 Welcome. I'm Anthony Hobbly, the Executive Director of the Mission Possible platform. Thank you for joining this SDI-20 session on Decarbonizing Heavy Industries. This session supports the ongoing work of the World Economic Forum and Energy Transition Commission's Mission Possible platform. Before we start, some housekeeping remarks. Please make sure you keep your microphones muted. The Firestarter panel will be live-streamed on the website. However, the breakout groups will be held under Chatham House Rules. The opening panel will not, so please feel free to share on whatever media, social media platforms you would like, use the hashtags SDI-20 and Mission Possible and feel free to tag at WEF Climate. 2020 is a critical year for climate change action. The COVID pandemic has brought a new context and it's created a new reality presenting us with both opportunities and let's face it risks. The opportunity for a great reset to rebuild more resilient and climate-smart societies. However, the risks of a great locking of climate tipping points are equally as likely. So as we enter this divisive decade in which emissions must be cut by half to hold one and a half degrees within reach, we need a paradigm shift in the way we think and act on climate. Climate action under the Paris Agreement is tackled primarily by nationally determined contributions, the so-called NDCs, whose scope and influence you might be forgiven for thinking stop at national borders. However, business does not stop at borders and neither do their emissions. China, India, the EU and the United States may operate as individual actors in global climate negotiations, but their economies are powered by global industries with global supply chains, global markets, competitive business models and shared technological pathways. In order to decarbonize the global economy, we must think and act like the global economy. The climate action system therefore needs ambitious national pledges under the Paris Agreement and specific measurable net zero commitments from global industries that will unlock the technological investments essential to decarbonizing the world's largest emitters. That is why the forum launched the Mission Possible platform together with the UN, the Energy Transitions Commission and other leading organizations and governments. The platform is an initiative with over 200 high-ambition companies focused on action to decarbonize the most intensive and harder-to-abate sectors. When these sectors, the backbone of the global economy, get to net zero, they will remove over 30% of global emissions, perhaps no better example of going from zero to hero. For this to happen, we need to understand what it means in concrete terms to take on and deliver net zero commitments by focusing on the practicalities of implementation, action, not just words. In its new report, Making Mission Possible, delivering a net zero economy published last week, the ETC outlines three critical priorities for the 2020s and practical actions that could be the bedrock of any sexual agreement that nations and non-state parties can commit to in the run-up to COP26 to put net zero within reach by 2050. First, speeding up the deployment of proven zero-carbon solutions, clean energy, for example, create the right policy and investment environments, for example, removing fossil fuel subsidies, carbon pricing and so forth, bringing the next wave of zero-carbon technologies for harder-to-abate sectors to market so they can be deployed at scale in the 2030s and the 2040s, for example, by focusing public and private R&D on critical technologies like hydrogen, sustainable fuels or carbon capture. The objectives of this session are to explore how sectoral industry decarbonisation agreements can be developed to both drive ambitious decarbonisation as a complement to the efforts to raise climate ambition under the international negotiations pursuant to the UNEPC process, and secondly and critically implemented to ensure a just and inclusive transition. In today's session, we have a game of two halves. The first is a short 30-minute firestarter panel with our three excellent panellists I will introduce in a moment, followed by five simultaneous 30-minute breakout sessions where we will examine the following questions, and please take careful note of the numbers here if you want to be in a particular session. Number one, sectoral agreements for corporate emissions reduction, which will be led by Ned Harvey, a managing director at the Rocky Mountain Institute. Number two, integration of sectoral agreements in national climate planning to be led by Gonzalo Munoz, the high-level climate champion for Chile. Number three, pragmatic approaches to transition financing, which will be led by John Colas, a managing director at Oliver Wyman. Number four, clean growth for economic recovery led by Cornelius Piper, a managing director at the Boston Consulting Group. And number five, inclusive and socially responsible approaches to decarbonisation, which will be led by Samantha Smith, the director at the Just Transition Centre. If you would like to select a particular breakout session, please include the number of relevant sessions in your Zoom name when you rename yourself with your organisation. Within the limits of ensuring a good spread across these breakout groups, we will do our best to accommodate your preferences. However, I apologise in advance if that is not possible. To conclude, we need a great reset, not a great locking, a great reset that will help us build the net zero industry that is critical to our relatable future. To discuss this on our opening panel, we have three excellent panelists. First, Maria Mendeleche, the chief executive officer of the We Mean