 Good afternoon, everyone, or good morning depending on where you are in the world. I'm Francine Lacquan. I cannot be more delighted to be with you on this final panel to look at the global jobs recovery plan. I was looking at some of the wonderful actually research that they put together and estimated 255 million full-time jobs globally could have been destroyed because of COVID-19. So the point of the session, of course, try to understand how countries can pivot towards investment into emerging high-quality jobs of tomorrow. And we have a really star-studded panel to help us along. Alan Blue, co-founder of LinkedIn, Sharon Burrow, general secretary, International Trade Union Confederation, James Laurie, Jim Laurie, chief executive officer Stanley Black and Decker, Jeff Manjo-Calda, chief executive of Coursera and Guy Ryder, director general, international labor organization. So thank you all for joining us on a very important topic. And I remind everyone that you can also ask your own questions. Please feel free to do it often. When you look at exactly the last 12 months and how it's changed the way we work, technology, having displaced all of the workers, Guy, maybe kick us off in trying to figure out how you think technology and the panic has changed it. Has the pace of change accelerated? Or has it just changed the course for the jobs of tomorrow? Well, for most people, we've gone backwards at a very high velocity. I mean, let's be very frank about it. That figure of 255 million full-time job equivalents lost in 2020 is the most dramatic figure we've seen in modern industrial history. And we're just looking now trying to project forward from that deep, deep hole in labor markets, by the way, which has brought massive increases in workability, increases in child labor, increases in forced labor. This is a big story. And the rest, frankly, has to be viewed in the context of that reality. Now, we're looking forward from that deep hole of 2020. What do we see? Well, the report we've just launched today shows that by the end of next year, 2022, we won't have got back in quantitative terms the volume of jobs lost through the pandemic. We reckon the world will still be down by about 23 million jobs. So this is a very grave crisis. Now, how has technology affected this? And the interesting thing is this drama has been superimposed on ongoing processes of change, those brought about by technological innovation. Also, those that have been brought out with much more to come on the road to climate neutrality, demographic change, much else. My view is technology has really helped us through this pandemic because very obviously in others, I'm sure, can speak to this with great authority. It's enabled a lot of people to continue to function. It seems to me inherently probable that that experience has accelerated and will make permanent processes of change that were already underway. But I would warn, as I habitually do in these conversations, about any sort of falling into a notion of technological determinism, that because technologies are becoming available, that's where we're going. That is what we're going to happen. Are we on the road to generalized remote working? I don't know. I'm not even sure that that's a desirable outcome. But what it does offer is choice, I think. It enables us to construct ways of working which haven't been available to us before and which could be highly beneficial. But we're in a bad place. So let's please start from that understanding. The world of work is in a very bad place right now. Alan, what kind of, I mean, not all sectors are created equally like Guy Ryder was saying, right? Some jobs have gone, I guess new ones have been created. From your point of view, what's been, I guess, the biggest legacy of the pandemic in the last 12 months? So before the pandemic, we saw this substantial shift towards the world of technology-focused jobs. And basically the pandemic has accelerated that. So we're seeing probably the addition of 150 million technology-enabled jobs over the next five years worldwide. And that's a huge opportunity for people because these jobs are much in demand, tend to be very high-paid. So it's an interesting transition, but a difficult transition for most people to get through. That's an acceleration. If I were to point to one of the things which has been a lasting impact, though, I would say it's a lasting impact on the progress for equity in the economy in two ways. First, we think that internationally, women have lost one or two years of progress in terms of their ability to participate fully in the workforce. We know for sure the pandemic hit women much more, much harder than it did men. Secondly, the pandemic is receding unevenly around the world. And that unevenness, unfortunately, is going to, or has the potential to very substantially increase inequity globally. If we recover at 6.5% in the United States while Africa is beset by the virus for two more years, that's a huge amount of potential lost ground. Thank you so much, Alan. Sharon, where do you see, I mean, Guy started by painting a really pretty bleak picture. Do you see anything that's horrific at the moment, but actually as economies reopen, you get jobs back? Or do you really worry about the future of all workers? Well, we certainly worry about jobs because Sadia said that we need a social as well as an economic recovery. And you can't have one without the other. And we know that if we were to go back to the heart of a social contract, which is the security of having a job, then full employment would mean we needed about 575 million jobs at a participation rate of 75%, which is a little below the EU target. And the majority of those jobs have to be for women. So we do believe that investment in the transition for climate, that technology can