 Agility is to be there when you have to be there. It is the ability of thinking, understanding, fast and move fast. In whatever context, you can do that personally at home or company, etc. It's actually, I think, first mental and then physical in the sense of moving physical structures towards. But it has a meaning, it has a purpose. Agility has a certain damage to a purpose. And I think that's one of the challenges. And now we save it for the industrial revolution. And although everything is going so fast, it's because we have selective memory. It has always gone fast, it just goes faster. But the capabilities of going faster are more present too. Now, agility is not only speed, it's understanding. And then adjust towards to be successful. Simon, anything you would add? Well, I would say obviously agility is a hot topic at the moment. But agility has been an issue forever. I mean, the best companies have always read their markets. They've always responded to those markets. They've always served their customers better than their competition. So I think agility is a constant. I think we're focusing on it now for two reasons. One is because the rate of technological change means we really have to be on the front foot. And secondly, in public company markets, the role of the activists now has become very important. And so corporations have to become their own disruptors, their own activists to make sure they're a step ahead. So I think agility absolutely is a key topic. But I don't think it's a new topic. Well, let me ask a question. I'll turn to Paul for a moment. I mean, you've all given a slightly different take on agility. And there's a lot of words like state of mind and moving with speed, complexity. But Paul is the former CEO of a very big, complex global company. Can you measure it? Can you measure agility? Oh, yeah. There's one big measure. If you still exist tomorrow or after tomorrow in five years' time, somewhere you have been proven to be agile, I must say, because you continue to be successful in a very fast-changing VUCA world if you want. So we're living in a world that you want to measure with one number, everything. And that's not possible, but I think if you're a company and you continue owning your agenda, you can work with your own belief, you maintain your strategic direction, and you deliver results, et cetera, that creates a false impression of stability to some extent. And yet at the same time, there's a lot of intensity and agility behind these figures. So I think the normal measurements that you have over time, being successful, is the best measure. But let me poke at that just a little bit, and I'll open this up for you, because I think it's a really interesting point. There's a balance between producing quarterly results for your shareholders versus this long-term, strategic need to be agile, be ahead of the market. How do you balance that? First of all, we are not quarterly defined. We are a long-term thinking company. We don't have full quarterly results. And we don't work for quarterly results. We work behind the strategic direction of purpose. We have our values. We have our structures. We have our strategic direction. We have our way. We go about it, so to what and how and why are there. And we do that, and do that with a consistency that then, as a result, deliver results. And that's how we actually see these things. I know there are important eyes on us every day, not every quarter. So I think it's also leadership of companies to say, look, we are sensitive to investors' requests and worries, and they have their anxieties. So there is some empathy with their anxiety. But look, at the end of the day, I feel it's our obligation, also as company leadership, to stay true to ourselves and do the right things and be successful over time. We are a company that is actually formerly in our statutes. We have to create long-term shareholder value, long-term. So quarterly is, well, it's a first step in that direction. But it's not the whole game. Simon, you talked about activists in your comments. And it relates to what Paul was just talking about. Can you comment about the link between activism, and which has ramped up a lot in the last five years, and its role in driving agility? Well, I think what's happened is that the role of the activist has made management teams, board of directors, realize that they really have to be one step ahead. They have to be their own activists. They have to be in their own disruptors, because they'll either do it to themselves, or if you're a public company not performing well, others will do it to you. So I think the activists actually have played a very positive role in making public company boards really understand how to remain agile and drive value for shareholders and stakeholders generally. I think that there are great examples of those that got it right and those that didn't. If you look at GKN and Melrose, for instance, they were too slow, and they had it done to them. If you look at Unilever, they got ahead of the game. They set out their own agenda. They did a fabulous job, in my view, of communicating what the agenda was, what they were going to do, the priorities in which they were going to do it, and then executed. And of course, if you look at the share price today, it's substantially ahead of where Kraft Heinz would have had it had they been successful in their approach. So I think that there are great examples of those that are agile and move quickly enough and those that don't. And I think that the activists who are a handful, let's face it, but the activists, I think, have been very instructive to management teams and boards about how to really reflect and be brutally honest about what needs to change in their businesses to make sure that pace is put into that change. So it's not just transformation, but it's accelerated transformation. And having been brutally honest, drive the transformation that's needed by thinking big and thinking small and making sure that the transformation is delivered in terms of value and actually