Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Michael Oreskes, Senior Managing Editor, Associated Press (AP), USA:
Good morning, I'm Mike Oreskes of the Associated Press and welcome to this AP Davos debate.
What have learned this week in Davos? Five days of conversation can perhaps best be summed
in one sentence: we are not out of the woods yet. The recovery is still very fragile in
many developed economies and the steps taken to avert utter disaster could themselves lead
to new dangers.
To help us chart a path out of these woods we have five prominent business leaders, all
Co-Chairs of the World Economic Forum. They are: Dr Josef Ackermann of Deutsche Bank;
Patricia Woertz of Archer Daniels Midland; Azim Premji of Wipro; Peter Sands of the Standard
Chartered Bank; and Ronald Williams of Aetna.
Ladies and gentlemen, from your perspective, what one idea raised here in Davos this week,
what one action do you believe is most urgently needed in the immediate months ahead? And
let me start with you, Mr Williams.
Ronald A. Williams, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Aetna, USA; Co-Chair of the World
Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2010:
Thank you. Well I think the most important think is really, as we conclude the revamping
of the global financial regulatory framework that we recognize that that's going to unfold
in the cultural context of each country and unfold in the political environment of each
country. And that means that each country really looks through its own lens at how capitalism
has evolved and will unfold and that the political and regulatory framework is really going to
be a combination of the policy perspective in that country along with the politics and,
in some cases, populism. So I think as we address the regulatory reform in this multi-stakeholder
context I think that's going to be the critical action that needs to unfold in the next year.
Oreskes: Mr Sands?
Peter Sands, Group Chief Executive, Standard Chartered Bank, United Kingdom; Co-Chair of
the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2010:
First, a quick observation: although the world's in a better place than it was 12 months ago,
I actually think the discussions here in Davos have been more difficult this year. In a crisis
it's easier to get consensus, it's easier to be clear on the priorities. When you're
a little bit away from the edge of the precipice more divergent interests, more tradeoffs appear.
The big observation I have is that a lot of what we do in terms of policy has to be informed
right now by its impact on job creation. I think job creation is going to be a huge problem
in both the developed and developing world and I'm not sure in everything we're doing
we've quite factored through that imperative as much as we should.
Oreskes: Mr Premji?
Azim H. Premji, Chairman, Wipro, India; Co-Chair of the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting
2010:
Just taking off from what Peter said, I think the key issue really is employment and even
with some amount of recovery taking place in industrial production I think the key issue
virtually every country is facing is much higher levels of unemployment. And a consequence
of that is protectionism, which we are seeing across the world.
A subject matter which I think was not discussed in this Economic Forum which I think is very,
very important to address as a result of this is how does one take a more global approach
to movements of services and people, as a consequence of movements of services? Today,
the world just is able to adjust to movements of products and goods through tariffs, through
incentives for manufacture in the countries in which they get manufactured, but there's
a lot of arbitrariness across countries vis-Ã -vis how do you treat movements of people who generate
services and you get all kinds of knee-jerk reactions on the way visas are treated. It's
very important that, at least as the World Economic Forum, we address this issue in terms
of certain constructive policies on how visas are treated on people movement, because it's
going to become and is becoming a more and more important issue not to keep having knee-jerk
issues. And I think it has to be sensitive to the fact that countries have a right to
encourage domestic employment even with movements of people. So some form of reasonable linkages
in terms of visas and local employment is going to be inevitable. It's important that
we have a constructive attitude towards it.
Oreskes: Patricia Woertz?
Patricia A. Woertz, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Archer Daniels Midland
(ADM), USA; Co-Chair of the Governors Meeting for Consumer Industries 2010; Co-Chair of
the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2010:
Well, maybe to build on my colleagues' thoughts about Davos this week is of course it's a
place to have these multi-stakeholder, multidimensional, holistic discussions and yet you sometimes
have a short-term issue, a crisis and short-term issues to think about as well as the long-term
challenges of the world and of business. And my observation this year was that one subject
that was receiving a lot more attention on both those horizons was the subject of agriculture
and it can be part of this effort in terms of recovery, investment in agriculture. Agriculture's
kind of been left behind in some of the other recoveries, so a lot more discussion about
that – innovation, investment, how we're going to feed the billions of people
in the world in the future. And that the opportunity for agriculture in the long term to provide
economic development and rise folks out of poverty was another big – big mention
this week.
Oreskes: Dr Ackermann?
Josef Ackermann, Chairman of the Management Board and the Group Executive Committee, Deutsche
Bank, Germany; Member of the Foundation Board of the World Economic Forum; Chair of the
Governors Meeting for Financial Services 2010; Co-Chair of the World Economic Forum Annual
Meeting 2010:
Well, I think, after having managed quite successfully the worst of the financial and
economic crisis, we now are focusing on the transforming trends and one of the transforming
trends is clearly a new relationship between government and business. The second one I
would say is a big risk that countries start refragmenting the global economy and focusing
on national interests again. And the third is, of course, some sort of a geopolitical
situation that we have a rebalancing in the sense that a superpower-dominated global economy
is now moving into a multi-polar world and what that means in terms of uncertainties
and volatilities is a big issue. And at the end I very much felt during these few days
that we are actually in some sort of dichotomy between liberty on one side and, well, let's
say security measures – so people, you know, as we bankers say, if you avoid
all the risks you soon have no risks to avoid, and somehow we are caught in between should
we take more risk, be creative, foster growth or should we really be focusing on security.
Oreskes: Well I think that brings us very naturally, actually, to one of the challenges
that Professor Schwab laid before us in his opening talk in which he said that it was
important, as a result of this crisis, to rethink our values. And that theme, that subject
really ran through the whole conference this week and since it is Sunday morning it seems
like a good moment to chat a little bit about that. President Lula sent a message from Brazil
deriding the poor ethics of the financial system and President Sarkozy gave a kind of
stem winder of a speech in which he talked about the importance of re-injecting a moral
dimension to capitalism in order to save capitalism which, interestingly, he said it was important
to save capitalism, that is. So I wonder if I could get you each to address for a minute
whether this is a real idea, changing our values and attitudes, or actually kind of
a pipedream and that we're really – even under these crisis conditions we're really
not able to change. And I'd like to start, not because you're a banker, Dr Ackermann,
but because you're next to me I'll start with you.
Ackermann: Well, for me it's very obvious. If you have such a loss of trust in societies
you cannot just respond technically; you have to respond morally and ethically. And that's
why – I mean we spent a lot of time during this week also in the bankers' community
to talk about values in our industry and it is clear we have to rebalance the way we are
doing business in a way that we see primarily our duty as supporting the real economy and
not only the real economy, people at large. And I think we spent a lot of time even talking
about proactively engaging into changing the compensation attitudes in our business, of
trying to support the real economy in different ways. And I think that will lead to a completely
different mindset in our industry and that is necessary. It's expected from industrial
leaders, it's expected from politicians, but also I think the young generation even among
bankers are expecting this kind of moral answers from us.
Oreskes: Patricia Woertz?
Woertz: Well I see some extraordinary values already displayed in parts of business and
parts of capitalism, but I think this moment is one to spend some time on the transparency
around that. Sometimes many of us look inward to our organizations. We talk about getting
the right results the right way and that right way is, perhaps, an internal moral compass
that many of us lead by, but it needs to be a more external compass as well. So sharing
that much more broadly and holistically with the other measures with which we certainly
externally communicate our businesses.
Oreskes: Mr Premji?
Premji: You know, I think one area which is not completely allied to this is the area
of low-carbon economy and the area of green. I think, from the point of view of government,
I think the most effective approach could be that government decides that in terms of
public policy and government policy they put a couple of big bets instead of being incremental
on half a dozen different things. And too many governments in this are having approaches
where they are really spreading themselves too thin, like butter, instead of saying 'okay,
I'm going to bet on solar' or 'I'm going to bet on wind' or 'I'm going to bet on X or
Y or Z' and putting a really big national bet behind it sustained over a 10-year period.
Oreskes: Mr Sands?
Sands: Well, building on what Jo said, I think banks and bankers, many of them did lose sight
of their sort of broader purpose, their role in the economy and broader society and I think
the crisis has been a wake up certainly to our industry about the importance of values
in the way we run our businesses. But if I can make another comment, I'd say that we
shouldn't kid ourselves that having values more embedded in the way we run businesses
and make decisions means that we won't have disagreements. There are still very difficult
trade-offs that have to be made. We all face trade-offs between – if you are financing
a project, it might have environmental damaging consequences; it might, on the other hand,
create jobs and wealth. Different people will put different weights on those things. I don't
think it's necessarily that everybody will agree, just because one's talking about values.
The important thing is to have those debates openly, to consider the interests of different
stakeholders, and not to dodge them.
Oreskes: Mr Williams?
Williams: I think it's extremely important for organizations to be values based, and
to be certain that they articulate those values. I think it's not part of the financial community,
but speaking for other businesses that I'm involved with, that the opportunity is to
look at those values, and make certain they are contemporary in the context of today's
challenges, as opposed to the challenges we faced a number of years ago. I think I would
encourage everyone to take a look at those values and make certain that they are contemporary
in the context of the challenges that the broader global community is facing.
Oreskes: I pick up on this thought of trade-offs, because another word for trade-offs is politics.
One of the themes that was hit a lot this week in Davos was the tremendous public anger
in many countries, particularly in developed countries, as a result of this crisis. It
came up in a variety of ways. One of the thoughts was what we were really seeing was a reconnection
of politics to the global discussion, for better or worse. I am wondering how you as
business leaders see this change in your world, change in your job? You suggested, Mr Sands,
that the bankers needed really to be more cognizant of the public view of things in
doing their work, and I wonder maybe if I could pick up with you on that?
Sands: I think it's a very live issue in the world of financial services, and banking in
particular. If you think about it, the objectives of all the things that are being done around
the reform of financial regulation have two objectives. One objective is to make the banking
system safer; we all want that. The other objective is to ensure we have a banking system
that can support the real economy, job creation, prosperity and so on. We all want that. As
it happens, though, there are some trade-offs. Some things that make the system safer might
make it more expensive to provide credit or limit the capacity of banks to provide credit.
Those trade-offs I think are ones that are in a sense not just for bankers or regulatory
technocrats, or so on. These are ultimately big decisions for society, the political world.
I think it's right that they should be debated among a wide number of stakeholders, because
it's a big decision. The stakes are pretty high. That's just one example that affects
the financial-services industry. There will be equivalent sorts of trade-offs in other
sectors.
Oreskes: President Sarkozy framed it as the return of the citizen, and he basically said
that if we don't bring citizens back into these conversations, we are going to lose
the whole ball of wax. Dr Ackermann?
Ackermann: Well, you know, I would start even somewhat earlier in the analysis of the causes
of the crisis. It's a little bit too simple to put all the blame on bankers and banks.
That's a very important part of the problem, but in addition I think there have been political
failures, there have been market inefficiencies, and of course there have been bank failures.
I think it's very important that we analyse that in a way that we bring all the stakeholders
back into the analysis, but also then in finding solutions. Because if we have the wrong analysis
and the wrong questions, we may get the right answer but to the wrong questions. In that
sense, I would very much encourage – and I think Davos is a fantastic platform
to do that. I must say, we have very, very constructive dialogues with politicians, and
with regulators, and this society at large about many of these issues. But we have to
have the support of what we are doing. I always say, in terms of shareholder value or stakeholder
value, at the end it is an interdependent system. If you lose the support of the society,
you are not going to realize your corporate objectives in the long run. That is why we
need the social support, and you cannot have the social support without having them involved
in finding the right answers.
Oreskes: Mr Williams, are business people well enough prepared and clear-headed enough
in the difference between running a business and running a political conversation to make
the transition?
