 Good morning everybody and really pleased to be hosting this special workshop. I'm Paul Beckley. I work for the University of Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership. We are really pleased to be part of the Net Zero Festival and this is an interesting session to kick us off. So it's a sunny morning here in Cambridge and we're excited to be speaking with you today. And the purpose of this is to explore effective boards in a carbon constrained world. And with me we have three speakers who will share their experience. We're going to be talking about the capabilities and capacities of boards to lead organizations in a carbon constrained world. We're going to be looking at what will be required for businesses to grow and succeed whilst delivering net zeros. Is that actually possible? And we'll be looking at some of those tricky issues that often we are aware exist within large organizations but actually are sometimes just overlooked. And so this should be a challenging and engaging hour. We're hopeful that the IT will be smooth and things will run really incredibly well. But I know that we're all 20 months or so into a COVID pandemic and actually we're experienced in terms of Zoom. And we've all had that terrible situation whereby things have not gone quite well. But today let's cross our fingers and embark on our journey together. We are going to just share some slides and we are just hopeful that this all runs really smoothly. So I have been working with the University of Cambridge Institute for Sustainability for a decade. And in that time I've worked with a whole host of boards representing different sorts of organizations, whether that's NGOs or whether that's development banks, whether that's the military, whether that's large corporates. And everyone has very similar but quite different issues. And it's a real privilege to engage with boards. And so we're trying to share with you some of those insights today. With the hope that we can come up with an understanding about what we need to have for effective boards in carbon constrained work. I work for a department at the University of Cambridge. Sadly this is not our office on the screen, but actually this is King's College. And for 800 years the university has been at the frontier of trying to drive change. The biggest change that we collectively have is the transition to net zero. What we're hoping is that we could just take a moment just to invite you to share some initial reflections with us by logging into menti.com and using this code which is on screen. And what we'll see is we'll see your views about to what extent boards are equipped to lead their organization in a carbon constrained world. So if you grab a phone and I'm sure most of you have a device or some sorts just to hand just log into menti. And you'll be invited just to complete two questions. And it should come up smoothly. And I'm really hopeful this is going to work perfectly. And our tests this morning have given us a nice scoring system. So hopefully that'll go quite well. And generally what we find when we talk to people is that they think that they as a board are able to lead the organization into a carbon constrained world, but they don't hold a lot of faith that other boards will be able to lead. And so it'll be interesting to see how this question answers and we'll just keep this open for a while. So the code is at the top the websites at the top I'm hopeful that that will run smoothly. But just to take a step back and just to remind ourselves about how organizations change. This is really important because actually the nature of the organization is often perceived to be quite hierarchical quite clear. The people at the top of the board have control. When we go to business schools, we're told that this is what leadership looks like. This is a slide that I took from a chief executive friend of mine, Darith Llewellyn. And actually, the reality is that this is not true. This is just not true, especially in a COVID world whereby we're all reflected on zoom with the same size box. And we can have informal conversations and actually we're living in networked organizations. A few years ago, IBM spoke about the globally integrated single person enterprise. And this is a conversation killer, but actually it's really important. Anyone on this call is a globally integrated single person enterprise. And that's quite interesting because it has a profound implication on leadership, but also on the nature of the board. The power dynamics of a globally integrated world mean that leadership doesn't look like what we have on the slide, but it looks a lot more like this. This is how it feels. This is chaotic. There is no one who has carefully worked out how to prepare for a pandemic. What would happen if suddenly people come into the office? Leadership feels like this. And that's really important because actually organizations operate like this and the transition to net zero will require coherence. It will require strategic thinking will require long termism. But at the same time, we have this leadership dilemma. So this is the nature of our conversation today. And actually in that conversation we have Carol who is delightful and we have been lucky enough to work with Carol for a long time. We will come and invite Carol just to introduce herself in a moment or two. We have Antoine and Antoine has been with us for a long time. He's worked with Earth on board. And before we come to Antoine, let us just go to Philippe. So Philippe corrected me recently when I said, gosh, Philippe, you are president of Alstom Power. And