 And the very good afternoon,和 comprehend if there's one subject in some shape or form that we all know and have dealt with in some description ah, it is of course the question of climate change but every bit of research also shows that whilst most people realise the significance and the importance of climate change and there's nothing that is going to bore them faster or make them run in the opposite direction, Dyna'r ystod yn fawr o'ch gweithio gyda'r cynyddiadau, mae'n fawr o'ch gweithio'r cymhwyno, ond nid oedd yn fawr o'r cymhwyno'r cymhwys. Yn ystod, cymdeithasol ar gyfer y gweithio'r cymhwys yn fawr i gyd, ac yn fawr fath o'r cymhwys sy'n ymdyn nhw'n ddiddordeb yn ei wneud. A rydyn ni'n ddiddordeb, sy'n ddiddordeb o'r cymhwys gwahbeth hefyd, ac mae'r cyfwys ar gyfer y war i'r ffordd o'r cynorth a'r ysgolwyr yn ysgolwyr, rwy'n credu i'r cyrraedd am y dweud yn ddweud. A fyddwn i'r meddwl i'r ffordd. Roedd ydych chi'n gwneud arall y bydd yma, a oedd yn ymdweud yn ei hunain. Mae'r cyfan o'r panel ar gael i'r ysgolwyr yn ysgolwyr yn ysgolwyr, felly mae wedi bod ni'n gweithio. Pryddo'n ni'n cymaintio'r bobl, ac mae'n gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r pethau. Ond y byddai yn dweud y bydd yn ddweud y mynd i gael y cymryd? Yn oed yn ddod i'r ffordd gan y byddai'r cyfrydau, maw'r nodi'r byddau. Mae ydych yn ddweud y byddai'n ddweud yn ddweud, maw'r nodi'r byddau yn ddweud, yn ddweud y byddau'n ddweud. Mae wedi'n gwybod i'r dyma. Felly, mae'n meddwl i'r pandel. Mae'n meddwl i'r ddweud. Angozia Condiwio Iwala yw'r ysgolwyr yma o'r organiad yw'r ysgolwyr, a'r ysgolwyr yma o'r drosbwyllion yw'r weff. Fawr, ma'n fawr. Vanessa Neccati, yw'r ysgolwyr yw'r ysgolwyr ar y clywodau. Rwy'n credu i chi'n ffawr i'r ffawr, oedd yna? Y ffawr ar y clywodau. Yn ymwysg? Rwy'n credu i'r ffawr i'r ffawr i'r ffawr i'r ffawr. Rwy'n credu i chi. Rwy'n credu i chi. Chris Doffschreidt, yw'r cefwyr ymwysgol, y CEO yw Boston Consulting. Yn ymwysg yw'r ysgolwyr yw'r ysgolwyr ar gyfer y dyfodol? Yn ymwysg yw'r ysgolwyr ar y dyfodol, dwi'n ffawr i'r ysgolwyr yw'r ffawr i'r ffawr i'r ffawr i'r ffawr i'r ffawr i'r ffawr i'r ffawr. Anish Shahrswyrthes, y ymwysgol ym hydrwyng yw CEO yw'r hynod hynod yng Nghymru, i'r cymdeithas yng nghymru, i'r Cyngor ymddangos Gweithfawr. Anish, y ddigon ni'n rwy'n gweithio'n gweithio ymddangos yma? Is there a lot of action has been taken already, but that is not enough? It's not about individual actions, it's about collaboration and working collectively, because the goals we've set are bold and we need to find a way to meet them. y Cymru allanodd, eu newidio Llanol o'r llyfriddio Climus Cymru. Aarfodd hyn, mae'r llyfriddio Llanol yn meryddiaeth cymru sydd yr alian ble gyda'r llyfriddio Llanol, o'r llyfridio Llanol. Dwi'n arddangos, ymrwyng ymddir, ond ei fod yn fwrdd. Mae'r llyfriddio Llanol yma efallai 120 o'n amser i gynhyrch gyda'r ymdiliadau cyhoedd. Felly, mae'r llyfridio Llanol, mae'r llyfriddio Llanol, yw'r llawr o'r ffordd, ond byddwch i'r ffordd o'r gweithio'r cyd-fodol. Mae'n gweithio'r gweithio'r cyd-fodol i'r gweithio'r cyd-fodol. Rhyw gyrraedd gennyn nhw'n gweithio'r gweithio'r cyd-fodol yma. Mae'r ymddindigol yma yn ddweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r cyd-fodol, eithaf y Parys a'r Cod 26. Mae yna allan oherwydd a'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio. ystod yn eich iechyd i gweithio wneud o favourite ar y blaenau i'w wneud. Gweithio'r iawn ddod o'r wneud i'r fadau'r hwn? Mae'r fadeigad hefyd i chi Rychell, mae'r gweithiannau ei geithfain i gael, ac yn y rymde – ychydig yn y gwirionedd yma – yn eich rhan i eich gwirionedd yn ôl yn y Gwyrdd. Rydyn ni'n rhoi chi'n arddangos yn cyfraffol i gael gwirionedd o'r ddangosol a'r gwirionedd mewn gwirionedd i'r gwirionedd – Hyderd Where is Moving southwards and conflict between Hyderd and Farmers, it's intensifying, and, it's all being due to climate change. AIDS are drying up. If these people... If we don't take action, you'll have a set of people who are climate migrants who have to go somewhere. So I'm just using that as one example. You saw the floods in Germany, You saw the fires in Australia. In California. Mae'r cyfnod yw ymddech chi'n gwaith. Beth yw'n eich bod ni'n clyw o'ch chi ddweud hynny? Ynno, mae'r cyfnod yn olygu yn y cyfrifnol cyransol. Ynno, mae'n gwybod, yna ymddangos cyfrifnol, ymddangos cyfrifnol, y pandemig, ymddangos cyfrifnol, ond rydyn ni'n dweud bod yn ymddangos cyfrifnol arall, rydyn ni'n gwybod eich cyfrifnol ymddangos cyfrifnol. Can I come in on that, please? Just jump in, please. Don't wait to be invited. Yeah, I think that it's really important to understand the intersection of this crisis. And when we talk about climate change, we are also talking about food insecurity. Because, for example, look at the Eastern Africa drought that has left more than 26 million people with no access to food. So there is definitely a connection with food insecurity and climate change. When we talk about poverty eradication, as families are continuously losing their homes, sources of income, their farms, they are being driven into extreme poverty. As children drop out of school, this poverty moves on from generation to generation. So we understand that we can't even eradicate poverty without talking about climate justice. Nobody doubts the significance of the issue. My point is how do you continue to emphasise that significance when there are so many other things that arguably are more pressing? It starts from understanding how these things are interconnected. It's like we are in one system and if one part of the system is broken, eventually the whole system comes crumbling down. So we are in this room and where you are seated has a hole in the roof and it starts to leak. If I don't do anything about it, eventually this whole room will be filled with water and we will all be impacted. So I have to fix what is on where you are seated for the benefit of all of us. So if we talk about the climate crisis, we are also addressing food insecurity. Just give us the CEO view of the difficulty and don't tell me you are doing it. Tell me the challenge of maintaining the climate agenda or the climate action when there are so many other pressing issues for the company. Richard, the challenge for most CEOs is that they have to deliver results that their investors want and the question will be does this come in the way or not. But that is where we really need a paradigm