Good afternoon and welcome everyone, it's wonderful to see you all here. Welcome as well to everyone joining online. I'm Marya Besharov, Professor of Organisations and Impact here at Saïd Business School and I'm honoured to be here today to launch this conversation with a wonderful group of panelists and discussion partners. Today's conversation is the first of a series of conversations that we're launching over the next several months as part of our celebration of the 25th anniversary of the business school, also part of our ongoing Capitalism in Debate initiative which explores the challenges to capitalism, the shifting role and responsibility of business, and the work involved in leading for impact. Alongside the conversations that are taking place in person we're also launching today on Oxford Answers a series of written pieces authored by our faculty engaging in these same kinds of issues today, and this moment and this year is an especially important time, I think we can all agree, to be rethinking the purpose of business and the role of business as we're quite well aware we're facing a number of mounting global crises: the pandemic, the environmental crisis, systemic racism, ongoing economic inequality, and more. At the same time and on a much more positive note we're also seeing a renewed and increasing energy, engagement and motivation to address these issues, to really drive systemic change, and this is coming from many sources: it's coming from younger people, from seasoned leaders, from business, from government, from social movements and community organizations as well. Today's conversation we hope will harness that energy, that excitement, that motivation to drive change, focusing in on the role of business in launching and being part of the solution to our global crises not just part of the problem. Before I introduce the panelists and launch the discussion I want to take a quick pulse of the room. Those of you in the room physically and also those of you joining online you'll be seeing up on the screens a poll question so please take a moment and log your response -- a simple yes no will do -- is it realistic to hold business accountable for solving world problems? And as you as you ponder and log your answer I'll turn to our panelists and introduce them briefly. Today we're going to have conversation with Colin Mayer, Emeritus Professor of Management Studies at Saïd Business School and visiting professor at the Blavatnik School of Government Colin was the first professor in the business school back in 1993 when the school first launched and he served as Dean of the School from 2006 to 2011. As the School's first academic director he worked to build from a startup operating on St Giles, in just two rooms at the top of a house, a business school that launched its first cohort of MBA students in 1996 with 40 students then operating out of the Radcliffe Infirmary which was still at the time, I understand it an operating hospital. And ultimately we moved into this wonderful space here at Park End Street back in 2002 where now we're teaching thousands of students a year. Over the course of his career Colin has not just led institutionally but also in his teaching and research, leading initiatives on responsible business and the future of the corporation both here and with the British Academy. Colin did retire this past September, although he's been quite active you might not know that he's retired. He's active here but also in his role as a Visiting Professor at Blavatnik where he's working to promote policy and business practice to support purposeful business and Colin will focus today on insights and ideas from across his career but especially on his most recent book Prosperity: Better Business Makes the Greater Good. Joining Colin today is Paul Polman. Paul is the Chair of our school board here at Saïd and a business leader, campaigner, and influencer who works to accelerate action by business to achieve the UN global goals. Paul was one of the key architects and leaders of developing the global goals. He also as many of you will know served as the CEO of Unilever from 2009 to 2019 and the Financial Times has described him as a standout CEO of the past decade. In addition to serving as our board chair Paul is currently engaged in a number of other leadership roles including at the social venture Imagine, the UN Global Compact and the B-team where he's working to advance the role of business in positive systems change, and most recently Paul has co-authored the book Net Positive: How Courageous Companies Thrive by Giving More Than They Take. Paul will today be sharing ideas and insights from that book. moderating the conversation between Colin and Paul will be Thyra Lee. Thyra is a final year economics and management student here at Oxford Saïd and also a research assistant at the Smith School for Enterprise and the Environment. Thyra is particularly interested in social impact ESG investing and the role of financial markets in advancing sustainability goals. Before I hand it over to Thyra just one more person I want to recognize and think which is Richard Barker, Deputy Dean and Professor of Accounting here at Saïd. Richard is not with us on the stage but he is the energy, the imagination, and the orchestrator of this event, and also co-convener together with Professor Alex Nicholls and myself of the Capitalism in Debate initiative. So thank you Richard for bringing us together for this important conversation and now over to you Thyra to launch the conversation. Thank you for the introductions, Marya. So looking at the poll results that I've just got, we've got 128 saying yes and 48 saying no to this question. For me personally and I'm sure a lot of people online and sitting with with us today in the audience can agree questions like these really are only the tip of the concerns that we face today. In fact the task at hand for younger generations in resolving huge crises is daunting beyond words and one can only imagine what the future of business will actually look like, but after today we will perhaps be able to understand a little more about what the future of business should begin to look like. Now with us today are Colin Mayer and Paul Polman who will undoubtedly their contributions will help shape our discussion today so if I could just hand over to both Colin and Paul maybe five minutes to share how in the context of your books we can answer this question today. okay I'll take this off well first of all thank you very much indeed uh Marya and Thyra for those introductions and very kind words. Paul, we've got a little task ahead of us; we've got three quarters of people reckoning that business should be solving world problems but we've got a quarter saying no. So we've got to get rid of that quarter, all right, and not only can business solve world problems it can and must be held to account for doing that. The last year has been a real shock for business. Corporate purpose has gone mainstream but many businesses see it as just a way of repackaging what they're already doing, a marketing tool promoting their businesses as being enlightened as well as profitable. The Business Roundtable 2019 statement on corporate purpose as being about delivering stakeholder as well as shareholder value is derided for the failure of the companies involved to live up to their promises COVID has changed them, what COVID did was to make clear why a meaningful corporate purpose matters. The purpose of business is the reason why it exists, why it's created its reason for being. A meaningful purpose of business is to solve problems, problems that you and I as individuals, societies, and the natural world face, and to do it in a commercially viable, financially sustainable and profitable way. The purpose of business is therefore to produce profitable solutions for the problems of people and planet, not profiting from producing problems for either. The problems have given impetus for this pandemic and other crises destroy value, they create problems for business as well as societies and the natural world. But for companies whose purposes are to solve problems those problems become business opportunities. They have been the most successful companies over the last few years because they've been the ones that have been able to pivot, to turn the problems associated with COVID into business opportunities and if anyone still thought after the pandemic that nothing had really changed then COP 26 has put a firm end to that. A combination of Mark Carney's declaration about the commitment of more than a hundred trillion dollars of assets under management to net zero, the IFRS announcement of the establishment of a sustainability standards board, the EU taxonomy and articles eight and nine definitions of sustainable investments have made it clear that this is for real. What COP 26 did was to shift the spotlight from governments to business. Investors are responsible for how much co2 and global warming is in their portfolios; they'll also be responsible for the social as well as environmental consequences of getting them down to net zero. A transition that is unaffordable, inaccessible