Williams: I think generally – I speak for myself – that the regulatory and
legislative framework is really a culmination of the policy debate, where I think businesses
are well equipped. Then it also is a result of the political area. I think to some degree,
businesses operate with a very narrow degree of freedom in terms of the regulatory filings
we do, the way we work with, in the US, the SEC, etc. In the political framework there's
a much broader discourse. I think in a lot of ways, the business community is better
equipped for the policy debate than the political, particularly some of these issues have more
populism elements, and I think appropriately so from the point of view of many of the stakeholders.
Oreskes: Let me turn to one of the biggest policy and political questions facing the
world, and the subject that I think produced one of the most dramatic moments here at Davos,
and that's the question of global poverty. There was an exceptional moment where Bill
Gates got up at one of the panel discussions, took a microphone in hand, and demanded of
the panellists: in a global economy, where so many countries right now have driven themselves
deeply into debt simply solving the short-term issues of this crisis, where will they find
the resources to continue to support development around the world? As Mr Gates put it, and
I can't ask the question any better, so I'll just ask it this way: where will the pressure
come to continue support for development around the world? Let me start with you, Patricia
Woertz.
Woertz: Your question about where will the pressure come from, and you were commenting
that it was a Bill Gates moment, I also participated on a panel with Bill, as we talked about how
will we continue to feed the world, and of course that's a deeper question around the
opportunity for development. I think Bill summarized one of his big goals, when we talking
about big goals at the end of that, is to be able to double the income of the small
farm-holder, the farmer. Again, kind of back to the agriculture message. The opportunity
for both investment and partnership – public-private partnership – so the
point about funding coming from the private sector, coming from the public sector. Civil
society, to be able to invest in the areas that are going to provide the future for not
only feeding themselves, but helping to get to markets for the rest of the world, is part
of the answer I think in the short term, that will help solve this problem for the longer
term.
Oreskes: Mr Premji, is part of the answer also that the previously developing world
will now become major benefactors – India, China, Brazil, a few other countries?
Premji: I think on two subjects, one is vis-Ã -vis will the economic crisis of the developed
world reduce amounts that they will be able to give to the developing world in terms of
ex gratia. I think increasingly the developing world is trying to get itself more self-sufficient
to be able to manage its own problems, and not expect ex gratia to come its way, and
expect legitimacies to come its way. I think the interesting thing is what the developed
nations have realized is that if they want growth in terms of the economies driven by
industrial growth, they have to be addressing emerging worlds more aggressively, because
that is where the growth is. The difference between the growth rates of the emerging world
and the emerged world, or the developed world, is going to increasingly become larger, with
the result that access of investment into the emerging world is going to become increasingly
more compulsive, by self-interest rather than anything else, which is good for the emerging
world, and we are finding that in India. China is finding that. I think some African nations
are beginning to find that, on a very aggressive basis.
Oreskes: Mr Sands?
Sands: I think there is reason for a degree of concern here, because I think it is a very
good question as to where the pressure is going to come from. I think protecting aid
budgets is important, but will be very difficult in the richer western countries, mostly because
they are not as rich as they thought they were, and most of them have very big fiscal
deficits. Even more important, because the real key to development, building on that
point, is economic development – trade and investment. I think my concern is that
unemployment – the pressures in domestic economies and domestic politics will lead
to pressures towards protectionism in one form or another if we are not very careful.
Open trade, open financial markets around the world are absolutely critical to achieving
development, and to lifting the many, many people who are still in dire poverty out of
that poverty. That is why I think a lot of focus has to be around jobs and job creation
and addressing the unemployment issues – because if we don't, we'll slide into things
that are damaging to everybody in the world economy.
Oreskes: Mr Williams?
Williams: Yes, I would perhaps add a slightly different dimension, which is, I think, clearly
job creation is critical, but one of the enablers of work is good health. And making certain
that we begin to focus in a more meaningful way – and I think the World Economic
Forum has really done some excellent work and I think positioned very well to help support
the development of programmes that focus on chronic diseases, both infectious diseases
and in the increasing prevalence we have of non-communicable diseases, which are really
the diseases of modern living. And as we shift to urbanization what we're going to see is
countries that have both the problems of infectious diseases and poverty, and the problems of
modern living as people have diets that are much more high calorie and just get much less
physical activity. So I think when you look at global risk I think health is one of the
important areas and good health, in fact, turns out to be a precursor to employment,
assuming the jobs are there and they can continue the growth and avoid the kind of protectionism
that's been talked about.
Oreskes: Well, I want to come back to jobs and the economy, but let me take it in the
order that you've just framed it, Mr Williams, and come to Patricia Woertz. On the subject
of health Bill Gates used the Davos forum this week to announce a $10 billion commitment
to vaccines around the world in developing countries. That's obviously good news, but
is it also a signal that we're going to become increasingly dependent on private philanthropy
for the public health of the world?
Woertz: Well, first of all, I think the world's appreciative of what Bill and Melinda Gates
announced this week on their 10th anniversary. I think the private sector will continue to
have a very prominent role, perhaps not in the health of the world, but in continuing
to put those spots of continued need to jump-start. You know, one of the things that we worked
with the Gates Foundation at ADM on self-promoting and then sustaining economic development that
allows both the health, the economics for those in need; for example, in West Africa
in the case of some Cocoa Foundation work we're doing with them. So it's to kick-start
what should be self-sustaining after a period of time.
Oreskes: How does all of this play into the Millennium Goals, which were a commitment
by governments to support developing countries?
Woertz: I don't know.
Sands: I think business can make a contribution to all of the Millennium Goals, but I think
the important point I would add is: the money is great, but it's not just about money. I
think we can also leverage the capabilities and infrastructure of businesses in pursuit
of all those goals. If I can just pick up on the health area, ***/AIDS remains a huge
problem; massive advances in some of the therapies for people who have been infected, but we're
still wrestling with the problem of stopping people getting infected. And that's one thing
that I've been encouraged through the work that the Global Business Coalition on ***/AIDS,
tuberculosis and malaria – they've been doing a lot of work about sharing best
practices between businesses about how you can help educate your customers and your employees
on simple ways of avoiding *** infection. And that's just an example of how businesses
can get involved in achieving the aims of the Millennium Development Goals without just
it being a matter of writing cheques.
Williams: I think in many of these instances what we're going to see are really public-private
partnerships that are going to require collaboration in non-traditional ways, where business uses
its access to its workforce, its pulpit in the context of being able to communicate with
that workforce, and use its resources to help government be able to accomplish important
strategic objectives, along with other non-governmental organizations.
Woertz: I might add a comment to pick up on what Ron said. You know, some of the most
retentive practices a company can have is allowing the employees to work on progress
like this and processes like this that allow the company to be part of the solution, but
our volunteerism goes skyrocketing when you allow for a lot of that to be part of the
process.
Ackermann: First of all, I think it's very important that we increase the understanding
and start a little bit more that people know what's really happening. I was, you know,
in several meetings this week where we talked not only about poverty, but also about unemployment.
And unemployment, especially among the young people, is dramatic. If you have countries,
even here in Europe, with an unemployment rate of more than 40%, in the Middle East
of over 50%, I think if people understand what that could mean in terms of social stability,
in terms of creating a framework to do business in the future, then I think the willingness
to help and to cooperate will certainly be increased very radically.
Then, of course, companies can do a lot and I think to just give money is not enough.
We have to have in the self-interest of people in these countries that they can create their
own wealth, their own prosperity, that they are interested and motivated to have the means
to do that. And I think the numbers in many countries are so big that neither governments
can do it alone nor corporations can do it alone, so public-private partnership is certainly
one of the very important challenges going forward. And I think one of these transforming
trends, where we have seen that there is a rebalancing between private sector and public
sector may also create some new ideas in helping to overcome these challenges in many emerging
countries.
Oreskes: Mr Premji, Wipro certainly created thousands of jobs. Tell us a little bit about
creating jobs.
Premji: Let me just take off from something that which we were discussing on this issue
of public-private partnerships. I think it's going to get more and more prevalent, and
I think both sides are realizing it. Governments are realizing and the private social workers
or the private industrialists or the private businesses who are doing good social work
are realizing. I think there's a mutual gain in it. One is that people who are doing social
work or industries who are doing social work realize that, if they want to scale, they
have to work quicker because that's where the scale is rarely there.
And the governments are realizing that leadership in private enterprises brings ability to scale;
it brings ability to institutionalize the changes of which you make, which government
is very often not able to do – the changes are made and they just flip back.
Whereas in businesses our success depends on institutionalizing the change so it is
self-sustaining.
Third is the drive for profit which businesses have built up over a period of time. It puts
a very high degree of measurability in terms of what you do; again, which government lacks,
and they're realizing that – that if they have a partner with a private enterprise
they get that measurability into what they want to achieve.
Oreskes: So let's bring this then into the core economic question right now. Larry Summers
came here to Davos and used it as a moment to describe the American economy as in 'a
statistical recovery and a human recession,' which is probably a description that could
apply to a number of economies right now and goes right to the heart of what you've been
saying about jobs. And that's happening as governments around the world pour trillions
of dollars into stimulus money, so they're running up this enormous debt and yet everybody's
a little reluctant to pull the stimulus back. How do we get ourselves out of this, since
the stimulus doesn't seem to be creating the jobs that you're all saying we need? Let me
press you to try to be specific, to try to put up some real answers here. Maybe I'll
start with Dr Ackermann.
Ackermann: Well, first of all, we have to recognize this is the first crisis in a globalized
world. And this will require new answers. It has not only to do with the financial sector
itself; it has to do with some of the global imbalances. And we have to work on finding
solutions to that. And this will create a lot of uncertainties and a lot of triggers.
Secondly, I think it's also fair to say that the exit strategies have to be timed in a
very prudent way. We are still dependent on the stimuli packages.
Thirdly, we have to understand that we need more innovation and that we need more job
creation in certain parts of the world which is not happening yet, including the services
sector. And in order to support all of that – of course I have to say this as a
banker – but we need a very strong financial sector and a financial sector which
is global, which can support the real economy and the real investments in the real economy
on a global scale. And the more we refragment, the more we are focusing on pure national
interests and having in parallel a global trading system, a global production system,
but a somewhat national banking system, would be a recipe for failure.
Oreskes: Ms Woertz?
Woertz: I would add to a couple of Jo's ideas two specific ones, and you asked the question
related to mostly developed countries who have stimulus package and had the job losses,
that there is the aspect of job retention – first of all retaining some jobs
as well as creating some new ones. In the retention area I think it's education, it's
training, it's finding innovative ways and innovation to recreate some of the current
processes that exist today, as well as to create new jobs and new markets.
Green jobs, or green tech, is one of the areas that has received at least this week a lot
of discussion, but when you think of some specifics there – for example, creating
things out of waste. You know, energy from waste as an example, these are the kinds of
jobs and ideas and innovation that really just doesn't move jobs around from one region
to another but actually creates new jobs, new growth and new opportunities.
Ackermann: May I just add one point, which I forgot to mention? I think new ventures
are absolutely crucial and we have to create a business-friendly environment. And I think
in this dichotomy I mentioned before between security and liberty, we have to put more
emphasis on liberty again, encourage people to take risk, encourage people to create new
companies, encourage people to then recruit people and to create jobs. And I think that
is something which is a little bit missing right now, because we are too much focusing
on the aftermath of the economic crisis and too much on, 'How can we be more resilient?
How can we absorb the shocks in the future? What can we do to be stable forever?' Market
economy is not stable in itself. It is ups and downs. It's creative destruction from
time to time. We need that to create new things and we are on the brink of an era where we
have to start doing new things and things differently.
