countries might have said, oh, well, that's principally for the global south or for developing countries and not for me. I think when we look at the SDGs, I think most countries and people around the world can see how those elements of this that really talk to what's going on in their own countries. And certainly other stakeholders beyond that, I would say the SDGs absolutely have made civil society a much more important and key stakeholder as they always should have been. But I think now they really have a seat at the table and Jen talked a little bit about Lixol and some of the things that they're doing as well, working with civil society to kind of deploy their solutions in different parts of the world. And then the last topic, obviously, very business-friendly, although, again, structured for countries, I think most businesses look at these and say, oh, I see things that kind of connect with our business model. And I think that's a good thing. They don't always utilize them in the most effective manner, but I do think this really helped to kind of give business a framework for how they might think about these topics. But I should say we are definitely off track in terms of our progress, right? SDGs target 2030. We're definitely off track and we're running out of time. And I think this cannot be underscored about how much we need to, how much more we need to accelerate our progress on the SDGs. A couple of things I just want to mention. First of all, there was a widely reported research report, which some people might have seen that came out last year, that said the SDGs are not likely to be achieved at the current pace until 2092. This obviously would be a real tragedy for the world. And obviously something that we absolutely need to accelerate. And why is this, what we're seeing are a couple of things first of all the current trends in terms of our economic development, slow efforts from many of the countries, particularly those that are actually have the highest levels of impact, not moving quickly enough. And then certainly COVID has not been helpful at all. And particularly the global south has really affected economic progress and it's hampering progress in other areas. However, I do think that this is a pessimistic view. I'm hoping that we can do things in the coming years to accelerate on this. And we'll talk a little bit earlier about some of the things that we can do. I do want to talk a little bit before we get to that about something that I actually like to talk about a lot, which is this idea of having a new model for business. And we've heard a lot today about new value models, but I have to say that the way our markets work, the way they function still very much as a profit first model. And this is something that we need to move away from. So what I wanted to talk about a little first is how we've kind of got this realization that the business model we have doesn't really work and that many of the topics that I've mentioned earlier are really important and how we need to engage with them as in a way where they connect to what we do as an organization. So first we talk about philanthropy. If we look back at businesses in terms of how do they first engage with the world, right? Certainly we saw companies, if you look at a company like Johnson & Johnson or Sanofi or Takeda in the pharmaceutical space, a lot of those companies started really as companies that wanted to solve a social problem. However, they evolved into being much bigger businesses. So what businesses often did was they came up with this idea of, well, you know, we really believe it's important to give back. Let's do that in a philanthropic way. So the kind of concept of corporate philanthropy evolved, but we often saw that these were very much auxiliary to business activities. And by that, I mean, they might decide, well, you know what, we want to really support orphanages. Not that supporting orphanages is a bad thing. It's a great thing, but it didn't necessarily connect to what they wanted to do as an organization. And what ended up happening was we had foundations that were developed as kind of separate arms of businesses. But ultimately, and Jen mentioned this a bit earlier, if financial performance wasn't strong enough, those were the activities that often got cut first. And that's a real problem. Why? Because we really need that type of engagement from companies. We need that kind of support. But unfortunately it became conditional on the financial performance at the company. Next, we saw out of that, we saw corporate responsibility evolve. And certainly corporate responsibility is, you know, I'd say much more connected to the business a bit more, but we started to have some of the same issues. So first of all, what did corporate, what does corporate responsibility mean and what does it look like? First of all, from our perspective, we see that as addressing the current state of the world, right, maybe backwards looking. So by that, I mean, we see that X is a problem. Let's do something as an organization to address X. Not necessarily, we believe that our business in the world is going to evolve in this way. And we need to kind of think about how do we kind of, how do we prepare for that? How do we maybe help the world address something that's going to happen, not only in the current state's situation, but also in the future. Next of all, it really focuses a lot on opinion formers and policymakers, governments and thought leaders and engagements on those. And