 Well, good afternoon everybody. Delighted to be moderating this excellent topic and panel on balancing globalisation and resilience in the time of crisis. I know when I was asked to moderate this session there's quite a few conversations with the organisers as to is this really a tension or indeed an opportunity for us to reset the way we design our future globalised supply chains. But just a bit of a scene setting. I'm at the University of Cambridge. My main area is around supply chains and I've been a very popular guy of the last couple of years. And it looks like probably for some years ahead, lots of tensions in supply chains, many organisations facing difficulties and now becoming relaxed to talk about them because they are so dominant with everybody. Now, what's the responses going to be? Are we going to see some entrenchment, some growing back from globalisation? A lot of conversations around is regionalisation more appropriate for the world we now live in. We've seen many governments really try to pull back on issues around healthcare and food or the essential industries thinking that that will aim some additional resilience to what they've got now. And of course new technologies is changing the economies of scale of manufacturing and production. So that too will have I think a significant impact. But as we see entrenchment and I think one of the interesting points is even in food supply chains that we're all reliant on, I think 30 countries now have resorted to export bans to try to protect a very important food supply chain. So in that context we've got a fabulous panel to discuss some of these issues and I'm just going to go through and introduce the panel briefly and then we'll kick off with some of their own introductions and raise some of the topics that are at hand. So first, delighted to welcome Rania Al-Masat, Minister of International Cooperation of Egypt. Then to her left is Frank Appel, CEO, DirgePost DHL in Germany. Then we've got Kumar Bellar from the Aditha Bellar group in India where he's group chairman. To his left we've got Karmin De Sibio, global chairman and CEO of EY. I think we've all heard of that and finally Aaron Cramer who's coordinating activities for BSR in Israel as president and CEO. So right from an organisation that helps many to a worldwide world leading consultancy, a fabulous manufacturing organisation, an organisation that distributes products all around the world and a minister of state, I think we've got all the candidates for an excellent conversation here. So I wanted to perhaps just go through the first set of questions that have been posed by this challenging world context that we live in. Maybe the first and foremost is having come out of Covid or at the end of Covid perhaps and now the war in Ukraine. What impact has that had on your organisations and more broadly the global economy? I'll start off with yourself Rania. So maybe if I go back to the first quarter of 2020 when everybody was just grappling with what Covid is and all of that, there was a sense of isolation and multilateralism was being tested and I remember this period when we were not very clear where we will get the masks and the sanitation and all of that. And then as the months went further the solution was that people had to work together, governments had to work together, vaccines, etc. So the doubt that was there at the beginning a little bit got better than we started talking about vaccine equity and are we distributing and all of that. But the bigger overarching theme was multilateralism had to work, we need to work together to be able to go over this. And I think that sentiment to a large extent was there and then happened we entered 2022 as countries are starting to recover and tourism is coming back and travel, etc. Then we have more sand in the wheels and again the revival of polar sort of corner solutions for this. So it's a very challenging time in terms of rethinking where we are. Absolutely correct that the impediments with trade today is actually adding to price increases. But then the social dynamics in every country is getting a little bit more pressured and the lesson maybe from COVID and for some countries who have been able to do it is to try and be self-reliant when it comes to agriculture, cultivation, trying and figuring out closer markets that can become lifelines in case things get too complicated. So that has been moving along. Another word that is repeated all the time is localization, that we need to localize industries, we need to localize how we do our supply chain. So these are themes that are there. They're being explored but I don't think we're at a stage where we can say they have completely replaced the system we are in. And being Minister of International Cooperation cooperating with the world, with the multilaterals, with the bilaterals, with the businesses. There's a lot of merit in continuing that because it's only through cooperation that we will be able to at least discuss openly our differences and try to overcome them. Excellent. And for the audience please do come in with questions. I've been told to leave the questions till the end but I'm going to break rank and just take questions as they come so to have it as interactive as possible. I'm fascinated Rania about food security in particular in your part of the world. Probably reliant on fair amount of imports. Do you see a particular tension there? We often think of the last three or four months of the year being when food crises tend to hit. Is there any anticipation of problems ahead? Definitely with respect to food and food security it's coming again to the forefront and not just because of the war but also because of climate change and the droughts and the difference in what we're seeing with the crop production across different continents. Africa, Egypt, big importers of wheat, key markets are Ukraine and Russia. I can speak a little bit about our specific case a few years back. There was an increase in local production so half of our consumption is produced locally. So that was a step I guess today which you can consider a preemptive action. Something else which is important was storage. We were one of the biggest importers of wheat but we didn't have a history of proper storing. That started in 2014 so today we have a stock till end of year. Nonetheless it's a shock. The problem today is that we don't know how long it is. If you're thinking about, for example, the world food program that feeds a lot of those who are in need in Africa and other places, their key markets are Ukraine and Russia and therefore that puts extra burden as well. So it is a complicated situation if I'm going to just maybe link it to climate because Egypt is hosting COP 27 in November. This puts more focus on adaptation