Sands: Building on Jo's point, I think absolutely critical is we have to strict the balance
right – the right balance between the two objectives I talked about earlier, between
making a safer banking system and a financial system that can support the sort of dynamism
and growth and job creation. And get it wrong one way and we risk a new crisis; get it wrong
the other way and we'll take the steam out of the recovery and reduce the chances of
creating new jobs. The other point I'd stress is it's really important that we hear the
voices of the world as a whole in the debate about what we're doing and not just the voices
from the West or from the countries that were most impacted by the financial crisis. There
is a bit of a risk, if I think as somebody who runs a business mainly in Asia, that Asia
ends up in the financial sector having to take a medicine for a disease it didn't have,
because the prescriptions are mainly coming out of the West. And that's just a specific
example, but more generally I think it's really important that we draw in that broader set
of voices as we think about what needs to be done.
Oreskes: And how does that happen? How do we do that?
Sands: Well, I think Davos is actually one. It's not the perfect solution and I don't
think there is a single solution, but Davos is helpful because it draws together many
different types of perspectives and stakeholders, but I also think the world has taken a major
step forward in the shift from having the G8 to the G20 as the principal global policy-making
forum for the world economy. And that, I think, is a great step forward. Now, there's still
many more countries out there that aren't in the G20 and we need to make sure that their
interests, views are heard and listened to. But that shift from G8 to G20 is very positive.
Oreskes: Mr Premji?
Premji: You know, one of the key priorities, which is, you know, quite obvious is job creation,
employment creation, and I don't think we should over-expect employment creation from
large industries. Even if you see the profile of employment across countries, it's the small
scale, medium-scale sector and the self-employed sector, which really generate the jobs and
I think there has to be a complete shift in focus that: how do you stimulate these sectors
to be able to create large scale jobs with just trying to stimulate the large industrial
sector to create jobs? And that includes very, very heavy skill training in education at
a young level that people are encouraged to set up industries, are trained to set up small
industries, and are trained to become self-employed.
Oreskes: Other key steps on jobs?
Woertz: I wanted to maybe debate that just a bit. Not that there's shouldn't be focus
on small and medium sized, but I think it's for all to create jobs. There's only a certain
thing big can do. There's, certainly, there's only certain things that big and large companies
can do and some of that job creation spreads to the small and medium sized as it goes down
to contractors, as it goes to the service industries. So I think there's a role for
all to play in the job creation and in the stimulus opportunities.
Oreskes: Mr Williams?
Williams: Yes, just a few points. One is that job creation is really going to be central
and that means that we have to focus on developing the talent for the jobs we're going to need
in the future as opposed to the historical jobs. There's an awful lot of reskilling that
has to apply for people who have skills that just aren't in demand.
On the whole question of small businesses versus large businesses, I'm going to echo
Pat's comments that I think there's an underestimation that a lot of small businesses work for large
businesses. And when you look at the ecosystem that a large employer has, there's an enormous
ecosystem that gets created around those large businesses. Now, the real innovation's in
large businesses of the future are the small businesses, so I think it is clearly an 'and'
and not an 'or' as we think about that issue.
The third point I would make is really one of the things I think can help both job creation
and economic growth is what I would call 'sector clarity' – that we have a great deal
of uncertainty sector by sector where it's not necessarily clear what the rules will
be. And the one thing businesses like is some degree of predictability and certainty around
the regulatory, legislative and tax framework. It should be whatever the multi stakeholder
community believes it should be, but understanding what that is so that investment decisions
can be made, I think, would be extremely to accelerating the recovery in job creation.
Oreskes: Mr Premji, saying a little more about jobs in the developing world, maybe 'reskilling'
isn't quite the word to apply in all of your circumstances, but there is this huge issue
of bringing people up to the level that's needed.
Premji: Yes and no. You know, in some sectors it's happening very successfully, for instance
in the service sector in high-tech jobs. It's happening very successfully. And I think a
lot of attention is also getting given by recruiters of the skill services to upgrading
their inputs into the institutes, whether they be colleges, whether they be training
institutes, to upgrade the quality of the students which are coming out, because there's
a very clear self-interest, vested interest into that. I think what is not getting adequately
created is for employability of people who don't go beyond 10th standard, for whatever
motivations. And you know, the more you encourage people to study up to 10th standard, the more
they become unemployable for farm labour, the more they become unemployable for the
real low end of unskilled labour – not that those unskilled labour jobs are really
going to be there. So how do you create jobs for them, because they are not in a category
which is there for the skilled professional work people? Either they don't have the motivation,
they don't have the background, or they just don't have the momentum in terms of competition
to qualify for that progression. And I think that is an extremely serious problem and the
only solution to that is self-employment, small-scale industries, low-tech jobs of small-scale
industries. And the concern there is that openness of the economy, particularly to countries
like China, eat up those jobs the fastest because the small scale and the medium scale
industry has not really seasoned itself to meet international competition, whereas the
large scale industry, particularly over the last five/seven years in India, has seasoned
itself to meet international competition. So it is much stronger in a position to fight
back, whereas the small scale and medium-scale industry is not in a position to fight back,
because they've always been protected.
Ackermann: I would like to come back to a point Ron made, because I think it's a very
important one – sector clarity. Talking about the financial sector, there is a temptation
now in many countries to get money back from the financial sector and we are entering a
phase where different systems are competing with each other. I think that's, in the long
run, very counter-productive because, if we invest in other countries, we don't want to
add complexity and we don't want to have additional costs. So in order to create other jobs in
other parts of the world, it's very important that we have a level playing field and that's
why I think it's so important that, in the G20, they coordinate measures on a global
scale.
Oreskes: I'm hearing a very clear statement of the problem, but I'm still not completely
sure what it's going to take to teach, train, reskill, whatever the words are. What are
the specific actions we're going to need to take, both in developed and developing countries,
to teach people what they need to know to actually hold jobs in the years ahead? Are
there some specific proposals?
Premji: I think Germany, in terms of a country which stands out in skill training in the
early years of schooling, is a tremendous example. I think what India needs is that,
in addition to a normal curricula, from say standard 8 onwards, how do you put in a skill
curricula as part of an approved curricula in terms of training the young boys and girls
to set up different careers? It can be simple careers like motor mechanics, computer mechanics,
computer service people, people who set up kiosks for telecommunications, people who
set up little stalls, retail shops. You know, today, we have 24 million retail shops in
India and it is going to sustain the Wal-Mart competition because they open at 07.00 in
the morning and they close at 21.00 in the night. How do you compete with that?
And the logistics management, please don't underestimate how competent they are in logistics
management also. How do you train people to do more of that and build them with skills,
because some of the advantages which many emerging countries have is a very commercial
mindset of people, and they're able take to opportunities to make money very quickly.
It's very natural to them; they see it around them, they see it across families, they see
it in their communities, they see it in their villages, and it's not too difficult to do
that.
Oreskes: Peter Sands.
Sands: Building on Azim's point, I actually think anybody who's been in the sessions here
at Davos will know that there are literally thousands of good ideas and good initiatives
going on about things like, 'How do we prepare people for the workplace?' 'How do we stimulate
job creation in different economies?' I think we should actually resist the temptation to
say there's one big idea, one silver bullet, because most of the things we're wrestling
with, and this is as true as many of the environmental issues and financial-sector issues as it is
of job creation, these are immensely complicated problems with many different stakeholder interests
and we should acknowledge they're quite difficult to deal with, and so having a diversity of
ideas and initiatives and experimentation is, I think, a good thing and we shouldn't
seek to simplify it too much to, sort of, one big idea or something like that.
I also think one of the things all of us need to have is a sort of degree of humility about
what we actually know and how confident we can be that the ideas we're going to put in
place are going to have the consequences that we thought they were going to have. If we've
learnt anything from the crisis it's that we don't always know what we're doing and
that we can't predict the future, and so I think – this is not a recipe for inaction,
by no means, we should be trying and doing all sorts of things to address these issues,
but we should do it learning as we go and being willing to accept that some of the things
we try aren't going to work and we'll have to change tack along the way, and I think
that sense of action as being a journey in which you are constantly recalibrating and
learning again is, I think, a very important sort of change, because I think we've, certainly
in financial services but I don't think it's solely in financial services, the world was
over-confident about what it knew about the way things worked.
Oreskes: I'm going to come to Patricia Woertz in a minute, but I can't resist asking you,
do you think the world, the business world, the banking world, the financial community,
has in fact learned this humility? There's certainly some who fear that they're starting
back on their old ways already.
Sands: No, I think it has. I think if you talk to most banking leaders, and Jo can comment,
I think most people would acknowledge that we got a lot of things wrong, the regulatory
community got a lot of things wrong, the policy-makers running the macro-economic system of the world
got a lot of things wrong. That has to change. We've made a lot of changes already, there
are going to be more changes, but we've got to make them in the knowledge that we will
get things wrong again, right? That we don't understand everything perfectly now, but I
actually think that realization, that you can't have the perfect mathematical model
of what's going to happen and that there are, sort of, second-order and third-order consequences
that you can't predict, is a good realization and certainly from my perspective, I think
banks have got that.
Oreskes: The Inspector General at the US Treasury Department just this morning issued a report
in which he said that things were actually worse, that the bailout measures taken to
rescue the US system had actually created new hazards and he compared it to a situation
in which the bailouts had prevented the car from driving off the cliff, but we were still
going down the road in a high-speed car and actually going faster than ever before. Is
that a fair depiction of where we are, Dr Ackermann?
Ackermann: Well, it's certainly a little bit of exaggeration, but there is of course an
element of truth in it. I mean, we have been in close to a meltdown in the financial industry
and unfortunately, no one liked that, we have had to bail out many banks. Now, as I said
in some meetings here, seldom so few have done damage to so many and now the many are
treated like the few. That's a little bit of medicine without having the disease. What
we are doing now, we are giving the impression that there is almost an embedded moral hazard
and that is the wrong message. We have to work the other way. We have to work on a path
where we can have a system with resolution regimes and many other things where banks
failed exit the market. This is the restructuring of any industrial market, any other industry
and we have to get to that result as well, and if you give people the feeling that maybe
the top management loses a job and maybe shareholders have some losses, but the rest is fine and
we bailed them out and they are back to square one and are back in the competitive landscape,
that is the wrong message, and unfortunately, but out of necessity, probably not out of
goodwill, we have somewhat entered it, and we have right now, even in terms of taxation,
we run the risk of saying, 'Well, liability has to be a fee,' because there is an implied
moral hazard and bailout, and I think that's the message we have to fight. We have to say,
'People, if you take risks, you are not being bailed out and you will have to exit the market,'
and otherwise we are giving completely the wrong incentives for the system.
But I would like to say, if I may, one word to the job creation and the reskilling. One
of my biggest concerns is that so many young people, even in Europe now, have the feeling
of a loss of upward mobility and even if you have all the instruments in place, internet,
universities, schools, they don't have the motivation to have access to these instruments,
and I think, 'Why?' Because they live in families where the motivation is not there, where people,
you know, sit in front of TV and drink, maybe, a beer instead of talking about political
issues or cultural issues. So we have to give people these sort of ideas and we have to
give them the feeling that they, if they work hard, if they study, if they learn, they can
also get a job and make a career, and I think this sort of upward mobility is, for me, one
of the key messages in our societies.
Oreskes: Patricia Woertz?
Woertz: I know it's more fun to talk about the banking sector.
Oreskes: Luckily for you!
Woertz: But I wanted to come back to your question about what are the specific actions,
and I actually really support what Peter said as one of the good things about Davos is there's
many, many actions, and it may not appear that way all the time. One of the reasons
I agreed to be a co-chair is I was hopeful to see and to help be part of making the action-to-talk
ratio higher, and I can report that I think that has happened and I think it is happening.
Certainly in some of our governors' meetings and some of the sector discussions, we actually
come back year after year and report on, or have accountability to each other about, the
actions, the studies we're taking, the actions we're taking against them, some things we
can do in unison, some we can do in partnership with governments or NGOs, and I believe it
is more action-oriented than you might think, but it's not one big answer, one silver bullet;
it's a lot of small ones that we have to take some celebration in the actions we take year
on year.