or imposes burdens on the poorest in the world is simply no transition. That places institutions under pressure to put companies under pressure to deliver fast and fairly. Corporate purposes of solving problems therefore become not just a source of success but also the survival of business, a way of de-risking them as well as de-risking the world we live in. There's no longer any other serious game in time. Business is now expected to lead the charge particularly in Europe because of what the EU is laying down as the expectations on it. One party that is looking for business to do this particularly is you, the next generation, at least some of you, looking to business not only to stop causing problems but to start providing real solutions, finding ways of solving world problems in commercially viable and profitable forms. But businesses cannot solve problems alone, they cannot even do it just collaboratively with each other: they need to do it in conjunction with other parties, with social enterprises, philanthropic organizations, and above all with government. but business/government relations have failed. Public/private partnerships, private finance initiatives, privatizations have been markedly unsuccessful. They've been subject to poor performance, bankruptcies, bribery and corruption around the world. Government does not trust business and business does not trust government. The reason for this is a divergence of interest between the two. Business is seeking to maximize profits, government the public interest. But if instead business purpose is about solving problems profitably then in place of divergence there's a convergence of interest; there's not just a business purpose but a common purpose between private and public sectors. Together business and governments can provide the basis for solving the global problems of the 21st century, problems of net zero and biodiversity, of economic and social recovery from COVID, of regional disparities, inequality and social exclusion, of artificial intelligence and the future of work. This is inspiring, motivational and meaningful for employees, entrepreneurs, business leaders, citizens and societies of the world. Key to this is a new type of leadership, a form of leadership that promotes collaboration and cooperation, not just competition, to solve problems, cooperation to achieve transformative change that is required to solve problems profitably. This is not just about defining corporate purpose but a common purpose of societies and firms, a common purpose between business, government, local government and social enterprise. Key to this is measurement. One of the most significant developments of the last few decades has been to summarize performance of business in a single measure: their share price. It's the single driver of the largest businesses around the world. But a company that's private and not listed on stock markets it's measured by profits. Share prices and profits are together embedded in business practice and financial investment. They are clear, precise, observable and actionable, actioned by linking them to every aspect of incentives of organizations' remuneration, promotion, firing and hiring. The last 60 years have seen the progressive intensification of share price and profit-driven incentives: stock options, fair value, and mark to market accounting, financialization, hostile takeovers, and hedge fund activism. We've reduced the world to a single measure of performance but this preoccupation with the beauty simplicity and clarity of share prices and profits has been a catastrophe. It's reductio ad absurdum. It's driving the world to a point of climatic collapse and social fragmentation and we're seeing the consequences of that all around us. What's wrong with this single measure? The answer is simple: profits and share prices are wrong, they are entirely incorrect measures of what they purport to report. They don't measure either the profit or the value that a company creates, they don't take account of the value of the benefits that a company creates for the people and environment around them, or the destruction they cause. How can we record a profit where a company has earned it from destroying part of a rainforest, cutting down an ancient woodland , accelerating the extinction of species, employing people at below living wages, selling addictive products, avoiding paying their fair share of taxes? Those aren't profits any more than the earnings of a burglar stealing someone else's property. It's theft but its only distinction from theft is that we've legalized it. Not only have we legalized it, we've encouraged and immortalized it by incentivizing it and honouring the wealth that is accumulated from it. Like a patient preoccupied with their temperature we've created an addiction not just to the addictive products that are the source of the share price increases but to the share prices themselves. Furthermore we've gone on to suggest that anything else is a muddle, confusion, impractical, and inefficient distraction from the simplicity of share prices and profits. How could we possibly have got to this point? I could give an economic answer and it say it's the beauty of the economic models that has driven a false belief in the power of competitive markets, the efficiency of finance, and the ability of regulation to constrain bad behavior. I could give you a sociological answer and talk about the power of vested interests in preserving the status quo, where a small elite benefits at the expense of others and the natural world. I could give you a historical explanation in terms of our enthusiasm for Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations while forgetting his theory of moral sentiments, but there's a more fundamental reason. We've forgotten why we are creating and running businesses. It's not to profit, it's to solve problems, to solve problems that you, I, societies, and the natural world face, and in the process to produce profits. And profits are essential. They're the lifeblood of business. Without them we do not have the investors that are needed to resource the solving of problems at scale. But profits are not the purpose, they are the product of purposes, of solving problems. It's a simple confusion of cause and effect. Solving problems are the cause, profits are the effect. We need to incur the full cost of avoiding mitigating, remedying , and compensating for any problems that we cause but even that is not enough. It's no longer enough to avoid causing problems. Net zero will not do. The crises have become too great. People are looking to business to proactively solve problems. As Paul Polman says in his wonderful, inspiring book, it's no longer just about being net zero, it's about being that positive. It's not just the cost of avoiding detriments and problems that companies need to incur but the costs of solving problems. That is what defines a true profit of the company, and shared value as well as share value . To sum up, purposes of solving problems profitably not profiting from producing problems should be at the heart of business in the 21st century. Inspiring, transformative leadership, promoting collaboration and cooperation should be driving that and embedding it throughout their organizations. Governments should be determining common purposes of solving the major challenges of the 21st century, businesses should be partnering with government in delivering it, they should measure their performance against it and be held account for doing it. That is what this coming decade will be all about and anyone who is not on it will be out of it. Thank you. It's always a pleasure to listen to Colin but it's also a hard act to follow after him because most has been said what needs to be said, so I'm making vigorous notes to figure out where I can add value here but let me first thank Marya and Thyra as well and Richard obviously for putting this on. I know it's the end of the year, everybody's looking forward to Christmas and taking some time off and here we are all working. This might probably the last public meeting in the UK before the thing closes down but I certainly don't want to make jokes about it because I might have to resign if I do. But obviously I'm glad that we can meet in person because one of the things that Colin was mentioning is to bring humanity back to business; that's basically where it boils down to. We have just distinguished that, we've just created a form of leadership that is competitive leadership that needs to be collaborative leadership, and we've distilled business down to a few numbers basically a win-lose type situation, and have forgotten the the real reason why we're here or the human aspect. I personally believe that most of the MBA programs that are in the world are little reflections of Milton Friedman on steroids and it's actually the result that we see in society is actually not what we want. The results of the poll don't surprise me, if you have 75:25 because there are always some people and especially in the academic environment that that interpret these questions and move into different directions. Is business responsible or