Business Coalition. Second, Mad Snipper, the current chief executive officer of Greenfos and the CEO-designate of Orsted, both major Danish companies heavily involved in the transition. And last but by no means least, Samantha Smith, the director of the Just Transition Centre, a part of the International Trade Union's Congress. I'd like to first turn to Maria. Maria, you've been involved in this space for a long time, most recently at WBCSD and now with the We Mean Business Coalition. So you've worked on this from many different angles, industry as well. So with that experience in the space, why do you think we can be optimistic today about decarbonisation of industry and what do you think are the critical enablers in this context of delivering sectoral agreements that we're discussing today? Thank you. It's a pleasure to be on this panel with you and the panelists and all the audience. Last year we were in New York. This time we do it virtually. Our footprint is lower and we can be in many places at the same time. So thank you for all the things that are making this happen and the people that are on the backstage. I am optimistic. Some days I'm not, but I'm optimistic today. I think the pandemic is quite devastating. But it has shown the effect of systemic risks and it has shown that actually we better be prepared for the next one, climate change or nature loss that could have even more devastating impacts. We see the banks and the finance sector and companies that understand that this is the case and no one wants to see to own stranded assets. Companies with high ESG activities rate better in the financial market. We see also that the industry is setting targets that are aligned with what science says we need to do with 1.5 degrees and some with two degrees. There are 16 cement companies that have targeted science-based targets. The steel companies are also going into that direction. We see how things could evolve in the future. We see that renewables, electric vehicles, battery. When the scale happens, the costs go down quite exponentially. And we're starting to see some signs that that could happen also with hydrogen which would be a key solution for these hard-to-avate sectors. We're seeing that the European Union in the Green Deals and in the stimulus packages are also doubling down their efforts on these hard-to-avate sectors and technologies that are critical and that we need to develop in the next 10 years so that they can deliver in 2030-2040 as you rightly pointed. So what are the critical enablers? I think in my view there are five. The first one is demand. As more companies set science-based targets they're going to want to reduce their scope-three emissions and hence they are going to ask for materials that are zero emissions. We have done every 100 that went into business, even 100 and now we're going to start one new that is still zero 100 and we will have seven zero 100. And that will create the demand signal that the companies need to make the investments and to attract this demand. The finance, as I mentioned before, no one wants to risk having stranded assets and this is going to push the hard-to-avate sectors to go towards cleaner options. The policy regulation is going to get tougher. Building codes are going to get tougher and the companies know that this is inevitably going forward. Then there is competition. So if one, if it still goes better, then Simon says listen I need to also hurry up because if not I'm going to lose the market share in terms of the materials that are chosen for the buildings for example. And finally, one that is critical enabler, I think it's a good economy. We don't talk enough about it but this is a win-win opportunity because there is not enough materials to meet the demand because it reduces cost for companies and it creates also an opportunity to valorize the waste embedded. So I'm positive but that doesn't mean that we are there. We need to work very hard with the Mission Possible platform to advance on the recommendation of these sectors. Thank you, Anthony. I think you're on mute, Anthony. The keyword. I've said it before and I think a lot of us have is the most quoted phrase of 2020, you're on mute. Mads, so we've heard from Maria and this approach and I think quite a bit of optimism there. You're in business, you've been working certainly across the manufacturing sector with the Danish client, leading their process around the Danish climate partnership on manufacturing and you have a lot of experience in the business world. So what role do companies need the public sector to play to enable sector agreements? A lot of the work we're doing is companies stepping up making commitments, working on roadmaps and key bits of systems demonstration, which is fantastic. But what's the partnership needed with governments and with public policy that will enable us to reach our collective goals? Thank you very much, Anthony. I thank you a lot for allowing me to voice some experiences in this debate. Really, really important and appreciated to be invited here and for thanks to the forum for bringing us together. So there are lots of things the public sector can do as is, as there is for the private sector. But I think let me zoom in on three priority things. The first thing the public sector can do is to set very bold targets for emissions reductions and not least to engage the private sector in how to get there. I'll elaborate a little bit on each of them. So that's the first one, both targets and involve the private sector. Second one is under the heading of green tax reform, because there are critical enablers that need to happen, because otherwise it would just be impossible to get entire sectors to transform. And the third critical