he said, no, I was president and CEO. And this is important. And what's really important is that we're honest with one another and that we're engaging with one another. And actually he held me to account and indeed he has been an expert in thinking about board dynamics, thinking about the transition to net zero. But also how we can create Earth competent boards. So let me just pause with my screen sharing and come to Philippe. Good morning, Philippe. It's super that you can join us from Paris. And I would just like to invite you just to say a little bit about what you think net zero means for a company. Okay. Thank you, Paul. Thank you. Perhaps before I jump into your question, I will spend a few minutes to to to give the same scene and to bring a little older in the chaos that you have very brightly described as usual. Why are we talking about that? Why are we together? First, because we are very pleased to have been invited for this kind of on table and discussion. But secondly, I think because suddenly we are becoming conscious of a few things. When you look at business, as long as far as I look in the past, we have always been doing business taking nature for granted and unlimited. This is how I have been doing business and most of the people have been doing business. And what is interesting is that science has already reached a conclusion that we are reaching the boundaries. But nature is sending signal very clear. And this summer, we have had all across the world and particularly in Europe, which was not that often received this kind of signals. When you look back in 2015, I think that Paris Agreement, I am not talking about that because I am in Paris today, but Paris was really a landmark in this in this new world. Paris Agreement normally is seen as a temperature agreement, talking about 1.5 to the degree etc. But if you really look at the agreement, for me at least, the important sentence is you have to reach a net zero world as soon as you can around 50s. After this, we had a flurry of government and country declaration. I think that today, more or less two thirds of the world GDP has declared at the country level, an initiative around net zero. So in 2015, the scene is this one. First, this is a fact. We have reached the planet boundaries where we are reaching. Paris Agreement said you have to go to net zero. And countries are going. And the best proof of this is that the next COP in Glasgow is all around net zero. And why is it meaningful for business? You could say countries are saying this, fine, let them go and continue to live the way we have been doing business. What is meaningful for business is because in Paris for the first time, business was seen as a solution. You can sometimes say business was not at the table in Paris but was under the tent. Nothing which is in the agreement has been done without business agreement or even business involvement. If you look at the definition of net zero, which is defined at the country level or territory level, you look at the definition and it means that you cannot emit more CO2 from your activity that nature is able to absorb. This simple sentence have put enormous pressure on the systems. And if you look at what the systems now is saying or is the way it's behaving, you have the pressure from science, you have seen the last report on 1.5 which is absolutely overwhelming by the consequence of this. The political statement, as I said before, is all over the world now and even taking some commitments. And after the commitment at the political level, you have the legal commitment also coming and this is changing the legal system and this is probably where the world is changing for business. Business has not yet taken that very clearly into consideration but law is helping now business to understand their responsibility and there are plenty of cases where business are responsible either because they have contributed to this inflow of CO2 but also make other surface consequences and they are being attacked legally. The financial market is coming now not because they are realistic but because they understood that as they are systemic, the system is in danger and their profit and their risk is too high. And the money is moving. So when the money is moving, obviously business sees that their funds, the way they are financing their operation is different and they are receiving the pressure from the investors. Frontrunners are putting pressure on their own supply chain and their own value chain because they are all understood that this is not a question only for the between the walls of a business. And more importantly, as you're going to see later with Antoine, a new generation of consumers of employees are behaving differently and so the resources also of the company are under pressure because the young talent doesn't want to behave the same way. So when you have a change in risk, a change in opportunity because this is opening a whole new flow of opportunity for business and changing the behavior of the resources, you are pretty sure that you are in front of what we call a constellation of disruption which is close to this chaos that you have designed where a lot of pressure are coming and nourishing each other. To create a perfect storm. So what the business is doing in this case, reaching the point of your question, very simply, we are making declaration and fabulous declaration, we are all net zero. And then this is what I will, I will now go into a small detail, some more details. I don't have the right number because this is increasing every day. So at the moment that we are saying