Corporate Leadership For Change

Fascination with leadership is growing daily, fuelled by global complexity, free-falling capital markets, conflict and growing environmental and social deterioration. Key business leaders will discuss the kind of leadership required in the face of accentuated resource scarcity, more pervasive need and highly uncertain prospects. They will explore the excitement and challenges of operating through networked approaches that eschew traditional “command and control” models for a more “viral model” where the minds of many are more powerful than that of a few.

everything we've heard so far this week points to the interconnectedness of to the problems that we now all understand there to be. And to the interconnectedness of those problems. and we heard a huge amount this week about the critical importance of smooth innovative entrepreneurial lean organi All of those small entrepreneurial innovative lean organizations aspire one way or another to be large organizations That's the nature of scale.

And clearly big companies have a critical role to play in developing solutions and mitigating problems. We're enormously fortunate today to have five very senior leaders of very large companies on our panel. Each of them has significant experience of running a large company Each has experience of reconciling commercial social imperatives.

Each of them cares a lot. Otherwise they wouldn't be here. What we've asked our panel to do is to address the challenges of leadership under circumstances of complexity, scarcity, and scrutiny. And each knows the push that comes to shove when CSR meets recession. We're very fortunate to have them here and to offer their thoughts on the key challenges and frustrations that they meet in their daily lives.

Our panel today consists of Mike Cratelli. Mike's a passionate advocate of health care and innovative entrepreneurial approaches to health care management and financing. Te Yu, central to a range of Cisco Initiatives from the Network Academy to the China Public Private initiative. Fadi Ghandour runs Aramex International.

He's a social entrepreneur active in a range of enterprises. In the Middle East and North Africa and also a leading light in the YPO. Alan Hassenfeld is a committed and renowned philanthropist. Alone, I think on this panel when he was Chairman of Hasbro he went to work to play. And Will Swope is attempting to develop a Moore's Law for philanthropy and social entrepreneurship.

I think it involves the cost of sustainability, the rate of innovation, and the funding required. But he wont tell me in what ratio. Welcome panel. I'd like to begin by asking each of you to state very briefly your vision leadership in these times of extraordinary challenge. And perhaps, Mike, I might ask you to start.

Thank you, Stephen. And first of all, I'm in awe of the accomplishments of those who won awards here and this year and in past years. I feel that what I've had to do is relatively modest by comparison. What I am most proud of in my time at Pitney Bowes in terms of reaching out and doing something for the broader society is the experimentation and ultimately the work that we were able to do in the area of health and health care.

The United States, unlike most other developed counties, has heavy emphasis on employer sponsored health care and health insurance. Nineteen years ago, long before I was CEO, I was given responsibility to head human resources. And I'm gonna talk about four lessons from my 19 year journey on health care, which continues even after my retirement from Pitney Bowes.

weeks ago. My chairman, my boss did something like Roger Martin talked about the other night. He posed a problem, and he did it in such a way that the either or alternative was not available to me. He said, "We've always been a very generous company in paying for all of our employees healthcare expenses.

That cannot continue. Employees must start contributing. Our cost of healthcare is going up fourteen percent a year for the last five years. But I also want you to improve employee satisfaction with the health plans and improve employee and retiree health; and I expect you to solve all of those problems." So he did the kind of posing of a solution that Roger Martin referred to in the Barack Obama inaugural.

I went to the Head of Benefits who said that can't be done. I then put in another Head of Benefits. I didn't know exactly how to go about doing it. But I got inspiration single audio tape that was given to me of lectures by a professor at Dartmouth, John Wingberg. that there's no correlation based upon 25 years of data collection between what is spent on healthcare in different communities and the outcomes in terms of health.

That taught me that something could be done. So we went on a long journey over the next decade and a half and so the first of the leadership lessons i would give to you is very much to be in said the other night great solutions arise from resolving apparent either/or alternatives. The first thing we did was to recognize recognize that we needed to create a healthy environment for the employees in terms of nutrition, fitness, and life style at the workplace where they spent most of their waking hours.

We learned that in spite of the view that people I came to realize, relative to the obesity crisis. Supposedly can't have behavior change. I came to realize, the recent book by Thaler and Sunstein, Nudge, is very much on target. If you nudge people, without taking away their choices but make the healthy alternatives attractive, affordable and accessible, you can change behaviors.

We did. And we did some amazing things, in terms of providing healthy foods for making eating healthy foods to the proper portions the easiest thing to do. The second thing we did, was to put in on site clinics. The benefits people came to me and they said, "I can't make the business case work." And I said, "Well what about absenteeism savings.

They said, "We can't quantify them." I said "There are outside studies that will enable you to determine whether that you can save money." discount those studies but include absenteeism savings. By the time we put the clinics in after seven years a third party from that step showed that we were saving two dollars and thirty cents for every dollar we learned a second lesson about health and health care.

Delivering health care close to where people spend their waking hours, making it convenient, spending more time with people rather than less, is better than the system that we have in place which is volume driven and fee for service. So we came up with a model that works better than the prevailing model in the United States.

The third lesson, so the second leadership is, if you're going to do social entrepreneurship or initiatives. You really have to very often incorporate soft benefits and not be afraid to do so. We were eventually proven right, but it wasn't obvious up front because hard data did not exist. Almost always you're gonna have to use soft benefits, and take some chances.

And that get's to my third point. We did a lot of trial and error in our insurance plan design. We finally settled on a working formula called value-based insurance, which was the result of work done by professors at Michigan, Harvard, and Southern California. And we started to change our health plans to reward good provider and patient behaviors.

In other words, we turned traditional health insurance into more of a risk-management program where people could alter what they paid by engaging in healthier behaviors. But we had to go through a several year trial and error process. And I did not punish the people for doing that. And I also recognize that the benefits of doing some of what they did would not be felt in year one, that we needed a multi-year time horizon.

So the third lesson, third and fourth lesson from leadership one is you have to tolerate some level of mistakes, as long as they're reasonable decisions. And the fourth lesson is, you really have to have a multi-year time horizon for a lot of very good investments. And you need patient capital, even inside a large corporation that has to meet quarterly earnings targets.

You have to have some room for patient capital. The final thing we are doing is being an investor and a personal health record initiative called Dossier which I that's a personal patient controlled, portable lifelong health record and in that case we had to make the company an and effectively a start-up business, and have the kind of people associated with it, who had the appetite for entrepreneurship.

We had loan executives and professionals and getting people inside the organization excited about taking a little bit of risk with their career and working for periods of time in this initiative was very very important to getting it off the ground. So those would be the lessons that I would that put forth in terms of the kind of we had been talking about i am too leading this discussion with the wonderful leaders a very very special group i just cannot draw thoughts on leadership and really what it means to me.

I think one of the things that we're all seeing today is a world turned upside down.