change because we've always believed that purpose drives profits and therefore you have to start with purpose. We started our climate journey in 2008. So actually we have been taking a lot of actions with regard to climate change and as we've gone through that journey, we found that it will actually deliver results. So for us, if you were to ask me my top three priorities for the Maindra Group, which is in 20 industries across 100 countries with 270,000 people, climate change is among the top three priorities for us. Chris, your clients and the people you work with, what are they telling you about the difficulties of maintaining the climate action? And the reason I'm not trying to be unduly pessimistic, but everybody in this room by virtue of the entrance ticket to this room agrees with the importance of climate change. What we need to understand is the difficulty of maintaining the action at a time where there are other priorities. So if you just go back the last two to three years, Richard, I think you described it in your opening, right? I mean, most corporate leaders, I think many of the people here at Davos had their hands full navigating through COVID. They had their hands full navigating through the Ukraine and Russia and secondary tertiary effects of that. It just absorbed a lot of managerial attention. I do think that's no good reason, however, right? I mean, there are practical necessities that we are all facing and that I see with our clients. But I mean, in the end, we are just running out of time. I think you are very much pointing in the right direction here. I mean, it's just an interconnected set of issues and climate change is one of them, but it goes much further. And so, look, if you take all this, what does it take to make sure we move faster? I think there are a couple of mechanisms that I'm observing with the clients that we work with. There is one reason for optimism, which is there's a true generational change happening amongst the CEOs and senior leaders. I think if you become in charge of a company at this point and you expect to lead this for the next three, five, seven, ten years, ESG and commitment to climate is not optional. I mean, it is an absolute must. You will not succeed. In fact, you will fail utterly if you don't deliver on the agenda. It's very different than if you put something on paper and, you know, in two years from now, I'm going to be out of here. I think it's a very different level of commitment. The second point, and I think it ties back to some of the talk here at Davos, we are in incredible talent scarcity everywhere in the world in most industries. Also in types of jobs that we never anticipated would be scars and where talent would be scars. You will never be a credible employer if you are not delivering on your climate sustainability and ESG agenda going forward. We have done a talent survey around the world on a global level. Roughly 50% of people who graduate from university, Richard, are looking at the serious commitment of the employer. But then, I mean, you are just not going to get these people if you don't. So I'm optimistic about that. And then the third thing is it is just becoming also financially truly costly. I mean, if you look at energy prices, the price of the emission certificates, if you look at the fact that you now pay higher interest rates if you are not moving on the ESG side, I think there's a real economic cost. That's why I'm optimistic. Richard, I'm going to jump in here without invitation if that's okay. If you wait for an invitation, you'll wait a long time. Then I'm going to jump in after. No, you're not because just hasn't had a chance to and he wanted to jump in first. So I'll jump in after him. You can jump in later. So I would agree with Christophe that it's not optional anymore. Having been in dozens of conversations, especially over the last year on this topic, I see a lot greater momentum and I see major leaders around the world completely on board with the question that they have to act. So the bigger question, though, is not whether this is important or not. It is what are the types of actions can we take that actually make a difference? Because for us to reverse the 1.5 degrees that we have to, what we do at the marginal level is not going to work. We do not have the technologies today to be able to meet our commitments for 2040 or 2050 to be net zero. And therefore we have to collectively act. So therefore the bigger question is how do we collectively act? Right. And then I'm going to jump in. Is that allowed? Go ahead. Fantastic, thank you. I would just start by agreeing on two things. I hear from more and more CEOs today which is an interesting thing that there is a myth that CEOs or big companies wouldn't be driven by purpose. And I see it's getting more empty on the platform with people who don't express why they're in this, and why this, in spite of the calamities we're experiencing, is important for them as persons. We hear about co-workers, colleagues, the motivation to attract the best. And if I can add there, if you want to be relevant for consumers, not only tomorrow but already today, you're in trouble if you're not a leader in this sphere. But what I would like to add maybe to the conversation is which is also a big misconception. Most of this is going to make massive sense for business. And I don't have to add taxation that is going to be a big issue down the road in a couple of few years only. But to miss the opportunity to be climate smart means not being resource smart and not being cost smart. So the business side of this is the thing that I believe is going to drive the speed in this more than anything else. Now I can jump in. I just took a breath. I like this one now. She'll take a moment. It's not going to happen again. So don't take a breath while talking. Now you've had all the everybody's child up, we have to do it now. Now let's, a little bit of realism. Perhaps the reason why, at least from this point of view of governments in poor countries, they have to attend to the crisis quote unquote now and they may discount a bit the climate change. It requires financing. It requires money to tackle some of these problems. And so they have to make, as a former minister of finance, you have to make trade-offs right there. Am I going to look for how to take care of the people who are being hit by the food crisis right now because I don't have enough resources? Or am I going