 OK, we're going to get started. I'm Dan Rundy. I direct the project on US leadership and development here at CSIS. This is a CSIS chevron forum. And my friends at chevron have helped host this. We're having a conversation with Sir Mark Moody Stewart on leadership in corporate social responsibility. I think the reason for the conversation is, many of you know, he's the former chairman of Royal Dutch Shell. He also, I think, you were the former chairman of Anglo-American Mining Company as well. But the reason that we're all together, in addition to our friends at chevron for helping host this, is that he's just recently written a book called Responsible Leadership, Lessons from the Front Line of Sustainability and Ethics. And my friend Jennifer from Greenleaf Publications is in the back. And it's going to be available at the end. Mr. Moody Stewart's agreed to, the books are for sale and is willing to sign books as well if you want to get a copy. I bought mine retail, and I think you all should do the same, so I recommend that. So I think it's, but I did read the book cover to cover. It's absolutely a fascinating read. And I don't say that unless I mean it. And I got a lot out of the book. And I had a number of questions that I wanted to ask Mr. Moody Stewart based on what I read. And then I want to open up the conversation to some very thoughtful people here who are in the audience. And I appreciate the really high quality of folks that are here who are very knowledgeable who are in the audience. So I want to first ask you, Mr. Moody Stewart, why did you write this book? Well, I wrote it partly because if I talked somewhere and gave some examples of events that had happened, business schools, people were always very interested in because they want real life examples. I rather regret the title of the book. That's Greenleaf's fault, I'm sure. It is Greenleaf's fault. I said to the, my original title was Lessons Learned. And the editor who was an excellent person said, Mark, if you Google Lessons Learned, there are hundreds of thousands of books Lessons Learned. So he came up with this title. I wasn't smart enough to say, if you Google leadership, there are millions of titles. So I got stuck with the title. It's supposed to be less. The idea was to have things which people could read and particularly people, practitioners, who could read it and say, I would have done that. What could he have done to avoid it? And so on. So it's meant to be to promote discussion. Well, rather than teach. Fair enough. I found the book fascinating and I found your biography absolutely fascinating. You keep it to the very end of the book because you don't want to distract from the message. But I do think how you became who you are and how you became Chairman Also, the fact that you married your wife, Judy, who's here with us and thanks for being here, Judy. I think have had profound influences on your leadership style and also the decisions you've made as a leader. So I want to just, I'm going to highlight a couple of things from your biography. I know most never talk about people's biographies and these sorts of things and I won't read it. But I did want to say a couple. You and Judy lived in at least seven countries. You speak at least four or five languages and I know Judy does too. Turkish, Malay, Dutch, French. You've learned Spanish from the right country and from the right professors in Argentina. That's great. My wife will be very pleased. But I think some of the other things is you were born, you weren't born on the island of England or Great Britain, you were born somewhere else. Where were you born? In the colonies, as it were, in Antigua in the West Indies. My father was a sugar planter and my mother's family had been there since 1700 or something. Tell us about your brother George because I think this is actually important for this audience. My brother George, I'm the youngest of six. My brother George had polio when he was less than a year, I think. He was just learning to walk before the war and he went to England and was separated from the family. He lived with my father's sisters who were first world war generation maiden aunts because the men had all been killed. And he lived a very productive life in the agricultural, agri-industries. And he wrote a book on corruption. That was the point I was, he came up with a term. He came up with a term, if I don't trust everything Google says, partly because I found a quote I was looking to verify and when I finally tracked it down, it was verified and the origin was me, quoting somebody else. It's completely circular. Anyway, he was actually quoting Khrushchev. It's a good quote from Khrushchev. My brother coined the term grand corruption which is corruption which is really big and distorts economies and analyzed what are the industries. If you're gonna have grand corruption, you need something which is high tech, so it's complicated. A bit of national security helps. Something that's big enough to interest the president. And if you rank industries, you'll see that the arms industry comes out pretty high because how do you compare fight array with fighter B? And we all know that there's a long history there. I'm gonna come back to corruption later in the conversation but I wanted to at least just flag that you have a very interesting background. You were knighted the same day as your brother and it was 80 years to the day that your