projects, projects related to agriculture and also water for better water management or resource use. Challenging times ahead I think but it's good to see some infrastructure progress there. Frank, if I may jump to you, you must get some very early signals of how globalization is playing out with the shipping of goods around the planet. Are we right to say globalization is going in reverse or do you still see activities that would suggest it's still pretty much the dominant paradigm at the moment? I believe that globalization is not under a trench. We have seen that in the last two years. I always carry this mask with me and two years ago the people said that will be all manufactured locally if I read it right. It's made in China and not locally in Europe or in the US. The reason is because that's a better answer. We will not be able to afford masks around the world for a price of 20 cents or whatever it is if we had not produced it in China. Globalisation has been a key driver while the world has recovered so rapidly. Starting with the vaccines, that was a global work share effort. We jointly produced new vaccines. We distributed as a company alone 2.5 billion to more than 175 countries that has protected a lot of lives. It had not been possible without globalization. You can see that across the world. The global trade has been before the war above the level of the pre-crisis. Now with the China lockdowns, that has severe impact on global supply chains because nothing can be produced, nothing can be moved. If that stays, then this has a significant impact. If we see that China is easing again as it looks like at the moment, then we will see even this young room in the second half of the year because all the plans will produce a lot of stuff because the market is there. So globalization is not under a trench and it will never be. Why? Because consumers will never pay for the same product twice a price. If you tell a consumer your mobile phone is more resilient produced but it costs twice the price. I don't give a shit to that. I want to have the best value for money and if you tell me it's just resilient, that's your job and you see that. What we see is that companies are moving in Asia from China to other parts of Asia. India might be a big beneficiary if we make it right. We see it already. Our business in India at the moment is booming. High double digit growth because we see activities moving from other parts of Asia to India. India is through the pandemic already. It's endemic already. It's a herd immunity and that's the reason why India is doing extremely well. And that's what you see but we will not see that goes from China to Europe or the US back except for certain products. This conversation about regionalization. Regionalization is a formal globalization. There is going to be trade between regions but more concentration of trade within regions. South East Asia perhaps within Africa, Middle East and America and of course Europe. Do you get any sense that regionalization is taking hold? I think for certain products that might happen I would not even take pharmaceuticals in that case but for ships you might see that because there is a political demand that you want to have cybersecurity and control. That might happen. If that really happens for many other products I have my doubts because the labor cost difference, the productivity difference in a globalization has helped the world to become more wealthy to take more people out of poverty. And that I think will continue. The Russia war might be now a big opportunity for Middle East and Africa even because that's so close. Europe needs a new partner somewhere. Where should we go? If we not find it in Middle East and Africa we will not find it in Russia any longer apparently. So therefore we need to find new answers and that creates new opportunities. We have a very young population in Africa. The business is growing. Some governments have to sort out their problems but if they sort that out I can imagine that Europe will invest significantly more in Africa for instance. And that creates then not regionalization. It creates new opportunities for parts of the world. Going on to India, Kumair, if I may ask about the Ditta Beldler group you mentioned earlier to me that half your revenues are international half India based. Frank mentioned India is sort of coming out of the COVID scenario. What's your view about local production, international production and how supply chains are likely to evolve? So yeah, first of all Frank is right. I think India is pretty much out of the COVID and we are all back to leading normal lives which is a huge relief. I think you talked about globalization and if there is a possibility of there being a reversal of globalization and my very clear view is that that's not going to happen. It shouldn't be happening. What we should be doing is creating optionalities. So we have a large manufacturing base in India and across 36 different countries where conglomerate, a large part of our business is manufacturing like. I think what we have done or we have decided to do is one is to digitize so you need to have more visibility across the value chain right from the point of supply to the point of your customer if that's possible. So if there's some congestion happening in a pot somewhere you need to be able to get that information in real time. The other is of course to diversify. You need more sources to source from, more places to source from, different geographies to source from. And the third is delegation. You need a huge amount of delegation to the whole procurement side of your business needs to be upgraded in terms of skill sets. They need to understand how different events, you know, seemingly different disparate events across the globe can impact your particular industry. So I think it's going to be optimization, a little bit of reshoring. You know, I think that, for example, we procure a pulp for our fiber business. We used to only from Canada. We have started now to also from Sweden and maybe even South Africa now. But, you know, I don't think it's possible to completely localize that doesn't make sense from an economics point of view doesn't make sense for the customer who wouldn't want to pay more. And whose quality of life you would impact negatively. In some cases, for example, carbon black is used in everything that's black other than hair, maybe largely in tires. That industry structure is such that we locate close to our customers. Therefore, it's a different dynamic altogether. So I think it's also horses for the causes. You can't have one size fit all at all. Maybe add to that. We hear that very often for many customers, diversification resilience. And we have seen that as well that after the supply from Russia and Ukraine for