And I think one of the reasons for that is those of us that have aspired to be leaders we want the authority, but how many people today are taking the responsibility? Okay? Very, very few. I'm watching like never before. Everyone pointing fingers with you. And again, forgive me because I am speaking a little bit from an American perspective but I'm watching the congress pointing fingers at each other.

There's a caccavone of places out there.

The other thing that I that I think that I'd like to talk about which is so very important for a leader. If someone was to ask me what was the greatest mistake I made during my tenure of leading Hasbro, it would be many cases, two things: the selection of people and my procrastination. Because I could always find something good with everybody that worked, you know, with Hasbro and sometimes I didn't move quick enough.

And again the real stumbling block for me is sometimes I did try and put square pegs in round holes, and as we all know. And again people at Hasbro, for me, you know we're all talking about financial capital in that in the world today. Very few people are talking about human capital. And the most important thing that we at Hasbro have are our people.

And, when I say that, you know, there is nothing we cannot - we'll survive very easily, I think, in the crisis that we're in today, because we're innovative. And I think that if you're innovative and cutting edge, priced reasonably then your going to do well in what is a very difficult time. And the last thing before I pass it onto Ty is really, too often, and we're seeing it again in the press constantly.

I believe as a leader you should never ask of your people something that you would not do. If you will not go to Afghanistan, then don't ask your people to go Afghanistan. Todd, don't look at me. We have a program in Afghanistan together and I haven't gone. If you don't, but seriously too often we ask people to do things that we would never do and if we take a step back it's very, very important that you don't ask people to do things you wouldn't do.

And number two, a correlative of that is, if you want to deal in a global world whether you are French or you are an American or you are an Indian don't put your values on other societies unless you know their history culture, and their religion, and you've lived in it for a while. Because everything has its own nuances, and a true leader basically will step back and and will understand .

And then the last thing I would say is sometimes, and this might disagree a little bit with Roger, sometimes when we're asked to make decisions. Yes, we should listen. As my wife says God gave me two ears to listen with and not to talk with. Listen, try and reach consensus. But never try and please everyone.

Because when you try and please everyone you please no one. And for God sakes make a decision. because sometimes making no decision is worse than making a bad decision. Good morning and thank you to Pamela and to Stephen for hosting this. And most importantly to all of you, not just for showing up this morning 'cause I know it's the last morning and last night I heard was quite interesting and exciting, but because of the amazing people who are here together who have always inspired me.

I feel very grateful that I have been able to work in both an industry and a company that's very much aligned with what's happening. The industry obviously is technology and particularly the Internet at a time where there were so many opportunities... it opened up the globe basically and it provided inclusion.

You no longer had to worry about just your physical community, but you had this community of interest anywhere in the world, and it opened up opportunities in education, health care, inclusion of women, the underserved, and the very poor.

And the company part was very interesting for me because it's a culture at SISCO of innovation and an appreciation for change. And I know a lot of you if not all of you are very strong change agents. And for me I was looking at the opportunities the internet provided but it was from a commercial perspective.

Many of you know that Cisco actually started out being an online commercial activity with universities who said I have this problem and somebody else would say you know there's this little company called Cisco and they would send you an email and we'd send out a box just to try and a week later they'd come back can say, "How do I buy this thing?".

So it was very much online commerce before we knew that it was called online commerce.

But it really dawned on me that there are other opportunities that this could open up outside of strictly commercial things. And it was a culture that said be innovative but be in alignment with our mission. And clearly I saw this opportunity that if we wanted to grow beyond a start up and all of you are have been, or in the stages of going from start-up to medium-sized companies with aspirations to be large organizations, how do we create creates a culture that looks at both the commercial and the impact on the social.

And corporate social responsibility is not just about writing a check or giving back. It's really about looking at opportunities to develop products and solutions that address social needs in a responsible and transparent manner. And also recognize that we balance the commercial with the social, and to do that is really partnering outside of a single organization, looking outside of just the private sector.

And as Pamela knows, we really looked at public-private partnerships and also looked at multi-stakeholder organizations to really create transparency, keep each other honest, and really raise the level of partnership across sectors.

The Jordan education is a great example of just that, in the sense that we wanted to do something around education and our technology, but we wanted to partner with corporations like Intel and Microsoft, but also the public sector in terms of the government of Jordan, partner with the World Economic Forum forum and NGO's both internationally and locally.

But the approach was that we wanted have a two-for. That's you get two or more benefits for one process. And when we looked at building we wanted to do more than just deliver on it. We wanted to create an environment where you could let people thrive. And so when we went into Jordan we wanted to find a local company that we could actually do knowledge transfer.

Share our expertise and help them then create an environment for other companies and individuals to thrive. And one of the most important things that we did, and we're very grateful for, was to to find a little company called Rubicon. And it's a woman owned company. She was incubated by the King of Delethon, and for disclosure purposes, Buddy is an investor.

But I didn't know Buddy then, I know him now. But her name is Randa Ayoubi, and she wanted create a media company. A very small organization and very innovative. And she decided that, as we started talking about giving her some business, that we wanted to work with her as a business partnerlocally .

She needed to get some new talent in her organization so she sent out an, put out an ad in the paper that said, you know, opportunity. I'm paraphrasing here, it wasn't exactly what it said, but opportunity, worst case you get new skills, best case you get a job. And it was over-subscribed that she had to run it for two weeks.

She rented out a cyber cafe, and had all these people come in and actually taught them 2D, 3d media skills and picked out the best people to be in her company. She grew from forty to over two hundred and seventy. She's inked a deal with MGM and she has the distribution rights for Pink Panther online in the Middle Eastern region.

She has created an environment where it's inclusive of both women and the impoverished. She has taken on some of the best practices of mature companies like stock options and giving people opportunities within the organization and continuous learning.

To me that is one of the most important investments, we as a company, have ever made and some of the lessons that I think are really important is that particularly in this environment everyone keeps asking me "What's gonna happen?", and everybody should be concerned about the short term, but we can't just circle the wagons and focus on the here-and-now.

We have to address the here-and-now but really plan and invest with the future because the economy will turn around new markets will open up innovation will continue to happen its finding The right alignment with the right organizations to help propel us through that process. And I guess the last piece of - the last thing share with the group is that one of the things that I think is really important, one of my core philosophies, is that I am okay to be wrong as long as we as a group get it right.

and what they mean is that if i had all the answers i wouldn't need a team but i only one person and i can't have all the answers matter how smart or sophisticated or worldly I am no matter how much information is available to you on the web because nothing replace is direct experience. And one of the things I tell people who start to work with me is look, I'm a non-linear thinker.

I look at a big picture and I start manipulating it, and putting a vision together. I tend to think out loud. I love ideas, I've very comfortable with people who are Very different from me. The scariest thing for me is to have a team that is exactly like me, because I know I'm never going to capture opportunities.