then don't become the recipients of the activist's attention. Well, you mentioned disrupting yourself and that that's a conversation that activists are driving. Daniel Maurice, you disrupted your own business, building a digital business at Publisys. Can you talk about how you disrupt yourself while maintaining the core business and maintaining the legacy in the heart of the business? As Simon said, agility is something that is not new, even if today there is a huge acceleration in this concept. And when you look at the way Publisys has been managed, not only in the last 30 years, but in the last 50 years, we always tried to be slightly ahead of the game and of the new innovation and everything which was coming as a big trend. And we were changing our organization almost every two, three years, even if we had no reason to do it, not to destabilize the teams, but just to keep with the change because if there is something which is extremely important is to measure the resistance to change of the human beings and people hate to change. So in order to do not crystallize the organization and to do not have people who are really comfortably installed in their organization, we were changing. We were changing, we are moving the people from one hell to another hell of the building, even if we had no purpose for doing this, other than keeping them on their toes. And in the beginning of 2000, there has been the clash of the dot com era and the bubble burst and everyone was considering that digital was dead. And it was relatively easy to see that that assessment was wrong because it suffice in those days to look at the consumers and how they were behaving. And we decided in the middle of this bubble burst when everyone was considering that they had to go out of the sector, that we have to invest heavily in that sector. And we started the negotiation in 2004 and finished in 2005 by acquiring at a very important price, $1.3 billion, which was huge and the biggest acquisition ever in that field in our organization and in our sector by acquiring digitize. And this has changed dramatically the way we were operating because we embedded digital in every single of our operation. And then we accelerated our investment, including right after 2008 and right after the fall of the Lemon Browser organization in 2009 we acquired Reso-Fish and then we acquired Sapient. Transformation is key not only to us, but to our clients. And if we want to help our clients to transform themselves, we have to prove that we have applied this to ourselves and that this has worked. And we are accelerating on that path. Last year, we have been ranked by every measure and every single panel as the number one winner in new business. And the area which is growing faster at more than 30% is the new area. Where the legacy is going down. So if there is something that we can say about this is maybe two or three lessons. The first one is that we have been fortunate enough to see a little bit behind the hill and before the competition was seeing it. The second is that our teams embraced the change and have accepted to change the way they were working. And the third is that we offered to our client solution that many of them, not all, and there are still some who are resisting because they are seeing us only as a creative agency but I'm sure that soon they will see that we can bring much more than creative and the convergence of technology and creativity and that everyone who is using this convergence is benefiting hugely from what we are doing and transforming their business big time. So it's something which is working well and that if there is one word is acceleration is really key because things are moving even faster nowadays than only three years ago. Well, let me turn to Andre for a moment and ask about sort of a different side of that question which is your technology company focused on a lot of growth and new technologies. How do you maintain in your company the, in your experience the ability to think small, think with agility, think about disruption as you grow and get bigger and have the challenges of being a larger company? You have different dimension and I fully share with Maurice's opinion that things are accelerating. You have many vectors that do, that things are coming faster specifically with the hyperconnectivity that make that everything is interacting much faster. Now having said that you need as a company especially in technology to look really how you will define the vision of the future and you need really to work in parallel with elements where you want to go and how you will arrive there taking into account the elements that are happening every day. Now there is one element that is pretty important is that and I think it's not new, it's difficult to predict the future and fundamentally as a company you need to consider that you have different scenario for a future and you should not invest all the bet in one direction. You should keep more than one path possible and so fundamentally you have a strategy where you want to go and knowing that the roads can be pretty different and that is pretty challenging because to the team you need to give some instruction for the short term while keeping in mind the long term and sometimes it's quite distracting to have something where you may have some contradiction. You have said left and you say one week later right and people may say oh there is no direction but in reality you have one vision for the future and you may have some external elements that are influencing you. Now one of the key things that you have with agility where you have to be careful is not to just go where agility will tell you to go by losing the bigger picture and that is really a challenge because fundamentally if you want to cross and to pass a hill or a mountain you need to think what will be the path to go on the other side and not to be in a dead end. So that is really about agility by trying to anticipate. Now in technology and as part of our company is working on question of security. So basically cyber security