is business only responsible? Or should other people also be responsible? But you know I've always believed that business has to be a force for good. I've always believed that business cannot succeed in failing societies. I also think that business cannot be a bystander in a system that gives them life in the first place, and increasingly it's very clear to all of us that the system just isn't working. It has nothing to do by the way with the definition of capitalism; I've moved well beyond that. It's more important that we focus on how we make our system work than that we spend too much time on debating intellectually what these definitions should be but one thing is clear: in our global economy, if we like it or not, the invention of business wasn't a bad thing. It has given us a reasonable quality of life, it's given us freedom in many respects, it has lifted a lot of people out of poverty business, it is about 65 of the global economy, it's about 80 percent of the financial flow, it's about 95 percent of the job creation that we have right now. So how do we make it work for us is the more important part than the debate if we need business or if we don't need business. But one thing is for sure, you know, I bought once a tea company called t2 in Unilever and they had all these little cups of tea stacked up beautiful and actually 30 to 40 per cent of the sales is not the tea, it's all these accessories. But here are all the people running around with their backpacks, you know, the ones that go on the plane and hit you in the face when they walk through the aisle, exactly the same people so they walk in the t2 stores and knock over and it probably happens once or twice a day per store where they knock over the pile. You know that's a simple concept: if you break it you own it. There's nothing wrong with that, if you break it you own it, you have to take responsibility for your your presence in this world just like we do as individuals. Victor Frankl said it very well when he said in his book Man's Search for Meaning, when they built the Statue of Liberty on the east coast of the United States they forgot to build the strategy of responsibility on the west coast. You cannot have liberty without responsibility, you cannot run a business and not take responsibility towards your employees, towards your communities that you're in, towards the stakeholders that you serve and yes longer term as well towards your shareholders, I understand that, but how can you not think about that multi-stakeholder aspect? In fact it's short-termism that has crept in that is probably killing us, most of the value creation in business happens three to five years out and some industries you know significantly longer if you want to be around for the long term, which I think is the major aspiration of most businesses. Then by definition you're talking sustainability, by definition you're talking multiple stakeholders that you have to deal with, and then the question only becomes is, you know, is the shareholder returns which we need business needs a certain amount of profit to stay alive but you can't just be there for profit alone. I always talk profit, I compare profit was like the white blood cells in our body: we all know that we need white blood cells to live but how many of you live for white blood cells? It's not different and what we increasingly see is that responsible businesses that run the longer term multi-stakeholder models was putting purpose at the core as Colin talks about are in fact the businesses that do better. They actually do create more shareholder return. When we started in Unilever 10-12 years ago and introduced the Unilever's sustainable living plan because it was very clear to me that we were living beyond planetary boundaries. There's nothing wrong with Milton Friedman when he wrote his paper, by the way I think he won't write the same paper today because the world was totally different, we were still living in balance with modern nature to some extent, in harmony with fellow citizens. Businesses were basically, local governments were responsible, yes, they functioned then and on top of that we had businesses that probably were not having to deal with a lot of these issues because they hadn't created the issues yet. Now we're a little bit further, we're well beyond the planetary boundaries, we've lost 68 of our species, mammals and reptiles, in the last five decades. Some people call it the sixth greatest extinction; as I'm standing here in front of you about a million more species are extinct at the risk of being extinct. Hubert Reeves who is a philosopher in Canada said it very well when he said man is the most incredible being, is the most incredible species: he worships an invisible god and destroys a visible nature not realizing that the visible nature he destroys is the invisible god he worships in the first place. COVID has made that common life: COVID has shown once more that we can't have healthy people on an unhealthy planet in fact the big black swan to me was not COVID: we've had SARS, Ebola, Asian Flu, and the list goes on and we'll get ten more by the way in the next five or ten years the way we're going: these zoonotic diseases are a direct result of us destroying planet earth, a direct result of this regarding that nature provides over a hundred trillion dollars worth of services that all businesses, including mankind by the way ,depends on nature. Business will not be able to succeed if we go on destroying in fact putting this true cost in business models now already would at least wipe out 25 of the businesses that are around in the world and increasingly it's transparent because it's coming home and what business is seeing is that it's not anymore a good equation. You look at COVID, once more on COVID we've spent 17 trillion dollars just in Europe and the UA to save lives and livelihoods, 17 trillion dollars the IMF which estimates that we've lost about 27 trillion dollars in the global gdp over this decade. That's the cost of COVID and we are nowhere near out of it. What it has made us realize is not only the enormous shortcomings of our economic system, it has put a magnifying glass on the the issues that we are creating with our economic model but above all it has made us realize that the cost of not acting and dealing with these issues is becoming significantly higher than the cost of acting to implement the sustainable development goals which were signed by 93 countries in 2015 at the UN with a simple goal to irreversibly eradicate poverty and do that in a more sustainable and equitable way, something I think we would all subscribe to, would only cost us three to five trillion dollars a year. We thought that was a lot of money before COVID, we didn't know where that money would be coming from. Now we find out that if we don't spend it it is significantly higher. I would argue now actually that of the 17 goals of the sustainable development goals, yes there are many but the wealth is complex: of these 17 goals for each of the goals we are already incurring costs that are significantly higher than the implementation of all of the goals. You take goal number 16 which says peace and justice, deals with corruptio,n absence of wars, all the other things; we're spending currently eight to ten percent of our global gdp on conflict prevention and wars. Most of them have their origin in not attacking these issues in the first place. Climate refugees at the end of this decade will be over one billion people at the rate that we're currently going. Think about what that does to all these things. There are only six countries in the world where women have the same rights as men, my native the Netherlands not included in that, nor the UK. Goal number five is gender equality; just giving women the same access to education, land rights or financing would unlock the global economy according to McKinsey by well over 25 trillion dollars. Our food system is probably the most bizarre system in the world. If you come from Mars and you've never been here and you look at the way we produce food to feed ourselves you think we're nuts. We certainly don't have the right to call ourselves the most intelligent species. We're cutting down the forests of this world, the lungs. We're keeping the smallholder farmer as poor as we can, that's where most of the people live by the way, the monocrop farmers in poverty, the 160 million children stunted every year because we don't give them enough nutrition. We have the audacity to waste 30 to 40 per cent of the food as if it's nothing, and then on the other side we are creating the biggest epidemic the world has ever seen with diabetes, where we have two and a half billion people overweight or obese, but it's working for us how long still and at what cost? Business is starting to see now that the true cost of food is probably two to three times higher than the prices we pay but it's become unsustainable when two thirds of your land in the world is degraded, when you have more plastic than fish in the oceans, when we continue to value a dead tree more than a tree that's alive. We're going killing the goose with the golden eggs; the music stops playing and we're at that point if we like it or not; but what's the most attractive things for business that we've rapidly moved as a result of that not anymore from a risk mitigation point of view or a reputational to seeing this as an enormous opportunity for anybody with a normal set of brains. In the Netherlands you just need elementary school for that: when the cost of not acting are higher than the cost of acting it becomes very attractive to start to act. In Unilever where we moved hundred percent to sustainable sourcing green energy, tried to give everybody living wages, what we found out was actually that we could run the business better also for the shareholders. 