that kind of often would shape things that companies would focus on. It was also focused on compliance. And this is something, you know, that was certainly a motivator for companies, but you know, it was a key part of how they thought about corporate social responsibility. So not just what I do feel improperly, but what I do to kind of respect the rules that have been put in place. And then also who was responsible for this? What we ended up seeing was that this fell to CSR departments, communication and government, government affairs teams, which are all have a lot of very smart and very talented people within them, but maybe aren't functions that are considered core business activities, core strategic activities for the organization, such as finance or procurement or strategy departments. So what we're seeing here is we're seeing a model that's still a bit auxiliary, although it's getting closer to the company. And we like to think of this as business as usual, right? What do we think is what a company normally does as their business as usual? Business of usual really funds these activities, right? But what we want is we want to model where business as usual is these activities. So when we look at sustainable business, certainly it needs to be sustainable. And that means in terms of its impact on the world and impact on its employees and all the many stakeholders that we've been talking about today, but also from a financial perspective, right? It needs to also deliver return so that you can kind of fund the normal activities of the business. It's also a model that really puts profit and planet and people on an equal plane and can really value the impacts of not actually thinking about the planet and people and its decisions. So we target the whole value chain. So it aims to say, okay, we're going to operate in a certain way in the right way, not just at the end of the value chain with our customers, but also upstream in terms of how we get to be, what are our raw materials look like? What are we getting them from? Are we working with our supply chain to make sure that they're respecting a lot of the rules around kind of human rights or other types of issues? Business strategy and operations is also a principle area focus. This is also a big change as well. So many of the things, again, that Jen was talking about earlier, saying these are our business model. What are we good at? Let's focus on what we're good at. Let's deliver value for society and our customers and stakeholders, taking into account what our strategy is as an organization. It's viewed as a driver of growth, not as an impediment of growth. I think that's also important as well. Business is saying, well, we can actually develop lots of great products and services around here that address the needs of our customers and also address the needs of society. And lastly, execution on responsibility really lies with management and operational roles. So they're actually on the hook, if you will. They're responsible for making sure that we actually go through with delivering this model. So when we're looking at acceleration, how do we get to that model? What do organizations need to do? And so I want to talk a little bit about some of these things before I close. The first thing is resourcing means commitment. There's a lot of companies that have said, yes, sustainability is on top of our agenda. It's very important. It's important that we move to becoming more of a sustainable organization. Or we even move to regenerative capital type model, which means that we basically are creating even more value for society. But they don't put the resources behind that. And by that, I mean the people. You know, it is not really a realistic proposition to expect that the CSR or sustainability department manage all of this on their own. Everybody needs to be managing this throughout the company. And you need to basically increase resources often, initially perhaps to be able to respond to this, to make sure that you can deliver on this strategy. There's something that's very important. Secondly, benchmarking is very important. Something that a lot of companies don't do around this area. They made benchmark, for example, their product services versus another competitor. But they don't think about what are our competitors doing on this? We want to be better. We want to be best in class on this. That means that they really need to benchmark how they are doing on this sustainability topic versus their competitors. The regulatory landscape is very important. Making sure to stay current on that. We're often getting questions from companies about, for example, the EU taxonomy or what is Japan doing? Japan is doing a lot to kind of roll out legislation on this. And there should be some more things coming in the coming years. It's important that organizations stay on top of this to understand this and how it's going to affect their business. Make or buy. I stress this because in Japan, we often like to develop everything internally. But unfortunately, this topic may be something that doesn't necessarily come from internal, in terms of capability, may not come internally. You may have to look externally for this. And I think it's very important that you make sure that you don't have to do that. In terms of capability, may not come internally. You may have to look externally for this. And again, Nixula as a company that has done that has come together from different types of businesses. Carefully assess whether you