 Du får vara försiktig. Ja, precis. Det är bra. Vi inser att Norges Norger är den sista sorgen. Jag sätter mig ner här nere. En på. Hallå, hallå. Okej. If everybody can join us in the room, it would be excellent and take your seats. Thank you. Hej. Hej. Trevligt. Hej. Kom lite senare. Sammanfattade. Okej. De har de har jobbat hårt i grupp övningar nu en och en halv timme. Så att först hade vi en placerationer och sedan har vi haft grupper. Jag vet med dem. Det gör inga hemligheter. De har jobbat hårt i gruppen efter att vi haft en anklad inbedring av stationer så att det har varit en interaktion på det sättet. Nu har de fått en ny klipp. Kaffe. Grupp övning. Så. Om vi inte vill prata om. Har vi mång ska faktiskt ta en liten favorit i det pris, men med en annan perspektiv. Sammanbilden, men utifrån insikter i förra bröd som det ser som bra. Allt blir det. Vi har inget här. Okej. Welcome back everybody. It's a Friday afternoon. It's 20 to four, which means that everybody is very keen on making sure that the moderator will now stick to time. I understand it has been extremely interesting lively discussions in the respective groups. We will come back to some of the key results. Key ideas that has come out of those discussions later on in the panel. I can see that you've taken coffee, which is great. And I can also see that most of you have returned back after the group discussions and after the coffee break. And I think Peter Norman minister for financial markets that you are clearly one of the reasons everybody is actually back in the room here. I'm very curious to hear your presentation. We are very pleased to have you here and to give us an update. We can say state owned companies in a changing climate. These are the companies that you and the government and the end of the parliament. You could say have control over to some degree. We have discussed this morning a lot. What can actually companies, the corporate sector, do based on the knowledge we have based on the knowledge we do not have. So it would be interesting to hear your perspective, because I know you have been pushing very hard the role of nationally owned companies. So please Peter, the floor is yours and give me an applaud. Thank you Johan. My responsibilities in the government is that I'm responsible as you can imagine for financial markets, but more than that. I'm also responsible for the public owned companies. And that is the topic of today, I think more or less. I'm also responsible for some local municipalities question as well as lottery policy, which is one of the most difficult things we can imagine. I mean, this vattenfall, waterfall or Nordea or ESEBank has nothing to compare to the lottery policy. Nevertheless. I the climate bill presented by the Swedish government. We have announced objectives for 2020 and the vision of Sweden with a sustainable and resource effective energy supply and no net emissions of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere in 2050. And the government's climate and energy policy targets by 2020 are 40 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, at least 50 percent renewable energy, 20 percent more efficient energy juice, and at least 10 percent renewable energy in the transport sector. Of course, I share the view that this question is the greatest, if not the greatest, one of the greatest challenges of our time. Sweden has a fairly large Swedish, a fairly large owner. Det är det. Det är det. People of Sweden is a far large owner of businesses. We have 53 companies, 42 of these are fully owned, 11 partly owned. And if these companies should be on a stock exchange, it should be have a net value of something like 570 to 600 billion Swedish krona. And if that sum is divided by 9 million Swedes, you will find roughly 60,000 krona per swede. It's a fortune of each swede in in those in those companies. And I think that is very large share of average swede savings. So among other things, great responsibility to have this ownership role, of course, and all of these companies are both large and small. It's one of the biggest largest employees in Sweden. And we have two big private holding companies in Sweden, that is the Wallenberg Sphere Investor, and the Handelsbanken Sphere Industrivärden. And this group of companies is more than twice as much as those holding companies together. Så that gives you a sign of the importance. We have decided that responsibility management is a key word for for those companies. We have sustainability very high on the agenda when we meet the companies, and we think this is for a number of reasons. First of all, it's about values. We think as a owner of different companies, it will reflect the values of the government or the parliament. You can say that this question is of greatest importance. More than that, I have the conviction. I'm very certain that if you want to have profitable companies in the long run for years and years and years to come, I think that it's important that the companies have these things in order. We can see that in in questionnaires. When you when you ask people just just graduated from high school or universities that when the young people of today is choosing where to work, the first kind of work they have, I think it's important that this question is in order and those companies. So in order to attract skillful people is important that you have these things in order. You also see quest. You also see effects from other part of group that is linked to a firm. For instance, we have problems in the past in one of our companies, Telia, the telecom company who had activities in in Uzbekistan, in in in Asia, as you might remember. What happened here was that owners sold the shares in in a large extent, and for instance, a client, the city of Stockholm, they said we have 40 000 numbers on Telia. Now we will renew that and have a new kind of auction process because we don't want to be a customer of these kind of companies. You see reactions from the customers. You see reactions from the owners, and you will eventually see reactions also from the young people that will not be interesting to work in a firm if you don't have these things, these things in order. When we say sustainable, we mean this, we mean environment, human rights, working condition, anti-corruption, business ethics and gender equality and diversity. This is what we call sustainable. Before we defined these kind of words, we had a variety of different definitions. Now we have one definition and that makes life somewhat more easier. We think that sustainability in the company is a strategic question, and if you accept that kind of a definition or that kind of a viewpoint, that question belongs to the board. It is nothing that you can delegate to some consultant far away from the leadership. This question must be dealt with in the board of the companies. And that's why we have said that all boards in our 53 companies are to define each of them sustainable targets that is relevant for the company. And we have said relevant for the company means that sustainable target should be linked to the business model. It is not enough, for instance, to send money to Amnesty Business Group or UNICEF or something like that. You must define targets for sustainability that is linked to the business model. And I think that's the key really. And that means that the better the company goes, the more result you will have on sustainability questions as well. We have also said that it should be possible to evaluate, it should be few and it should be possible to evaluate. And we want the companies to be ready at the latest first quarter in 2014. Then we will evaluate when we have these quarterly discussions with the companies, their sustainability targets on a regular basis, at least in each quarter for all of these companies. And as an example already as of today, we have an iron ore company up north in Sweden called LKAB. They have already decided in the board that their carbon dioxide emissions per ton will be reduced from 27 kilo of ton product in 2011 to 17 kilo from 2010. It's almost in 50 percent reduction. A new generation