enabler is to make available massive green rebound stimuli. So the finance is available for that transformation. Allow me to elaborate a little bit based on some of those perspectives. So the first one, based on in this case, a tiny country, which is essentially, unfortunately, you could say only 0.1 percent of the world's emissions in Denmark, the government started to set out a 70 percent carbon emissions reduction target by 2030, which I believe is one of the most ambitious in the world. And the initial reaction was essentially saying, no, that's going to be difficult. That's going to be too expensive. It's probably not right. And then what the government did was they set down 13 climate partnerships across all business sectors and essentially across all sectors, each of them led by a CEO from a Danish company. I had the privilege to chair the one from manufacturing companies. And before in less than six months, there were actually more than 300 very tangible specific and actionable proposal from those to the government. And as we speak, more than a third of those are actually under implementation, enabling a sort of a really, really good start to that transition. Obviously, that's just in a small company, but together with some other CEOs, we've actually tried to push that approach as an inspiration to other countries and sort of unions as well. Secondly, on the green tax reform, even in a relatively progressive country like Denmark, the tax structure simply does not encourage enough sort of sectorial and industry transition. So we have actually a relatively heavy tax on using surplus heat from manufacturing. We are taxing using electricity for heating. And at the same time, we only for the heaviest sectors actually have any emissions tax, which makes no sense. And that is why in our country, one of the things we've been pushing quite aggressively and which is being worked on as we speak, is a green tax reform. At the same time in the alliance of CEO climate leaders, the number one barrier for transition is an insufficient carbon pricing and carbon taxing. That is that is the clear perception of CEOs from across industries. And that means that in order to get us systematically and systemically moving, we need a higher price on carbon. Many people have said that before me, but it is just a vital, vital enabler for us to have happened. And it is very important that that carbon additional carbon tax income does not go into welfare or solving other problems. It should be used to incentivize and drive further financing of the green transition. One of the big topics obviously is is on the carbon leakage, meaning that if one country makes a car aggressive carbon tax and another one won't, then the leakage is going to be an issue, which is why we both want the form, but also we as industries and as companies and sectors, we need to make a global drum beat that an international approach to carbon taxing is just vital. We are on it, but we need to do even more. So that's the second topic of green tax reform. And the last one is a massive green rebound stimuli. Right now, there's actually as much as 0.6 trillion dollars available right now to get the economy starting in for green transition alone. And that is a huge opportunity not only for individual companies, but for sectors to tap into that and to really accelerate. Like Maria said, there's a unique opportunity of time that actually means we have the opportunity to accelerate right now. But the challenge is that in order to get us just below the two degree increase that we need to, those 0.6 need to get to 1.5 to 2 trillion dollars. So just pushing as industries and sectors pushing our countries and European units and so on to ensure that we increase that even further is absolutely vital. So many other things can be done such as public purchasing, setting higher demands, higher transparency of emissions, but in summary, the setting bold ambitions involving the private sector, green tax reform and massive green recovery stimuli would be what I think we need the public sector to do the most. Matt, thank you very much. I mean, this is something we hear again and again when business has to get on with it, they quite often find ways to do it. And as we're seeing in many cases, it's cheaper than was originally thought. We're seeing that now play out in the energy transition. And we're seeing that with many other transitions. But as we know, in all transitions, there are winners and losers, whether that's the energy transition we're going through, whether that's previous transitions from railways to automobiles or from old style sort of factors to steam power factors in the industrial revolution. And in many of those previous transitions, there hasn't always been a system in place to look after the workforce. And when we consider the speed at which we want this transition to go, how do we bring the workforce along with us and ensure that they're part of this transition, particularly perhaps this year, even more critically important. I think there's a huge mantra around green stimulus, but also understanding the degree to which that brings jobs and security for people employed in our industries and economy. So Samantha, that's a good segue for yourself. You've been working in the space for quite a while. And I think clearly your work has become even more pertinent over the last six months. What are the key considerations that we need to make in any sectoral approach to be inclusive and ensure that what we're driving is a just transition to decarbonise heavy industry? And I think, as we said earlier, not just for workers, but to ensure that no countries are left behind. Thanks, thanks, Anthony. Just also to situate myself and where I work. So