have the capabilities to develop more sustainable type businesses internally or whether you need to partner or even acquire to do that. And then lastly, I say digital strategy, DX as we say in Japan is really important for two reasons. One, a measurement and also management. So certainly there's digital tools and solutions that can be developed. But we also need to be able to measure our progress. And technology, fortunately, helps us do that. And we have to make sure that we are prepared as an organization to be able to integrate technology in terms of how we manage this going forward. So thanks so much for the time today. I hope that was a very helpful overview for everyone. And I'm looking forward to the panel discussion later. Thank you. Thank you, Trisa. Okay, so we have final but not least last but not least presenter. Kumar Iyer who I believe will. Are you ready, Kumar? Yeah. Okay. So the floor is yours. Good evening, everyone. Great pleasure to be here at the tail end of this panel. And we've heard some very interesting talks here on principles on purpose on sustainable business models. On me falls the enviable task of telling you how the value model brings all this together. So one first thing that we need to realize is the importance of a threshold. Our principles act as a model threshold for each one of us. There are certain do's and don'ts which we will not violate, or we should not violate as a matter of principle. Unfortunately, this is seen more in letter than in spirit, but and more so in business where. Profits seem to exist without a threshold. What the value model touches upon is having thresholds for every KPI that exists or that is measured in the value model, including profits. I know that this sounds like sacrilege for the corporate corporate sector. How do you cap profits? As was talked about both by Philip and by Masato, that we need to draw the line where profits go into greed. That's what this threshold is. The threshold actually marks the line between profit, good profit and greed. So the value model talks about these thresholds and we believe that these thresholds are very important in ensuring equality and justice and equality and justice, not just within a society, but across society and bridging the gap, the huge chasm which exists between the global north and the global south. How do we do this? We believe that the value model has the spine to be the difference. The value model has a huge emphasis on localization. Localization in terms of manpower, localization in terms of resources, localization in terms of technology. Gene talked a little bit about their approach to using local technology, local manpower for their subtle toilets. Fantastic. But we should do this, not just to the subtle toilet, but across all sectors. And I don't mean to say, I don't mean to point to Lixill here. I'm saying corporates in general should work more and more towards the local population. Act global, but think local. That should be the motto. The value model also has a huge emphasis on diversity and inclusion. So we're talking about integration of different genders, different races, different economic strata of society, and trying to bridge the gaps that exist, the inequalities that exist between these various sectors, and the different sections of society. And how are we going to create a society which is built on the principles of equality and justice? I would like to say something that comes to my mind from the novel Animal Farm. In that there is a line which says all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. And that is what we see in society today, especially in the corporate sector. What the value model strives to do is eliminate this more equal feeling that exists in some of the animals. The other thing that the value model emphasizes on very strongly is local participation and local ownership. Businesses which have local roots tend to do better for the local communities. They are invested in the local communities, and they act as a glue which integrates the society and brings all sections together. Having a huge local presence will ensure that development comes to the local communities rather than the local communities having to go in search of development. This is what the value model does. And by bringing all these various factors into a single ecosystem, we're able to create a society, community, in harmony with environment. All seven stakeholders that Philip talked about in the introduction, namely the customers, the employees, society, the shareholders, environment, partners, all of them working single-mindedly towards the same goal. And this we believe will help drastically in reducing the inequalities and the inequities which exist not only between countries, but within the same country. We see huge disparities in terms of income, in terms of living standards, in terms of access. By access, I mean access to technology, access to education, access to healthcare, access to resources within countries. I'm not talking between countries. Even within the same country, we see these huge disparities that exist. The COVID has only made things worse. Almost every single country has come out of COVID in a K-shaped recovery, which means the rich have had their riches multiplied manyfold. And we have had huge swaths of population which have been pushed below the poverty line. These are the kind of disparities that the value model tries to eliminate. And how do we do this? We do this based on thresholds. We do this based on