Oreskes: I'd love to hear more about specific actions, to pick up on Mr Sands's point. Even
if they're individually small, what are some of the more interesting ideas and actions
you've heard about here that you think need to be encouraged?
Woertz: I'll give you four from what's called the Consumer Industries Group, and this goes
not just retailers or food manufacturers, but all the way up the chain from agricultural
producers, seed manufacturers, logistics, producers all the way to consumers. We had
a care and a worry about water, and this is one that's been going on for multiple years,
and there's been mapping and measurement studies, specific actions taking on water reduction,
on understanding what regions are deficit, what regions are surplus, how it can be a
local and regional issue not just a global one. A second one on this agriculture study
that I mentioned a bit earlier, it's only a seven-month study, but very specific actions
taken and commitments to one another related to the regional World Economic Forum meetings
and then what would occur next year at this time, so I see some real specific actions.
Oreskes: Mr Williams?
Williams: Yes, I think two areas I would point to in the health industry. I think one is
looking at new models of healthcare delivery and I think that there are some very exciting
models that are unfolding in some of the emerging countries that look at using skill sets in
very different ways. In a lot of ways, the developed countries have a very hardened set
of roles and responsibilities in the healthcare system, and I think there's a huge opportunity
that the health industry sector's looking at, really studying and implementing, new
delivery models and seeing how those models can increase access to healthcare, and at
the same time represent lesson to be learned for developed countries in terms of healthcare
delivery. I think the second major category centres around, really, wellness and the ability
to get the global employer community really understanding its role in the wellness and
health and prevention of its workforce and we believe that given this whole issue of
chronic disease that there's a huge opportunity for the broad employer community, whether
it's businesses, NGOs, other entities, to really view their role as playing a very important
part in the wellness of their workforce. And so I think you will see a lot more unfolding
as an alliance begins to take place on that.
Oreskes: Mr Sands?
Sands: Well you probably don't want to have that much more on the detailed technicalities
of the reform on the international banking system. All I would say on that is that I
do think there were very constructive discussions here this week; there haven't, in a sense,
solved the issues but they have certainly, I think, pushed them forward.
Oreskes: Mr Ackermann?
Ackermann: I think we didn't mention one very important element here in Davos, is microcredit
and microfinance. I mean, this is very important for re-skilling, it is very important for
the creation of jobs, and I think all major banks are now heavily involved in doing this,
we are capable of supporting new businesses, small businesses, they learn, they develop,
some of them get big, and I think that is a very important contribution to world economy.
Oreskes: We are down to our final minutes. Mr Premji, let me turn to you and begin to
wrap up by asking you, when we return here next year, where do we need to be, what do
we need to have accomplished, where does the world need to be going on specific questions?
Premji: One question which I shall just come back to, which I think really should be a
very focused area of discussion and action items, is this area of technical services
and people flows, people movements, in technical services. Because the definition of technical
services is much beyond software, it is much beyond BPO; it is legal services, it is accounting
services, it is R&D services, it is biotechnology services, and the percentage of services in
all GDPs is going beyond 60%, much beyond 60%. If emerged nations or developed nations
take unfair, unreasonable protectionist measures against movements of services, rest assured
that the large, developing countries will take immediate action on movements of products.
It is very simple to do, it just requires one budget to raise tariffs, and all the moods
I sense in India, all the moods I sense in China, is that if services are put under severe,
unreasonable restrictions, you will get tariffs going up overnight. And they will use the
economic power of a large consuming market to be able to play the game. Don't underestimate,
the world is different, the dynamics of power blocks is different, and the self confidence
of emerging nations is of a completely different order of magnitude today, just because of
the power of the markets to the emerged worlds. This has to be an issue of address on a more
balanced basis than there is give and take, and there will have to be give and take on
this.
Oreskes: This of course goes to the heart of one of Professor Schwab's principles of
Davos – the multi-stakeholder – and how do we assure the trust, if you will,
the prevention of fragmentation in the kind of crisis-ridden environment we are in right
now?
Sands: There isn't an easy answer to that. I think it takes leadership; it takes leadership
at a governmental level, it takes leadership from business leaders, it takes leadership
from NGOs, other parties within the sort of broader community and a lot of communication.
I do think we face a collective challenge because of a breakdown of trust and people
are angry, bewildered, they are worried. I do think, coming back to what it takes to
build jobs, part of it is just basically confidence. Because confidence to start up a small business,
confidence to invest and creating that confidence requires leadership.
Oreskes: In some ways we go all the way back to Franklin Roosevelt, 'The greatest thing
to fear is fear,' is it not? Dr Ackermann?
Ackermann: I found one idea and proposal quite intriguing here in Davos. When someone said
the famous Henry Kissinger sentence, 'If you want to call Europe, what's the phone number?'
It is a bit true for business as well: if you want to call business what is the phone
number? And why not have, in addition, parallel to the G20, a B20? A Business20 where some
key leaders from business, from different industries, sit together and have a maybe
more institutionalized style of the G20 and, with the rest of the world, including all
the other stakeholders? Maybe that is something that we have to work on from a business global
governance point of view. I'm sure that Davos could play, and the Forum, a very important
coordinating and maybe very important role as well.
Oreskes: Patricia Woertz, where would you like you see us in 12 months from now?
Woertz: Well, where I would like to see and where I think it might be different things.
Oreskes: You can do both.
Woertz: I would like to see greater job growth. So, I think that will have part of the feeling
of the confidence that we talk about getting back there. I would also like to see the engine
of growth and thinking about wearing bifocal lenses; sure we need to worry about the short
term because it is what helps us survive for the longer term, but not to take our eyes
off some of the more pressing needs longer term as well. So next year this time, if the
short term has some improvement I believe there will be an opportunity to continue to
reinvest for the long term.
Oreskes: Mr Williams?
Williams: Yes, I would see policies that really have supported job creation. I think a bit
part of that I would mention in this context of sector clarity. I really do want to echo
Peter's point that, as we look at financial regulatory reform and reform in other sectors
on the global level, one approach means that we believe that one approach is the right
approach. I think what we have seen in the global regulatory framework is, to the degree
that there have been different approaches taken, some have turned out to be more effective
than others. I think in the health domain, I think one of the most important areas is
really health information technology, because information technology has unlocked productivity
in virtually every other sector with the exception of health. I believe that if we can have global
initiatives focused on that, we can increase access to healthcare through things like telemedicine,
remote monitoring, and biometrics capabilities. That we can get healthcare systems connected,
including the consumer, using phones and smart-phone technology and that we can use evidence-based
medicine in a way that makes the state of the art in clinical medicine available to
everyone globally.
Oreskes: Mr Sands, beyond the details of the banking business, where would you like to
see us?
Sands: My wish list for what we might see over the next 12 months: well, one, clarity
on the shape of the financial-services architecture rather than the broader economy. Second –
and maybe this is whistling in the wind – but progress on Doha. At the very least, let's
not slip back into protectionism in all its many forms. Then something that we haven't
talked about much, just because of the way the discussion has followed, we don't want
to be in the same state of post-Copenhagen confusion 12 months from now. Somehow or other
we need to get that process around how the world gets its act together around climate
change has to gain momentum and confidence and be translated into action. I think it
would be a tragedy for the world if we are where we are now, 12 months from now.
Oreskes: Dr Ackermann, I have 15 seconds left. Do you have one thing you would like to see
between now and our return here next year?
Ackermann: Well, trade is very important, as Peter just said. In addition, stop the
blame game; let's go back in collaborative efforts because the challenges ahead of us
are bigger than some of the failures of the past.
Oreskes: And on that note, we are done. I thank our panellists for exciting conversation
and really a very commendable job of summarizing five days of conversation here at Davos. This
has been the AP Davos debate; thank you and good morning.
Klaus Schwab, Founder and Executive Chairman, World Economic Forum:
First I would like thank our co-chairs for having shepherded us so well through the discussions
during the last five days. We have heard now some of the scene through a business leaders'
perspective, but I have to say, through a perspective of business leaders with great
social responsibility. I think that came clearly out of the last discussion. Now, let's end
the meeting with reflecting on values and let's do so by indicating particularly the
young generation. I will introduce afterwards some outstanding people, below 20 years old,
and let's hear how they feel about the values which we should have in order to create optimal
governance in our world. But first I would like to call one of our Young Global Leaders
to the stage. Pekka Himanen, a philosopher from Finland, but really actively involved,
particularly in our Dignity project of the Young Global Leaders and being involved in
our global redesign initiative.
Pekka Himanen, Young Global Leader, Finland:
Thank you very much, Klaus. Everyone is speaking about what are the values for the future development
and, therefore, we have been filming around the world the views of the current leaders,
such as Desmond Tutu or Queen Rania, presidents and CEOs. But also, the views and voices of
the young people, because it's actually their future that we are talking about. What do
they value? What are they for? And the message is clear: they are calling for new values,
a more dignified world. And here is a short sample of voices of some great young people
with a big heart.
[Start of video]
Participant: I want to live in a world where in the World Economic Forum there is only
six Changemakers and the rest of you.
Tshepiso Gower, Global Changemaker, British Council Global Changemakers, Botswana:
Hi. I am Tshepiso Gower. I am 19 years old and I come from Botswana.
Nishin Nathwani, Global Changemaker, British Council Global Changemakers, Canada:
Hello. My name is Nishin Nathwani. I am 17 years old and I am from Canada.
Mousa Musa, Global Changemaker, British Council Global Changemakers, Iraq:
I'm Mousa, I'm 17 and I'm from Iraq.
Gower: I want to live in a world that values the humanity of each other; a world where
one person respects the fact that the other is just as human as they are.
Nathwani: What I value most is compassion, the ability to look into another human being
and see your own virtues, your own suffering, your own joy, the whole package of your experience.
Musa: And if we just look at – look back at ourselves and our experiences and
we appreciate them, we can appreciate everybody's experiences and we can appreciate people.
Nathwani: What I value most is compassion.
Gower: I want to live in a world that values the humanity.
Musa: And what I value most is myself.
Participant: I do it in a rap, homie, but I ain't scared, it's for the visually impaired.
I ain't afraid to fight for my right; this, baby, is called the school of life. Peace.
Participant: I want to live in a world of environmental sustainability, where is it
no longer permissible for any society or nation to jeopardize the ability of future generations
to enjoy the same earth that we do today.
Participant: A world where our leaders act more than they speak.
Participant: And let's not mention even improving the state of the world, let's just do it.
I mean that's what I think.
[End of video]
Schwab: I open this session by, first, welcoming very cordially the Most Reverend Dr Rowan
Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury. Your Grace, we are very grateful that at the end of five
weeks – five days of discussion – for me it looks like five weeks, you see!
That after those five days of discussion we can, in your presence and in the presence
of those young people, we can discuss what values do we really need to master our future.
And what I would like, first, to do, we have seen the young people on the screen, but I
would like to ask, before Your Grace will address us, I would just like to ask you to
say where you are coming from, how old you are. If you would start.
Sarah Jameel, Global Changemaker, British Council Global Changemakers, Sri Lanka:
My name is Sarah Jameel. I'm 18 years old and I'm from Sri Lanka.
Nathwani: My name is Nishin Nathwani. I am 17 years old and I am from Canada.
Gower: My name is Tshepiso Gower. I am 19 years old and I am from Botswana.
Joao Rafael Brites, Global Changemaker, British Council Global Changemakers, Portugal:
My name is Joao Brites. I'm 19 years old and I'm from Portugal.
Carmina Mancenon, Global Changemaker, British Council Global Changemakers, Japan:
Hi, I'm Carmina. I'm 16 years old and I'm from the Philippines and Japan.
Musa: My name is Mousa. I'm 17 years old and I'm from Iraq.
Schwab: You have been selected in a rigorous process and thanks to our cooperation with
the British Council. Now, everybody of you has something which is very special. You have
engaged already into society. If in one sentence you just would say what you are doing, because
you are not just students; you are really engaged young people.