As long as we can respectfully engage in dialogue and in the art of leadership then corralling all these different perspectives and marching toward a consistent strategy and executing measuring impact and then taking the learnings and putting it back in to improve the process. So, I think those are some of the things I would like to share with you and there, it's just an amazing opportunity.

I know the economy is very, very frightening to a lot of people. but you know this is a moment in time and its also an opportunity to really invest really question ourself is about what and how we're doing it and looking for partners in market changes.

Thank you very much for inviting me to speak today. I think, from my perspective, there needs to be a redefinition of leadership in today's world. We need to think that there is no - a leader should not think that there is a differentiation between social entrepreneurs and entrepreneurs anymore. It is not there.

The future tells us that the business of business is not only business and cannot be only business and the definition of the success of a corporation is not in profit maximization anymore. We cannot think this way, being a private company; and I'm speaking as a private company listed under the NASDAQ exchange, and I tell you that the shareholders are not the only important people in my organization.

We take a stakeholder view of how we manage, how we lead. Our employees are as important as our shareholders the communitywe live in is as important as the shareholders. The environment that we pollute is as important as anything else that we do. So the definition. And finally an understanding of the role of corporations and the private sector and entrepreneurs us as leaders.

We need to talk to ourselves as business leaders. We need to redefine the way we think about the societies that we live in. How we invest in them. How we affect them. Positively or negatively. And measure and maybe, I mean don't know, maybe eventually in the future we need to bring as we were talking these externalities into the balance sheet so that somebody can monetize that, or so that people can not Understand that there is a high cost when you neglect a society that you operate in.

Margin, marginalization in society leads to ah radicalism. Is there a cost for radicalization? Is there a cost for war? Is there a cost for civil conflict? Why don't we bring that into the company. Why are we being asked today, or yesterday, today is a different story, that it's about profits? No, it's not about profits important that you are sustainable, absolutely.

But when I go and invest in a marginalized community that I live in and I give hope to people and youth . I as a company, as an entrepreneur, as a leader in the society that I live in they are not contributing to the profitability and we need to define the profit as social returns and financial returns Is that good or bad?

Am I taking shareholders' money and spending it on something that I don't want to? Well, I am going to say if a shareholder doesn't like the way we manage he can invest somewhere else. But, this the way we run our businesses. This I run my business and and I think that this attracts in fact shareholders because a shareholder is a member of the community.

I am able to attract talent the organization today. Because we manage differently. Because when we recruit we tell them we are not your typical company. Because we are a company with such a corporate culture. In fact, we have a problem in driving away of some of the talent that comes over because we have a lot people coming, too.

Wanting to work in this organization because people of talent want to feel that they are contributing to society. They feel that they want to be in an organization. As Mike was saying earlier, they spent most of their day with you, so giving them opportunities to invest in their communities has a massive return in terms of productivity inside of the organization.

So again this is, a new paradigm has to come out; we need to rethink everything that we do in terms of how the private sector and the private sector needs to step up. And the governments need to accept, because, I'll give you some examples of the things that we do, is that the biggest resistor for us being very active and taking an activist role as a private sector is government.

There is distrust there is, there is a sense of exclusivity for them. And quite frankly if they don't bring us in, because we are, look entrepreneurs are innovators they are solution providers. We look. They way we think. Our brain functions around finding solutions. The government does not! So if we are not partners in that developmental, and look we operate in many countries around the world including the developing world.

But let me just address the issue of the developing world, the underdeveloped countries. The private sector needs to step up and be part of parts of the process of development. Otherwise, we are leaving it to either inept, incompetent or corrupt governments. Imagine what the future generations of the societies that you live in will look like if it is left to these people alone.

Thank you. I don't quite know how to follow that. I love coming to conferences like this because I'm always so humbled by the people. And I was a big fan of KT Tunstall before I watched her sing and I'm a bigger fan this morning.

I've given this talk a couple of times about the Intel that you know, and that is I look at us as the world's best incrementalists. If you just want to make it smaller, cheaper, and faster, come to us. We are very good at it. But the Intel that you may not know is we put a $100 million a year into education efforts around the world.

Most of that is in developing countries. And I want to talk about leadership in that area a little bit, because I think that's kind of a...at least we've learned some pretty good lessons there. First thing is, there are some things that must be done as a team and there are some things that are really done better alone.

and a leader is one that can sort through that in a hurry and know what is going to be required to move the ecosystem forward. Where can an individual or an individual company make a difference and where must they team. Let's look at some places that they must team first. They must team in terms of metrics and they must team in terms of the way they measure themselves.

What is the accomplishment that we are trying to accomplish and then over and above that how are we going to measure whether or not we have accomplished it. It must agree on the time frame that they are trying to work on and the reason for that is because you get people that are very focused on very very different problems.

Someone that is trying to build a small software business to develop content to help a secondary school system is saying I profitability within "x" quarters or I won't be able to maintain my cash flow. And the school system is going to say, "Well once we get this software we're going to evaluate it for a while then we're gonna probably run it in a couple classroom for a while and then after a couple of years, if we're really comfortable with it, then we'll may want to deploy it or we may reject it.

Meanwhile, those two systems are diametrically opposed in terms of the metrics and in terms of their ability to function. And leadership involves figuring out how you develop a win-win out of that environment, which on the surface is something that you have to reject as faults, in that those needs cannot be met.

In general, systematic approaches to things trumps short-term glory approaches to things. A number of of us on this panel have done this for a while, and the number of press releases that are released versus the number of actual solutions that get deployed is probably about ten to one. Ten to one is being very generous.

So what really happens is that the systemic view says, what is everything that is required to actually make something happen, whether it be in a company, whether it be in a social entrepreneurship organization whether it be in your own individual lives. You know those aspects that are required. If you're going to change a school system you've got to have training, you have to have access to technology, you have to have local content and you have to have connectivity to the rest of the world so the child is not isolated.

Those are just fundamental. And I can name a lot more that ancillary to that but equally important. One of which would be the involvement of the community, the involvement of teacher and absolutely the involvement of the parent. And all those are systemic in their view, and all those require a lot of work to make out.

The last one is the inverse way of stating exactly what the rest of panel has said, which is you have allow for informed mistakes. And sometimes that lesson that you learn from an informed mistake--although it will set back your short term project--a real leader understands whether or not they can absorb that mistake and still make it.

versus coming in and stepping in and then kind of destroying the system that you are actually trying to create. And I say informed mistakes because, you can't do that without a lot of thought. But in our opinion, allowing for that informed mistake is what actually encourages innovation.

We do a lot of work in training innovators and working with colleges around the world that help train innovators. And in a lot of cultures there is no room for failure. And for an innovator, failure is part and parcel of that process that eventually ends up successful.