or designing secure things. Then you have even another dimension because fundamentally agility is to be able to quickly address how the market is moving. And that is I would say a positive definition. You have A-B testing, you have a lot of way to get there but in security it's a negative definition. You are not defining security but what the system should do but what it should not do. Fundamentally not reveal this secret, not do the thing in the wrong way. And that is creating one extra step of difficulty in the way you define things. And that is maybe why you have number of new technology where you have incredible opportunities that are here but where the security and the vulnerability are really problematic. And you are wondering, okay, with the computer and the internet you have a lot of cyber attacks. Why it's not possible to fix it? So first, once the devil is outside of how to say the lamp or the box, it's very difficult to bring it back but it's basically saying that you need in such a situation to think how you will have the next generation that will done with the proper architecture. And by just taking the traditional agile approach, you may be missing this part. Last point that is pretty important regarding organization. If I'm taking back some of the comment of Maurice that's saying that people do not want to change. Yes and no. You have, for example, the basic engineer may be very interested to change where I have seen issue is in the middle management because they are feeling very often uncomfortable when things are changing because fundamentally how they power, how they drive teams is subject to a change and that is not always comfortable for them. Well, let's talk about that a little bit because the human side of this you've all sort of touched on and I think it's culture and people's willingness to change and be agile is pretty important. Simon, you see a lot of companies that are going through really incredibly difficult times. Can you talk about the human side of this? Of course, could I just pick up a strategy point first? Yes. I always think when I'm advising clients we're doing our own strategy that doing a strategy is more of a mystery than a puzzle and you think, well, what's the difference? Well, of course, with a puzzle you have all of the information that you simply need to work out and put together to get the right answer. With a mystery, you actually don't have all the information so however hard you try, you can't get the perfect answer with the information you've been given. So the reason I say that strategy is more like solving a mystery than a puzzle is because more information comes available as the future develops and one has to incorporate that information into an evolving strategy and so this is why corporations fundamentally need to remain agile because as new information, new technology, new market circumstances become obvious then the strategy has to be fluid to adapt to that. Now, clearly, line of travel is likely to be largely the same but how that objective or goal is achieved could be very different and so disruption cycles are more regular than economic cycles. It's interesting that we're also focused including me of course is when the cycle is going to change but actually within an economic cycle are maybe several disruption cycles which are far more profound often on a company or an industry than the economic cycle. So to your question, how does this strategic approach planning a corporation's future against an uncertain set of circumstances play at a human level? I mean clearly one of the things that I've learned in the work that I do is that a chief executive officer also has to be a corporation's chief communication officer because there's nothing more frustrating or debilitating or paralyzing for a workforce than not knowing where they're going and why they're going there. So what I found as a chief executive and my clients often telling me the same that it's not until you're heartily sick of delivering a message that people actually start to hear it and so constant and repetitive communication about where we're going, why we're going there, what are the circumstances that make that strategy appropriate, why the future is bright for the company and for people in their careers is an essential element of a chief executive's job. So gathering people and carrying them with a strategy particularly if it's a bold strategy that requires lots of change is essential. So chief communication officer and chief executive officer happen to be the same person in my view. There's obviously a lot of organisational resistance sometimes to change for very human and understandable reasons. I heard yesterday from the chief executive of IBM that they've, having analysed, they think that the half-life of a person's skills is three years and so unless we're all evolving our skill base in a really a three to six year period, we become redundant. And of course, particularly for the lower paid jobs, there's a real ambient anxiety at the moment as to what AI and machine learning is going to do to the more manual jobs. And so engaging a workforce, explaining what's happening, explaining why the direction of travel is the right one is absolutely critical. And also making sure that to mitigate those anxieties, you also talk about the difficult subject of what happens if people do have to be retrenched, if the workforce does have to change and what the company's going to do to support them in that in terms of company sponsored retraining programmes that even if they don't end up taking a different job within the corporation, they've actually got some skilled training to be employable in another one. So the human element of this is really important. Paul, can you comment on that as well, the human side of it? Yeah, coming to that. So you speak about purpose, right? Strategy, et cetera. So because at the end of the day, agility and speed with no purpose is hyperventilation. So we have to watch out for that too. There's a lot of hype also. And so you have to really know where