 Good evening everyone. Good evening. My name is Zia Khan. I'm the vice president for initiatives and strategy at the Rockefeller Foundation, and it's my great honor to moderate this illustrious panel on this very fascinating topic which is should business lead the social agenda and just as a reminder part of the spirit of this open forum is for those of us who have been in lots of discussions and Davos to engage with a broader range of people and opinions on some of the issues that we're talking about at Davos. So the spirit of this is very much meant to be interactive. We'll have a little bit of discussion up front and then I'll soon open it up to the floor for some questions. So first let me introduce by name and organization my very distinguished panelists. I think the range of perspectives that we have here will make for a very interesting discussion. So first sitting right to my right is Dr. Dananjan Shizzen Kandaraya, and he is the secretary general of Civicus. Sitting right next to him is Dr. Ashifi Gogo who is the CEO of Sproxel. Next to him is Mr. Paul Bulkie, the CEO of Nestle. Further to the left, Mr. Fakie Sebesna who is the CEO of DSM. And then furthest to the left is the right Honorable Helen Clark who's the administrator of the United Nations Development Program. So I wanted to set a little bit of the scene for this conversation and just offer some perspectives and then I'll ask my panelists to say a few words about their organizations and make a provocative statement about this topic to help get us going. So this question of business role in the social agenda has been one that's been discussed for many, many years. And quite a while ago, 30 or 40 years ago, the perspective was very much that the role of business is to create shareholder value and maximize profits. And the social agenda was up to government and also civil society. Then the idea of corporate social responsibility started to gain traction. And this was the idea that corporations had a role to play in helping advance a social agenda and they might play that role by financially making some contributions. So for example, supporting a local hospital or supporting a nonprofit or having some volunteer days for their employees. More recently, the idea that's been talked about is one of shared value. And it is the idea that business can pursue the business objectives and also social objectives at the same time just by virtue of their business model. So how can they think about packaging where they're reducing the amount of material for packaging to reduce the environmental footprint but also save money? And how can they employ people from diverse backgrounds, which helps reduce inequality, but that gives them more creative problem-solving internally because they have different perspectives? And so this is a topic that's really been gaining traction. And I think the question that's being put here at the Open Forum pushes at one level further, which is not only the question around can business pursue its objectives, financial objectives, and also social objectives, but in fact, should business be leading the social agenda? For these big challenges that we're facing around employment and climate change and sustainability, should business be actually stepping out in front and playing a leadership role? Because the assumption under this question is that perhaps government and civil society and non-profits aren't doing enough. So at that, what I'll ask is for each of my panelists in turn to tell a little bit about their organization so that we have a sense of the perspective that you're bringing to this conversation and then share a provocative perspective on this question. Danny? Okay. Good evening, everyone. I'm Danny Strieskander-Rider. I'm Secretary-General of Civicus, which is a global association for civil society where a membership-based organization representing now civil society organizations, big and small, big, non-governmental organizations and grassroots activists in some 145 countries. So we're here almost as the sort of trade body for civil society. And I was very delighted to be invited to a conversation like this because I think when I have the privilege of traveling and meeting activists all around the world and what's becoming clear in the last year or so is that most of the people I speak to, particularly in the global south, are coming to the realization that we just cannot carry on with business as usual. And I suppose my provocative statement to start things off would be that we shouldn't really be thinking about whether business as business stands should be leading the social agenda. We should be redefining all our organizations so that everyone is obliged to respect the social agenda and I would go further the environmental agenda that anyone who pursues profit alone without bearing in mind the social and environmental impact of what they do should not be tolerated. And if we don't do that quickly, we will not achieve a sustainable planet, let alone address the deepening inequality that's out there. Thanks, Danny. Ashley. Great. So thank you very much for the warm welcome here in Davos. This is my first time here. I feel very, very at home. So thank you all. I run a company called Sproxel, which empowers consumers to avoid buying counterfeit products. Every year there's about 200 billion dollars of counterfeit pharmaceuticals sold every year. And if you extend that to agrochemicals and luxury goods, it's about 600 billion dollars sold, which goes into the pockets of criminals who use it to fund crime. So the way we've solved this, the problem in some key emerging markets is to empower consumers to verify the products at the point of sale so that they can avoid purchasing the counterfeit products, which in turn defunds the organizations that benefit from these illicit activities. We've been able to serialize half a billion products with 7 million users in six countries. My take on this issue is that if you wait too long for the court of public opinion to deem that corporations are not doing enough, you're already too late to take action on the situation. And businesses put themselves at risk for government intervention and additional regulation or laws and stipulations to try and readjust or correct the belief in the business's position in society. So I think that even though businesses in my opinion should not lead the agenda because businesses specialize in creating value for their shoulders and society, there should be very strong collaborators with the specialists like governments and civil society who do look at social issues more on a long-term basis. Thank you. Paul? I'm Paul Bullock. I'm from Nestle. Nestle is, well, quite well known in Switzerland. It's quite a sizable company. We are altogether almost 350,000 people in the world. We do have quite a sizable presence, 470 factories in the world. We are almost in 160 countries. So we see different realities. Now on that question specifically, should business lead the social agenda? I would say very clearly no. It should not lead the agenda, but it should definitely be part of it. And I think that's a nuance that's very important. We heard already the question about should companies do what they have to do, which is maximizing shareholder value. I definitely would say no. It should create shared value, and you have mentioned that too. Shared value is actually going back to the fundamental role of economical activity, which is in society, economical activity should create value for all stakeholders. One of them is shareholders. And when a company like Nestle goes about its program and its activity in the longer term perspective, with something that is fundamental, which is respect, I think then whatever it does, will also create value for society at large. And that is the way what I feel companies or the economical activity per se should be part of society, and not lead the agenda, but definitely be part of it. Thank you. Thank you. Yes. DSM is a company which has two type of businesses. One is we are the largest food and nutritional ingredient provider in the world. And the other one is a materials business where we have developed new materials to reduce the impact of climate change by making cars lighter, new forms of energy, and those kind of things. And climate and food are not unrelated areas. They have a lot to do with each other. Our philosophy is that companies should work indeed for all stakeholders, like Paul Wilk was also saying, and we have our own terminology here, and we have a triple bottom line, people, planet, profit. And we measure also whether we contribute enough to profit, our economical