automotive in Europe's got to a stop, we have seen an increase in activity in Latin America. So from the same companies moving stuff now, not from Russia, but doing more in Latin America. So that's resilience. And that is what companies are doing like exactly as you described. So that resilience theme you've touched on. I thought that was some great examples of it's different in different sectors. It's going to be different. And as a conglomerate, I guess you will see that in first hand. Maybe I can go over to you, Carmen. Just in terms of in EY, you look at the global business. You're also part of the International Business Council. So you've got a helicopter view of operations as well right across the world. What's your take and what are you seeing and what are you anticipating? Well, it's great to be here. And actually, my fellow panel, we are seeing exactly what you all have just said. And the first thing was around digitisation of supply chains. And so when we went into covid, we have a supply chain consulting practice. Only 25% of our clients actually had a digitised supply chain. And so they learned very quickly that they had to use technology much faster. And now it's above 60% where they're using technology in their supply chains. I think the word I use is dependencies. I mean every company right now is looking at their dependencies. And where are their dependencies? And so the movement that Frank and Kumar have been talking about, absolutely what we're seeing. What we are seeing in terms of China is most companies want to get to a place where whatever they make in China, they sell in China. But whatever they make to sell somewhere else, they sell somewhere else. And so Southeast Asia has gained a lot of that. But that is moving to different places. Now you hear this word Frenchoring, you want to make sure that your supply chain is in a friendly country to your home country. So you don't get into issues like this going forward. We are seeing all that. But in terms of globalisation, globalisation is here to stay. I mean anyone who thinks it's going to go away, we're way too connected economically, technology wise for globalisation to go away. So most of the things that are happening now, Russia, Ukraine causes a shift in terms of globalisation. The geopolitical issues with China, it's causing a shift. But people are so well connected, technology is being used everywhere that it just will keep going forward. My own personal view is Russia, Ukraine will eventually get to a place that will work through it. And whether Russia becomes the next North Korea and then things get fixed from there. China is a different story. Geopolitically I think China is a different story. And that is something that the world is going to have to deal with and China is going to have to deal with. It's too big of an economy for the world to not pay attention to it. Isolationism doesn't work. I think COVID has really worked against the West's relationship with China and China's relationship with the West. I mean I used to go to China three, four times a year. Now I haven't been there in two and a half years. And yes we do Zoom and Microsoft team meetings. It's not the same. It's not even the same with our own people there. So I do think as China comes out of COVID, I actually think the relationships between China and the West will also get better. Now are they going to be perfect? No, but I think people are people when they interact more together physically things will start getting resolved. All that being said I think personally I think President Xi had an opportunity to be the global leader in the world. When Russia Ukraine happened I think the reaction could have been very different than what the reaction was. And because of the reaction I think the West and in particular the US has become more hawkish on China. And that's something that we're dealing with. I tell all our people anyway we have to work globally. We have to be above geopolitics. But that's getting harder and harder every day. And from your perspective coming, have you seen this geographically restricted supply chains emerge? Is something you anticipated or I guess the war was a bit of a surprise to everybody. But the China, the Sino-US trade tensions has had almost the same impact on some supply chains. And we've seen other constraints about where product can come from, where can it go. Maybe I'll come to others on the panel as well. Is that something you're seeing more of that companies are having to cope with? Yeah, I mean we saw companies looking at their supply chains before COVID and so forth and before the issues with China and so forth. But changing your supply chain is a long term effort. It's not like you snap your fingers and you're going to change your supply chain. So they were looking at them, but let's be honest. Globalisation makes the world, you know, makes production much cheaper. And so companies were weighing, you know, do I produce this for, you know, 10 euros in China or do I produce it for 15 euros in Germany? I mean so, you know, it was a risk reward type analysis. I think some of the, some of what's happened in the world has changed that analysis and is changing that analysis. And that's certainly one of the causes for inflation, you know, and that will continue until we become much more efficient. But as I was saying to you, there are new technologies in your supply chains that are being used and are starting to be used that will really make a difference. You know, I saw something really unique in one of our, we're doing a joint measure with someone that we're creating where you literally can look at your factory and how it works in the metaverse and you can literally move robot arms in the metaverse that actually moves a physical robot arm in your physical factory in India, wherever it is. Now those are technologies that are just starting to come to be, but imagine what, how that's going to change the world and how that's going to change where you make things and how you make things in the efficiencies and so forth. We'll come back to that future futuristic look of supply chains now. Why don't we move on to Aaron? Aaron, you're looking at an organisation that spans many organisations and so probably picking up some other type of feedback as to how international supply chain disruption is impacting firms. But maybe I can ask you to comment, you know, how is it impacting individuals and the wider society? First I'd say that the apparent consensus that globalization is unstoppable is making me very nervous because anytime I hear lots of people agreeing I start to think maybe we're missing something. So with no disrespect to anyone here, but I think it's worth a good debate. So I think we're both under learning and over learning the lessons of