of climate smart pellets produced by 2017. Vattenfall, the electricity company, have a strange history. In 1999, their emission of carbon dioxide was zero. In 2006, their emission was almost 90 million ton per year. And that's more than the entire Sweden has as emissions. Their hope, I would say, was to have this storage facility. They could storage carbon dioxide in the ground, but that failed. So now they are stuck with this carbon assets, especially in Germany. Now we try to lower that as well, and the Vattenfall board has decided that the CO2 emissions as a first step will be reduced to 65 million tons for 2020, and that comes from 85 million tons of 2012. Since we have a shortage of time, let me go directly to the summary then. The climate change is one of the biggest questions of the generation, if not the biggest. And the state-owned companies should do what they can, and they should be role models to the private sector as well. We would like to be in the forefront, and we would like other companies to be in our tracks. Sustainability targets has to be set by each company, depending on its circumstances. And a lot of companies have done this already, but the latest time for all those 53 is fourth, first quarter of 2014. Then it should be relevant targets linked to the business model that is easy to evaluate for the owners, which is us, all the taxpayers in Sweden. Thank you. Thanks a lot, Peter. We appreciate very much that you will stay, so you will actually come back on the panel also. And for, in a very honest way, also presenting some of the challenges that you face in many of the companies, and for making it very clear that it has to be part really of a corporate strategy, business, to bring these issues into the strategy. That's really very, very interesting. We are going to listen to three companies now, how they have approached this quite complex issue as well on the corporate level. So I ask the three representatives if you can come up at the same time, actually, and stand up here. Sasha, Besslik, Begitta Reyesvik, and Anna Borgeryd. We'd like to see all of you at the same time, it's not nice. Three very different companies representing three very different sectors with different opportunities, challenges related to climate, the whole climate issue. Let me start with you, Sasha. What do you see as the key challenges and how do you address them? Sasha Besslik, by the way, is head of responsible investments and corporate governance at Nordea. Please. I mean, one of the key challenges for financial institutions when it comes to the climate issues, environmental issues, social issues in general, is actually how we evaluate certain risks in our investments and how we then mirror these valuations when we choose which companies to invest in and which companies not to invest in. What we have developed over a couple of years of time is the analysis model that we actually apply on all our investments where we actively seek companies who are able to demonstrate to us investors that they actually managing key risks in their business operations, that they can evaluate that so we can price it and then we can invest the clients money into this. So from our perspective, it's all about money. It's all about creating returns and there is no conflict between being sustainable, being responsible, creating these returns. That's the job. That's the role of financial institution. That's that's my job. And I think that we are in the stage of this development, which this seminar also reflects a bit today that we still need to figure out what valuation models we will use. That's one of the questions to to many companies. How do you actually what they do on environmental and social sustainability? How does that corresponds to the stock value of the company and how can we as investors see that and pay the premium for that in the cases? We want to do that. Sasha, Per Norman also mentioned, of course, that Nordea is partly part of the portfolio of the government and this relationship between the government and the companies. Do you recognize this picture described here? And do you see how important it is to have an owner that is very active in also pushing the companies forward? I think it's very important. I think the Swedish government is, I mean, knowing, investing all over the world, we have interaction with other governments as well. I think the Swedish government is in the forefront of how they run, how they're trying to run, particularly during the Peter's time, during these couple of years that have passed. In the same time, I think the shareholder perspective or the owner perspective plays a huge difference for the companies. It legitimized the how prioritization needs to take place. It actually supports business decisions that are sustainable. So that plays a big difference. And going back to the sort of a role, I don't know how much state or Swedish citizens own in Nordea. I think it's 17 percent now. I don't know seven. It was 17, but did you sort of assault it out? Well, you can have different opinions about that. But I think from, from, from another perspective, what we need in the financial markets and we have had this discussion before and we will have it probably in a panel is that we need a set of rules how all asset managers and all asset owners can disclose how they take this information into account. Because I think that's one of the biggest challenges for consumers, for you, being able to choose options that fits you, is that the fact, the really sort of a real fact that information is not available. And I think, I don't think we should legislate that financial institutions should work with this. I think we should legislate that we disclose information. So it's a principle of compliance explain. Either you disclose and then you can take that into account or you don't. And then it's up to customers to make that decision. In the earlier panel, we did hear from, from our representatives from the corporate sector that, you know, they were asking for clear policies, really clear rules and regulations and so on. How, how important is that in the financial sector and how much can Odea being? I would say it's the biggest bank in the Nordic countries. Yeah, we are biggest bank. Take the lead in the driving change forward. We, we are trying to take the lead by not only in trying to invest. I mean, we do invest in a sustainable way, striving to do that, but we are also trying in doing initiatives within our own business that is related to, let's see, CO2 footprinting of our investment products. We have started doing that. Nobody told us to do it, but we are doing it because we want to see how do we indirectly emit CO2 emissions in our products and how we can reduce that and offer that to our clients as opportunity to invest in. That's one of the things that we can do. The other thing we can do is that we can actually incentivize our portfolio managers, our sort of internal people throughout the different measures that we can take to take into account sustainability, environmental and social issues in the way, how they value it companies and how they invest. Just a final quick question, Sasha. The push to do more or the push to do better in, in this area, broader sustainability in a way, but also then relate to, of course, you know, incorporating climate change as part of your investment strategies and so on. Is it coming more from top down from your owners where the Swedish government is one or is it a bottom up where your customers is actually asking for this or is it internally it's the bank itself and the leadership in the bank. That is, you know, the champions. I would say it comes from, and this is so interesting picture and it does not correspond what people usually think in Sweden. I think when it comes to investment, it comes from long term oriented institutional investors. It comes from institutions that have a lot of money. They're very concerned about the five, 10, 15, 20 years, but they also have fiduciary duty. Consumers in Sweden in general are not, they're not acting so much. They're not putting their mouth where the money