grandfather. No, my father and my uncle were also knighted. No, they got military crosses from the first World War. They were the first brothers to get it, not to get the same award, but to get the same award at the same day. Got it. My name's, I think it's- So I asked him whether we could do it together. I think my brother actually deserved the knighthood more than me. I, you talk about that in the book and I think he made an incredible contribution to development and I think we benefit a lot from his work and his research and you actually I think helped operationalize in some ways, I'm gonna come back to that but I wanted to flag your brother's contribution both on your life but also in terms of your, in terms of the contributions you've made as a corporate leader. Let me shift and just very, very briefly, you lived, you worked in 10 countries for Shell. No, nine countries. Nine, okay, nine countries, Oman, Spain, Malaysia, Nigeria, Netherlands, UK. Yeah, I love that. Let's say Australia. Australia. Turkey. Turkey. And I was, you get the idea folks and so it's been a partnership between Judy and Mr. Stewart for a very long time and so I really had a global outlook. You became the, you became chairman of Shell in 19, or you had a- 1998. 1998 and you were CEO in 1993. No, no, no. Shell had a complex structure. I used to say when I was CEO that I'm the closest thing that Shell had to a CEO. Got it. Because I was, I'd shared the meeting, I was kind of chairman because I'd shared the meeting of the two parent company boards which I thought was a bad idea and said so and nearly got fired for saying so. And that's on the record. Yes, that's- It's actually in the Shell history. I gave the historians a whole lot of stuff and said you may want to publish it but at least put it in the archives. And when I read the five tomes they had actually published it which must have upset some of my former colleagues. But I just want to establish that you were a very senior corporate leader in the mid-90s, before 1995 and I want to get to 1995 in a minute because I think that's very important because I think there's a before and after for Shell and I'm going to ask you about that a minute and many of you in the audience know it but not everyone in the audience is going to know about this. But you were a very senior corporate leader at Shell in the mid-90s and then in your book you talk about there's sort of this before and after for Shell of 1995. Tell us a little bit about what happened in 1995 because I think this is, I want to now shift to the conversation about how I think this sort of accelerated at least a journey certainly informed by the life that you and Judy shared together and the places you visited, you lived and worked and had grown up in but that 1995 was sort of a catalytic moment I think both for Shell and for you. Two things happened. I think one was in Nigeria, the execution of Ken Sarawiva tried by a military court for accessory to murder with nine other people, eight other people. People had been murdered. Ogoni youth had undoubtedly murdered some Ogoni chieftains quite horribly but it was a military trial and nobody expected him to be executed. He was found guilty and sentenced to death but that had happened before and these things normally, everyone was surprised. Even Ken Sarawiva's daughter is on the record of saying he was surprised. So we pleaded for a fair trial, medical treatment for him and when we heard at the last moment that they really were going to execute him for clemency and it didn't have any effect and I write a bit, I've dug into why it happened. It's a very Nigerian story. I mean, Abacha had actually pardoned his predecessor, Obesangir. Yeah, who later became president. Who later became president and who was a military leader who handed over, the first in Africa I think who handed over to a civilian government and Abacha felt he hadn't got any credit for that. So there was a Commonwealth conference coming up. He thought I might as well get rid of the problem. So he thought he got rid of the problem and he of course hadn't. So that was a huge shock to Shell and the world thought that we hadn't done whatever we should have done and we can talk about what we should have done or should we, was there anything else? It was at the same time and in the same year, we had Greenpeace criticized us for planning to dispose of a major storage boy a mammoth great sort of milk bottle which was used to store oil and could not be disposed of the way had originally been planned due to damage which was to tip it back on its side and take it ashore in Britain and chop it up because it had been damaged. So we were going to sink it in the North Atlantic and they said this was disgraceful and it was a huge, they occupied it and we had a huge argument. In the end, just before we sank it, we said stop, take it back, examine it, find out what's in it because we were accused of 5,000 tons of stuff being in there. Anyway, these two events were huge shocks. Prior to that, if you said to people in your golf club, church, night club, whatever your particular vice was, what do you do, I work for Shell, there was sort of comforting red and yellow glow of respectability and that went. So everyone's self-esteem was shocked. We thought we had good principles. Let me just stop you for a minute. You talk in the book about many people in Judy's church have come up to her and said, what's it like working