300 return over 10 years every year growing top and bottom line the brands with the highest purpose that truly tried to address issues like open defecation -- a brand like Domestos building 100 million toilets or Dove with women's self-esteem being sure that everybody has the same opportunities in life, or a simple brand like Lifebuoy bar soaps helping a child reach the age of five in a world where still four million children die every year of pneumonia, diarrhea, none of your children but these are enormous solutions that you provide, that are enormous opportunities to the development and they're profitable. Our brands that had a higher purpose were growing faster and were more profitable, so it started to click. Where are we today? 12 years or 13 years ago when we started this journey we had a lot of skeptics and cynics also in the financial market, in the press of course that's the easy route to take any change you drive has resistance. If it wouldn't it wouldn't be real change, it's always easy to stay on the sideline and wait if it's going to happen or not, or to be cynical or skeptical but fortunately we move forward. But now the world has moved, we now have data coming out of our ears that more gender balanced boards are also giving better results, that companies that give each and everybody an opportunity to rise to their fullest potential have more engagement, are probably a better employer brand. It has to translate in results, you can show it with the hard facts. We also see that companies that take responsibility of let's say their carbon emission in their total value chain and want to mitigate that are companies, yes, that are probably better run but also have a higher profitability once more. In fact Harvard did a study on the weighted impact accounts with George Serafeim and the study showed something very interesting to me; they looked at about 3 500 companies and they looked at it by sector to make it comparable and what they found was that companies within a sector, let's say oil or shipping or food sectors, but the companies within a sector, the ones that actively started to address these negative externalities, had a higher market value than the ones that didn't, whilst the conventional wisdom is if society pays for it, if you can discharge it, you know, I should be more profitable. I should be better, my shareholders should be better. Not at all anymore what was this non-materiality that Colin talked about, the single-minded myopic focus on profit; the financial market already today is smart enough to factor in these issues of environmental and social capital and it's already starting today to reward, not not every company, but in general to reward companies that actively attack these negative externalities. So it's not any more time to talk about the why. I think science has spoken, I think the facts are there, but where people struggle is to do the how. This is a change at the scale of the industrial revolution and the speed of the technological revolution coming to us at the same time. If you're a CEO right now you're like this; you can hardly breathe, so many of the issues that they need to deal with are issues that require system changes that no company alone can do, and normally it would be happy to trust governments but multilateralism is broken because we haven't addressed these issues. We've elected populists, nationalists, xenophobics. We've never had so many idiots in governments around the world than today. You might like it or not like it but I think most of you would agree with me and they don't have the courage any more; election cycles have become shorter and shorter, so what's the answer? Be cynical, start to make jokes about politicians, or do what real leaders do -- step into that fight, help de-risk that political process, and take responsibility for that, get together with the bigger parts of business that understand it, that feel these costs, these pressures, the threats to their own business models, that are responsible leaders because they have children as well, and help governments to get more courage. That's exactly what happened in the COP26 if you wouldn't have had this enormous participation of the private sector, not only the private sector, I'm glad that the young were on the streets as well, 40 000 strong, but if you didn't have that strong participation of the private sector we wouldn't have the governments being courageous, and they're still not courageous enough but at least they've decided to come back next year, at least they've decided to set the bar higher, but we'll keep the pressure up because it's in our interest, ultimately it's in our interest. So what this book talks about and I'll stop here, we call it Net Positive because it's indeed world overshoot day this year was July 29th, which is the day that we use up more resources than the world can produce. You could make an argument that after that day, every day after, we're stealing from future generations. If you want to be part of that sign up for it but then have the courage to tell everybody that you're in a position to make this a worse world and that you don't want to give chances to future generations, but that positive companies understand indeed that it's not any more good enough to be less bad. I used to murder 10 people now I only murder 5 people, I'm a better murderer: it just doesn't work and it certainly doesn't work any more so we need to start thinking restorative, reparative, regenerative, just like nature does: it's given us the examples and any company that starts to do that, do that consistently in all of its operations I think we'll be well placed for the future because those are the companies that we're going to embrace. Any company that denies that I think is already heading to the graveyard of dinosaurs -- I certainly wouldn't want to be have them around. I'm as much of a father and a grandfather and citizen of this world as anything else; the CEO title is an accident and nor does it count; we have bigger issues here to fry and the businesses that understand that I think will do well. Increasingly we see businesses actually moving to this net generative, Walmart saying I'm going to protect 1 million square miles of ocean, Microsoft saying I'm going to take carbon out of the air since my inception of 1975 is saying I'm going to actually produce more green energy so that I compensate for the ones that take a little bit longer, Interface coming out with tiles that absorb carbon, these are Google working its algorithm now finally to help people make more sustainable choices, these are all the initial signs of net positive or moving to net positive, and these companies again once more are in a better position I think for the future; we just need more of it, we need more consistency of it, and undoubtedly we're going to talk that in the panel. Thank you very much. Now to get our discussion started I've got some questions for both of you before we move on to opening up to the floor both online and in the audience. What stuck with me was when you break it you own it; now, how are we going to get businesses started with embedding these sort of frameworks that you're talking about within their organizations? I wouldn't know where to begin, where do they begin? OK, I'll start off by telling you what we are saying to companies. We've been working with the boards of some of the largest European and North American companies in terms of trying to help them with implementing purpose exactly along the lines of what Paul was just describing and we set out a framework for them to do that and we call it the SCORE framework where the five letters of score are acronyms for the five key components as we see them. The first letter, S, is about Simplify. Simplify your purpose, clarify it, know exactly what it is, make sure it really is a meaningful challenge that's associated with trying to solve a significant problem. The second letter is C for connect. Connect it to your strategy because this is not about corporate social responsibility, it's not about philanthropy, it's not something you do on your on the side of the business, it is absolutely core to the business and so it has to be connected to the strategy and connected to all of the other parties that need to assist in delivering it, all those parties I was talking about. The third letter is O for Ownership and that's coming to this point about owning, taking responsibility for what you, for what you're doing. A