COVID in Ukraine. So the lesson we're over learning is losing sight of the fact that some of the fault lines in the world and in the global economy were present in January 2020 and some of them have in fact accelerated. So political polarization that exists in a lot of places, yes certainly in the United States but not only in the United States. The fact that you had in the first round of the French election that you had well in the second round Marine Le Pen getting 45% of the vote, the two parties that had dominated French politics for decades got 6.6% in the first round surpassed by Eric Zemmour who's a TV personality, a right wing TV personality. So our politics were polarizing before COVID that's been accelerated. Geopolitical tensions were rising that disputes between the West and China existed before COVID they've been accelerated by COVID. So I think there are fault lines in society that have only accelerated and we're in a new era, the post Cold War era is over, the assumption I think that we're growing ever more connected, that technology is overwhelmingly a positive thing, that markets deliver the lion's share of solutions. I haven't to think most of those things are true and important but our populations don't share that view and there is not support for globalized markets in many countries in the way that was true previously and that to me is a warning sign. So that's a way where I think we're over learning the lessons of the last couple of years. One of the ways that we're under learning the lessons of the last couple of years in my opinion is the simple fact of nonlinear change and I think we will continue to see it. We could have a very serious cyber event that knocks out a large city somewhere and sparks all sorts of other problems. It is possible that will be an outgrowth of the war in Ukraine. I'm not predicting it but there's non-zero risk that that could happen. Climate and extreme weather. We are seeing it. The costs are going up. We know that extreme weather is going to hit more often and in more profound ways. We don't know when. We don't know where. India has suffered through. India and Pakistan a horrible, horrible heat wave. Economies can't survive in those kinds of environments and there have been studies done of productivity in export facilities, I think in this case in India and changing light bulbs that bring the temperature down two or three degrees increases productivity. The problem is the reverse is also true that the higher the temperatures go the less productive workers can be. We just as human beings we have physical limits. So I think there's all sorts of nonlinear risks that are out there that could slam the brakes on ongoing prosperity. So I think there continues to be a great deal of uncertainty and I think we have to come at this period of time with the mindset that the post cold war environment that has delivered an immense amount of prosperity and innovation. It's not that prosperity and innovation will stop but the foundational conditions that enable that are different now than they were in the immediate aftermath of 1989. We have to grapple with that world as it is if we want to keep the train going. Good to get a little bit of an alternative view, perhaps part of which certainly I would share. I think the globalization rather than saying is it going to stop or not. I think it's a different form of globalization we will be witnessing. Moving on to one of the checks and balances to make sure that as we make perhaps the most of the crisis we're facing it's not one black swan but a series of black swans and in one of our lectures at Cambridge I was saying I was still looking for the white swans since the last three years. So we are seeing continued disruptions but I think I see these as opportunities. Opportunities for me embracing new technologies allow firms to operate in more regions closer to market demand perhaps touch on the issues about inclusivity and bringing in more people into the win within the globalization drive. Do others see this reconfiguration as I would put it of globalization? I mean maybe at a societal level or a national level, Rania what would you see as changes that you would like to see? Well I was feeling very reassured until we reached our last friend and colleague. But I think the way you described it reassures us also because you're saying that let's not read too much and let's not underutilize and the two words that come out is resilience and adaptability and innovation. And absolutely even if it's not just at the firm level but also the startups that are coming in the value which are supposed to be the value chains later on in the regions that might be the new hubs if we can call it that. And the other very important forward lookingness if I can put it that way is the role of the stakeholders to make it work. So governments, you mentioned governments, yes governments need to think about the regulatory environment, it's an opportunity to be business friendly if you will. Also the skill set of those that are going to be working in these firms if they do come. So I think there's an urgent need to think about those more deeply. The only caveat here and I just put that because I know that governments fiscally are being pressured. So that's a call to open up further so that you can find this alternative financing, the FDI that will create jobs because one of the biggest risks today is the contraction that is happening. And I do appreciate very much that consumers will not necessarily want higher prices because inflation is already high but there's the policy framework that sort of also designs what consumers might at the end have options to choose from. So I think that the collective here believes in more collaboration or that you cannot be by yourself and I think that's a message that needs to keep on coming out because here there are businesses that you see what's happening in different regions. So that message needs to come out more forcefully if it's with your stakeholders, shareholders, I think more communication that this is what is good for the world because again if politics plays different roles in different forums so being on message from those who see things and are able to bet on the future is very important. Let me add to what the minister said as well if you think about what we heard about what might be difficult. COVID is a threat but it has been a huge opportunity in 10 years when we jump forward. In 10 years you will say that was superior than we developed the vaccines against cancer because we have learned now through the crisis on a massive scale what you can do with mRNA vaccines. And the idea was always to protect us against spreading of cancer in bodies. That will now happen. In 10 years we will say COVID had a lot of fatalities