Jameel: I'm a health entrepreneur and therefore I create social change with my campaign called
'Kick the Butt'. It is an anti teen smoking campaign that aims at changing the mindsets
of teenagers via social media and fashion.
Nathwani: I work within the education system to challenge prejudice and stereotypes and
also discrimination against minority studies of racial, religious and *** orientation
backgrounds.
Gower: I work with gender equality and the empowerment of the woman and I'm currently
embarking upon a project targeted towards economic empowerment of the woman through
entrepreneurship facilitation.
Brites: What I do is using break dance with my break dance crew to fight criminality and
promote social inclusion among challenged young people.
Schwab: But you are also a swimmer's champion in your country.
Brites: Yes, at 16.
Mancenon: I'm a social entrepreneur with a focus on poverty and I'm currently initiating
a project, it's called 'Stitch Tomorrow' and it's a microfinance initiative to combat poverty
using fashion.
Musa: I work in a school for the visually impaired in Iraq and I go in and get them
the equipment they need that is not supplied by anybody else. Thank you.
Schwab: What a great selection. Your Grace.
Rowan D. Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, United Kingdom:
I'm Rowan Williams and I'm 59 years old and I'm feeling very ineffectual just at the moment.
Schwab: How would you define values which we all have to embrace to really secure our
future?
Williams: People sometimes quote the old cliché 'Why should I worry about posterity, what's
posterity ever done for me?' And I think what we have to come to terms with, first of all,
is recognizing that here and now we are taking decisions that whether we like it or not have
effects long beyond our own lifespan. Those decisions may be conscious decisions, we know
what values they're based on, we know where we want to get, or they may be short-term,
narrow decisions whose effects we don't understand or control and don't very much care about.
So the very first thing I'd want to say is that it's important for us, here and now,
to wake up to the fact that what we decide, what we simply accept or let by, the habits
we value, the behaviours we reward, these things create the world of the next generation,
and we can't get away from that, whether we like it or not. If it's important then, for
human beings to live as if they were intelligent, as if they were capable of understanding themselves,
it's important for human beings to be aware of the consequences of their actions. So,
posterity is not just some abstract thing from which we are divided. We, here and now,
are the makers of a new generation, a new climate. Some of us are literally parents.
We have made our contribution to the next generation. So, let's wake up to who we are.
Let's wake up and do justice to ourselves. I say that, because sometimes if you speak
about doing justice to the next generation, again it can sound abstract. But what about
doing justice to ourselves? Acting as if we really understood that we were making a difference,
for good or ill, in a coming generation?
So, I'd frame the whole discussion in the light of that recognition. And that has, I
think, the rather strange effect of making us realize that the best thing we can do for
the future, to show our responsibility to the future, is living responsibly in the present.
Now, sometimes when people say we are living in the present, it's as if they are saying,
we live as if there were no tomorrow; we live for the immediate moment. But actually, living
responsibly in the present, really being aware of the kind of world we are in, the limits
it imposes, the wisdom it suggests. That living responsibly is the best gift we can give to
the future. It's a kind of realism. It's a kind of truthfulness about who we are, and
where we are.
The worst thing that has emerged out of the economic and ecological crises of the last
few decades is of course our failure to live in the real world. We live in a world of fantasy.
A world where there is endless material resource to be exploited. A world in which it is possible
to change the destiny of millions of people by financial transactions happening in mid-air.
That's not the real world. I do take some offence when some people say, 'Oh, you theologians
and people who talk about ideals and values don't live in the real world.' I see plenty
of evidence of other decision makers not living in the real world in that sense. I think what
my colleagues here on the platform have been talking about is the real world. So, living
responsibly in the present, living within the limits that are imposed by being part
of a world, part of a system of interdependence. Human interdependence, depending on each other.
Dependence on the resource of the world we are in.
In the light of that, I'd say there are two or three huge, obvious priorities in terms
of our responsibility to the future. The first of these, I have already touched on –
you hardly need it underlined – and that is responsibility around the environment.
Are we living in the world now in such a way that it will be inhabitable by the next generation?
Or are we spending the natural capital of our globe in such a way that it is harder
and harder to live a secure, reasoned, mutual life in the next generation? I spent the past
few days at a conference in New York on Building an Ethical Economy. One of the people there
who shared the platform with me was the Cambridge economist, Sir Partha Dasgupta, whose great
contribution to economic discussion in recent years has been insisting that you factor into
your economic calculation the degradation of natural capital, which often our mathematics
around finance and economics simply doesn't do. And so, we can't but begin with that.
What are we squandering? What are we ruining? How much are we making the world of the next
generation harder for people to inhabit with honesty, truthfulness, responsibility, care,
mutuality?
The second thing is again to do with security, by which I mean things like security of work
and food supply, as well as environment. It's a pity that the word security has come to
signal, almost exclusively in some people's eyes, military and strategic security. Those
are not small things, but behind them, and around them, lies the far, far greater question
of what is going to provide that secure human environment, whether it's work, whether it's
food. So, our responsibility to the future is also about sustaining levels of care for
one another, especially for the most vulnerable. If we think about the imperative to create
and sustain national wealth, at the heart of that ought to be the imperative to sustain
care for the vulnerable, to sustain the security that means nobody need live in perpetual fear
of failure, of falling through the nets.
Environment, employment and care. But the third dimension is in some ways the most important
of all, and that's why I am feeling particularly privileged to be on the platform with the
people I am with here. The third element is what I'd call passing on the cultural legacy:
passing on a picture of human behaviour, human achievement, and human aspiration that is
worthwhile. What are we giving to the future in terms of the human stories that we value?
What sort of behaviour do we look as if we most valued in our world at the moment? The
answers are often rather depressing. We reward achievements of a certain kind. We speak and
we work, very often, as if the behaviours that ought to be rewarded were either obsessional,
or selfish, or both. So the challenge is: what do we, here and now in the present, value
as human beings? Why not start living as if those values mattered? Because, and here is
the blindingly simple message of the day: the old cliché about not being able to
take it with you is actually true. It goes back to the gospels, by which I try to organize
my own life. Jesus's story about the rich man who is woken in the middle of the night
by a vision of God saying, 'Your soul is required of you tonight', and what difference does
all that make? That is something worth bearing in mind. Our souls, our lives are going to
be required of us. The most we can ever do with what we achieve is to put it at the service
of the world we inhabit, the human world, the wider world. That is the most we can ever
do. And to lead lives here and now which suggest that that is what we want to pass on, that's
the vision of humanity we want to communicate. Once again, it takes us back to where I started
– living responsibly now is the best way of showing responsibility to the future.
When people don't think about the future, when they don't consider they have a responsibility
to the next generation and beyond, what they're really saying is, 'We don't actually value
humanity enough to want to keep it going. We don't value our own humanity sufficiently.
We're not content enough, grateful enough, to be human to want that humanity to live
in other people,' and that is a real tragedy.
We are so undermining that sense that humanity is precious that a new generation rising up
might very well look at us and say, 'What was it that wounded you, that distorted you
so deeply, that you can't see what matters humanly? What was it that taught you,' us,
me, people of my generation, 'what was it that taught you to undervalue humanity like
this, so that you didn't think a rich and full humanity was worth passing on to the
next generation?' Again, you see, it comes back to the question: how we live now, how
we understand ourselves now. And to that mixture of the selfish and obsessional that so often
we reward in our working practices and our social practices.
So, in sum, I think I'd simply say this: responsibility to the future is responsibility for a vision
of humanity that has excited and enlarged us. It's taking responsibility for a humanity
in which mutual generosity, mutual nurture, are the things that live, that literally breed,
that generate and create a world worth living in. It's a matter of telling the stories of
that humanity in such a way that they enlarge and define the world for another generation.
Sometimes we talk as if we don't really need heroes and heroines in our world. Nonsense,
I say. We need stories of how humanity can be lived. We need good stories of the kind
of social and individual practice that shows people valuing the human, living in the present
responsibly, enjoying the humanity that is enriched by mutual giving, mutual attention,
mutual valuing.
And that's the kind of story that the others on this platform will have to tell and we
will have tell about them. And that's why it's so crucial and such a gift that they're
here. And I'd really like to here from them at this point.
Schwab: Thank you, Your Grace. Now, let's see you reactions. How do you define also
your own future in the context of what the Archbishop said? Sarah, do you want to start?
Jameel: I believe that humanity is the most important thing currently in the world in
which we live in, whether it's the financial crisis, whether it's climate change we're
dealing with, or whether it's the health crisis we're dealing with. And this can only be achieved
via action, grass-root-level action, which is not just defined merely by words. Example:
John Lennon always said, 'You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.' I think
I can speak for all six of us here and say that we are dreamers, but we need to create
the reality that we wish and dream for.
Schwab: Anyone else, a reaction? Mousa?
Musa: Well, I found what the Archbishop said was really interesting because the fact that
we would – the understanding that the future generation is the generation that's
going to take on the world and the generation that's going to nurture it, and we have to
set up a good example for that generation. We have to tell them that the community that
we are building is a community for their embetterment and a community to make a better world for
them, instead of making a worse world for them.
Schwab: So you have to be the heroes, as the Archbishop said, for the young generation.
But – yes?
Brites: And I think the necessity of action not only means big actions, as what we are
discussing here, but small actions. Small actions are as important as the biggest ones.
And I think one of the things that we really lack in this world is people make their own
actions, their everyday actions, consistent with the greatest dreams and the biggest dreams
they have to the future.
Schwab: Let me stop here and let me ask you, Your Grace, we had three comments –
would you like to comment on the comments?
Williams: I think what strikes me most about the comments is the emphasis on the small
scale, not being paralysed by the sense the problems are too big. And this is something
which, again, can be a bit counter-cultural these days – we like quick results,
we like to see instant effects from our actions. But some things, because they're just worth
doing are worth doing. We do them because they express something deep in ourselves,
because we believe they express something deep in the universe itself, I'd say as a
religious believer, and therefore they're worth doing. You don't say, 'Well, that's
not very likely to work, so I shan't bother.' And that's why I think that the key to real
change is again and again persuading people at grass-roots level that, although –
to use a phrase that's sometimes used here – they may not be able to make all
the difference, there is a difference only they can make. And I guess all of you have
been asking, 'What's the difference only I can make in this particular local context?'
Finding the strategic moment, the strategic place, where you know you can make a difference.
Now, the tragedy again is that we live in a world where a huge part of the human race
is fed the message: decisions, important decisions, are always taken somewhere else. And another
person with me this week in New York was the Archbishop of Burundi, coming from a country
where after decades of carnage and poverty it's very difficult for people to believe
that they have decisions they can make. And he said this week nearly the whole of African
continent believes profoundly that the decisions that matter are being taken somewhere else.
And, you know, there's a lot of evidence for that.
So, how do you get to that level where tangible difference can be made? Whether it's the local
health project, micro-credit – which I get very enthusiastic and eloquent about
– or any of the other things that you've mentioned and others have been working at
– the small-scale, the difference only you can make.
Schwab: Nishin, what is your reaction? Do you feel you have control over your own life
or are others making the really relevant decisions for you?
Nathwani: Well, I think it's really inspiring, first of all, that the six of us are here
because we're all community, grass-roots-level activists. And so I think just by the mere
fact that we're on this stage right now speaking to you all, it's an acknowledgement that grass-roots-level
individuals working on the ground have something to say to individuals with decision-making
capabilities. So I do think that this awareness is increasing now. Of course, there is a lot
of work to be done, I believe. I believe the youth voice needs to come out more and that
there still needs to be a lot more youth engagement and overall general citizen engagement, but
the mere fact that we're here I think is very encouraging and I think we should all take
that into account.
Schwab: Yes, Carmina.