between 15% or 20% of the GDP business representing 20% of the GDP have declared a kind of net zero, net zero commitment. But, and then I'm sure we'll come back during the conversation. They are with different time horizon. Some are 2050, some are saying, hey, leave me alone till 2049 come back and you will see I will be net zero in 2050. Some of them are a little more reasonable and giving you a pathway, but not all different scope, scope one, which is the mission scope to mission important for energy and scope three, or part of scope three, always with intensity, all the scopes are also very different. They are very different transformation pathway, inclusive, explosive, competitive, et cetera. And more importantly, as you obviously know, declaration is not action. So this is more or less where we are at the moment for business. And then you want to make the survey now, we want me to answer the second question also where you want. Let us just unpack a little bit of what you just said. So capital is on the move. This is a very dynamic space. I think this moving target of how many organizations have committed to net zero is really important. And it is changing almost on a daily basis as we run up to the convention of the parties in Glasgow. But I wondered if you could just say a little bit more explicitly about what net zero would mean for a company, does it? But the main question I think before we do that, because I think Carol and Antoine will have also an interesting point of view on this, but before we do that, we defend the idea that it could be difficult to use net zero at the level of the company. Because net zero was defined at the level of a country or territory, but can we really use net zero at the level of the company? We reached the conclusion after having studied all what the difficulty and also the declaration that we are seeing all around the world now, we reached a conclusion that net zero is at least minimum questionable and probably improper to be used at the business level. As I will explain, we can certainly continue to use net zero as a company contributing to a net zero world, but the company has a lot of difficulty to be net zero. And if you take only four points of question and doubts, first, because of the lack of clarity, as I have said, when you look at all declarations that have been done on net zero, they are always different scope. They don't allow to compare a company between themselves. Take the olengas, for example, most of them are net zero at the moment. Recently you are shell, total, and BP just to take the three Europeans that have declared net zero. They are all different scope. They are all partial scope. And none of them will really be net zero across their value chain. So they are all different and it's a really lack of clarity. The timing is not the same. The measurement is not there. And the pathway is not clear. So you see that this element of comparison is not there. It's misleading. Why do we say it's misleading? First, because most of them are including compensation or offset. And we all know that it's difficult, it's nearly impossible to compensate a mission certain today with an offset which is uncertain in a different time horizon. And it can give a false sense of achievement to the rest of the community, saying, okay, this company is net zero, we can sleep quietly, nothing will happen to us, the company are taking care of future. We know which is also totally insufficient because we know that a company anyway cannot be net zero and an offset is not a good answer for the diminution that is absolutely necessary, a decrease absolutely necessary in the emission. And it's not maximizing action, finally. First, because it's a very good tool for procrastination, saying, okay, let's continue to sleep well and we will do something tomorrow. And it's giving an unfair economic advantage to the economic power of certain sector. And it's probably too easy and too cheap to compensate a mission with offset that are widely available. So that's why we say that company cannot be net zero, but must contribute to a net zero world. This is provocative, very short. Yeah, you wanted to talk here. I think there are functionalities for the participants to begin to ask questions, and I think this is a really interesting statement and set of thoughts that we've heard from Philippe. And this builds on a whole host of expertise that you have had both working with Cambridge and also in your role at earth on board, as well as your previous experience of being a business leader. And this is incredibly important. And earlier we polled people in terms of how effective and how capable they thought that boards currently are at moving towards net zero. I understand that we've had a small technical challenge with some of the polling data, but most people have come back or the respondents all cluster around the issue of not really have indicating that boards are not very well equipped to lead their organizations in the carbon constrained world. And in many ways I'm not surprised at all. And partly that might be as Philippe says the issue of net zero is very hard at the board level, but also that perhaps this is a new way of thinking that we need within the board. And I wondered, as we move forward. Maybe we can just invite Carol to come and say some thoughts about the work that she was doing and the work that she is doing as a non executive director but also formally in her role that he throw. And we were lucky enough to engage with some of your team for a long time Carol, and I wondered if you could just share some reflections on