you want to go. So that's the first agility of mind and judgment. Coming to that, and you have been playing with CEO words and actually a company and a company that, like Nestle, that has 152 years of history, they're going to speak about gravity, creates gravity. Success is the worst of gravity, you hold on to that. Physical size, 340,000 people, 430 factories, all over the world, gravity. A strong culture, certain dimensions of gravity. So a chief executive officer is actually a chief escape officer. He has to escape from that gravity and actually creating that perspective that leads to you defining a good, understandable strategy. So strategy should be simply worded and understood. And then you have to communicate indeed and chew on that. That's one thing. Also apart from a chief gravity escape officer, it has to be the chief entertainment officer. You have to entertain the whole thing. So on the human, it's classical. The picture of top size, we have to change. In the bottom, everybody, hey, yeah, we should change. And the middle say, over over dead body. So the more flat we have, the better it goes. But there's one dimension too, I think, and that has to do with youth. And we as a company, we have all commitment and also conviction that youth, bringing young people in your organization and let them have a voice more than in the past because they understand more what has to be changed than you because at the end of the day, we can understand the food industry revolution. You have to be humble. We can rationalize it, et cetera. But having it in stomach is another thing. So we should give them more space, I think. First of all, we should go after them and allow them to go into your organization because youth is another ticking social time bomb. That's another topic. But it helps you to be more agile towards that foreign industrial revolution too. So that's a human factor too, that helps them to really translate your organization and to neutralize that complacency that is built in a natural to sizable companies. And as the past was, the biggest going to eat the small, it's the faster and agile that's going to eat the non-fast and non-agile. We know that, but these are all easy words. It's how you land it, how you bring it. There's one thing, though, that you have, I feel, as a CEO or who is responsible for the company to maintain it very clear. It is your purpose, linked with your strategy, what you want to do, and it should be, what is your business model? What is going to make you make money to have that clear? But also the values. Because in this world that everything is losing, although a few things, for example, Nestle had a strong culture and all of a sudden they start saying, hey, Nestle's changed, culture is changing, better. But the values don't. And be very explicit on the values which are then these lightning rods in the dark of change. And that's something that is chef's soccer. That's the boss to do. And I think that there's this intimate link between strategy, the what and how and purpose the why. Can I just pick up on this? I think it's such an important point and I couldn't agree more on the values point. They have to shine through whatever the strategy evolves as being. I think leadership during times of change is critically important. And in my experience, at least, most organizations are over-managed and under-led. And I think there's a real emphasis, like politics, particularly during, I'm gonna avoid Brexit, particularly during times of change where strong leadership is essential. And what does that mean? Well, it means that there has to be authenticity because people are bright. They understand whether people are being authentic or not. So authentic leadership rooted in strong values that don't change whatever the strategy is critically important. And I think there isn't enough conversation around what leadership means during times of rapid change that we're in at the moment, rather than management, which is necessary, but it's quite different. Maurice, can you comment on what kind of leadership, you know, what qualities you think a great leader has to have driving the kinds of change while maintaining values that Paul and Simon and Andre were talking about? I think they have all covered a lot of the qualities and I'm not sure that we'll add a lot, but clearly understanding the world is an essential part. If you don't understand how the world is organized today and where it's going and where are the strengths and where the trends are coming from, you will hardly be able to design a new strategy. So that is extremely important. The second for me is communication, but maybe I have a bias because I'm a communication person, but you don't need only to communicate, you need to over-communicate, too. You know, there is my mentor, Marcel Bustin Blanchet, the founder of Publices, told me one day, on comprends, qu'on t'en a compris, which is we understand when we have understood. I said, okay, it's obvious. No, no, no, Maurice, think about it. We understand when we have understood. So you have really to integrate everything and finally say, oh yes, bien sûr, now I understand. And that is something which is critically important and people, when you communicate and you can transpose this to what's happening in the world, when it comes to gilet jaune, the yellow jacket, when it comes to the vote of the Brexit, when it comes to populism, et cetera, it's because the politicians and everyone has communicated at and not communicated with. And they have believed that because they have delivered a speech, everyone had understood everything which was underlying those speech and the consequences, unfortunately not. And it takes time to explain, you need to take the time and if Macron has understood something with this crisis, he needs to spend six, seven hours to speak at each of the meetings. Six, seven hours because he has not spent the two or three hours that he should have in the past. So the communication aspect is critically known in today's world. Then there is the balancing because you