Let's start by just asking one question which I take to arise from what I just heard and it's around this issue of short and long term investing and public markets literally. Reports and whether we, how we can, and if we can, educate anonymous, large, mobile, international capital, to take this longer, more integrated social view for which I take to be a person i am going to ask i am going to ask to address this with long experience of dealing with public markets.

I think that paradoxically who have you have to choose those investors that have a more patient view and try to get them to buy more of your stock and not cater to the, those with a trader mentality. We consciously tried to go for those shareholders. that had longer time horizons and that bought into what we we're trying to and had them ready willing and able to buy when those impatient with their lack of sufficient short term orientation.

You have to have some reward for the short-term in the form of dividends and share repurchase, but ultimately you have to have a balance. Where I always said to my shareholders and to my executives, that our perfect shareholder was the person who wanted to buy stock when the child was born and take it out of the box, the certificate, when the child started college to pay for education.

That's the kind of shareholder we were trying to get more of.

Thank you, I am going to invite questions now from the floor. Would you please, when the microphone reaches you, tell us who you are and then ask your question and I will try to restate it. I see a hand in the middle there. Uri Bramman, about the European Investment Fund. I would like to follow on the question of Stefan Chambers on the, kind of, contradiction between the shareholder value concept has visibility beyond the time frame of twelve months and the for sustainability which probably will hopefully go a little beyond that I would like to ask the members of the panel how do you actually, in your organization, draw the line between what is a holistic view to sustainable value creation for your companies, that actually looks beyond that share value principle that has just been proven wrong in the financial markets.

As apposed to social activities, or social impact activities that your company and possibly undertake also in a labor of marketing. While actually shareholder value on the short term basis as dictated by actual market is pursuing how are you actually making the trade of thank you and if you but I will, I will express my question as the business of business is business versus the business of business is everything, the planet, the environment, society, poverty, fair?

Tay, can I start with you on that one?

So we never really plan anything just for the here and the now. It's really about long-term planning. We're a young company. We're about twenty-five years old. And the whole notion is that you have a lot of stakeholders. It's not just the shareholders.

In fact, one of the most important stakeholders are your employees. You know, technology is great, but it's the employees who keep it current, who innovate. It's their passion that drives you and propels you forward.

You have, most importantly, your customer. These are the folks that enable you to grow, staying close to them, and what their needs are, and their interest.

You have the shareholders, and you also have the community. And in today's world it's a global community. So it's really looking holistically. And the most important thing is focusing that what is it that your core competence is? And when you talk about social for Cisco clearly education is one of the main pieces of it.

We've invested in Intel and Microsoft and a lot of companies in education. And one of the reasons is that we are a consumer of education. Again it's about making sure we get top talent over the long-haul. We want to be around for a very long time.

If we can get the economic performance right, with governance, you know with good governance and transparency. If we steward the environment well. If we manage the social opportunities in terms of taking care of our communities and then if we handle our relationships with our employees and our supply chain, that leads to sustainability.

And to really, the art Is really being able to communicate that to your shareholders and or your employees and or your community. It really is a holistic approach and so to just say, I'm in this situation. I'm going to make and take an action today to deal with today means that you're not focused with the long term and we believe, as Mike said, that we want to create value for everyone over the long haul.

Tae, is that an is or an ought sentence? In other words, is that the way things are or the way things should be?

No, that's the way way things are, that's the way things are.

So, no distinction at all between shareholder return and societal return?

You know it's really interesting, in 2001, and we've actually been through some challenging times at the company in 2001, when the tech bubble burst. We had to do something very, very challenging, which was to let go of employees. And these were our top talent, we just decided that there were certain markets we shouldn't be in.

And one of the things that we did was, rather, we found, we found ways to help the employees that we had to let go, but at the same time we created what we call the Community Fellows Program. And aligning the employees who we could not keep, but make sure that they can go into community organizations, where their skills sets and interests were aligned with the needs of these NGO's.

They remained employees of Cisco. They took, it was a third of their pay, but full benefits, on-going stock options, continuous learning in the hopes that the market will turn around. And we decided we didn't know what we were doing, and that's part of the whole innovation and trying new things. We didn't have a clue what we were doing, but we knew that this was something that was important and we thought, if there were more resources we would do it.

Forty percent of the employees came back, forty percent of them stayed within the NGOs and twenty percent went on to other organizations but came back and said one of the most important experiences of their life was that. And the employee base came back and actually said, you know what, of this year, that was the only highlight.

Interesting.

Only positive thing of 2001 because don't forget, it's nine eleven, it was a tech bubble, I mean, there was a lot of things that happened that year. And we have now morphed that into a leadership development program, so that you could do executive MBAs, you might want to be able to do, you know, some job rotations or you might want to go into the community and do that for a period of time.

So it is the way it is, but it's not perfect and it's We made a lot of mistakes along the way, I can guarantee we will make a lot more, but that is part of the continuous improvement process.

Thank you, question in the middle. Good morning, my name is Neil Duffy, I'm representing YPR here and also my own company Triad Management. I'd be interested to get the panel's views on a subtle difference that I sense exists in the market place at the moment . There's a huge difference between placing a, or taking a stakeholder approach as the central driving force of your business, as for example Fadi does, or taking a social responsible route as a by-product of what you do.

There's a difference. So, with respect, a hundred million dollars into an educational fund for Intel as a percentage of your profits, and I don't know what your profits are but I imagine they're a lot larger than that. So what I'm interested to understand is do you believe that it's more important to place what we're talking about here at the center of your business strategy as an alternative to having it as an byproduct of what you do?

So I take that question to be, is what we do for the world an add-on, or is it a constitutive of we do and since, it's your bottom line that's on the line, well, would you take this?

Well, no. We basically build transistors for a living. And to the extent that we can make that transistor help mankind, fantastic. And an example of making, I think corporate governance and corporate responsibility part of our mainline business. We made a complete change as a company six years ago and said we are no longer going to try to build the highest performance processor we can, we're going to try to go build the most energy efficient process we can.

And that changed our process, it changed our design, it changed our methodology, it changed everything about Intel. We called it the right hand turn. And it's a good thing we did it, and maybe we were just lucky or maybe we were good, we'll see, but it was a conscious decision at the corporate level change every aspect of the way we were conducting ourselves to that effort.

And since three quarters of our total carbon footprint is in the energy consumed by the products that we build, that is the biggest thing we could have done to reduce our carbon footprint in the world. So, I don't know if that kind of captures it or not, but let me answer your unstated question and I think your unstated question had to do, "Well how does a company that basically makes transistors for a living, how should we roll in and what portion of our total thought process should be about the societies that we serve?" And I'm not so sure I know.

But what I do know is I do know it's an active part of the decisions that we make on a day to day basis. And I think for an awful lot of organizations the fact that we think about it and we integrate it in, matters. You know, I'm on the Intel Foundation Board. We voted for to take a ten-year commitment to continue these Science fairs around the world.