performance, because we need to take care of that, because nobody is bringing every Friday afternoon a truckload of money, so we need to earn it ourselves. But also we have a bottom line in terms of our contribution to the planet, whether we leave the planet in the right stage for next generations, and whether we provide enough value for society. So people plan a profit, and it's not that planet and people are additional goals. No, those are three prime goals for the company. Issue, what I see is normally in society we value companies, especially on the economic performance, and we look a little bit lesser to their performance on the people and planet dimension. And the question is whether that is correct, and I don't think so. Thank you. United Nations Development Program is a major program in its own right, and also the agency in the UN that leads all the other agencies that in some way contribute to development. We are mandated to work with developing countries to achieve sustainable development, to pursue economic and social progress for people within the boundaries of nature. And with the upcoming sustainable development goals, which will form the global development agenda for the next 15 years, when pronounced later this year, there's a lot of work to do to move towards the sustainable development agenda. So then we come to, well, what about the role of business? Well, business is part of society, and you can't move towards and achieve sustainable development without business playing its part. And some of the more satisfying work we've been involved with in the last couple of years has been working, for example, with the business leaders who want to commit to take deforestation out of their supply chains. And we're getting very, very big commitments around that now for action from those who buy most of the world's palm oil. Palm oil has been a commodity which has been really responsible for a lot of forest destruction. But we're in the course, I think, of getting the commitments that will stop that. And discussion here at the Starboss is now about, well, how do we extend that to talking to the people who buy the soybeans, who buy the beef? How many more commodities can we get on that kind of track where they don't buy from deforested land and could be part of keeping our forests for all the reasons of biodiversity, maintenance, and climate change mitigation? So that's just some thoughts to start the discussion off. Thank you. Thank you. So a wide range of perspectives. Let me direct a first question, perhaps, Paul and Faker to you as CEOs of large companies. Paul, you mentioned that there's an obligation or the physics of business is around creating economic value, and it should create value for all stakeholders. But one of the challenges, I think, the way the current system works is that a lot of the revenues and benefits are captured by the corporation, but in many cases the costs are borne by a wider set of people. So in the case where companies are making trade-offs between burning cheap oil and there's a carbon that gets produced and the cost is borne by the entire planet versus a higher cost solar solution where there is no cost to society but the cost to the business is higher. So I'm curious about your perspective of this imbalance between who is capturing the benefits and who is bearing the costs and is it possible for companies to self-regulate so that there's a neutral trade-off or does government need to step in and reset some of the policies or regulations? What is your take on that? But again, companies are a part of a society and the awareness of issues is also maturing over time and companies should take up their responsibility linked with that awareness. And I think a company, whatever company it is, when that company goes really with that dimension of longer-term perspective on things, and has that dimension that they call culture, but culture with this culture, it is fundamentally respect for the environment, respect for the future, respect for etc. I think and we want to be around in 150 years. We're almost 150 years old. We want to be around of 150 years. Well, then you go with a totally different mindset about your activities. We don't want to be, as a company for example, when we engage in a country, we don't want to be a hit-and-run presence. Just take what you can and run away with it. Also, because if you see the fundamental Nestle as a food and beverage company that is linked with raw materials that are linked with agriculture, agriculture is something that evolves over time. You cannot go in there and have a factory and then leave it. And that is a little bit what is linked with our DNA. Your long-term commitments with societies you're in. When we start a factory that produces milk, you need farmers, you need long-term relationships, you need respect, you need to condition also ingredients like water. And you have seen that we have been quite explicit on water. So in other words, I feel if you as a company are just part of society with that way of seeing things, that the shareholder value is only one of the values you create, it is an important one. But this is only you're contributing to one stakeholder. And there's so many others. Your employees, your farmers, your society or consumers, that just makes sense. Actually, the nice dimension of creating shared value is you are trying to link up with society in a positive way. And it makes business sense. And actually, I, when I studied at university or economic activity, we had moral philosophy of the economy. And actually, we say we should reinvent the industry. We should reinvent economic activity. We should not reinvent. We should go back to basics. Economic activity in society is actually relating resources with outcomes that are positive for society. If not, there is no value in that equation and do that as efficient as possible. Well, that's economic activity. That's definitely as a definition inducing creating shared value. And I think that perspective is something that you see also here in Dalves, you hear a lot of that multi-stakeholder engagement and all. It's all there. It's all there. And I think we have to be more vocal on that. Now, you still do a lot of activities. You still can be criticized. And we are. And rightly so. And we should listen and learn and see. That's what I say also. If we learn certain dimensions that are affecting certain parts of society that we didn't know before, we should adapt. We should have an open ear. We should not go in defensive mode. We should go in positive listening mode and see what we do together as a society. Yet at the same time, too, as a company or whatever, criticized and being the only and being accused as being the only part of the problem, I feel we should also push back and say, no, we have our part to share on it. But let's engage positively to see how we give a solution to that. I think that's the best balanced way. It's another way of creating shared value. Another way of creating shared value is sitting here and talking about that. You see, to help to shape mindsets that are more positive together. And Feky, how about your take? Yeah, you were right. There are issues in the world. There's hunger. There's almost a billion people who go to bed hungry every day. There are issues in the world around climate change. And like Paul is saying, it is not that society is there and companies are here and look to society. No, companies form an integral part of society. So if there are problems in society, like climate change or hunger or whatever, we need to think we need to be part of them. We are part of that problem, or we are part of those issues automatically because we are part of society. And I think in the last 50 to 100 years, you see another change, especially with bigger companies. They have an increased power because they have a global impact. 