Mancenon: Yes, thank you very much for your words. It was very inspiring. And also I think
that youth involvement is a crucial aspect of today's generation – to actually
involve ourselves from the very beginning, not when we're 15 or 16, but starting from
when we are able to form decisions, because ultimately it is our generation that will
be left with the consequences. So I think that it's not only about getting our voices
out there, but it's also working together to make this happen, being able to bridge
the gap between your generation and our generation, I think, is really important.
Schwab: Tshepiso.
Gower: Well, I think that it all boils down to respect. If you respect the entities around
you, you will see their worth. You will be aware of their worth and then in the context
of decision making, you will then involve them. That is where the issue of youth involvement
comes in. And the issue of youth involvement is just a microcosm of the bigger picture:
if you take it up into the more international and global platforms, the involvement of third-world
countries. So essentially, I think it boils down to that overall inclusion of all the
stakeholders.
Schwab: Your Grace, do you want to take it on?
Williams: I'm glad the word 'respect' has been used here, because I think that's very
closely connected to what I was feeling for in talking about valuing the humanity that's
here and now, including ourselves, respect for ourselves, which is a pivotal thing in,
you know, educating us in respect for each other. And that depends, in turn, on feeling
we are treated with attention, with reverence – I'd go even further than saying respect
but reverence – for the extraordinary quality of the humanity that is ours.
But I think I'd want to say something also in framing this more widely, something about
how we conceive education itself as working. And I think more and more we're in a cultural
situation where education needs to find its soul again. In lots of developed societies,
education seems to have become more mechanical, more anxious, more driven, and it's about
again getting results quickly. And it's become less about enlarging the imagination of what
can be done and who we might be. And I was thinking a couple of days ago – again
in the context of meetings I've been at – I was thinking of how we understand what economic
education might involve. Is it simply a matter of looking at figures and learning how to
use statistics and looking at the histories of national economies, or is it also about
encouraging young people in education to get some experience, let's say, of a micro credit
programme, to get some contact through email, through electronic communication, some contact
with those who are seeking to make a difference at the levels you're working at in other parts
of the world. Is economic education global enough and active enough? What could be done
there? I'm just fascinated to think what the possibilities could be on that front.
Schwab: So just one question, Your Grace, which intrigues me. You defined being responsible
in the present and you took as a reference point the future of humanity. Now, my question.
You used once the word 'soul'. My question is, 'Is there some transcendental force behind
it? Do you imply it in your definition of humanity?' And before you give an answer,
we have a multi cultural group of young people and it would be very interesting to hear from
some, if they think of humanity. Do you think also of some transcendental force behind humanity?
And I may ask this question because it's Sunday morning.
Williams: And since I'm not getting a chance to preach anywhere else this morning, this
is my opportunity I take it!
Schwab: Let's first maybe see the young people. How do you feel? Is there something else?
Is it just humanity? Or what drives you? Yes.
Brites: From my very personal point of view, the fact that I don't believe in something
that transcends us all is what made me have my activism and my social approach, because
I realized that it doesn't matter what we learn, but what we grow to be, and what we
grow to be depends mainly on us and the other humanity. And if I asked many times myself
the question that, 'If there was someone who transcends us all, why would there have been
so many problems?' The world would be so hard to – there wouldn't be so many problems
and so many issues to address. And that's what we all six activists are trying to address.
Schwab: Yes, please, Mousa.
Musa: Well, for me, I do believe in a force. The fact of the matter is, for me, it's a
matter of faith. We have to have faith in something. In a place where faith does not
exist much in one another, we have to have faith in people and we have to have faith
in a force, in a transcendental force. If we don't know or don't agree on how to approach
that matter, let's just treat each other with respect, as Tshepiso said. Let's treat each
other as a moral guidance, as a set of principles, following a set of principles. Let's treat
each other, the people we live with, let's treat them in a good way, in a moral manner.
And that's how it makes us really human beings; it's that we work with each other. And I think,
it there is a transcendental force, this is the basis of all religions – basic
human interaction. And that is what we should base it on.
Schwab: Sarah?
Jameel: I believe that this force or faith as you call it is individualistic. It's something
that you believe within yourself. It's something within your soul and it's something that you
stand for, but that should not by any means hinder what other people believe in. And it's
using those different – using the diversity that you get, whether you are a Christian,
whether you are a Muslim, whether you are a Jew. That is not what humanity's based upon.
What it's based upon is the fundamentals of humanity – as you said, being able
to respect others, being able to empathize with others, if there is a crisis. And I think
using all these different forces to create a mosaic of diversity, that is what real humanity
is about and what we should strive for, for the future.
Schwab: Nishin?
Nathwani: I just want to bring up the point as well that I think collective humanity is
itself a transcendental force. I think that the power of working together and, like you
said, respect and fundamental human values, when they're applied in a broad context beyond
just your personal initiative, that in itself becomes a transcendental force. And I think
all of the limits of progress right now – war, division, etc. – can be transcended
by the nature of the collective. And I think that it comes back to realizing within yourself
the values that you wish to establish in the world. And the catchy term 'critical mass',
I believe, has a lot of truth in it. I believe that when each individual person in themselves
takes the initiative to awaken these values and to awaken that will, whether it be a belief
in a tree or a god or anything else, to take that initiative, to find the willpower to
act in a motivation, and when a critical mass achieves that, that individual strength, together
that is a transcendental force.
Schwab: Tshepiso?
Gower: Well, I think that, you know, all is well and good and I appreciate your opinions,
but I think we must not delude ourselves to the fact that as human beings we are inherently
wired to believe in cause and effect. We all need explanations for why things happen, that's
just the way it is, so I think what we really should focus on is just a higher sense of
awareness to the fact that we do need something to believe in. It's better to know that as
a human being you need explanations and you need justifications that for you to be at
that point where you're groping in the dark, saying, 'What can I believe in?' I think it's
better to have an awareness of that higher level, to say, 'Okay, I understand how I'm
wired.'
Schwab: Carmina?
Mancenon: Yes, I also believe that besides all the points that were mentioned, what really
drives our activism and our fulfilment in social entrepreneurship is actually fulfilling
our promises. Because it's one thing to say to a person, to a teenager and see their face
light up when you say that, 'Okay, we're going to give you a house soon, you'll have a home,'
but then it's different when you actually act upon it and make your words not just promises,
but make it into action, because action is really what drives the human race and I think
that that's what our society should be based on, and not just words.
Schwab: One last word before –
Nathwani: Sure, I just want to say to build off what Carmina said, of course we're talking
about these abstract concepts like respect and love, etc., but I think that these are
all ideals and I think the nature of the World Economic Forum and venues such as this is
to contemplate the nature of these ideals, the purity of the ideal, sustainability, global
peace, etc., but we must never forget that in contemplating the ideals, the eventual
goal is to turn them into action, and I think we fail to bridge those two because we fail
to acknowledge what bridges those two, and that, to me, is persistence, and fearless
persistence, the ability to overcome obstacles and never compromise our principles in pursuit
of those highest ideals.
Schwab: Your Grace, how do you now define – I mean, we have here on the one hand
the present, humanity and the transcendent. How does it relate each to another?
Williams: Perhaps I could come back on one or two of the observations that have been
made about the transcendent. I don't myself see God as the supernatural problem-solver
that we call on to get us off the hook. I prefer to see God – well, I don't say
I prefer to see God, I believe in a God who has created us to reflect and to share God's
own creative freedom, so action is built into that belief. We're made to demonstrate what
the energy that made the universe is like. For me as a Christian, that's an energy of
self-sharing love. That's what's fundamental for every imaginable reality, and that's therefore
what I must live out of and what I need to show, to manifest, to make flesh in my own
life, and I stick to that belief because, I guess, I'm perhaps a little less optimistic
than some of you about how easy it is to go on nurturing the sense of human value and
human respect without that framework. There have been societies in the last 100 years
in which humanity has been systematically ground down by tyranny and injustice, by ideologies
that write off millions of people. Quite literally. In a society like that, and God forbid we
find ourselves in such a situation again, but in societies like that one of the things
that crucially, centrally keeps alive an uncompromising commitment to human value is the belief that
every other human being is the object of an unflinching, unchanging love which doesn't
depend on me, but is just there, it's in the universe. God looks at each one with that
intense white heat of loving attention, and therefore when I look at them, I see someone
who is precious in the eyes of God, and nothing can change that, whatever the government says,
whatever the system says, whatever the circumstances say, that value is just there, built-in, and
because that's not an absolutely self-evident thing in the human world, because throughout
the ages and even now millions of people still live as if other people's lives didn't matter,
and can be seduced into that inhuman way of thinking and feeling, I believe that religious
faith remains a key to the, if I can say this, the humanist values we all share.
Schwab: Let's end our Annual Meeting with those words and let's take them to our hearts,
and I will express our gratitude for all those young voices. I think it gives us a lot of
optimism listening to you. If this is the future, we can be very confident about the
future, and I would like to thank the Most Reverend Dr Williams very much for having
come here because, as he mentioned, you had to make a special effort to join us from New
York, to be this morning with us. Give them a big clap.
We are coming to the end of the Annual Meeting. I would like to thank you. You have been marvellously
engaged, committed; I think those were five great days. We didn't solve all the problems
in the world, but I think we demonstrated very much that we are a human, global community
and I think this is the key if you speak about respect. We showed a lot of respect despite
the fact that each one is – despite the fact that we came from different stakeholder
groups, from different ages, from different cultures, so it's a good sign for the world
as such. I could thank so many people, over 1,000 people who worked for you during the
last days. I would like to single out only one person, because he really was behind of
all the programmes, sessions and so on, and it's Lee Howell who was responsible for this
Annual Meeting programme, but there are many others. Here he is. Lee.
Your Grace, thank you again, and dear members, see you again at the latest in a year from
now. And don't forget what the young people said: it's action which shows our real commitment.
Thank you.
Klaus Schwab, Founder and Executive Chairman, World Economic Forum:
First I would like thank our co-chairs for having shepherded us so well through the discussions
during the last five days. We have heard now some of the scene through a business leaders'
perspective, but I have to say, through a perspective of business leaders with great
social responsibility. I think that came clearly out of the last discussion. Now, let's end
the meeting with reflecting on values and let's do so by indicating particularly the
young generation. I will introduce afterwards some outstanding people, below 20 years old,
and let's hear how they feel about the values which we should have in order to create optimal
governance in our world. But first I would like to call one of our Young Global Leaders
to the stage. Pekka Himanen, a philosopher from Finland, but really actively involved,
particularly in our Dignity project of the Young Global Leaders and being involved in
our global redesign initiative.
Pekka Himanen, Young Global Leader, Finland:
Thank you very much, Klaus. Everyone is speaking about what are the values for the future development
and, therefore, we have been filming around the world the views of the current leaders,
such as Desmond Tutu or Queen Rania, presidents and CEOs. But also, the views and voices of
the young people, because it's actually their future that we are talking about. What do
they value? What are they for? And the message is clear: they are calling for new values,
a more dignified world. And here is a short sample of voices of some great young people
with a big heart.
[Start of video]
Participant: I want to live in a world where in the World Economic Forum there is only
six Changemakers and the rest of you.
Tshepiso Gower, Global Changemaker, British Council Global Changemakers, Botswana:
Hi. I am Tshepiso Gower. I am 19 years old and I come from Botswana.
Nishin Nathwani, Global Changemaker, British Council Global Changemakers, Canada:
Hello. My name is Nishin Nathwani. I am 17 years old and I am from Canada.
Mousa Musa, Global Changemaker, British Council Global Changemakers, Iraq:
I'm Mousa, I'm 17 and I'm from Iraq.
Gower: I want to live in a world that values the humanity of each other; a world where
one person respects the fact that the other is just as human as they are.
Nathwani: What I value most is compassion, the ability to look into another human being
and see your own virtues, your own suffering, your own joy, the whole package of your experience.