create jobs, but it will only create jobs in a net drive towards full employment if we're conscious of where we've lost and will continue to lose jobs and how we repair what is basically a broken labor market. So we've said that, first of all, when you're talking about the formal economy, we need 575 million new jobs. The majority of them for women have to be inclusive of young people. But we also need to see that the informal economy is indeed formalized to the extent we can. So if we're gonna reach the SDG target of goal eight by 2030, we also need to add to that jobs target a formalization of one billion jobs on the planet that are currently informal. Now, Guy presided over the ILO Centenary Declaration, and it was very clear in a tripartite negotiation that all workers, irrespective of their employment arrangements had to have a basic floor of labor rights and protections. Fundamental rights, of course, a right to freedom of association, collective bargaining to be free from discrimination, child or forced labor, but also occupational health and safety. COVID's shown us just how vulnerable workplaces can be. And we needed a minimum living wage or an adequate living wage evidence base so people can live with dignity. And of course then share prosperity through collective bargaining. But we also need some control over maximum hours of work. And those of you who've watched the explosion in telework in your own workplaces, while Guy's right, it's still the minority. Nevertheless, you know that the right to disconnect, the right to actually manage a sanity between work and life is really important. So jobs have to be at the heart of it. We've called for every government to have a jobs plan. And I was thrilled by the launch, Sadiq, of the partnerships, because we need those targets. We also should recognize that in the context of those targets and the figures Guy used about the loss, a massive loss of working hours, 18 million people actually left the labor market, no hope. Many of them, the majority of them are women. And we need to look at what it will take indeed, as Alan said, to speed up the participation of women to get even back to where we were, but certainly to get to equal participation which is the policy aim of everybody. So this is a critical area. And I would just remind people that having a job, a secure job, is about trust and opportunity and optimism for the future. So that's what we talk about as the dignity of labor. I am actually getting quite a lot of questions that we'll get to in a second about how to address the issue that women and minorities have suffered the most from the pandemic. What can global businesses like yours actually do to help workers transition? I think you need to unmute, it's very 2021. Sorry about that. This whole concept of job creation is necessary and very real and very relevant. However, there is another twist to it which corporations are facing related to skills mismatch. And we have in the United States over a million open jobs and we cannot find people to fill the jobs that have the requisite skills. So this whole concept of how do we change that imbalance in countries that are coming back from an economic meltdown into a robust environment and we have labor shortages and so on. And so there are short-term solutions to it but there also has to be long-term and medium-term strategies to go with it and corporations do have a role to play. And we're a very socially responsible company. We have a corporate social responsibility strategy. It has three elements. The first element is to empower 10 million makers. And this is by 2030. And then second, innovate with purpose. And then the third is to positively impact the environment. And we have quantitative carbon, neutral carbon positive goals and other goals related to packaging and recycling and so forth in that leg of the strategy. But leg number one is all about skilling and reskilling. And for us, we have over a hundred plants around the world and this is very much a local issue because many of these plants are in locations that don't have access to the type of talent and skills that are required to fill those jobs. So we essentially have to take the existing workforce which is great because that is socially responsible and we have to upskill them. And the way the solutions to this generally need to be local in nature. So local public-private partnerships at plant locations for the hourly workforce are definitely a solution and one that we're pursuing in the vast majority of our plants. Now, when we get to this challenge to empower 10 million makers and that essentially means upskilling them for our company, we are in the process of defining a five-year challenge if you will, series of challenges which I think will be funded in the $20 to $30 million level and every year we'll be releasing grants and funds to empower 501c3 nonprofit organizations and NGOs and even startups to go out and find ways to help upskill the maker community the labor community, if you will. And we're very excited about that. We'll probably be launching that in a couple of months, maybe October. And then finally, when it comes to the salary workforce, interestingly, so the accelerating pace of technological change has created this environment where salary workers and hourly workers need to constantly be upskilling themselves and the company needs to be supporting that. And so we have established relationships with Jeff's organization, Coursera, and we've trained, we've had, have given our people thousands of courses, the self-administered courses through his platform, another platform called Percipio, another one from PWC that does digital awareness training and as well as internally curated platform as well. So very, very intensive upskilling program for the both workforces, hourly