to do something else? So the world had promised or developed countries, let me pull back, that to help tackle this climate change there would be $100 billion a year to help poor countries meet the costs. That hasn't been done the way it should be. So I think you have to also look at that angle and it's not talked about as much. It needs money to be able to do this. OK, so, John. No, I think the money, I think it's a disgrace personally, that the world hasn't been able to match the $100 million. And what I understand is that we will need much more than that of course in the transition. But one thing that I would like to add to the conversation is we are already into action. One of the barriers that we are hitting as corporate leaders is we need support from policymakers to enable quicker decisions of weak farms. We will come to that in a second. I want to stick with the money, OK? $100 billion was promised. Yes. Per year? Per year, yes. Times have changed a bit. Absolutely. Since it was promised. There was a pandemic. There was a pandemic and what happened, Richard? We suddenly saw $14 trillion. We suddenly saw massive fiscal stimulus. Money coming out of everywhere. Which was necessary? I agree completely. It was the right policy response. But then it has bred scepticism. If the developed countries could come up with that amount of money in this short amount of time, what's $100 billion compared to $14 trillion? So the times have changed. But those times have changed in asking more questions. Why can't we come up with this money? Right, but we're also going into an era now of higher interest rates, high inflation, where the money is going to be even harder. It will be even harder for the poor countries. Many of them are already debt distressed. So yes, there are no excuses. There are no excuses on this. So my take is the financing challenge that you mentioned in particular for the poorer countries is very real. I don't think there's a way to dismiss that. I would also challenge the western world, the developed markets. I don't think that many companies fail with their climate action because there's no funding. I do think you can get a whole lot of capital for a whole lot of things and I do think it's possible. I do think that's a cheap excuse in my mind. I would also just observe that more and more corporate leaders are basically realizing that the political and the governmental part is not going to help because the political cycle is one depending on where you are for years, five years, six years. Investing into climate action typically doesn't yield easily measurable and demonstrable results in that thing. So the corporate leaders basically say, well, okay, I give up, I move myself. We have great examples in some markets in Germany. For example, the German Industry Association BDI basically put together their path to net zero because they got incredibly frustrated that nothing is happening. So they came to the government and put a paper in front of them and said, look, this is what we could do. This is what it would cost. That became essentially one important input for the coalition agreement in Germany. I do think this whole kind of corporate world waiting for governments in general, I think is going to be a dead end. I really encourage corporate leaders where they can to move faster and to not wait. I also think there's really a huge responsibility on the global north to provide the climate finance that was promised. And also there is a demand for a compensation fund for loss and damage as well. We know who caused the climate crisis and we know who needs to pay for it. So loss and damage is something that is already happening in so many communities across the global south. The climate crisis is pushing people to places where they cannot adapt anymore in just a minute. Hang on. If you do loss and damage, do you not open a can of worms that makes it much more difficult to get consensus? I'm not denying the loss and damage, but I'm saying the moment you start looking for basically reparations for previous actions as opposed to solving the issue so we don't make the situation worse, don't you create a bigger problem that could distract? But loss and damage is not happening in the past. It's happening right now. So what we are demanding for is for right now. We're not talking about cultures that have been lost in the past. Cultures are being lost right now. People cannot adapt to the loss of their cultures. People cannot adapt to the loss of their islands and the loss of their histories and the climate crisis is pushing people to these places. So what do you want by way of loss and damage? I don't mean a number. Who are you looking at to pay that bill? I'm looking at the worst to pay the bill. Richard, the World Bank has estimated that natural disasters are costing about $390 billion a year. So that's quite a bit of money. And that's why countries are saying, you know, poorer countries, we need money for adaptation, mitigation, but we also need resources to help all the assets that have been destroyed. We need to stop that from happening. I'm not suggesting, yes. I'll jump in here again. I completely agree the funds are required, but if I were to look at what is the goal, we've got to get to net zero. By 2050 at the latest. For that, we need to start taking a number of actions now. Let me take two examples of actions that have been taken that have been meaningful, one at the government level, one at the corporate level. If you look at India, solar power in India today is at 2.7 cents per kilowatt hour. It has come down in magnitudes. The country had set a target to be 20% renewable energy by 2030. That was met nine years ahead of schedule in 2021. The target has now been increased to 50% by 2030. And the goal that is being set for the cost is going down from 2.7 cents to 1.3 cents by 2030. So that's tangible action that has been taken already. Second, if I were to talk about corporates and talk about what Myndra has done. While we started a journey in 2008, we set targets for 2025 for energy productivity to be 100% or double productivity by then to have renewable energy at 50% by 2026. And where we stand today, we achieved 74% of energy productivity already. And we are at 45% of renewable energy. We are at 45% of renewable energy. We are water positive today as a group. I'm still going to miss the target. No, that's... I'm at the 1.5 degrees. We're still on track to miss the