for an oil company? I'm assuming that's when that started to happen for you. That means suspicious. But they still ask her, they still ask her what's it like being married to that barrel. How do you ever marry a guy with oil money? Anyway. Well, that's subject question, as you know. We had principles which had been evolved in the 70s, written by a man called Jeffrey Chandler. So this was your, in some ways, you reacted to what happened in 1985 by reviewing your business principles? Yes. Jeffrey Chandler had written in the light of a corruption scandal in Italy, he'd written, he said, we need to have principles. So he wrote these excellent principles which are still the principles today somewhat modified. And they included. In the book you have sections that were the bolded that show the changes. They are, they included stakeholders, what our responsibilities to shareholders were to protect the value of their investment and deliver an acceptable return. It now says competitive return and small difference, but these things make a difference. So we're a very analytical company. So we thought the world is dumping on us and we feel, we thought we were doing all right. We thought we behaved responsibly. The world doesn't agree, so we better ask him, what about it? So we ran workshops all around the world saying, you know, 12 shell people slice across the company. 12 outsiders, politicians, civil society. What do you think the responsibilities are of a major global corporation in the 20th coming up for 21st century? And nobody, none of the people we asked, even our opponents refused to participate in this. If I summarize what they said was they said, it's a very interesting question. Nobody's asked us before. We don't know that we know the answer, but we're very interested to talk about it. They reviewed the principles and they came, we said, you know, what have we left out? And they came back with a number of modifications on human rights, on adjustments. We didn't make political payments before, but adjustments on involvement in politics. Because we said, we don't get involved in politics. We keep out of politics. And they said, that's not true. You can't keep out of politics. And we realized that that's right. If you're a major corporation, is inevitably a political actor. It's a question of, how do you define what your responsibility is? And you have responsibilities to speak on certain subjects. And so on. And human rights, it was to a series of things. It's all in the book, the details. But very important. Just in terms of human rights, one of the things, my friend Bennett Freeman is here, who was a deputy assistant secretary of state at the time and was one of the architects of the voluntary principles on human rights. Could you just talk a little bit about the voluntary principles? Because I think you are certainly willing to have that conversation after what has happened. Absolutely. I mean, I think one of the major positive changes in the world is where business and civil society has begun to talk to each other and combine forces to address very specific problems. It started in traded goods, forest products, forest stewardship council, sustainable fisheries. And there's lots of traded products. And then it got into trickier issues, like security. And they all have kind of the same origin, that someone not normally in a corporation says, hey, there's a problem. Corporations say, well, there is a problem, or there's not a big problem. But eventually people get together and start to talk. And that's what happened. The human rights organizations and the businesses said there is a problem if you operate in difficult countries and you need security. And the human rights people said, we agree you need security because you need to defend the human rights of your people. We agree that you may even need armed security, which you certainly do in some kind. The question is, what are the rules for the armed security? What do you do if the armed security comes from government security forces? How can you be sure that you're not making the situation worse? Hugely valuable. And if I'd known about it when I was in Turkey, for example, when the government said, you have to employ armed security. And I said to them, you don't do armed security. I don't run an army. And what do I do if someone shoots someone by accident or shoots a thing? They said, well, they count as police. And the same would happen as if a policeman shot them, which means probably not very much. So we would have benefited enormously from it. And in that case, of course, governments were involved, which is sometimes of enormous advantage as in there. Sometimes it's a weakness in the system. I want to come back to multi-sector collaborations, which you talk a lot about in your book. But I want to talk a little bit more about the issue of human rights. You have a chapter called Dining with the Devil. And I'm just going to list some countries. South Africa, Iran, Syria, these are all places where you've done business. Is there a country where you spend some time in the book talking about, in essence, making an argument against economic sanctions on countries? Is there a country where you would use economic sanctions? And under what conditions would it be, would you use economic sanctions in terms of divestment or not investing in a country? In general, the history of economic sanctions have not been successful. If you look