100 years ago, there was hardly any company which had a global big impact. Now you see companies who can have that. Sometimes not good. Sometimes very good. And I think if you have more and more impact, you should show more and more responsibility as well. That counts for us as leaders also. If you have more impact on our company, we better be very responsible people in our company because we can influence a lot of things. And as we do in our company, we support very much the World Food Program of the United Nations. We gave all our patents, all our technologies for free to them to use that, not to resell it, then we are out of business. But for those who need that, they can use it. And people ask me often, then, ah, why are you doing that? What's in for you? That's our responsibility. We are the biggest in nutritional ingredients in the world. We see a lot of people with problems. We think it's our responsibility. It's our obligation to contribute to that. Yeah, but are you secretly making money? No, we are not secretly making money out of that. This is good for society. We should do that. This afternoon, I was leading a session with 35 CEOs of companies who said, we want to take a step forward on climate change. We want that carbon is being, ah, getting a price. I'll show you what I prefer the word carbon pricing. And we hope that governmental leaders will make a deal about that in December, near 2015, when we have a big climate conference in Paris. So business leaders want that. Appreciate it. To all those business leaders who, in fact, say, we create a fertile ground where you, policymakers, can take decisions. And indeed Paul was saying it also. I don't think that companies should lead the social agenda. Companies do not have the right to make laws. And rightly so. Companies do not have the right to regulate things. And rightly so. But companies can influence governments by saying, if you go a step forward, we are totally behind you. We even stimulate you to go a step forward and to give a price to carbon because that will help the world to transition. Often people ask indeed, why are people doing that? And I give a simple explanation. It is not that after high school, all the good people with a heart start working for NGOs or governments. And that all the bad people went working for companies. Life is much more complicated than that. So there are very good people in business as well. And they like to improve society and to make the world a better world. As simple as that. Well, Fakie, I started in business and now work at a foundation. So maybe I'm getting better in my age as I progress. So those were great perspectives. And now maybe I can ask Dunn and Jayan and Helen for you to maybe respond to these perspectives because you're not businesses, but you're thinking a lot about the role of businesses. What is it that you heard that you find very encouraging? What do you disagree with? What do you feel was missing? I'd very much enjoying hearing your perspectives on this. Why don't you go ahead, Danny? Just to come back to this last point about good people in business, I agree with you. There are some fantastic inspirational leaders in business. One of my favorite, many of you will know, is Paul Pullman, who works at Unilever, who leads Unilever. And on sustainable development, Pullman has been almost every meeting, leading this agenda. But I worry about that because I think some of us have caught what I call Pullmanitis, which is this belief that everyone, you've got Pullmanitis. No, I don't have it. I always say some do the talking, others do the doing. So for me, Pullmanitis is this sense that these inspirational business leaders are going to save our world. And I wish that were going to be the case. But unfortunately, reality is that there aren't enough businesses or business leaders who are doing enough to protect people and planet. And we do need clever regulation, clever incentives set by states who have clear objectives that need to regulate what's going on. Because every time I hear about the sort of positive stories, and I believe what you're saying about what you're doing, I remember the headlines that we've seen just recently about tax avoidance or tax evasion by Google or Amazon or Starbucks. And in fact, just last night here at Davos. So although I'm civil society, I get invited to lots of the receptions. And I met a young man who'd flown in from the US. He manages a hedge fund. And he came to Davos last night and he was enjoying himself. And I said, what are you doing? And he goes, well, on my way home, I need to stop in Guernsey. Now, as many of you will know, Guernsey is a small island south of England, which is notorious for having very lax tax conditions. I said, what are you doing in Guernsey? And he says, I just need to stop there once a year to have my board meeting because my hedge fund is registered in Guernsey. So here we have the contradiction of the fact that we have rampant capitalism where too many actors are still pursuing profit at almost every cost, taking every possible route to maximize that profit or that shareholder value. And so we need to change fundamentally, I think, the nature of how we think about business. And I think both of our business leaders here have reminded us how we should start thinking about that. We have to integrate that triple bottom line, for example, in the very way that we structure and legitimize business operations in society. Thanks, Mark. I think the business leadership on the issues within the business community is very, very important because not all business obviously thinks the way that the more enlightened leaders we tend to see at Davos or in association with the global compact of the UN. There's quite an undertow of business that needs to be brought along by the people who do get it and do see the shared value and do see the role of business and society as needing to be going with the big agendas and trying to meet good objectives. But I also take the view that you can do business in a way that is good for the business and good for the bottom line, but it's good for society as well. And indeed not to do that can, in the end, be very damaging to the business. And if you just think of some of the examples where you have ethical and more aware consumers who want to buy things that they feel good about buying, they don't want to buy, for example, clothing and then hear that it was made in the factory that just got burnt down and burnt tragically workers in a factory in Bangladesh. They don't want to hear that they bought their soap from a company that was quite happy to get it off newly deforested land and because of the problems that's causing for our climate and biodiversity. So I think pragmatic business that gets with it and sees that consumers are changing, they're more aware, they're concerned about the state of the world and try to be part of the change that we all want to see. I think that's very, very positive. So it can be a win-win. Thank you. And Ashif, I want to give you one final question before we open up to the floor. You're starting a relatively new organization. So in some ways you have a fresh slate to do things as opposed to some of the bigger and corporations who have a longer tradition of how they operate. What are some of the things that you're thinking about that you want to do differently now that you can start a company and start it off in a certain way and hope to see it grow in a certain way? Sure, that's a great question. We are a five-year-old company, so we're toddlers in the eyes of Paul, but we're growing quite rapidly. And one of the things that we initially decided to do when we're dealing with the issue of counterfeiting is if you look at the statistics, the market opportunity is actually larger in the areas that we initially did not prioritize. We went after the emerging markets in Africa and Asia, where people were getting harmed by these counterfeit products and built a profitable business because we're a for-profit entity in those markets. We actually picked the hardest question on the exam and decided to solve that one first. And then, based on that, we're now expanding to new markets where the impact of consumers is not as devastating as counterfeit pharmaceuticals, and we're seeing great progress there. But we've already earned the trust of the governments that we work with and the six countries that we do, and also the consumers who use our services to avoid harm. And so there are a number of shortcuts in today's world of quick quarterly reports and updates, and even us consumers are always tweeting, which I'm glad to see there are not that many people on their phones here paying attention, that's good. We see lots and lots of pressure to deliver quick results, and sometimes slow is better. And companies that have 150 years under their belt can go out with inspirational leaders and say, this is the direction we're going to take because there's 150 years of performance that can inspire trust. Some of the companies you mentioned are younger companies. They don't have that track record that they can use as a basis to make these hard choices to go in and compete based on the value that they deliver to society and not necessarily just the value that they deliver to their shareholders. So I think the more and more we have such discussions, the Global Agenda Council at the World Economic Forum, for instance, is embarking