purpose has to be owned and adopted by the board but it's not just the board, that's key, so too are the owners, the shareholders, the dominant shareholders and other investors, but so too is ownership throughout the organization, so it has to be owned from everyone from the board to the shop floor -- everyone needs to have their sense of what the purpose of the business is and a real buy-in to the fact that they're contributing to it. Fourth letter is R, about Reward, rewarding people in relation to the purpose and doing so in terms of their remuneration, promotion etc., but also in terms of the non-financial elements, the culture of the organization, and there has to be a real alignment with the way in which performance is measured in terms of measuring success, in terms of delivering the purpose, and also where the failures are, and that comes on to the final letter E. which is about Exemplify. And this is about the narratives you tell around your purpose, narratives that are not just stories but bring real authenticity, that set out not just the successes but the failures, the challenges, what's gone wrong what needs to change going forward, so that people have a real sense of credibility in what's being done, so those are, and and we've found that that's something that really gels with boards in terms of their adoption of corporate purposes. Paul anything to add before..? No I've written it down and I think it's easy, but it's, Colin it's always great because you guys bring in a framework and make it sound like you know, we cannot do it tomorrow but this is hard work, I think where do I start? Rumi, which was a poet in Iran in the 13th century, he said, 'Yesterday I was smart and I tried to change the world. Today I am wise and I'm trying to change myself.' So the the journey that we are talking here about really has to start with the leadership of companies and they have to create an awareness of what's going on in the world, they have to listen and be out there with all of their constituents but if they don't find their purpose, their reason for being other than making money, I wouldn't spend too much time on them myself, because I've discovered that there are enough who want to and want to have help to move forward that the others will be isolated over time, so I've moved on from my original thinking in that respect. But the most important thing that we need to do is have the leaders have courage, courage to set, to take responsibility of your total impact courage, to set targets that are needed not targets you can get away with, courage to work actually in partnership where you're not always in charge or might hear the inconvenient truths, so it starts there. Then the second thing is really have a total impact assessment of your business and measure where your impacts are across the value chain then you will find out for example on climate change that far more impact is in scope 3 than in scope 102. So if you don't take that responsibility you're not really you know doing your job. Then you set your targets and you make them public and again I would say these targets you have to feel uncomfortable, if you don't feel uncomfortable nowadays with targets these targets most likely aren't good enough, but you don't need to have all the answers anymore, you just have to say sorry this is what the world needs; I need help, I need partnerships, and I think you'll become more human in doing that. So these are the normal change processes. Why can businesses not escape this anymore and how they get started? It's because I think the regulatory environment is moving very fast now we have the European taxonomy coming in, we have the sustainable standard board that was launched at the web, we have the SEC in the US, coming in before COVID we had nine countries putting into law the task force of financial disclosure on climate related risk; 18 months later we now have 49 countries so you cannot escape any more the fact that politicians also have discovered that these negative externalities are being pushed back to the people that cost them in the first place, which we might call extended producer responsibilities, so businesses would do very well and would be wise I think to pick up on these signs and run ahead of it. I always say it's better to make the dust than eat the dust and the ones that run a little bit faster will actually position themselves better within this very competitive and fast changing landscape. This is certainly revolutionary but for me when buzzwords are thrown out like this and companies can latch on to that, how do we identify or even if we can identify can there be kind of fake net positive companies the same way that green washing occurs, and if so what are the mechanisms that we can identify to incentivize and really reward those people that are doing it right and to punish those that are doing it wrong? Yeah I can start on that one. I don't think you know there is enough of a positive incentive -- building a race to the top is always better than a punishing race to the bottom I find and and I think it's also better to get people along by showing them the opportunities etc you know when things happen like ESG coming in or climate change becomes an issue then it's quite normal that a thousand flowers bloom and that people have different standards and different definitions. Some have a little bit farther horizon where they make a claim 2050, others are serious and do it in 2030, but the good thing is everybody talks about it, everybody is thinking about it, and then what you find is that quite rapidly bouquets are being formed to move things forward, like cutting carbon pricing, like having governments make commitments to be net zero, like putting legislation in place on carbon border adjustments that are happening in Europe. So bit by bit you tighten that screw to be sure that you don't get the free riders and this is why you ultimately need governments to put the right rules, regulations in place. I don't think the market mechanisms alone are sufficient to solve these issues in the time frame that we have and with the speed and scale that we need. The other thing you can do nowadays fairly well is transparency. There is a few places to hide now, you know, when people said, you know I was CEO for 20 years and I had my management team on the beach in Florida and finally I got a daughter from my third wife and I discovered that there were no women so I needed the work diversity, you wonder, where have you been, you know? But there are still people that talk that way nowadays. You have that immediate transparency and can see what is going on. We have a company that I just looked at the other day which is called Earth watch, which can now see on the metre the square metre with precision cameras from space they can see on the square metre everywhere in the world what the methane emission is or the co2 emission, they can see if it's deforestation or not they can link that to concessions if it's legal or not, so I think they're putting these systems in place to drive that positive behaviour, putting the frameworks in place that force people to disclose are still the best mechanisms to get that race to the top going. Let me just take one of the I think most challenging and impressive books alongside Paul's that I've read this year that's come out this year; it's by Patrick Radden Keefe and it's called Empire of Pain. It's about Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family; it's about one of the greatest tragedies that's happened this century in terms of the impact of business on killing literally hundreds of thousands of people; it's a company that produced Oxycontin, which is a pain-relieving drug, and it's very interesting what Patrick Radden Keefe has done in that book in terms of setting out the mindset behind the family in terms of why did they do this? Why did they go on producing a product that they knew was killing hundreds of thousands of people? And if one looked behind the justification it was that they saw their company as doing something that was of extreme value, it was producing a product that relieved people who were in extreme pain, and it did that. But unfortunately it was also a drug that could be used by addicts as a way of getting a very quick high and that became evident after a not-too-long period after this. The drug was being sold so there was a company and a family who thought that they were doing something that was of real positive value, but the real problem was that once it became clear that there was also a real problem that was not accounted for and not dealt with, and it comes to the heart of your question what is it that should happen to avoid these negative consequences, these really detrimental environmental, social consequences that Paul's been referring to? Or what happens in a case where a company clearly creates a major disaster? Well obviously the answer is it shouldn't deny it it should recognize it it should respond it should immediately act to address and solve the problem, and the real failure that this brings out is that we have a system that doesn't do that, that went on rewarding that company, and