at the cases where people would claim success and where there had been successes, one is South Africa, which was a- And you guys still operate it during the party. But one has to admit that it was a carrot and stick approach. And that the role of sanctions, if you analyze the situation, the economic impact of sanctions on South Africa was limited. It allowed them to develop or forced them to develop their own industries, which was, to some extent, beneficial. I mean, a sort of Darwinian niche of benefit. But it had an impact on the self-esteem of the white voting population. It was embarrassing to them. It was embarrassing to them. And they couldn't play sports. They couldn't compete internationally in sports. So I would say sanctions on a country where it impacts people who have an influence on the leadership, targeted to people who have an influence on the leadership. So then you look at Russia. Would you apply sanctions on Russia today? You've invested in Russia. You know Russia well. I'm a strong believer in the continuity of economic relations. I do think there's an argument in places like Russia, in places like Zimbabwe, very specifically applying targeted sanctions to individuals who either have stolen money or who might be able to influence the leadership. What I'm opposed to, I mean, another case that I'm certain in some people in this city would say was a success, is the impact of sanctions on Iran. As a country, you know well as well. And if you look, and I've been there recently and talked to them about it and talked to the previous oil minister, the impact of the sanctions in the short term, there's no doubt it's had an impact. And it has, in the short term, focused their minds. But this is after 30 years of the destruction of a great society, a booming private sector. And the private sector has been massacred. I mean, every time in Shell, every time we engaged with the Iranians and would talk to them about doing business, the technocrats in national Iranian oil company and the oil minister, and you withdrew because of sanctions or slowed it down, the wild guys won and said, you see, you can't talk to these people. The net result was by the time you get to the last 10 or 15 years, you had such economic power as there was concentrated in the hands of the government and their cronies. And the people who might have made a difference and who actually oppose the government have been crushed and destroyed. So you're saying it's a strength and crony capitalism. And it's highly counterproductive. And if you go to, I mean, when I was in Iran and I talked to them about sanctions, they said, I said, what do you think's gonna happen? They said, 50, 50. They said, it'll come one day. Actually- What will come one day that the sanctions will be lifted? Yeah. But they said, we need it because we can't do anything. And they are quite feisty talking to, I mean, Rouhani's brother was there. They quite liked him. I think they quite like Rouhani. They didn't like Hagarzadi. Let me ask- And were quite rude publicly about him. I mean, it's a surprisingly liberal country compared with the other side of the Gulf. Well, very interesting. Let me ask you about, you are a geologist, your PhD in geology. You have became friendly with one of the former Chinese leaders who's also a geologist. I think it was Jiang Zemin who was- No, Wenjia Bao. Sorry, hard to keep track of Wenjia Bao. I wouldn't say that I was friendly with him. But you had some interesting conversations with him. You had professional connectivity with him over geology. Yes, yeah. And you go to China- He was a real geologist. You go to China at least once a year. Yes. And you've been in China many, many years. Could you just talk? I was interested and I think you're in many ways an admirer of what China has done. And there are many things to admire about what China has accomplished in development. Could you just, let me- And I think that's interesting in the book. Let me just push a little bit about on human rights, which I feel like you didn't really cover very much in the book. So could you just talk a little bit about, if you were gonna critique China in terms of that, and you talk a little bit about this, but could you just talk a little bit about, so if you were thinking about some of the human rights challenges in China, what would come to mind for you? Two things, I think. I was in, there's something called the China Development Forum, which is what you participate, yes. Which was originally supported by Zhu Rongji and Wen Xiaobao, and now by Li Keqiang. And it was a very open discussion between Chinese academics, Western academics, Chinese business people, Western business people, and the government. And astonishingly open discussions and acknowledgments of the problems. And I remember some, oh, I don't know, eight or nine years ago, an elderly professor from Beijing University stood up and he said to one of the ministers, he said, I regard Hukou system. Well, Hukou is like internal permission slips to go from the rural areas to the ladies thing. He said, I regard this as an offense against human rights. Well, at that point, human rights was a delicate term in China. It sort of stood up and said, this is gonna be interesting. What's gonna happen? Anyway, the guy went on and he said, but I have seen the favelas in Latin America and so on, the slums around which result from urbanization. And he said, that too is an offense