how net zero played out in the boards that you're working with, and Good morning, everyone. Thank you, Paul. I'm really delighted to be here with you all. Before I talk about net zero just reflect on what Paul said earlier about leadership and how in a sort of chaotic diagram it showed that leadership doesn't actually just rest with the board as such but with everyone. I think at Heathrow we recognize that and we invested several years actually into a program called sustainability leadership, so that we try to get everyone to see that each individual is a sustainability leader, and to not just concentrate on the short but to have a long term outlook on things, and not only to focus on financial gains for the shareholders, because for years we were doing that, but actually to look at the wider aspect of the ESG goals, the environment, the social aspects. And it's good that the companies act in the UK have gone along with this so that obligations on boards and companies is much wider than purely financial, and you would all probably very familiar with section 172 of the companies act which actually requires people to take that wider view. So at Heathrow we were working on this and we actually also worked with or actually took lessons more likely from CISL to learn from other organizations as to how they do things well and so that we could copy them with some humility I guess. So at Heathrow, when Philippe was talking about can an organization actually be net zero, we ourselves have set around the task of trying to be carbon free or carbon neutral and net zero whatever the term is, as far as our own infrastructure is concerned we've been on that journey for decades actually, and we were able to do that even before COVID struck, but that is meaningless because as Philippe was saying, this is a much wider issue for an airport being net zero only means 5% really because all the emissions are really in the air, it's with the airline so that's 90 a cancel 95% of carbon emissions. So what is the role for Heathrow airport then, and we recognize that climate change is and carbon emissions are basically an existential issue for aviation. And so we try to occupy the role of at least a convening power to start off with, and, and nowadays airlines are very much at the forefront as well so we work with them to try and see if we could find solutions to this, either in the area of cleaner engines, or alternatives to fossil fuels. So for example, really looking into sustainable aviation fuels to try to advocate the government to create a mandate for the use of sustainable aviation fuels to a large extent by 2030 and beyond. Because actually the infrastructure is already there, you don't need to build new things as such you could put in the same tank biofuse in fossil fuel tanks so that's actually very convenient. So those are some of the things that we have been working on. And on the public policy side, we have been engaging with government, and it's really important to have that voice, and our CEO, john home and K has been a particularly strong advocate. He personally is very passionate about climate change so we're very lucky to have him as our spokesman. So that's actually just a thumbnail sketch of what we've been doing at Heathrow. That's really super. Thank you Carol. And I think that's really interesting in terms of calibrating our thinking to where we can really have a significant impact on the transition to a net zero future, because actually, often organizations are part of a value chain whereby carbon might be outside of their direct influence but actually, maybe you could just say a little bit Carol about how you're engaging with some of the industry associations and some of the other organizations in order to tackle the aviation challenge. I think, as I mentioned, sort of being a convening power is quite an important thing so it's working with the airline industry with other airports, also working with the public policymakers which are really important and influences, because I think all of this it's in everyone's interest to try and reduce carbon emissions from flying, because flying itself actually isn't an evil thing. I think aviation, just per se, has got a lot of benefits. It brings cultures together. It actually expands our knowledge. It gets aid to where overseas countries that there needs to be aid. For example, it actually increases trade and makes the world a smaller place. So flying actually isn't necessarily the evil as such. It's carbon that is the issue. And what we're trying to do is, or at Heathrow have been doing is to try and gather lots of agencies together. And I think the will is definitely there. It's about getting a few voices within government who could start sort of making those policy changes. I think the government currently recognizes that and have put together Jet Zero Council. And I think there is an aviation sector which we have a representative at Heathrow who sits as a leader on that council as well. So there are lots of different bodies, you know, very willing to participate. I think sometimes we just want to see more pace because everyone is talking about it. We just want to see action now more than anything. So hopefully that helps fall. Thank you Carol. I think it's really important because I think a lot of the boards that we work with are realizing that they're having to form those different types of collaboration and that they're needing to find peers and individuals who can work differently and change across the ecosystem. And this leads us to the second installment of our session this morning, which is looking