and salary as we go here but it's essential and it's essential within the company and it's essential to do what we can for society and that's that empower 10 million makers by 2030. Thank you, Jeff, what are some of the jobs that the workers are actually trying to reskill for? Well, so I think when you asked about the legacy of pandemic looking back, I think right now it's been a lot of suffering and a lot of inequality that has had a huge impact on certain populations more than others. If we went out five or 10 years and then look back, hard to say what it's gonna look like but I think there are two major features that will be remembered as being fundamental that really starts with what Alan said. There will be 150 million or so Microsoft estimates, jobs that require digital skills. There's a couple things I think are very promising about that if we recognize not every job is gonna require digital skills but there will be a larger and larger share of jobs and job opportunities that will be based on digital skills. The couple things that are very, I think important to note, digital jobs can often be learned on digital platforms. So the ability to get learning opportunities no matter where you are, very affordable, very accessible, often administered through institutional collaborations I think is to some degree something we see now post pandemic or in the early stages that we didn't see before. And not only the ability to get job opportunities where you learn to do the skills of the job but also with remote work. And at Coursera over half the people we're hiring now are not near an office. Now that's not gonna be true for every company, it's not gonna be true for every job. But increasingly more and more job opportunities will be available to people even if the job opportunity is not in their city or their state or their country. If we can have learning opportunities for anyone, job opportunities increasingly for anyone, I think it does create an opportunity to have much more fair distribution of learning and work. And I think that to a large degree, digital is part of what's gonna create that kind of opportunity. And we're seeing really great institutional collaborations to seize this kind of an opportunity. Guy, do you see any opportunity anywhere? I mean, you painted a pretty bleak picture at the start 255 million full-time jobs globally lost that have been destroyed. When economies get better, when we fully reopen, how many of those jobs are actually back and how many will be people that don't, cannot reskill that won't be able almost to find a job in their lifetime. Yeah, I mean, the fact of the matter is, despite that, perhaps over the bleak start I get to the conversation, recovery is underway and we see in certain economies, great job creation. I mean, the world is creating jobs again and that has to be good news. And there I think can be no doubt whatsoever that those who are able in the position to acquire digital skills are gonna be very well placed to take advantage of them. But I want to come back to what Alan said and I admitted to say it in my first comments. In complete, as this recovery is, it is also extremely unequal for reasons which have been referred to already. And this is dramatically important because it will add to the burdens of existing inequality. I think there are three factors that we need to look at here. You might say I'm looking too short term in the conversation, but I'll say it anyway. One is a simple issue of a vaccine distribution. Vaccine health policy is now economic policy. The way vaccines are rolled out and where they're rolled out has a massive importance for the contours of economic recovery. And we know the story there. The bad news is that that first factor is compounded and exacerbated by the unequaleness of fiscal space available to our different countries. The IMF tell us that 16 trillion US dollars has been spent in trying to mitigate and get out of this crisis. But we know where that money's been spent by and large and fully understandably is being spent mostly by rich countries, which are now on the bounce back for their own folks. If you go to a lower income country, it looks very, very different. And the third compounding, and the problem is it all goes in the same direction. The third compounding factor, and it comes very strongly out of the conversation that we're having, is connectivity. If this ability to take advantage of digital opportunity is where we're going, well, some of the world is connected, but a hell of a lot of the world is not connected. Our estimate is the number of jobs that can be done remotely in the global economy is 18%, one 8% right now. That goes up a lot more in some economies than others. But put those three factors together, unless we act on those three, push some buttons to make those three variables change. We're not on the road to a benign recovery. I'm fearful that we're on the road that will work for some, that simply will not work for others. And then we have this unequal unfair world. And I wish I could share, I hope Alan's right about women's exclusion and the bounce back there. It looks pretty grim right now. Nine out of every 10 women have lost their jobs in this pandemic. They've left the workforce. They haven't become unemployed. They become inactive. And pulling them back is really quite a big job to do. And I won't go into use because I've spoken too long already, but it's pretty similar there. And Jeff actually made the point right now that actually childhood education will be critical to mitigating inequality, which is actually the question that we have from Patrick. So thank you, Patrick, for sending that question in. How can we address the issue that women and minorities have suffered the most? Before I go to Jeff on this, are you proponent, is