the company and the family went on accumulating massive wealth at the same time as they were owning and running a company very directly with physicians on the board, running a company that was killing people. Now there's something wrong in a system that does that there's something wrong in measuring a profit of a company that's doing that because it wasn't a profit, it was a massive loss for the world, and I think that is what one has to do in terms of thinking about how does one hold people to account? In the end Purdue Pharma went bankrupt; the company or the family retains massive amounts of wealth. What should happen, they should have provided for the cost of cleaning up the mess, provided for the risk going forward, and in the event of bankruptcy you have to see through the protection of the firm, you have to see through the veil of incorporation and hold those who own and run the companies liable for what they do. Thank you Colin, thank you Paul. In the awareness of time I think it's a good time to now open up the floor to audience Q&A, and if you can see here, same with the poll, you can start submitting your questions through this form, this website, with this code and whilst you're doing that I just want to invite Isabella Bunn to ask her a question for me as she pre-submitted her question. If you'd like to stand up, Isabella. Thank you, thank you very much, but I'd like to begin with a word of thanks first of all to Paul and to Colin for their leadership, and actually it was two phrases that Paul mentioned that has also focused my attention: any change you drive has resistance. I remember a generation ago there was a meeting at, gathering at the examination schools to talk about the plans for a future business school at Oxford, and there was resistance and that resistance was overcome, and I think this building and this community and its legacy is real testimony to that change and what it represents. The other phrase that you mentioned was business as a force for good and I think that phrase captures why the resistance was overcome and why the legacy is as powerful as it is. It is a defining characteristic of this place, of the teaching, of the research, of the students of the careers and the impact globally, so I had to start with that, but my question really relates to something I know that is close to both of you which is this notion of values and how values can shape the economy and the society and I think in particular we need a little bit of optimism going into the new year and I was wondering if you could share with us some of your insights on how this grand reset that we hear so much about, what is really going to be different in 2022 going forward having hopefully overcome a lot of systemic risks and also looking forward to the relationship between business, government and society, in particular. Thank you. 2022 is a little bit of a short time frame to answer all of that because it will take longer I think with the challenges that we have and and the things we need to solve. I think what COVID has shown us is the interdependence of everything, the biodiversity destruction, the human health, the environment, the economic system, the racial tensions, the tragic death of George Floyd, and it has really put a magnifying glass on the shortcomings of our economic system that the people we need most, that we value most, are often treated the least, also suffer the most from our shortcomings, and there's a higher level of awareness I think that that that that society cannot really function longer term if too many people feel they're excluded or not fully participating. I've always said that the system like that would ultimately rebel against itself. What COVID has also shown us is that there are new forms of partnerships that can happen that gets when the mind focuses, that gives you tremendous results. The work here at Oxford of of the vaccine itself, the AstraZeneca vaccine it's called, should be called the Oxford vaccine, but it's ... and many of the others ... the enormous cooperation that companies were doing to move things forward, local communities and people on the ground, so it has made us aware of our interdependence I think at a higher level than we had before. Here again governments have failed us if I may honestly say. At that time I was chairing the International Chambers of Commerce -- over 90 countries put export barriers in place for PPE material. It really made it more difficult to tackle the issue. We even today have 70 vaccination and booster shots coming out of our ears in the developed markets; we only have given six percent vaccination to the developing markets and when we get a mutation like we just see again with the Omicron then we we we shut these markets off, we say that everybody stay away from South Africa, we're not willing to put 100 billion climate fund together that we already promised nearly 10 years ago so that global solidarity hopefully you know will be stronger moving forward, but it requires all of us including the governments. But I think the solidarity at community level, at people level, at businesses trying to understand that they have common, you know, common areas that have to become pre-competitive like the future of humanity we shouldn't compete on. I think that awareness will go up so you'll see bigger partnerships at the private sector level, you see more community efforts happening, more empowerment of the cities, the mayors, the regional governments away from national governments, and hopefully a restoring of trust that has been broken between the institutions and society. The countries that have done very well during COVID interestingly most of them were run by women -- Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Finland, New Zealand, all women running it and that's not, I'm not just saying that as a joke, it's because they have taken the science and embraced it they have built that trust with society, they have a broader coherence and compliance of we're all in this together. the ones that have made the political points out of this tried to get re-elected on it, like like climate change should have never been political in my opinion. It's science that we're talking about, so countries that have embraced this seriously are doing well, so I hope it is a resurgence of science, a resurgence of truth that we're starting to see as well, because if we don't have that truth, that comes with transparency as well, but we can never build prosperity, we can never build that trust that ultimately is the glue that holds us together. And my final point would be that people I think are more aware now of the universe of values, that we need to protect values like dignity and respect for everybody, values like equity, compassion, if we don't fight for that we actually undermine the future of humanity, it's actually that not worth living, in my opinion. So businesses have rapidly recognized for example that they have become societal leaders, they had to speak up on the dreadful events in January 6 in the US when democracy was being threatened, or when people of certain sexual orientations are discriminated against, or when derocatory remarks are made, so so these are all things that have I think become more sensitized on what actually the values are that we have to protect, and any time we stay silent we move the boundaries and become complicit to the crime that is committed. So I'm hopeful, actually hopeful, that we have not only a healing in our economic systems where I think the economic forces are driving us where we just need to accelerate but that we also have a healing in our moral systems, that the healing between all of us as citizens of planet earth, for first and foremost because that's nearly the precondition to be successful on the economic part that we've been talking about. I think my main point would be it's remarkable what has happened; I think we should be incredibly energized by what's occurred over the last few years. When I produced my book Prosperity in 2018 the notion of a corporate purpose as being anything beyond shareholder value was still very difficult to communicate; now it's widely accepted and that's a fantastic change in a short period of time. But at the same time there's a need to recognize why that is so important in terms of the values that you were referring to. The traditional economic view of man is that we are greedy, selfish, and lazy; it's not true of all of us but that's the view of that of an economist, exactly, that's precisely what they do. Now what we have become increasingly to realize is that actually we're communal animals, we thrive from working, living together, from respecting each other, from promoting that notion of community, so the individualism that underpins economics has been very unfortunate in terms of undermining that sense of community and society and that is what we're beginning to recognize we have to recreate. And it's particularly important in relation to the sorts of political challenges that the economic model is posing for us. Martin Wolf last week gave a very interesting talk here in Oxford on what he terms democratic capitalism, where he's