climate. I admire the successes, but what I want to hear now from you all is this idea that it's all about... It's not so much I'm out about grand policy statements. They've been Paris, et cetera... Absolutely. ...but they were Zoom. It's the gritty gritty of execution. What's the difficulty? Well, I say, of course, it's an array of challenges. And I just want to, of course, acknowledge that the aspect of adaptation, mitigation needs to co-exist. We need to be able to have all these conversations at one time. So I think, for me, it's not a can of worms. It's actually the reality we need to approach. And there are dilemmas in that. Again, on the side of reaching, striving and working towards the 2030 and the 2050 target, which I think few companies will stand up and say it's easy, because when you open up to scope three, you're full-value chain upstream from your raw material to consumer. You will have headaches, you will have dilemmas, but you will also have opportunities. And then comes, as you said, to the nitty gritties. It's about how do we get access to permits to get wind up? How do we change the policy, when we think that Netherlands have done, when it comes to mattresses, which is a big part of the climate footprint in my business, so that we actually can recycle, not only our own old mattresses, but every old mattress. How do we change into a sustainable consumption model? And again, I think I'm very hopeful we are going to do it. The thing that stresses me is more that the clock is ticking, and we don't have a lot of years now to turn the trend. Why domestic? Can we also please, no, just a moment. Talk about the need to put an end to all new fossil fuel investments, because I'm not hearing that conversation. You're looking at me? I think it's a brilliant conversation, we have to end it. But I feel like it's really missing from this conversation, because if we are to talk about the need to limit global temperatures to 1.5 degrees Celsius, the IEA has made it very clear that we cannot have any new fossil fuels. That is oil, that is coal, that is gas. Can we talk about that? Talk about it? Let me, we can talk about that, but that brings us to another subject. I think it's very good. And one of the reasons why I think the world is not doing so well as it should, what you're saying is in spite of all these examples, it's not to scale, so we are not making an impact. First, countries are not implementing their national determined contributions the way they should. That's one. Two, we are also not being real in terms of the fact that there needs to be a transition. It speaks to the issue, fossil fuel, yes. But countries need to have a transition. Look at what is happening in Europe and the dependency during this war. So what do you ask for this about that? So no new investment, you want to stop all new investment in any form of fossil fuel extraction. Yes. And what percentage of our current energy production comes from fossil fuel? Well almost all the energy comes from fossil fuel. So those companies that currently are the providers of, which I know anyway from my business coverage, are finding it extremely difficult to get investment. Boston Consulting will tell us that it is very difficult to find investors who will invest in fossil fuel production, correct? It's getting harder and harder, yes. Is it hard enough? I think that's the dispute. But that is still the principal form of energy. So you've got two choices now. I'm trying to get you to be realistic here on this. Yes, in the same way in Europe with the sudden decision to produce more coal because of the lack of oil coming from Russia. It's a fine argument to have. But one of the panel, one of you take this argument at what point do you suffer? What point do you look down to the camera lens and say to the public, I'm sorry, but you're going to have to suffer? OK. You are talking about the need for Europe to invest more in coal for energy, right? No, at the moment. At the moment. And I just really want to comment on that. Now I'm talking about the need to replace Russian oil. Therefore, there was this suggestion and the idea to increase the production of coal in some cases. Even though there was going to be a bad effect as a result. Let's talk about what the climate crisis has done at the expense of the investments of Europe. Historically, the African continent is responsible for less than 4% of global emissions. And we are seeing some of the worst impacts of the climate crisis. You said we talk about the reality. Let me talk about the reality. The African continent is suffering some of the worst impacts of climate change. We have seen cyclones from Cyclone Idai in 2019 that left more than 1,300 people dead. And many more were recorded as missing. We've seen the Eastern Africa drought that has left more than 26 million people with no access to food. And I feel like we are not talking about the reality. But the reality is, you're right. But the reality is to reach your goal, and you take this, Jesper, will involve a level of hardship. Jesper, Angosi, that... We have... Why don't we finish? Haven't asked the question yet. It will involve a level of hardship in the developed world that so far political leaders are not prepared to inflict. Yes or no? Yes. They are not prepared because politicians find it... They have to get elected. They find it very difficult, like now. You know, if the funding... I mean paying almost $800 million to $1 billion a day for Russian gas, it's very difficult to tell people who are going to vote for you overnight that you're not going to have gas for eating and cooking. It's very difficult to tell them that they have to make these hard choices. But sometimes, if you're a brave leader, you have to have the courage to tell people that these are the tough choices we have to make. So I fully agree. And I think, again, I cannot speak for the politicians in this case, being unelected in this position. But what I can tell you, which is I'm being brave now to be a bit optimistic again, we are on a massive high-speed course of decovernisation in our company. And it's not only the company such as the value chain with sub-supplies actually throughout the scope three. We have invested more in wind and solar than we consume as a company in totality. We haven't connected it in every node and dot yet. But it shows one thing that I would like to raise into this debate. It's smarter to invest in the new than in