at some of those characteristics that we think will be more and more popular within boards. And I understand that some people joining on certain devices may have seen this question already in our mentee, but what we're going to do is we're going to go back into the screen share. And hopefully we're going to see something which is new. But in a moment I'll just put my slide up. And here it is. And we're going to go and we're going to ask the question. What characteristics will be needed for a board to be successful? And we've just indicated from our first poll that most people think that boards are not equipped to lead to a carbon constrained future. So I just invite you to go to mentee.com and I hope you can see that clearly. mentee.com and use the code which is on the screen in order to share with us some of your views about the characteristics and the traits and the attributes that will be needed for a board to be successful. And then we'll come just to have a look at the word cloud of that in a moment or two. Whilst you're doing that and I would encourage you just to take a moment just to reflect on that. That is here from Antoine and Antoine. You're offering a different perspective. I just wondered, since you've been working with Philippe in particular since the Paris arrangement, you've been quite active as a young climate activist and you're working with a lot of networks in and around that space. And one of the issues that we see quite a lot with the work that we do with boards is people trying to work out the needs and expectations of a younger generation. What is the value of this and how do you see that issue of intergenerational responsibility playing out in the work that you're doing? Yeah, thanks Paul. I'm delighted to participate in this discussion. Maybe a thing to mention is that I'm involved in what we could call climate activist organizations, but I'm also working a lot and discussing a lot with the networks of alumni of various engineering and business school. And you see that the issue of climate environment is really mainstream within those networks. And so it's not only in the climate actually space that I speak a lot about how the younger generation engage within their companies and how they try to participate to exchange, but it's really within all the network of alumni of engineering, law and business schools that have contacts with in France. And I think you would find the same in UK or other countries from Europe that participants are from. To answer your question, I think there is a lot of value for boards today to engage with the younger generation, and I will focus more on how they can engage with the young professionals within the firm. The first value I think is really about on a strategic level understanding the context, what is changing and you showed that picture of the chaos of what we are facing today. I think the younger generation they just bring another view of that context and they can also have, I think when you start to engage with them and discuss with them, they really want to have the big picture. It's not only like defending decos of we are the young generation and as young people here are our desires and what we think and that's the true thing. They really are, as I've used them in a position of saying, we want to understand what the big context is to understand what are the expectations of the groups within society and not only like representing the young, the young generation but seeing what's the dynamic currently and how we view how the environmental and social issues we evolve what are the main trends. Once we compute in not only our view of the younger generation but all the view of stakeholders I think they're really in that aspect of society is complex there are a lot of interest and as young people we want things to change. So we need to understand what is the global context and I think they can bring that to the board as young people today. The second thing is when you engage with people within the firm young professional. Usually they have more, they're more used to collecting intelligence, I think processes, and they also are less maybe censored by the function they are from and and the specific work within the firm I think what I what I have seen with the various professional professional networks of young people I worked with is that they can really better overcome the internal values between the various function of the firm that they're older colleagues because there are maybe less attached to the current function they have and they're less entrenched in their career in one specific position and what will be the step afterwards. So they're yeah I think it's easier for them to bring a collective vision and a longer term vision of the company that reflecting on what would be the consequences in the following years for my function for my role. And the third obvious thing is that really engaging for both with younger professional today. It is really an extra motivation for the young people and there are a lot of, I was talking about networks of alumni and not really climate activists, the climate activists and with usually they're not within firms, the alumni they are working with big firms and a huge share of them are currently asking themselves whether they want to continue within that firm, whether it makes sense to work for such a firm when they see the issues, the environmental and social issues they are concerned with and offering them a way to engage with the board to engage with the higher executives and to show that their concerns environmental issues are accepted within the