need to balance so many strategies. In today's world, it doesn't suffice to be agile, it doesn't suffice to have the good product, it doesn't suffice to deliver value to the stockholders you need gender equality and you have to care about it because it's something which is critically important. You need to think about diversity because when you are a global company, you cannot have only male Caucasian who are dominating the company because at the end of the day you go to a dead end. You need to think that it's not a stockholder issue but a stakeholder issue and you create value for stockholders but you need to care about all the stakeholders and including your suppliers and including your partners and taking care about the employee fee of all your employees in order that they have a future and there is so many things which are on the shoulders of the CEO that we are asking. I'm happy to do not be a CEO anymore because I'm not sure that I will have all the qualities which are needed. But that's why it's a CEO, it's a chief everything officer too. Exactly, I fully agree with you. And last but not least, the human aspect and understanding the teams, building teams, combining the right teams and making the right casting and casting officer is something which is absolutely essential because how you create a multidisciplinary organization with all the right profiles and people who are capable of working together and delivering a product without having an EUO system which is dominating the organization. And last but not least, and probably there is many other aspects, caring. He's a caring everything officer. He has to care about the future, about the people, about the clients, about every single aspect. So it's a task which is so heavy that I don't know who can carry that kind of task in the new world. Paul? I think there's something there. It's true, it's so complex, it's so hard. Sometimes the worst position you can be is when you still feel you can cover everything. That's the worst place you can be. You have to go beyond that and you start to be relaxed again because at the end of the day you're not alone there. And I think leadership has to do with being able to think in context. It's taking two steps back and observe and not being actually overruled or overwhelmed by the details and all that. You have to say something. I think one of the characteristics of a leader in that fast-changing world that induces to agility is curiosity. And so the CEO is also the chief Eureka officer because that's, hey, I understand that because I understood, it's the Eureka. It's understanding where really the pressure points are, where the change them is and gaps are focusing on that and being able to take distance from all the nitty-gritty and all that. That's, yeah, for the people. It's to make these judgment calls. That's leadership at the end of the day. You say management, first leadership. That's the big difference. I agree, I would just add one thing, instinct. And if you don't have instinct in your belly and you don't feel the things and if you just have a fantastic brain and think only with the brain, I'm not sure that you will be a great leader and I'm not sure that you will lead many more people than yourselves. Sometimes too much brain is a problem, you know. André, can you comment from a technology? I will first comment that for me, brain is a little bit more complex than just analytical power. Don't complicate life again. Fundamentally, I believe very strongly in intuition and after analytical brain to see what is making sense, what is not. I would just like to come back on one point that I consider extremely important. In a society that is becoming increasingly complex, so you have different categories of people, you have millennials, you have different ethnicities and so things are more and more complex. Many companies and organizations are global and then what is really important is not what you say is what people understand. And the question is that the different categories of people will not understand in the same way and that is why it's important to repeat some message but to repeat them from a different angle because if you just continue in the same angle, you may believe that people have understood but then if you have suddenly a sharp turn just due to the event, you may then understand that nobody has understood. And that is extremely important to test in permanence how the message is going through. And not only directly from you to the rest of the organization but after how it's following the path on the different levels because if people under you or to level under have not understood, then you may have some distortion and then we come to a situation that is extremely difficult. Then you're no longer agile. You are no more agile, at least you may be agile on the form but not on the result. And here, managing technology to come back to the central point is not different and also elements, simply things happen faster. Well, let me, I wanna make sure we have a few minutes for questions here so let me ask our audience and we'll start with you. Please stand up and say your name and organization and where you're from. I'm from Mexico. My question is you've been talking about a lot of very important things for corporations and for the world to come and in this fast world that we're going through I would like to hear what's your response to corporate social responsibilities because that's something maybe wasn't the past but I think it's still alive. Could you tell us a little bit about that? Yeah, for us as a company, being responsible it's intrinsically linked with our values but also our strategy. Our strategy is, lastly, nutrition health and wellness understanding who nutrients and health, that's our strategy duration but intimately linked to that is the way we go about that creating shared value and that's the conviction that a company cannot be successful over time equals shareholder value, cannot be successful over time if it doesn't create value for society. That means where Nestle plays