the old. That has to be also, even if there are some short-term measures that has to be taken, which I am not the most competent on, I'm sure that this crisis is actually pushing the agenda in the right direction. Completely, if anything, the Ukraine crisis has pushed Europe further and faster towards renewables and that. But Vanessa, that's not going to be enough, is it? I know that Europe is considering looking for gas in African countries, so that is not enough. And it's only because of the interests of Europe and the national security concerns of Europe. Can we, for a moment, discuss the national security concerns of the Global South? We have opportunities to invest in clean energy. Why aren't we taking that direction? Why are we still thinking about opening up new coal power plants or gas or oil? Yet it's only harming communities that are least responsible for this. You may bring the investments in Africa. You are the ones benefiting. We are the ones who suffer the impacts. And, Gozy, why is this in the sense that there is a vast difference between the demands, the instant demands of the developed world, and the developing world at the moment? And they don't seem to be able to be easily reconciled. Well, they don't seem to be easily reconciled because of the short-term outlook of policymakers and politicians. So they want to serve the people at the moment. It is very difficult when you are elected for a certain number of years to think, for the next 10 years, you have to be exceedingly brave. And some leaders do that. We've seen leaders make very tough decisions that serve their country in the longer term. So the short-term wants and needs of the Global North, the fact that sometimes renewables may not be sufficient base load power for manufacturing, and you're talking of getting people out of jobs, may lead them to these decisions. Now, on that point in terms of short-termism of politicians, there is an element of short-termism of CEOs. The average tenor of a CEO is how long? Three and a half years? Five years. Half a year longer than politicians. I think in the US it's about three and a half currently. But when you are charged with turning a company around, improving the balance sheet, dealing with the stakeholder economy, whatever that might be, the temptation is you know you've got to do these things, but you'll get round to it. I would offer a very different perspective on that, Richard. Let me look at it from the selfish angle of a CEO. One of the key things that a CEO is concerned about, talent, investors, delivering results. How do we attract talent? We attract talent by having a purpose for the company. That's why people come there. That's why I've joined the Maindra Group. That's why many of my colleagues have joined us. Second, as we think about delivering results or investors, let me come to that first. All our investors are asking us about what are our real actions on ESG. We're attracting investors by actually being committed to it. This is not about being committed on paper or talking about it. You've actually got to deliver results on that front. If we look at financing projects today, if I were to think of building a coal plant today, not that I would, I'd find it extremely difficult to get anyone to finance it. But if you're thinking about financing for EVs that we are doing for our solar companies, you've got a line of financers clamoring to get in. That world has changed and that has changed dramatically in the last 12 months. The third part I mentioned about delivering results, none of this is stopping us from delivering results because, as Jasper has said, you've got things that are actually beneficial for the company. His actions in the Netherlands are actually commercially positive for the company as well. We found a lot of those things where there's a return on investment. We've done 2,000 projects in the last 15 years on climate change. We actually have a payback period of two and a half years per project on average and a return on investment from there. All of this actually comes together. This is not about us making a choice saying, do we do climate change or do we deliver profits? Actually, you have a purpose and that purpose will deliver profits. This idea of talent, which I think is worth looking at a bit more closely, because I've now done three panels today. The first one was on LGBTQ issues. The second one was on... Great resignation. The great resignation, people wanted to move, thank you. And the third one is countries. That same issue has come up again and again, which is employees, freelancers, whatever, they want to work for companies or bosses or enterprises where they can have an impact and where there is impact. How true is that, do you think, for you? I think it's massively true. We all are confronted with that every day today. I think there's also a bit of a realization of all the stakeholders that are confronting a company. On the consumer side, I do think you see some movement, but I'm personally relatively disappointed that the consumers are not a lot more demanding and vocal in terms of what they ask for in the product, et cetera. We all still buy cars, we all still fly, et cetera. There's a lot of reality that the consumers are relatively nice in terms of what they say, but then how much does that translate into manifest demand? I think there's more disappointment than success on that one. I would say for many CEOs at this point, the employee base and the recruiting base is much more limiting and traumatic in short-term. You lose people. If I look even at my own company, BCG, I mean, where do people go? They leave to join climate tech startups. They go to ESG firms, et cetera, and I do think it is an incredible pull for talent. You see that also in automotive. You see it in consumer goods. I mean, where do people go? They go to companies where they feel, well, I have more of a positive impact, and it makes a difference. I think of all stakeholders, the investors and the employees are probably the ones that make the biggest difference. I feel is now getting more relevant is the whole kind of cascading of carbon reduction targets through the supply chain. So, I mean, we spoke about Scope 1, 2, 3. I mean, the reality is many, many companies have given some form of target. Just a reminder to anybody watching who's not familiar with Scope 1, 2, and 3. I'm sure people in this room are, but anybody watching Scope 1? Scope 1 and 2 