but it was the starting point of a journey that we get vaccinated against cancer. And that is fantastic if you think about the progress that permits. Secondly the mRNA vaccines will be produced in Africa when the next time in Asia the next time a new virus comes because we can bring it to very small plants and operations. And you can copy that technology somehow and that is democratic and bring it closer to the market. So these are the upside. Nobody is talking about that. But in 10 years we will say COVID was a breakthrough for humanity because we got better vaccines. The same is here. I believe renewable energy will now accelerate because if we don't make it wrong, if we continue to subsidize fossil fuel because we don't want to take the burden on people. We have to take the burden away from the poor people but not in the rich countries from everybody. If we don't do that then fossil fuel will be more expensive. That will accelerate the renewable journey. And that's the upside. In 10 years we say instead of having a bigger problem with global warming we have a less problem because we invested more into renewable energies. And the reason was because we had a threat which was high energy costs. And that is the upside. And that is what I think. We have to make globalization better and not reverse it. And I think we have to think about what can we do using digitalization or whatsoever if we make it better than there is a tremendous upside from both crises. We're warning the Ukraine as much as from the COVID-19 crisis. That's terrific. I mean I guess what we're really the message that's coming across that better globalization will inevitably give us more resilience, hopefully address the ESG challenges on sustainability. And hence resilience in the more medium to long term. Aaron if I can jump straight to you is how do we get more engagement with broader society into the globalization project? Does it need a new word? Does it need rebranding? Do we need to change our language? Everything we've heard of the last few days has been about addressing the challenges that we as society face. So why is it such a hard sell? That's a great question because undeniably poverty has been reduced around the world. Innovation has flourished. More corners of the globe are participating in global society. There are many successes of the period that ran from 1989 until fairly recently. I think that the benefits have been unevenly distributed. And so I think that's where you have an issue. And so in North American Europe a lot of people have felt marginalized. So I think you have to go right to the source of that particular issue. In other parts of the world women have been able to enter the formal workforce in numbers that have never been seen before in human history. Access to health care has improved. That needs to be preserved because I think now what we're facing is the risk of that progress either being stopped or reversed. I'll give you an example of where there are trade-offs. Circular business models are great. Circular business models may expel women from jobs that have proven very beneficial. We have to think about that innovation in a way that's going to sustain and deliver benefits to the people who have benefited. So we've had winners and losers and I think we have to not sweep that under the rug and look for ways to preserve the gains that so many people have had and nearly 100 million people have fallen back into extreme poverty over the last couple of years. Preserve the gains that have been achieved and go right to the source of the places where people have been disadvantaged by new models because, you know, you go talk to a coal miner in West Virginia, they don't care if there are 10 people in China whose livelihoods have increased tenfold if that person in that community is seeing a very precarious future. We have to find answers for the losers and sustain the winners. And not shy away from the fact that there are trade-offs, there are. And we also perhaps need to address the narrative of perhaps those ten Chinese workers weren't the reason why. And that's part of the language. But it's a great point to touch on people. I'm hearing many organisations struggling to retain staff and they're fabulous organisations, organisations you would die to have been associated with a while back. Assuming a bit of that is facing all of your organisations, what are you doing to build resilience in the workforce? Maybe before we answer your question, the first thing is, you know, we could easily sit here having the COVID crisis and a war in Europe and rising unemployment. You know, I read headlines that we have fight for talent. That's great news. You know, what we have not, what we have protected, what we have not rising unemployment on that, that's fantastic news. So, our job is managers to be better than our competitors. You know, we are working on that constantly to have higher engagement in our workforce so that we can attract better talent. That we have a purpose as a company. That we have a very comprehensive sustainability agenda because the young people want to see that. They want to work for a company with purpose. They want to work for a company who digitalise themselves in a sustainable. So, but this is great news. That we are fighting for talent is much better than we have high unemployment. When I read the headlines, I always say, I get nuts, you know, if I see that, that nonsense, you know, we should be happy that unemployment is not the problem we face in addition. And we easily could face that. So that's good news and not bad news. So, OK, if we are not good enough, then we have to look into the mirror and say we are not good enough. But we are, you know, that's great. War for talent is great and not bad. On that point, you said it well, Frank. It's this dilemma. If you all take your phones out and Google Recession, the first thing you're going to see is unemployment. That's what causes recession. We don't have unemployment. In fact, I was in New York two weeks ago. I was in London last week walking along the street. Almost every single shop needs help. Help needed, sales assistant needed everywhere. And so this is a conundrum in terms of where we're going. But COVID has caused what I call a churn. People have re-evaluated the life. We have been losing a lot of people from COVID. We hired 150,000 people in the last 18 months globally. But we've lost a lot of people. Our attrition rate went from, you know, 17, 18 percent out to 25 percent. And so you ask, well, why is that happening? It's happening because a lot of people are re-evaluating their lives. You know, maybe they don't want to work as hard. Maybe they don't want to look at this. And yeah, pay is going up. We increased our pay in terms of the people who