against human rights. And he said, I don't like it, but until we fix the infrastructure and can control this movement and address it, I think we're gonna have to live with the Hukou system. And they are very open about it. They don't like it. It has distortions, discrimination against, but the one thing they have done, they have lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. I mean, the world poverty statistics have been skewed by China. And they've done it- In the right, in the good way. In the good way, yeah. And they've done it through this process with collateral damage. They're the only people, so far as I know in history, who have moved a couple of hundred million people from the countryside into towns, which is an inevitable process. It happens everywhere. It happened here. It happens there. And everywhere, maybe less here than in Europe, it's caused slums. And China doesn't have slums. And that's an achievement, but it's an achievement with costs. My second story and thought about human rights was when we changed the Shell business principles, we, having discussed them, the interlocutors said, they're good principles now. You can't probably do better, but you have to report on them, because they're just words. You've got to demonstrate what you're doing. We went around the world to all our operations in Saudi Arabia, in everywhere, including China, and said, look, these are our business principles. You are our partners. You're our official partners. We're signed up. And in China, these are state-owned companies. And we said, read them and, you know, can you live with them? Because we expect our partners, joint venture partners, to sign up to these principles. Not specifically sign up, but to say, you know, we're happy with those and we will comply with them. And in China, in human rights, they came back because the principles said that we had the, we talked about fundamental human rights, that we had a responsibility to respect the fundamental human rights of our own employees, to protect those, to respect those of the communities around us, and in general in the country, to express support for fundamental human rights. And the Chinese said, and I talked to the translator who did it, said that these four characters in Chinese, which in my translation means human rights with a capital H and a capital R and the full Western baggage. And they said, if that's what you mean, the answer is no. But they said, there are these six characters, the four middle characters are exactly the same as the forbidden ones, two on the side, which if you retranslated it, we will respect individual and personal rights. And they said, that we will do. So we thought, well, it's a bit hair-splitting, but actually if you think about what is the problem in a country like China or any totalitarian state, it's that the individual is subservient to the state. If the individual gets in the way of the bulldozer, which is in the public interest, the individual gets crushed. And if a state-owned company is prepared to admit that an individual has rights, this is progress. So we went to the human rights organizations and said, look, don't accuse us, we think this we should accept because it's progress. And they said, we agree and we won't complain. And they didn't complain. I was in China two years ago talking to the person who translated it. And she said, you can now use the four, only the four. And last year in the UN Global Compact local network in China, chaired by the chairman of Sino-PEC, Fu Chengyu, they ran a workshop of their own volition on human rights in China, in business, in relation to business. There's many things I wanna cover with you, but I also feel like I owe it to the audience. They get you have a couple of questions. Sorry, I did long answers. No, but this is the sweet purpose that we purposefully, we purposely wanted you to give long answers. So I would love to talk to you about corruption. I'd love to talk to you about UN Global Compact. I'd love to talk about the role of private enterprise and development, all things you talk about in your book. I think I would be remiss if we didn't talk about corruption only because you dedicate so much to it. And I also think because your brother's been such an influence and you also were one of the founders of EITI. So just talk a little bit about how you've came to the corruption conversation and how you see business, how you talked a little bit about earlier, but talk a little bit about how when you were a corporate leader at Shell and also at Anglo-American. Well, I think in many ways you could say that corruption is probably the major destructive evil in the world. It's at the root of so many problems. If you try and solve problems, if you try to solve climate change, corruption will get in the way in many countries. So it's a barrier to doing things and a distortion of the economy. It's a huge market failure. And how do companies deal with corruption or talk about corruption or think about corruption? I think there's a bit of journey for companies. I mean, I think the first thing is you don't have to be corrupt in the sense that nobody is twisting your arm. They may have a gun to your head, but that's extortion, not corruption. We can prevent leakages in our economy. So a major corporation knows where the money goes. And if it doesn't know where the money goes, the management's not doing its job. That doesn't mean you won't