So as you know, that was another hundred million by the way, just in terms of not educating youth and Science, but just rewarding those that have done it. All right?

So, we have a tendency to take ten-year decisions on that. And we think promoting Math and Science, what we would call Stem, is fundamental towards our business model because we use it. We think it's fundamental towards moving the world forward, and we have a tendency to tie it together at that level.

It's not matter for us being defensive about it. I do not know if I know the right answer. But, in most everything we do, we at least, consciously, make that decision. I could just give you one more of it just in terms of sustainability.

And, again, it's kind of funny because all these add up to $100 million. But we've put in, in capital, in capital, we've put in, in the last six years a hundred million dollars into water conservation that has had no economic return. no economic return. It was just the right thing to do. Now, you can debate whether it's good or bad.

You can debate whether it's enough, right? But it's one more example of where we think about the way we operate and we think about the way our products interact with the environment, and our accountability and our responsibility there is part of every decision. It doesn't always rule every decision.

I know that Allen and Faddy have a view on this. Can I ask you both to address this?

Neil, for me it's seamless . Now it might be a little bit different because Hasbro is in children's entertainment and family entertainment... toys...whatever. All of our success...look, we're a young company. We're about 85 years old. I'm third generation. How'd I get the job? Nepotism, but let's not go there.

Yes, let's go there.

But if all of our success is because of family and children, We have an obligation and a debt to repay, and I can look any shareholder and well, let's talk about stakeholders very, very quickly. My stakeholders are, number one, my people, okay. The more we do, and number two is the communities that we live and breathe in.

The more we do for the communities and education and health, the more we attract good people and we keep good people. We also have a lot of giving that we do, other than philanthropy in kind. We twin with people like World Vision. Whenever there's a disaster in the world, and things are needed for children, we're there.

But I think what most people forget, especially the stockholder . We'll take care of the stockholder and we'll take care of the customer, but we also have to take care of the community, and the community and our customer again is the child. And so, it's really fun when you're able to build a children's hospital in the community you live in.

You've filled a void. But if you can't explain that to a shareholder, you shouldn't be running a company, because all you're doing is you're creating the future. I was saying to Stephan earlier so much about we do you know, if any of you have read Candide and all of that. All we're doing is cultivating the field.

We're cultivating a garden for the future. I mean, whether it's in sustainability, whether it's in human rights, whether it's doing things for children, whether it's helping women in the developing world. What you're trying to do is to move the bar. None of us are going to reach the very top, but if we continue to move it along, boy oh boy.

We'll get there. Fadi.

Alan said it all. But it is seamless. It is both. You can't, you know, say yes. There's a conscience issue. Absolutely, there is a conscience issue, but what you do as an organization also has a contribution So, I'll give you examples of what we do. We're in the logistics business. We took a decision.

We're also our own company of 28 years. And I think we're old. I mean most companies don't make it beyond the fifth year. So, 28 years must be old. We're on the logistics business and we took a decision very early on not to recruit a single person from our competitors. We will not recruit people that have experience in our industry.

We will bring young graduates and train the heck out of them and create logisticians out of them. How does that affect society? We will recruit locals. I'm not going to bring ex-patriots who have learned the business somewhere else in another society and another economy and come teach me how I do it.

We've done a lot of trial and error. We've done a lot of mistakes. We're extremely entrepreneurial. We teach our people how to be entrepreneurial. And you know what? A lot of these people have effectively decided that they want to be entrepreneurs. There's tons of companies in the logistics business today that exist in our societies because they got trained in IRX Okay.

So what effect does that have? I mean it's not a conscious decision that we bid, that we're going to train people, who are going to go out of complete with us, but boy, they are job creators. What return is that to our company? We used to get upset initially, and now we celebrate it. We say, "Oh my god, look at that".

In fact, it's a recruiting way for us to tell people look at the amount of people that have gone out and became entrepreneurs and created jobs and making money outside of the organization. At the same time reminding people that you on-stock 30% of the employees of my company are stock-on. Okay. So, they are employees and they are shareholders at the same time.

So, and the combination is very powerful. extremely powerful and that is a conscious decision. In fact, the laws in the countries that we operate mostly don't allow for stock options. So, we had to create vehicles outside because priority also that employees get to own, because we know how powerful that is.

So there was a conscious decision to make employees shareholders. During the Gaza war, I'll give you an example. We were the first company, in one country, we responded before governments responded in asking people to bring eight because people were so upset in the regions that we were operating in that they needed a way to feel that they were contributing to alleviating the disasters that were happening to the people of Gaza.

We created volunteer centers for people to give in- kind donations and we would ship them free of charge to the Gaza borders. The amount of reaction on the ground that we had, it is worth hundreds of millions of dollars of advertising at really different clients and amount of love from our clients that we are responding.

We are being responsible corporations and saying, "Okay, if government is not going to respond well we will then.

Thank you. I'd like to take the next question, please. First, Kirk, please.

I'm Kirk Hanson from Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University. You've stacked the deck. You've created a panel of social innovators is very much like the social entrepreneurs here from other sectors, but what I'm concerned about is the dissemination of the innovations that Michael and the others on the panel have created to other businesses.

So my question is, what's holding up every business, Michael, from creating clinics in each of their facilities. Why don't Intel and Cisco have clinics in each of their facilities? And why have you've given this wonderful description of the network academies and your 2001 layoff experience to hundreds of audiences, why hasn't that become a standard?

What is it that holds up the dissemination of the social innovations that you all have pioneered from being adopted in other companies?

Thank you. So why are we solings these innovations, Mike.

I think, first of all, I believe Intel does have duck clinics, right? I don't know about believed that the government has to encourage. There is a perception, or a misperception, that health care is better delivered outside the workplace.

I have the opposite view that employers and labor unions probably have more of an alignment with the health of the people that they serve, or that are their members or their employees, than we can ever achieve with government, the insurance companies, or the doctors. So there's an alignment in our society, there is an ability for employers to be flexible because they are less regulated than private doctors and insurance companies.

Certainly government is heavily politicized and regulated. And third, we have the ability to do things, both individually and collaboratively with other organizations, to to deliver the best quality of medicine because we have a different payment model. The good news is that the message is spreading.

This Dossia initiative, we have 9 companies as part of a consortium, including Intel. So the word is spreading, but there's a major debate going on in the United States about the right structure and delivery system for health care, and my view is that medicine is moving so fast, and health delivery is moving so fast, that the typical government processes cannot keep up with them.

And I would make that as a broader point. The private sector. Government can set broad societal goals. Government can make those goals stretch goals. Government has the power of coercion, but the rules driven, bureaucracy driven government cannot keep up with the pace of innovation in the medical sector, or in many other sector, so that's where the private sector innovation can supplement the will of the people as expressed by elected officials.