it debt relief? And do you see a willingness amongst leaders of maybe more developed economies to try and help the whole world out for this jobs recovery plan? Or does it feel like it's each to their own? The answer to your first question is yes. The answer to your second question is no. That is to say, we are gonna find a lot of countries under, particularly if inflation ticks up and we get interest rates moving, we're gonna find a hell of a lot of countries in situations of debt stress. And that's gonna absolutely damage their possibilities of moving forward. Do we see international leaders reacting? Well, we've had a little bit on debt service relief coming out to the G20. I think SDRs in the IMF could be a big story, but I think we've got to look a bit more broadly at how fiscal spaces are should be around the world. We've got some big issues around taxation to have conversations about in the future as well, but that's how I think I can respond to the point you make. Translator. Jeff? Yeah, well, I think that the possibility that inequality gets worse for a lot of the reasons that Guy mentioned are absolutely right there. On the one hand, the opportunity to have the ability to learn new skills digitally and to do jobs remotely is incredible. But if you don't have connectivity, neither will you be able to learn those skills. Generally speaking, I mean, access to physical education infrastructure if you're an adult is limited, especially in the countries that have the surging population growth, but also increasingly, if job opportunities require connectivity because those job opportunities might not be domiciled in your country, if you don't have connectivity, you're gonna be basically shortchanged on the learning opportunities and the job opportunities. So I think governments really need to be focused on connectivity like electricity and water and basic needs. And then childhood education, the basics of reading and writing, literacy, mathematics, the basic building blocks are requirements if you wanna be an entry level, almost any digital job, you have to know how to write and read and some basic mathematics. So I think that the underpinnings of connectivity and education are gonna be requirements of harnessing this digital future to create more rather than less inequality. Alan, yeah, Sharon, go ahead. Well, I wanted to pick up on that because I think there are what I called scaffolding factors we need to pay attention to. Education and skills is clearly one of them. And I'm so pleased to hear Jeff start with early childhood. We all know it's actually the best economic investment for the long term, but it's also one of the best human investments. And if you had childcare and we absolutely talk about investment and care as one of the key sectors of getting those jobs because you not only get a huge multiplier impact for the economy, you take the burden of care of women and allow them to participate either in good jobs in childcare, age care, health, education or indeed in the broader economy. But education more broadly, we have to think of in three tranches. One is the early years through formal schooling. The second is indeed the school to work transition. And here again, you have a gender discrimination piece that is huge. Like I've sat on skills councils in my own country with employers and workers and we absolutely reviewed apprenticeships and the curriculum but have a look at what happens to women who never get a chance at an apprenticeship. They're often if any skill base in the transition to work in low level traineeships without qualifications and so on. And then in the workplace and I want to address Jim's point on this because I was pleased to hear the discussion in the last round about how efficient it is to actually retrain or lifelong learning or upskilling or whatever term you want to use rather than hiring and firing and wanting ready-made skills. Now I know Jim's company, I've worked with him before and I suggest to all of you that he's one of the people conscious of decent supply chains because it's got a model of actually producing for the domestic economy not just relying on low wage jobs to produce for developed economies. But I do think we have to really think through where's the responsibility for both re-skilling and indeed lifelong learning that gives you those, that skills flexibility but also where's the income mix? And if we don't have social protection that is a broader concept, obviously a floor for resilience for personal or national or global shocks but also if you need a period out re-skilling Sweden's got one of the best models, employers and workers say they will fund with government support but with their own contributions appeared. Now in the developed world that's possible. In the developing world we have to look at what just development models mean it does start with connectivity Jeff but it also is really about how we finance social protection and education. So there are the opportunities there and business can in fact build on. Ellen, we started the conversation with you saying women and minorities have fallen back maybe by two years in terms of the glacial progress that we've made. And yet you speak to chief executives you speak to world leaders and they say we're rebuilding better. A number of chairman at banks have also said maybe it's time that a female takes my place. Do you see the catalysts? Are we going to rebuild better? Even if now we've taken a back step is it going to get better quite quickly or is it just talk? So I know that the last 18 months have been an opportunity for companies to think about the ways in which they want to contribute to a more equal future. So just listen to what Jim was saying earlier. I think it's a fantastic, training makers, I think it's a fantastic contribution. I