following the principles of equality and justice. We achieve this by calling on everyone to follow their personal moral line. A personal moral line, a sense of ethics which is ingrained in each one of us. As Masato mentioned in his talk, this comes from our childhood. This is what we are taught in our tradeals. Unfortunately, capitalism has driven all these ethics out the window. We say, go back to your roots. Learn from your ancestors. Learn from your grandmothers and their mothers. And how they would give you good thoughts and good ideas on how to behave with society, on how to be good global citizens. This is what the value model hearts back on. Bringing us back in touch with our roots. Bringing us back on how to live happily within thresholds. So in conclusion, what I would like to say is that we may not be perfect, but we have made a start. And we believe that this is progress in the right direction. Growth is not the need of the hour. Inclusive development. We have grown enough. I mean, if anybody in his right conscience says that there is still room for growth, especially when we have consumed our resources for this year by the end of July. If anyone in his right conscience tells us that we have room for growth, then unfortunately, Trista mentioned about 2092 for achieving the SDGs. The earth may not be around in its present shape till 2092. So the need of the hour is not growth, but inclusive development. And we believe that the threshold-based value model, which is independently verifiable and which is not subject to interpretation like the other frameworks, would go a long way in mitigating the problems that exist in society today and would act as a bridge between the global north and global south so that these terms are consigned to history in posterity. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you, Kumar. So now we've been in intense sort of presentations and very stimulating for a couple of hours, but please bear with us for another hour as we go into panel discussion, which I'm sure we do not have enough time and we can never do justice to all the points that were raised in the presentations as well as with the fireside chat. And I am not even going to attempt to summarize or try to synthesize anything, except that there are a few things that came to my mind as interesting, it's just two points. One is that Hoshino sensei and I come pretty much from a similar sort of background of academic training. I also do international relations. I do sort of the Westphalian system and the nation states and so on and war and peace, those kind of things, but I realize that in talking about these global issues and there's a slight sort of lexicon difference when we're actually referring to the same thing, we actually might be using different vocabularies. So I thought that something in the future might be useful for those who are doing sort of SDG issues or ESG private sector issues and civil society issues and for the life to speak who do more of the war and peace issues to actually perhaps share vocabs and terminologies because I think sometimes it's sort of lost in not in translation at least in terms of meanings of words. The other thing I thought that struck me was that there is something about the need to redefine what is a public good. It does seem to be that we're all looking for because when we say public versus private, one is the governmental issues and public policy affairs and the other side is the private. But as Kumar was also saying that this global south and global north need to be relegated to the history books, I think we also seemed and capitalism has thrown a lot of these sort of ethics or way of living into the gusset so to speak that how do we resurrect the morals, the ethics or something that really to me seemed like the public. What is the public good? What is the sort of the for example the SDG goal of leave no one behind is that it seemed that from all the talks we're all sort of thinking about something in the public sphere but that public sphere where everybody is supposed to be gaining or it's supposed to be in for the benefit of all seems to be shrinking in some parts of the world and in some parts of the world it doesn't exist at all. So those are the two sort of the first one is really not that important that perhaps we could sort of have a disc perhaps the sort of reactions about what we think about in our current system whether you call it the international system of states or whether we call it the sort of the global capitalist state or even we define what's growth what are your views on this sort of public good or the public what it means to and how do we I mean Kumar says go back to your roots go back to the local but this is something that I feel that needs some sort I don't know I mean this is something that really struck me as going back to how we define this sort of a space where we think more where the morals or ethics really do matter I'm sorry I was sort of totally overwhelmed by everybody's presentation. Can I can I maybe qualify that a little bit to Hariko because I mean I think there's a lot of people who have seen all of this and learning from everybody who has spoken today I mean I have found that that key theme of value sort of everybody individually has that understanding of what value is and means to them and that seems to be a really and I've looked in a lot of places and for me it seems like a good place to speak from. And I don't know if that helps to sort of forward your question or