is. So it's, it's, we have a perception that we are responsible, but when it comes to this part of the world, which is the financial, I don't think that corresponds to the picture. Internally, it is important because we see that we are running a risk talking about the stranded assets. I don't know if you heard about that, about the potential stranded assets that we are sitting on, that we are investing on based on the fact that fossil fuels companies or particularly the companies who are very heavy on the fossil fuels may be overpriced on the market, given that we need to decrease the fossil fuels consumption further on. In principle, that will mean that in some portfolios, let's say, Statoil will lose 60% of the stock value if we were to implement the measures that we need. In fact, that will have a trickle, trickle down a lot of issues for the Petronoma and many others when it comes to pensions because we will lose a lot of money on this. So it is interrelated in so many different angles. Thanks a lot. Yeah, the whole carbon bubble, which I can recommend us as very interesting reading, of course, and that takes us to the energy sector again. You can say, but, you know, fortune is not part of the carbon bubble there. I'm so big. I think what are your perspective? You have a few slides to show as well. So you can stand on the sides. You can see the slides and we come and help us with the projector. Thanks. So you can start to talk freely with the microphone. And then there is a presentation. Can you help us? We are scrutinized by the financial sector every day. And we are listed in Helsinki. As I mentioned before, we have, and I think that is very important talking about sustainability. I think it's really the top management, the board. We are all agreed that the vision is a solar economy. We will come there one day or another, but it is a journey. It's going from the finite resources and going upward, getting better resource efficiency, and also having better going towards the sun, okay, this direct, but indirect as well, ocean and bio and etc. And here is what we are doing. And of course we have to take this step wise. We are taking the first investment in India, five megawatt. It's about, I don't know, 30 percent of what we have in Sweden. It's one first step. We want to learn the technology. We want to learn. Here is, we want to learn also the Indian electricity market. And we need to also add the effect on the net, etc. So it's getting the knowledge. How can we continue this? How can we get this new technology inside? 100 percent of our assets or investment in Europe, 100 percent free at the moment. We are investing in nuclear. We are refurbishing the hydro. That is a big challenge to hydro because we see a lot of new legislation coming in and also taxation of hydro is increasing terribly. But we also then taking the CHP combined heat and power. We have to invest very flexible. We can use waste, we can use bio, but we have to see all different sources. We have to be very flexible so that we can tackle what is happening in pricing and everything in the future. And this is the way forward, what we think is important. Wave technology, we believe that that is an issue that will come forward. We are doing several different projects. But at the moment, at the same time, also look into the consumer. They will have an important role and be more active. We will have more volatile production in the future. So we have to integrate the consumer and give them also a more important role and to help them in that respect. But also about hydro and other things, the adaptation is there, is already here. We are doing big investments in the dam safety. We have taken new criteria to set what we should obtain. And this is now being billions of Swedish crowns that we are investing at the moment. And we are upgrading the network, etc. to keep. So I mean here we have to take these measures. But as I also want to be talked about policies and I don't want to go into details, but we believe that we should strengthen the EU ETS. We need to do some structural reforms. We have suggestions on how you can adjust that to so that it's more in line what to put the economy and so on. And I think the ETS is the embryo for a more global trading. And I think we should be positive there when we look at California. We see what's happening in South Korea, Australia and also now coming up in China. So I think here it is, I want to have the positive attitude towards this. At the same time just as we heard from the minister, I mean the measuring is important to control. That is the way to go forward, just really be transparent and to work with this in the whole company. And of course here is the commitment from the management and going down the whole company. And here we are putting a lot of effort and somebody can question it. But we believe that this is a way that is needed for a company. And I would say that's a way that's important for us. So this is a few words about how we are tackling this. And we can also say that we are trying also to be active in the political debate and first pressure. And we are, for instance, we are a member of hardings that's for the environment and so on. So that's a way also to get out the message what is important for the future. OK, thank you, thanks a lot. Really very interesting and to hear obviously that you did not make the same decision and in 1999 at Wattenfall did about investing and investing in fossil energy sources. Hoping for a technology obviously that later on didn't show to be effective. Is that, you know, looking at just a question there, looking at future technologies and so on. And how important is it to be aware of these challenges when you decide on what kind of technologies and energy futures you are looking at? Well, I think it's important to have that vision and to build up the knowledge. And we decided two years ago to have a special department just looking at solar. And that was just a question, should we invest in it or not? We didn't know, but we need to get the knowledge inside the company. We cannot only go to a consultant. We can do it sometimes, but we need to build the solid knowledge inside. And I think this is driven us that we really understand what is now happening and it's going so fast and we have to be in that business. But I can just as what I've heard before I started in Fortum, I mean, we bought the lot of hydro in Sweden and we had then the estimate that we, that it should be a price on carbon. Because I know that the reaction from the market was that we were paying too much. But we have that vision and I think that is really unique to have that long term vision. Where are we going? So do you see, I mean, this is an interesting example. I mean, you, you were actually anticipating a different kind of carbon market that obviously has developed. And how, if you look at the risks and we met Sasha mentioned the carbon bubble, but we can see a rapid development of carbon based energy resources like fracking and others around the world. How much is that threatening your strategy to invest in renewable resources in, you know, 10, 15 year perspective? But of course, at the moment, and I, it is really what I want to say before, it's really what we see on a long term pricing. And of course, at the moment, the investments are slowing down. That's the situation. But of course, here in the Nordic, we have oversupply. So I mean, so that's why of course we are looking at the other markets and to see what we are investing in the Baltics, where we have an CHP for bio and waste. And where there is a need. So we have to look at where the market is of interest. So you have the long term support of your owners to still continue to work in that direction. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Very interesting. Thank you very much for that. And let's move to the final example, a completely different market, completely different company, but someone I know who representing this company and markets, very enthusiastically. Annabarie corporate strategis från Polar Bröd. How do you approach these issues? I will show you polar bears we heard about, but Polar Bröd. Is that also a threat for you climate change? I will show you in eight minutes. The world, the world, the insights about the world and what consequences that has for Polar Bröd. This article came last weekend about the release of my novel tunnel. Edgar Finwalls, where I said this. Is it a little bit loud? This one, I hear a sound to close that one. Thank you. Försörjning slöden is hard to translate, but roughly I said, but none of the modern worlds, the way we provide for ourselves, the ways we provide for ourselves in the modern world are long term sustainable. So first I'll briefly show you what facts are behind that rather grand statement. And secondly, I will tell you the decisions that this insight has led to in our family business. Can you turn this one off please? This is from my TED talk, the dawn of a new economy. Where I look at these sustainability circles as three aspects of supply, three ways through which we humans provide for ourselves. So very briefly, how do these three logics work? First, a look at the actual economy, the management of limited physical resources, revealing that this decides what is possible to do in the short term. This is an image of world economic history of the last 2000 years, showing different countries share of world productivity, where red is the share of China and orange is that of India. We can see that 200 years ago, just as in all of human history before that, productivity equal population, because almost everyone work just to feed themselves in a muscle powered society. Energy surplus is a privilege for small elite, but something extraordinary happened in the late 19th century. And we all know in this room that it was the fossil era that had begun and countries that built fossil powered industry produced high growth for capital figures. Green area is the United States and you can see other European countries also. This graph depicts the use of oil measured in millions of barrels per day after the second world war and up to the plateau of peak cheap oil that we recently passed. We need to remember that this is the enormous energy behind the fact that most Swedes, for instance, are no longer poor peasants living off the soil, but affluent and educated city dwellers, typically working in services. I'll go back to this one. Look at the time in 1970 and 2000. Just remember that. When the growth of productivity in the real economy has decelerated or even stopped in the west, our method of choice to handle this has unfortunately been to artificially create what I call pseudo growth. This is a graph depicting the amount of money in the world, showing that when the increase in energy use and thereby economic throughput by growth was no longer possible, humanity instead allow the amount of money to take off. This is another way to produce higher throughput in the economy. We just lend more money. This is a trend that has exploded since the onset of the ongoing financial crisis of five years. Now the Federal Reserve alone creates 85 billion dollars every month out of thin air to fill the holes just in the American economy. That we must add the other central banks money printing and the issuing of loans by private banks. So now we have a world of financial super abundance. The money supply seems to be limitless. We are in an era of QE infinity. However, the most important aspect of supply is the ecological and contrary to the amount of money, the biosphere, which keeps us all alive, is not limitless. Thanks to the work of Johan Rockström and others, we have since 2009 known that we are transgressing at least three of nine planetary boundaries and we do this most aggressively through our industrialized sheep food producing agriculture. Agriculture is actually not only the biggest driver of eutrophication and biodiversity loss. It is also the single largest emitter of greenhouse gases driving climate change. About 40% of earth land surface and it's the best land is altered to grow crops. And this, all of this that just told you now briefly put is how we learn that climate change is but one of many dangerous symptoms of systemic failure. Prevailing economic practices and rules are based on the mistaken assumptions that the planet and its resources are infinite and the biosphere indestructible. So how do these insights impact for all dreads decisions? We realize that in order to protect the food supply and the way our children and their children can provide for themselves come next five generations and onwards. We need to become agents of change and we have for this identified four main areas. We need to help change agricultural practices so they will work in the long run. The way we produce food today will not. So this must change and it will become more expensive. We need to affect fossil free freight energy production and packaging. No small. So we have just two minutes, maybe one minute. I will just briefly dive into two of these challenges. Let's let's look at the aim for Bravo to come to fossil free supply chain. These are the present flows. You miss what? Okej, these are present fossil free supply chain. As a present for Bravo. This is considerable, but it is insufficient and we have increasing problems with bad maintenance on stambana. The artery for our flows. So what we need from the state is first and foremost a working infrastructure. And this is on the wish list for the future. Many more destinations for commercially viable rail fright. A rail hub in freight, a rail hub in Elspen, stops in Lielbyn. We also have a bakery and we're looking for ways to make this happen in collaboration with others. Shipping is also an option when fossil free ships become commercially viable. Our bakeries and energy, we were really well off, so to speak, because our bakeries are already running on Norrlands hydropower. We have zero emissions in our production, but we have raised the bar. We are going, we are investing to be energy self sufficient through adding new renewable energy onto the grid. Recently, we invested more than 100 million Swedish krona to build three wind turbines that by the end of next year will produce 80% of Polar Girls energy needs. And this is also actually hedging against coming price shocks and energy. A real hedging, not the derivative kind of a guy. I sort of don't trust because the ecological logic will prevail, not the manmade rules of the game, the short-sighted this we can do right now of our present economy and the completely, pardon my French, delusional financial economy. There simply won't be any business as usual in the times ahead. Thank you very much. Tack så mycket och också tack för det. Sort of, you know, taking the global perspective and then translating it to what it means for you in practice as a company. And I think that it's very, you know, this is key for this whole debate. First of all, I'm going to be very unflight because I'm going to have a panel now. You're not well. No, that's not true, but you joined us for the panel this morning. So we give a warm applaud, please. Yes, thank you. Bigita, thank you very much for really contributing, but I would ask like to ask the other panelist to come up. Peter, you have agreed to join us also at this final session. Per, thank you. Per Clevnes, Annika Elias. Where are you? Annika Elias, who is new to us today. Chairman ledarna and CC European managers. Is this the whole panel? Did I miss someone? Okay, you had your opportunity now. It's too late. So why don't we start with you, Annika? Because you haven't had a chance to really sort of give your perspective. You are from ledarna. That's not that, you know, that sounds great for me, doesn't it? So what we need, we always say that we need the leadership to change. Give us your perspective after listening to this afternoon's presentations and debate. Thank you very much. Yes, we've reached the end of the day and at the end of the day, I think it's time to get practical. Because we had a question quite early in the program today. Somebody asked, we have all this knowledge. Why is nothing happened? We've had it for a long