know literally hundreds of companies which have plans, ideas, things that they want to put in place. A lot of those things are relative to the size of the need, just a small piece. However, I will guarantee you that there are a bunch of companies out there with only a little bit of encouragement will invest very heavily in making those changes happen. I'm saying it that way specifically because we're in a position right now where we have some parts of the economy and some parts of job creation which are growing very, very fast. And I think we should all take as much advantage of those things as we possibly can. If I'm putting myself in the shoes of a member of government is really hard. But if I'm in government, I want to have something which is going really, really well to allow me then to invest in the things which are going less well. So what I would love to do is say, wow, we've got a bunch of corporate partners. They've signed up for a bunch of stuff. We know that if we participate at least to a small extent in this massive growth on technology jobs with the gigantic economic benefits which come from them, maybe I've now got a part of the work that we're doing which is working great. And now I can say, all right, now let's do it in a way which is more inclusive. Let's do it in a way which thinks more about the long-term future and development. At LinkedIn, we've always called these rivers places where the water is flowing fast. Let's take advantage of that water in order to power the entire economy. To be clear, I'm not trying to say that it's easy and I'm not trying to say that it's just simple to focus on these things but there is strong motion and opportunity for power there. So I think people need to take advantage of it. Thank you. Jim, I have a good question which goes back to actually what Sharon was saying. This is from Pablo Felix who writes in and saying, look, he has a question on capabilities and new behaviors. So he says, in addition to focus on specific capabilities such as collaboration, creative thinking and resilience, what is the best way to speed up the growth curve of these capabilities? How, I don't know if it's a DNA of a company or a DNA of how to learn new skills but is there a best way to internalize some of these new behaviors? Yeah, I think a lot of companies in the last X number of years have been leaning towards this concept of social responsibility and having an impact in some of these areas but I think it's really generational. I think the, especially the second half for the millennial generation and then Gen Z folks coming into the workforce, they're demanding, they're demanding a commitment to ESG and in particular E and S. So the environmental commitments as well as social awareness and commitment to be a force for good in society. This is real. I talked to some of the wealth management folks at one of the big firms in New York and they were telling me that there are generations inheriting wealth that are insisting on only investing in ESG conscious companies and they're literally changing their parents' portfolios upon inheriting the money and the wealth. And so you can't really see this yet but this is a massive force. This is a financial force that is to be reckoned with and companies that don't pay attention to ESG are really going to be hurt by the capital markets and vice versa. So I'm involved in it and I got involved in it because I really believe in it but I think there's going to be a wave of ESG coming over the transom which has been amplified by the reality that we just went through an existential crisis and these problems that we have in society, these massive problems, whether it's climate or inequality or racial justice, whatever they might be, they need to be dealt with and everyone understands that governments alone can't deal with them, corporations alone can't deal with them and the only way to really deal with them is to partner up and figure it out. And I would only add, you're not going to be hurt only by the financial markets but by the labor markets as well. At LinkedIn, millions of people get jobs on a regular basis. Those people look for those, they look for companies who align with their values because especially if they're pursuing one of these in-demand jobs, they're in charge. They're in charge of the table in terms of that negotiation and they can pick from many companies which are possibilities. They're going to basically push companies towards adopting ESGs on diversity, on climate, on a lot of things. Jeff and Guy, but first to Jeff, the same question to both of you. So half the global workforce probably needs upskilling. How will this be paid for? So what kind of agreement do we need between employees, governments, companies, universities and unions, Jeff? Yeah, I think that it's going to take all sorts of shapes even if you just looked at Coursera just as an example. So there are about 82 million learners on Coursera. We offer learning directly to individuals, anyone in the world who has connectivity can come to Coursera and many other sites by the way and they can watch course lectures for free and they can pay $49 as different and different regions to complete courses. They can also earn full college degrees, bachelor's degrees and master's degrees. Of course, those are a little bit more expensive. Interestingly, I think institutions have really stepped into the game in a much bigger way during the pandemic. We launched Coursera for business five years ago and saw a lot of businesses say, we need to reskill and upskill people honestly starting with machine learning, AI, those skills that aren't really in the labor market at all. We have to create them. So let's go through that digital transformation. The pandemic really caused a lot of other institutions, governments and