Musa: And if we just look at – look back at ourselves and our experiences and
we appreciate them, we can appreciate everybody's experiences and we can appreciate people.
Nathwani: What I value most is compassion.
Gower: I want to live in a world that values the humanity.
Musa: And what I value most is myself.
Participant: I do it in a rap, homie, but I ain't scared, it's for the visually impaired.
I ain't afraid to fight for my right; this, baby, is called the school of life. Peace.
Participant: I want to live in a world of environmental sustainability, where is it
no longer permissible for any society or nation to jeopardize the ability of future generations
to enjoy the same earth that we do today.
Participant: A world where our leaders act more than they speak.
Participant: And let's not mention even improving the state of the world, let's just do it.
I mean that's what I think.
[End of video]
Schwab: I open this session by, first, welcoming very cordially the Most Reverend Dr Rowan
Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury. Your Grace, we are very grateful that at the end of five
weeks – five days of discussion – for me it looks like five weeks, you see!
That after those five days of discussion we can, in your presence and in the presence
of those young people, we can discuss what values do we really need to master our future.
And what I would like, first, to do, we have seen the young people on the screen, but I
would like to ask, before Your Grace will address us, I would just like to ask you to
say where you are coming from, how old you are. If you would start.
Sarah Jameel, Global Changemaker, British Council Global Changemakers, Sri Lanka:
My name is Sarah Jameel. I'm 18 years old and I'm from Sri Lanka.
Nathwani: My name is Nishin Nathwani. I am 17 years old and I am from Canada.
Gower: My name is Tshepiso Gower. I am 19 years old and I am from Botswana.
Joao Rafael Brites, Global Changemaker, British Council Global Changemakers, Portugal:
My name is Joao Brites. I'm 19 years old and I'm from Portugal.
Carmina Mancenon, Global Changemaker, British Council Global Changemakers, Japan:
Hi, I'm Carmina. I'm 16 years old and I'm from the Philippines and Japan.
Musa: My name is Mousa. I'm 17 years old and I'm from Iraq.
Schwab: You have been selected in a rigorous process and thanks to our cooperation with
the British Council. Now, everybody of you has something which is very special. You have
engaged already into society. If in one sentence you just would say what you are doing, because
you are not just students; you are really engaged young people.
Jameel: I'm a health entrepreneur and therefore I create social change with my campaign called
'Kick the Butt'. It is an anti teen smoking campaign that aims at changing the mindsets
of teenagers via social media and fashion.
Nathwani: I work within the education system to challenge prejudice and stereotypes and
also discrimination against minority studies of racial, religious and *** orientation
backgrounds.
Gower: I work with gender equality and the empowerment of the woman and I'm currently
embarking upon a project targeted towards economic empowerment of the woman through
entrepreneurship facilitation.
Brites: What I do is using break dance with my break dance crew to fight criminality and
promote social inclusion among challenged young people.
Schwab: But you are also a swimmer's champion in your country.
Brites: Yes, at 16.
Mancenon: I'm a social entrepreneur with a focus on poverty and I'm currently initiating
a project, it's called 'Stitch Tomorrow' and it's a microfinance initiative to combat poverty
using fashion.
Musa: I work in a school for the visually impaired in Iraq and I go in and get them
the equipment they need that is not supplied by anybody else. Thank you.
Schwab: What a great selection. Your Grace.
Rowan D. Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, United Kingdom:
I'm Rowan Williams and I'm 59 years old and I'm feeling very ineffectual just at the moment.
Schwab: How would you define values which we all have to embrace to really secure our
future?
Williams: People sometimes quote the old cliché 'Why should I worry about posterity, what's
posterity ever done for me?' And I think what we have to come to terms with, first of all,
is recognizing that here and now we are taking decisions that whether we like it or not have
effects long beyond our own lifespan. Those decisions may be conscious decisions, we know
what values they're based on, we know where we want to get, or they may be short-term,
narrow decisions whose effects we don't understand or control and don't very much care about.
So the very first thing I'd want to say is that it's important for us, here and now,
to wake up to the fact that what we decide, what we simply accept or let by, the habits
we value, the behaviours we reward, these things create the world of the next generation,
and we can't get away from that, whether we like it or not. If it's important then, for
human beings to live as if they were intelligent, as if they were capable of understanding themselves,
it's important for human beings to be aware of the consequences of their actions. So,
posterity is not just some abstract thing from which we are divided. We, here and now,
are the makers of a new generation, a new climate. Some of us are literally parents.
We have made our contribution to the next generation. So, let's wake up to who we are.
Let's wake up and do justice to ourselves. I say that, because sometimes if you speak
about doing justice to the next generation, again it can sound abstract. But what about
doing justice to ourselves? Acting as if we really understood that we were making a difference,
for good or ill, in a coming generation?
So, I'd frame the whole discussion in the light of that recognition. And that has, I
think, the rather strange effect of making us realize that the best thing we can do for
the future, to show our responsibility to the future, is living responsibly in the present.
Now, sometimes when people say we are living in the present, it's as if they are saying,
we live as if there were no tomorrow; we live for the immediate moment. But actually, living
responsibly in the present, really being aware of the kind of world we are in, the limits
it imposes, the wisdom it suggests. That living responsibly is the best gift we can give to
the future. It's a kind of realism. It's a kind of truthfulness about who we are, and
where we are.
The worst thing that has emerged out of the economic and ecological crises of the last
few decades is of course our failure to live in the real world. We live in a world of fantasy.
A world where there is endless material resource to be exploited. A world in which it is possible
to change the destiny of millions of people by financial transactions happening in mid-air.
That's not the real world. I do take some offence when some people say, 'Oh, you theologians
and people who talk about ideals and values don't live in the real world.' I see plenty
of evidence of other decision makers not living in the real world in that sense. I think what
my colleagues here on the platform have been talking about is the real world. So, living
responsibly in the present, living within the limits that are imposed by being part
of a world, part of a system of interdependence. Human interdependence, depending on each other.
Dependence on the resource of the world we are in.
In the light of that, I'd say there are two or three huge, obvious priorities in terms
of our responsibility to the future. The first of these, I have already touched on –
you hardly need it underlined – and that is responsibility around the environment.
Are we living in the world now in such a way that it will be inhabitable by the next generation?
Or are we spending the natural capital of our globe in such a way that it is harder
and harder to live a secure, reasoned, mutual life in the next generation? I spent the past
few days at a conference in New York on Building an Ethical Economy. One of the people there
who shared the platform with me was the Cambridge economist, Sir Partha Dasgupta, whose great
contribution to economic discussion in recent years has been insisting that you factor into
your economic calculation the degradation of natural capital, which often our mathematics
around finance and economics simply doesn't do. And so, we can't but begin with that.
What are we squandering? What are we ruining? How much are we making the world of the next
generation harder for people to inhabit with honesty, truthfulness, responsibility, care,
mutuality?
The second thing is again to do with security, by which I mean things like security of work
and food supply, as well as environment. It's a pity that the word security has come to
signal, almost exclusively in some people's eyes, military and strategic security. Those
are not small things, but behind them, and around them, lies the far, far greater question
of what is going to provide that secure human environment, whether it's work, whether it's
food. So, our responsibility to the future is also about sustaining levels of care for
one another, especially for the most vulnerable. If we think about the imperative to create
and sustain national wealth, at the heart of that ought to be the imperative to sustain
care for the vulnerable, to sustain the security that means nobody need live in perpetual fear
of failure, of falling through the nets.
Environment, employment and care. But the third dimension is in some ways the most important
of all, and that's why I am feeling particularly privileged to be on the platform with the
people I am with here. The third element is what I'd call passing on the cultural legacy:
passing on a picture of human behaviour, human achievement, and human aspiration that is
worthwhile. What are we giving to the future in terms of the human stories that we value?
What sort of behaviour do we look as if we most valued in our world at the moment? The
answers are often rather depressing. We reward achievements of a certain kind. We speak and
we work, very often, as if the behaviours that ought to be rewarded were either obsessional,
or selfish, or both. So the challenge is: what do we, here and now in the present, value
as human beings? Why not start living as if those values mattered? Because, and here is
the blindingly simple message of the day: the old cliché about not being able to
take it with you is actually true. It goes back to the gospels, by which I try to organize
my own life. Jesus's story about the rich man who is woken in the middle of the night
by a vision of God saying, 'Your soul is required of you tonight', and what difference does
all that make? That is something worth bearing in mind. Our souls, our lives are going to
be required of us. The most we can ever do with what we achieve is to put it at the service
of the world we inhabit, the human world, the wider world. That is the most we can ever
do. And to lead lives here and now which suggest that that is what we want to pass on, that's
the vision of humanity we want to communicate. Once again, it takes us back to where I started
– living responsibly now is the best way of showing responsibility to the future.
When people don't think about the future, when they don't consider they have a responsibility
to the next generation and beyond, what they're really saying is, 'We don't actually value
humanity enough to want to keep it going. We don't value our own humanity sufficiently.
We're not content enough, grateful enough, to be human to want that humanity to live
in other people,' and that is a real tragedy.
We are so undermining that sense that humanity is precious that a new generation rising up
might very well look at us and say, 'What was it that wounded you, that distorted you
so deeply, that you can't see what matters humanly? What was it that taught you,' us,
me, people of my generation, 'what was it that taught you to undervalue humanity like
this, so that you didn't think a rich and full humanity was worth passing on to the
next generation?' Again, you see, it comes back to the question: how we live now, how
we understand ourselves now. And to that mixture of the selfish and obsessional that so often
we reward in our working practices and our social practices.
So, in sum, I think I'd simply say this: responsibility to the future is responsibility for a vision
of humanity that has excited and enlarged us. It's taking responsibility for a humanity
in which mutual generosity, mutual nurture, are the things that live, that literally breed,
that generate and create a world worth living in. It's a matter of telling the stories of
that humanity in such a way that they enlarge and define the world for another generation.
Sometimes we talk as if we don't really need heroes and heroines in our world. Nonsense,
I say. We need stories of how humanity can be lived. We need good stories of the kind
of social and individual practice that shows people valuing the human, living in the present
responsibly, enjoying the humanity that is enriched by mutual giving, mutual attention,
mutual valuing.
And that's the kind of story that the others on this platform will have to tell and we
will have tell about them. And that's why it's so crucial and such a gift that they're
here. And I'd really like to here from them at this point.
Schwab: Thank you, Your Grace. Now, let's see you reactions. How do you define also
your own future in the context of what the Archbishop said? Sarah, do you want to start?
Jameel: I believe that humanity is the most important thing currently in the world in
which we live in, whether it's the financial crisis, whether it's climate change we're
dealing with, or whether it's the health crisis we're dealing with. And this can only be achieved
via action, grass-root-level action, which is not just defined merely by words. Example:
John Lennon always said, 'You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.' I think
I can speak for all six of us here and say that we are dreamers, but we need to create
the reality that we wish and dream for.
Schwab: Anyone else, a reaction? Mousa?
Musa: Well, I found what the Archbishop said was really interesting because the fact that
we would – the understanding that the future generation is the generation that's
going to take on the world and the generation that's going to nurture it, and we have to
set up a good example for that generation. We have to tell them that the community that
we are building is a community for their embetterment and a community to make a better world for
them, instead of making a worse world for them.
Schwab: So you have to be the heroes, as the Archbishop said, for the young generation.
But – yes?
Brites: And I think the necessity of action not only means big actions, as what we are
discussing here, but small actions. Small actions are as important as the biggest ones.
And I think one of the things that we really lack in this world is people make their own
actions, their everyday actions, consistent with the greatest dreams and the biggest dreams
they have to the future.
Schwab: Let me stop here and let me ask you, Your Grace, we had three comments –
would you like to comment on the comments?