have minor failures somewhere and enthusiasts who, you know, categorizes something as incorrectly when it's actually. But if you have the right ethos, even those people will get flushed out. And if you have good reporting systems, hotlines and so on, you'll catch them. The problem is that you need to do something about it. You can, a really big company doesn't have to do it. And Shell didn't bribe people and didn't pay facilitation payments. We tightened up, again, not to say there weren't leakages somewhere. But if the top of the company says, you know, if they lose a billion and a bit euros and the guys at the top say, we didn't know anything about it. I mean, either they weren't doing their job or they're telling porkies fibs in British, sorry, cockney slang. Stuart Gulliver said the other day, the boss of HSBC said, and I agree with him, he said, I cannot be, surely I cannot be accountable for the individual behavior of every individual and the thing, and that's right, of course. But what we can be accountable for is creating an atmosphere whereby other people in the system will start ringing bells if they see something going wrong, whether it's corruption or whether it's other forms of misbehavior. On the Saudi Aramco, which has- You're on the Saudi Aramco board. On the Saudi Aramco board, I've chaired their audit committee. They have a very tough line and it's no secret that Saudi Arabia has major corruption problems in parts of the government and elsewhere in society. And they run a very tough line on it and it's just delightful to see how, when they've pushed it and gone out to their suppliers because there's a sort of myth in the world, you wanna do business in Saudi Arabia or the Middle East, you're gonna have to pay someone, find a partner, find an influential friend and so on. And they keep saying to people, you don't need to do that. Have a partner if you want to build a manufacturing facility and do something, but just to have an agent. You don't need it. Talk straight to us. It's encouraging to see it's beginning to make progress, but it's, and I'm encouraged. So even, I mean, in any country you can make progress but there are difficulties if you're a small, there's a small French medical instrument, instrument, widget maker, medical devices. And I heard her say, we have to pay to get licenses from the Ministry of Health in many countries, otherwise we can't sell our product. And she said, what would you do about that? And it's a difficult question. I mean, what would you do? She's perhaps not subject to the Foreign Crackers Act, all the UK bribery acts. I don't think they have one in France. But it is an interesting question. The answer, I think, is you should get together with the other manufacturers and some civil society guys because the civil society guys can make a public noise. You as a company can't complain. You can't complain and say, the Ministry of Health is causing me to bribe them. You can get someone elsewhere to say the Ministry of Health has a habit of squeezing companies and then the companies can get together and go to the Ministry of Health and say, look, yeah, there's a problem. Let's fix it. And it is fixable, by bit, slowly. Let me just move one more topic and then I do owe the audience a chance to make some comments and ask some questions. I just, you started the Shell Foundation, which has been a very big success, sort of a separate standalone entity within Shell that focuses on private enterprise. You also were very involved with the UN Global Compact in standing that up. And you also talk a lot in your book about the role of business and private enterprise as a driver of development or as a central driver of development. So they're all sort of related. Could you just spend a minute talking about why you got involved with the UN Global Compact and what the role of business is in development? Because I do think it would be remiss if I didn't ask you that question. I think one of the bits of progress that have been made in the past 15 years is at the Johannesburg Summit in 2002. Yeah. Rio Plus. Whatever, 10. 10. The communiques in the big meetings around the world, big UN jamborees, would have 40 pages and the only mention of business would be on page 35 would be something about job creation. No idea who creates jobs, no mention of it. So we went through and kept writing in business, business, business, and it has made a difference. And the UN Global Compact has got the UN to a point where they acknowledged that much of civil society acknowledges that it can't be done without business. Now, I believe it cannot be done without civil society and it certainly can't be done without government. So the challenge is when one or other of these groups is failing, how do we get together to fix it? And the question, if you look at development of various countries, including the use of oil resources, so-called resource curse, and the many genuine negative potential impacts, overvalued exchange rates, squeezing out of other things which people write about, are not inevitable given the right governance and governance. So the big question is, how do we create the business and the environment which allows business to flourish? And that environment will allow big business and little business. It's actually easier for big business sometimes to get around all the hurdles than the little business. Just why don't you share Georg Kells' quote that you were sharing earlier? No, in 2002, when the Global Compact started, one of the, we used to have what we call learning fora. We looked at, one of them was creating sustainable business in the least developed countries. 