time. And I actually think that some of the problems is in implementing all these good knowledge and all these good decisions into the companies. We know from the last report from from the global compact that only 35% of the companies implement the strategies that have been made on the CEO level, on the, on the high level. And of course, we all understand that it has to, it is decisions have to be made on a corporate level and they have to be based on advanced knowledge and so forth. But from there to make something happen, we have to implement the strategies in all the levels of management in the companies. And I think that is what's a bit missing in this discussion. Why isn't that happening then? I mean, yes, we can conclude that we must implement our strategies and everybody knows climate is changing. It's going to threaten our survival, et cetera. But why, what are the barriers? What are them? I would say it needs a new kind of thinking because it manages have to be giving resources, of course, time, people, knowledge to really implement, to work with these questions. But it's also a question of changing the way we measure things in the companies. Today we have managers who are only measured by the short term results that they deliver. We need managers who can focus at the same time of the short term results, but also on the long perspective. We need a new kind of manager and we need new conditions for the managers. Of course it's much easier just to make a declaration to put a stamp on your brand for the company that you work with sustainability issues. But it's not, it takes a lot more to really get it to work down to the lowest level. But if we don't, nothing will happen. I'm sure of that. Okay, thank you very much. Peter, I will soon let give you a chance to comment a little bit on the presentation source of the companies and things you are picking up there. But before we do that, there might be a few other things that could come into a discussion, maybe I would like you to comment on. Per, you are one of the few representatives of the sort of interesting and hopefully very lively discussions we had prior to this session. You can't summarize what happened in 10 groups, but you know, are the things that you could pick up from the discussions without being too biased to your own group that you believe could be interested to pull in to this discussion. So I've had the privilege of reading, so for clarity, everything that you talked about and wrote down and voted for was unwritten of forms and notes in turn were handed to me. So take it for what it is, several filters between your own thoughts and what I'm saying, but I wanted to pick out a few themes and provide just the grain of synthesis as well to hopefully stimulate the discussion further here. The first thing to say is that it came through very strongly that financial incentives of course will be key, no surprises I think. But it was interesting to see through the various discussions that it was not just the level of say a carbon tax or an investment incentive, but also the certainty that they will be there. And some groups then concluded that actually the way to get there is a global deal and that financial incentives on their own for all their beauty and channeling resources throughout the economy and making other things happen and providing the certainty of the future may need to be underpinned by a political and government structure as well. So that's one thing that came through very strongly. At same time, it also came through that, well, it may be a little bit pie in the sky, this may not be happening and there are several other influencing channels that need to be activated or unblocked or however we want to call it. So one, perhaps, overarching theme there was that of transparency and trust, I think. There needs to be transparency about winners and losers and actually re-debate about what that means. There needs to be transparency, transparency so consumers know what business activities, what consequences they actually have beyond, you know, if everything is priced in by carbon prices and everything, you could say you just need the price, but the strong feeling that no, we need labeling, we need that sort of mechanisms as well. We need an annual reports of companies to include an assessment of risk. We need consumers to have full access to information about the products they buy and we need science to be transparently providing information into policy and policy to be able to turn around and say, yes, this is a science on which we're basing this. So that's another mechanism, but very much in the same vein, that then if we get these things in place, then that will unblock things that have been stopped in their tracks so far. Now, these two in turn may enable a third category that came through, which is one of innovation. Technology came through, we need innovation, we need technology to come and that may require big markets to become demand pools for this technology, may need investment in research and development, but also we need new business models and there was a pervading sense that once we have the demand and the market mechanisms in place, then innovation will be able to happen, but there's innovation, lots of innovation is necessary. But this is quite a positive picture, I think, right? We put the right mechanisms in place, we improve our transparency, we get better trust and then things will, you know, our current system will work and will get us on the trajectory we need to be and there was categories of responses that hinted at a slightly, slightly modification to that, perhaps. While several of you, the groups actually came back and said we need a new value definition, it is not enough that we provide the right signals within the current system, we need something other than GDP, we need ecosystem services, we need to go beyond GDP. It's quite a challenge because it then tells us that climate change is a more unmanagable problem than perhaps will be suggested by a classical economics argument and actually we need to go beyond it. So it's a challenge. Another challenge was that of how to get a long term perspective in, given the requirements of investors for returns over a short time horizons, given corporate governance and how it is structured and reporting mechanisms of quarterly, quarterly and accountability mechanisms we have, maybe even the education of children that they will make a difference in the future, let's hope so, and even into discussions of cognitive science, maybe we inherently bias. You know, so again a challenge on several fronts to the notion that if we get the signals and institutions right, then we will get that. So I'll stop there and just call these as indications of some of the discussions that happened. Thanks, Lodper. Really fascinating to, during a coffee break, be able to summarize discussions that much. I won't dare to ask them if you actually did, you know, deliver a speech that you came up with yourself or if you actually did, you know, follow what they discussed, but I'm sure you did, I'm sure you did. Can I go back to you, Peter, Peter, also after having heard these presentations and also this last point in particular, maybe about, you know, how do we transform into a more long term thinking? How do we provide the tools also for companies to do so? Can state old companies be much more proactive also in taking a long term perspective? I mean, they also have, they also have demands on return and so on. Can you give us some insights? I can try to elaborate in some way, at least. I think if you want to take this question seriously, as we all do, I think in this room, you have to begin from the top and that is the owners of the company and it's the board of the companies. I can control the board members of public owned companies. And when we decide board members nowadays, you don't have to have a PhD in sustainable, you know, wisdom, but you have to have some enthusiasm or curiosity or some knowledge or whatsoever. It's a prime target when we looking for people. Then we can put some kind of a pressure on the board, which we do with