on a project to try and get more polls and more figures in the mainstream corporate culture so that in perhaps five, 10 years we will run out of room to host the major CEOs who are creating social change. If you allow me a comment and you mentioned the word trust and you hear it more and more, trust that it is so fundamental and actually it is linked with the uncertainty that we feel also that we live with the things happening in so many parts of the world. Now I want to make a comment that goes against my comment in the sense that and you're going down and you hear all these companies and you hear me talking about what we all do well and we have to watch out that we don't go to the honey sweet talk in the sense of talking and we're living in a society where you have different angles and you have different interests and you have different, you understand. So Nirvana and trying to show or to transmit Nirvana like is false. I think we have to be honest too and there are issues and there are dimensions like I comply with the law, yeah, but then you have the moral dimension coming in and the moral dimension is quite variable depending on angles and there are different the diversity in the world, different things and that's the nicety about the world we're living in yet at the same time it has it entails some tension and I think the most important thing is that we are in dialogue together communicating, connecting, discussing, having ears to each other and that is what actually companies should do and maybe we failed a little bit in the past of saying we do the things we think we have to do and we don't have to connect because we are all too sufficient in our self-belief and I think that has changed a lot but at the same time other parts of society NGOs have changed too and instead of having that that tension we see more engagement, engagement entails risk because you lose your age to certainly stand as an NGO you may lose your age as a company you have still to stay true and honest towards what you're in for as part of society but I think we've moved quite a little bit in that sense and that's what I feel overall is that's where leadership comes in leadership is like a bicycle it is only in balance when it moves and it is dynamic in the discussion society is getting in new renewed angles to certain things environment palm oil is an issue that really popped up on the scene was not so visible although it was happening and then we have to engage and act upon that and see the what's at stake you see and that's the dynamic of it we should not try to all go to the middle there's no space enough there and society is not like that never going to be but let's be at least part of a society that engages and discusses and listens and so that's a little bit as a contrary because when we have the mic we say all the good things we do and we do quite a lot of good things so we could continue talking and I'm going to do it thank you Paul and you've already started the debate with yourself and we'll try and open it up more broadly as well you know just from our perspective as a foundation the Rockford Foundation has been around for about a hundred years and we try and work with corporations and government and civil society to get change to happen and it's very interesting because we find ourselves in a situation where we're accused of helping large corporations make money we get accused by corporations of attacking them and criticizing them when they're not bad people and then civil society and the nonprofits just want us to give them money and get out of the way so we see it from multiple angles too but now I'd really like to see it from a broader set of perspectives and like to open it up for questions and what would be helpful is if you could keep your questions aimed for actual questions if you want to make a comment please just make it brief and I'll try and take two or three questions at a time and then we'll have discussion on the stage so I saw a gentleman over here thank you my name is Fernando Morales de la Cruz I was born in Guatemala which is a coffee producing nation and a country where unfortunately mrs. Clark still has great challenges because educational and health indicators are terrible but I'm very pleased to hear the CEO of Nestle talking about shared value and my concrete question is about your next preso product which is extremely successful you have capsules selling at 37 cent euro for example in Europe of course 50 rap in Switzerland but let's use euro because most people understand 50 cents 50 rap in Switzerland but talking about shared value how much of that nespresso capsule actually goes to the coffee farmers and how much of that nespresso capsule is actually profit margin because if shared value is the policy of Nestle actually we should see it in every nespresso capsule for example thank you thank you there's a question we will take two more questions and then come back to that a question in the back hello good afternoon I'm Benjamin Benjamin char from Germany I have one personal question to Paul also Nestle is one of the very biggest companies in the world as a CEO of Nestle I believe you are one of the top 100 businessmen in the world I believe your job is very stressful very interesting but also very exhaustive for such a job I presume you need to have a driving force your personal driving force your motivation I would love to know what is your personal driving force and how do you balance your motivation against shared value thank you okay maybe one more question there's a woman up here in the front hello so you were saying that business should not lead the social agenda but should step up and participate and trigger change where they can do it and the business cannot make laws but they can influence lawmaking and again trigger change where it's possible so I wonder what for you actually means leading social agenda if not making change and who should do this in your opinion okay great so a great set of questions and you know there was one question which about the Nespresso but I think it's really about how is profit shared across all of the the people in the supply chain and then I think there was a question that'd be interesting to hear from many people but what is your personal motivation as a leader in leading the organization and then the question of if not business then who should be leading the social agenda I think the the question about Nespresso is to me right unless anyone else makes Nespresso then probably I really hope you enjoy Nespresso sometimes and it used to be a partner so but look Nespresso is we enjoy Nespresso I must say it's a good it's a good platform a good product we get a lot of good feedback it's actually something that is one of these creating shared values examples although your question was to try to show a little bit of the other side of it think about it that Nespresso is a success today it's 25 30 years old that we started with something that is a product that is new and now it is linked with quite a thousands and thousands of coffee farmers who are in the AAA Nespresso project that you let you know all the details about which is really seeing how we involve also the upstream people in there and and why is that well Nespresso uses a quite a very very narrow selection of beans actually we turn each bean because we want to have that quality that then is to certain extent express in price the the average price that we pay for our coffee is something like 30 40 percent above the market price because that's quite high quality selective and we have quite a lot of agronoms working with these farmers to to help to increase their yield their quality and their better stable income that goes beyond that and I feel this is this is shared value we do that for coffee in general we have Nescafe and we do that for coffee in general we buy quite a sizable part of the coffee in the world so we have a little bit of responsibility there and so we are going with it's just like we do with milk farmers and again you say is that philanthropy no this is just at first it makes sense when you see our longer term relationship with with all suppliers we would not have a healthy business if if you just exploit and and say look only my part is interesting I we engage with them and it makes sense and it allows us to to go about a very interesting business like like coffee or Nespresso now your other question how about not your question the other question about look I can't tell you something the question because you didn't have make the question is how much how much margin how much sense we don't give that all the way because then my competition