saying that there are two parts to our systems, one of which is democracy which is basically pro-equality -- it's one person, one vote -- and capitalism, which is about inequality, about one share one vote, and one of the major problems that has occurred over the last few decades is the growing divide between the two, that we have had business increasingly focusing on wealth creation which is creating massive inequalities that the political system no longer can cope with, and as a result one ends up with the type of political features that we have at present in terms of polarization, populism, nationalism, autocratic, despotic leaders, and that's a reflection of the fact that there's a certain amount that a democratic system can do in terms of equalizing the forces that underpin an economic system, but there comes a point when it cannot cope, it breaks down. And we're at that point and there are two ways of responding. One is to say, well, we have to find a way of reforming politics but there isn't a great deal of idea around how do we reform democracy to really change the system. The other is to say let's look at that massive inequality that the economic system, that markets and business are creating and let's think about ways in which we can try and shift them in a direction where they are still contributing to relieving poverty, creating economic growth around the world, but at the same time doing so in a way that is more equal, more inclusive, less environmentally degrading than the current version. And that is one of the reasons why I believe that this is such an urgent agenda because it's not just about our climatic survival, it's about the survival of our political system as well. Thank you I also want to invite Garaf to stand up and give his question to you. So my question is for Paul. I was wondering if we could share about your experience during the 26/11 attacks in Mumbai and how that influenced you. So I think Colin referred to purpose and how you have, you cannot be a purposeful company if you don't find your own purpose, you cannot be a sustainable company if you are not sustainable yourself, and these purposes that your own inner core is developed throughout your life and you keep developing, that never stops if you're smart enough. It depends where you were born, the values you got from your parents. You know I was very lucky that I was born in the Netherlands 1956. I always thought it was a long time after World War II but the older I get the more I realized how close that was to World War II. My parents, their education was taken away, my father was 15 when the war started, 20 when the war finished. He was in hiding, he had to work on German farms but his high school was gone so he ended up in a factory. He had six children and his only goal in life, running two jobs, dying at the age of 65, was to ensure that there was peace in Europe, that the communities functioned, that we would get education, and by sheer luck i was born in the Netherlands where the education is provided by the government. I wouldn't be sitting here talking to you, I'd probably be working in a factory as well, so I won the lottery ticket of life without doing anything for it, so I've always felt that if you belong to that five percent actually of the population that has won that lottery ticket, it's your duty, it's your obligation to put yourself to the service of the other 95, and then your life has crucibles all along on on how your purpose develops and where you should focus on. I worked in Newcastle where I for the first time in my life saw second generation unemployment, shipbuilding, steel, had all gone belly up. I was running a company that was the biggest employer there and I discovered, you know, you better become a whole person not a half person. You can't just have your full life if you only take care of yourself even if yourself include your family there's a broader circle out there. I have a friend who was blind. He called me and I said let's climb Mount Kilimanjaro and we took eight blind people up Mount Kilimanjaro and I really understood that people with disability, you know it's diff ability not disability. I mean Helen Keller said it well: she was blind and deaf and everybody felt so sorry for her and she always said to these people, the worst thing is not being blind or deaf, actually the worst thing is having eyes and not being able to see, and that's what is the case for a lot of people, and then you get a situation like Mumbai where we were caught up in a terrible terrorist attack and lots of people around us unfortunately lost their lives. But then again that night in Mumbai more children were born, the goodness that we saw of a lot of people when we finally came out and we're amongst the lucky ones but again the underlying causes of this is purely poverty where many of these conflicts that we have is because people are desperate, so it makes you more determined to to to do something about that, and like with many things in life is, you know, the thing is what people say is you can't control what happens to you, you know, but you can certainly decide what you do with it and how you are going to actually capitalize on that to avoid these things again in the future. That would be the case with anything. I don't spend too much time on complaining about the fact that we have climate change or all the problems that we should have addressed earlier; I focus entirely on so what can we do now to make that change. I don't focus on many of the miseries that were there in terms of what drives people to desperation but what can we do now to make it more inclusive? So if you focus all of your energy there then, you know, life is actually very rewarding. The moment you discover that actually that it's not about yourself that you have to, you know, true leadership is putting yourself to the service of others, knowing that by doing so you're actually better off yourselves as well which is at the essence of what we're talking tonight, so how can you get to that point of unconditional love to some extent for others because once you understand that I think your life will be quite liberating, once businesses understand that it will open up many opportunities in essence as Colin was saying. I was listening to Colin and making notes; we talk about climate change, we talk about inequality, we talk about destruction of natural habitat, you know, talk about food security issues -- these are not crises of climate change or inequality, these are crises of apathy, of greed, of selfishness , and that's why it's so important again that the ultimate answer is to create more leaders. That's why I took the chairmanship of the Saïd Business School. That's the answer is in in our own purpose and and creating that courage and whatever happens to us in life, whatever the crucibles are, use that to strengthen that inner core because you don't have an outer core if that is that is what is needed if you don't have a strong inner core. I don't know if I fully answered your question. Great, thank you. You guys are in super high demand: we've got 52 questions submitted by people. So if I can speed through these, really short and sweet answers please. First one is James, he's an MBA alumni from New York. He asks, aviation contributes to society, it has purpose, but there is no technology that allows it to be net positive. What now? What I can quickly say is that with concerted efforts the aviation industry has made a commitment also in Glasgow coming together to be net zero by 2050. IATA which is their main organization, which has not been the most progressive, even has made that commitment. We now have airlines like Delta or KLM or others, airports etc that are making net zero commitments well before that. I think with a concerted effort we could be surprised how quickly we can have hydrogen at two kilos two dollars per kilo. Technology always, we always underestimate how quickly we can get technology and we've certainly seen that with green energy. In 2014 the international energy agency in Paris said that you could get solar and wind at five cents per kilowatt hour by 2050; we actually achieved that in 2020 and I just came from the Middle East yesterday, back from meetings but they're already solar and and uh is one and a half cents per kilowatt hour so 30 years earlier at a significantly lower cost. I think the same will happen with aviation, that that we will find ways and I think with concerted effort with these partnerships that are being formed to slowly but surely was in the time frame that we have turned this into a net positive industry; if not that would be the end of aviation. Indeed. Okay I don't have a name for this one but very interesting practically: how can businesses partner better with public organizations and vice versa? What needs to change or be promoted to create the changes that you advocate for? It needs a change both on the part of business and on the part of government. Let me illustrate, one of the reasons why I'm currently in the Blavatnik School of Government is I'm heavily involved in a program on what in Britain is termed 'leveling up' and in most countries around the