our demands for the targets. Then the board can put pressure on the leadership and so on. I think you must begin there. There are enthusiasts, people all around the company, but it must, it must have a heart in the very top top of the company. And that's why I think it's interesting to listen to Anna, because you are owner as well as the leadership of your company. And I think that's the key here and that's what we have to require from all company. It's not enough to have, you know, enthusiasts, people around. And that leads me to Sasha, but I think you're a symbol of sustainability. And I think that's good. What I though lack is footprint in your own organization. I would see the CEO of Nordea or the, the, the board of directors once pronounced the worst sustainability. I don't think they know it, but we should learn them. No Nord Nordea is the most bonus intents bank in Norway, in Scandinavia, in Scandinavia, in the Nordic countries, and in Norway, Norway, Norway as well. It's a most bonus intents bank whatsoever in, in the Nordic Europe region. And we all know that is a big fear that short term recession have a negative impact on sustainability. I would like the board of directors. I would like to see you to discuss these things once. I've never ever heard it. I would like the Nordea leadership discuss money laundering. They, they were fine, but it's, it's, we just have to say one year ago, I would like a speech saying that would never, ever happen again. So I think you're doing a great job, but I require more footprints in your own organization. Before, I mean, before you answer also, I mean, it's interesting because in particularly if you can sort of add on the fact, because as you say, I mean, you are very proactive, you can operate in Nordea. You're obviously very vocal. So that shows that obviously the leadership must accept the fact that you're out there being vocal. But how, how do you manage to change the way leadership is thinking in an organization like Nordea? And we are back to this because we are talking about the long term nest. We are talking about leadership, giving the right tools, etc. But I know I completely agree with what Peter is saying. I'm not sort of just to explain how the bank banking system works. I work on investment sign that we have a bank bank is doing their own things. And I completely agree. And I used to say that my, one of my biggest challenges is actually to change the organization that I work in, being the biggest Nordic institutions with all its rules and all its cultures and traditions, including the leadership in the bank. And I completely subscribed to that and I agree. And as a result of that, we are not investing in our own bank in one of our best funds that we are selling on the Swedish market. So that's, that's number one. Number two, oh, number two, in terms of. How do we, and this is the very important for that, for me to know you being the owner or partly the owner of the bank, that you're actually telling me that information today. It's very good for me to know, because then I can take it on further on into my organization and ask Christian Klaus and why he's never talking about sustainability, which I think he does internally, but probably not towards the owners, going back to the financial regulators and financial ministry and all the rules of the engagement. I think it's so poor that we are still discussing and in general, and I don't think you could find that only in no day. I think you can find it in all the big banks in general. That sustainability really is not a big issue because we really are not interested in sustainability because we really don't think we can make money on it and I think it's a much bigger problem that I think it's systemic. What I can see it in from my perspective being investors is that I'm actually struggling because we are trying to do things and it's difficult to do that because level playing field is not the same and we need to have a rules and what we think by rules and regulation or whatever is that we actually get back to the government, which is proactive asking and please Peter and please government Swedish government. Can you please make a law so all the financial institutions, including asset owners and asset managers disclose information about how they work with this in all the investment products and I'm the first one to subscribe, subscribe to that, you know, there is the first bank to sign on this particular thing, so that will be very, very interesting. What do you say about that, Peter? I mean, that's quite sort of clear. Yes, I think it's a very good idea, but let me tell you the realities. We are part of the European Union whether we like it or not. We have to compromise with 27 other countries and let's just take Holland, vad leadership. One year ago, they are not interesting in these things. What so ever? And that goes with a lot of countries as well. So we are trying to do something. What such a suggesting and we encourage that we emphasize that in the European Union, but it's not that easy. But on the other hand, I think if we think it's important question, and if we think that customer likes what we are doing in this regard, there is nobody to stop you do it on your own. I guess. In Sweden, in Nordea. But if we do it on our own, how, how will customers be able to compare between me and what SCB or any other bank is doing? How will they? What is the reference point for the information? This is the biggest problem because I would like to do that and I will do it in my products, but then you will sit down with the information that will not be comparable with anybody else because SCB or somebody else may disclose their own information without clear rules, how that information needs to be so we don't have the same. And I think this should be something that Swedish government should drive on European Union level exactly as you're pointing out, because that's where there's sort of a biggest issue is. While we talk about this when Peter is saying that Poland is not interesting in this, Poland is not interesting in CO2 neutral stuff. They are not interesting in anything that has to do with sustainability because they are losing competitive advantage in the economic growth. So this problem is much bigger than financial side, and this also indicates what type of problems that we are facing when it comes to sustainable development in European level, which is far bigger than we, I think, imagine. Okay, thanks a lot. I mean, it's clear. We are coming back to the factor that clear political signals, frameworks is key and it's getting increasingly complex when you have to then adapt to European level and in some cases also global level. You will have chances to get comments, but I want to see what is cooking out there. We don't have that much time. I want to get a couple of cooking things from the audience as well, because yeah, Nina, you are one of the organizers as well. So, you know, yeah, I'm prepared to. Yeah, I understand that. I'm so impressed by the work you're doing, Peter Norman, and also the initiative you took with the sustainable development within the state owned companies. It's really impressive, but I wonder when will, when will you tell the state owned companies that they have to be concrete with their climate reductions, with their targets and so because what I know the climate within the sustainability is still not obligatory. It is you, you can choose if you want to have it in report. Okay, so it's the whole issue of how much should you actually prescribe certain areas and how much is voluntary. Can you answer that while I'm looking for someone else? Okay, what it's a relevant and good question. What we have done is to define sustainability in a more diversified way. We have gender equality, for instance, and diversity as a broad, as a broad range. So what we have said to the companies, they can pick whatever they like regarding this kind of a pie chart, I'll show you on my graph. Some companies will choose, for instance, CO2 emissions like LKAB and Waffenfald, for instance, some countries like the dramatic, you know, the