uses that against me and life is already difficult enough I can tell you I can only tell you that that that no no wait wait wait wait Nespresso has quite a lot of competition quite a lot so we're part of that and there's a dynamic and you don't have a free lunch just like that I think what we have is a margin that allows us to continue investing in the system and the quality of the coffee so I think it's a balance you cannot overdo it this short term and you see we have a lot of competition that keeps us in check so Paul let me pick up on that and turn to the leadership question actually because the idea of competition poses a challenge to you I think as leaders in terms of who is morally self-regulating as a leader and does that put you at a competitive disadvantage I'd be curious for any perspectives on that that's a general question I would say competition but competition yeah you have you have rules and and and we play with the rules so we comply you see we have actually two layers to get to creating shared value the first one is compliance you cannot fool around with and you comply first with yourself and then comply with the external dimensions to it the other one is sustainability because we want to be around 150 years and you cannot fool around with that either you cannot cut corners and then when you have these two conditions you speak about creative shared value and and we should be able as a company to compete effectively with these values I feel we should be able to invest in R&D and have insights and knowledge we should be able to have long-term relationship with world suppliers and do it the right way and be successful and and I think Nestle is quite successful over time has been 150 years doing that so I don't see one as conditioning the other and if we cannot be in a product and not be competitive we should not be in there and that's and Hal let me turn to the last question now which is around so if not business who should be leading the agenda and if you think of the sustainable development goals the post 2015 agenda who should be leading the charge in terms of realizing those goals well I think leadership has many many layers and and should be sought across the whole society clearly to get a you know decent outcome to the big political processes this year which is the climate treaty in Paris which needs to be a meaningful one that actually sees some real progress towards keeping global warming under under two degrees Celsius leadership on getting a decent outcome at the sustainable development summit leadership at the financing for development conference and that is ever the leadership in March at the big conference on disaster risk reduction yes you need political leaders a government leaders stepping up on that but you also need businesses play its part civil society the professions I think leadership is to be found in in many many places and the skills tend to be quite generic actually across the the different sectors I mean if I was just to say a word about the sustainable development agenda which is a much bigger agenda than the Millennium Development Goal one you could characterize the Millennium Development Goal agenda as being in essence an agenda about tackling poverty which is a critical issue financed by official development assistance but when you go from that to a much more transformational agenda about how you achieve sustainable development sustainable development is about the way we live it's about the way we produce it's about the way we consume so you start to talk about how do you how do you finance such an agenda well it's all hands to the wheel isn't it and inevitably because it is about how we live produce consume you need the change in the transformation within business as to how it operates for sustainable development too so I I think these are exciting times and need leadership across the board so Danny your organization is around strengthening the voice of civil society which in some ways implies that you're trying to resist the leadership of the other sectors perhaps government and the private sector would that be a fair characterization or how do you see it well I think I see it as and in fact one of the things that motivates me about my job is that I think we're living in an era where citizen action is going to play an increasingly important role in driving social change that you know people are organizing and mobilizing in new and creative ways and and bringing about huge disruption to the political systems of the world but also I think increasingly to the economic systems of the world and we're doing it in two ways that where as citizens we are putting pressure on our states to change their behaviors and I hope that as citizens we'll put pressure on our governments when they turn up to these meetings that Helen's talking about to be aspirational and to save our planet and fight climate change and fight poverty and inequality and by the way I hope some of you saw the snowmen all around town this week for action 2015 which is a campaign that we and many many other organizations around the world are leading to push our leaders to change so that's an example I think of positive citizen action but also as consumers to to hold our businesses to account to boycott where we think things are not working so in a way I think it's a you know if you think of it as a as an ecosystem where you have citizens the state and business that change social change happens in the relationship between the three sometimes it's about the state putting in the more effective regulations to ban pollution of one form or another is a good example in other cases it might be citizens putting a pressure on our states for example to ban landmines which we successfully did a few years ago. Great, Ferke you wanted to say something and we'll go back to the audience. Yeah I already notified it to you that I wanted to respond because I found the question of the lady on the second row intriguing and I think it's the right question and I think my first statement on who leads the social gender is not precise enough and her question triggered that so I want to make it more precise. What I meant was I think business is not leading the social gender which I now will correct I think we are leading the social gender is due to your question thank you that we are not in charge of the social gender we are not the boss of the social gender we cannot dictate any social gender and it should not be like that that is what I meant with we don't lead that we're not in charge we're not the boss etc but if leadership and I think leadership is to contribute or to take care that we move from A to B and that is leadership then we do lead the gender because I put a lot of effort in that we change these things we do around climate change and I think it's not going well in the world and I think we are heating up unnecessary this planet much too much and I think we are burning too much fossil resources and I think we need to change that and I think I'm not in charge of it and I do not control it but I think that we myself others can lead us and that is what we did this afternoon by sitting there with 35 CEOs and said we shall make a step forward even when governmental leaders or united nations or whoever is not yet ready we go a step forward is that leading that is leading to contribute to be interested and to help that we move from A to B is leading and in that sense I think very correct question by the way to a certain degree you're all leading by being here this evening all of you could also sit at home watch television why to come here and to listen to a couple of people in Davos and and CEOs etc because you're interested what's happening in society you're interested what people are saying by your questions you're influencing people like you just did is that leading also to a certain degree it is and therefore I'm grateful that you spent the time here so why don't we give more opportunity for leadership with some questions from the audience so I just want to be sure I scan the back and I'm not there's a gentleman in the back if you could stand up actually when you have a question that would be easiest for the people with the microphones to find you I would like to to sit my name is Peter Müller I have no relation to organization can I speak in German is this possible because my English is not too too good certainly okay thank you and I will be brief and I will have a question in the end so you will interrupt me if should I speak too long okay Mr. Bulker spoke about harmony needed that ends being productive at some time he said one should not talk about all contradictions