started EY around the world by 15, 20 percent. So that's, you know, that we felt we needed to do and had to do. But there is this re-evaluation in terms of, you know, people's lives, what they want to do, what they like to do, what they don't like to do. Fortunately for us, we're in high demand, but we also train a lot of people. I bet in a lot of, you know, people's finance area here, you know, people have been trained by the big four accounting firms. And so that's something that we actually do for society that no one knows about, but we do train a lot of people. It is a churn. I think we'll see that level off for a couple of reasons. One, I think it'll be more post-COVID and that will get out of the system. Two, I also think if there is more inflationary pressures, I do think companies will start looking at, you know, how many people they're hiring and so forth. So I think that'll bring wages a bit down or at least level them off. And so this will be the equilibrium that we have to get to to get through what a lot of people are predicting maybe a tougher economic time the next six months to a year. So you're talking about building resilience in people, and I think that one thing that happened, a number of things that happened for us. We onboarded about a thousand people in the last two years, and we got to meet each other only in the last two months. Very different experience where you're working with people who are onboarded. You can't stop onboarding people because the organization continues to grow. Therefore, your need for talent continues to grow. And it just kind of brings into sharp focus the need to be together and how that builds culture and how that builds team effectiveness. So when people talk about working from home, it really surprises us. You know, how do you do that? Why were we all going and working from offices for all of these years of our life? You know, were we doing something that was fundamentally not required to be done? So a lot of people who've had to be onboarded, I think it's becoming more of a multi-generational workforce. A lot of generation Z that is agreeable and getting trained to come in. New skills being developed, for example digitization. Can we as manufacturing companies find digitally native people who are happy to come and work for us as opposed to a digital startup in India? If you can't, then you have to develop new skills within your existing people. And therefore re-skilling has been a very big theme. I also think that the whole organization of 140,000 people came together in a way that was quite incredible. So we all moved almost overnight to working from home. Different businesses had different challenges. If you're managing assets of $50 billion for people who invest in your mutual funds, the challenge is very different when you're working from home as opposed to when you're running a telecom network and you require tasks to get, you know, repaired, renovated as opposed to people who are running factories irrespective of what's happening because they just need to keep the shop floor working. So been a very different experience. I think everyone has come together in our case and created an even stronger fraternity. And I think resilience comes from the fact that you know that you're part of an organization and a fraternity that genuinely cares and will stand by you in a period as tough as it's been with COVID. We've just run a massive global uncontrolled experiment on work. I mean, you could not have planned something like this. And so we've all had to adapt, as you say. And I think where it's shaking out is just a less monolithic system, both for organizations and for the individuals who work in them. So people want more autonomy. We live in an all-a-cart world. If I can use my phone to, you know, summon a car or a meal or something like that, I also want that level of autonomy in my work. For the employer, I look at it and say, well, if I can hire a great person in, you know, these are things we've done in Dublin or Milwaukee instead of where we have offices and I can add to the organization, I'm going to do it because that's the best way to attract talent. That's different. Both individuals and organizations want and need culture as well. And we just had a staff retreat last week and people came together for the first time. A third of the organization, maybe a half, wasn't there when COVID hit. So it's essential. I feel much better about where we are as an organization after that week. And the level of excitement and camaraderie and culture building that we left with was off the charts. I have never seen anything like it in a four-day period. So I think both for the individual and the employer, it's this two-tiered system. It's not going to be monolithic. We're not going back. I mean, as you say, if you have to be in a physical plant, you know, someone once said in California, well, you can't pick strawberries by Zoom. So, you know, not every job can be done remotely. But for those that can, I just think we're going to have that sort of a two element system of both individuality and still the need for cohesive culture. So you're going to have an event like every week or two to build your culture? That is a great question. We're going to, we're adapting as we go. We're adapting as we go. I can't predict what we'll do over the next 24 months, but we're going to try and find the right balance. And I have to say, Arun, I've changed my mind three times in the last six months about what the work life balance right answer is. So it is a very dynamic picture. I just want to ask Arun. I just wanted to add that also there's a lot of adaptability from government side. You know, because, you know, when you have a government which is very bureaucratic in some way, the experiment was no, we had to be flexible. We had to allow remote work. So if we had a fire drill and we had to test this, we wouldn't have reached where we are without the pandemic pushing us. So this is also a change in mindset. But I agree with the different generations having different aspirations and different levels of patience. And that's where purpose comes in for different institutions. But even, you know, I understand what you said about, you know, digital, you know, remote working, but there's a lot of upside as well. So, you know, I have never called before the pandemic. I never called or video had a video conference out of the blue with a country manager. I'm doing that now. I see that he's green. I call him or her. So it's maybe a heart attack in the first place for them. But then we have a night chat for half an hour. And that, as I've never done before, it was all staged. It was organized. You know, assistant called the person before and said, Frank might want to talk to you. And then they have a week