world is regarded as being about regional disparities, and there is a key failure. Britain has one of the worst levels of inequality across the country of any major industrialized nation. The reason for that is that much of the wealth of Britain was of course created during the industrial revolution all over the country but it was it collapsed in many cases during the period of 1980s, 1990s, for example we're doing a lot of work in South Yorkshire around Sheffield, which show the demise of the coal industry, the steel industry etc. What's needed to change that, to reverse it, to regenerate this is something that of goes against the grain of both business and government. Business likes to run things from the top, from the board, and set priorities from the top. Governments like to to run things from the centre, from Whitehall. Investors like to control things from financial markets as in the City of London, and that's exactly what you don't want to have for solving regional and local problems. You have to have a real understanding, a real empathy and appreciation of what the problems are that arise in communities, why these problems exist, and what can be done. And it has to be those communities that take the lead in determining how they should rebuild. Now they need assistance from outside, they need the money that's in london to connect with what's going on in the regions. What they don't need is for either the City of London or Whitehall to tell them exactly how to do it because they don't know that's been a problem of regional policy in Britain for the past 60 years and in many countries around the world. You have to devolve control, you have to trust people lower down in in organizations, in governmental bureaux, you have to trust people, you have to give them the skills to be able to do it, you have to instill the values that are associated with the purpose of what you're trying to achieve, but once you've done that you have to trust people to do it and to set out the agendas for themselves, and that is what I think is a clear indication of how both business and government have been failing to identify ways of solving and therefore ways of working together, because it needs a common purpose between business, government, and societies at a local level as well as a national level to identify what the problems are and how to solve them. Thank you. I've got another question here that is unnamed but how can we incorporate sustainability into financial reporting and FTSE metrics? I think it's starting to happen. Many people were worried about many of the financial industry making claims of ESG funds and then when you peel the onion it might not quite fit the description that people were expecting, so the European taxonomy now is coming in with quite some clear regulations on ensuring that that is the case. We are now finding out for example that in Glasgow 130 trillion dollars with the Glasgow financial alliance of net zero makes commitments to make their portfolios net zero, but you know are they really moving things forward at the speed that we need which is really by 2030 having major actions etc, and I think what people increasingly will demand is that transparency if that is going to happen or not. There was an article today in the Financial Times I saw on the net zero asset owners alliance where they found that, yeah, they make these commitments on net zero asset owners but first it's a comparable benchmark of companies that haven't signed up they didn't really see differences in behaviour, so it's not good enough anymore to make statements, it's not good enough anymore to sign up, we have to hold people then accountable too. Delivering legislation will be probably the most effective driver in the financial market. I don't want to be provocative here but I think the financial market will move because they see business opportunities, they will move because legislation comes in but it's hard to get them to move on more on morality alone. OK thank you. I think this will be the last question before we end today but some person unnamed again asked the fast fashion business model has drugged customers with lower prices and high volumes resulting in wastage and landfills. Isn't customer expectation a problem and how can one go about it? Yeah so we are ... actually the reason I created Imagine is to work on these broader industry transformations and I looked at the industries that have the biggest negative impact on the sustainable development goals, because life is short and you need to focus. So energy transition is the biggest one but then the second most polluting industry is actually fashion. The third one is food and the next one is tourist and travel. So we're working with all these industries, we now have 80 fashion companies 250 brands together at CEO level across the value chain to address these issues, so how can you go to regenerative cotton, very destructive for biodiversity? how can you get out of single-use plastic? 46 per cent of plastic in the oceans actually comes from the fashion industry so how can you internalize the Paris Climate Agreements into the industry the industry now, for example, they're all too small, it's a very diluted industry, but now they've decided collectively to buy green energy for example and do purchasing, a typical example of pre-competitive now because the future of humanity but ultimately you need to put again the frameworks in place. In France we've worked with the government on circular economy packets during the G7 when we launched this initiative specifically around fashion. The fashion industry now collectively have decided not to go any more into scrapping. There was a high rate of of scrap, also returns that happen when you order something you order three items to your house now is Amazon and you return two they get scrapped. I mean it's it's amazing what we're doing, so you know only so just take this statistic as my last statistic, but only nine percent of things we produce in the world is reused. 91 per cent gets discarded. And fashion, we've moved to 52 seasons and so the responsible fashion companies are moving out of seasons, actually the industry are setting higher standards on scrap and transparency, but ultimately they need to answer this question where it boils down to is, you can't have infinite growth on a finite planet and anything you can do forever is by definition unsustainable, so how can these industries try to develop these business models that decouple that growth and prosperity from the use of their resources? That has to be the answer for every industry and it can only come from, as Colin says, if we broaden the definition of success from producing more stuff i.e GDP to overall health and well-being and and start to reward quality of education, quality of air, you know, absence of crime, and and many of these things. And businesses that start to factor in this overall broader definition of quality of life, if you want to this this overall health and well-being measure will do well. Companies that cannot break this pattern of consumption and resource use I think will increasingly be isolated and that's what you start to see happen already to be honest. We simply don't have more resources, we can't keep digging and digging and digging and then putting it in landfills and oceans and incineration; it just doesn't work anymore. Let me just add one final thought to this, I know we've got to close, and the the general point that I think underlies that question is how can we really move in this direction if at the end of the day consumers want to have the cheapest products, that they're not particularly concerned about how those products are produced, they they they want to have things that are the latest fashion irrespective of what goes into to making them. The answer is that we are beginning to create the technologies that allow us to inform consumers in a way in which in the past they have simply not had the basis on which to make decisions that take account of these other factors. As we start to become consumers going forward we will have access to information about the nature of the constituent ingredients of products, the methods of of production that will make it much more straightforward for us to really take a view as to whether or not we're willing to go on purchasing products that are destroying our environment and that is going to have a very significant effect on the way of which consumer behaviour, it's going to influence things going forward. Thank you so much for your contributions both Paul Polman and Colin Mayer. Now I just want to hand over to Marya to end. Thank you all three of you for a really provocative and inspiring conversation. Clearly we could keep going; there's much more to talk about, there's a lot of energy and interest and some challenges and questions. We invite you all to continue with us across the next few months in these conversations in person, online on Oxford Answers as well. You'll get a link to a poll to again respond to the question; we'll see if we shifted that 25 per cent and please join me once again in thanking Colin, Paul and Thyra for a wonderful start.