are basically the things that the company produces or emits itself, and Scope 3 is upstream all the supplier emissions and downstream all the consumer or customer emissions. So, Scope 3 is the real complexity. I think most companies have a relatively easy time measuring Scope 1 and 2, but Scope 3 is hard. We did a survey a year ago, 1200 companies, most of which have communicated some form of target, and we asked for a self-assessment, do you really measure what you emit? What came back was 9% of the companies that we truly comprehensively measure. So, there's this whole target setting, pledging reality, and on the other hand, only 9% really measure what is truly coming out there. So now, what is happening, this is going to 20%, 30% relatively fast. There's progress, but now, as there is progress, I think one big lever to get carbon down in the supply chain is that IKEA, you go to your suppliers and you say, look, I've given a target. I need Scope 3 to come down. Can you please commit and do something? And you see that also with the automotive companies going to the chemical and metal producers. I think it's happening, but of course it also takes a bit of time. So, let's talk to Anish. Obviously, for a large company like yours, and indeed for users, the mechanisms of Scope 3 must be very difficult to actually to get into your supply chain and get the necessary information with integrity back, must be difficult. Not as difficult as it seems. And let me first talk about Scope 1 and 2. We actually not only measure it, but we have it audited every year. So, we've shown a 20% reduction in Scope 1 and 2 over the last two years. We've looked at where we will be in 2030 and we don't do anything more. And what are the actions we can take to reduce that? Scope 3, let me take the example of automotive. An average car will emit 35 tons of carbon in its lifetime. How do you reduce that? If you go to 100% EV, you go from 35 tons to 27 tons. That's still a lot. And while we talk about EV, that in itself is not the solution. If you go to 100% renewable energy, you go from 27 to 7 tons. The balance 7 tons is what comes in from the materials. And this is where the first movers coalition is playing a significant role by having companies commit to certain targets to buy green steel, for example, to buy green cement. We have signed up for those targets now. And that's starting to create a demand for green steel because they are saying that if someone is going to buy, then we will put in the investment for the technology. And that's how you reduce that 7. So that is our roadmap. Maybe. Because your supply chain must be absolutely huge for all your products. Of course, like I would say in any consumer industry, it's huge and you have first, second, third tier suppliers. And then you have, if you have a large brand, you have millions of consumers. And the thing is, that is also the beauty with it, that because the question is, are we mitigating a problem or are we redesigning economy? And of course we need to mitigate some parts. But to Vanessa's question, which I don't have a clue the answer, why would you invest in old technology for a period unless it's absolutely desperate, I could imagine, if you have the opportunity to invest the same money in the future. And the same thing goes, so it's not only to go to suppliers to say could you please do your part. It's rethinking what is a product, what is the material, how do you design it for separability, how do you create circular loops. And this is going to take a few years to get down the road, but it's going to make things more affordable and better as we take out carbon. I just wanted to comment that, you know, these efforts being made by companies is laudable. Everybody, we have to use every single tool we have. But we also need to think about whether we can look at common methodologies for pricing carbon, for taxing. Right now, every, it's good, let all flowers bloom. But sometimes it's not easy for businesses themselves when different jurisdictions have different approaches. It's very fragmented. Right now we have about 70 different carbon pricing and taxing systems in the world. Everyone approaching it in their own way. And I think that a good thing to do, particularly for developing countries and developing country businesses, can we approach it from a global carbon price perspective? Right, but there's different, obviously, different industries require different mechanisms for that. But let us set it. And then if we set a global carbon price with segmented, let me look at it on a country basis. Those that are poorer are facing a different price from the middle income, from the rich. There is a continuum. And those who don't want to come benchmark themselves against this. Well, first of all, the thing you're talking about is, frankly, your organisation, the WTO. Not just me. No, but you are the organisation that would put in place the negotiations for a more common... I feel we can be the place, yes. Why not? We have developing countries, we have developed countries. I think we are a proper forum to have this conversation. Because in doing this, if you don't involve developing countries who already feel that all of these things are a kind of protectionism, you will lose them. So I think it's the right place, but we can collaborate with the private sector to get their input with other multilaterals, and actually we are doing that with the IMF and the World Bank, and OECD. I want to talk about collaboration in a second, but Vanessa, this question of carbon pricing, which every industry is involved in, to me often seems like a good way of avoiding doing too much too quickly, because you're basically saying, if you pollute, you'll pay. And if you pollute more, you'll pay somebody else's carbon pricing. And that's a sort of a market mechanism for it. What do you think on the concept? Do you see carbon pricing as a con, or is a way to actually make an improvement? What I can say is that whatever thing that is done by companies, it shouldn't pass over as greenwashing. Because there is also a problem of companies saying that they are doing something, for example, embracing, for example, carbon pricing, and yet it's passing off as greenwashing. So I think it's really important that we weigh in on what is real action towards the climate crisis and what is passing off as greenwashing. There is something that was mentioned about mattresses, which I really