of preparation. Now I just see what's green. Let's call him or her. And that's great. And that creates an interaction which is very different from what we have. So that's tremendous upside as well. And because these are things we haven't done before. And that creates culture as well because that creates all the middle layers out. You know, I talked straight away to a country manager with 100 employees. That's very different than having the regional guy. I will call her or him and we'll prepare. And I want to be present because I don't know if a person, that's all gone. And that is coming from the new technology. And that is cultural building as well and not a significant upside. So I always say, let's look into the upside instead of worrying about the downside. I can't change that people want to work more from home. Let's work more from home but get them still connected to whom we are. And they adapt to that pretty rapidly. I think that also brings us back to a different form of globalisation where things can be done remote. Things can be going out to the metaverse. I mean, scary thought of meeting Frank on the metaverse. But we can engage with employees. We wouldn't be otherwise able to engage. And I think that's fabulous. I'm seeing this in technology where the idea of digital twins allows us, I think, to operate in locations which we would say it's too difficult to upskill. It's too difficult to establish complex operations there but it's now possible. We're going to go to questions now. We've got 10 minutes or so of questions. We've got a fabulous panel here. Anybody would like to go? Alan? It's coming, it's coming. Just a question about the relationship between globalisation and transport costs. Maybe a question for Frank. Because if one looks at what's happened to container freight rates, I mean gone up eight to ten times in the past year or so, in the past we would have thought that would have been the effect of dampening international trade. That just hasn't happened. So have we been exaggerating the sensitivity of globalisation to transport costs? First of all, usually the cost of transportation as part of the end product is typically overestimated for many products relative to small. It's distorted nevertheless at the moment and they will not stay forever on that level. They will come down again. Again, I said that in other meetings already that is the opportunity to make supply chains more green. We came from this level. We are now here and we will go to that level. So don't waste that chance that we keep the prices here and put a price for sustainable aviation fuel or sustainable maritime fuel in the pricing. Customers got used to this level. They will be happy with that level. They don't need this level. They should pay for sustainable aviation fuel as we pay and then we will see a very rapid conversion. So that high rate might be a big chance for the whole economy if we make it right to convert from fossil fuel to renewables because we need more. The price is higher. We can go to power to liquid midterm. We can go to a Hefaw and all this kind of stuff. That's an opportunity. We should not miss that opportunity. If we think and customers think we can go to the same level, we will miss a boat. Then we are stuck again on two low rates which are not profitable for many carriers actually. Just add a bit to that whilst others are putting in their questions. The price of distribution has doubled as some of the data suggests. Do you see that coming down? It will come down next year but this year it will stay. If China is unlocking then we will see a rush in the second half and therefore constraints will remain the same. If trade is normalising then this is a money. The second problem is we have still not recovered fully on intercontinental travel. That is a limiting factor for capacity on air freight. That will last probably longer than this year. Lead times also doubling. I'm hearing six weeks now, 12 weeks perhaps for long container shipments. Do you see that settling back to previous norms? The reason why we had queues in harbors where one is that the American infrastructure is not up to the search of volumes last year, particularly the ports in the west of America. Now we have queues in China with a different reason. If China unlocks again we will see a massive recovery of that because China will know how to recover from the queues. They will do 24-7 which we didn't get until Biden mandated it in the US. We had not 24-7 despite that we are 50 or 100 vessel standing in front of harbors. The president said we have to work 24-7. China will do that instantly in double the capacity problem because they say we have to get recovery for the economy somehow. That will happen if they really get out of a lockdown situation. If they don't then we have a bigger problem. Not from the logistics much more for their missing parts all over the world. We have enough stock still but if that runs out then we really have a fundamental problem all over the world. Hopefully that doesn't happen. I want to make another point on this whole issue of on-shoring and off-shoring. For example we are the largest manufacturers in the world of aluminium roll sheets and one of the big applications for those is auto. If I have an auto major as a client who uses our aluminium roll sheet let's say in the door and that's mandated by regulation because of light weighting requirements. Again going back to climate and carbon emissions. There's a lot of work that's happened between us. There's a lot of R&D. There's many years of working together as a supplier and a customer. You have approval cycles that extend over months and sometimes over years. You're selling to an automaker he can't afford for the car to break down. He can't afford for him not to meet emission norms. So there's a lot of collaborative work that happens between let's say us as an aluminium sheet provider and the auto major. You can't just change that overnight and say that okay I'll move to another provider, another supplier because we're both locked in with each other. So it actually depends on which industry we're talking about. Whilst it's very easy to say that you need to onshore, I think it depends on whether you can actually onshore. And if not how do you work around that? How do you create smart globalization? Where maybe you have for example flexible manufacturing where my client can come to me and ask for more or less quantities without having to renegotiate at that point in time. So you create flexibility but that doesn't always mean that you can onshore and offshore as you want to. That doesn't happen in the real world. Thank you very much. Question here. Thank you. Hans-Peter Lankers with the London School of Economics. You touched a few times on the climate agenda