not but it seems to cut through all of the confusion and all because it's a very personal right value is a very individual thing but when we all start talking about it when companies start working with it and when individuals start trying to help each other prosper together and those two when it all comes to value seems to be a sort of a magic word and I think that's sort of I guess maybe a potential way to focus that different lexicon the different speaking I didn't mean to sort of stray from value but to me it just seemed that and you know when we're talking about capitalism or neoliberal capitalism and then we're talking about the sort of the east versus west then there's one sort of what's defined as public in many sort of has you know different people have different understanding each society has a different sort of reaction to what is public as opposed to what is private so I think perhaps that is one keyword that can bring as as Kumar saying the thing together I'm sorry I didn't mean to cut everything but so can I elicit some you can ignore my comments but and perhaps this is supposed to be a conversation so please anybody would like to to have a jump in quickly here what is missing now is the innocence in the whole system and that's what I meant when I said go back to learn what you got from your grandparents and their parents when we are when we are children we have a certain innocence about us there's no profit motive in what we do there is no greed in what we do there is no balance in what we do we do it because we want to do we don't do it because we have these days a lot of things happen because we have to do we have to be seen doing this we have to be seen taking this box we have to be seen as pausing this calls it's not because we want to do it we have to be good with society. And what we should look for is having to do things. That is what is creating true value. You will be creating true value for yourself when you're doing the things that you want to do, not the things that you have to do. I mean, if I can loosely interpret the meaning of value, what will bring value to me is when I'm doing the things that I want to do, rather than the things that I have to do. And more importantly, I would feel happy if someone did the same things to me that I am doing to others. Back to the question about public goods. I think one of the problems we have is a question of time and how long our time horizon is. So I'm not the kind of person who very much likes to, we often talk about, well, things were better before, things were, you know, we tend to look back a lot of society. I think we can learn a lot from the past. But I do think we forget that there's a lot of things in the past that were not good. And that actually are a lot better today. And they just seem a lot worse because we have information, right? We have much more available information. But one of the things that I think that has actually probably gotten worse is time and our time horizon. So we, that's kind of like the heart of every problem. Because value, how do you assess value? If I assessed value of, you know, companies, for example, polluting 30 years ago, and I really had an extended period of time, then I would have properly priced that in and I would have properly not valued those companies as much. And I, or I would have maybe penalized them, for example, from a talking from a business perspective. But I think, you know, with public good, I think the problem is to just this aspect of time and what's kind of happened to us over, especially in the last, last several years, right? That we're not really taking into account long-term impact when we think about value. And then I would say just the second thing on terms of public goods is that, you know, that's really the heart of a lot of the debates today. What is public? What is private? Many of the problems we have kind of come back to that route. And we're just in a period, I think, of painful flux around that just that problem. We need to get that problem answered. We need to get that question answered, I think, to move forward. And that's all I wanted to say. Could I hear from Hoshino sensei or Jin? I'll be happy to again, or me, someone with the political science background, it's funny to say this, but there is a notion of invisible hands, right? In the market and some there is demand and supply, but somehow magically, you know, there is a balance that makes a certain you know, point in the market. I'm very inspired that Trista said that SDG is a game changer. I think we are in the point where or when we cannot totally rely on that kind of magical invisible hands and a free flow of, you know, demands and supply. Some sort of guidance or some sort of engineering is needed to achieve the goals which we consider based on the consensus and the desirable things for the future. And SDG is something that represents that kind of consensus. There is one misconception about when I always talk about SDGs with kids or even for the business leaders, they tend to forecast the future and then what kind of future would be in 2030. And in order to and we like and envision something very, you know, ideal, but the SDG is not. SDG has already set the goals, right? The carbon neutral and zero poverty and zero hunger and the clean toilet accessible to everyone, even the one behind. Of course, it's virtually impossible to achieve everything by 2030, but that is a kind of vision we all agreed, you know, in 2015 at the UN summit by the head of states