nutritional products and being aware of the challenges there, working with farmers and being aware what value we can create and livelihoods for the farmers, et cetera, et cetera. And that is linked with one fundamental thing. It is with all the pressures and all the agility and all the hoopla of today, maintain perspective for a longer term. We are 150 years, we want to be there in 150 years and be part of a society that has the challenges, et cetera, et cetera. This is not by convenience, intrinsically linked by conviction in our strategy direction. That is linked with our values. One of them is, our values are based in respect. Respect for oneself, for the other, for the diversity in the world, but also for the future. And when you start thinking about the future, then next generation's environment and sustainability, it's all linked there. And you know what? When we have more and more younger people in our organization, that's the first condition they ask their company. So it's actually something that is a motivational dimension and you get the right people in your organization too. So, but you have to maintain that perspective and time. You have to have the short term, I would say, sensitivity for the short term and you have to, to get to the long term, you have to survive the short term, that's for sure. But never, and that's how our conviction is, never sacrifice your long term perspective and conviction for the short term. That's, yeah, you cannot regulate that. It's by conviction. That's how we run our business. May I add to that? And I think this whole sense of purpose, which is something you touched on a few minutes ago, is absolutely essential. So I think for all of us, our employee base want to know what our purpose is because they want to know whether they affiliate with it or not. So I think purpose is essential. But your point about CSR, what I've learned, at least for our company, but I think for others as well that I've worked with, is that CSR is only real when it plays out in a local community. And so we can have the most wonderful executive level programs, but until the programs play out in the community that our employees live in or work in or their churches or however they engage in their community, it isn't until then that it becomes real. So I think there are many great looking CSR programs at executive level, but I think where the rubber hits the road is at the community level. And the ones that I've seen be most successful are the ones that have the most attraction in the community where the employees live, because that then makes it meaningful to them and then it becomes real. Yes, we had a question back here. Kamenov, I'm 15 years with this forum here. And it's very impressive, this panel today, there's such a kind of exceptional wisdom we are treated with. I built now a project in my seven in this group. It's healthcare and insurance and name it. And the digital era is very important to ask a very simple question. Can you simplify? Maybe I address the panel, but Maurice, but specifically Simon, Paul, I know you all individually. So maybe you can have one sentence, how we should start this project to build a smart city, what I'm doing now, this new project, for Japanese and Korean pensioners in Bulgaria, in beautiful Bulgaria. The design is amazing. Well, I can't pretend to be an expert in any of that, but I do believe in the principle that change is more profound than we ever imagined, but takes longer than we expect. And so I think in terms of a project, I think being as bold as possible in terms of a smart city is essential, but I think being realistic about how long it's going to take to get the uptake and traction as implementation is also important. Another question, yes, please. Hi, my name is Ors Grady, I'm the Editor-in-Chief of CNN Money Switzerland. I want to come back to something that Mr. Bulk has said about long-term and short-term thinking. We hear that a lot from executives of schools. They all say we are very long-term in this. However, we know there are quarterly results, we know there are activist investors, we know there are journalists who are asking for these short-term results. If I take a concrete example from Nestle, if you have to answer to, let's say, a New York-based hedge fund who asks for... For example. For example, yeah. Who asks, I think, by 2022, that you double the earnings per share. How do you deal with that dilemma of long-term strategy and very concrete short-term pressure and expectations from investors, for example? Thank you for the question. But look, again, it goes to some fundamentals again. He's one investor. We have many others. They have many others who know how we are, what we do. We should not try to explain no long-term thinking as an excuse of not having short-term intensity. If the capacity of delivering is there, we should. If it jeopardizes my future thinking and compromises my future success, I should not do this. My job to explain that and to go around and talk to investors and listen to all of them. All of them. Also him. And that's how it works, I mean. And look, it's thought because you have one voice that you have fully two because they know also to pressure point you here and there and these. I think, and to a certain extent, success allows you to talk like I talked. So we have to make sure we are successful. We prove that we have a good agenda. And to do that over time, you have to earn it. Actually, short-term consistency in results allows you to have your long-term on your side. Now, that's a little story when you really have a company that is dramatically into trouble. But that's another story. First of all, you cannot get long-term if your house is on fire, kind of. So you have to see case by case, argument by argument. And, well, I argument for my company that I know well and we try to deliver consistently. You know what we want to be as a company at the end of the day, and that's something I say to investors that at the end of the day, strategic direction consistent over time, values, strong governance, and