but he also said that it's good to speak about contradictions so that society can make a step forward and I would like to pinpoint one contradiction very briefly that I think is fundamental it's the contradiction between the capitalistic thought and paradigm which is selfish and only profit based and oriented on the one hand and on the other hand where one talks about the nice world of civil society and of social affairs of democracy that doesn't take place in corporations at all by the way these are two different worlds basically that are facing each other I don't think that a good entrepreneur has any freedom of movement a good entrepreneur simply has to use certain business rules to generate his profits I hope that I was able to show this contradiction that is basically my question thanks you did articulate the contradiction so what I captured was the contradiction between on the one hand the corporate and the profit-seeking world and on the other hand what you call the civil society and the democratic world is that correct okay so we got the comment is there another question from the audience right here up front my name is Thierry I'm a Sengalan MBA student and my question is to DSM and Nestle how do you convince your shareholders that sustainability increases their share price so the question is how does sustainability increase share price yeah so how do they convince their shareholders how do you convince the shareholders okay thank you and another question one more and then we'll turn it back to discussion here I see a question right up at the front thank you my name is Adi Tolvain and I used to work in the investment industry now I'm on Al Gore's climate reality core so this isn't a transition really from bad to good in my later years I was involved in sustainability in I also in the investment industry and one of the observations that I frequently made in advising investors about their portfolios and their retirement funds is they would they would be often be people like people from Mr. Siskajara's organization or they'd be active in sustainability and climate and other social justice issues but when we got down to discussing their retirement portfolios and pointing out that there were companies there that were problems they they didn't they didn't get the connection and and then on the other hand I was meeting with innovative entrepreneurs who were introducing solar and other technology and I had a great deal of difficulty finding people including people who were often espousing certain social values and principles to actually put their money into these these type of companies so the question I that I want to put to you is is there is there in your view more integrity among people as we as you're working in your organization in your corporation that people who have these values are actually in a more integrated way and dressing them in all areas of their life in terms of what they're buying in terms of where they're investing and how they're acting politically and also this question also goes to the political sphere because we have a lot of politicians who are noticing that when the elections are held it's not the sustainability supporting green or whatever politicians are getting the votes of the people who are concerned with the terrorism and security and immigration and these type of issues and often these are experienced politicians who know that the climate crisis is scientifically almost totally proven but the voters aren't getting it so they're they're going after the votes of these these these voters who have these biases in order to get elections go is it possible to get more integrity also into the political leadership as well as into the into the public into the public and the way that they live and the demands they make our corporations and politicians thank you great thank you so I think what we heard in that set of questions was really a theme of values so one question or comment was around this perceived competition between two world views and any thoughts on that the question around how do you convince shareholders of the value of sustainability and then this last question around so what behaviors need to change and where is there a difference between what people are saying and what people are doing anyone want to jump in thank you well first of all capitalism is that two different models two different worlds which are sometimes conflicting which is alright you try to pinpoint a conflict about maybe building a better world or doing good for all people versus doing good for yourself in a selfish way in capitalism capitalism is based on competition also that the best man will win and competition itself is not bad go 30 26 years back in China before then shopping open China and you go for a haircut it takes you more than an hour more than one-half hour and I did it to get a haircut in Beijing and you asked the guy who's doing that I don't want to hurry you but why why so slow you said I don't mind I get the same pay during the whole day when I do three five for 10 people why should I hurry I understand that at a certain moment China changed and a haircut is a little bit faster now than in one-half hour so competition in itself triggers if you look to sport competition itself triggers to be better to try to new things etc so in itself is that element of a capitalistic system not bad if you overexpose it and become too selfish and forget all other things or try to win at the cost of everything then it goes wrong and here is the balance which should be there regulators play a role but even more important your own ethics and your own mindset plays a role and building that to the question about sustainability here it is the same I think I believe in it that being a sustainable company at the long end at the long end will be better for the world will be better for our company will be better for our shareholders are there moments that it is not the case on the short run absolutely and people who are interested in that I said don't invest in our company are we even doing things which I hardly can calculate what is the benefit of our company we had one time and at the shareholders meeting people say why are you spending all those money with the world food program what is it delivering for shareholders nothing in the coming years I said I agree please the shareholders said you agree that in the coming years this is not giving returns to you that I agree so why are you doing that I believe we have the responsibility and he said well I'm a shelter I don't like it so maybe you should not be a shelter of our company because I think it's good that we do those kinds of things and please you can go somewhere else as well this is what we do as a company and I think we should do this as a company the benefit I said I see is that we have a very high engagement of our own people and they are very motivated that they work for such a company I cannot prove it but at the end of the day that will create failure for a lot of people as well wonderful Danny and then she think you see this discussion about capitalism and civil society capitalism when you only when you only retribute to money that's not what capitalism stands for capitalism stands for the resources now if you narrow it down to money then you're totally right that doesn't work and I think we should go back to the basic of what you have been saying it is this this well what's inside the human being it is to be better tomorrow and to go for something to learn to investigate to more no more that dynamic in society is a positive thing and and actually that is what has been the driver of society and brothers where we are there's many things to be done still but has brought us forward as a as a society and shareholder the shareholder value per se we get more and more shareholders saying you have to go about sustainability before I get to you and so we are part of society there too we we privilege shareholders that are thinking and are in our company for the long term and the ones who want to have a very short term deal with us normally with Nestle they're not well served great and Danny and Shifi I think you wanted to comment sure one of things I wanted to mention given the open forum is to help expectations is that sometimes the public's view is that the corporation should perhaps even make a loss in favor of say the farmer and so on down the supply chain that inherently goes against the purpose of corporations which is to deliver value to a broad number of stakeholders within society so with companies that have supply chains where value is provided it's important to look at the entire bundle of