and others of 193. That makes that legitimate. That is one thing. And another one is the sense that the goals are set. So what we need to do is to backcast. So that is a discussion of backcasting is so important in this discussion of SDGs. So, but anyway, in order to achieve that SDGs, by that time horizon that Theresa talked about, we need extra effort, right? And but in order to do that, probably, you know, we cannot rely on that invisible hands or anything, some sort of guidance or engineering should be necessary. What do you think? That came to my mind. Thank you. Thank you. You know, if I might just add, we go back to this point about the public good. I think, you know, in Japanese, right, kaisha, the kanji for kaisha and shagai are reversed. And, you know, my CEO, Kenya Setto, for Lixl, always reminds me and reminds us in his speeches and so forth that we are actually part of society and we are a microcosm of society. And so it's almost like these big, powerful CEOs are kind of running their own countries if you think about it or their own, you know. And so those we have to help corporations because you can't make them disappear. And frankly, I don't think we're going to solve any of these public good issues without them. But we need to help corporations and their leaders understand that there is a very important symbiotic relationship here that it's not about the PR, right? In order for the next generation in the planet to survive, we have to help them understand fundamentally what is it that makes you a good company as in profitable, right? How do you apply that to social needs, environmental needs? And how do you actually bring that sort of integrated approach to solving some of these problems? And I think if people, if companies understood that they're not firewalled, they're not sort of discreet from the rest of the problems, but then in fact they are not only contributing to the problems, they can also contribute to the solutions. And the more that we have these kinds of conversations, I think the more we need to recognize that we do need to work together. It's not going to help for us to say, you know, capitalism shouldn't exist. I think that's not practical, and I'm a very practical person. I do think capitalism needs to act in the right way to, as we say, create positive impact. And every firm needs to figure out how to do that. And the way capitalism works is if the firm can figure that out, they're much more likely to be able to serve the next generation. And that is the fuel that allows the firm to incentivize themselves. And the firm that refuses to acknowledge that reality will become a dinosaur. And that is the fact in this vooka-cubed environment in which we live today, where every sector is being disrupted not only by their own competitors in their peer set, but from other sectors. There is no such thing as a traditional competitor in any segment in the capitalist market today. So, you know, we say, oh, is my competitor, you know, the esteemed Toto or Kohler? Actually, it's also Amazon. Okay. Because Amazon can go and make OEM toilets for very cheap and sell Amazon basics toilets for $99. So we have to remember that the world is an incredibly disruptive moment and that disruption is accelerating. So the only way we can actually overcome and really solve some of these big problems we're talking about, framed very conveniently and powerfully by the SDGs is actually to work together to forget these definitions and these boundaries and say, who's got solutions to my problems? And how can we actually partner? And that is what we as one company in this world anyway, is trying to make happen step by step, be very practical, be very pragmatic and tackle what we think we can. We don't claim to be able to tackle everything. We understand the footprint we create and what we need to do. And I think companies who are doing value washing or green washing or whatever, you know, those companies are wasting a lot of time because they might as well just do the thing that they should be doing anyway. I mean, I know how much work it takes to shift a Titanic like my company and it's not even among the biggest companies in the world. So I just wanted to share that because sometimes I think in conversations we try to take a position but actually we need to draw down these boundaries rather than sort of use them as a way to divide because there's not enough time as Trista says to tackle these issues. Thank you. Thank you very much. I'm afraid I have been warned to wrap up. I cannot wrap up. I already posed a very bizarre, you know, sort of for me as doing political philosophy, you know, the concept of public is just been nagging. It's just everything I receive. So how do we think, how do we define this? How do we reconstruct it? How resurrected? But that's just my homework and much of the learning. So first of all, I would like to thank you, everybody, for bearing with me with my very awkward moderating. And so I'll hand it over to you, Phillip, to... Okay, great. So thank you very much, Haruko. And I put you in probably the most difficult job of the entire night. So thank you very much for helping to manage all of the different perspectives. And so if it's okay. And thank you, everybody, for your presentations. You all added pieces of this bigger picture that is critical for, I think, everybody here to understand. So it's all of your perspectives are vital and I'm learning from all of you, which is really wonderful. And I appreciate it and hope