50 least developed countries, officially defined by the UN, and 40 of them were in sub-Saharan Africa. And Gail Kell used to say, the problem in these countries is not business, which many people said it was. It's no business. There isn't business. Not quite true, because there is business in those, but you need to make it grow. Let me open it up. You've all been a very patient audience. When I hear from some folks, if I get some hands, I want to hear first from my very good friend Bennett Freeman. Here's a microphone here. Thanks. Hi, good afternoon. I want to make a brief comment and ask a tough question, but there'll be limited time for the answer. But I just want to say, without being overly effusive in a way that would be uncomfortable for an Englishman to tolerate, that Sir Mark has really been, I'd say, the preeminent corporate statesman and conscience in the world of business for the last two decades. And that's a big statement, but I think that it's really merited, particularly coming from a very tough industry in very difficult circumstances, taking over the helm of Shell shortly after the Ken Sarawiva tragedy. And there have been very few others. Your peer Lord, now Lord Brown of BP at the time, and Neil Fitzgerald, as I recall, from Unilever a dozen years or so ago. And today, we have Paul Pullman of Unilever, but very, very few other leaders of such conscience and stature who've seen such a convergence between the corporate interest and a broader human interest. Without Sir Mark's support, I don't think in Shells, I don't think we've had the voluntary principles in security and human rights, the extractive industry, transparency initiative. We certainly wouldn't have as robust a global compact as we have today. So I want to thank you for your leadership, but ask you and really challenge all of us. Where do we find that next generation of corporate leadership that stakes its claim around not just shareholder value, but societal benefit? I think one of the spin-offs of the global compact is something called the Principles for Responsible Management Education, which involves 500 business schools. I think even they would forgive me by saying that they are, initially, certainly, were not the very topmost, 20 highly competitive ones who said, we don't need it. But they did, and they were prepared to cooperate. People very often ask me, what is it that is not taught in business schools that we should teach? And I think those principles go a bit towards it. But to me, there are two things. One, we teach a lot of analysis, and we're hot on analysis in business schools, and we need it. What we don't teach people is to listen and talk to the outside world. So I say the most important thing that you could teach people would be to teach them to listen to people who have different views, who see things that are wrong, which you may think are not your problem. They may not be your problem, but you may have things which could assist in solving the problem, and they may actually, surprisingly, be your problem. So listen to them and listen in particular to people who don't agree with you, and even to people, and perhaps particularly to people who you think are ill-informed and possibly stupid, because it's good to find out. They're probably, they may be ill-informed. They're almost certainly not stupid. So if you could find out what it is, get some. That's one point. The second point is, and this I think is very important, that business, we need, I'm a passionate believer in the market, but markets need regulatory frameworks. They cannot operate without regulatory frameworks. But if you mention regulation in business, it's not a popular topic. And in this country in particular, people twitch. They get very excited. But we need a framework which guides the market in the right direction without tying its hands. The countervailing problem is that if you start in regulation, if you're not careful, the regulators, because they're called regulators, not just regulate the direction, but they regulate precisely how you do it, which destroys the market and takes all the fun out of life. So we need people who have the capacity to take their corporate individual hat off, including the people at the top, and work with other corporations and learn to criticize. We in business don't criticize each other. There's a sort of general agreement that you don't criticize my industry and I won't criticize yours. I'm not gonna make remarks about the pharmaceutical industry and you're not. I'm not suggesting we do that in public, but we need fora where we can actually say, come on, chaps. You guys are not good for the general image of business, because it's a real no man is an island thing. Okay, this woman up here. Identify yourself and who you're with. Nina Gardner, I'm a corporate sustainability advisor, but also teach corporate sustainability business and human rights as an adjunct professor at Johns Hopkins SICE. So my first question is, how do we clone you? I agree with Bennett. You are one in a million and we need you more. One of the, you kept talking about the market. So I wanted to actually talk about one of the other hats of the many incredible hats that you have, that you wear, and