I work for the International Trade Union Confederation. And we represent more than 200 million organised workers in 162 countries. Some of the people who are members in our organisations, they actually sit on the board much of our status. We have employee representatives on the boards of major, major companies in Denmark and also in other countries. I also want to situate what I'm going to say in this crisis, because I think we can't talk about, you know, about decarbonising heavy industry without also understanding that the equivalent of 400 million jobs disappeared between April and June globally, and more than 5 million jobs disappeared in Europe, just in Europe at that time, which is almost equivalent to the total number of people employed in European heavy industry. Now, not all of those jobs losses were in heavy industry, but somewhere, right? Because we're seeing a crisis both of supply and demand, as well as a breakdown pretty much complete of global supply chains across a range of industries. So from our perspective, when we're looking at this question of, you know, can we decarbonise heavy industry and what do you need to make it a just transition? Like that discussion has to start with jobs, right? There's no conversation that anyone is going to have with workers in trade unions right now that does not start with good jobs and also include social protection, so a welfare state, so healthcare, so income support, unemployment insurance and all the things that are making it possible for working people to stay afloat in this crisis. From that perspective, what it takes to get a to get decarbonisation heavy industry, like the technology is there. We had a roundtable actually in Sweden a year ago, which included SSAB, the Prime Minister of Sweden, Vaughtonfall, and of course the unions that organise in these companies, as well as unions from across Europe and around the world, which is basically about, and we had a representative from Mission Possible explain different pathways for cement and steel, and I think we all came away from that understanding that, yeah, the technology is there and in some places, like in Sweden, like with SSAB steel, it is possible to have a transition that's actually creating more good jobs for people, especially in an economically distressed area, which in periods the north of Sweden has been. There's really going to be a challenge to get it elsewhere. And to get that just transition, the labour movement is organised geographically and by sector. In Europe and also in other countries, we bargain sector agreements all the time, also on things like decarbonisation and just transition. So a first starting point would be to look to a global sectoral agreement that includes the industrial union federations that do this kind of bargaining at home. That would be one way to make sure that it's actually a just transition because unions as partners in the world of work, we would be at the table and setting some of the terms. You mentioned this issue about just transition between countries. I mean, I think that that is going to be a lot harder because we don't really have global rules for trade at the moment, right? That system is more or less broken. And so the discussion as Matt said is really about carbon trade walls in Europe, but then how does that affect the export driven economies versus trying to find some more cooperative way to build agreement across the sector. I think the last thing I want to say is that if we take Denmark as an example, I'm actually pretty hopeful because not only has Denmark decarbonised its power sector and produced two world leading enterprises in the area of wind, so Vestus and Orsted, as well as all of the other companies like Ruinfluss that are contributing to decarbonise Denmark. But when the government announced the 70% target, they didn't just set up CEO tables. Actually, the labor movement went and prepared a roadmap for the government on how to meet this target of 70% emissions cuts by 2035. So as trade unionists, we committed fully to this and we also prepared our own plan for how to do that. And those kinds of developments make me, yeah, make it possible to see the potential for just transition and how we might get there. Thanks. So we've got a few minutes left. So I'm going to quick fire one question each. I'm going to reverse order. So, Samantha, if you were at that negotiating table for a global net zero industry agreement, what would be your top three priorities to secure in that agreement on behalf of employees and adjust transition? So very quickly, one, two, three. So one would be within companies, the three key, the three Rs, retain, retrain and redeploy. So don't fire your current workforce and then hire new people, keep the people you have, retrain them and redeploy them in the company. The second would be that as a couple of people said, you have to look outside the walls, the walls of individual companies or even at the sector, right? Because people are probably going to need to transition to new good jobs outside the sector. So sector agreement has to rest on this basis of labor rights, social protection and trying to create good low emission jobs across the economy and not just in one sector. And the last thing would be to put labor standards into that agreement. Because where we are right now, people are angry, frightened and desperate. And if they do not see a good future for themselves and their families, also when it comes to big disruptive change like with decarbonization, they're going to reject it. So one way to avoid that is to make sure that all of the jobs in a decarbonized steel or cement sector are good jobs. Thank you. Great answer. Mads, so you're going from one of the world's most