we can continue this discussion. And I've got like three slides to wrap up with, if you'll let me just show some slides at the end, just to hope to try to get it all under control and to finalize everything. So basically, no, that's the wrong share. So basically, we've started this whole thing with how any organization can measure stakeholder value with ethical capitalism. And we've heard a lot about from the speakers across the evening to achieve the SDGs, the challenges ahead remain significant and real. And we see this is from SAP report that they published earlier this year. Too many companies take insufficient action to attain the goals that they state. And so again, there's a lot of talk. And I think what we agreed on tonight is that beyond the talk, there needs to be clear action. And so imagine for a second that we move beyond disclosure to a value challenge. And so the sensitivity that Yoshio was talking about, based in sort of this Japanese ethical capitalism philosophy that looks at all stakeholders as a collective whole, and how we actually call out through that good competition, the best from all of us, whether it's public organizations, whether it's private organizations, whether it's individual citizens, forming together. And so imagine that what Jean was presenting about the Sato toilet. Imagine if there's 100 competitors around there, actually challenging back to Lixil to keep improving so that we achieve the SDG around hygiene, around clean water. We start to work together to challenge each other to get there. If we've got that framework, and with the spirit of I'm in power, and I'm using that power to help call out the power and increase and improve the power of all of these other stakeholders around me, then I think we've got a winning solution. And so I still remain very positive. I hear all the negatives around us. And I agree that all of this is very serious. But I think that we've got a collective power with this spirit and with this philosophy to guide us underneath, to really achieve these things and to get to the position also that Tristo was talking about, that larger end goal to bring that 2092 back to something more reasonable. So the Value Research Center and the work that I'm doing and the work that all of you are presenting today clearly drives from the fact for me that it's time to move beyond talking about value creation to creating it. And to address this, we at the Value Research Center, and many of our colleagues and peers around the world have put a lot of time into creating this analytically tight and rigorous model to fight against Milton Friedman's argument in saying that all of this is just hot air, and that we would now like your help with collaborating with us. So we're very fortunate to have the ESG IREC at Osaka University as a key partner. We've got others around the world, University of Bordeaux, University of Lyon, we're looking for many, many others to join with us. So we're looking to get companies serious about eliminating value washing and creating the highest possible levels of value for everyone. The point isn't applying this and getting a perfect score, wearing a pin or a badge or a logo, but the purpose is creating real and measurable value for all stakeholders and constantly challenging to create more and more good competition. So with government and policymakers supporting through clear goals, supporting individuals, businesses, communities and countries to achieve them, I think this public private issue that Hoshino Sensei was also talking about is fundamental to the success. So we hope you'll join us in further developing and improving and implementing this model. We're definitely not there yet exactly as Kumar was talking about. We need help to keep going. I'd like to offer a special scholarship for journalists. So any journalist out there interested in the value model, I'd like to offer you or through the Value Research Center some free training in a pilot training program this October. So please just reach out and contact me because I think the media also plays a fundamental role and we need more journalists to understand this bigger picture and how it actually plays in the journalism that they do. So finally I'd like to thank everybody on behalf of all of the members of the Value Research Center here in Kyoto, Japan and globally. Thank you for joining the workshop today. We continue to look for collaborators. Sato Sensei, Hoshino Sensei and the SGI REC team are some of them and we're looking for many more partners, members, certified consultants and trainers in this value model. And I'm personally looking forward to kicking off more and deeper discussions. I invited so many people because I'm so excited by all of you and what you think, but we need to start to move forward now to move into collaboration. So please email us or email me at info at ValueResearchCenter.com or reach out on LinkedIn. And again, please don't forget to rate our session on the session page for this event on the UN GA Science Summit site. So again, thank you very much. I'll stop my share, turn it back over to Heather and any of you, but I'm three minutes past my deadline. I apologize, but just I've been inspired by all of you and really thank you for staying with us for so long. And I look forward to continuing this discussion later. So Haruko or maybe Heather, I can turn it back over to you or I think that basically it's probably time for us to wrap up. So thank you. So hi, we're done. Thank you all very much.