 Rhaid i chi'n gweld. Fy ffordd ar y dyfodol, ein bod nhw'n amser yma, ac mae'n gweld yma i chi'n gweld. Mae'r ffordd rydw i gyfle i fynd ymgyrchu a'r hoffiadau yma yn y Mynd Ddiolch yn ymgyrch. Felly mae'n cymryd am ymgyrch ar y mynd yma. Mae'n cymryd, yn ymgyrch ar y mynd, wedi'u'n cymryd, mae'n cymryd am ymgyrch ar y mynd i'r hoffiadau ac mae'n cymryd ar y mynd i'r hoffiadau of cleaning up after the Fukushima disaster. Now we're pivoting towards one of our perennial, most important subjects. I think possibly the most essential topic of discussion here this week, the World Economic Forum. It's the matter of inequality. The inequality challenge to give it the precise title. It's a subject we've been tracking for a number of years. It's been on the programme for a long time here in the annual meeting specifically in our research at our forum since 2011, I believe. Enw yw'r ynchob no lŵeniadol iawn yng Ngakaeth Lleidef yn ffysg yng nghymru ac yn unrhyw gwybod bod gennym ni pethenohod am hwnnw viaidau ac rydyn nhw'n rhaid i'n gweithio gyrddiaeth hyn yn y sefyllfa. Ond o'r holleg g draw, ac byddwch eu sefyllfa i chi'r cyfaint o'r hynny a'r gwendrochai rŵeniadol o'r snog. Rwy'n deuned i'n gwybod a fyddwn ni'n iedda i ddod o'i cyd-deilu... poroed o'r panledydd fel Winniby-en-Emahir, ynghylch yn ysgolwyddiad yng ngyfnogi. Catherine Garrok-Hocks, yng Nghymru, yw ynghylch yn ysgolwyddiad ynghylch yn ysgolwyddiad. Rydyn ni'n gweithio'n gweithio'r cyffredig yn ymgylchu, ac mae'n gweithio'r cyffeithiau o'r gweithio. A yna i'n gweithio, Charlotte Petri Gornitska, ynghylch yn ysgolwyddiad ynghylch yn ysgolwyddiad ynghylch. Ysgolwyddiad yn swyddiad, yna'n gweithio'r cyffredig Maen nhw'n gwneud i gyd wedi'i ddweud y gallwn cyffredinol i ddweud i g revenge i gydag unigol o'r glin. Winnie, oedd oedd yna ei ffrind. O ddweud hynny. Ffrens, ddafos yn ymdod o'r glin o gydag unigol. Rwy'n ei chael eu bydd yma. Mae'r holl o'r holl o'r holl, Oksfam. 5 yn ymdod, 388 oedd yma yw'r holl amser unigol ar y gafodau'r holl. Ac mae'r rhan o'r cyfrifiad yn 66. 62 bynnag y peth yw yw 3,5 bilion oedd yn effeithio y pethau. Yn y blynedd 1%, mae'r rhan o'r rhan o'r pethau yn llunio. Yn ymgymru a'r bynnag, mae'n gtwilio'n rhan o'r pethau sgwmwylltai. A'r gwybeth nid o'r raddigol o'r dyfaisif. ...fawr byth yn oed yn gydag o bwysig cyd-fawr ar gêmeth… ...yma dwi'n mynd i ddweud y ddweud. Bydd yw ddiw cyrraedd cymdeithasol ac cyfrannu cyd-fawr. Y ddweud cyrraedd sosial i'n helpu ein ffrindigau... ...eithio fathoddiol, y bod ni'n jygofnig. Yn ddweud, mae'n ystod yn bofio gwybr y peth sydd ysgrifennu. Mae'r cyrraedd ysgrifennu ei cynhyrchu i ysgrifennu... ...yna ddaeth y cwrnoddol ar eich cyfrannu. Efallai economiwn ychydig yn mynd i i ddweud i ddweud i gwbl ar persuadol, ddechrau eich cyfnod, ac mae'n dweud eich cael ei ddweud o'r teimloon arbennig, a hefyd,annau wahanol o ddweud i Gwyrnoddon llwylaid amserwn cyfeisbethau a'n cael ei dechau. Felly, maen nhw'n gweithio'r ddechrau. Mae'n cael ei mewn cyfnodd o'r ddwyledig ymddangos ymlaen, i fyddiwyr cyd-dweithio'r ddwyledig. Felly mae'n cael ei fyddu o'r ddweudio. A dwi'n cael ei fyddi'r ddwyledig. Mae'n cael ei ddweudio. Mae'r ddweudio'r ddwyledig yw'r ddweudio'r ddwyledig, mae'n cael ei ddwyledig ar gweithio. A byddai'n cael eu ddwyledig ar gyfer y gwasanaeth a gwaith gwaith gwaith. a ble mae'n meddwl gyda'r gweld yn nhw'n cynnig iawn, gyda'r gallu tynnu blynedd. A chyfnodd ar gyfer y cyfaint ofri gyda'r argofod peir yw 10% yn y gweld yn gweithio gyda mynd i ddweud $3 a chyrnodd yn dweud yn gweithio'r cyfaint. Felly, rydyn ni'n meddwl am y gwaith o dda, mae'n gyfrifio'r rydyn ni'n gyfrifio'r cyfaint. Mae gwaith o'r gwaith yn unigolol iawn yn ddweud cyfnodol a gwaith yn ysgrifennu iawn. mor gwaith yw'r cyfnod yn allan iawn a'r gwaith yn ysgrifennu iawn. Felly mae'r ddweud yma would actually reduce inequality considerably. Gwbod ni'n meddwl. Mae'n gwneud hynny. A wedi bod yn roedd y gweithfans, Catherine Garrickox, y Prif Weiniddy Llywodraeth. Mae'r ddigon y bydd y cwestiynau sy'n cael ei gwybod y bydd y busnesledd yn fwyaf cyfnwyr ar gyfer y bwysig. Mae'n dweud bod, yn fwyaf, ydym yn gwybod i'r cyffredinol. Ond, os ydych chi'n mynd i'r cyfrifio sy'n gwneud o ddeunydd yw y cermit. Mae'n dweud beth o'n cyfrifio'n cyfrifio'n cyfrifio. a'i gynhyrchu'r unig o'r gynhyrchu ar y cymdeithasio y byddwch yn ymy treble a'ch achos o'r cysylltu llunydd deisgwyllt i gael cael ei fod yn mwynhau i dda ni. Unrhyw gynhywch i dda ni o defnyddio'r byddwch. Roeddwn ni'n bwyllifan o'r ysgol, y pwysigol ym mwynhau ar deilol, ac yn nid i'n rhan fynt i gyd dividellyddiaeth yn yr unig o gynhyrch ar gael gyrdannol, ac mae'r ffordd yn gallu'n gweld ei wneud. Ond ydym ni'n gweithio i gyd, mae'r ffordd yn ystafelio gyda'r cymdeithas yn ffordd yn ffordd. A wneud yn ffordd o ystafelio'r cymdeithas yn ystafelio'r corffredd. Ond mae'n amser i'n mynd i'n gweithio i ddod a'i ddod i'n llwytho. A'n ddiddordeb i'r gweithio'r plwy. Ond yma, yma, ar y ddweud yma, rydyn ni'n dweud y gwaith cymoedd o gwyrdd ymlaen, Cymru adrodd o ein gwahoedd, i gyd-amwg ymwneud o'r cyfleidio ar gyfer eich gweithio'r gweithio'r pwysig. Roedd