theater, dramatic theater in Sweden, I don't think they have any CO2 emissions whatsoever. They will go for gender equality and so on. So different companies will do differently here. So so in that regard, we are not doing compulsory emission targets. We are doing more broad sustainable targets. Okay, thank you. Let's collect a couple of comments. Hi, Amber from SEI, I'm answering there. I actually picked up on how you said that a lot of business decisions were driven by the investors and the owners. Is there some kind of information product that we could give to a pool of investors somehow? Is there a way to access the investors? Is there some pool that we could possibly educate a little bit more on sustainability if we do want to push that as a driving factor to businesses? Okay, so more driving from the investors per se to make them, you know, change. Sarschle is strutting away, I don't know why, but just why not the IP fund leadership for one? Exactly. So let's keep it on the table. I will get back to you. We have one comment here more and one comment downstairs. So please close to learn from SP, the Swedish Technical Research Institute, one of the state companies. It was touched upon earlier that we need to have maybe another economic system in some years. Exponential growth, maybe it's not the solution. When is it time to start that discussion and when do we have to change the system? That's great. In the next generation probably. That's what we normally say. It's better to push it forward. I think that's an excellent question. Yes, I will let you answer it also. You I will start with you. But yes, just all that make it. Ja, Elin Söderberg är som. I was wondering two things. The international energy agency said I think it's two years ago that all investments in fossil industry or production need to be. We need to stop doing doing them after 2017. Otherwise we need to close them down before their economic lifetime. And this spring they released a new report saying that the potential for renewable energy is higher than the energy demand excluding nuclear power, which is not renewable. And I was wondering. Ja. One thing, the state owner of energy industries like Vattenfall. Do you consider this? Do you know this and what are your response about investing in fossil fuels? After 2017. And the other part is the investment side. I had another investment company discussing this week that they have a black list on companies and they also have a top hundred fund with the ethic investments. And in those ethic investments, they include oil companies. And I was wondering how do you do it? Nordea. And also connected to the international energy agencies reports. Okay, thank you very much. So the carbon bubble is back and if there is an exit strategy, maybe not for Vattenfall in place to get rid of the CO2. So I promise Anna get back to you first on these questions and other comments because we are sort of wrapping up. What would you like to add? The point of my presentation is basically that I think that we are in a since 2007, we are at the end of there's debt saturation. There is with a financial crisis. It's there are climate costs coming up with all the storms and floodings and droughts and things we see in the food supply chain. So my basic answer to you is it's time now. It's been overdue to change the system because we are acting like, well, interest on money is number one. That is a natural law and we need to have that. And everything else has to bend for that. But nature will tell us sooner or later. We can have this idea that how much we want. But nature will, the real supply chains will crumble if we don't change the way we use them. And that will mean that growth in terms of more increasing consumption will have a step back. I mean, you're not a listed company, are you? No, the family company. I mean, just briefly, I don't know, I mean, you haven't been in the leadership of a listed company. How much easier do you think it is for you as a company to actually be very proactive from the fact that you are not a listed company? I think it's much easier because if I and my sister, who are the main owners, are connected and if we can just have the, just enough support from the other four people, we can do whatever we want. I would require that I agree with my sister. Okay. And we have values that say that we don't pull out it is not only there to give money to its owners. It's there for other reasons and my profit is a means, not an end. Okay. Okay, thank you very much. From ledernas perspektiv just, I mean, to also get your sort of final rep of points from this discussion. What specifically do you believe from your perspective can be done? Well, I was very enthusiastic to hear from the conclusion of the discussions that we have been talking about values and trust, which is sort of the core of the leadership in a company. Today we are talking a lot about everybody's looking to the politics for the politicians for guidance. Obviously, most of these questions are really on the macro level of everything, both nationally and of course globally. But I say that if we start by just doing a bit of what every company promises, we would get a long way. Because if you look especially around in Sweden, there is actually almost no company who has not a good sustainability policy. But since it's not implemented and not executed, we are where we are today. I fully understand that not everything can be solved that way, but just give the power to and the mandate to the managers and let's start by acting and walk the talk. So there is a lack between the rhetorics and action. And if you then you have to get the normal next to you. So if you then have a chance here to say, how? Well, what is that you want? I would not turn to the politics because the politics is not the counterpart in this. I would turn to the company leadership. Yeah, the boards, of course, where everything has to start. They have to give the mandate to the managers. They can't just talk and then live on like always before. You talked about bonuses Peter before. And I think that is one small thing that is at the heart of this. As long as you measure all the managers on their short term results, the economic results only, what will they strive to achieve? Well, profit, ja, of course, to begin with, and that goes for almost all level of management. You have also to reward just a good work in the sustainability area. If you want to change something and to reward long term behavior. And hopefully demonstrate that such investment actually benefits the profit. Yes, of course. Okay, to short comments. First of all on the state-owned pension funds, the AP funds. Here we had in the legislation in year 2000 where the pension fund should take consideration to environmental and ethical considerations. And all of them had done that. Some in a small extent and some to a more large extent. We can discuss it if it's good or bad, it should be wider or so. Now there's a lot of inquires going on and the whole pension system in Sweden will be refurbished. And all of this analysis is now on the table on the Standing Committee of Social Insurance. In, let's say, half a year from now, we will have a decision regarding the Swedish pension system, which will also include investment guidelines for the investment for these pension funds. And hopefully, and that's my personal view, hopefully, we will tighten this topics in some way that will take, I think, more consideration to the environment. The first thing, the second thing of Wattenfall, I think to turn Wattenfall, Sweden, the company is like a, you know, turn a super tank, I would say. We are doing that right now. The Wattenfall went from, as I told you, from zero to 90 million ton per year in emissions in seven years. Now we're trying to go the other way around. The vision of Wattenfall is of course only to have non-fossil plants, only to have water, sun, wind, and nuclear power, which you can like or not. But I think that's very much the vision of Wattenfall. So you are actually clearly stating that it's to go back and get rid of the fossil fuel that they have