it is chairman of Hermes. And if you could talk a little bit about how you see the role of investors going, because I think that's an important part of sort of pressuring companies to do the right thing if they're not as far thinking as you are. And yes, and where you think that's going in terms of whether institutional investors are understanding the environmental governance and social risks involved in long-term measurement of company value. Well, I think it, let me just get one more question for this gentleman right here. Let's just bunch these two together. What's your name in Identify yourself? Dave Ramoswamy, Africa Agribusiness Magazine. Sir Mark, I wanted to talk about how extractive industries, energy companies can work in emerging markets, especially in Africa on environmental justice and agricultural development. Two examples, there's a lot of deforestation in Africa due to logging for firewood because there's energy insecurity. And also farmers lose a lot of their crops because there's no energy to store and process grain. So how do you think energy companies and extractive industry companies who are historically have been seen as enemies to farmers and the environment? How can they work to mitigate these issues which are present? Thank you. Thank you. No problem. One's on wet investors and one's on energy and agriculture and agriculture. On investors, I mean, Hermes Equity Ownership Services works with long-term investors, so with pension funds. We've got 40 pension funds from around the world. It's about $200 billion. So in investment terms, it's not enormous. Principles for responsible investment, another important spin-off, has $40 trillion under management. Now, nobody believes that's all responsibly invested, but if a couple of trillion is, it begins to make a difference. So I think there are particularly long-term investors who say we are interested in the long-term, who get it and that's spreading to other areas who realize the initially the risks of not looking at that, the risks of poor governance, environmental corruption risks, all sorts of things, the risks of damage, so defensive, but then they begin to realize that there's actually the, goes beyond risk prevention into creation. So I think there is a change. In the 90s, we had in Shell one of the first discussions with shareholders on long-term, what we called non-financial elements. And we went on, we had a meeting and we talked about climate in 97. We talked about human rights, labor conditions, industrial accidents and so on. And those investors, they came along and one of them said to me, that was really fascinating. And I had wondered what on earth you were gonna talk about for three hours. But now, if you have one of those meetings, you actually get, they've read the report beforehand and they ask intelligent questions. So it is, I think, really growing. And it's growing in other parts of the world, some of which of course say, well actually it's nothing new to us. If you talk to an Indian company, they say we've had a long tradition of this, but then you have to make sure that this is not just philanthropy, but it is actually. The problem is the peace in between because it's the asset owners and then you have the fund managers who actually do the job. And there's a lot of work needs to be done on what mandate they're given. I mean, if as a pension fund you say, we're interested in the long-term we join with Hermes Equity Ownership Services to engage with companies to improve their long-term performance. And then we say to the guys who are actually managing our funds, we measure you against a benchmark on a quarterly basis. And we are the long-term investors and we're talking about how we take a long-term view, but then the guys who are looking after our money, we beat them up on a six-monthly annual basis. And so we need to get round that, I think, and that's quite hard work. But I'm encouraged by the progress. On the farmers and the first word of caution, I mean, the extractives industries are not agricultural experts. So they can assist in the process and they have an interest in assisting in the process, but they can't do it. Someone else has to do it. I think on the deforestation, charcoal, kerosene, LPG, and so on, there is real work that can be done by major companies. And some of them are doing good work, I think, in looking at how you can invest to move people up the energy chain, including through renewable energy. Some of that, I think, needs to be done through organizations which have expertise in energy but are not looking at it from a business point of view. In my opinion, corporate responsibility should be related to your business. It's something which is embedded in your business. Some of these things, you need to create other organizations, you can help create them, but they're not in the end going to be in your business. They may be in that they may acquire the feedstock from you, so there is a link. And that's partly why we created the Shell Foundation, was to have something which could then be a trusted person who could work with this and on other unrelated subjects. Yeah, so. Well, Sir Mark, thank you very much. I want to honor people's schedules. I know our friends at Greenleaf are in the back and I hope you'll go and buy a copy of Sir Mark Moody Stewart's book. I know he'll be back there signing books, and so please join me in thanking Sir Mark Moody Stewart. Thank you.