eich gweithio ar gyfer Cas, a phan wrth fynd i ddeud yn ddigonol i'r lleidio fan hyn o'r ffordd neu cyfoedd o'r ffordd. Roedd o waith hwnnw i'r ydw yw ymddangoddau, i gyd-amwg, o'r gweithio'r pwysig ymateb yn gweithio'r gweithio'r gwanaeth. The second thing we're doing is a very strong focus in the UK initially, and let's not forget that people think of income inequality as being an emerging market problem. Even in our own home town of Dundee, there are huge challenges, so we've launched a real push around financial education, recognising that if people are much better educated ond why they need to save and how they need to look after themselves for the future, frankly, you know, governments will be better off and governments and businesses can work much better together. And the third point I would make in terms of action-based commitment and very much in keeping with what Winnie's been speaking about has been around the issue of tax. So as an investor, one of the things that we're always considering is what is the risk to our long-term investment in this company or that company? And the risk around tax is not only of reputational risk, which clearly is something front and centre of people's mind, but it's also about the earnings risk. If in some capacity a company is at the genuine reflection of their numbers is not holistic at this point in time, then some way down the track there is a potential risk that the numbers will be impacted. So on a very specific piece of work, we collaborated with the United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment and we've engaged with 10 other investors really seeking to find solutions and exploring ways that investors can be asking of their investee companies what are you doing in terms of corporate tax responsibility. Now, this is a huge piece of work. We are doing it within our own portfolio. We're flagging companies up. We're having the active engagement. The work with the UNPRI was published last November, so you can access it openly on the website, but it's a piece of work we're very excited about and I think it fits very well with our own corporate values and mission, which is to create a much more sustainable future. Some really important topics and again we'll come back and just introduce those of you who are unfamiliar with the format that will be time for questions. First Charlotte, tell me what kind of, how do you use the muscle of overseas development assistance to push home important issues such as inequality? I think it's what it's about. For us, the mission is to make it possible for poor people to prosper. That's what we're about. You can do that on many levels. The focus that we have had for so many years is to use the language of business, invest in women, because we really need women to have the opportunity to be productive. We know that if women create jobs, I mean if they have a job, if they create opportunity around them, and if we can help them to overcome when it's risky through social security so that they can stay in business, we also know that the money that they earn will be investment in family, it will be investment in education, it will actually deal with the root causes maybe of corruption. If we go back to business, because we need business to invest, but they are hiding or maybe true about the fact that as long as there is corruption, we're not going to invest. I think that we really need to speak about the whole equation. What we are trying to do also is to support governments that are stable enough to help them to build institutional capacity. We support them in how do you actually run an effective tax agency, because mobilising tax is really what's needed in many of these countries that are now growing. So mobilising from people that have a job is one thing and then distributed in a way that people trust. So it's being distributed to health, to education, builds trust. Those are the processes that we with development money and development partnerships are trying to support. So part of what we do is also to support an Oxfam organisation because they advocate for the important stuff, but we implement. But we also work with companies and we don't want to be a partner with corporate sector if it's about lip service because that will actually affect our reputation. So we need to be very sincere that when we partner we deal with the real stuff and we also discuss the tough things, which means if you are real about investing in job creation you can't do that with your left hand and with your right hand. Your tax planning is actually not staying in the country, you see what I mean. So this dialogue is very important and it takes place here in Davos. Is it time to pause for any questions if we have any? A gentleman in the back too here. Let's get the microphone whizzing round the room. We'll stop the gentleman here, we'll just take a note of these. Thank you. Brian Grim, I'm the chair of the Global Gender Council on the role of faith. And I'd like to thank your comments on the role of women and I'd like to just point out that our council has produced with the help of Sweden's Archbishop, who's a woman, a briefing