universities to really step in as well. And what we're really excited about is we see institutional collaborations among governments and universities and businesses. So the state of New York decided we're gonna buy the state is going to buy Coursera, access to Coursera for all unemployed people in New York and they're working with the City University of New York system to make sure all the schools get the latest kind of online learning and they're working with employment organizations in Manhattan and in Buffalo to make sure that those local jobs are getting the supply of talent out of the schools that have been upskilled with online learning. So collaborations among institutions, I think provides an incredible opportunity and we're already starting to see that. Guy, do you agree with this? I mean, who is meant to pay for it and is there like Jeff was pointing to, is there an ideal way of doing it? There is a violent agreement about the need for lifelong learning systems to be put in place and for everybody to find a place in them. I think there are three subsequent questions where we're still struggling. The first is what do delivery systems for lifelong learning look like and governments around the world are struggling with this. We need what Sharon has referred to as scaffolding. We need something to build these things on. That's the first question. The second question is who's responsible? Who is responsible for lifelong learning provision? Is it the state? Is it private enterprise, private sector? And is it the individual working person themselves? And the third question, of course, is who's going to pay for all of this? Where is the money coming from? If we can answer those three questions, we're going some way towards an answer. My view of that debate around the world that I'm listening and it's really encouraging to hear some of the enterprise initiatives that are being undertaken. But my impression around the world is that we're at the first stages of this debate. People are really understanding and this conversation has brought out why. They're understanding that this is really a dramatically important challenge for the world given the extent of transformational change. We all know that anything we learned at school or college doesn't last a lifetime. Remember, well educated we were at the beginning of a working life. It ain't going to last any of us for a lifetime. So we've really got to make a reality of all of this. Those are the three questions, I think, that matter. And if I can just have one further point, I think all the evidence shows that those in general who have skills are much better placed to acquire new skills in the course of a professional life. That's the way it goes. Those who don't have anything to get started with tend to be left out, it is leaving people behind and it's a tough one, isn't it? But the answer to your question is we've all got a role in this, isn't it? I mean, it's clearly partnership. It's got to be the answer. I know Jeff will make a comment. I also have Alan actually saying governments need to insist on measuring outcomes. We're almost out of time. So actually I'm going to ask you each in 30 seconds to think of one or two priorities that you would either tell business leaders or world leaders that they need to focus on that you think they're leaving behind or not focusing on as much to make a real difference. Alan, you can go first. So I think the most important thing is figuring out a way to make sure that the parts of the economy which are going well and the opportunities which are coming to the people who are most in demand end up being something which can be leveraged to move the whole economy forward. One thing which could be done quickly, I think, in countries to do that, is to figure out a way to take the goodwill that exists at companies like Jim's and like Jeff's and mine and turn it into and figure out a way to magnify that goodwill to impact the society more broadly, help those companies work together. Sharon? I think that we have to be conscious of the investment in transitions, climate, technology, rebuilding, industry policy, whatever it is that they can create jobs but we've got to be conscious of making sure they do and that they're good jobs. We also have to recognize that skills is either a mindset or it's not. You know what? Again, lifelong learning goes right where at the first stage but it's a 25-year-old concept, possibly a bit longer and it is to be talked about from our, in our skills ecosystem discussions with employers in Australia. But it's also a productivity piece. If you think that investment in social protection pays for itself and then some in a multiplier impact, well, structured skills investment does too. We got productivity in Australia with a skills program up to 17 percentage points of multi-factor productivity. When those partnerships indeed were eroded and the money fell out of structured investment in skills, it went back to a 0.2%. Skills are critical but they're also about prosperity and productivity as well as the individual. But please don't just focus on a skills deficit. These isn't just skills for today. It is a learning mentality that is about lifelong learning and it creates the environment where people actually believe that this is part of their job. Thank you, Jim, in 30 seconds, your priorities. Yeah, there's so many countries where the politics are just getting in the way of progress and it's pitiful and upsetting to watch and there's so many different examples but I'll take the classic labor, business antagonistic relationship that had developed from the formation of labor unions years ago. That needs to shift, that needs to become apolitical, much more less dependent on politics and much more focused on collaboration. Unlocking that could be an