appreciate. I think every action is important. But then what may be frustrating if the investments in fossil fuels are way, for example, you find that governments or business leaders will say they're investing in clean energy and say they're investing like millions of dollars. And yet trillions of dollars are going to fossil fuel projects. So it's really important to understand the heart behind carbon pricing or the heart behind whatever action that is taken so that it's not just doing it to please investors or to please shareholders. But you're really doing it for the planet and for the people. Yes, but then we're going to speak to some people from in the room. I will maybe add to that as well. When we make this economically right, it's going to be one of the best forces to drive it. Then I would like to say it to Nogosi's point. I think we all, the corporates, we welcome the standards. But as you said, we need to have coherent one standard if possible because it's so messy right now. When we have that standard, two things will happen. Many things will happen, but to Vanessa's point, greenwashing will be legislated against. So it's not going to be only a bad moral thing, but it's going to be a breach to policies. The other thing that will happen is that people are actually doing good things, will dare to speak up. Because today, all these great examples, you have to almost be a detective to find them. They're out there, but people are afraid of raising their voice because it's a bit unclear how you will be assessed when you do. And that's not good. I would agree with Vanessa completely. Greenwashing is an issue. And that is something that does need to be addressed directly. One thing that gives me some optimism on that front is in a conversation that a few of us were in at the World Economic Forum a couple of days ago. You've got the big four coming together to create a set of metrics that they will audit across a large number of companies. And that is what's really going to be a litmus test in terms of saying, is it greenwashing or is there real progress? And a number of companies have signed up for this already. And that list is expanding rapidly. Just to one last point on this. I think when it comes to fossil fuels, obviously you have a supply side. We need to talk about that. And Vanessa, you make the points there. We also need to acknowledge that there's a demand side. And you always run into economic chaos and incredible disruption if you try to work on one of these two and not on the other in parallel. And I do think all these mechanisms, carbon pricing, carbon border taxes, et cetera, are having an impact on demand. And I do think we also need to, to some extent, expect the consuming industries to get their consumption down massively. And I think whatever drives into that direction is going to be important. The room. All right. That's a question. You're more than welcome to make statements. You're more than welcome to ask questions. You're not welcome to make a speech. Right, the lady. Yes, ma'am. Hi, thank you. Speak up. So I hear a lot of talk about the big companies, but I work with really grassroots people and very small companies. And I see that it's still very, very hard to convince them to move. We are framing it positively, but do you have something to say about that? I don't know of you. Get some free advice from BCG. You'd have to spare fortune. You'd be more than welcome. I do think it's very real. I mean, look at this incredible complexity of measuring, reporting, getting certified, audited, all these things. I mean, you can do that if you're a multi-billion-dollar corporate. I think it's so hard if you are the family-owned business and you are basically even struggling to do your normal financial reporting at the end of the year. I think you are spot on. I think what we find in many industries is that the higher the share of small and medium enterprises in the supplier base, the harder it is to cascade the whole effort through the supply chain, and I think it's a very real challenge. Now, big companies start working with their suppliers to help them and also get them into a position to report and measure. You have multiple big customers. I mean, you get different systems, different tools, and it's becoming really complex. I think it's a very real challenge. It's one that concerns me a lot. And I think in some very heavy emitting industries, for example, if you look at the agricultural supply chain, I think it's going to be a big challenge for many years. Can I have two short comments on it just for the debate? Is that okay, Richard? Yeah, of course. Yeah, very good. I think you probably have a richer reality but I meet a lot of SMEs who really want to who are morally driven by this and they're looking for business opportunities. But they don't know the methodology. They don't know what scope one, two, and three is. So I think, and it's one of the things that I'm going to address myself and I know others as well, how to actually bring the incitimate and the methods to people and try to connect them because the engagement will be possible. I think I would love the debate on that. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Richard. I'd like to see R&D money for removing cadmium, nickel, lithium from batteries to make them more environmental friendly and secondly also the elephant in the room, nuclear fusion, which will help replace fossil fuels. Are you in favour of it? Yes. Are you in favour of it? I think it's the elephant in the room. We need more nuclear power. Yes, we need more nuclear power. Having said that, I'm also going to say that your opening question was excellent. When you said how will you have climate become prominent in this battle with vulnerabilities? Right. I just want to say... No, please don't. I just want to say that improving climate action needs four things. Oh, dear. Decreasing carbon, decreasing emissions, decreasing waste and decreasing vulnerabilities. Everyone ignores the last. Are you in favour of more nuclear round the panel? Are you in favour of more nuclear? Do you think I've got to answer that question? I'm going to ask you a nice question. Come on. I think we need more information on that to make a call. There is a negative answer. Vanessa? Yes. Nuclear? No. Thank you. Go on, just keep talking. Thanks to Richard for being so flexible in the... So, as you're so flexible, my question is to you. No. Yeah, come on. I