successful and largest producers of pumps, so products that have a big footprint in terms of energy. And after you're on one of our previous panel, I went and looked at the pumps in my house and they're all Grinfor's pumps. So it must be one of the biggest companies in the world for that product. But you're moving to another very interesting company which has actually led the transition. One of the first oil and gas companies to effectively entirely transition out of oil and gas, so it shows that it is possible. Industrial transitions don't happen homogeniously, do they? They happen in hot spots. No industrial transition has happened everywhere at once. So should we be focusing on the places where we can get those first dominoes to fall if you like and scale up the technologies and bring down the costs so that then that transition can flow around the world? Is that the model we follow or do we need to do it all at once everywhere? Thank you very much, Anthony. I very much believe in the role of companies and industries being catalysts for change. And a company like Orsted has indeed been sort of one of the catalysts for proving that offshore wind can actually not only work, but can be very economically viable as an alternative to fossil fuels. And I think we can't rely only on a few technologies. Denmark has very successfully been supportive of wind technology which has fostered not only big leading companies like Orsted and Vestas, but also led to a fact that there is now a global cluster of wind energy technology and competence in the country. I very much believe that as we globally can build clusters within different technologies such as hydrogen, solar panel, energy storage and so on, I don't think we should just focus on a few, but I think individual countries and regions should probably try to build up world-class competency centres because that's the best way to structurally build a global competency rather than everybody competing against each other in the same technologies. That would probably not get the world to where we need in a 10 or 30 year perspective. Thank you. Again, really quick answer. Thank you for that. Maria, we are out of time, but I'm going to give the chance for a very quick answer. What is the role of civil society in a sense helping industry across sectors to work together and deploy synergies, whether that's energy, whether that's creating demand, whether it's getting industry working together on the key policy asks that they need? Is that a critical role for civil society or is civil society's role to stand on the outside and put pressure on companies to transition or is it a bit of both? Well, I think at least from what I see, obviously it's very important that the role of business organisation like William Business Coalition, the World Economic Forum, the World Business Council to align efforts to be the neutral broker between companies that fiercely compete and that's what they need to do to be the best and now we see a competition to be the best in getting to net zero, but that inevitably they need to collaborate to get to net zero, that they need each other. So I think key role to play in helping facilitate these coalitions of companies that cross sectors within the sectors, but also across sectors. Thank you. You're all very well trained for panellists. So thank you for those short, but very informative answers. We're about to go into the breakout sessions. So before we do so, I don't know how you're in this sort of virtual world. Thank our panellists in a sort of traditional way, but I think we all know how to do that. We're learning. Final reminder, if you do have a preference for any of the breakout sessions, quickly remember yourself. Otherwise, don't worry, you will find yourself in one of the breakout sessions. There are five excellent questions. We have a chance, we have a couple of minutes where we can take a quick look at the this fantastic visualization that Lucia has been working on. I don't know if we can sort of share that on the main screen so everyone can see it a bit more clearly because I can see a very fantastic, here we go. So these are some, I think, the key things that have come out, the key role of the public sector, collaboration, economic viability, circular economy, I agree, the point I think Maria made. We need to do a lot more on the circular economy. It's a key part of decarbonizing many of the material sectors, for example, and perhaps a key opportunity for many of the heavy transport sectors to be a part of that. Paradigm shift, I think an act like a global economy. The pandemic, it was a really good point. The pandemic has shown the effects of systemic risk, but I think this word wasn't used, but for my many years in this space, inertia has been the common retort, but we can't do it. We can't change that quickly. This is the way we've done things. We need to change slowly. We have learned, if nothing else, in the last six months how quickly we can change when we are faced with a threat. Perhaps it's that key issue of understanding the threat the climate change poses that will unlock that ability for us to move quickly. Renewables have become cheaper at scale. Can we repeat that across many of the technologies we need in this space? Carbon pricing and tax. A very clear call for that from Mads. Acceleration and pushing harder. I like the three Rs from Samantha. Retain, retrain, redeploy. Really important part of the jazz transition. Starting with social protection. Perhaps what about a social contract? Do we need a new social contract that is part of this transition? With that thought, we're going to go off and have some of those interesting conversations in our own breakout groups. Thank you again to the panellists.