today. Definitely, it's a question of time. And it's a question about, you know, you must, I mean, you can, it is almost impossible today to sell every plant they have in Germany so much. So you have to do it in a fashion in order. OK, good, but it's a vision there. Thank you very much. Tasha. Well, they will probably be forced to buy more. And the reason for that is that we have, somebody has mentioned that earlier, the investments in renewable energy have decreased with 11 percent last year globally and the only country in the world that invests in renewable energy is China. And we have invested 680 million dollars in one year in new prospecting of fossil fuels. And that equivalents to 200 stock listed companies. This is the facts information taken by HSBC. It's one of the biggest banks in the world. It's not taken by NGO. In principle, it means the next 10 years because we are pricing in the proven resources. It's six trillion dollars invested in prospecting of new fossil fuels, going back to Shell gas and all of that. And everybody knows this and that equivalents to four gigaton, four gigaton CO2 emissions. And that basically means that the market, the financial markets are betting on politicians not to be able to hinder. Exactly. So this is sort of a catastrophic climate. It's very interesting, but according to science. That's one side. I think with the AP funds, this sounds extremely good. I really hope that AP funds will have a clear climate target. And it's also surprising that Sweden, which is one of the leading countries, at least on paper in the world, when it comes to this, that we don't have one of the AP funds truly investing in renewables, truly trying to invest in the companies who are trying to achieve CO2, neutral solutions or carbon emissions and so on. Because from a private sector perspective, we are interesting in doing this, but going back to one of the questions I think you asked. I mean, seriously investment community, we don't, we hire. Usually very qualified people from all sort of a part of the world. We have information we need in order to make decisions, but we don't have incentives. It's so simple. I mean, it's sad to say that, but we don't have the incentives. We are not giving incentives. We are not evaluated on the basis of these incentives. So that's one of the problems and nobody's complaining about that. So I mean, going back to say, yeah, I can provide you with a list of 3,500 companies we do invest in and we are trying to invest in the companies who are more sustainable, avoiding the oil companies. For some of your companies, if you say from an index perspective, they represent 20% of the global index. If you take that out, then I need you to tell, I need to tell you also, well, I'll try to replace it, but then you have to take a hit on returns. And are you prepared to do that? I don't know. But apparently clients are not prepared to do that. Not to be your original, okay. And I know I saw you at a point, but we have to say that for the mingle because I also need to give Pear a chance and then we are actually going to have to close because we are out of time. It's a wonderful privilege to be there, the person standing between you and refreshments. No, that's Jacob. Very good. Okay, I got a buffer. I mean, I think, I think you're on what's, what's from it, from, from SEI's and perspective and perhaps trying to represent a broader research community and not just doing research, but communicating research. There are some clear takeaways here. If we talk about leadership and organizations and the fact that you have a disconnect between stated ambition and what actually happens if you talk about the AP funds and the fact that it's a contention and debate about how much a contention targets without hits and return. If we talk about Nudea and the disconnect between leadership on one side and pioneers on the other hand, I mean, maybe you're there to start up the experiment and if you manage fine, they will spread otherwise, not say no pressure, but the, but the, but the, I think the emerging message very much here is that it isn't enough to say it fossil fuels are 3% of global GDP. We have models that show that the cost of action, if everyone does it at the same time, needn't be so high. And the cost, if you don't do very much is very high to us indeed, not just in 70 years, but maybe in 10 years or 20, it's still too far away. That message, the stern report message has done a lot, but, but isn't fully doing it. And there is another message, I think, from what we know about the research and, and from what we know about the economic system institutions, which says that there actually is a substantial overlap between long term sources of growth for an economy and sources of competitiveness and what we normally would call climate action that I can't promise that they could, if the research were done, we could show that all of these we could cut through the thicket all of these problems that we just discussed, but certainly this is an absolutely critical research agenda to come with credible messages about that overlap and how mainstream concerns can come in to climate concerns, rather than the other way around. Good news is we are trying to work on this, but that to me would be to formulate a research program that, to some extent, taps in what we talk about here. Excellent. Thank you very much. More on that will follow quite soon. We have to keep the tension up, and indeed. So Jacob, I'm sorry, I, you know, five minutes late, you started off this seminar today. It's been a very full day, you know, extremely interesting discussion, I think. And of course, since it's now about coming up with a final few very wise points, I hand over to you instead. So Jacob, please. Thank you so much. And thank you to the panel before they step down. Okay, you remember that? Yeah, okay. Tack, tack, tack. If you're if you're leaving, no, no, I will sit here. Very good. Excellent. And thanks everybody. I think we just as a short reflection, we started off in the morning tracing back this seminar to the 3C company organisation that actually started this. And and we saw that that the nucleus behind that was actually Watterfald, who have been talking a lot about here. They had a vision back in 2007 to start to change the way they were investing. But as we know, the investment climate is changing very fast, as fast as probably the weather and the climate is doing. And technology also changed discovery that promising technology perhaps wasn't the what they had hoped for. So I think there's a message in this, and that is that it's changing fast. We have to have these types of debates where we look at what opportunities are, where we learn from the business models and try to identify the solutions. And I think that's what we've done today. We looked at a lot of solutions. We also looked at a lot of new research tasks and opportunities in this space from investments to regulation. So we have a math full of work to go back to the drawing board with. So we are very much committed now to try to wrap this up as a team. And then we will circulate the findings to all of you and and and it's been a marvelous experience during the day. So finally, the there are some things that I have to do here, because I think there are very, very important. And of course, the panel for your frank discussions, not only this panel, but the previous past that we had on on the day on the board today. Thanks to all the speakers that have come here and invested a lot of time and all the participants that have done so much in the table discussions. And and and also would like to to recognize one specific individual has been driving this huge organization. And it's Anna Lövdahl from SEI, who has managed this organization. There you are Anna. Thank you. It's not it's been a big task to get so many stakeholders together, but a marvelous job. And finally, Johan, you kept us on time, isn't it? So we wish we should end now. So all of you great experience and we are so happy that you came here. We hope you got some good feedback to bring back to your colleagues. Thanks.