mean, this is... Of course, you've been playing an excellent role on the show that we have been seeing, but what happens with media? You're representing the public opinion. What does it cost so much? This is a cultural change and we need media to be helping here. Here we go. I'm just looking at the clock. It took about 45 minutes before the media got blamed for something. That's longer than I would have thought it was going to be. Yes. Thank you. My question is for Ngozi, because you talk about global commons. To me, carbon pricing is one way to shift the economic system, which does not appreciate the value of global commons. The carbon is maybe the only single currency in the market which tries to measure the cost of destroying the global commons. Is that possible, you think, that they also expand that measure to the broader natural capital to shift the market? I think so, yes. I think you can. I absolutely think so now, but we have to start somewhere. And we should do it. Maybe I'm an economist, but the only way to get people focused on things is to put a price on them as much as you can. That doesn't mean they don't have other value, but it gets people to pay attention. Can that work in time? Because the issue now, as I can see it, is not that we don't know something has to be done. And there's enough policy documents to burn a forest several times over. But can pricing and economic forces, per se, bring the necessary pressure in time? I think so. Look, we have brain power. If we decide to do this, then it shouldn't take time. I'm not saying it's easy. Get me, don't get me wrong. But we can do it, and it will simplify things for everyone. For countries, for businesses, and so on. Hi, I'm Shalee Sinar, a phrenicline energy company in India. Fantastic. We're doing great work. I saw you last time. Keep up the good work. I just want to say that, of course, we're talking about should we accelerate this transition, et cetera, but the question also is that what do we do where there is no energy? We're talking about an energy transition, but we should also talk about what do we do to the 13% of the world which has no energy? I think folks sitting on this... That's a different question. It's an important question. It's not in the sense... I'll take that back for a second, just that we need to focus on a just and a fair transition. That's an important part of this. That's what Vanessa was talking about. We can do more. We have foundations here, et cetera, and we need to think about that. You've got the last one. That'd be good. I am Pranshu from Karosamba, India. How do we price circularity? This is now a new challenge, and there's a lot of debate from all the work that I've done. It seems it is less than a percentage point compared to the average selling price of the product, but we are seeing almost no action at a grass root level in terms of creating collection systems, recycling, getting it back. Richard, can I please? This is my favourite topic. I believe that the energy transition has started and it's unstoppable. I believe that the mobility and transport transition may be still early days, but it's happening. The circularity needs to be pushed. The interesting thing is that I love to talk about until people fall asleep, but the cool thing is that that's the material of the future. That's the lowest price of raw material. If we remove policies to subsidise incineration, if we don't, the economy will never work. You talked about policies that were a bit more granular. If we address the policies to make it possible and shift subsidies from the bad to the good, circularity will happen very fast. I want to finish on this thought for the panel. The one change you're going to make in your daily life or in your life to help small things. You're all CEOs and government leaders and activists, so you have the power to make major changes for tens of thousands of people in the global economy. Get it. I understand it. But what's the one small change that you start with negotiations to give us about? I'm making the question as long as possible to give you time to think about it. Maybe anyone in the audience, one change, what's one change? Don't make a speech, I want the one change. No, sorry, one change. No, that you're going to make. I'm ready with mine. Oh, you are? Yes, because I'm doing it. Then it's not a change. OK, no, but I just started. Oh, fine. All right, and go on. This has to do with precisely the circularity issue, recycling. Right. Really committing myself to recycling. And it's not as easy. You know, we are used to use and throw away culture. So that's the change I'm making. Jew recycling. What's the one change that you're going to make? I've made so many changes. I don't know what else to change. All right. In my company, BCG, we have 1,600 partners who own the firm and who make decisions every day. Where we go, how we travel, how often we do that. Everyone of the 1,600 needs to see a display regularly, monthly or even weekly. How much these decisions are driving in current if you send your teams this way or that way, you hold a conference. What carbon does it trigger? I think in so many companies, if you measure things and put them in front of people regularly, I think it has a massive impact. And I mean, usually we look at it with way too few people, make it available to a much broader set of stakeholders. So forgive me the journalism. So the change you're going to make is name and shame your partners. I will name and shame the partners and also give them the reward if they make progress. Oh, so you're going to use the economic method. Name, shame and bonus. Yeah, I would say measure, incentivise and celebrate or shame if it doesn't work. I get. Sir, one change. The change I would make is measure my carbon footprint. What is that today? Where does that come from? And then set a target for reduction for that and then find a way to meet that target. I'm going to measure my children's carbon footprint. So what I'm going to do, that's too complex. No, I'm going to engage my 170,000 colleagues in my company to be ambassador, to know what I know and make sure that they can be proudly part of telling the story. That is such a corporate answer. No, it's a personal answer. I heard you said personal. Thank you. The director general has said you're said to be personal. It's a superperson, I think, for me. Thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen, our panel. Thank you.