Williams: I think what strikes me most about the comments is the emphasis on the small
scale, not being paralysed by the sense the problems are too big. And this is something
which, again, can be a bit counter-cultural these days – we like quick results,
we like to see instant effects from our actions. But some things, because they're just worth
doing are worth doing. We do them because they express something deep in ourselves,
because we believe they express something deep in the universe itself, I'd say as a
religious believer, and therefore they're worth doing. You don't say, 'Well, that's
not very likely to work, so I shan't bother.' And that's why I think that the key to real
change is again and again persuading people at grass-roots level that, although –
to use a phrase that's sometimes used here – they may not be able to make all
the difference, there is a difference only they can make. And I guess all of you have
been asking, 'What's the difference only I can make in this particular local context?'
Finding the strategic moment, the strategic place, where you know you can make a difference.
Now, the tragedy again is that we live in a world where a huge part of the human race
is fed the message: decisions, important decisions, are always taken somewhere else. And another
person with me this week in New York was the Archbishop of Burundi, coming from a country
where after decades of carnage and poverty it's very difficult for people to believe
that they have decisions they can make. And he said this week nearly the whole of African
continent believes profoundly that the decisions that matter are being taken somewhere else.
And, you know, there's a lot of evidence for that.
So, how do you get to that level where tangible difference can be made? Whether it's the local
health project, micro-credit – which I get very enthusiastic and eloquent about
– or any of the other things that you've mentioned and others have been working at
– the small-scale, the difference only you can make.
Schwab: Nishin, what is your reaction? Do you feel you have control over your own life
or are others making the really relevant decisions for you?
Nathwani: Well, I think it's really inspiring, first of all, that the six of us are here
because we're all community, grass-roots-level activists. And so I think just by the mere
fact that we're on this stage right now speaking to you all, it's an acknowledgement that grass-roots-level
individuals working on the ground have something to say to individuals with decision-making
capabilities. So I do think that this awareness is increasing now. Of course, there is a lot
of work to be done, I believe. I believe the youth voice needs to come out more and that
there still needs to be a lot more youth engagement and overall general citizen engagement, but
the mere fact that we're here I think is very encouraging and I think we should all take
that into account.
Schwab: Yes, Carmina.
Mancenon: Yes, thank you very much for your words. It was very inspiring. And also I think
that youth involvement is a crucial aspect of today's generation – to actually
involve ourselves from the very beginning, not when we're 15 or 16, but starting from
when we are able to form decisions, because ultimately it is our generation that will
be left with the consequences. So I think that it's not only about getting our voices
out there, but it's also working together to make this happen, being able to bridge
the gap between your generation and our generation, I think, is really important.
Schwab: Tshepiso.
Gower: Well, I think that it all boils down to respect. If you respect the entities around
you, you will see their worth. You will be aware of their worth and then in the context
of decision making, you will then involve them. That is where the issue of youth involvement
comes in. And the issue of youth involvement is just a microcosm of the bigger picture:
if you take it up into the more international and global platforms, the involvement of third-world
countries. So essentially, I think it boils down to that overall inclusion of all the
stakeholders.
Schwab: Your Grace, do you want to take it on?
Williams: I'm glad the word 'respect' has been used here, because I think that's very
closely connected to what I was feeling for in talking about valuing the humanity that's
here and now, including ourselves, respect for ourselves, which is a pivotal thing in,
you know, educating us in respect for each other. And that depends, in turn, on feeling
we are treated with attention, with reverence – I'd go even further than saying respect
but reverence – for the extraordinary quality of the humanity that is ours.
But I think I'd want to say something also in framing this more widely, something about
how we conceive education itself as working. And I think more and more we're in a cultural
situation where education needs to find its soul again. In lots of developed societies,
education seems to have become more mechanical, more anxious, more driven, and it's about
again getting results quickly. And it's become less about enlarging the imagination of what
can be done and who we might be. And I was thinking a couple of days ago – again
in the context of meetings I've been at – I was thinking of how we understand what economic
education might involve. Is it simply a matter of looking at figures and learning how to
use statistics and looking at the histories of national economies, or is it also about
encouraging young people in education to get some experience, let's say, of a micro credit
programme, to get some contact through email, through electronic communication, some contact
with those who are seeking to make a difference at the levels you're working at in other parts
of the world. Is economic education global enough and active enough? What could be done
there? I'm just fascinated to think what the possibilities could be on that front.
Schwab: So just one question, Your Grace, which intrigues me. You defined being responsible
in the present and you took as a reference point the future of humanity. Now, my question.
You used once the word 'soul'. My question is, 'Is there some transcendental force behind
it? Do you imply it in your definition of humanity?' And before you give an answer,
we have a multi cultural group of young people and it would be very interesting to hear from
some, if they think of humanity. Do you think also of some transcendental force behind humanity?
And I may ask this question because it's Sunday morning.
Williams: And since I'm not getting a chance to preach anywhere else this morning, this
is my opportunity I take it!
Schwab: Let's first maybe see the young people. How do you feel? Is there something else?
Is it just humanity? Or what drives you? Yes.
Brites: From my very personal point of view, the fact that I don't believe in something
that transcends us all is what made me have my activism and my social approach, because
I realized that it doesn't matter what we learn, but what we grow to be, and what we
grow to be depends mainly on us and the other humanity. And if I asked many times myself
the question that, 'If there was someone who transcends us all, why would there have been
so many problems?' The world would be so hard to – there wouldn't be so many problems
and so many issues to address. And that's what we all six activists are trying to address.
Schwab: Yes, please, Mousa.
Musa: Well, for me, I do believe in a force. The fact of the matter is, for me, it's a
matter of faith. We have to have faith in something. In a place where faith does not
exist much in one another, we have to have faith in people and we have to have faith
in a force, in a transcendental force. If we don't know or don't agree on how to approach
that matter, let's just treat each other with respect, as Tshepiso said. Let's treat each
other as a moral guidance, as a set of principles, following a set of principles. Let's treat
each other, the people we live with, let's treat them in a good way, in a moral manner.
And that's how it makes us really human beings; it's that we work with each other. And I think,
it there is a transcendental force, this is the basis of all religions – basic
human interaction. And that is what we should base it on.
Schwab: Sarah?
Jameel: I believe that this force or faith as you call it is individualistic. It's something
that you believe within yourself. It's something within your soul and it's something that you
stand for, but that should not by any means hinder what other people believe in. And it's
using those different – using the diversity that you get, whether you are a Christian,
whether you are a Muslim, whether you are a Jew. That is not what humanity's based upon.
What it's based upon is the fundamentals of humanity – as you said, being able
to respect others, being able to empathize with others, if there is a crisis. And I think
using all these different forces to create a mosaic of diversity, that is what real humanity
is about and what we should strive for, for the future.
Schwab: Nishin?
Nathwani: I just want to bring up the point as well that I think collective humanity is
itself a transcendental force. I think that the power of working together and, like you
said, respect and fundamental human values, when they're applied in a broad context beyond
just your personal initiative, that in itself becomes a transcendental force. And I think
all of the limits of progress right now – war, division, etc. – can be transcended
by the nature of the collective. And I think that it comes back to realizing within yourself
the values that you wish to establish in the world. And the catchy term 'critical mass',
I believe, has a lot of truth in it. I believe that when each individual person in themselves
takes the initiative to awaken these values and to awaken that will, whether it be a belief
in a tree or a god or anything else, to take that initiative, to find the willpower to
act in a motivation, and when a critical mass achieves that, that individual strength, together
that is a transcendental force.
Schwab: Tshepiso?
Gower: Well, I think that, you know, all is well and good and I appreciate your opinions,
but I think we must not delude ourselves to the fact that as human beings we are inherently
wired to believe in cause and effect. We all need explanations for why things happen, that's
just the way it is, so I think what we really should focus on is just a higher sense of
awareness to the fact that we do need something to believe in. It's better to know that as
a human being you need explanations and you need justifications that for you to be at
that point where you're groping in the dark, saying, 'What can I believe in?' I think it's
better to have an awareness of that higher level, to say, 'Okay, I understand how I'm
wired.'
Schwab: Carmina?
Mancenon: Yes, I also believe that besides all the points that were mentioned, what really
drives our activism and our fulfilment in social entrepreneurship is actually fulfilling
our promises. Because it's one thing to say to a person, to a teenager and see their face
light up when you say that, 'Okay, we're going to give you a house soon, you'll have a home,'
but then it's different when you actually act upon it and make your words not just promises,
but make it into action, because action is really what drives the human race and I think
that that's what our society should be based on, and not just words.
Schwab: One last word before –
Nathwani: Sure, I just want to say to build off what Carmina said, of course we're talking
about these abstract concepts like respect and love, etc., but I think that these are
all ideals and I think the nature of the World Economic Forum and venues such as this is
to contemplate the nature of these ideals, the purity of the ideal, sustainability, global
peace, etc., but we must never forget that in contemplating the ideals, the eventual
goal is to turn them into action, and I think we fail to bridge those two because we fail
to acknowledge what bridges those two, and that, to me, is persistence, and fearless
persistence, the ability to overcome obstacles and never compromise our principles in pursuit
of those highest ideals.
Schwab: Your Grace, how do you now define – I mean, we have here on the one hand
the present, humanity and the transcendent. How does it relate each to another?
Williams: Perhaps I could come back on one or two of the observations that have been
made about the transcendent. I don't myself see God as the supernatural problem-solver
that we call on to get us off the hook. I prefer to see God – well, I don't say
I prefer to see God, I believe in a God who has created us to reflect and to share God's
own creative freedom, so action is built into that belief. We're made to demonstrate what
the energy that made the universe is like. For me as a Christian, that's an energy of
self-sharing love. That's what's fundamental for every imaginable reality, and that's therefore
what I must live out of and what I need to show, to manifest, to make flesh in my own
life, and I stick to that belief because, I guess, I'm perhaps a little less optimistic
than some of you about how easy it is to go on nurturing the sense of human value and
human respect without that framework. There have been societies in the last 100 years
in which humanity has been systematically ground down by tyranny and injustice, by ideologies
that write off millions of people. Quite literally. In a society like that, and God forbid we
find ourselves in such a situation again, but in societies like that one of the things
that crucially, centrally keeps alive an uncompromising commitment to human value is the belief that
every other human being is the object of an unflinching, unchanging love which doesn't
depend on me, but is just there, it's in the universe. God looks at each one with that
intense white heat of loving attention, and therefore when I look at them, I see someone
who is precious in the eyes of God, and nothing can change that, whatever the government says,
whatever the system says, whatever the circumstances say, that value is just there, built-in, and
because that's not an absolutely self-evident thing in the human world, because throughout
the ages and even now millions of people still live as if other people's lives didn't matter,
and can be seduced into that inhuman way of thinking and feeling, I believe that religious
faith remains a key to the, if I can say this, the humanist values we all share.
Schwab: Let's end our Annual Meeting with those words and let's take them to our hearts,
and I will express our gratitude for all those young voices. I think it gives us a lot of
optimism listening to you. If this is the future, we can be very confident about the
future, and I would like to thank the Most Reverend Dr Williams very much for having
come here because, as he mentioned, you had to make a special effort to join us from New
York, to be this morning with us. Give them a big clap.
We are coming to the end of the Annual Meeting. I would like to thank you. You have been marvellously
engaged, committed; I think those were five great days. We didn't solve all the problems
in the world, but I think we demonstrated very much that we are a human, global community
and I think this is the key if you speak about respect. We showed a lot of respect despite
the fact that each one is – despite the fact that we came from different stakeholder
groups, from different ages, from different cultures, so it's a good sign for the world
as such. I could thank so many people, over 1,000 people who worked for you during the
last days. I would like to single out only one person, because he really was behind of
all the programmes, sessions and so on, and it's Lee Howell who was responsible for this
Annual Meeting programme, but there are many others. Here he is. Lee.
Your Grace, thank you again, and dear members, see you again at the latest in a year from
now. And don't forget what the young people said: it's action which shows our real commitment.
Thank you.