on the role of faith in addressing the global challenges including inclusive growth. And I think faith is an undervalued sometimes, under recognized part of the solution, thinking of Pope Francis, thinking of the Archbishop of Sweden having a voice. So I applaud you for your concern for role of women. The role of faith. We have to be quick because these sessions are very, very short unfortunately. A gentleman at the back, let's have you and if you, just for the benefit of our audience online, if you could give us your name as well please. Yes. It's working. OK, my name is Tepo from the South African Broadcasting Corporation. My question is to Winnie. I mean the issue of tech savings, we keep on hopping on them every summit, every G20, every Davos. But it seems there's nothing coming to the forth. I mean as Oxfam really are you going to have this kind of energy going forward of really talking on one thing all over the time without any action that has been following decisions that have been taken. And to Catherine from a moral point of view, does really business support these calls for them to stop diverting cash and not supporting where they invest? Thank you. OK, and take the last one here. So that's business values, tech savings. Sir. Thank you. Thank you. Professor Alan Winfield, Bristol Robotics Lab UK. I'm terribly excited by emerging developments or initiatives in universal basic income. And I'd be very interested in the panel's view on the universal basic income. Thank you. Excellent. Something I was going to raise myself if nobody else had. All right, one more, sir. More than a question to just specific question, I would like to point out one issue and I want to comment from your side. I'm very sympathetic with the idea to promote more equality. I mean, nobody can think different. But on the other hand, when you put the thing like, I mean, the reason there is poor people is because we have to reach people, is that the kind of dilemma? Maybe we will suppress. It would say, okay, let the rich people are the evil here. If 1% is taking all the money that all the countries are producing, these people are evil. But at the same time, I don't think it's that simple. I want you to comment about how you can... The middle ground. This is the middle ground between the rich and poor. Yeah, make the rich together because we need entrepreneurs. We need people to create wealth. But at the same time, we need these people to pay taxes, et cetera. I would like to see... Thanks, sir. That's a decent hold of questions. Where do we start? The middle ground, I think. That's quite a personal one. We need wealth creators. In fact, Pope Francis and his message on Wednesday, how did the noble profession of business in wealth creation whilst at the same time warning business leaders to not forget the poor seems like an adequate way to invite you to answer that question. Who wants to take a guess on this one? Winnie, maybe? I will. I think... Thought you would. Yeah. I think this issue of middle ground is... can disguise what the problem is. We know why inequality is rising and rising rapidly. And we need to tackle those reasons. It's to do with rigged rules of the economy. It wasn't always like this. But the rules have increasingly been rigged because wealthy individuals, rich companies, can influence the rules of the game and they have used their power to do that. So over the years, the policies of deregulation, privatisation, globalisation, secrecy of financing, all these have worked in favour of a small group. So now we need to untangle that. So it's not that some people are evil and others are holy, but it's about looking at the economy in the face and see how do these rules work. Let me give you an example. South Africa for you of S.A.B.C. In 1993, as apartheid was ending, the top 10% was... had a total income of about 36 or so billion. This was in 1963. 17 years later in 2010, apartheid is gone, this top 10 has increased their wealth by 64%. The bottom 10% in total had an income of about a billion. It stayed the same. 17 years later, they are still where they were. This is what we're talking about. It's about how the rules of the economy work. If wages are stagnant and the top is increasing, if money is untaxed and super profits are gained, and there's nothing going into health and education to give opportunity to all. So we're saying that this kind of inequality isn't just bad for poor people. It's bad for the rich because there's not enough investment going into people to be educated, to be healthy, to work, for infrastructure, to support the businesses, to thrive. So it's bad for everybody. It's a dragon growth. It traps people in poverty and it sparks social unrest. If you take Latin America, the most and equal region in the world, 41 out of 50 most violent cities in the world are in Latin America. Sir Catherine, can we raise income levels of the bottom half of the population as well? What is your take on this? If you have extreme wealth at the top, you also have inadequate levels of income at the bottom. Is that another way of looking at it? Well, I think it is, but I also wanted to come back to