you go on and you go on. And we try to deliver consistently and not have that day-by-day nervousness that actually blinds the perspective of things. We want to be a dependable company. You can count on us. You can count on us on delivering over time. You can count on us that we're gonna be sensitive to societal issues, that we're gonna engage with society. We've been geos, you can count on us that our strategic direction is consistent in time. Dependability. Actually, dependability is one of these things that we lack in society a little bit. Hence, all the anxieties in society. You cannot count anymore on tomorrow is gonna be good or better than yesterday and things like that. So that's what we want to be as a company. Maurice? And ability. Yeah, I would like to make, if you comment on this, because activity is a little bit ambiguous. There are some activists who are really extremely useful because they are putting, shedding a new light on the company, what the company is doing. Some few things that the company continues to do that leads nowhere and has no future and they're hesitating to make some arbitration. And they're helping at the end of the day at looking at the thing differently and this is quite positive. And there are some, and I would say the majority of them, of the activists will really think about maximizing shoulder value even at the expense of society, employees, the company itself and the future of the company. And we have seen that very often and we have seen many activists who were pushing company to take some immediate action and at the end of the day, three, four, five years after where the company is nowhere, some completely vanished. So we have to be extremely cautious about this and making sure that there is a balance and balance is not something which is easy to communicate. People prefer by far that there is some strong points which are made because it's clear, it's simple and it's a maximizing value. You double your earning or your double EPS in three years time, blah, blah. It's relatively easy to send. You say, no, it's more complicated than that, so you're lost. And there is currently a very important debate which is back to CSR, which is a debate of what the company should be. And for example, it's not only Davos but we had a very important conversation two days ago about the raison d'etre of the company. We have currently in France a huge discussion including at the executive and legislative aspect regarding the la loi pact which is should a company have a raison d'etre which goes beyond creating value. What is the impact of the company on carbon? What is the impact of the company on society? What is the impact of the company on employment and employability and risk killing the people? And they can go on and on. And you have Larry Fink who has launched a huge debate about long-term responsibility of company and how they should be managing for the future. So I think that asking for a number very often is easy to do, very difficult to answer because you need to go through explanation and people are not always ready to listen and to spend the time to listen because it's complex. We are again with this VUCA world and we should be extremely cautious about simplification when it comes to activists. We have time for one very brief last question. I don't know how brief mine was. I'm Marjorie Krauss and I'm with APCO Worldwide. It's a consulting firm. We recently did a survey of the 14,000 on the question of agility and we found that four out of 10 CEOs thought that their organizations were kind of fit for the future and you think it's less, right? Now that's where the problem starts. When you start thinking you're okay. Okay, right. Anyway, and we also tried to get them to define what agility was and there were three factors that came out and it might be interesting for the discussion. One was active leadership. The other was an enterprising culture and the third one was shared advocacy or shared purpose, I guess you'd say. So I just thought that was an interesting thing but related to that and my question was we've also been looking at agility as it relates to social risk because a lot of companies are asking or are being asked to as part of shared advocacy to put their brand and align it with some kind of external issue. And I just wondered what you think of that and going forward. Thank you. We have about two minutes. What I would say to your first point is I think one of the responsibilities of the CEO is inactive leadership is actually speaking out on things that matter. And I think in terms of advocacy and engaging in real social issues I think one of the responsibilities that all CEOs now own is actually taking positions on things because that is expected by our colleagues and necessary. So I think those points are interconnected. But we can also add one point that's an element that is extremely important for the growing number of employees to identify the company with some things that is good for the rest of society. And that is making things much easier when the purpose and the value of your company are some things that is shared by your employees compared to companies that do things that are much more challenging. If you are in the tobacco industry it's much more challenging to present yourself in a positive way. Well, we're just about out of time. So I'm going to unfortunately have to wrap us up. We've had just an extraordinary discussion. I have three takeaways I want to share with you quickly. One is the definition of agility was not well-defined in the sense that it has many meetings. It's a state of mind. It's a state of being. It's a perspective. It's balanced. Secondly, the role of the chief everything officer. I love that description of the chief communications officer, sort of the overarching need to drive it from the top. And then talking about the long-term perspective, maintaining values, maintaining that long-term focus while investing in the future. Those are some of the things that I took away today. I want to thank Maurice, Simon, Paul and Andre.