value and not just the money that is sent down to the supply chain we have several examples of in the nonprofit world you know parachuting in money and that doesn't actually solve the problem the goal is to increase the dignity with which the people live so if corporations the the sea of Heineken gave a great example a training farmers to improve their yield farmers started yielding so much crop that Heineken couldn't buy all of it has now they had extra to go sell at the marketplace which would not be reflected in how much margin trickles down to the farmer but would be reflected in an increase in the dignity with which they carry themselves in society so let's have a bit more realistic sense of the compromise between the expectations of society and the purposes of corporations which is to return the value to the broader stakeholders I want to just go back to what I understood from Petter's observation I think that we would make a big mistake if we think that society is going to be stuck in in these sectors that there will be these businesses out to make profit and even civil society out to make positive social change what I see is already happening is what might be called hybridization I hope that translates well in German that there's shape shifting so for example in my sector we have huge NGOs I mean there are there are leaders in Davos here who run organizations with more than one billion dollar turnovers and these are registered non-governmental organizations and or if you take the context like you talk about Nigeria in Nigeria NGOs spend more money on providing water and sanitation services than the government does so you know we're starting to see even civil society playing a slightly different role but I've already made the point that businesses themselves are starting to change so I think I suspect you'd think of yourself as a social entrepreneur not just as an entrepreneur and even the formations are starting to change so we have social enterprises in America there are these things called B corporations or low profit limited liability companies so we're starting to see a hybridization where I think we have to act quickly is to bring the sort of the bad guys to use figures analogy closer to the middle so that they too are thinking about the social agenda and not just maximizing the money they take home if I may react really quickly I think it's important to think about high profits and high value in in different spheres right by being a social enterprise doesn't mean necessarily you have to make a loss or you have to make low profits right I think if society puts corporations in that box we would not have an outcome where corporations would feel the they have the latitude to return value to society because you're competing right a lot of the corporations that compete with Nestle perhaps are not having such discussions but Nestle has to compete with those corporations on the shelf in the in the store and in order to be able to participate you have to have the latitude that other companies have and then make the choice to go on a more sustainable route and society gives corporations that latitude and leaders step up and make the right choice then I believe we'll have a solution if you get boxed into having low profits that is fairly unattractive Helen I'm very curious on your perspective if we are to be successful with the sustainable development goals what values have to change most well I was reflecting on this question around what's the motivation for businesses to do these things and you know perhaps sometimes people being cynical and saying well why are they doing it I actually think that for any unit of society whether it's the individual the organization the company whatever reputation matters and reputation is built on integrity and values that are perceived to be good and it's it's built on engagement engagement with things that are seen to be to be positive so I think for for a company this issue of reputation of being associated with with things that are good things to do like the world food program is a good a good thing to support companies which are involved with the ethical ways of producing their goods and services companies which which treat their their work as well companies which stand for equal opportunity it's it's this issue of reputation people feel better about doing business with a company that that values its reputation and is engaged and they do about doing business with one which isn't wonderful automatically what Helen Ellen said that has to do with long-term commitment and long-term entrepreneurship as well but there's nobody wants to deal with suppliers or customers who you cannot trust and and and who exploit you if I may add I don't like the word social entrepreneurship I don't like that at all why because does something exist as non social entrepreneurship I have not seen any entrepreneur maybe they do it sometimes but then not as a goal and say well we are an enterprise and we only care about ourselves we try to exploit our people we try to damage the planet and we want to make as much as much profit and we think that that is a good concept I think I think that I live in New York and those people do exist well well then I then I make then I make my point it should not exist so we should not say we distinct ourselves from main pack by social enterprises I would say all enterprises are social enterprises if not you do not belong here and if there are companies like that who you know then I would say please get them out because we don't need them maybe arms manufacturers so have the one here with the label social entrepreneur so I feel like I may have to come to a defense here but my view is that I absolutely agree that with with Paul's view if corporations are providing a whole comprehensive set of value back to multiple constituents in society every corporation is a social corporation socially motivated one right but we do not have the case but the term social entrepreneur helped a little bit to put some some emphasis on certain dimension that was sometimes forgotten I don't believe yeah you do have these entrepreneurs that you just described so so vividly I don't think they're going to say it that's that's the difference but the I think well-inspired value-based entrepreneurship is per se social too but having that term popping up has helped us to to to put as a that awareness of how entrepreneurs and companies should be linked to society has put that a little bit in light and I think it has a positive thing but I hope yes indeed that all entrepreneurs and companies could be socially engaged in their role as being part of society and that's again being part of society you're part of society you there's no such thing as and that's a little bit the question about capitalism and civil society I'm sorry civil society is us all here me too you that that's we all part of that society and that's why you cannot say well we are society and you're out of it so we exclude you from society and I never felt that though so there was a question about motivation what motivates us and I can tell you I started my career nicely now quite a few years ago 35 years ago and I started in Peru and that was exactly when there was this this this shining path that that killed many many people there and I can and so many companies left it was was quite dangerous to be there they found the some of the young people I need to go there but but it was quite dangerous Nestle State and other companies too but many many left Nestle State to be part of that company that country linked up with farmers good times and bad times and we have actually now today 4 000 people working for us in Pakistan now I was there a few weeks ago you should see the 99 percent of our people are from there Pakistani proud working and that's stabilizing that's that's what I say also is that social entrepreneurship that's entrepreneurship but that's engaging with the society in good and bad times and I think that's but that is what companies should do that is what economical activity should do and we stay in these countries and and and sometimes difficult times in Syria we had a factory until last the year before now 2013 a factory with 600 people working still in spite of all and they went to their job and they were proud until they blew up the factory yeah but we are still having 150 people and the payroll in Syria working and and and we we are working being part of that country with people organizing themselves waking up in the morning going to their job because that is what gives them hope for the next generations now we could also pull out we don't we don't earn money