firm and that the higher executives are willing to reflect with them and to hear their voice. It's really a great motivation factor and a great way to attract talents. And in France, I have really seen that working with sometimes with younger graduates and they asked the just older counterparts of like five, six years older, is the company open to that kind of question. If I join such consulting firm or such such industrial company will I be able to raise my concern and to ask questions and to really have a commission it's really important for them to want to join a company. So I think those are at least three main values I see. And as for the the way to organize this I think there are lots of different perspective it's really a new thing so it's kind of iterative but just to give a few ideas. A few ideas. I think there is both the bottom of approach. The one I am grounded in is that really young professional within the firm that are concerned that want to start the conversation and that's organizing among themselves to conduct a reflection and to try to bring it to the higher executives and to the board. So the first way will be only to, as a board, ask, try to listen to who are already the young professional that are reflecting on those issues and that can bring me a vision and help them and show them like the respect and the consideration for what they're doing. And there might be also other ways to organize it in a more top down approach by organizing like how can I meet some people within my firm during my board meetings or how I can structure something like a youth board or as a formal structure when I give paid time to some young professionals to really reflect on the issues, spend time to organize among themselves. How can I give them a budget to have time to ask experts outside of the firm to spend time with also management and executives of the various functions of the firm to really understand why the issues. So I think it's quite an iterative process so far and there's not many experiences, but you really have those two bottom up approach and top down because there is already an extraordinary strength of young people within the firm that want to engage with boards and executives to really understand what the issues are and that all matters and climate changes always are most the first issue they want to address. Great. Thank you, Antoine. And I think going back to our earlier schematic, this flatter organization poses a whole host of opportunities for people to engage and to exchange, but actually it means that we need greater opportunities to listen, adapt and respond. And I think this is kind of an interesting piece in terms of how the boards will need to operate in the future. We have, it might be slightly tricky to share and I understand that we're having a couple of technical issues, so apologies, but in response to our poll at the moment we have a number of comments which are that boards will need to be much more inclusive, more resilient, much more open. There's a number of people that have suggested the word diversity and I think what we're hearing here is that that's just diversity in terms of gender and ethnicity, but also intergenerational. And I think this is really important and I know that earlier on, we were talking about this being a very global agenda. This morning I was chit chatting with some colleagues in Singapore and actually a lot of the themes that you're talking about in terms of changing the younger people Antoine are playing out in Singapore too and I think we see very similar approaches to these governance issues as we look around the world. The idea of being science based and much more aligned to rapid turnover is one that comes up quite a lot. And I have found my way into the chat function so now I can also see that there's a lively conversation emerging there so thank you for your questions. I do continue to share those pieces of information, but just before we come to turn to your questions. Carol, perhaps I can come back to you and then to Philippe and then back to Antoine, just to touch on some of the key reflections you have about the competencies and the capabilities and characteristics that will be needed at the board for them to be successful on this agenda. So Carol, can I invite you just to offer some reflections? Yeah, okay. Thank you Paul. I think just carrying on the theme of diversity and reflecting on some of the comments and feedback from the audience around the table on this. I think it's important to have diverse thinking in particular. Clearly, people from diverse traditional backgrounds, whether it's gender or ethnicity bring something to the table because of their different experiences and life experiences. But I think it's actually about the diversity of thinking which is important because that would help increase the quality of the debate. And to include different, you know, thinking from different generations is even better. So an example is that I sit on the board of Breeden Group PLC is the largest construction materials group in the UK. The construction is one of the hardest to abate sectors. And what the board did last week, for example, it's one of the most diverse boards I've sat on. But it's open to ideas from younger generations. So last week we went to Derbyshire to visit a quarry, a cement quarry. And it would be very traditional. We'll simply be looking at operators who would be with their diggers, etc. I was quite bold over when we went into a state of the art sort of laboratory, where there were lots of young postdoctorate chemical engineers and process engineers. And