And I think we are starting to move in that direction a year ago. The prevailing view of health care reform is we had to move around the insurance and spread the pain. I want to reduce the pain. We've created a culture of health inside our company. We're getting a lot of interest from other companies that are, little by little, adopting our practices.


There's a hand up, but I can't see because there's a light in my eye, but I think it might be Suzanna, is that right?


First of all, I just actually wanted to congratulate Thadia. I'm sitting beside someone who took her three children and went and packed parcels in during the Gaza War, and so I think what you did was quite amazing. And to the rest of you, I guess building on this comment is, how do you create the aha moment in your organization and in other organizations?

Is it through your leadership, or, Will, when you were trying to manage the right hand turn what's the story. What is it that actually makes everybody else buy into the example? Obviously you have a very strong perhaps at Intel and Cisco it's so ingrained it just is part of it. But when you tell your story, when do you see people's eyes really getting it?

How do you change company culture? I don't know.

I think it's easy. Look, God gave us the power of communication. But the real question is how you communicate properly. We twin with a number of people. One is Operations Smile, which does cleft palate work and our people go on the different missions, we, World Vision, with a group of nuns in Appalachia giving toys away.

What we do every year is, number one, we go up, we bring our people together in two or three locations. But again, because we're so global some of it's gotta go up on the web. We bring them together and we bring 5 or 6 of the people that we're with around the world to talk to our people. And then what we end up doing is giving them a video to take home.

Because there's not a dry eye in the house when you've listened, when you've watched the movement of a cleft palate surgery. And when I say someone talking about the change that you make in 45 minutes for $750 to a person's life, you know, to a baby's life that's got a cleft palate. And so the more that we can not only get it in the hands of our people but also to their families.

Because it's very important for us...that it's one thing for a spouse to be working for us, but we want the whole family to know the corporate culture. So again, once a year we bring everyone together. And then we bring in many of our partners to talk to them about the differences that we're making in the lives of children.

And I'll tell ya, it is the most wonderful day that you can ever imagine. But I wanted just one thing, very quickly. Kurt, one of the things I'd say is: we can try and get out the message, but our business schools the United States have done a pretty lousy job of--we talk about ethics. Come on, let's talk about humanity.

And so, I have--and look, I sit on the board of the University of Pennsylvania, so, yell at me again because I am again part of the problem but, no matter how much preaching we seem to do we're getting students coming out that can't write a letter. OK? That really don't' have the social entrepreneurial caring that maybe a lot of us think that we have; we might do it here at Sayid.

Business schools in Oxford are completely different. Ted.

I said America.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that because I actually love this generation coming out of business schools. They are the most socially conscious and caring. They are tough, they're not afraid to ask tough questions, they don't care who you are, they are web-enabled and global, they know where information is, they're original thinkers, and every B-school that I talk to, they are amazing people.

So I think you need to come with me and visit some of these schools and talk to some of these students.

Just stay here.

So the second, but to answer. But going back to this question, I think the original question is, is it built-in to your culture or is it bolted on afterward? Is that correct? Okay, you're shaking your head in the affirmative. So, you know, I don't think we should be so hard on companies because people are finding their path, right?

All of you are building your organizations and you need, and you know what it's like to try and find alignment, and that's what it's about. So, let's take the environment for, for instance. When you know, you know it's built in when a bunch of different functions within your organization are all working on it.

So let's take the example of what you do internally, how you operate. So your workplace resources, you know, do we have a human resources policy that says "telecommuting is a good thing", and do you back it up by providing, you know, an environment for people to be able to work without having to get on the roads.

What kind of renewable energy are you buying? So that's all on the operational side. But then the second half of it is, are you creating products and services and solutions for your customers, and it happens that when it aligns with your expertise and your product, then it is built in. And so at Cisco we do the former which is the operations piece of it in terms of really focusing on climate change and the environment, but we also are working on products in public-private partnerships actually, around a connected urban development.

How you insert technology, for us, it's information. And every aspect of this has an information component, it is, you know, it is a cross cutting scene in terms of working with the city of San Francisco in terms of smart buses. Working with the city of Amsterdam in terms of smart work centers, so rather than trying to commute into the city center there are places that people could go to.

So it's really about alignment. I wouldn't be too hard, Kirk, on corporations because I think they are finding their way. The sweet spot is when you can get alignment, and you know, the connected urban development strategy came out of the internet business solutions group. The internal operations piece came out of workplace resources.

You have the engineering group, who are working on technologies. When all these different functions come together for something, you can pretty much say that it's built into the culture.

Okay I know that others have things to say on this, but I'm going to go back to questions, so in the front row. Hi, Robert Stephenson from Blastbeat, based out of Dublin but we run an international program teaching social entrepreneurship to high school students through the use of business and music.

And it's a very interesting thing. I must say that I've really enjoyed this panel the most of any panel I've been to. Thank you very much. It's been really informative.

Put that in your evaluation at the end.

I will, I will. So thank you. I think we all agree that the future of the planets actually lies within the hands of our children, and therefore education is absolutely key to that. And I'd also like to suggest that where we should be putting our emphasis is in social entrepreneurship, but teaching kids in primary and secondary level because that's where it needs to start.

I'd like to get your comments on that. And what skills should we actually be giving these young people and putting more emphasis in primary and secondary to become the social entrepreneurs, the business of the future. Okay, thank you.

So how do we inspire and educate well?

Microsoft, Cisco and Intel, not in that order. Whatever order I put it in I would've said that. The three of us got together to figure out assessment of students and the 21st century skills. And we have committed to making all that IP public and putting it out in the world over the next three years.

We have hired someone to do it. We've got all the major testing agencies working together in a very collaborative way. Most of us have donated at least one PhD in Education to the effort. And I would say that's an example. So we believe the trending of twenty-first century skills: critical thinking, listening, collaboration.

You know, just being able to solve complex problems, is a fundamental skill that we think we can teach, we think we can test, and we're trying to make that integral to the way we we work. Well, yeah.

I 'ts not 'we'. He doesn't mean we, Cisco, Microsoft, Intel. The royal "we". You know, places like Oxford. Because, because that's what he was saying.

We like people to disagree here, it's okay.

But we're not disagreeing.

We're not disagreeing, I just wanted to clarify that it wasn't "we" meaning Cisco, Microsoft and Intel, but the important thing is, and Will mentioned systems change and this is where the academic institutions are absolutely critical; we look at 21st century skills it's still important, the STEM, science, technology, engineering, math are still critical.

You're not defocusing from that. But you can't only test for that. You need to test for other things. We live in a collaborative world that's influenced by geography, by culture, by religion. And socio-economic status, all of those things mean that, that students need to come out and feel very comfortable collaborating across borders, across sectors, and what are the tools that enable you to do that?