the question about do business leaders share the moral purpose? I reflect what I said at the beginning that increasingly yes, but not everybody. I completely agree with what you say that there have been many years of this discussion. So why now, what will be different? Because frankly, it's enough talking already. Let's talk more action. And I think the action is going to be very much supported by the SDGs because it was a rallying call. We have 15 years to put this right. We have a huge responsibility, whether we're in business, government, NGOs, whatever it is, to leave the world in a better place for our children and grandchildren. And I think that's why I'm actually quite hopeful because I think that there will increasingly be a divide an unequal gap between businesses who get it and those who do not. And I'm very optimistic that frankly this will be driven by decisions by the millennials because they do not want to invest or support companies or practices where bad things are being promoted. And so I am helpful, hopeful, and I think that at the end of the day it really comes down to education. So I think us asking and working with businesses, other businesses, government and charities, NGOs, such as Oxfam and others, to educate people better, I think we can lift many more people out of poverty. Can I agree with business here? More than welcome. It's really not going to be just regulation. It's going to be values that must shape the tax behaviour of companies. We have to move away from legal compliance to this tax responsibility which is driven by values. Do good for the company and do good for the world. So my question to you, Winnie, if I may, is that corporate social responsibility is now entrenched in most organisations and how do we get that's a value shift, that's a change in culture? How do we apply that ability to change a culture to the issue of tax? Corporate social responsibility has been narrowed to a little doing good, building a few schools somewhere while the production is not guided by the values. The values must guide the business right through the supply chain. That's what we're talking about is tax responsibility. It must be driven by the same values. It can't be about having a project that makes you look good and then the business is done in ways that exploit people and the planet. I think that we have to realise that the process has started because I want to believe that we are all value driven. But if we aren't the business value driven, there's a business case if you can be long-term enough. There is a business case in investing in good values in sub-Saharan Africa for instance because that's where you have to go. If we can accept the fact that some are value driven and hopefully many more will be, but start from a pragmatic point of departure realising that if you're going to be successful long-term you cannot waste that by doing something good on the side and ignore the fact of tax. That's why the dialogue is so important but we need to allow time. I think we need to look at family-owned business. We have some examples not necessarily on tax but on how they invest in social responsibility like IKEA and H&M and others. I mentioned them because I know them best. They take risks because they don't have quarterly reporting. There are also things that we have to start to look into. I think that the genre generation is a good catalyst in doing this as well. Those who can choose. Can I just say very briefly that it is about values but it's about language. If you're sitting down and talking to business people probably the best way to tackle is you are running a risk if you don't take corporate tax effects on your earnings on your reputation into account because of the point about faith. Bizarly, they asked me to chair the Global Agenda Council on values. It's quite refreshing that the business voice is put very firmly at the heart of values decision making. Let's cover universal basic income. Winnie. You were close to it. The issue of what was the basic income. Universal basic income. Anyone thought of it? The open ended question. Definitely because if you look at the last quarter of a century the wages of the people at the bottom have remained static. Even now after the financial crisis we still saw skyrocketing rewards for the very people who had caused the crisis but wages remain stagnant. In India the head of an IT company earns 416 times more than an average worker. 