amazing, amazing force to deal with so many of the problems that we've been talking about. Thank you, Jeff. I'll have to echo that a little bit. I think it's important for every institution, whether you're a business or government or a university or other, recognize the world's changing faster than it ever has before. That's all gonna accelerate. The pandemic has been a step change in that rate of change. Number two, it creates a lot of threats but also a lot of opportunities and although digital is not the only answer to Alan's point, there's a lot of leverage in digital and it's getting more leveraged. The ability to learn new skills and do jobs remotely creates opportunities for leverage where you can get some good wins on modest investments. And then the third thing, and this is gonna just be a shameless plug for the world economic forum, I do believe that institutional collaborations in communities where institutions can share not only challenges but emerging solutions that are actually working are critical for rate of learning and rate of progress. So I would encourage all institutions to Jim's point, collaborate, share ideas. We are finding solutions faster than we ever have before not to every problem, but to a lot of very important problems. And I think we're making great progress and I appreciate world economic forum convening us all to share those solutions. Great, just a guide in 20 seconds and then we'll go to class Rob. Well, all of these ambitions sort of have to start now and that's why it's so important that this recovery process builds in all of these great ideas and good intentions and at the risk of sounding like a scratch record. Today means getting those vaccines out equally. It means getting finance resources and investment together and it also means getting this sense of common purpose sort of infiltrated into policy making and it's not always evident for the reasons that have been alluded to that that is how the world is right now but we can perhaps help that. Well, thank you so much for a wonderful panel and with that for closing remarks I'm delighted to welcome Klaus Schwab over to you. Thank you very much. It was a fascinating panel and actually what we are discussing is part of this effort to build back better but I would also say to build back broader and for us at the World Economic Forum recognising that everything is interconnected we actually have four big objectives. I think the world needs to move simultaneously in four directions. First, to make the world more sustainable. Of course, here's a drive to net zero to make the world as we discuss now to make it much more inclusive. Number three, to make the world also more resilient and it has been mentioned several times because we all know and we have seen it with the pandemic now that the cost of inaction is much higher than the cost of taking the necessary afterwards repairing. And I think, Mr. Reiligui, see what you are saying related to vaccines is just a good example. If we refer to the latest World Bank, IMF report, if we invest sufficiently into the distribution of vaccines, we can save probably quite a lot of money. But the fourth dimension in this, let's say, effort to create a better and broader global recovery. I think the fourth dimension is of course technology. We have to make the world not only more sustainable more inclusive, more resilient, but also smarter. We have to use the technologies to, I think you, Guy, you said to, even today you said in a meeting to build a human-centered recovery strategy. Now, what we wanted to achieve with this job summit is to create the awareness for the urgent need to join in a global jobs recovery plan. And here let me just enumerate some dimensions of such a recovery plan. First, I think we have to imagine the economy, not only of tomorrow, but the economy, how it could look like or how it should look like in 20, 30 years from now, because people entering now is a job market. So you will need some skills for the next 40, 50 years. Now, what economy do we really want to have? And my feeling is that we are moving and should move from an economy which is based mainly on producing to a economy which should be mainly based on caring. So Forum has undertaken some research work to define 20 new markets which are really much more in the era of taking care of people, taking care of the planet. So second point that I want to raise is of course the re-skilling and up-skilling. People, if they are really well-skilled, they can be the accelerators to bring about the world and the economy which we really aim for. Let me just finalize maybe what we need is also a new mindset. It has been mentioned in the business world, we see now some companies who are not committed to ESG metrics to stakeholder capitalism, just to stakeholder capitalism, that those companies are on the wrong side of history. But it's not only companies, I think we also have to ask the question how we can apply the ESG metrics even to governments to because it's not just GDP, it's well-being, it's prosperity. And I'm coming back to ESGs, I think I'm happy to see now when I look at our partner companies and how we increase the number of our partner companies, I see that this philosophy, this commitment to do not only well but to do good, to do good for people and for the planet is now becoming mainstream. And I want to conclude by thanking everybody in this panel because I think if everybody in the world would think alike, we would be a massive force as it has been mentioned for change. And I want to thank also particularly Saadia, Saidi, who is our managing director, who is actually is a thriving force in all our efforts to create a new society and a new economy which is, and I repeat, more sustainable, more equitable, more resilient and also smarter. Thank you.