We need to really look at, you know, we're talking about, how do we handle the whole notion of teachers. They 're still critical, but in many cultures they're the font of all wisdom, now you have to help teachers figure out, you know, my role is shifting it's just as important if not even more so, because there's so much information coming out that they need to be able to vet them and create virtual book bags.

How do we help them use the technology to facilitate and accelerate their teaching rather than to hinder it. So those are the things that we're talking about and we absolutely agree with you and it has to start pre-K12, or pre-kindergarten.

Thaddi.

Yep.

Soriah Sulfy and Injaz, yesterday, is a prime example of what you're saying, and it does two things. One: it teaches entrepreneurship to pre-K12 kids. But it also brings the private sector into an activist role. So we're not only giving money to support, so we're adopting schools and we're having our people go in and teach entrepreneurship and what great combination.

So, one, your waking this private sector up and telling them come and be active. Because that is so essential. Come and share your skills. It's not about your money, it's about your skills, it's about your brain. Brain transfer of knowledge to these kids so that they can understand that they can make it.

They don't have to work in government jobs. They can go out, be entrepreneurs. Employ. Employ people.

Look, we live in countries where 90--in some countries where 90 to 95% of the national population works in government. So... OK?. That's my case.

Alan, you have it.

Just really quickly, and I'll be a teeny bit of a contrarian here. All of the work that we do is between K through 3 and then we leave it to the others. But the one great concern I have coming from the industry that I'm in is technology. Are we, when I think of the overload with kids right now between cell phones, between PDA, between computers, between video games.

Are we losing something very important which is contact. Human contact, eye to eye. Where we talk. Because on of the things that I learned early on negotiating is you watch people's body movements, you look at their eyes, when you shake hands, if there's sweat on someone's hands what's wrong? And I'm just a teeny bit scared.

I laugh, and here in my country we're cutting back on different areas of education. We cut back on arts. we cut back on music, and we are cutting back on physical education.Well, damn it, dont talk to me about obesity, if you are not giving kids time to be on a pitch or things. There are a lot of things that we have to be careful, I think, with Microsoft's and the Intel's and the Cisco's doing a lot of the technology that we do need.

There are those of us that also have got to fight for another side, which is kids social lives because that's the most important.

Thank you. Back in the middle, I can't see who it is but they have their hand up. A woman has her hand up. It's Melissa [xx] from the Gates Foundation. I appreciate a number of comments, particularly the one tie about complexity. We are living. I guess the older I get, the more I realize the world is complex.

And complexity isn't necessarily a bad thing. We should probably recognize and harness that. And I'm not convinced our paradigms yet reflect and take account of complexity. So, to get to my question, Thadia, I absolutely agree that a paradigm shift is required. I've been questioning whether the paradigm shift is one from shareholder value being synonymous with societal value, to shareholder value perhaps being a subset of societal value.

And the question therefore to all of the panelists is given that increasingly more is asked of business and particularly, with respect to this paradigm shift, what paradigm shift do you think is required from government actors and from NGO actors that may help unleash greater societal value across the board?

So how can the public sector help. I'm going to ask Because I know Mike has fees. So, I'm going to ask Mike to suggest this first and then maybe come to fatty.

I'am here. We've had a lot of experience at Pitney Bowes. in our core business with postal authorities, postal regulators and elected officials. And they have worked best when they have just said there will be a public, private partnership. Try to really achieve the better form of communication and logistics for societies.

They have worked worst when they have tried to micromanage and write a lot of detailed rules because they can generally not keep up with the pace of innovation that both the public and private sector can do. Government officials themselves have many people in their own organizations that are great innovators.

When those individuals are given free reign with their broad goal then government, you know, whether it's to a loan or with the private sector can be very effective, but we seem to have, unfortunately, in the United states moved in a direction where government distrusts its own employees, its the private sectors private sector both business, and the non-profit sector and writes detailed rules and has very detailed - and by the way this isn't just the Trust a business, I'm on the board of several non profits including a human services organisation, that has unfortunately ridiculously restrictive software packages.

With the three different packages for three different agencies that don't talk to one another and so, the government paradigm shift has to be to trust the other players in society, I think the NGO's have to to trust the gather players in terms of again working on goals and doing what I talked about right off the bed.

Let's work gathered to define the solution by bringing together seemingly incompatible goals so that we can achieve both of those goals or multiple goals. That's, I would say...trust and mutual trust is the single biggest paradigm change we need. And pulling back from a lot of checks and balances that really stifle innovation in all sectors.

Thank you. Questions? At the top there, just there.

Hi, I'm Vishall from Dream a Dream India. I've just been listening with rapt attention everything that you have said and I'm quite inspired by all the initiatives that each one of you have taken. A few I would say thoughts that have been running in my mind which might come across as questions. One is, coming from India, at one level I see corporations investing $100 million in community initiatives, while at another level spending a thousand million dollars or a billion dollars on wiping out entire communities.

So, you know the balance doesn't happen and that worries me. With tremendous economic development and that's happened say in a country like India over the last 15 to 20 years. Me working with grassroot communities, and children youth and women, a big worry has been the disparities have actually increased, did not come down.

I'm not holding any of us here, or any of you sitting on the panel, responsible for it. I'm saying it's a thought process that's running in my mind about where is this leading to.


Thank you.

Second is Can I summarize what you're saying as a question which says, if it's so good, why is it so bad?

Yeah.

And can I ask, maybe, Fadhi, to address this.

Thank you.

Okay.


It is, well, it's bad if people actually are spending a thousand million dollars on wiping out communities. And its bad that needs to be addressed, I mean that there is nobody here, I tell you, condones that but I think, we can go back to the previous question on the para dime shift basically, and institutionalizing, and making a matter of course, the definition of the role of everybody in development in society.

And making it, institutionalizing making creating new institutions that bring in the private sector, civil society, and government and activists, individuals because we don't. Some individuals are extremely want to be active and they don't want to be part of our organization. But they have incredible wisdom and knowledge, so you need to bring them in, as a matter of course, not as a matter of pet project of a certain politician that accepts that idea and here and there and once he is gone, the next guy kills the idea.

If it is not part and parcel of the way we conduct ourselves, as people that influence the society no matter who we are, then we are basically bleeding into where Where you are saying, so the paradigm shift is that everybody has to be part of it and everybody has to recognize that they are part of it and the next guy is also a part of it.

So, government needs to say, "Yes. You are part of it." And I need to say, "Government, I want to be part of it also." Because government says, you know, you private sector people are profit maximisers that you're not interested in society. You are vultures, you know, greedy people, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

We need to prove to them that no, we are not and you and we will tell them also, we think that you're corrupt and you're inapt and you're incapable, but you also have some good people in there so if we can bring both good things from both sides then we will make a difference on the ground.


Thank you. I've got, I think we've got time for certainly one possibly two questions. I'll start with Rick please.