416 times. I mean, what does this head of a company do in a day that is so much more than what an average worker does? So unless we really drive an international mechanism that will ensure that every worker gets a living wage we have millions of people who are trapped in jobs where they can't pay their rent or buy food. This is not acceptable. This is not the world where businesses want to thrive. So we need a new force into restoring the contract between business and people, business and states which is about paying their fair share of taxes reducing a wage gap and ensuring that everybody benefits from the growth. And there are some models out there the textile industry for instance is rallying around this issue of wages and we as a development agency we support that process with some seed money to make the dialogue between factory company industry to really work with in this case it's very much about women because it's a textile industry but women are educated that they have rights women are educated that they can organise themselves at the factory level so that they can also be a voice for their wages not just depending on what we say here but really to equip them and why is this interesting for the company because they don't need fights they need stability predictability to maintain their business so it's a win situation and I think that the textile industry could really inspire other industries Catherine if there's a business case for the university why hasn't it been implemented yet? I think it's still pretty early to be honest and I think let's think about how long it's taken to get a genuine corporate social responsibility going around at conversations like this I think that is part and parcel of it I think business has been late to the conversation but that doesn't mean we're not absolutely opting into the discussion now so I think from my perspective I strongly believe that finance can be a genuine force for good there are a huge number of very enlightened individuals on this topic and we're ready, we're stepping up to the discussion and as I said before I think those who will be there will persist their organisations will thrive and prosper and those who do not will simply be just consigned to the dust heap that I may add it also has to do with consumers you see if you think of a government manufacturer the business does not really the company owner doesn't need a law to tell them to give a living wage to create good conditions of work so that people don't women don't die in factories they don't need a law they just need to be people of good values to understand that their workers need safe environment and a good wage but why don't they they don't because somewhere out there there are consumers who want to buy this jacket at just $5 and after two months throw it away buy another one for a low price so it also has to do and I want to agree with Catherine with citizens education for people who buy when we are consuming to consume understanding the production line understanding the consequences for somebody down the line who's making the product so there's a lot to do to educate the public mindful of time mindful of our Swiss like at Harry's said strict schedules I do want to get one more final question I'm going to ask you to give us quick answers to this one the theme of this meeting is the fourth industrial revolution it's been recognised one of the greatest fears of the fourth industrial revolution is inequality so let's not talk about whether we fear it or embrace it but what are we going to do to ensure that society is served by this technological transformation Charlotte would you like to start I think it's very important to see it as an opportunity also and to make poor people getting access to new technologies and we have examples in Africa where that is happening if you see the MPs at the mobile banking you can actually see that some things are leapfrogging what is happening in my part of the world so I really think from a development agency we need to see the upside of new technologies and ask business to actually be part of equipping people women are left not left behind but have less access to new technologies so I think we have to deal with that so the question is bigger than that but I'll stay there today and I think my quick answer would be what can business do to ensure that the advances in technology genuinely improve the life of everyone around the globe you know not just a few people so what can we do to broaden the spread and broaden the impact for me it's ultimately all about impact for me technology can be value neutral but if technology is in the hands of the people of the people of the people that is in the hands of a few who have already got themselves to buy the law making process the policy making process technology will be used to actually increase inequality more and more take the case of the pharmaceutical industries and how they make medicines and the use of the intellectual property protection pharmaceutical companies in America spent $228 million in 2014 just to lobby the American government they were not lobbying for the benefits of medicine for everybody it was to protect their profits through their technology so unless you can change some of those rules that put too much power in the hands of those who own technology to shape the rules and to take the profits from the technology and not to let them be shared by all technology will drive inequality but if we change the rules if we dissentango political power from those who hold capital and technology then technology can be to the service of humanity so it's about technology it's about rules, it's about values it's about collaboration we'd love to have you back in to see how that process is going thank you all very much thanks for joining us, thanks for watching online this session is now over