and it's clear that there are some of the shocks that we've seen are going to help promote the climate agenda, renewables etc. But there's also a need for global collaboration on the climate. There's a need for collaboration around technology, there's a need for collaboration around finance. There's a need for ambition which requires political commitment and political commitment is being drained if you have too many other issues on the agenda. Where do you see the balance and perhaps the minister could comment on that because of the COP 27 preparations? Well, the way the COPs are always designed is that there's a negotiation track so the negotiators sit down and that's where the political resolutions take place and then there's everyone else. Everyone else is really this mode of globalization. That's where CEOs come together, governments, ministries of finance, economic development, civil society people to try and see how we can push the urgent agendas that are affecting all of us. It's affecting supply chains, consumers, etc. If I take one, one very important item that we start with which is food security, adaptation and resilience become even more pronounced in this COP. They were discussed in Glasgow but now in Charmicheach in Egypt for COP 27 they're going to be top on the agenda. They require the pledges that happened in Glasgow to be implemented adaptation. We had lots of discussions here the past two days. The business case for these projects need to be made and that's where measurement comes in because on mitigation there's the KPIs and the measurement is there but food security, water projects, we need to move more into creating the business case. But I think the silver lining from this crisis is that it pushed it. It's no longer a country specific challenge. It's a global ask or a global goal. From commitments to implementation is something else extremely important. Glasgow had so many commitments from the private sector explicitly. In the previous COPs we were like the hundred billion that were committed. How much was dispersed from Glasgow? It was from billions to trillions. So now how can we actually bring these trillions to the countries that need them? These countries are rated B and below. So that requires again coordinated effort. Governments need to do something. MDBs need to do more on their ODA financing. The philanthropies coming in very effectively on the climate agenda today. How can they be mobilized to push more on that? Everybody is invited to Sharma Sheikh. So we look forward to a very fruitful and engaging discussion then and to the build up to then. But I think that food security and what's happening globally today is going to be pushing that agenda faster than maybe what was expected. In the Indian example it's interesting. There are two constituencies who are working with us or pushing us. Let's say on the sustainability front, on the front of ESG carbon emissions. So you have the government who have norms. And I think that any cooperation with progressive leadership in India would be very aware of sustainability requirements, sustainability coalition that are forming across the world. The other very big and important constituent that is asking of us what we are doing in terms of giving back to the environment is our investors. So we have large global investors, sovereigns, investors who invest across the world in companies across industries. They are asking of us what we are doing. They want to see our sustainability report. Do we have specific action that we have planned? Do we have landmarks that we want to achieve, that we aim to achieve in 2030, 40, 50? So we have very specific sustainability reports that each of our businesses have put out and investors track those very carefully. So I think the point I want to make that the investor community has become a great champion for the environment and they will push you in a nice way to do the things that you ought to be doing in any case. We've got a minute left. I'm going to give you an opportunity, Eric. I'm going to give you each of the panellists. What's the one measure, something measurable that would tell us that we're getting to a better globalisation, a more resilient, more equitable globalisation? And maybe you could weave your response into that. I will do. And one fact from Davos, which I think is significant. The one senior Chinese government official who's here is Xie Zhenhua, who is the lead climate negotiator. That didn't happen by accident. It's a strong signal and I think it's important. So the one thing I would say, I'm going to tie it back to supply chains and your question. Large corporates, their biggest challenge on meeting net zero and other goals is scope three emissions. So supply chains need to find a way to be more climate prepared and that is a truly global effort. It means generating more renewable energy in more places. It means collaboration. It means investment from development banks, et cetera. That would make a massive difference in the world. Well, I think you hit it on the head, Aaron. I think the one area that the West can work with China on is around climate and that is something that's been pretty much out there. I was at COP26. This is something that I think China is serious about and it's something that I think we can work together. I think globalisation, you're going to see things like vaccines being developed globally. You're going to see things in terms of people working together on solving the climate issue, new technologies. I think you're going to see a rebound of nuclear because we talk about alternatives. Solar and wind is not going to get us there, period. It's just not enough energy. So we need new sources of energy, hydrogen, nuclear and so forth. Why don't you get Aaron and come in to come to the same space over the course of the hour? Any one takeaway for what would be a good measure that we're getting a better globalisation? I mean, that's a tough one to come up with, you know, off the top of the head. But I would think that the share of global trade across developed and emerging economies could be one share of global GDP could be another between emerging economies and advanced ones. A generation of new employment could be another. The gap between global trade between emerging and developed and developing economies. I think we all know the SDG goals, but there's one more important than all the others if this is we have to get more people out of poverty. And that's an altered measure for better globalisation. It's a tough question, but I tend to agree with all my panellists and I think one measure will be here in January in bigger numbers and with more implementation after COP 27 or towards COP 27. Fabulous. One of the fabulous people's centric set of measures. Thank you very much.