they were very fine. Why do you want to work for a company, which basically dealing with quarries and cement. And they said that they saw this as an opportunity to make change. And they were really involved in finding solutions to alternative construction materials, recycled concrete, and working with other organizations to try and help make the change. So they were the change agent within a sector that you would think, my goodness, you know, we might as well just forget about construction, but that's not really feasible. So they're trying to be practical and work with the grain rather than against it. And that's actually extraordinarily encouraging. And the good thing about the board was that we don't have the very young on the board itself, but we were very open to the ideas and actually had them round the board table to talk to us, etc. So that I think is one characteristic which is really important for boards to be open to different viewpoints. So I think that things would be sort of systemic thinking, having the, you know, looking at things in a holistic way, what I touched on earlier looking at the long term, not just the short term, and thinking around the stakeholder or the wheel to see who are the people that you impact most not purely the shareholders but the environment and so forth. And think about how honored we are to sit at a board to have that position is not, we shouldn't say at the apex of the organization and it is an organ within the company that can actually set a strategic direction for the organization. So it is a responsibility as well as a privilege for to be on the board. And I think it means that we each have to take that responsibility quite seriously to try and be the change and to make a difference, not just for the company and its place in the world, but to make a difference to the lives of other people as well and climate change is a really critical issue facing all of us at the moment. We have a question from the floor which have builds neatly into this approach. What will it take for boards to act with urgency on this agenda. We'll take both to sorry. Act with urgency. How can we accelerate. I think there is a first, first point that we have not touched yet in the conversation. It's very simply. As Carol said, we need an organization, we need awareness, et cetera, in the board to take that into consideration, can come back to this in more detail after. But the first thing that the board should understand that there are no choice because very simply when you look at the responsibility or we call that the duty of the board all across the world, you have always the same three main duties, which is loyalty to the company, which means you have to act in the interest of the company. Not in the interest of one stakeholder like shareholders or shareholder primacy, which was the previous century behavior. Now we have to act in the interest of the company. And then there is nothing more important than to take into consideration the deterioration of natural capital and, for example, climate change for a company. So if a board doesn't look at this is negligent is not doing his job. Sometimes I say you can be president of the United States and be climate or skeptical, because at a certain point in time you stand up. You said, hey, I don't believe in climate change. This is a Chinese hoax, but vote for me. And they voted for it and then it was elected. But for a board you have to take care of your company. And if you don't take this consideration, this fact into consideration, you put your company in very dangerous water because you take bad decision. You don't look at the risk. You don't look at the cost of what this will put into your balance sheet and you don't look at all the opportunities that you are wasting. So for me, the duty of the board anyway start there after that you have other duties like care and diligence. And you cannot say you don't know, which is very obvious now. The science is clear. The society is clear about that. So both cannot be in denial anymore. So and more importantly, perhaps we'll come back to that later. You are responsible of what the company is saying outside the world of the company as a board. You cannot be misleading and coming back to the center of conversation this morning. If your company say I am at zero and anybody comes even me and say this is not true because of this, this and this. All is responsible for this. Why I'm saying this because as we have said before, the financial market is starting to take this and consideration to orient the flow of finance. So if you are misleading on the declaration like this and attracting funds and wrongly attracting funds and investors, you are exposing yourself to a lot of consequence because sooner or later, somebody will challenge what you have said and board is personally responsible of this kind of communication. So if you look around the duties of the board, you find plenty of reason that the board has to take this issue into its own responsibility and make sure it's positively tackled. Thank you. Philippe, one of the questions that we have from the floor and maybe you are and one might respond is to what extent a kind of performance on net zero playing out in remuneration of people being paid for good performance on net zero. So is it playing out in the finance system earlier we spoke of capital being on the move and actually our people being incentivized to pay packets to actually try to support this transition. Maybe we'll invite you Philippe and then invite Antoine after. Oh, it's a trend, obviously, but behind this, first, it's