Thank you. My name is Rick Wilson from Maygood in Vancouver. Thanks for a great panel. I had two quick questions. Some people would say that you're all from large companies and you can afford to engage in social responsibility. What can you say to smaller organizations that they should make this a priority, when it may be more financially challenging for them, and secondly, do you feel plenty sense of responsibility or obligation to try to encourage people in your supply chain, these smaller companies, to engage in CSR.

In other words, to take the leadership position within the business community. Thank you.

Can I ask Will first and then Allen to address this.

[xx]

Intel employees
last year gave a million hours of their own time to volunteer in organizations around the world, and I think most companies can spare a few hours, it is just one hour per month per employee. And I would say that volunteering and getting active in community is just a fantastic way to do CSR. It doesn't cause the company anything other than probably buying the guy a burger or a vegetarian meal after that.

So I would say that's a fantastic way to do it, and we absolutely positively [xx] team with other organisations in those volunteer efforts.

Real quickly, I started with the company on their board about eight years ago, called salesforce.com. And one of the things that I spent a lot of time with Mark on but you all in many times, it's the smaller companies that are having the problems and you need, as a large company, to help bring along some of the smaller companies, as long as they don't parallel out-market you.

Okay, I think we have time for one last question and I think I see a hand over there, but I can't see who it is.


I beg your pardon.


Sanjay, I can see who it is. Apologies, we will ask Sanjay to ask his question first. I am accustomed to the cold treatment, Stephan. My name is Sanjay Gupta. I actually work with Rolls Spocket at Intel but I report to Mike Cratelli and Stephan Chambers has the dishonor of having educated, here at Oxford.

That's why he was ignoring us.


That's why I was ignoring you, exactly.

Okay, the question is, I've heard it from all of you generally. Social entrepreneurship is about alignment, of interest between social cause and the business, from Alan it's been about humanity and social justice, from Mike it's been about the long term view capital, from, well, it's about decision making, about, thinking about social entrepreneurship and social causes, and everything that we do at Intel if [xx] i've heard it's going a lot.

What i want to know is can we hear all of you to commit to actually syndicating interest in a meaningful. Such that you can actually magnify the impact of what you do socially.

We do it already.

Absolutely.

We do it already. We absolutely do it already Jordan education initiative. And we're part of the Jordan education initiative which they launched, and we've been and local business to be part. So
Local businesses.

because we wanted you know, an Intel, Microsoft and Cisco and then we said, you know, when we're done. This can't be about us. It has to be about you and that's why, Ronda, you Rubicon, was so imporatant and local businesses like Fuddies were critically important, so i't happening already, it's just that we do a really poor job publicizing it.

And part of the reason we do that is we don't want to use it for public relations purposes. But nobody wants to hear good news any way. Oh, come on you Why are you so negative?

No. If you read a newspaper today, if you read a newspaper today, no matter what Cisco has done, what Intel has done, what Pitney Vowes has done, what Foddy has done, that's not going to make the front page, okay. In reality, I find it very difficult to get through the clutter and then when you do talk about what you have done, then most people will find the chink in your armor... and look I love what we do and I'm going to continue to do it and we will make a difference.

I just find it a little bit frustrating with the media today in not being able to break through and get articles that are showing some of the wonderful social entrepreneurial things that are being done. Which is one of the things that this forum is about. Having, having ignored him a second ago, I can now see that's Tom Riffin and I'm gonna ask him to ask us the last question before we wrap up... briefly please.

[xx] the red and also the small social business called, "Spies" and complimentary currencies and it's along the lines of how come so much bad happens when so much good is clearly happening. And I would put forth the proposition that the system that we are working at the moment still relies on great people doing good things and having the will to do good things to make good things happen, like you all are clearly demonstrating, but that the system still allows by default many people to make bad decisions that are detrimental to society.

And I'd like to pick up on the kind of nudge principle that Michael was talking about earlier. What do you think are the kind of two or three things that could happen that would nudge the system that we work in to a place where, by default, the good things happen and the bad things only happen by exception.

Okay. Can I merge Tom's question with my concluding question of the panel and ask each of you in no more than one sentence to give us either a nudge or a shift or a message or a slogan or a warm, positive feeling for the delegates of this extraordinary event. Faddy, I'm gonna ask you to start with this, since you are the...

In one
sentence is that an entrepreneur by definition is a builder, is a doer, is an innovator, whether it's social or whether it's for profit entrepreneurship. Thinking of leadership in that term, that we are builders, we are solution providers, then we can take that into society at the end of the day.

Thank you. Will?


That every individual and every organization can make a difference in the way they run their personal life and in the way they conduct themselves in their relationship with others. I just think this volunteering thing is super powerful in that aspect. Thank you. Te?

So leadership...it comes down to leadership, leadership in the public, the private, the NGO sector, large organization, small organization organizations. Before we were big companies, we were little companies. It's about leadership, and leadership means courage, and courage to make change. It's about making change in a respectful way, having done your due diligence and getting the analytics right, and measuring for results, and then being able to put process improvement in place.

If we can do all of that,we're are gonna be in great shape. Thank you.

Alan.

I am getting papal dispensation. I am not going to be fuzzy and warm. A couple of things that I am afraid of, as we go forward, because yes there is a paradigm change. We all have to learn to work a little bit differently, but most importantly I'm very, very worried short term on a word called populism and we haven't heard the word that much over the last couple of decades.

Populism for me equates to nationalism and protectionism and we, who are [xx] entrepreneurs and are working here together. We have got to to do everything possible to make sure that we don't close down the dialogue, that we need because if we go into protection and so all of us are gonna be hurt greatly and we could go further into not a recession but a depression.

Thank you. Mike.

Going back to the points I made in my opening, I think just to reiterate them, framing the goal collaboratively and broadly defining the business case parameters correctly, tolerating mistakes and rewarding entrepreneurship in how you move people along in a career progression create the environment that nudges people toward doing the right things.

Thank you. Admirably succinct. Our time is up. It remains only for me now to thank you for your presence and your questions, to thank our really extraordinary panel, I think. I'm gonna try to tell you just a few things that I think these distinguished people have said. first thing I think that we've learned from them is that there is no real love in between what they do and what governments do.

And though I vote for Faddy, I think there's something very instructive in this relationship between large corporations in their social mission and the mission of government. And as Mary Robinson said two nights ago, it's social entrepreneurs who might be one of the means by which governments are held to account.

The other thing that struck me is that these organizations already get it and are already interconnected with each other and with our world. But my suspicion is that they are not typical. And I think that one of the interesting outcomes of this meeting is the extent to which other companies can aspire, other large companies can aspire, to the condition of these companies and how these panelists can infect their large publicly owned Group.

And, and last, I want to leave you with, some of you are old enough to remember a slogan from the 1960s that went something along the lines of the personal being political and what I would like to propose is a slogan from this session, which is that the corporate is the social. Thank you very much.

Great work.