whatsoever in Syria I can tell you but you see and and and yes indeed we are a quite a sizable company and yes indeed we may be criticized and we're going to correct certain things and we're still all 350 000 people persons with their weaknesses and strengths but you see that's where that relationship between are you part of society or not well if you live these situations you feel pretty much part of a society I can tell you I think that makes me proud to be part of a company like that you see that's why that's motivating me that keeps me going great point Neb we'll maybe take two more questions from the audience and then a quick round gentlemen right over here hello my name is Chatterton and I'm a little bit ex-guided so I wrote it down I'm sorry to turn to the espresso question because you talked about people who are proud 99 percent but and you told us that when you would told us the share about the capsules the concurrent would criticize you right no no no criticize they would use the information yeah but against you not for you but that's the dynamic it's like football you know no no no no you don't show all your cars before you start the game I mean that's the nicety above it and yes sir but anyhow my question to be short is if you were a farmer would you happy with the share and second question is are they like with the wage that they get are they able to improve their farming skills and farming capabilities capabilities and capacity yes and yeah stuff thank you great thank you so one more question right next to you there hi I'm a student as well and I'm also very nervous talking to such powerful people well my question was while listening to you a fault came to my mind and it was whether big companies or even countries could be scared of the fact that poor countries or where they get their resources from could rise to powerful nations or just become more influenced in the world if they will pay them more for their resources great so I think you know again a theme of I think fairness here of who is getting what share you know if we were all to imagine ourselves as farmers would we be happy with the situation and then actually at a more global level a question of trade between countries so and maybe we'll use this as an opportunity for final comments as well I'll just turn it to whoever wants to pick up the sort of theme of fairness with these two very good questions that were posed by the audience let me talk about this the farmer and we have coffee farmers we have milk farmers we if you want to be in for for the in the long term and be successful and all you have to connect positively with society you have to connect positively with your farmers you cannot exploit them run away they have alternatives they have alternatives they and and that is by working together with them that they have higher yields more production better quality higher prices and that they produce exactly the ingredients we're looking for so when you do that with the right mindset there is that it's not exclusive it is inclusive and I think that's the important part of the equation milk farm same thing I mean we cannot it's like our employees we cannot outsmart them we we we have to make them part of it positively and I think we have 350,000 of them but we have actually millions more that are linked with our activities be it our our our customers or our suppliers we we're working with 750,000 farmers directly great quick thoughts or comments from the other panelists I just wanted to reflect a little bit on the short-term long-term thing because that's I think all of us have said in different ways that one thing that's essential is to have the long-term view to achieve long-term social change but I think wherever we look our modern societies are all about the short-term it's about the guy going to Guernsey to make sure he can make a short-term profit for his investors or or going back to shareholders every month or quarter or whatever else it is and even in the NGO sector we're not immune from this we we're trying to achieve long-term social change through one-year grants and what sort of long-term social change can you achieve in a year so I think all institutions in society need to start thinking about the long-term and in particular this year because it's going to be so pivotal around you know these sustainable development goals where we have to set ourselves long-term targets and long-term commitments for changing the nature of how we approach poverty climate change and inequality and if we don't do that none of us will achieve social change that we thank you really quickly I'll mention that from just the questions and the comments in the room it sounds to me that there's a shared responsibility between corporations and larger society so society government to be able to create the environment that can actually address the situation right society needs to have expectations that allow corporations to address the situation and get more and more social along the spectrum and then corporations need to respond to that responsibility that the calling as as faker was saying to be more social speak up to shareholders who are looking for short-term return and say this is right for the company this is right for society I believe in this I am the leader and if you do not agree there are several stocks that you could put park your money into so let's acknowledge that there's a shared responsibility to address this problem which affects society as a whole including corporations thank you thank you how and we say it in one sentence why we need to contribute to society and why we need to work on a better world because you cannot be successful don't even call yourself successful in a world that fails just responding a little to the last question which posed you know would perhaps richer countries or people be threatened by the fact that others who are poorer were coming up and becoming more powerful well the whole purpose I think of development is to try and close the great gaps and inequities which have been existing between people and and between countries and and we do see now that convergence going on if you compare growth rates in developed countries with those in emerging economies and developing economies of course that the growth of momentum is is with the the countries who are developing and a lot of those gaps are closing but I think another sub theme of Davos is very much this issue of inequalities that the people aren't benefiting equally from what's happening in societies in the world and in the new global development agenda we have to be very very mindful of how corrosive inequality is and in a way it can be most corrosive when a country is going ahead but some people are going ahead a lot faster than others and so we're very very much motivated in in the UN not to leave anyone behind but disproportionately to see the poorest countries and the poorest people making gains and advances so that they can fulfill their full potential as human beings and have dignity too wonderful wonderful well this has been a fascinating conversation many just a simple question has raised so many interesting next generation questions of all these tensions that are in play of you know thinking more long-term can help resolve some of these tensions yet the market still operates on a short term we have different sectors and it's best to think of the lines as not being so sharp or the boundaries as being so sharp yet they do have different objectives and then there is this question of fairness of what is the right split of value and does everyone benefit or are there some winners and losers and how do we wrestle with that tension but I think one of the interesting things about this open forum and this discussion is the healthiest thing to do is to have open discussion about these and I know I learned a lot from all the questions I were asked the thoughtful questions are asked by the audience and the very interesting insights from the panelists and I hope that this open forum does symbolize the way that we need to have a conversation as we are experiencing transitions of how all the sectors want the same outcomes have different thoughts of how to realize them and then there probably and there has to be as Fakie mentioned a solution to it so I just want to thank our panelists and I want to thank the audience for joining us today thank you thank you the panelists thank you your great audience but let me also thank you two people who really designed this Salima and James that they are probably hiding behind the stage there but they did a great job because they designed these all these six sessions thank you