not wide enough, but behind this question of remuneration, you have also the question of evaluation of real performance. Sometimes I say that we are publishing wrong numbers of results or profits on which we are basing the remuneration of the dividends are not true, because you don't take into consideration the cost of using nature for free. For example, and you are not using you are not in reality, delivering really a result. So yes, we need to put for individual performance criteria like respecting nature or going to net zero for part of your business or having climate targets in remuneration. But for me, the most important thing for all is to start to check if the result that we are publishing is a real result. And before we start to pay dividends, there is a conversation today in France, you know that we will be electing or president in a few months. And there was a consideration about companies that have received funds from the government to go through the COVID issue. And that are now, and they are now paying huge dividend to shareholders. So some parties, some candidates are asking questions about this. How come they can pay dividends? Is this a real result? And the result has been affected by fund that the government have been giving to them. So this question about remuneration, dividends, bonus, etc. is a very tricky one and a very holistic one. It's super important. And I know that to lots of the work that we're doing for the present and around the space of cap, what do we actually value as a society? I think there's a stark contrast to the mobilization funds in the post COVID recovery versus the climate action. I think this is a really interesting sort of conversation. And I think it's a big trade-off. And on this journey to net zero, we will encounter lots of debates and a lot of trade-offs. And Antoine, I just would like to come back to you if I may, just to hear some final reflections as we begin to come into our landing. Yeah, Antoine, landing is a risk. Oh, that's right. It's true. There's always a lot of aviation themes there. Yeah, maybe to make the link between my remarks on the generational aspects and those last questions around the relationship with the financial markets and whether they value or not an environmental transformation today. I think if we look at the net zero, what's interesting is that as I do it, the net zero aspect is currently being integrated by financial actors. But the way they value it is maybe the wrong way. They ask whether there is a commitment, maybe is a look at the time horizons, and they will give some good points to companies that have made a commitment to net zero and whether they are reporting about a partial or a large part of the scope or not. But they don't really look at whether the company is currently doing a thought to adapt itself to what's leading tomorrow into net zero society. So I think the way the financial market value today, companies contribution to net zero is not a good proxy for what companies are actively transforming pensems and will be adapted to tomorrow's world. So that's answering to your last question of if the board really wants to help this company to transform and to answer to the real world issues, it doesn't only have to see whether it's well rated or not by the financial ESG indices. And so it has to ask other people whether it's well contributing to the issues or not, and then see what are the investors that will value that and how if it's doing the right thing, it will be able to find the capital. But if it only looks at why financial markets are currently asking the environmental aspect, I think it will miss what's the right thing to do. And on that aspect, I think the younger generation that can really, really help because if you select when you are looking at your diversity, not only young people, but young people like willing to speak out and to look at the real issues, they can show you what are the current issue with the offsets, what are the current issue of changing activities that might be labeled as greenwashing and at missing what is the right thing to do. So if you build that relationship of openness and frankness in the exchange, I think those younger generation, they can help you to see the gap between what's best ESG investors are currently asking and what's for the real issues and the need for real change. Super. Thank you, Antoine. I think that's a really powerful message. And I think there is a contradiction in some organizations between the financial markets which are beginning to wake up and beginning to mobilize capital and the incumbents who might have a much longer time horizon. This is something which is very interesting about the time horizons and the ability of the finance system to move quickly. And I think boards are having to work differently with different traits and characteristics drawing on diversity, building stronger relationships with broader stakeholder groups in order to anticipate and adapt to this changing context. We're just on time. So thank you, everyone. This has been really good. I'm sorry that we've had a couple of technical problems, but I'd just like to thank Philippe and Antoine for sharing their excellent insights with us and for Carol to join and help us think not just about aviation, but also about some of those other industries, they're hard to abate because we collectively need to move forward. If we're to achieve our net zero goals, then actually we all need to be moving forward. So thank you very much. I hope this has been an enjoyable hour. And I hope you enjoy the rest of the festival. So thank you.